[25-0081SP2 Consider/Discuss/Act on a Site Plan for Religious Assembly (McKinney Islamic Association), Located at 5301, 5311, and 5321 Virginia Parkway]

CONSENT AGENDA HAS BEEN APPROVED. MINUS ONE PULL DOWN OF ITEM 25-0081SP2. THIS.

CONSIDER SITE PLAN FOR A RELIGIOUS FACILITY AT 5381. I'M SORRY 53015311 AND 5321 VIRGINIA PARKWAY. MISS ARNOLD. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CITY COUNCIL, MR. CITY MANAGER. I'LL WAIT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHTY. WE'LL START OVER. MR. MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, MR. CITY MANAGER JENNIFER ARNOLD. I'M ONE OF THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS HERE WITH THE CITY. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS ITEM HAS DRAWN A LOT OF PUBLIC INTEREST, A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND SCRUTINY ON STAFF'S REVIEW AND ULTIMATE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL ON THE SITE PLAN HERE IN JUST A MINUTE, OUR DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, LUCAS REILLY, AND OUR DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING, GARY GRAHAM, WILL SORT OF TAG TEAM A PRESENTATION TO WALK THROUGH THAT TECHNICAL REVIEW, AND

[04:20:01]

THEIR ULTIMATE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. BUT BEFORE THEY GET UP, THERE'S A COUPLE OF BROADER ITEMS THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COVER BOTH FOR YOUR BENEFIT AS A COUNCIL, BUT ALSO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THE FIRST IS TO CLARIFY WHAT THIS REQUEST IS VERSUS WHAT IT ISN'T. AS YOU'VE NOTED ON THE RECORD, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN CONSIDERATION. THIS IS NOT A ZONING EVENT. THE APPLICANT IS NOT REQUESTING ANY VARIANCES OR ANY DEVIATIONS TO THE STANDARD REQUIREMENTS OR ALLOWANCES FOR THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY. SO THIS IS A VERY TECHNICAL DOCUMENT. A SITE PLAN IS, AS THE NAME IMPLIES, IT IS A PLAN THAT SHOWS HOW THE SITE IS INTENDED TO BE LAID OUT IN TERMS OF BIG BUILDING FOOTPRINTS, PARKING, INGRESS, EGRESS, LANDSCAPING, THINGS OF THE LIKE. AND OUR STAFF'S REVIEW OF THOSE ITEMS ARE UP AGAINST OUR CITY CODE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. SO THAT IS THE FOUNDATION OF THEIR RECOMMENDATION. AND AGAIN, OUR TECHNICAL STAFF WILL COME UP HERE IN JUST A MOMENT AND WALK THROUGH A LOT OF THE SPECIFICS FOR HOW THEY COMPLETED THAT REVIEW. THE SECOND THING THAT I WANT TO ADDRESS IS WHERE A SITE PLAN SITS WITHIN THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. I THINK ONE THING THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IS CLEAR TO YOU ALL, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC, IS THAT A SITE PLAN IS NOT THE ONLY PLAN THAT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AND ACTED UPON AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. IT IS THE FIRST PLAN IN A COMMERCIAL PROJECT THAT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AND REVIEWED. FROM THERE, WE WILL, RECEIVE FULL CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS, PLAT PLANS, BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND BUILDING PERMITS. ALL OF THOSE PLANS AS THEY ARE REVIEWED ARE COMPARED AGAINST THAT SITE PLAN FOR CONFORMANCE. SO I DO KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INTERNAL LAYOUT OF THE BUILDING AND HOW THAT APPLIES THAT INFORMATION. AND THE ELEVATION INFORMATION WILL COME LATER AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW. AND ALL OF THOSE PERMITS ARE REVIEWED AGAIN AGAINST THAT SITE PLAN. SO I THINK THOSE ARE TWO OF THE BIGGER PICTURE ITEMS THAT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE PUT OUT THERE. BEFORE WE DOVE RIGHT INTO THE TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE SITE PLAN. SO WITH THAT, IF THERE AREN'T ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO LUCAS AND HE'S GOING TO GET IN TO THE REVIEW. THANKS. ALL.

GOOD OVER THERE. PERFECT. GOOD EVENING MAYOR. COUNCIL. CITY MANAGER GRIMES, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND SPEAK. MY NAME IS LUCAS REILLY. I AM THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING FOR THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. AND AS OUR ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER. JENNIFER ARNOLD HAS NOTED, I'M GOING TO WALK THROUGH SOME OF THE SPECIFICS ON HOW STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS SITE PLAN FOR THE REGULATIONS IN WHICH THE SITE HAS APPLIED TO IT. AGAIN, AS JENNIFER MENTIONED, WHAT THIS IS IS A SITE PLAN APPROVAL. IT IS NOT A REZONING. IT IS NOT A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. THERE ARE NO DESIGN EXCEPTIONS BEING REQUESTED. I WANTED TO SHOW THIS AS A DISPLAY OF WHAT THAT PROCESS IS. ANY TIME SOMEONE COMES IN FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THERE'S A SUBMITTAL REVIEW AND COMMENTS FROM STAFF REVISIONS, AND WE GO BACK AND FORTH THROUGH THAT UNTIL WE GET TO A POINT WHERE ALL OF STAFF'S COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED OR ADDRESSED. IS A DESIGN EXCEPTION. BEING REQUESTED IS THE FIRST DECISION POINT. IN THIS CASE, THE ANSWER IS NO.

DOES THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY REQUIRE A PUBLIC MEETING? AS EVERYONE IS HERE, WE NOW REALIZE THE ANSWER IS YES. SO WE SCHEDULED THAT FOR P AND Z AND CITY COUNCIL. IN THIS CASE, WE TOOK IT TO P AND Z, AND NOW WE'RE HERE AT CITY COUNCIL. IN THIS CASE, PROPERTY OWNER NOTICE WAS NOT REQUIRED DUE TO THE FACT THAT THERE WERE NOT DESIGN EXCEPTIONS BEING REQUESTED FOR THE SITE PLAN. AND THIS EVENING, YOU ALL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE YOUR FINAL DECISION ON THIS SITE PLAN. AGAIN. OVERVIEWING WHAT THE APPROVAL PROCESS ENTAILS.

THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN IS FULLY COMPLIANT WITH THE GOVERNING ZONING AND THE UDC, AND I'LL GO INTO GREAT DETAIL ON EXACTLY HOW THAT IS THE CASE. NO REQUESTED VARIANCES. AND AGAIN, NOT A REZONING OR AN SEP. SO THE GOVERNING ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THERE ARE THREE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES THAT APPLY. THE FIRST TWO WERE BOTH ADOPTED ON THE SAME DAY IN MAY OF 20, EXCUSE ME, OF 1997 AND A THIRD IN 2017. PD ORDINANCES SPECIFICALLY REQUIRE THIS PD ORDINANCES. EXCUSE ME. PD ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY PLANNING AND ZONING AND COUNCIL AND APPROVAL FOR PROCEDURE SPECIFIED IN THE UDC AND ZONING ORDINANCE. MOST SITE PLANS UNDER OUR STRAIGHT ZONES IN THE CITY OF MCKINNEY ARE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED AND DO NOT COME BEFORE PNC OR

[04:25:01]

COUNCIL. AND AGAIN, SITE PLAN REVIEW DOES NOT REQUIRE FULL BUILDING PLANS OR ENGINEERING.

THE POINT OF SITE PLAN REVIEW IS TO ENSURE THAT THE CONFORMANCE OF THE BROAD ZONING AND ENGINEERING REGULATIONS ARE APPLICABLE, AND THAT THEY'RE BEING MET. HERE'S THE SITE I BELIEVE EVERYONE HERE IS FAMILIAR WITH WHERE THIS LOCATION IS. HERE IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. HERE IS THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN. AND I'M GOING TO TAKE A DEEP DIVE INTO EACH OF THE POINTS LISTED HERE ABOVE, AS THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY AS CONCERNS OF HOW THIS SITE PLAN MEETS ALL OF THE ABOVE SPECIFIC AREAS. I'LL COVER EVERYTHING UNDER ZONING, AND THEN MY COLLEAGUE GARY WILL COVER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND THE FLOOD STUDY AS THOSE ARE ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS. SO STARTING WITH HEIGHT, AS REFERENCED MANY TIMES THIS EVENING, THE PD SAYS THAT THE HEIGHT LIMITATION IS 35FT.

HOWEVER, THE UDC SPECIFIES THAT IN ANY DISTRICT EXCEPT FOR THE MTC, WHICH IS THE MCKINNEY TOWN CENTER. AND I'LL BACK UP. WE USE A LOT OF ACRONYMS IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HERE. THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE IS OUR GOVERNING ZONING REGULATIONS IN THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. IT STATES THAT IN ANY DISTRICT EXCEPT THE MCKINNEY TOWN CENTER, WHERE RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLIES ARE ALLOWED, THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE MAY EXCEED THE STANDARD MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE DISTRICT TO A CEILING OF 75FT, WITH ADDITIONAL SETBACKS, LANDSCAPE BUFFERS AND TREE PLANTINGS. SO HOW DOES THE UDC PROVISION APPLY? HERE IS A TIMELINE OF THE ORDINANCES THAT APPLY TO THIS SPECIFIC TRACT PRE 1997, WHICH WAS THE DATE THAT THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES WERE ADOPTED FOR THIS TRACT. INITIALLY, ORDINANCE NUMBER 1270 IS THE CITY OF MCKINNEY'S ZONING DISTRICT. NOW WE CALL IT THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. AT THE TIME IT WAS ORDINANCE NUMBER 1270. THE DISTRICT, WHICH IS REFERENCED BY THE PDS AS THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE ALLOWED USES ARE PERMITTED, IS IN THAT ORDINANCE. 1270. ALSO IN THAT ORDINANCE IS ARTICLE FOUR AT THE TIME, SECTION 401 HEIGHT AND AREA EXEMPTIONS, WHICH APPLIES TO ALL ZONING DISTRICTS. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN 1997, THAT PROVISION. ARTICLE FOUR, SECTION 401, WITH HEIGHT AND AREA EXCEPTIONS, WAS IN PLACE AND WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PD AS SOMETHING THAT DID NOT APPLY. AND SO THE HEIGHT AND AREA EXCEPTION SECTION EXISTED PRIOR TO THE PD BEING ADOPTED AND APPLIED TO EVERY ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE CITY OF MCKINNEY, INCLUDING THESE DISTRICTS. WHAT THEY WERE ONCE THEY WERE ADOPTED IN JANUARY OF 2000, THAT SECTION, ARTICLE FOUR, SECTION 401, WHICH HAS BEEN CODIFIED AS SECTION 41 101, HAD ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE ADDED TO IT, WHICH PROVIDED THE HEIGHT AND AREA EXEMPTIONS FOR CHURCHES WRITTEN ALSO TO APPLY TO ANY DISTRICT WHERE CHURCHES ARE ALLOWED. IN 2017, ANOTHER PD WAS ADOPTED THAT APPLIED TO ONLY THE SUBJECT TRACT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT. BUT THE ONLY CHANGE THAT THAT PD PROVIDED WAS ADDING SINGLE FAMILY USES TO THE LIST OF ALLOWED USES UNDER THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PROPERTY. AND SO IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION THIS EVENING. AND THEN IN NOVEMBER 15TH OF 2022, WE HAVE ORDINANCE 2022 111 30, WHICH IS THE CITY'S ADOPTION OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. AGAIN, RE CODIFYING THE SAME EXCERPTS AND CHANGING THE LANGUAGE FROM CHURCH TO RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THE ONLY CHANGES MADE FROM 2000 TO 2022 IN THAT LANGUAGE IS THAT THE WORD CHURCH WAS REPLACED WITH RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY. AND AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE MCKINNEY TOWN CENTER, ZONING DOWN HERE IN DOWNTOWN THAT WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE EXCEPTION PROVISION. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT ALLOWANCE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S PERMITTED BY RIGHT. IT IS A CONDITIONAL ALLOWANCE. THERE ARE STIPULATIONS IN WHICH THE USE MUST MEET IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT ABOVE THE MAXIMUM IN THAT ZONING DISTRICT, 75FT IS THE MAXIMUM. WHEN THIS EXCEPTION IS ENACTED, THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL SETBACK OF THREE FEET FOR EVERY FOOT OF HEIGHT ABOVE THE 35 FOOT SETBACK IN THE DISTRICT, A MINIMUM SETBACK OF 50FT REGARDLESS OF THE HEIGHT ABOVE THE MINIMUM OR, EXCUSE ME, THE MAXIMUM. AND AS I MENTIONED, A LANDSCAPE BUFFER FROM ALL PROPERTY LINES OF 25FT AND AN ADDITIONAL PLANTING REQUIREMENT. MOVING FROM HEIGHT TO PARKING, THE UDC MEASURES THE PARKING REQUIREMENT BY THE FLOOR AREA OF THE MAIN ASSEMBLY SPACE. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE PRACTICED FOR ALL RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY USES IN THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. AND SO IN THIS CASE, THE SITE PLAN IS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL SPACES ABOVE THE MINIMUM REQUIRED. THE

[04:30:04]

UDC REQUIRES ONE SPACE FOR EVERY 50 GROSS SQUARE FEET OF ASSEMBLY AREA. ON THE SITE.

