[CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:08] AND I'D LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYBODY TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24TH, 2026. THE COMMISSIONERS THAT YOU SEE SEATED BEFORE YOU HAVE BEEN APPOINTED BY CITY COUNCIL, AND WE SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF CITY COUNCIL. SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT YOU HEAR TONIGHT WILL ONLY BE HEARD BY PLANNING AND ZONING, WHILE OTHERS WILL BE FORWARDED ON FOR FINAL ACTION AT A LATER CITY COUNCIL MEETING. IF THERE IS AN ITEM THAT'S GOING TO BE FORWARDED ON TO CITY COUNCIL, I'LL LET YOU KNOW. AND THEN ALSO, IF YOU'RE HERE THIS EVENING AND YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM, WE ASK THAT YOU KINDLY COMPLETE A YELLOW SPEAKER CARD AND TURN THAT IN. AND WHEN YOU DO APPROACH THE PODIUM, KINDLY STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES FOR YOUR MARKS AND YOU FOR YOUR REMARKS, AND YOU MAY ONLY SPEAK ONCE ON ANY ITEM. THE COMMISSIONERS SEATED BEFORE YOU. WE KINDLY ASK THAT YOU FOCUS ON THE ISSUES THAT YOU RESPECT, THE OTHERS THAT ARE HERE, AND THAT YOU'RE CONCISE IN YOUR COMMENTS. WE DO WANT TO STRESS THAT YOUR INPUT, YOUR OPINIONS ARE IMPORTANT AND THEY DO BECOME A PART OF THE CITY RECORD. WE ALL WANT TO ACT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITIZENS OF MCKINNEY. SO AT THIS TIME, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE NONPUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS? OKAY. [CONSENT ITEMS] WE'LL MOVE ON NOW TO CONSENT ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. THAT'S GOING TO INCLUDE ITEM 26013 SIX MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10TH, 2026. DO WE HAVE A MOTION OR A COMMENT OR CONSENT ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. THERE WERE SOME CHANGES THAT I SUBMITTED TO STAFF EARLIER. SO THOSE CHANGES WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE MOTION. DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THE MINUTES? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDED MINUTES. COMMISSIONER LEBEAU HAS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND. I MEAN, TO APPROVE THE AMENDED MINUTES. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HAMMOCK. KINDLY CAST YOUR VOTES. OKAY. THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDED MINUTES IS UNANIMOUS. 7 TO 0. NOW, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE REGULAR ITEMS ON OUR [Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Design Exception to a Site Plan for a Warehouse (McKinney Airport Crossroads), Located Approximately 285 Feet North of Country Road 317 and on the East and West Side of Future Spur 399] AGENDA. THE FIRST ITEM IS ITEM 25-0084 SP CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS ACT ON A DESIGN EXCEPTION TO A SITE PLAN FOR A WAREHOUSE. MCKINNEY AIRPORT CROSSROADS. LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 285FT NORTH OF COUNTY ROAD 317 AND ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF FUTURE SPUR 399. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. TYPICALLY, SITE PLANS ARE APPROVED AT THE STAFF LEVEL, GIVEN THAT THERE'S A DESIGN EXCEPTION THAT'S BEING REQUESTED THROUGH THE SITE PLAN. THESE ARE USUALLY APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. SO I STAND BEFORE YOU REGARDING THE REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT TO REMOVE 100% OF THE QUALITY TREES WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN, WHICH EXCEEDS THE CITY'S 30% LIMIT. AS NOTED HERE, I JUST WANT TO KIND OF DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS EXHIBIT. THE ITEM HERE IN GREEN OR BLUE, OR THESE WIGGLY KIND OF POND LOOKING SEGMENT, THIS IS THE EXISTING FLOODPLAIN. AND THEN THE ORANGE LOOKING POND LOOK, THAT'S THE PROPOSED FLOODPLAIN. SO JUST KIND OF GIVE YOU A VISUAL. WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED. THE APPLICANT COULD REMOVE 11 OF THE 36 TREES WITHOUT APPROVAL, BUT COMMISSION APPROVAL IS REQUIRED TO REMOVE ALL 100%. IT IS WORTH TO NOTE THAT THERE ARE 310 QUALITY TREES THAT COULD BE REMOVED IF WE INCLUDE THE 36, SO JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT INFORMATION OUT. THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE APPLIES TO ALL DESIGNATED FLOODPLAIN AREAS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY'RE FEMA OR CITY DESIGNATED. REMOVAL OF ALL QUALITY TREES WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN RAISES CONCERNS REGARDING THE FLOW VELOCITY, WATER SURFACE LEVEL EROSION CONTROL, NATURAL FLOOD MITIGATION, AS WELL AS LOSS OF THESE TREES COULD REDUCE THE FLOOD, COULD REDUCE THE FLOODPLAINS FUNCTIONALITY, AND INCREASE THE POTENTIAL DOWNSTREAM FOR FLOODING AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE ADDITIONAL PRESERVATION OF THESE TREES COULD, COULD, COULD BE ACHIEVED THROUGH REDESIGN, AND THEREFORE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE DESIGN EXCEPTION DUE TO THE SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS FROM THE ORDINANCE STANDARDS AND THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE FLOODPLAIN. WE ALSO HAVE OUR URBAN FORESTER, IAN ERICKSON, PRESENT HERE, AND I'M ALSO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I DID WANT TO MAKE ONE SIMPLE CORRECTION HERE. THE FLOODPLAIN FLOOD STUDY HAS BEEN APPROVED, SO I JUST WANTED TO CORRECT THAT FROM MY STAFF [00:05:02] REPORT, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THIS LOOKS TO BE A DETENTION POND THAT WILL BE THERE AFTER FULL DEVELOPMENT. DOES THAT MITIGATE ANY OF YOUR WORRIES ABOUT FLOW RATE AND STUFF LIKE THAT? WELL, WITH THIS ONE, OUR ENGINEER KIND OF POINTED OUT THAT, WELL, IT COULD REDUCE OR WELL, IT COULD WELL, EVEN THOUGH THE DETENTION POND COULD KEEP THE DOWN STREAM LOW, IT COULD STILL RELEASE WATER TO EXISTING PROPERTIES. IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, ALMOST LIKE A BUCKET THAT CAN ELIMINATE WATER IN 30 MINUTES, THIS COULD BE THE EQUIVALENT OF A FAUCET RUNNING A LOW STREAM FOR HOURS. SO THE FLOOD STUDY THAT WAS DONE IS THAT THE BLUE LINE NOTED. IS THAT THE RESULT OF THE FLOOD STUDY OR IS THAT A FEMA. SO THIS SHOULD THIS SHOULD REFLECT WHAT THE STUDY CAME ABOUT. THERE WAS AN ERROR IN MY IN MY NOTE SAYING THAT IT HADN'T BEEN APPROVED. I JUST WANTED TO CORRECT THAT FOR THE RECORD. AND IS THE THE STUDY THAT WAS APPROVED, THE EXISTING FULLY DEVELOPED FLOODPLAIN DELINEATION IN BLUE OR WHAT'S PROPOSED IN ORANGE BY THE APPLICANT. SO I'LL DEFER TO THE APPLICANT ON THAT INFORMATION FOR THE TECHNICAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE STUDY. TYPICALLY WE WOULD HAVE OUR ENGINEER. UNFORTUNATELY, HE WASN'T HERE TO COME IN AND DISCUSS THOSE MATTERS. ON THE TREES YOU MENTIONED TO BE REMOVED. WAS THAT FOR THE ENTIRE SITE? IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SOME ON THE NORTH END THAT ARE NOT PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL. THE TREES IN QUESTION ARE GOING TO BE THE ONES HERE. THE TREES IN QUESTION ARE GOING TO BE ANYTHING WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN HERE. THAT'S THE 36. THAT'S THE 36. ANYTHING THE 310, INCLUDING THE 36, IF APPROVED, WOULD BE FOR THE ENTIRE SITE. AND ANYTHING THAT'S RELATED TO THE PROJECT. GOT IT. THANK YOU. SO JUST CLARIFICATION. THE BLUE IS THE EXISTING AREA WHILE THE ORANGE IS GOING TO BE POST-DEVELOPMENT FLOODPLAIN. CORRECT. JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL CLEAR. YES. SO THE BUILDINGS HERE JUST TO GIVE CONTEXT, CONTEXT THIS IS THE BUILDING. SO THERE'S SOME ENCROACHMENT HERE. OKAY. YEAH I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT THAT. THAT'S I COULDN'T TELL EXACTLY WHERE THE BUILDING. YEAH. NO PROBLEM. I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. THAT'S OKAY. SO WITH THE BUILDING, YOU JUST DREW THE BUILDING. HOW MANY OF THOSE TREES ARE. HOW MANY TREES THERE ARE INCLUDED IN WHAT THEY'RE WANTING TO REMOVE? SO THE 36 COME FROM THE FLOODPLAIN? STRICTLY FROM THE FLOODPLAIN, THE THE OVERALL CALCULATIONS. JUST TO KIND OF GIVE AN IDEA OF THE OTHER TREES THAT ARE ON SITE. OKAY. AND THAT'S THE ONLY VARIANCE REQUESTED IS THE TREES BEING REMOVED IN THE FULLY DEVELOPED FLOODPLAIN SHOWN IN BLUE. CORRECT. THE ONLY REQUEST IS FOR THE 36 IN THE FLOODPLAIN. THE OTHERS ARE FOR DEVELOPMENT. THERE ARE EXEMPT BY RIGHT. THEY CAN DO THOSE TREES TO BE REMOVED. WHICH REINFORCES OUR CONCERN TO PROTECT THOSE TREES DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT'S ANOTHER DEGRADATION OF OUR URBAN CANOPY OF WITH THOSE REMOVALS. HENCE WHY THIS KIND OF DESIGN EXCEPTION COMES BEFORE YOU FOR CONSIDERATION. OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ARACELI? I MAY HAVE MISSED THE THE 2020 REPLACEMENT TREES BEING PLANTED ON SITE. MAYBE THAT'S INSUFFICIENT. INSUFFICIENT NUMBER FOR Y'ALL. OR IS IT? DOES THAT NOT REALLY MATTER JUST BASED ON YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE FLOW RATE THROUGH THE. SO THOSE TREES ARE SEPARATE. FOR THE TREES ON THE OVERALL SITE WHERE QUALITY THEY'RE DOING MITIGATION. SO TO MEET THE MITIGATION PORTION WHICH IS SEPARATE FROM THE 36 THEY'RE PROPOSING TO PLANT THE 20. AND THEN WHATEVER FEES CALCULATIONS THAT THEY WOULD REQUIRE OKAY. THANK YOU. IS OUR APPLICANT HERE? YES. I HAVE. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ROCCO KERSEY HERE ON BEHALF OF THE DEVELOPER COMMITTED INDUSTRIAL. BEFORE I HAND IT OFF TO OUR CIVIL ENGINEER AT KIMLEY-HORN TO DISCUSS THE MORE TECHNICAL ASPECTS, THE POINT THAT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT IN DESIGNING OUR SITE PLAN. FROM THE BEGINNING, WE KNEW THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE REMOVING TREES, SO WE AIMED TO PRIORITIZE THE ESTHETIC OF THE PROJECT BY DELIVERING ABOVE CODE AMOUNT OF TREES TO THE PROJECT, RATHER THAN JUST PAYING THE MITIGATION CREDITS BECAUSE WE WANTED TO DELIVER AN ATTRACTIVE PROJECT. SO THOSE 20 TREES, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND IT, ARE ABOVE WHAT'S REQUIRED BY CODE, THE 20 ADDITIONAL TREES, THEN THE REMAINING WILL BE PAID TO INSTEAD OF JUST PAYING MITIGATION CREDITS. MR. KERSEY, COULD YOU STATE YOUR ADDRESS, [00:10:01] PLEASE? OH. I'M SORRY. 5717 LEGACY DRIVE, SUITE 250, PLANO, TEXAS. THANK YOU. AND I'LL HAND IT OFF TO. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JOSE GONZALEZ WITH KIMLEY-HORN CIVIL ENGINEER. MY ADDRESS IS 5832 COPPER CANYON, THE COLONY, TEXAS. HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, I'D LIKE TO JUST KIND OF START BY GIVING SOME HISTORY ABOUT THE PROJECT AND KIND OF LIKE THE IMAGES THAT WE WERE SEEING ON THE SCREEN. BUT AS YOU KNOW, THE GENERAL AREA WHERE THIS IS LOCATED IS GUIDED TOWARDS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND THE SITE IS ZONED INDUSTRIAL IN AREAS WHERE THERE'S LARGE AREAS OF DEVELOPMENT. SO WHEN LOOKING AT THIS SITE AND DOING SOME DUE DILIGENCE, THE PROPERTY PROVED TO NOT HAVE ANY FEMA FLOODPLAIN LOCATED WITHIN IT. WE STARTED GOING THROUGH THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS AND THROUGH THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS. WE WERE REQUESTED TO PROVIDE A FLOODPLAIN STUDY, WHICH IS A CRITERIA THAT GETS TRIGGERED BY ENGINEERING. WHEN THERE IS A PARCEL UPSTREAM OF YOUR SITE THAT'S LARGER THAN 50 ACRES, YOU'RE THEN REQUIRED TO KIND OF DETERMINE WHAT ARE THE FLOODPLAIN LIMITS AS ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY FOR THE 100 YEAR AND DETERMINE THAT AS A CITY FLOODPLAIN, WHICH IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN FEMA, FLOODPLAIN, WHICH IS REGULATED FEDERALLY. AND THROUGH THAT STUDY, WE THEN DETERMINED THAT THE FULLY DEVELOPED IS THE BLUE AREA, AS SHOWN IN THE EXHIBIT, WHICH IS THE FLOODPLAIN LIMITS. AND SO ONCE THE FLOODPLAIN IS IDENTIFIED WITH THE SITE WITHIN THE SITE, IT THEN TRIGGERS THAT CITY ORDINANCE TO AVOID THE REMOVAL OF MORE THAN 30% TREES WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN. AND SO IN GENERAL, I WOULD SAY OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORDINANCE IS THAT IT'S MORE SO MEANT TO PREVENT KIND OF THE REMOVAL OF TREES WITHIN LARGER BODIES OF WATERS, LIKE STREAMS OR CREEKS OR AREAS WHERE IT'S BENEFICIAL TO MAINTAIN THOSE TREES FOR EROSION OR NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL HABITATS THAT ARE CREATED ALONG THOSE AREAS THAT EXPERIENCE A LOT OF WATER, TYPICALLY, AS OPPOSED TO SMALLER KIND OF LIMITS OF DEPRESSED AREAS WITHIN A SITE WHERE IN 100 YEAR EVENTS, THE WATER WILL KIND OF FOLLOW THAT PATTERN. AND SO WITH THAT, IT LEAVES US TO KIND OF OUR REQUEST TO HAVE A DESIGN VARIANCE TO REMOVE 35 TOTAL TREES. WITHIN THAT, OUR QUALITY TREES WITHIN THIS FLOODPLAIN LIMITS, AS YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, I THINK IT'S WORTH HIGHLIGHTING THAT ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF FM 546, THERE IS A LARGE GROUP OF TREES THAT WE'RE MAKING AN EFFORT TO REMAIN OR KEEP AS MANY AS THEM AS POSSIBLE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A FEW SMALLER TREES ALONG THE SWALE OF FM 546. THAT IS BEING IMPROVED AS A REQUEST BY TXDOT. ANOTHER ITEM WORTH HIGHLIGHTING, AS I MENTIONED, IS THAT IN ORDER TO MITIGATE FOR STORMWATER, WE ARE PICKING UP THE WATER KIND OF IN THE SAME GENERAL AREA ON THE NORTH WHERE IT'S BEING DEPOSITED BY THE NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT, AND THEN ROUTING IT THROUGH AN UNDERGROUND STORM SYSTEM TO A DETENTION AREA THAT WILL HELP KIND OF SLOW DOWN WATER, REDUCE THE RATE OF WHICH WE RELEASE IT. AND ULTIMATELY, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE GREEN AREA KIND OF OVERLAPS THE PROPOSED FLOODPLAIN LIMITS VERSUS THE EXISTING. AND YOU CAN SEE THERE'S THERE IS A DECREASE IN FLOODPLAIN DOWNSTREAM. ONCE WE PROVIDE THIS DETENTION FACILITY TO KIND OF HELP THE LEVELS OF FLOODING DOWNSTREAM OF THE SITE, AND THEREFORE KIND OF CREATE LESS IMPACTS TO DOWNSTREAM NEIGHBORS FROM OUR SITE. A QUESTION HOW DEEP IS THE DETENTION POND PLANNED? NATURALLY, THERE'S A HIGHER AREA WHERE WE'RE NOT DETAINING, BUT ON THE SOUTH SIDE THERE'S A BERM THAT HAS A MAX HEIGHT OF 5.5FT. THAT'S REALLY WHAT THE DETENTION VOLUME TENDS TO TO THE NORTH. WE HAVE TO KIND OF MAKE UP A LITTLE BIT MORE GRADE. SO YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTOURS TO GET UP TO LIKE POTENTIALLY 12FT, I BELIEVE. I HAVE A QUESTION BASED ON YOUR WATER STUDY, WILL THAT BE A RETENTION POND AT ALL EVER? NO, SIR. IT'S MEANT TO BE A DETENTION TO KIND OF RELEASE IN THE SAME GENERAL AREA WHERE THE NATURAL PATTERN USED TO GO. THE OUTFALL WILL BE LOCATED IN THAT SAME LOCATION. AND AS IT WAS MENTIONED, IT RELEASES THE WATER SLOWLY AT A RATE THAT REDUCES FLOODING DOWNSTREAM. THANK YOU. WHAT ABOUT THE PORTION OF THE BUILDING THAT'S NOW NOW WITHIN THE FLOOD STUDY AREA? WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE DETENTION POND, THE EXISTING FLOODPLAIN ESSENTIALLY GETS REMOVED, RELOCATED TOWARDS THE ORANGE AREA TO KEEP THE FLOODPLAIN AWAY FROM THE PROPOSED BUILDING. OKAY. AND SO ESSENTIALLY, YOUR DETENTION IS STACKED ON TOP OF THE ORANGE AREA. IN ADDITION TO THE FLOODPLAIN VOLUME YOU'RE MITIGATING FOR AND WHAT EFFORTS WERE MADE IN THE DETENTION POND DESIGN STAFF MADE A COMMENT IN REGARDS TO, I'LL SAY, OTHER VARIATIONS OR OTHER VARIATIONS LOOKED AT IN REGARDS TO THAT FOOTPRINT. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SOME GRADING, WHICH IS LIKELY WHAT'S LEADING TO THESE TREES BEING REMOVED. THAT'S RIGHT. YOU CAN TELL THAT THE SITE HAS SOME CONSTRAINTS. FUTURE 399 ON THE RIGHT SIDE IS BEING DEVELOPED, AND THAT RIGHT [00:15:05] OF WAY HAS ALREADY BEEN DEDICATED. AND AS YOU MENTIONED, ON THE LEFT SIDE, WE'RE EXPERIENCING SOME SOME LARGE DROPS OF ELEVATION. AND SO REALLY, IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS AN ATTRACTIVE PROJECT, WE TRY TO MAXIMIZE AS MUCH AS WE CAN TO PUSH BACK THE SIDE. BUT YOU CAN TELL WITH THE BLUE AREA KIND OF CUTTING THROUGH THE MIDDLE, ANY EFFORTS TO KIND OF REDUCE THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT WOULD MAKE A LESS DESIRABLE PROJECT. AND IS THE AREA WHERE TREES ARE BEING SAVED. WEST OF THE PROPERTY IS THAT LAND THAT WAS DEDICATED FOR FM 546, OR IS THAT RIGHT OF WAY TODAY? IT'S A PORTION THAT'S ACTUALLY OWNED BY THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. OKAY. AND IT'S BEING MAINTAINED. AND THEN I THINK IT'S WORTH ALSO NOTING THAT AS A ROCK MENTIONED, I THINK THE DEVELOPER UNDERSTANDS THE INTENT OF MAINTAINING KIND OF LIKE A NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IN THAT AREA. AND SO THE EXTRA TREES WILL BE DISPERSED AROUND THE SITE ON TOP OF THE MITIGATION FUND THAT'S BEING PROVIDED TO KIND OF MAINTAIN THAT NATURAL AND VEGETATED STATE FOR THE SITE. ABLE TO JUMP IN REAL QUICK. AND JUST A QUICK COMMENT, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE THE DETENTION POND IS A KIND OF MORE NATURAL SHAPE THAT WAS DONE NOT IN THE BEGINNING. WE STARTED WITH A TYPICAL RECTANGULAR DETENTION, AND WE'VE ADJUSTED THAT SHAPE WITH THE INTENT OF SAVING ANY TREES WE COULD AND DELIVERING ESTHETICALLY A BETTER LOOKING POND TO GIVE IT A MORE NATURAL LOOK. BUT IT'S A IT'S A DRY POND, RIGHT? IT'S NOT A WET POND. THAT'S CORRECT. SO I MEAN. ESTHETICALLY, IT'S GOING TO BE BASICALLY. I MEAN ESTHETICALLY IT'S JUST A DRIVE FOR. YES. CORRECT. BUT I CAN I CAN CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENT. I MEAN, THE GOAL IS JUST, YOU KNOW, RECTANGULAR IS OBVIOUSLY UNNATURAL VERSUS CURVING. SLOPING MAKES SENSE. GRADES. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. CAN WE HAVE THE ARBORIST COME UP OR DO WE NEED TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING? I WOULD OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN WE CAN BRING STAFF BACK. WE'LL HEAR FROM THE URBAN FORESTRY AFTER WE DO THE PUBLIC HEARING. THIS ITEM DOES HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHED TO IT. SO IF YOU'RE HERE THIS EVENING AND YOU WISH TO SHARE ANY COMMENTS OR CONCERNS, KINDLY APPROACH THE PODIUM. OKAY? SEEING AS THERE ARE NONE, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND COMING UP CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I SECOND THAT MOTION. OKAY. SO FIRST BY COMMISSIONER LEBO, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CRAIG TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. KYLIE, CAST YOUR VOTES ON CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO THAT VOTE PASSES UNANIMOUSLY TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I MEAN, I'D JUST LIKE TO HEAR A NARRATIVE. I GUESS I'M INTERESTED IN PRIORITIES BETWEEN ESTHETICS AND, YOU KNOW, WATER FLOW CONTROL, STUFF LIKE THAT, WHICH WHICH YOU MIGHT DO WITH MONEY SPENT. YOU KNOW, WHERE THE TREES MIGHT GO WITH FOR THE MITIGATION FEES THEY HAVE TO PAY, STUFF LIKE THAT. IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, KINDLY STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE. YEAH. MY NAME IS IAN ERICKSON. I'M URBAN FORESTER FOR THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. I GIVE AN ADDRESS. YES. OKAY. SORRY. FIRST TIME I WANT TO MAKE SURE. SO HOW WOULD WE USE THE MITIGATION FUNDS THAT THEY'RE PAYING? IS THAT THE. SURE. YEAH. SO. SO THE THE MITIGATION FUNDS WILL JUST GO TO ANY TREE PLANTING THAT THAT WE WOULD BELIEVE WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR RESIDENTS OF MCKINNEY. IT CAN POTENTIALLY GO INTO FLOODPLAINS IN CERTAIN CITY OWNED PROPERTIES. BUT THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT HASN'T BEEN PLANNED YET OF WHAT THEIR PAYMENT IS GOING TO GO TOWARDS. TELL ME WHAT THE CONCERNS OF YOUR OFFICE WOULD BE. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THIS, I GUESS, REGARDING OR REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE UDC SAYS, WHAT IS YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT REMOVAL OF THESE TREES ON THIS PROJECT? SO TREES PROVIDE MANY BENEFITS BESIDES HOLDING ON TO WATER. THEY [00:20:04] FILTER OUR AIR AND WHATNOT. FILTER AIR I ACTUALLY HAVE A LIST, BUT THEY FILTER AIR, FILTER THE WATER RUNNING THROUGH THE FLOODPLAIN AS WELL, WHICH CAN FILTER POLLUTANTS AND KEEP IT OUT OF OUR WATERSHED SYSTEM LIKE LAKE LAVON. TREES CAN ALSO REDUCE URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT, WHICH IS THE AMBIENT TEMPERATURE IN THESE AREAS. WITH MORE PAVEMENT COMES HIGHER TEMPERATURES AND TREES CAN REDUCE THAT. THAT'S WHY WE SEE ANY EXISTING TREES AS IMPORTANT. WE HAVE EXEMPTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS AND CUT AND FILL, BUT WHEN IT COMES INTO FLOODPLAIN, WE TRY TO. I THINK THE ULTIMATE GOAL WOULD BE TO AVOID CLEARCUTTING IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IF IF WE CAN. OKAY. THANK YOU. I NOTE THAT THE EASTERN HALF OF THIS PROPERTY BETWEEN WHERE THIS BIT IS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND WHERE THREE, NINE, NINE IS GOING TO BE, IS JUST OPEN FIELD. LOOKS TO ME LIKE THAT'S WHERE LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE REPLACEMENT TREES ARE GOING TO PLANT WILL BE IS WHAT YOU SEE ON THEIR PLANS, IS THAT YOU THINK THAT HAVE ANY MITIGATIVE EFFECT ON LIKE THIS URBAN HEAT ISLAND SITUATION YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? YES. I THINK BY THEM PLANTING TREES, IT WILL REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SUNLIGHT AND HEAT HITTING THE CONCRETE AND REFLECTING OFF INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. I WILL SAY THE 20 TREES THAT THEY'RE PLANTING IS THOSE ARE PART OF MITIGATION. THEY HAVE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING TREES THAT WILL ALSO ASSIST IN THAT, KEEPING THE HEAT AND SUN OFF OF THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACES. THE 20 THEY REFERENCED WERE PART OF THE MITIGATION FOR THE TREES, I BELIEVE, THAT AREN'T EXEMPT. SO THEY'RE IN ADDITION TO THE REGULARLY PLANNED. YES, THEY'RE IN ADDITION TO REPLACE THE TREES THAT WEREN'T EXEMPT THAT THEY'RE REMOVING. OKAY. WHY IS IT NOT A ONE FOR ONE NUMBER SINCE THEY'RE TAKING OUT 36, THEY DON'T HAVE TO REPLACE 36, BUT IT'S A LESSER. SO OUR TREE MITIGATION SYSTEM IS WE TAKE THE DIAMETERS REMOVED OF TREES AND THEN DIVIDE IT BY DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE TREES REMOVED, WE DIVIDE IT BY THE SIZE OF THE TREE THAT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. OKAY. AND QUALITY AND SPECIES ASSESSED WITH THAT AS WELL. YES. THE ONLY TREES THAT THEY'RE MITIGATING FOR QUALITY. QUALITY TREES OKAY. THERE'S A SPECIFIED DIAMETER OR QUALITY THAT WE HAVE A QUALITY TREE LIST. YEAH. ARTICLE FOUR HOW BIG. HOW BIG DO THE TREES NEED TO BE WHEN THEY'RE REPLANTED? SO IS WHAT GINA'S ASKING. SO THE TREES THAT THEY'RE PLANTING. SORRY. THE TREES THAT THEY'RE PLANTING, THOSE 20 OR 4 INCH CALIPER TREES OKAY. SO 80 CALIPER INCHES REPLACED. YES. HOW MANY CALIPER INCHES ARE THEY REMOVING? I THINK I SAW THAT NUMBER BUT. IT'S AT THE END OF THAT REPORT. IRRIGATION MAYBE. I USE A CALCULATOR. I CAN TELL YOU THAT'S ALL RIGHT. BECAUSE I, IT'S 237IN IN THE 6 TO 16 INCH CLASS AND 188 IN THE 16 INCH PLUS DIAMETER CLASS. OKAY. YEAH, I SEE THAT. THAT'S FOR THE ONES THEY'RE REMOVING AS A PART OF THE SITE. NOT NOT IN THE FLOODPLAIN. YES. SORRY TO INTERRUPT. SO FOR THE 20 TREES THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE PROVIDING FOR MITIGATION IS FOR EXISTING TREES THAT ARE BEING REMOVED. RIGHT. NOT THE FLOODPLAIN TREES. SO THE ARGUMENT HERE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE REASON WE HAVE THIS REGULATION IS BECAUSE THE CITY OF MCKINNEY HAS CHOSEN TO PRIORITIZE THE NATURAL FLOODPLAIN IN THE CITY. WE UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE, I'M A CERTIFIED FLOODPLAIN MANAGER. THE MATH MATH'S RIGHT. THEY'RE THEY'RE ACCOUNTING FOR THE FLOOD FLOW. EXCUSE ME? THE EXISTING FLOODPLAIN WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS MADE, THIS IS MORE ABOUT WHAT'S THE PRIORITY. WHAT IS MCKINNEY WANT TO SEE? WHAT HAVE WE SAID MATTERS TO US. AND THAT'S REALLY THE PRESERVING THE INTEGRITY OF THE EXISTING FLOODPLAIN AS IT'S DEVELOPED NATURALLY, WHEN YOU REMOVE THOSE EXISTING 36 QUALITY TREES IN THAT FLOODPLAIN AREA, YOU MOVE THAT WATER AROUND. AGAIN, THE FLOODPLAIN IS MATHEMATICALLY UNCHANGED, EVEN IMPROVED. BUT THOSE TREES GREW THERE FOR A REASON. THAT FLOODPLAIN AND THAT WATER FLOWS THERE FOR A REASON TODAY. AND [00:25:02] THAT'S THAT'S WHERE THE NATURAL FLOW IS. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE BRING THAT FORWARD TO YOU ALL. AS KATE MENTIONED EARLIER, IT'S A POLICY DECISION ON WHETHER WE WANT TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT TO REMOVE THESE TREES. I THINK SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO EXPLORE IS IN THESE SITUATIONS, CAN WE REQUIRE MITIGATION? BECAUSE CURRENTLY IF YOU DO APPROVE, IT'S CONSIDERED AN EXCEPTION FOR DEVELOPMENT. AND SO WE DON'T GET MITIGATION FOR THE ADDITIONAL 36 FLOODPLAIN TREES REMOVED. IT'S CONSIDERED AN EXCEPTION BECAUSE THIS THIS BODY GRANTED THE EXCEPTION UNDER AREAS WHERE THERE WILL BE GRADING SITE WORK, ALL THE REASONS THAT THE REST OF THE TREES ARE EXEMPTED. WOULD THESE NEW FLOODPLAIN TREES THAT DON'T CURRENTLY QUALIFY BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THE FLOODPLAIN, WOULD THEN QUALIFY BECAUSE THEY RECEIVED THAT APPROVAL? SO AGAIN, SORRY TO INTERRUPT. I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU ALL THOSE POINTS. APPRECIATE THAT. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR MR. ERICKSON? YEAH, ACTUALLY, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR OH, I'M SORRY, YOU SAID FOR MR. MR. ERICKSON. MY APOLOGIES. OKAY. JOHN LUCAS TO COME BACK UP. YES, PLEASE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I THINK. LUCAS. YES, SIR. SO EARLIER ON, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THERE HAD BEEN I CAN'T REMEMBER THE PHRASE, BUT ALTERNATIVES TO WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING. THAT COULD BE DONE. KIND OF. I WOULDN'T SAY AS A COMPROMISE, BUT JUST INSTEAD OF THE CURRENT PLAN. SURE. DO YOU KNOW WHAT ANY OF THOSE WERE? I DON'T KNOW IF WE REVIEWED ANY ALTERNATIVE SITE DESIGNS, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE ALWAYS RECOMMEND IN THIS SITUATION. WE SAY, HEY, WHAT CAN YOU DO TO MOVE YOUR SITE TO ALLOW FOR THE WATER TO FLOW THERE? CAN YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A BIG AREA THAT IS CURRENTLY SERVING AS DETENTION POND UNDER THIS PLAN, CAN YOU SHIFT YOUR PARKING TO THAT LOCATION WHERE THERE'S NOT THE EXISTING FLOODPLAIN? CAN YOU SHIFT YOUR BUILDING TO WHERE IT SCOOCHES OVER TO NOT BE IN THAT EXISTING FLOODPLAIN? THOSE ARE THE SUGGESTIONS THAT WE MAKE, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT JUST THE BLUE AREA, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THERE'S NOT REALLY A BIG DIFFERENCE IN THE LAND AREA THAT'S BEING TRADED. IT'S JUST OBVIOUSLY A MUCH EASIER SITE TO DEVELOP WHEN YOU PUSH ALL OF THAT OVER TO ONE SIDE AND TAKE THAT FLOODPLAIN, THAT KIND OF CUTS THE CORNER THERE. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WE ALWAYS SUGGEST IS, HEY, TO MEET OUR REGULATIONS AND NOT COME BEFORE THIS BODY, WE ALWAYS TRY AND ENCOURAGE THEM TO TO WORK WITH THE SITE AND SEE IF IT'S POSSIBLE. TO YOUR POINT, OBVIOUSLY THAT MAKES THEM A LESS DESIRABLE SITE FROM A DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT. BUT ONE MORE QUESTION. IF THE IF THE SITE PLAN IS CHANGED SUCH THAT YOU DON'T MESS WITH THE FLOODPLAIN AREA THAT'S OUTLINED IN BLUE, DOES THE NEED FOR THE DETENTION POND GO AWAY, OR IS THAT STILL GOING TO BE REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THE INFLOW AND OUTFLOW? AND SO THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I DON'T WANT TO ANSWER THAT COMPLETELY. I THINK THAT THE NEED MAY GO AWAY. IT DEPENDS ON THE FLOOD STUDY. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE IF THE FLOOD EXISTING FLOOD AREA IS NOT DISTURBED, THEN THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR IT. NO, IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY REMOVE THAT ABILITY. CAN YOU CAN YOU COME TO THE MIC? SORRY. YEAH. THANK YOU. I HAVE A COUPLE OF CLARIFICATIONS THAT I JUST WANTED TO TALK ABOUT. BUT TO START WITH, IT WOULD NOT DECREASE THE NEED FOR THE DETENTION. THE DETENTION. WHAT IT'S DOING IS IT'S NOT ACTING AS A REPLACEMENT FOR FLOODPLAIN. IT'S THERE TO TAKE TO CONTROL THE ADDITIONAL FLOW THAT'S CREATING BY REPLACING DIRT WITH PAVEMENT. RIGHT. AND SO WHILE WE WERE WELL, IT WOULD MORE SO CREATE SORT OF LIKE AN ESTHETIC TRAIL. IT WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO CONTROL THE, THE DRAINAGE COMING THROUGH THE NORTH TO THE SITE, AND WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO CONTROL THE ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE THAT WE'RE CREATING BY CREATING ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS AREA. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO FIND WAYS TO ADD DETENTION, REDUCE THE SITE PLAN AND THEN MAINTAIN THE EXISTING FLOODPLAIN. OKAY. AND SO THE COMBINATION OF THOSE WOULD TURN THIS SITE INTO A NOT VERY USEFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND THEN ONE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO MENTION IS THAT WE ARE MITIGATING FOR THE 36 TREES THAT ARE BEING REMOVED. THE WAY THIS IS BEING HANDLED IS THAT THERE'S NOT TWO MITIGATION FUNDS, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, TREES REMOVED ACROSS THE SITE AND THEN TREES REMOVED WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN. THE MITIGATION THAT WE'RE DOING TAKES INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE TREES THAT ARE BEING REMOVED, INCLUDING THE 35 THAT ARE WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN. THE THE DESIGN EXCEPTION IS NOT TO ADD MITIGATION FOR THOSE TREES IS TO GET PERMISSION TO REMOVE [00:30:02] THEM, BUT THEY ARE CERTAINLY BEING TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WITH THE MITIGATION FEES THAT WE'RE PAYING AS WELL, WITH THE EXTRA TREES THAT ARE BEING PROVIDED FOR THAT THEY'RE NOT EXEMPT FROM MITIGATION. I MEAN, ESSENTIALLY, THIS ORDINANCE STATES THAT WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN THAT YOU CAN ONLY REMOVE NO MORE THAN 30% OF THE QUALITY TREES IN THIS SCENARIO. SO IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU NEED 31% OR 100%, RIGHT. IT IT GOES AGAINST THAT ORDINANCE. AND SO THAT REALLY IS THE ONLY THAT'S THE EXCEPTION THAT Y'ALL ARE REQUESTING OR ASKING FOR. AND THAT WOULD BE ANY MORE THAN NINE TREES ALONG THAT ENTIRE LENGTH WOULD PREVENT US FROM DOING THAT. I DID BRING A, A DRIVE WITH JUST PICTURES ALONG THE TRAIL OF THE BLUE AREA TO KIND OF SHOW WHAT THAT AREA LOOKS LIKE. IF IT'S BENEFICIAL FOR YOU GUYS TO TAKE A LOOK. IT'S NOT REALLY LIKE A CREEK LIKE YOU WOULD IMAGINE. IT'S JUST DEPRESSED AREA WITH SMALLER TREES, WHICH ARE QUALITY TREES BECAUSE THEY EXCEED SIX INCHES. IF IT'S BENEFICIAL, I CAN SHOW IT. AND A QUICK QUESTION DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH, WITH THE THREE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS THAT ARE THERE, IS THAT POND DISCHARGING TO THE SOUTH HERE, AND IS THAT WHERE THAT OFFSITE FLOW IS COMING FROM? IS FROM THAT POND DISCHARGE ESSENTIALLY? THAT'S RIGHT. AND THEY'VE HAD TO GONE THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS AS IT WAS DEVELOPED. AND THAT THAT'S THE 50 ACRES NORTH OF OUR SITE THAT ARE CREATING THIS DRAINING THROUGH THIS PROPERTY. THAT'S RIGHT. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? APPLICANT. THANK YOU. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO PROVIDE ONE MORE COMMENT. AGAIN THIS IS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. BUT ARI LET ME KNOW THAT OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DID SAY THAT THE EXISTING FLOODPLAIN WOULD BE ADEQUATE TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL FLOW. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH THE STUDY THAT YOU'VE DONE OR IF YOU DID DO THAT STUDY, BUT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE'D HAVE TO GO BACK TO OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY. I THOUGHT I'D GIVE YOU THAT ADDITIONAL CONTEXT. THANK YOU. REAL QUICK. CAN YOU? I KIND OF GOT LOST WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT WHAT IF WE APPROVED THIS? THEN IT IT PREVENTS SOME KIND OF OTHER STEP OF REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS MITIGATION, I GUESS. CAN YOU JUST EXPAND ON THAT AND HOW THAT PLAYS IN WITH THE 20 TREES THAT REPLACEMENT TREES THEY PLAN TO PUT IN? RIGHT. AND MITIGATION FEE THAT WAS ALLUDED TO BY THE APPLICANT. RIGHT. SO TO MY UNDERSTANDING, THE MITIGATION THAT WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE IS ONLY FOR ALL THE TREES THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE FLOODPLAIN THAT ALSO ARE NOT EXEMPTED. AND SO I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE MATH IS THAT COMES OUT TO WHAT THEY NEED TO PROVIDE JUST TO ACCOUNT FOR THOSE TREES. BUT THE 20 HERE FOR THE 36 FOR THE 36 COMING OUT OF FLOOD. OKAY, OKAY. OKAY. SO ACCORDING TO JAKE, THEY'RE PROVIDING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED, NOT ADDITIONAL TO ACCOUNT FOR THE 36 THAT WOULD BE REMOVED. SO ALL THE TREES THAT ARE UNDER THE BUILDING PAD, THE SITE, THOSE ARE ALL EXEMPT, EVEN IF THEY'RE QUALITY TREES BECAUSE THEY'RE UNDER THE EXACT EXCUSE ME, UNDER THE AREA WHERE DEVELOPMENT IS OCCURRING ON THE SITE. WHEN AN APPROVAL IS MADE BY PLANNING AND ZONING TO SAY YOU CAN REMOVE THOSE ADDITIONAL TREES, THEN WE TOOK THOSE UNDER THOSE EXEMPTIONS AND SAY, OKAY, THOSE ARE ON AN AREA THAT THE ONLY REASON YOU'RE REMOVING THEM IS BECAUSE THEY'RE WHERE YOU'RE PROPOSING TO DEVELOP. AND SO WE THEN COUNT THEM IN WITH THE REST OF THE TREES THAT ARE EXEMPT FROM THE MITIGATION. IF THEY WERE IN AN AREA OUTSIDE OF THAT, THEN WE WOULDN'T BE HERE BECAUSE WE'D BE ABLE TO SAY, HEY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO REMOVE THOSE. WE CAN LEAVE THOSE THERE. SO THESE 20 REPLACEMENT TREES, IS THAT MINIMUM OR IS THAT EXTRA? I'M BEING TOLD IT'S THE MINIMUM. BUT WE'VE WE'VE GOT A DISAGREEMENT HERE. SO I'LL LET ARI STAND. SORRY. ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING OR THE MITIGATION? I'M LOOKING AT THE IN LIEU OF MITIGATION FEES, CITY WAS PROPOSING TO PLANT 20 REPLACEMENT TREES ON SITE. AND IT'S RIGHT AFTER THE THEIR DESCRIPTION OF REMOVING THE 36. SO IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A CORRELATION THERE. SO THE 20 ARE FOR THE QUALITY TREES FOR THE OVERALL SITE, FOR 30 TREES THAT ARE BEING REMOVED. THOSE ARE THE 20 TREES THAT ARE THEY'RE REPLACING AND THEN 20 MINIMUMS. WHAT EXACTLY. THEY'RE THAT'S THE 20 TREES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND THEN ANY ADDITIONAL TREES WOULD BE WOULD BE CALCULATED FOR ANY IMPACT FEE MITIGATIONS. SO IT'S A COMBINATION OF WELL DO YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN OKAY. SO MITIGATION CAN BE DONE THROUGH REPLACEMENT TREES OR PAYING INTO THE REFORESTATION FUND FOR THIS SITE. THEY'RE ELECTING TO DO BOTH. SO PART OF THE 20 TREES [00:35:01] ARE PART OF THAT. THEY'RE NOT REPLACING ANY SORRY THE 20 TREES ARE PART OF THAT. SO IF THEY DIDN'T PLANT THOSE 20 TREES, THEN THEY WOULD PAY AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT TO THE 70. OKAY. SO THE 20 IN REPLACEMENT OF THE 300 SOMETHING, NOT THE 36, IT'S IN REPLACEMENT OF THE 30 TREES ON SITE THAT AREN'T EXEMPT. SO OKAY, SO THE 36 TWO DIFFERENT 36, THERE'S 36 TREES IN THE FLOODPLAIN. YEAH OKAY. AND 30% OF WHICH ARE COULD BE REMOVED BY RIGHT. THERE ARE 30 SEPARATE TREES ON SITE THAT ARE QUALITY TREES THAT REQUIRE MITIGATION, WHICH THE 20 TREES ARE BEING REPLANTED FOR. CORRECT? YES. AND THEN THEY ARE ALSO PAYING INTO THE MITIGATION FUND, IT SOUNDS LIKE. JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR ON THAT. YES, THAT'S THE INTENT ANYWAYS OF THE APPLICANT. YES. AND THEN I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THE LANDSCAPING IS SEPARATE. THOSE ARE REQUIREMENTS. NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MITIGATION IN TERMS OF CALCULATIONS OR REPLACEMENT, UNLESS THEY'RE TRYING TO USE IT FOR CREDIT, BUT THEY CAN'T USE IT FOR MITIGATION AND CREDIT LANDSCAPING WISE. AND RIGHT NOW THE LANDSCAPE, IT'S JUST THERE. THEY'RE PROVIDING THE MINIMUM OF WHAT WE REQUIRE. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE ONE QUESTION BECAUSE I HAD ASKED, BUT YOU WERE PROBABLY MORE CLOSELY WORKING ON THIS. SO WERE THERE ANY ALTERNATIVES LIKE IT WAS THERE ANY SORT OF ATTEMPT AT A COMPROMISE MADE? WERE THERE ANY CONCEPT PLANS OR PRELIMINARY ANYTHING THAT SAID, HEY, YOU CAN'T DO THIS, BUT HAVE YOU CONSIDERED DOING THIS? THERE WASN'T ANYTHING SUBMITTED FOR ALTERNATIVE REVIEW. THIS IS THE PLAN THAT WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED AND WORKING FROM FROM THE BEGINNING. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO, ARI, YES, WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON IS WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE TO MITIGATE THESE TREES IN THE FLOODPLAIN OR NOT. IT'S THE REQUEST IS TO REMOVE 36 TREES FROM THE FLOODPLAIN HERE IN THE BLUE. AND THEY'RE ASKING TO REMOVE 100% RATHER THAN REMOVE 30%, WHICH WOULD BE 11 TREES. SO WE'RE VOTING ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE TO PAY A MITIGATION FEE FOR THAT OR NOT. THAT'S NOT WE'RE VOTING ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN REMOVE AN ADDITIONAL 25 TREES WITHIN THE BLUE AREA IDENTIFIED ON THE PLAN BEFORE US PERIOD. CORRECT. THOSE 25 TREES WOULD NOT QUALIFY FOR THE MITIGATION UNDER OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS. CORRECT. SO IF WE APPROVE, COULD WE HOLD THEM TO THEIR WHAT THEY PURPORT TO DO UNDER THE LOI, WHICH IS THE PLANNING, THE 20 PLUS PLUS THE DIFFERENCE IN FEES THAT WOULD THAT'S SEPARATE. WE DON'T THIS IS NOT IN THE THIS IS NOT A REQUEST HERE. THE REALLY THE QUESTION IS IS THE ARE WE APPROVING FOR THEM TO REMOVE THE ADDITIONAL 25 TREES, OR ARE WE ASKING THEM TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE 30%, WHICH IS THE 11 TREES? OKAY. AND THERE'S NO MITIGATION PROPOSED FOR THE ADDITIONAL 25 TREES REMOVED? CORRECT. IF THEY'RE REMOVED, THERE'S NOTHING ELSE EXCEPT WE APPROVE THE PLANS AS PRESENTED. OKAY. THE PLANS AS PRESENTED. YEAH, YEAH. OKAY. SO I GUESS THAT'S A QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT IN REGARDS TO THAT STATEMENT AND THE FACT THAT THERE'S 25 TREES TO BE REMOVED, THAT THERE'S NOT MITIGATION PROPOSED FOR. CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE? I'D JUST LIKE TO DISPUTE THAT, TO BE HONEST. SO ALL TREES WITHIN THE SITE ARE NEED TO BE MITIGATED. AND I THINK THAT'S SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN AND ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. IT'S A TREE REMOVAL SHOWS ALL TREES WITHIN THE SITE TO BE MITIGATED. FOR WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 20 TREES IS IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE EXPENSIVE TO REPLACE IN MITIGATION WITH PROPOSED TREES AS IT IS TO JUST PAY A FEE. AND SO WHERE THE DEVELOPER IS GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND IS BY PAYING ADDITIONAL MONEY TO NOT JUST PAY THE FEE, BUT TO BRING 20 TREES MORE THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LANDSCAPE, WHICH IS A SEPARATE NUMBER INTO THE SITE TO MITIGATE FOR THAT. IS THAT HOW STAFF UNDERSTANDS THE SITE PLAN? YEAH. LET'S SEE IF THE TABLE IS ON HERE. IT'S NOT. IT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT. YEAH. IS THE TABLE ON HERE. IT SHOULD BE. OH IT'S NOT SORRY I DON'T THINK IT'S IN THE PRESENTATION BUT IT IS IN THE THE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT INCHES IS 237 WHICH WOULD EQUAL 59 TREES. THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY EXEMPT TREES THAT THAT MITIGATION IS ONLY FOR, FOR QUALITY TREES THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE EXEMPT AREA UNDER FLOODPLAIN IS NOT ACCEPTED BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT YOUR SITE PLAN SHOWS IT. WE WE COUNT [00:40:03] IT AS EXEMPT BECAUSE THAT'S YOUR REQUEST. OKAY, SO THOSE TREES DID NOT MAKE THE 237 FOR MITIGATION BECAUSE IF YOUR REQUEST IS GRANTED THEN THAT IS AN EXEMPT AREA. SO OF THE 59 TREES REQUIRED, YOU'RE PROPOSING TO REPLACE 20 AND THEN PAY THE MITIGATION FOR THE REMAINING 39. THAT WOULD NOT INCLUDE THESE ADDITIONAL 25 TREES. I MEAN, I HAVE TO LOOK AT THE NUMBERS, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS ALL ALL CRITERIA, ALL CREDIT QUALITY TREES WOULD BE INCLUDED, BUT CERTAINLY IT WOULD BE ALL THE QUALITY TREES THAT THAT YOU THAT YOU THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE EXEMPT AREAS. WE BECAUSE IT'S ALL GRADING AND PARKING LOT THEN IT'S SHOWN AS EXEMPT. YES THAT'S RIGHT. BUT THAT'S SEPARATE FROM THE FLOODPLAIN. THE CRITERIA ALLOWS ANY TREES UNDERNEATH GRADING OR PARKING TO BE EXEMPT. YES. BUT WHEN OUR WHEN OUR FORESTER THEN REVIEWED THE PLAN, IT'S SHOWN ALL HIS GRADING AND PARKING. AND SO THEY DID NOT INCLUDE EVEN THE FLOODPLAIN TREES. OKAY. YEAH. TO IN SOME AREAS. BUT I THINK IT'S WORTH ACKNOWLEDGING THAT SOME AREAS WHERE THE EXEMPTION DOESN'T APPLY FOR PARKING WILL COUNT THOSE TREES. LIKE IF THERE'S AN AREA WHERE LIKE THE EXEMPTION APPLIES TO AREAS WHERE THERE'S PARKING OR WHERE THERE'S 4 TO 1 GRADING. BUT IF THERE'S AREAS THAT DON'T ENCOMPASS THAT, IT WOULDN'T BE EXEMPT. BUT THAT'S NONE OF THIS AREA WHERE THE FLOODPLAIN IS. IT'S ALL PARKING, BUILDING AND GRADING. YEAH, I THINK I WOULD AGREE WITH THE BOTTOM LEFT CORNER. WOULDN'T BE LUCAS. RIGHT WHERE THE DETENTION IN REGARDS TO WHAT THE YOU'RE GOING TO YOU'RE GOING TO AGREE THAT DETENTION AREA THOUGH OR YOU KNOW. YEAH. BUT IT'S NOT JUST GRADING. MY UNDERSTANDING IS 4 TO 1 IS IN MOST OF YOUR DETENTION POND SLOPE AT 4 TO 1 GRADING. AND THEN THE AREAS THAT ARE FLAT ARE. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE MAY BE 1 OR 2 TREES THAT COULD BE IN AN AREA THAT'S LESS THAN 4 TO 1 GRADING, BUT ESSENTIALLY THE SOUTHERN END OF THE DETENTION POND WHERE IT'S FLAT. THE MAJORITY OF THOSE 25 TREES ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE MITIGATION. AND AGAIN, UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER AVENUE HERE. THE REQUEST IS JUST, HEY, CAN WE REMOVE THESE TREES OR CAN WE NOT? AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE'D LOVE TO LOOK AT POTENTIALLY ADDING A MITIGATION OPTION FOR SCENARIOS LIKE THIS THAT SAYS, HEY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO REQUEST TO DEVIATE FROM OUR STANDARD, WE'D STILL LIKE TO HAVE THOSE TREES MITIGATED. FOR AT THIS TIME, OUR CODE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THAT. IT'S IT'S A YES. YOU CAN REMOVE THEM. NO. YOU HAVE TO WORK WITH WITH THE TREES THERE AND ADJUST THE SITE PLAN ACCORDINGLY. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I SECOND THAT MOTION. THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THE APPLICANT HAVE ADDITIONAL TIME TO WORK WITH STAFF. SO, WHAT ARE YOU ASKING TO TABLE NOW THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN? TABLE THIS TO THE NEXT P AND Z SO THAT THE APPLICANT CAN WORK WITH STAFF. YES, SIR. I'D LIKE TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. SO THE APPLICANT HAS ADDITIONAL TIME TO WORK WITH STAFF. A SECOND BY SECONDED. SORRY. WELL, I THINK IT'S AN ACCOUNT. IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO DO THAT, IF THE APPLICANT DOES NOT WANT TO DO THAT, THEN WE NEED TO VOTE TONIGHT. WHETHER WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO REMOVE THOSE ADDITIONAL 25 TREES OR NOT. I THINK I THINK WE GOT INTO A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT TREES, BUT I THINK THE WHERE WE NEED TO BE IS ARE WE GOING TO GO AGAINST THE ORDINANCE AND SAY, YOU CAN REMOVE THOSE OTHER 25 TREES, WHICH WOULD BRING IT TO A TOTAL OF 36 TREES IN THAT FLOODPLAIN AREA? I THINK IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE. I LIKE THE MOTION TO TABLE. I THINK IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THE APPLICANT AND THE STAFF AREN'T TOTALLY ON THE SAME PAGE. I'D LIKE TO GIVE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT REQUIRE THEM TO RECONVENE, BUT WE'RE GIVING THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO. SO IF THEY COME BACK UNCHANGED, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ONE THING. BUT PERHAPS THERE'S SOME. I WOULD AT LEAST LIKE TO KNOW THAT THEY BOTH AGREE AS TO WHAT'S BEING ASKED FOR. IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE WE HAVE THAT. YEAH, WELL, I'M A BIG PROPONENT OF A WIN WIN FOR EVERYONE. AND I MADE A LOT OF MOTIONS TO TABLE THINGS FOR CONSIDERATION. BUT THE APPLICANT WAS WILLING TO WORK WITH US TO DO THAT. THE APPLICANT WANT TO COMMENT IN THAT REGARD. OUR GOAL FROM THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN TO WORK COOPERATIVELY WITH THE CITY, AND WE ARE HAPPY TO ALWAYS EXPLORE THAT AND WORK TOGETHER AND FIND SOLUTIONS THAT MAKE SENSE FOR EVERYBODY. COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU, SIR. [00:45:05] WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, YOU KNOW WE'VE ANNEXED IT INTO THE CITY. WE CAME IN FRONT OF PNC AND CITY COUNCIL FOR THAT, AND ZONED IT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IN FRONT OF PNC AND CAME THROUGH CITY COUNCIL, AND THAT WAS ON THE BASIS OF THIS SITE BEING USED FOR EXACTLY WHAT THE THE GENERAL PLAN PLANS FOR THE SITE, YOU KNOW, AND FOR USING THIS SITE FOR THE AIRPORT AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. THIS SITE PLAN IS IS REALLY EFFECTIVELY THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES IT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE AND USEFUL FOR OUR FOR THAT USE. SO WE THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW, THE THE CONCEPT OF ALTERNATIVES OR MOVING THE PARKING TO THE OTHER SIDE. IT IS NOT FINANCIALLY VIABLE OR MARKETABLE TO USERS. SO THAT'S THE CHALLENGE FOR US. WOULD THERE BE AN OPTION TO CONSIDER SOME MITIGATION WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN THAT STAFF MAY BE FAVORABLE TO IN A, YOU KNOW, IF YOU GUYS ARE ABLE TO DISCUSS THAT FURTHER? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THAT'S NOT CONSIDERED FOR MITIGATION OF THOSE TREES BEING REMOVED OR A LARGE CHUNK OF THEM. IT'S NOT CONSIDERED OR ADDITIONAL MITIGATION IN THAT MEASURE, AS OPPOSED TO MODIFICATIONS TO THE SITE PLAN. IT WAS MY IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT WAS THE CASE. SO CERTAINLY OPEN TO THAT. AND THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE BEGINNING. SO I DON'T I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DISCONNECT, BUT CAN I ASK A QUESTION. YES, SIR. AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER. BUT HAVE YOU ALL ALREADY ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY. NO, WE HAVE NOT. OKAY. WHEN YOU ALL STARTED, THIS PLAN WAS WAS THE ALIGNMENT FOR SPUR 399 ALREADY? IT WAS IN THE EARLIER STAGES. WAS IT WAS THE ALIGNMENT ALREADY SET IN PLACE WHEN YOU STARTED THIS PROCESS? YES. THE RIGHT OF WAY WAS ALREADY ACQUIRED BY TEXDOT, SO THERE WAS NO ABILITY TO MOVE THE SITE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. WE UNDERSTOOD. YEAH. ASIDE FROM REACHING A COMPROMISE, I STILL DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE IT REALLY NAILED DOWN. WHAT THE FALLOUT IS GOING TO BE AS FAR AS HOW THE MITIGATION LOOKS, I REALLY THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE A CLEAR PICTURE OF THAT BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION. I AGREE, I THINK TABLE IS A GREAT IDEA. LET'S VOTE. WELL, EXCUSE ME, SIR, IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO THAT, WE CAN ALWAYS JUST VOTE TODAY. SO IT'S COMPLETELY UP TO YOU. I MEAN, YOU'RE ALL GOING TO BE BACK, YOU KNOW, OR OR IF WE TABLE IT, IS IT KIND OF. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? WE'RE HAPPY TO WORK WITH THE CITY. WE'RE JUST UNDER A LOT OF COMPETING CONSTRAINTS. FINANCIAL TIME. ISN'T THAT SO? I MEAN, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IS NOT THE CITY'S CONCERN. EXTENSIONS AND STUFF. BUT I MEAN, FOR ME PERSONALLY, AS THE DEVELOPER, THAT IS A MAJOR CHALLENGE FOR ME TO NAVIGATE. ELISA, IF WE TABLE THE ITEM THAT DOES GIVE YOU SOME TIME TO COMMUNICATE WITH STAFF AND COME UP WITH A POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE VERSUS, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD TURN OUT IF WE JUST VOTE ON THE ITEM TONIGHT, BUT IT MIGHT NOT BE FAVORABLE, IT COULD BE FAVORABLE, BUT IF IT'S NOT FAVORABLE, THEN. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR MY IGNORANCE. BUT IF IT'S NOT FAVORABLE, IF THE DESIGN EXCEPTION IS NOT APPROVED, IT'S NOT APPROVED, THEN YOU'LL NEED A SUPERMAJORITY AT CITY COUNCIL, WHICH IS SIX OUT OF SEVEN VOTES, AND I THINK SO. I'M SO SORRY I HAD TO CLARIFY THAT. SO PLANNING AND ZONING IS THE DECIDING AUTHORITY FOR DESIGN EXCEPTIONS. SO Y'ALL WOULD BE THE DECIDING BODY. THIS DOES NOT GO BEFORE CITY COUNCIL. HE WOULD HAVE TO APPEAL YOUR DECISION OKAY. WITHIN I BELIEVE TEN BUSINESS DAYS I CAN GET THAT CLARIFIED FOR YOU. BUT YOU'D HAVE TO APPEAL THAT TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL, CORRECT? SORRY, I FORGOT, THIS WAS NOT A NORMAL ZONING CASE TO ME. IT'S AGAIN SPEAKING ABOUT. I'LL SAY MY OPINION ON THIS MATTER. IT'S MORE ABOUT A QUESTION OF WHAT CAN BE DONE TO MITIGATE, AS OPPOSED TO DRAMATICALLY CHANGING THE SITE PLAN, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE HASN'T BEEN A MITIGATION OFFER MADE, I'LL SAY, BY THE DEVELOPER TO STAFF, AND STAFF DOESN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO REQUIRE ANY MITIGATION WITH THIS EXCEPTION REQUEST. I MEAN, THAT'S TO ME WHAT I'M LOOKING MORE AT AND WHAT I'M HEARING CONFUSION ON AND WHAT I THINK IS WHAT'S LOST IN THE FABRIC OF THE CONVERSATION HERE AND WHAT WE NEED TO COME TO SOME KIND OF RESOLUTION ON. NOT A DRAMATIC, LET'S SAY, WHOLESALE CHANGE OF THE SITE PLAN NECESSARILY, BUT WHAT CAN BE DONE TO MITIGATE FOR WHAT IS BEING REMOVED ABOVE AND BEYOND THE EXCEPTION THAT'S BEING REQUESTED. AND AGAIN, THAT'S THAT'S MY OPINION. WELL SAID. THAT'S GOOD. AND WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT, IS IT OKAY TO TAKE OUT ALL THE TREES OR IS IT [00:50:05] OKAY TO TAKE OUT 30% OF THE TREES? THAT'S WHAT IT'S THAT'S WHAT IS BEFORE US, RIGHT. WHETHER THERE'S MITIGATION FOR THE TREES THAT ARE REMOVED, WHETHER THERE'S NOT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO IS WE OKAY WITH REMOVING THE EXTRA 20 PLUS TREES, RIGHT. YEAH. CORRECT. AND AND JUST TO COMMENT ON, ON THE OFFER AND MAYBE WE DIDN'T WE WERE NOT AS EXPLICIT IN THAT. AND MAYBE I HAVE SOME MISUNDERSTANDINGS IN THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF IT. BUT THE INTENTION OF THE TREES IN LIEU OF THE MITIGATION CREDITS, THAT WAS THE INTENTION FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, WAS AN OFFER SAYING THIS COSTS US A MATERIAL AMOUNT MORE MONEY RATHER THAN JUST PAYING THE CREDITS. AND THAT WAS, IN MY PERSPECTIVE, THE OFFER. AND MAYBE THAT WASN'T MADE AS CLEAR. SO THE THE GOAL FROM THE BEGINNING HAS BEEN TO PROVIDE AN AGREEABLE SOLUTION TO, TO THE CITY. SO. MAY I CHAT WITH MY CIVIL ENGINEER? JUST TWO SECONDS. SURE. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, SO WHAT IS BEFORE US THIS EVENING IS TO STRICTLY VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT THE 36 TREES SHOULD BE REMOVED OR NOT REMOVED. NO REFERENCE TO THE MITIGATION PLAN AS AS I UNDERSTAND IT. CORRECT. YEAH, THAT'S THE ACTUAL OKAY. WE'RE IN AGREEMENT ON THE MATTER. THAT'S WHAT. COMMISSION. CAN YOU STEP UP TO THE MICROPHONE? WE'RE IN AGREEMENT TO TABLE THE MATTER IF THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSION IS MOST APPROPRIATE. OKAY. I THINK THAT'S WISE. YEAH. THEY JUST GOT TO GET TOGETHER OKAY. SO WE HAVE A WE'VE HAD A MOTION TO TABLE THE ITEM AND WE'VE HAD A SECOND. SO SO WE CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TABLE IT TO THE MARCH 10TH MARCH 10TH MEETING OKAY. TWO WEEKS OKAY. DO WE REALLY HAVE A MOTION TO DO THAT OR DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING THAT WAS MADE BY CHAIR WOODARD AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MEMBER CRANE. WE'LL NEED TO VOTE ON THAT AND THEN WE CAN DO ANOTHER MOTION TO TABLE TO PERFECT. THANK YOU CAITLIN. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE? THAT'S THE FIRST ONE. THEN WE'LL THEN WE'LL DO THE. OH SHOOT I DO IT TWICE. I DO IT WRONG. SHOULD WE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING I THE FIRST MOTION WAS TO REOPEN. YEAH. THREE TIMES. YEAH. THERE WE GO. THANK YOU. SO THIS VOTE IS THE VOTE. THE MOTION TO APPROVE REOPENING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSION. ARE YOU ABLE TO VOTE YES OR NO? I KEEP ON PRESSING. YAY! AND THEN IT KEEPS IT AGAIN. YOU GOT FOUR VOTES. SO THIS MOTION I'LL NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND TO TABLE TO ANOTHER MEETING WITH US AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. YEAH. OKAY. SO THE MOTION WAS TO TABLE THIS ITEM AND CONTINUE UNTIL THE MARCH THE MARCH 10TH MEETING. CORRECT. WERE YOU MAKING THE MOTION TO CLARIFY THE MOTION? OKAY. SO MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WATLEY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HAMMOCK? AND THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. SO THIS ITEM WILL COME BACK ON THE MARCH 10TH PNC MEETING. OKAY. [Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Zone the Subject Property to “MF36” - Multi-Family Residential District, Located on the West Side of County Road 161 and Approximately 2,050 feet North of County Road 124] THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS ITEM 240104Z. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS, ACT ON A REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO MF 36. MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COUNTY ROAD 161 AND APPROXIMATELY 20 50FT NORTH OF [00:55:04] COUNTY ROAD 124. THANK YOU. CAITLIN SHEFFIELD, CITY CHIEF PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. SO A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THAT NORTHWEST SECTOR WITHIN THE CITY'S ETJ THAT EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. SO CURRENTLY IT IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. IT'S LOCATED WITHIN OUR ETJ. THERE IS AN ANNEXATION REQUEST THAT WILL BE TAKEN TO CITY COUNCIL WITH THIS ZONING REQUEST. AT THE MARCH 17TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING. FOR OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS IS IN THE NORTH RIDGE DISTRICT. IT IS CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AS THE SUBURBAN LIVING PLACE TYPE. AND HERE'S SOME CONTEXT WITH THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN. SO TWO RIGHT OF WAYS TO NOTE. THERE IS THE 380 BYPASS THAT COMES UP TO ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND THEN YOU HAVE COUNTY ROAD 161, WHICH IS FUTURE RIDGE ROAD. THE BYPASS IS A MAJOR REGIONAL HIGHWAY. AND THEN RIDGE ROAD ROAD OR COUNTY ROAD 161 IS EXPECTED TO BE A MAJOR ARTERIAL ABOUT SIX LANES, 124FT WIDE. SOME CONTEXT ABOUT SOME RECENT PROJECTS IN THE AREA. WE HAVE HUNTINGTON PARK DIRECTLY TO THE WEST, FOX HOLLOW. YOU HAVE CUSTER FRONTIER ON CUSTER AND FM 1461, AND THEN MOST RECENTLY MERCY COURT AND FRANKLIN BRANCH. EXCUSE ME, ALONG BLOOMDALE OR LAKE FOREST IN HONEY CREEK, OFF TO THE EAST HERE. SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO ANNEX AND ZONE THIS PROPERTY TO MF 36. MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL GENERALLY FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROPOSED ZONING AND THEN ULTIMATELY THE ANNEXATION AND ZONING STAFF FEELS THAT THIS PROPERTY WILL PROVIDE A BUFFER FOR THE PROPOSED 3D BYPASS THAT IS EXPECTED TO RUN ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY AS, AND THEN PROVIDE THAT TRANSITION OF USES TO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY TO THE EAST ON THE EAST SIDE OF COUNTY ROAD 161, THAT WILL ULTIMATELY BE RIDGE ROAD. IT DOESN'T DIRECTLY ALIGN WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH THE SUBURBAN LIVING PLACE TYPE AS IT STANDS TODAY. HOWEVER, STAFF DOES FEEL THAT IT ULTIMATELY MEETS A MAJORITY OF THE DECISION MAKING CRITERIA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ADJACENT USES AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THAT 3D BYPASS TO THE WEST. LIKE I SAID, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ZONING AND I WILL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. CAITLIN, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE FIRST MAP, THE PROPERTY LOCATION? YES, SIR. THE PINK ON THIS. WHAT'S THE KEY FOR THE PINK ON THIS? ARE YOU REFERRING TO SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES HERE? WELL ANY OF THESE PINK AND GREEN. WHAT'S THE KEY? LIGHT PINK. UNDERSTOOD. SO THE THE COLORS THAT ARE APPEARING ON THIS MAP ARE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ZONED. SO THAT MEANT COLOR IS ANY PROPERTY THAT'S ZONED FOR PD. ANY OF THE OTHER COLORS REPRESENT A STRAIGHT ZONING DISTRICT THAT WE HAVE WITHIN THE CITY. SO ANYTHING I'M SO SORRY CAITLIN. SO ANYTHING THAT IS COLORED. SO THE TEAL, THE RED, THE YELLOW, THAT'S ALL WITHIN OUR CITY LIMITS. ANYTHING THAT IS IN THAT DARKER GRAY IS GOING TO BE THE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION THAT THE CITY HAS PURVIEW OVER. SO NOT INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS CURRENTLY, BUT THEY ARE ABLE TO ANNEX, SHOULD THEY BE CONTIGUOUS, VERY SIMILAR TO THIS PROPERTY. EXACTLY. THANK YOU. DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION, COMMISSIONER? YES. WHAT PORTION OF THIS TRACT IS WITHIN FLOODPLAIN? WHICH MEANING IS IT? HOW MUCH OF IT'S GOING TO BE USABLE LAND? SO I'LL HAVE TO DEFER TO THE APPLICANT. I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S BEEN ANY FLOOD STUDY OR ANYTHING THAT'S HAPPENED JUST YET. THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE SITE PLAN, PROCESS AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WITH OUR ENGINEERING TEAM IF NEEDED. OKAY. THANK YOU. CAITLIN. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. IS OUR APPLICANT PRESENT? MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, I'M BOB RODER, 1700 REDBUD, SUITE 300. MCKINNEY. ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, I THINK CAITLIN DID AN EXTREMELY GOOD JOB OF IDENTIFYING THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY AND SOME OF THE PARAMETERS THAT WE'RE NOW FACING OUT THERE. I WANT TO [01:00:02] NOTE THAT WHEN THE 2040 PLAN WAS ORIGINALLY DONE, OF COURSE, WE HAD NO CONCEPT OF THE 380 BYPASS WHERE IT WOULD BE. AND NOW, AS YOU'VE SEEN FROM CAITLIN'S DRAWING, THAT 380 BYPASS IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE CREEK THAT ABUTS THIS PROPERTY. WE ALSO HAVE RIDGE ROAD, WHICH IS GOING TO BE A MAJOR NORTH SOUTH THOROUGHFARE. SO THIS PROPERTY IS IDEALLY LOCATED FOR THE USE. WE ARE INTENDING TO PUT IT TO. IT'S ALSO A STRATEGIC PLAY FOR THE CITY OF MCKINNEY BECAUSE, AS YOU KNOW, IF IT STAYED IN THE ETJ, IT WOULDN'T BE PAYING ANYTHING FOR RIDGE ROAD. AND IN THIS CASE, THEY'LL HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE FOR THE FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF RIDGE ROAD ALONG THEIR FRONTAGE. SO IT'S A GOOD STRATEGIC MOVE FOR THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN ADD ANYTHING ABOUT FLOODPLAIN. I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A FLOOD STUDY. I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT TREE MITIGATION, BUT. SO WITH THAT, I'LL JUST STOP AND ASK FOR YOUR FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. SO AS FAR AS RIDGE ROAD, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S A ROAD THAT, IN MY OPINION, REALLY NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED IN A HURRY WITH ALL THAT GROWTH HAPPENING NORTH. SO THE APPLICANT WOULD BE WHEN THEY DEVELOP, THE APPLICANT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR PORTION. I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE THE DETAILS. MR. SOTO MIGHT. BUT TYPICALLY IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT, THE APPLICANT WILL PAY ITS PRO RATA SHARE BECAUSE THAT WHOLE ROAD NEEDS TO GO IN. YEAH. IS THAT WHAT IMPACT. OKAY. YES. ERIC JESKE WITH KIMLEY-HORN. OUR OFFICE IS LOCATED AT 260 EAST DAVIS STREET RIGHT DOWN TOWN HERE. SO TO ANSWER THE FLOODPLAIN QUESTION, WE DO HAVE AN APPROVED FLOOD STUDY THAT WAS ALREADY DONE. THERE'S AN EXISTING POND ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE COUNTY ROAD THAT WE ARE PLANNING TO MAINTAIN AND KEEP AND USE AS A DETENTION. IT WILL BE A WET POND, SO THAT WILL HELP WITH ANY KIND OF STORMWATER RUNOFF THROUGHOUT THE SITE. AND THEN AS FAR AS THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS, WE ARE PLANNING TO DEVELOP THE TWO SOUTHBOUND LANES, THE WESTERN HALF OF THE ROAD. WE ARE PLANNING TO CONSTRUCT TWO CONCRETE LANES THE WHOLE LENGTH OF THE ROAD. WE'RE DOING A LEFT OR SORRY, WE'RE DOING RIGHT TURN DECELERATION LANES. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO DIFFERENT ACCESS DRIVES. ONE WILL BE FOR THE FREMONT EXTENSION, WHICH WILL GO STRAIGHT TO THE 380 BYPASS. SO A LOT OF OUR SITE ACCESS WILL GO THROUGH FREMONT DIRECTLY TO THE HIGHWAY AND AVOID KIND OF THE THE RIDGE ROAD TRAFFIC, JUST TO HELP WITH TRAFFIC THERE. AND THEN THE OTHER RIGHT TURN DECELERATION LANE WILL GO INTO OUR SITE JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING CARS OFF THE MAIN LANES AND ACCESS TO THE SITE JUST TO FACILITATE THAT. THANK YOU. DID YOU SAY THAT WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOME ROAD MITIGATION OR FUNDING, IT WAS GOING TO BE TWO LANES BETWEEN BLOOMDALE AND WILMOTH JUST ALONG OUR SITE FRONTAGE? JUST YOUR SECTION? YES. SO TWO LANES AND THEN WE'LL HAVE ASPHALT TRANSITIONS ON THE NORTH SIDE AND ASPHALT ON THE SOUTH SIDE. OKAY. THANKS. AND IT'S IN THAT SAME AREA WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO BE EXPANDING THE WATER PIPE FROM 8 INCH TO 12 INCH, JUST ALONG THAT STRETCH AS WELL. WE HAVE SOME OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED TO BLUE IT. I THINK THAT'S HOW YOU SAY BLUE DRIVE OR BLUE IT'S DRIVE. WE'LL HAVE TO EXTEND THE WATER UP TO THERE TO COMPLETE OUR LOOP. OKAY. BUT YES, WE WILL HAVE AN UPSIZED WATER MAIN ALONG OUR PROPERTY FRONTAGE. AND DID THAT MAKE SENSE WITH THE FREEMAN? TO WHERE? YES. SO THE FREMONT WILL RUN JUST ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF YOUR PROPERTY, ALL THE WAY OVER TO THE OUTER LOOP? YES. YEAH. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR EITHER MR. ROEDER OR APPLICANT AND FOR THE TRAFFIC AS WELL? WE HAVE A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THAT WAS APPROVED AS WELL. THANK YOU. THANKS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. THIS ITEM DOES HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHED TO IT. SO IF YOU'RE HERE THIS EVENING AND YOU WISH TO SHARE YOUR COMMENTS OR CONCERNS, KINDLY APPROACH THE PODIUM. OKAY? SEEING AS THERE ARE NONE, DO WE HAVE A MOTION OR ADDITIONAL TO MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE 24 01040 COMMISSIONER THAT MOTION, COMMISSIONER LEBEAU, MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE ITEM 24 0104, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CRAIG. KILEY. CAST YOUR VOTE. LOOKS LIKE IT'S STILL THINKING. [01:05:24] WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR THAT VOTE, I'D LIKE TO THANK THE STAFF FOR THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL. JACK OF ALL TRADES TONIGHT. NEITHER SURPRISED RESEARCHING BEFOREHAND. SQUIRRELS. JESSE, WHAT DID YOU DO TO THE COMPUTER? OH, THERE YOU GO. THERE WE GO. YOU DID. IT FIXED. YAY! OKAY. AND THAT ITEM PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 7 TO 0. AND IT WILL BE FORWARDED ON TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION AT THE MARCH 17TH, 2026 MEETING. [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 at 2906 Woodlawn Road] OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 240148Z. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS, ACT ON A REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM AG AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO I-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 2906 WOODLAWN ROAD. MR. BENNETT. YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. GOOD EVENING. COMMISSION JAKE BENNETT, PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG WOODLAWN ROAD AND SOUTH OF WILMOTH ROAD TO I-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. THE ONE MCKINNEY 2040 COMP PLAN DESIGNATES THIS AREA AND MUCH OF THE OAK HOLLOW DISTRICT AS SUITABLE FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH IS ZONED FOR HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES, WHILE MANY OF THE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST AND NORTH ARE ZONED FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES. STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE PROPOSED REZONING ALIGNS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IS INCOMPATIBLE AND IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AS WELL AS THE GENERAL AREA. AS SUCH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED REZONING AND I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU JAKE. IT'S KIND OF ALREADY BEING USED THAT WAY, ISN'T IT? IT CURRENTLY IS. YES. THEY'RE TRYING TO BRING THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY INTO COMPLIANCE. SO THE REZONING IS PART OF THAT. WHAT IS THE CURRENT USE? I'LL DEFER TO THE APPLICANT OF WHAT KIND OF TENDENCY IS ON THERE. NOW I BELIEVE MOST OF THEM HAVE VACATED THE PROPERTY. BUT THERE WAS A I THINK IT'S MOSTLY OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE TYPE USES. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR MISTER BENNETT? THANK YOU. JAKE, IS OUR APPLICANT HERE? YES, MA'AM. KINDLY STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. HI, MY NAME IS STEVE CARAWAY, AND OUR PHYSICAL ADDRESS IS TWO 906 WOODLAWN ROAD, MCKINNEY, TEXAS. 75071. THANK YOU. AND TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION EARLIER, I OWN A CONCRETE COMPANY AND WE'VE BEEN ON THIS SITE FOR OVER 30 YEARS. AND THEN THE SECOND PERSON THAT'S ON SITE IS OAK FARMS MILK, WHICH IS DEAN FOODS. THAT'S WHO'S OCCUPYING THE PROPERTY AT THIS TIME. AND THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR 5 OR 6 YEARS NOW. AND WHAT ARE Y'ALL ARE Y'ALL GOING TO CHANGE THE USE OF THE PROPERTY? ARE Y'ALL JUST GETTING CAUGHT UP WITH THE ZONING OR WHAT'S THE PLAN? YEAH, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. WE'RE ACTUALLY WE'RE GETTING COMPLIANT WITH WITH ZONING. THE PROPERTY HAS MULTIPLE STRUCTURE STRUCTURES ON IT. AND AS HE STATED, THEY ARE PRETTY MUCH VACANT RIGHT NOW. SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET NEW CEOS AND NEW APPLICANTS IN. OKAY. GOTCHA. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT. THANK YOU, MISTER CARAWAY. THANK YOU. THIS ITEM DOES HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHED TO IT. SO IF YOU'RE HERE THIS EVENING AND YOU WISH TO KIND COME AND SHARE YOUR CONCERNS OR COMMENTS, KINDLY APPROACH THE PODIUM. SEEING AS THERE ARE NONE, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS ITEM. MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. APPROVE THE ITEM BY COMMISSIONER CRAIG AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONRAD. KINDLY CAST YOUR VOTES. OKAY. THIS [01:10:15] ITEM PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 7 TO 0, AND WILL BE FORWARDED ON TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION AT THE MARCH 17TH, 2026 MEETING. ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME, ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING MATTERS THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA? DOES THE COMMISSION OR STAFF HAVE ANY [COMMISSION AND STAFF COMMENTS] COMMENTS? NOTHING FROM STAFF. I'D LIKE TO CONGRATULATE THE BOYS VARSITY TEAM AT MCKINNEY CHRISTIAN. THEY MADE IT TO STATE THIS IS THEIR SECOND YEAR GOING TO STATE, SO FINGERS CROSSED THAT THEY GO ALL THE WAY THIS YEAR. CONGRATULATIONS. THAT'S AWESOME. YES. AND DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HAMMOCK. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONRAD. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. AND A MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.