>> [NOISE] WE WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.
[00:00:02]
THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE.WE'VE GOT A FAIRLY LONG AGENDA, BUT WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO GET THROUGH IT AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AND EFFICIENTLY AS WE CAN.
FIRST ITEM IS CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING,
[1. 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.]
DISCUSS A 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 WEST MULBERRY STREET BETWEEN MURRAY RANCH ROAD TO THE WEST AND WALKER STREET TO THE EAST. LINDSAY.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS.
THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE TO SF6.3, CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE MUCH LARGER PORTION IS ACTUALLY WHERE HOMES WERE PROPOSED TO GO, BUT THIS 2.669 APPROXIMATE ACRES THAT IS REQUESTED TO BE REZONED IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING A CONSISTENT ZONING DISTRICT THROUGHOUT THE TOTALITY OF THE PROJECT.
THE PROJECT OWNER IS HERE TONIGHT, NOT TONIGHT, TODAY. [LAUGHTER]
>> HOPEFULLY, WE DON'T GO THAT LONG. [LAUGHTER]
>> WE'LL TRY TO KEEP IT SHORT.
ONE OF THE ISSUES OR CONCERNS THAT'S BEEN RAISED WAS CONCERNING THE TOWER AND SPECIFICALLY PERTAINING TO SECTION 28-106 IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
THIS PIECE OF THE CODE DOES NOT ACTUALLY APPLY BECAUSE THAT SECTION OF THE CODE WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO NEW TOWER CONSTRUCTION.
BECAUSE THIS IS NOT APPLICABLE, IT DOESN'T ENCUMBER THE USE OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
>> OKAY. WELL, AT THIS TIME, WE PROBABLY NEED TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN OUR PUBLIC HEARING AND GET THE COMMENTS FROM FOLKS WHO ARE HERE.
I'VE GOT TWO FOLKS THAT HAVE TURNED IN REQUESTS TO SPEAK.
IF ANY OF THE REST OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, THERE ARE SOME FORMS TO FILL OUT, AND FOLKS OVER HERE WILL BE GLAD TO HELP ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
MR. SCHAFFER, YOU'RE UP FIRST ON THIS ISSUE.
>> THANK YOU. [NOISE] THERE ARE SOME ERRORS IN THIS APPLICATION, WHICH ARE RATHER DISTURBING.
FOR INSTANCE, EVERYONE WASN'T NOTICED. WE WEREN'T NOTICED.
CROWN CASTLE, WHICH OWNS TWO OF THE THREE TOWERS THAT IS WITHIN THIS AREA WEREN'T NOTICED.
THERE ARE SOME OTHER AREAS THAT WERE NOT NOTICED AS WELL.
FURTHERMORE, IN THIS SUMMARY ON PAGE 3 THAT WAS PRESENTED, IT SAYS THAT THERE IS A VERBAL DRAINAGE AGREEMENT.
WE PRESENTED TO YOU THE WRITTEN, WITNESSED DRAINAGE AGREEMENT, SO THAT'S NOT A VERBAL AGREEMENT, SO YOU NEED TO CHANGE YOUR RECORDS.
THIS PAGE 3 AT THE BOTTOM, IT ALSO SAYS THAT ONE OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONER, BILLY SCHAFFER, HAS A MONETARY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS NOT TRUE.
NOW, TO GET TO THE ISSUES, THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME CHALLENGE TO A CLEAR FALL ZONE.
WELL, I HELPED WRITE THE ORDINANCE IN THE CITY OF HOUSTON ON CLEAR FALL ZONES, SO I HAVE A PRETTY GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF THEM.
FURTHERMORE, I'VE BEEN UNDER TOWERS WHEN THINGS HAVE FAILED, AND THEY'RE NOT VERY PRETTY, TRUST ME.
I HAVE PRESENTED TO YOU ONE OF TWO EXHIBITS ON TOWERS FALLING JUST NOW, CLEAR FALL ZONES.
WHEN THEY FALL, YOU DON'T WANT TO BE ANYWHERE CLOSE 200 FEET, 100 FEET, IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER, YOU DON'T WANT TO BE CLOSE.
THE OTHER EXHIBIT IS DRAINAGE.
DRAINAGE IS A PROBLEM IN THAT AREA.
I'M AGREEING WITH MS. HILL BOTH TO INCREASE THE DRAINAGE BECAUSE, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE SECOND EXHIBIT, LOTS OF WATER FLOWING HERE AND THERE.
NOW, WITH THE NEW GAMBIT ENERGY AND ETC.
UP NORTH, WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT DRAINAGE BEING EVEN A WORST PROBLEM ON A VERY FLAT AREA OF 13 PLUS ACRES THAT WE'RE ADJACENT TO.
ALSO, I SEE SOME HERITAGE OAKS BEING DESTROYED, TREES BEING DESTROYED RIGHT NOW.
IN FACT, THEY WERE DESTROYED JUST A FEW DAYS AGO.
I CITED 28-108 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE ABOUT CLEAR FALL ZONES THAT SEEMS TO BE NOT VERY MUCH UNDERSTANDING.
"TOWER CLEAR FALL ZONES AFFECTS THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE SAFETY OF TOWER CREWS AS WELL AS ALL ACTIVITIES WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE TOWER." YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE IN YOUR BACKYARD PUNCHED UP AGAINST THAT TOWER.
IF SOMETHING FALLS OUT, EVEN A SCREWDRIVER, YOU DON'T WANT TO BE UNDER IT, TRUST ME.
ALSO, YOU MIGHT NOTICE BY LOOKING AT THESE TOWERS, THEY ATTRACT VULTURES AND THE STUFF THAT VULTURES DROP IS NOWHERE YOU WANT TO BE AROUND, AND I'M NOT SIMPLY TALKING ABOUT ONE THING.
[00:05:02]
I'M TALKING ABOUT BONES, ANIMALS, CRITTERS.THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT AFFECT TOWERS, AND YOU HAVE THREE IN THIS AREA.
IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM IN WHATEVER WAY I CAN.
>> ALL RIGHT, MR. SCHAFFER, WE MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS AFTER WE CONCLUDE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> I'M HARD OF HEARING, SO I CAN'T HEAR YOU, SIR.
>> SORRY, MR. SCHAFFER. WE'LL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CONCLUDED.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS BILLIE EFFORD, AND I DO NOT HAVE A LOT OF CODES AND WRITE-UPS LIKE MR. SCHAFFER THERE, BUT I AM A CITIZEN OF ANGLETON, AND I CAME HERE ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO.
