[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 a Planned Development (PD) District. The subject property is located on the north side of Anchor Road (CR 44) approximately 2,000 feet northwest of W. Wilkens Street. ]

ITEM NUMBER ONE, TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDERS TO REZONE AN APPROXIMATE 164.5 ACRES OF LAND [INAUDIBLE] SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 380, BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS, FROM THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. SUBJECT PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ANCHOR ROAD, COUNTY ROAD 44 APPROXIMATELY TWO THOUSAND FEET NORTHWEST OF WEST WILKINS STREET.

MR. REEVES? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE COMMISSION WILL RECALL BACK IN MARCH, WE DID A PROPOSED REZONING ON THIS PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL TO SFI THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF.

AND IT WENT TO CITY COUNCIL AND CITY COUNCIL, FOR WHATEVER REASON, DECIDED TO TABLE THE ITEM. AND IT WAS TABLED UNTIL JUNE, AT WHICH POINT IN TIME IT WAS BROUGHT BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL. AND THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED THAT THEY WANTED TO SEE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS WHAT IS NOW IN FRONT OF YOU FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

IN FRONT OF YOU, YOU HAVE A REVISED ORDINANCE PD ORDINANCE ON THIS.

IT'S LABELED ITEM NUMBER ONE.

UNFORTUNATELY, I GOT THIS ORDINANCE TUESDAY AFTERNOON AFTER THE PACKET WENT OUT SO I WASN'T ABLE TO GET IT TO YOU UNTIL THIS MEETING.

IT DOESN'T SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE THE BASICS OF THE PROJECT, WHICH IS THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A MIX OF A LOT SIZES AS LAID OUT IN THE ORDINANCE.

THE TIGNER ROAD IS GOING TO BE EXTENDED ACROSS THE PROPERTY EAST TO WEST.

SO, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MOBILITY PLAN.

AND THERE WILL BE A NORTH SOUTH STREET THAT WILL CONNECT TO TIGNER, THAT WILL CONNECT TO COUNTY ROAD 44.

REALLY, I DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT ELSE TO SAY ABOUT THE PROJECT.

IT'S RESIDENTIAL, EXCEPT FOR THE VERY LAST PHASE, WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE COMMERCIAL OFFICE RETAIL.

AND THE DEVELOPER HAS AGREED TO MARKET THE PROPERTY IN THAT, FOR THAT KIND OF USE.

THE PROPOSAL WAS FOR FOUR YEARS.

I THINK THE WORDING IN THE ORDINANCE KIND OF CHANGED ON THAT A LITTLE BIT, MAINLY BECAUSE THERE IS A COUNCIL MEMBER WHO ADAMANTLY INSISTED THAT THEY WANTED IT TO BE IN THE COMMERCIAL OFFICE DISTRICT AND THAT TO CHANGE IT, THEY'D HAVE TO COME BACK AND CHANGE IT.

BUT THE PROPOSAL WAS TO MARKET IT FOR THAT.

AND THEN IF IT, THERE WAS NO INTEREST IN DOING COMMERCIAL THERE, TO THEN HAVE IT GO BACK TO BEING CAPABLE OF BEING DEVELOPED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.

SO BASICALLY, THE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

THANK YOU, WALT.

WE'LL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING.

I'LL ASK EACH OF YOU TO TRY AND LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES, THERE ABOUT.

I HAVE A REQUEST FROM HELLO. SO WITH REGARD TO THIS PARTICULAR ITEM JUST IN AS LOCAL COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND YOU, CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? PLEASE, GUYS, BE CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE I CAN. HELLO, IS THIS THING ON? GO AHEAD. OK, GREAT.

SO WITH REGARDS TO THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, I WANT TO STRESS, I THINK IT'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY CONSTRUED WITH COUNCIL AND MAYBE WITH YOU GUYS ALSO THAT, YOU KNOW, THE JOURNEY FAMILY BEING PROPERTY OWNERS KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE AND RIGHT OFF OF ANCHOR ROAD WITH THIS POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SURROUNDING THAT, WE'RE OPPOSED TO.

ACTUALLY, I THINK I ACCIDENTALLY CHECKED OPPOSED ON MY SHEET THERE.

BUT THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT IS WE PERSONALLY AS A FAMILY WOULD BENEFIT FROM WHATEVER TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT GOES IN THERE.

AND AS A COMMUNITY MEMBER, I MEAN, I'M NOT OPPOSED WHATSOEVER TO DEVELOPMENT OF ANY AND ALL KINDS. I JUST WANT TO ENCOURAGE YOU GUYS TO BE CONSIDERATE OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE NOW ON THIS ITEM AND THE ITEMS ON THE REST OF THE AGENDA RELATIVE TO WHAT THAT DOES AND THE IMPLICATIONS WITH, YOU KNOW, NOT ONLY AN AGING CITY INFRASTRUCTURE WHERE, YOU KNOW, I THINK HISTORICALLY THE COMMUNITY HAS ABANDONED THE OLD

[00:05:02]

TO BUILD NEW. AND YOU CAN CERTAINLY SEE THAT AROUND TOWN.

I PERSONALLY INVESTED IN A HOME IN THE NORTHRIDGE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE I'VE SPENT EXTENSIVELY REMODELING AND THE CITY HAS SPENT EXTENSIVELY REPLACING SEWER LINES THAT WE KNOW IF THAT SECTION OF THE SEWER LINE IS BAD, THEN IT'S BAD EVERYWHERE ELSE.

AND SO BUILDING, YOU KNOW, TONS OF NEW ROOFTOPS, AS ALL OF THESE AGENDA ITEMS ARE ALLUDING TO, IS ONLY GOING TO PUT ADDITIONAL PRESSURE ON THAT AGING INFRASTRUCTURE.

AS RECENTLY AS THIS WEEK, I'VE HAD TO HAVE THE CITY OUT TO LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, IMPLICATE, WHAT I BELIEVE ARE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT AGING INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR CONSIDERATION.

ALSO, WHAT HAPPENS WITH OUR SCHOOLS.

SO I THINK WE ALL PROBABLY KNOW IS COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND AGREE THAT THE SCHOOLS ARE TO THE POINT WHERE THEY'RE ALREADY BURSTING AT THE SEAMS. SO WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS AS TAXPAYERS TO BONDS THAT ARE GOING TO NEED TO BE PASSED TO BRING IN THOUSANDS OF ROOFTOPS IN THOSE FAMILIES ASSOCIATED? AGAIN, NOT ANTI DEVELOPMENT.

THERE'S A TON OF DEBATE ON LOT SIZES, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU GUYS CONSIDER WHAT I WAS ABLE TO JUST FIND IN A QUICK GOOGLE SEARCH.

IN DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVERSITY OF OUR COMMUNITY IS SKEWED TO POVERTY.

THAT'S THEIR WORD, NOT MINE.

AND, YOU KNOW, I WANT YOU GUYS TO THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE NEED FOR BRINGING POSITIVE GROWTH AND ECONOMIC DIVERSITY IN HOUSING TO THE COMMUNITY THAT WE'RE GOING TO, THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE DECISIONS THAT YOU GUYS ARE MAKING NOW WE LIVE WITH FOR TWENTY FIVE YEARS AND BEYOND. SO DO WE.

EXACTLY. I, WE.

SO, IN CLOSING, I MEAN, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE DATA IS. I HAVE I'M NOT PRIVY TO IT.

I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT. I HAVEN'T SEEN IT.

BUT I HOPE THAT YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING AT EXISTING DEMOGRAPHIC DATA AND PLANNING DEVELOPMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT WE WANT TO SEE AS OPPOSED TO WHAT DEVELOPERS ARE PITCHING US BUILDING HERE CURRENTLY.

THAT'S IT THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. JOURNEY.

AND WE HAVE ANOTHER MS. JOURNEY [INAUDIBLE] SPEAK.

WHO NEEDS NO INTRODUCTION TO MOST OF US.

WHEN I GOT THE NOTICE BECAUSE OF OUR PROPERTY THERE, THAT THIS SUBDIVISION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW WOULD BE SURROUNDING.

I DIDN'T KNOW IF THIS WAS SOMETHING.

I SENT A LETTER TO COUNCIL FOR A PUBLIC MEETING A FEW WEEKS AGO BECAUSE I WAS OUT OF TOWN, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IF I SHOULD COME AND SPEAK AGAIN.

AND, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE CONSTANTLY HEARING WE DO THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NOBODY SHOWS UP, SO NOBODY MUST CARE.

BUT WE DO CARE.

AND LIKE KATIE SAID, WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE STAND TO GAIN WHERE WE LIVE WITH ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT GOES OUT THERE. AND I JUST ONE OF THE THINGS I PUT IN MY LETTER IS I KEEP HEARING THE WORD GATEWAY.

GATEWAY TO OUR COMMUNITY.

