[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:04]
HOW CAN WE GO? WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. OKAY. SHE'S GOT IT. WE'RE READY. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.
IT'S 6:00 PM. WELCOME TO THE CITY OF MCKINNEY'S PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 22ND, 2025. IT'S KIND OF LOUD. THE COMMISSIONER SEATED BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING HAVE BEEN APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. TONIGHT, I WILL ADVISE YOU WHETHER AN ITEM WILL BE HEARD ONLY BY THE COMMISSION OR PASSED ON TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPROVAL OR FINAL
[PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEMS (For Non-Public Hearing Items)]
DECISION. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM, PLEASE COMPLETE A SPEAKER CARD AND TURN IT IN PRIOR TO THE ITEM BEING CALLED. WHEN IT'S YOUR TURN TO SPEAK, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS IN THE MICROPHONE AND PLEASE LIMIT YOUR REMARKS TO THREE MINUTES. YOU MAY SPEAK ONLY ONE TIME ON EACH AGENDA ITEM. THE COMMISSIONERS ALL REQUESTS THAT WE ALL BE CONCISE IN THE ISSUES AND TREAT EACH OTHER WITH RESPECT. YOUR OPINIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO US AND THEY BECOME A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. ALL OF US WANT TO ACT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITIZENS OF MCKINNEY. WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENTS. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE NON[If you wish to address the Planning and Zoning Commission on a posted item on this agenda, please fill out a "Request to Speak" card and present it to the City Staff prior to the meeting. Pursuant to Section 551.007 of the Texas Government Code, any person wishing to address the Planning and Zoning Commission for items listed as public hearings will be recognized when the public hearing is opened. Speakers wishing to address the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding any non-public hearing item on this agenda shall have a time limit of three (3) minutes per speaker, per agenda item. The Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman may reduce the speaker time limit uniformly to accommodate the number of speakers or improve meeting efficiency.]
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS? SEEING NONE, WE DON'T NEED A MOTION ON THAT DO WE. YEAH.[Director’s Report]
WE'LL NOW MOVE TO OUR INFORMATION ITEM THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. OKAY. PERFECT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO QUARTERLY AS YOU ALL ARE WELL AWARE, WE LIKE TO PROVIDE THIS DIRECTOR'S REPORT TO ALLOW YOU ALL TO KNOW THE DIFFERENT ACTIONS THAT PNC IS TAKING, AS WELL AS HOW THOSE ACTIONS ARE THEN MOVED FORWARD WITH WITH CITY COUNCIL, IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. BUT WE'RE ALWAYS HAPPY TO PROVIDE AND SHOW THAT THERE IS A GREAT CORRELATION BETWEEN YOU ALL AND CITY COUNCIL. I WISH THERE WAS SOME REASONS WHY COUNCIL MIGHT DISAGREE WITH OUR DECISION. I WISH THAT WAS ON THE REPORT. OKAY, WELL WE CAN DEFINITELY SEE IF THAT'S SOMETHING, BUT SOMETIMES IT'S A LITTLE NUANCED. SO WE'LL WE CAN DEFINITELY DISCUSS THAT. THANK YOU. WELL[CONSENT ITEMS]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH CAITLIN. DEFINITELY. LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NONPUBLIC HEARING. CONSENT ITEMS, SUCH AS THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 8TH, 2025 MEETING. ITEM 25 2678. DOES ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK ON OUR CONSENT ITEMS? SEEING NONE, DO WE HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS OR MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETING ON APRIL 8TH. ITEM 252678. THANK YOU. MOTION BY MISS WOODWARD. SECOND SECOND BY MISS HAMMACK. IS THAT CORRECT? THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE OUR APRIL 8TH MINUTES. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. THE MOTION DID PASS WITH A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS[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, Generally to Allow for Industrial Uses and to Modify the Development Standards, Located on the Northeast Corner of Industrial Boulevard and Airport Drive (REQUEST TO BE TABLED)]
THAT HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHED TO EACH ITEM. SORRY ABOUT THAT. THE FIRST ITEM IS 250031. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS, ACT ON REQUEST TO REZONE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM PD TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. PD GENERALLY TO ALLOW FOR INDUSTRIAL USES AND IT IS REQUESTED TO BE TABLED BY STAFF. ARI. JACOB. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? OKAY, PERFECT. GOOD EVENING. COMMISSIONERS PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. STAFF RECOMMENDS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TABLE THE ITEM INDEFINITELY DUE TO A PUBLIC NOTICING ERROR. STAFF WILL RENOTICE THE ITEM PRIOR TO AN UPCOMING MEETING, AND I STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.ANY QUESTIONS OF ARI? THANK YOU ARI. APPRECIATE IT. WELL, THIS DOES HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHED, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE TABLING. POSSIBLY. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE TO TABLE ITEM 25 0031Z. WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU. I SECOND THAT MOTION. SECOND THAT. JAMES.
