Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, and welcome to the regular meeting of the Frisco Planning and Zoning Commission. We are gathered at 6101 Frisco Square Boulevard, and the time is 06:30PM. The planning and zoning commission consists of Frisco residents appointed by city council. Tonight, commissioners present are Steve Cohen, John Kendall, Sean Merrill, Tiffany Wells, and Warren Ruiz. My name is Britney Kolberg, and I'm your chair.

Representing staff tonight are from development services, John Letler, Jonathan Hubbard, Rolandria Russell, Sean O'Quinn, Ariele Winfrey, Asa Woodberry, Jennifer Morgan, and from engineering, we have Joel Fitz and Toyin Fahwahimi. Nailed it. Nailed it. From fire, have Alyssa Barstow. And did I miss anybody else?

Alright. The next item 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 members of the audience or any applicants present this evening. To ensure there's 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 ten minutes. Please note the commission cannot discuss or take specific action during citizen input on items not on the posted agenda except to provide a statement of specific factual information in response to an inquiry, to recite existing policy in response to an inquiry, or to indicate that the matter may be placed on a later agenda. Do we have anyone that would like to speak during citizen input?

Alright. Then the next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes. Do I have a motion on our February 10 minutes?

Motion to approve February 10 meeting minutes.

Motion by Sean. Second. Second by Tiffany. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes five zero. Next is the consent agenda. The consent agenda consists of routine and non controversial items. Any commission member making such request prior to a motion and vote on the consent items may consider items individually. Any member of the audience wishing to make comments on consent agenda items may do so with a majority approval of the commission. We have items three through 13 this evening. And it looks like we need a poll. You remember? Seven and nine. Seven and nine. Y'all have amazing memories. Do I have a motion on

I'll make a motion to approve items three through six, eight, and 10 through 13 on the consent agenda.

Motion by John. Second. Second by Sean. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes five zero. Alright. Let me read these in. Alright, site plan, Lake Crossing edition, Block A Lot 3, SP 25 Dash 0145, owners SC Legacy Drive Investments LLC.

Good evening chair and members of the commission. The item just read into record is before you today to update the exhibit. After the agenda was posted, it was noted that the incorrect exhibit was uploaded for this item. Before you today is the corrected exhibit and it is recommended for approval. I'm happy to answer any

questions. Excellent. Any questions?

Motion approved item number seven.

Motion by Sean.

Second.

Second by John. All in favor. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes five zero. Alright, item number nine, site plan Highlands at Panther Creek edition, Block A Lot 11, SP 25 Dash 0147, Owners FM 42325 Acre Partners LLC.

Thank you. The item just read into record is before you today to update the exhibit. After the agenda was posted, the applicant requested that the plan be updated to reflect the most up to date building height. The proposed building height does conform to development maximum height standards for this development. It is recommended for approval. The updated exhibit is before you and the height is outlined in yellow. I am happy to answer any questions.

All right, any questions for staff?

Motion to approve item number nine.

Motion by Sean. Second. Second by Tiffany. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes five zero. Thank you. Alright. Tonight we have four public hearings on the agenda and I wanna review the process. Each public hearing item is preceded by introduction of the request. The applicant is then permitted ten 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 speaker's card and provide it to administrative assistant. If there are organized groups in attendance, we suggest that you select representatives 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 a 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 to 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 the development services staff as to when the case will be considered by city council.

So the first item on our agenda will be item number 14. Looking for my other little notes. Oh, thank you. John's always here to help me out.

Best secretary.

It is the best secretary. Conveyance Platt Cobb Farm West Office Edition, Block A, Lots 7 Through 9, CP 20 Six-one, owners Dallas Panther Creek LLC.

Thank you, madam chair, and good evening members of the commission. The item that was just read into record is before you this evening for disapproval. This project was submitted on 01/12/2026. Staff has reviewed the project and found that it fails to meet the city subdivision ordinance, engineering standards, and or other applicable city codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, policies, or standards. Staff recommendation is disapproval for this project. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Any questions? The applicant here, would they like to speak? All right, so this is not a public hearing. Do I have a motion on item number 14?

