[I1. 2026-006 Presentation recognizing the City of Princeton for being named a 2025 Top Workplace for the Dallas–Fort Worth Metro Area National Standard Winner from the Dallas Morning News.]

ACTUALLY, WE'RE GOING TO GO TO ITEM I, CEREMONY ITEMS, MS. COOK.

>> I1-2026-006, PRESENTATION, RECOGNIZING THE CITY OF PRINCETON FOR BEING NAMED TO 2025 TOP WORKPLACE FOR THE DALLAS FORT WORTH METRO AREA NATIONAL STANDARD WINNER FROM THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS.

>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

AGAIN, FALLAN CARRILLO, DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYEE EXPERIENCE HERE AT THE CITY OF PRINCETON.

WITH THE MAY 2025 INTERGAGE SURVEY THAT WE TOOK, WE WERE NOMINATED AND NAMED THE 2025 TOP WORKPLACE FOR THE DFW METRO AREA BY THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS.

I'M SO HAPPY ABOUT THIS.

ECSTATIC. IT'S A HUGE ACCOMPLISHMENT.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE MADE THIS LIST, AND I BELIEVE IT'S THE FIRST TIME THAT WE APPLIED.

ALTHOUGH WE WERE NOT NUMBERED AS ONE OF THE 150, WE CAME IN 155, SO THEY ENCOURAGED US TO APPLY NEXT YEAR, SO WE WILL BE DOING THE SURVEY AGAIN IN MAY.

[00:25:01]

BUT WE WERE FEATURED IN THEIR MAGAZINE, WHICH I HAVE AS A PRESENTATION FOR COUNSEL, AND I'M JUST SO THANKFUL FOR YOUR SUPPORT, AND AGAIN, YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ONE OF THE TOP WORKPLACES.

SINCE NO ONE IN PRINCETON MADE THE LIST, I'M GOING TO SAY, WE'RE THE TOP WORKPLACE IN PRINCETON.

DON'T AT ME. THAT'S IT.

THANK YOU GUYS SO MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE]

>> COUNSEL.

I'M GOING TO MOVE EXECUTIVE TO THE END OF THE MEETING, UNLESS THERE'S ANY ITEMS WE NEED TO DISCUSS BEFOREHAND, BUT I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT LAST.

THIS WILL TAKE US INTO ITEM K, MS. COOK.

SORRY, ITEM L.

[L1. ORD-2026-01-12 Conduct a public hearing and consider approving Ordinance No. 2026-01-12 of the City of Princeton as requested by Keller Williams Realty Allen for a zoning amendment from SF-E to PD 46 on a 1.00 acre tract situated near the southwest corner of Monte Carlo Blvd and Longneck Rd, in the City of Princeton, Collin County, Texas; and take appropriate action. Presented by Shai Roos, Director of Development Services.]

>> PUBLIC HEARINGS. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK AT A PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED ON THE AGENDA SHOULD COMPLETE A PUBLIC MEETING, APPEARANCE CARD PRIOR TO THE MEETING AND PRESENT IT TO THE CITY SECRETARY.

UPON BEING RECOGNIZED BY THE MAYOR, THE PERSON MAY SPEAK OR PRESENT EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO THE MATTER BEING HEARD.

NO PERSON MAY SPEAK WITHOUT FIRST BEING RECOGNIZED BY THE MAYOR.

SPEAKERS ARE ALLOWED UP TO THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING SHALL ONLY SPEAK ABOUT MATTERS OR PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT'S RELEVANT TO THE ITEM UNDER CONSIDERATION.

ADDRESS THE COUNCIL DIRECTLY.

NOT CITY STAFF OR OTHERWISE, BE COURTEOUS, RESPECTFUL AND CORDIAL, AND REFRAIN FROM MAKING PERSONAL, DEMEANING, INSULTING, THREATENING OR DISPARAGING REMARKS AS TO MAINTAIN DECORUM AND SUPPORT THE EFFICIENT AND ORDERLY FLOW OF THE MEETING.

WE HAVE L-1, ORDINANCE 2026-0112.

CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER APPROVING ORDINANCE 2026-0112 OF THE CITY OF PRINCETON AS REQUESTED BY KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY ALLEN FOR A ZONING AMENDMENT FROM SFE TO PD-46 ON ONE ACRE TRACK, SITUATED NEAR THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MONTE CARLO BOULEVARD AND LONGNECK ROAD IN THE CITY OF PRINCETON, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION PRESENTED BY SHAI ROOS, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR. MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REZONING CASE FROM SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE TO PD-46.

THE BASE OF THIS IS C-2.

THANK YOU. AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS AT THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF MONTE CARLO AND LONGNECK ROAD.

JUST SOUTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOWN IN YELLOW.

THERE'S A 200 FOOT BUFFER AROUND IT THAT WE SENT NOTIFICATION TO.

WE HAVE RECEIVED A LOT OF OPPOSITION TO THIS CASE.

ALSO WANTED TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT 20% OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE 200 FEET ARE IN OPPOSITION OF THIS CASE, WHICH MEANS IT THROWS IT TO A THREE QUARTER MAJORITY VOTE OF THE COUNCIL TO APPROVE THIS CASE.

SIX MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL NEED TO APPROVE THIS CASE FOR IT TO BE APPROVED.

WE ALSO GOT A LOT MORE THAN THAT 20% IN THE 200 FEET.

WE'VE GOT AS OF TODAY, I THINK YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU THE OPPOSITION LETTERS AT 5:30, WE DID RECEIVE ANOTHER SIX SIGNATURES IN OPPOSITION OF THIS CASE.

JUST WANTED TO LET YOU ALL KNOW, YOU SHOULD HAVE ALL OF THOSE OPPOSITION LETTERS IN FRONT OF YOU.

[00:30:05]

FOR THIS CASE, LOOKING AT IT FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THIS IS CALLING FOR A COMPACT NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH ALSO ALLOWS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING RETAIL.

THIS PD-46 HAS BEEN CHANGED, SO C-2 IS COMMERCIAL BASE, BUT PD-46 REMOVES ALL THE USES THAT ARE NOT CONDUCIVE TO NEIGHBORHOOD AND ONLY KEEPS THOSE USES THAT WOULD BE GOOD FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD.

AS FAR AS THE EXISTING COMPLAINT IS CONCERNED, THE PD AND THE REZONING DOES MATCH IT.

THIS IS THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT THEY'VE PROVIDED, THE APPLICANT WANTS TO BUILD A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT INSURANCE OFFICE ON THIS PROPERTY.

STAFF ANALYSIS, AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS FLOODPLAIN ON THE PROPERTY, BUT THERE IS SOME AREA LEFT FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO BUILD IT.

I DO WANT TO STRESS THAT AT THIS POINT, STAFF HAS ONLY LOOKED AT THE LAND USE.

IF YOU LOOK AT ALL FOUR CORNERS OF IT, THREE CORNERS ARE ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL AT THIS POINT.

THERE IS A GAS STATION AND MCDONALD'S CATTY CORNER FROM THIS SITE.

THE SITE TO THE NORTH IS IN THE FLOODPLAIN, BUT IT IS ZONED COMMERCIAL.

THEY CAN'T REALLY DEVELOP IT AS IT IS TODAY, BUT IF THINGS CHANGE AND THEY DO LOMR OR A CLOMR, THE ZONING IS THERE FOR COMMERCIAL THERE.

BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, THEY CAN'T DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY.

THEN TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY, AS WELL AS ACROSS THE STREET, THERE ARE MULTI FAMILY ZONING ALREADY IN PLACE.

IT'S NOT BEEN BUILT, BUT IT IS IN PLACE.

CONSIDERING ALL OF THAT WE THINK THAT LOOKING AT THE SURROUNDING ZONING AND THE LAND USES, WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR ZONING IS COMPATIBLE.

THE INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY, WATER, SEWER, IS THERE TRAFFIC OR ACCESS CONCERNS? AT THIS POINT, THERE AREN'T ANY BECAUSE IT'S A VERY SMALL DEVELOPMENT AND WILL NOT THROW MORE TRAFFIC ISSUES AT THIS POINT.

I DO WANT TO POINT OUT, AS IT IS IN THE REPORT WRITTEN THAT THE LONG NECK RIGHT NEXT TO THIS PROPERTY IN OUR CAPITAL PLANS IS SLATED TO BE A FOUR LANE ROADWAY.

NORTH OF MONTE CARLO, ITS COUNTIES GOT IT SLATED AS A SIX LANE DIVIDED ROADWAY.

HOWEVER, THIS ZONING DOES NOT REQUIRE BUILDING OF THIS ROAD RIGHT NOW.

AS I SAID, THE DEVELOPMENTS VERY SMALL AND DOES NOT REQUIRE BUILDING OF THIS FOUR LANE ROADWAY, WE WILL REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO ESCROW THE AMOUNT.

WHENEVER THE ROAD STARTS BEING BUILT OR THE CITY WANTS TO BUILD IT OR AT SUCH POINT THAT TRAFFIC REQUIRES THE BUILDING, THAT AMOUNT CAN BE USED TOWARDS BUILDING IT.

BUT THIS REQUEST WILL NOT REQUIRE THE APPLICANT.

>> THERE'S NO FUTURE PLANS RIGHT NOW THAT YOU KNOW WIDEN THAT ROAD.

