Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, and this is the pre-meeting briefing. I am not John Baker. Mrs. Hensley, would you like to present administrative comments?

Yes. All right. So we didn't have a lot of new business on last week's council meeting, but I did want to make sure you guys all saw this. This is... I can take no credit for this. This is the city secretary's office put this together with the mayor trying to build in some, I think, downtime in the schedule for holidays and school breaks and things like that that are already set in stone for the next year. It helps everybody plan their lives on the personal side, staff, commission, council, and then it also is a tremendous help for us in terms of customer service because we can tell applicants, they would much rather just know, hey, there's not going to be a meeting the Tuesday before Thanksgiving rather than us saying, well, we'll have to find out, see if we have a quick, you know, so... Want to make sure you guys have this. Council blessed it last Tuesday, so it is, I think, unless something comes up, we need some sort of special meeting, it's pretty much set in stone, so you can adjust your calendars. And, of course, we'll do reminders as we get closer. And the city calendar will be updated. Sure. Oh, yeah. Yeah. We'll adjust on our end. The only two items we had that night on the regular agenda were both carports. We had the 1124 Oak Bend carport. This was the gentleman who there had been a carport there for like 20 years and he tore it down and wanted to put one back. That was approved unanimously. If you remember, this was the one that was about 22 inches off the property line. So he was asking for an encroachment variance. and then the other carport on Johnson Road. This was the one attached to the house, also encroaching the side setback. That was approved unanimously as well.

And I started getting a little woozy, and he's like, no, I'm good.

It was a late night. It was a rough morning the next day. All right. So discuss and review the agenda items. D1 is to consider the minutes of the September 8th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Do we have any comments, questions? No? Any corrections? No?

If we had been able to make the Zoom connection, we could have, because we had an in-person quorum. You can't make up your quorum with somebody on Zoom, but if you've got the in-person quorum, then you can have the additional members on Zoom.

So, yes or no?

His technology wasn't working, so he didn't get to vote. He was just listening through the streaming.

All right. E1 is to consider a specific use permit for a drive-through at 901 Keller Parkway. And Mr. Flanders.

Yes. So this is a SUP request for Seven Brew Coffee to operate a drive-through restaurant at 901 Keller Parkway. SUP is required for all drive-through businesses in Keller. Just quickly point out this applicant has also submitted a site plan that is on this agenda as a separate item. This property, it's in an existing multi-tenant building. The westernmost lease space has been occupied by Quickway Convenience Store since 2006, and that's where Seven Brew is being proposed to be. Seven Brew Coffee offers a menu of customizable drinks, including coffee, teas, smoothies, energy drinks, and flavored sodas. Their requested hours of operation are Sunday to Thursday, 5.30 a.m. to 10 p.m., and Friday and Saturday, 5.30 a.m. to 11 p.m., and their expected employee count is 8 to 10 employees. This is a public hearing, so we did mail out letters to all the property owners, but we have not received any public feedback and the applicant will be here this evening to answer any questions.

And if I remember correctly, there are a number of variants for this property, right?

Yes, that's correct.

All right. Do you all have any questions? I'm sure you will go over it thoroughly in the meeting. And E2 is the site plan amendment that he has briefed us on. Do you have any?

Yeah, just a little bit. So this is the site plan amendment for 911 Keller Parkway. The property was planted in 1999 and the building was constructed in 1984, so a pretty old building. There are eight total lease spaces in the building. Two of those are currently vacant and two of those currently exist are Little Caesars and Keller Donuts. Both of those businesses are to remain after the construction if the site plan amendment is approved. The other two existing businesses looks to be a smoke shop and I think it's Keller Florist. After construction, those businesses will be removed. There's also a potential new restaurant that's gonna be located on this building to the east side that would expand into that adjacent leased space area. As you mentioned, are related to landscaping, parking, and site layout. I'd be happy to get into those if you would like, but I do have a slide for each of those variances on the presentation if you guys want to wait for that. Elevations of the building, they are showing a combination of white brick and sandblast with a black and blue trim finish. And this is not a public hearing, so we did not mail out letters. And the applicant, again, will be here this evening to answer any questions you have.

Alright, any comments, questions on this one? Okay, I figure this one will get quite a bit of attention in chambers. Alright, E3 is to request, consider a request for a planned development zoning change from single family residential 36,000 square foot lots to planned development residential 25,000 square foot lots. For 901 Johnson Road. And Mr. Adam?

Yes. So this is a request to rezone the property located at 901 Johnson from SF 36 to PD SF 25. They're proposing 22 residential lots and approximately 2.36 acres of open space. It will be a gated development with private streets. The development standards do propose several exceptions to the UDC requirements, which those will, of course, be fully detailed in the staff presentation later this evening. And the item does require a public hearing, so we did mail-in notices to all the property owners from 300 feet and have not received any written feedback or response.

And average lot size was like 32,000? That's correct.

Okay.

size is 32, but the zoning has to be 25 to fit the 32.

Because you're not a 32 site.

That's correct. And they're actually proposing a minimum loss size of 28,000 square feet, with the average being about 32,000. The applicant is here this evening with a question. I just think it's interesting.

I mean, the applicant knows what people will buy. I don't know that I would buy a really nice house that backs up to that bus corral every morning, every evening.

nor that it would have a wooden fence backing up to the bus corral.

So I get a question. I'll start with this one. If you had left at the original square footage, and what is the original? 36. 36. That's what I thought. So did it have anything about how many houses they could put in at 36? Or it was always, no, I'm changing this thing?

I mean, that wasn't included in the submittal. How many total acres are we talking about? That's 20.93 acres, about 21 acres. And this is on? It's on Johnson Road.

Is that the 377 in Johnson?

No, it's just middle of the Keller High School. Oh, over there.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Got it, got it, got it. Yes, okay. And I know who it is, too.

Yeah.

Okay, it'll be fun.

all right anything else before is to consider a future land use plan amendment for semi-public to and low density single-family to medium density single-family for 901 Johnson Road. Mr. Edelman, same property.

Yeah, so this is the flow up amendment to go alongside the rezone request. As you said, it's from a low density single family and semi-public to medium density single family. Medium density single family refers to lots between 15,000 and 35,999 square feet. This item is also a public hearing, so we did send out notices but have not received any feedback. Great feedback.

Okay. Any questions?

Thomas? Gina States. They came in, originally I lived near there, and they wanted to do zero lot line homes. And I fought it, and we won and got it 36,000 square foot. It stayed. This is the same thing. So I will not tell you, but you know how I feel. And I hope you appreciate my thoughts.

I do, and when I visited and talked to Mr. Lemon yesterday in our pre-meeting, he did advise that they looked for those that back up to Gene Estates to have similar property lines to give it a similar feel. It looked like most of them kind of matched up. I understand your concern.

Yeah, because I fought for it, and all of us fought for it, and we kept it 36,000 square feet.

I remember, the seven homes, right? The seven rooftops?

I mean, the whole June estates. And when they finally got it done, the first thing they did was come behind my house and clear it. First thing. And they did a clear cut. So, I hope you appreciate the work that we did to fight that. Because when you say you want to keep color the same,

and respect your opinion. Okay, thank you. All right, so that is all that we have. Any other questions or comments for staff before we adjourn? All right, if not, it is 6.44 and we will return at seven in Chambers. the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. It is 7.03, and we will call this meeting to order. We will start with the pledges. Mr. Lice, will you lead us?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands,

All right. At this time, we will allow the commissioners to introduce themselves. I will start with my right.

Deborah Johnson.

Bill Schlegel. Eric Leist. John Scott.

And I am Erin Farner. Chairperson John Baker is not here this evening. Now is persons to be heard. This is a time for the public to address the commission on any subject. However, the Texas Open Meeting Act prohibits the commission from discussing issues which the public has not been given three days notice. Issues raised may be referred to city staff for research, possible future action. Each speaker will be allowed three minutes to speak. We have three items on our agenda tonight that are public hearings. If you are here to speak on those, we encourage you to wait until those are called. But if you wish to speak to the commission, you are welcome to. Seeing no one, we will move to our consent agenda to consider the minutes of the September 8th Planning and Zoning Commission. Do we have any questions or comments?

Move to approve the consent agenda.

Thank you. Commissioner Johnson? Second. Thank you. All in favor? All right, that passes. Item E is our new business. Item E1 is a public hearing to consider a request for a specific use permit for a drive-through at Seven Brew Coffee on 1.1 Acres, located on the north side of Keller Parkway, located at the corner of Keller Parkway and Pate Ore Road, legally described as lot 1R, block 1 of the Lee-Wayne subdivision, zoned retail, and address 901 Keller Parkway. Mr. Edelman. I'm sorry. Mr. Flanders.

Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Aerial and zoning map before you. Subject property is zoned retail. The applicant this evening is seeking a specific use permit for a drive-thru for Seven Brew Coffee. All drive-thru businesses in the city require approval of ASUP to operate. The applicant has also submitted a site plan with variances for the property. That application is on the agenda as a separate item. Seven Brew Coffee is a drive-through beverage chain known for its fast service, energetic customer experience, and extensive menu of customizable drinks. In addition to coffee, it offers teas, smoothies, energy drinks, shakes, and flavored sodas. The requested hours of operation are Sunday to Thursday, 5.30 a.m. to 10 p.m., and Friday and Saturday, 5.30 a.m. to 11 p.m., and the applicant expects to open the business with eight to 10 employees. The applicant has submitted a full site plan package and is requesting nine variances related to the site layout, landscaping, and parking. And the proposed site plan, as I mentioned, is on the agenda as a separate item. Surrounding zoning and land use are before you to the north, town center mixed use. To the east, town center mixed use. And to the south as well. To the west is retail, retail commercial. Subject property is zoned, retail, and designated retail commercial on the city's future land use plan. On September 10, the City mailed out 11 letters of notification for this public hearing to all property owners within a 300-foot buffer, and staff has not received any public feedback in response to this request. Section 8.02 of the UDC states that when considering an SEP 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 within 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 drive-through business in the retail zoning district. Commissioners have the following options when considering an SUP request. Recommend approval, recommend approval with modifications, table, or deny. And staff and the applicant are here for any questions.

