Consider/Discuss/Act on an Ordinance Amending Chapter 70 (Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions) of the McKinney Code of Ordinances to Incorporate a New Article, Entitled “Article XII (Physical Occupancy within Downtown Public Spaces)”

[Consider/Discuss/Act on an Ordinance Amending Chapter 70 (Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions) of the McKinney Code of Ordinances to Incorporate a New Article, Entitled “Article XII (Physical Occupancy within Downtown Public Spaces)”]

PASSES. NEXT ITEM 253302. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 70 OF THE MCKINNEY CODE OF ORDINANCES TO INCORPORATE A NEW ARTICLE ENTITLED ARTICLE 12 PHYSICAL OCCUPANCY WITHIN DOWNTOWN PUBLIC SPACES, MISS ARNOLD. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THERE IT IS. OKAY, SO WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS ITEM A COUPLE OF TIMES BEFORE AT A PREVIOUS WORK SESSION, AS WELL AS THE SEPTEMBER MEETING. WE DID COMMIT TO BRINGING THESE ITEMS BACK AT TONIGHT'S MEETING, ALONG WITH THAT COMPANION ITEM ON THE BROADER BETTER TOGETHER INITIATIVE. SO THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE AMENDMENT WOULD ADDRESS THE OCCUPANCY OF PUBLIC SPACES IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA ONLY BY AMENDING CHAPTER 70, WHICH ALREADY INCLUDES A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT OFFENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS FOR THE CITY. SO, AS PROPOSED, THE PHYSICAL OCCUPANCY WITH DOWNTOWN SPACES ORDINANCE WOULD MAKE IT AN UNLAWFUL FOR SOMEBODY TO SLEEP OR LIE DOWN IN PUBLIC SPACES. SO THAT WOULD BE A PUBLIC STREET, A PUBLIC SIDEWALK, ANYTHING THAT IS NOT MEANT TO BE SAT ON. SO WE DID, FROM THE LAST DISCUSSION, MODIFY THE ALLOWANCES WITHIN THAT ORDINANCE SO THAT IF THERE IS A BENCH, AN ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE, OR A CHAIR THAT IS MEANT TO BE USED FOR THAT SORT OF PURPOSE, THAT WOULD STILL BE PERMITTED. THIS IS PRIMARILY TARGETED AT LAYING DOWN SLEEPING IN PUBLIC SPACES. WE HAVE ALSO MODIFIED IT SO THAT THE SITTING COMPONENT IS REALLY, REALLY TAILORED TO PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY AND STREETS, WHICH OBVIOUSLY WE SEE AS A SAFETY CONCERN IN GENERAL. WHAT THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT NECESSARILY PROHIBIT IS FROM SOMEBODY ENJOYING A PUBLIC PARK OR A PARADE OR A SPECIAL EVENT THAT'S HAPPENING IN DOWNTOWN. AS PROPOSED, THIS ORDINANCE WOULD HAVE A ONE YEAR SUNSET CLAUSE SO THAT WE CAN MONITOR HOW ITS ENFORCEMENT IS GOING AND HOW IT'S WORKING OR NOT WORKING AT THE COUNCIL'S DISCRETION. OF COURSE, ANY TIME DURING THAT ONE YEAR INITIAL PERIOD, IF THE COUNCIL IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE WAY THAT IT IS OPERATING, THEY CAN ALWAYS ASK FOR STAFF TO BRING IT BACK FORWARD TO RECONSIDER THE ORDINANCE. THE ONE THING I DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT IS WHAT THIS ORDINANCE DOES, IS IT PUTS SOME PARAMETERS OR SOME TOOLS IN THE TOOL BELT FOR THE CITY DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT STAFF AND POLICE ENFORCEMENT ARE GOING TO GO OUT TOMORROW AND START LAYING DOWN THE HAMMER. IT IS ONE OF THOSE TOOLS, AGAIN, THAT WE SEE THAT MAY BE BENEFICIAL, AS WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS CERTAIN BEHAVIORS IN AND AROUND DOWNTOWN, BUT WE DEFINITELY RECOGNIZE THAT IT'S ONE THAT NEEDS TO BE MONITORED CLOSELY.

IF IT IS APPROVED DURING THAT INITIAL ONE YEAR PERIOD AND POTENTIALLY REEVALUATE IT IF WE NEEDED. WITH THAT. OH, MY APOLOGIES. JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AREA DOES ALIGN WITH THE MTC ZONING DISTRICT, SO IT WOULD STRICTLY BE WITHIN THAT DOWNTOWN AREA, AND THAT WOULD BE CODIFIED WITH THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. AND WITH THAT, I THINK THAT'S MY LAST SLIDE. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. IF NOT, WE RECOMMEND YOUR FAVORABLE ACTION ON THE ITEM. JENNIFER, DOES THE THE SLEEPING OUTSIDE. IS THAT APPLIED ONLY TO PUBLIC SPACES, OR IS THAT ON ANY SPACE THAT WOULD BE PUBLIC SPACES ONLY.

I'M LOOKING AT JEREMY. THANK YOU. THAT'S CORRECT. SO SOMEONE WHO LIVES IN THIS AREA, WHO SLEEPS IN A HAMMOCK IN THEIR FRONT YARD, AND IN TERMS OF PUBLIC SPACES, ARE WE DEFINING THAT IN THE WAY THAT WE DEFINED PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE SPACES? THERE IS A DEFINITION OF THE PUBLIC SPACES IN THE ORDINANCE. LET ME PULL IT OUT HERE, AND I WANT TO READ IT SO THAT I DON'T MISREPRESENT IT. HERE. THAT WOULD BE A STREET, SIDEWALK, MEDIAN, PARKWAY, OR PEDESTRIAN RIGHT OF WAY, OR ANY OBJECT OR STRUCTURE PLACED THERE OR THEREIN, OR SITS ON A STREET OR MEDIAN. SO THE LYING DOWN IS A LITTLE BIT BROADER. THE SITTING IS WHERE IT'S VERY LIMITED TO

[00:45:05]

JUST THE STREETS AND PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY. BUT THE ASLEEP, THE ASLEEP WOULD BE, I'M SORRY, ASLEEP, OUTDOORS, LYING DOWN ON A STREET, SIDEWALK, MEDIAN, PARKWAY OR PEDESTRIAN RIGHT OF WAY, OR SITS ON A STREET OR MEDIAN. SO DOES THE THE SLEEP DOES NOT HAVE THE RESTRICTION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OR ANYTHING. IT'S JUST SLEEPING, BEING ASLEEP. THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. I'LL LOOK AT JEREMY. THANK YOU. SECTION SENDING US TO JEREMY PAGE. I WORK IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. SECTION 7251 HAS IT SO THAT THIS ORDINANCE ONLY APPLIES TO THE AREAS THAT JENNIFER MENTIONED STREET SIDEWALKS, MEDIANS, PARKWAYS, AND PEDESTRIAN RIGHT OF WAYS. SO PUBLICLY, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ALL PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE SPACES LIKE THE CAMPING ORDINANCE. SO AGAIN, THIS WOULD NOT COVER PRIVATE PROPERTY AS IN SOMEONE'S FRONT YARD AS IN THE EXAMPLE THAT YOU PROVIDED FOR A PORTICO OF A CHURCH. OKAY, PRIVATE. YEAH, THAT WOULD BE PRIVATE CRIMINAL TRESPASSING IF THEY WANTED TO. YEAH. AND SO IF THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD BE PRIVATE PROPERTY. AND SO IF PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE THAT PERSON, BUT THAT WOULD NOT BE A VIOLATION OF THIS, OF THIS ORDINANCE. OKAY.

OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS. ANYONE HAVE A MOTION? LET ME MAKE A COMMENT THAT I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION IF THAT'S OKAY. THESE ORDINANCES HAVE REASONS WHY THEY'RE HERE. AND. I'M THE COUNCIL LIAISON TO THE MAIN STREET, WHICH IS THE BUSINESSES DOWNTOWN AND RESIDENTS DOWNTOWN.

AND I'VE OFFICE DOWNTOWN FOR 28 YEARS. THE ISSUES WE HAVE TODAY ARE DIFFERENT. AND THEY ARE. I HAVE ONE PERSON WHO'S ALREADY CLOSED THEIR BUSINESS IN THE MTC BECAUSE THEIR CUSTOMERS WERE AFRAID TO COME HERE. THIS GOES TO BOTH ORDINANCES. WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY, BUT THERE IS SOMETHING THAT I'VE OFTEN REFERRED TO AND I DIDN'T MAKE IT UP. I READ IT SOMEWHERE CALLED THE SOCIAL CONTRACT. THAT'S UNWRITTEN HOW WE BEHAVE, HOW WE SHOULD BEHAVE, THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO CODIFY. WE JUST KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT THING TO DO HERE IS. I HAVE A STRONG SENSE THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE IN OUR TOWN WHO ARE IGNORING, NOT THAT THEY DON'T KNOW THE SOCIAL CONTRACT, BUT THEY'RE VIOLATING IT WILLFULLY DAILY. THEY DON'T CARE. THEY AREN'T INVESTED HERE.

