Allison Lacey, Assistant City Attorney. Mr. Spears called the June 21, 2018, Regular Meeting to order at 5:15pm.

Transcription

1

2

3

4 MEETING MINUTES Date and Time: June 21, 2018 at 5:15pm MEMBERS PRESENT: Greg Spears Michael Atkinson John Hyak Julia Welder Gail Hoad Mary Ann Wyatt Brian Rokyta Jill Trevino MEMBERS ABSENT: James Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Development Services: Julie Fulgham, Director of Development Services Rick Madrid, Assistant Director of Development Services Alina Phillips, Planning Manager Celeste Menchaca, Planner Lila Foster, Planning Technician City Manager s Office City Attorney's Office: Allison Lacey, Assistant City Attorney A: CALL TO ORDER Mr. Spears called the June 21, 2018, Regular Meeting to order at 5:15pm. B: APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES June 21, 2018 Regular Meeting A motion to accept the minutes was made by Ms. Welder and seconded by Ms. Wyatt. The motion passed unanimously. C: CITIZEN COMMUNICATION There were no citizen communications. D: DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS/FORMAL ACTION 1. Aloe Landing: Preliminary Plat: A twenty-eight (28) Manufactured Home Residential (R6) lots and one (1) Manufactured Home Park (R6) lot within Blocks 1, 2, 3 on a acre tract of land out of the Manuel Zepeda Survey, Abstract 128, Victoria County, Texas, in the City s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. John and Judy Clegg Investments, Ltd. (Owner); Urban Engineering, LLC (Agent).

5 Final Plat Phase 1: A eleven (11) Manufactured Home Residential (R6) lots and one (1) Manufactured Home Park (R6) lot within Blocks 2 and 3 on a acres tract of land out of the Manuel Zepeda Survey, Abstract 128, Victoria County, Texas, in the City s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction; John and Judy Clegg Investments, Ltd. (Owner); Urban Engineering, LLC (Agent). a) Staff Report - Presented by Celeste Menchaca Preliminary Plat Aloe Landing is a proposed preliminary plat for acres. The subject property is bounded by Duck Drive and Whitewing Drive, located north of the intersection of Business 59 and Zac Lentz Parkway in the City s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. The property is undeveloped and is being platted into twenty-eight (28) Manufactured Home Residential (R6) lots and one (1) Manufactured Home Park (R6) lot within Blocks 1, 2, 3. Development of Aloe Landing shall be completed in three (3) phases. The proposed plat will dedicate 60 of right-of-way (ROW) required for the construction and extension of four local streets: Duck Drive, Whitewing Drive, Chaparral Drive, and Grouse Road. Access to the subdivision will be provided via local streets Bob White Road, Duck Drive, Whitewing Drive, Chaparral Drive, and Grouse Road. Final Plat Aloe Landing Phase 1 is a proposed final plat of acres. The subject property is bounded by Duck Drive and Whitewing Drive, located north of the intersection of Business 59 and Zac Lentz Parkway in the City s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. The property is undeveloped and is being platted into eleven (11) Manufactured Home Residential (R6) Lots and one (1) Manufactured Home Park (R6) Lot within Blocks 2 and 3. The proposed plat will dedicate 60 of right-of-way (ROW) required for the extension and construction of one local street: Duck Drive. Access to the subdivision will be provided via local streets Grouse Road, Chaparral Drive, and Bob White which will intersect with the proposed local street Duck Drive. The Subdivision & Development Ordinance requires construction plans be submitted when public improvements are proposed. These plans are submitted at the same time of the final plat submittal and must be approved prior to Planning Commission approval of the final plat. The construction plans for the proposed public improvements have been reviewed by the Public Works Department and were approved as of June 19, The proposed Preliminary and Final plats are in compliance with the minimum requirements for Manufactured Home Parks and Residential development contained within the Subdivision and Development Regulations. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Aloe Landing and final plat for Aloe Landing Phase 1; finding they meet all applicable ordinances and regulations. b) Chairman Spears opened the floor for a Public Hearing on the Preliminary Plat. Page 2

