Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on Design Exceptions to a Site Plan (Service Street Auto), Located at 4051 South Lake Forest Drive

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on Design Exceptions to a Site Plan (Service Street Auto), Located at 4051 South Lake Forest Drive]

[00:05:03]

POINT IN THE MEETING. FIRST ITEM IS 24-0041 SP. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER DESIGN EXCEPTIONS FOR SITE PLAN SERVICE STREET AUTO. THIS IS AT 4051 SOUTH LAKE FOREST DRIVE. MISS ARNOLD, THANK YOU AGAIN, MR. COX. JENNIFER ARNOLD, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING. YOU'LL NOTE IN YOUR STAFF REPORT THAT STEWART STARRY IS THE PLANNER THAT WAS ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED TO PRESENT.

UNFORTUNATELY, HE IS UNDER THE WEATHER UNEXPECTEDLY, SO I AM GOING TO PINCH HIT HERE FOR HIM.

SO AS YOU READ, THIS IS A SITE PLAN. TYPICALLY, SITE PLANS CAN BE APPROVED AT THE STAFF LEVEL.

HOWEVER, SERVICE STREET AUTO IS REQUESTING DESIGN EXCEPTIONS FOR THE STREET BUFFER ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGE AND THE STREET BUFFER TREES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED IN THAT STREET BUFFER. SO WITH THIS PARTICULAR TRACT, THEY HAVE A FAIRLY LARGE GAS EASEMENT THAT'S RUNNING ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY. AND WITHIN THAT EASEMENT THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO PLANT THE TYPICALLY REQUIRED STREET BUFFER TREES THAT WOULD WE WOULD NORMALLY SEE. BECAUSE OF THAT, THEY ARE ASKING FOR A DESIGN EXCEPTION TO RELOCATE SOME OF THOSE TREES THROUGHOUT THE REMAINDER OF THE SITE. STAFF'S REVIEWED THE REQUEST. WE FEEL LIKE IT DOES A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF MITIGATING THE IMPACTS OF NOT BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE THOSE TREES ALONG THAT STREET BUFFER.

THEY ARE MEETING ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF OUR DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, AND WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. AND I BELIEVE OUR APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL. THANK YOU, MISS ARNOLD. DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS? I HAVE ONE. IS THE SIGN ALLOWED IN THE GAS EASEMENT? I BELIEVE PAVEMENT IS ALLOWED. IT'S THE TREES WITH THE ROOTS THAT THEY TYPICALLY DO NOT PERMIT. SO PAVING WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THOSE EASEMENTS, TYPICALLY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

MISS ARNOLD. IS OUR APPLICANT HERE TONIGHT? MAYBE THEY'RE NOT. MAYBE NOT. MR. ARNOLD, DO YOU KNOW IF THE APPLICANT AGREES WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? OH THEY DO. YES, SIR. OKAY. VERY CONFIDENT THEY DO. YOU HAD THERE FOR US? YES. OKAY. VERY GOOD. ARE THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS OF MR. ARNOLD? IF NOT, WE'LL MOVE TO OUR PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM. ALL RIGHT. IF YOU'VE COME TONIGHT AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS PLANNING AND ZONING ON THIS PROPOSED DESIGN EXCEPTION FOR A STREET SERVICE AUTO, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE DESIGN. EXCEPTIONS. ITEM 24004 ISP FOR STREET SERVICE AUTO. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. ORDERED TO APPROVE THE ITEM AS PER STAFF FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE ITEM AS PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

SECOND. SECOND. BY MR. WHATLEY, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE COMMENT THAT IT'S GOOD THAT THEY HAVE A SIDE ENTRY ON THIS. THAT'S GOOD. BETTER DESIGN. DULY NOTED. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE ITEM AS PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION. AND A SECOND TO THAT MOTION, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES. I. WAS THAT MOTION CARRIES BY A VOTE OF SEVEN IN FAVOR AND ZERO AGAINST. WILL.

