Feb 21, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission

THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

WE HAVE TWO

[a. Consider approving San Jacinto Mall Preliminary Replat NO 1, approximately 103.75 acres located southwest of the intersection of Garth Road and East Interstate Highway 10.]

PLATS STARTING WITH CONSIDER APPROVING SAN JACIN MALL.

PRELIMINARY REPL NUMBER ONE, APPROXIMATELY 103.75 ACRES LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF GARTH ROAD AND EAST INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 10.

WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? HELLO.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONER.

MY NAME IS TRISTAN LYON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

SO WE HAVE TWO PLATS ON THE, ON THE DOCK, ON THE AGENDA, LIKE YOU'VE ALREADY MENTIONED.

UH, THE FIRST ONE BEING THE SAN JACINTO MALL.

PRELIMINARY REPL NUMBER ONE, THEY'RE CONSOLIDATING THREE EXISTING TRACKS.

TWO FOR THE, THE MALL REBUILD.

AND UH, THEY'RE, THEY'VE ALREADY DONE REDONE ALL THE EASEMENTS.

THEY MEET ALL THE CRITERIA AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? NO.

DO I HEAR MOTION TO APPROVE? MOVE TO APPROVE.

I'LL SECOND MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

CONSIDER APPROVING HIGHLAND FARMS PRELIMINARY REPL.

[b. Consider approving Highland Farms Preliminary Replat The Cottage Green, approximately 35.91 acres located south of Hunt Road, generally between Garth Road and North Main Street.]

THE COTTAGE COTTAGE GREEN, APPROXIMATELY 35.91 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF HUNT ROAD, GENERALLY BETWEEN GARTH ROAD AND NORTH MAIN.

SO THIS ONE IS TIED TO THE SAME DEVELOPMENT OFF OFF OF HUNT ROAD.

WE ALSO A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FOR MULTIFAMILY.

A FEW, A FEW MONTHS AGO.

UH, IT WAS RECENTLY APPROVED AND NOW THEY'RE COMING IN FOR RE PLATTING.

THEY'RE PLATING TWO DIFFERENT TRACKS.

UM, AND THEY'RE ALSO DEDICATING RIGHT OF WAY ON THE NORTH WEST AND THE SOUTH PORTIONS OF THE PLAT FOR FUTURE ROAD EXPANSION.

AND, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? MOTION, MOVE APPROVE.

I'LL SECOND MOTION.

AND SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

THOSE OPPOSED? LIKE SUN.

PUBLIC HEARING, CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER A REQUEST TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 28.05 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF EAST INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 10 BETWEEN CROSBY, CEDAR VI ROAD AND SHO ROAD FROM AN OPEN SPACE RECREATION TO A GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.

WE HAVE SEVERAL PUBLIC HEARINGS AND I WILL READ THE FOLLOWING ONE TIME AS IT APPLIES TO ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS, PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE HELD FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING ALL INTERESTED PERSONS THE RIGHT TO SPEAK AND BE HEARD.

EVERYONE DESIRING TO SPEAK AT TODAY'S HEARING SHOULD HAVE SIGNED THE APPROPRIATE LIST.

AS THIS LIST WILL PROVIDE THE SPEAKING ORDER FOR THE HEARING.

EACH SPEAKER SHALL GIVE HIS OR HER NAME AND ADDRESS TO PROVIDE A PROPER RECORD OF THIS HEARING.

THE RULES ALLOW EACH SPEAKER THREE MINUTES TO PRESENT INFORMATION.

HOWEVER, I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO BE AS CONCISE AS POSSIBLE.

IF YOU ARE A GROUP WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON THE SAME SUBJECT, PLEASE SELECT A SPOKESPERSON TO PRESENT THE INFORMATION.

IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE DIRECT THEM TO ME.

OUR FIRST

[a. Conduct a public hearing and consider a request to amend the official zoning map to rezone approximately 28.05 acres, located south of East Interstate Highway 10 between Crosby Cedar Bayou Road and Sjolander Road from an Open Space/Recreation (OR) to a General Commercial (GC) district.]

SO THIS GEN, THIS ZONING MAP AMENDMENT IS REQUESTING FROM OR TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

IT IS LOCATED ALONG I 10.

AND IN GENERAL, GENERALLY MOST OF WHAT IS LOCATED ALONG I 10 FITS THE BILL FOR COMMERCIAL, LIKE, LIKE USES.

UM, SOME QUICK HISTORY ON THIS PROPERTY.

