[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Specific Use Permit Request for Outdoor Commercial Entertainment (McKinney Badminton Facility), Located at 8800 Silverado Trail, and Accompanying Ordinance]

ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM, 240007 SUPP TWO. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ACT ON SPECIFIC USE PERMIT REQUESTS FOR OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL ENTERTAINMENT. MCKINNEY BADMINTON FACILITY LOCATED AT 8800 SILVER TRAIL AND ACCOMPANYING ORDINANCE.

JENNIFER. THAT IS THE WAY TO WRITE AN ITEM. NICE AND SHORT, RIGHT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. MAYOR. JENNIFER ARNOLD, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, AS YOU READ, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR SPECIFIC USE

[00:25:01]

PERMIT FOR AN OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL ENTERTAINMENT FACILITY. MCKINNEY BADMINTON. THERE WE GO. OKAY, SO AS YOU NOTED, WELL, AS YOU READ, IT'S AN SOP FOR OUTDOOR FACILITY. THE UNDERLYING ZONING ON THE PROPERTY IS C2 LOCAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, WHICH DOES REQUIRE CONSIDERATION OF AN SUPP FOR THAT OUTDOOR COMPONENT TO BE INCLUDED. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THAT SUPP REQUEST. THE AREA IS GENERALLY DEVELOPED AS COMMERCIAL. WE NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH. HOWEVER, WITH THE ROADWAY SEPARATION, ALL OF THE STANDARD NUISANCE ORDINANCES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, WE HAVE HERE IN THE CITY, WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS THAT IT WOULD CAUSE ANY NUISANCE FOR THOSE RESIDENTS. AND THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PROPOSED MEET THE CITY'S ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES, AS SUCH, WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR JENNIFER? IS THE APPLICANT HERE? COME UP AND ADD TO THAT PRESENTATION. ALL RIGHT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME TONIGHT. MY NAME IS MIKE LIZZIE WITH CROSS ARCHITECTS ON BEHALF OF THE CLIENT WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1255 WEST 15TH STREET, AS JENNIFER RIGHTLY POINTED OUT, THIS IS A MODIFICATION OF THE SITE AS IT STANDS OVER HERE. LET'S SEE IF I CAN ADVANCE THAT. AND THE CRUX OF THE CONVERSATION TONIGHT IS REALLY THE ADDITION OF THIS OUTDOOR COMPONENT RIGHT HERE, WHICH IS SOME PICKLEBALL COURTS TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROPERTY. SO SLIGHT RECONFIGURATION OF PARKING IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THAT AND REALLY JUST RESPOND TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY, WHICH HAD REQUESTED PICKLEBALL COURTS IN ADDITION TO THE BADMINTON COMPONENTS, IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL RESERVE THE REMAINDER OF THE TIME TO ANSWER THEM. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? WHAT ARE YOUR HOURS OF OPERATION? THE HOURS OF OPERATION, FOR THE MOST PART, THEY FALL WITHIN BUSINESS HOURS. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE OPEN UNTIL, LIKE, MIDNIGHT OR ANYTHING CRAZY LIKE THAT. ALL THE PARKING, AS YOU CAN SEE, IS LOCATED AWAY FROM THE ADJOINING MULTIFAMILY COMPONENTS. AND THEN THERE IS AN OFFICE BUILDING THAT'S OWNED BY, A SEPARATE PROPERTY OWNER THAT IS TIED TO THIS GROUP. SO IT CREATES A BUFFER FOR THOSE ELEMENTS. ARE Y'ALL OPEN BEYOND, LIKE 10 P.M. ISH? NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. NO, MA'AM. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. SIR, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU SIR. SEEING NONE ENTERTAIN A MOTION, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS ITEM. SECOND, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES. I'M GOING TO TAKE THIS OUT OF ORDER, SINCE THE NEXT FIVE ARE RELATED, I'M GOING TO GO TO THE LAST ITEM FIRST 24 1675. CONSIDER AN ACT AN ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION, DETERMINING A PUBLIC NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY EASEMENT RIGHTS FOR THE PUBLIC, USE BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR A WATER LINE EASEMENT AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE INDEPENDENT PARKWAY 24 INCH WATER LINE PROJECT. WA 0210. WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE TERMINUS OF INDEPENDENCE PARKWAY NEAR VIRGINIA PARKWAY AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR ACQUIRING THE EASEMENTS ON SAID PROPERTY AND TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO ACQUIRE THE NEEDED PROPERTY RIGHTS AND COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS AND RESOLUTIONS. GARY NOT HERE. JUST I'M NOT MENTIONING. I THINK GARY MAY NOT HAVE ANTICIPATED THE REORDERING, SO HE PROBABLY WATCHING ONLINE AND I WAS TRYING TO GIVE HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO NOT BE HERE THROUGH ALL THE OTHER. SO I WILL APPARENTLY READ THIS AGAIN SHORTLY, WE WILL MOVE THEN BACK TO ORDER. ITEM NUMBER 241670. CONSIDER AN ACT ON AN APPEAL OF

[Consider/Discuss/Act on an Appeal of the Historic Preservation Advisory Board’s Action on a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for Demolition of a Building at 301 S Kentucky Street]

THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OF ADVISORY BOARDS. ACTION ON CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS COA FOR DEMOLITION OF A BUILDING AT 301 SOUTH KENTUCKY STREET. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, JENNIFER ARNOLD, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, AS YOU WELL NOTED, THERE ARE SEVERAL ITEMS IN A ROW THAT ARE ALL RELATED TO SORT OF THE SAME MASTER PROJECT, HOWEVER, THEY ARE INDEPENDENT REQUESTS, AND SO I WILL GO THROUGH THEM INDEPENDENTLY. WE DO HAVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION FOR EACH ONE, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE PROVIDING THE CONTEXT AND ORIENTATION FOR THE COUNCIL AND THE AUDIENCE, BUT BEYOND THAT, WE'RE AS A STAFF, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. SO AS YOU READ THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS AN APPEAL OF THE HPA B HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD'S, ACTION ON A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE STRUCTURE, OR, HOUSE AT 301 SOUTH KENTUCKY STREET, FOR THOSE IN THE

[00:30:03]

AUDIENCE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IS A MOUTHFUL. SO WE OFTEN CALL THOSE COAS. SO THAT'S WHAT I'LL REFER TO FROM HERE ON OUT, SO WITH THE REQUEST, IT WAS HEARD BEFORE THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD IN EARLY MAY, WHERE THE BOARD DENIED THE COA FOR THE DEMOLITION THAT APPLICANT IS NOW APPEALING THAT ACTION BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR RECONSIDERATION. SO JUST FOR SOME CONTEXT, THE STRUCTURE OR THE HOUSE AT 301 SOUTH KENTUCKY STREET WAS BUILT IN AROUND 1913. THE STYLE IS AN ARTS AND CRAFTS STYLE, AND IT WAS OR IS IT LISTED AS A LOW PRIORITY RATING ON OUR HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY. SO THE RATING THAT'S INCLUDED HERE WAS FROM THE 2015 SURVEY. AND WE DID PROVIDE FOR THE COUNCIL TONIGHT, THE UPDATED RATINGS BASED ON THAT 2023 HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY THAT WAS JUST COMPLETED. FOR THE RECORD, THE PRIORITY RATINGS FOR THESE PROPERTIES DID NOT CHANGE BETWEEN 2015 AND 2023. SO WHAT YOU HAVE FOR YOU IS SOME UPDATED PHOTOS, BUT THE RATINGS ARE THE SAME. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE AS PART OF A LARGER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. I DO WANT TO UNDERSCORE THAT THE COA BEFORE HP-IB IN MAY, AND THE COUNCIL TONIGHT IS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE REQUEST TO DEMOLISH THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE, THIS, IMAGE. HERE IS A NOTE FROM THE HOUSE MOVERS THAT THE APPLICANT HAD BEEN WORKING WITH FOR THE DEMOLITION OR THE MOVEMENT OF THE HOUSE, NOTING THAT WHAT THEY SEE AS THE CONDITION AND VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF THE WESTERN FACADE AND THE SOUTHWESTERN ELEVATION OF THE STRUCTURE. NORTHWEST AND EAST ELEVATIONS. AND THIS IS A PHOTO FROM THE 1985 HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY. I BELIEVE THAT'S THE LAST THAT I HAVE HERE. SO WITH DEMOLITION OR WITH APPEALS, STAFF DOES NOT MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL ON THOSE APPEALS. HOWEVER, WE DID PROVIDE FOR YOU OUR REVIEW AS PART OF THAT HP-IB ITEM THAT WENT IN MAY. SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WHETHER IT BE ABOUT THE REQUEST OR THE PROCEDURE. AND I KNOW OBVIOUSLY THE APPLICANT HERE AS WELL IS HERE AS WELL TO MAKE THEIR APPEAL. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU. WOULD THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME UP? MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. I'M BOB ROEDER, 1700 REDBUD, SUITE 300. MCKINNEY. ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER AND THE APPLICANT, IT. I WANT TO SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF MY TIME TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE PROCESS. THIS WILL. I WILL NOT REPEAT MYSELF WHEN WE GO THROUGH THESE OTHER ITEMS, BECAUSE THE PROCESS IS THE PROCESS IS THE PROCESS. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT OF MCKINNEY. AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, THE HISTORIC DISTRICT GOES FROM JUST EAST OF 75 ALL THE WAY TO MCDONALD STREET. SO IT COVERS A LARGE SWATH OF MCKINNEY. THE HISTORIC FOR ANYTHING THAT YOU DO WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, YOU'VE GOT TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, WHETHER IT'S NEW CONSTRUCTION, RENOVATION, DEMOLITION, REMOVAL, YOU NAME IT, YOU GOT TO HAVE A COA FOR IT. UNLESS IT'S A PRIVATE RESIDENCE AND ALL YOU'RE DOING IS PAINTING THE HOUSE. ESSENTIALLY THERE IS A PROCESS THAT YOU HAVE SET FORTH IN YOUR UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT OUTLINES MEANS HOW YOU GO ABOUT GETTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, WHO YOU FILE THE APPLICATION WITH, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU FILE THE APPLICATION? IT HAS IS IN THAT ORDINANCE, THE STANDARDS FOR THE CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. AND THEN IT HAS STANDARDS FOR THE RESPONSE TO THE APPLICANT, DEPENDING UPON WHETHER YOU GRANT THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS OR NOT, THIS PROPERTY IS ALSO LOCATED IN THE MCKINNEY TOWN CENTER DISTRICT, WHICH IS AN ORDINANCE THAT YOU PASSED IN 2013. THAT ORDINANCE CREATES ZONING FOR EVERYTHING WITHIN THAT FOOTPRINT, WHICH IS SMALLER THAN THE HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT, BUT STILL ENCOMPASSES A GREAT SWATH OF PROPERTY. AND THIS THESE PROPERTIES WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT TONIGHT ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN CORE. AND THE DOWNTOWN EDGE OF THE MTC. WE ARE NOT HERE TONIGHT

