[00:00:11] >>> GOOD EVENING. I'LL CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. WILL YOU PLEASE CALL ROLL. >> DAVID BROWN. >> PRESENT. >> ADAM DAUGHTREY. >> PRESENT. >> GONZALES. >> PRESENT. >> VICTOR MENDOSA. >> PRESENT. >> BRIAN OLGUIN. >> PRESENT. >> BRADEN ROBINSON. REBECCA [1. ANNOUNCEMENT/REMINDERS Live Public Access is available on TV1 Planning...] SPEARS. >> PRESENT. >> WE HAVE A QUORUM. TONIGHT'S MEETING IS BEING SIMULCAST VIA TV 15. >> OUR FIRST ITEM IS RECOGNITION OF DR. DEREK HUNT. >> IT WAS AN HONOR TO SERVE. NOW I'M DOING HIGH SCHOOL -- JUNIOR HIGH AND TEACHING. IT WAS AN HONOR. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE MAY HOLD, BUT I THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO. SEE YOU NEXT GO AHEAD. >> GOOD JOB. >> WE WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE OUR NEW MEMBERS, JOHN HYAK. >> WELCOME. >> OUR NEXT ITEM IS -- DO WE HAVE ANY CITIZENS WISHING TO SPEAK ONLY TO ITEMS NOT LISTED FOR PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO AN ITEM NOT LISTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS. CITIZENS WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. NOT SEEING ANYONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO OUR NEXT ITEM WHICH IS GOING TO BE OUR ELECTION OF OFFICERS. I WILL CALL FOR NOMINATIONS THREE TIMES FOR EACH [1. Chair] OFFICER POSITION ACCORDING TO ROBERT'S RULES. THE FIRST OFFICE IS THE NOMINATION FOR CHAIR. DO I HAVE ANY NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR? >> DAN MIKULENKA. >> ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? >>÷÷ VICTORIA MENDOZA PLEASE. >> SECOND TIME CALLING FOR NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR. THIRD TIME CALLING FOR NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR. WE HAVE TWO NAMES PRESENTED FOR CHAIR WHICH IS GOING TO BE VICTOR MENDOSA AND DAN MIKULENKA. I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE. IF YOU CAN PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND SO WE CAN COUNT AND WE WILL GO FROM THERE. IF I CAN GET A VOTE FOR THOSE TO, VICTOR MENDOSA, SHOW OF HANDS. HANDS DOWN. IF I CAN GET A SHOW OF HANDS FOR DAN MIKULENKA AS CHAIR. OKAY. OUT OF THOSE WE HAVE MR. MENDOSA WITH SIX AND MR. MIKULENKA WITH TWO. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ACCEPTING MR. MENDOSA AS CHAIR, [2. Vice Chair] SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MR. MENDOSA IS OUR NEW CHAIR. I WILL NOW ENTERTAIN NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR. >> I NOMINATE -- >> SECOND CALL FOR VICE CHAIR NOMINATION. THIRD CALL FOR VICE CHAIR NOMINATION. WITH MR. MIKULENKA AS THE ONLY VICE CHAIR NOMINATION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR FOR DAN MIKULENKA AS VICE CHAIR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. [3. Secretary] ANY OPPOSED? MR. MIKULENKA, YOU ARE VICE CHAIR. I WILL NOW CALL FOR NOMINATIONS FOR SECRETARY. >> I'LLI'LL GO AND NOMINATE ÷÷MS. REBECCA SPEARS. >> SECOND TIME CALLING FOR NOMINATIONS FOR SECRETARY. THIRD TIME A NOMINATION FOR SECRETARY. WITH MS. SPEARS AS THE ONLY NOMINATION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF MS. SPEARS AS SECRETARY PLEASE RAISE YOURYOUR HAND. ANY OPPOSED? MS. SPEARS, YOU ARE OUR SECRETARY. CONGRATULATIONS TO OUR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICERS. I'LL