11. Conduct a public hearing, discussion, and possible action on Ordinance No. 20210928-011 rezoning 2.669 acres from Article III Zoning Districts Section 28-57 C-G - Commercial-General District to Article III Zoning Districts Section 28-46 SF-6.3 - Single Family Residential 6.3 District of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Angleton, Texas; providing a severability clause; providing for a penalty; and providing for repeal and an effective date.

[11. Conduct a public hearing, discussion, and possible action on Ordinance No. 20210928-011 rezoning 2.669 acres from Article III Zoning Districts Section 28-57 C-G - Commercial-General District to Article III Zoning Districts Section 28-46 SF-6.3 - Single Family Residential 6.3 District of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Angleton, Texas; providing a severability clause; providing for a penalty; and providing for repeal and an effective date.]

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

>> AYE.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAME SIGN, THAT MOTION CARRIES.

PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ACTION ITEMS NUMBER 11, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 20210928-011, REZONING 2.669 ACRES FROM ARTICLE 3 ZONING DISTRICT, SECTION 28-57, CG COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT 2 ARTICLE 3 ZONING DISTRICT SECTION 28-46SF6.3 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 6.3 DISTRICT OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ANGLETON, TEXAS, PROVIDING A SEPARABILITY CLAUSE, PROVIDING A PENALTY, AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MISS LINDSEY.

>>GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE A PORTION OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY.

THIS REQUEST IS FROM DEVELOPER COREY BOYER, WHO IS REPRESENTED BY ATTICA CONSULTING, AND THIS IS APPROXIMATELY 2.7 ACRES AND IT IS BASICALLY TO REZONE IT, SO IT'S ONE CONSISTENT ZONING DISTRICT, SO THAT ENTRANCE TO THE PROPERTY CAN ALL BE A RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AREA.

NOW, OF COURSE, THAT ACTUALLY TURNED SIDEWAYS, YOU CAN IMAGINE TILTING IT UP 90 DEGREES. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

THE PANHANDLE ON THE SOUTHERN END OF THE PROPERTY, ADJOINED TO WEST MULBERRY.

[NOISE] THEN THE OTHER PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS ON TOP, UP THERE.

THE APPLICANT IS HERE THIS EVENING AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

>> OKAY. WELL, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND FIRST GET INTO A PUBLIC HEARING, COUNCIL.

>> WE ALL MOVE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SECOND.

>> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO-TEM WRIGHT.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

[00:10:01]

>> AYE.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THAT MOTION CARRIES.

NOW WE'RE IN A PUBLIC HEARING, I DO HAVE TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK SO IN THE ORDER THAT THEY WERE PRESENTED PLUS WELL, LET LADIES GO FIRST MISS SHAEFER, THE PODIUM IS YOURS.

>> THANK YOU.

>> I EMAILED THIS TO YOU.

>> WE READ IT.

>> THANK YOU, WE READ IT.

[BACKGROUND]

>> THANK YOU [BACKGROUND].

>> I'M GOING TO SPEAK ON FOR AND AGAINST.

I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE ZONING, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT.

THAT DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO PUT HOUSES RIGHT NEXT TO THE TOWER SITE THAT'S ON THE BACKSIDE OF OUR PROPERTY.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF HIS YELLOW AREA, OUR DRIVEWAY COMES UP ON OUR SOUTH SIDE AND THE TOWER SITE IS AT THAT CORNER.

HE WANTS TO PUT HOUSES AROUND THAT TOWER SITE.

BEING A TOWER OWNER SINCE 1989, THINGS COME OFF THE TOWERS.

THINGS FALL, THEY DROP SCREWDRIVERS, THEY DROP BRANCHES, THEY DROP BOLTS.

I'M CONCERNED ABOUT A CHILD IN THE BACKYARD AND SOMETHING HITTING THE CHILD AND HURTING THEM.

WHERE I'M STANDING, THE CG VERSUS THE RESIDENTIAL, I UNDERSTAND WHY IT NEEDS TO ALL BE ONE GROUP.

BUT YOUR TOWER ORDINATES EVEN SAYS THAT HOUSES AND TOWERS SHOULD BE 200 FEET OR 300 PERCENT, THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWER AWAY FROM EACH OTHER.

THERE'S A REASON BEHIND THAT, AND IT'S A SAFETY REASON.

WITH THAT, MY EXPERIENCE'S DON'T PUT A HOUSE BY THAT TOWER, ANY TOWER, DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT'S IN MY BACKYARD OR IT'S IN SOMEBODY ELSE'S BACKYARD.

IN THAT PROPERTY, IF HE'D EVER DEVELOPED THE PROPERTY ON WEST MULBERRY, SOUTH OF THAT YELLOW BOX, THERE'S ANOTHER TOWER ON THAT CORNER, WHICH IS THE T-MOBILE TOWER.

THAT WOULD PUT TWO TOWERS NEXT TO THAT PROPERTY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. NEXT UP WE HAVE A CITIZEN WISHING TO SPEAK, MR. SCHAFER, THE PODIUM IS YOURS.

>> HOPING WE WON'T GET HIT BY LIGHTNING HERE, HOPEFULLY [LAUGHTER].

I'M JUST FOLLOWING UP WHAT SHE SAID.

MY MAIN CONCERN IS, THE TOWER ORDINANCE EXISTED NOW TALKS ABOUT NEW TOWER DEVELOPMENT, NOT ABOUT EXISTING TOWERS.

THE ORDINANCE NEEDS TO BE OR AMENDED TO PUT IN THE CLEAR FALL ZONE AND THE THINGS THAT HAD BEEN DONE IN HOUSTON AND OTHER AREAS SO THAT YOU HAVE PROTECTION AND SO THAT YOU COMPLY WITH THE OSHA REGULATIONS CURRENTLY ENFORCED, AS WELL AS HOMELAND SECURITY CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURES, THAT THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE PUT TOGETHER, AND IT'S NOT OBJECTIONABLE, BUT WHEN DEVELOPMENT OCCURS, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED A NEW AMENDMENT TRIO ORDINATES.

I WAS WORKING ON THAT WITH YOUR FORWARD CITY MANAGER, BUT AS WE WELL KNOW, THINGS CHANGED AND SO WE DIDN'T GET THAT FINISHED.

BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH YOU, WE JUST NEED TO WORK ON THIS SO THAT EVERYBODY IS SAFE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

WE ARE STILL IN A PUBLIC HEARING.

DOES ANYBODY HERE WANT TO SPEAK ON, FOR, OR AGAINST ITEM NUMBER 11.

YOU CAN COME ON UP TO THE PODIUM, SIR.

JUST STATE YOUR NAME.

>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS COREY BOYER, AM THE PROPERTY OWNER.

WE'VE GOT A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS GOING ON HERE BUT THE MOST CRITICAL PIECE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS JUST CONJOINING THE TWO PIECES.

THE LARGE SECTIONS ALREADY ZONED RESIDENTIAL, 6.3.

ALL WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY IS TO CONTINUE ON WITH THIS SECTION BEING 6.3.

[00:15:07]

WE HAVE NOT COMPLETELY SUBMITTED OUR PRELIMINARY PLAN, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH, PLANNING AND ZONING ON SO THAT WE DO TAKE PRIDE IN SAFETY [NOISE] OF EVERYBODY HERE IN ANGLETON AS WELL AS THE FUTURE CITIZENS THAT WILL RESIDE IN THIS DEVELOPMENT.

TODAY THE IMPORTANT PART IS FOCUSING ON, THIS IS JUST LOOKING AT THIS SMALL SECTION BEING CONTIGUOUS WITH THE REST AS A RESIDENTIAL 6.3 ZONE.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> I'M SURE THERE'LL BE QUESTIONS, BUT DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING PART, WE CAN'T ENGAGE.

WE'LL PROBABLY ENGAGE ONCE WE GET OUT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON, FOR, OR AGAINST ITEM NUMBER 11? GOING ONCE, TWICE, CANCELED.

>> MAY I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING?

>> SECOND.

>> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEMPORE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

>> AYE.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSING SIGN.

THAT MOTION CARRIES, WE'RE NOW OUT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE'RE TO THE PART OF DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION BY COUNCIL.

>> A FEW QUESTIONS.

>> GO AHEAD, SIR.

>> WHAT'S THE PROPERTY WIDTH OF THAT PANHANDLE GOING DOWN?

>> CURRY, CAN YOU WEIGH IN ON THAT ONE? [BACKGROUND]

>> IT'S FIXED. THE PLAID CALL FOR 360 FEET WIDE.

IT'S WIDE ENOUGH FOR A [INAUDIBLE].

>> THAT'S GREAT.

>> MY ISSUE HERE AND I APPRECIATE THE SCHAFER IS COMING OUT TONIGHT AND IN YOUR COMMENTS, BUT WE'RE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAID.

YOU SAID I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE ZONING AS MUCH AS I AM ABOUT SAFETY AND HOW IT'S DEVELOPED AND I'M MORE OF THE ZONING OF IT BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY WHAT'S BEFORE US.

I UNDERSTAND IT'S A 60 FOOT LOT, BUT MY ONLY CONCERN IS WE HAVE A STOPLIGHT AT SOUTH WALKER.

I CAN'T COUNT HOW MANY INCHES WE HAVE RIGHT THERE ON EAST MULBERRY.

I FEEL LIKE IT'S ALREADY CONGESTED ENOUGH RIGHT THERE.

I SEE PEOPLE BLOWING THROUGH THAT LIGHT AT SOUTH WALKER.

OUR POLICE PATROL THAT AREA NON-STOP AND I THINK EVERY DAY THEY CATCH, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE SPEED INTO THEM.

WE HAVE A SCHOOL ZONE, LOT OF THINGS THERE.

MY CONCERN IS REALLY REZONING AND PUTTING MORE HOUSES ON ANOTHER SUBDIVISION ACCESSING OFF OF 35. THAT'S MY ISSUE.

>> THAT'S A VERY VALID CONCERN.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ILLUSTRATE THAT TEXT DOT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PERMITTING THAT DRIVE BECAUSE THAT IS A TEXT DOT ROADWAY.

>> SURE.

>> WE HAVE ALREADY COMMUNICATED TO THE DEVELOPER THAT HE'LL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE TWO POINTS OF EGRESS INTO THAT SUBDIVISION.

I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHERE THE SECONDARY ONE IS, THERE'S A COUPLE OPTIONS AS I UNDERSTAND.

AS HE STATED EARLIER, THEY HAVE NOT DONE THEIR PRELIMINARY REPLAD RIGHT NOW.

THEY'RE STILL IN THE [NOISE] PHASE OF THAT.

>> YEAH, THAT'S MY FEEDBACK.

YOU CAN SEE JUST TEXT DOT PERMITTING ON BUSINESS 2DA WITH ALL THE INTERESTS AND NOW WE HAVE MEDIUMS UP BECAUSE OF ALL THOSE ISSUES.

THAT'S JUST MY CONCERN WITH PUTTING ANOTHER ENTRANCE TO A SUBDIVISION RIGHT THERE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?

>> WILL THE [INAUDIBLE] AT MULBERRY BE USING AN ALREADY EXISTING ONE?

>> NO, SIR. I BELIEVE THEY WOULD HAVE TO CUT THAT.

>> IF YOU HAVE AN ANSWER, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM SO WE CAN HAVE YOU ON THE MICROPHONE.

>> YEAH OF COURSE.

>> CURRENTLY, IF YOU ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA WHERE THE GUY THAT'S SELLING WOOD, THERE'S ALREADY AN ENTRANCE RIGHT THERE INTO THAT AREA.

WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE MOVING HIS SHOP OUT OF THE WAY, BUT MAINTAINING THAT SAME ENTRANCE FROM WHERE IT IS.

OUR OTHER POINT OF EGRESS IS GOING TO BE ALPHA WALKER.

IT'S GOING TO BE SPLIT UP.

QUITE HONESTLY, WITH WOULD YOU SAY,

[00:20:04]

THE UNIQUE SHAPE OF THIS PARTICULAR TRACK, WE'RE NOT GETTING A LOT OF HOUSES OUT OF THIS.

I KNOW TRAFFIC IS ALWAYS A CONCERN.

IT'S RELATIVELY SPLIT THE WAY THAT OUR INITIAL DESIGN IS BETWEEN HOUSES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TRACK AND HOUSES ON THE SOUTH.

I DON'T ANTICIPATE AN OVERWHELMING AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC COMING IN AND OUT OF ONE PARTICULAR POINT OF EGRESS VERSUS THE OTHER.

I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE RELATIVELY BALANCED.

>> ANY HOUSES ALONG THAT ENTRANCE? JUST PUT IT ON RECORD.

>> RIGHT NOW, WITH WHERE WE'RE AT, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH WIDTH BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE OUR 60 FOOT.

WE'RE GOING TO BE RECESSED BACK UNTIL YOU CAN SEE WHERE WE'VE GOT OUR 60 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY UNTIL THAT WIDENS OUT.

THERE'S NOTHING GOING TO BE JUST RIGHT THERE UP AGAINST MULBERRY AT ALL.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHO CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

THE CONCERNS BROUGHT FORTH BY THE SCHAEFERS.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED AT?