[00:35:06]

TO TALK ABOUT A PROJECT ASKED TO BE PLACED ON ANY OF THE PROPERTIES FOR WHICH THE COAS ARE REQUESTED. WE'RE HERE BECAUSE YOUR ORDINANCE REQUIRES US TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IN ORDER IN THIS CASE TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE AT 301 SOUTH KENTUCKY. THAT'S ALL WE'RE HERE ABOUT NOW, IN ORDER TO FILE OUR APPLICATION, WE HAD TO DO A SURVEY OF THE HOUSE. WE HAD TO GIVE SOME ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY. AND IF IT'S DEMOLITION, WE HAVE TO SHOW THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT CAPABLE OF BEING MOVED. PARDON ME, BEING MOVED. AND THAT'S WHAT THE MOVERS INFORMATION WAS FOR. AND THEN WE SUBMIT THAT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE AND AT THEIR DISCRETION, IT CAN GO BEFORE THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WHICH IN THIS CASE IT DID. BUT LET ME BACK UP A LITTLE BIT. MY CLIENT APPLIED FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO DEMOLISH THIS BUILDING IN 2022. THAT CERTIFICATE WAS WAS WAS CONSIDERED BY YOUR HBO, YOUR HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE, AND THE PROFESSIONALS THAT YOU HIRE THAT ARE YOUR EMPLOYEES THAT WORK IN THAT OFFICE. THEY APPLIED WHAT IS REQUIRED UNDER YOUR ORDINANCE. THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A COA SHOULD BE APPLIED OR SHOULD BE APPROVED OR NOT, AND IN THEIR OPINION, WE MET ALL THE CRITERIA AND THE COA WAS ISSUED TO PERMIT THE REMOVAL. NOW, THIS IS WHERE YOUR CITY ATTORNEY AND I, BECAUSE WE'RE ATTORNEYS, HAVE DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT THE EFFECT OF THAT 2022 COA THAT COA, ACCORDING TO YOUR HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE, EXPIRED IN ONE YEAR. AND SO BEFORE WE COULD GET THE WORK DONE THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE FOR THE NEXT STEPS IN THE PROCESS OF EVALUATING THE PROPERTY FOR OTHER USES THAT COA EXPIRED, THE CITY DIDN'T AGREE WITH MY ANALYSIS THAT IT SHOULD BE EXTENDED. AND SO WE WERE. WE WENT BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS. WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING. AS BEFORE, WE ENDED UP IN FRONT OF THE HPA. BE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT IN JUST A MINUTE. YOUR ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT WHEN A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IS BEING CONSIDERED, THAT THERE ARE CRITERIA THAT MUST BE FOLLOWED. ONE OF THOSE CRITERIA IS THAT THEY'VE SUPPOSED TO APPLY THE STANDARDS FROM THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR'S.

REGULATIONS ON REHABILITATION AND ALL OF THAT, ALL THE HISTORIC STUFF IN THE CASE OF THE 22 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPROPRIATENESS THAT WAS ISSUED FAVORABLY FROM YOUR OFFICE, THOSE STANDARDS WERE APPLIED BY YOUR PROFESSIONALS, AND THEY WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MET. OR PUT IT ANOTHER WAY, THEY DIDN'T VIOLATE ANY OF THOSE STANDARDS.

LOW PRIORITY FROM A HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE, IN YOUR HISTORIC INVENTORY, INCAPABLE OF BEING MOVED. AND AS A RESULT, THE DEMOLITION WAS APPROPRIATE. WHEN WE HAD THE HEARING BEFORE, I WASN'T PRESENT. BUT I DID LOOK AT THE VIDEO WHEN THE HEARING WENT BEFORE THE HPA BE. THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF THE STANDARDS THAT YOUR ORDINANCE REQUIRES BE APPLIED. THE DISCUSSION WAS GENERALLY AROUND WHAT KIND OF PROJECT IS GOING TO GO IN THERE AS A REPLACEMENT AND LET ME URGE YOU AT SOME POINT IN YOUR LIVES TO GO BACK AND READ YOUR OWN ORDINANCE ABOUT STANDARDS THAT ARE APPLIED HERE. THERE'S NOTHING IN THE STANDARDS ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO REPLACE IT. IT IS SIMPLY DOES IT MEET THE STANDARD TO BE DEMOLISHED OR DOES IT NOT? AND WE APPLY THESE CRITERIA. SO AFTER THE MAJORITY OF THE DISCUSSION AT THE BOARD MEETING REVOLVED AROUND IT'S GOING TO BE A FIVE STORY, WHICH IS INACCURATE, URBAN MULTIFAMILY PROJECT. THEN WE GOT A DENIAL BECAUSE THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD DIDN'T LIKE THAT REPLACEMENT USE. NOW I WILL TELL YOU THAT I HAVE DONE A PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS

[00:40:05]

OF DEMOLITION PERMITS IN THE CITY OF MCKINNEY BY THE HBO OR THE HPA BE. AND WITH ONE EXCEPTION, THAT WAS WITHDRAWN. THE DEMOLITION PERMITS HAVE BEEN APPROVED. INTERESTINGLY, THERE ARE THREE DEMOLITION PERMITS FOR THE PROPERTY THAT'S AT THE CORNER OF TENNESSEE AND DAVIS STREET, THE NORTHEAST CORNER THAT BUILDING WAS APPROVED TO BE DEMOLISHED SO THAT A CHURCH COULD BE BUILT THERE. WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS YOUR BOARD DIDN'T FOLLOW THE STANDARDS. THEIR DECISION WAS MADE UPON AN OUTCOME DETERMINATIVE POSITION. AND SO I THINK THEY'RE WRONG. SO I'M APPEALING TO YOU ON THIS IN THIS APPEAL TO APPLY THE STANDARDS RELY UPON YOUR PAID PROFESSIONALS AND GRANT THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. I DON'T BEGRUDGE THE FACT THAT THE CHURCH GOT ONE, GOT A DEMOLITION PERMIT THAT THAT MAY BE APPROPRIATE. BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING, THIS COMPARED TO THE OLD COX CHEVROLET BUILDING, WHICH MR. FRANKLIN, YOU WOULD RECOGNIZE, I WOULD SAY THERE'S QUITE A VARIANCE IN HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE. SO YOUR ORDINANCE, WE CAN, MR. HAUSER, AND I CAN HAVE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT DEFICIENCIES THAT I THINK EXIST IN YOUR ORDINANCE. BUT I'M JUST TELLING YOU, IF YOU APPLY THE STANDARDS IN YOUR OWN ORDINANCES, YOU SHOULD GRANT THIS CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. SO I'LL STOP HERE, AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. QUESTIONS FOR BOB. BOB, IS THIS HOUSE CURRENTLY OCCUPIED? THE HOUSE IS OCCUPIED. THANK YOU. ARE THEY RENTERS? THEY'RE. THEY'RE RENTERS. THEY ARE? YES ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. BOB. THANK YOU. COMMENTS I SAW YOU PULL YOUR MIC DOWN, SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE A COMMENT OR I'M TRYING TO THINK HOW TO ASK IT. AND I GUESS IT'S FOR JENNIFER.