44 IS GOING TO BE THE NEW GATEWAY, OUR COMMUNITY.

IT WAS A TERM THAT, THOSE WERE THE TERMS THAT WERE USED DURING THE WHOLE REBRANDING, YOU KNOW, AND ALL OF THAT WHICH CAME ABOUT BECAUSE OF THE PARK, BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW, THIS TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT.

AND I'M SORRY, I DON'T REMEMBER YOUR NAME.

SANDY SPOKE AFTER MY LETTER WAS READ AND ASSURED EVERYONE THAT HE'S GOING TO DO A GREAT JOB. AWESOME GUY.

BY THE WAY, I'VE MET YOU.

YOU'RE JUST I MEAN, I JUST YOU'RE SOMEBODY THAT AFTER JUST MEETING YOU THE FIRST TIME, I'D LIKE TO GET TO KNOW YOU MORE.

SO WITH THAT SAID, I` JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING DUE DILIGENCE.

I COULD NOT IN GOOD FAITH, LEAVE THIS PODIUM WITHOUT TELLING YOU THAT I AM A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED ABOUT THE LOT SIZES.

WHEN YOU LOOK ACROSS THE STREET FROM COUNTY ROAD 44, WHERE YOU HAVE HERITAGE OAKS AND HERITAGE COURT AND YOU KNOW, WITH HERITAGE COURT BEING SMALLER LOT SIZES THAN HERITAGE OAKS. AND I JUST THINK THAT WE HAVE ROOM FOR THAT.

I HOPE YOU DON'T MIND, CHRIS.

I'LL MENTION A CONVERSATION I HAD WITH CHRIS WHITTAKER ONE DAY ABOUT HOW, YOU KNOW, THERE'S GOT TO BE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO COME INTO THIS COMMUNITY STILL THAT THAT WANT A NICER, LARGER LOT AND A NICER, BIGGER HOME.

THERE ARE STILL THOSE PEOPLE.

I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT NEED THE SMALLER ONES.

I'M NOT I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THAT.

I JUST THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH.

I REALIZE THESE LOTS ARE A LITTLE BIGGER THAN ALL THE OTHER 1500 THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PROMISED, BUT I STILL THINK WE CAN DO BETTER THAN THAT.

AND IF THAT'S THE GATEWAY, THEN WHY WOULDN'T WE WANT THAT TO BE NICER LIKE IT IS ACROSS THE STREET? BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT WE NEED MORE OF THAT.

[00:10:02]

YOU KNOW, WHEN I VISITED WITH CHRIS, HE, YOU KNOW, HE TOLD ME I CHOSE MY HOUSE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I WANTED. THERE'S MORE PEOPLE LIKE US OUT THERE, TOO, I THINK.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

MS. RENEE.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? IF NOT WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME AND BEGIN OUR DISCUSSION.

I HAVE A QUESTION WITH WALTER.

OK, SO WE WENT THROUGH THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY BACK IN MARCH.

AND WE WE HELD A VOTE; IS THAT CORRECT? THIS BODY TO TAKE IT OUT OF AGRICULTURE AND PUT IT IN SF5? CORRECT. AND THAT GOT, WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE THAT DERAILED ALL OF THIS THAT BRINGS IT BACK TO US AND TELLS US IT'S AGRICULTURAL AGAIN AND WE NEED TO REVOTE ON SF5? IT'S STILL AGRICULTURAL.

OK.

WHEN YOUR RECOMMENDATION WENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THEY HELD THEIR PUBLIC HEARING ON IT AND NEVER REACHED A DECISION ON IT AND JUST TABLED IT.

SO IT WAS TABLED FROM MARCH TO THE, I THINK IT WAS THE FIRST MEETING IN JUNE, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, WHERE IT WAS BROUGHT BACK OFF THE TABLE AND THE COUNCIL HAD MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT IT AND DECIDED THAT WHAT THEY WANTED TO SEE WAS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND NOT THE SF, JUST A STRAIGHT SF5 ZONING DISTRICT ON THE PROPERTY.

SO WITH THAT DECISION, [INAUDIBLE] A PREPARED HIS LAND PLAN AND HAD HIS ATTORNEY DRAFT UP THE ORDINANCE. THAT IS PART OF WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT THERE.

WE DID THE NOTICE AGAIN FOR THE, TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S STILL AGRICULTURALLY ZONED BECAUSE THAT'S THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT IT COMES INTO THE CITY WHEN IT'S ANNEXED INTO THE CITY.

AND SO NOW WE'RE DOING THE PROCESS BASICALLY AGAIN FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AS OPPOSED TO JUST A STRAIGHT SF5 REZONING.

SO, THAT'S THE BEST I CAN EXPLAIN IT.

OK, SO BEFORE WE HAD IT JUST LOCKED IN AT SF5? CORRECT. AND WHICH WOULD HAVE MEANT FORTY FIVE FOOT LOTS, FIFTY? NO, IN THE SF5 ZONING DISTRICT, THE LOTS HAVE TO BE AT LEAST 5000 SQUARE FEET AND AT LEAST 50 FEET WIDE.

SO, WITH THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, YOU CAN SEE IN THE LOT MIX THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT SIZES OF LOTS IN THE VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE PROJECT.

IF THIS HAD REMAINED JUST STRAIGHT SF5, IT COULD HAVE BEEN ALL JUST 50, YOU KNOW, 5000 SQUARE FEET, LOTS, 50 FOOT WIDE.

NOW, IT DOESN'T, JUST BECAUSE IT'S SF5 DOESN'T MEAN THAT THAT'S THE SIZE OF LOT THAT SOMEBODY HAS TO DO.

BUT THAT'S THE MINIMUM.

AND THAT'S USUALLY EXACTLY WHAT THOSE LOTS BECOME.

IF IT'S JUST SF5 ZONING, BUT WITH THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, AS THE LAND PLAN SHOWS, CERTAIN SECTIONS ARE GOING TO HAVE CERTAIN NUMBERS OF LOTS THAT HAVE LARGER LOT WIDTHS.

AND THE PROJECT HAS TO BE DEVELOPED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT.

SO THERE WILL BE LOTS, YOU CAN'T SEE IT BECAUSE IT'S DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN, BUT. AND NOW IT'S.

BUT THAT TELLS YOU IT TELLS YOU THE VARIOUS LOT WIDTHS AND THE VARIOUS SECTIONS AND THERE'S A TABLE IN BOTH THE ORDINANCES, THE ORDINANCE THAT ALSO DOES THAT.

SO IF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING IS APPROVED, THEN IT HAS TO BE DEVELOPED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

SO WHEN WE AGREE TO THIS, THIS BECOMES THE PLAN FOR THAT PROPERTY AND REMAINS ON THAT PROPERTY, PERIOD? YES, UNLESS OR UNTIL SOMEBODY COMES BACK AND ASKS TO HAVE IT CHANGED AND THEN THEY HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH THIS VERY SAME PROCESS.

OK, I'M JUST, I KNOW I KNOW THAT.

BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE THIS ONE'S BEEN RUNNING AROUND THE TABLE A LONG TIME.

SINCE MARCH. SO.

OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

CAN I ASK ANOTHER QUESTION AND A COMMENT? NOT A LOT. OK, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN THIS DRAWING.

AND SO IT BRINGS TO MIND.

GO TO THE MIC. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN THIS DRAWING OF THIS MAP, SO IT BRINGS TO MY MIND A QUESTION WITH THAT WHITE SPOT IS US.

[00:15:02]

WE HAVE A WHAT DO YOU CALL IT, A, WE'RE ALLOWED TO ENTER ON THE ROAD THAT WE DON'T OWN.

AN EASEMENT TO GET IN.

AND I KNOW THAT THAT STANDS AS LONG AS WE OWN THE PROPERTY, RIGHT? BUT I SEE THAT THAT'S COLORED IN THE ORANGE.

DOES THAT MEAN THAT NOW THIS, THAT'S PART OF THE SUBDIVISION? IS THAT PART OF THE PROPERTY? OK, SO THE OTHER THING THAT'S THE QUESTION I WAS ASKING.

THE ONLY OTHER THING THE COMMENT I WANTED TO MAKE IS THAT WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN BEING ANNEXED. WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN BEING RE ZONED.

AND I HOPE THAT THAT'S AND I UNDERSTAND THAT OUR PROPERTY THERE IN THE WHITE IS NOT IN QUESTION AS FAR AS THE REZONING AND STUFF.

IS THAT CORRECT? I'M GOING TO DEFER TO MR. REEVES.

YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT.

THE, THAT PROPERTY WAS NOT PART OF THE ANNEXATION.

IT'S STILL IN THE ETJ.

IT'S WHAT WE WOULD CALL A DONUT HOLE BECAUSE IT'S COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY THE CITY OF ANGLETON. AS FAR AS WE.

YOU'RE NOT BEING ZONED.

YOU'RE NOT BEING YOU CAN'T BE ANNEXED UNLESS YOU'RE ACTUALLY ANNEXED AND YOU'RE NOT.