IT WAS ANNEXED AND IT AND ALL THE PROPERTIES AROUND IT WERE ANNEXED BACK IN 2017 AND THEY WERE AUTOMATICALLY REZONED TO OPEN RECREATION.

UM, OVER THE PAST COUPLE YEARS THERE'S BEEN A FEW ADJACENT ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S A LIGHT COMMERCIAL, THERE'S A, THERE'S THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO THE EAST, AND THEN A BIGGER ONE WOULD BE THE PLANNED

[00:05:01]

UNIT DEVELOPMENT LIVABLE CENTER TO THE WEST.

UM, JUST SO YOU CAN SEE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SHOWS THAT THIS WILL MEET LARGE SCALE COMMERCIAL AND THIS WOULD THAT AND FOR LOCATIONAL CRITERIA, A GENERAL COMMERCIAL ALONG I 10 WOULD FIT THIS LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR LARGE SCALE COMMERCIAL.

SO THE APPLICANT, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING FOR LARGE SCALE OR FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL, IT MEETS ALL THE DIFFERENT, UM, CRITERIA MET FORTH FOR A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT.

THE ONLY ONE THAT MIGHT HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ON ARE THE, THE EFFECTS ON THE ADJACENT LAND USES MORE SPECIFICALLY THE PUD.

THE PUD TO THE LEFT, THE, IT HAS NOT BEEN DEVELOPED YET, BUT IT DOES HAVE SOME RESIDENTIAL DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY.

UM, MORE SPECIFICALLY IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PUD THERE IS A COM SMALL COMMERCIAL SECTION DIRECTLY TO TO, IN THE MIDDLE SECTION THERE IS, UH, MULTIFAMILY AND THEN THE, THE, THE SOUTHERN PORTION THERE IS UM, TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT.

HOWEVER THERE IS A HUNDRED, THERE IS A HUNDRED AND TED UM, DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THAT, OF THAT PUD TO HELP MITIGATE ANY ADJACENT USES.

AND WITH THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

WE HAVE, UM, ONE PERSON SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.

DR.

BEAR MURRAY.

DR. MURRAY, YOU'RE HERE? YES MA'AM.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

UH, I'M DR.

BEAR MURRAY.

I RESIDE AT 6 7 1 1 SHO ROAD.

BAYTOWN, WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU LIKE? ? DID YOU HAVE COMMENTS ABOUT THE PROPERTY? YES MA'AM.

THERE IS A PIECE OF THIS, UH, LAND THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED WITH THE STRIPE MARKS.

I'M NOT SURE WHO'S BRINGING THIS, UH, PETITION FOR REZONING, BUT THEY DON'T OWN SOME OF THAT.

IT'S UNDER LEGAL DISPUTE WITH THE PREVIOUS OWNERS OF OUR HOME WITH A LAWSUIT THAT WE FILED IN APRIL OF 2019.

AND HIS ONGOING, THEY UH, THEY FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED THE FACT THAT OUR SEPTIC LINES DISTRIBUTION HEADS ARE ON THAT 2.37 ACRES.

AND THE DEVELOPER WHO HAS PURCHASED THE SIEGELMAN PROPERTY HAS NOT PURCHASED THAT 2.37 ACRES BECAUSE HE'S AWARE HERE THEY ARE AWARE THAT IT'S BEING CONTESTED, THE OWNERSHIP.

AND WE HAVE THE DOCUMENTS HERE FROM THE HARRIS COUNTY WHERE THEY FORBID FOR, UH, THE SALE OF THAT PROPERTY THAT WE PURCHASED WITHOUT SELLING US, WITHOUT SELLING WHOMEVER BOUGHT IT, THE ADJACENT PIECE OF PROPERTY.

AND UH, UM, SO I HAVE THE LAWSUIT AS WELL AS THE HARRIS COUNTY PAPERWORK.

SO DR. MURRAY, YOU'RE SAYING THAT A PIECE OF THIS PROPERTY IS PART AS WHAT YOU'RE BRINGING TO OUR ATTENTION? YES MA'AM.

THERE'S 2.37 ACRES THAT WAS NOT SOLD TO THE DEVELOPER YET IT'S SHOWING IN THIS PLAT OF LAND BEING REQUESTED FOR REZONING THAT HAS NOT BEEN TRANSFERRED.

IF IT HAS, THAT'S ANOTHER CAUSE OF ACTION.

AND TO OUR LAST KNOWLEDGE THAT DEVELOPER CHOSE TO NOT PURCHASE, BUT HE HAS A FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL IF THE PREVIOUS OWNERS CAN GET OUR SEPTIC SYSTEM OFF OF IT.

