Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Rezone the Subject Property from “AG” - Agricultural District to “PD” - Planned Development District, Located on the Southwest Corner of McKinney Ranch Parkway and Collin McKinney Parkway (REQUEST TO BE TABLED)

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Rezone the Subject Property from “AG” - Agricultural District to “PD” - Planned Development District, Located on the Southwest Corner of McKinney Ranch Parkway and Collin McKinney Parkway (REQUEST TO BE TABLED)]

PARTICIPATE IN, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO KNOW WHICH ITEM WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. UM THERE ARE SEVERAL ITEMS THAT WILL BE, UM TABLED TONIGHT. HOWEVER IF YOU HAVE COME TONIGHT SOUTHWEST CORNER MCKINNEY RANCH PARKWAY. IN COLUMN MCKINNEY QUAY STAFF IS RECOMMENDING WITH TABLE OR THANK YOU, SIR. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS ARACELI WHAT THEY HAVE PLANNED FOR THE CITY OF MCKINNEY STAFFER COMMENCED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED AND THE ITEM BE TABLED INDEFINITELY DUE TO A PUBLIC NOTICING ERROR. UM, THE ITEM WILL BE RE NOTICED PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND I STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. IT'S THE APPLICANT AWARE OF YES, SIR. AWARE OF CABLING INDEFINITELY. YES, OKAY. QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AUTUMN. WE WILL BE LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO TABLE THE ITEM IN DEFINITELY, BUT IF THERE'S SOMEONE HERE THAT HAS MADE THE EFFORT YOU'RE CERTAINLY WELCOME TO COME TO THE PODIUM

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Rezone the Subject Property from “PD” - Planned Development District to “C2” - Local Commercial District, Located at 4050 West University Drive (REQUEST TO BE TABLED)]

NOW AND ADDRESS PLANNING AND ZONING. MOTION TO CLOSE THE TO O REZONE A PROPERTY FROM PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. YES THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR CHAIRMAN FOLLOWING JAKE. SORRY, SCOTT, IS THIS YOU? AND I'M LOOKING THAT UP. A PAUSE FOR A REASON WILL BE IN A COUPLE MORE ITEMS, OKAY? UM UH, THIS IS AT FOUR OR 54050 WEST UNIVERSITY, DR. MR BENNETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR CHAIRMAN. GOOD EVENING COMMISSION. JAKE BENNETT, PLANNER FOR THE CITY MCKINNEY.

UM STEPH IS RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ITEM TABLED AND, UM, THE PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED TO THE NEXT PNC MEETING, WHICH IS SEPTEMBER 26TH. WE WILL NOT NEED TO RE NOTICE FOR THIS ITEM.

WE'LL JUST BE CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING. THAT WILL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU CHECK QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. VERY GOOD.

MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CAN CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE 26TH OF SEPTEMBER MEETING EMOTIONAL MISTER MIND'S EYE TO TELL CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'M SORRY. CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IT'S IN BRIGHT RED LOADED RIGHT HERE. MY FAULT. AH, MOTION IS TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING IN TAIL UNTIL SEPTEMBER. 26 2023 PLANNING HIS ONLY COMMISSION MEETING. SECOND MINISTER LEBOW AND YOU DISCUSSION. CAST YOUR VOTE. ABOUT OKAY?

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Rezone the Subject Property from “C2” - Local Commercial District to “C3” - Regional Commercial District, Located at 2151 North Hardin Boulevard (REQUEST TO BE TABLED)]

MOTION CARRIES ON, UM HUSBAND TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER. 26 THE NEXT ITEM. TONIGHT IS 23 DAYS.

0057 Z. PUBLIC HEARING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM SEA TO LOCAL COMMERCIAL TO SEE THREE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. THIS IS A 2151 NORTH HARDENED BOULEVARD. MR BENNETT. YES, THANK YOU AGAIN , MR CHAIRMAN. SIMILARLY JUST LIKE THE LAST ITEM STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ITEM BE TABLED IN THE PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED. THIS IS FOR A PROPERTY RIGHT NEXT DOOR AND SAME APPLICANT, SO WE'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND TABLING THAT PUBLIC. HER CONTINUING PUBLIC HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 26TH. I'LL STAND PRETTY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, JAKE. ANYONE HERE TONIGHT TO ADDRESS PLANNING AND ZONING ON THIS, UM, ON THIS ITEM HARDENED BOULEVARD REASON.

[00:10:03]

MOTION TO TABLE THE ITEM TO SEPTEMBER 26TH 2023 MEETING CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ECONOMIC TO MINE THE AUTUMN UNTIL SEPTEMBER. 26 2023 PLANNING ZONING MEETING AND CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MANAGE TO WOODRUFF. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? TEST YOUR VOTE. I. MOTION CARRIES. WOODRUFF. THE NEXT ITEM IS 23-0062 0 PUBLIC

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Rezone the Subject Property from “AG” - Agricultural District to “C3” - Regional Commercial District, Located Approximately 1,750 Feet East of North Lake Forest Drive and on the North Side of West University Drive (REQUEST TO BE TABLED)]

HEARING. TO DISCUSS THE RESULTS OF PROPERTY FROM EGG DISTRICT TO SEE THREE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL.

THIS IS 1700 FT. NORTH LAKE FOREST DRIVE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST UNIVERSITY DRIVE. IT IS.

THANK YOU AGAIN. MR CHAIRMAN STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE SIGNING WE TABLED IN THE PUBLIC LEARNED CLOSED INDEFINITELY. WE WILL RE NOTICE FOR THIS ITEM WITH PLANS TO BRING THIS BACK AT THE NEXT PNC AGAIN ON SEPTEMBER 26TH. BUT CLOSING DEFINITELY THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY IS AWARE AND THERE? YES, SIR. OKAY, VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. ANYONE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE TO ADDRESS PLANNING AND ZONING ON THIS, UM PROPOSED REZONE. VERY GOOD. MOTION BY ANYONE MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING TABLE ITEM AND DEFINITELY REMAINS. I TO, UM, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING IN EARLY AUTUMN INDEFINITELY. 2ND 2ND BY MR WATT LASER. WE NEED DISCUSSION. JUST CAST YOUR VOTE.

THE MOTION CARRIES THAT ADAM HAS BEEN TABLED. DEFINITELY. THE NEXT ITEM IS 23-0063 PUBLIC

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Rezone the Subject Property from "PD" - Planned Development District to "I1" - Light Industrial District, Located at 3200 North Central Expressway (REQUEST TO BE TABLED)]

HEARING. TO REQUEST TO ACT ON A REZONE PROPERTY FROM P D TWO L ONE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.

THIS IS A 3200 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS AGAIN. ARACELI PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF MCKINNEY STAFF RECOMMENDS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TABLE THE ITEM INDEFINITELY DUE TO AGAIN NOTICING ERROR STAFF WILL BE RE NOTICING PRIOR TO THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING. AND I STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. QUESTIONS. ANYONE HERE TONIGHT TO ADDRESS PLANNING AND ZONING ON THIS PROPOSED REZONE ON CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY. THE MOTION OF CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING IN THE TABLE OF THE ITEM AND DEFINITELY EMOTIONAL, MR MY ANXIETY TO CLOSE THE PARLIAMENT CARING AND TERRIBLY OTTOMAN. DEFINITELY. MULTIPLE SECONDS. YES, MR PUTIN OR HAS SAID SECOND ANY DISCUSSION. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES. HI. THAT MOTION CARRIES AND ADAM HAS BEEN TABLED

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on Design Exceptions to a Site Plan for a Religious Assembly (The Parks Church), Located on the Northeast Corner of South Tennessee Street and East Davis Street]

INDEFINITELY. NOW WE'LL GET TO WORK. THE FIRST ITEM IS 23 DEC. 00. 61 SP CONDUCTOR PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS THE DESIGN EXCEPTIONS TO A SITE PLAN FOR A RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLING THE PARKS.

CHURCHES IS ONLY NORTHEAST CORNER. SOUTH TENNESSEE STREET AND EAST DAVIS STREET. MISS SHEFFIELD. THANK YOU, CAITLYN SHEFFIELD PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. SO AS YOU MENTIONED , THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO UPDATE SOME EXISTING GROUND FOUR FACADES, INTERIOR INNOVATIONS AND CONSTRUCT A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO THE PARKS CHURCH. APPROXIMATELY 0.3 ACRES. THREE DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS WILL FEATURE A TOTAL OF APPROXIMATELY 20,000 SQUARE FEET IN TOTAL. SITE PLANS AND FACADE PLANS ARE TYPICALLY APPROVED BY STAFF. HOWEVER, THE ALLOCATE IS REQUESTING A FEW DESIGN EXCEPTIONS RELATED TO THE FACADE. UM FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING CONSIDERATION. THOUGH A NUMBER OF DESIGN EXCEPTIONS HAVE BEEN REQUESTED RELATED TO THESE FACADES, THE GRAND FOR FACADES ARE PROPOSED TO BE UPDATED. TO MATCH THE SECOND STORY ADDITION. WHICH IS GOING TO BE THIS AREA HERE. STAFF IS OF THE OPINION. THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS OF THE GROUND FLOOR AND SECOND STORY HAVE BEEN DESIGNED TO COMPLEMENT THE EXISTING BUILDINGS WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. AND I SUCH

[00:15:02]

STUFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED REQUESTS AND I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, CAITLIN. CAITLYN. UM. WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE IS A, UM REQUEST OF IT. IT'S NOT HIS OWN REQUEST. THIS IS ALREADY ALLOWABLE USE FORCE THAT GOES, UM THIS IS DIFFERENT, THOUGH. I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE HAVE A REGULAR CHURCH IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, AND I KNOW THERE'S SOME LAWS RELATED TO CHURCHES AND LIQUOR CELLS WITHIN CERTAIN DISTANCES. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF SMALL BUSINESSES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN AREA THAT DO SERVE LIQUOR OVERALL AND POTENTIALLY BUILDINGS IN THAT AREA THAT WOULD BE CONVERTED TO SOMETHING THAT HAS SUCH HOW DOES THIS AFFECT THE DOWNTOWN AREA RELATED TO LIQUOR SALES AND POTENTIAL FUTURE LOVE? YOUR SALES ACTUALLY RECEIVE A CITIZEN COMMENT THAT I PROVIDED FOR YOU AS WELL WITH SIMILAR QUESTIONS TO THAT. SO THE PARK'S CHURCH IS OPERATING WITHIN THESE BUILDINGS EXISTING TODAY AND SO WHEN SOMEONE COMES IN WITH A NEW REQUEST FOR A PRIVATE CLUB OR A LIQUOR STORE OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE, THERE'S DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE MEASURE IN ORDER TO PROVE THAT NEW USE, SO WE LOOK AT WHAT'S EXISTING AND WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED. SO THE REQUIREMENT IS 300 FT. FROM FRONT DOOR TO FRONT DOOR TO THOSE ESTABLISHMENTS. AGAIN THAT WOULD BE A LIQUOR STORE OR PRIVATE CLUB PROPOSED USE IF IT'S A RESTAURANT THAT HAS ALCOHOL SALES AS LONG AS THEY MEET THE T V. C REQUIREMENTS OF THAT RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE, THEN THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A RESTAURANT UNDER THE USE OF THE MTC. SO WHAT PRIVATE CLUBS DO WE HAVE DOWNTOWN CURRENTLY? AND WHAT ONCE OR JUST RESTAURANTS? I GUESS THE AXES ONE RECENTLY OR ABOUT TO OPEN A PRIVATE CLUB, OR IS THAT A RESTAURANT? THAT WAS AN INDOOR COMMERCIAL USE. I DON'T BELIEVE THEY CAME FORWARD FOR SCP FOR A PRIVATE CLUB AT THIS TIME, SOMEONE I BELIEVE THAT'S COMING TO MIND. IS BEHRENS CREEK THAT WE DID A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO AND THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A PRIVATE CLUB AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A RESTAURANT WITH ALCOHOL SALES AND THE PRIVATE CLUB TYPE OF USE ALL DEPENDING ON THE TBC REQUIREMENTS AND WHAT THEY REQUIRED FOR EACH LICENSE WE REQUIRE ON THE APPLICANT TO TELL US WHAT LICENSE THAT THEY NEED FROM TBC, AND THEN WE WORK WITH HIM ON THE USE. IT'S ALLOWED THE KILT ITSELF. UM I BELIEVE IT'S A PRIVATE CLUB HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT ANYBODY EXISTING NOW IS FINE, BUT NEW ONES WOULD HAVE TO ARE THEY JUST WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED WITHIN 300. FT WOULD THEY BRING THIS TO THE CITY AND THE CITY CAN DO INVARIANCE ON THAT 300. HOW WOULD THAT PROCESS POTENTIALLY PLAY ON? I BELIEVE IT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO OUTRIGHT BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT GET THAT T V C LICENSE. UM WE CHECKED THE DISTANCES BUT ALSO T V C CHECKS DISTANCES AS WELL, TOO. AND THEY SHOULDN'T OR WOULDN'T I BELIEVE ISSUE THAT TBC TYPE OF LICENSE ANY EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE MTC RIGHT NOW OR ONES THAT HAVE PROPOSED TO COME IN. WE'VE BEEN CHECKING AGAINST EXISTING CHURCHES OR THOSE TYPES OF USES FOR THOSE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS. AGAIN THIS IS ALREADY ALLOWABLE USE, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FACADE. A PILL HERE. EXACTLY. YES, SIR. CAITLYN COULD YOU DISCUSS AGAIN ABOUT THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BASED ON THE EXPANSION OF SQUARE FOOTAGE? ABSOLUTELY SO THIS IS WITHIN THE MTC HISTORIC CORE CHARACTER DISTRICT WITHIN THIS PARTICULAR CHARACTER, CHARACTER DISTRICT.

EXCUSE THE CHURCH TODAY APPEARS IT'S UNDER A LEASE. SO WHAT IS THIS GOING TO PROCEED UNDER THE LEASE? WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE IT. BASICALLY YOU'RE YOU'RE ADDING TO A SECOND STORY TO TWO BUILDINGS NOT HONED, MHM WOULD HAVE TO DEFER THAT TO THE APPLICANTS ON THEIR LEAST AGREEMENT OR IF THEY'RE LOOKING AT PURCHASING THE PROPERTY. UM BUT AS THE APPLICANT COMING IN TO DO THOSE RENOVATIONS, WE'D HAVE TO GET APPROVAL FROM THE CURRENT OWNER AT THE TIME. UM AND THEY HAVE SIGNED OFF ON THE APPLICATION FOR THE SILENCE AND ON FACADES. I PLAN YES, SIR. BUT OTHER QUESTIONS AND HERE FROM THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU.

CAITLIN IS THEIR APPLICANT HERE TONIGHT? GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS CAN'T SPURGEON SPURGEON AND

[00:20:05]

ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS ONE OF THREE WEST LOUISIANA STREET. HAPPY TO BE HERE BEFORE YOU DID NOT BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. JUST BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN THROUGH FOR THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF WORKING ON THIS IS AS WE GOT INTO DESIGN IN THE CHURCH SORT OF GREW THE PROJECT AS WE GOT FURTHER INTO IT, UM TO COME UP WITH WITH WHERE WE ARE NOW, WITH THE TWO STORY BUILDING. AND WHEN WE APPROACHED THE CITY ABOUT THAT, THEY SAID, WE NEED TO SAVE THE EXTERIOR WALLS, PRIMARILY BEING THE SOUTH AND WEST WALLS OF THE 1 29 BUILDING AND 1 31 BUILDING ON THE CORNER. UM BUT WE ARE REDDIT. AS HAS BEEN STATED. WE ARE UNDER THE MCKINNEY TOWN CENTER GUIDELINES, BUT BECAUSE WE'RE SAVING THE OLDER WALLS WERE ALSO UNDER THE STATE HISTORIC RESTORATION GUIDELINES. AND IN THAT REGARD DATE MORE OR LESS TAKE PRECEDENCE. SO WE WERE TRYING TO MESH THOSE TWO TOGETHER. AND THEY DON'T NECESSARILY MESH IN REGARD.

THERE ARE SOME CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE TWO SO AFTER QUITE A BIT OF TIME, SEVERAL REDESIGNS AND THAT SORT OF THING. THIS IS WHAT WE'VE COME UP WITH. THAT HAS, UM, BEEN AGREED TO WITH BOTH HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. AS BEING KIND OF THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS WITH TRYING TO MEET BOTH OF THOSE GUIDELINES THAT CONTROL THE PROJECT. AND BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. UM, BRIEFLY, SOME TOUGH GOT A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME. PARKING WISE. THE CHURCH OWNS THE ABOUT EIGHT OR 10 SPACES. AGAINST THE ALLEY THAT'S BACK HUNTING THE BUILDING, BUT THEY DON'T KNOW THE PROPERTY RIGHT BEHIND THE BUILDING, WHICH IS OWNED. BY THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING FACING DAVIS STREET THAT BACKS UP TO R 1 31 BUILDING , SO IT'S A LITTLE WEIRD SITUATION THERE. UM BUT THE CHURCH ON SOME PARKING ALONG THAT ALLEY AND THEY EITHER OWN OR HAVE A LONG TERM LEASE ON THE LOT ACROSS THE STREET. THAT'S A GRAVEL LOT. UM AND I KNOW THE, UM I HAVEN'T REALLY TALKED WITH PATRICK CALLEBAUT. IT MAY BE HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF HE CAME IN BEHIND ME OR NOT. UM YOU HAVE TO ASK THE CHURCH THAT TO BE SURE.

BUT THEY'VE BEEN IN THE LEASE AGREEMENT, AS WAS STATED THE OWNER OF THE 1, 21 BILL, OR 1, 29 BUILDING HAS AGREED WITH WHAT WE WANT TO DO. I WOULD ASSUME THAT SINCE THEY JUST HAVEN'T CLOSED THE DEAL AND PURCHASING THE PROPERTY, THEY'VE BEEN KIND OF WAITING TO MAKE SURE THAT NOTHING WAS GOING TO KILL THE PROJECT OR WHATEVER BEFORE THEY WENT THROUGH WITH THAT. AND IF WE GET APPROVED TO MOVE FORWARD, THEN I WOULD SUSPECT THAT WOULD HAPPEN. BUT AGAIN, THAT'S MORE.

THE PASTOR OR SOMEONE FROM THE CHURCH IS CALLING FOR ME. BUT JUST TELLING YOU WHAT I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF CURIOSITY IN THAT RESPECT. IT'S JUST WORST CASE SCENARIO HAPPENS NOW YOU GOT A BUILDING THAT DOESN'T HAVE A DEMISE IN WALL BETWEEN THE TWO. I MEAN, WE HAVE SOME KIND OF PLAN THAT IF FOR SOME REASON, IT STILL DOESN'T GO THROUGH YOUR WRITING A SECOND STORY AND OUT.

YOU HAVE TO SEPARATE OWNERSHIPS, RIGHT? HOPEFULLY GOES TO BOND. JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY IF THERE'S ANY THOUGHT PROCESS THERE. THERE IS NO. NO THOUGHT GIVEN ASSUMING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. SO THE WORSHIP CENTERS ON THE SECOND FLOOR, WHICH IS VIRTUALLY ENTIRE SECOND FLOOR, RATHER THAN STAIRWAYS AND ELEVATORS AND THE EDUCATION SPACE IS ON THE FIRST FLOOR. THERE IS ALMOST SOME DIVISION ON THE FIRST FLOOR ABOUT WHERE THE WALLS WERE, BUT THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT LOAD BEARING WALLS AS THEY HAVE BEEN REPLACED WITH THEY, YOU KNOW, STILL STRUCTURAL SYSTEM. UM BUT THE FIRST FLOOR COULD PROBABLY BE SUBDIVIDED MUCH EASIER THAN THE SECOND FLOOR. COULD THE SECOND FLOOR? CERTAINLY COULD YOU ALWAYS GOING TO BUILD THE WALL DOWN THE MIDDLE OF A BIGGER ROOM? BUT IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT THAT DOES THE EXAM REQUIREMENTS WITH WITH TWO STAIRWAYS SERVING THAT OCCUPANCY UPSTAIRS AND THEN MY POINT, THAT'S THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT GO IF SOMETHING DOESN'T ACCIDENTALLY GOES WRONG HERE, RIGHT? OKAY? THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME. NOT AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON ME COMING TO NINE. AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS PLANNING AND ZONING REGARDING THIS, UM, DESIGN EXCEPTION. PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. EMOTION MEMBERS TO MEANS ARCTIC CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING. 2ND 2ND. MR WOODRUFF. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. HI. GET THAT MOTION CARRIES A PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED. SO WE HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR OF THE APPLICANT. I MEAN QUESTION BEFORE US TONIGHT'S THAT ASSAD

