[Consider/Discuss/Act on a Site Plan for Indoor Commercial Amusement (Tivona Event Center), Located at the Southwest Corner of South Lake Forest Drive and Virginia Parkway]

ON 22-2 SP WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST? EVENING COMMISSION. I AM NOT JAKE BENNETT, AS YOU CAN SEE, BUT I WILL DEFINITELY TRY AND DO MY BEST FOR HIM TONIGHT, SO I DID WRITE DOWN ALL OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED, AND I CAN DEFINITELY GO THROUGH THEM. OR WOULD YOU LIKE MORE OF AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AND THEN GO THROUGH THE QUESTIONS? MAYBE AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AND THEN WE CAN HIT SOME OTHER QUESTIONS. WE HAVE PERFECT. SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO HAVE A 46,700 FT FOOT SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT USE, WHICH IS GOING TO BE FOR AN EVENT CENTER AT THIS PROPERTY, AND SO I WANTED TO SPEAK TO THE, UM TO THE GENTLEMAN WHO SAID THAT HE'S SEEN IT A COUPLE TIMES BEFORE. THIS HAS COME BEFORE FOR ZONING REQUESTS, AND THE ZONING REQUEST WAS ULTIMATELY WITHDRAWN . WHENEVER A PROPERTY IS GETTING REZONED. THAT'S WHENEVER YOU GET ALL OF THE NOTIFICATION. YOU GET THE NEWSPAPER YOU GET THE PO YOU GET THE SIGNS. THE APPLICANT CAME BACK. THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED FROM 1997 AND IN 1997 EVENTS CENTER WAS PERMITTED, BUT THEY HAD TO MEET THE 97 REQUIREMENTS. AND SO THE APPLICANT WENT BACK. AND, UH, REDID HIS ENTIRE SITE PLAN TO MAKE SURE THAT IT MEETS THE 1997 REQUIREMENTS, UH, WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH A REZONING PROCESS. UNDER THE 1997 REQUIREMENTS. THERE IS THE REQUIREMENT TO COME BEFORE PLANNING AND ZONING AND CITY COUNCIL. FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF THAT SITE PLAN, SO IT IS VERY SIMILAR TO PLOTS IN THAT REGARD WHERE Y'ALL WOULD BE THE ADMINISTERIAL BODY THAT ESSENTIALLY SIGNS OFF ON THE SITE PLAN DUE TO IT BEING PART OF THAT 1997 STANDARD ZONING. UM

[00:10:08]

SO WANTED TO TOUCH BASE ON UH, ENTERTAINMENT VENUE HOW MANY PEOPLE SO THAT WOULD BE DETERMINED AT TIME OF THE BUILDING PERMIT? I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHAT THE MAX OCCUPANCY LOAD IS GOING TO BE. WE HAVE ONLY SEEN THE SITE PLAN. WE HAVE NOT SEEN THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR THIS. AND SO WE WOULD NOT HAVE AN APPROXIMATE OCCUPANCY LEVEL YET DUE TO THE FACT THAT, UM WE HAVE NOT SEEN THE FLOOR PLANS AS OF YET. UM, THE PROPERTY IS ONLY A SLATED TO BE 35 FT. TALL SO IT MEETS WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT IT IS WITHIN FROM THE 1997 PD.

ADDITIONALLY UH FOR THE POLLUTION, NOISE AND INTOXICATED, UM PEOPLE. WE DO HAVE OUR NOISE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS IN EFFECT FOR ALL PROPERTIES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL USES, SO THEY WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE IN EFFECT FOR ANY KIND OF NOISE ABATEMENT, WHICH THE CITY OF MCKINNEY WOULD HAVE FULL EFFECT TO BE ABLE TO GO OUT AND STOP ANY KIND OF NOISE THAT WOULD BE COMING OUT OF THAT PROPERTY BECAUSE IT AUTOMATICALLY APPLIES TO BEING SO CLOSE TO THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. POLLUTION UM YES, SIR. WHAT WOULD BE THE HOURS AND DECIBELS OR WHATEVER. FOR THE NOISE. I CAN PULL THE DECIBELS IF YOU WILL GIVE ME JUST A SECOND.

