03-19-1987 (Planning & Zoning) Agenda Packet Ogrt ,3.`1 -�'
Pas
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CITY OF WYLIE
THURSDAY, MARCH 19 , 1987
7 : 00 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM
800 THOMAS STREET
CALL TO ORDER
ORDER OF PAGE
BUSINESS REFERENCE BUSINESS
1 insert Consider approval of minutes.
2 1-3 Conduct PUBLIC HEARING on
annexation of 58 . 913 acres out of
the Francisco de la Pina Survey,
Collin County Abstract 688 ,
commonly known as Wylie Ranch East
and located south of E. SH and east
of Wyndham Estates.
3 4-6 Conduct PUBLIC HEARING on the
annexation of 4 acres out of the
I .& G.N. Ry. Co . Survey, Collin
County Abstract 1059. Located on
Parker Rd. north of the City. 4
4 7-9 Conduct PUBLIC HEARING on the
annexation of 74 .943 acres out of
the Wm. Penny Survey, Collin County
Abstract 616 , located on Parker Rd.
(FM2514) north of the City.
5 10 Conduct PUBLIC HEARING on the
request for rezoning of a portion
of Section 1 , Phase IV, Rustic
Oaks, from current SF3 to PD
(Planned Development) district.
6 11 Consider approval of final
plat/construction plans for
Westgate Center Phase I .
7 12 Consider approval of final
plat/construction plans for
Westgate Center Phase II .
8 ADJOURN
AGENDA SUMMARY
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1987
ITEM NO. 1 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES - No additions or
corrections.
ITEM NO. 2 - PUBLIC HEARING ON ANNEXATION OF WYLIE RANCH
EAST - This annexation was initiated at the request of the
majority of residents in Wylie Ranch East. Letters of
intent to annex have been mailed to the remainder of the
property owners and we have had no oppostion from those
people. Wylie Ranch East is surrounded on all sides by the
City' s corporate limits .
ITEM NO. 3 - PUBLIC HEARING ON ANNEXATION OF 4 ACRES ON
FM2514 - This property is described as Tract 7 out of the I .
& G. N. Ry. Co. Survey, Collin County Abstract 1059 and is
located on FM2514 (Parker Road) . The City staff initiated
this annexation and the proper notification of the property
owner has been made, notices of the public hearings placed
in the newspaper etc. This annexation together with the
annexation in Item No. 4 will take us to the ETJ line with
St. Paul .
ITEM NO. 4 - PUBLIC HEARING ON ANNEXATION OF 74.913 ACRES ON
FM2514 - This annexation, initiated by the City, consists of
several tracts individually owned . The proper notification
has been made to each property owner and the proper notices
of public hearings have been placed in the Wylie News . This
annexation and the one in Item No. 3 will close our boundary
line with the St. Paul ETJ line.
ITEM NO. 5 - PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REZONING OF A PORTION OF
RUSTIC OAKS IV - This request for rezoning actually involves
only a portion of the SF3 and 2F sections in Rustic Oaks IV.
The revised plat will show that the SF3 lots will actually
remain the same with all SF3 specifications remaining in
full force and effect. The 2F lots have been redesignated
as "0" lot line dwellings. The City has no zoning category
for "0" lot line houses and therefore these additions must
be handled as a Planned Development. The City zoning
requirements also specify not less than five (5) acres for a
PD, thus this developer is including the SF3 portion in
order to meet that requirement, but will still put SF3
housing on those lots. The 2F zoned area was slightly less
than five acres. The combined acreage is now 7 .674 acres.
Mr. Faires will be present at the meeting to answer any
further questions on this application .
ITEM NO. 6 - APPROVE FINAL PLAT/CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR
WESTGATE CENTER PHASE I - This plat/construction plans are
being returned to you for your review and consideration.
Mr . Santry, City Engineer will be present to explain the
process for dealing with the railroad on the crossings
needed.
ITEM NO. 7 - APPROVE FINAL PLAT/CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR
WESTGATE CENTER PHASE II - See comments above.
1
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY MARCH 5, 1987
o n i.n c.._l Commission m m:r s s i o n f o r the City y a t Wylie,
i i�l c� Planning a.!`i r;i
Texas met :i.n <i. Regular Meeting on March 5, 1997 in the
Community Room at 800 Thomas Street. i:i quorum was present,
n t i.c e o f the meeting ra' been_ .=t� i!�r1 had posted +or the time and in
the manner required by law. those present were: Chairman
Brian Chaney, Vice-Chairman Ben Scholz, Fred Ouellette, R. P.
Miller, Ken Ma_t_d< .:lay Davis and Bill Chapman. Representing
the city =+.ices,
staff was Gus H. f='app::t':,. City Manager: Fio4F
_
Code Enforcement Officer and Amanda Maples, Secretary.
t- l r� m, by Chairman
The Fes' meeting L d a r=. called h�+f�t �k�CJ order t:�L•'?r" _:-y.t . 0 0
Brian Chaney.
ITEM NO. 1 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 1967 - Item
i o. 6, second paragraph, last sentence, should have stated
that the permanent drainage improvement will be regulated at
either the rep:lat or the building permit level in order to
protect t h e City.
Item No. E:, fourth paragraph, second Utley the word "and"
should be changed cha.n�='e' "L:f, "an. " Also, Fred Ouellette asked Mr.
Pappas :if the F`ar-t:: Land Dedication Ordinance would apply to
this subdivision. Mr. Pappas replied that he would check
into that.
Upon further investigation Mr. Pappas said that he believed
that this plat would be responsible for a part:: dedication
a rl d he would p e r s i._i e that if that was what the board had
intended.
Fred Ouellette made <:a. motion to accept the minutes of
February 19, 1987 as amended. Bill Chapman seconded the
motion. Motion carried 7-0.
ITEM NO. 2 - PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL
USE PERMIT - BLOCKO, LOT BA RAI LROAD ADDITION (204 N. FIRST
ST. ) FOR A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION TO OPERATE A . FOODS
CLOTHING, ETC. DISTRIBUTION CENTER. - This Special Use Permit
has been requested by the Ministerial Alliance. It is their
desire to operate a food, clothing, etc, Distribution Center
on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday from 10: e_?0 a. m. - : i_?i_;
p. m. and on Tuesday from 5n r+0 p. m. - .800 p. m. Letters were
mailed to property owners within 200 feet of this property.
10 letters were mailed and came back, in favor.
-, ... all were r'�•�
This proper'., is currently in a residential zoning and that
allow
type ,., .. it
zoning would rl o t j.l .i.�_a ai this t activity even though
is a charitable iE:1 r•:!.1`.:a C]+or . 1 t:-'� organization.at:i.on. In order for this
organization to be allowed to operate in this location they
require a special use permit or a change in zoning. A
change in zoning is not recommended since that would
..constitute spot zoning. The+ staff recommends approval'o� a• of a
Special Use Permit.
Mr. Rem r'es stated that a charitable organization useaqe ice
under the special use category of 'this, zoning and approval
would be acting in compliance with the subdivision
ordinance.
Chairman Brian Chaney opened the public hearing. There
being no questions or opposition, the public hearing was
closed and brought before the board for discussion.
Ken Mauk asked if all of the activity would be conducted
indoors.
Mr. Faires stated that by all of the indications that he has
received the activity would be indoors.
Chairman Brian Chaney asked if the Special Use Permit would
have to be renewed each year.
Mr. Faires said yes, and that would give you some control .
Jay Davis made a motion to approve the Special Use Permit
with the stipulation that all activity be conducted indoors.
Bill Chapman seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0.
