[L1. ORD-2025-08-11 Conduct a public hearing and consider approving Ordinance No. 2025-08-11 of the City of Princeton from Trination Global Investments P67 Partnership for a Specific Use Permit for a Pet Shop on the north side of W Princeton Dr, and west of N Beauchamp Blvd, in the City of Princeton, Collin County, Texas; and take appropriate action. Presented by Craig Fisher, Director of Development Services.]

CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER APPROVING ORDINANCE NUMBER 202-05-0811 OF THE CITY OF PRINCETON FROM TRIAN GLOBAL INVESTMENTS P67 PARTNERSHIP FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A PET SHOP ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST PRINCETON DRIVE, WEST OF NORTH BEACHAM BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF PRINCETON, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION PRESENTED BY CRAIG FISHER.

>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS CRAIG FISHER.

I'M THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THIS REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A PET SHOP ON 66 ACRES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST PRINCETON DRIVE.

YOU CAN SEE THE LOCATION MAP HERE.

THE PET SHOP, IS DEFINED BY THE CITY ORDINANCE IS ESSENTIALLY A STORE THAT SELLS LIVE ANIMALS AND OTHER RELATED PET PRODUCTS.

PER THE ORDINANCE, THIS USE MUST BE CONTAINED INDOORS.

THE ANIMALS HAVE TO BE KEPT INSIDE.

THIS ITEM WENT BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON JULY 21ST OF THIS YEAR.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE ITEM WITH THREE CONDITIONS.

FIRST, THAT THE SUP LIMIT ONLY ONE PET SHOP ON THE 66-ACRE TRACT AND THAT THE SUP BE LATER AMENDED WHEN A SPECIFIC SITE WAS CHOSEN.

CURRENTLY, THE SITE PLAN IS THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF FLUIDITY TO IT.

THINGS MAY CHANGE, THE LOCATION ISN'T SET.

THEN THE THIRD CONDITION, BE THAT ANY OUTDOOR ADOPTION EVENTS ONLY OCCUR WITH APPROVAL OF THE PET SHOP OWNER.

WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU ALL MAY HAVE.

THE DEVELOPER IS ALSO PRESENT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

>> MY QUESTION IS ACTUALLY FOR GRANT.

GRANT, CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT A VESTING DOCUMENT IS AND EXPLAIN IF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS A VESTING DOCUMENT?

>> YEAH. AN SUP WOULD BE A VESTING DOCUMENT.

I MEAN, IT'S TYPICALLY SOMETHING THAT RUNS WITH THE LAND PER SE.

WHAT AN SUP IS ESSENTIALLY CONDITIONAL ZONING.

IT'S A VERY GOOD TOOL TO USE.

BY THE CITY, YOU CAN PLACE CERTAIN CONDITIONS, EXPIRATION DATES, ETC, ON A SUP.

IT DEPENDS ON, FOR THIS ONE, CERTAIN USES WITHIN A ZONING DISTRICT WOULD REQUIRE AN SUP. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT.

BUT THAT'S ESSENTIALLY IN A NUTSHELL, WHAT SUP IS WHAT VESTING DOCUMENT YOUR VESTING RIGHTS ARE?

>> WHAT ALL WOULD BE VESTED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THIS DOCUMENT IN REGARDS TO THE LAND? BECAUSE THIS IS NOT AN ACTUAL SITE PLAN.

IT'S MORE OF A CONCEPT PLAN.

WHAT ALL WOULD GET VESTED BY DOING THIS, BECAUSE IT ISN'T COMMON TO MY KNOWLEDGE TO DO A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO AN ENTIRE PROPERTY, LIKE THAT VAST SPACE, INSTEAD OF TO A SPECIFIC BUILDING OR LOCATION, WHICH IS WHAT IT WOULD NORMALLY BE ATTACHED TO.

WE ARE NOW VESTING THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.

WHAT COULD THAT LOOK LIKE FOR US LONG-TERM?

>> IT'S REALLY WHATEVER CONDITIONS YOU GUYS PLACE ON THE SUP.

I THINK THE RECOMMENDATION OF P&Z WAS JUST TO ALLOW ONE "PET SHOP" AS DEFINED IN THE CODE OF ORDINANCES ON THE 66-ACRE PARCEL.

[00:40:02]

I MEAN, I'VE SEEN IT BOTH WAYS.

IT'S TIED TO SPECIFIC BUILDING OR SPECIFIC UNIT AND SOMETIMES IT'S TIED TO THE PROPERTY IN GENERAL.

I'VE SEEN IT DONE BOTH WAYS, BUT THAT'S WHATEVER WOULD BE VESTED IS WHAT IS ON THE FACE OF THE SUP, WHATEVER YOU GUYS AGREED TO.

>> IF I MAY, ALSO THE STIPULATIONS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED WERE PRESENTED TO THE DEVELOPER.

THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THE FIRST CONDITION, THAT THERE ONLY BE ONE PET SHOP LOCATED ON THE 66-ACRE TRACT.

THEY WOULD REQUEST TO STRIKE THE SECOND CONDITION THAT THE SUP BE UPDATED ONCE A SPECIFIC LOCATION IS DEFINED.

THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT REMAIN FLEXIBLE.

THE PET SHOP IS THERE GOES OUT OF BUSINESS, ANOTHER PET SHOP WANTS TO COME IN ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, THEY'D BE ABLE TO DO SO, AND THEY'RE FINE WITH THE THIRD STIPULATION.

>> MY CONCERN HERE IS THAT OUR ORDINANCE STATES THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL AUTHORIZE USAGE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ONLY AFTER DETERMINING THAT ADEQUATE PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR THE PAVING OF STREETS, ALLEYS, SIDEWALKS, MEANS OF ACCESS TO PUBLIC STREET, PROVISIONS FOR DRAINAGE, ADEQUATE OFF STREET PARKING, PROTECTIVE SCREENING, OPEN SPACES, HEIGHTS OF STRUCTURES, AND COMPATIBILITY OF BUILDINGS.

TO MY KNOWLEDGE, LOOKING ON THE CITY WEBSITE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THEY DO NOT HAVE AN APPROVED PLAN AT THIS TIME.

FOLLOWING THAT WOULD GO-TO GRANT.

IF THE CONDITION OF APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS SAYING THAT THESE THINGS ARE IN FACT DONE, WITH THE VESTING PART OF APPROVING AN SUP HAVE ANY ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE CITY IN REGARDS TO KNOWING THAT WE DON'T HAVE A PLAN THAT'S APPROVED YET, BUT THAT'S REQUIRED FOR THIS SUP?

>> THE APPLICANT WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE REST OF THE BUILDING PROCESS.

HOWEVER, I DO HAVE HIGHLIGHTED THE SECTION YOU READ, AND I THINK I MEAN, YOU READ IT STRAIGHT OFF DETERMINING THAT ADEQUATE PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE.

I THINK IF COUNCIL SITTING HERE TONIGHT IS NOT ASSURED AND THAT ADEQUATE PROVISIONS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN MADE, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD BRING BACK.

THERE'S NO SHOT CLOCK ON AN SUP PER SE.

YOU DO CITE TO SOMETHING IN THE CODE.

BUT EVEN IF AFTER GRANTING SUP, THEY STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE REST OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, THE PLATTING, THE DOWNSTREAM ASSESSMENTS, ETC.

>> WITH THE AGREEMENT BACK ON THE TABLE BECAUSE I KNOW WE'RE DOING NEGOTIATIONS ON THAT, COULD WE NOT JUST EMBED THE ABILITY TO HAVE A PET SHOP WITHIN THE AGREEMENTS AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT A VESTING DOCUMENT GETTING APPROVED WITH PLANS THAT DO NOT MEET OUR CITY'S ORDINANCES? WOULD THAT BE THE BETTER ROUTE FOR THE CITY?

>> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE BETTER ROUTE, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY A ROUTE THAT THE CITY COULD OR COULD TAKE.

I'VE SEEN IT DONE IN A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

BUT AS YOU MENTIONED, IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED IN THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS IS, BUT IT'S A ROUTE THAT THE CITY COULD TAKE.

ALSO, SUP IS A VERY VALID OPTION AS WELL.

>> CAN I MORE UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN WITH THE VESTING PART OF IT? WHAT'S THE ISSUE THERE?

>> TO MY UNDERSTANDING, A VESTING DOCUMENT MEANS THAT WE ARE ACCEPTING THINGS AS THEY ARE.

ACCORDING TO THE SUP, WE ARE STATING THAT IN APPROVING IT, THESE ITEMS ARE, IN FACT CORRECTLY DONE.

WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THEY ARE NOT DONE YET; THEY HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED YET.

BY THEN APPROVING THIS, WE ARE VESTING WHAT IS CURRENTLY BEEN APPROVED OR WHAT IS SET.

SHOULD WE GO BACK AND SAY, HEY, THIS ISN'T GOOD, THERE ARE POTENTIALS THERE.

I GUESS, GRANT, YOU CAN EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BETTER THAN I CAN.

>> I DON'T MEAN TO REPEAT MYSELF, BUT I THINK IF COUNCIL DOESN'T FEEL LIKE THERE'S BEEN ADEQUATE PROVISIONS MADE FOR STREETS, SIDEWALKS, DRAINAGE, OFF-STREET PARKING, ET CETERA.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD ASK THAT THE APPLICANT WITHDRAW OR WE COULD MOVE TO DENY.

IT'S UP TO THE DISCRETION OF COUNCIL.

THERE'S NO SHOT CLOCK, LIKE I SAID, ON THIS ACTION ITEM.

