Nov 04, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission

[00:00:01]

ALL RIGHT. I WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.

[DECLARATION OF A QUORUM AND CALL TO ORDER]

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON A PARTICULAR ITEM ON THE AGENDA, THERE IS SOME FORMS TO FILL OUT. NOT ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED, BUT APPRECIATED.

[1. Conduct a public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a request for approval of an ordinance to rezone a portion of undeveloped land being 35.89 acres out a 39.783-acre parcel of land being the same called 40.00 acres as recorded in the Brazoria County Clerk's File 2003041292, also known as 1101 W. Mulberry Street, from the Commercial-General (C-G) zoning district to the Multifamily Residential-29 (MFR-29) zoning district. The subject property is located to the east of Interstate 288 and to the south of State Highway 35 (West Mulberry).]

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED TO THE EAST OF INTERSTATE 288 AND TO THE SOUTH OF THE STATE HIGHWAY 35, ALSO KNOWN AS WEST MULBERRY.

LINDSAY WOULD YOU GIVE US AN OVERVIEW, PLEASE? YES, SIR. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS.

THIS IS A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT IS UNDEVELOPED, BETTER KNOWN TO SOME PEOPLE AS THE LANDING STRIP.

IT IS OVER THERE OR A RUNWAY MIGHT KNOW IT AS THE OLD CAMERON PROPERTY.

OK, OK, THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW.

THANK YOU. SO WHAT IT IS IS BASICALLY THEY'RE ASKING TO REZONE A PORTION OF IT, A MAJORITY OF IT THAT AND KEEP THE FRONT THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, BUT REZONE THE BACK HALF OR THE BACK MAJORITY TO MULTIFAMILY 29, WHICH MEANS 29 UNITS PER ACRE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING UNIT.

OK. OK, THANK YOU.

SO AT THIS TIME, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.

GOING ONCE. MR. PELTIER, YES, SIR.

MY ONLY COMMENT IS DEVELOPMENT ON IMPACT ON DITCH 10, IF NOT SAYING I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE UNITS, I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. BUT JUST KEEP IN MIND WHENEVER YOU REVIEW THE PLAN, ALL THAT WATER HAS GOT TO RUN SOMEWHERE AND IT RUNS SOUTH AND IT GOES I THINK THAT GOES KIND OF BEHIND HENRY'S HOUSE OR DITCH BY RUDY SANTOS AND BACK[INAUDIBLE] DITCH 10.

SO IF WE HAVE AN APARTMENT LIKE THAT, THERE'S GOING TO BE MANY ACRES OF CONCRETE.

SO WHENEVER YOU SEE THE PLAN, JUST KEEP AN EYE IF IT NEEDS A MAYBE ADDITIONAL DETENTION AND REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THE STRESS ON DITCH 10 ALREADY.

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

ALL RIGHT, AT THIS TIME, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK THE COMMISSION IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS ITEM.

IS ANYONE HERE REPRESENTING EITHER THE OWNER OR THE DEVELOPER? NO, MA'AM, THEY I DID GET A CALL FROM THEM EARLIER AND THEY WERE ASKING IF THEY COULD ATTEND VIRTUALLY, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE THAT OPTION RIGHT NOW.

SO I'M BASICALLY REPRESENTING FOR THEM AS BEST AS I CAN.

BUT REALLY, THIS IS JUST A REZONE.

IT'S IT'S NOT.

WE HAVE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENTS AND STUFF THAT WILL ALL BE VETTED DURING A PLANNED REVIEW, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE PLANS YET.

SO I GUESS TO FOLLOW UP THAT QUESTION THEN, DO THEY HAVE A PLAN IN MIND OR A DEVELOPER OR OR THEY JUST KIND OF WAVING A FLAG TO SEE WHAT OUR REACTION WOULD BE? HONESTLY, I BELIEVE THEY'RE KICKING THE TIRES.

I HAVEN'T SEEN A PLAN YET.

I'VE SEEN SOME SCHEMATICS TWO DIFFERENT TYPES, BUT NO PLANS YET.

WELL, I'LL HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION, BUT I MEAN, IT SOUNDS A LITTLE PREMATURE TO MAKE THAT DECISION AT THIS POINT, BUT JUST LOOKING AT THE MAPPING, THE WAY IT WAS DRAWN OUT AND THEN THE ACTUAL SURVEY, AND I UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY.

BUT ARE THEY ASKING OR I GUESS, IF WE REZONE IT, WHAT IS THE ACCESS TO THAT PROPERTY? WHAT ARE WHAT ARE THEY THINKING? BECAUSE TXDOTS GOING TO CONTROL ACCESS TO THAT PROPERTY.

CORRECT. YES, THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH THE TEXT PERMITTING PROCESS TO GET A DRIVEWAY THERE BECAUSE THERE IS NOT ONE PRESENTLY.

BUT IN OUR MEETINGS WITH THE DEVELOPER, WE'VE ALSO EXPRESSED THAT THEY WILL NEED TWO

[00:05:03]

SO THAT'S THAT'S GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE FOR THEM TO OVERCOME.

BUT THEY THEY DO KNOW THAT THAT'S A REQUIREMENT.

