[A. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:10]
>> MICHAEL ATKINSON: PRESENT. >> GAIL HOAD: PRESENT.
CALDWELL CAL PRESENT. >> VIC CALDWELL: PRESENT.
>> DERRICK HUNT: PRESENT. >> BRIAN OLGUIN: PRESENT.
>> I SEE BRIAN BUT YOU ARE MUTED.
>> CYNTHIA STALEY: PRESENT. >> THANK YOU, CELESTE.
IF YOU WISH TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CITIZEN COMMUNION KAIVTION TONIGHT'S MEETING OR ANY PUBLIC HEARING DURING TONIGHT'S HEARING YOU WILL NEED TO DO SO THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE.
WE SET UP THIS VIRTUAL COMMENT TO PROTECT OUR CITIZENS AND
[1. ANNOUNCEMENT/REMINDERS: Remote access to participate in this meeting i...]
CITY EMPLOYEES FROM COVID-19. TO ACCESS THE VIDEO CONFERENCE STREAM COMMUNICATIONS. VISIT WWW.ZOOM.COM FROM THE WEB BROWSER AND SELECT JOIN A MEETING AND INPUT 95903287216 FOR THE MEETING ID. SELECT JOIN FOLLOWED BY OPEN ZOOM AND THEN JOIN WITH COMPUTER AUDIO.CLICK ON THE ICON LABELED PARTICIPANTS TO ACCESS THE OPTION TO RAISE YOUR HAND AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN.
ONCE YOU CLICK RAISE HAND, OUR MODERATOR WILL ANNOUNCE YOU BY THE USER NAME AND YOUR CUE TO BEGIN SPEAKING WITH THE COU COUNCIL. IT WILL BE AUDIO ONLY AND NOT AN OPPORTUNITY SHARE YOUR SCREEN.
PLEASE REMEMBER TO SILENCE ANY CELL PHONES, TELEVISIONS OR OTHER BACKGROUND NOISE SO WE CAN CLEARLY HEAR YOUR COMMENTS.
THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME WE WILL LIKE TO OPEN OUR CITIZEN COMMUNICATION PORTIONS OF THE MEETING.
ANY CITIZENS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ITEMS THAT ARE NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA? SEEING ANYONE, CELESTE?
>> CELESTE MENCHACA: NO HANDS RAISED.
[2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: [Chairperson will recognize any citizen wishing...]
>> OKAY, THANK YOU. AGENDA ITEMS FOR PUBLIC HEARING. THE FIRST ITEM IS A ALVAREZ FOR ORIGINAL TOWNSITE RESUBDIVISION NUMBER 58, NUMBER 1, LOT 1 RA.
CELESTE, CAN WE HAVE THE STAFF REPORT.
>> CELESTE MENCHACA: THE PROJECT LOCATION 101 NORTH NAVARRO STREET AND EAST CONSTITUTION STREET.
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS .221 ACRE TRACT OF LAND SUCH WAHLE WAITED IN BLOCK 1 A RESUBDIVISION NUMBER 1.
IT WAS REPORTED IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF NUMBER 20152793 OF VICTORIA COUNTY RECORDS. THE PROPERTY WAS, LIKE I SAID, ORIGINALLY PLATTED 2015. THE FINAL PLAT REPORTED IN 2015 OF CITY CODE REQUIREMENT SET OUT FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT. THE PROPERTY OWNERS WISH TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY WITH A DUPLEX ON THE LOT.
IN ORDER TO DEVELOP THE LOT MUST SUBMIT BUILDING PLANS AND A PLAT PLAN BEFORE BUILDING PERMITS MAY BE ISSUED.
THEY HAVE SUBMITTED A PRELIMINARY PLOT PLAN SHOWING THE PROPOSED DUPLEX TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE 25 REAR YARD SETBACK. THE DUPLEX WILL ENCROACH 15 FEET INTO THE PLATTED 25-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK.
THE OWNERS REQUESTING A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL OF BUILDING PLANS AND A PLOT PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED DUPLEX THAT WOULD DEPICT AN APPROXIMATE 15-FOOT ENCROACHMENT ON THE PLATTED 25 REAR YARD SETBACK DIVISION NUMBER 58, RESUBDIVISION NUMBER 1, FINAL PLAT. THE ORIGINAL TOWN SITE REDIVISION NUMBER 58, RESUBDIVISION NUMBER 1 WAS PLATTED IN 2015 AS THREE SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS.
[1. Variance Request for Original Townsite Resubdivision No. 58, Resubdivi...]
