Jul 08, 2025 Planning & Zoning Commission

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:03]

WE'RE READY. TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO TURN UP MY HEARING AIDS. CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. IT'S JULY THE 8TH, 2025 AT 6:00 PM. WELCOME TO THE CITY OF MCKINNEY'S PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. JULY THE 8TH, 2025. TONIGHT I WILL ADVISE YOU WHETHER AN ITEM WILL BE HEARD ONLY BY THE COMMISSION OR PASSED ON TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL DETERMINATION. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM, PLEASE COMPLETE ONE OF THESE YELLOW SPEAKER CARDS AND TURN IT IN PRIOR TO THE ITEM BEING CALLED. WHEN IT'S YOUR TURN TO SPEAK, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND LIMIT YOUR REMARKS TO THREE MINUTES, PLEASE. YOU MAY SPEAK ONLY ONE TIME ON EACH AGENDA ITEM. THE COMMISSIONERS ALL REQUESTS THAT YOU BE RESPECTFUL AND CONCISE ON THE ISSUES. YOUR OPINIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO US AND 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 TO PUBLIC COMMENTS. DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON NONPUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS, SUCH AS OUR MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING? SEEING NO ONE. LET'S MOVE TO THE CONSENT ITEMS ON THE

[CONSENT ITEMS]

MY SECOND. IS THAT YOU, RUSSELL? I'M SORRY. YEAH. OKAY. RUSSELL. RUSSELL. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE OUR MINUTES OF LAST MEETING AND SECONDED BY RUSSELL. VOTE WILL COME UP IN A MOMENT. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. TO DO. OOPS. OKAY. THAT. YOU HAVE TO TAP IT. IF YOU WANT TO RAISE YOUR HAND, I CAN I. MOTION PASSES 7 TO 0. THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED FOR LAST

[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 Self Storage and Commercial Uses and Modify the Development Standards, Located at 2250 South Central Expressway (REQUEST TO BE TABLED)]

COMMISSION JAKE BENNETT, PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ITEM BE TABLED. AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED TO THE JULY 22ND PNC MEETING DUE TO A NOTIFICATION ERROR. AND I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS OF JAKE? IS THE APPLICANT HERE? DO WE NEED TO GET HIM UP? CYRUS. WHAT WAS WHAT WAS THE ERROR? THE NOTIFICATION SIGNS WERE NOT POSTED ON THE PROPERTY. WITHIN THE CORRECT TIME FRAME. I SEE.

OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT HERE WANTING TO SPEAK? THANK YOU. JAKE. OKAY. IF WE COULD HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. LET'S OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM TONIGHT? OKAY. SEEING NO ONE, A MOTION, PLEASE MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE ITEM. OKAY, RUSSELL, I'VE GOT YOU AS A MOTION TO APPROVE. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE ITEM. ONE MOMENT. IT ACTUALLY NEEDS TO BE CONTINUED. THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TABLE THE ITEM TO THE NEXT MEETING. OKAY. SORRY. MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONTINUE THE ITEM TO THE NEXT. OKAY, RUSSELL GOT YOUR MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONTINUE IT TO THE NEXT. IT NEEDS TO BE CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

CONTINUE THE PUBLIC, CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TABLE IT. I'M SO SORRY. VERY SPECIFIC.

THANK YOU. MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TABLE THE ITEM UNTIL JULY 22ND, 2025. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND? THANK YOU MUHAMMAD. LET'S HAVE A VOTE, PLEASE. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. YOU STILL NOT. YOU VOTE. YAY! WE GOT TO FIGURE IT OUT. OKAY? WE. THE ITEM IS CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING AND WILL BE REVISITED ON JULY 22ND, 2025. THE VOTE WAS 7 TO 0. NEXT WE

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Rezone the Subject Property from “PD” - Planned Development District to “C2” - Local Commercial District, Located on the East of North Custer Road and Approximately 690 Feet North of Easy Lane (REQUEST TO BE TABLED)]

[00:05:05]

PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. WE HAVE A VOTE OF 7 TO 0 TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THE NEXT

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request from the McKinney Housing Finance Corporation on Behalf of the City of McKinney to Rezone the Subject Property from “O1” - Office District to “PD” - Planned Development District, Located on the West Side of North Lake Forest Drive and Approximately 135 Feet North of Bridgeport Road (REQUEST TO BE TABLED)]

PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. THE VOTE IS 7 TO 0 TO CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING AT THE NEXT VISIT. AND

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Design Exception to a Site Plan (The Learning Experience), Located at 1900 Aviation Way]

CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS ACT ON A DESIGN EXCEPTION TO A SITE PLAN.

THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE LOCATED AT 1900 AVIATION WAY. STUART. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. STUART STORY PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1900 AVIATION WAY, AND THE APPLICANT REQUESTS A DESIGN EXCEPTION TO OUR RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY BUFFER FOR OFF STREET PARKING FROM 20FT TO 15FT. THIS STANDARD IS TYPICALLY REQUIRED WHEN A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY SHARES A BOUNDARY WITH A RESIDENTIAL USE OR ZONE. THE REDUCTION IS PROPOSED TO ESTABLISH A UNIFIED AND CONTINUOUS LANDSCAPE ALONG THE BOUNDARY, WITH PROPERTIES TO THE WEST AND TO THE EAST. THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE A TEN FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH CANOPY TREES EVERY 40FT, AND A SIX FOOT TALL MASONRY WALL SATISFYING ALL OTHER LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. GIVEN THAT THE PROPOSED REDUCTION WILL ENHANCE VISUAL CONSISTENCY ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THAT ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN THE UDC WILL BE MET, STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUEST SATISFIES THE APPLICABLE DESIGN EXCEPTION CRITERIA, AND AS SUCH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUEST. I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES. QUESTIONS OF STUART. SO THE LOTS TO THE SOUTH ARE THEY. THEY'RE NOT NOT DEVELOPED YET. SO THE LOTS TO THE SOUTH ARE GOING TO BE RESIDENTIAL LOTS. AND DURING THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING. OKAY. SO

[00:10:04]

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Rezone the Subject Property from “C2” - Local Commercial District to “PD” - Planned Development District, Located on the West Side of Trinity Falls Parkway and Approximately 3,400 feet North of the Intersection of the Trinity Falls Parkway and Laud Howell Parkway]

INCREASES THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF THE TOWER FROM 125FT TO 155FT, AND PROVIDES THREE ADDITIONAL CANOPY TREES ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE GROUND EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE, AS WELL AS INCREASING THE MASONRY ENCLOSURE MINIMUM HEIGHT TO EIGHT FEET. STAFF IS

[00:15:06]

WE DO ALLOW FOR TOWERS THIS SIZE AND EVEN UP TO 175FT UNDER THE CURRENT UDC. HOWEVER, THIS WOULD BE STRICTLY FOR INDUSTRIAL ZONINGS. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO, STEWART, LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT. THE HEIGHT OF IT IS WHAT YOU DISAPPROVE THE INCREASE TO THE HEIGHT AND THE REDUCTION OF THE SETBACK. OKAY, BUT YOU APPROVE THE REZONING. IT SAYS ON OUR NOTES. IT SAYS APPROVAL. SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING DENIAL JUST BECAUSE WITHIN THE ZONING IT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE INCREASE IN THE IN THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS CURRENTLY 125FT AND A REDUCTION OF THE SETBACKS FROM THE PROPERTY LINES, WHICH WOULD BE EQUAL TO THE HEIGHT OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER. AND THEY WOULD THEY'RE PROPOSING TO REDUCE IT TO 24.5FT. SO I UNDERSTAND THE FIRST PORTION OF IT AS FAR AS THE HEIGHT IS CONCERNED, 125 VERSUS WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, 150. THERE'S THE DISTANCE IS CONCERNED. IT HAS TO BE THE SAME NUMBER OF FEET BACK, WHATEVER THAT HEIGHT OF THAT TOWER IS. CORRECT? CORRECT. SO RIGHT NOW WHAT ARE THEY PROPOSING VERSUS WHAT IT SHOULD BE IS 150FT. RIGHT? RIGHT. YEAH. SO IT WOULD BE THE 150FT SETBACK WOULD BE THE STANDARD REQUIREMENT. AND THEY'RE PROPOSING TO REDUCE IT DOWN TO 24.5, 24.5FT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE OKAY. SO WHERE STEWART WHERE ON THIS I'M LOOKING AT THIS PLOT. WHERE EXACTLY WOULD THE TOWER GO ON THE ON THE ON THE EXHIBIT, THE SOUTHWEST CORNER. YEAH. SO IT'S GOING TO BE IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER. YOU CAN SEE HERE A LITTLE BIT BETTER. AND THEN THEY DID SUBMIT AN EXHIBIT KIND OF SHOWING WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE FROM FROM THE AIR. AND. OKAY.

