Consider/Discuss/Act on a Resolution of the City Council of the City of McKinney, Texas, Supporting the Efforts of the McKinney Housing Authority to Acquire the Kinstead Apartments

[Consider/Discuss/Act on a Resolution of the City Council of the City of McKinney, Texas, Supporting the Efforts of the McKinney Housing Authority to Acquire the Kinstead Apartments]

OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF MCKINNEY SUPPORTING THE EFFORTS OF THE MCKINNEY HOUSING AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE THE KINSTON APARTMENTS. GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THE MCKINNEY HOUSING AUTHORITY IS SEEKING A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE KINSTON APARTMENTS AND WILL PARTNER WITH THE CALDERA CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC IN A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP THAT WILL ALLOW THE PROJECT TO PROVIDE 29 UNITS AT 30 ARMY AND 162 UNITS AT 80%, AMI IN RETURN, THE PROJECT WILL ALSO RECEIVE AD VALOREM TAX EXEMPTION PER CHAPTER 392 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. THE PROJECT, THE PROJECTED TAX BENEFIT FROM THE EXEMPTION IS APPROXIMATELY 16.5 MILLION, AND THE MHR IS PROJECTED TO GENERATE APPROXIMATELY 15 MILLION IN RETURN. WE DO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM MHR OXON AND CALDERA TO PRESENT MORE DETAILS ON THE PROJECT. THANK. WHILE THEY'RE COMING UP, YOUR NUMBERS OF 16.5 AND 15 MILLION IS OVER. WHAT PERIOD OF TIME? APPROXIMATELY TEN YEARS, I BELIEVE. OKAY. SO THE PRESENTATION JUST JUST SO PEOPLE UNDERSTAND, I THINK WHAT YOU WERE JUST SAYING IS THE, THE REVENUE GENERATED CITY IS $15 MILLION. THE, THE WHY DON'T YOU CLARIFY FOR ME? GIVE ME GIVE ME

[00:25:01]

A LITTLE SORRY, A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION ON THE REVENUE GENERATED FOR THE MHR INCLUDES TRANSACTION FEES, ACQUISITION FEES, COMPLIANCE FEES AND THE LEASE PAYMENTS FOR THE PROPERTY.

THE REVENUE SHARE TO MATCH WOULD BE 15 MILLION. YES. TAX FOREGONE WILL BE 16.5. CORRECT. SO THE COST OF THIS TO US OVER THE TEN YEAR PERIOD IS 1.5 MILLION. CORRECT. BUT THAT ALSO INCLUDES THE SUBSIDY BENEFIT THAT GOES TO THE RESIDENTS AS WELL, WHICH ENDS UP BEING THE LARGEST BENEFIT OF THAT 15 MILLION. SO THE FROM THE CITY OF MCKINNEY AND AARON, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO GIVE US THE EXACT NUMBERS. THE CITY OF MCKINNEY FORGOES ABOUT $350,000 A YEAR IN TAX BENEFIT, AND THE MCKINNEY HOUSING AUTHORITY WOULD RECEIVE ABOUT $200,000 A YEAR ON AVERAGE.

YEAH, THE CITY IS 354,007, 29, TO BE EXACT. YEAH. AND THE HOUSING AUTHORITY ON AVERAGE WOULD RECEIVE ROUGHLY ABOUT $200,000. BUT WHAT'S LOST IS THE BENEFIT FOR THE RENT REDUCTIONS TO THE TENANTS THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO LIVE THERE. SO FROM A CASH ON CASH PERSPECTIVE, YES, THERE'S 400,000 TO ON AVERAGE, EXCUSE ME, ON AVERAGE, THE HOUSING AUTHORITY WOULD GET $370,000 A YEAR ON AVERAGE. SO THAT'S ABOVE THE 354 THAT THE CITY HAS. AND THAT INCLUDES THE SELL ON FEES. YES, THE DISPOSITION FEE. SO ON AVERAGE THE HOUSING AUTHORITY WOULD BE BRINGING IN MORE THAN THE $354,000 OF TAXES RIGHT NOW THAT THE CITY OF MCKINNEY CURRENTLY GETS. BUT THE ADDITIONAL BENEFITS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH IT ARE THE RENT REDUCTIONS FOR A MIXED INCOME COMMUNITY. I'M SORRY, SAY THAT AGAIN. THE RENT REDUCTIONS FOR A MIXED INCOME COMMUNITY, THE DEVELOPERS AGREED TO SET ASIDE. YES ON FIVE. DO YOU HAVE DO YOU HAVE THAT BOILED DOWN TO A NUMBER, A DOLLAR? ABSOLUTELY. AS FAR AS THE RENTS? YEAH. YEAH. JUST THE, THE RENT SAVINGS TO, TO RENT. SURE. THE RENTS FOR JUST THE 30% UNITS ALONE ARE. THANK YOU. I WAS JUST GETTING TO THAT PAGE $441,624 ANNUALLY. COULD YOU TELL ME THE NUMBER OF 30% UNITS AND EACH UNIT? THERE ARE 29. EACH CATEGORY PER CATEGORY? YES. THERE ARE 19 ONE BEDROOMS, TEN TWO BEDROOMS. OKAY, BUT ARE THEY ALL 30%? THOSE THOSE UNITS WOULD BE 29 TOTAL. YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. AND THE BALANCE OF THE UNITS AT THAT COMPLEX, YOU HAVE A YOU HAVE A 162, 80% BEDROOMS. OKAY. AND THAT BREAKDOWN WOULD BE 99 ONE BEDROOMS, 59 TWO BEDROOMS AND FOUR, THREE BEDROOMS. AND THE RENT SAVINGS CATEGORY ALONE, THERE IS $346,000 FOR THOSE RESIDENTS.

THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WOULD BE 185 UNITS, AND THAT WOULD BE MARKET. SO IT WOULD BE A TRUE MIXED INCOME DEVELOPMENT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO TO MAKE SURE I'M HEARING THE NUMBER RIGHT ON THE 30 AND THE 29 UNITS AT 30% AMI, IT'S A 441,000 IN SAVINGS OF RENT IN SAVINGS TO THOSE TO THOSE ROUGHLY 1200 ISH A MONTH BASICALLY. YEAH. PRETTY CLOSE.

IT'S ABOUT 15,000 A YEAR. YEAH. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I WAS UNDERSTANDING AND PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD. SURE. ALL RIGHT. SURE. AND THEN THE TOTAL JUST TO GET TO IT, THE TOTAL ESTIMATED RENT BENEFIT OVER A TEN YEAR PERIOD FOR THE 30S AND THE 80S IS ROUGHLY $11 MILLION. AND AGAIN, THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OVER THAT TEN YEAR PERIOD WOULD GET ROUGHLY $3.7 MILLION. AND THAT'S JUST NOT LIKE MONEY THAT'S GOING TO GO INTO, YOU KNOW, THEIR BANK ACCOUNT. I MEAN, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR DIRECTOR MILLER, BUT I KNOW THAT THEY'RE USING THOSE DOLLARS TO REPAIR THEIR EXISTING INVENTORY AND THEIR PROPERTIES. THEY'RE ALSO REINVESTING BACK INTO THE COMMUNITIES. AND I DO KNOW OF AN IMPENDING MEETING TO DISCUSS THY AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO IT'S NOT AS IF THOSE DOLLARS ARE GOING TO SIT THERE AND NOT BE REDISTRIBUTED BACK TO THE COMMUNITY. I MEAN, I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE INVOLVED. THIS IS TRULY A COMMUNITY EFFORT AND A COMMUNITY IMPACT. AND SO IT'S JUST THE IT'S AT THE INFANCY OF THE PROGRAM. BUT THOSE SORTS OF THINGS ARE HAPPENING RELATIVE TO THEIR EXISTING PORTFOLIO, REINVESTED IN THE COMMUNITY. AND SINGLE FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSIN. SO IF I WERE TO JUST SUMMARIZE EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ABOUT A $3.5 MILLION ADVANCE. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT $7.87 MILLION IN RENT

[00:30:07]

SUBSIDY, BASICALLY, FOR THE AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT YOU'LL HAVE OVER A TEN YEAR PERIOD. IF YOU LEAVE THE YIELD CURVE FLAT. THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. OBVIOUSLY IT WILL INCREASE. YES, BUT BUT FROM A RELATIVE BASIS, YES. AND YOU HAD SAID TWO THINGS THAT THAT DIFFERED. YOU HAD ORIGINALLY SAID 16.5 MILLION. AND TAX ABATEMENT 15 MILLION. IN IN REVENUE SHARE. BUT THAT CHANGED A MINUTE AGO. YOU, YOU SAID THE AMOUNT TO THE MHA IS 300. AND WHAT A YEAR IT'S THREE.

IT'S WELL THE TOTAL. YEAH. IT'S 3.7 MILLION 790 $707,925. OKAY. SO AVERAGE IS ABOUT 370,000 ANNUALLY. GOT IT. AND THEN ON A FLAT YIELD CURVE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TAXES, YOU'RE LOOKING AT $3.5 MILLION RIGHT. AND QUESTIONS OTHER QUESTIONS. I MEAN I WOULD SAY THAT JUST TO ADD THE MCKINNEY HOUSING AUTHORITY IS BEING A LEADER IN THIS SPACE, HAVING WORKED WITH A NUMBER OF CITIES THAT I DO, MCKINNEY IS THE ONLY CITY THAT I'M ABLE TO GET 5% UNITS, AND THAT'S A CREDIT TO THEIR COMMISSIONERS AND THEIR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BECAUSE DEVELOPERS CALL ALL THE TIME AND WANT TO BRING DEALS. AND I'LL TELL THEM THIS IS A CLIFF EFFECT. IF WE DON'T GET 30% UNITS, THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED. AND I DON'T WANT TO GET T AHEADF THE GAME. WAS THIS GENTLEMAN GOING TO SAY SOMETHING? WELL, I DON'T WANT TO OCCUPY ALL YOUR TIME. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE GENTLEMAN STANDING BEHIND YOU PATIENTLY. HI, COUNCILWOMAN. MY NAME IS KEN MONTGOMERY, AND I'M REPRESENTING THE DEVELOPER, SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON IT. CLEARLY, THIS IS ABOUT THE 30% UNITS. AND DARREN MENTIONED THE MINIMUM OF 5%. I'LL POINT OUT THAT 29 UNITS IS ACTUALLY 7.5% ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.

IT'S IN COUNCILMAN CLAUDIA'S DISTRICT, AND BETWEEN HE AND COUNCILMAN BELLER, THAT WAS ONE OF THEIR REQUESTS, IS THAT WE INCREASE THAT 30% ALLOCATION. THANK YOU. SIR. THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO 29 UNITS. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. I HAD A QUESTION FOR MISS LEE. YEAH, BUT BEFORE YOU STAND BACK, I CERTAINLY WANT ANYBODY TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS THEY HAD OF YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY THIS GIVES A LOT MORE PERSPECTIVE THAN. YEAH, THAN WE HAD A FEW HOURS AGO. SO I APPRECIATE THE IN-DEPTH MISS LEE, IF I MAY. YES, SIR. YOU APPEARED AT OUR WORK SESSION EARLIER TODAY AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT DID YOU MAKE THE STATEMENT THAT MCKINNEY HOUSING AUTHORITY OR MHA WILL MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE COUNCIL? THAT IS CORRECT.

THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT WITHOUT THE COUNCIL SUPPORT. AND I ADMIRE YOUR BRUTAL HONESTY. AND SO IF I KNOW THAT YOU'RE MOVING FORWARD, WHETHER I VOTE FOR YOU OR NOT, WOULD YOU PLEASE CONVINCE ME WHY I SHOULD VOTE FOR YOU ON THIS? I THINK THE COMMENT IS THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO. NOT THAT THEY WOULD. WELL, I ASKED HER TO CORRECT ME IF I WAS WRONG AND SHE SAID MHA WILL MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF COUNCIL. AND I WAS WRITING IT DOWN AS YOU SAID IT, I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG. IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? I THINK THE ANSWER YOU CERTAINLY CAN ANSWER FOR YOURSELF. BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO. BUT YOUR YOUR SUCCESS RATE IS DRAMATICALLY IMPROVED WITH A RESOLUTION FROM THE COUNCIL IN GETTING THE FINANCING AND EVERYTHING ELSE THROUGH. WOULD THAT BE A CORRECT STATEMENT? YES, AND APOLOGIES IF I WAS UNCLEAR. THE MHA HAS THE ABILITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT INVESTORS AND WHATNOT. LOOK AT THESE PROJECTS VERY, VERY DIFFERENTLY. IF THEY HAVE A LETTER OF SUPPORT AND RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FROM THE MUNICIPALITY VERSUS WHEN THEY DON'T CORRECT, THAT DOES NOT DIMINISH MY COMMENTS ABOUT YOUR BRUTAL HONESTY, BECAUSE I DO APPRECIATE THAT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE EXPLANATION. YES, OF COURSE. I'LL MAKE THE REMARK.

I APPRECIATE ALL THE INFORMATION HERE TONIGHT. THERE WAS AN INTERESTING ARTICLE IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL A NUMBER OF MONTHS AGO, AND IT DEALT WITH THE INCREASING POPULATION OF HOMELESSNESS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE 70 YEARS OLD. BOOMERS DIDN'T HAVE PENSIONS, HAVE SOCIAL SECURITY, AND THEY JUST DON'T HAVE ANY RETIREMENT SAVINGS. THESE ARE THE CANDIDATES FOR OUR

[00:35:06]

30% OF ARMY UNITS. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO LIVE IN THEM. THIS IS IF WE'RE LOOKING AROUND THE CURVE OF HOMELESSNESS, WHICH I'M CERTAINLY NOT AN EXPERT, BUT MY NIGHT JOB IS INVOLVED IN. THAT IS WHERE WE'RE AT, IN MY ESTIMATION. MCKINNEY DOES A MAGNIFICENT NOT A GOOD JOB, A MAGNIFICENT JOB OF HAVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE HAVE ROUGHLY ONE, OR WHAT WE HAVE IN THE PIPELINE IS ROUGHLY ONE FOR ABOUT EVERY 7075 RESIDENTS. WE HAVE. IF WE GO TO THE CITY DIRECTLY TO OUR WEST, WE'RE AT ABOUT ONE FOR 550. THE 80% UNITS WE'VE GOT BOATLOADS. THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN 80% UNITS ARE MAYBE PEOPLE WHO WORK AS HIGH END BARTENDERS. THINGS LIKE THAT. IT'S MY CONTENTION THAT WE'RE HOUSING THE WORKFORCE OF OTHER CITIES HERE IN MCKINNEY, AND WE'RE DOING IT ON THE BACKS OF OUR TAXPAYERS. IF WE TAKE THIS OFF THE BOOKS, THE ROLES, THEN YES, WE'RE GETTING MONEY BACK FOR OUR MHA AND I'M GLAD ABOUT THAT. I DON'T THINK THIS IS A TERRIBLE DEAL. I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD ENOUGH DEAL TO VOTE YES ON THIS. THIS COMPLEX DOESN'T HAVE ELEVATORS. THAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME, BECAUSE IF I'M LOOKING TO SOLVE A PROBLEM FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE OLDER THAT MIGHT LIVE IN THESE PLACES, YOU BETTER HAVE AN ELEVATOR. MY FATHER IN LAW IS 86. HE'S NOT WALKING UP THE STAIRS TO A THIRD FLOOR DEAL. SO I WANT TO BE INTENTIONAL ON THESE THINGS. AND THERE'S A LOT OF PITCHES THAT COME ACROSS THE PLATE FOR US UP HERE. AND THIS ONE, I ONLY REALLY NOTICED HOW IT WAS COMING ACROSS THE PLATE WITH THE RESOLUTION THIS LAST WEEK. SO I'M HAPPY TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION. BUT WHEN THE DISCUSSION IS OVER, I'LL BE MOVING THAT WE VOTE NO ON THIS.

OTHER QUESTIONS COMMENTS I WOULD SAY I UNDERSTAND PATRICK'S PERSPECTIVE, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT 80% AMI, BUT WHAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN AT ALL, FROM MY RECOLLECTION, IS 30%.

