Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on Certain Amendments to Chapter 150, entitled “Unified Development Code,” of the Code of Ordinances, City of McKinney, Texas to correct typographical errors and make nonsubstantive editorial changes to Article 1 (General Provisions) and particularly to Sections 101 (Title), 102 (Purpose), 106B (Specific Use Permits), 108 (Maintenance, Enforcement, and Penalties), 110 (Administrative Authority), Article 2 (Zoning Regulations) and particularly to Sections 201 (Administration), 203A (Standard Procedures), 203B (Annexation), 203C (Zoning Procedures), 203D (Protest Procedures), 203E (Plan and Permit Procedures), 203F (Appeal Procedures), 203G (Flexibility and Relief Procedures), 204 (Zoning Districts), 205 (Use Regulations), 206A (Landscaping) 206C (Screening), 206D (Commercial Garbage/Recycling Containers and Enclosures), 206E (Vehicle Parking and Loading), 206F (Architectural Standards), 206G (Multi-Family Residential Site Design), 206H (Communication Antennas, Support Structures, and Satellite Dishes), Appendix 2A (Approved Plant List), and Article 8 (Terms and Definitions) particularly to Section 802 (Definitions), Make Substantive Changes to Sections: 108B (Maintenance), 110B1 (Board of Adjustment), 201C4 (Continuing Legal Nonconformity), 203A4 (Public Notice), 203D (Protest Procedures), 203E2 (Landscape Plan), 203E6 (Certificate of Appropriateness), 203F1 (Administrative Appeal), 203G3 (Variance), 204B3 (Zoning District Correspondence), 204I (TR1.8 - Townhome Residential), 204W (AP - Airport), 204BB (TMN - Traditional McKinney Neighborhood), 204EE1 (Building Height), 205B5 (Table of Uses), 205F (Non-Residential Uses) for Airports, Car Washes, and Day Care Centers, 205G2 (Accessory Uses Definitions and Standards), 205I3 (Food Trucks, Operation Sites, and Food Truck Courts), 206A4 (Planting Requirements), 206A5 (Site-Specific Landscape Standards), 206C3 (Screening Requirements), 206E3 (Parking Calculations), 206E4 (Parking Modifications and Reductions), 206E5 (On-site Parking Design and Pavement), Appendix 2A (Approved Plant List), Appendix 2B (McKinney Town Center MTC), and 802 Definitions, Establishing Sections 201E (Existing Sites Impacted by the Acquisition of Right-of-Way) and 206I (Food Trucks, Food Truck Operation Sites, and Food Truck Courts) in Article 2 (Zoning Regulations) of Chapter 150, entitled “Unified Development Code,” of the Code of Ordinances, City of McKinney, Texas, in addition to Establishing a New Article 4 named “Tree Preservation” and Renumbering Current Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, respectively, as New Articles 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 to Chapter 150 (Unified Development Code) to Include the New Article 4, and Deleting Sections 203E.3, “Tree Preservation Plan,” 203E.4, “Tree Permit,” and 206B, “Tree Preservation,” from Article 2 (Zoning Regulations) and Renumbering and Relocating Such Sections 203E.3, 203E.4, and 206B, into the New Article 4 Named “Tree Preservation” to Chapter 150 (Unified Development Code), and Accompanying Ordinance

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Discuss/Consider/Act on Amendments to Chapter 150, entitled “Unified Development Code,” of the Code of Ordinances, City of McKinney, Texas to Correct Typographical Errors and Make Nonsubstantive editorial changes to Article 3 (Subdivision Regulations), Article 4 (Signs), and Article 7 (Stormwater Management) and to: (1) Make Certain Substantive Changes Related to Platting, Public Improvements, Engineering and Construction Standards, Facilities Agreements, Pro Rata Payments, Home Owner’s and Property Owner’s Associations Common Areas, Street Connection Design Standards, Residential Buffer and Screening, and Private Street Regulations of Article 3 (Subdivision Regulations); (2) Update the Authority and Jurisdiction of Article 4 (Signs); (3) Add a Meritorious Exception Process to Article 5 (Exterior Lighting); and (4) Modify the Requirements for Appeals and Variances and Erosion Control Deposits of Article 7 (Stormwater Management), and Accompanying Ordinance]

WE GO BACK TO A ONE. AND THEN I GOT IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH, SO WE WILL. WE WILL MOVE TO 230002 M CONDUCTED PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER AN ACT AND AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 1 50 ENTITLED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. CITY MCKINNEY, TEXAS TO CORRECT TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS THAT MAKE NON SUBSTANTIVE. EDITORIAL CHANGES TO ARTICLE THREE, ARTICLE FOUR AND ARTICLE SEVEN. AND TO MAKE CERTAIN SUBSTITUTED CHANGES RELATED TO PLANNING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FACILITIES AGREEMENT PROGRAM TO PAYMENTS, HOMEOWNERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION COMMON AREA STREET CORRECTION DESIGN STANDARDS, RESIDENTIAL BUFFER IN SCREENING AND PRIVATE STREET REGULATIONS OF ARTICLE THREE. UPDATE THE AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION OF ARTICLE FOUR AT A MERITORIOUS MERITORIOUS EXCEPTION, PROCESSED ARTICLE FIVE AND MODIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR APPEALS AND VARIANCES AND EROSION CONTROL DEPOSITS OF ARTICLE SEVEN. JUST LIKE ONE OF THE SHORT ONES FOR THE NEXT ONE. OKAY YES. THANK YOU, MR MAYOR.

SO THESE THREE ITEMS THAT ARE FIRST ON YOUR AGENDA. THEY'RE ALL PART OF OUR YEAR, ONE

[00:15:05]

AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH YOU RECALL WAS ADOPTED BACK IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR. THAT UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE INCLUDES EIGHT DIFFERENT ARTICLES ALL RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF MCKINNEY, SO THAT WOULD INCLUDE GENERAL PROVISIONS. ZONING ORDINANCE, THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, LIGHTING SIGNS, FENCES AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WILL TALK ABOUT THREE PRESERVATION AND AT A DIFFERENT TIME, AND THE REASON WE DID NOT PACKAGE ALL OF THESE TOGETHER AS ONE ITEM IS BECAUSE EACH SPECIFIC ARTICLE HAS DIFFERENT SORT OF JURISDICTION, SO WE DID HAVE TO SEPARATE THEM. THIS PARTICULAR ITEM ONLY REQUIRES CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL. BUT THE OTHER TWO ITEMS REQUIRED PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, SO THEY'RE ALL THE SAME TYPES OF CHANGES, BUT WE'RE HAVING TO BREAK THEM OUT JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE NEED THOSE PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS THAT I'LL JUMP RIGHT INTO THIS ONE. THIS IN GENERAL IS MAKING A NON SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL AMENDMENTS TO OUR SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS. AS WELL AS OUR SIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS, AND WE'LL WALK THROUGH THOSE REALLY QUICKLY AS YOU MIGHT HAVE NOTICED IN THE STAFF REPORT. MOST OF THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE MAKING OUR CLEANING UP TYPOS, CLARIFYING PROCEDURES AND PROCESSES ANYTHING THAT WAS INADVERTENTLY, UM, RELOCATED OR NOT CROSS REFERENCE CORRECTLY DURING THAT MAJOR AMENDMENT LAST YEAR. WE HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH OVER THE LAST YEAR TO NOTE THOSE AND MAKE THE CORRECTIONS HERE TONIGHT. HOWEVER THERE ARE A FEW WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING THAT WE WANT TO WALK THROUGH WITH YOU, UM AS PART OF THE ITEM. THE MOST NOTEWORTHY AMENDMENT ON THE SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS IS THAT PRELIMINARY PLATS ARE NOW GOING TO BE REQUIRED FOR ALL RESIDENTS , SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE UDC, THIS WAS A STANDARD REQUIREMENT WHEN WE MOVED TO THE U UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. WE HAD CONSIDERED ACTUALLY MAKING PRELIMINARY PLATZ, UM NOT NOT REQUIRED, BUT OPTIONAL FOR DEVELOPMENTS AND FOR MOST DEVELOPMENTS THAT WORKS. BUT IN PRACTICE OVER THE LAST YEAR, WE FOUND THAT HAVING THAT PRELIMINARY PLATT FOR PRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY REALLY IS NECESSARY IN ORDER FOR OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE THAT PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REVIEW. PRIOR TO A PLOT COMING IN FOR FILING, SO WE'RE SORT OF BRINGING THAT BACK FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE WERE ALSO PROPOSING TO OUTLINE SOME OF THE PROCEDURES FOR PLATT APPROVALS AND DIS APPROVALS. I DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY UPDATES AND RESPONSE TO THE RECENT CHANGES IN STATE LAW. WE WILL BE COMING BACK TO THE COUNCIL IN OCTOBER TO RUN THOSE AMENDMENTS SEPARATELY, WE WERE TOO FAR ALONG IN THIS PROCESS TO GET THOSE INJECTED AFTER STATE LAW HAS CHANGED IN EARLY SEPTEMBER, SO THOSE WILL BE COMING BACK TO YOU AND THEN ALSO JUST CLARIFICATIONS ON WHAT'S REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AS IT RELATES TO MAINTENANCE BONDS. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT OUR ENGINEERING TEAM HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTING IN PRACTICE. UM EVEN BEFORE THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, BUT WE'RE CLARIFYING THAT LANGUAGE HERE WITHIN THESE YEAR, ONE AMENDMENTS. ALL OF THE OTHER ITEMS LISTED HERE ARE WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER REALLY NON SUBSTANTIVE CLEANUP CLARIFICATIONS. AS IT RELATES TO THE TO THE SIGN CODE. WE'RE JUST CLARIFYING SOME AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION ON PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE CITY MUSIC MUNICIPAL AGENCY OR A SCHOOL DISTRICT. WITHIN THE LIGHTING CODE. WE ARE REINTRODUCING THE MERITORIOUS EXCEPTION PROCESS, WHICH IS A VERY VARIANCE PROCESS THAT'S BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR MANY YEARS . IT JUST GOT RENAMED AND RELOCATED WITH THE UDC ADOPTION IN NOVEMBER, SO WE'RE REPLACING IT WHERE IT SHOULD BE. AND THEN WITH THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGAIN, REVISING AND CLARIFYING THE VARIANTS REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE ALREADY IN PRACTICE DOING, UM AND INCREASING THE SIZE REQUIREMENT FOR AN EROSION CONTROL DEPOSIT. CURRENTLY THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT COORDINATES REQUIRES THAT DEPOSIT BE MADE ON PROJECTS THAT ARE AN ACRE IN SIZE. OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IS ACTUALLY BUMPING THAT UP TO A 25 ACRE TRACTS. IT'S ACTUALLY TO THE BENEFIT OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY. THEY FOUND IN PRACTICE THAT THE ONE ACRE WAS JUST NOT REALLY MEANINGFUL FOR THOSE TYPES OF DEPOSITS, SO INCREASING IT TO 25 ACRES. AND THAT IS THE LOT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES THAT WE'RE PROPOSING AS PART OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, SIGN AND STORMWATER. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, AND, UM, IF NOT, WE'LL DO THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE. YES SIR. FIRST FORTUNE SAID ABOUT CORRECTING CLERICAL ERRORS AND MISSPELLINGS IS THAT APPLIED TO THE OTHER TWO ITEMS YOU'LL BE PRESENTING ON THIS EVENING. IT WILL. YES YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAY

[00:20:05]

THAT AGAIN. I WILL NOT THANKS. THE OTHER QUESTIONS. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IF THERE'S ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM HE'S IDENTIFIED YOURSELF. SEEN AN ENTERTAINING MOTION COMPREHENSIVE ONE WOULD BE GOOD. I MOVE THAT WE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE THE APPROVED AND SECOND THIS CAST YOUR VOTES. I BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO JUMP BACK TO ITEM 230001 M TWO.

