* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [ CITY OF BAYTOWN NOTICE OF MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2020 5:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL 2401 MARKET STREET, BAYTOWN, TEXAS 77520 AGENDA Due to the COVID 19 Disaster and the CDC's recommendation regarding social distancing measures, the public may not be allowed to be physically present at this meeting, as there is a limited amount of space when maintaining the required six feet of separation from others. For those members of the public that cannot or do not wish to be physically present at the meeting, they will be able to participate through two-way communications. For video conferencing, use the following website www.zoom.com, click on "join a meeting" on the top right hand corner, and input the following Meeting ID: 792 634 318. For telephone conferencing please use the following toll-free number: 1-877-853-5247, Meeting ID: 792 634 318. Any person who is participating through video/teleconferencing interested in speaking on any item on the agenda must submit his/her request via email to the Planning and Development Service Department at planning@baytown.org. The request must include the speaker's name, address, and phone number that will be used if teleconferencing as well as the agenda item number. The request must be received prior to the posted time of the meeting. The agenda packet is accessible to the public in both HTML and PDF formats at the following link: https://www.baytown.org/city-hall/city-clerk/agendas-minutes. For more information or questions concerning the teleconference, please contact the Planning and Development Service Department at planning@baytown.org. CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF QUORUM ] [00:00:06] GOOD EVENING. I'D LIKE TO CALL THE, TO ORDER THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ON TUESDAY, MAY 19TH, 2020. IT'S 5:00 PM AND WE HAVE A QUORUM. THE FIRST ITEM [1. MINUTES] OF BUSINESS IS ITEM ONE MINUTES. CONSIDER APPROVING THE MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 21ST, 2020. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. REGULAR MEETING. DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. I'VE GOT A SECOND AND A THIRD. AUGUSTINE, WELL, YOU COULD GIVE IT TO AUGUSTINE. EITHER IT WAS A CLOSE TIE. ARE THERE ANY, UH, CORRECTIONS OR ADDITIONS TO THESE MINUTES? HEARING NONE. I'LL MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. A AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM TWO PLATS. [a. Consider approving USA Industrial Park Final Replat being approximately 83.04 acres located on the south side of Interstate Highway 10 approximately 5,280 feet (or 1 mile) east of the intersection of Interstate Highway 10 and State Highway 146 North, a replat of USA Industrial Park Final Plat recorded in 2013 showing additional lots and ROW; all legally described as part of and out of Chambers County School Land Survey 3, Abstract 321, Chambers County, Texas] CONSIDER APPROVING USA INDUSTRIAL PARK FINAL, RELA BEING APPROXIMATELY 83.04 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 10, APPROXIMATELY 5,280 FEET OR ONE MILE EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 10 AND STATE HIGHWAY 1 46 NORTH OR WE PLAT OF US USA INDUSTRIAL PLAT FINAL PLAT RECORDED IN 2013 SHOWING ADDITIONAL LOTS AND RIGHT OF WAY ALL LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS PART OF AND OUT OF THE CHAMBERS COUNTY SCHOOL LAND SURVEY THREE ABSTRACT 3 21. CHAMBERS COUNTY, TEXAS. HARTON, YOU GONNA WALK US THROUGH THIS? YES. UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, UH, THIS PARTICULAR PLAT HA IS PROPOSING TO HAVE 30 LOTS AND ONE BLOCK AND ONE RESERVE. UM, THE CHAIRMAN BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A PLAT THAT WAS RECORDED, UH, BACK IN 2013, AND IT'S ALMOST THE NORTHERN HALF OF WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN AT THE MOMENT, UH, THAT WAS COMPLETED. THEN THIS PARTICULAR RE PLAT, UH, MADE A FEW CORRECTIONS ON THAT PLAT AS FAR AS DISTANCES AND BEARINGS, BUT IT ALSO ILLUSTRATES THE, UH, ADDITIONAL LOTS THAT ARE ON THE SOUTHERN END OF THIS PLAT. AND ALSO EXTENSIONS OF THOSE TWO CUL-DE-SACS THAT YOU SEE ON THE EAST AND THE WEST SIDE. SO THAT'S WHAT THIS PLAT ENTAILS. NOW, WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED FOR THE EASTERN CUL-DE-SAC WAS FOR IT TO CONNECT UP WITH, OH, NEEDLE POINT ROAD. UM, THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL THINKING. UH, THE COUNTY, UH, CHAMBERS COUNTY PERSONNEL ESSENTIALLY SAID THAT, UH, THEY WOULD RATHER NOT IT CONNECT UP WITH OLD NEEDLEPOINT. THEY WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO REMAIN AS A CUL-DE-SAC. THAT PRESENTS A PROBLEM FOR US TONIGHT TO DISCUSS FOR A MOMENT OR TWO. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH HAVING A CUL-DE-SAC, EXCEPT THERE ARE PROVISIONS, ONLY PROVISIONS WITHIN OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOR A CUL-DE-SAC TO BE ONLY UP 800 FEET IN LENGTH. AND THIS PARTICULAR ONE, UH, ON THE EASTERN SIDE EXCEEDS THAT ALMOST 600 FEET ADDITIONAL. NOW, A PERSON COULD DEBATE THE ADVANTAGES OF, OF, UH, HAVING A LESSER CUL-DE-SAC. YOU CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO HAVE A LONG CUL-DE-SAC ON A RESIDENTIAL AREA. PEOPLE CAN GET TRAPPED, MORE PEOPLE CAN GET TRAPPED. IF, IF SOMETHING HAPPENS TO THE OPENING, UH, OF, OF THE STREET, A PERSON COULD ARGUE THAT ON AN INDUSTRIAL PLATTING THAT THAT IS NOT AS LIKELY. AND IN FACT, THE CONNECTION ON TO OLE POINT, AS THE COUNTY SAID, THEY WOULD RATHER NOT HAVE IT ON, ON A ROADWAY THAT, UH, IS NOT REAL WELL MAINTAINED OR EVER HAVING BEEN BUILT. SO I'M GOING TO READ FOUR DIFFERENT STATEMENTS, AND IF YOU APPROVE THIS PLAT, YOU WILL BE APPROVING THESE FOUR STATEMENTS AS IT RELATES TO THE EXTENSION OF THE LENGTH OF THIS CUL-DE-SAC. THEY ARE STATEMENTS THAT HAVE TO DEAL WITH WITHIN OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, HAVE TO DO WITH, WITH HAVING A VARIANCE OF THIS PARTICULAR TYPE. SO HERE ARE THOSE FOUR STATEMENTS. ONE, THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE PROPOSED USE IS APPROPRIATE AND REASONABLE [00:05:02] FOR THE AREA. TWO, APPROVAL WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE. THREE, THE EFFECT OF THE DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT PRE, UH, PREVENT ORDERLY SUBDIVISION OF OTHER LAND IN THE VICINITY. AND FOUR, THE DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT CAUSE THE CITY TO BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE CITY SERVICES AT A LEVEL ABOVE THAT REQUIRED IN OTHER SUBDIVISIONS. SO I ASKED, UH, COMMISSION MEMBERS TO CONSIDER THOSE FOUR STATEMENTS AND YOUR POSSIBLE ALLOWANCE FOR THIS, UM, ADDITIONAL LENGTH OF THE CUL-DE-SAC MEMBERS. QUESTIONS OF HAROLD? I, I HAVE, SORRY, I HAVE ONE. WHAT WOULD BE THE, UM, WHAT WOULD BE THE CONSEQUENCE, I GUESS, OR WHAT, WHAT IS OF, OF CONNECTING? I KNOW THAT CHAMBERS COUNTY, THE OFFICIALS DON'T WANT THEM TO CONNECT THAT ROAD TO IT, BUT WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY DO? WHAT WOULD BE THE, IS THERE ANY, IS THERE ANY REASON THAT THEY WOULDN'T? I MEAN THEY, I I UNDERSTAND CHAMBERS COUNTY DOESN'T WANT IT, BUT JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY CAN'T DO IT. WELL, THAT'S VERY TRUE. UM, I MEAN THERE ARE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF IT EITHER WAY. I MEAN, ANY CONNECTION ON TO CROSS, UH, ACCESS AS WE CALL IT IN THE PLANNING REALM USUALLY IS AN ADVANTAGE ORDINARILY AS AN ADVANTAGE, UH, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE SPEAKING OF COMMERCIAL OR, OR, UH, OR INDUSTRIAL TYPE STUFF. HOWEVER, IF ON THE OTHER HAND, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, THE TYPE OF ROAD IT TRULY IS IN THE FIELD, UH, THE CONDITION OF IT, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NEEDLE POINT ONLY. AND, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT PER SE. MY ONLY PROBLEM IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU POINTED OUT IN REGARDS TO THE SAFETY. I'M SORRY. YES. I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO ANSWER, UH, MY UNDERSTANDING OF LUCA COUNTY IS I'M THE DESIGN ENGINEER. I'M JERRY GAINOR. MR. JERRY, WHY DON'T YOU STEP UP TO THE, IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU? SURE, HAROLD. AND JUST, UH, ONCE AGAIN, NAME AND, OKAY. NAME, NAME IS JERRY GAINER. I'M PRESIDENT OF HUTCHINSON AND ASSOCIATES, AND WE WERE THE DESIGN FIRM FOR THIS PROJECT. UM, THE COUNTY SAID THAT BASICALLY THAT THAT NEEDLE POINT ROAD WAS NOT CAPABLE OF TAKING INDUSTRIAL TRAFFIC. THE PAVEMENT IS SUBSTANDARD, AND SO THEY DIDN'T WANT IT FROM THAT STANDPOINT. THE OTHER PROBLEM THAT I SEE IS IF IT'S A PUBLIC ENTRANCE AND YOU ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO GO DOWN NEEDLE POINT, WHENEVER YOU BACK UP, UH, WHENEVER YOU BACK UP 1 46, IT WOULDN'T TAKE THE PUBLIC VERY LONG TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, A THOUSAND CARS CUTTING THROUGH THERE, ALL GOING DOWN NEEDLE POINT, ALL GOING THROUGH THIS INDUSTRIAL PARK TO CUT OVER TO I 10. AND SO THAT TO ME IS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS YOU WOULD NOT WANT TO MAKE THE CONNECTION IN THE FUTURE. UM, NEEDLEPOINT ROAD IS UPGRADED AND YOU GET BETTER TRAFFIC ON 1 46 WITH A BETTER INTERCHANGE OR SOMETHING. YOU COULD EASILY MAKE THE CONNECTION, UH, IN, IN THE FUTURE. BUT FOR NOW, THE COUNTY DOESN'T WANT IT. AND I THINK THERE'S VERY GOOD REASONS NOT TO MAKE THE CONNECTION. AND, AND THAT WAS MY QUESTION. THE, THE SET THE FOLLOW UP QUESTION WAS, IS IF THERE'S, UM, IF NEEDLE POINT IS RED IS REDONE, IS, IS THERE A POSSIBILITY TO CONNECT THAT ROAD WITH TIME? IF IF IT, IF IT, IF IT'S A NECESSITY, YES. IT, IT COULD BE DONE LATER, IT WOULD JUST BE BASICALLY BUILDING A DRIVEWAY. OKAY. MM-HMM . THANK YOU, SIR. YOU'RE WELCOME. JERRY, MAY I ASK A QUESTION? GO AHEAD. SO IS IT, SO IS IT SAFE TO HAVE THE CUL-DE-SAC THAT LONG? IS IT IN THE PUBLIC NOT DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE? WELL, IN FACT, IF I MAY SPEAK TO THAT, THESE ARE LARGE INDUSTRIAL LOTS. THERE'S VERY, VERY, VERY LITTLE TRAFFIC IN THE AREA. UM, SO I, I FEEL THAT IT'S SAFE AND IT'S NOT A DETRIMENT. THANK YOU. JERRY. WOULD THESE BE LIKE FENCE LINE COMPANIES THAT SUPPLY WHAT USA'S ALREADY GOT UNDER, UNDER OR ALREADY OPERATING? ARE THEY, WOULD THEY BE LIKE FENCE LINE COMPANIES THAT WERE BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE BUSINESSES IN THIS BUSINESS PARK? YES. OKAY, THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION ON, ON THE, YOU SAY THAT THERE IS AN EXISTING, UH, REQUIREMENTS AT 800 FEET. [00:10:02] YES, SIR. THAT IS IN OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES. UH, AND UH, YES SIR, IT IS. WHY, WHY DO THEY HAVE THOSE RESTRICTIONS? MY GUESS IS, AND I THINK I HAVE PRETTY GOOD THOUGHT. I MEAN, WHEN YOU THINK OF A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, AND, AND MANY TIMES SOME OF YOUR BETTER SUBDIVISIONS MIGHT