Is the applicant here and wish to add anything? If you will, state your name and address for the record, please.

Yes, ma'am. Drew Donofsky, Claymore Engineering, 3231 Harwood Road, Bedford, Texas. Here to answer any questions you may have as well as the following site plan item.

I'm Cole Blocker, 4403 North Central Expressway, Dallas, Texas. We're the developer owner.

Okay. Thank you. Well, at this time, it is a public hearing, so we will allow the public to address us. But if you'll stay close, we may have questions for you once that closes.

Perfect. Thank you.

All right. Does anybody wish to address or persons to be heard on this? All right. If not, do we have a motion to close the public hearing?

So moved.

Second.

Ms. Johnson?

Second.

All right, seeing as we have closed the public hearing, can we get a vote? All right, thank you. The public hearing is now closed. The commission now may ask any questions or comments. Mr. Leist.

Yeah, so just a general question, and I think since it goes into the next item, if the applicant could come up. We have this project. I won't get too much into the next item, but can you just talk to me about how you plan this particular addition to interact with the area as far as you're also planning to kind of do a facelift on this multi-tenant building?

Well, it's an existing building, so we wouldn't be planning on adding any square footage to it. Like you said, it would be a facelift, a new facade, improving the visuals. We're cutting in new landscape islands into the existing parking lot. A lot of this we'll probably touch on on the next agenda item, but there is one existing drive-through lane around the back of the building. This would be expanding that into two lanes, and then we'd be acquiring some property from the adjacent parcel to the north to expand the north side of the property, as well as a cross-access easement to the, I believe it's Andy's Frozen Custard, yeah, to the east.

Okay. And where, just so I understand, we frequent Color Donuts, so this is a very important building for my family. But so can you just help me orientate myself? What part are you going to, are you towards the east section of the building or the west section of the building that has the gas station?

The Seven Brew will take the west side where the gas station is currently located.

Okay, so that makes it as furthest as possible from the other drive-thru business. That's right.

So if you're entering the drive-thru to order coffee or go through the drive-thru for Seven Brew, you would enter around the back of the building so you wouldn't be really interfacing with where people are parking and walking into the retail aspect of it.

That's really helpful. My main concern was just that drive-thru traffic from Andy's not having two drive-thrus on the same side of the building. One just I think visually that's not great, but then two, that could pose some traffic problems in the parking lot. But those are the questions that I had. Thank you.

All right. Commissioner Schlegel.

Thank you. Yeah, I applaud the reuse of a building and the beautification. Congratulations. Great initiative. Me personally, I don't think a business like this could survive without a drive-through. I think this is a natural fit. I definitely could support it. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. So we have a motion on the floor. Commissioner Leist?

Move to approve item E1.

Commissioner Slagle?

Second.

All right. Seeing as we have a motion and a second, can we call for a vote? All right, so that motion passes and you will be before council on October 20th. So we will move to item E2, which is to consider a site plan amendment with variances for an existing 12,117 square foot multi-tenant building on property legally addressed as lot one block. 1R, Block 1 of the Lee-Wayne subdivision, being 1.11 acres located on the northeast corner of Keller Parkway and Pate Ore zoned retail. And address is 901 Keller Parkway. Mr. Flanders.

Thank you. Aerial and zoning map before you. Subject property is zoned retail. Just want to quickly point out, as the applicant mentioned, with the red little laser pointer, The property to the east, Andy's, is selling a flagpole portion of their lot to the applicant to accommodate that drive-through lane right here. A little background on this property. It was platted in 1999, and the existing multi-tenant building was built in 1984. The applicant intends to develop the site for a new Seven Brew Coffee drive-through business. The other tenants will include the existing Little Caesars, Keller Donuts, and a potential new restaurant. The applicant has also applied for the SUP. That was the last item. Purpose of this item is to consider a request for a site plan with nine variances for the subject property. First variance, UDC states that a minimum 30-foot landscape buffer adjacent to all thoroughfares with four or more lanes Is required Keller Parkway is a six lane roadway according to the city's thoroughfare plans where 30 foot buffer is required They are requesting to not provide the 30 foot landscape buffer along Keller Parkway Next variance UDC requires a minimum 15 foot landscape buffer adjacent to all other public streets North paid or road is a regular public street on the west side So the applicant is requesting to provide an 18 inch buffer on along the west property line in lieu of the minimum 15-foot requirement. Next variance, UDC states that a minimum 10-foot landscape buffer adjacent to side and rear property lines is required. This provision does not apply in cases of shared driveways or parking between lots, so they are proposing cross-access to the east property, which removes that requirement for the east property. The applicant is requesting to provide an 8-foot landscape buffer along the north property line in lieu of the 10-foot buffer requirement. Next variance, UDC requires 4-inch caliper canopy trees near the center of the 30-foot landscape buffer adjacent to thoroughfare with four or more lanes. They are requesting to not provide buffer trees along Keller Parkway. UDC states that UDC requires all parking islands to be a minimum of 9 feet in width and 20 feet in length The applicant is proposing to install six parking islands. Four of these parking islands will have a minimum of 9 feet in width and 20 feet in length, which matches the UDC. They do have two parking islands in front of the building circled in red before you that will measure at 9 feet in width and 18 feet in length. So they are requesting that variance to install two landscape islands that do not meet the UDC. UDC states that the parking ratio for retail or personal establishment is one space per 200 square feet of gross floor area, bringing this requirement to 61 regular spaces. They are providing 55 regular spaces and three accessible spaces, so they are requesting that variance to allow the site to be under-parked by six spaces. UDC states that each standard off-street surface parking space size shall be in accordance with the city design standards which are below which is a 18 feet length with a two foot overhang, 20 feet in length with a head space, 20 feet length with a wheel stop. The applicant is requesting to make all the parking spaces 18 feet in length without a wheel stop. Next variance, the existing structure is approximately 12,000 square feet and as I mentioned includes multiple tenant spaces. UDC states that foundation planting a minimum of five feet in width shall be provided at the fronts and side of the buildings and shall consist of a combination of ground covers, shrubs, and ornamental trees. They are requesting to not install any of the required foundation planting. And I'll just quickly point out, there is existing fuel pumps and canopy on the property. Those will be removed after the construction is complete. Section 50321 of the 2024 IFC states that all construction of fire apparatus access roads must comply with the current Keller UDC regulations Fire apparatus access roads must have an unobstructed width of at least 24 feet, excluding shoulders. The applicant is requesting to provide a 20-foot-wide fire lane adjacent to the front of the existing building in lieu of the 24-foot-wide fire lane requirement. We'll point out that the applicant and our fire marshal did have a meeting and have stated that by restriping the existing fire lane on the north, we'll provide the necessary coverage. Proposed elevations show a combination of white brick and sandblast finish with a black and blue trim to the top. And there is a breakdown of the materials used on each elevation in the agenda packet. The applicant intends to maintain the two access points on Keller Parkway and the one access point on North Pedro Road. They are proposing to cross access to the east neighboring property, which will be dedicated as an emergency access easement. Land use, the subject property is designated retail commercial on the FLUP, and the surrounding land use designation are as follows. A site plan application, even with variances, does not require a public hearing, so no public hearing notifications were sent out. The public had an opportunity to speak on this agenda item at persons to be heard. Section 2.07 of the UDC lists the following criteria that the Commission shall consider when looking at a site plan amendment with variances. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to public health. That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other lands. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a violation. that strict compliance with the regulations and or that the purpose of the regulations will be served to a greater extent. Here is just a recap of the variances that they are requesting. Again, they are requesting nine. Commission has the following options when considering site plan amendment with variances, recommend approval as submitted with those requested variances, recommend approval with modifications, table, or recommend denial. And if a recommendation is provided tonight, this application will be forwarded to the city council on October 20th. Staff and the applicant are here for any questions.

All right, thank you. Commissioners, any questions?

Yes, actually, sir, this is the public hearing. I do have some questions if the applicant could come forward. And sorry, could we get the... On the slides, could we get all of the variances up? I think that would be the most helpful slide. I was going to ask for that.

Yeah. I think we were all going to ask Mr. Flanders to put that back up. There you go. Thank you.

Great. Well, first, I want to, like, this kind of project, before I serve, before we began serving on this body, I served in economic development and it's been important to the city just in general to revitalize this corridor, right? We have a lot of buildings here and then also in our 377 corridor that are very dated, great businesses in them, but obviously design standards in the 80s are different than now. I mean, to say Keller has changed is an understatement. So I see a lot of these variances are is it they seem to be just related to because if my read is that it's because of how like the front parking lot is laid out now is that fair to say that's why these are being requested existing conditions that that's right when it was developed there was no landscape buffer along keller parkway so the you know the the drive that um

I would say 25% of the parking that we can provide in the front, it utilizes that drive parallel to Keller Parkway for means of egress and ingress. So if we were to start pulling that curb line back to try to create a landscape buffer, we would not be six parking spaces under, we would be significantly less. It's kind of a happy medium of balancing what variances we ask for while trying to preserve the existing building and redevelop it in a way that brings value to Keller, puts a facelift on it, adds some landscaping where we can. Obviously, we are giving up at least four parking spaces that we could have had or that are existing in order to capture some parking lot trees and create some shade. We're in the area that we're buying from Andy's Frozen Custard on the north side, we actually are adding parallel parking up there as well. That created a variance with the eight foot buffer there. We had the room for the full 10 or 15 feet, I can't remember, but we feel like adding those parallel helps give us some employee parking that aren't prime parking spaces right in front of the building. That way, people that may be parked there for a shift, they can utilize those parallel spaces. But if there is any one particular variance that you want to examine, we'd be happy to talk through it.

