Jan 10, 2023 City Council

>> HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN AND BOTH SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN DANIEL.

ALL THOSE FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAME SIDE.

MOTION CARRIES. WE'RE NOW IN A PUBLIC HEARING.

IF THERE'S ANYBODY WISHING TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM NUMBER FOUR,

[00:10:05]

PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND IF YOU MAY SPEAK.

[NOISE].

GOING A SECOND TIME.

THIRD TIME, COUNCIL.

>> MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SECOND, MOTION BY MAYOR, COUNCILMAN BOOTH, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEAM, RIGHT.

TO COUNT TO QUOTE, NOT CANCEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.

THAT MOTION CARRIES THAT PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

MR. OTIS, ANYTHING ELSE?

>> YOU HAVE THE ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU, MR. CAMPBELL WOULD BE REQUIRED TO FORCED TO SATISFY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE PLANNING PROCESS, AND THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, THE PROPERTY IS ENTIRELY WITHIN THE CITY.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED SEVEN TO ZERO UNANIMOUSLY, RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO COUNSEL FOR FINAL ACTION. THANK YOU FOR THAT, SIR.

>> COUNCIL.

>> DON'T [OVERLAPPING] WANT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVEFOLD.

>> THIS HAS GOTTEN ME LAST WEEK. LAST MEETING, MAYOR, CHANGED IT UP.

THEY SWITCHED IT TO WHERE YOU HAVE TWO AGENDA ITEMS, SO YOU HAVE TO READ NUMBER 5 TOGETHER.

LET ME BACK UP HERE, JUST LET ME SCROLL UP FOLKS.

>> WHO GOT YOU TOO, WITH IT? SO I'M GLAD THEY GOT YOUTUBE BECAUSE HE GOT ME LAST TIME.

>> NOW BACK TO THE TOP OF MINE TO THIS DAY,

[5. Discussion and possible action on a request for approval of Ordinance No. 20230110-005 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.]

I DON'T REMEMBER 5, DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 2,0,2,3,0,110-005, REZONING 15.895 ACRES FROM THE PLAN DISTRICT TO THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, FOUR PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ZERO TO 2,237 FT EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF SHANKS ROAD, ANGLE TIN, TEXAS. THAT WERE THERE.

>> MY QUESTION IS, IT WAS ORIGINALLY A PLANNED DISTRICT?

>> YES, SIR. I THINK SOME TIME AGO COUNSEL WERE INTO THE CITY.

AS A PART OF ANNEXATION, OF COURSE, YOU DO THE SERVICE PLAN AND SOMETIMES WHAT THEY'LL DO IS THEY'LL NEED AGRICULTURAL ACTUALLY.

>> YEAH, THOMAS GZ AGRICULTURE.

>> [NOISE] IT WAS NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, DON'T AGRICULTURAL ZONE THAT PD SO WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PDES WITH THIS SAME SITUATION THERE WERE ANNEXED IN AND GIVEN THAT DESIGNATION.

>> THEN THERE'S SOME HOUSING BEHIND SAY BEHIND IT, BUT ANY NOTIFICATION GOES OUT TO THOSE RESIDENTS AND IF SO, IS THERE ANY?

>> YES, SIR. EVERYONE WITHIN 200 FT OF THE ENTIRE BOUNDARY WOULD GET NOTIFIED.

IN TERMS OF THE LAND USE PLAN.

AS YOU KNOW, THIS PROPERTY IS MOBILE HOME.

ON THE MASSIVE LAND USE PLANNING STAFF LOOKED AT THAT AND I DON'T THINK IT'S CONSISTENTLY WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IN THESE QUARTERS ALONE, OUTBOUND TO REASON ALONE ARE MAJOR ARTERIOLES.

WITH THAT MUCH DENSITY IS MOBILE HOMES.

WE WERE ABLE TO RECOMMEND TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHO AGREED THAT A CHANGE TO THE MASTER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WOULD BE FEASIBLE IN THIS INSTANCE.

>> MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS I THINK I SAW WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE WELL, WELL SYSTEM.

>> YES, THEY HAVE ONLY THE NEED FOR A SMALL RESTROOM, A VERY SMALL KITCHEN, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE A HIGH NEED FOR WATER OR SEWER IN THEIR INSTANCE.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING, OF COURSE, WITH THE ENGINEERING TEAM AND THEY'LL HAVE TO, OF COURSE, SATISFY ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DOING SO.

>> IT'S JUST RARE THAT WE GIVE THE ABILITY OF SOMEBODY WHO'S INSIDE THE CITY TO PUT THEIR OWN WELL.

>> YET NOT HAVING THE ABILITY TO CONNECT WITH SOMETHING NEARBY.

I THINK IN THIS INSTANCE IT MAY BE JUSTIFIED.

NOW, IF A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED, WE WILL RUN IT THROUGH THAT PROPER PROCEDURE PER LEGAL.

>> IS THERE A TIMELINE ON HOW LONG THEY HAVE? ARE THEY GOING TO BE GRANDFATHERED PERMANENTLY?

>> USUALLY IF IT'S A VARIANCE, WE CAN PUT A CLOCK ON IT THAT AT SUCH TIME, SEWER AND WATER IS BROUGHT WITHIN 300 FT OF THE PROPERTY, THEN WE CAN REQUIRE THEM TO CONNECT.

>> BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HERE?

>> I THINK IN THIS INSTANCE, I DON T THINK IT'S NICE THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS.

IT'S PART OF THAT THEY HAVE TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR UTILITY TO CONNECTIONS.

THAT'S WHEN WE RUN THEM THROUGH ANY DEVIATIONS OF THE CODE.

>> I JUST KNOW THAT'S HOW WE ENDED UP WITH THESE POCKETS HERE AND THERE THROUGHOUT.

[OVERLAPPING] BECAUSE OF THINGS LIKE THAT IN THE PAST.

>> WE'LL MAKE SURE WE FOLLOW IT AND IT'LL COME BACK TO YOU FOR PLANNING.

>> CLOSEST SANITARY IS OVER IN SHANKS, IS THAT CORRECT?

[00:15:01]

NO WAY TO GET THE SANITARY SEWER OVER TO THEM.

>> MR. MAYOR, I MOVE. WE APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 2023011-0005, REZONING 15.895 ACRES FROM THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.

>> I SECOND THE MOTION.

>> I HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM WRIGHT, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN THOMPSON.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSING SAY NO.

THAT MOTION CARRIES. MOVING ON.

[Items 6 & 7]

ITEM NUMBER 6 AND 7, WE'LL DO THEM CONCURRENTLY CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST BY RB STUART PETROLEUM FOR APPROVAL OF A ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.925 ACRES FROM THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, ALSO KNOWN AS CBD, TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT NUMBER 4 FOR PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY BLOCK, BOUND BY WEST TEACH SOUTH STREET TO THE SOUTH, SOUTH VELASCO STREET TO THE EAST, WEST ORANGE STREET TO THE NORTH, AND SOUTH FRONT STREET TO THE WEST.

I'LL ALSO READ NUMBER 7, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE REQUEST BY RB STUART PETROLEUM FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 2023011-0007, REZONE APPROXIMATELY 1.925 ACRES OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TO PLAN, DEVELOP OVERLAY NUMBER 4, IT DOES HAVE THE SAME DESCRIPTIONS THAT I READ ONTO THE BOUNDARIES OF THERE, SO I WON'T READ ALL.

ITEM NUMBER 6 FIRST. GO AHEAD, MR. ELLIS.

THEY WILL GO INTO A PUBLIC HEARING AND THEY WILL GO AND ACTION.

>> YES, SIR. THIS ITEM IS BEING BROUGHT TO YOU AS A REQUEST FROM A REZONING FROM THE CBD DOWNTOWN DISTRICT TO PLAN DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT, NUMBER 4.

WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE IS RB STUART WERE ACTUALLY A BUSINESS THAT'S BEEN HERE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND GOOD SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY.

THEY ARE A NON-CONFORMING USE WITHIN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.

WE RAN INTO A REQUEST IN WHICH THEY WERE TRYING TO DO A SMALL ADDITION TO ONE OF THEIR SERVICES FACILITIES TO MAINTAIN THEIR FLEET.

THEY ARE A FLEET COMPANY THAT DOES MOST OF THEIR MANAGEMENT AND HEADQUARTERS FROM THEIR OFFICE HEADQUARTERS HERE WITH SOME MINOR TRUCK REPAIR AND WHAT HAVE YOU.

STAFF WITH THIS TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE BRINGING A NON-CONFORMING USE BASICALLY UP TO CONFORM AND SEE WHAT THE CODE IS, AND WE OPTED NOT TO REZONE IT TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL FOR THE USES I JUST DESCRIBED AND FELT THE PLAN DISTRICT WOULD BE BETTER.

WE HAVE THE ORDINANCE ATTACHED, WHICH IS BEING RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO YOU WITH 720 VOLT TO MODIFY.

WE FELT WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, WE'RE ABLE TO KEEP THE CONSISTENCY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY REZONING THIS TO THE PLAN DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT.

WE HAVE SOME STIPULATION IN THE ORDINANCE TO DEAL WITH ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT IN TERMS OF TYING DOWN TISSUES, PARTICULARLY TO RB STORED.

ANY DEVIATIONS FROM THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK THROUGH THIS SAME PROCESS AS A MODIFICATION TO THE PLAN DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS.

THAT'S ALL WE HAVE FROM STAFF UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS.

>> MR. MAYOR MOVE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM WRIGHT, SECOND, BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSE SAY NAY.

WE'RE NOW AT A PUBLIC HEARING.

IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THESE TWO.

ITEM NUMBER 6, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

GOING TWICE, THREE TIMES, AND COUNSEL.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING, SECOND.

>> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND'S SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM RIGHT.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSE SAY NAY.

THAT MOTION CARRIES. WE ARE NOW OUT OF A PUBLIC HEARING.

NOW FOR POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE AUDIENCE.

COUNCIL. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR GENERAL COMMENTS?

>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER AREAS THAT YOU'VE IDENTIFIED LIKE THIS ONE THAT ARE GOING TO COME BACK TO US OR ARE WE JUST LOOKING AT THIS BECAUSE OF THE ONE-OFF?

>> I THINK IT'S A NON-CONFORMING USE THAT STANDS OUT AND WE'RE AWARE OF THAT THEY'RE THERE.

WE'VE HAD TESTIMONY FROM THE LAST CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE NEIGHBORS WHO HAD NO ISSUES AND HOW THEY OPERATED OVER THE YEARS.

THEY'VE BEEN VERY CORPORATIVE IN TERMS OF MEETING WITH US AND WORKING WITH STAFF DURING THE DOG MEETINGS TO IRON THIS OUT.

