[2. Conduct a public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a request for approval of an ordinance rezoning an approximate 2.748 acres in the J. De J. Valderes Survey, Abstract No. 380, City of Angleton, Brazoria County, Texas, from the Commercial General (C-G) District to the Single Family Residential-7.2 (SF-7.2) District. The subject property is located on the west side of N. Valderas Street just north of N. Plantation Drive.]

REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING AN APPROXIMATE 2.748 ACRES IN THE VALLEY TO SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 380C OF ANGLETON, MISSOURI COUNTY, TEXAS. FROM THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 7.2 DISTRICT.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH BOUNDARY STREET, JUST NORTH OF NORTH PLANTATION DRIVE.

WHOA. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, AS YOU JUST READ.

THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE 2.748 ACRES FROM THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

THE APPLICANT, THE THOMASES, ARE HERE.

THEY OWN APPROXIMATELY SEVEN ACRES THERE, AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO REZONE THESE TWO ACRES IN ORDER TO PUT THEIR RESIDENCE ON IT.

NOW THEIR STREET IS CONSIDERED A MAJOR COLLECTOR ON THE CITY'S MOBILITY PLAN.

YOU WILL NOTE IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT I MENTIONED THAT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TAKING DIRECT ACCESS TO MAJOR COLLECTORS OR HIGHER.

THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE A VARIANCE AS PART OF THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS.

IT REALLY SHOULDN'T HAVE AN EFFECT ON YOUR DECISION WHETHER OR NOT YOU DECIDE TO RECOMMEND REZONING OF THE PROPERTY.

OTHER THAN THAT, WHILE IT THE PROPOSED REZONING IS NOT GOING TO MEET THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, IT IS SUPPORTED BY TWO OTHER PARTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STAFF.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

THANK YOU ALL. ALL RIGHT, THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ABOUT OR ABOUT THIS ISSUE? GOING ONCE. WE TWICE? I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? A MOVE, WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE REZONING AN APPROXIMATE 2.748 ACRES IN THE BOUNDARIES SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 380C OF ANGLETON BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS FROM THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL CG DISTRICT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 7.2 DISTRICT. SECOND.

I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION INDICATE SO BY SAYING AYE.

OPPOSED SAME SIGN.

MOTION IS UNANIMOUS.

GOOD LUCK. ALL RIGHT.

[3. Conduct a public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a request for approval of the preliminary replat of Riverwood Ranch Sections 3 & 4. The proposed preliminary plat consists of approximately 144 single family residential lots on approximately 35.6 acres and is generally located north of Hospital Drive between N. Downing Street to the west and Buchta Road to the east.]

ITEM NUMBER THREE, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF RIVERWOOD RANCH, SECTIONS THREE AND FOUR.

THE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 144 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 35.6 ACRES AND IS GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF HOSPITAL DRIVE BETWEEN NORTH DOWNING STREET TO THE WEST AND BUCKED THE ROAD TO THE EAST.

LINDSAY? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND COMMISSION MEMBERS.

SO, YES, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF RIVERWOOD RANCH, SECTIONS THREE AND FOUR.

WE DID RECEIVE A RE SUBMITTAL WITH ENGINEERED COMMENTS WHICH YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU.

THEY ARE NOT IN YOUR PACKET BECAUSE WE JUST RECEIVED THEM THIS MORNING.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE LIST IS CONSOLIDATED FROM 15 TO 5.

OUTSTANDING COMMENTS.

I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND TELL YOU THAT'S ACTUALLY SIX BECAUSE IN A QUICK ONCE OVER BETWEEN WALTER AND MYSELF, WE DID NOT NOTICE THAT THERE WAS THE CONTINUUM OF TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS RECOMMENDED.

SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF THIS.

AND STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETION OF ALL OUTSTANDING COMMENTS, INCLUDING THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.

I DO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A MEMBER FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE MATTER.

YES, WE DO. SO IF YOU'RE THROUGH THE WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

YES, SIR. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.

MR. GOGH, YOU HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ISSUE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN? YES, SIR. I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT FLOODING.

[00:05:03]

WE'VE GOT WATER IN THAT HOSPITAL DRIVE HOUSE AT 1328.

AND, YOU KNOW, WITH THEM BUILDING THAT SUBDIVISION THAT'S ALREADY RAISED.

