Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the regular meeting of the Frisco Planning and Zoning Commission. We are gathered at 6101 Frisco Square Boulevard, and the time is 630. The Planning and Zoning Commission consists of Frisco residents appointed by the city council. Tonight, commissioners present are Warren Ruiz, Michael Howard, Sean Merrill, John Kendall, and Steve Kong. My name is Tiffany Wells. Representing staff, we have from Development Services, we have John Letler, Jonathan Hubbard, Gilbert Urena, Rolandia Russell, Sean O'Quinn. Arielle Winfrey, Asa Woodberry, Kaitlyn Venezuela. From engineering, we have Joe Fitz and I forgot Jennifer from developmental services. Engineering, we have Joe Fitz and Toyin Fahimli. I'll get it one of these days. fire we have Alyssa Barstow and legal we have Ryan Pittman did I forget anybody Next on the agenda is citizen input. If you wish to address the commission regarding any items that are on tonight's agenda, you may do so at this time. Please complete a blue speaker card and approach the podium. Prior to your comments, please state your name and address for the record. Our meetings are recorded, so please speak directly into the microphone. Please address all comments to the Commission, not to the members of the audience or any applicants present this evening. To ensure there is enough time for all to speak, please limit your comments to a maximum of five minutes unless you must address the Commission through a translator, in which case you may have a maximum of 10 minutes. Please note the Commission cannot discuss or take specific action during citizens' input on items not posted not on the posted agenda except to provide a statement of specific factual information in response to an inquiry or to recite existing policy in response to an inquiry or indicate that the matter may be placed on a later agenda. Is anyone here to speak for citizens input? Are you speaking on a case or just in general? Okay, so when we get to that agenda item, and then just make sure you turn in that speaker card, and so one of the commissioners will tell you when it's your time to speak.

Okay.

All right, seeing none, next item on the agenda is approval minutes. We have two minutes to approve. The first one is the approval minutes for the special planning and zoning meeting on June 3rd.

Move to approve the meeting minutes from the Special Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on June 3rd.

Okay, I have a motion by Sean.

Second.

Second by Warren. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed, seeing none, motion passes 6-0. Next minute is from the regular meeting on June 9th, 2026.

Motion to approve the meeting minutes from the Regular Planning and Zoning Board meeting on June 9th.

I have a motion by Sean.

Second.

Second by Steve. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, motion passes 6-0. The next item is the consent agenda. The consent agenda consists of routine and non-controversial items. Any commission member making such requests prior to a motion and vote on the consent items made consider items individually. Any members of the audience wishing to make a comment on consent agenda items may do so with the majority approval of the commission. We have items four through 21 this evening, and I have items four, six, and 12 being pulled. Any other ones?

If not, I'll make a motion to approve consent agenda items five, seven through 11, and 13 through 21.

I have a motion by John. Second. Second by Sean. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, that motion passes 6-0. Let the record show that Sean Merrill is leaving for items number 4 and 6. So item number 4 is the conveyance plat, the creek on 121 block A, lot 1, CP26-0013, owner, East Group Properties, LP, Wazir Trucks.

Thank you and good evening, Chair and Commissioners. The item that was just read into the record was submitted on April 27, 2026, and the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a 30-day extension on June 3, 2026. At this time, the applicant needs additional time to address staff's comments, but unfortunately, the applicant reached out after the agenda was finalized and posted. Therefore, you do all have an updated staff report and recommendation before you this evening. Staff recommendation is to approve the applicant's request and to withdraw this item. And with that, I'd be happy to take any questions.

Do we have any questions or motion for item number four?

Item number four, I move to approve the request to withdraw this item.

I have a motion by Steve.

Second.

Second by John. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, that motion passes 5-6. 5-0. I mean, 5-0. Thank you. Okay, item number six. which is the conveyance platform FM-423, long-star edition, block A, lots one through six, CP26-0015, owner FM-423, long-star commercial LLC, and get to Mandra, Inc. I need a motion on item number six.

I move to approve item six on the consent agenda.

Okay, I have a motion by John.

Second.

Second by Michael. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Seeing none, motion passes 5-0. On to item number 12. Let the record show that Sean is back and Michael is, Michael Howard has left the diocese. Item number 12 is the open space plan and site plan for Preston Trail at West Rowlett Creek, Block A, Lot 1, OS 26-0037 and SP 26-0049, owners Preston Trail Ministries, Inc. So I need a motion.

Motion to approve item number 12.

I have a motion by Sean.

Second. Second.

Second by Steve all those in favor Aye Opposed seeing none motion passes 5-0 Let the record show that Michael Hauer is back. Next we have our public hearing. Tonight we have nine public hearing on the agenda and I want to review the process. Each public hearing item is preceded by a staff introduction of the request. The applicant is then permitted 10 minutes to make his or her presentation to the commission. Following questions of the staff and applicant by the commission, those wishing to speak are welcome to address the commission. All speakers, including the applicant, need to complete a blue speaker's card and provided to the administrative assistant if there are organized groups in attendance we suggest that you select the representative to present your position please avoid repeating what has been stated by previous speakers other than stating that you agree with their comments the time limit is five minutes per speaker to ensure everyone has a chance to speak the commission members can vote to limit speaking time if large volume of people are wishing to speak please note that you only have one opportunity to speak, repeat appearances to the podium are not permitted. After all persons have been given the opportunity to speak, The public hearing portion of the case will be closed and no further testimony will be permitted unless the case is tabled to a future date and the Commission includes in their motion to continue the public hearing at a future meeting. After closing the public hearing, members of the Commission may have questions for staff or the applicant. Please note the Planning and Zoning Commission only makes a recommendation regarding zoning cases unless the Commission disapproves the case and the applicant does not appeal the disapproval, final action requires a public hearing by the city council. You are encouraged to contact development services staff as to when the case will be considered by city council. So.

Real quick correction, we only have six public.

Oh, six, okay. Six, correction. Okay, item number. 22.

22.

um the conveyance plat a point east industrial block a lots one through seven cp two six zero zero one six owners fields point east investment partners lp and fhq development partners lp

Thank you, Chair and members of the Commission. The item that was just read into the record was submitted to the city on May 26, 2026. Staff has reviewed this project and found that it does not comply with all city standards, zoning ordinances, and policies. So this evening, this item is before you all for this approval. I am happy to answer any questions. This is not a public hearing item. Any questions for staff?

I'll make a motion to disapprove item number 22 for the reasons identified in the staff's report and delegate to staff the authority to provide a written statement to the applicant for the reasons for the disapproval.

I have a motion by Shawn.

Second.

Second by Steve. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed, seeing none, motion passes 6-0. Item number 23, the final plan of the Bettis Estate Block A, lot 1, FP26-0004, owners Bettis Chad and Christina Recoverable Trust.

Good evening, chair and members of the commission. This item is before you today because it failed to meet the city's codes, ordinances, and engineering standards. For the reasons outlined in the staff report, it is recommended for disapproval tonight. I am happy to answer any questions. Questions for staff?

Just reviewing, there's just a few items they need to clean up on their survey.

Yes, that's correct.

So they have a notary for making sure the names match up and everything.

Correct.

I move to disapprove item number 23 for the reasons identified in the staff's report and to delegate to staff the authority to provide a written statement to the applicant of the reasons for the disapproval.

I have a motion by Steve. Okay. Second by Michael. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, motion passes 6-0. Item number 24, Open Space Plan and Site Plan, Point East Industrial Block A Lots 1 through 4 and 7, OS26-0041 and SP26-0055, Owners FHQ Development Partners LP and Fields Point East Investment Partners LP.

Thank you, Mayor and members of the Commission. The item that was just read into the record is before you all with a recommendation of denial this evening. Staff has reviewed this project and found that it does not comply with our zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, engineering standards, and other applicable policies. And so the recommendation is for denial. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay, any questions for staff or motion?