AND SO AND AS FAR AS THE ACCESS EASEMENT GOES, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE ACCESS EASEMENT SAYS. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER.

SO IT MAY RUN WITH THE LAND, IT MAY RUN WITH THE HOUSE.

DEPENDING ON WHAT THE EASEMENT SAYS, MR. RAY WILL HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE IT, EVEN VALUES THEY USE IT IN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME.

YES.

AND YOU KNOW, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU LIKE TO SAY, I MEAN, HONESTLY, BEING AN HONEST PERSON, IS WHAT I THINK BUT YOU'VE SEEN STRANGER THINGS HAPPEN.

ALL RIGHT. SO, THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. IS THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR ANYONE ELSE? IF NOT, DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION.

I MOVE, WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED REZONING OF 164.5 ACRES FROM THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.

I HAVE A MOTION BY MS. MCDANIEL. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

SECOND FOR MR. MUNSON.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT THIS GROUP HAS FOREVER BEEN OPPOSED TO ANY LOT SIZE SMALLER THAN 60 FEET.

WE REALLY FEEL LIKE THEY SHOULD BE LARGER, A LARGE TRACT LIKE THIS, BUT ALSO, THIS MAY NEED THIS KIND OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DITCH 10 IS GOING TO REALLY STRESS THAT DRAINAGE BIG TIME.

I'LL JUST MAKE THAT AS A STATEMENT.

MAYBE THE CITY COUNCIL WILL PICK UP THE [INAUDIBLE].

I KNOW THAT THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT WILL HAVE TO APPROVE THAT.

BUT. I'LL LET IT GO AT THAT.

ALL RIGHT, ANYTHING ELSE? I WAS JUST, I'M NOT FOR ANYTHING.

I THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH OF THESE 60 AND UNDER LOTS.

AND I DO KNOW AS, YOU KNOW, THE MILITARY IN THIS AREA FOR MANY YEARS, THERE IS A NEED FOR MORE HOMES AND [INAUDIBLE] MARKET.

AND RAY JAPLIN HAS COME IN AND, BUT HIS PUT HIS ON IN THE LIST SELLING LOTS.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO CANCEL BY RAISING YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR.

THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

ONE, TWO. SO WE ARE 4-2 IN FAVOR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT, ITEM TWO, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION ABOUT THE

[2. Conduct a public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a request for approval of an ordinance rezoning 2.669 acres from the Commercial-General District to the Single Family Residential 6.3 District. The subject property is located north of W. Mulberry Street between Murray Ranch Road to the west and Walker Street to the east. ]

ACTUAL REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING 2.669 ACRES IN THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 6.3DISTRICT.

THE SUBJECT PROBABLY IS LOCATED NORTH OF WEST MULBERRY STREET BETWEEN MURRAY RANCH ROAD TO THE WEST AND WALKER STREET TO THE EAST.

[00:20:01]

OK, LINDSAY? GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS.

THIS ITEM, THE PROJECT OWNER HAS REQUESTED THAT WE CONTINUE UNTIL THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING DATE ON SEPTEMBER 2ND.

[INAUDIBLE]. THANK YOU.

UM, I MAY NEED TO GET YOUR REQUEST FOR A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CONTINUE TO A LATER DATE . SO, IS OUR MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO SEPTEMBER 2ND? SO MOVED.

MOTION BY MS. SPOOR. IS THERE A SECOND? MS. SCAEFER.

ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL OF A FAVOR INDICATE SO BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED, AME SIGN.

IT'S CONTINUED. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ITEM THREE, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE

[3. Conduct a public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a request for approval of an ordinance rezoning Angleton Block 27, Lots 7 through 20 and portion of a closed alley located at 237 E. Locust Street, Angleton, TX 77515 from Commercial-General (C-G) to Central Business District (CBD). The subject property is located with Live Oak St to the north, Arcola St. to the east, E. Locust to the south, and Chenango St. to the west. ]

REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING ANGLETON BLOCK 27, LOTS 7-20.

AND A PORTION OF A CLOSED ALLEY LOCATED 237 EAST LOCUST STREET IN ANGLETON FROM COMMERCIAL GENERAL TO CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITH LIVE OAK STREET TO THE NORTH, ARCOLA STREET TO THE EAST AND EAST LOCUST TO THE SOUTH AND SHENANGO STREET TO THE WEST.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. SO THIS ITEM IS CONCERNING THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT, SO THEY ARE GOING TO BE REDOING SOME THINGS OVER THERE.

IT'S A THREE YEAR APPROXIMATE PROJECT, AND THIS REZONING REQUEST WOULD MAKE THAT WHOLE ENTIRE BLOCK A CONSISTENT ZONING USE OF CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.

IF YOU LOOK TO THE WEST, EVERYTHING IS ALSO ZONED CBD.

SO THE CONSISTENT USE MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

IT ALSO IS CONGRUENT WITH THE CITY'S FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.

SO THE CITY DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM? YES, SIR. OK, THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, THIS TIME WE WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE. GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE.

AT THIS TIME, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION.

IF NOT, I'M HAPPY TO ACCEPT THE MOTION.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I WILL MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AN ORDINANCE REZONING ANGLETON BLOCK 27, LOTS -20 AND A PORTION OF THE CLOSED ALLEY LOCATED AT 237 EAST LOCUST STREET IN ANGLETON FROM COMMERCIAL GENERAL TO CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.

SECOND.

ALL RIGHT, I HAVE A MOTION FROM MS. MCDANIEL, A SECOND FROM HIS BIERI.

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

AYE. OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

[4. Conduct a public hearing, discussion, and possible action in a request to rezone an approximate 20.00 acres from the Commercial-General (C-G) District to the Single Family 6.3 (SF-6.3) District. The subject property is located north of Bastrop Street and east of Angleton Blvd. ]

MOTION CARRIES. ITEM FOUR, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION AND A REQUEST TO REZONE AN APPROXIMATE 20 ACRES FROM THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY, 6.3 DISTRICT, SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF BASTROP STREET AND EAST OF ANGLETON BOULEVARD.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. SO THIS ITEM IS APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES.

IT IS NORTH OF BASTROP, OFF OF BUCHTA, AND EAST OF ANGLETON BOULEVARD.

THAT AREA IS UNDEVELOPED, CURRENTLY.

HOWEVER, THIS REQUEST IS TO REZONE THAT AREA TO SF 6.3 TO ALLOW FOR APPROXIMATELY 66 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

AND THE LOT SIZE ON 6.3? 60 FOOT WIDE.

OK, AT THIS TIME, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE WHOSE REQUESTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS.

GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE.

I WILL NOW CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANYONE REGARDING THIS ITEM FROM COMMISSIONERS? I MAKE A MOTION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES OF LAND SITUATED TO THE EAST OF ANGLETON BOULEVARD AND NORTH AND BASTROP STREET FROM THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL, CG ZONING DISTRICT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY 6.3 ZONING DISTRICT.

SECOND. THANK YOU MS. BIERI. I HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. MUNSON. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION INDICATE SO BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

MOTION CARRIES.

[5. Conduct a public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a request for approval of the Lot 16 Cannan Heights Subdivision Replat with a variance of Section 23.11.C.2 prohibiting new residential lots fronting on arterial streets. The subject property is a replat of Lots 16 Cannan Heights Subdivision and consists of an approximate 1.00 acres in the Single Family Residential 7.2 (SF-7.2) District. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Piney Way and Valderas Street. ]

ITEM FIVE, A PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE LOT 16, CAMDEN HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION REPLAT WITH A VARIANCE OF SECTION 23.11.C.22 FOR A NEW RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF FRONTING ON ARTERIAL STREETS.

70 PROPERTIES AND REPLAT OF LOTS 16 CAMDEN HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION AND CONSIST OF APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE IN A THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 7.2 DISTRICT.

[00:25:03]

SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PINE WAY AND VALDERAS STREET.

MR. REEVES? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. FIRST, THERE'S MY APOLOGIES ON IT, THERE'S A TYPO IN THE BLURB THERE. IT'S NOT REALLY ARTERIAL STREETS.

IT'S MAJOR COLLECTOR STREETS OR HIGHER.

THIS WAS A MINOR REPLAT THAT WE RECEIVED.

AND DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS, IT WAS IDENTIFIED THAT THE PROPERTY, THE SOUTHERNMOST LOT PROPOSED HERE. IT'S A TWO LOT SPLIT, A SINGLE LOT OF CONSISTING OF ONE ACRE BEING SUBDIVIDED IN TWO LOTS.

THE SOUTHERNMOST LOT WOULD ONLY HAVE ACCESS TO VALDERAS STREET AND VALDERAS STREET ON THE MOBILITY PLAN IS A MAJOR COLLECTOR.

AND PURSUANT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, NEW RESIDENTIAL LOTS AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE TAKING ACCESS TO MAJOR COLLECTOR STREETS.

THERE IS AN EXISTING CURB CUT ON THE PROPERTY.

