[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:04]
>> WE BEGIN HERE. THIS IS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR NOVEMBER 13TH, 2025, STARTING AT 4:00 P.M.
TONIGHT WE HAVE LET'S SEE WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE? WE WILL HAVE RAJIV, WHO WILL BE THE ALTERNATE, BUT TONIGHT YOU WILL BE PRESSED INTO SERVICE.
WE HAVE LUCY ESTABROOK AND LYNNETTE AMMAR.
WE'RE GOING TO START WITH THE PLEDGES.
[PUBLIC COMMENTS ]
WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE WHO HAVE SUBMITTED SOME COMMENT CARDS FOR DOING SOME PUBLIC COMMENTS SO WE'LL START WITH MISS CHAIR AND 94% DISCOUNT.>>MISS STEVE 946 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, DALLAS, TEXAS, 75218.
I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS FOUR AND FIVE, AND I'M HAPPY AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK AT THOSE TIMES, OR IF YOU WOULD PREFER, I CAN SPEAK NOW.
>> ARE YOU PART OF THE BUSINESS?
>> YES SIR. PHIL PIPINES IS MICHAEL.
>> WE'LL HOLD OFF AND WE CAN SPEAK. WE BRING THOSE UP.
>> THE NEXT PERSON IS CASEY STEVENSON.
>> DO WE HAVE ANY PARKER CITIZENS THAT WERE TO DO PUBLIC COMMENTS. WAS MY QUESTION HERE.
WE DO NOT SO DEEP DOWN TO THE AGENDA ITEMS.
[1 CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 4, 2025.]
THE FIRST TWO ARE SOME OF OUR STANDARD AGENDA ITEMS OF CONSIDERATION AND APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING THE APPROVAL FOR SOME MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 4 AND ALSO FOR SEPTEMBER 25.I BELIEVE THAT THE ON SEPTEMBER 4 MEETING MINUTES, AND I THINK WE STILL HAVE SOME DRAFTS THAT NEED TO BE CLEANED UP.
I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT WE HOLD OFF ON THAT ONE UNTIL WE GET THE DRAFT CLEANED UP SO THAT NEXT TIME WE CAN DO APPROVAL ON THOSE.
IF SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DELAY THOSE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.
>> THE MOTION IS TO PUT IT IN CONTINUANCE UNTIL WE CAN REVIEW AND APPROVE.
THE MOTION IS TO PUT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 4 INTO CONTINUATION UNTIL THE NEXT TIME AFTER WE GET THEM OUT OF DRAFT SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO APPROVAL FOR THOSE.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT? LET'S GO.
I WAS GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF.
THERE WE GO THEN THE NEXT ONE,
[2 CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 2025.]
WE HAVE MEETING MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 25, 2025.WE SHOULD HAVE THOSE AND YOU TAKE A MINUTE.
WE CAN MOVE ON WITH THOSE HERE IN JUST A MOMENT.
[00:05:47]
>> HOW MUCH FLY SEE IN THE SEPTEMBER 25TH?
>> ANY CORRECTIONS, ADDITIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE? I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> I WILL MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 25, 2025 AS IN THE PACKET.
>> ALL IN FAVOR? OUT OF THE WAY.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE CONSIDERATION AND APPROPRIATE ACTION FOR
[3 CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON KINGS CROSSING PHASE SIX FINAL PLAT.]
KING'S CROSSING PHASE 6 FINAL PLAT AND WE WANT TO HAVE THE STAFF JUST GIVE US A QUICK RUNDOWN OF WHERE WE ARE IN.>> THIS IS FOR A FINAL PLAT FOR KAM'S CROSSING PHASE 6, WHICH IS THE NEXT TO THE LAST PHASE.
THEY'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK ON THIS THING.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF ITEMS LEFT ON THE LIST FROM THE ENGINEER TO COMPLETE.
BUT THOSE ITEMS ARE NOT ANYTHING THAT SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BE COMPLETED BY THE TIME THIS GOES TO COUNCIL, STAFF RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO APPROVE CONTINUE ON THOSE ITEMS BEING COMPLETED.
>> EVERYONE HERE HAVE THE LIST IN FRONT OF THEM AND SO WE JUST GOT THE TYPICAL VEGETATION.
>> THAT'S PART OF OUR JOB APPEARS TO PHASE FOR RAIN.
>> ACTUALLY, ITEM 2 HAS BEEN RESOLVED I JUST TALKED ABOUT THAT.
>> I HAVE QUESTION? IN THE TARGET, IT SAYS THAT IN THIS PHASE, THEY WILL TAKE CARE OF THEY WILL NOT TAKE CARE OF THE DISCUSSION BUT THEY WILL PAY TO OF LEWIS LANE. HOW WILL WE DO ON THAT?
>> I'M SORRY WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?
>> IN THE PACKET IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
>> IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT?
>> NO. LEWIS LANE IS NOT TIP TOO.
>> BUT IT SAYS IT WILL BE AND WE GET ALL THOSE.