I move to disapprove item number 24 for the reasons identified in the staff's report and delegate to staff the authority to provide a written statement to the applicant of the reasons for the disapproval.

I have a motion by Steve.

Second.

Second by Sean. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, motion passes 6-0. Item number 25, public hearing replant, Frisco original donation, block 14, lot 15, RP26-0012, owner's city of Frisco.

The item that was just read into the record is before you all this evening for approval and the purpose of this reply is to combine the old original donation lots as one lot and to dedicate a 30 foot right of way along Second Street. This plot does comply with the site plan that was approved in 2024 for a guy goes parks redevelopment. The recommendation before you all today is for approval as submitted. I'm happy to answer any questions. This is a public hearing.

Motion to open public hearing.

I have a motion by John. Second. Second by Sean. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes 6-0. We are in public hearing.

Seeing no one here to speak, I move to close public hearing.

I have a motion by Steve. Second. Second by Sean. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, motion passes 6-0. We're closed for public hearing for item number 25. Any questions for staff?

I recommend item number 25 for approval.

I have a motion by Shawn. Second. Second by Michael. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, that motion passes 6-0. Item number 26, signed variance, Northfields Multifamily Block A, Lot 5, V26-0007, Owners Northfield Investment Partners, LP.

Good evening, chair and commissioners. The item read into record is a variance request to section 701619 of the signed ordinance for a destination sign within the Northfields Mixed Development MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN APPROVAL FOR AN INCREASE RADIUS DISTANCE FROM 3800 FEET TO 1100 FEET ALLOWING QUALIFYING OFFICE RETAIL RESTAURANT AND ENTERTAINMENT SQUARE FOOTAGE WITHIN THE FIELD WEST DEVELOPMENT TO BE COUNTED TOWARDS THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT OF 200,000 SQUARE FEET OF VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION. The signed ordinance states that Planning and Zoning Commission shall determine that request meets three of the following criteria in order to approve the variance request. Four criteria are, are as follows with staff comments on each of the criteria. One, the proposed sign shall not adversely impact the adjacent property, visibility, size, and the like. Staff comment, the proposed sign will not adversely affect adjacent properties. The sign's height and maximum sign area comply with the requirements of the sign ordinance. Two, the proposed sign will be of unique design and configuration. Staff comment, the proposed sign is generally consistent in design and configuration with the other development sign approved within this mixed-use development that will be located off Dallas Parkway. The sign is not unique design or configuration. The special exception is needed due to restricted area, shape, topography, or physical features that are unique to the property on which the proposed sign would be erected. Staff comment, the proposed sign location is within Northfield's subdivision, subdistrict, which is physically separated from the remainder of the mixed-use development by the PGA golf course and intervening planned developments. This separation creates a unique circumstance that distinguishes the property from areas within the development. Four, the special exception substantially improves the public convenience and welfare and does not violate the intent of the ordinance. Staff comment, approval of the variance will enhance public convenience and welfare by improving way finding for visitors traveling from the northern portion of the mixed-use development. The sign will reduce confusion, improve way finding, and assist in directing traffic to its intended destination while maintaining the overall intent of the ordinance. Staff finds that the proposed sign meets the ordinance, the intent of the ordinance, relates to location, height, area, proximity to University Drive to the north, and separation from single family zone, which is over 1,000 feet. The only deviation is the radius distance. Given the overall size of the mixed use development, which exceeds 2,100 acres, and the fact that permits have already been approved and issued, For shelf space for more than 200,000 square feet of dedicated office, retail, restaurant, entertainment uses within the field's development, staff finds that the request remains consistent with the intent of the development destination sign, regulations, and recommends approval of the request. Happy to answer any questions.

Okay, do we have any questions?

We'll start with a motion to open public hearing.

okay i have a motion by john second by sean all those in favor aye any opposed seeing none motion passes 6-0 we are in public hearing for item number 26. seeing none move to close public hearing I have a motion by John. Second. Second by Sean. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed, seeing none. Motion passes 6-0. We have closed public hearing. Do we have any comments or questions to staff?

That's a big old sign. That is true.

And I think the thing is, they're approved on the signage. It was really the only thing was the distance.

Yes, they're going from a reduction from 38.

3,800 to 11.

8 to 11. Correct.

I just had a question on that. What's the implications of increasing the distance that we're calculating for the signage?

The implications? None, really. They're just wanting to use the Westfield development approved permits for vertical construction for that development sign.

Okay. If nothing, I'll make a motion to approve item 26 as recommended by staff.

I have a motion by John. Second. Second by Michael. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, motion passes 6-0. Item number 26. Item number 27, public hearing specific use permit Highlands at Panther Creek addition block A, lot 14, SUP 26-0004, on this FM 423, 25 acre, partners LLC.

thank you chair and members of the commission this request is before you all this evening to rescind the specific use permit that was granted by city council in 2024. so since that approval the applicant has since decided to go to another go towards another direction and not do a child care facility here and have submitted a letter requesting to rescind the SUP, and we are in support of this, so the recommendation is to rescind SUP 309 for a childcare facility.

I move to open the public hearing.

I have a motion by Steve. Second. Second by Sean. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, motion passes 6-0. We are in public hearing for item number 27.

Seeing no one here to speak, I move to close the public hearing.

I have a motion by Steve. Second. Second by Sean. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, public hearing is closed. Any comments? Motion for staff. Number 27.

I move to approve item number 27 as recommended by staff.

OK, I have a motion by Steve.

Second.

Second by John. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, that motion passes 6-0. Item number 28, public hearing zoning SWC independence in May Z25-0009, owners Maine and Independence 5, LLC.

Thank you, Chair and members of the Commission. So this item came before the Commission on December 2025, which you all recommended a vote of approval. However, after that meeting, it was discovered that there was an issue with the zoning sign. And so when that item went before the City Council on January 20th, it was remanded to the planning and zoning commission for a vote so during that meeting when this item was remanded back to the planning and zoning commission we the staff had committed to encouraging the property owner to have an hoa meeting with the residents that came out in opposition of this meeting and so since that time um i've been on a slew of emails where the applicant has reached out to at least one hoa to schedule that meeting they were able to get have that meeting scheduled and held this past weekend on june 20th at 10 a.m i was later copied on an email that sent the flyer out so that meeting was held a couple of the concerns that were raised were likewise that was raised at the city council meeting that spoke to the traffic noise accidents in that intersection which our traffic engineer has provided an outline that was included in the staff report that addresses that con that concern and so this evening just to walk down memory lane just a little bit this i this project initially came before the city in 2023 with the request for a straight retail zoning. At that time, the recommendation from staff was for denial. The Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended denial for that item because the uses were too broad in terms of what is allowed in the retail district. staff felt like it left it open. And at the recommendation of the commission at that time, we went down the path of negotiating a plan development with this property owner. They've worked with staff since 2025 to kind of get here. So this has been in a pipeline for a while. And so this evening, our recommendation is for approval as it was when the item was came to you all in December. Staff has not, as well as the applicant, has not made any modifications to any of the exhibits that have been provided. The exhibits that are before you all this evening is the exhibits that came before you in December. All right, so in terms of the concerns that the residents raised when we were in the HOA meeting, they spoke to the operating hours and the noise. They spoke to parking in the FAUE on the southern end of the property, which is in fact not on this property. is not included in the property boundaries so there were concerns that people would park in this location that is not a part of the property that's private property so they wouldn't be allowed to park there we do have our traffic engineer here if you all have questions regarding the the contents of the report that spoke to the numbers of traffic accidents in the intersection and the comparison that was done And so we have, since that January meeting, we have re-noticed for this item. We ensured that the zoning signs that were on the property bared the correct project number. We also sent out property notifications to the property owners once again. We did send out the email to the HOAs within 1500 feet. So when the packet was finaled, we had received a total of 21 project input forms in opposition. Of those oppositions, only three of them fell within the 225 feet notification buffer that we are legally mandated to send. Since the agenda has been finaled, we have received four additional letters in opposition, and five in support which you all have in front of you all today and so we are recommending approval um just like we did in december with the amendment that smoke shops be a prohibited use i'm happy to answer any questions is the applicant here and wish to speak go ahead we just ask you fill out a speaker card when you're done if you haven't already

Did you already fill out a speaker card? You don't have to? Okay, sorry.