BECAUSE THE LOTS WERE PLATTED AS RESIDENTIAL LOTS, DRIVEWAY ACCESS OFF OF NORTH NAVARRO STREET WAS PROHIBIT A $REGULATED BY THE CITY'S DRIVEWAY ORDINANCE.CITY CODE STATES THAT RESIDENTIAL NOT ARE TYPICALLY NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE ACCESS OF A STREET DESIGNATED AS A COLLECTOR IF IT HAS ACCESS OFF A STREET DESIGNATED AS LOCAL STREET. IN THE CASE OF THESE RESIDENTIAL LOTS, THE DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO THE LOTS WAS REQUIRED TO COME OFF OF EAST CONSTITUTION STREET.
THE LOTS ARE PLATTED WITH A COMBINED 25-FOOT REAR BUILDING LINE, PRIVATE UTILITY EASEMENT AND ACCESS EASEMENT TO ALLOW
[00:05:03]
FOR THE REQUIRED ACCESS TO THE LOT.IN 2020, THE INTERNAL LOT 1 RB WAS CREATED TO CREATE A COMMERCIAL LOT. THE NEW COMMERCIAL LOT IS RB 1 BLOCK 1 OF THE REDIVISION NUMBER 58, RESUB NUMBER 2 RECORDED IN 2020. WITH THE APPROVAL AND THE FILING OF THAT FINAL PLAT OF THE COMMERCIAL LOT, A COMBINED 25-FOOT REAR BUILDING LINE, THE PRIVATE UTILITY EASEMENT AND ACCESS EASEMENT WAS REMOVED BY THE FINAL PLAT.
THE COMMERCIAL LOT WILL BE GRANTED ACCESS OFF OF NORTH NAVARRO STREET AND NO LONGER REQUIRE THE PRIVATE UTILITY EASEMENT OR ACCESS EASEMENT. THE FINAL PLAT RECORDED WAS MET FOR ALL CITY REQUIREMENTS OF A COMMERCIAL LOT.
SECTION 21 82 A 6 OF A VICTORIA ORDINANCE THAT A SINGLE FAMILY LOT TO HAVE A MINIMUM 10-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK. THE 2015 ORIGINAL TOWNSITE RESUBDIVISION NUMBER 1 WAS PLATTED WITH A REAR YARD SETBACK THAT EXCEEDED THAT MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR THE RESIDENTIAL LOT IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE ACCESS EASEMENT TO COMPLY WITH THE DRIVEWAY ORDINANCE.
DUE TO THE 2020 ORIGINAL TOWNSITE RESUBDIVISION NUMBER 58, 2. THE PRIVATE UTILITY EASEMENT AND ACCESS EASEMENT PLATTED IS NO LONGER NEEDED OR REQUIRED FORT ADJACENT LOTS TO DEVE DEVELOPED.
AS IT HAS WITHIN RESUBDIVIDED INTO THE COMMERCIAL LOT.
THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THAT ADJACENT LOT HAVE FILED AN ABANDONMENT RELEASE AND TERMINATION OF RIGHTS RELEASING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNER OF ANY OBLIGATION TO ADHERE TO THE COMBINED 25 FOOT REAR BUILDING LINE PRIVATE UTILITY ACCESS EASEMENT; HOWEVER, THE ABANDONMENT, RELEASE AND TERMINATION OF RIGHTS DOES NOT ABOLISH THAT PLATTED 25-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK. AND THE VARIANCE FOR A 10-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK IS NECESSARY. AND APPROVAL OF BUILDING PLANS AND A PLOT PLAN OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX ENCROACHING APPROXIMATELY 15 FEET INTO THE PLAIDED 25-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK AS THE 10-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK IS ESTABLISHED MINIMUM BY CITY CODE. GRANTING THIS ALVAREZ ALLOWS THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO BUILD THE DUPLEX.
IN THE VARIANCE WERE TO BE DECIDE COULD HAVE A MINOR REPLAT AND REDUCE TO A 10-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK.
THE FUTURE PLAT PLANS MUST EAT APPLICABLE CODE AND ORDINANCES.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST FOR SUBMITTAL AND SUBSEQUENT DEPICTING A RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX INTO THAT PLATTED 25-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK WHILE MEETING ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS SET OUT IN THE CITY CODE.
FURTHERMORE, THE NEW RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX WILL MEET THE MINIMUM 10-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIRED FOR A RESIDENTIAL LOT. STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AND INTEREST TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. STAFF HAS DETERMINED THE VARIANCE WILL NOT PREVENT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA SURROUNDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BECAUSE WILL HAVE 1 10-FOOT MINIMUM SETBACK BY THE CITY CODE.
>> THANK YOU, CELESTE. BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ISSUE, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REALLY QUICKLY RECAP WHAT I THINK MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE STAFF REPORT WAS. THIS PROPERTY WAS PART OF A PLAT OF THREE RESIDENTIAL LOT SUBDIVISION THAT COULD HAVE ACCESS TO NAVARRO BECAUSE IT WAS A COLLECTOR STREET.
