[A. CALL TO ORDER] [B. Communication] [00:02:22] >>> I'D LIKE TO FIND A WAY TO COMPUTE HOW MUCH PER GALLON IT IS BASED UPON THE METER, BUT I WOULD LIKE SOME KIND OF HELP FROM SOMEONE, IF THEY COULD TELL ME HOW MUCH PER GALLON THE WATER IS, AND STUFF LIKE THAT. I JUST WOULD LIKE MORE HELP . THE MANAGEMENT DON'T COMMUNICATE WITH US TO SEE WHAT IS GOING ON. I WANT TO-- I THINK RICK MATT READ AND ADAM WEST, ATTORNEY, AND JUDGE , SHE HAS BEEN HELPING. THEY HAD TO TAKE THE TRAILER PARK OWNER TO COURT TO GET RESULTS . AND I JUST TALKED TO THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE YESTERDAY. I APPRECIATE THE HELP THE CITY OF VICTORIA HAVE DONE FOR US, BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS. THANKS, HAVE A GOOD DAY COME APPRECIATE IT. >> THINK YOU, MR. MICHAEL. WE HAVE ANY OTHER CITIZENS THAT WISH TO SPEAK? >>> WELCOME BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING , OCTOBER 1720 24 . AS WE RECONVENE, WE WERE AT CITIZENS COMMUNICATION . THE FLOOR IS STILL OPEN IF THERE IS ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA. AT THIS [1. Variance Request to Encroach Platted Building Line for Single Family R...] TIME WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE CITIZENS COULD MEDICATION AND GO INTO THE DEVELOPMENT ITEMS TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. >>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. FIRST OF ALL, CAN I START OFF WITH AN INTRODUCTION ? OUR NEWEST PLANNER IS LUKE SHIRE, HE IS TWO WEEKS LONG WITH US AND DAVID IS NO LONGER WITH US, SO HE HAS MOVED ON TO ANOTHER CITY. WE ARE EXCITED TO SHOW LUKE THE ROPES AND GET HIM UP HERE SOON. >> WELCOME. [00:05:01] >> CONGRATULATIONS. I'M NOT MIKEY, BUT WE ARE GOOD. >>> TODAY, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY , LOOKING AT A VARIANCE FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1108 CERVANTEZ STREET . THE PROPERTY WAS PLANTED IN JULY 2021, LOT 3A, A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT , A PART OF THE SCHMIDT DIVISION, AND WAS DEVELOPED WITH THE MANUFACTURED HOME. THE PROPERTY OWNER WISHES TO ADD A CARPORT TO THE PROPERTY. BEFORE YOU AT A CARPORT, YOU HAVE TO REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT. IN ORDER TO APPLY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT, THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR SOME STRUCTURES. THEY APPEAR TO ALL THE BUILDING LINE SETBACKS, ESTABLISHED BY THE PLANT. THE OWNER HAS REQUESTED A VARIANCE 21-160 3A 8 TO ALLOW FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE FRONT BUILDING SETBACK BUILDING ENCROACHMENT. THE UDO STATES IN SECTION 21-163 A 8 BUILDING LINES ESTABLISHED BY AN APPROVED AND RECORDED SUBDIVISION PLAT SHALL APPLY IN LIEU OF THE GENERAL SETBACK PROVISIONS REQUIRED UNDER THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS PROVISION OF THE LAND-USE TABLE. LOT 3 R A WAS PLANTED UNDER THE 1992 SUBDIVISION, AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. AT THE TIME, LOT LOT 3 R A WAS PLANTED IN ACCORDANCE TO A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING LOT , MEETING AND ESTABLISHING ALL SETBACKS. LOT 3 R A WAS PLANTED WITH A 20 FOOT YARD FRONT SETBACK TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE AT THAT TIME . THE OWNER WISHES TO PURCHASE AND HAVE A CARPORT INSTALLED ON THE PROPERTY BY SUPERIOR CARPORT . SUPERIOR CARPORT APPLY FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT THROUGH BUILDING SERVICES, THE PERMIT WAS DENIED BECAUSE OF INSUFFICIENT PLOT PLAN WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE PERMIT APPLICATION. DEVELOPMENT SERVICE REQUESTS PLANS ON THE PLOT PLAN SHOULD COMPLY WITH ESTABLISHED SETBACKS. THEY LACKED SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO SHOW THE PLANET SETBACK BLIND. THE LOT WAS PROPOSED WITH CARPORT , AND BASED ON THE SITE INSPECTION, IT WAS DETERMINED THE CARPORT WAS NOT ABLE TO BE PLACED ON THE LOT AT THE PROPOSED LOCATION, AND THAT IT WOULD APPROACH THE ESTABLISHED BUILDING LINES. ALSO AS A RESULT, IT IS WITH THOSE DETERMINED THAT THE MANUFACTURED HOME WAS WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK WITH AN APPROXIMATE ENCROACHMENT OF 6 TO 7 FEET. THAT IS 6 TO 7 FEET INTO THE 20 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. THE PLACEMENT OF THE MANUFACTURED HOME MAY HAVE BEEN IN ERROR OF MEASURING THE BUILDING SETBACK FROM THE OLD PROPERTY LINE, VERSUS THE NEWLY PLANTED PROPERTY LINE, WHICH DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A CUL-DE-SAC TURNAROUND. IN SUMMARY, THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW FOR THE APPROVAL OF AN ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A CARPORT THAT WOULD ENCROACH THE FRONT BUILDING SETBACK LINE. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR THE APPROVAL AND ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A CARPORT THAT WILL ENCROACH THE FRONT BUILDING SETBACK LINE. AS A RESULT OF THE SITE INSPECTION, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE ENCROACHMENT OF THE FRONT BUILDING SETBACK OF APPROXIMATELY 6 TO 7 FEET FOR THE MANUFACTURED HOME THAT WAS PLACED IN ERROR BECAUSE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION AT THE TIME OF PLACEMENT. AS THE COST OF MOVE THE MANUFACTURED HOME INTO COMPLIANCE WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT COST TO THE APPLICANT AND THE HOME FOLLOWS AN ESTABLISHED BUILDING LINE FOR CERVANTEZ STREET , BUT THIS LOT HAS UNIQUE CONDITIONS BECAUSE OF THE CUL-DE-SAC RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION. FURTHERMORE, IN THE SUBMITTAL OF THE VARIANCE APPLICATION, INFORMATION THE APPLICANT STILL DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO SHOW STAFF THAT ALLOWING THE ENCROACHMENT WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH , SAFETY, OR WELFARE . STAFF BELIEVES THAT ALLOWING THE NEW ENCROACHMENT COULD AFFECT THE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY BY ESTABLISHING NEW BUILDING LINES THAT ARE BELOW THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. >> DO WE HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS DEALING WITH THIS BEFORE WE OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING? >> I WANTED TO ASK , I COULDN'T TELL REALLY CLEARLY [00:10:05] BY THE PHOTO , IS THE PROPOSED CARPORT TO BE PLACED TO THE RIGHT OF, LIKE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE MOBILE HOME? >> THE CARPORT HAS AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY , LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. AS AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY , CONCRETE DRIVEWAY THAT GOES ABOUT HALFWAY UP TO THE MANUFACTURED HOME . FROM THERE , IT IS DIRT, UP TO THE MANUFACTURED HOME, ABOUT ANOTHER 20 FOOT. >> IT IS TOO SHORT TO PLACE IT THERE? >> YES, IT IS. >> SO MY QUESTION IS, WE ARE SAYING THAT THIS WAS REPLANTED , AND I SEE THE CIRCLE CUT OUT FOR THE CUL-DE-SAC. ON THE OTHER SIDE, THOUGH, YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING THAT LOOKED LIKE BUILDINGS TO ME THAT ARE RIGHT ON THE STREET LINE , IS THAT CORRECT? AM I LOOKING AT THE PLOT CORRECTLY? >> THEY ARE NOT ON THE STREET LINE, BUT -- >> MY POINT IS, THERE IS NO CURRENT OUT FOR THE CUL-DE-SAC ON THE OPPOSITE END OF THE STREET? >> IT WAS PLANTED THAT WAY BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING HOME . THE CUL-DE-SAC WOULD HAVE COVERED HALF OF THE HOMES. I SUPPOSE THAT THEY PLATTED IT SO THAT THE HOME WOULD NOT BECOME AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING CONDITION . >> OKAY, SO IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IF WE ARE DOING IT TO NOT ENCROACH , IT IS SORT OF A MOOT POINT, BECAUSE THERE IS A CUL-DE-SAC THERE? AM I THINKING ABOUT THAT CORRECTLY? >> ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET, IF THAT WERE TO REDEVELOP, WE WOULD INSTALL A CUL-DE-SAC ON THE OTHER SIDE. >> YOU MEAN IF THEY TOOK THOSE TWO HOUSES DOWN? >> YES. >> ARE THE MANUFACTURED HOMES, BECAUSE I CAN'T TELL FROM THIS. >> IF GOOGLE EARTH IS CURRENT, THE HOUSES ACROSS THE STREET ARE NOT MOBILE HOMES, THEY ARE BRICK HOMES. >> I AM NOT SURE IF THEY ARE BRICK TO ME BUT THEY ARE STRICTLY STICK FRAME HOMES. I'M NOT SURE IF THEY ARE ON A SLAB. >> SEMIPERMANENT, MORE THAN A MOBILE HOME, RIGHT? I JUST-- THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> IS THERE A PLAN TO FINISH OUT THE CUL-DE-SAC AT SOME POINT? 'S >> THERE IS NO PLAN IN THE WORKS , ALTHOUGH IF THE PROPERTY IS TO BE REDEVELOPED ON THE OTHER SIDE, I AM SURE WE WILL TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT . >> WELL THEN, YOU WOULD HAVE THE SAME QUESTION ON TWO PROPERTIES, RIGHT? >> THE ONLY WAY TO DEVELOP THAT , THAT WOULD HAPPEN, IS IF THEY BUILD NEW STRUCTURES ON THE OTHER SIDE. AT THAT POINT, WE WOULD ESTABLISH A SETBACK AND HAVE THEM MEET THE NEW SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. >> JUST FOR THE RECORD, FOR THE RECORD, HOW LONG HAS THIS COMMUNITY BEEN THERE? DO WE KNOW APPROXIMATELY? NOT EXACTLY . >> I WOULD IMAGINE-- I DO NOT KNOW, 1950S. >> 1950S, AND WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA. MY QUESTION IS , BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAVE TO READ THE STAFF REPORT, AND SOMETIMES, I AM NOT THAT EDUCATED . IN PLAIN VIEW, IN PLAIN , WHAT IS THE PROBLEM , WHAT COULD THEY DO TO FIX IT, SO THAT THEY COULD HAVE IT ESTABLISHED? IF YOU COULD SAY IT PLAINLY ? I KNOW WE READ THE STAFF REPORT, FOR THOSE THAT MAY BE LISTENING, THE ISSUE IS THAT DUE TO THE NEW MODE OF DEVELOPMENT-- BUT CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT, JUST IN PLAIN TERMS?'S >> I BELIEVE IT IS DUE TO THE NEW UDO, I BELIEVE THE CODE HAS BEEN IN PLACE BEFORE THE NEW CODE ADOPTION. THAT WAS REQUIRED PREVIOUSLY. I DON'T THINK IT WAS REQUIRED ACROSS THE STREET, BECAUSE IT WOULD TAKE THEM HOME. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR WHAT THEY DID BEFORE, BUT YEAH-- THERE IS NO ROOM THERE TO FIT THE CARPORT IN THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING WITH THE CURRENT SETBACK THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY PLAT . >> IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THERE'S ALREADY BEEN ONE EXCEPTION MADE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET? THERE WAS ALREADY AN EXCEPTION MADE TO ALLOW THAT HOME WHERE IT IS, AND NO CUL-DE-SAC IN PLACE?'S [00:15:02] >> I AM NOT SURE IF THAT IS FAIR, BUT I SEEM TO THINK THAT THE HOME IS THERE AND THEY PLANTED THE LOT , AT THAT TIME, THEY DID NOT REQUEST TO REBUILD A HOME OR SETBACK. >> DO WE HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. I APPRECIATE YOU. I KNOW THIS IS NOT NORMAL, BUT YOU GOT THE HOT SEAT TODAY. WE APPRECIATE YOU. >> I GOT ONE QUESTION. >> ALSO, WE GOT ANOTHER PROBLEM. WE GOT A PLAT. THAT WAS PLATTED IN 2021, RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND IT WAS PLATTED FOR A MOBILE HOME . EVEN THOUGH WE SAID, WE DON'T WANT TO DO A CARPORT WE HAVE STILL GOT ANOTHER ISSUE. WE ARE OVER THE BUILDING LIGHT OF THE NEW PLANT. MY THOUGHT PROCESS IS, WE HAVE TWO VARIANCES REALLY NEEDING THAT TO HAPPEN RIGHT NOW. THE FIRST VARIANCE IS, THERE WAS A MISTAKE MADE , I DON'T KNOW HOW IT HAPPENS, SO THAT PART , WITH THE MOBILE HOME. I AGREED TO MOVE BACK MOBILE HOME, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF MONEY. I THINK-- NOW WAS THAT-- HOW COULD SOMETHING LIKE THAT -- TELL ME HOW THAT HAPPENS . >> THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION. I THINK THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS THAT-- THE ROAD IS STRAIGHT . THERE IS NO IMPROVED DEVELOPMENT ON THE ROAD WHERE IT SHOWS US TURNAROUND. WE TREATED IT LIKE A DEAD END STREET, WHICH NOW IT IS A CUL-DE-SAC . SO, IT LOOKS LIKE A DEAD END ROAD THAT HAD A 30 FOOT SETBACK IN THE CUL-DE-SAC . I THINK THAT WE TOOK THE MEASUREMENT FROM THE PREVIOUS , THE STRAIGHT , DEAD END PROPERTY LINE , INSTEAD OF THE CUL-DE-SAC . >> IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THERE IS A CARPORT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CUL-DE-SAC AREA. >> I DON'T THINK THAT IS IN CUL-DE-SAC, ACROSS THE STREET . THE DEAL IS , THERE IS NOT A CUL-DE-SAC ON THAT SIDE. >> NO, IT IS NOT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT REPLATTED. WHEN THEY PLATTED THE PROPERTY, THEY PLATTED A CUL-DE-SAC ME IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?'S >> ACROSS THE STREET? YES. >> SO, THE CITY KNOWINGLY LET THEM PLAT -- I JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE DID , THE CITY SAID, OKAY, IT IS A DEAD END STREET, YOU NEED TO PLAT A CUL-DE-SAC. HE WILL DO IT ON HALF OF IT, BUT BECAUSE THERE IS A PERMANENT STRUCTURE ON THE OTHER SIDE BUT WE WILL NOT REQUIRE YOU TO PLAT THAT LOT ON THE OTHER SIDE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YOU CANNOT REQUIRE THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET TO PLAT A PROPERTY -- >> SO, THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION, WE CAN'T REQUIRE THEM-- I'M JUST CURIOUS, WHY DID WE THINK THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA , THEN, IF WE ARE NEVER GOING TO HAVE A CUL-DE-SAC? >> THE REASONING IS BECAUSE THEY PLATTED, AND WE APPLIED THE CODE THAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE , AND WHEN THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET IS DEVELOPED, WE CAN APPLY THE CUL-DE-SAC TO IT AND IT WILL ENHANCE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD THAT MUCH MORE AND MEET CODE. >> AND WE THINK THOSE HOUSES WERE BUILT IN THE 1950S? >> I HAVE NO CLUE, HONESTLY. IT WAS JUST A GUESS . THE SUBDIVISIONS AN OLDER SUBDIVISION . THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT MORE THERE THAN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS. FOR REDEVELOPMENT . YES. THANK YOU FOR THAT CORRECTION. >> I AM NOT CORRECTING, I'M JUST MAKING SURE I UNDERSTAND. SORRY, RICK . I THINK YOU ARE GREAT. >> WANT TO GET CLARIFICATION , YOU KNOW FOR THE RECORD. AND WE KNOW MOST OF THIS WAS PRIOR TO STAFFING THAT WE HAVE TODAY, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE LOOK AT-- THAT WAS ONE QUESTION I HAD WHEN IT CAME TO IT SAID , APPROXIMATELY BY THE INSPECTOR, BUT THAT IS THE CITY SIDE, RIGHT? 'S >> I WOULD SAY, I THINK THAT THE PLACEMENT WAS DONE INCORRECTLY BY THE INSTALLER AND THEY SHOULD HAVE LOOKED AT THE PLAT ALSO. THE INSPECTOR WAS ALSO THE SECOND PAIR OF [00:20:05] EYES THAT SHOULD HAVE PICKED UP ON IT, BUT I THINK THEY ARE SO USED TO THE DEAD AND ROADS , THAT YOU HAVE THE STRAIGHT FRONT PROPERTY LINE, THAT THEY DID NOT CATCH ON TO IT. IT SITS SO FAR BACK. THE BALANCE IS REAL GOOD , BUT IT ACTUALLY IS NOT. >> SO, EVEN IF WE ALLOWED THE VARIANCE , THEY COULD NOT PLACE IT ? IF WE SAID, OKAY, LET'S JUST PRETEND LIKE THAT IS NOT A CUL-DE-SAC. I AM TRYING TO GET THIS CLEAR IN MY MIND. IT IS TRITE, LIKE THE BACK LINE PLAT, WITH THERE BE ROOM THERE TO PUT THE CARPORT?'S >> IF THERE WASN'T A CUL-DE-SAC? YES. >> THANK YOU , MR. RICK . >> YOU ARE WELCOME. >> AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME , WE WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARING. IF ANYONE IS WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, YOU MAY DO SO. TIME IS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. >> I AM DEVONA USERY. I AM THE RESIDENT AT 1108 . ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS NOT BEEN MADE CLEAR HERE SO FAR IS THAT , THE ORIGINAL PLAT WAS DONE BACK IN '92 . THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CUL-DE-SAC PUT IN SINCE '92 . IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY THERE WILL BE ? IN MY MIND, DOUBTFUL . AND NOT ALLOWING ME TO HAVE A CARPORT BECAUSE OF THIS PROPOSED CUL-DE-SAC THAT HAS BEEN THERE FOR OVER 30 YEARS, I THINK IS A LITTLE FAR-FETCHED . I MEAN , ONE OF THE THINGS YOU HAVE NOTICED IS THAT ALL OF THE LAND FOR THE CUL-DE-SAC IS TAKEN OUT OF THE 1108 ADDRESS, NOTHING FROM ACROSS THE STREET . AND I AM NOT BEING ALLOWED FULL USE OF MY PROPERTY BY BEING ABLE TO PUT IN A CARPORT , WHERE PEOPLE ACROSS THE STREET , THAT ARE MUCH CLOSER TO THE STREET HAVE A CARPORT . SO, THAT IS BASICALLY ALL I'VE GOT TO SAY, UNLESS SOMEONE HAS A QUESTION FOR ME . >> DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY PARTICULAR QUESTIONS ? >> YOU SAID, THE ORIGINAL PLAT WAS DONE IN 1990? >> '92 , RIGHT. IT WAS REPLATTED IN '21 SO THAT THE TRAILER COULD BE PUT IN AT THE MOBILE HOME, BUT THE REASON FOR THAT WAS , THE PROPERTY RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THAT, GOING TOWARD HANSELMAN WAS ALL IN ONE, AND IT NEEDED TO BE DIVIDED INTO SEPARATE LOTS . >> THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION . >> SURE. >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I SEE YOUR NAME RIGHT, SAY IT AGAIN. I APOLOGIZE. >> THAT'S OKAY, IT IS A HARD NAME. >> ONE, I ALSO WANT TO MAKE IT, WE MAKE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO THE COUNCIL TOO IF YOU FEEL THAT THIS DOES NOT GO THE WAY YOU WOULD LIKE IT TO, GO TO COUNSEL AND PRESENT AGAIN . SO, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR DISCUSSION AND SHARING WITH US. IF YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE FOR US? >> NOT THAT I KNOW OF, NO. >> YES, MA'AM. >> IT IS JUST AN APPEAL TO YOU TO TRY TO GET THIS DONE. >> WE APPRECIATE YOU AND YOUR CANDOR. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL DISCUSS AMONG OURSELVES, COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> I WILL START . SO, I DO HAVE A CONCERN, ONLY BECAUSE , IT IS ONE WAY FOR SO LONG , AND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOMETHING -- IT CAN APPEAR BECAUSE IT IS ALL ASSUMPTION, WE CAN SAY 10 YEARS FROM NOW , THEY MIGHT BUILD A WHOLE NEW BLOCK. BUT WHAT DO WE DO NOW, AS FAR AS ONE LIVING THERE NOW HAVING AN ISSUE NOW? IT IS NOT-- FOR ME, I DON'T SEE THE SAFETY HAZARD , ONLY BECAUSE THE WAY THE ROAD IS LAID. AS OF NOW, I CAN UNDERSTAND THE ASSUMPTION OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT , BUT WHAT [00:25:08] IS THROWING IT OFF IS THE HOUSES ACROSS THE STREET THAT IS NOT PLOTTED THAT WAY . AND I AM THANKFUL THAT THE STATEMENT WAS MADE , THESE ARE NOT MOBILE HOMES, THESE ARE HOMES THAT ARE FOUNDATION, OR HOWEVER THEY ARE, BUT THEY ARE STATIONARY , AND NINE TIMES OUT OF 10, -- ASKED THAT QUESTION, BUT I DIDN'T, OCCUPIED. TO ME, I AM AT A ROAD BECAUSE -- WELL, LET'S TALK. >> YEAH, I KNOW . YEAH, THERE IS A CARPORT RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET AND IT IS RIGHT BY THE ROAD. >> I FEEL LIKE THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAUGHT WHEN WE DID THE 2021 REPLAT . THEY SHOULD HAVE SAID, NO, WE WILL NOT MAKE AN EXCEPTION HERE, LET'S TEAR THE HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET. >>, THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET IS REDEVELOPED, AND WE HAVE TO ADDRESS IT AT THAT POINT, IT WILL HAVE TO COME TO AN OFFER. I'M NOT SURE WHY THEY WOULD , BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO COME TO YOU, BECAUSE THAT IS AN ORDINANCE THAT YOU HAVE TO PUT A CUL-DE-SAC . >> WELL , I THINK IT IS A COMMON SENSE ISSUE . I REALLY DO. I AM SORRY. THAT IS PRETTY FORTHRIGHT, AND I APOLOGIZE, I JUST THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE CAUGHT THAT EARLY ON , AND IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE A CUL-DE-SAC. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU SAID , THAT WAS IN OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AT THE TIME, BUT GIVEN THE FACT THAT THERE WAS PERMANENT HOUSING ACROSS THE STREET AND WE KNEW THAT IT WOULD BE PLATTED FOR MOBILE HOME DEVELOPMENT , I THINK WE COULD HAVE MAYBE LOOKED AT THAT A LITTLE CLOSER . I AM NOT FUSSING AT ANYBODY. I AM JUST SAYING , SOMETIMES, THINGS GET OVERLOOKED . I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE US MAKE AN EXCEPTION . IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE, BECAUSE YOU SAID, THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM TO PUT IT ON THERE. I DO HAVE A CONCERN, IF A FIRE TRUCK GOES DOWN THERE, I FIGURED THAT IS WHY THE CUL-DE-SAC NEEDS TO BE THERE, IT IS NOT THERE NOW. >> AMBULANCES AND FIRE TRUCKS IS SAFETY. >> IT HAS NOT BEEN THERE IN HOW LONG? I JUST THINK WE SHOULD GIVE HER THE VARIANCE, THAT IS MY PERSONAL OPINION , AND I WILL GO WITH WHATEVER THE COMMISSION SAYS. >> REPORTER: I JUST WANT TO SAY , WHEN I LOOK AT THE MAP, THE AERIAL MAP, IF WE COULD PUT THE AERIAL MAP BACK UP, I'D REALLY APPRECIATE IT. >> THE OVERHEAD? >> THE REAL MAP . ONE OF MY THINGS IS TOO, WE LOOKED , THERE IS NO DEVELOPMENT PAST THAT, OR EVEN FURTHER ALONG WITH THAT WHERE YOU SEE THE TREE LINE, OR WHERE THE BUSHES IS . FOR ME, IT IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS ALSO LOOKING AT AS, THERE IS NO DEVELOPMENT FOR ME TO MAKE AN ASSUMPTION TO SAY, WE HAVE SOMETHING COMING , OR THEY ARE DEVELOPING HOUSES ON THE OTHER END. FOR ME, I MUST AGREE WITH YOU , MS. CYNTHIA . I AM ON THE SAME PAGE OF, OKAY, MAYBE THIS HAD COULD HAVE BEEN GRANDFATHERED IN -- >> I LIKE THAT TERM, GRANDFATHERED IN. >>-- OF THE AREA. THAT IS MY WORD. ANYONE ELSE ON DISCUSSION? >> I AGREE WITH BOTH OF YOU. >> TOTALLY UNDERSTOOD. THAT IS THE COMMON SENSE WAY TO APPROACH. WE ALLOWED IT, OR THE CITY ALLOWED IT ON THE OTHER SIDE , NOW WE ARE TRYING TO ENFORCE THE RULE , AND THERE HASN'T BEEN A CUL-DE-SAC IN HOW MANY EVER YEARS , AND THERE IS NO PLAN FOR ONE , SO IT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD, VALID REASON FOR AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW . >> SO, AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME , WE WOULD LIKE A MOTION . FOR ME, I BELIEVE WE HAVE TWO MOTIONS ON THE TABLE. DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? >> YOU JUST NEED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE WE MOVE ON. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I THOUGHT I CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING? I'D LIKE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC SESSION AND OPEN UP AND SEE IF THERE IS A MOTION ? I BELIEVE [00:30:05] WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF. WHATEVER WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THE PERFECT WORDING WOULD BE FOR THAT? >> I THINK SOMEONE NEEDS TO MAKE THE MOTION, AND THEN THERE NEEDS TO BE A SECOND. YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE , OR DENY THE VARIANCE, WHICHEVER MOTION YOU DECIDE TO PUT OUT THERE. >> I NEED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING, RICK, YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES . DO WE NEED TO GIVE HER THE VARIANCE THAT HER MOBILE HOME IS PLACED INCORRECTLY? DO WE NEED TO DO THAT AS WELL? >> I BELIEVE IT TAKES TWO SEPARATE VOTES. >> YOU NEED TO DO ONE, THEN THE OTHER, THOUGH. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE OF A SETBACK. THE 6 TO 7 FOOT BACK OF HER MOBILE HOME. I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THAT VARIANCE. THAT IS WHAT I AM GOING TO MAKE A MOTION ON. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WE ALSO HAVE A SECOND FROM THE GENTLEMAN TO MY LEFT , AND THE GENTLEMAN TO MY RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES . WE HAVE A SECOND MOTION, I NEED A MOTION FOR THE SECOND. >> I MOVE THAT WE GRANT THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THEM TO BUILD THEIR CARPORT , AND IT WOULD ENCROACH ON THE PLATTED -- OF THE CUL-DE-SAC , DID I SAY THAT CORRECTLY? >> RICK , DID SHE SAY THAT CORRECTLY? >> MORE OR LESS. >> WE WANT TO GIVE HER THE RIGHT TO BUILD HER CARPORT INTO THE CUL-DE-SAC PLATTED PROPERTY. >> SOMETIMES YOU GOT TO SAY IT PLAIN, BECAUSE ROBERT RULES ARE NOT LAW . WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE , DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> WE ALSO HAVE A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. NOW, WE ARE ON TO [D. Consent Agenda:] THE CONSENT AGENDA . I LOST MY FOOTING. NOW , WE ARE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA . MAYBE HAVE THE ITEMS FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA ? DO WE HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE CONSENT AGENDA? DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO PASS? >> I MAKE A MOTION. >> I HAVE ONE MOTION AND WE HAVE ONE SECOND. I ALREADY DID THE DISCUSSIONS? >> YEAH. >> ALL IN FAVOR ? >> AYE. ANY OPPOSED ? MOTION [E. Other Business:] PASSES. NOW TO OTHER WITNESS, THE MONEY DEVELOPMENT REPORT . MAY WE HAVE THE MONTHLY DEVELOPMENT REPORT, PLEASE ? >> OKAY, AS FAR AS MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORTS , FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2024, WE HAD 211 PERMITS ISSUED . FOR FISCAL YEAR TOTAL OF 1852. THE SAME MONTH LAST YEAR FOR '23 , WE ISSUED 147 PERMITS. FOR MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL PERMITS, WE ISSUED FOR SEPTEMBER 2024, SEVEN PERMITS FOR A TOTAL OF FISCAL YEAR 1761. SAME MONTH LAST YEAR AT 183 . FOR THE FEES COLLECTED , TOTAL AMOUNT WAS 50,584 . FISCAL YEAR TOTAL, 684,884. >> RICK, CAN I ASK YOU A QUICK QUESTION? I THINK IT IS INTERESTING, LOOK AT OUR RESIDENTIAL REPAIRS, IT IS ALMOST 100 MORE. IS THERE ANYTHING SPECIFIC YOU HAVE NOTICED, A SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD, OR DO Y'ALL LOOK AT THAT KIND OF STUFF? >> WE DON'T REALLY DIG INTO IT TOO DEEP. WE NOTICE THOSE TRAINS, BECAUSE IF YOU NOTICE, SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ARE JUST NOT DOING IT RIGHT NOW. SO, PEOPLE TEND TO WORK ON THEIR [00:35:01] OWN. I THINK THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE. >> IT COULD BE , YOU HAD A LOT OF ROOF REPAIRS. >> WE ALSO HAD SUNROOF DAMAGE. THOSE ARE STARTING TO TRICKLE IN A LOT MORE. >> THANKS, DANNY. THANK YOU. >> OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ? ARE WE GOOD? ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING REPORT, WE HAVE FOUR MINOR PLATS . ONE SITE MODIFICATION PLAN, AND THREE VARIANCES FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2024. >> THANK YOU . WE HAVE ANY [F. Items from Planning Commissioners:] QUESTIONS? OKAY, AT THIS TIME, WE MOVED TO ANY ITEMS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS MAY HAVE. >> NOW IT IS MY TURN? >> YES, SIR. >> I WANT YOU TO REMEMBER THE LAST MEETING, WHERE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT PERL HOMES , AND THEY WERE BUILDING THE SMALL TOWN . GLAD TO SEE THAT . THE ISSUE WE WERE ASKED TO TALK ABOUT WAS SETBACK . THAT WAS NOT A PROBLEM . INSTEAD, WE WERE FOCUSED ON THE PARKING ISSUE . THAT RAISES A CONCERN FOR ME . FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THE MINUTES, PARAGRAPH D IN ABOUT THE MIDDLE, STATED THAT THE SITE PLAN HAD BEEN REVIEWED, AND PARKING HAD BEEN REVIEWED, AND IT MET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS. THERE I THINK IS THE PROBLEM. I DON'T THINK THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE APPROVING AN ADDITION WHERE THERE IS NO EXTRA PARKING AT ALL , EXCEPT ON A PUBLIC STREET . WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS , I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THE PLANNING STAFF BE ENTICED , OR DIRECTED TO COME UP WITH A BETTER PLAN, ONE THAT WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM THAT I JUST READ FROM THE MINUTES, WHERE IT SHOULD NOT MEET THE GUIDELINES, AND THERE SHOULD BE A REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING . >> GO AHEAD. >> CAN I JUST TACK ON TO WHAT HE SAID ? I UNDERSTAND THAT IS IN THE UDO AND WE APPROVED THE UDO FAIRLY EASILY. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE HAD AN ISSUE COME UP OUT OF THE UDO THAT ADDRESSES THIS SPECIFIC SITUATION. I WOULD AGREE WITH MR. BROWN. I THINK THAT IF WE NEED TO REVISE THE UDO, WE NEED TO REVISE IT. ANGELI SAID, IN THE FIRST YEAR OR TWO, THERE MIGHT NEED TO BE THINGS WE NEED TO REVISE. CAN WE REQUEST THAT BE REVISITED? >> YES. I AM SURE SHE IS TAKING THAT INTO ACCOUNT. I GUESS, DISCUSSION IS FINE , BUT I DON'T THINK WE CAN MAKE MOTIONS OR VOTE ON ANYTHING OF THAT SORT TONIGHT. >> NO, WE WOULD JUST LIKE TO HAVE IT ON FUTURE-- I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT ON FUTURE AGENDA , AFTER YOU GUYS HAVE LOOKED AT IT. >> CAN WE REQUEST THAT IT BE PUT ON THE AGENDA? >> ONE, FOR CLARITY , BUT WE ARE STATING , BECAUSE OF THE ISSUE OF THE LAST MEETING AND WE SAW THAT IT WAS A PROBLEM THAT WE ARE ASKING THE STAFF TO REVISIT THE UDO TO-- AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE , WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT PARKING, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES PARKING . I JUST WANT THAT CLARIFIED FOR THE RECORD FOR THAT. SO, THIS IS THE FIRST IT HAS COME UP AT THE END OF DISCUSSION . I AM TRYING TO REMEMBER THE RULES WHERE WE CAN TALK ABOUT OPEN DISCUSSIONS THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA , AND HAVE IT NOTED IN THE MINUTES, BECAUSE WE CAN'T REALLY MAKE-- WELL, NO . WE CAN , YEAH . WE ARE REQUESTING THE STAFF JUST LOOKS AT THAT AND LET'S US KNOW, OR WE CAN PUT IT ON THE AGENDA TO DISCUSS . I THINK IT IS MORE OF A REVISIT TO SEE WHAT THE PLAN IS DEALING WITH SITUATIONS LIKE THIS SO IN THE FUTURE, WE MIGHT NOT HAVE THOSE TYPES OF PROBLEMS . IT IS NOT EVEN OPEN FOR DISCUSSION, BECAUSE THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE DISCUSSION AMONG THE COMMISSIONERS. I BELIEVE IT IS DULY NOTED IT IS ON RECORD, THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE MINUTES THAT IT WAS SAID. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION AMONG OURSELVES THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT? [00:40:02] >> YOU KNOW THE OTHER THING WE TALKED ABOUT AT THAT LAST MEETING, SORRY, WAS THAT HOUSE THAT WAS CLOSE TO MY HOUSE AND THEY SAID, IT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THE ISSUES WERE NOW . I WILL BRING IT UP NEXT TIME. THANK YOU . SORRY I ASKED. >> I WANT TO SAY THIS, ONE , I KNOW WE ARE THANKFUL FOR WHAT THE STAFF DOES, WHAT THE CITY DOES. IT IS NOT OFTEN THAT WE HAVE ONE WHERE WE MAY STAND AND SAY, WE ARE GOING TO SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS . BUT BECAUSE WE ARE THE CITY OF VICTORIA, AND THAT IS WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS FOR, FOR THOSE MOMENTS. I AM THANKFUL FOR MR. RICK , AND I AM THANKFUL FOR THOSE THAT ARE NOT HERE, BUT WERE PRESENT , AND FOR ALL THE WORK YOU DO FOR THE CITY . WE KNOW THAT IT IS NOT PERSONAL . WE KNOW IT IS JUST AS TRYING TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE, AND WE THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK THAT YOU DO. AT THIS TIME, IF THERE IS NOTHING ELSE-- >> I HAVE ONE COMMENT. I WAS MEETING WITH A LOCAL BUILDER TODAY. IN OUR DISCUSSION , IT CAME OUT THAT I AM IN ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND HE STATED THAT THE CURRENT UDO IS NOT ON THE WEBSITE , SO THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO GO THERE FOR REFERENCE . I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT . I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS OR ISN'T, OR IF IT ISN'T, IF THERE IS A PLAN TO PUT IT OUT THERE SOON. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT COMMENT . >> THERE IS A LINK TO THE UDO ON THE WEBSITE. IT IS NOT ACTUALLY ON THE WEBPAGE, BUT YOU CAN LINK OVER TO IT. >> I BELIEVE HE IS MEETING WITH YOU TOMORROW. HE MIGHT BRING THAT UP. >> WE UNDERSTAND LEAVING HERE FROM THIS COMMISSION, THIS LAST PORTION , THAT THERE IS A LINK, THAT INFORMATION IS OUT. WE ALSO HAVE CONCERN DEALING WITH THE UDO , AND THAT WE HAVE MORE DISCUSSION ON THAT. IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE? * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.