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on Certain Amendments to Chapter 150, entitled “Unified Development Code,” of the Code of Ordinances, City of McKinney, Texas to correct typographical errors and make nonsubstantive editorial changes to Article 1 (General Provisions) and particularly to Sections 101 (Title), 102 (Purpose), 106B (Specific Use Permits), 108 (Maintenance, Enforcement, and Penalties), 110 (Administrative Authority), Article 2 (Zoning Regulations) and particularly to Sections 201 (Administration), 203A (Standard Procedures), 203B (Annexation), 203C (Zoning Procedures), 203D (Protest Procedures), 203E (Plan and Permit Procedures), 203F (Appeal Procedures), 203G (Flexibility and Relief Procedures), 204 (Zoning Districts), 205 (Use Regulations), 206A (Landscaping) 206C (Screening), 206D (Commercial Garbage/Recycling Containers and Enclosures), 206E (Vehicle Parking and Loading), 206F (Architectural Standards), 206G (Multi-Family Residential Site Design), 206H (Communication Antennas, Support Structures, and Satellite Dishes), Appendix 2A (Approved Plant List), and Article 8 (Terms and Definitions) particularly to Section 802 (Definitions), Make Substantive Changes to Sections: 108B (Maintenance), 110B1 (Board of Adjustment), 201C4 (Continuing Legal Nonconformity), 203A4 (Public Notice), 203D (Protest Procedures), 203E2 (Landscape Plan), 203E6 (Certificate of Appropriateness), 203F1 (Administrative Appeal), 203G3 (Variance), 204B3 (Zoning District Correspondence), 204I (TR1.8 - Townhome Residential), 204W (AP - Airport), 204BB (TMN - Traditional McKinney Neighborhood), 204EE1 (Building Height), 205B5 (Table of Uses), 205F (Non-Residential Uses) for Airports, Car Washes, and Day Care Centers, 205G2 (Accessory Uses Definitions and Standards), 205I3 (Food Trucks, Operation Sites, and Food Truck Courts), 206A4 (Planting Requirements), 206A5 (Site-Specific Landscape Standards), 206C3 (Screening Requirements), 206E3 (Parking Calculations), 206E4 (Parking Modifications and Reductions), 206E5 (On-site Parking Design and Pavement), Appendix 2A (Approved Plant List), Appendix 2B (McKinney Town Center MTC), and 802 Definitions, Establishing Sections 201E (Existing Sites Impacted by the Acquisition of Right-of-Way) and 206I (Food Trucks, Food Truck Operation Sites, and Food Truck Courts) in Article 2 (Zoning Regulations) of Chapter 150, entitled “Unified Development Code,” of the Code of Ordinances, City of McKinney, Texas, in addition to Establishing a New Article 4 named “Tree Preservation” and Renumbering Current Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, respectively, as New Articles 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 to Chapter 150 (Unified Development Code) to Include the New Article 4, and Deleting Sections 203E.3, “Tree Preservation Plan,” 203E.4, “Tree Permit,” and 206B, “Tree Preservation,” from Article 2 (Zoning Regulations) and Renumbering and Relocating Such Sections 203E.3, 203E.4, and 206B, into the New Article 4 Named “Tree Preservation” to Chapter 150 (Unified Development Code), and Accompanying Ordinance]

CORRECT. YES SIR. THANK YOU. AND ALTHOUGH I WAS REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO READING THIS TWO PAGE THAT'S JUST THE FIRST PART SHOWING THE SECOND PART WILL ENSURE THAT FIRST I'M GOING TO SAY THAT THIS IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ACT. ON THE CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 1 50. THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS WRITTEN AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL AGENDA. VERY NICE. WELL DONE. YES THANK YOU, MR MAYOR. SO THIS IS THE SECOND PHASE OF OUR AMENDMENTS AGAIN. THE REASON THIS ONE'S BROKEN OUT AS IT DID REQUIRE CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRIOR TO COMING BEFORE YOU ALL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. THEY DID HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT A FEW ITEMS THAT WILL HIGHLIGHT THROUGH THE PRESENTATION. AS MAYOR PRO. TIM POINTED OUT. MANY OF THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE ARE FINE TUNING , BUT I DID WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THERE ARE A FEW WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING AS A STAFF. UM AND I WILL SKIP STRAIGHT TO THOSE SO, UM, ONE OF WHICH I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT IS THE POSTED SIGN REQUIREMENTS. SO THESE ARE THE ZONING SIGNS THAT YOU SEE POSTED AROUND THE CITY IF SOMEBODY IS DOING A REZONING REQUEST WE'VE ACTUALLY ARE PROPOSING TO AMEND WHAT'S SHOWN ON THOSE SIGNS TO INCLUDE THE CASE NUMBER RIGHT NOW, THAT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT. WE HAVE COORDINATED WITH OUR SIGN VENDORS. IT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE ACCUSTOMED TO DOING THEY DO IT IN OTHER CITIES, THAT WE ARE MODIFYING THE MINIMUM SIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT TO INCLUDE THE CASE NUMBER AND AS WELL AS THE QUICK LINK SO THAT ANY RESIDENT THAT'S DRIVING OR WALKING MIGHT BE ABLE TO QUICKLY GET THE INFORMATION THAT THEY NEED WITHOUT HAVING TO WONDER. RIGHT NOW. IT'S NOT ON THERE. UM THE REST OF THE ITEMS THAT ARE HERE ARE CLEAN UP PROCEDURAL AMENDMENTS FOR CERTAIN PROCESSES AND APPROVALS JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IN PRACTICE. WE ARE MAKING A FEW NOTEWORTHY AMENDMENTS TO SOME OF OUR DISTRICT STANDARDS. MOST NOTABLY IS THE FOURTH ITEM ON THE LIST WITHIN THE TMNT TRADITIONAL MCKINNEY NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY DISTRICT, WHICH IS GENERALLY THIS DOWNTOWN AREA AND THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. WE ARE PROPOSING A DESIGN EXCEPTION PROCESS THAT WOULD ALLOW CONSIDERATION OF A REDUCTION AND SETBACKS FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. SO IN THIS DOWNTOWN AREA, WE HAVE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ZONED THAT LEGACY B N OR B G COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS THAT HAVE A MIX OF EITHER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THEM OR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THEM, AND AS TIME GOES ON, AND SOME OF THOSE LOTS REDEVELOP VACANT LOTS WANT TO DEVELOP. WE DO FEEL THAT GIVEN THE SMALL LOT SIZES THAT WE TYPICALLY SEE IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA A DESIGN EXCEPTION MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THOSE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AGAIN. THAT DESIGN EXCEPTION PROCESS WOULD GO THROUGH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SO THERE WOULD BE AN EVALUATION CRITERIA THAT THEY WOULD BE CONSIDERING ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY MIGHT WANT TO REDUCE THE TYPICAL SETBACKS FOR PROPERTIES IN THAT T M N THAT NEED THAT CRITERIA. THE ONLY BIG ONE ON THAT ONE. AND THEN WE ARE PROPOSING IF YOU USE REGULATION AMENDMENTS WANT TO NOTE IS THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY PROPOSING TO RELOCATE REGULATIONS FOR FOOD TRUCKS INTO ITS OWN SECTION SO THAT IT'S EASIER TO UNDERSTAND AND COMPARE, AND WE ARE ACTUALLY PROPOSING TO ADD A NEW DISTANCE REQUIREMENT FOR CAR WASHES. SO PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR, CARWASHES ALWAYS REQUIRED A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, WHICH WAS A PUBLIC HEARING THROUGH THE PNC AND CITY COUNCIL WITH ADOPTION OF THE UDC. WE ACTUALLY REMOVED THAT SCP REQUIREMENT AND MADE A CRITERIA BASED ALLOWANCE FOR CAR WASHES.

WHEN WE DID THAT, BUT WE'VE SEEN OVER THE LAST YEAR AS WE ARE STARTING TO SEE CARWASHES COME UP OR PROPOSED ON SITES THAT MAY BE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL THAN WE MIGHT OTHERWISE WANT. WE'VE GONE AND LOOKED AT SOME OF OUR SISTER CITIES. THEY HAVE A VERY SIMILAR DISTANCE REQUIREMENT FOR CAR WASHES AND THEIR CITIES. AND SO WE FELT COMFORTABLE INTRODUCING THAT HERE IN THE CITY. UM WITH THESE AMENDMENTS, SO THERE WOULD BE A NEW 200 FT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT FOR ANY NEW CAR WASH COMING IN, UM FROM EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL USE

[00:25:02]

OR ZONE. WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING UNDER THE DAYCARE CENTER USED TO REMOVE THE 300 FT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT FROM GAS STATION PUMPS. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DISCUSSED A BIT AT THEIR MEETING A FEW WEEKS AGO. THAT PROVISION HAS EXISTED IN OUR CITY CODES FOR A LONG TIME, AND THE INTENT OF THAT WAS TO KEEP US SCHOOLCHILDREN OR DAYCARE CHILDREN. FACILITIES FAR AWAY FROM GAS TANKS. IF YOU WERE TO READ THE LANGUAGE IN THE CODE, IT'S NOT A GAS STATION. IT'S THE GAS TANKS FOR FEAR OF EXPOSURE TO EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, AND THAT IS REALLY NOT OF A CONCERN. UNDER TODAY'S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, WE ARE RECOMMENDING TO REMOVE THAT REQUIREMENT, WHILE PNC RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM OVERALL, THEY DID NOTE THAT THEY WOULDN'T HATE IT IF THAT 300 FT REQUIREMENTS STAYED ON THE BOOKS, AND THEY DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY NOTED THAT FOR THE COUNCIL.