>> NO. THEY PAID THE PORTIONS OF LEWIS LANE THAT THEY'RE OBLIGATED TO PAY.
>> THOSE PARTS OF LEWIS LANE TIP TOO.
>> THEY MENTIONED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
>> YES. THAT WAS DONE SOME TIME AGO.
>> 2007, IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME.
>> NO, WE FACE SOME I'M JUST TALKING. [LAUGHTER] [INAUDIBLE]
I'M THE DEVELOPER, 40 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY, DALLAS, TEXAS.
THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS WRITTEN IN 2007.
[00:10:02]
WE STARTED DEVELOPMENT IN THERE ABOUT 2014 AND HAVE BEEN DOING IT IN PHASES AND TTHIS IS THE SIXTH PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.DURING PHASE 3, WE WENT IN AND PAVED THE FULL SECTION OF LEWIS LANE THAT WAS IN THE CITY OF PARKER.
NORTH OF THERE IS THE AREA THAT THE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF LUCAS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR AND SOUTH OF THERE IS AN AREA THAT WAS THE COUNTY AND LUCAS SO THAT'S WHAT GARY'S REFERRING TO IS THAT THE SECTION THAT WAS REQUIRED PER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED, AND THAT WAS DONE PROBABLY ABOUT FOUR YEARS AGO.
>> TODAY ANYBODY FROM THE COUNTY CITY HOW ABOUT THE WORK YOU DID?
>> IT'S NOT ABOUT THE WORK WE DID OR DIDN'T DO NO.
IT'S A SECTION THAT HAS BEEN DISPUTED AS FAR AS WHAT CITY IT'S IN, WHETHER IT'S IN THE COUNTY OR LUCAS.
THAT'S ONGOING DISCUSSION THAT THE CITY OF PARKER HAS BEEN HAVING WITH LUCAS.
YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT SO THAT'S IT.
WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY IS ABOUT A 60 ACRE PARCEL AND 43 LOTS.
>> VERY AWARE OF THAT [INAUDIBLE].
>> SURE AND IF I CAN ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT, I'D BE GLAD TO.
>> THAT SECTION OF ROAD WAS BUILT FOR HERE.
>> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT [INAUDIBLE].
>> I'M NOT AFRAID TO DRIVE DOWN IT LIKE SOME OTHER PORTIONS SO YES.
>> SURE. I'M SURE GARY COULD EXPAND ON THIS, BUT THE PART THAT'S REFERRED TO AS ITEM NUMBER 3, WE'VE POSTED A BOND FOR THAT WORK AND THERE MAY BE SOME INTERFERENCE FROM AT MOST GAS LINE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO CHECK ON ON MONDAY SO THAT'S ONGOING ITEM AND THEN THE OBVIOUSLY MAINTENANCE BONDS HAVE TO BE PROVIDED AND WE'LL BE PROVIDED FOR THE WORK FOR THE PAVING AND THE UTILITIES.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
GARY, YOU MENTIONED THAT THAT WOULD BE DONE BY THE TIME THE COUNSEL GETS THIS IS THAT?
>> WELL, ALL THESE OTHER ITEM 1,2 AND FOUR WILL BE DONE.
NUMBER 3 IS POSSIBLY NOT GOING TO BE DONE DEPENDING ON WHAT WE FIND DEALING WITH COO SERVE.
WE'RE GOING TO MEET WITH HIM OUT THERE ON MONDAY AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM IS AND THAT WILL DETERMINE HOW S OF THIS CAN BE TAKEN CARE OF.
IT'S A COUNCIL SERVE IS SAYING IT'S A THREE TO FOUR WEEK PROBLEM AT WORST.
IT'S POSSIBLE IT'S DONE SHORTLY AFTER THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.
>> IT'S GOING TO DEPEND UPON WHETHER OR NOT COUNCIL MAY HAVE TO RELOCATE OR RUN UP AND MOVE IT AROUND OR SOMETHING BECAUSE OF THE INTERFERENCE PROBLEM THERE.
>> THE LINE WAS ORIGINALLY INSTALLED OUTSIDE THE EASEMENT AND THE QUESTION IS, HOW DEEP IS IT? I CAN FIND THAT OUT ON MONDAY.
BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WE PUT UP A BOND FOR THE WORK THAT WOULD NEED TO BE DONE, WHICH IS AN APRON ADJACENT TO A CULVER.
>> THAT WOULD IMPACT EROSION PERHAPS. THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF IT?
>> I GUESS MY QUESTION AND MAYBE THIS IS FOR THE ATTORNEY IS JUST, DO WE NEED A SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR THIS IF IT'S AN OUTSTANDING ITEM OR CAN WE APPROVE IT CONDITIONALLY?
>> I THINK WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS WE WOULD WANT TO RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL TO THE COUNCIL BASED ON THE COMPLETION OF THE ITEMS IN THIS LIST, I THINK.
>> YES. AS FAR AS COMPLETING THAT ITEM, THEY'VE ALREADY PUT UP A SECURITY BOND IN THE AMOUNT TO DO THE WORK.