THE APPLICATION OF STANDARDS THAT IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE 2022 APPROVAL AND NOT CONSIDERED IN THE HPA B'S DECISION, CAN YOU DEFINE WHAT THAT IS OR SO THE REFERENCES TO THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION AND PRESERVATION OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES. SO THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE 2022 REVIEW FOR STAFF. IT WAS ALSO PROVIDED TO THE HPA. I CAN'T SPECULATE ON HOW IN-DEPTH THEY WENT IN THEIR HOMEWORK REVIEW BEFORE THE BOARD MEETING, OR WHAT THEY MAY HAVE BEEN THINKING. I DON'T RECALL HOW MUCH DISCUSSION THERE WAS ABOUT THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS, BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT WITHIN OUR ORDINANCE, COAS ARE HELD TO THREE SORT OF THINGS TO CONSIDER, ONE BEING THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS, THE OTHER BEING THE PRESERVATION PRIORITY RATING OF THE STRUCTURE , AND THE THIRD BEING ANY DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE ESTABLISHED BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DEMOLITIONS AND RELOCATIONS, THE DESIGN STANDARDS DON'T NECESSARILY APPLY IN THESE TYPES OF CASES, BUT THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS AND THE PRESERVATION PRIORITY RATING, WHICH IS WHAT'S NOTED HERE, THAT LOW PRIORITY RATING, IT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT AND WE PROVIDE THOSE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS, PRINCIPLES TO THE BOARD. CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHERE THE EXPIRATION DATE FOR THOSE COAS WERE DOCUMENTED FOR THE APPLICANT? ABSOLUTELY. SO WHEN ANYBODY APPLIES FOR A COA, THERE IS AN APPLICATION PACKET. AND AT THE FIRST PAGE OF THAT APPLICATION PACKET IS A SERIES OF BULLET POINTS THAT, ESSENTIALLY SAY. BY BY SUBMITTING AND SIGNING THIS APPLICATION, WE AFFIRM OR I CAN'T REMEMBER WHETHER IT SAYS AFFIRM OR AGREE WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE LISTED HERE AND THAT EXPIRATION DATE IS ONE OF THE ITEMS ON THAT BULLETED LIST, AND THAT EXPIRATION DATE IS ONE YEAR. THAT'S THE STANDARD ONE YEAR. IF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION HAS NOT BEEN STARTED. SO AND FOR US, WE WOULD LOOK AT THAT AS THE PERMIT FOR IT. THANK YOU JENNIFER. SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE, I'LL BE FORTHRIGHT AND TELL YOU THAT I DON'T I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF

[00:45:07]

THE PROJECT THAT I'VE SEEN ON THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY, JUST LIKE EVERYONE HERE THAT HAS SPOKEN AND JUST LIKE THE SUCCESSFUL EMAIL CAMPAIGN WE HAD THRUST UPON US OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS, WHAT I DON'T LIKE MORE THAN THAT, THOUGH, IS HYPOCRISY. AND I DON'T LIKE IT FOR MYSELF AND I DON'T. I JUST CAN'T ALLOW MYSELF TO BE HYPOCRITICAL AND, ALTHOUGH I DON'T LIKE THAT PROJECT ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, I KNOW THAT THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE.

AND AS I SAY THOSE WORDS, THEN I HAVE TO CHALLENGE MYSELF. WELL, THEN WHY ARE WERE YOU WHY WERE YOU PREPARED TO COME IN HERE AND VOTE TO APPEAL? I MEAN, TO UPHOLD. AND THE TRUTH WOULD BE IF I DID THAT, IT WAS PURELY BECAUSE OF ALL THE, THE OUTCRY AND THE AND MY OWN PERSONAL DESIRE TO NOT SEE THAT THERE WHEN IN FACT, AGAIN, THIS PROCESS IN THIS, THE COAS ARE ABOUT THE DEMOLITION AND MOVING OF BUILDINGS, HOUSES THAT HAS BEEN DONE MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY TIMES. AND AND, AND HAD THE DEVELOPER NOT COME IN WITH A PROPOSED PROJECT THAT STIRRED UP ALL THIS EMOTION FOR YOU ALL AND ME, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT THERE EITHER. WE PROBABLY WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THEY WOULD HAVE COME IN AND ASKED FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO DEMOLISH. IF IT'S AN INHABITABLE BUILDING, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE AN INHABITED OR HABITED HABITABLE. EXCUSE ME RIGHT NOW, BUT I'M GOING TO TRUST THAT WITH THE STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN DONE AND THE DOCUMENTATION THAT WAS PROVIDED, THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S IT SHOULD BE HABITABLE, AND WE WOULD BE APPROVING THIS IN ANY OTHER CASE, IF THEY WERE CAME IN HERE WITH THEY THEY CAME WITH A PROPOSED PROJECT AND IT WAS A CRAFT STYLE HOME, BUT NEW AND NICER AND BETTER AND BETTER SHAPE. AND IT MET THE STANDARDS. PROBABLY NO ONE WOULD BE HERE SPEAKING AGAINST IT. SO WHY ARE WE AGAINST IT? WELL, WE'RE AGAINST IT FOR WHAT THEY WANT TO BUILD. IT TAKES ME TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HYPOCRISY THAT'S IN MCKINNEY TOWN CENTER. IT'S ACTUALLY ZONED NOW, NOT NECESSARILY THEIR PROJECT. I CAN'T I THINK THEIR PROJECT WOULD REQUIRE A NUMBER OF VARIANCES, WHICH I WOULD BE AGAINST BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT PROJECT THERE. BUT IF THEY WERE TO COME IN, IF THEY WERE TO, BUILD SOMETHING WITHOUT VARIANCES, WE ALL SHOULD BE IN A PLACE WHERE WE RESPECT THAT ZONING. I MEAN, SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT SPOKE HERE TONIGHT HAVE BEEN THE MOST OUTSPOKEN ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS. PROPERTY RIGHTS, PROPERTY RIGHTS, PROPERTY RIGHTS. DOES IT MATTER ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE, PROPERTY RIGHTS. UNTIL THEY DON'T LIKE THE USE, THEN WE DON'T CARE ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS. WE ONLY CARE ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS IF WE AGREE WITH IT. THAT'S T. HE HYPOCRISY I CAN'T LIVE WITH FOR ME. SO I'M OPPOSED TO WHAT'S BEING BUILT THERE. ON A PREFERENCE LEVEL, I KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION BEING ASKED OF ME TONIGHT. THE QUESTION BEING ASKED OF ME TONIGHT IS, IS THE IS THERE IS IT APPROPRIATE TO DEMOLISH THESE BUILDINGS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVEN UP TO BE NOT HABITABLE AND MOVE HOMES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE GRANTED? THAT'S THE QUESTION BEFORE ME. SO I WAS ACTUALLY PREPARED TO COME HERE TONIGHT AND BE HYPOCRITICAL AND VOTE TO UPHOLD. I WON'T, AND I'M FAIRLY CERTAIN THAT THAT MOTION WILL PASS. I'LL BE HAPPY THAT IT PASSES. QUITE FRANKLY, BECAUSE MY HYPOCRISY DOESN'T HAVE TO EXTEND TO ANYONE ELSE. AND THAT'S I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING THEY ARE, IT'S JUST ME. SO IF IT GETS VOTED, THEN I GET MY WISH THAT IT DIDN'T GET BUILT THERE AND I WASN'T HYPOCRITICAL. SO I WILL BE VOTING, TO IN THE FAVOR OF THE APPEAL BASED ON THE PURE FACTS AND WHAT I FEEL IN MY HEART I SHOULD BE DOING AND NOT BOWING TO MY OWN EMOTIONAL POSITION ON IT, OR THE PEER PRESSURE THAT I'VE RECEIVED, JENNIFER, DO YOU MIND COMING UP? I NEED YOUR HELP FOR A SECOND. EVERYBODY LOOK AT THAT PICTURE RIGHT THERE OF THE HOUSE. THAT'S NOW RIGHT. THAT'S 2024. GO BACK TO 1985 FOR ME. EVERYBODY SEES THE PRIDE OF OWNERSHIP THERE, RIGHT? RIGHT. DOES ANYBODY SEE THE PRIDE OF OWNERSHIP ANYMORE? I DON'T HERE'S THE POINT I WANT TO MAKE. I'M GOING TO GO OVER A COUPLE THINGS MAYBE Y'ALL HAVEN'T THOUGHT OF. MAYBE YOU HAVE. FIRST OF ALL, I JUST LOOKED AT TOM PENCE AND I WANT TO THANK THE HP-IB FOR A MASTERFUL JOB ON THAT HEARING. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. WE UP HERE, SWING IT A LOT OF PITCHES, AND WE NEED GOOD, SMART PEOPLE. AND BETTY'S BACK THERE, AND, JOHN IS THERE. AND SO I APPRECIATE ALL OF Y'ALL FOR WHAT YOU DID. BUT THE PRIDE OF OWNERSHIP IS GONE. CAN YOU GO BACK TO 2024 FOR ME NOW? OKAY. WHAT DO WE THINK'S GOING TO HAPPEN HERE? OKAY. RIGHT. LET'S LET'S PUT OURSELVES IN THIS FOR A SECOND. THIS IS A RENTAL HOUSE. SOMEONE'S OCCUPYING IT,

