HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/01/2002 City Council 00765,3
July 1, 2002
CITY OF THE COLONY
DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS
JULY 1, 2002
The Regular Session of the City Council of the City of The Colony, Texas, was called to order at
7:05 p.m. on the 1st day of July 2002, at City Hall with the following roll call:
Bernetta Henville-Shannon Mayor Present
John Gordon Councilmember Present
Lewis Jue Councilmember Present
Joe McCourry Councilmember Present
Lynda Bayliss Councilmember Present
Perry Schrag Councilmember Present
Joel Marks Councilmember Present
I 1.0 I ROUTINE ANNOUNCEMENTS, RECOGNITIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS:
Call to Order
Invocation - First Baptist Church - Councilmember Perry Schrag
Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag
Salute to the Texas Flag
Citizen Input
I 2.0 [ CONSENT AGENDA
2.1 Consideration of approval of the minutes of the council meeting held June 17, 2002
(Wilson)
Motion to approve the minutes as written - Gordon; second- McCourry carried with all ayes.
2.2 Consideration of approval of a resolution denying TXU Gas Distribution's request
to change rates in the North Texas Metroplex Distribution system; requiring
prompt reimbursement of cities' rate case expenses (Sparkman)
Cheryl McKinnis with TXU addressed the council about the rate case stating The Colony
residents would see an increase only of $1.68 per month and business customers would see a
decrease of $4.61 per month. She said several other cities had already voted to settle with TXU to
avoid a costly appeal. Ms. McKinnis did state the appeal has been prepared and will be filed on
July 17, 2002
Motion to approve the resolution as written - McCourry; second- Bayliss carried with the
following roll call vote:
Aye - Henville-Shannon, McCourry, Bayliss, Schrag, Marks
No - Gordon, Jue
2.3 Consideration of adoption of a resolution directing publication of notice of intention
to issue certificates of obligation (Koo)
Motion to approve the resolution as written - Gordon; second- McCourry carried with all
ayes.
2.4 Consideration of approval of an ordinance authorizing the city manager to enter
into a contract with VoiceStream for installation and maintenance of certain
antennas and communication equipment on the City's water tower located at 5033
Clover Valley Persaud)
Motion to approve the ordinance written - Gordon; second- McCourry carried with all ayes.
0 0 7 6 5
July 1, 2002
2.5 Consideration of approval of applications for 404 permits from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers for drainage improvements along future Memorial Drive
between Blair Oaks Road and Paige Road (Johnston)
Motion to approve as presented- Gordon; second- McCourry carried with all ayes.
2.6 Consideration of approval of an ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute a
concessionaire agreement with Elephino, Inc. to provide a shaved ice stand next to
the Recreation Center (Nelson)
Motion to approve the ordinance as written - Gordon; second- McCourry carried with all
ayes.
2.7 Consideration of approval of a resolution adopting a goal as set forth in and in
accordance with Senate Bill 5 regarding the city's consumption of electricity by city
facilities (Leverich)
Motion to approve the resolution as written - Gordon; second - McCourry carried with all
ayes.
I 3.0 I REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Mayor Henville-Shannon said at the request of the developer, she is moving items 3.3
and 3.4 up on the agenda for discussion.
3.3 Consideration of previous vote taken by City Council on June 17, 2002, to discuss
the MGDF development plan in a work session. (Council)
(It should be noted that the following is not a true verbatim transcript due to the fact that at times the voices
could not be heard on the audio or video tapes.)
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "and the reason that this is on the agenda is because the
last time we all met which was June 17 council had made a motion for the MGDF Maharishi
Global Development Fund to table this issue based on what we had heard ~rom the attorneys from
MGDF. And it states in our minutes, to be exact, that...let's see here. 'Attorney John Sloan
requested to address the council. He requested a joint work session between all parties involved in
the Global Centre plan and the city in order to work out some issues on this item.' And with that
being stated, council took a motion to table this item pending a work session at the developer's
request. Now it's come back up and I want to hear what council would like to do. Do you want to
bring this item back out from under the table or do you want, or do you want to discuss this and
talk about the development plan later on. And I would like to find out from each individual
Councilmember what you would like to do. Would you like to stick to what you have already
stated or do you want to do move forward and do something different. And we'll start with
Councilman Gordon.
Councilmember John Gordon said, "Mayor the reason why I asked for agenda item 3.4 to
be put on here is because the developer requested it and asked that he be heard this evening and
present to us the same information that would be presented at a work session. So for that reason I
asked that it be put on there and I'm willing to have the developer speak to the issue this
evening." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "O.K., Councilman Jue." Councilmember Jue said
"Originally when a request was made to have a work session, I believe that before we could
schedule one that would have included the full council, I believe that the city manager suggested
that maybe their attorneys and our attorneys and himself would try to meet and go over some
items to get some clarification to do some initial, I guess, work on that to see if we can get things
settled with possibly without having a work session. So with that in mind, that they have already
met and if the presentation is going to be made in a way that the same information is going to be
007 5,
July 1, 2002
presented to us as it would be in a work session anyway, then I would rather hear it tonight so we
can take action on it."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "O.K. Councilman McCourry." Councilmember
McCourry said, "I think we should stay the course as to what our original vote was. I believe that
in a work session the give and take of information as all of our last work sessions have been is a
much easier and a much better flow of communication between all parties involved. I believe that
the citizens that have attended, the people that have been there, the people that have watched us in
our work sessions agree that the flow of information is much greater and much better and I would
like the chance to meet with them in a work session one on one and hear their proposals just as
they originally asked. That is what I was prepared for and what I was prepared to do."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Thank you, Councilman Bayliss." Councilmember
Bayliss said, "I am also more for a work session as well. That way I can meet them in a little bit
more comfortable setting, that's different and can asked questions."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "O.K. Councilman Schrag." Councilmember Schrag said,
"I originally was for a work session and don't have any trouble with a work session, this keeps
going on and on and on. We have trouble getting all of our parties together anyway and if
everybody's here I don't have any trouble listening to their side of it and listening to what they
have to say and moving forward with it today."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "O.K. Councilman Marks." Councilmember Marks said,
"I was under the impression that staff and the attorneys met and discussed this issue, is that right?
Mr. Cheatham said, "That is correct." Councilman Marks said, "Before I make a decision, well
actually, I'm not for another work session because I believe that our staff gets to do their job. I
prefer not to do their job for them. It's the old micro-management If the developer is here
tonight and ready to present their case. I don't see why we couldn't use this as an official work
session. However, is there anyway that we can get the information that was presented at your
meeting because from what I understand we went from 6 stipulations to 13 stipulations and now I
don't know what kind of stipulations we have left." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "O.K."
Mr. Cheatham said, "Councilman Marks, Mayor and Council, when staff made their
recommendations at P&Z, I think at that point in time there were 15 stipulations, is that correct?
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "16." Mr. Cheatham said, "Well there were 15 originally if I'm
not mistaken, and subsequent to that, actually P&Z took the action and narrowed the scope and
put that into 4 stipulations. Right before we took the matter to P&Z is when we retained the
services of Terry Morgan as our attorney. And subsequent to the P&Z meeting, Harry spoke to
Terry and he recommended adding one stipulation, so staff stipulations totaled 16 and P&Z had 4.
The 6 that you are referring to I believe, Councilman Marks are the 6 reasons that Terry Morgan
felt that this matter had to be considered by the city council."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Councilman Marks." Councilmember Marks asked, "Are
these the original ones that were in the original packet?" Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "The 16
are the original stipulations." Councilmember Marks said, "I'm sorry, the 6." Mr. Cheatham said,
"I'm sorry, there were never actually 6 stipulations on the case. There were 6 reasons that Terry
Morgan identified that he believes are reasons that this matter has to come before council instead
of just laying with the P&Z Commission." Councilmember Marks said, "I made a mistake, I'm
talking about the stipulations that were made by Planning and Zoning." Mayor Henville-Shannon
said, "No, Councilman Marks what it is, is that staff had made a recommendation of 15
stipulations plus one, that's 16. P&Z had taken had decided to do 4 stipulations instead of the 16.
And the reason being according to their minutes, is because P&Z felt that staff was being too
detailed to put those stipulations on the development plan, and it states that here in the minutes
that P&Z thought they were being to detailed oriented to put those in there, so they decided to go
with 4."
Councilmember Marks said, "O.K." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "O.K., before you
speak, I'd like to go ahead a make...are you done?" Councilman Gordon said, "I'd like to clarify
007t35i3
July 1, 2002
that if I could before we get away from that point." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "O.K. go
ahead Councilman Gordon."
Councilmember Gordon said, "I think as a point of clarification, the 6 stipulations that
you might be referring to were the 6 things that Terry Morgan outlined as the difference between
the conceptual plan and the development plan. Them were 6 stipulations that he listed that he
thought were different one from the other that made those two plans not in compliance." Mayor
Henville-Shannon said, "I believe Terry Morgan, I think those 6 stipulations are the stipulations
that he not only conferred that were different but that those stipulations were pertinent in the
change between the development plan and the conceptual plan and I think he was just giving an
outline of his view of the major ones that were pointed out instead of all 16 that we are referring
to.
Mr. Terry Morgan said in his letter he lists the 6 reasons. He said he chose the most
salient of the 16 stipulations and those were the 6 reasons on his list.
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "And finally, to answer Councilman Marks' question.
Councilman Marks we have not had a work session at all with MGDF to this point. There has not
been any communication with council unless MGDF has contacted any of you individually there
has not been any contact with anybody on council as far as a work session goes. The work session
came up with other Councilmembers who were wanting to have a chance to sit down and meet
with them in addition to the request of the attorney that evening who had made the request of the
work session. And that's where the term work session came up is because they are the one who
made that recommendation. Now I have a hard time believing that that particular evening that
they asked or request for a work session and all of the sudden two days later we are not even, we
are not even talking at the table. And I for one would like to come to meet them half way. They
have asked for a work session and I would like for one to do exactly as they requested is to come
to table to meet with council for the first time and talk about some of the issues that were brought
up with the P&Z stipulations versus staff stipulations. In addition to that I had a meeting with
their chairperson, Deville, who is the chairman of P&Z who has also requested a joint work
session with P&Z and council to discuss these issues of the 15, excuse me, 16 stipulations that
were made before staff. So, and I guess the other thing is that we had all discussed this at great
length last Monday and I would have to say to myself, why do we bring this up when we had all
clarified last, two weeks ago that we were going to do this. Now I realize all of our schedules are
hard to meet, but if parties wanted to get together and discuss this item, I would think that we
would all make recommendations or make some type of amends to have some type of a joint
work session to iron out some of the differences we are talking about. We are not, you know, and
this is such a large development and I would hate to think that we would have to rush through it
and not get some of our questions answered. Tonight, we might be able to do that, but I do
believe it would take a great length of time to arrive at some of conclusions. I would hope that we
would take real, be caution as to how quickly we approve and disapprove things according to our
own oath that we have taken."
Councilmember Marks said, "Let me clarify, I know this is really not a work session with
him before, what I was referring to was the meeting that they did with Dale, with the city
manager. What I was concerned about was, what was the outcome of that meeting." Mayor
Henville-Shannon said, "Well, it appears in the e-mails that I have been reading and I'm sure all
of you have all been reading your e-mails regarding this particular case. The e-mails that I have
been reading it appears to me that we are getting into an attorney attorney type talk, besides
getting into the real questions which is procedural mythology and whether or not it conforms to
conceptual versus development." Mr. Cheatham said, "Mayor and Council I think that both
Robert and Terry would both concur, but I think that both sides have a better understanding of
where the other side stands. There are still outstanding issues"
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Mr. Read." Mr. Robert Reed, representing MGDF said,
"Thank you, first madam mayor, I do appreciate you moving this up on the agenda, I have a
July 1, 2002
family issue that I need to attend to and I appreciate your courtesies in that regard. I met with
Terry Morgan and Dale on Wednesday, and while we weren't able to see eye to eye on every
matter I think we were able to define the parameters of what we are going to be discussing. We
have been involved in this process for some time. We have been working with Harry and the rest
of the city staff for quite some time on this development through the DRC procedure, through
P&Z and through meeting with Dale and Terry Morgan last week. We are prepared tonight to
move forward and we think it would be in everyone's best interest to move forward at this time.
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Councilman Schrag." Councilmember Schrag said, "I
probably have more of a procedural question. If I understand this correctly we would have to pass
item 3.3 before we could hear their side, but what would keep us if we hear what they have to
present to us and we are still not comfortable, what's to keep us from still requesting a work
session. It doesn't necessarily mean we have to move directly on to 3.4. Am I correct or incorrect,
that's why I say it's more of a procedural question, sorry." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "There
is nothing that forbids us from having a work session, I think the only thing I am trying to bring
in light of the council is that council is not the only one who has requested a work session and of
all parties involved out of all due respect from your chairperson of your P&Z, to members of
council who have asked that, to attorneys that have asked that I would just think out of all due
respect to grant that. There is nothing that forbids us from doing that if we decide to do that"
Councilmember Schrag said, "Right, but if we vote now on 3.3 they don't have a chance to speak,
correct or incorrect?" Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "They do not have a chance to speak for this
particular agenda. It will come back as a tabled item as council has voted previously." Is there
anymore discussion from council. I do have a citizen input on this particular item. Mr. Richard
Kuether.
Richard Kuether said, "Good evening my name is Richard Kuether. I live at 4109
Driscoll Drive. Thank you for allowing me to speak this evening. On this particular item, I too
would like to see a have this item postponed and have a work shop because Global Centre is quite
a big deal. I have read through the stipulations that staff has come up and it's not an issue of
whether it's going to be green or brown. Is it going to be 10 stories or 4 stories? It's a matter of
our ordinances. According to staff stipulations, the existing development doesn't adhere to 9 of
our ordinances. Seems to me that to give the developer the opportunity to get his things
straightened up and for the city to come together in a coherent method here, that we should
postpone this go ahead and have the work session, let everybody get everything all taken care of
and be on the same page there. I would also like to say that it surprises me that the P&Z has
allowed this many problems come before the council. They also like y'all have taken an oath to
adhere to all our city ordinances and all our city standards. It seems to me that maybe this issue
should go back to them or at least question what their motives were. If they can't adhere by the
ordinances or they wish not to do their jobs correctly, then I think maybe the council should
replace these folks. Besides that I think we need to go ahead and have our work session and work
these differences out. Thank you." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Thank you. Is there anymore
discussion on council?" Councilmember Jue said, "By ordinance Planning and Zoning
commission can and do make final approval of preliminary and final plats and final plats do not
have to come back to council so as far as following our ordinance they do that, so I am curious
why now they are requesting to come back for a work session after they have already approved
the final plat." The Mayor said, "Oh, yeah, I excuse me Councilman Jue, you were absent the last
time I believe we had this extensive work session, not work session but extensive executive
session in the back. And the reason they requested a work session and you are talking about
Robert Reed and company, the Maharishi, or you are talking about P&Z. Well actually the vote
on P&Z I believe was 4 - 1 vote on P&Z with the one lone voter was the chairperson who
actually runs that P&Z commission. He would like to voice his opinion and talk to council and
actually have a work session with council to explain some of the actions that were taken from that
particular meeting."
00765i'
July 1, 2002
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Councilman Gordon." Councilmember Gordon
said, "Just a point mayor, I don't think the chairman of P&Z vote counts anymore than any of the
other 4 members on that planning and zoning committee. The second thing, the way this reads
3.3, if we vote for this 3.3 then we are voting for a work session and not allowing the developer to
speak on the agenda tonight." Is that correct, is that your interpretation? If we vote for it, the
developer does not speak tonight." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "That is correct, that is
exactly the motion that was taken by unanimously of this council on two Monday's ago."
Councilman Marks."
