[00:00:05]
WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE. GOOD GUYS. GET OUT. GOOD EVENING. IT'S 6 P.M. WELCOME TO THE CITY
[CALL TO ORDER]
OF MCKINNEY'S PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF TUESDAY, AUGUST 27TH, 2020. FOR THE COMMISSIONERS THAT YOU SEE SEATED HERE, HAVE BEEN APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AND WE SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE MCKINNEY CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU ARE HERE TONIGHT AND YOU ARE GOING TO SPEAK ON ONE OF OUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS, IF YOU WILL, PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THE YELLOW SPEAKER CARDS. THOSE CARDS ARE ON THE TABLE ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE ROOM. GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS THE ITEM YOU'RE SPEAKING ON AND IF YOU HAVE A PARTICULAR POSITION, PLEASE CHECK THAT BOX. WHEN YOU COME TO THE PODIUM, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS WITH PLANNING AND ZONING. IT IS IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE TO KNOW THAT YOUR COMMENTS DO GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL. AS PART OF OUR MINUTES, AND IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE CITIZENS ARE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF GOVERNMENT HERE IN MCKINNEY. THAT'S ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE, BECAUSE WE REALLY DO, THE FIRST ITEM WOULD BE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE TO SPEAK ON A, AN ITEM THAT DOES NOT HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHED THAT IS ON OUR AGENDA. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE THE MINUTES OF OUR LAST MEETING. ALL RIGHT.[CONSENT ITEMS]
SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA. THAT CONSISTS OF ITEM 24-190 SEVEN MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORK SESSION OF AUGUST 13TH, 2024. MEMBERS. DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE MINUTES OR MOTIONS? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 13TH, 2024. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. LOBO TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 13TH, 2024. SECOND, SECOND BY MISS WOODARD. ANY DISCUSSION PLEASE CAST YOUR VOT. DIDN'T POP UP. YEAH, I OLD SCHOOL OLD SCHOOL. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S THAT MOTION CARRIES BY VOTE OF SEVEN IN FAVOR AND ZERO[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Variance to a Site Plan for a Multi-Family Development (Hidden Villas), Located on the Southeast Corner of Bush Drive and El Lago Drive]
AGAINST. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO OUR, PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. FIRST ITEM IS 20 2-0039 SP TWO. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO A SITE PLAN FOR A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. HIDDEN VILLAS. THIS IS ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BUSH DRIVE AND EL LAGO DRIVE. MR. BENNETT. YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. GOOD EVENING. COMMISSION, JAKE BENNETT, PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF MCKINNEY, SO, AS YOU KNOW, SITE PLANS ARE USUALLY APPROVED AT THE STAFF LEVEL. HOWEVER, WHEN A DESIGN EXCEPTION OR VARIANCE SUCH AS THIS ONE IS REQUESTED, IT REQUIRES APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THE SITE PLAN WAS REVIEWED UNDER CHAPTER 146 OF THE OLD CODE AS IT WAS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE UD, THIS IS A VARIANCE FOR AN ALTERNATIVE SCREENING DEVICE REQUESTED BY THE PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BUSH DRIVE AND EL LAGO DRIVE. CHAPTER 146 OF THE OLD CODE REQUIRES THAT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROVIDE A SIX FOOT TALL MASONRY SCREENING WALL ALONG ALL SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES. THE APPLICANT IS CONSTRUCTING MULTIPLE RETAINING WALLS THAT VARY IN HEIGHT NEAR THE PROPERTY LINES AND INTERIOR TO THE SIDE AS WELL. SOME OF THESE RETAINING WALLS ARE SPANNING UPWARDS OF 20FT IN HEIGHT INSTEAD OF PROVIDING THE MASONRY WALLS ON TOP OF THE RETAINING WALLS, THE APPLICANT REQUEST TO PROVIDE SIX FOOT TALL WROUGHT IRON FENCE ON TOP. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THIS VARIANCE FOR THE SOUTHERN AND EASTERN PROPERTY LINES OF THE PROPERTY. SOUTHERN AND EASTERN SIDES OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH ARE ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING APARTMENT COMPLEX WHICH IS TO THE SOUTH, WHICH IF YOU'RE LOOKING ON THE PLAN, IT'S ACTUALLY ON THE LEFT SIDE HERE, AND THEN ON THE EAST SIDE, WHICH IS ON THE PLAN BOTTOM. THESE ARE OFFICES RIGHT HERE. AND THIS IS AN EXISTING HOTEL, EACH OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES HAVE PROVIDED METAL FENCING ON TOP OF THEIR RETAINING WALLS IN THE IN, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO MATCH THE EXISTING CONDITIONS. A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME EXISTS NEAR THE SOUTHWESTERN SECTION OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PROVIDE THE SIX FOOT TALL MASONRY WALL IN THAT LOCATION. IT IS STAFF'S PROFESSIONAL OPINION THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE SHOULD NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.[00:05:01]