AND THEN IF THEY BOUGHT, THEY'LL PUT SMALL HOUSES IN THERE.

IT'S GOING TO IN A HARD RAIN.

IT'S GOING TO BE EVEN WORSE.

SO I JUST HATE TO SEE IT HAPPEN.

VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, MR. GOGH. ALSO, WE HAVE MR. CRENSHAW, WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.

DO YOU MIND APPROACHING THE PODIUM, MR. CRENSHAW? YES.

I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE, I LIVE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE SUBDIVISION THAT BACKS UP TO IT, COLONY SQUARE.

AND I'VE SEEN WHERE THEY'VE BEEN BUILDING THE OTHER PART OF THE LAND, SECTION ONE AND SOME OF THE AREAS ALONG HOSPITAL DRIVE THE BACK OF THE LOTS ARE LIKE TWO FEET ABOVE OR THREE FEET ABOVE THE STREET LEVEL.

AND I'M WORRIED THAT THE PLACES BEHIND MY HOUSE, THE LEVEL OF THE LAND, WILL BE TWO OR THREE FEET HIGHER THAN MY LAND, WHICH IS GOING TO BE.

YOU KNOW, A REAL DIFFERENCE.

LOOKING AT MY BACKYARD AND SEEING THREE FOOT BEAM OF LAND GOING ACROSS IT.

AND OF COURSE, I'M ALSO WORRIED ABOUT THE FLOODING ISSUE THERE, TOO.

SO I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR A DEVELOPER OR MAYBE SOMEONE THAT CAN ANSWER THAT.

IT DOES SHOW A DITCH.

AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WIDE THE DITCH IS BETWEEN THE END OF MY PROPERTY AND INTO SOME OF THEIR PROPERTY, HOW WIDE THAT MAY BE.

I NOTICED THAT IN THE SECTION A, THAT DITCH IS LIKE TWO OR THREE FEET WIDE AND MAYBE 18 INCHES DEEP.

BUT THEN I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A THREE FOOT BEAM OF LAND THERE.

AND THAT'S THE KIND OF QUESTIONS I HAVE.

YOU KNOW, IF THEY PUT A, AND THEY SAID ORIGINALLY THEY WEREN'T GOING TO PUT UP ANY FENCES IN THESE HOUSES BACK THERE, WHICH MEANS, WOW, THAT'S GOING TO BE.

SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT.

I'D LIKE SOME ANSWERS ABOUT THAT FROM THE BUILDERS.

IS THE DEVELOPER HERE.

I'M THE ENGINEER. HEY.

MAYBE A. FEEL FREE.

MR. DOUG RESSLER WITH BAKER AND OLSON ENGINEERS.

WE ARE THE ENGINEER FOR THE SUBDIVISION RIVERWOOD RANCH.

AND HOWARD, WHERE IS THE HOUSE FLOODING ON [INAUDIBLE]? SUBDIVISION. SUBDIVISION.

JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION FIRST, ALL THE DRAINAGE GOES TO THAT DETENTION POND UP THERE.

WHICH IS ON THE MAP UP THERE.

AND THEN IT GOES TO THE NORTH, EXCEPT FOR THE VERY BACK END OF THE LOTS BACKING ON THE HOSPITAL.

EVERYTHING GOES NORTH.

IT DOESN'T GO TO HOSPITAL.

MR. CRENSHAW, YOU CAN SEE AT THE VERY TOP THERE, IT SAYS DRAINAGE RESERVE.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT'S 15 FEET WIDE OR 20 FEET WIDE.

BUT IT'S GOING TO BE A THE PURPOSE OF THAT DRAINAGE RESERVE IS TO PICK UP YOUR HERITAGE.

NOT HERE. EXCUSE ME.

COLONY SQUARE BACK LOTS AND TAKE IT TO THE EAST, TO THE BUCKET ROAD THAT'S OUT THERE.

I WOULD.

AND I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE HOMEBUILDER BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT HERE.

BUT I WOULD ASSUME ALL THOSE HOUSES WILL HAVE FENCES ON THEM ON THE BACK LOTS LIKE THEY DO.

THEY'LL HAVE NO BACKYARD FENCES BECAUSE THEY ALL HAVE PETS.