IT WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE A 25-FOOT BUILDING SETBACK ACCESS EASEMENT AT THE REAR BASICALLY TO ALLOW FOR AN ALLEY FOR THERE TO BE ACCESS TO THE TWO INTERIOR LOTS.
WHEN SOMEONE CAME AND BOUGHT THE TWO INTERIOR LOTS, THEY REPLATTED THEM INTO COMMERCIAL LOTS.
THOSE TWO LOTS NOW HAVE ACCESS CONTINUE TO NAVARRO.
SO BASICALLY THIS LOT THAT WAS LEFTS STUCK WITH A 25-FOOT BUILDING SETBACK LINE THAT IS NO LONGER NECESSARY.
I WANT TO REAFFIRM AND ASK CELESTE WHAT IS BEFORE US TONIGHT IS, IS THERE ANY REASON NOT TO GRANT THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE NORMAL 10-FOOT SETBACK ON THIS LOT AND ALLOW
IT TO BE DEVELOPED THAT WAY. >> CELESTE MENCHACA: YES, NO
[00:10:02]
REASON. IF THE COMMISSION DECIDED THEY WANTED TO DENY IT, THE PROPERTY OWNER COULD REDESIGN IT AND APPROVE ADMINISTRATIVELY BECAUSE IT WOULD MOVE ALL THEREQUIREMENTS. >> THE MINOR SETBACK WOULD NOT
COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION. >> CELESTE MENCHACA: WOULD NOT
COME BACK BEFORE. >> WE WOULD BE FORCING TO BE DO A REPLAT THAT WASN'T NECESSARY IN TERMS OF AN EXPENSE.
>> CELESTE MENCHACA: CORRECT. >> AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM.
CELESTE, ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK?
>> RIGHT NOW ALL I KNOW IS A CINDY BREWER.
HER HAND IS RAISED SO I AM GOING TO ALLOW CINDY TO TALK.
OH, OKAY. MULTIPLE HANDS RAISED.
CINDY WILL GO FIRST. >> WELCOME, CINDY.
>> MAKE SURE YOU UNMUTE YOURSELF, CINDY.
>> YES, MA'AM. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.
WE ARE GREG AND CINDY BREWER AND LIVE AT 504 EAST CONSTITUTION, THE PROPERTY THAT ABUTS UP TO IRA BLOCK 1 THAT IS REQUESTING THE VARIANCE. WHEN WE HEARD THAT THE RODRIGUEZ BROTHERS PURCHASED THE EMPTY NOT NEXT TO OUR PROPERTY WE WERE EXCITED AND RELIEVED.
WE KNEW THAT THE BROTHERS HAVE A GOOD REPUTATION OF BUILDING QUALITY HOMES AND WOULD ONLY MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO OUR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD. WE HEARD RUMORS THAT THEY WOULD BUILD THREE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN THE COTTAGE-STYLE SIMILAR TO THE NEWLY BUILT COTTAGES ON VINE STREET NEAR THE CEMETERY.
WE WERE VERY PLEASED. WE ENVISIONED WHAT WAS ONCE AN UGLY LOT WAS FINALLY GOING BE TOO GATEWAY OF COTTAGE-STYLE HOMES WELCOMING PEOPLE ON TO CONSTITUTION STREET.
ONE OF THE TWO STREETS THAT DIRECT PEOPLE TO OUR HISTORIC DELEON PLAZA. WHEN WE LEARNED THAT A DUPLEX WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED NEXT TO OUR PROPERTY.
WE BECAME WORRIED. WE WERE CONCERNED.
GREG, MY HUSBAND IS CONCERNED, THAT THE NEXT DOOR RENTAL PROPERTIES WILL HAVE DOUBLE THE ACTIVITY, DOUBLE THE TRAFFIC, DOUBLE THE PARKING, DOUBLE THE NOISE AND POSSIBLY DOUBLE THE PROBLEMS THAT COME FROM RENTAL PROPERTIES.
I AM CONCERNED THAT A DUPLEX WILL TAKE AWAY FROM THE OLD VICTORIA FEEL THAT SHOULD BE A PART OF THE HISTORICAL TOW TOWNSITE. SHE IS ALSO CONCERNED THAT THE PROPERTY WILL BE 20 FEET OR LESS FROM THEIR BEDROOM WINDOW AND HOPE THIS WILL NOT CREATE A DISTRACTION TO THEIR SLEEP.
WE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE DUPLEX HAS TO BE SO CLOSE TO OUR PROPERTY, TEN FEET, YET 35 FEET NAVARRO.
WE ARE, HOWEVER, VERY GRATEFUL THAT THE AREA BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS WILL NOT BE USED AS DRIVEWAY, AND WE ARE THANKFUL FOR THAT. WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU WILL REMAIN AWARE OF HOW CLOSE WE ARE TO YOUR DUPLEX.