>> I THINK THEY'RE A GREAT BUSINESS THAT WE NEED.

[00:20:02]

ALL THE BUSINESSES WE CAN GET IN ANGLETON.

MR. MAYOR, I MOVE WE APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 2023011-0007, REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.925 ACRES FROM THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT NUMBER 4.

>> I SECOND THAT MOTION.

>> MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM WRIGHT, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN THOMPSON.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSE SAY NAY.

THAT MOVES US TO ITEM NUMBER 8.

[Items 8 & 9 ]

CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAN DEVELOPMENT PD DISTRICT NUMBER 3, AUSTIN COLONY, ON APPROXIMATELY 164.50 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ANCHOR ROAD ALSO, I WAS COUNTY ROAD 44.

APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FT NORTHWEST OF WEST WILKINS STREET.

WE'RE ALSO GOING TO TIE IN NUMBERS NINE INTO THAT SAY ONE DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE ORDINANCE, NUMBER 2023011000-009 TO AMEND THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 3, ON APPROXIMATELY 164.50 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED IN THAT SAME LOCATION THAT I DESCRIBED AN ITEM 8. MR. OTIS.

>> THANK YOU. THIS IS A REZONING TO MODIFY PD DISTRICT NUMBER 3, AS YOU STATED, FOR THE 165.5 ACRES OF LAND FURTHER KNOWN AS AUSTIN COLONY.

YOU ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS REQUEST THAT CAME BEFORE YOU IN AN INFORMAL MANNER IN WHICH MRS. SANDY RE PETITION TO HAVE THIS DONE AS A RESULT OF NUMBER 1, WE'RE MODIFYING AND REDIVERTING AUSTIN COLONY BOULEVARD FROM A MAJOR ARTERIAL TO A LOCAL STREET AND WITH HOUSES ACTUALLY FRONTING ON THE STREETS.

YOU SEE BEFORE YOU EXHIBITS THAT WOULD HAVE THE NEW LAND PLAN THAT WOULD IDENTIFY WHAT CHANGES TO THIS PD WOULD BE UNDERTAKEN.

ON THAT FIRST PAGE OF THE REPORT PAGE 116, WE OUTLINE SOME OF THOSE CHANGES PER THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE OR THE MOST CURRENT ORDINANCE ON AUSTIN COLONY.

WE SHOW AN ADDITION OF 26 LOTS THAT WOULD RESULT WITH THIS RECONFIGURATION.

ALL OF THOSE LAPSES WILLING TO, AS HE AGREED WITH YOU, MOVE THOSE OVER TO THE 60-FOOT LOT THRESHOLD, AND THEN THE 50-FOOT LOT THRESHOLD REMAIN THE SAME AT THE QUANTITY OF 100.

WE ALSO PRETTY WARNED THE APPLICANT HEY, WE NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE MAYBE TWEAKED TO ACCOMMODATE THE CHANGES.

THERE IS A PAIRED THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AND ANY TYPE OF STRATEGIC AGREEMENTS WOULD HAVE TO BE MODIFIED AS WELL.

WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT WE WORK WITH THE ACCOUNTANTS AND THE BOND COUNSEL TO MAKE SURE THAT ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE TO THE PERIOD FOR THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST.

WITHIN THE ORDINANCE, WE OUTLINED SOME OF THE PARAMETERS THAT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CARRY OVER, SUCH AS SIGNAGE, FENCING, PARK DEDICATION REGULATIONS, THE CONSISTENCY OF TECHNO STREET, WHICH WOULD REMAIN AS YOU ORIGINALLY PLANNED FOR THAT, AND THEN EXHIBIT SEAT WOULD BE THE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE THAT HIGHLIGHTS SOME TRIGGERS SUCH AS THE COMMERCIAL PORTION THAT MAY OCCUR OR MAY NOT.

IF THE COMMERCIAL DOES NOT OCCUR, YOU KNOW THAT THOSE LOTS WOULD BE REDISTRIBUTED TO THAT THRESHOLD FOR THE SIX-FOOT LOTS.

THAT'S IT IN A NUTSHELL.

I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE FOR THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST.

PLANNING COMMISSION IS RECOMMENDING THIS UNANIMOUSLY AS WE STATED.

>> OKAY.

>> WE REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING, HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN GONGORA.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

ALL THOSE OPPOSE SAME SIGN. THAT MOTION CARRIES.

WE'RE NOW IN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM NUMBER 8.

IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM NUMBER 8, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM.

>> WE DID NOTIFY EVERYONE WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE BOUNDARY OF THE PD.

>> GREAT. THANK YOU, SIR. SECOND CALL FOR ANYONE WANTING TO COME TO THE PODIUM.

THIRD, COUNCIL.

>> MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND'S SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM WRIGHT.

[00:25:02]

>> AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSE SAY NAY. MOTION CARRIES.

WE'VE NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE NOW HAVE POSSIBLE ACTION ITEM ON THAT ORDINANCE.

>> SINCE COUNCILMAN BOOTH WAS ASTUTE TO POINT OUT THE MISSPELLING IN THE MINUTES, I HAVE TO POINT THIS ONE OUT THAT WILKINS IS SPELLED WRONG IN THE POSTS.

>> I TAKE THE BLAME FOR THAT ONE.

[LAUGHTER].

>> WE WILL CORRECT IT.

>> THESE ARE DRAFTS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS MOVED.

>> YEAH [BACKGROUND].

>> IT'S PEOPLE FROM HOUSTON CAN'T SAY, KIRKENDALL.

[LAUGHTER]

>> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR FOR MR. RAY, HE'S IN THE AUDIENCE TONIGHT?

>> MR. RAY, IF I FULLY UNDERSTAND THE EXPLANATION MR. BRIGGS GAVE US, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE FEEDER ROAD THAT'S GOING TO BE [OVERLAPPING].

>> CARRE?

>> NO, NOT CARRE. THE ONE THAT FACES INCA ROAD.

>> AUSTIN COLONY.

>> AUSTIN COLONY BOULEVARD?

>> THIS SECTION 1A, IT LOOKS LIKE NOW FACES INTO THE AUSTIN COLONY BOULEVARD.

ALL THOSE HOMES FACING AUSTIN COLONY BOULEVARD WILL BE THE 60-FOOT LOTS.

>> THAT'S NOT THE PLAN RIGHT NOW.

THE PLAN RIGHT NOW IS SECTION 1A AND 1B OR 50 FOOT LOTS.

>> BECAUSE HE RESENTS MY ONLY CONCERN AND IT ECHOES COUNCIL WOMAN DANIEL'S LAST TIME WE WERE IN A MEETING AND I KNOW IT WAS JUST A GENERAL PRESENTATION.

I WANT TO SEE THIS HAPPEN.

I WANT TO SEE IT GO THROUGH.

MY CONCERN IS WHEN WE GET TO THE SMALLER LOTS SMALLER LOTS AND ESPECIALLY THAT THAT'S SMALLER THAN 60 FEET.

I THINK 60 FEET ALREADY IS A LITTLE SMALL FOR MODERN AMERICANS.

BUT MAINLY BECAUSE NOBODY USES THEIR GARAGE AND THAT'S NOT YOUR FAULT.

THAT'S NOT THE WAY OR AT LEAST TO PARK THEIR CAR ANYWAY.

WITH IT BEING A 50-FOOT LOTS, I SEE A LOT OF VEHICLES THAT CAN BE PARKED ON THAT STREET.

SINCE IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE SOME FLOW, MAYBE IS NOT AS MUCH AS THE CONTINUATION OF TINKER, BUT IT WILL HAVE WORKERS THAT INGRESS AND EGRESS, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF YOU CAN MAYBE EXPLORE JUST ALMOST FOR SAFETY, EITHER WIDENING THAT ROAD OR MAKING BIGGER LOTS.

THERE'S A FEW LESS LIKELY TO BE VEHICLES ON THE ROAD.

I'M JUST TRYING TO KEEP AS MUCH PARKED VEHICLES OFF THOSE ROADS.

I JUST THINK IT'S BEST FOR THE LONG TERM OF THE, I GUESS, THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC AND THE SAFETY.

I'VE JUST BEEN AROUND ENOUGH NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE 60-FOOT OR LESS LOTS.

I JUST SEE A LOT OF VEHICLES ON THE STREET MAINLY BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO PARK ANYMORE THAN TWO VEHICLES IN YOUR DRIVEWAY.

UNLESS YOU CAN MAYBE MAKE THE SETBACK A LITTLE DEEPER. I DON'T KNOW.

I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO KEEP SOME OF THAT TRAFFIC OFF OF THAT MAIN THOROUGHFARE.

I KNOW IT'S NOT THE MAIN THOROUGHFARE THAT TINKER WILL BE, BUT IT WILL SERVE AS A LOT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS, ESPECIALLY FOR PEOPLE WHO WILL [OVERLAPPING].

>> ACTUALLY, I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID.

>> I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK AHEAD.

>> BUT I JUST HIT THE MARKET, THE NUMBERS.

IF WE WENT TO ALL 60'S, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS THING WOULD KICK OFF AT THE SAME SPEED THAN IF WE'RE AT 50'S.

>> I'M JUST TRYING TO FOCUS MAYBE JUST IN THAT FIRST PART IS SECTION 1A, WHERE YOU BASICALLY HAD THE ENTRANCE TO THE PROPERTY OFF OF ANCHOR ROAD.

>> MAKE THOSE ALL 60S AND LEAVE.

YOU COME IN AUSTIN COLONY BOULEVARD AND THEN YOU TAKE A RIGHT AND THEN GO UP INTO THAT NORTHERN PART OF SECTION 1A.

MAY SIT THAT ENTRANCE OFF OF THAT 60S AND THEN THE OTHERS ARE 50S.

>> I'D BE WILLING TO WORK WITH THAT COMPROMISE, BUT I THINK JUST TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPACE ON THAT BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO BE REALLY HEAVILY TRAFFICKED.

THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE KNOW THAT, BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT.

IT'S JUST BEEN MY EXPERIENCE AND IT'S NOTHING AGAINST YOUR DEVELOPMENTS.

[00:30:03]

JUST THAT WHEN I SEE DEVELOPMENTS WITH SMALLER LOTS, AND I SAID THE MODERN AMERICAN SEEMS TO USE THE GARAGE MORE AS STORES THAN THEY USE AS TO PARK THEIR VEHICLE.

IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN TWO VEHICLES, ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO END UP IN THE STREET.

>> LET ME THROW SOMETHING OUT HERE THAT I HAVE SOME FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF IN COLLEGE TOWN HALL.

THE NEIGHBORHOODS WITH HOMES THAT HAVE THREE AND FOUR STUDENTS LIVING IN EACH HOME AND EACH STUDENT HAS A VEHICLE.