GIVEN THE GRADE CHANGE BOTH OFFSITE AND ON SITE, THE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS. THE SCREENING PROVIDED ADJACENT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU JAKE. MEMBERS MAY HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF. JAKE, I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. YOU MENTIONED THE ADJACENT APARTMENT COMPLEX, SO THAT'S GOING TO BE A LAGO APARTMENTS. WHAT DO THEY CURRENTLY HAVE? IS THERE SCREENING OR DO THEY HAVE ANYTHING? YEAH. SO ALL OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. SO THE EL LAGO MULTIFAMILY, THE OFFICE AND THE HOTEL, THEY ALL HAVE RETAINING WALLS THAT ARE NEAR THEIR PROPERTY LINE AND THEY ALL HAVE METAL FENCING ON TOP OF THAT. SO WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT'S EXISTING. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. AND THE PROPOSED IS BELOW GRADE AS FAR AS THE TWO FOR THE SOUTH AND THE EAST FOR THE EXISTING PROPERTIES. YES THAT'S CORRECT. SO THE GRADE IS FALLING FROM EAST TO WEST. SO KIND OF THAT DIRECTION. YEAH. OKAY AND THE THEIR BUILDING NEW RETAINING WALLS THAT WILL BE IN LIKE IN FRONT OF THE EXISTING ONES OR. YES. SO THERE ARE SOME EXISTING NEAR THE VERY EAST AND SOUTH SIDES OF THE PROPERTY. SO THEY'RE KIND OF EXISTING OFF SITE AROUND THERE. AND THEN THERE ARE A FEW LEVELS THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING ON THEIR SITE THEMSELVES. SO EACH OF THE BROAD DASHED LINES ARE WHERE RETAINING WALLS ARE PROPOSED TO GO. SO YOU SEE THERE'S SOME THAT ARE ALONG THE SOUTHERN AND EASTERN SIDES AS WELL AS INTERIOR TO THE SITE BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS. ANYONE ELSE? SO YEAH, IF FENCING WAS BUILT ON TOP OF THE NEW RETAINING WATALLS, WOULD IT BE HIGHER THAN THE SURROUNDING FENCING, IT WOULD NOT. SO THOSE WERE THE GRADE CHANGES PRETTY DRASTICALLY EAST TO WEST. SO EVEN IF THE MASONRY WALLS WERE PROVIDED, IT'S LIKELY THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE SCREENING VERY MUCH AT ALL JUST BECAUSE OF THE GRADE CHANGE BETWEEN PROPERTIES. SO JAKE, CAN YOU MARK ON ON YOUR DIAGRAM WHERE, THE SCREENING IS THAT'S GOING TO FACE THE HOLIDAY AND EXPRESS? YEAH. SO THAT WOULD BE RIGHT HERE. THE HOLIDAY INN PROPERTY IS THIS ONE RIGHT HERE. SO ALONG THAT SECTION, WHAT WOULD BE FACING THE HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIV? SO, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOWER. SO THERE WOULD BE A, A RETAINING WALL WITH THE FENCING ON TOP OF IT AND THEN ANOTHER LEVEL OF RETAINING WALL WITH FENCING ON TOP THAT THE HOTEL PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED. SO THERE ARE THE EXISTING WALLS THAT ARE OFF SITE, AND THEN THERE'S GOING TO BE EVEN LARGER RETAINING WALLS THAT ARE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS ANYONE? JAKE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS OUR APPLICANT HERE TONIGHT? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. MARTIN. YOU WILL GIVE US YOUR NAME AND A LITTLE BIT ABOUT I AM. MY NAME IS MARTIN MITCHELL. I REPRESENT POWER BUILD, WHICH IS THE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND ALSO DELUXTONE, WHICH IS GOING TO ACTUALLY BUILD THE STRUCTURES THAT ARE HERE. I REPRESENT THE OWNER IN BOTH. BOTH INSTANCES BELONG TO ONE COMPANY. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ADVANCE THIS, BUT I DID PROVIDE SOME, SOME PHOTOGRAPHS TO THAT SHOW. IS THIS IT COULD THE TOPOGRAPHY, WHICH IS EXTREME. YEAH. NOT SURE WHAT I'M DOING HERE. IF YOU JUST KEEP GOING TO THE RIGHT THERE SHOULD BE GOOD. BUT I'VE GOT SOME. OKAY. THE PURPOSE OF THIS ONE IS TO SHOW YOU THAT THIS IS SURROUNDED PRETTY MUCH BY COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THAT ONE RESIDENCE ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER, YOU CAN SEE THE TILE ROOF IN THE BOTTOM THERE. WE DO HAVE A SCREEN WALL, BETWEEN OUR PROPERTY AND THAT ONE. AND WE'VE HAD MANY INTERACTIONS WITH THAT. WITH THAT HOMEOWNER TO BE ON GOOD TERMS FROM WHEN WE STARTED THIS YEAR AND A HALF AGO. EVERYTHING ELSE IS THE APARTMENTS, SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE, HOLIDAY INN, PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. AND THEN, THAT'S PART OF A VERY LARGE LAKE ON THE TOP LEFT THAT BELONGS TO EL DORADO ESTATES. SO, HE MOVED IT AND DIDN'T SHOW ME HOW TO DO IT HERE. HERE. WHICH ONE? RIGHT THERE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, WELL, THIS IS SHOWING WHERE OUR RETAINING WALLS ARE IN PURPLE.[00:10:05]
