[1. Conduct a public hearing, discuss, and possibly act upon an ordinance amending Section 23-15.I.8 requiring the placement of auxiliary equipment in easements in the rear of property.]

FIRST ITEM IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSS AND POSSIBLY ACT UPON THE ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 23-15.I.8 REQUIRING THE PLACEMENT OF AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT AT EASEMENTS IN THE REAR OF PROPERTY.

LINDSAY, I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK TO THIS ISSUE? YES, SIR, MR. CHAIRMAN.

AND THANK YOU. SO WHAT WE HAVE IS AN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION.

WE'VE PRESENTED THIS PRESENTATION THAT YOU'LL SEE SHORTLY TO COUNCIL TO KIND OF GET FILL THEM OUT, SEE WHAT KIND OF DIRECTION WE CAN GET FROM THEM CONCERNING HOW TO PROCEED WITH THIS. BUT IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT OUR UTILITY COMPANY IN THE AREA, TEXAS NEW MEXICO HAS A PREFERENCE FOR PUTTING THE UTILITY CABINETS IN THE FRONT OF PROPERTIES.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO JUST KIND OF SHOW YOU A FEW PICTURES.

THERE WE GO. THIS ONE WORKS BETTER THAN THE LAST ONE.

SO YOU CAN SEE IT FROM BOTH SIDES.

WE'VE PREPARED AN ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD LIMIT THE PLACEMENT OF THE UTILITY CABINETS TO THE REAR OF PROPERTIES WITHIN AN EASEMENT FOR UTILITIES.

SO WITH THAT SAID, THERE WE GO.

NO.

THROUGH THIS. SO WHAT DO YOU NEED? IF YOU COULD JUST HIT THE FORWARD BUTTON ON THERE ON THE PRESENTATION, MY CLICKER IS NOT WORKING.

ALL RIGHT. SO GIVE ME THE UTILITY CABINET ONE.

THANK YOU. SO I JUST KIND OF WANT TO GO OVER VISUALLY WHAT THESE LOOK LIKE.

SO WE WENT OUT THERE AND TOOK SOME MEASUREMENTS.

THIS IS A TEXAS NEW MEXICO CABINET.

IT MEASURES THIRTY ONE INCHES BY THREE.

I DIDN'T TAKE A DEPTH MEASUREMENT, BUT THAT JUST KIND OF GIVES YOU A FACE FRONT IDEA OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

AND THEY'RE PRETTY BIG.

SO CLICKER'S STILL NOT WORKING.

THERE'S ALSO SOME YARDS HAVE A CONCENTRATION OF THESE.

I'M GOING TO CALL THEM ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES.

SO, AGU, FOR SHORT SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

WE HAVE AT&T, WE HAVE TEXAS NEW MEXICO, COMCAST, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER KIND OF UTILITIES AND THEY TEND TO CLUSTER THEM.

THE UNFORTUNATE THING IS, IS THAT THEY TEND TO LEAN AFTER A WHILE AND IT BECOMES UNSIGHTLY. AND IF WE CAN GO ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. AND THESE ARE BRAND NEW NEIGHBORHOODS.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS COMING FROM ROSEWOOD OVER THERE.

AND YOU CAN SEE THE CREATIVE METHODS THAT PEOPLE WILL USE TO TRY TO CONCEAL THEM.

BUT SOMETIMES YOU JUST CAN'T HIDE SOMETHING THAT IS THAT LARGE.

YOU KNOW, THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT, THEY'VE DONE QUITE A GOOD JOB, BUT IT'S ALSO A HARDSHIP ON HOMEOWNERS TO HAVE TO MAKE THAT EXTRA STEP AND EXPENSE TO CONCEAL SOMETHING THAT COULD EASILY BE PLACED TO THE BACK OF THE YARD.

SO IN MOVING ON, THE CITY HAS MET INTERNALLY, WE'VE MET WITH STAKEHOLDERS, DEVELOPERS.

WE'VE EVEN INVOLVED OUR STATE REPRESENTATIVE TO, YOU KNOW, GET A BETTER HANDLE ON THIS AND HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE AUTONOMY, BECAUSE IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH TEXAS NEW MEXICO, AND WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE HERE, WE HAVEN'T MADE MUCH TRACTION AS FAR AS GETTING THESE UTILITIES TO THE BACK OF YARDS AND MOVING ON.

THEY HAVE THEIR REASONS.

THEIR REASONS INCLUDE EASE OF ACCESS, SAFETY FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES, BECAUSE THERE'S NOT DOGS AND THERE'S NOT, YOU KNOW, ANGRY PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE RESTORATION OF POWER; IN THE EVENT THAT POWER IS LOST, THEY SAY IT'S FASTER TO RESTORE POWER.

SO THAT'S KIND OF ILLUSTRATING THE TWO SIDES.

BUT I WANT TO KIND OF TOUCH ON SOMETHING ELSE, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY PUT THESE UTILITIES TO THE FRONT OF YARDS, NOT ONLY IS IT UNATTRACTIVE, BUT IT'S IN REALLY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE CITY'S UTILITIES.

SO WE HAVE WATER AND SEWER, WHICH IS TYPICALLY TO THE FRONT OF PROPERTIES ALONG THE STREET SIDE. AND I'VE PROVIDED A MAP.

THERE ARE TWO ON THE NEXT PAGE THAT SHOWS YOU JUST HOW CLOSE IT IS.

SO THAT'S ROSEWOOD.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE, ROSEWOOD IS ACTUALLY BUILT OUT NOW.

SO WHERE YOU SEE THESE EMPTY LOTS, THAT'S NOT THE MOST CURRENT, BUT THIS IS OUR GIS.

SO YOU CAN SEE TOWARD THE FRONT OF YARDS WE HAVE OUR WATER LINES, OUR SANITARY SEWER LINES. AND THIS IS ALSO FROM THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE I SHOWED THE SLIDES EARLIER THAT ILLUSTRATE THE CONCENTRATION OF UTILITY CABINETS IN FRONT YARDS.

[00:05:02]

SO WE WANTED TO BRING THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND HOW IT IS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO PROCEED.

AS I SAID, WE DO HAVE AN ORDINANCE PREPARED, AND I'D JUST LIKE TO UNDERSTAND HOW IT IS YOU WOULD LIKE US TO PROCEED.

