Nov 30, 2023 Special Planning Commission

[A. CALL TO ORDER ]

[00:00:07]

>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. WELCOME TO THE SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR NOVEMBER 30, 2023.

I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.

CELESTE, COULD YOU PLEASE CALL ROLL?

>> DAVID BROWN? >> PRESENT.

>> DR. DEREK HUNT? >> PRESENT.

>> VICTOR MENDOZA? HERE.

CYNTHIA STALEY? REBECCA SPEARS? PRESENT. MONICA RODRIGUEZ?

>> PRESENT. >> WE HAVE A QUORUM.

[B.1. ANNOUNCEMENT/REMINDERS ]

>> THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO REMIND EVERYONE TONIGHT'S MEETING IS BEING SIMULCAST VIA TV-15.

PLEASE PUT YOURSELF ON SILENCE, FOR SURE.

ALL RIGHT. WE WOULD LIKE TO START OFF WITH CITIZEN'S COMMUNICATIONS. ANY CITIZEN WISHING TO SPEAK TO ONLY ITEMS NOT LISTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING? IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE COME FORWARD THAT THE TIME.

AND WE WILL TRY TO LIMIT YOUR TIME TO THREE MINUTES, PLEASE.

>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. >> GOOD EVENING.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, AND I DIDN'T SEE THE AGENDA.

I DON'T KNOW. I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO A SECTION OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE.

I'M WITH THE VICTORIA ANIMAL COUNTY SERVICES OFFICE.

>> ARE YOU GOING TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA?

>> I DON'T KNOW. I DIDN'T GET THE AGENDA AHEAD OF

TIME. >> THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC

HEARING. >> I CAN SPEAK THEN?

>> I'M SORRY. >> NO PROBLEM.

THANK YOU. >> PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL OPEN FOR THE OPEN COMMUNICATIONS. ALL RIGHT.

I SEE NO ONE WANTS TO COME UP AND SPEAK.

WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

[C.1. Recommendation to adopt the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) by replacing Chapter 21 and deleting Chapters 5, 9.5, and Article VI of Chapter 20, City of Victoria Code of Ordinances. Julie Fulgham, AICP, Director of Development Services For more information, please visit the website at www.VictoriaUDO.com]

>> GOOD EVENING. SO I'M HERE TO, AGAIN, TALK ABOUT THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE WHICH HAS BEEN MY LIFE THESE LAST SIX WEEKS. ACTUALLY, THE LAST TWO YEARS.

SO JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME-- A BRIEF HISTORY ON OUR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, IT IS SOMETHING THAT WAS RECOMMENDED IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WE TAKE AN OVERHAUL OF OUR DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES. WE KICKED OFF WITH A CONTRACT WITH FRIEZE & NICHOLS WHO WILL BE AT COUNCIL ON TUESDAY TO GIVE A BIGGER OVERVIEW. IN FALL OF 2021, THEY FIRST PUBLISHED A CODYING NO DISK IF CODIAGNOSTIC ANALYSIS REPORT.

THERE WAS A PUBLIC INPUT COMPONENT.

IN MARCH OF 2022. THEN THEY WENT TO CO-DRAFTING.

WE DIDN'T HEAR MUCH. THE STEERING COMMITTEE HAD SOME CHECK-INS ON WHAT THE CODE SHOULD BE.

BUT IT WAS NOT A LOT OF PUBLIC FACING STUFF.

CODE-WRITING IS LONG AND TEDIOUS AND NOT FUN.

THEN THEY DELIVERED THE CODE TO US IN 2023.

THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER LOOKED AT IT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION SIDE. SO I WENT OVER THIS PRESE PRESENTATION. I'M NOT GOING OVER THE WHOLE THING AGAIN TONIGHT. SO DON'T WORRY.

AT OUR WORKSHOP AND SOME OTHER MEETINGS, A LOT OF OTHER MEETINGS, I WANTED TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT THE ORGANIZATION IS REALLY A BIG COMPONENT OF WHAT IS CHANGING.

WE ARE DELETING CHAPTERS 9.5, 5, AND WE MADE A LAST-MINUTE DECISION TO MOVE 12, WHICH WAS MANUFACTURED HOUSING INTO THIS.

ALTHOUGH WE DIDN'T CHANGE THE RULES ON IT.

WE CUT IT FROM CHAPTER 12 AND PASTED IT INTO CHAPTER 21.

