Jul 26, 2022 Planning & Zoning Commission on 2022-07-26 6:00 PM

RUSS, YOU'RE GOOD. ERIC GOOD, GOOD. GOOD EVENING, SIX PM WELCOME TO THE CITY OF

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:10]

YOU'RE SPEAKING ON. AND IF YOU HAVE A PARTICULAR POSITION, CHECK THAT BOX AS WELL. WHEN YOU COME TO THE PODIUM, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS. YOUR CONCERNS. DURING THAT THREE MINUTES IN THE LAST 30 SECONDS, YOU'LL SEE YELLOW TIMER ON THE SCREEN UP THERE WHEN YOU'RE THREE MINUTES IS UP THAT WOULD TURN TO REALLY BRIGHT RED. WE APPRECIATE YOU STICKING WITH THAT SCHEDULE. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU ARE HERE AND INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS. WE DO APPRECIATE IT. THE FIRST ITEM TONIGHT WILL BE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM THAT IS NOT AND DOES NOT HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHED ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT AND AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

SO IF THERE'S ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON IT ON AN ITEM THAT DOES NOT HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHED. PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. ALRIGHT SEEING THAT ONE MOVE TO THE NEXT TIME. IT

[CONSENT ITEMS]

WE COULD UPDATED VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS CHANGES YOU HAVE EMOTION. MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES WITH THE ONE REVISION SUGGESTED BY. MAN'S I EMOTIONALLY, MR DUKE TO APPROVE THEM IN ITS, INCLUDING THE REVISION BY COMMISSIONER MEN'S EYES OR SECOND. SECOND MOM'S KIRKENDALL. ANY QUESTIONS? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. THE MOTION CARRIES THEM IN ITS

[PLAT CONSIDERATION UNDER TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 212]

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN. LIKE YOU SAID ANOTHER CONVEYANCE PLAN.

THIS ONE IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WALNUT GROVE ROAD AND 3 80 APPROXIMATELY FIVE AND THREE QUARTERS ACRES. CURRENTLY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SPLIT UP INTO THREE LOTS AND THEY'RE PROPOSING TO GET RID OF ONE LOT. LINE, SHIFT ONE AND MAKE THAT IN A TWO LOTS ABOUT

[00:05:02]

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request by the City of McKinney to Amend Chapter 146 (Zoning Regulations), Section 146-130 (Vehicle Parking) and Section 146-134 (Performance Standards) of the Code of Ordinances]

OF THE CODE IMPORTANCE IS MR BLOXHAM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN. GOOD EVENING CHAIRMAN, VICE CHAIRMAN COMMISSION MEMBERS TONIGHT WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS SOME AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 1 46. IT WAS JUST STATED AS YOU'RE AWARE, WE HAVE BEEN ON THE JOURNEY OF UPDATING OUR ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS AND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. AS PART OF THAT WE'VE COME ACROSS SOME ITEMS THAT WE FEEL WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE AND LOCATED IN OTHER PLACES WITHIN OUR CODE. AND AS SUCH WERE IN PREPARATION OF THE AMENDMENT AND THE UPDATES, AND WE HAVE COMING FORWARD. UM IN OCTOBER. WE'RE EXPECTING THEM IN OCTOBER. WE'D LIKE TO MAKE SOME , UH, AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE. NOW SPECIFICALLY, THESE AMENDMENTS WOULD REMOVE SECTIONS 1 46 1 34 THE PERFORMANCE. STANDARDS AND PARKING PROHIBITIONS THAT ARE LOCATED IN SECTION 1 46 1 30 OUT OF THE CODE. MOST OF THESE ITEMS HAVE BEEN OR ARE REGULATED OR WOULD BE BETTER SUITED TO BE REGULATED IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CODE, UM, THEIR FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES THAT THAT ACTUALLY REGULATE THE SECTIONS THAT WERE ASKING TO BE REMOVED OUT OF THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, WHICH INCLUDE VIBRATION ODOR POLLUTION, WHICH IS SMOKING. OTHER PARTICULAR MATTER, AND SOME HAZARDOUS WASTE HAS ACTUALLY. REGULATED BY FIRE CODE, AND SO WITH THAT STAFF FEELS THAT THOSE AGENCIES ARE BETTER EQUIPPED TO HANDLE SUCH SUCH REGULATIONS AND WOULD BE BETTER TO DO SO. AND SO BECAUSE OF THIS STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IN FRONT OF YOU. UM THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WOULD GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 16TH.