MAYBE. I WOULD ASSUME THEY WILL.

BUT JUST LIKE IN SECTION ONE, WHICH IS TO THE WEST OF YOU ALL, THEY ALL THEY'RE PUTTING UP FENCES AS THEY BUILD THOSE OUT SO THAT THAT WILL HIDE THE HOUSES TO SOME EXTENT.

THERE WILL BE FIELD BACK THERE.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO BE THREE FEET, BUT IT MAY BE CLOSE TO A FOOT AND A HALF TO TWO FOOT, BUT IT'LL BE TWO FOOT HIGHER THAN WHAT YOU SEE.

BUT IT SLOPES OFF INTO THE DITCH.

SO I DON'T I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE OBNOXIOUS LOOKING OR WHATEVER.

SO IT'S A 20 FOOT WALL.

RIGHT. BUT ON SECTION ONE, WE ONLY HAVE A TEN FOOT.

AND THAT'S WHY IT LOOKS AS BAD AS IT DOES.

THAT'S. WE FIGURED THAT OUT.

IT'S THE HOA. UNLESS YOU WANT TO GET OUT THERE AND MOW IT.

NO, NO. AT OUR AGE, YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO JUMP RIGHT OUT THERE AND START MOWING? AND UNLESS THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE? THAT'S IT. DOUG, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YES, SIR. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ISSUE?

[00:10:03]

WE ONCE GOING TWICE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.

AND DO ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I DO. I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTOOD WHAT LINDSEY WAS SAYING.

DID YOU SAY WE GOT AN UPDATE FROM OUR PACKET? YES, MA'AM. THIS IS WHAT WE.

I DON'T BECAUSE THE ONE I HAVE IS FOR THE HERITAGE PARK.

I DON'T HAVE ONE FOR THIS SUBDIVISION.

OH, YOU'RE RIGHT.

WELL, SO ARE WE.

ARE WE ALL CONFUSED? I'M PROBABLY MORE CONFUSED AND MAKING IT WORSE.

SO. I MEAN, THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE ONE IN OUR PACKET FOR 15 DIFFERENT ITEMS IN THE PACKET.

RIGHT. YEAH. I THINK WALT SAID HE'S GOING TO GO PRINT AND AND SO THERE WAS A TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WOULD BE NUMBER 16, THAT TRAFFIC STUDY REQUEST.

YES. SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ENGINEERS WERE RECOMMENDING IT WAS ALREADY IN OUR PACKET.

NUMBER ONE STUDY IS ALREADY IN OUR PACKET.

YES, THAT IS IN YOUR PACKET.

AS FOR THE UPDATED ITEM, SORRY, I PRINTED THE WRONG ONE, SO WALT'S GOING TO GET IT.

I GUESS THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY IS ITEM NUMBER ONE ON THE LIST OF COMMENTS.

SO. SINCE WE ONLY HAVE FOUR ON FOUR HERE TODAY, DO WE HAVE TO HAVE DOES THIS HAVE TO BE A UNANIMOUS DECISION OR DOES IT JUST NEED TO BE A SIMPLE MAJORITY? WELL, I THINK IT'S ALWAYS WE'RE JUST MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE VOTE IS WHAT THE VOTE IS.

OKAY. WELL, I'LL SAY RIGHT HERE.

I DON'T. I'M REAL TIRED OF CONDITIONAL APPROVALS.

IT JUST SEEMS TO ME LIKE, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAD 15 OR FIVE OR SIX OR ONE.

WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO GET A COMPLETE PACKAGE.

SO WE'LL SEE WHAT COUNCIL SEES AND NOT BE ASSUMING THAT WE KNOW WHAT COUNCIL IS GOING TO SEE.

SO I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF ANY CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL.

JUST SO I'M CLEAR.

WELL, DO WE WANT ALL COMMENTS RESOLVED BEFORE WE BRING IT TO YOU? WHY NOT? I MEAN, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THE CONDITIONAL APPROVALS ARE A FAIRLY NEW THING.

I DON'T RECALL SEEING THEM.

FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS OR SO THAT I'VE BEEN ON THIS.

WELL, I WE'VE WE HAVE APPROVED THINGS SUBJECT TO ALL THE COMMENTS BEING ADDRESSED.

