[1. Discussion and action on the review and approval of Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes for the October 07, 2021, November 04, 2021, and December 02, 2021 meetings.]

ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR THE OCTOBER 7TH, 2021, NOVEMBER 4TH, 2021 AND DECEMBER 2ND, 2021 MEETINGS.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS OTHER THAN TO SAY THAT I DID RESOLVE THE TWO ISSUES THAT YOU BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION EARLIER.

IT WAS A BOAT ISSUE AND A REFERENCE TO [INAUDIBLE] MUNICIPALITY.

CORRECT. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THAT OCTOBER THE 7TH, NOVEMBER, THE 4TH AND DECEMBER 2ND 2021 MINUTES.

MOTION BY MS. MCDANIEL, SECOND BY MS. BIERI. ANY DISCUSSION.

IF NOT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR INDICATE SO BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED SAME SIGN.

MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM TWO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE ORDINANCE FULLY

[2. Conduct a public hearing, discussion and possible action on an ordinance fully repealing and replacing Chapter 23 – Land Development Code, Article II. – Subdivision and Development Design, Section 23-20. – Park Dedication and Recreation Improvements; providing a penalty; providing for severability; providing for repeal; and providing an effective date.]

REPEALING AND REPLACING CHAPTER TWENTY THREE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE TWO SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT DESIGN SECTION 23-20 [INAUDIBLE] AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS PROVIDING A PENALTY.

PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY.

PROVIDING FOR REPEAL AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

YES. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

I'M HERE TO TALK TO YOU TODAY ABOUT REVISITING OUR PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE.

OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE INADEQUATELY ASSESSES PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES IN-LIEU OF PARKLAND AND PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND ANGLETON.

THE PURPOSE OF PARKLAND DEDICATION AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT IS TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE AND QUALITY OF LIFE.

WE'RE OFFERING OUR RESIDENTS WITHOUT RAISING TAXES.

THIS ORDINANCE IS A FINANCIAL MECHANISM THAT REQUIRES A DEVELOPER TO EITHER BUILD A PARK TO THE CITY STANDARDS, WHICH YOU CAN FIND IN YOUR PACKET ON PAGES TWENTY FIVE AND TWENTY SIX OF WHAT YOU HAVE THERE IN FRONT OF YOU, OR PAY FEES IN-LIEU OF PARKLAND DEDICATION AND DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR PARK COMPONENTS.

THIS ORDINANCE PUTS THE BURDEN ON THE DEVELOPER OR NEW HOMES TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE AND QUALITY OF LIFE STANDARD ANGLETON HAS CREATED HERE CURRENTLY.

I'VE PROVIDED A DOCUMENT FOR YOU ALL THAT IS WHAT YOU SEE TO THE SIDE OF YOUR PACKETS THAT HIGHLIGHTS SEVENTY THREE OTHER CITIES WHO HAVE PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCES IN TEXAS AND SPECIFICALLY HIGHLIGHTED THOSE WITH A POPULATION OF THIRTY THOUSAND OR LESS SO THAT YOU CAN SEE A COMPARISON OF WHAT THEY DO AND DON'T DO.

THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF YOU BASES FEES IN-LIEU OF DEDICATION ON COUNTY ASSESSED LAND VALUES AND DEVELOPMENT FEES ON CURRENT PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT COSTS.

OTHER COMMUNITIES WHO HAVE ADOPTED OR ARE WORKING TOWARDS ADOPTING THIS METHODOLOGY ARE THE CITY OF MCKINNEY.

COLLEGE STATION AND COLUMBUS, OHIO.

SPECIFICALLY, AS IT RELATES TO THE METHODOLOGY THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY, THERE'S SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS OF ASSESSING THESE FEES.

IT'S A THOROUGH APPROACH IN PARKLAND DEDICATION FOR PARKLAND DEDICATION, WHICH HELPS TO PREVENT LITIGATION AND SETTLEMENTS WITH DEVELOPERS.

I HAVE DR. CROMPTON ON THE LINE, WHO HAS BEEN ANGLETON'S CONSULTANT FOR THIS PROJECT AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER THEM FOR YOU, BUT IF YOU DON'T, I CAN CERTAINLY TAKE YOU THROUGH THE EXAMPLE OF HOW FEES WOULD BE CALCULATED IF YOU WOULD LIKE. ALL RIGHT, WELL, AT THIS TIME, WE WILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE WE GET INTO DISCUSSION. SO IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ISSUE? GOING ONCE, TWICE? ALL RIGHT. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? I'D LIKE TO SEE HOW YOU CALCULATE IT.

SURE. SO THAT FIRST PAGE THAT I HAVE PROVIDED, IT'S IN YOUR PACKET.

I DO WANT TO NOTE ONE CORRECTION, WHICH YOU CAN SEE IS THE VERY BOTTOM.

NUMBER THREE IS STRICKEN AND TWO IS THERE FOR PROPER CALCULATION, BUT THIS IS SPECIFICALLY AN EXAMPLE IN THE APPENDIX.

YOU'RE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE YOUR CALCULATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH YOUR ORDNANCE AND SO I'M GOING TO TAKE YOU LITERALLY COLUMN BY COLUMN TO WORK THROUGH THIS EXAMPLE.

IT IS ONLY AN EXAMPLE.

IF A DEVELOPER DOES NOT WANT TO DEDICATE A DEVELOPED PARK, THE CITY WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE DEVELOPER PAY FEES.

SO ON PAGE TWENTY FOUR OF YOUR PACKET OR THAT PACKET BESIDE YOU, YOU'LL FIND THE PROPOSED METHODOLOGY USED TO ASSESS THE FEES OWED.

ANGLETON MANAGES CURRENTLY TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY NINE POINT SEVEN PARK ACRES, AND THE CITY'S POPULATION IS DOCUMENTED AT NINETEEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE.

BASED ON CENSUS DATA, THERE ARE AN AVERAGE OF TWO POINT FIVE SEVEN PEOPLE PER DWELLING UNIT. YOU DIVIDE THIS POPULATION BY THE AVERAGE OCCUPANCY PER DWELLING UNIT TO GET THE

[00:05:03]

NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS WITHIN ANGLETON, SO YOU CAN SEE THAT'S THE SECOND OR, EXCUSE ME, THIRD COLUMN DOWN. NEXT, YOU DIVIDE THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS IN ANGLETON BY THE NUMBER OF PARK ACRES TO GET THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

IN THIS EXAMPLE, WE'RE GOING TO ASSUME THAT THE COUNTY ASSESSED LAND VALUE FOR AN ACRE OF LAND IS TWENTY THOUSAND.

