[2. Discussion and possible action on determining possible meeting dates to meet with City Council for a workshop regarding the Zoning Code and various District Regulations.]

DISTRICT REGULATIONS.

MR. SPRIGGS. GOOD AFTERNOON.

THIS ITEM YOU'VE HAD IN YOUR LAST OUR PREVIOUS MEETING.

AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO HAVE A JOINT WORKSHOP WITH YOU AND THE COUNCIL TO BASICALLY GET ON THE SAME PAGE IN TERMS OF THE VISION OF THE CITY AND THE DIRECTION IN WHICH WE'RE GOING.

AND THEN WE'RE WORKING ON ALSO SOME UPDATES TO OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES IN TERMS OF PROCESS AND PROCEDURES.

SO WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH BOTH BOARDS AND GO OVER ANY PENDING CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE AS A BOARD.

SO I PLACED AN OPTIONAL DATE THAT WE KIND OF DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY, BUT I ALSO LEFT A BLANK THERE.

SO WE CAN LOOK AT JUNE AS WELL IN TERMS OF POSSIBLE DATES.

UNFORTUNATELY, MAY 16TH DID NOT WORK IN OUR FAVOR.

MAY 30TH WORKS WITH ME.

I AM UNAVAILABLE.

I'M OUT OF I'M UNAVAILABLE..

AND THAT'S FINE.

SO IF YOU WOULD POSSIBLY MAYBE PULL OUT YOUR CALENDARS AND LET'S LOOK AT JUNE.

I LOOKED AT TUESDAYS BECAUSE I'M ASSUMING THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT.

AND I WAS GOING TO THROW OUT JUNE 13TH OR 20TH.

I COULD MAKE THE 13TH.

AND THAT'S OKAY WITH JUNE 13TH.

I'M MADELEINE. BUT THEN LET'S LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING OPTION.

I'M OUT ON THE 20TH AS WELL.

THERE'S A TUESDAY IN BETWEEN, RIGHT? THE 13TH AND THE 20TH.

NO, NO, NOT. YEAH.

OH, WHICH ONES ARE THE COUNCILMAN? DE DE. I THINK COUNCIL IS THE 13TH AND THE 27TH.

RIGHT. TRY THOSE SECOND AND FOURTH.

YEAH, TRY THOSE TWO DATES.

SO 27TH I COULD DO IF WE'RE TRYING TO LINE IT UP ON A DATE COUNCIL ALREADY MEETS.

YES, OF COURSE.

WE CAN INVITE COUNCIL TO OUR NEW MEETING.

HOW LONG YOU WANT IT TO LAST.

IT WON'T LAST THAT LONG.

YEAH, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE THINKING.

OKAY, I CAN DO THE 27TH.

27TH. 27TH OF JUNE.

JUNE 27TH.

SO FAR? YES.

OKAY. SO WE WILL PUT THAT OUT THERE AND GIVE YOU SOME FEEDBACK AND WE HAVE CONSENSUS 100%.

I DON'T THINK IT REQUIRES A VOTE.

NO, I DON'T THINK SO EITHER. OKAY.

[3. Conduct a public hearing, discussion, and take possible action on a request for approval of an ordinance rezoning 13.002 acres from the (SF-6.3) Single Family Zoning District to the Planned District (PD), SFA, Single Family Attached base zoning district for property located at 710 W. Mulberry St., west of N. Walker St.]

ITEM THREE, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING 13.002 ACRES FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT, 0.32 TO A PLANNED DISTRICT.

SFA SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED BASE ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 710 WEST MULBERRY STREET, WEST OF NORTH WALKER STREET.

BRICK. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS A REQUEST, OF COURSE, OF A REZONING OF PROPERTY THAT YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH.

MULBERRY FIELDS SUBDIVISION IS A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION THAT HAS GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT STAGE, AND THEY'RE IN THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE.

SO THE DEVELOPER APPROACHED YOU IN THE PAST WITH A CONCEPT THAT HE WANTED TO LOOK AT AN OPTION FOR A TOWNHOUSE PRODUCT THAT THEY WERE PROMOTING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND GRADES.

IF YOU WOULD JUST ROLL DOWN TO SOME OF THE GRAPHICS A LITTLE FURTHER AND FURTHER DOWN AND YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH IT, BUT AT ANY RATE, IN ORDER FOR HIM TO DO THE TOWNHOMES, HE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE ZONING DISTRICT.

AS STATED EARLIER IN THE HEADER, WE'VE ADVERTISED THIS AND THAT'S THE PRODUCT THERE.

