00:01:57 >> I see that you have dates on you
00:02:04 are so this is good. Thank you very
00:02:05 much. Appreciated. Okay next item will
00:02:06 be action on the consent agenda. The
00:02:10 consent item has 20-06 39 minutes of
00:02:14 planning and zoning commission regular
00:02:18 meeting of July 14, 2020. Is there a
00:02:19 motion to approve? >> Motion to
00:02:27 approve
00:02:28 >> Second.
00:02:29 >> There is a motion and a second
00:02:32 minutes of July 14, 2020 meeting.
00:02:33 Please, cast your vote.
00:02:34 >> Roll Call Vote:
00:02:37 >> I'm sorry. All those in favor say,
00:02:38 aye. [Chorus of ayes.]
00:02:40 opposed, same sign. Unanimous.
00:02:49 There will be be a number of plans to consider
00:02:54 tonight. First item is 20-0081PF
00:02:59 consideration discuss, act on a
00:03:00 preliminary final plat for lot R on the
00:03:08 [inaudible]. Who is got this? Mr.
00:03:11 Moss? Anybody?
00:03:16 >> Yes. This a preliminary final plat
00:03:17 for the development for office park.
00:03:19 It's coming on the corner of Burton
00:03:23 Drive and McKinney just off of Stacy.
00:03:27 I'm here for questions you may have.
00:03:29 >> Okay. Any questions of Mr. Moss?
00:03:34 Chris, are you good? You're the kind
00:03:36 of the gatekeeper on this.
00:03:38 >> [Speaker off microphone]
00:03:41 >> Okay. Other questions, or we will
00:03:43 take a motion. To move we approve final
00:03:51 platwith the conditions as noted in the
00:03:55 staff report.
00:03:56 >> Second.
00:03:57 >> There is a motion and a second - -
00:04:02 200481 PF, as staff report. Seconded
00:04:10 by [inaudible]. Any discussion? All
00:04:12 those in favor say, aye. [Chorus of
00:04:13 ayes.] Opposed, same sign. Unanimous.
00:04:19 Next item, we will take these do and I
00:04:22 apologize for taking this a little out
00:04:24 of order. 20-0084 PF conduct a public
00:04:31 hearing for a final plat for lighthouse
00:04:37 Olympic Crossing located in the EGG E TJ
00:04:44 approximately 500 feet west of Trinity
00:04:46 Falls Parkway and 20-0085 PF consider
00:04:50 discuss act on a Plymouth a final plat
00:04:52 to 20 feet north of Avalon Creek on
00:04:57 the west side of community Avenue. Is
00:04:59 there a motion to approve these two
00:05:01 plaques?
00:05:02 >> Motion to approve
00:05:04 >> Second.
00:05:07 >> Motion to approve the item 20-0084
00:05:11 PF and item 20085 PF.Second by Mr.
00:05:21 McCall. Please, - - - I'm sorry - all
00:05:22 those in favor say, aye. [Chorus of
00:05:23 ayes.] Opposed, same sign. The motion
00:05:26 carries. That would be [inaudible] now
00:05:28 we move to a regular agenda.. The item
00:05:36 is 20-0027 SP, public hearing request
00:05:39 on a variance to us I plan on Auburn
00:05:41 Hills office park northwest corner of
00:05:44 US Highway 380 and Auburn Hills Pkwy.
00:05:49 Mr. Moss.
00:05:50 >> Good evening commissioners. For the
00:05:51 record you Moss city of McKinney. I did
00:05:53 receive one letter today. I think
00:06:03 [inaudible] opposition might be a bit
00:06:04 harsh but I did print that out and
00:06:05 presented for you. There is a resident
00:06:06 of the committee thatwanted to ask that
00:06:10 you reconsider the placement of some
00:06:11 screening trees. And there is a markup
00:06:12 on the back of that they send as well.
00:06:22 This site does it right on the corner
00:06:23 of 380 and Auburn Hills Pkwy. On the
00:06:24 northeast corner. It does have
00:06:26 floodplain on the west and to the north.