6 Craig Lawrence who lives at 400 Warehouse Road, Victoria, TX took to the podium to express his concerns. He stated he owns the manufacturing facility just south of the property. One concern he had was the undeveloped road to the west side, he mentioned he had brought up this concern the last the land was being platted. He owns part the road on the west side of the property and did not know what he must do to keep people off of it to make sure accidents did not occur. He described it is the road on the west side of the property next to Safety Rail, he did not know what the name of it was for sure. He does not have a fence on that side. Mr. Spears asked how are people accessing their property; and if they were going through Mr. Lawrence s property? Mr. Lawrence replied that they have been going through his property. He stated that is they denied plat the last time for this problem. Mr. Hyak stated that he remembered the last time there was a road issue. He believed the roads were going to be left as is. Ms. Fulgham stated there may have been a variance request. This plat submittal has no variance associated with it. The roads are being built to the required standards. Mr. Lawrence stated that he didn t want them driving on his property and having a wreck and suing him. Ms. Trevino stated they will now have access through Duck Drive. Ms. Wyatt stated she did not think this was within Commision s prevue as to approving the plat. Ms. Fulgham suggested Mr. Lawrence contact the county commissioner, Gary Burns, to inquire as to how those roads came to be; if they were dedicated; or if they are private. We would have to offer a reason to deny the plat and we don t have one. c) Ms. Welder made a motion to approve the Preliminary and Final Plats. Mr. Atkinson seconded the motion to approve the Preliminary and Final Plats. The motion passed 8 for, 0 against, 0 abstentions. 2. Variance Request for Shoppa s Farm Supply: Request for Variance to City Code for tract legally described as being 5.5 acres and being part of the Lloyd Shoppa Subdivision No 1 located at 8906 US 59 Highway North; Christopher A. Shoppa (Owner); Wesley Cates (Agent). A variance request to Section (a);(b);(c) Off-street Storage Requirements, including Section 21-94(c) Surface Requirements. Page 3

7 a) Staff Report Presented by Celeste Menchaca The subject property is developed as a retail farm supply and parts warehouse. Its original site was a 5.5-acre tract of land located at 8906 US Highway 59 North being part of the Lloyd Shoppa Subdivision No 1. The property is owned by Christopher A. Shoppa. Mr. Shoppa would like to add a 7,000-square foot expansion to his parts warehouse. City Code will require the expansion to be represented on a site plan. The City cannot issue any building permits, nor a Certificate of Occupancy until the new development is developed according to an approved site plan on file with the City. A site plan to expand the parts warehouse for Shoppa s Farm Supply has been submitted to the City, but has not been approved as it shows a display/inventory area for motor driven vehicles/equipment on an unpaved surface. A variance to the City Code regarding paving and screening fence requirements for display and storage areas of motor vehicles, equipment, and/or materials has been requested. The property was developed as a retail farm supply and parts warehouse in Shoppa s Farm Supply site plan established off-street parking with a temporary sales building on the property. On the 2010 site plan, there were no display or storage areas shown. In 2011, a site plan was submitted to the City for the development of the permanent sales showroom and parts warehouse. The site plan also included a future outside storage area, future shop area, and proposed warehouse for tractor and lawn mower parts. The future outside storage area shown was to be a 50 x40 area on a pad site. No other display or storage areas were shown on the site plan. In 2012, a site plan was submitted to the City expanding the main existing building to include a mechanic shop, the current location of the covered outdoors sales area, covered wash rack, and additional parking required by the expansion. They also listed a proposed second driveway to the property. No other display or storage areas were shown on the site plan. The property was developed as shown on the site plan, except for the second driveway. In 2014, Shoppa s submitted an amended site plan to the City indicating a change in location to the second proposed driveway to the property. This was to amend only the driveway location to the approved 2012 site plan. No new display or storage areas were shown on the amended site plan. Currently, another site plan has been submitted to the City for review. The site plan shows plans to expand the parts warehouse by 7,000 square feet. Before any building permits can be obtained, an approved site plan must be on file with the City. The site plan indicates the display or storage areas of the property. At the time this property was developed, the requirements pertaining to off-street storage and display of motor-driven equipment were rather stringent. The City changed its offstreet storage requirements outlined in Sec (a-c) in January of Prior to the City amending Section , the regulations stated: At the time that any building, use or structure is instituted, erected, enlarged or converted from one land use to another land use which utilizes outside space for Page 4