THIS WAS, AS HE POINTED OUT, IT'S A 40 FOOT DROP FROM THE ROUNDABOUT AT THE BOTTOM TO THE DETENTION PONDS AT THE TOP. THERE A 40 FOOT DROP THAT WE HAVE CUT INTO SUBSTANTIAL TIERS, AND WE'VE GOT 30 FOOT WALLS ON THE THIS SIDE OF THE DETENTION PONDS TO TRY TO MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF STEPS, BUT ALSO TO MAKE EVERYTHING IN THERE USABLE. BUT THE QUESTION WITH, WITH THE RETAINING, WITH THE SCREEN WALLS RATHER IS THE FAR LEFT PICTURE. HERE IS THE THAT'S STANDING ON OUR PROPERTY. THAT'S THE RETAINING WALL THAT WE BUILT IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT. THAT'S THE SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE, WHICH IS THAT MUCH UPHILL FROM US. OUR AND IT'S GOT ITS OWN, RETAINING WALL. IT'S GOT ITS OWN RAIL ON TOP OF THAT. YOU CAN SEE IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER IN THE IN THE SECOND PICTURE, THE PROPERTY, OUR PROPERTY LINE IS ACTUALLY ABOUT SEVEN FEET BEHIND THE NEW RETAINING WALL. SO THAT'S GOING TO LEAVE THAT GREENBELT BETWEEN US AND THE SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE. AND THE SAME WITH THE HOLIDAY INN ON THE OTHER SIDE. SO I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT THE BENEFIT IS OF CREATING THAT ALLEY THERE BETWEEN THE RETAINING WALL AND A SCREEN WALL, IT IS OUR BOUNDARY AND I KNOW FOR THE SAKE OF OUR RESIDENTS, WE'LL PUT SIX FOOT IRON FENCE THERE. I MEAN, WE'LL PUT UP A, A BOUNDARY FENCE ON EVERYTHING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE FOR THE RESIDENTS. SO. AND THEN THE THIRD PICTURE IS LOOKING THE OTHER DIRECTION.THAT'S ACTUALLY THE HOLIDAY INN UPHILL FROM THAT. AND THEN A BIT OF AN AERIAL VIEW ON THE FAR RIGHT SHOWING YOU AGAIN, THAT'S OUR RETAINING WALL. AND THEN IN THE FOREFRONT AND THEN BEHIND THAT IS THE RETAINING WALL OF THE HOLIDAY INN, WHICH WOULD BE STILL WOULD BE TALLER THAN OUR SIX FOOT SCREEN WALL IF WE PUT IT, YOU KNOW, PARTWAY BETWEEN THE TWO WALLS. SO, MY MAIN CONCERN IS, IS IT GOING TO HAVE A PURPOSE? AND I'M NOT SURE THAT IT DOES. THE SOUTH WALL HERE, IT'S HARD TO TELL IN THIS PICTURE, BUT AT THE VERY CORNER BACK THERE IS ABOUT 28FT TALL.
THE APARTMENT COMPLEX HAS A SIX FOOT IRON FENCE ALL THE WAY DOW. THIS WHOLE THING. THIS IS THE ENTIRE SOUTH RUN, WHICH RUNS DOWN TO A DETENTION POND. WE DID GET A VARIANCE EARLIER TO PUT A SWALE ON TOP OF THIS. BETWEEN OUR OUR WALL AND THE APARTMENT COMPLEX TO GUIDE WATER FROM CRAIG. AND IN ALL FAIRNESS, OUR DETENTION PONDS HANDLE LIKE FIVE TIMES THE SIZE OF OUR PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT JUST NEVER GOT ADJUSTED. AS THINGS GOT DEVELOPED. SO WE'VE GOT SUBSTANTIAL PONDS THERE. BUT WE DID HAVE TO DIRECT A BUNCH OF WATER THERE, SO WE DON'T HONESTLY HAVE A PLACE TO PUT A WALL UNLESS WE REPLACE THE APARTMENTS. WROUGHT IRON FENCE, WHICH I'M NOT SURE THERE'S A CAUSE FOR THAT. I HAVE SPOKEN WITH, WITH ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS, THE ACTUAL NEIGHBORS, SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE, THE HOLIDAY INN, AND AT LEAST THE LOCAL MANAGEMENT HERE WHO TEND TO AGREE WITH WITH THE PROPOSAL I'M MAKING HERE, THAT WE IN THIS INSTANCE, LEAVE THAT ALONE. IF FOR SOME REASON THEY DECIDE TO TAKE THAT DOWN, ONE DAY, WE MAY BE INSPIRED TO PUT SOMETHING UP. YOU KNOW, JUST ON OUR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE. BUT RIGHT NOW, I MEAN, THAT'S 22, 23 YEARS OLD AND IS SUFFICE. SO FAR. SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT I WANTED TO SHOW IS I THINK THAT'S IT. JUST WHAT THE PURPOSE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE. I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE FOR, BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THEY WOULD BE DOING THAT HERE. SO THE WROUGHT IRON, THAT'S THE SCREENING THAT WILL BE ON TOP OF THIS RETAINING WALL THAT Y'ALL ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BUILDING ON, IN THE FOREFRONT OF THOSE PICTURES. IS THAT RIGHT HERE ON THE EAST SIDE, ON THE SOUTH SIDE, RIGHT HERE, THE SOUTH SIDE, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THERE'S NO ACCESS TO THAT. SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT A RAILING ON THAT IF WE'RE IF PEOPLE COULD GET UP THERE, WE'D PUT A RAILING FOR SAFETY. BUT OKAY, IT'S INACCESSIBLE. ALL THE REST OF THE RETAINING WALLS THAT YOU'VE SEEN IN ALL THESE PICTURES WILL HAVE 42 INCH RAILS FOR SAFETY, EXCEPT THE PONDS THAT ARE AGAIN, 30FT TALL. THEY'LL HAVE A SIX FOOT SAFETY FENCE ALL THE WAY AROUND THOSE AND LOCKED GATES. OKAY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. MITCHELL. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. IF YOU'VE COME TONIGHT AND WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS PLANNING AND ZONING REGARDING THIS PROPOSED VARIANCE, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. A MOTION BY MR. LEBEAU TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SECOND. SECOND BY MR. BUCKNER, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES. THE MOTION IS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I I. THINK THAT MOTION IS APPROVED. MY VOTE IS SEVEN IN