YES, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU. JAMES. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HAMMOCK AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRAIG TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TABLE ITEM 250031Z INDEFINITELY.
PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. THE MOTION PASSES AND IT IS TABLED INDEFINITELY AT A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. WE HAVE ONE MORE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. THAT IS NUMBER 25001M CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING
[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on an Amendment to Chapter 150, entitled "Unified Development Code," of the Code of Ordinances, City of McKinney, Texas, to make Certain Substantive Changes to Article 2 (Zoning Regulations) and specifically to Section 205 (Use Regulations) and to Section 206 (Development Standards)]
[00:05:04]
TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS, ACT ON AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 150 ENTITLED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. SPECIFICALLY, SECTION 205.CAMERON, PLEASE. THANK YOU, MR. LEBOW. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. IT'S MY DISTINCT PLEASURE TO BRING BEFORE YOU ANOTHER AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND I'LL WAIT FOR IT TO GET PULLED UP ON SCREEN BEFORE CONTINUING. HERE WE ARE. SO. IT WOULD APPEAR THIS IS DEAD. TIME TO GO MANUAL. PERFECT. THANK YOU SIR. SO A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND TO THIS AMENDMENT. IN JANUARY, WE CAME FORWARD TO A CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION. TO GIVE AN UPDATE ON THE CURRENT STANDARDS FOR DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. AND SUBSEQUENTLY TO THAT, YOU ALL MAY REMEMBER, THERE WAS A JOINT SESSION BETWEEN CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION LAST MONTH WHERE COUNCIL ASKED US TO COME BACK WITH A AN AMENDMENT TO ADD ADDITIONAL CRITERIA TO DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS. SO THE GOALS FOR THIS AMENDMENT ARE TO INTRODUCE THOSE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS. AND ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE ANOTHER AMENDMENT THAT WOULD EXPAND THE SCOPE OF DESIGN EXCEPTIONS FOR PARKING AREAS THAT WILL COVER AFTER THE DRIVE THROUGH SECTION. SO FIRST THE RESTAURANT DRIVE IN OR DRIVE THROUGH CHANGES. OUR EXISTING CRITERIA ARE THIS IN ANY ZONE WHERE THEY ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL CRITERIA. THESE ARE THE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA. FIRSTLY, SPEAKER BOXES NEED TO BE 20FT OR MORE AWAY FROM ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONE OR USE, AND ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE CRITERIA THAT LIMIT THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF OUTDOOR PATIOS AND ANY SORT OF PERFORMANCES THAT WOULD BE HELD ON SAID PATIOS. THE PROPOSED ADDITIONAL CRITERIA WOULD ADD A DISTANCE REQUIREMENT. AS PART OF THE CRITERIA FOR ALL OF THOSE ZONES WHERE DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS ARE CURRENTLY