THEY'VE GOT AN INTEREST IN COMPLETING IT.
THEY'LL GET THE WORK DONE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, AND IT COULD BE AS EARLY AS NEXT WEEK THAT THEY COULD START ON DEPENDING WE HAVE MONDAY.
>> IS THE VALUE SUFFICIENT TO COVER THOSE IMPROVEMENTS?
>> YES. IT'S IT'S 120% OF THE QUOTED COST FROM THE CONTRACTOR.
THERE'S A PROVISION IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT ALLOWS THAT TO BE DONE?
[00:15:01]
>> IT'S LIKE $30,000 OR SOMETHING.
>> I MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT PENDING WITH ASSURANCE THAT THE ITEMS OUTSTANDING ITEMS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BY THE TIME IT COMES BEFORE THEM.
>> BASICALLY, WE WERE APPROVING CONTINGENT ON THOSE ITEMS?
>> WE ARE RECOMMENDING FOR APPROVAL.
THE COUNCIL ADDRESS THE APPROVAL SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING FOR APPROVAL, THE FINAL PHASE 6 KINGS CROSSING ADDITION PAT BASED ON THE LIST OF ITEMS PROVIDED BY ENGINEERING HERE ON NOVEMBER 13, 2025.
WITH THAT, DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> IF YOU'RE USING THE WORD CONDITIONAL IN THERE, THEN I WILL SECOND I GOT A LITTLE LOST IN THE MOTION BETWEEN YOU GUYS.
>> THE MOTION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE KINGS CROSSING PHASE 6 PLAT FINAL PLAT BASED ON THE CONTINGENCY COMPLETION OF THE ITEMS ON THE ENGINEERING LIST HERE THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US.
>> I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION.
[4 CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON POST OAK ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT.]
CONSIDERATION AND OR APPROPRIATE ACTION ON POST OAK ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT.COULD WE HAVE SOMEONE FROM THE DEVELOPER COME UP AND JUST GIVE US A QUICK RUNDOWN OF WHAT YOU GOT HERE.
>> YES, SIR, MISS STEVE VENTURA, FOR A SIX BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, DALLAS, TEXAS, 75218 ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER.
I WOULD SHARE WITH THE COMMISSIONER THAT THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM IS HERE AND THE OWNER OF THE PROJECT MANAGER AND THE ENGINEER WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PLANT.
SO TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU'VE GOT TECHNICAL QUESTIONS, THE ENTIRE TEAM IS HERE AND AVAILABLE TO ANSWER THOSE.
WE RECEIVED, TODAY, FROM YOUR PROFESSIONAL TEAM A COMMENT LETTER RELATED TO THIS PLANT.
AND AFTER REVIEWING THE COMMENT LETTER, I WOULD SAY THE COMMENTS FALL INTO THREE BUCKETS.
THE FIRST BUCKET WOULD BE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO TO SATISFY THE COMMENTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW AND THE CITY'S SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
THE SECOND BUCKET, I WOULD SAY, ARE THINGS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S OWN SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND ARE THEREFORE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT.
AND THE THIRD BUCKET WOULD BE THOSE THINGS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW, AND THEREFORE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT.
AND SO WE'RE HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY AS A PROJECT TEAM REQUESTING A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO COUNCIL, SUBJECT TO SATISFYING THE COMMENTS PROVIDED TODAY THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND STATE LAW.
AND THE PROJECT TEAM STANDS FOR QUESTIONS TO THE EXTENT YOU HAVE ANY.
>> THANK YOU. I GUESS NOW WE'VE GOT QUITE A LIST IN FRONT OF US HERE.
I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE BECAUSE I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP THIS AT A BIT OF A HIGHER LEVEL TO BEGIN WITH HERE.
BUT WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS SINCE THIS CAME FROM OUR ENGINEERING FIRM, I'D LIKE TO GET OUR ENGINEERING FIRM TO GIVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ON WHAT THEY FIND HERE [NOISE].
>> GOOD EVENING. CHAIRMAN, PLANNERS AND COMMISSIONERS.
I'M WITH BIRKHOFF, HENDRICKS & CARTER CONSULTING ENGINEERS.
[00:20:02]
I'M STANDING HERE TONIGHT BEFORE YOU ON BEHALF OF CRAIG KERKHOFF, WHO IS OUR CITY ENGINEER.HE HAS A FAMILY EMERGENCY THIS EVENING.
I AM PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.
I HAVE REVIEWED IT IN THE PAST, AND I'VE REVIEWED IT JUST RECENTLY.
I WANTED TO POINT OUT A FEW REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT JUST RISE TO THE LEVEL OF DENIAL.
AND THE FIRST ONE THAT I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT TO YOU IS THAT THE UNNAMED STREET THAT IS SITUATED ON THIS PLAT IS IN AN ACCESS EASEMENT.
IT'S NOT DEDICATED AS A RIGHT AWAY.
I'M NOT REALLY CLEAR WHY THAT WAS DONE.
