Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yes. Order. We'll call to the uh meeting of the regular planning and zoning commission meeting for March 18th, 2026, 5:00 p.m. at 5:02. And uh we'll get started with the roll call, please. Uh member Pat here. Member Carolyn Esp. Vice Chair Carson Leo, and Chair Russell Scott here. Maybe have a Thank you. So, since we have a quorum, do we have any public comments?

Like no more public comments. Uh the first item on the agenda is to approve the regular planning and zoning commission meeting minutes from February 4th, 2026. I move that we approve the minutes. I second. Motion to approve the regular planning and zoning commission meeting minutes from February 4th, 2026. All in favor, please raise your hand and say, "I

All right. Uh the first item on the regular agenda is discussion and possible action on consideration and recommendations on proposed planned unit development. It's listed in our packet as a planned development district which we're going to be straight and rewritten as a planned unit development a PD versus PDD for Via Meadow lot 56 89 11 and 12 and to send those recommendations to council for review. Before we get into a big discussion on that, I believe we have our city administrator Jim Burton on the line with us. I'd like to ask Jim to just give us a a quick overview of of what the issues are, what the questions are, and what's before us. Are you there, Jim?

Yeah. Yeah, I'm here. Can y'all hear me? Yes. Y

Okay, y'all are kind of quiet. I'm having to listen hard. My volume's cranked all the way up. Um anyways, um if uh throw on your remembering hat, we had a this uh gentleman asked for a variance recently, a couple months ago about one of the lots, lot five. Um, after discussions with um, Mayor Hines and our uh, city attorney, we thought in an effort to make this a permanent solution for those that come down the line after me or um, if he decides to sell the lots or anything, it's already set in stone on what what we can do. So, um if you'll remember on the one variance, um does everybody remember the problem um in that the the way the zoning was changed years ago? It virtually made the lots unbuildable based on the the impervious coverage and setbacks and all that kind of good stuff. Um, I know Russell, you and I discussed it last week, but um, you other guys remember, do we need to go back in and to explain why we got to where we are?

Uh, I don't I don't think so. I mean, I think we all know we wanted to go to three parking spaces. Pat may have a question about it. Well, I was in the meeting where the gentleman came in and was talking about his single lot and at that time um I discussed maybe incorporating some of the green space in the uh available uh permeable imper permeable cover. And uh apparently for that specific lot that made it all the way through council. Is that correct? Okay. And given other discussions I've had, it sounds like this is in keeping with the same decision chain that we had on that lot. Plus, there's another layer of the compatibility of the houses that are already there, the development that's already there, and trying to have any new construction appear to be compatible and built within the same framework, I would say. So, that's my two cents. Yes, that's that's um how we got to his variance. Um you know, he was uh as I was talking to him, you know, the next steps would if he wants to build on the other five lot, he would have to go through five more variances or some variation thereof, whether it's we do a blanket one or not. But just in an effort to try to keep it simple, put it to bed and be done with it. Um if the way it's presented um we are not cuz there was some there was some consideration about giving that that that

credit for the green space behind it. This virtually does the same thing but it just takes it takes any verbiage of that green space out of it. So by increasing the impervious coverage to 40% which um um is slightly more than what we gave him in the variance. Uh what it does would allow for a 1,200 ft² living area uh one-story house which is trying to keep within you know the houses that are similar that are there now most I think if not all of them most of them are onetory I know the residents um stressed that before when we did the variance I would like to if all possible um make it to where they can build a one-story um without necessarily being going up. And I think not that we could ever stop them from going up, but um based on current ordinances, we would um you know, this would address those concerns in that you could get you, you know, a 1,200 foot this. Now, that's not counting the garage, the driveway, that kind of thing. It's just the living, you know, the AC square footage. Um 40% would get you using the same numbers that we used uh in the variance on the green space. 40% would get you a 1,200 foot house in addition to the two-car garage and the twocar park two-car parking with a 10ft setback.