I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY NOT THIS YEAR, NEXT YEAR OR ANYTHING?

>> NOT THAT I KNOW.

>> OUR ORDINANCES DO HAVE A DEADLINE THAT ONCE WE'VE COLLECTED MONEY FROM A DEVELOPER FOR ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE, WE HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF YEARS IN WHICH WE CAN UTILIZE THAT MONEY OR WE HAVE TO HAND IT BACK, CORRECT?

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD THE ROAD, THEY SHOULD HAVE THAT MONEY BACK.

>> I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT RIGHT NOW, WE'VE ONLY LOOKED AT WHETHER THE ZONING AND THE LAND USE WORKS.

WE WILL BE MAKING SURE AFTER THIS WILL COME THE PLATTING.

PRELIMINARY PLAT, WE WILL MAKE SURE THE TI IS DONE, THE FLOOD STUDIES DONE.

ALL THE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET, AND ONCE THOSE ARE MET, WE WILL THEN LOOK AT HAVE THEM DO THE FINAL PLAT.

ONCE THE FINAL PLAT IS DONE,

[00:35:02]

WHICH IS WHEN WE WILL REQUIRE THEM TO DEDICATE RIGHT OF WAY IF NEEDED, AND THEN WE WILL LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, WHICH WILL INCLUDE INFRA SITE CIVIL PLANS, AS WELL AS PARKING LANDSCAPING.

WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THEY MEET ALL THE REGULATIONS BEFORE THEY'RE GIVEN A PERMIT TO DEVELOP.

JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WILL ALL COME IN THE NEXT STAGES.

RIGHT NOW WE HAVE NOT LOOKED AT ANY OF IT.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 15, APPROVE THIS 321.

>> TODAY, IT'S IN FRONT OF YOU ALL TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN EITHER RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS OR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS OR DENIAL OF THE REQUEST.

>> DID THE DEVELOPER TO WANT TO SPEAK? YEAH.

>> YOUR HONOR, I HAVE A QUESTION BEFORE HE DOES.

MAYBE MR. JONES MIGHT BE ALL TO ANSWER THIS BECAUSE YOU TALKED ABOUT LONG NECK ROAD ABOUT WIDENING INTO FOUR LANE, AND THAT DOES BELONG TO THE CITY.

NOW, IT CAME INTO THE CITY SEVERAL YEARS AGO, SO IT'S UP TO US WHENEVER IT'S WIDENED, AND IT'S GOING TO GO FOUR LANES.

IT'S PROBABLY I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT AWAY IS RIGHT NOW.

WAS IT 60 FOOT OR 120 FOOT, 90?

>> 80. 80 FEET.

>> 80 FEET? OKAY. BECAUSE I PROBABLY DRIVE THROUGH THERE PROBABLY MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE HERE, RIGHT THROUGH THAT INTERSECTION.

I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT OR ABOUT WHEN WE MAY START WIDENING ALONG THAT.

IT NEEDS IT NOW, BUT IS THAT IN THE FORECAST IN THE CRYSTAL BALL SOMEWHERE ALONG THE WAY?

>> THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE LOOKING TO IDENTIFY IN OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ON THE OTHER END OF LONG NECK ROAD, COLLEGE, AND FM75, WE WERE GOING TO BE DOING JOINT FUNDING IN PRIOR CIP.

THAT WAS GOING TO BE TEXTILE, BUT TEXTILE HANDED THAT ROADWAY OVER TO US, SO THAT'S WHY THAT ONE HASN'T BEEN COMPLETED.

IN THIS NEW MOBILITY AND SAFETY ACTION PLAN, AS WELL AS THE UPDATED CIP, SOME OF THESE PROJECTS ARE GOING TO BE HOPEFULLY ADDED TO THAT LIST.

>> JUST TO POINT OUT, OUR PLAN FOR THE ROADS, OUR THOROUGHFARE PLAN, HAS IT SET FOR THE 70 FOOT FOUR-LANE ROAD.

HOWEVER, COUNTY JUST PUBLISHED THEIR MAP, AND IT'S STATING IT CAN GO UP TO SIX LANES ACCORDING TO THEIRS, AND THAT'S A LOT OF CHANGE, A LOT OF LACKING IN COMMUNICATION AND A LOT OF HOMES AT RISK.

>> YEAH, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE ZONING FOR THIS RIGHT NOW.

I THINK THEY'RE LESS.

YOU WANTED TO SPEAK UP.

>> GOOD EVENING. I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY OVER THERE ON LONG NECK.

JUST WANTED TO INTRODUCE MYSELF, BRADY, BAXMAN.

I AM AN AGENT WITH STATE FARM, SO AS WAS MENTIONED, JUST LOOKING TO PUT IN PLACE A BUILDING FOR MY INSURANCE OFFICE.

WE ARE CURRENTLY ARE OVER ON BEAUCHAMP BOULEVARD, SO I'VE ALREADY BEEN IN THERE SINCE 2022.

AS FAR AS ADDRESSING SOME OF THE CONCERNS, WE DON'T GET A TON OF FOOT TRAFFIC IN THE CHART.

I DON'T KNOW WHEN ALL OF YOU LAST WENT INTO YOUR INSURANCE OFFICES, BUT IT'S MOSTLY JUST GOING TO BE A FEW OF MY EMPLOYEES THAT WILL BE THERE ON A DAILY BASIS, BETWEEN THREE AND FIVE PEOPLE PROBABLY IN ANY GIVEN TIME, NOT A LOT OF NOISE, AND IT'S GOING TO BE OFFICE HOURS, TYPICALLY 9:00 TO 5:00.

THEN AS FAR AS THE BUILDING ITSELF, MAJORITY OF IT'S GOING TO BE, LIKE WE SAID, PRIMARY USE IS GOING TO BE AN INSURANCE OFFICE, SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THIS THAT HOPEFULLY WILL, IF ANYTHING, ELEVATE THE AREA.

I HOPE TO ACTUALLY HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE HOUSES AND EVERYTHING AROUND US.

JOSH HERE, MY CONSULTANT IS GOING TO CARRY THE REST OF THE DETAILS HERE.

>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

AS THE CITY PLANNER HAS GONE THROUGH, THIS IS THE EXACT SAME SLIDE.

LOOKING AT THE AREA HERE, I'VE GONE AHEAD AND KIND OF ZOOMED OUT FOR YOU GUYS TO GET A BETTER PICTURE.

ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE, ON THE WEST SIDE OF LONG NECK, THERE IS ALREADY 378 MULTIFAMILY UNITS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED THROUGH ZONING AND CITY COUNCIL.

ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE, THERE IS A PROPOSED AND ENTITLED 480 MULTIFAMILY COMPLEX,

[00:40:03]

AND ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THAT, THERE'S 126 BUILT TO RENT UNITS, WHICH ARE TOWN HOMES.

ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER, AGAIN, THERE IS THAT MCDONALD'S AND GAS STATION AND ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER, THERE IS ALREADY A PLAN DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMERCIAL BASE ZONING.

THEN ABOVE THE STAR, WHICH THE STAR IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

ABOVE THE STAR THAT PLAN DEVELOPMENT IS ACTUALLY THE PD 46 THAT WE ARE LOOKING TO JOIN.

AGAIN, PER THE PURPOSE OF THE PD 46 ZONING, THE ZONING RESTRICTS USES THAT GENERATE HEAVY TRAFFIC QUEUING AND LATE NIGHT ACTIVITIES.

AS BRADY MENTIONED, HE'S GOING TO HAVE THREE TO FOUR EMPLOYEES THERE, NOT A LARGE AMOUNT OF IMPACT TO THE TRAFFIC OR INFRASTRUCTURE THERE.

COMMERCIAL ZONING DOES NOT BELONG.

WE'VE GOTTEN A COUPLE OF THESE OPPOSITION POINTS FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AND WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HEARD THE RESIDENTS AS WELL AS ADDRESS SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS.

PER THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, AS YOU SAW, THERE IS LOTS OF COMMERCIAL THAT IS COMING INTO THAT AREA WITH THE MULTIFAMILY AND THE OTHER PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS.

WE HAVE BEEN CONTACTED BY ONE OF THE SOUTHERN RESIDENTS.

THEIR AGENT REACHED OUT TO US AND EXPRESSED INTEREST IN JOINING OUR REZONING EFFORT SO THAT THEY WOULD REZONE INTO THE SAME PD 46 OR ANOTHER COMMERCIAL BASED ZONING.

THEN, AS STATED PREVIOUSLY, THE STAFF RECOMMENDED THIS, AND AS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

NOT ENOUGH PARKING OR SCREENING WALL, THAT IS ACTUALLY WHAT CONTRIBUTED TO OUR ONLY NO VOTE WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

WE WILL BE AND CONTINUE TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH ANY BUILDING CODE ORDINANCES THAT CITY OF PRINCETON MAY HAVE.

WE WERE ALSO ASKED ABOUT DIMINISHING THE VALUE OF ANY SURROUNDING AREA.

ONE OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WAS PURCHASED IN 2019, ABOUT 6.5 YEARS AGO, AND HIT THE MARKET IN Q3 OF 2024 FOR ABOUT FIVE TIMES THE AMOUNT IT WAS PREVIOUSLY PURCHASED.