SO AT NO POINT OF THE BOUNDING PROPERTY LINE OF A RESIDENTIAL USE SHALL THE SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL OF ANY OPERATION OR ACTIVITY EXCEEDS 65 DECIBELS FOR DAYTIME HOURS AND 58 FOR NIGHTTIME HOURS? AND THE HOURS OF OPERATION. DAYTIME HOURS REFER TO 6 A.M. TO 9 P.M. AND THEN THE NIGHT TIME HOURS WOULD BE THE 9 P.M. TO 6 P.M. AND WHAT ABOUT THE LIGHT ORDINANCE, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW ALL OF OUR LIGHTING ORDINANCES. WELL AND SO THEY WOULD NOT, UM, THEY WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW ALL OF THOSE SPECIALTY REQUIREMENTS. EVERYTHING HAS TO BE DIRECTED AWAY FROM IT WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW, DO NOT GLARE INTO NEIGHBORS' YARDS. UM THERE'S VERY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS THEY WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW. THANK YOU. SORRY TO INTERRUPT. NO, NO, NO, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. UM AND THEN LAST ITEM I WANTED TO TOUCH ON WAS THE NOTE IN REGARDS TO SHARED PARKING. SO THIS PROPERTY UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T HAVE A SITE PLAN IN FRONT OF ME. UM THIS PROPERTY IS BROKEN UP INTO THREE LOTS. AND SO UNDER OUR SHARED PARKING REQUIREMENTS, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO, UM, HAVE YOUR PARKING OFF SITE WITHOUT A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT. THIS IS THE REQUIREMENT IS JUST DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT'S ALREADY LAUDED INTO THREE SEPARATE LOTS.

IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR LESSER PARKING STANDARDS. THEY'RE JUST SAYING OUR PROPERTY IS LAUDED DIFFERENTLY. WE HAVE TO HAVE OUR SHARED PARKING ON PROPERTY WE OWN JUST ON THE DIFFERENT LAW. PARKING MEETS OUR REQUIREMENT. IT MEETS OUR REQUIREMENT IF THEY HAVE THE SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT, WHICH STAFF HAS NO OPPOSITION TO SINCE THEY OWN ALL OF THE PARCELS.

CAITLIN UH ARE ARE YOU ABLE TO SPEAK TO THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE? UH, TO IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE 1987. OF COURSE SO HARRY. IS THERE ANY WAY TO PULL UP THE SITE PLAN? SO ORIGINALLY THEY WERE WANTING TO HAVE, UH AN EVENT VENUE THAT WAS CLOSER TO THE ROADWAY FRONTAGE. THERE WAS A VERY SPECIFIC ZONING REQUIREMENT THAT STATED THAT THERE'S NO TOUCHING OF THE CREEK AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE. IF YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE INTERMITTENT CHANGES, BUT THERE IS A THERE IS A VERY SPECIFIC CREEK REQUIREMENT THAT THEY ARE NOW ADHERING TO WHERE THEY WERE NOT GOING TO TOUCH THE CREEK. THERE'S UM IT'S VERY SPECIFIC IN THAT 1997 ORDINANCE, SO IT PUSHED EVERYTHING BACK. YES, IT'S STILL THE SAME SCALE OF EVENT VENUE. I BELIEVE I'D

[00:15:03]

HAVE TO LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO THAT. OK, THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OVERNIGHT STAYING SUITES? UH, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO THE APPLICANT ON THAT. IT IS ONLY SLATED FOR EVENT CENTER EVENT CENTER DOES NOT HAVE AN OVERNIGHT COMPONENT. THANK YOU.

WHAT WAS THE HOURS OF OPERATION BE? I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER THAT TO THE APPLICANT. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEIR FULL OPERATION HOURS ARE GONNA BE. THERE'S NOT A RESTRICTION FOR THE CITY FOR THE HOURS, NOT AS PART OF THE CITY THEY WOULD FALL UNDER THE NOISE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS, AND BUT WE DON'T HAVE A REQUIREMENT FOR WHAT KIND OF HOURS BUSINESS OPERATE AT AND CAITLIN. IT APPEARS THAT THE ONLY ACCESS IS OFF VIRGINIA PARKWAY. THANK YOU, TERRY. UH, ACCESS WILL BE OFF OF VIRGINIA PARKWAY. AND THEN THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINT HERE OFF OF LAKE FOREST.

