2. Discussion and possible action to approve the P&Z 2023 Meeting Calendar; an optional date for March 2023 is requested of the Planning and Zoning Commission, due to a City Holiday.

[2. Discussion and possible action to approve the P&Z 2023 Meeting Calendar; an optional date for March 2023 is requested of the Planning and Zoning Commission, due to a City Holiday.]

THANK YOU, CHAIR. THIS IS AN ITEM THAT WE WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THAT THE MARCH DATE IS ACTUALLY A CITY HOLIDAY, AND WE WANTED TO SEE IF YOUR AVAILABILITY EXISTS, EITHER THE FIRST, SIXTH OR THE NINTH OF THE MONTH.

THIS AFFECTS OUR SUBMITTAL SCHEDULES, SO WE NEED TO TIE THIS DATE DOWN FOR MARCH.

SO WE WILL REQUIRE YOUR ACTION ON THAT ITEM.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, I HAVE.

SO THAT'S WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1ST.

MONDAY, MARCH 6TH.

OR THURSDAY, MARCH 9TH.

NOW I HAVE A CONFLICT ON MONDAYS.

WHAT ABOUT THE WEDNESDAY BEFORE? YEAH. MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE THE WEDNESDAY BEFORE.

IF THAT WORKS FOR EVERYONE.

MARCH 1ST. ALL RIGHT.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND MAKE THAT OBJECTION TO MARCH 1ST.

ALL RIGHT. SO DO YOU NEED AN ACTION ITEM OR JUST BECAUSE ARE WE GOOD ENOUGH WITH THAT? I THINK WE HAVE CONSENSUS.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND SEND YOU THE REVISED.

GOOD. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ITEM THREE, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION, AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING

[3. Conduct a public hearing, discussion, and take possible action on a request for approval of an ordinance rezoning 15.895 acres from the Planned District to the Light Industrial (LI), for property located on the north side of CR220, 237 ft. East of the intersection of Shanks Rd., Angleton, TX.]

15.895 ACRES FROM THE PLANNED DISTRICT TO THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON NORTH SIDE OF COUNTY ROAD TWO 2237 FEET EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF SHANKS, ROAD ANGLES AND TEXAS.

THE SPRIGGS? YES, SIR.

SO THIS IS AN ITEM BEFORE YOU.

MOST OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THIS ITEM BECAUSE IT CAME TO YOU ABOUT A MONTH AGO WITH A CONCEPT.

INDIVIDUAL HAS SUBMITTED A PETITION TO REZONE 15.895 ACRES FROM THE PLAN DISTRICT, WHICH IS OUR HOLDING DISTRICT OUT NEAR OUR BOUNDARIES AND LAND THAT WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY.

THEY WOULD LIKE TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, WHICH WOULD ACCOMMODATE A FUTURE USE.

AS YOU ARE AWARE, INDIVIDUAL WITH A METAL FABRICATION, SMALL INSTRUMENT TYPE BUSINESS WOULD LIKE TO LOCATE ON THAT LARGE SITE.

YOU CAN CONTINUE TO ROLL THE SLIDE IF YOU DON'T MIND.

SO THAT WILL SHOW THE ACTUAL TRACK TO BE RESUMED FROM PD TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND THEN FURTHER DOWN THE AERIAL VIEW.

SHOWS THE SITE BEING ADJACENT TO THE MOBILE HOME PARK TO THE NORTH.

THEY WOULD ACCESS OFF OF COUNTY ROAD TO 20, SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO GAIN COUNTY ACCESS TO THE SITE.

AND THEN IF YOU WOULD CONTINUE TO ROLL, THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF THE SITE PHOTOS SHOWING THE VACANT LOT ON THE OTHER SIDES OF THE PROPERTY. AND, YOU KNOW, THE CITY LIMITS WOULD BE ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF 220.

WE HAVE WEIGHED IN THE CRITERIA OF FINDINGS OF FACT TO LET YOU KNOW THE PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY HIGHLIGHTED FOR FOUR MOBILE HOMES ACTUALLY ON THE LAND USE MAP.

AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT STAFF FELT WASN'T A GREAT USE FOR THE PROPERTY.

SO I THINK THAT THE LAND USE PLAN PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED FOR THAT.

DUE TO TRYING TO PUT MORE DENSITY ON THAT PARTICULAR TRACK.

SO YOU HAVE SEEN THE LAYOUT PROPOSAL FOR THE SMALL BUILDING WHICH WOULD BE SITUATED TOWARD COUNTY ROAD 220 AND PROBABLY ABOUT 400 FEET FROM THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. AND AS I STATED, THE CRITERIA BEING WEIGHED HERE, IF YOU READ THOSE, YOU'LL FIND THAT THERE BE NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE AREA.

IT WOULD BE FITTING IN THE AREA FROM A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE WE'RE SEEING A LOT OF THE COMMERCIALIZATION ALONG THE MAJOR ARTERIALS IN THE AREA.

OTHER THAN THAT, I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OF THE COMMISSION STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO BE SENT TO THE COUNTY, TO THE COUNCIL FOR FINAL ADOPTION, AND WE PROVIDED YOU WITH THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT WILL DEAL WITH THE ISSUES.

AND THEY WOULD, OF COURSE, HAVE TO SATISFY THE RESTRICTIONS IN THE LDC.

ALL RIGHT. THIS TIME WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I HAVE A REQUEST FROM MR. ROBERT CAMPBELL TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.

MR. CAMPBELL. HELLO.

[00:05:07]

I'M ROBERT CAMPBELL.

I'M THE OPERATIONS MANAGER OF SALT LAKE METALWORKS, WHICH IS THE COMPANY THAT OWNS THE PROPERTY AND JUST HERE TO REPRESENT THEM.

WE ARE LOOKING TO REZONE THIS FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, AS MR. SPRIGGS STATED, SO THAT WE COULD BUILD A FUTURE BUILDING ON THERE FOR OUR COMPANY.

SO LIKE YOU SAID, WE'RE BUILDING TOWARDS COUNTY ROAD 220, KIND OF ALONG WITH WHAT'S GOING ON COUNTY ROAD TO 220 RIGHT NOW, KIND OF ON THE WEST SIDE.

AND WE WANT TO STAY IN LINE WITH THAT.

BUT IT IS A FABRICATION COMPANY AND FEEL LIKE IT WOULD BE A GOOD ADDITION TO WHAT'S GOING ON DOWN THERE.

AND I'M JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS MIGHT HAVE.

WE MAY HAVE SOME AT THE END OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO JUST HANG TIGHT JUST YET.

OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR.

THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT.

I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT WE HAVE ANOTHER.

PERSON IN THE AUDIENCE IN THIS ROOM WHO IS ALSO IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSAL, ALTHOUGH SHE DID NOT ASK TO SPEAK, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OR ABOUT THIS ISSUE ONCE OR TWICE? PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED AND AT THIS TIME WE WILL EITHER HAVE A DISCUSSION OR ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

I MOVE. I'M SORRY.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR.

SORRY. I THINK IT'S ON THIS PROPERTY.

OUR CONCERN RECENTLY HAS BEEN HAVING ACCESS TO UTILITIES, WATER AND SEWER.

AND OF COURSE, THE QUESTION I THINK WAS ASKED LAST TIME WHETHER THERE WOULD BE ENOUGH AVAILABLE, WHICH THIS IS GOING TO BE LOW IMPACT.

BUT I THOUGHT I SAW MENTION IN HERE THAT THE OWNER WAS WILLING TO DO WELL AND SEPTIC WHICH.

AND I'M GUESS I'M ASKING BECAUSE I THOUGHT CITY POLICY WAS WE DIDN'T DO THOSE UNLESS I KNOW WE HAVE A CASE NOW THAT'S A VERY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE BUT TYPICALLY THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO TIE IN IS AM I CORRECT? CORRECT. IF IT'S WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE.

OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT HAVE TO REQUEST A VARIANCE.

SO WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROPER PROCEDURES IF A VARIANCE IS NEEDED DUE TO LACK OF UTILITIES IN CONNECTIONS IN THE AREA.

CLOSE BY.

AND DUE TO THEIR LEVEL OF SERVICE NEEDED WITH THE SMALL KITCHEN AND RESTROOM.

AND THEY KIND OF EXPLAINED THAT TO YOU, ALL THAT VARIANCE MIGHT BE JUSTIFIED.

UM, ON THE UTILITY SIDE, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT A LARGE INDUSTRIAL USER.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION.

THANK YOU. NO GOOD QUESTIONS.

YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU.

MAKE YOUR MOTION SO I CAN SECOND IT.

I MOVE. WE APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL FOR COUNCIL'S APPROVAL AND CONSIDERATION.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND AS ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.

IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR DO SO BY SAYING AYE.

OPPOSE SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES.

GOOD LUCK, MR. CAMPBELL. YOU DON'T HAVE TO STAY FOR THE WHOLE THING IF YOU DON'T WISH.

ITEM FOUR DISCUSSION AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING 0.4213 ACRES FROM COMMERCIAL OFFICE RETAIL DISTRICT

[4. Conduct a public hearing, discussion, and take possible action on a request for approval of an ordinance rezoning 0.4213 acres from Commercial Office-Retail District (C-OR) to 2F, Two-Family Residential District (duplex homes), for property located at 425 N. Walker St. at the SW corner of W. Live Oak St., Tract 163A20 Jose De Jesus Valderas Survey, A-380, City of Angleton, TX, Brazoria County.]