8 the storage or display of motor vehicles, equipment or materials, off-street storage facilities shall be provided in accordance with these regulations. Such areas shall be provided in order that such vehicles, equipment or materials may be displayed or stored without encroaching on public right-of-way or interfering with the public use of streets, alleys, fire lanes, and sidewalks; all off-street storage facilities to be used for the storage or display of motor vehicles or other motor-driven equipment, including access aisles, driveways and maneuvering areas, shall meet the surfacing and drainage requirements in Section 21-94(c) and 21-94(f); for off-street storage facilities to be used for the storage or display of materials or non-motor-driven equipment, the surfacing requirement may be reduced or waived, provided the driveways/approaches from the right-of-way to the storage yard are paved. The reduction or waiver of any such surfacing requirements is subject to the approval of the Director of Development Services. It is unclear why the 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014 site plans were approved without a more thorough review of the off-street storage and display areas on the property. The personnel that were responsible for administering the off-street storage and display requirements at that time are no longer a part of the Development Services staff. However, the off-street storage requirements were amended in Section (ac) was amended as follows: At the time that any building, use or structure is instituted, erected, enlarged or converted from one land use to another land use which utilizes outside space for the storage or display or motor vehicles, equipment or materials, off-street storage facilities shall be provided in accordance with these regulations. Such areas shall be provided in order that such vehicles, equipment or materials may be displayed or stored without encroaching on public right-of-way or interfering with the public use of streets, alleys, fire lanes, sidewalks, or required off-street parking areas; all off-street storage facilities to be used for the display of equipment, materials, motor vehicles or other motor-driven equipment, including access aisles, driveways and maneuvering areas, shall meet the surfacing and drainage requirements in Sections 21-94(c) and 21-94(f); for off-street storage facilities to be used for the storage of equipment, materials, motor vehicles, or other motor-driven equipment, the surfacing requirements may be reduced or waived, provided that driveways/approaches from the right-of-way to the storage yard are paved, the storage areas are located behind the principal structure, the storage areas are not located within the required setbacks, and the storage areas are screened from any public right-of-way by a minimum 8-foot tall screening fence. Alternative screening materials are subject to the approval of the Director of Development Services. This change relaxed the requirement that motor driven vehicles/equipment always be located on a paved surface and instead allows motor driven equipment to be located on unpaved surfaces, provided the equipment is behind screening fences meeting certain locational requirements. The surfacing and drainage requirements referenced in this section prohibits any motor driven vehicles/equipment from being parked or stored on an unimproved surface. Page 5

9 The current display and storage areas shown on the submitted site plan are noncompliant with the City codes since motor driven equipment is located on unpaved surfaces and are not located behind a screening fence. In order to proceed with the expansion, the site plan approval is contingent upon all regulations being complied with or a variance granted to the regulations. To meet the regulations outlined in Section , the applicant would need to pave a display area or provide an inventory area on an unpaved surface, located behind a required screening fence, or a combination of the two; or, alternatively, be granted a variance. This business has regularly expanded since it s original development in The City had mutlitple opportunities to require compliance with regulations set forth in Chapter 21. Unfortunately, those opportunties were not taken and the site has grown to be considerably out of compliance. The amendment to Section in 2016 sets the expectation that portions of properties with roadway frontage in the community be paved. As this area is primarly used for display area, staff recommends denying the variance requesting this frontage to not be paved as the property is generally rectangular and has similar topographical features as most of the city, and, therefore, does not have special or uniquire features making this requlation unfeasible. However, staff does support a variance to the screening fence standards required of any off-street storage yards finding that the unique business of tractor sales does require visibility of the offstreet goods stored. Additionally, approving a limited variance would not be out of character with the industrial nature of the Highway 59 corridor. In summary, staff recommends a partial approval of the variance requested. Staff recommends that any display areas located in the front 25-foot setback be paved, but a variance be granted for required screening fences in any inventory/storage yard areas located behind the 25-foot setback. In response to Mr. Hyak s questions concerning approving a limited variance would not be out of character with the industrial nature of the Highway 59 corridor, Ms. Fulgham responded that along this section of highway there are several industrial properties, including oilfield service companies, storage buildings with lay down yards, and other developments with a traditional metal building with a limited amount of paving in the front and unpaved laydown yards in the rear. Ms. Fulgham stated that the ordinance, prior to 2016, required that everything be paved if it was to serve motor driven vehicles and equipment; however there was regularly pushback from complying with that regulations so the ordinance was amended to recognize that storage yards have their place, but the City set the standard that those yards be located behind screening fences and out of the setbacks. Ms. Welder stated that when she drove by Shoppa s Farm Supply, there is equipment in the first 25 feet and it is small multiuse type items, it is not big tractors, and those Page 6