THIS IS THE NUMBER THAT'S GOING TO FLUCTUATE FOR EACH DEVELOPER.

SO IF A DEVELOPER HAS OVER A HUNDRED ACRES, WE ARE BASING IT ON BRAZORIA COUNTY LAND APPRAISAL OF WHAT THAT LAND COST OR WHAT IT'S APPRAISED AS PER ACRE.

SO AS YOU WOULD IMAGINE, WHILE ONE UNIT OR ONE ACRE, MAYBE TWENTY THOUSAND MAYBE APPRAISED AT THAT, TYPICALLY THE HIGHER NUMBER OF ACRES THAT YOU PURCHASED, THAT AMOUNT COMES DOWN. SO WE'RE USING TWENTY THOUSAND.

FOR THIS EXAMPLE, WHEN WE CALCULATE THIS FOR EACH DEVELOPER, IT WILL BE BASED ON THE APPRAISED VALUE PER ACRE OF LAND ASSESSED BY THE MOST RECENT BRAZORIA COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT VALUE ASSESSMENT.

WE WOULD DIVIDE THE COUNTY ASSESSED VALUE BY AN ACRE OF LAND BY THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE OF PARKS, WHICH IS THIRTY THREE POINT SEVEN TO GET THE FEE IN-LIEU OF PARKLAND.

IN THIS EXAMPLE, THAT NUMBER WOULD BE FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY THREE DOLLARS PER DWELLING UNIT. AGAIN, THIS COULD GO DOWN BASED ON THE APPRAISED VALUE TO ASSESS THAT'S THE FIRST COMPONENT. SO YOU HAVE TO ASSESS FEES IN-LIEU OF PARKLAND THEN ALSO DEVELOPMENT FEES, WHICH WE ARE ASKING FOR DEVELOPMENT FEES BECAUSE IF WE WERE ONLY GIVEN FEES FOR PARKLAND DEDICATION, THAT MAY HELP US TO ACQUIRE LAND, BUT THEN WE DON'T HAVE FUNDS TO DEVELOP IT WITHOUT EITHER INCREASING TAXES OR DOING SOMETHING TO GET THAT ADDITIONAL REVENUE TO DEVELOP AN ACTUAL PARK SITE.

SO TO ASSESS PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT FEES, WE USE RECENT PARK CONSTRUCTION COSTS.

AS MANY OF YOU GUYS KNOW, WE HAVE A RECENT CONSTRUCTION COST BID FOR LAKESIDE PARK, WHICH IS ABOUT $3 MILLION.

SO WE HAVE USED THE NUMBER THREE MILLION FOR LAKESIDE.

LAKESIDE PARK CONSISTS OF 44 POINT SIX ACRES, SO WE DIVIDE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION BY THE NUMBER OF ACRES TO GET THE DEVELOPMENT COST PER ACRE.

WE KNOW WE ARE SERVING AT THIRTY THREE POINT SEVEN DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, SO WE DIVIDE DEVELOPMENT COSTS PER ACRE, WHICH COMES OUT TO SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTY FIVE BY THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE THIRTY THREE POINT SEVEN.

THAT GIVES US THE DEVELOPMENT FEE PER DWELLING UNIT, WHICH IS ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED NINETY SIX.

THIS IS ASSUMING THAT ALL OF OUR PARKS WITHIN OUR PARK SYSTEM ARE DEVELOPED.

WE KNOW THAT THEY AREN'T.

WE HAVE WELCH PARK.

WE HAVE SOME OTHER PARK ACRES THAT ARE EITHER PASSIVE PARKS OR UNDEVELOPED LAND, BUT WE STILL MAINTAIN THEM.

SO IN ORDER TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT, WE HAVE ALSO CALCULATED UNDEVELOPED PARKS AND WHAT THOSE COSTS ARE SO THAT WE CAN COME TO AN AVERAGE FOR DEVELOPMENT FEE.

SO GOING INTO THIS NEXT SECTION, WE SHOW COSTS FOR GRADING DRAINAGE, LIGHTING, ELECTRICAL AND [INAUDIBLE] FOR OUR PASSIVE OR UNDEVELOPED PARKS AND USE THE LAKESIDE CONSTRUCTION COST TO DERIVE THE COST PER DWELLING UNIT FOR PASSIVE OR UNDEVELOPED PARKS.

THAT'S LISTED HERE, AS YOU CAN SEE ABOUT TOWARDS THE END THE THIRD BOLDED SENTENCE THE PARK DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT COST PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT FOR PASSIVE UNDEVELOPED CONSERVATION PARKS.

SO THAT'S THE AREA THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW.

THE COST DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF ACRES AT LAKESIDE PARK IS FIFTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND TWO. THAT NUMBER, DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, COMES OUT TO FOUR SIXTY. SO THE CALCULATION FOR UNDEVELOPED OR PASSIVE PARKS IS FOUR HUNDRED AND SIXTY DOLLARS. IN THE LAST SECTION, WE TAKE THE FEE PER DWELLING UNIT FOR DEVELOPED PARKS, WHICH WE ALREADY ASSESSED AS ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND NINETY SIX TIMES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY SEVEN POINT THREE ACRES, WHICH IS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DEVELOPED PARK ACRES THAT WE HAVE, PLUS THE FEE PER DWELLING UNIT FOR PASSIVE OR UNDEVELOPED, WHICH WE JUST ASSESSED AS FOUR HUNDRED AND SIXTY DIVIDE BY THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PARK ACRES, WHICH WE NOTED AT THE VERY TOP WAS TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY NINE POINT SEVEN ACRES, AND THAT GIVES US A TOTAL OF ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FORTY SIX DOLLARS.

THIS GIVES US THE DEVELOPMENT FEE PER DWELLING UNIT BASED ON THE RATIO OF DEVELOPED AND PASSIVE PARKS IN ANGLETON.

SO IN THIS EXAMPLE, IF THE DEVELOPER DID NOT WANT TO BUILD A PARK TO OUR STANDARDS, THE FEES IN-LIEU OF PARK LAND DEVELOPMENT FEES WOULD BE TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED THIRTY NINE DOLLARS PER DWELLING UNIT.

AGAIN, PLEASE NOTE, THIS IS NOT HOW IS JUST AN EXAMPLE WE MUST SHOW THE CALCULATION AND

[00:10:04]

COMPUTATION, BUT THE AMOUNT FOR FEES IN-LIEU OF PARKLAND WILL DEPEND ON THE APPRAISED VALUE OF LAND PER ACRE FOR EACH DEVELOPER.