I KNOW I THINK THE DEVELOPER WAS TRYING TO BE PROACTIVE AND OBTAIN THE SUP UPFRONT, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE LATER IF NEEDED.

>> GREIG, CAN I ASK YOU TO GO OVER THE SITE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THERE'S NOT STREETS IN THE SITE.

THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT NOT NECESSARY MAY NOT FIT IN THIS CATEGORY, BUT CAN YOU ELABORATE OF WHAT THE SITE IS MADE UP AND TALK A LITTLE BIT

[00:45:04]

ABOUT THE PAVING AND SOME OF THESE OTHER ELEMENTS THAT I THINK WE'RE REFERRING TO TONIGHT, INCLUDING THE DRAINAGE AS WELL?

>> SURE, IN MY OPINION, THE SEP REQUEST IS STRICTLY FOR A LAND USE REQUEST.

IS THIS AN APPROPRIATE USE OF LAND? THEN THE SITE PLAN DETAILS WILL BE WORKED OUT THROUGH THE ENGINEERING PLAN REVIEW.

THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THIS SHOPPING CENTER.

YOU CAN SEE THE LAYOUT HERE WITH THE STORES, THE PARKING, AND THE DRIVE AISLES.

THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT ARE UNDER REVIEW.

NO PERMITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED.

WE WILL ENSURE FULL COMPLIANCE WITH CITY'S DRAINAGE, TRAFFIC, AND OTHER ENGINEERING STANDARDS ARE MET BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION COMMENCES.

I THINK AS MR. LOWRY STATED, THIS SUP REQUEST IS FOR LAND USE SO THE DEVELOPER CAN IRON OUT THEIR SITE PLAN AND KNOW THAT THEY CAN HAVE A PET SHOP.

>> IS THE DEVELOPER HERE?

>> CAN YOU DEFINE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SITE PLAN AND A CONCEPT PLAN AND WHAT IS REQUIRED PER OUR ORDINANCE TO BE ON A SITE PLAN?

>> SURE, THE ORDINANCE SPECIFIES IN THE SPECIFIC USE SECTION, WHAT NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED WITH AN NSUP APPLICATION.

THERE'S A FEW CRITERIA, THE SITE PLAN HAS TO INCLUDE THE GENERAL LAYOUT, A LOCATION OF BUILDING, WHERE THE PARKING IS GOING TO GO.

THIS SITE PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED IN THE APPLICATION MEETS THE CRITERIA OF THE ORDINANCE.

>> DOES THE ORDINANCE NOT SAY THAT THE BUILDING SIZE AND EVERYTHING SHOULD BE ON HERE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT THIS SITE PLAN ACTUALLY HAS ALL OF THE ITEMS THAT A SITE PLAN SHOULD HAVE?

>> THE SITE PLAN IS DRAWN TO SCALE, SO THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF THE BUILDINGS IS SHOWN.

>> IF I'M CLEAR, WHAT WE'RE DECIDING TONIGHT IS, DO WE WANT A PET SHOP ON THIS DEVELOPMENT OR NOT? THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE US CURRENTLY, CORRECT?

>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. DO YOU THINK THAT LAND USE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS LOCATION? STAFF WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER AND THEIR ENGINEERS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CITY STANDARDS BEFORE PERMITS ISSUED? PET SHOP WILL NOT BE BUILT UNTIL COMPLIANT PLANS ARE PRESENTED.

>> I JUST WANT TO HEAR CLEARLY FROM GRANT THEN.

ARE THERE POTENTIAL LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS FOR APPROVING A VESTING DOCUMENT WITHOUT HAVING THE ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE COMPLETED IN PLACE.

>> THEY'RE STILL REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE REST OF OUR DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS, ALL THE PLATTING, DOWNSTREAM ASSESSMENTS, ALL THE ENGINEERING STUDIES, ET CETERA.

I THINK IF COUNSEL NEEDS MORE INFORMATION, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE, YOU COULD OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, CONTINUE IT TO THE NEXT DATE, YOU CAN DENY IT, ET CETERA, AND HAVE IT COME BACK.

BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO, THIS ISN'T A WAIVER TO THE REST OF THE REQUIREMENTS, OUR DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.

THEY STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE REST OF THE REQUIREMENTS.

>> CRAIG IS EXACTLY RIGHT.

I MEAN, IT HAS ALL THE ELEMENTS THAT MAKE UP AN NSUP IT DOES SHOW DRAINAGE AREAS.

IT SHOWS, ALL THE DIFFERENT THINGS, THE SCALE AND WHATNOT.

I THINK MR. WASHINGTON SAID IT BASICALLY, THIS IS A LAND USE DECISION.

DOES THE CITY COUNCIL COMFORTABLE HAVING ONE PET STORE ON THE 66 ACRE TRACK? I MEAN, THAT'S BOILING IT DOWN.

THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TONIGHT.

>> IF THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS, I'M GOING TO OPEN UP TO A PUBLIC HEARING.

THE TIME IS 7:55, AND THIS WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TERESA LANE.

>> THANK YOU, MARY. COUNCIL MEMBER, I'M NOT VERY GOOD AT THIS, SO I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT I'M DOING.

BUT THEY'RE TRYING TO GET SOME OF MY PARENTS LAND TO EASEMENT, BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO GIVE HER NOTHING FOR IT.

THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET THAT GO BECAUSE BLACK TICKET.

WE WE HAVE OUR RIGHTS, TOO.

TO JUST HOLD ON TO THAT PROPERTY, BUT THEY'RE WANTING ALL THAT WATER TO RUN DOWN TO OUR HOUSE FROM THE NEW BUILDINGS THAT'S COMING UP ON 380 BECAUSE WE LIVE BEHIND IT.

[00:50:01]

NOW WE HAVE A POND AND ALL THAT, BUT YEAH, ALL THAT WATER IS GOING TO RUN TOWARDS US.

UNLESS WE GIVE THEM SELL OUR EASEMENT TO THEM.

I REALLY, I MEAN, THAT'S JUST I DON'T SHE'D BEEN THERE 42 YEARS.

SHE'S NOT GIVEN IT UP.

WE'VE ALL GROWN UP THERE AND MY GRAND KIDS GROWED UP THERE, AND IT'S IT'S HOME.

EVERYBODY'S TRYING TO JUST TAKE IT AWAY FROM HER.

THAT'S ALL I GOT TO SAY, COUNSEL. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. RONALD, LANE.

>> COUNCILMAN? YOUR HONOR.

I'M HERE ON ALSO ON BEHALF OF MY MOTHER IN LAW, PATSY CLOE.

PROPERTY 2542 GREENFIELD ACRES BEHIND WHERE THE TOWN CENTER IS GOING TO BE.

I CAN READ IT. THE PRINCETON TOWN CENTER.

IT RUNS RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR PROPERTY AND DOWN MY MOM'S PROPERTY AND DOWN RIGHT JUST BUTTS UP AGAINST IT AND ALL THAT WATER FROM ALL THAT PARKING LOT IS GOING TO DRAIN RIGHT ON TOP OF IT BECAUSE IT DOES EVERY YEAR.

IT JUST CAUSES A BIG CREEK TO RUN DOWN [INAUDIBLE].

WELL, IT TURNS INTO QUITE A RAPID WHEN IT RAINS, TWO OR THREE DAYS IN A ROW.

WELL, SOMEBODY I DON'T KNOW WHO IT WAS, COME TO MY MOM AND OFFERED TO FIX OUR DRIVEWAY FOR THE EASEMENT SHE HAD.

THEY WANTED THE EASEMENT TO GET PROBABLY THE EASEMENT, WHATEVER MEANS.

THEY OFFERED TO FIX HER DRIVEWAY FOR THAT.

I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT AN EASEMENT IS OR NONE OF THAT STUFF, BUT I DO KNOW THAT SHE'S BEEN THERE 42 YEARS TO BE TAKING A DRIVEWAY FOR PAYMENT ON HER LAND.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THERE'S LOTS OF THINGS GOING ON THERE.

I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, THE EASEMENT PROBLEM, THE WATER DRAINAGE SITUATION.

JUST FLOG US OUT ANYWAYS.

IT'S MUCH LESS WHATEVER MANY ACRES OF LAND THAT IS RIGHT THERE THAT'S FLOODING DOWN ON TOP OF US.

ALSO, THE INTIMATE DOMAIN THAT WAS IN THE LAST CONTRACT IS NOT TEN WRITTEN INTIMATE DOMAIN, BUT IT'S IN THERE WRITTEN AS INTIMATE DOMAIN.

THAT'S JUST WANTED TO TAKE HER PROPERTY AWAY FROM NOTHING ANYWAYS.

I WOULD JUST LIKE FOR YOU ALL TO REQUEST YOU ALL TO TAKE OUT THIS IN DOMAIN SAYING AND WHATEVER PARAGRAPH IS, I CAN'T REMEMBER, BUT IT'S IN THE ALREADY.

THAT'S ALL I GOT TO SAY AND JUST HELP HER.

SHE'S BEEN THERE 42 YEARS AND LOST TWO HUSBANDS AND GRAND KIDS WHO LIVED THERE, LIVED THERE NOW, RATHER HELP HER PUSH HER AWAY.

THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> SIR, CAN I ASK A QUESTION, PLEASE? DO YOU SAY THAT NOW WHEN IT RAINS, THAT THE WATER GOES INTO HER PROPERTY, IT FLOWS?

>> WE'VE GOT A POND RIGHT THERE.

>> IT FLOWS, IT CURRENTLY GOES ON HER PROPERTY IF IT RAINS.

WITHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT, THE WATER STILL DRAINS DOWN ON HER PROPERTY.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

>> WHEN IT RAINS TWO OR THREE DAYS IN A ROW ALL THE WATER COMES IN TO THE CREEK INTO THE POND, AND IT CAUSED THE ROARING AT RAPIDS ON THE WATER COMING OUT OF THE POND GOING TO TICKET.

THERE'S A LOT OF WATER THAT ALREADY COMES DOWN THERE MUCH LESS WHEN YOU PUT ALL THE CONCRETE, PARKWAY AND BUILDINGS UP THERE.

IT'S GOING TO BE 100 TIMES WORSE.

IT HAS NOWHERE TO GO.

I HEARD SOMETHING ABOUT A FOUR ACRE POND BEING BUILT THERE TO CONTAIN THAT WATER, AND I JUST I DON'T BELIEVE IN THAT.

>> WHEN YOU SAY THAT THEY WANT TO TAKE YOUR LAND,

[00:55:01]

TAKE THE LAND WITHOUT ANYTHING, IT'S JUST TO TAKE IT. NO.

>> THEY CAN OFFER HER SO MUCH MONEY TO WHAT THE CONTRACT SAID.

THAT THEY OFFER SO MUCH MONEY SO MANY TIMES, AND THEN IF SHE DOESN'T TAKE IT, THEN THEY JUST EMINENT DOMAIN AND GIVE HER WHAT THEY OFFERED HER FOR HER PROPERTY.

I KNOW HOW THAT HER HAVING THE OPTION OF A CHOICE.

>> DO YOU KNOW HOW LARGE OF A LAND SPACE IT IS?

>> FIVE ACRES.

>> FIVE ACRES OF LAND.

>> OUR POND COVERS PROBABLY AN ACRE AND A HALF TWO ACRES ITSELF.

THEY'VE GOT APARTMENTS BUILT RIGHT IN FRONT NOW, BUT NOT ALL THE WAY IN FRONT, BUT HALFWAY IN FRONT OF IT.

FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN ON THE MAP THAT WAS SENT TO US, THE THE POND IS RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF OUR POND.

IT SHOWS THEIR POND RIGHT UP HERE IN A LINE AND THEN NO PICTURE AT ALL, THAT'S OUR POND.

OUR LANDS, THEY'RE NOT SHOWING.

I MEAN, WE'VE HAD PEOPLE COME OUT THERE LIKE THREE TIMES IN THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF TALKING TO US ABOUT THIS.

NOBODY IN MY FAMILY, WE'RE REALLY NOT, THAT SMART ABOUT ALL THIS, BUT AFTER YOU LISTEN TO THEM TWO OR THREE TIMES YOU GET PRETTY GOOD ABOUT IT.

I COULD WRITE DOWN NOTES AND PROBABLY BETTER AT NEXT TIME I COME IN, BUT I WILL NEVER COME IN AGAIN.

>> THAT'S OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. I'LL BRING YOU.

[OVERLAPPING].

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNSELOR FOR HAVING LET ME SPEAK.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE I CAN SAY BESIDES WHAT HE DID.

I JUST KNOW THAT A YEAR AGO, A LADY AND A MAN CALLED ME.

I MET HIM IN TOWN, AND THEY WANTED TO EASE.

I THINK I FAIL I REMEMBER FOR SURE, BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS A FAIL.

WE TALKED ON AND I SAID, OKAY, WHAT DO I GET OUT OF IT? WELL, YOU JUST SIGN IT AND THAT'LL KEEP THE WATER OFF OF YOU.

I SAID, SO YOU WANT ME TO GIVE IT TO YOU? I SAID, NO, NOBODY GAVE IT TO ME. I WORKED FOR IT.

I SAID, SO I DON'T THINK I NEED TO GIVE IT TO ANYBODY.

I SAID, OKAY, WHAT HAPPENS IF I DON'T SIGN THIS AND YOU ALL GET THE EASEMENT.

WELL, THE WATER WILL JUST POUR DOWN ON YOU? IF YOU DON'T? I SAID, WELL, I GUESS IT'LL POUR DOWN ON ME BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GETTING IT WITHOUT PAYING ME FOR IT.

THAT'S ABOUT WHAT I GOT TO SAY.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> THANK YOU.

>> IS ANYBODY ELSE HERE FOR PUBLIC HEARING? I'M ABOUT THAT. THE TIME IS 8:04, AND THIS WILL ARE YOU COMING?

>> KEVIN, AGAIN, I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

I REQUEST AT THIS TIME FOR COUNSEL TO HAVE WHOEVER'S CONTROLLING THE OVERHEAD PROJECTOR HERE TO BRING UP THE CITY GIS MAP.

MAYBE I CAN CLARIFY A FEW THINGS JUST BECAUSE I'M A LITTLE I SENSE AS I LOOK UP HERE A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION BY SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID, AND I REALLY JUST WANT TO PROVIDE SOME CLARITY, BUT I BELIEVE THEY NEED YOUR DIRECTION TO BRING UP THE GIS MAP.

>> I DON'T THINK YOU DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THAT RIGHT NOW ON THAT MACHINE.

>> THE CITY GIS MAP THAT SHOWS THE FLOOD ZONES.

WE DON'T WE CAN'T PULL THAT UP.

MAKE IT. [OVERLAPPING].

>> YOU UNDERSTAND. YOU CAN TRY TO [OVERLAPPING].

>> IN ANY CASE, I THINK JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM HAS HEARD ONE THING OR ANOTHER ABOUT THIS PROJECT AND THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN NOTED BY MYSELF AND MULTIPLE OTHERS.

I DO WANT TO CLARIFY.

I'M SPEAKING AS A RESIDENT HERE.

[01:00:01]

I'M NOT SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OR MY POSITION AS CHAIR, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, THE FIRST TIME I SAW THIS PROJECT.

WELL, IT WAS ACTUALLY BEFORE I WAS ON THE COMMISSION, AND I SAW THAT WE MIGHT BE GETTING LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT STORE.

I THINK I DANCED.

>> I DO NOT WANT THIS PROJECT TO HAPPEN.

I THINK WE NEED TO BE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO ATTRACT COMMERCIAL, ESPECIALLY A HOME IMPROVEMENT STORE, PLEASE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

HOWEVER, I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE SEEN THAT WE'VE DONE A LOT OF POOR MANAGEMENT OF DRAINAGE ISSUES.

I THINK A LOT OF THAT'S BEEN POINTED OUT AS WE'VE, THROUGHOUT THE LAST YEAR, A LITTLE BIT OVER A YEAR THAT I'VE BEEN ON COMMISSION.

THIS ORIGINALLY CAME UP IN AUGUST IS WHEN WE VOTED ON IT.

I ASKED SOME QUESTIONS.

THE QUESTIONS I GOT WERE LATER FOUND OUT THAT THE ANSWERS THAT WERE RECEIVED, AND ALL OF THIS IS DONE IN OPEN MEETING, SO IT'S NOTHING THAT I KNOW SPECIFICALLY AS A COMMISSIONER.

BUT IT WAS NOTED THAT THE DRAINAGE WAS GOING TO BE ONE WAY, AND IT TURNED OUT THE DRAINAGE WAS ACTUALLY DESIGNED TO HAPPEN ANOTHER.

I'M NOT GOING INTO THE DETAILS HERE.

I CAN GO BACK AND WATCH THE AUGUST MEETING OF PLANNING AND ZONING TO SEE THOSE DETAILS.

BUT ULTIMATELY, THE PLAN WAS ALSO CHANGED BETWEEN THE TIME THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTED ON IT AND THE TIME THAT COUNCIL VOTED ON IT.

NOW, ONE MIGHT ARGUE THAT WHETHER THAT PRELIMINARY PLAT IS EVEN VALID NOW BECAUSE OF THAT BECAUSE WHAT WE VOTED ON IS NOT WHAT YOU VOTED ON.

IT'S BEEN CHANGED A FEW TIMES SINCE THEN.

NOW, IT'S NOT SHOWN ON HERE, SO THAT IS ALL FEMA FLOOD ZONE.

IS THAT LITTLE POINT THAT COMES OUT TOWARDS, I THINK YOU ALL KNOW WHERE PRINCETON TOWN CENTER IS THERE.

THAT LITTLE POINT THAT COMES OUT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE PEOPLE WHO JUST CAME UP HERE AND SPOKE.

IT'S FEMA FLOOD ZONE.

IF ANY OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE NOTED, AND IF ANY OF THE ISSUES THAT I ASSUME FOUND BY ENGINEERS ARE REAL ISSUES, THEN WHERE ARE WE DEALING WITH FEMA ON THIS? BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE IF WE'RE DUMPING IN FEMA FLOODPLAIN, THEN WE NEED TO BE GETTING PERMITS FOR THAT.

WE NEED TO NOTIFY FEMA.

THERE'S A LOT OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS THAT SAY THAT DICTATE THAT.

THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WHEN IT WAS ANSWERED BY THE DEVELOPER WAS NOT ANSWERED CLEARLY IN THE NEXT TIME THAT THEY CAME AND SPOKE.

THE DEVELOPER'S ENGINEER NOTED THAT HE MISSPOKE.

WELL, HE GOT MY VOTE BECAUSE OF HIS MISSPEAKING.

IN ANY CASE, THAT WATER, 93 ACRES OF DEVELOPMENT OR AT LEAST 66 ACRES OF DEVELOPMENT OF IMPERMEABLE SURFACE, IS GOING TO BE CATCHING WATER AND DUMPING IT RIGHT THROUGH THAT PROPERTY INTO FEMA FLOOD ZONE.

MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS FOR 42 YEARS SINCE BEFORE I WAS BORN, BEFORE I THINK AT LEAST A COUPLE OF ALL WERE BORN, BEFORE MOST OF ALL WERE IN PRISON, MAYBE ONE EXCEPTION.

I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG COUNCILMAN DAF HAS BEEN HERE, BUT IT'S PROBABLY BEEN LONGER THAN MOST ALL BEEN HERE.

WHAT'S OCCURRING HERE IS THEY'RE BEING TOLD, WELL, FIRST, THEY APP THEY DID THE RIGHT THING THEY APPROACHED THEM FOR AN EASEMENT. THAT WHAT THEY NEED TO DO.

BUT WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT? THEY CAME TO PLANNING AND ZONING AND SAID THEY DID NOT NEED AN EASEMENT.

I'VE HEARD BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY.

I'VE HEARD THAT WE DO NEED AN EASEMENT.

THEY DO NEED AN EASEMENT, BUT I'VE HEARD THAT THEY DON'T NEED AN EASEMENT.

THE LAST I HEARD FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IS THEY NEED AN EASEMENT.

HAVE THEY COME TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND REQUESTED TO RENEGOTIATE AN EASEMENT? I BELIEVE WHAT WAS NOTED BY ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS IS THAT THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DUMP THE WATER ON HER PROPERTY ANYWAY, IF SHE DID NOT DECIDE TO GET THE EASEMENT.

THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT THEY DECIDED TO DO AS OF FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR.

FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, THEY CAME AND WATCHED THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

THIS WAS NOTED CLEARLY, THEY CHOSE TO GO AHEAD WITHOUT THE EASEMENT,

[01:05:01]

DUMP THE WATER WITHOUT IT.

NO ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE PLAN.

EVERYBODY SAYS, I'VE HEARD RUMORS THAT WE'RE THE REASON THIS DEVELOPMENT IS NOT HAPPENING.

THEY HAVE TO MEET OUR ORDINANCES.

WELL, IF THEY'RE GOING TO MEET OUR ORDINANCES, THEY TRIED TO TELL US THEY HAVE SOME AWESOME, COMPLICATED-TO-EXPLAIN DRAINAGE PLAN.

THEY WERE GOING TO COME BACK.

WE TABLED IT, SAID, COME BACK, SHOW US.

THEY NEVER SHOWED UP. THEY PULLED THE REQUEST.

HERE WE ARE LOOKING AT A PET SHOP PERMIT.

NOBODY CARES, BUT I THINK IT'S A GREAT PLACE FOR A PET SHOP.

PLEASE. PET CO PES MART, WHATEVER YOU'RE GOING TO BRING THERE.

>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY.

>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE FOCUSING ON THAT.

I DO THINK A COUNCIL PERSON'S CONCERNS THAT WERE NOTED ABOUT THE PET SHOP, WITH THE FACT THAT THAT IS A VESTING DOCUMENT.

I'VE DONE A LOT OF LOOKING INTO THIS.

IT WAS NOT EXPLAINED TO US VERY WELL.

IT WASN'T EXPLAINED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.

I HAD TO FIND OUT MYSELF AFTERWARD THAT WHAT SECTION CHAPTER 245, THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SAYS ON THIS.

THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTION HERE.

I'LL JUST SAY, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS GOING TO CARE ABOUT A PET SHOP.

RIGHT NOW, I THINK WHAT WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE POTENTIAL LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OR THE POTENTIAL FOR LITIGATION IF WE GO AHEAD AND VEST THIS PROPERTY AT THIS POINT IN TIME BY GRANTING THIS PERMIT WHEN THEY CAN COME BACK ANYTIME.

I DOUBT ANYBODY'S GOING TO BADY.

I DON'T SEE THE PURPOSE AND AT THIS POINT IN TIME TO HAVE ANY POTENTIAL QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE CITY IS GOING TO DEAL WITH LITIGATION, TRYING TO ENFORCE OUR OWN ORDINANCES TO GET THE DEVELOPMENT DONE RIGHT.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM HERE OR LATER.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MR. HASS, IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT EASEMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED AT THIS TIME?

>> I'M SORRY.

>> IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT EASEMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED AT THIS TIME?

>> THE EASEMENT, MY OPINION DOES NOT MATTER.

I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, BUT IT'S BEEN NOTED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, WHICH THEY GET THEIR DIRECTION FROM CITY ENGINEERS.

CITY ENGINEERS ARE GOING TO REQUIRE AN EASEMENT THERE.

NOW, WE'RE HERE DECIDING ON A PET SHOP, BUT THE OWNERS THAT PROPERTY IS A LYNCHPIN FOR DRAINAGE.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET THIS PROJECT DONE WITHOUT DEALING WITH THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SITTING BEHIND ME.

WHY HAVE THEY APPROACHED THEM? IF THEY'RE SERIOUS BACK IN THIS PROJECT DONE? I WANT MY LOWE'S OR HOME DEPOT, WHATEVER IS GOING TO BE THERE.

I WANT IT QUICKLY. WHY ARE THEY NOT MOVING FORWARD ON THIS? Y'ALL SHOULD BE ASKING QUESTIONS.

>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE ONE NOTE, AND I MAY BE WRONG ON THIS, BUT I HAVE LIVED HERE MANY YEARS SINCE 1982 AND WORKED FOR COLLIN COUNTY.

TO MY KNOWLEDGE, TIKI CREEK AND ALL THE OTHER CREEKS AROUND HERE ALL FLOW TOWARD LAKE LAVON, THAT FLOWS SOUTH.

THIS PROPERTY IS SOUTH OF GREEN ACRES.

>> SOUTH OF WHAT?

>> IS THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING IS SOUTH OF GREEN ACRES? THE WATER WOULD BE FLOWING BACK TO THE NORTH.

>> FLOWS TO THE NORTH TO TIKI CREEK TRIBUTARY.

>> I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE BECAUSE I'VE SEEN THIS USED TO BE FIELD AND PROPERTY AND STUFF AND FARMED AND ALL THAT, AND I'VE KNOWN HOW IT FLOWS AND NOW, IF WE HAVE A 100-YEAR FLOOD OR A 500-YEAR FLOOD, YES, BECAUSE THAT WOULD IMPACT EVERYONE.

WHERE ALL THAT DRAINAGE IS COMING FROM IS UP NORTH.

THE DRAINAGE OF TIKI CREEK AND CREEK THROUGH THERE.

IT ALL COMES FROM THE NORTH.

IT'S DOESN'T COME FROM THE SOUTH OF 380.

>> CORRECT. IF I HAD A LASER POINTER OR SOMETHING, I COULD POINT IT OUT MUCH BETTER.

BUT THERE'S LIKE A GIANT.

WE DON'T AND THE CONTOUR MAP WOULD MAKE IT MUCH MORE CLEAR.

>> IT WOULD MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER IF YOU SEE THE CONTOUR IN IT.

[01:10:03]

BUT I'VE BEEN AROUND HERE.

AS FAR AS SOMEONE GOING AND TRYING TO GET AN EASEMENT AND THEN THREATENING THEM LIKE THAT, I WOULD HOPE THAT THE CITY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

THAT SOUNDS LIKE THAT WOULD BE A DEVELOPER COMING THERE, WANTING TO EITHER BUY THE PROPERTY AND FOR WHATEVER MEANS AND EVERYTHING.

BUT I WOULD NOT THINK THE CITY WOULD DO THAT.

BUT I'D ALSO THINK THAT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE FLOW IS AND THE WAY THEY'RE GOING TO BE DEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE PROPERTY DRAINAGE THAT WILL ACTUALLY FLOW THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO AND MAKE IT GO INTO THE DRAIN OR THE NATURAL FLOW OF TIKI CREEK IN THAT AREA OVER THERE.

>> A FEW THINGS TO NOTE: THAT ANYTIME YOU HAVE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, YOU'RE GOING TO INCREASE RUNOFF.

THE MAIN LAWS THAT THEY NEED TO COMPLY BY IS NUMBER 1, DON'T INCREASE SEDIMENTATION.

NUMBER 2, DON'T INCREASE THE FLOW RATE.

THEN YOU HAVE A WHOLE LOT MORE LAWS THAT YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH DUMPING INTO A FEMA FLOODPLAIN.

NOW, WE DON'T HAVE OUR OWN FLOODPLAINS MAPPED ON HERE, THAT'S A FEMA FLOODPLAIN, AND IT DOES RUN THROUGH THIS AREA.

WE'RE DUMPING DIRECTLY INTO FEMA FLOODPLAIN.

THAT'S 93 ACRES, 66 ACRES, SPECIFIC TO THIS SUP, WHICH ARE AND THEN SOME MORE, AND IT DOES FLOW NORTHWARD FROM THIS ENTIRE AREA THROUGH THEIR PROPERTY INTO THE CREEK.

THEN NORTHWEST OF OF THE DEVELOPMENT, ALSO MORE THERE.

IT'S SO MUCH EASIER TO SEE IN A CONTOUR MAP, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO SEND IT TO YOU.

I NOTED THIS, MAPPED IT OUT AND SENT IT TO MAYOR CHACON BETWEEN THE TIME THAT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTED ON THIS AND THE TIME THAT COUNCIL ORIGINALLY VOTED ON IT BACK IN AUGUST, SEPTEMBER.

I THINK WE VOTED IN AUGUST Y'ALL SEPTEMBER.