FOR HER CONSIDERATION WITH THAT I WILL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. SO THIS IS HOUSECLEANING, SO TO SPEAK. YES, YES. JUST CLEANING UP SOME ITEMS PRIOR TO US GOING FOR THE FULL CODE OF MY AMENDMENT AND ADOPTION. SO I SEE ITEMS BEING REMOVED FROM HERE. ARE WE IS THERE ANYTHING THAT'S BEING RE MUTE REMOVED? THAT'S NOT LOCATED SOMEWHERE ELSE IN ANOTHER COAT.

YES THOSE ONES THAT I MENTIONED IN THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. SO THE VIBRATION THE WASTE.

MATERIALS. TOXIC NOXIOUS MATTER THE POLLUTION, THE ODOR. THOSE ARE ALL JUST BEING REMOVED FROM THE CODE ENTIRELY. THINGS LIKE NOISE AND THE CONSTRUCTION HOURS. THOSE ARE GOING TO BE RELOCATED INTO CHAPTER 70 AND 60 . SORRY CHAPTER 17 AND CHAPTERS 1 22, WHICH IS WHERE CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS ARE SO THAT'S WHERE THOSE ARE MOVING. THE PARKING PROHIBITIONS ARE MOVING INTO CHAPTER 70 AS WELL AND INTO CHAPTER 62, WHICH DEAL WITH PARKING AND PRIVATE PRIVATE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE. SO ANOTHER WORRYING ISN'T BEING CHANGED ON SPECIFICALLY PAGE 12 OF THE PARKING PROHIBITIONS. UM THEY'RE JUST BEING RELOCATED. NO CHANGING OF WORRYING. FOR THOSE ONES. THERE ARE SOME SLIGHT TWEAKS AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT AMENDMENTS THAT ARE COMING FORWARD. UM, BUT. FOR THIS BOARD THAT DEALS WITH THE HEAD. ZONING ORDERED THEMSELVES THEY'RE JUST BEING REMOVED. SO AS WE TAKE THIS OUT FROM THIS LOCATION, WHAT IS KEEPING IT IN PLACE? AND MOVE TO THE OTHER ONE. BECAUSE WE DON'T SEE THAT AS SOMEONE ELSE GOING TO SEE THAT THOSE THE ORDINANCES FOR CHAPTER 62 70 AND 1 22, THOSE ALL GO TO CITY COUNCIL. SO AT THE AUGUST 16TH MEETING. THOSE ITEMS, ALONG WITH THE REMOVAL. WE'LL ALL GO TOGETHER TO BE ACTED ON IT ONE

[00:10:06]

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Variance to a Site Plan for Central Circle Logistics Park Development, Located on the Northeast Corner of Bray Central Drive and Central Circle]

PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. WE'RE CLOSED, CARRYING IMPROVE. THE ITEM WITH THE VARIANCE IS RECOMMENDED. STAFF REPORT. EMOTIONAL DEMANDS ARE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND IMPROVE THE ANIMUS PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION. IS THERE A SECOND ONE SECOND BY MR DOKE. YOU NEED DISCUSSION.

PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. THIS MOTION CARRIES THE VARIANCE HAS BEEN APPROVED. THE NEXT ITEM.

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Rezone the Subject Property from “PD” - Planned Development District and “REC” - Regional Employment Center Overlay District to “PD” - Planned Development District, Generally to Modify the Development Standards and to Allow for Multi-Family Residential and Commercial Uses, Located on the Southwest Corner of Collin McKinney Parkway and Alma Drive]

[00:15:02]