SO WE'RE SO WE'RE TRYING THEY'RE ASKING TO TAKE THIS OUT OF COMMERCIAL AND PUT IT INTO A RESIDENTIAL TYPE.

BUT OVER HERE ON THIS ONE PAGE, IT SAYS CURRENT ZONING COMMERCIAL GENERAL AND THEN IT PROPOSED ZONING MANUFACTURE 29.

MULTIFAMILY 29.

SO I THINK ONE OF THE ONE OF THE CONFUSING ISSUES IS IF YOU LOOK ON THE SURVEY, IT'S IT'S AN ACTUAL RECTANGLE ON THE MAP I MADE, IT LOOKS LIKE AN ELONGATED UTAH SHAPE THAT PANHANDLE UP THERE IS NOT INCLUDED.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE EVERY- EVERYTHING ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, ON ITS WIDTH THAT FRONTS 35.

THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE REZONING REQUEST BECAUSE WHAT THEY'RE WANTING TO DO IS PUT COMMERCIAL RETAIL NEAREST 35 AND DO RESIDENTIAL IN BACK.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS BACK IN THERE AND THERE'S NO FEEDER TO IT.

CORRECT. AND [INAUDIBLE] DEPARTMENT IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO LET THEM IN THERE DUE TO THE CLOSENESS OF THE INTERSECTION.

DO WE HAVE ACCESS? I MEAN, EITHER WAY, YOU LOOK AT IT, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK IN THERE AND YOU'RE STILL RIGHT UP NEXT TO THAT MAJOR INTERSECTION.

AGREED. THOSE ARE GOING TO BE CHALLENGES THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS TO OVERCOME DURING THEIR DUE DILIGENCE IN MEETING REQUIREMENTS.

YEAH, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY'RE LARGE ENOUGH, BUT THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO ACCESSES FROM WHERE THE HOUSE SITS BECAUSE THERE WAS A U SHAPED DRIVE THERE.

BUT I DON'T KNOW IF EITHER OF THOSE ARE SUFFICIENT TO DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO WELL, IF THEY'RE ON 35 AND IF THE PART ON 35 ISN'T INCLUDED, BUT THAT THEY OWN THAT PROPERTY, I MEAN, THEY COULD PROVIDE ACCESS OFF OF 35 TO THE APARTMENTS, BUT THAT WOULD GET INTO THE SAME THING THAT WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER SUBDIVISIONS, CORRECT, WHERE IT WOULD HAVE TO BE BOULEVARD TYPE ENTRANCES TO GET TO THAT NUMBER OF HOME SITES.

YES. [INAUDIBLE] YES.

MA'AM. OK. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE.

SO THESE ARE ALL VALID POINTS THAT ARE BEING BROUGHT UP, WHICH WILL CERTAINLY HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED AT SOME POINT DOWN THE ROAD IF THE DEVELOPER DECIDES TO PURSUE THIS.

BUT AT THIS POINT, THE QUESTION BEFORE THIS COMMISSION IS SIMPLY DO WE THINK THAT CHANGING THE ZONING FROM COMMERCIAL GENERAL TO MANUFACTURE 29 IS AN APPROPRIATE UTILIZATION OF THAT PROPERTY? AND IN MY MIND, IN THAT LOCATION, THE UTILIZATION AT QUESTION MAKES SENSE TO ME HOW THEY'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH THE ACCESS ISSUES AND DRAINAGE ISSUES.

THAT'S DOWN THE ROAD.

AND THOSE PROBLEMS WILL SHOW UP NO MATTER WHAT GETS DEVELOPED RIGHT THERE.

AND YES, CHAIRMAN, WHAT THE PROPOSED REZONING DOES IS IT DOES COMPORT WITH THE CITY'S FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.

SO YOU ALL ARE RECOMMENDING, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WILL MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE REQUEST TO RESUME THE 35.89 ACRES OUT OF THE 39.78 ACRE TRACT PARCEL CURRENTLY ZONED COMMERCIAL GENERAL TO THE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL 29 ZONING DISTRICT.

SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY MS. MCDANIEL AND A SECOND BY MS. SCAEFER TO APPROVE THE REZONING RECOMMENDATION.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK OF HOW THAT WILL IMPACT THE SCHOOL, WELL IT'S GOING TO BE A MAJOR TRAFFIC JAM BECAUSE IT ALREADY IS.

BUT I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WOULD BE WHAT HARM IT DOES US REZONING THIS.

I DON'T SEE ANY DOWNSIDES TO THE.

TO THAT, BUT IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN THERE IN THE MORNING, IT'S IT'S TOUGH ALREADY, SO THEY WOULD WHOEVER WHATEVER HAPPENS TO THIS, WHETHER THE COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL IS GOING TO HAVE A TRAFFIC TRAFFIC ISSUES TO ADDRESS.

YOU WOULD THINK, THOUGH, THAT FROM A SCHOOL STANDPOINT THAT MOST OF THE KIDS THAT LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE WITHIN WALKING.

MM HMM. THERE'S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF CAR TRAFFIC ALREADY.