>> SAFETY CONCERNS ARE ALWAYS VALID.

>> DO WE HAVE THE MECHANISM TO HANDLE THAT?

>> WE'VE ACTUALLY ALREADY BEEN IN TOUCH WITH THE CITY'S LEGAL COUNSEL CONCERNING OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE TO EXISTING TOWERS.

THAT IS FOR NEW TOWERS TO BE BUILT.

THERE'S A COUPLE DIFFERENT WAYS THE DEVELOPER CAN DO THIS.

ONE OF THE IDEAS I'VE HEARD IS A DETENTION POND BACK THERE, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE A SEPARATION THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.

I DON'T KNOW. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE I'M MISSING?

>> NO, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

TO ADD TO THAT, WHAT WE'RE SAYING BEFORE, SAFETY IS OUR CONCERN.

WE ARE CREATING A BUFFER BETWEEN ANY OF THESE CELL TOWERS, AT LEAST, WITH OUR INITIAL DESIGN.

AGAIN, PRELIMINARY PLAT HASN'T BEEN FINALIZED OR SUBMITTED.

BUT OUR DESIGN THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING ON, THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF SPACING THERE WHERE THEY WE'RE GOING TO PUT OUR DETENTION FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.

>> BUT TRAVIS, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS ON.

THE ORDINANCE FOR THE RE-ZONE IS COMPLETELY IN COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR CODE, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.

YES, THAT LEGAL REVIEW HAS BEEN DONE. YES.

>> IF IT WAS LEFT CG, COULD HE STILL BUILD A ROAD OF ACCESS TO THEIR PROPERTY THROUGH THERE, AND JUST NOT USE THAT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT? SEE WHAT I'M SAYING?

>> I'M SORRY. CAN YOU SAY THE QUESTION AGAIN?

>> IT'S ZONE CG RIGHT NOW?

>> YES, SIR.

>> IF IT'S LEFT AT CG, CAN HE STILL BUILD A ROAD TO ACCESS HIS PROPERTY THROUGH THERE?

>> I THINK HE NEEDS MOSTLY THAT RECTANGLE SHAPE.

>> I MEAN, I GET THAT.

>> THAT WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS TOO.

>> I'M JUST SAYING, IF WE DENY, CAN YOU STILL PUT ACCESS THROUGH THERE TO A SUBDIVISION?

>> DOES IT MATTER THE ZONING?

>> IT DOES NOT DO ANYTHING [OVERLAPPING] THROUGH DEVELOPMENT.

>> I'M GOING TO LET WALT TAKE THAT ONE.

[LAUGHTER]

>> THE ZONING DOESN'T AFFECT THE ABILITY TO GAIN ACCESS OUT TO THE STREET.

CERTAINLY, THAT LITTLE PANHANDLE PORTION COULD BE LEFT IN CG, WITH THAT AREA BEHIND IT, WOULD HAVE TO BE RE-ZONED TO A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT HOUSES ON THAT PART OF THE GROUND.

BUT THE ROAD ITSELF IS NOT SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES ANY PARTICULAR ZONING ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.

REALLY TECHNICALLY, YOU DON'T ZONE A ROAD, SO THAT BECOMES ACTUAL RIGHT OF WAY.

THEN IT REALLY ISN'T ZONED ANYMORE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY.

THERE REALLY WOULDN'T BE ZONING ON THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY IN THAT PORTION.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT, MR. WALTER.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> I'M JUST CONFUSED THOUGH, WHEN I'M LOOKING AT BCAD, AND I SEE OWNER NAMED MULBERRY FIELDS LLC ON THE TOP PORTION, BUT ON THE BOTTOM PORTION, I SEE MURRAY HILL.

THEY DON'T LOOK LIKE THEY'RE THE SAME OWNER ON BOTH OF THEM,

[00:25:01]

BUT WE'RE TRYING TO RE-ZONE THEM TOGETHER.

IT'S NOT WHAT I'M SEEING HERE.

>> YEAH.

I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT, BUT IT ABSOLUTELY IS, PER OLIVER.

I MEAN, OUR PURCHASE DOCUMENTS, TITLE COMMITMENTS, AND SURVEYS.

IT'S 13 ACRES TOGETHER.

I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT'S NOT UPDATED PROPERLY, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE.

>> ARE YOU MULBERRY FIELD?

>> YES, I'M MULBERRY FIELDS, AND WE ONLY BOUGHT THIS JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO.

IT'S ALTOGETHER POSSIBLE THAT THAT SECTION WILL BE UPDATED IN THE NEAR FUTURE IN THE SHORT TERM.

>> BUT YOU'RE ONLY.

>> WAS THERE A QUESTION?

>> HOW MANY HOUSES ARE YOU? BECAUSE I KNOW THE PART WE'RE TRYING TO RESURVEY IS THIS RECTANGLE AT THE TOP, BUT YOU OWN THE PROPERTY AT THE TOP OF THERE AS WELL.

>> CORRECT.

>> I MEAN, WHAT WERE WE TALKING ON A SUBDIVISION SIDE?

>> DO YOU PLAN ON DOING ANY TWO PROPERTIES AT SOME POINT?

>> ARE YOU JOINING THEM TOGETHER TO DO ONE GREAT BIG SUBDIVISION?

>> I WOULDN'T CONSIDER IT A GREAT BIG SUBDIVISION.

WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT MAYBE 40 OR 45 HOUSES TOTAL.

THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THAT SECTION IS GOING TO BE FOR DETENTION.

AGAIN, WHENEVER WE TALKED EARLIER ABOUT THE CONCERN OF THE CELL TOWER SITES, NOBODY WANTS A CELL TOWER IN THEIR BACKYARD.

WE FELT LIKE THAT WOULD BE NOT ONLY THE MOST ADEQUATE PART, BUT IT WOULD ALSO PROVIDE A BUFFER BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL TO THE RESIDENTIAL.

>> JOHN, THE 13 ACRES ENCOMPASSES EVERYTHING.

>> YES.

>> THIS IS A VERY GERRYMANDERED LOOKING THING HERE, [LAUGHTER] ALL THE WAY DOWN TO HIGHWAY 35.

NOW, THERE'S A RED LINE THROUGH THERE.

THE RED LINE ACTUALLY ENCOMPASSES EVERYTHING THAT THEY WANTED TO CHANGE FROM CG TO C3.

>> RIGHT.

>> THEY'RE NOT TWO SEPARATE PROPERTIES.

IT'S ALL ONE PROPERTY, JUST THE ZONING LAND FOLLOWS THAT RED LINE THERE.

>> YEAH. I'M JUST LOOKING AT CONSISTENCY BETWEEN WHAT I SEE ON BCAD, AND WHAT I'M SEEING HERE. THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING.

>> BCAD [OVERLAPPING] IS NOT NECESSARILY UP-TO-DATE.

THEY CAN GET AS UP-TO-DATE AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN, BUT YEAH.

>> YEAH.

>> I THINK MY QUESTION WOULD BE AS WELL IS THE ENTRY POINT.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE THOUGHT OF THIS, BUT WOULD WALKER BE YOUR MAIN ENTRANCE AND YOUR MULBERRY STRIP BE THE SECONDARY ENTRANCE.

IF IT SHOULD EVER GET TO THE POINT THAT WE'VE DONE SOME THINGS WITH SOME OTHER SET OF AGENTS WHERE THEY GATE, SO TO SPEAK, SO YOU CAN STILL KEEP IT TWO IN AND TWO OUT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO MOVE OVER TO THE WALKER AND EXIT ENTRANCE AND LEAVE THAT HIGHWAY 35 AS AN EMERGENCY GATE IF YOU WILL.

UNLESS YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT MAKING IT VISIBLE, ATTRACTIVE TO SHOW INTEREST INTO THAT AREA, I GET IT AS WELL.

JUST LOOKING AT OPTIONS FOR DOWN THE ROAD.

>> OBVIOUSLY, EVERYBODY KNOWS MULBERRY IS MORE ATTRACTIVE THAN WALKER.

I DON'T THINK I'M TELLING ANYBODY ANYTHING NEW OR SHOCKING.

AS FAR AS GETTING OFF ONE OR THE OTHER, WE HAVEN'T REALLY CONTEMPLATED EITHER ONE BECAUSE OF TRAFFIC CONCERNS.

WE DO FEEL LIKE TWO POINTS OF EGRESS IS THE BEST WAY FOR THE SUBDIVISION TO FUNCTION ADEQUATELY.

LIKE I SAID, MULBERRY IS MORE ATTRACTIVE THAN WALKER, SO I DOUBT THAT WE HAVE ANY INTENTION OF BLOCKING THAT OFF.

>> OKAY. JUST THROWING THE QUESTION OUT THERE. THANK YOU, SIR.

>> I WOULD THINK FOR THE VERY REASONS YOU STATED MR. JOHN, CAREFUL BECAUSE EVENTUALLY THE STATE COULD COME IN AND CREATE A [INAUDIBLE] AND NOT ALLOW YOU TO CROSS 35.

YOU COULD STILL ENTER IF YOU'RE, I GUESS, HEADING WEST OR EXITING TO THE WEST.

MAYBE SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND, BUT WE MAY NOT HAVE TO SHUT IT DOWN AND THE STATE MAY END UP [LAUGHTER] DOING IT FOR US.

>> THEY WOULD DO WHAT THEY WANT.

>> [INAUDIBLE] CAN DO SOME ODD THINGS IF YOU OUGHT TO [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] ENGINEERS YOU GOT TO RUN THE TRAPS TO GET

[00:30:02]

A DRIVEWAY OR STREET ENTRANCE THERE.

LIKE LINDSEY SAID, THEY ARE IN CHARGE OF STATE HIGHWAY 35, AND THEY MIGHT HAVE CERTAIN TYPES OF DRIVEWAYS OR STREETS.

THEY'VE COME UP WITH SOME RULES SOMETIME THAT YOU WONDER WHY?

>> YES, SIR.

>> ANY MORE QUESTIONS COUNCIL? BEFORE US IS ASKING TO GO FROM A CG TO A SF6.

THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE US TONIGHT.

>> LIKE YOU SAID, THIS IS JUST ZONING.

THE PLANNING ISSUE OUGHT TO BE ADDRESSED AT A LATER TIME.

THEN I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> I SECOND.

>> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH. I'M SORRY.

COUNCILMAN, I LOOKED RIGHT AT YOU, BUT I THOUGHT HIM.

COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN GONGORA.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS?

>> IT IS GONGORA, RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> OKAY. I WANT TO MAKE SURE HE SAID IT.

[LAUGHTER] I'M GOING TO TURN AROUND GUYS.

LITTLE SLEEP AND A LOT OF WORK.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS.

HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

[12. Discussion and possible action on the final replat of the Bayou Bend Estates Subdivision.]

>> AYE.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

>> AYE.

>> ONE NAY, FIVE AYES, THAT MOTION CARRIES.

NOW WE'RE INTO OUR REGULAR AGENDA ITEM; DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE FINAL REPLAT OF BAYOU BEND ESTATES SUBDIVISION. MR. WALTER.

>> THANK YOU MAYOR. MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, THIS IS THE FINAL REPLAT OF THE BAYOU BEND ESTATES PROJECT.

PROPERTY CONSISTS OF ALMOST 16 ACRES IN THE SF6.3 ZONING DISTRICT, AND THERE WILL BE 36 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AND THREE RESERVED LOTS.

I DON'T REALLY HAVE MUCH ELSE TO SAY ABOUT IT.

THERE'S A LIST OF COMMENTS FROM THE CITY ENGINEER THAT NEEDS TO BE CLEARED, BUT OTHER THAN THAT THE PROPOSED REPLAT OTHERWISE MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF ANGLETON.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ALL THOSE COMMENTS BEING CLEARED PRIOR TO RECORDING OF ANY FILE PLAN.

>> THIS WAS A PLANNING AND ZONING AS WELL, SEVEN IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED.

>> FORGOT THAT PART. SORRY.

>> THANK YOU.

>> NO WORRIES. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SEVEN IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSED, ZERO ABSENT.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> COUNCIL. ITEM 12. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS.

>> JUST ONE SECOND. SORRY.

>> MOTIONS.

>> I MOVE WE APPROVE THE PROPOSED FINAL REPLAT OF BAYOU BEND ESTATES SUBDIVISION, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION ALL COMMENTS ARE CLEARED PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL REPLAT.

>> I SECOND.

>> IT'S MOTION OF SECOND. WE CAN STILL DISCUSS.

>> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO-TEM WRIGHT.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> YES.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> I KNOW THIS WAS ADDRESSED ONE TIME PREVIOUSLY.

I UNDERSTAND THE PREVIOUS CONVERSATION, I THINK THE DEVELOPER WAS HERE.

I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHO VISITED FOR THIS, BUT THERE'S AN UNNAMED ROAD ON THE SUBDIVISION DIRECTLY SOUTH.

>> LA LAJA COURTS.