REAL BRIEFLY, IF YOU WOULD, ROLL BACK UP AND SHOW THE LAND USE PLAN FOR THIS GENERAL AREA.

WHAT WE DO IS WHEN WE GET THESE REQUESTS IN, WE HAVE TO, OF COURSE, NOTIFY EVERYONE WITHIN 200FT OF THE PROPERTY.

THAT'S THE LAND USE PLAN THAT YOU SEE THERE FOR THE AREA.

MOST OF THE AREA, AS YOU SEE WITH THE YELLOW, IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

THE ORANGE WOULD REPRESENT MULTIFAMILY ON THE MASTER LAND USE PLAN.

IT'S NOT THE ZONING MAP THAT REGULATES THE PROPERTY, BUT IN CASE THERE ARE FUTURE PROPOSALS, THEY LOOK AT THE MASTER PLAN AND SEE WHAT'S PROPOSED FOR THE AREA.

SOME OF THE REASONING BEHIND THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE RED AREA THAT YOU SEE COMMERCIAL ALONG 35 AND THEN IN THE AREA AS ON THE

[00:05:09]

THE ABOVE TEXT THERE, IT KIND OF SHOWS SOME OF THE SURROUNDING AREA LIKE THE BATTERY PARK USE AND THEN SOME OF THE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS, SUCH AS THE CELL PHONE TOWERS THAT YOU SEE THERE, SOME ACTIVITY ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAY OF 35 IN TERMS OF COMMERCIAL. SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION FOR A PD, WHICH IS A PLANNED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT.

WHAT THAT ALLOWS YOU TO DO IS TO PLACE CONDITIONS ON THE PROPOSAL, JUST IN CASE YOU CAN SEE THAT IF IT HAS ANY MERIT, YOU ABLE TO PUT CONDITIONS ON IT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT COULD BETTER FIT INTO THE COMMUNITY.

IF YOU WOULD ROLL DOWN A LITTLE FURTHER.

THIS IS JUST THE GENERAL VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING SOME OF THE AERIAL MAPS AND HOW IT WOULD BE SITUATED ON OFF OF 35.

THERE. AND SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE ACTUALLY HAD TO WEIGH, OF COURSE, THE CRITERIA IN THE AREA FOR THE REZONING IN TERMS OF THE GENERAL VICINITY AND HOW THE AREA IS DEVELOPING.

THE APPLICANT, OF COURSE, DID APPROACH COUNCIL WITH THE CONCEPT TO GET SOME FEEDBACK.

IN TERMS OF THE PRODUCT, I THINK IT RECEIVED SOME POSITIVE RESPONSE IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY'RE PROMOTING.

BUT WE'LL HAVE THE APPLICANT EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT THE TOWNHOUSES WOULD RESEMBLE IN TERMS OF AMENITIES.

WHAT WE'VE DONE ALSO WITH THE STAFF REPORT IS WE'VE ATTACHED AN ORDINANCE AND THEN THE GENERAL STANDARDS OF THE SF, WHICH IS SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED, IS THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THEY ARE RECOMMENDING YOU TO CONSIDER.

SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED, OF COURSE, WOULD BE TOWNHOMES, AND WE'VE GIVEN YOU THE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR THAT DISTRICT AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THOSE.

WE PUT A SAMPLE ORDINANCE ON THE AGENDA.

FOR YOUR INFORMATION, WE'VE ALSO SINCE THEN ATTACHED A SAMPLE DA AGREEMENT WHICH WOULD APPLY IN THIS CASE AND THEN ANY CONDITIONS THAT YOU WOULD PUT ON THE DEVELOPMENT.

AND IF YOU ROLL UP A LITTLE BIT RIGHT THERE, THAT WOULD SHOW THE ORIGINAL MULBERRY ESTATE SUBDIVISION AS IT'S CURRENTLY APPROVED.

AND PLEASE CONTINUE TO ROLL DOWN.

OKAY, STOP THERE. AND IF YOU ZOOM OUT A LITTLE BIT, THIS WOULD SHOW THE CONFIGURATIONS, THE.

THE LOTS WOULD BE INDIVIDUAL LOTS THAT WOULD BE SOLD.

THEY WOULD NOT BE RENTALS.

AND FROM THERE I WILL HALT AND LET THE APPLICANT APPROACH THE BOARD JUST TO ADD ANYTHING THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO ADD.

ONCE YOU OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN WE'LL GET FEEDBACK FROM THE PUBLIC AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE AS A COMMISSION, LET'S GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE DEVELOPER BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.