AND THEN THE THIRD ITEM THAT SUBSTANTIVE THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING A CHANGE TO HIS ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS WHILE OUR UDC OPENED UP QUITE A BIT OF ROOM FOR YOUR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE UDC WAS AN ALLOWANCE FOR NO SIZE MINIMUM OR NO. NO MAXIMUM SIZE THRESHOLD FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ON A LOT. WHERE THE HOME WAS LESS THAN 400 SQUARE FOOT IN SIZE. AND WE HAVE FOUND IN PRACTICE. WE'VE SEEN AT LEAST ONE EXAMPLE WHERE WE HAVE HAD A RESIDENT COME IN AND ATTEMPT TO BUILD OR HAVE THEIR SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

AND THEY'RE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT BE THE SAME SIZE AND THE INTENT OF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS FOR IT TO BE ACCESSORY TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, SO, ADDING THAT 75% THRESHOLD FOR THOSE SMALLER HOME SIZES. ALLOWS FOR A FAIR AMOUNT OF SIZE FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT BUT STILL THE INTENT OF MAINTAINING IT AS ACCESSORY IS THERE, SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING TO INCLUDE THAT , UM THESE ARE THE MAJOR CHANGES THAT WE ARE PROPOSING. SO IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, I KIND OF WANTED TO STOP HERE AND OFFER AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE SPECIFICALLY AND THEN IF NOT, I'LL MOVE ON. JENNIFER AS AN EDUCATIONAL POINT . HOW MANY YEARS AGO DID WE START ON THE CODE OVERHAUL? WE BEGAN THE CODE OVERHAUL IN 2019 19. THIS IS FOUR YEARS IN THE MAKING, AND IT'S OVER CALLING OVERHAUL ALL OF OUR PLANNING CODES. CORRECT? YES, SIR. THAT'S LITERALLY VOLUMES AND VOLUMES WORK, RIGHT? YES SIR. AND WHEN WE PASSED THAT ORDINANCE AND WHEN WE BEGAN THE OVERHAUL PROCESS, WE KNEW THAT THIS DAY WOULD COME WHERE WE WOULD CATCH A BUNCH OF THINGS THAT WE DIDN'T CATCH ANY ORIGINAL DRAFT. YES SIR. SO YOU GUYS AREN'T REINVENTING THE WHEEL ON HERE? WE'RE JUST DOING THE THINGS THAT WE KNEW WOULD BE REQUIRED WHEN WE STARTED THIS PROCESS FOUR YEARS AGO. YES, SIR. WE'RE JUST DOING THE FINAL CLEANUP HERE TONIGHT. YES, SIR. AND YOU GOT STUCK WITH IT? YES SIR. THANK YOU FOR BEING VERY WELCOME.

JENNIFER ON THE, UM PROXIMITY ONES. THE CAR WASH IN THE DAYCARE. HMM. WAS THERE, CONCERN WITH. THE DAY CARE ABOUT PROXIMITY TO IT OR PROXIMITY TO THE USE OF IT FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THEY NOTED THE PROXIMITY TO THE USE, UM SO WHILE THE STANDARD ON THE BOOKS AS RELATED TO PROXIMITY TO THE GAS TANKS THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, TABLE TALK, I GUESS FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO SAY HEY, GUESS STATIONS ARE HIGHER, INSENSITIVE USE. DO WE REALLY WANT THOSE CLOSE TO DAYCARES? THEY ULTIMATELY DIDN'T I DON'T I WANT TO PUT WORDS IN THEIR MOUTH, BUT ULTIMATELY THEY APPROVED THE ITEM AS IT WAS WRITTEN, BUT DEFINITELY NOTED THAT THEY WOULD BE FINE IF THAT STAYED. IF ONE OF THESE CAME IN TODAY. AND PUT IN AN APPLICATION CALLS. RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE DENIAL BECAUSE IT BUT THEY COULD SEEK A VARIANCE TO BE CLOSER IN PROXIMITY. COULDN'T I DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY COULD SEEK A VARIANCE. UM SO IF THEY CAME IN FOR TODAY, I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE AN S U P PROCESS THAT MIGHT ALLOW THEM TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD TO GET PERMITTED. BUT IF YOU'LL GIVE ME TWO SECONDS I WILL I WILL CALL THROUGH. THAT REQUIREMENT REAL QUICK AND SEE IF IT OFFERS THAT S U P PROCESS.

BUT AGAIN WHEN THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PUT IN PLACE, THERE WERE DANGERS THAT DON'T EXIST TODAY. AGREED YES, SIR. THE MAIN POINT I THINK I WATCHED THEIR DISCUSSION TODAY AND OBVIOUSLY OFFICE NEXT TO PASSIONATE PMG MEMBER. YOU KNOW, I THINK THE CONCERN HAS TO DO WITH WHEN YOU HAVE CROSS ACCESS EASEMEN THAT N THOSE GET USED BY YOU KNOW? HEY. HIGH INTENSITY USE. GAS STATION

[00:30:05]

. IT STARTS GOING THROUGH THE PARKING LOT OF A LOW INTENSITY USE DAYCARE AND THAT CAUSES SOME DANGER AND RISKS AND NOW HAVE DEALT PERHAPS SEEN IT COME THROUGH AS A REQUEST TO CITY STAFF ON A MR REGULAR RETAIL STORE THAT STRUGGLED WITH THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC FROM ONE OF THESE OF SUPER GAS STATIONS THAT END UP ON THE CORNERS, AND I CAN'T IMAGINE IF YOU DID HAVE A DAYCARE WITHIN THAT CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT, IF THAT WOULD ULTIMATELY WOULDN'T BE A GOOD, I THINK IDEA, ESPECIALLY YOU KNOW IF YOU'VE GOT SOME PARKING ON EACH SIDE OF THE FIRE LINE OR WHATEVER, AND I GUESS IF IT'S JUST PROXIMITY. IT'S NOT AN ISSUE. IT'S TRYING TO KEEP THEM OUT OF THE HIGH INTENSITY USE AREAS THAT SEEM TO BE THE ISSUE . YES AND WHAT I WILL NOTE TO IS THE WAY THAT THE LANGUAGE IS WRITTEN. IS IT STATES. NO PORTION OF A DAYCARE CENTER SITE MAY BE LOCATED WITHIN 300 FT OF GASOLINE PUMPS. OR UNDER UNDERGROUND GASOLINE STORAGE TANKS OR ANY OTHER STORAGE AREA FOR EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS SO IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY PREVENT A GAS STATION FROM BEING NEAR A DAY CARE. IT'S THE TANKS THAT ARE LIKE SO THE FUELING PUMPS IF IT WERE ON THE FAR END OF ONE SIDE, AND THE DAYCARE WAS ON THE OTHER END, AND IT MEANT THAT 300 FT DISTANCE, THEY COULD STILL HAVE THAT SAME CROSS ACCESS CONCERN. EVEN OUR CURRENT CODE WOULDN'T WOULDN'T NECESSARILY PREVENT THAT. ALTHOUGH IT MAY MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE CHALLENGING, RIGHT? BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT TO HAVE THAT SPACE THING. THAT IS A GREAT POINT.

AND MAYBE MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING TO BE CONSIDERED LANGUAGE FOR. TAKE CARE AND CROSS ACCESS INTENSITY LANGUAGE THAT DAY. KAREN COULD NOT BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO A GAS PUMP BUSINESS THAT HAS A GAS PUMP WITH THAT, NOT SOLVE YOUR CONCERN BECAUSE IT WOULD SEEM TO EXCLUDE A GAS STATION FROM BUYING PROPERTY NEXT TO A DAYCARE OR DAYCARE, BUYING PROPERTY NEXT TO BUT THERE'S NOT ALWAYS A JOINT ACCESS WE MIGHT PUT PENALIZE SOMEBODY AS WELL. I THINK WE COULD BE MORE SURGICAL . WE WERE. WE WERE LOOKING AT A COUPLE EXAMPLES TODAY. I'M SURE THERE ARE BUT THERE ARE ALSO EXAMPLES WITHOUT THERE AREN'T ANY EXAMPLES OF PROXIMITY TODAY BECAUSE THE CODE EXISTS AND RESTRICTS IT. BUT I'M SAYING THAT I'M SURE THERE'S EXAMPLES ACROSS ACCESS, AND I'M SURE THERE'S EXAMPLES OF NOT CROSS ACCESS. SO MAYBE WE COULD BE SURGICAL AND THE CONCERN IS CROSS ASSET ACCESS. THAT'S A VALID ONE. DON'T GUESS PUMPS STILL REQUIRES SPECIALLY USED PARLIAMENT. LET'S SAY THAT I'M SORRY. DON'T GAS PUMPS REQUIRE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. NOT ALL OF THEM DO SO IF THEY'RE UNDER A CERTAIN NUMBER OF GAS PUMPS, SOME OF THEM ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT SO, UM, UM, IF THERE IS CONCERN FROM THE COUNCIL ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S WE WANT TO KEEP THIS PROVISION OR NOT, WE CAN CERTAINLY KEEP IT ON THE BOOKS, AND WE CAN FURTHER DISSECTED AS A STAFF AND COME BACK WITH SOME ADDITIONAL OPTIONS IF WE WANTED TO RECONSIDER IT. UM BUT WITH ANOTHER CHOICE, THOUGH, BE BECAUSE AGAIN THIS THIS DOESN'T NECESSARILY ACHIEVE THE CONCERN THAT WAS BROUGHT UP, WHICH IS A GOOD VALUE CONCERNED WITH ANOTHER. ANOTHER APPROACH BE TO APPROVE THIS, UM AND THEN, BUT ALSO AS STAFF TO COME BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT ADDRESSES THAT CONCERN OF HIGH TRAFFIC BECAUSE BECAUSE BY THE WAY, IT MIGHT NOT JUST BE IF WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THAT. IT'S DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS. IT'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER THINGS. SO MAYBE MAYBE THERE AGAIN A SURGICAL PROCESS APPROACH ON HIGH VOLUME. CROSS ACCESS THINGS, AND WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. THE ONE THING I WANT TO NOTE AND NOT AS A DETERRENT, BUT JUST AS AN FYI WITH NEW SENATE BILL 9 29 ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE THAT AFFECT USE HAVE TO GET PROPERTY UNDER NOTICE. PEOPLE WHO OWN PROPERTIES THAT ARE IMPACTED BY THAT CHANGE. HAVE TO GET A PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION. SO IF WE IF THERE IS A DESIRE FROM THE COUNCIL TO POTENTIALLY CONSIDER ADDING STP REQUIREMENTS BACK OR LIMITING USES, MY RECOMMENDATION MIGHT BE TO KEEP THIS ON THE BOOKS BECAUSE IT'S MORE RESTRICTIVE TODAY THAN IT WOULD BE IF WE REMOVED IT. IF THAT MAKES SENSE , AND THAT MIGHT HELP ALLEVIATE ANY OF THOSE ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATIONS THAT MIGHT BE REQUIRED IF WE DO A CHANGE LATER. I JUST I JUST HATE TO THINK THAT WE MIGHTT BE RESTRICTING SOMEBODY THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE ISSUE THAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT, RIGHT? BUT THEY WOULD HAVE POTENTIALLY HAVE A PATHWAY FOR THAT. I DID CHECK WE DO NOT HAVE THE S U P. WE CALLED IT THE OFF RAMP. WE DON'T HAVE THAT S U P PROCESS FOR DAY CARES RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD INCLUDE WITH THE MOTION TO TONIGHT AND ADDED THAT IN THAT DAYCARE CENTERS THAT DON'T MEET THAT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT TODAY COULD BE CONSIDERED WITH AN S. U P AT LEAST THAT'S SORT OF A WHY DON'T WE DO THAT? BECAUSE BECAUSE THE IDEA OF EUROPEAN POINTS GREAT.