WOULD YOU GO AHEAD. YES. I DID WANT TO MAKE THE COMMISSION AWARE ON THE NOTES THAT YOU'VE BEEN GIVEN THAT STAFF DOES RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED REZONING REQUEST. SO IF YOU WERE

[00:20:03]

A KEY A KEY TO UNDERSTANDING THE NEED FOR THIS IS KIND OF CRITICAL TO CONSIDERING THIS APPLICATION. I'M WONDERING IF THE ATTACHMENT AGENDA ATTACHMENT 11 WITH THE PROPAGATION MAPS IS AVAILABLE BY ANY CHANCE, OR IF NOT, I CAN JUST REFERENCE THEM IF YOU HAVE THEM. WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US PROPAGATION MAPS. LASHAWNA BRENDA, ARE Y'ALL ABLE TO PULL UP THAT ATTACHMENT 11. THE PROPAGATION MAPS. IT SHOULD BE ITEM 11. YEAH THAT ONE. JUST TO KIND OF GO OVER THIS IS FOR BOTH CAPACITY AND COVERAGE OBJECTIVES. THIS IS SHOWING THE CURRENT COVERAGE AREA. AND THEN THIS IS SHOWING THE. OKAY THIS IS THE CURRENT COVERAGE AREA.

AND THEN THIS IS THE CURRENT FOOTPRINT OF EACH SITE. WITH EACH SITE HAS KIND OF A PIE SHAPE FROM EACH SECTOR. THIS IS WITH THE SITE ON AIR. YOU CAN SEE HOW IT FILLS IN THE AREA BETWEEN THE EXISTING THREE SITES. THERE'S ONE TO THE SOUTH AND THEN ONE TO THE NORTHEAST AND ONE TO THE NORTHWEST. AND THEN THE SAME WITH THE BEST SERVER PLOT. ITS SERVICE FOOTPRINT WILL FILL IN THE AREA IN BETWEEN THOSE SITES, AND OFFLOAD SOME OF THE CAPACITY FROM THE SURROUNDING TOWERS. HERE'S A MAP SHOWING WHERE THE EXISTING LOCATIONS ARE. THESE SURROUNDING LOCATIONS HAVE ANTENNAS. ANTENNA CENTER LINES OF 190, 194 AND 196, AND IT'S BEEN LABELED ON THAT MAP, KIND OF WHERE VERIZON IS IN TERMS OF HEIGHT ON EACH OF THOSE, THEIR DESIRE WAS TO HAVE A SIMILAR HEIGHT IN THIS AREA TO FILL IN BETWEEN. SO WE'RE PROPOSING 155 WITH VERIZON CENTER LINE AT 150. AND THAT'S A CONSIDERABLE STEP DOWN FROM WHERE THEY WANT TO BE TO MEET THEIR OBJECTIVES. AND THEY HAD ADVISED US THEY CANNOT GO ANY LOWER THAN THAT AT ALL.