[00:25:03]

AS FAR AS THE PARKING CONCERNS AMONG SOME SUNDAY MORNINGS IN DOWNTOWN. THERE SHOULD BE PLENTY OF PARKING BETWEEN THE PARKING GARAGES AND ON STREET AND THAT SHOULD COMPLEMENT OVERALL. AND THE FACADE. I THINK THEY'VE DONE A GREAT JOB BETWEEN COMBINING WHAT MCKINNEY WANTS AN HISTORIC SOCIETY TO TRY TO GET THERE. I MEAN, IT IS A RISKY REDO AS FAR AS THAT GOES OVERALL. UM I KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME SMALL TOWN. OR SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS IN THE DOWNTOWN. THEY HAVE CONCERNED WITH THE REGULATIONS THAT COME ALONG WITH THE CHURCH IN THE AREA. UM IT'S ALREADY REGULATED USE FOR ALLOWED USE IN THAT AREA, SO THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION HERE, BUT THERE WILL BE CONCERNED PROBABLY COMING TO CITY STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL RELATED TO OTHER OPERATING BUSINESSES CURRENTLY DOWNTOWN AND ONES THAT WERE PLANNED IN DOWNTOWN RELATED TO LIQUOR SALES IN THE GENERAL AREA. I DON'T KNOW HOW DOES TO THE WORLD HEALTH OF DOWNTOWN, TAKING PROPERTY TAX ROLLS OFF AND SALES TAX AWAY FROM THE AREA AND PREFER SMALL SHOPS AND CONTINUE TO BE SURROUNDED BY THE CHURCHES THAT WE HAVE SURROUNDING US THAT SERVICE BUT THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS DECIDING. I'M FINE WITH THAT. LOOK I CONCUR AS WELL. LET ME LET ME GUESS. YEAH, THE TASK IN FRONT OF US IS THE FACADE. SITE PLAN OR THE FACADE PLAN, MEET THE CHANGES, EXPECTATIONS AND IT DOES. IT LOOKS GOOD. AH! UM TO FURTHER BRIAN MAN'S EYES POINTS HERE. EXCEPT THE BIG CONCERN HERE IS WE'RE NOT HERE TO TALK ABOUT USE, BUT I AM WORKING WITH ANOTHER CHURCH AND ANOTHER CITY. AND THE CHURCH IS KIND OF COME TO THEIR FORWARD THINKING RIGHT NOW, IN THE ESSENCE THAT THE CHURCH IS JUST A TENANT FOR ONE DAY A WEEK, POTENTIALLY TWO DAYS A WEEK, AND SO THEY HAVE OPENED UP THE PATH NOW, AND THEY BROUGHT IN. SOME RETAIL TENANTS HAVE A DAYCARE IN THERE. THEY HAVE A COFFEE SHOP THAT'S OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THEY'RE WORKING ON A THIRD TENANT. CAN'T SAY RIGHT NOW. AND REALLY, THE CHURCH HAS BECOME A STATE A PART OF THE COMPLEX BUT ARE USING OTHER USES . AND THIS IS A GREAT CORNER. UM AND A GREAT SITE IN OUR DOWNTOWN , SO I JUST ENCOURAGE THE CHURCH TO LOOK AT. YOU KNOW, YOU SAID THAT THE CHURCH BUT ALSO I THINK YOU COULD PROBABLY USE SOME ADDITIONAL USES AND GET SOME ANCILLARY INCOME AT THE SAME TIME. AND, UH, CONTINUE TO SEE DOWNTIME THRIVE WITH THE RETAIL WORLD. ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT.

EMOTION. MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ITEM MOTION MEMORY REMAINS EITHER APPROVE THE ITEM IS PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION. SECOND CHECKING BY MR WOODRUFF. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. I. THE MOTION CARRIES MY VOTERS SEVEN IN FAVOR AND ZERO AGAINST MR SPURGEON.

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Variance to a Site Plan for Urban Garages, Phase I, Located at 8400 West University Drive]

GOOD LUCK TO YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THE NEXT ITEM IS 23-008 SP PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO A SITE PLAN FOR URBAN GARAGE. THIS IS PHASE ONE. THIS IS 8400 WEST.

UNIVERSITY, DR MR BENNETT. YES THANK YOU AGAIN, MR CHAIRMAN. GOOD EVENING COMMISSION AGAIN.

JAKE BENNETT, PLANNER FOR THE CITY. MCKINNEY. THIS IS A REQUESTED VARIANTS TO A SITE PLAN FOR THE URBAN GARAGES. COMMERCIAL PROJECT. TYPICALLY SITE PLANS ARE APPROVED AT THE STAFF LEVEL. HOWEVER ONE OF VARIANTS SUCH AS THIS REQUESTED ME BRING THOSE IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION FOR ACTION. THIS SITE PLAN WAS SUBMITTED AND REVIEWED AND REVIEWED UNDER CHAPTER 1 46 OF THE PREVIOUS CODE. HOWEVER THE SAME REQUIREMENT EXISTS IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN NOVEMBER. 20.2. THE APPLICATION IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCTION APPROXIMATELY 43,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH OFFICE AND FITNESS STUDIO USES. THE VARIANTS BEING REQUESTED AS TO NOT PROVIDE THE REQUIRED 6 FT TALL SCREENING DEVICE ON THE NORTHERN AND WESTERN PROPERTIES. I'LL TRY THAT IN HERE FOR YOU.

YEAH. WE'RE IN ON THOSE PROPERTY LINES ARE ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. BECAUSE OF THE GRADING ON THE SITE RETAINING WALLS ARE BEING PROPOSED ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY IN THE WESTERN BOUNDARY . THE APPLICANT REQUEST THE VARIANTS TO NOT PROVIDE THE REQUIRED SCREENING ON TOP OF THE RETAINING WALLS. THE REQUIREMENT OF 6 FT TALL SCREEN DEVICES MET BY NEARLY ALL NON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN MCKINNEY. THE MOST NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS TO THIS SCREENING REQUIREMENT, OR TYPICALLY LOCATED CHASING TWO FLOODPLAIN OR HEAVILY WOODED AREAS OR AN ALTERNATIVE SCREENING DEVICES BEING PROPOSED. IN THIS CASE, THE

[00:30:05]

SUBJECT PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY THE ABUTS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND NORTHWEST AND NO ALTERNATIVE SCREEN DEVICES BEING PROPOSED. AS SUCH STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF VARIANTS AND ALL STAND MR BENNETT. JAKE EARLIER YOU TOLD ME THAT THEY WERE STEPPING THE WALL. DIFFERENT LEVELS. IS THAT ON THE WEST SIDE, SO THAT IS BOTH ON THE NORTH AND WEST SIDES, SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHERE THE UM PROPOSED ATTENTION. POND IS RIGHT IN HERE. UM THERE IS RETAINING WALLS BOTH ALONG THE EDGE OF THAT, UM, DETENTION POND. AND THEN I BELIEVE FURTHER STEP DOWN ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE ITSELF. AND YOU SAID, THERE'S A WALL ENTIRELY AROUND THE DETENTION POND. UH YEAH, I BELIEVE THERE'S A RETAINING WALL THAT COMPLETELY ENCOMPASSES THAT. UM. THAT DETENTION POND AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER WALL. FURTHER TO THE WEST AND NORTH OF THAT. THANK YOU. REALLY? YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, I READ THIS BOOK, THE DETENTION OF THE WALL.

MATTER HOW TALL IS THE WALL? UM IN MOST LOCATIONS, IT'S BETWEEN SIX AND 12 FT. TALL, TOTAL. FOR THAT RETAINING WALL. THAT'S YOU. AND THEN SO THEN WE'RE BACKING UP FROM THERE TO DETENTION. SO THERE'S YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT A BIG GAP. THERE AS WELL. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD TO.

THIS IS SOME KIND OF MANY OFFICES AND NOT SURE WHAT THESE HMM. YEAH, THEY'RE DESIGNED WHAT IS IT? ONE STORY. TWO STORY BUILDINGS. WHAT WE HAVE BELIEVE IT'S ACTUALLY RIGHT ABOUT 1.5 STORIES. UM SO THERE'S MOSTLY ONE STORIES AND THEN THERE'S KIND OF A LOFT. I THINK COMPONENT TO THOSE ALL OF THE APPLICANTS SPEAK MORE TO THAT IN DETAIL, BUT, YEAH, IT'S MOSTLY AN OFFICE, MULTI TENANT OFFICE PROJECT OR PRODUCT. UM AND ONE OF THESE BUILDINGS IS GOING TO BE USED SPECIFICALLY FOR KIND OF FITNESS OR GYM USE, BUT THE REST OF IT IS JUST GOING TO THE OFFICE. OKAY SO JAKE, THEY HAVEN'T PROPOSED ANY ALTERNATIVE AS FAR AS WROUGHT IRON WITH GREEN LIVING OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT OF THE ONLY, UM, LANDSCAPING. THAT'S THAT'S PROVIDED IS WHAT IS REQUIRED ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THAT WOULD BE THE, UM, CANOPY TREES. THIS IS SAID TO BE PROPOSED, BUT IS THIS SITE. PEANUT BUTTER IMPROVED BEFORE AND THIS IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN, UM AND SO IT'S BEEN APPROVED BEFORE, BUT WHEN IT WAS APPROVED BEFORE THEY WERE PROVIDING THAT 6 FT TALL MASONRY SCREENING DEVICE AND THE REASON FOR THIS COMING BACK AND HAVING TO BE APPROVED AGAIN, OR VOTED ON AGAIN IS DUE TO THE REMOVAL OF THE SCREENING DEVICE. I BELIEVE UNDER OUR POLICIES OR SOMETHING COST IS NOT A REASON TO SEEK A VARIANCE THAT'S CORRECT. SO JAKE, UM THE IF. THE VARIANCE WAS NOT GIVEN IN DENIED US AS RECOMMENDED WOULD THEY HAVE TO BUILD ON TOP OF THE EXISTING, UH OR THE NEW RETAINING WALL? YES SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE SOME SORT OF SCREENING DEVICE LIKE ADVICE . CHAIRMAN MAN'S I SAID THEY COULD PROVIDE THE WROUGHT IRON AND THE EVERGREEN SHRUBS OR THEY CAN PROVIDE A SOLID MASONRY SCREENING DEVICE. OR THEY COULD JUST DO, UM EVERGREEN SHRUBS, AND THEY COULD COME IN FOR THAT ALTERNATIVE SCREENING VARIANTS, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME VARIANTS WE HAVE HERE, EXCEPT THEY BE PROVIDING EXTRA LANDSCAPING INSTEAD OF NO ADDITIONAL UM SCREENING DEVICE IN THAT LOCATION, AND THIS IS SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH AND TO THE WEST ALONG THAT RED LINE THERE, AND THOSE ARE THE PROPERTY LINES. WHAT'S THE DISTANCE TO THE NEAREST NEIGHBOR ? TO THE WEST TO THE WEST? UM, THAT'S THE CLOSEST PROPERTY. I BELIEVE, CLOAK CLOSEST HOME. THE CLOSEST NORTH, UM I BELIEVE IT IS TO THE NORTH. I THINK THERE IS A ROAD THAT KIND OF SNAKES THROUGH THERE. UM I BELIEVE IT'S CLOSER TO THE ROAD, AND THAT'S KIND OF THEIR BACKYARD SPACE. THAT'S A BUDDING. YOU DON'T KNOW THE DISTANCE. DO YOU UNSURE OF THE DISTANCE? DOUBLE CHECK ON THAT. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THE AERIAL IF YOU CAN PULL THE AERIAL FOR A SECOND IT LOOKS LIKE TO THE WEST AND TO THE NORTH TODAY, YOU'VE GOT A TON OF TREES HERE. THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO A CASE WE HEARD A COUPLE OF MONTHS BACK. UM WHERE THEY HAVE THE BIG RETAINING WALL. BUT THEN I WENT BACK TO A OFFICER. REAL GOOD TRACK. THERE WAS SOMETHING IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WENT BACK TO ON THAT SIDE. BUT RETAINING WALL. IN ESSENCE, WE LOOKED AT IT AS A THAT'S THE SCREENING DEVICE, RIGHT? BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT A 6 FT WALL HERE. SO SIX OF THIS ONE GOES DOWN, THOUGH I'M SORRY. INTERRUPT. IT WAS DOWN. YOU GO OFF THIS REGION? UM, ALL