I'VE SEEN WHERE CITY ORDINANCES SAY THERE'S NO PARKING ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET.

THIS IS FOR A EMERGENCY VEHICLES PURPOSES.

IF YOU GET KIDS LINED UP ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET, YOU'RE LIMITED BASICALLY TO ONE PATHWAY DOWN THE MIDDLE.

YOU GOT TO HOPE YOU CAN GET A PLACE IF YOU MEET SOMEONE HEAD ON.

IN THIS ONE PARTICULAR AREA I'M FAMILIAR WITH, THERE IS A CITY ORDINANCE, IT'S POSTED THERE.

IT SAYS NO PARKING THIS SIDE OF THE STREET.

IT'S PRETTY WELL ADHERED TO.

THAT GIVES A MORE CLEAR PATH TO GET THROUGH THAT AREA OF TOWN.

>> WE HAVE THAT ON BRYAN STREET.

I USE THE EXAMPLE OF KENDALL LAKES IN ALVIN, WHERE THE FIRST SIDE THAT THEY DID, THEY WENT SMALL PEOPLE PARK IN THE STREET AND IT'S FAIRLY HARD AND NARROW TO GET VEHICLES DOWN IT.

BUT THEN ALVIN CHANGED THEIR ORDINANCES TO REQUIRE THEM ON THE SECOND HALF OF KENDALL LAKES GO TO THE OTHER SIDE OF IT AND THE STREETS ARE WIDER, SO THAT CARS CAN PARK AND YOU CAN STILL GET VEHICLE TRAFFIC THROUGH THERE SAFELY.

BUT COUNCILMAN BOOTH'S POINT, THAT CAN WORK AS WELL.

JUST WHAT HOWEVER WE WANT TO SET IT UP.

>> [OVERLAPPING] I'M JUST THINKING LONG TERM.

OBVIOUSLY, YOU CAN GET CREATIVE, I GUESS, AND CREATE WAYS.

BUT I WOULD NATURALLY THINK THAT WOULD HAVE A LITTLE BIT BIGGER LOT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL JUST IN THAT ONE SECTION.

OTHERWISE, I REALLY AM INDIFFERENT AS FAR AS WHERE THE 60-FOOT LOTS ARE PLACED.

BUT THAT'S JUST AN IDEA.

>> THANK YOU, MR. RAY. [LAUGHTER]

>> IT'S ALWAYS HORSE-TRADING WHEN HE COMES UP.

>> WELL, IT'S REALLY HARD FOR ME TO STAND UP HERE BECAUSE I AGREE WITH YOU.

I REALLY THINK THAT THE LOTS COMING OFF OF 44, THEY OUGHT TO BE 60S, AND I AGREE WITH YOU.

IT'S HARD FOR ME TO DISAGREE WITH YOU.

BUT I'M GOING TO BE FACING A TOUGH MARKET.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I DO THINK THAT NORTHERN PORTION AFTER YOU MAKE THAT RIGHT, THAT NORTHERN PORTION, LET THOSE REMAIN 50S.

>> I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. I JUST HAVE ONE MAIN ENTRANCE WHERE THERE'S WHETHER YOU'RE IN SECTION 2BB, I'M SURE THEY'LL HAVE STREET NAMES AND SECTION 3, THERE'S STILL GOING TO LIKELY FEED OUT PAST THAT NORTHERN SECTION OF SECTION 1A.

>> WHAT WE DO IS MOVE THOSE 50S PROBABLY OVER TO SECTION 3.

NOW, WE'LL GET 150S.

WE JUST MOVING THEM.

>> I'M FINE WITH THAT. MY ONLY CONCERN IS JUST THAT THE LEVEL OF PEOPLE PARKING ON THE STREET AND I JUST TRY TO FIND A SOLUTION.

COUNCILMAN BOOTH HAS A DIFFERENT WAY OF ADDRESSING THAT SAME ISSUE.

I'M JUST TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. THAT'S ALL.

>> MR. OTIS IS HERE MARKING UP MY BEAUTIFUL CREATIONS.

[LAUGHTER] WE'LL SAY IT'S THE SOUTH HALF OF 1A IS 60S.

THE NORTH HALF FOR 1A IS 50S.

THEN IT'S OUR OPTION TO MOVE THOSE.

WE STILL GET 150S.

WE'RE JUST CHANGING THE LOCATION IN OUR OPTION.

>> THAT'S FINE.

>> NOT AT OUR OPTION. IT CONSENSUS WITH STAFF.

I'LL BE HAPPY TO COME BACK HERE.

I ENJOY SEEING YOU, BUT [LAUGHTER] YOU'RE BUSY.

>> I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT.

I APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH US.

[00:35:01]

>> YES. ALWAYS WORKING WITH US.

>> IS IT OKAY THAT WE MODIFY EXHIBIT D TO REFLECT WHAT WAS JUST SAID? WE'LL MOVE INTO VERBATIM.

[OVERLAPPING] WE'LL HAVE IT REVISE THIS EXHIBIT D AND SUBMIT IT AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE ORDINANCE.

>> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THAT WITH SUBJECT TO THE MODIFICATIONS ENUMERATED HERE IN CHAMBERS.

>> ONLY ON THE LOT SIZE.

>> ON LOT SIZES.

>> HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH, [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND HAVE A SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM WRIGHT, FOR THE APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE, SAID IN NUMBER 9 WITH THE CHANGES THAT WERE DISCUSSED.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? MR. RAY, WE APPRECIATE EVERYTHING YOU DO AND WORKING WITH US. WE APPRECIATE THAT.

>> CAN I JUST CLARIFY. YOU'RE GOING TO BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL?

>> IF NEED BE.

>> JUST THE ORDINANCE, BUT WE WOULDN'T REQUIRE HIM TO BE HERE.

>> JUST THE EXHIBIT?

>> THE EXHIBIT, YES. MR. RAY, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT FOR US?

>> SURE. THANK YOU ALL.

>> FOR YOUR OWN CONSENT OR SOMETHING?

>> YEAH.

>> GREAT. PERFECT. HOLD THERE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? CALL FOR A VOTE.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAID SAME SIGN.

THAT MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, GUYS.

THANK YOU, EVERYONE. THAT MOVES US ON TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS.

[10. Update, discussion and possible action on the Home Rule Charter regarding Section 3.01(8) on City Council term limits.]

ITEM NUMBER 10, UPDATE, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE HOME RULE CHARTER REGARDING SECTION 3.01, PARENTHESES 8 ON CITY COUNCIL TERM LIMITS.

WOULD THAT'D BE MR. CHRIS, MS. JUDITH.

>> NO. IT'S NOT ME.

>> THAT WAS NOT YOU. [LAUGHTER]

>> JUDITH.

>> HAS YOUR NAME.

>> I DIDN'T KNOW THAT IT WAS ME.

>> SAYS IS CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDS.

>> BASICALLY, AFTER THE ELECTION IN MAY, IT TURNS OUT THAT THE DECISION NOT TO AMEND SECTION 3.01 RESULTED IN THE 3.018, I'M DOING THIS BY MEMORY, BEING LEFT IN THE CHARTER.

I'VE DONE A MEMO ON HOW TO DEAL WITH THAT, AND HOPEFULLY EVERYONE HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT IT; WHAT THE LAW IS.

BUT OVERALL, I THINK THE PREMISES PRETTY CLEAR THAT A HOME CHARTER AND THE ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR NOT ONLY INTERPRETING YOUR CODE OF ORDINANCES, BUT ALSO YOUR CHARTER, AND I'VE SET OUT TWO POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU AS THE ELECTED OFFICIALS MAY NOT HAVE ANOTHER ONE.

BUT BASED ON MY RESEARCH, I SEE IT AS THOSE TWO AND IT'S YOUR CALL.

SO IF YOU'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO THINK ABOUT IT, YOU WANT TO DISCUSS IT, I WOULD RECOMMEND IF YOU TAKE ACTION THAT WE WILL COME BACK WITH SOME TYPE OF RESOLUTION TO REFLECT YOUR ACTION.

BECAUSE I ADDED TICKETS OF A TIME TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HAPPENED IN 1995.

LET'S TRY AND MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE FUTURE GENERATIONS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO IN 2023.

>> IN ORDER TO LONG-TERM DEAL WITH THIS, WE'D HAVE TO PUT FOUR CHARTER REVIEW.

YOU REMEMBER FROM THE CHARTER REVIEW, IT'S NOW NOT EVERY TWO YEARS, BUT IT'S UP TO FIVE YEARS DEPENDING ON WHAT WE NEED TO DO, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT MAYBE AS PART OF THE MOTION THAT WE PUT IT BEFORE THE NEXT CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE WHENEVER THAT IS.

>> YOU SELECTED A CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION IN 2022, AND TECHNICALLY THEY STILL ARE YOUR CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.

YOUR NEW CHARTER SAYS THAT YOU WILL APPOINT A CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION EVERY FIVE YEARS.

SO AT THIS JUNCTURE, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO THAT.

YOU DON'T HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DO SO UNTIL 2027.

>> WHAT WAS THE CATALYST FOR BRINGING THIS BACK NOW? THAT'S ONE OF MY QUESTIONS.

I WAS SHOCKED TO SEE IT ON THE AGENDA.

>> I THINK, COUNCIL, THERE WAS PROVISION THAT WE TALKED AROUND BUT DIDN'T DEAL WITH.

BUT IT HAS IMPLICATIONS FOR HOW WE FOLLOW THE LAW.

IT TALKS ABOUT RESETTING COUNCIL TERMS FOR THOSE IN THEIR FIRST TERM.

SO WITH ELECTION COMING UP, WE NEED TO OVERALL IDENTIFY IT, AND I THINK IT'S BEING ABOVE BOARD AND AGAIN, WE'LL DO THE WHOLE FOUR ELECTIONS.

[00:40:01]

>> ARE YOU WANTING TO DO ANOTHER CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION THIS YEAR?

>> NO.

>> WE CAN'T DO THAT ANYWAY, CAN WE?

>> IT'S EVERY TWO YEARS, RIGHT?

>> NO. WE CANNOT DO IT UNTIL 2024.

>> RIGHT. THAT'S WHY I WAS WONDERING WHY.

>> BUT IT IMPACTS EVENTUAL ELECTIONS AND TERMS. AGAIN, WE IDENTIFY WE NEED TO FIX IT.

LET'S IDENTIFY THAT IT'S GOING TO BE AN ITEM THAT WE NEED TO FIX IT IN THE NEXT CHART REVIEW COMMISSION, WHENEVER WE DO THAT.

THAT DOESN'T GET LOST IN THE SHUFFLE THINGS WE DO.