[00:15:24]
FAVOR, ZERO AGAINST. THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED. WE HAVE QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR OF STAFF OR COMMENTS IN GENERAL. YOUR MOTIONS. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 22-0039 SP TWO. TO ACT, CONSIDER AND ACT ON THE VARIANCE TO THE SITE. PLAN A MOTION BY MISS WATER TO APPROVE THE ITEM PER STAFF APPROVAL, INCLUDING THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. SECOND SECOND BY MISS HAMMOCK. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. I DON'T THERE WE GO. I'M STILL NOT. YES. OKAY. THAT MOTION IS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF SEVEN IN FAVOR, ZERO AGAINST.THE VARIANCE REQUEST HAS BEEN APPROVED. ALL RIGHT. OUR NEXT ITEM TONIGHT IS 23-0106Z. A
[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Zone a Portion of the Subject Property to “PD” - Planned Development District, Generally for Residential and Commercial Uses; and Rezone a Portion of the Subject Property from “PD” - Planned Development District, “C” - Planned Center District, “O” - Office District, and “SF-5” - Single Family Residential District to “PD” - Planned Development District, Generally for Residential and Commercial Uses; the Subject Property being 1,649 Acres Generally Located East of FM 1461 (Future Lake Forest Drive) and County Road 166 and South of County Road 168 and FM 543]
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REZONE OF A PORTION OF A PROPERTY TO PD FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES, AND REZONE A PORTION FOR C DEVELOPMENT. C PLAN CENTER DISTRICT, OH OFFICE AND SF FIVE. THIS IS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES. THIS IS ON FM 1461. IT'S 1650 ACRES. COUNTY ROAD 166 AND SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 168 AND FM 543. MR. BENNETT? YES. THANK YOU AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN. SO THIS IS A ZONING AND REZONING REQUEST FOR APPROXIMATELY 1650 ACRES IN THE NORTHERN SECTOR OF MCKINNEY. THE EXISTING ZONING ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE C PLAN CENTER, O OFFICE, SF FIVE RESIDENTIAL AND THE EXISTING PD ALL ALLOW FOR MANY OF THE SAME DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED. THE PROPOSED ZONING SPLITS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY INTO MULTIPLE PLANNING AREAS AND FURTHER INTO DISTRICTS WHICH CONTROL THE WHAT USES CAN DEVELOP, WHERE THEY CAN BE DEVELOPED, AND HOW THEY CAN BE DEVELOPED, BY DOING THIS, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP A COHESIVE AND MASTER PLAN STYLE.THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS INCLUDED IN THE PD MIMIC THE C1, C2, AND C3 DISTRICTS OF THE UDC AND THE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS MIMIC TRADITIONAL AND COTTAGE STYLE MULTIFAMILY, WHICH ARE ALSO INCLUDED IN THE UDC. THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ALLOWS FOR A MULTITUDE OF PRODUCT TYPES DERIVATIVE OF THOSE PROVIDED IN THE UDC THAT CAN BE INTERTWINED AT DIFFERENT RATES IN CERTAIN AREAS, THIS PROPOSED ZONING OF OVER 2.5MI■S OF LAND IS CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING ZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND COMPREHENSIVE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HELPING SOLIDIFY THE CITY'S VISION FOR THE SCENIC AND HONEY CREEK DISTRICTS. GIVEN THE SIZE AND SCALE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD MAKE A SIGNIFICANT POSITIVE IMPACT TO ACHIEVING DIFFERENT HOUSING PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY. AS SUCH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ZONING, I THINK IT WOULD BE PRETTY BENEFICIAL TO GO AHEAD AND GO THROUGH AN EXAMPLE OF THE OF THE ZONING, SO ONE GOOD EXAMPLE THAT WE WOULD HAVE. SO THIS IS THE ZONING EXHIBIT. IT SHOWS THE EXISTING ZONINGS. AS YOU CAN SEE, MOST OF IT IS PD. THERE ARE SOME PIECES, ABOUT 53 ACRES THAT'S CURRENTLY IN THE CITY OF MCKINNEY, ETJ THAT'S GOING TO BE, THERE'S AN ANNEXATION REQUEST THAT WILL BE IN FRONT OF COUNCIL, ALONG WITH THE ZONING AT THE SEPTEMBER 17TH MEETING. THERE IS ALSO THE O OFFICE, THE C PLAN CENTER, WHICH CORRESPONDS TO THE C3 DISTRICT AND TODAY'S UDC, AS WELL AS SF FIVE, WHICH CORRESPONDS TO R5.