My name is Shiva Khandro. I'm at 37841 Sarovar Trail, Frisco. And this is Sam, our professional engineer from Spires. So like Rolandria mentioned, we were here in 2023. for a straight retail zoning. At that time, some concern was having a gas station at the corner and the drive-through pad sites. That was the concern. And then the commissioners at the time requested us to work with the staff and get the PD, even though this is five acres, not 15 acres. And we worked with the staff very closely. And we have agreed to all the restrictions, no drive-throughs, no automotive uses, no gas stations, and no big box retail. And only quality retail uses will go there. And we also agreed for enhanced landscape buffers that will integrate with the park because the park is west of the site. and we agreed to have a single-phase development, like single-phase development meaning we have to develop all of the buildings in the development in one phase, otherwise we would not get the COO, which is also in the part of the PD, you can see in the PD package. And we agreed for the development agreement, voluntary development agreement, And we also signed the Covenant Restriction Agreement. And we believe this PD enforce a very quality development and that will to the park and if you can look at the PD exhibits, the other thing we agreed with the staff was the buildings would not look like contemporary what you see everywhere right now and they look much like the structures inside the park. That was also something part of the PD and we agreed to it even though the look and feel is not what we want and we agreed with the staff and we made sure that when someone look at the buildings, they look like part of the park, they are not like a modern structures you see everywhere else. So staff spent like hundreds of hours on this one. And we spent our engineers spent over the last three years to get where we are right now. And we believe this is one of the quality product that stuff we are proud of.

Thank you. Yeah, I want to wait for your questions or open public hearing.

Motion to open public hearing.

I have a motion by John. Second. Second by Sean. All those in favor? Aye. We are in public hearing for item number 28. Sean would read the names and then...

We have two speakers today in favor and seven in opposition. The first two speakers will be, I'll read the first name, you can come on up, and the second one, just kind of, you'll be on deck. The first speaker is Vamsi Kodaly, and then after that will be Srinath Proppali, will be second. And again, you have five minutes

Good evening, everyone. My name is Vamsi Kordali. I live in Frisco, 10967, Texas, 75035. I've been a Frisco resident from 2018, not that far from this property, like around less than two miles. And I do work from home and have a couple of small businesses, so the reason I'm in favor of this project is a close proximity to my home to start my own business, to open my small business firms here because I work from home and looking to meet my clients at a good office space, which is right next to the park, and also would like to have some good restaurants nearby that's in favor of this project.

Thank you.

I just want to mention something. When you're talking back there, we all can hear you up here. So just recommend if you got a phone call or something, step out, please.

Next, we have Srinath. And then after that will be Valerie DeMartin.

Hi, my name is Srikant Rathpally. I live at 5867 Aylworth Drive, Frisco, Texas, 75035. Yeah, I went through all the package, the agenda item, and we see that this is apt use for this site, like a small development five acres with more restricted and city, like the developer is agreeing to all the city conditions. And this is, we support this project because it is most apt for this site. We think this is most apt, like we don't want somebody else to own this site and don't want other users to come up here. which we don't have control. So we support this project here. Thank you.

Thank you. So next up is the opposition folks, and we have Valerie D. Martin, and after her will be Jordan Pujol.

As you come up to speak, could you raise the mic so we can hear you?

Hi, I'm Valerie DeMartin. I'm in opposition of number 28 because...

Sorry, we just interrupted. We asked everyone to say not just their name, but also their address.

Oh, yes. I live at 8682 Gerbera Daisy Road in Frisco. And I am opposed to this building of the retail space because it is right up against a development of our community in the Grove. And there are houses that look right over into that area there. And it's already brought a lot of congestion and traffic already at that intersection. I've heard a few accidents from my house and I'm in phase nine and that is phase 10. And I just feel like that space is not a very large space. We're going to have big community development going on for retail space on the corner of the north side of Custer and Main and the south side of Custer and Main, which is already zoned for retail. I don't know where it's at as far as in development, but I know there's signage up there that it's going to be developed. So that makes sense to me, to put the retail space on Custer and Main on both the north side and the south side, because that's a very busy area. But this area is more residential, and it also has the park. And I just feel that there would be better use to do something more natural with that space, extend the community park, a walking park, gardens, something else besides more retail space. We're gonna have plenty of retail space. So that's my point of view. Thank you.

Next we have Jordan Pujol, and then after that would be Kim Stone.

Can you hear me okay? Yeah, okay. Jordan Pujol, I live at 14604 Whippoorwill Lane, Frisco, Texas, 75035. Good evening. Tonight I come to speak to you all not just as a member of the Grove, but as someone who lives directly across the street in the open-end cul-de-sac facing this property. I am also here on behalf of multiple mothers on our street who are currently home putting their children in bed and cannot be here. I want to start off by saying, as the house located the closest to this property out of the entire Grove area, I have not received notification by email, mail, phone, or in person regarding the rezoning of this land. Additionally, in order to find out that a meeting was being held, a public meeting was being held with any surrounding areas, I had to reach out to our HOA personally, speak to three different people that then notified me that 48 hours later on June 20th, a holiday weekend, the builders were holding a last minute public meeting for information while multiple surrounding HOA members as well as community members were all out of town, including myself. Myself as well as every other family I've spoken to in this area are very concerned with the possible rezoning of this land for commercial space. Many of us like myself have spent our life savings in order to build a dream home to grow our families. One of the greatest aspects of our street is having a closed loop with less traffic in order to let all 20 of the children that live on the street ride bikes, play and learn outside as well as a direct access to the park that's right across the street. This is a family area that already has multiple amazing grocery stores, restaurants, churches, nail salons, as well as over 15 currently empty retail spaces that have not yet been rented within a mile of our homes. Not only is adding a commercial space not needed in this area, but is completely changing the aesthetic feel and safety of our children for our children. Sorry. On top of that, it'll affect property value, traffic, noise, and the character of the whole area. When driving around Frisco, there's not one corner that has houses that is directly facing a commercial building. Not one. There are many backyards, but never a front yard like mine will be. Picture walking your kids outside in the morning to look directly at a restaurant bar or smoke shop in a strip mall that... when you spent over a million dollars to live in a family-friendly neighborhood, or a bar and restaurant with live music playing late at night leading random people to walk directly down your open court. We want to keep this as a thriving family area that is safe for our kids to play and grow. I know to the builders this has seemed to be a long process. I know they mentioned a couple years. But if they can give the city multiple years to agree on something to go here, all we ask is that the city and builders work with us for a short period of time to fully get our questions answered and work together to make sure whatever is built is in the best interest of everyone in the area. I know that Courtney from our HOA has already reached out asking for a new public meeting with the builder so we can have proper notice for residents to come understand and get their questions answered before anything further is passed. I look forward to this meeting happening and fully understanding how my family and our investment will be affected before this city starts pushing forward with a plan that can directly affect the surrounding communities. I ask that today we disapprove or postpone any decision being made regarding rezoning this area. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Kim Stone. And after that will be Selva Sivasankavan.