I AM [INAUDIBLE].

I AM THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS MANAGER FOR CORY BOYER, WHO IS THE DEVELOPER.

UNFORTUNATELY, HE IS UNDER THE WEATHER AND DID NOT WANT TO BRING THAT TO YOU GUYS TODAY.

SO I AM STEPPING IN IN HIS PLACE.

SO YEAH, ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS TAKING OUR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT WE HAD ORIGINALLY WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS AND WE ARE WE'RE MAKING THEM A SFA PRODUCT WHICH ESSENTIALLY JUST LOOKS LIKE A DUPLEX, BUT IT'S IT'S ZONED FOR SFA. SO THAT WAY WE'RE SPLITTING EVERYTHING.

WE'RE GIVING EVERYBODY THE, THE LOT SIZE IS JUST HALF THE SIZE OF WHAT IT WAS FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY. THEY'RE, THEY'RE GOING TO BE FENCED LOTS.

WE CAME TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND ASKED FOR YOUR FEEDBACK.

AND THEN WE ALSO WENT TO COUNCIL TO ASK FOR FEEDBACK.

AND WE TOOK THOSE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION AND GOT WITH OTIS TO SUBMIT THIS FOR A PD.

SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WE MADE TAKING YOUR CONCERNS INTO ACCOUNT WERE WE WIDENED OUR STREETS WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY FROM 28 TO 32, I BELIEVE WAS WHAT IT WAS.

AND THEN THERE WERE CONCERNS WITH TURNING OUT ONTO MULBERRY.

SO WE HAVE SAID THAT WE WILL MAKE THAT A RIGHT HAND TURN ONLY ONTO MULBERRY TO KIND OF LIMIT THE TRAFFIC

[00:10:04]

IMPACT. WE DID INCLUDE OUR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, SO THAT WAY YOU GUYS COULD SEE THAT WE ARE TAKING THOSE CONCERNS VERY SERIOUSLY.

WE'VE WE'VE LOOKED AT IT ALL AT.

LET'S SEE. WE ARE PROPOSING SO THAT MIDDLE SECTION WHERE IT SHOWS HOUSES, THAT'S ACTUALLY WHERE WE ARE PROPOSING TO MAKE IT A GREEN SPACE COMMUNITY FOR NOT ONLY OUR RESIDENTS, BUT FOR RESIDENTS OF ANGLETON TO COME AND AND UTILIZE THE SPACE.

WE'RE ANTICIPATING EITHER A PARK OR A DOG PARK OR JUST SOME NICE GREEN SPACE IN THERE.

ANY QUESTIONS? LET'S DO THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'LL SEE IF WE HAVE.

OKAY. AND CHAIR, LET ME JUST ADD THAT IT'LL BE 81 DOORS IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF UNITS.

YEAH. THANK YOU.

OKAY. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON OR ABOUT THIS PROJECT? AND IF YOU DON'T MIND, MAY WE HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? AND I MOVE THAT. WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING, IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR, OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANYBODY OPPOSED OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING? OKAY. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.

MAYBE I WANT TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DID ANYONE SIGN UP FOR THIS CASE? I DIDN'T SEE ANYBODY. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. WE JUST HAVE THE TWO LETTERS, RIGHT? CORRECT. THAT'S ALL.

I MOVE WE CLOSE IT. I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I HAVE A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING AYE? AYE. OPPOSED? SAME SIGN.

OKAY. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN ON THIS COMMISSION FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS NOW, AND WITH EACH CITY ADMINISTRATION, YOU GET A DIFFERENT DIRECTION ON DO WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING WITH A MOTION OR DO WE NOT OPEN IT WITH A MOTION? SO JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

I HAVE A COMMENT ABOUT THIS.

AND I'M PRETTY SURE EVERYBODY IN THIS BUILDING KNOWS WHAT I THINK OF THIS, BUT I'M GOING TO SAY IT ANYWAY.

WE APPROVED IT AS RESIDENTIAL WITH 40, 41, 41, 41 LOTS.

THE ONE THING THAT HAS NOT CHANGED IS OUR SEWER SITUATION.

AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO DOUBLE 41 TO 82.

I'M TOTALLY AGAINST THIS.

AND AS MY GUIDANCE, I GO TO GREEN TRAILS OVER HERE THAT STARTED AS ONE THING.

AND EVERY TIME THEY BROUGHT IT BACK, WE GOT WE DOUBLED UP.

WE GOT MORE. WE GOT MORE, WE GOT MORE.