IT UP. WHAT'S GOING TO BE ON C TWO COMPARED TO THE CURRENT PD. THAT IS CORRECT. SO THE CURRENT PD HAS A BASE OWNING OF THE USES THAT ARE SIMILAR TO UM EXCUSE ME PLACES OF WORSHIP DAYCARE BANKS , OFFICES, RESTAURANTS, RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT. SO THERE ARE USES THAT ARE BEING INTRODUCED FOR THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENTS, BUT SOME OF THE ALLOWED USERS CURRENTLY IN THE ZONING ALSO GOING TO BE ALLOWED WITHIN. THE PROPOSE. OPENING. RESPONSE UM QUEEN C TWO RESTAURANTS ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE CURRENT ZONING. IN C TWO. IT ALSO WOULD ALLOW FOR THAT DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS AS WELL. BUT DRIVE THROUGH IS NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWED. THAT'S CORRECT. EXCUSE ME THROUGH IS NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWED, BUT THE PROPOSED ZONING WOULD ALLOW THAT USE. I JUST HAVE TO BE CAREFUL HERE BECAUSE COMMISSIONER WOODRUFF, WHO DROPPED HIS NAME SINCE HE'S NOT HERE, WE'LL USE THAT SLIPPERY SLOPE TO APPROVE A SEVEN. I DON'T. OTHER COMMENTS. YOU WON. THANK YOU, SIR. APPLICANT HERE TONIGHT . YES, SIR. THANK YOU. MR CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOB ROEDER 1700 RED BUD SUITE 300 MCKINNEY ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. THE GENESIS FOR THIS REZONING IS TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF ABOUT 216. A SENIOR MULTI FAMILY UNITS ON TRACK, A. THIS IS A NEED THAT EXISTS IN THIS PARTICULAR PART OF MCKINNEY. WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF SENIOR RESIDENTIAL AND SO WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS A GREAT FIT. AS YOU KNOW, THERE ARE MEDICAL FACILITIES ACROSS THE STREET ON ALMA. THERE IS QUITE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MEDICAL FACILITIES DOWN ON THE ACCESS ROAD ON SAM RAYBURN. TOLLWAY AND SO THIS FITS REAL NEATLY WITHIN SORT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THAT ARE THERE HAS SEEN EACH OF YOU SORT OF A WORK UP THAT MY CLIENT HAD DONE WITH REGARD TO THE ECONOMIC IMPACT BEYOND JUST THE ADVAIR ALARM TAXES THAT THIS PROJECT IS ANTICIPATED TO HAVE, AND I THINK THE NUMBER WAS ABOUT 6.7 IN TODAY. DOLLAR. ON AND BASE. IN TERMS OF THE KIND OF DISPOSED INCOME. THAT THESE RESIDENCE. FINALLY LEFT THE TRACK THE AS A COMMERCIAL RELATED TRACKED AND MR MAN'S EYE TO YOUR POINT. WE NO LONGER ADOPT EXISTING CLARIION ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS.

IN OUR PDS. WE HAVE TO STATE EVERY USE THAT WE WANT TO HAVE. SO WHAT CAITLYN TOLD YOU WAS WE BASICALLY HAVE PICKED THOSE ITEMS OUT OF THE C TWO AND C ONE LIST OF PERMITTED USES THAT WE FELT LIKE WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THIS THIS AREA WITH THE ROAD CONFIGURATIONS AND WITH THE ADJACENT SENIOR LIVING. AND SO THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO THAT LIST. UM I THINK EVERYTHING ELSE THAT THE STAFF HAS A VERY COMPREHENSIVE REPORT THAT I KNOW YOU'VE READ. IT'S BEING AWFULLY

[00:20:01]