Good evening. My name is Kim Stone, and I live at 8452 Revere Lane in Frisco, 75035, which is the Liberty Crossing subdivision, which when I turn right out of my subdivision, this will be on the corner at the light. So just to let you know, when I was driving here today, it took me almost five minutes to turn right out of my subdivision. I would never be able to turn left if this retail space is there. There's already a lot of traffic there. We have no light that we can use to get out of our subdivision. So I really am concerned, even though I read the traffic, and we are in the top 20 of intersections with crashes, I really shudder to think what will happen if this development goes forward. i also am concerned because of the park that when you look around frisco there are no parks that have a retail space directly adjacent they might be down the street they might be across the street but there aren't any in that and i really think it goes counter to what frisco's developmental vision is when you look at like their plans going forward And I also am concerned because there is a Frisco ISD space that is also adjacent to that, and that is also kind of a concern when potential development of that space will happen. So I ask you to really consider disapproving this rezoning, and I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Next we have Selva. After that will be Shrikant afterwards.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Selvas Vesankaran. I live in 14872 Kemps Landing, Frisco. I oppose this project mainly because of four reasons. As the previous speakers talked about, in Frisco, none of the community park, none of the community park has retail next to it. Why Walker's Park has to have that, number one. Number two, You all agree that people call East Frisco, which is east of Preston Road. If you have noticed, you guys definitely understand so much development happening. The population is growing in a steady phase. Given that scenario, this park, the Bacchus Park, doesn't have any amenities except baseball diamond and soccer field. I know if you do a quick survey in this room, at least 60% of the people are interested in Pickle Park. So we are working closely with our council members, city council and others to see, to extend this park. I want the city to see how they can work with the property owner and see whether they can extend this park to have more courts amenities. Secondly, the safety of the park users, church goyers, and Frisco ISD in the future development. I'm pretty sure, I think the city official never talked about anything about whether they reached out to the Frisco ISD trustees about their comments on this new rezoning. So, I'm afraid if this has been approved, the Frisco ISD may not even develop anything because of the retail next to it. So whatever the future plan they have, that is jeopardized now. So for that reason also, I want the commissions to consider to reject this proposal. And I think the city official talked about number of, if you see the packet, it talks about 21 apportion when they finalize this packet, plus out of which only they consider three apportion valid. I don't know what are the criteria for that, but Whatever the criteria city has to qualify the apportion, you clearly know that 21 apportion, a friend, the submitter took time and submit their concern, so I want you to consider as a whole, not just three. Probably John can explain us what kind of qualification to you guys and us so that we all know how they qualify those apportion. And I think I talked about the comments from the ISD. I don't know whether just this, from the PNZ Commission perspective, I don't know whether you guys have any rules or any recommendations procedure to push back the city officials to do, go and get that feedback from the Frisco ISD. I know people, when I reach out to city, I got the answer saying that two different entities, I need to really reach out to the ISD, but I did, I didn't get any response back from the trustees, so I just want you to consider, because Frisco ISD already losing enrollment, and probably um I think they definitely I don't know whether they really know this rezoning happening so I want at least from this commission to request the city officials to get the feedback thank you thank you sir next up we have a shrikant and after that will be casco Sheila

My name is Shrikant Bhima Varapu. I live at 14675 Viparville Lane, Frisco. I am stone's throw away from this proposed property. I can literally see it. This is the south side of Main Street, the grow. That's kind of where we live. The builders did not put anything like a physical barrier. There's no wall there. There's not enough trees there. I can see the property. The noise levels are already pretty high. You can see a lot of honking from where we live, even from inside the house. And taking a left turn onto Main Street from where we live is already a nightmare. So I think if you go down this path of allowing a retail center to be in that vicinity, it's just gonna make it so much more harder on all the residents that live in the neighboring areas. Traffic is bad, noise levels are bad. Having any retail center is just going to alter the characteristics of the area. It's a beautiful place, a beautiful park. There's a church not too far from there. My kids literally walk over right across the street and go to the park. and having retail center in the hours of operation, and it's just gonna disturb the peace and quiet of the area. So I request the commission to disapprove this proposal. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Next is Kashukaila, and the last one will be Banyu.

Just in case, if there's anyone that didn't get to speak, please grab a blue speaker card and fill it out.

Hello, my name is Kasukela Sitapati Rao. I live in 14699 Vipperville Lane, Frisco, Texas 75035. So I'm in support with the other speakers of mine in going against this retail space. There are a number of points I'll just quickly cover. One is the safety, safety of the children. There are a lot of small babies and kids, and literally they all play around that cul-de-sac. The opposite side is not a place to have retail. It's not a place to have retail. There is enough retail all around the place. I can understand that the Custer and the Main Street, all the four areas are retail. If you go along the Main Street on the Coy, there's enough retail. This will stick like a sore thumb, and there's a nice, beautiful park. Extend the park. and that will be safe for the children as well as for all the families. Also, our property value, this has come out of our savings. As you all know, the property values are anywhere from 1.2 to 1.8 million US dollars. As soon as this retail will come, I'm guaranteeing that the value of the property value will fall. The last but not the least, as council members, Have you taken a trip to this place? Have you actually seen where it is coming? And how across the house is there? Have you actually seen? You will, if you put your hand on your heart and say, hey, if I have a house here, I would not allow any retail coming across. Simple as that. It doesn't need so much of use it for, you know, make it a nice, extend the park, you know, have other facilities. But please, please do not have any retail there. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Last, we have Banu .

Hey, my name is Banu . I live at 14805 German Town Lane, Frisco. This is Liberty Crossing, which is across the proposed property. I appreciate the property owners around either giving their true feedback. If you've been to that place, see the junction, how many accidents are happening. Recently, there were like four car accidents. Cars... turning upside down. Anyone passing that neighborhood will definitely say something has to be done. Safety first. If nobody is paying attention to the safety, the neighborhood will become into a commercial zone where people can't even turn right or left. forget about living for longer. So I oppose this commercial development. Very simple. You come here for expectation that your neighborhood will be more residential, more family friendly. safer for kids. Kids need to know that, okay, I played in this park, and this is what my life would look like eventually when they pass by. If nobody is paying attention to those aspects and keep on building commercial, which is not really required, the fiscal aesthetics will change. I request the council members and the commissioner to pay attention to the growth of Frisco, future of Frisco, and then see if we can reduce these commercial pop-ups coming everywhere. If somebody puts a board even before the zoning has approved, saying these are going to be a restaurant and a bar, and that triggers saying that, okay, there may be smoke shops coming up, or something that's going to come like a drive-thru, we don't know what is being allowed, what is not allowed. BEING RESIDENTS NEXT TO THE PROPERTY, WE ARE FEELING LIKE THIS. IMAGINE SOMEBODY IS COMING FROM A DIFFERENT STATE OR A CITY, RIGHT? WHAT FEELING THEY WILL HAVE LOOKING AT THIS, RIGHT? SO PLEASE FOLLOW DUE DILIGENCE, FOLLOW THE PROTOCOL. DON'T GIVE LIKE A THREE-DAY TIMELINE SAYING THIS MEETING IS ON 20th AND 23rd, YOU SHOW UP FOR THE COUNSEL AND OPPOSE. GIVE ENOUGH TIME. FOLLOW DUE DILIGENCE AND THEN If really Frisco City Council decides they're saying the park needs to be extended, what it takes from the taxpayers? Put it into your ballots or whatever channels you have, right? Maybe neighborhood people will come forward. Either city can buy back the property or try to give the solutions which will help the communities around. Okay, that's what I can say. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that wishes to speak that haven't spoke on this item? I need a motion to close public hearing.

So moved.

I have a motion by John. Second. Second by Sean. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, public hearing is closed. Any comments for staff?

I'd be honest, I'm probably gonna be long-winded, but if anyone wants to go before me, I don't want to jump ahead.

Go ahead. I'll say this to you. I raised two boys. I coached Little League baseball. I was at Bacchus Park all the time, and I wish there was something close by when practice was over, when games was over, that was convenient to go get something to drink, something to eat with all of those kids. I wish there was something like that on that corner at that time. It would have been fantastic.