Yeah, so how much under-parked would you be if, for instance, we did a 30-foot buffer? That obviously strikes a lot of your parking, right? It's a full row of parking you lose. But how much under-parked would the property be?

So we would lose 14 spaces. Okay.

And what's the staff, what's the parking requirement for this multi-tenant building? 61. I know it's going to be high because we have to use the highest use for the whole thing. So it is 6-0. 61. 61. That doesn't include ADA, though.

It's 64. Yeah, so 64.

And how many exist today? How many are you proposing? Proposed condition with 58. 58? Okay, so slightly under-parked. And then if we lose 14, then you're at 44.

Okay. And there are other improvements we're making to the site, too, that took away our ability to add more and more parking, right? There's no true dumpster enclosure on the property, so we're adding a nice new masonry enclosure that meets all the standards for the waste service provider. So there are other things that we're looking at. Also, I will point out in the southeast corner of the property, there is paving there today that we are removing. We had tried to squeeze in four parking spaces there. We worked with staff on that. They felt it was congested and that it would be better to go for the six parking space variants rather than a two parking space variants and get that additional maneuverability room for cars coming in and out of the site from Andy's as well as from Keller Parkway. So we do have kind of a

not going to call it a plaza but a large landscape area right there that exceeds the 30 feet in depth and how many with these um the the islands that you're going to install in the log because i believe there are none today right it's just it's just asphalt um how many parking spaces would you gain back if you didn't do any islands four four that's not that many um Kind of, I think where I would like to be on it is, my inclination is do the 30-foot, do the 30-foot buffer. I know that's a little intensive on cutting your parking out, but that plus you changing the facade of this building, it's going to give the continuity, I think, that, I mean, I think we'd like to see on that corridor. I don't know if that's too perilously under-parked. Parking requirements, I always think, are There's always extra spaces, right? Because if something looks full, then people don't go, right? The Trader Joe's argument where, like, people think their parking lot's packed because they actually have how much parking they need. It's not like Walmart where they have twice as much. That's just my thought because I think it helps to redevelop the look of the entire corridor. You also are benefited, at least right now, I mean... Keller Donuts and Little Caesars are both in and out spots. They don't really need the parking that is required for those spaces because my girls and I are in Keller Donuts. We're only in there for five minutes. They would like to spend 15 or 20, but we're in there pretty quick. I think that's where I'm at with it. It's not necessarily saying I would vote. I wouldn't would vote no if we that's not the direction that we went i'm interested to see where the rest of the commission kind of comes out with their questions um like that would also allow for like those trees by the road to come in again that helps the continuity right so if we get the 30 foot buffer we lose 14 spaces but then you get at least like two back because i think if you don't do the the 30 i think if you do the 30 foot buffer i would say let's not do parking islands um to get a couple spots back and then you put trees up by the road that helps the parkway feel um and I mean, hopefully the coffee shop's super busy, so you're going to need the parking, right? And then you have another restaurant coming in. That's kind of where I'm at. But I love the project. I love redeveloping this. Hopefully this kind of kickstarts some other folks either that own these other multi-tenant buildings to redevelop them or encourages, oh, I can go buy this other one and give it a facelift and increase the rent price and those economics. I have other questions, but I think the other commissioners will probably hit some of them, and I'm interested in the thoughts. I respond quickly on the parking.

So we have Little Caesars in the Donuts, as you mentioned today, and we'd love for Donuts to stick around. It sounds like your family goes there a lot. But, you know, long term, I think we'd all like to see something better than Little Caesars, especially. And we don't know what that parking requirement for them looks like. It is in and out today, but it could very much be a sit down place, you know, in five years or something. And so thinking long term, if we're losing 14 spaces, that's a pretty big impact, especially when you're driving by. It's one thing to see you know, a QSR like Andy's where people are mostly just in the drive-thru line and not to have so much parking up front. But for a retail center, you want that parking up front. It's like you mentioned the Trader Joe's. Yeah, it's packed all the time, but people still go. But Walmart, people like to go because they can get there and park, and that's super important for retailers is parking. I know we want it to look good, and that's kind of the happy meeting we all have to strike, but just wanted to point that out.

Yeah, I think... That's a fair thing to point out. Yeah. It's just really an idea. That's kind of the end of my questioning and wisdom on it. I want to hear where the rest of the brainpower up here goes.

Thank you. Commissioner Scott.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Gentlemen, thank you for coming here. I appreciate your entrepreneur spirit. I understand you do not live here. So I have issues with one through four. I see concrete in your Keller is a city that has trees and has landscape. I cannot go along with this. So one through four have to be how the city wants it. Number nine, the fire lane 24 foot, that has to be a fire question. If they want 24 foot, it's going to be 24 foot. So the parking issues and all the other stuff, I don't have a problem with it, but I do not want to see the landscape of color change to concrete. So if you want to postpone or think about this and come back and see what you can do, I have no problem with that. But I think you know how I'm going to vote.

I'll quickly speak to just the fire lane. We did work that through with Stephanie, and that front fire lane is not required by code. We meet the hose lay and all the fire coverage requirements without it. We just felt like since it is the main drive right in front of the building, it's better to stripe it than to not stripe it. That's where we came.

Is that, Sarah, is that, that's kind of your question.

Yeah, so they've been working with our fire marshal, Stephanie Villareal, and she supports and is okay with the 20-foot wide fire lane for the reasons Drew just explained, that that's actually not required there. They're going to stripe it anyway, which is a good idea, but she is not concerned with the width at 20 feet on this one.

Okay, I take back number nine. I still have a problem with one through four, and you know how I'm going to be. You've got to be, you don't live here, and I want to see the landscape better, not worse. I don't like concrete. Thank you, gentlemen.

All right, so I am the tree hugger, so I do respect Commissioner Scott. I was on the park board for many years. I don't, I have been going to that center and Keller Donuts since my son ran cross country in 2004. So we've been there a long time and miss the days of getting to go regularly on Saturday morning to pick up his donut holes. I'm okay with not as big a landscape buffer, right? It's not there today. It's a weird parking lot. You never know where you're going to park. I'm glad to see that you're going to stripe it, and I will know where the entrance is, where the exit is, and where my car should be. So I do like the improvements that you're making there. I do wish that there was some type of a something, you know, to separate the street, because again, today, when you pull in, you don't know really where you're going, and looking at the designs, you still... kind of don't except for it'll be striped. So to me, having something up front would protect the walkers, the cross-country people who run there, the high schoolers. So I'm not as hard-pressed as Commissioner Scott on I must have, but I don't like that there's nothing to give us something, right? Even if we followed something with Andy's. My bigger concern is the fact that you want to put two drive-through lanes on that entrance and exit that is on the far west side going to Peydor. And in looking at the designs, those two drive-through lanes, one I get, and I think it's a great idea, my husband's gonna be real excited for a coffee shop, but two drive-through lanes that exit right at the entrance coming from Peydor to me is an accident waiting to happen that's extremely busy today. If we're gonna cater to the high school market, the busy mom who's dropping the kid off, coming from Keller Middle School or whatever, that to me just is gonna be problematic because they're gonna be coming in to drive around the building and those people are coming out and not only do I have one lane coming out, I have two. So I'd kinda like to hear your thoughts on why do I need two drive-through lanes at that entrance of the parking lot.

I can speak to that a little bit. So Seven Brews is not a traditional QSR where you pull up to a menu board and there's a speaker box and you look at a menu and you take a minute and you decide what you want. They kind of operate like Chick-fil-A where employees are walking the line. And you can see we have a three-foot striped median area.

I don't know if Mr. Flinders can kind of show us. Maybe that would help.

So this area right here, that's a three-foot striped median area. So there will be employees walking in that area taking orders for cars in the outside lane, as well as people walking on this sidewalk here taking orders for the inside lane. So it's not the traditional drive-through where you stop, you look at a menu, you say what you want. you pull around to a window and that's the only place you get your coffee. There are people, there are runners taking orders on iPads and bringing your coffee to you in the car. So there's not really a merge point where the outside lane comes back around and merges with the primary lane like a McDonald's or a different type of QSR would have. So that's the reason why that dual lane right there is critical.

So is there a way to pull that dual lane back further Because if you'll notice, the exit points where those two arrows are are right at the same entrance point from Paydor where the big red circle is. So if you have that divided lane all the way down to there, one, that first car in the innermost lane is going to have to cross out. We have a lot of young drivers. We're going to have a lot of young people. that just, to me, is problematic, and that's probably where mine would be a no.

That's a tenant question. I think that's what she should say. Yeah. We're going to have to look at that. The two drive-through lanes especially is driven by the tenant, Sevenbrew. They're just like the Dutch pros. They actually derive Sevenbrew came from Dutch, so it's essentially the same, and they operate the same, and that's their prototype is to have the double drive-through. I don't I'll have to look at their plans. They're going to be submitting that to you all separately. So depending on where they're actually, not their window opening, but where they walk out with the coffee actually is on the building, maybe we could pull back a car length or something. I just don't know without speaking with the tenant specifically.

Sure.

And to address your other concern just really quickly about having some sort of barrier between the drive aisle parallel to Keller Parkway and the sidewalk, I think a curb would be really easy to do. It wouldn't change the site plan. It would be a physical barrier preventing somebody from swinging out too far or backing up too far into the sidewalk area. Just real quick, point of information.

I understand they have to come back for an SEP, right? No, they don't. Sarah, does the coffee shop have to come back for anything? This is an SCP and a site plan. We're good after they do both these things, right? So they don't have to come back. I just want to make sure they're not coming back to discuss any of the layout. This is what we're talking about today.

Correct.