>> LA LAJA. YES. THEN WE HAVE THE CUL-DE-SAC THAT FINISHES OUT THIS NEW PLAT.

JUST BECAUSE IT'S JUST MY OPINION, I FEEL LIKE EVERY TIME THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADD CONNECTION IN THE CITY, THOSE OPTIONS SHOULD BE EXPLORED.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S, I BELIEVE, A HEAVY DITCH THERE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THAT MOLINA SUBDIVISION.

>> YES.

>> TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE NEW PLAT, WHICH WOULD PROBABLY BE A COST FACTOR, BUT IT ALSO LINES UP PERFECTLY.

I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE THIS IS JUST THE WAY WE DO THINGS IN ANGLETON AND THIS IS THE THAT IT ALWAYS WILL BE, BUT WE BUILD ALL THESE STUB ROADS OUT AND WE DON'T EVER CONNECT ANYTHING.

ANYWAY, I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE THAT INCLUDED.

>> WELL, I'VE BEEN MEANING TO ANSWER THAT.

THERE'S MORE THAN 30 HOMES ON THIS PROPERTY.

DOES IT REQUIRE A [INAUDIBLE]?

>> I THINK IT'S WIDE. THE BOULEVARD AT THE FRONT.

>> BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT [INAUDIBLE].

>> I THINK IT'S ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS.

>> CORRECT.

>> STAFF DO Y'ALL REMEMBER SOME OF THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE UNNAMED ROUTE CROSSING INTO THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY?

[00:35:05]

>> I REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION.

>> I REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION WITH THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT, BUT THIS IS THE SAME LOT CONFIGURATION AS THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT, SO I DON'T DISAGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER TOWNSEND THAT YOU REALLY SHOULD BE CONNECTING STREETS WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTS ITSELF.

BUT AS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME IN LOTS OF PLACES, THOSE CONNECTIONS DON'T ALWAYS GET MADE.

>> TRAVIS, I GET IT.

THERE'S BEEN TIMES WE WANTED THEM TO CONNECT, AND THE RESIDENT SPOKE AND IT DIDN'T CONNECT AND SOME DID.

NOW THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FIRST WE WANT IT TO CONNECT, AND THERE'S NOT THE OTHER SIDE COMING SAYING, "NO, WE DON'T WANT TO CONNECT."

>> NOBODY HAS SPOKEN FOR AGAINST IT AS FAR AS I'M AWARE.

>> IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE GUY THAT'S DEVELOPING THIS DIDN'T WANT TO CONNECT IN THERE, AND THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON LA LAJA THAT I'VE TALKED TO DON'T WANT TO CONNECT TO IT AS WELL, PLUS THE ADDED COST OF THE DETENTION AND THE DITCH.

I WANT TO SAY JEFF YOU COULD PROBABLY KNOW THIS BETTER THAN I DO, IS THERE A DRAINAGE OR A SEWER LINE OR SOMETHING THAT GOES BACK BEHIND THERE? THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT MADE IT COST-PROHIBITIVE TO CONNECT THOSE AND WE JUST [INAUDIBLE].

>> I THINK IT WAS ALL THE DEBRIS, A LOT OF TREES DOWN THROUGH THERE, DOWN AT THE, WHATEVER THE NAME OF THE ROAD IS.

LA LAJA COURT.

THAT'S WHY IT WOULD COSTS A LOT OF MONEY [INAUDIBLE] LA LAJA IS THE OTHER WAY DOWN TO THE NEXT STREET ON PAGE 4. THE OTHER WAY.

>> OH, YES. YOU TERM UP SEWER LINE THAT'S BETWEEN THEM?

>> THE WATER LINE BUILT?

>> YEAH, THE WATERLINE. I UNDERSTAND THE COMMENT, I JUST FEEL LIKE NEITHER SIDE REALLY WANTS THIS CONNECTED AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WILL I KEEP THEM SEPARATE.

>> WELL, I GUESS MINE IS MORE OF A STATEMENT OF WHERE WE ARE WITH THIS SITUATION, BUT THE SITUATIONS CAN PRESENT SELF AGAIN, AND IN MY OPINION, THIS IS JUST ONE PERSON'S OPINION.

CONSIDER MOVING FORWARD CONNECTIONS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HAS TO BE BROUGHT UP IN A DOG MEETING OR WHATEVER, OR MAYBE NOT.

MAYBE I'M JUST ONE PERSON, THE OTHER FIVE PEOPLE APPEAR TO DISAGREE AND THAT'S FINE.

I FEEL LIKE THERE'S SOME OPPORTUNITIES.

I DO THINK I SEE THESE SIMILAR STUBBED OUT STREETS THAT WILL PRESENT THEMSELVES AS FUTURE PROPERTIES IN THE CITY THAT WHEN WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE CONNECTIONS, I THINK ACTUALLY A GOOD THING FOR CITY DEVELOPMENT, NOT A NEGATIVE THING.

I KNOW PEOPLE WHO COME ACCUSTOMED TO A CERTAIN LIFESTYLE OF QUIETNESS OR WHATEVER, I APPRECIATE THAT AS WELL.

BUT WE'RE TRYING TO FIND A BALANCE BETWEEN RESPECTING THOSE PEOPLE'S WISHES AND UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN THEY BOUGHT THE HOUSE, IT WAS A STUBBED-OUT STREET.

I BOUGHT ONE LIKE THAT IN PEARLAND AND EVENTUALLY, IT DEVELOPED OUT IN THE BACKSIDE OF IT.

SO YOU KNOW WHICH BIND TO. JUST THOUGHT.

>> NO, I'M WITH YOU TRAVIS.

WHEN THERE'S THE OPPORTUNITY ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO MOBILITY, I WOULD DEFINITELY STRONGLY URGE THAT WE WORK WITH THE DEVELOPERS AND PUSH IT THROUGH.

I REALLY DO. WHEN IT COMES TO INGRESS-EGRESS FOUR SUBDIVISIONS.

GRANTED, YES. THIS IS A SMALLER SET OF VISION, NOT A WHOLE LOT.

YES, THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL 60, 70 CARS IN THAT AREA MOST LIKELY, COULD BE MORE.

BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, MAYBE WE START PUSHING A LITTLE HARDER ON OTHER IN FIELDS THAT ARE PROBABLY GOING TO COME UP.

THEY'RE GOING TO COME UP, LIKE YOU SAID, THEY WILL HAPPEN.

ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES MORE TO PROMOTE SAFETY AND THE ABILITY TO GET ANY OUT OF A SUBDIVISION IF THERE'S A FIRE, MEDICAL CALL, POLICE ISSUE GOING ON THAT NEED A BLOCK, THE ROADS CAN'T HAVE THEIR WAY TO GET IN AND OUT.

ANY OTHER? GUESS GO AHEAD, CHRIS.

>> THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE STAFF DIRECTION.

IF MAYBE SEPARATE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT, BUT DO WE DESIGN AND EVENTUALLY BUILD THAT OUT? THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO.

AGAIN, MAY NOT GET DONE TOMORROW BECAUSE OF FUNDING OR WHATEVER,

[00:40:02]

BUT AS WE LOOK AT FUTURE ROAD DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVED FOR FUNDING OR ACTION ITEMS, WE CAN PUT THAT ON LIST OF THINGS WE WANT TO DO.

>> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO GIVE THAT DIRECTION OBVIOUSLY, SUBJECT TO FUNDING.

>> RUN IT BY ME AGAIN, CHRIS.

BE MORE SPECIFIC WHEN YOU'RE ADDRESSING THIS STUFF OUT OR WITH SOME OTHER.

>> RIGHT.

>> THIS RIGHT HERE, THIS OLD STUB-OUT STREET SERVES AS A DRIVEWAY TO THE LOT THAT'S JUST TO THE WEST OF THAT STREET.

THAT STREET THERE WAS CONSTRUCTED PROPERTY TO START WITH. IT'S JUST A DRIVEWAY.

SO WHEN THE LAW OR WHATEVER NAME IT'S, MOLINA SUBDIVISION, APPARENTLY WHEN IT WENT THROUGH PLANNING, THEY WERE PLANNING TO GIVE ACCESS TO THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES VIA THIS STREET.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MOLINA DRIVE.

BUT [OVERLAPPING] ANY PROPERTY CAN'T GET IN THERE.

>> YOU DEFINITELY CAN'T GET ON IT.

>> BUT YOU'LL FIND THESE SITUATIONS ALL OVER TOWN.

I WOULD RECOMMEND AT LEAST VISITING THIS, LOOKING AT MAKING CONTINUITY THERE AND WHEN IT'S DISCUSSED EARLY ON BECAUSE SOMEBODY HAD A THOUGHT OF MAKING STREET CONTINUITY BACK WAY.

>> GO AHEAD, MR. WALTER.

>> MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I THINK PROBABLY GOING FORWARD AT THIS POINT, THE BEST APPROACH WOULD BE TO JUST SAY THAT THE STAFF TAKES A CLOSER LOOK AT ROAD CONNECTIONS GOING FORWARD WITH OTHER PLATS THAT COME IN FOR REVIEW.

OBVIOUSLY, THERE ARE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ONE THAT MAKE THAT CONNECTION MORE THAN A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO DO.

BUT THERE WON'T BE OTHER SUBDIVISIONS WHERE THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONNECT STREETS, AND I THINK THAT THE STAFF CAN CERTAINLY TAKE A LOOK AT THAT ISSUE AS WE LOOK AT THOSE PLATS.

>> I ECHO THAT. OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NOT A COOKIE-CUTTER ANSWER.

ONE ANSWER FITS ALL SIZES, BUT WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTS ITSELF, WE SHOULD DEFINITELY EXPLORE.

>> I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE DONE THAT IN THE PAST ESPECIALLY IN [INAUDIBLE] WITH MY SURROUNDING NEIGHBOR IS THE ONE THAT OF THE INCIDENT.

>> EVEN THE ROADS WOULD CONNECT.

>> I THINK WE'VE DONE IT AND WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO EXPLORE OTHER OPTIONS WHEN AVAILABLE.

>> YOU ARE RIGHT SINCE I'M LOOKING AT THE GOOGLE EARTH AND IT'S SOMEBODY'S DRIVEWAY.

[LAUGHTER] IT'S PROBABLY 15 FEET WIDE.

IF IT'S EVEN THAT MUCH, AND THERE ARE SOME TREES GOING RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE OF IT.

YOU'RE RIGHT. GOOD DISCUSSION.

SEEMS LIKE WE'VE GOT SOME DIRECTION GOING FOR STAFF TOO.

ONCE THESE POP-UP, WE CAN REALLY ENCOURAGE THAT CONNECTIVITY, AND LIKE YOU SAY, WHEN OPPORTUNITY PRESENTS, LET'S TRY TO GO FOR IT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?

[13. Discussion and possible action on the preliminary replat of Angleton Park Place Section 1.]

HEARING NONE, I CALL FOR A VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

>> AYE.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSING SAY SIGN.

MOTION CARRIES. MOVING RIGHT ALONG.

ITEM NUMBER 13, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PRELIMINARY RE-PLAT OF ANGLETON PARK PLACE SECTION 1, MR. WALTER.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY RE-PLAT OF ANGLETON PARK PLACE SECTION 1.

THIS IS 16.73 ACRES OF THE PROPERTY AND THIS IS IN THE [NOISE] EXCUSE ME, THIS IS IN THE MANUFACTURED HOME ZONING DISTRICT, AND THIS PROJECT IS ACTUALLY A MANUFACTURED ON SUBDIVISION AND NOT A MANUFACTURED HOME PARK.

BASICALLY, THERE IS A SET OF COMMENTS THAT NEED TO BE CLEARED.

YOU HAVE THOSE IN YOUR BACKUP, THERE'S, I WOULDN'T SAY TWO ISSUES, BUT ONE ISSUE THAT'S CONNECTED AND ILLUSTRATES WHAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT, STREET CONNECTIONS.

THIS FIRST PHASE ISN'T SUBJECT TO SECTION 23, 11 (I), WHICH STATES THAT SUBDIVISIONS CONTAINING 30 OR MORE LOTS MUST PROVIDE TWO POINTS OF 100-YEAR STORM COMPLIANT PUBLIC ACCESS CONSTRUCTED TO ACM STANDARDS.

THIS REQUIREMENT DOESN'T COME INTO PLAY WITH THIS SECTION, BECAUSE THIS SECTION IS ONLY 26 LOTS, BUT IT WILL COME INTO PLAY WITH SUBSEQUENT SECTIONS OF THIS PROJECT.

AT THAT POINT IN TIME, WE GET TO ISSUE 1B, WHICH IS THE IMPROVEMENT OF GIFFORD ROAD.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT AT ONE POINT IN TIME, THE DEVELOPER WAS INSTRUCTED BY STAFF THAT HALF OF GIFFORD ROAD WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT.

[00:45:01]

SHOULD A VARIANCE TO SECTION 23 11 (I) BE GRANTED WITH ANY FUTURE PHASES, MEANING THAT A VARIANCE BE GRANTED SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT SECONDARY ACCESS THEN THE ONLY OTHER PLAUSIBLE POINT FOR A SECOND 100-YEAR STORM COMPLIANT PUBLIC ACCESS WOULD BE [NOISE] THE CUL-DE-SAC BALL BOND.