PLAN THE ASSEMBLY AREA IN THE DATA SUMMARY TABLE IS SHOWN TO BE 6322FT■!S, WHICH PROVIDES FOR A MINIMUM NUMBER OF SPACES OF 127. BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE 206 SPACES PROVIDED ACTUALLY PROVIDES THE APPLICANT TO HAVE UP TO 10,300FT■!S OF ASSEMBLY SPACE, WITHOUT HAVING TO ADD ANY PARKING SPACES ON THE SITE. AGAIN, THIS IS THE RATIO THAT WE APPLY TO ALL RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY USES IN THE CITY OF MCKINNEY, AND IT'S BEING APPLIED AND MET HERE. FOR LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. ONCE AGAIN, THE APPLICANT HAS SATISFIED OR EXCEEDED EVERY LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT IN BOTH THE PD AND THE UDC, INCLUDING THE LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY BUFFER AND PRESERVATION OF THE CREEK AREA. THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR 10% OF THE TOTAL SITE AREA TO BE LIVING LANDSCAPING, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 49.8% TO BE LIVING LANDSCAPING. THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL 19 CANOPY TREES THAT ARE BEING PROVIDED BEYOND THE MINIMUM SCREENING STANDARD, AND 20 EVERGREEN TREES ADDED AT THE HIGHEST GRADE OF THE SOUTHERN SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE. SPEAKING TO SOME SPECIFIC CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED FROM THE COMMUNITY. BUT THE PD TALKS ABOUT SPECIFIC THINGS THAT I DON'T SEE ON THE SITE PLAN. THAT'S WHAT WE HEARD AS STAFF. I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS THAT REGULATE THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS IN THE PD, AND I'VE SHOWN EACH OF THOSE THREE HERE. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SCREEN, THE ONLY REQUIREMENT REGARDING THE CREEK AREA IS THAT THERE THAT IT BE PRESERVED. YOU CAN SEE THE LANGUAGE THERE. THE DEVELOPER OR BUILDER AGREES TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING CREEK AREA BY NOT TOUCHING THE CREEK AREA. IT IS BEING PRESERVED. THERE IS A MENTION THAT THIS GREENBELT COULD PROVIDE A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION, BUT IT DOES NOT SAY SHALL. AND THAT LANGUAGE IS IMPORTANT HERE BECAUSE IT'S AN OPTION. IN THAT CASE LOWER. YOU'LL SEE THAT SPECIFICALLY RELATING TO THE TRACT WHICH IS UNDER CONSIDERATION HERE TONIGHT. TR FOR THAT LARGE TREES SHALL EXIST OR BE INSTALLED ONLY ON THAT SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. THEY DO EXIST IN THE FLOODPLAIN AREA WHICH IS NOT BEING OBSERVED, EXCUSE ME, WHICH IS NOT BEING DISTURBED.

AND SO THOSE TREES DO EXIST. AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS THREE INCH CALIBER TREES AT 30 FOOT ON CENTER. WHAT'S BEING LEFT UNDISTURBED IS MUCH LARGER THAN THREE INCH CALIPER TREES, MUCH CLOSER TOGETHER THAN 30FT ON CENTER. WHAT ARE THESE BUFFERS DO AT THE RESIDENTIAL EDGE? EVERY BUFFER IS REQUIRED. THE PLANTINGS ARE ADDED BEYOND THE MINIMUM TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL BUFFERING AND SCREENING ABOVE THE REQUIREMENTS. AND IN ADDITION, ALL MECHANICAL HEATING AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT ARE SCREENED. ANOTHER ZONING REQUIREMENT THE SANITATION CONTAINERS, THE DUMPSTERS THAT WILL BE ON SITE ARE ALSO BEING SCREENED MEETING OUR SCREENING REQUIREMENTS, TALKING SPECIFICALLY ON TREE PRESERVATION, I'LL REITERATE THAT IF YOU SEE THE SCREENSHOT TAKEN FROM THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, ALL THE TREES IN THE FLOODPLAIN AREA, WHICH IS A CITY FLOODPLAIN AREA, IS BETWEEN THE TWO BLUE DASHED LINES HERE, AND NONE OF THOSE TREES ARE BEING REMOVED. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE AGAIN THAT UP TO 30% OF THESE TREES CAN BE REMOVED BY RIGHT, WITHOUT REQUIRING ANY APPROVALS OR EXCEPTIONS OUTSIDE OF STAFF LEVEL, BUT THEY'RE PRESERVING 100% OF THE TREES IN THAT AREA.

ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS IS THE LAST THING THAT I'LL COVER AS A CONCERN THAT WE HEARD THE PD TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT RESIDENTIAL SCALE AND CHARACTER, AND SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WE WILL REQUIRE AND WHAT WE CAN APPLY AND ENFORCE RELATED TO ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS, ZONING LANGUAGE THAT DESCRIBES INTENT OR CHARACTER WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY DEFINITION IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S ENFORCEABLE. INSTEAD, WE CONSISTENTLY TAKE THE APPROACH AS STAFF THAT THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FOUND WITHIN THE PD DEFINES THE HOW BEHIND THE INTENT IN THAT LANGUAGE. AND SO IN THIS CASE, THE COMBINATION OF SQUARE FOOTAGE, FLOOR AREA RATIO, SPACE LIMITS, AND PRESERVATION OF THE CREEK AREA ARE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT RELATE AND SPEAK TO THE INTENT OF MEETING RESIDENTIAL SCALE AND CHARACTER. AGAIN, WITHOUT A DEFINITION, IT'S A SUBJECTIVE REGULATION THAT CAN'T BE TIED TO AN OBJECTIVE OUTCOME, AND THIS MAKES IT DIFFICULT. DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE EVEN WHEN THE LANGUAGE SAYS SHALL. THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE DON'T USE THAT LANGUAGE IN MODERN ZONING REGULATIONS, AND WE TRY TO BE VERY SPECIFIC IN DEFINITIONS AND LANGUAGE THAT WE USE. AT THIS POINT. I'LL PASS IT OVER TO GARY GRAHAM, OUR DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING. THANK YOU, LUCAS MAYOR COUNCIL.

[04:35:02]

GARY GRAHAM, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING. SO I'M GOING TO ADDRESS THE TWO ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE PLAN RELATED TO ENGINEERING. THE FIRST IS THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. SO WE HEARD A LOT OF CONCERNS RELATED TO TRAFFIC STUDY OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS.

AND SO WE TRY TO ADDRESS THOSE DIFFERENT ISSUES. FIRST, THE PURPOSE OF THE TIA IS TO EXAMINE THE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON THE ADJACENT STREET. NETWORK.

PARKING REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT AN EVALUATION CRITERIA OF THE TIA THAT WAS HANDLED BY THE ORDINANCE THAT MR. REILLY LAID OUT. THE ANALYSIS PERIOD IS TYPICALLY BASED ON THE PEAK HOUR OF THE INTENDED USE. SO FROM THE APPLICANT, WE HEARD THAT THE THERE WERE GOING TO BE TWO PRAYER PERIODS, ROUGHLY GOING FROM 1230 TO 230. WE HEARD THAT THE PRAYER AREA PRAYER TIME ONE WOULD BE A MORE SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC DRAW, A HIGHER ATTENDANCE THAN THE PRAYER SECOND PRAYER PERIOD. SO WE LOOKED AT HOW THOSE WOULD OPERATE. WE DETERMINED FROM 1230 TO 130 WOULD WIN THAT PRAYER AREA. ONE PRAYER TIME, ONE WOULD BE, THE TIME OF OPERATION. SO WE LOOKED AT HOW MUCH TRAFFIC WOULD BE GENERATED DURING THAT TIME FRAME. WE ALSO LOOKED AT DURING THIS 12 TO 2 PERIOD, WHAT IS THE HIGHEST TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON THE ADJACENT STREET NETWORK? THAT TURNED OUT TO BE FROM 1:00 TO 2:00 BASED ON TRAFFIC COUNTS. WE SAID TO BE THE DO THE MOST CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS POSSIBLE, TAKE THE HIGHEST TRIP GENERATION TIME, AND THEN PUT THAT TRAFFIC ON THE STREET NETWORK WHERE THEY HAVE THE HIGHEST TRAFFIC GENERATION IN THAT RELATIVE TIME FRAME. AND THAT'S THE ANALYSIS PERIOD WE DETERMINED.

SO THAT'S 1230 TO 130. ANY OTHER ONGOING ACTIVITIES SUCH AS SCHOOL RELATED TRAFFIC, OTHER BUSINESS RELATED TRAFFIC, LUNCH HOUR RELATED TRAFFIC THAT IS ALL CAPTURED IN THE BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES THAT WE WERE COLLECTED BY THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER DURING FOR THE STUDY. WE ALSO HEARD CONCERNS ABOUT ACCESS POINTS. SO THERE WILL BE THREE PLANNED ACCESS POINTS WITH THE SITE PLAN. TWO OF THEM PROVIDE ACCESS TO VIRGINIA PARKWAY. ONE IS A DIRECT ACCESS TO A MEDIAN OPENING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD INSTALL, PROVIDE LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANES ON VIRGINIA PARKWAY INTO THE SITE. THE OTHER ACCESS TO VIRGINIA IS THROUGH A MUTUAL ACCESS EASEMENT THROUGH THE ADJACENT BUSINESS, THEIR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE IN THE CITY OF MCKINNEY TO PROVIDE A MUTUAL ACCESS EASEMENT THROUGH ALL PROPERTIES TO ALLOW FOR EFFICIENT MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC ALONG THE CORRIDOR, ADJACENT TO THE ARTERIAL ROADWAY. THE THIRD ACCESS POINT IS ON CRUSHER CROSSING AND PROVIDES ACCESS TO THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL. THE ANALYSIS INTERSECTIONS WERE DETERMINED BY THE PROXIMITY TO THE LOCATION OF THE OF THE SITE. THE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE SITE, TRAFFIC VOLUMES DISSIPATE INTO THE BACKGROUND. AND SO THE MOST IMMEDIATE IMPACTS ARE CLOSER TO THE SITE. SO THAT'S WHY THOSE LOCATIONS WERE CHOSEN. THERE WAS CONCERNS ABOUT TRIP GENERATION IDENTIFIED. AND SO STANDARD PRACTICE FOR TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STUDIES IS USED. THE ITE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS TRIP GENERATION MANUAL FOR THIS PARTICULAR LAND USE. THERE ARE NOT MANY DATA POINTS IN THAT MANUAL. SO IT IS COMMON PRACTICE TO USE A LOCAL SITE OF A SIMILAR NATURE, AS DO AN ANALYSIS OF THE TRIP GENERATION ASSOCIATED WITH THAT SITE AND APPLY IT TO THE LAND USE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. SO, WE SPECIFICALLY TALKED ABOUT THE EL DORADO FACILITY. WE WONDERED IF THAT WOULD BE THE RIGHT CHOICE. WE SAID WE DIDN'T THINK SO BECAUSE THE, THE NATURE OF THE PARKING IS SO DISPERSED THROUGH THE ADJACENT BUSINESSES THAT IT'S DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHICH OF THOSE VEHICLES ARE DRIVING ON SITE IS ASSOCIATED WITH AN ADJACENT BUSINESS OR TRULY ASSOCIATED JUST WITH THE THE MOSQUE USE.

