WE'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE. [00:00:03] OUR FIRST ITEM IS. [1. Conduct a public hearing, discussion and possible action on an ordinance to rezone an approximate 164.50 acres of land in the J. de J. Valderas Survey, Abstract No. 380, Brazoria County, Texas from the Agricultural District (AG) to the Single-Family Residential 5 (SF-5) District. The subject property is located on the north side of Anchor Road (CR 44) approximately 2,000 feet northwest of W. Wilkens Street.] PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ACTION ITEMS. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE AN APPROXIMATE ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY FOUR POINT FIVE ZERO ACRES OF LAND IN THE VALDERAS SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 380 BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS, FROM THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FIVE DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ANCHOR ROAD ALSO KNOWN AS COUNTY ROAD 44 APPROXIMATELY TWO THOUSAND FEET NORTHWEST OF WEST WILKINS STREET. MR. REEVES, YOU WANT TO GIVE US SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT UNUSUAL IN COMPARISON TO OTHER REZONINGS, BECAUSE THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW IS NOT INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ANGLETON. BUT THERE HAS BEEN A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION OF THE PROPERTY AND IF NOT FOR THE STORM, THE SCHEDULE THAT I LAID OUT WOULD HAVE PLAYED OUT SUCH THAT THIS PROPERTY WOULD ACTUALLY BE INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS FOR THIS MEETING. SO IT'S UNUSUAL IN THAT REGARD. BUT BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT IN THE CITY LIMITS, THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CAN STILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS REQUEST FOR SF5 ZONING. AND THEN AT THE MARCH THE 9TH COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL WILL HAVE ON THEIR AGENDA THE ANNEXATION AND THEN THIS, WHATEVER YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS, TO ACT UPON THAT AFTER THE ANNEXATION. SO IT WILL THEN BE INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS AND THEY CAN ACTUALLY CHANGE THE ZONING BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO COME IN AS AG ZONED LAND, WHICH IS WHAT THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES. SO AFTER THAT LONG EXPLANATION, YOU HAVE THE STAFF REPORT, THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION AND ANNEXATION, PROPOSED ZONING BASED ON THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IN THIS AREA AND IDENTIFIES IT FOR RESIDENTIAL USE OFFICE, RETAIL AND MULTIFAMILY USES. THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IS FROM THE NEAREST DATE THAT I CAN GET IS SOMEWHERE AROUND 2005. SO IT'S 15 TO 16 YEARS OLD. AND SO FAR NONE OF THAT DEVELOPMENT HAS REALLY HAPPENED IN THIS AREA. SO WHILE NOT ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, THE PROPOSED SF5 ZONING WOULD BE CONSISTENT AS FAR AS BEING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, THERE ARE OTHER POLICIES OF THE PLAN THAT SUPPORT IT. AND CHAPTER THREE AND CHAPTER EIGHT, EXISTING LAND USE IS MOSTLY UNDEVELOPED LAND, PRETTY MUCH AROUND THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST. THERE IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND SOME LAND IN THE SF 7.2 DISTRICT. BUT OTHERWISE IT'S AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE MAP, IT'S THAT WHITE AREA WHICH IS BASICALLY A BIG DONUT HOLE INSIDE THE CITY AS THE CITY IS ANNEXED AROUND THIS WHOLE AREA. AND THIS IS ABOUT A THIRD, MAYBE A LITTLE MORE THAN THAT OF THAT DONUT HOLE. HAVING SAID ALL THAT, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SF5 ZONING ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THAT. THIS TIME, WE WILL CONVENE A PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ISSUE? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO IS THERE IS THERE A DEVELOPER THAT IS ACTIVELY WORKING THIS PROPERTY I ASSUME? YES, YES, THERE IS. THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION. AND IT'S NOT THAT I'M AGAINST THIS AT ALL, BUT I WANT TO KNOW, YEARS AGO, THE LAND IT WAS BEING THAT IS BEING DEVELOPED HAS BEEN DEVELOPED JUST SOUTH ON ANCHOR ROAD AT THE TIME THAT WAS BEING DEVELOPED COMMERCIALLY. [INAUDIBLE] ENGINEER TOLD US THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF ISSUES OVER THERE WITH GRAVITY FLOW SEWER, AND IT WAS, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A WHILE. THERE WAS AN ISSUE THAT THEY HAD TO GET THE RIGHT TILT, IF YOU WILL, AND ON THAT END, RIGHT THROUGH THERE. THEY WERE HAVING A LOT OF PROBLEMS AND THEY WERE RUNNING OUT OF ROOM THIS WAY COMING UP. SO IS THAT GOING TO HOOK IN TO THAT? AND IS DOES THAT CORRECT THAT PROBLEM THAT'S OVER THERE OR IS IT JUST SEWER THAT'S GOING TO COME FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, GOING TO GO SOME OTHER WAY INTO [00:05:05] OUR SYSTEM? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. BRIEFLY, THAT'S PART OF THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS, WHICH WILL BE ADDRESSED AS PART OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WHEN A PLAT COMES THROUGH FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY. BUT THERE'S ALSO SEWER ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE OVER THERE. SO IT WOULD GO AWAY FROM THAT, RIGHT. OK, [INAUDIBLE] I CAN SAY, IT WAS AN ISSUE AND IT WAS WE WERE BORDERLINE AT THAT TIME APPROVING THOSE DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. AND I WAS JUST WONDERING WHAT'S GOING TO CHANGE ON THAT. AND THAT'S GOING TO BE PART OF THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS. WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO HOOK UP TO THE CITY SEWER SYSTEM? WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO HOOK UP TO THE CITY WATER SYSTEM? HOW IS THAT ALL GOING TO WORK? SO THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS PART OF THE PROCESS. THAT'S PART OF THE SUBDIVISION, PART OF THE PROCESS. OK, ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS. I HAVE A QUESTION, HAS THIS DEVELOPER PRESENTED ANY KIND OF A PRELIMINARY DESIGN, SO YOU HAVE KIND OF AN IDEA WHAT THEY HAVE IN MIND? THEY HAVE. WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM ABOUT DOING A PROJECT ON THE SITE. ALL I CAN REALLY SAY AT THIS POINT IN TIME, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY APPLICATIONS, IS THAT KEEPING IN MIND THE WAY THE PROCESS WORKS IS THAT THIS IS TO ESTABLISH THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY. THIS IS KIND OF THE TEN THOUSAND FOOT VIEW. IS THIS REALLY A LOCATION FOR SF5 ZONING OR NOT? THE GROUND LEVEL VIEW IS, OK, HERE'S WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED. HERE'S THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. HERE'S HOW WE MAKE ALL THAT HAPPEN. SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT THE TWO PEOPLE WANT TO KIND OF COMBINE THEM AND HAVE ALL THE QUESTIONS ANSWERED RIGHT UP FRONT. BUT THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE WAY THAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK. SO, YES, THERE IS A THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT A PROJECT. RESOUND TO SF5, THAT IS THE BASE ZONING. RIGHT. DOES NOT KEEP THE DEVELOPER FROM MAKING