AND THEY, THEY CONCEALED THAT FROM US WHENEVER THEY, NOT THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY, BUT THEY CONCEALED THE FACT THAT OUR SEPTIC DISTRIBUTION LINES WERE OVER THERE ON THAT THEY CONCEALED THE FACT THAT HARRIS COUNTY HAD FORBIDDEN THEM FROM SELLING WHAT WE PURCHASED WITHOUT SELLING THAT OTHER TRACK OF LAND WITH IT.

AND THAT IS PART OF WHAT WE ARE IN A LAWSUIT THAT IS PART OF WHAT WE'RE IN A LAWSUIT WITH AGAINST THE SIEGELMAN.

YES MA'AM.

YOUR PROPERTY'S ON LANDER, CORRECT? CORRECT.

US INTO A BIT OF A PANIC THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO UNDO WHAT WE'RE, OKAY, SO I HOPE I'M ON THE BLACK BOX IN THE CORNER.

THIS IS I 10.

THIS IS INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 10.

UM, HOLD ON JUST ONE SECOND.

IF I'M JUST ONE SECOND.

LEMME PULL.

UM, IF I'M WASTING THE COUNSEL'S TIME, I DO APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE, BUT FROM THE WAY THAT WE READ THE NOTICE AND LOOKED AT THE MAP, IT LOOKED LIKE THE VERY PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT HAD BEEN SOLD AROUND US.

AND I, IF I'M MAKING A MISTAKE, I DO APOLOGIZE.

YEAH, I WAS ABOUT TO ASK YOU IF YOUR PROPERTY WENT THAT FAR BACK BECAUSE I KNOW WHERE YOUR PROPERTY IS.

YOU DO KNOW WHERE, WHERE THIS IS AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT DOESN'T GO THAT FAR.

AND, AND I MAY BE, THIS IS, WE ONLY RECEIVED THE NOTICE WASTING TIME, YOU KNOW, LATE LAST, LATE YESTERDAY.

AND IT THREW

[00:10:01]

SO THIS IS UM, RIGHT, I JUST ADD IT RIGHT HERE IS THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.

THIS IS I 10 AND THIS IS SLANDER.

MM-HMM .

AND THIS IS YOUR, AND THIS IS MY PROPERTY RIGHT HERE.

AND THAT THAT PROPERTY AROUND HAS RECENTLY BEEN SOLD.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S IN QUESTION.

THIS IS THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.

MY APOLOGIES TO THE COUNCIL.

THOSE NOTICES GO OUT YEAH.

EVERYWHERE OR SOMETHING.

YES.

AND I, AND I DIDN'T GET IT UNTIL LATE YESTERDAY AND IT SENT ME INTO A TAILSPIN, SO THAT'S OKAY.

I APOLOGIZE FOR WASTING YOUR TIME.

THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT IF YOU DO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? UM, THE ONLY THING I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT IS IF THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL SECTION IS GONNA BE A CONFLICT FOR EITHER SIDE.

UH, 'CAUSE WE'VE GOT THE PUD ON ONE SIDE AND THE COMMERCIAL APPLICANT ON THE OTHER SIDE.

YEAH.

OTHER SIDE OF THE COMMERCIAL IS SOME OF THAT'S LIKE INDUSTRIAL, RIGHT.

GO DOWN THAT WAY.

I WAS MORE CONCERNED IT'S ADJACENT WHAT'S GONNA BE THERE IN GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

IF WE FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.

IT THE UM, THE INDUSTRIAL IS ALREADY THERE, RIGHT? YEAH.

SO THE, I MEAN THIS IS A LIGHTER USE THAN INDUSTRIAL, RIGHT? SO IN GENERAL TERMS, STAFF WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF SOMETHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE YOU DON'T SEE ANY CONFLICT.

GENERAL COMMERCIAL IS, IS USUALLY A PRETTY GOOD BUFFER FROM AN INDUSTRIAL TO SOMETHING ELSE SO THAT THEY'RE KIND OF, THEY'RE RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER ON THE, ON THE LEVELS OF INTENSITY.

SO, OKAY.

ALSO SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND.

AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER PORTION OF THE PUD WILL BE COMMERCIAL ITSELF.

SO COMMERCIAL AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, COMMERCIAL AND COMMERCIAL.

DOES THE DEVELOPER OWN THE SOLID GREEN AREAS AS WELL? BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE, THE, YOU SHAPE THE PIECE THAT GOES DOWN THE MIDDLE.

