[CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:09] LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYBODY TO THE CITY OF MCKINNEY'S PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF TUESDAY, APRIL 14TH, 2026. THE COMMISSIONERS AT UCC BEFORE YOU HAVE BEEN APPOINTED BY CITY COUNCIL AND WE SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF CITY COUNCIL. SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT YOU HEAR THIS EVENING WILL ONLY BE HEARD BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND OTHERS WILL BE FORWARDED ON TO THE COUNCIL FOR ADDITIONAL ADVISEMENT. TONIGHT, I WILL ADVISE THE AUDIENCE IF THE CASE WILL GO ON TO COUNCIL, OR IF IT WILL BE HEARD ONLY BY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. IF YOU'RE HERE TONIGHT AND YOU WISH TO SPEAK REGARDING AN AGENDA ITEM, PLEASE COMPLETE A SPEAKER CARD AND TURN THAT INTO A CITY STAFF MEMBER PRIOR TO THE AGENDA ITEM BEING CALLED. WHEN IT'S YOUR TURN TO SPEAK, PLEASE STATE YOUR FIRST AND YOUR LAST NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. FOR THE RECORD. WE KINDLY ASK THAT YOU LIMIT YOUR REMARKS TO THREE MINUTES, AND YOU MAY ONLY SPEAK ONE TIME ON EACH AGENDA ITEM. THE COMMISSIONER'S REQUEST THAT WE ALL TREAT EACH OTHER WITH RESPECT, THAT WE FOCUS ON THE ISSUE AND THAT WE'RE CONCISE IN OUR COMMENTS. I DO WANT TO STRESS TO EACH OF YOU THAT YOUR COMMENTS AND YOUR OPINIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO US, AND THEY DO BECOME A PART OF THE CITY'S PUBLIC RECORD. WE ALL WANT TO ACT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITIZENS OF MCKINNEY. SO THIS TIME WE'LL NOW MOVE TO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON NONPUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS? OKAY. NOW MOVE TO THE CONSENT [CONSENT ITEMS] ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE CONSENT ITEMS THAT WOULD INCLUDE ITEM 26-0301, WHICH IS MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 24TH, 2026. I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES BY COMMISSIONER LEBO? I'LL SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BUETTNER. KINDLY CAST YOUR VOTES. OKAY. THE MOTION CARRIES 7 TO 0 SIX SIX, 6 TO 0. SO. MOTION CARRIES 6 TO [25-0131Z2 Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Rezone the Subject Property from “C3” - Regional Commercial District and “PD” - Planned Development District to “PD” - Planned Development District, Located on the Northeast Corner of Stacy Road and State Highway 121 (Sam Rayburn Tollway)] 0. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO THE REGULAR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. FIRST ITEM IS ITEM 25-0131Z2. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS. ACT ON A REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM C THREE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF STACY ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY. 121, SAM RAYBURN TOLLWAY. MR. BENNETT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. GOOD EVENING. COMMISSION JAKE BENNETT, PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. SO THIS CASE IS GOING TO LOOK A LITTLE BIT FAMILIAR TO YOU. IT WAS PRESENTED TO PNC ABOUT A MONTH AGO AT THE MARCH 10TH MEETING. THIS IS FOR THE CANNON BEACH DEVELOPMENT. THEY'RE PROPOSING REZONING TO PD DUE TO A TECHNICAL ERROR. IT'S BACK IN FRONT OF YOU ALL TONIGHT JUST DUE TO THE NOTICES. STAFF IS STILL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. NOTHING WITH THE REQUEST HAS CHANGED. AND AS A REMINDER, PNC DID UNANIMOUSLY VOTE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL 7 TO 0 AT THE MARCH 10TH MEETING. WITH THAT, I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. JAKE. SO THE TECHNICAL ERROR WAS JUST DUE TO THE NOTICING THE PROPERTY OWNERS SURROUNDING. THAT'S CORRECT. YEP. SEEING AS THERE'S NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. JAKE, IS OUR APPLICANT HERE? YES, MA'AM. THE APPLICANT WISH TO COME FORWARD. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, SAM LAWRENCE. SAME ADDRESS, 5709 BEDROCK DRIVE, MCKINNEY, TEXAS. AGAIN, THIS IS JUST ALREADY APPROVED ABOUT A MONTH AGO. THERE'S BEEN NO CHANGES TO DEVELOPMENT WHATSOEVER. THIS WAS JUST A IT WAS A SIGNPOSTING THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL NOTICES THAT WENT OUT FROM THE CITY WERE CORRECT. BUT THE POSTINGS ON THE PHYSICAL PROPERTY HAD THE WRONG ZONING NUMBER ON THEM. SO WE HAVE NO CHANGES. WE ARE HAPPY TO MOVE THROUGH. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS ITEM DOES HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHED TO IT. IF YOU'RE HERE THIS EVENING AND YOU WISH TO SHARE ANY COMMENTS OR CONCERNS REGARDING THIS ITEM, KINDLY APPROACH. OKAY. SEEING AS THERE ARE NONE. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS ITEM. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE. APPROVE THIS ITEM. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HAMMOCK TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS ITEM. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONRAD. KINDLY CAST YOUR VOTES. I'M COUNTING THIS TIME. SO THIS ONE [00:05:13] CARRIES 7 TO 0. THIS WILL BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION AT THE APRIL 21ST, [25-0177Z 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 and “C2” - Local Commercial District, Located on Tracts 262 and 269 of the RH Locke Survey] 2026 MEETING. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM 25-0177Z. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS, ACT ON A REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM AG AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO L1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND C2 LIGHT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT LOCATED ON TRACKS 262 AND 269 OF THE RH LOCK SURVEY. MR. BENNETT ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU AGAIN. THIS IS A PROPOSED REZONING OF THE PROPERTY FROM AG TO I1 AND C2 FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES. THE PROPOSED I1 DISTRICT COVERS APPROXIMATELY 8.7 ACRES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FUTURE FM 546, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A SIX LANE PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL ROADWAY. IT FALLS WITHIN THE MANUFACTURING AND WAREHOUSE PLACE TYPE OF THE BUSINESS AND AVIATION DISTRICT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND EAST ARE CURRENTLY ZONED FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES. THE PROPOSED C2 DISTRICT COVERS APPROXIMATELY 16.4 ACRES AND IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FUTURE FM. 546 WHILE THE AREA ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE FUTURE OF THE FUTURE ROADWAY IS DESIGNATED AS A STATE RESIDENTIAL IN THE COMP PLAN. STAFF RECOGNIZES THAT THE LOCATION COULD SUPPORT COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITIES THAT SHOULD SERVE THE EXISTING AND FUTURE RESIDENTS WITHIN THE AREA. PROPERTY TO THE EAST ALONG FUTURE 546 IS ALSO ZONED C2, AND THE PROPOSED ZONING SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL ROADWAY. AS SUCH, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED REZONING AND I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. MR. BENNETT, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR JAKE REGARDING THIS ITEM? OKAY. IS OUR APPLICANT HERE, JAKE? YES, MA'AM. YES, I'M JOEL FIELD, AND I'M THE OWNER. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY. CAN YOU KINDLY STATE YOUR ADDRESS AS WELL FOR THE. OH. THE ADDRESS. MY HOME ADDRESS. YOUR YOUR HOME ADDRESS? YES, SIR. 551 SAINT GABRIEL WAY. MCKINNEY. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SO EXPLAIN THE REASONING FOR THE SPLIT BETWEEN THE INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL. WHAT WAS THE THOUGHTS THERE? CAITLIN COULD PROBABLY ANSWER THIS BETTER THAN I CAN, BUT. OR MAYBE THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. YEAH. SO KIND OF ALONG WHERE THE LINE FOR THE SPLIT IS SHOWN TO ON THE EXHIBIT, THAT'S WHERE FUTURE FM 546 IS GOING TO SPLIT THE PROPERTY. AND SO IT JUST MAKES SENSE TO BREAK THE BREAK IT UP AT THAT POINT. OKAY. ALIGNING WITH THE EXISTING ZONING TO THE EAST ON THE NORTH SIDE. THAT'S CORRECT. SO ALL OF THAT TO THE NORTH AND EAST IS ALL ZONED FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ALREADY, RIGHT? ON THE SOUTH SIDE, A LOT OF IT'S AG AROUND THERE, BUT THEY'RE PROPOSING C-2, WHICH WE'RE SUPPORTIVE OF BOTH. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT? THANK YOU, MR. FIELDS. ALL RIGHT. THIS ITEM DOES HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHED TO IT. IF YOU'RE HERE THIS EVENING AND YOU WISH TO SHARE ANY COMMENTS OR CONCERNS REGARDING THIS ITEM, KINDLY APPROACH. OKAY. SEEING AS THERE ARE NONE, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE ITEM. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BUCKNER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS ITEM. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LEBEAU. KINDLY CAST YOUR VOTES. IN. THIS MOTION CARRIES 7 TO 0. AND IT WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION AT THE MAY 5TH, 2026 MEETING. NEXT [26-0026Z Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Rezone the Subject Property from “AG” - Agriculture District to “R5” - Residential District, Located on the North Side of FM 543 and Approximately 150 Feet East of Lantana Drive] ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM 26-0026Z. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS, ACT ON A REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM AG AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO R5 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FM 543 AND APPROXIMATELY 150FT EAST OF LANTANA DRIVE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU AGAIN. THIS IS A PROPOSED REZONING FROM AG TO R5 FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATES THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS THE SUBURBAN LIVING PLACE TYPE WITHIN THE HONEY CREEK DISTRICT. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES HAVE ALL DEVELOPED A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, INCLUDING STREET ZONINGS, THAT FOLLOW THE SAME STANDARDS AS R5 IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH AND TO THE SOUTH. THE PROPOSED ZONING [00:10:02] OF R5 MEETS THE COMP PLAN DESIGNATION AND IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. AS SUCH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED REZONING AND I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU JAKE. THE PD TO THE EAST AND THE WEST, WHAT DOES THAT ALIGN WITH? YEAH. SO THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST IS ACTUALLY WITHIN OUR ETJ. THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST IS WITHIN A. IT'S AN OLD PD FROM, I BELIEVE, THE 70S OR EARLY 80S. THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ON THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY ARE VERY SIMILAR TO THE THE R5 STANDARDS THAT ARE BEING PRESENTED FOR THIS PROPERTY TONIGHT. THE PROPERTY'S IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH. THOSE ARE STRAIGHT ZONINGS AND THEY FOLLOW THE EXACT SAME STANDARDS AS WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED. HEY, JAKE, WHAT SIZE ARE THE LOTS TO THE WEST? YEAH, SO THE LOTS TO THE WEST, I BELIEVE THOSE ARE ALSO MINIMUM 5000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, WHICH IS THE SAME AS THE R5 ZONING. AND TO THE NORTH AND TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH. YES. YEP. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MISTER BENNETT? THANK YOU. JAKE IS OUR APPLICANT HERE? I BELIEVE SO. HEY THERE. I'M JAKE THOMAS WITH LJ ENGINEERING REPRESENTING LENNAR. ADDRESS IS 3017 WEST SEVENTH, FORT WORTH, TEXAS. AS JAKE LAID OUT, WE'RE PURSUING R5 ZONING. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS HAVE. Y'ALL HAVE PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, TO THE NORTH AND WEST. NORTH AND WEST. OKAY. I'M NOT SURE THIS QUESTION FOR YOU OR FOR JAKE. HOW ABOUT THE ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE? CAN YOU SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THAT? YEAH. SO, YOU KNOW, FM 543 IS IS CURRENTLY A TECH STOCK FACILITY. AND SO, YOU KNOW, NO, NO PROPOSED EXPANSION OF IT WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, ALTHOUGH THERE WILL BE THE REQUIRED TURN LANES AS REQUIRED BY TXDOT AND CITY. THANK YOU. YEAH. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. THANK YOU. 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. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. GOOD EVENING COMMISSION. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TONIGHT. MY NAME IS ROBERT DEANGELO. I LIVE AT 7040 LANTANA DRIVE, MCKINNEY. SO I PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY ON LANTANA DRIVE IN 2022. AND I ACTUALLY, FORTUNATELY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET ONE OF THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS OR BUILDERS OF THE PRESERVE AT HONEY CREEK PROPERTY. AND I REMEMBERED ASKING HIM WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE LAND BEHIND MY HOUSE. AND AT THE TIME, HE HAD SAID THAT THE WHOEVER, THE MAN WHO OWNED THIS PLOT OF LAND WAS TREATING IT LIKE IT WAS THE LAST TRACT OF LAND ON ON THE PLANET. AND HE WAS NOT. AND HE WAS NOT LOOKING FORWARD TO SELLING IT. SINCE THEN WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE PRESERVE AT HONEY CREEK. I BELIEVE MY PLOT WAS PHASE FOUR OF TEN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS, AND THEN ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF 543. SINCE I'VE LIVED THERE IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS, THEY'VE ALSO BUILT THE ESTATES OF MCKINNEY. THEY'VE EXPANDED TRINITY FALLS, AND I JUST DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE RIGHT NOW TO SUPPORT ALL OF THESE ADDITIONAL HOMES, NAMELY, 543 IS STILL ONE LANE EACH WAY, AND IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS, THERE HAS JUST BEEN A LOT MORE TRAFFIC, ESPECIALLY DURING RUSH HOUR. THERE'S A SINGLE LANE OF CARS TRYING TO GET ONTO TRINITY FALLS PARKWAY AND THEN ONTO 75, AND THAT CAN STRETCH SOMETIMES MORE THAN A HALF A MILE BACK TO THE WATER TOWER AND SOMETIMES EVEN FURTHER BACK. AND IT JUST SEEMS IMPLAUSIBLE TO HAVE HAVE TO TAKE 15 PLUS MINUTES TO GET OFF OF THE MAIN STREET THAT YOU LIVE ON IN ORDER TO GET ONTO TRINITY FALLS PARKWAY. SO I WOULD REQUEST A DELAY TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS, TO THE REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY UNTIL WE CAN EXPAND. 543 TO AT LEAST GET ANOTHER LANE GOING FOR MAYBE A QUARTER OF A MILE FROM THE INTERSECTION OF 543 WITH TRINITY FALLS PARKWAY. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, JUST, JUST THAT ONE LANE JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO SUPPORT WHAT WE WOULD NEED IF WE WERE GOING TO ADD HOWEVER MANY HOMES ARE GOING TO BE ON THIS PLOT OF LAND. THAT'S THAT'S ALL THAT'S MY CONCERN. AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS THAT I JUST WOULD WANT TO GUARANTEE FROM THE CITY COUNCIL THAT IF WE WERE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH REZONING, AND THEN ULTIMATELY CONSTRUCTION WOULD START, THAT, YOU KNOW, ANY LOCAL NOISE ORDINANCES REGARDING CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE FOLLOWED AND THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE SOME KIND OF, YOU KNOW, UNDUE DISTURBANCE TO, YOU KNOW, US, OUR DAILY LIVING ON LANTANA DRIVE WITH CONSTRUCTION THAT'D BE GOING ON BEHIND BEHIND THE PROPERTY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, MR. D'ANGELO. KELLY, STATE YOUR [00:15:10] NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE. ETHAN MCPEAKE, 7032 LANTANA DRIVE, MCKINNEY, TEXAS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING. I AM A NEIGHBOR OF ROBERT SPEAKING. IN ADDITION, SIMILAR TO HIM IN A OPPOSITION, IF NOT AT LEAST DELAY FOR THIS REZONING PURPOSE BEING THE PRESERVE OF HONEY CREEK. MY WIFE AND I ALSO MOVED IN 2022. IT IS A RATHER REMOTE COMMUNITY WITHIN THE CITY, AS YOU ALL ARE WELL AWARE ON THE MAPS. IT'S ALSO IN, IN OUR OPINION, DEVELOPED MORE OF AN UNSAFE CHARACTERISTIC. BEING SO FAR FROM DEVELOPED MCKINNEY. IT CAN BE. IT APPEARS RATHER DIFFICULT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE IT OUT THERE AND MAINTAIN A PRESENCE. WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF GUN VIOLENCE FIGHTING AMONG THE STUDENTS AND ISSUES WITH CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN. IT IT SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE OUT OF CONTROL THAT I KNOW THE CITY IS WORKING TO ADDRESS, AND I KNOW THE CITY THAT POLICE IS DOING A GREAT JOB AT THAT. SO FOR THAT REASON, THE THE PROPOSED ADDITIONAL R5, WHICH APPEARS FROM WHAT I CAN READ IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, IS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE TO REALLY PACK HOMES IN BEING AS IT'S A LARGE PLOT OF LAND, I WOULD ASK THAT THERE BE CONSIDERATION FOR MAYBE EITHER A LOWER DENSITY, MAYBE AN R6 R8, WHICH ALIGNS WITH THE TRINITY FALLS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR SUBURBAN LIVING, OR TO AT THE VERY LEAST, DELAY FOR A TIME SUCH THAT THE CITY CAN ADDRESS THE REMOTENESS OF IT AGAIN, BRINGING 543 MORE LANES, BRINGING HARDEN THROUGH. I KNOW WHAT HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, JUST NOT OUT THERE YET. JUST DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE QUITE THE OPTIMAL TIME AND IS A CONCERN FOR MY FAMILY OVER WHAT THAT QUALITY OF LIFE LOOKS LIKE. AS WE PUT MORE PEOPLE OUT THERE ON THE VERY OUTSKIRTS OF OUR COMMUNITY. THAT'S MY CONCERN. I APPRECIATE THE TIME. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, MR. MCPEAKE. THIS ITEM DOES HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHED TO IT. SO IF YOU'RE HERE AND YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE YOUR COMMENTS OR CONCERNS, KINDLY APPROACH. OKAY. SEEING IS THERE NONE DO WE HAVE. LET ME GET JAKE BACK UP. JAKE, REQUEST FOR YOU TO COME BACK UP. PLEASE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CAN YOU MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? CAN YOU MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST, AND THEN WE CAN BRING JAKE BACK UP. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. WE HAVE A FIRST BY COMMISSIONER CRAIG AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LEBO TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU CAN CAST YOUR VOTE REGARDING THAT. COMMISSIONER, THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE VOTE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. MR. BENNETT. YES. CAN YOU JUST ADD ANYTHING ABOUT TECHDOCS PLANS THAT YOU MIGHT KNOW OF? BECAUSE ONE LANE EACH WAY, THAT ISN'T A LOT FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES. YEAH, UNDERSTANDABLE. SO I'M NOT SURE IF TEX-DOT HAS ANY PLANS TO EXPAND AT THIS POINT. ON OUR MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN, IT IS DESIGNATED AS A SIX LANE MAJOR ARTERIAL ROADWAY, SO AT SOME POINT IT WILL BE EXPANDED TO THAT. I DID TALK WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TODAY AS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, BASED ON THE NUMBER OF PROPOSED HOMES THAT WOULD FIT ON THIS PROPERTY, THEY'RE JUST REQUIRING THE RIGHT TURN LANE AND THE LEFT TURN LANE. I'M NOT SURE ON THE EXACT NUMBERS, BUT IT DOES NOT FACILITATE THE FOR THE WIDENING OF THE ROAD AT THIS POINT. DO THEY DO THEY ACTIVATE PLAN FOR THE ROAD AS MORE PEOPLE MOVE IN SECONDARY? I THINK IT'LL PROBABLY HAPPEN AS MORE DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED TO THE WEST OF THIS PROPERTY. SO THERE'S QUITE A BIT HERE. AND ON THE EAST SIDE OF HARDIN, AS MORE DEVELOPMENT COMES IN, LARGER DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST, THEN THAT'S PROBABLY WHEN IT WILL BE REQUIRED. THANK YOU. SO SINCE THEY'RE DEVELOPING ADJACENT TO 543, THEY ARE THEY NOT REQUIRED TO IMPROVE IT BECAUSE IT'S A TXDOT ROAD OR WHAT'S THE REASON? SO THEIR FRONTAGE IS ACTUALLY RELATIVELY SMALL ALONG. 543 SO IF THEY WERE TO IMPROVE IT, THERE WOULD JUST BE LANES SITTING OUT THERE GOING UNUSED, WHICH ACTUALLY DETERIORATES, DETERIORATE RELATIVELY FAST WHENEVER THEY'RE NOT BEING USED. THEY WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED FOR THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF TO EXTEND OFF SITE FOR THE ROADWAYS IN EITHER DIRECTION. WHAT ABOUT ALL THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO IT THAT I'M NOT 100% SURE ON THE CONVERSATIONS THAT HAPPENED AT THAT POINT. AGAIN, OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, THEY'RE THE ONES WHO HAVE THOSE [00:20:01] REQUIREMENTS WITHIN OUR ENGINEERING DESIGN MANUAL. FOR SOME REASON, IT HASN'T BEEN REQUIRED TO THIS POINT WITH THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS OR THIS DEVELOPMENT. I'M NOT 100% SURE ON THEIR REASONING BEHIND THAT, BUT I COULD FIND OUT. AND THEN BECAUSE I MEAN, EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE, RIGHT? SO IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS, 38 ACRES FOR RESIDENTIAL IS RELATIVELY SMALL TRACT OF LAND. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THE OVERALL IMPACT. COMPARED TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS TODAY IS REALLY MINUSCULE IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS, ALTHOUGH IT MIGHT NOT FEEL THAT WAY WHEN YOU KNOW YOU'RE BACKED UP ALL THE WAY TO THE WATER TOWER TRYING TO GET HOME. SO I DIDN'T DO THE MATH. APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY HOMES WOULD FIT ON THIS WITH R5 ZONING? YEAH, SO THE R5, IT'S A MINIMUM OF 5000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. SO WITH IT BEING 38 ACRES, 43,000FT■!S IN AN ACRE, O ABOUT EIGHT PER ACRE, PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN THAT. ONCE YOU FACTOR IN, THERE'S GOING TO BE TREE PRESERVATION ALONG THE NORTH. AND THEN YOU'LL ALSO HAVE COMMON AREAS. YOU'LL HAVE RIGHTS OF WAY WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT. SO PROBABLY AROUND 6 TO 7, MAYBE, MAYBE POTENTIALLY EIGHT. I'LL DEFER TO THE APPLICANT ON THAT. BUT AS FAR AS THE MATH ON THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE WHAT IT COMES OUT TO. SO A RELATIVELY SMALL AMOUNT OF HOMES, RELATIVELY SMALL. OKAY. THANK YOU. DID WE HAVE