THE LISTING WAS THEN REVISED TO 3.99 TIMES THE VALUE, SHOWING THAT ALTHOUGH COMMERCIAL IS COMING INTO THAT NECK OF THE WOODS, LOTS OF THE RESIDENTS DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO GENERATE SOME INCOME THROUGH THE EQUITY THEY'VE BUILT BY REMAINING THERE.

AGAIN, FINAL REMARKS, THIS DEVELOPMENT, AS MENTIONED BY STAFF, CONFORMS TO THE PRINCETON'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE SURROUNDING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS BY FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINES OUTLINED IN PD 46.

ALL USES WILL NOT GENERATE HEAVY TRAFFIC, QUEUING, LATE NIGHT ACTIVITY, ODORS, OR LARGE SCALE SERVICE OR MAINTENANCE.

THE DEVELOPMENT, AS BRADY HAS MENTIONED, WILL HAVE VERY MINIMAL TRAFFIC.

THEREFORE, VERY MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

THANK YOU. I'M ABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE.

>> ANYBODY HAS QUESTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPER?

>> I DO. MY HOUSE IS 1926 SQUARE FEET.

I COULD PUT 3-4 EMPLOYEES IN MY HOUSE.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW YOU NEED 5,000 SQUARE FEET FOR 3-4 EMPLOYEES WHEN THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE SEEMS QUITE LARGE FOR SAYING YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO HAVE A FEW PEOPLE IN THERE AT A TIME?

>> ABSOLUTELY. WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT THE OVERALL BUILDING OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET, THE STATE FARM OFFICE WILL BE THE PRIMARY USE THERE, THEREFORE, TAKING UP ABOUT 3,500 SQUARE FEET, AND WANTED TO HELP CONTRIBUTE TO THE LOCAL MARKET HERE AND ALLOW THOSE THAT LIVE IN PRINCETON TO ALSO HAVE THEIR OWN SPACES TO OPERATE.

THERE WOULD BE ABOUT 1,500 SQUARE FEET REMAINING FOR ANOTHER LOCAL RESIDENT TO OPEN UP THEIR BUSINESS AND HAVE A NICE LOCAL ESTABLISHMENT.

>> WHY WASN'T THAT INITIALLY WHAT WAS SAID? BECAUSE IT WAS JUST SAYING IT'S 5,000 SQUARE FEET, JUST STATE FARM.

IT DIDN'T SAY STATE FARM AND OFFICE BUILDINGS.

>> IT'S ONE BUILDING.

>> OR OFFICE SUITES.

>> SURE. IN THE PRESENTATION HERE, I'LL GO AHEAD AND BACK UP FOR YOU.

>> BECAUSE WHEN YOU DO MULTIPLE USES LIKE THAT, AND YOU CAN'T GUARANTEE WHAT EXACTLY IS GOING TO BE THERE, THAT ACTIVATES OUR PARKING ORDINANCE, WHICH REQUIRES US TO GO WITH THE MOST RESTRICTIVE POSSIBLE THING THAT COULD GO THERE, WHICH IS A ONE TO 100, WHICH MEANS YOU WOULD NEED 50 PARKING SPACES FOR A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE BECAUSE YOU CURRENTLY ONLY HAVE 17.

>> THEY WILL STILL BE REQUIRED TO GET PERMITS TO EVEN BUILD.

IF THEY DON'T MEET OUR CURRENT ORDINANCES, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE AN OFFICE THERE.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO FIT WITHIN THE ZONING AND THE CAPACITY OF THAT PROPERTY OR ELSE THEY WOULDN'T EVEN GET A PERMIT TO BUILD.

>> CORRECT. AS STATED HERE,

[00:45:02]

THE MAIN USE IS THE STATE FARM OFFICE AND ALSO TO SUPPORT THE LOCAL AREA AS WELL.

WE ACCEPT YOUR COMMENT AND WOULD DEFINITELY LOOK THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS TO HELP ACCOMMODATE ANY OF THOSE NEEDS.

>> OR DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE I HAVE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS? WITH THE FLOODPLAIN, I KNOW IT'S CONCEPT PLAN, BUT YOU DIDN'T PUT THE FLOODPLAIN ON YOUR CONCEPT PLAN AT ALL?

>> I DON'T THINK THAT'S A PART OF THE ZONING.

I THINK SHA HAD MENTIONED THAT THERE'S STILL MORE PROCESSES THAT HAVE TO TAKE PLACE, THAT WE WILL ANSWER THAT QUESTION WHEN THAT PRELIMINARY PART DOES COME TO US THAT WOULD DISPLAY EVERYTHING THAT'S NEEDED.

>> FLOODING AND THOSE THINGS ARE ACTUALLY ITEMS WE CAN LOOK AT HERE RIGHT NOW.

THE CITY ONLY HAS TO LOOK AT THE BARE MINIMUMS OF WHAT MEETS THOSE CRITERIA.

BUT WE AS A GOVERNING BODY, HAVE A REQUIREMENT AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF THIS CITY TO LOOK AT ALL ASPECTS OF WHAT CAN HAPPEN THROUGH THE ZONING, THROUGH PUTTING SOMETHING THERE, WHICH INCLUDES THE FLOODPLAIN.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF YOU WATCHED THE PLANNING ZONING MEETING IN OCTOBER '24. I WAS THERE.

OUR ENGINEERS DID A PRESENTATION ABOUT THAT FLOOD ZONE.

IT NEVER CAME BEFORE COUNCIL.

IT HAS IDENTIFIED IT AS ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONCERNS FOR OUR CITY AND LISTED THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DONE THERE.

WE HAVEN'T DONE ANY OF IT.

ANY CHANGES TO THAT FLOODPLAIN AT THIS TIME, IS THE CITY KNOWING THAT THERE IS ALREADY A FLOODPLAIN PROBLEM AND KNOWING THAT THERE CAN BE DAMAGES AND IMPACTS TO THOSE HOMES, TO THE FLOODPLAIN IN ITSELF, TO THE NEIGHBORING HOMES AND PROPERTIES, TO THE PARK.

THAT IS SOMETHING WE DO, AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY, HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SOMETHING THAT THEY SUBMIT, BUT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING IN THE INTEREST OF THE RESIDENTS.

>> SHA, I HAVE A QUESTION.

WILL WE BE DISCUSSING THAT WHEN THEY PRESENT THEIR ACTUAL PLANS AND NOT THE CONCEPT PLANS? WOULD THAT TOPIC BE DISCUSSED AS FAR AS THE FLOODPLAIN AND HOW IT'S GOING TO IMPACT?

>> WHEN THEY COME IN FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAN, YES.

>> ADDITIONALLY, IN REGARDS TO THE APPLICATION ITSELF, IT IS IMPROPERLY NOTARIZED.

ONE OF YOUR NOTARY STAMPS DOES NOT HAVE A DATE, WHICH INVALIDATES THAT NOTARY.

AND THE NAME ON THE APPLICATION OR THE APPLICANT WAS THE ORIGINAL HOMEOWNER AND YOU PURCHASED THE HOME ON A FRIDAY AND HAD YOUR ZONING MEETING THAT FOLLOWING MONDAY.

HE WAS NO LONGER THE OWNER, BUT HE WAS THE APPLICANT, AND THERE WAS NO SUBMITTED DOCUMENTATION STATING ANYTHING OF THE ACTUAL OWNER CHANGEOVER, WHICH BRINGS TO QUESTION THE VALIDITY AND THE ABILITY TO APPROVE THIS TODAY BECAUSE THE APPLICATION IN AND OF ITSELF DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.

>> SURE. REASON BEING FOR THAT IS WE APPLIED FOR THE ZONING CHANGE IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL WHILE WE WERE UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE RESIDENT THAT USED TO BE THERE IN ORDER FOR US TO APPLY AND PUT THE APPLICATION, IT NEEDED TO BE THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND SO THEREFORE, IT WAS SIGNED UNDER HIM.

WE WENT AND WANTED TO WORK WITH THE CITY, CITY COUNCIL, AND ALL OF THEIR GUIDELINES, AND WE'RE GOING TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THAT.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE OWNER DID MISS OUT ON AN OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE A HOME DURING OUR EXTENSION, AND THEN WAS UNDER CONTRACT FOR ANOTHER HOME TO WHICH WE WANTED TO HELP THEM OUT, MAKE SURE THEY DIDN'T MISS OUT ON THEIR NEW HOME.

THAT IS WHY WE CLOSED SOON AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION HERE.

IT WAS CORRECTLY FILED UNDER HIM AT THAT TIME, AND THEN THEREFORE TRANSFERRED OVER WHENEVER WE CLOSED ON THE PROPERTY, AND WE WERE JUST TRYING TO HELP HIM BE ABLE TO AFFORD AND PURCHASE HIS NEW HOME.

>> IT DOESN'T CHANGE THAT THE NOTARY, AND THIS IS A DOCUMENT THAT INVOLVES LAND.

[00:50:06]

NOT SURE HOW MANY PEOPLE HERE ARE NOTARIES.

THAT MAKES IT AN AUTOMATIC STATE.

I GUESS GRANT, YOU CAN LOOK IT UP.

BUT TO MY UNDERSTANDING, READING THE LAW, THAT WHEN IT REGARDS LAND, IT'S AN AUTOMATIC STATE FELONY.

I DON'T REALLY FEEL COMFORTABLE APPROVING SOMETHING WITH A DOCUMENT THAT HAS A NOTARY THAT IS NOT COMPLETE.