IT'S AN OLD CURB CUT.

IT LINES UP ROUGHLY WITH THE NORTHERN PART OF THE DRIVEWAY INTO THE GREY STONE SUBDIVISION. THERE ARE MULTIPLE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET TO THE SOUTH TO TAKE DIRECT ACCESS TO VALDERAS STREET, VALDERAS STREET IN THIS LOCATION IS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED TO THE MAJOR STREET STANDARD.

IT HAS TWO GREATER THAN 12 FOOT DRIVE LANES, ONE IN EACH DIRECTION AND A CENTER, WHAT WE WOULD CALL A SUICIDE TURN LANE, BUT A CENTER TURN LANE.

AFTER, I WENT OUT, I LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY, I LOOKED AT THE SURROUNDING AREA.

ONE LOT BEING SUBDIVIDED TO TAKE ACCESS TO VALDERAS STREET IS NOT GOING TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE STREET.

THERE IS THAT EXISTING DRIVEWAY THERE THAT KIND OF IMPLIES THAT THERE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN ACCESS TO THAT STREET.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AND THE REPLAT.

AND THE REASON THAT WE'RE DOING THIS IS BECAUSE THERE IS A VARIANCE ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

AND UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, IF THERE IS A VARIANCE, IT HAS TO GO TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL.

SO HAVING SAID THAT, YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU A WRITTEN OPPOSITION TO THIS REPLAT AND THE VARIANCE THAT WAS PROVIDED AND I KNOW THEY'RE IN THE AUDIENCE, I'M PROBABLY GOING TO BUTCHER THE LAST NAME, MR. AND MRS. JASSO? OK, THANK YOU. I WAS RIGHT, I BUTCHERED THE NAME.

THEY'RE OPPOSED TO THIS, AND THE REASON THAT THIS WRITTEN OPPOSITION IS SIGNIFICANT IS BECAUSE UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, WHEN YOU HAVE A VARIANCE ASSOCIATED WITH THE A R EPLAT LIKE THIS, IF 20 PERCENT OF THE LAND AREA THAT'S WITHIN THE 200 FOOT NOTICE AREA IS OPPOSED TO THE REPLAT, I MEAN, OPPOSES THE VARIANCE, THEN IT TAKES A SUPERMAJORITY AT EITHER THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR BOTH.

SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE LOCATION OF THE JASSO'S PROPERTY IS ABOUT 190 FEET SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY.

AND WITH THE NOTICE AREA BEING 200 FEET AROUND THE PROPERTY, THAT MEANS THERE IS ABOUT A TEN BY 128 ROUGHLY STRIP OF THEIR PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE IN THE NOTICE AREA.

SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, ROUND UP A LITTLE BIT.

WE'LL CALL THAT 3500 SQUARE FEET OF LAND AREA IN THE 200 FOOT NOTICE AREA.

JUST IN AS AN EXAMPLE, IF YOU JUST EXTENDED THE AREA BETWEEN THEIR LOT AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY UP, THAT'S ABOUT 190 BY 128, WHICH IS 24,000 SQUARE FEET JUST IN THAT AREA ALONE, WHICH OBVIOUSLY THE REST OF THE 200 FOOT NOTICE AREA IS GOING TO JUST ADD TO THAT NUMBER. SO THEIR 1300 SQUARE FEET IS NOT GOING TO COME ANYWHERE NEAR TO MEETING THE 20 PERCENT REQUIREMENT NECESSARY IN ORDER TO FORCE A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE BY YOU ALL.

SO A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE ON THIS.

YOU CAN MAKE YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

AS I SAID, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL FOR BOTH THE VARIANCE AND THE REPLAT.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AT THIS TIME WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DID HAVE TO REQUEST TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS ITEM, MS. JASSO, YOU WERE THE FIRST TO TURN YOURS IN SO, WE'LL LET YOU GO FIRST.

I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE THAT APPROVING THIS PLAT, IT WOULD INTERFERE WITH EASEMENTS.

[00:30:01]

THERE'S AN EASEMENT THAT RUNS ALONG THIS PROPERTY NEXT TO OURS AND CURRENTLY IT'S ONLY 10 FEET WIDE. AND RIGHT NOW THEY'RE USING MY PROPERTY TO KIND OF GAIN ACCESS TO THIS EASEMENT. AND THAT'S BECOME A PROBLEM WITHIN THE LAST YEAR.

AND THERE'S PICTURES ON MY OPPOSITION LETTER TOWARDS THE BACK.

AS YOU CAN SEE IN THERE, THERE'S BEEN UTILITY COMPANIES COMING IN AND OUT.

THEY REFUSED TO GO TO THE OTHER SIDE WHERE LOT 16 IS.

AND WE'RE CURRENTLY IN TALKS WITH AT&T ON GETTING THEIR POST RELOCATED INTO THE EASEMENT BECAUSE IT'S CURRENTLY IN OUR PROPERTY LINE.

PUTTING YOUR HOUSE THERE WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO GO IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE TO ACCESS THIS EASEMENT. ANOTHER ISSUE THAT I WANT TO NOTE IS, MY LOT IS 2.66.

THE LOTS OVER ON PINEY WAY, THEY'RE BIGGER THAN MY PROPERTY.

THEY'RE, ONE ACRE LOTS.

[INAUDIBLE] THIS LOT IT WOULD MAKE THAT ONE LOT KIND OF INCONSISTENT WITH ALL THE OTHERS.

AND IT WOULD BE JUST A, YOU KNOW, ONE LOT SPLIT INTO TWO AND ALL THE OTHER ONES WOULD BE ONE ACRE LOTS. ANOTHER ISSUE THAT I IDENTIFIED WAS MY PROPERTY IS A COMMERCIAL.

IT'S KNOWN AS COMMERCIAL GENERAL.

SO IF I WERE EVER WANT TO DO SOMETHING ON MY PROPERTY, THAT PROPERTY, THAT NEW LOT WILL PROBABLY BE DETRIMENTAL TO MY PROPERTY.

I ALSO IDENTIFIED SOME CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE THE ENTRANCE AND THE EXIT ON GREYSTONE.

THAT COULD INTERFERE WITH THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC BECAUSE THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC BETWEEN CAMERON AND HENDERSON IS CONTINUOUS.

THERE'S NO STOP, THERE'S NO STOP SIGN.

SO THERE'S PEOPLE COMING OUT OF GREYSTONE AND SOMEBODY TRYING TO COME OUT OF THAT LOT, THAT WILL STOP CONTINUOUS FLOW.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S PICTURES FROM NUMBER TWO.

ALL RIGHT, ANYTHING ELSE? OH, NO, THAT'S ABOUT IT.

WE MAY HAVE QUESTIONS WHEN WE GET TO THAT PORTION OF THE ITEM, BUT WE TYPICALLY DON'T ASK QUESTIONS DURING THIS PORTION.

ALL RIGHT, SO NEXT THING, I HAVE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FROM MR. BOYD SCHILLER? YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON.

THAT ACRE, THAT WAS MY MOM AND DAD'S, AND THEY PURCHASED THAT BACK IN THE 70S.

THEY HAD 14 BONNIE WAY AND 16 BONNIE WAY.

AND WE JUST SOLD 14 BONNIE WAY.

AND THERE IS A DRIVE THERE, PART OF A DRIVE BECAUSE MY DAD, MYSELF AND MY BROTHER, WE PARK OUR TRUCKS IN THAT BARN AND IT'S NEVER BEEN AN ISSUE.

WE'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, WE DID THAT FOR YEARS AND YEARS.

AND THE REASON I WANTED TO BUY THAT IS I WANT TO BUILD A HOUSE ON THAT PROPERTY.

MY DAD USED TO HAVE A BIG GARDEN THERE.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT MEANS A LOT TO ME TO HANG ON TO IT.

AND I'M SHAKING BAD.

I GOT PARKINSON'S AND I'M NERVOUS AND.

IT'S FINE. WELL, WE'RE JUST WE'RE JUST ORDINARY PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

I KNOW, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'D BE AN ISSUE BECAUSE 30 OR 40, I STILL USE THAT DRIVEWAY TODAY. I'M OK.

AFTER THIS MEETING, I'M WE'LL GO MOW.

AND I'VE BEEN USING IT MY WHOLE LIFE.

AND I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS THE ISSUE BECAUSE SOUTH OF THAT DRIVEWAY, THERE'S FIVE MORE DRIVEWAYS AND THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOREVER.

AND I GUESS THAT'S MY TAKE ON IT.

AND I HOPE YOU ALL CONSIDER DIVIDING THAT.

I DON'T THINK IT'D BE AN ISSUE TO ANYBODY.

THANK YOU, MR. SHILLER. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ISSUE? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE.

AT THIS TIME, WE'LL CLOSE TO THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTER THE DISCUSSION PHASE OF THE ITEM. SO WE'RE BASICALLY BEING ASKED TO APPROVE A REPLAT WITH A VARIANCE FOR THE ACCESS ON TO VALDERAS.

ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION.

I MAY BE ANSWERING IT HERE AS I'M LOOKING ON HERE.

I WAS JUST TRYING TO VERIFY THE SURVEY SO THAT 10 FOOT EASEMENT IS ONLY ON THIS LOT 16.

IT IS NOT ON THE JASSO'S PROPERTY? I MEAN, SOMETIMES THERE'LL BE A EASEMENT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE PROPERTY LINE, I GUESS IS WHERE MY WHAT MY QUESTION IS.

DOES ANYBODY KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION? THERE IS NOT AN EASEMENT? YOURS HAS BEEN SURVEYED WITHOUT?

[00:35:02]

OK, ANYTHING ELSE? WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE TO SECTION 23-11.C.2.A AND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED LOT 16 CAMDEN HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION REPLATS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT ALL CORRECTIONS ARE MADE PRIOR TO RECORDING.

I HAVE A MOTION BY MS. MCDANIEL. SECOND.

THE SECOND BY MS. BIERI.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT LET'S DO THIS ONE BY SHOW OF HANDS, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR INDICATE SO BY RAISING YOUR RIGHT HAND. OK, WE'RE UNANIMOUS.

ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

MOTION CARRIES.

THIS WILL GO TO CITY.

COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION AT THE END OF THE MONTH, I EXPECT.

AND SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE TWO PARTIES TO GO TO THAT VENUE AS WELL.

NEXT ITEM SIX, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR

[6. Conduct a public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a request for approval of the preliminary replat of Riverwood Ranch Section 2. The proposed preliminary replat consists of approximately 85 single family residential lots on an approximate 20 acres located at the northeast corner of Downing Street and Hospital Drive in a Planned Development zoning district. ]

APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT OF RIVERWOOD RANCH SECTION TWO, PROPOSED PRELIMINARY REPLAT THAT CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 85 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON AN APPROXIMATE 20 ACRES, LOCATED THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DOWNING STREET AND AUSTIN DRIVE.

A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT.

MR. REEVES? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AS YOU RECALL, WE HAD, YOU ALL HAD CONSIDERED THIS PRELIMINARY REPLAT A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.

THAT GOT A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL BECAUSE THE APPLICATION HADN'T BEEN COMPLETELY REVIEWED AND IT WENT TO COUNCIL AND GOT DENIED AND THE DEVELOPER MADE ANOTHER APPLICATION. SO THIS TIME AROUND, WE'RE WHERE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE.

THE PROPOSED REPLAT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ANGLETON AND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ZONING THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY.

THE, I'VE HAD TO CHANGE MY RECOMMENDATION A LITTLE BIT.

STAFF JUST RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

NOW, I'VE SPOKEN WITH THE CITY ENGINEER AND ALL OF HIS COMMENTS HAVE BEEN CLEARED.

SO THERE ARE NO COMMENTS TO CLEAR ON THIS ANYMORE.

SO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

THANK YOU, MR. REEVES. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

NO ONE HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM, BUT I'LL ASK ONE MORE TIME.

THIS IS THE MASTER PLAN.

THAT [INAUDIBLE] DIDN'T PASSED OUT.

OK, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME, AND THIS TIME WE WILL BEGIN THE DISCUSSION PHASE OF THIS ITEM.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I ACTUALLY DID DRIVE THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION YESTERDAY AND THERE ARE TWO MODEL HOMES AND I SAW, I LOST COUNT OF HOW MANY STARTS, BUT LOOK LIKE CLOSE TO 15 HOUSES, ACTUALLY, EITHER WITH SLABS POURED OR IN THE PROCESS.

I'VE HEARD THE SAME THING.

ANYTHING ELSE? ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ? ALL RIGHT, I'M GOING TO SPEAK UP AGAIN, I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT OF RIVERWOOD RANCH, SECTION TWO SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT ANY REMAINING, WELL, FORGET THAT PART.

WE KNOW THAT ALL THE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE OF.

ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION FOR MS. MCDANIEL. IS THERE A SECOND? AS THE CHAIRMAN, I'M GOING TO SECOND THE MOTION.

AND WE'LL DO THIS ONE BY SHOW OF HANDS.

EXCUSE ME, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? OK, SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION INDICATE SO BY RAISING YOUR RIGHT HAND, TOO.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED THE MOTION INDICATE SO THE SAME WAY FOUR.

[00:40:04]

OK, THAT ONE FAILS 2-4.

THAT WILL GO TO COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION.

ITEM SEVEN UNDER THE REGULAR AGENDA SECTION DISCUSSED CONSIDER AND ACT ON THE PRELIMINARY

[7. Discuss, consider and act on the Preliminary Replat of the Century Coale Road Business Park. The subject property consists of 9.273 acres, is in the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district and is located on the north side of CR 220 approximately 500 feet west of Business 288. ]

REPLAT OF THE CENTURY COAL ROAD BUSINESS PARK.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 9.273 ACRES IS IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT AND IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF COUNTY ROAD 220, APPROXIMATELY FIVE HUNDRED FEET WEST OF BUSINESS 288. MR. REEVES? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY REPLAT ON PROPERTY THAT'S LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO WHERE THE EQUIPMENT RENTAL PLACE IS ON COUNTY ROAD 220.

IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ALL THE COMMENTS BEING CLEARED THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN CLEARED. OK.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR WALT ON THIS ONE? WE WOULD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT OF THE CENTURY COAL ROAD BUSINESS PARK, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS THAT ALL COMMENTS ARE CLEARED PRIOR TO THE AUGUST 24TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING. I'LL SECOND IT.

I HAVE A MOTION BY MR. MUNSON AND THE SECOND BY MS. SCAEFER. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION INDICATE SO BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM EIGHT, DISCUSS, EXCUSE ME, DISCUSS, CONSIDER, AND ACT ON A SITE PLANNED FOR THE

[8. Discuss, consider and act on a site plan for the proposed Angleton Warehouse project ]

PROPOSED ANGLETON WAREHOUSE PROJECT.

WALT? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN FOR THE LOT THAT YOU JUST RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF.

ITS FOR TWO WAREHOUSE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS THAT WILL HAVE APPROXIMATELY 93 THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF SQUARE FOOTAGE TOTAL FOR THE BUILDINGS.

I THINK ONE IS LIKE 52 AND THE OTHER IS 41.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF COMMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE PLAN THAT HAVEN'T BEEN CLEARED YET. I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE CONSULTANT YESTERDAY ON THIS.

I ASKED THEM TO SEND ME AN EMAIL TO REQUEST TO HAVE THIS CONTINUE TO THE SEPTEMBER 2ND MEETING. I HAVEN'T RECEIVED THAT EMAIL.

SO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT YOU ALL APPROVE IT SUBJECT TO THE STAFF CLEARING THE COMMENTS. THIS BEING THE FIRST SITE PLAN THAT I PROCESSED HERE.

I HAVE NO IDEA HOW YOU ALL FEEL ABOUT ANY OF THAT.

IF THE TWO MAJOR ISSUES THAT I THINK THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED AS PART OF THE COMMENTS ARE, NUMBER ONE, THERE'S A REQUIREMENT FOR WING WALLS ON BOTH BUILDINGS AT THE WHAT WOULD BE THE THE COUNTY ROAD 220 SIDE.

AND THE OTHER IS THAT THEY HAVEN'T PROVIDED ANY WHAT THE COLOR SCHEME IS FOR THE BUILDINGS. TYPICALLY THESE ARE EITHER WHITE OR A LIGHT GRAY WITH AN ACCENT COLOR ON THEM, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS.

SO IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE STAFF CLEARING THE COMMENTS, THEN YOU WOULD USE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT I PROVIDED IN THE REPORT.

AND IF YOU'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, THEN I WOULD SAY YOU SHOULD CONTINUE WITH THIS AT THE SEPTEMBER 2ND MEETING.

QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? MOTION? I'LL MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THE ANGLETON WAREHOUSE PROJECT.

I HAD A MOTION BY MS. SPOOR.

SECOND. SECOND, BY MS. SCAEFER.

OK, THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SUBJECT TO THE STAFF'S ISSUES BEING RESOLVED IN DICATE SO BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM NINE DISCUSS, CONSIDER, AND ACT ON A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE HERITAGE TREE

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

SURVEY/TREE PRESERVATION PLAN FOR ANDERSON PLACE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THIS ITEM WAS ON THE LAST COMMISSION AGENDA AND THE DEVELOPER REQUESTED TO HAVE IT CONTINUE TO THIS MEETING.

SO HERE WE ARE. WHAT YOU HAVE IN THE PACK UP IS THE ORIGINAL TREE SURVEY/TREE PRESERVATION PLAN, WHICH IDENTIFIED A THOUSAND CALIPER INCHES OF HERITAGE TREES THAT WERE

[00:45:07]

GOING TO BE LOST AS PART OF THE PROJECT.

AND IT HAS AHEAD A REPLACEMENT CALIPER INCHES OF TREES OF OVER THREE THOUSAND.