TO TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT DUPLEX HOMES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 425 NORTH WALKER STREET IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST LIVE OAK STREET.

TRACT 163A20 JOSE DE JESUS VALDERAS SURVEY, A-380, CITY OF ANGLETON, TEXAS, BRAZORIA COUNTY.

MR. SPRIGGS, THANK YOU.

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A REZONING OF THE PROPERTY, AS STATED FROM THE COMMERCIAL OFFICE RETAIL DISTRICT, TO ACTUALLY CONVERT AN EXISTING STRUCTURE TO A DUPLEX.

THE PROPERTY, OF COURSE, LOCATED AT 425 NORTH WALKER STREET, IS SURROUNDED BY A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS. PROBABLY EXISTED THERE PROBABLY FOR 30 TO 40 YEARS.

HOWEVER, THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING HAS BEEN IN TRANSITION.

IT'S WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER PROBABLY SPOT ZONING IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA.

SO POTENTIALLY THEY COULD COME IN AND DO THOSE THINGS IN THE COMMERCIAL CODE THAT ARE LISTED ON THE OFFICE RETAIL IN THE AREA.

AND THEY MAY BE USES THAT I THINK WOULD BE NOT FITTING FOR THE AREA.

SO WE LOOKED AT THE OVERALL PLAN FOR THE AREA ON THE LAND USE PLAN, THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY MULTIFAMILY. SO WE WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR MASTER LAND USE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THIS TYPE OF REQUEST, AS YOU KNOW. TO THE THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE SOUTH WOULD BE THE POWER PLANT.

THIS WOULD, OF COURSE, PROVIDE A BUFFER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

[00:10:02]

TO THAT WE STAFF SORT OF LOOKED AT THOSE IN THE CRITERIA TO KIND OF JUSTIFY WHY THIS WOULD MAKE PERFECT SENSE.

SO IN TERMS OF NEGATIVE IMPACT, I PRETTY MUCH EXPLAINED THE NEGATIVE IMPACT WOULD PROBABLY BE IT BEING MORE COMMERCIAL IN SOME TYPE OF INCOMPATIBLE USE THAT WERE TO MOVE IN AND NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE RESIDENT MIGHT BECOME AN ISSUE.

THE OWNERS ARE THE POTENTIAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

WOULD LIKE TO DO SOME UPGRADES TO THE FACADE, PROVIDE A NICE COVER FOR THE PARKING.

IN TERMS OF A CARPORT TYPE DEAL, THERE IS SOME EXISTING VEGETATION IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IN WHICH WE MADE SOME SUGGESTIONS THERE TO HAVE THAT KIND OF MANICURED.

BUT IF THERE IS ANY TYPE OF SCREENING AND BUFFERING THAT THE COMMISSION IS INTERESTED IN, WE'LL BE GLAD TO KIND OF SHAPE THAT AS A CONDITION AS WELL.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT, BECAUSE OF THE PREVIOUS USES OF THE PROPERTY, WE WERE TOLD THAT AT ONE TIME IT WAS A LAUNDRY OR WASH INTERIOR OF SOME USE AND THEN SOME INDIVIDUAL LIVED IN THERE AND THE OTHER UNIT WAS USED FOR STORAGE, SO THEY LATER GUTTED THE STRUCTURE.

COMPLETELY. AND NOW THIS USER WOULD LIKE TO PUT THE UNITS IN AS A DUPLEX IN TERMS OF DENSITY OF THE AREA.

IT WOULD MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE 12 DISTRICT, AS WE MENTIONED EARLIER.

TYPICALLY, YOU WOULD NEED 5000 SQUARE FOOT OF LOT PER UNIT.

SO THIS WOULD FALL IN THOSE PARAMETERS IN TERMS OF DENSITY, IN TERMS OF AVAILABLE PARKING TO UNITS PER, I'M SORRY, TWO SPACES PER UNIT.

THEY COULD SATISFY THE PARKING WITHOUT OVER IDENTIFYING THE PROPERTIES.

SO WE FOUND NO ISSUES WITH IT.

WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL STAFF WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET ME JUST CLARIFY.

I WAS READING FROM A DRAFT OF THE AGENDA.

ACTUALLY, THIS AGENDA ITEM DOES HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

AND SO AT THIS TIME, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND I HAVE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FROM MISS PATRICIA [INAUDIBLE].

MS. [INUDIBLE], WOULD YOU TAKE THE PODIUM AND I ALSO HAVE [INAUDIBLE] HIGGINS WITH ME AS WELL.

CAN SHE STAND WITH ME? MS. HIGGINS. WE HAVE. I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS HAS BEEN THEY HAVE TRIED TO USE THIS AS A RESIDENTIAL BEFORE IT BROUGHT IN INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND BROUGHT IN BAD.

COMPANY OK AS WELL AS.

THEY DON'T. UNCONTROLLABLE.

IT WAS UNSAFE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL AS I THINK IT WAS THE VALUE TO MAKE IT A FAMILY PROPERTY.

AT THAT POINT, IT WILL DEVALUE OUR PROPERTY.

IT WOULD VALUE THE PROPERTY VALUE.

SO MS. [INAUDIBLE] IS SOMETHING ELSE YOU WANT TO SAY.

AND WHAT'S YOUR NAME, MA'AM? ITS [INAUDIBLE] ROBINSON.

YES, MISS ROBINSON. GO AHEAD.

WE ARE REQUESTING THAT YOU DO NOT APPROVE IT BECAUSE OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE PAST.

THIS IS ALREADY.

A LOW INCOME AREA AND WE WOULD REQUEST TO PLEASE DO NOT BRING ANYTHING ELSE INTO OUR AREA.

IT SEEMS LIKE OUR AREA GETS EVERYTHING THAT NO ONE ELSE WANT AND YOU JUST KEEP APPROVING AND APPROVING OTHER.

EVERYTHING THAT COMES ALONG GETS DUMPED ON US.

PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS.

PLEASE. IF THE SAFETY OF OUR CHILDREN, THE LIKE SHE SAID, IT DEVALUES OUR PROPERTY.

AND WE'RE JUST ASKING THAT YOU DON'T DO IT ANYMORE.

THE THINGS THAT'S ALREADY THERE.

THE CITY IS NOT KEEPING UP.

AND THIS IS JUST ONE MORE THING ADDED TO US.

SO WE'RE ASKING THAT YOU PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE IT.

THANK YOU, MISS ROBINSON.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS ITEM? GO AHEAD. I'M HIS REAL ESTATE AGENT.

WOULD YOU PLEASE APPROACH THE MIC, IF YOU DON'T MIND? THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO, ONE AT A TIME.

I'M MR. MORRIS, REAL ESTATE AGENT, CAN, WE SPEAK TOGETHER? IT'S LAURA COOPER. YES, SIR.

GO AHEAD. SURE.

SO I'M A LOCAL REAL ESTATE AGENT AND I WORK IN THE AREA FREQUENTLY.

AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT A COUPLE OF THINGS.

WE ABSOLUTELY RESPECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE FEELINGS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND WHENEVER I FIRST APPROACHED THE PROPERTY TO SHOW THE PROPERTY WAS UNLOCKED, IT WAS UNSECURED, AND THERE HAD BEEN SOME PROPERTY DAMAGE, YOU COULD TELL THAT PEOPLE WERE ABLE

[00:15:02]

TO COME IN AND OUT OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT ANY SECURITY TO THE BUILDING AT ALL.

SO THAT WAS MY FIRST CONCERN, IS THAT IT WAS A BUILDING THAT WASN'T BEING USED AND ACTUALLY COULD, I THINK, LEAD TO HAVE PEOPLE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO CALL THEM VAGABONDS, COME IN AND OUT OF THE PROPERTY AND USE IT FOR, I DON'T KNOW, ANYTHING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, DRUG USE, YOU NAME IT, IT'S RUN DOWN AND IT IS NOT SECURED.

SO I ACTUALLY HAVE SHOWN THE PROPERTY TO TWO OR THREE REAL ESTATE INVESTORS AND MR. MORRIS WAS THE MOST PROMISING.

HE'S JUST A REGULAR INDIVIDUAL WHO WANTS TO MAKE THE AREA NICER AND SO HE'S GOT REALLY GREAT PLANS.

I'VE MET WITH THIS CONTRACTOR ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS AND HE WANTS TO MAKE THE PROPERTY NICE AND HE WANTS TO BRING HIGHER VALUE TO THE AREA AND BUILD NICE UNITS THAT BRING DECENT RENT. SO WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO BRING LOW INCOME, LOW RENT UNITS TO THE PROPERTY.

SO THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

YEAH. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

MS. COOPER. MR. MORRIS, DID YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING? NO. YEAH, I JUST. I LISTEN TO THEIR STATEMENT ON IT, AND I AGREE WITH LAURA, AND LIKE I'M SAYING, I'M GOING TO BE PERSONALLY APPROVING EVERYBODY THAT LIVES IN ANYTHING THAT I RENT.

AND SO THERE'S GOING TO BE NO RIFFRAFF.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

QUICK REBUTTAL COMMENT.

MY QUESTION IS, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TEN YEARS FROM NOW, TWO YEARS FROM NOW, WHEN HE DECIDES HE NO LONGER WANTS TO RENT, HE NO LONGER WANT THE PROPERTY AND IT GETS SOLD? SAME THING THAT HAPPENS TO ALL THE OTHER LOW INCOME PROPERTIES IN TOWN.

IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

SOMEONE ELSE IS GOING TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY, SOMEONE ELSE IS GOING TO MOVE PEOPLE IN.

THERE'S NO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION THERE.

THERE'S NOTHING TO STOP PEOPLE FROM DESTROYING THE PROPERTY.

WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN THEN? HE MAY FIX IT UP NOW, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO STAY THAT WAY.

THANK YOU, MISS ROBINSON.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS ISSUE? ONCE OR TWICE? PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

MR. SPRIGGS, WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROPERTIES THAT VACANT? THE PROPERTY IS VACANT, AS I STATED EARLIER.

ALL RIGHT. IT'S ON COR COMMERCIAL OFFICE RETAIL.

SO UNDER COMMERCIAL OFFICE RETAIL, SOMEBODY COULD PUT IN A BAR? PRETTY MUCH.

BEAUTY SHOP, BARBERSHOP.

YOU CAN DO THE LAUNDRY FACILITY, FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, BANK.

MOST OF YOUR RETAIL TYPE, SERVICE ORIENTED, MEDICAL INCLUDED.

SO THOSE TYPE OF USES COULD LOCATE THERE AS OF RIGHT.

WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME THERE WAS A BUSINESS THERE? THE ONLY THING THAT I'M TOLD WAS THE LAUNDRY.

[INAUDIBLE]. YOU TYPE USE.

BUT THAT'S WHAT I HEAR. I DON'T HAVE ANY FACTUAL INFORMATION ON THAT, IS I'M GOING TO YOU KNOW, WHEN THAT BUSINESS CEASED.

CORRECT. WE TRIED TO LOOK AT SOME OF THE UTILITY AND WATER SERVICES TO KIND OF TRACK SOME OF THAT.

UNFORTUNATELY, I WAS UNABLE TO.

BUT AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE MOSTLY RESIDENTIAL.

IS THAT ACCURATE? YEAH, JUST ACROSS THE STREET THERE WAS A PETITION FOR SOME FORM OF DAY CARE FACILITY, WHICH IS NO LONGER THERE, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, BUT THAT PROPERTY HAS SINCE BEEN REDEVELOPED AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE CORNER.

AND THAT'S IN YOUR PHOTOGRAPHS AS WELL.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS.

BUT THEN ON THE OTHER HAND, JUST KIND OF KNOWING HOW REAL ESTATE IS DEVELOPING AT THIS POINT, THIS IS PROBABLY AS GOOD A TIME AS ANY FOR IT TO GO INTO A STATE OF IMPROVEMENT.

SO I HATE TO GO AGAINST THE.

THE NEIGHBORS. BUT I THINK WE'LL ACTUALLY DO THEM A FAVOR BY ALLOWING SOME IMPROVEMENT TO THE PROPERTY.

BY CHANGING THE ZONING AND ACTUALLY HAVING A NICE DUPLEX FOR SOMEBODY TO OCCUPY.

YOU CAN AFFORD TO PAY THE RENT.

CAN I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG IT'S BEEN VACANT? NOW, YOU MIGHT KNOW BASED ON ANY TYPE OF PERMITS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT IN, IT'S BEEN AT LEAST IT'S PROBABLY WORKING ON A YEAR AT LEAST. I JUST KNOW HIS RENTAL AND I DEAL IN RENTAL AS WELL THAT THE LANDLORD SETS THE EXPECTATIONS FOR THE RENTER. RIGHT.

SO I MEAN, IF THE LANDLORD I WORK WITH, THEY HAVE TO MAKE THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF THE RENT AND THEY DO A BACKGROUND CHECK ON THEM AND IT'S HARDER TO GET IN HIS RENT HOUSES THAN IT IS TO GET A LOAN ON A HOME, SO TO SPEAK, TO YOU.

WOULD YOU PLEASE APPROACH THE MIC? I'M SORRY, WE'RE RECORDING THIS FOR THE MINUTE.

[00:20:02]

YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK TO WHAT SHE SAID.

I'M GOING TO HAVE VERY STRICT REQUIREMENTS.

YES, I'M GOING TO HAVE VERY STRICT GUIDELINES.

SO THAT'S IT. A MOTION.

I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT.

WE ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ADOPTING THIS AS THE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE REZONING THE 0.4213 ACRES FROM COMMERCIAL OFFICE RETAIL DISTRICT 22F, WHICH IS A TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FOR DUPLEX HOMES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 425 NORTH WALKER STREET AND THEN FORWARD IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL.

SECOND.

SECOND BY MS. BIERI.

A MOTION AND SECOND. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? MOTION INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

OPPOSE SAME SIGN.

MOTION CARRIES.

ALL RIGHT, NEXT ITEM.

GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU, SIR.

ITEM FIVE, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION, AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY

[5. Conduct a public hearing, discussion, and take possible action on a request for approval of an ordinance amending the PD Planned Development Overlay District Three (3), ORD_20220222-016 for Austin Colony Subdivision, rezoning 164.50 acres, for property located on the northside of Anchor Rd, East of Carr Rd., West of the terminus of Tigner St.]

DISTRICT THREE.

ORDINANCE 20220222-016 FOR AUSTIN COLONY SUBDIVISION REZONING 164.5 ACRES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ANCHOR ROAD, EAST OF CARR ROAD, WEST OF THE TERMINUS OF TINKER STREET.

MR. SPRIGGS. THANK YOU, CHAIR.

THIS ITEM IS BEING BROUGHT TO YOU AS A REQUEST TO AMEND WHAT WE CALL PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS FURTHER KNOWN AS AUSTIN COLONY. THIS PARTICULAR PLAN DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT WAS APPROVED, AS YOU SEE, BY PREVIOUS ORDINANCES IN 2021, AMENDED IN 2022.

YOU HAVE THE BASICALLY THE LOT ARRANGEMENTS THAT YOU SEE THERE BEFORE YOU.

WHAT TRIGGERED THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT WAS THE FACT THAT AUSTIN COLONY BOULEVARD WAS ONE OF THE COLLECTOR ROADS THAT WERE EXTENDED INTO THE COMMUNITY.

AND WE'LL GET TO THAT IN JUST A MOMENT.

BUT IT WAS BASICALLY A LOADED STREET THAT HAD NO LOTS FRONTING ON IT, AND IT SERVED AS A MAJOR IN INTO THE COMMUNITY.

AND BECAUSE OF SAFETY REASONS, THE DEVELOPER NEEDED TO REDESIGN THAT PARTICULAR AREA TO, NUMBER ONE, TO HAVE THE HOUSES FRONT ON AUSTIN COLONY BOULEVARD, BUT TO UTILIZE TICKNER AS THE MAJOR ARTERIAL THAT WOULD CONNECT US WITH THAT EAST-WEST CONNECTION.

AS YOU KNOW FROM THAT WALMART SITE ONTO COUNTY ROAD 44.

SO AS I STATED, THAT WAS THE TRIGGER OF THIS.

AND BECAUSE OF THAT BASICALLY AFFECTED THE LOT ARRANGEMENTS.

AND IF YOU WOULD JUST ROLL THE SLIDES SO THAT WE CAN LOOK AT SOME OF THE OTHER ATTACHMENTS.

I THINK THEY'RE JUST A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN IF YOU.

KEEP ROLLING. THESE ARE JUST THE PLATS ATTACHED SHOWING THE PROPERTY LOCATION.

AS DESCRIBED.

AND IF WE COULD JUST ZOOM OUT JUST A LITTLE BIT.

NOT TOO MUCH, BUT JUST A LITTLE BIT.

KEEP GOING. AND I THINK ALL OF THOSE PARTNERS ARE NEXT TO SOMEONE UP THERE.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SEE THEM.

WHERE DO YOU SEE THE PART THAT IS NEXT TO YOU? SO AS I STATED, THIS IS TICKNER LEADING FROM THE WAL MART SITE ON TO 44 AND AUSTIN COLONY BOULEVARD BASICALLY CAME INTO. THE COMMUNITY.

EXCUSE ME. AND THERE WERE SOME MANIPULATIONS TO IT.

SO IT BASICALLY TIED INTO TICKNER.

AND WE'LL SHOW THAT PLAN, THAT SHOW THE RITUAL IN JUST A MOMENT.

BUT AS A PART OF THAT TRIGGERED, OF COURSE, SOME THINGS THAT NEED TO HAPPEN TO THE SUBDIVISION ITSELF.

THERE IS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TIED TO THIS.

THERE IS A PEER TIE TO THIS, AND THEN THERE IS THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ANALYSIS.

THE CAF WOULD HAVE TO BE RECALCULATED DUE TO THE LOT CHANGES.

SO BY HIM FRONTING THE DEVELOPER FRONTS THESE LOTS ON TO AUSTIN COLONY THAT CAUSE OF COURSE ADDITIONAL LOTS TO BE EITHER MANIPULATED OR ADDED.

[00:25:03]

SO WE'VE GIVEN YOU THOSE THRESHOLDS BASICALLY THE MINIMUM 50 FOOT LOTS THAT 100.

QUANTITY OF THE ORIGINAL REMAINS, THEY'RE NOT ADDING ANY MORE ADDITIONAL 50 FOOT LOTS.

SO I THINK I MAY HAVE TOLD YOU THERE ARE ABOUT 26 LOTS THAT RESULTED TO BE ADDED.