ALLOWED WITH CRITERIA, AND THAT WOULD BE THAT THE BUILDING AND ANY SPEAKER BOXES FOR THE RESTAURANT WOULD NEED TO BE AT LEAST 200FT AWAY FROM ANY SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL USE OR ZONE. THIS COULD BE REDUCED TO 150FT IF THERE'S A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY SEPARATING THE RESTAURANT AND THE USE OR ZONE. AND ADDITIONALLY IT MAY BE REDUCED OR ELIMINATED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. SO IF THERE IS A RESTAURANT THAT IS TOO CLOSE, THEY CAN COME FORWARD AND APPLY FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. IT WILL GO FORWARD THROUGH PUBLIC HEARINGS, FIRST WITH PLANNING AND ZONING AND THEN CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL DECISION. THE IMPACT THAT THIS WOULD HAVE AFFECTS THE FOUR ZONES WHERE DRIVE THRUS ARE CURRENTLY ALLOWED, SUBJECT TO CRITERIA. THAT'S THE C-2 ZONES, THE C-3 ZONE AND THE I1 AND I2 ZONES, WHICH ARE OUR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES. CURRENTLY, DRIVE THRU RESTAURANTS ARE ALREADY ALLOWED WITH AN SUP IN THE C-1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE. FOR EXISTING RESTAURANTS THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THESE CHANGES. WE FOUND THAT THERE WERE 15 THAT WERE EITHER WITHIN 200FT OR WITHIN 150FT ACROSS A RIGHT OF WAY. THIS IS JUST A QUICK MAP SHOWING ALL THE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. YOU CAN SEE. THEY'RE SOMEWHAT CLUSTERED, AS WE WOULD EXPECT THEY ARE.
THEY DO TEND TO BE AROUND THOSE LARGE ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS. SO TOUCHING ON SOMETHING CALLED LEGAL NONCONFORMING STATUS, WHICH IS WHAT WOULD BECOME OF THESE RESTAURANTS. THESE RESTAURANTS WOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE THEIR USE. THE ENTITLEMENT RUNS WITH THE LAND.
SO EVEN IF THEY WERE TO, SAY, SELL THE BUSINESS, THE NEW OPERATOR WOULD STILL BE COVERED UNDER THE PREVIOUS ENTITLEMENT. THE ONLY WAY THAT THAT ENTITLEMENT AND THE LEGAL NONCONFORMING STATUS WOULD EXPIRE IS IF THERE WAS A CESSATION OF THAT USE FOR OVER
[00:10:06]
12 MONTHS. THE CAVEAT WITH THAT IS A LEGAL, NONCONFORMING BUSINESS CANNOT EXPAND THE SCOPE OF ITS BUSINESS OR INCREASE THE DEGREE OF NONCONFORMITY WITHOUT GETTING THAT SUP. SO FOR THE SECOND PART OF THE AMENDMENTS, I WILL PASS IT OFF TO KATELYN TO. ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING. KATELYN SHEFFIELD, CHIEF PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. THE OTHER AMENDMENT THAT WE ARE PROPOSING FOR YOU TONIGHT IS IN RELATION TO RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT AND ADJACENT PARKING BUFFERS. SO IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE WAS ADOPTED, WE INCLUDED A REQUIREMENT THAT IF THERE ARE ANY SORT OF PROPOSED PARKING SPACES ADJACENT TO ANY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE OR ZONE, A MINIMUM OF A 20 FOOT BUFFER WOULD BE REQUIRED. WITH THAT ADDITION. IN THE UDC, THERE WAS NO DESIGN EXCEPTION OR AVENUE FOR MODIFYING THAT REQUIREMENT. AND SO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS TO ALLOW FOR A DESIGN EXCEPTION TO BE REQUESTED FOR THE APPLICANT IN ORDER TO REDUCE