Councilmember Marks said, "If I remember correctly, the vote was done two weeks ago
because the developer requested it, the work session." Mayor said, "Correct." Councilmember
Marks continued, "And then in the meantime they worked out some of the problems with the city
manager and the attorneys. I'm very uncomfortable with this whole situation, because I've been
on council before and I don't think I've ever been in a situation where we had an attorney on
either side when we are trying to make a decision on a development." Mayor Henville-Shannon
said, "That is very correct." Councilmember Marks continued, "So everybody is walking around
on egg shells around here. We're trying to figure out what to say and what not to say, or how to
make decisions. The meeting that was had with the city manager and Harry, Terry Morgan, was
that a successful meeting? Did we come to some decision or did we say let's go back to council
and let them make the decision?" Terry Morgan spoke.
Councilmember Marks, "And are we getting ready to set a precedent by the lone vote on
Planning & Zoning coming to us to ask to make some changes to overthrow the vote of four
members on Planning & zoning?" Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "I don't think we're starting a
precedent at all, as I have already stated, the work session was not only requested by that lone
member who happens to be their chairperson, but it was also requested by unanimously of this
council." Councilmember Marks said, "And exactly what do you mean by that, are you saying
here we aren't allowed to change our minds." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "I didn't say that
Councilman Marks, I'm, saying that according to the motion that was taken on two Mondays ago,
you made the motion and I believe McCourry seconded that motion, you made the motion to
table this issue pending a work session." Councilman Marks said, "And I'll tell you exactly how
that transpired. And I'm sorry your name is? "Mr. Reed said, "I'm Robert Reed, I was not here at
the last meeting, John Sloan was here." Councilman Marks said, "John Sloan stood there and told
us that Mr. Reed wasn't available and that he felt more comfortable if we postpone this and went
to a work session. Now that Mr. Reed is here, and he does not want to go to a work session, are
you representing the development?" Mr. Reed said, "Yes, I am." Councilman Marks asked, "O.K.
is there not a way for us to discuss this tonight?" Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "That decision
rests solely on what consent of council will be and that is why we are having this discussion."
Councilman Marks said, "So there are four of us who feel comfortable and three of us who
don't." Mayor Henville-Shannon asked, "I have not taken a vote yet, have you?" Councilman
Marks said, "But you have everybody's opinion." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Until we get a
final vote, it's still just an opinion and not a vote."
Mayor Henville Shannon said, "Councilman Jue." Councilmember Jue said, "Because the
representative of the developer requested a work session at that time, then we were obliged to
accommodate them by trying to set up a work session. Now I'm asking the representative of the
developer, do you request a work session?" Mr. Reed said, "No we do not, we feel that we have
hammered out all those issues throughout the entire process that we've been through. The
meeting with Dale and Mr. Morgan was productive and we are ready to proceed tonight. We
don't think that work session is necessary."
Mayor Henville-Shannon asked, "Is there any more discussion on council? Seeing there
is no more discussion, we'll go ahead and call the question. Do I have a motion? (Inaudible
voices) Well, there hasn't been one made yet." (Inaudible voices)
July 1, 2002
Councilmember Marks asked, "Well I'm trying to determine, exactly how you are
supposed to say this for a no vote or a yes vote. A yes vote means we do go on and discuss it."
Councilmember Gordon said, "A yes vote means we have a work session, is that right mayor?"
Mayor Henville-Shannon said "According to our agenda item 'Consideration of previous
vote taken by City Council on June 17, 2002, to discuss the MGDF development plan in a work
session'. If the motion is to approve this item then, we stick by the vote that we have taken on
June 17th. If a motion is not to hear a work session, then we are, then it's the opposite.
Councilman Bayliss."
Councilmember Bayliss said, "Motion to approve (item) 3.3 as stated." Councilmember
McCourry, "Second."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "There is a motion to approve 3.3 as stated and there's a
second. Council?"
Vote was shown on the voter board as follows:
Henville-Shannon - Aye
Gordon - No
Jue- No
McCourry - Aye
Bayliss - Aye
Schrag No
Marks - No
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Motion fails. We will hear ... we will hear MGDF's
presentation. First of all, let's go ahead and move to item 3.4"
3.4 Subject to an affirmative vote by Council, consideration of approval of a
development plan for Global Centre to be located at the southwest corner of the
intersection of State Hwy. 121 and Piano Pkwy. (John Gordon)
Mayor Henville-Shannon, "The way we will proceed with this is go ahead and hear the
presentation by Mr. Persaud hear the presentation by the developer, hear citizen's input and then
council will open the floor for discussion." Mr. Persaud said, "Mayor and Council I just wanted
to give you brief introduction to this item, and maybe point out some of the zoning that was
approved by the conceptual plan and so on, so I'll walk you through that in a few minutes. Now
the subject tract of land is located as you know that's State Hwy. 121, this is Paige Rd./Piano
Pkwy., that's the McKamy Trail and the railroad. We are talking about approximately 329 acres
in that location, there is also 6 acres in that comer of Paige Rd. and Hwy 121. Now let's go look
at some zoning that was approved way back in October1994. Council approved the conceptual
plan by ordinance, the PD ordinance, and council approved that ordinance. And this map is in
your packet on page 24 of your packet. This is State Hwy 121 and the concept plan approved, the
existing Hwy 121, that's the r.o.w, that was shown in 1994. On this plan at that point in time, it is
shown as approximately 230 feet wide. That's r.o.w, reservation or the r.o.w, for State Hwy. 121.
So that was shown then and was approved. Those are the control of access areas that were
approved at that point in time as well. And at that time, this concept plan, it shows, I'm trying to
read that for you here. Tract J right up here approximately 30 acres, Tract J. Tract K was 170.7
acres, Track K1 6.5 acres and Tract L here 70 acres and Tract M 47 acres. Each one of those
tracts had a prescribed zoning that was approved for. Approved the zoning. Zoning is permanent
until changed. And I'd like to go over a few things on the zoning, but before I do that. At that
point in time, this is Headquarters Dr. Way back in 1994, that was the delineation of
Headquarters Dr. Coincidentally, Headquarters Drive is pretty much in the same way it is today,
0076t,,.
July 1, 2002
based on the amendments to the Thoroughfare Plan, it is pretty much in the same pattern. And at
point in time there was another street that was showing there coming up to here which was
probably future, the alignment like that but it was showing like that there. So those were the
major thoroughfares shown on the conceptual plan in 1994. And it's just a concept it could be
changed. It was just intended to be conceptual for zoning, thoroughfares and so on. And one
thing about PD's is that they are prepared and approved in 1994, in the 2002-2003 you will
probably come up with a different plan. It is very logical, many PD's have been amended from
time to time. And not only in the City of The Colony but across the board.
Let's look at some zoning that was approved by that ordinance that is referred to as Ord.
# 862 and you will see that over in your packet. Let's look at some of the things there were
approved in Ord. #862. Tract J which we showed you was zoned for business park and industrial
uses. Approximately 30 acres. 11.7 acres was reserved for r.o.w. And the net developed area was
19.2 acres. Tract K zoned as Business Park 170 acres, r.o.w. 32 acres. And this was approved by
ordinance. It's in Ord. #862 in your packet. And so on, Tract K1, L and M everything. M was
zoned for multi-family, 47 acres 2 acres for r.o.w. And the net developed area was 45 acres. So
that was the entire area, a total of 326.1 acres. The r.o.w, was 53.9 acres at that time.
Also approved by ordinance was limited GR uses. Zoning at that time says O.K. for each
tract of land you can do general retail, but it was limited to so much acreage. So in Tract J, the
ordinance says that 25% of Tract J or 8 acres may be used for GR uses general retail, the others
would probably be offices or whatever. But that was the limitation placed on it. And so Tract K
25% or 42 acres, K1 6.2 acres so we call it the limitation for GR uses.
Also approved by Ord. #862, Floor to Area Ratios. For all the tracts in the entire area, a
Floor to Area ratio of 0.5 was approved meaning they could build a maximum of 0.5. With floor
to area ratio, if you have one acre of land, you can build half of that in building floor space. Floor
to area ratio. And then them was also floor to area ratio by land uses. Retail/Commercial, you can .....
do up to a maximum of 0.25 to 1, Office/Warehouse and Light Industrial, 0.35 to 1, and General
Office 0.6 to 1. So there was clearly limitations in that planned development that were set out in
terms of building development.
Also approved by Ord. 862 were some traffic numbers relating to what they call PM
trips. Because it was estimated at that point in time that you need to have some way to regulate
trips in that entire tract of land. How many trips can be generate in this 329 tract of land, and so
the ordinance sets out the limitations. Tract J, 19.2 acres, land use business park. It says your
PM trips should be 434 trips. Now I'll explain A and B to you. "A" was that ifN. Colony Blvd. at
the railroad tracks is extended across the railroad tracks then you will take A. If it is not extended
across the railroad tracks and you know it hasn't been extended, it's still there. N. Colony is at the
railroad tracks. So we need to follow "B". But regardless which one you follow, the trips are
about the same. I think, yeah, so, for this table it's all about the same anyway. And it sets out
what those trips are going to be. But there were some limitations placed on PM trip generation
approved by ordinance. And with that introduction, Mayor, I think I'll hand the presentation over
to the GDF, Robert Reed."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Councilman Gordon." Councilmember Gordon said,
"Just one quick question, Harry. Has the developer asked for any zoning changes at this particular
time?" Mr. Persaud said, "Mr. Gordon, the way the development plan is as it is today before you,
if there are enough changes made to it then it will actually constitute some zoning parameters that
need to be changed because all these things I went through with you are really zoning related. So
if it's not clearly on the development plan then, in order to approve that development plan
without the stipulations, would mean you have to go through a public hearing process because
technically they would be zoning changes. Because for example, take the tracts I showed you.
Tracts J,K,L, & M. Those tracts are not clearly set out in the development plan. So we don't
know whether the zoning has been complied with." Councilmember Gordon said, "So the bottom
line is the developer still has not come to us and requested a zoning change." Mr. Persaud, "No,
00766_. _
July 1, 2002
not through application." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "And what you are saying though is
they haven't requested any zoning changes, but according to development plan that we have
before us, the zoning, the GR and etcetera is not clearly defined in their plan." Mr. Persaud
explained, "It's not clearly defined. It's probably in there, but it needs to be clearly defined. That
is why the staffhas put in stipulations. Because we believe the stipulations, if complied with, will
bring the development plan in conformity with the concept plan and so there'll be no need for a
zoning change. So to answer your question a different way, we placed the stipulations intended to
bring out the zoning issues clearly on the plan." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "So basically
what we are asking is, 'what are you planning to put on there and does it meet the zoning already
existing on the land?. Thank you. Go right ahead."
Mr. Reed said, "First, I'd like Terry Sullivan to kind of give a brief overview of the
project. Terry is with Hodges and Assoc. He is the project architect and he has an easel to aid in
his presentation." Mr. Sullivan said, "I don't know the best place to put this so everybody can
kind of see." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "And for those who are viewing on camera,
telecommunications guys can you go ahead and put that back on screen or zoom in on his plan,
I'm sure they both are matching. Harry, can you help him get a clear picture so residents can hear
what we are saying? Much better, thank you, thank you."
Mr. Sullivan said, "I am going to give quickly a brief overview of what the project
consist of. Harry went through the main streets. We oriented the plan slightly. Up here is Hwy
121. This is the proposed Headquarters Drive which shows on Harry's plan. This is Plano Pkwy
coming across here. This is Global Centre. These are three streets that correspond to the current
median breaks that are on that are on 121 today. The purpose of this plan when we originally
started out with this project was to try and maximize the site, from both the highest and best use
of the product, of the land and also to actually gather all the features that people would like to
use. In other words, we have hotel locations here, we have medical, we have retail, we've got
office. All the things that you would need in a development of this magnitude. Before I continue,
I'd just like to point out that Hodges and Assoc, who did this, we're an architectural firm witb. 25
years experience in the community and we've done the center at Prestonridge, which is a million
square foot project and between that project which is pretty far north down to LBJ we've
completed 6 ½ million square foot of projects in this area. So we are a very qualified architectural
firm in which our main specialty is office and retail.
So anyway, to continue, the project as you see it, had some limitations which we had to
deal with that being that the thoroughfare plan connects Headquarters Drive here. It has to cross
the certain perceived height of the location of the railway and that leads us to this very narrow
band, that crosses here, and you've got to develop the project with. Now as Harry pointed out,
there were arrows that pointed out for access roads, which we took, in our interpretation, we took
it as we could capitalize on these median breaks to allow the current location of where 121 and
where it's access point is today to be able to utilize these access points. So that created that block
area and it may not correspond with the way the thoroughfare plan matches up. But this is the
way that reality works when you are trying to develop a project. We have to match up with these
median breaks in order to get traffic circulation properly through this development. These median
breaks are currently dictated by TxDOT. After you correspondingly put these roads in you pretty
much take your highest and best use of pad sites along the front area and create viewing window,
corridor areas to look into the rest of the land development behind. We've taken advantage of
those viewing areas and provided large box, small box, spec retail, hotel, medical, office. All of
this can be combined in this area. When we were meeting with Harry, we talked a little bit with
Harry about the issue of how we...some of these areas may flex a little bit and others may not.
And the response that we were given was that we would be able to work with the city and staff as
we go along with this project because quite frankly, we don't know who's going to go in there
just yet. So the concept behind it was for us to be able to work with the city and get the proper
mix and make sure that we meet the requirements of percentages for these tracts. Anyway with
00766/
July 1, 2002
that I'm going to stop. There's a lot of information you may have. We broke it down into
sections. As you can see some of these sections here match up. These drawings are in your
packet. I might point that out that on the second page is a FAR chart, which shows the land, the
value and the FAR's for that and that should be in your packet. These are the rest and as you can
see we were very emphatic about where the wet/dry line falls, because that also brings value to
the property. And in the last couple pages is just an expansion of the area that has been shown
before. At this point we are not asking for the whole development, which is all the area that
comes down to here. We are just asking for this front area along 121. With that I'll stop, any
questions?"
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Councilman Gordon."
Councilmember Gordon asked, "What...do you perceive building that out in phases?"
Mr. Sullivan said, "Yes, three phases, as listed right here it talks about a three year development
build out." Councilmember Gordon asked, "Could you point those out on the development plan?"
Mr. Sullivan said, "From Plano pkrwy to Britannia Way, will probably be the first phase. From
here to here, this would be second and this would be the third." Councilmember Gordon asked,
"You mentioned a medical facility, what type of medical facility do you perceive?" Mr. Sullivan,
said "What we envision at least at this point would be a fairly large medical facility that would a
like an out patient, not a hospital or anything, more like a very large clinic. Again, we are trying
to take advantage of the fact that you've got some very good access here. We want to make sure
that the people who are in The Colony, my folks have lived here for 10 years so I have a certain
amount of feeling for community myself. So we want to make sure The Colony is a good place
and that people will have a real good area to live."
Mayor Henville-Shannon, said "Thank You. Do you want to go ahead with your
presentation?" Mr. Reed said, "Yes." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "O.K., before you go away,
Councilman McCourry has a question for the architect." Councilmember McCourry asked, "Can
you tell me the relevance of the median breaks, when by the time you get built out, 121 is going
to be all torn up and those median breaks are not going to be there? That's question number one
and question number two is why is your FAR broke up into blocks rather than put in so it
corresponds one to one with what's in the ordinance for the FAR?" Mr. Sullivan responded,
"Well as I explained, well let me answer your first question. The issue with the median breaks. At
the time when we started this project, which was about two years ago. The intent was to design it
and go forward with the project and start immediately trying to do a build out with phase one.
The assumption would be you'd have 4 or 5 years worth of construction dealing with businesses
that would have to get to and from their place of business from 121 in it's current condition.