THERE'S 233,000 PEOPLE IN OUR CITY. IF YOU ELIMINATE KIDS, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY YOU GET 250, 130, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I'M ONE OF THEM. EVERY ONE OF US HAS THE ABILITY TO HELP ADMINISTER TO TO PEOPLE WHO NEED IT. ONLY SEVEN OF US HAVE THE ABILITY TO CREATE ORDINANCES TO HELP PROTECT AND GUIDE THIS CITY TO BE THE WAY THAT WE WANT IT TO BE. WHAT DO I WANT IT TO BE? I WANT IT TO BE A KIND CITY. BUT THAT'S NOTHING I CAN LEGISLATE. BUT I WANT US TO BE A SAFE CITY. I WANT US TO HAVE A DOWNTOWN THAT IS VERY ATTRACTIVE TO PEOPLE TO COME TO, THAT THEY FEEL SAFE WHEN THEY'RE THERE. THAT PROTECTS US AGAINST THOSE WHO WILL WILLFULLY VIOLATE THE SOCIAL CONTRACT WHEN THEY'RE HERE. SO WITH THAT, MR. MAYOR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS ITEM. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN PELLETIER TO APPROVE THE ITEM. AS FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION, I'LL SECOND. SECOND BY COUNCILMAN FRANKLIN, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I DON'T HAVE A BUTTON YET, MR. RAIN. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES. AT THAT VOTE. PASSES BY A VOTE OF SIX IN FAVOR AND ONE AGAINST. THE NEXT

[Consider/Discuss/Act on an Ordinance Amending Chapter 74 (Parks and Recreation) and Chapter 70 (Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions) of the McKinney Code of Ordinances Pertaining to the Prohibition of Camping in Parks or Public Areas]

ITEM IS 253303. THIS IS. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 74, PARKS AND RECREATION AND CHAPTER 70 OF THE MCKINNEY CODE OF ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO THE PROHIBITION OF CAMPING IN PARKS OR PUBLIC AREAS. MISS ARNOLD. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. OKAY, SO EXCUSE ME.

THIS ITEM IS TO TALK ABOUT THE ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO CAMPING WITHIN THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. ONE THING THAT I DO WANT TO NOTE AS I LAUNCH INTO THIS PRESENTATION IS THAT THE CAMPING ORDINANCES ALREADY EXIST WITHIN THE MCKINNEY OVERALL CODE. CURRENTLY, IT SITS UNDERNEATH THE PARKS SECTION OF THE CODE. AS PART OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TONIGHT.

THERE ARE, I WOULD SAY, THREE PRIMARY CHANGES THAT THE CITY IS PROPOSING. THE FIRST WOULD

[00:50:03]

BE TO BRING OUT THE CAMPING PROHIBITIONS OUT OF THAT PARKS SECTION OF THE CODE AND INTO THE GENERAL PROVISIONS UNDER CHAPTER 70 PERTAINING TO OFFENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. THE SECOND IS TO CLARIFY AND ADD TO THE DEFINITION OF CAMPING THE IDEA OF SLEEPING IN A VEHICLE OVERNIGHT. AND I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE SPEND SOME TIME TALKING ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE I DO THINK WE TALKED ABOUT IT QUITE A BIT BEFORE IN OUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS, ADDING THAT COMPONENT TO THE DEFINITION OF CAMPING. IT DEFINITELY POINTS TO SLEEPING IN YOUR VEHICLE, BUT FURTHER DOWN IN THE ORDINANCE, IT CLARIFIES THAT CAMPING IN YOUR VEHICLE OR SLEEPING IN YOUR VEHICLE WOULD ONLY BE PROHIBITED PER THIS ORDINANCE. ON CITY OWNED PARKING LOTS AND ON THE CITY RIGHTS OF WAY, THERE IS A SPECIAL CARVEOUT IN THE CODE THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR FOLKS TO BE ABLE TO SLEEP IN THEIR VEHICLES ON A PRIVATE PARKING LOT. SO THERE WAS DEFINITELY, I KNOW, A LOT OF DISCUSSION, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION ABOUT THAT WHEN WE FIRST BROUGHT THIS FORWARD. AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE I NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT THAT HAS BEEN MODIFIED. THE OTHER MAIN THING THAT THIS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CHANGES IS IT DOES MAKE A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER SOMEWHAT RESPONSIBLE OR RESPONSIBLE. IF THEY KNOWINGLY ALLOW SOMEBODY TO CAMP ON THEIR PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE. AND WHAT THAT DOES IS IT DOES PUT SOME LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT BOTH PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE UNHOUSED ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ABIDING BY THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE PUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CODE. EXCUSE ME. SO THOSE ARE THE REALLY THE THREE MAIN CHANGES THAT ARE COMING ABOUT WITH THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT. SO AGAIN, MOVING IT OUT OF THAT PARKS SECTION OF THE CODE, CLARIFYING WHAT IT MEANS TO SLEEP IN A VEHICLE OVERNIGHT AS IT RELATES TO CAMPING AND WHERE THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED, AND MAKING IT SOME RESPONSIBILITY ON A PROPERTY OWNER TO ALLOW SOMEBODY TO KNOWINGLY VIOLATE THE CODE. SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE. WE ARE SUGGESTING A ONE YEAR SUNSET ON THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE. VERY SIMILAR. WE RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS A BIT OF A CHANGE AND IT'S CERTAINLY A SENSITIVE TOPIC. SO BE MONITORING HOW THE ENFORCEMENT IS GOING IF THERE IS A NEED TO REVISIT IT PRIOR TO THE ONE YEAR SENTENCE, THAT WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT AS WELL. BUT AGAIN, THE CITY SEES THIS AS A POTENTIAL TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX FOR US AS WE'RE NAVIGATING THAT BROADER INITIATIVE RELATED TO HOMELESSNESS AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'VE GOT THE TOOLS THAT WE NEED. IF THERE IS AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO TAKE THE ORANGE BOX ON YOUR SCREEN, I THINK DOES A REALLY NICE JOB OF CLARIFYING THE THINGS YOU CAN AND CAN'T DO AS THE ORDINANCE PROPOSES. SO CAMPING AND DESIGNATED CAMPING AREAS AND PARKS SUCH AS IRWIN PARK WOULD STILL BE PERMITTED. BEING ABLE TO CAMP ON YOUR OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY WOULD STILL BE PERMITTED. HOWEVER, CAMPING OR SLEEPING AND STAYING IN A IN A CITY, IN A VEHICLE, ON A CITY LOT OR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED. AND OF COURSE, NOT ALLOWING OTHERS TO KNOWINGLY CAMP ON YOUR PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE. THIS PARTICULAR CODE IS CITYWIDE, WHEREAS THE PREVIOUS ONE WAS DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC ONLY. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE I NOTED THAT AS WELL. AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO STAND AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. IF NOT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. THANK YOU, MISS ARNOLD. JENNIFER, CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY THAT LAST PART AGAIN? THE IT MAKES IT AN OFFENSE FOR A PROPERTY OWNER TO KNOWINGLY ALLOW SOMEONE TO CAMP ON THEIR PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE. THE LAST PART IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE. SO THE REASON I HAVE A LITTLE ISSUE WITH THAT TOO, IS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ONE OF OUR LARGER EMPLOYERS THAT ALLOW THEIR 18 WHEELER DRIVERS TO WHEN THEY'RE LOADING AND UNLOADING AT NIGHT, THEY THEY SLEEP IN THE PARKING LOT. I MEAN, BUT SO WOULD THAT BE IN VIOLATION. WOULD NOT BE. SO AGAIN, THE SLEEPING IN A VEHICLE OVERNIGHT AND A AND A COMMERCIAL PRIVATE PARKING LOT WOULD STILL BE ALLOWED THAT OVERNIGHT. SLEEPING IN A VEHICLE WOULD ONLY BE PROHIBITED ON CITY RIGHTS OF WAY AND CITY OWNED PARKING LOTS. SO THINK ABOUT THE ON STREET PARKING SPACES IN AND AROUND DOWNTOWN. IT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED THERE, BUT PERHAPS A WALMART OR A RACETRACK. IF THERE IS A PARKING LOT THERE AND SOMEBODY STAYS IN THEIR CAR THERE, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT. WHAT THAT DOES IS IT PUTS THE ALLOWANCE OR RESPONSIBILITY ON THE PROPERTY OWNER. IF THEY'RE COMFORTABLE ALLOWING FOLKS DOING THAT, THEY CERTAINLY CAN. BUT THEY ALSO STILL HAVE THAT SAME CRIMINAL TRESPASS ABILITY. IF THEY WEREN'T HAPPY WITH FOLKS STAYING THERE. YEAH. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS JENNIFER, YOU SAY WE'VE GOT THIS ON OUR BOOKS, BUT WE DON'T WE DON'T EVER USE THIS. AS THE LADY CAME UP AND TALKED ABOUT, WE TYPICALLY USE A CRIMINAL TRESPASS WARNING. THAT'S CORRECT. WITH THE OWNERS COMPLIANT OR, YOU KNOW, STATEMENT THAT THEY THEY DO THIS. AND SO THIS ISN'T SOMETHING WE'VE USED TO TO, TO TELL PEOPLE THEY CAN'T BE CERTAIN PLACES WITH CERTAIN THINGS. AND, AND I GUESS LIKE I, I GET, I GET THE TOOL IN THE TOOL BELT. BUT WHAT, WHAT THAT SAYS TO ME IS THAT WE'RE GOING

[00:55:03]