I DON'T KNOW THAT I REMEMBER ONE QUITE SO EXTENSIVE AS THIS ONE WITH 15 DIFFERENT COMMENTS TO BE ADDRESSED.

IT JUST SEEMS IT'S HAPPENING ALMOST EVERY MONTH.

THESE GUYS HAVE COME BACK A COUPLE OF TIMES FOR VARIANCES.

AND I KNOW THIS ISN'T A VARIANCE AND WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED THE SUBDIVISION, RIGHT? SO I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE THERE, BUT THIS IS MORE OF A PUD OR A PID? YES. YES.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE APPROVED EARLIER? IT'S YES. THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT.

ABSOLUTELY. WE.

WE SUBMIT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND 30 DAYS AGO TO MEET THE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY.

WE RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM THE CITY, BUT WE DIDN'T RECEIVE THOSE COMMENTS UNTIL MAYBE A WEEK AGO, THAT LIST.

AND SO WE ADDRESSED THEM AS BEST WE COULD.

AND I THINK WE'VE HANDLED MOST OF THEM.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S STILL OUT THERE.

AND SO. THE COMMENTS I MADE.

WE FIXED THAT.

THERE MIGHT BE A FEW OUT THERE.

I'M NOT SURE THAT TI IS ONE OF THEM, BUT WE JUST DON'T.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO FIX THEM IN THAT TIME FRAME TO GET THEM IN YOUR PACKET SO THAT IT'S A COMPLETE PACKET, SO TO SPEAK.

WELL, THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION.

HOW PRACTICAL IS IT FOR THIS BODY TO.

LOOK AT A PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH ALL CONDITIONS ADDRESSED.

DEPENDING ON WHEN I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE PACKETS GO OUT FOR YOU ALL.

WHAT ARE WE ON THURSDAY? SO THE PACKETS PROBABLY GO OUT ON MONDAY? I DON'T KNOW. OR FRIDAY.

AND IF WE GET THE COMMENTS FROM CITY STAFF ON THURSDAY BEFORE THEN AND TRY TO ADDRESS THEM AND GET THEM BACK FOR THEM TO REVIEW IT.

YOU CAN'T MEET THE PACKET SCHEDULE, SO THEN IT BECOMES NOT A ONE MONTH SCHEDULE, IT'S A TWO MONTH SCHEDULE TO GET THE PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVED.

[00:15:05]

SO SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, I'M NOT SURE WHO I'M ASKING THIS QUESTION NOW.

THIS IS A LIST OF FIVE ITEMS. IS THIS TO REPLACE WHAT WAS IN THE PACKET WITH 15 ITEMS? SO IT'S NOT THAT THE LIST HAS GONE FROM 15 TO 20.

IT'S WE'VE GONE FROM 15 DOWN TO WHAT IS NOW FIVE, BUT SIX, INCLUDING THE FACT THAT THEY DID NOT INCLUDE THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS IN THIS ONE.

AND THEY WANT THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS THAT WAS JUST AN OVERSIGHT.

WHAT IS NUMBER THREE IS THE TRAFFIC.

IS THAT CORRECT? IS THERE A DIFFERENT ONE? IT'S PROBABLY BECAUSE WE GAVE THE ONCE OVER ON THE WRONG PROJECT ON HP THREE HERITAGE PARK THREE IS WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT AND DIDN'T SEE THE TIA ON THERE.

SO ANYWAY, ALL ALARM SIDE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE CORRECT ONE.

THANK YOU ALL FOR DOING THAT.

BUT NO, THAT SOUNDS GOOD IN A HURRY BEFORE SCRAMBLING TO GET LUNCHES AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

COORDINATOR SO MY APOLOGY FOR THE CONFUSION, BUT WE REALLY CONFUSED AND GET A SANDWICH.

WELL, WE'LL TRY TO DO A BETTER JOB.

WE DO HAVE TO ADHERE TO THE, THE, THE PUBLIC HEARING LAWS UNDER LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE FOR ADVERTISING THE HEARING GETTING OUR PACKET TOGETHER.

WE TRY TO PULL EVERYTHING TOGETHER WE CAN ADVANCE SO THAT YOU HAVE ADEQUATE TIME TO REVIEW IT.

SO WE'LL WE'LL WORK WITH OUR, YOU KNOW, INTERESTING.