AND SO THAT'S WHY WE PERSISTED WITH THE PROPOSED HEIGHT THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. I HAVE A QUESTION. YEAH. AS IT I'M VERY, VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS AREA. AND SO AS IT PERTAINS, I'M NOT LOOKING AT AN ETJ VERSUS CITY LIMIT TYPE MAP. BUT THE OTHER TOWERS, THEY SEEM YOU SAID THEY'RE IN THE 170 RANGE OR ARE THEY 150, 100 AND THEY'RE TALLER. THE VERIZON CENTER LINES AT THOSE LOCATIONS ARE 190, 194 AND 196. ARE YOU SAID THAT? YEAH, I APOLOGIZE. AND HOW FAR DO YOU DO YOU KNOW HOW FAR THEY ARE AWAY? THE ONE ON THE UPPER LEFT IS THE SKYWAY TOWER. IT'S NOT TOO FAR FROM THE NEW MCKINNEY WATER TOWER IN THAT RESIDENTIAL AREA UP THERE. AND THAT ONE, THAT LOCATION IS ABOUT 2KM OR 6560FT AWAY FROM THIS PROPOSED LOCATION. NO, NO, I'M SAYING, HOW FAR ARE THEY AWAY FROM THE CLOSEST? HOW FAR ARE THEIR SETBACKS? ESSENTIALLY? OH, SETBACKS. YEAH. I'M NOT I'M NOT SURE ON THOSE. WE DID WE DID SUBMIT AND I DIDN'T SEE IT AS

[00:25:04]

SO WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO POSITION THIS, THIS MONOPOLE ON THE ON THE LOT TO ACHIEVE THE 150 FOOT SETBACK THAT IT WOULD BE WITH THE SIZE OF THE LOT THAT THAT WOULD PUT IT WAY OUT IN THE MIDDLE. THAT'S A FAIRLY SMALL LOT. SO WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF ROOM TO WORK WITH. AND IN TERMS OF OTHER POTENTIALS, MOST OF THE PROPERTY IN THIS AREA IS ALREADY KIND OF PLANNED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, OR THE OWNERS WANT TO KIND OF HOLD IT IN RESERVE TO SEE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH IT. THEY DON'T WANT TO COMMIT TO HAVING TOWER SOMEWHERE IN WHATEVER THEIR FUTURE RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN MIGHT BE. SO. SO THIS IS KIND OF OUR ONLY ONLY OPTION HERE, AND IT'S FAIRLY CONSTRAINED. SO THAT'S WE'RE ON THE SKYWAY TOWERS TO THE NORTHWEST. THE CITY WATER TANK IS NOT AN OPTION. AND THEN TO THE SOUTH WE LOOKED AT THE SUBSTATION LOCATION, BUT THAT WAS GETTING TOO CLOSE TO THE TOWER TO THE SOUTH. SO REALLY WE KIND OF NEED TO BE EQUIDISTANT, KIND OF RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE IN THIS. ARE YOU ARE YOU AWARE, ARE YOU AWARE OF OTHER EXCEPTIONS THAT THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED LIKE THIS? I'M NOT AWARE WITH RESPECT TO THE PD THING. I KNOW WE DID A SITE OVER AT THE FIR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. WE ATTEMPTED ONE THERE AND THEN WE SHIFTED TO THE CITY PARK LAND ADJACENT TO THAT. AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS DONE AS A PD AS WELL. BUT I DON'T THINK IT REQUIRED LIKE THE SETBACK EXCEPTION, IF THAT'S THE PART THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. OKAY. AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM WE'RE RUNNING INTO IS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE NEED. IT'S THIS NEED FOR THE WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S KIND OF MISSING FROM THE STAFF REPORT'S ANALYSIS. THIS SITE IS GOING TO SERVE THE DAILY COMMUNICATIONS NEEDS OF RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES, PEOPLE THAT ARE WORKING AT HOME, LEARNING AT HOME, AND ALSO IN TERMS OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY SERVICES. IT'LL BE THERE FOR 911 CALLS, AMBER ALERTS, WEATHER ALERTS, ALL OF THAT KIND OF STUFF. SO I THINK THE NEED IS A FACTOR THAT SHOULD BE KIND OF BALANCED WITH ALL OF THIS AS WELL. AND SO THERE'S ONE RESIDENCE. THERE'S ONE RESIDENCE TO THE NORTH THAT I ASSUME IS NOT IMPACTED IN ANY WAY. YEAH. THIS IS AS FAR AS COULD BE ON THE PROPERTY AWAY FROM THAT LOCATION. AND EVERYONE WAS WAS NOTICED PROPERLY AND THE SIGNS POSTED. I JUST CHECKED THEM TONIGHT AS WELL. AND WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY OPPOSITION THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF THE PROCESS. AND I THINK IN TERMS OF PUBLIC RECEPTION, IT'S A RECOGNIZED NEED. AND IF IT'S IF IT'S THERE FIRST AND PEOPLE DEVELOP AFTERWARDS, IT'S USUALLY A DIFFERENT PICTURE THAN WHEN IT GOES THE OTHER WAY AROUND. I THINK IT'S OF NOTE THAT THE CITY'S WATER TOWER TO THE NORTH IS 225 FOOT TALL AND VERY CLOSE TO RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD SURVIVE A STAFF ANALYSIS ON THESE SAME PRINCIPLES. SO I THINK THE NEED FOR THE WATER BASED INFRASTRUCTURE KIND OF OUTWEIGHED SIMILAR CONSIDERATIONS. IN THAT CASE, YOU MENTIONED THAT THE OWNERS, THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE OUT OF TOWN. ARE YOU AWARE OF THE ARE YOU AWARE OF THE PLANS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON ON THIS PLOT? I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE ANY SPECIFIC PLANS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, BUT THEY'RE AGREEABLE. THEY WERE AGREEABLE TO THE REZONING TO SEE TO. IT WAS AG FIRST AND WE REZONED IT TO C2 PREVIOUSLY. AND NOW THIS REZONING TO PUD THEY'RE AGREEABLE TO AND THAT THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH DEVELOPMENT ALONG THOSE LINES. OKAY. BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY SPECIFIC PLANS THAT I'M AWARE OF AT THIS TIME. OKAY. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR ADDRESS ANYONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT INFORMATION. THANK YOU. THIS ITEM DOES HAVE A PUBLIC