10 items, she believes, are operable on pavement. Ms. Welder stated that she felt the partial variance was a good solution. b) Chairman Spears opened the Public Hearing: Mr. Eric Braum, General Manager of Shoppa Farm Supply made the following comments: I am the general manager for Shoppa Farm Supply and we have eight locations here on the Texas coast. We have been very excited about being in Victoria. We are a retail friendly farm dealership that deals in all levels of consumer equipment from lawn mowers all the way up to large ag equipment. Our facility is visited by all types of people and we want to have a retail friendly business. It is important to try to have the proper display when people drive by. We take pride in having everything neat and in order. The 25 setback gets it back to where the large sign is. There is a fence and the way we stage things it is not a safety hazard with the view from the road. These products are not designed to be on hard surfaces and will have excessive tire wear on brand new equipment if it is moved on concrete. Mr. Hyak asked Mr. Baum that if the 25 setback was paved, then would they not display merchandise on that section and if any of the other seven locations concreted? Mr. Braun stated that they would not put equipment on concrete and they do not display on concrete at any location. Mr. Braum also stated they currently have utility vehicles which are low profile, less than forty-eight inches (48 ) tall and small compact utility tractors, which are approximately five feet (5 ) in height in the front. Mr. Spears asked Mr. Braum to clarify that they were wanting a variance to not pave the twenty-five feet (25 ) of setback. Mr. Braum stated that would be their preference. Ms. Trevino stated that it seemed that even if the front 25 feet were paved, there would still be adequate space to display the larger equipment that they believe shouldn t be on pavement. She stated she had difficulty believing that every piece of equipment out there cannot be on pavement. Mr. Braum stated that it is the mindset, the type of industry, unlike a luxury car dealership, this is farm equipment lot and people expect it to be on grass. Mr. Atkinson stated that we are concerned with ascetics; so if I drive by and I see it looks neat then why do we care if it is concreted, if it effects the dealership not the public. If it is going to be a problem for them to drive the equipment on concrete; why not give them the consideration to have it unpaved. Ms. Welder stated that there is nothing that says this will be a tractor dealership forever and a variance would attach with this property. Page 7

11 Mr. Braum said that as a dealership we must meet the standards that John Deere requires. The surface is currently manicured carpet grass. A motion to approve the partial variance, as staff recommended, was made by Ms. Welder. Ms. Trevino seconded the motion to approve the partial variance. Mr. Braum asked if the partial variance could be explained in further detail. Ms. Fulgham responded to Mr. Braum s question. She explained they could choose not to park in the 25-foot setback and leave the 25-foot setback unpaved or they could choose to park within the 25-foot setback as long as they paved the area with concrete or asphalt. Ms. Fulgham also stated no equipment should ever be parked on grass, so anything beyond the 25-foot setback should be on gravel or some type of improved surface and behind screened by a screening. However, there is a request for a variance to the screening fence requirement. Mr. Atkinson stated he felt there was no practical application for this code in this circumstance. Ms. Wyatt then stated she was in favor of granting the variance straight up and made a motion to do so. It was explained to Ms. Wyatt that currently a motion was on the floor for partial approval of the variance and there had been a second made for the partial approval. The motion for partial approval would need to be voted on or withdrawn before Ms. Wyatt s motion could be seconded or voted on. After further discussion and at the request of Ms. Wyatt; Ms. Welder withdrew her motion and Ms. Trevino agreed to withdraw her second of the motion. Ms. Wyatt made a motion to approve the variance to Section (b); to approve no paving or screening fence requirements for the site; the motion was seconded by Ms. Hoad. The motion passed by a split, 5-to-3 vote. Commissioners Michael Atkinson, Gail Hoad, Brian Rokyta, Greg Spears, and Mary Ann Wyatt voted to approve the variance and Commissioners John Hyak, Jill Trevino, and Julia Welder voted to deny the variance. 3. Ordinance Revision for the Creation of Design Districts: A proposed amendment to establish design districts by creating Article III, Division 3 of Chapter 21, as well as amendments to Chapter 5, Article XIII and Sections and 12-8 of the City of Victoria Code of Ordinances. a) Staff Report presented by Julie Fulgham Design Districts. This proposed ordinance revision includes amending Chapter 21 to adopt a new article for the purpose of creating Design Districts. This amendment is aimed to raise the quality of development within specific designated areas. The proposed article not only allows for the creation of Design Districts, but also would establish a Design District for the area around the new Placido Benavides Drive. Page 8

