WE'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. [DECLARATION OF A QUORUM AND CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:02] WE HAVE A QUORUM, BARELY. CHECK. THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 3RD MEETING. [1. Discussion and possible action on the minutes for the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held on August 3, 2023. ] CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OUR AUGUST 3RD, 2023 MEETING. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. MS. MISS TOWNSEND AND MS. EBY. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE? AYE. IT'S UNANIMOUS. SO ITEM NUMBER TWO IS CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSING AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REQUEST TO REZONE 1.67 [2. Conduct a Public Hearing, discussion and take possible action on an ordinance approving a request to rezone 1.67 acres from the Commercial General District to the SF- 7.2 Single Family Residential District, for property located at 2927 N. Valderas St., Angleton, TX; situated approximately 625 ft. north of the Henderson Rd./N. Valderas intersection, Brazoria County, Texas.] ACRES FROM THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY 7.2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON 2927 NORTH VALDERAS STREET, ANGLETON, TEXAS. SITUATED APPROXIMATELY 625FT NORTH OF THE HENDERSON ROAD, NORTH VALDERAS INTERSECTION, BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS. SO WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS ANYBODY HERE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK TO THIS ISSUE? SO, MR. HENRY, IF WE COULD ALLOW STAFF TO DO THEIR PRESENTATION AND THEN MOVE ON. WELL, WE WENT THROUGH THIS LAST WEEK, BUT IF STAFF WANTS TO RE PRESENT THIS TO US. YES. JUST A BRIEF OVERVIEW AND THEN THE RECOMMENDATION. YES, SIR. THANKS . OKAY. THE AGENDA PACKET BEEN PROVIDED. WE'RE HERE TO CONSIDER APPLICATION FOR REZONING AT 2927 NORTH VALDERAS STREET FROM COMMERCIAL GENERAL TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. AS YOU'RE AWARE, P&Z RECENTLY CONSIDERED THIS APPLICATION AS A CONCEPT PLAN PROVIDED POSITIVE FEEDBACK. THE AREA NEARS THE NORTHERN CITY LIMITS BORDER. SOME OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AS COMMERCIAL, BUT MUCH OF IT IN THE AREA IS DEVELOPED AS RESIDENTIAL. THE COMMERCIAL ZONE PROPERTY HAS BEEN LISTED FOR SALE AND HAS REMAINED IN PURCHASE. AS SUCH, THE GARCIA FAMILY HAS BEEN SEARCHING TO PURCHASE A LARGE ESTATE PARCEL TO BUILD A RESIDENTIAL HOME AND ACCESSORY BARN FOR PERSONAL STORAGE. CAN I ASK A QUESTION REAL QUICK? HOW LONG WAS IT LISTED? AM I ON? I THINK I'M ON. CAN YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME? I GUESS. ARE YOU OKAY? ALL RIGHT. HOW LONG WAS IT LISTED FOR? FOR SALE AS COMMERCIAL. BEFORE IT WENT UNSOLD. WE CAN ASK. WAS IT ALEXIS? YEAH, THE GARCIAS MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE THEY HAVE CONNECTION WITH THE REAL ESTATE AGENT, BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING I DON'T KNOW IT'S ABOUT A YEAR OR SO YOU THINK IT'S BEEN LISTED, MA'AM? [INAUDIBLE] . UM, THEY THE FAMILY WOULD LIKE TO PURCHASE A PROPERTY, BUT DISCOVER THAT IT WOULD NEED TO BE REZONED TO SUIT THEIR PURPOSES. IT'S NOT EXPECTED TO CREATE ANY NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE CAPACITY OR ON THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA. AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING THE PROPOSED HOME WILL BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT. AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, WE FEEL LIKE SHOULD ADOPT THIS FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THE ORDINANCE REZONING 1.67 ACRES FROM THE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY 7.2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2927 NORTH VALDERAS AND THAT THE FINDING OF FACT AND REVIEW CRITERIA FOR SECTION 28-24A2 ARE MET AND SATISFIED. THAT'S ALL THAT WE HAVE FROM STAFF. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO SPEAK FOR THIS ISSUE? I HAVE QUESTIONS. THE GREEN ON THE MAP. SO I THINK WHENEVER I CAME BEFORE US BEFORE, JUST FOR, I GUESS, IDEAS AND FEEDBACK, I DO NOT RECALL AND I COULD VERY WELL BE MISTAKEN. THAT FIRST PAGE OF THE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY REPORT. I DON'T RECALL SEEING SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS THAT THE GREEN. WELL, I THINK THERE'S BEEN SOME ITERATIONS OF THE ZONING MAP AND THOSE COLORS, BUT THAT IS A [00:05:02] CHURCH. OKAY. AND SPEAKING TO THAT ON THE EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING. IS NORTH, IS VACANT, IS DESCRIBED AS VACANT LAND ZONED MULTIFAMILY. IS THAT SO? IS THAT GREEN ZONE MULTIFAMILY? THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN RED. IT'S ABOVE THE LITTLE BLACK BOX WHERE IT SAYS PROJECT SITE. YEAH, IT'S CIRCLED IN WHITE. THE PROPERTY JUST ABOVE IS THE MFR 29 MULTIFAMILY ZONE PROPERTY, WHICH PREEXISTS IS THERE. YEAH. OKAY. SO PURPLE IS MULTIFAMILY ZONE, GREEN IS CHURCH. THAT WAS THE CHURCH USE ABOVE. YES. OKAY. THERE'S AGRICULTURE, RIGHT? AND I'M THINKING THAT ON THE THIS IS A LAND USE MAP. I'M THINKING ON THE LONG RANGE LAND USE MAP A LOT OF THESE PROPERTIES WERE NOT ANNEXED INTO THE CITY YET, AND THAT WAS JUST A HOLDING DISTRICT THAT THEY UTILIZED AT THE PARTICULAR TIME. BUT IT'S CURRENTLY USED AS CHURCH, BUT IT'S ZONED. THIS IS NOT A ZONING MAP, BUT IT'S ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL. WHAT IS. AND FORGIVE MY IGNORANCE. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THIS PARCEL AND GRANTING A VARIANCE. SO THERE IS NO VARIANCE CONVERSATION TONIGHT. OKAY. NO VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED. IS THAT A POTENTIAL WHERE IT COULD STAY ZONED COMMERCIAL BUT BE GRANTED A VARIANCE, OR IS THAT ESSENTIALLY A DISTINCTION WITHOUT DIFFERENCE? VARIANCE IS NOT AN OPTION TONIGHT. TODAY, I'M SORRY. BUT IS IT IN GENERAL LIKE SO THAT IF THE PROPERTY EVER CHANGED HANDS AGAIN OR SOMETHING IT WOULD REVERT TO COMMERCIAL? NO. SO CURRENTLY THE LITTLE BOX WITH THE WHITE CIRCLE, IF YOU WOULD POINT TO THAT GRACE, THAT ONE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CURRENT ACREAGE BEING REQUESTED 1.67 ACRES BEING REQUESTED FROM THIS ZONE PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL. IF YOU WERE TO RECOMMEND THIS APPROVAL, IT GETS APPROVED BY COUNCIL TO GO TO THE RESIDENTIAL LOT. THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD BE UNTIL THE FUTURE. UNTIL SUCH TIME SOMEONE CAME IN, REQUESTED SOMETHING ELSE. AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH, THEY WOULD GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS. SO ONCE IT GETS ZONED RESIDENTIAL, THAT'S ALL THEY CAN UTILIZE IT FOR IS A ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, JUST JUST LIKE WHAT WE PUT IN THE PROPOSAL. THAT'S ALL THEY CAN USE THE PROPERTY FOR. AND I'M HEARING, I GUESS. HOUSE WITH. WITH A BARN. BARN? YES, MA'AM. ARE THERE REQUIREMENTS ON WHAT COMES FIRST? DO THEY HAVE TO BE CONTEMPORANEOUS OR. RIGHT? SO THE WAY WE DESCRIBED IT IN THE CONCEPT MEETING, WE LET THE APPLICANT KNOW YOU CAN APPLY FOR A PERMIT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. I CAN AND KYLE CAN, AS CHIEF BUILDING CODE OFFICIAL, ALLOW YOU TO START THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACCESSORY BARN, BUT YOU CAN IN NO WAY GO INTO THE FUTURE WITH JUST A BARN ON THE PROPERTY. SO IN OTHER WORDS, THEY WILL PULL BOTH PERMITS, START THE CONSTRUCTION ON PROBABLY BOTH, BUT THE BARN WILL MOST LIKELY BEAT THE HOME. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO STORE ALL THEIR STUFF IN IT. AND THEN THEY WOULD BUILD THE HOME. WE'LL HAVE THE APPLICANT COME UP JUST TO VERIFY THAT WHAT I'M SAYING IS TRUE, JUST FOR THE RECORD, BUT THAT WAS THE INTENT, I THINK, IN OUR PREVIOUS CONVERSATION. BUT WE MADE THEM AWARE THAT IT'S NOT REQUIRED TO JUST HAVE A BARN ON IT. WHAT WOULD BE THE RECOURSE FOR THE CITY IF THEY STARTED THE BARN AND ONLY DID THE BARN AND DIDN'T EVER? THEY WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THE ZONING CODE. MEANING WE WOULD. IT COULD GO THROUGH A PROCESS TO BE TORN DOWN OR A JUDGE COULD RULE THAT IT BE TORN DOWN AT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S THEIR INTENT. I THINK THEY HAVE A GAME PLAN IN TERMS OF A SCHEDULE, AND I THINK IT'S FAIR FOR US TO ASK THEM, WHAT IS THE TIME SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION? OKAY. BUT THE ONLY MEANS OF ACCOMPLISHING THIS AND THERE'S NO SURPRISES, BUT WE'VE LET THEM KNOW, HEY, WE'LL ALLOW YOU TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT HAVING BOTH STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY AND WE'LL WORK WITH YOU ON THE COMMENCEMENT OF BOTH STRUCTURES IN TERMS OF THE TIMING. AND WHAT DOES THIS DO EXACTLY TO THE SURROUNDING POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AS FAR AS IF SOME BUSINESS COMES IN BEHIND AND DOES WANT TO DEVELOP IN THIS AREA FOR PURPOSES OF SETBACKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT? I MEAN, ARE WE TYING OUR HANDS FOR POTENTIAL? I WOULD DOUBT IT VERY SERIOUSLY, I THINK THE NEW OWNERS WILL REALIZE THAT, HEY, YOU'RE SURROUNDED TOTALLY BY COMMERCIAL. [00:10:05] ANYTHING IN THAT CG DISTRICT AS PERMITTED IS ALLOWED. SO THEY CAN'T COME IN AND SAY, HEY, WE OBJECT TO YOU BUILDING X, Y, Z. THEY WILL MOST LIKELY PUT UP A PRIVACY FENCE. I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE AGREED TO DO TO FENCE IN THEIR PROPERTY AND FROM SECURITY AND SAFETY ISSUES TO COMBAT ANY NEGATIVE. AND AS YOU RECALL IN YOUR LAST MEETING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE THEM AWARE, HEY, YOU HAVE MULTIFAMILY GOING NEXT TO YOU. IT'S ALREADY ZONED AT THAT DENSITY MFR 29. SO THEY'RE AWARE OF THAT. AND THAT COULD BE WHAT, LIKE AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, A RETIREMENT HOME? YES. ANYTHING THAT GOES IN THE MFR 29. OKAY. YES, MA'AM. AND I ONLY I ASKED THESE QUESTIONS JUST BECAUSE LAST TIME IT WAS JUST IT WASN'T AN ACTION ITEM BEFORE US. AND BETWEEN THAT MEETING AND THIS MEETING, I DID DRIVE DOWN THAT STREET A COUPLE TIMES, AND I WAS MISTAKEN IN OUR LAST MEETING BECAUSE I THOUGHT THIS WAS ACTUALLY BY THE OTHER HOUSES THAT ARE ALREADY OUT THERE. I DIDN'T REALIZE IT WAS SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY BUILDING AND THE CHURCH. AND YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? IT TO ME IN MY MIND, WHEN I WAS ENVISIONING IT, I WAS THINKING IT WAS DOWN THERE WITH THOSE OTHER HOMES. I DIDN'T REALIZE THEY WERE TRULY GOING TO BE STANDING ALONE IN THE MIDDLE OF A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT RIGHT WHEN IT WENT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL STAFF POINTED OUT THE PROS AND CONS OF DOING THIS. IT'S NOT TYPICAL, BUT IT HAPPENS. BUT WE GAVE YOU THE PROS AND CONS. YES, MA'AM. I GUESS MY QUESTION WITH THAT IS. IF THERE IS A MULTI RESIDENTIAL FACILITY OF WHATEVER THAT GOES ON THE OTHER SIDE. DOES THIS PROPERTY, BEING A PRIVATE PROPERTY, INTERFERE WITH THE ANY KIND OF ROADWAY? I MEAN, THAT'S THAT'S ALREADY KIND OF A CONGESTED, NARROW AREA WITH THAT DAYCARE RIGHT ACROSS WITH HEADING INTO RANCHO. PEOPLE CUTTING THROUGH THERE ON ON ON 48 OR WHATEVER THAT SECTION IS CALLED. IS ARE WE TYING OUR HANDS IN THAT WAY BY ALLOWING IT TO BE SOMEBODY'S PRIVATE PROPERTY AND NOT ALLOWING APPROPRIATE ACCESS? WHAT COULD BE STREETS WHERE THEY COULD PUT STREET ACCESSES OR SOMETHING TO GET TO THE APARTMENT COMPLEX? LET'S JUST USE THAT FOR A YOU KNOW, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. AND IT WAS RAISED DURING COUNCIL BECAUSE THEY WERE CURIOUS AS TO THE EAST WEST CONNECTION TO BUSINESS TO 88. RIGHT. AND WHAT WE'VE DISCOVERED IS THIS IS NOT THE MOST LOGICAL AREA FOR THAT CONNECTION, BUT A LITTLE HIGHER WHERE THE TRACTOR SUPPLY STORE IS. THERE IS OTHER LAND THAT IF THE CITY HAD A PUBLIC PURPOSE TO DO AN EAST WEST CONNECTOR, WE WOULD PUT THAT ON OUR MASTER STREET PLAN, THOROUGHFARE PLAN. AND THOSE THAT WERE TO REZONE AND REPLAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO LAND PRESERVATION FOR STREETS. BUT IN THIS INSTANCE, AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION, I DON'T SEE WHERE THE CITY COULD REQUIRE A PRIVATE OWNER TO, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? USE THEIR PROPERTY FOR A PUBLIC STREET IF THERE'S NO PUBLIC NEED TO CONNECT AT THAT POINT. SO WITH THE ALIGNMENTS, YEAH, THE QUESTION WAS ASKED EVEN AT COUNCIL AND WE LOOKED AT THE PLAN LAYOUT AND BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE, THE DEVELOPMENT, THE CAR WASH AND EVERYTHING HAPPENED TO THE WEST THIS IS NOT THE MOST LOGICAL CONNECTION RIGHT AT THIS PARTICULAR SITE. OKAY. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER COMMENTS, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN UP FOR. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE LAND OWNER OR THE SOON TO BE LAND OWNER [INAUDIBLE]. WOULD YOU LIKE TO. WOULD YOU PLEASE COME TO THE MIC? THANK YOU SO MUCH. HI, MY NAME IS PATSY GARCIA. THAT'S MY SON IN LAW, STEVEN LANZILLO. AND I DIDN'T KNOW WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THIS JUST TO PURCHASE SOME LAND. I MEAN, OUR PLAN IS TO BUILD A BARN. THE BARN IS NOT FOR ANIMALS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT'S A LOT TO STORE THEIR THEIR CAMPER. MY HUSBAND HAS A LOT OF TRAILERS THAT HE HAS SCATTERED ALL OVER BRAZORIA COUNTY TO STORE THAT. AND THEN LATER ON, IT'S A HOME THAT THEY'RE WANTING TO BUILD FOR THEMSELF. AS YOU KNOW, THEY'RE OUTGROWING THEIR HOME AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. HOW MUCH LATER ON? WELL, WHAT TIME FRAME ARE Y'ALL TALKING ABOUT? WE'RE MAYBE THE END OF NEXT YEAR, IF THAT. [00:15:03] FOR THE BARN OR THE HOME OR BOTH? TO START THE BARN. AND HOW CLOSE ON THE HEELS OF THE BARN WILL THE HOME COME? THAT I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. SO AS PART OF THIS, MIND YOU, THE COMMISSION HAS CONCERNS ON YOUR YOUR TIME IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT, YOUR SCHEDULE. AND THAT'S ONE THING THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO COMMIT TO IS A TIME SCHEDULE BECAUSE YOUR PERMIT WILL BE GOOD FOR SIX MONTHS TO A YEAR. AND SOMETIMES WE CAN WE CAN EXTEND THAT BY SIX MONTHS OR A YEAR, BUT IT WOULD HELP US TO FUTURE PLAN IT THAT WAY. THERE IS NO SURPRISES. SO SAY THAT WHEN WE BUILT THE BARN WITHIN THAT YEAR, THE HOUSE WILL BE BUILT, I'LL TELL YOU THAT. SO I THINK WITHIN ONE YEAR IT'S REASONABLE WE CAN ACCOMPLISH THAT WITH THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING CODES BETWEEN FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE STANDPOINT. YEAH. I MEAN, MY CONCERN, IF I MAY SAY, IS THAT WE'RE TAKING PROPERTY THAT COULD BE REVENUE GENERATING FOR THE CITY AND ESSENTIALLY INITIALLY AT LEAST TURNING IT INTO A PRIVATE STORAGE FACILITY, THAT THAT'S THAT CAN THEN BE, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, SUBJECT TO LESS REVENUE AND FOR THE CITY FOR TAX PURPOSES. AND I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED WHY I GUESS Y'ALL WERE LOOKING AT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IF YOU KNEW YOU WANTED TO BUILD A HOME. WHEN WE SAW THAT, IT SAID COMMERCIAL SLASH RESIDENTIAL. ONCE WE DID THE CONTRACT, WE DIDN'T REALIZE THAT IT WAS ONLY COMMERCIAL. SO WHEN WE ACTUALLY LOOKED IT UP ON HAR, IT HAD BOTH OF THEM ON THERE. SO THAT WAS THE INTEREST ON WHY WE WERE LOOKING AT PURCHASING IT. AND IT'S NOT JUST GOING TO BE LIKE TO STORE STUFF. I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO USE IT TO HAVE PARTIES, BIRTHDAY PARTIES FOR THE LITTLE ONES. YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT JUST GOING TO BE FOR LIKE JUNK, YOU KNOW, NOTHING LIKE THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? THEN WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE REZONING. I'LL MOVE THAT WE REZONE 1.6 ACRES OF THE 7.2. IS THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING? IS IT FOR RESIDENTIAL 1.67 ACRES? I'LL SECOND IT. IF THERE'S NO SECOND TO REZONE 1.67 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT SINGLE FAMILY 7.2 RESIDENTIAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2927 NORTH VALDERAS ANGLETON, TEXAS APPROXIMATELY 625FT NORTH OF HENDERSON ROAD. AND IT'S A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION. SO LET'S TAKE A HAND VOTE ON THIS. ALL IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANY OPPOSED. WE HAVE THREE FOR ONE AGAINST. WE WOULD NEED A UNANIMOUS DECISION, I BELIEVE, TO CARRY. SO WE'LL JUST HAVE TO REPORT THAT BACK TO CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR MEETING. AND I'LL STATE MY REASONS FOR MY NAY VOTE IF YOU WANT FOR THE RECORD. SPECIFICALLY, MY MAIN CONCERN IS THAT IT'S ONLY ON THE MARKET FOR 45 DAYS AS A COMMERCIAL, SO I FEEL LIKE WE'VE NOT GIVEN A BUSINESS TIME OR OPPORTUNITY TO COME IN AND MAKE THIS A REVENUE GENERATING PROPERTY FOR THE CITY THROUGH SALES TAX AND OTHER AVENUES. I FEEL LIKE IT'S ALMOST AS IF WE'RE BEING PRESSURED TO TIE OUR OWN HANDS BECAUSE I GUESS SOME REALTOR DECIDED THEY WERE GOING TO TRY TO SELL THIS AS COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL. SO NOW YOU KNOW, WE'RE BEING PETITIONED TO CHANGE IT INTO SOMETHING THAT IT NEVER WAS FOR A PROBLEM WE DIDN'T CREATE. IT'S THE REALTOR HERE. NO, SIR. BECAUSE, I MEAN, THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN VACANT FOR 25 YEARS. YES, SIR. VACANT, BUT NOT FOR SALE. RIGHT. WELL, I DON'T KNOW NF GROUP. I MEAN IT'S BEEN. NF GROUP IS THE GROUP THAT BUILT THE DAYCARE ACROSS THE STREET. [00:20:12] JUST FOR THE RECORD, SHE WAS REPORTING THE HISTORY ON THE PROPERTY. THERE WERE SOME DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT LIMITED THE USAGE TO DAYCARE AT FIRST AND COMMERCIAL FOR 20 YEARS, AND THAT'S WHY IT HAD NOT DEVELOPED. SO ONCE THOSE GOT LIFTED, I GUESS THEY PUT IT ON THE MARKET. THAT'S JUST FYI. SO IF I'M HEARING YOU CORRECTLY, WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY CONVEYED 25 OR 30 YEARS AGO, THERE WERE DEED RESTRICTIONS ON IT THAT IT COULD ONLY BE USED FOR, WHAT, IN 1995 IT WAS DIVIDED AND THERE WERE COVENANTS ON THE DEED THAT FOR FIVE YEARS IT COULD BE BUILT AS A DAYCARE. AND THEN THE COVENANTS EXPIRED AFTER 20 YEARS, AFTER THE FIVE YEARS IT WAS TO BE BUILT AS A COMMERCIAL OR RETAIL. BUT NOBODY DEVELOPED IT STILL FOR THE 20 YEARS. AND AFTER 20 YEARS THE COVENANTS EXPIRED AND THAT'S 2015 THEY EXPIRED. SO THE OWNER OWNED IT WITH A COVENANT THAT IT ONLY BE USED FOR DAYCARE FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS. AFTER THAT, IT WOULD BE ONLY USED FOR COMMERCIAL. AND AFTER 20 YEARS, ESSENTIALLY IT WOULD BE HELD FREE AND CLEAR. AND AT NO POINT IN TIME DID THE PRESENT OWNER DO ANYTHING WITH THE PROPERTY. OKAY. BUT THE DEED RESTRICTION SAYING IT WOULD BE COMMERCIAL. THAT'S JUST IN LINE WITH THE CITY ZONING. RIGHT. THAT'S NOT IT WASN'T ZONED, I DON'T THINK, IN 95. OKAY. BECAUSE IT WAS ANNEXED IN AFTERWARDS AND I BELIEVE IT WAS ALL O'FARRELL PROPERTY AND HE HAD THOSE COVENANTS PUT IN IN THE 1995 DEED. OKAY. AND HE HE ALSO HE ALSO DID THAT RESIDENTIAL ACROSS THE WAY, THE RANCHO ISABELLA SUBDIVISION. BUT I MEAN, IT GOT DEVELOPED. BUT THE OTHER STUFF THIS WAY, IT JUST HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED AS COMMERCIAL STILL. BY THE PERSON WHO OWNED IT. RIGHT. AND THEY COULD DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO WITH IT. RIGHT. HOLD IT INDEFINITELY. YES. SELL IT. SUBJECT TO THE CITY ZONING OR SELL IT. AND TRY TO REZONE IT THEMSELVES OR. OKAY. AND THE CURRENT OWNER IS ACTUALLY THE ONE THAT PROVIDED THE AFFIDAVIT. UM, FOR THE APPLICATION TO REQUEST IT. THE GARCIAS ARE JUST THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO PURCHASE IT IF IT GETS REZONED. I DON'T SEE AN AFFIDAVIT IN MY PACKET, AM I? IT'S JUST BEEN RECEIVED. OKAY. THE COMPANY IS LOCATED, I THINK, IN THE WOODLANDS AND THEY HAD A LITTLE BIT OF ISSUES HAVING IT OVERNIGHTED OR BY THE MAIL OR SOME KIND OF COMPLICATION. SO THE GARCIAS TOOK ADDITIONAL