I PICKED THE PROPERTY AT 712 WESTERN AVENUE, WHERE I LIVE, BECAUSE I STILL HAD THE CITY ENVIRONMENT.
BY LOOKING AT MY BACKYARD, I HAD THE COUNTRY FILL OF BEAUTIFUL OAK TREES, NATURE AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT.
ON 712 WESTERN AVENUE, MY BACKYARD IS ABOUT 150 FOOT WIDE, I BELIEVE IT IS.
I DIDN'T GO OUT THERE WITH A MEASURING TAPE, BUT I LOOKED AT IT.
MY CONCERN IS, WHAT KIND OF HOMES ARE WE BUILDING BACK THERE IF WE ZONE THAT FOR RESIDENTIAL? WILL IT BE APARTMENT-TYPE, 40-FOOT LOTS, 50-FOOT LOT, 60-FOOT LOT, OR 150-FOOT LOT LIKE MINE? I DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT MY BACKYARD AND HAVE THREE HOMES, THREE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE RIGHT ACROSS FROM MURRAY ROAD THAT I'M LOOKING AT.
I'M NOT AGAINST GROWTH IN THIS TOWN.
IN EVERY HOUSE YOU BUILD, IT HAS AT LEAST TWO CARS IN IT, AND IN MY INDUSTRY, THAT'S MY BUSINESS, SO I'M NOT AGAINST GROWTH, BUT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT DRAINAGE OVER THERE.
WITH THAT, WITH BUILDING THE ROADS, THE HOUSING, THE PADS BECAUSE THAT WHOLE AREA DOES HOLD WATER, AND I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE DRAINING, AND WHERE IS THAT WATER GOING TO GO.
I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE ACCESS TO 35.
I HAVE TO ACCESS 35 EVERYDAY, AND IT TAKES A WHILE TO GET OUT THERE SOMETIMES.
WITH THAT ACCESS, WE'RE GOING TO PUT MORE TRAFFIC OUT THERE FOR PEOPLE AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
I'M HERE TODAY JUST TO SEE WHAT IS GOING BACK THERE, AND THEN I'LL GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU ALL DECIDED TO DO SOMETHING WITH THAT.
I BELIEVE IN EVERY ONE OF YOU UP THERE.
I KNOW QUITE A FEW OF YOU ALL, AND JUST ASK THAT IF YOU DO ZONE IT, THAT YOU MAKE SURE WE DON'T BUILD 40-FOOT LOTS.
I WOULD RATHER LIKE TO HAVE ONE NEIGHBOR THAT I'LL LOOK AT AND TALK TO VERSUS THREE OR FOUR. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MR. EFFORD. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ISSUE?
>> MY NAME IS COREY BOYER, I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.
>> MR. BOYER, PLEASE SPEAK AT THE MICROPHONE.
I'M THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY, AND I'M THE ONE ACTUALLY SEEKING THE REZONING.
I FEEL LIKE IT'S IMPORTANT TO ANSWER A COUPLE OF CONCERNS.
WE'VE REVIEWED EVERYTHING AS FAR AS THE ORDINANCES, SO WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH EVERYTHING THAT THE CITY HAS PUT OUT.
BETWEEN THAT, WE'VE WORKED WITH CITY ATTORNEY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE TOTALLY CLEAR ON OUR INTERPRETATION AS WELL AS THE CITY'S INTERPRETATION OF SAID ORDINANCE.
AS FAR AS THE CONCERN THE GENTLEMAN JUST BROUGHT UP, WE'RE NOT SURROUNDING TO SQUEEZE 35, 40, OR EVEN 50-FOOT LOTS.
EVERYTHING OVER THERE IS ZONED R-6.3, WHICH MEANS IT'S [NOISE] A MINIMUM OF 60-FOOT LOT, AND MOST OF THE PROPERTIES ARE GOING TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER THAN THAT.
THIS IS WHAT OUR INITIAL PLOT LOOKS LIKE.
THERE'S ONLY 40 HOME SITES THAT ARE GOING INTO THE 13 ACRES.
IT'S GOING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH ATLAS 14, WHICH IS THE MOST CURRENT DRAINAGE PLAN.
IT'S A POST-HARVEY DRAINAGE PLAN.
WE'VE ALREADY BEGAN QUITE A BIT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING WORK ON THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT ONLY IN COMPLIANCE, BUT DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO BE THE BEST NEIGHBORS TO OUR SURROUNDING PEOPLE THAT WE CAN.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME SPECIFICALLY?
>> MR. BOYER, COULD YOU POINT OUT IN THE MAP EXACTLY WHERE THIS TOWER IS THAT WAS REFERENCED EARLIER? APPROXIMATELY.
>> THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO WITHIN THAT AREA.
[00:10:01]
>> THEN THERE'S ONE RIGHT DOWN HERE ON 35.
THE THIRD ONE IS GOING UP THERE.
IT'S RIGHT IN THE L OF OUR PLOT.
>> YEAH. I'LL SHOW YOU. THAT'S WRONG.
>> THE TOWER IS RIGHT HERE, AND THERE'S ANOTHER ONE DOWN HERE, AND THERE'S ANOTHER ONE UP THERE.
>> I'D LIKE IF YOU CAN PUT IT.
>> TODAY WE'RE HONESTLY JUST SEEKING FOR THAT LOWER SECTION TO NO LONGER BE ZONE COMMERCIAL BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY FRONTAGE.
THE REMAINING PORTION OF THAT ENTIRE PROPERTY IS RESIDENTIAL.
WE'RE NOT SEEKING APPROVAL FOR THE PLAN, ALL WE'RE SEEKING IS THAT SMALL SECTION THERE, THAT 2.6 ACRES.
THIS SECTION RIGHT HERE TO BE ZONE RESIDENTIAL THE SAME AS EVERYTHING ELSE IS. THERE'S COST TO IT.
THESE ARE BOTH ZONE COMMERCIAL.
FOR WHATEVER REASON, THIS PARTICULAR SECTION IS ZONE COMMERCIAL. THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING.
>> SO THAT'S THE ONLY SECTION THAT'S IN PLAY TODAY?
>> THAT'S ALL THAT IS IN PLAY.
>> OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE, MR. BORE?
>> NO, SIR. DO YOU NEED ANYTHING ELSE FROM ME?