THIS IS THE PLANNING AREA EXHIBIT, SO EACH OF THESE PLANNING AREAS HAVE THEIR OWN KIND OF DEFINITION OR DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THE VISION IS FOR EACH OF THOSE PLANNING AREAS. FURTHER, IT BREAKS IT DOWN INTO INDIVIDUAL DISTRICTS WITHIN THOSE PLANNING AREAS. SO EACH OF THESE INDIVIDUAL DISTRICTS, YOU CAN SEE THE LIGHTER, THE TAN COLOR, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, PRIMARILY THE MORE YELLOW KIND OF ORANGISH. THAT WOULD BE KIND OF MULTIFAMILY TRACKS. AND THEN THE COMMERCIAL WOULD BE THE DARKER ORANGE OR THE REDDISH COLOR, SO JUST KIND OF AS AN EXAMPLE, WE'LL GO THROUGH. SO PLANNING AREA FOUR, WHICH IS THE PURPLE
[00:20:06]
DOWN IN THE SOUTHWEST, WE'LL BE LOOKING AT THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH AGAIN MAKES UP THE MAJORITY OF THAT, ABOUT 170 ACRES WITHIN THAT PLANNING AREA, AND THEN WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE, WE'D BE LOOKING AT THE PINK, SO YOU SEE WHAT'S PERMITTED WITHIN THAT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREA, WE HAVE A STATE THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED, TRADITIONAL COTTAGE, HAVE A MINIMUM NUMBER OF PRODUCTS THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED WITHIN THAT PLANNING AREA. AND THEN THE MAXIMUM ON THE SMALLER LOT, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS DOES IS, THIS GIVES US A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF TRADITIONAL AND COTTAGE AS WELL AS POTENTIALLY A STATE, PRODUCT TYPES THAT WILL BE WITHIN THIS DISTRICT, AS WELL AS PUTTING A CAP ON, YOU KNOW, TOWNHOMES OR SMALLER, LOT RESIDENTIAL. SO THIS WOULD KEEP THE ENTIRE PROPERTY FROM BECOMING TOWNHOMES. IT WOULD HAVE A GOOD MIX OF DIFFERENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT TYPES WITHIN THERE. AS WELL AS THAT, IT GOES FURTHER INTO PROJECT TOTALS. SO WE HAVE MINIMUMS FOR A STATE TRADITIONAL COTTAGE, AND WE HAVE MIN'S AND MAX'S ON THE SMALLER LOT, RESIDENTIAL AS WELL. YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE ABOUT THE SAME THING. THE MAXIMUMS ON THE MULTIFAMILY AS WELL AS THE ACREAGE THAT CAN BE USED FOR MULTIFAMILY. AND THEN WE GO FURTHER INTO THE COMMERCIAL. SO THIS TIME I'LL GO AHEAD AND STOP. IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL STAND FOR THOSE AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. JACK, QUESTIONS, ANYONE? YEAH, I HAVE SOME JAKE, NOW, IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED UNDER A PD 1703. YES. WHICH IS A COMMERCIAL PLAN CENTER, OFFICE AND A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS THE COMMERCIAL OF THE NEW PROPOSED ZONING EXHIBIT. KIND OF, EQUAL TO THE OLD COMMERCIAL ACREAGE. YEAH. SO THE SIZES HAVE CHANGED A LITTLE BIT AS WELL AS THE LOCATION. SO RIGHT HERE, OBVIOUSLY THE C PLAN CENTER ON THE FAR WEST SIDE, THAT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF OUR C3, AS WELL AS WITHIN THE PD, WHICH IS THE TIO. ACROSS THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY. THERE ARE CERTAIN LOCATIONS WHERE RESIDENTIAL, MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THE PROPOSED ZONING. SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE PROPOSED PD IS, IS IT ALLOWS THE ENTIRE PROPERTY TO BE MORE COHESIVE, DEVELOP MORE COHESIVELY, AS WELL AS MODERNIZING THE ZONING. SO KIND OF BRINGING IT INTO, YOU KNOW, THIS CENTURY WHERE WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, OUR UDC AND VERY SIMILAR, I'M SURE, ABOUT MODERNIZATION. YOU MEAN THE NEW ROAD DESIGNS? WELL, NOT JUST ROAD DESIGNS, BUT BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ROAD DESIGNS NECESSARILY, AS PART OF THE ZONING, BUT IT WOULD BE LIKE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. SO DIFFERENT USE TYPES, SETBACKS, HEIGHTS, USES, THAT KIND OF THING, I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION ON THE TABLE. R1, CAN YOU PULL THAT UP SO YOU CAN LOOK AT IT, ON THE FIRST LINE FOR A STATE, IF YOU GO UNDER AREA FIVE, IT SAYS MINIMUM 200 PERMITTED. AND THEN THE PROJECT TOTAL SAYS MINIMUM 225. YES. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT? I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. SO WHAT THAT ESSENTIALLY SAYING IS THE MAJORITY OR A GOOD AMOUNT OF THE ESTATE, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TYPE IS GOING TO BE FOUND IN AREA FIVE. HOWEVER, YOU CAN SEE THE FIRST THREE HAVE THE NA. SO NOT APPLICABLE IN THOSE DISTRICTS. BUT THEN YOU HAVE THE P'S FOR PERMITTED. SO EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE A MINIMUM OF 200 THAT'S IN AREA FIVE FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT, WE'RE REQUIRING 225 OF THAT PROJECT. OKAY, I SEE THAT. AND CAN YOU GO TO SFR ONE TABLE? AND WHERE IT SAYS CLUSTER, IF YOU GO OVER ALL ACROSS THERE, IT'S PER X H. YES.SO THERE IS A SEPARATE EXHIBIT. IT WAS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE AGENDA AS AN ATTACHMENT WITH THE AGENDA, SO WE HAVE, QUITE A FEW MORE EXHIBITS THAN WE WOULD TYPICALLY HAVE FOR ZONING JUST BECAUSE THIS IS SO LARGE. SO YOU TYPICALLY FOR A STRAIGHT ZONING, WE'RE LOOKING AT EXHIBITS A THROUGH C. IF IT'S A PD, IT'S TYPICALLY A THROUGH D. WE HAVE ALSO HAD E F G AND H. SO WE'VE HAD FOUR EXTRA EXHIBITS. SO OTHER EXAMPLES WOULD BE SO THE PLANNING AREA EXHIBIT IS ITS OWN EXHIBIT. THAT WOULD BE I THINK IT'S EXHIBIT E, AND THEN THE DISTRICT MAP IS EXHIBIT F, AND THEN WE HAVE G, AND H IS THE ONE FOR THE CLUSTER. I DIDN'T SEE THAT REFERENCE. THANK YOU. AND CAN YOU GO OVER MFK AND MFT? YES. SO, THERE'S A THERE'S QUITE A VARIANCE ON MAXIMUM HEIGHT.