THAT FROM A 20 FOOT BUFFER TO A TEN FOOT BUFFER. CRITERIA BEING THAT IT WOULD NEED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH ADJACENT DEVELOPED PROPERTIES, AND CREATES A UNIFIED OR UNIFIED LANDSCAPING DESIGN. AND WITH THAT CAMERA, AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. EXPLAIN THE REASONING ON THE PARKING BUFFER. WHAT WAS IT BEFORE? THE CURRENT THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS 10 OR 20. EXCUSE ME. YES, MA'AM. WE'RE SAYING WE COULD GO DOWN TO A TEN. YOU COULD. SO AN APPLICANT WITH THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL COULD COME BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND ASK FOR THAT DESIGN EXCEPTION. AND THAT WOULD BE AT YOUR DISCRETION IF YOU FELT THAT THAT WAS APPROPRIATE OR NOT IN THAT LOCATION. THE PICTURE THAT WE HAVE ON THE SLIDE HERE, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, THE PROPERTY TO THE RIGHT WAS DEVELOPED UNDER THE OLD CODE WHERE THE PARKING WAS ABLE TO BE WITHIN TEN FEET OF THE LANDSCAPE, OR THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY OR EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY AT THAT TIME. WHEREAS THE PROPERTY ON THE LEFT DEVELOPED UNDER THE UDC REQUIREMENTS. AND WITH THE ESTABLISHED FIRE LANE IN THE DISTANCING THAT WERE WITHIN THIS PROPERTY, THE APPLICANT WAS NOT ABLE TO UTILIZE SOME OF THE EXTRA SPACE THAT WAS IN BETWEEN THE FIRE LANE AND THE PROPERTY LINE. SO THIS APPLICANT COULD COME BEFORE YOU WITH A DESIGN EXCEPTION, TO ADD PARKING SPACES ON THAT SOUTHERN BOUNDARY. THIS ALSO WOULD ALLOW FOR ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT TO UTILIZE THAT DESIGN EXCEPTION ROUTE, IF THEY SO CHOOSE TO COME BEFORE YOU. OKAY. IT'S NOT DECREASING THE MINIMUM, IT'S JUST ALLOWING THEM TO COME BACK AND ASK FOR. YES. ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, WITH THE DISCRETION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. KATELYN, DO YOU HAVE A MAP SHOWING THE DIFFERENT PROPERTIES THROUGHOUT MCKINNEY THAT COULD POTENTIALLY COME AND REQUEST AN EXCEPTION IF THEY WERE DONE UNDER THE PREVIOUS UDC, WHERE THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE 20FT? WE DO NOT HAVE THAT DATA. IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE INTERESTED IN, WE CAN CERTAINLY CULL THROUGH SOME OF THE SITE PLANS THAT WE'VE HAD. I THINK THERE'S BEEN A HANDFUL THAT HAVE MET THE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT AVENUE FOR DESIGN EXCEPTION. SO IF THIS WAS PASSED BY THE COUNCIL, THEN THEY COULD POTENTIALLY COME BACK BEFORE YOU. BUT IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN THAT DATA, WE CAN CERTAINLY TRY AND PULL SOMETHING TOGETHER FOR YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND I WANT TO REITERATE TOO, THIS WOULDN'T ALLOW AN AUTOMATIC APPROVAL. IT WOULD JUST ALLOW THE AVENUE FOR THEM TO COME BEFORE YOU AND ASK FOR THAT EXCEPTION. GENERALLY A BLEND BETWEEN THE NEW AND OLD CODE, SO THAT WHERE YOU HAVE A BUDDING USES THAT WERE DEVELOPED UNDER THE DIFFERENT CODES, YOU COULD GET SOME UNIFORMITY.CORRECT. CORRECT. THAT WAS THE THINKING BEHIND THE CHANGE. YES, MA'AM. ANYTHING ELSE? THANK YOU.