[00:50:02]

RIGHT? IT'S DETERIORATING THOUGH , RIGHT? IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO LAST FOREVER. NOW, IT'S NOT UP TO THIS COUNCIL TO MAKE IT LAST. RIGHT? YOU KNOW, IF I WERE THE PROPERTY OWNER HERE, I'M SPEAKING ONLY FOR ME. I WOULD RENT THAT SUCKER OUT. I'D PUT MINIMUM DOLLARS IN IT. AND I'M NOT GOING TO SIT THERE AND PUT TOO MANY BAND-AIDS ON IT, BECAUSE EVENTUALLY IT'S GOING TO NEED TO GO. SO THAT'S ONE POINT I WANT TO MAKE. IS THAT THE ULTIMATE DEMOLITION IS UP TO THE PROPERTY OWNER TO KEEP IT UP RIGHT NOW, LET ME PICK ON MY FRIEND TOM BACK THERE. LET'S SAY THIS WAS TOM'S HOUSE ON ON TUCKER STREET. AND HE CAME FOR A, A IT'S THIS NICER? WORSE. I'M TEASING YOU. TEASING ALL RIGHT. BUT BUT LET'S SAY HE CAME TO US. YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT THINKING A LOT ABOUT IT. AND WHY IS THAT? BECAUSE TOM OWNS ONE LOT ON TUCKER STREET. WHAT'S GOING TO REPLACE IT? ANOTHER HOUSE. IS IT GOING TO BE HISTORICALLY APPROPRIATE? YEP SO NOBODY GETS TOO EMOTIONAL. NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT FOR A SECOND. I HAVE OFFICED ON THE HISTORIC IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IN THE OLD COMMERCIAL HOTEL BUILDING. NOW, SINCE 1998, I DID A ROUGH CALCULATION. I'VE BEEN DOWNTOWN ROUGHLY 7600 TIMES IN THE LAST 26 YEARS. HERE'S WHAT I THINK I KNOW WE ALL LIKE TO BE LOGICAL PEOPLE WHEN IT COMES TO HISTORIC DISTRICT. WE AIN'T TERRIBLY LOGICAL. WE'RE PRETTY EMOTIVE, AND THAT'S REASONABLE TO ME BECAUSE ONCE IT'S GONE, IT'S GONE, RIGHT? AND THAT'S KIND OF THE WAY WE ARE. SO WE KIND OF CLUTCH AT THESE THINGS. SO WE'RE CLUTCHING AT THIS HOUSE RIGHT NOW. I GET IT. AND I ALSO GET THAT ONE OF THE OTHER BIG DELTAS HERE IS, IS THAT THIS PROPERTY OWNER DOESN'T JUST OWN THIS SLOT. THEY OWN WHAT I'LL TERM THE WHOLE BLOCK RIGHT, RIGHT. AND WE AND WE DO LOOK AT WHAT'S COMING IN. AND WHEN IT COMES TO HISTORIC DISTRICT I SLASH YOU SLASH WE SLASH. TOM PENCE HERE WANTS TO BE MORE DELIBERATE AND CAREFUL IN TERMS OF WHAT'S GOING THERE. THE MAYOR'S RIGHT THOUGH. IF YOU LOOK JUST ON KENTUCKY STREET, JUST, YOU KNOW, BEHIND THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE SOME BEAUTIFUL HOMES BUILT THAT REPLACED SOMETHING. RIGHT, THERE'S SOME NEW BEAUTIFUL HOMES THERE. AND WE ALL LOOK AT THEM. WE THINK, YEAH, HECK YEAH, THAT'S PRETTY COOL. SO WE'RE PROTECTIVE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT GOES THERE. LET ME TELL YOU ANOTHER CONCERN THAT I'VE GOT. AS MISTER ROEDER SAID, TRULY, THIS IS IN THE MTC, THE MCKINNEY TOWN CENTER. WE AS COUNCIL BACK IN 2013, AND NONE OF US WERE ON COUNCIL AT THAT TIME, APPROVED THAT YOU COULD BUILD FIVE STORIES. THERE I THINK I MAY WANT A MULLIGAN ON THAT. I THINK WE NEED TO REVISIT THAT. RIGHT. WE NEED TO GIVE PROPERTY OWNERS, THOUGH, A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF WHAT WE WILL AND WON'T LIKE, WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO. SO WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON, MCKINNEY TOWN CENTER NEEDS TO BE IN MY MIND. SO I WANT OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS TO BE ABLE TO WEIGH IN ON THIS THING, BUT I'M GOING TO MOVE, ULTIMATELY, THAT WE AFFIRM THE HP-IB. THANK YOU, MISTER MAYOR. I'M GOING TO KEEP MY REMARKS FAIRLY SHORT. I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD. I'VE BEEN THE LIAISON TO THAT BOARD FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS, AND I'VE SEEN THEM WORK REALLY HARD AND STUDY VERY WELL. WHEN THESE CASES COME BEFORE THEM. I HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH YOU, BOB. I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE APARTMENT COMPLEXES, BUT I KNOW THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS DO LOOK AT THE INDIVIDUAL CASES AS WELL. THAT IS A BIG DISCUSSION BECAUSE IT'S A BIG IT'S A SHOCKER. WHAT WAS PRESENTED WAS A SHOCKER, BUT I KNOW THAT WITH THEIR DUTIES ON THEIR BOARD, ON THE BOARD, THEIR JOB IS TO DO THEIR BEST THEY CAN TO PRESERVE THE HISTORY AND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. SO THAT IS THE TOP OF THEIR CONCERN WHEN THEY'RE MAKING THESE DECISIONS. AND I HATE THAT IT PLAYS OUT THAT THE APARTMENT COMPLEXES WERE SUCH A BIG DISCUSSION, BUT PRIMARILY THAT IS THEIR FOCUS. AND IF THERE IS ANY METHOD THAT WE CAN CHOOSE TO HELP, TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO KEEP WHAT IS ALREADY HERE AND MAINTAIN THE FABRIC OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT ALREADY EXISTS, AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN FAVOR OF MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION. SO I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU ALL PUT IN AS YOU DELIBERATED OVER THAT CASE. YOU KNOW, I THINK ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS IT KIND OF SPEAKS TO WHAT PATRICK SAYS IS THAT WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT WHO WE WANT TO BE DOWN HERE. WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT TO SEE IN THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT IS ALREADY ALLOWED, AND TRY TO WORK TOGETHER WITH THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY TO BRING PROJECTS THAT MAKE US PROUD. I MEAN, THIS IS THE GEM OF OUR CITY. WE ALWAYS SAY THAT, RIGHT? AND WE WANT TO SEE, SEE DEVELOPMENT THAT HONORS THE HISTORIC. THE KEY WORD IS HISTORIC DISTRICT, RIGHT. WE WANT TO SEE DEVELOPMENT THAT HONORS THAT. AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT ALWAYS LOOKS LIKE IT WAS BUILT IN 1913, BUT THAT IT IT STILL MAINTAINS THE CHARM OF DOWNTOWN. BUT I DON'T I DON'T AS I LOOK AT EACH OF THESE

[00:55:04]