THOSE WOULD GO INTO THAT 60 FOOT THRESHOLD LOT THAT YOU'LL SEE ON THE CHART.

SO I'VE GIVEN YOU THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTALS THAT KIND OF TRIGGERS THINGS, BUT THE CONSISTENCY OF THE SUBDIVISION REMAINS THE SAME.

AS I STATED, THE ONLY THING CHANGES IS THAT WE'RE LOADING THE HOUSES ON TO AUSTIN COLONY BOULEVARD.

WE HAVE DONE SOME PRELIMINARY REVIEWS OF THE SUBDIVISION TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ACCESS TO THESE POCKETS ACTUALLY MET THE CODE IN TERMS OF MAXIMUM LOTS, HAVING DOUBLE WAYS OUT INTO THE COMMUNITY IN AND OUT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS PER THE CODE.

BUT HE WOULD STILL HAVE TO, OF COURSE, SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THAT'S THE GENERAL REQUEST THAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU, THE DEVELOPERS ARE HERE TO PRESENT THE REQUEST AND FURTHER EXPLAIN THE JUSTIFICATION FOR IT.

BUT I'M JUST GOING TO STOP THERE IN CASE THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS.

BUT I THINK IF WE HEAR IT FROM THE DEVELOPER AND THEN YOU MIGHT HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO ANSWER AND THEN WE'LL TRY TO COME TO SOME CONCLUSIONS.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, THERE'S A PUBLIC HEARING ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ITEM.

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

ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ISSUE? GOING ONCE, TWICE.

PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

UM, COMMISSIONERS, WHAT QUESTIONS DO YOU HAVE? UM, AND MR. [INAUDIBLE] RAY IS HERE, SO YOU MIGHT WANT TO COME TO THE MIC AS WELL, AND THEN WE CAN ANSWER ALL OF THE QUESTIONS.

TWO QUESTIONS COME TO MIND TO ME IMMEDIATELY WHERE THE DETENTION POND IS.

THERE'S A BUNCH OF TREES.

SO WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO THERE OR WHERE THE DETENTION AREA IS? ARE THEY PLANNING ON.

REMOVING THOSE TREES.

AND THEN WHAT IS THE VISION FOR SECTION NINE COMMERCIAL WHERE I GET IT, IT COULD EITHER BE HOUSES OR COMMERCIAL, BUT WHAT KIND OF COMMERCIAL? OKAY. DOUG RESSLER WAS THE ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT.

THE TREES THAT ARE DOWN THERE.

THERE ARE NO LIVE OAKS.

THERE'S NOTHING. NO HERITAGE OAK TREES DOWN THERE.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DETENTION POND IN THE BOTTOM LEFT.

WE HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE DETENTION POND.

IT'S IN THE MIDDLE UP THERE. CAN I? YES. NOW THERE.

THE BALANCE. ALL RIGHT.

THERE'S A BUTTON SOMEWHERE. OH, THERE IT IS.

THIS. OOPS. I FORGOT.

CHRIS IS HEADED THERE.

THAT'S THE SOUTH DETENTION POND.

THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO BE PART OF THE FIRST PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

THERE ARE NO LIVE OAKS IN THAT AREA.

WE HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THIS AREA UP HERE.

THAT'S WAY UP IN THE SECTION.

THREE AND FOUR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO, YES, THESE TREES WILL BE REMOVED FOR THE DETENTION.

BUT THERE'S NO HERITAGE TREES IN THERE.

NO, SIR. AND IN THE ORIGINAL SECTION ONE, WHICH WAS 100 LOTS OVER HERE, WE HAD A HERITAGE TREE PRESERVATION THING, AND THERE WERE NO HERITAGE TREES IN THERE. THANK YOU.

AND THEN TO THE SECOND QUESTION.

COMMERCIAL. WHAT IS YOUR.

WHAT KIND OF COMMERCIAL? COUNCILWOMAN.

RIGHT. AND I THINK THE REST OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS INSISTED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING THAT THERE WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE SOME COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION.

AND WHAT WE HAVE AGREED TO DO IS WE HAVE AGREED TO NOT DEVELOP THIS INTO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES FOR SEVEN YEARS AFTER THE FIRST HOME IS BUILT.

AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS IF IT DOESN'T SELL AND IT'S NOT DEVELOPED AS COMMERCIAL, THEN WOULD BUILD HOUSES.

IT'S, I THINK, COMMERCIAL.

THE ZONING FOR THAT WOULD BE MAINLY RETAIL SPACE.

AND THIS IS NOT SOMETHING I PROPOSED.

BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WAS PART OF THE PROCESS OF GETTING THE COUNCIL TO AGREE ON THE LAND PLAN.

[00:30:10]

AND WE WILL ACTUALLY TRY TO SELL IT.

THANK YOU. MR. RAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. RAY? THE PROPOSAL OR THE REQUEST FROM THE CITY IS TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE.

REGARDING THE PLANNED OVERLAY PLAN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT.

BUT ALL RIGHT.

I WILL MOVE THAT. WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE PD.

NUMBER THREE, PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND FORWARD IT TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT, I HAVE A SECOND BY MISS SPOOR, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AND I WORK WITH TO ASSUME THAT WOULD BE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME CONDITIONS INCORPORATED INTO THE WARD AND THEN INCLUDE THAT? YES. THANK YOU, AMY, FOR THE DISCUSSION.

IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, DO SO BY SAYING AYE.

OPPOSED THE SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES.

AND THOUGH MANY OF US ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO INDUSTRY TYING ALL THE WAY INTO 44, HOPEFULLY IN MY LIFETIME, ITEM SIX.

[6. Conduct a public hearing, discussion, and take possible action on a request by R.B. Stewart Petroleum on an ordinance rezoning approximately 1.925 acres from the Central Business District (CBD) to Planned Development Overlay District No. 4, for property located within the city block bound by W. Peach St. to the South, S. Velasco St. to the East, W. Orange St. to the North and S. Front Street to the West, R.B. Stewart.]

CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST BY RB STEWART PETROLEUM ON AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.9 TO 5 ACRES IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT NUMBER FOUR FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY BLOCK BOUND BY WEST PEACH STREET, THE SOUTH.

GLASGOW STREET TO THE EAST.

WEST ORANGE STREET TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH.

FRONT STREET TO THE WEST.

KIRBY STEWART. MR. SPRIGGS. THANK YOU, CHAIR.

THIS REQUEST, AS YOU STATED, BEING BROUGHT TO YOU, IS IN OUR CENTRAL DOWNTOWN DISTRICT.

IT IS A NONCONFORMING USE.

RB STEWART PETROLEUM, IN WHICH MOST OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH.

THEY'VE BEEN HERE FOR A LONG TIME AND BEEN A GREAT COMPANY IN TERMS OF SERVICES TO THE AREA.

THEY ACTUALLY APPROACHED THE CITY PRIOR TO MY ARRIVAL AND THROUGH THE MY PREDECESSOR, TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE NONCONFORMING USE AND TRYING TO BRING SOME OF THE STRUCTURES UP TO CODE AND PROVIDE FOR STRUCTURES THAT WOULD PROVIDE COVERAGE SO THAT THEY CAN MAINTAIN THEIR FLEET.

THEY ARE A MAJORITY FLEET MAINTENANCE OR MANAGEMENT TYPE COMPANY THAT HAS A FLEET OF PETROLEUM VEHICLES, AS YOU'RE AWARE, AND THEN THEY HAVE THEIR HEADQUARTER OFFICES ON THE SITE, AS MENTIONED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

THE DIFFICULTY OF THE NONCONFORMING USE CODE OR THE GRANDFATHERED IN USES IS YOU CAN ONLY DO ABOUT 10% INCREASE TO THE SITE OR INCREASE TO THE AREA IN WHICH YOU OPERATE.

AND THAT KIND OF LED TO SOME DIFFICULT TO OF US ACTUALLY APPROVING JUST A MINOR ADDITION TO ONE OF THE STRUCTURES TO PROVIDE THAT COVERAGE.

SO MEETING WITH THEM ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS, WE MET THROUGH THE DOG MEETING AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE BEST WAY TO HANDLE THIS.

WE WERE GOING TO REQUEST TO PETITION FOR INDUSTRIAL AND I KIND OF RAISED THE RED FLAG.

IT PROBABLY ISN'T A GOOD IDEA.

SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE ENTERTAINING UTILIZING THE PROPERTY AS A PLANNED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT TO MAKE IT SPECIFIC TO A PARTICULAR USE.

SO WE OUTLINED THAT FOR YOU TO KIND OF TIE DOWN TO WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO IN TERMS OF WHAT I JUST DESCRIBED, IN TERMS OF THE FLEET SERVICES, THEY DON'T DO ANY, MAJOR INDUSTRIAL TYPE ACTIVITIES ON THE SITE THAT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE AREA.

SO IN THE KEEPING OF THE DOWNTOWN RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE, YOU AND THE COUNCIL STAFF FELT THAT THIS WOULD BE A BETTER APPROACH TO IT.

SO YOU HAVE THE AREA DESCRIBED IN TERMS OF THEIR COVERAGE.

THEY PURCHASED THE ADJACENT BANK PROPERTY TO THE NORTHERN PART OF THE PROPERTY AND THEY UTILIZE, OF COURSE, SOME OF THE BUILDINGS FOR THEIR OFFICE USES AS HIGHLIGHTED. THERE ARE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE PACKET IN WHICH WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT AND WE'VE LOOKED AT THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL AND FELT THAT BASED ON WHAT I JUST STATED, IT MET THE CRITERIA.

UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY PARTICULAR QUESTIONS OF WHY NOT? WE FEEL THAT IT WOULD BE FITTING TO APPROACH THIS IN THE MANNER.

SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE REQUEST SO THAT WE CAN BRING A NONCONFORMING USE INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE AND TRY TO DEAL WITH WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO IN THE FUTURE. WE DO HAVE REPRESENTATION FROM R.B.

STEWARD HERE THIS EVENING.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY DO FOR THE COMMUNITY OR ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING WHAT THEIR FUTURE PLANS FOR THE PROPERTY ARE.

THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME OF PUBLIC HEARING, IS THERE ANYONE HERE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS ISSUE ONCE IT'S SERVED?

[00:35:12]

I'M RANDY STROUD. MY OFFICE IS RIGHT ACROSS THE HIGHWAY FROM THIS PROPERTY.

I'VE BEEN THERE FOR 28 YEARS, AND THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOREVER.

THEY'VE BEEN NOTHING BUT GREAT NEIGHBORS.

THERE'S NOTHING THEY'VE EVER DONE THAT WAS NOT TOP CLASS.

SO I'M STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF THIS RECOMMENDATION.

THANK YOU, MR. STROUD. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT? THIS ISSUE? GOING ONCE.

GOING TWICE.

THIS TIME I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND, COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I MOVE. WE ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND APPROVE THE ORDINANCE, ADOPTING THIS AS THE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMEND FORWARDING THE REZONING OF 1.925 ACRES FROM THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT NUMBER FOR THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPROVAL.

I SECOND. A SECOND BY, FIRST BY MR. MUNSON, SECOND BY MS. BIERI IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION DO SO BY SAYING AYE OPPOSE.

SAME SIGN MOTION CARRIED.

GOOD LUCK, GENTLEMEN. ITEM SEVEN, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION, AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY

[7. Conduct a public hearing, discussion, and take possible action on a request for approval of an ordinance rezoning approximately 10.12 acres from the Planned Development District (PD) to Agricultural District (AG), for property located on the west side of Shanks Road, north of CR220, Angleton, TX, Brazoria County.]

10.12 ACRES FROM THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SHANKS ROAD, NORTH OF COUNTY ROAD, 1020 ANGLETON, TEXAS BRAZORIA COUNTY.

MR. SPRIGGS.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.

THIS IS A REQUEST, AS NOTED, TO REZONE A PROPERTY FROM OUR WHAT'S CALLED OUR HOLDING ZONE P.D.

IT IS A PLANNED DISTRICT THAT DOES NOT HAVE AN ORDINANCE ATTACHED IN TERMS OF PROPOSED OR ALLOWED USES.

BUT THE PROPERTY, OF COURSE, HAS CHANGED HANDS OVER THE LAST, I WOULD SAY, MAYBE 2 TO 5 YEARS.

AND THEN THE PERSON THAT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, MR. WILLIAMS, WOULD LIKE TO UTILIZE THE PROPERTY FOR AGRICULTURAL TYPE USES TO ALLOW FOR A SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE TO BE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY. AND THEY HAVE SOME NEEDS TO HAVE SOME SMALL, I GUESS, FARM ANIMALS MAYBE ON THE PROPERTY, BUT OTHER THAN THAT MAY BE NECESSARY BARN ON THE STRUCTURE IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE MAGNITUDE OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.

WE'VE GIVEN YOU WHAT'S ON THE LAND USE PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY.

MUCH OF THIS LAND UNFORTUNATELY WAS RECOMMENDED FOR MOBILE HOMES, BUT WITH THAT LEVEL OF DENSITY AND THIS LARGE ACREAGE THAT'S AVAILABLE OUT HERE, WE FELT THAT WOULD BE WITHIN THE SPIRIT AND THE INTENT OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE AREA AND ALONG SHANKS ROAD, WHICH BASICALLY IS A MAJOR PASS THROUGH FOR A LOT OF THOSE RESIDENTIAL HOMES IN THE AREA.

SO WE'VE WEIGHED THE CRITERIA FOR YOU AND FELT THAT IT WOULD BE IN KEEPING IN SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS WELL AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

AND THEN STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT YOU WOULD FORWARD THIS TO COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL WITH A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION.

SO WE'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PROPERTY.

ACCESS WOULD BE OFF OF SHANKS ROAD AND IT IS VACANT AT THIS TIME.

WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS ISSUE? YES, SIR. PLEASE TAKE THE MICROPHONE.

HELLO, I'M RODERICK WILLIAMS. I BOUGHT THAT PROPERTY.

THE ONLY THING I'M LOOKING TO DO IS, LIKE I SAID, JUST PUT A HOUSE ON IT.

MY KIDS, WE SHOW ANIMALS AND STUFF.

SO OTHER THAN THAT, THAT'S RIGHT NOW LOOKING TO JUST HAVE SOME FUN WITH THE FAMILY.

THANK YOU. SIR. AND THE GUY THAT GOT TWO ACRES BEHIND ME, I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WHAT HE'S DOING.

I HAVE A FENCE UP ACROSS THERE.

HE WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT NONE OF THE STUFF I GOT GOING ON.

SO. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS? THIS ITEM GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE.

PUBLIC HEARINGS CLOSED.

COMMISSIONERS, I MOVE.

WE APPROVE THE ORDINANCE ADOPTING THIS AS THE FINAL REPORT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE REZONING 10.12 ACRES FROM PD DISTRICT TO AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT AND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL.

I'LL SECOND.

I HAVE A MOTION BY MISS TOWNSEND AND THE SECOND BY MS. EBY. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION INDICATE.

SO BY SAYING AYE.

OPPOSED THE SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES.

[INAUDIBLE]. GOODLUCK. ALL RIGHT.

ITEM EIGHT ON THE REGULAR AGENDA SECTION, OUR DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON A FLAT A FINAL PLAT FOR DE LA GARZA SUBDIVISION, 3.996 ACRES,

[8. Discussion and possible action on a Final Plat for De La Garza Subdivision, 3.996 Acres, 2- Lots, 1 Block, located on the south side of Kiber Rd., just west of Sims Drive]

[00:40:04]

2- LOTS, 1 BLOCK, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF KIBER RD., JUST WEST OF SIMS DRIVE WHICH IS GREAT. THANK YOU.

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A FINAL PLAN OF DELEGATES.

AS STATED, 3.99 ACRES, TWO LOTS, ONE BLOCK BACK IN WHERE EARLIER, ABOUT THREE MONTHS AGO THAT THE COUNCIL ACTUALLY ENTERTAIN A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE ON SITE SEWER SYSTEM, WHICH WAS JUSTIFIED BASED ON A LOT OF THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT.

SO THE QUESTION OF THE VARIANCE IS NOT ON THE TABLE.

BASICALLY, WE'RE MOVING THIS FORWARD FOR THE FINAL PLAT.

OUR ENGINEERING TEAM HAS REVIEWED ITEM EIGHT AND STAFF ALSO NOTED SOME OF THE MINOR CORRECTIONS THAT NEED TO BE PLACED ON THE PLAT REGARDING THE VARIANCE LANGUAGE.

THE ENGINEER HAD SOME TEXTUAL.

SOME TEXT CHANGES AS IT RELATES TO THE PLAT CERTIFICATES THAT ARE ON THE PLAT AND THOSE ARE PRETTY STANDARD AND WE'VE GIVEN YOU A LOT OF THOSE MARKUPS.

AND THEN THERE'S A NOTE REQUIRED ON THE SUBDIVISION SUBJECT TO CONNECTING TO THE CITY WASTEWATER FACILITIES WHEN AVAILABILITY FOR CONNECTION IS PROVIDED BY EXTENSION OF CITY SERVICES IN THAT AREA.

SO THOSE NOTES WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDED TO THE PLAN.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT, WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.

WITH THOSE CONDITIONS OF CORRECTIONS.

ALL RIGHT. THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.

COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I MOVE THAT WE FORWARD THE FINAL PLAT TO CITY COUNCIL WITH POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION SUBJECT TO I GUESS THE MINOR ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED THAT HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED SO FAR AND WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND CONSIDERATION BY COUNCIL.

ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY MS. MCDANIEL, THE SECOND BY MS. TOWNSEND. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION INDICATE SO BY SAYING AYE.

OPPOSED SAME SIGN, MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM 9 DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON A PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN FOR WHISPERING OAKS SUBDIVISION FOR 49 LOTS, TWO BLOCKS ON

[9. Discussion and possible action on a proposed Concept Plan for Whispering Oaks Subdivision, for 49 lots, 2 Blocks, on 28.203 acres located north of Western Avenue and east of Heritage Oaks Drive.]

28.203 ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF WESTERN AVENUE.

AND EAST OF HERITAGE OAKS DRIVE.

MR. SPRIGGS. AND THANK YOU.

YOU'VE SEEN THIS PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU.

ACTUALLY, THERE WAS A CONCEPTUAL FORM OF PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU.

THE REFERENCES IN THE STAFF REPORT ON THE 80 OR SO LOTS KIND OF SHOWS WHERE THE PLAN KIND OF WENT FROM INTO.

THEY HAVE ADJUSTED THE LOTS TO BE AVERAGING 100 FEET FRONTAGE ON THE RIGHT OF WAYS IN TERMS OF LOT WIDTHS.

THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HERITAGE TREES IN WHICH THEY'VE DONE.

THEY SURVEYED THAT YOU SEE THAT OUTLINE ON THIS PARTICULAR PLAN.

STAFF HAS BASICALLY LOOKED AT THIS.

WE'VE HAD THE ENGINEERING TEAM TO LOOK AT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM AS WELL.

THE MAIN QUESTION WAS THE VARIATION ON THE MODIFIED BOULEVARD APPROACH TO THE MAXIMUM 30 LOTS THAT ARE TYPICALLY DEALT WITH IN SUBDIVISIONS IN TERMS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS.

DURING THE COUNCIL MEETINGS, THIS KIND OF WENT BEFORE THEM AS WELL FOR THEIR INPUT.

AND WE HAD THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CHIEF THERE TO KIND OF WEIGH IN THE SAFETY ISSUES.

SO THE FIRE CHIEF HAD NO ISSUES WITH THIS APPROACH IN TERMS OF ACCESSIBILITY IN AND OUT OF THE SUBDIVISION.

DURING HIS TENURE YEAR, HE'S REPORTED THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO ISSUES WITH THE CODE REQUIREMENT AND ALLOWING FOR SOME OF THIS BOULEVARD APPROACH TO THESE SUBDIVISIONS.

HE FELT THAT THERE IS NO SAFETY ISSUES AND THEY'VE HAD NO OCCURRENCES WHERE THERE WAS ONLY ONE ACCESS INTO THE SUBDIVISION FOR THOSE PURPOSES.

STAFF IS JUST RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT THAT THIS COULD BE MOVED FORWARD IN THE FORM OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT WOULD COME BACK BEFORE YOU AND THEN ANY TECHNICAL ISSUES. WE CAN ADJUST THOSE IN TERMS OF ANY CONDITIONS OR CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE.

YOU'VE HEARD THE NARRATIVE IN TERMS OF THE BOULEVARD APPROACH, INDIVIDUALS THAT FRONTED ON THAT PARTICULAR APPROACH HERE.

THEY WERE WILLING TO DO SOME CONCESSIONS TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL PARKING PAVEMENT ON THE SITE, BUT THAT'S A PRIVATE ISSUE THAT THEY COULD WORK OUT.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT, WE WANTED TO PRESENT THAT TO YOU JUST IN THE CONCEPT PLAN FORM, AND WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I'VE GOT REQUESTS FROM TWO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE TO SPEAK TO US ABOUT THIS ITEM.

MR. PELTIER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK FIRST? YEAH, I'M JUST GOING TO READ FOR EXPEDIENCY.

[00:45:03]

RAMBLE ON TO HAVE A FEW NOTES.

YES, SIR. THANK YOU.

I WANT TO PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS PROPERTY.

THIS TRACK IS PART OF THE 200 PLUS ACRES OF LAND PURCHASED BY THE HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING HERITAGE OAK SUBDIVISION.

WHEN MY LATE FATHER IN LAW RETIRED, WE DIVIDED UP OUR PROPERTIES IN VARIOUS SUBDIVISIONS.

HE SOLD THIS PROPERTY.

THE CURRENT OWNER.

THE PROPERTY OWNER PAYS DUES ON THIS PROPERTY AS IT IS IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE HERITAGE OAKS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATIONS.

THE CITY STAFF DESCRIPTION CAN BE A LITTLE CONFUSING BECAUSE IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THAT POLITICAL BOUNDARY OF THE ASSOCIATION.

I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PROPERTY BEING DEVELOPED AS LONG AS IT IS DEVELOPED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER SEVEN SECTIONS OF HERITAGE OAKS.

IT MEETS THE STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS SET IN PLACE BY THE HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.

THE MOST IMPORTANT STANDARD WITH THIS TRACT IS THE PRESERVATION OF THE PROTECTED TREES, WHICH ARE LIVE OAKS, PECANS AND OTHER SPECIES, DEPENDING ON STATURE AND SIGNIFICANCE IN PROVIDING, PROVIDING HABITAT, SHADE AND BEAUTY TO THE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOTH THE CITY'S HERITAGE TREE ORDINANCE AND THE HERITAGE OAKS PROTECTED TREE STANDARD SLOTS TEN, 11 AND 12 IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER CANNOT BE BUILT ON DUE TO THE DENSITY OF TREES PROHIBITING AN UNENCUMBERED SITE FOR A HOME THAT DOES NOT IMPACT THE ROOT PROTECTION ZONE OF THE TREES.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLAT THAT SHOWS THE TREE SURVEY, YOU'LL SEE THE DENSITY OF THOSE TREES, THE REPRODUCTION ROUTE PROTECTION ZONE AS DESCRIBED IN THE CITY HERITAGE TREE ORDINANCE IS A GROUND UNDER THE DRIP LIGHT OR CANOPY OF THE TREE.

THE TREE SURVEY YOU HAVE DOES NOT INDICATE THE SPREAD OR CANOPY OF THE TREES, ONLY THE LOCATION OF THOSE TREES ON THE PROPERTY, A TYPICAL 50 INCH DIAMETER LIVE OAK TREES CANOPY CAN BE 100 FOOT IN WIDTH AND THERE ARE NUMEROUS 50, 60 AND 70 INCH DIAMETER TREES ON THESE LOTS, THEREBY INHIBITING THE PLACEMENT OF A HOME AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED FOR THAT HOME.

IF YOU LOOK AT GOOGLE EARTH, YOU CAN SEE THE IMAGE OF THOSE LOTS AND ARE COVERED BY THE CANOPY.

YOU CAN'T SEE THE GROUND BELOW.

WHILE THE CITY HERITAGE TREE ORDINANCE PROVIDES FOR THE OPTION TO DESTROY PROTECTED TREES AND PAY A FINE.

HERITAGE FOLKS DOES NOT OFFER THAT OPTION.

OR PROTECTED TREES, OUR ENHANCED PROTECTION SUPERSEDES THE CITY ORDINANCE AND MUST BE ADHERED TO.

AS FAR AS THE ENTRANCE ROAD, WE PERSONALLY WOULD PREFER IT TO BE AS WAY LEFT THE WAY IT IS.

IT JUST GRANT A VARIANCE RATHER THAN THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON EITHER SIDE, EITHER LOSE IN TEN FOOT OR DRIVEWAY OR PUTTING A SIDEWALK RIGHT UP TO SOMEBODIES FENCE.

BUT ANYWAY, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, CHRIS. I HAVE ANOTHER REQUEST TO SPEAK BY MR. TIM LINDSEY.

OK BECAUSE HE'S NOT HERE.

BUT HE WANTED TO.

INDICATE THAT HE WAS IN OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM IN GENERAL.

SO COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS.

[INAUDIBLE] OH, MR. LINDSEY?, ARE YOU MR. LINDSEY? NO, I'M NOT. WELL, HE'S THE APPLICANT.

I'M SORRY. I'M THE APPLICANT.

I'M THE DEVELOPER. OR PROPOSED DEVELOPER OF THIS DEVELOPER.

I'M [INAUDIBLE].

IT'S A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THIS PROJECT.

AS PROBABLY YOU RECALL, WHEN WE FIRST LOOKED IN THIS PROJECT, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE ZONING.

FIRST OF ALL IS 7.2.

WE FIRST LOOKED AT DEVELOPING THIS AS A 80 FOOT LOTS, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT JUST A MILE NORTH OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.

WE MET WITH THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TWICE ON THIS MATTER.

DISCUSSED OUR DEVELOPMENT IN DETAIL.

AFTER THAT, THE INPUT WE GOT IS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE BIGGER LAWS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING LAWS.

WE WENT BACK TO BOARD WITH OUR ENGINEERING TEAM AND RECONFIGURED THE DEVELOPMENT TO 49 LOTS, WHICH ARE 100 FOOT LOTS, IS EXACTLY SIMILAR TO THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS AROUND THIS PROPERTY.

SO THAT FIRST REQUIREMENT WE ARE MET AND WE HAVE WAY EXCEEDED THE ZONING REQUIREMENT.

THE SECOND ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED AND YOU HEARD TODAY AS WELL WAS ABOUT THE HERITAGE TREES.

WE HAVE DONE A HERITAGE SURVEY, THE TREE SURVEY, I'M SORRY, AND IDENTIFIED ALL THE TREES, INCLUDING THE HERITAGE TREES.

AND WE HAVE WORKED AROUND EACH AND EVERY TREE SO THAT THOSE 49 LOADS WILL RECONFIGURE THREE DIFFERENT TIMES TO ACCOMMODATE ALL THE HERITAGE TREES WITHOUT MINIMAL IMPACT TO ANY TREES BEING DAMAGED.

NO TREES, NO TREES WHICH ARE HERITAGE TREES ARE DAMAGED AND WHICHEVER ARE DAMAGED ARE NOT HERITAGE TREES, NUMBER ONE.

SO WE ARE COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE HERITAGE TREE ORDINANCE.

[00:50:04]

AGAIN, THIS IS A CONCEPT PLAN.

SO WE WILL GO INTO FURTHER DETAIL.

WE WILL COME BACK WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAN WHICH WILL ENUNCIATE ALL THE DIFFERENT DETAILS ABOUT THE HOW THE LAWS WILL BE LAID OUT AND WHICH TREE WILL BE SAVED AND HOW WILL BE SAVED. SO OUR INTENT IS COMPLETE TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THE HERITAGE TREE ORDINANCE.