[00:35:05]

IT DOESN'T APPLY TO MOST OF THEM, BUT THE ONE THAT DOES APPLY TO IT NEEDS TO APPLY TO THE FLEXIBILITY TO SAY WE'RE OK WITH THE VARIANCE OR AN ACTUALLY BE FOR THOSE THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER. ARE THERE ANY NONCONFORMING USES AS IT'S WRITTEN THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF THE PRESENT? WELL SO WE DID NOT. WE DIDN'T DO THAT EVALUATION BECAUSE WE WERE ACTUALLY REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT OF THE 300 FT. SO IN THEORY, ONCE WE REMOVE IT, WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY NONCONFORMITY EASE. SO THAT THAT'S WHY I THINK, INCLUDING THE S U P. OFF RAMP. UM, FOR LET ME BACK UP. WHAT WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS IS WHAT WE'VE HAD ON THE BOOKS FOR 15. PLUS YEARS THAT 300 FT DISTANCE, SO MAINTAINING THAT EVEN AFTER TONIGHT'S CODE WITH THE INCLUSION OF THAT S U P ALLOWANCE, KEEPS IT ON THE BOOKS ALLOW SOME LEVEL OF AN OFF RAMP FOR SOMEBODY WHO MAY NOT BE ABLE TO MEET THAT 300 FT REQUIREMENTS AND MAY NOT HAVE THAT CROSS ACCESS. IT GIVES THE COUNCIL THE DISCRETION TO MAKE THOSE CALLS VIA THE SCP PROCESS UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT WE CAN COME BACK TO YOU ALL AND PERHAPS A WORK SESSION DISCUSSION ON THE APPROPRIATE ASSOCIATION OF DAYCARE USES FROM CARWASHES GAS STATIONS, DRIVE THROUGHS, ETCETERA. DOES THAT WORK FOR EVERYBODY? OKAY? SO. GO AHEAD. YOU HAVE MORE OF A MORE THAN PRESENTATION FINISHED PRESENTATION, AND WE'LL COME BACK WITH ALL QUESTIONS. ABSOLUTELY AND THESE, I THINK WERE THE HEAVIEST HITTING ITEMS, SO THE REST OF IT SHOULD BE PRETTY PRETTY QUICK. COME AGAIN , MODIFYING SOME OF THE PROCEDURES AND PROCESSES FOR SOME OF OUR STANDARD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ITEMS. ONE THING OF NOTE AS WE ARE, INCLUDING A DEFERRAL FOR LANDSCAPING DURING A DROUGHT AND UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WITH THE, UM PUT UP OVEN, A SURETY BOND OR AN ESCROW AMOUNT FOR AN APPLICANT, SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE THINK WILL BE POSITIVE. AND CLARIFYING PARKING REQUIREMENTS. EASY PEASY STUFF. PARKING ALREADY TALKED ABOUT FOOD TRUCKS, CLARIFYING SOME OF THE, UM NONCONFORMING ALLOWANCES WHEN THE CITY NEEDS TO OBTAIN RIGHT OF WAY EITHER BE IT VIA THE RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION OR AN EASEMENT ACQUISITION FOR RIGHTS OF WAY. AND IMPROVING THE READ AND ILLUSTRATION FOR THE PLANT LISTS. THE LAST ITEM THAT'S ON THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM IS THE CREATION OF THAT NEW TREE PRESERVATION SECTION WITHIN THE UDC SO WELL ACTUALLY, IN THE NEXT ITEM, GO THROUGH THE DETAILS OF THAT, BUT THIS ITEM, UM IN AND OF ITSELF CREATES THAT NEW SECTION SO RELOCATES EVERYTHING BEFORE WE ACTUALLY MAKE THE CHANGES, AND I BELIEVE THAT IS MY LAST SLIDE. THE OTHER QUESTIONS FOR JENNIFER. AND PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE SILENT? IT'S GONNA TRY. JUST PUT A LOT OF PRESSURE ON ME. LET ME OFFER FOR YOU TO CORRECT THIS MOTION IF YOU FEEL NECESSARY, JENNIFER I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THAT WE APPROVED THIS ITEM AS WRITTEN AND PRESENTED. WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE 300 FT DISTANCE BETWEEN DAYCARE AND GAS PUMP WOULD REQUIRE AN S U P IF ANYONE DESIRE TO GO BELOW THAT 300 FT DISTANCE. EXACTLY ENOUGH FOR YOU, MARK. I'VE GOT IT, HE SAID . PUMP INSTEAD OF STORAGE TANK, THOUGH I'VE GOT A BOOK. WE'LL KEEP DAYCARE. THE 300 FT REQUIREMENT ON THE BOOKS AND INCLUDE AN S U P PROCESS, ACTUALLY HOW IT SAID IT. THANK YOU, JENNIFER. IS THERE A SECOND? ALRIGHT I'LL SECOND BY COUNCILMAN JONES, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP. PASSES. I'M 230004 M

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on Amendments to New Article 4, entitled “Tree Preservation,” to Chapter 150, entitled “Unified Development Code,” of the Code of Ordinances, and Accompanying Ordinance]

TO CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND ACT ON AMENDMENTS AND NEW ARTICLE FOUR ENTITLED TREE PRESERVATION CHAPTER 1 50 IN TOTAL UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AND ACCOMPANYING ORDINANCE. THANK YOU, MR MAYOR. WE MADE THAT ONE NICE AND SHORT FOR YOU.

OKAY SO WE'RE GOING TO JUMP INTO THIS REALLY QUICKLY, BUT FIRST, I WANT TO GIVE A BRIEF PREFACE OF WHAT OUR TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE ACTUALLY DOES. THERE ARE THREE MAIN THINGS THAT IT DOES. FIRST THING IS IT ESTABLISHES PRESERVATION STANDARDS, WHICH TELLS TELLS RESIDENTS AND DEVELOPERS IN THE CITY WHAT TREES REQUIRE. CAN THEY REMOVE AND WHAT TREES CAN THEY NOT REMOVED AND THEN AND THEN? IT ALSO INCLUDES MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS. IF YOU

[00:40:06]

REMOVE A TREE, HOW DO YOU MITIGATE FOR THAT? YOU CAN MITIGATE BY EITHER RE PLANTING A TREE OR YOU CAN MITIGATE BY PAYING INTO OUR REFORESTATION FUND. AND THEN, THIRDLY, OUR TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE HIGHLIGHTS TREE PROTECTION SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO PROTECT THE TREE DURING SOME SORT OF WORK, WE HAVE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR HOW YOU HAVE TO DO THAT. WE REQUIRE ORANGE FENCING AND CERTAIN AREAS TO BE PRESERVED. SO AS WE WALK THROUGH THIS AND JUST KIND OF WANTED TO GIVE A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW THAT THE THREE MAIN PARTS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT AS A STAFF ARE THOSE THREE THINGS AND MOST OF WHAT WE HAVE, UM SEEN OVER THE YEARS IS THAT THERE HAS BEEN A LACK OF CLARITY ON THE TREE PERMITTING PROCESS AND OUR ABILITY TO ADMINISTER THOSE THREE THOSE THREE SECTIONS OF THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE CLARITY ISSUES THAT WE'VE HAD ON TREE PERMITTING. SO WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING IN THIS NEW CHAPTER, THEY ARE REALLY FOCUSED ON THAT TREE PERMITTING AND WHEN A TREE PERMIT IS REQUIRED UM, AND WHEN A TREE PERMIT HAS AN EXCEPTION, OR MAYBE ISN'T REQUIRED. SO WITH THESE CHANGES, WE ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGES TO THE MITIGATION THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED. WE ARE REALLY FOCUSED ON THAT PERMIT. UM AND THEN, UM, ALSO SOME OF THE VIOLATIONS STUFF WHICH I'LL TALK ABOUT AT THE END. OKAY? SO I'M GONNA SKIM THROUGH MOST OF THIS RIGHT HERE. I MENTIONED THIS AT WORK SESSION. BUT UNDER OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE, WE REQUIRE A TREE PERMITT. ANY TIME THERE'S A CRITICAL ALTERATION OF A TREE THAT'S SIX INCHES OR GREATER IN DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT, WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS CALIBER AND WHAT WE HAVE FOUND IN PRACTICE AND IN LOOKING AT OUR SISTER CITIES. IS THAT WE ARE THE ONLY CITY ONE OF THE ONLY CITIES THAT REQUIRES A TREE PERMIT ONLY WHEN CERTAIN CRITERIA ARE MET. THAT'S SIX INCHES CALIBER GREATER. WHEN WE LOOKED AT OUR SISTER CITIES THEY REQUIRE FOR ANY TREE ALTERATION AND THEN WHAT WE'VE ALSO FOUND IN PRACTICE IS THAT IT CAN BE VERY DIFFICULT WHEN A TREE HAS BEEN REMOVED TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS SIX INCHES IN CALIBER, OR WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS A QUALITY TREE. A LOT OF TIMES THERE'S RARELY A STUMP LEFT OR WE'RE DEALING WITH A PRETTY LARGE AREA THAT'S BEEN DISTURBED. AND SO OUR ABILITY TO ACTUALLY ENFORCE OR ADMINISTER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE BECOMES A BIT OF A CHALLENGE BECAUSE IT IS A YOU KNOW, CITY VERSUS POTENTIAL VIOLATOR TELLING US NO, THIS WASN'T A SIX INCH TREE OR THIS WASN'T EQUALITY TREE AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO SORT OF PROVE THAT UP, AND WE DO THINK THAT'S PROBABLY WHY ARE SISTER CITIES REQUIRE A PERMIT FOR ANY TREE? BECAUSE THAT WAY THERE'S NO THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT A VIOLATION OCCURRED IF A TREE HAS BEEN REMOVED. SO THAT IS WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS TO ACTUALLY, UM, REQUIRE A TREE PERMIT. ANYTIME A TREE IS REMOVED. NOW WITH THAT, UM, THIS IS A HIGHLIGHT OF THIS. THE CITIES THAT WE LOOKED AT OUR SISTER CITIES FRISCO, PLANO ALLEN SOUTH LIKE APPLE. I WANT TO SKIP PAST THIS REAL QUICK AND HIGHLIGHT HERE SO IT CAN BE A LITTLE BIT JARRING TO THINK WE'RE GOING FROM ONLY REQUIRING A TREE PERMITS SOME OF THE TIME TO REQUIRING A TREE PERMIT ALL OF THE TIME, BUT AS I MENTIONED EARLIER TODAY, IN OUR WORK SESSION, THERE ARE STILL A NUMBER OF EXEMPTIONS THAT WOULD EXIST HERE IN MCKINNEY TO ENSURE THAT THAT PROVISION IS AN APPLIED TO RIGIDLY OR EXTRAORDINARY IN NATURE WHAT WE'VE FOUND IN PRACTICE OVER THE LAST YOU KNOW 10 TO 15 YEARS, BUT ALSO IN THE LAST YEAR REALLY LOOKING AT THE NEW UDC IS THAT WE NEEDED TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN REMOVING A TREE ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY WHERE THERE IS NO DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY OCCURRING, MEANING IT'S MY RESIDENTIAL LOT. OR MY, YOU KNOW, HOMESTEAD OR OR VACANT LOT VERSUS TREE REMOVALS AS PART OF A DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OR PROJECT AND SO WE WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT IN THE CODE IS SOMETHING THAT'S NEW IN THE CODE THAT WE DID NOT HAVE BEFORE. SO YOU SEE HERE ON THE TABLE, WHICH IS AN EXCERPT OF THE CODE. IF YOU ARE CRITICALLY ALTERING, WHICH MEANS REMOVING A TREE AND YOU ARE NOT PART OF A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. YOU JUST SIMPLY HAVE TO COME TO THE CITY AND GET A TREE PERMIT.