LARGER LOTS NECESSARILY. NO. THAT WOULD BE THE THE BASE. AND I GUESS WHAT I WAS HOPING IS THAT THERE MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OF DIVERSITY. I WOULD HEAR THAT THERE'S AN ATTEMPT TO DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN JUST THE 50 BY 100 FOOT LOTS, WHICH WOULD BE A 5000 SQUARE FOOT. YEAH, 5000 SQUARE FOOT FOR THE SF5. WHAT I WHAT I CAN AND YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER IT, BUT I ASK THE QUESTION. I THINK IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. AND GIVEN WHAT WE'VE DEALT WITH OVER THE PAST SIX MONTHS, WE START OFF WITH ONE THING AND END UP WITH ANOTHER. JUST BY WAY OF COMMENT. YEAH. KEEPING IN MIND THAT WHEN SOMETHING IS ZONED, SAY, SF5 THAT'S THE MINIMUM. YOU CAN DO LARGER IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. I THINK THE CITY'S NEXT ZONING DISTRICT IS SF 7.2. I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY RIGHT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THOSE LOTS IN THAT DISTRICT HAVE TO BE AT LEAST 7200 SQUARE FEET. SO THERE'S NOTHING THAT PROHIBITS ANYBODY FROM DOING MORE THEY JUST CAN'T DO LESS. SO. OK, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ISSUE, COMMENTS. THEN I'LL TAKE A MOTION. I'M GOING TO APPROVE THE REZONIG OF THE ONE HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR POINT FIVE ACRES FROM AGRICULTURE DISTRICT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FIVE SF5 DISTRICT. I HAVE A MOTION BY MS. BIERI, IS THERE A SECOND. SECOND. THE SECOND BY MR MUNSON, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR INDICATE SO BY SAYING AYE. AYE. OPPOSED SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT. ITEM 2, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE REQUEST [2. Conduct a public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a request to rezone an approximate 4.0 acres from the Agricultural (AG) District to the Single-Family Estate Residential 20 (SFE-20) District. The subject property is located on the south side of Kiber Street at the Kiber Street/Sims Street intersection and is more commonly known as 1236 Kiber Road.] TO REZONE AN APPROXIMATE FOUR POINT ZERO ACRES IN THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE RESIDENTIAL 20 DISTRICT SUBJECT PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF KIBER STREET AT KIBER STREET, SIMS STREET INTERSECTION AND IS MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1236 KIBER ROAD. MR REEVES. THIS THIS IS THE MORE USUAL REZONING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS THAT LITTLE PIECE OF PROPERTY [00:10:03] ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF KIBER THAT ACTUALLY INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS IN THAT AREA. IT'S RIGHT ON THE BORDER OF THE FAIRGROUNDS. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY CAME IN, I WANT TO SAY SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER ISH. I WANTED TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO TWO LOTS SO THAT HE COULD SELL IT, I BELIEVE, TO HIS SON TO BUILD THE HOUSE ON IT. WELL, THE PROBLEM IS THAT IN THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT, EVEN THAT FOUR ACRES ISN'T LARGE ENOUGH TO MEET THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE. SO IN ORDER TO DO WHAT HE WANTS TO DO, HE NEEDS TO REZONE IT TO A ZONING DISTRICT THAT WILL ALLOW HIM TO HAVE THE TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY THE WAY THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SUBDIVIDE IT. AND THAT DISTRICT IS THE IS THE SF ESTATE, SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE, RESIDENTIAL 20 DISTRICT, WHICH IS A 20000 SQUARE FOOT LOT MINIMUM. SO