CAITLIN CAMERON, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. THIS ITEM DOES HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, AND WE'D LIKE TO OPEN THAT UP. IF ANYONE WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. WE DO HAVE ONE RESPONSE BY COMPUTER IS JAY YOUNG, WHO IS OPPOSED ONE THAT'LL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. SEEING NO ONE COME FORWARD, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? YES. I'M SORRY. YOU REPEAT IT. COULD YOU REPEAT YOURSELF? WELL, WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DOES ANYONE WISH TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD,
[00:15:08]
PLEASE. MY NAME IS ROBERT HERNANDEZ AND I AM THE OWNER OF TK. SHAVED ICE AT 812 SOUTH MCDONALD STREET. I WAS GIVEN A NOTICE BY SOMEONE. TO BE. I GUESS WE'RE. Y'ALL WERE GOING TO HOLD A MEETING. PERTAINING TO MY PARTICULAR PROPERTY. I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT IT WAS GOING TO ENTAIL. I'M HERE. I JUST, YOU KNOW, I CAME IN LATE, AND I APOLOGIZE, BUT THIS IS A PARKING MODIFICATION. JUST A I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS FOR PARKING. IT'S A DRIVE THROUGH. MY PARTICULAR COMPONENT OF THE DRIVE THROUGH THE UPDATE. OKAY. IT MAY BE THAT ANYONE WHO WAS. POSSIBLY IMPACTED BY THE CHANGE WOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. NOTICE, JUST TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF THE SITUATION. THAT IS COMPLETELY CORRECT, COUNCILMAN CRAIG. SO OUR COMMISSION MEMBER, CRAIG. SO WE NOTIFIED ALL PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THE CHANGE OF THE 200 FOOT BUFFER.AND SO WHENEVER WE DID THE REVIEW, YOUR PROPERTY ACTUALLY FELL WITHIN THE THAT PARAMETER.
SO LET ME ASK YOU THIS THEN THEN ARE WE STILL KOSHER. I MEAN ARE WE AM I GOING TO STILL BE ABLE TO RUN A BUSINESS? I'VE BEEN HERE IN MCKINNEY 15 YEARS AND I JUST, I, YOU KNOW, I WAS AFRAID THAT SOMETHING WAS GOING TO HAPPEN BECAUSE OF THE DRIVE THROUGH, AND THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. DO YOU WANT TO GET WITH HIM AFTER THE MEETING? I WILL GET WITH YOU. BUT I WANTED TO NOTE, JUST SO THAT YOU DON'T SIT DOWN AND YOU'RE WORRIED, BUT IT IS GOING TO BE A NON LEGAL NONCONFORMING. SO IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK WITH CAMERON HE CAN ACTUALLY GET YOU UP TO SPEED RIGHT NOW SO THAT HE CAN ANSWER ANY OF YOUR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. BUT WE ARE NOT WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE YOUR SITE ILLEGAL. PROMISE. COOL. DO I NEED TO SIGN IF YOU WILL TALK TO CAITLIN OVER THERE, SHE'LL GET YOU SQUARED AWAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR COMING. THANK YOU.
ANYBODY ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER? OKAY. SEEING NONE. CAN WE HAVE A MOTION, PLEASE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. REGARDING 25 0001M SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CRAIG AND SECOND, BY COMMISSIONER WOODARD TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE. ITEM 250001M. JUST TO CLOSE. JUST TO CLOSE. JUST TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. OH.
EXCUSE ME. JUST CLOSE. CORRECT. ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BY COMMISSIONER CRAIG AND SECOND, BY COMMISSIONER WOODARD. ANY FINAL DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. OKAY. WE HAVE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7 TO 0 VOTE. DO WE HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION NOW? MR. CRAIG? COULD WE HAVE CAITLIN TO COME BACK, IF YOU DON'T MIND? APOLOGIES. I'M DOUBLE DUTY TONIGHT. NO, SORRY. SO, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY. SO I NOTICING WAS PROVIDED TO ALL APPLICABLE BUSINESS OWNERS IN THE AREA. I KNOW WE HAD ONE WHO WAS HERE THIS EVENING, AND WE RECEIVED THIS ONE LETTER. SO THE NOTICING. HERE WE GO. THIS IS A GOOD MAP. SO THE NOTICING THAT WAS PROVIDED WAS FOR THE POTENTIAL OR THE BUSINESS OWNERS THAT WE HAVE EXISTING TODAY.