AND SO CONSIDER THAT THE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT WILL BE PLACED AS FAR FROM OUR HOUSE AS POSSIBLE, HAVING OUR UNIT NEXT TO OUR WINDOWS IS BAD ENOUGH. WE ASK THAT NO DOGS WOULD BE ALLOWED TO INHABIT THE SMALL SPACE BETWEEN THE HOMES.
WE ALSO ASK THAT NO PATIO THAT WOULD ENCOURAGE EVENING PARTIES BE CONSTRUCTED IN THIS NARROW SPACE.
WE REALIZE WE ARE NOT ARGUING AGAINST THE VARIANCE.
THAT WE WILL AGREE TO THAT. BUT WE JUST WANTED TO VOICE OUR CONCERNS. AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO BOTH EMPTY LOTS BEING DEVELOPED AND HOPE YOU WILL KEEP OUR INTERESTS IN THE FOREFRONT OF YOUR PLANS.
THANK YOU FOR HEARING OUR CONCERNS.
>> THANK YOU, MISS BREWER. >> CELESTE MENCHACA: NEXT HAND UP THAT WE HAVE IS SANDRA HARDY MCKENZIE LAW.
SANDRA, WE WILL HAVE TO ALLOW TO YOU TALK.
YOU HAVE TO UNMUTE YOURSELF, THOUGH.
>> HELLO, THIS IS SANDRA HARDY MCKENZIE.
FIRST I WANT TO SAY THAT I APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNITY, BUT THE NOTICE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT.
THE REQUIREMENT OF RULE 2116 C REQUIRES A TEN-DAY NOTICE.
VICTORIA CITY CODE 16 C 2 B REQUIRES THAT THE LETTER BE IN THE MAIL, TO BE MADE WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE HEARING.
I SENT TO MISS MENCHACA AND TO THE -- MISS WYATT A COPY OF THE
[00:15:11]
LETTER WE RECEIVED ON MARCH 15 WHICH IS DATED MARCH 8, BUT WAS NOT POSTMARKED AND I SENT THE POSTMARKED.NOT POSTMARKED UNTIL MARCH 11. WE WOULD OBJECT ON RULING ON THIS VARIANCE AND EVEN HAVING THIS HEARING AT THIS TIME BECAUSE IT IS NOT TIMELY. FURTHERMORE, THE RULE REQUIRES THAT NOTICE BE POSTED IN THE VICTORIA ADVOCATE AND AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE VICTORIA ADVOCATE THAT NEWSPAPER NOTICE PROVIDED WITHIN TEN DAYS. OUR NEIGHBORS HAD NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS PROPOSED VARIANCE, ON THAT ALONE I BELIEVE THIS VARIANCE SHOULD BE DENIED AND THIS MATTER CONTINUED. HAVING SAID THAT, I ALSO DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE MATERIALS SUPPLIED IS SUFFICIENT AND PROVIDES SUFFICIENT GROUNDS UPON WHICH A DECISION CAN BE MADE. I SENT YOU A FOUR-PAGE LETTER WHICH SETS OUT MY CONCERNS, BUT JUST UNDER RULE 6, 21-16, SAYS THAT THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE CANNOT BE BASED SIMPLY ON THE COST OF COMPLYING WITH THE REGULATION.
AND I BELIEVE THAT -- I AM GOING TO GO ONE STEP FURTHER AND SAY THE APPLICATION AS WE SAID IS NOT SUFFICIENT.
NOW YOU ARE REQUIRED -- THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT FACTS TO ALLOW THE MATTER TO BE STUDIES AND A PLOT PLAN OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE PLOT PLAN THAT WAS PROVIDED WAS PRELIMINARY SKETCH.
[2. Variance Request for Cimarron Unit V Subdivision - Block 1, Lot 74 - 7...]
IT DID NOT CERTIFY AND PROVIDE ACCURATE DIMENTIONS TO SCALE, BUT WHAT IT DID SHOW WAS AN EN COACHMENT ON THE REAR PROPERTY.IT DOES NOT SHOW THE SETBACKS AND BUILDING LINES ON CONSTITUTION SO WE COULD ADEQUATELY STUDY OF THE DISTANCE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE STREET AND DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INDICATION OF THE MANEUVERABILITY OF THE DRIVEWAY AND OFF-STREET PARKING AS IT IS SO CLOSE TO NAVARRO.
THE STAFF DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THE POSITION OF THE DRIVEWAY IS RELEVANT TO THE VARIANCE AND I BELIEVE IT IS BECAUSE THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS FOR THE BUILDING TO BE MOVED INTO THE EASEMENT AND IF IT WEREN'T IN THE EASEMENT THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL ROOM FOR DRIVEWAY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CONSTITUTION ENTRANCE INSTEAD OF RIGHT AT THE BREWERS.