SO WE'VE HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING WE NOW UNDERSTAND THAT THAT THE CITY IS RECOMMENDING THIS SUBJECT TO THESE FIVE COMMENTS BEING APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED. YES, SIR.

AND SO DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I GUESS JUST TO CLARIFY, A LOT OF THIS CONFUSION AND THE REASON WE'RE HAVING THESE HAPPEN IN THE WAY WE ARE IS A TIMING THING.

IT'S BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER OR THE BUILDERS ARE IN A HURRY TO GET STARTED.

SO EVERYBODY'S KIND OF STRUGGLING WITH THE TIME SCHEDULES AND MEETING THE REGULATIONS FOR ADDRESSING THINGS IN THEIR SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD. I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE AS LONG AS THESE ITEMS ARE HANDLED.

SO TO KEEP EVERYTHING MOVING IN DEFERENCE TO MR. MUNSON, I WILL MOVE THAT.

WE DO APPROVE, HOWEVER.

HOW IS THIS SUPPOSED TO READ? DO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THESE FIVE ITEMS. SO ARE WE STILL DOING A PRELIMINARY OR IS THIS A? THIS IS. YES, AS A PRELIMINARY.

OKAY. SO, ALL RIGHT.

THAT'S MY MOTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBJECT TO THE COMMENTS, OUTSTANDING COMMENTS WHICH ARE FIVE BEING ADDRESSED. THEY'RE PRETTY EXTENSIVE.

I SECOND.

I HAVE A MOTION BY MS. MCDANIEL AND THE SECOND BY MS. EBY. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT OTHERS IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

OPPOSED SAME SIGN.

I SAY NAY.

SO WE ARE 3 TO 1 ON THAT, WHICH IS FINE.

ALL RIGHT. ITEM FOUR CONDUCT, A PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR

[4. Conduct a public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a request for approval of an ordinance authorizing a Specific Use Permit for use of a recreational vehicle as a residence on property described as Lot 24, Block 134, of the Lorraine Subdivision. The subject property consists of an approximate 7,900 sq. ft., is in the Single Family Residential-7.2 (SF-7.2), is located on the east side of N. Arcola Street approximately 100 ft. south of E. Lorraine Street and is more commonly known as 1124 N. Arcola Street.]

USE OF A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE AS A RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 24 BLOCK 134 OF THE LORRAINE SUBDIVISION.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTS OF AN APPROXIMATE 7900 SQUARE FEET IS IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 7.2 DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF NORTH ARCOLA STREET AND APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET SOUTH OF EAST LORAIN STREET AND IS MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1124 NORTH ARCOLA.

WALT? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

I'M NOT GOING TO REHASH ALL OF THAT.

BASICALLY, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR AN SUP TO USE A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE AS A RESIDENCE.

ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THIS IS A LITTLE BIT UNUSUAL IN THAT.

IT'S SECTION 14.103 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AND NOT THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT THIS REQUIREMENT IS IN.

AND SECTION ONE, SECTION 14.103.3 SAYS.

IT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE TEMPORARY PLACEMENT OF AN RV FOR SIX MONTHS WITH APPROVAL OF AN SUP, WHICH SHALL BE BASED UPON.

AND THEN THERE'S SEVEN CRITERIA THERE.

I'M NOT GOING TO READ THROUGH ALL OF THEM.

THE YOU HAVE THE STAFF ANALYSIS ON IT.

THE THE STAFF IS GOING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS.

IT DOESN'T MEET THE THE CRITERIA THAT'S IN CHAPTER 28-63 FOR AN SUP.

[00:20:02]

BUT THAT BEING SAID.

IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CITY HAS APPROVED THIS KIND OF APPLICATION BEFORE.

AND MY SUGGESTION, IF YOU ARE INCLINED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, IS TO A AS A CONDITION OF THAT APPROVAL, HAVE A DEFINED TIME PERIOD FOR THE USE OF THE RV AS A RESIDENCE.

YES. SECTION 14.103 SAYS FOR SIX MONTHS.

MY FEELING IS THAT YOU COULD PROBABLY MAKE IT FOR LONGER THAN THAT, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE INCLINED TO DO.

BUT I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND DOING IT FOR LONGER THAN A YEAR.