I'LL BUTCHER THIS PRONUNCIATION LEGALLY A LOOP.

USING THAT AS A SECOND ACCESS POINT WOULD REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION OF GIFFORD ROAD.

THAT'S JUST AN FYI THING.

WE DO HAVE A PROPOSAL FROM THE DEVELOPERS' ENGINEER REGARDING DIFFERENT ROAD WHICH I BELIEVE THAT HDR HAS BEEN REVIEWING.

BUT WE DON'T YET HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM HDR ON THAT, BUT WE WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE THAT AT THE POINT IN TIME THAT THEY SUBMIT CONSTRUCTION PLANS OR BEFORE THEY SUBMIT CONSTRUCTION PLAN, SINCE THAT MAY BE PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THIS FIRST PHASE.

HAVING SAID ALL THAT, WITH THE CLEARANCE OF ALL THE STAFF COMMENTS TO PROPOSE PRELIMINARY RE-PLAT OF SECTION 1 OTHERWISE MEETS ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ANGLETON, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, VOTED SIX IN FAVOR ZERO OPPOSED, ONE ABSENT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION AS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF.

THAT WAS ON SEPTEMBER 6TH. I FORGET THE DAY.

>> IT'S BEEN DAYS.

>> THANK YOU ALL.

>> THANK YOU, WALTER. I WAS JUST SLIGHTLY CONFUSED AND MAY JUST BE ME.

ON THE PART ABOUT YOU SAYING GIFFORD ROAD, IF WE ASK THEM TO EXPAND GIFFORD ROAD, IT WOULD GO ON THIS, I GUESS WHEREVER EDGE THIS IS, ALL THAT I'M LOOKING AT ON THE PLAT.

>> [BACKGROUND].

>> GIFFORD ROAD STOPS AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PROPERTY AND AN EXTENSION OF THAT WOULD BE DOWN THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

>> I SEE.

>> MY FAULT, I STOPPED AT THE HATCHED BORDER AND DIDN'T READ OVER WHERE IT SAID THE UNIMPROVED.

>> NOT A PROBLEM. THANK YOU.

I WAS THINKING THERE'S NO ROOM TO GO INSIDE THEIR PROPERTY, BUT IT DOES SEE WHAT'S ON THE EDGE.

>> WALTER, YOU SAYING THAT THEY WOULD ONLY HAVE TO CONSTRUCT HALF OF GIFFORD?

>> THAT'S THE NORMAL WAY THAT THESE THINGS HAPPEN IS THAT THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR PROPORTIONATE SHARE, WHICH IN THIS CASE WOULD BE HALF THE ROAD, NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE ROAD.

>> THAT'S HOW WE END UP WITH ANGLETON BOULEVARD?

>> I UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THAT, BUT THAT'S THE CONSTRAINT THAT [LAUGHTER] WE'RE UNDER GIVEN VARIOUS SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON THE SUBJECT.

>> HOW MANY UNITS IS THIS AGAIN?

>> TWENTY-SIX.

>> FOR THIS SECTION.

>> FOR THIS SECTION 1.

>> SECTION 1 IS 26. OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I THINK THE OVERALL PROJECT IS ABOUT 75.

>> SEVENTY-FOUR.

>> PLUS GIFFORD MEADOWS, WHICH IS 86? GIFFORD MEADOWS IS 86?

>> HE SAYS, DON'T GO UP.

>> THIS IS ON PHILIPS ROAD GIFFORD MEADOWS [OVERLAPPING] IS UP ON CEMETERY.

>> GIFFORD MEADOWS IS 84.

>> EIGHTY FOUR?

>> GIFFORD MEADOWS IS ON GIFFORD ROAD.

>> AT CEMETERY.

>> IT'S STILL ON GIFFORD THOUGH.

[OVERLAPPING] I'M ADDING UP ALL THE LOCATIONS.

>> ABOUT A MILE AWAY.

>> YEAH, WHAT I'M DOING IS I'M GOING THROUGH ALL THE ADDITIONS WE'VE PUT ON GIFFORD AND THE ROAD IS ALREADY NARROW AND DANGEROUS AS IT IS.

WE'VE ALREADY HAD POLICE PUT THE CAT OUT THERE, AND ONE OF OUR HIGHEST RECORDINGS OF SPEED IS ON THIS ROAD.

THAT'S MY CONCERN, IS WE'RE ADDING MORE AND MORE TO THIS ROAD.

NOW, WE AS A CITY ARE GOING TO BE FORCED TO DO SOMETHING.

WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

[NOISE].

I'M NOT SAYING NOT TO PUT ANOTHER SUBDIVISION IN, BUT I'M SAYING, ONCE THIS GOES IN SOME OF THE CITY TO FIX GIFFORD.

>> GIFFORD IS IN THE SAME SITUATION [INAUDIBLE] AS GIFFORD AS WELL. [INAUDIBLE]

>> WE'RE PUTTING A LOT [NOISE] OF THIS ON GIFFORD BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO ACCESS IT.

THEY'LL COME FROM PHILIPS AS WELL ON THIS LOCATION, BUT IT'S A STRAIGHT SHOT COMING FROM ANGLETON TO COME DOWN, DOWNING RIGHT THERE, CUT ACROSS COMING DOWN

>> IT DEPENDS ON WHAT PART OF ANGLETON YOU ARE GOING TO [NOISE].

[00:50:03]

>> THAT'S GOING TO BE EXPENSIVE.

>> ANY MORE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?

>> WALTER, IS THE WAY I UNDERSTAND YOUR SAYING IS, OR MAYBE JUDITH, I DON'T KNOW WHO.

WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT HALF THE ROAD, WE CANNOT EXPECT THEM TO REQUIRE ANY MORE OF THEM THAN THAT, EXCUSE ME?

>> THAT'S THE TYPICAL PERIMETER STREET IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENT THAT IS IN THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS HALF OF THE STREET. [OVERLAPPING]

>> JUST WONDERING IF WE JUST LITERALLY MADE IT THE ENTIRE ROAD, WOULD THAT SUBJECT THE CITY TO ANY LITIGATION WHEN WE'D BE?

>> I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THIS STREET.

BUT ON RIGHT OF WAY, THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON EACH SIDE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, HAVE A RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP TO THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET.

>> MIDDLE OF THE STREET.

>> THAT, YOU CAN'T CHANGE [NOISE].

>> IT MAY BE THAT IT COULD BE RIPE FOR CITY PROJECT TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS IN SOME POINT IN TIME.

[OVERLAPPING] DEPENDING ON THE CITY ENGINEER'S REVIEW OF THEIR PROPOSAL REGARDING THE ROAD, IT MAY BE THAT THERE CAN BE SOMETHING THE CITY COULD MAKE IT A JOINT PROJECT AND BUILD A [INAUDIBLE] ROOM. I DON'T KNOW.

>> WE DON'T NEED MORE PROJECTS [NOISE].

NOT MORE ROAD PROJECTS FOR SURE.

THERE'S A LOT OF VACANT PROPERTY JUST SOUTH OF IT.

YOU DO HALF A ROAD AND THEN SOMEBODY BELOW HIM COMES IN, THEY DO HALF A ROAD.

NOW, WHAT DO YOU DO? [NOISE].

>> YOU ADDRESS THE SITUATION. I'M NOT TRYING TO BE ARGUMENTATIVE.

I'M JUST GOING TO ADDRESS THAT SITUATION IF IT COMES UP. ONE DAY AT A TIME.

>> TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS, JOHN, AS WE GO FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD, WHETHER IT'S THIS COUNCIL OR COUNCIL FROM 10, 15 YEARS FROM NOW, WE MAY HAVE TO PARTNER [NOISE] WITH THAT DEVELOPER AND SAY, "THE ONLY WAY WE MAY ALLOW YOU TO GET TO THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY IS YOU BUILD US THE ROAD." LET'S JUST GIVE A TASTE JUST LIKE WE DID OVER AT TIGNALL.

WE'RE [INAUDIBLE] PROCESS SO THAT MAYBE SOMEDAY RATHER THEY'LL T LOOK AT IT.

>> THAT'S WHAT AM THINKING RIGHT NOW.

>> YEAH.

>> NOW'S THE TIME TO ASK FOR THE ROAD TO BE FULLY COMPLETED TO THE EDGE OF THEIR PROPERTY RIGHT THERE.

JUST LIKE WE WERE GOING TO DO WITH THE COUNTRY LANE APARTMENTS.

NOT COUNTRY LANE, BUT THE ONE NEXT TO FREEDOM PARK. WE WERE GOING TO MAKE IT.

>> SOMEWHERE ELSE.

>> SOMEWHERE ELSE AND WE DIDN'T FINISH IT UP TO THE CORNER BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO USE THAT AS EMERGENCY ACCESS.

WE STOP NOW WE'RE ON THE LOOK FOR THAT.

THERE'S JUST SO MANY LOCATIONS.

HAMILTON BOULEVARD IS ANOTHER ONE.

THIS IS OUR TIME TO GET THIS FIXED, NOT TO ALL SIT HERE 25, 30 YEARS LATER AND GO, "WHY DID THE COUNCIL NOT DO THAT?" LIKE WE DID WITH ANGLETON BOULEVARD. THAT'S MINE

>> I'M FULLY ON YOUR SIDE THERE, JOHN.

I GUESS MY ONLY CONCERN IS DO WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT? I GUESS WE CAN ALWAYS NEGOTIATE.

[NOISE].

I GUESS MAYBE WE CAN'T MAYBE IF THEY MEET THE ALL THEN CHECK ALL THE BOXES OUT THERE.

>> THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS PLAT APPROVAL.

FOR PLAT APPROVAL, YOU CAN ONLY APPROVE IT, DISAPPROVE OR APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS [NOISE].

IF YOU WANT TO GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO APPROACH WHOMEVER IS DEVELOPING THAT ON A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU CAN DO THAT.

>> IN CONDITIONS, WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THERE THOUGH? WHAT KIND OF CONDITIONS ARE THERE?

>> NORMALLY THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE SET FORTH BY YOUR CITY PLANNER OR YOUR ENGINEER.

CONDITIONS TO FIX THE PLAT.

>> NOT CONDITIONS ON [OVERLAPPING].

>> [INAUDIBLE] APPROVAL IS ADMINISTERIAL [BACKGROUND].

THAT'S A WALTER QUESTION.

>>IT APPEARS WE ARE PUTTING A BOULEVARD ENTRANCE INTO THIS HALF OF GIFFORD, PHILIPS.

>> THERE'LL BE A LITTLE GUARDED ENTRANCE.

THERE'LL HAVE TO BE IN ORDER TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 23-11-I.

[00:55:05]

IT'S THE OTHER PART OF THAT SECTION THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE 200 YEAR ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCES TO THE PROPERTY AND THERE ISN'T A SECOND ENTRANCE OUT TO PHILIPS.

THE ONLY OTHER PLAUSIBLE WAY TO GET THAT SECOND ENTRANCE IS TO TAKE THAT CALLED A SACK THAT'S IN THIS SECTION AND BUILD AT LEAST HALF OF GIFFORD ROAD DOWN TO THERE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THAT SECONDARY ACCESS.

>> THEN I'M LOOKING AT IT, MAYBE FROM THE DEVELOPER STANDPOINT, IS THE COST OF HAVING THEN PUT A ROAD IN SQUASH THEIR HOPE, THEIR DREAM, SO TO SPEAK, OR THEIR PROJECT? IS THIS A PROJECT LARGE ENOUGH WHERE IT'S FEASIBLE FOR THEM OR NOT FEASIBLE FOR THEM? I'M LOOKING AT THAT PORTION OF IT AS WELL.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT IT SHOULDN'T BE ON THE CITY'S DON TO GO BACK AND FINISH A ROAD LATER BECAUSE OF A NEW SUBDIVISION.

AM LOOKING AT IT FROM THAT ASPECT, BUT I TOTALLY AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

>> YEAH.

>> [OVERLAPPING] I'M WORRIED ABOUT RIGHT NOW WE ARE TALKING 20, HOW MANY UNITS DID THEY SAY?

>>THEY SAY SIX, THE FIRST GOAL RAIL.

>> I'D REALLY WANT THEM TO PUT IT ON THEM BECAUSE YOU'RE MAKING THE CITY SPENT A LOT OF MONEY FOR 26 UNITS.

>> REMEMBER, HE'S GOING TO HAVE THE BOULEVARD INTERESTS, SO HE'S GOING TO HAVE THE TWO IN, CORRECT?

>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY.

>> BUT HE'S GOING TO HAVE A BOULEVARD ONTO A ONE-LANE ROAD.

>> THERE'S A BOULEVARD ON TO PHILIPS.

>> THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING L ALSO PREFER THAT HE GOES WITHOUT IN THE CITY BECAUSE YOU'RE.

