[00:00:05]
>> THEN WHAT IS THE RIGHT OF WAYS OR EASEMENTS
[*A portion of this meeting is not available*]
[5. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2024-814 AWARDING CONTRACTS FOR THE DUBLIN ROAD WATER LINE PROJECT.]
THAT WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE.THEN THE QUESTION WAS, IF IT'S NONE PERHAPS ON THE SOUTH SIDE, WHY DON'T WE PUT IT ON THE EDGE OF THE ROAD? IF WE HAVE TWO, AGAIN, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, THEN WHY COULDN'T WE CUT IT INTO THE ROAD AT THOSE TWO PLACES AND THEN KEEP AS MUCH AS WE CAN ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD SO THAT IN THE FUTURE WHEN THAT WATER LINE BREAKS, WE CAN GET TO IT EASIER.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. I'M GOING TO ANSWER IN A MANNER THAT MAYBE HAS A LITTLE LESS TO DO WITH PROPERTY RIGHTS AND HAS TO DO WITH WHAT REMAINING FACTUAL INFORMATION OUT THERE THAT CORRIDOR IS A VERY NEAR CORRIDOR.
OUTSIDE THE PAVEMENT, THERE ARE A PLETHORA, IF YOU WILL, OF FRANCHISE UTILITIES.
WHILE WE'VE DONE THE BEST JOB WE CAN IN LOCATING THOSE FRANCHISE, [BACKGROUND] IT'S INEVITABLE THAT IF WE WERE TO GO OUTSIDE THE PAVEMENT AND WE TRY TO FIND EVERY FRANCHISE UTILITY BEFOREHAND, WE'RE GOING TO MISS, IT'S INEVITABLE THAT WE'LL MISS.
MOVING OUTSIDE THE PAVEMENT AT THIS STAGE, WE WILL LIKELY FRANCHISE IS IN CONFLICT THAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT.
THAT'S GOING TO SLOW THE CONSTRUCTION DOWN THAT WHAT ACTUALLY CAUSED THE PROJECT AT A HIGHER RATE.
MOVING INTO AN AREA WHERE IT'S A UTILITY CORRIDOR, WHETHER KNOWN OR UNKNOWN, CONTRACTORS WILL BID THE PROJECT A HIGHER RATE.
THAT'S ONE ELEMENT THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT.
THE SECOND THING THAT YOU NOTICED WHEN YOU DRIVE DOWN DUBLIN ROAD, JUST OUTSIDE THE PAVEMENT, IN A LOT OF THE AREAS, THERE'S A LOT OF MATURE TREES.
WHETHER THAT'S IN A PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY OR PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT AWAY, WE GO OUTSIDE THE PAVEMENT, A LOT OF THOSE TREES ARE COMING OUT.
NOW, IT'S HARD TO GET OUR PROPERTY OWNERS TO UNDERSTAND THAT TREE MAY BE IN PUBLIC RIGHT OFWAY IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE AND THEY'RE GOING TO CONSIDER THAT TREE.
WE WOULD HAVE SOME PRETTY SERIOUS ISSUES WITH TREES.
THE OTHER THING THAT WE'D HAVE TO CONSIDER IS THAT'S A PRETTY NARROW CORRIDOR.
THE PAVEMENT TO WHAT IS EITHER THE PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT AWAY LINE OR THE REAL RIGHT AWAY LINE TO WHERE THERE'S FENCES, THERE'S A VERY NARROW LIKELY WE HAVE TO TAKE DOWN AND MOVE AND REPLACE FENCES ALONG THE PROJECT AS WELL.
THE THIRD THING, THE CORRIDOR OUT OUTSIDE THE PAVEMENT AND WE WERE ABLE TO NAVIGATE UP AND DOWN THAT CORRIDOR WITHOUT HITTING ALL UTILITIES IN THIS WAY, THERE'S NOTHING TO KEEP A FRANCHISE UTILITY FROM COMING IN LATER AND PUTTING THE UTILITY IN OUR WATER IN THAT CORRIDOR OUTSIDE.
IN THAT OVERALL, IS THAT WHAT CRAIG PRODUCED FORWARDED THIS [INAUDIBLE] IT'S QUITE FRANKLY IT'S A CONCERN THAT IF YOU MOVE THE WATER LINE OUTSIDE THE PAVEMENT.
[BACKGROUND] [INAUDIBLE] THE OTHER ONES.
ON TOP OF THE WATER [INAUDIBLE] FRANKLY SAFER TO THAT WE EXPECT FRANCHISE UTILITIES TO LOCATE THE FUTURE [INAUDIBLE].
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT IT WOULD COST MORE FOR THE CREWS TO COME IN AND BID BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO POTENTIALLY HIT THOSE OTHER LINES.
BUT WE ALSO GOT CHARGE I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT THE LAST BID WAS LIKE SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND LIKE 500,000 TO DIG UP THE ROAD AND PATCH THE ROAD.
IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO DIG UP AND PATCH THE ROAD, THAT'S 500,000 THAT YOU COULD SPEND DIGGING ON THE EDGE OF THE ROAD.
>> SLOWER TOO WITH THOSE UTILITIES.
IT JUST CONSTRUCTION GOES SLOWER.
WE'VE GOT THE TREES THAT WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT, WE'VE GOT FENCES THAT WERE WORRIED, WE'VE GOT FRANCHISE UTILITIES THAT WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT.
IF WE WERE TO MOVE IN AND OUT, LET'S SAY WE FOUND AREAS WHERE WE HAVE TRUE RIGHT AWAY THE HAS THE RIGHT TO BE THERE, NOT TRUE WAY.
NOW IF WE START GOING IN AND OUT [INAUDIBLE], AND THAT'S GOING TO MAKE IT HARDER TO MAINTAIN [INAUDIBLE] STRAIGHTER SHOT. [INAUDIBLE]
>> GIVE ME A BETTER IDEA, WHAT'S DRIVING THE TIMELINE SO FAST?
>> [BACKGROUND] I WAS THE PROJECT MANAGER OR DESIGN ENGINEER THIS PROJECT.
I'M STANDING IN FOR CRAIG OUT OF TOWN.
I DON'T KNOW THE TIME [INAUDIBLE]
>> IT'S THE FUNDING [INAUDIBLE] TO BE COMMITTED BY THE END OF THIS YEAR.
THAT HAD TO BE SPENT BY THE END OF NEXT YEAR.
>> IN ORDER TO GET WHICH FUNDS?
[00:05:02]
>> LET'S SET MONEY ASIDE THIS YEAR.
WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY FROM INTERS FROM GRANT, THAT WE HAVE TO BASICALLY JUST SAY WE'RE SETTING THE MONEY ASIDE THIS YEAR, AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE TWO YEARS IN WHICH TO COMPLETE TO GET THE FUNDING.
>> LAURIE, WOULD YOU GO ASK GRANT TO COME JOIN US, PLEASE? BECAUSE HE'S IN HIS OFFICE.
I'VE HEARD THREE DIFFERENT DEALS ON THAT, SO I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM GRANT.
>> IS IT NOT THE UTILITY OR THE FAILING FUNCTIONALITY OF THE LINE? IT'S MORE THIS GRANT RELATED ISSUE THAT'S DRIVING TIMING THAN [OVERLAPPING] THE FUNCTIONALITY?
>> THE ONLY OTHER COMMENT I WOULD HAVE ABOUT THE TREES, YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT TREES THAT ARE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT JUST A LAND OWNER WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE THERE BECAUSE THEY PROVIDE SHADE INTO THEIR PROPERTY?
>> BUT THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE MESSAGE YOU COMMUNICATED.
>> SUGGESTED TO BE GO OUTSIDE THE BE TAKEN A LARGE TREES DOWN, WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A PUBLIC [INAUDIBLE].
I JUST SAY THAT TO YOU SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND IT.
>> I APPRECIATE THIS. I COULDN'T.
THERE'S NO WAY I COULD READ THIS.
I CAN'T LOOK AT THIS AND SEE WHAT WE HAVE A RIGHT AWAY OR NOT [OVERLAPPING].
>> HOLD ON. MAYOR PRO TEM RED, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> I WAS ONLY GOING TO SAY THAT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS, ONE OF OUR LARGEST EXPENSES IS ROAD CONSTRUCTIONS.
THAT'S WHERE WE'RE LOOKING VERY CLOSELY AT THIS IS BECAUSE IF THERE'S A WAY THAT WE CAN ELIMINATE INEVITABILITY WHERE THERE IS SOMETHING WHERE YOU HAVE TO GO IN AND TAKE IT.
I REPAIR SITUATION TO A WATER LINE OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE DIGGING THE ROAD UP.
AS WAS STATED EARLIER, THAT'S $500,000, WHICH IS A LOT OF A LOT OF MONEY.
IF WE HAD TO DO THAT BY SOME STRANGE CHANCE WHERE SOMETHING HAPPENS ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, THAT'S JUST UNACCEPTABLE ON MY SIDE.
THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN THAT WHEN I LOOK AT THIS IS THAT THIS BACK AND FORTH AND UNDERNEATH THE ROAD JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO MAKE SENSE.
>> YEAH, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ECHO THE COMMENTS THAT COUNCIL MEMBER CERCO HAS EXPRESSED.
I DO HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT HAVING THE WATER LINES GOING UNDERNEATH THE ROAD.
BUT I DID WANT TO, I GUESS, TALK THROUGH THIS CONCEPT OF TIMING.
YES, THE GRANT WOULD REQUIRE US TO, I GUESS AWARD THE BID BY THE END OF THE YEAR, AND IT'S OCTOBER, SO WE DON'T HAVE MUCH TIME LEFT IN THE END OF THE YEAR.
I UNDERSTAND THE URGENCY TO MAKE A DECISION TO AWARD THE BID, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT IF THE AWARDING OF THE BID TO DO THE WORK IF THEY HAVE TWO YEARS TO COMPLETE THE WORK.
COULD THERE BE MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLAN THAT COULD STILL TAKE PLACE PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT WORK STARTS?
>> THE BIDS WERE RECEIVED BASED ON THE PLANS THAT WERE PUBLISHED TO THE CONTRACTING COMMITTEE AND SPECIFICATIONS.
IF YOU WOULD AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TONIGHT ON THAT BASIS.
IF THEN THAT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WAS AWARDED THE CITY TO COME UP WITH A NEW DESIGN NEW PATH THEN WE WOULD BE ASKING THE CONTRACTOR TO PUT THAT WORK ON PAUSE WHILE A REDESIGN WAS DONE, AND THEN RESUBMIT A NEW PROPOSAL IN THE FORM OF A CHANGE ORDER TO OUR CONTRACT.
THAT CHANGE ORDER WOULD LIKELY INCLUDE THINGS LIKE TIME LOST, BONDS THAT HE HAD PUT TOGETHER FOR THE BID.
CONTRACTORS PLANNED THEIR WORK BASED ON THEIR BID AWARD.
YOU AWARDED A CONTRACT AND WAITED TWO YEARS WORK.
I WOULD EXPECT THE CONTRACTOR TO BE SEEKING SOME FORM OF COMPENSATION [INAUDIBLE]
>> NO, I THINK THE COMMENT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TWO YEARS TO COMPLETE THE WORK, NOT START THE WORK, JUST TO BE CLEAR.
WE STILL NEED TO GET THE WORK DONE WITHIN TWO YEARS.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE CONTRACTOR WAS DELAYED BY A MONTH OR TWO WHILE THESE CHANGES WERE IMPLEMENTED, THEN START THE WORK WITHIN ONE OR TWO MONTHS VERSUS IMMEDIATELY IS THE CONCEPT.
>> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING YOUR QUESTION.
IN THE BID PACKAGE, WE GIVE THE CONTRACTORS CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO COMPLETE THE WORK.
THAT'S THAT'S A PROVISION OF THE BID, AND IT WOULD BECOME A PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT.
WE WOULD HAVE TO WANTED TO EXPAND THAT TIME FRAME, WE WOULD HAVE TO ENTER ENTER INTO A CHANGE ORDER WITH THE CONTRACTOR.
[00:10:03]
IN SOME OF THE SAME ELEMENTS I WAS JUST DISCUSSING ABOUT TIMING AND WORKFLOW AND DELAYS, YOU MAY BE EXPOSED A CONTRACTOR ASKING YOU FOR COMPENSATION FOR DELAY. [INAUDIBLE] PUBLISHED SPECIFICATIONS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT.BUT CIBER CHO MIGHT HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.
>> I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION, BUT AGAIN, WE GET GRANT EVEN HERE?
>> BECAUSE WHAT I UNDERSTOOD AND I KNOW WE'VE HEARD ALL KINDS OF STUFF ON THIS GRANT MONEY.
THAT'S WHAT I HEARD FROM GRANT.
MAYBE THAT ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SAY THAT YOU'VE SET IT ASIDE.
BUT YOU KNOW WE'VE HEARD THE BID STUFF BEFORE, TOO, SO WE'LL WAIT TO SEE WHAT GRANT HAS TO SAY.
>> I BELIEVE YOU HAVE TO AWARD THE CONTRACT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, BUT WE HAVE DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDINGS.
>> MR. SAVAGE, MAN OF THE HOUR, WOULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN TO US THE REQUIREMENT ON THE COVID MONEY.
>> THE FUNDS MUST BE EXPENDED BY DECEMBER 31, 2026.
THAT'S WHEN THE DEADLINE IS ACTUALLY SPENT.
THERE HAS TO BE OBLIGATIONS BY END OF 24.
PROJECTS BY THE END OF THIS YEAR, AND THE MONEY HAS TO BE SPENT BY END OF 2026.
>> WHEN IT SAYS THE MONEY HAS TO BE OBLIGATED, CAN YOU TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS?
>> I'M NOT SURE THAT 100% DEFINITION I JUST THE PROJECT HAS TO BE IDENTIFIED, HAS TO BE ALLOCATED FOR THAT PROJECT AND HAS TO BE SPEND BY 2026.
>> WE HAVE TWO YEARS FOR THE SPEND OR THE FINISHING OF THE PROJECT OR WHATEVER FOR THE FUNDS.
THE QUESTION MARK IS WHEN AND HOW EXACTLY WE HAVE TO HAVE THE ALLOCATION OF THAT? AS FAR AS THE BID [OVERLAPPING]
>> [BACKGROUND] I DON'T SEE ANYTHING AS FAR AS [INAUDIBLE] I ACTUALLY AWARDED TO A SPECIFIC.
>> BUT DOES IT HAVE TO BE AWARDED BY THE END OF THE YEAR?
>> YES. AWARDED, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT HAS TO BE AWARDED, BUT WE HAVE TRYING TO DEFINE AWARDED.
DOES AWARDED MEAN THAT THERE'S A ORDINANCE STATING AN ALLOCATION OF THE BUDGET OR DOES AWARD MEAN THAT YOU'RE AWARDING A BID TO A CONTRACTOR TO DO WORK, AND WE'RE TRYING TO ASCERTAIN THAT DEFINITION THERE.
>> DID YOU SAY AWARDED OR DID YOU JUST SAY THE PROJECT IT HAD TO BE COMMITTED TO A PROJECT, WHICH THAT WOULD MEAN CITY COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO BUDGET THE FUNDS FOR THE PROJECT, WHETHER WE'VE AWARDED IT TO A CONTRACTOR OR NOT?
IT SAYS, RECIPIENTS MUST OBLIGATE FUNDS FOR ELIGIBLE USES BY DECEMBER 30, 2024.
>> OBLIGATE NOT AWARD. THAT'S DIFFERENT.
>> I VIEW AWARD AS GRANTING A CONTRACT, TO SOMEBODY, AWARDING A CONTRACT, AND SIGNING IT.
OBLIGATING, IN MY MIND, WOULD BE THE CITY MAKING A FIRM OBLIGATION TO ITSELF AND TO THE CITIZENS.
WE'RE GOING TO SPEND THIS MONEY ON THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT PERIOD END OF DISCUSSION.
WE'VE STILL GOT SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW TO CARRY OUT THE PROJECT, HOW TO EXECUTE IT, BUT WE'RE MAKING A FIRM COMMITMENT TO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
>> THAT SOUNDS ACCURATE TO ME THE WAY THAT YOU READ THAT AS WELL.
THAT WOULD MEAN THAT JUST AS COUNCILMAN PROGRAM SAID, THAT WE WOULD BE JUST A AS A CITY AND COUNSEL AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THAT SAYING THAT THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
I THINK WHAT GRANT IS LOOKING AT IS PROBABLY SOME SUMMARY.
CERTAINLY NOT LOOKING AT THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, WHICH ARE MUCH LARGER THAN THAT.
I'VE JUST LOOKED AT ABOUT WHAT OBLIGATION MEANS, AND IT SAYS FUNDS MUST BE COMMITTED FOR AN ELIGIBLE USE THROUGH A CONTRACT, PURCHASE ORDER, SUB AWARD, OR OTHER BINDING DOCUMENT.
[00:15:02]
IT MAY BE THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE CODE ON THAT.BUT THIS MAY BE SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE POSTPONED TO A FUTURE MEETING, OR STAFF CAN JUST PLACE IT BACK ON THE AGENDA DEPENDING ON WHAT WE FIND OUT AFTER WE DO SOME MORE RESEARCH.
>> I THINK THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD IDEA TO POSTPONE IT FROM TONIGHT.
DO WE BETTER DEFINE EXACTLY WHAT OUR OBLIGATIONS ARE TO MEET THE CRITERIA.
WE CERTAINLY WANT TO MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE MONEY BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE UP THE FUNDS.
I'VE ALWAYS HAVE HAD MY OWN PERSONAL CONCERNS ABOUT PUTTING IT UNDERNEATH THE ROAD IF IT'S IF WE'VE GOT OPPORTUNITIES TO PUT IT BESIDE THE ROAD INSTEAD.
>> YOU'RE WELCOME TO COMMENT ON IT.
>> I TRY NOT TO COMMENT ON IT. I WANT TO REMIND COUNSEL THAT YOU'VE GOT WATER LINES UNDER THE ROADS ALL OVER.
ALL THE NEW SUBDIVISION WATER LINES.
THAT'S A VERY STANDARD PROCEDURE OF THE CITY MURPHY, [INAUDIBLE] THROUGHOUT THE METROPLEX, WATER LINES ARE UNDER THE ROADS.
THAT'S A MORE THAN FAIRLY COMMON ROUTINE.
IT'S NORMAL PRACTICE. I WANT TO PUT THAT OUT.
THE SECOND THING I WANT TO PUT OUT FOR YOU IS, LET'S SAY WE REDESIGN THE PROJECT.
WE FIGURE OUT A WAY TO TRY TO WE NEED THOSE UTILITIES THAT ARE KNOWN AND UNKNOWN.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO FIND THEM ALL AND MOVE THE WATER LINE MAINLY OUTSIDE CONTRACTOR [INAUDIBLE].
WE JUST SUSPECT THAT BEFORE WE FINISH WITH CONSTRUCTION, THE UPSET OR DISAPPOINTED WITH THE CONDITION OF THE ROAD.
>> I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT, BUT OUR EXPECTATION IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO REPAVE DUBLIN ROAD AFTER THE WATER LINE PROJECT.
WE ALREADY HAVE IT IN OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO TEAR UP THE ROAD.
I GUESS, JUST TO GIVE YOU ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WHICH YOU MAY NOT HAVE HAD.
>> I'M A CITIZEN OF PARKER, BUT I TRY DON'T KEEP MY EAR TO TRY TO KEEP UP A FENCE BETWEEN ME AND SOME OF THE ITEMS. WELL, THERE'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO DO PARKER ROAD.
I DON'T KNOW HOW SOON YOU INTEND TO DO THAT.
BUT ANOTHER APPROACH COULD BE THEN IS TO CONTINUE WITH THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT.
PUT THE WATER LINE AS DESIGNED [INAUDIBLE] THE BACK WITH A SPACE OR TEMPORARY.
ONLY UNDER THE CONDITION THAT YOU ARE INSTANTLY COMING BACK.
>> YEAH. DEFINE INSTANTLY [LAUGHTER].
JUST IMAGINE THAT YOU MIGHT CAUSE [INAUDIBLE].
BUT YOU COULD SAY CONSIDER A SEAMLESS TRANSITION GET THE WATER LINE OF THE PAVEMENT WHERE I THINK MR. A WOULD LIKE IT.
THINK IT OUGHT TO GO. WE WOULD NOT DESTRUCT FENCES, AND TREES, AND FRANCHISE UTILITIES, BUT WE WOULD HAVE AN ORCHESTRATED EFFORT TO FOLLOW ALONG RATHER QUICKLY WITH THE REHAB OF ROAD.
I DON'T KNOW THE CONTRACT TIME.
LOOK I WOULD GET EIGHT MONTHS ON THE PROJECT THAT WOULD GIVE TO PUT REHAB PROGRAM FOR ROAD.
>> YOUR NET NET ASSESSMENT IS THAT TO PUT IT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, WHETHER THAT'S PRESCRIPTIVE OR ACTUAL, TO PUT IT ANYWHERE UNDERNEATH THE ROAD IS MORE EXPENSIVE IN TOTAL OUTLAY, IS THAT CORRECT? BECAUSE OF BOTH TIME AND POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WE RUN INTO.
>> I CAN'T THINK SO, I THINK IT COULD I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, BUT I THINK THAT THE DELAYS FOR FRANCHISING PROJECTS CONFLICTS WILL BE SIGNIFICANT.
>> I JUST HAVE A COMMENT, OVERALL, I THINK THIS IS A LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THIS, BUT I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED AND MAYBE NEED MORE INFORMATION IS THAT I THINK THAT WE NEED A MORE DELINEATED ANSWER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ON THE LOCATION AND WHAT CAN HAPPEN AND WHAT THE RAMIFICATIONS ARE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
BECAUSE MY CONCERN IS THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT MAY NOT BE MORE EXPENSIVE.