AND WE'RE SO FAR BEHIND ON MEETING THE MARK FOR THAT NUMBER THAT IT MAKES THIS PROJECT TO ME REASONABLE FOR US TO CONSIDER WHAT WE CONSIDER WHEN WE THINK ABOUT WHAT UNHOUSED PEOPLE COST.

ALL OF OUR SYSTEMS, WHETHER IT BE CITY SERVICES OR HOSPITAL SYSTEMS OR WHAT HAVE YOU, IT'S GOING TO BE FAR GREATER THAN THIS NUMBER THAT WE'RE BEING PRESENTED TODAY. SO FOR THAT REASON, I SUPPORT MOVING FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT. JUSTIN. YEAH, I THINK TWO THINGS. ONE, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE ROOT POLICY STUDY, WE IDENTIFY OVER 3000 PEOPLE THAT HAVE A NEED FOR THIS TYPE OF UNIT. AND WE AND DOCTOR FELTZ IS RIGHT. WE HAVE FOUND NO OTHER WAY TO PRODUCE IT. AND SO BETWEEN A DEAL THAT THE HOUSING AUTHORITY HAS ALREADY CLOSED, THIS DEAL AND SOME POTENTIAL DEALS ON THE TABLE, WE COULD ADD NOT A WHOLE LOT, BUT MORE THAN WE'VE ADDED IN THE LAST 50 YEARS SINCE PUBLIC HOUSING CAME ABOUT. AND SO FROM THE STANDPOINT OF CREATING THOSE OPPORTUNITIES, THIS IS THE BEST WAY WE'VE FOUND TO DO THAT. I ALSO THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT POPULATION ISN'T SOLELY SENIORS, THAT THAT IS, YOU KNOW, OUR SERVICE INDUSTRY AND OUR MINIMUM WAGE WORKERS AND A WHOLE HOST OF PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE SERVED. AND THE MIXED INCOME SOLUTION IS SUCH A BETTER SOLUTION THAN THE CONCENTRATED AND ISOLATED AND THAT'S THE LAST POINT IN THIS, IS THAT THE LOCATION OF THIS PROPERTY IS CREATES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THIS AREA, WHO WORK IN OUR SERVICE INDUSTRY ALONG 121 TO, TO FIND HOUSING IN THAT IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO FOR WHAT IT IS AND FOR THE STRUCTURE THAT THE HOUSING AUTHORITY ACHIEVED WITH THIS. I'M OKAY. I'M GOOD WITH IT. SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO TAG OFF COUNCILMAN BELLER, THE LOCATION IS I'M A YES VOTE FOR THIS PROJECT. GIVEN THAT, YOU KNOW, 121 ESPECIALLY IN MCKINNEY OF ALL PLACES, IT'S VIBRANT FOR GROWTH. IT'S VIBRANT FOR NEW BUSINESSES, ESPECIALLY RESTAURANTS IN THIS AREA. AND WE HAVE THIS WE HAVE THIS PERCEPTION THAT THAT EVERYBODY CAN AFFORD TO DRIVE ON 121 AND GET TO FRISCO. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE MAKING BETWEEN 15 AND $20 AN HOUR, BUT YOU GOT TO PAY $6 TO GET TO WORK AND $6 TO GET HOME EVERY DAY.

THAT'S NOT AFFORDABLE. MCKINNEY IS GROWING. MCKINNEY IS WE ARE DEVELOPING BUSINESSES. AND HERE LOCALLY. AND TO HAVE THESE TYPES OF UNITS HERE WHERE PEOPLE CAN LIVE, WORK AND PLAY AND NOT HAVE TO DRIVE ON 121 AND, YOU KNOW, IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THEIR JOB. IT'S TO ME IT'S, IT'S A WIN WIN.

SO I'M DEFINITELY YES. JUST LIKE TO THANK COUNCILMAN BELLER AND COUNCILMAN CLUTIER FOR THEIR

[00:40:04]

DILIGENCE IN GETTING THE 30% NUMBERS UP AND GETTING MORE INFORMATION IN FRONT OF US TO MAKE THE DECISION. SO THANK YOU BOTH. I WILL MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE SAY NO TO THIS PROJECT THAT WE REJECTED, THAT THIS RESOLUTION RATHER. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS PROJECT, JUST A MATTER OF FORMAT. IF THERE'S NOT A SECOND, THAT MOTION, THAT MOTION DIES.

YEAH. SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT. I'LL SECOND OR THE RESOLUTION ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? NAY. MOTION PASSES. WE WILL. REGULAR AGENDA ITEM. MARGARET. 242198.

[Consider/Discuss/Act on a Resolution Adopting a Development Program Proposed by M2G Ventures, LLC. as Part of the Downtown Redevelopment Initiative and Directing the City Manager to Negotiate a Term Sheet and Comprehensive Development Agreement Based on the Proposed Development Program]

CONSIDER AND ACT ON A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PROPOSED BY M2 G VENTURES, LLC AS PART OF DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE A TERM SHEET AND COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BASED ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. MR. QUINN, MAYOR COUNCIL. THANK YOU, MICHAEL QUINT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AS YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH OUR PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT PARTNER, M2 G VENTURES, SINCE JANUARY OF THIS YEAR TO REVISE AND KIND OF REITERATE THEIR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. WE'VE GOT A REVISED, UPDATED VERSION ATTACHED TO THE RESOLUTION IN THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IS A SERIES OF MIXED USE BUILDINGS, A NEW PUBLIC PARKING GARAGE, AND A SERIES OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACES OR PRIVATE OPEN, INCLUDING PRIVATE OPEN SPACES THAT THE PUBLIC CAN ACCESS. SO WITH THIS, IF APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL TONIGHT, THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM WILL SERVE AS THE FOUNDATION FOR A TERM SHEET THAT WE WILL BRING BACK TO YOU, HOPEFULLY BY THE END OF THIS YEAR. THAT TERM SHEET WILL SERVE AS THE FOUNDATION FOR THE ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WE BRING BACK TO YOU. SO WITH THAT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. MICHAEL, I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION, BUT I'LL JUST MENTION WHERE I'M LEANING ON THIS. YES, SIR. I FELT FROM THE BEGINNING THAT WE SHOULD HAVE KIND OF OUTLINED OR COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON THE OUTCOMES WE WANTED, AND THAT INCLUDED THE USES THAT WE WANTED. I FEEL LIKE WE'VE GOT A CONSENSUS ON A PORTION OF THAT. CALL IT A THIRD OF THAT, BUT I'M STILL FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY FOR ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL, PARTICULARLY OFFICE SPACE IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND I'M NOT SATISFIED WITH THEIR PROGRAMING OF MULTIFAMILY. SO I'M GOING TO BE A NO. BE THE OPTION ONE THAT YOU GAVE US BEFORE. THE COMMENTS I'M GOING TO JOIN COUNCILMAN BELLER IN ADVOCATING FOR OPTION ONE. I WAS ONE OF THE ONES THAT VOTED TO PROCEED WITH THIS GROUP, AND I THINK THIS GROUP IS A MAGNIFICENT GROUP. THEY HAVE DONE A MAGNIFICENT JOB IN FORT WORTH. TURNING THAT STOCKYARDS INTO A WONDERFUL PLACE. SOME MAY NOT KNOW. I'VE OFFICED ON THE DOWNTOWN SQUARE HERE FOR 26 YEARS, LIVED HERE FOR 28. THE SQUARE WAS BUILT INCREMENTALLY, RIGHT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE CONTRAST OF THE BUILDINGS, YOU'LL SEE A WHITE BRICK NEXT TO A TAN BRICK. LET'S SAY THE TAN BRICK WAS THERE FIRST, THE GUY WHO'S PUTTING UP THE WHITE BRICK. THE GUY WITH THE TAN BRICK. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING? YOU'RE RUINING MY SQUARE RIGHT? AND IT PROBABLY SEEMED BAD AT THE TIME. THERE WERE PROBABLY FIGHTS OVER IT, BUT THAT WAS THE STUFF THAT WAS AVAILABLE. BUT DANG IT, IF IT HASN'T AGED WELL. AND WHEN I FIRST STARTED OFF ON THE SQUARE IN 1998, THERE WERE A LOT OF VACANT BUILDINGS AND WHAT THE SQUARE HAS BECOME IS A HIVE OF CREATIVITY, OF WONDERFUL PEOPLE THAT ARE GENERATING SO MUCH AROUND THIS CITY. WE HAVE A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY FOR RESIDENTIAL, AND I GET THAT RESIDENTIAL WILL WORK DOWN HERE, I GET IT, WE'RE GOING TO HEAR ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT LATER IN THE MEETING.

AND THERE'S HIGH DEMAND FOR IT. I DON'T QUESTION THAT, BUT I WONDER WHAT WE CAN DO IF WE LEAVE IT OPEN FOR INCREMENTAL DEVELOPMENT, FOR OFFICE, FOR COMPANIES, FOR THAT DAYTIME TRAFFIC IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS, ALL THE CITY EMPLOYEES AT OFFICE DOWN HERE ARE GOING TO BE MOVING ABOUT A HALF MILE TO THE EAST, TO THE NEW CITY HALL. THAT'S LEAVING A LOT OF VACANCY DOWN HERE. THERE IS SOME CONCERN THAT'S BEEN AIRED AS TO WE'VE WALKED DOWN THIS PATH. IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME. IT HAS BEEN A LONG TIME. WE HAVE WALKED DOWN THIS PATH. I'M NOT IN THE DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS, SO A LOT HAS TO BE REVEALED TO ME OVER TIME. BUT I CAN'T GET PAST THAT. WE HAVE AN

[00:45:04]

OPPORTUNITY THAT MAY TAKE SOME YEARS TO GET SOME MORE OFFICE DOWN HERE AND MORE COMPANIES.

AND SO I'LL BE VOTING NO ON THIS BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THAT TIME TO SEE IF THAT MANIFESTS. AND I'LL BE VOTING. YES. I TRUST MTG. THEY'VE GOT A GREAT VISION. I THINK YOU CAN MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS HERE. I THINK WHAT I AM MOST CONCERNED ABOUT IS JUST LEAVING EVERYTHING VACANT AND TO CHANCE WHEN WE HAVE PEOPLE GUNNING FOR OUR DOWNTOWN AREA ALREADY, THERE ARE ALREADY PEOPLE WANTING TO MOVE IN AND PUT UP PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING FABRIC. AND HERE NOW WE HAVE A DEVELOPER WHO HAS MADE A COMMITMENT TO RESPECT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND ALL THAT IT HAS TO OFFER TODAY. AND SO WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE RIGHT HERE AT THIS CORNER, A REALLY ACTIVATED WORK, LIVE PLAY SITUATION THAT WE CAN BE PROUD OF LONG TERM. I DON'T THINK MTG IS, AS WE'RE MOVING FORWARD, I DON'T THINK MTG WILL PULL BACK ON THEIR COMMITMENT TO HONORING OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND FOR THAT REASON, I WANT TO SUPPORT MOVING FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT. I WILL BE A YES VOTE AS WELL.

AND FOR A LOT OF THE REASONS THAT WERE JUST SHARED BY MAYOR PRO TEM, I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY PATRICK AND JUSTIN, BUT I THINK WE'VE ALSO HEARD FROM OUR EDC. I KNOW THAT HE GOT ENGAGED IN THE CONVERSATION. WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON ON OFFICE AND HOW MUCH OFFICE THEY'RE BUILDING, AND THEY'RE COMING TO THE TABLE WITH A BOUTIQUE HOTEL, CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF OFFICE SPACE, ESPECIALLY IN THIS MARKET TO BUILD. IT'S EASY FOR US TO SAY AND I WOULD LOVE IT AS WELL, TO SAY THAT WE WANT 100,000FT■S OF OFFICE, BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT IT CAN BE BUILT. IT'S ANOTHER THING TO GET SOMEBODY TO, TO STAND UP AND BUILD 100,000FT■S ON SPEC, AND IT'S ANOTHER THING EVEN YET. AND I KNOW MY BANKER AT THE END OF THE DAIS WOULD AGREE, I'M SURE THAT GETTING FINANCING FOR A SPEC OFFICE WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TODA.

BUT I KNOW THAT THIS OPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, IN PARTNERSHIP AND IN THIS PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP WITH MTG, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DIRECT AND PROTECT THE HISTORIC FABRIC, THE ESTHETICS OF THIS, OF THIS, ALSO THAT WE HAVE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LOW DENSITY ON THE RESIDENTIAL, NOT HIGH DENSITY. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A HOTEL, RETAIL, RESTAURANT, OFFICE SPACE VERSUS THOSE PROPERTIES JUST BEING SOLD ON THE MARKET. AND AS PEOPLE MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW, THE CURRENT ZONING ON EVERYTHING DOWN HERE, SOMEBODY IF THOSE THINGS JUST WENT TO MARKET, THEY COULD BUILD A I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER IS, BUT PROBABLY ON THAT MUCH LAND, A THOUSAND UNITS, 1000 APARTMENT UNITS PROBABLY ON THAT LAND. SURE. AND THEY'D HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO IT WOULD NEVER COME BEFORE COUNCIL. THEY COULD JUST DO IT BECAUSE IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED THAT WAY. SO I ALSO HAVE GREAT FAITH IN M2 G. I LOVE THE FACT THAT THAT WE ARE WE HAVE THE CONTROL THAT WE DO AND THAT THEY'VE BROUGHT A VERY TRUE MIXED USE. SO I WILL BE A YES, I WILL, I'LL BE A YES TOO.

BUT I HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS THAT A LOT OF MY FELLOW COUNCILMEN HAVE IS THAT THERE'S A THERE'S A NEED FOR OFFICE DOWN HERE. AND I THINK WE'RE SELLING OURSELVES SHORT. IF WE DON'T BUILD 75 TO 100,000FT■S, I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH TENANTS DOWN HERE TO EXPAND TO TAKE THEM A MAJORITY OF THE BUILDING. SO I'LL BE A YES. I CAN REMEMBER WHEN THE ONLY PLACE TO EAT IN DOWNTOWN WAS THE PANTRY, AND IT WOULDN'T HAVE SURVIVED HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE COURTHOUSE AND ALL THE BAILIFFS SENDING THEIR JURY PANELS OVER THERE TO GET LUNCH. AND IT WAS EASY TIME TO BE A RESIDENT IN DOWNTOWN MCKINNEY AND I ACTUALLY BOUGHT AN ENTIRE OFFICE BUILDING FOR $75,000. TRY THAT TODAY. AND MY CONCERN IS THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME TRADE OFFS IN ORDER TO GET THIS DEVELOPED. AND WE'VE GOT A COMMITMENT TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF WHAT MAKES OUR TOWN SIMPLY A WONDERFUL PLACE TO BE. AND I DON'T THINK ANY OF YOU WILL ARGUE WITH ME THAT DOWNTOWN MCKINNEY IS ONE OF THE DRIVING FORCES FOR DEVELOPMENT IN MCKINNEY. THERE'S GOING TO BE TRADE OFFS, BUT I AM MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF THIS BUILDING. THE BUILDING ACROSS THE STREET, THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR, ALL SITTING VACANT FOR YEARS UNTIL A COUNCIL CAN MAKE A DECISION TO MOVE FORWARD IN A COHESIVE MANNER. I JOIN IN THE THREE COUNCILMEN AT THE FAR END THAT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE. OFFICE DEVELOPED IN DOWNTOWN MCKINNEY. I THINK IT'S STILL A POSSIBILITY IN THIS CONTRACT, BUT I WANT TO SEE US MOVE FORWARD AND GET THIS PROJECT UNDERWAY AND NOT LET PEOPLE BE AFRAID TO WALK FROM THE PARKING LOT TO DOWNTOWN BECAUSE OF THE

[00:50:03]

VACANCIES HERE IN DOWNTOWN MCKINNEY. SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I WILL SUPPORT THE PROJECT.

