[A. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:12]
>>> WELCOME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR JUNE 20TH 2024. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. TYLER COULD YOU PLEASE CALL ROLE FOR US?
>> WE HAVE QUORUM >> INK YOU TYLER. I WOULD LIKE
[B. Communication]
TO GO AHEAD AND START WITH COMMUNICATIONS. ANYONE FIRST OF ALL TONIGHT'S MEETING IS BEING SIMULCAST VIA TB 15. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND START WITH CITIZEN COMMUNICATION. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON ITEMS NOT LILISTED S PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT PLEASE DO SO AT THIS TIME. PLEASE LIMIT YOURSELF TO THREEMINUTES. >> GOOD EVENING SIR AND COMMISSIONERS. I'M MICHAEL OLIVIA 2204 EAST NORTH STREET.
I WAS WONDERING IS THERE A CERTAIN COLD LIKE FOR POTHOLES AND TRAILER PARKS WHERE THE LANDLORD HAS TO FIX IT? IT HAS BEEN FIVE YEARS AND HE HAS NOT FIXED THE POTHOLES AND THEY ARE SEVERE. THE LAST THREE DAYS IT HAS BEEN RAINING AND IT IS REALLY BAD. THEY PUT A LOAD A DIRT ON IT BUT THAT IS NOT SUFFICIENT. THEY SHOULD PUT EITHER GRAVEL OR ASPHALT. CODE ENFORCEMENT HAS TOLD ME IN THE PAST THEY DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC CODES TO SPECIFICALLY MAKE IT ILLEGAL. I JUST WANT TO SEE IF THAT IS TRUE. BECAUSE IF THAT IS REALLY TRUE I HOPE THEY CAN MAKE SPECIFIC CODES TO WEAR TRAILER PARK OWNERS AND LANDLORDS HAVE TO FIX IT. IT APPEARS HE HAS NO INTENTION OF FIXING IT. I APPRECIATE ADAM WEST ATTORNEY WEST HE HAS ADJUSTED. HE IS HERE NOW AND I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING. BUT I WAS JUST WONDERING WHY HE DON'T HAVE TO FIX IT ? ALSO THERE IS A DUMPSTER BY WARREN STREET -- IT IS IN THE ROAD. I DON'T KNOW WHICH DEPARTMENT TAKES CARE OF IT. I WAS JUST WONDERING IF SOMEONE COULD FIGURE IT OUT. SOMEONE TOLD ME DAVID FROM PERMITS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DUMPSTER.
IT IS IN THE WAY OF THIS TRAFFIC. I WAS WONDERING IF
SOMEONE COULD TAKE CARE OF IT. >> THAT IS IT. THERE IS DO I
HAVE A MINUTE ? >> YOU HAVE A MINUTE AND A
HALF. >> OKAY GOOD. THERE IS AN EIGHT BY 10 PLYWOOD ON THE MEDIAN WITH NAILS STICKING UP. I DON'T KNOW WHICH DEPARTMENT IS IN CHARGE OF PICKING IT UP.
CODE ENFORCEMENT SAYS THERE IS NOT THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. I THINK IT IS PUBLIC WORKS BUT IT IS BY A1 CARS AND SKIT LIDS ON THE HOUSTON HIGHWAY. I WOULD APPRECIATE IF SOMEONE COULD LOOK INTO IT. I DID TALK TO MIKE AND HE IS GOING TO TRY TO FIND OUT WHICH DEPARTMENT IS IN CHARGE OF THAT. THAT REALLY IS A HAZARD. THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
APPRECIATE IT. WITH JILLY FOR HELPING WITH THE TRAILER PARK.
I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. >> YOU SIR.
>> THANK YOU SIR. ANYONE ELSE? >> WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE
[1. Amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO.)]