BASED ON THE IMPACTS OF THE ADDITION OF THE 20 FOOT BUFFER REQUIRED OR 20 200 FOOT BUFFER REQUIREMENT FOR THE DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS. SO THESE ARE THE LOCATIONS OF THE PROPERTIES THAT WERE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED CHANGE. STATE LAW LAST YEAR OR SO MADE A REQUIREMENT THAT IF WE MADE ANY SORT OF CHANGES FOR USE WHERE IT MADE A LEGAL, NONCONFORMING USE, WE HAVE TO NOTIFY EVERY PROPERTY OWNER IMPACTED. AND SO THAT'S WHAT THIS MAP REPRESENTS. BUT THESE ARE ONLY REGARDING THE DISTANCE OF THE SPEAKER BOX. CORRECT AND NOT THE DRIVE THROUGH. SO THESE ARE ALL OF THE RESTAURANTS THAT HAVE EITHER THEIR BUILDING OR THEIR SPEAKER BOX WITHIN 200FT OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE OR ZONE. OR IF THEY ARE WITHIN 150FT AND SEPARATED BY A RIGHT OF WAY. OKAY. SO THERE IS ONE CAVEAT TO THAT. IF IT IS A BUSINESS THAT
[00:20:07]
CURRENTLY HAS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TO OPERATE AND THEY'RE ALREADY WITHIN THAT BUFFER, THEY DID NOT NEED TO BE NOTICED BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT BECOME LEGAL NONCONFORMING. THEY ALREADY HAVE THE SUP. OKAY. I WAS GOING TO SAY TO CLARIFY, CAMERON, ON THE LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T CHANGE THE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE OR SOMETHING SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE BUILDING, THEY COULD PUT A NEW TENANT IN THE BUILDING IN KIND WITHOUT IMPROVING ANYTHING ELSE AND STILL BE UNDER THAT LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE. YES. THAT'S CORRECT. THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD BE APPROVED WOULD BE THE NEW CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.BUT THE LEGAL NONCONFORMING STATUS WOULD TRANSFER OVER TO TENANT AS LONG AS THEY DIDN'T EXPAND THE BUILDING OR CHANGE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING OR SOMETHING ELSE MORE SUBSTANTIAL ON THE PROPERTY. CORRECT? AS LONG AS IT WOULD NOT CAUSE THE BUILDING OR SPEAKER BOX TO BE CLOSER THAN IT ALREADY IS, OR IF IT WOULD BE A CHANGE SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH THAT WOULD, IT WOULD REQUIRE A NEW SITE PLAN. THE 150FT WITH ACROSS A ROAD A RIGHT OF WAY WAS A DISTINCTION MADE BETWEEN THE TYPE OF A RIGHT OF WAY. COULD IT BE JUST A LIKE A MINOR COLLECTOR OR THOROUGHFARE? THERE WAS NOT ONE MADE. IT DOES SAY PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. SO IF THERE WAS A PRIVATE STREET, THAT WOULD NOT COUNT. BUT THAT IS ABOUT EVEN AN ALLEY WOULD WORK. YES. OKAY. WE DON'T HAVE. WE DON'T KNOW. I THINK, CAMERON, WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR INFORMING THESE BUSINESS OWNERS? DEPENDING ON HOW THE VOTE TURNS OUT, IF THEY NOW WOULD POTENTIALLY HAVE A LEGAL BUT NONCONFORMING USE AND WHAT THEIR NEXT STEPS ARE. SO ALL OF THE BUSINESS OWNERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS AND PERSONAL BUSINESS PROPERTY OWNERS FOR ALL OF THESE SITES WERE SENT A NOTICE INFORMING THEM THAT THEIR THE STATUS OF THEIR PROPERTY COULD CHANGE IF THIS AMENDMENT WAS TO BE ADOPTED. SO THAT BATCH OF NOTIFICATIONS IS SENT OUT. AND THAT'S ADDITION. IN ADDITION TO THE LEGAL NOTICE PUT IN THE NEWSPAPER. AND THEN WE WILL DO BOTH OF THOSE AGAIN. SO NEWSPAPER LEGAL NOTICE AND SEND OUT A SECOND BATCH OF MAIL NOTICES BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. OKAY. BUT THEN AFTER EVERYTHING IS RESOLVED THEN A NOTICE GOES OUT OR JUST GOES OUT IN THOSE TO THEM. AND THEN IN THE PUBLICATIONS AS WELL. I'M SORRY. CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? SO LET'S SAY THIS IS GETS VOTED ON, GETS VOTED ON AT COUNCIL AND IT'S APPROVED IS THE NOTICE THEN SENT OUT TO ALL THOSE OWNERS AS WELL, NOTIFYING THEM THAT THIS IS THE NEW THIS IS THE NEW STANDARD AND THAT THEY ARE HAVE THEY NOW HAVE A LEGAL BUT NONCONFORMING USE OR IS IT JUST.