That's a lot of talking. Did that make sense? Yeah, for my Okay. So I just want to go through this a little bit

to look at exhibit A in your packet. This kind of outlines uh the development standards for this new land unit development specifically for the villas of Brook Meta for any other place in Wood Creek specifically for this only and I'll say multiple times but because I know anybody listening to this might concern uh that it doesn't affect them unless they're in the goals of work benefits strictly for that. Um it it the section one section two just basically talks about it's a SF2 designation single family residence 2. Um but the what I want to call your attention to is section three development standards. So they're looking at a minimum front setback of 10 ft and side setbacks of zero and rear setbacks of zero. And one of the reasons that we did this is because after looking at that green space proposition, we realized that about half of these would be able to do that because of utilities and it's a writing. So building onto that space or moving back into that space would require complete infrastructure change in that whole village.

So it's kind of a a non-starter. Um so the uh garage requirement still going to require you know a 20x 20 which is a twocar garage uh within current zoning requirements. Uh the impervious coverage right now is going from 30 to 40 for this. Uh and then the existing conditions was to prove variance including the allowance for he said 1,200. I think our calculator come out to,68 square foot square foot home singles story uh is recognized as conforming condition but you can get up to 1,200 on some of these lots. Um so the the purpose of this is to have a discussion about it um have any u you know questions answered and then make a recommendation back to council of how to move forward.

Could someone clarify to me what the side setback of zero is? Yeah. So it's a it's a zero setback non it's nonattached walls. Is that the word? So, it's kind of confusing. He could jump at public.

Let me let me chime in on that. The original deed restrictions, which all the other houses were built under, um you have the ability to make it a zero lot line um structure. Um basically, the deed restrictions say you can build on the property line on one left or right side, but there's some conditions that you got to meet. There's got to be no windows and some other things. I don't think any of them that are out there on are true zero lot line houses, but the deed restrictions laid it out. So, it's kind of basically going back to the original deed restrictions is what he's asking for. Um, not not that the plan I we can we can always change that if that's a recommendation, but it's just the original deed restriction said you could build on one of the side setbacks to the

specific to the property line. Is that specified here that it's one of the sides? Yes, it's one of the sides. It's not both. Um, you specify

uh I don't have them in front of me, but it says that you are able to build on one side property line if you meet some of the conditions. Um, which I'm going off my memory. You there would be no windows on that side that's facing the neighbor. Um Um, and I I forget the others, but there's a few variations. Nobody. I don't know that anybody would do that. And I don't know that's the plan, but it's just returning to the original deed restrictions that went that got taken away with the zoning change. It's it's laid out. I have it. Um there's a note on one of my whiteboards if somebody wanted to go find it and pull it up, but it's you got to read through it, but it's it's there.

Y that doesn't necessarily have to be recommendation. I'm sorry. That doesn't necessarily mean that has to be a recommendation. Maybe we keep the typical 7 and 1/2 foot um setback, but generally those are there for the easements, the utility easements in this neighborhood. All of those utility easements are in the back green space between the buildings, which is I think why there would never be a need to have something go in between the houses. No, there there are no easements laid out there. It's all in the back. So,

but what he's saying is the de we're not changing that. So, the deed restrictions are all file as an ordinance for what you can and can't do. They're just mimicking this back to original deed restrictions instead of what we have currently in creek. So, we're we're basically I mean, the easiest way I and correct me if I'm wrong, Jim, but the easiest way I can explain it is we're going to let them do what they originally did, right? So, what's originally there?

We're just letting them do what they originally did, but nobody else. I I guess my confusion is and excuse my ignorance. Um, in this ordinance, does it clarify where does the ordinance end up doing the lot lines and stuff or is that something done in the deed restrictions? But deed restrictions aren't ordinances. I didn't realize cities had deed restrictions. the HOA there has de restrictions and they are still retaining the HOA. Uh I'm not sure it's functioning, but the houses are still down by deed restrictions regardless if whether or not