SO WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND START WITH DEVELOPMENT ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS. OUR FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA OUR FIRST ITEM IS THE AMENDMENT TO THE UDO WHICH IS UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.>> GOOD EVENING. AS YOU KNOW THE ORDINANCE IS IN FULL EFFECT JUNE 1ST. WE CONTINUE TO FIND DISCREPANCIES OR AREAS WE NEED CLARIFICATION. WE ARE CONTINUING TO UPDATE THAT. SO THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE FOR YOU TONIGHT. I'M JUST COVERING THE SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS. THERE IS RENUMBERING THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT. AND TYPO OR GRAMMATICAL CHANGES. BUT NOTHING NOT PRESENTING ANYTHING THAT DOES NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT. THE FIRST PROPOSED CLARIFICATION IS ON THE PARKING STANDARDS. WE HAVE THIS RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENT . BUT OF COURSE MULTI FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS ARE ALSO CONSIDERED RESIDENTIAL. HOWEVER THOSE ALSO ARE TREATED OUR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS REQUIRING SITE PLANS AND WHAT NOT. THIS IS TO CLARIFY THAT THIS RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENT APPLIES TO DEVELOPMENTS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE SITE PLANS. BASICALLY DEVELOPMENTS WITH FOUR UNITS OR LESS THAT ARE CONSIDERED SINGLE-FAMILY IN THE
[00:05:01]
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS . THEREFORE THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THE LARGE PARKING LOT REQUIREMENT MEET ALL THE PARKING LOT REQUIREMENTS THAT THOSE LARGER DEVELOPMENTS WITH SITE PLANS REQUIRE. THAT IS JUST TO CLARIFY.>> ALSO CLARIFICATION, ON OUR DEVELOPMENT DRIVEWAY STANDARDS.
THE COMMERCIAL MULTI FAMILY INDUSTRIAL IS CONSIDERED COMMERCIAL. HEAVY INDUSTRIAL THAT NEEDS THE LARGER DRIVEWAY WITH. THE LAND USE IS DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IF IT IS NOT LISTED NEATLY WITH THAT ONE
OF THOSE CATEGORIES. >> SO AGAIN JUST A CLARIFICATION. THIS IS ALSO THAT SAME CLARIFICATION ON THE CURB RADIUS. SO, IN THE DRIVEWAY ACCESS THE ENTIRE DRIVEWAY SECTION OF THE DRIVEWAY ORDINANCE USED TO BE IN CHAPTER 20. AND D NOT IN CHAPTER 21. REPORTED OVER WHEN WE TRANSFERRED TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. WE HAD DIRECTED THE CONSULTANTS TO JUST COPY OVER OUR EXISTING DRIVEWAY ORDINANCE. BECAUSE IT WORKED REALLY WELL. THEY COPIED IT OVER BUT THEY ALSO PROPOSED AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY OR DRIVEWAY SECTION THAT THEY HAVE USED IN OTHER CITIES. WE ENDED UP HAVING TWO SECTIONS THAT CONFLICTED. AND SO WHEN IT WENT INTO EFFECT THIS MONTH WE HAD A SITE PLAN COME THROUGH. THE CONSULTANT ENGINEER WAS CONFUSED ON WHICH STANDARD TO USE BECAUSE WE HAD TWO OF THE SAME STANDARDS. THIS IS TO CLARIFY. THAT THIS APPLIES TO ALL DRIVEWAYS. IN THE CITY AND OF COURSE IF -- ESTATE MAINTAINED ROADWAYS IF THEY HAVE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT IS A SEPARATE PERMITTING PROCESS. THEY GO THROUGH HOURS WHICH WE DO HAVE LESS STRINGENT RULES. IF THEY MEET HOURS THEY DEFINITELY THEY STILL MAY NOT MEET TEXT THAT. IF THEY MEET TEXT THAT THEY MEET OUR REGULATIONS. AND SO, I WANTED TO KEEP OUR EXISTING REGULATIONS THE SAME. BUT I VERY MUCH LIKED THE CONSULTANTS FORMAT . THAT IS WHY YOU SEE THIS IS THE CONSULTANTS FORMAT.