TURN THE MEETING OVER TO OUR NEW CHAIR MR. MENDOSA. >> THANK YOU. ITEMS FOR PUBLIC HEARING. [1. Variance Request to Rural Detached Single-Family Dwelling Lot Total Lo...] [00:05:25] WE HAVE TWO ITEMS. THE FIRST ONE IS THE REQUEST FOR THE DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, NUMBER 25702. CAN WE HAVE THE STAFF REPORT ON THAT? EXCUSE ME. CAN YOU HEAR ME? IS THE VOLUME LEVEL OKAY? >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. THIS STAFF REPORT IS FOR A VARIANCE OF A DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF OLIVER AND LEVI SLOAN ROAD. THE CURRENT PROPERTY IS NOT SUBDIVIDED, BUT DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE OWNER WISHES TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO THREE LOTS. ONE OF THE PROPOSED LOTS DOESN'T MEET THE TOTAL ACREAGE. THE OWNER IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTOINTO DWELLING LOTS WITH ONE BEING BELOW THE LOT SIZE. LOT ONE IS 1. 24 ACRES, BELOW THE AREA OF 1.25. LOT ONE IS RESTRICTED BASED ON EXISTING STRUCTURES LOCATED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. LOT ONE WILL ADHERE TO ALL OTHER DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES REQUIRED OF THE RURAL DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS INCLUDING STATE REGULATIONS REGARDING SANITARY CONTROL EASEMENT AND WATER WELLS DESPITE BEING BELOW THE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT. THE LUCAS SUBDIVISION IS THE PROPOSED FINAL PLAT OF 11. 9 ACRES. IT LIES WITHIN THE CITY OF VICTOR. IT'S BEING SUBDIVIDED WITHIN THREE LOTS. THE PROPOSED FINAL PLAT WILL DEDICATE A RIGHT OF WAY ALONG OLIVER ROAD TO MEET THE 90 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY AND ALSO 20 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATED ALONG LEVI ROAD. ACCESS TO THE SUBDIVISION WILL BE FROM OLIVER ROAD AND LEVI SLOAN ROAD. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO THREE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH LOT ONE BEING BELOW THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 1. 5 ACRES. STAFF HAVE CONSULTED WITH THE VICTOR IA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT. APPROVING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT HAVE DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON THE AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL FOR THE LUCAS SUBDIVISION CONDITIONED UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE. >> THANK YOU. WE WILL NOW OPEN -- QUESTION FOR YOU. I NOTICED IN THE LETTER IT SAID CONCERNING TWO VARIANCE REQUESTS BY CIVILCORP. , IT'S JUST ONE VARIANCE, RIGHT? >> IT'S JUST ONE VARIANCE. >> WE'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME. STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS. CITIZENS WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT? >> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND. >> OKAY. REBECCA SPEARS MOTION AND SECONDED BY MR. BROWN. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [2. Variance Requests for Maximum Amount of Commercial Driveways and Drive...] [00:10:03] ALL OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES. OUR SECOND ITEM IS VARIANCE REQUEST FOR MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY SEPARATION DISTANCE FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5101 EASTON HIGHWAY. STAFF REPORT PLEASE. >> OUR SECOND STAFF REPORT IS FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS FOR A LOT AND A MINIMUM DRIVEWAY SPACING ALONG AN ARTERIAL STREET. IT'S LOCATED 5101 HOUSTON HIGHWAY. IT'S A GENERAL COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AS COMMERCIAL RETAIL CONVENIENCE STORE ON LOT ONE. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP LOT TWO WITH A RETAIL STORE AND LOT THREE WITH A TRUCK FILLING STATION. A SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED BEFORE DEVELOPMENT CAN BEGIN. THE PROPERTY OWNER SUBMITTED A SITE PLAN SHOWING AN ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY ON LOT ONE AND ASKED FOR FEEDBACK FOR SUBMITTING BEFORE OFFICIAL REVIEW. STAFF ADVISED THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT THE NUMBER OF DIVE WAYS REQUIRES A VARIANCE FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN. THE NUMBER OF PROPOSED DRIVEWAYS EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS ALLOWED AND THE SPACING DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM SEPARATION AS OUTLINED ÷÷BY THE CODE. THE OWNER IS REQUESTING VARIANCES TO ALLOW FOR AN ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY EXCEEDING THE NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS ALLOWED AND NOT MEETING THE MINIMUM DRIVEWAY SPACING. LOT ONE HAS APPROXIMATELY 485.2 FOOT ALONG JOHN STOCKBAUER DRIVE.÷÷LOT ONE HAS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS ALLOWED ON JOHN STOCKBAUER. THERE'S A PROPOSED THIRD DRIVEWAY TO ALLOW ACCESS TO LOT THREE. THE SITE PLAN SHOWS A DRIVEWAY SEPARATION OF APPROXIMATELY 57 FEET BETWEEN THE EXISTING SECOND DRIVEWAY AND PROPOSED THIRD DRIVEWAY ALONG JOHN STOCKBAUER DRIVE. THIS IS APPROXIMATELY 197 FEET BELOW THE MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN DRIVEWAYS ALONG AN ARTERIAL ROADWAY. THE DRIVEWAY DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM SPACING REQUIREMENT FOR AN ARTERIAL STREET FROM THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY, BUT IS PROPOSED AS FAR AWAY AS POSSIBLE FROM THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE RAISED MEDIAN. THE DRIVEWAY IS PROPOSED TO SEPARATE TRUCK TRAFFIC FROM PASSENGER VEHICLES. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCES AND SUBSEQUENT APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN DEPICTING A THIRD DRIVEWAY ON LOT ONE. THE CITY'S PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND PROPERTY OWNER MET TO DISCUSS OPTIONS IN REGARD TO THE SITE PLAN. WITH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SITTING ADJACENT TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS WHICH HAS A RAISED DIVIDED MEDIAN, PLACING AN ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY 250 AWAY FROM THE EXISTING IVEWAY IS NOT PRACTICAL. THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT APPROVES THE VARIANCE FOR A THIRD DRIVEWAY. STAFF HAS DETERMINED THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA AND WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE SURROUNDING LOTS AS A RAISED MEDIAN IS A MITIGATING FACTOR IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. STAFF HAS DETERMINED THE APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE WILL ALLOW FOR THE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE VACANT LOTS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION. >> THANK YOU. WE WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.