12 With the planned construction of Placido Benavides Drive, connecting Navarro and Zac Lentz Parkway/Loop 463, hundreds of acres will be more readily available for development due to this planned primary arterial roadway. The design for Placido Benavides Drive includes a boulevard design constructed out of concrete with an 8-foot hike and bike trail as well as enhanced lighting. Additionally, underground utilities are planned. The significant investment in the Placido Benavides Drive corridor is proposed to be carried throughout the area by setting higher development standards. These proposed development standards would match the high level of roadway corridor design throughout the large undeveloped areas fronting Placido Benavides Drive. This area is a blank canvas and staff believes by setting higher standards, this blank canvas could become a premier area of Victoria. The proposed ordinance creates design districts and sets standards for underground utilities, requires all off-street storage and display to meet the pavement standards in Section (without allowing exceptions), prohibits manufactured homes, and does not grant landscaping credits for any landscaping provided in the public right-of-way. The proposed ordinance also sets sign standards within any designated design district. Lastly, designating design districts are an important part of the City s Right-of-Way Management Ordinance, which is part of Chapter 20 of the City of Victoria Code of Ordinances. By designating areas as design districts, the City can better regulate wireless facilities (defined by the Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 284, as micro network nodes, network nodes, node support poles and sometimes referred to as small cells), as allowed by recent state legislation that went into effect last September. Staff recommends approving these amendments to City Code finding the creation of design districts is supported by the Strategic Action Priorities outlined in the Plan 2035, Victoria s Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Strategic Action Priorities are:.measures to promote quality development in Victoria; and Community image/appearance initiatives in conjunction with expanded tourism promotion. Mr. Atkinson asked how the City arrived at the border of this area. Ms. Fulgham replied there were only four (4) property owners with large tracts and they provided indication to the City they did not plan to develop but would rather sell to developers. Mr. Atkinson asked if every single property owner had been notified. Ms. Fulgham stated no notifications had been done for the Planning Commission meeting but the City could do so before the City Council meeting. Mr. Atkinson further stated, I think they have a right to know how their property is going Page 9

13 to be controlled by the government. Ms. Trevino stated she felt we all had a right to an area that has high quality development. She could not see how this would inhibit their land and if anything would bring up the value of their land. Ms. Trevino thinks it could increase the value of the properties. Ms. Welder stated the resale value of their land is nothing but improved. Ms. Fulgham showed examples of what the design district would look like. Ms. Fulgham stated the State has passed legislation that requires cities to allow cell companies to place small cells, which can be the size of a small refrigerator, within the City right of way. The City can only regulate those in certain ways and has chosen to do that. However, by adopting an area as a design district, the City can further regulate these types of small cells. The City will probably see our first one somewhere off Guy Grant in the next few months. b) Public Hearing E: OTHER BUSINESS There was no public comment regarding the Ordinance Amendments or Additions. c) Ordinance Amendments Deliberations and Action A motion to approve the Ordinance revision was made by Ms. Trevino. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hoad. Motion was passed unanimously by the Commissioners. 1. Discussion regarding potential future amendments to Article II, Division 2, Section 21-54(e) of Chapter 21, specifically regarding sidewalks. Ms. Fulgham explained to the Commissioners that City Council had requested the Planning Commission have a discussion as to when the City should require sidewalks. Currently, our code requires if you need a site plan then you must bring that site up to compliance and that will trigger the sidewalk requirement. A site plan is triggered anytime there is additional parking is added, a new building, or an addition is added to a site. Ms. Fulgham explained after further discussion with the councilman who requested the discussion, the City would have the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) committee address the sidewalk requirements as far as the details. However, Council feels it could be beneficial to those on the committee to know how the Commission feels when sidewalks are required. Most cities require sidewalks with platting, but even the ones that do require it with platting, even if a property was platted many years ago and is going to be replatted it would then trigger a sidewalk. It is similar to what the City currently does with site plans. Ms. Trevino stated that our code is good and people can ask for variances and we ve seen this. Ms. Welder inquired as to what brought this about. Page 10

14 Ms. Fulgham replied it is about the fairness of the overall application. After further discussion it was agreed that the UDO committee will address this issue and bring it back to the Commission. 2. Development Services Monthly Development Report was presented by Ms. Menchaca. 3. Texas Open Meeting Act Training Ms. Fulgham reminded the Commission that it is very important that you complete this training on-line and forward the certificate to Ms. Fulgham or the City Secretary. 4. American Planning Association, Texas Chapter 2018 Conference will be held October in Galveston. Early registration opens July 1, If you are interested please contact Development Services office. F: ITEMS FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONERS G: ADJOURNMENT Mr. Spears adjourned the meeting at 6:38pm. APPROVED: APPROVED: Greg Spears, Chairperson Victoria Planning Commission James Johnson, Secretary Victoria Planning Commission Page 11