>> MAYOR AND I WERE TALKING BEFORE THE MEETING, AND I LISTENED TO A COMMENTARY THE OTHER DAY ABOUT TERM LIMITS AND THE PROS AND CONS AGAINST IT.

THERE'S A LOT OF PROS AND CONS TO EACH POINT, AND I THINK IT'S A VALID DISCUSSION.

I'VE ALWAYS BEEN IN THE MINDSET THAT YOU SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE TERM LIMITS BUT AFTER LISTENING TO THIS ONE GUY SPEAK, HE HAD REALLY GOOD POINTS AGAINST IT.

IT SWAYED ME A LITTLE BIT, BUT REALLY AND TRULY IT ALWAYS COMES DOWN TO THE VOTER, AND THE VOTER SHOULD, IF YOU WANT THEM OUT VOTE THEM OUT.

DON'T WAIT ON A LAW OR A RULE TO DO IT FOR YOU ALTHOUGH THAT WAS A GREAT COMMENT.

BUT THE SAME TIME, THERE IS SOMETHING TO BE SAID TO AN INCUMBENT RUNNING FOR ELECTION AND THE BENEFITS AND THE POWER THAT THEY POSSESS TO BE ABLE TO GET REELECTED.

I SEE BOTH SIDES. I TOLD MAYOR MY IDEA WAS SOMETHING LIKE IN THE MIDDLE, BUT I'M FINE WITH CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION COMING UP WITH A SUGGESTION FOR US AND WE GO THROUGH IT AGAIN.

>> IF I THOUGHT I REMEMBER THE PREVIOUS EXPLANATION THAT WAS GIVEN TO US, WE ADDRESSED THIS, NOT THIS BUT WE ADDRESSED IT.

WE ADDRESSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS, JUST THIS PAST MAY, AND SO IT CANNOT BE ADDRESSED AGAIN UNTIL MAY OF '24.

SO IF WE ENACTED A BODY OR I GUESS THEY'RE ALREADY BEEN ENACTED, BUT THE CHARTER COMMISSION WOULD THEY PRESENT US, I GUESS, AN OPTION FOR MAY OF '24?

>> STATUTORILY, YOU MAY NOT TAKE THIS TO THE VOTERS AGAIN UNTIL 2024.

>> RIGHT.

>> YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY, PURSUANT TO YOUR CHARTER THAT YOU ARE APPOINTING A CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, AND NOW YOU HAVE TO DO THAT EVERY FIVE YEARS.

YOU ALREADY HAVE A CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, SO IF YOU WANTED THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION TO DO SOMETHING NOW, YOU WOULD HAVE TO START THAT UP AGAIN, REAPPOINT.

I WOULDN'T SAY THAT YOU NEED DO THAT.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHY YOUR CHARTER COMMISSION SAID, HEY, LET'S CHANGE IT TO FIVE YEARS BECAUSE IT'S TOO BURDENSOME.

IT'S TOO MUCH WORK DO IT.

>> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS: IF WE WERE TO SUGGEST OR MAKE A MOTION, AND THIS IS JUST ALL HYPOTHETICAL, THAT THE CURRENT COMMISSION WHICH IS IN PLACE WOULD BE ASKED TO LOOK AT THIS ISSUE AND BRING IT BACK TO CITY COUNCIL SOMETIME LATER THIS YEAR OR EARLY NEXT YEAR FOR A POSSIBLE INCLUSION INTO A VOTE, OBVIOUSLY BY THE RESIDENTS OF CITY OF ANGLETON, IS THAT ENOUGH TO SATISFY OUR BURDEN HERE? IF WE JUST WERE TO ASK THEM.

BASICALLY, WE'RE ASKING IT TO STAY IN PLACE AND AT SOME POINT TOWARDS THE END OF THIS YEAR START DOING A STUDY OR WHATEVER, MAKING WHATEVER MEETING YOU-ALL NEED TO DO TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE?

>> THE BRIEF ANSWER IS YES, THAT YOU'VE GOTTEN THE STATUTORY ABILITY IN 2024 TO TAKE IT TO THE VOTERS AGAIN.

THIS IS 2023? IN 2023 YOU CAN, AS THE BODY, ASK YOUR CHARTER COMMISSION TO CONVENE FOR THIS PURPOSE.

YES, YOU CAN DO THAT, OR YOU CAN DO NOTHING UNTIL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS REACH A CONSENSUS ON, OKAY, IT'S TIME TO DO THE REVIEW AGAIN.

ALL I'M DOING IS POINTING OUT THE FACT THAT THIS WAS OVERLOOKED.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT'S PROMPTING COUNCIL ACTION.

[00:45:03]

MY MEMO JUST BASICALLY IS SAYING, HEY, BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THIS WAS LEFT IN DESPITE THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CHARTER COMMISSION, I WANT TO BRING THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION.

IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO INTERPRET IN ANY MANNER THAT YOU SEE FIT.

IF THERE'S NO REASON TO VISIT IT OR INTERPRET IT, THEN YOU JUST CAN'T DECIDE, WELL, NEXT TIME WE DECIDE WE WANT TO CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION TO CONVENE, WE'RE GOING TO ASK THEM TO LOOK AT THIS.

I WOULD SAY THAT IT HAS TO BE LOOKED AT ANY WHICH WAY BECAUSE IT'S PUBLISHED FROM 1995.

WHAT THEY SHOULD'VE DONE IN 1995 IS WRITTEN IN THERE THAT IN 1995, WHEN THIS GOES TO THE VOTERS, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ALREADY ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE IN THE FIRST TERM.

IT'S JUST MESSING WITH YOU BUT IT'S THERE.

SO YOU AS A BODY CAN DECIDE, YEP, WE'RE AWARE THAT THIS IS THERE BUT WE DON'T SEE THAT IT POSES ANY CONFUSION OR DIFFICULTY AT THIS POINT.

HOWEVER, WE ARE GOING TO ASK OUR FUTURE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION OR OUR EXISTING CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION TO LOOK AT THAT AND EVALUATE. UP TO YOU.

>> I WOULD PREFER TO WAIT UNTIL OUR CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION IS READY TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS WITH EITHER A NEW COUNCIL, A NEW CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.

I FEEL LIKE DOING IT NOW.

IT'S A LITTLE PREEMPTIVE TO WHAT COULD BE A DIFFERENT RESULT IN A YEAR, YOU NEVER KNOW.

>> MY POSITION IS THAT UNTIL YOU BROUGHT IT TO OUR ATTENTION, I THOUGHT IT WAS RATHER CLEAR.

[LAUGHTER] I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, YOU'RE LOOKING STRICTLY AT WHAT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN AND [INAUDIBLE].

BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO ME A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ACTION THAT WAS TAKEN BY COUNCIL LAST YEAR IN CHOOSING NOT TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, WHICH I BELIEVE THE SOLE PURPOSE WAS BECAUSE WE HAD SO MANY, I SAY SOLE PURPOSE, THERE'S MANY REASONS, BUT ONE OF THE BIGGEST REASONS WAS WE HAD SO MANY ISSUES PRESENTED ON THAT CHARTER THAT ESPECIALLY CLEANING UP WHAT WAS BASICALLY OUTDATED WOULD PERHAPS GET LOST ON A MORE CONTENTIOUS ISSUE LIKE TERM LIMITS.

WE WERE WILLING TO CONTINUE AS OUR CURRENT CHARTER AS SET OUT, I GUESS AS BY THE VOTERS IN 1995, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S SOME OF THE LANGUAGE SEEMS TO BE MISSING BECAUSE WE WANTED TO GET THROUGH AS MUCH OF WHAT WE COULD ACTUALLY CLEAN UP THROUGH THE CHARTER COMMISSION AS OPPOSED TO RISKING IT ALL OVER A SINGLE ISSUE.

IF IT TURNED OFF THE VOTERS ENOUGH THAT THIS ONE ISSUE, THAT MAYBE THEY WOULD VOTE ALL 80 OTHER ISSUES DOWN.

I WOULD JUST ADD RATHER CONTINUE, THAT'S AS WELL AS MY CONSIDERATION IS THAT AT SOME POINT AT A LATER TIME, WHETHER I GUESS IT'D BE SOME FUTURE CITY COUNCIL TAKE UP THIS ISSUE.

THAT'S IN '24 OR IN '26, I THINK YOU COULD EVEN WAIT THEN BEFORE YOU EVEN HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT PUTTING ANOTHER.

I'M NOT EVEN SURE '24 IS THE BEST TIME, TO BE HONEST WE JUST DID EIGHTY SOME AMENDMENTS.

>> EIGHTY-SIX.

>>EIGHTY-SIX.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT EVERY TIME THE CITIZENS OF ANGLETON THINKING ALL WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IS CHANGE THE CHARTER EVERY TWO YEARS.

ANYWAY, JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT.

>> QUESTIONS, COMMENTS TO THE LEFT? [NOISE]

>> WE FOLLOW IT AND THE THREE THAT WERE ON COUNCIL DURING THE CHARTER AMENDMENT OR REVIEW.

NOW THEY'RE ALL IN THEIR FIRST TERM.

>> IF ALL, IF CITY COUNCIL MAKES THAT VOTE AND DECIDES THAT WAY, THEN YES, THAT'S POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION BUT YOU WOULD NEED THE MAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

> AT THE TIME OF THE ENACTING OF THIS? [OVERLAPPING] I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE I TECHNICALLY WAS IN MY FIRST TERM AT THE TIME THIS WAS TAKEN,

[00:50:05]

I GUESS TO THIS IN MAY OF 2022?

>> WELL, I GUESS IF I WERE TO GET REELECTED AND I DON'T KNOW IF I WILL OR NOT, IN MAY OF '23, THEN I THINK HONESTLY MY READING OF IT, I WOULD BE THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS TECHNICALLY IN THE FIRST TERM.

I THINK THAT'S WHY WE WANTED TO WAIT IN PART TO LIKE THIS IS SUCH A BIGGER ISSUE THAT A LOT OF STUFF WE DO IN THE CITY COUNCIL DOES ATTRACT A LOT OF TENSION.

BUT IF WE WERE TO ACT ON THIS, I THINK THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD GARNER A LOT OF TENSION AND PEOPLE WOULD ASK, WHY DIDN'T WE HAVE MORE OF A VOICE I SHOULD SAY ON THIS ISSUE.

I DON'T WANT TO TAKE THAT AWAY FROM THE VOTERS.

>> I'M NOT SURE IF I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION, BUT THE APPLICABLE TIME PERIOD IS AT THE TIME THAT THIS WENT TO ELECTION IN MAY.

WASN'T THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING?

>> THE THREE THAT WERE ON COUNCIL, THEY'RE ON.

[OVERLAPPING]

>> IF YOU CHOSE TO INTERPRETED IN THAT WAY, YES.

