[A. CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:19] >> PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> [B. Communication] >> THANK YOU. NEXT THING ON THE AGENDA IS TO MEDICATIONS. WANT TO LET EVERYONE KNOW THAT TONIGHT MEETING WILL BE ON TV 15, SO WE WILL BE SHOWING TO THE PUBLIC. ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEMS CAN DO SO AT THIS TIME. WE HAVE ONE PERSON , MR. MICHAEL. >> GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. I LIVE AT 2204 AND I WANT TO THANK THREE PEOPLE. ONE IS ATTORNEY ADAM WEST AND HE IS A FELONY PROSECUTOR FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND RICK MADRID HAS BEEN HELPING WITH THE TRAILER PARK WHERE WE LIVE. IT APPEARS THAT THE OWNER OF THE TRAILER PARK IS JUST DRAGGING HIS FEET AND IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE. MY MOM FELL AND HURT HERSELF PRETTY BAD , BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE DEBRIS THERE. RICK MADRID CALLS THE TRAILER PARK OWNER OR GENERAL MANAGER AND GETS THINGS DONE AND THEY DO GET DONE WHEN HE CALLS THEM , BUT WHEN HE'S OFF LIKE TODAY, SOMETIMES NOTHING GETS DONE, SO I APPRECIATE HIM BEING AN ADVOCATE AND THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WHY DON'T YOU MOVE? AND MY OWN TRAILER HOUSE. IT COST $1500 AND THAT IS HALFWAY SAFE. I WANT TO CONGRATULATE THE S.W.A.T. TEAM THAT MADE A DRUG BUST ON SEPTEMBER 22ND. THEY PROSECUTED THE PERSON ON AUGUST 6TH IN THE JAIL AND WAITING TO GET SENTENCED FOR THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PRISON . EVER SINCE HE GOT ARRESTED, IT HAS BEEN MORE PEACEFUL. THE SPECIAL CRIMES UNIT ALSO BUSTED THE TRAILER PARK MANAGER IN 2019 THREE TIMES, SHE CAN UNDERSTAND WHY I DON'T TRUST MANAGEMENT VERY MUCH. EVER SINCE THOSE TWO GENTLEMEN HAVE BEEN ARRESTED, IT HAS BEEN SAFER AND THEY HAVE KIDS LIVING IN THERE, TOO, SO THAT'S NOT VERY SAFE FOR THEM, BUT I DO APPRECIATE THE TIME AND EFFORT . EVERYONE IS HELPING AND I DON'T TALK TO THE TRAILER PARK OWNER DIRECTLY, BECAUSE HE THREATENED TO EVICT ME WHEN I TALKED TO HIM . IF I HURT HIS FEELINGS OR SAY THE WRONG THING, HE GETS UPSET, SO THAT IS WHY THERE IS PEOPLE LIKE RICK THAT TALKS TO HIM ON MY BEHALF AND EVERYTHING , BUT I WOULD LIKE THE PRICES SPEEDED UP TO GET IT FIXED AND ALL OF THAT STUFF, BECAUSE I DO PAY MY 410 V AND I DESERVE SERVICE. YOU GO TO TACO BELL AND PAY $10 FOR ARE TACOS AND THEY ONLY GIVE YOU TWO TACOS OR THEY SAY, WE CAN'T GIVE YOU TACOS FOR 30 DAYS AND YOU WANT YOUR TACOS NOW, SO I WOULD LIKE THE TRAILER PARK OWNER TO SPEEDED UP . I DON'T WANT TO SAY HE IS DRAGGING HIS FEET AND ALLEGEDLY DRAGGING HIS FEET AND I KNOW HE OWNS 14 OTHER TRAILER PARKS, TOO , BUT I DO APPRECIATE THE PLUMBERS. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING AND HAVE A GOOD EVENING. APPRECIATE IT. >> IF THERE IS NOT ANYONE ELSE, [1. Variance Request to Land Use Table requirements for Original Townsite ...] I WILL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL GO TO THE DEVELOPMENT ITEMS. OUR FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A REQUEST FOR THE ORIGINAL TOWNS SITE RESUBDIVISION 101. >> LOCATED AT 307 WEST WATER STREET ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY [00:05:07] WAS BLOCK 76 LOTS ONE THROUGH FOUR IN THE ORIGINAL TOWN SITE OF VICTORIA AND LONG DEVELOPED AS