I actually ran into the guy the other day that is still the on record president of that property owners association. I can't remember who it is. He doesn't live there anymore, but I think he owns a lot or something there. And uh so I guess you know they still have and we have other neighborhoods like Brook Meadow and stuff that have deed restrictions and such. So yeah, and I'm just learning about all I had asked as Jeff educated me on it. I was like, "Wait a second." You know, zero lot lines sounds like a duplex,

right? It sounds like a shared wall, right? Uh, but there's also zero lot lines that aren't really zero. They're like 12 in or 18 in or 3 ft or whatever. Uh, there was one in Galveston that would it was called zero lot line, but it was actually a 24 inch setback. Yeah. It has to be wide enough for someone to walk from the front of the lot to the back of the lot. Right. Exactly. So, um, this is different. There need restrictions. Like I said, you can build up to like you can't join lots. So like if

if you and I have adjoining lots and I'm the first guy to build and I come in and give Jim my plans, I can build on your lot line, our lot. I can build on I just can't put any windows or doors. So when you build, you're not looking in windows or doors. And you put a 36 inch door in on a 24 inch ement. You open it and dent it, right? Um, yeah. Okay. I'm I'm just was trying to differentiate between the ordinance and the need restrictions and try to just understand that

you all can make recommendations to alter this slightly with something like that. If that if you were worried about it not being explicitly stated in the code, you could say something along those lines of minimum side setback 0 feet semicolon only one side can utilize that, you know. Well, but if we're allowing the deed restrictions to rule, we don't have to do that. I I Is that correct? I think yes. I think it's perfectly fine the way it is.

Okay. I think that the general understanding of how these can and can't be built on and the deep restrictions do apply unless they vote to dis like to dissolve their HOA completely. So, and that's a different a different problem that is theirs to decide to do or not. That's not the city would never rule on that case.

I was just trying to if you are worried about that being addressed, you do have the right to make recommendations or changes to this document. That's all I was pointing out. My concern was is the guy that is the president of this who I ran into who I cannot remember his name told me it's very very inactive and I would I wouldn't be totally surprised if they did at some point just to get his name off the books or something he got enough people together to just say let's dissolve it and if we didn't have some regulation otherwise has to intentionally do what the deed restrictions say. Would that be a problem?

I don't think so. And if you want to recommend amending this to like a three-foot setback I mean, well, if each house had a twoft setback, you'd have a 4ft area in between seems to be adequate. I don't even think you need a three-foot. Yeah. But people, you know, I've got a house that has a very narrow space. Our little house is built very biased to one side and I can't get my riding line more through there because of landscaping that's there. So I have to go through the other side

and so I don't know recommend it. I I I don't have a problem with it. You know, I don't particularly like relying on D restrictions. It just when they're active and stuff kind of makes our life a little bit easier because they're governing themselves uh without our oversight, but we got to have a an umbrella over that that says, "Okay, you can do what you want within your dude as long as it conforms to this." Right? So, if you're coming asking for two feet, make a motion and see what happens. Um, can I chime in right quick?

Yes, sir. Um, I don't think it would be unreasonable if we wanted to stay with the rest of the city and do the 7 and 1/2t setbacks on the sides because he's going to have any person is going to have the room um to build that. If it would if if we agreed to the 1,200 square foot, if you did the 7 and 1/2t setbacks on the side, you're still going to be able to accommodate the house that you're you're wanting. So, um, yeah, the average lot width is 60 ft and if you had 7 and 1/2 ft on either side, you'd be down to 45t. too. Um,

you could split the difference. You could say three. I I don't feel like we need to go all the way to seven and a half, but and the back plot line is irrelevant because of the green space, right? And then the front is pretty much clarified by all of the driveways that are already there. It was just the sides that bugged me a little bit. Yeah. So, two or three feet set back. I think it's pretty.

Yeah. Okay. I would like to make a motion that we adopt the ordinance as written, but amend it with instead of a zero side lot line, make it a three three foot uh set back on the sides. You have a second. I second that 36 in is good and you don't combine six feet. Yeah.

Okay. Okay. So, we have a motion on the floor to amend the ordinance as read when it refers to exhibit A in section two of the proposed ordinance to change exhibit A section 3 development standards paragraph A item number two from minimum side setback of zero feet to minimum side setback oft. And that still gives some light to Is that correct? That's That's correct. That's correct. Right. All in favor? I

I now mayor, may I have a question? Sure. Would I now amend what we just approved to make the requested changes? Yeah.