THAT IS DEVELOPMENT-RELATED. THE CODES ARE IN ONE CHAPTER FOR PEOPLE TO LOOK AT. AND WE DIDN'T REALLY TALK ABOUT THIS. THERE WAS ONE PUBLIC MEETING IN WHICH-- BACK WHEN PAUL WAS MAYOR AND THOMAS WAS THE CITY ATTORNEY. WE GAVE A PRESENTATION ABOUT THE STRUCTURE OF OUR ORDINANCE. THE ONE THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE NOW. AND IT IS NOT SOMETHING WE REALLY HIGHLIGHTED. BUT THAT ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED IN 1992. IT WAS NEVER ADMINISTERED THE WAY THAT IT WAS WRITTEN. AND BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER ADMINISTERED THE WAY THAT IT WAS WRITTEN, IT REALLY DOESN'T QUITE JIVE WITH STATE LAW. THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN IS THAT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE PER THE PLAT.

AND BECAUSE WE DON'T REQUIRE REPLATES ON EVERY ACTIVITY AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT LAND USE THAT THAT PLAT IS ON THAT PLAT MEANS THAT WE ARE OPEN TO A LOT OF CHALLENGES.

SO A BIG, BIG COMPONENT OF THIS IS REALLY MAKING SURE THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE COMPLIES WITH STATE LAW AND IS ENFORCEABLE UNDER STATE LAW. THAT LEADS TO CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES WHEN YOU CAN'T REALLY BACK IT UP.

[00:05:01]

BECAUSE OF THE AUTHORITY SECTION AND HOW WE ARE CHAINING IT-- CHANGING IT, IT FOLLOWS THE AUTHORITY GRANTED IN STATE LAW WHICH IS A VERY BIG THING. I WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER SOME CHANGES. SINCE WE LAST MET.

ACTUALLY, THIS ISN'T A CHANGE. I THINK THIS IS, AGAIN-- I DON'T THINK THIS HAS GOTTEN ENOUGH ATTENTION.

IT IS SO HUGE. ON THE NONCONFORMITY SECTION, THE TRIGGERS FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN WHICH THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE SITE PLANS ARE CHANGING.

YOU CAN DO SMALL IMPROVEMENTS NOW WITHOUT A SITE PLAN BEING REQUIRED. WHICH THEN TRIGGERS THE ENTIRE SITE TO COME INTO CONFORMANCE. THIS IS VERY HARD FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES OR THE REUSE OF PROPERTIES WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT. IT ALLOWS SOME SMALL INVESTMENTS TO GET SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES GOING AGAIN.

AND SO THAT IS A BIG RELAXATION OF WHAT OUR CURRENT CODE SAYS.

WHEN A SITE PLAN IS TRIGGERED. SO WE HAD A LOT OF FEEDBACK.

A LOT OF MEETINGS. I WILL KIND OF GO OVER WHAT THOSE MEETINGS WERE. ONE THING EARLY ON IS WE HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT REQUIRING CONTRACTORS TO CARRY INSURANCE.

RICK DID AN AMAZING JOB IN REACHING OUT THE A LOCAL REAL ESTATE AGENT, SHARED WHAT SOME OF THESE COSTS WOULD BE.

AND INSURANCE IS, OF COURSE, BASED OFF OF A LOT OF FACTORS.

DOWN TO YOUR CREDIT SCORE. WHAT KIND OF BUSINESS YOU ARE.

WHAT TYPE OF CONTRACTOR YOU ARE. LIKE, A DRYWALL CONTRACTOR WILL HAVE LESS INSURANCE PREMIUM THAN A ROOFER BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE WORK. HE WAS ABLE TO SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH THE BUILDING ASSOCIATION, AND SO WE ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGES. WE ACTUALLY HAVE GOTTEN A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR THIS FROM OUR-- FROM THE COMMERCIAL CONTRACTORS.

THEY ARE ALREADY CARRYING GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE.

SAYING NO, THIS IS YOUR LEGITIMATE CONTRACTOR.

YOU SHOULD BE DOING THIS ANYWAY. SO WE DON'T-- EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS FEEDBACK ON THIS, WE ARE NOT PROPOSING THAT THERE BE ANY CHANGES. ON LICENSE INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. ON THE ARTICLE 4, LAND USES, SO THERE IS A DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENT FOR THESE USES THAT ARE LISTED WHICH ARE GENERALLY NOT COMPATIBLE NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL. PRIMARILY, A LOT OF AUTO-RELATED. AND THEN ONE THING WHICH YOU WILL HEAR IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS THERE IS A SEPARATION REQUIREMENT FOR KENNELS. WE DID TAKE INTO ACCOUNT COMMENTS THAT WE HEARD FROM THE ANIMAL CONTROL AND WROTE AN EXCEPTION THAT THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY IF THE USE IS WHOLLY ENCLOSED WITHIN THE BUILDING.