TO, WE'RE GOING TO SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THIS. AND WHEN WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS LIKE THAT ON AN ORDINANCE LIKE THIS, THAT GOES ACROSS THE ENTIRE CITY, AND WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO ABSOLUTELY SAY THAT WE'LL ENFORCE THAT ON KENTUCKY STREET NEXT TO THE LIBRARY. BUT WHEN THAT GOES TO THE EMPTY LOT NEXT TO MY HOUSE, WE MAY NOT BE THERE. WE MAY NOT HAVE THE POLITICAL WILL TO DO THAT. I MAY NOT CALL OR SOMEBODY ELSE. MY NEIGHBORS MAY NOT CALL. SO I STRUGGLE WITH THIS IDEA OF WE'RE JUST PUSHING THIS SOMEWHERE ELSE. AND UNLESS WE WERE TO I MEAN, IF WE WERE TO ENFORCE THIS IN THE WAY THAT WE WE SAY THAT IF SOMEBODY SHOWS UP WITH THEIR BELONGINGS AND IS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, THAT WE ARE EITHER GOING TO CITE THEM OR WE'RE GOING TO CITE THE OWNER FOR LETTING THEM BE THERE. THEN THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WE ARE GOING TO SAY, GET OFF OF KENTUCKY STREET ON SATURDAY MORNING, WHERE DO THEY GO? WHERE DO THEY GO? I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS RHETORICAL OR NOT. I'M JUST RESPONSIVE. THERE'S NOT AN ANSWER TO IT BECAUSE THEY WALK DOWN THE STREET, THEY GET ON A SIDEWALK AND THEY, THEY, THEY GET OFF SOMEWHERE ONTO PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THEY'VE IMMEDIATELY COMMITTED AN OFFENSE AGAIN. AGAIN BECAUSE THEY'RE CARRYING THEIR BELONGINGS. AND THAT'S THAT'S THE WAY THIS ORDINANCE READS. AND UNTIL THEY LEAVE THE CITY LIMITS, THEY'RE GOING TO VIOLATE THIS ORDINANCE OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, UNLESS WE JUST DECIDE WE DON'T WANT TO ENFORCE IT IN THIS PART OF TOWN OR AS AS LONG AS IT'S NOT IN THE MTC, AS LONG AS NOBODY'S GOING TO COMPLAIN, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ENFORCE IT. AND SO WE'RE JUST CREATING THESE ADDITIONAL POCKETS OF WHERE THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN UNTIL THAT COMPLAINT OCCURS. AND I JUST STRUGGLE WITH THAT BEING THE THE SOLUTION HERE BECAUSE THE THE OTHER I MEAN, I'M THINKING THROUGH MY UNDERSTANDING, MR. HAUSER, AS WE POST THIS IN SOME NEWSPAPER AND IT TAKES EFFECT SATURDAY MORNING. IS THAT CORRECT? AS SOON AS IT'S POSTED FOR THE APPLICABLE PERIOD. YES. SO I ASSUME SATURDAY WE'RE GOING TO GO TELL THE PEOPLE THAT THEY CAN'T BE THERE. AND AT SOME POINT WE'RE JUST GOING TO STOP EITHER NOT TELLING THEM THAT AND BE OKAY WITH WHERE THEY END UP OR I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, IT JUST IT SEEMS LIKE SUCH A WEIRD SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE THE SECOND PIECE OF MY HOW DO WE APPLY THIS? WHAT HAPPENS IS A NUMBER OF THESE PEOPLE SLEEP AT THE CHURCH. ARE WE GOING TO TAKE IT TO CHURCH SUNDAY MORNING? ARE WE GOING TO WRITE THEM A TICKET? WELL, THAT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY. THEY COULD BE INSIDE SLEEPING. THEY THEY COULD BE INSIDE THE CHURCH SLEEPING. IT'S NOT ZONED FOR THAT. I WOULD SAY BY ALL ACCOUNTS THERE ANYBODY THAT'S DOING THAT NOW IS ALREADY IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE. THIS ORDINANCE DOESN'T ADD THAT AS A NEW COMPONENT. BUT WE WE DO NOTE THAT WE ARE CLARIFYING IT BECAUSE WE DON'T ENFORCE IT THAT WAY. THE PRIMARY CLARIFICATION IN THE ADDITION IS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CAMPING WITH A TENT OR YOUR BELONGINGS VERSUS SLEEPING IN YOUR CAR, ADDING THAT SLEEPING IN YOUR CAR COMPONENT TO THE DEFINITION IS THE IS THE CLARIFICATION, BUT IT'S STUCK IN THE PARKS ORDINANCES AND WE DON'T APPLY IT IN THAT WAY. WE DON'T GO CITE SOMEBODY FOR THIS AND WE ARE ADDING THE OWNER COMPONENT TO IT SO THAT WHEN THE CHURCH SAYS IT'S OKAY FOR YOU TO STAY THERE, THAT'S THEY'VE NOW BECOME THE OFFENDER. WE OFFEND BOTH. BOTH ARE THE OFFENDERS. AND. I JUST I MEAN, LIKE THERE'S NO THERE'S NO EXCEPTION TO THIS. IT IS IT IS PRIVATE PROPERTY. WE ARE TICKETING THE PRIVATE PROPERTY AND SO THERE'S NOWHERE FOR THEM TO GO. AND I MEAN, UNLESS THEY'VE GOT $60 TO RENT A HOTEL ROOM, LET ME UNDERSTAND IF THEY'RE, IF THEY'RE ON THE CHURCH PROPERTY, BUT IT'S NOT IN A PUBLIC AREA, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO BE THERE. THAT IS CORRECT. IT'S PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE AREAS ONLY. YEAH. CORRECT. SO IF THEY WENT INTO THE CHURCH AND SLEPT IN THE CHURCH, ARE THEY NOT VIOLATING A CODE FOR PROPERTY USE AT THAT POINT? WELL, YOU'RE YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. WELL, I DO WANT TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF THINGS. YOU KNOW, WE'RE KIND OF BRIDGING BETWEEN THE ZONING CODE AND WHAT'S ALLOWED PER USE, WHICH YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. COULD VERY WELL BE NOT ALLOWED PER THE ZONING CODE VERSUS OUR GENERAL CODE ORDINANCES, WHICH WE'RE GETTING INTO THE MISDEMEANORS. CHURCHES, BY RIGHT, HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE OVERNIGHT SHELTER. I THINK IT'S UP TO 12 PEOPLE.

MAYBE IT'S UP TO 14. I CAN'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT BY RIGHT IF THEY GET A PERMIT FOR IT. NOW, IF THEY'RE CHOOSING TO DO THAT WITHOUT GETTING A PERMIT, THEN YES, THEY WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE. SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A LAND USE VIOLATION. IT WOULD JUST BE A PERMITTING VIOLATION. THE PERMIT THOUGH, TO TO HOUSE 12 PEOPLE BY RIGHT WOULD BE IN AN APPROVED SPACE WITH A RESTROOM,

[01:00:04]

WITH WINDOWS, WITH ALL OF THE THE KIND OF NOT IN THERE, NOT ON THEIR PORTICO, WHICH IS WHICH IS WHAT'S HAPPENING TODAY. AND WE'RE NOT ENFORCING THAT BECAUSE OF SOME GRAY AREA IN THE EXISTING ORDINANCE. RIGHT. AND I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE HISTORICALLY.

I DO KNOW IN TALKING WITH CHIEF THAT PREDOMINANTLY WHAT WE LOOK FOR IS CRIMINAL TRESPASS. WE THE YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONLY SO MANY POLICE OFFICERS TO GO AROUND. I DON'T THINK THEY'RE OUT THERE LOOKING FOR TROUBLE OR PROBLEMS THAT AREN'T OTHERWISE BROUGHT TO THEM IN THAT WAY. AND SO MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, IF THERE IS AN ISSUE ON A ON A PRIVATE PROPERTY, IT'S BECAUSE SOMEBODY HAS CALLED ON THE CRIMINAL TRESPASS. JENNIFER, IF I WANT TO INVITE SOMEONE TO SLEEP IN THEIR CAR ON MY DRIVEWAY, IS THAT OKAY? I WOULD SAY NO, NO, IT'S NOT IT WOULD NOT BE. OKAY. SO AGAIN, THAT BRINGS ME BACK TO THE EMPLOYER SITUATION. YOU HAVE EMPLOYER WITH A LARGE PARKING LOT. HE'S ALLOWING HIS EMPLOYEES TO SLEEP THERE OVERNIGHT WHILE THEY'RE TRANSPORTING GOODS. SO ABSOLUTELY DISTINCTION BEING A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT VERSUS A PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL RESIDENCE. AND SO THERE'S THE WAY THAT IT'S STRUCTURED IN THE CODE, IF IT IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO CAMP ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY. BUT FOR A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT THAT IS BUILT TO ACCOMMODATE, YOU KNOW, VEHICLES, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO STAY THERE OVERNIGHT. OKAY.