Nobody knows how long TxDOT is going to take to actually construct the 121 road with all it's
access, access roads could prolong it. So if you were looking at a 3 year development, you could
be 8 - 10 years before say this customer right here would have a convenient access point that they
could in fact get to their place of business from this location.
Now, as for your second question, we were trying to development something that would
be of flexibility and we've stated in our notes that we will comply with all of the FAR
requirements, and if you'll check the numbers, you'll see that businesses themselves are a very
small component as far as square footage of the buildings, most of the time most of this area
becomes a parking lot. Especially in retail, in office you get a lot higher use of land, I mean of
office space to land area. And that's why we broke it down the way we did. Does that answer
your question?" Councilmember McCourry said, "Yes." Mr. Reed said, "But it's our intent, that
we will comply with it, we just needed some place to start."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Just one question for you, because I also work in the
engineering field and I have done that probably for the last seventeen years. I'd like to find out
from your firm, how many projects that you have actually done that were actually that were
inside of a row that has not been decided." Mr. Reed, "Well first of all, as you probably know,
the row has not been decided yet. TxDOT has not done a take for this project and it's been
10
00766
July 1, 2002
swinging rapidly with this project. It's gone from 208 to 130. It started out at about 250. It was
our charge to, because of the fact we were going to be dealing with an 8 year time frame that we
were going to take advantage of these locations for the build out." Mayor Henville-Shannon said,
"So the answer to my question is how many projects have you done that are in the row?" Mr.
Sullivan said, "Well, none that we've done that are in the row. They are always resolved long
before..." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Long before you actually do a project. That's my
understanding also. Thank you. Councilman Gordon."
Councilmember Gordon said, "Just one quick comment, as far as the right of way issue, I
think that is between the state and the developer. I don't think that has anything to do with us as a
city." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Au contrar, because we are right in the middle of that
litigation." Councilmember Gordon, "I'm just voicing an opinion, that's between the state and the
developer." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "That's fine, that's fine, that's why we are here.., to
ask questions. Thank you."
Mr. Reed said, "Thank you madam mayor. If I could pull this up. This project has been
ongoing for some time. Terry and the other experts have been retained by my client to help get
this development moving forward, and have worked long hours with Harry, his staff, the DRC,
the Planning & Zoning and meeting and we do appreciate Harry and his staff giving us that time.
I think it's important to understand what actually took place at Planning and Zoning. I don't know
if the minutes accurately reflect, they accurately reflect what the vote was, but I think the minutes
reflect that the notes were too detail oriented, and I don't think that's what it shows, so what I'd
like to do is I'd like to show some out takes from that meeting.
(P&Z out take) Member Jamme said, "I would just like to say stipulation one and
stipulation 6 are acceptable. I can't understand why we would make it a stipulation that the
developer adheres to our laws. Isn't that a given, Harry? I have never seen that in anything we
have ever approved. Where we say yes, we will let you do that but be sure you follow our laws.
Which is what you've done here in number 8, number 12, number 13 number 14 and number 15
you said, apparently you don't think they are going to follow our ordinances." Harry Persaud
said, "Mr. Jamme, zoning ordinance #862 sets out certain requirements. Those requirements must
be complied to in the development plan." Member Jamme said, "Of course they must be." Harry
Persaud said, "But it's not. So what the staff is, where the staff is going with this is, we
recommend approval subject to these conditions. In other words, if you have to present plans to
the city, which must meet certain requirements, by ordinances, but you brought those plans in and
the requirements have not been met on the plans. Therefore we say, we approve the plan, but
subject to these conditions. So it's not quite saying we are asking them to comply with the
requirements later. They must be met now in the development plan." Member Jamme said, "I
read all of 862 today." Mr. Persaud said, "Right." I saw nothing that said these items have to be
dealt with at the development plan stage. To me it's like they were site plan issues. And of
course, any site plan that comes before us that doesn't meet our ordinances is not going to be
approved." (End of P&Z out take)
Mr. Reed said, "Mr. Jamme makes a good point them in that a lot of the items requested
by staff with regard to the 15 and now 16 stipulations that they are requesting, are really not
required at this stage of the development. These are typically site plan issues and those are not
only the sentiments of Commissioner Jamme, but also Commissioner Snider."
(P&Z out take) Commissioner Snider said "The site and development plan is something
that is set aside for the city to see what kind of impact this project will have on the city. It does
not, I don't believe, require that a developer to tell you exactly what is going to happen, because
there is no way that this developer knows exactly what is going to happen in the future. That is
why we set aside site plan approval, plat approval when each of these facilities is going to be
developed on this site. So to require the stuff that's required of site plan approval during
development, I believe is getting ahead of the ball game."
11
00766'. .
July 1, 2002
Mr. Persaud, "There are down sides of PD's. There are plusses and minuses in Planned
development districts. Planned development districts allows you the general flexibility to plan
mixed uses on a large area of land. The down side of it, it calls for a lot of details and those
details change over time. Now, like I told, and I told Terry Sullivan, I said, you spent a lot of time
working on this PD and it's difficult to really get all these things together. That is the reason why
staff is proposing to recommend approval with stipulations because it is difficult to really put all
these things together on a large tract of land that may be developed over a period of years."
Member Snider asked," So why are you trying to?" Mr. Persaud said, "That's because it is
required by the zoning ordinance." Member Snider said, "It does not say anything in a
development, about what is included in a development plan, as I read it in my ordinance that
requires this information." (End of P&Z out take)
Mr. Reed said, "There was a consensus among several members of P&Z that what staff
was requiring was above and beyond what is typically required in a development plan at this
stage of development. And, I think Commissioner Jamme and Commissioner Snider articulated
that very well."
"(P&Z out take) Mr. Persaud said, "Now having gotten the conceptual plan approved,
that's what you call the zoning ordinance for this PD. Now, the development plan must meet
those requirements of that ordinance. And like you rightly point out, it's hard to meet all those
requirements because there are so many variables, some of those variables like the State Hwy.
12 l requirement is still not finalized." Member Snider asked, "But Harry, where in that ordinance
does it say it's required of the development plan, because that ordinance is written all the way to
accommodate all the way through to certificate of occupancy, which means you have to go
through site plan approval. Where is it required from that point that it has to all show up on the
development plan?" Mr. Persaud said, "Its just the hierarchy of plans required by a PD." Member
Snider said, "It doesn't say that anywhere." Member Jamme said, "It doesn't say that Harry."
Member Snider said, "It doesn't say that anywhere in here." Mr. Persaud said, "Alright, this is
looking like an argument on my part. The staff has done our job in this. We have presented it to
the attorney and the attorney has confirmed the stipulations. Now if P&Z has some concerns with
the work done so far, then don't ask me. What I mean is.." Member Jamme, 'Tm not asking you,
I'm just saying, will you show me in the ordinance where it is? I read the entire ordinance, I see
nothing in the ordinance that says the development plan must comply with it." Mr. Persaud said,
"that the development plan must comply..." Member Jamme said, "For instance if we can just
look at number 9." Mr. Persaud said, "Right." Member Jamme said, "Number 9. If they come in
and put in a 20-story hospital versus say a one story medical clinic with half a dozen doctors
offices in it. Now, are you telling me they've got to tell us today how many parking spots that's
going to take?" Mr. Persaud said, "No, what we are saying Bill, is that the parking calculations
shown on the development plan now doesn't give us a way to make that calculation. We don't
want you to do it now, but we would like to put that as a stipulation on the approval, that in the
future that will be provided. We don't necessarily want to have that information now. It's
probably impossible to do it now." Member Snider asked, "Wouldn't that come up under site plan
approval." Mr. Persaud said, "Yes." Member Jamme said, "Of course it would." Member Snider
asked, "Then why do we have to mention it now?" Mr. Persaud said, "Because if you don't do it
now, in the future you can be saddled with .... "Member Snider said, "The only way that building
can be built, it cannot be built without site plan approval. Mr. Persaud said, "Well, you know the
development plan becomes a zoning ordinance. It is attached to that concept plan approval."
Member Snider said, "And it will be subject to change. Every time something is built, that zoning
plan will be changed." Mr. Persaud said, "But it ties the city to it. The city is tied to the
development plan once it is approved." Member Snider said, "It ties it to it as a minimum." Mr.
Persaud said, "It ties the city to whatever is approved in the development plan, so all we are doing
is saying this information or this detail will be presented later, so we are adding the stipulation. It
12
007660
July 1, 2002
draws the developer's attention, the land owner attention, the city's attention to this information
or to this requirement."(End of P&Z out take)
Mr. Reed said, "Essentially what most of the stipulations requested by staff do are, they
note that information must be provided in the future and we don't think that is appropriate. What
Harry said during that last clip is something he repeated a couple of times during the hearings
before P&Z. That these are things that must be complied with in the future.
(P&Z out takes) Mr. Persaud said, "Now the stipulations are merely reflective of what is
required at a later date." "On stipulation item No. 3, where Terry and I have talked about maybe
adding the wording pending final agreement with TxDOT, because that is true that some of that is
still in the courts and still to be decided. Now let me point out to the P&Z that when this was
approved, and I am looking at the map, now that is the conceptual plan in your document, that
was approved by Ord. 862. Now that ordinance did identify the r.o.w, for State Hwy 121. It did,
yeah. Unfortunately, the r.o.w, identified in 1994 by the property owners then and approved by
the city council shows more r.o.w, than is required. So I am not going to be asking the developer
or land- owner to comply with more r.o.w, than is required. I would concede, the staff or the city
would concede the fact that whatever the r.o.w, is agreed upon by TxDOT, that is the r.o.w, we
will agree upon to be shown in the future plans. So I would agree to a stipulation to that effect."
(End of out takes)
Mr. Reed said, "Essentially, the stipulation number 4 that P&Z adopted takes care of that
issue. To the extent that the city is or the staff is recommending to the city that the city is
somehow empowered or is entitled to restrict development on this piece of land with regard to a
hypothetical line that doesn't exist. That's incorrect. The developer is free to develop the entire
tract until there is a take and there is no take in this case. Again several times staff confirmed
during the hearing with P&Z that these stipulations are merely related to things that might occur
in the future."
(P&Z out take) Mr. Persaud said, "Now the stipulations are merely reflective of what is
required at a later date. So that's where our recommendation is conditional approval subject to
those things." "Let me clarify those things. For Dewayne and others members of the Commission.
See a stipulation doesn't necessarily mean you have to do a compliance now. There are lot of
planning items, preliminary plat, the approval of preliminary plats with a lot of stipulations too. I
think that the most important function of a stipulation it give heads up to the land owner, the
developer, the staff, the city, P&Z, Council, that in the next step of the planning process those
items will be addressed." (End of Out takes)
Mr. Reed said, "At the P&Z meeting, we were presented, I think that day, with the 15
stipulations that were requested by staff that P&Z evolved. I think early on in the process, through
the DRC, we were working with many more items than that. We think we narrowed it down and
staff was concemed with those 15. And now, after P&Z, staff is now recommending that we add a
16t~ stipulation. And, we don't think that's appropriate. Considering the fact that working with
staff from beginning to the point we are now we are being bombarded with more things that were
not even discussed at the time. The 15 stipulations that were offered before P&Z were represented
to be the final stipulations that would satisfy staff."
(P&Z out take) Chairman Hubbard asked, "Harry is the city's position as clearly
identified in the 15 stipulations as you can get?" Harry Persaud, "Mr. Chairman, yeah, I think
from the extent that staff reviewed it, the 15 stipulations really met the city's position in its
entirety. I think staff was ready to concede on certain requirements and stipulations regarding the
State Hwy. 121 r.o.w. Even though those are shown by, or approved by ordinance on the concept
plan, I think we all know that matter is still to be resolved and finalized. So we were ready to
concede to wording changes on those stipulations. But those 15 stipulations I think were reviewed
by the city attorney and confirmed today. As a matter of fact the city attorney had more
stipulations than we had. So that's the final position of staff on this item." (End of P&Z out take)
13
July 1, 2002
Mr. Reed said, "P&Z also expressed concern about the fact that there was really no
rhyme or reason for the stipulations that were recommended by staff. They were not..the staff had
indicated that the stipulations reflected concerns they had with compliance with ordinance 862,
but them was no rhyme or reason as to which items they took out of 862 to include in the
stipulations."
(P&Z Out take) Member Snider said, "I apologize for bringing this up at this point, but,
as I sit on this commission, I feel responsible that the only thing that I can judge my decisions on
are the ordinances that have been given to me and the way I understand them. And, I cannot make
a decision where some items are pulled out from 862, some items are pulled from here, from
there. I mean there is nothing consistent about these stipulations, because there's other items in
862 that are not yet addressed that are not in the stipulations. There's no specific items. If you are
going to address, if you feel that the city is required to address all of 862, then it should be a
general note that all the requirements be required of this development." (End of out take)
Mr. Reed said, "I think its important to point out that the development plan itself includes
I think, seventeen general notes, is that fight Terry? Seventeen general notes address a lot of the
issues that staff is recommending be included as stipulations. Ultimately the P&Z Commission,
after extensive debate. I think we were in there an hour and a half, two hours going through all of
these stipulations and all the recommendations of staff, ultimately P&Z voted and adopted
approval of the development plan with 4 stipulations."
(P&Z Out take) Member Jamme said, "I'd like to move that we approve 2002-M002
subject to the following stipulations:
Number 1 - that they identify tract zoning on the development plan for tracts M & L
Number 2 - that the developer will be responsible for r.o.w, acquisition for Global Centre
Drive where it intersects Piano Pkwy.
Number 3 - that the development will be subject to all of the requirements of ordinance --
862 and ordinance number 99-1149. and
Number 4 - that the developer will be required to meet the requirements of TxDOT
relative to r.o.w, on 121.
Chairman Hubbard said, "There is a motion." Member Snider, "Second." Chairman
Hubbard said, "I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? All in favor? (Voice vote
taken) All opposed. No. (Some further discussion was inaudible)" (End of out take)
Mr. Reed said, "The motion was carried 4 to 1 in favor of approval of the development
plan with the 4 stipulations identified by Commissioner Jamme. It is our position that P&Z
researched this extensively. Prior to going to P&Z, DRC researched this extensively. All of the
concerns are addressed in the 4 stipulations identified by the P&Z in addition to the seventeen
general notes that were requested by staff that were included in the development plan itself. We
would request that council approve the development plan in accordance with P&Z's approval
with the 4 stipulations that they identified. I'm certainly willing to take any questions that council
may have."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Councilman Jue." Councilmember Jue asked, (inaudible)
Is this in accordance to (Mayor asked him to turn his microphone on at this point) the r.o.w, that
was set out in 1994? The r.o.w, as I understand it, in 1994, the conceptual plan identifies what the
proposed r.o.w, would have been at that time. We are now at 2002 and we have, not only do we
not have a r.o.w, dedication, we don't have a proceeding to declare a r.o.w, dedication."
Councilmember Jue asked, "What was assumed knowing there was probably going to be some
type ofr.o.w, there, what was assumed as far as this design?" Mr. Reed said, "The development
plan identifies the proposed r.o.w, as it existed last time TxDOT told us what they thought it was
going to be." Councilmember Jue asked, "O.K., how much difference is that versus the original?" ....
Mr. Sullivan responded, "It varies from one end to the other, but let's say in round numbers it 30
feet across the board less. Somewhere in the 26 range." Councilmember Jue said, "That statement
that was made by Harry specifically mentioned that there were so many acres in the 1994
14
July 1, 2002
conceptual plan that were set aside for that r.o.w, and it was his impression that he did not want
you to or any developer of this land to have to give up as much land as what the original
conceptual r.o.w, allowed for. So, to me, not really knowing, but it kind of indicates that even he
felt like, that just based on the amount ofr.o.w, that you have allowed for this development plan
was sufficient, more than sufficient to cover basically the ground area that possibly is what is
going to actually be required."