SO WE TURN TO THE SITE IN ALLEN AND DID AN EVALUATION OF THAT SITE. FROM THE INFORMATION GATHERED AT THAT SITE. CORRELATION OF TRIP GENERATION TRAFFIC GENERATED FOR THE SITE WERE DEVELOPED BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING, AND ALSO THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED MEMBERS. THE ANALYSIS SHOWED THAT FOR THIS SITE, THE. THE GENERATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE REGISTERED NUMBER OF MEMBERS GENERATED A HIGHER NUMBER OF OVERALL TRAFFIC. SO AGAIN, TO BE CONSERVATIVE IN OUR ANALYSIS, WE WENT WITH THE HIGHER GENERATION OF TRAFFIC AND APPLIED IT TO THIS SITE. THE TRIP DISTRIBUTION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ASSUMES THAT NO TRAFFIC WOULD TRAVEL IN, WOULD TRAVEL TO AND FROM THE SITE USING VIRGINIA. THERE WAS A NO ASSUMED TRAFFIC WOULD BE GOING INTO THE SUBDIVISION TO THE SOUTH. THE REASON WE MADE THAT CHOICE WAS THE SUBDIVISION OF THE SOUTH DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY DIRECT ACCESS EITHER TO RIDGE OR TO LAKE FOREST. IT ONLY HAS ACCESS BACK TO VIRGINIA PARKWAY. WE DID NOT THINK THAT WOULD BE EFFICIENT. EFFICIENT, CUT THROUGH ROUTE. AND SO PEOPLE WOULD NOT CUT THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION TO GET TO THE SITE. THEY WOULD JUST STAY ON VIRGINIA. SO THE ANALYSIS AND

[04:40:03]

RESULTS, THE RESULTS OF THE T SHOW THAT A FACILITY OF THIS SIZE HAS NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON THE ADJACENT STREET NETWORK. OUR ROADWAYS ARE SIX LANE MAJOR ARTERIALS. THEY ARE DESIGNED TO CARRY SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF TRAFFIC. YES, THERE AS WE CONTINUE TO BUILD OUT, WE WILL SEE CONTINUED INCREASES OF CONGESTION ON THESE ROADWAYS. BUT THE LEVEL OF CONGESTION ASSOCIATED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT IS NOT SIGNIFICANT. THERE MAY BE AN INCREASED VEHICLE QUEUING ON CRUTCHER CROSSING. DURING THE PEAK PERIOD. THE DEVELOPER HAS INDICATED THROUGH OUR CONVERSATIONS THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO PROVIDE, AT THEIR COST, UNIFORMED POLICE OFFICERS FOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AS NEEDED. CITY STAFF. ONE OF OUR ROLES IS TO PROVIDE SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION THROUGH THE CITY. SO WE MONITOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY ALL THE TIME. AND SO, WE WOULD DEVELOP A SPECIFIC TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING FOR PATTERN PLAN FOR THIS INTERSECTION, SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SEE AT A LOT OF THE OTHER RELIGIOUS FACILITIES ACROSS THE CITY WHERE WE HAVE SPECIFIC TIMING PATTERNS THAT THEIR RELEASE TIMES. MOVING TO THE FLOOD STUDY, THIS CREEK IS NOT A FEMA DESIGNATED FLOODPLAIN. SO IT IS ONLY LOCAL SUBJECT TO LOCAL FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS.

THE FLOOD STUDY VERIFIED THE LIMITS OF THE EXISTING FLOODPLAIN. THE APPLICANT IS NOT SHOWING ANY PROPOSED FILL IN THAT FLOODPLAIN. THEY ARE PROPOSING RETAINING WALLS TO LIMIT THEIR IMPACTS TO THAT FLOODPLAIN. THE DETENTION POND WAS DETERMINED NOT TO BE NEEDED BASED ON THE FLOOD STUDY. THEIR FLOW RATES AND VELOCITIES WERE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO EXISTING CONDITIONS, RESULTING IN NO IMPACTS TO ANYBODY DOWNSTREAM OR UPSTREAM. THERE IS, A SMALL POND ON SITE, AN UPLAND POND, WHAT WE CALL IT. BUT IT'S NOT SUBJECT TO THE WATERS OF THE US JURISDICTION. THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO REMOVE THAT FROM THEIR SITE IF THEY DESIRE. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO NOT PROPOSING ANY ALTERATIONS TO THE CREEK CHANNEL. AGAIN, NO WATERS WITH US. DETERMINATION WAS REQUIRED BECAUSE IT IS NOT A FEMA FLOOD DESIGNATED FLOODPLAIN. SO, THAT WAS THE ENGINEERING ITEMS. MR. REILLY HAS COVERED THE PLANNING ITEM.

SO WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THE COUNCIL MAY HAVE RELATED TO THE ITEM.

CARRIE, IT'S BEEN A LONG NIGHT, AND FORGIVE ME IF I JUST FORGOT, BUT YOU GUYS JUST WENT OVER.

BUT DID WE ADDRESS PARKING AND HOW WE ARRIVED AT THE NUMBER THAT WE REQUIRED? YES. RIGHT THERE. YES, YES, THE THE SLIDE. SORRY. IF YOU'LL GO TO THAT ONE MORE TIME BECAUSE I AND FORGIVE ME, IT'S MY FAULT. BUT IF YOU'LL DO THAT ONE MORE TIME FOR MY EDIFICATION. YEAH. SO THE UDC MEASURES THE PARKING REQUIREMENT BASED ON THE FLOOR AREA OF THE MAIN ASSEMBLY SPACE.

THE SITE PLAN IS PROVIDING 79 SPACES ABOVE THE MINIMUM REQUIRED. THE RATIO IS ONE SPOT FOR EVERY 50FT■!S OF ASSEMBLY AREA. THE ASSEMBLY AREA ON THE SITE PLAN DATA SUMMARY TABLE IS SHOWING TO BE 6322, WHICH REQUIRES 127 SPACES MINIMUM. THE SITE PLAN IS PROVIDING 206 SPACES, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR UP TO 10,300FT■!S OF ASSEMBLY AREA WITHOUT HAVING TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SPACES. I WANT TO ALSO REITERATE WHAT JENNIFER SAID AT THE VERY BEGINNING THAT WE'RE AT THE SITE PLAN STAGE. ANYTIME THAT BUILDING PERMITS ARE ISSUED, WE HAVE TO VERIFY EVERYTHING ON THE FINAL SETS OF PLANS. AND SO THIS IS A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN THAT'S BEFORE YOU, THERE'S A LIST OF CONDITIONAL OR THERE'S A, THERE'S A CHECKLIST IN THE AGENDA PACKET OF ALL THE THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE MET AND VERIFIED BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED. THE PLANNING TECHNICIANS IN MY DEPARTMENT ARE THE ONES THAT REVIEW SPECIFICALLY THE PARKING REQUIREMENT AT THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE, WHICH AGAIN, THERE'S A PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THAT THROUGH THE SITE PLAN. BUT IF FOR SOME REASON SOMETHING CHANGES, EITHER THEY HAVE TO MODIFY THE BUILDINGS OR UPDATE THE SITE PLAN, WE'D GO BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS. THANK YOU. NOW, WHEN THEY WHEN THE EVENTUALLY THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD 32,000FT■!S AS PLANNED BY THE SITE PLAN ACROSS ALL THREE BUILDINGS. OKAY. AND SO DO THEY GET TO USE THOSE EXTRA PARKING SPACES TOWARDS THE OTHER BUILDINGS. SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE USE FOR THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT IS RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY. AND SO THE REQUIREMENT THAT WE HAVE, AND I'M JUMPING OVER TO SORRY, I'M GOING TO MOVE BACK TO THE SITE PLAN ITSELF, SHOWING ALL THREE OF THOSE BUILDINGS, THE REQUIREMENT THAT WE HAVE FOR RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY BASES, THE PARKING ONLY ON THE PRIMARY USE OF THE ASSEMBLY AREA. AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE DO FOR EVERY RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY USE IN MCKINNEY. AND SO IF THERE'S ANOTHER RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY USE THAT HAS MULTIPLE BUILDINGS OR MULTIPLE USES WITHIN THOSE

[04:45:02]

STRUCTURES, WE STILL BASE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT ON WHAT WE SEE AS THE HIGHEST GENERATOR OF PARKING, WHICH IS THE ASSEMBLY AREA SPACE. AND SO ANY OTHER RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY THAT HAS A GYM, OFFICES, A DAYCARE, ANY OF THOSE THINGS, WE DON'T REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR THOSE.

WE RELY ON THE ASSEMBLY SPACE AS THE GENERATOR OF THE PARKING CALCULATION. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT FOR US. I THINK ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE'VE VERY OFTEN GOTTEN IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE BUILDING IS THE PRIMARY. THE PRIMARY BUILDING IS 15,000FT■!S. SO HOW DO YOU COME UP WITH THAT NUMBER? ABSOLUTELY. AND JUST FOR EVERYONE'S SAKE TO UNDERSTAND, WE'VE SHOT A TREMENDOUS NUMBER OF QUESTIONS BACK TO STAFF REGARDING THIS CASE. AND YOU GUYS WERE KIND ENOUGH TO LOOK AT ALL OF THE RELIGIOUS ENTITIES THAT WE HAVE GRANTED THESE SIMILAR, YOU KNOW, CODES TO, OR THEY'RE MEETING THE CODE AS WELL. AND THERE WERE AT LEAST 12 OTHERS IN THE LAST THREE YEARS, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. SO NONE OF THE PARKING CHANGED VERSUS BASED ON ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THE ASSEMBLY SPACE. AND THAT'S HOW WE'RE CALCULATING IT FOR THIS ENTITY AS WELL EACH TIME. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE, I KNOW PEOPLE HAVE ASKED THAT, HOW DOES THE TWO STORIES FOR THE PROPOSED MOSQUE MAIN STRUCTURE? HOW IS THAT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT HERE? THIS IS A SITE PLAN. IT'S TO SCALE. IF YOU WERE TO TAKE A PROGRAM LIKE WE HAVE AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND SET YOUR SCALE TO THIS AND CREATED THE AREA OF THAT MIDDLE BUILDING, YOU'LL GET A LOT LESS THAN 15,000.

THAT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT BOTH STORIES FOR THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA BEING 15,000. OKAY. AND AGAIN, HOW DO YOU GET TO MUCH LOWER THAN THAT AS THE ASSEMBLY AREA? THERE'S HALLWAYS, THERE'S RESTROOMS, THERE'S OFFICES, AREAS THAT ARE NOT THE PRIMARY ASSEMBLY AREA IN ANY TYPE OF RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY BUILDING, THE SAME AS APPLYING HERE. AND ALSO, JUST TO CIRCLE BACK TO THE PARKING SITUATION, CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY EXCEED THE PARKING SPACES THAT ARE ON SITE? IF THEY EXCEED THE PARKING SPACES ON SITE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO EITHER FIND SOMEONE THAT WILL ALLOW THEM TO SHARE PARKING AND HAVE AN AGREEMENT AS SUCH. OR THEY'LL HAVE TO TURN AROUND AND NOT ATTEND. RIGHT. OKAY. AND AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, AND THIS IS THE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE BEEN PROVIDED AND I'VE SEEN IT, I LIVE RIGHT NEAR THE EL DORADO LOCATION. BUT IF, IF THEY DO EXCEED THE PARKING SPACE, THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT IS WHAT WE CAN, WE CAN, THEY CAN LEGALLY PARK AT ANY BUSINESS THAT THEY HAVE A LEGAL ARRANGEMENT WITH. CORRECT. YES. IF ANY BUSINESS THAT HAS PRIVATE PARKING SIGNS, AN AGREEMENT THAT THEY WANT TO SHARE PARKING WITH THIS USE, THEY CERTAINLY CAN DO SO. WE DON'T REQUIRE THAT AGREEMENT. THERE'S A LOT OF CASES IN WHICH WE WOULD IF THEY WERE NOT PROVIDING ADEQUATE SPACES. BUT AGAIN, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT. THEY'RE PROVIDING 79 ADDITIONAL.