[00:35:01]

THE RETAINING WALL IS NOT UP TOWARDS THE RESIDENTIAL. NO SO ELEVATED OVER THE RESIDENTIAL TO EACH SIDE. THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH WE'RE THE LAST ONE WAS THE WALWYN RETAINING WALLS UP. THIS ONE'S GOING DOWN? YES, THEY THESE ARE OVER THE TOP OF THE RESIDENTIAL BELIEVE THE OTHER ONE WAS AS WELL. BUT THE OTHER ONE WAS A BUDDING AT CREEK. UM, IMMEDIATELY. JASON. YEAH? THIS ONE IS NOT ABOUT INDIAN CREEK. WE HAVE ONE. LETTER AND I GUESS THIS IS FROM BELIEVE. YEAH THAT'S FROM THE NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST NORTHWEST THERE. QUICK QUESTION. IN THE LETTER OF INTENT. THERE WAS SEVERAL PHOTOS OF THAT RETAINING WALL IS THE 6 FT BARRIER IS SUPPOSED TO GO ON THE OUTSIDE OF THAT, OR ON TOP OF THAT WALL BECAUSE IN THE LETTER IT SAYS, ONE THING AND WHAT WE UNDERSTAND AS A DIFFERENT IT WOULD BE ON TOP OF THE RETAINING WALL OR IT WOULD BE ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE, SO WHICH ONE OF THOSE WOULD BE, THOUGH, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S TWO DIFFERENT STORIES BECAUSE IN THESE PHOTOS THAT WOULD MAKE IT LIKE A 12 TO 16 FOOTBALL. OR IT WOULD BE 6 FT WALL ON THE OUTSIDE OF THAT ROUTINE, SO I WAS UP. I BELIEVE THE RETAINING WALL FURTHEST TO THE OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY IS RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY ONE THERE WOULD BE HAVING TO PROVIDE THE SCREEN DEVICE ON TOP OF THAT. WE GOT THE AFRICAN HERE WE YES, KIM. OR THAT SAME QUESTION. ANYTHING ELSE, MR BENNETT? THANK YOU, SIR. APPLICANT HERE BELIEVE SO.

YEP. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS DREW DANOWSKI WITH CLAIM OR ENGINEERING 19 03 CENTRAL DRIVE.

BEDFORD, TEXAS. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING UP THE PHOTOS. WE FELT THAT THAT WAS A CRITICAL ELEMENT TO THEIR REQUEST. GIVEN THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE RETAINING WALLS ALONG PARTICULARLY THE NORTH SIDE ARE 12 FT. TALL 10 TO 12 FT. TALL THEY TAPERED DOWN ON THE WEST SIDE. UM MOST OF WHICH IS 8 FT. TALL AND THEN THERE IS A SMALL SECTION OF SIX FOOTBALL WALL SO IF WE ADD A RETAINING WALL ON TOP, ESSENTIALLY, WE'D BE CREATING A 12 TO 18 FT TALL BARRIER. FROM THE NEIGHBOR'S VIEW FROM THE FROM THE NORTH AND FROM THE WEST. THE AREA IS HEAVILY WOODED. BOTH ON THE WEST AND NORTH SIDES, AND YOU CAN KIND OF TELL THAT IN SOME OF THE PHOTOS THAT WE TOOK. YOU CAN SEE LARGE TREES DOWN ON THAT SIDE. ADDITIONALLY THERE IS NO HOME FACING THE NORTH, THE HOME IS ACTUALLY MUCH FURTHER. TO THE EAST. UM WHICH YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THAT IN THE AERIAL, WHAT'S IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THIS SITE IS, UM POND CREEK IN A POND. AND THEN THAT CREEK ACTUALLY WRAPS AROUND. THE WEST SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY AS WELL WHERE THE HEAVILY WOODED AREA IS IN BETWEEN THE NEAREST RESIDENTS, WHICH I BELIEVE IS ABOUT 350 FT.

FROM OUR BOUNDARY. DID YOU TALK TO THE NEIGHBORS? WE HAVE NOT. WE HAVE TRIED TO REACH OUT, BUT WE'VE RECEIVED NO COMMUNICATION. THE WALL IS CONSTRUCTED AND THAT WAS IN THOSE PHOTOS. SO JUST TO CLARIFY SO THAT IS THE EXISTING LAW. THAT IS THE EXISTING WALL. SO IF WE WERE TO BUILD A MASONRY SCREENING WALL ON TOP, IT WOULD BE ON TOP OF WHAT IS ALREADY THERE. AND YOU CAN SEE, I THINK ONE OF THE PICTURES ACTUALLY HAS A CONSTRUCTION WORKER STANDING IN IT AND YOU CAN SEE THE HEIGHT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU KNOW HE'S PROBABLY A 6 FT GENTLEMAN. AND HOW FAR ABOVE HIM THAT WILL ACTUALLY GOES. IS THERE A REASON YOU COULDN'T DO A WROUGHT IRON OR EVERGREEN? WE'VE ALLOWED THOSE IN SOME OTHER PLACES ONLY WE WOULD BE OPEN TO LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPING. THE AREA IS VERY TIGHT. UM WITH THAT WALL? UM. YEAH WE WOULD BE OPEN TO WORKING WITH STAFF OR YOU KNOW THAT THAT WASN'T BROUGHT UP INITIALLY, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'D BE OPEN TO UM REALLY THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST. IT WASN'T A FINANCIAL ONE BY ANY MEANS. IT WAS JUST, YOU KNOW. ONCE THINGS STARTED COMING TOGETHER IN THE FIELD AND LOOKING AT WHAT IT WAS ACTUALLY GONNA TURN OUT LIKE IT JUST SEEMED IMPRACTICAL TO HAVE SUCH A TALL STONE WALL FACING PROPERTY LINE THAT ALL THE LAND AROUND US IS ACTUALLY OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS OF MCKINNEY. AND IT IS SHOWN ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAPS AS TO BE DEVELOPED AS COMMERCIAL. SO IN FUTURE LAND USE MAPS HASN'T BLENDED BECAUSE WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION PREVIOUSLY IN PNG, WHERE THIS WAS ABOUT THE LIMIT OF THE DEPTH, THE COMMERCIAL THAT IT BLENDS UP TO THE PRESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH. AND THEN I THINK I MEAN IT'S WORSE COST YOU NOTES BEYOND SIMPLY A COST ISSUE IN YOUR LETTER OF INTENT. HAS TO

[00:40:04]

START WITH SENTENCE. JUST HAVING ISSUES WITH NO CONTACT WITH NEIGHBORS RELATED TO THIS AND THEY COMPLETE WAIVER OF VARIANTS . WE HAVE REACHED OUT TO THE NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST, OR CONTRACTORS TRIED TO MAKE CONTACT SEVERAL TIMES. ACCORDING TO YOUR LANDSCAPE PLAN. YOU SHOW TREES ALONG THAT BOUNDARY. SO BUT YOU SAID YOU'RE NOT PLAYING. IT'S TOO TIGHT AND YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO DO ANYTHING THERE. I THINK MAYBE IF JAKE WAS REFERRING TO MAYBE SOMETHING MORE DENSELY PLANTED SOME SORT OF VEGETATIVE SCREENING LIVING SCREEN. UM BUT WE ARE PLANNING TO HAVE SOME LANDSCAPE UP ON TOP. YES YOU GOT LIVE OAK TREES AND RIGHT. KIND OF CEDAR ELM.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. JAKE CAN YOU PULL UP THE LANDSCAPE PLAN? GOTTA QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. SO IN THE BACK, RIGHT? SO CAN YOU, MARK WHERE THE WALL IS GOING. WALL IS. SO TODAY. YOU'VE GOT A WALL. EIGHT. 6 TO 12 FT. VERY LENGTH. LET ME GET THIS DETENTION POND. IT'S CALLED FROM NORTH TO SOUTH. HOW MANY FEET ROUGHLY, IS THAT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT ANY STRUCTURES HERE. THIS IS JUST GOING TO BE RIGHT. OUR WHOLE WHOLE SIDE IS HELD VERY HIGH, AND, YOU KNOW, WE TRIED TO DROP DOWN AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE OF 3 80. BUT DURING THE INITIAL DESIGN OF THIS DEVELOPMENT THERE'S CERTAIN LIMITATIONS. WE HAVE TO FOLLOW. FIRE LANES HAVE MAXIMUM SLOPES. UM AND SO WE WERE BASICALLY AT MAXIMUM SLOW ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE BACK.