WE'LL GET TO THE EXCEPTIONS HERE IN JUST A SECOND. BUT IF YOU ARE A PART OF A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT , YOU DON'T NEED A TREE PERMIT. YOU WOULD NEED A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, WHICH IS A PERMIT THAT YOU'RE ALREADY GETTING IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROCESS ANYWAYS. AND IN ORDER TO GET THAT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS ALWAYS BEEN REQUIRED IS THAT TREE PRESERVATION PLAN THAT HAS REVIEWED AND STAMPED BY OUR ARBORIST AND URBAN FORESTER.

THAT IS, THAT'S A PROCESS THAT WE ALREADY DO. WHAT WE'RE DOING IN THE CODE IS CLARIFYING THAT YOU'RE NOT PART OF A TREE PERMIT PROCESS. IF YOU'RE DOING A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, YOU'RE PART OF THAT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS, AND THEN WE ALSO WANTED TO RECOGNIZE IN THE CODE THAT THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THERE IS MORE SIGNIFICANT WORK DONE ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT DOESN'T FALL ON THE IT'S MY SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR I'M PART OF A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. I AM YOU

[00:45:05]

KNOW, I OWN A LARGE PIECE OF PROPERTY AND IT'S GOT A HEAVILY WOODED AREA ON THERE, AND I NEED TO GO CLEAR OUT THE UNDERBRUSH OR I NEED TO DO SOME SIGNIFICANT WORK AND WE HAVE INTRODUCED OR REINTRODUCED THE IDEA OF A LIMITED PURPOSE TREE PERMITS AND THAT ALLOWS FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE WORK TO BE DONE ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY. UM THEN MAYBE DONE ON A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OR JUST HEY, I NEED TO TAKE DOWN A TREE. AND ESSENTIALLY THAT LIMITED PURPOSE STREET PERMIT. WE ASK THAT YOU GIVE US AN AERIAL KIND OF HIGHLIGHT ON THAT MAP WHERE YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE DOING THE WORK SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF WHAT TO SEE OUT THERE ON ON THE GROUND IF WE GET A CALLER COMPLAINT, AND IT ALSO GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADVISE FOLKS THAT, HEY, THERE ARE CERTAIN SPECIES OF TREES AND SIZES OF TREES. THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE PROTECTED OR MITIGATED FOR, SO LET'S MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE HAVING THAT CONVERSATION. SO WE DO THINK THAT CLARIFYING THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF TREE PERMITS WILL REALLY HELP WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY ON WHAT'S REQUIRED AND WHAT'S NOT REQUIRED . AND IN OUR OVERALL ADMINISTRATION, LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT EXEMPTIONS TO THE TREE PERMITS. WHICH I THINK IS HERE. SO A TREE PERMIT, MEANING IT'S HAPPENING, NOT PART OF A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. THERE'S A NUMBER OF EXEMPTIONS THAT COULD APPLY IF YOU ARE ON A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT. YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO GET A TREE PERMIT. YOU ARE FREE TO TAKE DOWN YOUR TREE AS LONG AS IT IS NOT A SPECIMEN TREE AND A SPECIMEN TREE IN THE CITY MCKINNEY. IT'S ANYTHING 42 INCHES IN CALIBER OR GREATER. THERE'S A SIGNIFICANTLY SIZED TREE. I THINK. THEY'RE VERY I WOULDN'T SAY THAT. THEY'RE RARE , BUT I THINK THEY ONLY OCCUR ONE IN EVERY 30 ACRES OF THE CITY, SO BY AND LARGE SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS WON'T BE NECESSARILY IMPACTED BY THAT TREE PERMIT REQUIREMENT. AND THEN, OF COURSE, IF IT'S ENDANGERING THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE COMMUNITY IF THERE'S A PEAK PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE, UM ROUTINE UTILITY MAINTENANCE AS PART OF A PARKS, MAINTENANCE PROJECTS. AND IF THE TREE IS DEAD THINGS OF THAT NATURE SO AS A GENERAL HOMEOWNER OR SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROCESS. UM YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO REMOVE A TREE WITHOUT REQUIREMENT PERMIT . IF YOU'RE A VACANT LOT, IT'S NOT BEING USED FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. PERHAPS IT'S JUST A PIECE OF INVESTMENT PROPERTY THAT YOU OWN. THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT WOULD WOULD LIKELY COME IN FOR THAT TREE PERMIT. AND THEN IF YOU'RE A PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, WHICH COUNCIL IN FRANKLIN WAS SPEAKING ABOUT EARLIER TODAY, ALL OF THE TYPICAL EXEMPTIONS THAT WE HAVE STILL APPLY IF IT'S IN THE PAD SITE. IN THE WAY OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE ROADS, UTILITIES EASEMENTS. NONE OF THOSE WOULD REQUIRE MITIGATION. OF COURSE, THEY ARE STILL PART OF THAT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. THAT'S TYPICAL. HMM. UM AND I'VE I'VE ALREADY KIND OF WALKED THROUGH THAT LIMITED PURPOSE TREE PERMIT DISCUSSION AGAIN. IT'S FOR SOME OF THOSE HEAVIER TREE ACTIVITIES THAT MAY BE MORE THAN JUST TAKING DOWN A SINGLE TREE. MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE A PATHWAY TO DO THAT HERE ILLEGALLY WITH THE CITY. SO I SAID ALL OF THAT ONE TO BRING US IN BETTER ALIGNMENT WITH OUR SISTER CITIES, BUT I ALSO TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT VIOLATIONSAT AND SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE FEEL THAT WE'VE HAD OVER THE YEARS AND ENFORCING SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THIS SECTION. AS PART OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

WE WERE ACTUALLY INTRODUCING AN UPDATED VIOLATION FEE. THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT FEE REALLY HIT THE PUNITIVE LEVEL OR WHETHER IT DIDN'T WE LOOKED AT IT AGAIN AS A STAFF, AND WE'VE ACTUALLY PULLED THAT OUT OF OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR TONIGHT. IT'S NOT INCLUDED WITH YOUR PACKET. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DO WANT TO SPEND SOME MORE TIME ON EXCUSE ME, AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WILL BE BRINGING BACK TO THE COUNCIL. ONCE WE'VE HAD A CHANCE TO VISIT A LITTLE BIT MORE CLOSELY WITH OUR LEGAL TEAM, AND SOME OF THE OPTIONS THAT WE THINK WE HAVE, BUT WHAT'S ON THE BOOKS TODAY IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO KEEP JUST RELOCATING IT WITH THIS NEW SECTION, AND I THINK THAT IS IT FOR THE THREE BIG TICKET ITEMS THAT I HAD TONIGHT. QUESTIONS. WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.

THERE'S ANYBODY HERE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE ADAM. SEEN NONE. ENTERTAIN A MOTION MOTION WITH CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVED THIS ITEM, I'LL SECOND CAST YOUR VOTES. GENERAL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ADAM 23 YEARS 058 Z TWO CONDUCTED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ACT. MY QUESTION

[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, and Accompanying Ordinance (REQUEST TO BE TABLED)]

[00:50:05]

RESIGNED SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM PD PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TWO. C TWO LOCAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 40 50 WEST UNIVERSITY DRIVE. THE COMPANIES ORDINANCE, IT HAS BEEN REQUESTED TO BE TABLED. GENERAL YES, SIR. STAFFS RECOMMENDING THAT WE TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE OCTOBER 2ND COUNCIL MEETING DUE TO ZONING NOTIFICATION SCIENCE NOT BEING POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AND THE TIMEFRAMES REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE. GENUINE HAVE ISSUE WITH THAT. BEING THAT'S PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE IS THERE ANYONE THAT DID COME TO SPEAK TO THE ASYLUM TONIGHT? I WANT YOU TO HAVE MADE A TRIP FOR NOTHING. YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP. WE ARE GOING TO TABLE THE ISSUE, WHICH MEANS IT WON'T BE HEARD UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. SURE THEY DON'T NEED TO TODAY CAN WAIT TILL THEN. BUT YOUR CHOICE. WAIT TILL NEXT MEETING. YES. OKAY, THEN THAT WILL COME AFTER.

SO THE MOTION TO TABLE AND YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC DATE THAT WE'RE TABLING TO THE OCTOBER 2ND MEETING. MAKE A MOTION WE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND. CONTINUE CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. YES, SIR. TO THE NEXT MEETING. OCTOBER, 2ND. 2ND 2ND. CAST YOUR VOTES. MOTION PASSES

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Rezone the Subject Property from “RED-1” - Residential Estate District to “R6” - Residential District and “R43” - Residential Estate District, Located at 105 South West Park Drive, and Accompanying Ordinance]

230039 Z FOUR CONDUCTED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND ACT ON A REQUEST TO REZONE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM RESIDENTIAL STATE DISTRICT OR SIX RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT IN OUR THROUGH 43 RESIDENTIAL STATE DISTRICT, LOCATED ONE OF FIVE SOUTHWEST PARK DRIVING ACCOMPANYING ORDINANCE. THANK YOU, MR MAYOR. THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS YOU NOTED FROM THE GREEDY ONE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT TO TWO NEW ZONING DISTRICTS ON THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. I'LL SHOW THAT EXHIBIT THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TO REZONE THIS PORTION HERE. APPROXIMATELY 0.33 ACRES TO THE R SIX ZONING DISTRICT AND THEN THE REMAINDER OF THE TRACT ABOUT AN ACRE AND A HALF. TO THE R 43. I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT TO NEW ZONING DISTRICT. YES, 43. I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT, UM AS PART OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING, NZ DID VOTE TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THIS REQUEST . WE ALSO RECEIVED A VALID WRITTEN PROTEST THAT WAS SIGNED BY MORE THAN 20% OF PROPERTY OWNERS REPRESENTING OR WAS SIGNED BY PROPERTY OWNERS REPRESENTING MORE THAN 20% OF THE AREA WITHIN THE NOTIFICATION BUFFER, WHICH WILL REQUIRE SUPERMAJORITY VOTE BY THE COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL, WHICH IS SIX OUT OF SEVEN. SO WITH THE REQUEST, THE EXISTING PROPERTY STAFF HAS NOTED IS, UM, LOCATED ON THE HARD CORNER OR THE CURVE OF WEST PARK DRIVE ON THE NORTHERN STRETCH OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE WEST OF THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY ARE SOME EXISTING DUPLEXES AND TO THE NORTH OF THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY IS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. WE DID NOTE THAT THE REQUEST FOR THE R 6 6000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AND THE R 43, WHICH IS A ONE ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION. SUBURBAN LIVING DESIGNATION OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA. WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, NOTING THE FACT THAT THERE IS ALREADY A MIX OF LOT SIZES WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD DUPLEXES IN COMMERCIAL AGAIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL AND THEREFORE A SUPER MAJORITY IS REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. QUESTIONS FOR GENERAL HARMONY HOMES CAN YOU ACTUALLY BUILD ON THE EXISTING ZONE UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING? IT HAS A MINIMUM ONE ACRE LOT SIZE THAT WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO GET ONE HOME. ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME. SO THEY BASICALLY HAVE TO EITHER TEAR DOWN THAT HOME AND BUILD A NEW ONE OR REFURBISH THAT HOME AND THEN WE SELL IT. THAT IS CORRECT. QUESTIONS FOR JENNIFER.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. WELL, I'M SORRY. THE APPLICANT IS THE APPLICANT HERE WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK TO THE ADAM. GO OUTSIDE. THE AFRICAN. OKAY I DO HAVE SOME CARDS THAT HAVE BEEN FILLED OUT. PEOPLE DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT THEY DO WANT TO REGISTER THEIR OPPOSITION. JOHNNY ERHARD HAS RICHARD OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM AND CAROL. I BELIEVE ITSELF IS

[00:55:02]

THAT RIGHT? HAS RED SHIRT OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM. AND THOMAS EDWARD EDWARDS HAS REGISTERED OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM. AND I BELIEVE THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE THAT WISH TO SPEAK. THAT MIGHT HAVE GAIL LEDBETTER. MY NAME IS GAIL LEDBETTER. I LIVE IT TO 11 SOUTHWEST PARK DRIVE SOUTH. THE HOUSE I LIVE IN IS THE NEWEST HOUSE IN THE WEST PARK EDITION.

