the League City Official Website!

View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LEAGUE CITY

300 WEST WALKER STREET

LEAGUE CITY, TEXAS

August 23, 2005

The City Council of the City of League City, Texas met in a Regular Meeting in the Council Chambers, 200 West Walker Street on the above date at 6:30 p.m.

MAYOR: Jerry Shults

CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tad Nelson

Mike Barber (Absent)

Thomas Cones

Kathleen (Katie) Benoit

Rusty Tidwell

Jon Keeney

Jim Nelson

CITY ADMINISTRATOR: Michael Clawson

CITY ATTORNEY: Arnold Polanco

CITY SECRETARY: Barbara F. Long

DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: Robert Powers

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS: Christopher M. Peifer

CHIEF OF POLICE: Andrew Daniel

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS

Mayor Shults opened the meeting at 6:32 p.m. and called the roll. All members of Council were present with the exception of Mr. Barber.

2. INVOCATION, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE U.S.FLAG AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS FLAG

The invocation was led by Pastor Rudy Guerrero with the Texas Avenue Baptist Church. Mayor Shults led the pledges of allegiance to the flags.

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

A. April 21, 2005 City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission Joint Public Hearing

B. June 20, 2005 Special Meeting

C. June 21, 2005 Special Meeting

D. June 21, 2005 Work Shop

E. June 27, 2005 Work Shop

F. June 28, 2005 Regular Meeting

G. July 12, 2005 Regular Meeting

H. July 18, 2005 Work Shop

Mayor Shults asked if there were any changes to the minutes.

There were no changes.

Mr. Jim Nelson moved to approve all of the minutes listed.

MOTION: Mr. Jim Nelson

SECOND: Ms. Benoit

VOTE: 6 For

4. APPOINTMENTS, PROCLAMATIONS, PRESENTATIONS, AWARDS

A. Consider and take action on appointments to the Boards, Committees, and Commissions (Mayor)

Ms. Benoit made a motion to approve appointments to the Boards, Committees, and Commissions as recommended by the Mayor.

MOTION: Ms. Benoit

SECOND: Mr. Jim Nelson

Mayor Shults said there are a couple of ways we can do this. We all have the list of appointments. Tonight we are recommending simply appointing the people whose terms have expired, only a couple of new members and some Council Members be reappointed to the boards.

Senior Citizen’s Advisory Committee

1. Elena C. Balderas (Reappoint)

2. Judith Waugh (new)

Animal Shelter Advisory Board

1. Dr. Larry Fleming (Reappoint)

3. Sara Souter (Reappoint)

Audit Committee

1. Rusty Tidwell (City Council Member)

3. Jim Nelson (City Council Member)

4. Peggy Zahler (Reappoint)

5. Jariwala Gaurang (Reappoint)

League City Economic Development Corporation

1. Dale Hardy (New)

2. T. Craig Barker (Reappoint)

3. Thomas W. Linklater (Reappoint)

4. Vacancy

5. Dee Scott (Reappoint)

6. City Council Member

7. Katie Benoit City Council Member (Reappoint)

Library Board

Council Liaison Jim Nelson City Council Member

Destination League City Convention and Visitors Corporation

2. Robert L. Bozeman (New)

5. Bridget A. Bear (Reappoint)

6. City Council Member

7. Don T. Burrows Jr. (Reappoint)

Butler Longhorn Museum and Heritage Park Board

2. Diana Dornak, L.C. Historical Society (New)

Mayor Shults recommended Council Member Tad Nelson be added to the League City Economic Development Corporation in Position No. 6 and Council Member Tad Nelson be added to the Destination League City Convention and Visitors Corporation in Position No. 6.

VOTE: 6 For

5. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ITEMS FROM PUBLIC HEARING

A. Public Hearing on the City of League City Fiscal Year 2006 proposed tax rate (Interim Director of Finance)

At 6:41 p.m. Mayor Shults opened the Public Hearing.

There was no one who spoke for or against the issue.

At 6:42 p.m. Mayor Shults closed the Public Hearing.

After the public hearing Mayor Shults announced the ordinance approving the proposed tax rate would be on the agenda for the regular meeting of September 27, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers.

B. Public Hearing on the City of League City’s Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Budget (Interim Director of Finance)

At 6:43 p.m. Mayor Shults opened the Public Hearing.

There was no one who spoke for or against the issue.

At 6:43 p.m. Mayor Shults closed the Public Hearing.

C. Consider and take action on the approval of an ordinance adopting the Annual Budget for Governmental and Proprietary Funds, Fiscal year 2005-2006 (Interim Director of Finance)

Mayor Shults numbered Ordinance No. 2005-23.

Ms. Benoit made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 2005-23 adopting the Annual Budget for Governmental and Proprietary Funds, Fiscal year 2005-2006 on first reading.

MOTION: Ms. Benoit

SECOND: Mr. Tad Nelson

VOTE: 6 For

6. CITIZENS REQUEST FOR HEARING BEFORE CITY COUNCIL

A statement of no more than 3 minutes may be made on items of general relevance. There will be no yielding of time to another person. State law prohibits the Mayor and members of the City Council from commenting on any statement or engaging in dialogue without an appropriate agenda item being posted in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Law. Comments should be directed to the entire Council, not individual members. Engaging in verbal attacks or comments intended to insult, abuse, malign or slander any individual shall be cause for termination of time privileges and expulsion from Council Chambers.

Ms. Georgie Way said I live at 4801 W. Main on Pine Lake. I want to thank you for listening. I have reviewed Version #3 of the zoning map and most of our requests have been honored. All of that property has been turned back to residential. My issue tonight is moving the Knights of Columbus Hall from residential to public. We have some concerns that once it goes public it can be sold as public for a lot of different reasons. We really do not want to see a government purchase of that land. We don’t want to see hospitals or day care centers. If they decide to sell, there are lots of different things that can go in back there once the zoning is made public. Another concern is the six acres in front of it which right now you are zoning as residential and leaving it that way. However, it is owned by the Archdioceses of Galveston. Our concern is that in the future, if you go public with this one, that he will either donate or sell very cheaply and we will end up with a ten-acre development right next to our homes on Pine Lake. We are just really concerned about this and would like to make a one last plea that you leave that residential. We have no issues with the Knights of Columbus’ banquet hall. They are great neighbors. We would just ask you to seriously consider leaving it residential and let them continue to do business as they have been for all the past years.

Mayor said in no way is this a response to Ms. Way’s request. Just as a note, that particular piece of property has gone back and forth. I have no way to know how Council will vote tonight. I will tell you though that when I open that Agenda Item I intend to make a recommendation to Council for that piece of property to be maintained as residential. That is an issue that has gone back and forth between our Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z). I cannot complement them enough for the time and effort they have put into this. Having said that, I said when I was running for Mayor and I will say again, I will always put the citizens of League City first. The citizens that are here have a precedence of the ones that are coming. Simply put, that will be the direction that I will ask my Council to take tonight.

Dr. C. Lynn Davis said I am a long time resident of League City at 19 Ellis Road. Ellis Acres Subdivision is probably the second or third subdivision that was deeded after League City was chartered in 1962. Ellis Road is the only access into and out of the subdivision. It is past the Creekside Intermediate School and dead ends into Clear Creek. The approximate lot size in that subdivision is from one acre to just over two acres. Mr. Ellis sold to his good friend, Dr. Bradley, about five acres of land at the dead end. Due to the deaths of Mr. Ellis and Dr. Bradley, there are approximately 5 acres on the right and 2 acres on the left at the dead end that was acquired by a gentleman who went into bankruptcy. The land went into foreclosure 3 ½ years ago. It was acquired by a gentleman who lives in Creekside Estates. We assumed there was just going to be a home or two on that piece of property. It is not in the Ellis Acres Subdivision. We are not here to petition or block development of that land. We are only trying to keep it comparable with the rest of the neighborhood. We have twenty families who have been living there since 1965. We are asking you to consider RSF20 so it does not disrupt the character of the subdivision. To zone it RSF10 or even RSF7 would put many homes on that dead end street. We do not seek to block this gentleman’s ability to make money. That is the American Way. We are all here because League City is developing. We are proud of it but development needs to be a little bit more controlled.