IN ANY CASE, I MAPPED IT OUT THEN, AND I CAN MAP IT OUT AGAIN AND SEND IT TO YOU BECAUSE I HAD CONCERNS WAY BACK THEN.

CLEARLY, THE ENGINEERS HAVE CONCERNS, TOO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE REQUIRED THAT THEY GET THAT THEY BUY AN EASEMENT.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU NOR I THINK, THE PROFESSIONALS HAVE SAID THAT THEY NEED AN EASEMENT.

BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE DRAINAGE ISSUES THERE, THEY'RE GOING TO INCREASE THE FLOOD THEY'RE DUMPING INTO A FEMA FLOODPLAIN, WHICH BEYOND CITY ORDINANCES, THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THEM, AND I'VE SEEN NOTHING, HEARD NOTHING ABOUT DEALING WITH FEMA.

HONESTLY, THIS IS AN AREA THAT THEY GOT REALLY LUCKY.

IF YOU LOOK AT IT ON A MAP AND ZOOM IN, THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN JUST TOUCHES THE PROPERTY, JUST TO THE NORTH OF IT.

IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE IT'S BEEN UPDATED, AND I HAVE A FEELING THAT IF FEMA COMES AND UPDATES THAT MAP BEFORE, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S PART OF THE VESTING PROCESS.

BUT IF FEMA COMES UPDATES THEIR MAP, I HAVE A FEELING IT'S GOING TO BE ENCROACHING ONTO THIS DEVELOPMENT AND IS GOING TO AFFECT THEM A LOT WORSE.

IF WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT FLOODING AND DRAINAGE, THAT MIGHT BE A REASON TO EITHER LOOK AT IT, IF WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY OR FOR THEM TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON IT AND TALK TO THESE PROPERTY OWNERS IF THEY WANT TO PURCHASE AN EASEMENT.

IN ANY CASE, IF WE REALLY WANT TO DIVE DEEPER INTO THIS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE 2018 DRAINAGE MAP.

>> KEVIN, WE'RE GOING TO PROBABLY. HAVE YOU DONE WHAT YOUR QUESTIONS?

>> YEAH.

>> WE'RE GOOD TO GO.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE BIT VERBOSE.

HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THIS ANYMORE.

REALLY WANT TO SEE THIS DEVELOPMENT GET DONE.

JUST DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS INFRINGED UPON IN DOING SO. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. I HAVE THE DEVELOPER COME AND SPEAK REAL QUICK.

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SPEAK COME.

>> THERE YOU GO. YOU GUYS HAVE HAD ME UP HERE A COUPLE OF TIMES.

KEVIN SMART, BUT HE'S NOT A HYDROLOGIST.

MANY OF THE THINGS HE WAS SAYING ARE JUST NOT CORRECT.

LET'S DO THE FIRST ONE. WE'RE TRYING TO DO A PETSMART.

THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR.

WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DO ANYTHING THAT IS GETTING AHEAD OF OUR PLAN OR SITE PLAN APPROVAL, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY SUBMITTED BY THE WAY.

BUT WE HAVE TO COME BACK IN BECAUSE WE ARE MAKING SOME CHANGES.

YOU GUYS KNOW BETTER THAN ANYBODY.

THERE ARE SOME CHANGES GOING ON AROUND ME.

THERE ARE SOME CHANGES GOING ON WITH TENANTS.

WE'RE WORKING NOW TO ADD A 100,000 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE.

WE ARE TAKING SOME TIME AND TAKING A STEP BACK.

WE'RE KEEPING MANY OF THE TENANTS WE HAD BEFORE, THE RESTAURANTS,

[01:15:03]

BUT WE'RE TRYING TO ADD A GROCERY COMPONENT, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT I PERSONALLY THINK IS MISSING FROM THE TOWN, AND WE'RE TRYING TO GET THAT DONE.

WE'VE BEEN IN BEFORE, AND WE USE KIMLEY-HORN.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A GREAT THING OR A BAD THING, BUT THE YOUNG MAN WHO REPS ME AS A REALLY SMART ENGINEER.

WE USE ANOTHER AREA INSIDE KIMLEY-HORN THAT DOES NOTHING BUT HYDROLOGY.

THEY DO WETLANDS DELINEATION REPORTS, WHICH, BY THE WAY, WE HAD ONE DONE ON THIS, AND WE'RE NOT IMPOSING OR DUMPING ANYTHING INTO THE FLOODPLAIN.

WE DID A WETLANDS MANAGEMENT STUDY. WE DON'T.

THOSE THINGS HAVE NOT ENCROACHED UP TO THE TOP EDGE OF OUR PROPERTY.

HAPPY TO SHARE ALL THAT.

WE'VE ALREADY SHARED A LOT OF IT WITH THE CITY.

I'M NOT SURE WHERE SOME OF THESE COMMENTS ARE COMING FROM.

>> WE DID APPROACH THE YOUNG LADY BACK HERE, AND I HAD DANIEL KAUFMAN, WHO SOME OF YOU KNOW, WE APPROACHED HER, AND THAT WAS AT THE INITIAL PHASE OF OUR DEVELOPMENT.

PARTICULARLY, WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT HOW WE WERE GOING TO HANDLE THE WATER BECAUSE THERE IS A PROBLEM BACK THERE.

THIS YOUNG MAN IS CORRECT.

WHEN IT RAINS, IT POURS, BUT IT GOES RIGHT ONTO HIS PROPERTY ANYWAY.

STATE LAW SAYS THAT YOU CANNOT PUT ANY MORE WATER IN A DEVELOPED STATE ON YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY THAN WHAT WAS BEFORE.

THAT'S WHY WE BUILD PONDS.

THAT'S WHY WE DO A GREAT BIG DRAINAGE SYSTEM UNDERGROUND SO THAT WATER THAT COMES OFF THE BUILDINGS, COMES OFF THE PARKING LOT, COMES OFF THESE IMPERVIOUS SURFACES.

IT GOES INTO THE PIPES, AND THE OTHER THING, YOU DON'T WANT THE FLOW OF THE WATER COMING OUT TO BE SO FAST THAT IT STARTS ERODING THINGS.

YOU DON'T WANT IT TO DAMAGE ANYTHING.

YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL WITH HOW MUCH WATER YOU CREATE AND HOW THAT WATER GETS TO ITS END POINT.

WE'RE TAKING IT TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY IN A SERIES OF PIPES, TAKING IT INTO A POND.

THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE, WE HEARD THAT THERE WAS SOME CONCERN THAT THE PREVIOUS DRAINAGE PLAN THAT WE HAD SUBMITTED MAYBE DIDN'T MEET WHAT THEY WANTED.

WE HAVE CREATED ANOTHER PLAN, WHICH WE'LL SOON FILE THAT CREATES A BIGGER POND.

THEN OUT OF THAT POND, IT LEAKS.

THINK OF IT AS A BATHTUB.

SINCE I CAN'T PUT ANY WATER ON MY NEIGHBOR AT ANY FASTER RATE THAN IN THE UNDEVELOPED STATE, THINK OF IT AS A BATHTUB.

ALL THAT WATER GOES INTO THE BATHTUB FAST, BUT THEN THAT WATER TRICKLES OUT OF THE BATHTUB AT THE SAME RATE THE WHOLE TIME.

IT DOESN'T JUST CRASH INTO IT AND CRASH OVER THE SIDES.

YOU HAVE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAKING SURE THAT YOU HAVE ENOUGH CAPACITY FOR CERTAIN RAIN EVENTS.

YOU ALSO HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE VELOCITY THAT THAT WATER IS GOING TO HIT THAT POND, NOT ONLY THE AMOUNT, BUT THE VELOCITY.

WE USE KIMLEY-HORN AND WE TAKE GREAT CARE TO DO DRAINAGE RIGHT.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO DESTROY OUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

WE'VE NEVER DONE IT, WE NEVER WILL.

NOW, WE DID APPROACH THEM, AND WE DID OFFER $50,000.

HAPPY TO SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT THAT SAYS THAT WE DID OFFER THEM $50,000.

WE ALSO OFFERED THROUGH DANIEL KAUFMAN, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO DO AN AFFIDAVIT FOR THAT.

SHE WILL BE HAPPY TO COME HERE AND TELL YOU HERSELF.

WE THEN OFFERED TO ALSO DO SOME DRIVEWAY REPAIRS FOR THEM BECAUSE HER DRIVEWAY WAS IN DISARRAY.

IT WAS OBVIOUS, IT HAD EROSION, IT WAS CRUMBLING, AND WE OFFERED TO DO SOME DRIVEWAY REPAIRS FOR HER THAT WHEN WE WERE PAVING OUR PROJECT, WE WOULD GO IN AND WE WOULD FREE GRATIS, MAKE SOME DRIVEWAY REPAIRS TO HER.

NOW, I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT GOT COMMUNICATED, BUT I TRUST DANIEL KAUFMAN.

YOU'VE WORKED WITH HER FOR TWO YEARS NOW.

SHE USED TO BE AT KROGER AND THEIR HEAD REAL ESTATE MANAGER.

SHE'S A VERY DECENT HONEST PERSON, AND I TOLD HER WHAT TO DO, AND I KNOW SHE DID IT.

THAT STILL STANDS.

WE JUST NEVER HEARD ANYTHING BACK.

THIS ISSUE ABOUT THE EASEMENT, WHETHER WE NEED ONE, WE DON'T NEED ONE, THAT'S FOR THE DRAINAGE ENGINEERS TO DECIDE.