[00:25:02]
YES SO, SO MFT IS THE TRADITIONAL MULTIFAMILY PRODUCT TYPE. SO ESSENTIALLY ALL OF THOSE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT ARE UP THERE MIMIC THE MF 30, THE STRAIGHT ZONING DISTRICT THAT WE HAVE IN THE UDC. WE'VE THERE'S ALSO AN MFK, WHICH IS MULTIFAMILY COTTAGE. SO A LESS INTENSE KIND OF MULTIFAMILY MAX HEIGHT OF 35 INSTEAD OF 55. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT TWO, MAYBE THREE STORIES, AND WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT 12 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. SO THAT MAY BE, PRODUCTS THAT ARE KIND OF LIKE SINGLE FAMILY FOR RENT WHERE YOU MAY HAVE LIKE TOWNHOME STYLE OR BROWNSTONE STYLE, PRODUCT, BUT IT'S ALL ON ONE LOT. SO IT'S TECHNICALLY MULTIFAMILY AND THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL CAN BE 55FT HIGH. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT MIMICS OUR, THOSE ALL MIMIC OUR C1, C2, AND C3. SO YOU SEE, 35 AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL THAT SAME IN THE C1 45. AND C2, AND THEN 55 AND C3. AND THE USES MIMIC, THE C1, C2, AND C3 AS WELL. THANK YOU. YEP NO PROBLEM.ANYONE ELSE? YEAH. JAKE. SO WHAT IN THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT? FIRST OF ALL, I'M JUST I'M CURIOUS HOW LONG HOW LONG YOU FOLKS HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS DEVELOPMENT? BECAUSE THIS IS A BIG ONE. YEAH. SO THE INITIAL SUBMITTAL I WANT TO SAY WAS NOVEMBER. I THINK OF LAST YEAR, SO WE'VE GONE THROUGH, I THINK 5 OR 6 DIFFERENT ITERATIONS. THE TIME THAT WE'VE TAKEN TO REVIEW THOSE A LITTLE BIT LONGER, JUST BECAUSE IT'S SO LARGE COMPARED TO TYPICAL ZONING REQUESTS. SO WE WE'VE SPENT PLENTY OF TIME YOU KNOW, WORKING THROUGH THIS WITH JAKE WAGNER AND, JIM HENRY AND THE APPLICANTS AS WELL, WORKING TOGETHER TO TRY AND GET THIS THING ACROSS THE FINISH LINE WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY. OKAY SO WHAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE BUILT TO 55FT IN THIS KIND OF A DEVELOPMENT? YEAH. SO WE'RE YOU SEE THE RC, WHICH IS REALLY BELIEVE IT'S JUST THESE TWO AREAS DOWN. PICK A COLOR THAT MIGHT POP UP RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT IN THIS CORNER. AND THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE RIGHT ALONG THE SOUTHERN BORDERS THERE, THAT'S WHERE THE 380 BYPASS IS GOING. SO THAT'S WHERE THOSE WILL END UP TOUCHING THAT ROADWAY. AND THEN THERE'S ALSO A GOOD TRANSITION FROM THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH MULTIFAMILY. ANYONE ELSE THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO BE IN CONSTRUCTING THE ROADS, LIKE THE LONG HAUL EXTENSION AND THE HARDIN EXTENSION THROUGH THE HONEY CREEK DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S CORRECT. SO, ANY APPLICANT, ANY DEVELOPER, THEY HAVE TO HAVE ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE OR THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ANY KIND OF DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY'RE DOING. SO JAKE, ON PAGE TWO AT THE TOP, THERE'S A REFERENCE TO A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION. YES CAN YOU POINT OUT WHERE THAT 5250. YEAH. 52 ACRES IS LOCATED. YEAH. OF COURSE. SO, ON THE EXHIBIT UP ON THE SCREEN NOW WE HAVE ABOUT 45 ACRES THERE IN THE CENTER BOTTOM. AND THEN THERE'S ABOUT ANOTHER EIGHT THAT ARE OUT ON THE EAST SIDE. SO IT'S ABOUT 53 ACRES IN TOTAL, THE ANNEXATION IS NOT PART OF THE REQUEST TONIGHT. IT'LL GO IN FRONT OF COUNCIL. IT ONLY HAS TO GO IN FRONT OF COUNCIL INSTEAD OF P, AND Z, AND RIGHT NOW THAT DATE . VERY GOOD. YOU SAID THAT'S THE ONLY PROPERTY THEY'RE REQUESTING VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION. THAT'S CORRECT. JUST THE 53 ACRES. THE REST OF IT'S ALREADY PART OF THE CITY LIMITS AND IT'S ALREADY ZONED. IS THAT SO? THEY CAN BRING WATER AND SEWER TO THE WHOLE TRACT, OR I UNDERSTAND THE WATER GOES THROUGH THE TRACT. IT MAY HAVE JUST BEEN THAT THE APPLICANT OR THE DEVELOPER HAD ENDED UP BUYING THOSE PROPERTIES LATER ON. AND SO NOW THEY'RE WANTING TO BRING IT INTO THE REST OF THE MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY. JAKE AND I OWN THE ORIGINAL LOI. THEY WERE PLANNING ON DONATING SOME PUBLIC LANDS. IS THAT STILL A PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN? IF SO, WHERE ARE THOSE AND WHAT'S THE INTENDED USE FOR THAT? YEAH, OF COURSE. SO, THEY ARE IN A DIFFERENT COLOR ON HERE, BUT WE DO HAVE SOME, TRY THIS BLUE.