THE SECOND THING IS THAT I WOULD RECOMMEND, IF YOU'RE CONSIDERING APPROVING THIS, TO HAVE THE APPLICANT PROVIDE A CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FOR REHABILITATION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY.

AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHS, THAT STRUCTURE IS NOT IN VERY GOOD CONDITION.

AND THE REASON THAT WE DISCOVERED THAT THE RV WAS BEING USED AS A RESIDENCE BECAUSE WAS BECAUSE THAT STRUCTURE WAS BEING CONSIDERED TO BE PLACED ON THE CITY'S DEMOLITION LIST.

AND WE WERE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD IN EITHER GETTING THE OWNER TO.

DEMOLISH THE BUILDING OR ALLOW THE CITY TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING, OR, AS WE ARE DOING WITH SOME OTHER PROPERTIES, GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF CONDEMNING THE BUILDING AND THEN DEMOLISHING IT.

THAT'S WHEN WE DISCOVERED THE RV WAS OUT THERE.

THAT'S WHEN WE DISCOVERED THAT THE OWNERS WERE LIVING IN THE RV.

THE RV IS CONNECTED TO THE CITY'S WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM, AND THEY DO HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT TO DO WORK ON THE INTERIOR, ON THE ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.

SO. I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT IF YOU'RE CONSIDERING RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS, THAT THAT THERE BE A DEFINED TIME PERIOD, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT IT BE FROM THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT, WHICH YOU HAVE IN YOUR BACKUP AND WAS IN FEBRUARY.

I WANT TO SAY IT WAS FEBRUARY THE SIXTH, BUT IT'S IN THE BACKUP THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE A CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF REHABILITATION OF THE PROJECT BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO BE SITTING AROUND HERE YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR, YOU KNOW.

RE APPROVING ANOTHER SUP TO ALLOW THE CONTINUED USE OF THE RV WHILE THE HOUSE NEVER EVER GETS THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, NEVER EVER GETS COMPLETED. AND THAT BEING SAID, I HAVE A QUESTION BEFORE WE GET TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THE BUILDING PERMIT INDICATES YOU'RE CORRECT, THE PERMIT DATE IS FEBRUARY THE NINTH.

HOWEVER, IT HAS AN EXPIRATION DATE SIX MONTHS LATER.

WHAT WHAT IS THE WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE EXPIRATION DATE? THE TYPICAL BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS IS THAT AND THIS IS TRUE OF ANY CITY THAT I'VE WORKED IN IS THERE MAY BE A EXPIRATION DATE FOR A BUILDING PERMIT, BUT IF PEOPLE ARE IF THERE SOME EVENTS THAT HAPPEN OR HURRICANE AND THREE DAYS OF RAIN IN TODAY'S TIMES, THAT WOULD BE THE AVAILABILITY OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OR OTHER THINGS. THE PERMIT IS GENERALLY ALLOWED TO BE KEPT OPEN AS LONG AS THE APPLICANT IS MAKING PROGRESS TO COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION.

THERE IS A CERTAIN DISCRETIONARY ASPECT TO IT IN THAT STAFF WOULD DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT PROGRESS WAS ACTUALLY BEING MADE.

BUT YES, THE PERMIT DOES EXPIRE WITHIN SIX MONTHS.

BUT. MOST, MOST OF THE TIME.

THE STAFF WORKS WITH THE PEOPLE WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT TO ALLOW THEM SUFFICIENT TIME.

AS LONG AS THEY'RE THERE WORKING ON IT, MAKING PROGRESS, THINGS ARE MOVING FORWARD.

IF THERE ARE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED, LIKE I EXPLAINED HURRICANE, LACK OF MATERIALS, WHATEVER.

WE DON'T MAKE PEOPLE COME BACK AND PAY FOR ANOTHER BUILDING PERMIT.

OKAY, VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU. SO AT THIS TIME, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT IS HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? GOING ONCE. GOING TWICE.

I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I SEE THAT.

SEE THAT THE PERMIT WAS TAKEN OUT IN THE NAME OF ROBERT AND MARGARET GOULD.

ARE EITHER OF THEM PRESENT? OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? I HAVE A COMMENT.

I THINK I'M THE ONE THAT BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT WE HAD DONE DEALT WITH SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THIS IN THE PAST.