÷÷IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, COME FORWARD AND STATE ÷÷YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS. CITIZENS WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. >> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. I'VE GOT NOTHING TO PRESENT, BUT I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE FOR ME. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S TIME YET. IT'S MOSTLY FOR THE CITY. IS THERE A QUIET ZONE? CAN YOU TEAR DOWN A PIECE OF A QUIET ZONE? >> NO, YOU CAN'T. >> I DID NOT KNOW THAT. >> THAT IS WHY WE'VE KIND OF -- THE REASON WE'RE SUPPORTING THE VARIANCE OUR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR LET US KNOW THE RAILROAD COMPANY WOULD NOT LET US CUT IT BACK. WHERE IT'S SET NOW IS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT THEY REQUIRE. >> I UNDERSTAND. >> IS THERE NOT A QUIET ZONE AGAINST EVERY RAILROAD OR JUST THAT ONE? >> THERE ARE SOME. I BELIEVE THERE'S SOME OTHE [00:15:02] DOWN, BUT IT ALSO DEPENDS IF THE RAILROAD REQUIRES IT AT THAT TIME. I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS ONE PARTICULARLY HAS IT, BUT THE CITY DOESN'T DETERMINE THOSE. THE RAILROAD MAKES THAT DETERMINATION WHERE THE ZONES GO AND WHERE A MEDIAN IS REQUIRED. >> I CAN SPEAK TO A LITTLE BIT OF THAT. THAT MEDIAN THERE DIVIDING ALLOWS THE RAILROAD CROSSING BARS TO COME DOWN AND HAVING THE MEDIAN, TRAFFIC CANNOT HOP OVER THE MEDIAN TO DUCK AROUND IT. THEREFORE, THE TRAIN CONDUCTOR DOES NOT HAVE TO BLOW HIS HORN THROUGH THE QUIET ZONE. WITHOUT THAT DIVIDING MEDIAN THERE, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO MODIFY THAT. MODIFYING THAT THE CITY WOULD LOSE THE QUIET ZONE DESIGNATION IF THAT PROVIDES CLARIFICATION. >> YES, IT DOES. THANK YOU. >> YES, SIR. >> I'M GOING TO STAND UP. THIS IS LOT THREE, RIGHT? >> YES, SIR. >> WILL THERE BE ANY -- THERE WON'T BE AN ENTRANCE AND EXIT IN LOT THREE? >> NO, SIR. WE PLAN TO DEVELOP TWO AND THREE CONCURRENTLY. I'M NOT SURE WHY IT DIDN'T GET REPLATED TOGETHER WHEN THE OVERALL SITE WAS DEVELOPED. WE'LL REPLAT THOSE PROPERTIES TOGETHER. THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A SEPARATE ENTRANCE BECAUSE OF THE QUIET ZONE. >> HOW DO WE KNOW THAT? IS THAT PART OF THE -- YOU'RE GOING TO REPLAT LOT THREE AGAIN? >> MAYBE. I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT PROCESS, BUT ULTIMATELY WE LOOKED AT TRYING TO PUT THE DRIVEWAY ALL THE WAY TO THAT NORTH ENDS CLOSEST TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS. WITH THAT MEDIAN THERE AND THE DISCUSSION WITH THE TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT AND TEAM, UNDERSTANDING THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY OF CUTTING THROUGH THAT MEDIAN TO ALLOW THAT ACCESS WITH THE DRIVEWAY FURTHER NORTH WHICH POTENTIALLY COULD GET CLOSER TO MEETING THOSE DRIVEWAY SPACING SEPARATIONS, IT WASN'T -- THERE WAS NO FEASIBILITY THERE. HE SAID ABSOLUTELY NOT ON LOSING THAT QUIET ZONE DESIGNATION. THAT'S WHY WE SLID IT AS FAR -- WHERE IT'S CURRENTLY DRAWN. IT'S AS FAR NORTH AS WE CAN GET IT IN THIS REFERENCE IT'S TECHNICALLY SOUTH. >> YES, SIR, THE -- THAT'S RIGHT. THE INTENT FOR THIS NEW DRIVEWAY, WE'RE