THANK YOU, MR ROEDER. THEIR QUESTIONS THE APPLICANT. DO YOU HAVE ONE, MR ROEDER? SO UNDER THE CHANGE. THE DESIGNATION IS MULTI FAMILY DWELLING SENIOR ABOVE IT. THERE IS A MULTI FAMILY DESIGNATION. YOU'RE NOT OPTING FOR MULTI FAMILIES, SO THIS CANNOT CHANGE FROM SENIOR APARTMENTS. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, AND WE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED OUR DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR TRACK DAY. SO THAT IT WILL BE LIMITED TO SENIOR. EDUCATE ME ON WHO GETS TO DEFINE THE AGE OF SENIOR. YOUR ORDINANCE HAS A DEFINITION AND WERE REQUIRED. I THINK IT'S 50. AGE 50 AND ABOVE AND THE OPERATORS REQUIRED TO GIVE A CENSUS COUNT TO THE CITY ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. THAT'S HOW THAT'S MONITORED. TO THE CITY COULD CHANGE THAT ORDINANCE AND CHANGE YOUR ZONING. POTENTIALLY IT COULD. I WILL TELL YOU WHERE MY CLIENTS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THAT, REALLY THE AVERAGE AGE FOR THIS TYPE OF STRUCTURE IN MY CLIENT'S WORLD IS ABOUT 70 YEARS OLD. STILL A KIDS, BUT SEVEN YEARS OLD. THAT WAS, THAT'S ALL I HAD ANYONE ELSE. VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU, MR ROEDER. THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THEM IF YOU COME IN ON AND WOULD LIKE TO WEIGH IN ON THIS PROPOSED REZONE. PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. SEEING NO ONE RUSHED TO THE PODIUM. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING EMOTIONAL, MR MANZO AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SECONN ON CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING? CAST YOUR VOTE. YOU KNOW, IT'S MOTION CARRIES THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED MEMBERS QUESTIONS. IT'S A NEED THAT NEEDS TO BE FILLED AND I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THE SENIOR FAMILY LIVING COMPONENT OF THIS LOCATING THIS AREA. I DO HAVE CONCERNS SO THE C TWO AND MORE OF JUST AT THE CITY LEVEL OF ALLOWING THE DRIVE THROUGHS WITHOUT SPECIAL USE PER MANTA, HOPING THAT WE NEVER SEE YOU DRIVE THROUGH TACO BELL AT OUR GATE TO THE BYRON NELSON. SO I'M HOPING THAT THE NEED FOR SOMETHING GREATER EXIST FOR THAT LOCATION, THEN JUST THE DRIVE THRU RESTAURANTS SO, BUT FOR THE ITEM. THEIR COMMENTS. ANYONE.

ALRIGHT, YOU HAVE EMOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. WE APPROVE THE PROPOSED ZONING OR RESIGNING A REQUEST WITH THE SPECIAL ORDINANCE PROVISIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. MOTION ABOUT MR DUCK TO APPROVE THE ANIMALS FIRST TAP RECOMMENDATION, INCLUDING THE ORDINANCE, SPECIAL ORDERS PROVISIONS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. 2ND 2ND ABOUT MR MEN'S I ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. THIS MOTION IS APPROVED BY VOTERS SEVEN IN FAVOR OF ZERO AGAINST AND WILL BE SENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. OR FINAL ACTION AT THE AUGUST 16 2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. THE NEXT ITEM TONIGHT IS 22-007 TO 0 PUBLIC

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Rezone the Subject Property from “PD” - Planned Development District and “REC” - Regional Employment Center Overlay District to “PD” - Planned Development District, Generally to Modify the Development Standards and to Allow for Single Family Residential and Commercial Uses, Located on the Northwest Corner of McKinney Ranch Parkway and Silverado Trail]

[00:25:07]