IF IT IS-- IF THERE IS RUNS AND THINGS OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING, THEN THE SEPARATION-- THAT WOULD TRIGGER THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENT. IF THE USE IS WHOLLY ENCLOSED WITHIN THE BUILDING, WHEN WE GOT FEEDBACK, WE DID CHANGE IT.

ANOTHER HUGE CHANGE TO THIS USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS, THE SEPARATION FROM RESIDENTIAL USES IS WE ALSO WROTE IN A WAIVER PROCEDURE. WE ALREADY HAVE A WAIVER PROCEDURE. WHEN A SCREENING FENCE IS REQUIRED. FOR COMMERCIAL AGAINST RESIDENTIAL. THIS IS KIND OF THAT SAME CONCEPT THAT WHEN A USE THAT HAS TO BE SEPARATED FROM RESIDENTIAL AND ALL THOSE USES HAVE SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS AND THE DISTANCES VARY DEPENNING ON HOW COMPATIBLE THEY ARE OR NOT TO A USE-- AND SO WE WROTE IN A WAIVER PROCEDURE THAT ALLOWS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO WAIVE THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENT.

ONCE THAT WAIVER IS IN PLACE, THEN IT STAYS INTO EFFECT UNTIL THAT USE IS NO LONGER THERE. IT CAN'T BE RESCINDED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER ONCE IT IS GIVEN. IT HAS A RIGHT TO BE THERE.

THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE WE MADE BASED OFF OF THE FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED. SIDEWALKS WAS ANOTHER.

WE WERE PROPOSED THAT SIDEWALKS BE INSTALLED AT THE INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. RIGHT NOW SIDEWALKS ARE REQUIRED WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT. BEFORE ISSUED, THE SIDEWALK HAS TO BE. IN WE HEARD A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM DEVELOPERS THAT THAT IS REALLY THE-- THE CARRYING COST ON THAT IS COST-PROHIBITIVE. IT IS NOT THE RIGHT TIME WITH THE ECONOMY. WE REVERTED BACK TO HOW OUR CURRENT PRACTICE IS. THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN THE SAME AS THE EXISTING PRACTICE. PARKLAND DEDICATION WAS ALSO SOMETHING THERE WAS A LOT OF FEEDBACK ON.

COUNCIL ASKED FOR DIRECTION. THEIR DIRECTION WAS LET'S PICK THAT UP IN THE FUTURE AT ANOTHER TIME.

AND SO THE ARTICLE IS STILL IN THE PROPOSED DRAFT.

[00:10:05]

DID NOT WANT TO TAKE OUT THE ARTICLE NAME BECAUSE COUNCIL DID DIRECT US TO TALK ABOUT IT IN THE FUTURE.

SO I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO THINK THAT IT IS NEVER GOING TO COME UP AGAIN. WITH THIS DRAFT, THERE ARE NO PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS.

AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF MEETINGS.

WE INVITED DEVELOPERS AND DESIGN PROFESSIONALS.

WE HAD A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TWO WEEKS AGO.

WE MET WITH THE BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, TOOK THOSE CONCERNS TO CITY COUNCIL. FOR FEEDBACK.

IN WHICH I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED A LOT OF THE CHANGES.

WE ARE ASKING FOR A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TONIGHT. THE BOARD OF APPEALS WILL CONSIDER A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION ON THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE.

AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE ALSO CHANGING THE NEC FROM 2014 VERSION TO 2023 VERSION. IT IS SCHEDULED FOR A FIRST READING ON TUESDAY. THERE IS DISCUSSION WITH TP COUNCIL ON WHETHER WE BREAK THE SECOND AND THIRD READING OUT.

SO I CAN'T TELL YOU-- WE ARE STILL SHOOTING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE OF JANUARY 1. WE DO HAVE A POTENTIAL-- IT IS ON THE AGENDA FOR COUNCIL HAS A WORKSHOP SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 8. IT IS ON THE AGENDA.

WE WILL HAVE MORE DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION THEN AS WELL.

IF THEY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD, THEN IT WILL BE FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD READING ON DECEMBER 13 WITH A POSSIBLE SECOND DATE OF JANUARY 1. IT MIGHT HAVE TO WAIT FOR A SECOND AND THIRD WAITING-- READING INTO JANUARY.