Mr. Scott Sheldon, Sports Director for Big League Dreams Sports Park, League City, read a letter from Mr. Don Webber, Vice President of Development, with regard to an update and status report on the park. Briefly, it has exceeded all expectations. In the first two months attendance has been more than 41,000. Based on these early figures, more than 247,000 are expected to attend the park in its first year – exceeding expectations by 28 per cent. Virtually every weekend through 2005 is scheduled and we are working with tournament promoters to accommodate their events into 2006. Big League Dreams has secured five “host hotels” and has entered sponsorship agreements with the South Shore Harbour Resort, the Kemah Boardwalk Inn, the Victorian Condo Hotel, the LaQuinta Inn and Suites (NASA), and the Adventure Out RV Park. With the artificial turf fields Big League Dreams has had only one night rained out. Your local families are telling us every day they are thrilled you have brought Big League Dreams to them. We look forward to keeping them happy through a long and mutually beneficial partnership with the City.

Mr. Jerry Lanan, 2118 Balsam Lake Lane, said I am Financial Secretary for the Knights of Columbus Hall. This building was built in 1988 long before most of those houses were built back there. Our big concern is if something happens to that Hall we cannot rebuild it. We have done a lot for the community. We have donated a lot of money. We were approached by Red Cross about a year ago. We are set up as a Red Cross Rescue Center that will help the community in the event there is some kind of catastrophe. I would like you to consider all these issues. If something happens to that building, we are just out in the cold there. We can not rebuild that building.

Mr. Hap Hunnicut said I am with Equity Development which is part of the management company that manages and owns Lee Colony Apartments. My family has owned property in the League City area since the 1840s. I am here tonight because I oppose the violation of the private property rights that the proposed amendment to our zoning ordinance represents. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution clearly states that you may not take private property without compensation. By forcing private property owners to tear down existing structures and by not allowing the rebuilding in case of fire or other damage you are taking property value away. You are no doubt aware that the citizens of Texas and League City are fed up with government continuing to chip away at our property rights. I have to ask you, is the reason you are trying to rush through this ordinance the fact that on September 1 a new law, Senate Bill 574, goes into effect that protects private property owners from just this sort of taking? It is actions like these that drove the people of Texas to demand better protection from government taking. You probably heard about the recent Supreme Court decision. That outrageous decision which said governments can take land for economic development purposes. Even in that case, the court upheld the government’s obligation to pay for the land that was taken. Your proposed ordinance does not do that. It simply wipes away any value on an income basis that exists at the time a subject property is deemed non-compliant. The citizens of Texas were so outraged by Supreme Court decision they asked the Legislature to pass Senate Bill 7 which prevents governments from taking property for economic development purposes. That bill is currently sitting on the Governor’s desk. In conclusion, I oppose the proposed amendments to our zoning ordinance because it violates our constitutional rights by taking private property without compensation. I believe if the City goes down this path, you are inviting a citizens’ revolt that could lead to more legislation restricting further your rights to regulate land use and quite possibly the courthouse challenges to the constitutionality of this ordinance.

Mr. Roland Souliere said I am President of the Knights of Columbus Club located at 4889 W. Main Street. I come before you to ask you to consider the recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Commission to change the zoning of our property from residential to public. I know that in the past there has been opposition to commercial and we are not interested in pursuing that. We are only concerned about our building and the use of our building as a rental hall. It took us ten long years to build that building. When we wanted to add on to it, we found out the land had been zoned residential. Due to the opposition, we withdrew our request for a zoning variance. The City asked us to be patient and said in the near future there was going to be some zoning changes in the City. We waited three years. The recommendation of neighborhood commercial was presented in April. It is not what we asked for so the solution seemed to be to zone it public. Now again we have opposition to it. I don’t think there is any way we can satisfy the opposition. We have spent a lot of time, money and effort there. I ask you to please consider doing the zone change from residential to public.

Mr. Charles Wilson, 2314 Pebble Beach, said I own Big Lakes Golf Club on FM646 and several tracts of land on FM646. I am a little confused about what we are doing here tonight. I was told that I would have a chance after this hearing to oppose the existing way that my property is zoned for approximately 60 days. Is this correct?

Mayor Shults said for clarification, there is a 60-day moratorium where you can make a zone change request without paying a fee. Although we will be voting on the ordinance tonight, you will have the 60 days to appeal. That is just without a fee. You can always request a change. There will be a second reading on the ordinance next Tuesday.

Mr. Charles Wilson continued the one thing I strongly oppose is the way the zoning map was originally done when all I see is red, red, red (meaning mixed use commercial), purple, purple (meaning general commercial), and my property is pink meaning office and professional which is about the only pink in the entire City. Directly across the street is purple and red. I strongly oppose part of what they have done here. Part of it is correct but there is a lot that is incorrect. The other thing I really question is when I see blue. Blue is public. Blue is my daily-fee golf course but the City does not own it. It is confusing by it being a blue color when City Hall is blue also. So if we could get some sort of distinction between that, I would appreciate it.

Mr. Cliff Jackson said I was advised the other day that when I spoke I was not recognized as Lee Colony Apartments. I would like to set the record straight. I have been to all the meetings opposing the residential zoning of land that we have had in our family, that has been used as commercial and was approved as commercial in 1962, 1964, 1966 and different times when we built properties there. When you have a zoning ordinance you need to consider that we are commercial. People have moved into the neighborhood with those apartments there since 1962. They did not move in there thinking there was not going to be apartments I think we are amiss in trying to rush into this zoning deal just to try to beat the Texas law. I strongly urge you to table it.

Mr. Bob Hart, 1411 Modeste, said I am a resident of Victory Lakes. My interests about any zoning changes concern the strip of land south of Victory Lakes Intermediate School and north of FM646 bounded on the east by Walker Street and on the west by I45. My recommendation is the same as that given as the Hippocratic Oath to graduating medical students. That is “If you can do no good at least do no harm.” Relating that advice to the strip of land I just referred to “If you can’t change the zoning to something more favorable to the homeowners, then don’t change it from what it is.” My second recommendation regards the League City Planning Department. This Department is a product of the previous administration which was very developer oriented. These people need to be re-educated to appreciate that their salaries are largely paid by the tax paying homeowners not the developers. They need to be made aware that the presiding administration was elected on a platform of representing the homeowners. The new administration told us that they would look after the best interests of the homeowners. We have faith in them that they will be true to their platform. In summary, please don’t change the zoning of the area south of Victory Lakes Intermediate School.

Ms. Ann Rogers, 3216 Mystic Port, said I did not realize when I bought a house in League City how many different taxes I would be responsible for. I did not get a tax bill from the City until 2004 and I paid it in full. In May 2005, I get a tax bill and they had added on 35 per cent in penalties and interest because it was a late bill. They sent the first tax bill to the builder and the second bill was sent out the following May which I did not get. In 2005 I got the next bill with all the fees added. I was told that in the future the Tax Department would be sending out bills twice each year because they had had such a problem with this. I got caught in this evidently along with a lot of other people. I just came before the Mayor and Council to ask you to consider waiving the penalties and interest from my tax bill.