00:06:30 The property does kind of sit a little
00:06:34 bit elevated. I did want to provide
00:06:39 additional photos of kind of the
00:06:40 surrounding area to make sure you could
00:06:41 understand how this topography
00:06:46 sits. It's kind of an aerial. You can
00:06:50 see the floodplain separates it from
00:06:51 housing development.. However there is
00:06:53 significant great change between the
00:06:59 two. The palm sits quite a bit lower
00:07:00 than the grade of the site as well as a
00:07:03 neighborhood. So, if we look here, you
00:07:04 can kind of see, this - I'm sorry -
00:07:10 this up here is the grade that is the
00:07:16 building pad. It's about 15, 20 feet
00:07:17 down to the water level. This is
00:07:23 another look at the site. You can see
00:07:24 the site here was up you can in
00:07:26 proximity to the residential there.
00:07:27 This is the western side of the
00:07:35 building site. You can see it's kind of
00:07:36 a walking path. This is from that
00:07:39 walking path looking back at the
00:07:40 building site. The applicant is looking
00:07:47 to construct a 44,000 square-foot
00:07:48 office park on the site. They are also
00:07:50 showing canopy trees to the gasket
00:08:00 buffer is required by the ordinance.
00:08:01 The applicant's meeting on the
00:08:02 landscaping requirements on the site.
00:08:05 The applicant did additionally provide
00:08:06 some informational only elevation of a
00:08:09 project that is typical for what they
00:08:11 would like to be building here.
00:08:14 However, I will emphasize these are not
00:08:16 tied to the case in these very
00:08:17 informational only tonight. I did want
00:08:33 to back up to this year. So because
00:08:36 this site sits next to an area that is
00:08:37 own for residential uses, the city
00:08:38 would require the use of a screening
00:08:39 device between residential and
00:08:40 commercial uses. Typically, this would
00:08:41 mean a tube there still fence with
00:08:43 masonry and screening shrubs. Under
00:08:44 some circumstances a living screen may
00:08:45 also be used.In certain circumstances
00:08:53 like this, where they are adjacent to a
00:08:54 floodplain, staff does have the
00:08:55 authority to waive that requirement.
00:08:56 However, in this circumstance we are
00:08:59 not comfortable with at because the
00:09:00 topography of the site makes it highly
00:09:01 visible for the neighborhood. And it
00:09:05 also has no natural cover wooded area
00:09:09 like you would find a typical
00:09:10 floodplain. So in this circumstance,
00:09:16 considered some alternative screening
00:09:17 devices. However, we don't want to go
00:09:21 with the full waiver that the applicant
00:09:22 is currently requesting. As such, we
00:09:24 recommend denial of this request and I
00:09:26 stand for any questions.
00:09:29 >> First question, the water between
00:09:40 the proposed [inaudible] and
00:09:41 residential.
00:09:42 >> So, distance wise,here to here, is
00:09:47 about 150 feet. Here to here, about 600
00:09:50 for the here, tobacco property is
00:09:52 about 500.
00:09:53 >> And as far as the floodplain
00:09:56 goes,are any of them in the floodplain
00:09:59 as far as residential?
00:10:06 >> No. The residential zone permitted
00:10:07 in the floodplain. So all of the
00:10:08 floodplain since kind of lower. You can
00:10:09 see there are some houses kind of right
00:10:13 here.
00:10:14 >> The subject property?
00:10:20 >> Yes. That's as close as
00:10:21 single-family homes get to [inaudible].
00:10:25 >> With this alter the flooding?
00:10:30 >> No.
00:10:31 >> [Speaker off microphone]
00:10:33 >> I can assure you the engineering as
00:10:36 look at these and they've approved the
00:10:38 site plan.As far as they concerned, it
00:10:40 work for them. That said, from the
00:10:43 staff's perspective I don't think it's
00:10:44 going to be - - [inaudible] because
00:10:54 they're building on top of this. It's
00:10:55 already an elevator there that's
00:10:56 outside the floodplain.