[00:20:04]
MY BOTTOM LINE, I'M SAYING, WELL, IT'S NOT ANY MORE EXPENSIVE, I WOULD RATHER HAVE IT ANOTHER PLACE, ANOTHER LOCATION FOR OUR FUTURE ENDEAVORS OF HOW WE WANT TO DO THIS.THE SECOND THING IS THAT AND THIS MIGHT BE JUST MY MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT, BUT I'M HEARING LIKE 18 MONTHS AND THEN IF WE GO BACK AND THEN WE HAVE TO DO THE ROAD AFTER THAT.
WE'RE TALKING THAT DUBLIN IS GOING TO BE TORE UP FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS.
I MEAN, I MAYBE I'M JUST LOOKING AT THIS IN A MILD MANNER, BUT I MEAN, FOR US, DUBLIN IS A PRETTY HEAVILY TRAVEL AREA, AND I KNOW WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WATER LINES BEING LIKE ON PLANO AND ALLEN AND OTHER PLACES WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL STREETS THAT ARE NOT MAIN THOROUGHFARES OF THE CITY, IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO MAYBE THROW OUT IS THAT IN TECH CONTEXT OF THE BOARD AND WHAT OUR LEGAL IS GIVING US.
THESE QUESTIONS THAT I FEEL NEED TO BE ANSWERED, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT THE DEFINED COST IS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WHETHER IT'S TOTALLY UNDER THE ROAD, WHETHER IT'S ON THE SHOULDER, HAVING TO TAKE THE TREES DOWN AND ALL OF THAT, OR WHETHER IT IS GOING BACK AND FORTH.
I JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND ALL THOSE DIFFERENT OPTIONS.
I THINK RIGHT NOW, I'M NOT SURE THAT I HAVE ANY IDEA OF HOW ANY OF THOSE WORK.
FOR ME, I THINK WE NEED TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND GO, YOU MAY HAVE SOME OTHER FACTS THERE.
>> I'M SORRY. MR. MACHADO, DO YOU HAVE SOME COMMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ON THIS?
>> I JUST THINK GOING IN AND OUT IS A BAD IDEA FOR THE [INAUDIBLE].
TO FITTINGS TO BE A PLACE FOR RELEASE.
THERE'S TRUST ISSUES WITH WATER.
>> I CAN SEE THAT FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE.
>> IF WE DECIDE WE WANT TO PUT IT OUTSIDE, WE NEED TO KEEP IT OUTSIDE WE PUT IT INSIDE NEED TO KEEP THERE.
MAKE THE STRAIGHTEST SHOT POSSIBLE WITH THAT.
I AGREE WITH GARY'S ASSESSMENT OF THE UTILITIES.
THOSE WERE PROBLEMS. GET IN THERE START PUTTING WATER LINES IN.
THAT CAN BE SIGNIFICANT DELAYS AND TIME AND MONEY.
IT'S NOT MY PREFERENCE TO PUT IT IN THE ROAD.
BUT IN THIS SITUATION, GIVEN TIMING AND THINGS THAT WE'VE HAD TO CONSIDER HERE, THIS LOOKED LIKE THE BEST OPTION TO PUT IT IN THE ROAD.
>> CAN I SUGGEST ONE MORE THING READY COUNCIL RED'S CONCERN YOU KNOW WHERE I LIVE ON THE STATE [INAUDIBLE].
DOWN THE ROAD OVER 20 YEARS. IS DUBLIN ROAD.
IS BLOOD PARTNER, I CONSIDER IT PARKER'S PREMIER RECREATION FACILITY.
IT'S AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT PART. I GET IT.
I LIVE HERE. ALLEVIATE YOUR CONCERN.
ONE THING THAT COULD BE DONE IS IF THE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED AND IF OUR CONTRACT MOVING AHEAD AND IF IT WAS KNOWN UNDER PAVEMENT AS WE CURRENTLY HAVE A DESIGN.
WHICH BY THE WAY IS A SITE COMMENT? NO, NOT ALL THE UTILITIES IN THE OTHER COMMUNITIES ARE JUST RESIDENTIAL STREETS.
ALMOST EVERY COMMUNITY HAS MAJOR TRANSMISSION AMES UNDERNEATH UNDERNEATH PLANO PARKWAY, UNDERNEATH SPRING CREEK PARKWAY, 106 LANE DIVIDED, WHERE YOU DON'T SEE THOSE DOWN HIGHWAYS, BUT STREET HOGS, YES.
THAT'S A VERY. NOW, BACK TO YOUR CONCERN, AND MY CONCERN TOO, IS IF WE REWARD IF YOU WERE GOING TO TRY TO ORCHESTRATE A PAVEMENT REHAB, DON'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE CONTRACTOR WITH WATERLINE TO BE FINISHED.
THE CONTRACTOR COULD BE CAUSED TO START AT ONE END AND WORK HIS WAY ORDERLY TO THE OTHER END.
AS THAT PROGRESSES AND WE ACCEPT THOSE SECTIONS, THEN THE PAVEMENT COME ALONG THAT COULD.
>> HOW LONG OF A SECTION GETS WORKED ON AT ONE POINT IN TIME?
>> WELL, IT'S WORKED ON DAILY HOPEFULLY WEATHER [INAUDIBLE].
THIS SECTION OF WORK WOULD BE ABOUT 200 FEET A DAY PROGRESS ABOUT 200 FEET PER DAY.
PICTURE THAT YOU GET 400 FEET? DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES. BUT 400 AGGRESSIVE, THAT WOULD BE MORE GREENFIELD THERE'S A LOT OF ROCK.
>> I'M JUST REALLY GETTING AT HOW MUCH OF THE ROAD IS GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY THIS.100 YARDS AT THE MOST PROBABLY AT A TIME.
I KNOW IT'S A MOVING 100 YARD TRACK.
>> I PROBABLY CAME INTO THIS DISCUSSION MORE OPPOSED TO PUTTING IT UNDER THE ROAD THAN IN FAVOR OF IT.
BUT I ALSO KNOW FROM A BUSINESSMAN, I'M BETTER OFF NOT MICROMANAGING THINGS THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE
[00:25:03]
EXPERTS IN AN AREA ARE BETTER EQUIPPED TO DECIDE.WHAT I'M HEARING IS BASED ON THIS SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU'RE RECOMMENDING UNDER THE ROAD, AND GARY, YOU'RE RECOMMENDING UNDER THE ROAD.
THE RISK IS SIGNIFICANT TIME DELAYS THAT THERE'S LITERALLY NO WAY TO HESITATE.
>> YEAH. I WILL POINT OUT, WE DO HAVE WATER LINES UNDER SEVERAL STREETS WITHIN PARKER, FOR EXAMPLE, IN PLE, HATHAWAY, I BELIEVE HAS ITS LINE DOWN THE MIDDLE.
THERE'S A MACHINE THAT IF THE WATER LINE EVER BREAKS, YOU GO OUT AND RENT THIS MACHINE AND IT GOES UNDER THE PAVEMENT TO GET TO THE LEAK AND PLUGS IT AND COMES BACK OUT.
>> I MEAN, WHERE I AM RIGHT NOW.
I WOULD SAY, I DON'T MIND TABLEING THE ISSUE FROM TONIGHT TO THE NEXT MEETING FOR US TO GATHER A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION.
BUT IF I HAD TO MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT, I'D PROBABLY GO AHEAD AND VOTE TO PUT IT ONTO THE ROAD BASED ON WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME.
NOW, IF YOU COME UP WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE OR CAN BETTER DEFINE THE TIMELINE OR THE COST OR ANYTHING ELSE OF GOING OUTSIDE OF THE ROAD TO PUT IT, I'M OPEN TO LISTENING TO THAT. THAT'D BE GREAT.
>> MORE THINGS. FOR YOU TO CONSIDER.
I BELIEVE YOU HAVE TIME TO TABLE THIS, BUT IN THE BID ADVERTISEMENT, WE LET OUR CONTRACTORS KNOW THAT FROM THE TIME OF BID SUBMITTED TO THE TIME OF CONTRACT AWARD, THERE'S A NARROW WINDOW FOR THAT BECAUSE WE CAN'T STRING OUR CONTRACTS OUT OR CONTRACTS OUT FOREVER, RIGHT? I NEED TO DOUBLE CHECK OUR BIDS, BUT TYPICALLY IN 60 DAYS.
NORMALLY WE WOULD DO NINE DAYS, BUT I WOULD THINK THAT WE DIDN'T CHANGE THIS WAY.
I'M SORRY, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
I DON'T LOOK. BUT TYPICALLY 60 DAYS FROM THE TIME OF THE BID TO THE TIME OF THE AWARD IS WHAT THE BIDS ARE STILL GOOD FOR.
I JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE FOR YOU.
I WILL CHECK THAT BEFORE WE WAIT TOO LONG.
I FEEL CERTAIN THAT IF THE TABLE IS YOU STILL HAVE TIME.
BUT THIS WAS AWARDED AND THIS WAS BID? SORRY, IT'S NOT MY TIME.
THIS WAS BID ON OCTOBER 3, SO WE DO HAVE SOMETIME.
THE SECOND THING AND THIS IS GOING TO I'M GOING TO START OFF LIKE THIS.
I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT I HAVE SOME CONCERNS IF WE ARE TRYING TO UTILIZE AREA OUTSIDE OF THE PAVEMENT IN PRESCRIPTED RIGHT AWAY WHERE THERE'S NOT A WATER LINE TODAY.
THAT'S ALL OF A SUDDEN PRESS [INAUDIBLE].
>> CATHERINE, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT RELATIVE TO THAT?
>> UNLESS WE WANT TO GO TO EXECUTIVE.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO JUST ADD JUST AN OBSERVATION IN TERMS OF TIMING, AND THAT IS WE ONLY HAVE VERY FEW MEETINGS BETWEEN THE END OF THE YEAR AND NOW, AND IF ANY CHANGE TO THE CONTRACT AWARD WOULD REQUIRE US TO GO BACK OUT FOR A NEW BID CYCLE, WE DON'T HAVE TIME WITH RESPECT TO THE AMOUNT OF TIME WE HAVE LEFT IN THE YEAR.
I THINK IF WE THINK ABOUT WHAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WE'RE SEEKING AND I THINK WE SHOULD SEEK ALL INFORMATION THAT ALL OF US FEEL COMFORTABLE HAVING BEFORE MAKING AN IMPORTANT DECISION LIKE THIS.
BUT THE REALITY IS THAT IF THE I GUESS, THE IDEA ABOUT GOING TO GET MORE INFORMATION WOULD RESULT IN THE DESIRE TO CHANGE THE PROJECT SCOPE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A NEW BID CYCLE, THEN WE'RE RISKING THE GRANT MONEY THAT WE HAVE AT HAND TO DO THE PROJECT, AND WE JUST NEED TO KEEP THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
[00:30:03]
>> I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID.
BUT I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT, AGAIN, I ASKED AN ASSOCIATE OF MR. HENDRIX HERE.
WHAT YOU WOULD DO IF YOU HAD ALL THE TIME ON THE ROAD, AND THE THING WAS I'D PUT IT ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE ROAD.
NOW WE'RE GETTING AN OPINION TONIGHT THAT HEY, THE BEST THING WOULD BE TO ALWAYS PUT IT UNDERNEATH THE ROAD.
OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENCES OF OPINION.
WHO IS THAT ASKED FOR THIS INFORMATION QUITE A WHILE AGO? OBVIOUSLY, I DON'T THINK ANY OF US CAN READ THIS.
IF THERE IS A WHOLE BUNCH OF AS ALONG THE WAY THAT IS, IN FACT, WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT AWAY, AND WE'D HAVE TO EITHER BUY THE RIGHT AWAY OR WORK TOWARDS IT.
WELL, THEN IT BECOMES A LOT EASIER DECISION.
I'M JUST UPSET THAT WE'VE GOT A PRESENTATION TONIGHT WITHOUT THAT INFORMATION WHEN IN FACT, IT WAS ASKED FOR.
>> I KNOW THIS IS A VERY SMALL DECISION.
>> WHAT'S THE DOTTED LINE ON HERE? THE DASH BLUE LINE. THAT'S THE PATH.
>> WELL, THERE'S A LINE THAT GOES DOWN THE CENTER.
IS THAT WHERE YOU WOULD ACTUALLY PLACE IT? IT'S GOING TO.
WE HAVE OVER THERE, OVER HERE AND THERE.
>> I WOULD THINK WHAT WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO FIND OUT IS WHAT DCAD HAS ON RECORD IS NOWHERE NEAR THE TRUTH RELATIVE TO THE DEEDS FOR ALL THESE VARIOUS PIECES OF PROPERTY.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THAT WATER LINE SHOWN IN THE CENTER OF THE ROAD DURING PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE WATER LINES.
THERE WERE NOTED THAT SOME OF THE PIPES THAT EXTEND OFF THAT MAIN LINE, SERVICING HOUSE OR GROUP OF HOUSES WAS BELOW THE DIAMETER THAT WE WANTED IT TO BE SOMEWHERE LIKE TWO-INCH LINES, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY.
ARE THOSE GOING TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS PLAN AND THEY'RE JUST NOT SHOWN ON THIS MAP?
>> THAT GOES BACK TO THE DASH LINE SHOWN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET.
>> THAT DASH LINE IS JUST A GENERAL REPRESENTATION.
IT'S 60 SHEETS HIGHLY DETAILED.
I'D LIKE YOU TO IF YOU'D LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THEM, GO THROUGH AND SEE ALL THE DETAIL WE'VE DONE ON ADDRESSING THE ISSUES THAT YOU'RE BRINGING UP, GORDY CONNECTIVITY, AND UNDERSIZED CONNECTIONS, THOSE ARE ALL RESOLVED SET.
>> WATER LINE IS SPECIFICALLY SHOWN IN SET OF PLANS TO 100 FOOT COORDINATES.
IT'S VERY PRECISELY [INAUDIBLE].
>> OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, COUNCIL, OR MR. MACHADO, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD?
>> COUNCIL, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO?
>> I GUESS A QUESTION I HAVE IS, DO WE HAVE IDENTIFIED WHAT SPECIFIC ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WE WOULD LIKE? BECAUSE IF WE CAN'T EVEN IDENTIFY WHAT SPECIFIC INFORMATION WE WOULD LIKE, AND MORE INFORMATION IS GREAT TO HAVE, THEN I WOULD SAY WE GO AHEAD AND VOTE TO APPROVE.
I TOLD YOU MY POSITION, I CAME IN OPPOSED TO PUTTING IT DO THE ROAD, I'VE LISTENED TO THE OPTIONS AND THE DISCUSSION AND I THINK IT'S NOW UNLIKELY THAT IF WE WERE TO TABLE THIS FOR ANOTHER 30 DAYS, THAT WE'RE GOING TO COME OUT WITH A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.
>> SO, MADAM MY, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2020 4-814, AWARDING CONTRACTS FOR THE DUBLIN ROAD WATER LINE PROJECT.
>> OKAY. IS THAT [OVERLAPPING].
>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2024-814, AWARDING CONTRACTS FOR THE DUBLIN ROAD WATERLINE PROJECT.
AND WE HAVE A SECOND OF THE MOTION WAS BY COUNCIL MEMBER [INAUDIBLE] AND THE SECOND IS BY BUDDY PILGRIM.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING RESOLUTION NUMBER 2024-814, AWARDING THE CONTRACTS TO, I BELIEVE IT'S A&M,
[00:35:04]
JUST SO I HAVE IT FOR THE RECORD.A&M CONSTRUCTION AND UTILITY INCORPORATED.
OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
IN THAT CASE, I GET TO VOTE AND I VOTE FOR GOING AHEAD, SO IT'S 3 TO 2.
SO THE CONTRACT IS AWARDED AT THIS TIME.
I APPRECIATE YOU BRING HERE, MR. HENDRIX.
[LAUGHTER] I APPRECIATE YOUR INFORMATION.
>> THANK YOU. OKAY. NEXT IS CONSIDERATION AND ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON KING'S CROSSING,
[6. CONSIDERATION OF AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON KINGS CROSSING PHASE 5 FINAL PLAT LOTS 26 & 27, BLOCK F.]
PHASE 5 FINAL PLATS SLOTS 26 AND 27.I SEE MR. SOLOMON THERE, SO WE WILL START WITH HIM.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU, MAYOR. WE'RE GOING TO OLD SCHOOL TONIGHT [LAUGHTER] STEVE SOLOMON, 4040 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESS BY DALLAS, TEXAS.
AND WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING TONIGHT IS APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT THAT'S TWO LOTS IN THE EXISTING SUBDIVISION.
THIS IS PART OF KING'S CROSSING PHASE 5, THE SUBDIVISION WAS APPROVED, ACCEPTED BY THE CITY, THE WORK'S BEEN DONE THAT WAS IN I THINK DECEMBER 20, 2023.
AND WHEN WE BROUGHT IN THE ORIGINAL PLAT, THESE WERE THE LOTS IN PHASE 5, AND THIS IS THE PLAT OF PHASE 5.
AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IMATELY TWO ACRES WAS CARVED OUT OF THAT WHERE THE FLOOD PLAIN INFRINGED UPON THAT PARTICULAR LAND.
AND ACTUALLY, THE CITY'S ENGINEER AND STAFF REQUESTED THAT THIS BE HELD BACK FROM THE FINAL PLAQUE UNTIL WE WERE ABLE TO DO A DRAINAGE STUDY OF THIS ENTIRE ACREAGE UP HERE, WHICH IS GOING TO BE KING'S CROSSING PHASE 6 AND PHASE 7.
SO THE IDEA WAS TO BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT PLATTING SOME OF THIS UNTIL THIS ENTIRE STUDY WAS DONE.
SO THAT FLOOD STUDY WAS DONE AND ACCEPTED IN I THINK FEBRUARY 23.
SO THE IDEA IS ONCE THE FLOOD STUDY WAS ACCEPTED, IT CONFIRMED WHERE THE FLOOD PLAIN WOULD BE ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
AND SO THE IDEA PLAT PROPERTY, AND THEN THE LUMBER WOULD BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL.
SO THAT THIS PIECE RIGHT HERE WILL BECOME TWO LOTS, RIGHT HERE, AND THIS WILL BE WHERE THE FLOODPLAIN WOULD BE ON THE BACK OF THOSE PLATS SO THIS IS TAKING UP THE PAPERWORK WITH ADDRESS THAT WAS DONE.
ALL THE WORK'S BEEN DONE. THERE'S NO DEDICATION OF ANY LAND OR CONVEYANCE OF ANY UTILITIES THAT STRICTLY GETTING THE ACTUAL FLAT FILE SHOWING THESE TWO LOTS AND WHERE THE FLOOD STUDY SHOWED THAT THIS LINE.
SO THAT WILL BE MEMORIALIZED [INAUDIBLE].
>> OKAY. COUNCIL, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS, MR. SOLOMON? OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO START WITH COUNCIL MEMBER PILGRIM THIS TIME.
>> TWO QUICK. I ASSUME YOU'RE TIME ABOUT THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN WITH THE BLUE LINE, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> IS THE ELEVATION OF 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN ACROSS THERE.
HOW MUCH BELOW THE ELEVATION LEVEL OF THE PAD OF THE HOUSE WOULD THAT BE?
>> CAN YOU GO BACK AND I GUESS IDENTIFY LATER, YOU SAID FROM THE FINAL PLAT PHASE 5, IT WAS EXTRACTED, RIGHT?
[00:40:01]
AND IT WAS EXTRACTED AT WHOSE REQUEST AT THAT POINT IN TIME?THE CITY REQUESTED THAT WE CONFIRM THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT UP HERE IS GOING TO COME IN AND CHANGE THAT FLOOD PLAIN LINE IN HERE.
>> OKAY. SO YOU GOT THAT FROM COUNCIL WENT BACK? [OVERLAPPING] WHO CITY THEN, GARY?
>> SO WE ALL MET AND I SAID WE'D LIKE TO THAT YOUR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT UP HERE WOULD NOT AFFECT [OVERLAPPING]
>> OKAY. AND IS THERE A CURRENT MAP THAT SHOWS WHAT THE FLOODPLAIN IS CURRENTLY? I THINK YOU SAID WHAT IT WOULD BE, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT CURRENTLY IS.
>> IT'S APPROXIMATELY PROBABLY A THIRD, QUARTER OF THIS TWO ACRES OVER HERE.
>> OKAY. SO A BIGGER PORTION THAN WHAT IT CURRENTLY WOULD BE?
AND THEN I THINK I READ SOME PLACE THAT WHAT WOULD SAY? THEY WANTED SOME TYPE OF ASSURANCE THAT WHAT YOU SAID, NO FURTHER ENCROACHMENT WOULD BE DONE.
THEN IT SAYS THAT THE DEVELOPER DID SOME FURTHER UPSTREAM TO CONFIRM THAT.
BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT DID YOU DO? WAS THERE A THIRD PARTY INVOLVED? WAS THERE SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN PROVIDE US THAT SAYS HERE IS THE FLOOD STUDY AND HERE'S HOW IT CHANGED BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN THE PACKET THAT PROVIDES INFORMATION AS TO HOW IT MIGHT CHANGE OR WHAT YOU DID OR IF IT WAS A THIRD PARTY OR WHAT?
>> WELL IT WAS A COMPLETE FLOOD STUDY.
THIS IS A LETTER ACCEPTING IT.
>> THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE PACKET THAT REALLY DESCRIBED ANY OF THIS THAT WE'RE HEARING TONIGHT.
WE DON'T HAVE THIS INFORMATION.
>> THE ONLY OTHER THING I WOULD ASK IS THAT I GUESS WHEN THE ORIGINAL [INAUDIBLE] WORK WAS DONE, JUST A FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO HIM, WHY WAS IT AT SUCH A DIFFERENT PLACE INITIALLY? WAS IT JUST IT WASN'T DONE BASED ON A FULL STUDY OR I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
>> WELL, WE HAD A FLOOD STUDY, AND WE COULD HAVE, THE IDEA WAS TO LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.
WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE FLOOD STUDIES OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST TEN YEARS PROBABLY THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROJECT.
AND EACH TIME THE FLOOD STUDY IS DONE, IT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT WHAT'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPED ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
AND SO THERE ARE VARIOUS CHANGES.
SO IF THE ACTUAL 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN LINE HAS BEEN CHANGED PROBABLY THREE DIFFERENT TIMES IN THE LAST TEN YEARS.
SO BEFORE THESE TWO LOTS WERE GOING TO BE PLATTED, THE ENGINEERS WANTED TO SAY, TAKE A LOOK.
WE DON'T WANT TO DO THIS ANYMORE.
WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE PLAT LIST SINCE YOU'RE DOWN TO THE LAST HUNDRED ACRES THAT'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPED HERE ADJACENT TO THE CREEK.
AND SO WE SAID, OKAY, THAT'S NOT A BIG DEAL, WE'LL JUST WAIT AND PLAT THIS ONCE THE [INAUDIBLE] STUDY IS DONE ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY WHICH WE DID NOT OWN.
>> SO IF I'M HEARING YOU CORRECTLY, THERE WAS A VERY CONSERVATIVE APPROACH TAKEN INITIALLY BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T KNOW.
BUT THEN WHEN YOU ACTUALLY WENT BACK AND DID THE STUDY ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES IN TOTAL, IT HAS MOVED TO THE SECTION THAT IT IS NOW AND THERE WAS PROBABLY OTHER MOVEMENT BEFORE THAT, ACTUALLY.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. SO THE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION THAT WILL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE [INAUDIBLE] WILL BE [INAUDIBLE] RATHER THAN [INAUDIBLE].
>> I THINK I BASICALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
BUT MY ONLY ISSUE IS THAT I ASSUME THE HYDROLOGIST OR WHOEVER THAT WENT OUT IN THE NEXT PHASE AND SAID, HERE'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.
HERE'S HOW IT'S GOING TO WORK.
HERE'S HOW THE IMPACTS ARE GOING TO BE ON HERE, ET CETERA.
BUT I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT SHOWS ME WHAT WAS DONE, WHO DID IT AND WHAT THEIR FINDINGS WHERE I CAN SEE YOUR MAP HERE, BUT IT DOESN'T.
>> THAT'S NOT HELPFUL FOR US TO MAKE A DECISION, THOUGH, RIGHT BECAUSE I DON'T SEE IT.
I UNDERSTAND WOULD YOU DO IT. I BET YOU PROBABLY
[00:45:02]
DID EVERYTHING AND THAT MIGHT BE THE RIGHT LINE.I JUST DON'T KNOW, RIGHT, BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION.
>> RIGHT. I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE OVERALL PLAN.
SO WOULD THE LOT HAVE DIRT BROUGHT INTO IT TO THE SOUTH OF THAT BLUE LINE THAT YOU'RE DRAWING? WOULD YOU CHANGE ANY OF THE CONTOUR OF THE SLOPE OF THE LOT?
>> YOU WOULD JUST KEEP THE SAME AND YOU'RE JUST REDRAWING THE LINE OF WHERE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN IS PROJECTED TO BE BASED ON YOUR HYDROLOGY.
>> [INAUDIBLE] DOCUMENTING [INAUDIBLE] BASED ON WHAT WOULD OCCUR UP HERE.
>> SO I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO COUNCIL MEMBER CERCO'S CONCERN ABOUT NOT HAVING ENOUGH INFORMATION IN THE PACKET TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS TOPIC TONIGHT.
>> [INAUDIBLE] IS IDENTIFYING THESE AS [INAUDIBLE] THE ENGINEERING STUDIES [INAUDIBLE]. [NOISE]
>> OKAY. DID YOU SUBMIT A FLOOD STUDY TO MR. MACHADO OR MR. [OVERLAPPING] DO YOU HAVE A
>> THE FLOOD STUDY HAS BEEN [INAUDIBLE] FOR HYDROLOGISTS.
>. WE WOULD NOT HAVE INTENDED [INAUDIBLE] WITHOUT [INAUDIBLE].
>> THE CITY'S DOCUMENTATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED AND REVIEWED.
I MEAN, THEY WERE THEY RUN ALL THESE COMPUTER MODELS AND EVERYTHING AND REVIEWED BY OUR ENGINEERS.
SUBMITTED, REVIEWED BY THE CITY'S ENGINEER. [INAUDIBLE]
>> COUNCIL, BASICALLY, I THINK HAS A DECISION TO MAKE ON WHETHER THEY ARE COMFORTABLE GOING FORWARD WITHOUT SEEING THE FLOOD STUDY OR WHETHER THEY WANT TO POSTPONE THIS UNTIL WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET A COPY OF THE FLOOD STUDY.
AND I KNOW YOU'RE ANXIOUS TO [LAUGHTER] HAVE THIS STUDY.
I MEAN WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL THE PROCEDURE AND ME ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY.
THIS IS A PLAN THAT JUST IDENTIFIES [INAUDIBLE] AS ON THE GROUND [INAUDIBLE]
>> AND IF WE HAVE AN ENGINEERING FIRM THAT THE CITY HIRES THAT WE DEPEND UPON FOR TECHNICAL ADVICE, AND THEY'VE APPROVED IT AND GARY'S LOOKED AT IT AND HE'S APPROVED IT.
I MEAN, WHO ARE WE? WHICH OF US UP HERE IS AN ENGINEER TO QUESTION A FLOOD STUDY THAT'S BEEN APPROVED BY AN ENGINEERING FIRM THAT'S BEEN HIRED BY THE CITY?
>> RIGHT. SO I WOULD ALSO COUNTER TO SAY THAT IF THAT ALL HAS BEEN DONE, THEN WHY ARE WE NOT PROVIDED WITH THAT INFORMATION TO MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THIS WORK BEING DONE? WE SHOULDN'T BE GIVEN JUST A COPY OF THE PLAT THAT WAS APPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY COUNCIL IN DECEMBER OF 2023.
AND THOSE LOTS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THAT FINAL PLAT THAT GOT APPROVED AFTER THAT HAD GONE THROUGH REVIEW.
SO MY CONCERN IS THERE WAS PURPOSEFUL THOUGHT PUT BEHIND THOSE LOTS.
WE'RE HEARING THE EXPLANATION FOR WHY THAT PURPOSEFUL THOUGHT WAS EXCLUDING THOSE LOTS FROM AN APPROVED PLAT.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION IN OUR PACKET PROVIDED TO US WITH THE LETTER FROM THE ENGINEER THAT SAID, VERILY, I LOOKED AT ALL THIS STUFF IN MY ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION.
I THINK IT IS OKAY TO MOVE FORWARD.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT. SO THAT'S MY CONCERN.
>> BUT I THINK WE'RE VOTING ON ALLOWING THESE LOTS TO HAVE A HOUSE ON IT.
WITH THAT, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND IF IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT THOSE TWO LOTS ARE PLATTED AND BUILDABLE BASED ON WHERE THE FLOODPLAIN IS AND IN OUR PACKET.
WE HAVE THE DASH LINE, AND THE DASH LINE SHOWS ME THAT THE FLOODPLAIN COMPLETELY COVERS THE LOT ON THE RIGHT, AND ABOUT ONE THIRD COVERS THE LOT ON THE LEFT, AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE INFORMATION THAN THAT PROVIDED TO US.
UNTIL WE GET SOME DOCUMENT THAT SHOWS US THAT THAT BLUE LINE IS INDEED THE ANSWER TO THE STUDY, THEN WE'RE ASKED TO MAKE A DECISION BASED ON OUR CONVERSATION,
[00:50:03]
BUT IT'S NOT BASED ON ANYTHING WE'VE BEEN PRESENTED.>> IT'S NOT [INAUDIBLE] WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING COULD.
>> WE HAVE THIS LETTER FROM GARY SAYING THAT THE ENGINEERS HAVE APPROVED IT.
GARY, DO YOU HAVE A LETTER FROM THE ENGINEERS THAT BACK UP YOUR LETTER?
>> DOES A STUDY BACK UP THE ENGINEER'S LETTER?
>> THE ENGINEERS REVIEWED THE STUDY?
>> I SAY IT COMES DOWN TO WHETHER OR NOT WE TAKE GARY'S WORD AND MR. SALMON'S WORD, THAT THOSE TWO OR THREE FACTS RIGHT THERE ARE TRUE, THAT A STUDY WAS DONE, THAT A STUDY WAS ACCURATE, THAT THE ENGINEERS REVIEWED THE STUDY, THAT THE ENGINEERS APPROVED THE STUDY, AND THAT GARY ENSURED THAT THEY DID.
IF WE HAVE A QUESTION OF THAT, I WOULD SAY WE APPROVE IT CONDITIONALLY BASED UPON GARY PROVIDING US THE LETTER THAT HE HAS FROM THE ENGINEERS.
IF YOU CAN'T PROVIDE THAT, I THINK YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT. WE NEED TO DOCUMENT IT.
WE PROVE IT CONDITIONALLY THAT WE GET THE DOCUMENTATION THAT BACKS UP THE VERBAL REPRESENTATIONS THAT ARE MADE HERE TONIGHT.
>> THE VERBAL REPRESENTATION [INAUDIBLE]
>> WELL, I REALLY OBVIOUSLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT.
FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, I KNOW THAT GARY IS SAYING THAT HE HAS CERTAINLY TAKE AT HIS WORD.
BUT I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE STUFF ISN'T IN THE PACKET BECAUSE AS YOU SAID, YOU DON'T CONTROL THE PACKET.
HOPEFULLY YOU UNDERSTAND OTHER SIDE IS THAT AS WE LOOK AT THINGS IF WE GET A PIECE OF PAPER, BUT WE HAVE QUESTIONS AND NOTHING'S IN THERE YET THE CITY HAS IT, ETC.
AND DOESN'T SUPPLY IT TO US, THEN WE'RE A BIT OF A LOSS PROSPECTIVELY.
I ALSO KNOW THAT THE KINGS CROSSING, WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF RESIDENTS, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CALL IT FLOODING OR NOT, BUT HAVE ISSUES IN THEIR BACK YARDS AND COME QUITE UP DEEP INTO THEIR YARD.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE PREVIOUS ENGINEERING STUDIES OR HYDROLOGIST STUDIES SHOWED THAT, THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT IT CERTAINLY IS HAPPENING.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS PARTICULAR DRAWING IS YOU REDRAW AND SAY, THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD BE, AND YOU RESUBMIT A LOMA.
IF IN FACT, ALL THE INFORMATION THAT SAYS, WE'RE GOING TO DO X, Y, AND Z, IN FACT, TO BRING IN DIRT AND MAKE THIS AND THIS OF THIS HEIGHT, ETC.
WOULD HAVE TO BE FILED, AND IN FACT, THEN THEY HAVE TO DO IT THAT WAY.
I'M JUST A LITTLE BIT OF LOST AND THE FIRST THING IT LOSS IS I JUST DON'T HAVE EVEN THE BASIC UNDERLYING STUFF THAT THE CITY HAS.
>> I ALSO HAVE JUST ONE QUESTION.
DO THESE LOTS NEED TO BE APPROVED IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO SUBMIT THE PAPERWORK FOR THE LOMA?
>> THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION. YES. FOR LATIN BLOCK.
>> THE ALTERNATIVE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS THE COORDINATES VERSUS THE LATIN BLOCK?
>> IT WOULD BE A METES AND BOUNDS.
>> COUNSEL, IS THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. SALMON OR ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THANK YOU, MR. SALMON.
>> WE'LL WAIT JUST A MINUTE OR TWO FOR GARY TO GO GET THE LETTER IF THAT'S AGREEABLE WITH COUNSEL.
I WILL FIND OUT WHY THIS WAS NOT IN YOUR PACKET BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN IT EITHER.
>> WE WILL BE COMING INTO THAT, IN ADDITIONAL CLASS [INAUDIBLE] THE NEXT DAY, KINGS CROSSING [INAUDIBLE]
>> THEY WILL BE BASED ON THE SAME STUDY, I ASSUME?
>> I THINK FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I ECHO WHAT COUNCILMAN, PROGRAM WAS SAYING IS THAT, I THINK FUNDAMENTALLY, I SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO UNDERSTAND IT.
THE ONLY THING THAT I ALSO AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN KIRCHO IS I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN SOME OF THESE DISCUSSIONS WITH KINGS CROSSING, HAVING SOME FLOODING ISSUES ALSO, SO IT'S A LITTLE MORE SENSITIVE IN THAT REGARD.
[00:55:03]
BUT YOU HAVE TO GO WITH THE DATA, OF COURSE, THAT YOU HAVE AND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, YOU'VE DONE EVERYTHING THAT I KNOW WAS EXPECTED OF YOU. ANYWAY.>> YOU CAN JUST GO WITH THE COPIES.
WE'LL GIVE GARY A FEW MORE MINUTES.
>> WE WILL BE IN FRONT OF THEM.
>> [LAUGHTER] ANYTHING YOU CAN DO TO HELP THE OTHER FLOODING ISSUES THAT PEOPLE ARE HAVING PROBLEMS WITH OVER THERE?
>> WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THAT [INAUDIBLE]
>> ABOUT ACTIONS TAKEN INSTEAD.
WHAT HAPPENS IS WE SET ALL THE DRAINS TO BEGIN WITH WHEN WE DO LAND DEVELOPMENT AND THE BUILDERS COME AFTER.
SOMETIMES THEY DON'T GET THE GRAINS BACK TO WHERE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE.
YOU GET IT REALLY HASN'T BEEN FLOODING THERE'S BEEN WATER STANDING IN THE DITCH LATER.
THAT'S ONE OF THE ISSUES. BUT AFTER A RAIN, THE DITCHES DO NOT COMPLETELY DRAIN IN SOME OF THE SWALES OR LOW SPOTS.
SOMETIMES IT'S DUE TO SILK OR DIRT THAT COMES OFF THE LOT WHILE THEY'RE UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
GETS IN THE DITCH, THEY DON'T SET THAT GRADE AGAIN.
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE BUILDERS [OVERLAPPING]
>> CHECK CLOSELY TO WHERE THEY PUT IT BACK TO THE CORRECT RATE SO YOU GET THE DRAINAGE.
WE'VE DONE AN ENGINEERING STUDY AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH GARY.
>> WE TAKE A LOOK TO IDENTIFY ANY PROBLEM AREAS AND THEN COME UP WITH A RECOMMENDATION WHETHER YOU GO BACK AND RE-RATE THAT OR DO THAT JUST PUTTING SIDE IN RATING THEM.
THE BUILDER CAN OVER TURN THAT TO GET THE SIDE AT THE SAME [INAUDIBLE]
>> I THINK RESPONSIBILITIES TO GO BACK TO MAKE SURE THE GRADES ARE PREVIOUSLY APPLIED TO THAT?
>> WOULD PROBABLY. WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?
>> TO IDENTIFY OF THE LEVELS, ETC.
JUST TO SUBMIT THE LOMA AND SAY, THIS IS WHAT IT CAN BE THEN BUILDERS COME IN AND DO SOME DIRT.
THEY DON'T ALWAYS SUPPOSED TO BE [OVERLAPPING]
>> TO BE CLEAR, THESE TWO LIGHTS ARE GOING TO HAVE WATER ON THE BACK PORTION OF THEM IN 100 YEAR FLOOD, CORRECT?
>> THAT'S A 100 YEAR FLOOD SIMILAR TO IF YOU HAVE GRAIN OR DRAINAGE AREA.
IS ACTUALLY, 100 YEAR FLOOD IF THEY HAVE WATER.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS AGENDA ITEM UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING TO ALLOW COUNSEL TO HAVE TIME TO REVIEW THIS DOCUMENT THAT WE WERE JUST PROVIDED.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO REQUEST THE INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO COUNSEL SHOWING WHERE THE NEW FLOODPLAIN WOULD BE AND JUST REFERENCE TO ADDITIONAL FLOOD STUDIES THAT IS APPLICABLE TO THIS TOPIC.
>> I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION.
>> SAID THAT I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MO AND A SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER CERCO TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING, WHICH IS NOVEMBER 12TH, AND TO HAVE TIME TO GO OVER THIS.
>> I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO HAVE A COPY OF THE RESULT
[01:00:04]
OF WHERE THE NEW FLOODPLAIN IS EXPECTED TO BE BASED ON THE FLOOD STUDY.>> CAN I ASK QUESTION BECAUSE THE WORK STUDY [INAUDIBLE]
>> THAT IS A LEGAL OR A GARY QUESTIONNAIRE?
>> I THINK IT'S JUST UP TO THE COUNCIL WHETHER THEY DON'T WANT TO POSTPONE IT AND WHETHER THEY APPROVED THAT MOTION OR NOT.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE ON COUNCIL MEMBER NOS IN COUNCIL MEMBER KIRCHO MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM UNTIL NOVEMBER 12.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
IT WILL BE ON THE NOVEMBER 12 AGENDA.
>> CAN I GET A LITTLE DIRECTION AS FAR AS WE SUPPOSED TO DO SOMETHING OR YOU GOING TO DO SOMETHING.
>> I THINK AMANDA, OTHER THAN THIS, SHE WANTED.
>> I REQUESTED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE TIME TO READ THIS BECAUSE I WAS JUST HANDED IT TO ME ON THE DIAS AND I DON'T HAVE TIME TO CONSUME IT AT THIS TIME.
THEN I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT SHOWS WHERE THIS NEW FLOODLINE WOULD BE AS A RESULT OF THE FLOOD STUDY.
>> YOUR GOING TO ASK STAFF TO PROVIDE THAT?
>> I'M GOING TO ASK STAFF TO PROVIDE THAT TO ME. YES.
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M DOING WHAT'S NECESSARY TO INFORM YOU SO WE JUST DO AS REQUIRED.
>> ARE YOU WITH US, GARY? THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME,
[7. REZONING 1 – [MM SOUTH FORK 241, LLC - APPROXIMATELY 151.316 ACRES]: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING REQUEST FOR PERMANENT ZONING ON APPROXIMATELY 151.316 ACRES OF LAND IN THE CITY OF PARKER, TEXAS, GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE SHERWOOD HERRING SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 404, EAST OF N MURPHY RD AND SOUTH OF PARKER RD, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF). CONSIDERATION AND/OR AN APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 876 REZONING THE MM SOUTH FORK 241, LLC REQUEST FOR PERMANENT ZONING ON APPROXIMATELY 151.316 ACRES OF LAND IN THE CITY OF PARKER, TEXAS, GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE SHERWOOD HERRING SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 404, EAST OF N MURPHY RD AND SOUTH OF PARKER RD, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF).]
WE WILL GO TO ITEM NUMBER.OKAY. ITEM NUMBER 7, REZONING REQUEST ONE, SOUTH FORK.
IS REQUESTING A REZONING FOR PERMANENT ZONING TO APPROXIMATELY 151.316 ACRES OF LAND IN THE CITY OF PARKER, GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE SHERWOOD HEARING SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 404 EAST OF MURPHY ROAD AND SOUTH OF PARKER ROAD, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
I JUST WANT TO BE REAL CLEAR WITH PEOPLE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REZONING FROM SPECIAL ACTIVITY DISTRICT TO SINGLE FAMILY, WHICH ARE TWO ACRE LOTS.
WE'RE NOT TALKING CONCEPT PLANS.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ANYTHING ELSE.
THE FIRST PART OF IT IS ON THE 151 ACRES, WHICH IS WHAT WE ALL THINK OF AS SOUTH PARK.
IS THERE ANYBODY HERE, MR. TERRY, WHY DON'T I LET YOU START OFF.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT. I'LL JUST SPEAK THIS SIMPLE FROM THE LATERAL VIEW.
MY NAME IS SHAN TERRY WITH CENTER AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT GROUP AT 1,800 VALLEY VIEW LANE IN FARMERS GRANTS, TEXAS.
JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT US. WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.
WE HAVE DESIGNED AND DEVELOPED TWO ACRE LOTS, HALF ACRE LOTS, ALL DIFFERENT STUFF.
WE'LL DO ABOUT 8-10,000 LOTS THIS YEAR IN DALLAS FORT METROPLEX.
WE REDID THE STATLER HOTEL. WE DID THAT.
WE'RE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF COLIN CREEK MALL FOR THE LAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS.
I THINK MR. REED, HELPED US READ.
I THINK WE MET TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO, TRYING TO PUSH FOR ONE ACRE LOTS AND WE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR. WE'RE GOING TO OUT THERE.
>> LET ME HOLD UP. I FORGOT TO SAY WE ARE NOW IN A PUBLIC HEARING IT IS 8:19.
>> WE DON'T HAVE A SUPER QUORUM RIGHT NOW
>> WE DON'T HAVE A SUPER QUORUM RIGHT NOW, WE CAN STEP DOWN OR YOU CAN CALL.
>> I GOT TO WAIT UNTIL MY SUPER QUORUM COMES BY.
[LAUGHTER] I DIDN'T EVEN SEE HIM SNEAK OUT.
DON'T YOU LOVE MUNICIPAL RULES? [LAUGHTER] WE'LL GET THERE.
I HOPE YOU BROUGHT YOUR SLEEPING BAGS TODAY [LAUGHTER]
[01:05:05]
>> [BACKGROUND] WE GOT HERE FIVE, READ THE WHOLE AGENDA. I WANTS TO DETECT THE AGENDA.
SHE GOES, WELL, IT'S TOO LATE, IT'S ALL NIGHT.
YOU WANT TO GO UP THERE, DAD AND I GET EXTRA POINT IF YOU GO BUY SOMETHING.