AND THEN HERE IN STONEBROOK, WHICH ARE ENGINEERING AND FIRE DEPARTMENT HAVE ALL REVIEWED THE SITE PLAN. HERE. UM THANK YOU. IT KEEPS MOVING THE PLAN WHILE I'M DRAWING ON IT. THE CHALLENGING. FOR THE QUESTIONS. ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT? KATE, YOU SAID THE APPLICANT IS HERE. MAYBE OK? GOOD EVENING. EXCUSE ME. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS STEVE HOLMER. I'M THE CIVIL ENGINEER ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. I HAD A COUPLE. I'M ONE OF THE OPPOSITION. SUPPORT PAPERS THAT THEY SUBMITTED. SCISSORS BUT THERE MIGHT BE SOME OVERNIGHT SUITES. ARE THERE ANY OVERNIGHT STAYING IN THIS VENUE IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN THAT WE PRESENTED A COUPLE OF YEARS BACK ? YES THERE WERE FOUR SUITES THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR OVERNIGHT STAY. I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY ARE IN THERE AT THIS PRACTICE IN THIS PARTICULAR PLAN. AND, UH, WHAT ABOUT THE PERMIT FOR A NUMBER OF PEOPLE? LIKE CAITLIN SAID THE ARCHITECT IS WORKING ON THE ACTUAL SPACE PLANNING OF THAT. SO I. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OCCUPANTS WILL ACTUALLY HAVE. BUT WE ARE PART FOR I BELIEVE 300. AMERICANS. FOR 448 PARKING SPACES. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? I AM CURIOUS TO KNOW WHAT IS KIND OF THE INTERIOR FORMAT OF THE THREE DIFFERENT BUILDINGS, IT SAYS, INDOOR AMUSEMENT VENUE, BUT WHAT'S KIND OF, UM TOWARDS HOW DO WE EXPLAIN THIS THING OUT? THIS IS JUST DRAWN A THE PENCIL. I JUST WANT CAN YOU MOVE IT UP A LITTLE BIT. PERFECT. SO EACH BUILDING WILL ACTUALLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE A AN EVENT HELD WITHIN THE DEAL WITH EACH EACH UNIT AND THEN THERE IS ALSO A KITCHEN AREA IN THE MIDDLE OF OR IN THE SET IN THE MIDDLE BUILDING AND A SECONDARY FOOD PREP. IN THE SMALL OUTBUILDING THAT'S RIGHT BEHIND. THE MIDDLE, THE MIDDLE BUILDING. AND SO WHEN WE ORIGINALLY GIVE YOU A LITTLE HISTORY WHEN WE ORIGINALLY CAME IN, WE WERE LOOKING AT ABOUT 50 60,000 SQUARE FEET. OF ONE BUILDING ON THE SITE, AND WE HAD IT SITUATED, UH, KIND OF CLOSER TO THE COMMERCIAL AREAS, WHICH REQUIRED REZONING BECAUSE IT WAS OUTSIDE OF THE AREAS THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED BASED ON THE EXISTING ZONING. AND SO, UH, WE CAME IN WITH OUR ORIGINAL PLAN AND IT DID NOT MEET WITH THE FAVOR OF THE CITIZENS, AND SO WE CAME BACK WITH A SECOND PLAN, AND ULTIMATELY, THAT ONE WAS WITHDRAWN. UM BECAUSE AGAIN, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE SUPPORT FROM THE CITIZENS. WE CAME BACK WITH THIS PLAN THAT YOU SEE TONIGHT THAT'S IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PLAN OR THE ZONING THAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE 1997. SO IN THIS ONE. THE REASON WE HAVE THREE BUILDINGS IS THERE'S A LIMITATION ON EACH BUILDING, NOT EXCEEDING 15,000 SQUARE FEET. SO EACH OF THE BUILDINGS ARE LESS THAN THE 15,000 FT IN ORDER TO

[00:20:05]

MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. THE PARKING AS IT EXISTS RIGHT THERE . DOES IT INCLUDE THE WAS IT TWO OR THREE RETAIL BUILDINGS UP ALONG THE ROAD? IS THAT ALL WITHIN THE ZONING OR THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. RIGHT. THE UP IN THE LOT. ONE AREA. UM THE BUILDING. PRIMARILY WHAT CAN I ANNOTATE ON THIS? THE BUILDING WOULD BE IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA , OK, AND THE BUILDING WOULD BE IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA FOR THIS LOT. UH, WITH PARKING BEING PROVIDED IN THESE PARTICULAR AREAS, SO THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR THOSE TO THOSE BUILDINGS FOR BUILDING THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE SHARED PARKING IS IT CAN'T TAKE AWAY FROM THE PARKING REQUIRED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ON THOSE LOTS, SO THE PARKING THAT'S BEING PROVIDED IS IN ADDITION TO THOSE REQUIREMENTS. ANYONE ELSE? THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MOTIONS DISCUSSIONS. WELL, WE HARD LEVEL OF THINKING AND HERE COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT OPTIONS WE HAVE AS A COMMISSION? WHEN ACTING ON THIS ITEM? OF COURSE. SO LIKE I NOTED EARLIER, THIS IS COMING BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND THEN THE CITY COUNCIL DUE TO THE 1997 ZONING REQUIRING THAT SITE PLANS BE REVIEWED BY PLANNING AND ZONING AND CITY COUNCIL. UNDER THAT ORDINANCE, IT IS JUST A CONSENT ITEM. IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO WHEN Y'ALL WOULD SEE PLATS SO ADMINISTRATIVE BODY FOR APPROVING THIS CURRENTLY. SO YOU COULD DEFINITELY, UM STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CONSIDERED DISCUSSION ACT AS IT SET FORTH. BUT IF THERE ARE ANY OPTIONS THAT YOU ALL WOULD LIKE TO SEE STAFF CAN DISCUSS THAT WITH YOU ALL BUT THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE. SO THE ITEM MEETS THE ORDINANCE. CORRECT IT MEETS ALL ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. THE APPLICANT HAS MET EVERY PIECE OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE ENGINEERING AND, UM ZONING. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. I, UM AGREE WITH THE DUMPSTERS. I MEAN, THEY'RE THEY'RE LOUD. NASTY. THEY WERE ME. CAN YOU NOT FIND SOMEWHERE ELSE TO PUT THEM? LOOK AT SOUTHEAST CORNER. CLOSER TO THE.