THAT IS FOR THE CITY TO WORK WITH KIMLEY-HORN AND CRAIG AND EVERYBODY ELSE ON STAFF TO WORK AND DECIDE IF WHAT WE'VE SUBMITTED MEETS THEIR REQUIREMENT.

THAT'S THE SAME THING WE WOULD DO ANYWHERE.

WE DON'T WANT TO CAUSE A PROBLEM, WE WANT TO FIX THE PROBLEM, AND WE CAN.

I'M NOT SURE WHERE SOME OF THIS CAME FROM.

KEVIN SMART, BUT HE'S NOT A HYDROLOGIST.

HE'S NOT A POND ENGINEER, BUT HE'S WELCOME TO SIT IN OUR MEETINGS GOING FORWARD IF HE HAS ANY QUESTIONS.

WE'RE NOT HIDING ANYTHING.

RATHER THAN GET TALKED ABOUT IN A PUBLIC FORUM ABOUT WHAT WE'RE NOT DOING, I'M OPEN TO ANYONE MEETING WITH US, AND WE'LL TAKE AS MUCH TIME AS WE CAN TO SHOW HIM WHAT WE'RE DOING, BECAUSE WE WANT TO DO IT RIGHT.

WE'LL HEAR ANYBODY'S CONCERN.

[01:20:02]

IT'S PETSMART. IT'S NOTHING ELSE, IF YOU WANT IT, WE'D LOVE TO HAVE THEM.

I THINK YOU'LL LIKE THEM.

WHEN MY KIDS WERE LITTLE, THERE WERE TWO FAVORITE STORES FOR ME WHEN THEIR MOM SAID, TAKE THEM.

I TOOK THEM TO DOLLAR TREE, AND I TAKE THEM TO PETSMART, BECAUSE IT WAS FREE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY SELL ANYMORE.

I THINK THEY SELL TURTLES, AND I THINK THEY SELL A FEW THINGS.

THEY DON'T DO THE DOGS ON THE PARKING LOT, GIVING PUPPIES AWAY ANYMORE.

IT'S ALL SELF CONTAINED INSIDE THE STORE.

BUT THERE'S A PETSMART IN MCKINNEY, AND THERE'S A PETSMART GOING IN ANNA AND EVERYWHERE ELSE YOU LOOK, SO THEY WANT TO BE HERE.

IF YOU WANT THEM, GREAT, IF YOU DON'T, THEN WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT, TOO.

WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO DO IS GET HIJACKED INTO SOMETHING THAT'S JUST NOT TRUE VERSUS WHAT WE'RE WILLING TO DO, WHICH IS A HECK OF A LOT.

WE'LL MEET WITH ANYBODY, DO ANYTHING.

WE'LL SHOW OUR SCIENCE.

WE'RE ALL ABOUT FACTS.

THE 50,000 STILL STANDS.

IT WAS WHAT I OFFERED FROM THE DAY, WE WENT OVER THERE TO SEND DANIEL TO MEET HER.

IF SHE WANTS HER DRIVEWAY FIXED, WE'LL DO THAT TOO. WE'RE NOT LIARS.

I ALWAYS DO WHAT I SAY I'M GOING TO DO.

YOU CAN PASS THIS PLAN AROUND IT'S NOT PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, BUT THIS IS THE NEW PLAN.

THIS IS WHY [INAUDIBLE].

THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DO, JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO ADD GROCERY STORE, BUT WE DO.

>> THANK YOU. YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS I WAS GOING TO ASK.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

BECAUSE I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE NOT DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB IN ASKING THEM ANYWAY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE, MAYOR?

>> NO.

>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

>> IN THIS PLAN, YOU DO KNOW WHERE IT'S GOING TO GO, WHICH BUILDING?

>> WE DO ON THAT ONE, YES.

IT JUST CAME ABOUT BECAUSE WE HAD TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE GROCERY STORE WAS GOING TO GO.

>> DO YOU ACCEPT A CONDITION TO THE SUP BINDING IT TO THAT SPECIFIC LOT AND LOCATION SINCE YOU'VE ALREADY IDENTIFIED?

>> LET'S DISCUSS THIS AFTER WE CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> I THINK YOU'VE REACHED OUT TO US, AND YOU WANT TO HAVE A PRIVATE SESSION TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING, AND WE AGREED THAT WE WOULD DO SO. HAPPY TO DO SO.

HAPPY TO EXPLAIN HOW RETAIL WORKS.

I'VE DONE IT A LONG TIME, AS YOU CAN TELL I'M OLD.

WE DO A LOT OF PROJECTS IN A LOT OF PLACES, MCKINNEY, ANNA, FLOWER MOUND.

I CAN EXPLAIN TO YOU, SO MAYBE SOME OF THE CONCERNS PEOPLE HAVE ARE LAYED ABOUT HOW WE DO IT, WHY WE DO IT, AND MAYBE WHEN WE'RE GOING TO DO IT.

BUT THAT LOCATION IS GENERALLY WITHIN 100 FEET OF WHERE THAT STORE IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO.

BUT I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO THE MAYOR AND EVERYBODY ELSE TO DECIDE HOW WE DOCUMENT IT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. I GOT TO GET KEN FIRST, KEN.

JUST COME ON.

>> KEN SIEGMAN, 512 BUCKEYE AVENUE.

I'VE FOLLOWED THIS BECAUSE I KEEP UP WITH THE P&Z MEETINGS, AND I SAW IT GOING THROUGH P&Z.

ONE THING I'D LIKE TO SAY IS AS A CITY AS A COUNCIL, AND AS A CITY OVERSIGHT OF CONSTRUCTION IN THIS CITY, AS FAR AS RESIDENTS ARE CONCERNED, HAVE BLOWN IT.

WE'VE MADE A LOT OF MISTAKES IN THE PAST, AND IT'S TIME WE NEED TO DO BETTER.

IF THAT WAS FIVE RESIDENTS OR 10 RESIDENTS, I DON'T THINK WE'D BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION.

BUT FOR SOME REASON, THIS DEVELOPMENT IS BEING PUSHED HARD.

I HEAR A LOT OF TALK ABOUT WE NEED JOBS HERE.

WE NEED BUSINESS, WE NEED JOBS.

AS THE FASTEST GROWING CITY IN THE COUNTRY, WE HAVE JOBS.

WE ARE ALSO THE EPICENTER OF ONE OF THE BIGGEST INDUSTRIES IN THE COUNTRY, IN THE METROPLEX, AND THAT'S HOME BUILDING.

WE SHOULD BE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO BE MAKING SURE WE'RE DELIVERING QUALITY PRODUCTS, QUALITY HOMES, QUALITY CITY TO PEOPLE MOVING HERE.

DEVELOPERS AREN'T GOING TO LIVE HERE. THEY'RE GOING TO COME IN.

[01:25:01]

THEY'RE GOING TO BE HERE A FEW YEARS AND DELIVER THESE HOMES, AND THEY'RE GONE.

IT'S THE CONDITIONAL PERMITTING HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT IN THE PAST.

I KNOW CHRISTINA, YOU HAD SAID, YOU DIDN'T WANT ANY MORE CONDITIONAL PERMITTING.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE EVEN TALKING ABOUT CONDITIONAL PERMITTING ANYMORE.

TO ME, THE WAY THIS IS BEING PUSHED, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GIVING THE DEVELOPER A HOLD INTO THE DEVELOPMENT IS WHAT IT'S DOING.

KEVIN TALKED ABOUT GOING THROUGH P&Z, BUT I KNOW THAT THE LAST TIME IT WENT THROUGH P&Z, AND THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE TALKING ABOUT LANDSCAPING AND SEVERAL THINGS, AND THEY BROUGHT UP DRAINAGE AND THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE A DRAINAGE PLAN, THAT IT HAD CHANGED SEVERAL TIMES.

THE PLAN HAD CHANGED FROM WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PRESENTED.

ALL THAT LANDSCAPING TALK GOT DROPPED, AND THEY WERE GOING TO COME BACK AND PRESENT THEIR DRAINAGE PLAN, AND THEY DIDN'T, JUST LIKE KEVIN SAID. THEY DIDN'T COME BACK.

KEVIN ARGUED THAT ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUIRES IT TO GO THROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING AGAIN, BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO SEE THAT THE DRAINAGE WAS DONE PROPERLY.

THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRESSURED THE P&Z TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, CONDITIONAL UPON THEM FIGURING OUT THE DRAINAGE.

THEY SAID THAT THEY APPROVED IT.

THEY SAID THAT LEGAL APPROVED IT, AND THEY PUSHED THEM TO APPROVED THE PLENARY PLATE CONDITIONALLY BASED ON THEM GETTING THE DRAINAGE FIGURED OUT.

BUT IT WAS A MINOR CHANGE IN THE PLAT.

IT SHOULD HAVE NEVER GONE FORWARD.

IT SHOULD HAVE HAD TO GO BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING FOR THE DRAINAGE TO BE APPROVED.

I DID GO OUT THERE AND LOOK AT THAT PROPERTY WHEN I SAW THIS GOING ON, AND THAT WATER DOES DEFINITELY FLOW RIGHT ONTO THAT LITTLE POND THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THIS GENTLEMAN SAID THAT IT WAS ABOUT AN ACRE OF LAND THAT POND.

HOW MANY OF YOU WOULD SELL A PIECE OF PRIME ACREAGE IN THE WAY OF THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR $50,000? IF YOU WERE SITTING ON THAT LAND, WOULD YOU SELL IT FOR 50,000? I'VE SEEN ACRES GOING FOR A MILLION DOLLARS PLACES AROUND HERE.