MR. ARNOLD, WILL YOU PLEASE LET THE APPLICANT KNOW THAT THEIR ITEM, THEIR REQUEST HAS BEEN

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on Design Exceptions to a Site Plan for an Airport Terminal (McKinney National Airport), Located at 1915 FM 546]

APPROVED? THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM IS 24-0082 SP TWO. TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER DESIGN EXCEPTIONS TO A SITE PLAN FOR AN AIRPORT TERMINAL MCKINNEY NATIONAL AIRPORT. THIS IS AT 1915 FM 546, MR. BENNETT. YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. GOOD EVENING.

COMMISSION JAKE BENNETT, PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. THIS IS A SITE PLAN FOR A NEW AIRPORT TERMINAL LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE EXISTING RUNWAY OF THE MCKINNEY NATIONAL AIRPORT.

AS YOU KNOW, SITE PLANS ARE TYPICALLY APPROVED AT THE STAFF LEVEL. BUT WHEN DESIGNING EXCEPTIONS SUCH AS THESE ARE REQUESTED, APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS REQUIRED. VERY SIMILARLY TO THE LAST ITEM THAT MISS ARNOLD PRESENTED AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TWO DESIGN EXCEPTIONS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED TREE PLANTINGS WITHIN THE STREET LANDSCAPE BUFFER, AND THEN ALSO WITHIN THE PARKING AREA. THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ALLOWS THE AIRSIDE OF THE AIRPORT'S PERIMETER BOUNDARY TO BE EXEMPT FROM LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, WHILE THE STREET BUFFER AND PARKING AREAS ARE NOT WITHIN THE AIRSIDE PERIMETER BOUNDARY STAFF UNDERSTANDS THE CONCERN OF PROVIDING TREES THIS CLOSE TO THE EXISTING AIRPORT RUNWAY TREE SERVE AS AN ATTRACTANT TO BIRDS AND OTHER WILDLIFE AS POTENTIAL

[00:10:06]

HABITATS, WHICH CAN BE DANGEROUS WITH THE PROJECT'S LOCATION AGAIN THIS CLOSE TO THE EXISTING RUNWAY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE MCKINNEY NATIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN, AND FUTURE PHASES HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO DEVELOP WITHIN THE PROPOSED PARKING AREA AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN, WHICH WOULD ULTIMATELY REMOVE THE REQUIRED TREES AS DEVELOPMENT OCCURS.