THE THIS IS A PAINFUL ORDINANCE IN MANY WAYS. I THINK EVERYONE CAN FIND A PAIN POINT THERE. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO INVITE SOMEONE TO SLEEP ON MY YARD IF I WANT TO, BUT I CAN'T WITH THIS. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO INVITE SOMEONE SLEEP IN MY DRIVEWAY IF I WANT TO, BUT I CAN'T WITH THIS. BUT THERE WAS A SPEAKER TONIGHT WHO WANTS THE POLICE TO HAVE THE AGENCY TO HAVE PEOPLE LEAVE HER PROPERTY WITHOUT HER BEING THERE AT ONE IN THE MORNING. HOW DO I GET THERE WITH THAT? I CAN'T I CAN'T SAY ONLY YOUR PROPERTY. I CAN'T DELINEATE THAT THERE'S FIELDS, UNDEVELOPED FIELDS OWNED BY, I DON'T KNOW, XYZ READOUT OF NEW YORK CITY THAT ARE GETTING PEOPLE CAMPING THERE EVERY NIGHT AND FREQUENTLY LEAVING A MESS. AND I CAN'T WE CAN'T GIVE THE POLICE AGENCY TO GO THERE UNLESS WE PASS THIS RULE. THIS RULE IS A TOUGH ONE, BUT IT'S NOT TOOTHPASTE. IT'LL GO BACK IN THE TUBE. IF WE DON'T LIKE IT, WE CAN REPEAL IT. AND I'LL BE PAYING ATTENTION. AND ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, WITHIN A YEAR, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO. IF WE WANT IT AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PASS IT AGAIN. I AGREE WITH WHAT JENNIFER SAID, AND I THINK THAT'S KIND OF AN UNSPOKEN THING IN HERE. THE PROFESSIONALISM AND THE CARE THAT OUR POLICE TAKE DAY TO DAY TO DAY HERE, THEY JUST I JUST WANT THEM TO HAVE THE AGENCY TO GO UP AND HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THESE PEOPLE. BUT I RECOGNIZE THAT THE LEVEL OF AUTHORITY WE'RE GIVING GOES MUCH HIGHER THAN THAT. BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WE'RE RESTRICTED TO. BUT AGAIN, IT GETS BACK TO THE SOCIAL CONTRACT. IF THIS WASN'T A PROBLEM, WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION. WE'VE GOT PROBLEMS HERE IN MCKINNEY. IT'S MY SENSE THAT WE ARE A VERY WELL FEATHERED NEST WHEN COMPARED TO OTHER LOCAL CITIES. BE THAT WITH THE LITTLE FREE FOOD PANTRIES, WITH COMMUNITY GARDEN, KITCHEN, WITH THE FOOD PANTRY, AND WITH WE'RE GOOD TIPPERS. EVERYONE SAYS WE ARE GOOD TIPPERS. SO WE'RE AN ATTRACTIVE PLACE TO BE. AND WE HAVE BEEN FOR A LONG, LONG, LONG TIME. SO WHAT'S CHANGED? I DON'T KNOW, SOMETHING'S CHANGED. AND SO I WILL BE SORRY TO KEEP YOU UP HERE, JENNIFER. I EVEN HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU ANYMORE. BUT. BUT I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. JENNIFER, IS THERE A WORKAROUND? BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND COUNCILMAN JONES'S POINT, WHICH IS YOU HAVE A PRIVATELY OWNED COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, AND NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRIVATELY OWNED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. AND I KNOW WE'RE MAKING THAT DISTINCTION, BUT WE'RE IN TEXAS. IT'S A BIG PROPERTY RIGHTS KIND OF A PLACE. SO WE ARE TELLING PEOPLE THAT THEY CANNOT DO WITH THEIR OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. MY QUESTION IS FOR THE LOVELY LADY THAT SPOKE ABOUT COMING, YOU KNOW, AT 1:00 IN THE MORNING. IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE CAN IMPLEMENT SO THAT SHE DOES NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT WITHOUT ACCEPTING THIS POLICY IN TERMS OF THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP PART, NOT THE PUBLIC? I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF OPPOSITION TO THE PUBLIC PART, BUT THE PRIVATE PART OF IT IS THERE IS ANOTHER IS THERE ANOTHER WORKAROUND? SO I THINK THERE'S YOU'VE KIND OF HIT ON TWO THINGS. AND ONE, I'M GOING TO START FIRST BY MAKING SURE I

[01:05:04]

CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT WITH COUNCILMAN JONES ON THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. PRIVATE PROPERTY, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE SOMEBODY COME OVER AND STAY. WE'RE SAYING IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE SOMEBODY STAY HOUSED OR UNHOUSED, WE WANT YOU TO BRING THEM INTO YOUR HOME AND LET THEM STAY IN YOUR HOME OR PUT THEM IN YOUR BACKYARD, PUT THEM IN YOUR BACKYARD, LET THEM STAY IN YOUR BACKYARD. IT'S THE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PIECE THAT MAKES THAT DRIVEWAY EXAMPLE THAT YOU GAVE IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE. AND I'M LOOKING AT JEREMY. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO IF IF YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO OFFER THAT KIND OF SUPPORT TO SOMEBODY, WE DON'T WANT TO PREVENT YOU FROM BEING ABLE TO DO THAT. WE JUST WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO DO IT IN A WAY THAT BRINGS THEM INSIDE, OR BRINGS THEM OFF OF THAT PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PART OF YOUR PROPERTY. BECAUSE ONE PERSON MAY SAY DRIVEWAY, SOMEBODY ELSE MAY BE COMFORTABLE LETTING THEM PUT A TENT UP IN THEIR FRONT YARD.

AND SO WHAT'S HAPPENING BEHIND THE FRONT WALL OF YOUR, OF YOUR HOME IS REALLY WHERE WE WOULD SAY, YES, DO IT THERE. NOW, THE SECOND PART OF YOUR QUESTION, MAYOR PRO TEM, WAS RELATING TO THE ENFORCEMENT AND THE WORKAROUND, WHICH I THINK IS MORE SPEAKING TO UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WHERE YOU'VE GOT FOLKS THAT ARE COMING OUT AND CAMPING OVERNIGHT AND HAVING SOME OF THOSE CAMPFIRES AND THINGS THAT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I MIGHT HAVE TO DEFER THAT TO OUR POLICE REP, WHO IS HERE ON HOW THEY TYPICALLY TREAT THOSE KINDS OF COMPLAINTS THAT COME IN, AND HOW THIS ORDINANCE MAY OR MAY NOT OFFER SUPPORT. SO. KENNEDY, YOU'RE UP. JENNIFER, YOU GOT ALL DRESSED UP FOR THIS. HE NEEDS TO. WELL, LIEUTENANT KENNEDY MCKINNEY POLICE DEPARTMENT MAYOR PRO TEM, THE QUESTION YOU HAD WAS, COULD YOU RESTATE IT REAL QUICK? JUST SO I ANSWER, WHAT IS THE WORKAROUND? HOW DO WE PREVENT SOMEONE FROM HAVING TO DRIVE INTO A PROPERTY TO, TO EVERY SINGLE TIME, IDENTIFY THAT THEY DON'T WANT SOMEONE ON THEIR PROPERTY? NOT ONLY THIS ORDINANCE, BUT WE'RE ALSO EXPLORING THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SEAT AFFIDAVITS. IT'S A PROGRAM THAT IS IN OTHER CITIES WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW. WE'RE WORKING THAT PROCESS, BUT THAT HASN'T COME TO FRUITION AT THIS TIME. THAT WOULD BE ONE WORKAROUND THAT WOULD WORK. AN EXAMPLE THAT WOULD BE IS WE WORK IT SO THAT YOU WOULD THE HOMEOWNER OR I'M SORRY, THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD FILL OUT AN AFFIDAVIT AND WE COULD ACT ON THEIR BEHALF, BUT THAT THAT WE'RE EXPLORING THAT OPTION. BUT THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE AT THIS MOMENT. WILL YOU KEEP US POSTED AS YOU PROGRESS ON THAT, SIR? YES, SIR. YEAH. THANK YOU. YEAH, YEAH, I STILL THINK AND I WANT TO SAY FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU TO THE STAFF BECAUSE I HAD A WHOLE BUNCH OF RESERVATIONS ABOUT US JUST REALLY NOT IMPLEMENTING A GOOD, SOLID PLAN THAT WE CAN PRESENT TO THE COMMUNITY. AND I THINK OVER THE LAST FOUR WEEKS, WE'VE PUT TOGETHER SOMETHING THAT MAKES ME FEEL A WHOLE LOT MORE HOPEFUL THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE MORE PROACTIVE IN THIS SITUATION. SO THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK THAT YOU'VE PUT FORTH.

I STILL FEEL THIS SENSE THAT WE'RE JUMPING THE GUN, THOUGH, BECAUSE WE'RE WE'RE KIND OF WE'RE. AND NOT THAT I'M OPPOSED TO IT, BUT, YOU KNOW, ARE THERE OTHER SOLUTIONS THAT WE HAVE? I WANT TO ABSOLUTELY PROTECT OUR RESIDENTS WHO ARE DEALING WITH THE INCREASING FRUSTRATION OF ALL OF THE PROBLEMS THAT HAVE BEEN KIND OF LAID OUT. SO I 100% EMPATHIZE WITH THEM. AND I THINK I WOULDN'T, YOU KNOW, BE IN SUCH OPPOSITION IF WE HAD OTHER OPTIONS IN PLACE. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH THESE FOLKS ON SATURDAY? ON SUNDAY, ON MONDAY? AND IF WE HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO BRING TOGETHER WHATEVER THIS THING IS FOR THE SIGNED AFFIDAVIT THAT HELPS THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEN ALSO LEAVE THE OPTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS, I WOULD FEEL A WHOLE LOT MORE COMFORTABLE. SO THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL STANCE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? ANYONE? JENNIFER THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR EFFORTS ON THIS VERY MUCH. I'M GOING TO MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT THAT I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION. WE GET ASKED TO SOLVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS UP HERE. WE ALWAYS HAVE OUR EYE ON THE TAX RATE, KEEPING OURSELVES A COMPETITIVE CITY, BEING ABLE TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN BUSINESSES TO KEEP THE TAX RATE LOW SO THAT WE CAN DO THE SERVICES THAT WE ARE GOOD AT, WE'RE GOOD AT POLICING, WE'RE GOOD AT ROADS, WE'RE GOOD AT WATER, WE'RE GOOD SEWER, WE'RE REALLY GOOD AT PARKS. WE'RE REALLY GOOD AT ALL THOSE THINGS. THERE'S SOME STUFF WE'RE NOT GOOD AT. BEING. THE SEVEN TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM IS ONE OF THEM. THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES FOR FOLKS TO STEP UP HERE. ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS WE CAN DO IS WORK ON

[01:10:05]

HOUSING. A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, WE APPROVED A 30% AMI. THAT'S 30% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME. SENIORS HOUSING PLACE. THERE'S A SPEAKER TODAY TALKED ABOUT A COUPLE SPEAKERS, TALKED ABOUT HOW THAT'S A BIG NEED IN OUR COUNTRY. AND IT IS AND WE'RE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT. AND I CAN SWING A DEAD CAT AND HIT A BUNCH OF CITIES AROUND HERE THAT AREN'T DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT. SO WE CAN'T DO IT ALL. THERE'S NO QUESTION WE'RE GOING TO BE DISAPPOINTING SOME FOLKS TONIGHT, BUT WE'RE GOING TO SEE HOW THIS GOES. SO, MR. MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED BY STAFF, HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN CLOUTIER TO APPROVE THE ITEM AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. I'LL SECOND IT, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN LYNCH. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I DO WANT TO MAKE TWO COMMENTS. I WANT TO ECHO ONE THING ABOUT WHAT PATRICK SAID, THAT THIS IS ABSOLUTELY A FAILURE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT. A LOT OF THE ISSUES WE'RE FACING ARE A UNDERINVESTMENT IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN ALL OF OUR AREAS.