Mr. Sullivan said, "Actually what happens, I think in the older plan, it's 250 feet. So I
think there's actually land than that. So if you think about it you are shrinking down the amount
ofr.o.w, that you'd be taking which is going to work against all the numbers that had been set
aside previously. Because those numbers are actually going to grow in the amount of acres
available for development. And I guess the big question we have always had, since we can't
resolve the issue so far with TxDOT, how do we move forward with that, unless we can just do
something that can get us there. And that was the way we were trying to proceed with this project.
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Well in all due fairness, just like you said, if there is such
discrepancy with the TxDOT versus the Maharishi Global Development. Would it make all the
more reason to settle up the r.o.w, with TxDOT before you implemented a plan that's probably
going to change dependent on the r.o.w, which is a (inaudible) between both parties. I mean to
me that makes more sense. To settle that litigation between you two parties before you present a
plan to us that is likely to change in the event that it ever gets solved." Mr. Reed said, "That
would be a nice scenario, but unfortunately, that's not the reality we are working with. As early as
1994 as shown on the conceptual plan, there was a proposed r.o.w. Well now in 2002 we don't
even have a proceeding to establish what the r.o.w, is going to be. So the State cannot tie our
hands and I don't think the city can tie our hands with regard to what we are entitled to with that
tract of land. We cannot be held hostage and not develop within a line that doesn't exist. We
don't even have a proceeding on it." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "I understand your legal
ramifications about not having a procedures, or having a proceeding right now, but has TxDOT
not even approached you about where that r.o.w, may be or in a general idea of where that r.o.w.
may lie. I mean they just can't say it's a pie in the sky. They have to have some idea of where 121
is going to be done. Am I right?" Mr. Reed said, "The last information we have today is reflected
on the development plan. It shows where the last we heard, from my understanding where the
proposed r.o.w, would be. And at staff's request they wanted a line on there, knowing that it is a
moving target and we don't know what it is yet. Staff has conceded that and we concede that.
They requested that we put this hypothetical line on the development plan and it is there." Mayor
Henville-Shannon asked, "So does that r.o.w, line on your development plan match the r.o.w, line
on the conceptual plan that was the original?" Mr. Reed said, "Is it a mirror image of it, no it is
not a mirror image of it. But I think we have to understand what a concept plan is. It is a concept.
I mean it is not. It is a concept plan. If there were no difference between the concept plan and the
development plan, there would be no need for the two. There would be no need for both of them.
I mean, the concept was developed in 1992, I'm sorry in 1994 to establish what this development
might look like. We are now at the next stage. After going through the plat stage, we are now at
the development plan stage and we have more information about what this development might
look like. So we are able to supplement what was included in the conceptual plan and also
provide information conceming what TxDOT thought that take line would look like, last we
heard, we still don't know." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "I understand exactly what you are
saying, because our city just went through a major, we approved a 4B tax that was based on a
conceptual plan what all residents thought it was going to look like and that is what the
development plan also looks like now."
Mr. Reed said, "And the concept plan and the development plan in this instance .... Mayor
Henville-Shfinnon said, "Don't match." Mr. Reed continued, "They do match. The do conform.
It's important to remember what the word in the ordinance is. It's not mirror image, it's not
match, its conform. Does the land use with regard to the development plan match the land use
15
July 1, 2002
with regard to the concept plan? And the answer is yes, it does. Now to the extent that the city
thinks that we have to provide a mirror image of what the conceptual plan is, I disagree. I think
that's the difference between a conceptual plan and a development plan. We are able to provide
more information, more up to date information. We are 8 years into this process and we are not
any farther along with regard to that particular line than we were in 1994. We provided all the
information that we have and at staff's request they wanted that line in there and we included it."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "O.K. Just keep in mind council that we have a lot more
work to go through. Go ahead." Councilmember Jue said, "Out of these 16 stipulations, in your
meeting last Wednesday, I guess it was last Wednesday. Were any of these resolved or
removed.?" Mr. Reed said, "What we really discussed last Wednesday was Mr. Morgan's 6
points why he is of the opinion there is a non-conformance between the conceptual plan and the
development plan. We did not go through the stipulations item by item." Councilmember Jue
said, "O.K."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Councilman McCourry and then we are going to hear
Terry Morgan." Councilmember McCourry said, "And of those 6 items you that you discussed of
the differences, were any of those resolved?" Mr. Reed said, "Preliminarily, number 5 & 6. I
talked with Mr. Morgan before the meeting, it does have to do I think with FAR requirements and
zoning for two of the tracts if I remember correctly. The development plan is in compliance with
those two and Mr. Morgan just wanted confirmation of that fact to the extent that we do provide
that. I don't think we have a dispute with regard to those two. There are 4 that we were not able to
reach an agreement with Mr. Morgan."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "O.K., I'd like the residents to meet Terry Morgan. Terry
Morgan was hired by our city, due to the fact that our attorney firm that represents our city is in
conflict of interest so council had decided to seek outside consultant services to represent the city
with no conflicts. Mr. Terry Morgan."
Mr. Morgan said, "Yes, Mayor and members of the Council, a couple of points, taking
Robert's last point first. I cannot say that we concurred in points 5 and 6. I think where we left it
was actually that information was submitted demonstrating conformance between the conceptual
plan on items 5 and 6 then we would like to see it. The 5 and 6 are kind of critical to the whole
dispute and I think they, you, can approach it in two ways. You can approach it as a set of right
of way and transportation issues or you can approach it as a set of land use issues. And 5 and 6,
and by the way those are the FAR and zoning tract information, are critical to and actually they
work together. Let me explain why I believe the staff recommendations and stipulations initially
were correct and weren't arbitrary with respect to what they pulled out of ordinance 862. This
ordinance has two parts and you know I think one of the commissioners was saying show me the
ordinance. It's not in the planned development regulations of course the general ones, it's in the
ordinance 862. That's the issue, is whether this development plan conforms to ordinance 862
which has two parts. It has a conceptual plan which shows by the way a 230 foot r.o.w, along
Hwy. 121 and it has Exhibit "C". Exhibit "C" contains a bunch of charts and a bunch of
paragraphs that actually set for the zoning for this property. And Exhibit "C" is important equally
important as the conceptual plan if not important as to whether this development plan now
conforms to the standards of the ordinance. And actually I think Mr. Sullivan sort of summed up
the differences between the staff and their team. But he did it in such a way. He indicated that if
the r.o.w, numbers for Hwy. 121 for example, are condensed, so it's not 230 feet it's 120 feet or
zero feet, all the other numbers go up. And I guess that one of the charts that Harry put up in one
in the initial presentation was a chart of tracts. This property is zoned by tract. It has land use
information by tract. And a tract. It is a little unusual in that regard, I'll say that for the ordinance,
to name out a gross acreage for each tract, a r.o.w, for each tract and then a net developable
acreage. Well if the r.o.w, comes down the rest of the land uses that are authorized go up
correspondingly. Now if they go up, that potentially raises the difficulty of your re-zoning the
properties through approval of the development plan. And it's as if folks came to you 5 years ago
16
July 1, 2002
got zoning for 5 acres and when they came in with the site plan it was 7 acres. They said well I
own the other 2 acres and so I want approval for the 7 now. And that's kind of the dilemma you
are in. And it's not a dilemma and I agree with the applicant. The city is not in the business of
specifying 230 feet ofr.o.w when the State only needs 110 or none. And that's a reasonable
position that they can develop their land. Either the state asks for their r.o.w, or it doesn't. But the
question becomes how do you get to that point? And that's why to go over to the staff
recommendations just the number 1. And this is the one that was quote, added. You know, and it
was not discussed with the other 15 before the Planning Commission. And the reason for that is
because it relates to procedure not substance. I think all the substance stipulations that Mr.
Persaud has recommended are the same. But the procedural issue here, I believe is summarized in
number 1 and it gives the applicants two choices. Believe that you can accept stipulations which
would bring the development plan into conformity with the conceptual plan and ordinance 862
Exhibit "C"; or the applicant can come back and fix the ordinance itself. They can ask for a
change in the ordinance. And essentially I think that is what the staff's position is on this. You
know, not that they are required to give 230 feet ofr.o.w, when the State doesn't even need it. It's
a question of how to get the development plan that's shown there either matching some form of
conceptual plan and ordinance or that that must conform. And the time for conformance is
tonight, and I'll tell you why. The development plan, once it's approved becomes actually the
blue print for site plans that are submitted subsequently. You don't go back to the conceptual plan
initially, or perhaps if that' s your position, then what would have to happen with each site plan
we'd be talking about ordinance, I guess we'd be going back to the conceptual plan with 230 feet
ofr.o.w, and a 138 net acres, for example, on tract K. And you have to stick to that with each
concept plan but that's not the way the ordinance is written and I think Mr. Persaud's viewpoint
of the development plan being consistent with and not contradicting the variables that are set
forth in the adopting ordinance and in the conceptual plan is the right viewpoint. Because the
development plan is not intended to be a piece meal look at a little part. It is an integral part,
there's 3 stages. It's spelled out in the PD regulations, it's spelled out in 862. The conceptual
approved with the ordinance; the development plan consistent with that and then finally site plan
consistent with the development plan and consequently with all the rest of it. And that's the way
it works. At each stage of the approval there's got to be conformity so you can go to the next
level of detail. This plan in our view doesn't. Excuse me, does not reflect the conceptual plan or
the ordinance with respect to zoning particulars. One of those is acreage of land use, another one
is a restriction independent of the gross acreage is that only a percentage of each land tract can be
general retail use instead of business park use. That's another land use zoning variable that has to
come up at this stage of the proceeding. Now it may be, as Mr. Reed has indicated, that there's
information that could show that conformance. Just looking at it, doesn't appear to be. Because
for example I think there is developable acreage in the r.o.w, that's shown even for 121 now. So
I don't know how the numbers come out. We haven't done that calculation with staff and you
know if they have that information and want to bring it forward it certainly it would be
considered and maybe that would resolve issues 5 & 6, and then we could consider what was left
on the rest of it. But anyway I think that's the essence. I don't' think we need to go through all of
the staff recommendations. I just wanted to show you a couple of things. Number one the
stipulations haven't changed in substance. You will find in this document, and I gave Mr. Reed a
copy at the beginning of this meeting. You will find in this document there are references to
ordinance 862 by section number or by other reference, references to your other zoning
ordinances or rather your, the text of your zoning ordinance in particularly, Section 17-101
concerning the council's authority on development plans. But that is the only real difference. I
think in the wording of these, there is one we can discuss and that regards a traffic signal. That
has changed a little bit, but in a way that I think is consistent with what you have done with prior
approvals. But anyway, that's. I will be happy to take your questions. That's the viewpoint of the
staff and I concur with staff. And I've tried to input into the recommendations with respect to
17
0076
July 1, 2002
number one. It lays out what the applicant's choices are and I also want to say one other thing and
that is conditions or stipulations, stipulations in this case are conditions. And it's true that they're
future looking, but what it means is that, and I think stipulation number one, as recommended
states a little more clearly than was originally stated. It means that at the time you come back with
your fn'st site plan and you come back with a development plan, that actually conforms with the
stipulations as prepared and knew. So it really is concerning the development plan. It's just
saying and this is where we are making our procedural recommendation tonight. It's saying that
you come back at a later stage. It allows the property owner not to have to submit tomorrow a
development plan that conforms with these stipulations. He can come back at the time of site
plan. But it's not arbitrary. It's the way that you get the development plan through these
stipulations, consistent with both ordinance 862, Exhibit "C", which is the text, and the
conceptual drawing. The other alternative, to emphasize again, nobody on the staff nor myself is
indicating that the applicant has to stick with the conceptual plan that shows r.o.w, that's no
longer needed. That would indeed be foolish. If the state hasn't made a decision to come forward
and show exactly what the r.o.w, is then I think they have the right come back and present the
council with a conceptual plan that basically mirrors what the development plan shows today.
The point is, at this point in time, your decision point, they haven't. I'll be happy to answer your
questions."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Terry, I just have a long list of questions, but the first one
I have is. And I'll ask this of you too. Why, I mean it seems like a simple process to make your
conceptual plan conform with your development plan according to our own procedures. Why is
that such a major taking on your behalf?. I mean, why won't you work with staff to make that
change?" Mr. Reed responded, "We have worked with staff on all these issues. The point is the
development plan does conform with the conceptual plan. The practical effect of what Mr.
Morgan is suggesting is essentially that every time TxDOT moves that line, we are going to have
to go back and amend our conceptual plan. And that's not the way this was intended. That's not
the way it works in reality. The fact is that the conceptual plan shows that there is an anticipated
r.o.w, along 121. The development plan identifies what, that very same fact and conforms with
the conceptual plan in that regard, To the extent that staff is recommending that the city somehow
limit my clients ability to develop that land based upon that taking that has not occurred. We are
on dangerous ground there, because my client has the right to develop that land absolutely until
there is a taking. And there is no taking in this case."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "O.K., so what happens, hypothetically, what happens if
TxDOT comes back and says O.K. this is the r.o.w, they want, then your development plan
changes?" Mr. Reed answered, "If the one in the conceptual plan is what they want?" Mayor
Henville-Shannon said, "If TxDOT came, at some later date and state that this r.o.w, needs to be
right here, then of course your development plan would change." Mr. Reed said, "Not if they tell
us that. And when there is an actual taking, then the development would change. But they have
told 20 different things as reflected in both the conceptual plan and the development plan as to
where that line is going to be. And what they tell us is not necessarily reality." Mayor Henville-
Shannon said, "O.K., for the residents that are hearing, because I know this is pretty pertinent to a
lot of residents. Because I've been getting phone calls. I don't know about the rest of you, but I
sure have. Do you by any chance have a picture of that conceptual plan so they can see." Mr.
Reed said, "Yes, I think Harry, was that up on the first one?." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "I
think that would probably be pretty good to put them side by side. Before we get started..." Mr.
Morgan asked, "Mayor can I respond to one thing?" Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "You sure
can." Mr. Morgan said, "Because I did want to make it clear. I thought I stated it, but I want to
state it again. That the staffs position is certainly not to recommend that you burden the
applicants land with a r.o.w, that again, does not meet the state's intent or is simply uncertain. We
understand that. The problem is, however, that the ordinance the adopted ordinance 862
contemplated it. It contemplated 230 feet because, and it went out of its way to contemplate
18
July 1, 2002
zoning by tract that had net developable acres. Now, I don't, you know, I understand the dilemma
that Mr. Reed presents with the state's vacillations potentially on what they want to take. That's
understandable. And that can be fixed, by the way, I believe, with an ordinance change, and a
conceptual plan change that allows flexibility in this whole process. You won't find it in
ordinance 862 and that's our only point, although the applicant we believe has the right to
develop his land to the fullest absent the take, he also has to be developing it consistent with the
zoning ordinance. Now it'd be nice in our view, I mean it'd be nice in anybody's view to simply
move the boundaries around, and do sort of a practical resolution, but we don't see that that's
what the ordinance says."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Thank you. It's very apparent that residents do not have
the information that council is looking at. And so I think our job as council to make sure that
residents are understanding what we are talking about. I know that all of us up here has a detailed
packet that explains the 15 stipulations versus the 4 stipulations of P&Z. And what I am going to
do for the residents that are listening in that would love to hear why are we talking about
stipulations. I am going to read them to you. And then we will proceed.
Now the summary says and it's the summary that has been adopted by P&Z. The
summary says the applicant is requesting approval of a development plan for PD 9. It is a Planned
Development. A Planned Development is something similar to what the planned development
was with the area behind Wal-Mart, which is now called Office Creek. That is a planned
development. It includes all of the area and not just pieces. Planned Development PD 9 "PD-9"
with regard to 328.77-acres located South of SH 121 and West of the BNSF Railroad Tracts.