LUMBERYARD AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS WISHING TO RE-SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO TWO COMMERCIAL LOTS AND THE OWNER IS REQUESTING IN ORDER TO THE PROPERTY INTO ONE COMMERCIAL RETAIL LOT AND ONE COMMERCIAL OFFICE LOT WITH THE OFFICE LOPPING BELOW MINIMUM STANDARDS. TO OUR IS BEING PROPOSED AND WOULD HAVE A TOTAL LOT AREA OF 1591 SQUARE FEET WITH A WIDTH OF 86.99 FEET WITH A APPROXIMATE DEPTH OF 18 FEET. THESE ARE ALL BELOW THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR A COMMERCIAL LOT . LOT TWO IS PRODUCING ALL SETBACKS TO FIVE FEET AND THE ORIGINAL TOWN SITE SUBDIVISION 101 FINAL PLAT IS A FINAL PLAT OF 1.77 ACRES. THE PROPERTY IS BEING PLANTED IN TWO COMMERCIAL LOTS ONE AND TWO ARE. THE PROPOSED PLOT WILL DEDICATE 2.2 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE FUTURE EXPANSION OF TWO LOCAL STREETS OF WEST THIRD STREET AND SOUTH GLASS STREET. THE PROPOSED PLAT WILL ALSO DEDICATE A 15 FOOT DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG WEST WATER STREET THE FINAL PLAT WILL MEET ALL APPLICABLE ORDINANCES . STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE REPORT OF A COMMERCIAL OFFICE LOT BELOW ALL MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR AN OFFICE LOT. THE PRESERVATION INC. HAS REACHED OUT TO THE DEVELOPER AND OWNER TO REQUEST IF THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO PRESERVE THE ANCHOR BUILDING BUILT IN 1941. IT IS CLASSIFIED AS A HIGH PRIORITY PRESERVATION STRUCTURE WITHIN THE HISTORIC RESEARCH SURVEY OF VICTORIOUS -- VICTORIA TEXAS IN 1984. IN GOOD EFFORT FOR THIS HIGH-PRIORITY STRUCTURE, THE DEVELOPMENT OWNER DECIDED THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO PLOT OUT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND GIVE THIS TO THE VICTORIA PRESERVATION INC. AND STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE APPROVAL WILL NOT BE SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGED THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOT DETRIMENTAL . THE STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE APPROVAL OF THIS WILL ALLOW FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THIS HIGH-PRIORITY STRUCTURE. THE PROPERTY LIES JUST OUT OF THE CURRENT ORIGINAL TOWN SITE HISTORY DISTRICT, HOWEVER IT WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL TOWN SITE SUBDIVISION . THIS AREA SOUTH OF WATER STREET WAS ORIGINALLY RECLASSIFIED IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THE PLACEMENT OF MANUFACTURED HOMES IN THE AREA . BECAUSE THIS LOT WAS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE ORIGINAL TOWN SITE HISTORIC DISTRICT, STAFF DOES NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY ISSUES FOR THE BUILDING TO BE PRESERVED AND CONTAINED ON AN INDIVIDUAL LOT FOR THE COMMERCIAL OFFICE USE. STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF THE ORIGINAL TOWN SITE SUBDIVISION 101 CONDITIONED UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE . I'M OPEN FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> THE 1941 DATE IS WHAT WAS FOUND IN THE ACCOUNTING APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND THE BUILDING WAS BUILT AROUND SOMEWHERE AROUND 1911 , SO THERE ARE DIFFERENT DATES, SO IT IS DEFINITELY A HIGH-PRIORITY HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND IF IT WAS ACROSS THE STREET AND THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS WHERE THERE IS GREATER LOT SIZE FLEXIBILITY, THEN IT WOULDN'T BE SO GREAT. >> I JUST HAVE A CURIOSITY QUESTION. >> THE CITY DOES NOT -- OUR HISTORIC DISTRICTS ARE VERY LIMITED IN WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO AND A LOT OF IT -- IF YOU'RE IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT, MANY ARE PROHIBITED , WHICH IS WHY THE ORIGINAL TOWN SITE STOPS, BECAUSE OF THE PREVALENCE OF THE MANUFACTURING SOUTH OF WATER AND IT DOES NOT ALLOW BILLBOARDS OR ELECTRONIC SIGNS. IT DOES NOT HAVE A NATIONAL REGISTER DESIGNATION OR STATE HISTORIC OR ANY TYPE OF DESIGNATION , BUT IT IS ELIGIBLE IF A PROPERTY OWNER IN THE FUTURE WANTS TO APPLY TO ONE OF THOSE . IT IS ELIGIBLE ON THE ARCHITECTURE AND AGE ALONE. >> IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS , I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN UP FOR A PUBLIC HEARING . ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS, COME FORWARD AND LIMIT YOURSELF TO THREE MINUTES. DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER [00:10:12] DISCUSSION FROM THE TEAM? >> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. THE PRESERVATION SOCIETY WILL BE GIVEN THAT BUILDING BY THE LAND OWNER AND YOU SAY -- FOR MY CURIOSITY, WILL THE PRESERVATION SOCIETY BRING THEIR OWN OFFICES CLICKS THE WILL IT BE SOME TYPE OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE WHERE THEY CAN GENERATE INCOME? >> NONE OF THOSE PLANS ARE SOLIDIFIED IN WHAT THEIR ACTUAL USE IS , BUT WHETHER IT IS A COMMERCIAL OFFICE OR NONPROFIT OFFICE, IT IS SUITABLE AND IT HAS BEEN IN THE OFFICE BUILDING FOR MANY YEARS, SO WE LOOK OUT WHAT WOULD BE AND THE USE IS CURRENTLY OFFICE AND SUITABLE FOR FUTURE FOR OFFICE. >> I DROVE OUT THERE AND LOOK AT IT AND I GREW UP ON THAT SIDE OF TOWN IN THE EARLY 60S , SO I WAS IN THAT BUILDING BEFORE THEY HAD THE NEWER SECTION , SO I UNDERSTAND THAT. >> I WILL REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING . THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO MAKE SURE. >> MY NAME IS ALFREDO DELUNA AND I'M REPRESENTING JIM DELEON'S FAMILY , MY FATHER-IN-LAW. HE OWNED THE PROPERTY AT 07 WEST THIRD RIGHT BEHIND IT AND I THINK YOU KNEW HIM AS THE RENOWNED ARTIST HERE IN VICTORIA. THAT IS WHERE HIS SHOT WAS AND WHERE HE CREATED HIS FAMOUS ARTWORK. MY WIFE GOT THE LETTER AND HER BROTHER GOT A LETTER ASSERTING THE VARIANCE IN THE THE ONLY QUESTION WE HAVE IS, DOES THIS IMPACT IS PROPERTY ? WHETHER IT IS STREET DRAINAGE OR IMPROVEMENTS? IS ANYTHING GOING TO BE IMPACTED? WE THOUGHT MAYBE THERE WAS AN ISSUE AND WE MIGHT WANT TO ANSWER OR ASK A QUESTION IF IT WILL IMPACT THE PROPERTY AT ALL. >> NO. THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY MEETS ALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND THAT IS NOT WHAT THE VARIANCE IS FOR. IT IS TO CARVE OUT THE LUMBER, BUT A DOLLAR GENERAL MARKET IS SUPPOSED TO GO ON THE REST OF THE LOT, SO THERE IS DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE, SO THEY HAVE MET ALL ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS. >> THAT WOULD IMPACT HIS PROPERTY? >> THE CODE DOES NOT ALLOW POST DEVELOPMENT -- THE DRAINAGE AFTER DEVELOPMENT TO EXCEED WHAT WAS RUNNING OFF PREDEVELOPMENT. >> WOULD THIS INCLUDE -- WOULD THEY HAPPEN TO BE MAKING ANY IMPROVEMENTS? >> THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY VOLUNTARILY ARE AND I KNOW THEY ARE DEDICATING ADDITIONAL LAND, BUT THEIR DRIVEWAY IS OFF OF WATER STREET. >> IF IT WILL BE ON BLAST OR WATER . >> WE ARE BRINGING THIS AS OUR NEXT ITEM . THE DRIVEWAY IS GOING OFF OF WEST WATER AND THAT IS THE ONLY IN AND OUT OF THERE BASED ON THE DRAINAGE POND AND SUCH THAT THEY ARE DOING FOR DETENTION. IT SHOULDN'T AFFECT IT AT ALL. THEY ARE DOING THE PROPOSED DEDICATION THAT IS REQUIRED, HOWEVER THERE ARE NO PLANS AS FAR AS FUTURE EXPANSION OR IMPROVING THE ROAD AS OF YET MAIN ENTRANCE WILL BE THERE OFF OF WEST WATER. >> I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER. YOU WILL SEE MORE STUFF ON THE SCREEN. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED AND NO MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE AS STATED BY OUR STAFF BY MR. DEREK HUNT AND SECOND BY DAVID BROWN . APOLOGIZE . ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED? IT PASSES. WE WILL [2. Driveway Variance Request for Dollar General Water Street Site Plan - ...] [00:15:10] GO TO OUR SECOND ITEM , WHICH IS ADVANCED REQUEST FOR DONALD GENERAL. MAY I HAVE THE STAFF REPORT? >> IN ORDER TO REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY, THE OWNER IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A SITE PLAN FOR APPROVAL BEFORE ANY BUILDING PLANS OR BUILDING PERMITS MAY BE ISSUED. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANT IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIRED OF THE DRIVEWAY'S INTERSECTING PUBLIC STREETS . THE DRIVEWAY IS BEING PROPOSED OFF OF WEST WATER STREET, SECONDARY ARTERIAL , WHICH REQUIRES THE MINIMUM TO BE 75 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH GLASS STREET. THE SITE PLAN IS PROPOSING THE DRIVEWAY WITH A 30 FOOT DISTANCE FROM THE INTERSECTION RIGHT OF WAY LINES OF WEST WATER. DUE TO THE INTEREST OF PRESERVING THE HIGH-PRIORITY HISTORIC STRUCTURE IN MEETING DRAINAGE AND DETENTION REQUIREMENTS, SOME CONSTRAINTS ON WHETHER DRIVEWAY CAN BE PLACED. THE EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE ENCROACHES INTO THE CURRENT RIGHT OF WAY ALONG WEST WATER STREET , WHICH COULD OBSTRUCT THE VIEW OF DRIVERS TRYING TO ENTER OR EXIT THE SITE IF THE DRIVEWAY WAS PLACED CLOSER TO THE STRUCTURE JUST TO GAIN DISTANCE FROM THE INTERSECTION . STAFF HAS DETERMINED THE APPROVAL OF THIS WOULD NOT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE SURROUNDING LOTS AND THEY HAVE DETERMINED THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AND ALLOW FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE HIGH-PRIORITY HISTORIC STRUCTURE TO REMAIN PART OF THE LONGTIME HISTORY. I'M OPEN FOR ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS. >> THERE IS A PROPOSED SIDEWALK ON GLASS STREET AND MOODY STREET . THE OTHER TWO FRONTAGES OF MOVIE , THERE IS NOT A SIDEWALK PROPOSED, BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT BACK THERE. THAT SIDEWALK WILL OF COURSE HELP PEDESTRIANS , BUT THE REASON WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL IS THAT THERE IS VERY LITTLE TRAFFIC THAT GOES ON THE SOUTH STREET AND IT IS A LOCAL STREET, SO WE DON'T BELIEVE THERE WILL BE CONFLICTS. >> DID THEY DO A STUDY ON THAT ROAD? >> WE HAVE TRAFFIC COUNTS. WATER STREET IS MORE TRAFFICKED, BUT IT IS STILL VERY LOW TRAFFICKED COLLECTOR. >> WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS AND WHAT WE DO PROJECTION WISE, WOULDN'T THAT INCREASE? >> IT WILL INCREASE TO THE DRIVEWAY, BUT THERE WILL NOT BE CONFLICTS WITH THE DRIVEWAY AND OTHER TRAFFIC . THAT WILL BE THE TRAFFIC GENERATOR. >> THE ORIGINAL DRIVEWAY WAS SET CLOSER TO THE BUILDING , BUT THE WAY IT IS TO COME IN AND OUT , THEY USED TO FLOW OUT ONTO GLASS STREET, BUT BECAUSE THE DETENTION REQUIREMENTS FOR DOLLAR GENERAL ARE NO LONGER ABLE TO EXIT, WHICH IS WHY THEY ARE SUGGESTING TO MOVE IT AWAY FROM THE BUILDING THE WAY THE EXISTING ONE ORIGINALLY FUNCTIONED. >> AS YOU GET FURTHER SOUTH, IT IS DOWN THERE AND MORE RESIDENTIAL, SO WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THE DOLLAR GENERAL TRAFFIC. >> ANYMORE QUESTIONS? WE WILL OPEN IT TO A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE DO SO AT THIS TIME. >> GOOD EVENING. THIS IS MY FIRST PUBLIC MEETING. MY NAME IS SYLVIA CASTILLO AND I DO HAVE PROPERTY AT 204 WEST WATER STREET, WHICH IS CATTY CORNER ALMOST FROM. I LIVE ON 105 WEST WATER. THERE IS A LOT OF TRAFFIC. A LOT OF TRAFFIC AT 6:00 A.M. AND THE 5:00 TRAFFIC. THE LIGHT BY MOODY -- MEMOS AND OUR CHURCH. THERE IS A LOT OF TRAFFIC. THERE IS A LOT OF FAST TRAFFIC, TOO . I LIVE ON WATER STREET AND THERE IS A LOT OF TRAFFIC THERE, SO THAT IS ONE OF MY CONCERNS IF WE DO GET A DOLLAR GENERAL . THERE WILL BE A LOT MORE TRAFFIC AND MAYBE -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE CAN DO , BECAUSE I'M SCARED THAT THERE WILL BE MORE ACCIDENTS IF WE GET MORE TRAFFIC THERE. IT IS A LUMBER YARD, SO I DON'T SEE [00:20:02] THAT MUCH TRAFFIC AND I ALSO GO TO. THERE IS TRAFFIC THERE AND IT'S CONGESTED AT OUR MASSES ON SUNDAY MORNINGS HIM AS WELL . MAYBE WE DO NEED A STUDY AS FAR AS TRAFFIC. MY OTHER QUESTION WAS , WHICH I THINK WAS ANSWERED WITH THE OTHER GENTLEMAN, WHICH WAS THE DRAINAGE . IT IS ON WATER STREET. ACROSS THE STREET, WE DON'T HAVE SIDEWALKS EITHER WITH THE OLD BAKERY IN THAT AREA. IF WE WOULD GET A SIDEWALK, COULD WE JUST THE WHOLE BLOCK? >> MAY WE GET THE AERIAL MAP BACKUP? >> I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE PROPOSED ENTRANCE WOULD BE. MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE STUDY WITH THE TRAFFIC . DOLLAR GENERAL WOULD CREATE MORE TRAFFIC ON THE WEEKENDS. >> IF THE PROPERTY OWNER WHICH DEMOLISHED THE ANCHOR BUILDING AND PLACE THE DRIVEWAY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BLOCK WOULD MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT A VARIANCE, SHIFTING IT OVER 20 FEET CLOSER TO GLASS STREET AND IT ALSO GETS IT FARTHER AWAY FROM THE MOVIE AND WATER STREET INTERSECTION AND ALSO GETS FARTHER AWAY FROM THE ANCHOR LUMBER BUILDING THAT IS TRYING TO BE PRESERVED , SO IT DOES INCREASE THE STACKING CAPABILITIES AND IT ALSO ALLOWS THE PRESERVATION OF THE BUILDING AND ALLOWS FOR GREATER SITE VIEW, WHEREAS IF YOU HAD IT AGAIN THE BUILDING , THEN THE BUILDING WOULD BE INTERFERED. THAT IS WHY WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. IF YOU WERE TO MOVE IT CLOSER TO THE CENTER, EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T MEET CODE , IT'S REALLY NOT THE BEST LOCATION FOR IT. >> YOU GET IN THE MIDDLE OF IT . YOU PUSH IT OVER FARTHER AND PROBABLY HELPED YOURSELF BY DOING IT THIS WAY. >> THE DRIVEWAY BEING PLACED IN THE MIDDLE IS NOT AS IDEAL AND DOES NOT FIRE REQUIRED TO DO A PERMIT WITHOUT ANY SORT OF GREATER REVIEW. >> ON THE CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION, THAT IS A TWO-WAY STOP . THAT IS NOT A FOUR-WAY STOP. >> IS THAT ALL? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS ANYONE ELSE -- I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL DO FURTHER DISCUSSION . >> HE BROUGHT UP SOMETHING INTERESTING ABOUT THE STOP SIGN . I KNOW THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE CAN PREDICT OR HOW THE TRAFFIC WILL BE. I BELIEVE YOU DID THE SAFEST THING AND IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS , SO FUTURE PURPOSES . LET'S SAY THAT THE TRAFFIC VOLUME DOES INCREASE MORE, ESPECIALLY MORE THAN WE THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE. WHAT DO THE CITIZENS HAVE DO , SINCE IT'S ONLY STOP SIGNS AND STREETLIGHTS? OTHER REMEDIES THAT CAN HAPPEN THAT THE CITIZENS HAVE FUTURE -WISE? >> IF THE INTERSECTION MEETS THE THRESHOLD , I WILL BE REALLY HONEST WITH THE CURRENT TRAFFIC ON WATER STREET WHILE THERE ARE DEFINITELY PEAK TIMES. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE TRAFFIC WILL BE SO GREAT TO WARRANT SIGNAL AT THESE ADDITIONAL CROSS STREETS IN MY LIFETIME, SO WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ALL OF THE VACANT LAND DEVELOPED WITH THE ADDITIONAL DOLLAR GENERAL'S AND BUSINESSES TO PROBABLY START WARRANTING ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS OR STOPLIGHTS. >> I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER. DO I HAVE ANY MOTIONS OR ACTIONS? >> I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE. >> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I HAVE A SECOND . ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED? PASSES. OUR NEXT [3. Variance Request to Land Use Table requirements for Country Subdivisio...] ITEM IS A REQUEST FOR THE COUNTRY SUBDIVISION . [00:25:04] >> THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF U.S. HIGHWAY 87 SOUTH AND FM 20 -- 2615 BUT IT IS APPROXIMATELY A TOTAL OF 31.5 ACRES AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS PROPOSING TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO FOUR LOTS . THREE RULES COMMERCIAL FAMILY LOTS AND ONE AGRICULTURAL LOT. CURRENTLY, THERE ARE THREE EXISTING HOMES WHERE THEY ARE PROPOSING TO DO LOT 1, TWO AND THREE , SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHERE THEY CUT OUT THERE. LOTS ONE, TWO AND THREE ALL HAVE A TOTAL ACREAGE OF OVER ONE WITH THE NEW PASSING AND GOING INTO EFFECT JUNE 1ST WHERE WE HAVE INCREASED THE LOTS TO ONE .5 , SO HAD THEY DONE THIS JUST BEFORE, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE NEEDED IT , SO IT HAS COME INTO THAT CONSTRAINT. STAFF IS PROPOSING TO APPROVE THE VARIANT DETERMINING THAT IT WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE SURROUNDING LOTS AS LOTS ONE, TWO AND THREE WOULD POTENTIALLY HAVE MET THE PREVIOUS CODE . WE HAVE ALSO DISCUSSED IT WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT TO REVIEW THE PLOT AND THEY ARE NOT SEEING ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE VARIANCE BEING APPROVED, AS WELL. STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THE FINAL APPROVAL CONDITION UPON THE VARIANT. >> I WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT FOR A PUBLIC HEARING . ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK, COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME AND LIMIT YOURSELF TO THREE MINUTES. >> I AM JOYCE AND WE OWNED THE PROPERTY RIGHT NEXT TO 483, WHICH WOULD BE PROBABLY THIS ONE RIGHT HERE . >> WE CAN SEE. >> I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THE VARIANCE FOR JUST THE THREE RESIDENTIAL LOTS OR WILL THEY BE A SUBDIVISION PUT BEHIND US? >> IT IS FOR THAT SUBDIVISION AND CONFIGURATION THAT YOU SEE . >> THE LETTER THAT I GOT THAT SAYS THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT , SO I'M WONDERING IF THERE IS DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL GO BEHIND US. >> THOSE ARE CONSIDERED DEVELOPMENT AND CREATING IS CONSIDERED DEVELOPMENT , SO WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT IS PROPOSED. >> I CAN GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND. ORIGINALLY, THEY HAD DONE AN ILLEGAL SUBDIVISION BY BOUNDS FOR LOTS ONE, TWO AND THREE IN ORDER TO NOT HAVE TO DO ARE SEPARATE , WHICH WOULD BE. TECHNICALLY THE BIG AGRICULTURAL LOT IN THE BACK DIDN'T REQUIRE A PLAT, BUT HAVING TO PAY FOR FOUR SEPARATE ONES, WE SUGGESTED THAT THEY DO IT AS A COMBINED ONE SINCE IT WASN'T BY METES AND BOUNDS TO DO THE RE-PLAT AND DO EVERYTHING INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE BIG LOT , BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY ONE, TWO AND THREE CAME OUT OF THE BIG AGRICULTURAL LOT. THE AGRICULTURAL LOT IS WHY THEY ARE STILL SEEING AGRICULTURE AND NOT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AT THIS TIME , BUT IT SO THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO DO THREE SEPARATE ONES. >> WHERE ARE THE COMMERCIAL LOT? >> THERE ARE NO COMMERCIAL LOTS. THE REASON THAT LOTS ONE, TWO AND THREE NEED A VARIANCE IS BECAUSE THEY ARE ONLY ONE ACRE VERSUS 1.5. >> WHEN IT WAS SURVEYED, IT CAME ALL THE WAY TO RIGHT HERE. THE REASON IT IS SURVEYED OFF RIGHT HERE IS BECAUSE THIS ONE HAD NOT BEEN DONE BY METES AND BOUNDS TECHNICALLY , SO THIS LOT WAS PART OF THIS AS CONSIDERED ONE BIG TRACK . NOW, THEY ARE SURVEYING THIS OFF TO GIVE THIS AS LOT THREE AND LOT FOUR. >> IT WILL STAY THAT WAY? >> AS OF NOW , THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE. >> ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT , THAT WOULD REQUIRE ANOTHER SUBDIVISION PLAT TO BE DONE . >> NOT NECESSARILY IF THE PLAT MET ALL ORDINANCES AND IT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE PUBLIC NOTICE . >> CORRECT. IF THEY ARE GOING [00:30:02] TO THE ACRE, THAT WOULD BE PERFECTLY FINE , BUT RIGHT NOW IT WILL STAY. >> YES, AS OF RIGHT NOW. >> THE VARIANCE WOULD BE FOR THIS ONE, TWO AND THREE LOTS. >> CONDITIONS ARE NOT REALLY CHANGING , BUT IT'S SO THAT THE THREE LOTS THAT WERE SUBDIVIDED BY METES AND BOUNDS CAN GET LOANS AND TITLE CLEARANCE AND PERMITS FOR SEPTIC , BUT THEY EFFECTIVELY HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBDIVIDED. >> AS LONG AS I UNDERSTAND. IT'S THOSE THREE LOTS. >> WE ARE GOING TO APPROVE -- IF WE WERE GOING TO APPROVE IT, THEN THEY CAN HAVE THOSE THREE LOTS. THOSE THREE RESIDENTIAL LOTS -- IT'S AN ACRE AND A HALF. THAT IS WHY WE WILL APPROVE IT AND THE 32 ACRES WILL BE AGRICULTURE . IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE ANY KIND OF DEVELOPMENT, THEY WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SYSTEM. >> WILL BE 32 ACRES GET A NEW ADDRESS? >> THIS ONE WILL NOT GET AN ADDRESS UNTIL THEY HAVE APPLIED A DRIVEWAY PERMIT. AS OF RIGHT NOW, THERE IS NO DRIVEWAY PERMIT AND ADDRESSES TO THE LOTS , SO UNTIL THEY APPLY FOR THAT , THIS WILL NOT HAVE AN ADDRESS JUST YET IF IT WILL BE GIVEN. >> IT WILL STILL BE ON THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION. >> THANK YOU. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO TALK? ARE YOU ALL LEAVING? THAT'S FINE. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE VARIANCE REQUEST AND ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BY OUR TEAM HERE. >> THIS VIDEO WILL BE POSTED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE, THEN THIS IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION BODY FOR THE VARIANCES AND IT WILL ULTIMATELY GO TO CITY COUNCIL, BUT LESS -- NEXT MONTH, THE CITY WILL ALSO BE POSTING. >> I JUST WANT TO SAY I WAS WAITING FOR CLARIFICATION, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. >> MOTION TO APPROVE? >> I HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE AS STATED AND I HAVE A SECOND FROM DR. DEREK HUNT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. NEXT THING ON THE [D. Consent Agenda:] AGENDA IS THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THREE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH ARE THE MINUTES TO THE JUNE 20, 2024 MEETING AND THE FINAL PLAT OF THE ORIGINAL TOWN SITE WE SUBDIVISION 101 AND THE FINAL PLAT FOR THE COUNTY SUBDIVISION THAT WE JUST GOT THROUGH APPROVING. ANY DISCUSSION OR MOTIONS? >> MOTION TO ACCEPT. >> I HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT. SECOND BY MR. BRIAN. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED? CONSENT AGENDA PASSES. NOW, WE ARE [E. Other Business:] READY FOR THE OTHER BUSINESS. >> ON THE MONTHLY PERMIT REPORT, WE PROCESSED 187 PERMITS THIS MONTH IN COMPARISON TO LAST YEAR AT 178 AND WE PROCESSED 162 PERMITS , WHICH WAS LESS THAN LAST YEAR AT OUR 175 AND WE COLLECT A TOTAL OF $48,623 IN PERMIT FEES , WHICH WAS A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN LAST YEAR AT 58,250 . THIS PAST MONTH, WE HAD THREE MINOR PLATS AND TWO MAJOR PLOTS, NINE SITE PLANS AND THREE SITE PLAN MODIFICATIONS . ANY QUESTIONS? >> DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S PICKING UP? >> I GET IT IF YOU LOOK AT THE YEAR-OVER-YEAR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE, WHICH CONTINUES TO BE LOW AND IT'S [00:35:02] PROBABLY THE LOWEST IT'S BEEN , BUT COMMERCIAL ON THE OTHER HAND IS DOING REALLY WELL. IF YOU LOOK AT THE COMMERCIAL , THERE ARE HUGE ALLIES AND IT'S A BIG NUMBER AND THERE IS THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS , BUT EVEN TAKING THOSE OUT , THE COMMERCIAL NUMBERS ARE STILL VERY HEALTHY . >> NEXT THING IS ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. >> NOTHING FROM ME. >> GOOD MEETING TODAY. SAYING THAT THERE IS NO OTHER BUSINESS AND I WILL ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT 5:50. EVERYONE HAVE A * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.