CLOSE TO MELISSA, A MILLION DOLLARS; 100,000, 300,000, 50,000 IS AN INSULT.

THESE PEOPLE SAY THEY WERE NEVER OFFERED. I'D LIKE TO SEE THE OFFER.

I'D LIKE TO SEE IT IN WRITING. ASK FOR IT.

HAVE THEM SUBMIT THE WRITTEN OFFER.

IF THEY MADE A WRITTEN OFFER, SHOW IT.

PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING.

PROTECT OUR CITY. NOW, TODAY, IN ALL COMPLIANCE IN THE FUTURE, BUILDING PERMITS, INSPECTIONS, EVERYTHING.

DELIVER QUALITY HOMES IN A QUALITY CITY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ATTORNEY LOWRY. WOULD YOU EXPLAIN FOR US? WE'VE HEARD QUITE A BIT ABOUT EASEMENTS.

AS I'VE READ AND LOOKED AT THOSE, I SEE THAT LEGALLY THEY ARE LIKE THREE DIFFERENT TYPES.

THERE'S UTILITY, PUBLIC, AND PRIVATE.

CAN YOU DISCUSS THE EASEMENT THAT WOULD BE INDICATED FOR THIS SITUATION AND GIVE US AN IDEA OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN?

>> LET ME CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST.

WE PROBABLY NEED TO SET UP A MEETING AFTER.

BUT GRANT, CAN I SPEAK AGAIN? BECAUSE SHE WANTS TO SPEAK AGAIN.

YOU CAN REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND LET WHOEVER SPEAK.

>> IT'S STILL OPEN.

>> IT'S SILL OPEN.

I'M GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION REAL QUICK.

THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION, AND A LOT OF CONCERNS RAISED.

I WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE WE'RE ON TASK AND ON TOPIC FOR THE THING AT HAND.

WHAT'S BEFORE US TONIGHT IS AN SUP, A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A PET SHOP ON 66 ACRES AND ANY CONDITIONS THAT YOU PLACE IN THE SUP, PLACING CONDITIONS IN AN SUP OR EXPIRATION, ANYTHING LIKE THAT'S COMMONPLACE.

THE ZONING ITSELF, SO THE ABILITY TO HAVE ONE PET SHOP ON THE 66 ACRES WILL VEST WITH THE LAND, BUT NOTHING ELSE.

THEY STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS, ETC.

WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT'S DONE.

THEN, AS WAS DISCUSSED TONIGHT,

[01:30:03]

IF THAT EASEMENT IS NECESSARY BASED ON THE DRAINAGE PLAN, THEN THE DEVELOPER WILL HAVE TO ACQUIRE THAT EASEMENT.

I THINK WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE BIT OFF TOPIC.

THESE ARE ALL VALID CONCERNS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED AT SOME POINT, BUT TONIGHT, IT'S JUST FOR ADDING AN ADDITIONAL LAYER OF ZONING ON THE PROPERTY THAT WILL VEST AS BEING ONE PET SHOP ON THE 66 ACRES.

IF THAT'S WHAT THE ULTIMATE MOTION OF COUNCIL IS, AND IF YOU WANT TO PUT ANY ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON THERE.

I THINK AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE P&Z MADE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THERE BE ONE PET SHOP PER 66 ACRES AND THAT THE SUP BE TIED TO SPECIFIC SUITE ONCE THE SUITE IS IDENTIFIED.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ON TOPIC.

LIKE I SAID, ALL GOOD DISCUSSIONS, BUT FOR THE INTEREST OF TIME, MAKE SURE WE'RE ON TOPIC.

>> IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK, I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE LIKE THE NEGOTIATION OR SOMEBODY WHO DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING.

IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK MORE ABOUT THAT SUP, WE CAN SPEAK MORE ABOUT THAT.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE STATEMENT THAT I'VE HEARD FROM TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE NOW THAT WE HAVE BEEN OFFERED $50,000.

WE HAVE NOT BEEN OFFERED $50,000.

I WANT TO SEE THE RECORDS FOR THAT.

BECAUSE WE WERE OFFERED A DRIVEWAY, YES.

BUT WE'VE NEVER EVEN SEEN THAT HAPPEN.

BUT TO OFFER US $50,000 IS NOT ENOUGH MONEY ANYWAY.

BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN NO RECORDS OF IT.

>> I UNDERSTAND.

>> THAT'S WHAT I NEED, I WANT TO SEE RECORDS. THANK YOU, SIR.

>> AT THIS TIME, THE TIME IS 8:37, THIS WILL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

AT THIS TIME, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, ITEM L1 ON THE AGENDA.

I DON'T AGREE WITH COMING BACK WITH THE SPECIFIC SUITE NUMBER.

I THINK THIS IS JUST FOR THE GENERAL 66 ACRE TRACK ONE PET SHOP UNDER THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

>> I SECOND.

>> MOTION PASSES 5-2.

[INAUDIBLE].

>> THIS WILL TAKE US TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA.

[H2. 2025-202 Consider approving a request from HE MM LAND LP for final plat approval for a property being a 9.808 acre tract of land situated in the David Cherry Survey, Abstract No. 166, City of Princeton, Collin County, Texas; and take appropriate action.]

MS. COOK, WE START WITH H2 FROM THE CONSENT.

>> H2 2025-202, CONSIDER APPROVING A REQUEST FROM HEM M LAND LP FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR A PROPERTY BEING A 9.808-ACRE TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE DAVID CHERRY SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 166, CITY OF PRINCETON.

TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION, MR. FISHER.

>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS CRAIG FISHER.

I'M THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THIS REQUEST IS FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR A DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MONTE CARLO BOULEVARD, A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE WHITE WING TRAILS SUBDIVISION.

THIS PROPERTY IS PART OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WAS APPROVED PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE MORATORIUM.

THIS PROPERTY IS EXEMPT FROM THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING MORATORIUM.

THIS DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED, AND ALL OF THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE HAS BEEN INSPECTED BY THE CITY STAFF AND THE CITY ENGINEER.

ALL ITEMS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.

THE DEVELOPMENT COMPLIES WITH CITY REGULATION, AND THIS ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM ON JULY 21ST, 2025.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM IS ALSO HERE.

>> DID BRENT WANT TO SPEAK AT ALL? NO. IF YOU NEED TO SPEAK, THEN IT'S FINE.

AT THIS TIME, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM H2.

>> I'LL SECOND IT.

[01:35:01]

>> MOTION PASSES 7-0.

THIS WILL TAKE US TO OUR M1, MS. COOK.

[M1. ORD-2025-08-11-01 Consider approving Ordinance No. 2025-08-11-01, Establishing the 2025 Certified Appraisal Roll; and take appropriate action. Presented by Kelly Wilson, Chief Financial Officer.]

>> CONSIDER APPROVING ORDINANCE NUMBER 202-508-1101, STEPS IN THE 2025, CERTIFIES THE APPRAISAL ROLL, TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION PRESENTED BY KELLY WILSON, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

TONIGHT, BEFORE YOU IS THE SUBMISSION OF OUR 2025 CERTIFIED APPRAISAL ROLL FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON.

AS ALL MUNICIPALITIES ACROSS THE STATE OF TEXAS ARE GETTING THEIR CERTIFIED ROLLS, THIS HELPS PREPARE THE TAX RATE AND IDENTIFY THE REVENUE STREAM THAT COMES FROM THAT, AS WELL AS PREPARING YOUR PROPOSED BUDGET.

THERE IS SOME LEGAL REQUIREMENTS WHERE THE PROPERTY IS ASSESSED AS OF JANUARY 1 EACH YEAR BY THE COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND REFLECTS THE VALUE FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR.

UNDER TEXAS TAX CODE 26.04, THE CERTIFIED APPRAISAL ROLL MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE GOVERNING BODY BY AUGUST 1ST OR SOON THEREAFTER, AND THE ROLL MUST BE UNDER 5% PROTEST STATE FOR IT TO BECOME A CERTIFIED TAX ROLL.

WHY DOES THE APPRAISAL ROLL MATTER? IT PROVIDES THIS COMPOSITION OF WHAT YOUR CITY LOOKS LIKE.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THE CITY OF PRINCETON IS MAJORITY RESIDENTIAL.

WE'RE AT 86% OF THE TAX ROLL AS A RESIDENTIAL STATUS, 7% COMMERCIAL, ALMOST 7%, MULTI-FAMILY OF ALMOST SIX, AND THEN OTHER, AND OUR PROTEST STATE IS JUST UNDER 5%.

HERE'S JUST SOME DATA POINTS.

WHEN IT COMES TO OUR 2025 TAX ROLL ASSESSED VALUES COMPARED TO '24.

THE CERTIFIED TAXABLE VALUE BEFORE FREEZE, WE'RE SHOWING A 19.7% INCREASE TO THE 4.7 BILLION APPRAISED ROLL, AND THEN THE CERTIFIED TAXABLE VALUE AFTER THE FREEZE ADJUSTMENT IS 4.5 BILLION, OR ALMOST 20% INCREASE.

ALSO PROVIDING YOU WITH THE MEDIAN TAXABLE HOME VALUE, WE'RE SEEING THAT THE INCREASE IS LESS THAN 1%.

HERE'S THE CALENDAR AS WE GO FORWARD.

WE DID GET THE CERTIFIED APPRAISAL FROM THE CHIEF APPRAISER'S OFFICE ON JULY 25TH.

WE'RE HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE TAX ROLL THAT MUST BE APPROVED BY COUNCIL.