AND IF THE SAME HOUSE, THE CONDITION OF THAT PARTICULAR HOUSE, IT WAS IN BAD CONDITION ON THE INSIDE, BUT THE EXTERIOR WAS IN GOOD OR REASONABLY GOOD CONDITION. IT WAS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SITUATION.

[00:25:02]

THIS PARTICULAR STRUCTURE IS IN MUCH WORSE CONDITION.

THE OTHER ONE LOGICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN REPAIRED WITHIN THAT REASONABLE SUP TIME.

NOT SO SURE ABOUT THIS ONE.

SO IT'S JUST MY COMMENT.

I HAVE AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT TO THAT.

I DROVE THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE ARE SEVERAL HOUSES THAT, YOU KNOW, COULD USE SOME REPAIRS ON THEM AS WELL.

AND IT WOULD BE MY CONCERN THAT IF WE MAKE THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT, THAT WE THEN OPEN IT UP, OPEN UP A PANDORA'S BOX.

SO, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHEN YOU WANT TO RECOMMENDATION, BUT MAKE IT NOW I MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE TEMPORARY USE OF A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE AS A RESIDENCE.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND MOTION BY MRS. EBY AND A SECOND BY MR. MUNSON TO DENY THE REQUEST.

ARE THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION INDICATE SO BY SAYING AYE.

OPPOSED SAME SIGN.

AND THAT IS UNANIMOUS.

IT JUST JUST SO EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THAT I KNOW THE APPLICANT IS NOT HERE, BUT THIS WILL GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL, AND THEY'LL THEY'LL HAVE TO ACT ON IT AT THE MAY 24TH MEETING.

THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

ALL RIGHT. NOW WE GET TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA ITEM FIVE DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION HERITAGE PARK SECTION THREE FINAL PLAT.

[5. Discussion and possible action on Heritage Park Section Three Final Plat. Subject property is an approximate 11-acre tract of land proposed to have thirty lots, located in the T.S. Lee Survey, Abstract No. 318 in Brazoria County, Texas north of Henderson Road and west of Heritage Park Drive and belonging to the Single Family Residential 7.2 (SF-7.2) zoning district.]

SUBJECT PROPERTY IS AN APPROXIMATE 11 ACRE TRACT OF LAND PROPOSED TO HAVE 30 LOTS LOCATED IN THE SURVEY.

ABSTRACT NUMBER 318 IN BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS, NORTH OF HENDERSON ROAD AND WEST OF HERITAGE PARK DRIVE AND BELONGING TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 7.2 ZONING DISTRICT. LINDSAY? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

AND COMMISSIONERS. SO NOW THAT I KNOW YOU HAVE A COPY OF IT IN FRONT OF YOU.

YOU CAN SEE HOW THE LIST HAS SHRUNK WITH THE SECOND SUBMITTAL REVIEW.

A COUPLE OF THE YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE KIND OF VOLLEY THESE THINGS BACK AND FORTH.

I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT NUMBER THREE, ON THE UPDATED SECOND SUBMITTAL REVIEW, WE HAVE SENT THE PLANS OVER TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THAT'S BEEN AS RECENTLY AS JUST LATE LAST WEEK. SO THAT IS SOMETHING IN PROGRESS.

ANOTHER THING I WANTED TO BRING UP WAS THE POND SURVEY.

THE POND IS THAT WE'RE REFERRING TO IS IN THE FIRST OR SECOND PHASE OF THE PROJECT, I'M NOT CERTAIN WHICH, BUT IT'S EXISTING.

AND THE REASON THAT WE'RE BRINGING IT UP IS BECAUSE ON THE THE MYLAR, IT STATES THAT IT IS THE HOA'S RESPONSIBILITY AND THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME VERIFICATION THAT THE HOA IS ACTIVELY COLLECTING FEES FOR WHICH TO MAINTAIN THE GREEN SPACES AND COMMON SPACES, INCLUDING THE POND, WHICH TO BE THE HOA'S RESPONSIBILITY.

SO THOSE WE PUT THAT AS A CONDITION IN THERE.

WE'D ALSO LIKE TO SEE VERIFY THAT THE POND IS WORKING BECAUSE THERE'S A NUMBER OF.

ORGANICS SUCH AS TREES GROWING UP OUT OF THE BOTTOM OF IT.