THE LAST PIECE.

AGAIN, THIS IS ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC VARIANCE WE ARE HERE IN FRONT OF YOU IS ABOUT THIS ENTRANCE, A SINGLE ENTRANCE.

AS YOU HEARD FROM MR. OTIS, THREE DIFFERENT CITY CHIEFS, THE FIRE CHIEF, THE DEVELOPMENT CHIEF.

AND I FORGET SOMEBODY ELSE.

ALL OF THEM HAD CONCLUDED THAT 48 FOOT NO MEDIAN ENTRANCE IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE BOLIVAR REQUIREMENT.

THIS WAS DONE WAY BEFORE WE ENTERED THIS PROJECT IN 2021.

ALL WE ARE ASKING IS WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN 2021 BE ADHERED TO SO THAT WE CAN PROCEED FORWARD.

LASTLY, THERE IS THE ISSUE ABOUT THIS DRIVEWAY TO THE SOUTH OF THIS ROAD.

YES, THAT THE ROAD, IF WE EXTEND IT ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE RIGHT OF WAY, DOES TAKE AWAY THE LIBERTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL SOUTH OF US TO PARK ON THE ROAD.

WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED JUST SO THAT WE WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND WE WANT TO BE WE WANT TO BE LIVING IN THIS COMMUNITY AT OUR EXPENSE.

WE ARE READY TO BUILD ANOTHER PARKING SLIP, AS YOU CAN SEE, SEE DIRECTLY TO THE RIGHT OF THAT DRIVEWAY TO ACCOMMODATE THAT EXTRA SPACE THAT THEY MAY, ALTHOUGH IT'S IN THE PARKING IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, IF THEY HAVE THAT PERCEIVED NOTION OF LOSING, THAT WE ARE AT OUR EXPENSE.

RIGHT. TO BUILD THAT PARKING SLIP AS WELL.

SO WITH ALL OF THOSE THINGS, OUR INTENT HERE IS TO COMMUNICATE TO THE COMMISSION HERE IS WE WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS.

WE WANT TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE SET FORTH, AND WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE NEXT STEP.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. SO, MR. SPRIGGS, AM I CORRECT IN MY ASSUMPTION THAT IT'S AT SOME FUTURE STAGE OF THIS PROCESS, THERE WILL BE AN EVALUATION OF THE ISSUE WITH THE TREES? YES, SIR. THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE HERITAGE TREE.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHERE WE'RE AT AT THIS STAGE.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE AND IF THE DEVELOPER SAYS I'M GOING TO COMPLY, THEN YOU CAN CONDITION THAT BE SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE MAKING SURE THAT THEY COMPLY WITH THE HERITAGE TREE ORDINANCE.

VERY GOOD COMMISSIONERS.

AND I THINK MY QUESTION IS.

IF IT HAS TO BE THE SAME OR IF WE WOULD LIKE IT TO BE THE SAME STANDARD AS THE HOUSES IN HERITAGE OAKS.

IS THERE SOMETHING THAT WE PUT IN THE.

DUREX, WHAT TYPE OF HOUSE IS BUILT TO SOME LEVEL OF STANDARD AS OPPOSED TO JUST BUILDERS GRADE, YOU KNOW, LITTLE HOUSE AT MINIMUM SQUARE FEET OR SOME MINIMUM SQUARE FOOT DON'T HAVE OF COURSE, LEGAL TEAM WITH ME THIS EVENING.

USUALLY WITH THOSE TYPE OF CONDITIONS, IT HAS TO BE IN THE HEARD AND THOSE SORT OF THINGS ARE EITHER CONTROLLED BY THE RESTRICTION.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THE VERDICT IS OUT, WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE UNDER THE SAME HOA ARRANGEMENTS AND AGREEMENTS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE TESTED LEGALLY IF THAT CLAIM IS OUT THERE. SO WILL I'M SORRY.

PROVISION BE SUBJECT TO THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION IN WHICH IT IS BEING DEVELOPED? THERE ARE IN THE WAY WE ARE PROCEEDING IS IT IS GOING TO BE PART OF THE HOA.

THERE IS A IF I CAN FINISH, THERE IS A QUESTION OUT THERE SINCE THERE IS THE DEVELOPMENT HAS NOT HAPPENED FOR SO LONG THAT THERE IS CLAUSE IN THE HOA DOCUMENT THAT SAYS YOU CAN AUTOMATICALLY, IF THE PROPERTY GETS EXCLUDED FROM THE HOA REQUIREMENTS.

WE HAVE NOT TESTED THAT, NOR DO WE WANT INTEND TO TEST IT.

WE OUR CURRENT PLAN IS TO BE PART OF THE HOA NOW IN THAT HOA.

JUST TO ANSWER THE LADY'S QUESTION, THE HOA REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR.

FOR THE HOUSE SIZE TO BE 2400 SQUARE FEET OR HIGHER, WE DEFINITELY INTEND TO GO HIGHER THAN THAT.

SO WE HAVE NO REASON TO GO LOWER THAN THAT FOR THIS KIND OF THIS 100 FOOT LOTS.

SO WE WILL COMPLY WITH THAT REQUIREMENT AS WELL.

ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THE CITY ORDINANCE, IT IS A HOA REQUIREMENT.

EVEN IF WE ARE PART OF HOA OR NOT, WE WILL COMPLY WITH THAT.

ARE YOU WILLING TO PUT THAT IN? YEAH, MAYBE HE'S WILLING TO PUT THAT IN THESE HOA REQUIREMENTS AND ALSO IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND ALL OF THAT.

WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT IT'S IN THOSE DOCUMENTS.

AND AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE THE FUTURE STAGE OF THE PROCESS.

YES, SIR. AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD PUT ON THE PLAN.

ASKING US TO APPROVE THE CONCEPT.

YES, SIR. WOULD THAT BILL INCLUDE THE DRIVEWAY? I MEAN, THE HOMEOWNER, IS HE BEEN HIS WHAT ARE HIS FEELINGS ON THAT WOULD BE A PRIVATE ARRANGEMENT IF HE WERE TO AGREED TO THAT?

[00:55:05]

WELL, I REMEMBER HE CAME TO OUR.

YES. AND HE WAS OPPOSED TO IT.

AND. NO.

OH. YOU CAME LAST TIME.

CHRIS, DO YOU WANT TO SAY ONE MORE THING? I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT BECAUSE WHAT HE DESCRIBED, THE ONLY THING THAT IS IMPORTANT IS IS KIND OF LIKE MRB SAID, IS CONTINUITY FOR WHAT WE'VE DONE, HERITAGE OAKS, THE TREES.

SO IF THOSE THREE LIGHTS, THEY'RE NOT VISIBLE NOW ACCORDING TO THE CITY'S ORDINANCE ARE SO THAT'S OUR BIGGEST CONCERN IS PRESERVING THOSE THREE PARTICULAR LIGHTS.

THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

AS I'M UNDERSTANDING, THIS IS A CONCEPT WE'RE ALLOWING THE DEVELOPER TO CONTINUE DISCUSSIONS, NEGOTIATIONS, WHATEVER IT IS WITH THE CITY, TO GET TO THE NEXT PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ALL THE OTHER LAND DEVELOPMENT.

UM, CODE REQUIREMENTS, ETC., ETC..

SO BASED ON THAT, I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CONCEPT PLAN AND FORWARD THE APPLICATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL CONSIDERATION AND APPROPRIATE ACTION. I HAVE A MOTION BY MS. MCDANIEL AND THE SECOND BY MS. TOWNSEND TO APPROVE THE MOTION.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MY GO AHEAD.

I APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE TO TRY TO GET THIS DONE AND.

I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF A SUBDIVISION INCREASING LIKE HERITAGE OAKS THAT HAVE GOOD SIZE LOTS, NICE HOUSES THAT ARE GOING TO BE THERE FOR 50 YEARS.

WHETHER THEY SELL AND THEY PROBABLY WILL OVER TIME, BUT THEY'LL SELL TO THE RIGHT KIND OF PEOPLE THAT WE WANT SETTLING HERE IN ANGLETON.

AND I HOPE THAT IT WORKS.

I'M A LITTLE DISTRESSED ABOUT THE ENTRANCE TO IT.

BUT I THINK YOU'RE DOING EVERYTHING YOU CAN TO TRY TO MAKE IT RIGHT.

AND I HOPE IT WORKS, BECAUSE I'D MUCH RATHER SEE THIS TYPE OF SUBDIVISION THAN THOSE WITH THE 50 FOOT, 45 FOOT, 60 FOOT LOTS AND WHEN I DID, MY ONLY COMMENT IS ARE WE COMFORTABLE WITH IT? THIS AS A CONCEPT BECAUSE I'VE BEEN ON PADS LONG ENOUGH TO WHERE ONCE ONE, THEN WE COME IN WITH VARIANCES.

I REALIZE WE'RE NOT THERE TO THE VARIANCE POINT, BUT THEN THERE'S PRESSURE FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF, OH, WELL, YOU ALREADY APPROVED THE CONCEPT.

SO ARE WE COMFORTABLE OR I MEAN PEOPLE.

SO THE NEXT STEP IS PRELIMINARY PLAT.

AND AS YOU, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY VARIATION AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS IT RELATES TO VARIANCES BECAUSE IT'S A BAD TERM TO USE ON THE SUBDIVISION SIDE.

