McKinney council upholds denial of Townsend addition final plat over water‑line and turn‑lane concerns

The McKinney City Council unanimously upheld staff’s denial on Feb. 5 of a final plat for Lot 1, Block A of the Townsend Addition, a roughly 5‑acre parcel in the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, after staff and council members said the applicant had not met required conditions for utilities and road improvements.

City Planning Director Jennifer Arnold told the council the application had returned after prior conditional approval and that staff’s position remained unchanged: “Staff is recommending disapproval of this plat.” She said the applicant is requesting variances — including a request to forgo a master‑plan water‑line easement and escrow and an appeal of an engineering decision to not require turn lanes — that staff could not support.

Randy Vickers of Townsend Group, the applicant, told the council the property already contains “a water easement across our property” and said the project has been affected by a separate state decision: “We got the letter basically decertifying us saying that McKinney was not gonna bring sewer or water to our property.” Vickers asked the council to weigh the practical effect of dedicating an easement when, he said, the city’s utilities might not be extended to the site.

Gary Graham, the city’s director of engineering, explained the city’s typical practice and the rationale for the staff position. “When we are reviewing plats as a staff, they're not discretionary items. They are ministerial, meaning if they meet the requirements of our subdivision ordinance and development standards, we have an obligation to approve them,” Graham said, adding that in this case the applicant had not met the technical requirements.

Council discussion focused on safety and cost risk. Council members noted that Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) plans for Highway 5 could require new turn lanes but that the state’s construction timeline is long and funding uncertain. Council members asked staff to pursue a written commitment from TxDOT about replacement of existing pavement and turn‑lane construction; staff said they would seek a letter to clarify TxDOT’s plans.

After public comment and discussion, Councilman Cloutier moved to close the public hearing and uphold staff’s denial. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

The council’s action left the applicant without the variances it sought. Staff and council members noted the applicant may pursue annexation and other steps if it wants future review under city standards; however, no next‑step approvals were made at the Feb. 5 meeting.