THE ONES IN THE MIDDLE, IN LIKE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE HORSESHOE ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS.

STRANGE PIECE OF PROPERTY.

IT, IT IS A MOTION.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS, YOU MENTIONED THAT THE ONLY PROBLEM YOU COULD SEE IS THAT IT ABUTS TO THE PUD, BUT I THINK THAT'S GONNA BE RESOLVED WITH THE BUFFER REQUIREMENT.

THERE'S ALREADY 110 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PTY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE FOR REASONS TO STATED.

THANK YOU TAMMY.

YOU ARE WELCOME.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

CHRIS, GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE.

WE'LL CLOSE THAT PARTICULAR PUBLIC HEARING OUR

[b. Conduct a public hearing and consider a proposed text amendment to the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) to move landscaping standards from Chapter 18 of the Code of Ordinances to Appendix-A - Unified Land Development Code (ULDC).]

NEXT PUBLIC HEARING.

CONSIDER A PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFIED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ULDC TO MOVE LANDSCAPING STANDARDS FROM CHAPTER 18 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO APPENDIX A UNIFIED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ULDC.

HOW ARE Y'ALL? UM, CHRIS CHAVIS, UH, PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

I WANTED TO DISCUSS AND I WANT YOU ALL TO TAKE ACTION TONIGHT.

ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

IF YOU RECALL, A FEW MONTHS AGO WE DID A CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN REGULATIONS FROM OTHER CHAPTERS INSIDE OF, UH, THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AND BROUGHT THEM INTO THE ULDC.

THIS IS IN ADDITION TO THAT, UM, THERE WERE SOME LANDSCAPING STANDARDS THAT DID NOT GET MOVED OVER AT THAT TIME WITH THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

UM, IT'S NOT MUCH OF A CHANGE IN THIS CASE.

UM, OF THIS TEXT AMENDMENT.

AGAIN, WE'RE JUST MOVING, UH, LANGUAGE FROM CHAPTER 18 INTO THE ZONING, UM, REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES FOR THIS SAKE.

THE FEW CHANGES THAT WE DO HAVE ARE GOING TO BE CLEANUP ITEMS THAT INCLUDE CHANGING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR INCLUDING THAT INTO THE LANGUAGE AND REMOVING CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL BECAUSE NOW WE'VE MOVED THEM INTO THE ZONING SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE.

IT HAS BECOME MR. SCRIBNER'S RESPONSIBILITY AS OPPOSED TO THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL.

AND THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION FOR THAT ITEM.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS? THANK YOU CHRIS.

WE HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP FOR THIS PORTION, SO I WOULD ASK THE COMMISSIONERS FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE.

MOTION TO APPROVE.

I'LL SECOND HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

THIRD PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSIDER PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFIED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO CHANGE SECTION TWO 10, LAND USE CONDITIONS TABLE A DASH 52 53 54 NON-RESIDENTIAL CATEGORIES CONCERNING CERTAIN LANGUAGE ADDRESSING VEHICLE AND BOAT SALES AND EQUIPMENT SALES AND RENTAL FACILITIES.

[00:15:01]

[c. Conduct a public hearing and consider proposed text amendments to the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) to change Section 2.10 Land Use Conditions Table A-52, 53 and 54, Non-Residential Categories, concerning certain language addressing Vehicle & boat sales, and Equipment sales & rental facilities.]

ALRIGHT, SO THIS ONE DOES, UH, INCLUDE SOME SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES, UH, IN THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

WHAT WE, WE, WHEN WE LOOKED AT THIS SECTION OF THE CODE AND THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE REQUIRED FOR, UH, VEHICLE CELLS AND EQUIPMENT CELLS, IT HAS A CLAUSE IN THERE THAT TALKS ABOUT HAVING A GROSS, UM, WEIGHT FOR THE PARTICULAR EQUIPMENT AND STRUCK AND, AND, UM, EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES.

UM, THE 13,000 POUNDS IS A PRETTY MUCH A ARBITRARY NUMBER THAT WAS, THAT WAS, UM, PUT IN THE CODE AND IT ISN'T REALLY ENFORCEABLE BY STAFF WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS BECAUSE WHEN WE DRIVE BY A, A PROJECT AND WE CAN'T TELL WHETHER THE EQUIPMENT HAS A GROSS, UM, WEIGHT OR CARRYING WEIGHT OF 13,000 POUNDS OR NOT.