YOU ALSO HAVE A REVISED PLAN IN YOUR BACKUP THAT BASICALLY CREATES CRITERIA THAT AREN'T IN THE HERITAGE TREE SECTION AND REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF HERITAGE TREES, CALIPER INCHES OF HERITAGE TREES TO APPROXIMATELY A THIRD OF WHAT IT WAS ON THE FIRST PLAN AND RESULTS IN NO REPLACEMENT CALIPER INCHES BECAUSE THE CALIPER INCHES AS CALCULATED WITH THESE CRITERIA, RESULTS AN AMOUNT THAT IS OFFSET BY THE TREES THAT HELP PROTECT ON THE SITE.

NEITHER ONE OF THOSE PLANS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE HERITAGE TREE SECTION.

STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF BOTH.

THANK YOU ALL. QUESTIONS? SO WHAT MAKES THESE HERITAGE TREES ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, SINCE IT WAS I PLANTED WITH THE CONGROVE? IF YOU LOOK AT THE HERITAGE TREE SECTION, WHICH IS PROVIDED IN YOUR BACKUP, IT IDENTIFIES LIVE OAKS AND PECANS AS BEING HERITAGE TREES.

AND WHEN DID WE CHANGE THAT? I MEAN, BEFORE ALL THESE TREES? I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW.

I CAN'T FIND AN LDC.

WHEN DID THAT BECOME THE NORM? THE LDC WAS ADOPTED AS A WHOLE, AS A REPLACEMENT AS CHAPTER 23, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS IN 2018. OK, SO, I DON'T HAVE THAT BOOK, BUT IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT THAT IS A PECAN GROVE THAT WAS SET THERE.

I DON'T AND I MAY BE SKEWED ON THIS, BUT I DON'T CONSIDER THAT A HERITAGE.

THOSE ARE THAT'S A FARM, BASICALLY, OR IT HAS BEEN A FARM.

AND WHAT I WAS TOLD, IT'S STILL ON THE TAX ROLLS AS A FARM.

SO PECAN TREES GROW NATIVES WILD.

THESE WERE GRAFTED IT AND PLANTED IN THERE.

AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO TELL THE DEVELOPER THAT CAN'T TEAR THEM DOWN BECAUSE THEIR HERITAGE TREES, BUT THEY WERE PLANTED THERE.

AND I KNOW THAT PEOPLE HAVE OAKS IN THEIR YARDS BECAUSE I'VE WITNESSED THIS ON MY OWN STREET AND THEY'VE RIPPED THEM OUT OF THERE AND NOBODY SAID A WORD.

SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE HERE? THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THERE ARE NOW REGULATIONS IN PLACE THAT APPLY TO LIVE OAKS AND PECAN TREES, AND THERE'S NO DISTINCTION IN THE HERITAGE TREE SECTION OF WHETHER THEY WERE PLANTED AS PART OF A GROVE OR WHETHER THEY JUST SPRUNG UP BY THEMSELVES OR WHETHER THEY WERE PLANTED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO BEAUTIFY THEIR PROPERTY.

AND SO IF WE STICK WITH THIS, THIS DEVELOPER CANNOT TAKE DOWN ANY OF THOSE TREES UNLESS THEY REPLANT A TREE OF EQUAL NUMBER OF INCHES THAT THEY'RE GOING TO REMOVE? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME? RIGHT. FOR EVERY.

AND SO A RIGHT ON THIS ACREAGE, HOW MANY TREES WOULD THIS DEVELOPER HAVE TO PLANT TO OFFSET THIS GROVE OF PECAN TREES? THE FIRST PLAN, AND THAT WAS ON YOUR AGENDA FOR LAST MONTH, IDENTIFIED OVER A THOUSAND CALIPER INCHES OF HERITAGE TREES THAT WOULD BE LOST.

AND THE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT IS THREE TIMES THAT AMOUNT.

SO IT'S 3000 CALIPER INCHES OF REPLACEMENT TREE THAT HAVE TO BE PROVIDED.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT HERE, BUT THERE ARE OPTIONS AVAILABLE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN PROPOSED. YOU KNOW, MY REPORT SUGGESTED THAT THEY COULD OFFER TO HAVE TREES BE PLANTED IN CITY PARKS OR IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BEAUTIFY THOSE THINGS.

I'M CERTAIN THAT IF THEY CAME FORWARD WITH A PROPOSAL THAT SAID, OK, HERE'S HOW MUCH THIS IS GOING TO COST, HERE'S WHAT WE THINK IS A REASONABLE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT, WE'LL PROVIDE THESE TREES OVER X NUMBER OF YEARS BECAUSE WHO KNOWS IF THE STOCK EXISTS TO

[00:50:06]

PROVIDE ALL THOSE REPLACEMENT CALIPER INCHES AT ONE TIME.

THAT PEOPLE WOULD LOOK AT IT AND SAY, OK, LET'S LET'S REASONABLY THINK ABOUT THIS.

BUT INSTEAD, THE FIRST PLAN JUST JUST DEEMED IT IMPOSSIBLE TO DO ANYTHING.

AND THE SECOND PLAN CHAIN ADOPTED ARBITRARY CRITERIA SO THAT THERE WASN'T ANY REPLACEMENT INCHES. SO WHILE I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT, IT'S JUST NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT SECTION.

THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW, I SAT WITH THEN CITY MANAGER STOLTZ, AND IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN AN 18 OR PRIOR TO THAT, AND WE WENT THROUGH ALL OF THAT LISTING AT ONE TIME.

AND I DON'T THINK WE EVER BROUGHT ONE OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS BACK UP TO CHANGE ALL OF THAT. SO I GET BACK TO THE POINT, JUST LIKE THE SMALLER LOTS, WE, I DON'T HAVE A BOOK THAT'S CURRENT. MY BOOK SAYS 2014 ON IT.

SO I JUST HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS WHAT WAS A PECAN ORCHARD AND IS STILL ON THE TAX ROLLS AS THAT. AND WE'RE GOING TO TELL THIS DEVELOPER THAT WANTS TO BUY THIS PROPERTY THAT YOU CAN'T TEAR DOWN THE TREES OR YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SPEND AN OUTRAGEOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY TO PLANT ELSEWHERE.

WE ACTUALLY HAVE A REQUEST TO SPEAK TO US BY MR. DAVID GALLO.

NEXT WEEK. OK.

I KNOW THAT WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR TREES.

I KNOW THAT OAKS AND PECANS FIT THE BILL.

MAN.

WELL, I AGREE, MY OWN PERSONAL FEELING ON THIS IS THAT WE ALSO NEED TO PROTECT TREES, BUT THE BURDEN ON THE DEVELOPER SEEMS AWFULLY LARGE IN TERMS OF THE WAY THE CURRENT ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN. THREE TIMES IS A LOT OF.

THAT'S A LOT OF TREES.

WAS THERE, DO YOU KNOW DID THEY GET THAT FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE? THE FIGURE? I MEAN, DOES ANYBODY ELSE MAKE IT BE THAT WAY? LOTS OF CITIES HAVE TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS AND THEY USUALLY HAVE TWO TO THREE INCHES PER PROTECTED TREE AS A REPLACEMENT.

PROBABLY THE ONE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANGLETON'S REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER CITY REQUIREMENTS IS THERE'S USUALLY ALSO A PAYMENT OF A FEE IN LIEU OF THOSE REPLACEMENT CALIPER INCHES.

AND MOST OF THE TIME, THE DEVELOPERS CHOOSE TO PAY THE FEE IN LIEU, WHICH THEN GOES TO USUALLY TO BEAUTIFICATION EFFORTS IN THE CITY, TO PLANTING TREES IN PARKS AND RIGHT-OF-WAYS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT THAT OPTION IS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE HERITAGE TREE SECTION.

HOW DO WE GET IN THERE? THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE SPECIFICALLY SPECIFICALLY LOOKING AT THE HERITAGE TREE SECTION OF THE CODE, I, UNLESS OTHERWISE INSTRUCTED TO, I DOUBT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE MADE ANY COMMENT ON IT. YOU KNOW, SOME CITIES DON'T HAVE A FEE AND SOME CITIES DO SO . WALT, DO YOU HAVE ANY CLUE WHAT THE COST MIGHT BE TO REPLACE THOSE TREES IN TERMS OF I MEAN, I CERTAINLY DON'T.

I'M NOT A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND I'M NOT AN ARBORIST AND I HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH, YOU KNOW, I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT REPLACING THREE THAT REPLACING A THOUSAND CALIPER INCHES WITH THREE THOUSAND CALIPER INCHES OF TREES IS GOING TO BE EXPENSIVE.

SO WHAT I HAD EXPECTED TO SEE WAS SOME SORT OF PROPOSAL THAT WAS LESS THAN THAT, NOT NONE OF THAT. SO, YOU KNOW, I'M SURE THAT A COGENT ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE DID THIS AND WE PROVIDED THESE TREES TO THE CITY TO PLANT, IT DOESN'T MEET THE EXACT

[00:55:02]

REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.