I THINK THAT THAT IS NOT IN THE CITY'S BEST INTEREST.

>> MR. LI, IF YOU CAN. YEAH.

>> CAN YOU RESTATE WHY THE NOTARY [OVERLAPPING]?

>> SHE SAID THAT IT'S MISSING A DATE.

>> YEAH, THERE ARE TWO STAMPS.

THE BOTTOM ONE IS DATED.

THE FIRST ONE IS NOT.

EACH NOTARY MUST HAVE THE SIGNATURE OF THE NOTARY, THE STAMP ITSELF, AND THE DATE IN WHICH THE NOTARY WITNESSED THE SIGNATURES.

THE SECOND STAMP HAS ALL CRITERIA.

THE FIRST STAMP DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA, AND THAT IS A LAW.

>> SURE. I'LL LET THE APPLICANT RESPOND TO THAT.

>> SURE. WE WERE WORKING IN OPEN COMMUNICATION WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT AND SUBMITTED THE PLANS TO THEM, AS WELL AS THE APPLICATION, LET THEM KNOW EVERY STEP WE WERE GOING THROUGH.

WE WERE UNAWARE OF THAT, SO OUR APOLOGIES.

>> BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THAT WHEN YOU LOOK UP, AND PLEASE GO AHEAD AND PULL IT UP, GRANT.

YOU CAN GOOGLE IT. IT INVALIDATES THE DOCUMENT.

WHEN A NOTARY IS INVALID, THE DOCUMENT ITSELF IS INVALID.

THIS MAKES ALL OF THIS INVALID.

WE, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY, SHOULD NOT BE VOTING TO APPROVE SOMETHING THAT IS INVALID.

>> GRANT, IF YOU CAN CHIME IN.

>> YEAH. I THINK THE BALL IS BACK IN THE APPLICANT'S COURT, IF THEY WANT TO WITHDRAW THE REQUEST AND AND RESUBMIT.

IT'S THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD OF THE NOTARY ISSUE.

I DO SEE WHAT COUNCILWOMAN TODD IS REFERENCING AS FAR AS NOT HAVING THE DATE OF THE NOTARY.

I'LL DEFER TO THE APPLICANT, HOW THEY WANT TO ADDRESS IT.

>> OBVIOUSLY, WE WOULD PREFER NOT TO BE CHARGED WITH A FELONY.

IF THAT IS THE PATH FORWARD, WE CAN RESUBMIT, IF YOU WOULD LIKE.

>> LET'S JUST SAY INSTEAD OF WITHDRAWING, IF IT DOES GET APPROVED, CAN WE DO A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL BASED ON RECEIVING THE CORRECT DOCUMENT, GRANT?

>> WE SAID WE WERE DOING NO MORE CONDITIONALS.

>> MY THOUGHT IS, SINCE THIS IS THE APPLICATION ITSELF TO NOT DO A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL HERE AND MAYBE RESUBMIT THE APPLICATION IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE APPLICATION ITSELF.

BUT ONCE AGAIN, I'LL DEFER TO THE APPLICANT HOW THEY WANT TO ADDRESS IT.

>> HAPPY TO DO SO.

>> I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR, SHA.

THIS IS TONIGHT AND GRANT.

WE WERE STRICTLY DISCUSSING THE ZONING, CORRECT?

>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> WITH THAT, IS THIS SOMETHING WE WANT TO TABLE TO THE NEXT MEETING? GRANT?

>> IF THE APPLICANT WANT TO WITHDRAW?

>> I DO I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT, THOUGH, GRANT, MAYBE THAT IS THAT GOING TO AVOID THE REQUIREMENT TO PUBLICIZE IT, PUBLICATION? WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND DO THAT SO THAT'S GOING TO ACTUALLY EXTEND IT OUT ANOTHER 30 DAYS OR SO?

>> POTENTIALLY LONGER BECAUSE IT'S GOT TO GO BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS IF THEY WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION, RESUBMIT.

>> EVEN IF WE GO AT THIS TODAY, I CAN TELL YOU THAT YOU KEEP SAYING THAT WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT THE ZONING.

BUT THE REALITY HERE IS OUR DECISIONS HAVE TO BE BASED ON THE PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS, AND THAT'S COMPATIBILITY, FLOOD RISK, INFRASTRUCTURE, ORDERLY DEVELOPMENTS.

ALL OF THAT GOES INTO A ZONING DECISION.

WE DON'T MAKE A LAND USE DECISION BECAUSE A DEVELOPER BOUGHT LAND.

WE MAKE IT IN THE INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE LAND ITSELF.

ALL OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE BROUGHT UP, AND MORE ARE, IN FACT, AND I HAVE STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS THAT GO WITH IT THAT SHOW THAT THESE ARE THINGS THAT ARE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN ZONING IS LOOKED AT.

IN MCKINNEY, WHO HAS THE GOLD STANDARD OF ZONING FOR NORTH TEXAS,

[00:55:01]

THEY DO THINGS WAY DIFFERENTLY THAN WE DO.

I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING TO THEIR ORDINANCES, SINCE THEY HAVE THE GOLD STANDARD AND CONSIDER ADOPTING THEM FOR OURSELVES BECAUSE WE ARE THE FASTEST GROWING CITY IN THE UNITED STATES, AND WE HAVE SUCH LOOSELY WRITTEN ZONING.

>> WE CAN DISCUSS THAT, BUT YOU WANTED TO SPEAK?

>> NO, I JUST WAS HERE IN CASE YOU HAD A QUESTION ON THE TIMELINE OF IF IT'S WITHDRAWN, THEY WILL HAVE TO RESUBMIT, AND THEN WE HAVE TO RE NOTICE IT.

>> IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO P&Z AND THEN COME BACK TO.

>> ARE YOU WITHDRAWN?

>> I'M GUESSING, YEAH.

>> YES.

>> NOW, GRANT, DO WE STILL HAVE TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING?

>> NO, NOT AT THIS POINT. WE CAN JUST TAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE WITHDRAWN APPLICATION.

>> YOUR HONOR.

>> ACCEPT THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPLICATION.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE AGENDA ITEM L1 ORDINANCE 2026012.

>> I'LL SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND. MISSING ONE VOTE.

>> THE PACKET THAT YOU ALL GOT FROM MR. HISTON TODAY, I STRONGLY SUGGEST A READ IT BEFORE THEY COME BACK BEFORE US.

[L2. ORD-2026-01-12-02 Conduct a public hearing and consider approving Ordinance No. 2026-01-12-02 of the City of Princeton as requested by the Princeton Economic Development Corporation for a zoning amendment from M-1 to PD 47 on 53.3865 acres situated near the intersection of S Beauchamp Blvd and Myrick Ln, in the City of Princeton, Collin County, Texas; and take appropriate action. Presented by Shai Roos, Director of Development Services.]

>> MS. COOK.

>> L2, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING.

CONSIDER APPROVING ORDINANCE 2026011202, OF THE CITY OF PRINCETON AS REQUESTED BY THE PRINCETON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR A ZONING AMENDMENT.

FROM M1 TO PD 47 ON 53.38 65 ACRES, SITUATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH BEECHAM BOULEVARD AND MYRICK LANE IN THE CITY OF PRINCETON, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION PRESENTED BY SHI ROOS, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CITY'S BUSINESS PARK RIGHT NOW.

AS YOU CAN SEE, SUBJECT PROPERTY, IT WAS THE WHOLE RECTANGLE, BUT SOME OF THE PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN SOLD.

THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED, M1, CURRENTLY, WHICH IS MANUFACTURING, THE WHOLE PROPERTY THAT YOU SEE THERE, M1, AS WELL AS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THIS IS THE CITY'S BUSINESS PARK.

THE REASON THIS WAS M1, IN THE PAST, WHEN WE HAD THE PROPERTY, THERE WAS NO RESIDENTIAL AROUND IT.

SINCE WE'VE HAD THE PROPERTY, AS YOU ALL CAN SEE, THERE'S A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL AROUND IT.

HAVING SEEN THAT, IT'S NO LONGER APPROPRIATE TO BUILD MANUFACTURING ON THIS PROPERTY, SO THE CITY EDC HAS PROPOSED THAT WE CHANGE IT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, AND ALSO ADD WITH THE PD 47, ADD ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS, MORE LANDSCAPING, AND MAKE IT COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THAT'S THE PROPOSAL FOR PD 47.

AS YOU CAN SEE, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IS WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

LAND USE MAP SAYS FOR THIS AREA, AND WE DO HAVE THAT 200 FOOT BUFFER THAT WE'VE SENT OUT NOTICES TO.

WE HAVE NOT HEARD IN OPPOSITION FROM ANYONE AT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS CAME OVER TO SPEAK ABOUT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL.

AS YOU CAN SEE, I KNOW THIS IS TOO SMALL, BUT ZONING AND USES, IT IS C1 COMMERCIAL, AND THEN THERE ARE USES THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE C1.

THERE ARE USES THAT ARE NOW WITH SUP AND VERY FEW USES THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH RESIDENTIAL ARE THE ONES THAT ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT.

IN THIS PD, BUILDING AND DESIGN STANDARDS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO IT, 100% MASONRY HAS BEEN REQUIRED, AS YOU CAN SEE, PARKING AND LANDSCAPING HAS BEEN ADDED, AND SCREENING AND SIGNAGE IS ALSO ADDED.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ALLOWING ELECTRONIC MESSAGE SIGNS FOR THIS.