EVEN HAVE CUL CUL-DE-SAC STREETS, YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE A VERY LONG ONE, BECAUSE REMEMBER, THERE'S NO WAY OF GETTING OUT OF IT IF SOMETHING IS WRONG AT ANY POINT BEFORE YOU GET TO THE CROSSROAD. SO NO SAFETY ISSUES. AND SO, SO IT BECOMES A SAFETY ISSUE. AND SO I, YOU KNOW, 800 FEET WAS A FIGURE THAT SOMEBODY FIGURED OUT WAS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, UH, THE LONGEST DISTANCE THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. SO IT CONFLICTS WITH IT BECAUSE OF SAFETY. SAFETY. AND THE, ONE OF THE CLAUSES WAS THE, IN THE FOUR CLAUSES, WHAT WERE THEY? ONE OF THEM? SAFETY ONE. SAFETY. SAFETY, YEAH. YEAH. HEALTH PUBLIC. YEAH. SO IF THE PUBLIC SAFETY IS AT RISK, IF IT'S DOUBLED OR CLOSE TO, WELL, I, I MEAN THAT'S FOR Y'ALL TO DISCUSS. OKAY. UH, I MEAN, I DON'T MIND GOING BACK THROUGH THE FOUR STATEMENTS IF YOU'D LIKE. NO, THAT'S FINE. OKAY. THESE WHAT I KNOW, THE LOTS ARE DIFFERENT SIZES. DO WE HAVE AN AVERAGE OF WHAT EACH SIZE OF THESE LOTS ARE? THEY'RE RATHER LARGE. UH, THEY ARE. LET'S, UH, JERRY, DO YOU KNOW RIGHT OFF HAND OR WE CAN PULL IT UP BECAUSE MY QUESTION WAS SAME AS YOURS, JEFF. HOW MUCH, HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE YOU GONNA GET? RIGHT. YEAH. AND WHEN YOU THINK OF A RESIDENTIAL LOT AT BEING CLOSE TO MAYBE LIKE AN EIGHTH OR A, YOU KNOW, A SIX OF AN ACRE, AND THESE ARE TWO OR SO ACRES EACH, YOU KNOW, TWO TO FOUR ACRES AND THE RE AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL LOT, UH, A QUARTER OF AN ACRE OR LESS. SO THAT WAS A RE I'M SORRY, YES, MR. DO WE NOT? THIS IS, THIS APPLIES TO SUBDIVISIONS, RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS. WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN OUR COMMERCIAL ORDINANCES. THIS, THIS IS THE ONLY STATEMENT WITHIN OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE THAT HAS TO DO WITH CUL CUL-DE-SAC. THAT MAY BE SOMETHING WE NEED TO LOOK AT LONG TERM BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING MORE AND MORE OF THESE BUSINESS PARK CONCEPTS, PERHAPS A VERY GOOD IDEA. AND SO I THINK IT IS DIFFERENT FROM A RESIDENTIAL CUL-DE-SAC, AND I THINK THAT WAS PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, THAT TYPE OF THING IS PROBABLY THE REASON WHY, UH, THEY CAME ALONG WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A VARIANCE IF SUCH THINGS AS THIS HAPPENED. AND THIS IS IN OUR ETJ, CORRECT? YES, SIR. WILL THEY BE ALLOWED TO STORE HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS? IT'S, UH, MOSTLY I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA DEFER TO JERRY ABOUT THE TYPE OF USES THEY HAVE, BUT IT'S MOSTLY A, A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES RIGHT NOW WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THIS IS IN OUR EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. SO WE HAVE NO LAND USE CONTROL. SO WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS WE'RE JUST DOING FOR SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY. THESE PROPERTIES ARE APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES EACH, GIVE OR TAKE A LITTLE BIT. AND IF YOU WERE TO PULL UP GIS HAROLD, IF YOU COULD GO INTO HIT ESCAPE AND THEN GO INTO GIS. WHAT WE CAN SHOW YOU HERE FROM AN AERIAL PERSPECTIVE IS THAT THESE PARTICULAR BUSINESS PARKS HAVE VERY SMALL, UM, STRUCTURES ON SITE. A LOT OF THIS IS LAY DOWN YARD. SO JUST AS MR. UM, GAINER HAD SAID IS THAT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE VERY LIMITED TRAFFIC. WE'RE PUBLIC THAT'S GONNA BE COMING IN HERE. PEOPLE ARE JUST GONNA BE COMING IN HERE ON A PROBABLY, UM, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE 18 WHEELERS A A WEEK TO MOVE OUT GOODS AND, AND SUCH, BUT YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET THE TRAFFIC THAT YOU WOULD IN A REGULAR SUBDIVISION OR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF SUCH. OKAY. WE'RE ADDING MATTERS. YEAH, THIS IS IT RIGHT HERE. COULD YOU HIT THE AERIAL PLEASE? PUT THE AERIAL, SIR. THE AERIAL PLEASE. AERIAL IMAGERY. GOTCHA. AND SO I THINK OUR, OUR MOST UPTODATE AERIAL WAS JUST ABOUT TWO MONTHS AGO, SO YOU'LL SEE WHAT KIND OF BUSINESS PARK THIS IS. AND THAT THE LIMIT, THERE'S LIMITED AMOUNTS OF, OF, UH, ACTUAL STRUCTURES OUT THERE. A LARGE MAJORITY OF IT IS LAID DOWN YARD. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO THERE'S ONE IN THE CENTER IS WHAT WE, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, RIGHT? RIGHT. THAT IS CORRECT, SIR. LOOKS PRETTY INDUSTRIAL TO ME. AND JERRY, IF I'M READING THE, THE PLAT CORRECTLY, YOU'VE GOT A 70 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY. SO THAT'S MUCH WIDER THAN A NORMAL RESIDENTIAL RIGHT WAY. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE PAVED WIDTH MIGHT BE? NO. THE PAVEMENT IS 24 FEET, I BELIEVE. AND IT NEEDS THE BAYTOWN FIRE LINE. GO [00:15:01] AHEAD. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? THANK YOU, HARROL. THANK YOU, JERRY. THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN? MOVE TO APPROVE. SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. ITEM [b. Consider approving the BK John Martin Commercial Final Replat, being approximately 11.03 acres located North of Interstate Highway 10 and west of John Martin Road, legally described as being a portion of Tract 1 and all of Tract 1A, Block 46, Elena Fruit & Cotton Farms C, situated in the T. Patching Survey, Abstract No.620, Harris County, Texas.] B, CONSIDER APPROVING BK JOHN MARTIN COMMERCIAL FINAL PLAT. FINAL REPL BEING APPROXIMATELY 11.03 ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 10 AND WEST OF JOHN MARTIN ROAD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS BEING A PORTION OF TRACK ONE AND ALL OF TRACK ONE A BLOCK 46, ELENA FRUIT AND COTTON FARM C SITUATED IN A T PATCHING SURVEY ABSTRACT SIX 20. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. YES, SIR. YOU CAN'T RUN FROM THE MIC. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. COMMISSIONERS, EMILIO VARRIO, UH, PLANNER TWO. UH, THIS IS THE FINAL, UH, THE FINAL REPLANT FOR THE B CAGE JOHN MARTIN COMMERCIAL, A SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 11.03 ACRES, TWO LOTS, ONE RESERVE AND ONE BLOCK SITUATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF JOHN MARTIN ROAD. AND I 10. UH, THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND WE HAVE DEEMED IT TO MEET ALL STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS AND WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS? NO. SEEING, NO QUESTIONS OR HEARING NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? MOTION TO APPROVE. WE'LL GIVE IT TO SPENCER AND WE'LL SECOND WILL BE MITCHELL. I'M SORRY, SPENCER HAS THE MOTION. MITCHELL HAS A SECOND. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? MY ONLY COMMENT IS WHEN THEY FIRST BROUGHT THIS TO US, I WAS WORRIED ABOUT DRAINAGE, BUT THEY PUT IN A VERY NICE RETENTION POND AND IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'VE DONE A BEAUTIFUL JOB ON SITE PREP. SUPER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOING TO VARIANCES. THAT'S FEEDBACK FROM SOMEWHERE. THEY'RE HAVING ANOTHER PUBLIC MEETING OVER THERE. OH, . OH, OKAY. WHAT ARE THEY DOING? IS THERE ANY MORE INTERESTING THAN OURS? OKAY. C OR THREE VARIANCES. THREE. [a. Consider approving a request for a subdivision variance to have a reduced frontage on an improved public right-of-way (ROW), located at 3709 Morelos Road, approximately five (5) acres, legally described as West 1/2 of Lot 32, Block 23, Highland Farms, Harris County, Texas.] A CONSIDER APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION VARIANCE TO HAVE A REDUCED FRONTAGE ON AN IMPROVED PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. LOCATED AT 37 0 9 ROAD MORALES MORALES, WE'LL GO WITH MORALES ROAD, APPROXIMATELY FIVE ACRES. YOU'RE GOOD? OKAY. OKAY. SORRY. LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS WEST ONE HALF OF LOT 32. BLOCK 23. HIGHLANDS FARM, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. I COULD GIVE YOU THE FRENCH PRONUNCIATION, BUT YES, YVONNE. HI. GOOD EVENING. UH, SO WHAT THIS PROPERTY OWNER'S PROPOSING IS TO SUBDIVIDE THIS LOT. IT'S IN THE ETJ OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, SOUTH OF I 10, EAST OF, UH, WADE ROAD. THIS AREA, UM, IS BASICALLY KINDA LIKE A HODGEPODGE OF PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN DIVIDED. AND THEN WHAT THEY'RE WANTING TO DO IS DIVIDE THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY INTO THREE PIECES. UM, THIS IS THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION THAT THEY ARE, UM, ASKING FOR APPROVAL FOR BASICALLY, UM, TWO FLAG LOTS. THE FLAGS WILL BE 10 FEET FOR EACH PROPERTY FOR A TOTAL OF 20 FEET. THIS IS ACTUALLY THE SAME REQUIREMENT FOR OUR IN CITY SUBDIVISIONS. UM, BUT IT'S BASICALLY, SO THEY'VE GOT A HOUSE ON THIS FIRST LOT. IT WILL MEET THE REGULATION AND THEN THE TWO LOTS IN THE BACK. THEY WANT TO BUILD TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND ALLOW THE FLAG LOTS TO GRANTHAM ACCESS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? HAVE YOU EVER DONE SOMETHING LIKE THIS BEFORE? YOU HAVE? OKAY, THANK YOU. JUST ASKING, I'D LIKE TO MOVE FOR APPROVAL. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND A SECOND I. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. A AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. ITEM FOUR ZONING. I'M GONNA READ THIS ONCE. UH, THIS WILL APPLY TO ALL THE, UH, [00:20:01] THE HEARINGS TONIGHT. WE HAVE SEVERAL PUBLIC [a. Conduct the second public hearing concerning a request to amend the official zoning map to rezone approximately 3.28 acres of unaddressed property legally described as Part of Tract 2C, Block 13, Elena Farms Unit D Geo C Davis Map D (Part of Lots 18, 19 & 20 Block 19 Highland Farms), Harris County, Texas, from a Single-family estate ("SFE") zoning district to a General commercial ("GC") zoning district] HEARINGS TONIGHT, THEREFORE, READ THE FOLLOWING ONE TIME AND IT APPLIES TO ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS. PLEASE BE MINDFUL THAT EACH SPEAKER IS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES FOR THEIR COMMENTS. PLEASE BE CONCISE AND SPECIFIC. THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE BEING HELD FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING ALL INTERESTED PERSONS THE RIGHT TO SPEAK AND BE HEARD. EVERYONE DESIRING TO SPEAK AT TODAY'S HEARINGS SHOULD HAVE SIGNED THE APPROPRIATE LIST IN THE FOYER. AS THIS LIST WILL PROVIDE THE SPEAKING ORDER FOR THE HEARING, EACH SPEAKER SHALL GIVE HIS OR HER NAME AND ADDRESS IN ORDER 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 BRIEF AND TO THE POINT AS POSSIBLE. IF YOU'RE WITH A GROUP OF PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THE SAME SUBJECT, PLEASE SELECT A SPOKESMAN OR SPOKESPERSON TO PRESENT THE INFORMATION. IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE DIRECT THEM TO ME. OKAY. SO THE ITEM THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE FIRST HEARING IS CONDUCT A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING A REQUEST TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.2828 ACRES OF UNADDRESSED PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED. THANK YOU, UH, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS PART OF TRACT TWO C BLOCK 13 ATLANTA FARMS, UNIT DGOC, DAVIS MAP D PARTS OF LOTS 18, 19 AND 20. BLOCK 19. HIGHLANDS FARMS, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS FROM SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE SFE ZONING DISTRICT TO A GENERAL COMMERCIAL GC ZONING DISTRICT. YVONNE, IT'S ALL YOURS. SO WHAT THIS PROPERTY OWNER'S REQUESTING IS TO REZONE ABOUT 3.28 ACRES OF A LARGER, ALMOST EIGHT ACRE SUBJECT PIECE OF PROPERTY SO THAT THEY CAN RELOCATE COMMUNITY HONDA TO THIS PIECE. THE NORTHERN PORTION THAT IS ON I 10 IS ALREADY ZONED GENERAL COMMERCIAL, AND SO THEY JUST NEED THE ADDITIONAL LAND SO THAT THEY CAN DEVELOP THE COMMUNITY HONDA IN THIS LOCATION. IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FLUKE, AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND I HAVE BOTH THE APPLICANTS ON ZOOM COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS OF VO. OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL, UH, CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING EN LIST OF THE ZOOM PLAYERS NEED TO SAY ANYTHING. LET'S WAIT TO SEE IF, UH, THEY WANNA RESPOND. MR. QUALES, YOU'RE UNMUTED. OKAY. THAT THAT'S THE CASE. WE'LL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY, WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM FOUR [b. Consider making a recommendation and preparing a report concerning a proposed amendment to the official zoning map to rezone approximately 3.28 acres of unaddressed property legally described as Part of Tract 2C, Block 13, Elena Farms Unit D Geo C Davis Map D (Part of Lots 18, 19 & 20 Block 19 Highland Farms), Harris County, Texas, from a Single-family estate ("SFE") zoning district to a General commercial (GC) zoning district.] B, WHICH IS CONSIDER MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF PREPARING A REPORT CONCERNING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.2 ACRES OF UNADDRESSED PROPERLY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS I JUST DESCRIBED IT IN THE LAST AGENDA ITEM FROM A SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE ZONING DISTRICT TO A GENERAL COMMERCIAL GC ZONING DISTRICT. I THINK WE'VE HEARD THE EXPLANA EXPLANATION. ANYTHING ELSE YOU GUYS NEED FROM YVONNE? HEARING NONE. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND, HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE SAY, AYE. A AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. FOUR C. [c. Conduct the second public hearing concerning a request to amend the official zoning map to rezone approximately 3.01 acres addressed as 6610 Thompson Road, and legally described as land situated in the William Hilbus Survey, Abstract No. 336 and being out of and a part of lot 21 of the Elena Fruit and Cotton Farms, Unit “D”, Harris County, Texas, from an Open Space/Recreation ("OR") zoning district to a Light Industrial ("LI") zoning district.] CONSIDER THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING A REQUEST TO AMEND TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.01 ACRES ADDRESSED AS 66 10 THOMPSON ROAD ROAD AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LAND SITUATED IN THE WILLIAM UH, BU SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 3, 3 6 BEING OUT OF AND A PART OF LOT 21 OF THE ELENA FRUIT AND COTTON FARMS UNIT D HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS FROM OPEN SPACE RECREATIONAL ZONING DISTRICT TO A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT. YES, SIR. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, COMMISSIONERS EMELIA RIO PLANNER TWO. UH, THIS IS THE SECOND HEARING FOR REQUEST TO ZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.01 ACRES SITUATED APPROXIMATELY, UH, 500 FEET EAST OF THOMPSON ROAD FROM OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION TO ALLY. UH, THE TRACT IS CURRENTLY SITUATED IN THE ETJ, BUT IT IS UNDERGOING, UH, AN ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY VOLUNTARILY. AND, UM, IN ORDER TO DEVELOP THE PROPER PROPERTY ACCORDINGLY, UH, IT WOULD NEED TO BE REZONED UPON ANNEXATION, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TODAY. UM, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE, THE FUTURE LAND [00:25:01] USE PLAN AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS. WE HAVE NO ONE THAT SIGNED UP FOR THE HEARING, SO WE'LL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. ITEM FOUR D. [d. Consider making a recommendation and preparing a report concerning a proposed amendment to the official zoning map to rezone approximately 3.01 acres addressed as 6610 Thompson Road, and legally described as land situated in the William Hilbus Survey, Abstract No. 336 and being out of and a part of lot 21 of the Elena Fruit and Cotton Farms, Unit “D”, Harris County, Texas, from an Open space/recreation ("OR") zoning district to a Light industrial ("LI") zoning district.] THANK YOU. UH, CONSIDER MAKING A RECOMMENDATION AND PREPARING A REPORT CONCERNING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.01 ACRES THAT WE JUST ADDRESSED. WE'RE CHANGING IT FROM OPEN SPACE RECREATIONAL ZONING DISTRICT TO A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? HEARING NONE. DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? MOVE TO APPROVE. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THIS, PLEASE SAY, AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. [e. Consider making a recommendation and preparing a report concerning proposed amendments to the Unified Land Development Code of the Code of Ordinances, Baytown, Texas to: (i) add a non-residential accessory use for residential accessory structures; (ii) amend zoning districts and conditions for residential accessory uses; and (iii) amend and remove conditions related to residential accessory uses.] FOUR E. CONSIDER MAKING A RECOMMENDATION, PREPARING A REPORT CONCERNING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFIED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF ORDINANCES OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS. TWO. A ADD NON-RESIDENT NON-RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY USE FOR RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. TWO, AMEND ZONING DISTRICTS AND CONDITIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY USES. AND THREE, AMEND AND REMOVE CONDITIONS RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY USES. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. GOOD. SO WE'LL BE DISCUSSING THIS AMENDMENT IN THREE SEPARATE PARTS IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY CONFUSION. THANK GOD, . SO WE'RE GONNA BE DISCUSSING 'EM BASED ON THE THREE OUTCOMES OF THIS AMENDMENT. SO THE FIRST OUTCOME, OUTCOME A, IS TO CREATE FLEXIBILITY FOR EXISTING HOMES IN OR OR NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS TO DEVELOP RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ALLOWED IN SF TWO. UH, OUTCOME B IS INCREASE PERMISSIBLE SIZE OF RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES BASED OFF LOT SIZE AND OUTCOME C IS TO ALLOW, UH, BARNS AND STABLES IN ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. OKAY. SO LIKE YOU SAID, WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH THEM. UM, ONE OUTCOME AT A TIME. SO THIS FIRST ONE AGAIN, IS TO CREATE FLEXIBILITY FOR THE, UH, FOR EXISTING HOMES IN OR OR NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS TO, TO DEVELOP RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ALLOWED IN SF TWO. SO CURRENT CURRENTLY, UH, ONLY EIGHT TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED IN OR, AND ALL REQUIRE A DETAILED PLAN. HOMES AND NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS CANNOT DEVELOP ANY NEW RESIDENTIAL, UH, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. WHAT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS NO DETAILED PLAN IS REQUIRED AND MOST RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ALLOWED IN SF TWO WILL ALSO BE ALLOWED FOR PROPERTIES WITH AN EXISTING HOME AND R-M-U-N-S-C-A-G-C OR LC ZONING DISTRICT. SO THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. SO WE HAVE, YEAH. OKAY. WE HAVE, UM, IN THE FAR COLUMN, WE HAVE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY USES. WE HAVE THE EIGHT THAT ARE CURRENTLY ALLOWED. WHAT DOES PC MEAN? UH, PERMITTED CONDITIONALLY. THANK YOU. MM-HMM . AND THEN WE HAVE PROPOSED, SO YOU CAN SEE IT'S GOING TO GREATLY INCREASE THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORIES, UM, THAT EXISTING HOMES IN THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS CAN HAVE. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OUTCOME? I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY CONCERNS WITH IT AT THE LAST MEETING. SO, OKAY. OUTCOME B, INCREASE THE PERMISSIBLE SIZE OF RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES BASED ON LOT SIZE. SO FIRST ONE OF THE DIRECTIVES WE RECEIVED FROM THE COMMISSION WAS TO REWORD IT. SO WE HAVE REWORDED IT IN ORDER TO MAKE IT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND. SO I'LL JUST READ THROUGH IT AND THEN WE'LL GO THROUGH SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT CURRENTLY IS IN PLACE AND WHAT THIS PROPOSAL WOULD CHANGE. OKAY. SO FOR TRACKS OF LAND 2.0 ACRES OR SMALLER, THE SUM OF ALL BARNS AND STABLES SHALL NOT EXCEED THE GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON THE SAME LOT. AND THE SUM OF ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SHALL NOT EXCEED 75% OF THE GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON THE SAME LOT. FOR TRACKS OF LAND LARGER THAN TWO ACRES, THE SUM OF ALL BARNS AND STABLES MAY EXCEED THE GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON THE SAME LOT. AND THE SUM OF ALL RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SHALL NOT, [00:30:01] UH, EXCEED THE GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON THE SAME LOT. OKAY. SO WE'LL GO THROUGH THE CURRENT SITUATION THEN. SO IN THIS EXAMPLE, UM, THERE IS AN 1800 SQUARE FOOT HOME ON ANY SIZE PARCEL, THEY CAN HAVE UP TO 1350 SQUARE FEET OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND THERE IS NO SIZE RESTRICTION FOR BARNS. SO POTENTIALLY THEY COULD HAVE A BARN THAT EXCEEDED THE SIZE OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE. THIS PROPOSAL TONIGHT, UM, USING THE SAME EXAMPLE OF 1800 SQUARE FEET, THIS IS WHAT IT WOULD MEAN. SO, UH, TWO ACRES OR OF LAND OR LESS, EXCUSE ME, THEY CAN HAVE UP TO 1350 SQUARE FEET OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND THEY CAN HAVE UP TO 1800 SQUARE FEET OF BARNS AND STABLES. IT COULD BE ONE OR THE OTHER, OR A COMBINATION MECHANIC SEED 1800. CORRECT. THANK YOU. FOR