THIS REQUEST IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. I THINK GENERALLY BECAUSE THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IDENTIFIES THE AREA FOR COMMERCIAL USES, WHICH HASN'T REALLY HAPPENED BECAUSE THAT'S THE FAIRGROUNDS SITE AND MOST OF THE PROPERTY AROUND IT IS THE PARKING FOR THE FAIRGROUNDS. SO RESIDENTIAL REZONING, HERE WHILE NOT NECESSARILY FURTHERING COMMERCIAL INTERESTS, IT'S PRETTY UNLIKELY THAT THAT PROPERTY IS EVER GOING TO BE DEVELOPED WITH COMMERCIAL INTERESTS ON IT BECAUSE OF THE FAIRGROUNDS. SO ALLOWING THE, YOU KNOW, RECOGNIZING THAT THAT'S THE CASE, YOU CAN SAY GENERALLY THAT IN REGARDS TO FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, WHILE NOT CONSISTENT. IT IS SUPPORTABLE TO SAY THAT RESIDENTIAL A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT ON THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. THAT BEING SAID, THIS IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY VARIOUS PARTS OF THE VARIOUS POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH SURROUNDING ZONING AND USES IN THE AREA AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME WE WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM. IS THERE ANYONE ONE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE. OK, AT THIS TIME, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ITEM. DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION. I WILL MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE REZONING OF THIS APPROXIMATELY FOUR ACRE TRACT FROM AGRICULTURAL AG DISTRICT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 20 SFE-20 DISTRICT. OK, THERE'S BEEN A MOTION BY MS. MCDANIEL IS THERE A SECOND. I SECOND. SECOND BY MS. [INAUDIBLE]. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR INDICATE SO BY SAYING AYE. AYE. OPPOSED SAME SIDE MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT, NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA, A DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON A [3. Discussion and possible action on a request for approval of a variance to the sidewalk requirement of Chapter 23, Section 23-14.A. Sidewalks, for the Kiber Reserve Subdivision. The requested variance is for the provision of sidewalk on the perimeter of the property along the Orange Street, Downing Street and Kiber Street frontages.] REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO THE SIDEWALK REQUIREMENT OF CHAPTER TWENTY THREE, SECTION 23-14.A SIDEWALKS FOR THE KIBER RESERVE SUBDIVISION. THE REQUESTED VARIANCES FOR THE PROVISION OF SIDEWALK ON THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY ALONG THE ORANGE STREET, DOWNING STREET AND KIBER STREET FRONTAGES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AS YOU JUST READ, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF THE SIDEWALK REQUIREMENTS ON THOSE THREE STREET FRONTAGES FOR THIS PROJECT. AND BASICALLY, EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE YOU GET A VARIANCE REQUEST WHERE THERE'S ACTUAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION THAT SAYS, YEAH, YOU KNOW, IT'S APPROPRIATE TO ACTUALLY GRANT A VARIANCE OF THESE REQUIREMENTS. AND IN THIS CASE, WE ACTUALLY HAVE THAT IN THE BACK UP THERE IS THE MEMORANDUM FROM BAKER AND LAWSON REGARDING THE EXISTING ENGINEERING CONDITIONS ON ALL THREE OF THOSE STREET FRONTAGES, WHICH FOR SOME REASON IS UPSIDE DOWN ON THE SCREEN. THERE WE GO. AND YOU ALSO HAVE SOME PHOTOS THAT STAFF WENT OUT AND TOOK. AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PHOTOS WHICH IS ALSO UPSIDE DOWN. I BELIEVE THIS IS ALONG KIBER. LOOKS LIKE ORANGE. OR ORANGE, YOU CAN SEE THE ASPHALT ROAD, THE DITCH. THIS IS ALONG DOWNING. THERE'S