THANK YOU. IS THERE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS PROJECT. I'LL SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. OPPOSED? NAY I WAS I ON THERE. ITEM 230069 C6. CONDUCT A PUBLIC

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Rezone the Subject Property from “PD” - Planned Development District and “C” - Planned Center District to “PD” - Planned Development District to Allow for Multi-Family Residential Uses and to Modify the Development Standards, Located on the Southeast Corner of Wilmeth Road and Community Avenue, and Accompanying Ordinance]

HEARING TO CONSIDER AND ACT ON A REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND C PLANNED CENTER DISTRICT TO PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AND TO MODIFY THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WILMOTH ROAD AND COMMUNITY AVENUE AND ACCOMPANYING ORDINANCE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. JENNIFER ARNOLD, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING I'VE GOT A NUMBER OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT, SO I WILL TRY TO MAKE EVERYTHING AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE. SO AS YOU JUST READ, THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IT'S AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WILMOTH ROAD AND COMMUNITY. THE TRACT ITSELF IS ABOUT 15.5 ACRES IN SIZE. AND AS YOU'LL SEE FROM THE LOCATION MAP UP HERE, IT DOES SPLIT TWO DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS. THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY ZONED PD, WITH A BASE REFERENCE TO OUR RG 18 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

AND THAT SMALL SLIVER THERE ON THE EASTERN BOUNDARY IS ZONED C PLANNED CENTER, WHICH ALLOWS FOR COMMERCIAL USES. SO THE APPLICANT IS HERE BEFORE US TONIGHT TO REZONE THE ENTIRETY OF THIS TRACT TO A NEW PD ZONING DISTRICT THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY USES ON THE PROPERTY. I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT THE EXISTING ZONING FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY ALREADY DOES ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY USES UNDER SOME LEGACY ZONING REQUIREMENTS, SO THE REQUEST BEFORE US IS TO MODERNIZE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE MULTIFAMILY USES AND PICK UP A SMALL PORTION OF THAT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TO SQUARE OFF THE SITE.

SO THIS REQUEST ACTUALLY WENT BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EARLIER, MUCH, MUCH EARLIER THIS YEAR. ACTUALLY, IT MAY HAVE EVEN BEEN LATE LAST YEAR. IT WAS ULTIMATELY TABLED BY THE APPLICANT AS THEY CONTINUED TO WORK WITH SOME OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS ON SOME OF THE SPECIFICS. WITH THE REQUEST OF THIS PROPERTY AND THE ONE ADJACENT TO IT. THOSE HAVE ALL BEEN WORKED OUT, WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE BACK BEFORE US NOW, WHEN THE REQUEST WAS CONSIDERED BY PLANNING AND ZONING EARLIER THIS YEAR, THEY HAD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. AND WHEN IT WENT BACK TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION A FEW WEEKS AGO, THEY HAVE ALSO RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AGAIN. SO WITH THE MULTIFAMILY USES HERE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS OF 460 UNITS, WHICH IS 29 UNITS TO THE ACRE WELL WITHIN THE STANDARD MULTIFAMILY ZONING DISTRICT THAT WE WOULD SEE HERE IN THE CITY. THEY ARE ALSO REQUESTING A MODIFIED PARKING RATIO. OUR STANDARD RATIO IS TWO UNITS OR TWO SPACES PER UNIT. THEY'RE REQUESTING A 1.75 RATIO, WHICH IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING WITH OUR UDC AMENDMENTS LATER ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT. SO PLANNING AND ZONING IS RECOMMENDED. APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST STAFF IS ALSO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND OUR APPLICANTS HERE AS WELL. SO JENNIFER, IF WE HAD THE IF WE HAD THE OTHER ITEM, THE OTHER ITEM FIRST, AND THAT PASSED.

YES, SIR. THEY WOULDN'T BE SEEKING A VARIANCE ON THE MODIFIED PARKING. THAT'S CORRECT. YEP. JENNIFER, IS IT YOUR SENSE BECAUSE I'M GOING TO SUMMARIZE THIS AND YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF YOU THINK I'M WRONG. BUT SUMMARIZING THE PARKING DOWN TO 1.75 IS WE SEE A LOT OF DEMAND. WE THE DEVELOPER, SEE A LOT OF DEMAND FOR ONE BEDROOMS. CONSEQUENTLY, IF WE'RE BUILDING TWO SPACES TO THE UNIT, WE'VE GOT A LOT MORE PARKING THAN WE NEED, WHICH COSTS US A LOT OF MONEY, AND WE'RE NEVER GOING TO FILL THAT PARKING UP. IS THAT FAIR? YES. OKAY. MY CONCERN IS, AND I PICK ON THIS ALL THE TIME, AND THERE'S ONE MEMBER OF COUNCIL WHO MAY BE TO MY LEFT, MY FAR LEFT, WHO TELLS ME I PICK ON IT TOO MUCH. BUT THERE'S AN APARTMENT COMPLEX CALLED THE VANTAGE APARTMENTS OVER THERE ON ROCK HILL ROAD, RIGHT BY THE WHATABURGER. AND MAN, THERE'S CARS IN THE STREETS ALL THE TIME THERE. AND THEY AND I SEE YOUNG MOTHERS OPENING THE CAR DOOR ONTO ROCK HILL, PUTTING THEIR BABY IN THERE. AND I HATE IT. I HATE IT FOR EVERYONE. I HATE IT FOR HER. I HATE IT FOR THE BABY. I HATE IT FOR ME. WITH THE WHITE KNUCKLES. I HATE IT FOR THE OTHER DRIVERS. I HATE IT BECAUSE THERE'S HIGH SCHOOL KIDS DRIVING DOWN THERE, GOING TO MCKINNEY HIGH. YOU CAN PARK ON ROCK HILL, YOU CAN'T PARK ON WILMINGTON COMMUNITY. YOU CAN'T.

SO THAT PROBLEM IS MITIGATED. SO I WILL TRUST THAT THE DEVELOPER KNOWS WHAT HE'S DOING HERE WITH RESPECT TO THEIR PARKING, OR THEY'RE GOING TO SUFFER AND DEMAND FOR THEIR UNITS. SO I'M OKAY WITH IT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR JENNIFER? IF NOT, THE APPLICANT IS HERE. MAYOR AND

[00:55:02]

MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. I'M BOB RODER, 1700 REDBUD, SUITE 300. MCKINNEY. ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, I THINK THE STAFF REPORT AND MISS ARNOLD'S PRESENTATION TO YOU HAS LAID OUT ALL OF THE DETAILS. MR. CLOUTIER. AND IN RESPONSE TO YOUR OBSERVATIONS, I WILL TELL YOU THAT PARKING IS PERHAPS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS, ESPECIALLY IN A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. ALSO IN IN RETAIL, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER OWNER MANAGER WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT PARKING TO BE ABLE TO FILL UP THOSE UNITS. AND SO THE 1.75 IS THE INDUSTRY STANDARD FOR THE MIX OF UNITS. THAT IS BEING PROPOSED FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. I WOULD ONLY ARGUE THAT THE DEVELOPER OF THE VANTAGE APARTMENTS MISSED ON THAT TARGET. NO DOUBT, NO DOUBT. NOT HERE TO DEFEND THAT DEVELOPER. THANK YOU. I'M HERE TO TELL YOU THAT THAT THIS DEVELOPER IS VERY, VERY MUCH IN TUNE TO THAT. AND I THINK THAT IS BUT THIS DEVELOPER, JUST TO DRIVE MY POINT HOME THAT PEOPLE CAN'T DO WHAT THEY'RE DOING ON VANTAGE, RIGHT? THEY CAN'T PARK ON WILMINGTON COMMUNITY. YOU JUST CAN'T. THAT'S CORRECT.

YEAH. THAT'S CORRECT. THOSE ARE NO PARKING ZONES. SO I WOULD REQUEST YOUR FAVORABLE APPROVAL AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ONE PERCENTAGE OF THIS OVERALL ACREAGE IS COMMERCIAL. I THINK UNDER THE OLD ZONING. AND JENNIFER, YOU MIGHT HAVE THAT. I THINK IT'S LESS THAN 10%. AND I THINK MOST OF IT DID NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON THE ROAD. YES THAT'S TRUE. WHILE SHE'S LOOKING UP THE PERCENTAGE DO I. WELL, UNFORTUNATELY I DON'T HAVE THE PERCENTAGE, BUT I CAN HIGHLIGHT IT HERE. IT IS THIS SLIVER RIGHT HERE OF THE ENTIRETY OF ITS COMMERCIAL WITH NO FRONT, NO ROAD FRONTAGE. YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT, THAT'S RIGHT. AND AS THE STAFF'S REPORT DENOTES THERE, THE STAFF HAS GIVEN A LOT OF THOUGHT TO THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP THE APPROXIMATELY 70 ACRES OUT THERE THAT IS YET TO BE DEVELOPED FOR COMMERCIAL AND IS ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL. AND I THINK THEIR CONCLUSION AND I AGREE WITH IT, IS THAT THE IS THAT RETAIL IS GOING TO WANT TO BE EITHER ON 75 OR ON WILMOTH CLOSE TO 75 AND NOT TUCKED BACK IN THERE CLOSER TO COMMUNITY. SO YOU'VE GOT LIMITED NUMBER OF CURB OF MEDIAN CUTS IN THAT SECTION OF WILMOTH.

THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE HAD TO TAKE THIS DOWN AND COME BACK TO SO THAT WE COULD CONFIGURE THE TRACT SO IT COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A SHARED MEDIAN OPENING THERE ON WILMOTH.

BUT HOW DEEP? HOW DEEP IS THAT, BOB? DO YOU KNOW ROUGHLY? WHEN I SAY DEEP, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE SLIVER OF COMMERCIAL ZONE. RIGHT NOW. GEORGE, GEORGE I DON'T KNOW, BUT IT'S A COUPLE OF HUNDRED FEET AT THE MOST, PROBABLY IN AND OF ITSELF WOULD NOT BE DEVELOPABLE, BUT AS PART OF THE OF THE TRACT RIGHT NOW, YOU SHOULD KNOW I'M ASKING FOR A DIFFERENT REASON. I'M GOING TO GUESS JUST LOOKING AT THE LOTS OVER TO THE LEFT, NOT KNOWING, OF COURSE, WHAT LOT SIZES, BUT TAKING A EDUCATED GUESS. THAT'S PROBABLY 270, 280FT DEEP. AND SO IN ADDITION TO YOUR POINT THAT RETAIL WOULD WANT TO BE ON WILMOTH CLOSER TO 75 OR WHEREVER, THEY ALSO DON'T WANT TO BE 280FT OFF A ROAD, PERIOD, WHERE THEY'RE WHERE THEY'RE TUCKED BEHIND, YOU KNOW, OTHER BUILDINGS. FAIR COMMENT. I THINK YOU HAVE NOT YET SEEN IT, BUT IT IS IN THE WORKS THAT TO THE EAST OF THIS PROPOSED TRACT, ALL THE WAY OVER TO THE BMW TRACT, WILL BE ANOTHER HENDRIX AUTOMOTIVE FACILITY, NOT A NOT AN AUTOMOTIVE SALE FACILITY, BUT AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR AND WHATNOT.

AND SO ALL THESE THINGS WE'VE HAD TO FIT ALL THESE THINGS TOGETHER TO MAKE THIS WORK. THE MAJORITY OF THE TRACK CURRENTLY HAS MULTIFAMILY ZONING. YES. OH, YEAH. EVERYTHING TO THE WEST OF THAT BLACK LINE OR THE YELLOW LINE. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITE? SEEING NONE ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS ITEM AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? NAY. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM TWO. 400872. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Rezone the Subject Properties from “PD” - Planned Development District and “AG” - Agricultural District to “I1” - Light Industrial District, Located on the North Side of McIntyre Road and Approximately 1780 feet East of the Intersection of North McDonald Street and McIntyre Road, and Accompanying Ordinance]

CONSIDER AN ACT ON REQUEST TO REZONE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND AG AGRICULTURE DISTRICT TO L1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MCINTYRE ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 780FT EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH MCDONALD STREET AND

[01:00:01]

MCINTYRE ROAD. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THIS ONE'S ACTUALLY. WELL, IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT. SO THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH IS ABOUT 143 ACRES IN SIZE FROM PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND A SLIVER OF AG AGRICULTURAL ZONING TO I-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT. SO SIMILAR TO THE LAST CASE THAT WE JUST SAW, A MAJORITY OF THIS PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY ZONED PD WITH SOME OLD LEGACY ENTITLEMENTS FOR INDUSTRIAL USES AND ONLY A SMALL PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH I'LL HIGHLIGHT RIGHT HERE. THIS LITTLE AREA RIGHT HERE IS ZONED AG AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT. SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY TO THE I-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN OUR UDC IN ORDER TO DEVELOP A MASTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE USES ON THE TRACT. SO SOME THINGS THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT INTERESTING ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS THE FACT THAT IT DOES NOT STRICTLY CONFORM WITH THE PLACE TYPE DESIGNATION ON THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ACTUALLY DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR SUBURBAN LIVING, WHICH WOULD BE RESIDENTIAL USES. HOWEVER, THE ENTIRETY OF THIS AREA, WHICH IS KNOWN AS THE OAK HOLLOW DISTRICT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ACTUALLY ENVISIONS THE ENTIRETY OF THE AREA FOR A MAJORITY OF INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES THAT CHANGE IN THE OR IN THAT DESIGNATION FROM THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS ACTUALLY A CHANGE FROM THE OLD, OLD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO IN THE OH SIX COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THIS AREA WAS DESIGNATED FOR INDUSTRIAL. IT FLIPPED TO RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND IT STILL HAS INDUSTRIAL ENTITLEMENTS AND ZONING ON THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY. SO WHEN WE LOOK AT ALL OF THOSE THINGS TOGETHER AS A STAFF, WE DO RECOGNIZE THE EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS. THE PREVIOUS DESIGNATION ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE OVERALL VISION FOR THE OAK HOLLOW DISTRICT AND THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND WE ENDED UP RESTING ON A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING REQUEST ON THE PROPERTY. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ALSO CONSIDERED THE REQUEST AND IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS WELL. WE DID WANT TO NOTE FOR SURE, THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT TREE LINE AND FLOODPLAIN THAT SEPARATES THIS PROPERTY FROM THAT ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL, WHICH WAS SOMETHING ELSE THAT GAVE STAFF SOME COMFORT ON THE REQUEST TO REZONE. SO WITH THAT, WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND OUR APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL. QUESTIONS FOR JENNIFER. JENNIFER. WHEN WAS THE LEGACY ZONING THAT YOU SAY WHEN WAS THAT PLACED ON THERE? 1986. WAS IT PRESENTED PREVIOUSLY AS AG? I FELT LIKE WHEN I LOOKED AT IT AT P AND Z, IT WAS DENOTED AS AG. SO THERE IS ANOTHER. YEAH. SO WE'VE GOT A HANDFUL OF INDUSTRIAL REZONING REQUESTS IN THIS AREA. SO I THINK YOU'RE THINKING OF A DIFFERENT ONE.

WHAT THE FLOODPLAIN THAT ROLLS OFF TO THE NORTH. THEY'VE GOT THE ABILITY TO RECLAIM THAT AT ANY POINT. THEY DO. THEY DO. DO WE KNOW HOW WHAT THE DEPTH IS OR HOW LOW THAT IS OR ANYTHING ABOUT THE FLOODPLAIN? I DON'T I KNOW, I THINK I DON'T KNOW IF GARY IS STILL HERE WITH ENGINEERING. I CAN MAYBE PING HIM IF YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS ON THAT. THE APPLICANT MAY ALSO KNOW SOME OF THAT INFORMATION. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU JENNIFER IS THE APPLICANT HERE? GOD, YOU LOOK JUST LIKE THE OTHER GUY. HE LOOKED JUST LIKE A CLONE OF BOB RODER. 1700 REDBUD, SUITE 300. MCKINNEY. THIS, I THINK AGAIN, STAFF'S REPORT IS VERY THOROUGH. I DO WANT TO ADD MR. BELLER TO JENNIFER'S COMMENTS. THE EXTENSION OF WILMOTH IS PLANNED TO GO ALONG THE NORTH PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY. AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, THERE WILL BE SOME RECLAMATION THAT OCCURS WITH REGARD TO THAT.