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, because we just passed the SUP for the drive-through, which, get, no problem. I don't know where the exit is for the, if they're coming out the back. So I get that it's Seven Brew, but that would be my concern and something to potentially look at and address before you go to council. Remember, we're just a recommending body. On the front end, could you potentially look at moving your islands to more align with the entrances so that way cars are not backing up as someone's pulling in from Keller Parkway, right? Because right now if I pull in on the one that's to the furthest west, I could have cars backing out of those spots as someone's pulling in. That to me is also another issue you may want to look at. I'm kind of with Commissioner Leist is, you know, I like the traffic islands, I like the pretty, but in this Texas heat this summer, how many of our trees, you know, in the landscape, you know, truly suffered? But I would look at, you know, and I know that that probably requires yet another variance of saying, well, now you've asked me to make them longer, but to me that's another, you know, real accident waiting to happen as I'm trying to come in. And you're going to retrain us all to, you know, on the easternmost one. I like that you're putting the throughput in for, to Andy's, right, to give a lot more cross traffic. Now where would the parallel parking spaces that you're talking about go? Is that on the furthest north?

That's on the far north up here. So we have added these up here.

Okay. Okay. So I don't know that I have a problem with the wheel stops. Hopefully there's not a whole lot of cowboy parking trucks that want to park in these that is going to not have a wheel stop. I know some of my other commissioners have probably addressed that with you. We've talked about the buffers. We've talked about the landscape. And so I will yield the floor to my fellow commissioners. Commissioner Johnson.

Thank you Chairman. So I do agree somewhat with what's been said and I was leaning a little bit towards before you had talked about it with maybe doing a smaller at least buffer because you know how it's just straight concrete to the edge and I do think parking and especially not understanding who we may have as future tenants is potentially needed and we're already a little bit short. So while I would love to have the huge front barrier, I can see the potential for not doing that. I know this is putting you on the spot, but if we would do any kind of barrier, is that going to potentially cause, like what is the driveway right there between that double parking and that road? Is there even room for a sidewalk with a little trim or anything?

The sidewalk is in the right-of-way of Keller Parkway, but that drives about 20 feet.

Okay, so

So it's subpar already.

So there's not even a room for even an eight or six inch at least grass barrier.

And that's really the crux of the site is, you know, the drives are 20 feet, the parking is 18. So we're asking for variances on the 20 foot long parking stalls. We're asking for variances on that fire lane, even though we talked about that and we've worked that out with the fire marshal. The foundation planting, the facade planting. There's columns. It's a zero curb entry into that building. There's columns that come all the way out to the parking. So even if you planted something along the building, it's not going to grow because it's not going to get any sunlight. There's just a lot of hardships here. But the biggest one I think for us is that front landscape setback. I mean, that would really just. it would kill the project.

Yeah, even with a six inch or something.

Because what we're trying to do is we're trying to bring better tenants here because, you know, it's a huge financial investment to take an existing building and who knows what we find when we open the building up. There's always skeletons in those closets. But when we reskin this building and we bring in, you know, a nice seven root tenant and a better drive-through, we're hoping to attract more long-term tenants. I think two of them are going month to month right now. They're just not the type of tenants that Frankly, we want long-term, and they're not the type of tenants that sign long-term contracts. So we're looking to improve this retail building in its existing condition and doing the best we can. I guess it's a tough spot to be in.

Well, and I appreciate that, and I think that's something even that I'll reiterate for the public that's watching. We're taking a building that's existing. We're not taking a site plan that we're building from scratch up like we were for Cane's and Andy's and those that are beside that, that we could get the front. Right. So I do understand the limit because if I'm looking at it, what we're saying is we're going to take that double parking lot there and turn it into a single if we do any kind of landscaping in the front.

Which is really going to limit on what kind of tents we're going to have.

And then we really are limiting who can even potentially go in there. A restaurant probably isn't even going to look to go in there because there's absolutely no parking for people to come in and sit down and eat. So that corner is needing a big facelift. So I do appreciate you trying to work with that. I do think you were talking about, Commissioner, the drive-in through there. If I'm seeing correctly, is that not one of your grass medians right as you pull in off of 1709 so that they're actually not backing into that parking area, I mean the drive-in?

On the east side?

On the east side.

That's all landscape?

Yep. So you've got the, you have some barrier there. Do you see that? Commissioner Farmer? Okay. So you were wanting that to be bigger? Okay. I was just curious when I was, oh, the western. Yeah, the western one, what I was wondering is, you see how the entrance where, because you used to have the gas station there and the pumps. So the first one, would it not be appropriate to pull that median to where it, actually reaches to where the in and out is and match those up so that you don't have, it's matching the planter that you have beside that.

On the south side, pulling that up to? Yes, pulling it up.

I just think that that would allow for more straight turning in. And it would even it up. I did have some concern, like Commissioner Farmer, on where I saw that it looked like the drive-through was ending I do think pulling that back so that it's, because you're going to have to get both those cars to turn. So if you have both of them stacked right beside where cars are parking, first off, you're into that sidewalk. So it would seem that the little bit of a sidewalk that's in that building, because it's not very large, that you should be able to walk over to pay or to go down to the school because you're going to get a lot of school traffic. So I do think pulling that back to where it ends right there like most drive-throughs do on buildings would be a potential. The other thing I thought, and this is like totally different, but what if the drive-through ran the other way and they actually exited out the back, which would get to a little bit of Commissioner Farmer's issue. Instead of having them come in that, what if they came in that way and went the other way?

So the, I don't know if I can zoom here, and I don't even know if this is the right slide.

And it's

Just open for discussion questions. How do I get to the? I think this will help. Next slide. Here we go. So you can see here on that end cap where seven bruises, they're planning a covering. So similar to what Chick-fil-A does, they've got a covering there for people that are going from the building to hand out coffee at the car. They're out of the sun, they're out of the rain, where people have their windows rolled down where they would be receiving coffee. They're not getting the elements.

And it does look like it's pulled back then. Or is that just even?

Yeah, I think that it is somewhat... in line with the front plane of the building. It is set back a little bit.

So that you would have the walkway normally that would be there that could walk to the pay door without being in the middle of a car. Okay. But there wouldn't be any, so since they want that because it's beside their building, that's where they come out, it would be difficult to do it in reverse is what I'm hearing.

You're saying load from the...

Enter there and go around.

But then you wouldn't be able to get a stack and they require, I forget, maybe 18 cars stacked

Okay.

Then you're going to have cars going out into that side street.

Well, I was running them into the back street. Literally completely reversing. Literally completely reversing the flow.

So the passenger would then be the one ordering the coffee.

You mentioned that there was people that were taking the orders, so I didn't think that...

Right, yeah, no.

Since people were taking the orders, does the flow, whether it goes one way or the other, actually matter?

But if it's, you know, say it's... 9.59 p.m., they're not going to have somebody sitting out there.

You're right. Then it wouldn't matter.

It would be the only car in the drive-thru, and you'd just go through the window. Yeah.

Okay. I think, yeah, if we can pull it back towards a little bit back behind that building and leave that side.

I don't have a huge issue with that driveway on Pate Ore. The only thing that I would want to look at a little bit further is I know when we get driveways really tight, remember that drive, that fire lane that comes across the south side of the building is 20 feet. So it's more narrow than a normal two-way drive aisle anywhere else in the city of Keller. So if a car is queued there to turn left on Pate Ore or right, and somebody is trying to turn right into the site off Pate Ore northbound, that could be kind of a tight point where it could prevent, if someone is queued up right there to turn out of the site onto Pate Ore, it could prevent someone from being able to get off paperwork and get into the parking lot. And then you're backing up into Keller Parkway. And that would be my bigger concern than that. But we could probably tighten it up a little bit and still be able to facilitate that.

I appreciate that because I do think that would be a concern. Because it's a real short, and you obviously know the site, I mean, it's real short to turn in. It always has been. Right. So, yeah, I think at least being able... to put as much landscaping and trees that we can get into the medians that you're putting in. Is the two against the building? Are you planning on putting planters in there, those two that are up there?

Yes.

Okay. So we'll have something that's going to be up on the front, which we have nothing now. We have a plain parking lot right now. Correct. It's not striped or anything. So, I mean, as I would love to see all the shrubbery, but I also would love to see this building renovated and active and vibrant in the city. And that where you get gas, whatever you call that little, the pumps, gone. Because it's been sitting there for a long time. And I know that's going to be a big mitigation when you go to take those tanks out and everything. So I do like that you clarified about the fire lane because that was concerned. But if the fire chief, he's the one that needs to say whether it's a yes or no go on that. So. I do like that you did get some parking in the back for the employees because I think if they're parking out front, if we allow this lesser number on the parking, then we just have just taken away even more. So I think I am leading in support of it. Thank you.

All right. Mr. Leist, do we have a motion?

Yeah, two quick comments before I make a motion. One, I would encourage you, I think that, and I don't know if this needs to be in the site plan for council. I think it makes sense. I think it would be nice for them to queue single file to go underneath their awning, and that would take care of the traffic issue turning out, especially because you said with how narrow it is getting in and out on pay-to-work, having those two, like you're going to have two people turning in is double-wide, you can barely turn in and go out at the same time, right? So I think that they should queue in single file underneath the awning and that takes care of your egress problem. And then just, I was looking at the pictures, most of the buildings on that road have more like warm tones versus like a cold gray cement and then blue. this isn't a condition in motion on this, but I might consider matching the type of materials and colors that are on the road versus going like kind of cement, cold gray, and then a blue. It just, it would stand out. But that's, I mean, this color aesthetic thing. With that, oh, last comment. The ugly orange sidewalk thing. Is that, does the city own that? It's in our right of way. Do we own that? Is that our problem? And then text that right of way. Sorry? It's TxDOT right away. TxDOT right away? Can that get replaced with grass as part of this project? Because it's terrible.