00:10:57 >> [Speaker off microphone]
00:10:58 >> Yes.
00:10:59 >> Can we look at the site plan?
00:11:02 >> Sure.
00:11:07 >> Where you have your floodplain
00:11:09 marks, [inaudible]
00:11:10 >> I believe forgive me, I think it's
00:11:18 in here somewhere. It is one of these.
00:11:19 I believe it is somewhere around here.
00:11:23 Kind of hard to read on this.
00:11:24 >> I guess I will ask [inaudible] I'm
00:11:26 g guessing part of the discussion
00:11:31 [inaudible] but can a fence be built
00:11:36 [inaudible]?
00:11:37 >> We would not have a requirement to
00:11:38 buildin the floodplain that were a
00:11:42 case. In the past when is been
00:11:43 conflicts like this staff has been a
00:11:45 little more flexible on wwhere the
00:11:48 screen vice to goes. Basically we want
00:11:49 to make sure it's between that
00:11:51 commercial and residential use to help
00:11:54 protect the screen.
00:11:56 >> So, if we deny the request here,
00:12:01 could the screening be built so low it
00:12:03 actually [inaudible].
00:12:09 >> I like to jump in and clarify.
00:12:10 Matt, the site itself [inaudible] from
00:12:14 the floodplain. So where we are
00:12:16 building is [inaudible]
00:12:20 >> [Speaker off microphone]
00:12:21 >> Typically they would not be
00:12:22 permitted to construct in a floodplain
00:12:24 because [inaudible]
00:12:25 >> So, it is [inaudible] it would be
00:12:27 level on the [inaudible]
00:12:35 >> In essence, yes. I do want to be
00:12:36 sure that we clarify that we recognize
00:12:37 [inaudible] may not be applicable. And
00:12:39 what we are hoping to achieve is either
00:12:43 a living screen or even landscaping to
00:12:44 soften that view.That's the purpose of
00:12:48 the screen requirement is to help
00:12:49 screen the visibilityof this commercial
00:12:51 development from residential. So we
00:12:55 recognize this is somewhat unique in
00:12:58 it's adjacency to the floodplain but we
00:12:59 do feel that the waiver for any
00:13:04 mitigation or enhancement was
00:13:05 necessarily warranted in this case.
00:13:07 >> This item was notice to residents
00:13:09 within 200 feet that did not occupy
00:13:13 [inaudible].
00:13:14 >> Yes. The 200 foot buffer did not hit
00:13:18 a lot of those homes over there but it
00:13:19 did go to the HOA.
00:13:23 >> So, is the topography of the
00:13:26 residential equal, lower or higher
00:13:30 than the pad site?
00:13:31 >> I would say it's approximately
00:13:32 equal. It kind of goes live it up from
00:13:35 there but I was at the site just
00:13:39 yesterday, and that's a lease from the
00:13:42 street level, the streets are all about
00:13:43 the same level.
00:13:46 >> So, - - I'm sorry, go ahead.
00:13:51 >> No, go ahead.
00:13:52 >> How many lanes are on the street?
00:13:59 >> On this street it is - - at the
00:14:00 entrances four lanes in there tapers
00:14:01 down to two before you [inaudible]
00:14:02 >> [Speaker off microphone]
00:14:03 >> Yes.
00:14:05 >> Can you go back to the previous
00:14:08 layout, I guess the aerial view.
00:14:11 >> Okay. This one?>> Keep going.
00:14:15 Right there. All of the space in the
00:14:19 sidewalk that's all floodplain. There's
00:14:20 not any potential for homes to be built
00:14:31 over there, correct?
00:14:32 >> Correct. That splattered as a
00:14:33 common area. In the floodplain. So it
00:14:34 would not be developed.
00:14:35 >> Are there any other examples of
00:14:36 commercial with this kind of feature in
00:14:37 other parts of the city [inaudible].