I move to disapprove item 14 for the reasons identified in the staff report and delegate the staff the authority to prove a written statement to the applicant for the reasons of this disapproval.

Motion by John. Second. Second by Sean. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes, five zero.

Can I add something to the record there, just the authority to provide a written statement?

Yes.

A A typo. What's it supposed to say?

We need him to reread it or you can update the minutes. Excellent. Thank you, Steve.

Good catch.

All

right, so item number 15, open space plan Frisco original donation, Block 6 Lots 1 And 2, OS 20 Five-ninety 9 and PSP 20 Five-fifty 7. Owners, Amanda Embry Style LLC. Thank you,

chair and members of the commission. So the item that was just read into the record is before you all for denial this evening. So this applicant had this application has been submitted to us. We have reviewed it and found that it does not comply with all of our city standards, zoning ordinance and engineering standards. And so this evening it is before you all for denial. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for Rolandria? Would the applicant like to speak? If you can just state your name and address for the record. It looked like you already filled out a blue speaker card, so that's perfect.

Good afternoon, madam chair and members of the commission. I'm Hector Leon, 11000 Frisco Street. We are the civil engineering firm representing the ownerapplicant tonight. As staff just alluded to, we do not need a comment in regards to the double dumpster. This is the small property located at Main Street and 6th Street. It's called Style House. It's a small boutique and beauty salon. Oh, sorry. Owned by Amanda, the owner. I believe she's been there around fifteen years, you mentioned.

Don't quote me on that because it's fourteen and a half. But as you know, with everything going on mainstream, why not? She's trying to think outside the box what to be able to do with her property. And she has a decent leftover piece of property behind Hill Building by facing 6th Street. And she reached out to us about potentially splitting that into two lots to be able to engage small business for a ground lease or to sell that property.

As we approach staff for that, we as per the code, were required to submit a preliminary site plan. What I want to say is there's not a set user for that second proposed billing as of right now. She wants to be able to get a lot to be able to market this. So as we started laying this down, you can see how small the property is. It's roughly about half an acre, and there's an existing roughly 2,400 build square foot building there.

So we're barely able to fit a usable space of 1,200 square feet. All that being said, current code requires us to have a double dumpster for recycling or regular dumpster for any buildings over 2,000 square feet. And if I butcher half of the code, I'm sorry. But generally, that's what it states. And the existing building has about 2,400 square feet, which is requires to have a double dumpster for the existing building and a single dumpster for the proposed building.

The challenge we're running into is with how small the property is and how big this double dumpster enclosures are. We can't physically fit it unless we end up with two dead end drives, which is obviously not ideal. And by talking to staff, that's also not an ideal approach. This being a shop and kind of a beauty salon, we also don't believe that it will generate as much trash that if it were to be like a restaurant ideal. And with space limitations we have, this has been in Downtown Frisco and hopefully being able to be in our business there, we're kind of stuck with we can't fit that doll dumpster.

So right now we have one single dumpster for each building, And that's kinda where we're at in front of you. Look at the report, I think that's where it states that we're lacking that double dumpster for lack of a better term. So happy to answer any questions, but just wanna give it a little bit of flavor to what you have in front of you right now.

Any questions for the applicant?

Good evening, chairwomen and council. My name is Jeremy Starratt. I'm the assistant director of public works over environmental services. The reason that we do require the double enclosure for any building this size is for not only for the current owner, but for any future owner to have access to recycling at their facility. We want to make sure that that is offered to everyone without having to go back and create a new dumpster enclosure when a new business moves onto this property if that were to ever happen. That is why we're requiring or that is why the requirement is there and that is why we're asking for them to do this tonight.

Excellent. Thank you.