It could. I'm sure they would need a TxDOT permit to do it, which would be on the applicant to pursue.

Maybe instead of doing a 30-foot setback, could you maybe see if you can change that to grass and get rid of the 80s orange whatever that is there? Might help a bit with that. I move to approve item e2 Commissioner Johnson second All right.

Is there any other? Comments, I think you've heard the concerns of the Commission regardless of how this goes, right? We will take a vote but we will now vote we have a motion and a second to approve and All right, so that carries three to two. We are recommending, body, you will go before council on October 20th. All right, thank you. So next up is item E3 to consider a plan development zoning change from single family residential 36,000 square foot lots to plan development single family residential 25,000 square foot lots for Providence. A proposed plan development on 20.93 acres legally described as Lot 1, block 3 of the Keller High School subdivision located on the north side of Johnson Road, approximately 2,300 square feet east of Johnson Road and Borland intersection and addresses 901 Johnson Road. Curtis Young, applicant, KSD owner. Mr. Edelman.

Yes, thank you. I have the aerial and zoning maps shown here. Subject property is currently zoned SF-36. So here's a concept plan provided by the applicant. They're requesting a plan development zoning change for Providence, a proposed 22 residential lot subdivision with two open space lots. The project will be located on the north side of Johnson Road, adjacent to Keller High School, on approximately 20.93 acres. Since just the concept plan was submitted with the PD, a future detailed site plan will be required to go before PNZ and Council. Again, the current zoning is single-family residential, 36,000 square foot minimum lots. The proposed zoning is planned development, SF25, PDSF25. The surrounding zoning on all properties to the north, south, east, and west is SF36 with the KISD overlay to the south. The applicant also requests a future land use plan amendment from low-density single-family and semi-public to medium density single family. The FLUP amendment is on the agenda as a separate item. The surrounding FLUP designations, the properties to the north, east, and west are all designated low density single family, and then to the south is semi-public. So this chart compares the proposed development standards with the requirements of the UDC. We've highlighted the categories where there is a proposed exception to the UDC. Just going through it here, the minimum lot width proposed by the applicant for cul-de-sac lots is 100 feet, whereas the UDC requirement is 120 feet. The main building lot coverage proposed by the applicant is 40%, whereas the UDC requirement is 30%. for maximum lot coverage. And then for total lot coverage, the proposed is 60%, whereas the UDC requirement is 50%. Continued here, one exception to the UDC, for the side yard setback, the applicant has proposed a 12-foot setback and a minimum separation between structures to be 24 feet, and then the minimum side yard on a corner lot adjacent to a street to be 20 feet. The UDC requirement is 10% of the lot width, but not to exceed 15 feet. Regarding elevations, the applicant proposes 100% masonry on the front elevation. All other elevations will be a minimum of 80% masonry, which does align with the requirements of the UDC. There are additional standards related to roofing, garage, and driveway materials that are included in the proposed development standards. For landscaping, the applicant proposes that all front yards shall be fully landscaped with a minimum of either two canopy trees or one canopy tree and one understory tree with 10 shrubs, whereas the UDC requirement isn't quite as flexible. It states that a minimum of two large canopy trees shall be planted in the front yard of all new single-family uses. The applicant proposes two open space lots which total 2.36 acres or 11.27% of the gross acreage of the property, which is again just about 21 acres. This does not meet the UDC requirement of 15% open space for planned developments. For sidewalks, the sidewalks will be built along the street frontage of each lot and shall be five feet in width. And then there will also be a trail sidewalk connecting to the sidewalk along the street frontage to be built within lots 14 and 15 in the adjacent open space lot. For the screening and fencing, the applicant did provide this diagram on their concept plan. I can run through it here. So starting on the western side here, on the western boundary of lots 14 and 15, as well as the southern boundary of lot 15, they proposed a six-foot iron fence. Along the northern boundary, the intention is to retain, repair, or replace the existing six-foot cedarwood fence. That would depend on the condition of the existing fence. Over here on the eastern side, there's an additional segment of the six-foot iron fencing. And then on the eastern side of lots one through four, a masonry wall is proposed. And then on the southern side of lot one, a masonry wall as well. The UDC would typically require that to be open style fencing because lot one is adjacent to the open space. But again, they have proposed the masonry wall. They have also proposed the eight foot cedar wood fence on the southern boundary adjacent to the remaining KISD facilities. This would typically be required to be a masonry wall as well because of the adjacency of the residential development with a non-residential use. The property will be a gated development with private streets. You can see a little bit more detail there on the entry gates as well as the masonry wall and columns that they will tie into. Preliminary drainage and utility plan were provided. The applicant will be required to provide a full set of civil plans that meets UDC requirements later in the development process. Trip generation form was provided by the applicant, and regarding ingress and egress, the applicant is proposing one gated vehicular entrance off Johnson Road. Summary of of any proposed PD standard that differs from the UDC. Starting with the minimum lot size, of course, SF25 requires 25,000 square feet, whereas they've proposed 28,000 square feet for minimum lot size. Lot coverage, again, that's going to be the 40% by main buildings and 60% total, whereas the UDC requires 30% for... maximum 30% by main buildings and not more than 50% total. Minimum lot width for a cul-de-sac lot, again, they propose that 100 feet measured from the building line, whereas the UDC requires 120 feet. The landscaping requirements, again, quick reminder there that They've proposed some additional flexibility there with either a minimum of two canopy trees or one canopy tree and two understory trees with 10 shrubs. And then that UDC requirement is just for a minimum of two large canopy trees with a minimum three inch calipers shall be planted in the front yard of all new single family uses. The minimum dwelling size, they've proposed 3,500 square feet, which actually exceeds the SF25 requirement of 2,400 square feet. And then fencing, again, that eight-foot cedar fence along the southern boundary adjacent to the KISD facilities would typically be required to be a masonry screening wall. And the six-foot masonry wall along the southern boundary of Lot 1 would typically require to be open-style fencing. because it is adjacent to the open space lot. For open space, the applicant is not meeting the 15% stated in the code. They are providing 11.27% of the gross acreage of the property. Then, again, for the side yard setback, they are proposing 12 feet, with a minimum separation between structures to be 24 feet, and then the side yard on a corner lot adjacent to a street at 20 feet, where SF-25 just requires side yards to be 10% of the lot width, but not more than 15 feet. On September 10th, the city mailed out 28 letters of notification to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site, and staff has not received any written support or opposition to this request. Section 802.3b. D1E of the UDC states that when considering a zoning change request, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following factors. Whether the uses 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, the recent rate at which land is being developed in the same zoning classification, how other areas designated for similar development will be affected, and any other factors that will substantially affect the health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Quick summary, the request is to consider a planned development zoning change from single-family SF-36 to planned development SF-25 for Providence. Again, they propose planned development to consist of 22 residential lots and 2.36 acres of open space. Commission has the following options. Recommend approval as submitted. Recommend approval with modifications or additional amendments. Table the agenda item to a specific date with clarification of intent and purpose. Or recommend denial. And if a recommendation is provided tonight, the application will be forwarded to the October 20th City Council agenda. If you have any questions, staff and the applicant are available. The applicant does have a presentation as well, if you'd like to move into that.

Please, would the applicant like to make their presentation? And if you will, please state your name and address for the record.