ITEM NQ. 3
OF R ABSTRACT 331
AND J. J. TARARA�STR COUNTY - This property
is owned by Mr. Stanley Moussa and is located on the north
side of Parker Road. It is contiguous with the City of
Wylie by the Lake Annexations. This is the property in
which Mr. Moussa is asking for a Municipal Utility District
in order to give water and sewer services. If this property
is annexed into the City of Wylie there will be no need for
a Municipal Utility District.
Mr. Pappas stated that this property came before the
Planninq and Zoning Commission some months :Apo for
annexation on a voluntary basis. Recommendation for
approval was sent to the City Council by your board. Before
the City Council could act upon it the plat was withdrawn by
the property owner. Now the property owner has attempted to
put in a Municipal Utility District, the City Council held a
special work session to discuss this and decided against the
M. U. D. and it is before you now for annexation.
In the past the City of Wylie has been approached by Seis
Lagos Property Owners concerning annexation. The Seis Lagos
Development has been done in a manner that would not
currently comply with City of Wylie ordinances. The
utilities are funded through a tax which is charged to each
home owner, as well as varrious other fees, this is called a
Municipal Utility District. Our City would not allow this.
The City of Wylie was cool toward them concerning annexation
because of the huge debt outstanding on the utilities. If
the City was to annex Seis Lagos, a major question arises as
to what would happen to the debt.
Chairman Brian Chaney asked Mr. Pappas if this proposed
Utility District would be like that of Seis Lagos.
Mr. Pappas said that it was implied that it would be the
same.
Bill Chapman asked, what services the City of Wylie would be
responsible for providing to the Moussa property if annexed?
Mr. Pappas said that we would eventually have to provide all
of them. The soft services would be provided immediately,
Police and Fire Protection. The expensive ones, water and
sewer, would be provided as in any other subdivision. We
would bring them within a reasonable distance of the
property and the developer would be responsible for
connecting to them himself.
For 2 or 3 years we have talked about securing a contract
for water and sewer with the City of St. Paul . Our question
is how to deal with the idea of growth, what is the density
going to be and how are we going to collect inpact fees in
an area that is not within the City? If it is annexed then
you gentelman, who have to face those problems as well as
the Council , would be making the decisions on those
problems. We would probably create a Lift Station District
in that area for sewage collection and the sewer brought
down Parker Road and into our existing facilities.
Bill Chapman asked Mr. Pappas if the City could go that far
with its services.
Mr. Pappas replied , yes, this property is closer to town
than some of the southern portions of our ETJ.
R. P. Miller asked where the tie-in point for this
development would be.
Mr. Pappas said that system would tie-in at Newport Harbor.
R. P. Miller asked if it was feasible for the City to extend
those lines at this time.
Mr. Pappas said , yes, it is a common misperception that if
you annex property in the ETJ the City is obligated to
immediately extend water and sewer to it, however; the law
says "reasonable access. "
Chairman Brian Chaney asked if the sewage would flow into
Muddy Creek Lift Station or if a new Lift Station District
would have to be created.
Mr. Pappas said that it would feed into the Muddy Creek Lift
Station. This land sets north and represents a final step
for the City of Wylie there is no reason to extend lines
past that because the City of Lucas is there, it will be a
matter of collecting the sewage and bringing it to a
receiving point. All we have to worry about is the cost
that the developer is not going to pay and the cost of the
impact of this one line to the Muddy Creek Lift Station
because that one collection line will have to be oversized.
If the developer wanted us to create a lift station district
it would be possible for us to create one which would make
these smaller lift stations our responsibility as well as
the feed line and the oversizeinq. We would add up the cost
of these figures and divide it by his acreage and as he
developed he would pay us that fee and bring us back to
zero.
Fred Ouellette asked when the force main would be installed.
Mr. Pappas stated that it would be installed when
development is started.
Chairman Brian Chaney asked if there were any existing homes
on this property.
Mr. Pappas said , no.
Fred Ouellette asked if the Muddy Creek Lift Station was
large enough to handle this property and if the City of
Wylie would have to go through St. Paul to get to any of the
easements.
Mr. Pappas replied that yes, the Muddy Creek Lift Station
was large enough to handle the sewage generated from this
property and since Mr. Moussa owns all of the property there
shouldn ' t be any problem in getting to the easements.
Chairman Brian Chaney opened the public hearing.
Mr. Lee Laurence of the Governmental Service Agency came
forward representing the City of St. Paul . Mr. Laurence
said that he had two points to present to the Planning and
Zoning Commission:
1 . That part of the proposed annexation by the City of
Wylie is in the ETJ of the City of St. Paul .
Mr. Laurence presented a map showing the City Limits of St.
Paul .
He stated further that if land is in the ETJ of St. Paul it
is not annexable by the City of Wylie nor can it also be
located within the ETJ of the City of Wylie.
2. The City of St. Paul objects to the annexation of this
land because of its location in reference to the City of
Wylie. If this land is going to be at part of any city it
should be part of St. Paul or Lucas. Especally since it is
an involuntary annexation.
In reference to this property being closer to Wylie than
most of the ETJ on the south end of town, there is a
distinct difference. The property on the south end of town
is annexable to the City of Wylie while this property is
seperated from the City of Wylie by another Municipality.
Mr. Pappas said that the description of the property is the
same as that used when the property, owner wanted to be
annexed on a voluntary basis.
R. P. Miller asked if the City of Wylie doesn ' t annex this
property, would it become a part of St. Paul or Lucas.
Mr. Pappas said yes, it would become a part of something
other than Wylie.
R. P. Miller asked if this would be the last chance the City
of Wylie would have to annex this property.
Mr. Pappas said that if the property owner had come to us
requesting annexation and we turned them down we probably
would have waived our rights to annex. In the case that we
are in now I would not think that if we choose not to follow
through with the forced annexation that we would have waived
our rights but, I would need a legal opinion on that.
Bill Chapman asked if this was in the best interest of the
City of Wylie to annex this.
Mr. Pappas said that he could not answer that but the
Council felt that it was best to annex.
Mrs. Donovan came forward to address the Planning and
Zonning Commission stating that we need to look at the paper
work before taking action on this. I was unaware of a
problem with St. Paul but I am aware of Lucas and there is
some discrepancy with Seis Lagos. Now we have two Cities
that are upset with us over this annexation. I would like
to check with our attorney and deannex the lake annexations
up in that area. Since we have a good line where Wylie
would cut off that could go to St. Paul or Lucas and we
wouldn ' t have the debt to get up there. As far as waiving
any rights in this area, I don ' t feel that we would be
waving any rights as far as protection or anything else
because it is so far up there.
Mr. Pappas asked Mrs. Donovan if she was aware that the
Council was in favor of this annexation.
Mrs. Donovan said yes, but the Council was not aware of the
ETJ problem. I would like to look at the option of
deannexing the lake and not annexing this property and
lettinq the land go to Lucas or St. Paul .
Bill Chapman asked Mrs. Donovan if she was representing the
opinion of the Council
Mrs. Donovan said no, but when St. Paul came forward she
wanted to inform the board that the Council was unaware of a
problem with St. Paul and that Lucas was approaching tneir
attorney on this matter.
Bill Chapman asked Mrs. Donovan what part of the lake she
wanted to deannex.
Mrs. Donovan said just the part that gives us ETJ in this
area.
Katherine Moussa came forward representing Mr. Stanley
Moussa° owner of the property. She brought Ed Wendler and
Steve Gutow of the law firm Mauro, Wendler, Sheets, Blume
and Gutow to represent them. Miss Moussa also brought Jack
Coffman, Mr. Coffman has a contract pending on 190 acres of
the proposed annexation.