00:14:40 >> I know in other parts of the town
00:14:41 we have dealt with there is generally
00:14:42 been when they are adjacent
00:14:54 floodplain there's often a lot of trees
00:14:55 and natural cover and things in staff
00:14:56 is comfortable with waivers in those
00:14:57 circumstances. However, because this is
00:14:58 a water feature rather than a wooded
00:14:59 area, there is not any cover especially
00:15:00 because of the topography and it
00:15:01 almost sits on a pedestal. It's really
00:15:03 quite visible from the residential.
00:15:05 That is why staff would want to have
00:15:07 some kind of softening effect on the
00:15:10 development for residential units.
00:15:16 >> Okay. Then they are adjacent
00:15:17 across the street have a screen around
00:15:18 them that neighborhood as well?
00:15:21 >> They do have a required screen along
00:15:25 like the collector here there is a
00:15:28 [inaudible] there. There is some
00:15:30 masonry walls here. But,I mean those
00:15:35 are required for our subdivision
00:15:36 ordinance. So in this case just being
00:15:41 the that residential use or his own in
00:15:43 that case, is what is going to trigger
00:15:45 that screening requirement.
00:15:46 >> Okay.
00:15:49 >> Other questions? Go ahead.
00:15:52 >> On the landscape plan, what are the
00:15:58 [inaudible]? Do you know?
00:16:01 >> The - -
00:16:08 >> PF
00:16:09 >> I believe they are one foot
00:16:10 contours. I believe from the top down
00:16:11 to the bottom, it is approximately 15,
00:16:13 20 feet.
00:16:14 >> Thank you.
00:16:15 >> Anyone else? Thank you,. The
00:16:20 applicant here tonight?
00:16:31 >> Good evening, commissioners. Matt
00:16:35 Moore Claymore engineering 301 S.
00:16:37 Coleman Cross for Texas. I'm here
00:16:40 tonight on behalf of AJ --
00:16:43 development. For as Joe indicated we
00:16:44 have a site in Auburn Hills and 380 For
00:16:47 as Joe indicated we have a site in
00:16:48 Auburn Hills and 384 proximally 40,000
00:16:49 condo office space we've
00:16:53 represented. Again the request is for
00:16:54 the screen variance for the thing I
00:17:02 like to note is the distances that Joe
00:17:03 communicator actually from the property
00:17:04 line to the residential. We actually
00:17:05 have an additional 75 feet of
00:17:06 floodplain on our site that pushes
00:17:10 those building South a proximally,
00:17:11 90-95 feet and pushing themis for our
00:17:15 Western property line. So those
00:17:16 distances noted are basically 700 feet
00:17:20 to the north is our nearest
00:17:21 residential. So over two football
00:17:22 fields away to the north to get to the
00:17:23 nearest residential and to the west as
00:17:24 noted that's of a common space area and
00:17:28 we are several hundred feet away from
00:17:30 anything there. You know, I heard I
00:17:33 think the comment about some sort of
00:17:35 landscaping enhance screen if I don't
00:17:38 think were opposed to doing some set of
00:17:40 landscape screening. We just felt a
00:17:43 masonry screen wall or tubular steel
00:17:50 fence here just did meet the normal
00:17:51 intent of screening between
00:17:52 nonresidential and residential. So
00:17:53 without looks like, as my landscape
00:17:57 plan notes, we have got them on the
00:17:58 edge of the property which is actually
00:17:59 the very bottom of the slope there.
00:18:02 There's a 15 foot area there. Working
00:18:06 on the placement of those trees and
00:18:07 maybe incorporating some other
00:18:10 Evergreen components may bethe way to
00:18:14 attack it. We just felt like from a
00:18:16 physical barrier standpoint the wall is
00:18:19 not the answer in this particular
00:18:21 location. So with that I'll be happy to
00:18:23 answer questions the commission might
00:18:25 have.
00:18:27 >> Questions?
00:18:29 >> One question. So these buildings
00:18:33 there, what is on the backside? Is
00:18:36 that brick structure? What would you
00:18:38 see from the residence [inaudible].
00:18:48 >> Joe I think had the elevations.