PROPERTIES, ARE THEY IN THE BEST SHAPE? NO. IS THERE SOMEBODY WHO WOULD PURCHASE THIS AND REHAB IT IN A SECOND? YES. THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE. THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE. AND THOUGH IT'S NOT THE HIGHEST RETURN, THE MAXIMIZED RETURN. IT'S NOT THE MAXIMUM RETURN ON THE INVESTMENT ON THE PROPERTY OBVIOUSLY FOR THE OWNER. BUT THE OWNER PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY DECADES AGO BEFORE INFLATION WAS WHAT IT IS NOW. AND SO THE RETURN IS ALREADY THERE, AND IF THEY SOLD THIS PROPERTY AS IS, I'M SURE SOMEONE WOULD COME IN AND WOULD LOVE TO DO THAT. NOW, THAT'S NOT OUR JOB TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD DO THAT. THAT IS THE PROPERTY OWNER'S RIGHT TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO SELL THE PROPERTY. BUT THE WHOLE POINT IS THE REASON THESE CASES COME BEFORE US IS SO THAT ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY CAN BE INVESTIGATED, AT LEAST, SO FOR THAT REASON, I WOULD LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, SHOW MY SUPPORT FOR THE HBHB AND UPHOLD THEIR RULING ON THIS. SETTLE DOWN, I AM USUALLY THE TYPE THAT, IF IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE SAID, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY IT, SO I'LL BE PRETTY SHORT WITH THIS. IF YOU'D LIKE TO TALK TO ME ABOUT IT, I'D BE HAPPY TO GIVE YOU A LOT OF OPINIONS ABOUT IT. BUT TONIGHT I THINK I WILL ADD TO PATRICK AND DOCTOR FELTUS COMMENTS ABOUT NOT BEING IN FAVOR OF THESE REQUESTS TO APPEAL. AND SO, I WOULD SECOND PATRICK'S MOTION. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MR. MR. MAYOR, AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS, THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HPO, AND THE DECISION OF THE HPA BE I MOVED TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE HPA, BE ON ITEM NUMBER. WHERE AM I? SORRY, I SHOULD HAVE BEEN READY FOR THIS. IS THIS 241671. 1670670241670, WHICH DENIES THE REQUEST. REQUESTED COA IN THIS ITEM, AND I SECOND, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO ITEM

[Consider/Discuss/Act on an Appeal of the Historic Preservation Advisory Board’s Action on a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Relocation of the Building at 303 S Kentucky Street]

241671, DISCUSS. ACT ON APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD'S ACTION ON A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR RELOCATION OF THE BUILDING AT 303 SOUTH KENTUCKY STREET.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I KNOW THESE ARE ALL VERY SIMILAR, BUT THERE ARE SOME SLIGHT NUANCES FOR EACH. SO I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF THEM, SO AS YOU READ THIS IS A COA APPEAL OF THE HPA B'S ACTION ON A REQUEST. OKAY THERE WE GO TO RELOCATE THE PROPERTY AT 303 SOUTH KENTUCKY STREET, JUST FOR SOME FRAME OF REFERENCE, THAT HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1910.

IT IS CONSIDERED OF THE FOLK VICTORIAN STYLE. IT IS CONSIDERED A LOW PRIORITY RATING IN THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING NOT NECESSARILY TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY, BUT RELOCATED OUTSIDE OF MCKINNEY, RINSE AND REPEAT ON THE PREVIOUS ITEM HERE IN TERMS OF DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND OF COURSE, THE APPLICANT BEING HERE . SO JENNIFER, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS PROPERTY AND GOING OUT AND LOOKING AT IT, THIS PROPERTY IS IN SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER SHAPE THAN THE OTHER HOME. IT DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME LEVEL OF WEAR AND TEAR. THIS IS A THIS IS A HISTORICAL PROPERTY THAT IS IN SHAPE. IT'S HABITABLE. WELL, THAT WAS MY TAKE. YES, SIR. I'M AS WELL, BOB. I'M SORRY. DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THESE OR. ALL RIGHT. ACTUALLY, JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, ON THE FRONT SIDE, I SUPPORT THE HPB ON THIS ONE. BASED ON THE FACT THAT I GET THAT, I JUST, I WANT TO MAKE A FEW CLARIFICATIONS IN THE RECORD, THE FIRST CLARIFICATION IS I APPRECIATE YOUR MOTION. MR. CLOUTIER, BUT THERE ARE NO STANDARDS FROM THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR ON DEMOLITION. OKAY, SO, I KNOW WHO WROTE YOUR MOTION. OKAY BUT THAT DOESN'T WORK. THAT ONE DOESN'T WORK.

SECONDLY, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND. THAT THESE PROPERTIES WERE BOUGHT BEFORE YOU HAD THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. THEY WERE BOUGHT BEFORE YOU HAD THE MTC, AND YOU HAVE IMPOSED UPON THIS PROPERTY OWNER THAT'S OWNED AND MAINTAINED THESE PROPERTIES FOR 25 YEARS NOW.

[01:00:05]

NOW, A SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC BURDEN. I KNOW THAT YOUR STANDARDS FOR DEMOLITION SAY IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO HAVE THE HIGHEST AND BEST, ECONOMIC VALUE, BUT YOU'RE DEPRIVING THE PROPERTY OWNER HERE OF A SIGNIFICANT RIGHT. I KNOW THAT DEMOLITION IS NOT THE NATURE OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE. THIS IS RELOCATION, THIS ALSO, THOUGH, HAS WE RECEIVED A FAVORABLE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FROM YOUR PAID PROFESSIONAL. THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE HPA BE FROM YOUR PAID PROFESSIONAL WAS TO APPROVE THE COA. IT WAS DENIED. SAME CONVERSATION, SAME FACT SITUATION. AND I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO GIVE THE HP-IB THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT AS TO WHETHER THEY EVER LOOKED AT ANY OF THE SECRETARY INTERIORS, STANDARDS. SO I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR BOB. ONE SO YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT THESE HOUSES, AS THEY HAVE DECLINED, WE JUST SAW A PICTURE FROM 1985 TO THE TO NOW, WHAT HAS BEEN THE PROPERTY'S OWNER'S INVESTMENT INTO KEEPING THE PROPERTIES LOOKING BETTER? I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, AS WE'RE AS WE'RE CONSIDERING THESE CASES, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATE ONLY SOME OF THEM DON'T LOOK IN GREAT SHAPE, BUT IT'S BEEN UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP FOR A COUPLE OF DECADES, AT LEAST. THAT'S RIGHT. I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU HAVE A STANDARD. NO, I'M JUST MAKING A POINT. SO I'LL MAKE A COMMENT. AS I ALREADY ALLUDED TO, WHERE I BELIEVE WE DO HAVE THE DISCRETION AND NOT AND ARE NOT HYPOCRITICAL, IS THAT IF IT'S NOT A DEMOLITION, THEN WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT A WHAT THE, WHAT THE USE MAY BE. AND FOR THAT REASON, I AGAIN GO BACK TO WHAT I STATED INITIALLY. I WOULD PREFER NOT TO SEE THE PROJECT ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY AND THIS IS NOT A DEMOLITION. AND I BELIEVE THAT, AS I SAID BEFORE ON THE DEMOLITION, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO, TO DO WHAT WE DID, BUT BUT SO BE IT, BUT I DO SUPPORT THE HP-IB ON THIS HOUSE AS IT IS HABITABLE AND THEY IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE MOVED TO REMAIN HABITABLE JUST TO CLARIFY, THE ARCHITECT'S OPINION ON ON SUGGESTING DEMOLITION WAS THE CONDITION OF THE HOUSE TO MOVE, NOT THE CONDITION OF THE HOUSE TO BE INHABITABLE. TRUE. I WENT AND LOOKED AT ALL THE PROPERTIES. SO I'M COMBINING BOTH THE INABILITY TO MOVE WITH THE UNSTABLE, YOU KNOW, FOUNDATION OR BEAMS, AND JUST THE, THE AS A BUILDER, LOOKING AT THAT HOUSE, I THERE'S NO SALVAGING THAT HOUSE, BUT THIS ONE IS IN MUCH, MUCH DIFFERENT CONDITION. SO. IS THERE A MOTION? YEAH. I'M GONNA MAKE A QUICK STORY FIRST TO TIE THIS INTO SOMETHING ELSE. THEN I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION A COUPLE MONTHS AGO. WHO'S FAMILIAR? YOU JUST RAISE YOUR HANDS OR NOT? IF YOU WANT TO PLAY ALONG WITH THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF VIRGINIA AND LAKE FOREST, IT'S NOT DEVELOPED. THERE'S BIG LONGHORNS IN THERE, AND YOU KIND OF GET PEACEFUL WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT. OKAY, SO I'M MAKING THIS STORY MUCH SHORTER THAN IT REALLY JUSTIFIES, BUT I WANT TO MAKE A POINT TO Y'ALL. A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO, THE PROPERTY OWNER WANTED TO BUILD A WEDDING VENUE THERE, BUT THEY NEEDED IN ORDER TO MAKE IT EFFICIENT. AND WHAT THEY REALLY WANTED TO DO, THEY HAD TO GET A CHANGE OF ZONING ON IT. PER OUR ZONING RULES. AND THE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE RIGHT AROUND THERE REALLY FOUGHT IT, FOUGHT IT HARD. AND THE MAYOR WARNED THEM, HEY, LOOK, THIS PROPERTY OWNER ALREADY ENJOYS ZONING, AND WHAT YOU MIGHT END UP WITH IS A MUCH WORSE RESULT IF WE DENY THE ZONING. BUT THE ZONING WAS DENIED. OKAY, SO THIS YEAR, THE PROPERTY OWNER COMES BACK ONLY NEEDING A SIMPLE PLAT, COMPLYING WITH THE 1997 ZONING. AND I THINK ANYONE WHO LOOKED AT IT AND I'LL OWN IT CERTAINLY FOR ME, SAID, OH MY GOODNESS, I DON'T WANT THAT. BUT WE HAD NO LEGAL RECOURSE TO DO ANYTHING.

