[A. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:20]
DAVID BROWN. DAN MIKULENKA. REBECCA SPEARS. RALPH GONZALES.
>> THANK YOU. NOW, WE ARE AT A COMMUNICATIONS MEETING. TONIGHT'S MEETING IS SIMULCAST VIA TV 15. DO WE HAVE ANY CITIZENS WISHING TO SPEAK ONLY TO THE ITEMS NOT LISTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING? IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY CITIZENS WISHING TO
[1. Variance Requests for Minimum Driveway Clearance and Landscape Area Re...]
SPEAK, WE WILL CLOSE CITIZEN COMMUNICATION.WE'LL GO ON TO THE DEVELOPING ITEMS. OUR FIRST ITEM IS THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE MINIMUM DRIVEWAY CLEARANCE AND LANDSCAPED AREA REQUIRED FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3109 HOUSTON HWY. MAY WE HAVE THE STAFF REPORT, PLEASE?
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 3109 HOUSTON HIGHWAY AND IS PLATTED AND HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AS A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION AND WHOLESALE.
THE PROPERTY OWNER WANTED TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL WAREHOUSE TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN ORDER TO ADD THE ADDITIONAL WAREHOUSE, THE OWNER WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT AN AMENDED SITE PLAN FOR APPROVAL BEFORE ANY BUILDING PLANS OR BUILDING PERMITS COULD BE ISSUED. THE OWNER SUBMITTED AN AMENDED SITE PLAN FOR THE APPROVAL MEETING ALL REQUIREMENTS TO BRING THE LOT INTO COMPLIANCE. THE AMENDED SITE PLAN WAS APPROVED. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE BUILDING PLANS WERE ALSO APPROVED AND A BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED.
AT THE TIME OF THE FINAL INSPECTION, IT WAS DISCOVERED THE SITE IMPROVEMENTS WERE NOT CONSTRUCTED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE AMENDED SITE PLAN AS APPROVED.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE OWNER IS REQUESTING VARIANCES TO ALLOW FOR THE APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDED SITE PLAN DEPICTING A DRIVEWAY BELOW THE MINIMUM DRIVEWAY CLEARANCE OF AN INTERSECTING LOCAL STREETS AND A SITE THAT IS BELOW THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPED AREA REQUIRED. THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE STATES THE MINIMUM DRIVEWAY FOR A LOCAL TO LOCAL STREET INTERSECTION SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 30 FEET. THE PROPOSED AMENDED SITE PLAN SHOWS A DRIVEWAY THAT IS LOCATED DIRECTLY INTERSECTION OF DUNCAN STREET AND CARSON STREET. THE DRIVEWAY PROPOSES ZERO SEPARATION FROM THE INTERSECTION, ALLOWING INGRESS AND EGRESS THROUGH THE DRIVEWAY DIRECTLY INTO THE INTERSECTION.
THE ORIGINAL AMENDED SITE PLAN WAS APPROVED BECAUSE IT SHOWED THE NONCOMPLIANT GRAVEL DRIVEWAY AT THE INTERSECTION BEING CLOSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UDO.
AS THEY DID NOT MEET THE DRIVEWAY SEPARATION AND DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY STANDARDS. DURING THE SITE FINAL, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE NONCOMPLIANT DRIVEWAY HAD NOT BEEN CLOSED AND HAD LED TO A NEWLY DEVELOPED LAYDOWN YARD. WHICH WAS NOT DEPICTED ON THE ORIGINAL AMENDED SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED.
UDO ALSO STATES ALL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS SHALL BE REQUIRED A MINIMUM LANDSCAPED AREA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. THE PROPOSED AMENDED SITE PLAN DEPICTS MOST OF THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING BE REPLACED WITH A PAVED LAYDOWN YARD.