MS. SHAEFER, DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YEAH. THANK YOU, [INAUDIBLE].

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, I NOTICED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS ALREADY PASSED THIS.

THEY HAVE NOT. THIS IS THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING, SO PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD HAS APPROVED THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PROPOSED.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR ABOUT TWO YEARS.

WE'VE GONE THROUGH LEGAL REVIEW WITH RANDALL LAW OFFICE AND SO THIS IS THE FIRST PRESENTATION AND FIRST PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ORDINANCE REVISION.

I DON'T KNOW, I GUESS I'M MISREADING IT, SAYS PASSED AND APPROVED THE 25TH OF JANUARY 2022.

JUST MISREAD THIS AND YOUR EXAMPLES, ALL OF THE CITIES ARE MUCH LARGER THAN OURS.

DOES THAT MATTER? SO I JUST ASSESS THE ONES THAT WERE THIRTY THOUSAND OR UNDER.

YOU'LL SEE THE POPULATION.

THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE AROUND OUR POPULATION, BUT THESE ARE ONLY SEVENTY THREE AND DR.

CROMPTON, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF ANGLETON, THERE'S ONLY THREE SEVENTY THREE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES THAT HAVE A PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE IN TEXAS. THAT'S CORRECT.

I GUESS MY QUESTION AND THIS 50 SOMETHING PAGES JUST BLOWS MY MIND, OK, BECAUSE I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT, I'M NOT IN MANAGEMENT, BUT I QUESTION.

I SEE THE LIST OF WHAT'S NECESSARY TO QUALIFY AND I KNOW THAT THESE SOME OF THESE DEVELOPERS AROUND HERE HAVE COME IN AND THEY'VE TOLD US TOLD THIS BODY, OH, WE'RE GOING TO PUT IN A PARK AND WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS AND WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT AND THE PARKS DON'T GET DONE BECAUSE WHAT THEY'RE WANTING TO DO DOESN'T MEET THE CITY'S CRITERIA AND THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT'S NOT BEING MET, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THAT THEY'RE NOT PUTTING IN RESTROOM FACILITIES AND SO THEY DON'T QUALIFY, AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT THEY WOULD BE SPENDING TO PUT THIS PIECE IN, THIS PARK IS PROBABLY GOING TO GARNER MORE MONEY OUT OF THEIR POCKET THAN THE FEES AND SO IT'S EASIER FOR THEM TO SAY, I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT, WE'LL JUST PAY THE FEE AND GO ON DOWN THE ROAD.

IS THERE A WAY TO SOMEHOW ADJUST FOR THAT WHERE IF THEY'RE WILLING TO PUT IN AND LET'S JUST SAY A WALKING TRAIL AND THEY'RE DIGGING THE BIG OPENS AND THEY'RE GOING TO PUT THE WATER FOUNTAINS AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO PUT BARBECUE PITS, LET'S SAY, OR PICNICS AND COVERED FACILITIES, PLUS ALL THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND THE ONLY THING THEY'RE LACKING IS THE BATHROOM FACILITIES.

IS THERE SOME WAY WITHIN THIS THAT WE CAN COME TO A COMPROMISE AND STILL GET THE BEAUTIFUL PARK NEXT TO THEIR BRAND NEW BEAUTIFUL SUBDIVISIONS AND STILL BE SATISFIED AS THE PARK DEPARTMENT? SO I WOULD SAY YES AND NO, AND LET ME GO INTO A LITTLE BIT OF AN EXPLANATION.

SO SOME OF THE PROPOSALS THAT HAVE BEEN IN FRONT OF YOU ARE BASED ON PRESENT COMPUTATIONS, WHICH ARE REALLY DEFICIENT IN OUR CURRENT PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE AND IF WE WERE TO FOLLOW OUR PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW, THERE'S NO WAY ANY DEVELOPER COULD ACTUALLY BUILD AND CONVEY PARKLAND BASED ON WHAT IT SAYS CURRENTLY, JUST BECAUSE OF THE COMPUTATION LISTED AND SO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE CONSIDERED FOR THIS ORDINANCE IS A 50 PERCENT CREDIT TO DEVELOPERS BASED ON RECEIPT OF INVOICES. SO IF THEY PUT IN A TRAIL, THEY COULD GET UP TO 50 PERCENT CREDIT.

IF IT AMOUNTED TO THE SAME AMOUNT THAT THEY WOULD BE PAYING IN PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES.

SO THERE IS CRITERIA IN THIS ORDINANCE THAT DOES ALLOW FOR CREDITS, BUT THE REASON THAT WE PUT IN MINIMUM PARK STANDARDS IS BECAUSE AND I'M JUST SPEAKING FROM MY EXPERIENCE IN SOME OTHER MUNICIPALITIES IN THE CITY OF LA PORTE, WHERE I WORKED PREVIOUSLY, WE HAD AN HOA THAT OPERATED A POOL AND THEY CAME TO THE CITY EVERY YEAR TO HELP SUBSIDIZE THE OPERATIONS

[00:15:05]

OF THEIR POOL. THEY COULD NOT MAINTAIN IT.

THEY FINALLY CAME TO THE CITY AND SAID, WE WANT YOU TO TAKE IT OVER.

WE CAN'T HANDLE IT.

IT'S SUCH A BURDEN ON OUR RESIDENTS AND MAINTENANCE.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ESTABLISH WHEN WE REVISE THE MINIMUM PARK STANDARDS IS IF WE HAVE A PRIVATE DEVELOPER COME IN, THEY DECIDE THEY WANT TO DO A PARK BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO INCREASE THE VALUE OF THE HOMES THAT THEY'RE DEVELOPING AND THEY WANT AMENITIES THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, IN CLOSE PROXIMITY.

THEY CAN DO THAT, BUT OFTENTIMES THEY DON'T NECESSARILY ACCOUNT FOR THE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE AND SO WHEN THEY GET IN A BIND, IF THEY COME TO THE CITY AND SAY, HEY, CITY OF ANGLETON, WE CAN'T HANDLE THE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE, WE WANT YOU TO TAKE THIS OVER, THEN WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S UP TO OUR PARK STANDARDS.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE EQUIPMENT'S ADA ACCESSIBLE.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S A MINIMUM PARK ACRES.