Sure. Chairwoman, members of the commission, my name is Curtis Young with the Sage Group. Address is 550 Silicon Drive in Southlake. happy to present this to you tonight, and I'd like to go through some of the things that we considered when designing this. This is, as I think was mentioned, a piece of property that is currently owned and has long been owned by the Keller School District. They have deemed it as excess property, and as they have with other properties, decided that it would be best to sell it and get the revenue from it. And they put it out to bid, and there were several bidders. Evidently, the top bidder decided he couldn't do it, so he went to the second place bidder, which is my client here. So, obviously, our intent here is to make sure that the school district gets, you know, what they need for it, but also to do a project that is that is consistent and good with the surrounding areas. And so that's kind of how we approach that. Here's the property, a little under 21 acres just north of the high school. It surrounds the tennis courts and the parking for that and the bus storage area, which will be retained by the school district for their use. As Calvin said, it's primarily semi-public on the land use plan, some low density, single family residential. We would be requesting a change to medium density residential. and it's zoned SF-36 currently. We would be changing this to a planned development, which, as you know, includes open space and other additions rather than just the straight zoning, using the SF-25 as kind of our base district, but our lots are all significantly larger than that, and our density approaches pretty close to what the SF-36 density would be. of one lot per acre, basically. It's not the easiest piece of property to develop. It's kind of an upside-down U-shaped piece of property. So we have to bring a road in to get access, a single-loaded road. And then the portion in the southwest could be a lot, I guess. So we brought a cul-de-sac down there, but we thought it would be a good place for some open space that would be utilized by the public walking by on Johnson Road on the sidewalk that's existing there. To kind of look at the site and say some of the things that we considered when designing this. First thing was the property is only adjacent to a residential on the north side there. That's those are the Gene Estate lots up there. And so we thought in order to be compatible and protect the homeowners that are immediately adjacent to us there, that we would line up all of our lot lines exactly where their lot lines are. So none of those folks would be looking back toward any more than one lot. And that one lot would, that home and that lot would be aligned directly with their home. So it's just like The lots further up in Gene Estates that back up to another lot of the same size, a very similar situation. So we thought that that would be something that would make this as compatible as possible with the Gene Estate neighbors there. You can also look at the property, and other than the eastern leg of the property, it's virtually treeless. So we wanted to take a look at where the trees are and see what it would take to try and save as many of those trees as possible. This area here is primarily tree-covered in there. One thing that you really can't see necessarily if just looking at the aerial is that there's drainage coming through there. And that drainage leaves the Gene Estate's detention pond that you can see where the blue line kind of starts up there. comes down out of that detention pond, collects into the property that's part of the Keller United Methodist Church, and then goes into our property and just kind of goes diagonally down toward an existing pond in that area. And then it leaves the pond and goes down into the drainage that is along Johnson Road there. Obviously, we're going to have to pick up that drainage. We're going to have to fill in the pond. We're going to have to do some things that make sure that our lots aren't flooded by that drainage coming through there and it's properly taken care of. So, you know, this is the plan that we came up with here. You can see between lots four and five on the east side there, That will be a drainage easement going through there. And so what we're going to do is take the drainage coming out of the adjacent property. Instead of just kind of diagonally coming through those slots, it will be taken out to the street where it will be put underground and then go along the street frontage down to the drainage along Johnson Road. To do that, obviously we're going to have to fill in the pond. And we're going to have to have drainage easements down the sides of those lots. So this color on this plan kind of indicates the areas that will have to be graded into drainage areas. And of course, the pond will need to be filled in. There's no trees in the pond right now, of course, but still, there won't be any trees there. So that'll be filled in. And then, of course, where the street goes as well, those trees will need to be taken out. But I think what we're going to try to be able to do is save these trees here in the back in the rear of those lots and then the trees between the green and the orange areas we're going to leave alone in the development and that will be up to the home builders to come in and look at it and say okay here's a big tree let's work around that tree and those kinds of things when you get to lots this large You don't have to grade the lots like you would with a smaller lot. So the idea will be to allow each individual homeowner to analyze the trees on the lot and come in for their own approvals as to which trees they can take and out. So we've tried to think this through in a logical way to make sure that we're at least saving as many trees as possible there. Here's the concept plan. It's 22 total lots on just under 21 acres, a density of just over one unit per acre. If we had a perfectly shaped piece of property, that's basically what the density of an SF-36 layout is. An acre is almost 8,000 square feet more than 36,000 square feet, so that would account for the street and everything. Street zoning, of course, also doesn't have any open space requirement. So one thing that the PD encourages and we've included here is open space in the project as well. The fence and wall diagram, there are several of the homes along the north there that we're adjacent to have wood fences. Some of them have open fences. What we would propose there is to work directly with each and every one of those homeowners to understand whether they would like a new fence there or whether the fence they have is good and make that a consistent wood fence across the top there that will look nice on both sides. Where we're adjacent to open space, as the UDC suggests, we're having an iron fence on the far western end and Lots 5 and 6 on the eastern end are adjacent to the open space, either on the church property or the Gene Estates property over there where there aren't any lots. So that would be open space. We do, though, because of the parking lot and the activity that will happen on the church, we're showing a masonry wall on lots 1 through 4 there. And even though lot one fronts on open space, it's really fronting on Johnson Road there, so we thought it was appropriate to have a masonry wall along there that would lead into our signage and our columns, divided entry there with gates. We're proposing this as private street development. We think that'll allow for really top quality type homes to be built here that is It's going to be an asset to our neighbors and the city as a whole. And then an extra tall fence between us and the tennis courts and the bus holding area in there, an eight-foot wood fence in that location there. Landscape plan, obviously we're going to have landscaping in the front yards of all those lots. The lots themselves will have to be extensively landscaped. The open space area in the southwest there, one of the things when we went to the corridor committee that was suggested to us that we extend a sidewalk from the end of the cul-de-sac down our western boundary and giving access directly to that open space. So we've done that. This would be available to the public and large as well, a nice open space area. there will be landscaped as well and then over at the entry on the southeastern portion of that we would be you know have a entry sign on to the right side of the gates there we would have we would there's there's trees there we would add to that in detail those that's the kind of thing that we'll show in more detail on the detailed site plan submittal there, but obviously that's our front door. That will be very nicely landscaped. There's concepts on what the gates and sign and the fences and walls and everything will look like. As the entry comes in, it's a single-loaded road, so on the west side of the entry, there's an open space strip there that kind of separates this road and these lots from the parking that's in front of the tennis courts and then further up the tennis courts themselves. We've made that wide enough to be able to put in a very thick row of trees and understory trees in there to really buffer that area from the interior of the neighborhood. So that's the plan there. What kind of homes would be built here? These would all be custom homes. This would not be a volume builder in here. My client has talked to a couple of builders who are very interested in coming in here. And these are examples of some of the homes that they might propose to build in here. Very nice homes. We think it would be a quality development. Anyway, that's how we looked at doing this. We think we've tried to put a premium on being compatible with our neighbors. We're lining up the lots next to our closest neighbors along there. Those lots are all basically similarly sized to the Gene Estate lots to the north of it there. Some of them are actually a little bit larger like, well, it's 8, 9, and 10 there just because we wanted to get kind of a, a nice serpentine flow to the street as it goes through there. And we could have made those lots thinner, but we didn't want to because we wanted to line up our lot size with the neighbors to the north. So each of those neighbors would just be looking at one house. So we've done a lot of things here intentionally to try to make this as compatible as possible and be happy to answer any of your questions.

Thank you very much. If you'll stay close, I'm sure that we will have questions. But now this is a public hearing. We have a couple people who have requested to speak. So first we have Brian Kutabak and then Lori Powers. Good evening, if you'll say your name and address for the record.

Good evening, Brian Cutterback, 941 Blue Bonnet Drive in Keller, a backup to the proposed site. First of all, I'd like to say thanks for you guys and what you do for the city of Keller. My wife, Laura, and I have lived there in that house since 2001. And in general, we're in favor for what's proposed. We do appreciate what's been done of backing those lot lines up to our lot lines. That really helps, keeps us from looking at Two houses and just looking at one that's in similar to ours Some issues that we do want to bring up on the documents that we have gotten and I'm sure you've gotten to involve the plat showing that Our existing fence and he did mention a minute ago be replaced with a wood fence being six foot tall Our fences aren't six foot tall. They're eight foot and our HOA requires that and So we would like that amended to read to match the overall height of our fence, which again is eight foot. There are also no necessarily details to that fence. And I realize that we're kind of in the early stages of that. But the RHOA also has a lot of stipulations on how our fences are built. It's eight foot board on board, top cap, bottom rail, all that type of stuff. And we would just like to make sure that the developer does take that into consideration and matches up our fences exactly. One of the other things that came up is that because the existing property had a barbed wire fence on it that kept the horses in, that barbed wire fence was placed on the property line. So all of our fences across this proposed addition are anywhere from two feet to 18 inches too short. So our side fences are short of our property line because our fence builders could not put our fence all the way to our property line because the barbed wire fence was in the way. So what we'd also like to have on the record and requested of the developer is that they finish out that two feet before they put our fence up across the back and make us whole on that. What we'd also like to request is because that two feet is now not going to have sprinkler access or grass to it, that they help us finish out moving those sprinkler heads back and then fill in the grass in the two feet of area that we couldn't do originally. I know we already alluded to it and I appreciate it that they would coordinate with us on not only construction of the fence, but unfortunately, A lot of our fences have been restained and are now different colors, so we'd appreciate it if they would. And he did commit to that of coordinating with us not only on construction of the fence, but color so it matches our existing fences. A couple developer asks, and I know it doesn't necessarily have to do with you guys, but this may be the only time I have. to get in front of him. We ask that they use a water truck during excavation and utility placement just to try to keep down the dust. As you guys can see from the aerial view, we all have pools back there. And then we also request on the homes that back up to Gene Estates is those be single-story and not two-story. Our houses do sit higher up on the lots, so we just don't want that impediment of a two-story house. Again, I don't know if we can do

I apologize, but your three minutes is up I don't know if you've got someone else who can finish your notes for you, but thank you for coming forward.

Thank you Hello commissioners, I'm Lori Powers I live right next door to Brian and his wife and so I'm at 937 Bluebonnet and Keller and I also would like to say that overall I support the plan with a few changes I So I'm very appreciative that they've lined up the houses to ours. I'm also requesting that they only build one-story homes at least to those houses that abut our property line and at bare minimum match. If there's a one-story, they put a one-story behind it. just giving a few options there. As Brian mentioned, we do have eight-foot fences, not six-foot fences, and everything he said about matching our style and our HOA requirements would be very much appreciated. The other thing is that I don't think they're putting enough trees in, so we all have 10 trees that were provided by our builder, and those had to be 5-inch caliper trees, and at least four of them had to be in the backyard. So I would suggest that they also make a similar requirement. The lots are a little bit smaller, so maybe a slight adjustment, but I don't think they're putting enough trees in there. And I think Eight to ten per lot would be a nice amount of trees. There are a lot of scrub trees back there that I'm sure would need to come out. And so just replacing with some good trees would be the other request.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. And Mr. Justin Starr. Just hold.

Hi, I'm Justin Starr, 945 Blue Bonnet. Same thing that my associates said. I really appreciate them lining up the lots. I back up to these property here on the north side. My thing is the same thing what they've been saying is really the eight foot cedar fence is really important. I mean, nice if everything's all uniform because all the homes in Gina's stays are all eight foot. So if they could honor that request to match, that would be great. If we can do single story, yeah, we would like that as an option. But other than that, you know, a lot of the proposal, you know, I'm in favor of, so.

All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. I don't have anybody else slated. If you'd like, if you'll please hand your card and then.

I'm sorry. I didn't know I needed your help.

That's all right. No worries. All right. And if you want to come to the microphone and tell us your name and address for the record, please.

Yes. I'm Brian Bennett at 913 Blue Bonnet. I appreciate the presentation. As I was seeing the presentation, I noticed that all the surrounding area was at 36,000 square feet. When I bought my house, I was attracted to this area because of the aesthetics, because of the open space, and because of the trees and going on. I understand right now it is zoned at 36,000 square feet. So I understand the business value of trying to get as many houses as you can into the piece of property that you buy. The question that I have is what is the business value, what is the value to the community of making this more dense, getting rid of open space, and getting rid of the aesthetics that currently exist now, even though it's undeveloped land. That's all I have.

