Jul 01, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission

[DECLARATION OF A QUORUM AND CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:02]

ALL RIGHT, WE WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TO THE JULY 1ST EDITION OF CITY OF ANGLETON PLANNING AND ZONING.

WE'VE GOT WE HAVE A QUORUM AND WE'VE CALLED TO ORDER.

[1. Conduct a public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a request for approval of an ordinance rezoning 1.6871 acres from the Commercial-General District to the Single-Family Attached Residential District (Townhomes). The subject property is located on the south side of Clements Street and consists of Lots F & G, approximately 275 feet west of N. Velasco Street.]

IN PARENTHESES, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CLEMENTS STREET AND CONSIST OF LOTS F AND G APPROXIMATELY TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE FEET WEST OF NORTH VALASCO STREET, MR. REEVES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE 1.69 APPROXIMATELY ACRES FROM COMMERCIAL GENERAL TO SFA, WHICH IS A SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED SUBJECT PROPERTIES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CLEMENTS BETWEEN THE APARTMENT COMPLEX.

AND I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE COMMERCIAL USE IS ON THE FRONT OF THAT STREET.

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, FUTURE LAND USE PLAN HAS DESIGNATED THIS PROPERTY AS APPROPRIATE FOR OFFICE RETAIL USES.

OBVIOUSLY, THIS REZONING WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT, BUT THE PROPOSED REZONING IS OTHERWISE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES, AND IT REALLY WOULDN'T HAVE ANY KIND OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE CITY'S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.

SO THAT ALL BEING SAID, WHILE IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, YOU COULD SAY THAT GIVEN THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IS ANYWHERE FROM 2003 TO 2007 IN AGE AND NOTHING REMOTELY RESEMBLING OFFICE, RETAIL OR COMMERCIAL USE HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY, THAT MAYBE THE THAT PARTICULAR DESIGNATION AS OFFICE RETAIL IS PROBABLY NOT THE BEST ONE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

AND HAVING SAID THAT, BECAUSE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER POLICIES, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING USES AND ZONINGS IN THE AREA, AND BECAUSE IT ISN'T GOING TO HAVE ANY KIND OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? GOING ONCE. YES, SIR.

WOULD YOU GO TO THE PODIUM AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF? MY NAME IS DUANE LINDSEY.

I'M THE OWNER OF THE CLEMENTS PROPERTY F AND G.

AND I THANK MR. REEVES, WHAT HE HAD TO SAY AND FOR HIS EXPERTISE, I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW I'VE HAD THE PROPERTY FOR SALE FOR APPROXIMATELY 13 YEARS.

I'VE ADVERTISED IT AT DIFFERENT PRICES, DIFFERENT WAYS.

[INAUDIBLE] HAS PAID A LOT FOR MY ADVERTISING TO THE PUBLIC.

AND I HAVE ATTRACTED COMMERCIAL BUYERS IN, YOU KNOW, FOR OFFICE SPACE.

I HAVE NEVER HAD A BUYER GO ALL THE WAY THROUGH THEY FOR SOME REASON THEY DIDN'T LIKE IT.

AND THAT'S SO WHEN I'VE HAD TWO PEOPLE COME NOW TO ME ABOUT RESIDENTIAL TYPE, I ACTUALLY THEY WERE RIGHT TOGETHER AND I FELT LIKE THIS WAS A BETTER SUIT FOR THE LAND AND THE AREA BECAUSE IT WAS GOING TO BE A SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED TYPE.

SO I APPRECIATE Y'ALL.

LETTING ME COME BEFORE YOU AND ENTERTAINING THIS.

THANK YOU, MR. LINDSEY. WE MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ONCE WE CONCLUDE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE AT THIS TIME WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR EITHER CITY STAFF OR MR. LINDSAY? TO ME, IT SEEMS LIKE AN APPROPRIATE USE OF THE PROPERTY GIVEN THE SURROUNDING USES. SO YOU'RE THESE PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME TO YOU ARE LOOKING AT BUILDING RESIDENTIAL HOMES. NO IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED IT'S GOING TO BE TOWNHOUSES IS WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO WORK WITH THE CITY THAT'S WHERE THEY ARE RIGHT NOW.

YEAH, IT'S A [INAUDIBLE] PROJECT.

