Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Post Oak Estates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends denial of Post Oak Estates preliminary plat, citing major engineering and dedication problems
Summary
Parker’s planning commission voted to recommend denial of the Post Oak Estates preliminary plat, following a city engineer’s itemized critique that cited an access easement in place of a dedicated right-of-way, a cul-de-sac over the 600-foot limit, missing off-site drainage easements, and an abbreviated owner's dedication.
The Parker Planning and Zoning Commission voted Nov. 13 to recommend that city council deny the Post Oak Estates preliminary plat after the city’s engineering consultant identified multiple, substantive noncompliances with the city’s subdivision regulations.
Gary Hendricks of Birkhoff, Hendricks & Carter told commissioners the plat shows an unnamed street as an access easement rather than a dedicated right of way and noted that under the city’s subdivision rules an access easement must be wholly owned by an HOA lot. “That in of itself is reason to deny this plat,” Hendricks said, adding that the cul-de-sac length exceeds the 600-foot maximum and that the plat lacks required off-site drainage easements and individual-lot grading plans.
Hendricks also flagged the owner’s dedication as “highly abbreviated” and legally ambiguous, saying the dedication alternately offered public dedication or city acceptance and that ambiguity is inconsistent with normal owner certificates.
Developer counsel Misty Ventura disputed the conclusion and said the application was submitted with a public-way classification and that a plan for future connectivity was included with a separate plat application. Ventura asked commissioners to recommend approval subject to addressing applicable comments. “This application is submitted with a public way in compliance with the city subdivision regulations,” Ventura said.
Commissioners expressed concern about the engineering findings and the number of outstanding items and moved to recommend denial to council. The motion to recommend denial passed.
What’s next: The commission’s denial is a recommendation to city council; the applicant may respond to engineering comments in writing and resubmit revisions before council consideration.