THE MORE PARK ACRES THAT YOU HAVE THAT ARE SMALLER, WHICH THERE AREN'T MANY DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE'VE HAD THAT ARE PROPOSING MORE THAN THREE ACRES THERE, PROBABLY AROUND ONE TO TWO OF A DESIGNATED PARKLAND, AND THEY'RE USING IT AROUND THEIR DETENTION AREA, WHICH IN THIS PROPOSAL AND IN OUR CURRENT PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE, WE DON'T ALLOW, WE DON'T ALLOW THE DETENTION RESERVE TO BE PART OF THE PARKLAND DEDICATION.

WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT.

IF THOSE PARTS WERE TO BE TURNED OVER TO THE CITY, THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE BURDEN OF MAINTAINING HALF AN ACRE HERE, ONE ACRE HERE THAT TAKES TOO MUCH MAINTENANCE AND TIME SPENT WHEN WE AN ASSET FOR THE CITY WOULD BE MUCH PREFERRED IF IT WERE A FIVE ACRE PARK, WHICH IS WHY THAT'S A MINIMUM HERE.

I GET THE MINIMUM. I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I JUST THINK WE'RE STIFLING AND, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT THE FRIEND OF THE DEVELOPER, BUT I THINK WE'RE STIFLING SOME OF THIS BECAUSE OF THE EASY WAY OUT FOR THEM IS TO JUST GO FIVE HUNDRED, WE'LL DO THAT AND WE END UP WITH NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE JUST ROWS OF BOXES AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GETTING AND, OK, SO I'VE GOT ANOTHER QUESTION, WHY DON'T WE USE THE DETENTION RESERVE? I MEAN, RIVER RANCH, THEY DUG A DEEP HOLE AND THEN THEY TERRACED IT UP, AND LIKE MANY OF THE COMMUNITIES UP NORTH, PARTICULARLY IN THE TRINITY RIVER WATERSHED, THAT'S WHERE ALL OF THEIR BASEBALL COMPLEXES, THE PRACTICE FIELDS ALL OF THEIR SOCCER.

I MEAN, IT'S ALL OUT THERE.

THEY'VE GOT THE RESTROOM FACILITIES AND BUT IT'S IN THE WATERSHED AND IT DOES GO UNDERWATER. SO WHY CAN'T WE DO THAT IF WE'VE TERRACED IT UP AS RIVER RANCH DID, FOR EXAMPLE, WHY CAN'T THAT BE USED? WELL, A LOT OF THAT IS JUST DUE TO THE FACT OF PLAYABLE SPACE.

SO WE TAKE THE CALCULATION OF PARK ACREAGE IS TYPICALLY BASED ON THE NUMBER OF USERS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE.

SO IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT DETENTION CAN BE CALCULATED IN THAT YOU COULD HAVE A HUGE DETENTION AREA IN VERY LITTLE PLAY SPACE FOR HUNDREDS OF RESIDENTS IN THAT COMMUNITY.

SO IT'S REALLY NOT BEING UTILIZED AS PLAYABLE SURFACES IF THE RATIO IS BASED ON YOU INCLUDE THAT IN YOUR PARKLAND DEDICATION RATIO.

SO THAT'S WHY WE SAY WE ACCEPT THEM, BUT IT'S IN ADDITION TO THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT SO THAT IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IT A POND FEATURE, YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO THAT.

WE WELCOME DEVELOPERS TO DO THAT AND WE ACTUALLY SAY IT BEING ADJACENT TO THOSE COULD BE PREFERABLE, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ACTUAL PROPORTION OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE UTILIZING THAT PARK.

WE HAVE PLAYABLE SURFACES THERE AND THEY CAN ACTUALLY BE USED FOR RECREATIONAL USE AND SO GOING BACK TO THE PARK AMENITIES, WE DO, LIKE I MENTIONED, WE WOULD PROVIDE DEVELOPERS UP TO 50 PERCENT CREDIT ON COMPONENTS THAT THEY PUT IN FOR THEIR SUBDIVISION.

WELL, ARE THERE DEVELOPERS HERE? I'D LIKE TO HEAR SOME FEEDBACK FROM DEVELOPERS AS FAR AS WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT THIS.

[INAUDIBLE] I DON'T KNOW.

I MEAN. [INAUDIBLE].

EVERY DEVELOPER WANTS TO BUY THE LAND REAL, REAL CHEAP AND BUILD A REAL, REAL CHEAP

[00:20:03]

SUBDIVISION AND SELL THE LOTS REAL, REAL FAST FOR A HIGH PRICE AND IF WE CAN DO THAT, WE'LL DO IT. WE'RE CAPITALISTS, WE'RE HUMAN.

I THINK IT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT FOR THE CITY TO HAVE THE CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU'RE HAVING HERE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE ONCE IT'S DEVELOPED, IT'S DEVELOPED AND ONCE WE'RE GONE, WE'RE GONE. THIS WAS A PRETTY COMPLICATED FORMULA AND A LOT OF THOUGHT WENT INTO IT AND I KNOW THE ONE THING IS THE MORE VALUABLE THE LAND, THE MORE COST IT IS, WHICH I THINK IS A GOOD FORMULA AND I SUPPORT THIS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT BECAUSE WHAT I WAS BEING FACETIOUS WHEN I SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN PEOPLE GO TO BUY HOUSES, WHAT DO THEY LOOK AT? WELL, GENERALLY THEY LOOK AT THE MONTHLY COST, IF THEY CAN AFFORD IT, BUT THEN THEY LOOK AT SCHOOLS, THEY LOOK AT PARKS, THEY LOOK AT CHURCHES, THEY LOOK AT COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES.

YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT WE WANT.

WE WANT A COMMUNITY AND QUITE FRANKLY, IF I WORK IN HOUSTON OR HOUSTON, SURROUNDING AREAS OR GALVESTON OR LAKE JACKSON, AND I CAN DRIVE, WHY WOULD I STOP AT MODERNA? WHICH IS A NICE NEW SUBDIVISION.

IT'S NOT A COMMUNITY.

YOU KNOW, WHY WOULD I COME TO ANGLETON? IT'S A COMMUNITY.

IT'S GOT CHURCHES.

IT'S GOT SCHOOLS.

IT'S GOT PARKS.

SO I SUPPORT THIS 100 PERCENT.

I'M GRANDFATHERED IN AND SO IT'S EASIER FOR ME TO STAND UP AND SAY THIS, BUT I BELIEVE IN THIS COMMUNITY AND I HOPE TO BE HERE FOR MANY YEARS.

I SUPPORT THIS.