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ISSUE? GOING ONCE. YES, SIR, MR. HEIFORD.
HE'S ONLY WANTING THAT ONE SECTION THERE WHICH IT SAYS 2.69 ACRES AND THAT SECTION WAS THE BACKUP PART OF WHERE MY HOUSE IS.
>> FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE UPPER SECTION IS ALREADY ZONE 6.3 AND HE'S JUST SIMPLY TRYING TO TAKE THAT LOWER SECTION AND CHANGE IT FROM COMMERCIAL TO 6.3 FOR CONSISTENCY.
>> ON THE MAP THAT I RECEIVED, IT SAID SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AGAIN, I MAY NOT HAVE ALL THE CODES AND ALL THIS STUFF LIKE THAT, BUT I THOUGHT THAT WAS A PIECE OF PROPERTY WE WERE TRYING TO ZONE, WHICH IS BEHIND MY HOUSE BECAUSE IT SAYS HERE, SUBJECT PROPERTY.
SUBJECT PROPERTY OF WHAT YOU SENT ME THE LETTER ON SAYING WE'RE GOING TO ZONE THAT RESIDENTIAL, NOT COMMERCIAL.
>> LINZY, AM I CORRECT IN WHAT I SAID EARLIER?
>> YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU ARE CORRECT.
THIS AREA THAT IS YELLOW, IT SAYS SF6.3 IT IS ALREADY ZONED 6.3.
HOWEVER, THE AREA, THIS PORTION RIGHT HERE, SIR, IN BLUE OUTLINE, THAT IS THE REMAINING PIECE OF HIS PROPERTY THAT HE IS REQUESTING TO REZONE NOW.
THIS IS AN EASEMENT, A ROADWAY EASEMENT BUT THIS RECTANGLE RIGHT HERE IS WHERE HE NEEDS TO REZONE SO THAT HE CAN HAVE CONSISTENT ZONING IN ORDER TO EVENTUALLY PUT HOUSES OUT THERE.
>> PERFECT. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR THE GENTLEMAN THERE IS THE BEAUTIFUL OAK TREES THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR QUITE A WHILE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, IN THAT PROPERTY, WHAT ARE YOU-ALL GOING TO DO TO OFFSET THOSE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO CUT DOWN? IF THAT TREE WAS ON 35 OR 288 OR LOOP 274, THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF PEOPLE SAYING HERE, WHY ARE WE CUTTING THESE BEAUTIFUL OAK TREES NOW? JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE HIDDEN, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO OFFSET THOSE OAK TREES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO CUT DOWN THAT I LOOK AT EVERY DAY?
>> IF I MAY, I'D LIKE TO CLEAR THIS UP.
TO CLEAR UP WHAT THE PROCESS IS CONCERNING DRAINING AND HERITAGE TREES, THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT THOSE ITEMS BE ADDRESSED DURING THE PLANNING PROCESS.
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS THIS DEVELOPER, IF HE CHOOSES TO PURSUE THIS PROJECT, HAS A TEAM OF ENGINEERS THAT WILL SUBMIT PLANS TO THE CITY.
WE WILL REVIEW IT, OUR ENGINEERS WILL REVIEW IT, AND WE WILL VET THIS AND HE HAS TO HAVE A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN, HE HAS TO HAVE A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS IN ORDER TO MEET ALL OF THE CRITERIA.
AS FAR AS HIS PLOT, ANGLETON DRAINAGE DISTRICT IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A SIGNATURE ON THAT.
SO ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE REVIEWED IN DETAIL THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THIS AND OUR TREE PRESERVATION PLAN IS PRETTY STRICT.
SO THOSE THINGS WILL BE ADDRESSED AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, SF6.3 REQUIRES THAT THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IS 60 FOOT.
SO YOU WILL NOT HAVE 40 FOOT HOMES IF THIS IS ZONE 6.3.
>> IS THAT IT? ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE.
[00:15:01]
THIS TIME, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK THE COMMISSIONERS IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.>> I HAVE A QUESTION. DO YOU LIVE HERE IN ANGLETON?
>> OKAY. I KNOW THIS MAY BE A SILLY QUESTION.
DO YOU INTEND TO DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY?
>> SO YOU'RE GOING TO ABSTAIN?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION.
>> OKAY. I'M READY FOR THE HEARING OF MOTION.
>> ALL RIGHT. I MOVE WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE REZONING.
"OUR MOTION IS CONCERNING REZONING IN APPROXIMATE 2.669 ACRES FROM THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 6.3 DISTRICT."
>> CAN WE ASK TO HAVE THAT AMENDED TO ALSO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> I THOUGHT I CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> OH, I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T HEAR IT, SIR.
>> I DID IT RAPIDLY. IS THERE A SECOND TO MS. MCDANIEL'S MOTION?
>> I HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. MUNSON.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR INDICATE SO BY SAYING AYE.
>> CLOSED AND SIGNED AND PLEASE NOTE THAT MS. SHAEFER ABSTAINED. THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE.
THIS WILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL, I ASSUME, AT THE END OF THE MONTH.
ITEM 2 FROM THE REGULAR AGENDA,
[2. Discuss and consider acting upon a recommendation to approve the proposed final replat of the Bayou Bend Estates Subdivision.]
DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ACTING UPON A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED FINAL RE-PLOT OF THE BAYOU BEND ESTATES SUBDIVISION. WALT?>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE FINAL REPLAT OF THE BAYOU BEND ESTATE SUBDIVISION.
PROPERTY CONSISTS OF ALMOST 16 ACRES AND IS PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED WITH 36 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND THREE RESERVE LOTS.
THE COMMISSION REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT ON MAY THE 2ND.
COUNCIL APPROVED THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT ON MAY THE 25TH AND ASIDE FROM THE COMMENTS AND THE CITY ENGINEER'S MEMO, THE PROPOSED REPLAT OTHERWISE MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ANGLETON.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE FINAL REPLAT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT ALL COMMENTS ARE CLEARED PRIOR TO RECORDING AND THE FINAL PLAT.
>> THANK YOU, WALT. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ISSUE? WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> I MOVE WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL PLAN REPLAT OF BAYOU BEND ESTATE SUBDIVISION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS ALL COMMENTS ARE CLEARED PRIOR TO RECORDING OF THE REPLAT.
>> THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION FROM MS. BARRY.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. IF NOT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR INDICATE SO BY SAYING AYE.