THAT SIGNIFICANT ROAD. BUT THAT ALSO WILL EAT UP A LOT OF THIS PROPERTY, BECAUSE PART OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN HERE IS RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION FOR THAT. DID YOU WANT TO ADD TO THAT? I'M JUST ACTUALLY GOING TO SAY I SHOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FULL PRESENTATION BECAUSE THAT GIVE ME MY ADJACENCY STUFF. OKAY. YEAH. HERE. HERE'S A PRETTY GOOD DEPICTION OF THE OF THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF WILMOTH. IT'S THE EXTENSION OF THAT'S NOT WILMOTH. THAT IS SOMETHING ELSE THAT WILL MISS ON THE SOUTH SIDE. THAT'S THE WILMINGTON SIDE. GARY, HELP ME OUT ON THE SOUTH SIDE. YOU SAID NORTH. I'VE SAID NORTH. SOUTH SIDE. YEAH. I'M SORRY. THE YELLOW DOWN THERE. YEAH. SO THIS

[01:05:01]

IS THE EXTENSION OF WILMOTH DOWN THERE. THIS UP HERE COULD BE AN EXTENSION OF BLOOMDALE CURVING BACK SOUTH TO TIE INTO AIRPORT. WE'RE DEBATING IF WE EVER NEED THAT OR NOT. SO NOT A NOT A NECESSARILY NEEDED FOR THIS PROJECT THOUGH. OKAY. THANKS. SORRY. I THINK THE AREA ABOUT RECLAMATION WOULD BE UP IN HERE. NOT NOT ADJACENT TO ANY OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS THERE. I ALSO HAVE AN ADJACENCY STUDY IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE IT, WHERE WE'VE FLOWN QUADCOPTER AND LOOKED AT THE TREE MASS AND WHATNOT. JENNIFER, HOW DO I GET TO. YEAH, TO. THERE WE GO. OKAY, I JUST FLIPPED DOWN TO HOW DO I GO FROM SLIDE TO SLIDE. CLICK THE BUTTON. WRONG BUTTON. THERE WE GO. OKAY. SO WE DID THREE STUDIES OF ADJACENCY TO SEE RIGHT HERE IS THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS A THE A MULTIFAMILY PROJECT HERE. BUT WE WANTED TO SEE I THINK STAFF REPORT MENTIONED THAT THIS THIS AREA IN HERE IS 2 TO 300FT. OF COURSE THERE'S A VERY SIGNIFICANT CREEK THERE OR YOU KNOW, CREEK IS PROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO DESCRIBE IT VERY THICK. SO WHAT WE'VE DONE, WHAT WE DID WAS TOOK A DRONE AND WENT 40FT ABOVE THE GROUND. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN THIS AREA, I BELIEVE, IS 35FT FOR THE STRUCTURE. SO WE WANTED TO SEE WHAT COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ADJACENT HOMEOWNERS. THIS IS LOCATION NUMBER ONE. LET ME LET ME BACK UP THERE JUST SO WE'LL KNOW. ONE IS THE ONE IN THE CENTER, TWO IS THE ONE FURTHER NORTH, AND THEN THREE IS THE ONE FURTHER SOUTH. THREE IS ARGUABLY THE CLOSEST IN THERE. SO THIS IS LOCATION NUMBER ONE, LOCATION NUMBER TWO, AND LOCATION NUMBER THREE. AND YOU CAN SEE BARELY SOME I THINK THAT'S MAYBE A SOME STRUCTURE BACK THERE. SO THAT'S THAT'S SORT OF SHOWS YOU WHAT CAN BE SEEN. WE ALSO DID A VIEW FROM THE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION TO SEE IF YOU COULD SEE THROUGH THE TREE MASS. AND I'LL GRANT YOU THAT THIS IS THE GROWING SEASON, BUT IT'S STILL SORT OF A FOREST PRIMEVAL IN THERE. SO WE THINK THAT WE HAVE A VERY GOOD AND ADEQUATE SCREENING FOR THIS PROJECT. AGAIN, I ONE IS YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE EXTERIOR MANUFACTURING AND WHATNOT. THIS WOULD BE LIKE YOU'VE SEEN ALONG 121 AND SOME OF THE OTHER PLACES HERE IN MCKINNEY. SO REQUEST YOUR FAVORABLE APPROVAL OF THIS AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE FIRST SLIDE OF YOUR PRESENTATION? YES, SIR. IT WAS THE YOU HAD A LITTLE BIT OF A SITE PLAN ON. OH, I'M SORRY, YOU SAID YOU WENT ALL THE WAY BACK RIGHT? THIS IS JUST A CONCEPTUAL PLAN. AND UNTIL, YOU KNOW, REAL ENGINEERING IS DONE, SITE ENGINEERING IS DONE. WE DON'T KNOW. BUT THIS WOULD SORT OF MAX OUT THE PROPERTY. I ASSUME YOU TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE FLOODPLAIN ISSUES. ABSOLUTELY. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE. ABSOLUTELY. SO AS YOU CAN SEE UP HERE, THIS WE'VE STOPPED FAR SHORT OF THE NORTHERN EDGE. YEAH. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR BOB. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. DOES ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION I MOVE, WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS ITEM. I WILL SECOND. ALL IN

[Consider/Discuss/Act on a Site Plan for Outdoor Commercial Entertainment (VENU Sunset Amphitheater), Located at the Northeast Corner of South Central Expressway (US 75) and Gateway Boulevard]

FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES. ITEM 240069 SP CONSIDER. DISCUSS. ACT ON A SITE PLAN FOR OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL ENTERTAINMENT VENUE. SUNSET AMPHITHEATER LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY AND GATEWAY BOULEVARD. JENNIFER. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. OKAY, THIS IS A SMALL LITTLE PROJECT THAT WE HAVE GOING ON HERE IN THE CITY OF MCKINNEY, AND IT IS A SITE PLAN FOR THE VENUE SUNSET AMPHITHEATER. WE'RE EXCITED TO PRESENT THIS STAFF'S RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. I WANT TO WALK THROUGH JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS, BUT YOU'VE GOT A FAIRLY THOROUGH STAFF REPORT FOR YOU WITH THE PACKET, BUT STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE REQUEST AGAINST BOTH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT IS IN PLACE FOR THE PROPERTY OR THE CHAPTER 380 AGREEMENT THAT'S IN PLACE FOR THE PROPERTY AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT, ALONG WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PD ZONING ON THE PROPERTY AND OUR STANDARD REQUIREMENTS IN THE

[01:10:03]

UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. IN THAT REVIEW, STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DOES MEET THE STANDARDS THAT ARE REQUIRED. YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THERE ARE A FEW CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. THESE ARE WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER RELATIVELY CLEAN UP CONDITIONS FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF FIRE CONDITIONS THAT ARE LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT FROM THE TIME THAT THE PACKET WAS ACTUALLY FINALIZED LAST WEEK TO TONIGHT'S MEETING, THE PROJECT MANAGERS HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN ABLE TO ELIMINATE OR KNOCK OUT QUITE A FEW OF THOSE CONDITIONS. SO I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S ONLY ABOUT TWO THAT STILL REMAIN ON THE PROPERTY. SO THEY ARE ALREADY WORKING TO ADDRESS THE CONDITIONS OF THAT APPROVAL. BUT WITH THE REQUEST STAFF'S RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. WE'VE GOT THE WHOLE TEAM BEHIND US. IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. RELATED PLANNING, FIRE ENGINEERING. AND I BELIEVE THAT OUR APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL. SO COULD YOU HIGHLIGHT FOR EVERYBODY, BECAUSE JUST LOOKING AT THAT SITE PLAN, THEY WOULD NOT REALIZE WHERE THERE'S A STRUCTURED PARKING GARAGE, WHICH IS PRETTY SIGNIFICANT IN SOUND MITIGATION. YEAH. SO OF COURSE WE'LL BE BACK HERE IS CONFIRMED BY THE NEW SOUND REPORT. YEP. SO ALL OF THAT BACK THERE IS ALL THE PARKING, PARKING GARAGE AND ELEVATIONS. YEAH. I WAS ASKING JUST TO HIGHLIGHT THE PARKING GARAGE, BUT IT'S EVERYTHING.

OTHER THAN THAT, I'M SO SORRY. I WAS ASKING YOU TO HIGHLIGHT THE PARKING STRUCTURE. THE GARAGE.

THIS IS THE PARKING STRUCTURE, RIGHT HERE. OH. AND THEN THIS AND THAT. NO, IT'S. IF I CAN GE.

WE'VE ALSO GOT SOME PARKING GARAGE RIGHT HERE. SO I WAS LOOKING FOR. THAT'S THE TALLER.

AND WHAT IS THAT THICK LINE TO THE I GUESS TO THE WEST. IS THAT LIKE A RETAINING WALL RIGHT THERE. SO THERE ARE SOME SOUND BARRIER WALLS THAT WERE PART OF THIS. SO THAT IS ALSO PART OF THE SITE PLAN AS WELL. PULL THIS UP. ADDITIONAL SOUND MITIGATION RIGHT THERE. FROM THE WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE WITH THE NOISE STUDY, BASED ON THE UPDATED PLANS, THAT'S NOT AT THIS POINT, BUT THEY ARE STILL PLANNING ON PROVIDING ONE. SO I'LL PROBABLY DEFER THAT TO MR. KOSKI OR EVEN OR LEGAL. SO I'M NOT AS IN THE LOOP ON THE SOUND STUDY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT. YEAH, YEAH. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS LEFT FOR JENNIFER BEFORE ASK THE APPLICANT TO COME UP? BOB. SO THE QUESTION ON THE TABLE FIRST, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, AND THEN ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD. GREAT. THANK YOU. COUNCIL AND MAYOR, THERE'S A SOUND STUDY THAT YOU'VE COMMITTED TO. YES. AND TO FURTHER ON JENNIFER'S POINT, THE PARKING GARAGE TO THE TO THE EAST OF THE AMPHITHEATER, WHICH IS THE BARRIER BETWEEN THE AMPHITHEATER AND THE MULTIFAMILY THAT IS TO THE EAST, THERE IS ACTUALLY 33FT HIGH. SO IT'S A THREE TIER PARKING GARAGE WHERE THE REAR BALANCE IS JUST A TWO TIER PARKING GARAGE THAT IS 33FT HIGH AND THE END OF THE AMPHITHEATER HERE IS AT 58FT AT THE CENTER AND 62FT AT THE. LET ME JUST GET THIS RIGHT. THE NORTHEAST PERIMETER, WHICH IS ALMOST 20FT HIGHER THAN WHAT WE HAVE IN COLORADO SPRINGS, AS AN EXAMPLE. SO WE'VE GOT SIGNIFICANT MITIGATION IN TERMS OF THE WE'VE ALREADY STARTED OUR ACOUSTICIAN ON UPDATING THE REPORT. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF FACTORS THAT WILL BE ADDED IN THAT REPORT. ONE IS THE BLUE. THERE WILL BE A 33 FOOT WALL THAT ABUTS THE SIDE. WE'VE ALSO ENCLOSED COMMITTED TO ENCLOSE THE STAGE IN OUR LAST AMENDMENT ONE, AND THE ROOF WAS NOT FULLY CONSIDERED IN THE ORIGINAL. AND ONCE THE SITE PLAN IS APPROVED, WE WILL SUBMIT A WITHIN A WEEK OR SO. A AN UPDATED SOUND STUDY. SO IN A IN A WEEK OR TWO. YES OKAY. YEP. I MEAN. I GUESS I UNDERSTAND THERE'S STILL POTENTIAL FOR THINGS TO CHANGE.

AND IF YOU GET A SOUND STUDY AND YOU DON'T LIKE IT, YOU'VE GOT THE OPTION TO CHANGE IT. BUT THIS IS KIND OF LIKE OUR LAST CRACK AT IT RIGHT HERE. AND SO I WAS KIND OF ANTICIPATING THAT WE'D HAVE IT WITH THIS. AND THAT MAY HAVE BEEN MY MISTAKE, BUT YOU THERE WAS AN ARTICLE DONE TWO WEEKS AGO OR SO IN THE COLORADO GAZETTE, AND THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT SOME CHANGES THAT YOU'RE MAKING TO COLORADO SPRINGS OR YOU'RE POTENTIALLY MAKING. AND I'M JUST GOING TO READ YOU A COUPLE OF THINGS FROM IT. SURE. IT SAID MUD AND THE CITY AGREED THAT THERE WAS WORK TO BE DONE TO CONTINUE REINING IN NOISE LEVELS BEFORE SHOWS BEGAN IN 2025. AND THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY, AN OVERVIEW OF POTENTIAL CHANGES PROVIDED BY THE MAYOR'S OFFICE LAST WEEK INCLUDED ADJUSTMENTS TO SPEAKER SETUP AND ACOUSTICS THAT COULD BE MADE QUICKLY. LARGER

[01:15:05]

PROJECTS, SUCH AS EXTENDING THE WALL OF THE ROTH BUILDING TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH, WOULD BE DONE AS QUICKLY AS CITY PERMITS, AND CONSTRUCTION TIMES ALLOW, MUD SAID. AND THEN IT ENDS WITH ORIGINALLY WE WERE WORKING OUT OF THE THEORETICAL. NOW WE'RE WORKING OUT OF OUT OF A SET OF 20 SHOWS WHERE WE HAVE ACTUAL SOUND LEVELS INCORPORATED INTO THE STUDIES, AND I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT, AND I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE WHAT EFFORT YOU'RE MAKING TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS. AND I THINK IT IS EVIDENCE THAT OR I HOPE IT'S EVIDENCE THAT YOU DO THE SAME THERE. BUT I GUESS MY ISSUE RIGHT NOW IS WE'RE NOT EVEN WORKING OUT OF THE THEORETICAL BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE SOUND STUDY. AND SO WE'RE APPROVING A SITE PLAN WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE THEORETICAL IMPACT IS. AND I'VE SAID IT BEFORE AND I'LL REPEAT IT, COLORADO SPRINGS HAS A DIFFERENT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES WITH A STICK THAT KIND OF INDUCES YOU, SO TO SPEAK, TO COMPLY WITH NOISE CHANGES. AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT. AND SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IN WORKING OUT OF THE THEORETICAL IN THIS UNKNOWN EXPECTATION OF WHAT THIS IS. AND I AGREE THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF GOOD THINGS ON HERE, AND I APPRECIATE ALL THOSE. BUT I GUESS GIVE ME SOME COMFORT THAT WE'LL GET THE SAME TREATMENT IF IT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE THEORETICAL. WELL, MR. BELLER, I APPRECIATE THOSE SENTIMENTS AND I'D LIKE TO WALK THROUGH EACH ONE OF THOSE PIECES. SO IF I COULD HAVE A MOMENT TO DO THAT, FIRST OF ALL, WE WERE 100% COMPLIANT WITH THE WITH THE SITE PLAN. AND NUMBER TWO IS OUR THEORETICAL MODEL WAS ACCURATE. IT WAS ACTUALLY CONSERVATIVE. SO THAT WHILE THE READINGS THAT WE ANTICIPATED, WE MET THERE WERE CONCERNS IN THE COMMUNITY. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. WE ARE MEETING OUR POD. AND IF I COULD JUST MAKE THE POINT TO DEMONSTRATE THE NATURE OF HOW WE MANAGE OUR BUSINESS, WE ARE DOING IT BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND THERE ARE MANY, MANY ZEROS ON THE COMMITMENTS THAT WE'RE MAKING OVER $1 MILLION FOR CERTAIN BECAUSE WE WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS. IT'S JUST AS SIMPLE AS THAT. IN THIS CASE, FROM OUR ORIGINAL SOUND STUDY, THERE IS ONLY SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL MITIGATION AND THAT SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL MITIGATION INCLUDES THE ENCLOSING OF THE STAGE, WHICH IS MATERIAL. IT INCLUDES A SOUND WALL THAT IS NOW 50% HIGHER THAN WE HAD BUILT INTO OUR ORIGINAL. ACTUALLY, WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE THE SOUND WALL TO THE SOUTH IN OUR ORIGINAL SOUND STUDY, WE JUST HAD THE PARKING GARAGE. I COMMITTED TO THE SOUND WALL HERE AT CITY COUNCIL. WE NOW HAVE A SOUND WALL THAT GOES FROM FLOOR TO 33FT, AND WE NOW HAVE A GATE IN THE BACK THAT WE KNOW AT 58FT, WHICH IS SUBSTANTIAL. SO YOU KNOW, BOTH FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF OUR DESIGN, OUR INTENT AND OUR DESIGN, OUR OUR COMMITMENT TO MAKE CHANGES WHICH WE'VE DONE IN THE PROCESS AS WE WALK TOGETHER WITH THE CITY TO DO THIS. AND BEYOND THAT, YOU'RE TO YOUR QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THERE'S A STICK AND A CARROT. WE JUST ARE GOING TO BE GREAT NEIGHBORS IF WE CAN'T BE SEEN AS A COMMUNITY ASSET, WE'RE NOT WINNING AND WE INTEND TO WIN. N, I APPRECIATE THAT. AND I'VE WATCHED YOUR MEETINGS. LET ME LET ME JUST STATE MY POSITION.