>> WAS WALTER GOING TO SAY SOMETHING? [OVERLAPPING] MY QUESTION WAS [OVERLAPPING] THE INTERESTS THAT WE'RE SEEING HERE BECAUSE IT FANS OUT ONCE IT GETS THE PHILIPS IS GOING TO BE THE DOUBLE LANE, SO THAT GIVES THEM THE TWO INTO OUR EVEN ONCE THEY EXPAND.

THERE'LL BE IN COMPLIANCE, CORRECT?

>> NO.

>> NO, OKAY.

>> THANK YOU [NOISE].

>> ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL. A LOT TO THINK ABOUT HERE.

[NOISE].

I THINK YOU'RE THE OWNER. ARE YOU THE OWNER IN HERE? YOU'RE HEARING THE CONVERSATION? [LAUGHTER]

>> YEAH, FEEL FREE TO JUMP UP.

>> THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING, NOW YOU'VE HEARD US WHERE WE'RE COMING FROM, DO YOU HAVE ANY TALKING POINTS OR [OVERLAPPING] CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

>>THEY GAVE THE QUOTE FOR HALF THE ROAD.

IT WAS LIKE 275,000.

I FEEL THAT WOULD BE REALLY SUBSTANTIAL FOR ME TO TAKE ON THE REST OF THAT PROJECT.

I'M TRYING TO COMMIT A FIRST-CLASS OPERATION WITH IT, THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED ANGLETON PARK PLACE.

L PREVIOUSLY BUILT THE GULF COAST FIVE-STAR V PARK, ONE OF THE NICER PARKS IN THE COMMUNITY IN OYSTER CREEK, L DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS KNOW THAT PLACE.

BUT THIS ONE I'M TRYING TO PUT A STIPULATION OF A PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE A NICE MANUFACTURED OWN PLACE, WITH NEWER MOBILE HOMES.

BUT L FEEL THAT IF WE HAVE TO DEVELOP THE WHOLE ROAD, THAT IT CAN BE A SUBSTANTIAL COST TO THE PROJECT.

WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH PHASE 1 AND SEE HOW IT GOES IF YOU GUYS APPROVE IT AND WE'LL PROBABLY SKIP PHASE 2 AND GO STRAIGHT TO FINISH THE WHOLE THING.

THAT'S THE REASON WE'RE DIVIDING IT BUT THE COST IS SUBSTANTIAL.

THE QUOTE THAT THEY GAVE US FOR HALF THE ROAD WAS 275,000 L BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, WOULD IT BEEN ZONED, PAID EVERYTHING THINKING THAT I COULD DEVELOP IT THIS WAY.

THAT'S MY OPINION WITH IT

>> ALL RIGHT.

>> YOUR NAME IS, SIR?

>> MIKE MORGAN.

>> MIKE MORGAN. THANK YOU FOR ALL THE COMMENTS.

>> YES, SIR.

>> ALRIGHT, COUNCIL ANY MORE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANY ACTION? [NOISE] ANY ACTION COMING OUT OF NUMBER 13? LAST CALL. [OVERLAPPING]

>> WAIT A SECOND HERE. WE'LL GET IT ON THE TABLE.

I MOVE TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT OF ANGLETON PARK PLACE SECTION 1.

SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT ALL STAFF COMMENTS ARE CLEARED PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF ANY FINAL REPLAT.

>> I'LL SECOND IT.

>> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH.

[01:00:01]

SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN SVOBODA.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.

I'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

[14. Discussion and possible action on the preliminary replat for the Brazoria County Courthouse Campus Expansion.]

AYE. [OVERLAPPING] ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

>> AYE.

>> THAT'S TWO AYES, FOUR YESES, THAT MOTION CARRIES.

>> ALL RIGHT. MOVING ALONG.

ITEM NUMBER 14: DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT FOR THE BRAZORIA COUNTY COURTHOUSE CAMPUS EXPANSION. MS. LINDSEY.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT FOR THE COURTHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECTS, AND WHILE I WROTE THIS AGENDA ITEM TO ENCOMPASS COMMENTS BEING CLEARED BY TODAY'S DATE, I THINK IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT ALL COMMENTS ARE CLEARED BEFORE THE FINAL REPLAT.

THIS IS A FLUID SITUATION, SO SOME OF THE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN CLEARED, SOME REMAIN OUTSTANDING, AND THEN THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER MATTER, THAT I'M NOT TOTALLY VERSED ON, THAT DEALS WITH, IS IT THE WATERLINE?

>> EIGHT-INCH WATERLINE.

FOR THAT REASON, ME PERSONALLY, I WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT ALL COMMENTS ARE CLEARED AT THE FINAL REPLAT, AND P&Z WAS IN FAVOR, WITH SIX NOT OPPOSED AND ONE ABSENT.

>> THANK YOU, MS. LINDSEY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. LINDSEY OR STAFF? ANY ACTION NOW WE'RE COMING OFF OF [OVERLAPPING]

>> I REMEMBER THERE WAS TALK ABOUT GETTING SOME SANITARY OR STORM SEWER EASEMENTS, I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO THAT, A WATERLINE EASEMENT.

IF ALL THAT CAN GET RECORDED ON THIS PLAT RATHER THAN THE HAVING SOME WRITTEN DOCUMENT.

IT'S JUST SO MUCH CLEANER IF YOU CAN JUST GO AHEAD AND GET IT ON THE PLAT, THAT WAY IT'S THERE.

AT LEAST SOMEONE DOESN'T HAVE TO GO RUN THROUGH THE RECORDS TO TRY TO FIND SOME OBSCURE 10-FOOT EASEMENT.

I'VE DONE THAT. IT'S TROUBLESOME.

[LAUGHTER]

>> I DO LIKE ALL THE BOXES WITH ARROWS ON THE PLAT.

THAT WAS NICE. IT POPS, SO YOU CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT NEED TO BE LOOKED AT.

>> VERY DESCRIPTIVE.

>> YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. WHOEVER DID THAT, IT'S A GREAT IDEA.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR ACTION NOW THAT WE'RE COMING OFF OF ITEM NUMBER 14?

>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE REPLAT.

>> SECOND.

>> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND.

SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO-TEM WRIGHT.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.

[21. Discussion and possible action on the preliminary plat of Austin Colony Section I.]

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. [OVERLAPPING] ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THAT MOTION CARRIES.

WE DID HAVE A REQUEST TO MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER 21 AFTER 14, SO WE'LL JUMP TO THAT ONE REAL QUICK.

DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF AUSTIN COLONY SECTION 1. MR. WALTER.

>> HI. MY THANKS TO WHOEVER REQUESTED THIS [LAUGHTER]

>> [OVERLAPPING] IT WAS IN MY NOTES.

>> AS YOU JUST READ, THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SECTION 1 OF AUSTIN COLONY.

THIS SECTION CONSISTS OF 42.36 ACRES, AND IT'S THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S DOWN AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER ALONG COUNTY ROAD 44.

THE PROPERTY IS IN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT.

THERE'LL BE A 100 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND FIVE RESERVED LOTS. [NOISE] EXCUSE ME.

THERE IS A LIST OF COMMENTS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE BACKUP.

WE HAVE RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THOSE COMMENTS TODAY, SO WE WILL BE ATTEMPTING TO CLEAR THOSE, BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

PROBABLY THE THREE BIGGEST ITEMS HERE ARE THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THAT HAS BEEN UNDER REVIEW.

THE SECOND ITEM IS PROVISION OF A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN.

LONG STORY SHORT HERE, SECTION 23-60 E-2 SAYS, "PROPERTY IS ZONED OR USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, WHICH INCLUDES THE HARVESTING OF TIMBER." THAT'S AN EXEMPTION TO THE HERITAGE TREE PRESERVATION SECTION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ISN'T ZONED FOR AGRICULTURAL USES, AND I KNOW THAT PROBABLY MOST OF YOU WHO LIVE HERE FOR A LONG TIME HAVE SEEN CATTLE ON THE PROPERTY.

TIGNER FAMILY EITHER STILL OWNS IT, OR IT'S IN THE PROCESS OF BEING SOLD, AND THEY PROBABLY STILL RUN SOME CATTLE FROM TIME TO TIME ON IT.

I DON'T REALLY THINK THAT THAT EXEMPTION APPLIES IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE HERITAGE TREE PRESERVATION SECTION SAYS THAT A HERITAGE TREE PLANT IS SUPPOSED TO BE SUBMITTED WITH ALL PLATS AND ALL SITE PLANS, AND IN THIS CASE, THIS PLAT IS FOR A HUNDRED LOTS OF A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.

[01:05:05]

I DON'T THINK THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE HERE, AND I WILL CERTAINLY GRANT IT'S NOT PARTICULARLY CLEAR, WAS TO EXEMPT A 100-LOT SECTION OF A 520-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION FROM THE HERITAGE TREE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THERE MIGHT BE CATTLE STILL RUNNING ON THE PROPERTY, BUT AS THIS IS ALL NEW FOR ALL OF US HERE, AND BECAUSE THIS SECTION IS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, YOU ALL GET TO DECIDE THAT, AND IF YOU THINK THAT THE EXEMPTION APPLIES, THEN IT APPLIES, AND WE'LL APPLY IT THAT WAY GOING FORWARD.

IF YOU THINK THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT DOESN'T APPLY BECAUSE THE PLAT IN FRONT OF YOU IS FOR A 100 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT, AND THEN WE'LL APPLY IT THAT WAY GOING FORWARD, TOO.

THE LAST ITEM IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MAIN NORTH/SOUTH STREET AND PARTIAL CONSTRUCTION OF TIGNER DRIVE.

YOU HAVE THE LAND PLAN AND YOUR BACKUP FROM THE PD ORDINANCE, AND IT VERY CLEARLY INCLUDES, THOSE TWO ROADS, IN SECTION 1, AND THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THAT.

AS SUCH, THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IS NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE PD ZONING ON THE PROPERTY, BUT THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND THAT ISSUE CAN BE ADDRESSED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND A FINAL PLAT DOCUMENT TO INCLUDE THAT IN THERE, SO HAVING SAID ALL THAT, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BOARD, WITH FOUR IN FAVOR, TWO OPPOSED, AND ONE ABSENT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

[NOISE] THE STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SECTION 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF AUSTIN COLONY, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THAT ALL COMMENTS GENERATED AS PART OF THEIR PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW PROCESS ARE CLEARED PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION [NOISE] OF ANY FINAL PLAT APPLICATION THAT THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS IS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF ANY FINAL PLAT APPLICATION, THAT A HERITAGE TREE SURVEY, TREE PRESERVATION PLAN, IS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND 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 TIGNER DRIVE.

>> ARE WE TALKING ABOUT TIGNER DRIVE JUST GOING TO WHERE IT TURNS SOUTH, RIGHT?

>> RIGHT.

>> IT DIDN'T HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY TO THE EDGE OF HIS PROPERTY UNTIL HE DEVELOPS THOSE PIECES OUT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> OKAY.

>> AS YOU LOOK AT THE LAND PLAN, IT SHOWS THAT THOSE PORTIONS OF TIGNER DRIVE THAT EXTEND FROM THAT INTERSECTION ARE IN OTHER PHASES OF THE PROJECT.

THAT WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THOSE PHASES, BUT THE LAND PLAN VERY CLEARLY SHOWS THAT EXTENSION OF TIGNER AND THEN THAT NORTH/SOUTH STREET IS PART OF THIS PHASE, AND IT'S NOT PART OF THIS PHASE, SO, IT NEEDS TO BE PART OF THAT PHASE.

UNLESS THEY GO BACK AND AMEND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING TO CHANGE THE LAND PLAN SO THAT THAT ISN'T PART OF THE FIRST PHASE, WHICH IS THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT.

>> IT NEEDS TO BECAUSE THERE'S GOT TO BE A POINT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THAT.

I WANT TO FOCUS ON NUMBER 3, THE HERITAGE TREE SURVEY.

MAKING SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY.

YOU'RE TRYING TO CLAIM AN AG EXEMPTION BASED ON THE FACT THAT THERE ARE CURRENTLY SOME CATTLE THAT MAYBE ROAMING THAT PROPERTY UNTIL IT'S COMPLETELY DEVELOPED AND PLATTED?

>> YES.

>> [OVERLAPPING] THEY'RE NOT SUBJECT TO THAT?

>> THEY'RE NOT SUBJECT TO THE HERITAGE TREE ORDINANCE.

>> OKAY.

>> LIKE I SAID, YOU ARE THE FINAL ARBITER ON THAT, AND IF YOU AGREE, THEN DON'T INCLUDE THAT AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE, THEN YOU INCLUDE THAT AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, SO I KNOW WHAT I'M AGREEING TO BECAUSE IF I THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A STILL SUBJECT TO THE HERITAGE TREE SURVEY/TREE PRESERVATION PLAN, THEN I WOULD RECOMMEND IT AS YOU HAVE THE SUGGESTED MOTION.

>> YES.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. [NOISE]

>> WE BROUGHT UP THE HERITAGE TREE ISSUE. THANK YOU.