Mr. Wendler came forward stating that his firm specializes
in Municipal Law and his background is also in Municipal
Law. We are a bit suprised to be here tonight because we
were not aware of a discussion with the City Council to
discuss annexation and we were unable to be represented. I
advised my client to come in voluntarily to discuss the
possibility of a Municipal Utility District with the City
before filing any paper that would create a Utility
District, and to discuss other posibilities to service this
land with water and sewage. The City of Wylie has power to
deny a Utility District in its ETJ. your attorney has
informed us of this. Subsequent to this we found out that
the City of Wylie would annex and force taxation upon Mr.
Moussa. Mr. Moussa informed the City that he would not
attempt to create a Utility District, so we are not going to
create one. Please do not forceably annex this land, he is
not yet ready to develop. He doesn t have the money yet.
The Utility District was an idea to finance running the
lines to that land. You, the City, said No, so he can ' t
develop now. Why annex this land and tax it. I don ' t feel
that now is the time. I wish you had just called and said
No. The cost of obtaining sewage service from you is more
than he can pay. If you annex this man then you haven ' t
seen the size of the cost of it. It hasn ' t been presented
here tonight. Involuntary annexation should be accompanied
by an Impact Analysis. These hundreds of acres would cost
you lots of money to improve. You don ' t know what that cost
is, it has not been presented to you tonight. My client
wants to know where the Service Plan is, according to state
law he is entitled to one. The only thing he has ever
received is a letter from Mr. Pappas. There was no vote at
the work session of the Council. It is clear that the
reason for this annexation is to kill the Utility District
and we withdraw it, don ' t annex us just because we discussed
it with you.
If you annex you will have to take more land because of a
mistake in the description. Serious questions have arisen
concerning the legality of the lake annexations to surround
small cities. The law is clear. Cities that annex people
and tax them ought to provide a service and a Plan of
Service. I have in my posession a huge, thick contract that
tells us what we would have to add to your sewer treatment
plant in order to get service from you. Money put up now
not later to expand the sewage treatment plant and run lines
and there is no guarantee that it will ever be able to
handle the sewage.
Bill Chapman asked if the Planning and Zoninq Commission had
seen a plan on this tract of land before.
Chairman Brian Chaney said yes, when they came before us to
voluntarily annex.
Bill Chapman asked Mr. Wendler if they didn ' t want to be in
the City why then did they bring that plan forward and ask
for annexation before.
Mr. WendIer said that the annexation was withdrawn because
Mr. Moussa did not have the money to run water and sewer
lines to the land.
Mr. Pappas stated that the intention of the Council was to
kill the M. U. D. They did not vote on it because that would
be making a decision in advance of the start of the
annexation. The Council simply instructed me to start the
process of the involuntary annexation, which I have done.
The work session was not a private session it was publicly
advertised that there was going to be a work session to
discuss what was presented to us on the M. U. D. and our
attorney was present to advise us. We have not done
Physical Impact Studies in this City. I am capabile of doing
them but we have not, as a past history, done them. When
Mr. Moussa was sent the Involuntary Annexation papers there
was a Service Plan connected with them and it did state that
soft services would be provided immediately it also stated
that we would be happy to discuss a specific plan to provide
other services in the area. We had hoped that the developer,
would have a predevelopment conference with us to talk
through the specifics of each one.
I would assume that the property is under an aqricultural
exemption and if it is the taxes on the property would be
less than a thousand dollars. You need to be aware that we
have gone through alot of stages with the Moussa Property.
The first stage involved a concept which tied together all
of their property" this is only a portion of it. All of the
property lays in two or three jurisdictions. Mr. Moussas
original intention was to solve his utility problem, mostly
sewer. This is important to a remote developer because if
they don ' t have sewer service the maximum density is 1 unit
per acre. The first approach which led to the thickest
document that the attorney refered to was a document
generated by the Moussas and St. Paul which stated that the
City of Wylie would take all sewage generated in St. Paul~
at three points. It had a rate schedule that we would
charge them, etc. All of these things are necessary when a
City contracts with another entity because it has to have
some form of protecting itself. It was complicated because
what we were trying to contract for was awesome. the city
of Wylie was working for and with the City of St. Paul to
provide sewer service for all of St. Paul on demand. Since
then we have revised it a couple of times and basicly what
we have come to is a reduced or limited service.
I don ' t agree with the contention that Mr. Moussa pulled his
annexation because of the cost of sewer service and the
complexity of the contract. It is difficult for me to climb
inside of Mr. Moussa 's mind and find out why he did withdraw
it. But I ask you to think for a moment, from what I have
said and from what you know about the law if he had annexed
he would be intitled to sewer and water service, he would
not need a contract. The contract is not a point anymore.
All that we would have to do is figure out how that service
would be extended.
Brian Chaney asked Mr. Pappas if the City agreed with the
statment that if Wylie denies the M. U. D. , they cannot put
one in.
Mr. Pappas stated that he would like a legal opinion on
whether or not we are protected on that . I think first of
all we should ask the Moussas to put in writing that he will
not create a M. U. D. rather than an oral communication
because as the attorney has told you they can file anyway
and we would be responsible to respond to it. It troubles
me considerably that if we have errored in the property
description, that we would have to begin the annexation
again. I would point out, that may be an opportunity which
they are looking for to annex into another City.
Chairman Brian Chaney asked if this is in our ETJ wouldn ' t
another City have to get permission from us to annex it.
Mr. Pappas stated that you would hope so but, they could go
ahead and make the annexation and argue about it later.
Fred Ouellette asked Mr. Pappas if the property was not
annexed and the M. U. D. not built, how would utilities be
provided.
Mr. Pappas said that the property owner must make a
commitment or the Cities in that area must make a
commitment. Lucas has no underground sewer, Seis Lagos has
one, St. Paul has no underground service.
Mr. Wendler said assuming that Wylie does not annex Mr.
Moussa, when he can secure the financing to pay the cost of
gettinq sewer from your City, assuming that he is in your
ETJ that would be enough, you don ' t have to annex him. When
he has the money he can get sewer service from you. He does
not have the necessary financing to do this. That is why he
came to see if he could do it with the M. U. D.
Mr. Pappas stated that at M. U. D. as operated in Geis Lagos
and as created would have the capacity to issue bonds to pay
for sewer, water, streets and essentially all of the things
associated with development, then the developer would not be
out all of those costs. The development would look like any
other development. The way we do it in Wylie the the
streets and utilities have not been bonded and there is not
an additional tax on them. The developers pay for the
improvements and as each of the lots are sold they pay the
developer back for that. In the case of the M. U. D. he could
have the M. U. D. pay those expenses and for the line
connecting them. If he were annexed he would have to pay
the development cost there just like the other developments
in Wylie and he would have to pay for the off-site line. So
it would be initally more expensive to Mr. Moussa but, he
would re-cover his cash outlay by the sale of the lots.
Mr. Wendler stated that the contract Mr. Pappas was speaking
of was with St. Paul but the person who was going to have to
pay was Mr. Moussa. That agricultural exemption is a myth,
that means that you postpone the taxes it does not take them
away. It accumulates and you pay later.
Mr. Pappas stated that you could go back and tax the
property for the past five years that it was classified with
a agricultural exemption but not used for that purpose. The
School District actually pursues this, the City of Wylie
does not.
Mr. Wendler said he did not know how this could be resolved
but, he felt that if Mr. Moussa had never informed the
Council that he was considering the M. U. D. there would never
have been a move to involuntarily annex this land. There is
some serious doubt as to whose land is in whose ETJ and
prior to annexing I think you should find out whose land it
is.