The proposed Development plan has 107.23-acres of Retail Development, 49.11-acres of Office
development, 33.98-acres of Pad sites and 115.05-acres of future development.
The implementation of the Global Centre Development Plan is clearly market driven. The
proposed land uses as included in the Development Plan may be subject to change in the future as
market demands for commercial, office, restaurant, and retail space changes over time. It is
important to note however, that any substantive changes in land use allocations which violates the
land use mix in approved development plan PD-9 will require an amendment to the Planned
Development in accordance with Section 24 of the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
In reviewing the Development Plan for compliance with City Codes, staff has raised a
number of issues. When the subject property was zoned in 1994, Ordinance #862 provides that
"in the event there has been no development activity .... within five (5) years, which puts us at
1999. The City Council reserves the fight to call a public hearing on the Planned Development
for the purpose of reconsideration of the general and specific details of the zoning regulations".
That is an important matter. Section 10-662 of the comprehensive zoning ordinance required the
land owner to submit a development plan within six (6) months from the approval of the
conceptual plan. Both of these requirements have not been met.
Now for those of you who are wondering, what are these stipulations we are talking about
Well. Staff's recommendations:
Staff recommends conditional approval of the Development Plan as submitted
with the following stipulations:
1. Since the Development Plan as submitted is not in conformity with the
approved conceptual plan, the Land owner must either (1) resubmit a
Development Plan that meets the attached stipulations for approval by the
Commission and the Council prior to approval of any site plan for the
project, or (2) submit a request for amendment of the conceptual plan
and/or standards for the planned development district so as to render the
conceptual plan and the development plan in conformity. Amendment of
19
July 1, 2002
the conceptual plan must be processed as a zoning amendment pursuant to
sections 24 and 10-654 of our city Zoning Ordinance.
2. Identify zoning on the development plan for all tracts and land use
limitations as set out in Section II, item #2 of Ordinance #862.
3. An overall development plan for Phase 3 will be required before site plan
approval for any tract in that phase.
And again that refers to ordinance number 862.
4. Show the Right of Way and Control of Access areas for SH 121 consistent with
the conceptual plan.
That refers to ordinance 862.
5. Remove all pad sites shown within the SH 121 fight-of-way.
That refers to ordinance number 862, conceptual plan (Ex. B.); and that's Ex. C.,
section *. Par. 1
6. Remove all proposed streets and driveways out of SH 121 control of Access
areas.
That refers to Ordinance #862 conceptual plan (Ex. B); Ex. C, section I, par. 1
7. Global Center Drive intersects Plano Parkway where right-of-way is to be
acquired. The developer will be responsible for right-of-way acquisition.
8. If Global Center Drive ties into Tittle Drive then the developer will be required
to either upgrade the traffic signal to provide for a 4-way signalized intersection,
or pay a prorated share of the cost of the traffic signal at that intersection. It is
now being developed.
9. Show how each tract. And we are talking about J through M, of the development
plan complies with standards included in Exhibit C, Section II, par. 4, and chart
11-2 of Ordinance 862. Again we are talking about 862, pertaining to maximum
number of p.m. trips. And that has to do with our traffic allocation.
10. Provide calculations for Medical Center and Hotel parking in accordance with
Section 13 of the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The city's
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
11. Drive Isles within parking lots should be designed to encourage on-site traffic
circulation. Drive isles shown on the development plan are unacceptable because
they will encourage speeding and through traffic in parking lots. Redesign isles
to improve on-site traffic circulation. Required by Zoning Ordinance, section
10-664 (d)
12. Planned Development "PD-9", which we are talking about, is located in the
Office Creek drainage watershed, which requires an eight-acre feet of
detention/retention facility. Show how the proposed facilities will meet the
requirements of the Office Creek drainage master plan. And all of us on council
20
July 1, 2002
have just gone through erosion and drainage. Required by Office Creek Drainage
Master Plan
13. Show how the proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR), for those of you who are
wondering what FAR means, it means floor to area ratio, for the development
complies with Ordinance No. 862 by tabulating pad sites by use and by tract (J
through M) to conform to Exhibit C, again ordinance 862.
14. Show landscape buffers in accordance with Ordinance No. 99-1149. Required by our
Zoning Ordinance
15. All development within the Gateway Overlay District is required to comply with
Ordinance No. 99-1149.
16. Conform right-of-way and net acres computations for each tract (J through M) to
be consistent with the standards set forth in Ordinance 862, Exhibit C, section I,
par. 1, and land use summary shown on page paragraph I-3 of Exhibit C.
Now, those were staff stipulations and those were very detailed. And I expect that of
staff. Now, Planning & Zoning recommendations for all of you who were wondering why
Planning & Zoning has four.
(Mayor read from staff report)
The Development Plan was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission on
April 9, 2002. The Commission felt that staff recommendations included too many
detailed stipulations and a motion was made to summarize the stipulations to the following
four (4) items. The Commission voted 4 - ! to recommend conditional approval with the
following stipulations.
1. Identify tract zoning on the development plan for tracts M through L.
2. Global Center Drive intersects Plano Parkway where Right of Way is to be
acquired. The developer will be responsible for Right of Way acquisition.
3. The development plan will comply with Ordinance 862 and Ordinance 99-1149.
4. The developer will be required to meet TxDOT requirements for SH 121.
Those are the stipulations that were done by staffwho specializes in this and our P&Z
who was appointed by cotmcil. Now, the thing that I would like to say is I have heard from both
sides and then we will hear from citizen's input. But one of the things that was said here is we
keep talking about adhere to the ordinance and we are all talking about ordinance 862. To me if
we are talking about an ordinance that was set in our city for many years, then we should comply
to ordinance 862. In fact, P&Z has said the same thing. It was said that the developer needs to tell
us what's going to happen on the development plan. Well, for most of you who have been on
council before you will note that, bring back your memory, that when we were talking about the
development plan on Austin Ranch, the development plan on the Office Creek behind the Wal-
Mart. Both of those plans were PDs. PDs required a development plan. PDs had work sessions in
both of those. And they were very detailed oriented. In fact they were so detailed we had lots of
citizens come forward and talk about it as you all may recall. And that was only last year in
21
00767 '?
July 1, 2002
October or somewhere. What I am trying to say is that I believe that according to our ordinances
we should stick to the way our mythology states it out. I believe that if we waiver then it opens
the door to other problems that we may perceive down the line. And also, a note was made here
that the DRC had concerns had been met. There were two, were there two DRC meetings or were
there three? There were two DRC meetings. Out of one of those DRC meetings, I have a note
here, by our former city engineer that had some serious questions about the development.
Comments and that's from Abel Saldafia, who was our recent city engineer. 'The proposed,
Comments: The proposed control of access of r.o.w, reservations for TxDOT 121 is required.
Elizabeth Way and several roadways are in the control access area. And this is from an engineer
who specializes in this field. Number 2, do not show any development in the proposed r.o.w.
reservations of Hwy. 121. His informational comments here, by the way says, indicate all
easements for existing and proposed utilities, drainage, including franchised utilities and for the
common mutual access if applicable. Indicate volume and page for any easements by a separate
legal instruments. He also says minimum easement width is 15 foot width for one city main line,
water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer. A 20 feet width for two city main lines. Water meters
require their own easement unless they are located inside the utility easement. Please provide for
the easement for your property by plat. And his 5th one is, any variations from the Master
Thoroughfare Plan requires a traffic impact analysis and amendment approved by the City of The
Colony. Those are from our engineer. And for those who are following me, those are the notes we
have here in front of us that we are trying to make a decision as to whether or not we stick by
staff stipulations or do we stick by the 4 stipulations of P&Z. Now with that I will open up the
floor. Councilman Gordon."
Councilmember Gordon said, "Well, Mayor, I would just, I would like I guess an
explanation. Planning & Zoning recommendation #3 stipulates the development plan will comply
with ordinance number 862 and ordinance number 99-1149. Isn't that 75% of what we are
discussing here tonight? I mean we are asking them to comply with those ordinances." Mayor
Henville-Shannon said, "We've just heard from both attorneys and one has, I understood, that
says we are talking about a portion of 862 and not all of 862." Councilmember Gordon said,
"Planning and Zoning says, I mean I'm just reading it here that it says it will comply with
ordinance number 862." Mayor Henville-Shannon said," So are we not talking about the same
thing other than the fact that P&Z has just detailed out what they are looking for?"
Councilmember Gordon said, "Well I'm saying that if P&Z says you will comply with ordinance
number 862 and ordinance number 99-1149 they have to do it in order for it to be approved. I
mean, they have to comply with those two ordinances. I don't know doesn't that show up on the
Master Development Plan? Don't you show." Mr. Reed replied, "There is a note to that effect
councilman. As well as reflected in the stipulations of P&Z." Mayor Henville-Shannon said,
"Councilman Gordon." Councilmember Gordon said, "Well I have a quick question. We have
heard from both attorneys. One attorney tells us they reached some resolution on those six
stipulations. Our attorney tells us that he doesn't really feel like they reached any stipulations.
Dale, I'm going to put you on the spot. You were in that meeting. Do you think we reached any
common ground on these 6 stipulations?" Mr. Cheatham replied, "Councilman Gordon, mayor
and council. There was identification of the fact that if the applicant provided additional
information there might be a possibility to have met those items number 5 & 6, but as of now, we
have not received that additional information."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Councilman McCourry said, "If I understand our
procedure right on changing the ordinance and based all of the hoops you have to jump through to
change the ordinance. That process still only takes about two months. If you had requested that
change, you'd be done by now and we'd be past this. Why have you all not seen that route as the
fastest way in order to achieve your ends?" Mr. Reed said, "Two points on that councilman. First
of all, we don't see that as the correct method to address this issue. In fact, the second point I
wanted make is that was never raised until we got to this level. We spent several months and
22
00767
July 1, 2002
many man-hours working with staff on this and after P&Z that was raised as a potential issue. I
disagree with Mr. Morgan in that regard. I don't think that is the proper course for this to take.
What essentially the practical reality of what, if the city did adopt that, would be, you would be
preventing my client from moving forward with development because every time there was a
change, we'd have to go back and amend the conceptual plan and I don't think that is right.
Councilmember McCourry spoke, "Are we not providing that vehicle for your client to properly
build out their land?" Mr. Reed said, "To the extent, what keeps coming up in this discussion is
the 121 r.o.w, and control of access points along 121. And I..." Councilmember McCourry said,"
I think the FAR along with, is another issue and that's the use of the acreage all of itself, which is
still in everybody's mind way up in the air. I think that there's more than just that. Don't narrow
it down to just that 250 feet out there as the problem. I think there's a whole lot of other things
that's been stated here and don't, I want to address all of these issues and not just 100 feet along
121 ." Mr. Reed said, "I understand. Terry does the development plan address the FAR
requirements?" Mr. Sullivan explained, "Again, when we step into reality. We do not have...
None of these tenants are tied down. So we don't know if we are going to start in one area and
build out something that's a medical clinic or retail or an office building or whatever. The intent
of it was to create something that would have a nice stream, in effect, a look that we think we can
promote and then if we put office in there, or retail, or whatever we put in there, that would be the
intent to try and make that fit the percentage, because those tracts that were laid out, if you look at
that zoning, they are laid out with a very random shape, they are not squared off, they really don't
accommodate a lot ofr.o.w, in there. So, I mean, there's just so many variables in there. Harry
and I have talked a lot about this. It is very difficult to put reality into something that's just a
random drawing that was put together back in 1994."Mr. Reed asked, "Does the development plan
address the FAR?" Mr. Sullivan responded, "Yes, it does."
Mr. Reed said, "There are a couple of issues we are dealing with here but we keep
coming back to the r.o.w, but I don't think that is an issue, because to the extent that the city
imposes that requirement on us, it denies the ability to develop the land." Mayor Henville-
Shannon said, "I don't think the city, like Terry Morgan said, wants to take the position, nor will
we take the position that we are trying to hinder your development based on the 121 r.o.w. What I
am saying though, is that I still believe as Hodges has just said, it would make it a lot clearer if
the r.o.w, issue would be resolved before starting." Mr. Reed said, "That's not the reality we are
faced with. We are not faced with a nice, clean decision as to what that line is going to be. We are
in 2002, as I have said a couple of times and in 1994 we are no closer than we were when the
conceptual plan was prepared and developed." Mayor Henville-Shannon asked, "When did you,
when did the Maharishi Development Fund acquire that property?" Mr. Reed said, "I don't know
the answer to that question." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "I believe it was somewhere within
the late nineties though, I mean it was definitely after 1994." Mr. Reed said, "I don't know."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "You don't know." Mr. Reed said, "Two and a half years ago, I
am told." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "So that when you acquired that property you were more
than familiar with some of the issues that would be pertaining to that property slash tracts of
land." Mr. Reed said, "Yes, and we were aware of those requirements and that's why we
submitted a development plan that is in conformance with the conceptual plan. I would like to
make one other point. Madam Mayor you had raised some points from Mr. Saldafia from a DRC
meeting. Those particular points had to do with the preliminary plat stage. Those have all been
resolved and they are not issues to my knowledge now. Is that right Harry? Thank you."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Let's move on now and then I'll come back to council.
This side of my council has been awfully quiet, but trust me I will definitely ask your opinions
here soon. We have a few citizens input. Let's go ahead and hear them and then we will continue
with more discussion here. The first one is William D. Jamme, who happens to be a
commissioner of P&Z."
23
O0787q
July 1, 2002
Mr. Jamme said, "My name is William D. Jamme, I reside at 5405 Sutton Place, I am the
vice chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I would just like to comment that anything
that comes before our commission we expect the developer whoever that developer is to adhere to
the ordinances of our city. I believe the developers feel the same way. I think to re-visit the
number 862 and 99-1149 over and over again is unnecessary. I didn't come here to defend P&Z
by the way, I came here to speak in favor of the development plan. There are some questions I
would like to ask. First of all in my experience with P&Z, we have had several projects with
development plans and several without. When we get down to the nuts and bolts is at the site plan
stage. Secondly, this is my first experience ever as a commissioner that a development plan was
not approved by the commission, but rather taken to the council. Thirdly, I don't understand the
process that allows the council to deal with an issue that was not submitted to them through the
process of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I do favor this development plan. That's what it
is, a development plan. It's like a conceptual plan, maybe a little more detailed. It's going to
change. Another development in the city came before P&Z 3 weeks ago for an amendment to
their development plan. It happens all the time. It will continue to happen. There will be
amendments to 862. There will have to be when the final taking is made. There is no question
about it. We can't expect a developer, any developer to adhere to an 8 year old ordinance that
isn't based in reality. At least that part of it. It will have to be changed. Why change it now?
There is no reason to change it now, because we don't know what that final r.o.w, will be. But I
think the development plan needs to be approved so this developer can get busy and increase the
value of that property and increase our ad valorem revenue. Thank you." Mayor Henville-
Shannon said, "Thank you Mr. Jamme, I think you said it right on the spot though. The next one
we have is Andy Blake. Mr. Blake if you would like to step forward and state your opinion."
Mr. Blake said, "My name is Andy Blake and I live at 4301 Boca Raton Drive. This is
really a much bigger plan than what I had thought it was. Almost a fourth if not a half again
raising our area of business and good things happening in the city. But I wonder if this is the way
to go without the planning and work session that had been talked about. Because I hear things
from both sides that there's uncertainty which maybe a work session would resolve. And I hear
things too is that in the future, we may have to change an ordinance or in the future we may have
to change some zoning. Why is it that we are going to have to do that in the future when it should
be decided at this point before they get started with their development. Another thing that I heard
just a minute ago was that, we are going to build something but we don't know what. It may be
medical, it may be retail, we don't know what, but we are going to build it. I think that we should
know as a city what they are going to build. I question too the r.o.w, issue. As of today, yes, build
whatever you are going to build it's your land and you are legally permitted to do so. However, if
I am going to build by house where you say you are going to build a road next year. I'd think you
would question what else I might build." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Good point. Thank you
Mr. Blake. Next one we have is Richard Kuether."