THOSE ARE ATTACHED. YOU NEED A SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED ZONING DISTRICT TO DO THAT.

SO THAT WOULD FIT WITH THE APARTMENTS I WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST TO RESOLVE THE APPROXIMATELY 1.6871 ACRES FROM THE S.G. DISTRICT TO SFA DISTRICT.

I HAVE A MOTION BY MR. MUNSON. I'LL SECOND.

[00:05:01]

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR INDICATE SO BY SAYING AYE AYE.

OPPOSED SAME SIGN.

MOTION CARRIES AND I WOULD EXPECT THAT'LL GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE END OF THE MONTH.

SO GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU, SIR.

[2. Conduct a public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a request for approval of the Hancock Subdivision Consolidation Replat with a variance of Section 23.12 requiring a right-of-way dedication. The subject property is a replat of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 42 of Angleton Townsite and consists of an approximate 0.314 acres in the Single Family Residential 6.3 (SF-6.3) District. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Orange Street and Hancock Street.]

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A REPLAT OF LOTS ONE TWO AND THREE BLOCK FORTY TWO OF ANGLETON TOWNSITE AND CONSIST OF AN APPROXIMATE .314 ACRES IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 6.3 DISTRICT SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ORANGE STREET AND HANCOCK STREET, MR REEVES.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'M GOING TO DO MY BEST NOT TO GET EVERYBODY CONFUSED.

AND IN A MATTER OF TWO OR THREE MINUTES HERE, WHEN THIS APPLICATION FIRST CAME IN, THE THREE LOTS IN QUESTION WERE ORIENTED TOWARDS HANDCOCK STREET.

AND AFTER WE REVIEWED THE PROPOSAL THE PROPOSED TWO NEW LOTS OUT OF THOSE THREE LOTS WOULD NOT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT THE PROPERTY WAS IN.

SO WE COMMENTED BACK TO THE APPLICANT THAT IF YOU CHANGE THE ORIENTATION OF THE LOTS TO ORANGE STREET AND ASK FOR A VARIANCE OF THE RIGHT AWAY DEDICATION REQUIREMENT THAT PARTICULAR CONFIGURATION WOULD WORK AND MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN.

SO NOW FOR THE CONFUSING PART, CAN I GET THE NEXT MAP? AND THAT, YEAH, THE MOBILITY PLAN NEED TO BE ROTATED AND ZOOMED IN A LITTLE BIT.

THERE WE GO. OK, THE PROPERTIES ON THE CORNER OF ORANGE AND HANCOCK AND ON THE MOBILITY PLAN, BOTH OF THOSE STREETS ARE DESIGNATED, AS I WANT TO SAY.

[INAUDIBLE] ARTERIAL LEVEL STREETS, HANCOCK, AS YOU ARE, AS YOU KNOW, IS PARALLELS BUSINESS 288 AND WHY THAT WOULD BE DESIGNATED AS AN ARTERIAL LEVEL STREET WHEN IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO A STATE ARTERIAL LEVEL STREET DOESN'T REALLY MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE. AND THE RIGHT AWAY DEDICATION ALONG THE HANCOCK STREET SIDE WOULD BE 20 FEET ON THE ORANGE STREET SIDE.

IF YOU LOOK ON THE MOBILITY PLAN, IT APPEARS THAT THE INTENTION AT THE TIME THAT THE PLAN WAS ADOPTED WAS TO TURN MULBERRY STREET AND ORANGE STREET INTO WHAT'S CALLED A ONE WAY COUPLET, MEANING THAT MULBERRY WOULD BE ONE WAY WESTBOUND AND ORANGE WOULD BE ONE WAY EASTBOUND. AND THAT, OF COURSE, HAS NEVER HAPPENED.

AND THE WAY IN ORDER TO MAKE THE THE GEOMETRY WORK THE CITY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO BUY A BLOCK OR TWO BETWEEN MULBERRY AND ORANGE STREET IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT THE CONFIGURATION OF THE STREET ACTUALLY WORK AND THEN DOWN AT THE OTHER END DO THE SAME THING TO MAKE THEM MERGE BACK TOGETHER, ALONG WITH HAVING TO DEAL WITH TEXDOT TO TRY AND ESTABLISH ANOTHER SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ON BUSINESS 288 THAT'S A BLOCK AWAY FROM THE FROM THE MULBERRY STREET SIGNAL.