Do have a question. So I was trying to read through this, if we turn the dumpster, granted it goes into the fire lane, if they were next to each other, this would be conforming, but by splitting them up, it's non conforming. Am I understanding that correctly?

I believe the issue is that if it then they are split into two, the other, the singular side on the south side would have to have a single enclosure as well, if they're two if they're two separate lots.

Oh, they're two separate lots. Can there be, like, a shared easement? I'm just I was I was trying to, like, sketch this out. I mean, it goes five feet into the fire lane, but having them next to each other, it would it would work. But by separating them, if we had one trash and one recycling, could we still accomplish that by

So, yes, you could have so I think the idea is that it's the two separate lots, and so if there were two separate businesses I I understood. Right. But If if the the northern lot had two singles for it specifically, and then there was still another single on the South Side for the other business, that would be perfectly fine.

Yes, I'll let you go and then I ask.

Alyssa Barstow, senior fire protection engineer on staff, I just want to clarify that that's not a fire lane, it's a drive aisle.

Oh, drive aisle. Oh, thank you. I apologize.

Because you can't go five feet into a fire lane.

No, no, and I know that you can't. I guess I'm looking at this as downtown is everything's tighter in downtown. You've be creative. We get creative with our parking, we get creative with our architecture. We get creative on the space And I know we're plotting this into two different parcels, but do we get creative with it being downtown and saying, can they be two different parcels but have a shared agreement of that their dumpsters as, you know, as it's platted, that they have access to their dumpster and vice versa so that we can, you know, do things, more things in downtown?

Yes, sir. We are more than welcome to have that situation, except it we have seen historically that if two properties are sharing containers, we can only have basically one bill for the container. It cannot be split between two different parties, and so they would have to work together, and we have seen historically that sometimes that doesn't work out. One business feels like they're paying too much or too little, and then it doesn't work out between them to pay the bill for what's happening. If they were to have something like that, we are open to it, but that would have to be an agreement that would need to be shown that those two businesses would work together to pay the bill basically for the two dumpsters that would be there, but we are definitely open to that.

Normally, we see that as like a property management situation. We see that at like large, like targets and things like that, where there's multiple businesses. The billing would then go under a property management, and then the property management would collect the fees however they saw fit, but the city does not do that. We have a singular bill associated with a water account per dumpster.

Gotcha. And this may be a question, I forget you as I'm being educated. Don't if this is for you or Walandria. With it being downtown, I I I'm pro recycling. Granted, I don't know how much gets recycled. That's not a discussion here. These are just such small partials. I feel like we're limiting the potential of development. Is this a variance of going maybe in this downtown and small lots? Maybe we don't require two dumpsters.

I don't if that's a question for you or for a large artist. I'm just trying to get creative on. I love us people wanting to reinvest into downtown, but I feel like everyone so we might have to be creative. You know, as I know we have great standards and I love our standards. And maybe I need to hear for some of the air commissioners. I feel like we're splitting hairs to of still accomplishing another maybe great little coffee shop or whatever it might be down there.

We totally agree. The idea of the original concept of the double enclosure went into place in 2002, and it really was to allow for businesses to have recycling if they would like it. Right now, the the cart program is grandfathered, so we and it pulls our other vehicles off of the residential routes, slowing down all of that. So we don't do the carts anymore, and so it would have to be a dumpster if that business would like to recycle. And so the again, the reasoning behind it is to allow future residents or future tenants of this property to have a recycling program if they would like.

Let me ask this question.

Yes. Yeah. So,

Jeremy, I thought I heard you say that if the two could come together and have some type of shared arrangement, this would work? Absolutely. Okay. What I suggest that you do is follow through and with the disapproval, put it on the applicant to come up with an agreement that's suitable for environmental services, and then come back. Because we're not gonna get it resolved tonight.