THIS IS THE GREEN TRAILS NEIGHBORHOOD ON AUSTIN STREET.

AND YOU CAN SEE THE SIZE OF THESE UTILITY CABINETS.

THESE BOXES ARE IN ABOUT EVERY THIRD YARD.

SO THESE ARE REALLY NICE HOMES.

AND, YOU KNOW, IN MY OPINION, IT'S UNFORTUNATE TO SEE, YOU KNOW, THAT THESE ARE, YOU KNOW, IN BRAND NEW HOMES YARDS.

SO ANYWAY, WITH ALL THAT SAID, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A SURVEY THAT WAS STARTED OVERWHELMINGLY, THOUGH, PEOPLE WERE YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE THESE CABINETS IN YARDS, ESPECIALLY WITH NEW HOME SALES.

AND THIS IS A SNIPPET FROM OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH SAYS ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE LOCATED UNDERGROUND IN A UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN A RIGHT OF WAY.

SO THE ORDINANCE THAT IS PREPARED FOR YOU WOULD BE AN UPDATE TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. SO WE DID WANT TO BRING THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION AND IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY CONGRUENT WITH WHAT IS IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

IT WOULD JUST BE AMENDING TO RESTRICT IT TO THE BACK OF HOMES.

AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST AND THEN WE'LL GET INTO THE DISCUSSION PHASE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, LINDSAY.

AT THIS TIME, WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I WOULD ASK ANYONE THAT'S INTERESTED IN SPEAKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE TO LIMIT YOUR REMARKS TO THREE MINUTES.

UH, SEE MR. PELTIER.

HOW ARE YOU ALL DOING? I GUESS MY POINT ON THIS AND WHAT SHE SHOWED WAS ONE OF MY SUBDIVISIONS I THINK WE WERE THE FIRST ONE THAT WAS IMPACTED BY THE UTILITIES OUT FRONT.

YOU KNOW, IT IS WHAT IT IS.

THAT'S THE ONLY SUBDIVISIONS I HAD TO DEAL WITH IT.

HERITAGE PARK, WE DIDN'T.

HERITAGE OAKS, WE DIDN'T.

I CAN UNDERSTAND THEY'RE NOT ATTRACTIVE.

THAT SAID, I GUESS MY COMMENT I WANT TO MAKE IS HOW THE NEW SUBDIVISION'S COMING IN.

IF YOU LOOK AT SECTION THREE, SHE DIDN'T SHOW THAT, BUT SECTION THREE WENT FROM SIXTY FOOT LOTS IN ROSEWOOD IN SECTION TWO TO FORTY FIVE IN SECTION THREE.

SO WHEN A BUILDER BUILDS A HOUSE ON A FORTY FIVE FOOT LOT, THEY MAKE THEM LONGER.

KIND OF LIKE YOU LOOK AT [INAUDIBLE] STREET YOU SEE THOSE LONG, KIND OF ROW HOUSES.

THE PROBLEM YOU GET ON THE NARROW LOT LIKE FORTY FIVE FOOT, IT WOULDN'T WORK IN THAT IN SECTION THREE TO HAVE IT IN THE REAR BECAUSE PROBABLY A THIRD OF THE HOUSES ARE MAYBE FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND THEY REQUIRE, I THINK, 10 FEET FOR AN EASEMENT.

SO, YOU'RE GETTING A LOT OF NEW FORTY FIVE FOOT LOT SUBDIVISIONS.

EVEN IF TEXAS NEW MEXICO AGREE, AND THE CITY AGREED, YOU'RE GOING TO ENCOUNTER SOME COMPLEX IN SOME OF THESE SUBDIVISIONS.

THEY CAN GO TWO STORY.

AND THEY DO AND THEY MIX IT UP.

BUT IF YOU LOOK THE BEST WAY TO GO, GO TO HENDERSON ROAD WHERE YOU HAVE THAT EMERGENCY GATE. LOOK AT THE HOUSES AND YOU'LL SEE MAYBE FIVE FOOT.

YOU CAN YOU CAN PHYSICALLY STAND ON THE PORCH AND TOUCH THE FENCE.

THERE CAN'T BE A REAR EASEMENT THERE; THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH ROOM.

SO, WHATEVER BECOMES OF THIS, YOU NEED TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT BECAUSE THAT WILL IMPACT THE DEVELOPER OR THE BUILDER, WHAT HE CAN BUILD ON THE FORTY FIVE FOOT LOT.

THEY'LL HAVE TO STAY OUT OF THAT.

SO THAT MAY COME TO A CONFLICT.

I JUST WANT TO SHARE THAT OPINION.

THANK YOU, MR. PELTIER. THANK YOU.

OK, NEXT, WE HAVE MR. APLAN REQUESTING TO SPEAK.

THANK YOU, R.

APLAN WITH GRACETOWN DEVELOPMENT.

IT KIND OF ORIGINATED WITH ME IN THE BEGINNING.

I'VE DONE NUMEROUS DEVELOPMENTS, A DOZEN OR SO, ALL OF THEM THUS FAR, HAVE BEEN WITH CENTERPOINT AND WITH CENTERPOINT.

YOU KNOW, IT'S TYPICALLY GOING TO BE IN THE BACK.

BUT AS CHRIS SAID, THERE ARE CERTAIN SITUATIONS THAT IT HAS TO BE IN THE FRONT.

WE ENCOUNTERED ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS IN THE NORTHWOOD SUBDIVISION.

WE HAD A LAKE IN THE BACK AND WE DIDN'T HAVE REAL DEEP LOTS.

WE HAD TO PUT THOSE IN FRONT.

WE HAD 100 FOOT LOTS, SO PUTTING TRANSFORMERS IN THE FRONT WAS STILL UNSIGHTLY.

BUT WHEN YOU HAVE THAT ROOM, THEN YOU HAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO LANDSCAPE, ET CETERA.

SO I AGREE WITH LINDSAY'S THOUGHTS, WITH THE REAR BEING PREFERRED, BUT ALSO I AGREE WITH CHRIS, LINDSAY, THAT INSTEAD OF DEMANDING IN BACK, SOMETIMES IT'S GOING TO BE IN FRONT.