PLANNING TO ADD -- IT'S MULTIPLE FACETTED. WE'RE NOT GOING TO DEVELOP IT ALL AT THE SAME TIME. THERE'S PLAN FOR A NEW RETAIL FACILITY SHOWN IN THE DRAWING THERE TO THE LEFT. THE RETAIL FACILITY NEEDS ACCESS IN AND OUT FROM MULTIPLE POINTS. THERE'S NO FEASIBLE WAY TO CUT AND GIVE ACCESS THROUGH THE CONVENIENCE STORE PARKING LOT FLUIDLY. I'M LESS SO WORRIED ABOUT THAT, IT'S MORE FOR THE EXPANDED FUELING CAPACITY FOR TRUCKS TO ACCOMMODATE THE CATERPILLARS AND THE FEDEX AND THE AMAZON AND ALL THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT GOING ON BEHIND US, GIVING THOSE GUYS ACCESS IN AND OUT. IT NEEDS ANOTHER DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY IT WOULD CREATE A BOTTLENECK UTILIZING AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY AND LOSE PARKING CAPACITY TO MAKE A SNAKE IN AND OUT OF THE SITE. IT'S FROM A FLOW PERSPECTIVE. WE NEED TO KEEP THAT ACCESSIBILITY AND TRUCK FLOW SMOOTH WITHOUT NEGATIVELY IMPACTING THE CONVENIENCE STORE BUSINESS TRAFFIC FLOW. >> I GOT A QUESTION. I'M A CDL TRUCK DRIVER INSTRUCTOR. LOOKING FROM THE CITY OF VICTORIA ASPECT, HAS A TRAFFIC STUDY BEEN CONDUCTED FOR THAT WHEN IT COMES TO TRAFFIC EVENTUALLY COMING OUT OF THERE AND CAUSING POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO THAT ROAD? BECAUSE YOU'RE RUNNING 40,000-POUND TRUCKS IN AND OUT OF THERE ON A CONSTANT BASIS. NOT SAYING I DON'T SUPPORT THE WHOLE IDEA, BUT I'VE BEEN GOING IN AND OUT OF TRUCK STOPS AND IT'S A GREAT IDEA TO HAVE ENTRANCE AND EXITS FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. I'M CONCERNED BECAUSE ORIGINALLY THAT WAS BUILT FOR THE GAS STATION ITSELF. WAS THIS ORIGINALLY IN THE MASTER PLAN OR WAS THIS ORIGINALLY -- >> THIS IS A VERY RECENT PLANNING DEVELOPMENT. WE'VE OWNED THE OVERALL PROPERTY, MULTIPLE LOTS FOR YEARS. ONE OF OUR TENANTS THAT CURRENTLY RESIDES IN OUR BUILDING NEXT TO US HAS [00:20:02] GROWN OUT OF HIS SPACE AND HAS APPROACHED US ABOUT BUILDING A LARGER RETAIL FACILITY. IN DOING SO MR. THOMAS, THE OWNER, FOR A LONG TIME HE'S WANTED TO DO TRUCK FUELING, BUT IT WASN'T PART OF THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT WHEN THIS SITE WAS BUILT 10 OR 12 YEARS AGO. IT'S BEFORE MY TIME. >> YOU'RE GOOD. >> THIS EVOLVED AND DEVELOPED IN THE LAST CALENDAR YEAR. >> HAS A TRAFFIC STUDY BEEN CONDUCTED ON IT? >> I'M NOT AWARE THAT ANY TRAFFIC STUDY HAS DONE ONE. TEXDOT DIDN'T REQUIRE ONE. WE HAVEN'T BEEN ASKEDASKED TO. >> THE ONLY REASON I'M CONCERNED IS YOU HAVE A RAILROAD TRACK RIGHT THERE. IF YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES COMING IN AND OUT OF THERE AND NOT HAVING A TURN LANE, YOU'LL BOTTLE UP THAT ONE SIDE AND HIT THAT TRAFFIC GOING OUT OF THERE. IF YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES GOING IN AND OUT, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE WEAR AND TEAR ON THAT ROAD AND CAUSING DAMAGE AND NOW THE CITY HAS TO REPAIR IT. I LIKE THE IDEA ABOUT THE BUSINESS BEING THERE. I'M THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX A LITTLE BIT OF POTENTIAL RAMIFICATIONS IT COULD HAVE ON THE TAX PAYERS. THAT'S ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, THE BOTTLENECK POSSIBILITY OF COMING THROUGH THE TRACKS AND GOING OVER THE TRACKS. I MEAN, I LIKE THE IDEA, BUT ÷÷THAT'S THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE. >> AS