BASED OFF THE TOTAL SITE AREA, THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPED AREA IS 2,143 SQUARE FEET. THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF STREET YARD LANDSCAPING IS 1,500 SQUARE FEET, AND A MINIMUM OF THREE TREES IS REQUIRED. THE AMENDED SITE PLAN SHOWS THE LANDSCAPED AREAS LOCATED WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF- WAY, BUT LANDSCAPED AREAS WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF- WAY CAN ONLY ACCOUNT FOR 10% OF THE LANDSCAPED AREA REQUIRED, AND LANDSCAPE MATERIALS SHALL NOT EXCEED TWO FEET IN HEIGHT. THEREFORE, ONLY 214 SQUARE FEET OF THE RIGHT-OF- WAY LANDSCAPED AREA MAY COUNT TOWARDS THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, AND THERE CAN NOT BE ANY TREES LOCATED WITHIN THETHE RIGHT-OF- AS THE MINIMUM HEIGHT FOR A NEW TREE MUST BE FIVE FEET. DURING THE SITE FINAL, IT WAS OBSERVED THE SITE NO LONGER MET THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS. ALL OF THE LANDSCAPE SHOWN AS THE ORIGINAL APPROVED AMENDED SITE PLAN HAD BEEN REMOVED FOR THE NEWLY DEVELOPED LAYDOWN YARD BEING CONSTRUCTED.
THE PROPOSED TREES ON THE ORIGINAL AMENDED SITE PLAN HAD NOT BEEN PLANTED. ALSO, THE EXISTING TREES HAD BEEN REMOVED. THE REMOVAL OF THE GRASSY AREA BEHIND THE BUILDINGS ALSO BROUGHT THE SITE BELOW
[00:05:01]
THE OVERALL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT AND REQUIRED STREET YARD LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT.STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE AND SUBSEQUENT APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED SITE PLAN DEPICTING A DRIVEWAY WITH A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 0 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF DUNCAN STRETET AND CARSON STREET, WHICH ELIMINATES THE MINIMUM ALTOGETHER. STAFF ALSO RECOMMENDED THE DENIAL OF VARIANCE AND A SUBSEQUENT APPROVAL DEPICTING A LANDSCAPE THAT IS BELOW THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS.
STAFF HAVE APPROVED THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE BY ALLOWING A DRIVEWAY TO DIRECTLY ENTER AN INTERSECTION. A DRIVEWAY FEEDING DIRECTLY INTO AN INTERSECTION CREATES A HAZARD TO THE TRAFFIC FLOW, CAUSING POTENTIAL ACCIDENTS. STAFF ANALYSIS HAS ALSO DETERMINED THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE COULD IMPACT THE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AS CREATING UNNECESSARY TRAFFIC ISSUES CREATED BY THE DRIVEWAY WITH ZERO SEPARATION FROM THE INTERSECTION.
STAFF DETERMINED THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE COULD CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE SURROUNDING LOTS. THE NEWLY ADDED LAYDOWN WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY STAFF TO KNOW IF IT WOULD IMPACT NEIGHBORING LOTS OR EVEN THE CITY STORM SEWER.
WITH AN ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER PROPOSED TO BE ADDED. THE PROPOSED ADDED IMPERVIOUS COVER REPLACES ALMOST ALL THE LOT'S GRASSY AREA.
ADDITIONALLY, THE PURPOSE OF THE SITE PLAN APPROVED ISIS IDENTIFY THESE ISSUES IN THE PLANNING STAGES TO ENSURE DEVELOPMENT COMPLIES WITH THE ADOPTED CITY ORDINANCES, ENSURING THE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF VICTORIA. THAT IS ALL.
>> WE'LL NOW OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME.
CITIZENS WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES.
>> THAT'S THE BUILDING THERE. THAT DRIVEWAY AND ALL THAT, I KNOW IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THERE. BUT THAT'S WHERE OUR TRUCKS COME IN AND OUT.
18-WHEELERS AND WE BRING SUPPLIES IN THERE.
I DON'T SEE ANOTHER WAY TO DO THAT.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S OUR LIVELIHOOD THERE.
WE'RE OIL FIELD SUPPLIES, AND WE BRING IN FITTINGS AND THAT KIND OF STUFF AND PUT THEM IN THE WAREHOUSE THERE.
SO, I'M AT Y'ALL'S MERCY. THAT'S WHY I'M HERE. THERE'S NO OTHER PLACE TO PUT A ROAD. I MEAN, THAT ROAD'S ALWAYS BEEN THERE. WE'VE ALWAYS USED IT.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOTHING IN THAT AREA.