Fred Ouellette asked Mr. Wendler what type of expenses he
was referinq to if the City annexed the property.
Mr. Wendler replied that the was refering to fire protection
and Police protection. If you are forcebly annexed you have
the right to ask for services it is different from a
voluntary annexation. I don ' t belive that the City would be
prepared to furnish services at this time.
R. P. Miller asked Mr. Wendler if he had thought about the
cost of delaying this development because prices will
continually be higher and higher.
Mr. Wendler stated that Mr. Moussa does not have the money
right now.
R. P. Miller said that what this would do, in effect, is
increase the delay of the development even further.
Mr. Wendler stated that under this scenario, to be annexed
and taxed, whether it is a good idea to develop now is a
moot point because Mr. Moussa cannot pay the cost.
Mr. Jack Coffman came forward stating that he has an
interest in the property. He asked the board to sit back
and take some time on this. We have been working for awhile
on several pieces of property. One of which is adjacent to
the Seis Lagos property. I have the financing commentments
to go ahead in this area. Until a week ago I never
considered the impact of the annexation process and what an
impact it would have on us because the Seis Lagos M. U. D. has
the capacity to handle the development of this property and
that effects your decisions. One, instead of a Lift Station
in this area where you have got to pump the sewage up over a
ridge line, if it goes to Seis Lagos it goes right up the
hill this way. Our density here is about 178 units and
whatever plans someone else might have would indicate what
size line you will need to come back to the plant. This
comes back to the question, is it premature to do an
annexation process when you don ' t know what is going to
happen on one side and on the other side where there is the
potential to handle some of this property on a much less
expensive basis to the ultimate user who is the consumer?
I disagree with the Cities position as to whether or not a
M. U. D. is a good thing or at bad thing. I don ' t happen to
believe that every developer is in the business to rip-off
the public. If you figure out how, economically, we have to
raise money to do anything there is a risk reward factor
that is involved. Yes, there have been abuses in M. U. D. ' s
that is why the legislature has changed those regulations
several times over the years, to do things to avoid abuses.
They also are a vehicle that when properly used spread the
cost of water and sewer. The cost is 70 percent of the
actual cost and it is spread over a period of years. Those
bonds are sold at a much lower interest rate than you can
borrow money today. If the price is factored into the lot
then the consumer has to pay that money up front. On the
other side the bonds may be sold at a yeld to allow the
consumer to have a roof over his head at a lower front end
cost. What is wrong with giving him that choice? The cost
to all residents in Seis Lagos will will go down about 50 to
60 percent from what they are paying now because their
existing plant was designed to handle about 1500 units, we
don t plan to have that many in the whole development. I
would ask you not to go through with this annexation. We
don ' t have a problem in working with people on a long term
basis, looking at coordinating plans for services out there.
But maybe that is what needs to be done versus putting a qun
to someones head. I feel this separate from what the
Moussas feel simply because this came up at the point where
we are a few weeks away from closing on the property. The
only reason we had the opportunity to buy this land is
because it is extremly difficult today to put together a
development. We are proud of what we intend to do and we
intend to bring it foreward to Wylie, St. Paul and Lucas to
look at because we are not sure which ones we are supposed
to bring it in to and we don ' t have anything to hide.
On this particular portion of land you would be land locked
from providing sanitation services, it ' s hard for us to be
too excited about being potentialy locked into that
situation. We are aware, if we were under the City of
Wylie, you can allow the Seis Lagos district to service that
land with water and sewer but, why should we be forced to
go through that project? In order for you to get a police
car or a fire truck into this area, on the schedule which we
are planning to develop, you would have to come through an
area in which you have no jurisdiction at all and that is
Seis Lagos. There are no roads into this area. We do not
intend to develop access from this way. I ask you once
again to take this under some serious advisement.
Katherine Moussa stated that Mr. Moussa was personally
disappointed in the actions of the City on receiving a
letter for forced annexation, particularly in light of the
fact that we came here ahead of time and advised the City of
our intent to create a M. U. D. In addition to that those
workshop meetings are posted on the door of the City however
many hours in advance, we have spent a great deal of time
contacting the City and making them aware of our intentions
with the property. At that time we were understanding that
we were spending a great deal of money retaining Mr.
Wendler 's firm and doing studies on the property and we
wanted to come to the City before we went too far and spent
more money. The City held a workshop and we did not check
the door of City Hall to see if there was going to be a
workshop in our behalf or to discuss, among other, things,
the proposal that we had made to the City. The C i t y 's
attorney was there, financial advisors and other individuals
who had been briefed and studied the Utility District issue
and were there to comment on our proposed district. We were
not there to either listen to it or to defend our stance on
it we were completly unknowledgable of it.
My father is not here tonight because he has done a great
deal of development in Wylie and we have done alot to
improve the quality of life here by our development. We
have invested alot of time and money in this area. It was a
shock to him to receive a forced annexation letter and even
more of a shock that when we withdrew the M. U. D. the City
has continued the process of forced annexation. He wanted
me to make the statment of how personally disappointed that
he was in the actions of the City and that this could not
be worked out beforehand except perhaps in this public form.
At this time we do not feel that it is appropriate for this
property to be annexed. So he (Mr. Moussa) wants me to ask
in his behalf that the property not be forcibly annexed and
to be able to solve whatever issues there are prior to
annexing it, until it makes since both for the City and for
US. Thank you.
There being no further questions or opposition Chairman
Brian Chaney closed the public hearing and brought this
before the board for discussion.
Mr. Pappas stated that there is a requirement as the
attorney pointed out, to provide services, the time period
is 3 years. If Wylie wanted, it could even allow Wylie
Northeast Water Supply to provide the water and Seis Lagos
to provide the utilities as Mr. Coffman has already said.
There are a number of options. The next thing is that we
already fight fires in the Seis Lagos, St. Paul area and we
routinely send police officers up there as backups to the
Sheriff 's Department. It is the purpose of the public
hearings which were listed on the letter that the Moussa 's
received, specifically the dates times and places were on
the letter, for them to come forward and present the kind of
presentation that they have given tonight. They have not
been denied their day in court. They have been specifically
told when their day would be.
If the 645 acres were to someday be developed at the average
density of 4 units per acre at the value of $100, 000. 00 per
unit the resulting property taxes from that development
would be $1 , 290, 000. 00. The current property taxes from the
City of Wylie are $980, 000. 00 per year. It is my
professional opinion that if we can provide the kind of
services that we provide today to the City of Wylie for
$980. 00O. 00 we could certainly have a fire station and a
satellite police station and if we wanted to, a library in
this area since it is obviously more money than the City of
Wylie receives now. I think those services could be
provided reasonably.
Involved in this 3 years to provide services, we need to
keep in mind that there is an awful lot of complexity to
that law.
Brian Chaney stated that if the legal description was not
correct would it be possible for us to advise the Council
and have the staff check into it later or what?
Mr. Pappas stated that the Staff would have to investigate
that. The attorney is certianly sharp enough to realize
that if there is an error in that then we will have to
correct it. Whether it has to begin the cycle again all the
way from the start or whether we can correct that on the
final night of the annexation, we will have to look at that.
ken Mauk asked when the appropriate time to annex this
property would be.
Mr. Wendler stated that at a time when Mr. Moussa is
proposing to develop. In addition to that. I would think
that getting into a struggle over annexing land that may or
may not be yours, those agreements should be worked out
instead of walking off and annexing land that might not be
yours. When the gentleman proposes to develop his land.
Putting him into the City prior to then is of no benefit to
the City and doesn ' t add one width of protection. That land
is either in your ETJ or it is not. If you annex now and it
is not, the annexation is invalid. Your protected already,
annexing gives you no further protection.