WITH OUR EXISTING REGULATIONS. PROPOSED. SOME OF THE EXCEPTIONS THAT WERE IN OUR EXISTING REGULATIONS. THEN WE ARE COMPLETELY DELETING THE OTHER CONFLICTING WHEN IT COMES TO MINIMUM INVESTMENT WE PUT IT ALL IN THAT CHART TO MAKE IT EASY TO SEE. SO THIS IS THROAT LENGTH. STACKING REQUIREMENTS.
COMPLETELY DELETING THE DUPLICATION. THESE ARE MORE
STRINGENT THAN WHAT WE HAD HAD. >> LANDSCAPING, SO OF COURSE WE'VE ALWAYS REQUIRED IRRIGATION. SINCE OUR ORIGINAL ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE ADOPTED IN 1992. NOW THAT THE YOU DL IS ADOPTED UNDER ZONING AUTHORITY, IT MAKES ENFORCEMENT IF LANDSCAPING DIES A LOT EASIER. AND SO THEREFORE WE ADDED THIS. UNLESS AN ALTERNATIVE IS APPROVED BY DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ON IRRIGATION. IF IT IS A VERY SIMPLE SITE A LOT OF THIS IS COMES UP WHEN AT&T DOES A SITE PLAN AND NEEDS TO DO A CONTROL BOX OR IN THIS CASE ADP IS BUILDING A -- [INAUDIBLE] IS NOT A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THEY DON'T NEED LANDSCAPING OR IRRIGATION TO KEEP ROBUSTA BEDS AND PLANTS AND TREES ALIVE. SO THE ALTERNATIVE IN THIS CASE WE WANT TO KIND OF ALLOW THEM NOT TO HAVE TO PUT IN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS. BUT NOW THAT THE ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED UNDER ZONING IF THERE LANDSCAPING WERE TO DIE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TAKING A TRUCK OUT TO WATER IT THEN WE HAVE A MUCH EASIER REMEDY THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM. BECAUSE IT IS ADOPTED UNDER ZONING AUTHORITY. WE WANT TO ALLOW THAT FLEXIBILITY ON THOSE KIND OF UNIQUE NOT REALLY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT DO REQUIRE SOME LANDSCAPING. THEY HAVE TO PLANTS MAY BE ONE TREE OR ONE BUSH. AS LONG AS YOU KEEP THAT ALIVE WE CAN WAIVE THE IRRIGATION STANDARDS. SO THIS IS WHAT THIS IS PROPOSING TO DO. TO ALLOW ME TO AUTHORIZE AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD WHICH
WOULD BE HAND WATERING. >> THIS NEXT SECTION IS THE CLARIFY THE TRACKS OVER 10 ACRES IS A CHANGE TO THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 212 THAT SECTION SAYS TRACKS OVER FIVE ACRES WITH EACH PART HAVE ACCESS IN THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ARE EXEMPT. WE WOULD CHANGE THAT EXEMPTION FROM FIVE ACRES TO 10 ACRES TO ALIGN WITH THE COUNTIES DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. WE NEED TO SPECIFICALLY CLARIFY
[00:10:02]
THAT IT HAD TO MATCH ALL OF TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AS FAR AS THE ACCESS AND NO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. THE ONLY CHANGE WAS FROM FIVE ACRES TO 10 ACRES. THAT WAS THE INTENT ANDWE JUST CLARIFIED WHAT IT WAS. >> THIS IS REALLY WHY YOU ARE SEEING THIS AGAIN. THOSE OTHER CHANGES WE COULD HAVE WORKED WITH INTERPRETING OR ADMINISTRATING THE ORDINANCE.
BUT AS YOU KNOW, FEMA IS ADOPTING NEW MAPS JULY 18TH. WE HAVE AMENDED OUR PROPOSED ORDINANCE THAT YOU ALL JUST APPROVED WAS THAT MAY OR APRIL? AND WE DID NOT HEAR FROM FEMA.
UNTIL TWO WEEKS AGO. AND THEY SAID THOSE PROPOSED CHANGES DID NOT QUITE GET US THERE. AND SO THESE NEXT FEW SLIDES ARE WHAT FEMA IS REQUESTING THAT WE CHANGE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE MAPS JULY 18TH TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM. WE JUST HAD A NAME
CHANGE. >> THEY HAVE UPDATED THE FORM SO IT HAS A NEW NAME. THERE IS A FORM NAME CHANGE. IN THIS SECTION. SAME AS A DIFFERENT FORM NAME. AND THEN, THEY WANT TO CLARIFICATION ON OTHER FOUNDATION TYPES. BECAUSE WHILE MOST FOUNDATIONS IN VICTORIA WILL BE SLAB ON GRADE OR -- THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF A BASEMENT FOUNDATION. SO WE ADDED OTHER FOUNDATION TYPES TO MAKE FEMA HAPPY. THE LIKELIHOOD OF A HOUSE BEING DEVELOPED WITH A BASEMENT IS VERY SMALL.
>> AND THEN THEY ALSO REQUESTED THE STATEMENT. AND THOSE ARE THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE YOU DL. WE ARE CONTINUING TO ADMINISTER IT AND IT IS CONTINUING TO WORK REALLY WELL WITH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND MAKING SOME THINGS SOME REDEVELOPMENTS AND SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT A
LITTLE EASIER. >> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OVER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
>> THOUGH IT IS EASIER. GOOD. >> THE BIGGEST KEY IS OUR SITE MODIFICATION PERMIT. THOSE MODIFICATIONS BELOW 30% THAT DON'T HAVE TO DO A FULL SITE PLAN WE ARE GETTING MAYBE THEY ARE CLOSING AND AN OBSOLETE DRIVEWAY TO DO A SMALL ADDITION WE ARE DOING TRADE-OFFS AND IT IS REALLY STREAMLINING THE
SMALL INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS. >> I'M THANKFUL FOR THE DILIGENCE YOU ALL ARE DOING AND FINDING WHAT DOES NOT WORK. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS IS THERE AN ATC ESTIMATED TIME OF COMPLETION OR WHEN THIS BECOMES HARD COPY WHERE YOU SAY DO YOU ALL SEE THE LIGHT ANYWHERE RIGHT NOW OF SAYING OKAY WE NOW
-- >> WE ARE USING IT EVERY DAY.
AS FAR AS ERRORS WE ARE MAKING OUR CONFUSION OR CLARIFICATIONS WE ARE MAKING A COMMITMENT TO CONTINUE TO ALWAYS UPDATE AS WE SEE IS THAT OF THERE WERE ERRORS AND ISSUES IN OUR OLD ORDINANCE THAT AFTER A TIME IT JUST NEVER THAT IS JUST HOW THE STAFF ADMINISTERED IT. THAT IS HOW WE USE THAT. WE KNEW WHAT THE ERRORS WERE. THAT IS FAIR TO THE PUBLIC. WHO RELY ON THE CODES WHEN THEY ARE WANTING TO DEVELOP SOMETHING. WE ARE MAKING A COMMITMENT AS WE SEE THEM. WE NOTE THEM. AND AFTER EVERY SIX MONTHS OR SO UNLESS GLITTERY AGENCY LIKE FEMA SAYS WE NEED THEM SOONER THAN EVERY SIX MONTHS WE WILL BE BRINGING
THOSE FORTH FOR CHANGES. >> IS THERE A HARD COPY WE HAVE
ACCESS TO? >> SO, ACTUALLY IT IS ALL THE CITIES COLDS ARE ONLINE NOW ON MEETING CODE. IF YOU NOTICE IN THE COPY THAT WAS IN THE PACKET, BEGINNING I DID NOT COVER ALL OF THE SECTION CHANGES. THOSE SORTS OF AMENDMENTS WITH MANY COLD. AFTER THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS APPROVED BY COUNSEL. THEY WILL THEN WHAT WE CALL RE-CODIFIED THE ENTIRE CHAPTER. AND SO WHEN YOU GO TO -- IT WON'T BE A PDF . IT WILL ACTUALLY BE EMBEDDED IN THE REST OF OUR COLDS. THAT HAPPENS AFTER EVER SO OFTEN. MUNI COAT WILL RECUT UP BY OUR ENTIRE ORDINANCE. TO MAKE SURE THOSE SECTIONS ARE ALL ALIGNED. THAT WILL BE HAPPENING AFTER THIS
PROPOSED AMENDMENT. >> LET ME GO AHEAD -- LET'S GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP FOR A PUBL ANYMORE . RIGHT NOW I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC
[00:15:03]
HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THE SUBJECT MATTER CANDO SO AT THIS TIME. >> WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY SO WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. FOR DISCUSSION. FROM THE TEAM OR DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE QUEST NEXT I HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE YOU DL BY MR. BROWN. I HAVE A SECOND BY DOCTOR HUNT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. SAME SIGN. THE AMENDMENTS PASSED.
>> THAT WAS EASY ENOUGH. >> NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS A
[D. Consent Agenda:]
CONSENT AGENDA. WE HAVE TWO ITEMS. THE MEETING MINUTES FROM MAY 16TH WE NEED APPROVED IN THE FINAL PLAT FOR THE INDUSTRIAL RESERVE AT U.S. 59. ANY MOTIONS ACTION ON THECONSENT AGENDA ON THE TABLE? >> I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE
THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSNSENT AGENDA BY DOCTOR HUNT. DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAME SIGN.
CONSENT AGENDA PASSES. >> NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS THE
[E. Other Business:]
MONTHLY DEVELOPMENT REPORT. >> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
WITHIN THE MONTH OF MAY 2020 FOR THE CITY OF VICTORIA PROCESSED A TOTAL OF 191 PERMITS. AS WELL AS A TOTAL OF 163 OVERALL COMBINED MEP PERMITS. THE CITY COLLECTED APPROXIMATELY $68,800 IN PERMIT FEES LAST MONTH. WHEN ASKED LAST YEAR IN MAY 2023 THE CITY PROCESSED 161 PERMITS. AS WELL AS 179 OVERALL COMBINED MEP PERMITS. IN 2023 THE CITY OF VICTORIA COLLECTED APPROXIMATELY $56,300 IN PERMIT FEES. WE DID HAVE AN INCREASE FROM LAST YEAR.
>> ALSO WITHIN THE MONTH OF MAY 2020 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PROCESSED A TOTAL OF TWO MINOR PLATS. ONE MAJOR PLAT. SIX SITE PLANS AND TO SITE MODIFICATION PLANS.
THANK YOU. >> I WANT TO ADD IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE NUMBERS YOU WILL NOTICE OUR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS PRETTY LOW. IT IS THE LOWEST IT HAS EVER BEEN SINCE MY TENURE HERE. BUT, OUR COMMERCIAL IS NOT TRENDING DOWN. IT IS PRETTY STABLE WERE IN FACT INCREASING. WE PASSED SOME PRETTY MAJOR JOBS THIS YEAR AND OUR COMMERCIAL VALUES ARE PRETTY HIGH. I'VE NEVER SEEN THAT PHENOMENON HAPPENED WHERE RESIDENTIAL IS SO INCREDIBLY LOW BUT OUR COMMERCIAL CONTINUES TO DO WELL. IT IS AN INTERESTING --
>> EVENT THAT IS HAPPENING THERE.
[F. Items from Planning Commissioners:]
>> NEXT THING ON THE AGENDA IS ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS.
DO I HAVE ANYBODY WISHING TO SPEAK OR ANYTHING?
>> I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR GETTING THE CODE OF CONDUCT TO US. IT IS A GOOD THING. I'M GLAD HOPEFULLY WE ALL GET IT ALL SIGNED UP AND I APPRECIATE THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT GIVING US A SPECIAL MEETING TO TALK ABOUT IT. THAT HELPED US OUT. I THANK YOU ALL FOR THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT.
>> FOR THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT TUSHMAN IT SHOWS THAT EVERYBODY HAS THEY WERE LISTENING TO EVERYBODY'S CONCERNS. IT WAS TRANSPARENCY THERE. THAT WAS A GREAT THING TO HAVE.
>> THERE IS NO MORE SEEING NO MORE OF THE BUSINESS I WILL GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 5:33.
>>
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.