Mr. Kuether said, "Good evening, my name is Richard Kuether, I live at 4109 Dfiscoll
Drive. I have some questions and thoughts as well. Primarily it deals with the r.o.w, at the Global
Develop..I'm not against the Global Development Centre. I think it's a good idea. It will be nice
to see the businesses and things come into that area, but the 121 r.o.w, concerns me such that if
we go ahead and allow the Global Center to develop their, like their buildings and what not where
the r.o.w, is going to be then when TxDOT decides where they want to come through and take
the r.o.w to be, then they are going to have condemn that land or some how acquire it through
eminent domain. The value of that land will be so much greater than it is right now as an open
field, that you and I are going to have to pay for it in higher taxes. That land will be more
valuable without a doubt. And we'll pay for it, because it's taxpayers' money that will buy that
land. Whereas if we do something now to say maybe limit the area where they can do the plats for
the time being until TxDOT comes around and says what they want. Hopefully they will do it
before the end of the next century, who knows. But what, does TxDOT have a position on 121
24
00767
July 1, 2002
and what is developed along 121 ? It seems to me if they are looking forward and they are trying
to make their own plans then they would have some position on what kind of development and
what kind of things are being built there right now. I haven't heard anybody state that TxDOT has
made any comments or anything of that nature at all. And you were right about the issue of how
long has this development has been in the process. I've heard stated many times this plan has
been going on since 1994. But in reality I remember 1997-1998. That's when the Maharishi first
bought this land and were going to build the world's largest building. So I question how long this
plan has been in the planning stage. Also, I don't know anything about what is going on here, but
do require traffic studies, do we require some kind of environmental impact studies for this land
as well before it can developed? And I don't where in the process that might occur. But with all
the things that have been stated and the ordinances you say are not in compliance I don't see how
you can pass this thing as it is tonight. Seems to me like a work session is really appropriate so
the city and the developers can come to some agreement as to how to do this. I say I'm not
against Global Development. I'd like to see this thing build out. But not at my expense. If the
property owner can't build along the 121 r.o.w., that's the cost of doing business and the cost of
doing development. Don't wait 'til after it's built up and the highway department comes through
and says oh we need this land and me pay for it and y'all pay for it too. That's not the right way
to go. Thank you." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Thank you that's very interesting. O.K. from
here, council is there any discussion on this side of council? Councilman Gordon."
Councilmember Gordon said, "I'd like to call the question." Mayor Henville-Shannon
said, "That's fine, you can call the question. And for those of you who are not familiar with that,
that means that he is done talking and he would like to have a motion or have something, the end
of discussion. Go ahead."
Councilmember Bayliss said, "I guess my only concern, and Joel said it before too about
putting our trust and letting our staff do their job. I have a huge concern with our staff making
recommendations, our attorney backing that up and not going with their recommendations. By
them having the best interest for the city and that would be my concern."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Thank you. The call. You had called the question. He
would like to make a comment on your called question." Councilmember Gordan, "That's fine."
Councilmember McCourry said, "The reason I support the staff recommendation in
details is because I believe we owe it to our citizens to be detailed in the work that we do and be
detailed the things that we are requesting of developments in the city .I think that's where the
staff is coming from and it's right along the lines of what the people of the city would like. We
here on the council have sat here just within the last few weeks and had to vote on making
corrections where details were not followed in prior developments. The Office Creek area over
there we just spent $60,000 plus in order to correct something that should have been done back in
the development phase. We should have looked at all of the details and made detailed
recommendations to start with. As a part of the Legends Homeowners Association over there
because of lack of detail oriented work in the past, things approved and done by this council, our
HOA is faced with a half a million dollars in trying to correct issues that were left undone from a
developer. I think it is very much in the citizens' favor in representing them and looking out for
their best interest, that we follow our ordinance, that we look at things in details and that we keep
these stipulations in here. And that's just in the past couple of years that this has happened. We
are not finished paying for all of the things over in the Legends HOA nor are we really going to
be done until we go back and make further corrections over in the Office Creek area and the roads
are another issue that are falling apart that we are going to have to address and pay for further
corrections. I think that we owe it to our citizenry to keep our details now than to just go with
four vague descriptions."
Mr. Morgan said, "Mayor, if I may interject something. I think that there's a call for the
question, but there is no motion on which the question can be called. So ! think you need a
25
007670
July 1, 2002
motion before it can be called to limit discussion." Mayor Henville-Shannon asked, "Is there a
motion?"
Councilmember Gordon said, "I'd like to make a motion to approve the development
plan for the Global Centre to be located at the southwest corner of the intersection of State
Hwy. 121 and Plano Pkwy. based on Planning and Zoning recommendations. '
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "There is a motion on the floor to approve Planning and
Zonings recommendations over staffs recommendations. Is there a second?" Councilmember Jue
asked, "May I make a comment?" Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "You sure can. Councilman
Jue."
Councilmember Jue said, "To answer several questions about details and we owe it to our
citizens to stick with the ordinance. I am not sure how much more detailed you can get when it
says 'the development plan will comply with ordinance number 862 and ordinance 99-1149.'
Number 862, stipulations 2, 3, 5, 6, 9,13, and 16 are all referring to ordinance number 862.
Number 14 and 15 refers to 99-1149. These are 9 stipulations are addressed in one stipulation
recommendation by Planning and Zoning, so when you say the development plan will comply
with ordinance number 862 that is all encompassing all of these items that have been listed out. It
doesn't say except for item section 1, paragraph 1. It doesn't say except for any other, what
section 2 paragraph 4, it says to comply with ordinance number 862. So according to that I
believe that most all of these stipulations have been addressed in the 4 stipulations that Planning
and Zoning have recommended." Councilmember McCourry asked, "Can I respond to that?"
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "O.K. before you respond, clarification from Terry Morgan. Can
you respond to him?" Mr. Morgan said, "Well I will to that, but it's been pointed out that there's
no second to the motion yet so we can discuss it. If there's a second to motion, I thought that was
where this was headed." Mayor Henville-Shannon asked, "Is there a second to this motion?"
¢ouncilmember Jue said, "I'll second it." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "There is a motion by
Councilman Gordon and a second by Councilman Jue to accept Planning and Zoning's
stipulations and basically not staff's detailed stipulations. There is a motion and a second on the
floor, which means council you will vote. Do you understand?" (an unknown member of council
spoke at this time. It was inaudible) Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "There is discussion."
Mr. Morgan said, "Yeah, I think you can discuss it now and I can respond. Mayor can
you repeat what you ask me?" Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "What is your recommendation as
the person that we hired for the best interest of the city?" Mr. Morgan said, "Well, you know, I
think I have made my recommendations clear in the sense that the stipulations I believe staff
prepared provide the guidance that's required by the ordinance. In relation to Councilman Jue's
comments, I think although it's true that Planning and Zoning Commission's reference to
ordinance 862 could be interpreted to include these specific, at least the 7 or 8 that refer to
ordinance 862 here. The question, I guess is do they? I mean, I don't know if the motion includes
that specifically. But the problem is with that general language in 862 is there are some things
you probably wouldn't get to at the development plan stage that are in 862. But the reason I think
that more specificity is required, is because the details that are in the staff recommendations relate
to what actually has been presented in the development plan. It isn't simply, because otherwise if
all you're saying is the development plan has to comply with 862, we don't know how. And
there'll be the same questions, when the first site plan is presented and the problem with that is it
just then becomes sort of an advisory development plan, I guess. It doesn't have much
significance when it's got to meet all the things in 862. The point is that when something is
presented by way of a detailed development plan as this is, that it has aspects that are inconsistent
with, as we believe they are, with the conceptual plan and not just the conceptual plan, Exhibit C,
which is the ordinance standards, tracts, FAR's zoning limitations. Then in order to conform one
to the other, there have to be some specifics as to how they are out of conformance as shown.
Otherwise, I think, and I suspect the applicant is going to say this, when they present the site plan
to council, that's what you approved. Then you to back to concept plan, you approved that
26
July 1, 2002
diagram right there. To say it has to comply with 862, I think doesn't get you out of the dilemma
of what to do with that when the next site plan comes in. And I suspect they are going to tell you
that if you are going to look at plans, you don't go back to concept plans you go to that right
there. You don't go back to look at the acreage of tracts you go back and look at that when the
site plan comes in. And that's the difficulty. If you don't lay that right blue print out now, I don't
see how you are going to be able to resolve the question when the site plan comes in. Or you'll
have an argument about what controls. And I don't think that's the way the ordinance is intended
to work, so my recommendation is go with staff recommendations." Mayor Henville-Shannon
said, "Thank you. Harry, there was a question made by one of your commissioners. Will you
please answer this? And his question, his statement was, out of all the time that he has spent on
P&Z for the last few years, that development plans are not normally heard by council. Can you
clarify that?" Mr. Persaud said, "Mayor and council, I believe staff has provided you with
information relating to all the development plans that have been approved so far. I believe council
approved the development plan for tract E, that's next to the railroad, east of Morningstar, you
also approved the development plan for Austin Ranch, and also the development plans for Colony
Business Park, which is north of Office Creek. And all those development plans have been
approved by council. Staff consistently processes development plans in accordance with Section
17-101 of the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, which requires development plans to be
approved by council. Philosophically, from a planning standpoint, staff feels that a development
plan contains so much planning information, thoroughfares, land use, major planning issues, like
traffic flows. Conceptually, we always feel the development should go to council, because you
are the governing body. You really have the approval authority in those big planning matters. Of
course, you know P&Z has ultimate approval of plats, which council approved for them to have
that authority. But for development plans, by ordinance and philosophically fi.om a planning
standpoint, I think council still needs to approve those development plans and all those so far
have been approved by council." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "So what you are saying in a
nutshell this is the procedure and mythology that we have been following for quite some time.
And you have been here for more than 6 or 8 years?" Mr. Persaud said, "Five years. That's what I
say." Mayor Henville-Shannon asked, "Are there any other comments you would like to make?
Because ! would like to share my sentiments with you on your commissioners on that particular
tape that we saw. I would like to apologize for some of the rudeness that was going on. I think it
could have be handled in a more professional manner and I was appalled to see the bickering and
not really discussion and I want to apologize because I don't think that staff should be treated that
way."
Councilmember Gordon said, "Point, Mayor I don't know whether that pertains to the
motion that's been made. There is a motion and second on the floor. If there's any discussion in
regard to that motion, that's fine, but I don't hear any discussion in regard to that motion." Mayor
Henville-Shannon said, "There is discussion." Councilmember Gordon said, "Oh, there is
discussion, but it's not pertaining to the motion." Mayor Henville Shannon said, "And John, you
are right, you are one of seven. Thank you. Councilman Marks."
Councilmember Marks said, "I'm sorry, your name again?" Mr. Reed replied, "Robert
Reed." Councilmember Marks asked, "It's been a long evening. Mr. Reed, out of these 16
stipulations, is your client in agreement with any of them or most of them?" Mr. Reed said, "I
think that the stipulations, the 16 stipulations, the 15 original stipulations before we were hit with
the 16 were all taken care of with regard P&Z's 4 stipulations. And, I disagree with Mr. Morgan
in that regard. It sounds like he's saying that to say that the compliance, we will comply with
ordinance 862 and the other relevant ordinances is not surplusage. It means that those
requirements set forth both in Exhibit C to 862 and other places in 862 will be complied with on a
going forward basis. But back to your point, the 15 stipulations suggested by staff are all taken
care of in the 4 stipulations. I think, I don't know if the Councilmembers have really focused on
some of the proposed stipulations by staff, particularly number 4. What I have heard tonight, fi.om
27
O076bt
July 1, 2002
several sources on that side of the aisle, is that the city and I have case authority, to the extent the
council would like to see it, the city cannot prohibit my client from developing this property
based upon a proposed 121 take. That is what stipulation number, I'm sorry, number 5 stipulation
number 5 does. 'Remove all pad sites from the proposed 121 take.' There is no 121 take, and
what this stipulation says is that you cannot develop that property and that's why P&Z, who
handles these matters routinely, whose job it is to get into the nuts and bolts of how these things
are actually implemented, decided that stipulation number 4 in their list of stipulations would
cover that. And we agree. All of the stipulations that have to do with 121 are invalid, because
essentially they are limiting my clients ability to develop the property, which is improper."
Councilmember Marks said, "I agree with that. It is a little difficult for us to make a decision
based on r.o.w, when we don't even know what that is going to be. Harry, out of these
stipulations, do you feel confident that most of these are covered with the Planning and Zoning's
stipulations?"
Mr. Persaud said, "Mr. Marks, if you agree that..that., staff position is that the details are
important because it sets the pace for future planning. If it's not there, then it doesn't provide a
good framework for you in future when the site plan comes before you, and for the staff and for
the developer. So we have always in the past gone to the details. So is it covered? Well, P&Z felt
it did because they felt like it was summarized and just say 1 stipulation rather than 9. But from a
practical standpoint and operationally when we have to re-do the plans and bring them before you
for approval. If you have the details it is really better for everybody, the council, staff, city, the
developer because we know what sort of things have to be addressed when you come back later.
It's like if you have to, I always use this example, if you bring in some building plans and ask for
a building permit and the staff throws the plans back at you and say you don't comply with the
Uniform Building Code. It's a big code, big like that. You don't know what the staff is talking
about, but if I say Mr. Marks please review and address your ceiling height in your building
plans, then you know exactly what you are looking for, we know what you are looking for and
everybody knows what you are looking for. And you don't have to go review the entire UBC.
That's why in the past we have always been specific, but like I said it's up to council, which way
you want to go on this. We think that if you go with the details, it will provide us with a better
framework for furore planning for the developers so they'll know what to address when they
come back to us and for you, the council, when we bring the reports back to you, we can point out
yes, this have been met and no these have not been met and we are recommending your
approval." Councilmember Marks said, "So, if we approve this as the motion is on the floor
tonight, are you telling me that you're not going to worry about these details for the future of this
development?" Mr. Persaud said, "It will be difficult for us to.." Councilmember Marks
continued, "If we don't include it in the motion?" Mr. Persaud said, "I think Mr. Morgan's point,
you know, that we may not be able to go back to those details, because then this will become the
framework for drafting site plans, so we may not be able to back to that." Councilmember Marks
said, "But according to all this discussion from staff tonight, these stipulations are covered in both
862 and 99-1149. Are covered by those ordinances." Mr. Persaud said, "Well, there are also
stipulations in there for example, the Office Creek Drainage plan which is not included in both of
those ordinances. And the other point I think Mr. Morgan has made, is when you approve
something that doesn't comply with the ordinance, how can you say that you need to comply
when you come back, because you are not complying now, with what we are approving. The
FAR for example which is required by ordinance 862, may be here but it's not been addressed or
analyzed in such a way that we know it's there. And that's because like Terry Sullivan pointed
out, the variables that maybe keep changing. Now the other thing the city attorney did is say, if
the concept plan is so hard to comply with now, then change it. We are be happy to work with
you to change it. I don't think the city is going to be in a position where we are going to effect the
development of this tract of land in any negative way or to have the client or the land owner not
being able to develop the land I don't think we want to be in that position. On the contrary I think
28
00768..!.