Anyone want to go before me? Okay. All right, I appreciate everyone that comes out. We do take this very serious and read through all those comments and actually appreciate, like I said, we got those 21 letters, most were copy and paste, but it was emphasizing the things that there was concerns of. But give you a little historical background. I just moved two years ago. I used to live at that exact corner. It's at States at Shadow Park. So I lived walking distance. That's just right just north of it. There's a little thing that the Catholic Church owns in that neighborhood. So extremely familiar with this area. Lived in that and have driven all those streets. While living there, I would have loved to have a retail center, but we'll come full circle. I want to make sure I understand, the applicant currently, or is it being recommended with a smoke shop, or has that just been added that they're asking for that?

No, no, no. We are prohibiting the smoke shop.

Good. All right. I would say I would not be support that at all.

No, no, no. So when the item came in December, we were going through the endeavor of updating the zoning ordinance to prohibits smoke shops and had it as a conditional use with certain parameters of where it could occur, which I believe is a thousand feet from residential.

Okay, so it doesn't matter what they do. If this were approved tonight, no smoke shops would be allowed at this property, which is great. As they mentioned, this came before us three years ago. And so when it came for three years ago, they wanted what we call as a straight zoning that would have given them a lot of flexibility. just saying we may or may not put a gas station. We may do a commercial, but it might be an office. And we as commissioners, we're not okay with that. We didn't like having too much flexibility, especially a gas station. I don't think this is a good corner for a gas station. And so we sat up here and we told them no. And we said, we want to see something different. It's still the same owner. They've come back and they've gone through the development process with our city staff. A lot of you, this may be, knew of, we do this regularly, but it's a very vigorous process. This isn't something that happens in a week or even in a month. This goes over six, probably even a year, as the staff go through and kind of vet this property out, making sure open space, making sidewalks work, make sure the parking works, meeting with traffic, park, fire, all those people are a part of this to get to before you all, including us, even get to see this. And so when staff put that much time into it, that does weigh on us. But then also we get the feedback from the residents. So I want to address those. And when I say no particular order, the top two I always say is safety and home values. After that, there's no order of priority to me. But those are extremely important to me. So if we just start with safety, safety I don't see a concern here because – We have to remember this still is a six-lane road by a six-lane road. This is a major road. And it was prepped that way for growth in this area. Before the Grove was even there, we were preparing for this type of traffic in this area. Knowing that the both the east sides are residential the north is owned by a catholic community and then knowing that there would only be one commercial corner really mitigates the type of traffic we'd have along here and as we go up and down independence there's only um one corner of commercial on that on the el dorado and independence corridor And then when we go south down to Rauder and Independence, we have one commercial corner with the 7-Eleven, something behind it. In the north, maybe that. There's very, going north and south, there's very minimal commercial property in that area. And so, yes, as you go on Main Street, there's a lot that's being built, and we realize that. Safety, children is, I don't think the commercial is the concern. It's the six-lane road is the concern, and we have to realize that.

No speaking.

Sorry, no speaking. We gave our chance. So my job is just to share my thoughts. And then you'll, again, if it is approved or denied, you'll have an opportunity at city council. Home values, living right there, I would have loved to have a commercial at this corner. I feel strongly, because it is important, like you say, you've put a lot of money, is your home values don't go down. I've been on this commission for 10 years. We have built self storage and people said their home values would go down and their home values went up. We've built in commercial throughout the city and home values have gone up. I just personally, with the standards that we have and knowing that the developer signed a development agreement with the high standards of Frisco, I feel extremely confident that home values don't go down, and that's okay to feel different. With regards to, I'll go and, I wanna go over the main email that I got, there was five points. Incapable with surrounding uses, I mean, at a corner, those are the uses you want. The reason why a park wouldn't be ideal, you don't want to put a park at a, we call it a hard corner, at a six lane and a six lane road. That's not a good use to tuck a park. If you're talking about safety, we wouldn't want the children playing at the corner of a six lane and six lane road. and then in addition to that when the city is you know looking you talk about property values what could hurt it is if the city were to start buying hard corners because we usually like our parkland and floodplain or more in the community and usually get the land less expensive and so if the city had to pay five or ten times x for a park at a hard corner the city would pay that money and then obviously city is it's us as taxpayers that are paying that and so that could most definitely hurt us if we start buying really expensive real estate for for parks and not getting as much of an roi on that um so that i incompatible i think this is very compatible for this corner traffic and safety concerns we touched on i i i can have joe if needed but i we we sat down for quite some time this traffic was was addressed for this growth and the growth of the grove uh in place impact on neighborhood character and quality of life that is opinion i'm not asking that your opinion is wrong But there's a lot of people, as one of the air commissioners mentioned, he would have loved to have one up there. When I was living on that side of town for seven years, but specifically on the hard corner for two and a half, I would have loved it. My neighbors were asking me. They knew I was on the commission back then. John, when are we going to get commercial on this side of town? So there are some that are opposed to it. There are many that are actually requesting commercial on this. Not smoke shops, which will be prohibited, but there is a demand. And the developer's taking the risk. He's willing to go spend probably close to, we'll call it eight figures, by the land to develop it. If it fails, it's his failure. I would tell you, if he's willing to spend that type of money, he believes there's a market for retail in that area. Potential impact of property values we touched on. Lack of demonstrated need. The market kind of decides that. Developers, you know, we have to give credit They wouldn't build it if they didn't think someone would come. You know, we talked about, someone mentioned there's already empty buildings. With the city, we always hear like, why don't we get more offices here? And they tell us, well, build the office first and then they'll come. Well, we want these certain type of retail. We've got to build the retail and then they come. A lot of times we've got to have what we call shell space. And then as that, it has to sit a little bit and then they come knowing that it's finished. A dentist doesn't want to come and just wait two years for his building to be built. He wants to know that there's a shell there He moves into town in six months and all of a sudden, you know, they want to come there or a restaurant. So that's why you sometimes see that. Talk about a development agreement. I love that it's one phase development requiring them to build everything up front. Car accidents. This one stuck out to me. I lived on that side and I would not disagree. There were a lot of accidents up and down Independence. And what's interesting, I think I asked Joel, it's right around number 20 busiest intersection. I just moved two years ago to this, I think second busiest intersection in Frisco and traffic accidents is actually drastically less. And so it's interesting that the one that has the second busiest intersection has very little accidents and this one has a lot more. It's sometimes is a sense of driving. know when i was over there there was not a lot of people having great driving skills i'm not saying it was a cause of it but that was just a factual thing is i'm in a busy intersection and we're not having accidents and less one but there are a lot of people not putting signals on not making correct turns and things of that sort and it was there were more accidents in a less congested area um maybe one of the last things i'll mention One of my very first cases 10 years ago was very similar to this and had the same concerns of everything that was mentioned. The only difference that case was called the Grove. And so when we had that case, people were saying, do we really need more housing? Do we really need more commercial here at Custard and Maine? They're worried about the traffic. And I voted for it because I thought it would be a great development. And I'm glad I vote yes, because today you all are here because of that. But there was a time that people didn't want the Grove for almost the exact same reasons that were mentioned tonight. And so I don't want to always shut the door behind the next person. I do believe this is the right location for a development like this. And so for that reason, I would be in support of it.

Anybody else? Steve?

Yeah, I've got comments. Does anyone else have something unique? No, go ahead. Okay. I'll concur a lot with what John just said as far as this being a small retail site on this corner. I would not be concerned if I live there, and I live by a lot of commercial right now. It's so small, I think staff has done a great job- But talk and please, sorry Steve. I'm sorry. Sorry Steve. Yeah, sorry about that.

If you need to talk, you can go outside and talk.