Very good. Thank you. All right. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak on this? If not, I entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

Commissioner Johnson? Second. All right. If we can take a vote. All right. The public hearing is now closed. Do we have any commissioners who would like to ask any questions or address any comments? Dr. Scott, did you have a question? Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. that was asking about, are all the houses along that proposed area, are they one story or two stories?

So I don't think that we can ask that, but I think that you can ask that of.

Okay, come on up.

Mr. Dr. Skye, yes. There's a mixture of one and two story homes to the north of us there. I think the first three homes, above plots 12 through 14 are two-story homes. I believe the next one or two may be one-story homes. And then, anyway, it's a mix of one- and two-story homes there. There are also, I mean, everyone would love to be next to a one-story home, but some of those are two stories, and they're also higher than us. Where we've done restrictions on one, to one story before, it's been where we've been higher than the neighbor to avoid the look down there. And they're actually higher than us. So one thing we have done is we've increased the rear setback from what the UDC would normally require a little bit. So just to assure that we're a little bit further away from that. People are going to build homes toward the front of the lots. That's just the way things work so they can have a nice big backyard to use there. So I don't really think that that's something that would mean much or be helpful.

Okay. Thank you. Question number two is on this area on the left, Is that a walking park or were you going to put a pond in there, you know, like the June Estates have right now? Is it just all grass, trees?

It'll be grass and trees. There's some flumes that go through there that probably were put in when all the paving for the bus storage area was put in to drain it toward. All of our drainage eventually goes, leaves the site at the far end. southwest corner there and goes to the channel. We're right next to a drainage way that was put in with Gene Estates that then crosses Johnson Road. It's just off the aerial there. I can go back and show you, if you're interested, a bigger picture. Yeah, you can see here These are flumes that were put in to drain this area here so it doesn't get swampy here. They go under a little berm right here and then go down into this drainage and then go south, along with all the drainage that comes out of gene estates in here. So our plan here will be to landscape that. There's not a need for a detention pond there. And so it'll be park-like that people can utilize.

Help me out a little bit. On that side, is there any way that you could have another exit or entry? Or is it just it's all closed? Is that dirt? What is all that right there? Is that somebody else's property?

Yeah, this is property, I believe, of the Gene Estates. HOA owns all this. It's a drainage way. so we really don't have access to there. We've spoken with the fire marshal about this, and she's okay with a single entry on this. It's under the maximum number of lots that the UDC says you can have with a single entry. Some of these homes may need to be sprinkled and that kind of stuff, but we'll comply with her requirements on that.

Thank you. UDC says 15% and you have 11.25. How many square feet is that? Would that push into lot 15? Is that what you're saying? Yeah.

Yeah. When we went to the corridor committee, we kind of asked the question, would you rather have 15% open space or bigger lots? And what we got back was bigger lots. Right.

Understood. Help me out with what they're talking about. So when they built their houses, there's barbed wire fence. They had to put their fence two foot back so they had to give up some property. Is that what they're saying? And they're wanting you to... Why couldn't you all just use the same fence?

I think we could and I think we could build a fence on the common property line or on our side of the common property line and then The barbed wire fence certainly could be removed. Right. It could all be coordinated, a nice fence along there, and it could be eight feet. I mean, from the road, it's hard to tell what six or eight feet is. If their fence is eight feet, then we can make ours eight feet. That's not a problem. We'll change that in the development regulations.

And I'm gradually getting to my other concern, lots one through five. Can you explain why you went to 28,000 versus the 36? I did the math and did some, I basically look at your, you're going to lose part of lot six and it would just be an open space if you went to 36,000 and you could do it through one through five, but lot six would be lost.

Is that... Well, remember, we're next to a non-residential use there. We're kind of between the road and the non-residential use there. We tried to make the lots compatible and large where we're next to other residential of a similar size. There, we're next to a parking lot of a church. So, you know, 28,000 plus was still, you know, a very large lot relative to the average lot size in Keller. So... Uh, we thought that, that, um, uh, you know, they're nice, wide, deep lots. We can save those trees in the back there. We, we think there'll be fabulous lots, but if we were going to have lots less than 30,000 square feet, that would be the place to have it.

Say it one more time.

If we were going to have, uh, lots less than 30, that would be the place to have it because we're not next to any adjacent residential. We're next to a church and parking lot. Um, basically a non-residential use. So I don't think anyone will notice.

I do appreciate your trying to stay within the 36. It's just that 1 through 5 is kind of disturbing. That's just my only issue as far as that goes. There was a concern about somebody doing three-inch trees versus five-inch trees. It would be nice if you could be compatible with the people that were already there. I think that you wouldn't have a problem doing it.

What we're showing on the landscape plan is just the street trees. Obviously, these lots are going to be landscaped fully. If there's a requirement, want us to put in the standards that Once the home built, there's a requirement of a minimum of eight trees on a lot, then we can certainly accommodate that.

Okay, going back to the other side, is this open to the public, this little walkway, or is that this grass area, or did you fence that in too? No, it would be open to the public. Okay, so then your fences start at lot 15, it goes across. Yes. Going back to all your trees, I do like the idea, but One of the things I thought I heard you say, it's kind of up to the homeowner. So if the homeowner wanted to clear cut it, could that be possible?

Well, the homeowner, the builder homeowner, whatever it is, is still going to have to comply with the Keller tree ordinances. What we're saying is we're not going to pre-decide that for them and clear a pad area because they're building shape may be different, may be able to work around trees. Typically in development, when you have what we call volume builders or larger builders, they require lots to be delivered with a flat graded pad in the middle of it so they can fit any of their model homes on each of those. That's not true when you get to the custom home builder lots. Those homes are custom designed, and each owner or home builder has the ability to design perhaps around a particular tree or grove of trees in there. So we think it's a better, higher quality solution to leave it up to them.

I just want to hear you say, and it is in writing, that you're not doing a clear cut. Right. Okay. I just still have problems with one through five. You know, you know that. So anyway, if there was any way that you could work it and just increase the lot size to be compatible with the other ones and be compatible with the gene estates, that'd be much appreciated. And I appreciate your time, both of you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

All right, I have a few questions for you. I appreciate you not clear-cutting the lot. I do appreciate you working with the neighbors to the north on their fences and honoring the request to, if their HOA says it's an eight-foot fence that we honor, I'm sure you can't get back there to go look at them, and you did the best you could, and taking out the barbed wire. I'm sure everybody will appreciate that and helping them build those fences out to your fence line. I do have a problem with the fences next to the bus parking lot and the tennis courts. Lights, what kind of eight foot fence are you planning? Are you gonna do the board on board because those are high schoolers, those are events, they're loud. And, you know, I get why you're trying to do that, but, you know, what kind of a fence are we putting there?

Yeah, it would be an eight-foot board-on-board, you know, fully opaque fence along there on metal poles in the ground with a top cap.

Okay. You're planning an iron fence along opposite lots one through two. Okay. which is open to a parking lot, and that's a six-foot fence. I get that you're going to landscape it, but again, it's open to a parking lot in a gated community. I probably don't want people jumping over the iron fence. So, I mean, have you considered, I get why, but I'm not looking into something that's, you know, I wouldn't have a problem with a, your masonry wall there because I've got a parking lot on the other side. So just something to consider.

We could consider an opaque fence there, you know, take the wood fence around there. Iron fences look better.

I get it.

Which is why we kind of chose that. We thought that the iron fence along with the screening of the landscaping would be a nicer look.

I think security and privacy probably would appreciate someone at the price point you're putting in there, because there's not something nice to look at on the other side. I get the iron fence next to the open space by the church and Gina States, right? But to follow on with Dr. Scott, on lot 15 and 16, you're going to put the fence and you're going to put a sidewalk, but are you going to put... Is there a gate or something to that sidewalk that blocks it into the neighbors? Because I'm, again, gated on the front side. I'm at a parking lot at school events and all. Is there a gate or something leading outside of 14 and 15 into the open space?

Well, there could be, typically. When we do gated communities in nice cities like Keller, what we're gating is the vehicular traffic in and out of there, and we don't necessarily put locks or things on the pedestrian gates because we're all neighbors. We don't have people walking, and we just don't want them to bring a pickup truck and unload our houses and go away. But if you felt that because of the... you know, activity there from the high school and stuff. Certainly, there could be gates put on those that, you know, would have a little locks on them that only members of the HOA would know how to get through.

And I'm sure that's an HOA thing, but, you know, I don't know if that's something you need to put into your PD to state whether that would be an HOA. Yes, you know, you know I'm park and rec. I'm out walking the trails all the time. I like that it's going to connect to a trail. I'm sure that others would, but the proximity to other events to me just seems like I would value safety and security over anybody being able to walk into that. Having the open space is nice and open on there, but if I was in lot 15, I don't know that I would want that open too.

Sure. We think the public ought to be able to use that open space area, but they have no reason to walk into the neighborhood. So I think that's probably a good thought.

So, you know, I like the trees. I'd rather you put in nice quality trees. I'm sure you're going to leave that up to the builders. I do like the neighbors, you know, asking you to consider what they have, but I'd rather you put in nice quality trees than just sticking in and saying I'm going to put in, you know, 10 trees and they all, you know.

Oh, sure.

Or not. And I know that you've done that on other projects, so I know that you value putting Quality items in there. So my last question for you is the lot coverage, that you're not meeting the 30-50 but asking for 40-60. That seems especially high, especially to Dr. Scott's concern on some of the smaller lots. What are you anticipating, and can you meet the 30-50?

Well, you know, Keller traditionally has very small coverages, and we always run into problems with them. I've recommended for years, over the years, that they be revised to be more compatible with things. I do believe some of these are going to be one-story homes. And when you do just 30% coverage, then you start to really inhibit the ability to do one-story homes.