AND THEN YOU'D BE RUNNING THIS ONE WAY ARTERIAL STREET TRAFFIC BASICALLY THROUGH THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ALONG ORANGE STREET.

SO THERE'S A NUMBER OF PRACTICAL REASONS WHY THAT COUPLET-ING HAS NEVER HAPPENED AND IT PROBABLY NEVER WILL.

AND THE RIGHT AWAY DEDICATION ALONG THE ORANGE STREET SIDE WOULD BE FIVE FEET.

SO IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED, THE PROPOSED REPLAT OTHERWISE MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ANGLETON.

SO BECAUSE THIS COUPLET-ING HAS NEVER HAPPENED AND I DON'T THINK IT'S IN ANYBODY'S PLANS AT THIS POINT IN TIME TO EVER MAKE THAT HAPPEN, STAFF FEELS THAT THE RIGHT AWAY DEDICATION IS PROBABLY NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS AND THAT AS SUCH, WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE TO THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION AND WITH THE GRANTING OF THAT VARIANCE, APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT.

AND I HOPE I DIDN'T CONFUSE ANYBODY.

WE'LL FIND OUT IN A FEW MINUTES.

[00:10:02]

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ISSUE? GOING ONCE GOING TWICE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'LL HAVE DISCUSSION.

I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT BECAUSE I'VE BEEN HERE DOING THIS AS LONG [INAUDIBLE] BEEN HERE ON P AND Z, BUT BEING ON COUNCIL BACK WHEN A LOT OF THIS STUFF WAS HAPPENING, I THINK THAT DIVISION ONE WAY, EACH WAY IS STILL ON THE TEXDOT BOOKS.

SO THAT WAS NOT INITIATED BY THE CITY.

IT WAS INITIATED BY TEXDOT.

SO THAT ONE IS SOMETHING WE CAN'T JUST ASSUME WILL NOT HAPPEN, BECAUSE IF THEY DECIDE THEY WANT TO COME THROUGH AND BUY THE RIGHT AWAY, IT CAN HAPPEN.

SO WHATEVER WE DECIDE, WE NEED TO ASSUME THAT THAT COULD HAPPEN STILL IN THE FUTURE.

AND SO WHAT WOULD BE THE CONSEQUENCE OF DOING OF GRANTING THE REQUEST AND THEN THE STATE AT SOME POINT DECIDING TO GO FORTH WITH THE CONCEPT.

I DON'T THINK IT WOULD REALLY HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THIS, BECAUSE THE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY FOR ORANGE STREET, I BELIEVE, IS 70 FEET RIGHT NOW.

AND ANY ADDITIONAL RIGHT AWAY THE TEXDOT WOULD HAVE TO BUY IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN, THAT THEY JUST HAVE TO BUY IT.

OK, SO THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY CONSEQUENCE IN YOUR MIND TO THE RECOMMENDATION? I DON'T SEE ANY CONSEQUENCES.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS OR ISN'T ON THE STATE'S TIP, BUT AND WE ALL KNOW THAT TEXDOT MOVES IN GLACIAL WAYS AND OR THEY SURPRISE US.

THIS IS HOW WE WERE GOING TO MOVE THE TRAFFIC IN DOWNTOWN ANGLETON.

AND THEY TOLD US WHEN WE DID THE MOBILITY PLAN.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT AND APPRECIATE THAT.

BUT LIKE I SAID, I DON'T THINK THAT GRANTING THIS VARIANCE IS GOING TO HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON ANYTHING.

I CAN'T IMAGINE WHAT TEXDOT WOULD BE DOING WITH HANCOCK STREET THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO HAVE MORE RIGHT TO PAY FOR THAT OTHER THAN PERHAPS CLOSING IT TO MAKE THIS COUPLET OF WORK. AND FOR THE REST OF IT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT TEXDOT AT SOME POINT IN TIME STANDS UP AND SAYS, OK, WE'RE GOING TO COME DO THIS.

WELL, THEN THEY NEED TO STEP FORWARD AND DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

AND SO DON'T DON'T GO TOO FAR, THE CONSEQUENCE OF US NOT GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS THAT THE OWNER IS NOT ABLE TO REPLAT THE THREE LOTS INTO TWO LIKE HE WOULD, OR SHE WOULD LIKE TO DO.