[LAUGHTER] I GOT TO SPEND SOME TIME MY DAUGHTER, SO THAT WAS GOOD.
>> THAT'S GOOD. WELL, AND AS THE REQUESTER, YOU GET TO OPEN AND YOU GET TO CLOSE.
>> YOU GET THE CLOSE IS THERE.
>> [LAUGHTER] IT IS COLD IN HERE.
>> [LAUGHTER] OCTOBER IS HERE [LAUGHTER].
>> I'M GOING TO START OFF, SAW TERRY WAS THE INTERIOR AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT GROUP.
WE'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT PROJECTS.
STAFFORD HOTEL, WE TOOK WHEN THEY CLOSED IT AND BROUGHT IT BACK TO LIVE.
CREEK MALL, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THAT.
WE'VE DONE A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS THROUGHOUT NORTH TEXAS.
RIGHT NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS SIDE.
THE REASON WE DIVIDED IT UP WAS THIS SIDE HAS THE ENTERTAINMENT ZONING ON IT TODAY THAT HAS AGRICULTURE ON THAT SIDE.
WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE CLEANER WHEN WE'RE TALKING TO PEOPLE, WE HAVE REACHED OUT SOME OF YOUR RESIDENTS.
WE HAVE MET WITH A COUPLE OF THEM COMMUNICATION FOR THE LAST THREE OR FOUR WEEKS ON THAT.
AGAIN, LIKE I TALKED ABOUT, COMES RED, I THINK WE MET WITH YOU A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO AND WE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR IN THE [INAUDIBLE] LINES.
WE JUST DO FOR THE [INAUDIBLE] TRY AND DIDN'T HAPPEN.
WE LOOK YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND SAID, WE UNDERSTAND PARKING WANT TO BE TWO ACRE STATE LOTS, SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TODAY.
ROUGHLY ON THIS SIDE, IS ABOUT 68 LOTS OVER HERE.
THE TOTAL IF YOU LOOK AT BOTH IS AROUND 89.
AGAIN, TONIGHT'S A ZONING CASE, ONCE YOU GET ZONING DONE, BUT THEN WE DIVE INTO THE ENGINEERING, THE FLOOD STUDIES, THINGS LIKE THAT TO SEE OKAY, THE MAXIMUM WE CAN BUILD IS 892 ACRE LOTS MEETING ALL YOUR ORDINANCES.
IT MAY COME BACK AND SAY WE HAVE TO USE SOME OF THIS AREA FOR ANOTHER POND OR DRAINAGE.
WE UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE RESIDENTS BACK HERE HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH FLOODING TODAY. WE HAVE MET WITH THEM.
I'M NOT SAYING WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIX ALL OF IT BECAUSE WE DON'T OWN ALL OF THAT, BUT WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORS WHEN WE DO THE FLOOD STUDY, TAKING THAT IN CONSIDERATION.
HOW CAN WE HELP THEM ON THIS SIDE TALKING ABOUT HERE? WE ARE KEEPING. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF MISCOMMUNICATION OUT THERE.
THE EVENT CENTER, THE 37 ACRES AS IT SITS TODAY, WE'RE KEEPING THAT.
WE UNDERSTAND IT'S AMAZING WHEN WE BOUGHT THIS.
THE RUMORS AND EVEN A SIX MONTHS AGO, BEING IN FRISCO, TEXAS, THINK SOUTH PARK WAS GETTING TORE DOWN.
I'M SIXTH GENERATION COLLIN COUNTY, MY GRAND DAUGHTER SO 30 YEARS.
KNOWING THAT FRISCO HAD A LOCATION FOR A WHILE, THAT THIS IS WHERE EVERYBODY RECOGNIZED.
EVEN THIS WEEKEND, THEY'VE GOT THE DALLAS CASH RATING FRIDAY AND SATURDAY.
THEY'RE ALL COMING BACK. WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO WE'VE GOT ABOUT A $2,000,000 LOAN.
WE'RE GOING TO SINK A LOT OF MONEY INTO THERE TO REALLY FIX IT BACK UP.
WE REALLY SEE THIS AS BECOMING MORE OF A WEDDING VENUE.
WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE DIFFERENT EVENTS AND THINGS.
I KNOW YOU HAVE YOUR NOISE ORDINANCE COMMITTEE THAT ROBBIE THAT WORKS FOR US IS ON THAT RIGHT NOW.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT'S A BIG ISSUE OUT THERE.
WE'VE WORKED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
WE FELT LIKE WE'VE WORKED WITH THE CITY.
WE COULD GO TO OUR EVENTS OR TWO IN THE MORNING.
WE'VE STARTED CAPPING THOSE EXCEPT FOR THE OTHER NIGHT WHEN WE HAVE THE T BARNS BALL THAT WE ALREADY YEAR PRIOR.
WE WENT [INAUDIBLE], BUT THEY SHUT IT DOWN AT 11-12 OUTSIDE.
SO WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND WHEN WE GET ALL THESE HERE, THESE OUTDOOR EVENTS ARE GOING TO BE THE LAST.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THIS UP HERE TO BE ABLE TO DO THINGS.
WE'RE GOING TO FOCUS OUR EFFORTS ON THE EVENT AREA TO BE ABLE TO BUILD SOMETHING NICE WEDDING CHAPEL, THINGS LIKE THAT AND ATTRACT THAT KIND OF CLIENTELE.
AGAIN, WE MEET ALL YOUR ORDINANCES, WE WENT TO P&Z, LIKE 60 DAYS AGO ROUGHLY AND TALKED TO THEM.
WE GOT A ANIMUS VOTE AND WE LEFT THERE.
WE'RE HERE ASKING YOU TONIGHT THAT WE COULD APPROVE THIS SIDE FIRST, AND WE'LL GO TO THAT SIDE NEXT.
ALL TWO ACRE LOTS, ALL MEET YOUR MINIMUM.
WE WANT TO WORK WITH THE CITY OF [INAUDIBLE] A FEW TIMES.
BUT THERE'S A COUPLE OF COUNCIL MEMBERS ONCE WE GET THE ZONING DONE THAT HAVE SOME IDEAS OF WHAT THEY MIGHT WANT TO SEE.
I BEEN TALKING TO SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS,
[01:10:01]
THESE HOUSES THAT BORDER OVER MORE ON THIS SIDE WHEN WE GET THERE, BUT DO THEY WANT WROUGHT IRON FENCES THERE? THEY CAN STILL HAVE THAT VIEW EVEN THOUGH THERE'S GOING TO BE HOUSES HERE.THAT WAS THE ONE THAT WE REALLY TALKED ABOUT OVER HERE WAS, HAVING WROUGHT IRON FENCES DOWN THERE SO THEY CAN STILL TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT.
I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT SIDE IN A SECOND.
BUT I'LL LOOK INTO IT AS A WHOLE PROJECT.
BUT THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF IT IS WE WANT TO TWO ACRE STATE LOTS.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SHADO HOMES THAT'S GOING TO BE IN THERE, PARTNERS AND BUILDERS IN OUR COUNTRY HOME.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THREE BUILDERS.
WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET IN, GET THE CONSTRUCTION DONE AND GET OUT.
WE SEE OUR LOT PRICES BEING BETWEEN $4-450,000.
EVEN AFTER TALKING TO OUR BUILDERS, WE THINK OUR HOMES OUT THERE WILL BE TWO MILLION AND WE DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT.
WE WANT TO REALLY RECOGNIZE THAT LAND AND NAME AND STREETS AFTER CAST MEMBERS.
WE REALLY LIKE TO COME IN AND WORK WITH THE CITY TO SAY, WHAT'S YOUR VISION FOR HOW CAN WE REALLY MORALIZE THAT? BECAUSE WHEN YOU THINK OF PARKER, YOU THINK OF SOUTH PARK. YOU THINK OF DALLAS.
WE KNOW YOU'RE MORE THAN THAT, BUT WE UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY THERE.
BECAUSE AGAIN, WE GET THE EMAILS AND WE GET THE CALLS GOING.
YOU CAN'T TEAR THIS DOWN, YOU CAN'T DO THIS.
I THINK OUR COMMUNICATION WITH THE CITY HAS GOTTEN A LOT BETTER.
BECAUSE WE'RE UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE HAVE OUT THERE AND BRINGING PEOPLE IN THAT HOPEFULLY CAN HELP WITH OUR VISION AND WE SEE A PARTNER.
HAVE I ANSWERED ANY QUESTIONS OR IF YOU WANT THE AUDIENCE TO SPEAK FIRST.
BECAUSE I WANT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FOR EVERYONE.
>> WELL, WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD TO HAVE A SEAT, AND THEN WE WILL START OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS WITH LYNETTE AMAR.
>> LYNETTE AT AMAR 6903 AUDUBON DRIVE.
I'M HERE TO REPRESENT THE BROOKS FARM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
THERE WERE SEVERAL MEMBERS FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING TO ADDRESS THIS CONCERN AND HE'S AWARE OF IT, AND WE APPRECIATE HIS SUPPORT, BUT WE'RE JUST WANTING TO STAY IN FRONT OF THE ELECTED OFFICIALS TO SAY THERE ARE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS ON THE BROOKS FARM SIDE OF THAT PROPERTY.
OUR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION HAS PAID FOR A DITCH TO BE CONSTRUCTED BETWEEN, THIS WOULD BE ON THE WEST SIDE OF BROOKS FARM WHERE IT BACKS UP TO SOUTH FORK BRANCH.
WATER COMES THROUGH IN A MASSIVE WAY.
I THINK IT'S BEEN A FEW YEARS SINCE ANYONE'S GONE BACK THERE TO CHECK THE CONDITION OF THE DITCH.
I UNDERSTAND WE MIGHT GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO WALK THERE AT SOME POINT SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT'S THERE, BUT I'M JUST HERE TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO STAY AHEAD OF ANYTIME IT COMES BEFORE YOU, THERE'LL BE SOMEBODY FROM BROOKS FARM HERE TO REMIND YOU THAT DRAINAGE IS A PROBLEM NOW AND WE WANT TO SEE IT ADDRESSED AS AS PROGRESSIVES, AND WE CERTAINLY WELCOME THE CHANGE TO SINGLE B.
>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REZONING? THEN THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY.
OR YOU WANT TO WAIT UNTIL YOU DO THE OTHER ONE?
>> I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS AND ONE THING WHEN WE GET THE ZONING DONE, WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING A LOT OF INTERACTION WITH THE COMMUNITY.
WE UNDERSTAND THIS SIDE DOESN'T HAVE AN HOA OVER HERE.
BUT WE'VE TALKED TO THOSE HOMEOWNERS, SIMPLE THINGS LIKE HOW WE CAN SCREEN DURING CONSTRUCTION.
THEY'VE SENT ME RECOMMENDATION AND SOME FENCING THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO USE.
AGAIN, WE'VE DONE BIG PROJECTS IN DOWNTOWN DALLAS AROUND BIG HOMES.
ONCE WE GET THE ZONING DONE, WE STILL GOT TO GO THROUGH THE ENGINEERING PROCESS, THE FLATTING PROCESS.
WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
WE'RE THAN HAPPY TO LET YOU GUYS KNOW WHEN WE HAVE MEETINGS WITH THEM IF YOU'D LIKE TO ATTEND THOSE.
I THINK WE HAD THREE OR FOUR RESIDENTS THAT SHOWED UP ON THE WEST SIDE.
AND SO WE'RE NOT HERE JUST TO COME IN AND SHOW SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY'S THROW.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'VE GOT CITIZENS, THEY REPORT TO YOU GUYS.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE BRING A PRODUCT THAT THEY CAN BE HAPPY WITH.
IF WE CAN FIX DRAINAGE PROBLEMS, AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO BE LIMITED IN SOME OF THESE AREAS.
BUT THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE CAN TALK TO THIS HOMEOWNER.
WE'VE ALREADY OUT THERE DOING THE WORK.
IT MAKES SENSE. HOW CAN WE DO THIS RIGHT?
>> COUNSEL, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. TERRY? MR. CERCO.
>> THANKS FOR THAT PRESENTATION.
ONE IS, I KNOW SOUTH FORK WHEN ORIGINALLY CAME IN, WHICH WAS QUITE A WHILE AGO AND GOT THE SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT APPROVED.
IT WAS MAINLY LOOKED AT, I THINK AT THAT TIME, AND I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE COUNCIL AT THAT TIME OR THE CITY PEOPLE, BUT IT WAS LOOKED AT AS A COMMERCIAL PLACE TO ME BECAUSE IT WAS BASICALLY NOT THE ENTERTAINMENT PERSPECTIVE, BUT IT TALKED ABOUT PUTTING IN RESTAURANTS AND BED OF BREAKFAST AND HOTELS AND EVEN HAD MANUFACTURING AND STUFF IN THERE.
THE WHOLE AREA WAS SAID, HEY, THIS IS A COMMERCIAL AREA.
IT'S RIGHT ALONG MURPHY ROAD, WHICH IS OF COURSE,
[01:15:02]
SIXTH LANE ROAD AND PROBABLY WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE FOR COMMERCIAL.THE CITY ITSELF NEEDS PERHAPS IN THE FUTURE, SOME MORE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THIS MIGHT BE ONE OF THE LAST FEW PLACES OR SOME OF THE PLACES THAT COULD GO COMMERCIAL.
AS WE TAKE IT RESIDENTIAL, OBVIOUSLY, IT WOULD TAKE AWAY FROM THAT COMMERCIAL POSSIBILITIES.
THE OTHER CONCERN I'VE GOT IS THAT THE EVENT AREA, WE'VE GOT AN ORDINANCE RIGHT NOW THAT BASICALLY COVERS THE ENTIRE AREA, RIGHT?
>> IF WE REZONE IT EVEN TONIGHT AND SAY, HEY, WE'LL VOTE TO REZONE IT RESIDENTIAL, THEN WE'VE GOT REALLY AN ORDINANCE SITTING OUT THERE THAT, MIGHT, IN FACT, JUST BE NEEDING TO BE CHANGED.
THAT ORDINANCE NEEDS TO BE CHANGED IN CONNECTION WITH YOU BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
IT'S GOT INFORMATION IN THAT ORDINANCE, A LOT OF WHICH WOULD GO AWAY.
AS I READ THE ORDINANCE, IT TALKED ABOUT A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT PUT IN THERE, IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT WEDDING, BUT IT DID TALK ABOUT EVENTS, AND YOU COULD SAY AN EVENT IS OBVIOUSLY A WEDDING.
PROSPECTIVELY, BUT IT'S PINPOINTED CERTAIN THINGS, DIDN'T TALK ABOUT WEDDING.
AS I LOOK AT THAT, I'M WONDERING IF WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT ORDINANCE AT THE SAME TIME AND SAY, BEFORE WE GO VOTE ON IT RESIDENTIAL, HOW DOES IT IMPACT THE ORDINANCE AND HOW WOULD YOU VIEW THAT ORDINANCE IN TERMS OF BEING REDONE IN THAT TERMS AND LOOK AT IT AS A JOINT THING BECAUSE IT'S ONE BIG PROPERTY THERE.
>> THAT'S OUTSIDE THE AGENDA ITEM.
>> THIS IS JUST REZONING AND I THINK-.
>> THIS IS JUST REZONING ON THOSE LOTS, NOT THE EVENT CENTER.
>> BUT IT IMPACTS IT AS IT BUTTS IT.
>> WE'RE STILL TO PUBLIC HEARING.
>> I WOULD SAY THAT BUTTS IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF WHETHER IT IS OR ISN'T.
LET ME CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE EVENT CENTER, NO ONE IS HERE TONIGHT TO ADDRESS CHANGING THE ZONING ON THE EVENT CENTER.
IT REMAINS SPECIAL ACTIVITY DISTRICT.
WE'VE HAD NO REQUESTS TO CHANGE THAT.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE REST OF THE ACREAGE.
>> BUT THAT ORDINANCE, AS YOU GO INTO THE ORDINANCE, IT TALKS ABOUT SEVERAL PARTICULAR ISSUES, LIKE HOW MUCH PERCENTAGE OF THE ENTIRE AREA WHICH INCLUDES WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RESIDENTIAL, IT HAS TO BE LIKE OPEN AREA, ETC.
IT TALKS ABOUT MANY DIFFERENT THINGS THAT ENCOMPASSES THE ENTIRE AREA.
AS YOU IDENTIFY THAT AS POTENTIALLY RESIDENTIAL AND REZONE IT, YOU MIGHT BE IN ACTUALLY AGAINST YOUR CURRENT ORDINANCE THAT YOU HAVE OUT THERE.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE'D WANT TO IDENTIFY SOMETHING TO AUTOMATICALLY PUT US INTO CONFRONTATION WITH THE ORDINANCE THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE OUT THERE.
>> I THINK WE WILL NEED TO LOOK AT THE SPECIAL ACTIVITY ORDINANCE IN DISTRICT AND PERHAPS MAKE CHANGES LATER.
YOU WOULD SAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO SOMETHING EVEN THOUGH IT'S GOING TO PUT US IN A DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE CURRENT ORDINANCE KNOWINGLY.
>> I'M SORRY. HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT WOULD PUT IT IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE EXISTING ORDINANCE?
>> THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS THAT TALK ABOUT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.
ONE OF THE THINGS IS AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE THAT WOULD BE WITHIN THE ENTIRE AREA.
FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, IF YOU HAKE OUT A BIG CHUNK OF IT, DOES IT STILL MEET THOSE CRITERIAS IN WHAT REMAINS AS A SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT. THAT'S JUST ONE AREA.
I MEAN, SO IT'S A MULTI PAGE DEAL OR THE SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT THAT THEN IMPACTS IT BECAUSE AS YOU CHANGE IT, IT CHANGES SEVERAL THINGS WITHIN THE SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT.
NOT THE ZONING, BUT IT IMPACTS THE ENTIRE THING.
I DON'T WANT TO BE IN CONFLICT OF ORDINANCE BY DOING SOMETHING.
>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT JUST ON THE WEST EAST SIDE?
>> AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW IS THE EAST SIDE.
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT THE EAST SIDE.
>> I JUST ASKED YOU THAT AND YOU SAID, NO.
>> WELL, I MISUNDERSTOOD THE RIGHT SIDE OF THAT PICTURE OVER THERE.
>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE I KNOW THE OTHER SIDE IS CURRENTLY OPEN SPACES.
>> WE WILL HAVE TO MEET MINIMUM AUDIENCES FOR OPEN SPACES [INAUDIBLE].
>> UP HERE, WHAT IT DOES IS BY ALLOWING THIS TO BECOME A SINGLE FAMILY.
[01:20:03]
THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT JUST CAN'T BE BUILT UNDER THIS, LIKE MANUFACTURING THINGS THAT CAN GO THERE.WE ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO COME IN AND LET'S TALK ABOUT USES ON THIS, BUT TONIGHT WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT ZONES.
BECAUSE WE MEET ALL YOUR REQUIREMENTS ON THE TWO ACRES ON THAT.
WE HAVE TO MEET ALL YOUR OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, ALL YOUR CASE STUDIES, ALL THAT STUFF OVER HERE.
TO ME, GETTING RID OF THIS, THIS IS A BIG AREA WHERE YOU HAVE CONCERTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THAT'S GOING TO BE GOING AWAY WITH THIS.
WE'RE TRYING TO PUT OUR MONEY IN HERE TO BUILD THIS UP, WHICH WE'RE NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT TONIGHT.
I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A BIG PICTURE.
BUT I DON'T REALLY GET I GUESS WHAT WOULD BE THE BENEFIT OF WAITING BECAUSE THIS ORDINANCE WOULD ACTUALLY BY ZONING THIS SINGLE FAMILY TAKES AWAY A LOT OF BAD USES BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM THAT WE ARE DOING, I GUESS IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
>> JUST AS MAYBE A CLARIFYING COMMENT MAYBE WHAT THE COUNCILMAN COCHRA WAS SAYING IS THAT, ARE YOU SAYING THAT WITHIN THOSE LOTS? I MEAN, THOSE LOTS ARE NOT PLATTED OR ANYTHING, THIS IS JUST A SKETCH.
IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU RIGHT, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE LOT USE FOR THAT WOULD BE SET SUCH THAT YOU WOULD HAVE ENOUGH OPEN SPACE TO COMPLY WITH THE EXISTING ORDINANCE? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
>> YES. THAT'S WHEN WE DIMENSION WHEN WE GET TO THE ENGINEERING, GOING BACK TO THE CITY.
THE MAXIMUM WE FEEL LIKE YOU'RE MY ENGINEER, YOU KNOW IF I'M WRONG.
THE MAXIMUM THAT WE CAN GET ON THIS SIDE WAS 60 WHATEVER LOTS.
>> 68 LOT, SO WE GET A TOTAL OF 89 TOTALITY.
LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT 68 LOTS.
WE'LL GET INTO THE ENGINEERING, AND THERE MAY BE SOME AREAS THAT WE NEED TO, THERE IS A POND DECK OVER HERE.
THERE MAY BE SOME AREAS THAT HEY, THE FLOODING, WE NEED TO TAKE MORE OPEN SPACE.
MAYBE IT NEEDS MORE OPEN SPACE.
MAYBE IT NEEDS AN AREA FOR MORE DRAINAGE, SO WE MIGHT HAVE TO LOSE SOME LIGHTS.
WE CAN NEVER GO ABOVE THAT LOT.
ONCE YOU DIVE INTO ENGINEERING TO DESIGN OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS FROM THE TELE ENGINEER, BUT WE DESIGNED THIS FOR OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS AND ALL THAT WITH OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE WITH THE TWO ACRE MINIMUM TO THE 200 FOOT.
>> SIR, I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT A RESIDENTIAL LOT IS NOT CONSIDERED OPEN SPACE.
>> DIFFERENT THINGS AND YOU CAN'T HAVE ONE BEING CLASSIFIED AS THE OTHER.