WHEN I SAY THE APPLICANT IS INSUFFICIENT, I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT I DON'T BELIEVE AS MUCH AS I APPRECIATE DAGOBERTO RODRIGUEZ AND HIS FAMILY, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS EASEMENT, THAT THE CURRENT LANDOWNERS HAVE A RIGHT TO GIVE AWAY THIS EASEMENT AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPERTY IT WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE PROPERTY TO THE CURRENT OWNS.
MR. JONES BROUGHT THE PROPERTY FROM GREGORY RESETTI.
WHEN MR. JONES BOUGHT THE PROPERTY FROM MR. FRESETTI.
A DEED THAT SAYS FURTHER I THE UNDERSIGN --
>> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I THINK YOU HAD YOUR FIVE MIN
MINUTES. >> FOREVER -- [INAUDIBLE] -- AND PUBLIC PLAN HAS SHOWN THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS A RIGHT -- THIS PROPERTY OWNER HAS A RIGHT TO ABANDON THAT EASEMENT DEDICATED -- SOMEBODY TRYING TO
TALK OVER ME -- >> SO SORRY I FORGET TO MAKE MENTION TO THIS BUT WE HAVE A FIVE-MINUTE LIMIT WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS. AND YOU HAVE REACHED THAT JUST
A LITTLE BIT AGO. >> LET ME CONCLUDE BY SAYING THIS IS A HISTORIC DISTRICT. WE APPRECIATE THE RODRIGUEZ FAMILY. WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD -- WE WANT TO WORK WITH THEM, BUT THE CITY DID NOT GIVE US ADEQUATE NOTICE. BECAUSE OF THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO RULE ON IT TODAY REGARDLESS OF WHAT IS -- REGARDLESS OF THE ISSUES AND I THINK THAT WILL GIVE THE COMMUNITY AN OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY THIS ISSUE MORE BECAUSE
[00:20:05]
IT IS A HISTORIC DISTRICT AND RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THE BREWERS AND RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME WHERE WE HAVE CHILDREN PLAYING, PEOPLE RIDING THEIR BIKES, GOLF CARTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO OUR PROPERTY OWNERS AND TO THE SAFETY.NOT GIVING AWAY THIS VARIANCE UNTIL WE KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS
I AM GOING TO MUTE YOU NOW BECAUSE WE HAVE ONE MORE HAND
>> HELLO J. >> JOSE, YOUR HAND WAS UP.
>> YES, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? >> YES.
THANK YOU. YEAH, I APPRECIATE THE BREWERS AND MISS MCKENZIE'S CONCERN. SO AS A PROPERTY OWNER, I ALSO VALUE THE FACT THAT MY PROPERTY AND RETAINING VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS IMPORTANT TO ME AS WELL.
SO WE HAVE A REPUTATION FOR VERY HIGH STANDARDS WITHIN OUR FAMILY. WE HAVE A REPUTATION FOR MAKING A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.
[3. Variance Request for North Height Addition Resubdivision #15 - City Pl...]
AND THIS PROPERTY IS GOING TO TAKE MY HARD-EARNED MONEY AND INVESTMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROPERTY IS ADEQUATELY CONSTRUCTED PER THE CITY CODES AND IT IS GOING TO BE MANAGED BY MYSELF AND MY WIFE, WHO HAVE VERY HIGH STANDARDS.SO I WANT THE BREWERS AND MISS MCKENZIE TO REST ASSURE AS PROPERTY OWNERS WE FEEL EQUAL OBLIGATION AS THE NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET. WE FEEL THE UPMOST IMPORTANCE THAT THE KIDS AROUND THE COMMUNITY ARE SAFE AND SO WE ARE GOING TO MANAGE IT THAT W WAY.
WE ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE THAT MEETS THE CURRENT CODES FOR THE CITY. WE ARE WORKING WITH THE CITY, AND WE ARE GOING TO ENSURE THAT EVERYTHING MEETS COMPLIANCE WITHIN WHAT THE CITY CODES ARE FOR THIS PROPERTY.
AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
>> APPRECIATE YOU COMING. >> SURE.
>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE, CELESTE?
>> CELESTE MENCHACA: MAGGIE, ANY OTHERS?
>> I REALIZED I WAS MUTED, GUYS.
NO MORE HANDS RAISED. >> AT THIS TIME I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN UP THE AGENDA ITEM UP FOR COMMENTS
FROM THE COMMISSION. >> I WOULD -- I JUST HAD A QUESTION, CELESTE, THAT MAYBE YOU CAN CLARIFY DEALING WITH THE NOTICES THAT WERE SPEAKING AND IF IT WAS DONE IN A TIMELY TIME OR NOT. I AM LOOKING THROUGH MY BOOK OF DEALING WITH NOTICES, BUT MAYBE YOU CAN EXPLAIN IT BETTER.