OUR ZONING ORDINANCE OR OUR SIGN ORDINANCE DOES NOT ALLOW THAT RIGHT NOW,

[01:00:05]

BUT IT IS A PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS PARK, SO WE'D LIKE TO ASK FOR THAT.

JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.

THIS IS THE CONCEPT PLANE THAT GOES WITH IT.

AGAIN, THIS IS JUST A CONCEPT PLANE.

WHEN PEOPLE WANT TO DEVELOP HERE, THEY WILL HAVE TO GIVE US A DETAILED SITE PLAN WITH SITE CIVILS AND WILL BE APPROVED BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT WILL BE GIVEN.

WE'VE LOOKED AT THE THE FLOODPLAIN IS NOWHERE ON THIS PROPERTY.

IT'S OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY.

IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

TRAFFIC AND ACCESS HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF WITH THE STREETS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN BUILT, AND THE DRAINAGE FOR THE ENTIRE SITE WAS DEVELOPED AND BUILT IN THE PAST.

ALL OF THOSE ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED FOR THIS PROPERTY.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A 4:0 VOTE.

WE ARE HERE FOR COUNCIL TO TAKE ACTION TODAY.

HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN TAKE ACTION.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS.

AT THIS TIME, THE TIME IS 8:05, AND THIS WILL OPEN UP PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK? I HAVEN'T GOT A REQUEST FOR THIS ITEM.

THE TIME IS 8:06, AND THIS WILL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> Y'ALL I DON'T MAKE THAT MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM L2, ORDINANCE 2026011202.

>> YOU SEC THAT MOTION?

>> I STEVE, SECOND.

>> SORRY.

>> CAN YOU RESET THE VOTE?

>> YEAH.

>> IT'S OKAY.

>> ONE MORE VOTE.

>> MOTION PASSES 6:0.

[L3. ORD-2026-01-12-03 Conduct a public hearing and consider approving Ordinance No. 2026-01-12-03 of the City of Princeton as requested by 599 W. Princeton LP for a zoning amendment to PD 12 on 15.157 acres situated near at 599 W Princeton Drive, in the City of Princeton, Collin County, Texas; and take appropriate action. Presented by Shai Roos, Director of Development Services.]

THIS WILL TAKE US TWO L3, MS. COOK.

>> CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER APPROVING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2026011203 OF THE CITY OF PRINCETON AS REQUESTED BY 599 WEST PRINCETON LP FOR ZONING AMENDMENT TO PD 12 ON 15.157 ACRES, SITUATED NEAR 599 WEST PRINCETON DRIVE IN THE CITY OF PRINCETON, COLLIN COUNTY AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION PRESENTED BY SHI ROOS DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

>> THIS ITEM, THE DEVELOPER HAS ACCESS TO THAT THEY NEED MORE TIME TO SUBMIT MORE INFORMATION.

AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO ASK FOR THIS ITEM TO BE TABLED.

GRANT, DO I HAVE TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING?

>> YEAH. MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TABLE THE ORDINANCE TO A DATE CERTAIN SO WE CAN PICK THE 26 OR WHATEVER, HOWEVER MUCH TIME THE APPLICANT NEEDS.

>> THE TIME IS 8:07, THIS WILL OPEN UP PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM L3.

THE TIME IS 8:08 AND THIS WILL CLOSE PUBLIC.

>> DON'T PUBLIC HEAR.

>> SORRY?

>> KEEP IT UP.

>> GOT IT.

>> YOUR HONOR, I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE ORDINANCE 2026011203 AND TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL IT'S GOING TO BE THE SECOND MEETING IN FEBRUARY.

IT'S THE SECOND MEETING IN FEBRUARY, SO IT'S GOING TO BE 23RD.

>> YOU CAN ADD THAT MOTION 23RD?

>> YEAH.

>> JANUARY.

>> FEBRUARY.

>> EXCUSE ME. I'M SORRY.

>> CAN YOU RESTATE THAT MOTION?

>> YOUR HONOR, I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE ORDINANCE 202611203 AND TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL 23 FEBRUARY.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION.

>> I'LL SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND. MOTION PASSES 6:0.

[L4. ORD-2026-01-12-04 Conduct a public hearing and consider approving Ordinance No. 2026-01-12-04 of the City of Princeton amending Section 82-29 "Special Uses and Conditions for Approval" to add Public School use to this Section of the Zoning Ordinance; and take appropriate action. Presented by Shai Roos, Director of Development Services.]

THIS WILL TAKE US TO ITEM L4, MS. COOK.

>> CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER APPROVING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2026011204 OF THE CITY OF PRINCETON,

[01:05:04]

AMENDING SECTION 8229, SPECIAL USES AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL TO ADD PUBLIC SCHOOL USE IN THIS SECTION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION, MS. SHI ROOS.

>> GOOD EVENING AGAIN, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.

THIS IS FOR OUR PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, AS WE ALL KNOW, FASTEST GROWING CITY IN THE UNITED STATES, WE ARE NEEDING SCHOOLS AS FAST AS WE'RE GROWING.

THE REASON FOR THIS REQUEST IS THE SCHOOL NEEDS CERTAIN THINGS, FOR EXAMPLE, THEIR MARCHING BAND AREA.

WHEN THEY'RE NOT DOING MARCHING BAND PRACTICE, THEY WOULD LIKE TO USE THAT AS EXTRA PARKING, IT'S NOT THE REQUIRED PARKING, IT WILL BE EXCESS PARKING.

BUT IF IT'S A PARKING LOT, THEN THEY HAVE TO PUT IN LANDSCAPING ISLANDS.

AS SUCH, THEY CAN USE IT FOR MARCHING BAND PRACTICE.

THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT EVERY SCHOOL IS GOING TO ALMOST EVERY SCHOOL WILL HAVE, NOT THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, BUT THE MIDDLE SCHOOL AND HIGH SCHOOL.

HAVING TO COME IN FRONT OF COUNCIL, EVERY TIME THEY WANT TO BUILD, IT JUST ADDS TIME TO THE CONSTRUCTION.

RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE MOVING REALLY FAST IN CONSTRUCTION AND HAVING TO COME FOR ALL THESE VARIANCES IS TAKING TIME.

ONE OF THE WAYS TO DEAL WITH THIS IS IF WE KNOW THAT CERTAIN ISSUES ARE GOING TO COME UP IN MORE THAN ONE SCHOOL AT ANY GIVEN TIME, WE CAN ADD IT AS A SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTARY USE AND A SPECIAL USE REQUIREMENT FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THAT SECTION, WHERE WE SAY, IF IT IS BAND PRACTICE AREA, THEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE PARKING ISLANDS, BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO HAVE SCREENING FROM OUR RIGHT OF WAY.

WE'RE STILL GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT LOOKS GOOD, BUT IT ALSO WORKS FOR THEM.

THE OTHER THING THEY WANT IS SCREENING OF A ROOFTOP MOUNTED EQUIPMENT.

THIS IS HOW YOU CAN SEE ROOFTOP WHEN IT'S SCREENED AND WHEN IT'S NOT SCREENED ON THE OTHER PHOTO.

IT'S NOT THAT BIG A DIFFERENCE FOR MOST SCHOOLS, AND IT JUST ADDS EXTRA.

SCHOOLS ASKING THAT WE NOT REQUIRE THEM TO HAVE THAT ROOFTOP MOUNTED EQUIPMENT SCREENED.

BUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS TO MAKE SURE IT IS STILL PLACED AWAY FROM THE EDGE AND IS MINIMALLY SEEN FROM THE GROUND.

THE OTHER THING AND THIS IS THE PARKING LOT, SO YOU ALL CAN SEE, WE WILL REQUIRE THE SIDES TO BE SCREENED FROM OUTSIDE.

THIS IS WHAT THE EXAMPLE WOULD LOOK LIKE.

THE THIRD THING IS HEIGHT.

THIS IS GREEN ELEMENTARY, THIS IS 35 FEET.

THEY ARE ASKING FOR UP TO 70 FEET.

SO DOUBLE THIS, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THE NEW HIGH SCHOOL IS GOING TO BE A FEW STORIES HIGH.

IF THEY'RE ALLOWED IN EVERY ZONING DISTRICT.

SOME ZONING DISTRICTS, THEY WILL HAVE TO BE HELD TO A CERTAIN HEIGHT.

BEING GIVEN A VARIANCE, THERE WON'T BE A PROPERTY ISSUE.

IT IS A DEVELOPMENT TYPE ISSUE FOR THE HEIGHT.

IT'S MUCH EASIER AND CLEANER TO HAVE IT STRAIGHT IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE THAT THEY'RE ALLOWED AND ALSO LOT COVERAGE.

FOR CERTAIN SCHOOLS, IF THE AREA IS SMALL, SOME OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS REQUIRE SMALLER LOT COVERAGE, AND THEY WILL NEED TO USE JUST ABOUT ALL THEIR PROPERTY FOR DEVELOPMENT.

THAT'S WHY THEY WANT THESE FOUR THINGS AS REQUIREMENT.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE ADDED WAS WHEN THEY DO NEED THIS, THEY CAN ASK FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.