[00:30:01]

DO WE HAVE A MOTION, PLEASE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BY JAMES. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND, SECOND.

RUSSELL. EXCUSE ME. MUHAMMAD SECOND BY MUHAMMAD TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. THE VOTE IS 7 TO 0 TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION NOW? DO WE NEED STEWART BACK UP? I'LL JUST MAKE A COMMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHY THE WHY THE STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED DENIAL GIVEN GIVEN THE LOCATION AND THE NEED AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES AROUND IT. I WOULD ARGUE THAT APPROVAL OF THIS WOULD BE IN ORDER. BUT AND TO GRANT THE EXCEPTION, THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. I'D LIKE TO SAY I SEE BOTH SIDES OF IT, 110% FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. WHEN IT COMES TO DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVING A LARGE COMMUNITY WITH A LOT OF ROOFTOPS AND BUSINESSES, ETC. AND NOT HAVING ADEQUATE. INFRASTRUCTURE BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE AND YOU THOUGHT IT WAS AN EYESORE OR WHATEVER. YOU KNOW, WE'VE EXPERIENCED THAT AND IT'S BEEN A BURDEN ON THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. WITH THAT BEING SAID, YOU KNOW, I'D ALSO SAY THAT THE CHALLENGE IS GOING TO BE THAT THIS AREA IS PRIME, RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF GROWTH. IT'S COMING SOON. AND. IF A TOUGH DECISION LIKE THIS ISN'T MADE NOW. IT'S IN THE FUTURE. IT'S GOING TO BE TWICE AS HARD AS AS THE GENTLEMAN POINTED OUT. YOU KNOW, IT'S A LOT MORE CONDUCIVE TO GET SOMETHING LIKE THIS APPROVED OR DONE WHEN THERE'S NOT A BUNCH OF ROOFTOPS ALL OVER THE PLACE. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE ROOFTOPS COME LATER. AND EVERYONE WAS AWARE, THEY STILL FELT LIKE THERE WAS IT DIDN'T BOTHER THEM ENOUGH TO NOT PURCHASE THE HOME OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. BUT, I MEAN, I THINK THERE'S A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS TRANSITION. I KNOW IN, IN MY BUSINESS, IN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, WHERE, YOU KNOW, FOR 20 YEARS IT'S BEEN KEEP, KEEP THOSE TOWERS AS FAR AWAY FROM MY, YOU KNOW, PROPERTY AS POSSIBLE. IT JUST HURTS MY VALUE. ET CETERA. ET CETERA. ET CETERA. AND NOW THAT WE'RE ALL, YOU KNOW, ADDICTED TO OUR IPADS AND IPHONES AND LAPTOPS, ETC, I'VE SEEN, YOU KNOW, A HUGE DEMAND, A HUGE NEED FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND ALSO KIND OF A CHANGE IN PERSPECTIVE AS IT PERTAINS TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS PROBLEMATIC OR WHAT YOU KNOW, WHAT'S AN EYESORE OR THE PROS AND CONS VERSUS THE, YOU KNOW, THE EYESORE FROM A FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT. AND I DON'T KNOW WHO THIS QUESTION SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO, BUT FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT, BECAUSE FIRST AND FOREMOST, THAT'S THAT'S WHAT MATTERS ABOVE ALL ELSE. WHAT ARE THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH. A TOWER OF THIS SIZE? TO ANY SORT OF HARM IT COULD CAUSE RESIDENTS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY OR ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC? YEAH, I HAD A QUESTION FOR STEWART OR KATE.