>> SO ARE THE PEOPLE WHO RAN.

I RAN, SO TECHNICALLY, IT'LL BE MY FIRST TERM AS WELL, AND JOHN'S.

>> WHOEVER WAS ON THE BALLOT WOULD BE FIRST TERM ANYWAY.

SO IT'S TECHNICALLY WHOEVER WAS NOT ON THE BALLOT WOULD IN FACT BE INTERPRETED TO BE IN THE FIRST TERM.

I WASN'T HERE IN 1995, BUT I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT WHEN IT WENT TO THE VOTERS AND THEY DECIDED TO IMPOSE TERM LIMITS, THEY DIDN'T WANT IT TO BE INEQUITABLE FOR ANYBODY THAT WAS ALREADY ON COUNCIL.

SO IT WAS, I THINK, IN EFFECT, CREATING A CLEAN SLATE.

EVERYONE AT THE TIME THAT TERM LIMITS WAS ADOPTED WAS IN FACT IN THEIR FIRST TERM.

THAT'S ONE WAY TO LOOK AT IT AND THAT'S THE WAY I LOOK AT IT.

BUT I'M NOT ON CITY COUNCIL.

>> I DON'T INTERPRET IT THAT WAY, I'LL VOTE AGAINST THAT, I DON'T THINK IN 1995 THEY WERE THINKING THAT AN ELECTION IN 2022, WHEN A CHORE CHARTER COMMISSION HAD BEEN ENACTED IN A VOTE WAS CALLED FOR THAT ANYBODY WHO IS NOT ON THE BALLOT WOULD BE CONSIDERED THEIR FIRST TERM.

I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S A LOGICAL READING.

I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE SAYING IT'S THAT WAY BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY WROTE IT OUT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW.

I DON'T THINK THAT WAS A SPIRIT OF THE INTENT OF WHAT THEY WERE APPLYING FOR IN 1995.

OF COURSE, I WASN'T THERE IN 1995.

>> I SAID IN MY MEMO THAT IS ANOTHER INTERPRETATION.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE INTENT OF THE PEOPLE THAT WROTE IT IN 1995 AND THAT LEADS YOU TO ANOTHER INTERPRETATION.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.

>> THE BAD THING OF THE PROVISION IS IF WE HAVE A CHART REVIEW IN TWO OR THREE YEARS, SAME THING HAPPENS.

>> UNLESS WE JUST DECIDED TO DATE AND INTERPRET IT.

>> WELL, CAN WE JUST INTERPRET IT AS YOU SAID EARLIER? THAT WHEN IT WAS ENACTED IN 1995, THAT IT WAS INTERPRETED TO BE, BEGINNING 1995 AND NOT FOR EVERY SUBSEQUENT CHARTER COMMISSION THAT'S ENACTED?

>> YES, THAT'S WHAT MY MEMO SAYS.

>> I CAME TO THAT SAME CONCLUSION.

>> JUST TO CLEAR IT UP FOR THAT PARTICULAR MOMENT BECAUSE THEY KNEW THE WATER WAS MUDDY AT THE TIME, LET'S JUST CLEAR THE WATER TODAY AND START OVER AGAIN.

>> MEANING GIVING THAT LANGUAGE BACK TO 1995? [OVERLAPPING]

>> THAT'S THE ONLY TIME IT WAS SPECIFIC.

IT WAS NOT SPECIFIC FOR 2019 OR 2021.

> NOT SPECIFIC TO EVERY TIME THERE WAS A CHARTER.

> BECAUSE THAT'D BE A HUGE LOOPHOLE.

LIKE HOW THE HECK YOU COULD ALWAYS LIKE, YOU KNOW WHAT, I WAS THINKING ABOUT ANOTHER TERM, HOW ABOUT WE COMMISSION ONE OF THOSE CHARTER ISSUES. [LAUGHTER]

>> I LIKE IT UP HERE, I'LL GIVE ME ANOTHER. [LAUGHTER]

>> WELL, AND THAT'S THE JOY OF INTERPRETING IT.

THAT IN A YEAR OR TWO, IF SOMEBODY DOES COME ALONG, BUT IS NOT ON COUNCIL NOW OR WILL BE, UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT YOUR NEXT CHARTER COMMISSION CAN PROPOSE A REMEDY THAT AN INTERPRETATION WOULD AID YOU FOR THAT INTERN PERIOD.

[00:55:04]

EITHER WAY, WHATEVER IT IS, I DO HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT WE PUT INTO MINUTES OR DO WE DO A RESIDENCY AT SOME POINT THAT STATES THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS AND THAT THE CURRENT ELECTED OFFICIALS WOULD LIKE FOR THIS TO BE CLEANED UP AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE.

[OVERLAPPING] PRETTY EASY FIX.

>> IT GOES FAR AS TO SAY CLEANED UP WITH THE BELIEF THAT THE POINT WE'VE ALL AGREED UPON ABOUT BEING.

>> YOU CAN DEFINITELY DO THAT, BUT IT WON'T HAVE ANY BEARING ON YOUR FUTURE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSIONER, OR YOUR FUTURE ELECTED OFFICIALS, WHATEVER THEY WANTED.

>> SIX PEOPLE STILL LIVE HERE.

[LAUGHTER] SIX OF THESE FOLKS STILL LIVE IN TOWN. [LAUGHTER]

>> YEAH, I KNOW. I'LL LOOK AT THE NAMES.

[LAUGHTER] WE JUST CALL THEM IN HERE. [LAUGHTER]

>> IT'LL BE ABSOLUTELY GOOD.

>> I THINK I'LL MAKE A PHONE CALL TOMORROW. [LAUGHTER]

>> YOU HAVE BEEN SUBPOENAED. [LAUGHTER]

>> THEY'RE PROBABLY WATCHING AND LAUGHING RIGHT NOW TOO.

>> THE LEGACY WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT.

>> DO YOU WANT TO BRING US AN ORDINANCE BACK WITH WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AS YOU MENTIONED?

>> ONLY IF YOU WANT TO, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO TAKE ACTION.

>> I DON'T WANT TO TAKE ACTION TONIGHT.

I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE AN ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF US THAT'S RED CONSISTENTLY WITH YOUR REVIEW AND WHAT YOU THINK IT NEEDS TO BE FROM WHAT WE'VE SAID.

>> I AGREE WITH THAT.

I AGREE WITH SPECIFICALLY THE TAKING IT BACK IN TIME.

I THINK IF I'M READING COUNCILMAN BOOTH AND COUNCILWOMAN DANIELS.

I THINK I'M IN AGREEMENT SAYING THE SAME THING.

>> IF YOU WOULD LIKE FOR THERE TO BE A RESOLUTION BECAUSE WE DON'T REALLY WANT IT CODIFIED.

BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE A RESOLUTION TO COME BACK THAT SAYS FORTH AND INTERPRETATION, THEN I WILL NEED YOU TO MAKE A VOTE ON WHAT THAT INTERPRETATION IS TONIGHT.

OR LET ME REPHRASE.

WHAT'S YOUR RECOMMENDED LANGUAGES AND THEN WHEN IT COMES BACK TO YOU CAN IMPROVE IT? TELL ME WHAT YOUR DECISION IS?

>> [NOISE] WELL, MAKING SURE WE'RE ALL SPEAKING THE SAME WAY IS THAT WE WOULD LIKE THE RESOLUTION TO READ THAT IT'S AN EFFECT OF THE DATE OF 1995 TO CLEAR THE AMBIGUITY OF WHEN THE TERM LIMITS STARTED.

EVERYONE HERE IS IN THEIR PROPER TERMS, WHETHER THAT'S 1, 2, OR 3 YEARS.

THREE TERMS I MEAN. IS THAT WHAT EVERYONE ELSE IS THINKING TOO?

>> I'M IN A AGREEMENT.

>> THAT'S MY MOTION THEN.

>> [OVERLAPPING] INTENT OF THE DRAFTERS IN 1995 IS REFLETIVE.

>> CORRECT.

>> HAVING MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM WRIGHT, SECOND BY COUNCILWOMAN DANIEL.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> THIS WAS INTENDED TO CLEAR UP THE CONCERN THEY HAD AT THE TIME. IT WOULD BE OVER WITH.

>> [LAUGHTER] I APPRECIATE THAT, SIR.

LIKE I'VE ALWAYS SAID, I GO WITH WHAT THE MAJORITY WILL GO WITH.

[LAUGHTER] I JUST SAT HERE BECAUSE THEY DID AFFECT MY POSITION.

THEN FUTURE FOLKS THAT WERE POSSIBLY SITTING AT THIS TABLE.

I READ IT SEVERAL TIMES LAST WEEK WHEN WE GOT THE MEMO, [NOISE] JUST TRYING TO DIGEST AND SEE WHAT WAS THAT AND I GET WHAT IS BEING SAID TONIGHT.

I CONCUR WITH EVERY STATEMENT THAT WAS SAID TONIGHT BECAUSE IT DID SEEM LIKE IT WAS AFFECTED THIS CHAIRS, BUT I'D BE BLUNT IF THEY AFFECTED THIS CHAIR.

THAT'S WHY I JUST SAT HERE, LISTEN TO YOUR CONVERSATIONS AND DIDN'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE ANY SLY OR SUSPICIOUS.

>> IT'S NOTHING AGAINST YOU.

>> I DID NOT SAY ANYTHING.

IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION A FEW WEEKS AGO AND LET MS. JUDITH WORK HER SIDE OF THE TABLE TO COME UP WITH HER INTERPRETATIONS, WHETHER IT'S ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

BUT THAT'S JUST BACK THEN.

THEY JUST DIDN'T HAVE THE WORD SMITHING THAT WE CAN HAVE TODAY.

WE'LL GET IT SETTLED, STRAIGHTENED OUT AND MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR,

[01:00:01]

THOUGH PROBABLY A LITTLE UNCLARITY OR UNCLEAR, HOWEVER, BUT I WILL GO WITH WHAT THE COUNCIL'S MAJORITY GOES WITH. THAT'S ALL I'LL SAY.

>> [NOISE] ALSO, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, JUST IF YOU REVIEW THAT MEETING, THEY ALSO APPOINTED DAVID BONNAN AS THE CITY JUDGE THAT DAY, [LAUGHTER] AND HE SITS PICTURE RIGHT BEHIND YOU ON THAT WALL.

THIS COURTROOM IS ACTUALLY NAMED AFTER HIM.

IT WAS ALL IN THAT SAME MEETING.

IT'S JUST INTERESTING PIECE OF ANGLETON HISTORY.

>> ANYMORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? HEARING NONE, I'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE.

>> MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 11.