I THINK THEY NEED TO GO SOMEWHERE SOMEWHERE ELSE. I AGREE WITH THAT. FIGHT BACK AGAINST MY PERSONAL COMMENT IS THAT IS YOUR THIRD TIME COMING BEFORE PLANNING AND ZONING AND SOMETIMES THREE TIMES CAN BE A CHARM, BUT I AM ALSO LOOKING AT THE AMOUNT OF THE CENTER IS FROM THE LOCAL HOMEOWNERS. AND PERHAPS THERE'S YET ANOTHER. IR THAT YOU CAN COME UP WITH ANOTHER LAYOUT OR PERHAPS EVEN IN A DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVE. PERSONALLY I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE BEST USE OF THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY AND I WOULD VOTE FOR THIS TO BE DISAPPROVED.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE ANSWER YOUR QUESTION WOULD BE NO. THE FULL ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURAL MEPS FOR THESE THREE BUILDINGS ARE MULTIPLE BUILDINGS AND AS SOON AS THIS PLAN IS APPROVED THROUGH THE PROCESSES WILL BE SUBMITTING THE APPROPRIATE PLANS FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT AND SALES. QUESTIONS NOTIONS. MY CONCERN IS THAT THREE TIMES THAT WE KNOW AND UM WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO SOMETHING WITH THAT CORNER FOR YEARS. AND IF WE HAD TO GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO 1997 THE APPLICANT. I'M LOOKING FOR A WAY THAT WE CAN MAKE IT WORK. AND IT

[00:25:07]

IS JUST THE DUMPSTERS. AND I WOULD SAY THAT'S JUST TO PROVE WHAT, UM STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED I DISAGREE. BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE THERE IS A PLAN THAT FITS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE YEAR DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IT'S THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE FOR THE PROPERTY. THIS IS A GREAT PLAN.