Mr. Pappas stated that he would disagree with that strongly,
the protection that you do not have is zoning and any single
use could be started and could be effective prior to you
being able to put in an annexation process. The best
example is a mobile home park or a wrecking yard.
Subdivision is not occuring, you start you annexation on it
and the property owner can qo out there and get enough
improvements in the ground to get a very nifty case of
qrandfathering before you can get your annexation
accomplished. There is a significant difference in the
authority that you have by annexing.
Mr. Wendler stated that if that is the case you should annex
your entire ETJ today because someone out there might do the
wrong thing. That is not a good reason to annex several
hundred acres.
R. P. Miller said that as long as this property is owned by
Mr. Moussa he would not allow a wrecking yard to come in and
drag down his property values.
Mr. Pappas said that was speculation. This body has already
approved zoning for this property and the last time I saw
the proposal it was not the same as the zoning that this
body recommended` so it changes. Candidly speaking, from my
perspective, it appeared that what Mr. Moussa wanted was
sewer service for his property. He wanted to get that
through St. Paul. What St. Paul did i make Mr. Mouss a d o
the business of St. Paul . Mr. Moussa has never asked them
to let him go and do business individually with Wylie and
release him from their jurisdiction. Now, when we have a
solution that will do the thing that we were led to believe
that Mr. Moussa wanted. Which is sewer service for his
development and to develop by standards and categories that
Wylie would approve, when he is on the threshold of having
that, he doesn ' t want to be annexed. Why, I contend to you
that the reason why is that he wants to subdivide the
property which is in our ETJ and would require a
subdivision, and sell a portion of it to this man who wants
to develop it into Seis Lagos.
R. P. Miller asked Mr. Pappas what the financial impact would
be to Mr. Moussa if we annexed that immediately but he did
not develop for several years.
Mr. Pappas replied that he would have to pay taxes on it but
I don ' t know what his appraised value is so I can ' t
calculate it .
Mr. Pappas stated that the thing that Mr. Moussa objects to
is that he has a buyer that doesn ' t want to be in Wylie and
he has not subdivided the property.
Mr. Coffman stated that he objected to the statment that he
doesn ' t want to be in Wylie. He said that it is not the
appropriate time. " I have never stood up here and said that
I don t want to be in Wylie. "
Mr. Pappas said that the contention was made to him by Mr.
Moussa that if the property was annexed that you (Mr.
Coffman) would not be interested in buying the property.
Mr. Coffman said that in a meeting between Mr. Pappas and
himself about a year ago Mr. Pappas told him that he could
not put in concrete streets without a curb and gutter.
Mr. Pappas replied that does not meet our standards.
Mr. Coffman said that they would like to go ahead with a
fine plan and bring it before the people. It brings an
excellant recreational facility~ a golf course, that is
accessable to the people and a quality development
environment around it in place, and bring it before the
planning bodies prior to having to deal with a problem that
we haven ' t anticipated would be a problem.
Mr. Pappas asked Mr. Coffman if he had intended to buy that
piece of property without approaching Wylie for a
subdivision.
Mr. Coffman said that he did not have a problem with buying
that piece of property because there is a good question as
to whether that piece of property or part of it is in
Wylies ' jurisdiction or Lucass ' jurisdiction. Frankly we
felt that the plan is strong enough that it would not
matter.
Mr. Pappas said that this property obviously lies in the ETJ
of some City. You must have this subdivision approved by
that City. Have you approached anyone for an official
approval of the subdivision?
Mr. Coffman said no, I have not approached them. I have
developed in two or three different states and I have a
development in Plano that is one of the prettier ones and I
don t think I am going to have a problem dealing with the
citizens or planning commission or city council in bring
forth the kind of development that we have always done in
the past and that we intend to do on this one.
Mr. Pappas said that the point he was making was that if you
subdivide in the State of Texas and you are in anyones ' ETJ
YOU must have their approval . When you plan to buy a
portion of that property you are subdividing.
Mr. Coffman said that depended on how the property was
bought.
Mr. Pappas asked if it was described as being one tract of
land.
Mr. Coffman said that there were several tracts and he is
buying whole tracts of land.
Brian Chaney said that he was concerned because some of the
developments in the lake area were substandard and we
annexed to have control over what happens in that area. So
that we would not have mobile homes in areas that could have
been some high quality developments that the City could be
proud of.
The Moussas brought a plan for this property before us, we
approved it, and it was taken off of the Council agenda and
was never acted upon. My concern is that with what is
before us tonight, by annexing it I don ' t see any
prohibitive cost to the land owner until development. My
question is, what are they trying to do in that area that we
will not have control over if we do not annex this? Mr.
Coffman said that if this is full tracts of land, then he
can purchase it without subdividing. I assume it will be
tied up in court later on about whos ETJ it is in. If we
take action toniqht then we can go with the original plans
or revised plans of what we have already approved and ensure
that the development meets the Cities standards. If we deny
it then it will be left open for court in the City with ETJ
rights,
Bill Chapman stated that under the circumstances he was not
in favor of the annexation because they don ' t want to be in
Wvlie.
Fred Ouellette asked Mr. Pappas if the property was not
annexed and they decided to subdivide would they have to
come before this board.
Mr. Pappas said that if there are subtracts out there then
he could buy off those tracts and they could be sold on a
tract by tract basis to the developer of Seis Lagos and that
act would not be subdividing.
Katherine Moussa said that the property was in 6 tracts.
Mr. Pappas said that the property could transfer because
they were already existing legal tracts. So, Mr. Coffman
can buy them but if they want to develop them into a normal
subdivision they would have to go to some jurisdiction to
have the subdivision plans reviewed. We could do an ETJ
review for streets, size of lots, size of lines and that
sort of thing but not for zoning.
Ben Scholz said that the first question is do we want it. It
is located, land wise, so that it is not right next door.
It is awkward in that relationship for us to get to inorder
to provide police and fire protection. I realize; however,
that we already provide some services to it. Since the
people don ' t want in the City I would' have to concur with
them that it not be annexed.
Bill Chapman stated that he didn ' t see that the City would
really have any advantage by taking them in.
R. P. Miller said it seemed logical that the development that
they want to make should qo with Seis Lagos since it is
adjacent to it and it will become a part of it.
Would they have to conform to the standards of our streets
if it is in our jurisdiction so that this part of the
development would be different from Seis Lagos now.
Mr. Pappas said the answer to that was really quite clear
regardless of the confusion, if you come to me and ask me
what the standards are for the City of Wylie the only thing
I can give you is the ordinances because the Council and
well as you would have the right when reviewing the plat to
amend the ordinance to allow that to happen because they are
the Council . My job is to tell people what the current
ordinances are.
Katherine Moussa said right now the property is owned by Mr.
Moussa and if Mr. Coffman does not buy the property there
will be no development. We are not planning to develop in
conjuncition with Seis Lagos. Mr. Coffman is here as an
interested party, as he well should be° he has 190 acres
under contract. The fact still remains that my father owns
the property and at this time we personally are not planning
a development. Jack is a varriable in our plans if he does
not buy the property then I do not know how we would be able
to afford to bring the services under Wylie 's rule to make
it an affordable development because at this point in time
the lots would be out of market value.
If Jack buys the property and he wants to subdivide then he
needs to talk to you about it. Jack is here tonight because
we told him that we were not going to negotiate his plans
for a subdivision since we have no plans to develop in
conjuncition with Seis Lagos. That is his business and if
he buys the property then he can come before you on his own
time, with his lawyers and talk to you about it.