You may not be aware, the acoustics in here are designed for a concert. And so you can whisper to each other from around the room, and it just carries over to each other. So I think some of us have learned that the hard way over the years. So anyway, I think staff's done a great job trying to mitigate what's going on at this corner. Small amount of retail, compatible with the park. If there's anything else that John didn't address, The concern about the cul-de-sac across the street, I'm a little puzzled by that because it is across a six lane thoroughfare. And so if this was immediately adjacent to a cul-de-sac, I could see the concern of, we've had people before that were worried about cars literally pulling out of their parking space at a retail and immediately turning into a cul-de-sac and immediately turning onto a residential street. So I'm a little puzzled by that. I understand the great view that you guys have from across the street there. I did look around town to try to find, and I will agree that it's very rare that people are facing commercial or seeing commercial from their front yards. But I did find at least a half dozen different places around town where if you were standing on the front porch or standing in the front yard, they're looking directly at commercial. Now, which came first, the commercial or the housing? I didn't check that to see. so i understand losing the view corridor you have right now there's a great um there's a great tree line that was preserved when the road was first widened but it doesn't extend all the way north up to uh um all the way up to main street i wish it did because if that if that natural tree line was still there today i don't even know if we'd be having much concern about the the view corridor there So those are just my general comments there. My concern is gonna be more internal. This is more of a staff, couple of staff questions here. I'm really hung up on the idea of having a park next door where I hope the developer would be very successful in finding tenants that are compatible with the park and where warren and his boys and other people can literally walk over ride their bikes over ride their scooters over to get to the development that's immediately adjacent to the park i'm concerned about the layout of this site right now and to me it does feel like the we're increasing the the potential risk to small kids, families, anybody that chooses to come to the park from the north side there does not seem like a great path to take. And I do wish that the developer and staff had found a way to tie in better to the park on the northwest corner over there off of Main Street. My second concern would be coming from the park or from the fields directly into the site. Again, a great job with the open space there. And I think the natural tendency would be if I was a family with kids at the soccer fields there, I wanna go straight into that open space. I wanna go straight across to the ice cream shop or whatever opens up there. And the way it's laid out right now, I just am picturing a lot of kids and families and all of them walking, scootering, biking, rolling, whatever it might be in the drive aisles. and mixing them with cars. So my number one concern is pedestrians and young kids and people interacting between the park and even a potential school down to the south of that ever got built there. That is my number one concern that gives me pause with this site is the current. I see it truly, honestly, as an increased risk. And it's one of those kind of light bulb moments when that hit me My question really became, how would I feel if this becomes a very popular retail corner, lots of kids coming and going from the park, and we start having trouble between cars, kids on bikes, et cetera. So I did wanna ask Joel a question. So Joel, on the northern entrance up there coming off of Main Street, there's a lot of times and places where we require commercial areas and restaurants and stuff to have a pedestrian connection from the sidewalk along a street like Main Street into the neighborhood to get to like say building number one there on the north. And so my concern is I'm just picturing kids and families on the sidewalk along Main Street and their first physical place i guess they could cut through the grass across the fields and cut into the parking lot um but they also then the really the first place they could enter into the building to get to to get to building one would be the drive aisle there and i don't know if there's any way at all to mitigate that to where we don't have people turning right off of main street into this development in a conflict with to get into the development from the north.

So, let's see, I'm not used to drawing on this. See this sidewalk connect, whoop, I didn't mean to do that. Hopefully they can remove that. Nice blob. There we go. That sidewalk connection was our primary focus of like what's the best pedestrian connection from the park for any activity to then go to the retail. And so this fire lane on the south is the one that goes into the park. People are used to using that to go to the park and park along it and access the park facilities and so forth. So that made sense to be that's the location where there would be a good connection there. If you're at the park and you want to walk to the retail, you wouldn't be near Main Street at all. You'd be down on the south, adjacent to the park. That was our primary focus there, to have the pedestrian connection.

Okay, thank you for that. And that's why I was kind of late to come to this, really, this epiphany, because... I love that. I love that extension down there because the developer's having to go out of his way. I don't know if the residents realize that, but he's having to go and get an access easement from the adjacent landowner in order to provide that great connection down there on the south.

Yes.

The more I thought about though, the reality is we can tell people, kids, families, hey, go down to the south and use that available sidewalk, but we know how human nature is. I think, what's that? Shortest distances. So I know from the fields there, having had my kids play sports and been on the fields there, You don't stop and think where's the closest sidewalk. You just look and see where's the closest ice cream place, place I can get a drink or whatever it might be. And you just kind of make a beeline for that. So my number one concern would be the open space is very attractive, very well done, very appealing. I really can't imagine people that are in the fields not walking directly across the parking lot, parking aisle to that open space. It's just hard for me to imagine them going down to the south. And the same thing if you're playing soccer or doing whatever sport up on the north, seems really appealing if you're trying to get into building number one that you would want to go in closer to that northwest corner than to go south and cut through the parking lot or go all the way down to the sidewalk my last comment joel on that is that along main street if you look in front of the park we the city did an amazing job I could see having my young kids playing in that park and feeling free to let them ride their bikes their scooters all over the park even out next to Main Street it's so well done by the city that if my little kids whatever wanted to ride their little bikes closer to Main Street it's so well designed I wouldn't be concerned about that The second the kid leaves the city area, the park area, they suddenly are now next very close to Main Street. So the kid is doing what they're supposed to do. They're in the park, they're in the safe area, and all of a sudden they want to go next door to this retail development, and suddenly it becomes a very different situation for them. So I don't know what can be done at this point, because it's one of those pre-existing sidewalks, right, that we put in way back when for for convenience, not for safety or aesthetics or anything like that. We just put it in because we wanted to have something there. So just for my fellow commissioners, if you have some ideas or suggestions that would make this layout safer or create some more comfort with that, I'd be happy to hear that.

One thing I want to clear up. When you mentioned safety of sidewalks, the sidewalks that's been installed do meet our safety requirements. I want to be very clear on that.

They do.

Yes, I understand.

We have a minimum requirement and it does meet that. And one thing about the sidewalk along the park is that it's all city property. So we could meander as far into our property as we wanted. And it wasn't infringing or taking away developable space. Whereas we can't require any development anywhere to have give up more for the sidewalk than our standards because that would be a taking. And so we can't require them to provide more space from the road for the sidewalk. It does meet our standards.

Understood. And do you happen to know, are these sidewalks up on Main Street? Are they the minimum five feet from back of curb?

Yes.

They are? Okay. And just to answer on that, I agree about their safety standards, John. We've had this discussion a million times. For an adult, for a 10, 15-year-old, perfectly fine. for the five-year-old on their bike or the kid on their scooter, suddenly five feet from back of curb on Main Street may not feel as safe and may not be as wise for them. And so I'm just saying, I'm talking more about the contrast, the difference in they're just tooling along and they feel great and they're kind of not really worried about the road. And all of a sudden they're much closer to the road. Whether it meets our technical safety standard or not, doesn't mean that families or parents feel good about that.

It's also the design of the majority of the sidewalks in Frisco and of all of our surrounding cities. So they'll be used to it if they bike or walk anywhere else along, anywhere in our city or other cities.

Okay, and I think a lot of families don't use sidewalks on major streets for that reason. But that's just, that's neither here nor there. So anyway, if anyone has any other concerns, my concern back to the open space in the middle and the lack of a direct connection over to the open space.

So I got a few things real quick. I've lived in Frisco since 2008. I live off of Coit, just south of Maine. So I live right near here. I drive by here multiple times a week. I was so excited when Chipotle finally opened their restaurant on Main Street. Because we were like a... A restaurant desert. We had no restaurants in that area, and now we've got plenty of restaurants. So I really am looking forward to something coming in here. I know it won't have a drive-through, which is good. It'll be probably a nice sit-down restaurant if something like that does come. I agree with what Warren said earlier. My kids played soccer over there at Bacchus, and I would have loved to have been able to walk over there and had an ice cream or go over here and get something to eat or drink right after soccer. So I really think this is a great place to put this. Like John said, I really don't think that traffic is a big concern here. It's a big concern everywhere throughout Frisco. This intersection is not unique. I'm a traffic engineer. I've seen many accidents around Frisco, and I just don't see that this is an extremely bad area to put commercial development because of safety, because of traffic. I do have a question, John. Hopefully you can answer. The comp plan. What does the comp plan show that this area should be on this corner?