NOW IT SEEMS LIKE SOME OF THE LAND USES ACTUALLY COME OUT, AND THIS IS SOMEWHAT OF A DOWN ZONING AS FAR AS ALLOWABLE USES . CORRECT THE CURRENT ZONING AS I MENTIONED FOLLOWS THAT RETAIL COMPONENT, BUT IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR USERS LIKE MULTI FAMILY YOUR SENIOR MULTI FAMILY, UM, IN TERMS OF THE RESTAURANT WITH THE DRIVE THRU THAT'S CURRENTLY PERMITTED IN THE ZONING BUT ALSO WOULD BE PERMITTED IN THE PROPOSED REQUEST AS WELL. AND THAT'S WHAT'S REFLECTED THROUGH THE PHYSICAL IMPACT MODEL THAT IS CORRECT. THE PHYSICAL IMPACT MODEL IS BASED ON THE CURRENT ZONING, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR THE RETAIL COMPONENTS, PRIMARILY THE PROPOSED ZONING IS IN LINE WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT WE HAVE WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT TO SHOW THE AMOUNT OF TOWN HOME ACREAGE IN THE RETAIL STRIP AS WELL AS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF COMMERCIAL SERVICES. OTHER QUESTIONS. YEAH, I HAVE ONE. SO UM, WHEN WOULD THE RESIDENTS TO THE NORTH? UH BE NOTIFIED OR ASK FOR FEEDBACK FOR THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST. SO WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS STAFF DID SEND OUT A POSTCARD TO THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTS WITHIN 200 FT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SO THEY WERE NOTIFIED VIA MAIL WILL ALSO BE POSTING A NOTICE FOR THE ZONING REQUEST SPECIFICALLY IN THE NEWSPAPER FOR CIRCULATION. PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL. UM IF THE APPLICANTS I'M NOT SURE ON THEIR INTERACTION WITH THE RESIDENTS IN TERMS OF THEIR INPUT ON THE DESIGN, AND I'D LIKE TO DO FOR THAT PART TO THE APPLICANT. THERE'S ALSO SIGNS THAT WOULD BE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY THAT'S CORRECT. THERE ARE CURRENTLY ZONING SCIENCE POST ON THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? PALIN THANK YOU. IS THERE APPLICANT HERE, MR CALIPER? YOU REMEMBER MY NAME? DAVID CALIFORNIA WITH PELOTON LAND SOLUTIONS. 11001ST GO STREET SUITE 400. I WAS FRISCO, TEXAS. 750331 OF THE REASONS. WHY IS, UM WE'RE REQUESTING THIS CHANGE IS THE LIVE WORK UNITS ARE NO LONGER MARKETABLE. NOBODY'S DOING THOSE ANYMORE, PARTICULARLY IN THE AREA. UM WE PATTERNED THIS AFTER THE ONE THAT'S I BELIEVE BEING BUILT ALONG ALMA, CURRENTLY. UM AND SO WE USE THOSE. STANDARDS TO DEVELOP OUR MODEL HERE. NO. UH UM, WE HAVE NOT MET WITH THE H O A OR ANYBODY RELATED TO THAT. WE HAVE NOT HEARD OF ANY FEEDBACK WE DID GET ONE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CHURCH. I BELIEVE SHE CONTACTED CAITLIN. SHE SPOKE WITH OUR OWNER. WE DO HAVE ACCESS TO THE NORTH AS WELL AS THEM TO THE SOUTH. FOR THE ADDITIONAL MEDIA IN THERE. AND SO I KNOW THAT THEY HAD BEEN THEY HAD DISCUSSED THAT. UH UM. AND JUST TO SEE WHAT ELSE WE WERE PROPOSING HERE. AND THAT'S THE ONLY FEEDBACK THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED. SO BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE, AS YOU CAN SEE OUR SITES KIND OF A CHALLENGE. THE MEDIANS ARE IN PLACE, SO WE WORKED WITH STAFF EXTENSIVELY WITH REGARDS TO NOT HAVING ANY ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAYS. PER THE ENGINEERING STANDARDS FOR DRIVEWAY. ACCESS FOR RETAIL. THAT'S WHY WE'VE REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF RETAIL WE HAVE. BECAUSE IT WAS PRETTY STRINGENT. UM AND WE FEEL THAT WE'VE LEFT ENOUGH OPEN SPACE ALONG THE CORRIDORS THERE THAT THIS WILL BE A FAIRLY ATTRACTIVE

[00:30:01]

I'M SAYING THAT WE DO HAVE A BUFFER THERE OF OPEN SPACE. IT'S A GAS LINE. THERE'S AN EASEMENT BACK THERE. AS WELL AS POWER LINES. SO THAT WITH THE ALLEYS AND THE BUILDINGS BEING PULLED BACK OFF OF THOSE WERE PRETTY GOOD DISTANCE AWAY. AND THESE ARE 35 FT. BIZARRE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT, WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO A TWO STORY HOME. WE'RE LOOKING AT ITS CONCEPTUAL THOUGH. CORRECT? YES, THIS IS CONCEPTUAL. BUT THIS IS AFTER THE NUMBER OF PLANS WE'VE GONE THROUGH. THIS IS THE ONE THAT WORKS BEST FOR OUR FOR MY CLIENT. MHM. THAT GA? THE ONE UP THERE IS APPROXIMATELY WANT TO SAY. 50 FT OR GREATER. YEAH I JUST DON'T SEE IT ON HERE. YEAH 50. IT'S NOT ON OUR PROPERTY. IT OVERLAPS JUST A LITTLE. THERE IS A POWER LINE EASEMENT THAT IS ON OUR PROPERTY. UM THERE IS ALSO A DRAINAGE EASEMENT FROM THE OLD 7 20 ALIGNMENT. 7 20 USED TO GO ALL THE WAY PAST PASSPORTS ALONA AND THEN DOING 90 DEGREES STRAIGHT DOWN AND THEN GO BACK OVER SO BACK IN. OH, SEVEN. I DID WORK ON THIS ZONING FOR BARCELONA IN THIS CORNER. WHEN I WAS WITH ANOTHER COMPANY. OTHER QUESTIONS. THEY WOULD. THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