THERE'S NOTHING THAT STIPULATES THE SIZE OF A PECAN OR SIZE OF A LIVE OAK,

[01:10:02]

AND DECLARING THAT AS A HERITAGE TREE.

IF YOU HAVE A SAPLING THAT COMES UP OUT THERE, IS THAT DECLARED A HERITAGE TREE?

>> IT WOULD BE. [NOISE]. THE HERITAGE TREE SECTION VERY CLEARLY SAYS THAT LIVE OAKS AND PECANS ARE HERITAGE TREES AND YOU'RE CORRECT [OVERLAPPING].

>> YES SIR, I'LL READ IT. BUT IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE SIZE.

>> MAKES NO DISTINCTION ON THE SIZE OF THE TREE.

>> THAT'S WHERE I HAVE A PROBLEM.

>> I UNDERSTAND. I ALSO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH TRYING TO CIRCUMNAVIGATE THE [OVERLAPPING]

>> WELL, I DON'T WANT TO CIRCUMNAVIGATE.

[OVERLAPPING].

>> WHAT I'M TRYING TO ARTICULATE THAT IT'S SOMEHOW AN AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY WHEN THEY'RE CLEARLY SETTING IT UP TO BE DEVELOPED AS A [OVERLAPPING].

>> IT IS, YEAH.

>> I THINK WE RAN ACROSS THAT MAN WHEN I WAS FIRST ON CITY COUNCIL THAT WAS, I THINK, RIVERWOOD WAS TRYING TO DO THE SAME THING IN THEIR TAX. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

>> YEAH.

>> WE DID DO SOMETHING THOUGH, RIGHT?

>> WE DID A PART OF IT [OVERLAPPING].

>> PART OF IT.

>> BUT WE KNEW THAT WAS SECTION 3 THAT WAS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED IN A NUMBER OF YEARS.

THIS IS STILL A SECTION 1.

>> THANK YOU, WALTER, FOR THAT BRIEF.

COUNCIL, ANY MORE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? THERE IS A SUGGESTED IN MOTION, SHOULD WE GET TO THAT POINT IN OUR PRACTICE.

>> WELL, HAS THE [NOISE] OWNER COME TO THE CITY ASKING TO NOT EXTEND, TAKE THEIR DRIVE ALL THE WAY THROUGH OR IS THIS?

>> MR. RAY HAS MADE COMMENTS THAT HE DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT UNTIL HE DID PHASE 2.

>> I DO REMEMBER THAT, YEAH [OVERLAPPING].

>> YEAH.

>> PHASE 2. THE CONDITION WAS UNTIL WE GOT TO PHASE 2 AND I GET THAT IT'S A COST INVOLVED AND I'M SURE HE'S GOT TO SELL A LOTS TO GET SOME OF THAT FUNDING TO GET TO THAT POINT.

I'M UNSURE, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT DO YOU REMEMBER THAT HE DID SAY HE COULD DO IT IN SECTIONS AND PHASES.

>>WELL, I AGREE. THE [INAUDIBLE], IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT, THAT, EXTENDS ALL THE WAY OVER TO THE END OF TIGNER DRIVE IN FRONT OF WALMART.

THIS WAS PRESENTED THIS WAY THEN WITHOUT ASKING FOR A REVISION AND I EXPECT THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

>> JUST LIKE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN PREVIOUS TWO DISCUSSIONS ABOUT [INAUDIBLE] TWO ENTRANCES AND THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT ARE GETTING BUILT ON THERE.

A HUNDRED HOMES, IS IT MORE HOMES THAN THE PREVIOUS TWO TOPICS WE DISCUSSED TODAY?

>> AGREED.

>> YEAH. [NOISE].

>> I KNOW ROBIN IS HERE.

HAD YOU HAD ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. RAY IN REGARDS TO TIGNER? IF YOU CAN COME TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE? THANK YOU. I'M NOT THROWING YOU UNDER THE BUS, BUT YOU MAY HAVE HAD A CONVERSATION OR TWO WITH HIM?

>> YEAH. I'M NOT FOR SURE.

WOULD YOU-ALL GIVE ME A MINUTE LET ME CALL DOUG RIGHT QUICK AND JUST VERIFY?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> I DIDN'T KNOW YOU-ALL WERE GOING TO GET TO THIS ONE SO FAST.

>> YEAH [NOISE].

WHILE SHE'S MAKING A PHONE CAL.

>> REGARDING THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, JOHN, HAVE YOU HAD ANY COORDINATION WITH THEM ON THAT OR?

>> WE HAVE REQUESTED THAT AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ONE YET.

WE WILL BE REQUESTING THAT FOR TIA WHEN TO MAKE THOSE TIMES.

>> OKAY, I KNOW THAT THE COUNTY HAS DECLARED THAT COUNTY ROAD 44 IS A MAJOR [BACKGROUND] BOULEVARD OR WHAT THEY CALL IT, BUT IT'S A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE.

IT IS EVENTUALLY INTENDED TO BE WIDENED TO LACK A MULTI-LANE ACCESS IN AND OUT OF TOWN.

>>THEY HAVE SUBMITTED, I THINK, THE PREVIOUS TIP FUNDING PROJECTS.

THEY SUBMITTED TO MAKE THAT A BOULEVARD SECTION, TO MAKE THAT A GATEWAY INTO THE CITY OF ANGLETON.

>> IS THIS PLANNING WITH THAT POSSIBILITY IN MIND?

>> YES.

>> GO AHEAD, MA'AM.

>> THE AGREEMENT THAT MR. RAY HAS WITH THE TIGNERS IS THAT ONCE HE HAS 50 HOUSES SOLD, THE REST OF TIGNER DRIVE WOULD BE BUILT.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> THAT'S HALF OF PHASE 1.

>> WHAT'S THE REQUIREMENT FOR A BOULEVARD ACCESS TWO POINTS OF INTEREST?

[01:15:04]

HOW MANY HOUSES? [BACKGROUND].

>> THIRTY.

>> THERE'S ANOTHER PROVISION IN THAT SECTION A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN ABOUT HOW YOU CAN ALLOW IT TO HAVE JUST THE BOULEVARD THING, BUT THEN THEY HAVE TO ENTER INTO ALL KINDS OF AGREEMENTS TO PROVIDE THE SECONDARY ACCESS BY A DATE CERTAIN [BACKGROUND] SO THAT YOU WILL HAVE A DATE CERTAIN ON WHEN THAT SECONDARY ACCESS WILL BE PROVIDED.

I DON'T HAVE THAT ACTUAL WORDING IN FRONT OF ME, BUT THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT SAYS.

>> ESSENTIALLY A CONDITION PLACED ON RECEIPT?

>> YEAH, IT SAYS FOR MORE THAN 50 LOTS THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE THIS BOULEVARD ENTRANCE, AND COUNCIL CAN ALLOW THE DEFERRAL OF THE OTHER SECONDARY ACCESS PROVIDED THAT, I WANT TO SAY, THEY HAVE TO ENTER INTO A BONDING AGREEMENT WHERE THEY PROVIDE A BOND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD WITH A DATE ON WHEN THAT ROAD IS GOING TO BE BUILT, THAT SECONDARY ACCESS IS GOING TO BE PROVIDED.

LIKE I SAID, I DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME.

I CAN GO PRINT IT OUT AS WE'RE [NOISE] WAITING AND GIVE YOU THAT INFORMATION IF YOU [OVERLAPPING].

>> GOT YOU.

>> COMPELLED TO HAVE IT.

>> WHAT COMES TO MIND TO ME IS GREYSTONE, RIGHT NOW THEY'RE ONLY GOING TO HAVE THE ONE ENTRANCE TO THEIR SUBDIVISION?

>> THEY HAVE A SECONDARY, BUT WE HAVE IT BLOCKED. [OVERLAPPING].

>> IT'S IN THE BACK THOUGH.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED FOR A WHILE.

>> IT'S ALREADY CONSTRUCTED. [OVERLAPPING].

>> IT'S ALREADY [INAUDIBLE].

>> IT'S ALREADY THERE

>> IT'S ALREADY THERE.

>> THE ONE IN THE BACK?

>> YEAH, THEY BUILT ALL THE ROADS FIRST [OVERLAPPING].

>> I GUESS I HAVEN'T BEEN OVER THERE IN A WHILE.

OKAY. [OVERLAPPING].

>> [INAUDIBLE] BACK THERE.

>> OKAY, GOT YOU.

>> NOW, RIVERWOOD YOU'RE RIGHT.

RIVERWOOD ONLY HAS ONE BOULEVARD ENTRANCE COMING IN.

THEY HAVEN'T CONNECTED TO HOSPITAL YET.

>> BECAUSE THEY'RE WAITING ON PHASE THAT'S PART OF DESIGN FOR TWO AND THREE.

>> CORRECT.

>> TO GET THERE.

>> IS IT TWO OR THREE?

>> THEY'RE GOING TO DO THREE ENTRIES ON THERE. ONE ON HOSPITAL [OVERLAPPING].

>> I KNOW. WHAT I MEANT IS PHASE 2 HOSPITAL?

>> YES, I BELIEVE PHASE 2 IS HOSPITAL. GO AHEAD.

>> IN RIVERWOOD RANCH, PHASE 2 WILL PROVIDE A CONNECTION TO HOSPITAL [OVERLAPPING].

>> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING. WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT PART 2 ON THAT, SO [INAUDIBLE]

>> YEAH, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO BE BUILDING HOUSES AND BE TO THAT 30 BEFORE THAT GETS DONE.

SAME THING. WE WOULD PUT THAT WHEEL IN MOTION ON THAT ONE.

BUT THEY SAY 50 HOUSES, THEN HE'S GOING TO START CONSTRUCTION ON THE NEXT ONE.

WELL, IF HE GETS TO 50 HOUSES, YOU DON'T ISSUE BUILDING PERMITS UNTIL WE KNOW THAT CONSTRUCTION'S UNDERWAY AND THEY HE SHOWED GOOD FAITH.

>> I JUST WANT TO BE CAREFUL WITH THE VERBIAGE THOUGH.

>> YEAH. >> IT'S 50 HOUSES SOLD, NOT 50 HOUSES CONSTRUCTED.

>> RIGHT.

>> THERE IS A DIFFERENCE THERE [OVERLAPPING].

IT CAN TAKE 75 HOUSES BEFORE YOU GET 50 SOLD.

>> MY SUGGESTION ON THIS WOULD BE THAT YOU CAN MODIFY THAT CONDITION OF APPROVAL REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD TO BE THAT, I WOULD SAY, AFTER THE 50TH BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED, THAT THE EXTENSION OF THE ROAD [NOISE] AND THE CONNECTION TO TIGNER BE CONSTRUCTED.

BUT THEY STILL NEED TO INCLUDE THAT INTO THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS, AND THEY NEED TO SHOW IT AS PART OF THE FINAL PLAN.

EVEN IF THE CONDITION IS THAT IT BE CONSTRUCTED AFTER THE 50TH BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED IN THAT SECTION.

JUDITH CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

>> WE DON'T HAVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

>> WE CAN WRITE THAT INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

>> SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD IDEA.

>> HAD ONE GOOD IDEA TONIGHT [LAUGHTER].

>> THANK YOU, WALTER, FOR THAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SOLUTION. COUNCIL.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. WHEN ARE WE PLANNING ON HAVING THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FINALIZED?

>> GOOD QUESTION. I JUST GOT THE LAST VERSION FROM THEM LAST WEEK.

I'M WORKING ON IT NOW. WE'RE WORKING ON IT.

THEIR ATTORNEY AND I ARE WORKING ON IT.

[OVERLAPPING] I CAN'T REALLY SAY HOW MUCH LONGER WE TAKE, IT GOES BACK AND FORTH.

>> I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A SITUATION WHERE THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENTS, SO THEY ALREADY HAVE OR US AND EVERYTHING.

>> THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, MR. SPELMAN.

[OVERLAPPING] NO. THERE'S A COUPLE OF REASONS WHY NOT.

BUT THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO YOUR NEW PID POLICY.

WE HAVE ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE ABOUT HOW WE PROCEED.

[OVERLAPPING] THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

>> THANK YOU. GOOD QUESTION.

IS HE LISTENING? HE'S GOOD?

[01:20:02]

>> IF YOU'D LIKE HIM TO SAY ANYTHING, YOU COULD PUT HIM ON SPEAKER.

[LAUGHTER] TO THE MICROPHONE.

JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE.

>> [OVERLAPPING] IF WE'D LIKE TO LIMIT THINGS AT THE 20TH BUILDING PERMIT AND IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE PLAT THAT IS PRESENTED CAN AFFECT THAT.

BUT TO BUILD TO GET THESE ROADS CONNECTED ALL THE WAY THROUGH THERE, IT'S GOING TO NEED ANOTHER PLAT.

MAYBE JUST A STREET DEDICATION PLAT TO PUT THE STREET, PLAT AWAY ON THE GROUND.

JUST TRYING TO KEEP IT AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE.

>> SHE'S COMING TO THE PODIUM.

>> THEY ARE GOING TO DO A ROAD DEDICATION AS YOU SAID SO.