WITH JUST A RANDOM EFFECTIVE DATE WHICH IS FINE.

THE FIRST SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE WAS FIRST ADOPTED JANUARY 6, 1956. WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO FOLLOW IT FOR DEED APPROVAL. THESE DATES JUST GET MEMORIALIZED IN OUR OFFICE. WE CAN WORK WITH THEM.

SO WITH THAT, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

WE CAN OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. P.

>> JULIE, WHY IS THERE SUCH AN APPARENT HURRY TO GET THIS DONE

BY JANUARY 1? >> I WOULDN'T SAY THAT THERE IS A HURRY. I MEAN, THAT DOES MAKE IT A CLEAN-- THE NEW AERIALS DONE IN JANUARY, THAT DOES MAKE IT AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR A VERY LONG, LONG TIME. THE SUBSTANTIAL-- MOST OF THE ORDINANCE IS NOT CHANGING. SO LET'S WORK THROUGH THE ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE WORKED THROUGH. I THINK WE HAVE.

THEN MOVE FORWARD. IT ALSO DOES A LOT OF GOOD.

FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE DEED APPROVAL CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS.

WHICH IS IF YOUR LOT WAS IN CONFORMANCE AT THE TIME OUR FIRST SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED, JANUARY 6, 1956, AND IT HASN'T CHANGED, THEN YOU CAN GET A BUILDING PERMIT.

BASED OFF OF THOSE DEEDS. WE GO THROUGH-- YOU SUBMIT ALL THE DEEDS. SINCE BEFORE THAT DATE.

WE MATCH THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND MAKE SURE THAT THE LOT I ISN THE SAME CONFIGURATION. WE JUST HAD AN APPLICANT SUBMIT THAT DEED APPROVAL. THERE WAS A 190S DEED.

THE NEXT DEED WAS IN THE 60S. THOSE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS DIDN'T MATCH. THIS ORDINANCE HAS A PROVISION PROPOSED THAT IF OFF LOT THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS, HAS WATER AND SEWER IN FRONT OF IT, AND A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN FRONT OF IT, YOU HAVE ACCESS. THEN A SUBDIVISION PLAT WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED. JUST A SURVEY.

RIGHT NOW THAT GENTLEMAN THAT WAS DENIED DEED APPROVAL, THE NEXT STEP IS YOU NEED TO HIRE A SURVEYOR OR HIRE SOMEONE TO PREPARE A SUBDIVISION PLAT. UNDER THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, YOU JUST NEED TO HIRE A SURVEY. THAT IS THE COST DIFFERENCE.

IT IS SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS. THERE IS A LOT IN THIS ORDINANCE THAT IS ACTUALLY REALLY HELPING A LOT OF FOLKS.

THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN ASKING EVERYONE.

THE ISSUES THAT PEOPLE ARE HAVING, LET'S TALK THEM THROUGH.

LET'S FIX THEM. AND EVEN IF WE NEED TO DO RESERVED, BECAUSE I THINK THERE IS-- ON THE DAY-TO-DAY, IT IS HELPING A LOT MORE THAN IT IS HURTING.

>> YEAH. HELP ME WITH THAT RESERVED PROCESS. IN ORDER TO FILL IN THAT RESERVE SPACE, WITH THE SUBJECT THAT IS BEING HELD, WHAT APPROVALS ARE

NECESSARY? >> SO THE ORDINANCE IS-- THE CITY ORDINANCE, YOU HAVE THE CITY CHARTER.

YOU HAVE THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. THE CODE OF ORDINANCES IS ORGANIZED BY CHAPTERS. IN THOSE CHAPTERS, YOU HAVE SECTIONS. SO TO CHANGE AN ORDINANCE, IT GOES THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL PROCESS.

YOU KNOW, CITY COUNCIL HAS THE FIRST READING AND

[00:15:01]

TO CHANGE ANYTHING MOVING FORWARD, WHETHER WE ARE CHANGING THIS SECTION OR ANY OTHER-- YOU KNOW, HOW MANY PARKING SPACES, CERTAIN USE IS REQUIRED. ANY CHANGE HAS TO FOLLOW THAT ORDINANCE PROCESS. RESERVE JUST BASICALLY MEANS THAT THOSE NUMBERS IN THE ORDINANCE ARE RESERVED FOR US TO WRITE FUTURE CODE BECAUSE EVERY ORDINANCE-- YOU KNOW, THE ORDINANCES HAS TO BE ORGANIZED UNDER A SECTION NUMBER.