I WANT IT. THE ACTUAL NUMBERS THEY HIT ME KIND OF HARD.

YOU MIGHT WANT TO PHASE SOMETHING IN OR SOMETHING.

I DON'T KNOW. GOOD WORK, GOOD WORK.

I GUESS I'LL HAVE TO SAY SOMETHING BECAUSE I SERVE ON THE PARKS BOARD AND I WAS ONE OF THE PARTIES THAT WORKED THROUGH THIS, AND WE HAD MANY LONG DISCUSSIONS ON ALL THE INTRICACIES OF THIS, BUT I THINK THAT WHAT YOU GET DOWN TO IS LOOKING AT THE BIG PICTURE OF ALL OF THIS, WHICH IS WE'RE TRYING TO, AS WAS JUST MENTIONED BY A DEVELOPER, WE'RE TRYING TO DEVELOP OUR PARK SO THAT WE ATTRACT PEOPLE TO OUR COMMUNITY AND WE HAVE A GOOD QUALITY OF LIFE HERE AND IT IS A BURDEN TO HAVE LITTLE BITTY PARKS HERE AND THERE.

THIS IS A STRUCTURE TO REASONABLY BE FAIR, BUT ALSO TO GROW OUR PARKS AND PUT THEM IN STRATEGIC AREAS AND TO PROGRAMS SO THAT WE HAVE MORE ACTIVITIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY, NOT ALL JUST IN ONE LOCATION, BUT ACTUALLY THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY, AND ACTUALLY DO THIS WITH SOME STRATEGIC PLANNING IN PLACE.

SO FOR MY TWO CENTS WORTH, I AM DEFINITELY IN FAVOR OF IT AND IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION.

MOTION BY MS. MCDANIEL TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION.

SECOND. A MOTION BY MS. MCDANIEL, AND A SECOND BY MS. BIERI, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SO TO BE CLEAR, MEGAN, THE MOTION OR THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO REPEAL EXISTING AND REPLACE WITH THE PROPOSED? CORRECT. ALL RIGHT, THERE BEING NO QUESTIONS, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING, AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

THE MOTION PASSES, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

ITEM THREE CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE

[3. Conduct a public hearing, discussion, and possible action on an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 20210810-008 Exhibit “B” Property Phases/Sections and Exhibit “C” Development Standards and District Regulations for the Austin Colony Planned Development Overlay District.]

AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.

20210810-008 EXHIBIT B PROPERTIES PHASES/SECTIONS AND EXHIBIT C DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR THE AUSTIN COLONY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT.

WALTER? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

THIS IS A REQUEST BY THE DEVELOPERS OF AUSTIN COLONY TO AMEND THE P-D ZONING ORDINANCE, EXHIBIT B AND EXHIBIT C TO REVISE THE PHASING OF THE PROJECT DUE TO COSTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TWO MAJOR STREETS IN THE PROJECT, WHICH IS AUSTIN COLONY BOULEVARD AND TIGNER STREET.

TIGNER STREET RUNS EAST WEST THROUGH THE PROPERTY.

IT'S ON THE CITY'S MOBILITY PLAN.

THE DEVELOPER IS REQUIRED TO BUILD THE STREET AS PART OF THE PROJECT.

THE EXHIBIT THAT THE ATTACHMENT THAT YOU HAVE THAT'S UP ON THE SCREEN IS ACTUALLY

[00:25:02]

ATTACHMENT FIVE, WHICH IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

AS YOU CAN SEE, SUBMITTED BY THE DEVELOPER WAS FOR AUSTIN COLONY BOULEVARD TO BE BUILT UP TO WHERE SECTION ONE IS THAT PROPOSED SECTION ONE AND THEN WITH SECTION 1A TIGNER STREET WOULD BE BUILT.

THAT'S THE KIND OF REALLY LIKE GREEN COLOR TO THE POINT WHERE THAT CONNECTION TO SECTION 1A WOULD BE MADE AND THEN SECTION TWO IS THE REDDISH MAGENTA COLOR.

SECTION THREE IS THE GRAY COLOR SECTION FOUR OR FIVE OR THE OTHER TWO SHADES OF GREEN.

SECTION SIX IS THE KIND OF BRONZE COLOR, AND THEN SECTION SEVEN IS BACK DOWN IN THE IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER.

THAT AREA IS PROPOSED TO BE MARKETED FOR FIVE YEARS AS COMMERCIAL RETAIL AND THEN AFTER THAT TO BE ALLOWED TO BE DEVELOPED FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE.

AFTER REVIEWING THE PROPOSAL, STAFF FELT THAT IT WAS MORE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN TIGNER STREET AS CONSTRUCTED IN SECTION 1-A AND AUSTIN COLONY BOULEVARD IS CONSTRUCTED IN SECTION ONE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN SECTION TWO AND THEN WITH SECTION THREE, THE REMAINDER OF TIGNER WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE.

SO HAVING SAID THAT, I RECEIVED AN EMAIL THIS MORNING FROM THE DEVELOPER WHO AGREES WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THAT AND HAS ALSO ASKED THAT SOME WORDING IN THE ORDINANCE BE REVISED A LITTLE BIT IN EXHIBIT C NUMBER 5, IT STATES THAT THERE BE A PREMIUM CEDAR WOOD FENCE, THE DEVELOPER WOULD JUST LIKE THE WORD CEDAR REMOVED, AS THERE ARE OTHER TYPES OF WOOD THAT COULD ALSO BE USED FOR THE FENCING, AND STAFF DOESN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT MINOR CHANGE THERE.

SO, THAT'S THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PHASING AND THE LAND PLAN, THE CHANGES, THE AMENDMENTS TO EXHIBIT C ARE ALL TO ACCOMMODATE THE CHANGES TO THE LAND PLAN. YOU'LL NOTE THAT ORIGINALLY THERE WERE FIVE PHASES, NOW THERE'S SEVEN, BUT IT'S REALLY EIGHT BECAUSE THERE'S A PHASE 1A.

SO THERE'S AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF PHASES, AND THERE'S A SEVEN LOT INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF LOTS FROM FIVE THIRTY THREE TO FIVE FORTY AND THE SEVEN ADDITIONAL LOTS ARE ALL 60 FOOT WIDE LOTS.

SO HAVING SAID ALL OF THAT, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 20210810-008 EXHIBITS B AND C, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE LAND PLAN IS REVISED TO REFLECT THE PHASING AS PROPOSED AND THIS IS A TYPO IN THE REPORT.

