READY TO THE LEFT. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL OUR ANGLES AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO ORDER. [DECLARATION OF A QUORUM AND CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:06] DATE IS TUESDAY, APRIL THE 11TH, 2023 AT 06:03. WE DO HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT, SO I'LL GO IN COST ORDER. IF YOU'LL PLEASE STAND FOR OUR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION. COULD YOU BEAR WITH ME, PLEASE? GOD, WE THANK YOU FOR ANOTHER DAY THAT YOU'VE GIVEN US. WE THANK YOU FOR THE FACT THAT WE CAN CALL UPON YOU TO LEAD US TONIGHT. WE DO FATHER WHOLEHEARTEDLY. LEAD US, GIVE US YOUR WISDOM. FATHER, WE WON'T TAKE EACH ONE OF THESE ITEMS AS GIVE THEM THE MERIT THAT'S DUE OR DELETED, SOME GUIDANCE. WE THANK YOU FOR THE CITY THAT YOU'VE GIVEN US TO LIVE IN AND NOW TO SERVE TOO. THANK YOU FOR THE PEOPLE THAT WORK HERE, COMMIT THEMSELVES TO THE CITY, TO STAFF, TO POLICE, FIRE, EMS, FATHER EVERYBODY THANK YOU THAT THEY HAVE HONORED TO CALL TO COME, LIVE AND SERVE HERE. HELP US AGAIN POD WE LOVE YOU IN CHRIST'S NAME. AMEN. THANK YOU, MA'AM. THANK YOU, SIR. AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED WITH CITIZENS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL, DIDN'T GET ANYTHING. DIDN'T GET ANYTHING, AND WE'LL MOVE RIGHT ON [EXECUTIVE SESSION (Part 1 of 2)] INTO OUR NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS EXECUTIVE SESSION. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW CONVENIENT EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 551, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED THEREIN. NUMBER 1, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY PURSUANT TO SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE PENDING OR CONTEMPLATING LITIGATION SETTLEMENT OFFER REGARDING CHRISTOPHER HILL VERSUS CITY OF ANGELTON, TEXAS WILL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 18:05. VISITORS IN THE AUDIENCE, WE APOLOGIZE, WE HAVE AN ATTORNEY THAT'S WAITING FOR US, SO WE'LL GET THAT ONE OUT OF THE WAY AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK INTO REGULAR SESSION, SO WHAT KNOCK THAT ONE OUT FIRST INSTEAD OF HAVING THAT PERSON TO WAIT UNTIL THE END OF OUR MEETING, SO IF YOU'LL GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF TIME, WE'LL BE BACK HERE IN CHAMBERS. [LAUGHTER] WE'LL GO AHEAD AND RECONVENE BACK AT THE TABLE AT 18:27. [OPEN SESSION] WE HAVE NO ACTION COMING OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THIS PARTICULAR EXECUTIVE SESSION. SO THAT WILL MOVE HIS RIGHT ONTO OUR OPEN SESSION GOING INTO CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS, [CONSENT AGENDA] AND I WILL READ THEM OFF. ITEM NUMBER 2, DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST TO APPROVE PURCHASING OR LEASING A NEW STORAGE SERVER OR CLOUD SERVICES FROM TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION RESOURCES, ALSO KNOWN AS DIR, CONTRACT VENDOR DALE, TO REPLACE THE PIVOT THREE NETWORK ATTACHED STORAGE, ALSO KNOWN AS NAS. NUMBER THREE, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON A WAIVER OF PERMIT FEES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME AND DEMO OF EXISTING STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 05:04 WEST FEET ANGLED IN TEXAS. THERE WAS 1515 IN THE SF6.3 ZONING DISTRICT. NUMBER 4 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLAT FOR WIND ROSE GREEN SECTION THREE SUBDIVISION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 23.70 ACRES, 122 LOTS, THREE BLOCKS FOR RESERVES IN THE T S LEE SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 3,1,8 IN THE CITY OF ANGLE TWO, E T J AND IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FM 523, APPROXIMATELY 2,500 FT WEST OF FM 523 AT SOUTH HIGHWAY 35 INTERSECTION. ITEM NUMBER FIVE, DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE ACTION ON A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHLYN UTILITY RESERVE FOR 0.23 ACRES OF LAND CONTAINING TWO RESERVES IN ONE BLOCK FOR UTILITY PURPOSES. OUT OF THE SHABAAB MARSH SURVEY, A-81 AND A-82, VICTORIA COUNTY, TEXAS, AS SUBMITTED BY ASHTON GRAY DEVELOPMENT. ITEM, NUMBER SIX DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE ASHLYN PROJECT CALLED HAVEN STREET DEDICATION, AND NUMBER SEVEN, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ANGLE TIN PARK PLACE SUBDIVISION SECTION ONE. COUNSEL? MR. MAYOR, I MOVE, WE ADOPT CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTIONS OF PULLING ITEM NUMBER 4,5,6 AND 7 FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. I HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM, RIGHT SECOND BY COUNCILMAN THOMPSON. FOR ALL ITEMS WAS WITH EXCEPTION TO 4,5,6 AND 7. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. SAME SIGN. THAT MOTION CARRIES AND NOW THAT BRINGS US TO [4. Consideration of approval of a Final Plat for Windrose Green Section 3 Subdivision. The subject property consists of 23.70 acres, 122 Lots, 3 Blocks, 4 Reserves, in the T.S. Lee Survey, Abstract #318, is in the City of Angleton ETJ and is located on the south side of FM 523 approximately 2,500 feet west of the FM 523/SH 35 intersection. ] ITEM NUMBER 4 CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF [00:05:01] A FUNNEL PLOT OF WIND ROSE GREEN SECTION 3 SUBDIVISION. I WON'T READ THE REST. GO AHEAD, MR. OTIS. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I'LL START WITH ITEM NUMBER 4, WHICH IS WINDROWS GREEN SECTION THREE SUBDIVISION STATED THESE ARE 108 LOTS, THREE BLACKS AND FOR RESERVES ON 23.7 ACRES. AS YOU ARE AWARE, THIS SUBDIVISION WAS APPROVED PREVIOUSLY AND IT'S CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION? IT IS IN OUR RET J WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THIS IS PARTICULARLY JUST MOVING FOR SECTION THREE, THE FINAL PLANNING. WE'VE HAD THE PLAYER REVIEWED BY OUR CITY ENGINEER IN WHICH INITIALLY THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS WHICH WERE IN TERMS OF CORRECTING SOME WRITTEN CONDITIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS ON THE PLANET AND ALSO SOME TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS ON THE PLAN CLARITY, SO THEY WERE ABLE TO CHANGE THOSE TEXTUAL CORRECTIONS PRIOR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKING THEIR ACTION ON THIS PARTICULAR PLAT. IT WAS ACTUALLY APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THREE VOLT, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SECTION 3, THE FINAL PLAT AND WE'RE MOVING THIS FORWARD TO COUNCIL OF A FINAL [INAUDIBLE]. >> THANK YOU MR. OTIS. HE MIGHT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. >>YES. GO AHEAD, SIR. >> SO IT WAS A 4 - 3 VOTE. WHAT WAS MOST OF THE COMMENTS FROM P&Z FOR THE THREE AGAINST? >> SO UNFORTUNATELY, WITH THE NEGATIVE VOLTS, WE RECEIVED NO REACTION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN TERMS OF THE NODE VOLT, AND I CAN ONLY SPECULATE THAT IT HAS TO DO WHENEVER WE HAVE A SITUATION WHEN ITS 50-FOOT LOTS OR BELOW, THEY HAVE A TENDENCY TO NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE VOTING FOR THOSE PARTICULAR PLANTS, AND YOU'LL SEE YOUR PATH ON THE ONES THAT COME IN. >> SOME OF THESE ARE 40, SOME OF THESE ARE SMALLER IN SOME CASES. >> THESE WERE, AS YOU KNOW, PART OF A LARGE-SCALE DEVELOPMENT THAT WENT BEFORE YOU THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS OR THE LOTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN VETTED. >> SO HERE'S MY ISSUE AND I WAS JUST OVER IN THAT AREA LAST WEEK AND HEARING FROM SOME CITIZENS ON HERITAGE PARK, AND THEIR BIGGEST CONCERN IS YOU CAN LOOK ACROSS THERE AND SEE THE DIRT AND HOW MUCH IS BEING BUILT UP, AND THEIR CONCERN IS NOBODY'S MANAGING THE RETENTION POND THAT'S OVER THERE AND THE DIRT LEVEL IS HIGHER IN SOME CASES THEN THE CHURCH AND IN SOME CASES THEIR HOUSES, AND THEIR CONCERN THAT THAT'S NOT BEEN ADDRESSED, SO IN PUBLIC MEETING HASN'T BEEN ADDRESSED AND WHAT IS BEING DONE. WHERE'S THE WATER GOING TO SHED TO. >> SO A LOT OF THE DIRT FROM WINDROWS GREEN IS CURRENTLY BEING MOVED TO OTHER LOCATIONS, SO WHAT THEY SEE MAYBE WORK IN PROGRESS BECAUSE WE'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF COMPLAINTS IN TERMS OF THE SEVERAL TRUCKS GOING OUT TO THE SIDE AND SOME OF IT'S GOING TO FREEDOM PARK AS YOU MAYBE AWARE, WE'VE HAD TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE FOLLOWING STANDARDS IN TERMS OF KEEPING MUD OFF THE ROAD, PUTTING THE TARPS ON THE TRUCK, SO THEY'VE BEEN REALLY RESPONSIVE TO STAFF AS WE RECEIVE THE COMPLAINTS TO CORRECT, IN TERMS OF THE ROUTING AND SOMETIMES IT'S PAINFUL TO THE RESIDENTS AS WELL, BUT UNTIL THAT PERIOD IS OVER, I THINK IT'LL BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT. >> WHAT REASSURANCES DO THE CITIZENS HAVE? I MEAN, YOU SAID SHOULD BE, BUT THAT'S TO SOME PEOPLE THAT DOESN'T. >> IN TERMS OF THE DRAINAGE APPROVALS AND ALL OF THAT DEBT WOULD STILL STAY IN, SO IF THERE'S A QUESTION REGARDING THE DRAINAGE, WILL BE GLAD TO COORDINATE THAT WITH THE ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DON'T GO OUT AND THEN DOUBLE-CHECK NOTHING IS OFF-KILTER IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS APPROVED, BUT I JUST THINK THAT SOME OF THE AMOUNTS OF DIRT, IF THEY'RE SEEING IS NOT THE FINAL GRADE, BUT I CAN'T TELL YOU PARTICULARLY WHAT THE COMPLAINT IS, BUT WE'LL BE GLAD TO LOOK DEEPER INTO IT. >> I HAD A COMPLAINT OF DIRT BY THE CHURCH AND SO I ASKED THE SAME QUESTION AND ANSWERS I GOT BACK WAS THAT'S THE DIRT COME OUT OF FREEDOM PARK, THAT'S A STAGING AREA AND THEN THEY MOVE IT INTO THE DEVELOPMENT. >> OKAY. >> SO I'VE RESPONDED TO THEY CAME OUT OF THE SR GROUP, FOR EXAMPLE A COUPLE OF OTHER PLACES. >> AND WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THE POND THAT IS BACKING UP TOO, BECAUSE WELL, IT'S BACKING UP TO THE DITCH, BUT THE DITCHES RIGHT NEXT TO THE POND AND THEY'RE SAYING HOW MUCH OF THAT SEDIMENT IS MOVING OVER INTO THEIR SIDE, I DON'T KNOW, JUST THE QUESTIONS I'VE RECEIVED. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THIS IN MY UNDERSTANDING AND I'M NOT QUESTION I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS DEVELOPMENT IS A PART OF A PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. [00:10:02] >> YES. >> IT'S NOT NECESSARILY SUBJECT TO THE CITY'S ZONINGS OR. >> IT'S SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. >> CORRECT, SO THERE'S VERY LITTLE THAT CAN BE DONE AT THIS POINT IN TIME TO STOP. WE WANT TO CALL PROGRESS OR DESTRUCTION, HOWEVER, YOU LOOK AT IT BY CITY COUNCIL. >> TO STOP THE ACTUAL SUBDIVISION FROM BEING DEVELOPED OR? >> AS THEY WISH TO CONFIGURE IT. AS JOHN HAS ALREADY ARTICULATED BECAUSE I KNOW PEOPLE AREN'T LOOKING AT IT. THESE LOTS MOST OF THEM HAVE A 40-FOOT FRONTAGE. >> RIGHT. WE'RE NOT AWARE OF ANY CHANGES FROM PRELIMINARY STAGE TO FINAL PLAN. >> RIGHT. >> THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD TRACK TO MAKE SURE THEY'D BE [OVERLAPPING] >> AS LONG AS IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL PLAN AS THEY STAY WITHIN THEIR GUIDELINES. WHATEVER A PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATOR, CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER AGREED UPON, THERE'S NOTHING, BASICALLY, THIS CITY COUNCIL CAN DO TO OBSTRUCT OR WITHHOLD OR STOP OR SLOW DOWN THE CONSTRUCTION OF 40-FOOT FRONTAGE. >> CORRECT. ANY DEVIATION FROM THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT [OVERLAPPING] THAT STAFF WOULD POINT THAT OUT AND MAKE SURE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL AS COUNCIL IS AWARE OF ANY MODIFICATIONS. >> I JUST WANT US OUT THERE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT SOMEBODY SAYING CITY COUNCIL IS NOT DOING ANYTHING TO ADDRESS CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE. THIS IS WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE BASICALLY. THIS DECISION WAS MADE SOME TIME AGO, BUT MAYBE THERE'S PEOPLE SITTING ON THIS COUNCIL, I DON'T KNOW. BUT MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THIS COUNCIL WEREN'T PART OF THIS ORIGINAL DECISION. >> YES, SIR. >> THEN JUST FOR FURTHER HOUSEKEEPING, THIS ITEM WAS FOUR, THREE VOTE ON P&Z AND IT'S ALSO A FINAL PLAT FOR A SUBDIVISION, THAT SHOULD NOT BE IN COUNCIL AGENDA. LET THAT BE ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. >> RIGHT. IF IT'S THE PRESENCE OF THE COUNCIL NOT TO HAVE THESE ON [OVERLAPPING] I WILL DO THAT. I WAS GOING BY OUR PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATOR. THAT'S HOW THEY PROCESS THINGS THAT WENT POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION AND IF IT MET THE STANDARDS OF THE PLAT. BUT IF IT'S A COUNCIL DIRECTION TO PUT THESE ON REGULAR AGENDA, WE'LL CERTAINLY DO THAT FOR ALL OF THEM. [OVERLAPPING] >> IT WAS A FOUR, THREE VOTE FROM P&Z, SO IT WASN'T UNANIMOUS. >> YES, SIR. >> ANOTHER OF THEIR SOME ISSUES THERE. >> MY GUESS THE OBJECTIVE VOTES WOULD JUST BE ON PRINCIPLE NOT ON ACTUAL STANDARDS BECAUSE [OVERLAPPING] WE DON'T HAVE MUCH TO STAND ON. >> BECAUSE PLAT APPROVAL ISN'T MINISTERIAL. >> BUT I DON'T DISAGREE WITH MR. WRIGHT'S CONCLUSION. I AGREE WITH MR. WRIGHT'S CONCLUSION THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO BE ENTERING INTO A FINAL PLAT, I DO THINK LET'S GO AHEAD AND AIR THIS OUT. IF ANYBODY'S PAYING ATTENTION, I KNOW THAT THE FACTS DOES LISTEN TO THESE. IF THEY'RE NOT HERE PRESENTLY, THEY'LL LISTEN BACK TO THE MEETINGS. >> CERTAINLY. >> THEN I THINK JUST FROM AN EDUCATION STANDPOINT, THEN THERE'S NOTHING DONE BEHIND. I KNOW IT'S A TOOL USED TO MOVE THIS PROCESS ALONG SO OUR MEETINGS AREN'T LAST AS LONG, BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. SPRIGS, THERE'S SOME ADMINISTRATIVE CLEANUP THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO THIS PLAT. >> YES, SIR. >> TWO OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES HERE, ONE IS THE GOOD SHEPHERD LUTHERAN CHURCH AT THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT TO THIS PROPERTY AND THE DRAINAGE DITCH THAT IS OWNED BY THE ANGLETON DRAINAGE DISTRICT ALONG THE WEST SIDE. BOTH OF THESE ENTITIES ACQUIRED THEIR DEED IN 1986. WHEN THE DEEDS WERE FILED FOR RECORD, THEY WERE FILED FOR RECORD IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF BRASILIA COUNTY, NOT THE DEED RECORDS OF BRASILIA COUNTY. I SAW THERE WAS SOME EDITS BACK AND FORTH. EDITS THAT WERE REQUIRED ON THE PLAT IN ONE PLACE WAS INCORRECT BECAUSE IT CAUSED THEM TO SAY DEED RECORDS. MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING CONFORMS BOTH ON THE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF THE PARCEL BEING DEVELOPED AND THE DRAWING SHOWING THE PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO THIS SUBDIVISION. >> NOTED AND THE ENGINEERS HERE WILL MAKE SURE THAT'S CORRECTED AS A CONDITION. >> JUST TO ADMINISTRATIVE STUFF. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR MR. SPRIGS? >> COUNCIL, THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM. >> WHERE I MOVE WE APPROVE THE FILE PLAT WIND ROSE GREEN SUBDIVISION SECTION 3. [00:15:05] >> MOTION BY COUNCILOR BOOTH, DO I HAVE A SECOND? MOTION BY BOOTH. IS THERE A SECOND? IF NOT LACK OF SECOND, THEN THE MOTION DOES NOT PASS. >> EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO DO SO. IF YOU DO NOT TAKE ACTION IN 30 DAYS PURSUANT TO THE SHOT CLOCK, IT IS APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY OR BY ACTION OF LAW. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> A SECOND SO THAT WE CAN DECIDE ON IT. >> A SECOND BY COUNCIL WOMAN, DANIELS, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, I'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING, AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAME SIGN. >> AYE. >> TWO TO THREE. >> TWO TO THREE. THAT MOTION DOES NOT PASS. ORDER NUMBER 5, DISCUSSION THE POSSIBLE ACTION ON A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHLYN UTILITY RESERVE FOR 0.23 ACRES OF LAND CONTAINING TWO RESERVES IN ONE BLOCK FOR UTILITY PURPOSES. OUT OF THE SHOVEL MARCH SURVEY, A-81 AND A-82 BRASILIA COUNTY, TEXAS, ESTIMATED BY ASHTON GREAT DEVELOPMENT NUMBER 5. MR. OTIS. >> DO YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE NEXT ITEM OR YOU WANT TO ASK A QUESTION? >> JUST GO AHEAD, MA'AM. >> IN LIGHT OF THE PREVIOUS VOTE, THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT YOU ARE EITHER GOING TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE. IF YOU DISAPPROVE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE REASONS FOR THE DISAPPROVAL TO THE PERSON THAT SUBMITTED FOR THE PLAT APPROVAL. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING TO TELL WHAT'S THE BASIS FOR THE DISAPPROVAL. IT'S LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 212.009. IF YOU TAKE NO ACTION AND THE 30 DAYS RUNS, THEN BY OPERATION OF LAW, IT'S APPROVED. OTHERWISE, YOU APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS. OR IF YOU DISAPPROVE, YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE APPLICANT TO SAY WE DISAPPROVE FOR WHATEVER REASON. >> GOT YOU. DOES THAT LIE? >> DOES THAT MEAN WE HAVE THREE INDIVIDUAL AND THEIR VOTES HAVE TO EXPRESS OUR REASONS OR? >> WELL, I THINK THE BODY NEEDS TO DECIDE. >> BECAUSE I CAN'T EXPLAIN WHY. >> YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CERTIFY BACK TO THE APPLICANT. >> EXACTLY, AND RIGHT NOW WE HAVE NOTHING. >> MY CONCERN IS ON THE DRAINAGE WITH THAT VOLUME OF HOUSES YOU PUTTING RIGHT THERE, THEN ALREADY AN AREA THAT ALREADY HAS DRAINAGE ISSUES. I STILL HAVE YET TO SEE THE DIRT MOVE COMPLETELY OFF THERE. I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. I WANT TO SEE THAT IT'S HAPPENED FIRST BEFORE I GIVE MY APPROVAL. >> VANESSA, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING REGARDING THAT OR YOU WOULD HAVE TO GET BACK WITH THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE DEVELOPER? >> YES I DEFINITELY HAVE TO GET BACK WITH THE DEVELOPER. >> I'M SORRY. THIS IS REPRESENTING THE ENGINEER TEAM. >> HI. RONNIE CIGARS MENTALVO WITH CASTELLO ENGINEERING. NO. I HONESTLY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO BE ABLE TO GET BACK TO YOU ABOUT SPECIFICS SUCH AS THE DIRT. BUT I CAN DEFINITELY FIND OUT AND PROVIDE INFORMATION TO DIRECTOR OF SPRIGS AND HE CAN PASS THAT ALONG TO YOU ALL. AT THIS POINT I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR ANYONE INCORRECTLY, MISSPEAK. >> THANK YOU. >> BUT THAT'S GOOD. WHAT YOU'VE JUST GIVEN THAT'S PERFECT. >> IT'S LEGITIMATE REASON. >> JOINING IN WITH MR. RIGHT, THERE WAS QUITE A LONG DISCUSSION ABOUT DRAINAGE, GETTING ADDITIONAL MATERIAL OUT OF THE POND WHERE THEY'D BEEN DIGGING IT OUT OF IN ORDER TO FULFILL THEIR DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAN AND ALL THAT THING. IF SOME OF THIS SUBDIVISION, THIS SECTION RIGHT HERE IS DEPENDENT UPON THAT BEING DONE THEN BY ALL MEANS THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE NEGATIVELY IMPACT OR [00:20:03] POTENTIALLY NEGATIVELY IMPACT PROPERTIES OUT THERE. >> YES. >> WE SHOULDN'T BE SAYING WELL, WE'RE GOING TO GET AROUND TO IT. >> EXACTLY. WE'LL FOLLOW UP WITH THAT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> I'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 6. [5. Discussion and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for Ashland Utility Reserve, for 0.23 acres of land, containing two reserves in one block for utility purposes, out of the Shubael Marsh Survey A-81 &A-82, Brazoria County, Texas as submitted by Ashton Gray Development. ] I'M SORRY, I'M ON THE CORRECT ONE? >> NUMBER 5. [OVERLAPPING] >> NUMBER 5, EXCUSE ME. I THINK THIS IS THE UTILITY. >> UTILITY. >> IT THREW ME OFF A LITTLE BIT. THIS IS ASHLYN UTILITY RESERVE FOR 23 ACRES CONTAINING TWO RESERVES AND ONE BLACK FOR UTILITY PURPOSES. THIS IS FOR OUR OF COURSE, THE LIFT STATION TO BE ALLOWED AND ALSO UTILITIES WITHIN THIS PARTICULAR RESERVES. THE APPLICANTS SUBMITTED THIS PARTICULAR PLAT AND THERE WERE NINE [NOISE] ACTIVE COMMENTS FROM THE ENGINEER, WHICH THOSE OF COURSE WERE RESUBMITED BY THE TIME THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCCURRED AND WHERE WE WERE ABLE TO CLEAR THOSE. THIS IS OF COURSE IN THE ETJ, SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OF ASHLYN BEING OFFICIALLY ADOPTED BY COUNCIL, [NOISE] AS YOU KNOW. THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACT ON THIS PLAT WITH THE SIX TO ONE VOTES WITH NO MAJOR ISSUES BROUGHT UP. THAT THEN IS BEING USED FOR UTILITY PURPOSES. THIS HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED WITH A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL. >> JUST TO NOTE ON MINE AND I'M SURE AS WELL AS OTHER MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. IN THE NOTES OF COMMISSION ACTION, IT SAYS IT PASSED BY A SIX TO ONE, BUT WHEN YOU READ THE ACTUAL ROLL CALL VOTED READS A FIVE TO TWO. I SEE TWO NAYS, UNLESS THAT WAS MISREPORTED. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR FOR THE RECORD. IT SHOWS MEMBER [OVERLAPPING] FOR AND MEMBER VARY IN NAY. >> YEAH, IT'S FIVE TO TWO TO CORRECT. >> YOU BEAT ME TO IT. >> THAT WAS A FIVE TO TWO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE UTILITY RESERVE SUBJECT TO A CONDITION THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BE OFFICIALLY ADOPTED BY COUNCIL. >> THANK YOU, MR. SPRIGS. ANYMORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR STAFF? >> HAVE WE DECIDED WHERE THIS STATION OR THIS UTILITY RESERVE, HOW IT FITS INTO THE DRAINAGE ISSUES IN THE WATERSHED OVER THERE? >> SEEMS TO BACKUP TO THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT. >> CAITLIN, DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT? >> BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT WAS EXPRESSED LAST TIME. >> HI, I'M CAITLIN KING I'M WITH MEGA PLANNING AND DESIGN. ALL PLOTS AND PLANS ARE STILL HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE DRAINAGE ANALYSIS AND DRAINAGE REPORTS AND GET ALL PERMITTING. ANY ISSUES THAT MAY ARISE WILL HAVE BEEN FLAGGED IN THOSE ANALYSIS AND WILL HAVE TO BE HANDLED THERE. WE'RE STILL HAVING TO GO THROUGH ALL THE PROPER PERMITTING. EVERYTHING WITH DRAINAGE WILL BE HANDLED IN THOSE PROCESSES. >> THEN THAT PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. WE'RE THE BODY THAT'S APPROVING THIS AND IF THAT DRAINAGE HASN'T BEEN APPROVED YET, THEN THAT'S APPROVING, WE'RE APPROVING WITHOUT THE I GUESS THE SAFETY AND UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN CITIZEN ASSETS THAT'S WHAT'S WILL HAPPEN. >> I UNDERSTAND. I BELIEVE WHEN WE SUBMITTED OUR CONCEPT PLAN IT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE IMPACT ANALYSIS. WE RECEIVED COMMENTS AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS BACK-AND-FORTH WITH THE ENGINEERS ON THAT. AS TO ANY CONCERNS, LIKE I SAID, THEY WILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE THE FINAL AND RECORDATION PLAT. THIS IS STILL PRELIMINARY PLAT, SO NO CONSTRUCTION OR DEVELOPMENT WILL BE MADE AT THIS TIME. IT'S JUST PRELIMINARY IN NATURE. >> I WILL UPDATE THE COUNCIL THAT THE CITY ENGINEER, CONSULTANT IS LOOKING CLOSER AT THE DA AS WELL AS THE REPORT THAT WAS SENT BACK FROM THE ADD, REGARDING THEIR REVIEW, OF COURSE, IT'S OUTSIDE OF THEIR JURISDICTION, BUT THEIR CONCERN IS MORE SONG THE OUTFALL, AND ALSO WHAT WILL OCCUR AGAINST THEIR LEVY. [00:25:01] I WILL SAY THAT WE'RE WORKING ON THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. ENGINEER WILL BE AT THE TABLE AND WE'LL BE WORKING WITH A DEVELOPER TO MAKE SURE THAT, NUMBER 1, THAT THOSE REVIEW AND APPROVALS DO GO THROUGH, PRESERVE YOUR COUNTY AND COORDINATED APPROPRIATELY. THEN ON THE BACKSIDE, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PROTECTION IN TERMS OF WHO MAINTAINS WHAT JUST IN CASE THERE ARE DAMAGES TO THE LEVY BY THOSE FACILITIES THAT ARE IN THE DIA. I'M NOT OF COURSE, ON THE ENGINEERING TEAM, BUT I WILL SAY THAT WE'RE HAVING THOSE DEEP CONVERSATIONS THAT WERE NOT LOOKED AT OR LET'S SAY APPROVED AS OF YET, BUT WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE COORDINATED, NUMBER 1, AND THEN ON THE BACKSIDE, THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY FOR MAINTAINING THOSE FACILITIES ARE DONE APPROPRIATELY. YOU WILL SEE SOME LANGUAGE I'M SURE REGARDING THE DRAINAGE FOR ASHLYN IN THE DA. >> I SHARE THE SAME CONCERNS WITH COUNCILMAN. WHEN I LOOK AT IT ON HIS FACE, I TEND TO WANT TO IMPROVE IT. BUT PROCEDURALLY YOU'RE ASKING ME TO AGREE TO GRANT US A PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT'S STILL SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION, I GUESS, THROUGH THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT. I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN MAKE THAT CONDITIONAL, BUT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE AGAIN, I'M BEING ASKED TO MAKE A DECISION ON SOMETHING THAT IS A LITTLE AMBIGUOUS AT THIS TIME. >> WELL, I DO KNOW THAT THE CITY ENGINEER ISN'T THAT GOING TO CERTIFY ANY SITUATIONS WHERE THEY'RE NOT MEETING ADD'S CONDITIONS OR COMMENTS OR RESERVED YOUR COUNTY. DOES THIS HAVE TO DO OF COURSE, WITH THE SCHOOL SITE BEING BUILT? >> YES. >> THAT PROCESS? I THINK THEY'RE ASKING FOR CERTAIN UTILITIES. THEN YOU'LL HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AND THEY BROUGHT IT UP IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHERE THEY'RE TRYING TO EXPEDITE OR ACCOMMODATE THE SCHOOL SIDE AS WELL. THAT IS BEING THE UTILITY ISSUE. WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT THOSE THINGS ARE COORDINATED THROUGH THE CITY ENGINEER. >> TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, WHAT YOU'RE TELLING MAYBE I'M NOT HEARING THIS CORRECTLY, BUT WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS THAT WE ARE TO TRUST YOU, BASICALLY. >> I SAY LESS THAN ON THE CITY ENGINEER HAVING THE ABILITY TO NOT APPROVE ANY CONSTRUCTION UNTIL THOSE THINGS ARE UPDATED. AS I STATED, WE'RE WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO PUT AS MUCH IN IT AS POSSIBLE. SOME OF THESE THINGS DO LIE OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT AS I MENTIONED. BUT HOWEVER, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE ARE COORDINATED ON THE BACKSIDE THROUGH IF IT'S THE MUD OR WHOEVER'S GOING TO MAINTAIN WHATEVER FACILITIES BECAUSE THE HOA WOULDN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO CERTAIN THINGS IN THE FUTURE. WE DON'T WANT IT TO FALL BACK ON THE CITY. >> I BELIEVE THE LEVERAGE WE HAVE AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTING THE FINAL PLAT WOULD BE REGARDING DRAINAGE. IT'S LIKE WE MADE A COMMENT, IT'S NOT ABOUT WHEN WE'RE OVER AS GREEN HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE DRAINAGE AND IT HASN'T BEEN MAYBE PROPERLY DONE OR ADEQUATELY DONE OR THOROUGHLY DONE. REMIND US ALL THAT YES, THIS IS OUTSIDE OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE ANGLETON DRAINAGE DISTRICT. HOWEVER, THE ANGLETON DRAINAGE DISTRICT, WELL THIS WILL BE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF BRAZORIA COUNTY AS FAR AS DRAINAGE GOES. IN BOTH ENTITIES ADHERE TO THE DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL OF BRAZORIA COUNTY, WHICH HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY ALL THE DRAINAGE DISTRICTS IN THE COUNTY. EVERYBODY IS JUST USING THE SAME BOOK TO DESIGN BY. IT'LL ALL BE REVIEWED IN ACCORDING TO THAT DOCUMENT. >> THANK YOU, MR. BOOTH. [NOISE] ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? >> ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS ALSO A ACTION ITEM. >> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE ASHLAND UTILITY AND LIFT STATION PRELIMINARY PLAT. >> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH. DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. >> SECOND BY COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAME SIGN. >> AYE. >> THAT IS 4-1, MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, MR. OTIS. [00:30:03] ITEM NUMBER 6, [6. Discussion and possible action on the preliminary plat of the Ashland Project Coral Haven Street Dedication.] DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE ASHLAND PROJECT CORAL HAVEN STREET DEDICATION. ONCE AGAIN, MR. OTIS. >> THANK YOU MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THIS IS ASHLYN STREET DEDICATION NUMBER 2, CORAL HAVEN STREET DEDICATION THAT IS. THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL WENT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON APRIL 6. I'M SORRY, THERE'S SEVEN CONDITIONS THAT WE HAD TO HAVE CORRECTED ON THE PLAT. THE APPLICANT DID SUBMIT A REVISION CHANGING THOSE NOTATIONS AS NOTED ON THE ENGINEER'S COMMENTS. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWED THIS PARTICULAR STREET DEDICATION SINCE IT DIDN'T DEAL WITH THE LOTS. THEY WERE COMFORTABLE APPROVING THIS 6-1 REGARDING THE ACTION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL BASED ON THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BEING APPROVED BY COUNCIL AS A CONDITION. THAT'S FORWARDED AS A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION. >> THANK YOU, MR. OTIS. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FOR STAFF? >> YES, SIR. THERE'S ANOTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUE DEALING WITH THE NOTATION OF THE RECORD IN WHICH THE DOCUMENT VESTING THE FM521 IN, AT THE TIME BRAZORIA COUNTY ACQUIRED THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR FM521. IT WAS DONE THROUGH A COMMISSIONER'S COURT MEETING SOMETIME BEFORE ANY OF US WERE BORN I'M PRETTY SURE [LAUGHTER]. THEN THERE'S SOME INCORRECT. THERE'S A COMMENT ON THERE, "THE COMMUNITY RECORDS OF BRAZORIA COUNTY," THAT'S NOT SO. IT'S THE COMMISSIONERS COURT RECORDS OF BRAZORIA COUNTY. THEN ON THE DRAWING ITSELF, ON THE PHASE OF THE DRAWING NEAR ALONG FM521. THE NOTE IS THERE THAT IT'S A VOLUME P PAGE 201, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT RECORD THAT REFERENCES TO. LET'S GET THAT CLEANED UP BEFORE THE FINAL COMES, PLEASE. >> THANK YOU MR. BOOTH. >> ALSO NOTED. THANKS. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FOR STAFF? >> IS THIS ESSENTIALLY GOING TO BE A TIE INTO WHERE DUE TO DEVELOPMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND JUNIOR HIGH? >> YES. >> EXCUSE ME, THE LINE BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION AND THE [OVERLAPPING]. >> YES. I KNEW THAT SECTION, YES. >> IS THE TIME WHEN THE SERVICE EFFECT THE ABILITY OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO PROCEED? >> I THINK IT'S NECESSARY, IS WHAT WE WERE TOLD. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IF NOT, THIS IS ALSO AN ACTION ITEM. >> A MOVE WE APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF CORAL HAVEN STREET DEDICATION. >> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH. DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND. >> I HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND, AND FOR DISCUSSION [OVERLAPPING]. >> CONDITION OF THE DA. >> WITH CONDITION WITH THE DA. IS THAT GOOD WITH YOU, MR. BOOTH? >> YES, SIR. >> COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND, GOOD WITH YOU? >> YES, NOTED. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT. ANYTHING ELSE, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? HEARING NONE, I'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSE SAME SIGN. >> AYE. >> THAT IS 4-1, MOTION CARRIES. [7. Discussion and possible action on a revised preliminary plat for Angleton Park Place Subdivision Section 1.] ITEM NUMBER 7, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR A ANGLETON PARK PLACE SUBDIVISION SECTION 1. MR. OTIS. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THIS IS ANGLETON PARK SUBDIVISION SECTION 1 BEING BROUGHT TO YOU, WHICH YOU HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE IN THE PAST. THIS AREA, IT'S PART OF A MANUFACTURED SUBDIVISION. THE ZONING IS APPROPRIATE. THEY DON'T CALL IT A MOBILE HOME. IT'S BASICALLY A PRE-MANUFACTURERS SUBDIVISION IN WHICH FOR THIS PARTICULAR PHASE, THEY'RE PROPOSING 50 LOTS BEFORE YOU FOR A BLOCK SIX RESERVES. MR. MIKE MORGAN ACTUALLY HAS BEEN TRYING TO GET THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT COMPLETED ON THIS PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION. [00:35:03] IF YOU RECALL, THE ACCESS WAS OFF OF GIFFORD ROAD DUE TO THE INTERSECTION OF GIFFORD AND PHILLIPS TERMINATING AT THAT POINT. HE WAS PLANNING TO CONSTRUCT THAT SEGMENT OF GIFFORD ROAD HIMSELF, BUT WE HAD SOME ISSUES WITH THE ALIGNMENT OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THEN WHAT SHOWED UP ON THE COUNTY'S THOROUGHFARE PLAN VERSUS THE CITY'S THOROUGHFARE PLAN. THERE WERE SOME CONFLICT THAT OCCURRED THERE IN TERMS OF WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IT WOULD BE TO DO NUMBER 1, CONSTRUCT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS AND HOW WE WOULD PUT THAT LANGUAGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. WHAT HE DID WAS HE WAS ABLE TO PURCHASE MORE PROPERTY ALONG PHILLIPS, AN ADDITIONAL LOT, WHICH ALLOWED HIM TO BRING IN ACTUALLY TWO ENTRANCES OFF OF PHILLIPS. THERE'S NOTHING NEW IN TERMS OF WHAT HE'S PROPOSING. THE PLANNING COMMISSION, OF COURSE, HEARD THIS PARTICULAR CASE, AND AMAZINGLY THEY APPROVED IT UNANIMOUSLY FOR RECOMMENDATION TO YOU, FOR APPROVAL DUE TO WHAT HE'S PROPOSING HERE. NOW, HE IS AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS IN TERMS OF THE PRODUCT. BUT WE'RE TRYING TO PAINFULLY GET HIM TO CONSTRUCTION, IN WHICH HE'S BEEN ADHERING TO WHAT STAFF CONCERNS WERE. IN THE PROCESS, THEY'VE, OF COURSE, CLEARED THE 12TH COMMENTS BY THE CITY ENGINEER RIGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS. WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF HIS DEVELOPMENT, SO THAT HE CAN MOVE TOWARDS THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BEING FINE TUNED BY LEGAL AND ADMIN STAFF, AND THEN MAYBE HE CAN GET TO MOVING SOME DIRT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT, MR. OTIS. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FOR STAFF OR FROM MR. MORGAN IF SO INCLINED? >> IF I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? >> YES. >> GO AHEAD, SIR. >> ON THE SUBDIVISION, ARE THEY'RE GOING TO BE RENTAL PROPERTIES? >> NO, SIR. >> IS THERE SOMETHING THAT PREVENTS THAT FROM HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE? >> IF YOU'LL COVER THE MICROPHONE. >> I'M NOT SURE THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, BUT I'M WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU TO FIGURE THAT QUESTION OUT. BUT THE PLAN RIGHT NOW IS TO PURCHASE NEW MOBILE HOMES. THEY'RE GOING TO SELL FOR 155-195 RANGE. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GO FOR PLAN SECTION 2 AS WELL. I WORKED IT OUT WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND JUST BUILD THE WHOLE THING AT ONE TIME. THERE'S 83 LOTS AND WE'RE TRYING TO FINISH THAT SECOND THING SO WE COULD GIVE IT TO YOU GUYS WHERE WE COULD GO AHEAD AND DO THE WHOLE THING AT ONE TIME. >> THANK YOU. DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT, IS THAT DONE OR IS THAT. >> WE DON'T HAVE A DEVELOPMENT. >> WE DO NOT HAVE ONE. >> NO. >> FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, WHAT DO WE HAVE TO PREVENT THAT FROM SUMMING A LEASED OUT? >> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU RECALL THE NEGOTIATIONS [NOISE] ON THE HALL AGAIN ABOUT DEVELOPMENT. WE WERE NEGOTIATING WITH THEM AND WORKING ON THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. WE HAD A PAGE OF THINGS THAT THE CITY REQUIRED AND WHAT WE WANTED TO SEE IN THE WAY THAT THE PLACE WAS MAINTAINED, THE WAY IT LOOKED, TREES, LANDSCAPING. YES, THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY WHAT SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS THE WAY YOU WANT IT TO LOOK, LANDSCAPING. THE PARTIES CAN AGREE THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE STRICTLY RENTAL. ANY OF THAT CAN GO IN DUE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. >> I WILL SAY THAT MIKE MORGAN HAS SUBMITTED THE DRAFT ALONG WITH THE I DO BELIEVE THE HOA AGREEMENT. THERE ARE SOME DETAIL WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S INCLUDED WITHIN THAT, WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT'S PLACED IN THE DOCUMENT BEFORE IT GETS TO YOU. >> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WHAT JOHN IS SAYING, RENTAL AS IN HE BUYS IT, IT'S ENTITLED TO HIM AND THEN HE HAS SOMEBODY COME IN AND RENT IT. WE DON'T WANT THAT? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT? >> THEY'RE INDIVIDUAL LOTS. >> DO THEY PURCHASE THE LOT? >> THEY LEASE THE LOT WITH THE HOME ON IT. >> WITH THE HOME ON IT. >> PERHAPS THAT COULD BE WRITTEN INTO THE HOA DOCUMENT AND MAYBE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WE CAN COORDINATE SOME LANGUAGE AS WELL. >> EACH RESIDENT HAS THEIR OWN ADDRESS? >> YES. >> YES. >> LET ME JUST UNDERSTAND THIS TOO. DO WE HAVE THAT IN PLACE IN OTHER MOBILE HOME TRAILER PARKS THAT ARE HERE THAT SOMEBODY HAS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY? >> WE DON'T HAVE IT IN PLACE BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THEM AREN'T BASED ON LOTS THEY'RE JUST. >> IT'S ONE. >> SOMEHOW BEEN ONE LOT. >> JUST WANT TO CLICK BECAUSE IF THAT QUESTION COMES UP BECAUSE WHERE WE HAVE SOMEBODY WHO OWNS ONE AND ONE OF THESE OTHER LOTS, BUT YET THEY'RE RENTING IT TO SOMEBODY OR THEY'RE GOING TO BE AT VIOLATION. BUT THAT'S BECAUSE IT IS [OVERLAPPING]. [00:40:02] >> THIS IS A NEW CONCEPT BASED ON A SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION MAKEUP IN SO MANY WORDS. >> BECAUSE THE QUESTION WILL COME UP BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO HEAR THIS. ALL THEY'RE GOING TO HEAR IS NO RENTAL AND SO THEY'RE GOING TO [OVERLAPPING]. >> YOU SAID YOUR PRICE POINT EARLIER, ABOUT 150 TO ABOUT 200 ROUGHLY. THAT'S LOT AND RESIDENTS, THAT'S A LOT AND HOME, WE'RE EXPECTING THAT BASICALLY? >> YES, SIR. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? >> I PERSONALLY JUST LIKE TO SEE WHAT THE HOA GUIDELINES ARE GOING TO BE IN THE FUTURE. >> YES, SIR. >> PERSONALLY, I UNDERSTAND HE'S GOT A CERTAIN BUSINESS MODEL AND I JUST WANT TO RESPECT THAT. BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR ON A COUPLE OF THOSE THINGS. >> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO COMMUNICATE THAT TO YOU AND SHARE IT WITH YOU WHEN WE GET THERE? WE'RE NOT THERE YET. >> PLEASE. >> YES, WE WILL. >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? >> THIS IS WHAT'S GETTING AN ACTION ITEM. >> MR. MAYOR, I MOVE WE APPROVE THE REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR HAMILTON PARK PLACE SUBDIVISION SECTION 1. >> MOTION BY MAYOR PROTEM WRIGHT, DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> AYE. [OVERLAPPING] >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THAT MOTION CARRIES FIVE TO ZERO. MOVING RIGHT ALONG. THANK YOU, MR. OTIS. I KNOW YOU GOT TO STAND UP THERE. I SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT YOU A MAT TO STAND ON. >> YES, SIR. >> PROTECT YOUR BACK. MOVING RIGHT ALONG. [8. Conduct a public hearing, discussion, and take possible action on Ordinance No. 20230411-008 an application for a Special Use Permit (SUP), pursuant to Sec. 28-63 of the Code of Ordinances, for a Daycare within the Commercial General Zoning District(CG), DBA Carwood Preparatory Academy Daycare/Preschool at 1100 E. Mulberry St., Angleton, TX, Stes. D&E.] PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ACTION ITEMS, ITEM NUMBER 8, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION AND TAKE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 20230411-008, AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, ALSO KNOWN AS SUP, PURSUANT TO SECTION 28-63 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR A DAYCARE WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL ZONING DISTRICTS, C, G, D, B, A, CARWOOD PREPARATORY ACADEMY DAYCARE/PRESCHOOL AT 1100 EAST MULBERRY STREET, EGGLESTON, TEXAS SUITES D AND E. MR. OTIS, WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO A PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL LET YOU DO A BRIEF AND THEN WE'LL GO INTO PUBLIC HEARING. >> YES I'LL BRIEFLY REAL QUICK, WITH THIS PARTICULAR PUBLIC HEARING, IT IS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT UNDER THE C, G COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IN WHICH A DAYCARE IS TRYING TO LETS SAY RELOCATED THIS PARTICULAR SPACE. IT WAS PREVIOUSLY A DAY CARE BUT IT TIMED OUT IN TERMS OF THEM VACATING THE PREMISES. THIS PARTICULAR USER IS PROPOSING THE DAYCARE TO BE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY IN WHICH THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THEIR PROPOSAL, ASK QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SPACE ITSELF, THE PLAYGROUND, AND ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE LICENSING PROCESS IN WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH. STAFF OF COURSE ALERTED THE COMMISSION ON THE NUMBER OF CONDITIONS THAT WERE INCORPORATED INTO THE ORDINANCE, AND THEN WE DO HAVE THE MOST CORRECTED ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU. WE APOLOGIZE FOR THE TYPOS DUE TO THE QUICK TURNOVER FROM P&Z TO YOU. WE HAD TO MAKE A FEW CHANGES ON THE SPECIFICS ON THE PROPERTY, BUT NOTHING OF ANY GREAT CONTENT. FOR THE DAYCARE USE WE'RE JUST ENSURING THAT THEY LOOK AT THE CHILD SAFETY BY THIS BEING A COMMERCIAL STRIP CENTER OR SHOPPING CENTER TO MAKE SURE THAT THE KIDS SAFETY IS NUMBER ONE. WE PUT A PROVISION IN THAT HE WOULD WORK WITH THE OWNERSHIP TO TRY TO GET SOME SPEED BUMPS JUST AT THE ENTRANCE OF DROP-OFF AREA. THEN THEY WOULD, OF COURSE, SATISFY ALL THE LICENSING REQUIREMENTS AS NOTED [NOISE] AND OBTAIN ALL PERMITS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WITH THE CITY, AND THEN MAINTAIN THEIR HEALTH PERMIT WHERE IT WOULD APPLY TO ANY TYPE OF FOOD SERVICES. OTHER THAN THAT, THOSE WERE THE CONDITIONS RECOMMEND TO YOU BY A SEVEN TO ZERO VOTE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A POSITIVE ACTION. >> SIR, THANK YOU FOR THAT. WE NEED TO GO INTO A PUBLIC HEARING. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO GO INTO A PUBLIC HEARING? >> SUMMONED. >> SECOND. >> MOTION BY MAYOR PROTEM WRIGHT, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> AYE [OVERLAPPING]. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THAT MOTION CARRIES. WE ARE NOW AT A PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER 8. IF THERE'S ANYBODY WANTED TO SPEAK ON FOR OR AGAINST, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. WE'LL CALL IT FOR THREE TIMES AND THEN IF THERE'S NOTHING, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON. ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO BE GONE FOR AGAINST? ONCE, TWICE, THREE TIMES. A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> SUMMONED. >> SECOND. >> MOTION BY MAYOR PROTEM WRIGHT, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND. [00:45:02] ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> AYE [OVERLAPPING]. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THAT MOTION CARRIES. WE HAVE NOW CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOW ONTO THE EIGHTH ACTION ITEM SIDE OF IT. COUNSEL, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. OTIS, PLEASE. >> I WILL SAY WE COPY YOU ON THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS. THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE HERE AND WAS ABLE TO FIELD QUESTIONS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL. >> IF YOU DON'T MIND REFRESH MY MEMORY. WAS THIS KNOWN A LOCATION OF A PREVIOUS? >> IT WAS. >> YES, IT WAS. YES. >> ALL IS AN SUP WITH THEIR SO WHEN IT'S SOLD. NOW THEY HAVE TO COME BACK. >> THANK YOU. BECAUSE I REMEMBER GOING TO THE FENCING PREVIOUSLY. >> CORRECT. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? >> IS THIS CHAIN LINK FENCE, IT'S SHOWN IN THE PICTURE THERE ON THE PAGE 61 OF OUR PACKET. IS THAT THE AREA THAT THEY ARE GOING TO FENCE OFF OR WAS ALREADY FENCED OFF OR SOMETHING? >> IT WAS ALREADY FENCED OFF. THE CURRENT OWNER MAY BE EXPANDING THAT A LITTLE BIT DEPENDING ON THEIR REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE. THEN THERE'S SOME CLEANUP THAT NEEDS TO OCCUR DUE TO THE PREVIOUS USE BEING VACATED. >> WE'RE GOOD BECAUSE THEY NEED TO STAY AWAY FROM THAT BIKE POWER METERS ON THE PLOT. >> YES. >> MR. MAYOR, I MOVE. WE APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 20230411-008. AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A DAYCARE WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL ZONING DISTRICT. >> SECOND. >> MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM WRIGHT. >> SECOND BY COUNCIL WOMAN DANIEL. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL THOSE WHO OPPOSE? SAME SIGN. THAT MOTION CARRIES 5,0. THAT BRINGS US ONTO OUR REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS. [9. Discussion and possible action on the preliminary plat of Ashland Section 2.] NUMBER 9, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ASHLAND SECTION 2. MR. OTIS . >> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SECTION 2 IN WHICH I THINK YOU'VE SEEN SECTIONS 2 BEFORE [NOISE] HAD TO DO WAS ACTUALLY ADD A SMALL AMOUNT OF ACREAGE INTO THIS PARTICULAR PHASE AND THAT PROMPTED IT TO BE BROUGHT TO YOU. THERE ARE 86 SLOTS, THREE RESERVES, THREE BLOCKS ON THE 21.5 ACRES HERE. THEY ARE PROPOSING 50-FOOT LOTS IN THIS PARTICULAR PHASE. AS YOU KNOW AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THERE'LL BE SOME THRESHOLDS IN TERMS OF THE LOT CONFIGURATIONS AND WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT THAT LOT MIXED US MEET WHATEVER COUNCIL FINALLY ADOPT FOR THE SUBDIVISION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARD THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL IN WHICH THERE WERE EIGHT CONDITIONS, OF COURSE, INITIALLY SUBMITTED BY THE ENGINEER TEAM THAT NEEDED TO BE CORRECTED, THEY DID CORRECT THOSE. I WILL SAVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM COULD NOT GET A SECOND ON THE MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION. THERE WAS NO ACTION BEING FORWARDED TO YOU, UNFORTUNATELY. WE'LL TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE GETTING NO OFFICIAL ACTION ON ALL OF THESE, BUT THIS WAS ONE OF THE FIRST ITEMS I THINK THEY WENT AND UNFORTUNATELY, I DIDN'T GET A SECOND FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. BUT THIS IS SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BEING FINALLY WORKED OUT, AS YOU'RE AWARE AND AS NOTED, THIS IS SECTION 2 OF ASHLAND IN THE ETJ. OF COURSE, THERE ARE SOME DRAINAGE QUESTIONS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THE PREVIOUS SECTIONS AND COMMENTS BEFORE WOULD APPLY TO THIS IN TERMS OF INSURING WHAT NEEDS TO OCCUR WITH THAT DIA AND THE RESPONSE FROM ADD THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT. >> ALL RIGHT, SIR. THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL. QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? >> I FEEL LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO GO AS FAST AS WE POSSIBLY CAN WITHOUT TICKING ALL THE BOXES. I FEEL LIKE THIS IS THE SAME DISCUSSION FROM EARLIER THAT I KNOW IT'S A PRELIMINARY PLOT, BUT WE ALSO SAW A FINAL PLOT COME THROUGH CONSENT AGENDA. I MEAN, EVERY CHANCE I GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO I'M GOING TO MAKE THE COMMENTS AND KEEP PUSHING ON THIS TILL WE SLOW THIS DOWN A LITTLE BIT AND MAKE SURE THINGS ARE BEING DONE ACCURATELY AND ALL PARTIES ARE SIGNING OFF ON IT TOGETHER. THAT'S MY BELIEF ON THIS. BECAUSE I DO HAVE THE SAME QUESTION THAT, WHEREAS THIS WATER GOING TO GO? >> I HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS. I DON'T WANT TO APPROVE [00:50:02] ANY PLOT WIDTHS BEFORE WE HAVEN'T AGREED UPON THEIR PERCENTAGES TO, I THINK WE'RE JUMPING THE GUN ON THAT ALSO. ALSO, WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE THE DRAINAGE DISTRICTS SIGN OFF ON THEIR ISSUE THAT HAS RECENTLY COME UP LIKE BEFORE WE EVEN CAN PROCEED ON AGREEING WITH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. I DON'T WANT TO JUMP FORWARD WITH THAT UNTIL THAT IS COMPLETELY SETTLED BETWEEN THOSE TWO ENTITIES, THE DEVELOPER AND THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT. >> COUNCIL WOMAN, DANIEL'S, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT I EMAILED THE DEVELOPER OF THIS WEEK AND TOLD THEM THAT WE WOULD NEED A LETTER OF NO OBJECTION FROM ANGELTON TIN DRAINAGE DISTRICT. I SENT THAT, TODAY'S TUESDAY. I SENT IT YESTERDAY. THEY WERE ON THAT. WE DON'T HAVE IT YET, BUT WE'RE ON IT. >> THANK YOU. >> WHEN COUNCIL WOMAN, DANIEL SPOKE. IT MADE ME SMILE BECAUSE HE HAD THE SAME CONCERN I DID AND THAT IS WE'RE STILL IN THE FOG ON THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. WE'VE THROWN SOME FIGURES OUT ABOUT PERCENTAGES OF WHAT SHOULD AND SHOULDN'T BE AS FAR AS LOTS, WIDTHS AND SETTING PARAMETERS. MAN, I DON'T WANT TO FORMALIN TINT INTO THE MINDS OF THE DEVELOPERS, BUT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS WOULD MAYBE BE THE NEXT THING IS SOME CAVEAT AS WELL THAT THE DEVELOPER AGREEMENT WASN'T IN FACT IN PLACE. WHATEVER 80 LOTS WON'T BE COUNTED AGAINST THE 50 PERCENT THAT COUNTS TOO. THAT'S WHERE MY MIND WENT AS FAR AS IT JUST GOES BACK TO THE, TAKE IT STEP BACK THE BIG PICTURE AND THAT'S WHAT JOHN IS SAYING AND WE'RE WORKING AHEAD. I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO BE RESPECTFUL AND I KNOW THEY'RE TRYING TO MOVE THINGS AND AT THE SAME TIME, WE DON'T WANT TO BE LAZY OR DRAG OUR FEET AND I'M NOT SAYING WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE, BUT WE DEFINITELY WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE TAKING THE NECESSARY STEPS BEFORE WE TAKE ACTION. AGAIN, I KNOW IT'S A PRELIMINARY PLAT, BUT JOHN OFFICER JUST POINTED OUT THAT WE ALL KNOW THIS IS SAD IF YOU'RE LONG ENOUGH ONCE YOU GET THAT PRELIMINARY PLAT PLACE, IT'S REALLY TOUGH TO GO AGAINST THAT THERE'S VERY FEW CHANGES THAT IF EVER COME ABOUT FROM THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. IT'D BE REALLY NICE IF WE COULD HAVE THAT MEETING OF THE MINDS AND GET TO WHERE WE'RE AT A POINT WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IMPROVING PLOTS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT INSTEAD OF APPROVING PLOTS BEFORE THE FILING OF ADULT DEVELOPMENT. COUNCIL, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER THE SAME OFFER ON THIS ONE THAT I'M ABOUT TO SEND BACK THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH ALL OF MY RECENT COMMENTS. I'D BE GLAD TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU AND I EMAIL IT TO OPPOSING COUNCIL. >> WE'D APPRECIATE IT. I KNOW I WOULD AND I GET THIS IS A BIG PROJECT. THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PARTS AND THINGS HAVE TO HAPPEN AND LIKE IT'S I'M TRYING NOT TO SIGN MAL INTENT ON THE PART OF EITHER PARTY. BUT IT JUST FEELS LIKE WE'RE A LITTLE BIT RUSHED. >> I CAN'T SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, BUT CAITLIN, HE DID SIGN A DOCUMENT IN TERMS OF CONCERNS, SO WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE IF THE APPLICANT WHERE TO REQUEST THE TABLING OF THIS ITEM? >> YES. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO GET A FEEL FOR HOW CLOSE WE ARE TO FIGURE OUT HOW CLOSE WE ARE TO PRESENTING A DA TO THE COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. HOW CLOSE ARE WE? BECAUSE WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE ALL THESE JOBS AND WHAT THEY'RE PRESENTING TO US IS MATCHING UP WITH Y'ALL HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING IN AND JUST LIKE YOU GUYS KNOW, I HEAR IT FROM CHRIS. THEY'RE MEETING JUST ABOUT EVERY THIRD OR SECOND DAY TRYING TO GET THIS THING HAMMERED OUT. IF YOU ALL HAVE PUT A BEST GUESSED ESTIMATE, WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK Y'ALL ARE AT? >> I CAN ANSWER THAT. >> GO AHEAD, MA'AM. >> IT HAS BEEN OUR INTENTION THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WOULD BE ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING. I HAVE REVIEWED THE ENTIRE THING I RECEIVED. THE LAST DRAFT WAS DONE BY THE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEVELOPER ON MARCH 28TH. I'VE ALREADY FINISHED MY REVIEW. HOWEVER, WE HAVE INVOLVED THE CITY ENGINEER, AND THAT'S WHY I SENT THE EMAIL ABOUT THE LETTER FROM THE ADD. THAT COMPONENT IS STILL BEING WORKED. BUT I WILL ALSO ADD THAT WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CAME TO ME, [00:55:03] THERE WAS LANGUAGE AND PROVISIONS IN THERE THAT WERE NEW AND THERE WAS NO COMMENTS AND THE TRACK CHANGES, HEY, WE'VE ADDED THIS NEW PROVISION. I HAD TO GO BACK LINE BY LINE BY LINE AND FIND THE NEWLY INSERTED LANGUAGE AND THAT SLOWS ME DOWN. >> YES. >> IT'S GOING TO GO BACK TO OPPOSING COUNCIL LIKELY TOMORROW MORNING. IT IS THEN UP TO THEM AS TO HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE THEM TO COME BACK AND ANSWER MY QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS. IF THEY GET IT BACK TO US QUICKLY, WHICH WE KNOW OUR DEADLINE FOR THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE NEXT TUESDAY, THEN IT WILL GO. IF WE DON'T GET IT BACK AND THAT LANGUAGE IS NOT RESOLVED, IT WILL NOT GO UNTIL THE FIRST MEETING OF MAY. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM MAKING THAT A PUBLIC COMMENT. >> THANK YOU. WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW. IF YOU NEED TO IMPOSE TO THEM, A LOT OF THIS IS CONTINGENT AS WE GOT TO PUSH THAT OTHER HORSE TO GET THAT ONE OR MORE OF THEIR PRIORITY THAN THIS. I KNOW THIS TAKES A LOT OF WORK TOO, BUT YOURS IS THE PRIORITY AS THE BY RULE THAT WE GOT TO GO BYE. >> I DON'T HAVE. I HAVE ANOTHER PROBLEM MAKING A PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT THE PERCENTAGES. IN THE TRACK CHANGES, YOU WILL SEE I HAVE NUMEROUS COMMENTS ABOUT THIS VERY ISSUE THAT I TOO AND NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE WAY IT'S WORDED RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS NO MORE THAN 50 PERCENT, 50 FOOT LOTS, BUT WE STILL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 10 PERCENT ON THE OTHER THINGS. IN ESSENCE, YOU COULD END UP WITH UP TO 50 PERCENT 50 FOOT LOGS. BUT ON THE NON-TRADITIONAL HOUSING, WHICH I BELIEVE IS TOWNHOUSES OR APARTMENTS, YOUR PERCENTAGES COULD GO UP. IF YOU HAVE 10 PERCENT, 55, 10 PERCENT, 60 PERCENT AND 50 PERCENT, 50, YOU'RE AT 70 PERCENT, WHICH GIVES YOU 30 PERCENT NON-TRADITIONAL. I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT CITY COUNCIL HAS EXPRESSED A DESIRE IN. >> GOT YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT. >> BEFORE WE LET HER ASKED TO BE TABLED. JUST HAPPENS TO HAPPEN AT THIS TIME WITH ASHLAND. I'M NOT NECESSARY PICKING ON ANY ONE PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. BUT WE HAVE COME TO THIS COUNCIL TABLE TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPMENTS AND TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME. IT'S CONTINGENT UPON THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BEING FINALIZED. I'M GOING TO PROPOSE SOMEHOW THAT WE DECIDE TO HAVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FINALIZED, AND THEN WE'LL START TALKING ABOUT THE SUBDIVISION PLAN. WE COME UP HERE, WE SPEND OUR TIME, WHICH IS FREE. I'M NOT CHARGING ANYBODY EXTRA FOR BEING UP HERE, BUT TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND CONTINGENT, CONTINGENT. IF WE WANT TO DO THE SUBDIVISION, LET'S AGREE TO HAVE THE AGREEMENT. THEN WE CAN SAY, WELL, DOES THIS MATCH THE AGREEMENT? YES. OR IF IT DOESN'T, WHAT DOESN'T? THEN FIX IT. I DON'T KNOW, AM I ASKING THINGS THAT ARE OUT OF LINE? >> MR. BOOTH, DIRECTOR ADDRESSING THAT ISSUE, AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF REVISING THE LDC AND THAT WHAT YOU WANT RIGHT THERE, WILL GO IN THE REVISED LDC, IF YOUR CITY COUNCIL EXPRESSES CONCURRENCE ON THAT. >> I DON'T KNOW WHICH SUB-DIVISION HAS COME TO THIS COUNCIL SINCE. I'VE BEEN ONLY FOR FOUR YEARS. IT HASN'T BEEN CONTINGENT UPON THESE THINGS. WELL, GET THE CONTINGENCIES TAKEN CARE OF AND EVERYBODY SIGN THEIR NAME AND MOVE ON. >> THANK YOU, MR. BOOTH. DID YOU SOMETHING, MR. TRAVIS? >> I THINK YOU'D ACTUALLY BE OFF TOPIC AND SO I WOULD NOT BE PERMISSIBLE. THANK YOU. >> I BE KNOWING YOU, CAITLIN. [LAUGHTER] THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL LIKE THIS. >> NO WORRIES. IF I MAY, CAN WE REQUEST TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL AFTER THESE CONVERSATIONS HAVE BEEN HAD? >> SOUNDS GOOD TO ME. >> OKAY. >> DO WE NEED A MOTION OR ANYTHING? WE JUST ANNOUNCED IT'S GOING TO BE TABLED. >> THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED IT. WE CAN HONOR THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. >> GOT YOU. WE'LL TABLE THAT FOR A FUTURE DATE. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM. FEEL FREE TO SHARE THE COMMENTS TO THOSE THAT ARE HIGHER UP THE MEAT CHAIN. ITEM NUMBER 10, [10. Discussion and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for Austin Colony Section 1 A, within Planned Development (PD) District No. 3., on an approximate 164.50 acres of land located on the north side of Anchor Road (CR 44) approximately 2,000 feet northwest of W. Wilkins Street. ] DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR AUSTIN COLONY SECTION 1A WITHIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD, DISTRICT NUMBER 3, ON AN APPROXIMATE 164.50 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ANCHOR ROAD, ALSO KNOWN AS COUNTY ROAD 44, APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET NORTHWEST OF WEST WILKINS STREET. MR. OTIS. [01:00:04] >> THANK YOU. >> ARE YOU GOOD, SIR? DO YOU NEED A BREAK OR ANYTHING? >> NO, SIR. I'M FINE. >> HI, JOHN. [LAUGHTER] >> THIS IS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 3, AUSTIN COLONY, WHICH YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH. WE RECENTLY MODIFIED THAT PLAN DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT TO ACCOMMODATE SOME RECONFIGURING OF THE BOULEVARD AUSTIN COLONY BOULEVARD. THAT PARTICULAR PD DID ESTABLISH WHAT THE THRESHOLD WOULD BE AS A RESULT OF THAT CHANGE. SO THEY'RE MAINTAINING THE 562 LAPS. THIS IS A SECTION 1A, WHICH IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT YOU APPROVED LAST MONTH OR SO WITH THE PD AMENDMENT. I WILL SAY THAT THIS IS SUBJECT TO THE DA BEING MODIFIED TO ADJUST WITH THESE ADJUSTMENTS. WE ALSO ARE LOOKING AT THE PA ASSESSMENTS JUST TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE IN ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT HAS OCCURRED WITH THIS CHANGE. I WAS SUCCESSFULLY ABLE TO GET AN ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, IT WAS AFFORDED THREE BOATS. ACTUALLY DENYING IT. SO IT WAS FOUR NO VOTES DENYING THE RECOMMENDATION, FOR POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF. WE VETTED IT IN TERMS OF BEING COMPLIANT WITH WHAT WAS BEING SUBMITTED. THE CITY ENGINEER DID HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE PLAT AND DID SUBMIT 11 OR SO CONDITIONS IN TERMS OF WHAT NEEDED TO BE CORRECTED ON THE PLANET? MAKER LOSS AND DID SUBMIT THOSE CHANGES AND WE HAD CLEARED THOSE. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THE ACTION BEFORE YOU, WHAT'S A DENIAL. STAFF FEELS THAT THE SUBDIVISION PLAT DOES MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SUBJECT TO US WORKING OUT, OF COURSE, THE CHANGES IN THE PA AND THE DA, WE FIND NO ISSUES WITH IT FROM THE STAFF LEVEL. >> SO JUST TO SAY, SO WE HAD THE DA. WE'RE TRYING TO CONFORM TO THE DA WITH THIS, THE NUTSHELL? IS THAT'S WHAT HAPPENING? >> WE DON'T FORESEE ANY MAJOR ISSUES. MR. RAY HAS BEEN RESPONSIVE TO WHAT WE'VE REQUESTED. HE SUBMITTED THE DA AMENDMENT TODAY, AND LEGAL AND STAFF WILL BE REVIEWING THAT. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THIS IS ABOUT PROBABLY SECTION 1A BEING A 50-FOOT LOTS. >> GOT YOU. >> OKAY. >> SO YOU SAID THIS IS THE SAME SECTION 1A THAT WE SAW AND TALKED ABOUT THE LAST TIME? >> IN YOUR MODIFICATION TO THE PD, THE REZONING CASE. YES, SIR. >> OKAY. >> YES. >> SO HAS ANYTHING BEEN DONE TO THE PLAT SINCE THE LAST TIME WE SAW IT? >> THIS IS YOUR FIRST TIME SEEING A REACTION TO THAT RECONFIGURATION OF AUSTIN COLONY BOULEVARD. >> MR. BOOTH, I BELIEVE [OVERLAPPING]. >> DID WE NOT SEE THIS? I'M SORRY. I'LL SLIP SINCE [OVERLAPPING]. >> HE PUT MORE 60 FOOT LOTS. >> HE PUT A COUPLE MORE 60 FOOT LOTS ON THE VERY ENTRANCE TO THE, WE HAD JUST DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDING IT BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL [OVERLAPPING] PROBLEMS OF HAVING BOULEVARD BE CROWDED BY CARS IN THE STREETS, WHICH SEEMS TO BE MORE OF A PROBLEM TO SMALLER THE LOCKER. >> I REMEMBER YOU TALKING ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU. THIS MEETS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR THE CURRENT [LAUGHTER] >> WE'RE CURRENTLY MAKING SURE IT BASICALLY MIRRORS, I THINK, WHAT YOU SAW, IN THE PD IN TERMS OF IT GOES THROUGH EACH PARTS OF THE PHASING PLAN, TELLS YOU WHAT LOTS ARE IN WHAT SECTIONS. SO I THINK AS A PART OF THIS SECTION, IT'S A MIX OF 50 AND 60, BUT HE'S GOING TO KEEP THAT 100-FOOT MAXIMUM 50 TOLL IN FRONT OF THE SUBDIVISION. >> ORIGINALLY, THIS WHOLE SECTION 1A WAS ALL GOING TO BE 50-FOOT. >> YES. YOU MAY SEE SOME 60S ON HERE. >> AND NOW HE'S INCREASED NUMBER OF 60S IN HERE. >> BECAUSE WE'D ASKED HIM TO COMPROMISE AND GET A FEW MORE ON THE HIGHER END VERSUS ON THE LOWER. >> P AND Z VOTED AGAINST IT. >> I REMEMBER COUNCILWOMAN DANIEL MADE A VERY GOOD POINT ABOUT IT BEING A THOROUGHFARE AND NOW IT BEING IN FACING ROAD AS OPPOSED TO. SO THAT PRESENT POTENTIAL TRAFFIC ISSUES AND WE DISCUSSED THROUGHOUT AND PERHAPS ADDING A FEW MORE 60 FEET TO HELP MAYBE ELIMINATE SOME OF THOSE ISSUES. MAYBE MORE WISHFUL THINKING THAN REALITY. >> GETTING MORE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS. IF NOT, THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM. >> NOT OFTEN I'LL MAKE THIS MOTION. MR. RAY HAS DONE NOTHING, BUT WORK WITH THIS CITY AND HE'S BEEN VERY AMENABLE TO MOST OF OUR CHANGES. [01:05:03] I STILL DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE STATE OF THE SUBDIVISION IS IF IT'S EVER GOING TO GET OFF THE GROUND. I KNOW THAT HE SAID HE WAS TABLING IT FOR A LITTLE BIT WHILE THE COSTS WERE TOO HIGH. I'M GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR AUSTIN COLONY SECTION 1A. >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> MOTION BY MAYOR PROTEM WRIGHT. SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> ONE LAST QUESTION. THE COMMERCIAL ZONING AREAS STILL STAYS THE SAME. >> THE CONDITIONS OF WAITING THE PERIOD? YES, SIR. STILL STAYS THE SAME. >> I DID SEE THAT REFLECTED IN HERE. I SAW THAT SOMEWHERE. >> THAT SHOULD BE IN THE PDF, AS WELL AS THE DA. >> THAT'S CLEAR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS. HEARING NONE. I'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES, 5-0. MOVING RIGHT ALONG NUMBER 11 DISCUSSION. WHAT'S THAT? [11. Discussion and possible action on a Final Plat for Riverwood Ranch Section 3. The proposed final plat consists of approximately 73 single family residential lots on approximately 35.62 acres and is generally located north of Hospital Drive between N. Downing Street to the west and Buchta Road to the east.] DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON A FINAL PLAT FOR RIVERWOOD RANCH SECTION 3. THE PROPOSED FINAL PLAT CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 73 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 35.62 ACRES AND IT'S GENERAL LOCATED NORTH OF HOSPITAL DRIVE BETWEEN NORTH DOWNING STREET TO THE WEST AND BOOK THE ROAD TO THE EAST. MR. SPRIGS >> THANK YOU MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THIS IS THE RIVERWOOD RANCH SECTION 3 FINAL PLAT. THE DEVELOPER HAD SUBMITTED CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF SECTIONS HERE, SECTION 3, IN WHICH THE CITY ENGINEER HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. THIS IS PART OF A PA IN WHICH OF COURSE WE'RE COORDINATING THAT ON THE BACKSIDE, IT'S WELL. JUST CONSIST, OF COURSE, 73 LOTS, FOUR BLOCKS, AND FIVE RESERVES. FOR RIVERWOOD RANCH, THE CITY ENGINEER HAD 10 COMMENTS, WHICH WERE ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT PRIOR TO US POSTING THE AGENDA. WE CLEARED THOSE COMMENTS RIGHT BEFORE THEY WERE ABLE TO VOTE ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. UNFORTUNATELY, THE VOTE WAS TO FIVE VOTING DENIAL FOR THIS PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION PLAT, IN SPITE OF THE CONDITIONS BEING CLEARED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. SO WE'RE FORWARDING THIS TO YOU WITH A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR RIVERWOOD RANCH. THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE, IF THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. >> THANK YOU, SIR. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FOR STAFF OR FOR THE DEVELOPER. >> THE VOTES IN A NEGATIVE FOR RANDY CERTAIN CALLS? >> NO, SIR. >> DOES THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT MEET, CONFORM WITH ALL THE PLANNING THAT WAS APPROVED? >> SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING, YES, REQUIREMENTS. >> WE ADOPTED A DEVELOPMENT PLAN SOME NUMBER OF YEARS AGO. >> YES. >> BUT THIS IS A PART OF THEY HAVEN'T BEEN CHANGED. NOTHING HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM THAT? >> NO, SIR. THEY'RE MOVING TOWARDS SOME CONSTRUCTION. I WILL SAY, THE NUMBER OF LOTS BEING MOVED FORWARD IN DEVELOPMENT CAN EXPLAIN WHAT THEIR INTENT IS MOVING FORWARD. THEY WANT TO DO SOME OF THE DIRT WORK IN TERMS OF THE ENTIRE DIVISION THAT WE'RE TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THAT WITH THEM. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, IT'S PROCEEDING AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY LAID OUT. >> THANK YOU. YES, SIR. >> SO JUST I'M ECHOING, MAKE SURE I'M REMEMBERING CORRECTLY AND THINK MAYBE MR. BOOTH IS ASKING THE SAME THING, BUT THIS IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AGREED UPON WITH THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER AND THEN I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, MR. BOOTH'S FOLLOWING UP, IS JUST BASICALLY, IS THIS FALLING IN LINE WITH THAT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT? >> YES, SIR. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> GO AHEAD, SIR. >> I THINK IT'S FOR MR. FOLEY. [NOISE] WHEN WE ORIGINALLY ADD THIS AND THE TOWERS WAS ADOPTED AND THE PIT WAS ADOPTED FOR THE FIRST COUPLE OF SECTIONS, WE ASKED YOU ABOUT LOT SIZES THEN AND YOU MADE THE COMMENT AND IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, WAS THAT WE COULD LOOK AT SECTIONS 3 AND 4 IN THE FUTURE AND THAT THEY WOULD BE INCREASING A LITTLE BIT. >> YES SIR. >> BUT I'M NOT SEEING THAT REFLECTED HERE AND I WONDER IF THAT'S WHAT P&Z WAS GETTING AT AS WELL. [01:10:02] >> I WISH I WOULD HAVE INCLUDED SECTION 4 IN THAT AS WELL, AND THERE'S ACTUALLY A POSSIBILITY WE GO DEVELOP EVERYTHING AT ONCE RIGHT NOW YOU'RE ONLY SEEING IN SECTION 3, WE HAVE 145 LOTS LEFT, 80 OF THOSE ARE GOING TO BE 50, AND THE REMAINING OF THOSE ARE 60 FOOT LOTS AS WELL AS AROUND AND IT GETS 12 LAKE FRONTING 60-FOOT LOT, SO THEY ARE PROGRESSIVELY INCREASING, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE LOTS UNDER 50-FOOT GOING FORWARD. >> THE SECTIONS 1 AND 2 WERE 45S? >> YES, SIR. >> NOW SECTION 3 IS 50? >> SECTION 3 IS A MIX OF 50S AND 60S. I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT SPLIT ON IT. OUR GOAL RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE TO GO DIG ONE MORE DETENTION PONDS SIMILAR TO SECTION 1, WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE A WET BOTTOM. WE HAVE TO GO DIG ALL THAT DIRT OUT AND WE'RE GOING TO SPREAD IT FOR SECTIONS 3 AND 4, WHICH MAKES IT PRETTY EASY FOR US TO JUST GO DEVELOP THE WHOLE THING. THE ONLY ISSUE IS WE'RE STILL TALKING TO OUR BUILDERS TO SEE IF THERE'S ENOUGH INTEREST TO BUY ALL THOSE LOTS RIGHT NOW. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE ENOUGH INTEREST TO GO DEVELOP THESE FOR SURE. HOPEFULLY, OVER THE NEXT FEW WEEKS, I'LL DETERMINE IF WE CAN GO DEVELOP EVERYTHING AT ONCE AND LIKE I SAID, WHEN IT'S FULLY DEVELOPED, IT'LL BE ABOUT 80, 50-FOOT LOTS AND 60, 60-FOOT LOTS. >> [NOISE] MY SAME CONCERN STAYS WITH RIVER WOOD RANCHES, THE DENSITY YOU'RE PUTTING IN THERE, AND THEN YOU JUST TOLD ME YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE ALL THAT DIRT AND PUT IT ON TOP OF THERE. YOU'RE GOING TO PUSH THAT WATER AND I KNOW YOU'RE PUTTING THAT BIG RETENTION POND IN. >> YES SIR. >> BUT I'M STILL CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE ALREADY SEEING ON THE OUTSIDE IS THE FLOW GOING OFF ONTO DOWNING AND HOSPITAL FROM THE SIDES OF THOSE YARDS. IN THE LAST RAIN, I SAW THE WATER SHEDDING OFF THERE AND INTO A ROAD. THAT CONCERNS ME. >> I APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN, I WISH I COULD TALK ON THAT. LUCKILY, WE GOT THE MAN, THE MYTH LEGEND, DOUG RIZER HERE. MAYBE HE CAN EXPLAIN SOME OF THE DRAINAGE AND HOW WE'RE ADDRESSING THAT FOR SECTIONS 3 AND 4. >> GO AHEAD. >> YEAH, I APPRECIATE YOUR OUTSTANDING. >>YOU CAME ALL THE WAY DOWN HERE. >> I DID, I'M TRYING TO GET BACK. [LAUGHTER] >> DOUG RATIO WOULD MAKE IT AWESOME. >> THAT WHOLE TRAPPED, DRAINED FOR DAYS OVER THE SIDEWALK INTO THE STREETS AND NOW AS THE SUBDIVISION IS BEING BUILT, ALL YOU HAVE IS THE BACK LOTS. WHEN IT RAINS, IT RAINS AND IT'S GONE. IT'S NOT GOING THERE CONSTANTLY FLOODING THAT SIDEWALK LIKE IT HAS DONE FOR YEARS. >> CORRECT. >> IT'S OBVIOUS THAT IT FLOWS ACROSS THERE. YOU CAN'T STOP THAT. IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAD 45-FOOT LOTS IN SECTION 1. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY 45-FOOT LOTS IN SECTION 2. THEY'RE ALL 50-FOOT LOTS. >> THERE WERE FOUR. >> THERE WERE FOUR, OKAY SIR, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. BUT ANYWAY, SO IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SECTION 3 AND 4, WHICH WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THREE TONIGHT. WE HAVE A BIG POND AND THEY HAVE 60-FOOT LOTS AROUND THE PONDS. THERE'S MORE 60-FOOT LOTS NOW THAN THERE WERE BEFORE. THE 74, I THINK THEY MAY ALL BE 50-FOOT, BUT THE NEXT SECTION IT'LL BE MORE 60-FOOT LOTS AS WELL. BUT ANYWAY ABOUT THE DRAINAGE, WE HAVE A SWALE BETWEEN US, COLONY SQUARE THAT TAKES CARE OF THEIR BACKYARD DRAINAGE, SO THAT'S TAKEN CARE OF. SO REALLY ALL WE'RE IMPACTING IS US THE BACK OF THE LOTS DRAINING ON THE BACTA AND HOSPITAL AND IT'S A BRIEF IT'S NOT LIKE IT USED TO BE. >> BUT YOU'RE SAYING, DOUG, ONCE THE SUBDIVISION IS BUILT OUT THE DRAINAGE PLAN IS 100% IN USE WE SHOULD NOT SEE WHAT JOHN SAYS HE SAW WITH WATER GOING ONTO THE SIDEWALK SINCE IT ALL SHOULD DRAIN INTO THE SUBDIVISION. >> NO, WE BUILD THE LOTS UP TO DRAIN TO THE STREETS SO THE BACKEND OF THE LOTS, WHICH BANKS ARE OUR STREETS YOU HAVE SOMETHING SLOPING DOWN THAT DRAINS DOWN TO THE STREETS. >> ON THE HOSPITAL OR INTO THE STREETS? >> HOSPITAL, DOWNING, AND BACTA. BUT IT'S A SMALL AREA AND IT DRAINS QUICKLY AND IT'S NOT LIKE FOR DAYS THEY USED TO WHEN THAT PASTURE FLOODED AND JUST [OVERLAPPING] >> TRICKLED. >> YEAH AND EVERYBODY WALKED IN WATER FOR A WEEK AND IT'S NOT A LOT JUST WATER DRIBBLING OVER THERE. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> MR. OTIS, A QUESTION THAT I HAVE, A WHILE AGO, COUNCIL, WE VOTED IN THE NEGATIVE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND WE WERE STOPPED AND ASKED, WHY DID WE VOTE NEGATIVE? WHY IS NO ONE ASKING THE P&Z? WE'RE ASSUMING BUT, AND EVERY TIME WE'VE ASKED TONIGHT, YOU'VE SAID IT'S AN ASSUMPTION THAT IT'S THE LOT SIZE. [01:15:05] >> I THINK WHAT I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION THRESHOLD IS GETTING AN ACTION THAT WAS A CHALLENGE. WE'RE PLANNING TO HAVE A WORK SESSION TO GO FOR PROCEDURALLY ON THESE PLANTS WHAT WE HAVE AUTHORITY TO DO AND I'M WORKING WITH LEGAL TO SET THAT UP WITH YOU ALL, SO THERE'LL BE A GIANT WORKSHOP AND WE CAN WORK THROUGH THAT TO MAKE SURE YOU GET A COMPLETE RECORD. I WAS HAPPY TO GET A VOTE, IN MANY CASES, A COMPLETE ACTION TO YOU AND IT SHOULD BE FINDINGS OF FACT AND THESE DECISIONS AND WE'LL MAKE SURE GOING FORWARD THAT THEY PROVIDE YOU WITH THAT. ON MY PART, AS I SAID, IT HAD BEEN A CHALLENGE WITH ME JUST SITTING THERE TRYING TO GET A COMPLETE ACTION AND WE'LL MAKE SURE IN THE FUTURE THAT WE COVER THAT. BUT THEY DON'T HAVE THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON THE PLANTS. HOWEVER, THEY ARE RECOMMENDING BODY TO YOU. IT WILL MAKE SURE THAT THEIR RECOMMENDATION IS MORE COMPLETE. >> WE'LL MAKE A POSITIVE EFFORT TO SOLICIT FEEDBACK. >> JUST ASK YEAH. >> JUST ASK THE QUESTION LIKE COUNSEL IS SEEKING IF YOU DENY SOMETHING OR WHATEVER, TELL US THE REASON WHY. >> YEAH. [NOISE] >> YES SIR. >> THAT'S THE POINT OF PLANNING AND ZONING IS TO GIVE FEEDBACK FROM CITIZEN GROUP AND THEN RATHER THAN SPECULATE, CZ, IF THEY'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT POSITIVELY. >>ANY MORE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FOR OTIS OR MR. FOLEY? GO AHEAD, SIR. >> YOU'VE BEEN ASKING ABOUT THE DRAINAGE OF THE BACKSIDE OF THE LOTS AND WHATNOT. IF YOU WANT TO GET THOROUGHLY BORED [LAUGHTER] GO TO PAGE 115 OF THE PACKET AND IT SHOWS THE BORDER CALLED DRAINAGE AREAS, HEAVY DASHED LINES AND YOU CAN TELL THE HEAVY DASHED LINES SEPARATE WHERE THE DRAINAGE GOES FROM ONE SIDE OF THAT DARK LINE TO THE OTHER SIDE. THERE'S A SMALL AREA ALONG HOSPITAL DRIVE AND THERE'S A SMALL AREA ALONG BACTA THAT LITTLE BIT OF LAND IS SUPPOSED TO DRAIN TO THE STREETS THE REST OF THAT DRAINS INWARD INTO THE INTERNAL DRAINS NETWORK OUT THERE. >> DOES THE LITTLE ARROWS INDICATE THE FLOW? >> YES, SIR. THAT'S CORRECT. >> THANK YOU. >> IF YOU NEED SOMETHING THAT PUTS YOU TO SLEEP, GO HOME AND LOOK AT THIS. >> THANK YOU, MR. BOOTH, FOR THE EDUCATIONAL. [BACKGROUND] [LAUGHTER] >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. >> WE'RE DONE HERE. >> WE APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF RIVERWOOD RANCH SECTION 3. >> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH, DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND FOR THE VOTE. >> I WAS SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM RIGHT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, I'LL CALL FOR ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. >> AYE. >> THAT IS A 2-3, MOTION FAILS. MOVE RIGHT ALONG. ITEM NUMBER 12, DISCUSSION OF A PROJECT CONCEPT FOR THE MOWBRAY FIELD SUBDIVISIONS SITE FOR CONSIDERATION OF A NEW CONCEPT FOR APPROXIMATELY 13 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED NORTH OF WEST MULBERRY STREET, WEST SIDE OF NORTH WALKER STREETS, SOUTH AND SOUTH OF WEST LIVE OAK STREET WITHIN THE SF-6.3 ZONING DISTRICT AND NO EXTRA REQUIRED BUT THIS MUST BE JUST FOR DISCUSSION. GO AHEAD, MR. OTIS. >> IF I MAY JUST ASK A QUESTION ALTHOUGH THE LAST ITEM IT'S OVER. JUDITH, AN APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REASON WHY, ON THE DENIAL. [OVERLAPPING] >> BACK TO NUMBER 12, I'M SORRY. >> YOU GIVE THE APPLICANT GUIDANCE SO THEY KNOW WHAT TO DO WHEN THEY RAISE IT AGAIN. [OVERLAPPING] >> I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT WE'VE ADDRESSED SOME OF THE DENSITY. A LITTLE BIT MORE, 60 FOOTS, GETTING MORE MIXED IN SECTION 3. MAYBE RE-APPLY WITH SECTION 3 AND 4 TOGETHER AND BETWEEN 3 AND 4 MORE MIX OF THE 60S BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO KICK THE CAN ALL THE WAY TO SECTION 4 AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, OKAY, WELL HERE'S SOME 60S AND HERE'S SOME, I NEED TO SEE SOME MOVEMENT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE WERE PROMISED IN THE BEGINNING. I JUST WANT TO SEE THAT CONSISTENT. THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING. [01:20:03] >> GO AHEAD, SIR. >> THAT WAS ACTUALLY MY PROPOSAL WITH CITY STAFF I WANTED TO DO A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE REMAINING LOTS AND LOCK THAT IN. I DON'T KNOW IF WE DID THAT AT THE LAST MEETING. I THOUGHT WE APPROVED A GENERAL PLAN FOR THE REMAINING LOTS AND NOW WE'RE APPROVING JUST A PORTION FOR SECTION 3. I THINK THE REMAINDER OF THE LOTS IS LOCKED IN. >> THAT'S NOT IN MY PACKET THOUGH. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. >> IT WAS ON A PREVIOUS AGENDA THAT WE APPROVED THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT SHOWS THE REMAINING LOTS AND THAT'S ESTABLISHED BY OUR DENSITY CRITERIA FOR THE PD. WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS GET A MASTER PLAN THAT APPROVED EVERYTHING AND THEN FACE SECTIONS 3 AND 4. I THINK OTIS CAN SPEAK TO THAT. THAT WAS OUR INTENTION TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD IT ALL ESTABLISHED MEANING GOING FORWARD AND EVEN PRIOR TO OTIS, THAT'S WHAT WALTER WANT US TO DO AS WELL, SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING OVER THE PAST YEAR, WAS GETTING THAT REMAINING PHASING DONE AND LOCKED IN. I THINK AT THIS POINT, IT IS ESTABLISHED. >> I DON'T KNOW. I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. WE'D HAVE TO CHECK. >> OKAY. >> MR. OTIS, HAVE YOU SEEN SOMETHING LIKE THAT? HAVE YOU REMEMBERED THAT? >> AS HE STATED, IT WOULD BE A PART OF THE PD DOCUMENT. UNFORTUNATELY, I DIDN'T COPY THAT AS PART OF THAT. WE ONLY LOOKED AT SECTION 3 TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS IN ALIGNMENT. BUT WE WILL BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION. UNFORTUNATELY, I CAN'T PULL IT UP TO THE SCREEN. >> IF I UNDERSTAND YOU, MR. FOLEY, YOU'RE SAYING THAT AS PART OF THE PD APPROVAL? >> NO. I'M SORRY. THAT'S NOT WHAT I WAS INTENDING TO SAY. DOUG SUBMITTED OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS A PLAT FOR THE REMAINING SUBDIVISION, SECTIONS 3 AND 4 THAT HAD IT WITH A PHASING PLAN. OTIS ASKED US JUST TO SUBMIT SECTION 3 BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT TO LOCK IN THE PLAT FOR SECTIONS 3 AND 4 UNLESS WE WERE GOING TO DEVELOP THREE AND FOUR. BUT WE SUBMITTED A PLAT, AS DOUG CAN ATTEST FOR, FOR BOTH SECTIONS LOCKING TO WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH THE PHASING PLAN. IT WAS THE ADVICE OF CITY STAFF TO DO JUST SECTION 3 THIS TIME. >> LET ME LET ME ADD TO THAT. WE SUBMITTED THE PLAT WHICH WAS A PLAT, BUT WE DIDN'T SUBMIT IT FOR RECORDATION. WE SUBMITTED IT WITH THE DESIGN DRAWINGS FOR SECTION 3 AND 4. ALL OF IT WAS SUBMITTED. THE DRAWINGS FOR SECTION 3 AND 4 WERE REVIEWED BY HDR. THEY CAME BACK WITH COMMENTS, AND WE TOLD THEM OKAY, BECAUSE THE BUILDERS DIDN'T WANT TO BUY 145 PLOTS OR HOW MANY THERE WERE I CAN'T REMEMBER, WE'RE GOING TO DO SECTION 3 ONLY. WE TOOK THE PLAT THAT WE SUBMITTED FOR YOU-ALL'S REVIEW, WHICH I THINK WAS APPROVED, BUT I'M GETTING OLD TOO, AND WE JUST CAME BACK WITH SECTION 3, WHERE YOU'RE SUBMITTING DESIGN DRAWINGS FOR SECTION 3. THERE WAS THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTED WITH THE NUMBER OF 60-FOOT LOTS AND 50-FOOT LOTS. THIS IS SECTION 3, WHICH IS MAINLY 50-FOOT LOTS, I BELIEVE. >> I HAVE THE BREAKDOWN OF IT BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING BECAUSE DOUG SAID THIS IS ALL 50-FOOT LOTS BECAUSE NOT ALL 50-FOOT LOTS FOR SECTIONS 3. [OVERLAPPING] I DON'T HAVE THE BREAKDOWN, BUT WE SUBMITTED CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THE REMAINING SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS ALL 145-FOOT LOTS, WITH WHAT WE INTEND TO DO. I THINK IN A GOOD-FAITH DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY THAT SHOWS US, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THAT, WE'VE DESIGNED EVERYTHING FOR THE REMAINING 145-FOOT LOTS. WE CAN'T CHANGE ANYTHING AT THIS POINT BECAUSE OUR DENSITY HAS BEEN SET BY THE PD. WE HAVE ONLY 145-FOOT LOT. THERE ARE 145 LOTS REMAINING, WHICH IS A BREAKDOWN OF THESE 50S AND 60S. WITH DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAVE HAD OVER THE PAST YEAR OR SO, WE HAVE INCREASED THAT NUMBER OF 60-FOOT LOTS SUBSTANTIALLY FROM OUR ORIGINAL PLAN IN THE PD, WHICH WAS 30, 60-FOOT LOTS NOW TO 60, 60-FOOT LOTS, ALMOST DOUBLING THAT AMOUNT. I WOULD HOPE IN A COLLABORATIVE DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY THAT NOW THAT WE'VE SUBMITTED THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FOR EVERYTHING AND WE SUBMITTED THE PLAT FOR THE REMAINING SECTIONS, YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE PHASING OF THIS. WE PROMISED TO LOCK IN, AND I'M HAPPY TO SAY OPENLY WITH WHAT OUR LOT SPLIT IS FOR THE 50S AND 60S, HOW IT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY. I'M NOT GOING TO CHANGE THAT. >> THANK YOU, MR. FOLEY. >> MY QUESTION TONIGHT HERE IS THAT IN ORDER FOR US TO ADDRESS A FINAL PLAT, [01:25:08] WE HAD TO HAVE APPROVED A PRELIMINARY PLAT. WE DISCUSSED THE PRELIMINARY PALLIATE AND I REMEMBER THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT TRYING TO DO CONSTRUCTION ON BOTH THE REMAINING PHASES. WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT, THAT'S WHY I'M MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE IT. >> THAT COMES BACK TO, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE DOING CIRCLES ON THAT. BECAUSE IF WE'RE SAYING IT'S LIKE ONCE WE'VE PROVED THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE DON'T GET A SAY ON THE FINAL PLAT? WHY MAKE THEM SEPARATE MOTIONS? WHY NOT JUST COME TO US WITH ONE PLAT YOU AGREED UPON, BOOM, AND YOU'RE DONE. TO ME, THAT'S A CIRCULAR FIRE. WE'RE SHOOTING IN ON OURSELVES ON THAT ARGUMENT. TO ME, IF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FURTHER OBJECTION, THEN WHY EVEN COME BACK FOR A FINAL APPROVAL ONCE WE'VE PRELIMINARILY APPROVED IT? I JUST DISAGREE WITH THE IDEA THAT ONCE WE'VE APPROVED THE PRELIMINARY, IT'S JUST RUBBER STAMP THE FINAL PLAT. >> MR. TOWNSEND, DO YOU MIND IF I COMMENT REALLY QUICKLY ON THAT FROM A DEVELOPER'S PERSPECTIVE? >> SURE. >> ONE BENEFIT I THINK OF SEPARATING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND THE FINAL PLAT IS YES, THERE'S A LOT THAT GOES INTO THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL WITH THE PD AND THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, BUT AFTER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, A LOT OF WORK GOES IN ON ENGINEERING THE DESIGN, WHICH TAKES A LOT OF TIME AND MONEY. WE'D LIKE TO HAVE JUST A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION ON THE LOT LAYOUT AND WHAT WE PRESENT TO YOU TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE OKAY WITH IT BEFORE WE SENT DOUG AND ALL OF HIS ENGINEERS DOWN TO GO DO THE DETENTION, DRAINAGE, ALL THAT WORK. NOW, IN THE SET OF PLANS THAT IS ATTACHED, THIS AGENDA ITEM, ALL OF THAT WAS DONE SINCE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND A LOT OF WORK AND MONEY WENT INTO THAT. OTIS DID JUST SAY TO ME IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET, THE PLANS FOR SECTIONS 3 AND 4 ARE SUBMITTED. WHAT WE'RE PLANNING TO DO, THE SETUP COMPLETE DRAWINGS IS PART OF THE AGENDA ITEM TONIGHT. >> WHERE'S THAT AT OTIS? DO YOU HAVE A PAGE NUMBER? [OVERLAPPING]. >> THERE'S SEVERAL CONSTRUCTION PAGES. >> NOTHING WITH LOT SIZES STANDARDS. THERE'S NO WIDTH DIMENSIONS TO THEM. THERE'S BOXES. >> IT'S ONLY THE LAYOUT YES. >> FOR THREE AND FOUR. I SEE ON THE TITLES OF ALL THESE DOCUMENTS, THEY SAY SECTIONS 3 AND 4. >> ON THE INSTRUCTION PLANS, YES. >> THE ONLY DOCUMENT THAT HAS WIDTHS AND LENGTHS OF LOTS IS THE SECTION 3 PLAT AS PRESENTED TONIGHT. >> CORRECT. >> MR. FOLEY, LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION. THE PIT. THE PIT HASN'T BEEN APPROVED FOR THREE AND FOUR, HAS IT? >> IT HAS BEEN APPROVED. THERE'S A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT THAT ENVELOPS THE ENTIRE PROPERTY AND OUR TOTAL ASSESSMENT AND EVERYTHING HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. WHAT HASN'T BEEN DONE IS A SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN AND LACKING ASSESSMENTS FOR [OVERLAPPING] SECTION 3 AND 4. >> BECAUSE THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN PREVIOUS TIMES ABOUT HOW MANY HOUSES YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THERE? >> YES, SIR. >> WE KEPT SAYING WE'D GO BACK-AND-FORTH WITH THE LOT SIZES AND FIGURE THAT OUT. BUT WE KEPT PUSHING THE CAN FROM SECTIONS 1 AND 2 TO 3 AND 4. THAT'S WHY I ASKED YOU THAT QUESTION FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. YOU'VE DONE EVERYTHING YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO DO. I'M NOT TRYING TO FAULT TO YOU FROM THAT. I'M JUST SAYING THAT I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT TELLS ME THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING GOING FORWARD. IN TIMES IN THE PLATS, WE SAID WE'LL JUST KEEP GOING DOWN THE ROAD UNTIL WE GET TO THAT POINT. WE'RE AT THAT POINT NOW. I'M PUTTING MY FOOT DOWN AND SAYING, I NEED CLARIFICATION. THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING FOR. >> WELL, YES, SIR. I UNDERSTAND THE CLARIFICATION. AT THIS POINT, IT'S REALLY TRANSPARENT ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING AND WHAT WE PLAN TO DO. LOT SIZES ARE FIXED AND SET BASED OFF OF THE DETENTION WE'VE DONE. THAT'S THE BREAKDOWN OF LOT SIZES AND WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF CHANGING THAT. IT'S A GOOD MIX OF 50S AND 60S. SINCE OUR DISCUSSIONS, WE DID INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF 60-FOOT LOTS. I WAS HOPING THAT MUST HAVE SOME GOODWILL WITH DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY TO BE ON A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT. WE REALLY THINK THIS IS A STRONG AND AGREEABLE PLAN THAT YOU'LL [01:30:01] LIKE AND YOU'LL SEE A BETTER SPLIT OF LOT SIZES THAN YOU SAW IN SECTION 1 AND 2. >> WELL, THE 60S, THERE'S ONLY 16% OF THE 72? IT'S 12 LOTS THAT ARE 60-FOOT, THE REST ARE ALL 55 AND 50. >> I DON'T KNOW. >> THAT WAS A QUICK MATH I DID A MINUTE AGO COUNTING THEM UP. >> I HAVE IT BROKEN DOWN BY SECTIONS IF YOU CAN BEAR WITH ME. I DON'T KNOW TOP OF MY HEAD. >> WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT, JUDITH, WE'VE ALREADY TAKEN ACTION. CAN ANOTHER VOTE BE HAD NOW? >> WELL, YOU CAN VOTE TO RETRACT YOUR VOTE AND YOU CAN VOTE AS A PARTY TO VOTE AGAIN. [OVERLAPPING] >> JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE LEGALITY HERE. >> THE BODY WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE, OKAY, WE WANT TO TAKE A SECOND VOTE. WE WANT TO RETRACT OUR PREVIOUS VOTE, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO VOTE AGAIN. >> COUNCILMEN, ALL RIGHT. BASED OFF OF OUR PIT BECAUSE THE MAIN CLASSIFICATION WE HAVE WHEN WE GO INTO PIT IS SETTING THE ASSESSMENT, WHETHER IT'S A 50 OR 60-FOOT LOT AND HOW OUR SAP IS BEING DRAFTED IS THAT FOR SECTION 3, 52 OF THOSE LOTS ARE 50-FOOT AND 21 OF THOSE LOTS ARE 60-FOOT. THEN IN SECTION 4, 31 OF THOSE LOTS ARE 50-FOOT AND 41 OF THOSE LOTS ARE 60-FOOT. >> THANK YOU FOR LOOKING FOR THAT. >> BUT I ONLY COUNTED 12 60-FOOT IN SECTION 3. >> A LOT OF IT DOESN'T COME DOWN TO JUST FOOTAGE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE CULDESAC LOTS, THOSE CONTRIBUTE TO THE 60-FOOT COUNT WITH REGARDS TO THE PIT, IT'S MORE BASED OFF OF THE TOTAL VOLUME OR LOT SIZE SQUARE FOOTAGE. >> I HAVE NO REASON TO DISBELIEVE WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME. AT THE SAME TIME, I REALLY THINK IT'S FAIR TO US TO HAVE THOSE FIGURES IN WRITING WHEN WE'RE APPROVING THESE PLOTS AND YOU SAY IT'S AN ACT OF GOOD FAITH. I THINK FOR US IT'S AN ACT OF VERIFICATION. WE DO THIS ALL THE TIME PROFESSIONALLY. I TRUST BUT VERIFY. ANYTHING REASON TO DISBELIEVE WHY YOU WOULD INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. BUT I THINK FOR ME, AT LEAST MY PERSPECTIVE HAS THEIR OWN THOUGHTS PROCESS. I WANT TO SEE IT, I WANT IT TO BE TANGIBLE. I WANT TO VERIFY. THAT'S WHERE I SIT. I APPRECIATE YOU MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO ADDING SOME LARGER LOTS. I DO REMEMBER THIS CONVERSATION. [NOISE] I DO REMEMBER YOU PRESENTING AND BEING OPEN AND YOU'VE BEEN GENEROUS IN THAT RESPONSE IN THAT CONSIDERATION. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD TO, BUT YOU CERTAINLY HAVE BEEN OPEN TO IT. I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT JUST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I WANT TO SEE THE ACTUAL FIGURES, THE ACTUAL AND THEN MAKE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, A LOT MORE HONESTLY PALATABLE FOR MYSELF UNTIL. >> I ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. LIKE I SAID, THAT WAS OUR RECOMMENDATION TO I THINK THAT WORKS WELL. WHAT I'M HAVING AN ISSUE WITH AND MY MEMORY IS NOT DOING WELL RIGHT NOW. I FEEL LIKE WE SUBMITTED THE PLAT FOR SECTIONS 3 AND 4 AND IT WAS PUT UP AS PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. I COULD BE INCORRECT, BUT IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN LOOK AT THE LAST AGENDA TO SEE IF THAT WAS THE CASE. >> I'M PRETTY SURE I WAS CONSISTENT WITH VOTING. >> I REMEMBER, WE SUBMITTED SECTIONS 3 AND 4 AS ONE PLOT. >> ON MAY 24TH 2022 WHEN IT WAS PRESENTED THE COUNCIL, BUT I CAN'T FIND WHAT THE MINUTES WERE FOR THAT. THANK YOU. >> I'LL TELL YOU WHAT. CAN WE TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK WHAT Y'ALL DIG UP SOME INFORMATION FOR US, SEE IF WE FOUND IT SOMEWHERE PAST MEETING THAT WE JUST WE'VE ALL SLEPT SINCE THEN AND THEY'VE DONE VARIOUS THINGS AND WE'LL RECONVENE AND THEN HASH OUT SOME MORE OF THAT. LET'S TAKE US ABOUT 10-15 MINUTE BREAK IS EXACTLY 7:59. WE BACK HERE AT 8:15. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED [NOISE]. >> APPRECIATE THE PATIENTS AND ALLOWING US TO TAKE A QUICK BREAK. IT'S 8:12. SHOW US BACK AT THE TABLE [NOISE] AND WE'LL SEE IF STAFF OR HAS ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR US. [01:35:01] >> MR. OTIS OR THE JOB FOR MICHELLE GEL FIND ANYTHING OR. >> YES, WE WERE ABLE TO LOOK BACK AT THE PAST THE [NOISE] GENERAL 2022. WHAT WAS THAT MAY 27 ANYMORE WHEN THE REPLANT FOR THE PRELIMINARY LAYOUT OF SECTIONS 3 AND 4 WAS PRESENTED TO YOU AND ACTED ON AND THEY WERE ABLE TO FIND THE MOTION OF APPROVAL IN THE LAYOUT IN TERMS OF THE 60-FOOT LOTS BEING ON THEIR BACK, ROBIN STREET ALONE, THE BAG PROPERTY LINE, AND ALONG THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE SOFT SIDE ARRIVED IN STREET DO UP HERE AS NOTED. >> DID IT GIVE A BREAKDOWN ON THOSE NUMBERS? >> THE PLANT ITSELF DOESN'T. UNLESS YOU CAN FIND IT ON HERE. I CAN'T. >> ON THE PLANT ITSELF, IT'S NOT GOING TO BREAK DOWN THE COUNTS FOR EACH SLOT. WE DO THAT SPECIFICALLY IN THE SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN CATEGORIZING EACH SLOT TYPE. >> I WAS HAVING INTERNET ISSUES OR? >> MAYOR, THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. IT DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT THE INQUIRY, ABOUT WHAT THE COMMENTS WERE AND WHAT THE DISCUSSION WAS MADE. THE ONLY WAY WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT IS BY LOOKING AT THE VIDEO. >> GOT YOU. MAY 24TH. >> MEAN THE BIGGER QUESTION IS, ALL THIS RESEARCH AND EVERYTHING, ARE WE GOING TO CHANGE OUR VOTES TONIGHT? >> WELL, IT ACTUALLY TO ME SHOWS THAT THE, AT LEAST THERE WAS SOME ATTEMPT. THEN THESE NOT CHANGING TO ME, THE RHETORIC HAS NOT CHANGED WITH THE STORIES AND I'VE CHANGED TO WHAT HE'S TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH BASED ON WHAT WE DID THEN TO WHAT HE'S VERBALLY SAYING THAT WE'RE STILL CAN'T SEE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SECTION 4. >> MY COMMENT WAS THREE AND FOUR TOGETHER. I STAY CONSISTENT WITH THAT. >> COUNCIL YOU'RE RIGHT. ARE YOU SAYING YOU WANT A FINAL PLAT OF SECTIONS 3 AND 4 TOGETHER? BECAUSE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, SECTION 3 AND 4 TOGETHER WAS APPROVED. >> I WANT THE FINAL, BUT I WAS ALSO A NO VOTE ON THE PRELIMINARY WITH THE SAME CONCERNS. I'M AT LEAST BEING CONSISTENT. >> BUT YOU SAID IF YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN THE NUMBER BREAK DOWN, THAT WOULD HAVE MAYBE GAVE YOU A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT CONSIDERATION FOR THE VOTE? >> THAT I DON'T KNOW. I CAN'T SAY THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. >> GOT YOU. >> BUT I HAVE INCONSISTENT [NOISE] PATTERNS, SO. >> I'M PRETTY SURE I VOTED AGAINST IT LAST TIME AS WELL. I'M VOTE HASN'T CHANGED AND I STAND BY WHAT I SAID EARLIER. I STILL WANT NUMBERS. >> DO YOU SEE WHERE IT'S THE BUILD-OUT? >> DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE VOTE COUNT ON THIS WAS? >> IN MAY OF 2022,IT WAS FOUR TO TWO COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND AND MAYOR PRO TEM. VOTED AGAINST IT. >> NOW DOES THAT HAVE THE MEASUREMENT NUMBERS ON THERE? >> [BACKGROUND]. >> JUST FOR PROCEDURALLY, THIS ADDRESSED THE REASON HE SAID HE VOTED NO AGAINST IT. WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE CITY TO VOTE THIS DOWN IF IT MEETS ALL THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR. >> I HAVE TO COMMENT THAT THE APPROVAL IN 2022 WAS FOR 3 AND 4. [01:40:06] ISN'T THAT WHAT THIS IS SHOWING US? >> PRELIMINARY. >> IT WAS A PRELIMINARY RE-PLOT OF 3 AND 4 THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2022. >> YES. >> NOW YOU'RE COMING IN 2023 WITH THE FINAL PLOT OF JUST ONE OF THE SECTIONS. CITY COUNCIL ALWAYS HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DISAPPROVE. THERE'S NOTHING IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE THAT SAYS THEY CAN'T DISAPPROVE. BUT WHAT THEY CAN'T DO IS NOTHING. IF CITY COUNCIL DOES NOTHING, IF THE 30 DAYS RUNS, THE FINAL PLOT IS APPROVED BY LAW. WHEN I AS CITY ATTORNEY ASKED FOR EXPLANATION, THAT'S TO AID THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK AND REAPPLY. OTHERWISE, WE'RE GOING TO BE STUCK IN A CIRCLE. THEY HAVE THE ABILITY, THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DISAPPROVE THE PLOT. THAT STATUTORILY THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY. IF YOU AS THE APPLICANT OR ASKING FOR AN EXPLANATION, THEN YES, YOU CAN ASK FOR THAT EXPLANATION SO THAT WHEN YOU RESUBMIT, WE DON'T GET STUCK IN THE VORTEX OF THE SAME DECISION. I THINK WE'RE COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES BECAUSE LAST YEAR WAS A PRELIMINARY PLOT FOR 3 AND 4. NOW YOU'RE COMING WITH A FINAL PLOT ON 3 AND COUNCILMAN EXCUSE ME, MAYOR PRO TEM WRIGHT IS RIGHT THAT HE DOESN'T KNOW WELL IF THERE WAS A DISCUSSION THEN ABOUT 4, HE STILL DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT 4. IF I HEAR THE DISSENT, I'M SOUNDING LIKE YOU WANT TO SEE THE WHOLE THING. >> LET ME SEE THE WHOLE THING. >> THAT'S YOUR COMMENT. >> OKAY. >> THAT'S YOUR INSTRUCTIONS. >> STATUTORILY THOUGH, IF IT MEETS ALL OF THE GUIDELINES OF A PLOT. I THOUGHT IN THE PAST YOU SAID, YOU CANNOT DENY THE PLOT. >> YOU CAN'T FAIL TO TAKE ACTION. IT'S A MINISTERIAL ACT. IF IT'S SATISFIED, EVERYTHING, YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT. BUT THE PROBLEM IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT APPLES AND ORANGES BECAUSE THEY DID A PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR BOTH 3 AND 4. NOW YOU'RE COMING BACK WITH THE FINAL IN JUST 3. YEAH, CITY COUNCIL ABSOLUTELY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO APPROVE IT BECAUSE WE WANT TO SEE 3 AND 4. IF IT WAS JUST A PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF JUST SECTION 3 AND THE. >> BUT WE DO GET JUST SECTION 3 APPROVED AS A PRELIMINARY PLAT AS WELL, PRIOR TO THIS. >> OKAY. >> LAST COUPLE AGENDAS AGO, CORRECT. NOTICE. >> I WAS JUST TRYING TO STATE THAT THEY HAD SEEN SECTIONS 3 AND 4 TOGETHER AND WE APPROVED IT THAT WAY. THEN CITY STAFF TOLD US TO GO PLOT IT INDIVIDUALLY. THEN CAME BACK AGAIN INTO THE PRELIMINARY PLOT FOR SECTION 3 AND NOW DOING A FINAL PLOT FOR SECTION 4 THE ISSUE WITH DOING A FINAL PLOT FOR SECTIONS 3 AND 4 IS YOU CAN'T JUST GO DEVELOP SECTION 3 AND RECORD SECTION 3. IF YOU GET A FINAL PLOT APPROVED FOR SECTION 3 AND 4, YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO DEVELOP SECTIONS 3 AND 4 BEFORE YOU CAN RECORD THE PLOT AND THE ISSUE IS, WE'RE NOT SURE IF WE'RE DOING THAT RIGHT NOW. THAT'S WHY SECTION 3 WAS JUST PRESENTED FOR THIS ACTION. >> THAT WAS A TRIGGERING QUESTION THAT WAS ASKING ABOUT WHEN YOU DO THE RECORDING. WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION THAT PERIOD, WHAT YOU JUST BRIEFLY TOUCHED ON THERE ABOUT THAT RECORDING PIECE AND THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING. MAYBE THAT'S WHY THEY'D ONLY GET 3 BECAUSE IN 4 THERE'S A TRIGGER MECHANISM, I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IT. >> YES, SIR. BECAUSE WE WERE NOT ABLE TO ACTUALLY RECORD A PLOT UNTIL ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS DEVELOPED AND THEN INSPECT IT AND THEN ACCEPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. AT THAT POINT, YOU GO RECORD THE PLOT AND IF WE JUST DEVELOPED SECTION 3, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO RECORD A PLOT AND IF WE DON'T HAVE A RECORD OF PLOT, WE CAN'T CONVEY LOTS TO. >> THE BUILDERS. >> THE HOME BUYERS. >> THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBER. BECAUSE YOU'RE DOING THE PHASED APPROACH WILL TRY TO BRING IT IN. >> I THINK THAT CITY COUNCIL, IT'S BEEN PRESENTED THIS WAY AND MR. WRIGHT, WITH HIS CONCERNS ABOUT SEEING 60-FOOT LOTS IN SECTION 4. I MIGHT HAVE EVER HEARD YOU SAYING THERE'S CONCERN. WHAT IF WE DIDN'T DEVELOP IT? WELL, THE PRELIMINARY PLOT WAS APPROVED AND IT'S ALL BEEN DESIGNED FOR THIS. IF THERE'S A DISCREPANCY FROM THIS, THEN THERE IS A CHANGE FROM THE PATH OF APPROVAL FROM OUR ORIGINAL DISCUSSIONS, WHICH I DO THINK GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO SAY NO. I THINK THAT PROTECTS YOU GUYS. >> IS THAT YOUR LEGAL OPINION? I'M ASKING, I DON'T KNOW. >> THAT WAS JOHN'S DISCUSSION ABOUT IF THERE'S A CHANGE FROM OUR PLENARY PLOT TO FINAL PLOT THAN THE COUNCIL YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO DENY IT, BUT IT'S BEEN WITHIN THE SAME APPROVAL FROM THE PLENARY PLOT. [01:45:04] I FEEL PLENARY PLOT SERVES AS A PURPOSE BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCILS AND DEVELOPERS TO HAVE A DISCUSSION BACK-AND-FORTH ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE AND I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO ADDRESS IT AT THAT POINT PRIOR TO LETTING YOUR DEVELOPER GO AND SPEND A LOT OF TIME, MONEY AND RESOURCES ON DEVELOPING A PLENARY PLOT. THAT'S JUST A COMMENT THAT I THINK MIGHT HELP UNDERSTAND THROUGH THE LDC PROCESS. >> I THINK THE EASIEST THING FOR ME IS TO JUST READ THE STATUTE SO THAT THAT WILL JUST SOLVE THE ISSUE. THE APPROVAL OF A PLOT IS A MINISTERIAL DUTY AND THE APPROVING AUTHORITY MUST APPROVE A PLOT IF THE PLOT APPLICATION COMPLIES WITH ONE, THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY, TWO THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE CITY AND ITS ROADS, STREETS, AND PUBLIC HIGHWAYS WITHIN THE CITY AND IN ITS ETJ, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ACCESS TO AN EXTENSION OF SEWER AND WATER MAINS AND THE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF PUBLIC UTILITIES. THREE, A BOND REQUIRED UNDER STATE LAW, IF APPLICABLE, IS FILED WITH THE CITY AND FOUR ANY RULES ADOPTED GOVERNING PLOTS AND SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY'S JURISDICTION. THAT'S 212005, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. IT'S THE END FOR ANY RULES ADOPTED GOVERNING PLOTS AND SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY'S JURISDICTION. I CANNOT MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. ONLY YOUR BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEER CAN SAY YES, ALL OF THAT IS SATISFIED AND FOR WHAT I'M SAYING IS I THINK PART OF THE STRUGGLE IS WE'RE TALKING I UNDERSTAND WHAT MR. FOLEY SAYING, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT APPLES AND ORANGES THAT WE'RE IN THE PRELIMINARY PLOT GAME, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT LOT SIZE OF WHICH I CAN NOT DISCERN IN THE MINUTES, BUT WE ARE DEPENDENT UPON THE ENGINEER AND OTIS TELLING US WHETHER OR NOT THAT AND FOR ANY RULES ADOPTED GOVERNING THE PLOTS AND SUBDIVISIONS OF THE LAND WITHIN THE JURISDICTION HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. I THINK ALSO I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT COULD BE BECAUSE OF A YEAR HAS PASSED THAT IT'S CAUSED SOME PAUSE AND A YEAR AGO, OTIS WAS NOT HERE. I GET HOW WE GOT HERE. QUESTION IS, HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD? >> THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> MY OPINION IS JUDITH HAS A FIRM GRASP OF WHAT'S PRECEDING, AND I AGREE WITH HER ASSESSMENT OF WHAT SHE THINKS SHE'S SEEING, AND I THINK I SEE THE SAME THINGS. THEN AS I SIT AT CITY COUNCIL THAT'S WHY WE RETAIN COUNSEL IN THE LAW FIRM [INAUDIBLE] LAW FIRM AND THE SERVICES OF JUDITH. I'M GOING TO DEFER TO HER LEGAL OPINION. THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. >> AS I RECALL PROCEDURALLY, WE TOOK A VOTE ON THIS MATTER. WE EITHER MOVE ON OR COUNCIL CAN DECIDE AS A BODY TO RETRACT THAT VOTE AND DO A SECOND VOTE. THEN ALSO THE LAST OPTION IS THAT THE APPLICANT CAN TABLE IT UNTIL THEY COME BACK WITH WHATEVER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT MAY HELP AND AID CITY COUNCIL. >> CAN WE DO PLENARY PLOT OF THIS YEAR? FOR JUST SECTION? >> [BACKGROUND]. >> WE DID THAT. IT WENT BEFORE COUNCIL. >> I DO NOT KNOW >> OKAY. JUDITH HAS LAID OUT THREE OR FOUR OPTIONS FOR US. GO AHEAD. [BACKGROUND] >> OR THEY'RE DISTINCT LINES DRAWN ON THIS PLAT, THAT'S IT DIFFERENTIATES BETWEEN SECTION 3 AND 4? >> YES, SIR. AND THOSE HAVE NOT BEEN CHANGED SINCE THEN AND TODAY? >> THANK YOU. >> AS MS. JUDITH MENTIONED, THERE'S 2-3 OPTIONS AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT EITHER MOVE FORWARD AS A BODY CAN VOTE TO RETRACT THE PRIOR VOTE. >> VOTE A SECOND TIME. >> VOTE THE SECOND TIME OR DO YOU RETRACT AND THEN TABLE. IS THAT THE LAST OPTION OR IS IT JUST WAS HOW DO YOU GET TO TABLE IN THE EYE? [01:50:01] >> THEY HAVE TO MOVE TO TABLE NOT US. [OVERLAPPING] >> BUT WE WILL HAVE TO RETRACT THAT VOTE AND THEN ALLOW THEM TO THEN SAVORY BECAUSE THEY CAN'T TABLE THE DECISION THAT WE JUST MADE. >> THEY WOULD HAVE TO. [NOISE] THE BODY WOULD HAVE TO VOTE. IF THE REQUEST IS MADE TO RETRACT THE VOTE BECAUSE THE APPLICANT WANTS TO TABLE IT, THE BODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT. YOU HAVE TO AGREE TO RETRACT IT. >> I'M WALKING. >> I WOULD JUST LIKE SOME CLARIFICATION ON HOW YOU LIKE TO SEE IT PRESENTED AND IF YOU CAN UNDERSTAND FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE ABOUT DOING IT AS A FINAL PLOT, LOCKING US INTO DEVELOPING EVERYTHING AT ONCE COULD IMPOSE SOME ISSUES ON THE FINANCING SIDE IF WE CAN'T GET A BUILDER TO COMMIT TO THE REST. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS FEASIBLE, BUT MAYBE AS ANOTHER OPTION IS THERE A WAY TO DO A FINAL PLAT THAT ALLOWS US TO DEFER DEVELOPING A PORTION OF IT SO THE PLANT ITSELF IS LOCKED IN AND THAT'S WHAT WE COMMIT ON THE LOT SIZES, BUT WE CAN STILL FACE SECTIONS 3 AND 4. >> THAT I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE TO TURN. >> I DON'T THINK OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WILL ALLOW THAT MARK ON REALLY. THAT'S A GUESS ON MY PART, BUT I DON'T THINK SO. >> I'M GOING TO COME UP WITH ANOTHER OPTION JUST BECAUSE I LIKE TO MAKE PEOPLE CONFUSED. YOU CAN ALWAYS VOTE TO RETRACT ON THE OTHER ONE AND IF YOU DO ANOTHER VOTE AND IF YOU APPROVE, YOU COULD DO IT CONDITIONAL. YOU CAN DO A CONTINGENT UPON WHICH I REALIZE IS UNPOPULAR. BUT YOU CAN ALWAYS PROVE IT CONTINGENT UPON ANSWERING WHATEVER THE QUESTION IS OR GIVING THE ENGINEER AND THE DEVELOPER THE OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER THE SPECIFIC QUESTION THAT YOU HAVE ABOUT SECTION 3, KNOWING THAT FOUR IS COMING AT ANOTHER TIME. >> A LOT TO DIGEST. OKAY, COUNCIL. DISCUSSION TO SEE IF Y'ALL WANT TO MOVE TOWARD ASSISTING WITH THE DEVELOPER IN EITHER HELPING US DO MORE FACT-FINDING TO MAKE JUST ANOTHER INFORMED DECISION. >> [NOISE] I'M HOPING TO TABLING THIS TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION, BUT I DON'T WANT TO CHANGE MY VOTE AS TO WHAT I'M DOING RIGHT NOW AT THIS VERY MOMENT BECAUSE WE'RE SITTING HERE GOING DOWN THIS PATH. I'VE BEEN PRETTY CONSISTENT ON THIS DEVELOPMENT SINCE DAY ONE OF THE LOT SIZES. THAT'S NOT A NEW THING, I'VE BEEN VERY CONSISTENT ON WANTING TO SEE MORE DIVERSITY INTO THE DEVELOPMENT. MY CONCERN STILL IS ON SECTION 3 THAT THERE'S NOT THAT MUCH DIVERSITY IN THERE. YOU SHOWED 22 OF THE 72. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE THAN THAT, BUT I'M ALSO I'M OPEN TO WORKING WITH YOU ON OTHER AREAS, BUT I CAN'T DO THAT HERE RIGHT NOW. THAT'S MY PROBLEM. AS A COUNCIL THAT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE TO DECIDE IN TOGETHER, BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET THERE TONIGHT. WE ALL HAVE OUR DIFFERENT OPINIONS AND WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GO. MY PERSONAL THING IS THE DENSITY IS STARTING TO BECOME AN ISSUE IN TOWN. I'M HEARING ABOUT IT ALL THE TIME FROM PEOPLE AND I'M TRYING TO PUSH BACK AND SAY, NO, PLUS, I WAS CONSISTENT ON THE PRELIMINARY PLOTS, I'VE BEEN CONSISTENT ON FINAL PLATS. I JUST WANT TO SEE US MAKE SOME CHANGES HERE AND I GET TOLD, WELL, THIS IS JUST A PRELIMINARY PLAT YOU CAN APPROVE THIS AND WE'LL FIX IN THE FINAL PLAT. THEN I GET TOLD, WELL, WE'LL FIX THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT AND THEN WE'LL FIX IT HERE. WELL, I'M PUTTING MY FOOT DOWN AND ALL THE DEVELOPMENTS AND SAYING, NO, WE'RE GOING TO FIX THIS UPFRONT. FINALLY, THAT'S WHY I SAID THREE AND FOUR TOGETHER SO I KNOW THE FINAL PLAN OF HOW IT'S ALL GOING TO GO. I UNDERSTAND YOUR ISSUE IS PHASE 4 WHEN THE TIMING OF THAT IS. YOU DON'T WANT TO GO DO ALL THIS WORK, GET IT ALL DONE, AND IT JUST SITS THERE AND THEN YOU HAVE TO COME BACK AGAIN. I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT. I ALSO KNOW YOU HAVE SOME TOWNHOMES RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM YOU. WITH A LITTLE BIT OF CHANGE, WE DO NEED DIVERSITY IN TOWN. WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF SMALL AND LARGE LOTS. WE JUST APPROVED THE TRAILER PARK TONIGHT. [NOISE] THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT CONCEPT THE WAY IT IS. I JUST THINK THAT WE NEED TO SIT DOWN AND REALLY SHARPEN OUR PENCILS AND GET WHAT'S BEST FOR THE CITIZENS OF ANGLETON. [01:55:05] >> I WOULD BE OKAY PERSONALLY IF YOU ALL WANTED TO TABLE IT AND YOU WANT TO PRESENT SECTION 4 OR SECTION 3 AND THEN WE SEE THOSE LARGER LOTS COME IN, THEN WE KNOW FOR SURE YOU'RE LOCKED IN TO DO IT BECAUSE WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU TELLING ME IS THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO BE IN A POSITION TO HAVE TO PLOT BOTH OF THE SECTIONS 3 AND 4 FOR FEAR OF BEING ABLE TO SELL THE LOTS THAT ARE IN FOUR. >> I ABSOLUTELY DO WANT TO PLAT BOTH OF THEM AND RECORD THEM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE ISSUE WITH RECORDATION OF IT, BASED ON YOUR LDC IS I HAVE TO GO TO DEVELOP IT BEFORE I CAN RECORD IT. I WOULD LOVE TO LOCK IN WHAT WE HAVE PLANNED FOR SECTIONS 3 AND 4 TODAY AND GO RECORD IT AND THEN BE ABLE TO DEVELOP IT IN SECTIONS. I WAS TOLD THAT STAFF THAT DOESN'T SEEM WORKABLE WHAT THE LDC. I KNOW YOU HATE THIS WORD, BUT MAYBE THERE'S A VARIANCE WE CAN USE THAT WE LOCK IN THE LOTS TODAY. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE BUILDING AND THEN DEVELOP IT IN PHASES. WHEREAS I FIND A BUILDER I DEVELOP THEM ALL AT ONCE. I'D LOVE THAT FLEXIBLE. I'D LOVE TO GO DEVELOP EVERYTHING ALL AT ONCE. BE WAY CHEAPER FOR ME TO DO BECAUSE I'M DOING ALL THE DIRT WORK RIGHT NOW. IT DEPENDS IF BUILDER CAN COME TO THE MARKET IF THERE'S ENOUGH DEPTH IN THE MARKET RIGHT NOW. BUT MY IDEA WOULD BE RIGHT IN LINE WITH YOU GUYS IF THERE'S A WAY TO GO GET ALL LOTS OF PROOF RIGHT NOW AND THEN LOCK THAT IN, BUT ALLOW ME TO DEVELOP SECTION 3 BY ITSELF ALL FOR THAT AND IF THAT WOULD BE WORKABLE AND YOU ALL WANT TO WORK TOWARDS THAT. BASED OFF THE PLAN THAT WE APPROVED ON THE PLENARY PLAT TRYING TO LOCK THAT IN, THEN I WOULD TABLE THE DISCUSSION. >> THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN MAYBE PROBABLY EXTEND IT. WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK [INAUDIBLE] >> OR MODIFY THE PD, MAKE THAT A CONDITION OF THE PD LAXITY IN THE ORDINANCE UP THE PD AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. >> BUT WOULD THAT LEAVE US WITH DEAD-END STREETS, WITHOUT COLD AIR SACS IF THEY'D NEVER COME BACK TO SECTION 4? >> SECTION 3 IS DESIGN HAS NO DEAD INDUSTRIES AND THERE'S NO NEED FOR COLD AIR SACS TEMPORARY OR ANYTHING. THIS IS SMOOTH SUBDIVISION. >> I SEE EMMA STREET CONTINUING INTO ROBINS STREET, WHICH WOULD BE SECTION 4. >> CORRECT. >> IF THEY DON'T COME BACK TO DO SECTION 4, EMMA STREET WOULD BE A DEAD END WITHOUT A COLD SAC. >> CAN YOU SHOW THE WHOLE PLAT THERE AND I CAN POINT IT OUT? >> THERE WANT TO POINT OUT. >> COUNCILWOMAN DANIEL I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ON THAT. >> [BACKGROUND]. >> NO, THAT'S THREE. >> THERE YOU HAVE FOUR. >> SECTION 3, WE ARE TRYING IT ROBINS SECTION. >> YEAH. >> NOW JUST BE AN INTERSECTION WITH TWO STOPS. >> WITH BARRICADE. >> BUT TRAFFIC WOULD JUST GO STRAIGHT THROUGH. >> EVERYBODY STOPS. >> WE JUST SAY WE HAVE A LOT OF EARLIER SUBDIVISIONS FROM THE '70S AND '80S THAT HAVE. >> I SEE YOUR POINT. [OVERLAPPING] >> WE ACCEPTED IT, THE COUNCIL ACCEPTED THIS PRELIMINARY PLAN OF SECTIONS 3 AND 4. I FEEL LIKE WE COVENANT TOGETHER THAT THIS WOULD BE THE FINAL OVERALL LAYOUT OF THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF EACH LOT THAT'S PRESENTED ON THIS PIECE OF PAPER. NOW, I'M SORRY, WE GET TO THIS IMPASSE. WELL, NOW WE'VE BROKEN THIS INTO TWO PHASES. WE'VE GOT A SECTION 3 AND SECTION 4, I DON'T KNOW WHO TOLD WHO TO DO WHAT. BUT IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE WE'VE GOT A NUMBER OF LOTS OF PEER COMMITTED UP HERE. [02:00:01] IT'S SHOWN IN ENGLISH AND NUMERIC NUMBERS AND STUFF. THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE THE OPTION OF SAYING, IF YOU DON'T COME BACK EXACTLY LIKE THIS, THAT'S THE CAUSE THAT WE'RE GOING TO DENY THE PLAN. I'M JUST TRYING TO HELP YOU ALONG HERE, BUT IN MY HEART, WE APPROVED YOU TO DO THIS AS WE DID FROM SECTION 1 TO SECTION 2. NOW TURN TO SECTION 3. THE SAME THEME HAS BEEN GOING ALONG WITH A GENERAL CONCEPTUAL PLAN OF WHAT THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT WAS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. NOW WE GET DOWN TO THE END TO WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GET PRETTY MUCH THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT, AND THEN IT'S ALL BLOWING UP HERE. [OVERLAPPING] THERE'S AN ATTITUDE ON COUNCIL HERE THAT DON'T LIKE IT AND THAT'S OKAY. BE FREE TO VOTE HOW OUR CONSTITUENTS WANT TO VOTE, AND THAT'S BEEN PRETTY PATENT SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING. WE HAD A DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL. THE GUY, THANK YOU. YOU'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET TO THAT POINT ALL ALONG. I KNOW WE'VE HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT HAVING TO THIS SIZE LOT, AND HOW MANY OF THAT SIZE LOT, AND DO WE NOT HAVE A CURRENT DEVELOPMENT AND ADOPTED DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT? >> YEAH, WE HAVE. >> [OVERLAPPING] WHICH THIS CONFORMS TO? >> THAT SPECIFIES THESE CONFIGURATIONS. >> OKAY. >> FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE. TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT. FOUR OF US VOTED ON THE PRELIMINARY PLOT THAT SIT HERE TODAY. >> I TOO WAS HERE, YEAH. >> YES, FOUR OF US. IS COUNCILMAN DANIEL BEHOLDEN TO THE VOTE OF WHO SAT IN HER PREDECESSOR, OR DOES SHE GET THE VOTE AS SHE CHOOSES? >> WHEN SHE'S ELECTED, SHE GETS TO VOTERS. >> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. HER PREDECESSOR MAY HAVE VOTED FOR, BUT SHE IS NOW TAKEN THAT SEAT AND SHE GETS TO VOTE AS SHE BELIEVES, WHATEVER HER BELIEF IS. >> WELL, THAT'S FINE. I DIDN'T CALL THEM [OVERLAPPING] ROUTERS BOTH FOR WHAT. I JUST SAID, I'LL DO COUNCIL HAS DONE THIS. NOW WE'RE PROFICIENT ON THE GUY. >> YOU'RE NOT PROFICIENT. >> ARE WE ALL TRUE? NO, BECAUSE WE VOTED AGAINST IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. >> NOT ONLY THAT I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH YOUR ASSESSMENT. >> THAT'S FINE IF YOU DISAGREE, I DON'T CARE. >> MY BELIEF HAS BEEN THE PRELIMINARY PLOT DOES NOT BECOME A RUBBER STAMP FOR THE FINAL PLOT. THAT'S WHY I SAID EARLIER, IF THAT'S THE WAY IT'S GOING TO BE, THEN WE NEED TO CHANGE OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND SAY YOUR PRELIMINARY PLOT IS ALL YOU NEED. >> I GUESS, BUT A COMMON THEME FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS. >> THAT MAY BE, BUT THAT'S NOT THE RULES. [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S NOT THE ROLES ARE PLAYING BY PRESENTLY MISSION BOOTH. >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE PRESENTED PRELIMINARY PLOT AND THAT'S [OVERLAPPING]. >> YEAH, IT'S NOT IN EFFECT AS WE SIT RIGHT NOW. YOU DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THE ASSESSMENT? >> I DON'T KNOW WHO TOLD HIM TO DONE IT THIS WAY. >> I DON'T KNOW EITHER. >> DID SOMEBODY TELLS YOU TO DO IT THIS WAY? >> YES, SIR. >> DO IT THIS WAY, THIS WAY, AND THEN COME BACK AND JUST GET ONE SECTION FOR THE NIGHT? >> YES, SIR. CITY STAFF SOMEBODY TO DO IT THIS WAY. >> OKAY. WE'VE GOT AN IN-HOUSE PROBLEM. >> ALL I KNOW IS WE ARE HAVING A FINAL VOTE OFF OF A PRELIMINARY PLOT. >> DID WE OR DID WE NOT HAVE A PRELIMINARY PLOT OF JUST SECTION 3? >> I THINK WE DID. >> OKAY. >> FOR WHAT I RECALL. >> WHAT I RECALL IS WE PRESENTED THIS. >> I WILL ANSWER. >> GO AHEAD. >> BECAUSE I KNOW THE EXACT EVENTS. WALTER TOLD US TO DO A CONCEPT A PLOT FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE SUBDIVISION AS A PRELIMINARY PLOT AND THEN COME BACK AND PLOT IT AS EACH SECTION. HE WAS THE ONE THAT TOLD US TO DO IT THAT WAY. SO THAT'S HOW WE PROCEEDED WITH IT. >> THIS WAS THE QUESTION TONIGHT WAS HOW DID WE GET TO JUST ONLY THIS SECTION TONIGHT? WHEN YOU STARTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THREE AND FOUR WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS, DID SOMEBODY TELL YOU THAT WE NEED TO GO TO THIS POINT OR ARE YOU STILL GOING ON WALTERS ASSESSMENT? >> NO, THAT TRANSITION AND ALSO OTHERS TELLING US THIS IS THE PROCESS ESTABLISHED BY THE LDC FOR SUBMITTAL. >> WELL, THEN I GUESS YOU SHOULD HAVE COME TONIGHT WITH A PRELIMINARY PLOT OF SECTION 3. [02:05:05] WE COULD DISCUSS JUST SECTION 3 IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SELL THE FIRST NEXT SET OF LOTS THERE. >> THE THOUGHT WAS WHEN WE HAD PRELIMINARY PLOT APPROVAL FOR THE WHOLE THING, IF WE CAME BACK IN SECTIONS, WE WOULD JUST COME BACK FOR OUR FINAL SECTION SINCE WE HAD PRELIMINARY ALREADY. >> I UNDERSTAND. >> INVOLVING THE STAFF AND US. >> I HATE TO CAUSE FRICTION AND I RESPECT YOU VERY MUCH CECIL. WHEN YOU ALL CAME HERE IN MAY, IT'S WHAT TRIGGERED ME TO APPROACH COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ZONING THAT SUMMER IN JUNE BECAUSE OF LOT SIZES THAT BUTT UP AGAINST ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS. THAT'S WHY I'M HERE. THAT'S WHY I RAN. THAT'S WHY I GOT ELECTED. IF YOU HAD COME TO US TONIGHT WITH BOTH THREE AND FOUR, MY VOTE WOULD STILL BE THE SAME. I DON'T APPRECIATE 60 FOOT LOTS BEING BACKED UP TO 100 FOOT LOTS. TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIVED THERE 15 YEARS, 20 YEARS, 25 YEARS. WE NEED MORE 60 FOOT LOTS. THERE'S NOT ENOUGH IN WHAT YOU HAVE AND WE NEED WATER LOTS BACKED UP TO ESTABLISH NEIGHBORHOODS AND THAT'S WHY I VOTED THE WAY I DID. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR CANDOR, AND I APPRECIATE THAT. I HOPE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND. IT'S TOUGH HAVING TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS YEAR AFTER YEAR WITH US AND GET INPUT AT THE FINISH LINE. BECAUSE WE'VE TRIED TO ALREADY ADDRESS THAT BY PUTTING ONLY 60 FOOT LOTS UP BEHIND THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. NO ONE ASKED US TO DO ANYTHING BIGGER THAN THAT. SO WE ACCOMMODATED BIGGER LOTS BACKING UP TO COLONY SQUARE. THIS WHOLE DEVELOPMENT AND EVERYTHING WAS APPROVED FOUR YEARS AGO. AND IT'S JUST TOUGH AS A DEVELOPER TO COME IN HERE AND COMMIT TO DOING SOMETHING. I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU GUYS COMING FROM, THINGS HAVE CHANGED. BUT I HOPE YOU CAN SEE FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE HOW MUCH TIME AND EFFORT WE'VE STUCK TO THE SAME PLAN WE SET FROM THE BEGINNING. I WISH A LOT OF THIS STUFF WOULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED AT THE BEGINNING OR AT PRELIMINARY PLOTS INSTEAD OF US GETTING THE APPROVAL, BECAUSE FROM A DEVELOPER PERSPECTIVE, WE RUN WITH THAT SETS. WE'VE GOTTEN THAT APPROVAL. WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN CALLS FROM ANYONE FROM THE CITY EXPRESSING THESE CONCERNS OR ASKING US TO CHANGE THINGS. IT'S A LITTLE DISHEARTENING AND I'M JUST NOT REALLY EVEN SURE WHAT TO DO HERE BECAUSE I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF WE CHANGE ANYTHING, WE'RE STILL EVEN GETTING GET APPROVAL. SO IT'S HARD FOR ME TO EVEN SEE THE POINT OF WITHDRAWING IT TONIGHT BECAUSE SHE'S NOT CANDIDLY, I'M NOT GETTING ENOUGH FEEDBACK TO REALLY THINK THAT THERE'S ANYTHING I CAN DO TO CHANGE HIS MIND FOR OUR AGREEMENT. IT'S JUST A TOUGH PHYSICIAN ENCOUNTER. >> IN FAIRNESS MR. FOLEY, I BELIEVE BOTH JOHN AND I HAVE PRESENTED TO YOU THAT BASICALLY, IF WE SOLVE SOME FIGURES, SOME HARDER FIGURES IS FOR MILESTONE FOR MYSELF. US ALL NUMBERS WHERE WHAT APPEARS TO BE IN THIS PRELIMINARY PLOT 4 WAS TO BE IN A FINAL PLOT 4, YOU PROBABLY HAD MY VOTE. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE BEING PRESENTED WITH TONIGHT. I THINK JUDITH HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD. IT'S NOT THE SAME WORD TO ME. THEY'RE APPLES AND ORANGES. WELL, WE'RE ASKED FOR IS THREE. YOU'RE ASKING ME TO APPROVE IT WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT FOUR IS GOING TO REMAIN THE SAME. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO, IT CAN BE. BUT THERE'S THE DIFFERENCE. YOU CAN ALWAYS CHANGE FOR WHATEVER REASON. IF THE MARKET IS BETTER FOR YOU TO BE IN THIS PRICE POINT OR THIS SIZE LOT OR WHATEVER, YOU CAN MAKE THAT CHANGE 3-4 BETWEEN THE TIME THAT YOU BRING US THE FINAL PLOTS. THAT'S WHY WE'RE CIRCLING BACK HERE. BUT IF YOU HAD BRING US 3 AND 4 AND I UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT AND MR. BOOTH, MAYBE CORRECT. MAYBE YOU'VE GOT SOME BAD ADVICE FROM SOMEWHERE WITHIN CITY HALL. I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT TRYING TO ASSIGN BLAME. THIS IS NOT WHAT IT'S ABOUT. THAT'S WHERE I AM ON MY VOTE. 'M GIVING YOU FEEDBACK. I'M TELLING YOU WHERE I'M. I THINK I'VE BEEN CONSISTENT ON THAT ALL NIGHT. >> YES, SIR. I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHY I WANTED TO BRING THIS UP AND WHY I MENTIONED THE GOODWILL, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT GOES TOO FAR, BUT WE HAVEN'T CHANGED ANYTHING FROM THE BEGINNING, SO I DON'T SEE WHY YOU THINK WE'D CHANGE ANYTHING NOW, BUT I HOPE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND MY CONCERN ABOUT BEING ABLE TO FIND A WAY TO PLOT IT WITHOUT HAVING TO GO DEVELOP IT. BECAUSE CURRENTLY AT THIS POINT THERE'S NO WAY FOR US TO DO THAT. OUR APPROACH TO DEVELOP SUBMITTING SECTIONS 3 AND 4 TOGETHER AS A PRELIMINARY PLOT WAS TO COMMIT TO WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO. I HAVEN'T CHANGED ANYTHING EVER IN THE PAST FROM THAT. [02:10:05] I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU'D EXPECT ME TO COME BACK AND TRY TO DO THAT THE VERY LAST SECTION, AND THERE'S NO WAY EVEN FROM MY PDF I CAN DO ANOTHER LOT IN THERE. >> I DIDN'T NOTICE OFFERED A SOLUTION. >> LET ME LET ME THROW SOMETHING UP AGAINST THE WALL, SEE IF IT STICKS OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW, TO PRESENT THAT WE APPROVE SECTION 3 CONTINGENT. THAT WON'T WORK BECAUSE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IN A PLOT TO BE APPROVED FOR RECORDATION PURPOSES. BUT A WAY TO APPROVE SECTION THREE CONTINGENT UPON THE FACT, THAT SECTION 4 LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE WAS PRINTED IN THIS DRAWING RIGHT HERE WITH NO CHANGES. THE SECTION 3 THAT'S PRESENTED HERE TONIGHT, WOULD LOOK EXACTLY OVERLAY SECTION 3 THAT'S ON THERE. THE COMING SECTION 4 WOULD HAVE TO LOOK EXACTLY LIKE SECTION 4 LOOKS AT ON THAT PRELIMINARY DRAWING. >> ESTIMATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION INSTEAD. >> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ALL THAT, BUT I WANT TO PLANT THAT'S GOING TO GO TO THE COURTHOUSE. THEREBY YOU'LL SELL LOTS OFF. WE'RE GOING TO SET ALL THE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS AND UTILITY EASEMENTS AND ALL ALL THAT SETBACK LINES AND STUFF THAT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE YOU'VE COMMITTED TO BACK IN MAY OF 22. [NOISE] I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE, OFFICE BUILDING. THAT GOVERNMENT NOT STICK, I DON'T KNOW. >> LET ME OFFER THIS. WE HAVE SUBMITTED CONSTRUCTION DESIGN DRAWINGS FOR SECTION 3 AND 4. THEY'VE BEEN REVIEWED BY HDR, THEY'VE SENT COMMENTS BACK AND WE'VE CORRECTED THEM. >> IT'S DESIGNED IT'S THERE. ALL WE DID BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO BUILD THE WHOLE THING BECAUSE THEY CAN'T HAVE BUILDERS BY EVERYTHING, AND WE DIDN'T BREAK IT INTO SECTION 3 AND TO HAVE ALL REVIEWED THE WHOLE SUBDIVISION DESIGN DRAWINGS. ALL WE JUST PEELED OFF SECTION 3 AND THAT'S BEING SUBMITTED NOW. IT'S ALL DESIGNED. JUST LIKE THAT NOTHING'S CHANGED. THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT AND THEY HAVE PAID FOR THE FULL DESIGN OF THE SUBDIVISIONS AS IT WAS PRELIMINARY APPROVED BACK IN MAY OF 2022. THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS ARE DONE AND APPROVED, BUT THEY CAN WE'RE JUST BUILDING THE BOTTOM HALF. >> [NOISE] WELL, SILENT OVER HERE. YOU ALL KNOW MY POSITION. >> THERE IS AN ORDINANCE WITH THE PDE WHICH ESTABLISHED THE DENSITY AND THE LEFT SIDE ABOUT ORDINANCE 2020. >> THANK YOU. I KNOW WE ALL HAVE OUR DIFFERENCE OF OPINIONS AND WE ALL HAVE OUR WAYS THAT WE GO AND WHAT WE THINK THAT WE OUGHT TO SEE OR WHO WE'RE GOING TO SEE COME TO OUR CITY, OR WHO'S GOING TO LIVE HERE. WE ALL HAVE OUR NOTIONS WHERE WE'RE AT. BUT LUCKILY THERE'S A SLIDE IN HERE THAT'S GOING TO BE PRESENTED LATER ON AND WE'RE ALL SAYING, OR I'VE HEARD THAT THEY WANT TO SEE LARGER LOTS OR BIGGER LOTS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT ANGLE TIN IS, THAT'S WHAT ANGLE TO NEEDS. WE HAVE TO REMEMBER STILL COSTS ARE SO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE SULTAN'S NEEDS WERE 30, 40 YEARS AGO THAT'S WHY A LOT SIZES WERE 70, 80 FOOT LOTS. TODAY IT'S NOT LIKE THAT. IT'S DISPLAYED OFF TOUTED THIS SINCE DAY ONE, THAT IF YOU BUILD A $200,000 HOME, THE PERSON IS GOING TO NEED ROUGHLY $67,000 INCOME. WHO MAKES $67,000 THESE DAYS? NOW YOU'RE SAYING IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THIS GENTLEMAN BUT 70 FOOT LOTS, HOWEVER, THEN THAT'S GOING TO BE PROBABLY DOUBLE THE SIZE OF THIS HOUSE THAT THIS GENTLEMAN IS SAYING HE'S GOING TO OFFER UP 400,000. WELL, WE CAN KNOW WHAT GRACE DON'T SELL THEM FOR IT'S $450,000 ON UP, WHICH I WILL SAY BY JUST LOOKING, IT'S NOT SELLING AS FAST AS SOME OF THESE OTHERS HAD VISIONS THAT ARE ALL, OF COURSE SMALLER, LOTS. OF COURSE THOSE INDIVIDUALS ARE MAKING PROBABLY DOUBLE OF WHAT THIS IS THEY'RE MAKING SIX FIGURES AS A COMBINED INCOME FOR HOUSEHOLD. WHO ARE THOSE INDIVIDUALS? MAYBE COULD BE ENGINEERS, PEOPLE WITH HIGHER DEGREES, PEOPLE THAT MIGHT WORK IN TECH COMPANIES MAYBE THEY'RE DOCTORS [02:15:04] OR WHATNOT BUT WE STILL HAVE TO LOOK AND SEE WHAT'S THE MAKEUP OF OUR COMMUNITY IS THAT SOLELY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS MAKING THE HOUSING A 450 ON WHAT WE'RE TELLING THIS GENTLEMEN, BASED ON MOVING AWAY FROM HIS MODEL THAT HE PRESENTED TO US BECAUSE I WAS ALWAYS THINKING WE'RE STILL LOOKING FOR THOSE BLUE COLLAR WORKERS THAT WORK HERE, THOSE GUYS THAT REALLY WORKED HARD AND THEY'RE MAKING $25 AN HOUR. I DON'T KNOW WHAT EVERYBODY AT THE TABLE MAKES HERE, BUT THAT'S A HARD WORKER TRYING TO BUY A NICE HOME AS WELL SOMETHING MAY BE NEW. BUT I DON'T WANT TO PUT IN THE POSITION THAT WE'RE PRICING OUT PEOPLE ARE TELLING FOLKS YOU CAN'T LIVE IN ANGLE TIN UNLESS YOU MAKE $110,000 TO BUY A $450,000 HOME BECAUSE IT'S WHAT WE'RE ENCOURAGING MORE OF. I GET IT, WE NEED TO HAVE A MIXTURE THAT'S WHAT THIS COMMUNITY IS. PEOPLE THAT WORK AT MCDONALD'S AND BURGER KING AND WHEN THEY WORK IN HOSPITALS, IN THEIR ENGINEERS AND ATTORNEYS AND DOCTORS AND I JUST FEEL THAT WE'RE JUST BEING SOMEWHAT ONE-SIDED A TORT DEMOGRAPHIC AND I DON'T WANT TO BE LIKE THAT, THAT'S MY OPINION. BUT YOU'RE TELLING ME THIS GENTLEMAN TO GO BUILD A BIGGER LAW. WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO COST A LOT MORE WE KNOW THE HOUSE IS GOING TO BE $450,000 BUT WE HAVE TO THINK BACK WHO WE INVITE INTO OUR COMMUNITY. WHY ARE WE LIMITING THAT TO THIS GENTLEMAN? BECAUSE HE'S TRYING TO, OF COURSE, MAKE A LITTLE MONEY AND BUILD ATOMIC LOAN MONEY. I'M DOING THIS RESPECTFULLY, GUYS I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING, WE'RE ALL BEING WE'RE PUTTING OUT OUR DIFFERENCES AND THAT'S WHAT I LOOK AT WHEN WE'RE SITTING THERE TRYING TO ENVISION THIS. WE DIDN'T HAVE HOUSES FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE IN ANGLE TO NETWORK WE ALL SAY WHAT'S AFFORDABLE. BUT TODAY, NOW WE'VE LOOKED AND SAW WHAT'S BEEN BUILT 200 PLUS HOMES, AVERAGING EVERYTHING FROM 290 UP TO MILLION-DOLLAR HOMES, WHO'S LIVING IN THERE OR ARE WE GOING AROUND LOOKING TO SEE WHO'S LIVING IN THERE? WHO ARE WE WANTING TO REALLY MARKET IN IS COMMUNITY? I'M NOT GOING TO SAY I'M GOING TO KEEP THE PERSON FROM MCDONALD'S NOT LIVING IN ANGLE TAN AND I APPRECIATE YOU ALL SAID WE LEAD SOME DIVERSITY. I'M GLAD WE'RE LOOKING AT A TOWN HOME, I'M GLAD WE LOOKED AT MANUFACTURED HOMES BECAUSE THAT IS GOING TO BE A LOWER DEMOGRAPHIC, LOWER-INCOME INDIVIDUALS FOR OUR COMMUNITY. THAT'S WHAT MAKES ANGLE TAN WE HAVE ALL THOSE FOLKS AND I WANT TO KEEP STIMULATING ALL THOSE FOLKS. MS. DAVIS RESPECTFULLY, IT'S GOING TO BE HARD TO MATCH UP THE STUDY VISIT TO A SUBDIVISION, IT'S GOING TO BE HARD TO MATCH HOW SIZES. HERITAGE OAKS BACKS UP TO THE QUARTERS. THOSE ARE VERY SMALL SUBDIVISION THAT'S A VERY SMALL ACREAGE IS FOR HOUSING OR LOT SIZE BUT WE DIDN'T QUESTION THAT, WE DIDN'T ASK FOR IT. I'M NOT POINTING IT TO MAMMAL, JUST MAKE IT A REFERENCE IT'S GOING TO BE HARD TO MATCH A SUBDIVISION AND I'M WITH CECIL AS WELL WE GOT TO THE FINISH LINE THINKING WHAT WE PROVED IN MAY AND NOW WE'RE HERE PUTTING MORE HURDLES BACKUP TO NOT GET TO THE FINISH LINE. NOW THAT'S GOING TO COST THIS MAN WHO KNOWS? I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO DO THIS CHECKBOOK FOR HIS COMPANY, BUT THAT'S GOING TO HURT HIM. FOR US TO BE IN MR. AND I APPRECIATE JOHN, YOU'VE BEEN CONSISTENT AND TRAVIS, YOU BECAUSE AS I GET IT, YOU HAVE YOUR PREFERENCES WHICH YOU WANT TO SEE AS WELL BUT IT'S JUST TO TELL THIS MAN NO, RIGHT NOW HE'S AT THE FINISH LINE AND READY TO MOVE ON AND MAYBE DO SOMETHING ELSE AND WE'RE SQUISHING IT. I JUST FIND THAT HARD TO SWALLOW, I JUST REALLY DO MY LAST $0.02. >> IF WE VOTE NO, WHICH IT IS NOW, IS HE PROHIBITED FROM EVER COMING BACK? >> HE'S NOT PROHIBITED FROM COMING BACK, BUT HE HAS THE LEGAL RIGHT TO ASK YOU, OKAY, WHAT IS IT? TO GIVE YOU WHAT'S THE BASIS OF DENIAL. >> WE'VE GIVEN