AND SO IT'S UP TO THEM TO DETERMINE THAT ON THEIR OWN. IF THEY NEED TO HAVE SHARED PARKING WITH ANY ADJACENT OR NEARBY USES. AND WHAT CAN THE CITY ENFORCE IF THEY SHOULD PARK IN A, AT A, AT A PRIVATE LOCATION THAT THEY DON'T HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH. SO IF THEY WERE TO START PARKING IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS, THE CITY HAS THE ABILITY TO POST NO PARKING SIGNS ON THE RESIDENTIAL STREETS. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY AND THE COUNCIL. WE WOULDN'T KNOW THAT UNTIL THAT STARTED TO HAPPEN.

AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE, YOU CAN SEE CALL OUT NUMBER 25. THERE ARE NO PARKING SIGNS BEING POSTED. THAT WAS IN THE TIA. AND IT'S, IT'S A PROPOSAL THAT'S HERE ON THE SITE PLAN.

I'M SORRY. YEAH. AND THAT'S ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET. CORRECT. THAT'S ON BOTH SIDES.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT I CAN ANSWER FOR ANY OF YOU ALL. NO. MR. MAYOR, IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS ITEM. AND THEN IF THERE'S A SECOND, WE CAN MAKE OUR COMMENTS RIGHT. DOES THAT WORK? THAT'S FINE. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TO APPROVE THE ITEM. I'LL SECOND. SECOND BY COUNCILWOMAN FELTZ. IS THERE DISCUSSION? I WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING. NO ONE I KNOW CAN CONSISTENTLY AND RELIABLY PREDICT THE FUTURE. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THE BEST WAY TO PREDICT THE FUTURE BEHAVIOR OF A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS IS TO EXAMINE THEIR PRIOR BEHAVIOR. THE MCKINNEY ISLAMIC ASSOCIATION HAS WORSHIPED PEACEFULLY AND LAWFULLY IN THEIR CURRENT FACILITY, ONLY BLOCKS FROM THIS PROPOSED NEW SITE. FOR THE LAST 17 YEARS, THEY'VE BEEN DOING THAT, PART OF THAT. THEY'VE BEEN PART OF THIS COMMUNITY FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS. THEY DO THE SAME THINGS

[04:50:04]

I DO. THEY CONTRIBUTE TO THE ECONOMY. THEY PARTICIPATE IN CIVIC LIFE. THEY INVITE OTHERS TO WORSHIP AND EAT WITH THEM. THEY'VE HAD A VISION FOR GROWTH, AND THEY'VE SOWN THE SEEDS IN ORDER TO BRING THAT TO FRUITION. THEY'VE BEEN GOOD NEIGHBORS. I'VE VISITED THEIR EXISTING CAMPUS AND HAVE SEVERAL FRIENDS THAT I KNOW AND TRUST WHO ATTEND REGULARLY AND UNDOUBTEDLY ARE AN ASSET TO THIS COMMUNITY. THEY HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO WORSHIP WITHOUT HINDRANCE. I WANT TO TELL THEM CONGRATULATIONS. I'M HAPPY YOU'LL GET TO SEE THE FRUITS OF YOUR LABOR. I'M EXCITED FOR WHAT IS TO COME, BECAUSE I KNOW IT WILL BE ROOTED IN WHAT HAS BEEN. I'M UNDERSTANDING OF THE NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE PRACTICAL CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC, PARKING, FREE SPACE, GREEN SPACE, ETC. WE'VE GOT TWO OTHER ZONING CASES LATER TONIGHT. IF YOU WANT TO STICK AROUND AND HEAR ABOUT ONE ON OLD MILL ROAD OR ONE ON GREENVILLE THAT HAVE SIMILAR CONCERNS FROM NEIGHBORS, CHANGE IS DIFFICULT. I THINK AT THIS POINT, YOU'VE PROBABLY HEARD THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS ZONED AND DESIGNED AT THE SAME TIME THAT EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WAS BUILT AROUND, AROUND IT WAS IT WAS INTENDED TO BE DEVELOPED WITH ACTIVITY THAT WOULD BRING TRAFFIC THAT WOULD REQUIRE PARKING, AND THAT WOULD IMPACT THE GREEN SPACE. THOSE ZONING RIGHTS HAVE BEEN IN PLACE SINCE 1997. IF YOU KNOW WHERE THE MIA WORSHIPS TODAY, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE SIZE CONSTRAINTS. THEY'VE WORKED WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS TO DEAL WITH THOSE THEY PAY FOR SECURITY TO ENSURE THAT THEY DON'T PUT AN UNDUE BURDEN ON THEIR CURRENT NEIGHBORS. WITH THIS PROPOSAL, THEY'VE WORKED WITH CITY STAFF TO CONFORM TO THE EXISTING ZONING. THEY'VE LISTENED TO THE CONCERNS THAT WERE EXPRESSED. THEY'VE MADE A REQUEST AFTER THEY MADE A REQUEST TO P AND Z A FEW YEARS AGO. I THINK THEY'VE EARNED AND DESERVE A LITTLE TRUST THAT THEY'LL DO RIGHT BY YOU AS THEIR NEIGHBORS. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE WAYS THAT WE CAN LISTEN TO AND ACCOMMODATE OUR NEIGHBORS. IT'S AN ONGOING EFFORT AND IT TAKES TWO SIDES. WE HAVE TO DO IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. ONE OF MY FAVORITE THINGS ABOUT MCKINNEY IS SEEING PEOPLE DO THIS SO WELL. I'VE STRUGGLED TO FIND WORDS TO ADDRESS THE OTHER OPINIONS THAT ARE INJECTED INTO THIS DISCUSSION. THIS IS A SITE PLAN APPROVAL, NOTHING ELSE. BUT IT'S DISHEARTENING TO BE ASKED TO BREAK MY OATH OF OFFICE OR TO DEFY THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE OF SOME ALGORITHMIC RAGE OR MISINFORMATION.

WATCHING PARTIZAN POLITICIANS WITH POWER TO GAIN USE, FEAR AND OUTRAGE IS DISAPPOINTING. I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL CITIZENS TO RESIST THIS RECKLESS POLITICAL RHETORIC, WHICH IN MY OPINION, AMOUNTS TO ELECTION YEAR FEAR MONGERING THAT SUGGESTS THIS GROUP IS SUDDENLY GOING TO BECOME. LET'S. WE LET YOU SPEAK. SO IF YOU WILL PLEASE LET. LET THE COUNCIL SPEAK AS WELL.

THANK YOU. THAT SUGGESTS THIS GROUP IS SUDDENLY GOING TO BECOME A DANGER TO THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS. OTHERIZING PEOPLE AND GROUPS IS A CHEAP WAY TO GAIN POWER AND EVIDENCE THAT THERE'S NO CONCRETE IDEAS TO SERVE THEIR CONSTITUENTS. THERE ARE ENOUGH LEGITIMATE CONCERNS IN THIS WORLD WITHOUT MANUFACTURING NEW ONES. I RECOGNIZE THAT WE ALL LIVE IN DIFFERENT INFORMATION ENVIRONMENTS. SOCIAL MEDIA HAS ALLOWED US TO CREATE OUR OWN BUBBLES. I'M WILLING TO ADMIT THAT I HAVE MINE. I'D ASK YOU TO TAKE A FEW THINGS WITH YOU AS YOU LEAVE HERE. UNDERSTAND? UNDERSTAND THE BUBBLES THAT WE BUILD AND WORK TO BREAK THEM DOWN IN YOUR OWN LIFE. BELIEVE YOUR LIVED EXPERIENCE RATHER THAN WHAT SOMEONE TELLS YOU, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOUR REACTION BENEFITS THEM. RECOGNIZE HOW PARTIZAN POLITICIANS SEEK TO DIVIDE US AND OTHERIZE CERTAIN PEOPLE WITH FEAR AND OUTRAGE. CALL IT WHAT IT IS. IT'S THE CHEAPEST WAY TO POWER, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WE ALLOW IT TO BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE. IF YOU'RE TRULY CONCERNED ABOUT TRAFFIC ON VIRGINIA, CALL YOUR STATE AND COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES WHO ARE AT LEAST A DECADE BEHIND ON PLANNING AND BUILDING REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IN THIS AREA, AND WE PAY THE PRICE FOR THAT ALONG VIRGINIA. LASTLY, BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR TO OTHERS. THAT'S WHAT MAKES MCKINNEY WHAT IT IS. SLOW DOWN ON OUR ROADWAYS.

SERVE YOUR COMMUNITY. KNOW YOUR NEIGHBORS. WE CAN ONLY MAKE THIS PLACE A BETTER PLACE BY TO LIVE BY TREATING OTHERS THE WAY WE WANT TO BE TREATED. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. ANYONE ELSE?

[04:55:25]

SO ONCE AGAIN, IF WE COULD HOLD THE ROOM DECORUM DOWN WHERE WE COULD WORK THROUGH THIS WOULD BE APPRECIATED. AGAIN, IF YOU'RE DISRUPTIVE OF THE MEETING, WE WILL ASK YOU TO LEAVE. MR. MAYOR, I'M NOT GOING TO BELABOR THE POINT THIS EVENING, BUT THIS IS MY DISTRICT. AND SO FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE NEAR OR JUST SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY, I HEAR YOU. THIS IS THE LOT, NOT THE LAST OF THE CONVERSATIONS. I AM STILL OPEN TO CONVERSATIONS. I'M OPEN TO ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS. I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS FOR US AS COUNCIL. WE DID NOT TAKE YOUR COMMENTS LIGHTLY. WE READ YOUR EMAILS.

WE SENT THEM TO STAFF. STAFF, I WANT TO SAY PUBLICLY HAS GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND ANY ITEM I'VE EVER SEEN THEM ADDRESS ON THIS. THEY HAVE WORKED LATE INTO THE NIGHT TO PROVIDE ANSWERS FOR THE QUESTIONS AND PROVIDE CLARITY FOR STAFF. SOME OF THIS STUFF IS VERY, VERY TECHNICAL.

I AM NOT AN ENGINEER BY TRADE, AND I HAVE TO RELY ON STAFF TO GIVE ME ACCURATE INFORMATION.

THEY HAVE MADE ALL OF THE POINTS EXTREMELY CLEAR. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S EXTREMELY CLEAR TO ALL OF YOU, BUT FOR US, THERE IS NOT ONE QUESTION THAT HAS GONE UNANSWERED. WITHOUT THOROUGH, THOROUGH VETTING AND A GREAT RESPONSE TO WHY WE ARE BEING PRESENTED THIS THIS SITE PLAN THE WAY IT IS AND WHY IT'S COMPLIANT WITH OUR CODE. AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT, IT IS INCUMBENT ON ME TO MOVE FORWARD AND GOING AHEAD TO APPROVE THIS ITEM. IT DOES NOT MEAN THE CONVERSATION STOPPED. MY EMAIL IS DISTRICT THREE AT MCKINNEY, TEXAS.COM. IF ANY HOA WOULD LIKE TO MEET TO DISCUSS THE PROJECT, I'M OPEN. I HAVE A COUPLE OF GROUPS WHO HAVE ALREADY ASKED ME TO COME TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS VERY ITEM, AND WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO ENGAGE THE PUBLIC AND LISTEN, FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE. I HEARD YOUR YOUR QUESTION ABOUT, OPENING ACCESS TO ALLOW YOU TO GET OUT OF THE PROPERTY, BUT NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. WE'RE GOING TO LOOK INTO EVERY POSSIBILITY THAT WE CAN TO HELP TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE CONGESTION THAT YOU'RE SEEING, AND WE'LL DO AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY CAN. WHEN I MOVED TO MCKINNEY, THERE WAS NOTHING NORTH, SOUTH, EAST OR WEST OF MY HOME. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. NOW, MANY YEARS LATER, 15 YEARS LATER, THERE IS SOMETHING NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND WEST OF MY HOME AND IT DOES TAKE ME LONGER TO GET OUT OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD. IT USED TO TAKE ME 11 MINUTES TO GET TO CITY HALL. IT NOW TAKES ME 16 TO 17 MINUTES TO GET TO CITY HALL. THAT'S A NORMAL DAY. AND SO WE'VE HAD TO BE PATIENT WITH THE GROWTH. THERE'S ALWAYS SOME GROWING PAINS THAT KIND OF COME WITH THAT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO SOLVE EVERY PROBLEM. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE PERFECT, BUT WE'RE GOING TO KEEP LOOKING FOR SOLUTIONS AS LONG AS WE CAN FIND THEM. AND SO THAT'S MY COMMITMENT TO THE COMMUNITY.