[11. Discussion and possible action on awarding a construction contract for the General Land Office Community Development Block Grant Mitigation (GLO CDBG-MIT) SUP Grant #22-119-002-D360 for the City of Angleton’s Supplemental Project to purchase and install a Warning Siren system to Mobile Communications America (MCA), whose proposal scored the highest.]

>> DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON REWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT MITIGATION, ALSO KNOWN AS GLO CDBG-MIT SUPPLEMENT GRANT NUMBER 23-119-002-D360 FOR THE CITY OF ANGLETON SUPPLEMENTAL PROJECT TO PURCHASE AND INSTALL WARNING SIREN SYSTEM TO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS AMERICA.

WHO'S PROPOSED SCORED THE HIGHEST? MR. GLENN.

>> HEY, THIS IS A LOT SIMPLER THAN THE LAST ITEM.

WE RAN A RFP, WE HAD TO RUN TWO BECAUSE THE FIRST ONE GAVE US NO RESPONDENTS.

THE SECOND ONE WE HAD THREE.

WE BROUGHT IN FOUR DIFFERENT FOLKS TO REVIEW IT FROM FOUR DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

THESE WERE THE SCORES THAT THEY COULD COME UP WITH AND WE'RE STILL NEGOTIATING AND SPEND SOME TIME BACK-AND-FORTH SENDING OUR RFP PROCEDURE THROUGH OUR GRANT ADMINISTRATOR SO THEY CAN MAKE SURE IT MET ALL GLOS RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH IT DID.

WE'RE STILL GOING THROUGH THE CONTRACT.

IT'S BEEN TO OUR LEGAL.

IT'S BEEN THROUGH OUR GRANT ADMINISTRATORS.

IT MEETS ALL THE GLO AND IT'S NOW BEING REVIEWED BY THE CONTRACTOR THAT WE'RE GETTING READY TO AWARD TO IF THAT'S THE COUNCIL'S PLEASURE.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, OR ACTION?

>> WAS ANYONE ON COUNCIL ON THE SCORING?

>> NO, THEY WERE NOT AT THAT TIME.

>> I SAT THIS ONE OUT.

[LAUGHTER]

>> WANT TO SEE IF SOMEBODY HAD ANY COMMENTS FROM UP HERE.

>> WE HAD REPRESENTATION FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT FIRE IT.

>> I GUESS MY BIGGEST QUESTION IS AROUND LOCALLY, WHO USES THEM?

>> I'M SORRY, WHO USES THE MCA?

>> MCA.

>> RIGHT NOW THEY'VE GOT A CONTRACT.

THEY'RE DOING SOME WORK FOR ANGLETON ISD.

I THINK THEY'VE DONE SOME OTHER WORK WITH OTHER SCHOOLS IN THE AREA AS WELL.

>> WILL WE BE SYNCED UP WITH A ISD OR WILL BE OPERATING ON HER OWN?

>> THIS IS A COMPLETELY SEPARATE, THIS IS A WARNING SYSTEM.

IT'S A BACKUP TO ALL OUR BACKUPS GETS OLD-SCHOOL WARNING THAT WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, WHEN THE CELL TOWERS ARE DEAD, WE CAN STILL WARN OUR CITIZENS WITH WARNING SIRENS.

>> SURE. THIS IS FULLY FUNDED BY THE CBD?

>> CORRECT. THIS WAS A GRANT THAT WE WERE MADE AWARE OF.

WE HAD PUT IN FOR IT AFTER HURRICANE HARVEY 2018.

IT HAD BEEN REJECTED THEN SUMMER OF 2020 THEY SAID, HEY GUESS WHAT? THIS IS BACK. IN SEPTEMBER '21, THE GLO APPROVED US.

IT TOOK UNTIL SPRING BEFORE IT REALLY KICKED OFF AND THEN GOES THROUGH ALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AND THEN THEY'RE TOO DIFFERENT PARTS.

>> BUT THERE WAS NO MATCHING BRAND?

>> THERE WAS NO MATCH. THIS 100 PERCENT FUNDED.

>> MR. MAYOR, AND IF WE AWARD THE CONTRACT TO MCA MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS AMERICA AS THE HIGHEST SCORE FROM THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE GROUP THAT MET AND SCORED THEM.

>> I SECOND THE MOTION.

>> MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM WRIGHT, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> YEAH, I NEED TO AMEND MY MOTION TO SAY THAT IT'S FOR THE BUDGETED AMOUNT OF $144,250 NOT TO EXCEED.

>> ARE YOU GOOD WITH THAT, MR. TOWNSEND?

>> YEAH, I THINK NO FUNDS ARE REQUESTED. I'M GOOD WITH THAT.

>> GOOD. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

>> ATTENTION. WILL PROBABLY HAVE A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING NEXT WEEK.

THEN IF THE CONTRACT IS GOOD AND THEY MEET ALL OF THE SIGN ALL THE DOCUMENTATION,

[01:05:03]

WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET STARTED SHORTLY AFTER.

WE'RE HOPING TO HAVE IT IN BY MY SPRING.

>> AWESOME. GREAT. THANK YOU, SIR.

THAT MOVES US ON TO ITEM NUMBER 12,

[12. 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., west of Sims Drive.]

DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE ACTION ON FINAL PLOT FOR THE DE LA GARZA SUBDIVISION, [NOISE] 3.996 ACRES TWO LOTS, ONE-BLOCK LOCATED ON SOUTH SIDE OF KHYBER ROAD, WEST OF SIMS DRIVE. GO AHEAD, SIR.

>> THANK YOU MARION COUNCIL AS STATED THIS IS A FINAL PLAN FOR DE LA GARZA, IN WHICH YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE SUBDIVISION.

WE ACTUALLY HELD THIS, HELP THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THEIR LAST MEETING WHICH THEY ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, HDR, THE ENGINEERING TEAM HAS REVIEWED THE PLAN AS WELL AS STAFF AND THE NOTED CONDITIONS WE FEEL ARE NOT SUBSTANTIAL AT ALL.

I WILL SAY THAT THIS IS ONE THAT WAS GRANTED IN ON-SITE SEPTIC SYSTEM, WHICH WE DISCUSSED IN THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION.

HOWEVER, THERE'S A CAVEAT THAT WILL BE PLACED ON THE PLAN THAT WILL GUARANTEE THAT AT SUCH TIME, SEWER BECOMES AVAILABLE THEY WOULD HAVE TO CONNECT SO THAT'S HOW WE WOULD HANDLE IT ON THE FINAL PLANS.

THIS WOULD MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FINAL PLOT PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY 20 SFE 20 IS THE ZONING DISTRICTS.

THEY WERE GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR THAT ONSITE SEPTIC SYSTEM WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF INSTALLING THE GRINDER PUMP ARE THE LIFT STATION JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION.

>> THANK YOU, MR. OTIS.

>> QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FOR MR. OTIS OR ACTION?

>> I THINK I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.

IS THIS THE PROPERTY AS IT RELATES TO THEY HAD TROUBLE WITH I GUESS THEY JUST DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO OUR SYSTEM.

>> YES. I THINK IT'S A DISTANCE THING.

>> OKAY.

>> ALL OF THE ATTACHMENTS I'M SORRY WERE ATTACHED.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY GOT LOST IN THE SHUFFLE, BUT IT EXPLAINS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE VARIANCE, I MEAN WHICH COUNCIL GRANTED THAT VARIANCE.

>> AS YOU SAY I THINK WE'VE ALREADY TOUCHED.

>> COUNCIL, WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE?

>> OUR MOVING APPROVED THE FINAL PLAN OF DELGADO WAS SUBDIVISION AS PRESENTED.

>> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM RIGHT.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> YES. THERE ARE SEVERAL MISSING DIMENSIONS ON THIS PLOTS IS PRESENTED TO US TONIGHT, THE SERVER, AND IT HAS TO GO THROUGH TO ENSURE THAT THE DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN CORRECTLY.

THE SOUTH LINES OF BOTH LOTS DO NOT HAVE INDIVIDUAL DIMENSIONS ON THEM.

THE WEST LINE OF A LOT ONE DOES NOT HAVE IT'S INDIVIDUAL DIMENSION OF IT, NOR DOES THE EAST LINE OF LOT TWO HAVE ITS INDIVIDUAL DIMENSIONS.

NEITHER ONE IS LAW TELLS THEIR DIMENSIONS ON THE NORTH SIDE, EITHER.

LOT OF MISSING STUFF ON HIS PLOTS, SO WHICH IS NOWHERE NEAR READY TO BE FILED FOR RECORD OR BE SIGNED OFF ON.

>> CORRECT, SO WE WOULD PUT ENTERTAIN IF YOU WOULD PLEASE PROVE WITH CONDITIONS, SO NOTE IT.

WE WILL MAKE SURE ALL OF THOSE NOTES ARE CLEAR ON THE PLAN.

>> YOU GO WITH THAT, MR. CECIL.

>> OKAY. WE'RE GOOD ON THAT SIDE.

>> WHAT ABOUT?

>> I'M SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

>> ALL THOSE POSITIVE SIGN THAT MOTION CARRIES.

NOW, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 13.

[13. 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.]

DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHLAND DEVELOPMENT WATER TREATMENT PLANT FOR 2.09 ACRES OF LAND CONTAINING ONE RESERVE IN ONE BLOCK.

SHOVEL MARSH SURVEY A-81, AND A-82, BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS, AS SUBMITTED BY ASHTON GRADE DEVELOPMENT.

WHO MIGHT THAT BE? [NOISE].

>> GOOD EVENING. THAT ONE IS A 2.09 ACRES IN THAT ASHTON DEVELOPMENT IN THE ETJ, THAT'S FOR THE WATER PLAN, THAT BE THIS FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT, OF COURSE TAKING CARE OF ENGINEER COMMENTS ON THAT.

>> GOT YOU. WENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION?

[01:10:01]

>> APPROVAL OF 70 VOTE?

>> COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. REYNOLDS OR COMMENTS?

>> I WOULD JUST SAY ON THE SECOND PLANT, THEY HAVE THE DRAINAGE DETENTION LABELED.

BUT ON THE FIRST ONE, THEY DO NOT, THEY HAVE IT LABELED AS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, AND THEN THEY ALSO HAVE ON THE FIRST ONE, THE NATURE RESERVE LABELED AS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE PARK LABELED ON EITHER ONE.

>> SHE CAN SPEAK TO THAT.

>> HI, I'M CAITLIN. I'M WITH METAL BLENDING AND DESIGN WITH A LAND PLANNERS FOR THIS PROJECTS ON THE FIRST PLOT, WHICH IS THE WATER PLANT, THE NATURE PRESERVE RIGHT NOW WE KEEP AS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON PLOTS WHERE THE ADJACENT HASN'T BEEN PLOTTED.

