[00:00:09]
I'D LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYBODY TO THE CITY OF MCKINNEY'S PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27TH, 2026. THE COMMISSIONERS THAT YOU SEE SEATED BEFORE YOU HAVE BEEN APPOINTED BY CITY COUNCIL, AND THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF CITY COUNCIL. THERE WILL BE SOME ITEMS HEARD TONIGHT THAT WILL BE THAT WILL ONLY BE HEARD BY PLANNING AND ZONING, AND OTHERS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. I'LL ADVISE THE AUDIENCE THIS EVENING IF THERE'S AN ITEM THAT WILL BE FORWARDED ON TO CITY COUNCIL, OR IF WILL ONLY BE HEARD BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. IF YOU'RE HERE TONIGHT AND YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM, WE ASK THAT YOU KINDLY COMPLETE A SPEAKER'S CARD AND TURN IT 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 COMMISSIONERS REQUEST THAT WE ALL TREAT EACH OTHER WITH RESPECT, THAT WE FOCUS ON THE ITEM, AND THAT WE ARE CONCISE IN OUR COMMENTS. I DO WANT TO STRESS TO EACH OF YOU THAT YOUR OPINION IS IMPORTANT TO US, AND YOUR COMMENTS DO BECOME A PART OF THE CITY RECORD. WE ALL WANT TO ACT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITIZENS OF MCKINNEY. THIS TIME.
WE'LL NOW MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENT. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE NONPUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS? OKAY, WE'LL NOW MOVE TO THE CONSENT ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE CONSENT ITEMS? THIS WOULD INCLUDE ITEM 26-105, FOUR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 13TH, 2026. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION. CAN WE HAVE A MOTION BY VICE CHAIR CRAIG? A SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KASIM.
KINDLY CAST YOUR VOTES. AND THAT MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY, 7 TO 0. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO THE REGULAR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. FIRST ITEM IS ITEM 24-0095SP. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS, ACT ON A DESIGN EXCEPTION TO A SITE PLAN FOR IMPOUND LOT OR YARD. JORDAN TOWING LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST AND NORTHEAST CORNERS OF COUCH DRIVE AND RECOVERY WAY, APPROXIMATELY 1000FT SOUTH OF INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS A DESIGN EXCEPTION FOR THE PROPERTY THAT'S LOCATED ALONG COUCH DRIVE AND RECOVERY. WAY TO SHOW THE EXHIBIT HERE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO DESIGN EXCEPTIONS. THE FIRST DESIGN EXCEPTION IS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF CANOPIES FOR THE. FOR THE FRONT BUFFER WHICH IS LOCATED HERE. THIS IS CONSIDERED THE FRONT BUFFER. HERE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REDUCE THAT FROM OUR REQUIRED ONE CANOPY FOR 40 LINEAR FEET TO ONE CANOPY PER 62 LINEAR FEET. THE REQUEST COMES AS THE APPLICANT IS PURSUING THE ABANDONMENT OF THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR THIS PORTION OF THE PROPERTY HERE. ALL RIGHT. I DON'T THINK YOUR NOTATIONS ARE TURNED ON THE IT'S NOT WORKING. OKAY. OH, I'M SO SORRY. SORRY. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO IMAGINE EVERYTHING THAT I SAY.