YOU HAVE MY EMAIL. I'M HAPPY TO MEET WITH ANYONE. WE'LL CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THIS. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? NO, SIR. THANK YOU. ANYONE? NO. NO. GOOD. GOOD. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BELLER, SECOND BY MAYOR BY, COUNCILWOMAN FELTZ. ANY DISCUSSION, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. AT. THIS MOTION CARRIES FIVE OUT OF SEVEN IN FAVOR AND ZERO AGAINST. SO THE NEXT ITEM, 260752. CONSIDER THE FISCAL YEAR 2627 PROPOSED TAX RATE, TAKING A RECORD VOTE AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING AND OPTION DATE, MR. HOLLOWAY. YOU DON'T WANT TO WAIT. YEAH.

YEAH. THERE WAS A FINGER POINTED OUT. SO NONE OF THOSE. NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO CAME UP. THANK.

[05:00:11]

THANK YOU FOR COMING. I TURN INTO A PUMPKIN. YEAH. HI, BUDDY. HOW ARE YOU? DOESN'T DO ANYTHING. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

[26-0752 Consider/Discuss/Act on Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Tax Rate, Take Record Vote and Set Public Hearing and Adoption Date]

MARK HOLLOWAY, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER FOR THE CITY. TONIGHT WE HAVE A RECORD VOTE ON THE PROPOSED TAX RATE. THIS IS A PROCEDURAL VOTE THAT WILL HELP US GET STARTED ON, ON ADOPTING A TAX RATE, LATER IN THE LATER NEXT MONTH. WE DO HAVE A BUDGET WORKSHOP. I WILL REMIND YOU ALL AGAIN ON FRIDAY, BUT TONIGHT'S TONIGHT WE WILL PROPOSE A TAX RATE, WHICH WILL BE A TAX RATE.

CEILING WILL BE SETTING THE ABSOLUTE HIGHEST THAT YOU CAN SET YOUR TAX RATE AT AS WE GO THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS. THIS ITEM WILL ALSO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN ANNOUNCE THE ADOPTION DATE. AFTER THAT PUBLIC HEARING, OF THE, BOTH THE BUDGET AND THE TAX RATE TONIGHT, THE VOTE WILL BE REQUIRED WITH SPECIFIC WORDING. AND ONCE AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, IT SETS THE ABSOLUTE CEILING, FOR, FOR FISCAL YEAR 27, FOR, FOR FISCAL YEAR 27, WE'RE PROPOSING A TAX RATE CEILING OF 0.422676. THE CURRENT TAX RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 26 IS 0.412284. AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED TAX RATE IS LESS THAN THE 0.422676 THAT YOU SEE HERE. OKAY. GO THROUGH THIS REALLY QUICKLY. THE TAX RATE HAS TWO PARTS. THE FIRST PART IS THE INS OR THE DEBT SERVICE PORTION. IT'S SET EXACTLY TO MATCH THE AMOUNT REQUIRED TO MEET YOUR DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS IN ANY GIVEN YEAR. I'LL SHOW YOU THAT RATE IN JUST A SECOND. AND THEN THE SECOND PART IS THE TAX RATE.

THAT PORTION FUNDS, GENERAL OPERATIONAL EXPENSES, SALARIES, SUPPLIES, AND, WE'LL ALSO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, THE NO NEW REVENUE AND VOTER APPROVAL CALCULATIONS THAT THIS, THIS PORTION OF THE TAX RATE, HAS SOME. SOME LIMITATIONS TO IT. AND THESE TWO THINGS APPLY. SO I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT FIRST. THE FIRST IS THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE. IT'S A RATE THAT WE, WE CALCULATE PROVIDES THE TAXING UNIT, SAME AMOUNT OF REVENUE THAT IT WOULD GET, ON TAXES ON PROPERTIES THAT ARE TAXED IN THE SAME YEAR. SO IF PROPERTY VALUES RISE, NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE WILL GO DOWN. AND IF PROPERTY VALUES GO DOWN, THEN THE NO NEW REVENUE NEW RATE WOULD GO UP. THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE, WHICH IS THE HIGHEST THAT YOU CAN, GO TO WITHOUT AN ELECTION, IS ABOUT 3.5% ABOVE THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE, THE TAX RATE, THE PROPOSED TAX RATE THAT WE'RE NOT PROPOSED TAX RATE, BUT THE TAX RATE CEILING IS SET AT ABOUT 3.49%.

SO WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT HAVING ANY ELECTION. THESE ARE THE TAX RATE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO YEARS. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE CEILING HAS GONE UP A LITTLE BIT FOR 26, 27 OVER FISCAL YEAR 25, 26. ALSO, THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE WENT UP BETWEEN THE TWO YEARS AND THE, THE IMPORTANT PART THAT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT HERE IS THE DEBT RATE HAS REMAINED FAIRLY STABLE. WE'VE TRIED TO STABILIZE THAT OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS TO CONTINUE TO, TO HAVE CAPACITY FOR OUR, OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. THIS WILL GO THROUGH THE TAXABLE VALUES IN DEPTH ON FRIDAY AT THE BUDGET WORKSHOP. BUT I DID WANT TO GIVE YOU A QUICK LOOK AT WHAT OUR CERTIFIED VALUES WILL BE FOR FISCAL YEAR 27. IT'S ALMOST 45,000,000,044.97 BILLION, SLIGHTLY UP FROM FISCAL YEAR 26. NOT QUITE A BIG A JUMP AS YOU'VE SEEN IN OTHER FISCAL YEARS. AND THIS IS OUR TAXABLE VALUES. SO YOU SEE IT'S ABOUT A $1.5 BILLION JUMP. WE HAVE, NEW VALUES ON THE GROUND ABOUT 1.5. SO OUR EXISTING VALUES REMAIN FAIRLY STABLE. THIS IS OUR RATE HISTORY. YOU CAN SEE IN FISCAL YEAR 18, WE WERE AT ABOUT 0.54, WITH THE DEBT PORTION BEING SOMEWHERE AROUND $0.16. THE, THE CAP OR THE CEILING. THE

[05:05:06]

PROPOSED WOULD HAVE US RIGHT AT ABOUT $0.13 ON THE INS AND THEN ABOUT $0.28 ON THE M AND O PORTION. THESE ARE THE DATES THAT WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT. THE BUDGET IN DEPTH. FRIDAY, AUGUST THE 7TH, WE'LL BE HAVING THE WORK SESSION HERE IN THESE CHAMBERS. AND THEN ON THE 18TH, WE WILL HAVE PUBLIC INPUT ON THE BUDGET. THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL PUBLIC HEARING, BUT IT IS ONE OF THE TWO TIMES THAT THE PUBLIC CAN SPEAK ON THE ON THE BUDGET ITSELF BEFORE IT IS ADOPTED, THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC HEARING ON THE BUDGET AND ON THE TAX RATE WILL BE HELD SEPTEMBER THE 1ST, WHERE WE WILL HAVE FOUR DIFFERENT ITEMS. ONE, SETTING THE BUDGET, ONE SETTING THE TAX RATE, AND THEN ONE DOING THE FEE. THERE'S TWO ACTUAL ITEMS ON THE TAX RATE AND THEN AN ITEM DOING FEE CHANGE AND FEE CHANGES. SO WITH THAT, I'LL BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. ABOUT THIS ITEM. ANYONE KNOW. WE'LL SEE YOU FRIDAY. DO YOU NEED ANY ANYTHING FROM US TONIGHT. THERE'S A SPECIFIC WORDING OF WE HAVE TO READ TONIGHT. AND THEN I NEED A RECORD VOTE SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH CALLING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE'VE GOT THAT IN WORKS RIGHT HERE. OKAY. MR. MAYOR, I'LL I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT THE CITY OF MCKINNEY PROPOSE TO ADOPT A FISCAL YEAR 2027. TOTAL TAX RATE OF 0.422676, WHICH IS HIGHER THAN THE FISCAL YEAR 2027. NO NEW TAX, NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE OF 0.409212 AND CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2026 AT 6 P.M. FURTHER, A RECORD VOTE ON THE TAX RATE ADOPTION WILL BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2026 AT 6 P.M. ALL MEETINGS WILL BE HELD IN THE MCKINNEY CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 401 EAST VIRGINIA STREET, MCKINNEY, TEXAS. 75069. I WILL SECOND THAT. MR. MAYOR, WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKLIN AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN CLAUDIA. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. RECORD RECORD VOTES. OH, I APOLOGIZE. YES, COUNCILMEMBER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. YES. MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKLIN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. JONES. YES. MAYOR. COX. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. LYNCH. YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL SEE YOU ON FRIDAY. THANK YOU. THANK

[26-0753 Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Resolution Approving Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Funding Recommendations under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) program Annual Action Plan]

YOU MARK. NEXT ITEM 26-0753. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO ACT ON A RESOLUTION APPROVING FISCAL YEAR 2627 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS UNDER THE CDBG AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM IS BEST. HELLO. I AM SHIRLEY TO BEST COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. WE ARE HERE TO TALK TO YOU TONIGHT ABOUT THE HUD REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE FOR CDBG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AND ALSO OUR HOME PROGRAM. THE CITY OF MCKINNEY IS AN ENTITLEMENT COMMUNITY, WHICH MEANS THAT WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE THESE FUNDS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. WE GO THROUGH AN ANNUAL PROCESS WITH OUR PUBLIC AS WELL AS OUR CONSTITUENTS TO BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR THESE FUNDS. WE STARTED THAT PROCESS IN FEBRUARY, AND WE ARE HERE TO BE ABLE TO SHARE WITH YOU THE INFORMATION. OUR COMMUNITY GRANTS ADVISORY COMMISSION IS THE ONE THAT PROVIDES THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. THEY ALSO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND THEY ALSO DELIBERATED ON THE PROCESS. THE PROGRAM YEAR IS GOING TO BEGIN OCTOBER THE 1ST OF 2026 THROUGH SEPTEMBER THE 30TH OF 2027. OUR CDBG PROGRAM IS NOW MOVING FORWARD, WHERE WE WILL BE RECEIVING $1,009,609. OUR HOME PROGRAM WILL BE RECEIVING $374,215.62. FOR ACCURACY, WE ARE PROVIDING YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE COMMENTS WITH OUR PUBLIC THROUGH AUGUST 22ND, AND WE WILL HAVE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND REVIEW BY HUD ON THIS DRAFT. AT THIS TIME, THE ALLOCATIONS DISTRIBUTION WILL BE. COST OF COLLIN COUNTY HOPE STORE NEW BEGINNINGS. MEALS ON WHEELS OF COLLIN COUNTY, THE SALVATION ARMY, MCKINNEY CORPS, THE SAMARITAN INN WELLNESS CENTER FOR OLDER ADULTS, OUR CITY'S HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM, AND GRANT ADMINISTRATION. AT THE CLOSE OF THE FISCAL YEAR, ANY FUNDS THAT WE HAVE WILL BE REALLOCATED FOR HOUSING SERVICES AND ALSO ELIGIBLE

[05:10:01]

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS, AND WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER ROUND OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR NONPROFITS IN THE FALL. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. IF YOU COME TONIGHT. YEAH, ALMOST THIS MORNING. NEXT MORNING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. GOOD EVENING. I JUST WANT TO STAND AND SAY THANK YOU TO THE CDBG OFFICE FOR ALL THAT THEY ARE DOING FOR THE COMMUNITY, AND TO LET THEM KNOW THAT WE SEE THEIR WORK IN VARIOUS SPACES. AND JUST TO THANK THEM FOR THIS ROBUST BUDGET FOR OUR COMMUNITY. AND I SUPPORT THIS BUDGET. THANK YOU. CAN YOU WE ALL KNOW YOU. CAN YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? MY NAME IS BETH BENTLEY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE CARE TO ADDRESS COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? NOPE. MR. MAYOR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION. WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS ITEM. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BALLARD TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE ITEM. AS FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION, SECOND. SECOND.

BY. COUNCILWOMAN FELTUS, ANY DISCUSSION, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. AT. THAT MOTION CARRIES

[26-0004SUP2 Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Specific Use Permit Request for a Passenger Vehicles Fuel Sales (QuikTrip), Located at 1601 W University Drive, and Accompanying Ordinance]

BY A VOTE OF SEVEN IN FAVOR AND ZERO AGAINST. THE NEXT ITEM. I'M GOING TO RECUSE MYSELF, AND MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKLIN WILL RUN THE SHOW. NEXT ITEM IS 26-004SUP2. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS, ACT ON A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR PASSENGER VEHICLES.