MICKEY'S WRECKER SERVICE IS ALL THE WAY AT THE BACK THERE, AND THERE'S NOBODY -- THAT'S THE ONLY THING THERE.
YOU KNOW? WE'VE NEVER HAD AN ISSUE.
THERE'S VERY LITTLE TRAFFIC THAT EVER COMES THROUGH THERE.
>> SIR, HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN
THERE? >> I'VE BEEN THERE OVER 30 YEARS.
>> DOES ANY COMMISSIONER HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS? >> I WANT TO TALK TO CITY. HAS THE CITY LOOKED AT --
>> LET ME CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE WE GO TO OPEN DISCUSSION. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING, CONCERNS? SIR, I THANK YOU FOR SHARING YOUR WORDS.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? AT THIS TIME, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND FOR ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, AND SO I KNOW YOU WANTED TO ADDRESS --
>> WELL, CELESTE DID -- IS THERE -- IS THERE ANY KIND OF ALTERNATIVE TO -- WHAT'S THE BIGGEST ISSUE? TO ME, IT'S THE ENCROACHMENT OF THE ROAD, RIGHT?
IS THERE SOMETHING -- >> SO, ON CLOSING THAT ONE, WE COULD LOOK AT POSSIBLY ALLOWING A DIFFERENT CURB CUT MAYBE FURTHER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT TO COME KIND OF DO A DIFFERENT HORSESHOE ATTEMPT, BUT WE HAVEN'T REALLY LOOKED AT ANY ALTERNATIVE METHODS AS OF YET. LIKE I SAID, WHEN WE INITIALLY -- WHAT TRIGGERED THIS WAS THAT ADDITION TO A BUILDING THAT KIND OF GOT IT TO CLOSE. SO, IF THERE -- WE COULD
[00:10:01]
POSSIBLY LOOK AT SOME ALTERNATIVES OF WORKING WITH THE DRIVEWAY BECAUSE WITH THATTHAT -- WE DID HAVE THEM UPGRADE THAT DRIVEWAY IN THE MIDDLE THERE, PUT SOME SIDEWALKS AND EVERYTHING TOWARD THE FRONT OF THAT LOT. SO, WE COULD POSSIBLY LOOK AT SOME ADDITIONAL -->> BUT COULD YOU -- WHAT YOU WOULD BE NEEDING TO LOOK AT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULDN'T NEED TO APPROVE A VARIANCE, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD COME TO AGREEMENT WHERE WE DON'T HAVE TO APPROVE A
VARIANCE. >> YES, WE WOULD TRY TO LOOK AT THAT TO AVOID THAT.
>> SO, OKAY. I JUST -- I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THERE'S -- MAYBE THERE'STHERE'S AVENUE.
>> THAT DOESN'T AFFECT THE LANDSCAPE ISSUE AS WELL, RIGHT?
>> THAT LIMIT HE'S REFERENCING, THAT DOESN'T AFFECT THE LANDSCAPING ISSUE? THAT'S ANOTHER LANDSCAPING ISSUE, RIGHT?
>> YEAH, YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE SOME LANDSCAPING ISSUES BUT YOU MAY BE ABLE TO GET SOME OF THAT LANDSCAPING BACK BUT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO USE THAT AS A WHOLE LAYDOWN YARD.
>> MY QUESTION, CELESTE, AND ONCE AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR THE STAFF PRESENTATION. IT WAS GREAT.
LITTLE ABOVE MY DEGREE MIND, SO IF WE COULD TELL ME PLAINLY, HE'S BEEN THERE FOR 30 YEARS AND WE SAID -- WHAT TRIGGERED THIS?
>> THE ADDITION OF THE BUILDING. SO, WITH THE ADDITION OF THE BUILDING, IT WAS GREATER THAN 30%, WHICH TRIGGERED THE AMENDED SITE PLAN TO BE PERFORMED.
OF COURSE, WITH AN AMENDED SITE PLAN, WE REQUIRE THE LOT TO COME INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE CURRENT STANDARD O.OF THE UDO.