SO AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT'S COMING ALONG THE WAY, THAT'S RECOVERY WAY, WHICH KIND OF TURNS INTO A CUL DE SAC, BUT A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. FOR FROM THIS RIGHT OF WAY TO THE NORTH, THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THE APPLICANT IS PURSUING TO ABANDON THAT RIGHT OF WAY. SO THAT AREA WOULD, IF DEDICATED, WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE TREES ALONG THAT PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY. SINCE THE INTENT IS TO ABANDON THAT AREA, HE'S ASKING FOR A REDUCTION TO ACCOMMODATE THE REQUIRED TREES ON THE CUL DE SAC, THE SURROUNDING KIND OF CIRCLE SEMICIRCLE AREA, TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE TREES TO ACCOMMODATE THAT FRONTAGE. THE REDUCTION WOULD BE ONLY ABOUT THREE TREES. LESS. TYPICALLY, HE WOULD BE REQUIRED EIGHT. AND JUST TO KIND OF GIVE SOME FEEDBACK ON ON THE REQUIREMENT, THAT AREA IS ALMOST HALF OF WHAT THE FRONTAGE IS. SO HE TECHNICALLY WOULD MEET THE REQUIREMENT IF WE WOULD JUST BE LOOKING AT THAT AREA FOR TREES WOULD ONLY BE REQUIRED THERE. SO HE WOULD BE PROVIDING MORE THAN WHAT'S REQUIRED. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS. GIVEN THAT THERE'S THE EXPANSION OF THAT AREA. STAFF FINDS THAT THE REDUCTION WOULD HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT TO THE STREETSCAPES. THE ADDITIONAL DESIGN EXCEPTION IS FOR SCREENING. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A CHAIN LINK FENCE AT EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT TO THE NORTH, WHERE IT'S KIND OF RED, AND THEN SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY. THERE'S ALSO GOING TO BE PROVIDING SOME MASONRY SCREENING DEVICE TO THE TO THE TO THE EAST OF THE PROPERTY,
[00:05:05]
WHICH IS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL. I DO WANT TO GIVE SOME CONTEXT THAT THE CHAIN LINK TO THE NORTH AND TO THE SOUTH WOULD BE ADJACENT TO EXISTING INDUSTRIAL ZONING. SO STAFF HAS NO CONCERN AS IT'S CONSISTENT USES IN THOSE AREAS AND WOULD HAVE NO IMPACT. AND IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING EXISTING OUT THERE TODAY. GIVEN THIS INFORMATION, STAFF BELIEVES THAT THERE IS NO CONCERN WITH THE REQUEST, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND I STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MISS POTATO. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR SALLY? SO YOU SAID THE TREES THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING OR ASKING THE DESIGN EXCEPTION FOR ARE THERE ALONG THE CUL DE SAC. SO IT WOULD THAT LITTLE CIRCLE PART. YEAH.SO THE SEA AROUND THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST, THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE THE AREA THAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO PROVIDE THE TREES WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY ABANDONMENT. IF THE RIGHT OF WAY ABANDONMENT WOULD NOT BE EXISTING, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO ALL ALONG THAT AREA ALL THE WAY TO THE NORTH. YES. WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE INTERSECTS. AND WHERE ARE THEY IN THE PROCESS OF THE RIGHT OF WAY ABANDONMENT. SO THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST STEP TO GET THE SITE PLAN APPROVED. THEN THEY WOULD GO THROUGH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WHERE THEY WOULD REVIEW THAT INFORMATION ENGINEERING WOULD REVIEW THEIR REQUEST FOR ABANDONMENT, AND THEN IT WOULD BE THEN DONE THROUGH THE PLAT PROCESS, WHICH WOULD BE THE KIND OF THIRD STEP BEFORE THEY GET TO THE BUILDING PERMIT. IS THAT GOING TO REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE NORTH TO BE ABLE TO? SO IT WOULD JUST BE THAT PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY HE'S LOOKING TO ABANDON ON HIS SIDE, I BELIEVE, LUCAS, AND YOU CAN CORRECT ME.
I THINK THERE'S SOME DEVELOPMENT, AND I THINK IT WOULD MAKE SENSE BASED ON WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DESIGN UP NORTH, WHERE THAT THAT PORTION THAT HE'S ABANDONING IS GOING TO EXTEND FOR HIS PROPERTY TO THE TO THE WEST. SO THERE WOULD NOT NEED A, A ROAD FOR THAT LOCATION. OKAY. TO ADD ON TO THAT, I THINK THE, WHAT ENGINEERING IS WAITING ON BEFORE THEY CAN APPROVE OR MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY ABANDONMENT IS THAT THAT DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH DOES NOT HAVE AN INTENTION OF CONNECTING TO THAT RIGHT OF WAY. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT THAT'S DETERMINED. THEN THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD. AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THEY NEED TO WORK THROUGH PROPER EASEMENTS FOR THE DESIGN THAT'S SHOWN THERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. IS OUR APPLICANT HERE? YES. KELLY, STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JORDAN HONEYCUTT. I LIVE AT 1007 AUBURN DRIVE IN JUSTIN, TEXAS. I'M WITH ENGINEERING. WE WERE THE ENGINEERS WHO PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT. I'M PREPARED THE SITE PLAN AND ALSO THE ENGINEERING PLANS FOR THIS PROJECT. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT ANY ENGINEERING RELATED.