IT JUST RESERVES SECTIONS TO BE WRITTEN IN THE FUTURE.

SO UNDER THE SUBJECT, THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN NOW, YOU KNOW, THERE IS NO RULES. YOU CAN SEE.

IT IS WRITTEN EXACTLY LIKE THIS. YOU GO TO THAT SECTION, AND THERE IS A SECTION IN THE CODE THAT SAYS "HEADINGS AREN'T CODE." THE CODE IS THE SECTION NUMBER.

>> WELL, TAKING THIS AS AN EXAMPLE, IF YOU ALL CAME UP WITH SOME LANGUAGE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PUT IN PLACE, WOULD THAT PROCESS BE PUBLICIZED TO THE BUILDERS, FOR INSTANCE, IF THERE ARE STILL ANY IN TOWN? AND ALSO TO THIS BODY?

>> YES. SO THE CODE NOW ALSO SAYS THAT EVERY TEXT AMENDMENT NEEDS TO GO THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION.

BEFORE, TEXT AMENDMENTS WEREN'T REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH.

THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A TEXT AMENDMENT.

WE WOULD DO THE STATUTORY NOTIFICATION.

WE WOULD SEND THE EMAILS. I MEAN, WE SEND A LOT IN THIS PROCESS. AND HAD A LOT OF MEETINGS.

AS F AS WHETHER THOSE ARE PICKED UP AND READ AND ARE NOTICED, IT IS-- YOU KNOW, WE DO ALWAYS DO OUR BEST TO BE TRANSPARENT.

BECAUSE IT IS MUCH BETTER TO HEAR EVERYONE'S INPUT AND OBJECTIONS, CONCERNS BEFORE AN ORDINANCE IS IN EFFECT.

RATHER THAN AFTER THE FACT. WHEN WE HAVE TO ADMINISTER IT.

SO IT WOULD FOLLOW THE ORDINANCE ADOPTION PROCESS.

>> THANK YOU. >> I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I AM THANKFUL FOR THE LAST MEETING AND THEN LISTENING TO THE BUILDERS RECORDING THE QUAWK CLAUSE, THAT THAT WAS REMOVED FOR COST EFFICIENCY. FOR THE BUILDER.

I COMMEND Y'ALL FOR LISTENING AND ADDING THAT-- MAKING THAT

CHANGE. >> PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

>> WE ARE GOING TO-- IS THERE ANY-- DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS TO JULIE ON THIS? ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS? IF YOU ARE THROUGH,LY GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISH TO TALK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE DO SO. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND PLEASE TRY TO LIMIT YOURSELF TO THREE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF VICKER TO VICTORIA COUNTY ANIMAL SERVICES.

WE ARE LOOKING TO RELOCATE TO A BUILDING ON PROPHET STREET.

IT HAS BEEN OFFERED TO THE COUNTY FOR A SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS. WHAT WE ARE ASKING AND WHILE I APPRECIATE THEY DID CHANGE THE CODE TO INCLUDE ANY STRUCK HUR THAT IS COMPLETELY INSIDE THE BUILDING WHICH IS WHAT I'M LOOKING AT DOING RIGHT NOW, MY CONCERN IS IN THE FUTURE, SHOULD WE HAVE TO MOVE OR RELOCATE ANIMAL SERVICES TO A DIFFERENT FACILITY, I WOULD LIKE A CARVE-OUT FOR ANIMAL SERVICES TO NOT HAVE THAT 300-FOOT SETBACK ON PROPERTY LINES.

WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT ANIMAL SERVICES, WE ARE NOT LOOKING AT-- MOST OF THE TIME, ANIMALS ARE NOT BARKING ALL DAY OR NIGHT LONG. THE FACILITY IS GENERALLY FAIRLY QUIET. THIS WILL LIMIT US IN THE FUTURE TO MOVE ANYWHERE ELSE OTHER THAN THE PROPHET STREET BUILDING.

WE ARE LOOKING TO HOUSE EVERYTHING INSIDE.

WE ARE REQUESTING A CHANGE TO THIS.

THAT WOULD NOT INCLUDE US OR THE HUMANE SOCIETY OR THE ANIMAL SHELTER. OR JUST NOT ANIMAL SERVICES AS WE PROVIDE 80% OF THE CALLS IN THE CITY OF VICTORIA.