NOW, A LOT TO NOT HAVE ENOUGH ROOM FOR THE REAR YARD UTILITY EASEMENT, I THINK IT NEEDS TO

[00:10:05]

BE THOUGHT OF TO BEGIN WITH, BECAUSE WHEN I GO TO ROSEWOOD, I'M PRETTY AMAZED WHEN I STAND ON THE BACK PORCH AND LITERALLY, HE'S RIGHT, YOU CAN TOUCH THE FENCE; THAT'S NOT A VERY GOOD BACK BUILD LINE, IN MY OPINION.

BUT I THINK LINDSAY DID A GOOD JOB.

I SENT VIDEOS FROM DO YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE ANY OF THOSE? JUST SHOWING ON A TYPICAL CUL DE SAC AND THAT I'VE DONE, MAYBE A NEW ONE AND AN OLD ONE WITH 70 FOOT LOTS AND, YOU KNOW, WITH THE TRANSFORMERS IN THE BACK AND THE POWER POLES OR THE CABINETS FOR THE TUBES FOR PHONE AND CABLE IN THE BACK, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT NEXT TO DRIVEWAY; THEY'RE IN THE BACK.

AND THEY HAVE LIMITS OF EVEN LANDSCAPING IN THE BACK BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO ACCESS THEM.

BUT IT'S MUCH MORE ATTRACTIVE.

EVEN WENT TO THE POINT OF HAVING AN APPRAISER APPRAISE LOT BASED ON TRANSFORMERS IN FRONT VERSUS BACK. AND THOSE APPRAISALS WERE ANYWHERE FROM 12 TO 15 THOUSAND DOLLAR DISCOUNT OF WHAT THE VALUE OF THAT AUDIENCE.

PROBABLY THE BIGGEST POINT IS SAFETY.

YOU PUT THESE TRANSFORMERS RIGHT IN FRONT.

YOU GOT HIGH VOLTAGE AND TRANSFORMER, THE LINES AND THE TRANSFORMERS RIGHT NEXT TO THE ROAD. WHAT HAPPENED WITH WRECKS? WHAT HAPPENED WITH YOU'RE ALWAYS HAVING WATER LEAKS OR SEWER LEAKS.

WELL, YOU HAVE THE CITY COMING OUT THERE DIGGING IN AN EASEMENT THAT'S GOT HIGH VOLTAGE.

THERE'S NO REASON FOR IT.

SHOULD BE IN BACK WITH THE WATER BEING IN FRONT.

SO WITH ALL OF THAT AND WE REACHED OUT TO, I MEAN, LITERALLY HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE AND OTHER THAN TEXAS NEW MEXICO, WE'VE YET TO FIND ANYBODY WHO.

I CAN UNDERSTAND TEXAS NEW MEXICO, IF THEY HAD THEIR WAY, IT'S EASIER.

IT'S EASIER TO MAINTAIN.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO GET IN BACKYARDS, ALL OF THAT, BUT THE PROBLEMS IT CAUSES FOR THE BUILDER, THE DEVELOPER, THE VALUE OF THE HOMES, THE SAFETY IN THE BEGINNING, EVEN IN THE BEGINNING, WE'RE GOING TO BE HOOKING UP SEWER LINES TAPS, AND WATER TAPS IN THAT EASEMENT TO THE YOU KNOW, IN THE SAME EASEMENT AS THE HIGH VOLTAGE.

WE SHOULDN'T DO THAT. AND CERTAINLY NOT YEARS FROM NOW WHEN THERE'S A LEAK AND SOMEONE'S GOT TO RUN OVER THERE AND START DIGGING.

SO, FOR ALL OF THOSE REASONS, I'M PROUD THAT IT'S GOTTEN THIS FAR AND I HOPE FOR YOUR SUPPORT, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I CAN ANSWER, HOPEFULLY.

THANK YOU, MR. APLAN. I HAVE A QUESTION--LET'S DO THE QUESTIONS AT THE AT THE DISCUSSION PART OF THE [INAUDIBLE] IF YOU DON'T MIND.

THAT'S FINE. THANK YOU. MM HMM.

SORRY, ELLEN. YEAH, NO, NO, I GET IT.

ALL RIGHT. FINALLY WE HAVE TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, MR. HERRERA. I ASSUME, SIR, THAT YOU'RE WITH TEXAS MEXICO POWER.

YES, MY NAME IS VINCENT HERRERA.

APLAN AND I'VE DEALT WITH MR. PELTIER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GENTLEMEN.

AND I DO AGREE WITH MR. PELTIER. THANK HIM AND MR. APLAN FOR ACKNOWLEDGING THAT YOU CAN'T ALWAYS DO REAR LOT DISTRIBUTION.

I DISPUTE THE FACT, THE STATEMENT ABOUT BEING UNSAFE.

OUR FACILITIES ARE SAFE.

WE CAN'T PUT ANYTHING OTHERWISE.

IF ANYTHING IS LESS SAFE AS FAR AS TO THE PUBLIC, ANYTHING, WE CANNOT INSTALL IT.

WE DO WHATEVER'S SAFE.

OUR REASON IS THE AVAILABILITY IS THE SAFETY OF OUR EMPLOYEES.

IT IS SAFER FOR OUR EMPLOYEES TO ACCESS THE FRONT LOT IN LIEU OF THE REAR LOT.

WE DON'T HAVE TO GET BACK THERE.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT SOMEBODY BUILDING SOMETHING ADJACENT TO THE TRANSFORMER AND CLOSING THE TRANSFORMER OR WHATEVER ELSE.

WHAT WE PROPOSE IS TO, IN LIEU OF THE AMENDMENT IS TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO HAVE AN OPTION.

AGAIN, YOU KNOW, NOW, OUR LOTS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO IT.

IF IT'S 40 FOOT, 50 FOOT, IT'S GOING TO LIMIT OUR ACCESS BACK TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

BUT THE WIDER LOTS, IF YOU GET INTO THE ACRE, TWO ACRE LOTS, FRONT LOT IS LESS EXPENSIVE TO PUT IN FOR SURE. AND IF YOU HAVE A LOT OF SPACE LIKE MR. APLAN PUT IT OUT, IT'S LESS OBJECTIONABLE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO JUST ALLOW THAT OPTION FOR THE DEVELOPER.