I could give you the 30 if you give me the 50. The 60%... especially on those smaller lots, seems excessive, especially since the city doesn't count pools or things like that.

Well, they do in the 60%. There's two coverages things.

So in the City of Keller swimming pools and the decking around it is not counted towards lot coverage.

Even the second part?

The decking right around your pool is not, because you've got to have the concrete to to put the pool in. So council changed that about eight or nine years ago because people were running into the exact problem you're describing, not being able to put a pool in their yard because of the lot coverage.

Okay, well, if that changed, we could probably do 50% on that part of it.

All right, thank you. With that, Commissioner Johnson.

Hit the wrong button, sorry. Thank you, Chairman. I do share some of the concerns that's been mentioned. I'll try and touch on some that we haven't fully talked about. I do want to hit on, I'm with Dr. Scott on those one through five. I would rather see one lot go away and kind of spread that out a little bit more so it's more equal to, if we're going to go down to 32 versus the 36, because most of the other lots are within that 32, to touch on that. I do see where the iron fence was at first. I was thinking, Erin, that's masonry, but it does turn iron behind that. So I don't know. It is backing up to a pond. But where I'm more concerned with the fence is one of your requests is to where the school district bus barn and tennis courts are should be according to our... zoning to have it be masonry. And I personally would like to see it be masonry for a couple of reasons besides the fact that it's border. It's going to be between homes and it gets a little bit of what you touched on, Aaron. The noise between tennis courts and the buses coming in and out at six in the morning to go pick those kids up. But a concern I have is that wooden fences need to be repaired and maintained. and this is gonna put it on the, you've got the kids that are gonna be running up against it, buses and tennis balls and everything else, and we're now gonna put it on homeowners to keep their fences maintained that's adjacent to a school district property, or we could say that we're putting it on the school district to help to maintain a wooden fence. And when you're asking for a variance for it, I would like to see that stay masonry so that it's masonry all along there so that it's blocking off the school, between the school district and the homes and there's no maintenance issues that usually come in with a masonry fence. I don't know how my fellow commissioners feel and you're going before council. You know, we just recommend we don't. But I would like to consider that. I did hear when the neighbors were talking about um the homes on um to be one-story home levels i actually support what you're saying they're the lower homes a lot of times when we have people that come before us what they were asking for is the reverse problem they're already higher than those homes are going to be so um i'm not so sure that you should be having to just do the one story so i i just wanted to make that statement i do um If you were going to do it, I mean, it would be more like matching the homes like the one lady had talked about, but I'm not even sure that I think that that should be a requirement for you. So the key pieces, and then I like the idea they have 10 trees in their yard. I do know these are a little bit smaller. They're 32 mostly, except for the ones up front. So I could see eight, but I would like to see that some of those trees go back in the backyards of some of these homes. I do think that that fits more with the aesthetics that we have here in Keller. And especially when we've got all this school stuff going on, too. So it just makes it be more like a park setting. But. That would be my key things. The lots maybe taking one lot out of those first five so you could spread that out a little bit more. And the masonry fence I do think really should stay masonry against the school property. Thank you.

Thank you. So it's actually not been, I don't think it's been brought up yet, but when I saw this proposal, all I could do is stare at that gigantic bus parking lot and the lot's right behind it. And I mean, it's free market economy. I would never would I ever buy a house that backed up to a bus parking lot. But I'm also, and I'm not a big environmentalist like my counterpart here, but also I'm just worried. I think there's like 40 buses that park in that lot. And when they fire them up in the morning, And if the winds are from the south, I mean, I don't know if they can smell diesel exhaust up in Gena States, but these folks definitely are going to get potentially unhealthy air quality. Like, have you studied that? Are we concerned about that at all? Because, I mean, I live, gosh, I think I live 400 yards from 151 Coffee, and I can hear their music. Like, the sound travels that far. Odors are going to travel further. So have you looked into that at all?

Well, you know, obviously that will be a factor for anyone that buys, especially those lots 16 through 18. You know, it is what it is. There's not much we can do about that.

Yeah, I mean, obviously I think the fencing takes care of that. I mean, yeah, it's just, to me, I'm like, my initial reaction to this was like, I don't think, like, I don't know that I would support this getting built because I think that, like, it's proximity that is just so strange to me. I don't think that's, as I studied it, that's not my position that I'm like a no on the whole project, but I just think it's very, I don't know. I mean, y'all got to sell it. Someone wants to live in Keller bad enough, I guess they'll have a yard that smells like diesel exhaust, but.

I'm guessing you're not a buyer for one of the homes on lot 16 through 18. Can I interest you in lot 8?

I already got my spot over another part of North Calgary. We're not leaving. It's just strange to me. It would be like a... 3,600 square foot lot backing up to a Walmart parking lot like that. It's just like, you just don't see it. It's very strange to me. But I get your, the lot is what it is. The school district doesn't want to sell their bus parking lot. So, I mean, and they just built those tennis courts on the last bond that got passed in town. So, they're not tearing down their tennis courts. That's really it. It seems like there wasn't a lot of thought in there because it's just a reality. Everyone else is kind of, answer the questions. I guess the one thought to what one of the residents said, are you all open to not just to building the fence where it belongs on the property line versus where it is today? Sure, yeah. We would build it on the property line or on our side of the property line. Obviously, there's going to be a two-foot gap on each of their fences. Are you all good with connecting those fences? I'm sure we could work something out. There is a quest for the irrigation. I think doing the fence is appropriate. I don't think that you need to sod it and move the irrigation. But I think moving that fence is just a good thing. Again, I'm confused why that wasn't done. If the fence isn't on the property line, they should have just put the fence where it belonged in the first place. But you're dealing with that, and I appreciate you going above and beyond. From that perspective, I mean, I'm supportive of this. Godspeed selling those lots next to the bus garage. But, I mean, this is a great property, and you did a really good job. The one thing I will say is I am 100% okay with lots one through five. I... I've said this before I think it is unreasonable on land then again I think this is also annexed into the city of SF 36 I don't think it this is property that someone was like this should be SF 36 I think it just got put there by default and I think it's completely unreasonable just because that's how our county law works and our city law works so we're like we can't down zone it when it's not a down zone if no one intentionally zoned something um in that manner, and it's not like that in our FLOP that was done five years ago. So I'm 100% okay with FLOPs. One through five, I think they're great. I don't think you need to cover them just to make them wide.

So anyway, in support.

Thank you. Dr. Scott?

Thank you. Thank you again. I'm 100% against what you want to do in one through five. I did the math. If you were to take away six and add 6,000 square feet to each one of those, that would make them one through five, 34,000 square feet. To me, that makes it more reasonable, and it goes along with what it is in the gene estates, close to 36,000 square feet. And that's my, how do I say that, proposal. Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Scott. Commissioner Schlegel?

Thank you. Yeah, unique shape property for sure, right? So I know that was a lot of work. I just want to commend both parties for being so collaborative. I think that's really refreshing. You've got to get this through council, right? So if it makes sense to remove one of these 22 homes and make them all closer to 36,000 feet, that's going to be a decision you and your team will have to make, right? But provided that you can accommodate these basic requests, to make their backyards right, I think you're all doing the right thing. Again, you've got to get it through council and you know them as well as we all do. Sure. If 22 is the right number, it's the right number. If it needs to be 20 or 21, you guys will make that decision. But I would just encourage you to keep working together To make it right for the existing homeowners. I think you're doing the right thing. That's what we're trying to do.

Absolutely All right, I see that we have a motion on the table Motion to approve e3 Second all right, so any other comments All right, we appreciate you listening and your attention to the comments provided to you. So let's take a vote. I All right, that passes 4 to 1. You will be before city council on October 20th. All right, item E4 is a public hearing to consider a request for the future land use plan amendment from semi public and low density. single family to medium density single families for 20.93 acres, legally described as lot one, block three of Keller High School subdivision located on the north side of Johnson Road, approximately 2,300 feet east of Johnson Road and Borland intersection and addresses 901 Johnson Road.

Thank you. Some background here. Of course, this is the associated FLOP amendment with the previous rezone request. The applicant is requesting an amendment from semi-public and low-density single family to medium-density single family for about 21 acres north of Johnson Road. See the proposed land use map from the applicant there. Just a reminder of our residential land use categories in Keller. Medium-density single family refers to the $15,000 to $35,000 The surrounding land use designations, properties to the north, east and west are all designated low density single family and then to the south semi-public. On September 10th, the city mailed out 28 letters of notification to all properties within 300 feet of the subject site. Staff has not received any written support or opposition to the request. The commission has the following options when considering this flip amendment request. Recommend approval as submitted, table the agenda item to a specific date with clarification of intent and purpose, or recommend denial. And if recommendation is provided tonight, the application will be forwarded to the October 20th city council agenda. If you have any questions, staff is available.

All right, so this is a public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this, this is your opportunity. Seeing none, we have a motion to close.

I have a motion to close the public hearing.

Thank you. Commissioner Lice? Second. All right. All in favor, please take a vote. All right. That passes. So are there any comments? This is an opportunity to present for the Flop amendment. We have a motion.

Motion to approve E3. Second.

Thank you. Shall we vote? On E4.

Motion to approve E4.

Thank you.

We're not going to have public knowledge on this, and we're not going to talk to anybody. We're just voting on it ourselves now.

No one came up during the public hearing. Okay, public hearing.

Thank you. Sorry.

No, that's all right. Thank you. All right. We'll vote. All right, that passes. All right, this will also go before City Council on October 20th. We are a recommending body. You have another opportunity to be persons to be heard at the City Council meeting on October 20th. So please make sure that the City Council hears your vote and your concerns and comments so they will hear this on October 20th. With that, do I have a motion to adjourn?

We don't need one, but motion to adjourn.

All right, we are done. Thank you.