[CALL TO ORDER] [Update on 2025 McKinney Board & Commission Member Appointments] [00:03:22] 35. IF YOU ARE ELIGIBLE BY POLICY TO BE REAPPOINTED, YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO REAPPLY IN CONSIDERATION OF PREPARATION, TO SERVE ON THE BOARD, OR TO CONTINUE SERVICE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND AND REALIZE THAT BOARD MEMBERS, ALL BOARD MEMBERS, ARE IN SERVICE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE COUNCIL, AND THEY ARE EXPECTED TO BE AWARE OF CERTAIN POLICIES AND TERMS, INCLUDING ORDINANCES, STATE LAWS AND BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. POLICIES THAT APPLY TO YOU, INCLUDING THE GOODNESS. I'M HAVING A HARD TIME HERE ETHICAL CONDUCT POLICY THAT'S ESTABLISHED FOR THE CITY COUNCIL, BUT IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEMBERS. WITH THAT, THAT'S ALL THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE FOR YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE CITY AND OUR RESIDENTS, AND I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT THE PROGRAM. THAT IS ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. [CONSENT ITEMS] EMPRESS. OKAY, LET'S NOW MOVE TO THE CONSENT ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS THE MINUTES TWO FIVE, 2772 OF APRIL 22ND, 2025. ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS OR SHOULD WE HAVE A MOTION NOW? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 2225 MEETING. SECOND, THAT MOTION. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HAMMETT AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODARD TO APPROVE APRIL 22ND MINUTES. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. MOTION PASSES 7 TO 0. THE MINUTES ARE [Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on Design Exceptions to a Site Plan for a Traditional Multi-Family Development, Located at 4401 West University Drive] [00:05:19] APPROVED. THANK YOU. NEXT, WE'LL MOVE TO THE REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS THAT HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. THERE ARE FOUR OF THESE. FIRST ITEM IS 240098. SP. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS, ACT ON A DESIGN EXCEPTION TO A SITE PLAN FOR A TRADITIONAL MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 40 401 WEST UNIVERSITY DRIVE. JAKE. 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 PROPOSED APARTMENT COMPLEX LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF US 380, IN BETWEEN HARDEN AND LAKE FOREST. TYPICALLY, SITE PLANS ARE APPROVED AT THE STAFF LEVEL. HOWEVER, WHEN DESIGN EXCEPTIONS SUCH AS THESE ARE REQUESTED, THE SITE PLAN IS BROUGHT IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION FOR ACTION. PER THE ZONING ORDINANCE, A SIX FOOT TALL MASONRY SCREENING WALL IS REQUIRED ALONG ALL SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES, AND THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A MIX OF SCREENING DEVICES ALONG THE NORTH, EAST AND WEST PROPERTY LINES, WHICH STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE EXISTING WOODEN AND METAL FENCES PROVIDED BY THE ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION TO THE SOUTH, SHOWN IN RED ON THE SCREEN, AND CONSTRUCT A WOODEN FENCE ALONG ANOTHER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER. NOTED. HERE IN ORANGE. STAFF IS UNSUPPORTIVE OF THE PROPOSAL DUE TO CONCERNS REGARDING IMMEDIATE ADJACENCY TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, THE LACK OF DURABILITY OF THE EXISTING MATERIALS, AND THAT A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LINE IS PROPOSED NOT TO BE SCREENED. STAFF BELIEVES THAT SCREENING ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED OF MASONRY IN ORDER TO MEET THE INTENT OF THE UDC AND PROVIDE A LONG TERM SCREENING SOLUTION. AS SUCH, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. JAKE. YES. QUESTIONS, PLEASE CORRECT ME. ALONG THE NORTH THERE WHERE THEY'RE DOING THE MASONRY AND THE METAL PROPOSED. WHY ARE WE ALLOWING THAT RATHER THAN A SOLID OR. I GUESS THEY'RE PROPOSING THAT RATHER THAN A SOLID MASONRY WALL. YEAH. SO THERE'S A MIX OF MASONRY MASONRY COLUMNS WITH METAL ALONG THE NORTH AND THE WEST. SO NORTH OF HERE IT'S ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL. SO IT'S A STRAIGHT C3 ZONING ADJACENT TO US 380. IF THAT PROPERTY WERE TO NOT EXIST. AND IN THIS PROPERTY WAS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO 380. THERE WOULDN'T BE A SCREENING DEVICE REQUIRED THERE AT ALL. HOWEVER, BECAUSE THERE IS NO DIRECT FRONTAGE, ALL PROPERTY LINES ARE CONSIDERED SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES AND REQUIRED THE SIX FOOT TALL MASONRY BECAUSE IT IS THE MOST INTENSE COMMERCIAL STREET DISTRICT THAT WE HAVE. WE ARE, YOU KNOW, WE UNDERSTAND THAT AND WE ARE AMENABLE TO THE TO THE SIX FOOT TALL WROUGHT IRON OR METAL WITH THE COLUMNS WEST OF HERE. IT'S THE SAME ZONING AS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. MIR30 SO STRAIGHT MULTIFAMILY, AND IT IS ACTUALLY OWNED BY THE SAME OWNER AND DEVELOPER AS THIS PROPERTY. SO IT'S MORE ENVISIONED AS PHASE TWO. SO WEST OF HERE WOULD BE LIKE SCREENING FROM THEMSELVES ESSENTIALLY. AND THEN EAST OF HERE IS EXISTING MULTIFAMILY ALSO DEVELOPED BY JPI, WHO IS THE APPLICANT DEVELOPER OF THIS PRODUCT AS WELL. OKAY, JAKE I HAVE A QUESTION. SO ON THE SOUTHERN BORDER, WE HAVE THE SIX FOOT HIGH METAL FENCE. AND THEN IT BUTTS UP TO THE SIX FOOT HIGH PROPOSED PRIVACY FENCING. DO THOSE HOMEOWNER LOTS COME RIGHT UP TO THE FENCE LINE, OR IS THERE SOME TYPE OF BUFFER, OR IS THERE AN EASEMENT IN BETWEEN THE BUILD SITE AND THE HOMEOWNERS PROPERTY LINES? YEAH. SO IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER, THERE'S ACTUALLY A COMMON AREA BETWEEN THE EDGE OF THOSE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND THE SHARED PROPERTY LINE HERE. SO THAT COMMON AREA IS OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE RESIDENT, THE SUBDIVISION TO THE SOUTH. OKAY. AND IT DOES NOT TOUCH THAT PROPERTY LINE. THE SIX FOOT TALL WOODEN FENCE IS THE SOLID RED. THAT'S ALONG THE SOUTH SOUTHEAST. AND THAT IS RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT AGAIN PROVIDED BY THE RESIDENCES INSTEAD OF THE DEVELOPER OF THIS PROPERTY. SO THAT IS THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS FENCE. CORRECT. YEAH. SO JAKE, THE SIX FOOT METAL FENCES AND THE WOOD FENCE, NONE OF THAT WOULD COMPLY. NO. NONE OF THAT WOULD MEET THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. THE REQUIRED THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS A SIX FOOT TALL MASONRY SCREENING WALL. AND IN THE PAST, WE'VE GIVEN THAT WE CAN HAVE COLUMNS, MASONRY COLUMNS WITH STEEL OR [00:10:07] METAL IN BETWEEN. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME INSTANCES WHERE WE'RE WHERE WE'VE BEEN AMENABLE TO IT, SUCH AS THIS. HOWEVER, WE HAVE NEVER BEEN AMENABLE TO IT ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, JUST LIKE THIS CASE. TO WHOM DO THOSE FENCES ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY BELONG? DO THOSE BELONG TO THOSE HOMEOWNERS SOUTH OF THERE? WELL, THE WOODEN FENCES ARE ON THE SHARED PROPERTY LINE, BUT I GUESS THEY WOULD BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE ACTUAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. THE METAL THAT'S IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER COMPLETELY, YOU KNOW, WHOLLY ON THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. NONE OF THAT IS SHARED WITH THE WITH THE APPLICANT HERE. SO IF THE MASONRY WALL WERE WERE TO BE BUILT, WOULD IT REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF THE WOOD FENCE THAT SITS ALONG THE SHARED BOUNDARY? IT WOULD IT WOULD BE MAINTAINED BY THE APPLICANT FOR THIS PROPERTY. OKAY. THANK YOU JAKE. THANK YOU. IF WE COULD HAVE THE APPLICANT UP NOW. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MATTHEW CROW, 9001 CYPRESS WATERS BOULEVARD. I'M THE DEVELOPMENT MANAGER WITH JPI ON THIS PROJECT, AND I'M REALLY MORE HERE. JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND FOR WHY WE'RE REQUESTING THIS VARIANCE. AND AS WELL JUST KIND OF FIELD ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE AND TO CLARIFY WOULD LIKE TO SEE I THINK THAT THIS EXHIBIT IS A LITTLE BIT DATED WHERE THE WESTERN SIDE IS GOING TO MATCH THE NORTHERN SIDE TO WHERE IT'S I THINK WE HAVE THE MASONRY, THE SIX FOOT MASONRY COLUMNS EVERY 20FT, KIND OF BETWEEN OUR PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO. SO IT'S THE WEST SIDE, AND THE NORTH SIDE WILL BE THE METAL FENCE WITH THE MASONRY COLUMNS EVERY, EVERY 20FT, ALL OF THE BLUE ON THE EAST SIDE THAT IS ADJACENT TO OUR ALREADY EXISTING DEVELOPMENT THAT'S OPERATING CURRENTLY, JEFFERSON VERDANT. THAT ONE IS GOING TO BE THE METAL FENCE. AND THEN. YES. AND THEN THE LOGIC ON THE SOUTH SIDE WAS THAT THERE WAS THE EXISTING FENCE THAT THE HOMEOWNERS HAD. WE WOULD FILL IN THAT GAP IN THE ORANGE TO MATCH, TO MATCH THE HOMEOWNERS, AS WELL AS THE REASON WHY I THINK MOST OF THE MOST OF THE REASON WHY, WHEN IT KIND OF CUTS OFF FROM A WOODEN FENCE AND THEN GOES DOWN INTO THE METAL FENCE IS BECAUSE THERE IS SOME GRADING IN THAT AREA. IT'S SLOPING DOWN BECAUSE YOU HAVE THAT KIND OF CREEK THAT RUNS IN THROUGH THAT WAY. AND SO THAT FENCING, IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO INSTALL FOR THE HOMEOWNERS WHERE WITH THAT, WITH THAT METAL FENCE AS OPPOSED TO THE WOOD FENCE. SO YOU KNOW, AGAIN, AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE TO PUT OUR SCREEN DEVICE, WE'D HAVE TO TAKE DOWN THEIRS, WHICH IS WHICH IS FINE. BUT THAT WAS THE, THE, THE LOGIC BEHIND THE REQUEST INITIALLY WAS TO KEEP THE, THE, THE FENCING THAT THE HOMEOWNERS HAD PUT UP THEMSELVES BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO GO IN AND TAKE IT OUT. IF THEY WERE NOT OKAY WITH THAT. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I'M HERE WITH MY COLLEAGUE MATT VINTON, WHO'S A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WHO'S REALLY THE MASTERMIND DESIGNER BEHIND ALL THIS. AND WE'RE JUST HERE TO KIND OF FIELD YOUR QUESTIONS. SO IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY OTHER, OTHER QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO TELL US TO KNOW, WE'RE HERE FOR YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION. YES. WHY IS IT THAT YOU'RE ADDING WOOD FENCE INSTEAD OF JUST CONTINUING YOUR METAL WITH MASONRY COLUMNS ON THAT SOUTHWEST CORNER? WELL, JUST JUST BECAUSE IT'S THE MATCHING, IT WOULD MATCH THE EXISTING THING. BUT THAT'S AN OPEN SPACE RIGHT IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER. YES, IT WOULD BE. WE COULD CERTAINLY DO THAT. IT WAS JUST IT'S A LITTLE BIT AGAIN BECAUSE OF THE GRADE, WE WANTED TO MATCH WHAT WAS ALREADY EXISTING THERE, AND WE WANTED TO SOMETHING THAT'S A LITTLE BIT EASIER INSTALLABLE WITH THE GRADE. YOU KNOW, WITH THE MASONRY COLUMNS IT GETS A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED. WE CAN DO IT. BUT AGAIN, THAT WAS THE REASON BEHIND THE INITIAL REQUEST. AND DOES THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OWN THAT FENCE ON THE SOUTH, THAT WOOD FENCE? I BELIEVE THAT THE FENCE IS EITHER OWNED BY THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS OR BY THE HOMEOWNERS THEMSELVES. YES. YOU DON'T KNOW IF THE HOA OWNS IT ALL? NOT FOR SURE. NO. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THERE IS A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WITH THEM ANY? I'M NOT. I'M NOT SURE. NO. YES THERE IS OKAY. YES THERE IS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT. SO WHILE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT STANDING, HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONVERSATION WITH THE HOMEOWNERS. THAT'S GOING TO BE. NOT YET. NO. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANYTHING ELSE? THANK YOU MR. APPRECIATE IT OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THIS ITEM DOES HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK THIS EVENING? IF YOU'LL TURN IN A YELLOW CARD. WE HAVE. ARE YOU TIFFANY? MY NAME IS DEBBIE TESCH, AND I LIVE AT [00:15:13] 4056 ANGELINA DRIVE IN MCKINNEY. IT'S BEEN A FEW SHORT YEARS SINCE I MOVED TO MCKINNEY ABOUT FOUR AND A HALF, AND IN MY PREPARATION FOR COMING TO SPEAK TO YOU TONIGHT, I WENT TO THE CITY WEBSITE AND LOOKED AT THE MCKINNEY DEVELOPMENT GUIDE AND ITS COMPANION DOCUMENT, THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT GUIDE. UNLIKE THE DREAD ONE MIGHT TYPICALLY FEEL WHEN CONFRONTED WITH GOVERNMENT PLANS AND MAPS AND DOCUMENTS AND EVERYTHING, I FOUND THIS DEVELOPMENT GUIDE TO BE VERY WELL ORGANIZED. PARAGRAPHS WERE TITLED, CATEGORIES WERE LABELED VOILA! WHAT MORE COULD A GIRL WANT? IN SHORT, I WENT RIGHT TO THE INFORMATION I WAS LOOKING FOR IN ARTICLE SEVEN FENCES. I KNEW OUR CITY PLANNERS GAVE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION AS THEY WERE PREPARING ZONING ORDINANCES AND ALLOCATING THEM THROUGHOUT THE DIVERSE NEEDS OF THE INTEREST GROUPS IN OUR BEAUTIFUL CITY. ARTICLE SEVEN FENCES GIVES AN EXPLANATION OF WHAT FENCES ARE FOR ONE. TO MITIGATE AND MINIMIZE POTENTIAL CONFLICT BETWEEN ADJACENT LAND USES TO PROTECT PRIVACY AND THE VALUE OF ADJACENT LAND USES, AND ALSO TO PROVIDE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR THE PROVISION OF FENCES AND WALLS. THAT MADE SENSE TO ME. I COULD TELL THE CITY PLANNERS HAD GOOD INTENTIONS AND TRIED TO SET STANDARDS THAT WOULD ACCOMMODATE DIVERSE NEEDS IN THE CITY. SINCE MOVING TO MY HOME IN HARDIN VILLAGE, MY NEIGHBORS AND I HAVE BEEN BESIEGED BY DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPERS. REQUESTS TO PLAN TO PLAN, EXCEED VARIANCES IN THE PLANS, NOT BY THEIR DEVELOPMENT PLANS THEMSELVES, BUT. I BECAUSE I PERSONALLY BELIEVE IN DEVELOPMENT AS A BUSINESS WOMAN FOR 35 YEARS, I AM THANKFUL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH OF SEVERAL COMMUNITIES AND THE MANY COMPANIES THAT I HAVE WORKED FOR THAT HAVE SUPPORTED GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT IN THEIR CITIES. I'VE BENEFITED FROM THAT GROWTH IN THAT EACH AND EVERY ONE HAS OFFERED ME. BUT SINCE BEING IN MY HOME SUCH A SHORT TIME, THIS IS THE THIRD TIME I HAVE HAD TO COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE TO REQUEST, ON MY OWN BEHALF AND BEHALF OF MY NEIGHBORS, OPPOSITION TO A VARIANCE REQUEST. I HAVE BEEN IMPRESSED WITH THE CONTEMPLATIVE THOUGHT THE PLANNERS OF OUR CITY GAVE TO CONCEIVING AND IMPLEMENTING THE ZONING RULES AND ORDINANCES HERE IN MCKINNEY, AND I AM REMINDED BY THE WISE SAGE THAT'S WHOSE ANALYSIS SAID YOU SHOULD FOLLOW YOUR OWN RULES. WHEN YOU DON'T FOLLOW YOUR RULES, YOU'LL GET MORE OF THE BEHAVIOR YOU DON'T LIKE. REMOVAL OF THIS FENCE REQUIREMENT WOULD CERTAINLY INCREASE POTENTIAL CONFLICT BETWEEN ADJACENT LAND USES. IT WOULD DECREASE PRIVACY PROTECTION AND DESTROY THE MINIMUM STANDARDS, WHICH WERE THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE CITY PLANNERS. IN THEIR CAREFUL AND THOUGHTFUL INCLUSION IN THEM. IN PLANNING, I ASK YOU TO PLEASE REJECT THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS TESH. THANK YOU. OKAY, NEXT WE HAVE MATTHEW VENTI. MATTHEW HERE. OH, ARE YOU WITH THE APPLICANT? OKAY. WELL, YEAH. WE DON'T HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. WE'VE ALREADY ASKED MR. CROW. SO WE HAVE TIFFANY TESCH. TIFFANY, DID YOU WANT TO COME UP? SURE. HI, I'M TIFFANY TESCH. I'M A RESIDENT OF HARDIN VILLAGE, JUST SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED PROPERTY VARIANCE. I JUST WANT TO ECHO WHAT MY NEIGHBORS HERE. EXCUSE ME. COULD YOU GIVE YOUR ADDRESS ALSO? OH, YES. 4056 ANGELINA DRIVE. THANK YOU. SO I'LL BE BRIEF. I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK TO YOU BRIEFLY AND LET YOU KNOW THAT WE'RE IN OPPOSITION OF VARIANCE. THE VARIANCE PROPOSED. I SPOKE WITH QUITE A QUITE A FEW OF MY NEIGHBORS. SEVERAL OF US ARE HERE TONIGHT AND JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WE'RE CONCERNED FOR THE POTENTIAL FOR VIOLATION OF PRIVACY AND THE MINIMUM STANDARDS THAT WERE MENTIONED BEFORE. SO I THINK THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE TO SAY, BUT I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW MY INPUT ON IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING. APPRECIATE YOU COMING. ANYBODY ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK? YES, SIR. IF YOU'LL TURN YOUR CARD IN OVER TO THE LADIES OVER HERE AND THEN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. HEY. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS CHRIS VOKE. I'M AT 1613 CANADIAN LANE. I'M ALSO THE BOARD PRESIDENT FOR HARDIN [00:20:05] VILLAGE HOA ASSOCIATION, AND CAME TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE VARIANCE REQUEST. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU ALL KNEW THAT ON THE SOUTH WEST CORNER. IT'S A FOUR FOOT METAL FENCE THAT DOESN'T IT'S METAL BECAUSE THERE'S TREES BEHIND THERE. THERE'S A GREENBELT THAT DEVELOPER, YOU KNOW, LEFT SOME TREES THERE. THAT IS HOA PROPERTY BEHIND THE HOMES. AND THERE IS NOT THERE'S NOT LIKE A HOA FENCE AT THE PROPERTY LINE. KIND OF AS A AS IT CONTINUES. BUT SO THERE'S RESIDENTIAL FENCES KIND OF THERE WHICH ARE. FOUR FOOT METAL. AND THEN THEY, THEY DO INCREASE TO THE SIX FOOT WOOD. BUT I FEEL LIKE IF YOU ADD 400 UNITS, THERE'S A LOT MORE WEAR AND TEAR POTENTIALLY TO FENCES. JUST USE KIDS, ALL OF THAT. AND THAT THE BURDEN OF MAINTAINING A FENCE SHOULDN'T FALL TO THE HOMEOWNERS. THEY WERE THERE. IT'S THEY'RE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. AND THIS IS A 400 UNIT DEVELOPMENT. MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT'S THAT'S FINE. THEY'VE GOT THE RIGHT AND ALL THAT. BUT JUST ASKING TO OPPOSE THE REQUEST TO BASICALLY CHANGE THE STANDARD FOR THAT PARTICULAR FENCE ALONG THE SOUTH THERE. TREES. I ALSO WANT TO MENTION TREES. SO I WAS LOOKING AT THE WEBSITE AND THE PLAN HAD IT CATALOGED ALL THE TREES. AMAZING. AND IT SAYS THESE WERE KEEPING THESE WERE REMOVING. IT LOOKED LIKE Y'ALL WERE REMOVING TREES THAT WERE ON THE PROPERTY LINE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S FOR A FENCE OR, OR WHAT, BUT I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT THAT. THERE WERE DEFINITELY TREES WITHIN LIKE 15FT OF THE PROPERTY LINE THAT WERE MARKED AS REMOVAL. SO I LOVE YOUR WEBSITE. I SEE THE DOCUMENTS GO IN THE GOOGLE DRIVE. I APPRECIATE THE TRANSPARENCY. AND I SAW THAT AND I THOUGHT, WELL, THAT'S CONCERNING. THAT'S LITERALLY ON THE PROPERTY LINE. AND I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE PLAN WAS FOR REMOVAL THERE IF IT WAS TO PUT IN A FENCE. BUT NOW IT'S LIKE