I AM NOT COUNTING YOUR YOUR PLANNING AND YOUR PROPOSAL. I'M NOT DISCOUNTING YOUR PROPOSAL THAT YOU'VE PUT FORTH. IT IS JUST THE LOCATION WHERE THIS IS, IT'S NOT ANYWHERE NEAR A COUPLE OF PEOPLE HAVE PUT FORTH. IT'S NOT NEAR ANY HOTEL ACCOMMODATIONS. IT'S NOT NEAR ANY OTHER RESTAURANTS. UM THE HOMEOWNERS CONCERNS ABOUT YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING AT THE PARKING AND HOW IT'S LAID OUT. YOU HAVE A LARGE PARKING LOT OVER ON THE, UM SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY, AND IF PEOPLE ARE LEAVING ANY OF THE OTHER LOTS, AND THEY'RE PARKED IN THOSE OTHER ADJACENT LOTS AND IF THEY ARE INEBRIATED AND GET LOST, THEY COULD END UP OUT ON VIRGINIA PARKWAY OUT ON LAKE FOREST. I JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE THIS IS THE BEST LOCATION FOR THIS TYPE OF VENUE. AND I STILL STAND BY MY DECISION. OK, SO YOU'RE SAYING IT'S PRETTY INTRUSIVE. I AGREE. I DO BELIEVE SO. YOU SAID THAT THE METAL BUILDING HAS A KITCHEN. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. NOT COOKING ANYTHING FOR OFF-SITE. OFF SITE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE FACILITIES HERE. YEAH AND THE YOU COULD FIND A PLACE NEXT TO LIKE FORCE DRIVE FOR THE DUMPSTER. I THINK THAT WOULD BE I THINK WE CAN SWAP INS. SWAP THE ANSWER FOR THE PARKING AS LONG AS PLANNING WOULDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE DUMPSTERS BEING IN PROXIMITY TO LAKE FOREST. WE CAN DEFINITELY WORK WITH YOU ON THAT. WE? I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH AS LONG AS WE CAN FIND THE 40 FT OF BACKING. OK? MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE THIS ITEM. NEXT MEETING. IF A MOTION MEMBERS TO ORDER TO TABLE THE ITEM IN A SECOND BY MR LA K AND POINT OF CLARIFICATION HERE WHEN WE SAY TERRIBLE DOES THAT MEAN INDEFINITELY UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING, OR WHAT WOULD YOU RECOMMEND? I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE TABLE TO A DATE SPECIFIC DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE DO NOT HAVE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SITE PLAN. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, WE'RE VERY CLEAR ON WHEN THIS IS GOING TO COME BACK. SO I WOULD RECOMMEND DATE SPECIFIC TO THE VERY NEXT MEETING, WHICH I BELIEVE IS THE 26TH. OF APRIL OR MARCH. OK? SO THE MOTION COULD INCLUDE TABLING UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR SCHEDULE, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. CORRECT. YES, SIR. YOU GOOD WITH THAT? COULD YOU ENCOURAGE THE OWNER TO BE HERE? THERE'S A LOT OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS. WELL, WE CAN DEFINITELY WORK ON THAT. YES, SIR. AND THIS IS ONLY TO TABLE THE SITE PLAN, RIGHT? TABLING THE SITE PLAN, RIGHT? WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE THE ITEM 22-0020 SP UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR SCHEDULE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. I, MISS WOODARD. SECOND, I LAB. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS CAST YOUR VOTES. I. THAT MOTION CARRIES MY VOTE OF SEVEN IN FAVORING ZERO AGAINST THE O HAS BEEN TABLED UNTIL CAITLIN. MARCH MARCH, 26 THE FOURTH TUESDAY OF THE MONTH. MR CHAIRMAN. YES. WE MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THE RESIDENTS UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WON'T BE GETTING ANYTHING IN THE AND NOTIFICATION, RIGHT? AND JUST LIKE THIS, THIS LAST LAST CASE OK? UH, THE NEXT ITEM 22-0119 Z,

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Zone the Subject Property to “PD” - Planned Development District, Generally to Allow for Multi-Family Residential Uses and Single Family Attached Residential Uses, and to Modify the Development Standards, Located on the North Side of FM 1461 and Approximately 3,700 Feet East of FM 2478]

A PUBLIC HEARING. TO CONSIDER REQUESTS TO REZONE A PROPERTY FROM PD TO ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AND SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL USES TO MODIFY THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. THIS IS AT THE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FM 1461. 3700 FT EAST OF FM 2478.

MS SHEFFIELD, THANK YOU. CAN YOU PULL UP THE PRESENTATION, PLEASE?

[00:30:12]

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, CAITLIN SHEFFIELD, SENIOR PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. APPLICANT TONIGHT IS REQUESTING TO ZONE APPROXIMATELY 74 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY FOR MULTIFAMILY, RESIDENTIAL AND SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED. USES IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT THERE IS AN EXISTING PRE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST ALIGNS WITH SAID AGREEMENT. ADDITIONALLY AN ASSOCIATED VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION REQUESTS WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS WELL AS THIS ZONING REQUEST AT THE APRIL THES PROVIDED A CONCEPT PLAN HERE.

THERE WE GO. ALRIGHT SO THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED CONCEPT PLAN THAT DIVIDES THIS PROPERTY INTO TWO SEPARATE TRACKS. T ONE IS GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FUTURE STONEBRIDGE THAT BISECTS THE PROPERTY THERE ARE SHOWN IN WHITE AND FM 1461 THAT IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY. T ONE IS APPROXIMATELY 41.62 ACRES. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO ZONE THIS TRACK TO TR 1.8 TOWN HOME RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR THOSE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL USES. WITH THIS REQUEST THE APPLICANTS PROPOSING A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 12 UNITS TO THE ACRE NOT TO EXCEED 140 UNITS IN TOTAL. UM, ADDITIONALLY AS DEPICTED ON TRACK, ONE WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN, APPROXIMATELY 7.28 ACRES. UM IN TOTAL WILL BE DEDICATED AS AND DEDICATION. THIS IS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE EXISTING PRE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT THAT I MENTIONED PRIOR. THE EXACT LOCATION AND LAYOUT WILL BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRACT. TRACK TWO NOTED IN PINK. THIS IS GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT FUTURE, STONE BRIDGE ROAD AND FM 1461.