FAR AS THE DRIVEWAY, FOR THE TRUCKS, WILL THAT BE DEDICATED FOR TRUCK SERVICE OR CUSTOMERS AND TRUCKS? >> THE PLAN IS FOR BOTH AND THAT'S WHY WE ULTIMATELY PLACED IT -- WE HAVE DRAWN THERE REFLECTING VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, BUT THE LOGIC IS NEEDING BOTH SIDES IS THINKING THROUGH WATERLOO WHO PLANS TO BUILT THETHE SPACE. THEIR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC -- HE SAID HE GETS A LOT OF TRAFFIC FROM HOUSTON, FROM VICTORIA, ALL DIRECTIONS. THE POTENTIAL OF PUTTING THAT DRIVEWAY IN AND OUT OF HOUSTON HIGHWAY, THE TRAFFIC THAT WANTS TO GO INTO VICTORIA WILL HAVE TO TURN RIGHT OUT OF THAT GOING TOWARD THE AIRPORT, HAVE TO GO DOWN AND CUT A U- TURN TO COME BACK IN TO TOWN. LONG TERM HAVING THAT OVERALL TRAFFIC FOR TRUCKS AND FOR THE FISHERMEN WHO WILL BE PATRONIZING THE BUSINESS THERE AND THE THIRD PART OF THAT PHASE IS THE LONG TERM PLAN TO ADD A SECOND VACUUM CANOPY ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THAT CAR WASH. WE'RE SEEING A LOT OF DESIRE AND NEED FOR THAT. IT WILL BE A MIXED USE OF HEAVY TRUCK AND LIGHT AUTO PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC THROUGH BOTH SIDES OF THAT DRIVEWAY. >> I GUESS THERE'S ENOUGH STUDY DONE ON THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC, WHAT YOU WERE ALLUDING TO TO DETERMINE IF THAT'S SOME CONCERN WITH TRAFFIC, CAR TRAFFIC, CUSTOMER TRAFFIC AND TRUCK TRAFFIC ON THE SAME DRIVEWAY. THERE BEEN A STUDY FOR THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC. >> WE HAVE A LOT OF CONVENIENCE STORES THAT HAVE TRUCK TRAFFIC. WE HAVE VERY FEW THAT HAVE HEAVY TRUCK TRAFFIC, BUT JUST KNOWING WHAT OUR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC IS OUT OF THE CONVENIENCE STORE, NO, WE HAVEN'T DONE A TRAFFIC STUDY CURRENTLY. IT HASN'T COME TO THAT POINT. NOT TO SAY THAT IT WOULDN'T POTENTIALLY COME INTO PLAY DURING THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. THIS IS THE FIRST IT'S BEEN REQUESTED OR ASKED. >> WE DID MEET WITH HIM AND PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, USED TO BE OUR CITY ENGINEER. HE DID NOT SEE ANY ISSUES WITH THE TRAFFIC IN THAT AREA AND THE ADDED WIDTH FOR THE TRUCKS AND THAT. THAT WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION AND THAT WAS NOT ONE OF THE CONCERNS HE HAD. >> A LOT OF THEM I SEE -- I MEAN, I FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THE WHOLE THING IS YOU HAVE -- 73 FEET WORTH OF TRAILER WITH A SLEEPER AND CABIN, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE HAZMAT BEING THAT CLOSE TO THE RAILROAD TRACK, NORMAL TRUCK STOPS LIKE THAT HAVE ENTRANCES AND EXITS SPECIFICALLY FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. NOT SAYING THAT SMALLER VEHICLES SUCH AS CARS AND TRUCKS DON'T [00:25:03] GO THROUGH THERE. IT'S OKAY -- HAVE YOU CONTACTED THE RAILROAD COMMISSION TO SEE IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT TO HAVE THAT CLOSE TO THE RAILROAD TRACK TO SEE IF HAZMAT COMING IN AND OUT OF THERE IS THAT CLOSE TO THAT TRAFFIC? I KNOW NORMALLY OWNERS OF TRACKS -- I USED TO WORK AT TEXDOT. HOW CLOSE IS THE ENTRANCE TO THE FUEL PUMPS IN RELATION TO THATTHAT TRACK? >> THE WAY WE HAVE IT RENDERED NOW WE'RE PLANNING TO PULL IT SOUTH. WE'VE HAD CONTINUED SITE DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS EARLY CONCEPTUAL DRAWING. TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, NO, WE HAVEN'T REACHED OUT TO THE RAILROAD COMMISSION. WASN'T AWARE WE NEEDED TO. WE STARTED WITH THE LOCAL JURISDICTION THAT WE'RE ABUTTING. IF WE NEED TO, WE CAN CERTAINLY TAKE THOSE STEPS SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY. YOU KNOW, IN OUR PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT MEETING WITH THE CITY AND ALL THE DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE APPLICABLE THAT WASN'T BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION OR A CONCERN. WE HAVEN'T GONE TO THAT STEP YET. AS FAR AS PROXIMITY, THE EARLY IDEA WAS HAVING MORE OF A MAIN ARTERY FROM THE DRIVEWAY STRAIGHT THROUGH AND AROUND TO AND IN FRONT OF THE RETAIL. SINCE THEN WE RECONSIDERED THAT AND WANT TO TRY TO BRING THAT FUEL LANE CLOSER TO THE STORE. WE'RE NOT GOING TO CUT THAT MAIN ARTERY BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT THAT TRAFFIC COMING FROM THE RETAIL SPACE. THAT COULD GO OUT AND AROUND THE FUEL CANOPY, BUT WE ALSO WANT TO NOT MAKE IT A MILE- LONG WALK FOR THE TRUCKING PUBLIC TO HAVE TO GO, YOU KNOW, HOOK UP AND START THE DIESEL FLOW AND WALK INTO THE STORE TO GET A DRINK AND USE THE RESTROOM ET CETERA. WE WERE PLANNING TO PULL THAT BACK FURTHER SOUTH. HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTIONS. >> AS A REMINDER, THIS IS A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN. THIS HASN'T BEEN FOR OFFICIAL REVIEW. THE REASON THEY'RE IN FOR VARIANCE IS BECAUSE THE MAIN FACTOR OR ISSUE WE SAW AS A CITY WAS NEEDING THAT EXTRA DRIVEWAY AND NOT MEETING THOSE STANDARDS. DEPENDING ON HOW THEY LAID THE REST OF THE LOT OUT WAS GOING TO BE DEPENDENT ON THE DRIVEWAY OF IT. THE PRELIMINARY LAY OUT YOU'RE SEEING MAY NOT BE THEIR FINAL OFFICIAL COMING IN. RIGHT NOW IT IS JUST FOR THAT DRIVEWAY TO SEE IF THEY CAN GO AHEAD AND THEN GET THE APPROVAL OF THE DRIVEWAY SO THEY CAN FINISH THEIR DRAWING TO SEE IF EVERYTHING ELSE WILL WORK WITH THE OTHER REGULATIONS COMING IN. >> THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN, THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC GOING IN AND OUT OF THERE IN RELATION TO THE STREET AND RAILROAD. THAT'S THE ONLY THING. >> SHE'S RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION, CELESTE. >> HAVING DONE A LOT OF STORES, IT'S IMPORTANT WE GET THE FEASIBILITY. WE WENT THROUGH THE SAME THING WITH TEXDOT. DUE TO ALL THE GREATER CIRCUMSTANCES OF ROADWAY SPEED AND THE DIVIDED MEDIAN, ONLY ONE WAY ET CETERA THEY WERE UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEABLE TO IT. THE NEXT STEP WAS JOHN STOCKBAUER NOT BEING A RIGHT OF WAY AND WORKING WITH THE CITY ON CHECKING FEASIBILITY INITIALLY TO DETERMINE IF WE CAN GET IT. THAT WILL DRIVE MOVING INTO ENGINEERING FULL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN ON THE SITE. IF WE CAN'T GET IT, IT'S PROBABLY A DEAL BREAKER ON THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT OF THIS EXPANSION. TRYING TO TAKE THE RIGHT STEPS AND NOT SPEND A LOT OF TIME AND MONEY DOING FULL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN. >> OH, ABSOLUTELY. >> NOT PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. >> YES, SIR. >> ANYMORE QUESTIONS? ANYBODY ELSE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? IF