IF WE WOULD HAVE PLOTTED THE PARK AT THE SAME TIME AS THE WATER PLANT, WE WOULD HAVE PUT PARK THERE, BUT WE JUST LIKE TO KEEP SOME FLEXIBILITY.

THERE ARE NO PLANS TO CHANGE THAT TO ANYTHING BUT THE PARK BECAUSE IT IS THAT NATURE PRESERVE? BUT JUST BECAUSE ANYTHING HASN'T BEEN SUBMITTED, WE KEEP IT AS A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, TO JUST LEAVE THAT, SO THERE'S NO INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE FUTURE PLOT.

>> I JUST, IT WORRIED ME SINCE ON THE ACTUAL PLANT IN THE LEGAL EASE IN THE TOP LEFT CORNER, IT SAYS IT'S VERY MUCH OFFICIAL THAT THE PARKLAND THAT'S LABELED IS WHAT'S BEING DEDICATED AND WHAT WAS ON THE CONCEPT WASN'T TRANSFERRED TO THIS, SO THAT WORRIED ME.

>> ON THE FINAL PLOT.

IF PLOTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, IT WOULD SAY THAT THIS WOULD BE THE PARK AS SEEN IN RESERVE A OF THIS PLOT, BUT BECAUSE THIS IS PRELIMINARY, WE JUST KEEP IT A LITTLE BIT MORE VAGUE ONCE IT GETS TO A FINAL, THOSE DETAILS ARE HAMMERED OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE.

BUT AT THIS TIME THERE IS NO PLANS TO MAKE THAT ANYTHING BUT A PARK OR KEEP IT AS A NATURE PRESERVE BECAUSE OF THE ENVIRONMENT.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> YEAH. WE'VE BOUGHT THE REBAR ALL OF OUR LAST MEETINGS, EXTEND OUR ETJ OUT TO HELP FM521.

HAS IT BEEN ACCOMPLISHED? >. YES SIR.

>> IT NEEDS TO BE SHOWN AT WELLNESS PLAN.

YOU'VE GOT A DASHED LINE SHOWS ETJ IT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED BECAUSE IT'S BEEN MOVED OUT TO THE FM521.

>> WE CAN DO THAT ON OUR VICINITY MAP, BUT OTIS, DID WE SUBMIT THESE BEFORE THE ETJ LINE WAS.

>> THIS TWO FINAL PLAN IS GOING TO NEED TO SHOW THAT THERE'S NO ETJ RIGHT HERE.

IT'S OUT THERE BEYOND WHAT YOU'VE SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. THANK YOU.

>> OF COURSE, THE PRELIMINARY PLOT WAS JUST SUBMITTED BEFORE THAT WAS FINALIZED BY COUNCIL.

>> [OVERLAPPING] TO KIDS, WHEN YOU GET READY TO DO THE FINAL PLAN.

>> OF COURSE. I'LL [OVERLAPPING] TO QUIDDITY, THEY'RE TAKING CARE OF THE FINALS, BUT I'LL MAKE SURE THEY CATCH THAT.

>> THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH KIT.

TAKE CARE OF ANY QUESTIONS, LIKE YOU BROUGHT UP OR ANYTHING TOO SO.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?

>> ONE MORE.

>> GO AHEAD, MA'AM.

>> IS THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT INVOLVED WITH WHERE THE OUTPUTS GOING AND THE.

>> THE DITCHES THAT NOTHING NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED?

>> THEY'VE DEFINITELY WILL BE INVOLVED.

IT COULDN'T BE ANY, YOU GET TO THE PERMITTING OF ANY KIND.

>> I WAS JUST ONE THING THAT WAS.

>> WE HAVE TO HAVE JAMIE'S DISTRICTS APPROVAL.

>> ANYTHING ELSE? I GUESS WE'RE UP FOR ACTION.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE ASHLAND WATER PLANTS DIVISION AS PRESENTED.

>> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH [OVERLAPPING].

>> EXCUSE ME, CAN YOU ADMIN THAT TO MAKE IT SUBJECT TO THE FINAL APPROVAL WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

WE DON'T HAVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT YET.

>> YES, MA'AM. SUBJECT TO THE FINAL APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT?

>> I'LL SECOND THAT.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN [INAUDIBLE].

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAME SIGN?

ITEM NUMBER 14 DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON OUR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHLAND DEVELOPMENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FOR 14.44 ACRES OF LAND CONTAINING FOUR RESERVES AND THREE BLOCKS OUT OF THE GEORGE ROBINSON LEAGUE, A-26 MISSOURI COUNTY, TEXAS,

>> WE HAVE ONE NAY.

THAT MOTION DOES CARRY.

MOVING RIGHT ALONG,

[14. 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.]

[01:15:01]

AS SUBMITTED BY ASHTON GRADE DEVELOPMENT. GO AHEAD TAO.

>> THAT 14.44 ACRES IS FOR THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT BE THE SAME.

WE HAD TO SATISFIED ENGINEERED COMMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, DEFINITELY IN PLAY THERE TOO ON THAT.

BUT THAT'S WHAT THIS 14.44 ACRES IS JUST FOR THE TREATMENT PLANT.

>> THIS IS A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN?

>> THERE WAS A MIX-UP, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT ON SOME OF THE COMMENTS FROM THE PREVIOUS ONE SAID WATER TREATMENT PLANT.

THE PLANT ITSELF SAID WATER PLAN.

THIS IS FOR THE SEWER PLAN?

>> RIGHT, IT'S WASTEWATER.

>> [INAUDIBLE] AGAIN.

>> ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FOR STAFF?

>> PLANNING AND ZONING AS WELL?

>> YES. PASSED.

>> PASSED BY UNANIMOUS 70 ROW?

>> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS, I BELIEVE WE'LL BE ON THE ACTION PHASE.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ASHLAND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND RESERVES SUBDIVISION PLAT SUBJECT TO HAVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPROVED.

>> HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH?

>> DID I SAY PRELIMINARY PLAT? I MEANT TO SAY PRELIMINARY PLAN.

>> I THINK SO.

>> I THINK YOU DID.

>> I HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN GONGORA.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAME SIGN?

THAT MOTION DOES CARRY. MOVING RIGHT ALONG.

>> I HAVE ONE NAY.

[15. 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.]

ITEM NUMBER 15 DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON A FINAL RE-PLOT BY PT PATRICK THOMAS ESTATE FOR A 7.732 ACRE SUBDIVISION, ONE BLOCK, TWO LOTS, ONE RESERVE. MR. OTIS?

>> THANK YOU MAYOR. COUNCIL HAS NOTED THIS AS A FINAL PLAT FOR PT ESTATES IN WHICH THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY, AS YOU ARE AWARE, A REZONING UP THE TRACKS ONE BLOCK, TWO LOTS, ONE RESERVE.

WE HAVE A HOST OF COMMENTS THAT ARE CORRECTIVE IN NATURE AND THE ENGINEERS FOR THE PROJECT HAVE SUBMITTED THOSE REVISIONS AND WE'RE GOING THROUGH ALL OF THE NOTES.

BUT HOWEVER, THE ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY NOTE AS YOU SEE THERE, AND ALSO VERIFICATION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENTS WERE NOTED BY THE ENGINEER REVIEW.

OF COURSE, DEVELOPMENT PLANS WOULD BE PENDING FOR THIS FINAL PLAT FOR PATRICK THOMAS ESTATES.

WE'LL ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS.

THIS HAS BEEN FORWARDED IT TO YOU BY A 7-0 VOTE BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

ALL OF THE NOTES WE FEEL ARE ABLE TO BE TAKEN CARE OF PRIOR TO RECORDATION IN ANY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS.

>> I'VE GOTTEN SEVERAL QUESTIONS.

THIS IS THE FINAL PLAT, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> WHEN DID A PRELIMINARY PLAT FIRST COME BEFORE COUNCIL?

>> I DON'T HAVE THE HISTORY ON PATRICK AND IT'S BEEN AROUND FOR AWHILE.

I GAVE THE HISTORY HERE IN TERMS OF THE REZONING AND TRACKING THAT.

I' SORRY. BUT IT PREDATED ME IN TERMS OF HOW I GOT COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL.

>> NOW JUST TO CLARIFY, WE DID OUR FIRST MIDDLE AND LATE DECEMBER, SO THIS SHOULD BE FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT.

>> THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT?

>> YEAH, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE SUBMITTED PLATS [OVERLAPPING]

>> LAST TIME WE REZONED IT?

>> CORRECT, WE ONLY DID A REZONING IN 2022.

>> THAT'S WHY YOU GO TO THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL.

>> WHEN WAS THAT REZONED?

>> DID YOU SAY THE DATE?

>> WE VOTED ON THIS IN DECEMBER?

>> NO. YOUR REZONING INFORMATION, THAT WAS IN MAY OF THIS YEAR PRIOR TO MY COMING,.

>> I FEEL REALLY IGNORANT. I CAN'T BELIEVE WE REZONED THIS.

>> IT WAS REZONED TO STORAGE ON THAT COMMERCIAL LOT.

I COPIED YOU ON THE ORDINANCES WILL.

>> BECAUSE I DON'T THINK I MISSED THE MEETING.

[01:20:02]

>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE NUMBER IS MAY 24.

>> I'M SURPRISED WE PUT COMMERCIAL RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL.

WELL, PREVIOUSLY IT'S JUST BEEN DONE THAT WAY FOR A LONG TIME.

>> IT'S BEEN WHAT?

>> WE DIDN'T ZONE AND COMMERCIAL.

WE MOVED IT FROM COMMERCIAL TO SF.

>> JUST TO GIVE SOME CLARITY, THE WHOLE SEVEN ACRES WAS ZONED COMMERCIAL.

WHAT PATRICK THOMAS WANTED TO DO WAS TAKE A PORTION OF THAT COMMERCIAL TRACK AND REZONE IT TO SINGLE-FAMILY 7.2 SO HE COULD PUT HIS HOME NEXT TO THE COMMERCIAL LOT.

WHAT HE WANTS TO DO IS SETUP A TRACK WHERE HE'S GOT AS HIS ESTATE PROPERTY AND THEN STORAGE UNITS NEXT DOOR.

>> IS THAT THE PROPERTY THAT WE SEE CURRENTLY ON THE LAND, THERE'S [OVERLAPPING].

>> CORRECT.

>> BACK THERE BEHIND THE CHURCH?

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>> YEAH, [INAUDIBLE]. [NOISE]

>> MY ONLY CONCERN IS, IT IS IN THE MIDDLE OF RESIDENTIAL AND YOU SEE NARRATOR FACES RIGHT THERE.

PLANTATION IS JUST TO THIS SOUTH.

IT MANNERS A LITTLE BIT TO THE NORTH.

I GUESS, I DON'T KNOW, THERE'S JUST NO POSSIBILITY OF ENTERING SAID PROPERTY FROM 288.