WE ARE TRYING TO MOVE INTO THE CITY SO WE CAN HELP BETTER SERVE POPULATION OF THE CITY. I JUST KNOW I CAN MAKE IT WORK THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW. I PREEFER TO HAVE THAT SET SO IN THE FUTURE, SHOULD I BE GONE AND THEY NEED TO MOVE OR EXPAND, THAT WE ARE NOT LIMITED TO THIS 300-FOOT PROPERTY SEPARATION.

THAT IS A HUGE SEPARATION. AND SO THAT IS MY ONLY REQUEST.

THAT WE HAVE A CARVE-OUT FOR VICTORIA COUNTY ANIMAL SERVICES

ADDED. >> YOU JUST HAVE TO ADD A RAILROAD TRACK. RIGHT?

>> IF I CAN GET THEM TO PUT ANOTHER TRACK.

IN YOU KNOW. IT IS SIMILAR TO THE RAILROAD TRACK CARVE-OUT. SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT.

WE WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS. I DON'T WANT TO MOVE INTO THE MIDDLE OF A BLOSSOMING NEIGHBORHOOD AND START HAVE DOGS BARKING. WE WANT TO BE CENTRALLY LOCATED

TO THE PEOPLE WE SERVE THE MOST. >> ASK JULIE THE QUESTION.

[00:20:03]

>> NO. GENERALLY, ESPECIALLY THE CITY TRY TO FOLLOW OUR OWN RULES. IF YOU REMEMBER, WE ACTUALLY REQUIRED A SIGN VARIANCE FOR THE NEW PUBLIC SAFETY HEADQUARTERS A COUPLE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AGO.

IT IS ALWAYS THE GOAL TO HOLD OURSELVES TO THE SAME STANDARDS

THAT WE HOLD OTHERS TO. >> AND CHAPTER 4, WE WERE IDENTIFIED DIFFERENTLY THAN A FOR-PROFIT BUSINESS.

WE WERE LISTED AS SEPARATE. WE DIDN'T HAVE THE SAME

SETBACKS. >> SO BASICALLY, I'M TRYING TO SEE-- ARE YOU ASKING IF THERE WOULD BE SOME TYPE OF CARVE-OUT FOR DEALING WITH EXEMPTS STATUS FOR CERTAIN ENTITIES OR

ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS YOURSELF? >> YES, SIR.

>> THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ASKING? HOW WOULD THAT WORK IF THAT WAS

TO BE ENTERTAINED? >> IT WOULD BE REALLY EASY TO WRITE. THE EXCEPTION RIGHT NOW IS THE EXCEPTION IF IT IS WHOLLY ENCLOSED WITHIN A BUILDING.

YOU WOULD JUST ADD-- I WOUL WOULDN'T-- I WOULD TRY AND MAKE IT AS NARROW AS POSSIBLE. BECAUSE THE USE IS STILL THE SAME. YOU STILL POTENTIALLY HAVE DOGS NEXT TO RESIDENCES. OUTSIDE.

RIGHT NOW, THERE IS AN EXEMPTION IF YOU ARE WHOLLY INSIDE A BUILDING. IF YOU ADD THAT EXEMPTION, THEN THEY COULD PUT RUNS OR KENNELS OUTSIDE THE BUILDING.

NEXT TO RESIDENCES. >> Y'ALL ADDED A WAIVER.

>> YES. THAT IS ANOTHER OPTION.

>> THAT IS NOT CUTTING YOU OUT. YOU KNOW, IF THE COUNTY-- YOU HAVE YOUR HOME OWNERS. THEY GO AHEAD AND SUBMIT TO THE OWNERS. AND THE DISTANCE.

REALLY YOU HAVE IT OUT THERE. YOU DON'T REALLY NEED TO HAVE-- I MEAN-- YOU KNOW, SO THEY MOVE THEIR BUILDING.

AND IT IS GOING TO BE CLOSE TO SOME-- THEY WILL GO AHEAD.

IF THEY CAN GET THE PEOPLE TO SIGN THE WAIVER THAT LETS THEM BUILD THAT FACILITY-- THERE IS SOMETHING IN THE UDO THAT ALLOWS THIS TO HAPPEN. IT IS NOT REALLY CUTTING THE COUNTY OUT YET. NOW, LET'S SAY THAT THEY CAN'T

DO IT -- >> THERE IS ALSO OTHER POSSIBLE THINGS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION COULD CONSIDER.

THE 300 FEET CAME FROM OUR CONSULTANTS AS A BEST PRACTICE.