AS SOON AS THIS IS APPROVED, SECTION 1, SECTION 2, WE'LL START SO THAT ALL THAT WILL BE BUILT.

BUT THE ROAD WILL BE STARTED WHEN THERE'S 50 HOUSES BUILDING PERMITS AND NO MORE; IS THAT CORRECT?

>> MY OPINION IS 30 HOUSES BECAUSE THAT'S IN THE CODE.

THE COUNCIL WANTS TO GO 50, I CAN GO 50.

>> IF THE 50 CAME UP WITH THE INITIAL, I THINK WE'LL SET A PRECEDENT WITH RIVERWOOD.

I'M TRYING TO GET IT, WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP WALKING THE SAME LINE FOR EVERYBODY.

BUT IF HE SAID 50 WAS WHERE HE AT, MR. RAY'S BEING VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD WITH THIS ONE.

I WOULD ALSO APPROVE A 50 IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, BUT THAT'S JUST ME. I'M ONE.

>> THEN WE PROBABLY NEED TO LOOK AT CHANGING THAT CODE OF ORDINATES FOR THAT [OVERLAPPING] WE VARY FROM THAT.

[OVERLAPPING]

>> ALL RIGHT, GUYS. THERE IS A SUGGESTED MOTION INSIDE THE PACKET IF YOU WANT TO GO THERE OR OTHER MEANS?

>> MR. MAYOR, I MOVE WE APPROVE THE PROPOSED SECTION 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF AUSTIN COLONY SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS.

ONE, ALL COMMENTS GENERATED AS PART OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW PROCESS ARE CLEARED PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF ANY FINAL PLAT OF APPLICATION.

NUMBER TWO, THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS IS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF ANY FINAL PLAT APPLICATION.

THREE, A HERITAGE TREE SURVEY, TREE PRESERVATION PLAN IS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF ANY FINAL PLAT APPLICATION.

THEN FOUR, THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND ANY FINAL PLAT APPLICATION FOR SECTION 1, INCLUDE THE MAIN NORTH-SOUTH STREET AND PORTION TIGNER DRIVE AFTER THE 50TH HOUSE PERMITTED.

TELL ME WHERE I WENT WRONG.

[LAUGHTER]

>> YOU'RE REAL CLOSE. [LAUGHTER] THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS NEED TO BE FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE ROAD.

BUT CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD COMMENCING AFTER THE 50TH BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED FOR SECTION 1.

>> SO AMENDED.

>> I THINK THE BUZZWORD WAS COMMENCED. THERE YOU GO.

[LAUGHTER] THANK YOU, WALTER.

I HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO-TEM WRIGHT.

DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> I'LL SECOND IT.

>> SECOND BY COUNCILMAN SVOBODA.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> YES. YOU'RE SAYING CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD ALL THE WAY OVER TO WALMART, THEM THERE'S NO PLAT AT THIS POINT TO ACCOMPLISH THAT?

>> NO. THEY'LL HAVE TO SHOW IT. THEY'LL HAVE TO SHOW THE ROAD ON THE FINAL PLAT OF SECTION 1.

>> THEN THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT THEN WILL HAVE TO BE AMENDED TO PUT THE ROADWAY ALL THE WAY AROUND TO WALMART.

>> MY FEELING IS THAT THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT.

THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL IS THAT THEY INCLUDE THE ROAD ALL THE WAY AROUND THERE WITH THE FINAL PLAT APPLICATION.

SO THE FINAL PLAT IS GOING TO SHOW NOT ONLY SECTION 1, BUT IT'S GOING TO SHOW THE ROAD ALL THE WAY.

>> I'M GETTING THAT OUT ON A TABLE THAT WHEN THE FINAL PLAT COMES, THEY'LL DO A LONG APPENDAGE [OVERLAPPING] THAT HOOKS US BACK OVER TO WALMART.

>> IT'S GOING TO BE UNUSUAL,

[01:25:01]

LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY.

[OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER].

>> THANK YOU. THAT ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION, MR. BOOTH?

>> YEAH.

>> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?

>> YES.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> SORRY, I DON'T WANT TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE HERE, BUT I THINK YOU STATED THAT IN WALTER IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING, WAS IT A 4-4-2 OPPOSITION VOTE, IF I REMEMBER, AND ONE ON NOT PRESENT?

>> FOUR IN FAVOR, TWO OPPOSED, AND WE HAD ONE MEMBER THAT WAS ABSENT.

>> JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT THE DISCUSSION WAS ON THE OPPOSITION?

>> IT WAS THE SAME AS ITS BEEN ON THIS PROJECT, JUST ON THE LOTS [OVERLAPPING].

>> THANK YOU.

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> COULD WE [OVERLAPPING] ASK THEY HAVE TO DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE DIAMETER OF A HERITAGE TREE? I'D HATE TO MISS A SAPLING AFTER AS BIG AS MY FINGER.

SOMEBODY COMES BACK SAY I MISSED IT.

IF IT WAS 10 OR 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS. [OVERLAPPING]

>> WE CAN'T ALTER OUR CODE BUT WE HAVE TO ASK FOR GUIDANCE.

>> START THINKING ABOUT THAT.

[OVERLAPPING] ANDERSON PLACE OVER THERE, I DROVE BY, THAT'S ANOTHER STORY.

[NOISE] [LAUGHTER] THERE'S BEGUN SAMPLING OVER THERE, IT'S PROBABLY THREE INCHES IN DIAMETER.

IT'S PROBABLY FOUR YEARS OLD.

I DON'T CONSIDER THAT HERITAGE.

>> I UNDERSTAND.

>> HERITAGE OUGHT TO BE SOMETHING CLOSER TO MY AGE, I THINK.

[LAUGHTER] MIGHT TELL YOU WHAT THAT IS.

>> NOW, YOU'RE FINE SIR.

>> ANYMORE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? I'LL CALL FOR ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE?

[15. Discussion and possible action on an Ordinance No. 20210928-015 adopting the 2021-2022 Fiscal Budget of the City of Angleton, Texas for the Fiscal Year beginning on October 1, 2021 and ending on September 30, 2022; and declaring an effective date. This budget will raise more total property taxes than last year’s budget by $124,461 or 1.67%.]

>> AYE.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSING SIGN? THAT MOTION CARRIES.

NOW WE'LL JUMP BACK INTO OUR ITEMS HERE, NUMBER 15 BACK IN ORDER.

DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 20210928-015, ADOPTING THE 2021, 2022 FISCAL BUDGET OF THE CITY OF ANGLETON, TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING ON OCTOBER 1, 2021, AND ENDING ON SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2022 AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS BUDGET WILL RAISE MORE TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES THAN LAST YEAR'S BUDGET BY 124,461 OR 1.67 PERCENT. CHRIS.

>> ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

IT'S GLAD TO BE HERE IN A LITTLE BIT EARLIER IN THE EVENING.

[LAUGHTER] THIS, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE BUDGET FOR MANY MEETINGS NOW WE'VE HAD PUBLIC HEARINGS IN MANY DISCUSSIONS.

THIS IS THE FORMAL APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WOULD APPROVE THE PROPOSED 2021-22 BUDGET.

I'M GOING TO KEEP IT BRIEF AND GIVE YOU THE SUMMARY.

I DO HAVE THE BOOK HERE.

IF WE WERE GOING TO GET TO THE 222 PAGES, WE CAN GET AS DETAILED AS YOU'D LIKE AND I'LL ANSWER ALL YOUR QUESTIONS.

BUT I THINK WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT, BUT I'LL GO OVER THE SUMMARY.

THE SUMMARY IS THAT WE'RE REPROVING THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

THAT'S GOING TO DROP THE RIGHT BY 4.83 PERCENT FROM 0.665 TO 0.633 IS COMING DOWN 4.83 PERCENT.

THERE IS SOME DOLLAR INCREASE OF 124,461 OR 1.67 PERCENT IN DOLLARS ONLY BECAUSE OF THE NEW PROPERTY THAT'S ADDED, WHICH IS ABOUT 27 MILLION DOLLARS OF NEW PROPERTY.

ON THE UTILITY WATER SIDE, WE HAVE THE $7 INCREASE IN THERE, WHICH WE KNOW IS TO BRIDGE THAT GAP THAT HAS CONTINUED TO GROW AND WE DO HAVE THE EMERGENCY SHOULD I GO AND WATER PLANT THAT WE'RE WORKING ON BOND AND OUT RIGHT NOW, THAT'S INCLUDED IN THAT BUDGET AND THOSE RATES THAT WERE APPROVED IN THE FIVE-YEAR PLAN OF RATES THAT WE INCLUDED.

THE LAST TIME WE'VE HAD A WATER INCREASE THAT WAS NOT A PASS-THROUGH TO BE BWA OR THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACT FEES THAT WE CALL THEM WAS 2013, 14, APPROXIMATELY EIGHT YEARS THE SEWER RATES HAVE INCREASED SINCE THE YEAR AFTER THAT, SO ABOUT SEVEN YEARS.

NOW WE HAVE A PLAN THAT'S BEEN IN THE BUDGET.

ALSO, HEALTH INSURANCE RATES ARE WE KNOW ARE GOING TO INCREASE TO 15 PERCENT.

ALL THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE CURRENT BUDGET.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE ORDINATES THAT'S IN THE PACKET ON PAGE 102, IT DETAILS OUT THE ACTUAL DOLLARS THAT FOR EVERY FUND THAT WOULD BE APPROVING FOR EXPENDITURES, AND THAT TOTALS THE 47.2 MILLION, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A DECLINE OF 10 PERCENT BECAUSE OF THE CAPITAL FUNDS PROJECTS THAT ARE DECLINING.

[01:30:04]

IF YOU TAKE THOSE OUT, IT'S ABOUT A 3.2 MILLION DOLLAR INCREASE FROM LAST YEAR IN DOLLARS.

THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED BUDGET THROUGH THE ORDINATES AND I'D LIKE TO TAKE A ROLL CALL AS WELL ON THE BUDGET AND THE TAX OUT, AND JUST SO THAT WE'RE SURE ON EVERYBODY VOTED RELATED TO THOSE ITEMS.

>> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ALSO REITERATE THAT WE'RE RAISING MORE PROPERTY TAXES THAN LAST YEAR'S BUDGET BY $124,461, AND ADD THAT AMOUNT, IT IS ALL FROM NEW PROPERTY ADDED TO THE TAX RULE, WHICH IS THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ON RECORD AND PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT GOING FORWARD.

THE ADDITIONAL MONEY WE GET IS FROM THE GROWTH, NOT FROM THE RESIDENCE THAT HAVE BEEN HERE.

ANYWAY, THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT'S EVALUATIONS.

THEN YOU NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE BUDGET.

>> RIGHT.

>> I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE PROPOSED BUDGET WHICH WILL RAISE MORE TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES IN LAST YEAR'S TOTAL TAX LEVY BY $124,461 OR 1.67 PERCENT AND OF THAT AMOUNT, A $124,461 IS TAX REVENUE TO BE RAISED FROM NEW PROPERTY ADDED TO THE TAX ROLL THIS YEAR.

>> IF YOU CONVINCE YOU THE ORDINANCE AS WELL, THAT NUMBER WOULD BE GREAT.

>> AN ORDINATES NUMBER LIKE.

>> PAGE 102.

> TWO ZERO TWO ONE ZERO NINE TWO EIGHT DASH ZERO ONE FIVE.

>> OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY MARIPO TIMO.

DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> I WILL SECOND

>> SECOND BY COUNCILMAN GONGORA.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION [NOISE] [NOISE] N BEFORE I CALL THE VOTE? I WILL VOTE.

I DO LEASE WANT AT LEAST SAY I APPRECIATE THAT YOU PUT IT IN OUR PACKET THE SNAPSHOT OF ALL THE TAXING ENTITIES THAT YOU'VE LOOKED AT? THERE'S LIKE EIGHT OR? YES, THERE'S SEVEN.

I'M SORRY, SEVEN, AND I GET IT.

PROBABLY ALONG WITH THESE OTHER GENTLEMEN THAT ANGLETON BLAZE THE HIGHEST TAX RATE OF BRAZORIA COUNTY.

I JUST WANT TO LET THE RESIDENTS KNOW THOSE WHO ARE LISTENING AND WATCHING AS A CITY TAX RATE, WE'RE GOING TO BE SLATED IF EVERYBODY THAT GETS DONE THEIR APPROVALS AS THE FOURTH HIGHEST IN THE MIDDLE.

>> SLIGHTLY BELOW AVERAGE.

>> BELOW THE AVERAGE. YES, SIR.

WHICH IS 60.65 CENTS.

WE'RE GOING TO BE AT THE 0.630.

I JUST WANT LET THE FOLKS KNOW IT'S LOOKING AT YOUR TOTAL TAX BILL.

THAT'S WHERE THE PEOPLE WILL MAKE THE COMMENT, WE PAY THE LARGEST.

IT'S NOT THE CITY.

IT'S OUR BILL AS A WHOLE.