THE APPLICANTS PROPOSING MF 30 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO ALLOW MULTIFAMILY USES WITH THIS. THIS WOULD INCLUDE A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 30 UNITS TO THE ACRE, WHICH ALIGNS WITH THAT STANDARD ZONING DISTRICT. BUT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO INCLUDE A MAXIMUM UNIT COUNT OF 600 UNITS TOTAL A STAFF IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROPOSED REQUEST SHOULD CREATE A QUALITY DEVELOPMENT THAT IT WILL BLEND IN THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPMENTS IN EXISTENCE TODAY.

ADDITIONALLY THE PROPOSED REZONING EXCUSE ME OF THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST ALIGNS WITH THE EXISTING PRE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT AND ASKED US SUCH STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND I WILL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, CAITLIN. MEMBERS MAY HAVE QUESTIONS. NO, WE'RE GOOD, CAITLIN. THANK YOU, SIR. APPLICANT HERE TONIGHT. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS SCOTT. I'M WITH BLUE STAR LAND. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY. I'D BE GLAD TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE AT THIS TIME. ONE. WE HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING AS YOU'VE LABELED POTENTIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION. SO CAN YOU DEFINE WHAT THAT MEANS? HAVE TALKED TO THE PARKS DEPARTMENT ABOUT A DONATION OR IS THIS IS A THIS IS A DONATION TO THE TOWN UNDER THE STANDARD TOWN PARK AGREEMENT, WE AS CAITLIN MENTIONED, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE STAFF NOW FOR GOING ON A YEAR. NOW I BELIEVE, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE, UH FOCUSED A LOT ON WAS THE PARKLAND DEDICATION WITH THE TOWN. AS YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY NOT BEING ANNEXED, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO GO OUT THERE AND DEVELOP IT. FULLY DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE PARKLAND. DEDICATION UH, WE FEEL THAT IT'S IN OUR BOTH PARTIES' BEST INTERESTS TO PARTNER TOGETHER AND CREATE A QUALITY DEVELOPMENT IN THE TOWN. AND SO, LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE MET WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT AND WE AGREED UPON THIS AMOUNT OF LAND AND EVEN THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY THAT THEY WANTED FOR THE PARKLAND. DEDICATION THEY HAVE AGREED TO. ABSOLUTELY YES.

THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS. WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IF THERE IS

[00:35:01]

ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS PLANNING AND ZONING REGARDING THIS PROPOSED REZONE, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE T 20119 Z.

INCLUDING SPECIAL ORDINANCE PROVISIONS BY STAFF. THE MOTION BY MR LEBEAU TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND IMPROVE THE ITEM FIRST STAFF RECOMMENDATION, INCLUDING ANY SPECIAL AUDITS.

PROVISIONS INCLUDED IN THAT STAFF REPORT. MR WHATLEY. ANY DISCUSSION. THESE CAST YOUR VOTE. I. BUT THAT MOTION IS APPROVED AND THAT WILL GO ON TO CITY COUNCIL. WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. UH, THIS IS THE APRIL 2ND 2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. AND UH, THERE YOU WILL HAVE FINAL ACTION AT THAT MEETING. THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS 2411 PUBLIC

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Rezone the Subject Property from “AG” - Agriculture District and “HC” - Highway Commercial Overlay District to “C3” - Regional Commercial District, “MF30” - Multi-Family Residential District, and “HC” - Highway Commercial Overlay District, Located Approximately 450 Feet East of Terry Lane and on the South Side of West University Drive]

HEARING TO CONSIDER A REASONABLE PROPERTY. DISTRICT AND HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL TO C THREE RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. MULTIFAMILY IN EIGHT C HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT.

THIS IS AT EAST OF TERRY LANE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF, UH HIGHWAY 380. AND YOU'RE NOT MR BENNETT.

