[00:00:06] YET. WELL, GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10TH , PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR THE CITY OF ROWLETT. AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 55 1.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, THIS MEETING MAY BE CONVENED INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON ANY AGENDA ITEM HEREIN. THE CITY OF ROWLETT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECONVENE, RECESS, OR REALIGN THE REGULAR SESSION OR CALLED EXECUTIVE SESSION OR ORDER BUSINESS AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT. PROCESS FOR PUBLIC INPUT. IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND IN PERSON, YOU MAY COMPLETE THE CITIZENS INPUT FORM ON THE CITIZEN -- CITY'S WEBSITE BY 3:30 P.M. THE DAY OF THE MEETING. ALL FORMS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING. FOR IN PERSON COMMENTS, REGISTRATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE [2. CITIZENS’ INPUT] AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. IT IS NOW 7:00, SO WE WILL CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA WILL BE CITIZENS INPUT. AT THIS TIME, THREE-MINUTE COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ANY TOPIC. NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN DURING -- BY THE COMMISSION DURING CITIZENS INPUT. FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANYBODY THAT MAY WANT TO ADDRESS ALFORD ESTATES, PREVIOUSLY REFERRED TO AS COLUMBIA PARK'S ESTATES PROJECT, THAT IS, ACTUALLY, BEING HEARD BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TOMORROW, DECEMBER 11TH AT 6:30 P.M. , HERE IN CHAMBERS. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY, WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT? >> JUSTIN LARSON. >> JUSTIN LARSON, 5401 FLAMINGO DRIVE. I WOULD STILL LIKE TO VOICE MY CONCERN ABOUT ALFORD ESTATES DEVELOPMENT, AS I WON'T HAVE A LOT OF TIME TOMORROW. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE DENSITY THAT IS BEING PROPOSED AND HOW IT DOES NOT FIT WITH THE CITY'S COMPETENCE A PLAN. THE DEVELOPER WILL BE SEEKING SEVERAL VARIANCES TO CREATE THIS TYPE OF DENSITY WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT. I'M SURE ALL OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT PROVIDES A ROAD MAP OF HOW THE CITY SHOULD GROW AND DEVELOP. IT INCLUDES PORTIONS THAT TALK ABOUT HOW BUILDOUT CAPACITY CAN ACCOMMODATE IF YOU FOLLOW DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AS SHOWN ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, INCLUDING THINGS LIKE UTILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE, LEVEL OF SERVICE, AND BASICALLY, OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE. THIS IS THE CITY'S FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THE NORTHWEST SIDE. YOU CAN SEE THE LARGE, BLUE AREA WAS LABELED AS THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER. YOU CAN START TO SEE THAT AS PART OF THIS FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THERE ARE SEVERAL AREAS THAT HAVE ALREADY CHANGED, THAT HAVE DEVIATED FROM THIS , AND SO, THERE ARE SEVERAL AREAS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED FOR DIFFERENT CHANGES, AND AS THOSE CHANGES HAPPEN, I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE COMPOUNDING IMPACTS THIS WILL HAVE OVER THIS AREA. THIS INCLUDES A PROPERTY IN QUESTION THAT FALLS WITHIN A HALF ACRE OR MORE OF RESIDENTIAL ESTATES. THE CITY -- EXCUSE ME, THE PLAN PROVIDES OPPORTUNITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE THESE -- THE PROPER BUILDUP, ONE OF WHICH IS TO REFERENCE THE LAND-USE PLAN AND DAILY DECISION-MAKING REGARDING LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS. I WAS ABLE TO FIND THE TREE SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY. OVER 1000 TREES WERE SURVEYED. ONLY EIGHT INCHES ARE ABOVE, AND COUNTLESS OTHERS THAT WERE EXCLUDED. THERE IS OVER 13,000 INCHES ON THIS PROPERTY AND THE DEVELOPER PLANS TO REMOVE 11,247 INCHES. THAT IS EQUIVALENT TO 937 FEET. AMONG THESE, 36 INCHES OVER 24 INCHES WIDE. THAT IS FOR REFERENCE. THERE ARE 21 TREES OVER 30 INCHES WIDE, INCLUDING A 37 INCH AMERICAN ELM , 43 INCH PIQUANT, 51 INCH PIQUANT, AND A FOUR INCH AMERICAN ELM, ALL TO BE BULLDOZED TO THE GROUND. I SUPPORT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, BUT THIS DENSITY IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE EXISTING LAND USE OR THE PROPERTY THAT SHOULD FALL UNDER HALF ACRES OR MORE. PROVIDING THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT AS A HALF ACRE OR MORE WILL HELP PRESERVE AND PROTECT THESE [00:05:01] LARGE TREES, WHILE PROVIDING A MIX OF MANAGEABLE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THIS PROPERTY, AND RETAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS AND FALLS WITHIN THE CITY'S COMP PLAN. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? [3. CONSENT AGENDA] I'M SEEING NO OTHER INPUT. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE CITIZENS INPUT. NEXT IS THE CONSENT AGENDA. THE FOLLOWING MAY BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION. A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ARE OR CITIZEN MAY REQUEST ITEMS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. THE ONLY ITEM IS, THE MINUTES TO BE APPROVED FOR NOVEMBER 26, 2024, REGULAR MEETING. MR. FRISBIE. HOW'S IT GOING? >> I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, PROCEDURALLY -- I HAVE A CLARIFICATION I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ON THE MINUTES AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHETHER IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT I PULL IT FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, OR WHETHER WE CAN ADDRESS THE DISCREPANCY . EITHER WAY? >> CONSIDERING, WE ONLY HAVE ONE ITEM, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE CORRECTION WITH THE MOTION. >> ALL RIGHT. LET'S DO THAT. THE ITEM IN QUESTION IS, ON THE -- ITEM THREE B. THANK YOU, OUR ILLUSTRIOUS ATTORNEY. THE STATEMENT SAYS, VICE CHAIR FRISBIE CONFIRMED THAT THE HOUSES WOULD BE DETACHED AND ACQUIRED IF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAD REVIEWED THE PLAT. I JUST NEED TO CLARIFY THAT I, PERSONALLY, DID NOT CONFIRM THAT THE HOUSES WOULD BE DETACHED. I HAD ASKED IF THE HOUSES WERE DETACHED AS A CONCERN OF THE LOTS BEING SO NARROW. THOSE ARE ONLY 25 FEET IN WIDTH. I WOULD LIKE THAT TO BE REWORDED TO SAY, VICE CHAIR FRISBIE ASKED WHETHER THE HOUSES WOULD BE ATTACHED AND WAS INFORMED THAT THEY WOULD BE, AND THAT HE THEN INQUIRED IF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAD REVIEWED THE PLAT. ASIDE FROM THAT CORRECTION , I WOULD ENTERTAIN , OR I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> VERY GOOD. WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? MR. HERNANDEZ. SECOND THE MOTION. ANY DISCUSSION? I'M SEEING NONE. CALL THE VOTE. AND, THAT PASSES . THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. ITEM 4A. [4A. Consider and take action on the Sunset Landing at Bayside North Replat, a request by Rome Barnes, on behalf of property owner, MM Bayside 22, LLC. The approximately 19.962-acre is located northwest of the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Bayside Drive. Addressed as 1950 Sunset Boulevard, also described as Lot 4, Block C Bayside East an addition to the City Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.] CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION ON THE SUNSET LANDING AT BAYSIDE NORTH REPLAT , A REQUEST BY ROME BARNES , ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, MM BAYSIDE 22, LLC, APPROXIMATELY 19962 ACRES LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF SUNSET BOULEVARD AND BAYSIDE DRIVE, ADDRESSED AS 1950 SUNSET BOULEVARD, ALSO DESCRIBED AS LOT 4, BLOCK C, BAYSIDE EAST IN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS LILYANA MOREJON AND I'M HERE TO PRESENT THIS ITEM TONIGHT. THE SUBJECT IN QUESTION IS A RE-PLAT FOR THE SUNSET LANDING SUBDIVISION. THIS IS APPROXIMATELY A 19.96 ACRE