IT SHOULD BE ATTACHMENT FIVE, NOT ATTACHMENT FOUR.

WE WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE AGENDA.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? YES, SIR. COULD YOU GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE, SIR? SURE, IF I CAN REMEMBER.

[CHUCKLING] COLE SANDY RAY, THE DEVELOPER OF AUSTIN COLONY.

FIRST, LET ME THANK WALTER AND LINDSAY.

WE'VE BEEN MASSAGING THIS FOR THE LAST YEAR AND WE THOUGHT WE HAD IT IN DECEMBER AND WHEN I GET THE FINAL COSTS BACK FROM THE CONTRACTOR AND WE WERE READY TO START.

OUR COSTS HAVE GONE UP OVER 35 PERCENT SINCE WE STARTED AND IT JUST HIT US HARD.

SO BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS IS TO BE ABLE TO PHASE THIS IN, GO AHEAD AND BUILD SECTION ONE, SECTION 1A AND THEN SECTION TWO, WE WOULD BUILD AUSTIN COLONY BY [INAUDIBLE] TIGNER, WHICH IS REALLY EXPENSIVE AND THEN FINISH IT OUT IN THREE AND I APPRECIATE THE STAFF SUPPORT ON THIS.

IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE TO US.

THE OTHER THING I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO HAVE YOUR MEMBERS VOTE ON THIS.

[00:30:02]

ONE THING I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THERE'S ONLY ONE HUNDRED FIFTY FOOT LOTS, AND I KNOW THAT'S A SERIOUS ISSUE WITH THIS CITY AND I RESPECT IT.

I DO, BUT WE'RE PUTTING IN A PRETTY NICE PROJECT.

FIRST OF ALL, THE ENTRY MONUMENT WILL BE PLANTED, LIGHTED AND IRRIGATED.

THE FENCING ALONG AUSTIN COLONY BOULEVARD WILL BE PREMIUM FENCING WITH A CROWN ON TOP, WILL BE PLANTED IN FRONT OF IT.

IT'LL BE IRRIGATED, SO IT CAN STAY PRETTY IN THE SUMMER AND IT'LL BE LIGHTED AND SO WHEN SOMEBODY DRIVES DOWN COUNTY ROAD 44, THEY DON'T LOOK IN AND SEE 50 FOOT LOTS, THEY WON'T SEE THEM. WHAT THEY SEE IS A LIGHTED ENTRY MONUMENT.

IF THEY TURN ON AUSTIN COLONY BOULEVARD, THEY'LL SEE LIGHTED PARKWAY COMING IN.

SAME WITH TIGNER STREET, AND THAT ROAD COST ALMOST THREE MILLION DOLLARS.

THREE MILLION DOLLARS, SO IF I DIDN'T DO THIS DEVELOPMENT, AND THE CITY WANTED THAT ROAD, WHICH MANY MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND IN THE COMMUNITY BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT, THE CITY WOULD SPEND THREE MILLION.

SO I'D REALLY LIKE TO HAVE EVERYBODY'S VOTE ON THIS.

WE ARE GOING THROUGH SOME PRETTY SERIOUS ISSUES AND TIMES, AND PLANNING AND ZONING IS AN IMPORTANT VOTE TO CITY COUNCIL.

EVERY CITY COUNCIL MEETING, THE MAYOR OR THE MAYOR PRO-TEM ASK, WHAT DID PLANNING AND ZONING DO? AND THEY GIVE THE ACTUAL VOTE, SO WE'D REALLY LIKE TO HAVE IT.

THANK YOU, MR. RAY. I WOULDN'T GO TOO FAR.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? IF NOT, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION.

ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE WITH THE PROPOSAL IS THAT BY COMPLETING SECTION ONE AND THEN COMPLETING SECTION 1A, THERE WILL BE A CUT THROUGH OPPORTUNITY FOR FOLKS GOING FROM THE CANNON VELASCO INTERSECTION TO GET TO 44 RUNNING THROUGH THAT, THAT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THAT MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE.

WELL, DOESN'T IT DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF THE BOULEVARDS THAT HE'S GOING TO BUILD, WHICH ARE NICE, WHICH THE HOUSES BACK TO HIM, SO NOBODY'S BACKING OUT ON THOSE BOULEVARDS, BUT WE'RE GOING TO TEMPORARILY SKIRT EVERYTHING THROUGH IT.

AND MY QUESTION IS LIKE ROSEWOOD, EXCUSE ME, UP ABOVE HERE OFF OF HENDERSON ROAD UNTIL YOU ARE ABLE AT SUCH TIME TO COMPLETE PHASE TWO, THE MAGENTA.

COULD WE NOT PUT A LOCK GATE ACROSS THERE TO KEEP THEM FROM RUNNING THROUGH NEIGHBORHOODS UNTIL WE COMPLETE THE BOULEVARD OR THE THOROUGHFARE ALL THE WAY THROUGH? IN OTHER WORDS, THERE'S DUAL ENTRANCE FOR EMERGENCY.

WHOEVER'S LIVING IN PHASE ONE AND 1A ARE NOT BURDENED BY THE CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC GOING IN FRONT OF THEIR DRIVEWAYS.

THAT'S JUST A THOUGHT.

THAT'S OUR PROPOSAL.

IT IS? YEAH, AND WE DIDN'T BRING IT UP, BUT THAT'S THE DEVELOPER.

I WOULD PERSONALLY LIKE THAT, WE'LL BUILD THE ROAD FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES, BUT IT'LL BE SEALED OFF FOR ONLY EMERGENCY VEHICLES.

SEVERAL REASONS IS WHAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP PREVIOUSLY, PEOPLE CUTTING THROUGH THERE AND YOU KNOW, WHEN SOMEONE'S GOING TO DO THAT, WE ALL GET FRUSTRATED.

WE'RE DRIVING THROUGH A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, ANGRY, RUNNING INTO SOMETHING ANYWAY BUT THE OTHER THING IS WE DON'T WANT THAT TRAFFIC GOING THROUGH WHEN WE'VE GOT ALL THAT HEAVY EQUIPMENT IN THERE.

IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE.

SO NOW WE WOULD WE WOULD LIKE TO, AND I BELIEVE IT'S IN OUR PLAN.

IF NOT, IT'S BEING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT'LL BE SEALED OFF.

NOW, I DON'T REMEMBER DISCUSSING THIS WITH WALTER AND LINDSAY, SO THEY MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT THOUGHT ABOUT THAT, BUT I PERSONALLY WOULD PREFER THAT.