>> WHAT ARE YOU CALLING OPEN SPACE?
>> YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PARKS HERE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PARKS HERE? CORRECT.
>> YES, WE HAVE MAXIMUM COVERED [INAUDIBLE].
>> BUT THAT BE WITHIN THE PLATTING OF THE ACTUAL LOT ITSELF, SO THAT WOULD BE IN A LOT.
THAT'S WHY I WAS SAYING IT THE WAY I WAS SAYING IT.
WHAT IT IMPLIES IS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE MANY LESS THAN WHATEVER, THE 60 SOME LOTS THAT ARE THERE BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE OPEN AREAS THAT WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE TO WHAT THE EXISTING ORDINANCE IS.
NOW, THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS THAT WE CAN'T GO BACK AND REVISIT THAT AS COUNCILMAN [INAUDIBLE] WAS SAYING BECAUSE AT LEAST MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT WE CAN LOOK AT THAT ORDINANCE AND DECIDE WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
I THINK, IN GENERAL, IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE, THE SITUATION THAT MAYBE YOU'RE PROPOSING HERE.
BUT MY POINT BEING IS THAT, I THINK WE DON'T WANT TO NECESSARILY GO AND APPROVE SOMETHING AND THEN BE IN CONFLICT WITH WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN USE AND THAT'S THE ISSUE.
>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND. WHAT'S THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT?
>> I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF ASKING SOMETHING.
>> WELL, THAT'S DIFFERENT. ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION THEN? WHAT'S THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT THAT APPLIES TO THE AREA OF LAND THAT THEY HAVE DRAWN THERE AS THOSE 68 HOMES?
>> WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO OPEN SPACE AND WHERE I THINK PEOPLE ARE GETTING CONFUSED IS THE OPEN SPACE TALKS ABOUT THE SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT WHICH IS A WHOLE 151 ACRES.
IT HAS STIPULATIONS ACROSS THE ENTIRE 151 ACRES.
IF YOU TAKE A SECTION OF IT, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT OPEN SPACE AND RESIDENTIAL, I'LL FIGURE THAT OUT LATER, BUT IF YOU HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT SAYS HERE'S ORDINANCES THAT COVER 151 ACRES AND THEN YOU SHRINK IT TO 37 ACRES, THEN YOUR OPEN SPACE BASICALLY DOESN'T COUNT ALL THIS OPEN SPACE THAT USED TO BE THAT'S NOW RESIDENTIAL.
IT'S ONLY THE 37 ACRES, SO YOU'VE GOT TO GO IN THE ORDINANCE AND SAY, "OKAY, IF I SHRINK THIS ENTIRE IDEA, HOW DOES IT IMPACT MY 37 ACRES?"
[01:25:02]
>> I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL.
I'M SAYING THAT, IF YOU GO BACK POINT FOR POINT IN THE ORDINANCE, DOES THE REMAINING 37 ACRES HIT ALL THE BULLET POINTS OF WHAT USED TO BE OVER 151, MEANING THAT IF IT SAID, "HEY, YOU GOT TO HAVE 60% OPEN SPACE." DOES THE REMAINING 37 ACRES HAVE 60% OPEN SPACE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] TO IS THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT A PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENT OF THE SPECIAL ACTIVITY DISTRICT OR IS IT A PERCENTAGE OF 151 OR WHATEVER THE TOTAL IS 200 AND SOME ODD ACRES?
>> THAT GOES BACK TO OUR ORDINANCE, SO WE NEED TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> HOW IS THE ORDINANCE WORDED?
>> THE REQUIRE CLASSIFICATION THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY.
>> OKAY. SO IF WE REDUCE THE AMOUNT THAT'S ZONED, THEN IT'S GOING TO PROPORTIONALLY REDUCE HOW MANY ACRES OR SQUARE FEET HOWEVER YOU WANT TO MEASURE IT, 40 PERCENT IS, RIGHT?
>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. KATHERINE.
>> BUT YOUR ORDINANCE IS [OVERLAPPING] ALSO TRUE.
>> IT NEEDS TO BE 40 PERCENT OF 151, NOT 40 PERCENT OF 37.
>> OF THE AMOUNT OF ACREAGE THAT.
>> THE ZONE ACREAGE TODAY [OVERLAPPING] SPECIAL ACTIVITIES IS 151 ACRES.
>> [INAUDIBLE] WE GET REWRITTEN ACRES REFERENCING WHAT THE CHANGE THAT UP OR DOWN.
>> I THINK ALL THE BULLET POINTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED PROPERLY BEFORE A DECISION IS MADE.
>> THERE'S ALSO A PROVISION THAT SAYS THE ACREAGE OF THEE SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 175 ACRES.
>> WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THIS SIDE.
THIS SIDE DUMP A B RIGHT YOU HAVE THIS SIDE AT TWO ACRES. RIGHT.
>> THIS INCLUDES THE SPECIAL ACT.
>> I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE SHOULD DO A REVIEW OF OUR ORDINANCES TO UNDERSTAND WHAT POTENTIAL IMPACT IT MAY HAVE IF WE CONSIDER A ZONING CHANGE. COMMENT ABOUT THAT.
>> YEAH, SO COMBINE THEM. JUST BASICALLY SAY WHAT WOULD YOU SAY FOR THE 37 ACRES AT THE SAME TIME WE'RE THINKING ABOUT REZONING FOR THE [INAUDIBLE].
I THINK [INAUDIBLE] BOTH BE DONE TOGETHER.
BEFORE WE LOOK AT THE RESIDENTIAL REZONING WE SHOULD LOOK AT POWER AND IS THE EXISTING ORDINANCE.
>> WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IS WHAT ENTITLEMENTS WE HAVE HERE THAT WE CAN GO OUT THERE AND BUILD TODAY.
SO WE'RE LOOKING AT, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR A LONG TIME TO COME IN AND CAME TO TWO ACRES.
THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS WE CAN DO OUT HERE THAT YOU PROBABLY WOULDN'T LIKE.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO BE GOOD PARTNERS TO COME IN.
WE'RE MEETING ALL THAT TWO ACRE MINIMUM LOTS.
IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU WANT TO GET RID OF ALL THIS, THAT WE CAN DO THAT TOO.
I MEAN, I'M JUST CONFUSED ON WE'VE DONE ALL OUR HOMEWORK.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR A LONG TIME, AND YOU'RE TELLING ME, WE'RE GOING TO COME IN.
THIS IS WE'RE ASKING FOR ZONING ON HERE TO MEET YOUR MINIMUMS AND YOUR PROGRESS AND PLAN.
THE SAME THING, TWO ACRES TO MEET YOUR OPEN SPACE FOR THIS.
THIS WILL BE 37 ACRES THIS WILL BE A SEPARATE SPACE OR COME AND HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.
BUT WE'RE AT THE POINT NOW IF I CAN'T GET SOMETHING ON THIS, WE REALLY JUST HAVE TO LOOK AT [INAUDIBLE].
>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
>> I'M SAYING IT'S NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL.
I'M SAYING IS WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE OUT THERE THAT COVERS THE ENTIRE DEAL.
IT'S LIKE THREE OR FOUR PAGES LONG AS TO GO THROUGH THAT AND AS WELL WE LOOK AT IT AND SAY AS YOU SHRINK AT THE 37 ACRES, WHAT CHANGES WOULD WE MAKE TO THAT ORDINANCE SO THAT ORDINANCES FITS THAT PARTICULAR 37 ACRES.
>> IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE ALL WE NEED TO DO IS CHANGE THAT ORDINANCE AT A MINIMUM UP TO WHERE IT DOESN'T REFER TO THE 175 ACRE AS THE MINIMUM SIZE.
SO WE WOULD REFER BACK TO MAYBE 35 ACRES AS THE MINIMUM SIZE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
BUT [OVERLAPPING] I MEAN, THAT WOULD TECHNICALLY BE A DIRECT CONFLICT, 175 ACRE MINIMUM IN OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE AND WHAT YOU PROPOSED.
[01:30:02]
DIRECT CONFLICT TO GET OVER THOUGH AND NOT NECESSARILY A REASON TO TELL YOU GUYS, WE DON'T WANT YOU TO BUILD THAT.LET ME ASK YOU SOME DIRECT QUESTIONS.
YOU SAID MINIMUM TWO ACRE LOTS, THAT WORKS OUT TO 68 BEFORE YOU PUT IN MAYBE SOME MORE RETENTION PONDS.
YOU MAY HAVE TO DO SOMETHING FOR DRAINAGE OR PARKS.
BUT YOU'RE CONVINCED YOU'D MAKE A PROFIT ON THAT PIECE OF LAND BUILDING TWO ACRE LOTS, RIGHT?
>> OKAY. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A MUD, RIGHT?
>> OKAY. GOOD. I JUST WANT TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE THERE'S FOLKS ACROSS STREET THAT DON'T THINK YOU'D MAKE A PROFIT BUILDING TWO ACRE LOTS WITHOUT A MUD.
>> VERSUS ONE ACRE, BUT YES, WE UNDERSTAND THE ENVIRONMENT, WHAT WE HAVE [INAUDIBLE].
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF MILLION DOLLARS BEING ON CITY COUNCIL BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT EITHER.
>> OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR COUNCIL.
THIS [LAUGHTER] LEGAL COUNCIL.
IF THE COUNCIL SO CHOOSES, CAN WE DIRECT STAFF TO REVISE THE SPECIAL ACTIVITY DISTRICT ORDINANCE TO BRING AT OUR NEXT MEETING, BUT GO AHEAD AND PERHAPS APPROVE THIS TONIGHT?
>> YOU CAN'T MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT ON THE SPECIAL ACTIVITIES ORDINANCE PROVISIONS.
HOWEVER, YOU CAN INSTRUCT STAFF TO BRING SOMETHING BACK TO YOU TO CONSIDER IT.
>> YEAH. THAT WOULD NOT PRECLUDE US FROM GOING ON THE REZONING REQUESTS THAT MR. TERRY IS MAKING. OKAY.
>> KATHERINE, DO YOU SEE ANY LEGAL CONFLICT BETWEEN US APPROVING THAT ZONING CHANGE AND THE FACT THAT THE ORDINANCE HAS 175 ACRE MINIMUM?
>> I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE A CONFLICT ON ITS FACE.
HOWEVER, IT ALSO TALKS ABOUT THE SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT HAVING THAT AT THE TIME THAT YOU'RE DOING THE ZONING FOR SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WOULD HAVE TO RESEARCH TO GO, WELL, WHAT ABOUT WHEN YOU TAKE AWAY PART OF SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY BEEN ZONED, A SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT? I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR YOU ON THAT, A GOOD ANSWER ON THAT. I'LL STOP THERE.
>> LET ME ASK YOU ONE OTHER QUESTION.
THERE'S A CHURCH DOWN THERE ON THE SOUTH END OF THAT PROPERTY.
I KNOW THAT THAT CHURCH IS INTERESTED IN BUILDING AN AUXILIARY BUILDING.
>> OKAY. YEAH. I KNOW TO PUT THE BUILDING WHERE THEY WANT TO PUT IT.
THERE WOULD NEED TO BE AN EXCEPTION FOR HOW CLOSE IT IS TO THE PROPERTY LINE THERE.
DO YOU SEE THAT AS A PROBLEM? IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE SOMETHING LIKE, I'M MAKING THIS NUMBER UP.
I MAY NOT BE RIGHT, LIKE EIGHT FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE IN ORDER TO BUILD THE BUILDING.
[OVERLAPPING] IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT THE LOTS.
IT'S GOING TO BE ENCROACHMENT. IT'S GOING TO BE THE DISTANCE TO THE LOT.
>> NOT AT ALL [INAUDIBLE]. I THINK A CHURCH THEY WERE IN SOUTH THEY GOT A CHURCH, AND THEY WERE GOING TO DO SOMETHING ELSE WITH IT.
BUT WE HAVE NO PROBLEMS, THAT AT ALL.
YEAH. ON THE FENCING BETWEEN THAT PROPERTY AND BROOKS FARMS AND REALLY ANY OF THE OTHER, YOU HAVEN'T DECIDED WHAT'S GOING TO BE DONE ABOUT PERIMETER FENCING, RIGHT? WHETHER THAT'S GOING TO BE METAL OR.
>> HONESTLY, WE'RE GOING TO BE WITH THE OWNERS AGAIN, LET THEM DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT.
THEY [INAUDIBLE] ORGANIZED. THIS SIDE WHEN WE GET THERE, THEY WANT WATER METAL FENCING, SO THEY CAN CONTINUE [INAUDIBLE].
>> I APPLAUD YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST IN COLLABORATION WITH THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY BECAUSE WE'VE SHARED A LACK OF THAT WITH THE FOLKS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD.
>> [INAUDIBLE] A LITTLE FRUSTRATED. WE DON'T SET.
SO WE TOOK A PAUSE WATER MORATORIUM.
DRIED THE ONE ACRES FOR A YEAR, WE GOT OFF OF THAT.
THEN WE DIDN'T BRING IT TO P&Z WAITING HOPEFULLY THAT THE WATER MORE BE DONE.
WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT TRYING TO GET HERE.
WE WENT OUT AND MET WITH CITIZENS.
WE P&Z THE OTHER NIGHT, WE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE.
WE ANSWERED ALL THE QUESTIONS.
WE HAD OTHER ISSUES THAT CAME UP WITH THE TVD LOTS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT. WE GOT OVER THAT.
WE'RE AT THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE ONE OWNER WHICH IS MY BOSS AND WE HAVE A LOAN ON THIS PROPERTY THAT MATURES IN TWO WEEKS.
IF I DON'T GET ZONING DONE, THEN WE HAVE TO LOOK AT A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.
I WASN'T TRYING TO BE THREATENING, I JUST PUT MY CARDS ON THE TABLE.
WE FEEL LIKE WE'VE BEEN OUT IN THE COMMUNITY THAT WE'VE DONE STUFF.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WE CAN WORK SOMETHING OUT HERE LATER, BUT WE FEEL LIKE WITH THE TWO ACRES ME YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WE WOULD BE A GOOD PARTNER.
THEN WE MOVE INTO THE ENGINEERING PHASE AND ALL THAT STUFF.
THE ENCROACHMENTS, THE CHURCH, WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORS, WE'RE GOING TO DO THE BEST WE CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE HAPPY WITH IT.
[01:35:01]
AGAIN, ON THE SCREEN WHEN WE'RE OUT THERE DOING CONSTRUCTION.THERE'S SOME STUFF WE CAN LOOK AT TO DO THAT.
SO I FELT LIKE I HOPE WE COULD HAVE GONE 30 DAYS AGO, COUNSEL, BUT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
MAYOR HAS BEEN GREAT COMMUNICATING WITH US ON THAT.
GARY'S BEEN GREAT. I KNOW YOU LOST YOUR CITY MANAGER THROUGH THIS TIME.
SO WE FELT LIKE WE'VE BEEN HOLDING ON, TRYING TO BE GOOD PARTNERS AND THERE'S TRUST ON BOTH SIDES.
I FEEL LIKE WE'RE GOING TO BE A SPACE ORDINANCE OVER HERE.
WE MOVE A LOT OF THINGS I THINK A LOT OF YOUR CITIZENS DON'T WANT AS WE'VE BEEN TALKING TO THEM OF THINGS THAT WE COULD DO.
THEN HOW CAN WE MAKE THIS AS COOL AS WE CAN? WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BUILD A HOTEL THERE, IF THAT'S SOMETHING Y'ALL WANT.
WE TALKED ABOUT, IS THERE A PLACE YOU'D EVER WANT TO SEE ALL LOCATION THERE OR FIRE STATION SITE.
THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS WE CAN DO UP HERE, BUT I NEED THIS AND THIS TO BE ABLE TO FIT INTO THERE TO REALLY SO THE REVENUE WE MAKE OFF OF THAT.
LIKE WE JUST GOT AGAIN $2 MILLION LOAN TO BE ABLE TO GO IN THERE AND REALLY FIX THAT UP OR GO TO GET A LOT THAT DONE.
>> WHAT'S YOUR TWO WEEK DEADLINE? I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT?
>> I NEEDED TO GET ZONING DONE REALLY 30 DAYS AGO.
WE GOT EXTENSION ON OUR NOTE TO BE ABLE TO EXTEND OUR NOTE AND OUR BUILDER CONTRACTS.
WE HAVE BUILDERS. A LOT OF BUILDERS THAT WANT TO BE HERE.
WE MAY BE ABLE TO HAND PICK BUT WE THINK WE'VE GOT SOME THE PARTNERS AND BUILDERS AND THE ONES WE'VE GOT PUT THE EARNEST MONEY UP, SO WE CAN USE THAT TO EXTEND OUR LOAN.
IT'S JUST HOW OUR CAPITAL STACK WORKS.
>> THEY UNDERSTAND WE STILL HAVE WATER ISSUES AND A BUILDING MOTEL.
>> THEY UNDERSTAND THAT WE'VE HAD TO REALLY CONVINCING THAT THAT YOUR MORATORIUM IS NOT DONE. WE GET ZONING DONE.
WE'RE GOING TO WORK ON ENGINEERING ON OUR SIDE AND DO ALL WE CAN.
WE KNOW THERE ARE SOME THINGS WE CAN SUBMIT AND SOME THINGS WE CAN'T.
WE'RE GOING TO WORK ON IT BECAUSE AS SOON AS WE GET DONE, WATER TOR IS LIFTED, WE HOPE TO COME IN, HAVE THE ENGINEERING PRETTY MUCH DONE, TALK ABOUT STREET NAMES, ALL THE ORNAMENTAL STUFF, ALL THAT KIND OF THINGS IN.
>> SO YOU DON'T OWN LAND UP THERE BY POKER ROAD, RIGHT?
>> I THOUGHT YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT PUTTING CITY HALL AND FIRES BUT.
>> THERE'S PLACES HERE THAT HAD [INAUDIBLE] BEFORE TALKING ABOUT IT A SPARE.
THERE YOU CAN PUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT IF YOU WANT AS WE GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
>> QUESTION NOW FROM A CONCERT PERSPECTIVE.
IF WE WOULD REZONE RESIDENTIAL, ARE YOU ANTICIPATING USING ANY OF THAT RESIDENTIAL LAND FOR PARKING OR CONCERTS OR OTHER STUFF IN THE FUTURE? NO.
>> NO. THAT'S BIG PICTURE A LOT OF CONCERTS WE CAN HAVE.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE PARK. WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE SAYING WE'RE FOCUSING MORE ON [INAUDIBLE] IS INSIDE COMMUNICATION WHEN THEY THE INSULATION [INAUDIBLE].
WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE THOSE THINGS.
WE'VE GOT THIS RODEO ARENA THAT WE HAD THE FIRST PRC RODEO IN COLLIN COUNTY WAS HERE LAST YEAR.
SO WE'RE REALLY GOING TO FIX THAT.
WE WANT TO MAKE THAT INTO MORE.
WHAT WAS IT LIKE BACK IN THE DAY? SO NO, WE WON'T BE THESE RESIDENTIAL STREETS WON'T BE USED FOR PARKING.
WE CAN PUT THINGS LIKE THAT IN OUR CC&RS WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT THAT, RESTRICTING NOW IT IS PUBLIC STREETS.
SO YOU CAN'T ALWAYS STOP THEM, BUT THE WAY WE PROGRAM IS WE'LL DO A LOT AND THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP US ON.
YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE CONCERT THERE ALLOW AND.
>> I'M TALKING ABOUT CURRENTLY THOUGH IF WE REZONE IT RESIDENTIAL, BASICALLY EVEN BEFORE YOU COME IN WITH EQUIPMENT, YOU WOULDN'T USE THAT FOR PARKING OR ANYTHING ELSE.
>> WE HAVE BEEN USING IT RIGHT NOW.
>> BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
WE CAN USE IT FOR PARKING. FOR THAT.
THIS WEEKEND YOU'LL PROBABLY SEE PARKING OUT THERE BECAUSE IT'S THE CAT ION THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE HOW THIS IS ALL PROGRAMMED OUT HERE THIS IS.
>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO NOTE THAT IN 2022, WE HAD THE LATEST VERSION OF OUR ZONING MAP BASICALLY TAKEN BEFORE COUNCIL AND VOTED ON AND APPROVED, AND THE ZONING FOR THAT PROPERTY IS SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT.
THAT'S THE PROPERTY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ON THIS AGENDA ITEM RIGHT NOW, SO WE'LL JUST STAY TO THAT.
I THINK THE INITIAL OPENING THAT COUNCIL MEMBER COCHO NOTED WAS, I THINK ONE THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO EXPLORE AND TALK ABOUT AND THAT IS THAT THE CITY OF PARKER ZONING MAP DOES NOT HAVE VERY MANY SPACES THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAN RESIDENTIAL.
SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT IS A SPECIAL ZONING AND BECAUSE OF THAT,
[01:40:04]
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK HOW MUCH THOUGHT OR VISION OR IDEAS HAVE BEEN CIRCULATED ABOUT MAXIMIZING THE USE AS SPECIAL ACTIVITIES, WHICH IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED?>> WE THOUGHT ABOUT A LOT BECAUSE AT EVERY TIME WE HAD SOMETHING HERE, EVERYBODY CALL BECAUSE WE DON'T MEET THE COUNCIL LEVEL THAT WE MET PROGRAM A LOT OF CONCERTS THERE RESIDENT HEARD THAT LOUD AND CLEAR FOR THE LAST NINE MONTHS.
>> BUT OTHER THAN A CONCERT VENUE, I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER SPECIAL ACTIVITIES THAT I THINK WERE POSSIBLY LISTED ON THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE, BUT THERE'S THESE OTHER THINGS THAT COULD BE DONE A SPECIAL ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD ALSO BRING NOT ONLY TAX REVENUE TO THE CITY, BUT ALSO SALES TAX TO THE CITY, SO THAT IT WOULD BE.
