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.