THAT STILL ALLOWS STAFF THE ABILITY TO ADD MORE REQUIREMENTS OR MAKE SURE THAT IT DOES LOOK GOOD AND IS COMPATIBLE WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, AND WE CAN ALWAYS BRING IT TO COUNCIL.

[01:10:02]

EVEN THOUGH IT ALLOWS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL, IF STAFF DEEMS THAT IT'S NOT SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD FOR US TO APPROVE, WE WOULD BRING IT TO YOU ALL TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

IT STILL LEAVES US ENOUGH OVERVIEW, BUT IT ALSO ALLOWS US TO LET THE SCHOOLS BUILD FASTER.

THIS IS JUST SAYING THE SAME THING FOR MARCHING BAND AREA AND THE PAVING FOR MARCHING BAND AREA SHALL BE CONCRETE.

WE'VE MADE SURE TO PUT THAT IN THERE.

>> I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THESE REQUESTS.

IT'S PRETTY NORMAL. OH, ACTUALLY, I'M TO OPEN UP THE UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS THEN.

>> I JUST WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION.

THESE WERE BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT?

>> YES, SIR. WE'RE LIKE, WE'VE DONE THIS IN THE PAST.

I THINK THEY'VE BROUGHT SIMILAR VARIANCES TO COUNCIL.

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS RIGHT NOW BUILDING, I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT THREE SCHOOLS OR FOUR SCHOOLS, AND WE WOULD BE JUST BRINGING YOU VARIANCES.

>> I'M PLEASED TO SEE THE WORKING TOGETHER AND THEM BEING ABLE TO APPROACH THE CITY. I THINK THAT'S GREAT.

>> THE ROOFTOP SCREENING IS A CONCERN OF MINE BECAUSE ROOFTOP SCREENING IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT DOES ADD TO THE COVERAGE OF THOSE UNITS ON THE ROOF, SO CHANGING THIS TO BEING AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL TYPE, I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU ALL ARE PAYING ATTENTION BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND MOST ARCHITECTS PUT THESE UNITS TO THE CENTERS OR THE BACKS OF THE BUILDING PRETTY TYPICAL.

BUT WHEN YOU START TO DEAL WITH LAND CONSTRAINTS, THEN THINGS START TO PILE UP ON THE ROOF, ESPECIALLY SCHOOLS.

SOME OF THESE SCHOOLS HAVE 150 AIR CONDITIONING UNITS ON THE ROOF LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF THEM.

I HOPE THAT THERE STILL WILL BE SOME OVERSIGHT, SO WE DON'T HAVE BIG UGLY EYESORES BEING IGNORED BY THIS ORDINANCE OR BY THIS CHANGE.

I WOULD HOPE THERE'S SOME ASSURANCE FROM THE STAFF THAT ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION FOR CASE BY CASE STILL DO SOMEWHAT OF A SIGHT LINE SURVEY AFTER UNITS ARE PUT UP ON THE ROOF, SO YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE WHAT IS THE IO VERSUS NOT.

>> WE WILL MAKE SURE TO LOOK AT THE ANGLE OF THE ROOF AND HOW TALL IT IS FROM THE PERSON STAINING ON THE GROUND.

DEFINITELY, WHEN WE DO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND ELEVATION REVIEW, WE WILL BE LOOKING AT IT.

>> THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN.

I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A GREAT COST SAVINGS FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS OR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, BUT WE STILL DON'T WANT TO BE SEEING BIG UGLY ROOFTOP UNITS ON EVERY SCHOOL.

THE SCREENINGS ARE IMPORTANT FOR THE AESTHETICS, SO I HOPE WE STAY ON TOP OF IT.

>> WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT RESIDENTS DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT UGLY THINGS.

>> I THINK THE TIME IS 8:18, AND THIS WILL OPEN UP PUBLIC HEARING.

MS. MAXINE ELLIS.

>> I WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO ADDRESS WHAT COUNCILWOMAN LONG WAS JUST MENTIONING.

THAT WAS A CONCERN ALSO AT P&Z BECAUSE IN THE EXAMPLE IN THE POWERPOINT THEY SHOWED WAS LOW ELEMENTARY, WHICH IS RIGHT ON THE ARCADIA PROPERTY.

THEY DID NOT DO THE ROOF SCREENING, AND THE AC UNITS ARE VISIBLE FROM WHEREVER YOU ARE, PRETTY MUCH IN ARCADIA.

SO AT P&Z, WE WERE ADVISED THAT THEY ARE GOING TO WORK TO PUT THE AC UNITS IN THE CENTER TO AVOID THAT VISUAL BECAUSE I AGREE WITH YOU, THE VISUAL IT'S NOT THE MOST PLEASANT THING TO LOOK AT AN AC UNIT.

BUT SO I HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU.

I HOPE THAT THE CITY KEEPS TO WHAT IS BEING AGREED UPON TO AVOID THAT SIGHTLINESS. THANK YOU.

[01:15:01]

>> I DON'T THINK THAT THEY WILL BE FULLY HIDDEN WITHOUT THE SCREENING.

I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE SOME PARTS OF IT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THEY WILL BE FULLY HIDDEN.

I DON'T WANT TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY WILL BE COMPLETELY HIDDEN BECAUSE THE SCREENING WILL PROVIDE THAT.

>> GOT YOU. HELLO, I'M JOHN O BYTMAN.

I'M THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT IN PRINCETON ISD, AND I JUST WANT TO THANK THE COUNCIL FOR CONTINUING WORKING WITH US IN THE CITY.

WE'VE BEEN MEETING AND WORKING CONSTANTLY ON WAYS THAT WE CAN WORK TOGETHER BETTER.

I DO UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN WITH THE ROOF SCREENS, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM TO MAKE THEM AS SMALL AND LESS VISUAL AS POSSIBLE.

IT IS A SIGNIFICANT TAX DOLLAR SAVINGS FOR US NOT TO PUT THOSE UP, AND SO THAT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE WORKED WITH THE CITY THUS FAR WITH BEING ABLE TO GET THOSE, BUT NOT HAVING TO COME BACK EVERY TIME.

WE HAVE TWO SCHOOLS OPENING UP NEXT YEAR, AND THEN WE HAVE ANTHONY HIGH SCHOOL COMING.

WE HAVE TWO ELEMENTARIES THE FOLLOWING YEAR, AND THEN I HAVE TWO MORE ELEMENTARIES IN A MIDDLE SCHOOL IN OUR CURRENT BOND PROJECT, AND MORE ARE COMING WE JUST HAD OUR DEMOGRAPHER STUDY, AND SO THE KIDS ARE COMING.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE BEING ABLE TO BUILD THESE SCHOOLS IN A TIMELY MANNER, THAT WAY WE HAVE AS LESS OVERCROWDED AS POSSIBLE.

ANY OF THOSE, YOU GUYS BEING ABLE TO WORK WITH US WOULD BE AMAZING. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY I KNOW THAT SHA PRESENTED THIS, AND SHE GAVE A RECOMMENDATION IN TERMS OF THE PROS OF APPROVING THIS, SO THIS COMES WITH A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE STAFF?

>> YES, SIR. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THE SAME AS PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED.

>> AWESOME. I DO KNOW FROM MY RESEARCH, AND FROM EVERY PLACE YOU'VE BEEN, I KNOW I DO A LOT OF RESEARCH INTO WHEN PEOPLE COME.

THE PLACES THAT YOU'VE BEEN BEFORE.

WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT YOU'VE WORKED WITH IN THE PREVIOUS CITIES THAT YOU'VE BEEN AT, AND EVERYBODY THAT I'VE TALKED TO HAVE STATED THAT EVERYWHERE THAT YOU'VE BEEN, YOU'VE LEFT IT BETTER THAN WHEN YOU CAME IN TERMS OF IMPROVING THEIR PROCESSES IN THEIR PROCEDURES.

I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THOSE SCENARIOS WHERE IT WOULD BE WISE TO TAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION AND MOVE IN A BETTER DIRECTION IN TERMS OF PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES.

I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH ACCEPTING THIS RECOMMENDATION AS IT'S PRESENTED.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. I DO HAVE DEL JOHNSON.

I DON'T SEE HER HERE, BUT THE TIME IS 8:22, AND THIS WILL CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING AT THE TIME I ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION.

>> YOUR HONOR, I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM L4, ORDINANCE 2026-01-12-04.

>> I SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND.

>> I'M MISSING ONE VOTE. MOTION PASSES SIX, ZERO.

[L5. ORD-2026-01-12-05 Conduct a public hearing and consider approving Ordinance No. 2026-01-12-05, of the City of Princeton regarding a request from FM75 Home, LLC for the voluntary annexation of property being a 1.311 acre tract of land situated in Collin County, Texas, being part of the David Cherry Survey, Abstract No. 166; and take appropriate action.]

FOR ITEM L5, WE DID RECEIVE AN EMAIL TODAY, WITHDRAWING THAT REQUEST.

AMBER, I'M NOT SURE HAVE YOU SEEN IT OR GRANT.

HAVE YOU SEEN THAT THEY WITHDRAW? GRANT, WE JUST PROCEED?

>> YOU GUYS CAN JUST LIKE YOU DID EARLIER, YOU GUYS CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE WITHDRAWAL.

>> YES.

>> THIS APPLICANT HAS WITHDRAWN THEIR REQUEST TO VOLUNTARY ACTION, SO AT THIS TIME, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> YOUR HONOR, I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE WITHDRAWAL OF AGENDA ITEM L5, ORDINANCE 2026-01-1205.