HOWEVER, WE DO KNOW THAT YOUR SUBDIVISION REGULATION SAYS THAT IF A ROADWAY IS TO BE PUT INTO AN ACCESS EASEMENT, THEN THAT ACCESS EASEMENT HAS TO BE WHOLLY OWNED BY AN HOA ENTITY.
IT NEEDS TO BE ITS OWN LOT SO THAT IT CAN BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOA.
WELL, IF WE DID THAT, IF WE MADE THAT A LOT, THEN ALL 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 OF THESE LOTS WOULD ALL FALL UNDER THE THRESHOLD OF THE TWO-ACRE MINIMUM THAT YOUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIRES.
THAT, IN AND ITSELF, IS A REASON TO DENY THIS PLAT.
THAT STREET AS AN ACCESS EASEMENT WILL ALWAYS BE OWNED BY INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS WITH A STREET ON TOP OF IT.
YET, I'M YET TO UNDERSTAND HOW THEY DID THAT OR WHY THEY DID THAT.
MAYBE WE'LL HEAR FROM THEM TONIGHT WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT TO THEM, BUT REALLY THIS SHOULD BE A STREET RIGHT AWAY.
IF IT'S A STREET RIGHT AWAY, IT PUSHES THE 100-FOOT BUILDING SETBACK LINE SO FAR BACK THAT IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO BUILD A HOUSE ON THESE LOTS.
ANOTHER ITEM, BUT THEY HAVE NONE, IS THE CUL-DE-SAC.
THIS MEANS THIS LENGTH OF THE STREET EXCEEDS 600 FEET, AND THERE'S A CUL-DE-SAC AT THE END.
THAT VIOLATES YOUR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES.
YOU SHOULD DENY THIS BASED ON THAT ALONE. NO OTHER REASON.
THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO SAY TONIGHT THAT, WELL, THAT'S NOT REALLY A CUL-DE-SAC.
THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO SAY THAT'S A TEMPORARY CUL-DE-SAC BECAUSE IN THE FUTURE, THIS ROAD WILL EXTEND INTO SOMETHING ELSE.
PROBLEM WE HAVE, THIS FACE THAT WE'RE ALL FACED WITH, IS WE DON'T KNOW WHAT SOMETHING ELSE IS.
WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE SOMETHING ELSE IS.
WE'RE TREATING THIS AS A 600-FOOT CUL-DE-SAC AND THAT 600 LONGER THAN A 600-FOOT CUL-DE-SAC, AND THAT VIOLATES YOUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.
YOU SHOULD DENY BASED ON THAT.
EVERYTHING THEY'VE DONE IS THE CONFIGURATION OF THE STREET CONSTRUCTION ITSELF IS ON A CURVING LINE HERE RATHER THAN A PARABOLIC CROWN.THEY DID THAT ON PURPOSE SO THAT THE OFFSITE DRAINAGE COULD DRAIN ACROSS THE STREET NOW AND FOREVER.
IT'S NOT INTERCEPTED IN A ROADWAY DITCH, LIKE MANY OF YOU HAVE IN YOUR SUBDIVISION, BUT IF SHIT FLOWS ACROSS THE STREET, IT WILL DO THAT FOREVER.
WHAT THAT DOES THEN, AS IT CROSSES A STREET, THE LOTS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE GRADED.
IN EACH INDIVIDUAL PLAT, THEY'RE NOT SHOWING A GRADING PLAN FOR THAT.
EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT GRADING IS GOING TO CREATE A DRAINAGE POINT DISCHARGE ONTO THE NEIGHBORS. THAT'S NOT ALLOWED.
SO WHAT WE'VE GOT TO HAVE FROM THEM ARE OFFSITE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS.
WE RECOMMEND DENIAL FOR THAT REASON ALONE.
AND IF YOU'VE GOT PLENTY OF AMMUNITION FOR WHY YOU SHOULD DENY THIS PLAT.
THOSE THREE WERE THE BIG ONES.
THERE'S 36 MORE AND I COULD GO THROUGH EACH ONE INDIVIDUALLY WITH YOU IF YOU WOULD LIKE.AND I'M HAPPY [OVERLAPPING].
>> THIRTY. YOU MIGHT BE LOOKING AT THE FM 2551.
>> I'M SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY FOR WHAT STYLE ITEM 4 ON THE AGENDA.
THERE'S ONE OTHER THING THAT'S A HEAD SCRATCHER FOR ME, AND IT'S THE OWNER'S DEDICATION.
IF YOU REVIEW THE OWNER'S DEDICATION, THEY SAY, AND IT DOESN'T REALLY MEET YOUR NORMAL OWNER'S DEDICATION STATEMENTS.
BUT IN THIS OWNER'S DEDICATION, THIS SAYS, "IN ADDITION, THE CITY PARKER, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, AND DO HEREBY DEDICATE TO THE PUBLIC USE FOREVER THE EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS THAT ARE SHOWN HERE IN AT THE CITY'S OPTION POST OR POST STATES AND ALL DRAINAGE FACILITIES THAT SUPPORT IT WILL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE CITY." I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WORKS.