I agree. Yeah. And this is education as I'm just yeah. I'm not saying let's negotiate on the dice, but I was just looking at was like

I hear

Jeff? Yeah, please. The challenge that they would face there is that the agreement would be entered into two businesses. One of which doesn't exist yet because the purpose of of the exercise is to divide the lot into two so that one could potentially be sold. So the opportunity to enter into a a joint agreement doesn't exist because the other business is not a party. But

Well, something you could do, though and so I'll direct this at the owner of the property. Property hasn't been subdivided yet. Correct? Yes or no? Yes.

We we

Will you come over?

Yeah. Hector, if you don't mind. Thank you.

So couple of things. So we did provide it at some

point a pipeline with the double dumpster trying to accomplish that type of agreement. It was suggested that that was not a preferred way to go, so we split it.

So

to answer that, the second one, yes, we want to split the property. For us to be able to get a conveying spot submitted, we had to go through process. So that's almost the only reason why we're going through this process. It was actually an extra time and expense that the owner didn't have even the money to pay. So if we could even get a conveyance plot before and then we need to come back in the future with a preliminary site plan, that's totally okay. But we were suggested that we have to do a preliminary site plan before we can do a conveyance plot.

Okay. I mean, so to subdivide the lot, this lot is already final platted.

Yes. Correct? This So conveyance plot is now already platted as as three lots. So currently, it's in an unconforming state.

Okay. But well, I understand. So, like, on subdividing, I think now are you the owner of the property? Are you representing the owner?

I'm representing the owner. Yes.

Okay.

They they they don't necessarily wanna go through this step. We're going through this step because our understanding was that it was required. All they wanna try to accomplish right now is subdivide the property.

And do what?

Subdivide the property. Okay. So if we could get there without this, we'll happily do

Well, to subdivide the property, you're gonna have to replant. Conveyance plat is not an option there.

I apologize, I might have

used Okay, the wrong

that's fine. So, yes, you gotta have a site plan approved to support the subdivision of the property and make sure that each lot stands on its own. But what Jeremy has brought up commissioner Kendall was asking, there's a potential of doing, like, some type of deed restriction. Citi's not gonna be involved in the deed restriction. That's something that you could do and review it with Jeremy to see if that's going to work.

That seemed to be a plaudible solution to this. So the action tonight would be disapproval. And what that means, you submit and you got a shorter review time to bring it back. But work with Jeremy to make sure we get the agreement that he's comfortable with, and that agreement has to be recorded at the county.

And I've got a question for applicant.

So

if we recommend for disapproval, is that the applicant I know you're trying to speak in their behalf. Would they be open to a shared agreement or would they say we'd like a variance that it it, you know, it I have that it's tabled and that it's just too separate and for this circumstance, there wouldn't be recycling?

There there will be open to a shared agreement. And as of right now, because we haven't been able to split the lot and market this out, it's not clear yet if it'll be like even a ground lease versus selling it. So, yeah, absolutely. They'll be open to a shared agreement, whatever will work best.

Okay. Good

to know. I do wanna say being that I live two blocks away from here, I really appreciate your design in trying to make sure that that driveway extends out onto 6th Street because currently, being that it's just empty land right there that's not usable space, that's a good functionality. So I appreciate what Commissioner Kendall is trying to do and being creative and so.

It's good to know it's not a fire lane.

We should have been better clarifying that since the beginning, sorry.

I just wanna kinda add on to what John was saying, and I don't know who office staff wanna answer this. Maybe this John wants to answer it, but I know the overall thing is, you know, people is trying to develop Main Street and downtown for the future. Is that something that they're looking into in terms of some kind of variance or something that will come into place to help accommodate future, I guess, development because this potentially could be a problem with other properties with having to meet a city code in a downtown development area and where some of our infrastructure, like he was saying, recycling now is where they have to have a truck that comes and pick it up where, you know, you might get another coffee shop or a dance studio and we were requiring them to do that. And I feel like we can't take every property owner to make them hope that in good deed that they will go ahead and have a variant. So is there something I know in some cities districts, they do special restrictions for those areas to encourage development, but not discourage people from coming through the process or feeling like that if they do come up with something that is always gonna be a denial because the way the code is written.