I AM NOT MR BENNETT. I AM ARI WITH THE CITY OF MCKINNEY PLANNER TODAY. I PRESENT TO YOU A REQUEST FOR A REASON FOR APPROXIMATELY 37 ACRES. UH, THE REQUEST IS TO ZONE THE PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL AND HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT TO C THREE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND MF, 30 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND HC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE MENTIONED THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED 450 FT. EAST OF TERRY LANE AND SOUTH SIDE OF WEST UNIVERSITY DRIVE. THE INTENT IS TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL GENERALLY FOR COMMERCIAL USES ALONG THIS AREA HERE. IT'S ABOUT FIVE POINT UH, 17 ACRES OF LAND AND THE APPROXIMATELY 32.238 ACRES LOCATED HERE, UM, GENERALLY FOR, UH, MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES. THE REQUEST ALIGNS WITH THE EXISTING GENERAL FOOTPRINT OF COMMERCIAL IN THE AREA THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY AND ALSO WITHIN THIS AREA ALONG US HIGHWAY, 30, OR UNIVERSITY D CORRIDOR IS ALREADY HOME TO A VARIETY OF HIGHER INTENSITY COMMERCIAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL USES. STAFF IS COMFORTABLE THAT THE ADDITIONAL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE WILL BE COMPLEMENTARY TO THE AREA. YOU HAVE RECEIVED AT LEAST, UH, THREE LETTERS, UH FROM, UH, CITIZENS IN OPPOSITION TO THE CASE. THOSE WHO PROVIDE TO YOU. AND WITH THAT INFORMATION STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST AND I STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, ARI. ANY QUESTIONS? VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. APPLICANT HERE TONIGHT. GRAYSON WILLIAMS FROM ABERNATHY, RODER, BOYD AND HOITZ, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS TO ADD. WE REQUEST RECOMMENDATION FOR THE COUNCIL. TO APPROVE. QUESTIONS OF THE ANYONE. THE QUESTION FIRST. THE PD. THAT'S TO THE IMMEDIATE EAST. WHAT IS THAT? EXACTLY. I DIDN'T SEE A PD TO THE EAST IS ZONED FOR MULTIFAMILY USES. ANYONE ELSE? MR WILLIAMS, WHO WE MAY HAVE QUESTIONS IN A MINUTE. SO IF YOU WILL HANG AROUND AND TAKES COPIOUS NOTES. WE WOULD APPRECIATE IT. VERY MUCH. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON IF YOU COME TO DINE, AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS PLANNING AND ZONING ON THIS PROPOSED REZONE IT, TERRY LANE IN HIGHWAY 380, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. HI MY NAME IS SARAH MEWS. UM I LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BACKING UP TO IT. OUR BACKYARD WOULD SHARE A FENCE OR TO SHARE A FENCE WITH THIS PROPERTY. UM OUR CONCERNS AS HOMEOWNERS WOULD BE PRIVACY. UM NOISE GENERALLY PRIVACY. WE HAVE A LINE OF TREES THAT WE

[00:40:05]

WOULD LIKE TO KEEP. WE ALSO DO NOT WANT TO SEE A FOUR STORY BUILDING IN OUR BACKYARD. AND I KNOW WITH THE, UM, DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST. THAT TWO STORIES AND THREE STORIES THAT GOT CHANGED. I THINK FROM FOUR STORIES TO BETTER SUIT THE COMMUNITY, SO I'D LIKE TO SEE NOT FOUR STORIES AND TO KEEP SOME PRIVACY OR HAVE SOME GREEN SPACE ADDED BETWEEN ANY MULTIFAMILY OR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS PLANNING AND ZONING TONIGHT REGARDING THIS PROPOSED REZONE? ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT MOTIONS. MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING THE MOTION MEMBER LEBOW TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SECONDED BY MR BEUTNER. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING? HE CAST YOUR VOTES.