THEY WOULD BE UNABLE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SF 6.3 ZONING DISTRICT THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN. THEIR ONLY OTHER AVENUE OF RELIEF WOULD BE TO ATTEMPT TO REZONE IT TO SF 5, AND THAT HASN'T BEEN RECEIVED VERY WELL.

SO THOSE WERE THE CHOICES TO TRY AND DO A REZONING THAT YOU ARE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME GETTING OR REORIENT THE LOTS AND ASK FOR A VARIANCE ON THE RIGHT AWAY DEDICATION REQUIREMENT, BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET YOU CAN'T GET THE YOU CAN'T MEET THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT THE RIGHT WAY DEDICATION.

AND YOU CAN'T.

AND THE ONLY OTHER WAY TO DO IT WOULD BE TO REZONE THE PROPERTY.

I HAVE A QUESTION IS THERE A WAY TO FIND OUT IF WE'RE STILL ON THEIR LIST OF REDIRECTING TRAFFIC IN THE CITY OF ANGLETON? WE CAN CERTAINLY FIND OUT.

BECAUSE I'D HATE TO DO SOMETHING AND GET THESE PROPERTY OWNERS INVOLVED.

AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO BACK OUT ON A STREET.

IT'S GOING TO BE, QUOTE, A MAJOR ARTERY.

YEAH, I, I THAT'S THAT'S A PROBLEM.

AND I THINK THE BEST WAY TO APPROACH IT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION, IF YOU'RE SO INCLINED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES AND THE PLAT.

AND I WILL CONVEY TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER WE FIND OUT IF THIS IS STILL ON TEXDOTS TIP AT SOME POINT IN TIME, WHAT'S GOING ON WITH IT THAT YOU ALL HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.

AND THIS IS WHAT WE FOUND OUT.

AND, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY, COUNCIL HAS TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION, THE RIGHT OF WAY, I ASSUME, IS JUST FOR ROAD RIGHT AWAY,

[00:15:01]

I THINK WE'RE READY. I HAVE A MOTION BY MS. MCDANIEL TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

YES. SECOND.

I HAVE A SECOND BY MS. SPOOR IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR INDICATE SO BY SAYING, AYE, AYE.

OPPOSED SAME SIGN, OK? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM THREE, DISCUSS AND PROVIDE COMMENT ON THE DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

[3. Discuss and provide comment on the draft Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)]

HOPEFULLY EVERYONE'S HAD A CHANCE TO TAKE A LOOK AND.

AND NOW'S YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT, IF YOU'D LIKE.

THAT'S CORRECT. ONLY WE DON'T HAVE ANY STAFF HERE.

EXCEPT FOR WELL, THIS IS NOT AN ACTION ITEM, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THIS? I WAS JUST CONCERNED THAT THERE WAS SO MUCH MONEY GOING INTO PARKS.

BUT I SENT MEGAN AN EMAIL AND SHE EXPLAINED TO ME, SO I'M COMFORTABLE NOW.

IF SOMETHING HAPPENS, THEN IT CAN BE ADJUSTED.

THAT IS PART OF HAVING SOME OF THESE THINGS AND THEY BEING NOT SO MUCH THAT THEY'RE BIG NUMBERS, BUT IT'S LOOKING FORWARD INTO THE FUTURE AND KIND OF BEING READY AS EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE, A PILE OF MONEY IS READY TO GET DUMPED INTO THE CITY'S LAP SO YOU CAN BE READY TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT AHEAD INFRASTRUCTURE.

OBVIOUSLY, SEWER OR ANYTHING HAS TO DO WITH SEWER IS A PRIORITY, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

SEWER AND STREET.

ALL RIGHT. ITEM FOUR, DISCUSS, CONSIDER AND ACT ON A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE

[4. Discuss, consider and act on a recommendation regarding the Heritage Tree Survey/Tree Preservation Plan (TPP) for Anderson Place]

THE DEVELOPER OF THE PROPERTIES REQUESTED THAT THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO THE TO YOUR AUGUST MEETING. AND I BELIEVE THAT'S AUGUST 5TH.

I THINK THEY WANT TO PUT TOGETHER SOME BETTER INFORMATION TO BE ABLE TO COME BACK TO YOU AND ADDRESS THE PLAN.

ALL RIGHT. AND WITH THAT, WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 12:18.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.