YOU WOULD BE COMPLIANT WITH JUST THE READINGS THAT 100FT FROM THE STAGE, CORRECT? DOESN'T MATTER WHAT ANY OTHER READING IS. THAT IS THAT IS CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. AND SECONDLY, THE HARDSHIP VARIANCE THAT THEY GIVE YOU. HOW OFTEN IS THAT RENEWED THAT IS RENEWED ANNUALLY OKAY. SO IN TERMS OF US YOU BEING COMPLIANT, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU PUT UP THERE, YOU'RE GOING TO BE COMPLIANT. AND WE HAVE THAT SAME RESTRICTION. WE ONLY MEASURE 100FT FROM THE STAGE. SO YOU COULD BE 50% OFF ON YOUR NOISE OFF SITE. AND IT DOESN'T MATTER. YOU CAN SAY YOU'RE 100% COMPLIANT. AND FROM THE STANDPOINT OF WHAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO, WE DON'T HAVE AN ANNUAL HARDSHIP LICENSE TO GIVE YOU OR A HARDSHIP VARIANCE TO GIVE YOU, BECAUSE TEXAS DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME LAW AS COLORADO. SO I'M JUST STATING, I HEAR ALL THOSE THINGS. I READ THEM IN HERE. THEY DON'T THEY DON'T MEAN A WHOLE LOT TO ME. WHAT MEANS SOMETHING TO ME IS THAT WHEN IT COMES BACK TO THIS MAY CAUSE A PROBLEM THAT YOU YOU UNDERSTAND, THERE'S AN EXPECTATION THERE.

AND BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER WAY TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THEN WE'VE GOT TO TRUST YOU TO DO THAT BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A STICK. I UNDERSTAND, AND THAT'S WHY THIS DUE DILIGENCE UP FRONT HAS BEEN CRITICAL. IS IT IS IT SAFE TO SAY THAT, AS YOU STATED ALREADY, YOU YOU DID A YOU DID A SOUND STUDY? WE CAN'T KNOW FOR CERTAIN, BUT IT BUT IT'S REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT ALL OF

[01:20:05]

THE THINGS HAVE BEEN ADDED 33 FOOT SOUND WALLS ENCLOSING THE BACK OF STAGE. ALL OF THAT ARE THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO ENHANCE THE SOUND MITIGATION. BUT WOULD IT BE SAFE TO SAY THAT YOU YOU NEED TO HAVE A SITE PLAN APPROVED TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE STUDYING, RIGHT. THAT THAT YOU'RE YOU YOU'VE MADE THE DECISION AS A BUSINESS PERSON WOULD THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY FOR ANOTHER SOUND STUDY UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS YOU'RE STUDYING. WHAT WHAT WE'VE APPROVED, WHAT STAFF HAS COME BACK AGAIN THROUGH THROUGH THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN ADDED AND DONE AND AGREED TO. HAD YOU DONE A SOUND STUDY TWO MONTHS AGO, YOU'D BE REDOING IT AGAIN. SO YOU'RE STILL OBLIGATED OF COURSE, TO MEET THE CRITERIA. SO WE HAVEN'T DROPPED THAT JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE SOUND STUDY DONE. IF THE SOUND STUDY IS DONE AND YOU'RE NOT MEETING THE COMPLIANCE PARAMETERS THAT YOU'RE CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO, THEN IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT WE'VE APPROVED A SITE PLAN. YOU STILL GOT TO COME BACK AND MEET THOSE. THAT'S CORRECT. YES. AND WE HAVE INITIATED THE SOUND STUDY ONCE.

PAUL AND I TALKED LAST WEEK, AND WE HAD A CLEAR LINE OF SIGHT TO WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE TO FINALIZE THIS PLAN, I INITIATED THE SOUND STUDY. SO IT'S IN PROCESS. JUST JUST JUST TO BE CLEAR, GEORGE, THE I MEAN, WE'RE ASKED TO APPROVE THIS SITE PLAN, WHICH IS THE LAST OPPORTUNITY WE HAVE TO MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENTS TO THE, THE MITIGANTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE THEORETICAL OUTCOME IS AT THIS POINT. AND HE CAN BE HE CAN BE 100% COMPLIANT AND NOT HAVE ANY OF THESE MITIGANTS, BECAUSE OUR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ONLY MEASURES 100FT FROM THE FRONT OF THE STAGE. SO TO SAY THAT THAT THAT THAT CONDITION DOESN'T CHANGE WHETHER THE SOUND STUDY WAS DONE RIGHT NOW OR NOT, WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS SOMETHING. BUT APPROVING A SITE PLAN THAT WE THINK MITIGATES THE OFF SITE SOUND, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO MEASURE IT IS WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY. AND I'M SAYING WE'RE DOING THAT WITHOUT A SOUND STUDY. AND I AM I AM VERY CLOSE TO, TO APPROVING THIS WITH YOU. BUT DON'T UNDERMINE THE CONCERNS I HAVE WITH THIS IS OUR LAST BITE AT THE APPLE IN TERMS I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I DISAGREE WITH YOU AND MARK. GIVE ME GIVE ME CLARITY ON THIS. WE IT IS IT'S ONE YOU COULD ARGUE IT'S A LAST BITE AT THE APPLE ON THE SITE PLAN. BUT IF THE SOUND STUDY IS DONE AND IT DOES NOT MEET, IT'S IDENTIFIED THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO MEET WHAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO MEET THERE. THEY THEY WOULD HAVE TO THEY HAVE TO COME BACK, OF COURSE. AND PUT IN PLACE THOSE MITIGATING FACTORS AND CHANGE WHATEVER THEY HAVE TO CHANGE IN ORDER TO MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE CONTRACT. THE ONLY CRITERIA THEY HAVE TO MEET IS THAT THE VOLUME AT 100FT FROM THE FRONT OF STAGE, WE HAVE NO OFF SITE MONITORING. THERE'S NO OUTSIDE CRITERIA, THERE'S NOTHING. I UNDERSTAND THAT. I'M JUST SAYING THAT LIKE SOUND STUDY COULD COME BACK AND IT SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEXT DOOR, IT'S GOING TO BE 75, WHICH IS 20DB ON AVERAGE, HIGHER THAN WHAT WE PREDICTED IT TO BE. AND WE'VE GOT NO WAY TO, TO, TO ADDRESS THAT AT THAT POINT. WELL, CONTRACTUALLY WHAT WE'RE, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO MEET IS MEASURED AT FRONT OF HOUSE, RIGHT. PERIOD. RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE. SO I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING TO ME, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS REALLY A MOOT POINT. AND OBVIOUSLY THE REASON WHY, FOR THOSE WHO ARE WATCHING, WONDERING WHY IT WOULD JUST BE AT FRONT OF HOUSE IS BECAUSE THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER MEASUREMENTS OR, OR I'LL USE YOUR TERM THEORETICAL. YEAH, I MAKE A COMMENT. YEAH, I WASN'T FINISHED, BUT GO AHEAD. WELL, I DIDN'T WANT TO INTERRUPT ANYBODY. IT MIGHT SAVE YOU SOME TIME, BUT IT'S AT LEAST MY OPINION THAT YOUR SITE PLAN IS RELATIVELY HORIZONTAL AND IT'S YOUR VERTICAL FACTORS THAT ARE GOING TO AFFECT THE ABSORPTION OR REFLECTION OF SOUND. AND I BELIEVE BASED ON, YOU KNOW, I HATE TO CALL YOU BY YOUR FIRST NAME, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER YOUR LAST. I'M BECOMING FAMILIAR UP HERE. SO I UNDERSTAND BOB IS MADE HIMSELF AVAILABLE AT LEAST TO ME. HE'S MADE HIS ARCHITECTS AVAILABLE TO ME ON ALMOST ZERO NOTICE, MADE CHANGES TO THIS BASED ON SUGGESTIONS THAT WERE MADE HERE FROM THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, AND THE FACT THAT HE IS HERE EVERY TIME THIS PROJECT COMES ON OUR AGENDA SPEAKS VOLUMES TO ME AND I THINK WE'RE GETTING AHEAD OF OURSELVES. THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SOUND STUDY. AND UNTIL WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING UP VERTICALLY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO KNOW HOW TO MITIGATE

[01:25:01]

THAT SOUND, WHATEVER IT IS. AND SO I THINK IT'S PREMATURE, AND I THINK WE NEED FOCUS ON APPROVING THE SITE PLAN. SO WE KNOW WHERE EVERYTHING WILL BE BUILT. AND THEN WE'LL DEAL WITH THE SOUND STUDY AS THE PROJECT DEVELOPS VERTICALLY. IN MY OPINION, WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE TO APPROVE ANYTHING ON THAT. I'M JUST SAYING LIKE THIS, THIS THIS INCLUDES THE ELEVATIONS. THIS INCLUDES EVERYTHING IN IT. I DON'T SEE ANY ELEVATIONS HERE. THEY WERE ON THE SECOND PAGE.

THE SITE PLAN. MAY I ADD ONE? ONE OTHER THOUGHT, PLEASE. WE DO HAVE A WE DO HAVE A SOUND STUDY.

THE SOUND STUDY WAS BASED ON SOME ASSUMPTIONS THAT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WHICH I BELIEVE ARE COMMON SENSE PERSPECTIVE, HAVE BEEN DRAMATICALLY APPROVED ON THE POSSIBILITY THAT THIS NEXT SOUND STUDY GIVES RESULTS WORSE THAN WE HAD PRIOR IS DE MINIMIS AT BEST. I WOULD SAY VERY CONFIDENTLY. THAT'S A BE THERE IS RISK AT ALL LEVELS. I AM TAKING CONDITIONS ON A SITE PLAN HERE THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL OF HAVING TO SPRINKLE THE ROOF ON THIS, WHICH WILL BE MANY, MANY, MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. THERE IS SOME ADDITIONAL STUDIES THAT HAVE TO BE DONE ENGINEERING THAT HAS TO BE DONE, THAT THEN HAS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE FIRE CHIEF HERE. AND WE HAVE SAID THAT'S A RISK THAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD IN CONFIDENCE THAT WE'VE GOT A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY. AND SO I'M ASKING FOR THE SAME ON THIS. WE ARE COMMITTED TO DOING THAT. AND JUST NOT NOT TRYING TO DISMISS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. BUT I THINK IN THE SAME IN THE SAME CONVERSATION BEFORE YOU TALKED ABOUT HOW YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND SEE THAT THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE DOING UP IN COLORADO, THAT THEY ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE TO DO, YOU'VE MADE THE STATEMENT AND ACCURATELY THAT THEY HAVE A STICK THAT WE DON'T HAVE, BUT YOUR IMPROVEMENTS THAT YOU'RE DOING NOW ARE NOT BECAUSE OF A STICK, BECAUSE YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING THAT YOU'RE DOING RIGHT NOW. WE WILL BE RELEASING OUR RESULTS AS IS REQUIRED BY OUR PUD IN COLORADO SPRINGS LATER NEXT WEEK AT THE BOUNDARY OF THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. WE DO NOT NEED A WAIVER FROM THE CITY, AND THIS IS NOT LOOKING AT IT. THEORETICALLY, THIS IS LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL RESULTS. IT SITS AT 52 TO 55 DBA DURING OUR CONCERTS IN ITS PERPETUITY. SO I YOU KNOW, I FEEL LIKE WE WE'RE NOTHING BUT GOOD FAITH IS WHAT'S DRIVING OUR EFFORTS. THERE AND A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY. YEAH.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR BOB? I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. SO IS THERE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION. WE APPROVE THIS ITEM. SECOND, I WANTED TO BE APPOINTED THE GUY WHO GETS TO GO MEASURE THE SOUND AT ALL. 100. EVERY SHOW THAT COMES HERE. SO YOU CAN THROW THAT IN YOUR MOTION. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN

[Consider/Discuss/Act on a Property Owner’s Petition Requesting that Land Previously Requested Be Released From the City Of McKinney’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) be Added Back into the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, and Accompanying Ordinance]

FAVOR. AYE, AYE. OPPOSED? NAY. OKAY. MOVING TO ITEM 242199. CONSIDERING ACT ON A PROPERTY OWNERS PETITION REQUESTING THAT LAND PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED TO BE RELEASED FROM THE CITY OF MCKINNEY'S EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION BE ADDED BACK INTO THE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AND ACCOMPANYING ORDINANCE. MR. MAYOR, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO STEP DOWN ON THIS ONE.