>> CELESTE MENCHACA: YES, WE DO HAVE THE NOTICE FROM THE VICTORIA AED VO CAT THAT IT WAS ON NOVEMBER 5 IN THE LEGAL NOTICES. AS FAR AS THE MAILED-OUT LETTER. I KNOW THEY WERE DATED THE.
I CAN'T VERIFY WHEN THEY WERE ACTUALLY MAILED.
>> AND SO -- FROM OUR -- FROM OUR STANCE OF THE -- WHAT YOU CALL IT PUBLIC HEARING THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL -- THINGS THAT WE WENT THROUGH. IS IT -- HOW CAN I SAY THIS -- ARE WE HELD ACCOUNTABLE WHEN IT GETS THERE OR HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHEN THE POST STAMP -- WHEN IT WAS MAILED OUT?
>> CELESTE MENCHACA: I WILL DEFER TO ALISON.
>> ALLISON LACEY: THAT IS GOING TO BE THE DAY IT WAS MAILED OUT. WHAT WE SEEM TO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IS WHAT DATE THAT ACTUALLY IS AT THIS POINT.
AND OUR CODE IT HAS TO BE TIN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT IT WAS MAILED OUT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THE MAIL SYSTEM. WE KNOW THEY WERE DATED ON THETH. AGAIN, AS YOU HEARD CELESTE MENTION, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT DAY THEY ACTUALLY HIT THE MAILBOX.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE, WE CAN, YOU KNOW, TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL WE CAN TAKE A FURTHER LOOK INTO THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE BEFORE YOU ALL HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS TO VERIFY THAT THE
[4. Preliminary Plat for The Preserve Subdivision - City Plat File No. 210...]
NOTICE WAS GIVEN IN THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF TIME.THAT IS UP FOR YOU GUYS TO DECIDE HOW YOU WOULD LIKE TO
[00:25:01]
HANDLE THAT. >> I AM CONCERNED THAT HOW COULD WE HAVE POSTED IT ON THE 5TH AND 8TH WHEN THEY DIDN'T EVEN SUBMIT THE APPLICATION UNTIL THE 12TH?
>> I AM LOOKING AT THE WRONG AFFIDAVIT.
SORRY. >> THEY HAD THEIR APPLICATION
IN FEBRUARY. >> YES, NO, I AM SORRY.
I HAVE MULTIPLE AFFIDAVITS BACK --
>> SO YOU MEAN MARCH 5 IS WHEN WE --
I HEARD FEBRUARY 5, AND I AM THINKING --
>> SO I WANT TO SAY THAT FOR ME TO BE FAIR AND TO, YOU KNOW, AND -- MADAM CHAIRMAN, YOU CAN REALLY SAY, BUT TO BE FAIR, BECAUSE -- TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONFUSION ON OUR END WHEN THE NOTICES TO CLARIFY -- I AM IN AGREEANCE OF TABLING IT UNTIL WE FIND THAT, BUT, OF COURSE, I AM ONE PERSON.
>> LET ME ASK ALISON THIS. ALISON, IF WE CHOSE TO GO AHEAD ON THIS AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT TO THERE WAS EVIDENCE IT WAS PROPERLY POSTED WAS THAT AN OPTION OR CONSIDER TABLE
SOMETHING IN. >> ALLISON LACEY: THAT IS Y'ALL'S DECISION TO MAKE WHETHER YOU THINK THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN FRONT OF YOU IS SUFFICIENT FOR -- TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE -- OF THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS THAT
ARE IN OUR CODE. >> ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENT ON
THAT ISSUE? >> MY COMMENT IS THAT, WHILE WE HAVE THE STATEMENT OF WHAT THEY ARE SAYING THE NOTIFICATION THAT IT WAS NOT WITHIN THE DAYTIME FRAME AND WE ARE NOT CLEAR WHEN IT HIT THE MAILBOX. I BELIEVE IT FALLS ON US.
>> I DON'T THINK WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHEN IT HITS
THE MAILBOX -- >> NOT THEIR MAILBOX.
WHEN WE MAILED IT. >> WHEN WE ACTUALLY MAILED IT,
CORRECT. >> WHEN IT HITS -- WHEN IT HITS THE OUTGOING MAIL. NOT MAILED TO THEM.
>> SO FOR ME, I THINK THAT IS THE PORTION WHERE WE DON'T HAVE
[D. Consent Agenda:]
THE CLARITY ON, RIGHT, CELESTE? >> I AGREE WITH THAT.
>> CELESTE MENCHACA: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
>> MARCH 8 IS A MONDAY AND THE INFORMATION WE WERE GIVEN THAT THE POSTMARK WASN'T UNTIL THE 11 WHICH IS A THURSDAY.
SO THAT MEANS IT WAS IN THE POST OFFICE FOR FOUR DAYS BEFORE IT RECEIVED THE P POSTMARK.
OR THREE DAYS BEFORE IT GOT THE POSTMARK.