A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL DITCH ALONG THERE. AND THEN THE LAST PHOTO IS ALONG KIBER, AND YOU CAN ALSO SEE A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL DITCH ALONG THERE. [00:15:05] SO BASED ON THE ENGINEERING INFORMATION FROM BAKER AND LAWSON AND THE EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITION OUT THERE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE. DO I REMEMBER CORRECTLY THAT THAT NONE OF THE DRIVEWAYS WILL ACTUALLY OPEN UP ON ANY OF THOSE THREE STREETS? THAT'S CORRECT. OK, SO EVERY HOUSE IN THE SUBDIVISION, WILL HAVE A SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF IT. RIGHT. RIGHT. THE ALL THE HOUSES WILL HAVE ACCESS FROM THE STREETS INTERIOR TO THE SUBDIVISION. AND THERE ARE SIDEWALKS ON THE STREETS IN THE SUBDIVISION. WHAT ABOUT THE NEW HOUSES ON KIBER THERE RIGHT ACROSS FROM WHERE THEY'RE BUILDING [INAUDIBLE] I THINK THERE'S ONE, TWO, THREE OF THEM. I HADN'T EVEN PAID ATTENTION TO IF THEY HAD SIDEWALKS OR NOT ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE. SO I HAVE A QUESTION. CAN I ASK. PLEASE. IS THE RECOMMENDATION FROM. [INAUDIBLE] IS THE PROBLEM THAT IT JUST REQUIRES MORE ENGINEERING TO PUT IN SIDEWALKS AND IT'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT HARDER TO PUT IN SIDEWALKS? 20 YEARS AGO, I DON'T REALLY WANT TO WALK THROUGH THIS WHOLE EXPLANATION, BUT I'M GOING TO THE SUPREME COURT MADE A NUMBER OF DECISIONS THAT INVOLVED WHAT COULD BE DONE WITH EXACTIONS. THIS IS AN EXACTION, SIDEWALKS ARE AN EXACTION. AND THEY'RE WHAT THEY CAME UP WITH WAS CALLED ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY. IS THE EXACTION PROPORTIONATE TO THE COST OF PUTTING IT IN AND THE IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ON THE CITY. SO THAT'S A PART OF WHAT THIS IS ALSO ABOUT, IS THAT IN ORDER TO FIX IT IS GOING TO REQUIRE PROBABLY PIPE IN THE DITCH AND OR CHANGING THE DRAINAGE DIRECTION, PROBABLY RECONSTRUCTING ALL THREE OF THE ROADS ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY, AT LEAST HALF OF IT, IN ORDER TO TO PUT IT IN A PLACE WHERE YOU COULD ACTUALLY UNDERGROUND THE DRAINAGE, IF YOU CAN EVEN UNDERGROUND IT AND THEN PUTTING SIDEWALKS ON TOP OF ALL THAT. SO GIVEN THAT NONE OF THE LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION ACTUALLY HAVE THE SIDEWALKS AS BEING THEY ARE TAKING ACCESS OFF THE INTERIOR STREETS, IT'S NOT LIKE THE SUBDIVISION ITSELF IS IMPACTING THE NEED FOR SIDEWALKS IN THE REST OF THE AREA WHERE THERE REALLY AREN'T ANY. EVEN IN THE SUBDIVISION THAT'S ACROSS DOWNING STREET, THERE'S NO SIDEWALKS IN THAT SUBDIVISION. SO THAT'S PART OF THAT'S PART OF THE WHOLE VARIANCE IS THAT A ENGINEERING WILL BE DOABLE. SURE. IF YOU THROW ENOUGH MONEY AT IT, YOU CAN PROBABLY DO IT. BUT B, IS IT REASONABLE TO REQUIRE THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY IN ORDER TO DO THIS IMPROVEMENT, WHICH ISN'T REALLY IMPACTING OR MITIGATING AN IMPACT ON THE CITY'S FACILITIES? I JUST THINK ABOUT ALL THOSE CHILDREN THAT ARE GOING TO SOUTHSIDE WOULD BE THE SCHOOL THEY GO TO AND OF COURSE, I GUESS THE CITY AT SOME TIME WOULD LOOK INTO PUTTING A SIDEWALK [INAUDIBLE] THEM, BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAVE ONE ON ANDERSON, THAT GETS TO THERE. [INAUDIBLE] THE CITY DID SO THEY WOULD HAVE NO SIDEWALKS AND THE SUBDIVISION TO ANDERSON. WELL, AND I THINK THE FIREWORKS AND THE FAIR, WE NOW HAVE A WHOLE NOTHER SET OF PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO. SO, I MEAN, IF ANY PLACE NEEDS A SIDEWALK, I THINK THE ONE ON [INAUDIBLE]. I JUST LOOK AT KIBER BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE KIDS ARE GOING TO BE LEAVING TO GO TO SCHOOL ON THEIR