Okay. So I'd like to make an amendment to the motion that was approved that Freeman as stated in the previous motion with the additional changes of some very simple verbage in the city ordinance city of Wood Creek ordinance proposed ordinance section one adding the before the first word of the zoning district met adding villa villas Meadows, the Villa Meadows zoning district map. And also on section three as read, secretary authorized official hereby authorized and directed to designate the track of land zoned here in as such to strike such as herein as Villa Meadows PUD.

You made that motion. I second that. All right, we have a second. And all in favor of the amended changes to the amended motion, raise your hand say. Y think that passes. Any other discussion on item one? If not, we will quickly move on to item number two. So, uh that's what's going to be sent to city council, right? what we just admit. Okay. Yes. I'm drafting your report now. I literally just have to do it. That's great.

Uh the second item on the agenda, second item on the agenda is, excuse me, discussion and possible administrative action to set a future public hearing date on the proposed plan development district. Again, that being stricken from the record and changed to a planned unit development or PUD versus PDD for VM Meadows lot 56 7 I mean it's 56 8 9 11 and 12 with consideration and recommendations sent to the city council for the same. So, the proposed motion uh is to call a joint public hearing on April 8th uh before the regular city council meeting for consideration, recommendation of the amendments that and motions that we just approved. Uh I move that we do that uh public hearing on April 8th on this as text is altered to be the PUB instead of the PGP on did I say April and you did

so she just when you said you did a second Oh she just technically I'm second Yes. Okay. So, we have a motion to call a joint public hearing on April 8th, 2026, just before the uh uh regular city council meeting for consideration and recommendation to council on the Dolanto's PUD strike PDD, please. Application for lot number five, number six, number eight, number nine, 11, 12. All in favor say I. I. I. So, is that going to be like a little mini planning and zoning meeting?

I think we're there more for show show and support, you know, I think it all starts at 5:30. Our starts at 5 and like it's like a public hearing and you know people come and we'll talk to y'all and then y'all are like, "Okay, this is our final decision." So you'll have another final report and then council opens it up and but the final report will be completed before the council meeting starts of two. So like tonight's final report and after the public hearing I'm have another final and I quite frankly be surprised if I the developer may show up. I'm kind of surprised he didn't show up tonight. Sorry. Did you answer the question?

I think he he's already got the proposal. So, but I agree with you, but um I would I wouldn't expect 50 people here, you know. So, I think it'll be a very quick, you know, 10 15 minute discussion at the most and then we'll make our final final recommendation to council and then we can get out loud here and they can argue about all they want.

All right. Any other questions or discussion on item two of the regular agenda? It's not. Does anybody have considerations for the agenda items for the next regular meeting? Well, we know that the next regular meeting is also April 8th. Uh, which the agenda item would be um well to clarify that would not be your regular meeting. It' be a special meeting. That's what I was wondering. Well, you're holding a public hearing. So, yeah, it's a little different considered a special meeting because it's not during your regular meeting. So, how many people have to be here? Ideally, all four of y'all. Yeah. On special meetings. I know. That's what I'm asking though. You You're in class. You should know.

No, no, no. But I'm saying what is it? You got to have was it Yeah, the super majority. Super majority. It But if we only have four people, what's the super majority? Well, this would be 75% of it. the supermajority of your board is four people whenever there's not someone appointed that it almost is like a legal question about does that person still account or not basically the last time we asked that of a lawyer they said if there's no person appointed to the seat then they don't count so so this whole thing is stuck in the mud if all four of us are not here

we can ask and be sure with legal but please just plan to attend. Well, I planned to be here, but I'm just curious. We have three people here right now. A previous attorney gave us one opinion on that and it was about council and it was whether or not if we had an appointed council member, if we needed four votes or three, right? He said if that person's not appointed, then you don't actually have that board member. So, it's not about empty seats. It's about appointed members. So right now my understanding is that three is fine but we can always four is super majority. Yes but we can always confer with our current.