>> OPPOSE SAY NAY. MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM 3, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AN ACT ON A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF
[3. Discuss, consider and act on a request for approval of a proposed site plan for a parking lot for the Holy Comforter Episcopal Church]
THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR A PARKING LOT FOR THE HOLY COMFORTER EPISCOPAL CHURCH. WALT?>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN FOR A PARKING LOT FOR HOLY COMFORTER EPISCOPAL CHURCH AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CHENANGO AND ORANGE STREET.
THERE ARE A FEW OUTSTANDING COMMENTS THAT THE CITY ENGINEER HAD THAT BECAUSE OF THE LATENESS OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE PLANS HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO BE ADDRESSED JUST YET.
WE DID RECEIVE A RESPONSE TO COMMENTS YESTERDAY.
SO WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH THE COMMENTS.
THEY AREN'T MAJOR, BUT THEY NEED TO BE CLEARED BEFORE THE SITE PLAN IS GOOD TO GO TO ISSUE OF PERMIT ON.
THAT BEING SAID, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT ALL COMMENTS ARE CLEARED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PARKING LOT.
I DID WANT TO KNOW ONE THING THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO PUT ASPHALT IN THE ALLEY BETWEEN THE EXISTING PARKING LOT TO THE SOUTH AND THIS PROPOSED PARKING LOT.
THAT ALLEY DOES HAVE A CITY SEWER LINE IN IT AND NORMALLY, PAVEMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE CONCRETE.
BUT IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE THE ALLEY IS UNIMPROVED AND BECAUSE OF THE SEWER LINE IN IT,
[00:20:01]
STAFF FEEL THAT ASPHALT WOULD BE THE RIGHT SURFACE TO PUT THERE SO THAT YOU'RE NOT TEARING UP CONCRETE TRYING TO FIX THE SEWER LINE SHOULD THAT SITUATION ARISE.AGAIN, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT ALL COMMENTS ARE CLEARED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY PERMIT.
>> THANK YOU, WALT. I DO HAVE ONE PERSON WHO'S ASKED TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS ISSUE. MS. LUIS?
>> I RECKON I'M THE VESTRY PERSON FOR THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH AND WE'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE BECAUSE I WANT US TO ADD THREE FEET INTO THAT CONCRETE PARKING LOT AND WE WOULD LIKE IT TO BE THE SAME SIZE.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S THE SAME SIZE HERE, BUT THEY'RE ASKING FOR THREE MORE FEET FOR A TURN FOR THE FIRE TRUCK.
WE HAVE THE STREET, CHENANGO, IT'S RIGHT THERE AND IT'S WIDE ENOUGH AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THE FIRE TRUCK DOWN THERE BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO TURN IN IT.
WE'RE JUST ASKING THAT WE DO NOT HAVE TO ADD THE THREE FEET OF CONCRETE TO IT IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING.
THEY'RE WANTING US TO MAKE IT THREE FEET WIDER AND WE ARE NOT WANTING TO.
IT DOESN'T REFLECT IT, BUT THIS IS THE COMMENT WE WERE GIVEN THAT WE HAD TO ADD THREE FEET TO IT.
>> THAT'S ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT NEED TO BE RESOLVED?
>> WE'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE THAT WE DO NOT HAVE TO PUT THE THREE FEET FOR THE TURNING OF A FIRE TRUCK.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MS. LUIS. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THAT WE LET THE CITY STAFF WORK OUT THAT ISSUE WITH THE CHURCH.
WITH THAT, WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION BY THE CITY TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO COMMENTS BEING RESOLVED.
>> I MOVE WHATEVER YOU JUST SAID SINCE I DON'T HAVE MY STUFF IN FRONT OF ME.
>> YOU'RE MAKING THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE PARKING LOT SITE PLAN SUBJECT TO THE COMMENTS FROM THE CITY BEING CLEARED?
>> OKAY. WELL, I HAVE A MOTION BY MS. MCDANIEL.
>> I HAVE A SECOND BY MS. SCHAEFER.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
>> OTHER THAN I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN, HOW DO YOU SERVE ON THE BEST ROUTE FOR THE CHURCH ZONE?
>> GOT IT. THANK YOU, MS. BARRY.
ANYTHING ELSE? IF NOT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION INDICATE SO BY SAYING AYE.
>> OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES.
THANKS. NEXT, WE WILL GO TO ITEM 4.
[4. Discuss, consider and act on a request for approval of a site plan for a proposed apartment project on Henderson Road.]
DISCUSS, CONSIDER AN ACT ON A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN FOR PROPOSED APARTMENT PROJECT ON HENDERSON ROAD.>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX ON HENDERSON ROAD.
THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 4.99 ACRES AND IT'S IN THE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL 29 ZONING DISTRICT.
THE PROJECT WILL CONSIST OF 72 ONE-BEDROOM UNITS, 40 TWO-BEDROOM UNITS, AND EIGHT THREE-BEDROOM UNITS, AND AN OFFICE CLUBHOUSE-TYPE BUILDING.
THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY HERE.
COMBINED PRELIMINARY FINAL PLAT OF THE PROPERTY WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON MARCH 10TH, 2020.
THE DEVELOPER PROPOSED THAT A 380 AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMPLEX.
THE CITY WAS NOT INCLINED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE 380 AGREEMENT, AND THE PLAT WAS NEVER RECORDED.
THE PLAT EXPIRED ON MARCH THE 10TH, 2021.
PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED APARTMENT COMPLEX WERE UNDER REVIEW AT THE TIME, BUT THOSE WERE NEVER APPROVED AND NO PERMITS WERE EVER ISSUED.
THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT A SITE PLAN SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL, MULTIFAMILY, AND SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN ANY ZONING DISTRICT.
IN THIS CASE, YOU HAVE THE SITE PLAN PACKAGE AND THE STAFF ANALYSIS IN FRONT OF YOU.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF ITEMS THERE THAT I NEED TO GO OVER.
THE PROCESS ITSELF IS NOT CLEAR ON HOW TO ADDRESS WHEN A PROPOSED SITE PLAN DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OR THE CODE OF ORDINANCE AS THE CITY OF ANGLETON.