FUEL SALES QUIKTRIP LOCATED AT 1601 WEST UNIVERSITY DRIVE AND ACCOMPANYING ORDINANCE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MAYOR PRO TEM COUNCIL. CITY MANAGER GRIMES. LUCAS REILLY, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING HERE TO PRESENT ON THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A PROPOSED QUIKTRIP. HERE IS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED SITE AND OUR ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAPS FOR REFERENCE. ZOOMING IN CLOSER TO THE SITE SPECIFICALLY, YOU CAN SEE THE PROPOSED SITE WITHIN ITS ZONING AND THE SURROUNDING ZONING. AND HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE EXISTING SITE. MANY OF YOU KNOW IT AS THE EXISTING PHARMACY BUILDING. HERE'S THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. AND THE QUIKTRIP, HOW THEY'RE PROPOSING IT ON THE SITE. THE REQUEST WOULD ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS FUEL STATION AND A CONVENIENCE STORE ON THE EXISTING COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY. THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN SUP IS DUE TO THE SPECIFIC USE. THE NEAREST SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD IS MORE THAN 475FT AWAY, AND IT'S SEPARATED BY COMMERCIAL USES. WE FIND THE USE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT AND ANTICIPATE NO ADVERSE IMPACTS.

AS SUCH, WE SUPPORT THE REQUEST AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL. P AND Z DID REVIEW THIS ITEM AND RECOMMENDED UNANIMOUSLY THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THIS ITEM. I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS? NO, SIR. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? YES. YES I DID. I MEAN, BRANDON, I'M A REAL ESTATE PROJECT MANAGER WITH QUIKTRIP. PRETTY SIMPLE WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TONIGHT ASKING FOR THE SUP STAFF HAS BEEN INCREDIBLE ALL THE WAY THROUGH. I MEAN, THEIR DUE DILIGENCE GOT US TO THE SITE PLAN WE DID TONIGHT. I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR STAYING SO LATE AND STILL LOOKING AT THIS AND KIND OF OPEN ANY QUESTIONS. AND THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. LOOKS LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF A SMALLER FOOTPRINT QUIKTRIP. AM I RIGHT OR AM I WRONG? IT'S A TAD BIT SMALLER. THIS IS A NEW GENERATION STORE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT BIGGER, BUT WE DID HAVE TO TRY TO FIT THIS IN WHERE THE NEED WAS AT THIS LOT. WE DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF SPACE IN THE BACK IF WE EVER NEEDED TO EXPAND PARKING OR ANYTHING, BUT WE DO HAVE ABOUT 50 PARKING SPOTS, WHICH IS GENERALLY WHERE WE LIKE TO BE. YES, SIR. THANK YOU, THANK YOU SIR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THIS ISN'T FOR OUR APPLICANT, BUT I WILL POINT OUT ON THIS SITE PLAN, YOU'VE GOT A PRETTY BIG EASEMENT GIVEN TO TEXDOT ON THE NORTH EAST CORNER, CORRECT? YES. THAT'S CUT. IT'S CUT ON ALL FOUR CORNERS OF 380 THERE.

AND I WE DEALT WITH THAT SAME EASEMENT AT CHURCH OR ON COLLEGE STREET IN 380, AND IT'S ON ABOUT 4 OR 5 OF THESE STREETS. I, I WOULD LIKE OUR STAFF TO GO ASK FOR ALL THAT BACK SO THAT APPLICANTS DON'T HAVE TO MAKE FOR WEIRD SITES ON, ON THESE THINGS. I GET THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT WORTH IT ON A SINGLE SITE, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE US PETITION TEXDOT TO

[05:15:06]

GIVE THAT BACK TO ALL THE LANDOWNERS, SINCE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE USED AS YOU'LL STILL HAVE LANDSCAPING THERE AND LOOK NICE, YOU'RE ABLE TO SAVE SOME TREES THERE, A LOT OF LANDSCAPING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR PRO TEM. IF IF THERE'S NOT ANY OTHER COMMENTS, I'LL MAKE A MOTION ON THIS PUBLIC HEARING. OH YEAH. WE GOTTA OPEN. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IF THERE'S ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE COME FORWARD NOW. MA'AM. PLEASE COME FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. MY NAME IS KIM RHODES. I LIVE EIGHT TWO, SIX INWOOD DRIVE. THIS IS NOT MY FIRST TIME BEING HERE IN FRONT OF THE CITY COUNCIL. A THANK YOU, MR. BELLER, FOR GIVING ME A TRANSITION. I LIVE AT THE INTERSECTION WHERE THE LOVELY GAS STATION WAS IMPROVED FOR FROM THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE. AND, IT'S CAUSED QUITE.

IT HASN'T BEEN BUILT YET. WE ALREADY HAD A GAS LEAK THAT HAS CAUSED TRAFFIC ISSUES ALL THE WAY, BACKED UP ON 380 AND IT'S NOT EVEN BUILT YET. I MOVED TO MCKINNEY. I'VE LIVED THERE FOR LIVED IN MY HOME FOR EIGHT YEARS BECAUSE, IT WAS UNIQUE BY NATURE. IT IS NO LONGER UNIQUE BY NATURE. AS YOU'VE HEARD MANY PEOPLE TALK ABOUT TONIGHT ON MY DRIVE HOME TONIGHT, THERE ARE 17 GAS STATIONS, FROM CUSTER TO THROCKMORTON. I LIVE AT INWOOD DRIVE, WHICH IS LOCATED BETWEEN WEST, WAY AND COLLEGE STREET. THERE ARE NINE GAS STATIONS FROM THE INTERSECTION OF 75 TO THROCKMORTON. WE ALREADY HAVE A HUGE TRAFFIC ISSUE, WHICH MY NEIGHBORHOOD CAME BEFORE YOU GUYS LAST TIME. AND THAT WAS, DENIED, THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT EXISTING IN THE SHORT TIME I'VE LIVED THERE IN EIGHT YEARS. AGAIN, I'VE BEEN BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL SEVERAL TIMES.

WE'VE HAD A KVKVP WAREHOUSE, THE ZONE CHANGE FROM RESIDENTIAL TO BUSINESS, THE NOW GAS STATION IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, ALONG WITH THE OTHER INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSES THAT WE HAVE THAT ARE BEING PUT UP RIGHT NOW. AS MANY PEOPLE SPOKE TONIGHT, PEOPLE THAT HAVE LIVED HERE FOR A WHILE, THE ISSUE THAT WE HAVE IS THE CONSTRUCTION THAT KEEPS HAPPENING IN ON 380 AND THAT SHORT AMOUNT OF SPACE, HAS DECREASED OUR PROPERTY VALUE, INCREASED THE NOISE, TRAFFIC, POLLUTION, DESTROYING THE NATURE AND THE QUALITY OF OUR LIFE. THE TWO INCIDENCES WHERE THINGS. ANYWAY, I OPPOSED THIS GAS STATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MRS. RHODES. ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? HAVING NONE. DO I HAVE A MOTION, MR. MAYOR PRO TEM, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS ITEM. SECOND, HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BELLER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN LYNCH.

PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES. THAT MOTION PASSES. THEY WENT TO GO GET THEM.

[26-0031Z2 Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Rezone the Subject Property from “AG” - Agricultural District, “RS-60” - Single Family Residential, “SF5” - Single Family Residential to “MR” - Mixed Residential District, Located on the Northwest corner of Airport Drive and Greenville Road, and on the South side of Greenville Road, Approximately 90 Feet West of Enloe Road, and Accompanying Ordinance.]

NEXT ITEM IS 260031 Z TWO. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST TO REZONE A PROPERTY FROM AG TO R 60 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SF FIVE TO MR. MIXED RESIDENTIAL. THIS IS ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AIRPORT DRIVE AND GREENVILLE ROAD. MR. RILEY WELCOME BACK.

THANK YOU. YOU AS WELL. THIS PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 17.9 ACRES. YOU CAN SEE IT AGAIN HERE WITHIN THE CITY. VIEW OF THE ZONING MAP AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP. TAKING A CLOSER LOOK AT THE SPECIFIC TRACTS IN QUESTION HERE YOU CAN SEE THE ZONING THAT EXISTS ON THESE TRACTS. AS MENTIONED IN THE TITLE, CURRENTLY AG R, S 60 AND SF FIVE AND THE REQUEST TO REZONE THESE TRACTS TO MR. THE MIXED RESIDENTIAL ZONE. THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SITE. THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES A MIX OF MULTIFAMILY ON THE NORTHERN TRACT AND TOWNHOMES ON THE SOUTHERN TRACT, PROVIDING A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES. THE SOUTHERN TRACT SERVES AS AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION BETWEEN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO THE SOUTH AND EAST, AND SOME OF

[05:20:04]

THE HIGHER INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT THAT IS PROPOSED ON THE NORTHERN TRACT. WE FIND THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL COMPLEMENT THE SURROUNDING AREA AND SUPPORT THE MILL DISTRICT VISION BY INTRODUCING ADDITIONAL HOUSING CHOICES. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WHILE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CALLS FOR THIS SPECIFIC AREA TO BE NEIGHBORHOOD, COMMERCIAL AND NOT RESIDENTIAL, STAFF SUPPORTS THIS. THIS PROPOSED USE AND CHANGE IN ZONING BECAUSE A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT IS LESS INTENSIVE THAN THE COMP PLANS CALL FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. WE DID TAKE THIS ITEM BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AND THEY VOTED FIVE TWO IN FAVOR OF THE ITEM, AND THEY RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS SUCH. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. I'LL BE HAPPY TO STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. REILLY? JOHN LUCAS IS OUR APPLICANT HERE? YES THEY ARE.

BLESS YOUR SOUL. I THINK I GET TO SAY GOOD MORNING. OR JUST. JUST HERE MOMENTARILY. GOOD EVENING FOR THE TIME BEING. MY NAME IS GREG CATON. I'M WITH STREET LIGHTS RESIDENTIAL. 2300 NORTHFIELD STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF STREETLIGHTS RESIDENTIAL. AS I MENTIONED, WE ARE VERTICALLY INTEGRATED DEVELOPER BASED HERE IN DFW. EVERYTHING WE DO IS BUILT WITH PURPOSE. WE BELIEVE HUMAN DIGNITY IS THE CENTER OF THE BELOVED HOME, AND THAT BELIEF SHOWS UP IN HOW. AND THAT BELIEF SHOWS UP IN WHAT WE DESIGN, DEVELOP, AND CONSTRUCT WITH OUR COMMUNITIES. WE BELIEVE TIMELESS ARCHITECTURE, CAREFUL ATTENTION TO THE MATERIALS RESIDENTS TOUCH EVERY DAY, AND A COMMITMENT TO TREATING THE STREET AS AN AMENITY, NOT SOMETHING TO HIDE FROM. WE BROUGHT THAT PHILOSOPHY TO LIFE ACROSS TEXAS, WITH PROJECTS IN COMMUNITIES ACROSS DFW AND THE BROADER STATE. COMMUNITIES. THESE COMMUNITIES HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED FOR. FOR THEIR ARCHITECTURAL QUALITY. THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, AND ULTIMATELY BEING UPSTANDING MEMBERS OF THEIR COMMUNITY AND CONTRIBUTING TO THE LIFESTYLE OF THOSE RESIDENTS AND THE BROADER PUBLIC. WE'RE PROPOSING MIXED RESIDENTIAL WITHIN THIS SITE TO APPROPRIATELY TRANSITION HIGHER DENSITY, THREE STORY USES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROJECT, DOWN TO A TWO STORY PRODUCT NEAR AND SOUTH OF GREENVILLE ROAD TO APPROPRIATELY TRANSITION SOME OF THE REAL CHALLENGES WE FACED WITH HOW TO DEVELOP THIS SITE. THERE'S A UNIQUE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES HERE. AS I GET TO THE SITE PLAN. THAT THE EXISTING ZONING DOES NOT IS NOT IN COMPANY TODAY. THE SITE HAS THREE SEPARATE ZONING DISTRICTS SF FIVE, RS 60 AND AG. THE 2040 LAND USE PLAN CONTEMPLATES A SITE AS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL WITH VARYING ACCESS TO AIRPORT DRIVE. WE FEEL LIKE THOSE CONDITIONS AND THE SLOPE ACROSS THE SITE. ALMOST 40FT OF SLOPE CREATES SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC CONSTRAINTS AND DESIGN CHALLENGES THAT CAN'T BE MET WITH THOSE COMMERCIAL USES OR SINGLE FAMILY USES. OUR SITE PLAN, SHOWN ABOVE, SHOWS HOW THAT DENSITY IS TRANSITIONED FROM THE THREE STORY PRODUCT CLOSER TO THE NEW VIRGINIA STREET, RIGHT OF WAY UP THE HILL TOWARDS GREENVILLE ROAD, WHERE TOWNHOMES HAVE BEEN LOCATED ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT EXIST SOUTH OF GREENVILLE AND ADJACENT TO THAT SOUTHERN PARCEL. WE'VE BEEN VERY INTENTIONAL ABOUT TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN LAY OUT THIS SITE, PLAN TO BE AS GOOD A NEIGHBOR AS POSSIBLE TO THE EXISTING COMMUNITY, AND PROVIDE THAT VIBRANCY. A MIX OF USES THAT MIXED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WOULD ALLOW. AS I MENTIONED, THE SITE IS INCREDIBLY COMPLEX BECAUSE OF THE GRADE AND ACCESS CHALLENGES FROM VIRGINIA AND GREENVILLE.