AND THEY THE SCHOOL HAS ADDRESSED IT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT A BIG, LONG CURVED

[00:10:02]

OK. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? ANSWERED IT DIRECTLY YEAH, YEAH. IS THERE ANY OTHER OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE CALL THE QUESTION? IF NOT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR INDICATE SO BY SAYING AYE, AYE.

OPPOSED SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. OK? ITEM TWO DISCUSS CONSIDER AND ACT ON A

[2. Discuss, consider, and act on a recommendation for the Preliminary Plat of the Mulberry Fields Subdivision and variances.]

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS I WANT TO POINT OUT INITIALLY BEFORE I GET STARTED ON EXPLAINING IS THE RECOMMENDATION TO FROM STAFF IS TO DENY.

SO THAT SUGGESTED MOTION SHOULD ALSO REFLECT THAT IT DOES NOT.

SO THANK YOU, MR. SCHAEFER, FOR CATCHING THAT.

BUT BASICALLY, THERE'S THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THIS MULBERRY FIELD SUBDIVISION, AND THERE ARE NUMEROUS COMMENTS BACK FROM THE CITY'S ENGINEER.

THE PRELIMINARY PLAT DOES NOT MEET THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

IT DOES NOT MEET FOR SEVERAL REASONS, BUT NAMELY BECAUSE THERE'S FEW LOTS THAT DON'T MEET THE PROPER SIZE OR DEPTH AND THERE'S A ROADWAY.

ONE OF THE MAIN ROADWAYS IN THE SUBDIVISION THAT IS PROPOSED DOES NOT MEET THE RIGHT OF WAY OF 60 FOOT REQUIREMENT.

WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS 50 FOOT AND BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MEET, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND DENIAL. THERE IS NO EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCE THAT PRESENTS A HARDSHIP TO THE DEVELOPER BECAUSE THIS IS UNDEVELOPED LAND THAT COULD BE DESIGNED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM TO MEET. AND BECAUSE IT DOES NOT, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND DENIAL.

BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

I DO HAVE ONE REQUEST TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS ITEM FROM MR. SCAEFER MR. SCAEFER. DO YOU WANT TO COMMENT DESPITE THE RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF? YES, I BELIEVE BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME ERRORS HERE.

THANK YOU. AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE CORRECTED.

I THINK THE FIRST AND MOST SIGNIFICANT ERROR WHICH WE LOOKED UP IS THAT THEY SHOW A 10 FOOT EASEMENT FOR TEXAS TO MEXICO POWER LINES ITS 20 FOOT.

IT'S ACTUALLY 10 FOOT ON THE GROUND, 20 FOOT IN THE AIR, WHICH MEANS 20 FOOT.

SO THAT NEEDS TO BE SURE THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO GET CLOSE TO THOSE POWER LINES.

IT'S NOT A GOOD THING.

THEY DON'T SHOW OUR DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON THE NORTH SIDE, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH MS. HILL, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND DRAINING EASEMENT IS NECESSARY FOR THIS TOWER SITE. THE SECOND THING I NOTICED THAT THERE'S NO STORM DRAIN SHOWN ON THE NORTH WALKER SIDE, THERE IS A DRAIN THERE AND IT'S NOT SHOWN AND IT CAN'T BE BLOCKED.

AS SUCH, YOU CAN'T PUT A ROAD OVER THE TOP OF IT.

THE OTHER THING I NOTICED IS THERE'S A AT LEAST A 10 FOOT EASEMENT BETWEEN THE CURB AND THE PROPERTY LINE ON NORTH WALKER, AND THAT'S NOT SHOWN AS WELL.

SO THOSE ARE THOSE ARE SOME THINGS I NOTICED IN LOOKING AT THIS.

IT'S GOT SOME WORK TO BE DONE AS WE ALL AGREE.

THANK YOU. MM-HMM.

HMM. WITH THAT.

ANYONE WANT TO MAKE [INAUDIBLE] OR WANT TO MAKE A MOTION, I'LL MOVE THAT WE I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY IT, DID I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECT? YES. YES, YOU DID.

MS. EBY AND THE SUGGESTED MOTIONS SHOULD SAY I MOVE WE DENY APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MULBERRY FIELD SUBDIVISION SUBJECT TO, YOU KNOW, ANY CONDITIONS YOU MAY HAVE. IS THAT YOUR DESIRED MOTION? YES. AND THEN AND THEN I GUESS THE CONDITION IS THAT THE IT DOESN'T MEET CITY CODE, RIGHT [INAUDIBLE] FUTURE PLANNING.

SO WHAT THIS DOES IS IF IF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DENIES APPROVAL, IT WILL GO TO COUNCIL, THEY'LL HEAR IT.

THEY'LL CONSIDER YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO DENY AND EITHER COUNCIL WILL TAKE ACTION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. AND BASED ON WHATEVER ACTION THEY TAKE, THE DEVELOPER WILL HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT MAKES, YOU KNOW, THAT MEETS CITY REQUIREMENTS. SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY MS. EBY AND A SECOND BY MR. MUNSON, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST INDICATE SO BY SAYING AYE, AYE.

OPPOSED SAME SIGN.

[00:15:01]

WE ARE FINISHED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.