BUT THERE IS AN EXISTING CHAPTER ON ANIMAL CONTROLS THAT REQUIRES A HUNDRED-FOOT SEPARATION. THAT THE COUNTY WAS VERY INVOLVED IN DRAFTING A FEW YEARS AGO.

SO YOU COULD MAYBE REDUCE THAT 100 FEET.

THAT WOULD STILL HAVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY HAVE TO BE 100 FEET AWAY. THEN THE AMOUNT OF WAIVERS WOULD BE PROBABLY LESS BECAUSE IT IS A SMALLER DISTANCE.

THAT IS SOMETHING ELSE THAT THEY COULD CONSIDER.

Y'ALL COULD CONSIDER. THERE IS ALSO A VARIANCE ROUTE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER JUST THIS ONE SPECIFIC PROPERTY OR USE.

THOSE ARE ALL OPTIONS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN

CONSIDER. >> I LIKE THE STANDARD, HOW YOU HAVE IT NOW. AND MAYBE THE ATTORNEYS CAN ANSWER THIS. I BELIEVE WHEN YOU START TO GET MORE SPECIFIC IN CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS AND THINGS, IT CAN KIND OF OPEN UP MORE OF AN ISSUE WITH OTHER-- THOSE THAT MIGHT FEEL THEY SHOULD DESERVE IT, TOO.

I THINK WITH HAVING THE VARIANCES OR THE WAIVERS THERE, I THINK IT GIVES EVERYBODY AN OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF PLEAD WHY THEY BELIEVE THEY SHOULD BE EXEMPT FROM THE 300 FEET.

THAT IS MY OPINION. I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS THE FORM OF A QUESTION.

>> IT IS DISCUSSION. >> YOU SAID THAT YOUR PLAN TO STAY INSIDE THE BUILDING AND NOT HAVE KENNELS OUTSIDE?

>> CORRECT. >> THE ONLY THING WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT MAYBE IN THE FUTURE IS OUTSIDE MEET-AND-GREET AREAS. WHAT THEY HAVE WRITTEN NOW IS KENNELS HAVE TO HAVE AN ATTENDANT.

IF WE WERE TO HAVE SOMETHING OUTSIDE, IT WOULD BE AN ATTENDANT TO MEET A DOG OR SOMETHING.

AND AGAIN, I'M ASKING FOR THE FUTURE, TOO.

THAT WE MAKE IT AS UNDIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE WE NEVER KNOW HOW THINGS ARE GOING TO CHANGE.

YOU KNOW, IN THE OLD DAYS OF HAVING THE DOG, STRAY DOGS OUT BY THE WATER PLANT OR THE SEWAGE PLANT IS GONE.

WE NEED TO HAVE THEM WHERE THE PEOPLE CAN BE BETTER SERVED.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT.

[00:25:02]

>> THAT IS MORE OF AN ENFORCEMENT.

IF YOU ARE TAKING A DOG ON A WALK, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE LIKE

AN INCIDENTAL SUBORDINATE USE. >> YOU ARE HAVING, LIKE, A PERSONALNANT A PERSONALNANT STRUCTURE OR F FENCED-IN YARD, WE WOULD CONSIDER THAT ACTIVITY AND NOT ALLOW IT.

IF YOU ARE TAKING A DOG ON A WALK, YOU KNOW, WE WOULDN'T CONSIDER THAT AN OUTSIDE KENNEL PART OF THE USE.

THEN OF COURSE, THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE.

YOU HAVE TO DOCUMENT ALL OF THOSE OUTSIDE USES TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION. WE WOULD NEVER PROBABLY ADEQUATELY BE ABLE TO BUILD A CASE ON EVERY WORKER TAKING A DOG ON A WALK. SO THAT IS-- THAT IS KIND OF THE INTERPRETATION. HOW LAND USE REGULATIONS WORK.

>> WELL, WE ARE STILL IN PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO TALK ON THIS SUBJECT, PLEASE DO SO.

IF NOT, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE IT.

IF NO ONE WANTS TO TALK ANYMORE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE WILL OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION. AMONGST OURSELVES.

ANY MORE QUESTIONS? AGAIN, WHAT I'M-- YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A WAIVER. I MEAN, THAT IS WHERE I'M STANDING ON IT. I MEAN, IT IS IN THERE.

WE HAVE IT. IF WE NEED TO-- IF WE CAN GET THE APPROVAL DOWN THE ROAD, YOU KNOW, THEN ALSO WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, LIKE YOU-- WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE VARIANCE ROUTES WHICH WILL COME TO US ANYWAY.