THE SITE HAS OVER 40FT OF FALL, AS I MENTIONED, AND THAT. THAT GRADE CREATES AN INCREDIBLE CHALLENGE TO DEVELOP THE SITE IN A COMMERCIAL OR SINGLE FAMILY USE. IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT THE NOISE FROM AIRPORT ROAD IS GOING TO BE A REAL CONSTRAINT ON ANY LOWER DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY USE. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT ALLOWS US THE FLEXIBILITY TO BLEND THE HEIGHT, REDUCE THE HEIGHT AS WE WORK TOWARDS THE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH, AND TRANSITION THAT DENSITY IN A WAY THAT'S RESPECTFUL FOR THOSE EXISTING HOMEOWNERS. I'LL RESERVE THE REST OF MY TIME, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. ANYONE QUESTIONS? THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.

[05:25:08]

IF YOU COME TONIGHT AND WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THIS PROPOSED REZONE, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. YES, MA'AM. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS ANGELA AND I LIVE AT 1314 GREENVILLE ROAD. FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY EXPRESSING MY SINCERE APPRECIATION TO MR. GREG COLTON BEHIND ME. CAN YOU GET A BIT CLOSER TO THE MIC? SURE. HE MET WITH A NEIGHBORHOOD ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS, WHICH WE APPRECIATE. IT MEANT A GREAT DEAL TO ME AND TO ALL MY NEIGHBORS THAT HE ACTUALLY TOOK THE TIME TO LISTEN TO TO OUR CONCERNS, TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WE HAD. AND HE ALSO MADE AN EFFORT TO INCORPORATE MANY OF THOSE CONCERNS INTO THIS MIXED PROPOSAL THAT HE HAS TONIGHT. OVERALL, I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL. I BELIEVE THEY CAN BE A POSITIVE ADDITION TO OUR COMMUNITY. HOWEVER, I HOPE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL, IF IF IF IT'S APPROVED, THE PROJECT THAT CONTINUE TO WORK WITH MR. GREG TO WORK WITH US AND, WITHOUT LIKE THROUGHOUT THE PLANNING AND THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, I HOPE THAT ALL THE CONCERNS AND COMMITMENTS THAT HE, THAT WE DISCUSSED DURING OUR MEETINGS WILL REMAIN A PRIORITY AND IT WILL NOT GET FORGOTTEN IF HE GETS THE APPROVAL. THAT'S ONE OF MY BIGGEST CONCERNS. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU, TO ENCOURAGE THE STREET LIGHTS, RESIDENTIAL AND THE SERIOUS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO CONSIDER ANY IMPROVEMENT OF ON GREENVILLE ROAD BY REPAIRING THE ROAD AND ADDING EXISTING SIDEWALKS ALL THE WAY TO THE CORNER OF NEILSON ROAD, IF POSSIBLE. IT'S ONLY PROBABLY 100FT OR LESS, GIVE OR TAKE. AND THE REASON WHY I'M ASKING THIS IS BECAUSE A LOT OF KIDS WALK ON GREENVILLE ROAD TO GET TO THEIR BUS STATION, WHICH IS AT THE CORNER OF NEILSON ROAD IN GREENVILLE. SO INSTEAD OF STOPPING AT LIVELY HILL, I WOULD LIKE THAT TO BE EXTENDED JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE FOR THE SAFETY OF THE KIDS AND ALL THE FAMILIES WHO HAVE KIDS AROUND THERE. SO ONCE AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME. I KNOW YOU GUYS MUST BE TIRED, BUT I JUST WANT REASSURANCE THAT IF THIS PROJECT GETS APPROVED, THAT ALL OUR CONCERNS ARE GOING TO BE MET ON THIS PROPOSAL AND NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, GOING TO AN EMPTY TRASH BAG. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? YES, MA'AM. HI. MY NAME IS CRYSTAL JIMENEZ. I LIVE IN 1318 GREENVILLE ROAD. WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK MR. GREG. HE HAS WORKED WITH US TREMENDOUSLY AND WE HAVE VOICED OUR OPINION AND OUR CONCERNS AS FAR AS SAFETY FOR THE CHILDREN WHO WALK TO THE BUS, AS FAR AS THE CONSTRUCTION, THE TRAFFIC, THE, THE, THE TRAFFIC THAT'S GOING TO BE CREATED. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT WHEN TALKING ABOUT THIS GETTING APPROVED IS THAT WE WOULD LIKE SIDEWALKS, LIGHTS, AND NOT JUST STOPPED AT LIVELY, LIVELY HILL, BUT CONTINUING ON TO NEILSON. AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION WITH OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, BUT GREENVILLE IS NOT IN THE BOOKS TO BE, FIXED OR REVISITED FOR A WHILE. ALL THE OTHER STREETS ARE. SO THAT WOULD BE LEFT WITH WHATEVER CONDITION IS LEFT ON. SO WE WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO BE EXTENDED TO NOW. AND JUST SO WE COULD HAVE MOVED ON BOTH FIELDS IN THE CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD FLOW AND BE MORE COHESIVE WITH WHAT IS COMING AS A DEVELOPMENT TO OUR AREA. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS JIMENEZ. MR. BEVERLY, YOU'RE UP. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS DAX BEVERLY AND I LIVE AT 1500 GREENVILLE ROAD. I'M HERE THIS MORNING ON BEHALF OF MY FAMILY WHO LIVE ACROSS GREENVILLE ROAD FROM THE PROPOSED STREETLIGHTS DEVELOPMENT. FIRST, I'D LIKE TO ALSO THANK GREG AND THE STREETLIGHTS TEAM. THEY'VE SPENT TIME MEETING WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, LISTENING TO OUR CONCERNS, AND WORKING COLLABORATIVELY WITH US. WE TRULY APPRECIATE THAT EFFORT, AND BECAUSE OF IT, WE'RE NOT HERE TO OPPOSE THIS PROJECT. WE JUST WANT TO ENSURE THAT THE COMMITMENTS WE'VE DISCUSSED TOGETHER ARE DOCUMENTED AND CARRIED FORWARD AS THE PROJECT MOVES THROUGH THE APPROVAL PROCESS. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COUNCIL TO DIRECT STAFF TO INCORPORATE THE FOLLOWING NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTIONS INTO THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, OR ANOTHER ENFORCEABLE APPROVAL DOCUMENT IN COORDINATION WITH THE APPLICANT. FIRST, LIMIT THE HOMES ALONG GREENVILLE ROAD BETWEEN ENLOE TO AIRPORT TO TWO STORIES AND REQUIRE A SITE LAYOUT THAT PROTECTS THE PRIVACY OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGH THOUGHTFUL BUILDING ORIENTATION AND, WHERE APPROPRIATE, REAR ENTRY OR

[05:30:01]

ALLEY LOADED GARAGES. SECOND, REQUIRE A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN THAT PRESERVES AS MANY MATURE TREES AS PRACTICAL AND ENSURE THE PROMISED PRIVACY. FENCING AND LANDSCAPE SCREENING ARE INSTALLED DURING THE FIRST PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION, SO EXISTING RESIDENTS RECEIVE IMMEDIATE VISUAL AND NOISE BUFFERING. THIRD, REQUIRE ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING, INCLUDING STREET LIGHTS AND COMMON AREA LIGHTING TO USE. FULLY SHIELDED DOWNWARD FACING DARK SKY.

COMPLIANT FIXTURES TO MINIMIZE LIGHT SPILLOVER INTO NEIGHBORING HOMES. WE BELIEVE THESE ARE REASONABLE NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTIONS THAT COMPLEMENT A QUALITY DEVELOPMENT, WHILE HELPING PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING COMMUNITY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? WHY DON'T WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN I'LL MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BALLARD TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKLIN. ANY DISCUSSION ON CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING? NONE. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. I CAN START IF YOU'D LIKE, MR. MAYOR. I WOULD ECHO WHAT THE MENDEZ AND DAK SAID ABOUT THANKING GREG FOR THE TIME THAT HE SPENT IN BRADEN. BRADEN BACK THERE TOO. THEY MADE A LOT OF EFFORT, IN WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO THE SITE. BUT ULTIMATELY IN THAT PROCESS, THERE IS A LOT OF UNKNOWNS THAT RELY ON THE NEXT STEPS AFTER THIS ZONING PROCESS THAT RELY ON OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, THAT RELY ON DECISIONS THAT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WILL REQUIRE, SPECIFICALLY WITH THE ROADWAY ON GREENVILLE, LIKE WAS MENTIONED, NOT ONLY GOING TO NEILSON, POTENTIALLY GOING TO NEILSON, BUT ALSO GREENVILLE WILL OPEN UP TO AIRPORT AND TRYING TO INCORPORATE TRAFFIC CALMING ELEMENTS THAT THAT REDUCE THE SPEED OR WHAT HAPPENS. AND I THINK GREG HAS COMMITTED TO THE PARTS THAT HE CAN, AND IT WILL BE A LOT ON OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE THAT THAT WE'RE MINDFUL OF THE CONCERNS. THE OTHER ISSUE THAT IS, KIND OF COUPLED WITH THIS IS WE'RE IN DESIGN FOR REDOING ENLOE, WHICH IS RIGHT IN THIS AREA. ANTHONY GOLF, NEILSON AND MILLER. AND SO WE'RE KIND OF DOING THIS SOUTHERN SIDE. WE'RE ALSO DOING THE NORTHERN SIDE OF HIS PROPERTY WITH THE EXTENSION OF VIRGINIA. AND THEN YOU'LL DO THE GREENVILLE SIDE AND KIND OF BRINGING THAT ALL TOGETHER. IS IMPORTANT. SO COMPLETING THAT GRID ALONG GREENVILLE, WHETHER GREG DOES IT OR WE DO IT. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT, AS THE JIMENEZ HAS SAID, I MEAN, A LOT OF PEOPLE USE THAT. AND SO FIGURING OUT HOW TO GET THAT DONE, I THINK IS IMPORTANT. BUT THOSE AREN'T ZONING THINGS.