July 1, 2002
staff wants to encourage and promote development. We have always been in that area. And we
would like to work with the applicant to help them get there. Part of our..." Councilmember
Marks said, "Excuse me, what I don't understand, well, if this is approved tonight, it's still your
job, or the staff's .job to make sure that they comply with both ordinances, regardless of what's
attached to this motion." Mr. Persaud said, "That's tree except that it's difficult to that with the
general, broad guidelines you are giving me because then I will have this development plan,
which isn't clear and doesn't comply now and it may not comply in the future. But yet I will have
to use this as a framework for compliance." Councilmember Marks said, "And it doesn't comply
now because of the r.o.w, on 121, that's the main issue?" Mr. Persaud said, "No, there are other
zoning issues I pointed out, the land use issue, like the tract zoning, the FAR issue by tract, the
pm trip generation by tract, all of those aren't complying right now, I mean, most of it is probably
there Mr. Marks, but it's not been analyzed as such, for example, the FAR has been analyzed by
blocks and the blocks don't match the tracts so I don't know how they are complying because
they are not the same thing. When we went to DRC, two occasions, and the first time there were
probably ! 00 comments from staff. DRC comments from a lot of departments. Of course, we
have now worked through the second DRC and then we went to P&Z and it was boiled it down to
15 stipulations, 16 stipulations, but there was a lot more than that."
Mr. Morgan interjected, "Harry, can I make a clarification here, because I believe that
the comment from Mr. Reed again, is trying to shoe horn this situation of the staff's
recommendation into some form of taking, or other restriction of the applicant's rights, by saying
that if you approve this, then the zoning really prevents them from developing it. Well, in one
sense it's true. It's tree that that is the zoning on the property. And it's also tree that their
predecessors in interest were the ones that got that zoning. And it is also further tree that an
applicant can request re-zoning. That resolves the problem, with procedural snafu that we have at
issue. And that's what we are saying the invitation, I think, it's our recommendation that be
extended so that Mr. Reed's client is not be in that undesirable position of not knowing what to
do vis a vis the State's r.o.w. The other thing I'd like to clarify is if the motion on the floor would
specifically embrace the stipulations, I guess and incorporate them that are in here as some of
the items in 862 that had to be complied with in order to conform, this plan, then I guess that
would be slightly different than the open ended, undefined and potentially conflicting way in
which the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations can be interpreted in the future.
But I don't know if that's the intent of the motion."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Terry, I've got another question here, first of all, I'm
over here looking at all the tracts. And I know the council has looked at this, but the question has
not come up. We've got large areas here that says wet dry. Harry, I thought it is it my
understanding that everything south of 121 is dry?" Mr. Persaud responded, "No, Mayor." Mayor
Henville-Shannon asked, "Do we have certain areas that are wet?" Mr. Persaud said, "Yes, I think
the wet/dry line on the map is correct. There are areas south of 121 which is wet." Mayor
Henville-Shannon said, "O.K. Next question, if council approved this development plan without
stipulations, could this development plan also be used as our site plan? I mean what I am hearing
is that if we approve something like, if we approve this development plan, council is saying, this
is what we approve this is what we expect on site. When site comes back, it should look
something like this, but we have no bearings of what to measure it to. And I think the best
example you used, is if you are building a house and your house has to conform with the
electrical codes of the building codes, da da da da. Do you just tell the homeowner, here, here's
the book be in conformance to these electrical codes or do you help the homeowner and say, this
code has not been met because it's pertinent to your public safety, this code has not been met
because maybe it's not wired right. I mean do you be specific to a homeowner who is building a
house or do just give them a manual and say conform? And I think that's the way I see it."
29
00768TM
July 1, 2002
Councilmember Gordon asked, "Harry, there will be a site plan filed, there will be that
process that we will still go through, is that not correct?" Mr. Persaud said, "Staff will
recommend that, Mr. Gordon, yes."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "And to attomey with the site plan, I'm sure you guys
have, already know what your site plan. Is your site plan going to be something similar to your
development plan?" Mr. Reed said, "The site plan, I mean we are all talking about issues.
Unfortunately the way the discussion has been is that what P&Z did was they reduced the
specificity of the proposed stipulations by staff and just reduced them to 4. But as those clips
showed, that is not what happened. What happened was, they felt that many of the issues raised in
those stipulations are not required at the development plan stage, which we are at now. A lot of
those stipulations and issues that are raised by the proposed staff stipulations are site plan issues.
So, when we get to that point, it is appropriate to discuss those points about pm trips and things
like that. But at this point it is not appropriate. And with regard to the issue of the water shed.
Office Creek Drainage Water Shed, that is noted on the development plan, not only on the plan
itself, but dropped as a note because staff requested that we do that and so we did. So, not only
are the relevant ordinances addressed with regard to the 4 stipulations proposed by P&Z, to the
extent that there's something outside of those ordinances, we have noted that on the development
plan. Everything has been covered. And the fact that the development plan is approved does not
throw the entire ordinance out the window. There are requirements that have to be complied with
at each stage of development and P&Z's proposed stipulations deal with that and that's how it
will be dealt with in a going forward basis." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Out of all due
respect, I understand exactly what you are saying, but Harry has been doing his job for probably 6
or, probably most of his life. Our P&Z members were put on that commission back in 1999. The
four that were there. There is only one member that is standing that has been there longer than the
two-year time frame that we are talking about." Mr. Reed said, "And they were charged with the
responsibility of getting down to the nitty gritty with these issues in this process. And that's what
they did and that's why they proposed these 4 stipulations they did because it covers all of the
required information that is required at this stage. City Council has a variety of issues to deal
with. You don't deal with every development plan to the level that you're dealing with this one.
P&Z does. And that's why what came out of P&Z is the appropriate method of approving this
development plan." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Council did approve the development plan
for Austin Ranch and it was very well detailed and it is showing what it is right now. Council did
approve the Office Creek development plan and it is approved according to the development that
will be taking place in the next 3 years. So council has approved a number of development plans
with specific ideas. And you are absolutely right, P&Z is charged with specificity." Mr. Reed
said, "With the knowledge of dealing with these issues, and that's what they've done, I assume
they did those in the other cases, we requested those development plans and to my knowledge we
didn't receive them. Because we did want to see what was done in the past and I didn't show all
of the clips that we have but Harry at one point named 3 or 4 different development plans because
the specific question was asked, how specific did we get with those development plans? And I
think the response was, well we do this with everything. Well, we have not been provided with
that information so I am not able to respond to it."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "And I agree with you. That's all the more reason I think
we need to have a work session so we can iron out some of the, some of the inconsistencies with
each site here. I think if we could see it in black and white I think we could make a decision based
on what we were seeing and with all due respect I'm going to put my backing behind our city
staff which is looking out for our best interest and I understand where your interest is, but also
our city attorney, which I believe is looking out for the city's best interest. And both of them have
basically said that they agree that staff stipulations, the detailed oriented is necessary otherwise
just give you a book and say here comply." Mr. Reed said, "We do have to comply with 862, it's
not a book, its 862 and the relevant city ordinances that we have to comply with. And I don't
30
July 1, 2002
really understand the position if it's we only have to comply with what's in the development plan
and we throw 862 out the window, that doesn't make sense to me. I think 862 is what we have to
comply with, that's what we have agreed to comply with and that's what P&Z listed as a
stipulation and that's why, that's the appropriate response to your question. And I think..."
Councilmember McCourry said, "With such a difference of interpretation, it is incumbent
on each of us, as Councilmembers, looking out for the best interest of the city, to make sure that
we detail those things so we can cut out a lot of that mis-interpretation. Don't get me wrong, I
want your development over there on that property. You are in my district. So is Austin Ranch.
And I have 6 pages worth of details, right down to how much property is gets used for business
park just like yours is and in looking at that and knowing that, it is incumbent upon me to be sure
that we are being fair and we are following the same procedures now that was followed prior to
me even getting here. I am brand new, I don't deny that, but I do try to do my homework and
reading this stuff also, and saying that staff is exactly right in being detailed. You are not being
singled out or anything like that. We are just trying to make sure and especially going forward, in
my case, because of the situations that have happened in the past where we haven't been detailed.
Councils hopefully, based on things that have happened in the past, will get better and better. I
think that we are trying to get better and better at making sure that little things don't fall through
the cracks. And by getting more and more detailed, we do provide that things don't fall through
the cracks. And I want to help you get your development, but I also want to help the citizens of
The Colony not have to back 5 years from now and repair things that we should have done today.
And I may or may not be here on council, but I will still be living here in the City and have to pay
for it. And that's what I am trying to do right now by saying we follow our ordinances, we narrow
down every chance we get the possibility for mis-interpretation so that we aren't standing here
having this discussion here this evening about you believe it reads this way and he believes it
reads this way and us being at odds. We are trying to come to some sort of an understanding with
each other so that you can get our development under way, so that we can provide all these
services which you list here on your plan, which look great. But we need to do it in a manner that
is consistent with what we have done with the other developers. And I think that that's what we
deserve and what we owe as representatives of our citizenry to do. And I think that that's what we
are trying to do."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "The hands are going up. Councilman Schrag let's hear
from you." Councilmember Schrag said, "I'll be as quick as possible, I know we are all getting
frustrated with each other here. If this isn't approved this evening, are you ready to take legal
action against the city?" Mr. Reed said, "That's not, no litigation is pending and no litigation has
been threatened. When I met with Terry and Dale I made that clear. I mean what we are dealing
with here is trying to work through these different issues so that everyone is satisfied that all the
requirements that are necessary have been complied with. Now, I will say that the fact that the
r.o.w, keeps getting brought up, and one of staff's proposed stipulations, in fact several of staff's
proposed stipulations have denied my client the ability to develop the property. That is the answer
I have for you." Councilmember Schrag said, "I understand. Is a work session totally out of the
question with you guys?" Mr. Reed said, "I think the mayor said that she needed the information
in black and white and the information that has been developed over the many months and many
discussions, I think Harry pointed out that we had 60 or some odd issues initially at DRC, and
now we have whittled it down to these are all before the council and all the issues have been
whittled down and we are where we are and we don't think that it's necessary. I mean, I think that
was the initial motion that we addressed was whether to consider council's vote on the work
session and we think that we've worked through those issues tonight and I'm happy to stay and
answer whatever questions council might have and I think we can get it done tonight."
Councilmember Schrag, "I understand about the r.o.w. As much as I hate to see the taxpayers
having to anti up for anything more I agree 100% you should be able to be free to do whatever
you want with the property. And in that respect I would be inclined to go the way with our P&Z.
31
July 1, 2002
However, I'm also new, and I know you know that. I know you've probably done your
homework on all of us. I wouldn't kid myself about that. For what limited knowledge base I have
to work from I've not seen many of these issues come up where we've had two lawyers present
the sides, from either side. Given that, we have a lawyer that we've hired here, and not to put him
necessarily on the spot, but it appears his best recommendation for covering our heiney, covering
the city for lack of a better term is to approve of staff stipulations. But I can see that you guys
definitely don't like that, which is what prompted my very first question. Are you prepared to
bring legal action against the city if we don't approve this?" Mr. Reed said, "That is an open-
ended question and I don't know the answer to that. Someone, I think of the citizens, asked what
is TxDOT's position on this. And TxDOT has actually made it clear, there is no take and there is
no hindrance to us developing the property. To the extent that council or the city does prevent us
we would have to look at all of our options." Councilmember Schrag said, "O.K."
Mayor Henville-Shannon asked, "Are you completed? We will come back to you if you
have something else on your mind. Councilman Jue." Councilmember Jue said, "Again, I still
feel I have to make a couple of points that this says comply with ordinance number 862 and that
includes most all of these stipulations. Now, if you want the details now, Harry you never did
answer Councilman Marks question that when at the next step, when site plan comes up for
approval, are you not going to do your job and make the developer stick to the specifics of this
ordinance." Mayor Henville-Shannon asked, "Where do we start?" Mr. Persaud said, "Mr. Jue,
the staff always, our primary goal is to ensure compliance with all city codes and ordinances, my
point is if you approve it with compliance of 862, then you don't give me the proper framework
to ensure compliance, because the development plan you are approving to some extent ..."
Councilmember Jue said, "Harry, it's in there, that's exactly what you brought out. You brought
out the specifics." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Councilman Jue, with all due respect, would
you let him finish his sentence please?" Councilmember Jue responded, "Mayor, with all due
respect would you allow me to ask a question?" Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Well, allow him
to answer please." Councilmember Jue asked, "So of these specifics brought out of this
ordinance, 862, all these specifics, are they in ordinance 862?" Mr. Persaud replied, "Wherever it
is states in that stipulation that it's in 862, it's in 862." Councilmember Jue asked, "O.K., we're
not making any changes to the ordinance itself?." Mr. Persaud said, "Right." Councilmember Jue
asked, "Then why do we need to be in that ordinance later down on the road than they would be
now?" Mr. Persaud said, Let me answer your question. The development you are approving
tonight, in many respects doesn't comply with ordinance 862 so approving that development
plan, not complying with the ordinance, will put staff in a situation not having a proper
framework for making evaluation when we bring those site plans to you. Because the framework
we are having is not complete. It doesn't comply now, so you give me a tool to work with for
compliance which isn't complete or complying now. There are details in those stipulations that
can possibly come, all of them can come later. I think Terry Morgan has pointed out all of those
stipulations can come later. With the submittal of the site plan at a later date. But, your question
to me whether we'll be using that ordinance for compliance and my answer is, yes we will. It just
gives me a poor tool for ensuring compliance because I don't have a proper tool to do it."
Councilmember Jue asked, "Isn't that why you put stipulations on, based upon that stipulation
that they adhere to the ordinance?" Mr. Persaud said, "Exactly." Councilmember Jue said, "I still
don't get why you have to bring the specifics out now, because you are saying that it needs to
comply with it, so .... "Mr. Persaud asked, "I guess Terry, can you explain that in some better
language than I can?" Mr. Morgan replied, "No, I think you put it probably as well as I can Mr.
Persaud. I think the councilman's question, I understand it, it is certainly possible to interpret the
condition of 862 to include each of these specific stipulations. It's also possible to say that none
of these have any meaning because you are not embracing them if you have that generalized deal.
I don't know by the motion that has been proposed whether for example, 862, one of the
stipulations, I'll read number 4 here. Show the r.o.w, and control of access areas for SH 121
32
July 1, 2002
consistent with the conceptual plan. Well that would be 230 feet ofr.o.w. Now that's in 862. So,
the question is, if you say comply with 862 do you mean that when they come back with their site
plan and they have a site plan for anything in the vicinity of the r.o.w, that they have to be 230
feet set back? I mean, that's what 862 and the conceptual plan seemingly presents and and if you
take it at least in conjunction with ordinance 862. And that's what, I think Harry's talking about
by way of a dilemma. If you have 862 which says you've got to have tract K be 138 net acres.
And they come back with a site plan, how do you interpret that site plan with respect to that
condition? Now here, and I guess the idea for Harry setting it out in particulars, is that they would
bring back a development plan that was, showed the whole and showed how the development
after that would comply with the conceptual plan and the ordinance. That's the only way I know
to explain the difference in the generalized recommendation of the Commission and the
recommendations that Harry's made. Is it guides things, Harry's specifics. If you just take that
example of the r.o.w. If they come back with a site plan next to 121 that isn't set back 230 feet.
How does that comply with the conceptual plan adopted by ordinance 862? Well, it doesn't seem
to. And then you are going to be in the dilemma there just like we are now. Except we at least
have an entire picture here that could be conformed by the specific stipulations as opposed to the
generalities of the Planning Commission. In other words, I am afraid when you come back with
that site plan there will be potentially a lot of conflicts about what applies. We won't know at
that point whether these specific stipulations apply. That's the best I can do."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Council, we are going to take a five minute break,
because we have been going at this for almost 2 ½ hours. And we'll take a five minute break,
calm some of your eases and let's come back and get some conclusions onto this. Council breaks
for five minutes."