DO YOU WANT TO DO THE LOCATION MAP? OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THIS ONE IS ACTUALLY THE FIRST OF ITS KIND FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER. SO WITH RECENT CHANGES IN STATE LAW FROM THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION, AS YOU ALL KNOW, PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE ETJ HAD THE UNILATERAL RIGHT TO RELEASE FROM THE ETJ. AND WE'VE SEEN A NUMBER OF THOSE OCCUR OVER THE LAST 2 TO 3 YEARS. AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE A PROPERTY OWNER NOW OWNS ABOUT 30 ACRES OF PROPERTY. IT'S THE LOCATION IS HERE BEFORE YOU IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE BILLINGSLEY TRACK, THIS IS SORT OF THAT SLIVER OF PROPERTY SANDWICHED IN BETWEEN THE BILLINGSLEY TRACT. IT'S 30 ACRES. IT WAS PREVIOUSLY IN THE CITY'S ETJ IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, THEY SUBMITTED THEIR RELEASE FROM THE CITY'S ETJ. AND HERE RECENTLY, THEY'VE ACTUALLY DECIDED THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO REJOIN OUR ETJ. AND SO WITH

[01:30:01]

THAT, WE HAVE A PETITION IN FRONT OF US TONIGHT WHERE THIS PROPERTY OWNER IS REQUESTING TO BE BROUGHT BACK INTO THE CITY'S ETJ AND SO WE ARE HERE PRESENTING IT BEFORE YOU. WE DO NOT HAVE A RECOMMENDATION ON THIS AS A STAFF. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF THE COUNCIL'S DISCRETION WHETHER OR NOT YOU'D LIKE TO BRING THIS BACK INTO THE ETJ OR CONTINUE HAVING IT BEING OUTSIDE OF OUR ETJ. SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. LEGAL IS HERE AS WELL. THIS IS VERY MUCH A LEGAL MATTER AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED. AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO JENNIFER, DO WE DO WE LIKE THEM? DO WE WANT THEM BACK? WE WOULD ALWAYS RECOMMEND PROPERTIES TO BE IN OUR ETJ OR WITHIN OUR CITY. WE MEET THEM. YES. THEY COME. WE CAN, WE CAN. ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR JENNIFER? YEAH. IT'S HERE SOMEWHERE. I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY. SAM FRANKLIN, MORPHIC DEVELOPMENT, 1650 WEST VIRGINIA PARKWAY, SUITE 110, MCKINNEY, TEXAS. I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER, SO THEY ACTUALLY DID TRY TO. THEY GOT OUT OF THE ETJ THE CITY OF MCKINNEY PRIOR IN FEBRUARY. AND NOW THEY ARE COMING BACK IN, HOPEFULLY WITH A PLAN TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. SO WE WE'RE HAPPY TO BE A PART OF THE TEAM TO BRING IT BACK INTO THE CITY, HOPEFULLY DEVELOP IN THE CITY AND BRING A WIN WIN SCENARIO FOR ALL PARTIES INVOLVED. SO WE'VE GOT VICTOR MENDIOLA, HE'S THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE OWNER IF YOU'D LIKE HIM TO COME UP HERE AS WELL AND INTRODUCE HIMSELF, HE'S HE'S MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO SO. UNLESS ANYBODY NEEDS IT. BUT THANK YOU FOR BEING WILLING. ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR SAM? HOW'S MARRIED LIFE? IT'S GOOD SO FAR. NOT EVEN A WEEK IN YET. THAT'LL. THAT'LL CHANGE. YEAH. I DON'T KNOW, GEORGE. Y'ALL SEEM PRETTY GOOD. YEAH, IT IS GOOD. I'M KIDDING. YEAH, I CAN FIX THAT FOR YOU. SO I HEARD YOU CAN'T. YOU'RE THE GUY I'VE GOT YOU IN MY ROLODEX. I'M HERE FOR YOU. YEAH. MUCH APPRECIATED. CHARLIE. THAT'S GOOD, I LOVE IT. NOT REALLY A QUESTION, BUT JUST MORE OF IT. WOULD YOU GIVE A IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GIVE A COMMENT ON WHY THEY WOULD LIKE TO COME BACK INTO THE. JUST FOR THE PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT'S LISTENING NOW, RIGHT NOW THAT'S CONSIDERING EXITING THE ETJ. YEAH. WELL HOPEFULLY WE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK OUT OF THE ETJ, BUT THE GOAL HERE IS TO COME BACK INTO THE CITY, FIND A CLEAR PATH TO DEVELOPMENT WITH CITY SUPPORT FOR A FOR A USE THAT IT COMPLIES WITH THE OVERALL LAND USE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF MCKINNEY, AND REALLY PARTNER WITH THE CITY IN ORDER TO GET A DEVELOPMENT ON THE GROUND WHERE OTHERWISE, IF WE WERE STILL IN THE ETJ, WE WOULD NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE CITY IN ORDER TO GET THE OFF SITES WE NEED AND ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT ITEMS AND APPROVALS THAT WE NEED. SO THAT'S THE GOAL. YEAH. THANK YOU. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS PROJECT OR THIS PROPOSAL. I'LL SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. OPPOSED. THANK YOU SIR. MR. FRANKLIN DID SEE

[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]

YOU, SAM. YES. SEE Y'ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. TWO FOR 2200. CONSIDER AN ACT ON APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD'S ACTION ON A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDING AT 311 SOUTH KENTUCKY STREET. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AS YOU REQUEST AS YOU READ, THIS IS A REQUEST TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE HPA AB FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AT 311 SOUTH KENTUCKY STREET. THIS IS DEFINITELY A PROPERTY IN AN AREA THAT YOU ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH. SO WE'LL QUICKLY RECAP IT. AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL. SO AS YOU READ THE ITEM BEFORE YOU WAS CONSIDERED BY THE HPA AB EARLIER THIS YEAR BACK IN NOVEMBER, THE HPA AB WAS CONSIDERING THE REQUEST TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY. I DO HAVE IT HIGHLIGHTED HERE. FOR THOSE THAT ARE FAMILIAR, THIS IS THE SURREY HOUSE. THIS IS THE SURREY HOUSE ITSELF RIGHT HERE AND 311 SOUTH KENTUCKY, THE PROPERTY THAT'S RIGHT BEHIND IT. SO BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE H OVERLAY, A REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION DO REQUIRE CONSIDERATION BY THE HPA AB WHEN CONSIDERED EARLIER IN NOVEMBER, THE HPA AB DID FIND THAT THEY WERE NOT COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING OR APPROVING THE REQUEST TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY, SO THEY DID DENY THE REQUEST. THE APPLICANT IS EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO APPEAL THAT DENIAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL, SO WE DO HAVE THE FULL STAFF REPORT FROM STAFF FROM THE HPA AB MEETING INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET. ONE THING THAT WE LIKE TO NOTE ANYTIME WE'RE PRESENTING THESE TO BOTH HPA OR TO THE CITY COUNCIL IS JUST A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ON THE TRACT. SO IT IS A MEDIUM PRIORITY RATING IN THE LATEST HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ABOUT 1900, AND WE DID GET AS PART OF THE REQUEST ORIGINALLY A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION ON THE CONDITION OF THE STRUCTURE. IT WAS FOUND TO BE BY VISUAL INSPECTION, TO

[01:35:06]

BE IN A STATE THAT WAS FALLING INTO A STATE OF DISREPAIR. AND THAT WAS ALL PRESENTED TO THE HPA AND IS INCLUDED FOR YOU ALL AS WELL. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AND MR. ROEDER IS HERE AS WELL. JENNIFER, CAN YOU JENNIFER, CAN YOU POINT ME TO WHERE IT SAYS THAT IT THAT THE STATE THAT IT'S FALLING INTO DISREPAIR. SO IF YOU IT'S ACTUALLY INCLUDED AS PART OF THE APPLICANT'S SUBMITTAL? AND THEIR LETTER OF INTENT, THEY TALK ABOUT A FIELD INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED BY BRIAN MOORE, WHO WAS AN ARCHITECT. AND THE CONDITION THAT WAS NOTED CONSIDERABLE RACKING STRUCTURAL DAMAGE AT THE DOOR, DRY ROT DAMAGE AT THE WINDOW OPENINGS AS WELL. SO IT'S IN THAT LETTER OF INTENT. DO WE HAVE THAT REPORT OR ANYTHING THAT SHOWS THAT WE I DON'T KNOW IF THE FULL CAST IS KATHY HERE. I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT IS. DO WE HAVE THE FULL REPORT THAT'S INHERENT. OKAY. AS PART OF THE APPLICANT'S SUBMITTAL, WE DO HAVE THAT FULL REPORT. SO THERE ARE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS INCLUDED ON SLIDES EIGHT THROUGH ABOUT 17 ON THAT APPLICANT SUBMITTAL ATTACHMENT. YEAH I SEE THE PHOTOGRAPHS. YEP. AND THEN. THE DBA PAGE 19 IS THE ACTUAL REPORT FROM DBA ARCHITECTS. SO I MEAN WE STARTED THIS AS A POTENTIAL RELOCATION. AND I GUESS I ALWAYS LOOKED AT THESE AS REPORTS OF EVEN THE CONTEXT OF THE REPORT. HE'S GOT TO EVALUATE THE CONDITION OF THE HOUSE WITH THE PRIMARY GOAL OF SEEING IF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE A GOOD CANDIDATE TO BE RELOCATED. A FEW BULLET POINTS TO OBSERVE. AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE THE SAME, I GUESS THE HOUSE MOVERS ASSUMPTIONS OR COMMENTS IN THERE. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU A DIFFERENT QUESTION. WHEN AN APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR A DEMOLITION PERMIT, THERE ARE STEPS IN THERE ABOUT. HARDSHIPS OR ECONOMIC REASONS. WHY WOULDN'T THEY GO THROUGH THOSE STEPS. SO THEY DO HAVE THAT OPTION. SO THE TRAVEL OF A DEMOLITION REQUEST WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL AREA WOULD FIRST START WITH THE COA APPLICATION THAT WOULD GO BEFORE THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD. AT THAT POINT IN TIME, COST RECOVERY IS REALLY NOT PART OF AN HARDSHIPS, NOT PART OF THE DECISION MAKING CRITERIA. THAT CRITERIA IS REALLY IS IT APPROPRIATE TO HAVE THIS STRUCTURE DEMOLISHED OR RELOCATED? REMOVE THE STRUCTURE FROM THE PROPERTY? IF THE HFPA BE DENIES THAT REQUEST, THE APPLICANT SORT OF HAS TWO LANES THAT THEY COULD WALK DOWN. THE FIRST WOULD BE TO GO BACK TO HP-IB FOR THAT ECONOMIC HARDSHIP, AND THAT IS WHERE THEY WOULD GO AND PRESENT THE ECONOMIC FINDINGS. THE COST OF REPAIR VERSUS WHAT THEY COULD RECOVER IN THE PROPERTY FOR REDEVELOPMENT. THEY COULD GO DOWN THAT PATH, BUT THE CODE ALSO ALLOWS THEM TO BYPASS THAT AND COME STRAIGHT TO COUNCIL FOR THE APPEAL. SO IN THIS CASE, THEY'VE MOVED FORWARD WITH JUST THAT STRAIGHT APPEAL. IF THE HARDSHIP FAILED AT HP-IB OR THE ECONOMIC FAILED AT HP-IB, WOULD DOES THAT GIVE UP THEIR APPEAL RIGHTS TO US OR THEY'D STILL BE ABLE TO APPEAL? OKAY. RIGHT. BUT THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO COME UP. BOB ROEDER, 1700 REDBUD, SUITE 300. ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, THE MR. BEL-AIR. THE. I THINK IT WAS A COMMENT WAS MADE EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER AN HFPA MEETING WHEN I WAS VISITING WITH WITH JAMES WEST, ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WHO SAID, YOU CAN REHAB ANYTHING IF YOU'RE WILLING TO SPEND THE MONEY. AND IT JUST APPEARED TO US THAT TO

[01:40:03]

GO DOWN THE HARDSHIP PATH WAS ONE IN WHICH WE WERE GOING TO BE TRADING OPINIONS ON WHETHER WHAT KIND OF ECONOMIC RETURN YOU COULD GET AND REALLY ECONOMIC RETURNS IN SOME CASES UNDER HARDSHIP IS NOT EVEN A MEASURE. AND SO WE DECIDED TO GO THE STRAIGHT, JUST LET'S JUST TAKE IT AND RUN WITH IT. I THINK WHAT YOU'LL SEE, WE STARTED WITH THIS HOUSE ABOUT TRYING TO RELOCATE IT. AND I THINK WHAT YOU'LL SEE IN THE MOVERS INFORMATION THERE IS THAT THE STRUCTURE ITSELF IS TOO TALL TO BE ABLE TO MOVE. AND SO WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THE ROOF OFF OF IT. AND WHEN THE ROOF COMES OFF OF IT, YOU KNOW, THOSE RAFTERS AND EVERYTHING SORT OF HOLD THE WALLS TOGETHER AND EVERYTHING. AND THE MOVER BASICALLY SAID HE WOULD NOT WARRANTY THAT HE COULD MOVE IT WITHOUT IT FALLING APART. THIS, THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. YOU AND WE CAN GO BACK TO THE MAP IF YOU WANT, BUT YOU ALL ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH IT. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME IT'S BEEN IN FRONT OF YOU. IS HAS VACANT LOTS ON BOTH SIDES OF IT. SIGNIFICANT LARGE TRACT OF LAND TO THE SOUTH. AND THEN THERE'S THERE ARE TWO VACANT LOTS, I THINK ACTUALLY TO THE NORTH OF IT.

THESE ARE SMALL LOTS. AND SO THE GOAL IS TO DEMOLISH THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE HADN'T BEEN LIVED IN IN 20 YEARS. IT'S IN VERY POOR CONDITION. ACCORDING TO MY CLIENT AND MY CLIENT'S OPINION, IT'S NOT WORTH THE MONEY TO TRY TO SPEND AND BRING IT UP TO CODE. AND SO THE GOAL HERE IS TO IS TO DEMOLISH IT AND THEN COME BACK TO YOU AND TO THE HAB WITH A PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT, NOT JUST OF THIS ONE LOT, BUT OF THAT ENTIRE AREA THERE. THIS FALLS IN THE DOWNTOWN EDGE UNDER YOUR MCKINNEY TOWN CENTER STUDY OR TOWN CENTER ORDINANCE. AND SO THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF LIMITATIONS ABOUT WHAT CAN HAPPEN THERE. MR. CLOUTIER MENTIONED HIS OBSERVATION OF DOWNTOWN BEING BUILT INCREMENTALLY AND WHATNOT. AND I THINK MR. BALLARD, YOU MENTIONED WHEN WE WERE HERE BEFORE THAT THE MONOLITHS DON'T SEEM TO BE DON'T SEQUENCE UP WITH WHAT HISTORIC MCKINNEY HAS BEEN. THE GOOD NEWS HERE IS FROM THE I WOULD THINK, FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE, IS THAT THE TOWN CENTER ORDINANCE HAS A THREE STORY HEIGHT LIMITATION HERE, WHICH IS COMPARABLE TO WHAT THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS YOU HAVE ON SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES IN THIS AREA. I'M NOT SURE YOU HAVE A THREE STORY HERE, BUT YOU CERTAINLY HAVE THEM IN IN THE HISTORIC AREA OF DOWNTOWN MCKINNEY. SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO GO THERE YET.

THE CHANCES ARE IT'LL BE A RESIDENTIAL SIMPLY BECAUSE ITS LOCATION FROM A COMMERCIAL PERSPECTIVE IS NOT. IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME TO BE A THAT KIND OF ORIENTATION, BUT WE'LL BE BRINGING THIS BACK TO YOU. WE OBVIOUSLY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK WITH A SITE PLAN. WE'D HAVE TO COME BACK WITH ELEVATIONS BECAUSE WE'RE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND ALL OF THAT KIND OF STUFF. SO YOU'LL HAVE A BITE AT THE APPLE IN TERMS OF WHAT'S GOING TO GO IN THERE TO REPLACE IT AS IT SITS. THIS IS A VACANT PROPERTY. IT'S BEEN VACANT FOR 20 YEARS. IT'S NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING BUT SIT THERE AND BE A MOVIE SET. I THINK I'VE SAID ONCE BEFORE, AND SO OUR REQUEST IS THAT YOU APPROVE THE KOA FROM A DEMOLITION. LET US REMOVE THE HOUSE, COME BACK TO YOU. ONCE WE HAVE KNOW WHAT LAND MASS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, COME BACK TO YOU WITH A PRESENTATION SITE PLAN AND WHATNOT OF WHAT NEEDS TO GO THERE, WHAT WE WANT TO GO THERE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR BOB? YES, SIR.

MR. ROEDER, I KNOW WE'RE ONLY CONSIDERING A DEMOLITION TODAY, BUT THIS PROJECT DID COME BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON A LARGER PARCEL OF PROPERTY AND THAT FIRST REQUEST WAS NOT APPROVED.