HEY, YOU WANT REAR LOT, WE CAN DO THAT.

IT MAY BE MORE EXPENSIVE, BUT THIS IS WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST TO DO IT.

AND WE COULD DO THAT.

OR FRONT LOT, INSTEAD OF APPROVING THE AMENDMENT PROPOSED.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, MR. HERRERA. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ISSUE?

[00:15:05]

GOING ONCE, TWICE.

ALL RIGHT. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

WE'LL ENTER THE DISCUSSION PHASE.

ELLEN, YOU HAD A QUESTION.

JUST ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION.

WHICH PROPERTY GOT THE HIGHER VALUE? OH, REAR YES, ABSOLUTELY. IN NEW HOMES, IT'S VERY BIG AND IN USED, IT'S EVEN MORE BECAUSE WHEN YOU GO DOWN ROSEWOOD AS WELL AS THEY TRIED TO PUT THE PEDESTAL IN AND THEN THE TOWERS IN, YOU CAN SEE THEIR MOTHER NATURE AND EVERYBODY'S GOT TO MOVE IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.

IT JUST LOOKS HORRIBLE.

NOW THE SAFETY, THE VEHICLE TRAFFIC AND BEING NEXT TO YOUR FRONT YARD, NEXT TO YOUR FRONT DRIVEWAY WHERE YOU HAVE TRAFFIC ALL THE TIME, CARS PULLING UP ON THE SIDEWALK.

THAT IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT SAFETY FROM A CAR STANDPOINT AND THEN FROM MIXING THE HIGH VOLTAGE POWER WITH WATER AND SEWER IN THE SAME EASEMENT IS DEFINITELY NOT SAFE OR AS SAFE. SO I DISPUTE THAT.

NOW, MR. HERRERA'S SAYING THAT IN SOME CASES IT DOES NEED TO BE IN FRONT.

THAT IS CORRECT. BUT THE IN THE AMENDMENT, THE ORDINANCE SHOULD SAY THAT IT'S THAT THE DEVELOPERS CHOICE AND THE CITY'S CHOICE IN BACK.

AND IF IT HAS TO BE IN FRONT, WHICH SOMETIMES TEXAS NEW MEXICO IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT, IF YOU'VE GOT A 100 FOOT WIDE LOT AND IT'S 40 FOOT NARROW, THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T DO IT IN THE BACK, AND THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO HAVE TO AGREE WITH THAT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE.

NOW, ONE OTHER THING IS COST WISE, YOU KNOW, AND FOR INSTANCE, OUR PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION IS A LITTLE LESS COSTLY BECAUSE THERE'S LESS [INAUDIBLE] TO PUT IT IN THE BACK.

NOW, TEXAS NEW MEXICO CHARGES DEVELOPER FOR THE UNDERGROUND.

SO IF THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO PUT IT IN THE BACK AND THERE'S MORE COST THAN IN THE FRONT, TEXAS NEW MEXICO IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO SAY, OK, BUT YOU'RE INCREASING YOUR COST THAT THEY CHARGE US IN THE BEGINNING.

IN OUR CASE, IT'S GOING TO BE LESS, BUT IN SOME IT MAY BE MORE.

BUT THEN THAT'S A DECISION THAT THE CITY, THE DEVELOPER WE'RE ABLE TO MAKE, NOT TEXAS NEW MEXICO, JUST DICTATING.

NOW, ANOTHER THING THAT I THINK THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS IS ANGLETON HADN'T SEEN LIKE THIS EVER.

MR. APLAN, PLEASE TALK INTO THE MIC.

OH, I'M SORRY. YOU'VE GOT SIX DEVELOPMENTS UNDERWAY RIGHT NOW.

SO LITERALLY THOUSANDS OF HOUSES ARE GOING TO BE BUILT, THANKFULLY, IN ANGLETON IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS.

WONDERFUL FOR TAX DOLLARS, ROOFTOPS, SCHOOLS AND EVERYTHING.

AND I PROMISE THE SUBDIVISIONS, WHEN YOU DRIVE THROUGH ON THE FIRST DAY AND THEN 10 YEARS LATER, UNBELIEVABLE DIFFERENCE OF HOW PRETTY THE NEW ANGLETON SUBDIVISIONS ARE GOING TO BE WITHOUT TRANSFORMERS AND PEDESTAL IN THE FRONT YARD.

VERY GOOD. ALRIGHT, WELL, LET US DISCUSS THIS ISSUE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE COMMENTS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

WHAT ABOUT THIS ISSUE WHERE WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT THERE ARE SCENARIOS IN WHICH IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PUT THESE THESE TRANSFORMERS OR OTHER EQUIPMENT IN THE REAR OF THE HOUSE.

WHAT IS THE SOLUTION TO THAT ? DECISION, WHAT IS GOING TO BE WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE EASIEST, WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE MOST ESTHETICALLY PLEASING, HOPEFULLY.

BUT IF THERE IS JUST NOT ENOUGH CLEARANCE FOR A BACKYARD THAT HAS A WHERE THE EASEMENT WOULD TAKE UP THE ENTIRE SPACE OF THE BACKYARD, I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT.

AND SO WITH THAT IN MIND, THIS ORDINANCE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, I HAVEN'T READ IT LINE BY LINE, BUT I ASSUME THAT IT STATES IN BLACK AND WHITE EITHER IT WILL BE IN THE BACK PERIOD. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR.

IT WOULD RESTRICT UTILITIES IN AN EASEMENT TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.

SO BASED ON THAT, DOES STAFF WANT TO MODIFY THE RECOMMENDATION TO THIS COMMISSION? I THINK WALT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THAT.

MR. REEVES. NOW WE GET INTO THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE ORDINANCE AND I'LL SPEAKERS]. I KNOW.

I KNOW. I'LL GO FAST THROUGH ALL THE REST OF THEM.

PROMISE? MAYBE. THE SOLUTION HERE IS SIMPLE.

[00:20:03]

YOU LEAVE THE WORDING AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, WHICH REQUIRES IT IN THE BACK AND THEN ADD SOME ADDITIONAL WORDING THAT SAYS EXCEPT AS THE DEVELOPER AND THE UTILITY PROVIDER AGREED TO PLACE THE AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT.