10:05 p.m. Recess 10:20 p.m. Reconvene
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Let's bring this meeting back to order. Update, we have a
motion on the floor to approve the development based only on P&Z stipulations. And there has
been a second We are now in discussion and we will continue with discussion. One thing that I
wanted to do is I wanted to hear from our engineer. Who is working for the city. I'd like to hear
what your comments are. Or what your opinions are." Mr. James Hanvey said, "My name is
James Hanvey, I am the engineer with the city at this point. We do not have a City Engineer. The
last r.o.w, map that we saw here for 121 showed approximately 220 feet ofr.o.w, to be taken. I
understand now that the state has reduced that amount ofr.o.w, and has gone to Austin to get
approval on it and it's approximately one-half of that amount which would be approximately 110
feet is what they are proposing at this point. Global Fund is correct there has never been a
concrete amount, exact amount, but we know that it's going to be somewhere in the 110 to 220
range. And I'm not sure what they show on their map, but it's certainly not 110 feet. And that's
all I know about the r.o.w.. I don't think Sterling Forsythe was aware we were going to be
discussing this tonight, but he was here a couple of weeks ago and told me this information."
Mayor Henville-Shannon asked, "In your opinion do you think that a work session might have
been a better way of handling it. And then we could gotten both sides together along with a
representative from TxDOT to at least get some definitive?" Mr. Hanvey replied, "Well, I don't
know. We are arguing semantics here, and not concrete things. There seems to be a difference of
opinion about how this, you know whether we are going to vote on specific items or a general
item and I'm not sure a work session would have anything to do with what the r.o.w, take is until
it actually comes up, the state approves it and approaches the Fund with the exact amount."
Mr. Morgan asked, "Mayor, can I make a comment?" Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Go
ahead Mr. Morgan." Mr. Morgan said, "And I understand the motion on the floor is to approve
the Planning Commission recommendations. We have had some discussion about what means
vis a vis staff recommendations. These are not necessarily, you know it's not necessarily one or
33
00768 .
July 1, 2002
the other. I guess, you could take these stipulations and look individually at them or try to
combine the notion that there would be conformance of the development plan and then to give
some direction on amending either ordinance 862 or the concept plan in what you do. Now here's
what I'm trying to say. Now, we've talked about the r.o.w. Stipulations 4,5, and 6 involve the
r.o.w, here, you know, it says, in order to conform the development plan with what the concept
plan says, it says, show the r.o.w, and control of access areas for SH 121 consistent with the
conceptual plan; remove all pad sites, and remove all proposed streets and driveways out of
access points and yet everybody knows we don't know what the ultimate 121 is going to be right
now. And we all appreciate, I think, the dilemma that can cause for the developer. Now the issue
would be, the Planning Commission has suggested that the applicant has to comply with what the
state says on 121. And I guess, and what we think and what we said is what ought to happen is
the ordinance, ordinance 862 and Exhibit C and the conceptual plan, they should be amended to
conform then. I mean that would be a logical solution up the line somewhere. And that also of
course, would solve the problem with the development plan and the conceptual plan being out of
conformity, in our view anyway. Now, it's possible to, I suppose to modify 4, 5, and 6 to read
something like: show the, or in the Planning Commission's words, I suppose, 'The developer
shall meet TxDOT requirements for SH 121 and ordinance 862 and the conceptual plan shall be
amended accordingly.' And that's one way to anticipate the future and still indicate there's got to
be some conformance between what the r.o.w, ends up being and what the development plan is.
That amendment necessarily would probably take care of 862, would then take care of some of
the other discrepancies here between the development plan that is proposed here and the
ordinance. Remember those tracts, the tract numbers and the r.o.w, being a part of the net
developable acreage. I don't know if the applicant is interested in any such type of arrangement,
but that at least indicates a direction of how these things need to be conformed. The r.o.w, issue
obviously needs to be addressed. And it effects the amount of the tracts to be zoned for particular
land uses. So, you know, instead of perhaps the specific language of 4, 5, & 6, if it's understood,
that the r.o.w would comply with TxDOT requirements or that the plan would, and if the
ordinance would be amended to fix the discrepancy, and that would also take care of those tract
boundaries. Or they could bring in other changes if they wanted to. And that gets out some of the
dilemma of the specificity here, and the generality of the Planning Commission
recommendations. But I don't know if the applicant is interested in that."
Mr. Reed responded, "Do you want me to respond to that?" Mayor Henville-Shannon
said, "Go right ahead." Mr. Reed said, "I think that the first part of the proposal makes sense
because I think P&Z dealt with that issue properly with regard to the 121 take. I disagree with Mr.
Morgan that it would be necessary then to amend the ordinance when the take actually takes
place. It is our position, as I have stated several times tonight that as we sit here today the
development does conform with the concept plan and there is no need to go back and amend the
concept plan or ordinance 862 to remedy whatever deficiency Mr. Morgan sees in this. Because
there is no deficiency. I do agree that the 121 issue is probably best addressed in the manner that
P&Z did, addressed it. To the extent that it's not dealt in that fashion, I think that you open up a
whole can of worms. Because I think the stipulations that staff has recommended with regard to
121 puts you in an inverse condemnation situation, where we are not going to able to develop the
property and I think that P&Z actually had the foresight to know that that's not something you
can specifically put down as staff is recommending with those stipulations so I would agree with
Mr. Morgan in that regard."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "So half of it you agree with and the other half you don't
agree with?" Mr. Reed said, I don't agree the ordinance has to be amended." Mayor Henville-
Shannon said, "To comply with your conceptual plan." Mr. Reed said, "To conform, because the
development plan does conform with the conceptual plan. I mean, if it's the city's position the
conceptual plan is a mirror image of the development plan, and that is conformity. I don't think
that is a reasonable interpretation of the ordinance. But that's not what we have here. What we
34
00768,:'
July 1, 2002
have is land use conformity. Between the two plans so there would be no need to amend the
ordinance 862, the concept plan." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "And that is your belief." Mr.
Reed said, "Yes." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "O.K. Harry, your belief, as far as what he said.
And I know we keep going round and round, and I'm going to put a stop here in a minute. But
just to clarify what he has just said, that he doesn't believe that their conceptual plan...he believes
the conceptual plan and the development plan are in conformity. You might just stay up here for a
little bit."
Mr. Persaud said, "Mayor and council I think Terry Morgan has addressed that issue in
writing to you and he has set out all the issues of conformity in his memo to the council or to the
city manager, pointing out the conformity issues so I don't want to go over that all over again."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "O.K. Well I think now council may have a better idea of why I
thought we should engage into a work session. We have been talking about this one specific item
for almost three hours and we still have business to attend. But that is one of the other reasons
why I thought a work session might have been a better way of addressing this to get all of our
questions out of the way and somewhat answered. We are still getting a difference of opinion or
of interpreting it. And that's where you guys get involved. Councilman Marks."
Councilmember Marks said, "My last hurrah. Mr. Reed, you are familiar with the 16, or
the 15 stipulations?" Mr. Reed said, "I am." Councilmember Marks continued, "Are there any of
these stipulations you would agree to, if we amended the motion and added to this motion. Let me
star over. Are there any of these 15 that you can't live with or that you would prefer not to see?"
Mr. Reed said, "Yes, I know 4, 5, & 6 are not acceptable. Councilmember Marks said, "O.K.,
those are three that I circled already because they have to do with the r.o.w., which we have no
idea what the take's going to be anyway." Mr. Reed said, "Number 1 is not acceptable."
Councilmember Marks said, "I wasn't including that one, I was including the 15." Mr. Reed said,
"O.K." Councilmember Marks said, "Let me tell you what I have on here. I made a list of what I
thought should be O.K. and something we could include in our motion and you could address.
Number 2, number 3, number 7, number 8 1 have a question mark by because I thought heard
some different conversations about it and I know the city manager has addressed that with me and
I will have to go back over my notes on that. But I got 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 also. Now I believe
that 14 and 15 could probably be some things that you could address also. Don't have anything to
do with the r.o.w. And even number 16. I think that we need to come to some sort of agreement
maybe and add some of these stipulations to the motion. You may take a minute and decide and
discuss it." Mr. Reed said, "The only one I didn't mark down. What did you have for number 87"
Councilmember Marks said, "Welt, I don't know for sure. If you will refresh my memory on that
intersection, the light, Tittle Drive. I was under the impression that Mr. Billingsley stood here one
night and said he would pay for everything just as long as we, the night the council approved the
intersection for the truck traffic out of Sysco Foods." Mr. Reed said, "That was my understanding
as well." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "I think there was some additional information that he
had said on top of that also." Councilmember Marks said, "Prior to, in other meetings?" Mayor
Henville-Shannon said, "Right after that comment. I think that there were some more comments
made after that. So it was not a total freeby." Councilmember Marks said, "I'm not sure about
that, but .." (Someone made comments at this time, but they were inaudible.) Councilmember
Marks asked, "Did you hear that?" Mr. Reed said, "Assuming it tied into Tittle Rd. it would
change from a three way to a four." Councilmember Marks said, "Right. So how do you feel
about all these stipulations and if we eliminate 1, 4, 5, and 6? That is with the approval of
Councilman Gordon to amend his motion." Mr. Reed asked, "Can I have two minutes?" Mayor
Henville-Shannon said, "Harry, can you approach please?"
Mr. Reed said, "Mr. Marks, to short circuit this and try to get this thing done, we would
agree with the removal of stipulations of 1, 4, 5, & 6 and to amend the motion." Councilmember
Marks said, "It was just brought to my attention that these things could be met after. I guess I
should ask Terry to make sure. Could these be met after the take or do they have to be met
35
July 1, 2002
before?" Mr. Morgan said, "Well I think they would have to be met when the site plan is probably
presented at that point." Councilmember Marks said, "O.K. well I'd like to include these in the
motion if that's O.K. with Councilman Gordon." Councilmember Gordon said, "It is." Mr. Reed
said, "I am not clear exactly what..." Councilmember Marks said, "O.K. well what I was thinking
is it could be done after the take, but forget that, it's just, I'd like to include these in the motion so
these things could be done, met through your site plan." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Met
upon the submission of a site plan?" Councilmember Marks said, "Right." Mayor Henville-
Shannon said, "Number 1, 4, 5, & 6." Councilmember Marks said, "No, no, no, everything but 1,
4, 5, & 6."
Dr. Bill Manning said, "Mayor, 4200 Main Street, the motion was to approve the P&Z
recommended stipulations so you really can't go back, I'm not trying to stop this process, please.
But you really can't take that motion and then say we will to take 1, 4, 5, & 6 out of it because
that motion did not take in all of these. So there will have to be a re-stating of the overall motion.
Councilman Gordon will either have to rescind his motion and Councilman Jue his second and
start over again, or Councilman Gordon will have to very extensively modify the motion that he
made." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "I understand, well he just said he will amend it." Dr.
Manning said, "Thank you."
Councilmember Marks said, "What I would like to do is amend the motion." Mayor
Henville-Shannon said, "Well we have a motion on the floor right now, we need to take action on
and then you can make another one." Councilmember Marks said, "Or you can rescind it."
Councilmember Gordon said, "I rescind my motion." Councilmember Jue said, "I rescind my
second."
Councilmember Marks said, "I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to make a motion that
we approve this development with the stipulations from, the 4 stipulations, I believe, from
Planning and Zoning and adding staff recommendations, stipulations 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15 & 16. Councilmember Gordon said, "I'll second that."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "And adding 13, 14, & 16." Councilmember Marks said,
"Yes, well I guess another way of saying it would be everything except number 1, 4, 5, & 6."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "O.K., there is a motion on the floor to accept P&Z's
recommendations in addition to some of staff's recommendations and those are all except 1, 4, 5,
& 6 of staff stipulations. Before we do that I'd like to hear the opinion of Harry on that and Terry.
I'd like to hear your opinion on that."
Mr. Persaud said, "Mayor, I think the staff can live with that. I'd like to say that you
know there is still the question of the take. We don't know when that will be resolved and so
those stipulations relating to the take really put the staff in the position that we don't know what
that variable is and I don't think the developer knows either. So, I think we can probably live with
that and be able to work with it in the future and we'll always have bring those things back to you
to be approved by council. So we will be having to bring those things to you and point out what
the requirements are and what the status is at point in time. So I think they are workable. I think
it's better than what we had before. I'll defer to the consulting attorney to see what Terry has in
mind." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Terry, what do you think?" Mr. Morgan said, "Well, as to
121, I understand the sense of the motion and with the other conditions here or stipulations as we
call them. I think it makes it clear that when a site plan would come in then there would be a hard
look at whether these particulars in ordinance 862 have been complied with. So I think it gets you
them more or less. The uncertainty of course is how the site plan will be timed with respect to the
take. And that's something that will have to be resolved at the time the site plan is presented to
you. The only down side I guess, of doing this way and I'm not sure it can't be corrected also at
time site plan. In fact that's really what one part of 1 was anticipating is that you look at the larger
picture, namely the development plan in the light of these conditions and not just one little piece
of the site plan. I guess that's the uncertainty of how that's going to work, but basically I think the
essence of staff's recommendations would be met by the motion." Mayor Henville-Shannon said,
36
July 1, 2002
"So you would prefer we had the entire picture instead of the specific tracts that we are looking at
right now, it would actually give us a clearer picture of what's really going here." Mr. Morgan
said, "Well, what I'm saying really is these stipulations address the total development plan and
it's conformity with the conceptual plan. When you have a site plan coming in that will be a sort
of an interpretive question again. But none the less, with these specifics it will give staff a way, as
Harry has indicated anyway, to work with and examine the conformity issues of the plan with
ordinance 862. Now there might be an easier way to come in and amend ordinance 862. Maybe
that'll happen at the time, you know as the take becomes clear. That would make sense. But in
any event, I think this will give you enough to work with."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "So in your opinion, once the site plan comes back. I
guess my concern is if we approve something like this right now, the development plan, that is
basically telling me that the site plan will come back something similar to what we are looking
at." Mr. Morgan said, "Well not necessarily because it's got to still make sense. You know a site
plan could be various places on that diagram. It may not be next to the r.o.w, for example. Then
we have to, you know be consistent with the parameters in the ordinance relating to tract size,
relating to the amount of zoning in GR. It would be on an incremental basis I guess. And why I
say an overall fix would be preferable. But these conditions really apply to the conformance
between the development plan and site plan so I guess you sort of have it in there anyway."
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "There is a motion and a second." Councilmember
Gordon said, "I call the question." Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "And the question has been
called. We will stop all further discussion at this point. Council, there is a motion and a second. Is
everybody clear on the motion? Voting yes will say yes, according to the modified stipulations.
Voting no, would be to vote no that you don't agree with the modified stipulations. Correct?"
Vote was shown on the voter board as follows:
Henville-$hannon - No
Gordon - Aye
Jue -Aye
McCourry - No
Bayliss - Aye
Schrag -Aye
Marks - Aye
Mayor Henville-Shannon said, "Motion carries."
Councilmember Marks said, "I think it would be incumbent on everybody to keep these
staff recommendations to make sure when the site plans come before us, we'll make sure we
make the correct decisions. Like you said before doing our j ob for the citizens." Councilmember
McCourry said, "I agree."
3.1 Consideration of approval of an ordinance of the City of The Colony, Texas
amending Chapter 17, by amending Article II, Fees, approving a schedule of fees to
be charged for development applications for the processing of plats, zoning
amendments and related items (Persaud)
Mr. Persaud gave a brief history of this proposed ordinance amendment
Motion to approve as presented- McCourry; second- Marks carried with all ayes.
37
00765?
July 1, 2002
3.2 Consideration of approval of an ordinance of the City of The Colony, Texas,
amending Chapter 18 of the Code of Ordinances by adding Article V "Lawn and
Landscape Irrigation Systems" (Persaud)
Motion to approve as presented- Gordon; second- McCourry carried with all ayes.
With no further business to address, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
APPROVED:
X~a Henville-Sharlnon, Mayor
Patti A. Hicks, TRMC, City Secretary
38