AND IF EVERYBODY AGREES THAT, OK, WE THINK THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS A BIT ON THE EXCESSIVE SIDE, THAT YOU CAN APPROVE A PLAN THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.

AND YOU COULD DO THAT TODAY IF YOU WANTED TO CHOOSE ONE OF THESE TWO PLANS.

BUT I, AS THE STAFF, HAVE TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF BOTH, BECAUSE NEITHER ONE OF THEM DO THOSE THINGS. I JUST THINK THIS IS TOO MUCH OF A BURDEN THAT SOMETHING THAT'S SUDDENLY THAT'S STARTING TO APPEAR TO US, I KNOW SINCE TO 2018, BUT THIS IS I MEAN, I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO BE RESPONSIBLE TO THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO SUBDIVIDE IT WITHOUT PUTTING THIS BURDEN UPON THEM FOR THAT SUBDIVISION.

THAT, THIS HAS BEEN RACKED WITH ISSUES SINCE THE GET GO AND NOW THIS ONE.

SO DOES ANYBODY HAVE A RECOMMENDED? I HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS AND THEN I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION.

IT'S HARD TO HEAR YOU. I'M SORRY.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT AND THEN I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION.

EVEN YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.

IT'S ON YOUR ON THE WEBSITE.

IT'S EASY TO FIND THAT'S WHERE EVERYONE ELSE GETS IT.

AND THE DEVELOPER HAD ACCESS AS WELL.

SO THIS SHOULD NOT BE A SURPRISE TO THE DEVELOPER.

NUMBER ONE, I AGREE, THIS IS KIND OF AN UNUSUAL SITUATION BECAUSE USUALLY WHAT WE HAVE WITH HERITAGE TREES THAT MAY BE A FEW SCATTERED ABOUT THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT.

HOWEVER, I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME COMPENSATION FOR REMOVING THAT MANY TREES.

AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE DEVELOPER COME BACK WITH A GOOD OFFER OF SOMETHING FOR US TO LOOK AT FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE THEY'RE DEALING WITH THE MONIES AND THEN LET US DECIDE IF IT'S REASONABLE.

SO THAT'S WHAT I SUGGEST.

AND TAKING IT FURTHER, I MOVE THAT WE DENY THOSE TWO PROPOSALS AND LEAVE THINGS AS THEY ARE UNTIL WE GET SOMETHING FURTHER FROM THE DEVELOPER.

I DO KNOW THAT WITH TREES THAT'S REPLACING ANY TREES IN OUR PARKS OR ANYWHERE, WHO'S GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WATERING THEM DOWN? I KNOW WHEN WE BUILT OUR SCHOOLS AND THE HIGH SCHOOL IN PARTICULAR, WE WERE GIVEN THE TREES AS LONG AS WE PROVIDED WATER TO THEM.

SO THAT'S, DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? ALL THE LANDSCAPING THAT CAME AROUND OR WE HAD TO PROVIDE WATER.

SO IT'S ONE THING ASKING SOMEONE JUST TO DONATE A TREE, BUT JUST STICKING A TREE IN GROUND AND NOT HAVING WATER TO IT, SERVES NO PURPOSE.

NO. SO AND I DO AGREE AS WELL, IT WASN'T BROKEN AND NOT IT WAS WRAPPED.

AND THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TREE BEING GROWN IN THE WILD AND AN OAK OR PECAN FARMING IS AGRICULTURE FOR THE PRODUCT.

NOT THAT PECANS SO. OH, YEAH, MY NAME IS MIGUEL WITH BAKER AND LAWSON . FROM THE WAY I WAS STANDING, NOW I KNOW THERE'S TWO PROPOSALS FOR THIS SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS JUST 18 LOTS, AND IT'S IN A PART OF TOWN THAT'S ALREADY DEVELOPED AND, Y OU KNOW, WE'VE HAD THIS IN OUR OFFICE FOR ABOUT TWO AND A HALF YEARS AND IT'S HAD A LOT OF SETBACKS, BUT, YOU KNOW, THE IN THE SECOND PROPOSAL, WE'RE NOT JUST OFFERING SOMETHING TO GET US OUT OF NOT PROVIDING TREES.

WE ARE, WE DID, ME AND THE OWNER DID SPEND SOME TIME GOING TO EACH INDIVIDUAL TREE ON THE PROPERTY AND LOOKING AT WHICH ONES WERE ACTUALLY HAD A NICE CANOPY TO THEM, YOU KNOW, WAS IN A GOOD SPOT THAT WOULD WORK WITH THE HOME AND WITH THE LDC WILL NEVER MEET THE CRITERIA THERE. AND, YOU KNOW, PLANTING THREE THOUSAND CALIPER INCHES OF TREES IS EQUAL TO ABOUT A THOUSAND TREES.

AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CONSIDER EACH TREE BEING ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS APIECE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE LOOKING AT OVER ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS THAT YOU'RE PUTTING ON 16 LOTS.

[01:00:06]

THAT'S IN A SIDE OF TOWN THAT'S ALREADY GOT THE STREET IN THERE.

IT'S GOT THE SANITARY AND WATER IN THERE.

IT'S RIDICULOUS.

BUT WHAT I WAS SUGGESTING IS THE OWNERS INCURRING MORE COST WITH THE SECOND PLAN WE PROPOSED. IT'S NOT JUST THAT WE'RE NOT PROVIDING TREES.

WE'RE PUTTING STRICTER SET BACKS ON THE PROPERTY.

YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING TO LENGTHEN THE DRIVES TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PROTECT THE BETTER LOOKING TREES THAT ARE ON THE PROPERTY.

YOU KNOW, I MEAN, JOHN'S HERE, BUT FROM MY EXPERIENCE, THIS IS DEFINITELY THE HARDEST PRESERVATION PLAN I'VE EVER HAD TO WORK ON.

EVERY CITY'S GOT THEIR OWN DIFFERENT STYLE PLANS.

SO ANGLETON'S THEIR CURRENT PLAN DOESN'T REALLY MATCH WITH ANY OTHER CITIES.

BUT THE SECOND PLAN THAT WE PROVIDED, I BELIEVE, IS THE PLAN THAT WE DO WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH. IT DOES MAKE AN HONEST EFFORT TO PRESERVE WHAT IS OUT THERE.

THERE ARE SOME TREES ON THAT PROPERTY.

IF YOU GO, THEY JUST DO NOT LOOK GOOD AT ALL BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY WERE PLANTED THERE, PLANTED 30 FEET APART.

THEIR CANOPIES PAID INTO EACH OTHER.

THEY'RE LOPSIDED. I GUESS THAT'S JUST MY STATEMENT FOR WHAT WE HAVE FOR THIS PROJECT.

IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME IN THE WORKS.

I MEAN, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOME HOMES THERE.

AND THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ESCAPE AND NOT ABIDE BY THE RULES.

WE'RE JUST TRYING OUR BEST TO ABIDE BY THE RULES, EVEN THOUGH WE DID PUT SOME ARBITRARY RESTRICTIONS ON US.

IT'S JUST WHAT CAN WE DO? IT WAS A PECAN ORCHARD.

SIR, ARE YOU THE OWNER? I'M ONE OF THE OWNERS, YES.

DO YOU MIND COMING TO THE PODIUM FOR A MOMENT? WELL, HONESTLY, I AM THE OWNER.

WE REALLY BELIEVE THIS PECAN ORCHARD AND WE WOULD ASK YOU TO GIVE US A MERITS TO NOT HAVE IT AS PART OF THE HERITAGE TREE RESTRICTIONS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

WE'VE MADE A NUMBER OF CHANGES TO ACCOMMODATE, SAVING A LOT MORE TREES THAN WHAT WE ORIGINALLY PLANNED. IN FACT, WE ARE PLAYING OR WE'RE ABLE TO SAVE ENOUGH TREES THAT IF WE TAKE OUT THE PECAN ORCHARD CONSTRAINTS AND THIS WAS A FARMING OPERATION FROM THAT STANDPOINT. BUT WE'RE BEING HANDICAPPED WITH THAT OBSTACLE.

SO WHAT OUR REQUEST TO YOU IS, IF WE TAKE THAT OUT, WHAT WE'VE PRESENTED TO YOU, EVEN THOUGH IT'S GOING TO COST SIGNIFICANT MONEY IN THE WAY WE BUILD OUR HOUSES BECAUSE WE'RE NORMAL, SET BACK IS TWENTY FIVE FOOT ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. WE HAVE INCURRED WITH OUR PROPOSAL TO YOU TODAY TO MAKE THE SET BACK 40 FEET AND SEVERAL WHERE WE WERE TRYING TO SAVE SOME OTHER TREES AS MUCH AS 60 FEET.

AND BY DOING THAT, WE ARE INCURRING A LOT OF ADDITIONAL MONEY, BUT WE'RE SAVING A LOT OF TREES AND WE COMPLY WITH THE HERITAGE TREE ORDINANCE.