LOT. THE LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF SUNSET BOULEVARD AND BAYSIDE DRIVE. IT IS ON FOR URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE PURPOSE IS TO RE-FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF 181 UNITS, 20 4H AWAY LOTS, AND ONE LOT FOR MIXED USES. SOME BACKGROUND ON WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED THROUGHOUT TIME FOR THIS LOT IS IN JULY 25TH, 2017, THERE WAS A FINAL PLAT APPROVED FOR THE BAYSIDE EAST, MARCH 2ND, 2021. THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A FRAMEWORK FOR MIXED USED, SINGLE USE, AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS LOT. BACK IN SEPTEMBER OF 2021, A NEW PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS [00:10:05] APPROVED FOR THIS LOT NOVEMBER 12, 2021, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS FINALLY APPROVED. THROUGHOUT TIME , THIS DEVELOPMENT OR WHAT WAS PROPOSED WITH THE FRAMEWORK PLAN AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAS STAYED CONSISTENT, SIMILAR TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. WHAT YOU ARE SEEING TONIGHT, THIS RE-PLAT, NOT MUCH HAS CHANGED FROM WHAT WAS SHOWN ON THOSE PLANS , THAT PREVIOUSLY WERE APPROVED. AND, HERE IS THE IMAGE OF THE PLAT, IN CASE YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR US. WE DID SEND OUT NOTICES SINCE THIS IS A RE-PLAT. NOVEMBER 26, WE SENT OUT 27 LEGAL NOTICES AND RECEIVE ZERO IN OPPOSITION AND ZERO IN FAVOR. COURTESY NOTICES, WE DID RECEIVE TWO IN OPPOSITION. IN GENERAL, THE OPPOSITION IS PRIMARILY BECAUSE THERE IS NO MORE RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES AND SUCH. I BELIEVE I SAID THAT TO YOU ALL THIS AFTERNOON. THE RECOMMENDATION IS FOR APPROVAL OF THIS PLAT. ALL TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, THE ROWLETT CODE, AND THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. THIS IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HERE TO ANSWER THEM. >> I JUST HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION, BECAUSE I AM CONFUSED. WHY DID WE CALL THIS A RE-PLAT? YOU SAID THAT IN SEPTEMBER OF 2021, WE DID THE INITIAL PLAT , AND I WENT BACK AND I LOOKED AT THAT, AND I LOOKED AT THIS ONE, AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, WHAT WAS DIFFERENT OR IS DIFFERENT THAT MAKES IT A RE-PLAT VERSUS A PLAT? YOU JUST MENTIONED THAT THEY ARE CLOSE . >> CURRENT STAFF DOES NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TRANSPIRED, BUT WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED WAS FROM THE FINAL PLAT, INSTEAD OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, WE SHOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH A RE-PLAT, RATHER THAN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND THEN THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THEN TO WHERE WE ARE AT TODAY. BUT, THAT -- WE ARE NOT SURE WHAT EXACTLY TRANSPIRED AND WHY THE DECISIONS WERE MADE IN DOING IT SO. >> THANK YOU. >> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. THERE WAS A FINAL PLAT ON THE PROPERTY, AND END AMENDING PLAT SHORTLY AFTER. THE FINAL PLAT SHOWED ONE, LARGE TRACK FOR THIS AREA. THEN, LATER , INSTEAD OF COMING BACK WITH A RE-PLAT AT THAT TIME, WHICH IS WHAT WE WOULD TRADITIONALLY DO ON A PROPERTY THAT ALREADY HAS A FINAL PLAT, WE DON'T APPROVE ANOTHER PRELIMINARY PLAT. I'M NOT SURE WHY ANYBODY CHOSE TO GO THAT ROUTE AT THE TIME, IF THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THE FRAMEWORK PLAN OR DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS , BUT AT THAT TIME WHEN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OCCURRED, THAT IS WHEN WE BELIEVE THERE SHOULD'VE BEEN THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES AND A RE-PLAT AT THAT TIME, RATHER THAN , AT THIS STAGE IN THE PROCESS. >> OKAY. AND, AS FAR AS WE KNOW , FROM SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2021, THE PRELIMINARY PLAT , THIS PLAT HAS NO CHANGES? WHEN I PULLED IT UP , IT'S IDENTICAL TO THIS ONE. >> YEAH, IT IS COMPLIANT WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH I THINK WE ARE IN THE PRESENTATION HERE, IF YOU SKIM THROUGH THAT REALLY QUICKLY -- THEY ARE COMPLIANT WITH THOSE THINGS. I DID REACH OUT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY ON THIS ITEM BECAUSE OF CONFUSION ON OUR PART ABOUT WHY THIS WAS NOT TREATED AS A RE-PLAT PREVIOUSLY, WHITE WAS TAKEN FORWARD AS A PRELIMINARY PLAT AFTER IT HAD BEEN FINAL PLAT IT AT ANOTHER DATE. SHE CONFIRMED THAT SIMILAR TO OTHER PLATS, IF IT IS COMPLIANT WITH REGULATIONS, WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION TO APPROVE IT AT THIS TIME AS A RE-PLAT, AS IT HAD BEEN FINAL PLATTED PREVIOUSLY. >> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE, WHO DID OPPOSE THIS PLAT , LET IT KNOWN THAT IT WAS ALWAYS THIS WAY, BASICALLY. >> THAT'S CORRECT. THEY ARE NOT ADDING ANY MORE RESIDENTIAL. >> WE ARE NOT ADDING ANY MORE RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL THAN WHAT WAS ALREADY -- OR CHANGING LAND USE. IT IS WHAT IT IS. >> NORMALLY, FOR A PLAT, WE [00:15:05] DON'T DO PUBLIC NOTICES, BUT BECAUSE OF THE RESIDENTIAL ASPECT AND BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN A FINAL PLAT, WE HAVE A PROVISION IN THE CODE THAT REQUIRES THE PUBLIC NOTICE, EVEN IF EVERYBODY WROTE BACK IN AND SAID, WE OPPOSE THIS, THERE IS NOTHING IN OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO DENY THE RE-PLAT ON THE TABLE IF IT MEETS DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS. >> SO NOW, WE JUST DISCUSSED RE-PLAT. THE LAST SLIDE IN THE PRESENTATION WAS TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT THAT WAS A RECOMMENDATION. SO, THIS IS THE FINAL PLAT, CORRECT? >> IT IS A RE-PLAT. >> WHICH WOULD BE, THE FINAL PLAT. >> YES. >> I THOUGHT WE ONLY HAD A PRELIMINARY. >> WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO ME? >> OKAY. >> IT WAS A FINAL PLAT, THEN PRELIMINARY, FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON TO US. >> NOW, WE HAVE ANOTHER FINAL , OR A RE-PLAT. >> IT SHOULD SAY PRELIMINARY PLAT. OH, MY GOODNESS, RE-PLAT . >> OKAY, WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? LAUGHTER ] >> DO YOU KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING? >> HOW MANY OF THESE CONDOMINIUMS? FOUR OR FIVE? >> ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CALLS OUT FOR FOUR OR FIVE. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? WELL, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. FRISBIE, THE VICE CHAIR, SECONDED BY MS. WILLIAMS. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I TAKE IT WILL BE TO ACCEPT THE RE-PLAT. NO DISCUSSION? WE WILL CALL THE VOTE. AND, THAT CARRIES 5-0. [4B. Conduct a hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council on a request by Muhammed Younus, BM Real Estate Holding Company, on behalf of property owner Inga Hugues, Rowlett for Jesus LLC, for approval of a Development Plan with Warrants for the development of a Montessori School and 10 Townhomes on a property zoned Form-Based Urban Neighborhood (FB-UN) District. The approximately 3.26 acre site is located west of Merritt Road approximately 1000 feet south of the President George Bush Turnpike, addressed as 9849 Merritt Road also described as Hughes Addition Lot 1, Block B in the R. Copeland Survey, Abstract No.229 in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas. ] THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 4B, CONDUCT THE HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST BY MUHAMMED YOUNUS , BM REAL ESTATE HOLDING COMPANY , ON BEHALF OF OF PROPERTY OWNER, INGA HUGUES, ROWLETT FOR JESUS LLC, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MONTESSORI SCHOOL AND 10 TOWNHOMES ON A PROPERTY ZONED FORM-BASED URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT. THE APPROXIMATELY 3.26 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED WEST OF MERRITT ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 1000 FEET SOUTH OF THE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE, ADDRESSED AS 9849 MERRITT ROAD ALSO DESCRIBED AS HUGUES ADDITION LOT 1 , BLOCK B IN THE R. COPELAND SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 2029 IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. PLEASE. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. I AM LILYANA MOREJON, ALSO PRESENTING THIS ITEM TONIGHT. I WANTED TO START BY SHARING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THIS AREA, SO WE ARE REMINDED OF WHAT THIS AREA CALLS FOR. ONE MOMENT, PLEASE. OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN CALLS THIS AREA FOR THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER, WHICH IS ABOUT 85 ACRES. THE INTENT OF THIS AREA IS FOR A LARGE-SCALE OFFICE PARK, CORPORATE CAMPUS, SERVING AS THE CITY'S MAJOR EMPLOYMENT HUB. THE PRIMARY USES WE WOULD TYPICALLY WANT TO SEE IS OFFICE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES, AND WE TYPICALLY WANT TO SEE RETAIL, ENTERTAINMENT, PARKS, OPEN SPACE, RESIDENTIAL ANYTHING TO SUPPORT THAT WORK LIFE BALANCE. THEN, WE FEATURE PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED DESIGN , WIDE SIDEWALKS, BENCHES, SHADED [00:20:07] TREES, ENHANCED CROSSWALKS AND OTHER AMENITIES. MY APOLOGIES. I THINK I WENT TOO FAR. CAN YOU GO BACK? I CAN MOVE ON. THE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR THIS LOT , FOR THIS AREA , IS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD , WHICH IS GOVERNED ALSO BY THE NORTH SHORE FRAMEWORK PLAN. IN THIS AREA, TOWNHOMES, AND A MONTESSORI SCHOOL , WHICH IS A SUBJECT TONIGHT, ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT. THE PROPERTY FRONTS MERRITT ROAD COULD WE HAVE TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY, FLOODWAY PRINTED THE NORTHWEST, A PROPOSED CONNECTION TO MERIT CIRCLE. WE HAVE A PARCEL OWNED BY THE CITY OF ROWLETT CONTAINING WATER TOWERS. WE ALSO HAVE EASTMAN'S CROSSING ALONG THE PROPERTY. TWO OF THE MAIN ONES, PRIOR TO THIS DISCUSSION TONIGHT, TO PROVIDE SOME TYPE OF FORMAL APPROVAL FROM THE OWNERS OF THE NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT AND THE OWNERS OF THE 20 FOOT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT. WE BELIEVE THAT IT WILL, SOMEHOW, DICTATE THE LAYOUT OF THIS PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IF IT GETS APPROVED TONIGHT. WE ALSO SEE THE 20 FOOT ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY, LEADING TO THAT 97 FOOT HIGH COMMUNICATION TOWER IN THE SOUTH CORNER OF THE LOT. THE SITE PLAN TONIGHT IS FOR THE PROPOSAL OF A 1400 SQUARE FOOT MONTESSORI SCHOOL . WE ALSO HAVE 10 UPSCALE TOWNHOMES RANGING FROM 1500 SQUARE FEET TO 2600 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. WE HAVE, APPROXIMATELY, 83 TOTAL PARKING SPACES, INCLUDING 48 RESIDENTIAL PARKING AND 38 SCHOOL SPACES , PARKING SPACES. THERE IS ACCESS PROVIDED THROUGH MERRITT POINT. THERE ARE THREE ACCESS POINTS PROVIDED TO AND FROM MERRITT POINT. WE ALSO SAVE -- SEE THERE IS 20,000 SQUARE FEET OF AREA. THE REQUEST TONIGHT IS FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE 1400 SQUARE FOOT MONTESSORI SCHOOL AND 10 TOWNHOMES WITH MULTIPLE WARRANTS WE WILL BE GOING OVER TONIGHT. THE FIRST WARRANT IN FRONT OF YOU IS FOR THE BUILDING DISTRIBUTION. TYPICALLY, THE FORM-BASED URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD CALLS FOR ABOUT 20%, AT LEAST, 20% OF BUILDING TYPES CONSISTENT WITH MIXED RESIDENTIAL, SHOP FRONTS AND MIXED-USE , AND NO MORE THAN 80% TOWNHOMES AND COTTAGE OR CASINOS. BECAUSE OF THE LAYOUT AND SITE CONSTRAINTS OF THIS LOT, THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR A REDUCTION TO THE 10 TOWNHOMES AND THE SCHOOL THAT IS BEING PROPOSED TONIGHT. WE ARE ALSO CALLING FOR WARRANTS ON THE TOWNHOMES IN THIS CASE. THE SIDE STREET CALLS FOR 10 TO 15 FEET. THEY ARE ASKING FOR A REDUCTION TO FIVE FEET. THEY ARE ALSO ASKING FOR A REDUCTION ON THE LOT SIZE. WE TYPICALLY SEE A LOT WITH ABOUT 80 AND 90. IN THIS CASE, THEY ARE ASKING FOR A REDUCTION OF THAT LOT FOR TOWNHOMES ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE, FACING MERRITT ROAD TO A MINIMUM OF 81 FEET, AND A MAXIMUM OF 88 FEET. OPEN SPACE, THE FORM-BASED URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT CALLS FOR OPEN SPACE TO BE, AT LEAST, TWICE THE SIZE OF THE AVERAGE COTTAGE, CASITA OR TOWNHOME. IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE LOT AND CONSTRAINTS OF THE LOT, THE APPLICANT IS NOT MEETING FOR -- THE CONDITION, SO THEY ARE ASKING FOR RELIEF ON THAT. IN THIS CASE, WE VIEW THE SCHOOL AS MORE OF A COMMERCIAL ASPECT WHEN WE ARE CALLING OUT OPEN SPACE, SO IN THIS CASE, IT SHOULD BE, AT LEAST, TWICE AS LARGE AS THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING. IN THIS CASE, IT IS NOT, SO THEY ARE ASKING FOR RELIEF IN THAT SENSE. IN TERMS OF AMENITIES, THE FORM-BASED CODE ALSO CALLS FOR A MINOR WARRANT WHEN IT COMES TO APPROVAL OF AMENITIES. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO ADD SHADE TREES, PICNIC TABLES, BENCHES AND WORKOUT STATIONS THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT. FOR [00:25:02] THE SCHOOL, THE FORM-BASED CODE CALLS FOR A MINOR WARRANT. IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR A TOTAL OF 35 SPACES. 25 SPACES FOR A TOTAL OF 150 STUDENTS, AND 10 SPACES FOR 15 EMPLOYEES. ADDITIONALLY, THE NORTH SHORE NORTH FRAMEWORK PLAN HAS ITS OWN STREET LAYOUTS. FROM THOSE LOCAL STREET LAYOUTS, THE APPLICANT IS DEVIATING FROM THE TWO-WAY COURT PARKING. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE PRESENTATION, THEY HAVE SEVERAL TYPES OF STREETS , TYPE A, B, C, D, AND ESSENTIALLY, THEY ARE DEVIATING FROM THE 34 FOOT WIDE ROAD FOR THE TAIPEI. FOR THE TYPE B, 43 FEET WIDE. FOR B, 43 FEET WIDE. AS FAR AS WINDOWS, THE REQUIREMENTS ARE A MINIMUM OF 30% UP TO 70%. IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REDUCTION TO 22.9% FOR THE MONTESSORI SCHOOL ON THE EAST SIDE ELEVATION, WHICH I CAN SHOW. IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO SEE, BUT YOU CAN SEE THE SOUTHEAST ELEVATION ON THIS SLIDE , AND THE NORTHEAST, AS WELL. I BELIEVE IT IS ALSO SHOWN ON YOUR PACKET. FINALLY, THERE IS ALSO A WARRANT FOR ACCESS TO THE FORM-BASED CODE. IT CALLS FOR ALL DRIVES TO REQUIRE A MINOR WARRANT AND APPROVAL, SO THEY ARE REQUESTING FOUR MAIN ACCESS POINTS. WE HAVE ONE AT MERRITT CIRCLE AND THREE FOR MERRITT ROAD . MAJOR WARRANTS REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL, BASED ON YOUR RECOMMENDATION. EACH WARRANT IS CONSIDERED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS TO ENSURE FLEXIBILITY, WHILE ADHERING TO THE BROADER GOALS OF THE FORM-BASED CODE. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOES MEET THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE FORM-BASED CODE AND FORM-BASED URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT, ALTHOUGH, IT DOES LACK THE DIVERSITY OF HOUSING. THE TOWNHOMES AND MONTESSORI SCHOOL DOES ENHANCE THE STREET ACTIVITY, SAFETY AND APPEAL OF THE AREA. THERE ARE ALSO SIDEWALKS, SHADED OPEN SPACE, THAT PROMOTE NEIGHBORHOOD GATHERINGS, AND RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES. AS FAR AS ASCETICS, WHILE DEVIATING FROM THE FORM-BASED CODE, THE BUILDING TYPE MIX, ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS, OPEN SPACE, IT DOES INTEGRATE THAT PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY DESIGN. THE DESIGN SOLUTIONS ALIGN WITH AND COMPLEMENT THE DISTRICT'S CHARACTER. FINALLY, ALIGNMENT WITH THE DISTRICT'S INTENT, AGAIN, IN SPITE OF ALL THE DEVIATIONS, THE DESIGN PRIORITIZES FUNCTIONALITY AND AESTHETICS, WHILE ALIGNING WITH THE DISTRICT'S GOALS. MODIFICATIONS ADDRESSED BY THE SITE CONSTRAINTS CONTINUE TO PRESERVE THAT FORM-BASED CODE INTENT, BY INTEGRATING WALKABLE SPACES AND ADDING THAT COMPONENT OF THE MONTESSORI SCHOOL AS AN ACCESSORY USE. IN GENERAL, THE DEVELOPMENT ENHANCES THE NORTH SHORE NORTH AREA, CREATING A COHESIVE, VIBRANT AND HIGH-QUALITY DEVELOPMENT. THE RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT , SO YOU CHOOSE TO APPROVE THIS PLAT , IS WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE FORMER APPROVAL WILL BE OBTAINED FROM THE EASEMENT OWNERS FOR THE UNSOLVED EASEMENT ISSUES. THAT STILL CONTINUES TO BE A CONCERN TO STAFF, WHETHER OR NOT THAT WILL GET APPROVED BEFORE WE CAN APPROVE THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION. ANY QUESTIONS? >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THE APPROVAL PROCESS, IS IT BECAUSE THERE IS A SEWER EASEMENT AND A NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER EASEMENT? >> THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN WORKING WITH BOTH, THE NORTH TEXAS WATER DISTRICT AND THE OWNERS TO GET APPROVAL. WE ARE NOT AT THE POINT WHERE WE SEE ACTUAL, FORMAL, WRITTEN APPROVAL THAT WE CAN CERTIFY , THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS GOING [00:30:04] TO STAY, THAT NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE. >> SHOULD BE GET APPROVAL FIRST BEFORE WE APPROVE ALL THESE RIGHTS? >> YOU CAN CHOOSE TO APPROVE IT IT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE. YOU CAN CHOOSE TO APPROVE WITH THAT CONDITION, OR DENY THE PROJECT UNTIL THIS GETS RESOLVED. IT'S ALL YOUR PREROGATIVE, ON HOW YOU WANT TO PROCEED. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, I'VE GOT ONE. I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE PAGE SEVEN OF THE TRAFFIC REPORT. >> I WILL EMAIL THAT TO YOU, TOMORROW. >> IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE PACKET. I DON'T THINK IT WAS INCLUDED TO THE CITY. HOWEVER, PAGE SIX LEAVES YOU HANGING , THINKING THAT THERE IS SOMETHING ON SEVEN THAT COULD OR SHOULD BE READ. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE, BECAUSE READING THE TRAFFIC REPORT, IT CONTRADICTS ITSELF A COUPLE OF TIMES TO THE USE OR MANNER OF WHETHER IT IS A SCHOOL OR A BUSINESS WHEN YOU DO A CAR COUNT, OR WHEN THE DROP OFF TIMES, WHEN THE BUSY TIMES ARE. IT CONTRADICTS ITSELF A COUPLE TIMES. THE OTHER THING IS, THE FLOW ON THAT TRAFFIC, INTERNAL TRAFFIC, IS NOT ONLY CONFUSING, BUT DOESN'T WORK WITH THE STREET, WITH MERRITT ROAD AND IT'S LANES AND CURB CUTS. I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED WITH THAT. IF WE COULD GO -- I GUESS WE COULD WAIT. DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A PRESENTATION? NO. OKAY. LET'S GO AHEAD AND WAIT ON A COUPLE OTHER QUESTIONS UNTIL WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEE IF THERE IS ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO MAKE A STATEMENT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU MIND IF WE HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW, BEFORE WE FINISH? WITH THAT BEING SAID, LET'S OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ITEM 4B, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO TALK TO US OR SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT? I AM SEEING NONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'M SORRY -- WHAT? I'M SORRY, DID YOU RAISE YOUR HAND? >> THEY ARE THE APPLICANT, BY THE WAY. >> WE CAN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW. NOW, THE APPLICANT CAN ADDRESS US. THANK YOU. >> I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS THIS EASEMENT . THERE ARE TWO ASPECTS TO IT. ONE IS THE WATER BOARD EASEMENT, AND WE ARE IN TOUCH WITH THEM , AND THEY HAVE BEEN SUPPORTIVE. AT THE MOMENT, IT'S ONLY A SITE PLAN APPROVAL. THAT IS WHY THEY HAVE GIVEN US A PREAPPROVAL BASED ON THE CIVIL ENGINEERING DRAWINGS. THEY WANT TO LOOK AT IT, AND THEN THEY WOULD GIVE THE FORMAL APPROVAL. THE SITE PLAN, WHICH IS WHERE WE ARE NOW, THE CITY REQUIREMENTS AND THE CODE REQUIREMENTS , THE PRELIMINARY, THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE DONE. THEY HAVE GIVEN US THE CONSENT LETTER. THE SECOND EASEMENT IS THE NEXT-DOOR PROPERTY. THEY HAVE THE CIVIL EASEMENT GOING THROUGH US, AND WE HAVE ALREADY TALKED WITH THEM. I THINK WE ARE IN THE LAST STAGE OF APPROVAL FROM THE CITY. THEY HAVE GIVEN US THE CONSENT THAT THEY WOULD WORK WITH US, BECAUSE IT IS A MATTER OF ALIGNMENT. THE ANGLE, CHANGING OF THE EASEMENT. THEN, WE HAVE TO REDESIGN THE MONTESSORI DESIGN, BUT WE ARE VERY HOPEFUL. THEY HAVE GIVEN US CONSENT AND WE ARE WORKING WITH THEM TO CHANGE THE TWO DEGREE ANGLE , THAT WOULD ALLOW WHAT WE HAVE SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN. [00:35:05] THE SECOND THING THAT YOU MENTIONED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC LAYOUT , WE HAVE WORKED WITH CITY OFFICIALS , AND I KNOW THAT SAYS PROFESSIONAL ON BOARD, BUT IF THERE IS ANY CONCERN REGARDING TRAFFIC, WE ARE HERE TO ADDRESS THOSE AND YOU CAN ALWAYS PUT A CONDITION WITH THE APPROVAL IF YOU DECIDE TO DO SO TODAY. ALTOGETHER WITH THE EASEMENTS, WE WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO WORK WITH ANY TRAFFIC ISSUES. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHETHER ANY PORTION OF THAT SCHOOL IS IN THE FALL ZONE FOR THE COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS THAT ARE RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO YOU? >> I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. >> THERE ARE COUPLE COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS ON THE PROPERTY. >> YES, THERE IS A COMMUNICATION TOWER. >> YOU KNOW IF ANY PORTION OF THE SCHOOL IS IN THE FALL ZONE? >> NO. FROM THE VERY START, THE BUILDING HAS TO BE AWAY FROM THAT. THAT IS ONE OF THE CHALLENGES. THE 97 FOOT TOWER NEEDS A 97 FOOT CLEARANCE. EVERYTHING CONSTRUCTED IS AT 97 FEET. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MS. WILLIAMS. >> DO YOU RECALL WHAT THE SUBSTANCE OF PAGE SEVEN STATES? >> NO. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> OKAY. THE TRAFFIC AND THE OTHER ITEM THAT I WAS SOMEWHAT CONCERNED ABOUT WHEN IT CAME TO TRAFFIC WAS THE PURPOSE OF THIS TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT, THE ONE YOU GUYS DID. TO EVALUATE TRAFFIC FLOW AND CIRCULATION FOR THE INTERNAL ROADWAY AND DRIVEWAYS THAT WILL SERVE THE DEVELOPMENT. THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE , BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT LAND USES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, PROVIDE TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENT ACCESS TO AND FROM THE NEARBY ROADWAY SYSTEMS. AND, I DID NOT REALLY SEE HOW THIS TRAFFIC REPORT WAS DISCUSSING INFLOW AND OUTFLOW , USING THE NEARBY ROADS. THE OTHER THING THAT WAS -- THEY DID THROW IN WESTBOUND TRAFFIC FROM CASTLE DRIVE. IT IS 20% OF THE FLOW. THERE IS NO WESTBOUND TRAFFIC OFF OF CASTLE DRIVE. ALL THAT WOULD TURN INTO NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC ON MERRITT. THOSE NUMBERS FOR MERRITT ROAD NORTHBOUND WOULD PROBABLY INCREASE TO 65%, VERSUS 45%. YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS REALLY CONSIDERED IN THIS REPORT, THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN. I'M STILL A LITTLE -- >> RIGHT -- WE CAN GET BACK TO THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER AND ASK SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. AS FAR AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, WE WOULD ASK THAT -- THE CITY REQUIRED CLARIFICATION ABOUT THE ROAD THAT WE DEVELOPED, SO THAT IS WHY THE CLARIFICATION WAS REQUIRED, HOW THE TRAFFIC WOULD MOVE AROUND, INTERNALLY. INAUDIBLE ] >> I UNDERSTAND, AND IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, WE WOULD REQUIRE A TRAFFIC STUDY , OFF OF MERRITT. >> IT SHOULD BE PART OF THIS PROCESS. IT SHOULD BE THAT WE HAVE LOOKED AT THE TRAFFIC IMPACT OF THE SITE, NOT JUST INTERNALLY, BUT THE SITES IMPACT ON THE STREETS , THE STREET CONNECTIONS. THERE WERE A LOT OF QUESTIONS, INTERNALLY, ABOUT THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC WITHIN THE SITE. SPECIFICALLY, QUEUING FOR PICKUP AND DROP OFF WITH ANY SORT OF CHILDCARE FACILITY OR SCHOOL. WE HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT THAT WERE ASKED, AND I'M NOT SURE IF IT GOT LOST IN TRANSLATION , WITH THE CITY ENGINEER AND THEIR ENGINEERING TEAM. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS , BUT WE NEED THE IMPACT [00:40:01] TO THE STREET, MERRITT ROAD, SPECIFICALLY, AS WELL. >> I AGREE. COMMISSIONERS, ANYTHING ELSE? WOULD IT BE OUT OF SCOPE TO ASK WHAT ADDITIONAL AMENITIES IN THESE OPEN AREAS ARE PLANNED? >> NO, I THINK THAT'S GOOD. >> CONSIDERING THE FACT WE ARE, BASICALLY, CUTTING THE OPEN AREA BY 50% . I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION AS TO WHAT EXACTLY WE ARE GOING TO DO WITH THE EXISTING OPEN AREAS. >> THE OPEN AREAS , THE GENERAL INTENT IS TO MAKE IT FRIENDLY FOR THE USERS , AND ALSO FOR THE SCHOOL, AND GENERALLY, FOR THE CHILDREN. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE IMAGINED THE OPEN SPACE TO HAVE DUAL USE. ONE IS FOR THE GENERAL USE , THE GENERAL AREA, AND ONE IS CHILDREN FRIENDLY, AGE-APPROPRIATE EQUIPMENT, WHICH WILL BE NEXT TO THE SCHOOL, AND THE REST OF THE AREA WILL BE GENERAL, AND THE LANDSCAPE DOES GIVE THAT INTENTION , WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE. AS WE DEVELOP THESE DRAWINGS FURTHER , AFTER THE SITE PLAN, OF COURSE, ALL DETAILS WILL BE ADDED ON. >> ALL YOU SAY IS, OPEN SPACE WILL BE A MINIATURIZED , AND THE DRAWINGS DON'T SHOW ME ANYTHING ASIDE FROM A COUPLE TABLES IN THE SHADE . >> FOR THE SCHOOL? >> NO, THE SCHOOL AND THE SCHOOL PLAYGROUND IS PART OF SCHOOL, NOT PART OF THE OPEN SPACE THAT THE REST OF THE POPULATION OR PUBLIC HAS ACCESS TO. >> THE WAY WE IMAGINED IT, WE THINK THAT BECAUSE WE ARE PUTTING A FOUR FOOT HIGH FENCE AROUND IT, AFTER HOURS, IT COULD BE AVAILABLE FOR THE GENERAL USE OF THE PUBLIC. THE CHILDREN FRIENDLY AMENITIES WOULD BE THERE, SO THAT CAN BE USED. AS FAR AS THE OTHER OPEN SPACES ARE CONCERNED, THE PRIMARY REASON , THE TREES AND THE SHADED AMENITIES , THAT, FOR SURE, WAS TAKEN CARE. AS FAR AS THE AMENITIES ARE CONCERNED, WE IMAGINE BENCHES AND WORKOUT TABLES, BUT OF COURSE, WE CAN WORK WITH WHATEVER STAFF RECOMMENDS OR WHATEVER THE CITY IMAGINES IT TO BE. >> I THINK IF YOU ARE ASKING FOR A WARRANT , YOU NEED TO PROVIDE SOMETHING MORE SUBSTANTIAL FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION, VERSUS WHAT YOU HAVE IMAGINED. THAT'S WHY I SAID IT MIGHT BE NICE TO SEE THAT, BECAUSE , IF I OWNED A SCHOOL AND HAD A PLAYGROUND , I DON'T THINK I WOULD WANT TO OPEN THAT TO THE PUBLIC AFTER HOURS. ONE, IF SOMEBODY GETS HURT, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE? TWO, IF SOMEBODY DESTROYS YOUR EQUIPMENT -- YOU KNOW. >> I THINK IT WOULD BE PRIMARILY -- OPEN SPACE, OTHER THAN THE SCHOOL, WOULD BE AMENITIZED FOR THE PUBLIC. >> FOR ME TO SAY YEAH, I CAN ACCEPT CUTTING THE OPEN SPACE IN HALF, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING AMENITIES, THAT IS SOMETHING I COULD BUY INTO, BUT TO SAY THAT I'M GOING TO CUT THE OPEN SPACE IN HALF BECAUSE I IMAGINE SOMETHING IS GOING TO BE THERE -- >> WOULD IT BE SUFFICE THAT WE PROVIDE PHOTOGRAPHS FOR THE KIND OF AMENITIES -- IN THE PLANS, THOSE ARE ONLY SYMBOLS. STILL, IT'S DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE IT JUST FROM THE SYMBOLS. OF COURSE, WE CAN PROVIDE POSSIBLE AMENITIES THAT WOULD BE ADDED , IN TERMS OF PHOTOGRAPHS. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? DOES ANYBODY -- THANK YOU, SIR. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO GO OVER IT WITH STAFF, WARRANT BY WARRANT AND DISCUSS THESE WARRANTS? MR. HERNANDEZ. >> JUST TO ADD ON TO WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE [00:45:03] TRAFFIC STUDY, IT IS A LITTLE CONCERNING THAT THERE IS NOTHING MENTIONED ABOUT MERRITT CIRCLE. YOU MENTIONED CASTLE ROAD. MERRITT CIRCLE HAS AN ACCESS POINT FROM MERRITT, I BELIEVE, BEFORE YOU GET TO THIS NEW AREA. I COULD, POSSIBLY, FOR TRAFFIC TRYING TO CUT IN THROUGH MERRITT CIRCLE TO GET INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT, TO ME, STUCK OUT A LITTLE BIT, ALSO. I TOO WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT IS ON PAGE SEVEN. I DON'T KNOW PAGE SEVEN REFERS TO ANYTHING OFF OF MERRITT OR MERRITT CIRCLE, SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO ASK FOR A DELAY ON THIS , OR FOR IT TO CONTINUE ON TO OUR NEXT MEETING, SO WE GET MORE INFORMATION, AS FAR AS TRAFFIC, AND POSSIBLY, GIVE THE DEVELOPER TIME TO BRING IN SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR US TO SEE, SO WE CAN MAKE A MORE INFORMED DECISION. >> MR. FRISBIE. >> I WOULD SECOND THAT, IN THE SENSE THAT , NUMBER ONE, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT A LOT OF THESE WARRANTS ARE DUE , AND PART TWO, THE GEOMETRY OF THE LOT YOU ARE HAVING TO DEAL WITH. I RESPECT THAT. I ALSO RESPECT YOUR INTENT , BRINGING IN A MONTESSORI SCHOOL. IT'S A GOOD LAND-USE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WHAT IS A BIT DISAPPOINTING TO ME , BOTH AS A COMMISSIONER ON THIS PANEL, AS WELL AS A PROFESSIONAL IN THIS FIELD, IS THAT THE DEVELOPER DID NOT HAVE A DETAILED PRESENTATION. YOU ARE ASKING FOR A LOT OF WARRANT VARIATIONS WITHOUT A LOT OF DOCUMENTATION OR EXPLANATION. WE TRUST OUR STAFF BECAUSE WE HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM THAT HAS EVOLVED OVER MANY YEARS , BUT THEY ARE ONLY GIVING US SO MUCH INFORMATION FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE. WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO UNDERSTAND IS WHY YOU ARE ASKING FOR THESE PARTICULAR WARRANTS AND VARIATIONS , SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR INTENT IS , AND SEE HOW WE CAN HELP YOU. SIMILARLY, EASEMENTS ARE A BIG DEAL , AND TO BE ASKED TO MAKE A BONDING DECISION ON SOMETHING THAT HAS YET TO BE DETERMINED PUTS US, AS A BODY, IN A COMPROMISED POSITION AND IT ALSO LEAVES STAFF WITH AN OPEN QUESTION THAT COULD BE REINTERPRETED DOWN THE ROAD, THAT COULD CAUSE A CONFLICT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE KINDS OF THINGS PINNED DOWN, AND LIKEWISE, WITH THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS , ONE, YOU ARE MISSING SOME INFORMATION THAT SHOULD'VE BEEN PROVIDED. IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN YOUR FAULT. IT MAY HAVE BEEN A SCAN THAT TOOK TWO SHEETS INSTEAD OF ONE , AND GOT LEFT OFF. IT'S HUMAN NATURE. I DON'T THINK IT IS ASKING TOO MUCH FOR THIS BODY TO REQUEST A DELAY OF -- UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GIVE YOU, AS THE OWNER, A CHANCE TO PREPARE A FORMAL PACKAGE, LIKE MANY OF THE OTHER APPLICANTS THAT COME BEFORE THIS BODY, THEY CAN HAVE THEIR OWN EXHIBITS, THEIR OWN LETTERS, MAYBE YOUR ENGINEER CAN COME AND REPRESENT YOU , ESPECIALLY, IN TERMS OF YOUR TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ISSUES, ET CETERA. I AM INCLINED TO TABLE YOUR PETITION UNTIL OUR NEXT PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AND GIVE YOU -- GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE DOING, AND GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A FORMAL, PROFESSIONALLY PREPARED PRESENTATION TO INFORM US OF WHAT YOUR INTENT IS. >> COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WOULD YOU FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO GO THROUGH A LIST OF WARRANTS, MAYBE DRAW OUT A FEW QUESTIONS? THAT WAY, THE APPLICANT MAY BE ABLE TO PREPARE BETTER. >> YES. >> OKAY. [00:50:11] I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO GO BACK THROUGH YOUR PRESENTATION TO BE ABLE TO SHOW THAT UP THERE, BUT IN THE PACKET, PAGE 24 , BASICALLY, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHERE THE WARRANTS START. THE FIRST ONE DISCUSSES GENERAL BUILDING TYPE. I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION WOULD BE, WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE ASKING OR THINKING THAT WE DON'T MEET HERE? NOT EVERY INDIVIDUAL BUILDING NEEDS TO BE 80 , 20, OR HAVE A MIX LIKE THAT. WE JUST NEED TO HAVE A MIX THAT WOULD DO TOWNHOMES AND A SCHOOL. >> IT MAKES IT RESIDENTIAL, FOR THE MOST PART. >> THAT IS WHAT WE ARE ASKING. THE TOWNHOME PART IS WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE? OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM IS THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE. ESSENTIALLY, WE HAVE ABOUT 50% OF WHAT WE NEED. >> THEY DO MEET THE 15% OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT FOR THE ENTIRE LOT, BUT WHAT THE CODE IS ASKING FOR HERE, SPECIFICALLY, IS TO BE ADJACENT TO , AND THEY STILL DON'T MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. IT IS NOT TWICE THE SIZE OF THE AVERAGE TOWNHOME. >> AND, IT'S NOT ADJACENT TO THE TOWNHOME? >> THE OPEN SPACE ADJACENT TO THE TOWNHOME IS NOT TWICE THE SIZE OF THE OPEN SPACE. >> IF WE TAKE A LOOK AT ALL OF THE OPEN SPACE AREAS AROUND THE TOWNHOMES , I THINK YOU END UP WITH -- ALMOST 24,000 SQUARE FEET. >> FOR THE ENTIRE SITE. 20,000 SQUARE FEET FOR THE ENTIRE SITE. IN HERE, WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF LAND USES. WE NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE OPEN SPACE FOR BOTH, ALTHOUGH, THEY ARE ON THE SAME LOT. WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT TOWNHOMES, THE CODE CALLS, SPECIFICALLY, FOR TWICE THE SIZE , AND THAT IS THE WAY WE HAVE INTERPRETED IT. >> BECAUSE WE ARE ASKING TO CUT THAT IN HALF, I GUESS, THE THING WOULD BE, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH THE OPEN SPACE THAT IS BEING PROPOSED? SHOW ME HOW THAT IS AMENIT >> THE CODE, SPECIFICALLY, SAYS, WHETHER OR NOT THEY MEET THE STANDARDS OF THE OPEN SPACE, THEY HAVE TO GET APPROVAL WITH A MINOR WARRANT FOR WHATEVER IT IS THAT THEY ARE PLANNING ON AMENITIZED THE AREA WITH. THE CODE SPECIFICALLY SAID -- THEY WOULD NEED APPROVAL FROM THIS BODY . >> WE DO HAVE SEVERAL ITEMS IN THE FORM-BASED CODE, OR A WARRANT IS REQUIRED, NOT BECAUSE IT'S A DEVIATION FROM THE CODE, BECAUSE THE CODE SPECIFICALLY STATES, WE DO NOT HAVE A STANDARD HERE. ANY OF IT MUST BE DETERMINED BY MINOR WARRANT. SOMETIMES THAT IS PARKING, IN CERTAIN CASES, BUT THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE WHERE IT IS SET BY MINOR WARRANT. >> OKAY. THIS ITEM FOR PUBLIC OPEN SPACES IS JUST TALKING ABOUT SPACE SIZE? OKAY. THEN, IS THE NEXT ONE ON YOUR LIST, ACTUALLY, THE AMENITIES? >> THE OPEN SPACE FOR AMENITIES? YES, CORRECT. >> WE ARE STILL AT THAT POINT. OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM IS THE 30% GLAZING , MAXIMUM, 70%, AND THEY HAVE 22.9%. DID YOU SAY IN YOUR PRESENTATION, IT WAS JUST THE EAST SIDE? >> YES. SOUTHEAST ELEVATION. [00:55:04] >> THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING. OKAY. SOUTHEAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING. OKAY, WE DON'T THINK THE WINDOWS -- WE CAN'T GET ANYMORE WINDOWS IN THE BUILDING? I GUESS THAT WILL BE A RESPONSE. >> FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR ALL THE GUIDANCE YOU ARE GIVING US. IT'S REALLY HELPFUL. THIS FORM-BASED CODE, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE DONE A PROJECT, SO THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THESE. WE WILL COME MORE PREPARED. THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING HAS ALL OF THE CLASSROOMS , AND THE CLASSROOMS ARE AT EYE LEVEL, SO THE FURNITURE CAN BE USED AGAINST ALL OF THE WALLS. THAT IS WHY MEETING THE 30%, THOUGH, IT IS A SINGLE-STORY BUILDING. THERE IS A CERTAIN HEIGHT LIMIT, ACCORDING TO THE CODE, WHICH WE ARE MEETING. THE WINDOWS, THE MAXIMUM WE COULD PUT ON THE SOUTH SIDE IS REACHING ONLY 22%. ON THE OTHER SIDE, WE HAVE A GYMNASIUM IN OFFICES, AND IT'S POSSIBLE TO HAVE GLASS ALL THE WAY FROM FLOOR TO CEILING. THE OTHER SIDE, WE WERE ABLE TO GET THAT 30% MINIMUM. ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE, WE COULD NOT MAKE IT TO 30%. >> I'M SORRY, I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE ELEVATIONS AGAIN. >> THE SOUTHEAST SIDE IS THE ONE FACING THE OPEN SPACE OF THE SCHOOL. >> TO ME, THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S MORE THAN 30%. >> THIS IS THE ONE ON THE TOP. >> WHEREVER WE COULD ADD LARGER WINDOWS, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE TEACHERS BREAKROOM OR GYMNASIUM, WE HAVE PUT THEM ALL THE WAY UP, FLOOR TO CEILING, WINDOWS. IN THE CLASSROOM, WE HAVE THE HIGHEST LEVEL. THAT'S WHY IT IS NOT UP TO 30%. THE THREE CLASSROOMS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE WINDOW, THEY ARE THE HIGHEST LEVEL. >> WINDOWS AND GLAZES WILL BE A MINIMUM OF 30%, UP TO THE MAXIMUM OF 70% FOR EACH BUILDING ELEVATION. AND, THEY ARE SAYING THAT IS 22.9%. ARE WE INCLUDING ALL OF THAT SPACE? THAT IS A DRIVE-THROUGH. >> IT WILL JUST BE THE BUILDING PART, HERE. >> I THINK SOMEBODY OUGHT TO GO BACK AND CHECK THOSE NUMBERS. ACCORDING TO THE ELEVATION, TO ME, THAT LOOKS LIKE IT IS, AT LEAST, 30%. NOT COUNTING THE ROOF STRUCTURE, OF COURSE. FLOOR TO CEILING. THE FIRST FLOOR, SIDE TO SIDE I THINK YOU ARE PROBABLY -- >> I AM TALKING ABOUT THE ONE ON THE BOTTOM. SOUTHEAST. THE ONE ON THE LOWEST SIDE. >> THEY DON'T COUNT TOWARDS THE 30% BECAUSE OF THE DROP OFF ZONE? >> IF SOMEBODY IS USING THAT, IT SHOULD NOT BE IN THE CALCULATION PIT. >> IT'S ONLY THE NINE WINDOWS THAT YOU SEE ON THE LOW SIDE. THOSE ARE THE THREE CLASSROOMS. >> YEAH, WE CAN PROBABLY EVEN DROP IT. IF YOUR FIGURES PROVE OUT, YOU CAN DROP IT OFF WITH [01:00:02] THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. TO BE DETERMINED BY A MINOR WARRANT. WHAT IS THE REQUEST ? IT SEEMS LIKE THEY ARE EXCEEDING -- >> THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THE FORM-BASED CODE ASKS FOR MINOR WARRANTS. THERE IS NO STANDARD FOR HOW MANY PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED FOR EDUCATIONAL. THAT IS WHERE THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS COMES INTO PLAY. ALSO, THE STUDIES THAT WE ASKED THE APPLICANT FOR, TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOES MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. THE NEXT ONE WAS DESIGNED STANDARDS. YES, SIR? >> WE HAVE PUT IT IN THE TEXT THAT THE REFERENCES, THE NEAREST POSSIBLE REFERENCE IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE IS ABOUT A DAY CARE OR COMMERCIAL SCHOOL , OR A JUNIOR OR MIDDLE SCHOOL OR HIGH SCHOOL. THOSE ARE IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, BUT NOT IN THE FORM-BASED CODE. WE CALCULATED ALL THOSE POSSIBLE SCENARIOS, AND 35 IS HIGHER THAN THE DAY CARE, HIGHER THAN A COMMERCIAL SCHOOL, AND MATCHES THE HIGH SCHOOL STANDARD. FOR THE PARKING. IN THE FORM-BASED CODE, THERE IS NO SUGGESTION. >> EXCELLENT. THE NEXT ONE , 10 TO 15 FEET BUILT-IN ZONE BETWEEN PROPERTY LINES AND BUILDING LINES. FIVE FEET BUILDING ZONE BETWEEN PROPERTY LINE AND BUILDING LINE. THAT IS RIGHT APPEAR. ANY QUESTIONS ON THE FIVE TO 10 TO 15 FEET? THE NEXT ONE. I'M SORRY. IF YOU GO TO THE HOME PANEL -- >> IT'S ON PAGE 30. >> WE ARE STILL LEARNING HOW TO PLAY WITH OUR NEW TOYS. INAUDIBLE ] >> IF I AM READING THIS RIGHT, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS FIVE FOOT ZONE. >> THE FRONT SIDE OVER HERE ON MERRITT. OKAY. >> OKAY. NEVERMIND. >> I'M SORRY, MS. WILLIAMS? >> GOING BACK TO WARRANT NUMBER TWO , 20,600 SQUARE FEET OF OPEN SPACE. WHEN I LOOK AT PAGE 30 OF OUR PACKET, THERE ARE FIVE OPEN SPACES THAT TOTALED 22,000. 605 FEET. >> I DID THAT TO. BUT, WHAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT ARE THE ONES FOR THE TOWNHOMES. OPEN SPACE ADJACENT WITH THE TOWNHOMES. >> OKAY, TAKE OUT THE 35, 75, AND THAT LEAVES 19,300. OKAY. AND THEN, ON THE PARKING , IF THERE ARE 15 EMPLOYEES, WHY WOULDN'T THERE BE 15 SPACES? >> BECAUSE, NOT EVERY EMPLOYEE DRIVES. >> WE WERE TRYING TO FIND A REFERENCE THAT WE CAN FOLLOW, BECAUSE THERE IS NO GUIDE FOR [01:05:05] THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BEEN THE FORM-BASED CODE HAS NO GUIDANCE FOR THE PARKING. THAT'S WHY WE TRY TO LEARN AND EDUCATE OURSELVES THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH DOES HAVE SOME SUGGESTIONS ABOUT THE PARKING, AND WE THOUGHT THAT IF WE MATCHED THE HIGH SCHOOL REQUIREMENT, IT WOULD ALSO HELP IN SERVICING A MONTESSORI. >> ANYTHING ELSE, MS. WILLIAMS? OKAY. WE ARE ON THE 90 TO 80 FOOT MUSE. WE DON'T HAVE MUSE , SO I AM CONFUSED. NO, BECAUSE THE FRONT DOORS DON'T OPEN ONTO THAT. >> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THE MUSE. >> THE REASON WHY THE REQUEST FOR THIS WARRANT, IT IS BECAUSE THE TOWNHOMES FACING MERRITT ROAD, THEY ARE NOT FACING OPEN SPACE , WHICH WE WOULD CALL A MU CONDITION. IF IT WERE , IF IT MET THE MU CONDITION OF FRONTING OPEN SPACE, THEY COULD DO 80 FEET FOR A TOWNHOME. >> YEAH, WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS, WHEN YOU SAY YOU HAVE A MU, IT'S A HOME, WHOSE FRONT DOOR OPENS ONTO AN OPEN SPACE. THERE IS NO ROAD OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT IS JUST OPEN SPACE, ALONG WITH A BUNCH OF OTHER PEOPLE THAT OPEN ONTO THAT SPACE AS WELL. THAT IS A MU CONDITION. THESE TOWNHOMES ARE NOT BUILT THAT WAY. THESE ARE TOWNHOMES. THERE IS A REASON WHY WE ARE TRYING TO -- >> THE OTHER FIVE ARE FACING OPEN SPACE. >> TRUE. >> THAT'S WHY IT IS A MU CONDITION. ALTHOUGH, IT IS OPEN SPACE AND THE STREET, IT IS STILL MEETING THE OPEN SPACE CONDITION FOR A MU. >> IS YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WHY THESE WOULD BE ADDRESSED HERE? >> I COULD SEE THIS, MAYBE, BEING CLASSIFIED AS A MU, BUT A MU IS A HOME, NOT A TOWNHOME. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT IS PERTINENT TO THOSE TOWNHOMES ON THE ROAD. AND THIS, I WOULD CONSIDER THAT TO BE AN ALLEY. >> YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THE ONCE FRONTING OFF OF MERRITT? >> TYPICALLY, WHEN YOU HAVE A MUS CONDITION -- >> WE DON'T HAVE A MUS CONDITION. I DON'T THINK THIS FALLS INTO THAT. YOU GUYS ARE THE PROFESSIONALS. >> CORRECT, YOU HAVE OPEN SPACE LOTS. WHEN YOU START LOOKING DOWN THE LINE, TYPICALLY, YOU WOULD HAVE AN OPEN SPACE LOT IN BETWEEN THAT, AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE WHAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE, THE ALLEY OR MUS ALLEY. >> YOU WOULD NORMALLY HAVE AN OPEN SPACE THERE, AS WELL. >> YEAH, IF IT WAS A TRUE MU CONDITION. SO, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE ARE TRYING TO SHOEHORN IT INTO THAT, THAT IS MY QUESTION. ANY QUESTIONS, ANY COMMENTS ON THAT, MR. FRISBIE? NO. THE NEXT ONE, A TWO-WAY COURT WITH PARKING. THE REQUIREMENTS ARE 34 FOOT WIDE, 11 FOOT SIDEWALK AND PARKWAY, AND SEVEN FOOT PARALLEL PARKING ON ONE SIDE OF THE 16 FOOT WIDE TRAVEL LINE PAVING. AND, WE ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE, BECAUSE WE HAVE MORE SPACE, BECAUSE WE ARE MAKING IT WIDER. AND, THT IS BECAUSE , FORM-BASED, IT IS LESS WALKABLE , IS THAT THE REASON WHY? [01:10:01] >> THE INTENT OF THE FORM-BASED CODE IS USUALLY TO HAVE NARROWER STREETS, AND MAKE IT MORE OF A WALKABLE ENVIRONMENT. >> OKAY. THE NEXT ONE IS THE TWO-WAY COURT WITH PARKING. >> ALL THE STREET CONDITIONS, BASICALLY, ASKED FOR WIDER, SO WE COULD HAVE, AT LEAST, 24 OR 25 FOOT PAVING FOR THE TWO-WAY ROAD , RATHER THAN WHAT THE CODE ASKS FOR, 16 FOOT TRAVEL LANE. WE ARE FROM 16 TO 24 FEET. >> THAT HELPS ME GET MY DIESEL TRUCK THROUGH THERE, THAT'S FOR SURE. THE NORTH SHORE FRAMEWORK PLAN, TWO-WAY PARKING. AGAIN, ANOTHER ONE. OKAY , THE LAST THREE ARE ALL STREET WITH THAT YOU WANT TO INCREASE IN SIZE. ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? MS. WILLIAMS? >> I JUST HAVE A COMMENT. I THINK THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY HAS A LOT OF CHALLENGES, AND I RESPECT YOUR GOOD INTENTIONS TO TRY TO MEET THOSE CHALLENGES AND COME BEFORE US, AND MY TWO CONCERNS, ONE IS THE TRAFFIC FLOW IMPACT. PARTICULARLY, BECAUSE WE ARE MISSING A PAGE THAT MIGHT HAVE SOME CRITICAL INFORMATION ON IT. I WOULD BE -- THE TRAFFIC FLOW IMPACT STUDY IS SATISFACTORY , AND YOU WILL GET THOSE EASEMENTS APPROVED AND FINALIZED. I THINK IT IS A NICE DEVELOPMENT. >> I JUST HAVE ONE COMMENT ABOUT THE EASEMENT. THEY SAID THAT THEY WOULD LOOK AT THE COMPLETE ENGINEERING DRAWINGS BEFORE THEY CAN GIVE THE FINAL APPROVAL FOR THE EASEMENT. THAT IS, COMPLETE DRAWINGS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE SITE PLAN CODE. THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL, PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS, THAT WE HAVE SHARED WITH THEM , THEY HAVE ACCEPTED IT, THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE GIVEN US ALL OF THE LETTERS OF PREAPPROVAL, SUBJECT TO LOOKING AT THE DETAILED PLAN. OF COURSE, THOSE DETAILED ENGINEERING DRAWINGS WILL BE BASED ON THE PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS, SO WE HAVE THE LETTER FROM THEM. I GUESS, YOU ALSO COMMUNICATED WITH THEM. THEY SAID THAT WE DO NOT PROVIDE FINAL APPROVAL AT THE SITE PLAN STATES, BUT ONLY WHEN THE COMPLETE ENGINEERING DRAWINGS ARE COMPLETE. COMPLETE ENGINEERING DRAWINGS ARE MADE ONCE THE SITE PLAN IS APPROVED. >> MR. TUCKER. >> BACKED UP TRAFFIC FLOW FOR A MINUTE. HOW MANY STUDENTS WILL BE IN THIS BUILDING? >> THE MAXIMUM WE ARE IMAGINING IS 150. >> 150. THAT IS APPROXIMATELY, 150 CARS , OR MAYBE 100 , BUT THAT'S 100 CARS, LET'S SAY, COMING IN AND OUT OF THERE DURING PEAK TIMES. I SEE TRAFFIC BACKING UP ON MERRITT ROAD. THAT IS KIND OF A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE TO TIE UP. >> WE ASKED TO HAVE TRAFFIC LOOK AT THE INTERNAL LAYOUT. ONCE THE CARS ENTER FROM MERRITT ROAD , INTO OUR DEVELOPMENT, AND HOW THEY WOULD REACH THE MONTESSORI, AND HOW THEY WOULD DROP OFF THE KIDS, IN THE MEANING , ONE OR TWO HOURS, WHEN NORMALLY, PEOPLE DROP THEIR KIDS OFF. THAT IS WHAT THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER CALCULATED . THE QUEUE THAT WOULD DEVELOP WOULD BE ABSOLVED WITHIN OUR DEVELOPMENT AND WOULD NOT SPILLOVER TO MERRITT ROAD. AND, THE DRAWING HAS BEEN ADDED. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S PART OF THE -- IT SHOULD BE -- >> IT IS PAGE SEVEN THAT IS MISSING. EVERYTHING ELSE SHOULD BE , SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THEM. >> PAGE 46 IS WHAT I AM REFERRING TO. >> YES, THE TITLE OF THE JOHN -- DRAWING FOR THE TRAFFIC YOU . THAT SHOWS THE PEAK TIME OF THE TRAFFIC YOU AND ALL OF THE CARS WILL BE ACCOMMODATED WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT. [01:15:04] >> TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, THAT'S WHERE I AM CONFUSED, AND I THINK WE NEED TO GET SOMETHING MORE THAN JUST THE INTERNAL CIRCULATION, BECAUSE THE QUESTION IS, PEOPLE ARE COMING IN AT THE NORTHERN ENTRANCE, QUEUING ALL THE WAY THROUGH THAT ROAD. THE ONLY WAY TO GET THERE IS BY COMING SOUTH BOUND ON MERRITT. FOR ALL THE PEOPLE COMING OFF OF CASTLE ROAD, AND MERRITT NORTHBOUND, HOW DID THEY GET INTO THAT QUEUE? THERE IS NO TURN LANE. THERE IS NO LEFT-HAND TURN LANE THERE. THEY HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY UP TO THE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE AND MERRITT ROAD INTERSECTION, AND THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN MAKE A U-TURN UP THERE. THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO EVEN FURTHER NORTH INTO THE TOWNHOMES -- WHAT IS THE NAME OF THAT PROJECT? AND, TURN AROUND IN THE PARKING LOT AND COME BACK OUT. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE DOING THAT. >> I GET YOUR POINT, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THIS DRAWING -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PAGE NUMBER IS. >> PAGE 46. >> IT SHOWS THE QUEUE FOR THE NORTHBOUND, AS WELL AS A SOUTH BOUND. THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERS ESTIMATE IS THAT MORE PEOPLE WILL BE COMING FROM THE NORTH SIDE FROM THE SOUTH SIDE. THERE IS A QUEUE ON THE SOUTH SIDE AS WELL. IF YOU LOOK AT STREET B, THERE IS A QUEUE THERE AS WELL. THEY WILL BE QUEUING ON BOTH SIDES, NORTHBOUND AND SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC. >> WHAT PAGE IS THAT? >> 46. >> IC SCHOOL DROP OFF. >> I'M NOT SURE WHAT EXHIBIT THEY ARE LOOKING AT. >> THE YELLOW FIGURES, THE GREENISH YELLOW IS SCHOOL. THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING . I UNDERSTAND. MR. HERNANDEZ. >> I THINK THE CONCERN HERE IS, OKAY, ARE YOU FIRST AND FOREMOST REMOVING THE MEDIAN ON MERRITT ROAD TO MAKE A LEFT-HAND TURN INTO THE DEVELOPMENT? IS THERE A SPOT IN THERE WHERE YOU REMOVE THE MEDIAN? IF NOT, THE ONLY OTHER WAY TO GET IN THERE IS TO TURN LEFT ON MERRITT CIRCLE, WHICH OCCURS WELL BEFORE YOUR DEVELOPMENT. THEN, THE CONCERN BECOMES, ALL THE TRAFFIC THAT WILL BE ON MERRITT CIRCLE, NOT NECESSARILY