IT WAS BUILT IN 1979 AND I MOVED IN IN 1980. I HAVE LIVED IN MY HOUSE FOR 43 YEARS. MANY NEIGHBORS THAT I HAVE. WE'RE LIVING IN THEIR HOUSES. WHEN I MOVED IN. AND THEY ARE STILL LIVING THERE. VARIOUS VERY LITTLE TURNOVER. IT IS A DESIRABLE NEIGHBORHOOD BUILT WITH CUSTOM FLOOR PLANS ON CUSTOM LOTS. IT COULD BE CALLED A HISTORICAL DISTRICT, EVEN WITH ITS LOCATION WEST OF HOW I 75 DUPLEXES ARE SMALL HOUSES ON SMALL LOTS ARE JUST NOT A FIT.

THEY DEVALUE OUR PROPERTIES. IF THIS IS OWNING CHANGES ALLOWED, IT WOULD SHOW NO REGARD FOR THE STABILITY UPKEEP. AND PRIDE THAT WE AS HOMEOWNERS HAVE POURED INTO OUR PROPERTIES. WE HAVE MAINTAINED EQUALITY NEIGHBORHOOD. AS YOU ENTER OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FROM VIRGINIA STREET. YOU WILL SEE TOWN HOUSES OFF TO THE RIGHT. THIS IS NOT A PART OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

DRIVING STRAIGHT AHEAD. YOU SEE THE FOCAL ENTRY TO THE WEST PARK EDITION. THAT IS THE DOUBLE LOT BELONGING TO BILL SMITH. ALWAYS FEATURING A WELL MANICURED LANDSCAPE. I AM HOPEFUL THAT SHE WILL DENY THIS CHANGE OF ZONING AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. ONE RODRIQUEZ. GOOD EVENING. I'M JUAN ALSO JOHN RODRIGUEZ. I'M AT 201 WEST PARK DRIVE SOUTH PROPERTY JUST TO THE SOUTH OF 105 HERE. UM THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AS STAYING BEFORE YOU TO VOICE MY OPPOSITION TO THE REZONING REQUEST THAT IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION. THIS REQUEST OF APPROVED WOULD HAVE A PROFOUND IMPACT ON OUR COMMUNITY AND THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOT IN A GOOD WAY. FIRST AND FOREMOST, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS A LONG AND RICH HISTORY. UM THERE'S CUSTOM HOMES . THERE'S ABSTRACT LOTS JUST AS A GAL MENTIONED. A LOT OF THE HOMES ARE 40 PLUS YEARS OLD.

IT'S A VERY UNIQUE NEIGHBORHOOD. AH THE CURRENT ZONING REGULATIONS WERE PUT IN PLACE FOR A REASON TO PROTECT THE UNIQUE CHARACTER AND QUALITY OF LIFE THAT DREW US ALL TO THE AREA IN THE FIRST PLACE. CHANGING THE REGULATIONS WOULD DISRUPT THE DELICATE BALANCE THAT HAS BEEN MAINTAINED FOR DECADES. ANOTHER CONCERN IS A POTENTIAL INCREASE IN DENSITY THAT THIS REZONING COULD BRING SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR INCOME, INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON TOP OF ALREADY INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION FROM ALL THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS AROUND THE AREA. UM ARE CURVED STREETS AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP THERE, ESPECIALLY THIS SECTION OF THE STREET, AS IT IS, IS NOT DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAYS , VEHICLES, TRAFFIC. THE SAFETY OF PEDESTRIANS, CYCLISTS AND OTHER DRIVERS COULD BE COMPROMISED. SAFETY SHOULD ALWAYS BE THE TOP PRIORITY WHEN CONSIDERING SUCH CHANGES. I EMPLOY THE CITY COUNCIL TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES OF THIS REZONING REQUEST. I URGE YOU TO REJECT THE ZONING REQUEST. I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT AND MUST BE DONE THOUGHTFULLY AND IN A WAY THAT RESPECTS THE CHARACTER, COMMUNITY HISTORY AND INTEGRITY AND ABIDE BY THE CURRENT RESIDENTS. LET US CONTINUE TO CHERISH AND PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE HAVE ALL CHOSEN TO CALL HOME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. BEST PERSON HAVE SIGNED UP BILL SMITH. DELIVERED SLOWER THAN JOHN. YEAH. UM. DO WE HAVE A MEDIA PERSON? HERE. CAN YOU HELP ME WITH THIS DRIVE? WHAT IS IT THAT YOU HAVE, SIR? UM DR. YEAH WE'RE UNFORTUNATE POLICY DOES NOT DOES NOT ALLOW TO. I'M SO SORRY. WELL, LET ME DRAW MY LOT. I WANTED TO SHOW YOU MY HOME. MY HOME IS THE ONLY ONE THAT FACES THE NORTH. HMM. IN THE WHOLE CITY FACES VIRGINIA PARKWAY. THESE TWO. THIS

[01:00:02]

REZONING REQUEST WILL BE RIGHT OUT MY FRONT DOOR. NOW. IS SAM HERE? NO. WELL I DON'T WANT TO TALK BEHIND HIS BACK, BUT I THINK I WILL. ANYWAY I DON'T I DON'T THINK HE'S INTENT. RAY'S OWN ONLY THIS IF YOU APPROVE THIS REZONING I SUSPECT THE NEXT THING HE'S GOING TO DO IS DEMOLISHED THE EXISTING HOMESITE. AND THEN COME BACK TO YOU AND REQUEST ADDITIONAL ZONING. WHATEVER IT IS OR SIX. HE WANTS TO FILL THIS CORNER UP. WITH SMALL FOOTPRINT HOMES. AND I DON'T THINK THERE WOULD BE INTENDED FOR SALE. I THINK THERE WILL BE, UH MORE WHAT YOU CONSIDER RENT PROPERTIES. UM. ANYWAY I DON'T THINK HIS INTENT IS FINISHED. UM THIS PROPERTY AND MY PROPERTY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERED THE ENTRYWAY. DO THIS. LEGACY IS ONE NEWSPAPER.

PRESENTED THIS LEGACY NEIGHBORHOOD. WE DON'T WANT THAT TO CHANGE. WE HAVE A SOLUTION. I HAVE A SOLUTION HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS SINCE 1974. UM. AND I AGREE WITH THE 1998 CITY COUNCIL THAT SAID, THE ONLY WAY TO SOLVE THIS ISSUE IS TO NOT CHANGE THAT ARE A D ONE. I HAVE A I HAVE A WE HAVE A SOLUTION. THE NEIGHBORS DO IF ANYBODY'S INTERESTED IN SETTING AND PLANNING. UH SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE WITH THIS PROPERTY SINCE THE DEATH OF THE MAKOR LEASE. DR MCCAULEY AND HIS WIFE. THIS IS AN END SINCE IT'S SOLD, THE PROPERTY HAS GONE DOWNHILL IS GROWN UP. SOMEBODY NEEDS TO CITE THE CURRENT OWNER TO SAY CLEAN THIS MESS UP. I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS. APPRECIATE IT MORE AFTER SETTING THROUGH. THE LAST FEW MINUTES. THANK YOU, BILL VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE. WELCOME. I HAVE NO ONE ELSE WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEMS WE COULD WE DO HAVE SOMEBODY PLEASE COME UP STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS TO THE RECORD. FILL OUT A CARD AFTER YOU SPEAK IF YOU WOULD HAVE CARD. OKAY? IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE HEAR THAT INTENDS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? HELLO MY NAME IS DENISE LOCUS. I LIVE ON 108 WESTWOOD CIRCLE, WHICH IS THE FIRST RIGHT OFF OF WEST PARK DRIVE WHEN YOU TURN INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FROM VIRGINIA PARKWAY. UM I APOLOGIZE FOR MY TARDINESS AND THE CARD AND MY APPAREL. I'M IN MY SECOND TRIMESTER OF PREGNANCY, AND I CAN'T REMEMBER ANYTHING. SO I RAN OUT MY HOUSE TO GET HERE BECAUSE THIS MATTER IS VERY IMPORTANT TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

UM I MOVED INTO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WITH MY FAMILY OF SIX AND MY FATHER IN LAW SO HOUSEHOLD OF SEVEN. LAST OCTOBER. THE PROPOSED ZONING. MY PRIMARY CONCERN IS THAT IT IS NOT SAFE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS NOT SAFE FOR THE CURRENT RESIDENTS. IT'S NOT SAFE FOR FUTURE RESIDENTS, AND IT'S FRANKLY NOT SAFE FOR THE TRAFFIC THAT COMES IN AND OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT CURVE, AS BILL SMITH POINTED OUT TO YOU IS DANGEROUS. THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERE ACCIDENTS ON THAT CURVE. SINCE THE TIME THAT I MOVED IN ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORS HAD TO PULL OF. PASSENGER OR MOTORISTS OUT OF THE VEHICLE. IN ORDER TO HELP STOP BLEEDING. BILL HAD TO HOSE BLOOD OFF OF HIS DRIVEWAY. IT IS NOT A SAFE CURVE. NOW OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS TALKED ABOUT THIS. THIS PROPOSED REZONING HAS ACTUALLY GIVEN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. A WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO EACH OTHER, AND IT'S GIVEN ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET MY NEIGHBORS. UM AND WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO THE EXISTING DANGER. BUT MY CONCERN IS THAT WITH THE LOCATION OF THESE DRIVEWAYS VEHICLES BACKING OUT WOULD BE IN DANGER. THE FAMILIES LIVING THERE WOULD BE IN DANGER. THERE ARE ALREADY PEOPLE SPEEDING DOWN THIS ROAD. ENTIRELY TOO FAST WHERE MY KIDS PLAY. WHERE MY NEIGHBOR'S KIDS PLAY, AND IT'S NOT SAFE. MY OTHER CONCERN IS THAT, UM AS MY

[01:05:04]

NEIGHBORS HAVE SAID, IT DOES NOT REFLECT THE NATURE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. FINDING A NEIGHBORHOOD OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITH REASONABLY SIZED YARDS WHERE YOU CAN LIVE AND GROW A FAMILY IS VERY SCARCE IN THIS AREA. I CAN TELL YOU THAT WITH CERTAINTY BECAUSE WHEN THE HOUSING MARKET WAS AT ITS MOST WILD A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO, I SPENT ALL SUMMER LOOKING FOR A HOME WHERE MY FAMILY COULD GROW AND LIVE. AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT HOUSES LIKE THE ONE HERE.