YOU ALSO HAVE THE OWNER, MR. CURTIS JORDAN. HE'S HERE TO. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, MR. HONEYCUTT? WHAT WAS THE THE THOUGHT, I GUESS, OR THE REASONING BEHIND DOING THE CHAIN LINK ON THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH AS OPPOSED TO MASONRY? IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING USE. OKAY. THE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE FOR MR. JORDAN'S PHASE ONE, WHICH IS THE LARGER. I BELIEVE IT'S LOT SIX. THERE'S ALSO AN EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE. WE WERE WORKING WITH MR. RODERICK FARMER. HE WAS THE PREVIOUS CITY PLANNER. HE MENTIONED THAT AT THE TIME GEORGE TOBIN CAME IN WITH HIS FIRST PHASE. THAT WAS THE STANDARD WAS THE CHAIN LINK FENCE ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. AND JUST TO REITERATE, THE DEVELOPER OR THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH OF US IS INDUSTRIAL USE. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. THE OWNER OF THE THESE LOTS HERE OWNS THE ENTIRETY OF THAT SUBDIVISION. IS THAT RIGHT? THE QUESTION WAS THE OWNER TO YOU OWN EVERYTHING UP AND DOWN RECOVERY WAY? YES, SIR. ON THE NORTH SIDE AS WELL.
OR JUST THE SOUTH SIDE. NORTH SIDE AS WELL. OKAY. WHERE MR. HONEYCUTT, WERE YOU PLANNING TO INSTALL THE CHAIN LINK FENCE WHERE THERE'S ALREADY EXISTING INDUSTRIAL. AND THEY HAVE CHAIN LINK. WILL THAT CREATE A GAP BETWEEN THE TWO LOTS AND. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. SO THERE IS AN EXISTING MASONRY SCREENING WALL BETWEEN LOT SIX AND LOT FIVE. THAT WALL IS BEING TAKEN DOWN. SO LOTS SIX AND FIVE WILL BE UP. WHEN A VEHICLE CAN DRIVE STRAIGHT THROUGH THAT SECTION DURING FACILITIES. AND THAT WALL IS BEING REPURPOSED TO THE CUL DE SAC AREA. SO. A PORTION OF THE WALLS CAN BE REMOVED, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE RELOCATED. AND A
[00:10:05]
WALL IS GOING TO BE LOCATED BETWEEN THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE AND THE MOBILE HOMES TO THE FAR EAST. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. AND I GUESS WHAT'S EXISTING ALONG RECOVERY WAY, I ASSUME THAT YOU'RE KIND OF JUST AIMING TO MATCH WHAT'S ALREADY GOING THERE BETWEEN THE CHAIN LINK, CONTINUING IT ALONG AND THEN THE THERE'S MASONRY FENCE ALONG THE RECOVERY WAY WITH ALONG LOT SIX, CORRECT? YES. JUST TO CLARIFY, THE MASONRY WALLS PRETTY MUCH FROM COUCH DRIVE ALL THE WAY ALONG RECOVERY WAY. AND THE CHAIN LINK FENCE IS ON THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. OKAY. SO YOU'RE JUST GOING TO CONTINUE THAT. IT'LL MATCH THE REST OF WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE. YES. THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, MR. HONEYCUTT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. 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, KINDLY APPROACH.
OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS ITEM WE HAVE. A MOTION BY VICE COMMISSIONER CRAIG, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MCWILLIAMS. CORRECT. OKAY. TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE ITEM. KINDLY CAST YOUR VOTE. THAT MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY, 7 TO 0. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM 25-0032SP. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS, ACT ON A DESIGN EXCEPTION TO A SITE PLAN FOR RETAIL SALES. COSTCO LOCATED AT 3650 WEST UNIVERSITY DRIVE.
GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS AGAIN, THE PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS ALSO A DESIGN EXCEPTION. THIS IS FOR COSTCO, WHICH YOU CAN SEE HERE IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF HARDIN AND UNIVERSITY DRIVE. THERE ARE REQUESTING TO ALLOW FOR 100% OF ARTIFICIAL TURF AND ROCK AND PARKING TERMINAL ISLANDS INSTEAD OF LIVING PLANT MATERIAL WITH REQUIRED TREE STILL PROVIDED IN THOSE ISLANDS. THE REQUEST MEETS THE INTENT OF THE CODE BY PROVIDING VISUAL APPEAL AND WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST AND I STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU SALLY. SO THE TREES THAT ARE ALREADY THERE IN THE ISLANDS WILL STAY. IT'S JUST THE GROUND THE GROUND COVER. SO THEY'RE DOING HALF TURF, HALF ROCK INSTEAD OF LIVING PLANT MATERIAL, WHICH TYPICALLY WE REQUIRE 50% OF NO MORE THAN NO MORE THAN 50% OF NON LIVING PLANT MATERIAL. OKAY.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER EXAMPLES OF THIS, THE TURF IN PARTICULAR IN THIS KIND OF USE IN OTHER LOCATIONS? I PERSONALLY DON'T KNOW OF ANY OTHER LOCATION. THIS IS MY FIRST CASE WITH TURF IN THIS PROPERTY. I'M TRYING TO THINK WHAT THEY HAVE. DO THEY HAVE TREES AND GRASS RIGHT NOW OR DO THEY HAVE TREES. AND SO THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW ALL THE TREES ARE STILL LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY, BUT THEY HAVE TURF AND ROCK. THEY DO HAVE TURF AND ROCK. OKAY. SO THEY ALREADY HAVE THE TURF AND ROCK AND THEY'RE JUST NOW TRYING TO GET IT. SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET THEM INTO COMPLIANCE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DID THEY GIVE YOU ANY INFORMATION ABOUT PERMEABILITY OF THIS ARTIFICIAL TURF, WATER, AIR, ANYTHING LIKE THAT? NO. I THINK WE LOOKED AT IT FROM ONE THE PARKING ISLANDS FOR FOR THE REQUIREMENTS. WHAT WE REQUIRE NON-LIVING PLANT MATERIAL FOR THIS ONE, SINCE THEY HAVE THE ROCK AND 50% ARTIFICIAL TURF. I THINK WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE REQUEST. OKAY. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR MISS? WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY ON THEIR LANDSCAPE PLAN. SO TYPICALLY WE REQUIRE SOME KIND OF EITHER SOD GRASS OR SOME KIND OF MATERIAL.
IT COULD BE YOU COULD HAVE 50% MULCH OR ROCK, BUT THEN THERE'S A MIXTURE OF PLANTINGS OR GRASS.
OKAY. WAS THAT APPROVED PREVIOUSLY THAT THAT PARTICULAR THEY JUST DECIDED TO DO THE TURF OR AT SOME POINT THEY MIGHT HAVE THEY MIGHT HAVE CHANGED. I DON'T KNOW THE THE TIME TIMELINE. I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. BUT I COULD SAY THAT USUALLY WE TYPICALLY PROVIDE SOME KIND OF LIVING PLANT MATERIAL WITH SOME MULCH, SOME ROCK A MIXTURE, AS LONG AS THERE'S 50% OF PLANTINGS PROVIDED. OKAY. THANK YOU. MISS POTATO IS OUR APPLICANT HERE THIS EVENING. I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'RE HERE TONIGHT. OKAY. THIS ITEM DOES HAVE A PUBLIC
[00:15:04]
HEARING ATTACHED TO IT. SO IF YOU'RE HERE THIS EVENING AND YOU WISH TO SHARE ANY COMMENTS OR CONCERNS REGARDING THIS ITEM, KINDLY APPROACH. DON'T EVERYBODY RUSH FORWARD AT ONE TIME. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MCWILLIAMS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KASIM. KELLY. CASHIER WROTE REGARDING CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY 7 TO 0 TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I HATE IT. IT'S NOT JUST THE FORGIVENESS RATHER THAN PERMISSION. I DON'T REALLY MIND THAT, BUT I. I DON'T LIKE TURF.I DON'T WANT TO SET THAT PRECEDENT. I REALLY DON'T LIKE IT. I DON'T LIKE IT AT ALL.
YEAH, YEAH, I AGREE, TIM. I DO WONDER ABOUT THE PERMEABILITY AND THE HEALTH OF THE TREES. IF IT'LL, YOU KNOW, IF THEY WILL, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT ANSWER IS, BUT BUT YEAH, THE ASKING FORGIVENESS KIND OF BOTHERS ME A LITTLE BIT.
YEAH. JUST TO GET MORE CONTEXT FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, ARE UDC UPDATES THAT WE'RE WORKING ON THIS YEAR. WE PREVIEWED THOSE WITH COUNCIL AT A WORK SESSION A COUPLE WEEKS AGO.