IT'S EITHER A RIGHT-AWAY OR IT'S NOT A RIGHT-AWAY.
IF IT'S GOING TO BE A RIGHT AWAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL IT A RIGHT AWAY RIGHT
[00:25:02]
NOW AND PUT IT ON THE PLATE THAT WAY AND ADJUST THE LOTS.WE CAN'T HAVE THIS OWNER CERTIFICATE THAT IS AN EITHER/OR OPTION THAT DOESN'T WORK.
YOU SHOULD DENY BASED ON THAT AS WELL.
SO I'M STRONG ON OUR OPINION THAT THIS SHOULD BE DENIED, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT P&Z MAY HAVE.
>> WELL, DOES ANYONE HERE HAVE? I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT GOING TO GO THROUGH 36 ITEMS, BUT DOES ANYONE HERE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BECAUSE I COULD MAKE SPECIFICALLY? MR. HENDRICKS?
>> I WAS GOING TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL ONES.
I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT THE GREGORY LANE UPGRADE, SINCE IT'S CONSIDERED A SUBSTANDARD ROAD RIGHT NOW, BUT I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT [OVERLAPPING].
I THINK THAT SINCE THEIR PROPERTY LINE DOESN'T GO TO THE CENTER OF THE ROAD, I THINK THAT THERE MAY BE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.
SO I'M NOT WEIGHING THAT ONE AS HEAVY AS THE OTHERS, BUT WE WOULD CERTAINLY MAKE ANY OTHER DEVELOPER IMPROVE ALONG THE FRONT AGE OF THEIR ADDITION, THE ROAD TO CITY STANDARDS. TYPICALLY.
>> THERE'S A BUNCH OF OTHER ISSUES ON THIS THAT I HAVEN'T GONE OVER, DRAINAGE RELATED, CAPACITY RELATED.
AND I CAN ANSWER ANY OF THOSE THAT YOU'D LIKE.
>> BUT YOU NAME THE MOST SERIOUS ONES.
>> THE ONES I DO. I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY BUT.
>> YEAH. SO DO WE WANT TO GIVE HER A CHANCE TO SPEAK?
>> I THINK THAT'S FINE. BASED ON WHAT YOU'VE TOLD US, MR. HENDRICKS, TO ME, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S PLENTY THAT WE HAVE REASON TO DENY, BUT LET'S GIVE THE DEVELOPER SOME CHANCE TO READ A LITTLE BIT.
>> MR. VENTURA, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER. I AM AN ATTORNEY.
AND WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMENTS THAT WERE JUST PROVIDED, I THINK THERE'S SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THE COMMENT RELATED TO ROADS.
THE CITY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, I WANT TO BE SPECIFIC HERE FOR THE RECORD.
THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 155.049(B) 1A PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC WAYS AND PUBLIC WAYS ARE A DEFINED TERM.
AND THEY ARE NOT STREETS OR RIGHTS OF WAY.
THEY'RE DEFINED SPECIFICALLY IN THE CITY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, AND THIS APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED WITH A PUBLIC WAY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
AND AS A RESULT, YOU'RE DUTY BOUND TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THOSE THINGS IN COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR OWN SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
WITH RESPECT TO THE CUL-DE-SAC, I AGREE WITH MR. HENDRICKS, THAT IT IS A TEMPORARY CUL-DE-SAC.
I DO NOT AGREE THAT THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE FAIR NOTICE OF THE PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE THAT PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT CONNECTS TO THIS PUBLIC WAY WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY WITH THE PLAT THAT YOU'LL CONSIDER AT AGENDA ITEM 5, BECAUSE PART OF THAT PLAT APPLICATION INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A TEXTILE DRIVEWAY PERMIT, AND AS PART OF THE REQUEST FOR THE CITY SUPPORT FOR THAT TEXTILE DRIVEWAY PERMIT, THAT PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT WAS SUBMITTED.
THE THIRD ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED AS A CONCERN WAS RELATED TO DRAINAGE.
I WOULD REMIND YOU THAT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND THE DRAINAGE WILL BE ADDRESSED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AT FINAL PLAT.
AND AS A RESULT, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT AS PRESENTED, SUBJECT TO A CONDITION THAT ALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS IN THE COMMENTS BE SATISFIED BEFORE THE PLAT IS ADVANCED TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.
>> I THINK THERE ARE TOO MANY ISSUES FOR US TO APPROVE THIS.
WE HAVE TO WORK THROUGH ALL OF THEM.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO SUBMIT A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENGINEERING LETTER SO THAT WE CAN HAVE YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING.
BUT I RECOMMEND THAT WE DO NOT RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT.
>> YEAH, I GUESS THERE ARE ENOUGH UNKNOWNS HERE.