00:18:49 Basically we have foresighted
00:18:50 architectural buildings there. So we
00:18:51 year back in Evelyn's mirror the front.
00:18:57 The only thing you would see on the
00:18:58 back of the building, that you went on
00:18:59 the front obviously you have got to do
00:19:00 with HVAC and some of the service
00:19:01 component staff but again, that stuff
00:19:02 can be screened as well.
00:19:03 >> What kind of discussions does the
00:19:06 developer or yourself have with the
00:19:10 houses across the street to the north?
00:19:11 >> We've not spoken. I'm not gone
00:19:16 door-to-door to the residents of the
00:19:17 north there for we've been working
00:19:18 hand-in-hand with John Harriswho is the
00:19:20 broker on the property. So again we
00:19:26 have not met with and HOA for any
00:19:28 resident knocking on doors.>> Other
00:19:36 questions? I do a question of staff.
00:19:39 The recommending [inaudible] it is
00:19:43 approved staff has a condition
00:19:44 regarding the sidewalk on 380.
00:19:52 [inaudible] on the landscape Lane. It
00:19:53 does show on the site plan but was it
00:19:54 an oversight that is not on the
00:19:55 landscape plan or was that intentional?
00:19:57 >> Just an oversight. It's required on
00:20:00 the site plan it will get incorporate
00:20:01 on the landscape plan. I think we have
00:20:03 been working with staff on comments.
00:20:05 >> Others, questions?
00:20:08 >> Will be back in touch shortly. This
00:20:12 is a public hearing item. Is there
00:20:17 anyone here to speak on this item now
00:20:18 would be the time. We do have one letter
00:20:20 from Brian [inaudible]. So, Brian you
00:20:27 wrote a note to the city Council as
00:20:28 part of our minutes.
00:20:31 >> Motion to close the public hearing
00:20:34 >> Motion and seconded. To close the
00:20:38 hearing. All those in favor say, aye.
00:20:39 [Chorus of ayes.] Opposed, same sign.
00:20:43 It is approval will stop public hearing
00:20:46 has been close. Questions, comments?
00:20:49 >> I have a comment
00:20:50 >> Mr. McCall>> I understand
00:20:58 [inaudible] but the body of water and
00:21:03 the road this isn't adjacent to the
00:21:09 real property or residential. And that
00:21:14 is where I feel that this is all right.
00:21:21 If it's catty corner if you will, to
00:21:25 the residential and there is a road
00:21:29 that is [inaudible] I don't have a
00:21:31 problem with this. Maybe some more
00:21:33 trees and bushes on the east corner.
00:21:37 That is my stance on it
00:21:40 >> I do want to make sure that we are
00:21:44 clear for the record that the screen
00:21:51 that we are talk about is on the north
00:21:52 side and west. The screen is not
00:21:53 required on the east. I think the east
00:21:56 or the south. I think the staff shares
00:22:00 your opinion. We recognize a wall or
00:22:01 even a running fence may be
00:22:05 [inaudible]. However we would like to
00:22:06 see some additional landscaping around
00:22:09 buildings that will soften that view.
00:22:12 We recognize the buffering is there but
00:22:13 that screen will soften - - staff has
00:22:19 some concern [inaudible]
00:22:20 >> [Speaker off microphone]
00:22:21 >> What we have before us is
00:22:25 [inaudible] a request from the applicant
00:22:28 [inaudible].
00:22:29 >> That is correct.
00:22:34 >> For clarification it sounds like
00:22:35 the applicant is okay with that. Can we
00:22:39 asked the applicant? You are
00:22:40 okay with the city[inaudible]
00:22:47 >> Again, I'm happy to work with staff
00:22:48 to come up with some sort of solution
00:22:50 there for that northern boundary to up
00:22:54 screen and soften that view. I'm
00:22:58 confident we can work with staff to
00:22:59 come up with something to up soften it
00:23:00 and create increase of on what we've
00:23:03 shown here on placement not only but on
00:23:05 the materials so we help Jeffers point
00:23:09 soften of you.