IT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE TO SAY THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO GET VARIANCES OF THOSE ITEMS THAT DON'T COMPLY WITH CITY CODE,
[00:25:03]
AND THEN COME BACK TO YOU ALL FOR A SITE PLAN APPROVAL, BECAUSE IT TIES YOUR HANDS TO MAKE A SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH ANOTHER BOARD.IT'S NOT AN EFFICIENT, NOR IS IT A PARTICULARLY GOOD PROCESS TO BE FOLLOWING.
IN THIS CASE, IT IS MY BELIEF THAT YOU ALL HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPROVE A SITE PLAN, EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES; AS LONG AS YOU MAKE IT CLEAR THAT YOU'RE APPROVING IT, WHAT IT IS YOU'RE APPROVING, AND WHY IT IS YOU'RE APPROVING IT.
ONE BASIS ON WHICH TO EVALUATE WHETHER THE INCONSISTENCIES HERE ARE APPROVABLE AS THEY'RE PROPOSED IS TO ACTUALLY USE THE VARIANCE CRITERIA OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH IS IN YOUR BACKUP THERE.
THE ITEMS HERE THAT DON'T MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU REALLY NEED TO PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO ARE, THERE'S A REQUIRED 25-FOOT SETBACK ALONG HENDERSON ROAD.
THERE'S A MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE NUMBER FOR THIS ZONING DISTRICT, AND THAT'S 50 PERCENT OF THE PROPERTY.
THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE PROPOSED HERE IS UPWARDS OF THE AREA OF 80 PERCENT; THAT NO PARKING SPACES SHALL BE LOCATED CLOSER THAN TWO FEET TO A SITE PROPERTY LINE.
THE PARKING SPACES ON THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE ARE ONE FOOT AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
THE OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENT, THE MINIMUM SIZE OF A PARKING SPACE IS NINE BY 20.
THE CODE ALLOWS FOR IT TO BE NINE BY 18, IF THERE'S A CURB STOP PLACED IN THE PARKING SPACE THAT'S TWO FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE PARKING SPACE.
THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN DOESN'T MEET AS LISTED IN YOUR REPORT ITEMS 1, 3, 4, AND 5.
THE UNITS WILL MEET THE 600 SQUARE FOOT PER UNIT SPACE, AND COLOR AND EXTERIOR DESIGN IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE COULD CERTAINLY FINISH UP AS A STAFF CONDITION OF APPROVAL.
THAT BEING SAID, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, GIVEN THE HISTORY AND SOME OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
IT'S REALLY HARD TO IDENTIFY DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS FOR THESE THINGS, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY TO THE WEST IS ALREADY DEVELOPED WITH AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.
IT'S ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HENDERSON ROAD, SO THAT'S BOUNDED BY HENDERSON ROAD.
THEN THE REST OF THE PROPERTY IS ALL UP AGAINST BRUSHING BY YOU.
THERE'S REALLY NO ADJACENT PROPERTIES THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED IF YOU APPROVE THE SITE PLAN WITH THESE VARIOUS ITEMS IN IT.
THAT BEING SAID, AS IT'S HARD TO FIND ANY IDENTIFIABLE DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS THAT WOULD HAPPEN, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED APARTMENTS ON HENDERSON ROAD, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT ALL COMMENTS ARE CLEARED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT.
BY THAT I MEAN, ANY OUTSTANDING COMMENTS THAT ARE STILL LEFT TO BE CLEARED THROUGH THE CITY ENGINEER, AND THAT THEY PROVIDE THOSE ITEMS REGARDING THE COLOR AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES OF THE PROJECT.
>> THANK YOU ALL. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> I DO. THIS IS CONCERNING THE IMPERVIOUS SPACE.
BASICALLY, I THINK I READ IT WITH [NOISE] AN 85 PERCENT.
HAS ANGLETON DRAINAGE DISTRICT APPROVED THIS OR ARE WE AWARE OF [INAUDIBLE]? HAVE THEY LOOKED AT THIS AND ARE THEY OKAY?
>> THAT'S THE NEXT STEP OF THE PROCESS, IS THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH THE PLAT PROCESS AGAIN.
PART OF THE PLAT PROCESS IS ANGLETON DRAINAGE DISTRICT LOOKING AT AND APPROVING THE DRAINAGE PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY.
>> EVEN IF WE APPROVED IT, ANGLETON DRAINAGE DISTRICT COULD COME BACK AND SAY, "HEY, WE NEED SOMETHING HERE TO COMPENSATE FOR THE IMPERVIOUS."
>> YES. ANGLETON DRAINAGE DISTRICT COULD SAY THAT THEY NEED TO DO SOMETHING ON THE PROPERTY REGARDING DRAINAGE.
I'M GOING TO SAY THAT THAT'S PROBABLY NOT VERY LIKELY SINCE THEY'VE ALREADY DONE ONE REVIEW OF THIS THROUGH
[00:30:01]
THE ORIGINAL PROCESS WHEN THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR THIS GOT APPROVED BACK IN MARCH OF LAST YEAR.>> I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE AN ISSUE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE GOT THE ANSWER TO IT.
WHEN WE APPROVED THIS, THIS OWNER OF THE APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT'S ALREADY THERE WAS JUST EXPANDING HIS PROPERTY.
HAVE WE GOT A NEW OWNER NOW? [OVERLAPPING].
>> THE REASON WE'RE IT'S LIKE DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN IS THAT THEY FAILED TO FILE THE PLAT.
AFTER WE APPROVED IT THE FIRST TIME, THE PROCESS EXPIRED.
>> NOW THEY'RE HAVING TO RESTART THE PROCESS.
>> RIGHT. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.
THE FINAL PLAT THAT WAS APPROVED IN MARCH DIDN'T GET RECORDED.
THERE'S A ONE YEAR EXPIRATION ON IT, AND THAT TIMEFRAME PASSED AND NOTHING HAPPENS.
>> I GET IT. I'M JUST WORRIED THAT IT'S LIKE SOME OF THE OTHERS WE DID.
WE APPROVED SOMETHING AND THEY HOLD IT, HOLD IT, AND THEN THEY SELL IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE.
THEN WE SEE IT AGAIN IN A DIFFERENT FORMAT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL THE SAME ON IT.
>> BUT DIDN'T WE APPROVE IT SO THAT HE COULD SELL IT, OR SO THAT IT WOULD BE SELLABLE?
>> I THOUGHT WE APPROVED IT SO HE COULD DEVELOP IT.
>> WHY DO WE SEE THESE THINGS COMING IN AND THE CONDITIONS AND COMMENTS ARE ALREADY TAKEN CARE OF BEFORE THEY COME TO US, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO APPROVE IT SUBJECT, TOO?