[00:30:05]
I'LL TEND TO AGREE WITH YOU THAT THERE ARE ENOUGH UNKNOWNS HERE AND I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH MAKING THE ASSUMPTION HERE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF THESE THINGS THAT ARE OBVIOUSLY PRETTY LARGE ISSUES RESOLVED QUICKLY.SO TO THAT END, I THINK WE DO HAVE A LOT OF ITEMS THAT PROBABLY NEED TO BE RESPONDED TO MORE INDIVIDUALLY, I GUESS, BY THE CITY ENGINEERS.
I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
>> I WOULD JUST SAY THAT WE HAVE TO HONOR OUR ORDINANCES AND I'M LOOKING AT THEM NOW.
THE STANDARD FOR APPROVAL FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER, AND THAT'S BASICALLY THE DIRECTION THAT I'M LOOKING FOR.
AND I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE THIS EVENING TO HELP CLARIFY AND ANSWER QUESTIONS.
AND SO I HAVE TO GO WITH HIS RECOMMENDATION TO DENY BASED ON THE STATEMENTS THAT HE MADE AND THE ACCOMPANYING LETTER.
>> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? YOUR MICROPHONE IS.
>> GARY, WHAT WOULD THE MOTION BE?
>> FOR RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL.
>> OKAY, SO THAT'S WHAT I SAID.
>> I THINK WHAT WE PROBABLY ARE LOOKING AT IS JUST THE FACT THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING FOR A DENIAL AT THIS TIME BECAUSE OF ALL THE ITEMS STATED BY THE STAFF THAT DON'T COMPLY WITH ALL OF OUR ESTABLISHED CRITERIA.
SO THAT'S WHAT I SEE AT THE MOMENT.
DO I HAVE A MOTION FROM SOMEONE UP HERE ON THE COMMISSION?
>> OKAY. CAN YOU RESTATE THE MOTION?
>> I MOVED TO DENY APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT.
>> PERHAPS WE SHOULD ADD JUST THAT IT'S NOT MEETING ESTABLISHED CRITERIA IN THE ITEMS STATED BY THE STAFF LETTER.
>> THIS IS THE POST STATE'S PRELIMINARY PLAT.
>> WELL, THERE'S SO MANY THINGS HERE THAT IT'S GOT TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL.
AND I THINK WHAT WE'LL HAVE TO DO IS HAVE A LOT OF RESPONSES GENERATED BY CITY PERSONNEL AND OUR ENGINEERING FIRM TO ADDRESS ALL THE ISSUES MORE FORMALLY.
>> CAN YOU CAN YOU RESTATE THE MOTION C.
I MOVE TO DENY RECOMMENDATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, THE POST OCA STATES PRELIMINARY PLAT DUE TO SOME SERIOUS ISSUES IN ENGINEERING.
>> ALL IN FAVOR. WE'RE GOING TO RIGHT NOW, WE'RE GOING TO SEND THAT AS A RECOMMENDATION FOR DISAPPROVAL TO COUNCIL,
[00:35:03]
AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM 5.[5 CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ACCESS FROM FM 2551 PRELIMINARY PLAT. ]
CONSIDERATION AND OR APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ACCESS FROM FM 2551 PRELIMINARY PLAT.AGAIN, IF WE COULD START FROM OUR LET ME ASK THE CHAO REAL QUICK.
IF YOU CAN YOU SUMMARIZE WHAT THIS ACCESS IS ABOUT?
>> THIS IS A PIECE THAT'S WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF PARKER THAT IS ACCESS FORWARD IS PROPERTY, AND THE REQUEST IS TO A ROAD.
>> WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS A DIAGRAM SHOWING THAT THIS IS A DIVIDED ENTRYWAY INTO A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT SOME POINT?
>> IS THERE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ENTRY WAY?
>> ONCE AGAIN, WE HAVE ENGINEER HERE CAN SPEAK TO THIS.
>> CERTAINLY LIKE TO HEAR FROM OUR ENGINEER.
>> GOOD EVENING ONCE AGAIN, HENDRICKS, AND BEFORE YOU IS A PRELIMINARY PLATE STYLE, ACCESS FROM FM 2551.
IT APPEARS TO BE THE BEGINNING OF A DIVIDED THOROUGHFARE THAT WE'RE NOT SURE, IT MAY GO INTO MORE OF A COLLECTOR STYLE STREET.
AGAIN, I HEARD THAT A CONCEPT PLAN WAS SUBMITTED THAT WOULD HELP US UNDERSTAND THIS.
I HAVE TO SAY I DON'T HAVE THAT.
I APOLOGIZE TO THE LEGAL GROUP REPRESENTING THE DEVELOPER.
I APOLOGIZE TO YOU GUYS FOR THAT, BUT I DON'T HAVE IT.
I REALLY 'M FLYING BLIND AS TO WHAT THEIR INTENT IS HERE AND WHAT THIS IS FOR. THERE WAS THAT.
BUT I THINK ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS THAT WE NEED TO KNOW AND NEED TO UNDERSTAND IS THE POINT OF CONNECTION FOR THIS ROAD TO FM 2551, WHICH IS A TXDOT HIGHWAY.