RECORDED SOMEWHERE AT THE CITY LEVEL? IT WOULD BE THE LATTER. THE IDEA IS THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN NOTICED TWICE FOR IT, AND THE AGAIN, THEY WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE OPERATING AS THEY HAVE BEEN. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DOES THE STATE MANDATE THE LANGUAGE OF THE NOTICE? YES. THE STATE DOES MANDATE THAT BIG BOLD 14 POINT TEXT THAT INFORMS THEM THAT THEY MAY LOSE THE RIGHT TO USE THEIR PROPERTY. IT IS A BIT INTENSE, BUT IN PRACTICE, THESE BUSINESSES WILL FUNCTIONALLY NOT CHANGE. IT'S JUST THEIR ABILITY TO EXTEND. THIS GENTLEMAN THAT SHOWED UP SEEMED A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT IT, SO I WAS WONDERING IF THERE WAS A WAY TO DO THE STATE MANDATED LANGUAGE, BUT THEN EXPLAIN IT IN LAYMAN'S TERM THAT SO THEY COULD UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO SHUT DOWN HIS SHAVED ICE PLACE, OR WE DO HAVE OUR OWN EXPLANATION A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN. IT'S PERHAPS NOT AS EYE CATCHING AS THE VERY BLUNT, STATE MANDATED PHRASING.
AND CAMERON, JUST TO CLARIFY ON THIS, IN REGARDS TO THE CITIZEN COMMENT THAT WAS SENT IN WHERE THEY DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A TENANT IN THE BUILDING, BUT THEY HAVE OBTAINED APPROVALS AND DONE CONSTRUCTION, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO PUT A TENANT IN THAT BUILDING WITH DRIVE THROUGH WITH NO ISSUES, BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED. AS LONG AS THEY AREN'T MOVING THE SPEAKER BOX OR CHANGING ANYTHING ELSE. THAT'S CORRECT. THEY ARE AFFORDED VESTED RIGHTS UNDER THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, CHAPTER 245. AND THEN AFTER THE TENANT MOVES IN, THEY WOULD THEN FALL UNDER OUR LEGAL NONCONFORMING STATUS. THANK YOU. HAS ANYONE FROM THE CITY REACHED OUT TO HIM
[00:25:04]
TO CLARIFY HIS HIS QUESTIONS OR. YES. I EXCHANGED A FEW EMAILS WITH THIS GENTLEMAN AND CLARIFIED HIS AND HIS PARTNER'S POINTS. VERY GOOD. CAMERON, I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE PARKING AMENDMENT. YES, I THINK THAT WILL BE OKAY. SORRY. YEAH, I'M JUST WONDERING HOW, YOU KNOW, IN THINKING ABOUT HOW THINGS ARE APPLIED TO EXISTING BUSINESSES. I'M CURIOUS HOW THIS IS APPLIED TO EXISTING BUSINESSES WITH RESPECT TO OFFSET RESIDENCES. IN TERMS OF. SO LIKE FOR THE EXAMPLE PICTURE HERE, IF THE PROPERTY TO THE LEFT WANTED TO UTILIZE THE DESIGN EXCEPTION ROUTE, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND REQUEST THAT. WITH THAT, WE WOULD BE SENDING A PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATIONS WITHIN 200FT OF THAT SUBJECT PROPERTY ASKING FOR THAT EXCEPTION, EXPLAINING WHAT WHAT IS HAPPENING, AND THEN THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO COME FORWARD WITH THE PUBLIC