>> SO, BY THE NEW ADDITION, THEN, IT HAD TO FOLLOW THE NEW EDO PERSPECTIVES, NOT BECAUSE IT WAS AT A NEW ADDITION ADDED TO
IF IT WOULD HAVE STAYED IN OPERATION AS- IS, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO STAY LEGALLY NONCONFORMING.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. MY QUESTION IS, THERE WAS AN AMENDED SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED AND APPROVED. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THIS WAS WHAT WE -- LIKE I SAID, ON THE ORIGINAL, WE DID TELL THEM ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY NEEDING TO BE CLOSED THERE.
>> SO, THE CONSTRUCTION DID NOT OCCUR AS IT HAD BEEN APPROVED.
>> DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY, SO, I'M SEEKING FOR A MOTION OR AN ACTION ON THIS DEVELOPING ITEM. WHETHER IT'S APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT OR TO DENY? WHAT STAFF IS REQUESTING?
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO AGREE WITH STAFF, BUT I WOULD WANT THEM TO WORK -- I MEAN, THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BECAUSE WE'RE JUST THE SOUNDINGBOARD.
I THINK THAT WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO TRY TO DRIVE TO KEEP EVERYTHING IN PLACE WITH OUR --
>> OUR UDO. BUT AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO -- THERE MAY BE SOME THINGS THAT THEY CAN DO. WE GOT TO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO -- I SAY WE CONTINUE TO -- WE GO AHEAD AND KEEP WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AND HOPEFULLY, THEY WOULD WORK WITH THE OWNER TO÷÷TO SEE, THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER ALTERNATIVES.
>> AND YOU POINTED OUT THAT HE HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO CITY HALL, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY.
SO, IS THAT A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION?
>> SO, THAT'S A MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE, CORRECT?
>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A FIRST AND I HAVE A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? SAY AYE.
>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES WITH THE DENIAL. WE'RE NOW ON TO OUR CONSENT
[D. Consent Agenda:]
AGENDA. THERE ARE THREE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH ARE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 2025 MEETING, FINAL PLAT FOR GLEN HAVEN COTTAGE SUBDIVISION AND THE FINAL PLAT FOR TERRA VISTA PHASE, I BELIEVE THAT'S 8>> I'M ASKING FOR MOTIONS OR ACTION ON THE CONSENT
APPROVE. >> WE HAVE ONE MOTION.
THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. >> AYE.
>> THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES.
[E. Other Business:]
OTHER BUSINESS. WE HAVE THE MONTHLY DEVELOPMENT[00:15:01]
REPORT.>> THERE WERE A TOTAL OF 160 BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN APRIL, WHICH IS SLIGHTLY LESS THAN LAST YEAR. THERE ARE A TOTAL OF 151 MBP PERMITS ISSUED, WHICH IS MORE THAN LAST YEAR, AND THE TOTAL PERMIT FEES COLLECTED IS $80,876. 46, WHICH IS LESS THAN LAST YEAR. WE HAD TWO MINOR PLATS SUBMITTED, TWO MAJOR PLATS SUBMITTED, ONE SITE PLAN AND TWO SITE MODIFICATIONS SUBMITTED.
>> A QUESTION. DO WE THINK IT'S JUST DEALING WITH THE -- RIGHT NOW, JUST WHERE THE ECONOMY IS WHERE WE'RE SEEING A DROP IN THINGS?
>> YES, WE MAY SEE A BIGGER PICKUP COME THE SUMMER WITH THE WEATHER GETTING BETTER.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO, DO WE HAVE ANY ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS? ARE THERE ANY ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT OR SPEAK ABOUT?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION ON A CONSENT
DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. IT HAPPENS.
YOU SEE HOW I'M RUBBING MY KNEES OVER HERE.
SO, WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS. I DO WANT TO ALWAYS SAY THANK YOU FOR THE STAFF AND ALL THE WORK THAT YOU DO, AND THE DILIGENCE THAT YOU DO GIVE TO IT.
BUT IF THERE'S NOTHING MORE, WE ARE AT ADJOURNMENT.
>> THE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.