>> WE TRIED TRADES DAYS OUT THERE, DIDN'T WORK.
WE HAD THE SMOKE OUT FEST THAT WE HAD A WHILE BACK.
WE GOT CALLS BECAUSE MUSIC IS TOO LOUD, AND I WAS ACTUALLY SETTING IN MY RV RIGHT BY, AND IT WASN'T THAT CRAZY LOUD, SO WE'VE HEARD THE WHOLE TIME.
WE WANT THIS TO GO AWAY FROM THIS AREA OF CONCERTS AND MUSIC.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU COULD PROGRAM OUT THERE EVENT WISE.
THAT WE MAKE IT UP PROFIT TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE KEEPING IT OUT.
>> SOME OF OUR RESIDENTS WOULD LOVE A BARBECUE RESTAURANT WITH YOUR CHEF.
>> BARBECUE RESTAURANT, MAYBE LIKE A MICROBREWERY, MAYBE.
>> A COMEDY CLUB, TENNIS ALL THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.
>> BECAUSE WE HAVE A LITTLE CAFE HERE THAT COULDN'T STAY OPEN BECAUSE IT WASN'T GETTING ATTRACTION.
I HATE TO USE THE EXAMPLE OF COLLIN CREEK MALL, BUT THAT'S WHY THE MALL FAILED.
NOW, WE'RE BRINGING 7,800 APARTMENTS, MULTI FAMILY OUT THERE.
THE INTERSECTION OF THE MALL THAT WE'RE GOING TO PROGRAM THAT, IT'S GOING TO HAVE RESTAURANTS BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE LIFE THAT LIVES HERE TO KEEP THAT OPEN.
WE'RE OPEN TO THE MAGIE CAFE OR WHATEVER WE CALL IT OPEN.
>> ELI'S DELY, HAVE THEM COME OUT THERE, SO WE HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT, BUT IT JUST WITHOUT LIFE ON THAT PROPERTY, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
THERE'S AREA TO DO SOME STUFF THERE, ABSOLUTELY.
>> BUT THERE'S A LOT OF LIFE AROUND THE WHOLE AREA.
IF IT WAS REALLY A UNIQUE SPECIAL PLACE BECAUSE PARKER IS A UNIQUE SPECIAL PLACE, THEN TO ME, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'D BE ABLE TO ATTRACT PEOPLE TO THE BUSINESSES THAT YOU MIGHT CHOOSE TO PUT THERE.
>> ACTUALLY, WE CAN'T MAKE IT WORK LIKE THAT.
WE CAN'T TODAY. WE THOUGHT WE HAD WHEN WE FIRST BOUGHT IT.
SOMEBODY HAD AN IDEA TO DO THAT. THEY WERE GOING TO BUY FROM US.
THEY DID ALL THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND COULDN'T MAKE IT WORK.
>> I GUESS IF YOU COULD EXPAND UPON THAT COMMENT, WHAT IDEAS WERE THEY EXPLORING?
>> THEY WANTED TO ACTUALLY PUT A NIGHT CLUB OUT HERE AND HAVE A WORKING RANCH THAT THEY COULD RIDE THEIR HORSES AND HAVE A DANCE HALL THERE.
BUT IT DIDN'T PENCIL OUT FOR THEM FINANCIALLY TO DO THAT.
BECAUSE THE SAME THING, THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE LIFE LIVING ON THERE AND THEY LOOKED AT IT FOR ABOUT SIX MONTHS AND THEY WALKED AWAY.
THAT'S WHEN WE TRIED TO DO THE ACRE LIGHTS.
AND THEN WE SAID, OKAY, WITH TWO ACRES, WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW YOUR MINIMUMS AND DO THAT TO HELP HOPEFULLY DO THINGS OVER HERE.
I GET A MICROBREWERY IS GREAT HAVING SOMETHING TO BE GREAT.
BUT HOW DO YOU MAKE IT WORK OUT HERE? YOU WANT TO GIVE US A TERSE OR A BID AND INCENTIVIZE US TO DO THINGS LIKE THAT?
>> I DON'T KNOW. WHAT IS COUNCIL THINKING.
>> I'LL TELL YOU TRUTH. I DON'T KNOW YOU.
NEVER MET YOU FOR TONIGHT, WOULDN'T KNOW WHO YOU WERE IF I SAW YOU ON THE STREET.
I LIKE WHAT I SEE, I LIKE YOUR ATTITUDE.
I'LL TAKE IT AT FACE VALUE UNTIL YOU PROVE ME WRONG.
IF YOU PROVE ME WRONG, YOU'LL PROBABLY NEVER EARN THAT TRUST BACK.
BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT IN PARKER.
THAT IS NOT LIKE THE OTHER SUBURBS AND CITIES AROUND HERE.
IF WE'VE GOT SOMEBODY THAT'S WILLING TO COME IN HERE AND BUILD TWO ACRE LOTS, I UNDERSTAND YOU WANT TO BUILD ONE ACRE AND WE SAID, NO, WE WANT TWO ACRE LOTS.
IF YOU'RE WILLING TO COME OUT HERE AND TURN SOUTH FOR RANCH INTO TWO ACRE LOTS, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO SAY, I SEE WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO ACROSS THE STREET.
I WANT TO TRY TO DO THAT AND I'M GOING TO KEEP HASSEL IN YOU OR SEWING YOU OR WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO UNTIL WE GET SOMETHING LIKE THE HUFFINES ARE TRYING TO BUILD ACROSS THE STREET.
YOU'RE 100% MORE REASONABLE TO DEAL WITH THAN DON OR PHILLIP HUFFINES OR JOHN COX ALL COMBINED.
I LIKE WHAT YOU'VE GOT LAID OUT THERE.
I THINK IT STILL LEAVES SOUTH FORK RANCH INTACT AS A SPECIAL ACTIVITY VENUE.
I CAN SEE YOU PUTTING SOME OTHER COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES ON THAT TRACT OF LAND, AND I THINK IT IS ONE OF THE BEST USES OF THAT TRACK OF LAND THAT WE CAN HAVE, ESPECIALLY IF I CAN TAKE YOU AT YOUR WORD THAT YOU'RE GOING TO WORK WITH THE PEOPLE IN BROOKS FARMS AND THE OTHER SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS.
TO NOT BUILD SOMETHING THAT THEY DON'T WANT OR TO PUT A PERIMETER AROUND IT AND TO TAKE CARE OF THE DRAINAGE ISSUES AND THOSE THINGS.
NOW, I'VE GOT SOME DIFFERENT OPINIONS.
[01:45:01]
I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU ON THE PROPERTY ON THE OTHER SIDE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THAT BUT FOR THAT 151 ACRES, I DON'T KNOW HOW IT COULD BE MORE PERFECT FOR PARKER IN TERMS OF TWO ACRE LOT.>> AND I WOULD LOVE TO SIT DOWN AND WORK WITH YOU GUYS.
YES. BECAUSE WE HAD IDEA SOMETHING TO MAKE THIS IF WE HAD A RESTAURANT IN.
IF YOU'VE BEEN HERE AT N Z AND SAW THAT 60 DAYS AGO AND HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE HERE.
WE'VE WORKED HARD TO REACH OUT PEOPLE ENTER PHONE CALLS AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, YOU'RE RIGHT.
MOST CITIES I GO IN, WOULD LOVE TO HAVE TWO ACRES BECAUSE WE'RE USUALLY GOING IN FIGHTING FOR LET US HAVE 60 OR 70 FOOT LOCKS AND THEY'RE HAPPY WITH THAT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GET OUT OF THE 40S AND 50S.
WE WANT TO MAKE SOMETHING SPECIAL AND HOPEFULLY, AGAIN, WE'VE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR FROM 100 CITIZENS, THAT'S WHAT THEY WANTED.
WE ONLY FELT LIKE WE WOULD COME IN WOULD BE GLAD WE'RE DOING THIS WORK TOGETHER ON HOW WE MAKE THAT OTHER PART BETTER.
>> WE'RE MAVERICKS HERE AND PARKER.
I KNOW WE TALKED BEFORE ON THIS AND THE ATTITUDE IS DEFINITELY A TURNAROUND FROM WHEN WE FOR OUR FIRST MEETING VERY SIGNIFICANTLY.
I SEE IT AS SOMETHING THAT THIS 151 ACRES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, AGAIN, THAT I THINK WOULD FIT PERFECTLY INTO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
AND I AGREE THAT I THINK THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT'S GOOD AND IT'S GOOD LAND USE AND IT WILL ACTUALLY ALSO INCREASE OUR DAX BASE A LITTLE BIT WITH THE HOMES THERE, SO THAT'S A GOOD THING EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT COMMERCIAL, THERE COULD BE OTHER COMMERCIAL ON THAT OTHER LAND TRACK.
SO I DON'T SEE THE DOWNSIZE FOR OUR CURRENT PLAN WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT I DON'T WANT TO CONFLICT WITH THE EXISTING ORDINANCES. THAT'S ALL I CARE.
>> WAS THAT A MOTION? [LAUGHTER]
>> I'D MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING ZONING WITH RESPECT TO THAT 151 POINT.
>> A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ORDINANCE 876 TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO RESIDENTIAL.
>> I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER PILGRIM AND A SECOND FROM MAYOR PRO TEM REED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 876, WHICH WOULD CHANGE THE ZONING OF 151 ACRES OF SOUTH FORK RANCH FROM SPECIAL ACTIVITY DISTRICT TO SINGLE FAMILY.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM COUNCIL?
>> IS THERE A CAVEAT THAT CAN BE ADDED IN TERMS OF THE ORDINANCES THAT MAY CONFLICT WITH?
>> I'M FINE IF YOU WANT TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT.
>> AMENDMENT WAS TO LOOK AT ANY CONFLICTING ORDINANCES TO LOOK AT AND ADJUST AS.
>> I WILL MAKE AN AMENDMENT THAT WE BASICALLY IN REGARDS TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
IF YOU'RE WILLING TO BE THE GOOD NEIGHBOR AND WILLING TO TALK ABOUT THE CHURCH, ET CETERA, THAT YOU'RE ALSO WILLING TO REVISIT THIS ORDINANCE.
>> IF THERE'S CONFLICTS WITHIN ITSELF, THAT WE CHANGE THAT AND WE ALSO CLEAN UP THE ORDINANCE TO FIT THE REMAINING 37 ACRES. THAT'S MY AMENDMENT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.
AT THIS TIME, I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
>> DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THE AMENDMENT? WELL, YES, I HAVE A SECOND.
I DIDN'T HAVE BUDDY ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENT.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME CLARIFICATION.
I LIKE WHAT COUNCIL CORCHO HAS SAID, BUT I'M NOT SURE.
I'D LIKE TO ASK COUNCIL, THAT WASN'T REALLY AN AMENDMENT.
I THINK THAT WAS A BUNCH OF STIPULATIONS THAT WAS DIFFICULT TO CHARACTERIZE.
>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT AMENDMENT.
I COULDN'T VOTE FOR IT BECAUSE I COULDN'T EXPLAIN IT.
>> BASED UPON WHAT I SAID, HOW WOULD YOU LOOK AT AN AMENDMENT OR WORD AMENDMENT?
>> IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 876.
[01:50:04]
ANY ORDINANCES THAT ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THAT AND THEN MAKE ADJUSTMENTS.>> BUT WE CAN'T DO THAT ON AN AMENDMENT.
THAT HAS TO COME BACK BEFORE COUNCIL WHERE WE'RE ABLE TO SEE THE TEXT AND BE ABLE TO VOTE ON IT, SO I'M GOING TO ASK COUNCIL, WOULD IT BE BETTER TO POSTPONE THIS AGENDA ITEM UNTIL THE ORDINANCE THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED AND THIS ORDINANCE THAT CHANGES ZONING ARE BROUGHT TO THE AGENDA AT THE SAME TIME.
>> I THINK IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S DIFFICULT AT THIS POINT TO EVALUATE WHAT APPROACH NEEDS TO BE TAKEN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE ON THE REMAINING SPECIAL ACTIVITIES PORTION.
I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT IT. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN CONDITION IT ON FURTHER ACTION EITHER, SO I THINK IT'S DIFFICULT TO AMEND.
>> SO IF WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND A SECOND, IF WE VOTE ON IT THAT PASSES, AND WE'RE IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH OUR ORDINANCES IN OUR CITY, HOW DO WE RESOLVE THAT?
>> I WOULD ASSUME THAT WE WOULD RESOLVE IT AT OUR NEXT MEETING.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD NECESSARILY BE AT THE NEXT MEETING THAT IT COULD BE RESOLVED, BUT I THINK THAT THEY'VE INDICATED THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO SEEK A RESOLUTION OF THAT, WHETHER THAT IS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT OR WHETHER THAT COMES BACK TO SOME ACTION TAKEN TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCES FOR THE CITY.
I THINK YOU'RE JUST RELYING ON THE GOODWILL TO DO THAT UNLESS GARY SEES ANOTHER PATH. [LAUGHTER] AND HE DOES NOT.
>> SO THAT WOULD LEAVE THE MOTION TO BE APPROVING ORDINANCE 876.
THEN ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION JUST ON THAT? THEN AT THIS TIME, I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ORDINANCE 876, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES THREE TO ONE, SO THAT THE SOUTH FORK REZONING 1 IS APPROVED.
NOW WE WILL GO TO ITEM NUMBER 8,
[8. REZONING 2– [MM SOUTH FORK 241, LLC - APPROXIMATELY 54.053 ACRES]: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING REQUEST FOR PERMANENT ZONING ON APPROXIMATELY 54.053 ACRES OF LAND IN THE CITY OF PARKER, TEXAS, GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE JOSEPH RUSSELL SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 778, WEST OF N MURPHY RD AND SOUTH OF PARKER RD, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF). CONSIDERATION AND/OR AN APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 877 REZONING THE MM SOUTH FORK 241, LLC REQUEST FOR PERMANENT ZONING ON APPROXIMATELY 54.053 ACRES OF LAND IN THE CITY OF PARKER, TEXAS, GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE JOSEPH RUSSELL SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 778, WEST OF N MURPHY RD AND SOUTH OF PARKER RD, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF).]
WHICH IS REZONING NUMBER 2.THE FIRST HERE IS A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR PERMANENT ZONING ON APPROXIMATELY 54.053 ACRES OF LAND IN THE CITY OF PARKER GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE JOSEPH RUSSELL SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 778 WEST OF MURPHY ROAD AND SOUTH OF PARKER ROAD, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. MR. TERRY.
>> WE TALKED TO CITIZENS JUST GO TO LET YOU KNOW.
THEY ASKED FIRST OF ALL, GRAY LANE.
THEY CONSIDER THAT BEING A PROJECT.
WAS THERE ANY WAY THAT WE PROGRAM THIS FOR YOU 21 TO THAT WAY WE DESIGN THIS THAT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO USE GRAY LANE AS YOUR MAIN ONE OF THE ENTRANCES INTO THE DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF THE PART THAT YOU ON RIGHT HERE AND MISS PARK WOULD WE BE DOING HERE.
OUR ANSWER TO THEM WAS, WE WON'T KNOW THAT QUESTION UNTIL WE GET WITH GARY AND GET WITH THE CITY.
TO SEE ONE, IS IT THE CITY'S WISH FOR US TO FIX GRAY LANE, PROBABLY EITHER WAY.
BUT THAT WAS ONE OF THE TWO HOT TOPICS WITHIN THREE WAS GRAY LANE MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE THE BROUGHT IRON FENCING, SO THEY CONTINUE LOOKING OUT.
AND WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO WITH THIS PARK, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE PARK CITY COMES BACK, HOW BIG THIS POND HAS TO BE, HOW CAN WE MAKE THAT PARK MADE A LITTLE BIT BIGGER, TO BE ABLE TO HAVE AN AREA WHERE SOME CATTLE ARE STILL IN THAT AREA BECAUSE THEY LIKE TO LOOK AT THE COPS AND SO HOW COULD WE PROGRAM THIS TO BE AN EXTENSION OF YOUR PARK ONE DAY, BUT ALSO HAVE THE CATTLE THAT CAN STILL BE IN THERE THAT THESE HOMEOWNERS COULD STILL SEE THROUGH THE WROUGHT IRON FENCE THAT WILL GO ON THERE.
THOSE THINGS WE SAID ONCE WE GET INTO THE ENGINEERING OF IT.
WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE ROUGH IRON FENCE.
WE HAVE NO PROBLEM AT THE POT OUT HERE.
GRAY LANE WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE CITY'S WISHES WOULD BE ON THAT ROAD, WE DIDN'T COMMENT ANYTHING UNTIL AFTER THE ZONING OF THE CITY IS DONE.
>> SO THIS IS A ZONING REQUEST FROM AGRICULTURE OPEN SPACES TO SINGLE FAMILY.
[01:55:06]
SO [BACKGROUND] I'M GETTING READY TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.[BACKGROUND] WELL, I'M OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:10 PM.
ARE THERE ANY CITIZENS THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING THIS ZONING CHANGE REQUEST? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:10 P.M. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL GO TO CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 877, REZONING THE SOUTH FORK 200 LLC REQUESTS FOR PERMANENT ZONING ON APPROXIMATELY 54.053 ACRES OF LAND IN THE CITY OF PARKER, TEXAS, GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE JOSEPH RUSSELL SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 778 WEST OF MURPHY ROAD, AND SOUTH OF PARKER ROAD, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
COUNSEL, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS FOR MR. TERRY? MR. KIRCHO I JUST KNEW YOU WOULD.
MADAM MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST POINT OUT THAT OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OUR ZONING MAP, AGAIN, DOES SHOW THIS PROPERTY AS AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE.
I THINK IF YOU READ THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW DRAFT OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THOSE WHO ARE WORKING ON IT VERY HARD WITHIN THE CITY, DESCRIBING HOW MUCH WE APPRECIATE AND VALUE OPEN SPACE.
MY CONCERN IS THAT THERE'S NOT THAT MUCH OPEN SPACE LEFT AS OF THE YEAR 2022, THE PEOPLE WHO WERE HERE ON COUNSEL JUST TWO YEARS AGO VALUED THAT OPEN SPACE IN THIS PROPERTY AND THERE'S NOT VERY MUCH OF IT LEFT WITH RESPECT TO DEVELOPING OUR PROPERTY WITHIN PARKER.
THERE'S 83% OF PARKER IS ALREADY DEVELOPED.
THE AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE IS, I THINK, SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY NEED TO TAKE SERIOUSLY AND CONSIDER BEFORE WE CONSIDER CHANGING IT FROM WHAT IT IS, WHICH IS AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE TO SOMETHING ELSE.
COUNSEL? I LOVE THE OPEN SPACES WE HAVE OUT HERE TOO.
IT'S LIKE LIVING IN THE COUNTRY WHILE YOU'RE IN THE CITY STILL.
TO BE REALISTIC, THOUGH, FARM LAND IS GOING TO GET CONVERTED INTO SOME OTHER USE.
I DON'T WANT TO TRY TO HOLD ON TO FARM LAND SO LONG THAT WE GET A BUNCH OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS PASSED OR STATE REGULATIONS FROM A PRETTY LIBERAL STATE LEGISLATURE SOMETIMES DOWN THERE TOO, THAT'S INTERESTED IN HIGH DENSITY HOUSING AND THEY TAKE AWAY CITY'S ABILITIES.
THIS IS EVEN BEING CONSIDERED RIGHT NOW TO TAKE AWAY CITY'S ABILITY TO SET LOT SIZES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO 1,702,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS.
I DON'T WANT TO EVER FIND US IN THAT POSITION.
WHEN I RAN FOR CITY COUNCIL, TO PROBABLY THE DISLIKE OF SOME AND MAYBE THE LIKE OF OTHERS ADVOCATED THAT WE NEED SOME LIGHT COMMERCIAL IN THE CITY.
I THINK WE DO. I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF PUTTING A RACE TRACK GAS STATION ON THAT CORNER RIGHT THERE.
BUT JUST THE WAY THAT YOU DREW THAT, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE LIVING RIGHT UP NEXT TO THAT CORNER OF THAT INTERSECTION.
I WOULDN'T WANT TO BUY A HOUSE RIGHT ON THAT CORNER.
THAT'S WHY YOU'VE GOT GRASS REMAINING THERE AND THAT CUT THE WAY THAT IT'S CUT DIAGONALLY ACROSS THERE.
I WOULD ASK, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED USING ALL OR A PORTION OF THAT EASTERN PART OF LAND FOR SOME LIGHT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT? RIDING STABLE.
HONESTLY. WE HAVEN'T BECAUSE THE WORD WE GOT WAS [INAUDIBLE] COMMERCIAL.
I'M SAYING WE CAN'T GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT.
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING, MR. ATTORNEY, TELL ME IF I'M WRONG, FROM AGRICULTURE TO TWO ACRES IS ZONING; IS THAT CORRECT? FROM AGRICULTURE? COUNSEL.
THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT ZONINGS.
I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THAT YET BECAUSE AGAIN, IS THERE ENOUGH THERE, WHAT WOULD YOU WANT? WE'VE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR. THEY WANT TO TRY TO GO BY THE FIREWORK STAND HERE WITH THAT THING? BE THE LIGHTS ARE SO RIGHT AND STUFF.
BUT WE JUST LOTTED IT OUT BASED ON WHAT THE TWO ACRE MINIMUM LOTS WAS AGAIN ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
[02:00:03]
WE REALLY HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE COMMERCIAL BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ENOUGH THERE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT, BUT IF YOU DO IT HERE, THEN WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO THINK? THEY CAN LOOK AT THAT.I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM GOING BACK AND LOOK AT THAT, BUT I JUST CAN'T.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT COMMERCIAL IS TO BE THERE.