BUT I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE, AND IF YOU'RE JUST HERE TO TALK ABOUT ANOTHER ISSUE AND NOW YOU'RE LISTENING TO THIS, THEN YOU GET TO HEAR IT AGAIN. BUT WE HAVE NOT HAD AN INCREASE IN OUR SUBSIDIZED, FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED UNITS IN MCKINNEY SINCE 1990. WE'VE GROWN 11 TIMES OVER, AND WE STILL HAVE ABOUT 550 HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS IN PUBLIC HOUSING UNITS. IT DOES NOT MEET THE PERCENTAGE THAT THIS COMMUNITY STARTED WITH, THAT THIS COMMUNITY STARTED TO GROW WITH AND THE LACK OF THAT INVESTMENT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LEAVES US WITH A LOT OF WE DON'T HAVE OPTIONS FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, FOR PEOPLE WITH WITH MENTAL INCAPACITIES, FOR ELDERLY THAT SHOULD BE USING THESE RESOURCES. THE SECOND THING IS WE ARE 49TH OR SOMETHING IN THE COUNTRY AND OUR INVESTMENT IN IN MENTAL HEALTH AND ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH IN THIS STATE, IN THIS COUNTY, IS, IS FAILING. AND SO THAT THAT LEAVES A LOT OF PEOPLE ON OUR STREET. AND AND PATRICK IS RIGHT THAT, YOU KNOW, HISTORICALLY WE HAVE ONLY FILLED THE ROLE OF ENFORCEMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, OF PARKS, OF ROADS, OF THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. BUT WE LIVE IN THIS REALITY. NOBODY'S BUILDING SUBSIDIZED HOUSING FOR THESE PEOPLE. NOBODY'S COMING IN, YOU KNOW, OUTPOURING LOADS OF OF OF HEALTH RESOURCES. AND THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO. AND I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT. WE PASSED THE THE THING I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S SUFFICIENT, BUT I WILL LET IT WORK. BUT I, I THINK THIS THESE TWO ORDINANCES THAT WE'RE PASSING TONIGHT ARE A STEP TOO FAR IN, IN THIS IDEA OF SOCIAL, SOCIAL CONTRACT THAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING RIGHT. THEY'VE SIGNED UP FOR HOUSING, THEY'VE GOTTEN THEIR IDS, THEY YOU GO TALK TO THEM AND YOU HEAR THE STORIES OF, I GOT A JOB. AND THREE WEEKS LATER THE GUY STIFFED ME, AND I CAN'T AFFORD A PLACE TO BE. AND HOW ON EARTH DOES SOMEBODY COME UP WITH A WITH A SECURITY DEPOSIT AT AN APARTMENT IN THIS TOWN WHEN YOU'RE SCRAPING FROM NOTHING? AND SO THESE ORDINANCES, I THINK, PUT PEOPLE AT BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE. AND, AND UNTIL WE HAVE RESOURCES IN PLACE, THAT GIVES THEM AN OPTION, I THINK WE ARE JUST PUSHING THEM FURTHER INTO THAT HARD PLACE. AND AND IT'S GOING TO CAUSE ISSUES THAT, THAT THEY CAN'T RECOVER FROM. AND IT'S NOT GOING TO SOLVE THE IT'S NOT GOING TO BRING THE SOLUTIONS THAT WE KEEP THINKING IT WILL.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE KEEP DOING IS WE KEEP TRYING. I KEEP THINKING IN MY HEAD OF ANALOGIES AND I'M TERRIBLE AT ANALOGIES, BUT Y'ALL ARE GOING TO HEAR THE ONE I KEEP THINKING IN MY HEAD IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE KEEP BUILDING BIRDHOUSES IN THIS COUNTRY, AND FOR A LONG TIME, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROVIDED ASSAULT FOR US TO DO THAT. THE STATE GOVERNMENT PROVIDED THE NAILS AND WE PROVIDED THE HAMMER. WE WERE THE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM OF THAT. AND THAT KIND OF MADE THIS BIRDHOUSE WORK WELL. THIS ALL IS DULL. IT'S NOT CUTTING WOOD ANYMORE. THE NAILS ARE BENT AND NOT GOING IN, AND WE'RE STILL SWINGING AWAY WITH THIS HAMMER. LIKE WE'RE GOING TO BUILD A BIRDHOUSE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE DO. AND IT'S JUST, IT'S FRUSTRATING HOW MUCH MONEY WE SPEND AND HOW MUCH EFFORT WE MAKE JUST TO TO TO SAY YOU BEING RIGHT THERE IS ILLEGAL AND NOT GOING TO SAY, LET'S GO FIND A SAUL, LET'S GO

[01:15:07]

FIND SOME BETTER NAILS AND LET'S BUILD THIS COMMUNITY THE WAY THAT WE WANT IT TO BE. AND SO I'M. I'M GOING TO BE A NO ON THIS ORDINANCE. AND I THINK THAT WE ARE GOING TO TO CAUSE SOME PAINS THAT WE CAN'T RECOVER FROM WITH THIS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN CLAUDIA AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN LYNCH. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES. AT THIS MOTION CARRIES A VOTE OF FIVE IN FAVOR AND TWO AGAINST. THANK YOU EVERYONE, MISS ARNOLD, FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. AND STAFF AND THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE AND THOSE WATCHING ON TV. THESE ARE NOT EASY TOPICS TO TO DEAL WITH. IF FOR SOME REASON WE NEED TO COME BACK TO THIS CITY MANAGER, WE CAN DO THAT WITHIN WITHIN THE YEAR. COUNCILMAN CLAUDIA, TO YOUR POINT. SO THANK YOU FOR THE INPUT. OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM IS 250011 SUP. TO CONDUCT A

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Specific Use Permit Request to Allow for Passenger Vehicles Fuel Sales (7-Eleven), Located on the Northeast Corner of Hardin Boulevard and FM 543, and Accompanying Ordinance]

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR 7-ELEVEN. THIS IS AT NORTHEAST CORNER OF HARDIN BOULEVARD AND FM 543. LUCAS, WELCOME. LUCAS REILLY, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, AND I AM HERE TO DISCUSS A FEW DIFFERENT PLANNING ITEMS WITH YOU ALL TONIGHT. THE FIRST IS A SCP FOR A POTENTIAL 7-ELEVEN AT THE REFERENCED INTERSECTION HERE IN SC, HARDEN AND FM 543. LET'S SEE HERE WITH THE VICINITY MAP THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED CONVENIENCE STORE WITH THE FUELING STATIONS. THERE'S AN AERIAL SHOWING THE PROXIMITY OF THE LOT TO THE ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, AND THEN THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL SPACE STILL THERE TO THE EAST OF THIS SITE. THIS IS THE EXHIBIT STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THIS REQUEST, PRIMARILY DUE TO THE FACT THAT FUELING STATIONS ARE ONLY ALLOWED IN THIS ZONE WHEN THE FUELING ISLANDS ARE MORE THAN 250FT AWAY FROM ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. IN THIS CASE, THEY ARE ROUGHLY 180FT AWAY FROM THE ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY LOT. SO AS A RESULT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE SCP AND I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. I WILL ALSO GIVE THE CONTEXT OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. THAT MEETING RECEIVED A VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST. UNANIMOUS FROM PNC WITH TWO STIPULATIONS. AND SO THEY MADE A MOTION TO ALLOW THIS USE WITH A SOLID MASONRY WALL ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE, AS OPPOSED TO KIND OF THE WROUGHT IRON WITH TREES. AND THEN THEY ALSO ADDED THE STIPULATION OF TEMPORARY SCREENING IN A VEGETATIVE WAY. ON THE EAST SIDE THERE WAS SOME CONSENT OR EXCUSE ME, CONCERN FROM PROPERTY OWNERS OVER ON LANTANA DRIVE THERE. THOSE HOMES FACE THIS PROPERTY. AND SO THERE'S CONCERN FROM PROPERTY OWNERS ON THAT SIDE THAT HEADLIGHTS MIGHT HIT THEIR HOMES BEFORE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT TAKES PLACE. AND SO PNC ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT SUP HAVE THE STIPULATION OF VEGETATIVE SCREENING ON THE EAST SIDE. I BELIEVE WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT. LUCAS, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT COMES UP IF YOU CAN. YOU PUT THE SCREEN BACK UP. THE KIND OF THE THE THERE YOU GO.

IS THERE? I REALIZE THAT HARDEN DOESN'T PUNCH SOUTH. AND THAT'S GOING TO BE UP TO THE FOLKS AT HONEY CREEK TO DO THAT. BUT IS THERE ANY RESTRICTION WHY THEY COULD NOT BUILD ON THE SOUTH PART OF 543 RIGHT NOW? YEAH. SO SO A FEW REASONS THERE. ONE BEING THAT THIS AREA AND I AM ANNOTATING, I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE TO YOU HAVE TO TURN THAT ON OR NOT. THAT IS PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY AS PART OF THE HONEY CREEK MMD. AND THEN OUTSIDE OF THAT THIS AREA OVER HERE IS ACTUALLY IN THE ETJ. IT'S NOT PART OF THE CITY OF MCKINNEY, AND WE HAVE NO WAY TO KNOW IF THAT PROPERTY IS AVAILABLE, IF THEY WANT TO BE A PART OF THE CITY OF MCKINNEY.