The market has changed and that is part of the reason why
the old zoning plans were withdrawn. The old plans had a
great deal of commercial and at this point it might be 20
years before the amount of commercial that we had in that
plan might ever be used. That is wny we pulled the zoning.
My father does not feel that this is the appropriate time to
annex this property. We thought that we had an answer and
in trying to second guess the City we thought that we had a
viable plan that would help us finance it and get services
to the area. The City said no, it is not good for us. We
said fine, we would keep looking. That is where we are. We
have someone that wants to buy a portion of the land and we
are not hiding anything from him. He knows that he will
have to come here and subdivide, figure out whos ETJ it is
in and if he wants to do that then he can come here and do
that.
Currently there is about 320 acres which we own that we are
not sure when or how we are going to develop . We do not
feel that this is the appropriate time for the property to
be annexed.
Ben Scholz asked Katherine Moussa for what other reason
would she not want to be annexed other than the possible
sale of the land.
Katherine Moussa replied, because of the taxation on the
property. If the taxes amount to only a thousand dollars
that is still alot of money and the property is appraised at
for a substantial amount of money and the rollback taxes
will be substantial . Also, at this time we don ' t know what
we are qoing to do with the property. The old plans have a
lot of commerical and that is not a viable zoning in this
market. To be honest knowbody really knows what the market
is going to do. It is my understanding that Texas has not
seen this kind of market in decades. Mr. Coffman thinks
that he is going to buy 190 acres of land and knows what he
is going to do with it but, we don ' t.
Bill Chapman made a motion to reject the annexation. R. P.
Miller seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-1 .
ITEM CENTER
PHASE OWThis property is located between West FM544 an
S. Hwy. /8, and is being developed by Mr. Ken Swayze. The
Engineering Department has reviewed the plat and recommends
approval .
Mr. Pappas explained that this is a subdivision which is
taking a large commercial tract, putting in the streets and
subdividing into 2 lots. Before it is presented to the City
Council language should be added to the effect that the City
is protected on all of our plat and perimeter street fees at
the time that the large lots are finally developed. He is
phasing his property on a large lot basis and there is
nothing wrong with that except that because it is
commericial you may not get the chance to get all of your
collection of fees when the lots are developed because
subdivision may not occur and all of our ordinances are
triggered on subdivision. We have no problem with your
approval of this because it is something that we have done
before and it does meet all of our standards so long as in
your motion you add the phrase that at the time of ultimate
subdivision or development they will pay all of the costs
associated with the subdivision for each individual lot.
Chairman Brian Chaney said when the commission previously
looked at this there was some concern with the alignment of
the streets.
Mr. Pappas said that had been solved.
Fred Ouellette asked how they are going to cross the
railroad tracts.
Mr. Pappas said they would install a railroad crossing.
Fred Ouellette said a railroad crossing was not shown on the
plat and asked whos responsibility is it to build that road
across the site.
Mr. Pappas said it was the responsibility of the developer.
Fred Ouellette said he could not see how they would get the
roao across there. ! Me railraod tracts are probably 8 to 10
feet above the elevation of the road.
Mr. Pappas said they would raise the elevation of the road.
Vou could deny the plat because you don ' t want that road
there.
Chairman Brian Chaney asked if they could decide not to make
that a through street to Hwy. 78.
Mr. Pappas said they could.
R. P. Miller said he would like to see the traffic enter on to
Hwy 544 at a controlled intersection .
Mr. Pappas said the correction should have been done at the
preliminary plat stage.
Chairman Brian Chaney pointed out that this street would one
day be a major collector and would be a controlled
intersection.
Bill Chapman said we should require the street to intersect
with Hwy. 78.
Mr. Pappas said you could require him to make that crossing.
Mr. Swayze wants to go before the City Council to ask the
City to snare in the cost of the crossing since it will not
benifit his development alone. He has no other property
owner to split the cost with. The adjacent property owner
is the State of Texas and they won ' t participate. If you
want it indicated on the plat that it is the responsibility
of the development I think that you can do that. The only
thing you need to do is have a notation in there that allows
Ilia! to qo ahead with his development and move people in,
even though that part of it may not be complete. The reason
I say that is because the quickest railroad crossing that we
have yet had approved took a little over a year and it would
not be fair to hold up the acceptance of his development
until he had that installed because under our subdivision
regulations he could not use any of that property until all
of the improvements were in. If you don ' t put some special
language in there then you are automaiticly condemning him
to the non-use of that property for over a year.
Bill Chapman said if the developer knows this before he goes
into the development then he can start making arrangements
for that now cant ' he.
Mr. Pappas said Mr. Santry may have already started the
correspondence but it would still take a year or so to
obtain approval . The developer could do this kind of
development and be free to sell the lots in 90 days.
R. P. Miller said as long as the crossing is underway that
was fine with him.
Mr. Faires said you should keep in mind that the railroad
has the option of saying no.
Chairman Brian Chaney asked if the City obtained approval
from the Railroad Company to build the crossing how can we
be sure that Mr. Swayze will install it.
Mr. Pappas said the loop hole is that the developer might be
able to put in the development and when it came time to
install the crossing he might no longer be the land owner.
The only way the Railroad Company will approve a crossing is
for the City to request it and then they send a team down to
estimate the cost. Once that is done they make the City
sign an agreement that they will stand good for the cost and
then the City has to go to the developer and make him sign a
contract to reimburse the City. The Railroad Company won ' t
do business with a developer. After all of this is
accomplished the Railroad Company will send their people
down to do the improvements.
Chairman Brian Chaney asked if we could ask the developer-
to escrow fees for that, like we do for the roads.
Mr. Faires stated that just the signalization alone cost
$100, 000. 00. That is alot of money in escrow.
Chairman Brian Chaney said the developer would have to pay
the cost anyway. If he is no longer the owner wouldn ' t the
City be responsible for that money?
R. P. Miller asked if we could obtain a performance bond from
the developer.
Mr. Pappas said he didn ' t think that you could obtain a
performance bond for that type of thing. With the questions
that you have raised tonight I think that you would be
better off not taking any action because there is no
representative present to answer your questions. However,
it is obvious by the plat that if he didn ' t want the
crossinq he could have saved alot of money by puttinq a loop
or even no road at all instead of having this road go right
up to the tracks. He has said that he intends to put in the
crossing and he knows how much money it costs. The example
that he has given to me is that he doesn ' t mind paying for
75 % of the cost but he believes that the City should bare
25% of the cost. I told him that in order to get a
consideration like that, which is not in line with our
current policy. he needs to go before the Council . He said
that he understood this because he is a former Council
Member from quite a while back.
Bill Chapman made a motion to table this item. Vice-Chairman
Ben Scholz seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0.
ITEM NO. INW�_ ��A�__F��� ENTER
PHASE TWO This property is located between West FM544 and
S. Hwy. 78, and is being developed by Mr. Ken Swayze. The
Engineering Department has reviewed this plat and recommends
it for approval .
Vice-Chairman Ben Scholz made a motion to table this item.
Ken Mauk seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0.
ITEM NO. 6 - ADJOURN - R. P. Miller made a motion to adjourn
the March o, 1987, Regular Meeting of the Planning and
Zoning Commission. Jay Davis seconded the motion. Motion
carried 7-0.