IF YOU'RE HERE TONIGHT, AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO UM, ADDRESS PLANNING AND ZONING REGARDING THIS PROPOSED REZONE, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. YES, SIR. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JORDAN CAIRO. I LIVE AT 11 9 13 FRISCO. ANYWAY I LIVE IN ONE OF THE HOUSES JUST TO THE NORTH. AND I WAS CONTACTED BY A POSTCARD NOTIFYING US OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TO BASICALLY FIND OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THE LAND BACK THERE BECAUSE WHEN I BOUGHT THE LAND IT WAS WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOME THAT WAS OPEN LAND, AND IN FACT, BARCELONA WAS ANYTHING THERE. SO I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT JUST THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPERTIES ARE GOING TO BE THERE THE KIND OF PROPERTIES I WAS HOPING THAT IT WASN'T GOING TO BE COMMERCIAL STUFF THERE. UM I THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO BE A PARK BECAUSE I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS LARGE ENOUGH TO CONTAIN TOWN HOMES. THERE'S A LOT OF HOUSES THERE WITH BARCELONA. AND THE SCHOOLS THAT ARE THERE THAT WOULD HAVE ENJOYED A NICE LITTLE PARK. THERE. UM I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ALSO ABOUT THE DRAINAGE BECAUSE THE YOU CAN SEE THERE'S UPON AT THE END OF THE HOMES WHERE THE DRAINAGE GOES THERE SO THIS WOULD ADD MORE PROBABLY DRAINAGE. I CAN SEE A LITTLE LOOKS LIKE A LITTLE WHITE. STREET WHERE IT KIND OF GOES INTO THAT PROPERTY. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT DRAINAGE WOULD GO TO. SO I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. BUT I JUST WANTED TO RAISE THOSE CONCERNS TO YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES SIR. THANK YOU. ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS HERE SHORTLY, OKAY? ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. MOVE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION, MR MANZANO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING . 2ND 2ND 1, MR. TAYLOR READING DISCUSSION ON CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES. ALRIGHT THEN MOTION CARRIES A PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED. UM, CAITLIN, UM. WE HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. YES, SIR. RELATED TO HEIGHT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND DRAINAGE. AND THEN WHATEVER NOTES MR DOC HAD ON THE QUESTIONS GOOD IN TERMS OF THE HEIGHT, THE PROPOSAL FOR THE TOWN HOME AND THE COMMERCIAL WOULD BE A MAXIMUM OF 35 FT. TYPICALLY SEE TWO WOULD ALLOW FOR 45 FT AS THE MAXIMUM HYPE WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THEY'RE PROPOSING TO REDUCE THAT SO IT WOULD BE 35 FT AT THE MAXIMUM. THE CURRENT HEIGHT FOR THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY IS ALSO 35 FT, SO ALL REQUESTS ARE IN LINE WITH WHAT'S ALLOWED TODAY. IN TERMS OF THE DRAINAGE . UM, WE HAVE NOT SEEN THE DRAINAGE PLANS OR THE FULLY ENGINEERED PLANS FOR THE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR THIS SITE THAT WILL

[00:35:05]