AND THEN, AS YOU MENTIONED, HARDEN NOT BEING THERE CREATES SOMEWHAT OF AN ACCESS. SO ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER IS THE ARE THE HOUSES GOING TO COME UP BASICALLY ALMOST ALL THE WAY TO THE INTERSECTION, OR WILL THERE BE A CUTOUT FOR COMMERCIAL THERE, AS WE SEE ON MOST MAJOR INTERSECTIONS, OR DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF THAT? MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT WILL ALMOST, ALMOST MIMIC THE NORTHWEST SIDE WHERE YOU HAVE THOSE RESIDENTIAL LOTS ALL THE WAY TO THE CORNER. OKAY. SO IN THEORY, THERE IS A THERE IS AN OPTION FOR THESE FOLKS. IT'S ON THE SOUTHEAST PART, BUT IT'S

[01:20:02]

IN THE ETJ NOT IN THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. AND WE'RE WE JUST HAVE NO IDEA IF IT'S AVAILABLE OR NOT. BUT GIVEN IT'S ETJ, WE CERTAINLY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PREVENT THEM FROM BUILDING THERE IF THEY ELECTED TO GO THERE. THAT'S RIGHT. I KNOW THE QUESTION WAS ASKED BY PLANNING AND ZONING THAT SAME QUESTION ABOUT OTHER CORNERS. HARD TO SAY CORNER WITH HARD NOT BEING THERE. AND THE APPLICANT SAID THAT IT WAS NOT AN AVAILABLE SITE TO THEM. OKAY. CAN YOU RESTATE FOR ME THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PUMPS AND THE. YES. AND SO ON THIS SITE, IT'S NOT EXPLICITLY DRAWN, BUT IT'S APPROXIMATELY 180FT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE NORTH.

THAT'S THE BACKYARD OF THE HOMES TO THE FUELING ISLANDS, WHICH LEAVES ROUGHLY 70FT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE UP. AND THERE'S NOT ROOM FOR THEM TO PUSH THOSE FAR ENOUGH TO MEET THE CONDITIONS. YOU KNOW, I DID A LITTLE BIT OF READING ON THIS, AND IT LOOKS LIKE KIND OF THE THE STANDARD FOR A LOT OF COMMUNITIES IS AT LEAST 200FT. IS THAT DOES THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT? I WOULDN'T KNOW. OVERALL, I KNOW WE SET IT TO 250 AND OKAY. AND WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE 200? MY UNDERSTANDING IS A LOT OF OFF GASSING AND THINGS FROM FROM IDLING CARS.

THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE FUEL COMING IN AND OUT OF THOSE ACTUAL PUMPS. THAT'S WHERE SPILLS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO TURN OFF YOUR CAR. NOT EVERYBODY DOES THAT. AND SO THAT'S THAT'S WHERE ALL THE TRAFFIC IS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO JUST TRYING TO MITIGATE ANY FUMES OFF GASSING THINGS LIKE THAT OKAY. SO WE KNOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DO THAT. RIGHT. AND SO THE 200FT ENSURES A DISTANCE THAT INCREASES THE SAFETY OF THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTS. THAT'S RIGHT. BUT WE ARE ENTERTAINING MOVING IT LESS THAN 200FT, WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE A SAFER ZONE. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AT THIS POINT, RIGHT. THAT'S THE REQUEST. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENT. YEAH. WE HAD A SIMILAR CASE TO THIS NOT LONG AGO. AND I YOU KNOW, I WAS AGAINST IT FOR THE SAME REASON BECAUSE OF THE DISTANCE. BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, JUST IN DIGGING A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY A REASON WHY THIS IS AN INDUSTRY STANDARD, TO LEAVE IT AT 200FT. AND IT'S BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE AN INCREASED HEALTH RISK FOR THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTS. SO I JUST I WANT TO IMPLICITLY STATE THAT I KNOW THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO COME UP AND MAKE THEIR CASE, BUT THERE IS PLENTY OF DATA TO SUPPORT AT LEAST 200FT IS IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS. SURE.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? OTHER QUESTIONS? LUCAS I HAD ONE, SO YOU STATED PNC ADDED TWO CONDITIONS IN THEIR APPROVAL, WHICH WAS SUPPORTED 7 TO 0. ARE THOSE TWO STIPULATIONS INCLUDED IN YOUR. RECOMMENDATION OR I'M SORRY, ARE THOSE ADDRESSED IN THE STAFF REPORT? THEY ARE NOT.

THEY WERE ADDED AT THE PNC MEETING, WHICH ACTUALLY OCCURRED LAST WEEK. WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT. THEY'VE GOT A FUNDING DEADLINE THEY'RE TRYING TO MEET. SO WE EXPEDITED THE CASE. IF THE COUNCIL DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD, WE WOULD JUST ASK FOR SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ON THOSE STIPULATIONS. YEAH. VERY GOOD. OTHER QUESTIONS LUCAS. THANK YOU. IS OUR APPLICANT HERE? YES, OF COURSE HE IS. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. BRAD WHITE 2627 TYLER STREET, FORT WORTH, TEXAS. SO I WANTED TO POINT OUT A COUPLE THINGS. SO THE THE EXACT SPACING BETWEEN THE DISPENSERS IN THAT REAR PROPERTY LINE IS 188FT. I KNOW WE'RE NOT QUITE AT THE 200FT. IT'S CLOSE. AND THE ONLY REASON WE'RE NOT AT THE 200FT IS BECAUSE THAT WATER EASEMENT, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SITE PLAN, PROHIBITS THE PUMPS FROM BEING EXTENDED FURTHER SOUTH. THE QUESTION ABOUT THE OTHER TWO CORNERS, UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T KNOW THE TIMING OF WHEN WE WILL CONTINUE SOUTH. AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN ACTIONABLE SITE TODAY WITHIN A 2.8 MILE RADIUS, THERE'S NOT A FUEL STORE, THE CLOSEST BEING BUCKY'S AND H-E-B AT ONE, 21 AND 75. SO FOR THAT REASON, YOU KNOW, THERE'S AN INCREDIBLE HOME GROWTH IN THIS AREA. THIS IS A LARGER PROTOTYPE STORE. IT'S PART OF THEIR NEW PROTOTYPE THEY'VE ROLLED OUT. IT'S ALMOST A 40 OR IT IS OVER 4800 SQUARE FOOT STORE. IN ADDITION TO THAT, OUR ELEVATIONS WEREN'T SHOWN IN THE PACKET. TONIGHT. WE HAVE INCREASED OUR BUILDING STANDARD, OUR BUILDING MATERIALS. WE'RE AT A FULL MASONRY BUILDING. OUR CANOPY COLUMNS ARE WRAPPED IN BRICK VENEER AS WELL. THIS IS NOT JUST THEIR NEW PROTOTYPE, IT'S A MUCH MORE ELEVATED STORE. YOU KNOW, WE'RE A PREFERRED DEVELOPER FOR 7-ELEVEN MARKETS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY. NORTH TEXAS BEING ONE, AND THIS IS ONE OF THE NICER BUILDINGS I'VE EVER PRESENTED TO A CITY COUNCIL BEFORE. SO WE WHILE WE DON'T MEET THE 250 FOOT SPACING, WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE BRINGING A NICE BUILDING TO THE COMMUNITY.

AND LIKE I SAID, GIVEN THAT IT'S THE LARGER THE OVER 400 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, IT WILL OFFER MORE GOODS THAN ARE REALLY CURRENTLY ARE NOT ANY ANY OTHER ANY USERS PROVIDING TO THESE CITIZENS IN THIS AREA. SO WITH THAT, I'M HERE FOR ANY ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, MR. WHITE. ANY QUESTIONS ANYONE? NO THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THIS

[01:25:03]

IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. FIRST SPEAKER IS PAUL WHITE. THANK YOU. THIS IS VERY EXCITING AND SCARY. AND I WISH I COULD USE THIS BECAUSE I WOULD POINT TO THAT CORNER RIGHT THERE WHERE THE BLUE IS. WE ARE THE FIRST PROPERTY COMING IN THIS WAY. AND WOULD IT BE HELPFUL, MR. WHITE, IF WE MOVE TO THE AERIAL VIEW SO YOU COULD SHOW SHOW US? YES. CAN WE DO THAT? EMPRESS? WHERE THE DIAGONAL HOUSE ON THE VERY END.

THREE. THREE. TWO. FIVE. ALL OF THE TRUCKS, THE CARS, THE GAS, THE FUEL TRUCKS, EVERYTHING ARE GOING TO BE PARKED RIGHT THERE WHEN THEY LEAVE THE PROPERTY TO GO EITHER DIRECTION. ALL THAT'S GOING TO BE BOTHERING US. I MEAN, I HATE TO SAY IT'S BOTHERING US, BUT THERE'LL BE FUEL, SMELLS, EVERYTHING ELSE. ALSO, WHEN I MEASURED IT OUT TODAY, I PACED IT OUT. IF WE GO BACK TO THE OTHER ONE, THERE'S A 20 OR 12,000 GALLON FUEL TANK, UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE THAT'S GOING TO BE 130FT FROM MY PROPERTY, 12,000 GALLONS OF FUEL. THAT SCARES THE LIFE OUT OF ME BEYOND EVERYTHING ELSE. ALSO, THERE IS NO NEED FOR THIS AT ALL. THIS IS NOT A THING WHERE IT'S GOING TO HELP ANYBODY. IT'S A GAS STATION AND WE CAN JUST GO TO BUCKY'S, WHICH WE LOVE. BUCKY'S I GO TO HEB, THERE'S PLENTY OF PLACES TO GO FOR FUEL AND IT'S JUST TOTALLY UNNECESSARY. ALSO, THAT'S REALLY A RESIDENTIAL STREET RIGHT THERE IN HARDIN.