YES. STEWART, WOULD YOU COME BACK UP, PLEASE? THE UDC, I UNDERSTAND, IS REQUIRES A SETBACK EQUAL TO THE HEIGHT OF IT. WAS THAT DONE WITH THE NEW DESIGN OF THESE MONOPOLE WERE MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY COLLAPSED IN ON THEMSELVES RATHER THAN FALLING OVER. WAS IT WAS THOSE WERE THOSE REQUIREMENTS DONE AFTER THE ADVENT OF THE NEWER DESIGNS OR. IT'S A GREAT QUESTION. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE. EXACTLY. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME, IF IT WAS UPDATED WITH THE LAST UPDATE OF THE UDC, OR IF IT WAS JUST KIND OF BROUGHT ON FROM WHAT WAS ALREADY EXISTING, OKAY,

[00:35:06]

WHAT IS THAT? IT'S TO THE WEST OR TO THE WEST IS A PD THAT ALLOWS FOR BOTH COMMERCIAL ZONING OR COMMERCIAL USES. AND IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR A MULTIFAMILY USES. IT IS CURRENTLY MOSTLY UNDEVELOPED, A LITTLE BIT TO THE SOUTH. IT DOES KIND OF BRANCH OUT INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY, AND THERE IS A SMALL RETAIL MULTI-TENANT BUILDING AND CAN'T REALLY SEE IT THERE. BUT YEAH, IT IS MOSTLY UNDEVELOPED STILL. AND IT'S CONTIGUOUS LOT TO THE SOUTH. AG RIGHT NOW FOR SINGLE FAMILY, THAT HOUSE LOOKS LIKE IT'S BEYOND THAT SETBACK. YOU KNOW. I HAVE A QUESTION FROM HOUSES BEYOND IT. YEAH. PROBABLY BE DEVELOPED UP TO THAT DITCH. BUT I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. YES. WOULD YOU COME BACK UP PLEASE. YES, SIR. AS IT PERTAINS TO SAFETY OR AS IT PERTAINS TO. WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING EARLIER ABOUT THE KIND OF POLE THAT, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, FALLS IN ON ITSELF. RIGHT. WHAT DO YOU HAVE PLANNED FOR THIS ONE? WE HAVE THIS DESIGN WITH A ZERO FALL ZONE. I DO HAVE A STAMPED ENGINEER LETTER. AND I THINK WE SUBMITTED IT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE ATTACHMENTS OF YOUR AGENDA. I CAN I CAN PASS IT AROUND. WE GOT LIKE THREE COPIES OF IT. LET'S GET IT SHIFTED DOWN A LITTLE. AND THAT WAS JUST PROVIDED TO KIND OF PROVIDE EXTRA ASSURANCE WITH THAT SHORTER SETBACK ON THE REAR.

OVER. THEN THAT WOULD FOLLOW THE SOUTH AND TO THE EAST. WE'VE GOT CLEARANCE TO THE EAST OF THE ROAD. I ONLY HAD THREE. SO I CAN SHIFT ONE DOWN. YOU WANT TO SEE? YEAH. GOT IT. OKAY. MUHAMMAD NEEDS ONE. THANK YOU.