>> WE'RE STILL TRYING TO WORK ALL THE DETAILS OF THE PROCESS OUT SO THAT WHEN WE COME TO YOU ALL, WE CAN ACTUALLY STAND UP HERE AND SAY THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITHOUT ANY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
RIGHT NOW, IT'S STILL A PROCESS IN PROCESS AND IT'S JUST A WAY THAT THE PROCESS IS.
IT HAPPENS THAT SOMETIMES EVERYTHING ISN'T COMPLETELY DONE AND IT'S LIKE, DO WE HOLD SOMETHING UP FOR ANOTHER MONTH? THE BASIS OF IT NOT BEING ENTIRELY COMPLETE, OR ARE THESE MINOR ITEMS THAT WE THINK CAN BE RESOLVED THROUGH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL? THAT'S BASICALLY WHERE WE'RE AT.
THE PROCESS IS GETTING BETTER.
TRUST ME, IT'S GETTING BETTER.
BUT WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH ALL THE DETAILS OF IT.
WE, AS STAFF, DON'T HAVE 100 PERCENT CONTROL OF WHEN PEOPLE TURN STUFF BACK INTO US.
IT BECOMES A QUESTION OF DO WE HOLD IT UP FOR A MONTH, OR DO WE SEND IT FORWARD AND HANDLE IT WITH A CONDITION OF APPROVAL? [BACKGROUND]
>> ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> I MOVE. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE SITE PLAN PACKAGE FOR THE PROPOSED DEPARTMENTS ON HENDERSON ROAD, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT ALL COMMENTS ARE CLEARED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT.
>> I HAVE A MOTION BY MS. EBIE.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE CASE SO BY SAYING AYE.
>> OPPOSE SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES.
[5. Discuss, consider and act on a recommendation for the Preliminary Plat of Section I of Austin Colony]
DISCUSS CONSIDER AN ACT ON A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SECTION 1 IN AUSTIN COLONY.LINDSEY, WELL, WHICH ONE OF YOU ARE GOING TO INTRODUCE THIS ITEM?
>> THIS IS A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SECTION 1 OF AUSTIN COLONY.
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF COUNTY ROAD 44, WHICH IS ANCHOR ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET NORTH OF WILKINS ROAD.
THIS PARTICULAR SECTION CONSISTS OF 42.36 ACRES, AND WE'LL HAVE A 100 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND FIVE RESERVE LOTS, AND IT'S IN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT.
WE DID THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING ON THE PROPERTY AT THE COMMISSIONS LAST MEETING AND COUNCIL APPROVED AT AT THEIR MEETING ON AUGUST THE 24TH.
DUE TO THE TIMING OF THE VARIOUS APPROVALS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT, PARTICULARLY THE ZONING, STAT DID NOT RECEIVE A FULL APPLICATION PACKAGE UNTIL AUGUST THE 16TH OF 2021.
THE SUBMITTAL IS CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW, BUT AT THE TIME OF PREPARATION OF THIS AGENDA, SUMMARY COMMENTS HAVE NOT YET BEEN COMPILED.
THAT BEING SAID, THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND WITH PRELIMINARY PLATS, YOU CAN MOSTLY HANDLE ALL OF THOSE ISSUES THAT MIGHT BE ASSOCIATED WITH IT, AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
[00:35:01]
BUT THERE ARE SOME ITEMS THAT ARE OF PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE HERE.THERE IS A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT, THAT NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY FINAL PLAT REVIEW.
THAT NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED SO THAT ANY TRAFFIC IMPACTS CAN BE IDENTIFIED AND THOSE ITEMS CAN BE MITIGATED IF THERE'S MITIGATION THAT'S NEEDED.
SECTION 2360 IS THIS HERITAGE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE.
A HERITAGE TREE PLAN, I MEAN SURVEY AND TREE PRESERVATION PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR PLATS AND FOR SITE PLANS.
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, YOU HAVE IT IN YOUR BACKUP.
THE ENGINEER'S SUMMARY CONSULTANT FOR THE DEVELOPER HAS SAID THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2360E2, PROPERTY ZONED OR USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, WHICH INCLUDES THE HARVESTING OF TIMBER.
STAFF DOES NOT AGREE THAT THAT EXEMPTION APPLIES TO THIS.
IT'S NOT ZONED AGRICULTURALLY ANYMORE.
IT WAS ONLY ZONED AGRICULTURALLY WHEN IT WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY BECAUSE THAT'S THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT PROPERTIES THAT ARE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY ARE PLACED IN UNTIL A ZONING DISTRICT IS DECIDED ON THE PROPERTY.
YES, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THERE MAY BE CATTLE THAT HAD BEEN RUN ON THE PROPERTY, IT MAY STILL BE BEING RUN ON THE PROPERTY.
BUT IT'S HARD FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT THE INTENT OF THAT EXEMPTION WAS TO EXEMPT A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S A PRELIMINARY [LAUGHTER] PLAT FOR A 100 RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
MY FEELING IS THAT THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN WITH THIS PROJECT AND THAT TREE PRESERVATION PLAN NEEDS TO BE SUBMITTED.
FINALLY, AND THIS IS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST ISSUE.
IF YOU LOOK IN YOUR BACKUP, THERE'S A LAND PLAN INCLUDED IN IT.
THE MAIN NORTH-SOUTH STREET AND THEN WHERE IT WOULD CONNECT TO TECHNO DRIVE BEING EXTENDED ACROSS THE PROPERTY.
THOSE ARE ALL PART OF SECTION 1 ACCORDING TO THE LAND PLAN. THERE YOU GO.
THE TAN AREA, THE TOP LEFT, THAT'S SECTION 1 AND THE STREETS INVOLVED ARE THOSE TEN STREETS THAT ARE SHOWN ON THE LAND PLAN THERE.
THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE PART OF SECTION 1.
THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THOSE STREETS IN IT.
IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, OTHERWISE, WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING A WHOLE BUNCH OF DISCUSSING A VARIANCE OF THE TWO OUTLET REQUIREMENT THAT OTHERWISE, IS NOT GOING TO EXIST UNLESS THOSE STREETS ARE BUILT WITH PART OF SECTION 1.