Mr. Scott Havens, 504 Rainflower Circle N., said I have spoken to you four times now in reference to the Knights of Columbus Hall. You know my position. My objection is a matter of practicality and common sense. Just a visit to the property begs consideration that it stay residential. I understand the property owners, whether they are local residents or not, own the property. They have an interest in the property. I respect that. Those of us who own property and live on that property have a right to an opinion and our concerns. The property in question is about 1,000 feet from FM518 back up in the woods. It is the back four acres of eleven acres. The property in front of it is remaining residential. It is just not conducive to being anything more than it is. When I moved in it was the Knights of Columbus Hall. I knew that. I knew it was zoned residential at that time. The grandfather use of it is tolerable. On Friday and Saturday nights, the muffled sound of music is constant late into the evening. Some nights it is not so muffled. Sometimes they have outdoor parties and that is when it gets really loud. Two meetings ago I spoke with one of the gentlemen that spoke and he said one of their main concerns was they wanted to be able to build a larger outdoor deck. I have nothing against the Knights of Columbus. My plea is that you don’t let it get any bigger so that the noise doesn’t get any louder and the activity doesn’t increase. As far as the building burning down if that happens, I will be the first one up here to plead with them to let them rebuild exactly what they have right now. They said the opposition would never be satisfied no matter what they did. I won’t change my property; let them keep theirs just like it is. Revolving groups come in there. They have no control of how these people act. I understand that. Let them keep doing just like they are and I will be satisfied. Again I ask that you vote to keep it residential.

Mr. Rob Zeller, 2711 Snyders Bluff, said I am a Commissioner for the Planning & Zoning Commission. I have spent quite a few hours this year studying the new ordinances and maps. I take my appointment to the Planning & Zoning Commission very seriously. That is why I am up here tonight. I request that you correct a serious wrong in the new map and zoning ordinances. There should be no underlying zoning on the vested planning and development for PUDs. The reason I request this is simple. Having underlying zoning on the official map of a vested PUD will lead to confusion, litigation and have people in front of you complaining week after week. When I pressed staff about why it was so important to have underlying zoning the last answer I received related to protecting the City in case a PUD developer failed and there was a free for all in these unzoned areas. It was around midnight and I was a little too slow but I should have suggested that a provision be written to add underlying zoning when a PUD overlay district is revoked. This is a simple answer and will eliminate future heartache and more than likely litigation. Let me give you an example of why this is so important. Staff and the consultants have placed underlying zoning in all PUDs in the City. However, a vested PUD developer has the right to move land uses around inside the PUD as long as the acreage stays about the same. He has the right to put single family residential in his vested PUD in land that could have an underlying zoning that is commercial or even industrial. If that vested PUD developer goes bankrupt or for whatever reason that PUD is revoked, that single family residential will revert into a district that could be commercial or industrial. You could have a family right smack in the middle of an industrial district. This is both illegal and immoral. You have the power tonight to not let this future happen. Again my recommendation is to have no underlying zoning for currently existing PUDs. These PUDs are vested and will be developed as the ordinances state today. Vested PUD developers have the right to move land uses around. Putting underlying zoning on them now will only cause problems in the future. My recommendation, which will address staff concerns, is to include language in the ordinances to add underlying zoning in the unlikely even a vested PUD is removed.

Mr. Ray Williams, 415 League Street, said I understand that my request for residential single family 2 has been approved by the staff. And I understand that my request for an RSF2 on my duplex units surrounded by Houston Avenue, Coryell Street, Dallas Avenue, and a City 30-foot right of way has been approved by the staff. I found one thing in reviewing the text of the ordinance late this evening. I did not have time to get it to the staff. This is in the Commercial Revitalization Overlay, Section 125-82.A. The Purpose it says and I quote “The CRC overlay district applies to commercial developments on the FM518 corridor between SH3 and FM270 . . . .” That is in the text. On the Draft #3 map this CRC overlay district extends west of the interurban right of way. That creates some difficulty. You will have to decide which of those overrules.

Mr. Trey Schoellkopf, 102 7th Street, said I know that staff, Council, and the committees have put a lot of work into the Draft #3 map. I do see some oxy morons in the Draft #3 map as it is today. I have to wonder if maybe we are rushing into it a little bit just to circumvent passage of the state law that we anticipate in September. With that being said, I have a personal agenda. In this case tonight it is the properties most particularly in the area north of 7th Street and west of Kansas and that north of 7th Street and east of the rail road tracks. That would include the Fairview Cemetery as well as my property and that of the other residents of 7th Street. I could not find anyone on 7th Street that received the postcards with the exception of me. I received two and thank you for both of them. However, I would urge Council to consider that we made somewhat of a deal with the Historic District Commission when we agreed to become a member of the Historic Area and not withhold out to be Historic mixed use commercial not general commercial as it is on the Draft #3 map. General commercial is in direct conflict with what the citizens on 7th Street agreed to do at the time. So I recommend you reconsider that.

Mr. Steven and Ms. Adrian Mobley came to the podium. Ms. Mobley said my husband and I own “Under the Oaks” located at 214 S. Iowa. The business was built in 1996 before zoning in the City was adopted. According to the Comprehensive Plan our address is zoned commercial on Map 4.0-1 Generalized Future Land Use, which is the map in the lobby, on Map 4.1.1 Existing Land Use, on Map 4.2-1 Existing Land Use and Major Roadway Network and on Map 4.2-3 Proposed Major Roadway Network and Future Land Use. However, on the proposed Draft #3 our business is zoned single family residential. At this point I would like to note that our business is in the immediate vicinity of other businesses as well as school buildings. Commercial zoning would better fit the character and expected development trend of the area. One of our major concerns is that if we have a substantial loss due to fire or destruction, we cannot rebuild our property if it is zoned single family residential non-conforming. We are asking to be zoned general commercial.

Mr. Jeff Richards, 2802 Drywood Creek, said I want to switch gears for a second. I want to make a brief comment about the City web site. This agenda is a great document but like most citizens I do not have access to the bulletin board outside City Hall 24 hours per day 7 days per week. I do have access to the web at my home, at my office, and in my pocket that is 24 hours per day 365 days per year. You know the power and versatility of the use of the web. I would like to propose the web site to be designated as an official posting location for meeting agendas, notices, etc. to be posted at the 72 hour time limit that is advocated. That way we will have proper notice of meetings instead of having to run up here to see the City Hall bulletin board. Likewise, I would hope that some of the documents used during the Council meeting might also be posted there. This will help promote understanding of the City business that takes place here in the Chambers. Let’s take full advantage of the 21st century technology.

Ms. Patricia Richards, 2802 Drywood Creek, said I am a resident of League City and have been for two years. I have spent the last year and half learning the zoning code as it pertains to our neighborhood, Victory Lakes, and preparing and speaking before City Council, the Planning & Zoning Commission, and the Zoning Board of Adjustments. My concerns, however, have far outreached the boundaries of my neighborhood. What will possibly occur here tonight will affect the entire City and all areas zoned as a Planned Unit Development. I ask for your assistance. I ask for all Council Members to ultimately vote for what is right and legal. The City upon adoption of zoning in mid 1999 put the PUD designation on the land we now know as Victory Lakes. There was no base zoning on the land prior to the PUD designation and the City did not place base zoning on the land. How did they know to designate this land as a PUD? Well the development was already being masterminded in early 1999. So the City knew this PUD designation would be the most desirable for this developer and development. Why was base zoning not applied to the land prior to the PUD overlay? I am not exactly sure. Maybe it was just forgotten. So now after all these years (5½ years) later, the City is ready to place base zoning on this land. Specifically the City is proposing to place base zoning on the entire non-residential land in the development. The base zoning that is being proposed is mixed use commercial. I am asking tonight how and why this base zoning was selected. I wholeheartedly believe this base zoning of mixed use commercial is completely illegal for this development and should not be allowed. The master plan is what should direct the PUD. There was an initial conceptual master plan with several revisions that followed. My research tells me that at least three master plans were never approved during Planning & Zoning Commission meetings. Significant changes occurred during those revisions and no approval took place within the confines of a meeting. Additionally the law that a Public Hearing was to be held for these three revisions did not occur. Were these unapproved plans and lack of public hearings just innocent carelessness on part of the Planning Department or were they intentional? No one really knows for sure but I believe they were intentional to benefit the developer and the City’s agenda. It is my opinion that the original conceptual master plan is the only legal plan since it was the only one approved and voted on. This plan calls for a business park. I propose the base zoning become commercial office which would fit.