AND THAT'S STILL HAD US THAT 10 TO 12 FT HIGHER THAN THE NATURAL GRADE IS JUST A VERY TOUGH SITE.

BUT AS FAR AS THE POND UM, SO IF I COULD DESCRIBE THIS, THE RETAINING WALL COMES UP FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND THEN DROPS BACK DOWN INTO THE POND. AND ON TOP OF THAT, IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO WALLS IS WHERE WE HAD THE LANDSCAPING PROPOSED. SO THE POND IS ACTUALLY DOWN BELOW AND THEN AS FAR AS DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BUILDING ON THE EAST SIDE, ITS CLOSEST CORNER TO THAT PROPERTY LINE IS ABOUT 125 FT AND THEN THE NEAREST CORNER ON THE WEST BUILDING TO THE PROPERTY LINES ABOUT 151 FT TO THAT NORTH PROPERTY LINE. IT'S CLOSER TO THE WEST PROPERTY LINE. THANK YOU. HOW? HOW HOW DEEPER WATER DO YOU ANTICIPATE? BEING THERE CONTINUOUSLY ANY CONTINUOUSLY. NONE. I'M SORRY. WHAT? CONTINUOUSLY NONE. THE POND IS DESIGNED TO DRAIN OVER 24 HOUR PERIOD. WHAT WOULD BE THE DEPTH ON THE SOUTH? PORTION OF THAT. DETENTION POND. THE DEPTH ON THE SOUTH SIDE WALL, DROPPING DOWN TO THE LOWEST OFF HAND. I'M NOT SURE, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S ABOUT 6 FT. ABOUT SIX BELIEVE SO. DO YOU HAVE A BROAD IRON FENCE TO KEEP FROM FALLING IN IT. WE DO HAVE SAFETY FEATURES, AND YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE AN ACCESS RAMP AS WELL.

THAT ALLOWS FOR MAINTENANCE AND MOWING AND PEOPLE TO GET DOWN IN THE BOTTOM. I CAN AGREE WITH YOU . THAT MASONRY FENCE MAYBE A LITTLE OVERBOARD FOR THE AREA CONSIDERED POTENTIAL BOND IS ON THE TREES. I STILL THINK IT COMES BACK ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ALSO HAVE THEIR BOUNDARIES AND NOT JUST THE PRESIDENT'S RESPONSIBILITIES. SO I'D BE MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE WITH LIVING SCREEN BEING REQUIRED THERE. AND JUST NOT GIVING CAR PLUNGE TO NOTHING. NEAR THE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. IF NOT WELL. SEE IF WE HAVE ANYBODY HERE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. STUDENT ALINSKY. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU'VE COME TO NINE, I WOULD LIKE TO WEIGH IN ON THIS PROPOSED, UM VARIANTS. PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. COMMOTION CLOSED PUBLIC CARING, EMOTIONAL, MR MILLIONS UNDER CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SECOND BY MR WOODRUFF. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? CAST YOUR VOTE. I. THAT MOTION CARRIES THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED. MEMBERS QUESTIONS OF STAFF FOR APPLICANT OR CONVERSATION AMONGST OURSELVES. SO, UM, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE SOMETHING OTHER THAN THEN, UM, WHICH REQUIRED IN

[00:45:01]

TERMS OF SCREENING WALL. WHAT WOULD WE BE APPROVING? YES SO THE VARIANCE IN FRONT OF YOU, IT WOULD BE EITHER TO UM, BELIEVE APPROVED THIS AS PRESENTED, WHICH IS NO ADDITIONAL SCREENING . ALL OF THAT LANDSCAPING THAT'S SHOWN IS REQUIRED FOR OTHER REASONS. OR IF YOU WERE TO DENY THE VARIANTS THAN THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK WITH SOME OTHER KIND OF SCREENING DEVICE, OR THEY COULD APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL. OR I BELIEVE PNC COULD ALSO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO PROVIDE LANDSCAPE. AS WELL. KATE. WHAT DO YOU KNOW THAT. THEY WERE GOING TO WANT TO CHANGE THE VARIANCE REQUEST WOULD HAVE TO GO TO A SEPARATE MEETING MEETING, OKAY? GENERALLY JACOB, WE HAVE HAD SOME OF THESE SCREENS ON LAKE FOREST. JUST NORTH OF COLLIN MCKINNEY BACKING UP THE CREEK GENERALLY IN THAT LIVING SCREEN COMPARED TO THIS LANDSCAPING. YEAH SO I BELIEVE THE AREA THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. THAT'S ADDITIONAL, UH CEDAR ELM TREES THAT ARE IN THERE, UM WE'VE ALSO SEEN ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL. MAYBE SOME EVERGREEN SHRUBS PLACED IN THERE AS WELL AS AN ADDITIONAL TREES. SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE CANOPY THE SCREENING AT THE BOTTOM? UM AND THIS HAS TREES TO THE NORTH AND WEST. SO THERE'S ROOM WITH LANDSCAPING RIGHT THERE. THAT'S CORRECT. AND I DID WANT TO POINT OUT ALL OF THE TREES AS SHOWN. AND IF WE GO BACK TO THE AERIAL, UM THOSE ARE ALL ON THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. NONE OF THOSE ARE BEING KEPT ON THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. THAT'S COULD BE DEVELOPED AS SOMETHING ELSE IN THE FUTURE. I THINK THAT ROD IRON FENCE BECAUSE TO GO AROUND THERE AND BE ADDITIONAL SAFETY FACTOR, ALSO SOMEBODY FROM CLIMATE AND ANGLE WALL. I CAN BET ENVISION SOMEBODY'S GONNA DO THAT. ALL IN. I MEAN, LOOK IN THE END. JUST SEEMS TO BE. WE CAN MAKE THE APPLICANT GO TO A 12 FT WALL. THEN YOU'RE BUILDING UP A MOAT AROUND SOMEBODY'S HOUSE. GOOD LUCK, UGLY. YOU GOT IT. BASICALLY ALWAYS 12. NOW YOU CAN ADD SIX COULD BE AN 18 FT WALL AND I WOULDN'T WANT TO LIVE UP. NEXT TO THE 18 FT WALL. YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE WHAT'S UP THERE WITH THE DETENTION POND LAYS OUT AND WITHOUT IT HAVING ANY USE BACK THERE. UM, IT JUST SEEMS, YOU KNOW. LANDSCAPING GROWS UGLY OVER TIME, NOT MAINTAINED. THIS IS GONNA BE HARD TO GET TO. THIS SEEMS LIKE THE VARIANCE SEEMS TO BE A REASONABLE REQUEST, IN THE ESSENCE THAT YOU HAVE A HUGE WALL. YOU HAVE A HUGE GAP BEFORE YOU HAVE ANY BUILDINGS IN THIS DETENTION POND. YOU CAN ASK FOR A LIVING SCREENING. WE COULD ASK FOR ROD IRON. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S PROVIDING. OTHER THAN . I DON'T SEE WHERE IT GIVES IN ANY ADDITIONAL BENEFIT, AND I LOOK AT THE RETAINING WALL AS AS THE BUFFER THAT YOU KNOW THE 6 FT WALL. YOU'RE GETTING IT AS THE CITY. UM I'D ACTUALLY BE IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANTS REQUEST.

I JUST THINK IF WE'RE LOOKING AT LANDSCAPING IS GOING TO DETERIORATE IN THE LONG TERM, AND THE PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO KEEP IT UP AND THEY'RE NOT KEEPING UP THEIR BUILDINGS, EITHER. SO HOPEFULLY IT WOULD BE ALL BUT IT'S ALSO IF WE'RE LOOKING AT IT AS TODAY, ONLY THAT'S ONE THING, BUT WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT IT IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE THIS GOES DOWN ON THE RECORD AS FAR AS WHAT WILL THIS BE 20 OR 30 YEARS FROM NOW, AND THOSE OTHER TWO LOTS REDEVELOPING THAT RESIDENTIAL AREA. I STILL THINK THERE'S SOME RESPONSIBILITY. THE COMMERCIAL SIDE SCREEN. THERE'S FROM THE RESIDENTIAL ZONED AREA, AND THIS IS A MODIFICATION TO ORIGINAL SITE PLAN THAT THEY KNEW IT GOING IN. ALSO SO I AGREE WITH THE MASONRY WALL. MAYBE MUCH. I THINK THEY'RE STILL SHOULD BE SOME KIND OF SCREENING BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL. JUST MAKE SURE THAT LANDSCAPING GOES BAD. IT'S A HARD PLACE TO GET TO IN THE BACK THERE. SO THIS THIS IS JUST NOT A HUGE AREA AND IT WON'T BE PART OF THE PUBLIC SEES EXCEPT FOR THE REAR HOMES. SO IS IT. IS THERE A WAY TO APPROVE, UM, REQUEST AND NOT HAVE SCREENING ON TOP OF THE RETAINING WALL. BUT TO MAINTAIN THE REQUIREMENT FOR SCREENING ELSEWHERE. AWAY FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER THERE. SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MAYBE FURTHER INSIDE OF THAT DETENTION CLIENT INSTEAD OF ON THE OUTSIDE. I BELIEVE THAT IS TECHNICALLY DEVELOPED AREA AND THEY WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE THE SCREENING AROUND. THAT WOULDN'T THINK OKAY? YEP, SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE ON THE EDGE. I DID ALSO WANT TO ADD THE MASONRY SCREENING WALL IS NOT THE ONLY REQUIREMENT THEY COULD PROVIDE A WROUGHT IRON FENCE WITH THE EVERGREEN SHRUBS ACCORDING TO CODE IF THEY WERE GOING TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN THOSE TWO THAN THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED OF

[00:50:05]

VARIANCE. OTHER COMMENTS. WE'LL HEAR FROM THEM. JAKE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SURE. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS. COMMENTS. YOU MAY WANT TO WEIGH IN. JUST TO MAKE SURE I'VE GOT THIS RIGHT.

IF WE DENY THIS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK. BEFORE PLANNING AND ZONING. WE COULD COME BACK WITH A SEPARATE VARIANCE REQUEST OR THEY COULD GO BEFORE CITY COUNCIL TO APPEAL THEIR REQUEST.