STEPS TO GET IT TO US TODAY. WELL, THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS FOR THEM TO EXPAND THE DAYCARE ACROSS THE STREET. THAT'S WHY UM, AND I GUESS THEY'VE MOVED TO THE WOODLANDS NOW. THE NF? IS THAT THE NF GROUP? SO THE AFFIDAVIT, JUST FOR PURPOSES OF THE RECORD, IS JUST TO ALLOW THEM TO COME BEFORE US TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION THAT WE'RE HAVING BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS. RIGHT. AT PRESENT. CORRECT. OKAY. THAT'S REQUIRED. I GOT YOU. YEAH, BECAUSE THEY WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO BE DOING THIS BUT DID NOT COME DOWN HERE TO DO IT AND HAVE OWNER'S CONSENT. RIGHT. SO. OKAY THEN IF THERE IS NO OTHER DISCUSSION FOR THIS, WE'LL GO TO ITEM NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE [3. Discussion and possible action on Ashland Section Three Preliminary Plat] ASHLAND SECTION THREE PRELIMINARY PLAT. AND JUST ON THE LAST ITEM THAT GOES BEFORE THE COUNCIL ON TUESDAY AT 6 P.M.. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THIS COMING TUESDAY? YES, SIR. ON THE 26TH, A WEEK FROM TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO THANK YOU. WE HAVE A SERIES OF PLATS BEFORE YOU FOR THE ASHLAND DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS PARTICULARLY SECTION THREE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 75 LOTS FOUR BLOCKS, EIGHT RESERVES FOR 19.4, TWO ACRES FOR SECTION THREE. [00:25:02] AS YOU KNOW, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR THE PROPERTY. IT'S SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN TERMS OF LOT SIZES AND CONFIGURATIONS. WE PUT SECTION THREE AND SECTION SIX CLOSE TOGETHER ON THE AGENDA FOR THE PURPOSES OF COORDINATION. THESE ARE 55 FOOT LOTS ON AVERAGE. IN SOME INSTANCES ON THE CORNER LOTS YOU'LL SEE BIGGER LOTS TYPICALLY. AND SOME OF THE CURVATURE LOTS MIGHT BE 80FT WIDE ON THE FRONTAGE, BUT THE MINIMUM ON THESE LOTS WOULD BE 55FT. THE PROPERTY ACCESS OFF OF AMADINE DRIVE ONE OF THE RIGHT OF WAYS OFF OF SAPPHIRE, WHICH THE SCHOOL IS SERVED OFF OF. THEY ARE COMING BEFORE YOU FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. WE ACTUALLY HAVE SENT THE PLAN TO OUR CITY ENGINEER AND HAVE COPIED YOU ON THE COMMENTS FROM THE CITY ENGINEER. AND IF YOU WOULD ROLL UP TO THE CONCEPT PLAN, WHICH IS THE COLORFUL MAP, JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHERE THE SITE EXISTS. SECTION THREE. SECTION THREE. OKAY. AND IF YOU SEE SECTION THREE THERE SORT OF LIKE IN THE BULL'S EYE CENTER TO THE LEFT OF THE CENTER WHERE IT ACTUALLY EXITS. SO THAT'S JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHERE IT SITS ON THE PLAN. THE PLAT WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE IN TERMS OF WE'RE TRACKING TOTAL LOTS THAT FALL INTO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES, THE 55 FOOT LOTS IN TERMS OF THE PRODUCT. THE CITY ENGINEER CAME BACK WITH A NUMBER OF COMMENTS IN WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS RESPONDED TO THE COMMENTS, WHICH ARE TEXTUAL IN NATURE. AND THEN WE'RE OF COURSE, ENSURING THAT THOSE TEXTUALS ARE CLEARED. AND THAT'S THE IDEA IS BEFORE COUNCIL TAKES ACTION THAT THAT BE DONE. SO YOU'LL NOTICE THAT IN THE RECOMMENDATION AS PART OF THE ASHLAND PLAN, AS YOU RECALL, THEY ARE STILL UNDER REVIEW WITH ADD AND SPEAKING WITH THE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT. I THINK WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS WORKING ON IT IN PHASES TO ONE OF THE PRIORITY SITES IN FIRST CONSTRUCTION WILL PROBABLY BE ISD SCHOOLS IN WHICH IS ON THE AGENDA. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT LATER. BUT JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA, THOSE ARE CONSIDERED THE REFERRAL AGENCIES SUCH AS THE ANGLETON DRAINAGE DISTRICT, BRAZORIA FLOOD CONTROL AND THE DRAINAGE. THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE THE DRAINAGE PLAN, MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN FOR THE PROJECT AND THEN ON THE STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, ANY ACCESS OFF OF 521, AS YOU KNOW, WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT REGARDING ANY TYPE OF DRIVEWAYS, SIGNALIZATION, TURN LANES, DECEL LANES AND WHAT HAVE YOU. THE INTERNAL STREETS ARE SUBJECT TO BRAZORIA COUNTY IN TERMS OF MAINTENANCE. AND APPROVAL. SO ALL OF THOSE REFERRAL AGENCIES WERE PUTTING A CONDITION THAT THEIR APPROVALS BE MET. AND TYPICALLY WHEN WE RECORD THESE PLATS, THOSE SIGNATURES ARE ON THE PLATS CERTIFIED BY OUR CITY ENGINEER, THAT ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET AND THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN GET RECORDATION AND TYPICALLY CONSTRUCTION. SO YOU'RE ASKING TO FORWARD THIS TO COUNCIL WITH A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION THAT ALL REFERRAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS BE MET AND THAT THE CITY ENGINEER'S FINAL SIGN OFF OF ALL REQUIREMENTS IS DONE IN THE END AS WELL. DO YOU ANTICIPATE THAT BEING THE CASE BY CITY COUNCIL MEETING NEXT TUESDAY? YES. JUST TYPICALLY BEEN THE ADVICE OF STAFF AND THE LEGAL ATTORNEY THAT WE'RE PROCEEDING ACCORDINGLY TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THERE IS A SPA AGREEMENT THAT'S ALSO ON THE TABLE THAT WE HAVE TO APPROVE ALSO THAT DEALS WITH THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND US WORKING WITH THE MUD ON THE UTILITIES AND EVERYTHING. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK THINGS ARE PROGRESSING NORMALLY AS WE SEE FIT. JUST KNOW THAT IN ORDER FOR THEM TO MOVE DIRT, THEY HAVE TO HAVE ALL OF THESE SIGNATURE OF THE APPROVALS. CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. AND WE DO HAVE REPRESENTATION. CAITLIN IS HERE WITH THE ENGINEERING TEAM THAT PREPARED THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN DISCUSSION, THAT'D BE FINE. THANK YOU. MOVE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING. IT'S JUST A PUBLIC MEETING. WELL, I MOVE TO HAVE CAITLIN ANSWER QUESTIONS. [00:30:03] WE NEED TO GET US SOME ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER FOR OUR MEMBERS. PLEASE. MY QUESTIONS. DO YOU WANT TO JUST GO AHEAD AND PUT IT ON? I'M CAITLIN KING. I'M WITH META PLANNING AND DESIGN. WERE THE APPLICANT FOR THE ASHLAND PRELIMINARY PLATS THAT ARE ON THE AGENDA. MY QUESTIONS ARE WHEN I GUESS I'M SEEING IN THESE DOCUMENTS A MIX OF LOT SIZES. BUT SO FAR, EVERYTHING THAT'S COME IN FRONT OF US HAS NOT BEEN A MIX. IT'S ALL BEEN SMALL. SO WHEN ARE WE GOING TO SEE LIKE THE 70 AND 80 FOOT? SO THOSE WILL COME A LITTLE BIT LATER IN THE DEVELOPMENT. I BELIEVE OUR NEXT SECTION, OUR NEXT PHASE IS GOING TO BE SEVEN THROUGH NINE AND THERE IS AT LEAST ONE POT OF 60 THAT I'M AWARE OF OVER IN THAT SECTION. USUALLY THE LARGER PRODUCTS COME A LITTLE BIT LATER JUST FROM, I GUESS, THE MONEY PERSPECTIVE. THE SMALLER LOTS KIND OF COME FIRST TYPICALLY, BUT THEY ARE SLATED TO COME IN THE NEXT ROUND OF PLOTS THAT WE HAVE. BUT THE LOTS ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. I HAVE A QUESTION, BUT IT'S MORE FOR YOU. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. SO WE'VE HAD THIS BEFORE US FOR MONTH AFTER MONTH WHILE THIS PROCEEDS AND WE'VE GOT ALL OF THESE YOU GOT TO HAVE ADD YOU GOT TO HAVE BRAZORIA COUNTY, YOU GOT TO HAVE THE HIGHWAY PATROL. WE HAD GIVEN APPROVAL TO THAT FOR IT TO MOVE FORWARD. WHY ARE WE TAKING THIS ONE SECTION AT A TIME? IT'S TYPICALLY HOW THEY WOULD DO DEVELOPMENT BY DIVIDING A MASS DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS INTO DIFFERENT SECTIONS. AND I THINK I THINK THE QUESTION IS, IS IT NOT WHY ALL OF THESE THREE, SIX, FOUR, FIVE ARE ALL THE SAME? WHY DON'T WE JUST TAKE IT IN ONE? WHY ARE WE DOING IT IN EACH A MOTION ON EACH SECTION, WHY NOT JUST HAVE THEM TOGETHER? I MEAN. JUST TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST, IF WE DON'T APPROVE, IT'S STILL GOING THROUGH ANYWAY. ABOUT THE SCHOOL THAT'S TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN THE SUBDIVISION. BUT ALL THE POWERS THAT SEEM TO BE HAVING ANY CONTROL OVER THIS. OR ADD THE COUNTY. THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT. THAT TYPE OF THING. I'M JUST I'M UNCLEAR WHY IT'S NECESSARY FOR THIS BODY TO. YES, YES, YES ON EVERY LITTLE SECTION. RIGHT. AND I THINK THE QUESTION IS POSED IN TWO DIFFERENT WAYS TO ANSWER THE QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT IT CAN BE APPROVED ALL AT ONCE. WE HAVE TO TREAT THEM AS SEPARATE APPLICATIONS. THE WAY THE PLATTING WORKS, THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS WORKS. YOU CAN COMBINE YOUR ACTIONS ON THE TABLE IN TERMS OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED TO YOU. NOW, I THINK MISS SPOOR, YOU'RE ASKING, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF IT? THE EXERCISE THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH IS BECAUSE IT'S THE WAY THE LDC IS LAID OUT, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE OR TO DENY A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON THESE PLATS. AND THEY MADE YOU AS A TECHNICAL ADVISOR TO THEM, AS A PLANNING COMMISSION, TO LOOK AT IT FROM YOUR LAND, USE EXPERTISE AND INPUT FROM A PUBLIC CITIZEN STANDPOINT BEFORE THEY MADE THE FINAL DECISION. BUT IT'S JUST HOW THE STATE CODE IS LAID OUT. IN SOME CITIES, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON SUBDIVISIONS. HERE IN ANGLETON THEY DO IT A LITTLE DIFFERENT WAY. COUNCIL WANTS TO BE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS AND TO MAKE THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON THE PLANNING PROCESS IN OTHER CITIES. IT STOPS RIGHT THERE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND IT GOES RIGHT INTO RECORDATION AND INTO THE PROCESS. IT'S JUST THE WAY BUSINESS IS DONE IN ANGLETON. AND, YOU KNOW, WE YOU KNOW, IN MANY CITIES STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED BECAUSE A LOT OF COUNCILS DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE WEEDS IN TERMS OF THIS SORT OF THINGS. THEY LOOK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS THE PROFESSIONAL HAND ON PLANNING AND THE WAY LAND IS DEVELOPED. WHEN IT COMES TO PLATTING. THEY STILL HANDLE, OF COURSE, REZONING AND ANNEXATIONS AND THOSE THINGS ARE LEGISLATOR LEGISLATURE IN NATURE, LEGISLATION IN [00:35:04] NATURE. BUT PLANNING IS JUST THE WAY IT'S SET UP IN YOUR, I GUESS, CHARTER AND THE WAY THE CITY OPERATES. THAT COUNCIL MAKES THE FINAL AUTHORITY. OKAY. AND BY RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF, BECAUSE MY RECOMMENDATIONS ARE ALWAYS GO FORTH BECAUSE I MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE COMP PLAN THAT'S OUTDATED THAT WE'RE TRYING TO UPDATE TYPICALLY. AND THEN I'LL LET YOU KNOW, HEY, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT LAND USE PRINCIPLES IS NOT A GOOD IDEA TO CHANGE THAT PROPERTY FROM COMMERCIAL TO YOU KNOW, WE'LL GIVE YOU MY PROFESSIONAL, BUT YOU DON'T ALWAYS HAVE TO LISTEN TO ME. SAME WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. THEY'LL REVERSE THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS FAIR BECAUSE SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE LOOKING AT IT WITH A DIFFERENT SET OF EYES. SO THEY'RE ALLOWING YOU TO PUT YOUR SET OF EYES ON THE PLAT AND TO GIVE YOUR INPUT. OKAY. AND I'M NOT SAYING THEY WOULD IGNORE THAT PER SE. YOU KNOW, THEY LISTEN TO YOU GUYS. YOU KNOW, YOUR ACTION. I'LL HAVE YOUR VERBATIM AND THEY'LL LOOK AT THAT AND THEN THEY CAN LOOK AT THE VIDEO ALSO. BUT YOUR [INAUDIBLE] DOES MATTER IN MY EYES, SO I WANT YOU TO. THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR IT BECAUSE I'M NOT FOR 55 FOOT LOTS. I KNOW THAT. IT'S IF IT MEETS A SUBDIVISION, PLAT REQUIREMENTS STAFF IS GOING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. LEGAL IS GOING TO ADVISE YOU. HEY, IT IS THE LEGAL THING TO DO. IF IT MET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS. AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, THAT THE COUNTY'S SUBDIVISION LOT SIZE WAS 80 MINIMUM. AND THAT DOESN'T TOUCH THIS? YES, MA'AM. IT'S NOT IT'S NOT A ZONING CONSIDERATION. THAT'S UNFORTUNATE. YEAH. YES. SO THEN IT'S BACK. IT'S BACK TO US. AND AGAIN, I'M NOT FOR IT, EVEN IF IT IS IN THE ETJ. YEAH, THERE'S SOME SINCE IT'S IN THE ETJ. THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE BEYOND OUR CONTROL. SO I GUESS THAT WE CAN DENY IT OR WITH A LACK OF A MOTION. UNLESS SOMEBODY WANTS TO. I MEAN, THERE'S ONLY FOUR OF US. SO WE'VE GOT ANYTHING THAT WE DO, IT'S GOING TO BE APPROVED. IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE UNANIMOUS. AND WE YOU KNOW, WE BASICALLY ALWAYS CITE WHAT THE STATE REQUIREMENTS ARE. AND AS A CITY WITH THESE PLATS, WE REQUIRE TO, OF COURSE, MOVE THE RECORD ALONE. AND I WOULD ALWAYS SUBMIT TO YOU AND BEG OF YOU TO MAKE SOME ACTION ON THE PLAT, WHETHER OR NOT YOU VOTED IT UP OR DOWN, BUT SO THAT I CAN COMPLETE THE RECORD. IT HELPS ME BECAUSE ANY DENIALS I HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE BY STATE LAW THE REASONS AND CONDITIONS OF THE DENIAL TO THE APPLICANT. AND THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO TO PRESENT CORRECTIONS TO WHATEVER THOSE DEFICIENCIES ARE AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL. SO WHAT MR. SPRIGGS WAS SAYING WAS HE WOULD LIKE US TO HAVE A MOTION, THEN I AM WILLING TO AND I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN DO THIS, MAKE A MOTION TO DENY T HE APPROVAL ON THE BASIS OF TWO SMALLER LOT SIZES, BUT WE HAVE NO SAY SO IN THE SIZE OF THE LOT. IT'S CATTY, THEN I DENY. THEN I'M MAKING A MOTION THAT WE DENY AND REVERT TO THE COUNTY. AND. AND. CAN I ASK YOU A QUICK QUESTION? YES, MA'AM. THIS IS ONLY FOR US TO SEE IF IT FALLS ESSENTIALLY WITHIN THE METES AND BOUNDS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT A WHATEVER CITY COUNCIL A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO ENTERED INTO WITH THIS DEVELOPER. CORRECT. SO IN MANY WAYS, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BECOMES YOUR ZONING CODE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. SO COUNCIL TOOK A LEGISLATIVE ACTION ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVED THIS DISTRICT BASED ON THE DA. AND THAT'S THE DOCUMENT THAT WE HOLD TO IS THE DA OR ANY TYPE OF STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS ON THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. IT IS NOT IN THE ZONING DISTRICT. ZONING AUTHORITY REGULATIONS DOES NOT, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT, TODAY. AND WHAT STAFF'S COMMENTS ARE SAYING IS THAT SUBJECT TO THE CITY ENGINEERING COMMENTS, CONCERNS AND THERE ARE CONDITIONS THAT STILL FOLLOW [00:40:02] THESE PLATS THROUGH THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT. THIS PLAT MEETS THAT WHATEVER 2019 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR WHATEVER IT WAS, THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED. YES, JUNE OF 2023. AND THEN ALSO WE WILL LET YOU KNOW IF IT GOES BEYOND THE DA. IN OTHER WORDS, IF IT'S 2370 SOMETHING LOTS, 10% OF THAT CANNOT GO OVER THE 55 FOOT LOTS, WHICH WOULD BE THE 238 LOTS. WE'RE GOING TO KEEP TRACK OF THAT. IF IT EVER GOES OVER, WE WILL LET YOU KNOW. OR IF THERE COMES A NEED IN THE FUTURE WHERE WE LET THE APPLICANT KNOW, HEY, THAT REQUIRES A DA AMENDMENT OR OF ANY SORT BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. BUT THE DA IS THE GUIDING DOCUMENT IN THIS INSTANCE. SO I HEARD. I HEARD SOMETHING ABOUT. I MADE A MOTION. SO IF A MOTION TO DENY THE APPROVAL OF SECTION THREE PRELIMINARY PLAT. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND TO DENY. WE'LL VOTE BY RAISE OF HAND. ALL IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ALL OPPOSED. SAME SIGN. SO I'M ASSUMING THERE'S TWO DENIALS AND TWO APPROVALS, RIGHT? OKAY. THAT'S FAIR. I'LL MAKE AN AMENDED MOTION IF THE CHAIR WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN IT. OF COURSE. I MOVE WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS COMPLYING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY OUR CITY COUNCIL AND THIS DEVELOPER ONCE ALL COMMENTS, CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE CLEARED FROM ALL REFERRING OR REFERRAL AGENCIES OF THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHLAND, SECTION THREE AND FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL. IS THERE A MOTION? I GUESS WE'LL TAKE ANOTHER VOTE. I'LL SECOND IT. UM. ALL IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. SO WHERE ARE WE GOING TO GO WITH IT? I MEAN. SO, I MEAN, THAT'S FINE. PERSONALLY, I THINK YOU OUGHT TO JUST PUT THEM ALL TOGETHER AND JUST WALK IT OUT OF HERE. I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO GO AROUND AND AROUND IN A CIRCLE OVER IT. ALL OPPOSED. SAME SIGN. BUT WITH THAT COMMENT, I WILL SAY THAT SOME OF THE PLATS MAY HAVE 60 FOOT LOTS IN IT AND ALL OF THEM ARE NOT 50 AND 50 FOOT LOTS IN EACH PLAT. SO TO MAKE THAT A BLANKET STATEMENT I THINK IS DIFFICULT. SOME OF THEM MIGHT BE 70, 80FT LOTS. SO BUT NOT ON THIS AGENDA. THERE WERE SOME, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, ON THE CORNER LOTS. AND IN THE CURVATURES, YOU'RE GOING TO END UP WITH LOTS THAT ARE LARGER. GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY. YEAH. SO IF I MAY, THE LOT TYPICAL THAT WE PROVIDE IS JUST THAT IT'S THE LOT. IT'S THE AVERAGE OF EVERYTHING WHEN WE'RE DESIGNING, THE AVERAGE LOT IS GOING TO BE A 55 FOOT WIDTH. BUT ONCE YOU GET ON THE CORNER LOTS, WE DESIGN THEM TO BE A LITTLE BIT WIDER, USUALLY 10 TO 15FT TO ACCOMMODATE ANY KIND OF SIDE SETBACKS OR ANY STREET SETBACKS, ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SOME OF THE CURVE STREETS WILL BE A LITTLE BIT WIDER AND THEN TYPICALLY CUL DE SAC LOTS. WHILE THE WIDTH MAY BE 55, THE AREA USUALLY ENDS UP BEING GREATER THAN THE AVERAGE. CAITLIN IN THE FUTURE FOR THE FUTURE PHASES THAT YOU GUYS SUBMIT IS ANY WAY THAT WE CAN GET THE TABLE THAT SUMMARIZES THAT. I BELIEVE WE DO PUT A LOT IN BLOCK TABLE. THERE IS ONE IN THERE, BUT IT DOESN'T SPELL OUT THE LOT WIDTH. YEAH, WE CAN ADD. WE CAN ADD. BUT I THINK SINCE YOU HAVE THE COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY, I TRIED DOING IT AND I TELL YOU, IT PROBABLY TAKES ME A FULL WEEK TO DO ALL OF THESE. YES, I WILL. I WAS TRYING TO PREPARE THAT FOR COUNCIL, BUT IF YOU HAVE THE SOFTWARE TO KIND OF KICK THOSE NUMBERS OUT TO US AND THAT WAY WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING AT IT, THEY CAN QUANTIZE THEM. OKAY. AND THEN AS WE TRACK THESE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WE CAN DO SOME HOUSEKEEPING AND CHECKS AND BALANCES ON THE PERCENTAGES. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. LET'S ATTEMPT TO GET THIS MEETING OVER. WE'LL GO TO ITEM FOR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE ACTUAL SECTION SIX PRELIMINARY PLAT. [4. Discussion and possible action on Ashland Section Six Preliminary Plat] MR. SPRIGGS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? GIVE ME JUST A MOMENT TO FLIP. YOU GOT SIX. SEE IF YOU CAN FIND IT ON THAT ONE. OKAY, SO SECTION SIX CONNECTS TO THREE. THE PARAMETERS ARE VERY SIMILAR. THE AVERAGE LOT WOULD BE THE 55 FOOT LOT. AND SAME AS I STATED BEFORE, THE CONDITIONS WERE TEXTUAL BY THE CITY ENGINEER. [00:45:04] THE REFERRAL AGENCY CONDITION STILL FOLLOWS THIS PARTICULAR PLAT REQUEST AS WELL. SO WE'RE ASKING YOU TO APPROVE THE PLAT WITH THOSE CONDITIONS AS NOTED AND FORWARDED TO COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION FOR SECTION SIX. CHAIR ENTERTAINS A MOTION. I MOVE, WE RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AND COMMENTS ARE CLEARED BY ALL REFERRAL AGENCIES AND OUR CITY ENGINEER OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SECTION SIX OF THE ASHLAND DEVELOPMENT AS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE EXECUTED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL CONSIDERATION. AND I WILL SAY ABOUT HALF OF THESE DO HAVE LOTS THAT ARE MORE THAN 55, BUT THEY'RE KIND OF SPORADIC. AND I DON'T HAVE A TOTAL NUMBER FOR YOU. BUT IF YOU WOULD GLANCE AT IT, YOU CAN SEE WHAT I'M LOOKING AT. BUT THAT'S JUST MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU. I'LL SECOND IT. AND ANY DISCUSSION? THANK YOU. I WILL ASK IF THERE IS ANY REASON SINCE THIS GROUP NEVER HAS HAD THE ABILITY TO ZONE LOT SIZE IN THIS AREA. IS THERE ANY REASON TO BE OPPOSED TO THESE APPROVALS OTHER THAN MAKING A PERSONAL STATEMENT? I THINK YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THAT AS A COMMISSIONER. YES, SIR. OKAY. THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ALL OPPOSED. SAME SIGN. TWO TWO. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER FIVE DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ASHLAND SECTION FOUR PRELIMINARY PLAT. [5. Discussion and possible action on Ashland Section Four Preliminary Plat] MR. SPRIGGS, THANK YOU. THIS IS ASHLAND SECTION FOUR. GRACE. IF YOU WOULD CLICK THAT ONE AND GO TO THE OVERALL CONCEPT PLAN SO THAT WE CAN SEE WHERE IT RESIDES. AND THAT ONE WOULD BE TO THE BOTTOM RIGHT OF THAT CORE AREA. SECTION FIVE. RIGHT. I'M SORRY. SECTION FOUR. SECTION FOUR. SECTION FOUR TO THE LEFT OF FIVE. THIS REQUEST, OF COURSE, IS VERY SIMILAR IN NATURE, ASHLAND, WITH THE SAME LEVEL OF CONDITIONS AND REVIEW THAT WE'VE JUST MENTIONED TO YOU. THIS ONE HAS A COMBINATION OF 50 AND 55 FOOT LOTS AS PART OF SECTION FOUR. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. SO THIS ONE, YOU WILL SEE THE 50 50 FOOT PRODUCT, 55 FOOT LOTS MAJORITY ON THESE PARTICULAR LOTS. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SOME OF THE CORNER LOTS. STAFF HAS THE SAME RECOMMENDATION ON SECTION FOUR. CHAIR ENTERTAINS A MOTION. 88 LOTS AND SIX RESERVES AND FIVE BLOCKS. SO THE DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ASHLAND SECTION FOUR PRELIMINARY PLAT DIES FOR LACK OF A MOTION. AND WITH THAT. MAY I BEG FOR A MOTION. MAY I ASK A QUESTION? YES, MA'AM. IS. DO YOU KNOW WHAT WE'RE AT ON OUR TALLY OF I MEAN, BECAUSE WE'VE GOT SECTION ONE AND TWO, WHICH I KNOW ARE SMALL LOTS. WE'VE JUST DISCUSSED THREE AND SIX AND NOW WE'RE ON FOUR WITH EVEN SMALLER LOTS. AND I'M JUST TRYING TO DO THE CALCULUS IN MY HEAD OF HOW ARE WE REMOTELY APPROACHING THE 10% CUT OFF OF. I'M GOING TO SAY, WELL, DEFINITELY WE'RE NOT OVER THE PERCENTAGES. I'VE BEEN TRACKING THAT. BUT MY TOTALITY, I NEED TO DOUBLE CHECK THAT WITH THE SUBMISSION FROM CAITLIN ON MY TALLY SHEET. BUT I'VE BEEN RUNNING THE NUMBERS. AS I STATED, I JUST WANT TO BE MORE ACCURATE AND IT'S A COMPUTER CALCULATION. I THINK THEY CAN GIVE ME PRETTY QUICK AS YOU SEE THERE ARE SECTIONS ONE AND TWO. [00:50:07] SECTION TWO HAD 50 FOOT LOT. SECTION ONE HAS 60 FOOT LOTS. RIGHT. CAITLIN WELL IT'S ON IT'S ON YOUR, YOUR CONCEPT PLAN AS WELL IN TERMS OF THOSE TWO. SO WE ARE NOT OVER THE 10% THRESHOLD AS I STATED, BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE IN THE APPROXIMATELY 2400 I'M SORRY, 240 LOTS IN EACH CATEGORY TO HAVE GONE OVER THAT 10%. OKAY. AND WE'RE NOT THERE YET IN 50 FOOT, 55FT OR 60 FOOT LOTS. BECAUSE SECTION TWO IS ALREADY LIKE ALMOST 90, RIGHT? 50 FOOT LOTS. AND NOW THIS IS HOW MANY, IF I MAY ADD, IT WAS DEFINED AS A MINIMUM PERCENTAGE. SO THE MINIMUM PERCENTAGE OF 50 PERMITTED IS 10%. HOWEVER, NOT MORE THAN 50% OF THE DEVELOPMENT CAN BE 50 FOOT AND THEN SO ON AND SO FORTH. SO 55 TO 59 IS ALSO A MINIMUM OF 10%. OKAY. SO BY ALL APPEARANCES, WE ARE HEADING IN THE DIRECTION OF 50% BEING 60 FOOT OR SMALLER. THAT'S WHERE IT'S GOING TO END UP. THAT'S BECAUSE THAT'S MAXIMIZING YOUR DOLLAR. BUT THAT'S OUR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. SO I MOVE WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ALL CONDITIONS AND COMMENTS BEING CLEARED AND MET BY ALL REFERRAL AGENCIES OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SECTION FOUR. IS THAT WHAT WE'RE ON, FOUR OF THE ASHLAND DEVELOPMENT AS MEETING THE LETTER OF OUR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL CONSIDERATION. RATHER THAN ASK FOR A SECOND, I'LL JUST SECOND IT AND WE'LL TAKE A VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR. RIGHT HAND. ALL OPPOSED. SAME SIGN, SAME VOTE. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ASHLAND SECTION FIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT. [6. Discussion and possible action on Ashland Section Five Preliminary Plat] THANK YOU. I THINK YOU SAW RIGHT THERE ON THE CONCEPT PLAN, SECTION FIVE IS NEXT TO SECTION FOUR, JUST EAST OF IT. AND THESE ARE 102 LOTS. THESE ARE THE 50 FOOT LOT PRODUCT. AND SAME CONDITIONS WOULD APPLY HERE FOR THE TEXTUAL CHANGES ALL BEING CLEARED AND ALL CITY ENGINEER COMMENTS BEING MET. OF COURSE, THE REFERRAL AGENCY CONDITIONS STILL LIE ON THE ASHLAND DEVELOPMENT, ALL OF THE VARIOUS SECTIONS. MY QUESTION. YES, MA'AM? WHY IS THIS DETERMINED? THERE ARE SEVERAL OF THESE. WHY ARE THEY SPECIALTY? I WAS WONDERING THAT TOO. UM, SO THIS SECTION ACTUALLY IS NOT SPECIALTY. THIS IS AN OUTDATED CONCEPT PLAN. AND IF IT WOULD PLEASE THE COMMISSION, WE CAN, WE CAN PROVIDE AN UPDATED ONE THAT WOULD SHOW LOTS [INAUDIBLE] OUT AS WE'VE PROGRESSED. JUST SO YOU GUYS HAVE THE MOST UP TO DATE INFORMATION. TYPICALLY, SPECIALTY AND SPECIALTY AS DEFINED BY THE DA WOULD BE TOWNHOMES, PATIO HOMES, DUPLEXES, ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. BUT I DO WANT TO STRESS THIS IS NOT A SPECIALTY SECTION. THIS IS JUST AN OUTDATED PLAN. THIS WILL BE ON PAR WITH THE OTHER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SECTIONS THAT YOU'VE SEEN BEFORE. THIS ONE'S NOT SPECIALTY. THANK YOU. DID WE HAVE A VOTE ALREADY? I THINK WE DID. WE DID. OKAY. I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE AN UPDATED CONCEPT PLAN. YES, MA'AM, WE CAN DO THAT. THANK YOU. I MOVE WE RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION OF ALL COMMENTS AND REMARKS BEING CLEARED BY ALL REFERRAL AGENCIES AND OUR CITY ENGINEER OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHLAND, SECTION FIVE AND FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL CONSIDERATION. SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ALL OPPOSED. SAME SIGN. TWO TWO. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. [7. Discussion and possible action on the preliminary plat of the Ashland Project Street Dedication #4.] DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE ASHLAND PROJECT STREET DEDICATION NUMBER FOUR. MR. SPRIGGS. THANK YOU. STREET DEDICATION NUMBER FOUR CORRECT IS .97 ACRES. [00:55:03] THIS PARTICULAR PORTION OF SAPPHIRE TRAIL IS BEING BROUGHT TO YOU AS SECTION FOUR STREET DEDICATION FOR ASHLAND. THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE LISTED IN THE REPORT WERE ALL TEXTUAL IN NATURE. WE'RE ASKING THAT YOU WOULD FORWARD THIS STREET DEDICATION OVER TO COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION. THIS PARTICULAR AREA IS IN THAT NORTHERN EASTERN PORTION OF THE SITE, VERY CLOSE TO WHERE THE SCHOOL SITE IS, BUT JUST A LITTLE BIT EAST OF IT. SO IT WOULD NOT TOUCH THE SCHOOL PLAT OF COURSE, THIS PARTICULAR RIGHT OF WAY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE AGREEMENT OF THE COUNTY. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS IT RELATES TO RIGHT OF WAYS AND STREET MAINTENANCE IN THE FUTURE. AND WE'RE ASKING FOR A POSITIVE REFERRAL BACK TO COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION, A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. STREET DEDICATION NUMBER FOUR PRELIMINARY PLAT. CAN YOU CLARIFY SOMETHING FOR ME? YES, MA'AM. THIS IS. THIS IS SAPPHIRE SPRINGS. THIS IS IT'S LIKE CHUNKS. LIKE PIECE OF A PUZZLE. RIGHT AWAY. YES. YEAH, WE'VE ALREADY DONE SAPPHIRE SPRINGS OTHER KIND OF CHUNKS, AND NOW WE'VE PROGRESSED PAST WHERE THE SCHOOL IS GOING TO GO. AND HERE'S THE NEXT PART. YES. AND IN OTHER AREAS YOU'VE DONE STREET DEDICATIONS ONE, TWO AND THREE. THIS IS NUMBER FOUR. CAITLIN, IF YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING, YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO SO. BUT THIS KIND OF GETS YOU OVER TOWARD THE EAST PORTION OF THE SITE. YEAH. IF YOU WANT TO PULL UP THE CONCEPT, I CAN I CAN SHOW YOU WHERE WE'RE AT. BUT YEAH, WE'VE GONE ALL THE WAY UP PAST SECTION ONE AND TWO. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN STREET DEDICATION, SECTION TWO STREET DEDICATION. SECTION THREE KIND OF BROUGHT US TO JUST RIGHT AROUND THE SCHOOL SITE AND THEN STREET DEDICATION FOUR PICKS UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF AT THE SCHOOL SITE AND IT'LL BRING US OVER TO THAT ENTRANCE THAT YOU SEE AT THE NORTH BRINGING US INTO THOSE SECTIONS YOU SAW THIS AFTERNOON. THANK YOU. ARE YOU ENTERTAINING MOTIONS? ARE YOU? YES, MA'AM. I MOVE WE APPROVE THIS PLAT APPLICATION SUBJECT TO SATISFACTION OF ANY ENGINEERING AND REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS, CORRECTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS AND RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION. LET ME HELP YOU OUT. I'LL SECOND IT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT ON THE ASHLAND PROJECT STREET DEDICATION NUMBER FOUR. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE? AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? IT'S UNANIMOUS, I THINK. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE ANGLETON ISD ELEMENTARY NUMBER SEVEN AND JUNIOR HIGH. [8. Discussion and possible action on Angleton ISD Elementary No 7 and Junior High No 2 Final Plat] NUMBER TWO FINAL PLAT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THIS PARTICULAR PLAT. YOU HAVE SEEN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE ELEMENTARY AND JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL. AS YOU KNOW, ANGLETON ISD IS UNDER A SCHEDULE TO MEET THEIR CONSTRUCTION APPROVALS AND WHAT HAVE YOU. THE PLAN ASHLAND PLAN HAS GONE BEFORE THE STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT IN WHICH YOU'VE SEEN THE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE CORRIDOR 521, AS WELL AS WHERE IT WOULD COME IN TO CORAL HAVEN AND ENTER INTO SAPPHIRE SPRINGS IN TERMS OF THE RIGHT OF WAY. SO THERE ARE ACTUALLY, OF COURSE, SEEKING THOSE APPROVALS AND WE'VE GOTTEN SOME UPDATES IN TERMS OF THE ANGLETON DRAINAGE DISTRICT IN WHICH THEY ARE WORKING THROUGH THE APPROVALS AT ADD AS WELL AS THE BRAZORIA COUNTY. AND I THINK THEIR DESIRE IS TO SPLIT THE DEVELOPMENT INTO PHASES, AS I ALLUDED TO EARLIER. AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WOULD BE IN ONE OF THOSE FIRST PHASES OF APPROVAL IN TERMS OF THE UPDATES. WE DO HAVE REPRESENTATION FROM THE ENGINEER PREPARING THE FINAL PLAT THAT'S BEFORE YOU. THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. THE CITY ENGINEER HAS ISSUED THEIR COMMENTS AND THOSE HAVE BEEN CLEARED AND THE REFERRAL AGENCY CONDITIONS STILL LIE ON THIS PARTICULAR PLAT AS PART OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. ALSO, MR. TIM RICHARD IS HERE AS PART OF THE PROJECT AND ABE FROM THE ENGINEERING TEAM IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS OR UPDATES THAT YOU NEED OR REQUIRE. THANK YOU, MR. SPRIGGS. THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. CAN I ASK A QUESTION? YES, MA'AM. AND I KNOW THIS IS SILLY. [01:00:02] PARDON ME IF I'M. IS A SCHOOL ON BOARD WITH THIS? YES, MR. RICHARD, IF YOU DON'T MIND. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M TIM RICHARD. I'M THE BOND PROGRAM MANAGER FOR ANGLETON ISD AND YES, WE ARE ON BOARD WITH THIS. SO A FOLLOW UP QUESTION IS BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE'VE SEEN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT PERMUTATIONS OF THIS. IS THIS JUST THE FINAL ESSENTIALLY THE METES AND BOUNDS OF THE LAND THAT WILL GO TO THE SCHOOL TO THEN CONSTRUCT ON THAT LAND. WHATEVER DESIGN THEY SEE FIT. RIGHT? WELL, WE WELL, ON OUR WAY ON OUR DESIGN, OF COURSE, WE NEEDING APPROVALS AS YOU ALL ALL KNOW FROM THE COUNTY, WE'VE ACTUALLY SUBMITTED DRAWINGS TO THE COUNTY FOR OUR PERMIT. AND THE FIRE MARSHAL, OF COURSE, THAT'S PENDING APPROVAL OF THE DRAINAGE PLAN AS WELL. SO WE'RE WELL ON OUR WAY. SO I'M NOT. OH, NO. MY QUESTION WAS, IS THIS JUST BASICALLY THE FINALIZATION OF YOUR DISTANCES AND YOUR MEASUREMENTS? LIKE THIS IS JUST IT'S THE LAND. THIS IS THIS IS OUR. YEAH, THIS IS FINAL. YES, MA'AM. AND MIND YOU, WE'VE SEEN THE ACCESS, THE STACKING PLANS AND A LOT OF YOUR ISSUES IN TERMS OF CORAL HAVEN, IN TERMS OF ACCESS HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY HAS BEEN EXPANDED AND WIDENED. AND THEN THE QUEUING FROM FM 521, CORAL HAVEN AND SAPPHIRE SPRINGS ARE ALL KIND OF LIKE ON THE LAYOUT PLAN IN WHICH COUNCIL HAS SEEN AS WELL. AND WE FEEL VERY CONFIDENT AND THEY'VE CONVINCED US THAT IT WILL MEET THE STACKING REQUIREMENTS. ARE YOU READY? I'LL MOVE WE APPROVE FINAL PLAT FOR ANGLETON ISD ELEMENTARY NUMBER SEVEN AND JUNIOR HIGH NUMBER TWO SUBJECT TO CONDITION THAT ALL AGENCY APPROVALS BE MET BY APPLICANT AND THE PLAT BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL. I'LL SECOND HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT ON ANGLETON EAST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NUMBER SEVEN AND JUNIOR HIGH NUMBER TWO. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE? AYE. AYE. IT'S UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU. THAT TAKES US THROUGH THE AGENDA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENDANCE AND YOUR INPUT. WE WILL STAND ADJOURNED. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.