THEY ARE ENGINEERING AND THINGS THAT COME SUBSEQUENT. SO I THINK THE ZONING DISTRICT IS IS A GOOD ONE FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S A GOOD TRANSITION, AND I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS. ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION OF GARY? IF UNLESS THERE'S SOMEONE ELSE. GARY, YOU HEARD SOME, NOT CONDITIONS, BUT ITEMS THAT SOME OF THE RESIDENTS WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THAT AREA. NOT PUTTING ON THE SPOT TO SAY, YES, WE CAN DO THAT. OR, HEY, WE GOT A PROBLEM, BUT DID YOU HEAR ANYTHING IN THERE THAT GIVES YOU THIS HUGE HEARTBURN THAT YOU CAN'T WORK THROUGH? REGARDING EXTENDING THE ROAD, SIDEWALKS AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT DAX HAD MENTIONED? THANK YOU. MAYOR GARY GRAHAM, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING. NO, NOTHING THAT CAUSES HEARTBURN. IT'S TIMING. RIGHT. WHERE ARE THESE PROJECTS FUNDED IN OUR CIP? WHAT CAN WE ADVANCE FORWARD AND WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER AS PART OF MAYBE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS? SO THOSE ARE DEFINITELY SOME, SOME THINGS WE JUST NEED TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT AND FIGURE OUT HOW THE BEST WAY TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE RESIDENTS, BUT ALSO MEET OUR BUDGETARY CONSTRAINTS. OKAY. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THE YOU TO AND THIS GROUP IS WORKING FAIRLY WELL TOGETHER. YES, SIR. OKAY, GOOD. I WILL MENTION MATT RICHARDSON AND JENNIFER ARNOLD MET WITH, THE RESIDENTS AND GREG AND BRADEN, LAST WEEK. AND COUNCILMAN CLAUDIA WAS THERE. WE GOT AN APPEARANCE FROM DISTRICT TWO. YEAH, IT WAS TRYING TO KEEP A LOW PROFILE. THANK YOU. MR. NO, I'LL. I'LL ADMIT, AND THAT I WAS VERY RELUCTANT ON THIS PROJECT, BUT I THINK THAT BASED ON EVERYTHING THAT, YOU KNOW, STREET LIGHTS IS REALLY AN IMPRESSIVE GROUP. AND I'M GRATEFUL FOR MR. REDIKER FOR BRINGING THIS, YOU KNOW, OVER TO US. AND I THINK THIS IS A GOOD ACTIVATION IN A PART OF

[05:35:04]

TOWN WHERE THE DESIGN IS JUST ROUGH, MAN. IT WAS DESIGNED BEFORE THE CITY WAS REALLY IT WAS LAID IN PLACE WAY BEFORE THE CITY WAS DESIGNED. AND IT'S ROUGH. AND, I APPRECIATE THE FOLKS WHO LIVE THERE AND I WAS ABLE TO VISIT WITH THEM AND, YOU KNOW, I LOVE THAT THAT PART OF MCKINNEY. I LOVE THE COARSENESS OF EAST MCKINNEY. AND IT IS A COARSE AREA, BUT, BUT I, AND I APPRECIATE THAT AND I APPRECIATE YOUR LOVE FOR IT AND ALL THE CARE YOU GUYS HAVE DONE. BUT I DO RECOGNIZE THAT WE DO NEED SOME MODERN STUFF OVER THERE. AND THAT ONLY COMES THROUGH GOOD DEVELOPMENT. AND I THINK THIS IS GOOD DEVELOPMENT. SO THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. ANYONE ELSE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS ITEM. THE MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BELLER TO APPROVE THE ITEM. AS FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKLIN, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. THAT MOTION CARRIES BY A VOTE OF SEVEN IN FAVOR AND ZERO AGAINST. CONGRATULATIONS TO THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM AND YOU

[26-0041Z5 Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Rezone the Subject Property from “ML” - Light Manufacturing District to “I2” - Heavy Industrial District, Located 1710 Couch Drive, and Accompanying Ordinance]

AS WELL. THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM 26-0041Z5. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REZONE OF A PROPERTY FROM ML LIGHT MANUFACTURING TO L TWO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL 1710 COUCH DRIVE. MR. REILLY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND JUST A CLARIFICATION ON I TWO VERSUS L TWO ON THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT THERE. THIS IS A PROPERTY THAT IS APPROXIMATELY 6.82 ACRES, AGAIN, GIVING YOU CONTEXT OF WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ALL OF THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. THIS IS AN AREA THAT IS SURROUNDED IN HEAVY MANUFACTURING AND LIGHT MANUFACTURING USES. THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS FOR AN EXISTING MANUFACTURING OPERATION THAT WOULD LIKE TO STORE MATERIALS OUTSIDE OF THEIR BUILDING IN SILOS NEEDED FOR THEIR OPERATIONS. THE EFFECT OF STORING THOSE SILOS, OR THAT MATERIAL OUTSIDE IN SILOS REQUIRES THAT IT BE DESIGNATED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL RATHER THAN LIGHT. AS SUCH, THE ZONING REQUEST. THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST IS BEFORE YOU. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN AN ESTABLISHED INDUSTRIAL AREA, AS MENTIONED. AND SO STAFF DOES NOT ANTICIPATE ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS FROM THE LIMITED EXPANSION. AS SUCH, WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL. P AND Z ALSO RECOMMENDED UNANIMOUSLY THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THIS REQUEST. I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. LUCAS.

ANY QUESTIONS ANYONE IS THERE APPLICANT HERE? NOT AT THIS POINT. UNDERSTOOD. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. IF YOU'VE COME TONIGHT AND WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM, AND WE HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP. SO WITH THAT, WE WOULD. MR. MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS ITEM AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN CLAUDIA TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE ITEM. AS FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION. I'LL SECOND. SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BELLER. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. AS THAT MOTION CARRIES BY A VOTE OF SEVEN IN FAVOR AND ZERO AGAINST LUCAS.

IF YOU'LL LET THEM KNOW THAT THEIR ITEM WAS APPROVED ON THIS ITEM. COUNCILMAN MAYOR PRO TEM

[26-0073Z2 Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Rezone the Subject Property from “AG” - Agriculture District to “I1” - Light Industrial District, Located on the South Side of Old Mill Road, Approximately 760 Feet West of South Airport Drive, and Accompanying Ordinance]

FRANKLIN IS GOING TO STEP DOWN ON 260073 Z TWO. THIS IS AN ITEM TO CONSIDER. REZONE VIA PUBLIC HEARING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM AG TO L ONE SORRY I ONE IF NOW THAT I'VE BEEN CORRECTED. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. THIS IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OLD MILL ROAD, 760FT WEST OF AIRPORT DRIVE. MR. REILLY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'RE AT THE END OF OUR AGENDA HERE. AFTER A SITE PLAN SUP AND THREE REZONINGS. I THINK WE'RE COVERING IT ALL THIS EVENING OR THIS MORNING, I SHOULD SAY. NOW AGAIN, HERE'S THE LOCATION. THIS IS IN THE SOUTHEASTERN QUADRANT OF THE CITY OF MCKINNEY, AN AREA THAT WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF EITHER CITY INITIATED, ANNEXATION ZONES OR REQUESTS FOR REZONES IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS. SO IT'S AN AREA THAT YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH AS SUCH, THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HERE THAT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE FROM AGRICULTURE TO I-1. OUR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. THIS IS A PROPOSAL THAT DOES ALIGN WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND HAS FOR QUITE SOME TIME. THIS IS AN AREA THAT YOU MAY ALL BE FAMILIAR, HAS BEEN DESIGNATED FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES. AS SUCH, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS REZONING REQUEST. P AND Z REVIEWED THIS ITEM AND ALSO RECOMMENDED APPROVAL UNANIMOUSLY. I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

[05:40:01]

QUESTIONS, ANYONE? SORRY, LUCAS, DO YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE. YOU PROBABLY DON'T. IT'S FINE. AN OVERLAY OF WHERE SPR 399 IS GOING TO GO RELATIVE TO THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. I DON'T, IN THIS VIEW, A. IF YOU CAN GO BACK WOULD BE MORE HELPFUL HERE. SOMETHING THAT IS HELPFUL TO SEE IS YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE DIAGONAL LINE HERE. YEAH. AND SO IF I CAN ANNOTATE HERE. YOU CAN SEE RIGHT ABOUT THERE IS WHERE 399 SHOULD CROSS THROUGH. YEAH, IT KIND OF STARTS AND THEN IT'LL START TO SCOOT BACK UP. OKAY. THANK YOU. OH THANK YOU SIR SO MUCH. YOU JUST KEEP THAT AROUND THAT MAY THAT MAY SOLVE SPEED THIS UP A LITTLE BIT. THE SUBJECT SITE IS DOWN HERE. YES, SIR. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE? THIS SHOWS HOW YOU GET TO IT. LUCAS. I'M SORRY. WHERE ARE WE? PATRICK, DID YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS? NO. I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE THE REMARK THAT I'LL JUST MAKE THE REMARK NOW THAT, YOU KNOW, SPUR 390, SPUR 399 IS KIND OF CHANGED THE GAME AND THE NATURE OF THE GAME FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, IT'S HISTORICALLY AN OLD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

BUT TEX DOT'S PUTTING IN A MAJOR ROAD THERE AND THAT DOES CHANGE THE NATURE OF IT. AND WE'VE AND THIS IS NOT THE FIRST ITEM WE'VE HAD COME UP OVER THERE. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT OBSERVATION. THAT SPUR 399 IS COMING OVER THERE AND THAT CHANGES THINGS, MAN. SO THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. ANYONE ELSE? LUCAS. WE GOT SOME SOME NOTICES FROM SOME RESIDENTS OR LETTERS OF OPPOSITION FROM SOME RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA. THAT'S RIGHT. THAT HAVE BEEN THERE A LONG TIME AND CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT A PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. YES. ANY AND I KNOW A SITE PLAN IS NOT REQUIRED AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCESS AT ANY INDICATION OF WHAT THE PLAN IS FOR THIS. I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE RECEIVED A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AT THIS POINT. AGAIN, AS YOU MENTIONED, NOT REQUIRED AT THIS STAGE.

THIS IS JUST THE ENTITLEMENT STAGE. AND SO WE'RE RELYING HEAVILY ON THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WHERE YOU CAN SEE, THAT IT CALLS FOR THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, THIS IS TECHNICALLY IN THE FLOOD ZONE AREA. AND SO THEY'LL HAVE TO BE SOME REMEDIATION. BUT IT'S DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO ALL THOSE AREAS THAT CALL FOR THE USES THAT ARE IN THE I-1 DISTRICT. LUCAS. I THINK THEIR LETTER OF INTENT NOTED TWO BUILDINGS TOTALING ABOUT 450,000FT■!S. I'M SURE THT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEIR LETTER OF INTENT SAYS. YEAH, I THINK WE ALWAYS JUST TRY AND. YEAH, NO, I UNDERSTAND NOT NOT GIVE MUCH WEIGHT TO THINGS THAT ARE NOT UNDER CONSIDERATION. IF THEY'RE NOT. YEAH, I GET THAT. I JUST WAS TRYING TO PROCESS, BUT I REMEMBER SEEING THAT. SO ABSOLUTELY THAT'S LIKELY WHAT YOU'LL END UP WITH HERE. ABSOLUTELY. IF MR. MAYOR, I KNOW WE'RE ON THE LAST ITEM AND I'LL TRY TO BE QUICK ON THIS, BUT AS PATRICK NOTED, WE KIND OF HAD THIS CONVERSATION WHEN AT&T REZONED. THE DRIVER OF THIS IS THE HIGHWAY COMP PLAN LIKELY PREDICTED THAT THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMING THROUGH THIS AREA AND PUT THIS AS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, BUT THAT DOESN'T REDUCE THE IMPACT THAT IT HAS ON THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE RIGHT HERE. I THINK BLANCA SENT OUT A LETTER EARLIER TODAY OF NINE, FAMILIES IN THIS AREA THAT WROTE A LETTER ASKING FOR US TO DENY THIS. THEY, BUT THEY ALSO MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THE STRAIN THAT WILL COME WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS AND SPECIFICALLY WITH THAT KIND OF TRANSITION TO THIS. I KNOW ENGINEERING HAS ANSWERED A LOT OF MY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE AT&T SITE ON WHEN, WHAT, AND WHEN WOULD, WOULD IMPROVEMENTS WOULD BE MADE ALONG AIRPORT ROAD. I THINK THERE'S CONCERN THAT THOSE IMPROVEMENTS MAY CUT OFF TRAFFIC TO OLD MILL ROAD ON THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND SO BEING US AS A CITY, BEING MINDFUL THIS IS NOT IN ZONING, BUT BEING MINDFUL OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WE'RE LEAVING RESIDENTS IN IN AFTER A ZONING CHANGE LIKE THIS, I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO CHANGE HOW THEY'RE IMPACTED. CONSTRUCTION TIMES, ROADWAY, TRAFFIC NOISE, AND ULTIMATELY THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE. AND SO US AS A CITY, TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE THEM AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE WITH HOLDING LANDOWNERS ACCOUNTABLE, NEW LANDOWNERS ACCOUNTABLE THAT SEEM TO, HAVE ISSUES WITH MAINTAINING PROPERTY IN THIS AREA, THAT ARE LAX ON MOWING OR