OR THEY COULD BUILD THE WALL AND MEET OUR CART STANDARDS. ONE OF THE OPTIONS THAT WE MIGHT HAVE IS TO I RECOMMEND A WROUGHT IRON FENCE WAS LANDSCAPING. BUT MR BENNETT'S EXPLANATION. THAT WE DO THAT. DOES IT GO? CAN WE ADD THAT TO THE EXISTENCE? I THINK YOU TALKED ABOUT A SECOND, BUT WE ADD THAT THEY HAD TO PUT AROUND ON FENCE WITH WHAT HMM. IF THEY WERE WANTING TO ONLY DO THE ROD IRON FENCE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK WITH THE SCREENING VARIANTS SO THEY WOULD BE COMING BACK ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING, BUT THEY DID THAT ROD IRON WITH EVER EVERGREENS. THEY COULD THEY COULD DO IT THROUGH THIS VARIANCE THAT WOULD MEET CODE UM AND SO IF YOU WERE TO DENY THE REQUEST, THEY COULD GO BACK AND ADD EITHER THE 6 FT HOME MASONRY WALL OR THE 6 FT.

TALL, WROUGHT IRON WITH EVERGREEN SHRUBS. EITHER OF THOSE WOULD MEET CODE. THEY WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED ANOTHER VARIANTS BECAUSE THEY HAVE THAT UNDER THEIR CURRENT PERMIT, THEN, OKAY. I'LL MAKE MOTION. I MOVED TO DENY. THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 21 0080 SP. SECOND EMOTIONAL DAMAGE TO LOBO, TOO. I DIDN'T I THE APPLICANTS REQUEST AND A SECOND BY MR WATLEY. WE NEED DISCUSSION. THIS CAST YOUR VOTES. HI. BUT THE MOTION CARRIES ABOUT OUT OF SIX IN FAVOR AND ONE AGAINST THE MOTION CARRIES. STRAIGHTEN IT. ASK IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS YOU CAN GET

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Rezone the Subject Property from “PD” - Planned Development District to “PD” - Planned Development District, Generally to Modify the Development Standards and to Allow for Commercial Uses, Located at 6201 North McDonald Street]

WITH MR BENNETT EITHER TONIGHT OR TOMORROW. THE NEXT ITEM BEFORE US IS TO THREE DAYS 0050.

THE PUBLIC HEARING TO REQUEST A REZONED OF A SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM PD PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TWO P D TO MODIFY THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. AND TO ALLOW FOR COMMERCIAL USES. THIS IS SIX TO 01. NORTH MCDONALDS STREET, MR BENNETT. WELCOME BACK . YES. THANK YOU AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN UM, THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY IS 62 01 NORTH MCDONALDS STREET PD PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. MANY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARE IN LINE WITH THE C THREE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT EXCEPT FOR THE ADDITION OF INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE USED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE WAREHOUSE USES ONLY PERMITTED WITHIN THE STREET ZONING DISTRICTS OF I ONE AND I TWO WITHIN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS COMMERCIAL CENTER POLICE TYPE AND THE ONE MCKINNEY 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS PLACE TYPE SUPPORTS AND MIX OF COMMERCIAL USES, BUT IT'S NOT CHARACTERIZED BY INDUSTRIAL USES. WHILE THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT ON THIS STRETCH OF HIGHWAY STATE HIGHWAY FIVE IS LARGELY CHARACTERIZED BY LOW INTENSITY AND RURAL AGRICULTURE TRACKS. THE COMPLAIN, RECOGNIZES THE POTENTIAL FOR THIS CORRIDOR. TO PROVIDE RETAIL AND SERVICE USES. TWO RESIDENTS IN MCKINNEY AND SURROUNDING AREAS. IT IS STAFFED PROFESSIONAL OPINION THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES HAVE NOT YET REACHED THIS STRETCH OF STATE HIGHWAY FIVE TO ACTIVATE DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT. SUPPORTIVE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS COMMERCIAL VISION FOR THE AREA. HOWEVER ANTICIPATED PROJECTS SUCH AS THE RECONSTRUCTION OF STATE HOW WE FIVE AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT NORTH OF MCKINNEY COULD CREATE POSITIVE MOMENTUM IN SUPPORT OF THE VISION FOR THE AREA. ALL THOSE STORAGE USES OUR EXISTING IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. IT IS OUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION THAT PERMITTING INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE USES ON THESE SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD INTRODUCE A LEVEL OF SEMI TRUCK TRAFFIC AND INDUSTRIAL INTENSITY THAT CONFLICTS WITH THE VISION DESCRIBED IN THE

[00:55:01]

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IN ADDITION TO THE WAREHOUSE USES THE MAXIMUM HIGH PROPOSED IN THE P D IS 55 PEOPLE. ONLY THE I TOO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT PERMITS 55 FT TALL WAREHOUSES AND IS NOT CHARACTERISTIC OF THE COMMERCIAL CENTER PLACE TYPE OF DIVISION FOR THE AREA. AS SUCH STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED REZONING AND AUSTIN FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. JAKE REMEMBERS QUESTIONS. JAKE FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN. IT APPEARS THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS SITE.

WOULD BE VERY SIMILAR TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY ON BOTH SIDES OF IT. IS THAT WHAT YOU SEE? UM FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY, UM SO THESE SURROUNDING USES THERE IS SELF STORAGE. UM, SOME SORTS OF RETAIL AND OTHER STORAGE. UM, THOSE ARE MORE COMMERCIAL TYPE USES, WHEREAS WAREHOUSES ARE COMPLETELY JUST INDUSTRIAL IN NATURE AS FAR AS OUR UM, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE VERY SIMILAR THE WELL, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THEY'RE DOING. IF THEY'RE DOING WAREHOUSES, IT WOULD LIKELY BE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT IF THEY'RE WANTING TO DO OFFICES. OR THERE'S ALREADY SELF STORAGE OVER THERE THAN THAT, MAYBE MORE SIMILAR. SOME OF THE SOUND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES DEVELOPED UNDER THE COUNTY CODE, NOT OUR CODE. THAT'S CORRECT. THE MAJORITY OF THE AREA OUT HERE IS IN THE J. UM ACROSS THE ROAD TO THE SOUTH. I BELIEVE THERE IS A PROPERTY THAT IS IN THE CITY. UM BUT THE MAJORITY OF THIS IS IN THE CURRENTLY. SO IF THIS IF THIS WAS REZONED FOR COMMERCIAL WOULD IS THERE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT TYPE OF COMMERCIAL USE IT WOULD BE. SO IT FOLLOWS MOSTLY THESE, UM WHAT IS IN THE U. D. C IS THE C THREE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. UM SO IT HAS A MIX OF DIFFERENT KIND OF COMMERCIAL USES RETAIL RESTAURANT PERSONAL SERVICE THOSE KINDS OF USES UM, AND THAT C THREE ZONING IS ACTUALLY ON THE PROPERTY TODAY, UM, IN A IN ANOTHER PD, SO. TO THE BACK OF THIS. WE HAVE. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT'S COMMERCIAL FROM 75 ACROSS. FIVE AND THEN BACK TO THE EAST OF FIVE. I BELIEVE IN THE COMPANY. WE HAVE A FLOODPLAIN OR CREEK THAT BREAKS IT OUT BETWEEN 75 AND FIVE. YEAH I BELIEVE THERE IS SOME FLOODPLAIN ANOTHER 10 15 E, UM FOR THE FURTHER NORTH AND THEN ACROSS THE ROAD, I BELIEVE THERE MAY BE A STRIP OF COMMERCIAL CENTER PLACE TYPE THERE, BUT THE MAJORITY OF THAT IS ACTUALLY EITHER SUBURBAN LIVING OR ESTATE LIVING. UM PLACE TYPES THERE FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. TOPO SHOWS US ABOUT 10 FT. VARIANCE FROM FRONT AND BACK TO THE LOWER AREA. OTHER QUESTIONS. JAKE DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? NO, SIR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS OUR AFRICAN HERE. GOOD EVENING. UM JORDANOVSKI CLAIM OR ENGINEERING . 19 03 CENTRAL, DR BEDFORD, TEXAS, UM BEFORE TONIGHT. WE'VE GOT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION A REZONING REQUEST TO WHAT WE FEEL IS TO PROPOSE AN UPGRADE TO AN EXISTING PD. EXISTING PD IS BASED ON THAT C THREE ZONING DISTRICT BUT ALLOWS HEAVY MACHINERY AND SALES. UM THE USES THAT WERE REQUESTING TO SWAP OUT BASICALLY TO AN IDENTICAL PD IS TO ADD A FITNESS STUDIO, GYM AND WAREHOUSE AND WHAT WE MEANT BY WAREHOUSES OFFICE WAREHOUSE LIKE A FLEX OFFICE. UM AND AS OF RIGHT NOW, THAT IS THE INTENDED USE. BUT. WHAT WERE THOSE USES THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD ONE MORE TIME PERSONAL SERVICE AND WHERE HIM AND PERSONAL STUDIO OR FITNESS STUDIO I BELIEVE WAS THE REQUEST. AND, UM WAREHOUSE. AND AS FAR AS THE CONCERN REGARDING THE HEIGHT, WE ARE FINE WITH A 30 FT. MAX HEIGHT. NO, SHE WITHOUT PD CURRENTLY IS WRITTEN. THE PD CURRENTLY STATES 55 FT, BUT WE'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT 30 IF THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS STAFF COULD NOT SUPPORT AND I SAW A. A. IF YOU'RE RENDERING OR SOMETHING OF THE SITE PLAN AT ONE TIME. UH UM. AND I HAD. DEEP CONCERN RELATED TO A BUILDING THAT FRONT OF HOW WE FIVE TO THE NORTH. WE HAVE SELF STORAGE. AND

[01:00:05]

THEY HAVE A METAL BUILDING THAT'S LENGTHY ALONG THAT SELF STORAGE THAT FRONTS FIVE.