SO WHAT WE WANTED TO DO WAS CLEAN UP THE LANGUAGE, PUT IN SOME LANGUAGE THAT IS MORE ENFORCEABLE FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, UM, AND JUST MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE DEVELOPERS AND THE INTERESTED BUSINESS OWNERS WHO WANT TO HAVE EQUIPMENT SALES LIKE THIS TO OPERATE.

UM, IN THIS PARTICULAR SECTION WE'RE TOUCHING THREE DIFFERENT, UM, THREE DIFFERENT AREAS.

AGAIN, UM, WE WANTED TO CHANGE A 52 AND THIS PARTICULAR ONE IS A 53.

WE'RE GOING TO AGAIN, REMOVE THE 13,000 POUNDS AND WE, WE REWORDED SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS ALREADY IN PLACE JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR.

UM, WE BROKE IT UP INTO SECTIONS WHERE WE HAVE SECTION ONE, BE LESS, BE LESS, GREATER IN HEIGHT THAN 10, BE LESS THAN 10 FEET IN HEIGHT.

AND THEN ALSO IT SHALL BE DEFINED AS, UH, HEAVY IT SHALL NOT BE DEFINED AS HEAVY EQUIPMENT.

AND THEN IN A 54, AGAIN, MINOR CLEANUP, WE HAD THE LANGUAGE THAT SAID DOMESTIC VEHICLES.

WE WANTED TO CHANGE DOMESTIC VEHICLES TO NON-COMMERCIAL VEHICLES BECAUSE WE HAVE AN EXISTING DEFINITION FOR NON-COMMERCIAL VEHICLES.

AND THAT CONCLUDES THAT.

THANK YOU CHRIS.

ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS? OR CHRIS, WE HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IN THIS PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'LL ASK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE A VOTE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU DONNA.

I'LL SECOND.

THANK YOU RICK.

HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

THOSE OPPOSED LIKE SIGNED.

ITEM NUMBER FIVE, BUSINESS ITEMS PUBLIC HEARING IN CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A PROPOSED MORATORIUM PROHIBITING ANY NEW MULTIFAMILY ZONING AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR 120 DAYS.

I'LL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION

[a. Public hearing and consideration of an ordinance adopting a proposed moratorium prohibiting any new multi-family zoning amendment requests for 120 days. ]

THANK YOU FOR THE RECORD.

MARTIN SCRIBNER PLANNING DEVELOPMENT.

UH, AS YOU KNOW, UM, WE'VE HAD SOME MULTIFAMILY ZONING REQUESTS PRETTY RECENTLY.

UM, WE DON'T SEE ANY SLOWDOWN TO THAT.

WE FEEL THAT THE CITY IN GENERAL HAS TAKEN A, A PRETTY HARD STANCE, UH, AGAINST NEW MULTIFAMILY, ESPECIALLY IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE CITY, ESPECIALLY WHERE IT'S CLOSE TO EXISTING MULTIFAMILY.

UM, AND WE'RE REALLY FEELING LIKE THE DATA THAT WE HAVE IS, IS NOT UP TO DATE.

UM, AND WE WOULD REALLY LIKE TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE MORE ACCURATE DIRECTION TO NOT ONLY YOU GUYS, BUT ALSO CITY COUNCIL AND TO THE DEVELOPERS THAT COME IN AND REQUEST THESE SORTS OF THINGS.

UM, GOING INTO IT, WE FEEL THAT THAT WILL PROVIDE BETTER DIRECTION OVERALL TO STAFF, UH, AND ALLOW US TO MOVE FORWARD IN, IN THE, THE BEST WAY THAT'S POSSIBLE FOR THE CITY.

SO RIGHT NOW WE ARE ENGAGED IN A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT THAT IS TAKING PLACE.

WE HAVE A CONSULTANT THAT IS, UM, JUST GETTING STARTED ON THAT.

WE ARE, UH, HOPING TO HAVE THAT DONE BY THE END OF APRIL AND PRESENTED TO COUNCIL BY AND TO YOU, UM, BY MAY, IN WHICH TIME WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE PRESSURE OFF OF THAT AND NOT PUT PLANNING AND ZONING OR CITY COUNCIL UNDER THE PRESSURE TO MAKE DECISIONS WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE THE FULL PICTURE.

SO THE MORATORIUM WOULD BASICALLY PUT A PAUSE ON ANY NEW REZONES TO MULTIFAMILY EITHER MF ONE, MF TWO, MF THREE,

[00:20:01]

OR IF IT GOES INTO A PUD AND IT'S DESIGNATED AS MULTIFAMILY ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION IN, UH, CURRENTLY IN OUR CODE.