Well, let me put it this way. This is basically one lot today. Somebody decides to subdivide. We don't know. We don't know what that will be, but I'll mention like along the where we have, like, boxcar alley and when we're designing the the plaza, the parking garage, and so forth.

They're brought up about having a regional grease trap, other things, because every business is not gonna be able to pervey meet the code of, like, grease traps. Well, trash dumpsters. In that scenario, work with environmental services, and so, like, the Summer Moon and those, they'll be carrying their trash to the dumpster that will be there at Buck's Car Alley and 5th Street. So those are gonna be worked out into and it's it's not, I won't say impossible, very challenging if you're gonna have, like, regional trash and try to figure this out because development's gonna be changing in the downtown, and that what becomes the challenge. And so it will be on a case by case basis.

This is something internally that we discussed. Environmental services have been open on other projects as they come through, but this is a it's not a greenfield site where you get a new development and you can plan for all of this. This is you're working under constraints and each site's gonna be a little bit different.

Right. I'm just I'm just curious if that's something like as the city as a whole to possibly look at and maybe having some type of variance option, whether it goes to like board of adjustments or some kind of waiver mechanism to help future development.

Before we certify this document.

But one thing I prefer to do, not have everything before the Board of Adjustment, that some decisions can be made at the staff level. Because once you go before the Board of Adjustment, you have to prove hardship. And if you don't meet the criteria, it's not getting approved. So, I mean, a lot of this that that were done in the zoning ordinance of the year years where staff can make interpretation, engineering can make interpretation regarding engineering standards. That would be my recommendation. So I'll look at Jeremy because I don't know that section of the code if it provides for staff input as far as

Session.

Varying. I don't know. But it sounded like it did if you did, like, a shared agreement or something like that.

Correct. It never shared agreement. I mean, that really goes

You wanna go to yeah.

Really goes to utility billing and how the bills are paid at the end of the day. We have no control over that. The way it's set up through us is each individual dumpster is on a single water account, and so that water account has to pay for that trash. If you do have multiple tenants using the same trash and one tenant decides not to pay the tenant that is paying for it, there obviously could be conflict, and we have seen that in the past. Something like a property management agreement or some agreement saying that both properties will pay equally at the end of the day is something that we are more than happy to see and can work with, but that isn't something environmental services controls. That would be something that would be like a utility billing issue.

You had something, John?

Yeah. I just I just wanted to there's been a lot said, and I just kinda wanna add a few thoughts that I had. So in terms of this being a preliminary site plan and the applicant looking to you know, the purpose of this is to subdivide the property. You know, the users aren't at hand. One of the things that that we had originally talked to environmental services about, and I understand, they had some concerns that that Jeremy referenced, kinda seeing where this conversation is going, is for the purpose of the preliminary site plan is that the dumpsters could potentially be angled to have a Doyle enclosure that would serve the two buildings and then again this is a preliminary site plan.

So on the preliminary site plan, you would show a shared dumpster access easement, which again you're gonna need that access easement anyways despite going to next steps and needing this agreement because you're gonna have two dumpsters and they're gonna cross property lines, so that easement's gonna need to be there. So that's going to that's going to give this preliminary site plan what it needs to pass environmental services to get the applicant what they need for this to move forward, then it's gonna follow-up with that replat that we referenced to subdivide it. The easement's gonna be shown, and then as John said earlier, this is a preliminary site plan. Any changes, any development to either one of these lots, they're still gonna have to come back for full site plan. You know, that's that next level of detail.