FROM RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL. THERE'S TYPICALLY NOT A BUFFER REQUIREMENTS. HOWEVER IF COMMERCIAL IF SOMETHING HAPPENS WITH THIS CONCEPT PLAN COMMERCIAL IS RECONFIGURED. THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED AT LEAST AN ADDITIONAL 10 FT LANDSCAPE BUFFER. AND SCREENING DEVICE AS WELL. AND THIS WAS NEVER PROPERTY, THE CITY OF MCKINNEY CONTROL OF THE PARKS, AS FAR AS THAT GOES NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. THE HISTORY THAT I HAVE ON THIS ONE WAS THE FORMER FM 7 20. SO IF SOMEONE IS ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF THOSE APARTMENTS THAT BAG OF THE TOWN HOMES THAT BACK UP TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, WILL THEY BE ABLE TO SEE IN INTO THE BACKYARDS OF THE PEOPLE THAT BACKING UP TO MY KNOWLEDGE THAT THE THAT DRAINAGE EASEMENT DOES DIP DOWN, BUT I BELIEVE BASED ON THE TOPOGRAPHY, IT DOES RISE BACK UP. BUT THERE WILL BE THE FENCES FOR THE RESIDENTIAL HOMES. HEIGHTS WILL BE THE SAME . THE CURRENT HEIGHT FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY EXISTING IS 35 FT . THE PROPOSED HEIGHT FOR THE TOWN HOMES AND EVEN COMMERCIALS, 35 FT AS WELL. SO THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS, YES. THAT PROBABLY BE ABLE TO LOOK IN. THERE IS A POSSIBILITY JUST BASED ON IF THERE'S BUILD UP ON THE WHERE THE SITE IS TALLER, BUT WITHOUT ANY SORT OF ENGINEERING PLANS. I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. BUT THIS IS IN NO WAY GREATER HEIGHT THAN TRADITIONAL TWO STORY. I'VE GOT A SINGLE STORY SURROUNDED BY 42 STORIES AND ALL MY NEIGHBORS TO SEE MY BACKYARD IF THEY WANT TO. THAT'S CORRECT, YES. SO THEIR HOUSES COULD PROBABLY SEE IN THE APARTMENTS. IF WE FLIP IT AROUND THE OTHER WAY, POTENTIALLY. YES SO WHAT ARE THE CURRENT ALLOWABLE USES ON THIS? SO THE CURRENT LAW USES FOLLOW THE GREASY RETAIL USES AS THE PRIMARY USES. IT RANGES FROM MULTI FAMILIES EVEN ALLOWED AS A SECONDARY USE THEIR OFFICES, RESTAURANTS RETAILS RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE THROUGH. THOSE ARE ALL PERMITTED, UM, WITH THIS REZONING REQUEST FOR THE C TWO COMPONENT. IT WOULD FOLLOW OUR STANDARD C TWO USES SO SOME OF THOSE USES THAT ARE ALREADY ALLOWED ON THE SITE LIKE MULTI FAMILY THOSE WOULD BE REMOVED AND SOME OF THE USES LIKE THE RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE THRU WOULD REMAIN PERMITTED AS PROPOSED.

OTHER QUESTIONS ANYONE? GOOD. THANK YOU, CAITLIN. I'M SORRY. I WAS JUST GONNA SAY I SUPPOSE WHEN THERE ARE FIRM PLANS WILL BE ELEVATION DRAWINGS, TOO. THE VIEW. TO UNDERSTAND THE ELEVATIONS ON THE BACKSIDE ON THE NORTH SIDE THERE. VERSUS THE RESIDENCES. CORRECT WE CAN CERTAINLY WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO SEE WHAT THE HEIGHT WILL BE ONCE WE HAVE, THE ENGINEERING PLANS WILL BE ABLE TO KNOW THE TOPOGRAPHY AND THE GREATEST TOPOGRAPHY AS WELL. SO WE'LL HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A DRASTIC HEIGHT DISCIPLINES WERE NOT BUT WE CAN. CERTAINLY IF THAT'S STILL CONCERNED WITH THE RESIDENT, WE CAN CERTAINLY WORK WITH HIM ON PROVIDING THE INFORMATION AS WE HAVE IT FROM THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? SO UNDER WHAT IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED AS THERE PROVISION. FOR LIKE A WALL OR SOMETHING OF REQUIREMENT. FOR THE SCREENING DEVICE BETWEEN THE TWO THERE IS NOT WITHIN THE R U C DOES NOT HAVE A TYPICAL SCREENING REQUIREMENT BETWEEN THE USES, UH , AGAIN SINGLE FAMILY TO SINGLE FAMILY. WE'RE NOT TYPICALLY REQUIRE A SCREENING DEVICE. I'LL DEFER TO THE APPLICANT IF THAT'S

[00:40:03]