WHILE NO TREES ARE PROPOSED WITH THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL, THE APPLICANT WORKED WITH OUR URBAN FORESTER TO PRESERVE MORE TREES THAN PREVIOUSLY PLANNED, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING FEATURES THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED GIVEN THE LOCATION IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING RUNWAY. FUTURE PHASES PROPOSED WITHIN THE MASTER PLAN. PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TREES AND ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING FEATURES. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED DESIGN. EXCEPTIONS. IN ADDITION TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, THE CITY COUNCIL ALSO VOTED TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE SITE PLAN AND REQUESTED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS AT LAST TUESDAY'S MEETING. WITH THAT, I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU JAKE. MEMBERS, ANY QUESTIONS? SO YOU MENTIONED THE TREES THAT THEY WERE THAT WERE BEING PRESERVED. WHERE ARE THOSE LOCATED? YEAH. SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A CREEK THAT I BELIEVE IS NEAR. I BELIEVE IT IS NORTH AND EAST OF THIS AREA. SO I BELIEVE IT'S KIND OF IN THIS AREA AT THIS TIME. AND THEN ALSO LIKE KIND OF DOWN IN THERE. OKAY. YEAH. WE DO ALSO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE. THEY'LL BE ABLE TO ANSWER MORE QUESTIONS SPECIFIC TO THAT. OTHER QUESTIONS. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS OUR APPLICANT HERE TONIGHT. YES SIR. ALL RIGHT.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MITCHELL MCKINLEY, SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER WITH GARVER, THE ENGINEER OF RECORD. AND I'D LIKE THERE SHOULD BE A SEPARATE PRESENTATION. YEAH. COULD YOU JUST. OH. THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT, SO THIS IS A MORE ZOOMED OUT VIEW. IT'S MORE OF A GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION. OF WHAT? NOT ENGINEERING, DRAWING BASED WHAT YOU GUYS ALL SHOULD HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU FROM A SITE PLAN STANDPOINT. SO FROM WHAT JAKE WAS MENTIONING IS THIS IS THE TREE GROVE AREA. ORIGINALLY WE WERE ANTICIPATING HAVING TO REMOVE MORE TREES TO MITIGATE THE STORMWATER DETENTION PROBLEMS IN THE AREA. SO THIS WAS PROTECTED DOWN HERE. SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS REMOVAL. JUST A SMALL LITTLE GROVE IN THIS LOCATION. OUR INTENT IS TO DO LANDSCAPING BERMS AS A TREE BUFFER OR AS LANDSCAPE BUFFERS BETWEEN FM 546 AND ULTIMATELY THE TERMINAL PROJECT. AS IT'S MENTIONED, IT IS A HAZARD TO TRY TO PLANT TREES WITH A LARGER CANOPY NEAR A RUNWAY BECAUSE OF THE WILDLIFE ATTRACTANT THAT CAN BE CAUSED BY THAT. SO FROM A DESIGN EXCEPTION, THAT IS THE INTENT OF WHAT WAS SUBMITTED. BUT FROM LOOKING OVERALL AT THE SITE PLAN, WHAT WE HAVE ON THE SCREEN STARTING FROM RIGHT TO LEFT. THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT AIRSIDE OPERATIONS AREA. THIS IS THE TERMINAL BUILDING IN ITSELF. WE HAVE OUR PARKING LOT FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC. AND THEN OF COURSE THE ACCESS POINT WITH FM 546. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE SITE PLAN? QUESTIONS OF. OUR APPLICANT, ANYONE? MITCHELL. THANK YOU. WE MAY HAVE YOU BACK UP HERE AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. OKAY. THE FIRST. NEXT WE WILL GO TO OUR PUBLIC HEARING PORTION ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF CARDS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. ALSO, IF YOU HAVE SUBMITTED ONLINE COMMENTS, PLEASE KNOW THAT THOSE WILL GO ALONG WITH OUR ITEM TO CITY COUNCIL AS PART OF OUR MINUTES. WITH THAT, WE WILL START THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM. THE FIRST CARD THAT I HAVE IS HANK JOHNSTON. WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION. MR. CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSION MEMBERS, I WANT TO FIRST THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. HAVING BEEN A MAYOR OF A TOWN IN SOUTH CAROLINA, I KNOW THE COMMITMENT THAT IT TAKES.

THANK YOU. ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO, A BOND ELECTION FOR THE AIRPORT FAILED. THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL TAKE THE POSITION THAT THE CITIZENS JUST DIDN'T WANT TO FUND IT, HOWEVER, THEY ARE WRONG. MOST OF THE VOTING AGAINST MOST WERE VOTING AGAINST PASSENGER SERVICE. MOST YARD

[00:15:06]

SALES, IF YOU REMEMBER IN FAVOR OF THE ELECTION, STATED YES, VOTE YES FOR PASSENGER SERVICE.

MANY VOTERS THOUGHT THEY WERE VOTING AGAINST PASSENGER SERVICE AS WELL AS THE BOND IS STILL BELIEVED SO. AND NOW WE FIND PUBLIC FUNDS ARE BEING EXPENDED, LOANS ARE ARRANGED AND WHO KNOWS WHAT ELSE. IF THIS IS SO GOOD FOR NORTH TEXAS, WHY IS COLLIN COUNTY SOLID PLANO, FRISCO, FRISCO, ALLEN AND FAIRFIELD? NEGATIVE. WHY IS IT UP TO MCKINNEY TO DO THIS? WHAT'S THE DRIVING FORCE? WHO'S BEHIND THIS? THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THEREFORE, IN THIS COMMISSION, ARE IGNORING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. ALL EFFORTS NEED TO STOP UNTIL MCKINNEY HOLDS A YES OR NO VOTE ON PASSENGER SERVICE. TO GET A CLEARER DIRECTION ON THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. MCKINNEY'S TAGLINE IS UNIQUE BY NATURE, YET THEY ARE ASKING TO APPROVE EXCEPTIONS TO HIS OWN VEGETATIVE AND TREE REGULATIONS. VOTE NO TONIGHT. SEND A MESSAGE TO COUNCIL THAT WE NEED TO KNOW THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE BEFORE ANY MORE STEPS ARE TAKEN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION.

THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSTON. NEXT CARD IS RICHARD ATKINSON. WISH TO SPEAK, MR. ATKINSON? YES.

THANK YOU. I TOO, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. I'M RICHARD ATKINSON, MY WIFE DEBBIE AND I ARE RETIRED. WE'VE LIVED HERE OVER 20 YEARS. AND BEFORE THIS COMMISSION TAKES UP COUNCIL'S PLANS HERE TONIGHT, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO OFFER SOME CLARITY. MCKINNEY VOTERS SOUNDLY REJECTED THIS AIRPORT EXPANSION AND ITS RELATED COMMERCIAL AIR TRAFFIC. AND IT WASN'T MERELY BECAUSE OF THE BOND INVOLVED. THAT NARRATIVE, IN MY OPINION, IS A POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT INTERPRETATION OF THAT VOTE. AND NO SUBSEQUENT PROPOSAL THAT WOULD VERIFY THAT INTERPRETATION HAS EVER BEEN PRESENTED TO MCKINNEY VOTERS. THAT'S QUITE TELLING, REGARDLESS. AIRPORT EXPANSION WAS REJECTED BY THE VOTERS BECAUSE VOTERS DO NOT WANT THE INCREASED TRAFFIC, THE INCREASED NOISE, OR THE LOSS OF MUCH OF MCKINNEY'S UNIQUE BY NATURE ENVIRONMENT. MCKINNEY VOTERS DO NOT WANT A MINI, A MINI CHICAGO MIDWAY DUMPED INTO THIS COMMUNITY JUST BLOCKS FROM OUR DOWNTOWN, NO LESS. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'LL HAVE IN SEVERAL YEARS IF THIS EXPANSION OCCURS. IT SEEMS OUR VOICE AND THAT VOTE HAS BEEN IGNORED, EVEN MOCKED BY MCKINNEY LEADERS.

MCKINNEY CITY COUNCIL MEMBER RECENTLY STATED THIS IS HAPPENING. THAT'S QUITE REPUGNANT. BUT THIS IS WHERE WE ARE TODAY. THE QUESTION THIS COMMISSION MUST ANSWER TONIGHT.

WILL YOU BACK THE SMALL, POWERFUL, WELL-CONNECTED CABAL THAT RELENTLESSLY, RELENTLESSLY DEMANDS THIS AIRPORT EXPANSION? OR WILL YOU STAND WITH THE VOTERS OF MCKINNEY WHO SOUNDLY REJECTED IT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. ATKINSON. APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE.

ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM TONIGHT? ANYONE ELSE? ANYONE ELSE? WELL, WE WILL DO.

JUST AS A REMINDER. WE'LL LOOK FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF NO ONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS. PLANNING AND ZONING. AFTER THAT TIME, WE'LL HAVE DISCUSSION AMONGST STAFF AND THE APPLICANT AND AMONGST OURSELVES. WE WILL REFRAIN FROM ADDRESSING ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE. SO IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS TO MAKE, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM NOW. YES, MA'AM. I'M CATHERINE HUFFSTETLER AND I LIVE IN LUCAS, AND RIGHT NOW WE CAN HEAR THE PLANES GO OVER. WE CAN.