That was shown residential.

Residential on that corner. To me, that wouldn't make sense to try to squeeze in a little residential in that corner right there.

Can I ask a question on that, John? I thought it said public use for the comp plan on this corner.

While he's pulling up, I wouldn't support, I mean, it'd be such a tight neighborhood of town homes.

This is not a residential corner. No, I agree.

On page seven of the staff report, John.

Well, while you're looking at up john I did have one other comment also so i'm just curious i'm looking at an aerial map and I honestly I don't see any houses that front this maybe off to the side. You could see this development, but not from your front, I mean if you're looking at you walk out your front door you're not gonna be looking at it you're looking at other houses across the street for me. I also see a brick fence a little bit farther away from the intersection but then to the north closer to the intersection there is a nice steel metal fence that goes around there to kind of keep kids within that neighborhood not just crossing mid-block. I also see plenty of trees along most of there not right at the hard corner because of sight distance issues but So again, I just don't see that being an issue.

Yeah, so you're correct. It's shown as semi-public. The other three corners are shown as residential. And just a little history, that northwest corner, that's been zoned retail for a long time. From Independence over to Custer Road, north side of Main Street, all of that was zoned commercial one. And so when the rezoning took place to what Grove North is developing, all of that was mainly commercial one zoning and multifamily. And then I think the southeast corner was rezoned from retail to residential. There's a couple things I want to mention. Number one, when it comes to property values, The appraisal district determines the property values. The number one basis for determining the property values is comp. It's not what's developed in the area. So if you go to their website, they say these are the things they look at determining the value. Number two, regarding zoning and ISD, we notify the independent school district, both all four school districts, of what's happening within the city of Frisco. What's been submitted from plats to site plans to zoning cases to specific use permits. Most school districts do not involve themselves in zoning cases. Just want to say that.

I just want to finish up by saying I'm most likely going to be supporting this.

Anybody else?

Can I go back to my question? Any suggestions or ideas on getting people from the park to the development, to the open space, in a better manner than just using the sidewalk on the south would be great for anyone who's down to that and it's convenient? I guess my question really should be on parking spaces. Are we at the bare minimum of parking spaces? Whereas losing one or two parking spaces in the original design would have been a problem for the development.

Yes. So they have met the parking requirements for all the proposed uses. That's on the exhibit.

Yes. But are they at the bare minimum or are they over the minimum? I couldn't remember that from looking at it.

I believe they're at the minimum that they're required to provide.

I think so.

Steve, real quick, I am looking at an aerial map of the park, and I remember when my kids played there. I think they got it right. I think they've got the pedestrian access in the right spot. If you look at the rest of the park, where the parking is and where everybody's at, they're well south of Main Street. They're not right up against Main Street. So they're going to be going down that road, that connection road. Maybe there could be some additional signage or something. I don't know, but...

that's i'm not as worried as you are of people going up to main street i guess i'm looking at the park there you see all those winding paths along the ponds the main entrance road to the park i've been in the park many times you know they were there and i don't see many people over there to be honest with you okay but that's what i was looking at was that i was really looking at the soccer fields i do think the number one from the soccer fields i think kids and families are just going to walk straight across the drive aisle to get to the buildings And I'm sure that happens a lot of other places too, and if that... There's some things we can't control. If that's not...

I'm looking at the aerial. So I see the drive aisle that runs east-west coming off of Independence. Looks to be a sidewalk there that goes over to this property that we're discussing tonight. So if you look... What am I missing?

Okay, John, if you could look at the open space... If you're looking at the open space that was created to benefit the park and to make this better, and you're standing in the soccer field directly across from the open space.

That's not a soccer field.

Well, it says soccer fields. Well, that's what Google Maps says, soccer fields.

Yeah, soccer fields are way over here in the southern west corner.

either either way on google earth there's a big there's fields right right next to it adjacent to it so all i'm saying is that the direct path to the open space is through the cars through across the drive aisle and if there had been space for a direct connector that would have been better to kind of funnel people there we we could try to design this but we're not trying no john i'm going to disagree with you right there we're not trying to design it I'm pointing out what's very likely gonna happen. Nature, as we said, and so our job is to look and see is there anything that might be missing that might make it better, might make it safer for the residents. And I believe that if they had a direct connector to the open space, it would be a safer crossing for them. And we'll do that.

Commissioner Cohn, when we were going through the review, that was something that came up in discussion. And as Joel has stated, there is an established sidewalk to the south. So us putting in a sidewalk connecting to the open space, it essentially goes nowhere, we don't know how that portion of the park could redevelop, and to back them into a corner to create some sort of connection there. And so based on the recommendation of our traffic engineer, as that's the safest connection point, that is where we and the applicant have agreed that the access is best suited.

Okay, I'm not sure I follow that because the open space will always be there regardless of what gets developed next door. So no matter what's next door, the people wanting to, they see the open space, they want to get to the open space. People that are in those fields are going to take the path of least resistance, the most direct path.

So the point she was trying to make is that if we put a sidewalk on this site and point it towards the park, the park is never going to have a sidewalk connect to it.

Understood.

And so it would be a sidewalk that just leads to, you know, just a field, which is not typically what you do with sidewalks because you don't want to trick somebody, especially ADA-wise, to say that this sidewalk leads somewhere and then it just ends in grass. You don't usually do that with sidewalks. Usually it has to connect on and go, connect on and go on to other routes and so forth. It usually doesn't just lead and stop at the edge of a field. That's just not the way you do sidewalks.

Okay, that's a good answer, thank you.

If nothing, I'd like to make a motion to approve item 29 as recommended by staff.

Second.

I have a motion by John, second by Warren. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Nay. I have a nay. And what's your reason for that, Steve?

I think the site could be designed in a safer manner for pedestrians and small children.

OK. So I have a nay by Steve. Motion passes 5 to 1. Item number 29. Public hearing, zoning ordinance amendment. Amendment to the zoning ordinance ZA26-0005, owner, City of Frisco.

Good evening, commissioners. As some of you will remember, this was discussed with you all during a work session in April of this year. Staff is proposing amendments to the zoning ordinance as it relates to non-conforming uses non-conforming structures and non-conforming sites so as the city approaches build out these are items that we deal with more and more frequently and under the current ordinance there's very vague language that has allowed different interpretations that has allowed people to find loopholes. So what staff is attempting to do here is to address the vague language to ensure consistency and to ensure everyone is treated fairly and consistently across the board, as well as adding language that addresses non-conforming sites because today we address non-conforming uses and non-conforming structures but we're getting more and more non-conforming sites so you have a recommendation for approval this evening happy to answer any questions any questions for staff motion to open public hearing

I have a motion by John. Second. Second by Sean. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, we are in public hearing for item number 29.

And none moved to close public hearing.

All right. I have a motion by Warren.

Second.

Second by Sean. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, public hearing is closed. Do we have any comments for staff or a motion?

Motion to approve item 29 as recommended by staff. Second.

I have a motion by John, second by Warren. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, motion passes 6-0. Item number 30, public hearing zoning ordinance amendment. Amendment to the zoning ordinance ZA26-0006, owner city of Frisco.