AND THAT ALLOWS THE DEVELOPER AND TNM IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE TO NEGOTIATE WHERE THEY WANT TO PUT IT BASED ON THE LOT SIZE.

BUT IT LEAVES IT IN TO TRUST THAT THE STARTING POINT IS IT HAS TO BE IN THE BACK.

WELL, I'D JUST LIKE TO COMMENT THAT I REALLY TWO THINGS I WANT TO NOTE . ONE, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE FORWARD THINKING BEFORE WE GET ALL OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS UNDERWAY. ALTHOUGH WE ALREADY HAVE GROUND, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE FORWARD THINKING AND BRINGING THAT UP NOW.

SECONDLY, I JUST WANT TO NOTE FOR NO OTHER REASON, STATE THE OBVIOUS THAT THIS IS ONE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE ALREADY ENCOUNTERING ON THESE SMALL LOTS.

SO JUST, YOU KNOW, JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE.

HAVING SAID THAT, I'M HAPPY TO MOVE IF--ARE YOU READY FOR THAT? I'M READY. MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 23-15.1.8.

ALL RIGHT, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? HANG ON A SECOND. SO THE MOTION DOESN'T MENTION ANY CHANGES TO THE WORDING IN THE DOCUMENT--TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE EXCEPTION FOR--IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, THEN YOU NEED TO MAKE THE MOTION TO ADD THAT WORDING.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WANT TO DO THAT.

I DON'T KNOW THAT IS WHEN I'M, BECAUSE I WOULD RATHER THEM COME BACK AND ASK FOR A VARIANCE, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A BAZILLION OF THOSE ANYWAY.

I AM RECOMMENDING AS IS RECOMMENDED NOW.

SO IS THERE A SECOND FOR THE AS PRESENTED VERSION? SECOND FROM SPOOR.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE'LL DO THIS ONE BY SHOW OF HANDS.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO APPROVE, AS IS, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, GOT ONE TWO OPPOSE SAME SIGN.

ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR.

OK. AND SO THE MOTION IS FAILING AS PRESENTED.

DOES ANYONE ELSE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION WITH THE SUGGESTION BY MR. REEVES.

I WILL MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED WITH THE EXCEPTIONS, AS INDICATED BY MR. REEVES? ANYONE WANT TO SECOND THAT MOTION? I SECOND THAT. MS. SCAEFER SECONDS.

OK, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? I HAVE A DISCUSSION.

I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT.

IF WE GO WITH THAT MOTION, DOES THAT LEAVE IT UP TO--IT SEEMS TO ME AND MAYBE THIS IS JUST MY I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THEY CAN JUST GO AHEAD AND PUT IT IN FRONT BECAUSE IT'S EASIER ON EVERYBODY? IS THIS A LOOPHOLE SO THAT NOW THEY CAN JUST PUT IT ON FRONT AND THEY CAN SAY THAT THE DEVELOPER. OH, YEAH, WE TALKED ABOUT IT AND WE JUST DECIDED TO PUT IT UP FRONT, IN WHICH CASE, WHY DIDN'T WE HAVE THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE? NO, THE STARTING POINT IS STILL IT'S IN THE REAR.

BUT AS BOTH MR. APLAN AND MR. HERRERA INDICATED ON SOME OF THESE SMALLER LOTS, IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE THERE.

AND IF THE DEVELOPER AND THE UTILITY PROVIDER AGREE TO HAVE IT IN THE FRONT, THEN THAT WOULD BE OK. SO, WE'RE MAKING A BASIC ASSUMPTION HERE THAT THE DEVELOPER'S INTEREST IS TO PUT ALL THE EQUIPMENT IN THE BACK.

RIGHT? HOWEVER, MR. PELTIER RAISED THE CONCERN THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE FLEXIBILITY AND THIS WOULD ALLOW THAT.

OK. ALL RIGHT. OK, PLEASE, MR. APLAN, THE CHAIR HAS TO RECOGNIZE YOU.

OK. WE'RE GOOD, WE'RE GOOD.

ALL RIGHT, ELLEN, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

SO I THINK WHAT YOU MIGHT BE ASKING, IS THE CITY INVOLVED IN THAT DISCUSSION ABOUT PLACEMENT AND IN FACT, IT IS NOT.

IT IS STATING THAT THIS WILL STATE THAT THE EQUIPMENT WILL BE IN THE BACK UNLESS AGREED TO BY THE DEVELOPER AND THE POWER COMPANY, PERIOD.

CORRECT. THANK YOU.

SO THE DEVELOPER--AND WE WOULD REQUIRE SOME SORT OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY BOTH PARTIES IF

[00:25:03]

THAT'S WHAT THEY AGREED TO.

OK, YES, THANK YOU.

OK. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, WE'LL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THIS PARTICULAR MOTION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR INDICATE SO BY RAISING YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ONE, TWO. OK.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD, ITEM TWO.

[2. Conduct a public hearing, discussion and possible action on an ordinance to rezone an approximate 7.22 acres of land situated in the East 1/2East Waller League Survey, Abstract No. 134, Brazoria County, Texas from the Manufactured Home (MH) District to the Commercial-General (C-G) District with the Planned Development Overlay (CG-PD). The subject property is located on the south side of Phillips Road approximately 450 feet east of Shanks Road and is more commonly known as 238 E. Phillips Road.]

CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDERS TO RESULT IN APPROXIMATELY SEVEN POINT--THANK YOU, MR. APLAN--SEVEN POINT TWO TWO ACRES OF LAND SITUATED IN THE EAST, 1/2 [INAUDIBLE] SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER ONE THIRTY FOUR, [INAUDIBLE] COUNTY, TEXAS, FROM THE MANUFACTURED HOME DISTRICT TO THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY SUBJECT PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH [INAUDIBLE] 450 FEET EAST OF [INAUDIBLE] AND IS MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 238 E [INAUDIBLE] ROAD.

MR. REEVES, PLEASE TELL US ABOUT THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, AS YOU'LL RECALL, A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY ASKED TO HAVE A REZONE TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

THAT REQUEST WAS DENIED.

AND AFTER DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, HE DECIDED TO COME BACK WITH ANOTHER REZONING REQUEST, THIS TIME TO THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL ZONING DISTRICT IS THE UNDERLYING ZONING WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY.