THEY DON'T WANT TO FENCE. SO I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED, YOU KNOW, BY THAT REQUEST OR BY WHAT THE PLAN IS. SO I WANTED TO BRING THAT UP FOR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. CHRIS, I HAD A QUESTION. HAVE YOU. YEAH. DID YOU SAY THAT YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF TAKING DOWN THE WOOD FENCE AND PUTTING UP A SIX FOOT ALSO? NO, I MEAN, THEY CAN PUT A FENCE RIGHT NEXT TO IT. NO ONE SAYS THAT THE HOMEOWNER HAS TO REMOVE THEIR FENCE. I'VE SEEN DOUBLE FENCES ALL THE TIME. SO I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO THE NEIGHBORS ABOUT THAT. I KNOW, PARTICULARLY THE NEIGHBORS WITH THE METAL FENCE ARE DEFINITELY NOT POSITION. I HAVEN'T HEARD A WHOLE LOT FROM THE NEIGHBORS WITH THE WOOD FENCE, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THEY PUT IN THEIR OWN FENCE JUST RIGHT ON THE ON THE BACK OF IT. THANK YOU. MR. I HAVE A QUESTION. SO YOUR HOA PRESIDENT. YES, MA'AM. WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT THAT YOUR RESIDENTS HOMEOWNERS CAN BUILD A PRIVACY FENCE? IS IT SIX FEET? IS THE MAX EIGHT FEET? IT IS EIGHT FOOT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANKS. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. ANYBODY ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? I DO WANT TO READ TWO NAMES THAT SEND IN EMAILS. CODY CUNNINGHAM IN OPPOSITION AND DEAN LIU LIU IN OPPOSITION, ALSO ALONG WITH CHRIS VOKES THAT SPOKE. DOES ANYBODY LIKE TO HAVE THE STAFF UP AGAIN? JAKE UP AGAIN? ANY QUESTIONS? MR. CHAIR, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THAT YOU, CHARLES? YES, SIR. SECOND. OKAY, WE HAVE A SECOND. A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WHATLEY AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WOODARD TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? AS WE GET THAT IN. COMMISSIONER WOODARD MADE A SECOND. YES. COULD YOU? OKAY. THERE WE GO. I SHOULDN'T GO BACK TO THAT AGAIN. WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO START OVER ON THAT. I'VE BEEN BOTH TIMES. THERE YOU GO. ALL [00:25:03] RIGHT. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. OKAY. WE HAVE A 6 TO 1 VOTE CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. LET'S OPEN IT FOR DISCUSSION. IT WOULD BE MY THOUGHT THAT MAYBE THE APPLICANT AND THE HOMEOWNERS COULD COME TOGETHER AND HAVE SOME CONVERSATION. AND POSSIBLY WE COULD TABLE THIS UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. BUT IF THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY NEED TO TALK, THEN MY THOUGHT WOULD BE TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE AND UPHOLD THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT WE DENY THIS. JAKE, WOULD YOU MIND COMING BACK UP AND TALKING ABOUT WHICH DIRECTION WOULD BE BEST ON THAT? OF COURSE. SO I GUESS, WHAT WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION THEN? IF YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD TABLE IT OR WHETHER WE SHOULD DENY IT AND LET Y'ALL WORK THROUGH IT AGAIN, WELL, ULTIMATELY IT'S UP TO YOU IF YOU TABLE IT, THE REQUEST COULD COME BACK, SAME AS WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU. NOW. ULTIMATELY, IF YOU DENY IT, THEN THE SAME REQUEST CANNOT COME BACK IN FRONT OF YOU. I BELIEVE. SO IT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AS AS A DIFFERENT ITEM OR A DIFFERENT REQUEST FOR THE DESIGN EXCEPTIONS, WHETHER THAT WOULD BE MEETING THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IN ALL LOCATIONS, OR PROPOSING A DIFFERENT KIND OF MATERIAL ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OR OTHER LOCATIONS. SO I GUESS THAT'S A DIFFERENCE. OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAVE A I HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS HERE, BUT IT'S A LITTLE COMPLICATED IN THE SENSE THAT I KNOW THE PROPERTY THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE ORANGE LINE. RIGHT. THAT IS NOT A PART OF HARDIN VILLAGE. THAT'S A SEPARATE RESIDENTIAL LOT OWNED BY SOMEONE. THAT'S CORRECT. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. THE RED IS ABUTS THE LOTS IN HARDIN VILLAGE. AND SO. EXPLAIN TO ME EXACTLY WHAT THE VARIANCE IS THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING. YEAH. SO THE DESIGN EXCEPTION, THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT AS REQUIRED BY THE BY THE UDC IS A MINIMUM SIX FOOT TALL MASONRY SCREENING WALL ALONG ALL SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS. IN THIS CASE IT WOULD BE ALL PROPERTY LINES NORTH SOUTH, EAST WEST. STAFF IS COMFORTABLE WITH THE REQUEST ALONG THE NORTHEAST AND THE WEST PORTIONS, EXCEPT FOR THE ORANGE AND THE RED. HERE, ADJACENT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, WHERE AGAIN, WE'RE RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THOSE DESIGN EXCEPTIONS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE MASONRY WALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO CODE. OKAY, SO IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, WHEN THERE'S ALREADY A FENCING THAT I TOTALLY I AGREE WITH THE FACT THAT NO ONE SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR UPKEEPING SOMEONE ELSE'S FENCE. I MEAN, AND THOSE FENCES AREN'T GOING TO. IT'S NOT THE SAME KIND OF WEAR AND TEAR THAT IT CAN WITHSTAND, THAT A MASONRY WALL WOULD IN THE PAST. WHAT HAVE YOU SEEN AS IT PERTAINS TO TWO FENCES ABUTTING ONE ANOTHER? YEAH. SO THIS CASE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BASED ON OUR TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS. SO FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THERE IS A TREE PERIMETER ZONE 15FT AROUND ANY OF THE QUALITY TREES. I BELIEVE IT'S QUALITY TREES EITHER ON THE PROPERTY LINE OR WITHIN OR ON THE RESIDENTS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. SO IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE OF THE TREES THAT ARE DOWN THERE, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF QUALITY TREES. AND SO THE MASONRY WALL WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO BE PUSHED BACK BEYOND THAT TREE PERIMETER ZONE INTO THE PROPERTY. SO IN THIS CASE THERE COULD BE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A