THEM THE BASIS FOR DENIAL THEN JOHN IS PRESENTED ONE. I HAVE AND MS. DANIEL HAS AS WELL, SO I FEEL LIKE WE'VE DONE THAT. WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP? >> DOES A BISON HAVE TO COUNT COLLECTIVELY FROM THE COUNCIL OR JUST INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS TO REASON? NO. >> THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY ITSELF, MEANING THE BODY THE CITY HAS TO. THAT WOULD BE NOT JUST WHAT YOUR DENIAL THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT. BUILDING SERVICES WOULD HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT SO THAT HAS TO BE BACKUP FOR IN OTHER WORDS. SO I THINK THERE'S TWO COMPETING THINGS GOING ON HERE THAT PLAT APPROVAL IS MINISTERIAL, MEANING ONCE IT COMES TO YOU AND ONCE THE CITY AND THE ENGINEER, EVERYTHING TELLS YOU THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE PLAT THEN REALLY YOU CAN DISAPPROVE, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT OR YOU CAN APPROVE. I'M GOING BACK TO THE BEGINNING WHAT I SAID BEFORE, THAT THERE'S CONFUSION HERE BECAUSE OF THE APPROVAL ON THE 3 AND 4, AND NOW WE'RE COMING WITH THREE. I THINK THE CLEANEST THING TO DO IS JUST SOLVE THAT ISSUE OF HOW TO [02:20:05] GET THE EITHER A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL ON JUST THREE AND THEN A FINAL PLAT APPROVAL ON JUST THREE OR A METHODOLOGY OTHER THAN WHAT IS IN OUR LDC FOR THE 3 AND 4 BEING CONSIDERED AT THE SAME TIME BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THIS END OF THE TABLE, THAT THAT'S OUR CONCERN AND FROM THE COUNCIL WOMAN, DANIEL. STATUTORILY IT'S A MINISTERIAL ACT AS LONG AS YOU ARE CONFIDENT THAT IT HAS MET ALL THE CONDITIONS BUT WE'RE BACK TO I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S THE CASE BECAUSE WE WERE LOOKING AT 3 AND 4 AND NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT 3 AND IT'S BEEN COMMENTED THAT STAFF SAID ONE THING AND I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ANY OF THAT. SO WE DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION GOING ON. I THINK WE NEED TO CLEAN IT UP, I THINK WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO FIX IT. >> CHOOSES CAN I SAY ONE THING REALLY QUICKLY? COUNCILMAN RIGHT. I'M GOING TO DO IT THIS WAY. THIS IS HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO IT. UNFORTUNATELY, I THINK THIS IS JUST HOW YOUR LDC IS SET UP, HOW YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO IT WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE REMAINDER AS A MASTER PLAN BECAUSE WE READ THROUGH THE LDC WITH WALTER AND DETERMINE THIS IS HOW THE CITY OBVIOUSLY WANTS IT DONE. >> I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND YOU GUYS WORK WITH STAFF AND COME BACK WITH AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD TO BRING BACK THREE AND FOUR THAT ALLOWS YOU TO DEVELOP THREE RIGHT NOW AND FOUR LATER, BUT GUARANTEES WHAT THE COUNCIL WANTS. THAT'S MY DIRECTOR. >> COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND IS IF WE CAN FIGURE OUT A WAY TO SHOW FINAL PLAT THAT COMMITS TO THIS IN A PHASING MANNER DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD. >> JUST BEING COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT BUT I VOTED AGAINST THIS THE FIRST TIME. I VOTED FOR OR AGAINST IT TONIGHT. JASON SAID EARLIER I HAVE MY PREFERENCES HOW DEVELOPMENT SHOULD GO IN CITY, HOWEVER, BECAUSE THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THEN MY BELIEF IS IF THIS WAS LAID OUT IN THE FORM THAT IT IS PRESENTLY. I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN DANIEL. SHE SAID IT MORE AND MORE ARTICULAR AND BETTER THAN I COULD HAVE. HOWEVER, I DON'T LEGALLY THINK WE HAVE A GROUNDS TO STAND ON SO THEREFORE, IF YOU PRESENTED IT TO ME IN THE FASHION WHERE I HAD SOME HARD FIGURES, THEN I'D BE VOTING ON LEGAL BASIS TO AGREE TO APPROVE OR NOT BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS SOME GRAND DEVELOPMENT, BUT THAT'S JUST I THINK WE HAVE NOTHING TO FIGHT IT AGAINST THE WAY TO LEGALLY STOP YOU OR PREVENT YOU FROM CONTINUING FORWARD. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> YES. >> IT'S NOT BECAUSE I HAVE A PREFERENCE FOR WHICH [OVERLAPPING]. >> NO WE UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU MR. TOWNSEND [OVERLAPPING]. >> THAT'S JUST WHERE I SIT ON IT IN BEING TRANSPARENT. I'VE TRIED TO BE CONSISTENT ON IT. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS FINE AS TO THAT NEXT STEP, ALL I WANT TO DO IS MOVE PAST TONIGHT. I THINK YOU'VE GOTTEN OUR ANSWERS. I WOULD LOVE FOR YOU TO BE BACK IN TWO WEEKS AND HOPEFULLY GET THIS CLEANED UP AND MOVE FORWARD BUT THAT'S JUST MY PREFERENCE. I FEEL LIKE WE CAN KEEP ARGUING THIS ALL NIGHT LONG, BUT I'M TRYING TO MOVE ALONG. >> THANK YOU COUNCILMAN, JUDITH, WITH A DENIAL, IS THERE ANY THING PREVENTING US FROM GETTING THE NEXT AGENDA. >> FROM RESUBMITTING? >> YES. >> NO THERE'S NOTHING STOPPING ME FROM RESUBMITTING THAT I'M AWARE OF. OTIS IS THERE? >> NO. >> NO. >> DOES IT NEED TO GO BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING? >> YES, IT DOES. >> IT WAS ONE-SIX AGAINST IT, WHICH BEGS THE QUESTION AS TO WHY DIDN'T ANYBODY THINK? I'VE BEEN SITTING HERE BEING QUIET, BUT I'M A LITTLE AGGRAVATE AND I WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. ONE IS, I'VE BEEN PRETTY CONSISTENT AGAINST THE LOT SIZES OVER HERE AND THE LOTS ON DOWNING R1 THING BECAUSE THE WAY THAT THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSES ARE BUILT ON THAT SIDE, BUT THE LOTS ON BUT THEY'RE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. SO AS COUNCILWOMAN DANIEL ASTUTELY POINTED OUT, AND WE EVEN ASKED THAT QUESTION BACK IN THE ORIGINAL WAS GETTING DENSITY CORRECT ON MAKING IT A ONE-TO-ONE CLOSE TO THAT ON THAT SIDE BUT WE WERE IGNORED BECAUSE WE WERE FOUR TWO VOTE SO WE WERE IGNORED. FINE. WE'VE BEEN CONSISTENT ON THE LOT SIZES FROM DAY ONE AND ASKED HIM FOR IT AND WE WERE IGNORED BECAUSE IT WAS A FOUR TWO VOTE EVERY TIME. NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU GET A DENIAL OF EITHER P AND Z ONE TO SIX NOBODY RAISES ANY ANY FLAGS AND THEN YOU GET HERE TONIGHT AND THEN IT GETS DENIED. THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGED, ITS COUNCILWOMAN DANIEL, [02:25:01] HAVING HER OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE AND NOW THERE'S AN ISSUE AND THAT FRUSTRATES ME. IF SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE WORKED WITH US FROM THE VERY START WHEN WE HAD CONCERNS, WE MIGHT NOT BE IN THIS POSITION WE ARE TONIGHT, BUT WE WERE IGNORED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. WE TALKED AT LENGTH ABOUT LOT SIZES AND I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO KEEP WORKING WITH YOU, MR. FOLEY AND MR. LESLER ON FINDING A SOLUTION FOR IT. BUT I'M A LITTLE AGGRAVATE THE FACT THAT WE TALK ABOUT OH, WE GOT TO THE FINISH LINE, WELL NO, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING WE WERE RAISING OUR HAND SAYING, HEY, WE HAVE AN ISSUE, AND HERE WE ARE NOW. THAT'S MY FRUSTRATION. LET'S GET IT FIXED AND LET, THINGS HAVE CHANGED A LITTLE BIT. IT HAPPENS IN ANY STATE HOUSE, ANY FEDERAL HOUSE. IF THINGS CHANGE, YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY IN A SOLUTION. SAME THING HERE THAT'S MY POSITION. >> COUNCIL, I JUST SPOKE TO OTIS ABOUT THE DNC ISSUE TO AVOID HAVING TO START THE PROCESS AGAIN AND GOING BACK TO B AND Z THE ONLY PATH TO THAT WOULD BE TO RETRACT THE VOTE IN TABLE THE MATTER TABLE IT COMPLETELY. BUT THEN WE RUN UP AGAINST THE 30 DAYS SO WE WOULD NEED [BACKGROUND] TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME. IT'S COMPLICATED, STATUTORY MESS. >> GOT YOU. WELL, WE HAVE OPTION SOLUTION TO MOVE FORWARD TO WORK WITH MR. FOLEY. COUNCIL WANTS TO WE NEED TO HAVE A MOTION TO RETRACT THE VOTE FOR TONIGHT, AND THEN HE'S GOING TO RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR OUR TABLE AND THEN WE CAN GRANT THAT. CORRECT. >> THAT'S ONE OF THE OPTIONS YES. >> EXCUSE ME, BEING ONE OF THE OPTIONS WE THINK THAT'S THE EASIEST WAY FORWARD TO GET TO THIS. IF THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GETTING TO LINK OA, WE DID ACCEPT THIS AS THE LAYOUT PLAN FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE SUBDIVISION. I THINK THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL COMMITTED TO THIS. >> WE'LL SEE. JUST TO CLARIFY, WHICH WAS A FOUR TO VOTE TO APPROVE, BUT ONLY THREE OF THE TWO WE'RE DENIED POTENTIALLY FOUR, COULD BE BACK AGAIN, BUT THAT'S NOW CONTINGENT [BACKGROUND] ON A DIFFERENT PERSON SITTING IN A DIFFERENT SEAT. >> I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT IT'S ALSO SEEING WHAT THEY'RE SAYING AS WELL. >> YEAH. I MEAN IT'S FINE. >> MR. MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE RETRACT THE VOTE CONDITIONAL ON THE TABLING OF THIS ITEM FOR OUR FUTURE DATE. >> I THINK YOU GOT TO ADD THAT WITH THE REQUEST OF THE DEVELOPER ASKING FOR THE EXTENSION OF TIME. >> SO AMEND IT. >> BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THEM TO TRY TO GET IT PASSED BY FAILURE TO ACT. >> RIGHT. >> THERE'S A MOTION BY MAYOR PROTEM WRIGHT AND THE SECOND WOULD THAT BE FROM YOU TRAVIS OR FROM SOMEBODY ELSE OR JUST KNOW HE'S A BIT OF CLARIFICATION, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS PIGGYBACKING ONTO HIS MOTION. I HAVE A MOTION, I'LL HAVE A SECOND. CALL FOR ONE MORE TIME. I HAVE A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I DON'T HEAR A SECOND, SO THAT DOESN'T GO THROUGH. THE DECISION WILL STAND AS IS. [12. Discussion of a Project Concept for the Mulberry Fields Subdivision site for consideration of a new concept, for approximately 13 acres of land located north of W. Mulberry St., West side of N. Walker St, and south of W. Live Oak St., within the SF-6.3 Zoning District. No action is required. ] WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 12. DISCUSSION IN A PROJECTS USE THAT WORD BEHIND IT. CONCEPT FOR MULBERRY FIELDS SUBDIVISIONS SITE FOR CONSIDERATION OF A NEW CONCEPT FOR APPROXIMATELY 13 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED NORTHWEST WARBURG STREET, WEST SIDE OF NORTH WALKER STREET, AND SOUTH OF WEST LIVE OAK STREET WITHIN THE SF_6.3 ZONING DISTRICT. NO ACTION REQUIRED. MORE FOR DISCUSSION, MR. OTIS? >> FOR THE SAKE OF TIME, I WON'T SAY MUCH ON THIS. THIS SUBDIVISION IS FOR CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN BEDDED DEVELOPER WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT A CONCEPT JUST TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK ON BEFORE POSSIBLY DIVERTING THEIR PLANS HERE TO DO A DIFFERENT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PROPERTY. INQUIRY. BORE YOU. >> GO AHEAD, SIR. >> APPRECIATE YOU WAITING PATIENTLY IN THE AUDIENCE. >> WELL, COUNCIL, MEN, WOMEN. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR LISTENING TO ME. I KNOW WE'VE GONE LATE, [02:30:02] SO I'LL TRY TO KEEP THIS AS SUCCINCT AS I POSSIBLY CAN. I MADE BASICALLY WHENEVER I PURCHASED THIS AND STARTED THIS, I KNOW ONE MAN DEVELOPER, I NOW HAVE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE ON STAFF. WE PURCHASED THIS LAND IN 2001 IN JUNE. SINCE THEN, NUMEROUS CHANGES HAVE TAKEN PLACE. WHAT I WANTED TO DO TONIGHT WAS TO GET COUNCILS BY AND TO GET THE FEEDBACK AND TO PRESENT A CONCEPT SO THAT WE CAN EITHER MOVE FORWARD WITH WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY APPROVED. PLANS, HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVELY APPROVED BY ENGINEERING, OR BE ABLE TO CHANGE SO THAT WE CAN MAKE THEM MORE EFFECTIVE CONCEPT AS WE HAVE SEEN IN THE ANGLETON MARKET. WE HAVE THESE MULBERRY FIELDS IF YOU CAN PUSH TO THE NEXT. THIS IS THE CURRENT PLAN. YOU'LL SEE IF YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND SKIP TO THE PRESENTATION. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE TIME. WE'VE ALREADY COMPLETED ALL THE TREE PRESERVATION PLANS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. I THINK YOU WENT TOO FAR. THAT'S A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. THERE WE GO. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN ENLARGE THAT A LITTLE BIT. WE'RE NOT SEEING ALL THREE, BUT BASICALLY, LIKE I STATED BEFORE, MULBERRY FIELDS, IT'S RIGHT HERE OFF OF MULBERRY AND WALKER SANDWICHED IN-BETWEEN MARIE RANCH ROAD. EVERYBODY SHOULD BE FAMILIAR. IT'S GOT THE GENTLEMAN THAT CUTS WOOD OUT FRONT. IT'S GOT THE CELL PHONE TOWERS. NOW, SINCE WE PURCHASED IT, THE TESLA BATTERY PLANT, THEY'RE ON THE BACKSIDE. IF YOU CAN GO AHEAD TO THE NEXT. WE HAVE STARTED DEVELOPMENTS THROUGHOUT THE GREATER HOUSTON AREA. WE TRIED TO PROVIDE VERY HIGH-QUALITY, AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGHOUT, VERY MUCH MORE. I CONSIDER IT WORKFORCE HOUSING IS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE CAN AFFORD. I'M NOT SAYING THAT I DON'T PROVIDE VERY HIGH-END HOUSING. WE'VE RECENTLY COMPLETED 1.3 MILLION DOLLAR HOME AND WE'VE GOT TO 1.9 COMING DOWN THE PIPE. YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT. THIS TONIGHT, THE WHOLE PURPOSE IS SO THAT WE CAN GET YOUR FEEDBACK SO THAT WE CAN CONSIDER A REZONING. NEXT PLEASE, AS WE SAW EARLIER, WE HAVE TWO POINTS OF VIEW GRASS ALREADY. WE CURRENTLY HAVE ALL OF OUR DRAINAGE STUDIES OR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, EVERYTHING TOGETHER, AND HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND HAS BEEN APPROVED. GO TO THE NEXT. ONE OF [NOISE] THE KEY REASON WHY WE'RE HERE. YOU ALL TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT THE CHANGES THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS VERSUS THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. WHAT WE'VE SEEN SPECIFICALLY IN THE LAST TWO YEARS IS INTEREST RATES CHANGE TO MAKE HOME AFFORDABILITY JUST QUITE HONESTLY, VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE AVERAGE WAGE EARNER. WE'VE ALSO SEEN HERE ON THE COASTAL COUNTIES AS WE DO SEVERAL PROJECTS AND I OWN SEVERAL PIECES OF PROPERTY IN COASTAL COUNTIES, INSURANCE RATES INCREASED DRAMATICALLY. IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE'VE ALSO SEEN CONSTRUCTION COST, LABOR COST INCREASED DRAMATICALLY. THAT'S A KEY DRIVER OF WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT. THIS IS THE CONCEPT. AS MOST OF YOU THAT ARE LOOKING FOR A LARGER LOTS, THIS IS NOT LARGER LOTS. THIS IS FOR TOWNHOUSES. THIS IS A VERY SPECIFIC ZONING THAT WE'RE SEEKING, WHICH IS SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED. WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE IS WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO LOOK AT ANGELTON'S CURRENT ZONING FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DELIVER HERE IS NOT ONLY HIGH-QUALITY, VERY AFFORDABLE HOMES BUT ALSO INCREASED GREEN SPACE. THIS IS A SMALL DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS 13 ACRES. WITH 13 ACRES WE JUST QUITE SIMPLY DON'T HAVE THE ROOM FOR AMENITIES OR OTHER PERKS TO BEING IN A LARGE MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE. BUT NOW, BY GOING TO THIS CONCEPT, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO INCREASE ADDITIONAL PARKING. WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT IN AN ACTUAL GREEN SPACE PARK FOR PLAYGROUND IN DOG PARK AREAS, AS WELL AS EVERY LOT WOULD HAVE FRONT YARD AND BACKYARD. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE CITY OF ANGLETON ZONING FOR SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED. [02:35:04] I WANTED YOU ALL TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED IT. CURRENTLY WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING WILL NOT ONLY MEET BUT EXCEED, WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT ZONING REQUIREMENTS ARE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS THE REMAINDER. GO AHEAD NEXT SLIDE. AS I DISCUSSED IN THE BEGINNING WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS HOW WILL THIS IMPACT THE CITY OF ANGLETON. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IS TO PROVIDE HIGH-QUALITY, AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING FOR THE AVERAGE CITIZEN OF A ANGLETON. WHAT WE'RE ALSO TRYING TO DO IS PROVIDED DIVERSITY OF DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES, SPECIFICALLY FOR EVERYBODY IS PUSHED FOR LARGER LOTS. UNFORTUNATELY, A LOT OF OUR SENIORS DON'T WANT TO MAINTAIN A HALF-ACRE OR A FULL ACRE OF LAND ANYMORE. I KNOW PERSONALLY MY MOM, I GREW UP ON THE OZARKS. SHE HAS A LAKE HOME. IT'S THE HOUSE THAT WE GREW UP IN. WE'VE RECENTLY HAD TO MOVE HER INTO VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE SHE CAN NO LONGER MAINTAIN THAT HOME. SHE CAN NO LONGER MAINTAIN THE LAND. QUITE FRANKLY, WE GET CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT SHE CAN DO. WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT SHE HAD SOMETHING THAT SHE CAN EASILY MAINTAIN. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AGAIN, TO HAMMER ON WHERE WE'RE AT. WE'RE NOT IN ROLLING PASTURE LAND, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DEVELOP SOMETHING THAT QUITE FRANKLY IS PRISTINE. BUT WHAT HAS TAKEN PLACE IS NOW WITH THE TESLA BATTERY PARK FULLY IN PLACE, WE ARE SURROUNDED ON ALL CORNERS BY COMMERCIAL. WE'VE GOT THE CELL PHONE TOWERS ALONG WEST WALKER. WE'VE GOT THE TNP SUBSTATION THERE ON THE NORTHEAST. WE'VE GOT TESLA BATTERY PARK THERE ON THE NORTHWEST. THEN WE'VE GOT THE TIRE SHOP THERE ON THE SOUTHWEST. NEXT SLIDE. THE MAYOR IS VERY SUCCINCT IN POINTING OUT WHAT THE ACTUAL NUMBERS ARE. THESE NUMBERS COME OFF YOU-ALL'S EDC, OFF THE WEBSITE. WHENEVER WE TALK ABOUT AVERAGE, NOT AVERAGE, BUT WHAT IS THE MEDIAN INCOME FOR THE CITIZEN OF ANGLETON? IT'S A LITTLE OVER 67,000. TODAY BASED ON WELLS FARGO'S SIMPLE CALCULATION NOT FACTORING IN FOR WINDSTORM INSURANCE OR DOING ANY OTHER FACTORS FOR ELEVATED EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH LIVING HERE IN THIS AREA, IN THIS COMMUNITY THEY'RE SHOWING THAT MEDIAN INCOME FOR THE AVERAGE CITIZEN OF ANGLETON, THEY CAN AFFORD 236,000. AS WAS STATED EARLIER, MOST OF THE HOMES ON THESE LARGER LOTS, THESE 60S, 70S, AND DEFINITELY THE 80S, THEY'RE GOING TO GO FOR ANYWHERE FROM 400-800 TO OVER A MILLION. THAT'S NOT WHAT FITS WITH THE AVERAGE CITIZEN OR THE MEDIAN INCOME IN ANGLETON, WHAT WE'RE OFFERING IS A TARGET SALES PRICE SOMEWHERE IN THE 200 TO 220 RANGE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. I WANTED YOU TO SEE THIS IS JUST ONE PLAN THAT WE HAVE IN WITH THIS SHOWS TWO BECAUSE THAT WAS THE PLANS WE HAVE. WE CAN GO UP TO EIGHT ACROSS. WHAT I LOOK FOR IS HAVING A DIVERSITY OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO OFFER. I'VE LIVED IN TOWNHOUSE COMMUNITIES WHERE THEY'RE ALL COOKIE CUTTER AND THAT SUCKS. SORRY, I APOLOGIZE, BUT IT'S TERRIBLE. NOBODY WANTS THAT. NOBODY WANTS OR COMMUNITY. NOBODY WANTS TO LIVE IN THE EXACT SAME THING. YOU WANT AS WELL LIVE IN AN APARTMENT. WHAT WE'RE OFFERING, IF YOU KNEW [NOISE]. WHENEVER I SAY QUALITY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THIS IS WHAT I WANT YOU ALL TO THINK ABOUT. IN P AND Z, THEY ASKED, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AND A DUPLEX? A TOWNHOUSE OR SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED IS DESIGNED SO THAT PEOPLE BUY IT. DUPLEXES ARE DESIGNED TO BE RENTALS. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY HAS GREEN SPACE, BACKYARD SPACE. AGAIN, REMEMBER, WITH THE WHOLE COMMUNITY WE'LL BE ADDING THE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES FOR EVERY UNIT, AND THAT'S PART OF THE ZONING. WE'LL HAVE THE GREEN SPACE IN ADDITION TO WHAT THE TOWNHOUSES ALREADY HAVE TO MAKE IT MORE INVITING. OUR GOAL IS TO, AGAIN, PROVIDE HIGH-QUALITY, AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING. BASED ON THE ECONOMICS OF WHAT WE'VE GOT TODAY, I SEE WHERE THAT ANGLETON IS MISSING A LOT OF THAT. I'M COMING TONIGHT TO GET FEEDBACK AND TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE CAN DO IF WE WERE TO COME BACK AT REQUESTING A REZONING FOR THE MULBERRY FIELDS. [02:40:05] >> THANK YOU, SIR. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FOR THE COREY? >> THAT'S CORRECT [OVERLAPPING] >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. COREY? THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU. >> HAVE YOU DONE THIS TYPE OF PROJECTS SOMEWHERE ELSE? A RESUME, THIS TYPE OF PROJECT. >> WHAT WE'VE DONE IN OTHER LOCATIONS, JUST WE'VE DONE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. WE'VE BUILT HOMES OVER IN THE TEXAS CITY AREA, 250, $300,000 HOMES. WE'VE BUILT, LIKE I SAID EARLIER, 1.3 1.9 MILLION DOLLAR HOMES IN HOUSTON AND WE'RE CURRENTLY DOING MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT OVER IN SANTA FE. WE'RE ALSO DOING A SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY. THAT SITE PLAN WAS JUST RECENTLY APPROVED, SO WE'LL BE DOING THAT OVER IN SANTA FE AS WELL. WE HAVE NOT DONE THIS SPECIFIC, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'D ALREADY GOTTEN PLANS FOR TO IMPLEMENT OVER IN TEXAS CITY. NOW IT'S SOMETHING THAT WHENEVER WE'RE LOOKING AT THE MEDIAN INCOME AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THE MAKEUP OF THE POPULATION OF ANGLETON AS WE SEE A LOT MORE SENIORS LOOKING FOR MORE MANAGEABLE HOUSING, BUT NOT WANTING TO LIVE IN TRADITIONAL APARTMENTS. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE SEEN BASED ON OUR MARKET INQUIRIES AND WE HEARD THE SAME THING WHENEVER I WAS TALKING WITH PLANNING AND ZONING, WANTING THEIR FEEDBACK. THERE'S TWO REALTORS THAT SAT ON PLANNING AND ZONING. ONE OF THEM SAID THIS WOULD ABSOLUTELY WORK IN ANGLETON BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR A NEW CONSTRUCTION AFFORDABLE HOME. ONE OF THEM SAID THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE SINGLE STORY. THIS IS ONE OF THE PLANS THAT WE HAVE. WE ABSOLUTELY CAN AND INTEND ON BASED ON THE FEEDBACK OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEMBER TO OFFER SINGLE-STORY. >> YEAH. IF YOUR PITCH IS SENIOR LIVING DOWNSIZING, INDEPENDENT LIVING. MAN, I DON'T KNOW MANY PEOPLE OVER THE AGE OF 50 WHO REALLY WANT TWO STORY HOMES. IF THAT'S WHAT YOUR PITCH IS, THOSE TWO THINGS AREN'T CONSISTENT IN MY MIND. I'M NOT SAYING THAT DOESN'T, I DON'T SPEAK FOR EVERYBODY. I'M SURE THERE'S SOME PEOPLE WHO DON'T MIND CLIMBING THOSE STEPS, BUT THE LARGE BULK OF IT WOULD NOT BE UPSTAIRS LIVING FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIFFICULTY WITH THEIR LEGS, BACKS, [NOISE] SHOULDERS, ANKLES. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, CONCERNS? >> MY CONCERNS STILL REMAINS CONSISTENT FROM THE FIRST TIME AND THAT'S ENTRANCE OFF AND ON TO MULBERRY. >> WE HAVE TWO POINTS OF EGRESS, ONE OFF OF WALKER, AND ONE ONTO MULBERRY. WE'VE DONE A TI, AND WE'VE REACHED A BLACKOUT FOR THIS CONCEPT WITH OUR CIVIL ENGINEER BECAUSE OF THE RELATIVELY SMALL SIZE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, AS WELL AS THE TWO POINTS OF EGRESS. THE COMMENT BACK IT WAS NEGLIGIBLE. INITIALLY WHENEVER WE PRESENTED, THIS WAS TWO YEARS AGO. WE WERE AT 51 HOME SITES BECAUSE OF THE ADOPTION OF 6.3 VERSUS 5.4, WE WERE DOWN TO 44. THEN WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE SUGARLAND STANDARDS, WE'RE DOWN TO 41. >> THAT'S 41*2. >> WELL, NOW WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS 41*2. >> THAT'S MORE. >> YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE YOU CERTAINLY PRESENTING IT AS IF IT'S LESS. >> YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. AGAIN, WHENEVER WE TALKED ABOUT THE CIA WAS BASED ON THE AD2 RESIDENCES. WHAT I'M SEEKING IS TO FIND OUT WHAT IS THE FEEDBACK HERE? TRAFFIC I CAN PROVIDE AN UPDATED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS. I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH THAT. DRAINAGE. WE ACTUALLY HAVE LESS CONCRETE WITH THIS THAN WE DO WITH A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT ONE DRIVEWAY THAT'S SHARED AS OPPOSED TO TWO CAR GARAGE, TWO CAR DRIVEWAYS, LARGER FOOTPRINT BASED UPON SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. [02:45:02] WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO INCREASE OUR GREEN SPACE, SO DRAINAGE IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE LESS IMPACTFUL THAN MORE. >> IS THAT WHAT THAT RESTRICTED RESERVE IS, IS THAT A DRAINAGE? >> IT'S OUR DETENTION. >> DETENTION 2.76 ACRES. >> YEAH. OUT OF THE 13, WE LOST ALMOST THREE ACRES. >> WHAT IS YOUR EGRESS OFF OF HIGHWAY 35, MULBERRY CONCEPTUALLY LOOK LIKE? >> WE CAN PULL UP IF YOU CAN SCROLL BACK UP. IT'S THE EXACT SAME THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE. >> NO, THE NEW DRIVE TO MULBERRY. THERE'S A TWO LINE AXIS, ONE WAY OUT, ONE WAY IN. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THAT ONE SITE PLAN CONCEPT SHOWS GREEN SPACE PARKING. WHAT DOES THAT EFFLUX? WHAT WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? >> AGAIN, THIS IS A CONCEPT REVIEW. WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE IT REZONED BEFORE THAT I COULD EVER EVEN SUBMIT [NOISE] BUT WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IN ANGLETON ZONING FOR SFA IS ONE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE FOR EVERY FOR RESIDENTS OR FOR EVERY FOUR TOWNHOUSES. IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT ADDING WHAT IS THAT, 21 ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES. IF YOU FIGURE NINE BY 20 AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WE'VE GOT THERE, WHICH IS OVER AN ACRE AND A HALF, THAT'S STILL WOULD LEAVE ALMOST AN ACRE OF GREEN SPACE. CALL IT PART CALL. >> [INAUDIBLE] WOULD NOT BE A RESIDENCE OUT THERE. >> THERE WOULD NOT BE RESIDENCE. THIS WOULD CREATE AN ALL-INCLUSIVE TYPE COMMUNITY. >> I PERSONALLY, I TOLD YOU LAST TIME WAS MY CONCERN IS 35. YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS BUT I DRIVE THAT AREA. I KNOW HOW CONGESTED GETS. DEPENDING ON SOME ENGINEERS IN HOUSTON THAT THINK THEY KNOW BETTER. IT GETS BAD THROUGH THERE. THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ALMOST GET HIT THROUGH THERE. I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH INGRESS AND EGRESS AND THAT COMING IN AND OUT OF THERE. BUT IF YOU'RE GOING OUT COMING GOING RIGHT, GOING WEST ON 35. >> SURE. >> I WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH, IF YOU'RE COMING WEST FROM THE MIDDLE OF TOWN AND YOU WANT TO TURN INTO THAT SUBDIVISION, THAT'S FINE. BUT I WILL NEVER SUPPORT THAT WE ALLOW PEOPLE TO GO EAST AND TURN INTO THERE OR COME OUT OF THERE AND TRY TO GO WEST OR GO EAST. THAT TO ME IS DANGEROUS. >> MAKING A LEFT HAND TURNOUT. >> IT'S BAD OVER THERE. YOU HAVE A CHURCH ACROSS THE STREET. THEY HAVE STUFF ALL THE TIME. A LOT OF TRAFFIC COMING IN AND OUT OF THERE AND I'VE SEEN PEOPLE ALMOST GET HIT THERE. I THINK THE BEST WAY IS NORTH WALKER. I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH THAT. I ALSO DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOU WANT TO PUT TOWN HOMES IN. I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE IS THERE A BACKYARD ON THESE? >> THERE IT IS. WITH THIS, YOU DO HAVE A MINIMUM WATER REQUIREMENTS. IT'S 100 FOOT. SO WHENEVER YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, YOU'VE GOT THE SAME 25 FOOT BUILD LINE THERE IN THE FRONT. WITH THIS, YOU'RE LOOKING AT APPROXIMATELY 45 FOOT DEEP AS FAR AS WHAT THIS PARTICULAR PRODUCT IS. OBVIOUSLY, WE GO SINGLE-STORY, WE'D HAVE TO GO A LITTLE DEEPER. BUT WITH 45 FEET, THAT STILL AFFORDS US 30 FEET FOR A BACKYARD. >> SOME OF THOSE LOTS DON'T APPEAR TO BE 100 FEET. >> NO, WHENEVER WE'RE SUBMITTED IN. LIKE I SAID, WE GOT CAUGHT RIGHT IN THE MIDST OF EVERYTHING CHANGING. WE DO HAVE SOME SHALLOW LOTS THERE ON THE NORTH SIDE. THEY BACKUP, BASICALLY WHERE THE HIGH TRANSMISSION LINES ARE. WE'VE GOT SOME, I BELIEVE WE'VE GOT 193, 195, AND 197. BUT WITH THAT, WE'VE ACCOMMODATED IT BY MAKING IN THE ORIGINAL WHEN THE APPROVED PLANS THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE 75 FOOT WIDE SO THAT WE CAN OVERCOMPENSATE OR 70 FEET WIDE SO WE CAN OVERCOMPENSATE FOR THE 6,300 SQUARE FEET MINIMUM. IN PRIOR STAFF, THEY HAD NO PROBLEM AS LONG AS WE EXCEEDED THE FRONTAGE AND WE EXCEEDED THE TOTAL LOT COVERAGE. >> DO YOU HAVE ROOM FOR STREET PARKING? >> WE ABSOLUTELY WOULD. WITH THIS, AGAIN, WE'VE GOT ONE SPACE FOR GARAGE, [02:50:02] ONE SPACE FOR 25 FEET DRIVEWAYS. AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE A SPACE OUT FRONT FOR REGULAR PARKING. WHENEVER WE LOOK AT DOING THIS AS A TWO-UNIT TOWNHOUSE, THEN WE WOULD STILL HAVE SETBACKS FROM EACH PROPERTY LINES EFFECTIVELY 5 FEET PLUS THE 20 FEET. THAT WOULD AFFORD US EFFECTIVELY 25 FEET FOR PARKING OUT IN FRONT. >> BECAUSE THAT IS MY CONCERN WITH TOWN HOMES AND I'VE SEEN IT. GO TO COLLEGE STATION, GO TO COLLEGE TOWNS WHERE THEY HAVE A LOT OF TOWN HOMES. YOU SEE JUST THE CARS ALL OVER THE PLACE BECAUSE THERE'S NO PARKING. THAT DOES CONCERN ME THAT WE WOULD GO LITTLE BIT DEEPER ON THE DRIVEWAYS IF POSSIBLE, BECAUSE YOU SAID 25 FEET AND WELL, THAT'S REALLY BASICALLY ONE CAR. >> IT IS ONE VEHICLE. WHENEVER I SAID EARLIER, I LIVED IN SOMETHING SIMILAR OR WHENEVER I WAS IN COLUMBIA, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI. THAT'S WHERE I WENT. I LIVED IN SOMETHING LIKE THIS. IT WAS ALL COLLEGE STUDENTS. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT HERE. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY NOT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET BECAUSE WITH COLLEGE STUDENTS, YOU PACK IN AS MANY AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN SO THAT YOU CAN DRIVE RIGHT THE WAY DOWN. >> YOU DON'T HAVE A REAL WAY THAT YOU CAN CONTROL THAT THOUGH. I MEAN, UNLESS YOU'RE MARKETING IS 55 OR OLDER, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN CONTROL WHO IS BUYING INTO THESE HOMES. >> NO, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. >> PURCHASING THEM TOURNAMENT A REAL PROBLEM. >> BUT WE DO SET THE HOA. >> YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN HOA? >> YES. ABSOLUTELY. I MEAN, MUCH LIKE YOU ALL DON'T WANT BAD PRODUCT IN ANGLETON, I DON'T WANT BAD PRODUCT ASSOCIATED WITH MY NAME. I'VE GOT TWO SMALL KIDS AT HOME RIGHT NOW, I'M GOING TO BE DOING THIS FOR THE NEXT 30, 40 YEARS, AS LONG AS GOD WILL LET ME. I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEREVER WE GO, WE CAN LEAVE BEHIND IT BETTER THAN WHAT WE CAME INTO IT. >> I MEAN, IF YOU'RE JUST LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK AND THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING TO DO. I'M NOT TRYING TO TELL YOU WHAT TO DO. I'M WITH JOHN, I WOULD PROBABLY LEAN TOWARDS DEFINITELY KEEPING THE OPEN SPACE GREEN OR IN PARKING. IT WOULD BE NICE. YOU MADE [INAUDIBLE] TREES OR WHATEVER. BUT I'D ALSO WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THE ABILITY. THIS MAY NOT BE DOABLE, BUT TO WIDEN THOSE ROADS JUST FOR THE VERY ISSUE OF STREET PARKING, ESPECIALLY WITH DRIVEWAYS THAT AREN'T TERRIBLY LONG. YOU'RE SHARING SPACES. IMAGINE THAT AT LEAST COULD BE WHAT, TWO TO THREE BEDROOMS? >> THREE IS WHAT I SAW. >> THREE BEDROOMS. >> WE ANTICIPATE HAVING TWO TO THREE. >> IF THREE BEDROOMS, YOU'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT LEAST TWO VEHICLES FOR THAT RESIDENCE. THEN IF THAT ENDS UP BEING SHARED, THAT'D BE FINE. THAT SEEMS CHALLENGING. >> THAT'S WHY WE'VE GOT A GARAGE, BUT I TOTALLY APPRECIATE THAT. THIS IS SOMETHING WORTH. MY NEXT STEP IS TO COME BACK REQUESTING THIS BEING CHANGED TO SFA. I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND AND WE CAN ABSOLUTELY ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS. I'M HAPPY TO WORK WITH YOU GUYS. THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF DOING THIS, IS I WANTED THE FEEDBACK AND THAT'S A VERY VALID CONCERN AS FAR AS MAKING SURE THAT WE'VE GOT SOME SPACE FOR SOME ADDITIONAL PARKING AND MAYBE WE ADD THAT SPACE. I MEAN, I HAD TO HIT UP THE GREEN SPACE IN THE FRONT YARD WITH ADDITIONAL CONCRETE. BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHAT THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO SEE. BUT MY GOAL, I SAID, I KNOW IT'S 9:30, YOU ALL WERE KEPT HERE A LONG TIME. I WANTED TO SEE THAT IF WE PROPOSE A ZONING CHANGE FOR THIS, IS THERE ANY REASON WHY I WOULDN'T HAVE CITY COUNCILS BACKING ON THAT? >> I MEAN, FOR ME AND THIS IS MINE, NOBODY ELSE HAS BEEN. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR PLANNING, ZONING'S FEEDBACK, QUITE HONESTLY, WHAT THEY VOTE BECAUSE I DO TRY TO LISTEN TO THAT ADVISORY GROUP. I WAS ON THAT ONCE UPON A TIME, I'D LIKE TO THINK THAT MY OPINION MATTERED. I LIKE TO TRY TO AT LEAST LISTENED, DOESN'T MEAN I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THEY SAY OR DO, BUT AT LEAST WANT TO HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. >> I'D ALSO LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THE RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BECAUSE WE HAD VOCAL RESIDENTS THAT WERE VERY MUCH AGAINST A DUPLEX AT THE BEGINNING OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE CORNER OF LIVE OAK AND NORTH WALKER, WHICH WE DID MAKE AN EXCEPTION FOR BECAUSE IT WAS A DILAPIDATED, ABANDONED BUILDING AND WE ALLOWED IT TO BECOME A DUPLEX JUST SO IT WOULDN'T BE A HAZARD TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT THEY REALLY FEEL LIKE THEY'RE GETTING THE SHORT END OF THE STICK. GETTING REALLY NARROW HOUSES BEING BUILT IN THAT AREA. THEY DID NOT WANT DUPLEXES. >> I WOULD JUST ADD THAT I LIKED THE IDEA OF PUTTING SOME TOWNHOMES IN. [02:55:02] I'M NOT SURE IF THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS TO BE TOWNHOMES. IF THERE'S SOME WAY OF MAYBE MAKING SOME OF IT MORE SINGLE-FAMILY, TRADITIONAL IN THE BACK OR SOMETHING WITH TOWN HOMES ON THE FRONT, I'M OPEN. >> I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WOULD DO WITH THE CURRENT ZONING. I MEAN, WE WOULD HAVE TO GET A PD EFFECTIVELY FOR 13 ACRE DEVELOPMENT. >> I LIKE THAT IDEA. TALKED ABOUT DIVERSITY EARLIER. I HAVE THROWN OUT IN DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAVE PRESENTED YOU. I KNOW YOU DON'T COME TO EVERY ONE OF OUR MEETINGS AND THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE DEVELOPERS WHO'VE PRESENTED AND I'VE FLOATED OUT IDEAS OF WHAT YOU'RE COMING UP WITH. THEY'RE NOT DUPLEXES BUT SURE. >> RIGHT NOW THEY LOOK LIKE DUPLEXES BUT I SAY, IF YOU CAN ENVISION EIGHT OF THEM TOGETHER, BUT YES, TOWNHOMES. >> TOWNHOMES, OKAY. I'VE THROWN THAT OUT THERE BEFORE BECAUSE I DO. THERE HAS TO BE A DIVERSITY AND WE'D LIKE TO GET PAINTED WITH A BROAD STROKE. I'M ALL FOR BIG HOUSES AND I JUST LOVE RICH PEOPLE [LAUGHTER] WE DON'T ACTUALLY GET INTO THE DETAILS. NO, I'M HOPEFUL FOR DIVERSITY. MY CONCERN IS THE LOCATION. I CAN THINK OF SEVERAL SPOTS IN TOWN WITH EVEN OPEN LOTS RIGHT NOW, NOT TOO FAR FROM WHERE THE COURTHOUSES AND THERE'S ALREADY BEEN SOME DUPLEXES BUILT. EVEN HERE IN DOWNTOWN, I CAN SHOW YOU LOTS JUST RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER HERE THAT ARE OPEN LOTS THAT I MAY HAVE A BETTER FIELD FIT FOR THIS INFILL IN THAT LOCATION. GOOD IDEA. I JUST DON'T KNOW ABOUT THIS LOCATION. THAT MAKES SENSE. >> I CAN APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. >> BUT TYPICALLY WHAT THE LAYOUT YOU HAVE SHOWN RIGHT HERE, WHAT ARE THE TYPICALLY THE THE LOT WIDTHS. >> THOSE ARE 25. >> TWENTY-FIVE. >> SOME OF THEM I THINK ARE 23 AND HALF. SEVERAL OF THEM ARE 27. >> THIS CONFIGURATION IS WHAT WOULD WORK FOR YOUR PLAN? >> THIS WILL GET US THERE. THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS WE WOULD HAVE TO TWEAK BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY JUST HOW WE CAN JOIN THE TOWNHOUSES. THIS IS VERY CLOSE TO WHAT WE WOULD HAVE AS FAR AS OUR FINAL. >> GOOD. THE STREET WIDTHS OR YOUR STANDARD 28 FEET WIDE? >> YES, SIR. >> CONCRETE PAVEMENT JUST LIKE WE ALREADY NEAR THE SUBDIVISION HERE IN TOWN? >> YES, SIR. >> YES, SIR. >> IT'S NOT RIVER OAK. EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT. LIKE YOU SAID, WHAT'S AROUND IT IS ROUGH COUNTRY AND I MEAN ON THE EAST SIDE, WESTERN AVENUE PEOPLE THAT'S NOT ROUGH COUNTRY OVER THERE. >> WE WERE TRYING TO FIND A TRANSITION, TRULY WITH WHERE WE'RE AT. OUR NEXT SLIDE, WHICH IS NOT EVEN NECESSARY WHAT WE LOOKED AT AND WHENEVER WE CONSIDERED WHAT ANGLETON'S LONG-RANGE PLAN OR GOAL SHOULD BE. IT WOULD EITHER BE THIS OR SOMETHING LIKE MULTIFAMILY OR INDUSTRIAL AND IT WOULDN'T FIT TO DO MULTI-FAMILY. THERE'S MORE THAN ENOUGH ACREAGE, MORE THAN ENOUGH POINTS OF ACCESS, IT COULD ABSOLUTELY WORK, BUT IT WOULDN'T FIT IN THE COMMUNITY AND INDUSTRIAL, IT WOULDN'T FIT EITHER. BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I CONTEMPLATED IT AND I KNOW, I'VE HEARD, I'VE SEEN ANGLETON IS ANGLETON. EVERYBODY WANTS AS BIG AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN, BUT IT JUST SIMPLY DOESN'T FIT FOR EVERYBODY. THIS IS WHY WE'RE WHERE WE'RE AT. WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO BUILD 500 OF THEM. BY COUNT, IT'S RELATIVELY SMALL, LIKE YOU SAID. BUT I WILL GO THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS, GO THROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING, MAKE SURE WE CAN [NOISE] IT. >> YOU MADE SOME HEROIC EFFORTS TO TRY TO MEET THE ZONING THAT'S OVER THERE AND REALLY WE'RE PUSHING A SQUARE PEG INTO A ROUND HOLE OR JUST ABOUT EVERY LOT OUT THERE BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T GET THE DEPTH IN THERE BECAUSE OF THE PIECE OF THE PROPERTIES OR SHAPE WITH A PROPERTY THAT'S THERE. I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT THAT YOU PUT INTO GETTING TO THIS POINT. >> WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN EASY, SIR. >> I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO TRAFFIC. [03:00:03] HAVE YOU TALKED WITH TXDOT, WHAT THEY WOULD REQUIRE AT THE ACCESS TO MULBERRY? >> CURRENTLY WE HAVE NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. >> THERE IS NO STREET THERE RIGHT NOW. WHEN YOU PLANT A STREET, NOW YOU HAVE A PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE DRIVEWAY THAT'S ENTER INTO THAT WOOD YARD, AIN'T GOING TO COUNT AS THE FINAL. THEY'RE GOING TO APPROACH YOU. YOU'VE GOT A BRAND NEW DRIVEWAY, BRAND NEW STREET INTERSECTION, SO HAVE YOU TALKED TO THEM WHAT THEY WOULD REQUIRE OF YOU THERE? >> YEAH, THIS IS THE EXACT SAME ROAD THAT WE'VE ALREADY PUT TOGETHER. >> REMIND ME WHAT THAT WAS THEN. BECAUSE IT'S NOT SHOWN ON ANYTHING I HAVE HERE. NO, IT DIDN'T GO DOWN AT 35. IT DIDN'T HIT 35. THERE IS ORANGE BAND THERE. >> SORRY AND I APOLOGIZE BUT IT DOES GO DOWN AND IT IS JUST EXACTLY LIKE THIS ON OUR CURRENT PLOT THAT'S APPROVED. WE RECENTLY DID GET TXDOT APPROVAL ON IT. I'M LITERALLY TRYING NOT TO CHANGE IT OTHER THAN WHATEVER THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO SEE. >> NO, DON'T GET ME WRONG. I REALIZED TXDOT HAS CONTROL OF HIGHWAY 35. THEY DECIDE HOW YOU GET ON AND GET OFF THE HIGHWAY 35. [BACKGROUND] >> SCROLL UP A LITTLE BIT. >> PAGE 227 >> THERE YOU GO. WE'RE CONFORMING TO EVERYTHING THAT TXDOT HAS REQUIRED AS WELL AS WE'RE TRYING TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN. >> [BACKGROUND]. >> WE'RE NOT SPEAKING THE SAME LANGUAGE. YOU'VE GOT TO PLANT A STREET HERE THAT INTERSECTS HIGHWAY 35. >> YES SIR. >> THAT'S GOOD. IT'S 60 FEET WIDE. HIGHWAY 35 IS 100-120 FEET WIDER. HAS TXDOT APPROVED THE WAY YOUR PAVEMENT IS GOING TO TIE INTO THEIR PAVEMENT? >> YES. >> WELL, THAT'S NOT SHOWN ANYWHERE. THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING GOES BECAUSE THAT'S MR. WRIGHT'S CONCERN, IS HOW YOU GOING TO GET ON AND OFF HIGHWAY 35 OR HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET ON AND OFF LAZY LANE OR WHATEVER THIS OTHER IS STREET IS HERE. >> LIKE I SAID, THAT'S THE BENEFIT OF US BEING ALL READY WHERE WE'RE AT IS WE HAVE RECEIVED TXDOT APPROVAL FROM OUR CLIENT. I CAN COME BACK WITH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ON THE CURRENT SCOPE. >> I JUST WAS LOOKING TO SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN YOU TIE IN THERE. THAT'S ALL I WAS TRYING TO SEE WHICH WOULD BE SEEN IN A SET OF CONSTRUCTION DRAWING IS NOT TO SUBDIVISION PLAN. >> IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS CONCERNS? LADIES AND GENTLEMEN AND COUNSEL, I GREATLY APPRECIATE ALL THE FEEDBACK AND TIME. YES, SIR. >> HOW DO YOU HANDLE BASICALLY A COMMON BACKYARD? >> THROUGH DEFENSES BEHIND. >> LONGITUDINALLY. >> YES. >> BECAUSE THE DRAWINGS THAT WE HAVE HERE JUST LIKE LOOK, IT'S A BIG GREEN AREA THAT MY DOG CAN GO INTO NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS GARDEN. >> NO. AGAIN, WE WANTED TO CONVEY WHAT THE CONCEPT WAS. THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY PART OF WHAT WE'RE DOING IT AND PART OF THE REASON WHY WE NEED THIS IS SO THAT WE CAN PLOT THEM INDIVIDUALLY SO THAT THERE WOULD BE PROPERTY LINES, THERE WOULD BE FENCES SEPARATING EACH INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY. >> THAT'S WHAT GREEN TRAILS WAS GOING TO BE BEFORE IT BECAME THE CURRENT GREEN TRAIL. THERE'S GOING TO BE. >> TOWNHOMES. >> TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION THAT DEVELOPER. I HOPE IT'S THE SAME PERSON OR ENTITY, THEY DECIDED TO MIX THAT AND GO WITH WHATEVER IS OVER THERE RIGHT NOW. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> [OVERLAPPING]. >> THANK YOU. >> THAT GETS US THROUGH ALL OF OUR REGULAR ITEMS AND WE HAVE ONE ITEM LEFT, [EXECUTIVE SESSION (Part 2 of 2)] AND THAT'S EXECUTIVE SESSION OR ITEM NUMBER 13, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT TO LIBERATE THE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, EVALUATION, REASSIGNMENT DUTIES, DISCIPLINE, OR DISMISSAL OF AN EMPLOYEE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.074 "(CITY MANAGERS)". WE'LL GO AHEAD AND SHOW. WE'RE GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 9:42. [OPEN SESSION] WE ARE BACK IN SESSION AT 10:18. EVERYBODY STILL PRESENT WHO WAS HERE WHEN WE LEFT AND COUNCIL, DO WE HAVE ANY ITEMS COMING OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION? >> YES, MR. MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE OFFER THE SAME MAJOR A THREE-YEAR CONTRACT WITH THE DETAILS TO BE SET FORTH BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE HR DIRECTOR FROM THE TERMS WE DISCUSSED EARLIER. [03:05:02] >> SECOND THAT. >> MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM RIGHTS, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BOOTH. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. THAT BRINGS US TO THE PART OF THE AGENDA THAT WE LIKE. ADJOURNMENT, AT 10:19. HAVE A GOOD NIGHT. [BACKGROUND] * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.