AND IT RESULTED IN THE SURREY HOUSE, AMONG OTHER STRUCTURES, REMAINING WHERE THEY'RE CURRENTLY LOCATED ON KENTUCKY STREET. THAT WAS FOLLOWING A LARGE OUTPOURING OF CITIZENS CONCERNS ABOUT CHANGING THE FACE OF DOWNTOWN. AND SO WHERE WE ARE HERE TODAY IS YOU'RE ASKING TO REMOVE ONE OF THOSE SEVERAL STRUCTURES DUE TO ITS AGE AND ITS CONDITION. AND IS IT I MEAN, CERTAINLY YOU CAN REHAB ANYTHING WITH ENOUGH MONEY, BUT WE CAN'T MAKE YOU DO THAT, CORRECT? CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. THAT'S I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS CLEAR

[01:45:06]

ON THE OVERALL PERSPECTIVE OF HOW WE GOT TO THIS PIECE. YES. THANK YOU. AND TO MR. PHILLIPS TO FOLLOW ON WITH THAT CONCEPT. WE HEARD THE COUNCIL LOUD AND CLEAR. YOU DON'T WANT A FIVE STORY. DAVID'S AT THE SQUARE REPRODUCTION THERE. AND SO WE FELT LIKE TO CONTINUE TO, TO SAVE THE THREE HOUSES ON SOUTH KENTUCKY FROM, YOU KNOW, 301, 303 AND 305. THEY SEEMED TO ALL GO TOGETHER. THE SURREY HOUSE WILL STAY IN THE LOCATION WHERE IT IS AND NOT BE MOVED OF COURSE. YOU KNOW, THERE'S ANOTHER HOUSE DOWN THERE SOUTH OF THE SURREY HOUSE. WE HAVE A CERTIFICATE TO REMOVE THAT THAT WAS MOVED IN. THAT'S NOT REALLY A HISTORIC STRUCTURE WAS MOVED IN. SO THAT WILL WILL OPEN UP THE LARGE TRACT TO THE SOUTH OF THE SURREY HOUSE TO ALLOW FOR SOME REDEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. I APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATION. APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. YOU BET. IT'S PROBABLY NO SURPRISE THAT I DON'T LOVE THIS PROJECT. STILL, YOU KNOW, WE CONSIDERED EACH ONE OF THESE HOUSES ON THIS STREET INDIVIDUALLY, EVEN THOUGH THEY KIND OF WERE PRESENTED AS A GROUP PROJECT. MY POSITION HASN'T CHANGED. I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT HAS CHANGED ABOUT THIS TO EVEN INCITE US TO CONSIDER AGAIN, DEMOING THIS HOUSE, I'LL MAKE THE SAME STATEMENTS THAT I MADE BEFORE THIS. THE CHARM OF DOWNTOWN IS WHAT DRAWS A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE, AND IF THERE IS A WAY TO SALVAGE THESE HOMES, I THINK WE SHOULD DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO TRY TO SALVAGE THESE HOMES. I DON'T THINK EVERYTHING IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT SHOULD BE SALVAGED, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF HOMES THAT CAN CAN BE IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY. I GOT A CHANCE TO TALK TO A REALTOR WHO HAS SOLD A HOUSE THAT PRESUMABLY IS WORSE THAN THIS ONE, AND THERE WAS A PROFIT MADE FOR THE HOMEOWNER AND THE HOUSE WAS COMPLETELY RESTORED. DID IT TAKE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF FUNDING? YES. IT TOOK A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF FUNDING, BUT IT HAS BEEN DONE ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, AND IT COULD BE DONE IF GIVEN THE CHANCE. I THINK WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE IS A PROPERTY OWNER WHO'S HAD THIS HOUSE FOR DECADES, WHO'S ALLOWED IT TO DECLINE AND NOW WANTS US TO JUST DEMO IT. AND I DON'T LOVE THAT AS AN OPTION. I WOULD MUCH RATHER SEE US MAKE MORE OF AN EFFORT TO SEE THIS HOUSE GO ON THE MARKET AND LET SOMEBODY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REHAB IT. ONCE AGAIN, I KNOW WE CAN'T FORCE IT, RIGHT? BUT IN ORDER TO HONOR THE INTEGRITY OF DOWNTOWN, I WOULD RATHER SEE US AT LEAST TRY TO PUT IT ON THE MARKET AND SEE IF SOMEONE WOULD BE ABLE TO SALVAGE IT. AND LET'S MAINTAIN OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT. THAT'S JUST MY POSITION. I WANT TO THANK THE PAB BECAUSE THEY DID NOT TAKE THIS LIGHTLY. THIS FIRST TIME AROUND, AND THEY SURELY DIDN'T TAKE IT LIGHTLY.

THE SECOND TIME AROUND, THEY TOOK THEIR TIME. THEY LOOKED INTO THIS CASE, THEY DID THEIR RESEARCH. THEY TALKED TO WHO THEY NEEDED TO TALK TO. THEY MADE A DECISION. I WHOLEHEARTEDLY BACK THEIR DECISION. SO I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS. MR. SCHROEDER, WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY PRESENTED, BEFORE IT GOT TO THE COUNCIL, IT WAS DENIED. WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE PARCEL, IT WAS DENIED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD. YES. CORRECT. AND THE COUNCIL UPHELD THAT DECISION? CORRECT. OF THE HBV. OKAY. LET ME LET ME ADD TO THAT, THOUGH, IT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER IN EACH INSTANCE. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND I WILL ADD DOCTOR IS DOCTOR FELTUS. LET ME LET ME LET ME PUT A LITTLE COUPLE OTHER FACTS IN THERE. AS YOU KNOW, THIS SINGLE HOUSE HAS VACANT LOTS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF IT. AND IF YOU WANT THE PROPERTY OWNER TO COME IN AND DO SOMETHING WITH THIS HOUSE, YOU BASICALLY ARE ARE OBSTRUCTING THE PROPERTY OWNER'S ABILITY TO DEVELOP THE TWO LOTS TO THE NORTH OF IT. WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THIS ALL A CONTIGUOUS PIECE OF PROPERTY, SO IT CAN BE REDEVELOPED IN A IN A PROPER WAY, IN A WAY THAT'S THOUGHTFUL AND WHATNOT. AGAIN, WE HAVE THE LIMITATIONS OF THE TOWN CENTER. SO MY ARGUMENT WOULD BE THAT WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED WAS NOT THOUGHTFUL, IN MY OPINION, AND MY CONCERN AS WELL IS THAT THE OTHER HOUSES NORTH OF THIS ARE GOING TO BE PICKED OFF ONE BY ONE, AND WE END UP WITH THE SAME PROJECT PROPOSAL.

AND THAT'S JUST MY CONCERN. AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT'S THE INTENTION OF THE DEVELOPER OR THE PROPERTY OWNER, BUT THAT'S A CONCERN FOR THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, IS THAT WE'RE SEEING PEOPLE MOVE IN AND DO THINGS THAT ARE NOT REALLY GOING TO ONCE AGAIN, HONOR THE INTEGRITY

[01:50:02]

OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. AND THAT'S JUST THAT'S MY POSITION. I APPRECIATE THAT MY POSITION ON THIS, I WAS OPPOSED TO SOME OF WHAT WAS REQUESTED. THE LAST SUBMISSION AND IN AGREEMENT WITH WITH OTHERS, I THINK THE ONE I WAS IN AGREEMENT WITH WAS THIS HOUSE BEING DEMOLISHED. I'VE ACTUALLY GONE OUT. I'VE SEEN THIS HOUSE. I'VE LOOKED AT THIS HOUSE. I CAN LITERALLY REACH UP AND I CAN TAKE IN MY HAND AND PULL OUT PART OF A RAFTER, LITERALLY. IT'S JUST THAT DILAPIDATED AND THAT DEGRADATIO. SO I, I'M GOING TO STICK WITH MY POSITION BEFORE AND THAT IS I DO BELIEVE THIS HOUSE IS A HOUSE THAT QUALIFIES. I THINK IF IT WAS ANYWHERE ELSE, I DON'T THINK THERE'D BE A QUESTION. WE WOULD BE APPROVING IT. I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING STATED BY PRO TEM. ON ON WHAT I WOULD HOPE TO NOT SEE, BUT I'M GOING TO LIMIT FOR ME. I'M JUST LIMITING MY DECISION ON THIS WITH WHAT'S BEFORE ME. NOT NOT WHAT COULD BE, BUT BUT WHAT I FEEL LIKE IS BEFORE ME TODAY AND BASED ON THIS ONE PROPERTY, I CERTAINLY CONCUR WITH. THAT MIGHT COME, BUT THIS HOUSE IS NOT A HOUSE THAT CAN. THAT'S WORTH SAVING AS MUCH AS I WANT IT TO BE. MAYOR, MAY I MAKE A COMMENT? AND BEFORE I DO, I DON'T NECESSARILY NEED MR. ROEDER STANDING HERE WHILE I MAKE THAT COMMENT. AND IT LOOKS SO PRETTY. MAY I BE EXCUSED THEN? AND I'LL TAKE MY SEAT IN THE AUDIENCE. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE HAD QUESTIONS FOR YOU. MY BIGGEST CONCERN ON THE THIS ISSUE ALTOGETHER IS MORE THAN JUST THIS HOUSE IS THE FACT THAT EVERY YEAR WE PAINSTAKINGLY GO THROUGH INTERVIEWS AND WE APPOINT PEOPLE TO SERVE ON OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS TO DO THINGS THAT OTHERWISE WE WOULD BE TASKED WITH DOING. AND IN MY OPINION, WE ARE GIVING THEM A VOTE OF CONFIDENCE TO MAKE DECISIONS ON OUR BEHALF. I RESPECT, AND I THINK I KNEW EACH MEMBER OF THE PAB PRIOR TO THEM BEING APPOINTED TO THE BOARD AND JAMES WEST IN MY OPINION, KNOWS MORE ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY OF MCKINNEY THAN ANY PERSON ON THE PLANET. AND THAT INCLUDES GUY GERSH. AND IN THIS CASE, WHEN THIS WHOLE DEVELOPMENT PIECE OF PROPERTY CAME BEFORE THE COUNCIL THE FIRST TIME, THE HBA BE DENIED, IT SAID, DON'T LET THAT HAPPEN A SECOND TIME. THEY LOOKED AT IT AND THEY LOOKED AT THE MISSION STATEMENT OF THE HAVE THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE DEMOLITION. IT INCLUDES THE TERM PRESERVATION AND ENHANCING THE ECONOMIC VALUE THROUGH PRESERVATION AND EDUCATION. I THINK OVERALL THAT THEY HAVE ACHIEVED THEIR GOAL ON THE ENTIRE PARCEL OF PROPERTY BY PRESERVING THE HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE ENTIRE BLOCK BY WHAT THEY DID. THE FIRST TIME. AND ALL OF THE COUNCIL APPROVED THAT. MY CONCERN IS SENDING A MESSAGE TO EACH MEMBER OF THE HAB THAT IF YOU DO SOMETHING I DON'T LIKE, I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST YOU. AND I'M ASSURED BY VISITING WITH MEMBERS OF THE HAB, BETTY PETKOVSEK IN PARTICULAR, THE PRESIDENT OR CHAIRMAN OF THAT GROUP THAT THEY HONORED THEIR COMMITMENT TO THE MISSION STATEMENT BY TRYING TO PRESERVE EVERY BUILDING IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. AND THAT'S WHY THEY VOTED AGAINST THIS. BUT OVERALL, THEIR WORK THAT WE ASKED THEM TO DO ON OUR BEHALF HAS BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL. AND I WANT TO THANK EACH MEMBER OF THE HAB, AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT MY DECISION TO APPROVE THIS DEMOLITION IS BASED ON YOUR WORK AS A WHOLE. AND THAT YOU HAVE BEEN HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL IN PRESERVING THE HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF MCKINNEY ON THIS PROJECT AS A WHOLE. AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT.

AND I ASK THAT YOU EXPRESS TO THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE HAB WHY I MADE A DECISION THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE DECISION YOU MADE, BECAUSE I LOOKED AT THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE, NOT AS A ONE

[01:55:01]

SINGLE HOME ON THE BLOCK. AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE CAN FORCE ANYBODY TO REHAB A HOUSE. AND I DON'T SEE A LOT OF ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE TO THIS ONE. SO THANKS TO EACH OF YOU WHO SERVE ON THIS BOARD, I KNOW A COUPLE OF MEMBERS ARE PRESENT. IF YOU ARE, WOULD YOU PLEASE STAND UP SO WE CAN ALL THANK YOU. I HAD A NOTES OF WHAT I WANTED TO EXPRESS, BUT I THINK CHARLIE SAID IT A LOT BETTER THAN I WAS GOING TO SAY IT. AND SO I'LL LEAVE IT THERE. JAMES WEST HAS FORGOTTEN MORE THAN I KNOW ABOUT ARCHITECTURE. MCKINNEY AND I KNOW QUITE A BIT. YOU KNOW, THE STREET TO THE EAST OF HERE, TENNESSEE, WAS A COMMERCIAL STREET FOR HIGHWAY FIVE. YOU SEE THAT KAUFMAN'S FLOWERS ON THERE? I MEAN, THAT WAS A COMMERCIAL STREET. THE HOMES ON THIS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THE HOMES ON THIS BLOCK. I GUESS THEY FELL APART, YOU KNOW, IN 1990, THINGS WEREN'T REALLY BUILT TO LAST. NOW I'M GOING TO COME TO A LITTLE BIT OF THE DEFENSE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS. AND I DON'T KNOW THEM, BUT I'M GOING TO WALK THROUGH SOMETHING WITH YOU. THEY OWNED THE SURREY HOUSE, AND THEY USED THIS AS A STORAGE PLACE FOR THE SURREY HOUSE. NO RESIDENTS LIVED IN THERE. WOULD THEY HAVE BUILT THIS TO BE A STORAGE PLACE IF THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD A STORAGE PLACE? NO, BUT IT WAS THERE AND MY GUESS IS WHEN THEY BOUGHT IT, 20 SOMETHING YEARS AGO THAT IT WAS IN RELATIVE DISREPAIR, THEY SHRUGGED THEIR SHOULDERS AND SAID, HEY, WE COULD USE STUFF TO STORE IT HERE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY NO LONGER HAVE THE SURREY HOUSE AS A AS A BUSINESS ANYMORE. SOMEBODY ELSE IS RUNNING THAT.

BUT THAT'S WHAT THIS HAS BEEN NOW. I TOO WENT OUT AND LOOKED AT IT AND THE RAFTER I COULD SEE HAD HAD A FRESH COAT OF PAINT ON IT, BUT IT WAS FALLING APART LITERALLY, I TOUCHED IT, MY FINGER WENT THROUGH IT. I WALKED BEHIND THE HOUSE, BASICALLY, YOU'VE GOT THE SURREY HOUSE INGRESSING INTO THE BACK YARD OF THIS HOUSE. I LOOKED AT THE SIDING AND MUCH OF IT IS PARTICLE BOARD. NOW I'M. I COULDN'T SEE HOW THIS HOUSE WAS GOING TO LIVE TO SEE ANOTHER DAY. NOW WE TALKED WHAT SEEMS LIKE A LONG TIME AGO, AND IT WAS A COUPLE OF HOURS AGO ABOUT THE M2 G THING AND ABOUT RESIDENTIAL AND WHAT IT SEEMS TO ME IS, IS THAT THIS HOUSE WILL NEVER BE LIVED IN AGAIN. MR. WEST WAS RIGHT. HE SAID ANY HOUSE COULD BE RESTORED. IT JUST NEEDS A COMMITTED OWNER. THE OWNER BASICALLY ILLUSTRATED THEIR COMMITMENT TO WHAT THIS HOUSE WAS 20 YEARS AGO, AND IT WAS GOING TO BE A STORAGE PLACE. AND HERE WE FIND OURSELVES TODAY. SO WHETHER WE DEMO THIS HOUSE TODAY OR FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, THE FATE OF THIS HOUSE IS WRITTEN. IT'S NOT GOING TO LIVE. I DON'T SEE THESE FOLKS BEING WILLING TO SELL IT TO SOMEBODY WHO HAS AN APPETITE TO REHAB A 1000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE. WITH THE DEGREE OF REHABBING, THIS WOULD TAKE, AND I'M NOT REALLY CONFIDENT THERE'S SOMEBODY WITH THE POCKETS OUT THERE THAT WOULD BE WILLING TO DO IT, BUT I JUST DON'T THINK WE'RE EVER GOING TO LIVE TO FIND OUT. SO WHAT WE HAVE IS AN OPPORTUNITY IN FRONT OF US TO REMOVE THIS OBSTACLE. AND IT'S SAD. I STRUGGLED OVER THIS HUGE.