I THINK IT'S A T PLANE THAT COMES IN AND EVERY DAY AND LEAVES EVERY DAY. AND WE'RE JUST AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, WE'RE KIND OF WONDERING. AND I KNOW YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS, BUT I. WE ARE WONDERING HOW MANY PLANES YOU'RE EXPECTING EVERY DAY. AND ARE WE GOING TO BE A CHICAGO MIDWAY. AND WE'RE WONDERING WHAT IT'S GOING TO DO TO OUR PROPERTY VALUES THAT ARE DOWN IN LUCAS AND FAIRVIEW. AND IT'S A CONCERN WE WE'VE LIVED WELL, WE HAVEN'T

[00:20:03]

LIVED, BUT WE'VE HAD FRIENDS THAT LIVED NEAR AN AIRPORT. AND IT SHAKES THEIR HOUSES AND SHAKES THEIR FOUNDATION. AND EVERY TIME SOME OF THE PLANES COME IN KIND OF LOW, AND ACTUALLY, IT'S KIND OF NICE TO HAVE A PLANE COME IN. IT'S PRETTY QUIET OUT WHERE WE LIVE.

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE A LOT OF TRAFFIC COMING IN AND OUT, IT COULD BE KIND OF IRRITATING. FURTHERMORE, IT WOULD ALSO BE VERY NICE TO BE ABLE TO HOP ON A PLANE IN MCKINNEY AND GO WHERE WE WANT TO GO VERSUS HAVING TO GO DOWN TO LOVE OR DFW. SO IT'S KIND OF A MIXED BAG OF EMOTIONS HERE. THANK YOU MA'AM, THANK YOU. IF YOU WILL FILL OUT ONE OF THE YELLOW CARDS AND. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO ADDRESS TONIGHT? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. LOBO TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SECOND. SECOND BY MR. BUETTNER. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING? SEEING NONE. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES. I. I SAID MOTION CARRIES. THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED. MEMBERS, DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS OR I'VE EITHER STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? STAFF. JAKE. SIR. SO, JAKE, ONCE AGAIN, CAN YOU GO OVER WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT FOR THE EXCEPTIONS? YEAH. SO THE TWO EXCEPTIONS THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED ARE FOR REMOVING OR REDUCING THE REQUIREMENT OF CANOPY TREE PLANTINGS WITHIN THE STREET BUFFER AND THEN ALSO WITHIN THE PARKING AREA. SO THOSE ARE REQUIRED. TREES WOULD BE ALONG 546 IN THIS AREA AS AS WELL AS WITHIN THE TYPICAL TERMINUS ISLANDS WITHIN THE PARKING LOT. SO WE'RE JUST VOTING ON TREES TONIGHT ESSENTIALLY. YEAH, YEAH. IT'S THE TWO OF DESIGN EXCEPTIONS THAT ARE REQUESTED BIRD PREVENTION AND SAFETY OF THE AIRPLANE. THAT'S CORRECT. YEP.

OTHER QUESTIONS. THEY ARE GOING TO BE DOING LANDSCAPED BERMS WITH LIKE SHRUBS AND SEASONAL PLANTINGS OR. YEAH THAT'S CORRECT. SO THERE'S GOING TO BE BERMS IN THE FRONT KIND OF WITHIN WHAT WE WOULD CALL THE STREET YARD, WHICH IS IN THOSE SAME AREAS. SO THESE CONTOUR LINES THAT ARE IN HERE, THOSE ARE GOING TO BE PRETTY LARGE BERMS. THERE'S GOING TO BE HEAVY AMOUNT OF SHRUB PLANTINGS, SEASONAL PLANTINGS AS WELL AS OTHER PLANTINGS WITHIN THE TERMINUS ISLANDS AND THE PARKING AREA. IT'S JUST GOING TO BE SHRUBS AND SEASONAL PLANTINGS AS OPPOSED TO CANOPY TREES. JAKE, I HAVE A QUESTION AND IT MIGHT BE FOR APPLICANT. DO WE KNOW THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT IS GOING TO BE COMING AS A RESULT OF THE ADDITIONAL AIRCRAFT AND OR THE ROUTES THAT THEY'LL BE FOLLOWING? YEAH, I'M NOT 100% SURE ON THAT AT THIS TIME. NOT SURE IF THE APPLICANT IS AWARE OF THAT AS WELL, BUT I'LL HAND THAT OVER TO HIM. YEAH, JAKE'S ANSWER WAS PRETTY GOOD. SO AT THIS POINT IT'S A VARIABLE. IT COULD BE ANYWHERE FROM THREE FLIGHTS A DAY TO FIVE FLIGHTS A DAY, INITIALLY UP TO 7 TO 10 FLIGHTS A DAY THAT IS STILL BEING WORKED OUT. THAT'S THE AIRLINES. ULTIMATELY, THEY DICTATE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