BIKES. I'M SURE THEY'RE WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE. WELL I KNOW THEY ARE. I LIVED IN HILLENDALE GROWING UP AND WE WENT TO SCHOOL ALL THE TIME . OF COURSE IT WASN'T EVEN A RED LIGHT THERE BACK THEN. [00:20:01] BUT IF YOU TAKE THE THEORY THAT WE'RE NOT PUTTING IT THERE BECAUSE THERE WERE NO SIDEWALKS TO BEGIN WITH, WELL, IT WAS PASTURELAND. THE VERY PRIME EXAMPLE OF IT WAS PASTURE LAND IS RIGHT OVER HERE ON DOWNING WHEN THE CITY PUT THE ROADWAY IN AND THAT PASTURELAND DIDN'T CHANGE, EXCEPT IT HAD A NICE CURB AND GUTTER SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF PASTURELAND. AND YOU GO OVER THERE AT ANY TIME DURING THE DAY THAT NOW BEING DEVELOPED PASTURE LAND. BUT PRIOR TO BEING DEVELOPED, THEY WERE BURNING UP THE SIDEWALKS TRYING TO GET TO A SCHOOL. NOBODY LIVED OUT THERE, BUT NOW THEY DO. I KEEP GOING BACK TO THIS QUESTION AND I REALIZE I UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'RE ASKING IT AND I'M SURE THEY'RE GOING TO GET IT. NO PROBLEM. BUT WHY WHEN WE DEVELOP THE PROPERTY, ARE WE LEAVING THE SIDEWALKS OUT OF IT, WHICH THEY CAN BE PUT IN THE DRAINAGE DITCH CAN STILL BE THERE. WE BUILT THE CITY OF ANGLETON WAS BUILT THAT WAY FOR YEARS IN THE 50S. AND THAT'S WHERE THAT DEVELOPMENT IS OVER THERE IS FROM THE 50S. BUT WHY ARE WE LEAVING IT DOWN THE ROAD FOR THE TAXPAYERS TO PUT IN THAT SIDEWALK WHEN THERE'S EITHER BEEN AN ACCIDENT OR THERE'S A SUFFICIENT DEMONSTRATION THAT PEOPLE WILL USE THAT SIDEWALK TO GET THEIR CHILDREN TO AND FROM SCHOOL, GO TO THE FAIR, WHATEVER. BUT THAT'S MY BIGGEST QUESTION. WHY IS THE CITY OF ANGLETON, NOT THE DEVELOPER, BUT WHY THE CITY OF ANGLETON GOING TO PASS THAT COST DOWN THE ROAD AND ALL OF US TAXPAYERS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR IT WHEN IT SHOULD BE PAID FOR, WHEN IT'S DEVELOPED, JUST LIKE WE SHOULD PUT IT IN, WHEN WE REWORK THE STREET, I MEAN, I DON'T GET THAT. AND I GUESS THAT'S MY OWN SMALL MINDEDNESS, THAT THAT'S MY SOAPBOX FOR THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. BONNIE, DID YOU SAY IT WAS A RIGHT OF WAY ISSUE? YES, YES, BECAUSE I LOOKED AT THIS BECAUSE I'M OFF, I'M DEFINITELY PRO SIDEWALKS, SO I LOOKED AT IT THOROUGHLY. I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. AND TO DO WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE DONE WITH THE CURB AND GUTTERING AND THE SIDEWALKS, THAT'S GOING TO BE A STREET PROJECT, WHICH IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE A PART OF A BOND ISSUE. I MEAN, JUST LOOKING AT THE BIG PICTURE, THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED ON YOUR TALKING ABOUT DOWNING, DOWNING THAT PROPERTY. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED YEARS AGO. AND THAT'S THE REASON THERE'S A SIDEWALK THERE, BECAUSE THE STREET BECAME CURBED AND GUTTERED. SO UNTIL THAT HAPPENS, I'M SUSPECTING THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE. I KNOW WE HAD A DISCUSSION, WAS IT IN HERE OR CITY COUNCIL ABOUT POSSIBLY ASSESSING SOME FEES WHEN TOWARD LATER SIDEWALKS. AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT IS, WHETHER THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT REALLY CAN'T PHYSICALLY BE DONE OR IF THAT DISCUSSION IS STILL CONTINUING. SO. ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION. OK, I'LL DO IT. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE REQUEST, A VARIANCE TO SECTION 23-14 A. TO ALLOW THE VARIANCE REGARDING THE SIDEWALKS ALONG ORANGE, DOWNING AND KIBER STREET FRONTAGES. ALL RIGHT, I HAVE A MOTION BY MS. MCDANIEL AND A SECOND BY MR. MUNSON, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SUSPECTING WE PROBABLY ALL DO THIS ONE BY A RAISE OF HANDS, SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST INDICATE SO BY RAISING YOUR RIGHT HAND. ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR. OK. ALL THOSE OPPOSED RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ALRIGHT, FOUR TO THREE. DOESN'T GET MUCH CLOSER THAN THAT. LINDSAY, GOT EVERYTHING YOU NEED, OK? ALL RIGHT NEXT ITEM, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF [4. Discussion and possible action on a request to recommend approval of the Preliminary Replat of the Reserve. The subject property consists of 155.61-acre tract of land located at the southwest corner of Business 288 and CR 220 in the City of Angleton Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ).] THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT OF THE RESERVE. SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTS OF ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY FIVE POINT SIX ONE ACRE TRACT OF LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BUSINESS 288 AND COUNTY ROAD 220 IN THE CITY OF ANGLETON AT ETJ. MR. REEVES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AS YOU READ, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A REPLAT OF THIS ACREAGE, WHICH IS OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS AND THE ETJ AT THE BASICALLY THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BUSINESS 288 AND COUNTY ROAD 220. [00:25:06] THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH TO SAY EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE CITY ENGINEERS MEMO, THE PROPOSED PLAT MEETS ALL THE CITY REQUIREMENTS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE CITY ENGINEERS COMMENTS ARE CLEARED WITH ANY FINAL PLAT APPLICATION. WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THAT PROJECT? I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT ONE. I THINK THIS IS THE ONE THEY TALKED TO US ABOUT REMEMBER [INAUDIBLE] CITY SERVICES WITH THE MOBILE, THEY'RE GOING TO RENT THEM OUT. MOBILE HOMES OR MODULAR HOMES. IT'S GOING TO BE MANUFACTURED HOUSING. I THINK. FOR RENT. YEAH, THEY'RE GOING TO USE OUR CITY SERVICES. I THINK WHEN SCOTT WAS HERE A WHILE BACK THOUGH. NO, NO, NO. WAY BACK. NO. THIS MAY PREDATE ELLEN'S MEMBERSHIP. THE GENTLEMAN THAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT HAD THAT REZONING ON PHILLIPS ROAD. OK. ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE COMMENTS OF THE ENGINEER, DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? ALL RIGHT, I'M GOING TO GO ON RECORD AS MAKING THE MOTION. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY REPLAT OF THE RESERVE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS THAT THE CITY ENGINEERS COMMENTS ARE [INAUDIBLE] WITH ANY FILING OF A PLAT APPLICATION. ALL RIGHT. WE'VE GOT A MOTION BY MR. MUNSON IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND MS. [INAUDIBLE]. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION INDICATE SO BY RAISING YOUR RIGHT HAND. AND FOUR, FIVE, OK? ALL THOSE OPPOSED RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. 5 TO 2. OK. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. I ASSUME THERE'S NO NEED FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION TODAY, THEREFORE THERE'S NO NEED TO TAKE ANY ACTION FROM THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. IS THERE ANYBODY HAVE A FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. HEARING NONE REVIEW MEETING CALENDAR FOR CHANGES OR CANCELATIONS. [REVIEW MEETING CALENDAR FOR CHANGES OR CANCELLATIONS] WE SHOULD BE FINE FOR THE NEXT FEW MONTHS. ALL RIGHT. NEXT MEETING. JUST FYI, THAT'S APRIL FOOL'S DAY. [LAUGHTER] AND WITH THAT, WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.