THE CONNECTION POINT IS IN THE MIDDLE OR IN THE MIDDLE OF A TRANSITION OF A LEFT TURN LANE, A SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANE THAT PROVIDES LEFT TURN ACCESS TO AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY INTO SOUTH FORK.
THAT LEFT TURN ACCESS IT'S NOT A POINT THAT WE CAN ALLOW A ROADWAY TO COME INTO THE TXDOT HIGHWAY.
IT'S NOT AN ACCEPTABLE LOCATION POINT.
TXDOT WOULD DENY THIS LOCATION POINT BECAUSE IF IT'S DIVIDED THROUGH A FARE CONNECTING INTO A POINT WHERE THERE'S ALREADY A MEDIAN THERE AND IT'S A LEFT TURN BAY MEDIAN.
FOR THAT REASON ALONE, WE WOULD RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THIS PLAT.
SECONDLY, JUST LIKE ON THE PREVIOUS PLATE, THEY'RE NOT DEDICATING THE RIGHT AWAY, BUT THEY ARE DEDICATING AN ACCESS EASEMENT.
THAT ACCESS EASEMENT, I THINK IS GOING TO BE TO THE PUBLIC.
BUT IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT 1X BLOCK 1, IT SHOWS THAT THE ACREAGE FOR THAT LOT IS 1.433 ACRES.
IT'S NOT. BECAUSE THE ACCESS EASEMENT.
THE ACCESS EASEMENT CONSUMES THAT LOT.
IT ALSO STRANDS A NON-CONFORMING LOT TO THE NORTH SIDE.
WHAT'S LEFT ON THE SOUTH SIDE IS NOT 1.4433 ACRES.
WHAT'S LEFT ON THE SOUTH SIDE IS 0.68 ACRES, A MUCH SMALLER LOT THAN WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED ON THE PLATFORM.
AGAIN, IF YOU WANT TO HAVE AN ACCESS EASEMENT IT NEEDS TO BE IN AN HOA LOT, THEN WE'LL BE STRANDING AND CREATING A NON-CONFORMING LOT TO THE NORTH SIDE.
FOR THAT REASON ALONE, I RECOMMEND DENIAL.
I DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN THAT'S SHOWN ON THE PLAT.
I KNOW THAT'S A TECHNICAL DISCUSSION I'M ABOUT TO BRING UP, BUT THIS ROAD ROAD IS EXTENDING INTO A SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD ZONE.
WE DON'T HAVE A FLOOD STUDY FOR THIS PROJECT, AND ONE IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PUT A ROADWAY INTO A FLOODPLAIN.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT. THOSE TWO REASONS ALONE ARE REASON TO DENY.
FINALLY, WE GOT HOW LONG IS THIS ROAD?
[00:40:02]
250 FOOT LONG ROAD OFF OF A MAJOR HIGHWAY THAT GOES TO NOWHERE.WHY WOULD WE BE DOING THAT RIGHT NOW? WHY DON'T WE TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THE FULL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS? I DON'T THIS ROAD IS NON-CONFORMING.
IT WILL CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD TO THE TRAVELING PUBLIC.
UNLESS THE CITY BLOCKS IT OFF.
DO YOU RECOMMEND DENIAL? FOR THOSE REASONS, AND THE 26 BETTER COMMENTS.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> DOES EVERYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. HENDRICKS? THANK YOU.
>> AGAIN, MR. HENDRICKS 946 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, DALLAS, TEXAS 75218 ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT AND THE PROJECT TEAM.
THIS ACCESS PLAT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, STATE LAW AND TXDOT REGULATIONS RELATED TO CONNECTIVITY.
THE PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED AS PART OF THE TXDOT PERMIT REQUEST.
WE'RE HAPPY TO RECIRCULATE IT AND MAKE SURE EVERYONE HAS ALL OF THE INFORMATION.
I WOULD REMIND THE COMMUNITY THAT THE CONNECTIVITY IS TO PROPERTY WITHIN COLLIN COUNTY, WHO IN THE COUNTY OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S JURISDICTION, AND THEREFORE, THE CITY DOESN'T GET TO COMMENT ON THE PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OTHER THAN THE PIECES THAT ARE IN THE CITY LIMITS, WHICH ARE THE TWO PLATS BEFORE YOU TODAY.
AGAIN, WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH YOUR OWN CITY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, STATE LAW, TXDOT REGULATIONS, THAT YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT APPLICABLE COMMENTS BE ADDRESSED.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS TO THE EXTENT YOU HAVE THEM.
>> HAS TXDOT APPROVED A PERMIT FOR THIS?
>> THE PROJECT TEAM CAN SPEAK TO THAT, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT TXDOT HAS A REQUIREMENT THAT THE CITY MAKE APPLICATION OR SUBMIT FOR THE PERMIT.
WE'VE ASKED THE CITY TO DO THAT, AND THEY HAVE NOT YET ACTED ON THAT REQUEST.
EVEN THOUGH THAT'S PART OF THIS SUBDIVISION REGULATION REQUIREMENT THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE 30-DAY SHOT CLOCK CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW.