------------------------------------
Brian Chaney, Chairman
Planning & Zoning Commission
Respectfully Submitted:
________ _____ ------------
Amanda Maples, Secretary
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF WYLIE, TEXAS
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF WYLIE, TEXAS ANNEXING THE
HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED TERRITORY INTO THE CITY OF WYLIE,
TEXAS, AND EXTENDING THE BOUNDARY LIMITS OF THE CITY SO AS
TO INCLUDE SAID HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PROPERTY WITHIN THE
CITY LIMITS AND GRANTING TO ALL INHABITANTS AND OWNERS OF
SAID PROPERTY, ALL THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF OTHER
CITIZENS AND BINDING ALL INHABITANTS BY ALL THE ORDINANCES,
ACTS, RESOLUTIONS AND REGULATIONS OF THE CITY; PROVIDING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
SAID ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wylie, Texas, finds
that the hereinafter described territory is contiguous and
adjacent to the corporate limits of the City of Wylie; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a service plan for the area,
a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, after notice was duly given, public hearings on the
proposed annexation were held by the City Council all in
compliance with Article 970-A, Vernon' s Annotated Civil
Statutes of the State of Texas; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has concluded that such area
should be annexed into and made a part of the City of Wylie,
Texas :
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WYLIE, TEXAS:
SECTION 1 . That the following described territory be, and
the same is hereby, annexed into and made a part of the
corporate limits of the City of Wylie, Texas, and the same
shall hereafter be included within the territorial limits of
said City, and the inhabitants thereof shall hereafter be
entitled to all rights and privileges of other citizens of
1
the City, and shall be bound by the ordinances, acts,
resolutions and regulations of the City of Wylie, Texas.
Said territory hereby annexed being described as follows:
58 .9613 acres out of the Francisco de la Pina Survey,
Collin County Abstract 688 , more commonly known as
Wylie Ranch East Addition. Legally described as:
BEGINNING at the Southeast corner of the above
mentioned 186 .10 acre tract, said point being on the
centerline of Old State Highwy 78;
THENCE, North 89 degrees, 37 minutes WEst along said
centerline of Old State Highway 78 , 1450 .0 ft.
THENCE, North 0 degrees, 05 minutes West , 1755 .63 feet
to the beginning of a curve to the left;
THENCE, Northwesterly along said curve to the left
having a radius of 420.0 feet, a central angle of 32
degrees, 23 minutes, 35 seconds and a tangent of 121 .99
feet, an arc distance of 237 .45 feet to a point of
reverse curve;
THENCE, Northerly along a curve to the right having a
radius of 480 .0 feet, a central angle of 32 degrees, 28
minutes, 35 seconds and a tangent of 139 .80 feet, an
arc distance of 272 .07 feet to a point on the South
right-of-way line of State Highway 78 (120 .0 feet
wide) ;
THENCE East along said South right-of-way line of State
Highway 78, 60 .0 feet to the beginning of a curve to
the left having a tangent bearing of SOUTH at this
point .
THENCE Southeasterly along said curve to the left
having a radius of 420.0 feet, a central angle of 32
degrees, 28 minutes, 35 seconds and a tangent of 122 .32
feet , an arc distance of 238 .06 feet to a point of
reverse curve;
THENCE, Southeasterly along a curve to the right having
a radius of 480 .0 feet, a central angle of 32 degrees,
23 minutes, 35 seconds and a tangent of 139 .42 feet an
arc distance of 271.38 feet.
THENCE South 89 degrees, 37 minutes East, 1390 .0 feet
to a point on the East line of the above mentioned
186 .10 acre tract;
THENCE South 0 degrees, 05 minutes East along said East
line of the 186.10 acre tract, 1750 .0 feet to the PLACE
OF BEGINNING and containing 58.9613 acres of land.
SECTION 2 . It is the intention of the City to annex only
that territory which is legally subject to being annexed by
the City and should any portion of the above described
territory be not subject to legal annexation by the City of
Wylie, Texas, such fact shall not prevent the City from
2
annexing such portion of said territory which is subject to
legal annexation by the City of Wylie, Texas. Therefore, if
any provision or portion of the territory herein described
is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such provision or portion of land shall be deemed as
separate, distinct and independent and such holding shall
not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this
ordinance or portions of land annexed by this ordinance.
SECTION 3 . This ordinance shall take effect from and after
its passage as the law in such cases provides.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of Wylie, Texas,
this the day of 19
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
3
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF WYLIE, TEXAS
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF WYLIE, TEXAS ANNEXING THE
HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED TERRITORY INTO THE CITY OF WYLIE,
TEXAS, AND EXTENDING THE BOUNDARY LIMITS OF THE CITY SO AS
TO INCLUDE SAID HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PROPERTY WITHIN THE
CITY LIMITS AND GRANTING TO ALL INHABITANTS AND OWNERS OF
SAID PROPERTY, ALL THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF OTHER
CITIZENS AND BINDING ALL INHABITANTS BY ALL THE ORDINANCES,
ACTS, RESOLUTIONS AND REGULATIONS OF THE CITY; PROVIDING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
SAID ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wylie, Texas, finds
that the hereinafter described territory is contiguous and
adjacent to the corporate limits of the City of Wylie; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a service plan for the area,
a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, after notice was duly given, public hearings on the
proposed annexation were held by the City Council all in
compliance with Article 970-A, Vernon' s Annotated Civil
Statutes of the State of Texas; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has concluded that such area
should be annexed into and made a part of the City of Wylie,
Texas :
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WYLIE, TEXAS:
SECTION 1 . That the following described territory be, and
the same is hereby, annexed into and made a part of the
corporate limits of the City of Wylie, Texas, and the same
shall hereafter be included within the territorial limits of
said City , and the inhabitants thereof shall hereafter be
entitled to all rights and privileges of other citizens of
4 1
the City, and shall be bound by the ordinances, acts,
resolutions and regulations of the City of Wylie, Texas.
Said territory hereby annexed being described as follows:
Tract 7 consisting of 4 .0 acres out of the I . & G.N.
Ry. Co. Survey, Collin County Abstract 1059
SECTION 2. It is the intention of the City to annex only
that territory which is legally subject to being annexed by
the City and should any portion of the above described
territory be not subject to legal annexation by the City of
Wylie, Texas, such fact shall not prevent the City from
annexing such portion of said territory which is subject to
legal annexation by the City of Wylie, Texas. Therefore, if
any provision or portion of the territory herein described
is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such provision or portion of land shall be deemed as
separate, distinct and independent and such holding shall
not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this
ordinance or portions of land annexed by this ordinance.
SECTION 3 . This ordinance shall take effect from and after
its passage as the law in such cases provides.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of Wylie, Texas,
this the day of 19 •
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
2
,.i
•
3. GOOSE SURVEY
A-178
liway •
MACS !
7•1-P/M
•
•
LAKEVIEW MANORS
*3
•
•
WILLIAMS SPURGIN SURVEY - 2
.—woTwcltr
A--808r'o
QOAII. CREEK
.ADO._ W. D. PENNY SURVEY
•A
•
A-696
Oji
•
: 4+12
NFLm/ %T.J'Hv .ffAc
3 4 WE. TIujfT O,S Ac
iWATMEArT PAWS f doPPt to WI
• b W1'Csg/SD .CfAC
4 rAr/A4f IRvP ,NC. I,'d Ac
.�.�.►v�N+i 10 Lfvi ACIAIDE .12 AC
iCalk
IL w•L, TI'L T Ac.
M. PHEALAN SURVEY 5 ,,o,,e I 11 Ac
A-6 9 6
8 \el
7
• CLEM
Mc*[v!