I. THAT MOTION CARRIES A PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED. UH, MEMBERS. DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR OF THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. UM SO WHAT HEIGHT CAN BE BUILT IN THE MF 30? SO THEY HAVE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 55 FT FOUR STORY UM, FOR HIS FORCE. WELL THEY'RE ALLOWED IF THEY IF THEY DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF STORIES, THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR SETBACKS. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THEY BUILD ONE STORY, IT HAS TO BE SET BACK. 30 FT WHEN ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL. IF IT IS FOUR STORIES, IT WOULD REQUIRE A 3 FT . SETBACK FOR EVERY FOOT OF HEIGHT. SO WE COULD BE LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY IF THEY DO A FOUR STORIES OUT OF 55. FT 165 FT OF DISTANCE. THANK YOU. OR JUST A QUESTION TO CLARIFY THE QUESTION BEFORE US TONIGHT IS ZONING APPROVAL VERSUS A SITE PLAN APPROVAL. CORRECT CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHEN THE SITE PLAN MIGHT BE AVAILABLE FOR SOMEONE TO SEE AND WEIGH IN? SO IF IT'S A REQUIREMENT, KIND OF LIKE THE PREVIOUS CASE, WHERE IT REQUIRES THAT IT BE APPROVAL BY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL, USUALLY SITE PLANS ARE APPROVED AT A STAFF LEVEL. UNLESS THERE IS SOME KIND OF, UH , YOU KNOW, VARIANCE OR DESIGN EXCEPTION. IT CAN ALWAYS COME BACK FOR APPROVAL FOR ANY TYPE OF DEVIATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE. I'D ALSO LIKE TO TOUCH BASE ON ONCE THE ZONING IF IT IS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL, THE APPLICANT COULD SUBMIT A SITE PLAN AT ANY TIME AFTER THAT. SO VERY GOOD. SO FOR THE FOLKS WHOSE YARD WHOSE WHOSE BACKYARDS WERE FACE TO THE NORTH. WITH I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT FOR A PERIMETER BORDER? SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF ITEMS ARE PROTECTIONS THAT ARE, UM, INITIATED WHEN THERE'S A JA C, WHICH WE CONSIDER MULTIFAMILY NON-RESIDENTIAL. SO WHEN YOU HAVE NON-RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL THERE'S REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDSCAPE BUFFER. TYPICALLY YOU REQUIRE ANYWHERE BETWEEN 10 FT. UM, ALSO, THERE'S SCREENING REQUIREMENTS TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF IDEA OF OTHER PROTECTIONS THAT ARE IN PLACE AS WELL. THERE'S ALSO A REQUIREMENT AGAINST RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY FOR A TREE PERIMETER ZONE. SO ANY TREE THAT IS SIX INCHES OR GREATER ON OUR QUALITY TREE LIST WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE TOUCHED. SO THERE'S A 15 FT ZONE AROUND ALL OF THOSE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT THOSE TREES ALONG THE PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE TAKEN DOWN. AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE QUALITY TREE SO SIX INCHES OR GREATER QUALITY TREE.

THANK YOU. AND THE HATH REQUIREMENT ISSUE IF THAT WAS TO BE ADDRESSED TO LOWER IT FROM A 55 FT TO TWO OR THREE STORY WOULD THAT BE NOW OR WHEN THEY SUBMIT THE SITE PLAN? THEY COULD SUBMIT A LOWER STORY AT THAT TIME? UH, IF THEY ARE ZONED AS MF 30, THEY ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT TO GO TO 55 AND UP TO FOUR STORIES. IS ONLY THROUGH A PD THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THE LIMITATIONS. OTHER QUESTIONS. ANYONE. ALL RIGHT MOTIONS. WE HAVE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS. I MOVED CLOSE BY HEARING. WE'VE ALREADY DONE THAT. OH, YEAH, I SEE. LET ME GO

[00:45:09]

HERE. ANY MORE QUESTIONS OF STAFF WHERE THE APPLICANT. MOTION. MIDDLE OCEAN THAT WE APPROVE. FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS AND STAFF. IF MOST AMOUNTS TO BE TO APPROVE THE ITEM IS FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION. SECOND SECOND, MR WOODARD. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? CAST YOUR VOTE. I YES. WHAT THIS MOTION CARES ABOUT A SEVEN IN FAVOR AND ZERO AGAINST AND WILL BE SENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. ON APRIL 2 2024. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS THAT HAVE A FEW MORE ITEMS TO GO THROUGH. FIRST WOULD BE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE. TO ADDRESS PLANNING, ZONING ON ANYTHING THAT IS NOT ON OUR AGENDA. BE NOT RUSSIA UP HERE AT ONCE. UH, ALL RIGHT, MEMBERS, ANYTHING ANNOUNCEMENTS. ONE

[COMMISSION AND STAFF COMMENTS]

ANNOUNCEMENT. WE HAVE THE MCKINNEY SHAMROCK RUN HAPPENING THIS WEEKEND FOR ANYBODY WHO'S GOING TO BE OUT THERE. WILL BE OUT THERE. PARTICIPATING SHAMROCK RUN, OK, ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD. ANYTHING FROM STAFF. UH, NOTHING. WE'RE JUST EXCITED. COMMISSION MEMBER HAMMOCK IS NOW ONE OF THANK YOU, GINA. WELCOME WE'RE GLAD TO HAVE YOU. THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE YOU GUYS VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. WE DO NEED A MOTION TO ADJOURN. MOVED MR WHATLEY MOVES AWAY. ADJOURNED SECONDED BY MR TAYLOR. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE AYE, THOSE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

Mar 12, 2024 Planning & Zoning Commission

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item