00:23:10 >> I think staff left the opening for
00:23:17 [inaudible] as far as the engineering a
00:23:18 wall. It will increase the value. Of
00:23:19 course your offices [inaudible] my
00:23:22 concern being that we have residence
00:23:26 that have no notice of this and
00:23:27 [inaudible] on the North and the West.
00:23:32 That would be uncomfortable approving a
00:23:34 full waiver without a plan in place and
00:23:37 I don't want to [inaudible] exactly
00:23:40 what that plan is.
00:23:46 >> I think this is an ideal candidate
00:23:48 for vegetative screen. Because the
00:23:54 surrounding features about water
00:23:58 [inaudible] I'm not in agreement that
00:24:01 there should be no screening there. So
00:24:05 [inaudible].
00:24:06 >> I feel this item was tabled it
00:24:07 should come back and work with staff to
00:24:09 get a living screen or for prefer this
00:24:13 be carried [inaudible]
00:24:15 >> [inaudible]
00:24:19 >> No, I love to work with staff come
00:24:20 up with a screen. I don't know if
00:24:21 there's a way to - - obviously I'm
00:24:24 worried about time. My client has got
00:24:27 guidelines within his real estate
00:24:28 contract that I've got you try to work
00:24:30 within. So is my only concern. The
00:24:32 delay from that side of it. But if
00:24:36 that is - - that's my option I don't
00:24:39 have much choice year.
00:24:43 >> So, procedurally, the commission
00:24:45 can table the item and staff can go
00:24:47 back and work with the applicant. The
00:24:51 way the ordinance as written a waiver
00:24:52 to the screening requirement can be
00:24:54 granted by the director planning
00:24:58 without P&Z action. I'd only bring
00:25:00 forward that request that I was
00:25:04 uncomfortable supporting. So with
00:25:06 that, if you want to you can table this
00:25:08 item. We could go back based on the
00:25:09 discussion we had at tonight's meeting
00:25:12 and sort through the landscaping could
00:25:16 look like for a vegetative screen of
00:25:18 some sort. It meets the position of
00:25:21 staff or feel comfortable approving out
00:25:25 waiver it would not necessarily have to
00:25:26 come back to the commission. It could
00:25:28 be approved in my discussion, which
00:25:30 would help with some of that timeline.
00:25:33 >> Absolutely.
00:25:34 >> So, I will just say this. And then
00:25:35 make a motion. I feel comfortable
00:25:42 [inaudible] the applicant is willing to
00:25:43 work with the city and [inaudible]. So
00:25:46 with that I will go ahead and make a
00:25:49 motion that we table the item.
00:25:53 [inaudible].
00:25:56 >> [Speaker off microphone]
00:26:00 >> So, we have a motion to table the
00:26:04 item. The goal would be for the
00:26:06 applicant and staff to work together to
00:26:09 come up with a some type of
00:26:11 vegetation-- that everybody can agree
00:26:13 with. Based on the nodding of heads you
00:26:18 two can come to some agreement.
00:26:21 [inaudible] the authority to move ahead.
00:26:23 >> Absolutely.
00:26:25 >> Okay. There is a motion and a
00:26:26 second to table any discussion? Thank
00:26:31 you very much Mr. McCall.
00:26:35 >> [Speaker off microphone]
00:26:36 >> All those in favor say, aye.
00:26:43 Opposed, same sign. The motion carries.
00:26:47 That is our last agenda item. We will
00:26:50 have staff comments, member comments.
00:26:53 Brian, do you have anything?
00:26:56 >> [Speaker off microphone]
00:26:58 >> Anyone? Ms. Arnold? What you have
00:27:02 for us? Nothing? All right.It is 6:55
00:27:06 PM. Wwe are adjourned.
00:27:12 >> [Speaker off microphone]
00:27:14 >> There is a motion and a second all
00:27:16 those in favor say, aye. [Chorus of
00:27:17 ayes.] Opposed, same sign. We are
00:27:20 adjourned.