NOW, WHAT I DO KNOW IS, AND I'VE [INAUDIBLE] 15 YEARS, I THINK THIS IS IN YOUR ETJ THE CITY TODAY.
WE WOULD LOVE TO FIND A WAY TO GET THAT.
I THINK IT WOULD BE SOMETHING FUN PROJECT TO WORK WITH THE CITY ON DOING SOMETHING COOL THERE.
WE'VE GOT SOMEBODY REACHING OUT TO THE OWNER TO SEE IF THEY'RE WILLING TO SELL OR JOINT VENTURE IN.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE TYPICALLY DO.
WE GO IN AND BUY SOMETHING, TRY TO FIND WAYS IF WE'RE GOING TO BE RUNNING INFRASTRUCTURE TO IT ONE DAY.
IT MAKES SENSE TO TRY BECAUSE TO ME, THIS COULD BE SOME COOL COMMERCIAL STUFF.
IF PARKER HAD A DESIRE FOR COMMERCIAL, THIS ALONG HERE WOULD BE GOOD.
YOU'VE GOT THE HOUSE RIGHT HERE ON THAT.
BUT NO, I HAVE NOT GOT COMMERCIAL AT ALL [INAUDIBLE].
WELL, I'M CLEARLY SPEAKING JUST FOR ME.
I'M NOT SPEAKING OFFICIALLY FOR THE WHOLE CITY OF PARKER.
I THINK SOME LIGHT COMMERCIAL IS NEEDED IN THE CITY OF PARKER BECAUSE UNTIL WE HAVE SOME OF THAT TO GENERATE SOME SALES TAX REVENUE OR UNLESS WE DO, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE NOT 100%.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OVER 90% OF THE REVENUE COMING ONLY FROM PROPERTY TAXES ON PERSONAL RESIDENCES.
OVER TIME, THAT GETS TO BE A BIG BURDEN TO BEAR WHEN YOU PUT IT ALL ON HOMEOWNERS.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CITY DEVELOP SOME AREAS WHERE WE CAN GENERATE SALES TAX REVENUE INSTEAD OF ALL OF OUR SALES TAX REVENUE GOING TO LUCAS AND MURPHY AND PLANO.
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I SEE THE SAME SITUATION AS FAR AS DEVELOPMENT IS CONCERNED, AND I'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LOT OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS AND EVEN WITH THE HUFFINES DEAL.
I WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT AS ONE OF THE CHALLENGES IS THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE DEVELOPMENT, SO WE NEED TO WORK THROUGH SOMETHING.
I DO AGREE I WOULD RATHER SEE TWO ACRE LOTS ON THAT EAST SIDE AS OPPOSED TO SOMETHING ELSE THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING ISN'T DESIRABLE.
I'M AGREEING WITH COUNCILMAN PROMAN AGAIN.
HOWEVER, I WOULD SAY THAT IF WE WANTED TO DO SOMETHING THAT WAS COMMERCIAL, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOUR PROPOSALS LET'S LOOK AT THE ETJ SIDE AS OPPOSED TO WITHIN PARKER PROPER, JUST TO REMAIN.
THE OTHER THING TOO TO NOTE IS THAT AS YOU'RE ADDING MORE HOMES, YOU'RE GETTING TAX REVENUE ADDITIONAL FROM THOSE HOMES. NOW GRANTED.
I KNOW THAT IT'S A BURDEN ON THE TAXPAYERS FROM THE CITY, INCLUDING MYSELF, BUT AS YOU'RE GROWING HOUSE INCOME, YOU'RE ALSO BRINGING IN MORE TAX REVENUE, AND I THINK WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT FOR ALL THESE YEARS, SO I WOULDN'T THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM WITH OUR EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE.
I AGREE WITH, I GUESS A BIT OF BOTH OF YOU THAT.
I DO BELIEVE THAT IT'D BE GREAT THAT ETJ AREA THAT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE A COMMERCIAL THERE.
I THINK IT'S BUILT FOR COMMERCIAL.
IF WE COULD GET THE RESIDENTS TO AGREE THAT THAT'S A GOOD PLACE FOR COMMERCIAL OPPOSE A RESIDENTIAL, THAT WOULD BE PERFECT.
THAT'S WHAT MY NEXT POINT, IS THAT RIGHT NOW IT'S ETJ AND YOU DON'T OWN IT.
THE NEXT THING FROM A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE THE OTHER CORNER.
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I LIKE IT.
I THINK AS OTHER PEOPLE SAID IS AGRICULTURE OPEN RIGHT NOW AND AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO CHANGE AGRICULTURE OPEN AT SOME POINT, BUT I WOULDN'T WANT TO GIVE UP THAT PIECE OF LAND A RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL.
I'D RATHER GIVE IT UP TO COMMERCIAL.
NOW IF I KNEW COMMERCIAL WAS GOING IN IN THAT ETJ AREA, I MIGHT HAVE DIFFERENT THOUGHTS ON THAT OTHER CORNER, BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, I WOULDN'T WANT TO GIVE IT UP.
WHY WOULD YOU WANT IT FOR COMMERCIAL? WHY WOULD YOU WANT THAT? I DON'T KNOW. IF I HAD A COMMERCIAL I'D LIKE TO SEE IN PARKER, ONE EXAMPLE, IT WOULD BE LIKE A CALLOWAS OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.
THAT CORNER WOULD BE A GREAT PLACE FOR A HOTEL.
A HOTEL SURROUNDED BY A COUPLE OF RESTAURANTS, THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT WOULD GENERATE GOOD SALES TAX REVENUE, WOULDN'T TAKE UP ALL THE LAND.
YOU COULD STILL PROBABLY DEVELOP SOME OF IT INTO RESIDENTIAL.
I UNDERSTAND THAT CAN CREATE ISSUES WHERE YOU GET RESIDENTIAL BUTTING UP AGAINST COMMERCIAL, BUT THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN SOME POINT.
ANYWAY, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, RESTAURANTS, HOTELS, OTHER KINDS OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES LIKE SOME OF THE ONES THAT WERE RECENTLY BUILT ALONG IN BACK OF THE WALMART.
[02:05:01]
POOL SUPPLY PLACES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.YOU'D HAVE TO TAKE THE WHOLE SECTION ALONG PARKER ROAD.
BUT THAT'S A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE.
YOU GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE WANTING TO BUY THREE OR $4 MILLION HOUSE ON PARKER ROAD EITHER.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM.
AGAIN, WE HAVE A BUILDERS LIST OF PEOPLE CALLING IN CRAZY.
WE WANTED TO STICK WITH THREE SO WE COULD DIVIDE IT UP AND GET IN AND OUT.
AGAIN, WE ARE BUSINESS MODEL LIST.
THEY'RE MOSTLY PUBLIC BUILDERS, OUR COUNTRY HOMES, BUT THEY PUT UP PERCENTAGE OF ESCROW BASED ON WHAT THE LAND PRICE IS FOR USE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SO WE DON'T HAVE TO GET [INAUDIBLE].
MAYBE AT THE REAR END WHAT WE NEEDED TO GET THEM AND THEN THEY TAKE A LOT TAG DOWN AFTER THAT.
I GUESS I'M COMFORTABLE APPROVING WHAT WE DID TONIGHT ON THE EAST SIDE.
I GUESS I'D PROBABLY LIKE TO SAY, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE AND SEE WHAT YOU COULD DO WITH SOME FORM OF LIGHT COMMERCIAL OVER THERE THAT'S OBVIOUSLY GOING TO WORK FOR YOU AND STILL BE PROFITABLE AND ALL THAT.
I KNOW IT'S HARD TO APPROVE THE ZONING, BUT YES, I WILL GO.
THAT'S AGAIN, A COMMITMENT THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM YOU GUYS GETTING TOGETHER.
LET ME BRING OUR OWNER, [INAUDIBLE] HE'S A VISIONARY WITH OUR ARCHITECT WHO DOES THIS AND SEE.
HE'S THE FINANCIAL GUY. IT'S HIS MONEY. IT'S NOT MY MONEY.
BUT KNOWING HIM HOW WE'VE DONE IN OTHER CITIES, AND YOU COME IN AND SAY, HEY, WE WANT TO BE GOOD PARTNERS, WE'VE GOT A BIG INVESTMENT.
IS THERE A WAY TO MAKE THIS WORK BECAUSE WE MAY GET AN ENGINEERING AND SOME OF THE PLOTS MAY BE LOST ANYWAY BECAUSE OF DRAINAGE OR THINGS WE HAVE TO DO DIFFERENT.
WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL WE DIVE INTO IT.
THAT'S WHY WE GET THE ZONING AND THEN WE GO, BUT I'LL MAKE THAT COMMITMENT FOR SURE THAT WE'LL PUT TOGETHER WHEREVER YOU WANT.
LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO BECAUSE I THINK IF WE CAN MAKE SOMETHING COMMERCIAL WORK [INAUDIBLE].
[INAUDIBLE] POSITION SOMETHING LIKE WHAT YOU GET.
YES. I GUESS GOING BACK TO OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE VISION FOR PARKER AND WANTING TO KEEP OPEN SPACE.
I THINK THERE HAS BEEN CONVERSATIONS THROUGHOUT THE DRAFTING OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHERE WE'VE GONE OUT AND DONE SURVEYS.
I THINK THE RESIDENTS OF PARKER HAVE COME BACK 50 50 SPLIT IN TERMS OF THEIR OPINIONS ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD BRING COMMERCIAL INTO PARKER.
I THINK THAT THERE'S A GOOD REPRESENTATION OF PARKER RESIDENTS WHO ARE IN FAVOR OF COMMERCIAL, AND I THINK IT REALLY BOILS DOWN TO THE BUSINESS CASE.
DEPENDING UPON WHAT CAN BE DONE THERE, WHAT BUSINESS CASE DO WE HAVE FOR HOW MUCH REVENUE WE'RE GOING TO GET ONCE ALL THOSE ACRES ARE CONSUMED BY TWO ACRE LOT HOUSES VERSUS WHAT ELSE IT COULD BE USED FOR IN ITS BEST USE.
IF THE BEST USE IS TO HAVE A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, THEN I THINK THE PROPER METHODOLOGY TO GO THROUGH THIS IS TO BRING IT BACK BEFORE PLANNING AND ZONING, LET THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DICTATE THAT.
THEN GO FORWARD AND HAVE IT MAPPED TO WHAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY WANT TO SEE VERSUS US JUST BEING THOSE PEOPLE TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.
I THINK IT NEEDS TO COME THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY AND THAT'S THE POINT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I WOULD JUST URGE US TO CONSIDER THOSE IDEAS.
[INAUDIBLE] COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I GUESS I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE ADMITTED TODAY WE'RE REDOING IT? THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INCLUDES THE ZONING MAP, AND THE ZONING MAP WAS REVOTED ON AND ADOPTED IN 2022, AND THE ZONING MAP INCLUDES A SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT FOR THE HUNDRED 51 ACRES AND IT INCLUDES AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE IN THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE DURING THIS AGENDA ITEM.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT INCLUDES THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY AND IT'S REALLY THE VISION THAT HAS BEEN SET FORTH BY MANY PEOPLE BEFORE US ABOUT WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE PARKER BECOME OVER TIME.
RIGHT NOW WITH THIS CONVERSATION, WE'RE CHANGING THAT.
WE NEED TO KEEP THAT INTO CONSIDERATION THAT OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH THE ZONING MAP AS DEFINED, HAD THOSE AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACES DEFINED TO BE OPEN SPACE
[02:10:04]
TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW PARKER TO HAVE THE FEEL OF OPEN SPACES.[INAUDIBLE] THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TODAY.
IT DOES NOT, AND WE'LL ASK COUNSEL TO CONFIRM THAT.
WELL, CURRENTLY, AND IT'S NOT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AS FAR AS I KNOW, THE LAST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS ADOPTED IN 2015, AND WHAT WAS ADOPTED IN 2022 WAS A NEW ZONING MAP.
THE ZONING DOESN'T HAVE TO MATCH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
BASICALLY, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IT IS A VISION, IT'S A SUGGESTION, BUT IT DOESN'T MANDATE SPECIFIC ZONING.
>> AGAIN, LEGISLATIVE CHANGE TWO ACRES AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE.
HAVING TWO ACRES AUTOMATICALLY GIVES YOU MORE OPEN SPACE IF YOU?
>> AT THE SAME TIME, IT WOULD REQUIRE A ZONING CHANGE TO RESIDENTIAL AND CURRENTLY IT'S NOT ZONED RESIDENTIAL.
UNTIL IT GETS ZONED RESIDENTIAL, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT SIZE THE LOT SIZES ARE DICTATED TO BE.
>> WELL, THAT'S WHAT HE'S ASKING, OBVIOUSLY, HE'S ASKING FOR US TO ZONE A RESIDENTIAL.
MY OPINION ON IT IS I THINK THAT THE LAND USE AND I THINK THAT EVERYONE IN PARKER, OBVIOUSLY, WE DO WANT TO OPEN LOOK AND WE WANT TO OPEN ARCHITECTURE AND LAND LOTS THAT ARE LARGE LOTS.
BUT I THINK THAT THE OVERWHELMING THING IS THAT, YES, IT IS ZONED NOW OPEN ARCHITECTURE, WE MAYBE LIKE TO KEEP IT THAT WAY, BUT I THINK WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT AT LEAST FOR ME WHEN I MOVED TO PARKER WAS THAT THE LOTS WERE LARGE AND I HAD SPACE.
IF THERE WAS A LARGE LOT SITUATION THERE, THINK IT WILL BE GOOD AND AS FAR AS THE COMMERCIAL IS CONCERNED, I AGREE WITH WHAT EVERYONE HAS SAID ALREADY IS IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE IT.
I MIGHT SUGGEST THAT IF IT WAS ABLE TO BE IN THE ETJ, MAYBE THAT WOULD BE BETTER.
BUT IF SOMETHING WORKS OUT, AND AGAIN, THE BUSINESS CASE IS SUCH THAT IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WAS WITHIN THERE THAT IT WOULD WORK, THEN THAT WOULD BE FINE TOO FOR ME.
>> I COMMENT, I THINK AS A CITY AND THIS IS DIRECTED TO US.
I THINK IF WE WERE LOOKING AT A PIECE OF LAND LIKE THIS, IF WE HAD A DEVELOPMENT TYPE OF PERSON OR A GROUP OR DEPARTMENT, WHATEVER, WHAT I'M GUESSING THEY WOULD DO IS THEY WOULD LOOK AT A PIECE OF LAND, AND THEY IDENTIFY THE BEST USE OF LAND, MEANING TO SAY, IF I PUT COMMERCIAL IN THERE.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, REALLY, TO SOME EXTENT.
IF I PUT COMMERCIAL IN THERE, WHAT IMPACT DOES IT HAVE TO THE CITY, NOT PARTICULARLY THAT IT'S COMMERCIAL, BUT WHAT REVENUES WOULD IT COME IN? WHAT REVENUES WOULD COME IN FROM A PROPERTY TAX PERSPECTIVE, ETC.
THAT DEVELOPMENT GROUP WOULD COME IN AND SAY, HEY, AS WE GO OUT THERE AND PLAN THE CITY AND DEVELOP IT, WE WOULD TARGET THIS FOR ONE OR THE OTHER BASED UPON WHAT THE BEST USAGE AND THE BEST USAGE IS PROBABLY A MIXTURE OF WHAT THE CITIZENS WANT, AND WHAT TYPE OF REVENUES IT WOULD BRING IN.
RIGHT NOW, I DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION AS TO WHICH ONE WOULD BE BETTER.
I KNOW IT COULD BE COMMERCIAL POTENTIALLY.
I KNOW IT COULD BE RESIDENTIAL.
POTENTIALLY, BUT I JUST I DON'T KNOW THE ECONOMICS RIGHT NOW.
>> I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU EXPLORE SOME OPTIONS FOR IT RATHER THAN JUST MOVE FORWARD TONIGHT WITH EXACTLY THAT.
IF YOU THINK YOU CAN WORK THAT WORK WITH THAT.
>> I JUST KNOW FATS. THIS IS ALL.
>> I REALLY DON'T WANT TO FEEL LIKE OUR HANDS ARE TIED THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS PROPERTY AS BEING ONE IS.
>> UNDER 2015 IS WHAT YOU'RE GOING UNDER WHICH THAT MEETS THAT TODAY.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET THAT STRAIGHT BECAUSE THAT WAS THE WHOLE TALK IN PNC THAT NIGHT, THAT WE MET IT, WE MET IT, YOU'RE DOING WHAT WE WANT.
WE TOOK ALL THE QUESTIONS AND THEN WE COME HERE TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT OF SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
I'M NOT TRYING TO ARGUE WITH YOU.
I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY, HEY, WE FELT LIKE WE'VE COME HERE.
I FEEL LIKE WE WOULD HAVE A TIME OVER HERE AND NOT OVER HERE TO 2026 LOTS OR 21 LOTS AND MAY GO DOWN A LOT OR TWO BECAUSE OF WHEN THEY DO THE BLOOD STUDY AND STUFF.
>> I'D RATHER HAVE THAT THAN RISK SOMETHING THAT'S SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE WANT OUT HERE.
[02:15:04]
BUT I'D STILL ASK YOU TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHAT YOU MIGHT DO WITH IT?>> I WOULD STILL DO THAT. AGAIN, IT'S MY WORD.
I WOULD ASK YOU TO WITH MY FINANCIAL STRUCTURE AND MAKE A COMMITMENT THAT I WILL GET WHOEVER YOU GUYS WANT TO SIT AT THE TABLE WITH MY BOSS, AGAIN, WE HAVE A BOARD SEE IF SOMETHING.
COMMERCIAL HUNDRED PERCENT. THAT'S NOT MY WAY.
THAT'S WHAT MY BOSS AND THEN WHEN WE DO COMMERCIAL STUFF. THAT'S NOT MY WAY.
>> OKAY. WHAT I'M HEARING AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IS THAT YOU NEED US TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS TO RESIDENTIAL TONIGHT, BUT YOU'RE MAKING A COMMITMENT THAT YOU WILL COME BACK WITH OTHER INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED THAT TO BE DONE BECAUSE IT'S ALL TIED TOGETHER, IS THAT CORRECT? GO AHEAD.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION AND I'M NOT SURE IF I CAN HAVE THE FLOOR TO DO THAT.
MAY I HAVE THE FLOOR TO MAKE A MOTION? MADAM MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS AGENDA ITEM UNTIL THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING WHERE WE'RE ABLE TO HAVE A MORE UNDERSTANDING AND DISCUSSION WITH OUR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE WHO ARE WORKING ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS RESIDENTIAL ZONING FALLS WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN BEEN IN THE WORKS.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION COUNCIL MEMBER, NO.
IS THERE A SECOND? NO, HEARING A SECOND, THAT MOTION DIES.
>> LIKE THE MANDAS OR COUNCILWOMAN.
MOTION. MY PROBLEM WOULD BE THAT I DON'T THINK THAT BY ME BY THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, WE CAN HAVE ALL THE ECONOMICS OF THAT IDENTIFIED, AND TO ME, THAT'S THE BASIS OF IT IS WHAT THE ECONOMICS ARE.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE COULD DO IT BY THE NEXT MEETING, BUT I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING IT.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE IT THE MOTION TO POSTPONE A DIFFERENT MOTION? SINCE MY MOTION DIDN'T PASS?
>> MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS UNTIL WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT TO COUNCIL ECONOMIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR THAT PARTICULAR CORNER.
>> IT WOULD NEED TO BE A DATE CERTAIN OR BY A CERTAIN MEETING, WE NEED SPECIFICITY.
>> MADAM MAYOR I SECOND THE MOTION.
>> WAIT A MINUTE. WOULD YOU REPEAT THE MOTION TO MAKE SURE I GOT IT CORRECTLY? POSTPONE TO.
>> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION POSTPONE THIS TO NO LATER THAN THE END OF THE YEAR.
BUT AS SOON AS WE COULD GET ECONOMIC INFORMATION ABOUT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER KERSHAW AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER NO TO POSTPONE ANY ACTION ON THIS UNTIL ECONOMIC INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE, BUT THIS WILL BE NO LATER THAN THE END OF THE YEAR.
>> I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS ONE, I'M NOT SURE WHAT ECONOMIC INFORMATION IS REFERENCED, AND HOW THAT'S DEFINED, AND HOW WOULD WE KNOW WHEN WE'VE MET THAT REQUIREMENT, NUMBER 1.
NUMBER 2 IS A QUESTION FOR YOU IN THE DISCUSSION.
I'M GOING TO AGAIN TAKE YOU I WANT YOU TO GIVE ME HONEST ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS THAT I ASK.
ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT THOSE TWO DEALS ARE TIED TOGETHER FINANCIALLY?
>> ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT YOU WANT TO GET THE FINANCING TO BEGIN TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE BIG PART ON THE EAST SIDE UNLESS YOU AT LEAST HAVE THE ZONING APPROVAL FOR THE WEST SIDE?
>> I'M NOT 100% TRUE BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE TO GO BACK TO OUR LENDER THAT HAS IT AND SEE IF YOU WOULD ALLOW US TO PULL THIS OUT TO BE ABLE TO JUST TO DO THIS.
BECAUSE WE MAY LOSE A BUILDER.
SO OF THE EARNEST MONEY. I GOT TO SEE HOW THAT PLAYS INTO THE FINANCIAL PICTURE.
WE KEEP SAYING GO BACK TO P&Z DOING THE DEAL.
WE WERE JUST THERE 45 DAYS AGO AND ALL THIS DISCUSSION.
THEY AGREED TO THE PLAN. YOU'RE SAYING GO BACK.
>> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I WATCHED THE VIDEO FROM P&Z AND THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF CONSTERNATION OVER THAT LOT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OR THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE BOAT PASSED, BUT THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF CONSTERNATION AND
[02:20:01]
A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WERE AGAINST IT.>> THAT'S WHY IT'S HERE COUNCIL FOR US TO DISCUSS. OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> BUT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT IS YOU'RE SAYING THOSE TWO ARE CONNECTED NOW.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO YOUR LENDER TO GET IT SEPARATED OUT.
AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS, YOU COULD RISK EVERYTHING ON THE EAST SIDE IF WE DON'T APPROVE OF ZONING ON THE WEST SIDE.
YOU'RE NOT MAKING THAT THREAD.
I'M ASKING, IS THAT AN ACCURATE ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION.
THEN I WOULD NOT WANT TO RISK LOSING WHAT WE'VE GOT ON THE EAST SIDE, IF WE CAN TAKE HIM AT HIS WORD THAT HE'S STILL GOING TO CONSIDER SOME COMMERCIAL USE OVER THERE.
>> IF YOU CAN'T FIND GOOD COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS FOR THAT PROPERTY, I WOULD STILL GO BACK AND APPROVE WHAT HE'S GOT THERE BECAUSE THAT'S TWO ACRE.
>> MADAM MAYOR, I HAVE A PROCEDURAL QUESTION.
DURING THIS TOPIC THAT WE ARE COVERING RIGHT NOW, THIS AGENDA ITEM.
IS THIS AGENDA ITEM STILL WITHIN THE PUBLIC HEARING OR IS THIS WITHIN THE COUNCIL MEETING?
>> YOU'RE WITHIN THE COUNCIL. SET 2.
>> THEN MADAME MAYOR, I DON'T KNOW THAT LIKE THE COMMERCIAL TERMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ZONING QUESTION ARE PERTINENT TO THE ZONING QUESTION.
THE COMMERCIAL TERMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY IS REALLY NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE HERE TO DECIDE ABOUT.
>> THIS REZONING IS SIMPLY FROM AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACES TO SINGLE.
RIGHT. THE CONVERSATIONS SO STAY WITHIN THE ZONING TOPIC ON THE AGENDA. AGREED?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR TO POSTPONE ANY ACTION ON THIS UNTIL ECONOMIC INFORMATION IT COMES TO COUNCIL AND THIS SHOULD HAPPEN BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR.
DID I SAY THAT RIGHT IN THE MOTION? I THOUGHT YOU SAID NO. THEN AT THIS TIME, I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING THIS ACTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF NOT APPROVING THIS, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
THIS IS TOUGH. I SEE BOTH SIDES OF THIS.
I'M GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT MAKING IT THREE TO TWO, SO THE ZONING CHANGE DOES PASS, BUT I'M DOING THAT ON TO POSTPONE.
THANK YOU FOR NO POSTPONEMENT. THANK YOU.
TOTALLY WRONG. IF THERE IS NO POSTPONEMENT, THEN WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION TONIGHT IF THERE IS A MOTION.
>> MADAM MAYOR. I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DO APPROVE ORDINANCE.
I GOT TO SEE WHAT IT IS. I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NUMBER.
>> AN ORDINANCE 877 TO APPROVE THE SECOND PLOT OF LAND TO GO FROM OPEN ARCHITECTURE TO SINGLE FAMILY.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM RED AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER PILGRIM TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 877.
AT THIS TIME, I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
I KNEW THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.
WE GOT TWO TO TWO, AND I AM GOING TO VOTE TO APPROVE IT.
JOB RATHER SEEMS LIKE ALL WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS.
CAN WE SET A WORKSHOP, ALL OF THIS TOGETHER, BRING MY BOSS AND JUST HAVE IT ABOUT EDC DISCUSSIONS.
I SAY, AGAIN, I CAN'T MAKE ANY PROMISE.
THIS WILL HELP ME GET THROUGH OUR LOAN.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE MAKE OUR COMMITMENT.
I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN EVEN ASK FOR THIS RIGHT NOW,
[02:25:01]
BUT MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING YOU COORDINATE MAYOR.IF EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE INVOLVED IN A WORKSHOP TO TALK ABOUT WHAT PROGRAM CAN BE DONE ON THIS, AND MAYBE YOU CAN LOOK AT WHAT YOUR WISHES ARE ON THIS FOR WHILE WE'RE GOING TALKING TO THEM.
I'M SORRY IF I CAME OFF DIFFERENT, BUT WE WANT YOUR VISION, WE THOUGHT WE WERE WE WANT WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT AND NOW THE REPORT, I RESPECT THAT FROM YOU GUYS.
I'M SORRY. LET'S HAVE A MEETING AT SOME POINT IN.
LET'S COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT MAY WORK.
THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN MAKE THAT DECISION IS.
>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY GOOD.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TO COUNCIL THAT IF WE'RE CHANGING THE ZONING TODAY, WE CAN CHANGE IT AGAIN NEXT WEEK.
THERE'S NOTHING WRITTEN IN STONE, AT LEAST NOT IN THE CITY OF PARKER.
THANK YOU, MR. TERRY. THANK YOU.
NOW, WAIT A MINUTE. EVERYBODY'S LEAVING.
GETTING OUT WHILE THE G IS GOOD.
AT THIS TIME, WE HAVE A FEW UPDATES.
[9. UPDATE(S)]
I'M GOING TO ASK MR. MACHADO TO UPDATE ON 2551.>> THEY PUT HIT OUR WATER LINE.
>> NO, THEY STOPPED. A LITTLE BIT.
THEY'RE MOVING ALONG. THEY'RE STILL WAY BEHIND ON THAT RIGHT HI.
THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO START RUNNING AN EIGHT INCH WATER LINE UP DAY.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO EXPLAIN THE WEST ROAD.
>> I ORIGINALLY, YOU SAID THAT HEY, YOU'LL GET SOME MORE DIRECTION ON 2551 ONCE THEY HAVE A MEETING, IF THEY HAD ANY MEETINGS YET? THERE'S LIKE DIRECTION OUT THERE, AT WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING AND WHAT THEIR TIMELINE MIGHT BE EVEN THOUGH, IN FACT, WE KNOW IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE ACCURATE.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN SHARE WITH US? THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE NOW, BUT IF YOU SENT IT TO COUNCIL OR SOMETHING, IF YOU COULD SHARE THAT INFORMATION, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
>> I DON'T GET A WRITTEN TIMELINE FROM I GET.
>> I WOULD BE HELPFUL WE'RE GETTING I THINK QUESTIONS AS IT GOES AND IT'S BEEN BLACK HOLE FOR PERSPECTIVE.
>> ABSOLUTELY. I THINK PEOPLE RECOGNIZE THAT.
YEAH, IT'S BEEN FLOATING FOR QUITE A WHILE.
>> WHEN MR. MACHADO DOES GET ACCURATE ENOUGH INFORMATION, WE DO PUT IT UNDER NEWS ON OUR WEBSITE, LIKE IF WE KNOW THE ROAD'S GOING TO BE CLOSED BETWEEN CERTAIN HOURS OR THAT THING BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF RESIDENTS THAT HAD SOME ISSUES WITH THIS LAST WEEKEND, BEING ABLE TO GET HOME AND [LAUGHTER] THINK OF THAT.
WE DO TRY TO DO THE BEST WE CAN, BUT IT'S NOT ALWAYS ACCURATE.
>> THE ISSUES ON SATURDAY WERE [INAUDIBLE], THERE WASN'T MUCH WE COULD DO ABOUT THAT DAY [INAUDIBLE] ON SATURDAY MORNING, 03:00 IN THE MORNING OR 5:00 IN THE MORNING.
IT TURNED INTO AN ISSUE THAT RAN INTO, I THINK IT WAS 4:30 PM SATURDAY WHEN THEY OPEN THE ROOM BACK.
IT WAS A LONG TIME. IT WAS A PROBLEM.
BUT WE GOT TO A POINT WHERE ONCE WE YOU'RE COMMITTED BECAUSE WE OPENED A 12 FAX LINE AND YOU CAN'T STOP TILL WE'RE DONE. [INAUDIBLE]
>> SO WE WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF THEY QUIT HITING OUR WATER LINE.
>> [LAUGHTER] I BELIEVE YOU DID.
[LAUGHTER] I DON'T HAVE ANY UPDATE FROM THE NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OTHER THAT'S IN PROGRESS.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING AT THIS TIME? COMP PLAN, AS FAR AS I KNOW, THE COMMITTEE IS GETTING READY TO RETURN IT TO P&Z, IS THAT CORRECT? COMMITTEE MEMBER OVER THERE? [LAUGHTER]
[02:30:01]
>> ARE YOU GETTING READY TO TURN IT TO P&Z?
>> WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT AND ALREADY CONTACTED, I BELIEVE EVERYBODY INCLUSIVE THE CITY AND OUR INTERIM ATTORNEY THAT WE DID PUSH IT BACK TO P&Z ALREADY.
I UNDERSTAND THERE IS A P&Z MEETING THURSDAY NIGHT THAT WILL LOOK AT THE COMP PLAN, IS THAT CORRECT? I DON'T KNOW OF ANYTHING NEW WITH TCEQ.
BUDDY, DO YOU KNOW OF ANYTHING WITH TCEQ? WE'RE STILL IN A WAITING GAME WITH THEM.
NO NEWS. ENGINEERING CONTRACTS, AMANDA, DO YOU HAVE ANY NEWS ON THAT?
AMANDA, RIGHT NOW HE WILL REACH OUT TO YOU, HE WILL REACH TO GRAY THE SET OF TIME FOR US TO MEET.
WE'LL REACH OUT TO YOU FOR SOMETIMES NEXT WEEK THAT WE CAN MEET AND GO OVER THOSE.
>> WE'LL GET TOGETHER. THANKS.
>> NOISE COMMITTEE. MR. KERCHO, SINCE YOU'RE HERE, WILL YOU ADDRESS THAT?
>> TODD, I BELIEVE, GAVE EVERYONE ON COUNSEL SOME INFORMATION.
IT SAID WE HAD A MEETING IN OCTOBER AND WORKING THROUGH ALL REALITIES, INCLUDING LEGAL TO FIX ISSUES.
NEXT MEETING WILL BE NOVEMBER 7TH AT 5:00.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT REPORT? WERE YOU AT THE MEETING THIS LAST MEETING?
>> I WAS AT THE MEETING. COUNSEL, IN FACT IS WORKING ON TRYING TO IDENTIFY WHAT LEGAL ISSUES THERE MIGHT BE OR HOW POTENTIALLY, I GUESS, TO AVOID ANY LEGAL ISSUES IN TERMS OF THE NOISE ORDINANCE.
ALSO, I BELIEVE HE IS LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY TRYING TO NOT NECESSARILY PUT A LOT INTO AN ORDINANCE AND GET OUR SOUTH FOLKS OR CROSS CREEK, ETC.
JUST TO WORK WITH US AND AGREE TO CERTAIN THINGS.
THE COMMITTEE BASICALLY, I DON'T KNOW, TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT, BUT BASICALLY WENT AND SAID, TODD WAS GOING TO GO WORK ON THAT AND COME BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING WITH HIS INFORMATION AND THERE'S NO ACTION ITEMS FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE COMMITTEE UNTIL THEN.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANY OTHER WORKS IN PROGRESS FROM ANYBODY? BUDDY.
>> LET ME GO BACK TO THE QUESTION YOU ASKED EARLIER ABOUT TCEQ, BECAUSE I ASSUME WHEN YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT TCEQ, YOU'RE ASKING GENERALLY ABOUT THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD COME UP ON THE ETJ LAND THAT WAS PROPOSED BY RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS, OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT OTHER TCEQ MATTERS?
>> I WAS TALKING ABOUT OTHER TCQ MATTERS.
I GUESS SINCE WE TALKED THE LAST TIME THAT YOU AND I WERE GOING TO MEET WITH THE POTENTIAL INVESTOR, AND WE'VE DONE SO, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE ARE READY TO DISCUSS THAT AT THIS TIME.
>> YEAH. THAT'S ALL I WAS GOING TO SAY, IS WE DID MEET WITH THE POTENTIAL INVESTOR THAT WOULD GO IN ON THAT PROJECT.
WE DON'T KNOW YET WHAT ROLE THAT INVESTOR WOULD PLAY.
THERE WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE SOME CONCESSIONS ON DENSITY FROM WHAT WAS PROPOSED IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT WAS PRESENTED, BUT NOT ACTED UPON BACK IN APRIL.
THERE'S STILL MORE DISCUSSIONS THAT NEED TO BE TAKING PLACE THERE.
I THINK WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH OF THAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT.
THEY MIGHT LIKE TO MEET WITH US, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN MEET IN CLOSED SESSION WITH A THIRD PARTY OR NOT.
>> THAT EFFECTIVELY CAN'T TAKE PLACE FOR THEM TO MEET WITH THE ENTIRE CITY COUNCIL, UNLESS IT'S A SPECIAL CALL MEETING THAT ANYBODY CAN ATTEND, WHICH WOULD BE AN AWKWARD WAY TO NEGOTIATE A DEAL.
IN THE MEANTIME, MAYBE THERE JUST NEEDS TO BE SOME CONTINUED INTERMITTENT DISCUSSION ON A ONE-ON-ONE BASIS.
I'LL LEAD THAT DISCUSSION SINCE I KNOW THEM.
CONCEPTUALLY, THE PERSON THEY'RE LOOKING AT BRINGING INTO THIS DEAL IN SOME CAPACITY HAS A CONCEPT THAT FITS BETTER IN PARKER THAN WHAT WAS PROPOSED.
I'LL JUST SAY THAT. FAMILY ORIENTED, MORE SPACE, MORE GREEN SPACE.
[02:35:05]
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? GARY, ARE THERE ANY OTHER PROJECTS GOING ON THAT YOU CAN THINK OF, OR CHIEF PRICE?
>> DO YOU HAVE ANYBODY FROM CROSS CREEK BRANCH ON THE COMMITTEE?
>> I'VE REACHED OUT TO THEM, BUT I HAVE NOT HEARD BACK FROM THEM.
>> THAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE A GOOD MOVE TO ADD THOSE.
AT THIS TIME, WE WILL GO TO DONATIONS.
[10. ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION(S) FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND CITY STAFF FOR THE RECORD (Each valued at between $0 - $1,000 [RES. NO. 2024-801])]
ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS FOR POLICE, FIRE AND CITY STAFF FOR THE RECORD.THE PARKER WOMEN'S CLUB DONATED $750 TO THE PARKER POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR SHOES.
[LAUGHTER] STATE LANE ON NATIONAL NIGHT OUT DONATED $325 WITH HALF GOING TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND HALF GOING TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
SAM AND APRIL LAURA DONATED CHIPS AND COOKIES, VALUED AT $30 TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
MANI, LAST NAME UNKNOWN, DONATED ONE CASE OF WATER AND ONE CASE OF SODA, VALUED AT $15 TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
GREG AND JULIE RAY DONATED EDITABLE ARRANGEMENTS, VALUED AT $25 TO THE PARKER POLICE DEPARTMENT.
CHIP AND LINDA JUSTICE DONATED TIFF'S TREATS VALUED AT $50 TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
WE WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO THANK OUR DONORS.
YOU DO SO MUCH FOR US AND WE DO APPRECIATE IT.
[11. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
IS THERE ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS TO BE ADDED?>> MADAM MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD AN ITEM TO POST A JOB REQUISITION FOR OUR CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
>> AN AGENDA ITEM TO POST A JOB REQUISITION FOR OUR CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
>> COUNSEL, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER WAYS THAT I CAN TRY TO STATE THAT REQUEST TO ACHIEVE THAT GOAL ON THE NEXT MEETING?
>> YOU COULD REQUEST IT AS A DISCUSSION ITEM TO DISCUSS THE ROLE OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
>> THEN I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR AN AGENDA ITEM TO DISCUSS THE ROLE OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
I DIDN'T HEAR THAT PART. I'M SORRY.
>> THE GOAL IS TO POST A JOB POSTING, SO THAT'S THE GOAL.
THE PREVIOUS AGENDA ITEM WAS TO ASK FOR A WORKSHOP ON THE EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK.
DO YOU HAVE AN ESTIMATED DATE WHEN THAT MIGHT BE A WORKSHOP THAT WE COULD SCHEDULE?
>> I HAVE A CONFLICT WITH THAT THAT WE CAN DISCUSS BECAUSE YOU'RE ASKING FOR IT AND I'VE GOT OTHER PEOPLE THAT DO NOT WANT IT TO OCCUR.
>> DO I HAVE A SECOND COUNCIL MEMBER WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE EMPLOYEE MANUAL AS AN AGENDA ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA? TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN ASK FOR IT TO BE ON THE AGENDA, AND SO THE REQUEST IS, CAN WE HAVE THAT ITEM ON THE AGENDA? IS THERE ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER WHO'S INTERESTED?
>> WE HAD IT SCHEDULED FOR A WORKSHOP COMING UP.
>> HOW SOON CAN THAT WORKSHOP OCCUR? CAN WE SCHEDULE IT DURING THE NEXT WORKSHOP THAT WE HAVE?
>> I'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT MY LIST.
I DO NOT HAVE THAT WITH ME AT THIS TIME, BUT IT CAN COME UP PRETTY SOON.
THE NEXT WORKSHOP, AS I RECALL IT, AND GOING FROM MEMORY IS ON CITY PROTOCOLS, AGENDAS, MEETINGS, MINUTES BECAUSE THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION THAT WE NEED TO HAVE, WHAT GOES INTO A PACKET, WHAT GOES INTO THE MAYOR, AND THAT IS THE NEXT WORKSHOP TO COME UP.
>> MAYBE WE COULD COVER BOTH TOPICS DURING THE SAME WORKSHOP AS A PROPOSAL.
[02:40:02]
>> YEAH. WHICH BRINGS ME TO A QUESTION IN JUST A MINUTE.
THIS IS A QUESTION, DO YOU-ALL WANT TO HAVE IF EVERYBODY'S AVAILABLE A SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON OCTOBER 29TH ON TO SOME OF THESE ISSUES? ONE, WE COULD MAYBE HAVE THE COMMERCIAL ISSUE COME BACK UP.
WE MAY HAVE A FIRE DEPARTMENT ISSUE COME UP.
WE MAY HAVE SOMETHING ABOUT THE INVESTOR COME UP. I DON'T KNOW.
I'M JUST ASKING FOR AVAILABILITY BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO SCHEDULE ANYTHING AT A TIME WHEN NOBODY IS AVAILABLE.
>> I THINK I'M AVAILABLE, BUT IF WE WANT TO SCHEDULE A MEETING, I'D LIKE TO REQUEST THAT WE DO THE WORKSHOP AS THE TOPIC THAT WE COVER.
>> WELL, IT MAY BE COMBINED BOTH.
>> SURE. THAT WOULD BE GREAT. THANK YOU.
>> YES. THAT WAY WE CAN MOVE RIGHT AT HAND.
THE OTHER QUESTION I'D LIKE TO ASK JUST REAL QUICKLY IS, RIGHT NOW, WE'RE SCHEDULED TO MEET ON NOVEMBER 12.
THE NEXT MEETING WOULD BE NOVEMBER 19TH.
SOME PEOPLE HAVE INDICATED THAT THAT MEETING MIGHT NEED TO BE CANCELED BECAUSE OF HOLIDAY TRAVEL, WHATEVER.
I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, HOW MANY OF YOU WILL BE AVAILABLE AND WANT TO HAVE A MEETING ON THE 19TH? WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE ON THE 12TH.
BUT THE MEETING IN THE 19TH HAS COME UNDER QUESTION.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MEETING.
>> I ACTUALLY WILL BE OUT FOR THE 12TH MEETING, SO I'LL BE HERE THE 19TH, THOUGH.
>> YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT. YOU'RE OUT FOR THE 12.
>> I THINK I'M AVAILABLE, BUT I HAVE TO CHECK MY CALENDAR.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A ROUGH READ. BUDDY?
>> I'M AVAILABLE BOTH DATES, 12TH AND THE 19TH.
>> PERFECT. THANK YOU. THEN AT THIS TIME,
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
WE WILL RECESS TO CLOSE EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.074 PERSONNEL TO DELIBERATE THE APPOINTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, EVALUATION, REASSIGNMENT, DUTIES, DISCIPLINE, OR DISMISSAL OF A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE.GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.074 PERSONNEL TO DELIBERATE THE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT AND DUTIES OF A CITY ATTORNEY.
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.0711, CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY CONCERNING PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION.
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.0712, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY ON A MATTER IN WHICH THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY TO THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY UNDER THE TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS CHAPTER, OPEN MEETINGS ACT.
IT IS, I CAN'T EVEN SEE THIS, 9:59?
>> 9:59. I GOT TO SEE WHAT TIME IT IS.
IT WON'T SHOW ME WHAT TIME IT IS.
>> THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, WE ARE RECONVENING THE PARKER CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING ON OCTOBER 22ND, 2024.
AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK COUNSEL, IS THERE ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION OR DELIBERATION ON ANY OF THE ITEMS FROM THE EXECUTIVE SESSION LISTED ABOVE ON YOUR AGENDA.
>> MADAM MAYOR, THERE IS ONE ITEM I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE.
[02:45:04]
>> WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION HERE TO REJECT THE PROPOSAL FOR THE RFQ FOR THE PARKER ATTORNEY POSITION.
>> FOR ATTORNEYS. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> MADAM MAYOR, I SECOND THE MOTION.
>> I HAVE A MOTION FROM MAYOR PRO TEM REED AND A SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER NOE TO REJECT THE RFQ FOR ATTORNEY POSITIONS FOR THE CITY OF PARKER.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? IF NOT, I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF REJECTING THE RFQ FOR ATTORNEY POSITIONS, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ANYBODY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 4-0.
DO WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT POSTING? THEN, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE AT ALL? IF NOT, WE'RE ADJOURNED.
IT IS 11:12. OH, MY GOD.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.