THE APPLICANT COME BACK UP TO ADDRESS THAT? YES. SO PROPOSED ON THIS IS 160 UNITS AND 61 SIX 0 OR 1 ZERO SIX. OKAY. AND Y'ALL DEVELOPED EVERYTHING AROUND IT. CORRECT. WELL NOT EVERYTHING. YEAH. I MEAN, LENNAR DEVELOPED PRESERVE AT HONEY CREEK AND THE, THE WILSON TRACK NORTH OF IT AS WELL. DO YOU HAVE ANY INSIGHT AS TO WHY 543 WASN'T IMPROVED? YOU KNOW, AS IT PERTAINS TO THE PROPERTY THAT'S IMPACTED, YOU KNOW, IT GETS KIND OF TRICKY WITH TEXTILE FACILITIES. YEAH. I MEAN, TECHSTATS NEEDS TO GET FUNDING FOR IT. AND YOU KNOW, THE CITY TRIES TO BE A PARTNER IN THAT AS WELL. BUT YOU KNOW THIS IS ON THE MTP LIKE JAKE MENTIONED. AND RIGHT OF WAY IS BEING DEDICATED FOR THE ULTIMATE SECTION, RIGHT? AND SO WHENEVER THAT IS REQUIRED, YOU KNOW, THE, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY HURDLES TO GET THAT EXTENDED. AS JAKE MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS WITH, YOU KNOW, JUST A SINGLE LANE OF TRAFFIC, BUT ADDING ANOTHER LANE OF TRAFFIC, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, ALONG THIS FRONTAGE, YOU WOULD JUST IT WOULD JUST BE CLOSED BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT'D BE TRANSITIONING WITHIN THE 1000FT OF FRONTAGE. YEAH. YOU KNOW, SO IT'S, IT'S JUST GOING TO SIT THERE VACANT WITH BARRICADES. I GET IT. DO YOU HAVE ANY INSIGHT? IN ADDITION TO WHAT JAKE SHARED AS FAR AS TECHDOCS PLANS, I DO NOT KNOW OF ANY PLANS FOR TXDOT TO EXTEND THE ROADWAY. AS OF NOW. YOU KNOW, FUNDING WITH TECH STUFF IS KIND OF TRICKY. SO YEAH, IT ALWAYS IS. YEAH. ARE YOU ABLE TO TURN LANE IN? PARDON? ARE YOU ABLE TO PUT A RIGHT TURN LANE IN. YEAH. I THINK THE CITY'S REQUIRING A RIGHT AND A LEFT TURN LANE. IS THAT CORRECT. YEAH. AND SO I KNEW ABOUT THE RIGHT. I WASN'T POSITIVE ON THE LEFT. AND SO YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, SCABBING ON THE ADDITIONAL PAVEMENT NEEDED IF NEEDED OR RESTRIPING IN ORDER TO GET THE RIGHT AND TURN RIGHT AND LEFT TURN LANES IN. THANK YOU. AND WHAT KIND OF BUILD TIME ARE YOU JUST I'M NOT HOLDING YOU TO IT, BUT APPROXIMATELY, YOU'RE TALKING LIKE 24 MONTHS BEFORE YOU'D BE DELIVERING LOTS OR MAYBE 18. I MEAN, I THINK 24 MONTHS IS PROBABLY REALISTIC. IT JUST DEPENDS ON HOW THINGS LIKE ZONING GO. RIGHT. BUT YOU KNOW, BEFORE HOMES ARE BUILT, I MEAN, THIS IS THEY'RE PLANNING A PRETTY MODERATE PACE ON IT, LIKE FIVE UNITS A MONTH IS WHAT I'M HEARING. SO WHAT FACTORS WENT INTO RULING OUT A LOWER DENSITY HOUSING ALTERNATIVE? WAS IT MAINLY JUST ECONOMICS? I MEAN IT'S KIND OF THE SURROUNDING LAND USE WAS REALLY THE BIGGEST THING. IT'S AND IT'S THE PRODUCT THAT THEY'VE DONE WELL ON OUT HERE. SO IT SEEMS TO BE A GOOD SELLER. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR OUR APPLICANT? THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR DO WE HAVE A MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS ITEM. OKAY. WE [00:25:06] HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS ITEM BY COMMISSIONER CRAIG. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WATLEY. KILEY, CAST YOUR VOTE. OKAY. THE MOTION PASSES 6 TO 1, AND THIS WILL BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION AT THE MAY 5TH, 2026 MEETING. OKAY. AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO KNOW, ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA? OKAY. DOES COMMISSION AND OUR STAFF HAVE ANY COMMENTS? DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING? MOVE TO ADJOURN SECOND. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BÜTTNER AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HAMMOCK. LEBO. LEBO. OKAY, SORRY. COMMISSIONER LEBO, CAST YOUR VOTES. AND THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT 6:26 P.M. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.