CONCEPT PLAN, I THINK HAD ANOTHER BUILDING THAT FRONT AND FIVE BACKED UP TO IT. THAT WAS GOING TO BE A FOOTBALL FIELD LONG OF METAL. CAUSE ME CONCERN. THAT'S STILL WITHIN THE THOUGHT PROCESS OF DEVELOPING THERE. IT IS NOT UM. COMPREHEND OR THE COMPANY. RENDERINGS I SAW WERE CORRUGATED METAL BRICK ON THE BOTTOM THOUGHT PROCESS. I CAN SEE STAFFS CONCERNED BECAUSE THE COP, THE RENDERINGS I SAW WAS FINE WITH AND RELATED TO THE SELF STORAGE THE NORTH AND WHAT THE CURRENT USES ALLOWED FOR WHAT'S TO THE SOUTH AND THE DIFFICULTY OF THIS DEVELOPING AS RETAIL OVERALL. I DIDN'T HAVE MUCH CONCERN WITH POTENTIAL ZONE REZONING REQUEST, BUT I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS THAT THE PD LACKS GETTING IN THERE. WHAT I SAW. AND THEN OPENS IT UP FOR PEOPLE THAT MAYBE BUY IT LATER TO DO SOMETHING THAT WASN'T RENDERED AND IS NOT WITHIN THAT FAVOR AND IS LESS DESIRABLE. SO, UM AT THIS POINT, I'M LEANING TO GET SOME FINE WITH IT, BUT WITH AN ASTERISK CITY COUNCIL THAT I WOULD EXPECT MORE DETAILED PD ATTACHED TO IT WHEN IT CAME TO THEM. AS FAR AS THAT GOES, MAKING SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO FOOTBALL FIELD LONG METAL BUILDINGS. AND WHATEVER IS BUILT IN THERE AS FAR AS A WAREHOUSE IN THE CITY IS GIVING UP. WHAT DO YOU FEELS IS IN ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND SOME RETAIL THAT IT'S ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN BE PROUD TO STILL EXIST THERE. YES, SIR. SO YOU TALKED ABOUT USES A MINUTE AGO, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE A LOT. I'VE SEEN THE RENDERINGS AS WELL. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A LOT MORE STORAGE. CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT THE PROPOSED USES THAT YOU EXPECT TO IN YOUR SLEEP? DEVELOPMENT THE INITIAL USES THAT THAT WE HAVE IN MIND OR MORE OF THAT FLEX OFFICE THAT OFFICE WAREHOUSE TYPE USE. SO, UM. YOU KNOW MY USER THAT COULD HAVE THE NEED FOR A SMALLER OFFICE BUT ALSO SOME INTERIOR SPACE FOR STORAGE, YOU KNOW? OF PLUMBING CONTRACTOR THAT NEEDS TO STORE EQUIPMENT INSIDE, BUT ALSO HAS SOMEBODY ANSWERING THE PHONES AND A CONFERENCE ROOM AND A COUPLE OFFICES. THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE. BUT THAT'S THE USE THAT IS CURRENTLY IN MIND. THANK YOU.

OTHERS. YOU DON'T HAVE THAT RENDERING PICTURE, DO YOU? WITH ME. I DO NOT. I HAVE A SITE PLAN, BUT NOT A RENDERING OF THE ELEVATION. THANK YOU. IT IS ATTRACTIVE THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO REDUCE THAT HEIGHT. UM 55 FT TO 30 FT. THAT WAS, UM ONE OF THE NOTES THAT SEVERAL OF HIS HEAD TO COMMENT. ANYONE ELSE? BEFORE WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. MR DANOWSKI. THANK YOU. THANK YOU BEING HERE. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AUTUMN IF YOU'VE COME TO NINE AND WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS PLANNING AND ZONING ON THIS PROPOSED REZONED. PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. YES, SIR. SAME FRANKLIN. UM 16 50. WEST VIRGINIA PARKWAY. MCKINNEY, TEXAS. SO WE ACTUALLY REPRESENT THE OWNERS OF THE CURRENT PROPERTY. IT'S KIRBY SMITH MACHINERY, AND WE WERE PART OF THE ORIGINAL TEAM THAT PUT THE ZONING IN ANNEXATION IN PLACE WITH THE CITY. SO WHEN WE DID ZONE IN THE ANNEX THIS SITE WE WENT ALL THE WAY TO SIDE PLAYING. WE HAVE FULL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR KIRBY SMITH AND ALL INTENSIVE PURPOSES. IT IS AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING. IT'S 25,000 SQUARE FOOT OF METAL BUILDING. THEY DO. HEAVY EQUIPMENT RENTAL AND SALES AND THEY SERVICE THE GRADING OIL AND, UM AND MINING INDUSTRIES, SO THEY HAVE THE HIGH HEAVIEST EQUIPMENT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE SITE THAT YOU CAN GET SO TRUCK TRAFFIC COMING IN AND OUT OF THIS SITE WOULD HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANT. UM AND I JUST DON'T SEE THE CURRENT USER HAVING NEAR THE INTENSITY FROM A TRAFFIC PERSPECTIVE AS WE WOULD HAVE AND THEN AS IT AS IT PERTAINS TO AN INDUSTRIAL LOOKING SITE, KIRBY SMITH PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN A MUCH MORE INDUSTRIAL LOOKING SITE AND THAT MATTER AS WELL, AND THEN WHEN YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT ON THE NORTH, WE DO HAVE SELF STORAGE. I KNOW THE STAFF STATES THAT THEY SEE IT AS MORE OF A COMMERCIAL USE, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE YOU CAN DEVELOP IT AND NOT GETTING ANY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. I THINK IT HAS TO BE AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT DEVELOP SELF STORAGE. UM AND THEN AS IT PERTAINS. TO UH, THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF. OBVIOUSLY KIRBY SMITH GOT THE SITE PLAN. WE WERE GONNA

[01:05:08]

GO. WE'RE TRYING TO EXIT THE SITE NOW, UM AND WE'RE LEAVING BECAUSE IT JUST GOT A LITTLE BIT TOO TIGHT. THEY NEEDED A LARGER SITE. UM, BUT AGAIN WE HAD THE EXACT SAME P D. IT WAS C THREE BASED ZONING, UM, THAT ALLOWED FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT, SALES AND RENTAL. UM THAT HEIGHT I BELIEVE AT THE TIME WAS 55. IT MAY MAY HAVE CHANGED WITH THE NEW UDC AND IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN 45 ORIGINALLY, AND THEN IT WENT UP TO 55. BUT TODAY YOU CAN BUILD UNDER THAT HIGH REQUIREMENT. ALL THE SAME, SO EVERYTHING IS THE SAME. THE ONLY THING THAT WE ARE TAKING OUT IS REPLACING THE HEAVY EQUIPMENT AND RENTAL, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN A VERY VERY INDUSTRIAL USE WITH HIGH INTENSITY TRAFFICKING. IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AN APPEALING SIGHT OR PLACING OVER THE LESS INTENSITY WAREHOUSE USE, WHICH WE FEEL LIKE IT'S MORE CONDUCIVE TO THE AREA THAN WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DEVELOP. AND WHEN WE ORIGINALLY CAME IN, WE DID HAVE STAFF SUPPORT. ON THE ZONING CASE. UM SO I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU SOME CONTEXT AND SOME HISTORY TO THAT DEAL. UM AND THAT'S ALL I GOT. BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MR FRANKLIN. ANYONE ELSE? LIKE TO WEIGH IN ON THIS. PROPOSED VARIANTS. PROMOTION CLOSED PUBLIC A MOTION MEMORY REMAINS ARE TOO CLOSE. THE PUBLIC HEARING SECOND, MR WOODRUFF. ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. HI. I SEE WHERE STAFF STANDS AS FAR AS THE, UM LONG TERM COM PLAN, BUT AGREED. CONSIDERING IT'S ZONED FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT. WHAT SURROUNDS IT RIGHT NOW? THE FLOOD TO THE BACK? UM WHERE I THINK RETAIL WILL PUT ACTUALLY DEVELOPED LONG 75 AND FURTHER UP FIVE. THANK YOU FITS WITHIN THIS AREA. THERE'S A FEW THINGS I'D LIKE TO SEE ADDED TO THE P D. I THINK IT'S THE CITY COUNCILS FOR IS JUST RELATED TO THE PROJECT THAT I'VE SEEN BEFORE, BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS A NICE LOOKING PROJECT OUTSIDE THE STRETCH OF A FOOTBALL FIELD LINKED WITH BUILDING THAT I'D LIKE TO SEE GONE IF POSSIBLE. WHAT ELSE? I CAN COVER WITH. COMMISSION MAN'S I'M I GUESS. THE END OF THE TWO PROBABLY ADDS, JUST MAKE SURE WE'RE IN AGREEMENT IS KIND OF A SITE PLAN AND ELEVATION. ARE THE TWO THAT. THANK YOU. OTHERS. THERE WAS A REFERENCE TO THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING THAT PROPOSED 55 FT. BUT THE UPC UNDATED REFERENCE THAT THERE WOULD BE ONLY CUT THAT TO 30. TWO. ANYONE DOWN HERE? MOTIONS. MOTION TO APPROVE THE ISLAND FOR ARE FOR APPLICANTS REQUEST. SECTOR CLEAR MOTION IN THE SECOND. THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE ITEM IS FOR APPLICANT REQUESTS WITH THE SECOND JUST A QUESTION. YOU WANT TO LEAVE THE HEIGHT 55 OR CONSIDER REDUCING THAT THE 30 IN THE IN THE MOTION? I DON'T WANT TO BE REWRITING THE PD TO A NUMBER OF LEVELS FROM HERE. OKAY? I THINK WE CAN NOTE OUR DESIRE THAT IT'S CHANGED BY THE TIME IT GETS TO COUNSEL ON A COUPLE OF THINGS AND SEE HOW COUNCIL AGREES UPON IT ONCE IT GETS THERE ON THAT SIDE WILL NOTE OR DISCUSSION HERE, BUT I DON'T WANT TO REWRITE THEIR PD FROM UP HERE. VERY GOOD TO ME OF EMOTION. TO APPROVE FOR THE IMPLEMENT REQUEST. CORRECT SECOND. CORRECT MR WOODRUFF. ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. HI.