Ms. Kelly Winslow, 502 Rainflower Circle N., said I am here to talk about the Knights of Columbus property. I would like to begin by telling the Knights of Columbus that we do appreciate all the good work that you do. We do not oppose them in any way. I want to go on record as saying should that building burn down I will not oppose them rebuilding it. I would also want you to understand when you are considering this to vote on it, that it is the zoning change itself that we consider dangerous. Unfortunately, for the Knights of Columbus their chance to oppose the residential zoning was at the time that it was originally done. You have so many families moved into that area that now it is too late. Too many of us have relied on the City’s assurance that the property was residential. We are raising our families there. My children and many of my neighbor’s children play in the Rustic Oaks Park that is adjacent to that property. We have invested our money, but much, much more important we have invested our families and our homes there. Unfortunately for them the time is past. It is not a matter of making people happy at this point, it is a matter of hurting us if that property is zoned to anything but residential. This is the issue for me. That park is surrounded completely by residential zoning. The only access to it via vehicle is a small parking area closely watched by homes. The Knights of Columbus lock their property. There is no random access to that property which is adjacent to two play areas. If it becomes anything but residential, you will have unlimited, unaccounted for access by possible predators to a place where children go to play. It is a matter of safety. The criteria you sent out on the web site about what is considered for rezoning lists among them whether or not rezoning a property would pose a danger to adjacent property, whether it is consistent with adjacent property, and whether that property is suitable for the purpose that it is being rezoned for. I would assert that it is not meet those criteria or any of the others.

Ms. Jeanette Hunnicutt said I am here because many, many years ago we built Lee Colony Apartments. That is a multi-family project. I am requesting you to leave it multi-family. If you change it to single family, I feel you are taking my property away from me. I do not feel that is constitutional. My husband is fast approaching the 80’s. I am in the 70’s. This is so wrong. I thought at this time in my life we would not have anything like this. I have never taken legal action against anyone. I have talked with legal advisors and they have gone over everything with me. Please reconsider. Lee Colony has always been multi-family. We did it in the early 1960s with the blessing of the City and for four decades thereafter. I respectfully request that we remain multi-family. I respectfully request that we remain multi-family.

Mr. Chuck DeFalco, 2118 Eastlands Court, said I did not come here to speak about zoning tonight but I am going to put in my two cents. Forget about the map a minute. I am a League City private property owner in total favor of zoning. Zoning protects homeowners. The idea that I have heard tonight that I can build whatever I want wherever I want regardless of my neighbors is both a bigger than ever policy and a disgusting idea. Next, the idea that League City is infringing upon the first amendment rights of the Houston Chronicle is ludicrous. Free speech doesn’t mean that anybody has the right to do anything they want. For example I cannot yell fire in a movie theater or City Council Chamber if there is no fire for safety reasons. Selling newspapers at busy intersections is a serious safety hazard. Drivers buying papers are not paying attention to other drivers. Vendors darting in and out of traffic are hazards to everyone. Are you going to let everyone sell anything so that we get mobbed at street lights? When it is dark outside how is a driver to know someone is a vendor or a carjacker? Money should not be changing hands on public streets. The Chronicle has many other outlets to sell its newspapers, convenience and grocery stores are everywhere in League City. The Houston Chronicle’s whining is just another example of corporate interests trying to push around the small city. League City should take a pro-citizen, pro-safety, and anti-traffic stance and fight the Houston Chronicle all the way. Last, I am quite pleased that the current League City Council has been taking a stand for the quality of life of residents that already live here. I am happy that you all are not pushovers for developers and any other organization that wants to have it their way in this town. If that means you have to make waves for us, then so be it.

Mr. Robert Surman said I am neighbors with the Lee Colony Apartments. We are having the same discussion. I have a shop right in the middle of a residential neighborhood. The apartments are across the street from me. Two blocks down are commercial businesses. One block down is a strip center. I don’t like being told that if my property burns or a storm takes it down, I cannot rebuild if it is less than 50 per cent of the value. It pushes me right out of town. On top of that, every neighbor in that neighborhood knew we were there when they moved in. That shop has been there since 1969. I intend to keep it there. I think it is illegal to try to tell a man what he can do with his own property. It is not fair. You need to rethink this zoning stuff. There is only so much commercial land available in this city. You cannot afford to buy it.

7. COUNCIL MEMBERS COMMENTS/REPORTS

Mr. Jon Keeney said no comment.

Mr. Cones said I was not going to talk about zoning until that time but I do think we have some opposition here. We have some problems that I would like maybe for staff to address at a later time maybe under your comments, Mr. Clawson. I think zoning overall is a good thing. I think the changes that Planning & Zoning have recommended are good. We have a lot of good changes on this map. But we also have a lot of changes that affects people, like Mr. Schoellkopf. I was really surprised to see that is general commercial. It is things like this that bother me. I would like to make sure the owners of the property and the citizens have a good chance to come back and rezone that property if they want to like Mr. Surman who owns a business here. We are affecting these business owners. I am not sure why P&Z or staff or whoever that placed the colors on the map took some of these private, small businesses and change them to a different classification. I am very concerned about that. I think overall P&Z has done an excellent job of trying to put this together. It has been very difficult as I know from serving on the first P&Z Commission. I am very concerned with the private, small business owners in the city and even residential homeowners who are now being changed to general commercial or mixed use commercial. If their house does burn down, are they going to be able to rebuild? There is a whole bunch of that type of property in League City that I am very concerned about. I will say that I probably will vote for zoning tonight due to the fact I think we need to move forward. We have a lot of problems that we do need to address. I hope staff will hear that try to address everyone’s concerns.

Mr. Tad Nelson said I agree with majority of what Mr. Cones said. As most of you guys know back in 1999 despite going up against a pretty well-funded opposition, zoning won overwhelmingly. As a body it is out job to make it work and work for as many of the citizens as we can. With that said, it is not perfect. We will do the best we can. I agree 100 per cent with the Mayor and what he says. Let’s try to take care of those who have been with us as long as possible. One final, a big thank you to the P&Z Board, they worked really hard. You guys read the paper; they were here until 12 something which is crazy. But thank you so much. And thank you, Mr. Zeller, for what you did tonight.

Mr. Tidwell said same way on P&Z. You did a fantastic job and also staff for all the time you have put in on this. I know I am about sick of looking at maps at this point. We will more than likely have a second reading on this ordinance. I am available from here until next Tuesday if anyone wants to get together and look at things. That is staff, citizens, anyone, I will make myself available because this is a big step at the end. The safety net is the 60-day appeal process with no fee to the citizens or business owners. I wanted to thank everyone and let everyone know your voices are being heard. Ms. Rogers, you just moved to Texas and you get multiple tax bills. Is this your first Council meeting? You get a pint of blood on the way out. Welcome to League City.

Ms. Benoit said just very quickly, I think we are going to get t-shirts made up for last Thursday’s P&Z meeting saying “I survived all 6 1/2 hours of the meeting.” Hopefully, when we talk about that item we can introduce the Planning & Zoning Commission members who are here. I did sit through the whole thing. Luckily I was on that side which was very nice. But I have to tell you I was extremely impressed with the members of the Planning & Zoning Commission. When they first got there, they knew they had a huge undertaking. They just buckled down and decided to get it done. There was great discussion. Everybody got their chance to express their concerns. I got a lot out of it as well as a lot of notes that I will never be able to read again. It really gave me a new perspective on how much work Planning & Zoning goes into when they are coming to their meetings. They have two meetings per month. They focus only on planning and zoning. But I have to tell you it is a huge job. I know you get little or no thanks. I was very, very impressed with your work on Thursday. Thank you so much for staying and getting it done so we can get this working and get it moving on. And too I did want to say to the Planning and Development Department, which is huge now Ms. Chambers must be very excited, that I was very impressed by the work you had done. It was great. During the discussion, they had to pull up the zoning maps showing what the current zoning is and what it is going to be. They were ready to discuss each project. They were very well versed very professional. That was very fun to watch too because I don’t very often get to see you all in action. And I am happy that Ms. Chambers made it through that. It was great to see how each of you interacted with the public and with Planning & Zoning members. I think there were probably three or four developers there too which I have to give you kudos for because I know you were banging your heads half the time. It was great you were there to listen to the discussion. I know you have comments as well that you would like to add. That was pretty much it. I would like to have them introduced if we could when we talk about their agenda item.