COMMENT, THE CHANGES AVAILABLE TO EXISTING BUSINESSES. YES, SIR.OKAY. THANK YOU. CAITLIN, WITH THE WITH THE EXISTING CODE SET AT 20FT. STAFF VIEWS THIS AS AN ALTERNATIVE FOR PEOPLE TO GET A REDUCTION. CORRECT. TO ADHERE TO AN ADJACENT BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THEY DIDN'T NEED TO BE NOTICED BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE DEVELOPED IN 20FT. THEY CAN NOW COME BACK AND ADD PARKING IF THEY CHOSE TO. EXACTLY IN LINE WITH THE PREVIOUS CODE. CORRECT.
SO THEIR REMEDY IN THE CASE OF THIS ON THE LEFT, THEY COULD COME IN AND ADD SOME ADDITIONAL PARKING. YES. YES. IF THAT BUSINESS OWNER WANTED ADDITIONAL SPACES ON THE LOT, THEY COULD COME IN AND ASK FOR THAT DESIGN EXCEPTION. WE WOULD SEND OUT THE PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATIONS AND THEN THEY WOULD COME BEFORE YOU FOR THAT CONSIDERATION. THAT 20FT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE OR FROM THE RESIDENCE. SO WOULD BE 20FT FROM THE PROPERTY ZONE, WHICH WOULD BE THE PROPERTY LINE OR THE USE. I THOUGHT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, BUT NOW THAT WOULD BE TEN FEET CORRECT. THEY COULD ASK FOR REDUCTION TO A MINIMUM OF TEN FEET. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MOTIONS. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BOTH THE PARKING AS WELL AS THE SPEAKER BOX. MODIFICATIONS TO ITEM 0001M. SECOND THAT WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WOODARD AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BUCKNER. EXCUSE ME TO APPROVE.
ITEM 25001M SCREEN. ANY FINAL DISCUSSION? I JUST JUST WANT TO ADD ONE COMMENT. IT SEEMS LIKE CAMERON AND CAITLIN HAVE ANSWERED AND ADDRESSED SOME CONCERNS THAT MAY HAVE COME UP FROM BUSINESS OWNERS, AND SO THAT MIGHT BE JUST ONE THING THAT MAYBE WE CAN FIND A BETTER WAY TO APPROACH THIS IN THE FUTURE SO THAT PEOPLE AREN'T CONCERNED. MAINLY THE LETTER OF CONCERN THAT CAME UP BY THE ONE BUSINESS OWNER THINKING THAT NOW THEY WERE STUCK WITH SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO UTILIZE. SO. THANK YOU. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE.
ITEM 250001M HAS BEEN APPROVED, AND THE MOTION HAS BEEN APPROVED BY A VOTE OF 7 TO 0 AND BE FORWARDED ON TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION ON MAY 6TH, 2025. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA? OKAY.
SEEING NONE, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF? THAT WAS A GOOD COMMENT THAT YOU MADE. OKAY, I GUESS WE HAVE NONE. HOW ABOUT A MOTION? MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HAMMOCK TO ADJOURN AND SECOND, BY COMMISSIONER WHATLEY. IS THAT RIGHT, COMMISSIONER? COMMISSIONER. JESSE. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THERE ARE NONE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.