IF YOU'VE BEEN UP THAT WAY. TOTALLY UNNECESSARY. THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE I WAS GOING TO SAY. ALSO, PROPERTY VALUES. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, FENCES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT WE HAVE A SIX FOOT FENCE BY THE HOA, AND I WAS ON MY YARD THIS MORNING BEFORE I CAME HERE. AND AS I STAND THERE, I'LL BE LOOKING AT ALMOST THE WHOLE, WELL, THREE QUARTERS OF THE BUILDING WILL BE VISIBLE FROM MY BACK PORCH AND I DON'T HAVE A BIG BACK PORCH. IT'S A SMALL PROPERTY. THIS IS GOING TO BE HORRIBLE. IT'S GOING TO BE JUST A HORRIBLE THING TO HAVE THAT THERE. AND I JUST, I WISH YOU WOULD DO SOMETHING TO MAKE OUR LIVES A LITTLE BIT MORE BEARABLE. I DON'T WANT TO SELL, YOU KNOW. THAT'S ME. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. WHITE.

NEXT SPEAKER, MONICA MARTIN. MISS MARTIN. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR MONICA MARTIN. 8433 GRAY SQUIRREL LANE MCKINNEY. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS MONICA MARTIN, AND I AM A RESIDENT OF THE PRESERVE AT HONEY CREEK, LOCATED DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE PROPOSED SITE. I'M HERE TONIGHT TO STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS PROJECT, BOTH AS A HOMEOWNER AND AS A PROFESSIONAL URBAN PLANNER WITH A MASTER'S DEGREE IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING, AND OVER TEN YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WORKING IN BOTH THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS.

FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE USE FOR THIS LOCATION. A GAS STATION IS ONE OF THE MOST INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL USES YOU CAN INTRODUCE INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD. IT BRINGS CONSTANT TRAFFIC, LATE NIGHT ACTIVITY, DELIVERY TRUCKS, BRIGHT LIGHTING AND NOISE, ALL OF WHICH ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES LOCATED JUST ACROSS THE PROPERTY LINE. THE INTERSECTION AT HARDIN AND FM 543 IS ALREADY HEAVILY TRAVELED. ADDING A GAS STATION WILL ONLY WORSEN CONGESTION AND SAFETY RISKS, ESPECIALLY FOR THE FAMILIES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WHO WALK, BIKE AND DRIVE THROUGH THAT INTERSECTION DAILY. THERE'S ALSO BUS DROP OFF AND PICK UP JUST NORTH OF WHERE THIS WILL BE. FUEL TANKERS AND DELIVERY TRUCKS ENTERING AND EXITING THE SITE WILL CREATE EVEN MORE TURNING CONFLICTS AND HAZARDS. THERE ARE ALSO SERIOUS QUALITY OF LIFE AND PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS. GAS STATIONS ROUTINELY ATTRACT LOITERING, THEFT AND NUISANCE ACTIVITY.

THOSE ARE NOT ASSUMPTIONS. THEY ARE WELL DOCUMENTED PATTERNS FROM SIMILAR SITES. THESE PROBLEMS WILL FALL SQUARELY ON THE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY. FURTHERMORE, THIS PROJECT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, SPECIFICALLY, THE REQUIRED 250 FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN FUEL STATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. AND LET'S ALSO MENTION THE FACT THAT THE CONVENIENCE STORE IS EVEN CLOSER THAN THAT. I LOST MY PLACE. THE HOMES IN THE PRESERVE ARE WELL WITHIN THAT DISTANCE. THAT STANDARD EXISTS TO PRESENT, TO PROTECT RESIDENTS FROM THE VERY IMPACTS THIS PROJECT WOULD CAUSE NOISE, FUMES AND SAFETY RISKS, AND IT SHOULD BE UPHELD. IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE HOMES DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE PROPOSED FUEL STATION INCLUDE LOWER INCOME FAMILIES. IT FEELS AS THOUGH THIS DEVELOPER IS TARGETING AN AREA WHERE RESIDENTS MAY LACK THE TIME OR RESOURCES TO BE HERE TONIGHT AND SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. THAT IS DEEPLY UNFAIR, AND THAT'S MY TIME. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, MISS MARTIN. NEXT SPEAKER, KRISTIN MARTIN. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCIL MEMBERS, THANK YOU

[01:30:10]

FOR TAKING THE TIME TO LISTEN TONIGHT. MY NAME IS CHRISTIAN MARTIN. I LIVE AT EIGHT, FOUR, THREE THREE GRAY SQUIRREL LANE IN THE PRESERVE AT HONEY CREEK. MY FAMILY AND I ARE PROUD TO CALL MCKINNEY HOME. WE CHOSE THIS CITY BECAUSE OF ITS THOUGHTFUL PLANNING, ITS QUIET NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THE BALANCE BETWEEN GROWTH AND LIVABILITY. THAT MAKES MCKINNEY SUCH A GREAT PLACE TO RAISE A FAMILY. I'M HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE MANY OF US IN HONEY CREEK AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED 7-ELEVEN GAS STATION AT THE ENTRANCE TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS ISN'T ABOUT BEING ANTI-GROWTH OR ANTI-BUSINESS. WE UNDERSTAND DEVELOPMENT IS PART OF MCKINNEY'S SUCCESS. WE JUST WANT GROWTH THAT FITS, GROWTH THAT SUPPORTS NEIGHBORHOODS INSTEAD OF DISRUPTING THEM.

THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT SIMPLY DOESN'T FIT WITH 12 FUEL PUMPS. IT'S CLEARLY DESIGNED TO SERVE COMMUTER AND CONTRACTOR TRAFFIC. COMING OFF FM 543, NOT THE FAMILIES THAT LIVE HERE. THAT SCALE MEANS MORE LARGE VEHICLES, MORE CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC AND MORE CONGESTION AT AN INTERSECTION THAT'S ALREADY BUSY DURING RUSH HOUR. AND IT'S NOT AS IF WE LACK FUELING OPTIONS. WE ALREADY HAVE STATIONS NEARBY, ONE AT H-E-B AND ANOTHER JUST DOWN LAKE FOREST, SO THIS ISN'T MEETING A LOCAL NEED. IT'S DUPLICATING WHAT ALREADY EXISTS WHILE ADDING MORE OUTSIDE TRAFFIC TO OUR STREETS. THEN THERE IS THE PROXIMITY ISSUE, THE CITY CODE CALLING FOR A 250 FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN FUEL CANOPIES AND HOMES FOR GOOD REASON TO LIMIT LIGHT POLLUTION, FUMES AND 24 HOUR NOISE. THIS PLAN SITS CLOSER THAN THAT, WHICH MEANS BRIGHT LIGHTS ALL NIGHT, EARLY MORNING DELIVERIES AND CONSTANT MOVEMENT RIGHT OUTSIDE OUR WINDOWS. AND EVEN BEYOND THAT, A SITE OF THIS SIZE WILL BRING MORE POLICE AND EMERGENCY CALLS NOT BECAUSE OF SERIOUS CRIME, BUT BECAUSE OF NUISANCE ISSUES THAT PULL LIMITED RESOURCES AWAY FROM NEARBY NEIGHBORHOODS. LATE AT NIGHT, WHEN THE PUMPS ARE CLEAR THAT THAT LONG ONE LANE STRETCH BECOMES A SPEEDING CORRIDOR SOMETHING WE'VE ALREADY SEEN SEEN NEAR SIMILAR STATIONS AT THE. AT THE HEART OF THIS, IT'S ABOUT PRESERVING THE CHARACTER AND SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITY. THERE ARE PLENTY OF PLACES IN MCKINNEY THAT MAKE SENSE FOR A LARGE FUELING SITE, BUT THE ENTRANCE TO A QUIET, FAMILY FOCUSED NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT ONE OF THEM. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, MR. MARTIN. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK TONIGHT ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE. Y'ALL HAVE SOME REALLY GOOD POINTS. BUT TO ME, UP HERE IN THIS JOB, THERE'S ONE THAT SUPERSEDES THEM ALL. AND THAT IS THAT YOU HAD A RIGHT WHEN YOU BOUGHT YOUR HOMES TO EXPECT THAT WE WOULD HONOR THE PARTICULAR ZONING THAT'S THERE AND FUEL IS INVASIVE. AND DOCTOR FELTZ MADE A POINT THAT THERE'S A HEALTH REASON FOR THIS. I RECOGNIZE THE APPLICANT'S RIGHT TO BE HERE. I RECOGNIZE THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE PROPERTY OWNER TO PETITION TO HAVE THIS, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S THE RIGHT FIT FOR MCKINNEY. SO WITH THAT, MR. MAYOR, UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER REMARKS, I'M HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION TO HONOR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND DENY THIS PERMIT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE POINT, BECAUSE I OBVIOUSLY, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS, AND I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT BABY, BECAUSE THAT BABY WOULD BE THE ONE AT RISK. RIGHT. BUT THIS IS A HARD CORNER. IT'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPED. I THINK YOU GUYS KNOW THAT SOMETHING ELSE IS COMING HERE. SO EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT, IF IT IS APPROPRIATELY ZONED, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AN EMPTY FIELD FOR VERY MUCH LONGER.

RIGHT. SO I JUST WANTED TO JUST GIVE YOU ALL A HEADS UP ON THAT. I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILWOMAN CLAUDIA TO DENY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. SECOND, BY COUNCILMAN FRANKLIN. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? NO. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES. MOTION IS TO DENY AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU. SORRY ABOUT THAT, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. THAT MOTION CARRIES BY A VOTE OF SEVEN IN FAVOR. IN FAVOR AND

[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 Single-Family Attached Residential Uses and to Modify the Development Standards, Located Approximately 440 feet South of Standifer Street and on the East Side of Bumpas Street, and Accompanying Ordinance]

ZERO AGAINST. THE NEXT ITEM, 25-0046Z3. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REZONE OF A PROPERTY FROM PD TO PD TO ALLOW FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL USES. AND THIS IS 400FT SOUTH OF STANFORD STREET ON THE EAST SIDE OF BUMPUS STREET. LUCAS. THANK YOU. LUCAS REILLY, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING. AND WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT HABITAT COTTON GROVES. REZONE.