Mr. Jim Nelson said I appreciate those folks who came here tonight to talk to us about their problems. There are recourses to some spots that are not zoned the way perhaps you want them. So you need to go see our Planning Department to make sure that you get that taken care of. In most cases things can be done for you. I would recommend you take advantage of that. I have a couple of Library notes. The Library will be closed on Sunday, September 4, 2005, and Monday, September 5, 2005, for the Labor Day Holiday. The Library will be hosting a memory course for adults presented by UTMB Senior Services. The course is every Thursday in September from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Pre-registration is required. If you want to look into this, please call 281-554-1102. The first book review for the fall will be held on Thursday, September 8, 2005, at 11:30 a.m. in the Library. The Library’s own Rosalie Galassi will talk about her favorite fiction author. Refreshments will be served and everyone is welcome. I want to say a couple of things about Big League Dreams. They have had a very successful two months far beyond the expectations of not only Big League Dreams but of the City. There has only been one rain out the whole time they have been open and every other sports park in the area has had multiple rain out nights. We have been very fortunate. It is not going to take long for the news to spread and people are going to come down to play in our park. Big League Dreams was not envisioned to make a whole bunch of money for us. Big League Dreams was envisioned to bring economic development prosperity to our area. That is what it is starting to do. It is our park. We have to make it work. We have to get the word out. Go out a look at it if you haven’t seen it yet. It is really nice. One more thing, we did have a web master request in our budget this year but it was taken out due to budgetary considerations. Hopefully, we will get one next year. We do need a web master. We need one desperately. Our web pages are in horrible shape, not in all departments but overall. We need a web master to take care of all these things.

8. MAYOR COMMENTS/REPORTS

Mayor Shults said I would like to start tonight by saying that I was at a meeting for the fighting wildcats. My son is playing ball for the new coach over there. It is the first one I have had to leave early so I did not get to see him announced tonight. So, Spence, I am sorry. As most of you guys know we do have only one high school in this City. I believe most of you are aware that we have another one coming. But as of now we have only the one. They play Friday nights. We also have volley ball going on. I would ask you to go out and support the young people of this community because they will soon be sitting up here with us and the sooner, the better. So I ask you to go out and support those young individuals and all of their endeavors. I would like to thank Council Member Jim Nelson for inviting me out to cut the ribbon on a church here in League City. That was a very enjoyable event. I appreciate that. He has his finger on the pulse of his congregation. I would like you to know that I am honored to do that anytime. If you have a bunko group of five or more, I will be there. If you look on your screen, you should have my website, jerryshults.com. If you click on “Ask the Mayor”, it comes straight to me. You will be responded to very promptly. You also have my office number and I am not sure what else is up there. Whatever it is, there are plenty of phone numbers and ways to reach me. I encourage you to do that. Dr. Richards, I want to tell you that I do agree with Council Member Jim Nelson that we have had to cut a little bit on the website. But I think that is something that we promised to do during the election and we are going to eventually have the meetings on a loop on the internet. We are working in that direction. I want you to know you have been heard and we are moving in that direction as quickly as we can. In the past two months, as you well know. we have already addressed CCISD, boards and commissions, zoning, and the Houston Chronicle. So our plate has been full this summer. I do look forward to taking on some tasks that we get to choose. So far they have been choosing us. But I believe we have about got that bear whipped and we are looking forward to moving forward. I would also say that I very much want to commend the P&Z Commission. This particular Board met until something after 1:00 a.m. the other night. For clarification, that will be brought up when we get to the agenda item. This is not an item that is being rushed. This item has been in what you would call the process or the tunnel for a year. This is yet another project this Council and this administration has inherited and has had to move off high center before September 1, 2005. So the fact is there is a lot of grey area. This is a fact. The September 1, 2005 is not something that we have implemented. This is something that we are responding to. So just understand what drives us. I would like to thank Council Member Katie Benoit for attending that meeting and staying for the entire process; 1:00 a.m. is a long meeting. After a full day of work and to do that on a Board that I don’t believe she sits on is a tremendous effort to better grasp this process. I don’t believe you have heard or will hear anybody say that zoning or this ordinance is perfect. This is a tool that we use to manage quality growth. League City is in a wonderful location. League City is a wonderful City. We will have growth because of where we are located. It is our responsibility to manage that growth and make sure that we maintain quality growth. At the end of the day that is what we are trying to do. This is a tool that we use to do that. That is all I have tonight.

9. REPORTS FROM STAFF MEMBERS

Mr. Clawson said I did have two things this evening. First, I inadvertently did not place on this agenda the discussion to remove the bridge at Palomino Road from the Master Transportation Plan. I will tell your coming City Administrator that it needs to be placed on the September agenda. The other thing is having heard about the boards and commissions, we will make sure we do a good job of communicating with those members that are currently on the boards.

Mayor Shults said I would like to point out at this time we really do need your participation on these boards and commissions. This is not a hollow offering. We need your expertise to help run this City government. If you will log on to my website or the City website or call the City Administrator and ask what is available, we can get you a spreadsheet of the different boards and commissions, what they do and the vacancies we need to fill. You have to keep these fresh. That is our goal. The City Council, Mayor and staff can not do it all. We just do not have the budget. We need your participation.

10. CONSENT AGENDA

Mr. Keeney made a motion to approve Items 10A through 10H under the Consent Agenda.

MOTION: Mr. Keeney

SECOND: Mr. Cones

VOTE: 6 For

A. Consider and take action on the approval of the write off of inactive utility accounts in the amount of $7,919.90 for the months of January, February, and March 2005 (Interim Director of Finance)

B. Consider and take action on the approval of Ordinance No. 2005-22 consenting to the inclusion of 43.7760 acres into Galveston County Municipal Utility District No. 14 – Second Reading (Interim Director of Finance)

C. Consider and take action on acceptance of waterline improvements and approval of private streets and drainage for Whispering Lakes Ranch Section 2, Phase 2 (City Engineer)

D. Consider and take action on acceptance of water utilities and street improvements for The Meadows Subdivision Section 3 and Louisiana Street Improvements (City Engineer)

E. Consider and take action on acceptance of water utilities and street improvements for The Meadows Subdivision Section 4 and Louisiana Street Improvements (City Engineer)

F. Consider and take action on the approval of an Easement Agreement with Texas-New Mexico Power Company for the Eastside EMS Station site (City Engineer)

G. Consider and take action on a request for a water well permit regarding the property located at 2244 Pecan Orchard (Director of Public Works)

H. Consider and take action on a resolution approving an Advance Funding Agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation for the construction of a hike and bike trail and ratifying the previous approval of the advance funding agreement by City Council (Director of Public Works)

Mayor Shults numbered Resolution No. 2005-24.

END OF CONSENT AGENDA

Mayor Shults called a five minute break at 7:58 p.m.

Mayor reconvened the meeting at 8:07 p.m.

11. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES

A. Consider and take action on an ordinance amending Ordinance Nos. 99-52 and 2003-63 amending Chapter 125 of the Code of Ordinances for the City of League City Entitled “Zoning” and Adopting Zoning Ordinances consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for League City, Texas - 2025 (Interim Director of Planning and Development)

Mayor Shults numbered Ordinance No. 2005-24

Ms. Benoit made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 2005-24 amending Ordinance Nos. 99-52 and 2003-63 amending Chapter 125 of the Code of Ordinances for the City of League City Entitled “Zoning” and Adopting Zoning Ordinances consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for League City, Texas - 2025 on first reading.

MOTION: Ms. Benoit

SECOND: Mr. Cones

Ms. Benoit amended her motion to include stipulations or changes that we make tonight.

MOTION: Ms. Benoit

SECOND: Mr. Cones

Ms. Chambers may I begin by introducing the Planning & Zoning Commission: Commissioner Bill Koonce, Commissioner Lemuel Bottoms, Commissioner Rob Zeller, and Commissioner Chris Hullman. They have worked very diligently on this map and the ordinance for some time and through the wee hours of the morning last week. We did appreciate having Council Member Katie Benoit spend the night with us. And Council Member Jim Nelson was with us for quite some time as well. I would like to introduce and thank the planning staff: LaShondra Holmes, Senior Planner, Mark Lendschmidt, Planner, and Lori McCutchen, Administrative Technician. We also want to thank Jack Murphy for allowing us to adopt Rick Brezik from the Engineering Department. For a large part of this project toward the end I had some family emergencies and had to be away. Without their assistance, we would not be where we are tonight. We appreciate all their help.

Ms. Chambers continued, staff has provided for you a spreadsheet that indicates those properties that were stipulated by the Planning & Zoning Commission at their meeting last Thursday night. Those are listed by ID number and name.

#1. ZR05-11 This is the Wharf which is a townhouse development. The property owner had requested that a PUD overlay be placed over Phases I-IV. P&Z did agree with that recommendation. The staff recommendation was to place that in RSF2 which would still agree with the PUD overlay. This would be a PUD without a PUD agreement but it would also take care of what is now considered a non-conforming use at this particular development. We have some history with this property going through this process. As late as 2002-2003, it received a special use permit from Council to allow it to be existing under the 1999 zoning ordinance.

This item was addressed after Item #12.

#2. ZR05-14 This is the property at FM646 and Dickinson Avenue. The property owner had requested general commercial. P&Z stipulated general commercial unanimously. Staff recommended RSF5.

This item was addressed after Item #12.

#3. ZR05-15 This is the Knights of Columbus Hall. The property owner had requested RSF7. P&Z stipulated RSF7 on the parcel fronting FM518 and public/semi-public on the Knights of Columbus Hall tract at a 5-2 vote. Staff recommends all of this property be placed in RSF10. Staff needs to remind Council that a petition was submitted on this property. It does meet the Texas and Local Government requirements of 3/4ths vote on this if the Council decides to amend this property. The property owner did request they be placed in a district that will allow them to expand or rebuild.

Mr. Keeney made a motion to approve staff recommendation of all of the property in RSF10.

MOTION: Mr. Keeney

SECOND: Mr. Tidwell

VOTE: 6 For

#4. ZR05-17 This is the Alore property which is at SH96 and Lawrence Road. The developer came to economic development and made a presentation. They have requested commercial mixed use. P&Z stipulated zoning two parcels on the northeast side of the Alore tract to RSF10 at a 6-1 vote. There were some residential petitions on that particular tract. It did not necessarily meet the legal requirements but there were some adjoining property owners who did not see all of that go to commercial mixed use. Staff recommends commercial mixed use.

Mr. Cones made a motion to approve the P&Z recommendation of RSF10 for the two parcels on the northeast side of the Alore tract and the balance commercial mixed use.

MOTION: Mr. Cones

SECOND: Mr. Jim Nelson

VOTE: 6 For

#5. ZR05-18 This is the Pine Lake property on West Main Street. Currently there is a dentist office there in an existing residential structure and a house next door. The property owner has requested neighborhood commercial. P&Z stipulated RSF10 on the dentist office parcel which would be consistent with the residential properties next to it on a 5-2 vote. There was a petition submitted on this. It does meet the legal requirements. Therefore, it does require 3/4s vote of Council. Staff recommends neighborhood commercial.

Ms. Benoit made a motion to approve the P&Z recommendation of RSF10 on the dentist office parcel.

MOTION: Ms. Benoit

SECOND: Mr. Keeney

FOR: 6 For

#6. ZR05-33 This is Twin Oaks. There is some current development in that area where the developer has been putting in some 50 product 5,000 square foot lots. They have requested the property be zoned RSF5. P&Z stipulated RSF7 on all lots on a unanimous vote. Staff recommends RSF5.

Ms. Benoit made a motion to approve PL&Z recommendation of RSF7 on all parcels.

MOTION: Ms. Benoit

SECOND: Mr. Jim Nelson

VOTE: 6 For

#7. ZR05-54 This is the property at Hewitt Street and FM270. The property owner has requested neighborhood commercial. P&Z stipulated RSF20 which does put that property consistent with surrounding properties on a 5-2 vote. Staff recommends RSF5.

Ms. Benoit made a motion to approve P&Z recommendation of RSF20 on this property.

MOTION: Ms. Benoit

SECOND: Mr. Tidwell

VOTE: 6 For

#8. ZR05-55 This is the property along the Union Pacific Rail Road. P&Z spent a great deal of time discussing this because they do have a concern about retaining some limited industrial/light industrial property within the City. P&Z stipulated limited industrial/light industrial for Blocks 19, 20, 49, 50, 79, 80, 109, & 110 of the Moore’s Addition plus the portion north of SH96 on a 5-1-1 vote. Staff recommends limited industrial/light industrial on only the portion north of SH96. Staff’s only concern in that was to make sure the residents of the Shellside Subdivison could be zoned single family residential and have full use of their property as such.

Ms. Benoit made a motion to approve P&Z recommendation of limited industrial/light industrial for Blocks 19, 20, 49, 50, 79, 80, 109, & 110 of the Moore’s Addition plus the portion north of SH96 on a 5-1-1 vote.

MOTION: Ms. Benoit

SECOND: Mr. Tidwell

Mr. John Wycoff , Chairman of the Planning & Zoning commission arrived at 8:33 p.m.

VOTE: 6 For

#9. ZR05-61 This is the Jan Williams property along Dickinson Avenue. This is the landscape arts office building. The property owner has requested general commercial. P&Z stipulated RSF5 on a 5-1-1 vote. This makes this property a non-conforming use. Staff recommends general commercial.

Ms. Benoit made a motion to approve P&Z recommendation of RSF5 for this property

MOTION: Ms. Benoit

SECOND: Mr. Jim Nelson

VOTE: 2 For (Ms. Benoit, Mr. Jim Nelson)

4 Opposed (Mr. Cones, Mr. Keeney, Mr. Tad Nelson, Mr. Rusty Tidwell)

#10. ZR05-63 This is the Randy Hall property contiguous to Big League Dreams fronting on I45. The property owner has requested RMF1.2. P&Z stipulated mixed use commercial and they would revisit it once they have seen some type of overall plan. The property owner did contact our office wanting to do an informal presentation to P&Z. Staff recommends RMF2.

Mr. Tad Nelson made a motion to pass over this request at this time.

MOTION: Mr. Tad Nelson

SECOND: None

Ms. Keeney made a motion to approve P&Z recommendation of mixed use commercial and revisiting once they have seen an overall plan.

MOTION: Mr. Keeney

SECOND: Mr. Tidwell

VOTE: 3 For (Ms. Benoit, Mr. Keeney, Mr. Tidwell)

3 Opposed (Mr. Cones, Mr. Tad Nelson, Mr. Jim Nelson)

Mayor Shults broke the tie by voting for the motion.

Mayor Shults said the motion passes.