IF WE HAD DENIED THE PLAT, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SUED AND WE WOULD HAVE LOST, AND IT WOULD HAVE COST THE TAXPAYER MONEY. AND THAT'S MY, MY, IF I BRING ANYTHING TO THIS COUNCIL, IT IS I'M GOING TO BE WATCHING THE LEGAL FEES THE CITY PAYS. I'M NOT GOING TO GET US INVOLVED IN ANY SUITS I THINK WE'RE GOING TO LOSE. SO WE HAD TO APPROVE THAT THING. SO I WANT TO MAKE THAT POINT THAT WE NEED TO BE MEASURED AS WE APPROACH THESE THINGS. IS TO WHAT IS ACHIEVABLE. I PROMISED MYSELF AT THAT TIME, IF I COULD PICK UP ANY WEAPON AND FIGHT THIS KIND OF STUFF, I'M GOING TO FIGHT IT. WELL, I'M PICKING UP A WEAPON TONIGHT AND I'M FIGHTING IT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, JUST UNDERSTAND THAT WE DO NEED TO BE CAREFUL AS WE MOVE FORWARD ON THESE THINGS TO UNDERSTAND THAT REDEVELOPMENT IS PROBABLY ULTIMATELY GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT WE JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO THE BEST WE CAN. WITH THAT SAID, AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR

[01:05:03]

STANDARDS, THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SHPO AND THE DECISION BY THE HPB, I MOVE TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE HPB ON ITEM 24-1671, WHICH DENIES THE REQUESTED COA IN THIS ITEM.

SECOND, CAST YOUR VOTES. MOTION PASSES. ITEM 241672. CONSIDER AN ACT ON APPEAL TO THE HISTORIC

[Consider/Discuss/Act on an Appeal of the Historic Preservation Advisory Board’s Action on a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Relocation of the Building at 305 S Kentucky Street]

PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD'S ACTION ON CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE RELOCATION OF THE BUILDING AT 305 SOUTH KENTUCKY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, AS YOU NOTED, THIS IS AN APPEAL TO THE HPA. ABS DENIAL, FOR A COA TO RELOCATE THE HOUSE AT 305 SOUTH KENTUCKY STREET, FOR REFERENCE IN CONTEXT, THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1930. IT IS OF THE VICTORIAN OR FOLK VICTORIAN STYLE. IT'S CONSIDERED A LOW PRIORITY RATING, AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO MOVE IT OFF SITE OUT OF MCKINNEY. HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS TO REPRESENT THE CURRENT CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY. THIS. THESE ARE PHOTOS FROM THE 2005 SURVEY. AND THEN I BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE LAST PHOTO FROM 1985. SO YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THAT CHANGE OVER TIME. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AS IS OUR APPLICANT QUESTIONS FOR JENNIFER . BOB, DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING. MATT IS IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THE MOTIONS LIKE YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THEM, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO GIVE ME THE SPECIFIC REASONS BEHIND USING JUST THE GENERIC SECRETARY OF INTERIOR. INTERIOR DOESN'T MEET YOUR OWN STANDARD IN YOUR OWN ORDINANCE. SO WHEN YOU MAKE THESE MOTIONS, LET'S LIST THE SPECIFIC REASONS UNDER THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS.

THAT'S WHAT'S REQUIRED. AND SECONDLY, THERE IS NO DIFFERENT STANDARD FOR A SUBSEQUENT USE IN A REMOVAL VERSUS ANY OTHER COA. SO IF YOU WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT, I'M GOING TO DISAGREE WITH THAT LEGAL READING. NOW, I KNOW THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING, I'M I KNOW WHAT I'M DOING IS I'M, I'M FIGHTING WINDMILLS. RIGHT. AND SO I'M PICKING ON TECHNICAL TECHNICAL STUFF. BUT THIS SHOULD BE A TECHNICAL DECISION. IT SHOULD NOT BE A DECISION ABOUT WE DON'T WANT MULTI FAMILY DOWN THERE. THAT DECISION COMES AT ANOTHER DATE. REMEMBER I SAID YOU CAN'T EVEN BUILD ANYTHING IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT ALL THE WAY FROM 75 TO MCDONALD STREET WITHOUT GETTING A COA. SO EVERYBODY'S GOT ANOTHER BITE AT THIS APPLE. BUT WE CAN'T EVEN GET OUT OF THE BLOCKS IF WE DON'T HAVE THE CODES. SO I THINK YOU'RE YOU'RE DIGGING YOUR OWN GRAVE. BUT BUT GO FOR IT. SO MARK, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. IT WAS MINE. AND MAYBE THIS IS JENNIFER, BUT IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ON A WHEN IT'S NOT DEMOLITION, THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO ALSO CONSIDER THE REPLACEMENT USE. IS THAT ACCURATE OR NOT? YES AND THE MOTION IS FINE THAT I JUST WANT TO BE SURE BECAUSE MY, MY VOTE ON THESE ON THE MOVABLE RELOCATION. IN MY MIND, I'M DECIDING, DO I WANT TO LOSE A HISTORIC HOME IN MCKINNEY? RIGHT. WE'RE NOT WE'RE WHERE? I HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT OPINION ON THE DEMOLITION. IF IT'S INHABITABLE, I UNDERSTAND. BUT YES, YOU HAVE THAT CRITERIA THAT YOU CAN USE THE STANDARD. AND, JENNIFER, THIS HOUSE IS INHABITED AS WELL. CORRECT. I'D HAVE TO DEFER TO THE APPLICANT. YES. I THINK IT'S A BEAUTIFUL HOME. IT'S BEAUTIFUL. AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS, THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SHPO AND THE DECISION OF THE CFPB, I MOVE TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE HFPA B ON ITEM NUMBER 241672, WHICH DENIES THE REQUESTED COA IN THIS ITEM. I'LL SECOND. THIS CAST YOUR VOTES. ITEM 6241673. CONSIDER ACT ON APPEAL OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION

[Consider/Discuss/Act on an Appeal of the Historic Preservation Advisory Board’s Action on a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of the Building at 311 S Kentucky Street]

ADVISORY BOARD'S ACTION ON CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDING AT 311 SOUTH KENTUCKY STREET. OKAY, SO AGAIN, THIS IS A REQUEST TO APPEAL THE HFPA BS ACTION ON A COA FOR DEMOLITION AT 311 SOUTH KENTUCKY STREET, FOR CONTEXT AND REFERENCE, THIS

[01:10:04]

HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1900 OF A FOLK VICTORIAN STYLE. IT IS CONSIDERED A MEDIUM PRIORITY RATING, AND THE APPLICANT IS NG TO DEMOLISH THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. I DO WANT TO NOTE, JUST FOR PROCEDURAL SAKE, THAT WHEN CONSIDERING A COA, OUR ORDINANCE REQUIRES CONSIDERATION OF THREE FACTORS ONE BEING THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS, THE SECOND BEING THE PRIORITY RATING OF THE PROJECT, AND THE THIRD BEING DESIGN ELEMENTS OR DESIGN STANDARDS. BECAUSE THERE'S NO NEW CONSTRUCTION HERE, THE DESIGN STANDARDS DON'T NECESSARILY APPLY, BUT THE PRIORITY RATING OF THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS HOW APPLICABLE THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS ARE FOR A DEMOLITION OR A RELOCATION, CAN APPLY, AND THOSE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS ARE RELATED TO THE REHABILITATION AND PRESERVATION OF PROPERTIES. THEY DON'T NECESSARILY, SPEAK TO DEMOLITION , WHICH IS WHY IN LATE 2022, DEMOLITION REQUESTS OR MOVING A PROPERTY, RELOCATING THEM WAS SORT OF MOVED FROM BEING AT THE STAFF LEVEL AND BROUGHT TO THE HPA BE BECAUSE THERE IS NOT TRANSFERABLE CRITERIA NECESSARILY, AND THEREFORE THAT DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PRIORITY RATING AND THE APPLICATION OF HOW THAT PRIORITY RATING AFFECTS THE REQUEST COULD BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD AND OF COURSE, APPEALED TO THE COUNCIL. QUESTIONS BOB? DO YOU NOTHING ELSE? YEAH CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHY THIS ONE IS A MEDIUM PRIORITY VERSUS THE LOW PRIORITY OF THE OTHERS? SAME QUESTION. THANK YOU. SO A LOT OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PROPERTY OR LET'S SAY NOT NECESSARILY MAINTENANCE. BUT YOU'LL NOTICE HERE THAT THE ELEVATION AND THE FACADE HAS NOT CHANGED MUCH SINCE 1985. AND SO WHILE THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES, OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S BEEN PAINTED AND MAYBE SOME OF THAT SIDING HAS BEEN REPAIRED. BUT THE INTEGRITY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND THE ELEVATION OF THE PROPERTY HAS NOT CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY. AND SO THAT IS LIKELY WHY IT HAS THAT MEDIUM PRIORITY RATING. I'LL GO TO THAT. FIRST IS THE FIRST DEMOLITION WAS LOW PRIORITY? YES, SIR. ALL OTHERS WERE LOW PRIORITY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ONE THAT COMES NEXT. OKAY. READY AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS, THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SHPO AND THE DECISION OF THE HPA, BE I MOVE TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE HPA. BE ON ITEM NUMBER 24-1673, WHICH DENIES THE REQUESTED COA. IN THIS ITEM. SECOND, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES. THE LAST ITEM 241674.

[Consider/Discuss/Act on an Appeal of the Historic Preservation Advisory Board’s Action on a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Relocation of the Historic Thomas Johnson House/Surrey House Located at 312 S Tennessee Street]

CONSIDERING ACT ON APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD'S ACTION ON A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE RELOCATION OF HISTORIC THOMAS JOHNSON HOUSE, SURREY HOUSE, LOCATED AT 312 SOUTH C STREET. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AGAIN JENNIFER ARNOLD, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING. SO THIS REQUEST IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE PREVIOUS FOR A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT REASONS, MOST OF YOU ALL KNOW, AND I'M SURE EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM RECOGNIZES THIS AS THE THOMAS JOHNSON PROPERTY OR HOUSE, ALSO KNOWN AS THE SURREY HOUSE AT 312 SOUTH TENNESSEE STREET, THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO APPEAL THE HABS ACTION ON THEIR REQUEST TO RELOCATE THE HOUSE FROM ITS CURRENT LOCATION TO ABOUT 450FT SOUTH ON THE SAME PROPERTY. SO IN THIS CASE, THEY ARE NOT PROPOSING TO DEMOLISH IT OR RELOCATE IT OUT OF MCKINNEY. JUST RELOCATED ON THE EXISTING SITE, UNLIKE THE OTHER PROPERTIES, THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1910. IT IS LISTED AS A BUNGALOW WITH CLASSICAL REVIVAL INFLUENCES, AND IT IS CONSIDERED A HIGH PRIORITY RATING, MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE QUALITY OF THE ARCHITECTURE, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, AND OBVIOUSLY IT IS A HOUSE THAT HAS BEEN IN MCKINNEY AND MAINTAINED WELL FOR MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS, SO THE REQUEST TO RELOCATE WOULD MOVE IT FROM THAT NORTHERN REFERENCE POINT DOWN TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. AND HERE ARE SOME REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOS OF THE PROPERTY. SO AGAIN, THE FRONT FACADE, AND NORTH ELEVATION. REAR. WEST AND SOUTH. AND PHOTOS FROM THE 1985 SURVEY. I DO ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE IS LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES AS WELL, AND SO OBVIOUSLY THAT CONTRIBUTES TO THAT HIGH PRIORITY RATING, THERE IS, WELL, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. AND OUR APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL. MR. JENNIFER ON, ON MOVING

[01:15:03]

THE HOUSE, WHERE I HAVE A DIFFERENCE WITH THIS ONE VERSUS THE OTHER. THE OTHER WAS MOVING IT OUT OF THE CITY. THIS IS MOVING IT ON THE SAME PROPERTY, CORRECT. WHAT HAPPENS? SO FROM FROM THAT STANDPOINT, I AGAIN, TO NOT BE HYPOCRITICAL, I HAVE TO BE A VOTE AGAINST THE APPEAL UNLESS I MEAN AGAINST THE HP-IB. BUT MY ONLY WHAT HAS, WHAT HAS ME HESITATING IS, I'VE NOT EVER MOVED A HOUSE BEFORE. I'M IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY, NEVER MOVED A HOUSE, ESPECIALLY A HOUSE OF THIS AGE. HOW DO WE HOW ARE WE ASSURED THAT THAT THIS HOUSE IS MOVED AND NOT DESTROYED IN THE PROCESS? THAT IS ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT CAME UP A LOT AT THE HP-IB WAS THERE HAS NOT BEEN A PRESENTED OR DOCUMENTED PLAN FOR HOW THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO MOVE THE STRUCTURE AND MAINTAIN ITS INTEGRITY DURING THAT MOVE. AS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE, PROPERTIES OF THIS AGE CAN, YOU KNOW, ARE DEFINITELY AT RISK. THEY'RE MORE SENSITIVE TO THAT RELOCATION. AND SO WE DO NOT NECESSARILY HAVE A PLAN FROM THE APPLICANT FOR HOW THEY PROPOSE TO DO THAT, OR LEVELING OF THE STRUCTURE ONCE THEY MOVE IT FROM ITS CURRENT FLAT LOCATION DOWN TO THE SOUTH. SO AS A STAFF, WE DON'T NECESSARILY GET INTO THE MEANS AND METHODS, WITH THE COA PROCESS, BUT YOU CERTAINLY ALL CAN CONSIDER THAT GIVEN THAT THIS IS A HIGH PRIORITY. STRUCTURE AND THAT IT IS SENSITIVE TO THAT RELOCATION. SO FOR ME, THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE HIGH PRIORITY. AND, ALTHOUGH IF THERE WAS A PLAN AND WE HAD A, AN INCREDIBLE ASSURANCE THAT IT COULD BE DONE AND WHATNOT, THEN I WOULD ACTUALLY BE IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING THIS TO BE MOVED. BUT WITHOUT THAT, AND I'D BE GLAD TO REVISIT IT IF IT WAS REAPPLIED FOR WITH A PLAN THAT WAS CONVINCING, INCLUDING HAVING WHOEVER THAT IS THAT'S GOING TO MOVE IT BE IN HERE TO TAKE QUESTIONS DIRECTLY. BUT FOR ME, THIS IS WAY TOO HIGH A PRIORITY HOME. I CAN'T RISK IT. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS OF THIS HOUSE? I COULD PROBABLY LOOK IT UP REAL QUICKLY. APPROXIMATE IT, I BELIEVE WE'VE GOT IT ON AT LEAST ONE OF THE LETTERS. BECAUSE I HAVE TO ASSUME THE LARGER THE HOUSE, THE MORE DIFFICULT OBVIOUSLY IT IS TO MOVE AS WELL. YEAH I'VE GOT IT RIGHT. THEY BASICALLY HAVE TO CUT IT, DON'T THEY? WHAT'S THAT? LEAVE IT IN. YOU WOULD HAVE TO CUT IT. YOU'D HAVE TO CUT IT AND MOVE IT IN SECTIONS. AND SO, SO THE MAIN AREA IS ROUGHLY 2100FT■S. AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOT SOME COVERED PORCHES AND PATIOS THAT ARE ABOUT 750 TO 800FT■S, 3000 FOOT STRUCTURE. ALL RIGHT, BOB, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS OR. AS WITH ALL THE OTHER APPEALS TODAY, YOUR PROFESSIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE RECOMMEND ENDED AND GRANTED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO MOVE THIS HOUSE. AS YOU YOU DON'T KNOW, MAYOR, BECAUSE YOU BUILD EVERYTHING ON SLAB. BUT THAT HOUSE PROBABLY HAS BOWED ARCH BLOCKS, AND THEY PROBABLY LEVEL THAT HOUSE ON A FAIRLY REGULAR BASIS JUST BECAUSE OF THE CONDITIONS. I'VE LIVED IN AN OLD HOUSE, AND I KNOW WHAT THAT IS. PEOPLE HAVE MOVED STRUCTURES LIKE THIS FOR DECADES AROUND NOT JUST DOWN THE STREET, BUT ALL OVER THE CITY OF ANNA USED TO BE LOCATED ABOUT 12 MILES WEST OF WHERE IT IS NOW. AND WHEN THE RAILROAD CAME THROUGH, THEY MOVED ALL THOSE HOUSES TO WHERE DOWNTOWN ANNA IS NOW. SO MOVING A HOUSE LIKE THIS IS NOT IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. NOW, ONE THING THAT THAT YOU SAW IN THE APPLICATION OR IN THE IN THE APPROVAL AND THAT JENNIFER DIDN'T MENTION WAS THE BACK PATIO AREA IS NOT HISTORIC. AND ONE OF THE APPROVED THINGS WE SOUGHT WAS TO HAVE THAT REMOVED. AND DEMOLISHED. SO WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE WHERE YOU HAVE A YOU HAVE A PROCESS IN YOUR CLASS THAT YOU CAN ISSUE A COA WITH CONDITIONS. I'M ASSUMING THAT YOUR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE FELT LIKE MOVING. THIS HOUSE WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY WERE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT, BUT IF YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IT, YOU COULD APPROVE A COA WITH THE CONDITION THAT WE BRING A MOVER IN HERE TO SATISFY YOU THAT WE CAN MOVE IT AND PUT IT BACK TOGETHER AGAIN. THAT'S ONE OF THE OPTIONS YOU HAVE. SO I LEAVE THAT AT YOU. I WILL I'M GOING TO ACTUALLY MAKE A MOTION FIRST. I'M GOING TO MAKE THAT MOTION I THINK I KNOW WHERE WE'LL GO, BUT I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE, WE ALLOW THIS HOUSE TO BE MOVED WITH THE