THANK YOU. HOW MANY FLIGHTS A DAY WOULD BECOME APPARENT EARLY ON? THE INITIAL FROM WHAT WE'VE LOOKED AT IS AROUND 3 TO 5 FLIGHTS A DAY. FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES, THE AIRPORT CURRENTLY HAS AROUND 400 OPERATIONS A DAY FROM A GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT. THAT'S GOING TO GO DOWN WITH THE COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC IS THAT TYPICALLY THAT WOULD OCCUR, BUT FOR THE AIR AND NOISE ANALYSIS THAT WE HAVE TO PERFORM, WE DON'T ASSUME THAT DROP. WE HAVE TO ASSUME THAT WHAT IS BEING PROVIDED GETS ADDED ON TOP OF IT. SO I'D BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T MENTION THIS, BUT ON THURSDAY AT THE NEW CITY HALL, THERE IS A ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PUBLIC MEETING TO SHOW EVERYBODY THE AIR AND NOISE QUALITY ANALYSIS, THE TRAFFIC IMPACT, OR LACK THEREOF ON THE ROUNDABOUT. SO EVERYBODY WILL BE ABLE TO REVIEW THAT INFORMATION. AND OF COURSE, EVERYTHING'S ONLINE TOO, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO LOOK AT IT. SO WOULD THERE BE A LIMIT, AN UPSIDE LIMIT TO DAILY FLIGHTS? THE TRAFFIC? NOT AT THIS TIME. OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT. AGAIN, THE

[00:25:10]

QUESTION IN FRONT OF US IS A DESIGN EXCEPTION FOR REMOVAL OR OF TREES FOR SAFETY REASONS. MR. ARNOLD, WAS THAT A GOOD SUMMARY? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? MOTIONS? I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE 240082 SP2 INCLUDING STAFF CONDITIONS. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. LEBEAU TO APPROVE THE ITEM. AS FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION. SECOND, WE HAVE MULTIPLE SECONDS. MISS WOODARD.

SECOND, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES. HI, I. OKAY, THAT MOTION CARRIES BY A VOTE OF SEVEN IN FAVOR AND ZERO AGAINST MISS ARNOLD OR JAKE. WOULD YOU LET THE APPLICANT KNOW

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Specific Use Permit Request to Allow for a Self-Storage Facility (McKillop Self Storage), Located Approximately 850 feet East of State Highway 5 (South McDonald Street) and on the South Side of Harry McKillop Boulevard]

THAT THE REQUEST HAS BEEN APPROVED? THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM IS 24-0009 SUP TWO. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FOR AN SUP TO ALLOW FOR SELF STORAGE FACILITY MCKILLOP SELF STORAGE.

THIS IS 850FT EAST OF STATE HIGHWAY FIVE, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HARRY MCKILLOP BOULEVARD.

ARI. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. ARACELI BOTELHO, PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. JUST TO KIND OF REFRESH YOUR MEMORIES, THIS ACTUALLY WAS AN ITEM THAT WE HAD AT OUR PREVIOUS DECEMBER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. BUT DUE TO SOME ZONING SCIENCE ISSUES, WE REQUESTED THE ITEM BE TABLED TO TONIGHT'S MEETING AND LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN FOR TONIGHT. I DO WANT TO KIND OF REFRESH YOUR MEMORY ON THIS ONE. AGAIN, THIS IS FOR A SELF STORAGE, AS NOTED HERE, LOCATED OFF OF MACDONALD AND HARRY MCKILLOP HERE AT THE CORNER. IT'S HIGHLIGHTED HERE.