WE HAD NOT PROPOSED SCREEN WALL RIGHT NOW AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE WHERE ARE SO WE'RE LOOKING AT A 15 FT SETBACK OFF THE ALLEY. PLUS THE 18 FT ALLEY. SO WE'RE 33 FT, PLUS THE 50 FT. PLUS, I BELIEVE THOSE ARE ALI SERVED RESIDENTIAL UNITS, SINGLE FAMILY UP THERE. THEY DO HAVE AN EXISTING FENCE UP. SO WE'RE TALKING ANOTHER 18 20 FT FOR AN ALLEY PLUS THEIR FENCE, SO WE'RE AT LEAST 100 FT AWAY. AND THEN WHATEVER SIZE FENCE THAT THEY HAVE ON THERE. UM, CONTAINING THEIR YARD. SO I'M. I MEAN, WINDOW WISE, WE'RE NOT AT THE FULL 35 FT OF OUR UNIT THAT THAT MEASUREMENT IS TAKEN TO THE CENTER LINE OF THE ROOF. SO YOUR ACTUAL I GUESS YOUR PLATE YOUR FIRST FLOOR PLATE WILL BE ANYWHERE FROM 10 TO 12 FT. THEN YOUR NEXT WINDOW UNIT YOU'RE LOOKING AT. MAYBE 20 FT UP. SO THE ANGLE OF LOOKING INTO THOSE BACKYARDS IS PROBABLY THE VERY MINIMAL CONFIDENT THAT THEY WILL RETAIN THEIR PRIVACY. I BELIEVE SO, YES. OVER THAT DISTANCE.

THAT ANGLE IS GOING TO GET A LOT SHALLOWER. IT'S NOT LIKE IF WE WERE ADJACENT ALLEY TO ALLEY OR WE HAD A SHARED ALLEY. YES THEN I BELIEVE THAT THERE WOULD BE AN ISSUE WITH WINDOWS ON THE REAR SIDE OF OUR UNITS LOOKING INTO THEIR BUT THAT DISTANCE THAT THAT ANGLE IS GOING TO COME DOWN. ANYONE ELSE? NO, I DON'T. I DON'T HAVE CONCERNS WITH THE PROJECT AS FAR AS I THINK, IS TAKING HIM LESS INTENSIVE THINGS AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTS PROVIDING THEM. BUT TO SHOW BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE. THERE'S EXTENSIVE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO AND AGAIN. THESE TOWN HOMES ARE SIMPLY JUST AGAINST SINGLE FAMILY, TWO STORY AND JUST LIKE THEIR SINGLE FAMILIES, TWO STORY AND THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH PRIVACY YOU CAN EXPECT TO HAVE WHEN YOU'RE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS FIVE FT FROM IT, AND THIS GIVES THEM MORE THAN THOSE, SO I SUPPORT THE ITEM. WE'RE GOOD WITH YOU, DAVID. THANK YOU. THE COMMENTS. I WOULD AGREE. THIS IS A TOUGH PIECE OF PROPERTY. UM, GOOD JOB WITH FINDING SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY FITS IT PRETTY WELL. ANYONE ELSE? YOU KNOW, THAT WAS A GREAT QUESTION WITH I DO THINK THAT WITH THE SEPARATION AND THE HEIGHT PROPOSED THAT ANGLE IS GOING TO COME DOWN DRASTICALLY GIVEN 50 FT. PLUS 18 PLUS 13. 18 ON THE OTHER SIDE. BUT GOOD QUESTION. GOOD QUESTION. AND I THINK, UM, HEARING THAT COMMITMENT FROM THE APPLICANT. ALSO HELPS. SURE A LITTLE BIT BETTER ABOUT IT RIGHT? ANYONE ELSE? WE HAVE EMOTION. MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. HAVE EMOTION MEMBERS TO TAILOR TO IMPROVE THE ANIMALS AS PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION, INCLUDING ANY SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT. SECOND MEMBER, ESTERMANN'S I ANY MORE DISCUSSION. HE'S CAST YOUR VOTE. THE MOTION CARRIES THE AUTUMN WILL BE SENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FOR FINAL ELECTION AT THE AUGUST 16. 2022 MEETING. THE NEXT TIME WOULD BE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE TO SPEAK ON MATTERS, NOT KNOWING OUR AGENDA TONIGHT.

ALRIGHT SEEING NO ONE RUSHING TO THE PODIUM AGAIN. THE NEXT ITEM WOULD BE STAFF COMMENTS OR

[COMMISSION AND STAFF COMMENTS]

WE'LL WAIVE THAT. CAITLIN JAKE! ARI! LEXI ERIN. THANK YOU, JENNIFER. CAITLYN AND TERRY.

[00:45:04]