NO MAN'S LAND IN BETWEEN THE TWO OR, YOU KNOW, THE RESIDENTIAL FENCES COULD BE REMOVED WITH THE MASONRY WALL HERE. AND THEN THERE WOULD BE THAT KIND OF JUST OPEN AREA IN BETWEEN. SO THE MASONRY WALL WOULD NOT BE ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. IT WOULD NOT BE ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. IT WOULD BE PUSHED BACK OUTSIDE OF THE TREE PERIMETER ZONE FROM THE QUALITY TREE WOULD PROBABLY BE AT LEAST 15FT, BUT PROBABLY MORE LIKE 20, RIGHT? YEAH. I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK EXACTLY WHERE WHERE THE CLOSEST QUALITY TREE IS TO IN RELATION TO THE, THE, THE PROPERTY LINE. BUT SAY IF IT WAS TWO, THREE LIKE TWO FEET INSIDE THAT PROPERTY LINE ON THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, THEY'D HAVE TO PUSH THAT WALL 13FT INTO THE INTO THE MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY. AS A RESULT OF IF A MASONRY WALL IS ERECTED BY THE APPLICANT, WOULD THE HOMEOWNERS BE REQUIRED TO REMOVE THEIR FENCING OR COULD [00:30:04] THEY KEEP THEIR PRIVACY FENCING? IN ADDITION TO THAT, THEY COULD KEEP IT. IN ADDITION TO THAT, WITH THE PLAN THAT'S SHOWN IN FRONT OF YOU, THE REASON WHY THERE'S NO WALL NOTED THERE, AND THE PARKING COMES AS FAR SOUTH AS IT AS IT DOES, IS BECAUSE THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS JUST TO KEEP THE EXISTING CONDITIONS DOWN THERE. BUT YEAH, SO THEY COULD CHOOSE TO KEEP IT OR REMOVE IT. THANK YOU. ON THE WEST SIDE WHERE THE GREEN LINE STOPS THERE TOWARDS THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY, I KNOW THAT PART OF THAT'S FLOODPLAIN. IS THAT NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY SORT OF FENCING THERE OR AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED. NO. SO THERE WOULD BE. SO I GUESS, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE WESTERN PORTION OR THE SOUTHERN PORTION, THE WESTERN, WHERE THE GREEN LINE KIND OF STOPS THERE BEFORE YOU. YEAH, YEAH. SO THAT IS A HEAVILY TREED FLOODPLAIN. AND SO THERE ARE NO SCREENING REQUIREMENTS ALONG THAT. AGAIN, THAT PROPERTY TO THE WEST OF HERE, ACROSS THAT THAT CREEK, I BELIEVE IT IS ZONED FOR MULTI-FAMILY USES AND INTENDED TO BE PHASE TWO OF THIS CURRENTLY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. SO BECAUSE OF. BECAUSE OF THAT ORDINANCE AND I HAD TO DEAL WITH IT ON A PROJECT I WAS WORKING ON WHERE THAT 15 FOOT BUFFER RIGHT, KIND OF CREATES, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, LIKE A NO MAN'S LAND, BECAUSE IT'S SECTIONED OFF, YET IT'S STILL HAS TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE ORIGINAL OWNER, ETC. IS THERE ANY SORT OF COMPROMISE THAT COULD? IS THERE A WAY TO KEEP A FENCE? SORRY. IS THERE A WAY TO ERECT A MORE DURABLE COMMERCIAL GRADE FENCE ALONG THE SAME PROPERTY LINE AS IT IS NOW WITHOUT VIOLATING THAT THE ORDINANCE REGARDING THAT 15 FOOT BUFFER? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. SO THE EITHER THE TREES WOULD NEED TO BE REMOVED IN ORDER TO REPLACE THAT. WELL, AND THEY CAN'T BE WITH BECAUSE THERE IS NO VARIANCE THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR THE TREE PERIMETER ZONE CURRENTLY. SO THE WALL WOULD HAVE TO BE PUSHED INTO THE PROPERTY LINE, OR THE COMMISSION DOES HAVE THE OPTION TO APPROVE THE DESIGN EXCEPTION TO KEEP THE CURRENT FENCE THERE. SO THERE IS IT'S NOT JUST AN ARBITRARY, YOU KNOW, BIG BAD DEVELOPER TRYING TO SAVE MONEY SORT OF THING. IT'S REALLY YOU HAVE TO PUSH IT IN 15FT. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT DISTANCE IS, BUT THAT THAT CREATES A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO THEIR SITE PLAN AND DEVELOPABLE LAND. JAKE, DID YOU SAY THAT IF THEY REPLACED THE WOOD FENCE WITH A COMPLIANT FENCE, THAT THEY'D HAVE TO TAKE MORE TREES OUT STILL? THAT'S CORRECT. SO IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHERE THE QUALITY TREES ARE. SO THE QUALITY TREES WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ARE RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE. THAT WOULD DICTATE WHERE THEY CAN PUT THAT FENCE. IT IS LIKELY NOT GOING TO BE REPLACING THE EXACT, YOU KNOW, FENCE THAT'S UP THERE RIGHT NOW. SO IT WOULD LIKELY HAVE TO BE PUSHED INTO THE PROPERTY. AND THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REMOVE TREES THAT ARE NOT, I GUESS, DEEMED AS QUALITY TREES, WHICH WE HAVE A LIST OF QUALITY TREES WITHIN OUR CODE. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF QUALITY TREES, BUT ALSO A NUMBER OF NON QUALITY TREES. AND THOSE CAN BE REMOVED IF YOU WANT TO PUT THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN UP. I THINK THAT SHOWS US KIND OF PRETTY GOOD ILLUSTRATION. YEAH, IT IS A LITTLE GOING TO ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT HERE AT THE BOTTOM. YEAH. CAN WE ZOOM AT ALL. WE CAN NOT. SO ON OURS. KATELYN JAKE I HAVE A QUESTION GOING BACK TO THE PROPOSED SCREENING PLAN IN THAT SOUTHWEST CORNER WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING USING THE EXISTING WROUGHT IRON FENCE. THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR THE HOA PRESIDENT. I BELIEVE HE SAID THAT THAT GREEN SPACE AREA IS HOA PROPERTY AND IS CURRENTLY MAINTAINED BY THE HOA. SO SINCE THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING UTILIZING THE EXISTING FENCE, WOULD THAT THEN GIVE THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY ACCESS TO THAT GREEN SPACE OR WOULD THEY BE SHARING MAINTENANCE OF THAT? YEAH. SO THAT LOT IT IS A COMMON AREA OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOA. OKAY. AND SO I GUESS THAT'S THE PORTION OF THE STAFF REPORT THAT NOTES THAT THIS PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER IS NOT PROPOSED TO BE SCREENED BECAUSE THE SCREENING DEVICE IS COMPLETELY OFF THE PROPERTY AND INTO THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THEMSELVES. SO IT WOULD STILL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE COMMON AREA OR BY THE HOA, UNLESS IT WERE TO BE, YOU KNOW, SOLD OFF TO THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY HERE. YEAH. OKAY. AT [00:35:08] THANK YOU JAKE. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. DO WE HAVE ANY MOTIONS? I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DENY THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AS PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, SINCE IT DOESN'T CONFORM WITH SECTION 206C3 OF THE UDC. THANK YOU. I'LL SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WOODARD AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CASSINI TO DENY ITEM 240098 SP ANY FINAL DISCUSSION? THANK YOU, MR. COMMISSIONER MEMBER. KAZEEM, CAN YOU HIT THE SECOND BUTTON? SECOND MOTION. THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. THE MOTION TO DENY HAS BEEN PASSED AS COUNT OF 7 TO 0. [Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Rezone the Subject Property from “PD” - Planned Development District and “AG” Agricultural 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] LET'S MOVE NEXT TO ITEM NUMBER 240098. I'M SORRY. EXCUSE ME. 25003103. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS, ACT ON A REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM PD. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND AG AG TO PD GENERALLY TO ALLOW FOR INDUSTRIAL USES AT. LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF INDUSTRIAL AND AIRPORT DRIVE. ARI. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. DO YOU MIND MINIMIZING THE IMAGES, PLEASE? SORRY ABOUT THAT. THERE YOU GO. THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 200 ACRES HERE, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF INDUSTRIAL AND AIRPORT DRIVE, THE PROPOSED REZONING IS FROM PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND AG AGRICULTURAL TO PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE REZONING AIMS TO FACILITATE THE CONTINUATION OF THE EXPANSION OF ENCORE WIRES INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS LOCATED HERE EAST OF AIRPORT. ASSUME HERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES NEW MANUFACTURING FACILITIES AND TWO INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL TOWERS. AS PART OF THE REQUEST, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO MODIFY. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, TO MODIFY CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING THE REDUCED SEPARATION DISTANCE FOR LOADING BAYS, ADJUSTMENTS TO ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND INCREASE ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT. NOTABLY. CAN YOU HEAR ME? IT'S LIKE GOING OFF OKAY. NOTABLY, THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 100FT FOR AN INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING TOWER. I'VE HIGHLIGHTED HERE IN THIS KIND OF CONCEPTUAL PLAN WHERE THESE WOULD BE LOCATED, THIS THIS IS INCLUDED AS FAR AS THEIR REQUIREMENT, THEIR PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PD REGULATIONS. THE THIS IS TO ADDRESS POTENTIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THEIR PD REGULATIONS, WHICH ALSO INCORPORATES MEASURES FOR SAFEGUARDING ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THESE WERE INCLUDED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT FOR YOUR REVIEW. THE PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS IN THE AREA. ADDITIONALLY, THE REQUEST ALIGNS WITH THE INTENT OF THE BUSINESS AVIATION DISTRICT AS DESIGNATED IN THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. GIVEN THE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING USES, ALIGNMENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE REQUEST, THE REQUEST WOULD HAVE NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROPOSED REZONING AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST AND I STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ARI. YES. QUESTIONS, PLEASE. SO THE QUESTION I HAVE IS GIVEN THE PROXIMITY TO THE END OF THE RUNWAY, THERE'S NO CONCERNS ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWERS AND THE RUNWAY BEING SO CLOSE OR SO. THAT WOULD NOT BE SOMETHING THE CITY WOULD REVIEW. IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THE APPLICANT WOULD APPLY THROUGH THE AIRPORT AND THE FFA. THEY WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT THEIR OWN SEPARATE APPLICATION TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THEIR CONCEPT PLAN AND GET APPROVAL AS WELL. OKAY, THAT WOULD BE DONE AT A LATER DATE OR THEY'VE ALREADY STARTED THAT OR SO I'LL LET THE APPLICANT CONFIRM, BUT I BELIEVE THEY'VE ALREADY SUBMITTED THEIR REQUEST. OKAY. LET'S WAIT A COUPLE OF MINUTES. I'M SORRY. LET'S WAIT FOR HER. I CAN'T HEAR LET'S WAIT FOR DEIDRE. OKAY? OKAY. YOU'RE GOOD. GO AHEAD. YOUR QUESTIONS. NO. ANY QUESTIONS OF ARI? OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. THE APPLICANT IS HERE? YES. IF WE COULD HAVE THE APPLICANT UP NOW, PLEASE. THANK [00:40:07] YOU, I APPRECIATE. YOU NEED TO. GREG GERBIG, 7557 RAMBLER ROAD, DALLAS, TEXAS. I'M THE CIVIL ENGINEER WITH WESTWOOD DOING THE SURVEYING AS WELL. I WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. WE HAVE NOT SUBMITTED FOR THE FAA 7460. WE HAVE DONE VERY DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THAT, INCLUDING THE RUNWAY EXTENSION AND THE SETBACKS ON THAT. SO NO, IT IS NOT APPLIED FOR YET. AS I SAID, IT'S KIND OF A CONCEPTUAL PLAN. THERE WAS THOUGHT THAT WE MOVE IT CLOSER TO THE AIRPORT. DO WE MOVE IT CLOSER TO AIRPORT DRIVE. AND IT'S IN THE RIGHT SPOT WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE FOR FAA AND THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS NOW. IN GENERAL THERE, THIS MEETS THEIR GUIDELINES. THIS MEETS THEIR GUIDELINES. CORRECT. THAT'S ALL. JUST A GLANCE AT A BIRD'S EYE VIEW. THE PROPERTY SHOWS ME WHERE THE LOCATION OF THE TOWER RELATIVE TO THIS AND LOOKS LIKE THE TALLEST PART OF THIS IMPROVEMENT HERE WILL BE WEST OF THE DIRECT NORTH SIGHT LINE OF THE TOWER, SO THAT IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT WOULD IMPEDE A VIEW OF THE RUNWAY FROM THE TOWER. ANY PART OF IT? JUST ANECDOTALLY. A LITTLE COLOR TO WHY THE FAA GUIDELINES ARE IN PLACE. YEAH. ANY MORE QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION. YOU THIS ITEM DOES HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM TONIGHT? PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NONE. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I MOVE, WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE. ITEM 250031Z3. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER WILEY. SECOND. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HAMMOCK, WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE ITEM 250031Z3. ANY FINAL DISCUSSION, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. THE MOTION PASSES AND 250031Z3 IS APPROVED. THIS ACTION WILL BE FORWARDED ON TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION ON MAY 20TH, 2025. NEXT WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER THREE. [Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Rezone the Subject Property from “AG” - Agriculture District to “I1” - Light Industrial District, Located on the South Side of Old Mill Road and Approximately 1,500 Feet West of County Road 317] IT'S 250034Z. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS, ACT ON A REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM AG DISTRICT TO L1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OLD MILL ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 1500FT WEST OF COUNTY ROAD 317. ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT, SLIDE OVER HERE A LITTLE BIT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN. GOOD AFTERNOON. COMMISSION ROGER PALMER, PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM AG AGRICULTURE DISTRICT TO I-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT FOR INDUSTRIAL USES. HERE ON THIS SITE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE BUSINESS AVIATION DISTRICT WITHIN THE ONE MCKINNEY 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE LOCATIONS FOR NEW AND EXISTING BUSINESSES AND CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE VISIBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY OF SPUR 399, WHICH IS, IF YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP HERE, IT'S KIND OF THE WIDENED AREA THAT YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THERE THAT'S COMING THROUGH THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY WILL BORDER THE FUTURE EXPANSION OF SPUR 399 ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE, AND WILL PROVIDE DIRECT ACCESS FOR FUTURE TENANTS. ADDITIONALLY, ON THE PROPOSED I-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT IS CONTIGUOUS TO PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED I-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT DIRECTLY EAST OF THE SITE, AND WE WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE MCKINNEY NATIONAL AIRPORT, WHICH IS DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE SITE. SO JUST THE NORTH, WHERE IT SAYS THE AP AT IS THE NATIONAL AIRPORT. WITH THE PROPERTY'S CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED PROPOSED REZONING AND THE REQUEST, AND I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ROGER. YES, IT'S TIME FOR QUESTIONS. ANYBODY HAVE A QUESTION OF RODERICK? DID YOU SAY SPUR 399 IS GOING TO BE ALONG THAT SOUTH AND WESTERN? IT'S RIGHT THERE, JUST NORTH OF IT. NORTH OF IT? THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. OKAY. YEAH. SO THE PROPERTY IS ALONG THE SOUTHERN BORDER OF IT. THE OTHER [00:45:01] EXHIBITS, YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE IT, WHICH IS WHY I KIND OF PARKED IT ON THIS ONE. SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE SOME REMNANTS OF IT. IT'S JUST IT'S COMING ALONG IN THE FUTURE. SO YOU DON'T REALLY YOU CAN'T REALLY TELL IT WITH THE OTHER EXHIBITS. SO I WANTED TO KIND OF GIVE YOU SOME SOMEWHAT OF A VISUAL OF IT. YEAH. IS THE APPLICANT HERE. YEAH. OKAY. ANY ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF RODERICK? THANK YOU. RODERICK. NO PROBLEM. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS CLINT RICHARDSON. 1009 50 RESEARCH ROAD, FRISCO, TEXAS. 75 033 I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE GROUP THAT OWNS THIS TRACT OF LAND. WE JUST RECENTLY PURCHASED THIS LAND FROM THE TOWN OF FAIRVIEW. WE ALSO OWN THE TRACT OF LAND IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST. WE GOT INTO CONVERSATIONS AND IT JUST MADE SENSE TO KIND OF. GROW OUR SITE INTO THE PROPERTY THAT THEY OWN, THAT THEY WEREN'T UTILIZING. SO WE JUST RECENTLY CLOSED ON THAT PURCHASE WITH THEM. SO WE HAD, AND I GUESS PROBABLY A GOOD YEAR OR SO AGO, REZONE THE TRACT IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST TO INDUSTRIAL ONE ZONING. SO THIS ZONING IS JUST GOING TO MATCH THAT AND JUST ADD US A LITTLE BIT MORE DEVELOPABLE AREA FOR A PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. WE'RE LOOKING AT. WE HAVE POTENTIAL PURCHASER DEVELOPER WORKING WITH US RIGHT NOW ON A GOOD PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND WHICH WILL INCLUDE THIS TRACT. SO THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO GET IT ZONED SO IT MATCHES AND EVERYTHING IS COPACETIC ON THAT END OF THE WORLD. HOPE TO HAVE SOME SITE PLANS COMING BEFORE YOU GUYS NEXT FEW MONTHS. SO LOOK FORWARD TO THAT AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL TONIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OR CLINT. SO YOU MENTIONED YOU PURCHASED IT FROM THE TOWN OF FAIRVIEW. BUT THIS IS IT IS ACTUALLY WITHIN THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. YES. OKAY. IT'S OLD REMNANTS OF THE DUEL BETWEEN MCKINNEY AND FAIRVIEW. FAIRVIEW FROM WAY BACK WHEN. YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR COMING. OKAY. THIS ITEM DOES HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. IS ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? I SEE NONE. COULD WE HAVE A MOTION, PLEASE? MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE. ITEM 25034Z MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WOODARD. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? WAS THAT YOU, MR. CRAIG? YEAH. THIS WAY. OH, MUHAMMAD. EXCUSE ME. AND SECOND, BY MUHAMMAD. COMMISSIONER KASIM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND YOU SAID APPROVE THE ITEM ALSO. 250034Z. ANY FINAL DISCUSSION, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. MOTION PASSES TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE. ITEM 250034Z WITH A VOTE OF 7 TO 0 AND BE FORWARDED ON TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION ON JUNE 3RD, 2025. NEXT, [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: (1) correct typographical errors and make nonsubstantive editorial changes to Article 2 (Zoning Regulations), including Appendix 2B (McKinney Town Center MTC); and (2) Make Certain Substantive Changes to Article 2 (Zoning Regulations), Specifically to Appendix 2B (McKinney Town Center MTC)] WE'RE ON TO OUR LAST ITEM ON THE PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA. IT'S ITEM 25002. EXCUSE ME. 250002M AND THAT IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS, ACT ON AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 150 ENTITLED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AND TO MAKE CERTAIN SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO APPENDIX TWO. B CAMERON. YES. HELLO. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. SORRY, COULD NOT GET THE TITLE SHORTER. I TRIED, BUT THIS IS BASICALLY AN ADDENDUM TO THE MTC AMENDMENTS THAT YOU ALL SAW ABOUT TWO MONTHS AGO. THOSE AMENDMENTS WERE APPROVED BY COUNCIL ON MARCH 31ST. WE DID FIND THAT THERE WERE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA THAT NEEDED TO BE ADDED TO IMPLEMENT THE CHANGES. AND THEN WE ALSO MADE A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL MINOR TWEAKS FOR LANGUAGE CLARITY AS A REVIEW. THIS IS THE MTC, THE MCKINNEY TOWN CENTER ZONING DISTRICT. WE ARE IN IT. IT ENCOMPASSES THE HISTORIC DOWNTOWN AND HAS A LITTLE EXCLAVE AROUND THE COTTON MILL. THE CRITERIA THAT ARE BEING ADDED WITH THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT PRIMARILY ARE THE RECEPTION AND EVENT CENTER AND ALSO COMMERCIAL ENTERTAINMENT, INDOOR RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY CRITERIA. SO FOR THOSE EDGE DISTRICTS, THE ONES THE ORANGE, THE LIGHT PINK AND THE LIGHT BLUE, THOSE HAVE A 300 FOOT MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIREMENT FOR THESE ENTERTAINMENT USES FROM ANY SINGLE FAMILY. EXCUSE ME, FROM ANY RESIDENTIAL USE OR ZONE. AND THAT CAN BE REDUCED OR [00:50:02] ELIMINATED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE CRITERIA THAT WOULD PROHIBIT RETAIL SALES IN COMMUNITY GARDENS IN THE HISTORIC CORE. THAT IS KEEPING WITH THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE MTC. FOR TRANSPORTATION STATIONS, WE'RE ADDING CRITERIA TO MAINTAIN THE ORIGINAL LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS TO WHERE TRANSPORTATION STATION ENCOMPASSES A LOT OF THINGS, AND TAXIS AND SHUTTLE SERVICES WERE NOT INTENDED TO BE ALLOWED IN THE MTC. SO CRITERIA HAS BEEN ADDED THAT NOTES THAT THOSE ARE NOT ALLOWED. FINALLY, FOR VEHICLE REPAIR, MINOR IN ONE CHARACTER DISTRICT WE ADDED BACK IN THE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING SCREENING AND BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS ALONG PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY PEDESTRIAN STREETS. WITH THAT, THAT COVERS ALL OF THE CHANGES AND CRITERIA WE'RE ADDING, AND I STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. CAMERON. YES, QUESTIONS. ANYBODY. THANK YOU CAMERON. APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. THIS ITEM DOES HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR ITEM 25000 TO M. THANK YOU FOR YOUR MOTION, COMMISSIONER WOODARD. SECOND, PLEASE. SECOND, IS THAT CHARLES? YES. YOU'RE A LONG WAY FROM ME. I DON'T HEAR YOU. WELL, SECOND, BY COMMISSIONER WHATLEY, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE ITEM. 25002. EXCUSE ME. 250002M ANY FINAL DISCUSSION? COMMISSION MEMBER WHATLEY OR WOODARD, WILL YOU PLEASE MOTION. THERE WE GO. THANK YOU. YES. SHE DIDN'T HEAR YOU EITHER. SHE SAID NEXT TO YOU. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE. ITEM 250002M HAS PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 7 TO 0 AND WILL BE FORWARDED ON TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION ON MAY 20TH, 2025. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK, LIKE TO SPEAK ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA? OF COURSE THERE ARE NONE. ARE THERE [COMMISSION AND STAFF COMMENTS] ANY COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF? ONE COMMENT. NO. GO AHEAD. I JUST WANTED TO LET THE COMMISSION KNOW THAT ROGER PALMER, THIS IS HIS LAST MEETING WITH US. HE IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE LEAVING THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. HE'S BEEN A PLANNER WITH US FOR TWO YEARS AND WE ARE GOING TO MISS HAVING HIM. BUT WE'RE EXCITED FOR HIS NEW ADVENTURE AND ALL OF THE HARD WORK HE'S DONE WITH US. SO WE REALLY APPRECIATE RODERICK AND ALL HIS HARD WORK. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU ALL KNOW, YEAH, HE'S DONE A GREAT JOB. MUST BE FOR MORE MONEY OR CLOSE TO HOME? ONE OR THE OTHER. HE'S BEEN HERE. HOW LONG? TWO YEARS. HE'S BEEN HERE FOR TWO YEARS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE, RODERICK. WE'LL MISS YOU. THE ONLY PRESENTED TWICE. I HAVE TWO COMMENTS. SO FIRST, I'D LIKE TO WISH A BELATED HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY TO THE FELLOW CHAIRMAN. AND THANK YOU AS WELL AND ANY OTHER MOTHERS THAT WE HAVE IN THE AUDIENCE. I HOPE EVERYONE HAD A FABULOUS MOTHER'S DAY. AND SECONDLY, I KNOW I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET OUT AND VOLUNTEER AT THE CGA CUP FOR TH. BYRON NELSON HAD A FABULOUS TIME OUT THERE AND ALSO HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET OUT THERE AND GO OUT THERE AND ENJOY SOME GOLF. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO ADD SOME MORE COMMENTS TO AND HOW THE TURNOUT WAS THIS YEAR. I THINK IT WAS ANOTHER RECORD YEAR. SO WE'RE BLESSED AND FORTUNATE AND HOPE IT CONTINUES FOR MANY YEARS TO COME. AWESOME. OKAY, THAT CONCLUDES OUR BUSINESS. COULD WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? SO MOVED. THANK YOU CHARLES. SECOND. SECOND OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HAMMOCK. ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. SAY I, I ANY OPPOSED? THERE ARE NONE. MOTION PASSES. WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 6:55 P.M. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.