THAT BEING SAID, THE STAFF PUSHING RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SECTION 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF AUSTIN COLONIES SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
ALL COMMENTS GENERATED AS PART OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW PROCESS ARE CLEARED PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF ANY FINAL PLAT APPLICATION.
THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS IS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF ANY FINAL PLAT APPLICATION.
A HERITAGE TREE SURVEY, TREE PRESERVATION PLAN IS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF ANY FINAL PLAT APPLICATION, AND THAT THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND ANY FINAL PLAT APPLICATION FOR SECTION 1 INCLUDE THE MAIN NORTH-SOUTH STREET AND A PORTION OF TECHNO DRIVE. THAT'S ALL.
>> THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> I QUESTION THE DRAINAGE, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT DRAINAGE.
[OVERLAPPING] WOULD THIS DRAIN INTO DITCH TIN, [OVERLAPPING] WHICH DRAINS DOWN TO THE LEVEE AND PAST [OVERLAPPING] WESTERN AVENUE AND HERITAGE OAKS?
>> WE HAVE JAVIER HERE FROM HDR, AND IF HE CAN GIVE YOU HIS.
IN TERMS OF DRAINAGE, THAT WOULD TYPICALLY GET TAKEN CARE OF THROUGH A DRAINAGE IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT, WHICH WAS, AS WALTER MENTIONED, SUBMITTED JUST MOST RECENTLY.
THAT WOULD BE LOOKED AT IN REGARDS TO THE PLATTING STAGE OF THIS AS WELL AS A TIA.
THAT'S WHERE THE DRAINAGE IS GOING TO BE ADDRESSED AT.
>> THE DRAINAGE ISSUE WILL COME UP IN A FUTURE STAGE OF THE PROCESS?
>> WELL, THERE SHOULD BE A DETENTION POND ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT TO ENCOMPASS THE DRAINAGE FOR IT.
[00:40:02]
>> IT'S FLAT DOWN HERE AND I KNOW ALL THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT HAS TO GO SOUTH.
IT'S GOING TO GO SOUTH PAST A LOT OF EXISTING SUB DIVISIONS, AND I JUST HAVE CONCERNS OVER THAT, [OVERLAPPING] CONCERNS ABOUT A 50-FOOT LOT TOO.
THEY ARE ALL 50 FOOT LOTS, RIGHT?
>> WELL, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
WHEN I LOOK AT THAT, I'M ASSUMING THAT THAT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT PAGES IS THIS, BUT THE OTHER ONE THAT IS THE ENGINEER'S DESIGN.
I SEE A 40-FOOT LOT, 47-FOOT LOT, A 36, 35-FOOT LOT.
I SEE A WHOLE BUNCH OF THEM THAT ARE NOT 50-FOOT LOTS.
THAT ALREADY GIVES ME PAUSE FOR CONCERN.
>> DO I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY THAT THE ISSUE OF LOT SIZE WAS ALREADY ADDRESSED BY COUNSEL DESPITE ANY CONCERNS WE MAY HAVE HAD AN AT AN EARLIER MEETING OR NOT?
>> THE LOT SIZES ARE DETERMINED BY THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ON THE PROPERTY.
>> I GUESS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ASK IS, IS THIS HORSE ALREADY OUT OF THE BARN, HAS THIS SHIP ALREADY SAILED?
>> FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE ARE ANY 35-FOOT LOTS IN THIS. THERE SHOULDN'T BE.
>> WELL, IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE LOT NUMBER 835.98 AND 49.61.
>> IN TERMS OF THE LOT SIZE, I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO THE PD FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, AND THEN SOME OF THESE LOTS ARE CONFIGURED AS SUCH THEY MIGHT BE ON A CURVE OR A CORNER, AND SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING THERE IS THE STRAIGHT PORTION OF THAT LOT THERE.
>> ARE YOU TALKING LIKE A LOT THAT WOULD BE ON A CUL-DE-SAC THAT'S PIE-SHAPED?
>> THERE IS A LOT THAT'S 29.75 AND 50.
MAYBE THEY'RE NOT PLANNING ON DEVELOPING THAT.
>> BUT WASN'T THERE A BASE, THE ZONING THAT WE VOTED ON EVEN THOUGH IT'S THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT?
>> AS HAVIER SAID WHEN THERE'S A RADIUS OR AN ARC, PART OF THE LOT IS GOING TO SAY THIS, THEN THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ARC.
IT'S THE ENTIRETY OF THAT, NOT JUST 29 FEET, IT'S 29 PLUS WHATEVER THAT RADIUS AND WHATEVER IS THERE.
WE APPRECIATE THE QUESTION, BUT THE LOT SIZES THAT WERE PROPOSED AS PART OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT ARE BEING MET IN THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT.
THAT'S ABOUT THE BEST I CAN TELL YOU.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, MY SCREEN HAS GONE BLANK AGAIN, SO I'M GOING TO DO THE BEST ON THIS. [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT MUST BE A MILD COMPUTER.
>> IT IS. I TRIED TO FIX IT, I THINK IT'S HAD ITS HISTORY.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO OPEN BACK?
>> NO, THAT'S OKAY. I WANT TO PUT THIS TOGETHER IF YOU WOULD CORRECT THE MOTION.
I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED BY MR. REESE, AND I'M NOT ABLE TO REPEAT THOSE, BUT THOSE ARE ON RECORD.
>> THEY BEING THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE COMMENTS BEING CLEARED, THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO SUBMISSION. THEY'RE JUST TREE SURVEYS.
LAST TREE PRESERVATION PLANS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO SUBMISSION.
THEY FILE REPLAT AND THAT THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND ANY FINAL APPLICATION FOR SECTION 1 INCLUDE THE MAIN NORTH-SOUTH STREET.
ANY PORTION OF TAKING THE DRUG?
>> I HAVE A MOTION FROM MS. MCDANIEL. IS THERE A SECOND? I'M GOING TO SECOND THE MOTION AS CHAIR.
WE'LL DO A VOTE BY HAND THIS TIME.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION INDICATE. SORRY. EXCUSE ME.
WAS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, INDICATE SO BY RAISING YOUR RIGHT-HAND, 2, 3, 4.
[00:45:01]
OKAY. FOUR TO TWO IN FAVOR.[6. Discuss, consider an act on a recommendation for the preliminary replat of Angleton Park Place Section 1.]
DISCUSS, CONSIDER AND ACT ON A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT OF ANGLETON PARK PLACE SECTION 1.>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE ANGLETON PARK PLACE SECTION 1 PLAT.
THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE MANUFACTURED HOME ZONING DISTRICT, AND THIS IS A MANUFACTURED HOME SUBDIVISION, IT IS NOT A MANUFACTURED HOME PARK.
THE DISTINCTION NEEDS TO BE MADE.
IT'S A SUBDIVISION, NOT A MANUFACTURED HOME PARK.
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PHILLIPS ROAD IN GIFFORD ROAD.
THIS IS PHASE 1 OF THIS PROJECT.
THERE ARE POTENTIALLY TWO OTHER PHASES TO THIS AS THIS GOES.
THE ONLY MAJOR ISSUE HERE IS THAT WHILE PHASE 1 DOESN'T RUN A FILE OF SECTION 2311-I, WHICH IS THE REQUIREMENT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR SECONDARY ACCESS AFTER YOU REACH THE 30 LOT THRESHOLD, ANY OTHER SECTION OF THIS IS GOING TO TRIGGER THAT REQUIREMENT.
THE PROBLEM FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IS THAT THERE'S ONLY ONE REALLY VIABLE POINT AT WHICH TO GET A SECONDARY ACCESS AND THAT'S THAT CUL-DE-SAC DOWN IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY, BUT GIFFORD ROAD IS NOT CONSTRUCTED OUT THERE.
IN ORDER TO GET THAT SECONDARY ACCESS, HALF OF GIFFORD ROAD IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION TO ACHIEVE SECONDARY ACCESS TO THIS PROPERTY.
THAT'S A HEADS UP RATHER THAN AN ITEM THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
PHASE 1 DOESN'T TRIGGER THE REQUIREMENT FOR A SECONDARY ACCESS, IT OTHERWISE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES SUBJECT TO ANY COMMENTS FROM THE CITY ENGINEER BEING CLEARED AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
>> IS THAT APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE STAFF COMMENTS THAT ARE CLEARED?
>> I MOVE WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT OF ANGLETON PARK PLACE SECTION 1 SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT ALL STAFF COMMENTS ARE CLEAR PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF ANY FILE REPLAT.
>> MOTION BY MR. [INAUDIBLE] .
>> SECONDED BY MS. SCHAEFER. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR INDICATE SO BY SAYING AYE.
>> OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES.
[Items 7 & 8]
CONSIDER AND ACT ON THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT FOR THE MISSOURI COUNTY COURTHOUSE CAMPUS EXTENSION.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SPANS SIX CITY BLOCKS SURROUNDED BY CEDAR STREET TO THE NORTH, FRONT STREET TO THE WEST.
WE'VE GOT WEST IN THERE TWICE.
>> THANK YOU. EAST LOCAL STREET TO THE SOUTH AND IS IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT.
DO WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND COMBINE SEVEN AND EIGHT OR NOT?
>> ITEM 8 IS DISCUSS, CONSIDER AND ACT ON A SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED MISSOURI COUNTY COURTHOUSE CAMPUS EXTENSION PROJECT.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS.
THIS IS FOR THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT.
SINCE WE'RE COMBINING THE TWO ITEMS, WE ARE PRESENTING TO YOU A PRELIMINARY REPLAT.
THERE ARE SOME COMMENTS THAT ARE RATHER IMMATERIAL AND WE FEEL CAN BE RESOLVED BEFORE THIS GOES TO COUNCIL.
THOSE COMMENTS ARE ALL INCLUDED.
REGARDLESS, WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT SUBJECT TO THOSE COMMENTS BEING CLEARED.
WE ALSO HAVE A SITE PLAN THAT'S BEEN INCLUDED.
HOWEVER, THOSE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN CLEARED.
INCLUDE A FLOOR TO AREA RATIO, A LIGHTING PLAN, AND ONE OTHER ITEM.
HOWEVER, THOSE ITEMS WERE SATISFIED.
WITH THAT SITE PLAN IS ALSO A SCHEMATIC OF HOW THIS PROJECT WILL LOOK.
THERE WILL BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING
[00:50:03]
TO THE EAST OF THE PRESENT COUNTY COURTHOUSE.THERE WILL ALSO BE AN EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER.
THE OVERALL CAMPUS IS GOING TO BE CONJOINED OVER DJANGO BY A SKY BRIDGE.
THAT'S ALL INCLUDED IN HERE IN YOUR SITE PLAN.
WE HAVE COUNTY FOLKS HERE THAT CAN ANSWER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
>> THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> I HAVE A COMMENT. I THINK IT'S FOOLISH TO BUILD A SKY BRIDGE CLOSE TO THE STREET THAT IT GOES OVER.
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT AS WELL.
[LAUGHTER] TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM WHERE MR. SHREE IS COMING FROM BUT SINCE I WAS INVOLVED WITH I GUESS THIS LAST ROUND WHICH HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR 15 YEARS OF TRYING TO RENOVATE DOWNTOWN, I WAS PLEASANTLY NOT SURPRISED, BUT I WAS GLAD THAT SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WE HAD COME UP WITH WITH OUR ORIGINAL VISION SEVERAL YEARS AGO WERE INCLUDED IN THIS SITE PLAN.
>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
>> LET'S INDICATE BY HAND. [OVERLAPPING].
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY LET ME GO READ SEVEN.
>> SUBJECT TO THE COMMENTS BEING CLEARED FOR ITEM 7?
>> ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY MS. EVE TO APPROVE BOTH SEVEN AND EIGHT SUBJECT TO COMMENTS BEING CLEARED ON SEVEN.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE COMMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN CLEARED ON EIGHT.
>> I HAVE A SECOND BY MR. [INAUDIBLE] .
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR INDICATE SO BY SAYING, "AYE."
[9. Update on review of development regulations by Gunda Corp]
UPDATE AND REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS BY GUN TO COURT.>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'LL BE EXTREMELY BRIEF HERE.
YOU HAVE IN YOUR BACKUP THE INFORMATION FROM GUN TO CORPORATION WHO THE CITY HIRED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS AND IDENTIFY ITEMS THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO IMPROVE OR CHANGE AND THE ORDINANCES TO IMPROVE THE PROCESS.
I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD BEYOND THAT OTHER THAN BEFORE YOU ALL DISAPPEAR, THERE'S FOOD OUT IN THE HALLWAY.
IF YOU ARE HUNGRY, WE HAVE FOOD FOR YOU.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? WE ARE ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.