THERE'S SOME PUBLIC PUBLIC DEDICATION IN THIS AREA, I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT FURTHER NORTH UP THERE, AND THEN DOWN IN THIS AREA AS WELL, THERE ARE MULTIPLE LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY THAT PUBLIC DEDICATION IS HAPPENING. THE REASON FOR THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE GOING INTO BECOMING AREAS FOR PARKS, FOR FIRE STATIONS, FUTURE MIDDLE OR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. I BELIEVE, AS WELL. ALL OF THIS IS NOT TIED INTO THE ZONING. IT'S PART OF
[00:30:02]
THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT HOPEFULLY WILL BE MOVING FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 17TH AS WELL. OKAY THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT JAKE, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE IT. YES. AND GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS JIM HENRY. I REPRESENT, REPUBLIC PROPERTY GROUP, WHO IS THE DEVELOPER IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE LANDOWNER, MCKINNEY RANCHES LIMITED. REPUBLIC PROPERTY GROUP IS OUR OFFICES ARE BASED IN DALLAS. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH MR. BENNETT AND MISS ARNOLD AND STAFF FOR ABOUT A YEAR OR MORE, ON THIS. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE.WE APPRECIATE YOU ALL CONSIDERING, THIS PD ZONING CASE, AS AS MR. BENNETT SAID, THIS IS, A LARGE TRACT, 1648 ACRES. AND THE VISION HERE IS TO BRING A COHESIVE MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY TO THIS LOCATION THAT OFFERS A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT PRODUCT TYPES. AND, THE PROPERTY DOES HAVE THAT OLDER ZONING. I THINK IT'S FROM 1983, THAT ALLOWS A LOT OF DIFFERENT POCKETS OF VERY HIGH DENSITY PRODUCT AND A LOT OF DISPARATE LOCATIONS, AND SORT OF WORKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH, CITY STAFF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, THE MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE LAYOUT YOU SEE THERE, INCLUDING LORD HOWE PARKWAY, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN KIND OF CAME TOGETHER. AND WHAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU WILL ALLOW A VARIETY OF MORE MODERN PRODUCT TYPES IN MORE APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS, CONSISTENT WITH WHAT MARKET TYPICALLY LIKES TO SEE. AND I THINK CONSISTENT IT'S VERY CONSISTENT WITH THE UDC AS WELL. SO IT'S AN EFFORT TO BRING EVERYTHING UP TO BEING MODERN. AND WE THINK IT WILL BE A WELL, A WELL THOUGHT OUT AND WELL IMPLEMENTED MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY. WE'VE GOT A LOT OF EXPERIENCE FROM THE DEVELOPER SIDE IN THESE TYPES OF COMMUNITIES, HAVE WORKED ON STONEBRIDGE RANCH, LANTANA, PHILLIPS CREEK RANCH, WALSH AND LIGHT FARMS. SO IF YOU'VE SEEN OR BEEN TO SOME OF THOSE, THIS IS THIS WILL BE VERY MUCH IN THAT SAME FLAVOR. ANY QUESTIONS? ANYONE KNOW? SO WHAT DO YOU THINK THE TIME FRAME WILL BE FOR, SOME LEVEL OF BUILD OUT, ASSUMING APPROVAL ON THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON THE 17TH OF SEPTEMBER, WE WILL IMMEDIATELY GET STARTED ON, RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION, ON DESIGN FOR HOWELL PARKWAY, IN PARTICULAR, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS PREDICATED ON DELIVERING LOT HOWELL FIRST, IF THAT GOES AS PLANNED. I BELIEVE THE DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF THAT, BARRING ANY FORCE MAJEURE EVENTS OR ANY OTHER DELAYS. BUT IF ALL GOES ACCORDING TO PLAN, THAT WOULD BE INSTALLED BY THE END OF 2027, WE WOULD ALSO DURING THAT TIME, AS LAND BECOMES AVAILABLE, OUR FIRST SELF-DEVELOPED NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH I THINK WILL BE AN AREA THREE, WHICH IS KIND OF RIGHT SMACK IN THE MIDDLE THERE, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO START DEVELOPMENT SOMETIME. WE THINK IN LATE 25 OR MAYBE MID 26, AND HAVE LOT DELIVERIES 18 TO 24 MONTHS AFTER THAT. THANK YOU, MR. HENRY. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING AND ZONING REGARDING THIS PROPOSED REZONE, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, I'M BOB ROEDER, 2207 SEVEN COUNTY ROAD 168, IN MCKINNEY. MY WIFE, TERESA AND I LIVE ON THE PROPERTY THAT ABUTS AND ADJOINS THIS TO THE NORTH, WE ARE SEPARATED FROM THE PROPERTY BY HONEY CREEK, WE'RE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS, COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REQUEST. I HAVE HAD A LOT OF EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH THE 1983 PD ORDINANCE. THE OLD CROSS PD. IT HAS A PROCESS AND PROCEDURE REQUIRED IN THAT THAT THAT DOES NOT MATCH WHAT YOU ARE DOING NOW. SO IF THERE'S NO OTHER CHANGE, THE FACT THAT YOU'RE NOW BRINGING IT INTO THE 21ST CENTURY WITH THE PROCESSES YOU USE FOR SITE, FOR YOUR PLANNING, YOUR SITE PLANS, YOUR ZONING AND WHATNOT, THAT'S A BIG PLUS. YOU'RE ALSO CREATING THE LANGUAGE NOW THAT WE USE TODAY, NOT THE LANGUAGE WE USED IN 1983, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT. I KNOW THIS THIS DEVELOPER, THEY HAVE DONE A TREMENDOUS JOB IN OTHER IN THE OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT THEY'VE MENTIONED, TERESA AND I ARE EXCITED TO SEE THINGS HAPPEN
[00:35:05]