IN ORDER TO ALLOW HIM TO HE HAS A PERMIT FOR A SEVEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY THAT HE WANTS TO CONDUCT HIS INTERNET BUSINESS OUT OF OFFICE AND A WAREHOUSE AREA FOR WHATEVER PRODUCT THAT HE HAS, YOU KNOW, THAT HE'S SELLING ONLINE AND THAT AT SOME POINT IN TIME HE WANTS TO ADD A RESIDENCE ONTO THE PROPERTY SO THAT IT WOULD BE LIVE AND WORK ON THE SAME PIECE OF PROPERTY.

THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT ALLOWS THE ATTACHMENT OF DESIGN CONDITIONS THAT CAN HELP ALLEVIATE ANY KIND OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED USES ON THE PROPERTY.

AND TO THAT EFFECT, THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY IS LIMITING THE USES ON THE PROPERTY TO STRICTLY THAT SEVEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR OFFICE WAREHOUSE TYPE USE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNIT WITH THE TRADITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AUXILIARY BUILDINGS LIKE A GARAGE, IF HE WANTS TO BUILD A GARAGE.

IT'S REQUIRING EIGHT FOOT FENCE ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE AND THEN ACROSS THE PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING IN ORDER TO HELP SCREEN THE BUILDING FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS.

IT'S REQUIRING SOME TREES TO BE PLATED IN THE IN THE FRONT YARD AREA.

AND IT'S SUBJECTING THE PROPERTY.

IF AT SOME POINT IN TIME HE WANTS TO PUT A SIGN OUT, IT CAN ONLY BE A MONUMENT SIGN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY SIGN REGULATIONS.

SO HAVING SAID ALL THAT, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF AMENDING THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THOSE ITEMS THAT ARE LISTED IN THE ORDINANCE AS PART OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND THE PROPERTY OWNER'S HERE.

JUST AS A SIDE NOTE ON THIS, HE STILL HAS TO GET A SITE PLAN APPROVED, WHICH WILL HAVE TO GO TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING AND TO THE COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL.

SO YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT IT IS HE'S GOING TO DO ON THE PROPERTY AND HOW HE COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ISSUE? YOU DON'T HAVE TO, BUT YOU'RE WELCOME TO.

YOU'VE GOT THREE MINUTES. HOW'S IT GOING? MR. CHAIRMAN, EMMANUEL GONZALEZ, 58 PINE CT, LAKE JACKSON AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY I DID SPEAK TO A FEW OF THE NEIGHBORS AND HAD THE SUPPORT OF EIGHT NEIGHBORS OF THE SURROUNDING AREA AND LIKE MR. REEVES SAID IT'S AN ONLINE BUSINESS THAT I'M DOING IT'S GOING TO BE STRICTLY ONLINE AND IS NEVER GOING TO BE A STOREFRONT OF ANY KIND.

AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO ASK.

VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, MR. GONZALEZ. WE MAY HAVE QUESTIONS ONCE WE GET TO THAT PORTION OF THE DISCUSSION.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS ISSUE? GOING ONCE. GOING TWICE THIS TIME I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL GET INTO THE DISCUSSION PORTION.

DOES ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION. ARE YOU STILL WANTING TO MAKE MOBILE HOMES? OK.

[00:30:01]

MR. GONZALEZ, IF YOU COME TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE.

NO, MA'AM, I TRY TO GET THE LICENSING IN PLACE, BUT I NEED THE FACILITY BUILT FIRST AND IT'S STILL A GOAL OF MINE, BUT WAY DOWN THE LINE, MAYBE FIVE YEARS DOWN THE LINE.

OK, TO GO ALONG WITH THAT THEN, BECAUSE IF WE'RE HAVING TO HAVE FENCING AND TREES, ARE THEY GOING TO BE IN SUCH A WAY THAT WHEN YOU DO MAKE MOBILE HOMES AND SELL THEM, THAT YOU CAN GET AROUND THEM? NO, MA'AM.

I WOULD HAVE TO BUY A DIFFERENT LAND, A DIFFERENT AREA.

OK. SO THIS IS ONLINE MOBILE HOME SALES.

NO, NO, SIR, NO, SIR, IT'S BECAUSE ORIGINALLY WHEN I CAME THE FIRST TIME, MY GOAL WAS TO BUILD THE WAREHOUSE AND ALSO BUILD, YOU KNOW, HUD, CERTIFIED MOBILE HOMES.

AND WHAT'S THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS NOW? ONLINE SALES PIPELINERSCLOUD.COM.

THAT'S THE WEBSITE. IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT, THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS NOW. BUT THE FIRST TIME I CAME UP HERE, I WAS PROPOSING TO BUILD A WAREHOUSE.

I COULD HAVE THE ONLINE AND ALSO BUILD THE MOBILE HOMES, BUT THAT IS BUILDING HUD CERTIFIED MOBILE HOMES IS OUT OF THE PICTURE NOW, JUST THE ONLINE BUSINESS.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION, YOU HAVE NO CHAIN LINK FENCING? I MEAN, MOST HOMES, A LOT OF HOMES HAVE FENCES AROUND THE PROPERTY.

SO YOU'RE NEVER HAVING A FENCE? NO, NO, THE PROPERTY HAS A FENCE, BUT WHAT MR. REEVES WAS SAYING, I'M GOING TO BUILD AN EIGHT FOOT PRIVACY WOODEN FENCE KIND OF TO HELP, JUST TO GIVE THE NEIGHBORS A LITTLE BIT MORE--SECURITY.

YES. YES, MA'AM.

MS. MCDANIEL. YES.

I'M LOOKING FOR SOME CLARIFICATION.

ONCE WE REZONE THIS WITH THIS PD, THINGS CHANGE, AND MR. GONZALEZ MAY AT SOME POINT SELL THIS PROPERTY OR MAKE SOME CHANGES.

SO WHAT OTHER USES CAN BE DONE WITH THIS FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD THAT WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF? UH, THE 7200 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING CAN ONLY BE USED AS THE ORDINANCE SAYS IT CAN BE USED, WHICH IS AN OFFICE OR WAREHOUSE USE IN THERE.

IF SOMEBODY BUYS THE PROPERTY AND DECIDES TO USE IT FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL USE, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE GOT FIVE CARS AND A BOAT THAT THEY WANT TO PUT IN IT.