IT HAS TO BE ON VALDEZ.

>> OWNERS ACCESS IS ON THE VALDEZ.

THROUGH THIS PLANNING PROCESS, IS HIS GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO DONATE ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR VALDEZ STREET?

>> YES, THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS NOTED THERE IN THE COMMENTS.

>> WHY WOULD IT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR VALDEZ STREET?

>> I'M SORRY, DID YOU SAY WHY?

>> IT SATISFIED THE 60 FEET ON THIS PARTICULAR PLANT.

>> IT DOES NOT HAVE TO DONATE ANYMORE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

>> SHOULD ALREADY BE THERE.

>> SIXTY FEET OR RIGHT-OF-WAY EXISTS?

>> DOES HE HAVE TO DONATE MORE?

>> SEVENTY TO 80 IS WHAT THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN WOULD.

>> DOES HE HAVE TO DONATE MORE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR VALDEZ STREET?

>> CORRECT. THAT'S SHOWN IN THE ENGINEERING COMMENTS.

>> WHY DOES HE HAVE TO DONATE MORE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR VALDEZ STREET?

>> BECAUSE HE'S THE MAJOR COLLECTOR.

>> ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE RIGHT-OF-WAY WIPED FROM ALL THE LOTS SOUTH OF THERE DOWN TO CANNON DRIVE? TO ACCOMMODATE THIS YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM THE CHURCH IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THEM TO CORRECT THE WIDTH OF THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY? IT JUST SEEM LIKE YOU'RE JUST DOTTING IT OUT AND IT DIDN'T NEED TO BE DOTTED.

WHAT ARE YOU ACCOMPLISHING BY TAKING MORE LAND FROM THIS GUY TO WIDEN THE ROAD TO 10 MORE FEET?

>> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU.

[OVERLAPPING]

>> WE LOOK AT THIS STUFF IN A SENSIBLE MANNER.

THE STREET IS FULLY DEVELOPED.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT A BULB AND BOUNDARY STREET THERE BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

JUST TO BE DOING SOMETHING.

JUST BECAUSE IS NOT AN ADEQUATE ANSWER.

>> IT'S FOLLOWING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT.

>> BECAUSE THEN WE'RE JUST DOING IT BECAUSE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SAYS TO.

>> ANYTHING CAN BE DEVIATED BY ACTION OF THE COUNCIL.

IF WE DON'T NEED THE RIGHT-OF-WAY I THINK WE CAN OMIT THAT REQUIREMENT.

>> FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT, DO WE NEED THIS ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY?

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>> THE QUESTION WAS, FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT, DO WE NEED THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY?

>> IF THERE ARE NO PLANS TO INCREASE THE WIDTH OF THE ROAD OR TO DO ANY OTHER IMPROVEMENTS AND FULLY DEVELOPED, I WOULD NOT BELIEVE THERE WOULD BE A REASON BUT TO

[01:25:02]

BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT THE COUNCIL HAS APPROVED AS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THAT'S WHAT THAT COMMENT WAS MADE.

>> WELL, I ASKED A SPECIFIC QUESTION, I JUST ASKED FOR A SPECIFIC ANSWER.

ONE, I DON'T KNOW IF WE KNEW AT THIS AT THE TIME THAT THEY WILL BE SEPARATED LOT TO INTO THE SF7.2 TO ALLOW THEM TO BUILD AS LEAN TO THAT.

>> I HAVE TWO THOUGHTS.

EVENTUALLY WE'D BE COMING BACK WITH STORAGE UNITS BECAUSE THAT CHANGES MY WHOLE PERSPECTIVE ON THINGS.

I UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR CHURCH IS TO THE SOUTH OF IT BUT THERE ARE ROWS AND ROWS OF HOUSES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT'S CLEARLY THAT PART OF VALDEZ HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AS A RESIDENTIAL AREA.

I'M NOT SAYING APPARENTLY WE STILL HAVE A NEED FOR STORAGE UNITS EVEN THOUGH I CAN FIND THEM ALL ACROSS THE CITY.

I HATE TO TELL SOMEBODY WHAT THEY SHOULD DO WITH THEIR PROPERTY BUT THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF HAVING ZONING ORDINANCES.

WE COULD JUST DO AWAY WITH ZONING AND GO TO DEEDS BUT AS FAR AS PLANNING IS IF WE WERE TRYING TO LITERALLY PLAN THE CITY HERE, LONG TERM, I CAN'T IMAGINE THIS IS THE BEST USE OF THIS PROPERTY.

I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S GOOD TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE.

PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON THE READER PLANTATION AND MANNER OR THE HOUSES THAT ARE DIRECTLY SOUTH AT THE CORNER OF MOUNT EREBUS, CLOSER TO CAIN.

TO ME IT SEEMS LIKE A RESIDENTIAL AND SHOULD REMAIN AS A RESIDENTIAL AREA.

>> THIS IS JUST TO CLARIFY, WHAT IS GOING TO GO ON LOT 1? JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WHAT DOES HE WANT TO DO WITH LOT 1, WHICH IS BASICALLY TO THE EAST OF THE DETENTION RESERVE?

>> CORRECT. THE DETENTION RESERVE LOT 1 AND THEN THE STORAGE, I'M SORRY, LOT 1 IS TO DEVELOP THE STORAGE FACILITY, LOT 2 IS ZONE THE RESIDENTIAL.

PROBLEM IS IT WAS ALREADY COMMERCIAL, IT'S NOTED EARLIER.

THE ORDINANCE THAT I HAVE NOTED HERE IS WHAT REVERTED THOSE TWO LOTS TO THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE IN MAY OF 2022.

>> GOT YOU.

>> HOW HE GOT COMMERCIAL ORIGINALLY, WE'LL HAVE TO TRACK THE HISTORY OF THAT AND SEE HOW.

>> I'M JUST CURIOUS.

I KNOW THE CITY CHANGES AND MAYBE IT WAS COMMERCIAL BEFORE DEVELOPERS CAME IN AND DEVELOPED THE PLANTATION NARITA MANNER.

>> BUT I AGREE WITH YOU, THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA IS RESIDENTIAL IF YOU LOOK AT THE PHOTOS HERE.

>> WE HAVE MAJOR COLLECTORS THROUGHOUT TOWN.

I THINK SEEING WHAT 35 HAS STORAGE AND IN SOME BOTH EAST AND WEST OF 2DA.

I THINK WE HAVE SOME ON 2DA.

I'M SURE IT'S GOOD FOR DR. THOMAS.

I KNOW, WE GO TO CHURCH TOGETHER SO HE'S PROBABLY POUNDING HIS FIST AT THE TV RIGHT NOW POINTING AT ME BUT I STILL HAVE TO THINK LONG-TERM AND THE BEST USE OF THE CITY AND I JUST CAN'T SEE THIS AS THE BEST USE ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO THE CITIZENS WHO LIVE ON THE STREETS.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT, MR. THOMPSON.

>> WE STILL HAVE CONDITION NUMBER 9 AND MAYBE WAIVING THAT FIVE-FOOT ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DUE TO IT NOT BEING A PRIORITY IF HE WOULD TAKE ACTION ON THAT AS WELL.

>> YOU SAID NUMBER 9?

>> YES, CONDITION NUMBER 9.

IT'S ABOUT THE MASSIVE THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

>> CAN YOU LIMIT THE NUMBER OF STORAGE UNITS IN THAT ZONING?

>> IT WOULD HAVE TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE ZONE PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE STORAGE UNITS SO WE'LL MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T OVER-IDENTIFY THE LOT AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY MEET THEIR BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AND WHAT A HAVE YOU DURING THIS SITE PLAN REVIEW, YES, SIR.

I'LL LOOK BACK AT THAT ORIGINAL ORDINANCE AND THIS ONE JUST TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NOTHING IN THERE TO NOTE OTHERWISE BUT TYPICALLY WE WOULD GO BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

[01:30:10]

>> I JUST LIKE TO KNOW, BEFORE I VOTE IT, HOW MANY UNITS YOU CAN ACTUALLY PUT IN THERE ON THAT NUMBER OF ACRES AND WHAT ARE WE TALKING?

>> I CAN DO THE RESEARCH AND GET BACK WITH YOU, AGAIN, TABLE THIS DECISION.

WE USUALLY HAVE TIME CLOUD REQUIREMENTS BUT I THINK IF COUNCIL TABLES IT, I THINK THE REVIEW OF IT CONTINUES ON.

>> WE THINK THAT THE AGREEMENT FROM THE APPLICANT, THAT WOULD REALLY BE HELPFUL.

>> DO YOU THINK WE CAN GET A 30-DAY CONTINUANCE ON THIS? I'M GOING TO NEED 30 ANYWAY.

WE CAN'T FORCE YOU TO DO IT BUT VOLUNTARILY YOU CAN WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE COUNCIL WITH A 30-DAY REQUEST OF THE WAIVER OF THE TIME CLOCK.

>> A COUPLE OF MORE COMMENTS, PLEASE, SIR.

>> OKAY.

>> ALONG VALDEZ STREET AT LOT 2 THERE'S A 25 FOOT BUILDING LINES SHOWN.

IN LOT 1 THERE IS A 20-FOOT BUILDING LINE SHOWN.

WHY ARE THEY NOT THE SAME? IS THERE SOMETHING THAT TRIGGERS ONE BEING A 20 OVER A 25 OR A 25 OVER A 20?

>> CORRECT. THE LOT 2 IS OWN 7.2, WHICH HAS A 25 FOOT FRONT SETBACK AND LOT 1 HAS COMMERCIAL AND THAT HAS A 20-FOOT FRONT SETBACK.

THAT'S JUST HOW IT'S WRITTEN IN THE ORDINANCE.

>> WE TAKE THIS BACK, MIGUEL, TELL THE SERVER TO PUT THE BEARINGS ON HERE THAT ARE MISSING. THE SERVER.

>> SO DO I. I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS A CONSENSUS TO TABLE THIS ITEM, SOME MORE HOMEWORK AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL.

>> WE'LL BRING IT BACK NEXT MEETING.

>> I WAS TOTALLY MIXED UP.

I THOUGHT 1 WAS GOING TO BE RESIDENTIAL AND 2 WAS COMMERCIAL.

>> GOOD MEASURE. JUST TAKE THE VOTE ON THE TABLE.

ALSO CAN YOU ADD WHEN YOU DO IT THAT THE AFRICAN HAS APPROVED IT?

>> OKAY. DO I HEAR A MOTION ON THE RECOMMENDATION FROM COUNTS ARE LEGAL?

>> SO MOVED.

>> I HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM, WRIGHT.

>> I HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

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

THAT MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, MR. OTIS.

>> TABLES.