ARE RARE. THEY'RE FEW. THEY'RE FAR BETWEEN. AND I LEARNED AFTER I MOVED HERE THAT THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE HOLDS A GREAT DEAL OF HISTORY THAT MANY OF THE HOUSES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ON A GREAT DEAL OF HISTORY, AND I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE A DISSERVICE TO THE RESIDENTS OF MCKINNEY TO REZONE IT IN THIS MANNER AND DEMOLISH WHAT HISTORY REMAINS THERE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT . THAT WAS THE LAST PERSON AS THIS IS PUBLIC SPEAKER. IT'S VERY MOTION. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WOULD DENY THIS ITEM PUBLIC PUBLIC HEARING SECOND THIS CAST YOUR VOTES.

MOTION PASSES. WHICH MEANS THAT IT HAS BEEN DENIED. MR. MAKE SURE WOULDN'T UNDERSTANDS THAT.

MR SMITH WAS IT WASN'T THE MCCARLEY RESIDENTS THE FIRST HOME BUILDS ON THE WEST SIDE OF 75. WEBSITE AT 75. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU TALKING ABOUT. CHARLIE WAS THAT WASN'T LB MCCARLEY. WASN'T HE THE FIRST TO BUILD A HOME ON THE FAR SIDE. THERE WAS NO WEST PARK DRIVE. IT ENDED AT DR MCCAULEY'S HOUSE IN THERE. EVEN TODAY. IT HAS A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY SO THERE WAS NO NO GETTING OUT OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD TO VIRGINIA PARKWAY. THE CITY CAME TO DR MCCAULEY AND SAID, WE'RE GOING TO EXTEND WEST PARK STRAIGHT THROUGH YOUR PROPERTY TO VIRGINIA PARKWAY IN DR MCCAULEY SAID IT WILL BE AFTER THE FIGHT. IN THE FIGHT LASTED ABOUT TWO YEARS BECAUSE THE EXTENSION OF THAT VIRGINIA PARK Y WOULD HAVE COME IN WITHIN 7 FT. OF THE CORNER IS THE EXISTING HOMESTEAD. SO AFTER THE TWO YEARS DR MCCAULEY SAID. IF YOU BRING IT IN TO MY PROPERTY, CURL IT OUT AND TAKE IT DOWN THE BORDER. I'LL GIVE YOU THAT. I'LL GIVE YOU THAT. THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY IT CUT MY LOG OFF, AND THAT'S THAT'S WHEN DR MACAULAY THEN SOLD THE LOT TO ME, BUT ONLY AFTER HE GOT SEVERAL THINGS. SQUARED AWAY AT THE CITY , MR SMITH I WANT YOU KNOW, PERSONAL NOTE THAT ABOUT 15 YEARS AGO I CALLED YOUR SON TO LET HIM KNOW THAT YOU WERE SPENDING HIS INHERITANCE ON YOUR LAWN. OH MY LONG. OTHERS CALLED HIM IN, SAID THE SAME THING ABOUT MY STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF. WOW WAS REFERRING MORE TO THE STONE WALKWAY YOU PUT INTO THE PROGRAM? THAT'S RIGHT, CHARLIE. YOU KNOW THAT. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. YOU HAVE A WONDERFUL NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU MR MAYOR, PROTEIN. ALL RIGHT. WE

[Consider/Discuss/Act on a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract for Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) Services with Pogue Construction Company, LP of McKinney, Texas for a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for Construction Services Related to the Design and Construction of the McKinney Fire Department Headquarters Project Located at 2100 Taylor Burk Drive, McKinney, Texas]

ARE NOW GOING TO MOVE TO 23076 YEAR. CONSIDER ACTING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT. FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK SERVICES WITH POPE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LP IN MCKINNEY, TEXAS, FOR A GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE GMP CONSTRUCTION SERVICES RELATED TO THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MCKINNEY FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS PROJECT LOCATED 2100. TAYLOR BURKE DRIVE. MCKINNEY, TEXAS. HELLO, PATRICIA. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR MAYOR PRO TEM CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS PATRICIA JACKSON, THE FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION MANAGER FOR THE CITY. VERY HAPPY TO BE HERE WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THIS EVENING, ALONG WITH OUR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER POKE CONSTRUCTION TO ASK FOR YOUR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEM ESTABLISHING A GMP FOR THE PROJECT. KNOWN AS THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS FACILITY, WHICH CONSISTS OF THREE SEPARATE BUILDINGS.

REPLACEMENT FOR FIRE STATION NUMBER TWO FIRE DEPARTMENT ADMIN BUILDING AS WELL AS A LOGISTICS BUILDING, SO WE ARE VERY EXCITED TO BE AT THIS POINT IN THE PROJECT TO COME TO YOU WITH AN

[01:10:04]

APPROVAL HOPEFULLY FOR A 48.4 ISH GMP AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THIS FACILITY IS LOCATED DIRECTLY EAST OF THE EXISTING PUBLIC. SAFETY BUILDING. ON TAYLOR BURKE. QUESTIONS FOR TRISH. ENTERTAIN A MOTION. THANK YOU MOTION THAT WE APPROVED THE ITEM AS PRESENTED. SECOND CAST YOUR VOTES. THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES. THANK

[Consider/Discuss/Act on a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Additional Services Agreement with 720 Design, Inc. of Dallas, Texas for Professional Consulting Services and Owner’s Representative Services Related to the construction of the McKinney Fire Department Headquarters project (FI2111) located at 2100 Taylor Burk Drive, McKinney]

YOU VERY MUCH. I THINK YOU HAVE ANOTHER ITEM ON A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER'S EXECUTED DESIGN BUILD AMENDMENT. TO THE PROFESSIONAL DESIGN BUILD SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PASSED BILL CONSTRUCTION LLC FOR GUARANTEE MAXIMUM WHAT'S UP? LET'S SKIP ONE. YES, SIR. YES, I DID. 23 SORRY. 230761 CONSIDER ACTING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MEASURE TO EXECUTE AN ADDITIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH 7 20 DESIGN INC OF DALLAS. FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES AND OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MCKINNEY, FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS PROJECT F 12111 LOCATED 2100 TAYLOR BURKE DRIVE.

FOR THIS MULTI YEAR PROJECT AND THE SMALL OTHER PROJECT THAT I'M WORKING ON WHICH THE CITY HALL ALONG WITH ABOUT 15, OR 16, OTHER PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE ONGOING. I AM ASKING FOR YOUR APPROVAL TO HAVE ANOTHER FELLOW THAT HELPS ME WITH OWNERS REP. PROJECTS HELPS YOU MANAGE THE PROJECTS DONE WARTS BURGER WITH 7 20 DESIGN HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THE ENTIRE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT AND I WISH TO HAVE HIM CONTINUE IF YOU SO DESIRE. SHE DID A GREAT JOB BY THE WAY YOU REALLY DO AND I KNOW IN THE INDUSTRY WHAT IT TAKES TO DO WHAT YOU DO AND YOU DO A FANTASTIC JOB VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE THAT PUBLICLY FOR THAT. UM AND ALSO UNDERSTAND THIS REQUEST AND HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS. MAKE A MOTION. WE APPROVE THIS ITEM. SECOND HIS CASH WROTE.

PUSHING PASSES. THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR SUPPORT. I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO PRESENT ANOTHER ONE. OR RYAN AND I WERE GOING TO PRESENT IT TOGETHER, BUT I'M HAPPY TO DO THIS ONE AS WELL. THREE ROLL GOING, RYAN. I WOULD STAY BACK. YOU DON'T WANT THE OTHER ONE. YOU COULD COME UP AND CHANGE THE

[Consider/Discuss/Act on a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Design-Build Amendment to the Professional Design/Build Services Agreement with PassBuilt Construction, LLC for a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for the Recreation Center at Towne Lake Renovation (RCTL) Project (PK4397) located at 2001 S. Central Expwy, McKinney, Texas 75070]

WHOLE DYNAMIC. WE'RE TRYING TO STEAL A LITTLE BIT OF HER TIME ON OUR SMALL PROJECT, 23076 TO CONSIDER AND ACT ON A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A DESIGN BUILD AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL DESIGN BUILD SERVICES. AGREEMENT WITH PASSED BILL CONSTRUCTION LLC FOR GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE FOR THE RECREATION CENTER TOWN LIKE RENOVATION PROJECT A 4397 LOCATED 2001 SOUTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY. MCKINNEY TEXAS ARE ALSO ASKING FOR YOUR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF THE GMP AMENDMENTS TO AN EXISTING PRECONSTRUCTION SERVICES CONTRACT WITH PAST BUILT WE ARE DOING SOMETHING SIMILAR. I WILL SAY TO WHAT WE'VE DONE RECENTLY AT BOTH ALL SETTLERS AS WELL AS A SENIOR CENTER AND UPDATING THIS WONDERFUL FACILITY THAT WE HAVE USED TO BE KNOWN AS THE COMMUNITY CENTER, NOW KNOWN AS THE REC CENTER AT TOWN LAKE, AND WE ARE ADDING SOME SPACE TO IT, ADDING A LITTLE BIT OF PARKING REDOING AN AREA THAT WAS RACQUETBALL COURTS INTO FITNESS . NOW WE'RE JUST DOING A LOT OF STUFF. IN THIS BRINGING IT UP TO DATE UP TO CODE ACCESSIBLE AND ALL OF THAT AS WELL. SO WE ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS PROJECT.

RYAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO AT ON. IT'S A LONG TIME COMING FOR THIS FACILITY. I THINK IT'S 37 YEARS OLD, SO I COULD USE SOME LITTLE TLC SO WE'RE HAPPY TO WORK. PATRICIA, GET THAT DONE. BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ENTERTAIN A MOTION. PROMOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS ITEM.