I WOULD -- I AM WITH MARY -- I AM NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MIX-UP WAS, BUT I AM NOT COMFORTABLE
THAT THEY GOT -- >> THAT THEY GOT THE NOTICE IN
TIME. >> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
>> THE ONLY THING I GUESS I WOULD WANT TO POINT OUT -- I
[1. Monthly Development Report]
TEND TO AGREE THAT WE SHOULD PROBABLY TABLE THIS BECAUSE -- ONLY BECAUSE OF THE NOTICE ISSUE IN TERMS OF WHEN THAT -- WHEN THAT LETTER ACTUALLY WENT OUT.BUT I THINK WHEN IT DOES COME BACK UP, WE NEED TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS THAT WE LIMIT TESTIMONY TO WHAT THE ISSUE IS.
AND THE ISSUE IS NOT WHAT IS GOING TO BE BUILT.
NOT WHERE IT IS BEING BUILT. BUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT 25-FOOT VARIANCE SHOULD BE CHANGED TO A 10-FOOT VARIANCE AND MEET THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF OUR CODE. I THINK WE WASN'T LITTLE ASTRAY IN TERMS OF -- IT IS NOT OUR JOB TO DECIDE WHAT IS GOING TO BE BUILT. WHETHER A DUPLEX OR A TH THREE-STORY HOUSE. WHETHER IT IS A HOUSE WITH A SWIMMING POOL OR WHETHER OR NOT PETS CAN BE OVER THERE.
WE HAVE TO LIMIT THE NEXT TIME WE HEAR THIS TO THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT WHETHER OR NOT THE VARIANCE SHOULD BE CHANGED TO TEN FOOT. AND I WOULD AGREE --
>> I AGREE WITH MARY ANN'S COMMENTS.
IF I WANT TO TABLE IT, THAT'S FINE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT DIFFERENCE IT MAKES.
BUT EMPHASIZE THE NEXT TIME THAT WE MEET WE SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON THE ISSUE AT HAND AND NOT SOMETHING ELSE.
I KNOW BECAUSE I DROVE BY THIS AFTERNOON AND A MAN ACROSS THE STREET ON CONSTITUTION, HE MENTIONED TO ME HE HAD RECEIVED NOTICE. HE DIDN'T SAY WHEN.
BUT I CAN TELL THAT NOTICES HAD GONE OUT AND PEOPLE HAD
RECEIVED THEM. >> I MEAN, I THINK THEY DID.
WE NEVER HAD AN ISSUE LIKE THIS BEFORE WHETHER NOTICE HAVE GONE OUT OR WHEN THEY WENT OUT. UNFORTUNATE IT HAPPENED THIS TIME. BUT IF SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM AND TAKE IT UP AT A FUTURE
MEETING. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO --
>> BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH THAT, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
>> VIC CALDWELL: WHAT I HEARD YOU STRUCK ABOUT, THIS IS KIND OF A LESS EXPENSIVE WAY TO DO A REPLAT.
[00:30:01]
IF THEY WERE TO DO A REPLAT, THIS WOULDN'T EVEN COME BEFORE>> VIC CALDWELL: TWHOONT HAVE BEEN A CLEANER PROCESS TO JUST
DO A REPLAT? >> WHY SHOULD WE FORCE SOMEONE TO DO MONEY THAT WE CAN TAKE CARE OF.
I SEE IT TOTALLY DIFFERENTLY. I DON'T SEE IT AS OUR JOB TO
FORCE PEOPLE TO DO REPLATS. >> BUT IF --
>> TO BE REAL HONEST THE WAY THOSE INTERIOR LOTS WERE DEVELOPED, IT BASICALLY LEAVES THIS LOT IN THE LURCH WITH THE 25-FOOT -- THE ONLY REASON FOR THAT WAS FOR ACCESS FOR THOSE INTERIOR LOTS. OTHERWISE IF SOMEONE HAD COME ORIGINALLY TO PLAT THIS -- THIS ONE LOT, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD THE TEN-FOOT SETBACK WHICH IS WHAT WAS REQUIRED.
>> AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. I JUST -- AND I DON'T HAVE MY BOOK IN FRONT OF ME OR I WOULD BE LOOKING AT IT FURIOUS.
IF ONE WHAT ONE OF THE SPEAKERS SAID IS CORRECT, YOU CAN'T USE
A VARIANCE TO GET AROUND -- >> EASEMENT.
>> DOING THAT. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO. AND I AM ALSO THINKING THAT WILL GIFT OWNER ANOTHER OPTION OTHER THAN -- GIVE THE OWNER ANOTHER OPTION OTHER THAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE UPON US.
LET ME MOVE TO THE NEXT QUESTION.
>> BEFORE YOU MOVE ON LET ME JUMP IN REAL QUICK TO CLARIFY.