MERRITT ROAD. I KIND OF, SORT OF SEE -- OUR PACKET, PAGE 46, THERE IS A MENTION ABOUT THE MEDIAN TO BE REMOVED ON MERRITT ROAD, FOR A LEFT-HAND TURN. THAT MEANS THAT IS THE ONLY ACCESS FROM NORTHBOUND MERRITT INTO THE DEVELOPMENT, THAT LEFT-HAND TURN. AND, THAT IS WHERE THE TRAFFIC STUDY INFORMATION WAS LACKING. >> I THINK WE HAVE TO GET BACK TO THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER WITH ALL OF THAT INFORMATION. >> THE OTHER THING I AM CONCERNED ABOUT, IF THAT LEFT TURN BECOMES CONGESTED, PEOPLE WILL TURN INTO MERRITT CIRCLE. THAT BECOMES ANOTHER QUESTION. WHAT IS GOING ON ON MERRITT CIRCLE NOW? >> WE WILL DEFINITELY ADDRESS IT. >> MS. WILLIAMS? >> WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY EASEMENT? WHAT IS THAT, WITH J PI? THEY ARE SAYING , NO COMMITMENTS ARE HEREBY GIVEN, OR OTHER ACTIONS WILL EVENTUALLY BE AFFECTED. WHERE ARE YOU IN THE PROCESS WITH THAT? >> WE HAD A DISCUSSION THROUGH OUR BROKER, AND THE OWNER OF THE NEXT PROPERTY . THEY HAVE GIVEN US AN ESTIMATE OF HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO COST, INCLUDING CIVIL AND SOME OTHER CLASS INVOLVEMENT. THAT IS IN THE PACKET, I BELIEVE. >> $7450. >> YES. THEY COVERED THAT, AND WE HAVE TO PAY IN ADVANCE. THAT [01:20:01] IS THE BEST ESTIMATE. WE DID IT THROUGH OUR ATTORNEYS. ALL THE EYES ARE DOTTED AND T'S ARE CROSSED, AND THEY WERE COMFORTABLE GIVING US THAT ESTIMATE. ALL THE BURDEN IS ON OUR SHOULDER, AND I ACCEPTED THAT, SO HOPEFULLY, THAT WILL RESOLVE, EVENTUALLY. AGAIN, I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT MR. TUCKER'S CONCERN. WE RUN A MONTESSORI. THIS IS OUR SECOND OPERATION THAT WE ARE REQUESTING. WE HAVE ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF STUDENTS AT THAT MONTESSORI. THE BUILDING IS ABOUT 10,000 SQUARE FEET. AND, THE DROP OFF AND PICK UP IS DIFFERENT TIMING, BECAUSE SOME KIDS GO TO SCHOOL FOR THREE HOURS A DAY. SOME GO FOR FIVE HOURS, AND SOME FOR A FULL DAY. THE PICKUP TIMES , BETWEEN 11:30 AND 12:30 , THE INFORMATION THAT I GAVE TO THE TRAFFIC STUDY GENTLEMEN. 2:30 TO 4:30 IS ANOTHER GROUP, AND 6:00 IS THE FINAL GROUP. 30% GHOST UNTIL 6:00 P.M. >> PICKUP IS OKAY, BUT DROP OFF , THEY ALL GO AT THE SAME TIME. >> DROP OFF IS ALSO STAGGERED . THE PARENTS DROP THEM OFF, AND PICK THEM UP LATER IN THE DAY. >> YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THOSE TIMES WILL BE? >> THE MORNING STARTS AT 6:30, AND PARENTS GO TO WORK, THEY DROP OFF ABOUT 25% OF THE KIDS IN THE MORNING. THEN, THE 8:30 TIMEFRAME IS ANOTHER 20%, AND SOME KIDS COME FOR THREE HOURS OR FOUR HOURS, LATER APART. SOME COME AFTER SCHOOL. KIDS ALSO, 3:00 P.M. AND GET PICKED UP AT 6:00 P.M. >> THE TRAFFIC STUDY ANALYSIS LOOKED AT THE TIME FRAMES OF 7:30 TO 8:00. >> THAT'S ALL IT SAID? >> YEAH. >> I GAVE HIM VERY DETAILED -- >> I GUESS MAYBE THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER DID NOT GET A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE VOLUME OVER TIME WOULD BE. THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO ASK HIM TO CONSIDER. >> YES, WE CAN REVISIT, BUT WE SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER THE CITY ENGINEER. WHEN IT WAS SPREAD OUT , LET'S SAY FROM 6:00 TO ALMOST 10:00 A.M., THE DROP OFF, WE WERE ASKED TO SQUEEZE IT INTO MINIMUM TIME. TO SEE, PEOPLE CHOOSE TO DROP DURING THAT PARTICULAR FRAME, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. THAT IS WHY THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER ADVISED THE REPORT TO SQUEEZE THE TIME INTO LIMITED HOURS, TO SEE WHAT WOULD BE THE WORST POSSIBLE SCENARIO. >> THAT MAY BE TRUE FOR THAT ORIGINAL DESIGN, BUT IN SQUEEZING THAT, YOU ALSO ONLY ACCOUNTED FOR 62 STUDENTS , OR 62 TRIPS , WHEN WE WERE JUST TOLD ABOUT 150 STUDENTS. >> WE WILL DEFINITELY REVISE IT, BUT THE CITY ENGINEER IS ALSO COMFORTABLE IF WE EXPAND THE TIME FROM 6:00 TO LET'S SAY, 10:00 A.M. IN THE MORNING. >> ASK HIM IF HE IS COMFORTABLE TO PORTRAY WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS . MR. FRISBIE. >> TO THAT POINT, IF THAT IS THE SCENARIO, YOU SHOULD HAVE TWO DIFFERENT TABLES EVALUATING , AS YOU SAID, ONE FOR THE WORST CASE SCENARIO, AND ONE FOR WHAT YOU EXPECT WOULD BE THE TYPICAL OR THE EXPECTED SCENARIO , WITH AN EXPLANATION THEREOF. AND, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER TO BE PRESENT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. JUST IN CASE. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? LET ME ASK THE APPLICANT, SEEING AS YOU ARE STANDING HERE, WOULD YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO US PUSHING BACK A DECISION ON THIS TO ALLOW YOU TO PRESENT IT TO US AGAIN ? YOU DON'T WANT ME TO [01:25:01] SAY TWO WEEKS, RIGHT? CHRISTMAS EVE? YOU MIGHT GET A CHRISTMAS PRESENT. FOUR WEEKS FROM NOW? >> WHATEVER MAKES YOU COMFORTABLE. OUR JOB IS TO GIVE YOU ALL OF THE REQUIRED, NECESSARY , COMPLIANCE, WHATEVER IT TAKES. >> MR. FRISBIE. >> THE MESSAGE TO YOU, AS THE DEVELOPER IS, WE ARE NOT OPPOSED, AS A BODY, WITH YOUR IDEA. AS COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS SAID, IT'S A NICE PRODUCT AND WILL BE GOOD FOR THE CITY, BUT WE HAVE TOO MANY QUESTIONS TO APPROVE , OR EVEN TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS. THE OTHER OPTION IS TO DENY, AND I DON'T THINK WE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH DENYING YOUR PETITION. I THINK THE SAFE WAY TO GO IS TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO TABLE THIS , INITIALLY. GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO PREPARE FORMAL PRESENTATION, ADDRESSING THE VARIOUS WARRANTS, GIVING US THE PROPER EXHIBITS THAT GO ALONG WITH EACH PETITION YOU ARE ASKING FOR, ALONG WITH THE RATIONALE OF WHY YOU ARE ASKING FOR IT, AND A CLEAR TRAFFIC STUDY THAT TELLS US EXACTLY WHAT IT IS WE CAN EXPECT, JUST TO MAKE SURE. IN FAIRNESS TO YOU, BUT ALSO IN FAIRNESS TO THE COMMUNITY, THE PEOPLE THAT WILL BE LIVING NEXT YOU FOR MANY YEARS, THAT WE ARE TRANSPARENT WITH THE SCENARIO YOU ARE CREATING, SO THAT WE DON'T CREATE A PROBLEM ON OUR WATCH. >> I FULLY UNDERSTAND, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR NONDENIAL. I TRIED MY BEST TO RESOLVE ALL THE ISSUES BEFORE I COULD BUY THE PROPERTY, BUT THE SELLER WOULD NOT EXTEND , SO I ENDED UP CLOSING ON THE LAND YESTERDAY. AS OF NOW, I OWN THE LAND, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR NONDENIAL, SO I CAN GO BACK AND DO MY HOMEWORK AND RE-PRESENT TO YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MS. WILLIAMS HAS A QUESTION. >> DID YOU GUYS FOLLOW THE QUESTIONING ON THE WARRANTS? >> YES, WE UNDERSTAND . PRIMARILY, THE TRAFFIC, BUT ALSO, IN THE PRESENTATION, EVEN IF WE UNDERSTOOD THE WARRANTS, WE WILL COME UP WITH A PRESENTATION, SO YOU CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE, AND FOR EXAMPLE, AS I SAID, WE ARE LEARNING THIS FORM-BASED CODE. THE CITY HAS BEEN REALLY HELPFUL. IT'S A NEW THING FOR US TOO, SO WE WILL SHARE OUR KNOWLEDGE, WHATEVER WE HAVE LEARNED THROUGH THIS EXPERIENCE WITH YOU, AND HOPEFULLY, WE WILL UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGES WE ARE FACING. OUR INTENTION IS GOOD, AS YOU CAN SEE. >> THANK YOU. JANUARY, WHAT? I THOUGHT IT WAS DECEMBER 24TH. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. OH, THERE IT IS. MR. FRISBIE. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS PETITION TO OUR NEXT MEETING, ON JANUARY 14TH, 2025. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY MS. WILLIAMS. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? CALL THE VOTE. THAT PASSES, 5-0. WE WILL SEE YOU GUYS IN ABOUT A MONTH. THANK YOU. THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS, BECAUSE I AM GOING TO INVOKE MY ABILITY TO REALIGN AND REORDER , AND I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE RE-PLAT OF THE SUNSET LANDING AT BAYSIDE NORTH , AND AT THIS TIME, IF THERE IS ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT TO THE COMMISSION [01:30:02] ABOUT THAT RE-PLAT , I AM WILLING TO LISTEN. SEEING NONE. I WILL CLOSE * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.