AND YOU'VE GOT RESIDENTS AROUND THERE THAT ARE AGAINST THIS.

THEREFORE, I'M AGAINST IT.

GOOD. THANK YOU, MISS SPOOR.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS.

MOTIONS? I MOVE WE AS A COMMISSION RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL OF THE REZONING CONDITION AS LAID OUT IN OUR PACKET AND RECOMMEND COUNCIL NOT APPROVE.

SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO NOT APPROVE.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION INDICATE SO BY SAYING AYE? AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? AYE. SO WE ARE 3 TO 1 OPPOSED TO THE MOTION.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL HAVE TO WORK WITH LEGAL TO INTERPRET THAT BECAUSE IT BASICALLY WOULD TAKE THE FOUR VOTES FOR A POSITIVE ACTION.

OKAY. AND THAT'S WHY I STATED SOMETIMES IT'S GOOD TO STATE THE MOTION IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

THAT WAY YOU KNOW IT WE EITHER FLATTEN OUT TO GET DENIED OR NOT.

SO IF YOU WANT TO REVERSE IT IN THE POSITIVE, IT WOULD PROBABLY GIVE A DIFFERENT OUTCOME .

I THINK, BUT I THINK THE VOTE WOULD BREAK DOWN THE SAME SO IT STILL WOULDN'T CARRY.

WE'D STILL BE 3 TO 1.

SO I DON'T THE WAY THE MOTION IS STATED IN TERMS OF A DENIAL IS WHAT I'M SAYING, RIGHT? IT KIND OF NEGATES IT.

BUT I THINK IF WE RECOMMENDED COUNCIL APPROVE AND WE VOTED ONE YAY, TWO THREE, NAY DENIED.

OKAY, OKAY. WE CAN LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS, BUT I'M JUST MAKING SURE THAT YOU'RE CLEAR.

OKAY. I THINK WE'RE CLEAR.

LET'S LEAVE IT. WELL, WE'RE CLEAR.

I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE A UNANIMOUS VOTE, IT WOULD BE.

IT WOULDN'T PASS. IT WOULDN'T PASS ANYWAY.

YOU NEED IT ALL FOR THE RECOMMENDATION OF THOSE PRESENTS IS CLEARLY NOT TO APPROVE.

I THINK THE FACT THAT WE ARE A COMMISSION OF SEVEN IS IRRELEVANT.

OKAY, BASED ON MY 40 YEARS OF PUBLIC MEETINGS.

[00:15:03]

UH, THAT'S WITH THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT, NOT THE COMMISSION.

[4. Conduct a public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a request for approval of the final plat of Riverwood Ranch Sections 4. The proposed final plat consists of approximately 71 single family residential lots on approximately 15.2 acres and is generally located north of Hospital Drive between N. Downing Street to the west and Buchta Road to the east.]

REGULAR AGENDA ITEM FOUR, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF RIVERWOOD RANCH.

SECTIONS FOUR, THE FINAL PROPOSED FINAL PLAT CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 71 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND APPROXIMATELY 15.2 ACRES, AND IS GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF HOSPITAL DRIVE BETWEEN NORTH DOWNING STREET TO THE WEST AND BUCKNER ROAD TO THE EAST.

MR. SPRIGGS. THANK YOU.

LET ME JUST READJUST.

SO YOU HAVE ACTUALLY SEEN RIVERWOOD, SECTION THREE.

THIS IS SECTION FOUR.

YOUR LAST RECOMMENDATION FOR SECTION THREE WENT TO THE COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION.

SECTION THREE ACTUALLY GOT DENIED AND THEN THE DISAPPROVAL FOR THIS PARTICULAR PLAT HAD TO DO WITH THE QUESTION ON THE CONSISTENCY WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IN TERMS OF LOT SIZES, 50FT WIDE LOTS VERSUS 60FT WIDE LOTS.

SO WHAT THE APPLICANT PULLED BACK AND DID WAS ACTUALLY DECIDED TO PRESENT SECTIONS THREE AND FOUR SIMULTANEOUSLY.

AND WHAT THIS WOULD OUTLINE SPECIFICALLY WOULD BE, WHICH LOTS ARE 60 VERSUS 50FT.

SO THEY HAVE RESUBMITTED SECTION FOUR HERE AS A FINAL PLAT TO YOU FOR CONSIDERATION TO COUNCIL.

AND AS YOU SEE IN SECTION FOUR, IT WOULD HOLD THE MAJORITY OF THE 60 FOOT LOTS.