THIS IS A SPECIFIC CHANGE FROM THE EXISTING ZONING TO A NEW PD THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A CHANGE IN THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. CURRENTLY, THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS REQUIRE A SHADE TREE IN THE FRONT YARD. HERE. THE NEW PLAN THAT THEY HAVE TO DEVELOP THE SOUTH SIDE OF THIS

[01:35:02]

PROPERTY DOES NOT GIVE ENOUGH SPACE BETWEEN THE EXISTING UTILITIES AND THE FRONT OF THE BUILDINGS, WHERE THEY'VE GOT SOME SIDEWALK, PORCH, THINGS LIKE THAT. FOR SHADE TREE TO BE PLANTED WITHOUT INTERRUPTING THOSE UTILITIES, POTENTIALLY DAMAGING THOSE. AND SO THE CHANGE WOULD ALLOW FOR ORNAMENTAL TREES INSTEAD OF THOSE SHADE TREES. AND ALSO THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED SOME ADDITIONAL SHADE TREES IN THE COMMON AREA TO TRY AND PRODUCE THE SAME AMOUNT OF URBAN CANOPY THAT WAS REQUIRED BY THE ORIGINAL CODE. I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS? NO. LUCAS. THANK YOU. IS THERE APPLICANT HERE BY CHANCE? SURE.

NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. OKAY. THIS IS AN ITEM THAT DOES HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING COMPONENT. IF YOU'VE COME TONIGHT AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THIS PROPOSED ITEM, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. MR. MAYOR, GIVEN NO APPETITE TO DO THAT, I'LL MOVE THAT. WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS ITEM AS PRESENTED. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN CLAUDIA TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE ITEM. AS FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM FELTZ, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES. THE MOTION CARRIES BY A VOTE OF SEVEN IN FAVOR AND ZERO AGAINST. THAT ITEM HAS BEEN APPROVED. OUR

[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 a New and Unlisted Use (Hangar Home) and to Modify the Development Standards, Located Approximately 1,120 Feet North of Virginia Parkway and Approximately 640 Feet West of Virginia Hills Drive, and Accompanying Ordinance]

NEXT ITEM TONIGHT IS 25-0084Z2. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REZONING FOR PROPERTY FROM PD TO PD TO ALLOW FOR NEW AND UNLISTED USE. A HANGAR HOME AND A MONITOR TO MODIFY THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. THIS IS AT 1100 FEET NORTH OF VIRGINIA PARKWAY, 600FT WEST OF VIRGINIA HILLS DRIVE. MR. REILLY, THANK YOU. AND SO WE HAVE ANOTHER PD TO PD REZONING REQUEST.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. MY NAME IS MY NAME IS JEANNIE KLEIN. I AM A BROKER WITH AIRSPACE. WE SPECIALIZE IN AVIATION, REAL ESTATE AND DEVELOPMENT. AND I REPRESENT MY CLIENT, THE HAT GROUP, WHO ARE BUILDING A BEAUTIFUL DEVELOPMENT OVER HERE. REALLY, THE ONLY CHANGE WE'RE ASKING FOR IS JUST INSTEAD OF HAVING THEM ATTACHED, JUST MAKE THEM DETACHED, WHICH IS MUCH MORE HIGHLY DESIRABLE AND VALUABLE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT IT IS VERY MUCH A ZONED PROPERTY WITH ALL OF OUR ORDINANCES THAT WE HAVE. I THINK I HAVE THREE OF THEM MEMORIZED, BUT SO IT'S NOT A BIG CHANGE, BUT IT'S A BIG CHANGE TO OUR BUYERS. AND AND I THINK IT WILL IMPROVE THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT EVEN MORE. WHY IS THAT CURIOSITY QUESTION WHY IS IT MORE VALUABLE, DETACHED, AND HOW FAR DETACHED IS IT? SO WE HAVE ABOUT A FIVE FOOT SEPARATION BETWEEN THEM. BUT IT'S JUST LIKE YOU BUYING A HOME VERSUS BUYING A IT'S ZONED TOWNHOME, BUT THEY'RE ATTACHED. SO IT COULD BE 2 TO 4 ATTACHED. A SINGLE FAMILY UNATTACHED HOME IS FAR MORE DESIRABLE THAN A SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED HOME, BUT IT'S ATTACHED TO A HANGAR, WHICH THE ATTACHMENT IS ACTUALLY TO THE THE RESIDENCE NEXT DOOR, I SEE. OKAY. YEAH,

[01:40:05]

THAT IS MORE VALUABLE. YEAH. BOTH OF THEM HAVE AN ATTACHED HANGAR, RIGHT. WHETHER IT'S ATTACHED OR UNATTACHED OR DETACHED. YEAH. GOOD. THANK YOU FOR THAT. YES. OTHER QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. IF YOU'VE COME TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS PROPOSED REZONE, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. MR. MAYOR, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS ITEM. A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM FELTZ TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. I'LL SECOND. SECOND. BY MR. COUNCILMAN JONES, ANY DISCUSSION, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. I. THAT MOTION CARRIES A VOTE OF SEVEN IN FAVOR AND ZERO AGAINST. NEXT ITEM IS 25-0093

[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 to Modify the Development Standards, Located Approximately 690 Feet West of Collin McKinney Parkway and on the North Side of McKinney Ranch Parkway, and Accompanying Ordinance]

Z2. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REZONE OF A PROPERTY FROM PD TWO PD TO ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY USES. THIS IS 690FT WEST OF COLLIN MCKINNEY PARKWAY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MCKINNEY RANCH PARKWAY. MR. REILLY, THANK YOU. SO THIS IS OUR LAST ITEM FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT TONIGHT.

ANOTHER PD TWO PD REZONING. IN THIS CASE IT IS REQUESTING A USE CHANGE. HERE'S THE SITE JUST NORTH OF MCKINNEY RANCH PARKWAY. YOU CAN SEE ON THE AERIAL. IT IS CURRENTLY AN UNDEVELOPED SITE. THE EXISTING PD IS A SINGLE FAMILY. USE. THERE IS A CITY OF MCKINNEY.

LOOKS LIKE SOME GROUND STORAGE TANKS ON THE EAST SIDE. THE WEST SIDE IS AN EXISTING MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON THE SOUTHERN HALF, AND THEN THE NORTH HALF IS A SINGLE FAMILY AND THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FOR MULTI-FAMILY USE. THE REASON THEY ARE NOT GOING FOR A STRAIGHT ZONE, SUCH AS MF 36 AS IT'S NOW CALLED, IS BECAUSE THEY DO WANT TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING BUFFERS WHERE IT IS ADJACENT TO NON SINGLE FAMILY USES, AND SO IN THEIR USE CHART THEY'VE DELINEATED THE REQUIRED BUFFERING FROM SINGLE FAMILY WHICH IS STILL 20FT BUT WHERE IT'S ADJACENT TO MULTIFAMILY OR CITY OF MCKINNEY PROPERTY, THEY ARE HOPING TO REDUCE THAT BUFFER TO FIVE FEET IN IN SUPPORT OF THOSE CHANGES. THEY HAVE ALSO ADDED SOME ADDITIONAL AMENITIES. THEY DO NOT ALLOW BALCONIES FACING SINGLE FAMILY ABOVE FIRST FLOOR, NO GARAGES FACING THE SINGLE FAMILY. ADJACENT STAFF SUPPORTS THIS REQUEST AND THAT IT MEETS THE COMP PLAN. LAND USE TYPOLOGY. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE RECEIVED IN ADVANCE OF THIS IS WHY WOULD WE NOT TRY AND MAINTAIN THIS FOR COMMERCIAL USE? TWO ANSWERS TO THAT ONE, THERE'S SOME ACCESS ISSUES THAT WE THINK MIGHT BETTER FIT MULTIFAMILY USE. THE OTHER IS, AS OF NOW, ANY PROPERTY THAT IS REZONED FOR COMMERCIAL USE, OF COURSE, UNDER SB 840 COULD ALSO BE MULTIFAMILY. I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. LUCAS, ARE THERE QUESTIONS ANYONE? NO THANK YOU. IS THERE APPLICANT HERE? GOOD EVENING. ZACH JOHNSTON WITH ENDEAVOR REAL ESTATE GROUP, 100 CRESCENT COURT, DALLAS, TEXAS. 752201. IN THE ESSENCE OF TIME, WE'LL TRY TO GO THROUGH THIS PRETTY QUICKLY HERE TODAY, BUT WE'RE HERE ON BEHALF OF OBVIOUSLY, THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY. FIRST COUPLE PAGES OF OUR PACKET. JUST TALK ABOUT OUR COMPANY ENDEAVOR. WE'RE REAL ESTATE INVESTORS. WE SPECIALIZE IN ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROPERTIES. SO WITHIN OUR COMPANY WE DO RESIDENTIAL WHICH INCLUDES SINGLE FAMILY INCLUDES FOR SALE PRODUCT AS WELL AS RENTAL PRODUCT, STUDENT HOUSING, RETAIL, INDUSTRIAL, OFFICE, HOSPITALITY AND HOTELS. AND SO WE'RE NOT ONLY DEVELOPERS AND ACQUIRERS, BUT WE'RE ALSO HEAVILY INVESTORS IN WHAT WE BUILD AND WHAT WE ACQUIRE. THE PROJECT ITSELF. I THINK EVERYBODY KNOWS THE LOCATION OF IT HERE IN MCKINNEY RANCH, JUST OVER BY THE INTERSECTION OF 75 AND 121 STAFF KIND OF SHOWED THE EXISTING USES THAT SURROUND THIS. WHAT I'D LIKE TO SPEND SOME OF THE TIME TALKING ABOUT IS HOW WE GOT HERE AND REALLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AND WHY WE EVALUATED THIS AND FELT LIKE IT WAS THE RIGHT TRANSITION FOR THIS PROPERTY. WE WENT THROUGH SORT OF CURRENT ZONING, PROPOSED ZONING. AGAIN, THE IN TERMS OF VARIANCES, REALLY, WE