BUT IN TERMS OF PROCESS, WE'LL FOLLOW PROCEDURES IF ANYTHING IS REQUIRED TO DEVIATE FROM THE LDL-C, WHICH IS THIS ARRANGEMENT, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE BLESSED BY EVERYONE BEFORE IT'S APPROVED.

I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY THING OF CONSIDERATION OF A DEVIATION SO FAR THAT THEY'RE ASKING, OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? OKAY. SO BY SAYING AYE.

OPPOSED SAME SIGN.

MOTION CARRIES.

GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

WE ARE ON ITEM TEN DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHLAND DEVELOPMENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FOR 14.44 ACRES

[10. Discussion and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for Ashland Development Wastewater Treatment Plant, for 14.44 acres of land, containing four reserves in three blocks out of the George Robinson League, A-126, Brazoria County, Texas as submitted by Ashton Gray Development]

OF LAND CONTAINING FOUR RESERVES AND THREE BLOCKS OUT OF THE GEORGE ROBINSON LEAGUE.

A-1 26 BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS, AS SUBMITTED BY ASHLEY GRAY DEVELOPMENT.

MR. REYNOLDS GOOD AFTERNOON.

IT'S, AS YOU SAID, IT'S A PRELIMINARY PLAT BROUGHT TO YOU FOR THE ASHLAND DEVELOPMENT IN THE J FOR THE 14.44 ACRES OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.

THERE IS A COUPLE ENGINEER COMMENTS.

A MEETING BOUND DESCRIPTION WILL BE PROVIDED FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND THEN SOME PROCESSES UNDER THE LDC AND THE APPROVAL OF THE TCU OSIS ONSITE SEPTIC FACILITY.

THAT WAS THE TWO ENGINEERED COMMENTS ON THAT IS JUST FOR THE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND STAFF RECOMMENDS OF COURSE, SATISFYING THE ENGINEER COMMENTS.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS.

AS THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT BEEN SATISFIED WITH EVERYTHING THEY NEED ON THIS ISSUE.

DO WE KNOW? THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS.

YEAH. IT'S OKAY.

SO WE COULD APPROVE THIS.

[01:00:01]

BUT IF THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT ISN'T SATISFIED.

THEY SAID, OH YEAH, WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT BEFORE YOU ISSUE A PERMIT.

YES, SIR. THEN I MOVE THAT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHLAND DEVELOPMENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 14.44 ACRES OF LAND CONTAINING FOUR RESERVES AND THREE BLOCKS, SUBJECT TO STAFF COMMENTS AND SUBJECT TO CITY ENGINEERED REVIEW COMMENTS AND THE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

I'LL SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY MS. EBY IN THE SECOND BY MS. MCDANIEL. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION INDICATE SO BY SAYING AYE OPPOSE SAME SIGN.

OKAY MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM 11 DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON OUR

[11. Discussion and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for Ashland Development Water Treatment Plant, for 2.09 acres of land, containing one reserve in one block, Shubael Marsh Surveys A-81 & A-82, Brazoria County, Texas as submitted by Ashton Gray Development]

PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHLAND DEVELOPMENT WATER TREATMENT PLANT, FOR 2.09 ACRES OF LAND, CONTAINING ONE RESERVE IN ONE BLOCK, SHUBAEL MARSH SURVEYS A-81 & A-82, BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS SUBMITTED BY ASHTON GRAY DEVELOPMENT.

AS PART OF THIS IN THE ETJ AND OTHER PARTS OF THE ETJ.

WHY IS THIS TWO DIFFERENT ITEMS. IT'LL BE THIS IS IT'S ALL IN THE ETJ.

THIS IS THE 209 ACRES IS THE WATER PLANT.

IT'S WATER. THE TREATMENT PLANT.

YES. WATER PLANTS, LOT SMALLER.

SAME THING WITH IT.

THERE'S A COUPLE ENGINEERING COMMENTS, JUST LIKE A METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION BEING DONE AND A COUPLE OF THINGS UNDER THE LDC.

AND OF COURSE, BEFORE ANYTHING CAN BE PERMITTED, WE NEED DRAINAGE DISTRICT APPROVAL.

SO STAFF RECOMMENDS WITH ENGINEERED COMMENTS.

SATISFIED? THANK YOU, KYLE.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR KYLE OR ANYONE ELSE? I RECOMMEND THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHLAND DEVELOPMENT WATER TREATMENT PLANT FOR 2.9 ACRES OF LAND CONTAINING ONE RESERVE AND ONE BLOCK, SUBJECT TO STAFF COMMENTS AND SUBJECT TO CITY ENGINEERS.

REVIEW COMMENTS AND THE FINAL APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT [INAUDIBLE].

SECOND. SPOOR THAT WAS YOU? YES. I HAVE A MOTION BY MS. EBY AND THE SECOND BY MS. SPOOR IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.

IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION INDICATE SO BY SAYING AYE.

MOTION CARRIES ITEM 12.

[12. Discussion and possible action on a Final replat for PT Patrick Thomas Estate, for a 7.732 -acre subdivision, 1-Block, 2 Lots, 1 Reserve.]

DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A FINAL REPLY FOR PT PATRICK THOMAS TO STATE FOR 7.732 ACRES.

SUBDIVISION 112 LOTS ONE RESERVE.

WHO'S GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS ISSUE? THANK YOU. I WILL. THIS IS THE PLAT AS DESCRIBED TWO TRACKS HERE DEALING WITH ACTUALLY ONE THAT'S ZONED COMMERCIAL IN THAT STORM ZONE RESIDENTIAL IN WHICH YOU WERE PROVIDED THE ORDINANCE THAT REZONE THAT PROPERTY FOR ET ESTATES SUBDIVISION HERE. BASICALLY WE NOTED SOME STAFF CONCERNS IN TERMS OF SOME MINOR TYPO CORRECTIONS THAT NEED TO OCCUR ON THE PLAT THEN THE CORRESPONDENCE AND REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT IS THERE AND THEN PROPERLY LABELING THE RESERVES ON THE PLAT. THE CITY ENGINEER DID FORWARD SOME COMMENTS OUT THAT WE SENT YOU THE REPORT.

THERE WERE SOME TEXT CHANGES ALSO ADDED TO.

TO THAT MARK THE PLAT BOUNDARY STREET.

IT'S A MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD ON THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN WHERE A 70 TO 80 FOOT RIGHT AWAY IT'S CLASSIFIED SO SHOWING THAT 60 FEET SO THERE IS A MINIMAL FIVE FOOT ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY THAT'S NEEDED ON THE PLAT.

SO THOSE NOTED CONDITIONS WOULD HAVE TO BE SATISFIED TO CONCUR WITH THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

AND THEN THEY NEED TO VERIFY, OF COURSE, THE ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE EASEMENT THAT WILL BE NEEDED ON LOT TWO.

AND THEN REVIEW.

REVIEWING APPROVAL, OF COURSE, OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS WOULD BE PENDING IN THE FUTURE.

SO OTHER THAN THAT, THOSE ARE STAFF'S AND THE ENGINEERS COMMENTS.

WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BASED ON THOSE COMMENTS AND THAT IT BE FORWARDED TO COUNCIL WITH A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PATRICK THOMAS FINAL REPLAN. COMMISSIONERS.

I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE FINAL REPORT SUBJECT TO STAFF COMMENTS.

CITY ENGINEERS WE VIEW AND ANY OF THE OTHER ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED AS MENTIONED.

ANYWAY, WE MOVE THAT WE FORWARDED ON TO CITY COUNCIL SECOND.

ELLEN, I'M SORRY.

ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY MCDANIEL SECOND BY EBY, BUT IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

[01:05:08]

IF NOT AS A FAVOR TO KATE.

SO BY SAYING I FOLLOW THE SAME SIGN.

GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

ITEM 12 DISCUSSION OF SHORT TERM TEXT AMENDMENT CHANGES TO THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT CODE, ZONING ORDINANCE AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

[13. Discussion the Short Term Text Amendment Changes to the City’s Land Development Code, Zoning Ordinance and other development regulations. No action required.]

NO ACTION REQUIRED.

IF THIS IS A LENGTHY ITEM, I WOULD ASK THAT WE POSSIBLY POSTPONE.

OR IF YOU WOULD JUST LET ME DESCRIBE IT AND WE WON'T HAVE TO DO A WORK SESSION NEXT MONTH.

AND THIS KIND OF HELPS US KEEP ON SCHEDULE.

ALL RIGHT. BUT I PROMISE YOU, I WON'T HOLD YOU TOO LONG.

I JUST WANTED TO INTRODUCE THE.

I HAVE A 1:30 MEETING, AND I HAVEN'T HAD LUNCH YET, SO GO FOR IT.

OKAY. SO SHE'LL BRING UP THE PRESENTATION THERE, WHICH IS REAL BRIEF.

THIS IS BASICALLY SHORT TERM CHANGES.

THEN YOU CAN JUST KEEP ROLLING AND I'LL KEEP UP WITH YOU.

BASICALLY, THERE ARE SOME CHANGES THAT WOULD HELP US WITH THE PLANNING AND AS WE STATED EARLIER, HERITAGE TREE AND SOME OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REFERENCES THAT YOU SAW IN THE CODE TO SUGAR LAND AND WHAT HAVE YOU.

SO THIS CLEANS UP THE SHORT TERM CHANGES KEEP ROLLING AND YOU CAN KEEP ON ROLLING.