#11. ZR05-74 MB Harbour which is along FM2094. The property owner has requested the front portion of the property be zoned general commercial which is consistent with the adjacent properties, the middle portion of the property, a 32-acre tract, be zoned multi-family and the back portion to be zoned RSF7. There are two adjacent lots to the side, the property owner has requested those two lots that are currently single family residential be zoned general commercial. P&Z accepted all of the recommendations except for the two lots on the eastern boundary of the property to leave those as single family residential.

Mr. Tidwell made a motion to approve the staff recommendation of the front portion of the property zoned general commercial, the middle 32-acre tract zoned multi-family, the back portion zoned RSF7 and those two lots zoned general commercial.

MOTION: Mr. Tidwell

SECOND: Mr. Cones

VOTE: 5 For (Mr. Keeney, Mr. Tidwell, Mr. Cones, Mr. Tad Nelson, Mr. Jim Nelson)

1 Opposed (Ms. Benoit)

#12. ZR05-83 This property is at Webster Street and FM270. This was added by Commissioner Shirley. It did not appear on any other spreadsheet that you have seen. He recommends this property be zoned RSF10. The P&Z agrees. Staff recommends general commercial. Mr. Shirley had talked to the property owners and they do have animals on this tract and RSF 10 would allow that.

Ms. Benoit made a motion to approve the P&Z recommendation of RSF10 for this property.

MOTION: Ms. Benoit

SECOND: Mr. Keeney

VOTE: 6 For

Mayor Shults said since we have completed the list, let’s go back to the top of the spreadsheet and address those two issues now.

#1. ZR05-11 This is The Wharf which is a townhouse development. The property owner had requested that a PUD overlay be placed over Phases I-IV. P&Z did agree with that recommendation. The staff recommendation was to place that in RSF2 which would still agree with the PUD overlay. This would be a PUD without a PUD agreement but it would also take care of what is now considered a non-conforming use at this particular development. We have some history with this property going through this process. As late as 2002-2003, it received a special use permit from Council to allow it to be existing under the 1999 zoning ordinance.

Mr. Cones made a motion to approve P&Z recommendation of the PUD overlay for The Wharf.

MOTION: Mr. Cones

SECOND: Mr. Jim Nelson

VOTE: 5 For (Mr. Tad Nelson out of the room.)

#2. ZR05-14 This is the property at FM646 and Dickinson Avenue. The property owner had requested general commercial. P&Z stipulated general commercial unanimously. Staff recommended RSF5.

Mr. Keeney made a motion to approve the P&Z recommendation of general commercial for this property.

MOTION: Mr. Keeney

SECOND: Mr. Jim Nelson

VOTE: 6 For

#13. ZR05-08 Mr. Tidwell requested Council look at the property on Ellis Road that Dr. Davis spoke about. Staff had originally looked at this. The petition that was submitted requested RSF20 which makes it consistent with the surrounding properties. Since we started this process the Development Review Committee has reviewed a site plan from the new property owner. Based on that review if we place that property in RSF20, we will be creating an entire development of non-conforming lots. After looking at that, staff came back with a recommendation of placing that property in RSF10 which it does meet. That site plan came to us about six weeks ago. P&Z recommended RSF7.

Mr. Tidwell made a motion to change the zoning to RSF20 for this property to protect the current homeowners.

MOTION: Mr. Tidwell

SECOND: Mr. Cones

VOTE: 4 For (Ms. Benoit, Mr. Cones, Mr. Keeney, Mr. Tidwell)

2 Opposed (Mr. Tad Nelson, Mr. Jim Nelson)

#14. Mr. Keeney requested Council to look at the property Mr. Schoelkopf brought up. This property does not have a reference number. The current zoning is general commercial. Staff left it as it is currently zoned. When the Historic District was originally created, there was a petition that had to be signed and an agreement between all the neighbors or at least a high percentage of all the neighbors.

Mr. Schoellkopf said that is correct. We agreed to be zoned mixed use commercial and it is now zoned general commercial. This would be a good time to do the housekeeping on it and get it zoned properly as it was agreed upon.

Ms. Chambers said we only talked with Mr. Schoellkopf today. This is the first that I had heard of this agreement. I had explained this was one I would be taking to P&Z within the next 60 days. I was not authorized today to add this to the Council’s list.

No motion was made.

#15. Mr. Keeney requested Council to review the “Under the Oaks” property at Iowa and Kansas.

Mr. Keeney made a motion to rezone the property at Iowa and Kansas to mixed use commercial.

MOTION: Mr. Keeney

SECOND: Mr. Jim Nelson

Mayor Shults said let me interject something here. It is a moot point here because P&Z has not made a recommendation on it. Therefore, we cannot move forward tonight. These zone changes have to have a recommendation whether that is up or down from P&Z. I am informed this piece of property was not addressed.

Ms. Chambers said the P&Z recommended the entire map. However, some of the changes that have been brought before you tonight the P&Z would like to have the opportunity to also review those and speak to the owners as well.

Mr. Keeney withdrew his motion

Mr. Jim Nelson withdrew his motion.

#16. Ms. Benoit requested Council to review the piece of property near Kilgore’s and the funeral home in front of Briarglen Subdivision. P&Z made the recommendation to rezone that general commercial. It is now currently zoned neighborhood commercial.

Ms. Benoit made a motion to deny the P&Z recommendation and return it to neighborhood commercial until we look at adding this area into the Main Street Revitalization or the Conservation District.

MOTION: Ms. Benoit

SECOND: Mr. Keeney

Ms. Benoit amended her motion to make these properties mixed use commercial.

MOTION: Ms. Benoit

SECOND: Mr. Keeney

VOTE: 6 For

#17. Mr. Cones requested Council to review the piece of Ms. Hunnicutt’s property. The tract of land is currently zoned single family residential. P&Z stipulates single family residential. Staff also recommends that it remain single family residential. This property is in a state of disrepair. They have come in wanting to do some repairs. But when they found out it was zoned single family residential, they were hesitant to invest in it.

Mr. Cones made a motion to change this property from single family residential to RMF1.2.

MOTION: Mr. Cones

SECOND: Mr. Tad Nelson

VOTE: 4 For (Mr. Cones, Mr. Keeney, Mr. Jim Nelson, Mr. Tad Nelson)

2 Opposed (Ms. Benoit, Mr. Tidwell)

#18. Mr. Tidwell requested Council to review Mr. Surman’s property. He owns Bob’s Air Conditioning. He is requesting that this property be zoned commercial. It is currently zoned single family residential based on the 1999 zoning. He has been non-conforming since 1999. P&Z stipulates it remain RSF7. Staff also recommends RSF7.

Mr. Cones made a motion to change this property from single family residential to neighborhood commercial.

MOTION: Mr. Cones

SECOND: Mr. Tidwell

VOTE: 5 For (Mr. Cones, Mr. Keeney, Mr. Jim Nelson Mr. Tad Nelson, Mr. Tidwell)

1 Opposed (Ms. Benoit)

#19. Mr. Keeney requested Council to readdress “Under the Oaks”. This property is currently zoned single family residential. Other than making a recommendation for the entire map, P&Z did not specifically address this property. Staff has made no recommendation.

Mr. Keeney made a motion to change this property from single family residential to mixed use commercial.

MOTION: Mr. Keeney

SECOND: Mr. Jim Nelson

Mr. Keeney amended his motion to change this property from single family residential to neighborhood commercial.

MOTION: Mr. Keeney

SECOND: Jim Nelson

VOTE: 6 For

#20. ZR05-21 Mr. Tidwell requested Council to review Mr. Charles Wilson’s property. This property is on FM646. Mr. Wilson initially requested the front portion of his property about 215 deep all the way across be zoned general commercial. It is currently zoned multi-family and office commercial. P&Z has recommended what Mr. Wilson requested in April when we had the draft #1 map. He now wants to amend that request. P&Z said they would feel better about reviewing this property and working with Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Wilson was present to answer questions and said he would go back to P&Z and staff.