[01:20:05]

CONDITION THAT WE HAVE A PROPOSAL BROUGHT IN BY A REPUTABLE MOVER AND ARE AND CAN BE CONVINCED THAT THIS HOUSE CAN BE MOVED AND PRESERVED, AS LONG AS IT'S MOVED TO THE SAME PROPERTY AND THE SAME, YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU'VE PROPOSED TO MOVE IT. SO NOT OUT OF THE CITY. I DON'T THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION, BUT I'LL MAKE IT. IT'S OKAY. GOT TO DO IT. I THINK IS RIGHT REGARDLESS OF THE ROOM. OKAY I'LL DO A COMPETING MOTION.

AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS, THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SHPO AND THE DECISION OF THE HPB, I MOVE TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE HFPA. PB ON ITEM 241674, WHICH DENIES THE REQUESTED COA IN THIS ITEM. SECOND, EXTRA VOTES.

[Consider/Discuss/Act on Adoption of a Resolution Determining a Public Necessity to Acquire Property Easement Rights for Public Use by Eminent Domain for a Water Line Easement and a Temporary Construction Easement associated with the Independence Parkway 24 Inch Water Line Project (WA0210) which Property is Located North of the Terminus of Independence Parkway near Virginia Parkway and Authorizing the City Manager to Establish Procedures for Acquiring the Easements on Said Property, and Take All Steps Necessary to Acquire the Needed Property Rights in Compliance with all Applicable Laws and Resolutions]

ALL RIGHT. WE WILL GO TO ITEM 241675. CONSIDER AN ACT ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION. DETERMINING A PUBLIC NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY EASEMENT RIGHTS FOR PUBLIC USE BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR A WATER LINE EASEMENT AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT, AND ASSOCIATED WITH THE INDEPENDENCE PARKWAY 24 INCH WATER LINE PTEROJECT. WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE TERMINUS OF INDEPENDENCE PARKWAY NEAR VIRGINIA PARKWAY, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR ACQUIRING THE EASEMENTS ON SAID PROPERTY AND TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO ACQUIRE THE NEEDED PROPERTY RIGHTS AND COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS AND RESOLUTIONS. GARY HERE YOU ARE. THANKS FOR HAVING ME, MAYOR. NO COUNCIL MAYOR. THANK YOU, GARY GRAHAM, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING, WE'RE HERE TODAY TO ASK FOR SUPPORT ON AN EMINENT DOMAIN REQUEST FOR THE PROJECT WE'RE WORKING ON IS TO INSTALL A 24 INCH WATER LINE FROM JUST NORTH OF VIRGINIA PARKWAY, UP TO 380, THIS WATER LINE WILL HELP, SERVE THE GROWING POPULATION TO THE WEST. AND THAT SECTION BETWEEN VIRGINIA 388 AND INDEPENDENCE, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT OUT THERE. AND THIS IS JUST GOING TO HELP, REDUNDANT WATER SUPPLY OUT THERE, AS IN ALL ACQUISITION, EMINENT DOMAIN CASES, THE CITY HAS AN APPRAISAL CONDUCTED, THIS IS DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. WE USE THAT APPRAISAL TO MAKE A OFFER ON THE PROPERTY.

OUR INITIAL OFFER, THE PROPERTY OWNER CAN ACCEPT THAT OFFER OR, DO HIS OWN APPRAISAL, MAKE A COUNTEROFFER AND SEND THAT BACK TO THE CITY. WE WILL REVIEW THAT COUNTEROFFER. WE MAY REACH AN AGREEMENT, WE MAY NOT IF WE DO NOT, WE MAKE A FINAL OFFER. AND, YOU KNOW, WE CONTINUE THAT NEGOTIATION PROCESS, FOR THE FINAL OFFER AS WELL. IF NO AGREEMENT CAN BE MADE, WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO, REQUEST EMINENT DOMAIN. THE CITY HAS THAT AUTHORITY, WHAT THAT PROCESS ENTAILS IS THIS. THIS, COUNTY, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, APPOINT THREE SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS TO SERVE ON A BOARD THAT WILL HEAR THE CONDITIONS OF THE CASE, THE CITY AND THE PROPERTY OWNER CAN EACH MAKE THEIR CASE ON WHAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE SHOULD BE. AND THEN THOSE SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS, SET THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. THIS IS NOT A TAKING THIS IS A PROCESS TO ESTABLISH FOR MARKET FAIR MARKET VALUE. SO THE PROPERTY OWNER COULD BE COMPENSATED FOR THE EASEMENT THAT THE CITY NEEDS FOR PUBLIC GOOD. SO WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY, ANY QUESTIONS. AND WE REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL. MR. MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. OKAY I MOVE THAT THE CITY OF MCKINNEY, TEXAS CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THIS ITEM AS WRITTEN AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION DESCRIBED IN THIS AGENDA ITEM AND AUTHORIZE THE USE OF POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO ACQUIRE FOR PUBLIC USE ALL NECESSARY PROPERTY INTERESTS FROM GARY JEAN TALLEY AND SUSAN H. TALLEY, IDENTIFIED AS THE OWNER OF RECORD BY THE COLLIN CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND ANY OTHER PERSONS OR ENTITIES CLAIMING AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DEPICTED ON AND DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS ATTACHED TO SAID RESOLUTION. SAID DEPICTIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS BEING INCORPORATED IN THEIR ENTIRETY INTO THIS MOTION FOR ALL PURPOSES, INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION, ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE OF INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS. LOCATED NORTH OF THE TERMINUS OF INDEPENDENCE PARKWAY NEAR VIRGINIA PARKWAY ASSOCIATED WITH THE INDEPENDENCE PARKWAY 24 INCH WATER LINE PROJECT. SO BE A ROLL CALL VOTE AS WELL. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. MAYOR FULLER YES, MAYOR PRO TEM DAVIS. YES COUNCIL MEMBER BELLER. YES COUNCIL MEMBER. CLOUTIER. YES COUNCIL MEMBER. FRANKLIN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. JOHNSON. YES. ALL RIGHT.

[Consider/Discuss/Act on an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of McKinney, Texas, Granting to Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC, Its Successors and Assigns, the Non-Exclusive Right to Use and Occupy Rights-Of-Way Within the City of McKinney for the Construction and Operation of an Electric Transmission and Distribution System Prescribing Conditions Governing the Power Franchise to Use the Present and Future Streets, Alleys, Highways, Public Utility Easements, Public Ways and Public Property of the City of McKinney, Texas, Providing for Compensation Therefor, Providing for an Effective Date and a Term of Said Franchise, Providing for Written Acceptance of This Franchise, Providing for the Repeal of All Existing Franchise Ordinances to Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC, Its Predecessors and Assigns, and Finding That the Meeting at Which This Ordinance Is Passed Is Open to the Public]

WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO ITEM 241627. I'M GOING TO OPEN THAT ITEM BACK UP. THAT SHOULD HAVE

[01:25:04]