THEY CAN GO AHEAD AND DO THAT.

BUT IF SOMEBODY COMES IN AND WANTS TO DO SOMETHING ELSE, LIKE A PLUMBING CONTRACTOR, THEY'VE GOT TO GO BACK TO THE ZONING PROCESS TO AMEND THE PD IN ORDER TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN. OK, GREAT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. REEVES. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? GOING ONCE. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION.

ALL RIGHT, MS. SCAEFER'S MAKING A MOTION TO REZONE THE SEVEN POINT TWO TWO ACRES OF LAND FROM MOBILE HOME TO AS RECOMMENDED.

IS THERE A SECOND? I'M NOT HEARING A SECOND, THE MOTION DIES . SO THIS WILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. SO. MR. GONZALES. TAKE 30 SECONDS.

PLEASE DON'T TAKE THIRTY ONE? [LAUGHTER] ONE MISSISSIPPI, JUST I KNOW WE THREW IN MOBILE HOMES IN THERE AND ALL OF THAT GOOD STUFF, BUT IF YOU COULD JUST IMAGINE SEVEN ACRES, MY PERSONAL HOUSE, A SHOP, AND THAT'S A LOT OF OUR GOAL SOMETIMES TO HAVE OUR NICE HOUSE AND A NICE SHOP.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS I HAVE AN ONLINE BUSINESS RUNNING OUT OF THERE AND I DO APPRECIATE IT. WELL, THANK YOU.

AND WE ARE A RECOMMENDING BODY.

WE ARE NOT ONE THAT DOES HAVE ABSOLUTE APPROVAL OR DENIAL.

AND SO THIS WILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE.

AND YOU'LL CERTAINLY WANT TO BE PRESENT FOR THAT.

YES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

ITEM THREE, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST TO APPROVE THE FINAL

[3. Discuss and consider possible action on a request to approve the Final 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).]

REPLAT OF THE RESERVE.

THE 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 [INAUDIBLE] 220 IN THE CITY OF

[00:35:01]

ANGLETON EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE ETG.

MR. REEVES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

I GOT TO MAKE ONE CORRECTION ON THAT.

IT'S NOT BUSINESS 288.

I'VE BEEN OPERATING IN THE WRONG LOCATION SINCE I FIRST SAW IT.

THERE'S APPARENTLY THREE DIFFERENT STREETS WITH TWO EIGHTY EIGHT IN IT.

IT'S THE OLD ANGLETON [INAUDIBLE] ROAD WHICH IS A LITTLE FURTHER TO THE WEST TO BUSINESS 288. SO IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY EFFECT ON ANYTHING OTHER THAN.

BUT IT SHOULD BE COUNTER ROAD 288.

IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH.

ALL RIGHT.

SO HAVING SAID THAT, STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT IF A FINAL PLAN MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, THE CITY HAS TO APPROVE IT AND IN THIS CASE, THIS FINAL PLAT DOESN'T MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. CITY ENGINEER DIDN'T HAVE ANY REAL COMMENTS ON IT AT ALL.

AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

ALL RIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS BY ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS? POINT. YES, MA'AM, PLEASE DO.

IT'S A FOREGONE CONCLUSION THIS WILL PROBABLY GET APPROVED AS IS BECAUSE IT MEETS THE GUIDELINES. BUT I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT I THINK THAT THERE'S PROBABLY LIMITED MARKET FOR THIS SUBDIVISION.

IT'S NOT THE BEST USE OF THE PROPERTY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMENT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? QUESTIONS? ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? UM, WELL, I GUESS THAT COMMENT IS THAT I'M JUST POINTING OUT I THINK IT'S WORTHWHILE TO POINT OUT DAVID SPOOR'S LETTER TO THAT AND, UM, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECTLY, THIS PROPOSED HOUSES CREATED DRAINAGE PROBLEM.

AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY.

LOOKING AT THE LETTER RIGHT NOW.

MR. REEVES, IF YOU HAVE ANY INPUT, I'D BE GRATEFUL.

YEAH. I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION.

SO I THINK THE QUESTION IS WE GOT A LETTER HERE FROM MR. SPOOR. AND WE NEED CLARIFICATION ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S AN INDICATION OF CONCERN ABOUT DRAINAGE. MY ANSWER TO THAT WOULD BE NO.

OK. SO, THE DEVELOPER'S MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT.

RIGHT, THANK YOU. I'LL JUST MAKE A COMMENT THAT.

I COULDN'T TELL FROM THE PLAT HOW THEY WERE GOING TO GET ACROSS THE RAILROAD TRACKS IF IT WAS GOING TO HAVE ACCESS ONTO 220.

OR IF THERE'S A CROSSOVER.

THANK YOU. MR. R., [INAUDIBLE], THIS SUBDIVISION, IT HAS ACCESS.

THERE'S A BRIDGE OVER THE RAILROAD TRACK, BUT THE FEEDER ON 220 GOES UNDER THE OVERPASS AND CIRCLES AROUND. IT'S A TWO WAY FEEDER, YOU CAN GO EITHER WAY.

AND SO THE PEOPLE IN THE SUBDIVISION HAVE ACCESS TO GO LEFT ON THE FEEDER, TO GO TOWARD 288 OR I MEAN, EXCUSE ME, LEFT ON THE FEEDER TO GO OVER THE OVERPASS OR RIGHT, TO GO AROUND AND GO BACK TO 288 FREEWAY.

SO WILL THERE BE ONE OUTLET? THERE'S TWO, BUT THEY'RE BOTH ON THE SAME FEEDER.

THERE'LL BE ONE ACROSS THE RAILROAD TRACK AND THEN ONE BACK TO 220.

YES, 220, BACK TO 288 FREEWAY.

WHENEVER THE TRAINS COVER THE TRACKS--THEY'RE NOT BLOCKED.

THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE BRIDGE.

AND DO I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THIS IS A MANUFACTURED HOME? YES, SIR. OK.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. R. WELL, I MOVE WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED FINAL REPLAT OF THE RESERVE.

I HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. MUNSON. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

SECOND FROM MISS SCAEFER.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, INDICATE SO BY RAISING YOUR RIGHT HAND, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE.