THEN WE WILL ALSO BE ASKING FOR COUNCIL TO SET THE PROPOSED TAX RATE, AS WELL AS SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS WILL ALL BE POSTED IN THE NEWSPAPER AS RECORDED AS REQUIRED BY LAW.

THEN I MENTIONED THE PUBLIC HEARING WE'RE SUGGESTING AS PUBLIC SEPTEMBER THE 8TH, AS WELL AS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE TAX RATE AND THE BUDGET, AND ADOPTING THE BUDGET AND THE TAX RATE THE SAME NIGHT.

AGAIN, NEXT STEPS IS, AGAIN, FORMALLY ADOPTING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2025-08-11-01, ACCEPTING THE 25 CERTIFIED APPRAISAL ROLL FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON.

THEN OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM WILL BE TO SET THE '25 TAX RATE.

I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

>> YOUR HONOR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 2025-8-11-01 ESTABLISHES THE 2025 CERTIFIED APPRAISAL ROLL.

>> I SECOND.

>> MOTION PASSES 7-0.

YOU ALSO NEED US TO SET THAT SEPTEMBER DATE, OR THAT'S A PART OF IT?

>> THAT'S YOUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM.

>> WE'LL MOVE TO M2, MS. COOK.

>> M2, CONSIDER APPROVING RESOLUTION 2025-08-11R,

[M2. 2025-08-11-R Consider approving Resolution No. 2025-08-11-R, Setting the Proposed Tax Rate and Establishing Public Hearing Date; and take appropriate action. Presented by Kelly Wilson, Chief Financial Officer.]

SETTING THE PROPOSED TAX RATE AND ESTABLISHING PUBLIC HEARING DATE, AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION PRESENTED BY KELLY WILSON.

>> THANK YOU AGAIN. YES, TONIGHT, WE ARE ASKING FOR YOU TO SET THE TAX RATE FOR 2025, AS WELL AS SCHEDULING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE SUBMISSION OF OUR PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2025/'26, WHICH YOU ALL HAVE ON YOUR DESKS TONIGHT.

AGAIN, TONIGHT, OFFICIALLY SETTING THE TAX RATE, WHICH TRIGGERS A LOT OF LEGAL NOTICES IN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE ARE PROPOSING A TAX RATE THAT HAS BEEN THE SAME FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS OF 440226.

THERE'S ALSO SOME INFORMATION HERE AS TO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, WHICH IS 42 CENTS, AND THEN THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE, WHICH IS THE 44 CENTS.

AGAIN, LIKE I MENTIONED,

[01:40:02]

THE BUDGET HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO COUNCIL, AS WELL AS FILED WITH THE CITY SECRETARY AND POSTED ON OUR WEB PAGE.

ALL MEETING, ALL TRANSPARENCY, AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. HOW DID WE GET HERE? THERE'S BEEN MANY MEETINGS THAT WE'VE HAD TO CONFER WITH COUNCIL, MAKE SURE WE'RE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION WITH THE PROPOSED BUDGET, AS WELL AS THE TAX RATE.

WE HAD A STRATEGIC PLANNING RETREAT, MAY THE 9TH, A BUDGET RETREAT, JUNE THE 25TH.

WE EVEN HAD A FEE WORKSHOP ON JULY THE 28TH.

AGAIN, HERE, AUGUST THE 11TH, WITH THE BUDGET SUBMISSION, SETTING THE TAX RATE, AND SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR SEPTEMBER 8TH.

WE ARE ALSO GOING TO HAVE A BUDGET WORKSHOP TWO WEEKS FROM TONIGHT, AUGUST THE 25TH, PLEASE, NOT A WEEK FROM TONIGHT.

TWO WEEKS FROM TONIGHT, THAT GIVES YOU PLENTY OF TIME TO LOOK OVER THE BUDGET THAT WE HAVE PRESENTED TO YOU, AND PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF, PROBABLY BEFOREHAND, WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL BECAUSE IT'S A BIG BUDGET.

THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION IN THERE, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THIS MEETS ALL THE STATUTORY DEADLINES AND REQUIREMENTS, AND THE NOTICE WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER AS WE ESTABLISH THIS PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS DOES REQUIRE AN INDIVIDUAL RECORD VOTE.

AGAIN, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A TAX RATE OF 440226 PER 100 VALUATION, THE SAME RATE IT HAS BEEN FOR THE PAST TWO CONSECUTIVE YEARS.

WE RECOMMEND A PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR SEPTEMBER 8TH, WHICH IS YOUR REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

THE REASON WE ARE SETTING THAT DATE COMPLIES WITH PROPERTY TAX CODE SECTION 26.06(E), AS WELL AS THE HEARING AND THE VOTE MUST OCCUR SEVEN DAYS EACH OF EACH WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING, IF IT'S NOT APPROVED.

IF THE BUDGET IS NOT APPROVED ON SEPTEMBER 8TH, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE NEXT MEETING SEVEN DAYS THEREAFTER, WHICH IS NOT A NORMAL REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING.

THAT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION.

IF SOMEONE COULD PLEASE MAKE A MOTION, UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> YOUR HONOR, IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS, I MOVE TO ACCEPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025-8-11R AND PLACE A PROPOSAL TO ADOPT THE FY 2025/'26 TAX RATE OF 0.440226 PER $100 VALUATION AS ESTABLISHED IN THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE BUDGET AND TAX RATE ON SEPTEMBER 8TH, 2025, CITY COUNCIL AGENDA.

>> I'LL SECOND THAT.

>> IF WE COULD GET A ROLL CALL.

>> YES. WE'LL DO A ROLL. MS. DAVID-GRAVES?

>> MOTION PASSES 7-0.

THIS WILL TAKE US TO ITEM M3, MS. COOK.

[M3. 2025-206 Consider approving a Non-Standard Wastewater Service Agreement with 1099 Park, LLC; and take appropriate action. Presented by Craig Fisher, Director of Development Services.]

>> M3, 2025-206, CONSIDER APPROVING A NONSTANDARD WASTEWATER SURFACE AGREEMENT WITH 1099 PARK, LLC, AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION PRESENTED BY CRAIG FISHER.

>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL.

CRAIG FISHER, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THIS REQUEST IS FOR A NON-STANDARD SANITARY SEWER AGREEMENT FOR A PROPERTY THAT IS OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS AND OUTSIDE THE CITY'S ETJ.

THIS IS DOWN TO THE SOUTH OF TOWN ON THE PENINSULA.

THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY BEING USED FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES.

THERE'S A SEWER LINE THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION WITHIN AN EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY.

THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE REQUESTING THIS AGREEMENT TO BE ABLE TO TAP INTO THAT LINE WHILE IT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION, SO THAT THEY COULD TURN THE PROPERTY OVER IN THE FUTURE AND DEVELOP IT.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A MAXIMUM OF 20 CONNECTIONS TO OUR SEWER SYSTEM.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT Y'ALL MAY HAVE ABOUT THIS REQUEST.

>> I ACTUALLY REALLY LIKE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS BECAUSE THE COST DOWN THE ROAD FOR THEM TO PUT THE SEWER LINES INTO THAT PROPERTY WOULD BE MUCH HIGHER THAN WHAT IT IS NOW, WHILE IT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

I THINK IT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT LAND OWNER AND FOR POTENTIAL, WHETHER IT'S RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL, DOWN THE ROAD.

I THINK IT'D BE GREAT FOR THE CITY.

>> YEAH, I AGREE. THERE'S AN OPEN TRENCH THERE;

[01:45:01]

THEIR HOPE IS TO CREATE A TAP TO IT AND STUB TO THEIR PROPERTY, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY INTENTION TO CONNECT TO IT AT THIS TIME.

THIS WOULD JUST ALLOW THEM TO CONNECT TO IT IN THE FUTURE.

>> IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM M3.

>> I'LL SECOND.

>> MOTION PASSES 7-0.

THIS WILL TAKE US TO M4, MS. COOK.

[M4. 2025-219 Consider approving a Moratorium Waiver Application submitted by Nolan Wright for that certain 3.16-acre parcel of real property located at 6877 County Road 995, Princeton, Texas, and take appropriate action. Presented by Craig Fisher, Director of Development Services. ]

>> M4, 2025-219, CONSIDER APPROVING A MORATORIUM WAIVER APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY NOLAN WRIGHT FOR A CERTAIN 3.16-ACRE PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6877 COUNTY ROAD 995, PRINCETON, TEXAS, AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION PRESENTED BY CRAIG FISHER.

>> GOOD EVENING, CRAIG FISHER, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THIS REQUEST IS FOR A WAIVER TO THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING MORATORIUM FOR A PROPERTY THAT'S LOCATED OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS, BUT IT IS LOCATED WITHIN OUR ETJ.

THE RESIDENTIAL MORATORIUM APPLIES TO THE CITY LIMITS AND THE ETJ.

THE PROPERTY OWNER IS REQUESTING TO PLAT THE PROPERTY AS ONE RESIDENTIAL LOT TO THEN BUILD A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE.

THIS PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED ON A CITY STREET AND WILL NOT BE CONNECTED TO THE CITY'S SEWER OR WATER SERVICE.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

THE APPLICANT IS HERE.

I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT A COUPLE OF TYPOS ON THE AGENDA.

THE ADDRESS THAT'S LISTED IS ACTUALLY FOR A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, AS THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE AN ADDRESS, AND IT'S ACTUALLY IN MCKINNEY ADDRESS NOT PRINCETON, BUT IT IS IN PRINCETON'S ETJ.

>> YOUR HONOR, IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ON THIS, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 2025-219.

>> I'LL SECOND.