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO GRANT A VARIANCE ARE IN -- I KNOW YOU HAVE YOUR BOOKS, 21-16 OF OUR CODE. I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT EVERYBODY GO BACK AND REVIEW THAT SPECIFICALLY SO THEY HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONDITIONS OR THE WHAT IS IT THAT THEY NEED -- EACH OF YOU MAKE INTO CONSIDERATION OF HOW YOU MAKE YOUR DECISION BEFORE -- IF THIS DOES GET TABLED BEFORE WE COME BACK SO WE ARE ALL CLEAR OF THE THINGS YOU CAN CONSIDER AND THINGS YOU CANNOT CONSIDER AND BASICALLY TAKE THE EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU AND USE THAT TO DECIDE -- I AM JUST REMINDING YOU OF WHERE THAT IS IN THE CODE AND WHERE YOU CAN
FIND THAT FOR FURTHER NOTICE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> AND I KNOW WE WERE GOING TO REVIEW IT AND LOOK AT IT, MY CONCERN IS THE NOTICE. MY HEART GOES OUT TO THOSE WHO HAVE CONCERNS. BUT I AM LIKE MISS MARY, WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE. WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON AND WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT. AND SOME STUFF IS NOT A PART OF THIS EVEN THOUGH THE COMMUNITY MAY HAVE CONCERNS WHAT IS GOING TO BE BUILT NEXT TO THEM. SO -- THE ONLY REASON I AM SUGGESTING THAT WE TABLE IT AND A MOTION ON THAT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE NOTICE PART THAT -- THAT IT MAY EFFECT.
>> DR. HUNT, I APPRECIATE THAT. I HAVE TWO MORE QUESTIONS THAT I WANT TO ASK. I AM NOT GOING TO BE HERE FOR THE NEXT MEETING AND I WILL NOT BE VOTING.
I DO AGREE WITH TABLING THIS AND A COUPLE OF THINGS ANSWERED IN MY MIND. IS CONSTITUTION CONSIDERED AN
ARTERY? >> NO, CONSTITUTION IS A LOCAL
-- >> LOCAL? OKAY, GOOD. WHAT IS THE SAFE DISTANCE TO HAVE A DRIVEWAY BETWEEN A CORNER OF AN ARTERY AND A LO
>> I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THAT WAS BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THEIR DRIVEWAY THAT THEY ARE PROPOSE SOMETHING 65 FEET THROUGH THE CORNER OF CONSTITUTION AND NAVARRO.
AM I LOOKING AT THAT CORRECTLY? >> SORRY, WHAT WAS THAT
QUESTION AGAIN? >> LOOKS LIKE THEIR DRIVEWAY IS
65 FEET FROM THE CORNER. >> YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT.
>> ON THAT PRELIMINARY -- WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING RIGHT NOW WHICH WOULD EXCEED THE 40 MINIMUM.
>> WHATEVER THEY PROPOSE IS GOING TO HAVE TO MEET THE
REQUIREMENT. >> RIGHT, BUT THEY ARE PROPOSING EVEN MORE THAN WHAT THE MINIMUM IS.
>> THE DRIVEWAY IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE SAFER THAN SOME OF THE OTHER DRIVEWAYS WE LOOK AT IN THE PAST.
THOSE WERE THE ONLY QUESTIONS I HAVE THAT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE, FOLKS.
I AM READY TO LISTEN TO SOMEBODY ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> DERRICK HUNT: I MAKE MOTION THAT WE TABLE IT.
>> BASED ON THE NOTICE ISSUE? >> SECOND.
>> MICHAEL ATKINSON SECONDED IT.
ALL IN FAVOR. ANY OPPOSED, IT HAS BEEN TABLED BASED ON THE ISSUE OF NOTICE. NEXT AGENDA ITEM APPROVAL OF
[00:35:10]
CONSENT AGENDA. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA OR SOMEBODY WANT TO TAKE THE ISSUE OFF? DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT.OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT, IT HAS BEEN APP APPROVED. WE NEED -- NEXT IS THE MONTHLY DEVELOPMENT REPORT, PLEASE, CELESTE.
>> CELESTE MENCHACA: THE MONTHLY DEVELOPMENT REPORT, WE HAD ONE MINOR PLOT, TWO MAJOR PLOTS, TWO ITEMS THAT WENT TO COUNCIL AND THEY WERE APPROVED AND PACKET BEFORE THE MEETING AND TO LET YOU KNOW THOSE COUNCIL ACTIONS DID PASS.
FOR THE PERMIT NUMBERS, WE ARE SLIGHTLY LOWER FROM LAST YEAR.
ANY QUESTIONS? >> ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR CELESTE? THANK YOU, CELESTE.
ANY OTHER ITEMS FOR THE COMMISSIONERS? DON'T HEAR ANY. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
SEE YOU NEXT TIME. WE WOULD LIKE TO ADJOURN.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.