>> I'LL SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND.

>> MOTION PASSES SIX, ZERO.

[01:20:04]

THIS WILL TAKE US INTO OUR REGULAR AGENDA.

THAT'S RIGHT. WE'LL ACTUALLY GO INTO OUR CONTINGENT ITEMS THAT WE PULLED.

[H1. 2026-003 Consider approving Nikki Krum’s voluntary resignation from her appointed office of Planning & Zoning Commission, Place 3; and take appropriate action.]

WE'LL START WITH H1. MS. COOK?

>> H1, CONSIDER APPROVING NIKKI CRUM'S VOLUNTARY RESIGNATION FROM HER APPOINTED OFFICE OF PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION PLACE THREE AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.

>> I PULLED THIS FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA BECAUSE I KNOW SHE'S NOT HERE, BUT I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO NIKKI FOR HER SERVICE.

SHE'S NOT ONLY SERVED ON A BOARD.

SHE'S BEEN ON COUNCIL BEFORE.

SHE HAS DONE A LOT OF SERVICE TO THE CITY AND NEEDS RECOGNITION FOR THAT, AND I APPRECIATE HER SERVICE, AND I'M SORRY TO SEE SHE'S RESIGNED.

>> I'LL ECHO THAT SENTIMENT, NIKKI CRUM AND HER WITH MATTHEW CRUM.

THEY'VE BEEN GREAT EXAMPLES OF WHAT CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AND CIVIC LEADERSHIP IS FOR THE CITY FOR YEARS BEFORE I EVEN MOVED INTO PRINCETON HER NAME'S ON ONE OF THE PLAQUES OUT THERE AS FAR AS THIS BUILDING.

NIKKI CRUM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, AND I KNOW HOPEFULLY WE WON'T SEE THE LAST OF YOU ON P&Z, AND HOPEFULLY THERE'S A FUTURE FOR YOU HERE AND ANOTHER BOARD.

THANK YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND.

>> I WOULD SECOND WITH MS. TODD, MR. JOHNSON.

NIKKI CRUM IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE FIRST PEOPLE I MET HERE.

HER NAME IS ONLINE.

SHE RUNS A LOT OF THE GROUPS HERE, SO I WANT TO THANK HER FOR HER SERVICE AS WELL, SHE IS AN AMAZING PERSON.

WE WILL MISS HER.

>> I ECHO THAT AS WELL.

WITH THAT, I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM H1.

>> I'LL SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND. ITEM PASSES SIX, ZERO.

[H5. 2026-004 Consider approving Final Plat - 75 Monte Carlo Addition, Block 1, Lot 1, a request from Prince Land LLC for final plat approval for a property being a 1.784-acre tract of land situated in the David Cherry Survey, Abstract No. 166, City of Princeton, Collin County, Texas; and take appropriate action.]

TAKE US TO H5, MS. COOK.

>> CONSIDER APPROVING FINAL PLAT 75 MONTE CARLO ADDITION BLOCK 1 LOT 1, A REQUEST FROM PRINCE LAND, LLC FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR A PROPERTY BEING 1.784 ACRE TRACT OF LAND, SITUATED IN THE DAVID CHERRY SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 166, CITY OF PRINCETON, COLLIN COUNTY TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.

>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

THIS IS A FINAL PLAT FOR THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MONTE CARLO IN US 75 LONG NECK, JUST NORTH OF MONTE CARLO.

THAT IS THE GAS STATION THAT IS BEING BUILT THERE.

YOU ALL WILL I WANT TO SAY THAT THIS IS US FIXING THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED.

THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN ANYMORE, BUT YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION HAPPENING ON THIS PROPERTY.

IN THE PAST, WE HAVE BEEN GIVING COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES BUILDING PERMIT BEFORE THE FINAL PLAT WAS APPROVED.

HOWEVER, THAT PRACTICE HAS STOPPED.

THE CORRECT SEQUENCE OF DEVELOPMENT IS USUALLY YOU DO A PRELIMINARY PLAT.

IN CASE THERE IS A FULL SUBDIVISION INFRASTRUCTURE, THAT IS MORE THAN ONE PROPERTY IS GOING TO SHARE EITHER DRAINAGE AREA OR STREETS SYSTEM, THEN WE CALL IT THE PUBLIC OR SUBDIVISION INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN.

AFTER A PRELIMINARY PLAT, WE WILL MAKE THEM BUILD THAT.

THEN WE WILL BRING IT TO COUNCIL TO ACCEPT THAT, AND THEN WE WILL HAVE THEM DO A FINAL PLAT SO THAT ALL THE THINGS THAT WERE CONSTRUCTED IN CASE SOMETHING CHANGED ON WILE CONSTRUCTION, THEN THOSE EASEMENTS CAN BE SHOWN IN THE FINAL PLAT.

FINAL PLAN ONCE FINAL PLAT IS RECORDED, WE REQUIRE WHOSOEVER WANTS TO DEVELOP, WILL THEN SUBMIT A SITE PLAN.

THAT SITE PLAN ALSO HAS SOME INFRASTRUCTURE, CIVIL THAT BELONGS ONLY TO THAT SITE.

BUT THE SITE PLAN ALSO HAS LANDSCAPING, ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ELEVATION OR ANYTHING THAT OUR ORDINANCES REQUIRE, AND WE REVIEW ALL OF THAT.

ONCE WE KNOW THAT IT'S CORRECT, THEN WE GIVE A PERMIT TO START CONSTRUCTION.

ALTHOUGH, STEPS WERE GETTING A LITTLE CONFUSED, WE WERE LETTING PEOPLE DO THE PRIVATE SITE CONSTRUCTION ALONG WITH THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND GIVING THEM THE PERMIT TO START BUILDING,

[01:25:04]

WHICH CAUSED SOME ISSUES QUESTIONS THAT COUNSEL HAS BEEN HAVING.

WE WERE TRYING TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO DO IT FASTER, BUT SLOWING IT DOWN MAKES IT EASIER FOR US TO MAKE SURE THAT THINGS ARE DONE CORRECTLY, AND SO WE ARE NOW REQUIRING PEOPLE TO DO IT IN THE RIGHT SEQUENCE.

I DID WANT TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT WE ARE BRINGING THIS BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY BUILDING, BUT WE'VE MADE SURE THAT THE FINAL PLAN MATCHES THE PRELIMINARY PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL, AND THIS PROJECT DOES NOT HAVE ANY PUBLIC OR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT.

THEY ARE TAKING CARE OF THEIR DRAINAGE AND THEIR CIRCULATION ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY, SO WE'VE LOOKED AT THEIR SITE PLAN ALSO.

WE'RE JUST PAPERING BACK, AND WE WILL BE DOING IT FOR THE REST OF THIS AREA ALSO BECAUSE SOME OF THE PRELIMINARY PLATS FOR OTHER LIKE MCDONALD'S AND SHOPS AT MONTICELLO HAVE NOT YET BEEN APPROVED.

WE ARE GOOD THERE THAT WE ARE NOW MAKING THEM GO THROUGH THE RIGHT SEQUENCE.

>> HAVE THEY FOLLOWED THE PRELIMINARY PLAN THAT THEY THAT THEY PROVIDED?

>> YES. THEY'RE BUILDING EVERYTHING BUILDING.

THEY'RE BUILDING ACCORDING TO THE PLANS THAT THEY PROVIDED AND THAT WERE APPROVED, THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS, AND OUR INSPECTORS THEY'RE CALLING FOR INSPECTIONS IN THE RIGHT SEQUENCE.

>> THANK YOU. I THINK MS. TODD HAD A QUESTION.

>> FIRST, I WANT TO SAY TO CLARIFY FOR EVERYONE, YOU ARE NOT HERE WHEN ALL OF THIS STARTED.

YOU KIND OF JUST ROLLED IN AND ONE DAY I'M E MAILING YOU, HEY, WHY IS THERE A BUILDING HERE? I WANT TO EXPRESS MY GRATITUDE TO YOU FOR IMMEDIATELY BEING LIKE, I'M HEADING OUT THERE, AND I'M GOING TO GO LOOK AT THIS AND THEN DIVING IN TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE CONFUSION WAS AND THEN CREATING A BETTER PROCESS TO IMPLEMENT GOING FORWARD AND WEEDING THROUGH THE VARIOUS PRELIMINARIES AND ALL OF THAT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE FOLLOWING A SPECIFIC PLAN SINCE I KNOW THERE WAS LIKE A COUPLE OUT THERE.

I JUST REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THAT HARD WORK BECAUSE IT WAS JUST A FEW WEEKS INTO YOU BEING HERE, AND YOU DOVE STRAIGHT INTO TRY AND GET THIS UNDER CONTROL AND PUT NEW PROCEDURES IN PLACE, AND I GREATLY APPRECIATE THAT.

I KNOW THE RESIDENTS APPRECIATE THAT KNOWING THAT WE HAVE SOMEONE PUTTING THOSE PROCEDURES IN PLACE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. THERE WILL BE MORE COMING.

THERE MIGHT BE OTHER ISSUES COMING UP, BUT I ASSURE YOU ALL THAT WE WILL KEEP FIXING IT.