OPPOSED. SAME SIGN.

OK, FIVE TO ONE. ALL RIGHT.

[00:40:02]

THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ACTING UPON A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE

[4. Discuss and consider acting upon a recommendation to approve the proposed preliminary replat of the Bayou Bend Estates Subdivision.]

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY REPLAT OF THE BAYOU BAND ESTATE SUBDIVISION.

STEERING'S. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN, PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY REPLAT IT FOR THE BAYOU BEND ESTATE SUBDIVISION, FIFTEEN POINT EIGHT SEVEN TWO ACRES IN THE S.F. 6.3 ZONING DISTRICT.

THE PROPERTY ABUTS BOTH HENDERSON ROAD AND [INAUDIBLE] ROAD, BUT IS ONLY GOING TO HAVE ACCESS TO UP [INAUDIBLE] ROAD.

THIRTY SIX SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND THREE RESERVE LOTS.

ATTACHED IS THE CITY ENGINEERS MEMO.

HE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO MAKE ON IT.

STAFF DOESN'T HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS TO MAKE ON IT.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED OR PRELIMINARY REPLAT OF BAYOU BEND ESTATE SUBDIVISION. THANK YOU, MR. REEVES. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? WELL, I'LL MAKE A COMMENT, I NOTICE THEY'RE 60 FOOT LOTS BETTER THAN FORTY FIVE, BUT STILL PRETTY SMALL AND IT ALSO APPEARS TO ME IT HAS, I THINK YOU SAID IT HAD THE ONLY OUTLET WAS ON [INAUDIBLE].

YES, THAT'S WHAT MR. REEVES SAID.

SO IS IT GOING TO BE WIDE ENOUGH TO WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD ISSUES WITH ONLY HAVING ONE ENTRANCE AND EXIT FOR EMERGENCY PERSONNEL, IN CASE ONE GOT BLOCKED, THEY COULDN'T GET IN. MR. R. THANK YOU.

THEY HAVE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN ZOOM IN, BUT AT THE ENTRANCE TO [INAUDIBLE] IT'S WIDENED RIGHT OF WAY, IT'LL BE A BOULEVARD ENTRY TO WHERE YOU HAVE I'M NOT SURE.

THIS ISN'T ONE I DESIGNED, BUT IT'S GOT LANES COMING INTO THE SUBDIVISIONS AND LANES GOING OUT WITH A MEDIAN IN BETWEEN THEM.

DO I NEED TO POINT THAT OUT? I COULD ENLARGE IT A LITTLE BIT.

BUT IT'S HARD ALL RIGHT, SO I'M ASSUMING THEN THAT WHOEVER THE FIRE INSPECTOR, THE PD OR SOMEBODY WHO'S APPROVED THINKS THAT IT'S OK, YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF HOMESITES IN THERE.

THEY FEEL LIKE THEY WILL HAVE NO ISSUES GETTING IN AND OUT.

MR. REEVES. YES, IT'S BEEN THROUGH THE CITY REVIEW PROCESS, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. ALL RIGHT.

SO I GUESS I HAVE A COMMENT TOO.

WE ALREADY HAVE SEVENTEEN HUNDRED, SIXTEEN HUNDRED AND SOMETHING OF THESE SMALLER LOTS.

WHY DON'T WE WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THOSE BEFORE WE APPROVE MORE? I THINK, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THIS IS PART OF THE SIXTEEN OR SEVENTEEN HUNDRED.

YES, THIS ISN'T A NEW PROPOSAL.

YES, BUT THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO DENY PEOPLE PLAT APPLICATIONS BECAUSE YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH SOMETHING ELSE.

STATE LAW IS REALLY CLEAR ON THIS SUBJECT.

AND IT SAYS IF A PROPOSED PLAT MEETS ALL YOUR REQUIREMENTS, YOU HAVE TO APPROVE IT.

THE ONLY DISCRETION YOU HAVE IS IF THE CITY ENTERS INTO A MORATORIUM AND THE CITY.

SO THESE LOT SIZES MEET THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THAT PARTICULAR AREA.

YES, THEY DO. I MOVE WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY REPLAT OF THE BAYOU BEND ESTATE SUBDIVISION.

MOTION FROM MR. MUNSON.

IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT.

SECOND FROM MISS MCDANIEL.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I WOULD JUST MENTION THAT THE 60 FOOT WIDE LOTS IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE SUBDIVISION JUST SOUTH OF IT [INAUDIBLE] AND THOSE OTHER STREETS [INAUDIBLE] YEAH, THOSE ARE PRETTY MUCH 60, POSSIBLY 70 FOOT LOTS IN THERE.

BUT THEY'RE GOING TO BE VERY SIMILAR TO THE NEW.

SO IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE AREA, NEIGHBORHOODS.

YES. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, INDICATE SO BY RAISING YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX.

WE'RE UNANIMOUS. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

ITEM FIVE, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR A VARIANCE TO

[5. 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 Lot 23A of the Habitat for Humanity of Southern Brazoria County Caldwell Road Subdivision.]

THE SIDEWALK REQUIREMENT OF CHAPTER TWENTY THREE, SECTION 23-14A SIDEWALK FOR LOT, 23A OF THE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF SOUTHERN MISSOURI COUNTY.

CALDWELL ROAD SUBDIVISION.

MR. REEVES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

[00:45:01]

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SIDEWALK VARIANCE ON THE CALDWELL ROAD SUBDIVISION.

AS YOU JUST READ, IT'S THE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY PROJECT.

IF YOU LOOK IN THE BACK UP, THERE IS AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH THAT I THINK THAT BEST ILLUSTRATES WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.

THERE'S A DITCH ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ROAD WHERE THIS LOT IS LOCATED.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH, YOU REALLY CAN'T GET A SIDEWALK IN ALONG THAT FRONTAGE UNLESS YOU RECONSTRUCT THE ROAD AND REDO ALL THE DRAINAGE ALONG THERE...

THERE WE ARE.

SO, THE VARIANCE REQUEST HERE SEEMS APPROPRIATE UNDER THE CODE AND GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YOU KNOW, IN MY MIND, I WILL JUST SAY THAT GIVEN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE NATURE OF THE STREET AND IN THE DITCHES, I THINK THIS VARIANCE MAKES SENSE.