THE REQUEST BECAUSE OF THE ZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS C-3 REGIONAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT REQUIRES THAT A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT BE GRANTED IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THE USE TO BE PERMITTED ON THE PROPERTY. THIS THE REQUEST COMPLIES WITH THE ZONING DISTRICT SITE AND SPECIFICATIONS SUCH AS PARKING, LOADING ZONES, BUILDING HEIGHT, LANDSCAPE, AND SCREENING. THE PROPOSED SELF STORAGE BUSINESS ALIGNS WITH THE. APOLOGIZE, THE PROPOSED SELF STORAGE BUSINESS ALIGNS WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA, WHICH INCLUDES LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES AND WAREHOUSE, AND FOR THIS REASON, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST AND I STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. SO I SAW SOMEWHERE IN THE WHAT WAS SENT OUT THAT THERE'S A PORTION OF IT THAT'S WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN. YES. THAT IS LET ME GO BACK TO MY. THAT IS CORRECT.

SO IT'S HERE BEHIND THE PROPERTY ALL ALONG THIS AREA RIGHT HERE. BUT THE ACTUAL SUBJECT ITSELF IS NOT WITHIN THE FLOOD OR. NO. NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S THE OVERALL THAT'S ALSO WHERE THE SPUR 399 WILL BE COMING IN. AND THIS IS NOT AN ACTUAL LOCATION BUT AN ESTIMATION SOMEWHERE ALONG THIS LINE. OKAY, I KNEW I DIDN'T SEE IT ON THE SURVEY. USUALLY YOU'D SEE IT ON THERE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. PERSONALLY. YEAH. LIKE FOR INSTANCE A BUFFER WALL AND LANDSCAPE THAT WILL BE APPROVED AT SITE PLAN. CORRECT. SAY THAT AGAIN. I'M SORRY. THE BUFFER WALL AND LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT WILL BE AT SITE PLANNING. SO YES, EVERYTHING SITE STANDARDS WILL BE REVIEWED AT THE STAFF LEVEL THROUGH THE SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN. YES. SO IF IT ALL COMPLIES IT WOULDN'T COME BACK TO US AGAIN. NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. IF EVERYTHING COMPLIES WILL NOT COME BACK, IT WOULD BE STAFF LEVEL APPROVAL. OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS OUR APPLICANT HERE? YES. I HAVE THIS HERE FOR YOU. OKAY. MARCUS WALTHER WITH ATEX DEVELOPMENT AND ASHTON COMMERCIAL. I'M HAPPY TO FIELD ANY ANY QUESTIONS OR WE HAVE DEVELOPED AND BUILT A SELF STORAGE FACILITY HERE IN MCKINNEY AT ON VIRGINIA PARKWAY IN FRONT OF THE IMAGINED INTERNATIONAL WITH PRIMARILY MASONRY MATERIALS. AND THERE'S NO REASON WHY WE EXPECTED TO BUILD ANY LESS, IF NOT A BETTER QUALITY PRODUCT THAN WE DID AT THAT INTERSECTION THERE. QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT. THE ONE ON VIRGINIA PARKWAY, IF THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING, IT'S CERTAINLY A ATTRACTIVE PRODUCT. YEAH, WE'D

[00:30:03]

LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, SELF STORAGE KIND OF THE REDHEADED STEPCHILD OF THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. BUT NOW THERE'S WAYS TO MAKE A QUALITY PRODUCT LOOK NICE, NOT JUST A BUNCH OF TIN SIDING BUILDINGS. THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. IF YOU COME TONIGHT AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS P AND Z REGARDING THIS PROPOSED SUP FOR SELF STORAGE, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE WE HAVE A MOTION. MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE ITEM 24-009 SUP TWO. HER STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. THE MOTION IS ORDERED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE ITEM AS PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION. SECON. SECOND BY JESSE. MR. CONRAD. SORRY. OKAY. NO PROBLEM. YOU'RE NEXT, AM I NEXT? YES, SIR. I'LL KEEP THAT IN MIND. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. I. I SAID MOTION CARRIES BY A VOTE OF SEVEN IN FAVOR AND ZERO AGAINST. THAT ITEM WILL BE SENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FOR FINAL ACTION AT THE FEBRUARY 4TH, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. THANK YOU FOR

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Rezone the Subject Property from “PD” - Planned Development District to “PD” - Planned Development District, Located at 6952 Mediterranean Drive]

BEING HERE. THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM IS 24-0128Z. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REZONE OF A PROPERTY FROM PD PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO PD PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 6952 MEDITERRANEAN DRIVE, MR. BENNETT. YES. THANK YOU AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN. PULL THIS UP.

OKAY, SO THE APPLICANT REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM PD PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO A NEW PD. THE BOUNDARY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ONLY INCLUDES THE EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED AT 6952 MEDITERRANEAN. THE BUILDING IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ADRIATICA DEVELOPMENT, NEAR THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF VIRGINIA, AND STONEBRIDGE AND SURROUNDING BUILDINGS ARE PRIMARILY USED FOR OFFICES, WHICH OFFER A BUFFER BETWEEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND RESIDENTIAL USES. THE PROPOSED PD INCLUDES ALL OF THE SAME USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT EXIST IN THE CURRENT ZONING, WITH THE ADDITION OF A NEW USE, WHICH IS SOCIAL SLASH COUNTRY CLUB, AND THE MODIFICATION TO ALLOW THE PRIVATE CLUB USE. THE PROPOSED ZONING ALSO ADDS A DEFINITION AND PARKING RATIO FOR THE SOCIAL AND COUNTRY CLUB USE. IT IS STAFF'S OPINION THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, AND SHOULD NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT NEIGHBORING USES. AS SUCH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED REZONING AND I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. JAKE. QUESTIONS, ANYONE? THANK YOU. THE PARKING STANDARDS. IS IT UP LOWER OR HIGHER THAN WHAT'S CURRENTLY IT IS. SO THE PARKING REQUIREMENT IS ONE PER 200FT■S, WHICH IS PRETTY SIMILAR TO LIKE A RETAIL USES KIND OF IN BETWEEN RETAIL AND RESTAURANT TYPE USES. SO YEAH, IN THE SAME REALM AS THOSE. RUSS. YOU HAVE SOMETHING. ONE QUESTION. SO THE ARE THERE RESTRICTIONS ON OPERATION OF THE. FACILITY ONLY WHAT'S INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION. SO THE DEFINITION IS A PRIVATELY OWNED CLUB WITH RESTRICTED MEMBERSHIP THAT PROVIDES FACILITIES FOR DINING, ENTERTAINMENT AND LEISURE ACTIVITIES FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF MEMBERS. THIS DEFINITION DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY FORM OF SLEEPING ACCOMMODATIONS, SO ONLY WHAT IS WITHIN THE DEFINITION. THANKS, JAKE. THANK YOU. JAKE. IS THIS AN EXTENSION OF STONEBRIDGE RANCH? THIS IS ESSENTIALLY FOR AN EXISTING USE THAT'S ALREADY WITHIN THE WITHIN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OR WITHIN THAT BUILDING. AS HAS THE CLUB, OR HAS IT NOT ALREADY BEEN IN OPERATIONS PRIOR TO NOW OR IT'S CURRENTLY OPERATING. AND SO WE'RE WORKING TO GET THEM INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE CURRENT CODE? YEP. HOW DID THEY GET THEIR CFO WITHOUT HAVING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING? I AM NOT SURE THAT IT WAS NOTED. THE OPERATIONS FOR THE CLUB WERE NOTED AT THE INITIAL SUBMITTAL FOR THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. ANYONE ELSE? JAKE.