Thank you. Similar to the last item, this item was discussed with the commissioners during a work session back in April of this year. This is relating to Frisco's non-residential design standards. As all of you know, Frisco is known for its high-quality design standards. Staff works tirelessly with applicants on making sure that that happens, but oftentimes we do receive a lot of pushback And unfortunately we do not have the teeth in the ordinance to support our position. So this ordinance looks to kind of address some of those items that we're frequently working with staff on, or applicants, including but not limited to requiring mullions to be dark in color rather than silver. So that's looking at bronze, black, charcoal gray, prohibiting tinting of windows on the ground floor. So that's intended to encourage that. pedestrian environment, encourage the interaction between the sidewalk and the ground floor, requiring side and rear elevations that face streets, public ways, and open space to incorporate features just like they would be on the front. It's important that The architecture, that the materials don't just fall off on the backs of the buildings, that those backs, those sides are just as elevated as the front, especially in those situations when they're fronting onto open spaces, fire lanes, public ways. looking that the stairs, risers, ramps, and like structures are clad in brick, natural stone, or tile, just to avoid blank, dull concrete. And then lastly, bringing corporate identity language to this section for clarity. So the city, the zoning ordinance already addresses corporate identity. However, it is in a different portion of the zoning ordinance, so that can sometimes trip people up. So just moving it to this section so that everything that pertains to this is all in the same place. Do you have a recommendation for approval? I'm happy to answer any questions.

I'll make a motion open public hearing.

Could I ask a quick question first? Sure. I apologize for this last minute question, but I do feel it would be appropriate for me to abstain from this vote. Would that be appropriate or acceptable?

Yes, sir. You are not obligated to vote, and so if you wish to abstain, you're free to do so.

Do I either recuse myself and leave or just not vote?

If there's a conflict of interest issue, then yes.

It's not a financial or substantial interest. I just feel it's not appropriate.

Okay. Then in that case... As a designer. Yeah, I understand. yeah just one clarification that if you're abstaining in a situation where there is not a legal conflict of interest your vote would be counted and it would be recorded as a no vote so just that's a one of the consequences of choosing not to vote yep third time's a charm i'll make a motion open public hearing

All right, we have a motion by Shawn. Second. Second by Steve. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed, seeing none, we are in public hearing for item number 30.

Seeing no one to speak, I'll make a motion to close public hearing.

I have a motion by Shawn.

Second.

Second by John. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes. Anybody opposed? No. OK. No.

I will say I applaud you for doing that, Michael. I am a traffic engineer. I don't really design buildings or sites. So I'm more on the traffic side. So I'm not going to recuse myself. I just want to make that clear so that people aren't asking why I'm not recusing myself. I do think that these new standards, you're modernizing what we've got. I think it's bringing it up to modern times. One of the reasons why I love living in Frisco is because of the standards that we have, especially in the non-residential areas. I think it's what sets us a little bit apart, and it really comes to fruition when we go to visit other cities such as Carmel, Indiana, when we went to look at that, just to see what they're doing and bringing a lot of that back to Frisco. And we're already doing a lot of that. So I appreciate this for updating this. And I'm all in favor of making it more difficult for developers to go against what we expect and what we want. There's always room for variances and wiggle room, but I would like it as ironclad as possible up front. So I applaud this.

I had a question, Jonathan. Something that we talked about during the work session, my concern about the first floor and the tenting of the windows. Sure. Is there a mechanism where staff could approve a variance on that requirement about the tenting of the windows if an applicant came in and said, here is why curtains, blinds, other window coverings would not be sufficient for my business. Here's why we can't design the building differently to put these medical exam rooms or whatever they might be in an interior room or something. I understand not having the tent on the first floor is a general rule. That should be our standard. But is there a mechanism to get a variance

Yeah, there's some authority. It's not really fair to use the word variance. The zoning ordinance speaks specifically to what can and cannot get a variance. Okay. So it's not that formalized of a process, but there is some staff level, director level wiggle room in those. A mechanism or a way that's- For facades in general.

Okay, good. That's what I want to make sure that we didn't have a frustrated applicant and frustrated staff where they're both looking at each other going, okay, we both agree this would make sense, but I don't have the ability to allow this.

Okay.

Go ahead.

I'll make a motion. Hold on. Tinted windows. Are you talking about spandrel glass?

We're just talking about the tinting of windows. So spandrel glass would be tinted. We would not allow spandrel glass on the ground floor.

I'll make a motion to approve item number 30. And it's submitted by staff.

I have a motion by Sean.

Second.

Second by John. All those in favor? Aye. Nay. And then we have a second. My nay is because I think number nine is my issue.

Number nine.

Yeah, I think we talked about that in the work session.

Can you clarify what number nine is just so we know?

Number nine is the part about the mullions being dark in color. The dark mullions.

Okay. Yeah. Understood, yeah.

So we have four yeas, one abstention, and one nay. Got that, Jennifer? But motion passes. OK. Next item is item number 31, results from the June 16, 2026 city council meeting.

The one on fields, that was approved, as you all recommended.

This isn't on. Okay.

The fields updating of that ordinance was approved. The one on the columbarium, council decided to go with a specific use permit on that. So staff's recommendation that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved was to allow it as an accessory use when you have the religious facility on the property. But if it was going to be The primary use on the property, then that would require an SUP just like a cemetery and mausoleum. So that's what council directed staff to prepare an ordinance that's going to be a specific use permit regardless.

John, to clarify, whether it's a primary or a secondary, it will require an SUP?

That's right.

Okay. Thank you for that. John, can I ask a question? There was an agenda item on the council's agenda today regarding the vacant P&Z position.

And that is not going to be filled until September.

Okay.

We get a new mayor. And his first meeting will be on July 7th.

Yeah, I don't know the actual status. Yeah.

And for, I just want to remind, we do have a meeting on July 7th, and that will be at 5.15, and so the four commissioners that will be here, you will need to be here.

5.15 here?

Yes, here.

Just so we're sure, which four commissioners?

Four commissioners.

Raise your hands.

Okay.

Okay.

Unless you die. Be an accountability partner. Are we? Is there a request for? Hey, we do have EMS. They're really good.

Is there a request to go into closed session?

I was just going to note real quick that council also acted on the cell tower. up on the Panther Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility, that SUP for that tower recommended approval of that.

Question on that September appointment. So when they appoint that person at September, will we have that person for the first meeting in September or the second? No.

Council generally makes their appointment at their second meeting in September. All the appointments will become effective as of October 1st.

So would that include, because I think Steve is terming out with them.

So we'll have two new people in October.

All right, so we'll have two new commissioners in October.

Because Warren and I are both up, and then Warren gets to stay.

I'm not terming out.

Right, but you reappointing.

Hopefully.

So while we're talking about month of July is the time is right up midnight until midnight on the 31st. That's the time to for people to apply for boards and commissions.

And reapply, don't forget one.

And you only have to fill out one application. I did have one commissioner that filled out two applications. City Secretary looked, oh, there's the same one. Threw it out, threw out the rug wood.

Can you say that again, John, so the public knows applications are due by midnight on the 31st of?

October, not October, but August 1st. So 1159 p.m., July 31st. Make sure you have it in there. And you can't do it until July 1st comes up. And I've known people that have started the application, but they just don't hit the send button. That has happened before. So you got to hit the send button after you complete it.

all right item number 32 schedule future discussion items i know we need to go into closed session and so i need a motion to recess into closed executive session as authorized with section 551.001 by the texas open meetings act specifically texas government code 551 that point zero seven one private consultation with the city attorney to receive legal advice regarding citizens input and related issues and that would be that motion so moved okay i have that motion by sean second second by john all those in favor aye we are officially in closed session I need a motion to reconvene from closed executive session. Motion to reconvene. I have a motion by Shawn.

Second.

Second by Steve. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, we are reconvening at 836. And as a result of the closed session, there is no action for the commission to take. Is there any other schedule or future discussion items? All right. Warren, this is your favorite part.

Move to adjourn. Second.

We have a motion by Warren, second by Sean. All those in favor? Aye. Meeting is adjourned at 836 p.m.