THERE. WE'RE GOING TO MISS THE OPEN SPACE, BUT THEY'LL JUST DRIVE ALL THE DEER AND OTHER, ANIMALS TO OUR PROPERTY. AND THAT WOULD BE FINE. YOU KNOW, WE WOULD. WE'RE IN FAVOR OF IT. I HOPE YOU APPROVE IT. THANK YOU, MR. ROEDER. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING AND ZONING REGARDING THIS ITEM? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE. 230106Z.PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. LOBO TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE ITEM. AS PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION. SECOND. SECOND, BY MR. WHATLEY. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES. AYE. ALL RIGHT. THE MOTION CARRIES BY A VOTE OF SEVEN IN FAVOR AND ZERO AGAINST. THIS WILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION, FOR THE SEPTEMBER 17, 2024, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. ONE NOTE IF YOU HAVE SUBMITTED A LETTER OR ANY COMMENTS ONLINE REGARDING THIS ITEM, PLEASE KNOW THAT THEY THOSE COMMENTS DO GO TO THE CITY
[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Zone the Subject Property to “R6” - Residential District, Located at 5082 County Road 1205]
COUNCIL AS PART OF OUR MINUTES. OKAY, THE NEXT ITEM, 24-0054ZA PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A ZONING OF A PROPERTY TO R SIX RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. THIS IS AT 5082 COUNTY ROAD 1205, MR. BENNETT. YES THANK YOU AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN. LAST TIME YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE TO HEAR FROM ME TONIGHT, SO THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO R SIX RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 1205. AND BAXTER WELL ROAD, AND IS SURROUNDED BY OTHER PROPERTY THAT THE APPLICANT OWNS. THE APPLICANT CURRENTLY OWNS LAND THAT IS ZONED FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES. ON THE NORTHWEST AND EAST SIDES OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IT IS THE INTENT OF THE APPLICANT TO INCORPORATE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY INTO THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. THE REQUEST FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ALIGNS WITH THE SUBURBAN LIVING PLACE TYPE DESIGNATION AND THE COMP PLAN, AND SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED SURROUNDING USES. DUE TO THE CONSISTENCY WITH THE EXISTING ZONING SURROUNDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS WELL AS CONFORMANCE TO THE COMP PLAN, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. JAKE. QUESTIONS APPARENTLY NOT. IS THERE AN APPLICANT HERE? YES, SIR. YES, SIR. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JERRY SILO. I'M WITH JB PARTNERS, 2121 MIDWAY ROAD IN CARROLLTON, WE DO REPRESENT THE OWNER ON THIS APPLICATION, VERY QUICKLY, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING FROM YOUR PREVIOUS REQUEST OF OVER 1600 ACRES DOWN TO FIVE ACRES. SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET THROUGH THIS, THE PROPERTY IS PART OF THE HIGHLAND LAKES COMMUNITY, WHICH IS UP OFF OF BLOOMDALE AND RIDGE ROAD. WHEN DALE CLARK ORIGINALLY ZONED THIS PROPERTY IN 2005, THIS FIVE ACRE PARCEL WAS NOT PART OF THE OVERALL SITE. HE AFTER HE GOT RECEIVED THE ZONING IN 2005, HE ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY AND NOW TAYLOR MORRISON HOMES, WHO IS DEVELOPING THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IS WORKING TOWARDS INCORPORATING THIS SITE INTO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT COULD HAPPEN ON THE PROPERTY. IT WE'RE REQUESTING THE ZONING THAT'S IDENTICAL TO THE ZONING STANDARDS AROUND THERE. SO WE ASSUME IT'S GOING TO BE A SEAMLESS TRANSITION FROM ONE TO THE OTHER. WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL TO THE COUNCIL TONIGHT. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MR. SEILER. WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. IF YOU COME TONIGHT AND WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS PLANNING AND ZONING REGARDING THIS PROPOSED ZONING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. SET PAUSE FOR A SECOND. I THINK THE GENTLEMAN OUT THERE IS HERE FOR THE LAST ITEM. NO, THE LAST ONE. JUST CONFIRMED THAT HE'S NOT HERE FOR THIS ONE. SIR I THINK YOU'RE HERE FOR THE LAST ONE. FOR THE PREVIOUS ONE. I'M SORRY.I'LL GIVE THIS ONE. IT'S THE PREVIOUS ONE. OKAY THEY'RE ONLINE NOW. OKAY THANK YOU. JUST EARNING MY KEEP. YOU WAVE YOURS AND I'LL WAVE MINE. OKAY. MISS STRICKLAND, WHERE WERE WE?
[00:40:09]
STUART. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. YES, AND 24005Z. I HAVE A MOTION BY MR. BUETTNER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE ITEM. AS PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION. SECOND. SECOND BY MISS WOODARD. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES. IT'S THAT MOTION CARRIES BY A VOTE OF SEVEN IN FAVOR AND ZERO AGAINST. THE ITEM WILL BE SENT TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING. ZONING, IT GOES TO THE SEPTEMBER 17TH, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. THAT IS OUR LAST, PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. WE DO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE TO ADDRESS PLANNING AND ZONING ON ANYTHING THAT IS NOT ON OUR AGENDA. ALL[COMMISSION AND STAFF COMMENTS]
RIGHT. NEXT ITEM WILL BE STAFF COMMENTS. ANYONE NOTHING. YEAH, I HAVE ONE, CAITLIN, I WOULD REQUEST THAT EVERYBODY DOES GET A COPY OF THIS. IT'LL BE HELPFUL FOR THEM. GREAT STAFF COMMENTS.SO WHAT WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT IS THE SUMMARY. THE PNC SUMMARY NOTES THAT, YEAH, JUST PASS THOSE OUT TO EVERYBODY. YEAH, YEAH. ANYONE ELSE? MR. BENNETT, NICE WORK TONIGHT. YOU DID THE HEAVY LIFTING. I'LL GIVE YOU THE NEXT WEEK OFF. OKAY EXCELLENT, WE DO NEED A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
SO MOVED. MR. WHATLEY. SECOND. SECOND BY MR. LEBEAU. ANY DISCUSSION, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES. THAT MOTION CARRIES BY VOTE OF SEVEN IN FAVOR. ZERO AGAINST. IT IS 644, AND WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THANK YOU EVERYONE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.