>> YES. >> I DON'T KNOW.

I'M JUST OPENING IT UP TO THE GROUP.

>> I AGREE. >> ANY MOTIONS OR FURTHER

DISCUSSION ON THIS? >> I AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION AND DR. HUNT'S AS WELL? SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE HE MENTIONED THAT IT IS FOR THE FUTURE. IT IS NOT AN IMMEDIATE NEED.

SO LET'S NOT CURVE IT OUT AND PUT THEIR ORGANIZATION IN SPECIFICALLY LIKE SOMEONE MENTIONED.

INSTEAD, LET OUR OTHER TWO OPTIONS WORK WHICH IS THE VARIANCE AND THE WAIVERS. UNTIL THEY POSSIBLY NEED IT.

>> OKAY. GO AHEAD.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, MR. PRESIDENT, I WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE GO AHEAHEAD AND ADOPT THE UNIFIED

DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. >> I HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> SECOND BY MR. MENDOZA.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. >> AYE.

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. WE ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.

ALL RIGHT. >> JULIE, THAT IS A WELL-WRITTEN DOCUMENT. THAT WAS-- I WON'T SAY IT IS A PLEASURE TO READ IT. (LAUGHTER).

>> 270-- IT WAS REALLY TEDIOUS. I LEARNED A LOT.

>> I'M REALLY EXCITED FOR THE THINGS IT CAN DO.

FOR THE EXAMPLE I JUST GAVE YOU OF THE GENTLEMAN THAT WAS DENIED DEED APPROVAL. AND WE DON'T HAVE TO TELL HIM, YOU NEED TO SPEND SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS ON A PLAT.

THAT IS GOING TO MAKE OUR JOB SO MUCH EASIER.

IT IS VERY HARD TO SOMETIMES KILL DREAMS WITH DEVELOPMENT COSTS. I THINK THAT THERE IS A LOT OF RELAXATION IN THIS THAT I'M VERY HAPPY TO SEE.

>> I THINK WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW IS YOU CAN-- THERE IS OTHER-- YOU K KNOW, THERE IS OTR AVENUES THAT WE CAN GO THROUGH,

[D. CONSENT AGENDA]

OKAY. THE NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS THE CONSENT AGENDA. WE HAVE ONE ITEM TO APPROVE.

THE MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18. ANY MOTIONS OR ACTIONS ON THIS

AGENDA ITEM? >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> I HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE BY MR. VICTOR MENDOZA TO

APPROVE THE MINUTES. >> SECOND BY MS. MONICA.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. >> AYE.

[E. OTHER BUSINESS:]

>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THE MINUTES CONSENT AGENDA PASSES. NEXT ITEM, MONTHLY DEVELOPMENT

REPORT. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

SO FOR THE MONOOF AUGUST, THE CITY OF VICTORIA PROCESSED 139 BUILDING PERMITS. IN 2023.

THAT IS JUST ABOUT THE SAME THAT WE PROCESSED IN 2022.

FOR MEP PERMITS, WE HAVE PROCESSED 158.

AND FOR PERMIT FEES COLLECTED, WE HAVE COLLECTED $53,536 IN PERMIT FEES. SO FOR THIS-- AS OF LAST MONO, WE HAVE HAD ONE MINOR PLAT SUBMISSION AND FOUR SITE PLAN SUBMISSIONS FOR REVIEW. THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[F. ITEMS FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:]

ANY ITEMS? ANYBODY? AGAIN, THE ONLY THING I HAVE TO SAY IT IS A LOT OF WORK.

I AGREE, MR. BROWN. IT IS A LOT OF WORK THEY PUT INTO IT. IT HAS BEEN ON THE TABLE FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS. THREE OR FOUR YEARS.

[00:30:02]

YOU KNOW, IT HAPPENS IN YOUR NORMAL WORK-- YOU KNOW, YOU PUT ALL THIS EFFORT IN. THEN AT THE END, MAN, I THINK WE DID EVERYTHING. THEN, WELL, I DIDN'T GET TO SEE IT. IT IS TOUGH.

THE PLANNING TEAM AT VICTORIA DID AN AWESOME JOB.

YOU KNOW, THEY WORK THROUGH THE PROBLEMS. TO GET TO WHERE THEY ARE AT. I APPLAUD Y'ALL.

I REALLY DO. THAT IS AWESOME.

THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY. I HOPE EVERYBODY HAD A GOOD THANKSGIVING. IF THERE IS NO OTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA-- FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION,LY GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT 5:45.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.