WE'LL BE BRINGING THAT FORWARD TO YOU ALL HERE SHORTLY. ONE OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS IS TO UPDATE OUR LANDSCAPE ISLAND REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FOR MORE THAN 50% NON-LIVING. BUT TO YOUR POINT, TO PROHIBIT ARTIFICIAL MATERIALS. SO IT WOULD ALLOW FOR XERISCAPING, MORE ROCK, MULCH, THINGS LIKE THAT, MORE PLANTING SHRUBS. BUT WE WOULD WE WOULD TRY AND LEAN INTO NOT ALLOWING THE ARTIFICIAL MATERIALS FOR ALL THE REASONS LISTED. DO YOU KNOW WHAT COSTCO HAS DONE IN NEIGHBORING CITIES LIKE IRELAND AND FRISCO? THEY HAVE OTHER LOCATIONS. THEY. ONE IS OPEN AFTER US. THE ONE IS OPEN BEFORE US. NOT SURE ABOUT FRISCO, BUT THE ALLEN LOCATION HAS THE EXACT SAME 50% TURF, 50% STONE THERE. BUT I HAVEN'T BEEN TO ANY OF THOSE, SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE OTHERS. BUT IN THEORY, IF OUR PROPOSED CHANGES ARE ADOPTED BY COUNCIL, THEY COULD REPLACE THE OTHER 50% OF TURF WITH THE ROCKS THAT THEY HAVE ON THE OTHER HALF, AS OPPOSED TO HAVING TO GO IN AND PUT IN SOD GRASS AND IRRIGATION, ALL THOSE THINGS. SO BUT WE'RE WE'VE JUST SEEN A CONFLICT WITH THE REQUIREMENT FOR SHADE TREES AND LIVING MATERIAL UNDERNEATH THEM. ANYBODY WHO SPENDS A LOT OF TIME TRYING TO KEEP BERMUDA GRASS ALIVE UNDERNEATH THE SHADE TREE KNOWS THOSE TWO COMPETE AGAINST EACH OTHER. AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO RECOGNIZE THAT CONFLICT AND STILL ALLOW FOR SHRUBS AND NATURAL GRASSES AND PLANTINGS, BUT THEN LEAN TOWARDS THE XERISCAPING AS AN OPTION FOR PERMEABILITY AND ALL THOSE THINGS THAT STILL LETS THE TREES GROW. I THINK THERE'S SOME ALTERNATIVES TO IT THAT CAN HANDLE SHADE, NOT MUCH WATER AND STUFF. SURE. SOMETHING CALLED INLAND SEA GRASS, FOR EXAMPLE. SURE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT COSTS REALLY. RELATIVELY. RENAISSANCE MAN, I GUESS. COMMISSIONER. I GUESS A LOT OF TREES IN THIS YARD. YEAH. WE'LL MOVE TO DENY SECOND. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY BY COMMISSIONER MCWILLIAMS AND A SECOND BY. ME. I KNOW WHY DID I JUST. COMMISSIONER HAMMOCK I'M THINKING HATHAWAY. I'M LIKE IT IS NOT HATHAWAY. OKAY, SO AGAIN, WE ARE THE VOTE BEFORE YOU IS TO DENY APPROVING THIS REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN EXCEPTION. KINDLY CAST YOUR VOTES. OKAY, SO THE MOTION FAILED. IT IS THREE IN FAVOR OF DENYING AND FOUR IN FAVOR OF PASSING. SO AT THIS POINT, WE WOULD NEED TO. I APOLOGIZE. IF THE MOTION IS TO
[00:20:06]
DENY, THEN YOU'RE APPROVING THE DENIAL, CORRECT? RIGHT. OKAY. MY INTENTION WAS TO DENY, BUT I GOT MIXED UP THERE, SO I APOLOGIZE. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. CAN WE HAVE THE MOTION AGAIN MOVE TO DENY. AND SECOND, SO WE HAVE FIRST AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MCWILLIAMS AND COMMISSIONER HAMMOCK TO DENY THE SITE PLAN. EXCEPTION. DESIGN EXCEPTION. SO FOR CLARITY IF YOU'D LIKE TO DENY YOU VOTE. YAY. OH. YOU CAN GO BACK. TO COOK. OKAY, SO THE MOTION TO DENY CARRIES 6 TO 1. THE MOTION HAS BEEN DENIED. AND IT DOES NOT NEED TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL. OKAY, MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS ITEM 26-0008SUP, TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS, ACT ON A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR DRIVE THRU RESTAURANTS, BURGER KING, POPEYES AND TACO BUENO. LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST UNIVERSITY DRIVE AND APPROXIMATELY 280FT WEST OF AVIATION WAY. MR. BENNETT. YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. GOOD EVENING. COMMISSION JAKE BENNETT, PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. THIS IS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THREE PROPOSED DRIVE THRU RESTAURANTS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF US 380 AND WEST OF CUSTER ROAD. AND SEP IS REQUIRED DUE TO THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED DRIVE THRUS AND THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES TO THE SOUTH, DRIVE THRU RESTAURANTS AND THEIR SPEAKER BOXES ARE REQUIRED TO BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 200FT FROM ALL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RESIDENTIAL USES AND ZONING DISTRICTS. THE SOUTHERNMOST BUILDING IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 88FT FROM THE CLOSEST RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE, AND THE THREE SPEAKER BOXES ARE LOCATED 125, 180 AND 193FT FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINES. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PROVIDE THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPING BUFFER AND UTILIZE THE EXISTING RESIDENCES MASONRY WALL TO MEET THE MINIMUM SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. BASED ON THE S P EXHIBIT, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT INDICATED THAT ADDITIONAL MITIGATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR NOISE RELATED TO TRAFFIC AND THE SPEAKER BOXES. GIVEN THE DIRECT RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS AND ABILITY TO MEET THE REQUIRED SEPARATION DISTANCE FOR ANY OF THE THREE DRIVE THRU LOCATIONS, STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED USES ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR IN THE CURRENT LAYOUT. AS SUCH, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT AND I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. JACOB, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BENNETT? IN COORDINATION WITH THE CITY, HOW HAS THE APPLICANT. LIKE WHAT WHAT EFFORTS HAS THE APPLICANT MADE? I NOTICED IN THEIR LETTER THEY MENTIONED IF BEING WILLING TO DO A SOUND TEST AND IF IT PROVES REQUIRED OR A NEED FOR SOUND BUFFERING MATERIAL, THEY'D BE OPEN TO IT. YEAH, I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY OF THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY BEEN DONE OR ANY REACHING OUT THAT THEY'VE DONE WITH THE RESIDENCES TO THE SOUTH AS WELL. IT IS A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT SCENARIO WITH THE RESIDENCES TO THE SOUTH, THE MASTER DEVELOPER IS HOLDING OWNERSHIP OF THOSE AND THEN RENTING THEM OUT, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE TRUE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES. AND THE MASTER DEVELOPER, I BELIEVE, ALSO OWNS ALL THE COMMERCIAL THAT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THIS HIDDEN LAKES PROJECT AS WELL. GOT IT. IF WE APPROVE THE S, E, P AND THEY DO THE SOUND TEST, THEY AREN'T. I GUESS THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT THEY WE HAVE NO HARD REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NOISE TESTING. IF IT'S OPERATIONAL. AND THEY'RE THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL HOMES, THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE GOING BEYOND WHAT OUR NOISE ORDINANCE REQUIRES. THEN THEY CAN COORDINATE WITH CODE AND PD ABOUT THAT. BUT WE DO NOT REQUIRE ANY NOISE TESTING PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT.BUT DO WE REQUIRE THE 200FT BUFFER RATE? YES. SO CITY COUNCIL, I BELIEVE THAT WAS IN 2024, MAYBE EARLY 2025, WHERE THERE WAS A COUNCIL INITIATIVE FOR THE 200 FOOT BUFFER FROM THE BUILDINGS, AS WELL AS THE SPEAKER BOXES FOR DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS. AND THAT'S REFLECTED IN OUR CODE, WHERE IF THEY'RE NOT MEETING THAT, IT REQUIRES AN S P IN MOST ZONING DISTRICTS. OKAY. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR JAKE? IS OUR APPLICANT HERE THIS EVENING? I
[00:25:04]
DON'T BELIEVE SO. OKAY. THIS ITEM DOES HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHED TO IT. SO IF YOU'RE HERE THIS EVENING AND WISH TO SHARE ANY COMMENTS OR CONCERNS, KINDLY APPROACH. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION REGARDING THIS ITEM? I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DENY THIS ITEM. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WATLEY TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DENY THIS ITEM A SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KASIM. KINDLY CAST YOUR VOTES TO DENY. AGAIN, IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF DENYING, YOU WOULD VOTE. YAY! IF YOU ARE OPPOSED, YOU WOULD VOTE NAY.OKAY? AND THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY TO DENY THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT REQUEST 77 TO 0 TO UNANIMOUSLY, AND THIS RECOMMENDATION WILL BE FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION AT THE NOVEMBER 17TH, 2026 MEETING. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA. ITEM 26-0018SUP.
CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS, ACT ON A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR RECEPTION OR EVENT CENTER. OUTDOOR M K VENUE LOCATED AT 312 EAST CLOYD STREET. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION CHAIR ROBINSON DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PLANNER. BEFORE YOU IS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A RECEPTION OR EVENT CENTER WITH OUTDOOR. LOCATED AT 312 EAST 14TH STREET. THE ZONING FOR THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY. MCKINNEY TOWN CENTER DOWNTOWN CORE REQUIRES THAT A SUP BE GRANTED AN ORDER FOR A RECEPTION OR EVENT CENTER OUTDOOR TO BE OPERATED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE INDOOR COMPONENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT NECESSITATE A. THE REQUIREMENT TO OBTAIN A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, JUST THE USE OF THE OUTDOOR PORTION. SO THE OUTDOOR PATIO THAT'S IN THE EXHIBIT. ALL ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE WITHIN THE SAME ZONING. SO MCKINNEY TOWN CENTER, DOWNTOWN CORE AND HOST COMMERCIAL USES. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO UTILIZE THE OUTDOOR PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED TO THE EAST OF THE BUILDING, AND STAFF FINDS THAT THE SITE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE PROPOSED RECEPTION OR EVENT CENTER USE CENTER. OUTDOOR USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING LAND USES OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. AS SUCH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST. I WILL NOTE THAT STAFF HAS RECEIVED ONE CITIZEN COMMENT IN OPPOSITION OF THIS REQUEST, BUT I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. MISS ROBINSON, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR KIERA? DO WE KNOW WHAT THEIR OPPOSITION WAS? THEY HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT FIRE ACCESS AND PARKING, BUT I WILL NOTE THAT ALL EXISTING BUILDINGS WITHIN THE MCKINNEY TOWN CENTER DO NOT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL OFF STREET PARKING. RIGHT. AND THEY'RE TO THE IMMEDIATE WEST. IS THAT DEMPSEY'S PLACE, WHICH ALSO HAS AN OUTDOOR. YES, MA'AM. AREA.
YEAH. WELL, THEY THEY OCCUPY SOME OF THAT ALLEY AS WELL. SOME AT TIMES FOR EVENTS. YES.
OKAY. THAT LEADS ME TO ANOTHER QUESTION BECAUSE I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT WE DON'T HAVE ALLEYS IN MCKINNEY. SO AND I'VE LIVED HERE QUITE A WHILE. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT STREET HAD A NAME TO IT. YES, IT'S CALLED STREET. BECAUSE I DROVE AROUND LOOKING FOR IT. IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE TO THE WATER TOWER. YEAH, I KNOW WHAT'S NEXT TO. THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR MISS ROBINSON? IS I KNOW WHAT TYPE OF VENUE THEY'RE PROPOSING. I'LL. I'LL DEFER TO THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK TO THE VENUE OPERATIONS. OKAY. THE APPLICANT IS HERE, MA'AM. OKAY, OKAY. NO, I GUESS THEY'RE NOT. THEY'RE NOT. IT'S KIND OF LIKE THAT ALLEY. WELL, THIS ITEM DOES HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHED TO IT. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHARE YOUR COMMENTS OR CONCERNS REGARDING THIS ITEM, KINDLY APPROACH. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS ITEM. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HAMMACK TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE ITEM SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MCWILLIAMS.
[00:30:01]
KINDLY CAST YOUR VOTE. AYE. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY, 7 TO 0, AND IT WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION AT THE NOVEMBER 17TH, 2026 MEETING. AT THIS TIME, ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA? TO THE COMMISSION AND OR STAFF? HAVE ANY COMMENTS? NOPE, NOPE. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? AND A SECOND. SO MOVED. COMMISSIONER WATLEY IS OUR FIRST, SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER VICE COMMISSIONER CRAIG CONLEY. CAST YOUR VOTE. AND WE ARE ADJOURNED* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.