IN THIS AREA, WHEN THESE THINGS DO FAIL AND FALL HORIZONTALLY, DO YOU HAVE ANY DATA THAT SUGGESTS THAT IT MIGHT TEND TO FALL IN A CERTAIN DIRECTION? YOU KNOW, I DON'T. IT WOULD JUST DEPEND ON LIKE A WIND DIRECTION IF IT WAS A TORNADO OR SOMETHING, IF IT WAS SOMETHING STRONG ENOUGH TO DISRUPT THE POLE, IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO TAKE THE HOUSES OR UTILITIES OR WHATEVER ELSE IS AROUND PRETTY CLOSE TO YOU, BECAUSE USUALLY THESE THINGS ARE DESIGNED WITH A LOT MORE RESISTANCE. I'M KIDDING. I'M KIND OF GETTING THAT ANECDOTALLY THAT OUR STRAIGHT LINE WINDS, THE STRONGER WINDS, TEND TO COME FROM THE WEST NORTHWEST, YOU KNOW, SO WERE IT TO FALL HORIZONTALLY IT MIGHT GO EASTERLY. YEAH. AND IF IT DID GO IN THAT DIRECTION IT WOULD BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE PROPERTY. I'M CURIOUS FROM STANDARDS OF

[00:40:01]

HOWEVER IT CANNOT BE USED TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT OKAY. SO IN ORDER TO REQUEST THE HEIGHT EXTENSION THEY HAD TO GO PD AS OPPOSED TO AS OPPOSED SPECIAL USE PERMIT. CORRECT I KNOW. THANK YOU AGAIN STEWART. OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE HAVE A MOTION. ANY MOTIONS PLEASE? ACTUALLY, I DO HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. I'M LOOKING. IT'S HARD TO PROJECT WHAT THESE FUTURE USES ARE GOING TO BE, BECAUSE SO MUCH OF IT IS IN THE ETJ TODAY AND IS NOT ZONED, BUT THE ONE SPECIFIC. THE ONE SPECIFIC PD THAT'S ADJACENT TO THIS. I'M TRYING TO GET AN IDEA ON HOW MUCH MORE DISTANCE THEY WOULD NEED IN ORDER TO MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. IS THERE A WAY? THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN? I'M TRYING TO FIND A SURVEY TO JUST SEE WHAT THAT DISTANCE IS. OKAY, STEWART, CAN YOU ANSWER THAT? I'M SORRY. CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? IN RELATION

[00:45:08]

YEAH, IT'S A BOUNDARY LINE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THIS PROPERTY IS 226FT. SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ACHIEVE 150 FOOT SETBACK FROM ANY BOUNDARY, RIGHT? YEAH. AN EAST WEST BOUNDARY. OKAY. BARELY ON THE NORTH SOUTH BOUNDARIES. RIGHT. I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS. ANYBODY ELSE? THANK YOU AGAIN STEWART. APPRECIATE IT OKAY. IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION. OR A MOTION PLEASE. I GUESS I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO.

APPROVE THE ITEM AGAINST STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. OKAY. RUSSELL, I'VE GOT YOU FOR APPROVING ITEM 250017Z. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY DEIDRA. WE'LL HAVE A VOTE.

COMMISSIONER MEMBER BUCKNER, WILL YOU PLEASE. MOTION. THANK YOU. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. THE ITEM IS APPROVED AT 6 TO 1 AND WILL BE FORWARDED ON TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION ON AUGUST THE 5TH, 2025. NEXT WE COME TO OUR LAST PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM. THAT'S 250078Z.

[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 Multi-Family Residential Uses and Modify the Development Standards, Located 2901 McKinney Ranch Parkway]

HERE YOU CAN SEE THE EXHIBIT WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. 2901 MCKINNEY RANCH PARKWAY. THE REQUEST, WHILE IT IS DESIGNATED PD, DOES ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY USES. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE TO A PD TO MODIFY ONE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARD, WHICH IS TO REDUCE THE PARKING FROM TWO UNITS TO PARKING SPACES PER UNIT TO A 1.75 PARKING SPACE PER UNIT. THE REQUEST IS NOT ASKING FOR ANY ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO THE PD, JUST THIS ONE SPECIFIC CHANGE.

STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE REQUEST AND THE PROPOSED PARKING ACTUALLY ALIGNS WITH OUR CURRENT UDC, WHICH WAS RECENTLY ADOPTED NOT TOO LONG AGO. THE 1.75. THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST AND I STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. ARI, I HAD A QUESTION. HOW MANY PARKING SPACES DOES THIS REDUCE THE PROJECT BY? IS IT ABOUT 8587? SO WE'RE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE MAX AMOUNT OF UNITS ALLOWED. THAT'S 350. SO WE'RE GOING FROM A REQUIRED TO PER PER ONE UNIT.

THAT'S 700 PARKING SPACES TO 613 FOR THAT 1.75. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 8087 ROUGHLY OKAY. THANK YOU ARI. WAS THIS WAS THIS ITEM THIS THIS WAS WE SAW THIS BEFORE. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT, SIR. YES. AND CAN YOU REMIND ME WHAT WHAT TRANSPIRED. WHAT WHAT WAS DONE WITH IT THEN? AND I'M SORRY. I'M NOT SURE. YEAH. WHAT WHAT WAS THE ZONING CHANGE OR REQUEST WHEN WE SAW IT

[00:50:08]

I THINK IT REQUIRES ABOUT 55% OF THE UNITS HAVE TO BE. LET ME JUST VERIFY THAT FOR YOU HERE. A MAXIMUM OF 55 RESIDENTIAL ARE PERMITTED TO BE ONE BEDROOM UNITS OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE FOR ARI? IT SEEMS NOT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT HERE THIS EVENING? YES. WOULD YOU COME FORWARD, PLEASE? THANK YOU. COMMISSION. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN MITCHELL HONZIK, 1523 OAKDALE STREET, HOUSTON, TEXAS. DO WE BY CHANCE HAVE THE EXHIBIT THAT WE SENT IN? OH, I CAN JUST DO THIS. YEAH. OKAY. SORRY. THERE WE GO. SO I THINK THIS ILLUSTRATES WHAT WE'RE DOING, WHICH IS JUST SHRINKING THE PARKING GARAGE. THAT WAS PART OF THE PD REQUIREMENT. THE SITE WILL BE AMPLY PARKED AT 1.75 SPACES PER UNIT. THE REASON WE WENT THROUGH THE EXISTING PD AT TWO SPACES PER UNIT WAS SIMPLY TO CONFORM WITH THE EXISTING MF 30 STANDARD. I THINK THIS CHANGE RESULTS IN A BETTER SITE PLAN FROM A VARIETY OF PERSPECTIVES.

WE CONSTRUCT LESS CONCRETE. WE'RE ABLE TO PROVIDE MORE TREE ISLANDS. IT'S LESS COSTLY, AND WE ACTUALLY OPENED UP A LITTLE GREEN SPACE TO THE SOUTH OF THAT PARKING AREA. IS ANY OF THE PERIMETER CHANGING? LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE WERE HERE BEFORE, IT WAS WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS COVERED PARKING OR ENCLOSED PARKING OR NOT. AND THE FENCE BARRIER, NONE OF THAT'S CHANGIN.

EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF THE PROJECT REMAINS EXACTLY THE SAME, EXCEPT FOR THE SIZE OF THE PARKING GARAGE AND WHAT YOU SEE HAPPENING IN THE PARKING AREA IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH. OKAY.

THANK YOU. THIS TREE ISLANDS, THE GREEN SPACE. ANYBODY ELSE? NO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. THIS ITEM DOES HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK TONIGHT ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE. WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR EMOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS ITEM. THANK YOU. JAMES, WE HAVE A MOTION BY JAMES TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE ITEM 250078. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? GINA. THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE ITEM. DO WE HAVE ANY FINAL DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. THE MOTION DOES PASS. THE ITEM IS APPROVED A VOTE OF 7 TO 0, AND WILL BE FORWARDED ON TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION ON AUGUST THE 5TH, 2025. THIS CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY MATTER THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA? ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM STAFF OR COMMISSIONERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK NOW? SEEING NONE, DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT?

[PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA]

[00:55:04]

[COMMISSION AND STAFF COMMENTS]

THANKS FOR YOUR COMMENT, DEIDRA. ANYBODY ELSE? MOTION. I MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. REGINA.

MOTION. SECOND. SECOND. RUSSELL. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR OF MOTION TO ADJOURN, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THERE ARE NONE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.