That's that okay. You couldn't figure it out. This drive lane is staying where it is. Like, this is where we're we're going to build now. So where is that agreement? You know, because again, as John said earlier, that's an agreement that the city is party to, but that is, you know, as Jeremy said and how they think about it and working with utility billing, like, yes, that agreement is in place to where to get us okay with it. To commissioner Rue has this point is, you know, at that point, is it subdivided? Are they selling it? Is a land lease? Is it a coffee shop?

Is it retail? Is it right? Whatever it may be. So for purposes of where we are in the process, that is one of the things that that I had put out there when I had originally visited with environmental services. Now, again, not speaking for environmental services. I know they have their own concerns about that, but wanted to throw that out there.

I appreciate it. I guess I'll make a stance and then well, a motion. I mean, we wanna follow staff's recommendation for disapproval. But if it is recommended for disapproval, I would ask the applicant. To me, this seems like we should work out a agreement where it's a shared dumpster.

And really, I feel this falls under where I if talking to staff, I would be in support of this if it came back and and staff got on board is I'm all for environmental services, but there are one offs and it's a case by case. This, I would be okay that it's not a shared agreement and they both happen to only have one dumpster. No. This isn't saying that we're this is a precedence that this will be allowed in the future. But this is downtown. We've spent millions of dollars and I'm excited to see it. And when we have these little nooks in there, I would support if it came back and says these got divided and it only had one dumpster for just this case and each would have to be extended its own merit, I would be comfortable with. I'm very

So I would Oh, do want get

your Yeah.

Yeah. Allow me to interject a cautionary tale. Yeah. Are some instances downtown where with the benefit of hindsight, mistakes have been made, where things have been allowed that perhaps they shouldn't have been allowed. And this is an opportunity to not do that again.

Guess my question is what concerns would you see with

I'm speaking in general terms, just in general terms that this is an opportunity to make sure that we don't repeat the mistakes of the past, whatever those may be. That's all.

I would concur with both commissioners there that I'd like to see some kind of solution worked out and be as flexible as we can be with guidance from other things we've done before and see if there's a workable solution that's not going to create a problem because we're gonna make mistakes going forward, best if we don't repeat the mistakes we've already made to Warren's cautionary tale there. So, kinda trust and lean on staff to try to be very creative while trying to avoid repeating known mistakes we've made before.

Anybody else? Comments, questions? I'll entertain a motion.

I move to disapprove item number 15 for the reasons identified in the staff's report and delegate the staff to the authority to provide a written statement to the applicant for the reasons for the disapproval.

Motion by Sean.

Second.

Second by John. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes five zero. Hope everything works out with you finding a creative solution. Thank you. All right, good discussion guys. Item number 16, preliminary plat East Village Phase 3 PP25Dash0011 owners FEV development LLC.

Thank you, chair. The item that was just read into the record is before you all for disapproval this evening because the plan failed to meet all of our subdivision ordinance requirements, engineering standards, and different policies. So staff recommends disapproval for the item as submitted. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Questions for staff? No. Applicant here, would they like to speak? All right, this is not a public hearing. Do I have a motion on item number 16?

I'll make one. I move to disapprove item number 16 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.

Motion by Steve. Second. Second by Tiffany. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes five zero. All right, item number 17, our first public hearing. Replat the Preserve Phase 1 Block in Lot 12 RP26-one Owners endurance custom homes, LLC.

Thank you chair and members of the commission. The item just read into the record before you all this evening for approval. And so the purpose for this replot is to change the product type from a front entry to a rear entry as allowed in the existing plan development. This does conform to the standards detail in the plan development and is recommended for approval as submitted.

All right, any questions for Alondria?

Move to open public hearing.

Motion by Sean. Second. Second by Tiffany. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes five zero. We are now in public hearing. Long line.

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

Motion by Steve. Second. Second by Tiffany. Favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes five zero. Public hearing is closed. Any other questions or do I have a motion on item number 17?

Move to approve item number 17.