I would do that. I hate this whole thing to run off the tracks and legal technical is okay. Try to ensure everyone is there. Yeah. Um that's the the best way to can't make it. Please let me know ahead of time so we can scram. Oh, I I would advocate for us having as much communication between ourselves on when that meeting is and when we should be there and everything specifically about the meeting. Yes. Because it's not our standard meeting, right? Well, yeah, but I mean I meant top down. Yeah.

So, the the way it I think Krie answered So, the way it'll go is you have two items, two two public hearings essentially. Each one will have we'll open the hearing. If there's public comments, we take them and then we can close the hearing if there aren't. So, you don't have to stay open for a specific period of time. It just has to be publicly noticed when it starts, right? And then you guys will issue another formal recommendation and report whether or not you approve of the issue or not. We'll type that up. We'll print them out. You'll proceed to the second one. You'll do the same thing again. So you'll have two reports at the end of it and then they go to the council public hearing

and it happens right after. So essentially you guys will be dismissed and done and then we'll proceed straight into the council public hearing. There will probably be a delayed time because if y'all go quickly, we still have to start the meetings at the exact time we say we're going to because the public has a right to show up. I don't anticipate being sick or out of town. noted. It's just because it's a special meeting that is not our normal what is it the third.

Yeah, we'll confirm whether a nonappointed seat counts or not to the supermajority, but that's all we need to ask and we can check on that. It it does when somebody's absent, but that's when there's a person appointed in it. M so when this came up is uh my first council meeting. We had a vacancy on council but we also had a public hearing that day. We had a nice long debate whether or not the vacancy see on council counted into our supermajority or not. Then attorney but wife said no because it's a victim and nobody appointed them. Well this could be an ongoing problem for a four a fourperson group here. Yeah.

And so I think we need to resolve this for any future meeting. We do. And we really need to get y'all on a fifth member. I think I've got it. Okay. Good. Hopefully we'll be here the next meeting. Good. They wouldn't come to the special meeting though, right? Um well, they would have to be appointed first appointing. So they would not be a a April 8. Yeah. No need that one. So we have any agenda items moving on. Do we have any agenda items for the next labor meeting? Anything you guys need to discuss or want to discuss? Uh does anybody have any announcements?

I do. I'm glad that it's not going to freeze anymore and sure looking forward to going to Costa Rica in a few weeks. Nice. Before or after April 8th? After. Yeah, just after actually tonight. All right. Uh, we have the Water Wise event coming up this weekend at the VFW if you'd like to attend. Uh, Tesa's going to giving an update on the original aqua lawsuit regarding over pumping. Um, they're also giving away away rain barrel collection systems, including the installation. Up to 10 households will get one. And there's other giveaways for like Yeah, you have to register.

Yeah. Well, you just need to you need to come to the event and it's like a raffle and then they're giving away other smaller items but all of it oriented around water wise. There's educational opportunities. Um the city is sponsoring the event in coordination with Solid Con from Mother Earth from the KWBH radio. So, hope y'all can come. It's I think 10:00 a.m. on Saturday. And then just final reminders for Friday 5 to 7 music at the park. Uh Oh, good. Yeah, that will be coming up the April 3rd. 3rd.

April the 3rd. And then the following morning, 9 to 11:00 a.m. Augusta Park egg hunt. And if you're like, listen, wants to participate in the egg line. Today is the When's the deadline? Which Wednesday? Is it today? Next. Next Wednesday, I think, is the deadline to bring your dozen pre-sted eggs to city hall to register your kid to be involved in the egg hunt. Wasn't there some additional thing on the Easter egg hunt that sounded more like an adult activity? What was it? Oh, they do like it. Was it raw egg the first year? Then they moved to reusable watermelon. Oh, okay. I don't think they're still doing the raw egg. Okay. It'd be a lot of fun. It just was the lily to clean up. Exactly.

Okay. Anything else? No. Motion to journ. I move to a second. All right. It is 5:35. I'm calling the regular planning zone commission meeting for August. I mean for March I believe I forgot what the days 20th March the March 18th 2026. What are these journey?