[INAUDIBLE] I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

IF THE IDEA IS TO HAVE A GATE INTO THE SUBDIVISION.

SAY AT THE POINT WHERE AUSTIN COLONY BOULEVARD STUBS OUT SO THAT ONLY THE RESIDENTS ARE ABLE TO GET IN AND THEN ANOTHER GATE AT WHERE TIGNER, THE EXTENSION OF TIGNER WOULD STUB OUT, THAT'S A QUESTION THAT WE'D HAVE TO WORK THROUGH AS PART OF THE PLATTING PROCESS,

[00:35:03]

BECAUSE THE MOMENT YOU PUT A GATE ON THERE, THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE ABILITY FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES TO BE ABLE TO GET IN AND OUT TO.

SO, MY PERCEPTION OF THE SOLUTION IS THAT WHERE SECTION ONE MEETS SECTION 1A ON THAT ROAD, IT WOULD BE A SINGLE EMERGENCY ACCESS GATE SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE AT HENDERSON . IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? I WAS ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT PUTTING THE GATE RIGHT THERE.

OK. ALL RIGHT. SEALING IT OFF THERE TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM GOING IN THERE AND TURNING AROUND AND ALSO KEEP PEOPLE FROM DUMPING JUNK AND FIRECRACKERS AND ALL THE ABOVE . SAME THING, I MEAN, IT'S STILL SOMETHING THAT HAVE TO BE WORKED THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS IN ORDER TO ASSURE THAT ANY GATE OR GATES PLACED OUT THERE WOULD BE A IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES TO GET IN AND OUT AND OBVIOUSLY, THE RESIDENTS ARE PROBABLY GOING TO WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET IN AND OUT AS WELL.

SO THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE WORKED THROUGH THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS.

WELL, I DON'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE HERE.

IF WE PUT IT THERE ON TIGNER UNTIL THEY GET TO START SUBDIVIDING AND THEN TAKE IT AWAY WHEN THE ROADWAYS ARE COMPLETED.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE OF PUTTING THAT GATE THERE NOW TO GET THE DEVELOPMENT UNDERWAY AND PROTECT THOSE PEOPLE'S PROPERTY FROM CUT THROUGH AND YOUR DEVELOPMENT EQUIPMENT? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NOW AND ROSEWOOD AND HENDERSON, WHERE IT'S FULLY DEVELOPED AND IT'S STILL GOT A GATE? [INAUDIBLE] OKAY, WELL, I'M JUST ASKING WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? I CAN'T SPEAK TO ROSEWOOD AND HENDERSON.

I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT PROJECT WHATSOEVER, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS AGREED TO AS FAR AS THAT WENT, BUT I CAN SPEAK TO IS THIS WHICH IS THAT THE STREETS ARE GOING TO BE BUILT, THEY'RE GOING TO BE DEDICATED PUBLIC STREETS.

YOU WANT TO PUT A GATE ON THEM, USUALLY THAT MEANS THEY HAVE TO BE PRIVATE STREETS, WHICH ARE MAINTAINED BY THE SUBDIVISION.

THAT'S CLEARLY NOT THE INTENT OF THE PROJECT, BUT IF THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS, THEN IT NEEDS TO BE WORKED OUT AS PART OF THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS.

HOW ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES AND FOR THE RESIDENTS TO GET IN AND OUT OF THE SUBDIVISION WORKS BECAUSE THOSE ARE GOING TO BE TECHNICALLY PUBLIC STREETS.

SO YOU CAN'T JUST PUT A GATE ACROSS A PUBLIC STREET.

OK, SO WE COULD TEMPORARILY DO IT AND THEN COME BACK AND REDO ONCE THE BOULEVARD IS COMPLETE AS THE SUBDIVISION PROGRESSES.

RIGHT, YOU KNOW, IF ALL THE DETAILS CAN BE WORKED OUT AND YOU'D BE SEEING THAT AS PART OF THE PLAT PROCESS AS PART OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SECTION 1A, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, SECTION ONE HAS AN APPROVED FINAL PLAN.

SO, THAT DOESN'T NEED A GATE, BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY ONE PLACE TO GO, WHICH IS SECTION ONE, SO WITH SECTION 1-A, WE CAN CERTAINLY DISCUSS THE GATING AS PART OF THAT PROCESS AND TRY AND WORK OUT HOW THAT WOULD ALL WORK.

THANK YOU ALL.

VERY QUICKLY, WE HAVE THE SAME ISSUE AT GREYSTONE [INAUDIBLE] AGAINST REMINGTON.

REMINGTON DIDN'T WANT PEOPLE COMING THROUGH THERE OR VICE VERSA.

[INAUDIBLE] BECAUSE WE HAVE ONE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN LOTS WITH ONLY ONE [INAUDIBLE] WELL, COUNCIL IS GOING TO DO WHAT COUNCIL IS GOING TO DO.

WE'RE [INAUDIBLE] TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION SO [INAUDIBLE] MAKE A MOTION.

JUST A LAST COMMENT.

I KNOW THAT YOU THINK OF IT AS PEOPLE DRIVING THROUGH THERE, BUT PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING THERE ARE GOING TO WANT TO BE ABLE TO GO TO WAL-MART AND NOT HAVE TO GO TO THE COUNTY ROAD 44--YEAH, THAT'S WHY I THINK MY SOLUTION'S MORE LOGICAL.

YES, SIR. A QUICK QUESTION, IF IT'S GOING TO BE A THOROUGHFARE FROM SAY WAL-MART TO COUNTY ROAD 44.

MY NAME IS [INAUDIBLE] FOR THE RECORD.

HELLO, MR. [INAUDIBLE]. I HAVE PROPERTY ON 44.

IS IT TOO BAD OF A SUGGESTION TO SLOW THE TRAFFIC DOWN WITH SPEED BUMPS? I MEAN, I KNOW IT'S NOT AS PRETTY AND ALL THAT, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SLOW DOWN

[00:40:02]

THESE PEOPLE. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE CRAZIES COMING FROM WALMART TO GET THE 44 TO GO TO ANCHOR OR WHEREVER THEY'VE GOT TO GO. [INAUDIBLE].

IT'S A NARROW ROAD, THAT'S WHY THE SCHOOL DECIDED NOT TO BUILD THE BUS BARN DOWN AT THE END OF 44 BECAUSE OF THE NARROWNESS OF THE ROAD.

BUT AGAIN, ALL OF THIS IS TEMPORARY.