>> I HAVE SEEN YOU TAKE THE TINY LIST OF THE CHECKLIST AND TURN IT TO 11 PAGES, SO I AM SO EXCITED TO HAVE YOU HERE, AND THE CHANGES YOU'RE BRINGING, I KNOW, WILL BE GREAT FOR THE CITY. THANK YOU.

>> THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS I ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I'LL MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM H5.

>> I'LL SECOND.

>> YOU GET IT.

MOTION PASSES SIX, ZERO.

[H8. ORD-2026-01-12-06 Consider approving Ordinance No. 2026-01-12-06, amending Chapter 78, Article IV, Division 1, Section 78-503 of the Princeton Municipal Code to update the membership composition and requirements for the City’s Capital Improvement Advisory Committee; and take appropriate action.]

THIS WOULD TAKE US TO ITEM H8.

>> CONSIDER APPROVING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2026-01-1206, AMENDING CHAPTER 78 ARTICLE 6 FOR FOUR.

DIVISION 1, SECTION 78503 OF THE PRINCETON MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE MEMBERSHIP COMPOSITION, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CITY'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION, MR. LOWRY.

>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.

THIS ORDINANCE UPDATES THE OLD DEFINITION OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

PREVIOUSLY, THE CITY'S PLANNING IN ZONING COULD SERVE AS THE COMMITTEE, BUT WITH THE NEW STATE LAW, SENATE BILL 1883 FROM THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION, THAT CAN NO LONGER OCCUR.

THIS ORDINANCE AMENDS THE CODE TO UPDATE THE DEFINITION, SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> MY ONLY QUESTION IS, WHEN WILL WE START ACCEPTING THOSE APPLICATIONS AND MAKING SURE THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE ETJ KNOW THEY ARE INVITED TO APPLY FOR THIS PARTICULAR BOARD?

>> THE APPLICATION SHOULD GO OUT TOMORROW.

IT SHOULD BE POSTED TOMORROW.

>> IS THERE AN EMPHASIS? BECAUSE I KNOW WHEN CERTAIN BOARDS, ETJ MEMBERS CAN'T APPLY FOR THEM, BUT ON THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY, WE ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO HAVE ONE.

IS THAT GOING TO BE IN THE STATE?

>> AARON.

>> YOU ALREADY HAVE THE POST SCHEDULED FOR

[01:30:03]

THIS ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT.

ARE WE GOING TO STATE ON THERE THAT WE NEED SOMEBODY FROM THE ETJ TO APPLY AS WELL?

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> GOOD.

>> AARON, SHE GOT IT.

>> BUT MOST PEOPLE IN THE ETJ SKIP PAST THOSE, BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DO KNOW THIS IS A BOARD THAT THEY SHOULD BE APPLYING FOR. THAT WAS MY POINT.

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> I THINK WE CAN JUST SHARE THAT POST AND STATE THAT AS WELL, THAT GET THAT OUT THERE.

HELP SPREAD THE WORD A LITTLE BIT.

>> YEAH [INAUDIBLE]

>> AT THIS TIME, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM H8.

>> I'LL SECOND.

>> CAN WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> MR. WASHINGTON.

MOTION PASSES 6, 0.

THIS WILL TAKE US TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS.

[M1. 2026-008 Consider approving the appointments and/or reappointments to the Community Development Corporation, and take appropriate action.]

ITEM M1, CONSIDER APPROVING THE APPOINTMENTS OR RE-APPOINTMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.

ON THIS ITEM, I'M ASKING COUNSEL TO TABLE TO ALLOW THE CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS TO APPLY.

I'M NOT SURE IF THIS WAS A PRACTICE IN THE PAST, BUT THEY DID NOT APPLY AND THEY ARE ASKING FOR REAPPOINT APPOINTMENTS.

I THINK IT'LL BE FAIR TO BE ABLE TO EXAMINE ALL OF HEREBY THE APPLICATION SO WE CAN MAKE A FAIR JUDGMENT CALL ON WHO SHOULD BE REAPPOINTED.

>> YOUR HONOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS UNTIL.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND. MOTION PASSES, 6, 0.

THIS WILL TAKE US TO ITEM M2, 2026-009,

[M2. 2026-009 Consider approving the appointments and/or reappointments to the Economic Development Corporation, and take appropriate action.]

CONSIDER APPROVING THE APPOINTMENTS AND/OR RE-APPOINTMENTS TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.

ON THIS ITEM IT IS THE SAME TO GIVE THE BOARD MEMBERS TIME TO APPLY.

THIS TIME I ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE ITEM M2 UNTIL THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

>> I'LL SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND, MISS TODD.

>> MOTION PASSES 6, 0. M3, 2026-010,

[M3. 2026-010 Consider approving the appointments and/or reappointments to the Library Advisory Board, and take appropriate action.]

CONSIDER APPROVING THE APPOINTMENTS AND/OR RE-APPOINTMENTS TO THE LIBRARY OF [INAUDIBLE] BOARD AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.

THIS ONE I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO TABLE.

WE ONLY HAVE ONE APPLICANT.

>> TECHNICALLY, THE LIBRARY BOARD IS NOT LISTED SPECIFICALLY IN CRITERIA IN HOME RULE OR WITHIN OUR ORDINANCES, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN ANY OF OUR OTHER BOARDS, SO TECHNICALLY, THE LIBRARY DOES NOT HAVE RESTRICTIONS ON WHO CAN APPLY.

>> IT JUST MAKES SENSE SINCE THE SCHOOL BOARD VOTING DIDN'T HAPPEN WITH ETJ.

I THINK JUST OUT OF FAIRNESS THAT WE'LL TABLE THIS BECAUSE TO BE HONEST, I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE OTHER APPLICANTS IN THAT WAY WE CAN COMMUNICATE TO THEM THAT THEIR APPLICATIONS ARE VALID STILL.

>> THAT WORKS. AT THIS TIME, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> A MOTION TO TABLE M3.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND, MR. JOHNSON.

>> JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, IS THAT THE TABLE TO THE NEXT MEETING?

>> YES, SORRY.

>> THANK YOU.

>> I'M MISSING ONE MORE VOTE. SOMEONE DIDN'T VOTE.

MR. LONG, MR. DEFFIBAUGH, DID YOU VOTE?

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> MOTION PASSES, 6, 0.

THIS WILL TAKE US TO ITEM M4.

[M4. 2026-011 Consider approving the appointments and/or reappointments to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and take appropriate action.]

SAME, M4 2026-011, CONSIDER APPROVING THE APPOINTMENTS AND/OR RE-APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.

THE SAME DEAL FOR THIS ONE.

AT THIS TIME I ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I MOVE THAT WE TABLE ACTION ON THIS ITEM UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.

>> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND, MR. JOHNSON.

MOTION PASSES, 6, 0.

[M5. ORD-2026-01-12-07 Consider approving Ordinance No. 2026-01-12-07, repealing the Code amendments in Section 5 of Ordinance No. 2024-09-16-02; readopting certain Code amendments in Section 2 of Ordinance No. 2023-04-24; ratifying the Code amendments in Section 5 of Ordinance No. 2025-09-22-04; and amending and revising the City’s Code of Ordinances in accordance with Section 2 of this Ordinance, thereby amending Chapter 78, entitled “Utilities,” Article III, entitled “Sewage,” Division 1, entitled “Generally,” Section 78-131, entitled “Sewer Rates” to reimplement winter quarter averaging; and take appropriate action.]

THIS WILL TAKE US TO M5. MISS COOK.

>> CONSIDER APPROVING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2026-01-12-07, REPEALING THE CODE AMENDMENTS IN SECTION 5 OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 2024-09-16-02,

[01:35:07]

RE-ADOPTING CERTAIN CODE AMENDMENTS IN SECTION 2 OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 2023-04-24, RATIFYING THE CODE AMENDMENTS IN SECTION 5 OF ORDINANCE 2025-09-22-04, AND AMENDING AND REVISING THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2 OF THIS ORDINANCE, THEREFORE AMENDING CHAPTER 78 ENTITLED UTILITIES, ARTICLE 3, ENTITLED SEWAGE.

DIVISION 1, ENTITLED GENERALLY, SECTION 78131, ENTITLED SEWER RATES TO RE-IMPLEMENT WINTER QUARTER AVERAGING AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION, MR. PRESTON JONES AND WILL ROSALES.

>> PRESTON JONES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS.

WILLIAM ROSALES, HE IS OUR UTILITY BUILDING MANAGER.

WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT COUNSEL MAY HAVE ABOUT THIS AGENDA ITEM.

>> I KNOW WE SPOKE ABOUT THIS A FEW TIME, BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> YES, I JUST NEED TO KNOW IF THIS REPEALING ACTIVATES THE CIP REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE IT IS TOUCHING INTO THE FEES AND WHATNOT, AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT DOING THAT BECAUSE THAT WOULD FREEZE US FOR THREE YEARS ON MAKING CHANGES.

WE WOULDN'T HAVE DONE THE AUDIT THAT'S REQUIRED SINCE THIS IS AFTER SEPTEMBER 1ST, AND THIS RELATES TO CIP RELATED BUSINESS.

GRANT, WERE YOU ABLE TO FIND OUT IF THIS REPEALING AND UNDOING SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE IN THE PAST WILL NOT ACTIVATE THE CURRENT LAWS, OR DOES IT STILL ACTIVATE THE CURRENT LAWS AND PUT US IN A CHECKMATE?