There was no motion made.

Mayor Shults announced a 5-minute break at 9:46 p.m.

Mayor Shults reconvened the regular meeting at 9:958 p.m.

Mayor Shults said we have now completed the spreadsheet portion and we need to discuss what is titled “Additional Text Stipulations”.

Mr. Keeney made a motion to approve all the stipulations as presented by P&Z.

MOITON: Mr. Keeney

SECOND: Mr. Tad Nelson

VOTE: 6 For

Mayor Shults said we have Ms. Benoit’s original motion to approve Ordinance No. 2005-24 amending Ordinance Nos. 99-52 and 2003-63 amending Chapter 125 of the Code of Ordinances for the City of League City Entitled “Zoning” and Adopting Zoning Ordinances consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for League City, Texas - 2025 with any changes made this evening on the first reading.

MOTION: Ms. Benoit

SECOND: Mr. Cones

Mr. Keeny said he had discussed this with Ms. Chambers. Currently the west side is wide open. It was previously zoned suburban development. The problem is we need to give it some kind of base zoning because we cannot have property that is not zoned anything because then people cant do anything so we have to apply a base zoning. I understand that. The benefit of having the suburban development was that as the character I the area developed that area would come in under a master plan. So depending upon what has been developed the next development comes in needs to fit with that. So it has been recommended that the following language be added to Section 125-80.C. It has two bullet numbers and I am recommending that #1. “Allowable Locations” remain the same and #2 be deleted in its entirety and the following language be inserted “Topic: Required Application. Any residential development larger than five acres or any non-residential development larger than two acres shall require the adoption of a PUD overlay district covering the entire land area to be developed. This requirement shall not apply to areas in which a traditional neighborhood development (TND) overlay district or a major activity center (MAC) overlay district has been adopted.” The consultant has specified that he would not recommend passage of this whole ordinance without this verbage in there. He said this was an oversight. This is a major issue.

Ms. Chambers said this was just given to me tonight. It has not been reviewed by P&Z.

Mr. Keeney amended Ms. Benoit’s motion to include a piece of text in 125-80.C. entitled Applicability which has two topics. 1. Allowable Locations which would remain the same and 2. Minimum Area. My amendment would be to delete Number 2 in its entirety and insert Required Application. Any residential development larger than 5 acres or any non-residential development larger than 2 acres shall require the adoption of a PUD overlay district covering the entire land area to be developed. This requirement shall not apply to areas in which a traditional neighborhood development (TND) overlay district or a major activity center (MAC) overlay district has been adopted.

Mr. Polanco said the pure application of Robert’s Rules of Order is when you have someone offering an amendment to a pending motion there needs to be a second to that proposed amendment and there needs to be debate and a vote on whether to even accept that amendment for a vote.

MOTION: Mr. Keeney

SECOND: Mr. Tidwell

VOTE: 3 For (Ms. Benoit, Mr. Keeney, Mr. Tidwell)

3 Opposed (Mr. Cones, Mr. Jim Nelson, Mr. Tad Nelson)

Mayor Shults voted against the motion to break the tie.

Mayor Shults said the motion does not pass.

Ms. Benoit amended her motion to ask staff and P&Z to look at Mr. Keeney’s recommendation and possibly bring it back.

MOTION: Ms. Benoit

SECOND: Mr. Cones

VOTE: 6 For

12. OLD BUSINESS

A. Consider and take action to authorize staff to solicit requests for statement of qualifications for professional auditing services for a construction project audit of the Big League Dreams Project (Interim Director of Finance)

Mr. Keeney made a motion to postpone this item to the next Council meeting so that Mr. Barber who wanted this to be put on could be here to discuss it as well.

MOTION: Mr. Keeney

SECOND: Mr. Jim Nelson

VOTE: 6 For

13. TABLED ITEMS SUBJECT TO RECALL

14. NEW BUSINESS

A. Consider and take action on a request to approve a Private Streets Agreement for the Meadows Gate Subdivision (Interim Director of Planning and Development)

Mr. Cones made a motion to approve a Private Streets Agreement for the Meadows Gate Subdivision.

MOTION: Mr. Cones

SECOND: Mr. Tad Nelson

VOTE: 6 For

B. Consider and take action on a request to approve a Private Streets Agreement for the Tuscan Lakes Subdivision (Interim Director of Planning and Development)

Mr. Jim Nelson made a motion to approve a Private Streets Agreement for the Tuscan Lakes Subdivision.

MOTION: Mr. Jim Nelson

SECOND: Mr. Tidwell

VOTE: 6 For

C. Consider and take action on the approval of a resolution declaring Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures relative to the Big League Dreams Project (Interim Director of Finance)

Mayor Shults numbered Resolution No. 2005-25.

Mr. Tad Nelson made a motion to approve Resolution No. 2005-25 declaring Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures relative to the Big League Dreams Project.

MOTION: Mr. Tad Nelson

SECOND: Mr. Cones

VOTE: 6 For

D. Consider and take action to authorize the Mayor to extend the scope of services of a professional services contract with Wallace, Roberts, and Todd in the amount of $20,000 to perform professional planning services toward the preparation of Article II of the Subdivision Ordinance entitled Parks and Recreation Areas (Interim Director of Planning and Development)

Mr. Tidwell made a motion to authorize the Mayor to extend the scope of services of a professional services contract with Wallace, Roberts, and Todd in the amount of $20,000 to perform professional planning services toward the preparation of Article II of the Subdivision Ordinance entitled Parks and Recreation Areas.

MOTION: Mr. Tidwell

SECOND: Ms. Benoit

VOTE: 5 For (Ms. Benoit, Mr. Keeney, Mr. Jim Nelson, Mr. Tad Nelson, Mr. Tidwell)

1 Opposed (Mr. Cones)

E. Consider and take action on setting a date for a transportation workshop (Council Member Tidwell)

Mr. Tidwell made a motion to set the date for a transportation workshop.

MOTION: Mr. Tidwell

SECOND: Mr. Keeney

Mr. Tidwell amended his motion to include Item 15A on this agenda for a workshop on Wednesday, September 21, 2005, at 6:00 p.m.

MOTION: Mr. Tidwell

SECOND: Mr. Keeney

VOTE: 6 For

F. Consider and take action on a request for variance from Resolution No. 99-05 pertaining to a curb cut for a driveway onto the SH 96 right-of-way (City Engineer)

Mr. Keeney made a motion to deny a request for variance from Resolution No. 99-05 pertaining to a curb cut for a driveway onto the SH 96 right-of-way.

MOTION: Mr. Keeney

SECOND: Ms. Benoit

Mr. Will Ogilvie, Vista Equities Group, and Mr. Jerry Jones, South Shore Harbour Development, was present to answer questions from Council Members.

VOTE: 4 For (Ms. Benoit, Mr. Keeney, Mr. Tidwell, Mr. Tad Nelson)

2 Opposed (Mr. Cones, Mr. Jim Nelson)

Mayor Shults said the motion to deny passed.

15. ITEMS ADDED AFTER ELECTRONIC AGENDA COMPLETED

A. Consider and take action on setting a date for a workshop to discuss the tax freeze for senior citizens (Council Member Jim Nelson)

This item was discussed within Agenda Item 14E.

16. EXECUTIVE (CLOSED) SESSION (S)

At 10:54 p.m. Mayor Shults announced that an executive session would be held to discuss the following item:

A. Texas Open Meetings Act, Section 551.071, Government Code – Consultation with City Attorney

Discussion of pending litigation by Houston Chronicle and Galveston Daily News against City

At 11:06 p.m. Mayor Shults reconvened the regular meeting and announced there was no final action, decision, or vote with regard to any matter considered in the executive session just concluded.

17. ACTION ITEMS(S) FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION(S)

A. Consider and take possible action on consultations with City Attorney regarding pending litigation by Houston Chronicle and Galveston Daily News against City