SECOND. WHO'S CAST YOUR VOTES. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. IN THE BULLPEN

[Consider/Discuss/Act on Appointing a 2024 Municipal Bond Committee]

AS HE TREVOR MINIATURE FOR ITEM 230763 CONSIDERED ACT ON APPOINTING AT 2024 MUNICIPAL BOND COMMITTEE. THANK YOU, MR MAYOR, TREVOR, MINIATURE DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC SERVICES

[01:15:01]

AT THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING. EXCUSE ME. THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL WORK SESSION, THE COUNCIL GAVE US DIRECTION TO START. WORKING ON COLLECTING NAMES FOR A POTENTIAL BOND COMMITTEE FOR 2024 BONDS. OVER THE COURSE OF THE PAST FEW DAYS, INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE SUBMITTED NAMES AND THEN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEES THAT THEY WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THEY SERVE ON SHOULD THE COUNCIL SO CHOOSE TO ADOPT AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE. THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A RESOLUTION TO APPOINT A 2024 BOND COMMITTEE. AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS BEYOND THAT. IF YOU DO APPOINT A COMMITTEE, WE WILL GET RUNNING NEXT WEDNESDAY EVENING IN THIS ROOM AT SIX PM QUESTIONS FOR CHARGING EVER. UM. WOULD IT BE YOUR PROPOSAL THAT YOU'VE REVIEWED ALL THE NAMES MINTED BY EACH OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS? CORRECT? YES, SIR. AND WOULD IT BE YOUR PROPOSAL THAT EACH AND ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE BE APPOINTED TO THE COMMITTEE? I DEFER TO YOU ALL JUDGMENT. WE HAVE A CURSORY REVIEW. THERE'S ADMITTEDLY SOME NAMES. I DON'T RECOGNIZE OTHER NAMES I DO RECOGNIZE, BUT WE TRUST YOUR OLD JUDGMENT AND APPOINTING SOME OF THOSE FOLKS AND I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO MAKE A DECISION FOR ALL OF US. JUST THE NUMBER. I THINK THE NUMBER IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE DONE IN PREVIOUS EXERCISES SIMILAR TO THIS MOST RECENTLY IN 2023 AND MOST LIKE UH, PROCESS IN 2019. AND WHAT WOULD THAT NUMBER BE THE NUMBER OF NOMINATIONS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 35 AND 40 TOTAL IN THE RANGE OF FIVE PEOPLE PER MEMBER, OKAY, AND THE REASON I'M ASKING THAT WAY, SO I WAS ABOUT TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPOINT THOSE PEOPLE NOMINATED BY BUT I GUESS I DON'T HAVE TO PUT A NUMBER ON IT. THAT WORKS FOR ME. WE'VE ADDED THIS TO THE SCREEN. THIS WILL BE PUBLISHED ON THE WEBSITE AS WELL AS A PRESS RELEASE. SHOULD THE COUNCIL MOVE FORWARD WITH APPROVING THE RESOLUTION, SO WILL BE VETTED, SO TO SPEAK FROM THE COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE. THAT'S WHAT I SAY YOU HAD CHARLIE AND YOUR YOUR LIST. THIS THIS GUY CHARACTER, SCOTT ELLIOTT, WHO MIGHT THAT BE? I DON'T RECOGNIZE ANYTHING.

ACTUALLY. YEAH. ACTUALLY TOLD TREVOR THAT IF I AM NOMINATED SIX BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT YOU HAD SUGGESTED THAT SCOTT HAD HAD HIS DAY IN THE LIMELIGHT AND WOULD NOT MIND IF HE WERE CUT FROM THE LAST BUT I'D BE MOST HAPPY TO HAVE HIM SERVE. YES SCOTT. I SAY THAT JOKINGLY. SCOTT FORMER DISTRICT THREE. COUNCIL MAN AND NOW RUNNING ONE HEART, MCKINNEY AND A GREAT ASSET TO THE CITY. UM SO IS THERE A MOTION TO APPOINT APPROVED THIS ITEM WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPOINT EACH AND ALL OF THE PERSONS NOMINATED AND LISTED ON THE BOARD AT THE PRESENT TIME TO SERVE ON THE 2024 BOND COMMITTEE. SECOND HIS CAST YOUR VOTES. ROBERT THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK AND GETTING ALL THAT TOGETHER SO VERY QUICKLY FOR US. HAPPY TO DO IT. ALRIGHT LAST ITEM. 230764 CONSIDER ACT ON APPOINTING TWO MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO

[Consider/Discuss/Act on Appointing Two Members of the City Council to Serve on an Interview Panel for the Downtown Redevelopment Request for Qualifications (23-38RFQ)]

SERVE ON AN INTERVIEW PANEL FOR THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS. MR QUINT. MICHAEL QUINN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GOT A BRIEF UPDATE ON THE PROCESS THUS FAR AND THEN A FAVOR TO ASK IF THE COUNCIL TONIGHT SO IF YOU'LL RECALL IN MID JUNE, WE DID ISSUE THE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT OF CITY OWNED PROPERTIES. UM THAT SUBMITTAL WINDOW CLOSED MID AUGUST. WE RECEIVE 15 RESPONSES . WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE INITIAL EVALUATION WHITTLED THAT 15 DOWN TO FIVE. THE NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS IS INTERVIEWS. AND SO RIGHT NOW WE'VE GOT A STAFF PANEL PULLED TOGETHER. WE'D LIKE TO ASK FOR THE COUNCIL'S HELP IN APPOINTING TOO. AH CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO JOIN THAT INTERVIEW PANEL INTERVIEWS WILL BE HELD SEPTEMBER 28TH FROM 1 TO 4, P.M. AND SEPTEMBER 29TH FROM 9 TO 12. PM AND I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. WHILE YOU GUYS ARE DELIBERATING, I WILL OFFER ONE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT IN THE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATION DOCUMENT. IT DID INDICATE THAT THE PUBLIC PRESENTATION OF THE FINALIST RESPONDENTS WOULD OCCUR ON NOVEMBER 7TH THAT'S ACTUALLY BEING PUSHED BACK TO NOVEMBER 28 TO MAKE TIME MORE TIME FOR PRESENTATIONS AND MEETING AND

[01:20:02]

GREETING WITH THE TOP RESPONDENTS. SO I DID WANT TO POINT THAT OUT. THE FIRST TWO MEETINGS, ONE WAS IN SEPTEMBER 29TH, SEPTEMBER, 28TH AND SEPTEMBER 29TH. THOSE WILL BE THE TWO DATES THAT INTERVIEWS WILL BE HELD. I THINK HE'S ACTUALLY PROHIBITED FROM DELIBERATING. UM VERY FAIR POINT ATTENTION BEFORE I SAID SOMETHING, UM MR QUINT. I THINK IT'S. PROBABLY UNFAIR TO VOLUNTEERS SOMEONE BUT WE HAVE A DEVELOPER WHO SITS ON THIS COUNCIL WHO IS AS A VAST KNOWLEDGE OF DEVELOPMENT AND PARTICULAR IN THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE MAYOR BE ONE OF THE TWO MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL THAT SERVES ON THAT INTERVIEW COMMITTEE. IF THE MAYOR WOULD NOT OPPOSE THAT. SO . MICHAEL WHAT TIME I KNOW WE START NEXT THURSDAY. WHAT TIME DOES IT BEGIN? IT'S 1 TO 4 P.M.

SO WE HAVE THREE SCHEDULED ON THURSDAY AND THEN TWO MORE FRIDAY MORNING WITH ONE ADDITIONAL HOUR FOR SCORING AND FINAL EVALUATION. READ. WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MYSELF. DO YOU HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT? BECAUSE IN THE EVENT THAT I HAD A CONFLICT ON THE THURSDAY AFTERNOON, IT WOULD BE UNFAIR FOR ME TO YOU'RE HALF AND NOT THE OTHER. UM. BUT I WOULD CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE IN AND I'M NOT APPRECIATE WHAT YOU SAID. TRY AND AGREE. I'M USING YOU USING THAT, SO I THINK I'D LIKE TO HAVE TWO MORE TWO MEMBERS TO JOIN, WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT COUNCILMAN PHILLIPS ALSO SERVES. WE ARE BOTH THE LIAISONS TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD AND I AM NOT AVAILABLE. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT ONE OF US IS AVAILABLE FOR THE INTERVIEW PROCESS. HAPPY TO HONOR FACT IT LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO VOLUNTEER? TO BE ON THAT. DO IT. SO THERE'S THREE. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. NEED A FORMAL MOTION ON THAT.

YEAH. FORMAL MOTION. YES. A MOVE THERE WE ARE. APPROVED THE SELECT COUNCILMAN FOR THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. THAT WILL BE, UM. THROW MAYOR PRO TEMP CHARLIE PHILLIPS COUNCIL MERRICK FRANKLIN HIMSELF. FOR A SECOND. SECOND, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES. RIGHT THAT IS THE END OF OUR REGULAR AGENDA. MADAM HAS

[CITIZEN COMMENTS on Matters not on the Agenda]

ANYBODY SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS MATTERS? NOT ON THE AGENDA. I BELIEVE SO. UM DO YOU HAVE NAMES FOR ME? WHAT'S THAT? UNDER SCREEN SHOWING, OKAY? THEN SHOW MISS GREEN. OKAY? IS IT? UM, IT KUMAR . KEVIN MAYER. THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. MADAM SECRETARY. MY DEAR. FELLOW RESIDENTS. NAMASTE. PRESIDENT OF PRIVATE SEVEN HELD COURT AVENUE MEGANE. AND WE ARE . ALL IN CASE OF ADDRESSES IN THOSE TERMS OF EXXON. THIS IS A MONTH OF ROCKS ABANDON. SEVEN.

THEN THEY ONENESS. IT IS A TRADITIONAL HINDU FESTIVAL. THAT CELEBRATES THE BOND OF LOVE OF BUT THIS AND SISTERS BUT WITH THE GLOBALIZATION NOW. SEVEN THEN 80 WORLD INTO. NOT ONLY WITH BROTHERS AND SISTERS BUT ALSO OTHER RELATIONSHIPS. NOW IT IS CELEBRATED BETWEEN FRIENDS.

[01:25:01]

OTHER NEIGHBORS. COLLEAGUES. AND EVEN PUBLIC FIGURES. IN THE PAST. HAVE WE HAVE CELEBRATED THIS FESTIVAL? WITH FRONT LINE WORKERS. DOCTORS. MAYORS. AND OTHER PUBLIC FIGURES. BRANDON IS A BEAUTIFUL FESTIVAL. THAT PROMOTES LOVED. UNITY. AND THE IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING ONE ANOTHER. IT IS A WONDERFUL WAY. TO STRENGTHEN BONDS AND EXPRESS GRATITUDE TOWARDS THOSE WHO PLAY A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN OUR LIFE. WE'RE HERE. WE HAVE SOME KIDS. WE WANT TO TIE THAT BOND WITH WITH YOU ALL AND. MAKE A RELATIONSHIP POLISHED AND THEN. SO WHAT IF YOU ALLOW US AND THEN WE CAN JUST START IT. WE HAVE SOME GOOD FOOD. THANK YOU FOR GIVING THIS OPPORTUNITIES. WOULD YOU LIKE US TO COME DOWN? YES, OKAY. AND THIS IS IN LINED WITH OUR PHILOSOPHY OF ONE EARTH, ONE FAMILY AND ONE FUTURE. THANK YOU. THE CAMERAS.

THE TABLE. SPEAKING. WHAT'S THAT? YEARS. THANK YOU.

LET ME TAKE THAT AGAIN. YOU DON'T WANT TO TAKE IT. YES.