Motion by Sean. Second. Second by Tiffany. All All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 5 zero. Congratulations. Moving on to item number 18, public hearing replat, Cross Point Park edition, Block A Lot 2 RA, RP 26-three, owners Grace Avenue United Methodist Church.

Thank you, chair. So the item before you all this evening is a request for a thirty day extension to continue the public hearing and table the item to the March 24 PNC meeting to allow the applicant time to address the outstanding comments on this project. I'm happy to answer any questions. All right, any questions?

Move to open the public hearing.

Motion by Sean. Second. Second by Tiffany. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes five zero. And we do not need to close this one. Nope.

I'll make a motion to continue the public hearing, accept the applicant's request for a thirty day extension reconvene on March 24.

Table.

Thank you. Table for the March 24 PNZ meeting.

Excellent. Motion by John. Second. Second by Tiffany. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 50. We will see this again on March 24.

For table, briefing.

Item number 19, public hearing replat. Lamar Norma Hunt Middle School, Frisco Corners, Block 1, Lot 1 R, RP 26 Dash 0005, owners Frisco Independent School District.

Thank you. This project was submitted on January 26. The applicant is requesting a thirty day extension. Staff is recommending that the commission approve the thirty day extension request, continue the public hearing and table this item to the 03/10/2026 planning and zoning commission meeting, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions or do I have a motion?

Motion to open public hearing.

Motion by Sean. Second by Tiffany. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes five zero. We are now in public hearing.

I'll make a motion to continue public hearing and grant the thirty day extension. Continue the public hearing, sorry. And table the item to the 03/10/2026 planning and zoning commission meeting.

Motion by Sean.

Second.

Second by John. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes five zero. It will be on March 10 then. Item number 20, public hearing zoning. Amendment to plan development two seven two z 25 dash zero zero one zero owners, multiple owners.

Thank you. City council adopted plan development two seventy two in August 2022 and subsequently amended it in April 2024 to accommodate a mixed use development on this property, specifically the Firefly development. Before you all tonight, the applicant is requesting to amend the development standards to revise the phasing language and adopt a comprehensive sign link sign package. As it pertains to the phasing language, the applicant is proposing to reduce the phase one commercial square footage from 650,000 square feet to 450,000 square feet and reduce the number of by right residential units proportionately. So from 1,400 residential units to 966 residential units.

So what does that mean? So phase one phasing is now proposed to be 450,000 square feet of commercial tied to 966 residential units. So aside from the townhome units, which are excluded from this, any additional residential units would be subject to the earn up provisions that are in the PD today. No changes proposed there. The applicant is further proposing to reduce the overall number of residential units in the PD from 2,200 units to 2,100 units.

And as I said early, also adopt a comprehensive sign package as reflected on the 120 pages of exhibit m, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for Jonathan?

No. Excited to see I guess reducing units of multifamily. So I know that should make a lot of people happy.

Great. Motion open public hearing.

Motion by Sean. Second. Second by Tiffany. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes five zero. We are now in public hearing.

Seeing none, move to close public hearing on item 20.

Motion by John. Second. Second by Tiffany. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes five zero. Public hearing is now closed. I make a

motion to approve item number 20

with the recommended changes in the staff report. Motion by Tiffany.

Second. Second by Sean. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes five zero. Moving along, item number 21, results of the 02/17/2026 city council meeting.

Yes, we had one case on there that was amending the zoning ordinance regarding in line parking that PNC unanimously recommended approval. City Council accepted that, so the ordinance comes back before them in March.

Alrighty. And then item number 22, schedule a future discussion items.

Probably about a month, we might be ready to just do a presentation on parking, just to start the discussion challenging as that may be.

You and you guys need help? We

need smart people.

Water features and parking.

I'll block out some time.

All right. We have one final motion and I'm gonna let Warren make this motion because I know it's his favorite.

Move to adjourn.

Motion by Warren. Second. Second by Sean. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes five zero. We are adjourned at 07:12PM. Thank you all.