I MEAN, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS TEMPORARY UNTIL THEY CAN GET THE PROJECT OFF THE GROUND AND GET THE SECOND ONE GOING AND ONCE THAT IF WE'RE SELLING HOUSES, AS DEVELOPERS HAVE TOLD US THEY'RE COMING, THEN THEY'RE GOING TO SELL OUT AND THEY'RE GOING TO NEED TO GO TO PHASE TWO RATHER RAPIDLY AND ONCE SECTION TWO GETS IN THERE [INAUDIBLE] THAT'S RIGHT, WE'RE BACK TO BOULEVARD.

NOBODY'S WORRYING ABOUT BACKING OUT OF THEIR DRIVEWAY BECAUSE I'M LATE FOR WORK AND I'VE GOT TO GET TO 288 AS FAST AS POSSIBLE AND I LIVE ON CANNON.

GUESS WHERE I'M GOING STRAIGHT DOWN THAT ROAD, WEAVING THROUGH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IN A HURRY. I MEAN, I'M JUST USING THAT FOR AN EXAMPLE, BUT I JUST THINK IT'S.

IT BEHOOVES US TO LET'S LOOK AT THIS TEMPORARY GATE TO KIND OF MEDIATE THIS.

I KNOW THEY DON'T WANT TO GO AROUND, BUT IF WE DON'T BUILD THE ROAD, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO AROUND ANYWAY.

IT LOOKS LIKE CANNON STREET.

YOU REMEMBER CANNON STREET USED TO [INAUDIBLE] THEY DIDN'T WANT IT AND WE OPENED IT UP, AND THAT'S WHERE EVERYBODY CUTS THROUGH, ON CANNON DR.

NOW. SO, DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION? I WOULD JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE QUESTION, COMMENT, I GUESS I THINK WHAT WALTER IS TRYING TO SAY THAT THE CONCERNS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING AT THIS MOMENT IS SOMETHING THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED AS THEY'RE WORKING THROUGH THE PLATTING PROCESS TO MAKE THINGS FUNCTIONAL AND OBVIOUSLY, WE'VE ADDRESSED THE CONCERN, SO I'M COMFORTABLE WITH MOVING FORWARD ON RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 20210810-008 EXHIBITS B AND C, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE LAND PLAN IS REVISED TO REFLECT THE PHASING AS PROPOSED IN ATTACHMENT FIVE AND ALSO THAT IN THE ORDINANCE, WE REMOVED THE WORD CEDAR AS IT'S ATTACHED TO THE FENCING.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. MR. MUNSON.

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

AYE. OPPOSED SAME SIGN.

THE MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

GOOD LUCK, MR. RAY. ITEM FOUR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE SITE PLAN FOR THE

[4. Discussion and possible action on a site plan for the proposed Starbucks]

PROPOSED STARBUCKS.

MR. REEVES.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

THIS IS A SITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR A STARBUCKS AT WHAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THE OLD KMART SHOPPING CENTER.

IT'S NOW GOT SPEC'S AND LUIGI'S AND SOMETHING LIKE SOME OTHER DOLLAR TYPE STORE IN IT.

IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

THE SITE PLAN MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF ANGLETON.

PROBABLY THE ONLY THING THAT'S REALLY MORE ALONG THE LINES OF A CURIOSITY THING THAN ANYTHING ELSE IS THAT THE CURRENT ENTRY WAY INTO THE SHOPPING CENTER ON BUSINESS 288 IS GOING TO END UP MOVING SOUTH A LITTLE BIT TO ACCOMMODATE STARBUCKS BECAUSE AS WE WORKED WITH THEM THROUGH THE DESIGN, THERE WAS A VERY GREAT POTENTIAL FOR THEIR DRIVE UP TRAFFIC TO END UP OUT IN BUSINESS 288, WAITING IN LINE, TRYING TO GET COFFEE OR WHATEVER IT IS YOU GET AT STARBUCKS SINCE I DON'T DO THAT, BUT HAVING SAID THAT, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN.

[INAUDIBLE] PUBLIC HEARING ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, AND [INAUDIBLE] MAKE A MOTION.

I'M JUST GLAD STARBUCKS IS COMING.

I'M SURE YOU'RE NOT THE ONLY ONE.

MOTION? I MOVE THAT WE APPROVED THE PLAN SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND THE DOCUMENTATION FROM TXDOT APPROVING THE DRIVEWAY LOCATION SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT. SECOND.

ALL RIGHT, I HAVE A MOTION BY MS. SHAEFER, A SECOND BY MS.

[00:45:01]

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

OPPOSED SAME SIGN. CARRIES.

ITEM FIVE DISCUSSION AND PRESENTATION ON A PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT SPANNING

[5. Discussion and presentation on a proposed multi-family development spanning approximately 18 acres generally located at the northwest corner of the FM 523 and Highway 288 Business intersection in Angleton, Texas.]

APPROXIMATELY 18 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE FM 523 AND HIGHWAY 288 BUSINESS INTERSECTION IN ANGLETON, TEXAS.

LINDSAY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

SO THIS IS A MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURE THAT'S PROPOSED TO COVER ABOUT 18 ACRES AND THE LAND, AS I UNDERSTAND, IT'S OWNED BY SUGAR CREEK BAPTIST CHURCH.

SO WE HAVE EXECUTIVE STAFF FROM SUGAR CREEK PRESENT, AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPER FROM KITTLE GROUP, AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT APPROXIMATE FIVE MINUTE PRESENTATION TO YOU GUYS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK TO THE DEVELOPER.

THANK YOU. THESE.

GOOD AFTERNOON, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT OUR PROJECT, SO IT'S KIND OF A TWOFOLD PRESENTATION.

MY NAME IS DON J.

AND I'M THE LONG RANGE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR SUGAR CREEK BAPTIST CHURCH.

AS SHE MENTIONED, OUR EXECUTIVE PASTOR MARK HARTMAN IS HERE AND OUR SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE PASTORS HERE, GARY HILL.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THEM.

SO IT SAYS ON THE AGENDA THIS IS FOR MULTIFAMILY 18 ACRES, BUT IT'S REALLY A LITTLE BIGGER PICTURE THAN THAT BECAUSE AS THE DEVELOPER OF ALL 60 ACRES, WHAT WE DEVELOP CREATES THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO AN 18 ACRE MULTIFAMILY PROJECT.

SO WE JUST THOUGHT IT'D BE IMPORTANT SO THAT YOU SEE KIND OF WHAT OUR VISION IS FOR THIS CORNER AND HOW WE'RE APPROACHING THAT.