NOT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AMONG OURSELVES? IF NOT, DO I HAVE A MOTION? >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE. >> MOTION. >> SECOND. >> MOTION PASSED. YOU NEED TO TAKE A VOTE. >> OH, SORRY. I'M NEW AT THIS. WE'LL GET THERE. NOW WE'LL TAKE A VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR. ALL OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. [E. Consent Agenda:] NOW WE HAVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. THANK YOU, CELESTE, FOR KEEPING ME STRAIGHT. WE HAVE TWO ITEMS. [00:30:04] THE ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING AND THE FINAL PLAGUE FOR THE LUCAS SUBDIVISION. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? >> MOVE APPROVAL FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> I'LL SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR. THOSE OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES. [F. Other Business:] WE HAVE THE MONTHLY DEVELOPMENT REPORT. >> AUGUST OF 2025 WE HAD A TOTAL OF 137 BUILDING PERMITS WHICH IS LESS THAN LAST YEAR. TOTAL OF 158 MEP LAST YEAR, ALSO LESS THAN LAST YEAR. FEES COLLECTED, $46,002 WHICH IS ALSO LESS THAN LAST YEAR AT THIS TIME. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY PLATS SUBMITTED IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST. WE HAD THREE SITE PLANS, THREE SITE MODIFICATIONS AND ONE CITY COUNCIL ACTION FOR THE VARIANCE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL FENCING MATERIALS AT 92 JOPLAN STREET [G. Items from Planning Commissioners:] WHICH WAS DENY. >> THANK YOU. ANY ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? >> I HAVE ONE ITEM. IT'S A QUESTION FOR THE CITY. WHEN SOMETHING COMES ALONG LIKE THIS, IS THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION CONSIDERED AT ALL? IS THERE A FORMAL PROCESS? >> YEAH, NO, SO IT DEPENDS ON -- WHAT WE DO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, WHEN THEY GIVE US THE OFFICIAL ONE, OUR CITY ENGINEER WILL REVIEW IT. HE'LL THEN DETERMINE IF A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS STUDY IS REQUIRED OR IF ANY TRAFFIC COUNT WILL BE REQUIRED IN THE PRELIMINARY REVIEW. THOSE ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ONCE THE OFFICIAL SUBMITTAL IS DONE. >> IS THERE A CRITERIA WHICH TRIGGERS THAT? >> YES. IT DEPENDS ON THE NUMBER OF TRAFFIC VISITS TOTAL. IT'S NOT JUST BASED ON COMMERCIAL OR PERSONAL VEHICLE USAGE. IT'S THE TOTAL TRIPS TAKEN THAT IT'S PREDICTED TO GENERATE. THERE'S A CRITERIA SET OUT THAT WE DO REVIEW. BEFORE WE REQUIRE THAT EXTRA STEP WE WANT -- BEFORE THEY'RE GOING TO PAY FOR THAT ENGINEERING AND OTHER THINGS, THAT'S WHY WE RECOMMENDED THEM TO COME FOR THE VARIANCE OF THE DRIVEWAY. NOW WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND LET THEM KNOW IF THEY CAN PROCEED. THERE MAY BE A TRAFFIC -- A FORMAL TRAFFIC STUDY WHICH CAN BE MANY PAGES OR IT CAN BE LIGHT THAT IT WOULDN'T TRIGGER AN ACTUAL TRAFFIC STUDY. >> WHERE IS THAT REFERENCED? >> IN THE UDO. I CAN SEND YOU -- >> IS IT AT ALL POSSIBLE TO HAVE A GLIMPSE AT THAT FOR THE NEXT MEETING? >> YEAH, NO, WE CAN FOR SURE DO THAT. I CAN ALSO EMAIL YOU A COPY OF THAT. >> TAU. HANK YOU. >> NO OTHER BUSINESS WE'LL ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT 5:48 P.M. THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.