4A c
•
D. W. WILLIAMS SURVEY
A-1021
1
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF WYLIE, TEXAS
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF WYLIE, TEXAS ANNEXING THE
HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED TERRITORY INTO THE CITY OF WYLIE,
TEXAS, AND EXTENDING THE BOUNDARY LIMITS OF THE CITY SO AS
TO INCLUDE SAID HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED PROPERTY WITHIN THE
CITY LIMITS AND GRANTING TO ALL INHABITANTS AND OWNERS OF
SAID PROPERTY, ALL THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF OTHER
CITIZENS AND BINDING ALL INHABITANTS BY ALL THE ORDINANCES,
ACTS, RESOLUTIONS AND REGULATIONS OF THE CITY; PROVIDING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
SAID ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wylie, Texas, finds
that the hereinafter described territory is contiguous and
adjacent to the corporate limits of the City of Wylie; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a service plan for the area,
a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, after notice was duly given, public hearings on the
proposed annexation were held by the City Council all in
compliance with Article 970-A, Vernon' s Annotated Civil
Statutes of the State of Texas; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has concluded that such area
should be annexed into and made a part of the City of Wylie,
Texas :
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WYLIE, TEXAS:
SECTION 1 . That the following described territory be, and
the same is hereby, annexed into and made a part of the
corporate limits of the City of Wylie, Texas, and the same
shall hereafter be included within the territorial limits of
said City, and the inhabitants thereof shall hereafter be
entitled to all rights and privileges of other citizens of
7
the City, and shall be bound by the ordinances , acts,
resolutions and regulations of the City of Wylie, Texas.
Said territory hereby annexed being described as follows:
Tract 33-9 consisting of 42 acres; Tract 33 consisting
of 1 acre; Tract 40 consisting of 1 .87 acres; Tract 24
consisting of 2.993 acres; Tract 28 consisting of 5
acres; Tract 29 consisting of 5 acres; Tract 23
consisting of 4 .45 acres; Tract 32 consisting of 1 acre
and Tract 25 consisting of 3 . 92 acres; and Tract 26
consisting of 7 .71 acres, for a total of 74.943 acres
out of the W. Penny Survey, Collin County Abstract 696 .
SECTION 2. It is the intention of the City to annex only
that territory which is legally subject to being annexed by
the City and should any portion of the above described
territory be not subject to legal annexation by the City of
Wylie, Texas, such fact shall not prevent the City from
annexing such portion of said territory which is subject to
legal annexation by the City of Wylie, Texas. Therefore, if
any provision or portion of the territory herein described
is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such provision or portion of land shall be deemed as
separate, distinct and independent and such holding shall
not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this
ordinance or portions of land annexed by this ordinance.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect from and after
its passage as the law in such cases provides.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of Wylie, Texas,
this the day of 19
APPROVED:
MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ATTEST:
City Attorney Carolyn Jones, City Secretary
z? 2
. . •
•• . . .
. • ; •
. .
, • .14,1..40(11,11.0URVEY .
..I . kin
. .
•
. . • . .
. -•
. , • .
•
. i . I . s.s•aa " . • .
OM
i - •T00
. illIMIN i ..
, i • .
. •
4 , . :4.2114C
?LAKEVIEW MANORS. •
• lox
LAKEVIEW'MANORS
. ... ..... . ... . ..... . .. ...
. .1.4.. • JI.4,WEST SURVEY
.......
. •
AT1QES
• . .
. • .• ••
. V N\\ NANlAaW/0 ... 13 20.
•\ . •
• llyshosati Ow 14 As . \ .
31) oiroa it 0 MP*ftiAl
• A 20-40 1.if Al : •
.
.•ibtAta "%di •
Nos-ild 2.414c . . Mess44
WO •
Moilve R.
. . • mil,' ....—=..
=atelr. CO. eURV.EY1 'I . Ir ...14" • MOO CIAPEVIA1 .
111111.11111-111.111111.— .059 •• *nth' •
MASSY lailimi mama,. 111q•440 23.M AR.
• • s.tiss • t*4
20.13 M. . 1/.4 P6%.
.• pi.i./010 . • au.
. . %ma. : • 40
•rashytwil# . • V 9 i • • •
. • 4‘it. . .
a 4 Nis AC i
• sr;•wf"laws Pr
•
.- 0 •
•9 jawda... •-• PI
. ug Ohe . •
• •
f• 0: atIni .. . ?
11101011 ••• • i • SE •
L lot isnie • iiit daft
satr•a• :rag . .' 144 S AG
. ' 44411613 • OAS •- Mogi*
MESS • •
37 tait 49 TRUETT suave
• • _ I
A • *.9 y • . . . -A.,,-9-20
3 cog. ow
. 8 tam Us $ U.-SW elt:28
MP , 111 At
, . •
•
MIK •: •
..4'111111111111111111111111
•
' .
. .
D 1411.1.1AM8 SURVEY • bie•
.A710241. •
•
. 34 JAMS ASPONOtA •
WWI
• Le f As
•
. • • S. SHELBY SURVEY 1 . . • . . •
• . • • • . • A-1820 i 1 1%' --2. . 4
. . -
• . . . . . CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT
_ ____ •••••••••1•• /IN I IN COUNTY t SCALE : 1* - 400'
•
2
A
APPLICATION
TO
i Board of Adjustment and Appeals (Building) ORDINANCE 83-15
. Board of Adjustment and Appeals (Zoning) ORDINANCE 81-5
gm Planning and Zoning Commission ORDINANCE 81-5
NAME RDM Development (Wylie I) Joint Venture-
ADDRESS 2608 Ave K, Suite 101, Plano, Texas, 75074, (214) 423-4625
LOT BLOCK •
SUBDIVISION RUSTIC OAKS, Section One, Phase Four
BASIS OF APPLICATION:
1 Interpretation
I1 Special exception for use or development
(-D Variance
11111 Rezoning
Exception to Building Code
EXPLANATION:
To Rezone a portion of Section One, Phase Four, Rustic
Oaks, from current "SF-3" and "2F", to "PD" Planned Development
District.
SIGNITURE of APPLICANT
J rr D
DATE
Must be accompanied by filing fee of $ $225.00 fc
;1 kr .
Received:
Date:
CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER / )
'
'
~
^
M E M 0 R A N DQM
. .
DATE: �� ����� ��
. . ` . , ~ /
/ . ~
TO: Gus H. Pappas, City Manager
FROM: I . W. Santry, Jr. , P. E. , City Engineer-
SUBJECT: Plat and/or Plans Approval
V=IsTGr A-r-Zz P14A-56- �L
The material attached is approved by the Engineering
Department as being complete and acceptable for placement on
the next appropriate agenda.
[] Preliminary Plat to Planning and Zoning
[] Preliminary Plat to City Council
[] Final Plat to Planning and Zoning
GGinal Plat to City Council
^�� -
���
�onstruction Plans to City Council for
construction approval only
[] Final Plat to City Council for subdivision
acceptance along with final inspection statement
COMMENTS: 4 PF—a^ji-^_
----- ---'-
.`����..... ���. ��
��������.`�������� `
IWS/am
cc: Public Works Director
Code Enforcement Officer
Subdivision File
Chronological File
� �
'
`
M E M 0 R A N D U M
.
DATE: .� �— yc� �� 7'
-- .�~- . ~ /
. ' ,
TO: Gus H. Pappas, City Manager
FROM: I . W. Santry, Jr. , P.E. , City Engineer
SUBJECT: Plat and/or Plans Approval
The material attached is approved by the Engineering
Department as being complete and acceptable for placement on
the next appropriate agenda.
[] Preliminary Plat to Planning and Zoning
O Preliminary Plat to City Council
[] Final Plat to Planning and Zoning
Winal Plat to City Council
��
^��ponstruction Plans to City Council for
construction approval only
�
[] Final Plat to City Council for subdivision
acceptance along with final inspection statement
COMMENTS: 4 /- u8cc -��
.............._
IWS/am
cc: Public Works Director
Code Enforcement Officer-
Subdivision File
Chronological File
/ `��