MOTION CARRIES ABOUT VOTE OF SEVEN IN FAVOR AND ZERO AGAINST AH, MISS STRICKLAND. NEXT STEPS FOR THIS. APPLICANT. IS THIS GO TO CITY COUNCIL? DOES IT STOP HERE IT IS A REZONING REQUEST WILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL. I BELIEVE ON WHAT'S THE DAY OCTOBER? 2ND OCTOBER THE SECOND

[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 Uses, Located on the East Side of Custer Road and Approximately 1,400 Feet North of Silverado Trail]

. THIS WILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER, THE SECOND THE NEXT ITEM IS 23-006 Z, A PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST TO REZONE A PROPERTY FROM P D AND R E C P D TO MODIFY THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND TO ALLOW FOR MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES. THIS IS ONLY EACH SIDE OF CUSTER ROAD,

[01:10:03]

1400 FT. NORTH OF SILVERADO TRAIL, SHEFFIELD. THANK YOU APPLICANTS REQUESTING TO REASON . APPROXIMATELY 10.9 ACRES. AS YOU MENTIONED FOR MULTI FAMILY USES INTO MODIFY SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. SO CURRENTLY THIS PROPERTIES OWNED PT PLAYING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT , IF ALL THE BEST ZONING OF BE IN BUSINESS NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALSO THE GREASY REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT CENTER OVERLY DISTRICT. SO BACK IN 2018, THE CITY OF MCKINNEY ADOPTED SOME MINUTES TO THE ZONING AUDITS THAT REMOVED THE ALLOWANCE OF RESIDENTIAL USES IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS WITH BEING BEING ONE OF THOSE DISTRICTS. HOWEVER PRIOR TO THOSE AMENDMENTS, SOME MEDALS FOR DEVELOPMENT HAD BEGAN ON THIS PROPERTY. THUS ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO CONTINUE UNDER ILLEGAL NONCONFORMING STATUS. I'M SORRY.

WHAT WAS THE AIDS AGAIN IN 2018? 18. WE TOOK APARTMENTS OUT OF BEING THAT'S CORRECT. WE LOOK ALL RESIDENTIAL USES OUT OF BN OR IN OTHER NON RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. THIS SITE HAD FILED A SITE PLAN OR PERMIT OR WHAT KICKED IN WHERE THEY CAN STILL DO IT UNDER BEING SUBMITTED A PLAN TO FOR DEVELOPMENT TO BEGIN FOR US TO REVIEW THAT VESTED THEIR USE OF MULTI FAMILY FIVE YEARS OUT. SO THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED THIS REZONING REQUEST BEFORE YOU TONIGHT TO BRING THE SITE AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE UDC AND DISSOLVE THAT EXISTING LEGAL NONCONFORMITY. UM. WITH THIS REQUEST, THE APPLICANTS ONLY PROPOSING TO MODIFY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT ALIGN WITH THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT WAS REVIEWED AGAINST THE OLD CODE AS WELL AS THE RDC REQUIREMENTS. STAFF DOES NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS. THE PROS REQUEST AS THIS WILL BRING THE SITE INTO COMPLIANCE UNTIL DISSOLVED THAT NONCONFORMING STATUS. ADDITIONALLY THE MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES ALIGNS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN THE URBAN LIVING PLACE, TYPE DISTRICT OR A PLACE TO EXCUSE ME AS SUCH STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND I WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, CAITLIN ROAD AND ALREADY AND YES. SO ALL OF THE APPLICANTS SPEAK TO THE REASON WHY THEY ARE BRINGING THIS FORWARD AND THEY'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE LEGAL NONCONFORMING STATUS. THEY HAVE COMMENCED DEVELOPMENT ON A PORTION OF THE SITE, AS YOU CAN SEE. THESE TWO BUILDINGS HERE ARE FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS.

UM, WHERE THE REST OF THE MULTI FAMILY WILL B. ON THE REMAINDER OF THE SITE, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY HAVE STARTED SOME CONSTRUCTION WITH FIRE LANES AND UTILITIES ON THE SIDE THAT WOULD SERVICE THE MULTI FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. UM I BELIEVE THIS. THIS DEVELOPER THAT HAS COME FORWARD, UM, THEY WANTED TO BRING THE SIGN TO COMPLIANCE AND REMOVE THAT NONCONFORMING STATUS. BUT THIS IS GONNA BE RELATED TO ENDING OR INSURANCE. BEING NOT ALLOWING APARTMENTS ANYMORE. BE A REZONE. ARE WE EXPECTING MORE OF THESE TO COME IN? BECAUSE THERE WAS MORE APARTMENTS DEVELOPED UNDER BEING SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO COME IN IN THE FUTURE, EVERYTHING IT'S POSSIBLE. I BELIEVE THIS ONE IS JUST A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE BECAUSE THEY HAD STARTED THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS BUT THEN DIDN'T ACTUALLY DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AND WE MADE THOSE AMENDMENTS YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM ON, WHEREAS SOME OF THE OTHER DISTRICTS, UM OR OTHER PROPERTIES ALREADY HAVE AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. AND THEY HAVE THAT LEGAL NONCONFORMING STATUS, BUT THEY MIGHT NOT BE CHANGING THINGS SO IF OWNERS CHANGE OR THEY NEED NEW LENDERS, OR IF THEY'RE LOOKING TO MODIFY ANY OF THE SITE FOR SOME OF THOSE OTHER PROPERTIES, WE MIGHT SEE SOMETHING SIMILAR. GOOD QUESTION. GOOD QUESTION ANYONE ELSE? I THINK, CAITLIN THANK YOU AS THE APPLICANT HERE TONIGHT.

CHAIRMAN MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON BOB ROEDER 1700 RED BUT SWEET 300 MCKINNEY. ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. THIS REALLY FALLS INTO THE CATEGORY OF ONE OF THOSE KIND OF TECHNICAL CLEANUPS. UH MR MAN'S I BEING IN THE BANKING INDUSTRY , YOU UNDERSTAND THAT SOMETIMES LENDERS HAVE A LITTLE DEEPER INTO THE COLLATERAL, DEPENDING UPON SOME LENDERS DIVE DEEPER INTO THE COLLATERAL STATUS, AND OTHERS DO. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS LENDER. UH, POINTED OUT TO MY CLIENT THAT BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN THE ZONING CATEGORY GOING FORWARD. IF THIS PROPERTY

[01:15:02]

WERE TO BE HIT BY A TORNADO AND 50% OR MORE OF IT DESTROYED, HE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO REBUILD IT BY RIGHT. UNDER OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE, BECAUSE IT IS NOW A PRE EXISTING NON CONFORMING NEWS. AND SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS TO GET IT ZONED FOR AN M F FOR THE PD WITH MF 30 BASES.

TO ALLEVIATE THAT LENDERS CONCERN? YEAH A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT I THINK ARE IMPORTANT TO NOTE. THE PROPERTY WAS VESTED THE RIGHT TO BUILD WAS VESTED AS PART OF A MIXED USE PROJECT AND PART OF THE PROJECT HAS ALREADY STARTED. AS CAITLYN POINTED OUT , YOU ALREADY HAVE THE COMMERCIAL PORTION THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMERCIAL PORTION OF THE PROPERTY BUILT AND SO AS AS A TYPICAL MIXED USE. YOU KNOW, WE WOULD HAVE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL, SO THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION IS JUST NOW COMING ONLINE. REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU DO THE RIGHT TO BUILD THE MULTI FAMILY THERE EXISTS BECAUSE IT YOU CAN'T. THIS PROCEEDING WILL NOT CHANGE THAT. ALL WE'RE DOING IS RECOGNIZING THE FACT. THAT IN THE EVENT OF A CATASTROPHIC DESTRUCTION. THAT THE OWNER WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO REBUILD MULTI FAMILY. UM. YOUR QUESTION ABOUT ARE THERE OTHER SITUATIONS IN THE CITY OF MCKINNEY THAT COULD FACE THE SAME AS THE ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING THAT WAS OWNED B IN BEFORE 2018 HIS IN THE SAME CATEGORY. YOU KNOW, THE ISSUE IS REALLY IT GETS DAMAGED . ARE YOU GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO REBUILD IT? THE PROBABILITY IS YES. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS SET UP FOR AND EVERYTHING BUT AS A TECHNICAL AH, PROPOSITION FROM A BANKER'S PERSPECTIVE. THIS IS BUILT IN SUSPENDERS. SO I WOULD . REQUEST YOUR FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THIS? YES. YEAH. SO I'M READING THE LETTER OF INTENT. AND SECTION FIVE. YES AS MENTIONED OF CHANGING THE SETBACK ON CUSTER. AND CHANGING THE RESTRICTIONS ON BUILDING HEIGHT. YES. THOSE ARE THOSE ALREADY EXIST IN THE CURRENT SITE PLAN. WE AND OUR WORKED WITH CAITLIN ON THIS. WE SIMPLY ARE TRYING OR TRYING TO CONFORM THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS UNDER THIS NEW PD TO WHAT IS ALREADY OUT THERE FROM A SITE PLAN PERSPECTIVE. VERY LITTLE PROPERTY ALONG CUSTER. WHICH IS REALLY SORT OF THE INFERENCE INTO THIS PROPERTY. AND THAT THERE'S A GAS LINE THERE AND A BUNCH OF OTHER UTILITIES THAT CONFLICT AND SO WE'VE SOUGHT TO REDUCE THAT FRONT YARD SETBACK. AND ALLOW THE GROUPING OF TREES RATHER THAN HAVING HIM ON 20 FT. OR 30. FT CENTERS. OTHER QUESTIONS. YOU WANNA. I COMMEND OUR LENDERS FOR CATCHING IT. SO YOU CAN BE THE SMARTEST GUY IN THE ROOM THE NEXT TIME, SOME I'LL MAKE NOTE OF IT. DOUBLE CHECK COUPLE OF THINGS, BUT YET, NO. THAT'S VISIT THIS PROJECT THAT RETAILS. THERE'S 90, PLUS PERCENT COMPLETE. THE LINES ARE THERE. THIS WAS APPROVED PREVIOUSLY. IT'S A IT'S A CLEAN UP TO WHAT'S THERE. THEY STUCK IT UNDER THE GUN AND THE B END TAKING THEIR TIME ABOUT GETTING IT UP. BUT COULD BE JERKS IF WE DIDN'T DO DIDN'T ANYONE ELSE? ANYONE ELSE WANT TO BE A JERK UNDER GOOD? THANK YOU, MR ROEDER. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON HIM IF YOU COME TONIGHT AND WOULD LIKE TO WEIGH IN ON AND THIS PROPOSED REZONE. PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. MAKE A MOTION CLOSE. THE PUBLIC HEARING IMPROVED THE ITEM MOTION MR MAINS AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND IMPROVE THE ITEM. FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 2ND 2ND, MISTER WATLEY. ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. BYE. OKAY THE MOTION CARRIES THAT ITEM WILL BE SENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. AT THE OCTOBER 2ND 2023, MR ROEDER THAT WILL BE A FINAL ACTION FOR THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM.