[00:00:07]
          >> WELCOME TO THE PLANNING MEETING. 
          >> IS A REMINDER TONIGHT IS SIMULCAST ON CHANNEL TV 15. WE 
          [B. Communication]
WANT TO OPEN UP FOR CITIZENS COMMUNICATION. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY TO SPEAK FOR ITEMS THAT ARE NOT LISTED FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. YOU MAY COME UP AND LIMIT YOUR TIME TO THREE 
          MINUTES. >> I LIVE AT 2204 EAST NORTH STREET. LOT 20 A IN VICTORIA OAKS. THE TRAILER PARK LOOKS LIKE A WAR ZONE. I HAVE BEEN COMPLAINING ABOUT IT. THE REASON I DO NOT COMPLAIN TO THE COMMUNITY MANAGER IS BECAUSE SHE HAS A SIGN THAT SAYS NO TRESPASSING AND SHE LOCKS HER GAIT. INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH HER I USUALLY GO FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OR PUBLIC WORKS. THE CITY OF VICTORIA REALLY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THE TRAILER PARK OWNER CANNOT FIX THE TRAILER PARK. HE IS A PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER, HE IS SUCCESSFUL AND MAKES A LOT OF MONEY. HE COULD EASILY FIX IT BUT INSTEAD HE TURNS A BLIND EYE AND NOT FIX IT. WHEN HE IS SUPPOSED TO GO TO COURT HE NEEDS TO SHOW UP TO GO TO COURT. I WISH HE COULD COME IN PERSON TO GO TO COURT. HE HAS NO INTEREST IN FIXING IT. HE DID GIVE ME, ALONG WITH THE GENERAL MANAGER, AN UNLAWFUL EVICTION. THEY REFUSED TO TELL ME WHAT I DID WRONG. I ALWAYS PAY MY RENT ON TIME. I'VE BEEN PAYING IT ON TIME FOR 30 YEARS. I WANT THE CITY OF VICTORIA TO HOLD THE OWNER ACCOUNTABLE. IT IS VERY UNPROFESSIONAL THE WAY THAT HE IS TREATING US AND THE WAY THAT HE IS TREATING THE CITY OF VICTORIA. CODE ENFORCEMENT CAN NO LONGER DO ANYTHING BECAUSE HE DOES NOT LISTEN TO HIM. IT IS REALLY UP TO THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO DO ANYTHING. MAYBE UNDER CIVIL FORFEITURE LAWS, MAYBE THE CITY COULD JUST TAKE OVER THE TRAILER PARK. THANK YOU AND HAVE A GREAT EVENING. 
          >> THANK YOU. IF ANYBODY THAT IS WILLING TO SPEAK FOR CITIZENS COMMUNICATION WITH ANY ITEMS THAT IS NOT LISTED ON THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THIS TIME WE WILL CLOSE THE CITIZENS 
          [1. Variance Request for Off-Street Parking for Residential Townhouse - 20...]
COMMUNICATIONS AND GO TO OUR FIRST ITEM ON PUBLIC HEARING. 
          VARIANCE REQUEST FOR OFF-STREET PARKING FOR RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSE - 209 CHANTILLY ÷ VARIANCE TO SECTION 21-138(A), TABLE 2-1 RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSE STAFF REPORT, VARIANCE APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS SHE BEGAN THE CONVERSION OF THE OPEN CARPORT INTO AN ENCLOSED GARAGE WITHOUT ANY PERMITS. WITH THE CONVERSION OF THE CARPORT INTO THE ENCLOSED GARAGE THE PROPERTY IS NO LONGER MEETING THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. THE ENCLOSED GARAGE DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARDS FOR OFFSTREET PARKING. ALL OFFSTREET PARKING MUST BE LOCATED ON THE OWNER'S PRIVATE PROPERTY. IN CLOSING THE CARPORT DOES NOT ALLOW ENOUGH SPACE FOR THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE OWNER'S PROPERTY. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE REQUEST TO ELIMINATE THE MINIMUM FOR THE RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME. ADDITIONALLY, SEPARATE VARIANCES WERE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS FOR THE FIRE SEPARATION, EMERGENCY ESCAPE AND RESCUE OPENINGS OF A BEDROOM IN. ON MONDAY, THE BOARD DENIED THOSE REQUESTS. I AM OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS. 
          >> NO THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME WE WILL OPEN FOR PUBLIC 
          [00:05:04]
HEARING. ANYBODY THAT IS WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. 
          PLEASE COME FORWARD AND LIMIT YOUR TIME TO THREE MINUTES. 
          >> THERE ARE THREE OTHER CLOSED CARPORTS THAT ARE GARAGES. IT DOES NOT OPEN UP TO A STREET ON THE BACK. IT OPENS UP TO A DRIVEWAY. IT IS ABOUT THE WIDTHS OF 2 1/2 CARS. THE PROPERTY IS BEEN THERE FOR 45 YEARS. PEOPLE HAVE PUT BUILDINGS, BOATS, AND EVERYTHING ELSE UNDER THOSE CARPORTS AND STILL HAVE ADEQUATE PARKING. THERE ARE THREE OTHER GARAGES THAT STILL HAVE ADEQUATE PARKING. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOT UP TO CODE. ON MONDAY, THE BOARD TOLD ME THEY STARTED CRACKING DOWN SO I GUESS I CAME TOO LATE. I WOULD REALLY LIKE A GARAGE FOR SAFETY, SECURITY, AND PRIVACY. 
          IF ANY CONSIDERATION I COULD GET FOR THAT I WOULD 
          APPRECIATE, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE 
          ELSE ? >> I OWN THE TOWNHOME AT 211, RIGHT NEXT DOOR. I DO NOT MIND IF SHE HAVE A GARAGE BUT THE SIDE OF MY GARAGE IS NOT A COMMON WALL. I HAVE HAD THREE INCIDENCES WITH HER , WHERE JACK HAMMERING CRACKED MY DINING ROOM ALL AND EVEN SEPARATED A BOOKCASE. SHE PUT NEW ROOFING THAT WENT UNDER MY ROOF ON ONE OF THE GARAGES. I HAVE BEEN LIVING THERE SINCE 2011 . THE LAST INCIDENT WHERE SHE POURED CONCRETE, I DO NOT MIND. BUT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HER ENCROACHING ON MY PROPERTY. I HAVE SPOKEN WITH DEBORAH REED THAT IT IS NOT A COMMON WALL ON MY SIDE. WHEN THE CONCRETE WENT DOWN FOR THE GARAGE, SHE COULD NOT COMPREHEND MY SIDE. YOU CAN BREAK IT, AND BUST INTO IT. I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT, I AM LATE BACK AND KEEP TO MYSELF TYPE OF PERSON. IT HAS BEEN VERY STRESSFUL WITH THE PROPERTY DAMAGE THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE TO MY TOWNHOME AND MY GARAGE . THANK YOU 
          COMMISSIONERS FOR LISTENING. >> THANK YOU. IF THERE IS NO ONE ELSE? WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING . COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? 
          >> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          >> ARE YOU ASKING ME ABOUT THE PROPERTY LINE? THE YELLOW IS HER PROPERTY, THE HIGHLIGHTED, COMPLETELY. WITH TOWNHOMES THEY DO SHARE COMMON WALLS. BUT THE HIGHLIGHTED YELLOW WOULD BE HER 
          PROPERTY LINES. >> DID WE JUST HEAR THAT THIS GARAGE WENT OVER THE PROPERTY LINE? 
          >> NO . THE GARAGE IS ON HER PROPERTY BUT SHE ENCLOSED A CARPORT . THE CARPORT IS ON HER PROPERTY WHICH IS OVER THE TWO SPOTS THAT SHE IS ASSIGNED. SHE IS IN CLOSING THAT CARPORT. 
          >> WE DO NOT HAVE A SURVEY OF THE EXISTING CLOSURE OF THE 
          GARAGE . >> WE DO NOT KNOW IF IT MIGHT. 
          [00:10:03]
IT IS EASY TO DO THINGS LIKE ENCROACHMENTS BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF IT BECAUSE IT IS A TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT. JUST GOING OVER A COUPLE OF INCHES OR EVEN CENTIMETERS. 
          >> I CAN SAY THAT I RESEARCHED . JUST LOOKING AT THAT AREA AND BEING FAMILIAR . IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT THOSE GARAGES WERE THERE PRIOR. BUT EVEN TO MY RESEARCHING , SO NOW WE HAVE A SITUATION. IT IS HARD FOR TRAFFIC OR IF SOMEBODY WAS TO PARK . IT WOULD HINGE THE AREA SO THAT IS MY COMMENT ON THIS SITUATION. IT IS UNFORTUNATE BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, I UNDERSTAND. WHEN I COULD FIND A LOOPHOLE BUT THERE WAS NONE. 
          ARE THERE ANY CASES WHERE PROPERTIES ARE GETTING GRANDFATHERED WHERE GARAGES ARE ALLOWED? 
          >> WE COULD ADDRESS THAT. >> I WOULD SAY THEY ARE GRANDFATHERED BUT WE COULD NOT FIND EVIDENCE IT WAS LEGAL. THE RESTRICTIONS WAS IT WAS BUILT IN THE EARLY 1980S AND WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 2010. WE WILL SEEK THAT FOR CITY COUNCIL. FOR THE GARAGES THAT HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED PREVIOUSLY . WE DO 
          PURSUE STRUCTURES . >> SIX 2017 IS WHEN I WAS APPOINTED AND WE PURSUED A LOT OF THESE STRUCTURES. 
          >> RIGHT NOW WE ARE ASKING A MOTION REGARDING THE OFFSTREET PARKING FOR THIS TOWNHOUSE AT 209 AND THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE STAFF TO DO WE HAVE ANY MOTIONS OR ANY ACTIONS? WE HAVE ONE FOR DENIAL, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? 
          >> I WILL SECOND THE DENIAL. THE MOTION HAS PASSED. ALL 
          THOSE IN FAVOR . >> AYE.. ALL IN FAVOR?. LET US 
          [2. Variance Request for Animal Use for Minimum Separation from Single-Fam...]
MOVE TO OUR SECOND ITEM FOR THE MINIMUM SEPARATION FOR COMMERCIAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5902 DAIRY ROAD. WE HAVE THE 
          STAFF REPORT . >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS AND OUR REQUEST IS TO THE REQUIRED MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE FOR A COMMERCIAL ANIMAL USE FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME. THE PROPOSED WOULD BE LOCATED AT 5902 DAIRY ROAD. THE PROPERTY OWNER WISHES TO OPEN A DOGGIE DAYCARE AND INDOOR FACILITY. THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. THERE BY NOT COMPLYING WITH THE MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE. IN ORDER TO OPEN AN ANIMAL USE FACILITY AT THIS LOCATION IT WILL REQUIRE THE OWNER TO OBTAIN A WAIVER FROM EVERY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHIN 300 FEET OF THIS LOCATION. THE APPLICANT WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL IN OBTAINING THE REQUIRED WAIVERS AND HAS NOW COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENT. THE STAFF RECOMMENDS A DENIAL TO THE MINIMUM FOR THE COMMERCIAL TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE HOME. 
          THE STAFF COULD HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD BASED ON THE PROPOSED ANIMAL USE. THE PROPOSED ANIMAL USE HAS THE POTENTIAL FOR ADDED NOISE AND ODORS BEING PRODUCED WHICH COULD IMPACT THE ADJACENT SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. THE RECENTLY ADOPTED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE ESTABLISHED THE SEPARATION STANDARDS TO THE LOCATION OF INCOMPATIBLE USES AND PROVIDE FOR MORE NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION. A VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY IF ALL WAIVERS WERE OBTAINED. THE LACK OF WAIVERS INDICATES NEIGHBORS ARE NOT SUPPORTED IN THIS USE. IT SAYS THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTED PROPERTIES ARE FEET. THE PAINT HIGHLIGHTED PROPERTIES ARE SINGLE RESIDENCES OPPOSED TO THE USE. 
          [00:15:05]
THE GREEN IS A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WHO RETURNED THE 
          WAIVER. >> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY 
          QUESTIONS? >> THE PINK DENIED IT AND THE 
          OTHERS WERE NO ANSWERS. >> THE GREEN IS PEOPLE THAT RETURN TO THE WAIVER AND THE PINK IS THE DENIED AND THE 
          YELLOW IS EVERYBODY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME AND WE WILL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC HEARING . BEFORE I ASK ANYBODY, LET US PUT ON NOTICE THAT WE HAVE A LETTER . 124 LANCASTER SO WE DO HAVE THE LETTER FROM THE OWNER SO WE TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT. WE WOULD NOW WANT TO OPEN UP IF THERE IS ANY CITIZEN AND THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM, YOU MAY DO SO AT THIS TIME. AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, AND ADDRESS . YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. ARE THERE ANY CITIZENS THAT WOULD LIKE TO 
          COME FORWARD? >> MY PROPERTY IS RIGHT UP NEXT TO THAT PROPERTY. MY BACKYARD DOES AND I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE DOGS BARKING. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT IT DOES TO THE VALUE OF THE HOMES . BEING ABLE TO SELL MY HOME , AND WHAT IT DOES TO THE NATURAL WATER FLOW OF MY BACKYARD. AND WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO BUILD AND HOW HIGH BECAUSE THERE IS A CREEK THAT RUNS RIGHT NEXT TO THE PROPERTY. IT IS A NATURAL FLOW FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND ON AT LEAST MY SIDE OF THE STREET. 
          THEY BUILT IT UP AND BLOCK IT, THE WATER WILL BE BACKED UP THROUGH THE PIPES. RIGHT NOW, THOSE ARE MY BIGGEST CONCERNS. 
          , THE DOG BARKING AND THE WATER FLOW AND BEING ABLE TO SELL MY HOME . THE PEOPLE COME IN MY BACKYARD AND THERE ARE DOGS BARKING, THE POTENTIAL BUYERS MAY BACK OUT BECAUSE OF THAT. 
          IT WAS NOT LIKE THAT, WHEN I PURCHASED THE HOME. ON TOP OF THAT , YOU KNOW THIS IS LOW ON THE POLE . THE FEMALE DOGS THEY HAVE IN THERE, IF THEY ARE IN HEAT, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE ALL OF THE DOGS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD GO CRAZY. THOSE ARE MY BIGGEST CONCERNS. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A VARIANCE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOT DOWN BY THE CITY BECAUSE OF CODE. 
          THOSE ARE MY BIGGEST CONCERNS AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ANSWERS ON OF THOSE . WHEN SHE CAME TO THE DOOR, I WAS KIND OF SHOCKED AT WHAT SHE SAID. I DO NOT GIVE AN ANSWER . AFTER THINKING ABOUT IT, I DO NOT WANT IT. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU, NATHAN. I APPRECIATE IT. ARE THERE ANY 
          OTHER CITIZENS? >> MY NAME IS PRISCILLA DAVIS AND I AM THE OWNER . WHEN I PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY , IN JUNE WAS THE NEW ORDINANCE WAS THE 300 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. I WAS NOT AWARE OF IT. I BOUGHT IT FOR THE DOG DAYCARE . 
          IT IS 2.2 ACRES SO I AM NOT GOING TO GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE NEIGHBORS. HE IS NOT DIRECTLY BEHIND MY PROPERTY, HE HAS A HOUSE BEHIND HIS PROPERTY FROM WHAT HE TOLD ME. HE HAD NEIGHBORS IN THE BACK AND ON THE SIDE OF HIM BARKING. THE PEOPLE THAT ARE DIRECTLY BEHIND ME HAVE SAID YES. YES, THEY DID NOT TURN IN THE WAIVER BUT IT IS DIFFICULT. I'D JUST GET THEM TO SIGN PETITIONS AND YOU HAVE A LIST OF THE PETITIONS. 
          THEY SIGNED THEIR NAME BUT IT IS DIFFICULT TO GET A NEW - IN ORDER NOTARIZED. I TRIED TO MAKE IT EASY WITH STAMPED ENVELOPES. BUT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE DIRECT BEHIND ME SAID YES. 
          [00:20:10]
I DO SEE PEOPLE THAT I DID GO TO THEIR DOOR AND ASKED AND EXPLAINED. THE DOG DAYCARE WOULD BE JUST CERTAIN HOURS AND WE WOULD HAVE A PERIMETER. IT WOULD BE AN INDOOR AND THERE WOULD BE NO KENNEL RUNS. THIS IS PROPERTY THAT I BOUGHT. I UNDERSTAND THEIR CONCERN IS THE NOISE . THERE ARE BARKING DOGS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY HAVE HAD COMPLAINTS . AND FROM THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE HERE TODAY TO BE AGAINST IT, THESE ARE THE FURTHEST FROM MY PROPERTY LINE. BUT EVERYBODY ELSE THAT WAS HERE THAT WAS CLOSEST TO ME SAID YES. I SEE HIS CONCERN ABOUT THE WATER. REGARDLESS OF WHATEVER IT IS, THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN BOUGHT. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT, REGARDLESS OF IT IS A DOG DAYCARE OR A HOME OR A HOTEL. 
          SOMETHING IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE DONE WITH IT. I PURCHASED IT FOR THE DOG DAYCARE BECAUSE IT IS A LOVE AND A DESIRE THAT I WANT TO DO. BUT NOT BECAUSE IT WAS A PLACE TO TAKE THEM TO. I SEE WHAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE SAYING AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT. DOGS DO NOT PARK WHEN THE SUMMARY IS AT THE DOOR WERE WHEN THEY SEE OTHER DOGS. IF HE IS TALKING ABOUT DOGS IN HEAT , THERE ARE GOING TO BE GUIDELINES FOR SHOTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. PLEASE TAKE THAT ALL INTO CONSIDERATION. 
          >> THANK YOU MRS. DAVIS. ARE THERE ANY OTHER CITIZENS 
          WILLING TO SPEAK . >> JUSTIN MILLER AND I LIVE AT 212 , THE SOUTH TIP OF THE ZONED AREA WITHIN THE 300 FEET. 
          WE STAND IN OPPOSITION OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST THAT WE DID OUR DUE DILIGENCE. WE WOULD NOT HAVE PURCHASED IT IF IT WAS NEAR A KENNEL. WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT NOISE, SMELL AND WE ALSO SMALL CHILDREN. HOW THESE ANIMALS WOULD BE CONTAINED INSIDE. WE WOULD HOPE THE BOARD WOULD MAKE THE DECISION TO NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THE REQUEST. I WAS NOT SURE HOW TO SUBMIT IN WRITING THAT WE WERE OPPOSED. ONE PERSON DID BUT WE DID PREPARE WRITTEN STATEMENTS IF I COULD SUBMIT IT JUST SO WE SHOW THAT WE STAND IN OPPOSITION. THANK 
          YOU. >> THANK YOU MR. JUSTIN. AT THIS TIME, ARE THERE ANY OTHER CITIZENS WILLING TO SPEAK? AGAIN PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS . 
          >> MY NAME IS BILL PASS AT 213 LIMERICK THAT IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE GENTLEMAN THAT JUST SPOKE. I SHARE SOME OF THE OTHER CONCERNS BUT MY MAIN CONCERN IS HEALTH ISSUE. WHEN YOU HAVE ANIMALS, THEY ATTRACT FLIES. YOU GET OTHER TYPES OF FLYING INSECTS BECAUSE OF THE SMELLS, EVEN IF WE CANNOT SMELL IT. YOU MAY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CREEK THAT RUNS THROUGH. IT MAY ATTRACT TICS AND OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT, THINGS THAT NOT BE CONTROLLED , EVEN FLEAS THAT WE LIVE IN. WE DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT NOW. NO MATTER HOW DILIGENT YOU ARE, THESE THINGS HAPPEN . ANIMAL KENNELS AND OTHER PROBLEMS HAVE THESE ISSUES FROM TIME TO TIME. IN THIS CLOSE OF A LOCATION TO A NEIGHBORHOOD JUST IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR THIS TYPE OF KENNEL HOUSING DOGS, ANIMALS OR OTHER THINGS . AGAIN I WOULD ADD THAT I DO NOT THINK ANYBODY STARTS A BUSINESS THINKING THEY ARE GOING TO KEEP IT SMALL. WHO KNOWS WHAT EXPANSIONS ARE GOING TO BE ASKED IN TWO, THREE, OR FOUR YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. THANK 
          YOU. >> THANK YOU MR. BILL. ARE 
          [00:25:02]
THERE ANY MORE CITIZENS THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME? WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS AND ASK ANY COMMISSIONERS IF THERE ARE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS 
          PROPERTY? >> IF WE HAD THE NEW UDO IN PLACE, WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION IF WE HAD 100%. 
          I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE THAT FOR A REASON. THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK TOGETHER AS A COMMUNITY . 
          SOMETIMES, IT DOES NOT WORK OUT THAT WAY. I JUST WANTED TO SAY 
          THAT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, MS. DAVIS. IT IS AN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION TO PURCHASE AN INVESTMENT PROPERTY. BUT AS MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS SAID, THERE ARE RULES IN PLACE. I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT YOU COULD GO TO CITY COUNCIL ABOUT THIS IF YOU DISAGREE WITH WHAT WE RECOMMEND. WE THINK AT THAT TIME IF THERE IS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I AM ASKING FOR A MOTION OR ACTION REGARDING THIS ITEM. I HAVE ONE FOR DENIAL, DO I BUY SECOND? 
          >> SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? THIS MOTION PASSES. AT 
          [3. Variance Request to Minimum Lot Width for A.C. Hahn Subdivision, Resub...]
THIS TIME WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR THIRD ITEM WHICH IS THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE MINIMUM LOT . FOR THE SUBDIVISION NUMBER TWO FINAL PLAT. MAY WE PLEASE HAVE THE STAFF REPORT? 
          >> GOOD EVENING, OUR LAST IS THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM WIDTH FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY LOT AT 718 EAST CONSTITUTION STREET. THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY PLATTED AND DEVELOPED WITH THREE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. THE OWNERS WISH TO REPLANT AND RECONFIGURE THE PROPERTY INTO THREE SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS WITH JUST ONE LOT BELOW THE MINIMUM WIDTH REQUIREMENT. ONE OF THE LOTS BEING PROPOSED HAS A WIDTH OF 42 FEET BUT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MEET -- WILL BE ABLE TO MEET THEIR DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS. THE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST TO ALLOW THE REPLANT OF THREE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THE STAFF HAS DETERMINED THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE BUT WOULD NOT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENTAL TO THE SURROUNDING LOTS. CONDITION UPON FINAL APPROVAL OF THE VARIANT, STAFFORD ASKED COMMISSIONERS TO ALSO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT FOR THIS SUBDIVISION NUMBER TWO AS WELL AS THE FINAL PLAT AND MEET REQUIREMENTS FOR DETACHED 
          SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS. >> DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS GENTLEMAN? THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME WE WILL OPEN UP PUBLIC HEARING FOR CITIZENS COMMUNICATION IF THERE IS ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME. PLEASE LIMIT IT TO THREE MINUTES. SINCE THERE ARE NO CITIZENS, WE WILL CLOSE THE CITIZENS COMMUNICATION . ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SINCE THERE IS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? 
          >> AYE. THIS PASSES. NOW WE ARE UP TO THE CONSENT AGENDA AND 
          [D. Consent Agenda:]
THERE ARE TWO ITEMS . IT IS THE ADAPTION OF THE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 2020 AND THE FINAL PLAT SUBDIVISION NUMBER TWO. I AM ASKING FOR A MOTION ON ACCEPTING . 
          [00:30:03]
          >> I HAVE WANTED TO ACCEPT. AND I HAVE A SECOND TO SEPT. ALL IN FAVOR. ANY OPPOSED? THIS CARRIES. NOW ITEMS FOR THE 
          [E. Action Items for Planning Commission:]
PLANNING COMMISSION. COULD WE HAVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION FOR 
          THE SCHEDULE. >> TYPICALLY, WE DO NOT HAVE TO BRING Y'ALL TO THE SUBMITTAL SCHEDULE TO OUR NORMAL MEETINGS. FOR JUNE, 2025 THE REGULAR COMMISSIONER MEETING WILL FALL ON THE FEDERAL HOLIDAY OF JUNE 19TH. STAFF IS BRINGING TO YOU TO APPROVE ON MOVING THE MEETING TO JUNE 26, THIS FOLLOWING WEEK. AND CHANGING THE SCHEDULE TO ACCOMMODATE THAT NEW DATE AND TIME. WE ARE ASKING FOR YOUR APPROVAL OF THE SCHEDULE WITH THAT SPECIAL MEETING. 
          >> ANY DISCUSSION? I SAY YES , WE HAVE ONE MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? ALL IN FAVOR. ANY OPPOSED? THIS CARRIES. NOW WE 
          [F. Other Business:]
MOVE ON TO OTHER BUSINESS. COULD WE HAVE THE MONTHLY 
          DEVELOPMENT REPORT PLEASE. >> FOR THE MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT, THE TOTAL IS AT 252 WHICH IS SLIGHTLY MORE THAN LAST MONTH. FOR ANY PERMITS ISSUED, THIS WOULD BE A SLIGHT DECREASE FOR THE PERMIT FEES TOTALING AT $450,000. THIS WOULD ALSO BE SLIGHTLY LESS . THERE IS ONE MINOR, MAJOR AND ONE SITE MODIFICATION FOR A PLANT AS WELL AS A SET OF 
          ACTIONS FOR THE CITY. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR MONTHLY 
          [G. Items from Planning Commissioners:]
REPORT. AND ITEMS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION . 
          >> FROM LAST MONTH'S MEETING WE WERE ASKED TO BRING BACK THE UDO REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTI FAMILY DRAWINGS OFFSTREET PARKING. WITH THIS MONTH'S STAFF REPORT I WENT BACK OVER THE MEMO THAT I SENT TO YOU PREVIOUSLY. I WILL JUST DO A QUICK OVERVIEW FROM OUR 1992. THIS LAYS OUT HOW WE HAD THE DIFFERENT BEDROOM UNITS AND THE PARKING SPOTS REQUIRED AT THE TIME. AS YOU CAN SEE WITH THE 2024 UDO WE DID MINIMIZE THOSE PARKING REQUIREMENTS DRASTICALLY. INSTEAD OF HAVING SO MANY DWELLING UNITS BROKEN OUT, WE WENT TO THE ONE-BEDROOM WHICH WOULD BE AT THE ONE HALF SPACE. AND TWO OR MORE, TWO SPACES. IF THERE IS MORE THAN YOU ADD AN EXTRA HALF SPACE. IN THE DIFFERENCE , SOME OF THE MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE 1992 AND THE 2024 IS THAT YOU CAN SEE WHERE A LIMITED THE SENIOR LIVING BENEFITS. BEFORE SENIOR LIVING APARTMENTS WE WOULD JUST REQUIRE ONE SPACE PER DWELLING AS OPPOSED TO ACCOUNTING BEDROOM UNITS. NOW WE DO NOT HAVE THE EFFICIENCY BEDROOMS. THEY ARE CONSIDERED ONE BEDROOM. AND ONCE AGAIN, THE THREE OR MORE BEDROOMS RECEIVED A PARKING REDUCTION. 
          AS THOSE WOULD, MORE OFTEN WITH THOSE THREE BEDROOMS AND FOUR BEDROOMS HAVING THE HIGHER REQUIREMENT. SOME OF THE SIMILARITIES THAT WE STILL HAVE BETWEEN THE 1992 AT THE 2024 IS THAT NEITHER OF THESE ORDINANCES AND DID WE EVER TAKE INTO ACCOUNT REQUIRING A MANDATORY GUEST PARKING. GUEST PARKING HAS ALWAYS BEEN INCLUDED WITHIN THE UNIT PARKING REQUIREMENT. ANOTHER SIMILARITY THAT WE HAVE BETWEEN BOTH ORDINANCES IS IS THERE IS ADDITIONAL USES WITH THOSE COMPLEXES. WE MAKE THOSE ACCOUNT FOR THOSE OFFSTREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS SUCH AS IF THEY HAD A LEASING OFFICE, CLUBHOUSE. WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT HOW MANY BEDROOM UNITS PLUS THE OFFICE SPACE, CLUBHOUSE AND ADD THOSE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES . I PROVIDED SOME TEST CASES FOR YOU TO SHOW THE 
          [00:35:07]
DIFFERENCES IN THOSE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE THREE BEDROOMS, THE FOUR BEDROOMS YOU WOULD SEE A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN PARKING AT 158 FOR AN 80 UNIT. NOW 2024, 145 UNITS. AND THE SECOND TEST CASE IS THE SENIOR LIVING. 
          WITH THE SENIOR LIVING COMPLEXES UNDER THE OLD ORDINANCE THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO 75. HOWEVER, OUR NEW ONE IS NOT GIVEN THAT THE SAME BENEFIT SO THE INCREASED PARKING AT 135. THE THIRD TEST IS ONE OF THOSE SMALLER COMPLEX UNITS. WE HAVE THE EFFICIENCY, THE ONE BEDROOM THAT IS 16 AND NOW 25 VERSUS UNDER OUR NEW ORDINANCE, YOU'RE GETTING TWO ADDITIONAL AT 27. SIMILAR WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ONE AND THE TWO BEDROOM UNIT THEY DO NOT EVEN CHANGE ON THOSE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. THE LAST CASE SHOWS THE BREAKDOWN OF THE LEASING OFFICE BEING ADDED WITH THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND SHOWING THE DIFFERENCE. WITH THE LARGER COMPLEX, YOU ARE SEEING THE 121 VERSUS THE NEW UDO AT 114. I AM OPEN BASED ON OUR MEMO AND GOING OVER THESE CASE SCENARIOS, STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING ANY AMENDMENTS BUT WE ARE OPEN TO QUESTIONS AND 
          FEEDBACK. >> IS THERE ANY FURTHER 
          DISCUSSION? >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION, WHEN IT COMES TO MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS . THE REASON I AM ASKING IS CLEARLY THERE WAS A DISTINCTION MADE THAT THERE WERE ONLY THREE 
          POSSIBLY FOR A MULTI FAMILY. >> THIS GOES BACK TO BUILDING CODE. BUILDING CODES DESCRIBES FOUR OR MORE LIVING UNITS, DWELLING UNITS. SINGLE-FAMILY IS INTENDED TO A LOT AND IT ONLY HAS ONE HOUSE. TYPICALLY WE DO CLASSIFY SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES , DUPLEXES AND TRIPLEX IS AS A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT. 
          ANYTHING OVER FOUR WHERE YOUR HOUSING MULTIPLE FAMILIES AS 
          MULTI FAMILY. >> DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS THAT WE WANT TO DISCUSS? 
          >> WE APPRECIATE YOUR STAFF WORK AND YOU DID AN EXCELLENT JOB. THE TEST CASES WERE PARTICULARLY INTERESTING, ESPECIALLY WITH THE FISH POND DEVELOPMENT. THAT HAS YET TO REVEAL ITSELF, I THINK. THE REASON THAT THIS CAME UP IS BECAUSE OF A CONGESTION PROBLEM WE FACED BUT IT'S NOTHING THAT WE COULD DO ABOUT IT. I WAS HOPING THAT WE COULD HAVE A 
          SOLUTION AND SEEING NONE. >> I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT FISHPOND . THERE SITE WAS UNDER OUR OLD CODE. THEY STARTED THE PROCESS BEFORE WE HAD ADOPTED OUR NEW CODE THAT WAS FAR ENOUGH ALONG. THEY WERE EXTENDING RIGHTS THAT THE DEVELOPERS ARE PRIVILEGED TO HAVE. BUT IF THEY TOOK SOME STUFF TO FILE SOME APPLICATIONS, THEY ARE ONLY HELD TO THE ORDINANCE THAT IS IN THE PLACE DURING THE APPLICATION. FOR EXAMPLE, FISHPOND IS NOT BROKEN GROUND BUT THEY HAVE GOTTEN THEIR APPROVALS AND THE APPLICATIONS ARE ACTIVE. THEY WERE STARTED THAT WAS UNDER OLD 1992 ORDINANCE BUT NOT THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. THERE COULD BE SOME TIMES OF FRUSTRATION . EVEN THOUGH WE FIXED THE PARKING ISSUE WE DID NOT THINK THERE WAS ENOUGH FOR EFFICIENCIES OR SENIOR LIVING. PERHAPS TOO MUCH ON THE THREE AND FOUR BEDROOMS BECAUSE GENERALLY, THEY HAVE MORE CHILDREN THAN ROOMMATES. 
          THEREFORE, LESS DRIVERS SO THAT IS WHAT WE WERE SEEING 
          VARIANCES FROM. >> IF I HEARD YOU CORRECTLY, FISHPOND IS ONLY GOING TO BE REQUIRED 75 SPACES. 
          >> YES. 74 UNITS AND THE EXTRA SPACE FOR THE OFFICE AREA. 
          >> YOU ARE COUNTING EVERYBODY MOVING IN TO JUST HAVE ONE CAR 
          AND NO PARKING FOR STAFF. >> THAT WAS A FLAW WITH THE 1992 ORDINANCE WHICH IS WHY THE NEW ORDINANCE CHANGE THAT. HIS SO THE UNDERSTANDING IS BECAUSE THAT HAS PASSED, THERE GOING TO 
          [00:40:01]
          BE MOVING FORWARD. >> THEY WERE VESTED UNDER THE 1992 ORDINANCE AND WE SAW A BIG FLAW. THAT IS WHY UDO MADE THE 
          CHANGES. >> THAT WAS THE PREVIOUS SITUATION OF SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE PRIOR . NOW THAT WE DID TRY TO COME TOGETHER AND HAVE SOMETHING IN PLACE FOR THE FUTURE PURPOSES , THINGS LIKE THAT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. 
          >> IF FISHPOND IS GIVEN THE OLD DEVELOPMENT PLANS, THE 1992 PLANS. THAT ORDINANCE ALSO REQUIRED OR PROHIBITED MORE CONGESTION THAN 27 UNITS PER ACRE. 
          >> FISHPOND COMPLIES BECAUSE THE ACREAGE IS NOT LIMITED TO JUST THE BUILDABLE AREA. IT IS THE OVERALL SITE . 
          >> THAT GAVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO ACROSS THE 
          DRAINAGE TICKET. >> THAT IS PART OF THEIR LOT. 
          >> I SEE. AS I SAID, IT WILL BE INTERESTING HOW THIS REVEALS 
          ITSELF. >> AT THIS TIME, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? NOW WE MOVE , IF THERE ARE ANY ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT THE COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE TO SHARE? I WOULD JUST LIKE YOU TO SAY THAT I HOPE EVERYBODY HAS A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR. WE WILL NOT SEE EACH OTHER UNTIL NEXT YEAR. I CAN USE THE JOKE THAT I'VE NOT SEEN YOU SINCE LAST YEAR. IT IS ABOUT BEING LIVING AND BEING PRESENT. 
          THAT IS WHAT I WANT TO SAY TO YOU. DO WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? AWESOME, WE WILL ADJOURN AT 5:56 P.M.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.