AND TO SEE IF WE CAN ACTIVATE BASICALLY WHAT THIS ENTIRE CITY BLOCK IS FOR, HUGE DEMAND FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE DOWNTOWN NEAR OUR SQUARE. SO WITH RESPECT TO THAT, I'M GOING TO HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE GOING TO COME BACK TO US WITH SOMETHING GOOD. AND I'M GOING TO VOTE TO AFFIRM THIS DEMOLITION. IS THERE A MOTION? I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS APPLICATION. SECOND. READ THE MOTION. THE MOTION MADE. OH, I'M SO SORRY. OKAY. AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HPO AND THE DECISION OF THE HPA AB, I MOVE TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE HPA AB ON ITEM NUMBER. TOP UP AT THE TOP. WHAT IS IT FOR 2224 2200 AND APPROVE THE REQUESTED COA IN THE ITEM. I'LL SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? NAY. I HAVE TWO NAYS. I THINK THERE WERE TWO NAYS.

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on Amendments to the ONE McKinney 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Including Updates to the Future Land Use Plan, Land Use Diagrams, Placetype Definitions, Individual District Strategies, and Minor Text Updates; and Accompanying Ordinance]

RIGHT. DOCTOR PHELPS AND COUNCILMAN BELLER, ITEM 240003 M3. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ACT ON AMENDMENTS TO THE 1 TO 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, INCLUDING UPDATES TO THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, LAND USE DIAGRAMS, PLACE TYPE DEFINITION, INDIVIDUAL DISTRICTS STRATEGIES, AND MINOR TEXT UPDATES AND ACCOMPANYING ORDINANCE. SHE PUNTED. I SEE THAT IS ALL GOOD.

SHE'S HAD A LONG NIGHT TONIGHT, SO THANK YOU, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. MY NAME IS HALEY

[02:00:04]

ANGEL AND I'M THE PLANNING MANAGER, ONE OF THEM FOR THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. TODAY, I'LL BRIEFLY GO THROUGH THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS. I'VE GOT A LOT OF CONTENT IN THE POWERPOINT, BUT I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF AND WE CAN BOUNCE BACK FOR QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE ANY. AS A QUICK REMINDER, OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS THAT OVERALL COMMUNITY VISION FOR GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT THROUGHOUT THE CITY. IT WAS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED IN 2018, AND PERIODICALLY WE ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH AN AMENDMENT PROCESS WHERE WE'RE MAKING MINOR CHANGES, BUT WE'RE STILL UPHOLDING THAT OVERALL VISION. AS ANOTHER REMINDER, WE HAVE THREE COMPONENTS. WE HAVE THE PREFERRED SCENARIO, WHICH, WHILE IT LOOKS LIKE A SIMPLE MAP, ACTUALLY HAS A SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT EACH OF THE DISTRICTS, THEIR CHARACTER AND THEIR PROPOSED GROWTH PATTERNS, WHICH ALSO INCLUDES THE LAND USE DIAGRAM, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE USED TO SEEING ON ZONING REQUESTS. AND OF COURSE, THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN IS ALSO AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF THAT. TONIGHT WE ARE HITTING THREE BUCKETS OF CHANGES. THE PRIMARY ONE THAT I'LL SPEND TIME TALKING ABOUT IS THE ADDITION OF THE 380 CORRIDOR. WE DO HAVE A FEW MOMENTS WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT CHANGING TRENDS, AND SO WE'VE GOT ONE AREA WE WANT TO JUST BRIEFLY CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION ABOUT CHANGING TRENDS, ESPECIALLY IN THE INDUSTRIAL OFFICE MARKET. AND THEN FINALLY, OF COURSE, WE HAVE OUR ROUTINE AMENDMENTS WHERE WE'RE GOING IN TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS STILL CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT. I'M SURE YOU ALL ARE WELL ACQUAINTED WITH THE 380 CORRIDOR TIMELINE, BUT JUST AS ANOTHER REMINDER FOR ANYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM WHO MAYBE WAS NOT AROUND BACK IN 2017, WE WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE AND WE WERE WORKING WITH TXDOT ON THAT POTENTIAL ALIGNMENT AND EVENTUALLY DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, KNOWING THAT IT WOULD BE A WHILE BEFORE WE HAD THE FINAL ALIGNMENT AND ANY PROPOSED CHANGES AROUND LAND USE AROUND THAT. BY FALL OF 2023, JUST A FEW YEARS LATER, WE DID GET THAT RECORD OF DECISION. WE MADE SOME CHANGES TO THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN AT THAT TIME, BUT WANTED TO HOLD OFF ON CHANGES TO THE LAND USE DIAGRAM SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE WE KNEW WE WOULD WANT SOME PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT WITH THAT, AND THEN THAT WOULD TAKE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME. BUT KNOWING THE FINAL ALIGNMENT, WE WANTED TO BE SURE THAT THAT INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE TO ANYBODY WHO WAS LOOKING FOR IT AND WANTED TO UPDATE THAT QUICKLY. THIS IS JUST A QUICK REMINDER OF WHERE THAT NEW ALIGNMENT IS GOING TO BE FOR THE 380 CORRIDOR. AND SO AS AN OVERALL OVERVIEW OF OUR TIMELINE, WE DID START WITH AN ONLINE SURVEY BACK IN MAY JUST TO GET SOME INITIAL INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS NEW ROADWAY WAS GOING TO CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF ANY OF THOSE DISTRICTS. WITH THAT INFORMATION, STAFF DID GO THROUGH AND PROPOSE A FEW CHANGES. WE HAD BOTH A SECOND ONLINE SURVEY WITH THOSE CHANGES, AS WELL AS AN IN-PERSON OPEN HOUSE TO TALK ABOUT THOSE CHANGES. AND EVENTUALLY THOSE CHANGES ARE WHAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. SO OF COURSE, THERE'S THE TIME TO ACTUALLY AMEND THE PLAN AND GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. THAT INITIAL SURVEY IN MAY, WHERE WE BROADLY ASKED QUESTIONS, DID SEE 242 RESPONSES. AND I WILL QUICKLY GO THROUGH. IT TURNED OUT THAT THERE WERE REALLY ONLY TWO DISTRICTS IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT FOLKS FELT LIKE THERE WERE POTENTIAL TO CHANGE, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE THE NORTHRIDGE DISTRICT, WHICH YOU CAN SEE OVER THERE ON THE WEST SIDE WHERE WE WERE BOUNDED BY CUSTER, AND THEN THE HONEY CREEK DISTRICT OVER OFF OF US HIGHWAY 75. IN THE NORTHRIDGE DISTRICT, A LOT OF THE FEEDBACK THAT WE SAW IN THAT SURVEY WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ENTERTAINMENT AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, RESTAURANTS, NIGHTLIFE, A LITTLE BIT MORE OF COMMERCIAL USES AS AN OPPORTUNITY. AND KNOWING THE ALIGNMENTS, WE MADE A FEW SMALL CHANGES. PRIMARILY, WE'RE LOOKING AT REARRANGING SOME OF THAT COMMERCIAL, BUT WE DID SEE A REQUEST SPECIFICALLY FOR A MIXED USE CENTER. WITH THE NEW ALIGNMENT, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE IS THAT SMALL AREA THAT'S BOUND BY THE FLOODPLAIN, AS WELL AS THE 380 CORRIDOR, WHICH REALLY ISOLATES IT FROM THE SURROUNDING SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORY. AND SO THIS BECAME A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO POTENTIALLY ADD A MIXED USE CENTER. AND WE HAVE A SMALL CAVEAT. I THINK THAT WHEN WE HEAR MIXED USE CENTER, A LOT OF TIMES WE MIGHT THINK OF LEGACY WEST. AND I WANT TO REASSURE EVERYBODY THAT THERE ARE MULTIPLE WAYS THAT A MIXED USE CENTER CAN LOOK, IN ADDITION TO A HORIZONTALLY INTEGRATED MIXED USE CENTER, YOU CAN HAVE A VERTICALLY INTEGRATED. AND SO I USE THE EXAMPLE OF OLD TOWN COPPELL, JUST BECAUSE IT CAN BE HARD TO TELL IN THIS IMAGE, BUT YOU'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT A COFFEE SHOP, A RESTAURANT, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND THEN A COMMUNITY CENTER, OPEN SPACE, AND SO SPECIFICALLY IN THIS DISTRICT, WE'VE CALLED OUT THAT WE DO ANTICIPATE IT'S GOING TO BE A LOWER DENSITY, VILLAGE STYLE, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. HONEY CREEK WAS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. THERE WAS ALSO A REQUEST FOR AN INCREASE IN ENTERTAINMENT AND MIXED USE LAND USES. THERE IS A PROPERTY IN

[02:05:01]

BETWEEN STATE HIGHWAY FIVE AND THE EXISTING ENTRANCE INTO TRINITY FALLS THAT IS ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF FLOODPLAIN RECLAMATION AND DEVELOPMENT. ENGINEERING IS KEENLY LOOKING AT ALL OF THOSE PROCESSES, AND SO IT MADE SENSE TO INCORPORATE THAT ADDITIONAL AREA HERE ON THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. WE SENT ALL OF THOSE CHANGES OUT TO THE PUBLIC AGAIN, AGAIN, THAT THAT WAS THAT OPEN, OPEN HOUSE AS WELL AS A SURVEY. AND WE SAW AN INCREASED RESPONSE ACTUALLY, ON THAT SECOND FOLLOW UP. AND GENERALLY SPEAKING, FOLKS WERE FAVORABLE OF THOSE CHANGES. ONE OTHER BRIEF COMMENT I'D LIKE TO MAKE, WE TALKED ABOUT CHANGING TRENDS, IS ANOTHER BUCKET WHERE WE'RE MAKING AMENDMENTS, LOOKING AT OUR BUSINESS AND AVIATION DISTRICT. WE'VE GOT THE ADDITION OF THE SPUR 399 EXTENSION, AND WE INITIALLY HAD A PORTION OF THAT DESIGNATED AS PROFESSIONAL CENTER. I'M SURE, AS YOU ALL HAVE SEEN, THE OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL MARKET HAS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS. AND IN READING THROUGH THIS DISTRICT, IT DID SEEM THAT THE EMPLOYMENT MIX PLACE TYPE WOULD NEATLY FIT INTO THIS AREA AND STILL MEET THOSE OVERALL GOALS FOR THE BUSINESS AND AVIATION DISTRICT. WE DO HAVE SOME ROUTINE ITEMS IN THERE AS WELL. WE DON'T NEED TO GO THROUGH EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE. BUT AGAIN, THAT'S THE SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES THAT I HAVE FOR YOU TONIGHT. I'M VERY HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR HALEY. THANK YOU. VERY THOROUGH. DOES A PUBLIC HEARING IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE ITEM? SEEING NONE ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE APPROVE THIS ITEM. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES. ITEM 2400043. CONDUCT A PUBLIC

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on Certain Amendments to Chapter 150, Entitled “Unified Development Code,” of the Code of Ordinances, City of McKinney, Texas to: (1) Correct Typographical Errors and Make Nonsubstantive Editorial Changes to: (a) Article 1 (General Provisions) and Particularly to Sections 108B (Maintenance), (b) Article 2 (Zoning Regulations) and Particularly to Sections 203A (Standard Procedures), 203E (Plan and Permit Procedures), 204 (Zoning Districts), 205 (Use Regulations), 206C (Screening), 206D (Commercial Garbage/Recycling Containers and Enclosures), 206E (Vehicle Parking and Loading), 206F (Architectural Standards), (c) Appendix 2A (Approved Plant List), and (d) Article 9 (Terms and Definitions) Particularly to Section 902 (Definitions); (2) Make Certain Substantive Changes to: (a) Article 2 (Zoning Regulations) and Particularly to Sections 205B.5 (Table of Uses), 205G.2 (Accessory Uses Definitions and Standards), 206A (Landscaping), 206C.3 (Screening Requirements), 206E.3 (Parking Calculations), 206E.7 (Driveway and Parking Surfacing Material); (b) Article 9 (Terms and Definitions) Particularly to Section 902 (Definitions), and Accompanying Ordinance]

HEARING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS, ACT ON CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 150 ENTITLED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF MCKINNEY, TEXAS TO CORRECT TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS AND MAKE NON-SUBSTANTIVE EDITORIAL CHANGES TO ARTICLE ONE GENERAL PROVISIONS, AND PARTICULARLY TO SECTION 108 B MAINTENANCE. AND SO PARAGRAPH B, ARTICLE TWO ZONING REGULATIONS, AND PARTICULARLY TO SECTIONS 203 A STANDARD PROCEDURES 203 E PLAN AND PERMIT PROCEDURES 204.

ZONING DISTRICTS 205 USE REGULATIONS 206 C SCREENING. 206D COMMERCIAL GARBAGE RECYCLING CONTAINERS AND ENCLOSURES. 206 E VEHICLE PARKING AND LOADING. 206 F ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS. I HAVE SUBPARAGRAPH C, APPENDIX TWO A APPROVED PLAN LIST AND D ARTICLE NINE TERMS AND DEFINITIONS, PARTICULARLY TO SECTION 902 DEFINITIONS TO MAKE CERTAIN SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO ARTICLE TWO ZONING REGULATIONS, AND PARTICULARLY TO SECTIONS 205.5.

TABLE OF USES 205.2. ACCESSORY USES. DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS 206 A LANDSCAPING 206 C3 SCREENING REQUIREMENTS 206E DOT THREE PARKING CALCULATIONS 267.7 DRIVEWAY AND PARKING SERVICE MATERIAL. ARTICLE NINE TERMS AND DEFINITIONS, PARTICULARLY TO SECTION 902 DEFINITIONS AND ACCOMPANYING ORDINANCE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, FOR THAT. YOU DID A GREAT JOB. THAT IS HOW YOU KNOW, OUR CITY ATTORNEYS WROTE THE SUBJECT TITLE, JENNIFER. YES, SIR. CAN I ASK A QUESTION BEFORE YOU EXPLAIN ALL OF THESE? BUT IS THIS NOT THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WE APPROVED AFTER ABOUT A TWO YEAR PROCESS? YES. AND WHEN WE APPROVED IT, WE WERE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE AMENDMENTS TO IT. ONCE WE GOT IT INTO AN ACCEPTABLE BODY OF LAW, CORRECT? YES, SIR. ALL OF THIS THAT THE MAYOR SO ELOQUENTLY READ TO US ARE THESE THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE ANTICIPATED? A MAJORITY OF THEM ARE. YES, SIR. OKAY. HAVE I SAVED YOU SOME TIME? YOU DID. I WILL ONLY AND I PROMISE I WILL BE AS BRIEF AS I POSSIBLY CAN.

CAITLIN SHEFFIELD WITH MY TEAM GAVE YOU ALL A NICE WORK SESSION, DISCUSSION ON THIS, A FEW MEETINGS BACK. THIS IS SIMPLY BRINGING IT BEFORE YOU AGAIN ASKING FOR YOUR FAVORABLE ACTION ON THOSE CHANGES. I'M HAPPY TO WALK THROUGH THE PRESENTATION, BUT IF THE COUNCIL IS GOOD, I'M RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. PNC DID AS WELL AND I'LL STOP TALKING. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, MR. MAYOR. THIS IS. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE ITEM? SOMEBODY COME OUT AND MAKE A MOTION. WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS ITEM.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 240006M CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS, ACT ON CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 150 ENTITLED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF MCKINNEY, TEXAS. PARTICULARLY THE SECTION 301 E IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND ACCOMPANYING ORDINANCE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO THE PREVIOUS ACTION WAS FOR ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS. THIS ONE IS FOR THE

[02:10:04]

SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. IT'S AT SOME CLEANUP LANGUAGE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF. IN PARTICULAR, IT HAS TO DO WITH JUST ADDING SOME MORE SPECIFICITY TO WHEN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ARE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO GET FINAL ACCEPTANCE ON A PROJECT. SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. QUESTIONS. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS ITEM. SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? ITEM

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request by the City of McKinney to Update, Amend and Adopt a New Version of the Engineering Design Manual that Establishes Standard Engineering Practices and Minimum Engineering Criteria for Projects Within the City of McKinney (City), Texas, and its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ), Including the Adoption of Reasonable Specifications Relating to the Construction of Each Street or Road Based on the Amount and Kind of Travel thereon and Adequate Drainage for Each Street or Road in a Subdivision in Accordance With Standard Engineering Practices, and Accompanying Ordinance]