SO THIS WOULD NOT KEEP ANYBODY WHO IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS FROM FINISHING THE PROCESS.

WE HAVE ASKED A COUPLE OF APPLICANTS TO MAYBE HOLD BACK A LITTLE BIT, UH, VOLUNTARILY AND THEY'VE AGREED TO DO SO.

SO, UM, THE STATE STATUTE SAYS THAT, UH, A MORATORIUM CAN BE, UM, PUT INTO PLACE FOR SEVERAL DIFFERENT REASONS, BUT THE, THE, UM, THE REQUEST IS THE DEFAULT IS 120 DAYS WE BELIEVE THAT WOULD PUT US OUT TO, UH, I'LL JUST KIND OF GO THROUGH THE, THE TIMELINE HERE TODAY IS THE FIRST STEP OF THAT.

WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING THAT IS, UM, REQUIRED TODAY AND THEN WE PUT A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM INTO EFFECT AS OF TOMORROW.

AND THAT WOULD LAST UNTIL WE GET THROUGH, EITHER GET THROUGH THE PROCESS OR FOR SOME REASON THE PROCESS FALLS APART.

WE HAVE 12 DAYS FROM TODAY TO THAT POINT THAT IF THE, UH, IF THE PROCESS DOES NOT FINISH, THEN THAT TEMPORARY MORATORIUM WOULD BE LIFTED, OTHERWISE IT WOULD CARRY US THROUGH THE REST OF THE PROCESS.

SO ON THURSDAY OF THIS WEEK, WE WOULD HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT'S REQUIRED BY CITY COUNCIL, UH, AT THAT MEETING.

WE WOULD ALSO HAVE THE FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE AT THAT MEETING.

AND THEN WE WILL HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING ON MARCH 2ND OF CITY COUNCIL JUST TO DO THE SECOND READING AND ADOPT THE ORDINANCE ITSELF.

SO THEN THE NEXT DAY THAT FULL MORATORIUM WOULD BEGIN FOR 120 DAYS, WHICH THE MAY 31ST IS ACTUALLY INCORRECT.

IT WOULD TAKE US UP TO JULY 1ST.

WE ARE AGAIN, ARE IMAGINING THAT WE'LL HAVE THE NECESSARY MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME TO GET THROUGH THE NECESSARY, UM, STUDY AND THE REPORT FOR THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND GET THAT PRESENTED TO EVERYBODY, ALL OF OUR DECISION MAKERS AT THE CITY.

UM, SO WITH THAT, UH, THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

YOU MAY HAVE QUESTIONS.

MARTIN, I JUST HAVE A COMMENT.

I WANNA SAY THANK YOU.

I FEEL LIKE AS A COMMISSIONER I WAS HEARD AND AS A TAXPAYER CITIZEN OF BAYTOWN I WAS HEARD.

AND I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU GUYS BEING PROACTIVE ON THIS.

SO THANK YOU.

I I'D HAVE TO AGREE OUR OUR CURRENT STANDARD IS A LITTLE BIT RESTRICTIVE AND, AND WE DO NEED TO REEVALUATE THINGS.

I'D BE IN FAVOR OF MOVING THIS AHEAD FOR SURE.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? THANK YOU MARTIN.

UH, WE HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK TO THIS.

SO I WILL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE TO

[6. CONSENT]

ITEM SIX, CONSIDER APPROVING.

DONE.

DO WE NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS? YES, IT DOESN'T SAY THAT.

YES, WE WOULD PROVIDE A PRE A, UM, RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FROM THIS BOARD AS WELL.

SO THE, UH, THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN MOVE AHEAD WITH A, UH, CONSIDERATION OF THE ORDINANCE.

WE NEED A MOTION THEN.

SO TAMMY MADE A MOTION.

DO I? OR SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

MITCHELL SECONDED.

UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

UH, ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, CONSIDER APPROVING STERLING POINT SECTION NINE, FINAL FLAT BEING APPROXIMATELY 51.79 ACRES LOCATED GENERALLY BETWEEN HANEY ROAD AND STERLING BLUFF BOULEVARD.

YOU NEED A MOTION FOR THAT CONSENT AGENDA? YES, WE NEED A MOTION.

AND A SECOND.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A SECOND.

DON DONNA WAS THAT YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

THOSE OPPOSED LIKE, SIGN MARTIN, YOUR OWN

[a. Receive a report from the Planning Director.]

CHRISTIAN.

WOULD YOU CLICK THAT FOR ME? THANK YOU.