>> IF WE SAY OR ASK ABOUT THE 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAN ISSUE, IS THERE ANY ISSUE THERE OR FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE?
>> THERE ARE CONCERNS THAT HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
THERE ARE NO CONCERNS THAT HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED AS PART OF COMPLYING WITH AND GETTING APPROVED THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT.
BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF THE ROAD, SOME RECLAMATION WILL BE REQUIRED, AND THAT RECLAMATION GOES THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE, NOT A LEGISLATIVE, A NON-DISCRETIONARY ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS CALLED A CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION AND ULTIMATELY A LETTER OF MAP PROVISION.
YES, SIR, THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE FORWARD LOOKING THAT WILL HAVE TO BE DONE BEFORE THE ROAD IS CONSTRUCTED.
BUT THIS IS THE FIRST STEP, NOT THE LAST STEP IN ORDER TO GET THIS PUBLIC WAY THAT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND STATE LAW APPROVED SO THAT WE CAN TAKE THOSE NEXT STEPS.
>> THIS ENTRYWAY ACTUALLY IS AN ENTRYWAY INTO WHAT THE PARKER ETJ?
THE PROPERTY WAS RELEASED FROM THE ETJ.
IT IS A CITY CONNECTION FROM A TXDOT ROAD INTO COUNTY PROPERTY.
>> HAS THAT BEEN RELEASED FROM ETJ?
>> WHAT DOES THAT REALLY MEAN?
>> THE STATE LAW AS, AS I RECALL, THAT IF YOU SUBMIT A REQUEST TO RELEASE YOUR PROPERTY FROM THE ETJ, THAT IF THE CITY DOESN'T TAKE ACTION TO RELEASE THE OPERATION OF LAW WITHIN 25 DAYS.
[00:45:03]
THAT OBVIOUSLY HAS LONG SINCE PASSED.THE CITY DENIED THE RELEASE AT THAT TIME.
THERE IS ONGOING LITIGATION ABOUT THE UNDERLYING BILL THAT PROVIDES OR RELEASE FROM THE ETJ.
>> THAT'S LIKE STATE LAW STUFF?
>> DOES THAT MEAN WE HAVE SOME WHAT DO YOU CALL UNDECIDED LAW?
>> YES. THE CITY TAKES THE POSITION THAT [INAUDIBLE] OBVIOUSLY TAKES THE POSITION [INAUDIBLE].
>> I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THE BILL SPONSOR SENATOR BONO ALSO BELIEVES IT'S THE LAW, SO DOES THE STATE LEGISLATURE.
EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN CHALLENGE A LAW IN COURT, IT DOESN'T RELIEVE US OF THE OBLIGATION TO FOLLOW STATE LAW.
>> I GUESS, JUST TO ASK THIS ONE QUESTION, IS THERE, I GUESS, MR. HENDRICKS BROUGHT UP LEFT TURN LANE ISSUE.
IS THAT SOMETHING TXDOT TAKES CARE OF OR WHAT?
>> TXDOT ALSO RECEIVE INPUT FROM LOCAL.
>> WE WOULD LIKE THE LOCAL JURISDICTION TO GIVE THAT INPUT TO TXDOT AND WE WOULD LIKE TXDOT TO FOLLOW STATE LAW.
WE EXPECT THE OUTCOME OF THAT WILL BE THAT WE HAVE CONNECTIVITY TO THAT STATE PUBLIC ROAD.
THE FACT THAT THE CITY HAS DECLINED TO ADVANCE THAT APPLICATION TO TXDOT IS PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND STATE LAW.
I THINK WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS CONVENE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR A FEW MOMENTS UNDER TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 5501.71.
WE CAN RECEIVE SOME LEGAL ADVICE ON THIS?
>> THANK YOU. RIGHT NOW IT'S 4:29, AND WE'RE GOING TO CONVENE FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR A FEW MINUTES TO GET SOME LEGAL ADVICE.
IT'S NOW 5:02, AND WE ARE BACK IN SESSION.
I THINK BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW RIGHT NOW AND WHAT WE DON'T KNOW.
WE'RE BASICALLY GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT THIS IS DENIED.
I'D LIKE TO HAVE A MOTION UP HERE TO HANDLE THAT.
>> I MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND DENIAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE THE ACCESS PLAT AND ENGINEERING PLANNING REVIEW DOESN'T MEET THE CRITERIA AS STATED IN ENGINEERING LETTER.
>> JUST TO CLARIFY THE MOTION THAT THIS IS FOR THE POST OAK ESTATES ACCESS FROM 2551 PLAT.
>> YES. THAT'S NUMBER 5. THANK YOU.
>> ALL IN FAVOR. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THIS ACCESS PLAT BE DENIED, BUT THERE WILL BE MORE TO COME ON THAT, I'M SURE.
[00:50:03]
ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF FROM OUR CITY STAFF? ANYTHING ON THE RADAR THAT'S INTERESTING.I GUESS WITH THAT, UNLESS WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, I'M GOING TO MEETING A 5:04 P.M.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.