IF WE CAN TAKE OUT THE PECAN ORCHARD THAT WAS THERE.

OUR NEW PLAN COMPLIES WITH IT WITH THAT EXCEPTION.

SO WHAT WE WOULD REQUEST TO REALLY IS TO GIVE US A VARIANCE TO TAKE OUT THE PECAN ORCHARD FROM HOW WE CALCULATE.

AND THAT IS REALLY OUR REQUEST.

SO OUR NEW PROPOSAL CHANGES HOW WE PUT THE HOUSES IN TO SAVE TREES.

AND I THINK YOU'LL FIND IT WILL MAKE IT A VERY SATISFACTORY SUBDIVISION.

BY THE WAY, THIS SUBDIVISION WAS ORIGINALLY PLATTED IN 1962.

IT'S BEEN SITTING IDLE AND ANGLETON FOLKS HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO RECEIVE VERY MANY TAXES ON THIS PROPERTY. BUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD OF, THERE WILL BE SIGNIFICANT TAX REVENUE. AND WE'RE ALSO DOING A LOT OF HELP WITH THE CITY, REBUILDING SEWER LINES THAT WOULD NOT NORMALLY BE REQUIRED BY A SUBDIVISION.

SO WE ARE PUTTING OUR BEST FOOT FORWARD TRYING TO BE GOOD CITIZENS AND BE A GOOD DEVELOPER. SO, MR. WEAVER, BEFORE YOU LEAVE THE PODIUM, I THINK THAT EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM IS IN AGREEMENT THAT THE ORDINANCE, AS IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN, IS UNNECESSARILY BURDENSOME AND NEEDS TO BE REVISED. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, DO YOU THINK THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH CITY STAFF BETWEEN NOW AND, SAY, OUR NEXT MEETING TO WORK OUT A COMPROMISE POSITION THAT HAS REACHED. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

[01:05:02]

THE COMPROMISE WITH THIS PECAN ORCHARD, IF WE TAKE IT OUT, WE'VE COMPLIED WITH IT, MORE THAN COMPLIED WITH IT. AND IT IS QUITE A BIT OF EXPENSE BECAUSE EVERY ONE OF OUR HOUSES, WITH THESE SETBACKS, WE'RE GOING TO INCUR ANOTHER COUPLE OF THOUSAND DOLLARS ON DRIVEWAYS. BUT THAT DOES ENHANCE THE SUBDIVISION GREATLY.

BUT WE'RE ALSO A BIT OVER BACKWARDS IN TERMS OF ALL THE SORT OF REWORK THAT WE'RE DOING.

AND AND WE'RE PUTTING OUT A LOT MORE MONEY THAN WE WOULD NORMALLY DO IF WE WEREN'T TRYING TO BE GOOD CITIZENS AND HELPING THE PUBLIC WORKS PEOPLE TO COME UP WITH A BETTER SEWER SYSTEM THAT NOT ONLY SERVE OUR SUBDIVISION, BUT THE ONE BEHIND US AS WELL.

THANK YOU, MR. WEAVER.ALL I CAN SEE IS THE AGENDA AND THE AGENDA DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT VARIANCES.

YOU KNOW, I LIKE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, MR. WEAVER. I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT.

BUT THE MY AGENDA ITEM IS DISCUSS, CONSIDER AND ACT ON A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE HERITAGE TREE SURVEY.

IT'S THE TREE SURVEY AND THE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN.

SO. SO THERE'S NO VARIANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS.

THERE'S A, THERE'S TWO SEPARATE TREE SURVEYS AND TWO SEPARATE PRESERVATION PLANS.

AND YOU CAN ACCEPT ONE OF THEM OR NONE OF THEM AS YOU DECIDE YOU WANT TO DO.

IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO DO THIS TYPE OF AND THIS IS BASICALLY A SITE PLAN, SITE PLAN WORK. IF SOMEBODY HAD TO GO THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS IN ORDER TO DO IT, BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO POINT IN DOING SITE PLANNING.

SO THEY'RE NOT VARIANCES.

THIS DRAWING THIS HERE FROM BAKER AND LAWSON, THE ANDERSON PLACE, 4.46 ACRES, 18 LOT SUBDIVISION, WE'RE LOOKING AT WHERE THAT THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSES WOULD BE ON THOSE LOTS AND THE IMPACTED TREES IN THE DARK.

IS THAT CORRECT? THE PLAN WE WANTED TO PRESENT IS THE SECOND PLAN.

THAT WAS THE FIRST ONE THAT WAS PRESENTED.

OK, THIS ONE? SO, THAT SHOWS THE HOUSING FOOTPRINTS, RIGHT? CORRECT. AND THEN THE DARK TREES WITHIN THOSE HOUSING, THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING OF THAT ARE THE PECAN ORCHARD THAT YOU WANT TO REMOVE FOR THOSE HOUSE PRINTS? CORRECT. AND THERE ARE SOME TREES THAT WE DID NOT BUT WE WANT TO PRESERVE.

RIGHT. AND SO IF THOSE DARK TREES WERE TAKEN OUT AND I'D SEE THESE FOOTPRINTS, WE CAN SEE WHERE YOU'VE MOVED THE HOUSES BACK TO ALLOW TO ACCOMMODATE OTHER TREES SO THAT YOU CAN SAVE THEM. AM I READING THIS CORRECTLY? CORRECT, YES.

OK, HERE WE GO. THANK YOU.

THE TREES THAT YOU'RE SAVING HAVE A CIRCLE AROUND, RIGHT? CORRECT. AND THE DOTTED CIRCLE? I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE BEAUTIFUL.

I DO, TOO. OK, SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY FOR MS. MCDANIEL. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? SO THE MOTION WILL DIE FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

CAN WE MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THIS PLAN, THAT PLAN? OK. ALL RIGHT.

SO I HAVE A MOTION BY MS. SPOOR AND A SECOND BY MR. MUNSON TO ACCEPT THE PLAN AS PRESENTED.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NO, OTHER THAN THANKING YOU FOR THE SEWER AND ALL THE WORK YOU'VE DONE AROUND THERE, I KNOW THAT THE CITY'S EVEN CAME IN AND BUY THE CONCRETE ROADS TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF TOWN, REALLY LOOKS LIKE GREAT.

YOU'RE ALL DOING A GOOD JOB.

SO IT'S JUST GOING TO ENHANCE THAT PART OF TOWN.

THANK YOU ALL FOR INVESTING IN THE SOUTH SIDE OF TOWN.

ANYTHING ELSE? WE'LL DO THIS ONE BY SHOW OF HANDS, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THAT PLAN INDICATE SO BY RAISING YOUR RIGHT HAND AND OPPOSED SAME SIGN.

OK, SO THAT ONE IS 5-1 IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL.

THAT WAS MY STOMACH, IF YOU ALL HEARD THAT.[LAUGHTER].

[01:10:04]

AND WE STILL GOT ONE MORE AGENDA ITEM.

ITEM TEN, PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE COMMENT ON THE-- MR.

[10. Presentation, discussion and possible comment on the Windmill Ridge project. The proposed project consists of approximately 90 acres north of FM 523 and west of SH 288 within the City’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. ]

WEAVER. THIS ITEM IS GOING TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL.

SO I WOULD SAY.

PRESENTATION DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE COMMENT ON THE WINDMILL RIDGE PROJECT, A PROPOSED PROJECT CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 90 ACRES NORTH OF [INAUDIBLE] STATE HIGHWAY 288 WITHIN THE CITY EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THIS IS JUST A PRESENTATION ON A PROPOSED POSSIBLE PROJECT OUT IN THE CITY'S ETJ. THE DEVELOPER'S HERE AND PROBABLY THE BIGGEST QUESTION THAT THEY WOULD LIKE SOME GUIDANCE ON IS WHETHER THE CITY IS GOING TO BE INTERESTED IN ALLOWING THE EXTENSION OF WATER AND SEWER SERVICE TO THIS PROPERTY SINCE IT'S GOT TO GO ACROSS UNDER WHATEVER LEVY FOR A DRAINAGE DITCH IN THAT AREA.

SO WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO THE DEVELOPER.

AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW, THERE IS FOOD, SO IF YOU'RE HUNGRY AFTER THE MEETING, YOU CAN GET SOME FOOD.

YOU'RE JUST TEASING US.

I SWEAR TO GOD.

OFF MIC]. HOW ARE YOU ALL DOING TODAY? PRETTY GOOD.

ARE YOU MR. GALLO? MY NAME'S DAVID GALLO.

I'VE BEEN IN BRAZORIA COUNTY FOR 60 YEARS, SO I'M VERY ASTUTE TO ALL THE AREAS HERE AND LIVED IN ANGLETON FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS, I WOULD SAY.

AND SO I'M A LOCAL DEVELOPER AND NOT FROM HOUSTON OR DALLAS OR ANYWHERE LIKE THAT.