PARCELS OF LAND THAT ARE MORE THAN TWO ACRES, THEY CAN HAVE 18, UH, EXCUSE ME, UP TO 1800 SQUARE FEET OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. AND THERE'S NO SIZE LIMIT ON BARNES AND STABLES. SO IF WE LOOK AT ALL THAT TOGETHER, OKAY, SO WE HAVE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIZE OF RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. SO IN, UH, ON THE FIRST COLUMN, WE HAVE CURRENT, WHICH UNDER CURRENT REGULATIONS A PROPERTY OF ANY SIZE THAT HAD 1800 SQUARE FEET, UH, OF A, EXCUSE ME, IN A HOUSE, THEY CAN HAVE UP TO 1,350 SQUARE FEET OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND THEY CAN HAVE EVEN MORE. THERE'S NO SIZE LIMIT ON THE BARNS, OKAY? WITH THIS PROPOSAL, UM, ON A PROPERTY THAT WAS TWO ACRES OR LESS, THEY COULD HAVE THE SAME SIZE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES UP TO THAT 1350, AND THEY COULD HAVE UP TO 1800 SQUARE FEET OF BARNS AND STABLES. IF THE LAND WAS MORE THAN TWO ACRES, THEN THEY COULD HAVE UP TO 1800, UH, SQUARE FEET FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. AND THERE'S NO SIZE RESTRICTION ON BARNS AND STABLES ABLES. SO TWO OF THE ISSUES AT THE LAST MEETING WERE, UH, WE WANTED THAT, THAT Y'ALL EXPRESSED, UH, WAS YOU WANTED TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT WERE ALLOWED ON LARGE LOTS. SO WITH THIS CHANGE, LOTS THAT ARE LARGER THAN TWO ACRES CAN HAVE UP TO 25% MORE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND THEY CAN MAINTAIN THEIR NO LIMIT ON BARNS AND STABLES. BUT ON THOSE SMALLER PARCELS, TWO ACRES OR LESS, THERE IS NOW GOING TO BE A RESTRICTION FOR THE AMOUNT OF BARNS THEY CAN HAVE ONLY UP TO 1800 SQUARE FEET IN THIS EXAMPLE, WHICH IS 100% THE SIZE OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. ANY QUESTIONS? DOES THIS ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS? ONE QUESTION. MM-HMM . UM, LET'S SAY SOMEBODY'S STARTING OUT WITH RAW LAND AND THEY MOVE IN A MANUFACTURED HOME, WHICH IS SAY 60 BY 14. WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE TO BUILD A BIG ENOUGH GARAGE? WELL, IN ANY CASE, THEY COULD APPLY FOR A VARIANCE IF THEY WERE LOOKING TO GO ABOVE THIS. OKAY. SO IN THOSE CASES WHERE THEY DO, UH, HAVE A SMALLER HOME AND THEY WANT A LARGER ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OR BARN, UM, THEY CAN ALWAYS APPLY FOR VARIANCE. I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE DEVELOPING STAGES. THEY MIGHT PUT A MANUFACTURE HOME IN FIRST, THEN BUILD A LARGER HOME AND SO FORTH. OKAY. BUT THERE IS A VARIANCE PROCESS. YES, THERE IS A VARIANCE PROCESS. THIS WOULD JUST GIVE, UM, BY RIGHT THAT EXTENSION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? OKAY, I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT IT, THESE WILL ALSO HAVE TO STILL FOLLOW ALL THE HEALTH REGULATIONS. SO THE CONCERNS IN REGARDS TO HAVING ANIMAL HUSBANDRY ON THE, ON THE PROPERTY WILL ALL STILL BE TAKEN CARE OF FROM CHAPTER 14. AND SO WE FOLLOWED UP WITH, UM, WITH HEALTH ON THIS AND, UM, I GUESS, UH, MS. FRANKIE WILL BE GETTING INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT LATER IN, IN HER PRESENTATION. THAT'S CI JUST WANTED MAKE SURE THAT YOU WERE AWARE. LET'S HEARSAY. OKAY, . SO OUTCOMES C IS ALLOW BARNES AND STABLES IN ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. SO CURRENTLY BARNES AND STABLES ARE ONLY ALLOWED IN SFE AND OR BARNES AND STABLES IN OR MUST SUBMIT A DETAILED PLAN. BUT AS YOU RECALL, OUTCOME A IS GOING TO REMOVE THAT REQUIREMENT. NOW, ALSO, THEY HAVE TO MEET ALL THE STANDARDS IN CHAPTER 14, WHICH CURRENTLY ARE 100 FEET, UH, OF SPACING FROM RESIDENTS. THE PERSON HAS NO RIGHT TO OCCUPY. SO THE NEIGHBORS AND 300 FEET FROM A CHURCH, SCHOOL, HOSPITAL, OR PUBLIC PLACE WHERE FOOD IS SOLD OR CONSUMED. NOW, AS WE'VE MENTIONED BEFORE, THIS IS A CHAPTER THAT THE CITY IS LOOKING TO REVAMP AND, UM, AT THIS TIME THEY'RE STILL WORKING ON IT, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE LEANING TOWARD INCREASING IT. SO PROPOSE TO INCREASE THE 100 FEET, UH, SPACING TO 200 FEET. OKAY? SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IN OUR AMENDMENT IS TO ALLOW BARNES AND STABLES CONDITIONALLY [00:35:01] AN SFE SF ONE, SF TWO. AND OR THE CONDITION IS THAT THEY MUST HAVE A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF ONE ACRE AND THEY MUST MEET THE CHAPTER 14 REQUIREMENTS. THERE WAS A LOT OF FEEDBACK LAST TIME ON THIS SIZE, NOT SUFFICIENT. I, I THINK IN ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICTS, THAT'S JUST NOT ENOUGH FOR A BARN. SO BARNES AREN'T JUST FOR HORSES. SO BARNS ARE FOR OTHER ANIMALS. THEY'RE FOR, THEY COULD BE FOR CHICKENS WHICH REQUIRE LESS SPACE. UM, IT COULD ALSO BE JUST USED FOR STORAGE FOR OTHER, UH, UH, GOODS LIKE HAY AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT IF CHAPTER 14 ALLOWS FOR HORSES, THEY COULD PUT ONE ON IT WITH AN ACRE, CORRECT? WEATHER READS, CAN THEY, DO WE ALLOW COWS? COWS ARE ALLOWED WITHIN CITY LIMITS AS WELL. THEY DO HAVE US N THEY CHOOSE THE CODE , THEY DO. ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS? IS COMMISSIONERS IS DO WE THINK ONE ACRE IS NOT ENOUGH OR DO WE WANNA GO WITH WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US? NOT A LOT OF DISCUSSION, TRACY. WELL, I THINK THE DISCUSSION WE HAD BEFORE THIS INCORPORATES A LOT OF, OH, IT DOES. THE CONCERNS. SO I THINK THIS HAS GONE A LONG WAYS TO MEET. THE ONLY THING I THINK THAT'S IN QUESTION IS THE MINIMUM BLOOD SIZE, IN MY OPINION. SO THE ONE ACRE FOR, UM, THAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE, MINIMUM ONE ACRE FOR BARNES AND STABLES, THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE MINIMUM SIZE FOR SFE. SO IF WE WERE TO CHANGE THAT, THEN WE ARE POTENTIALLY MAKING SOME NON-CONFORMING USES WITHIN THE CITY. THAT'S A GOOD POINT. SO SFE IS ONE ACRE, WHAT IS SF ONE? AND PLEASE REMIND ME. IN SF TWO SIZE, UH, THEY HAVE A SMALLER LOT REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS WHY WE ADDED THIS CONDITION. SO EVEN IF IT'S SF TWO, IT'S STILL HAS TO BE AT LEAST ONE ACRE TO ALLOW LIVESTOCK. SO EXCEEDING A NORMAL STANDARD FOR SF ONE AND S CORRECT. OKAY. SO PROBABLY WON'T ANYTHING ELSE THOSE, I'M JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE COMMISSIONERS ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS. THIS IS AN ITEM FOR, FOR ACTION. SO DO I HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE OR A SECOND, SECOND. I DON'T GET . TAKE YOUR PICK NAME. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. AND A SECOND, ASK ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE SIDE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ITEM [5. DIRECTOR'S REPORT] FIVE, DIRECTOR'S REPORT. PRESENT A REPORT REGARDING ACTIONS TAKEN BY CITY COUNCIL ON PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS. AND HERE SHE COMES FLYING FROM THE BACK. HUH? WE HAVE TRAINING. WE HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC MEETING NEXT DOOR THAT I WAS WORKING ON. I APOLOGIZE. UH, I ON AGENDA, NOT ON MY AGENDA. WE HAVE A TRAINING THAT I'M MISSING. NO, THAT WAS A, THAT WAS A MISTAKE ON MY BEHALF OF WE'RE GONNA PUSH THAT TILL, UH, THE NEXT TIME. . GOOD. WE'LL, FLOG TRACY LATER WE'RE SOUNDS GOOD ON ETHICS, BUT NOT, NOT TODAY. UH, GOOD EVENING. UH, SORRY ABOUT THAT. AND I'M A LITTLE WINDED. GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY. UM, SO JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS TO, TO REPORT. WE ACTUALLY JUST HAD A CITY COUNCIL MEETING LAST THURSDAY. UM, THERE WERE, UM, UH, ABOUT TWO HOURS WORTH OF PLANNING ISSUES. UM, BUT THE, ONE OF THE, UH, ITEMS WE DID FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS, YOU MAY REMEMBER, BECAUSE YOU ALL VISITED, UH, THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC AT LEAST THREE TIMES IN A SMALL BOX DISCOUNT RETAIL. UH, THE CITY COUNCIL DID UNDERSTAND, UH, YOUR RECOMMENDATION AS FAR AS IDENTIFYING THOSE TYPE OF RETAIL, UM, ESTABLISHMENTS AND THEN PROHIBITING THEM FROM OUR SANTA CENTER OVERLAY. SO THAT WAS APPROVED. THE SECOND ONE WAS TRAVEL CENTER. UH, YOU ALL DID NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR TRAVEL CENTER. HOWEVER, THE CITY COUNCIL DID, UH, APPROVE TRAVEL CENTER. WE HAD A VENDOR OR A, A BUSINESS WHO HAS THE, THE TYPE OF, UM, UH, BUSINESS MODEL THAT WOULD'VE FIT FOR TRAVEL CENTERS. THEY SPOKE TO CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY COUNCIL WAS SUPPORTIVE, AND SO THEY DID APPROVE THAT PARTICULAR TEXT AMENDMENT. SO AGAIN, SMALL BOX DISCOUNT. RETAIL AND TRAVEL CENTERS WERE APPROVED LAST THURSDAY FOR CITY COUNCIL. ANOTHER ITEM THAT CITY COUNCIL, UH, REVIEWED WAS, UH, REZONING FOR THE ANIMAL SHELTER. UH, YOU ALL [00:40:01] DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL. CITY COUNCIL CONCURRED AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AS WELL. THE OTHER, UM, ITEM THAT CITY COUNCIL DEALT WITH WAS, UM, THAT CAME FROM, FROM YOUR, YOUR BODY WAS THE, UH, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ROUGHLY 42 ACRES AT I 10 AND SHO LANDER. UH, YOU MAY REMEMBER YOU, UM, HAD TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS BACK IN NOVEMBER OF 2019, AND THEN IN DECEMBER, 2019 AND RECOMMENDED DISAPPROVAL FOR, UH, SEVERAL ISSUES. UM, ONE BEING MAIN TRAFFIC AND FEELING THAT THE, THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE, UH, IN THAT LOCATION. SINCE THAT TIME, THE DEVELOPER HAS WORKED WITH, UH, CITY STAFF, UM, TO REDESIGN THE PROJECT. UM, AND THEY DID PRESENT THE A REDESIGN LAST THURSDAY TO CITY COUNCIL. UM, I DID SEND THAT OUT TO YOU ALL LAST PROBABLY A WEEK BEFORE, UH, BEFORE, ACTUALLY BEFORE IT WENT TO THE COUNCIL'S AGENDA. UH, FOR, FOR COMMENTS, I DID RECEIVE COMMENTS BACK FROM, FROM SOME OF YOU. I WOULD ALSO ASK THAT YOU ALL, IF YOU, UH, WOULD LIKE TO GIVE ME COMMENTS SO THAT I CAN SHARE, I'D LIKE TO SHARE THAT, UH, WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. UM, WE ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH IT. AND ON THE 28TH, CITY COUNCIL WILL, UH, REVIEW THE PROJECT AGAIN ALONG WITH, UH, CONSENT TO ANNEX THAT PROJECT OR THAT LAND INTO AN EXISTING MUD DISTRICT, AS WELL AS, UM, APPROVING OR REVIEWING AND APPROVING, UM, COVENANTS RESTRICTIONS AND DECLARATIONS FOR THE PROJECT. SO I HAVE ON THE, WHICH I'M GONNA GET UP AND SHOW YOU, IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT, THEIR NEW REVISED SITE PLAN, YOU JUST GIMME ONE MINUTE. THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION. SO PLEASE REFER BACK TO, PLEASE REFER BACK TO THE, WHAT A BUMMER. WHAT A BUMMER TO THE EMAIL THAT I, I SENT YOU. AND THEN GIVE ME, UH, A CONTACT EMAIL BACK OR SO FORTH WITH ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS YOU HAVE. AND SO AGAIN, THAT'S GONE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON THE 28TH. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS? HEARING NO QUESTIONS AND THEN HAVING EXHAUSTED THE AGENDA. THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNS. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.