JUST WANT TO LET RESIDENTS KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO DO OUR PART TO BRING THAT TAX RATE DOWN AS BEST AS WE CAN AND KEEP SERVICES WHERE WE'RE AT AND BRING IN NEW SERVICES.

I JUST ALWAYS MAKE THAT NO FOR ALL THE RECORD.

ANGLETON PARALLEL BRAZORIA IN FRONT OF US.

OKAY. JUST FOR THE RECORD.

>> ALL RIGHT.

>> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?

>> THE MORE SALES TAX WE SPENT IN ANGLETON THE LESS WE HAVE TO RAISE PRIVATE SECTOR.

>> ABSOLUTELY. I THINK THERE WAS A FACEBOOK POST ABOUT THAT TODAY.

ABOUT SPEND YOUR MONEY HERE IN THE CITY, HELPS US HELPS YOU GUYS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS BEFORE I DO A ROLL CALL.

>> YEAH, LET ME GO AHEAD REAL QUICK.

THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO MAKE.

MENTIONED AS CHRIS SAID DURING COVID, WE'VE ALL BEEN AT HOME FOR THE MOST PART AND MOST OF THE RESIDENTS WERE SHOPPING LOCALLY BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T TRAVELING TO HOUSTON OR COMMUTING TO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

THAT REALLY HAD A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT ON OUR BUDGET.

THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO SAVE FOR YEARS.

WE'VE HAD SO MANY CAMPAIGNS.

BUT IT TOOK COVID TO ACTUALLY MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

WE WANT TO KEEP THAT MOMENTUM GOING.

WE WANT TO KEEP ENCOURAGING RESIDENTS, DO WHAT YOU WERE DOING BEFORE WHEN IT CAME TO SHOPPING IN ANGLETON, AND I UNDERSTAND THE COMPLAINT IS THERE'S NOT A LOT HERE, BUT WHAT IS HERE WE NEED TO BE SUPPORTING.

KEEP SPENDING THOSE TAX DOLLARS HERE AND WE'RE STILL SEEING THIS IS I THINK THIS THIRD YEAR NOW OF A DECLINE AND THE TAX RATE.

IT'S BECAUSE OF THAT SUBSTANTIALLY.

>> IF YOU KNOW ANY BUSINESS OWNERS AND THEY'RE LOOKING TO DEVELOP, ANGLETON, IS A GOOD PLACE.

>> ESPECIALLY THOSE CREATING MORE RESTAURANTS.

[LAUGHTER]

>> I'M ALL ABOUT IT.

>> ANYMORE QUESTIONS COMING? ANYTHING ON THIS END, WE'RE GOOD.

I'LL GO AND CALL FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE.

>> COUNCILMAN SAMOTA?

>> AYE

>> COUNCILMAN GONGORA?

>> AYE.

>> COUNCILMAN BOOTH?

>> AYE.

>> COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND?

[16. Discussion and possible action on Ordinance No. 20210928-016 ratifying the increase of $124,461 in property tax revenues over last year’s operating budget as reflected in the FY 2021-2022 operating budget.]

>> AYE.

>> IT IS SIX AYES AND ANY NEYS? NO. ZERO. MOTION CARRIES.

[01:35:03]

>> ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

>> NOW WE MOVE ON TO ITEM 16.

DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 20210928-016, RATIFYING THE INCREASE OF 124,461 IN PROPERTY TAX REVENUES OVER LAST YEAR'S OPERATING BUDGET AS REFLECTED IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 OPERATING BUDGET, MR. CHRIS?

>> ALL RIGHT. SINCE THERE IS A DOLLAR INCREASE, THEN WE'RE GOING TO RATIFY THAT DOLLAR INCREASE, WHICH IS REQUIRED SEPARATE FROM SETTING THE TAX RATE AND LIVING THE TAX IS JUST SO THAT WE HAVE A SEPARATE ORDER FOR THAT, AND THAT AUDIT IS ON PAGE 324.

I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT WE RATIFY THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT.

WE'LL ALSO DO A ROLL CALL VOTE THROUGH THE ORDINANCE ON PAGE 324.

>> AWESOME. THANK YOU FOR THAT BRIEF.

COUNCIL SOUNDS LIKE IT'S JUST A PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE FOR THIS PORTION.

>> RIGHT.

>> OKAY.

>> YOU HAVE SOME JIANG?

>> IS THERE VERBAGE THAT YOU NEED US TO SPEAK SPECIFICALLY OR?

>> JUST THE VERBIAGE THAT'S IN THE ORDINATES.

>> OKAY.

>> COUNCILMAN, WE APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 20210928-016, RATIFYING THIS INCREASE OF $124,461 AND PROPERTY TAX REVENUES OVER LAST YEAR'S OPERATING BUDGET AS REFLECTED IN THE 2021-2022 OPERATING BUDGET.

>> MOTION BY MAYOR PROTIMO, DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND.

>> SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.

ONCE AGAIN, DO A ROLL CALL VOTE.

SIGNIFY BY AYE IF YOU'RE FOR OR NEY IF YOU'RE AGAINST.

MAYOR PEREZ? AYE MAYOR PROTIMO? RIGHT?

>> AYE.

>> COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND?

>> AYE.

>> COUNCILMAN SAMOTA?

>> AYE

>> COUNCILMAN GONGORA?

>> AYE.

>> COUNCILMAN BOOTH?

>> AYE.

>> THAT SHOWS A SIX TO ZERO MOTION CARRIES.

>> JUST GOING BACK AND FORTH HERE.

[17. Discussion and possible action on Ordinance No. 20210928-017 levying the ad valorem property tax of the City of Angleton, Texas for the year of 2021 on all taxable property within the corporate limits of the city on January 1, 2021, and adopting a tax rate for 2021; providing revenues for payment of current municipal maintenance and operating expenses and for payment of interest and principal on outstanding city of Angleton debt; providing for limited exemptions of certain homesteads; providing for enforcement of collections; providing for a severability clause; and providing an effective date]

>> KEEPING US ON OUR TOES MR. [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER]

>> ITEM NUMBER 17.

OUR DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 20210928-017.

LEVYING THE AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX OF THE CITY OF ANGLETON TEXAS FOR THE YEAR 2021 ON ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CORPORATE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY ON JANUARY 1ST 2021, AND ADOPTING A TAX RATE FOR 2021.

PROVIDING REVENUES FOR PAYMENT OF CURRENT MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING EXPENSES AND FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL ON OUTSTANDING CITY OF ANGLETON DEBT.

PROVIDING FOR LIMITED EXEMPTIONS OF CERTAIN HOMESTEADS, PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT OF COLLECTIONS, PROVIDING FOR SEPARABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MR. CHRIS.

>> NOW THAT WE'VE APPROVED THE BUDGET, NOW WE NEED TO LEVY THE ACTUAL TAXES THAT ARE IN THE BUDGET AND THEN APPROVE THE TAX RATE.

THAT'S WHAT THIS ORDINANCE DOES.

THIS ONE'S A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE VERY SPECIFIC TAX RATE, SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ THAT OFF.

THE TOTAL TAX RATE IS GOING TO BE 0.633041 PER $100 IN TAXABLE VALUE.

THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION THAT WILL GO TO THE GENERAL FUND IS 0.559185 AND THE INS RATE THAT WILL COVER THE CITY'S DEBT SERVICE.

THE DEBT SERVICE FUND IS 0.073856.

BASED ON THE CALCULATIONS BY THE COUNTY WHICH SUPPORTS WHAT JOHN HAS SAID, FOR A $100,000 VALUE HOUSE, THE ACTUAL TAX RATE IS GOING DOWN A NEGATIVE $22.29.

ALL THE MONEY IS COMING FROM NEW PROPERTY.

THERE IS A RECOMMENDED MOTION THAT'S IN SECTION 10 ON PAGE [OVERLAPPING] GOT IT.

>> THREE TWENTY-EIGHT.

>> I RECOMMEND THAT WE PASS THE ORDINANCE TOO.

>> MR. MAYOR, I MOVE WE ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 20210928-017.

MOVE THAT THE PROPERTY TAX RATE BE DECREASED BY THE ADOPTION OF A TAX RATE OF 0.633041, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY A 4.83 PERCENT DECREASE IN THE TAX RATE.

>> [INAUDIBLE]. DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> I WILL SECOND.

>> SECOND BY COUNCILMAN GONGORA.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.

>> YES.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> SHOULD THIS MOTION PASS, YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER PUTTING THAT ON THE INTERNET, BY THE WAY.

THAT MOTION, SPECIFICALLY SECTION 10 THAT WAS JUST READ BY JOHN. PEOPLE [OVERLAPPING].

[01:40:02]

>>> IT'S REQUIRED TO BE.

>> WHAT I MEANT, ADVERTISE ON OUR CITY OF ANGLETON.

>> BOLD. [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING]

>> IT HAS TO BE.

>> I GET IT, YOU'RE CORRECT. I'M SORRY.

>> YES.

>> I'M THINKING NOT LEGALLY, I'M THINKING MORE SOCIALLY.

>> PUBLIC RELATIONS.

>> PUBLIC RELATIONS. GOOD.

>> YES, SIR.

>> PEOPLE ARE GOING TO ALREADY COMPLAINING.

>> MULTI-COLOR, FUNNY [OVERLAPPING].

>> TIKTOK WILL HAVE SOME HIGH-SCHOOL KID EXPLAIN IT TO PEOPLE.

>> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A TIKTOK. [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] WE'RE NOT GOING TO NEED A DANCER.

WE DO HAVE OUR REPORTER HERE, SO I'M SURE SHE'LL HAVE IT THERE AS WELL.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER]

>> BECAUSE IT'S A MISCOMMUNICATION, BECAUSE WE ALL UNDERSTAND DIFFERENCE TAX RATES VERSUS ACTUAL.

>> YES, SIR. GREAT COMMENT. THANK YOU.

>> DON'T FORGET THE ROLL CALL.

>> YES. I'LL GO AHEAD DO THE ROLL CALL VOTE.

I'M GOING TO THROW YOU ALL OFF A LITTLE BIT.

THOSE SIGNIFIED BY AYE FOR NAY FOR AGAINST.

MAYOR PEREZ, AYE.

MAYOR PRO-TEM WRIGHT?

>> AYE.

>> COUNCILMAN BOOTH?

>> AYE.

>> COUNCILMAN GONGORA?

>> AYE.

>> COUNCILMAN SVOBODA?

>> COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND?

>> AYE.

>> THAT MOTION CARRIES SIX AYES, ZERO NAYS.

>> PROGRESS.

>> NUMBER 19. DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE CITY'S WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM. DID I MISS SOMETHING?

[18. Discussion and possible action on Ordinance No. 20210928-018 amending the utility rate tables in the fee schedule in the consolidated schedule of fees of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Angleton; revising and providing for an increase in the rates to be charged for utility services by the City of Angleton; providing for repeal of conflicting ordinances; providing a severability clause; providing for an open meetings clause; providing a penalty; and providing an effective date.]

>> YOU MISSED 18. [OVERLAPPING]

>> EIGHTEEN. IT'S EVEN A SHORT NIGHT SO FAR. NUMBER 18.

DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE ORDINANCE NUMBER 20210928-18.

AMENDING THE UTILITY RATE TABLES IN THE FEE SCHEDULE IN THE CONSOLIDATED SCHEDULE OF FEES OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ANGLETON REVISING AND PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE IN THE RIGHTS TO BE CHARGED FOR UTILITY SERVICES BY THE CITY OF ANGLETON, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL AND CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, PROVIDING A SEPARABILITY CLAUSE, PROVIDING FOR AN OPEN MEETINGS CLAUSE, PROVIDING A PENALTY, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MR. CHRIS.

>> THESE ARE THE UTILITY RIGHTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET THAT WE JUST APPROVED.

THEY'RE ALSO THE RATES THAT WERE PROVIDED TO US BY [INAUDIBLE] AS PART OF THE FIVE-YEAR OF WATER AND WASTEWATER FINANCIAL PLAN.

[NOISE] BASED ON OUR DISCUSSION, JUST TO SUMMARIZE, FOR A PERSON THAT PURCHASES AN AVERAGE OF 5,000 GALLONS, THAT PERSON'S BILL WILL GO UP ABOUT SEVEN DOLLARS.

IT'S TWO DOLLARS ON THE WATER SIDE, FIVE DOLLARS ON THE SEWER SIDE TO COVER THOSE PROJECTS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AND TO BRIDGE THAT GAP AND TO COMPLY WITH THE PLANS WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE, IT ACTUALLY LISTS THE ACTUAL RATES.

IT'S ABOUT A DOLLAR INCREASE ON THE BASIC RATE AND 31 CENTS INCREASE FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER ON THE RATE FOR 1,000 GALLONS OVER 2,000 GALLONS.

THIS IS JUST TO UPDATE THE RATES TO EQUAL WHAT WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED IN THE BUDGET.

>> THANK YOU, CHRIS. ONCE AGAIN, GUYS, I BELIEVE, GENTLEMEN, THIS IS WHAT WE DISCUSSED AS A PLAN MOVING FORWARD.