15 Agenda Item #: D-1 July 19, 2018 CASE: 1. Variance to Section 5-149(A)(1)(a)(2) Permanent Signs; On-Premise Signs which states the maximum cumulative area of freestanding signs shall not exceed one square foot for each linear foot of public street frontage, or 500 square feet, whichever is less. Location: Land Use: Applicant(s): Staff Contact: 7305 N. Main Street legally described as a 5.9-acre tract part of The Texas Subdivision, Block 1, Lot 1. Commercial (C-1) Mark Pullin (Agent) on behalf of Brian Dlugosch (Owner). Celeste Menchaca, Planner LOCATION MAP:

16 Agenda Item #: D-1 Pg. 2 BACKGROUND: The subject property is a 5.9 acre tract located at 7305 N. Main Street. The property sits at the corner of N. Main Street and NW Zac Lentz Parkway Frontage Road W. The property is currently being developed into a commercial convenient store with fueling pump stations. The owner would like to place two (2) permanent freestanding on-premise signs on the property. Commercial businesses who place permanent freestanding on premise signs shall not exceed one (1) square foot for each linear foot of frontage the property has along public streets, or 500 square feet, whichever is less, of cumulative area for freestanding signs on their property. The subject property has linear feet of frontage along N. Main Street and 505 linear feet of frontage along NW Zac Lentz Parkway Frontage Road W for a combined total of 1, linear feet of frontage for the whole property. Based on the Section 5-149(A)(1)(a)(2) the owner would only be allowed to have maximum cumulative area of 500 square feet of signage. The first of two signs the property owner is proposing is to construct a two (2) pole sign to be placed in the front of the property along N. Main Street that is 30 6 feet tall and has a total square footage of 217 square feet. The proposed second sign will be a single pole, high rise sign, approximately 50 feet tall with a total square footage of and is proposed to be oriented towards NW Zac Lentz Parkway Frontage Road W. The total cumulative area for these two proposed signs is square feet, which is square feet more than the maximum allowed cumulative area of signage any single site is allowed. Additionally, there is a pending application for a billboard, which is in compliance with the sign code, on this property. The proposed variance would allow the property owner to erect two (2) permanent freestanding on-premise signs with a cumulative area over 500 square feet totaling square feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the variance request for the additional square footage to the on-premises signs. While there is no set criteria for the Planning Commission to evaluate sign variances against, unlike other variance requests, staff believes there are no adequate reasons for approving this variance. This property is similar to many properties within the City of Victoria and denying the variance will maintain the uniform and orderly development of the City by limiting all properties within the City to a maximum cumulative area of 500 square feet. The current sign ordinance was adopted in August of 2014 and the standard for the maximum amount of square footage for any one property was established by the community at that time and no variances have been granted since then to allow signage over the maximum standards set by the community. The property owner may reduce each proposed sign, for a maximum cumulative area of 500 square feet and have adquate signage that is no smaller than elsewhere in the City. Attachments: 1) Variance Application 2) Variance Request Letter with Supporting Documents

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32 Agenda Item #: D-2 July 19, 2018 CASE: 1. Variance to Section Off-street parking requirements, general which requires at the time any building, use, or structure is initiated, erected, enlarged or converted from one land use to another land use which requires an increase in the number of parking spaces, off-street parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with these regulations for the use of occupants, employees, visitors and patrons. Location: 507 N. Vine Street legally described as Victoria Part of Lot 4 Block 58. Land Use: Applicant(s): Staff Contact: Single-Family Residential (R-1) Lascena Milner and Dr. Matthew Simmons (Owners) Celeste Menchaca, Planner LOCATION MAP:

33 Agenda Item #: D-2 Pg. 2 BACKGROUND: The subject property is located at 507 N. Vine Street and was developed into a single-family residential lot with a primary home, pool, and pool house on the lot. The residential lot currently has two (2) off-street residential parking spaces on the property. The residential parking area is located in between the primary home and pool house. The current owners of the property would like to open a commercial retail boutique in the pool house. The City of Victoria does not have zoning within its city limits, however the City does have codes and regulations in which commercial businesses must abide by. When a new commercial business opens; the business must provide the minimum off-street parking spaces required by the code for the intended use. The proposed commercial use for the pool house is a retail boutique. A retail boutique must provide one (1) off-street parking space per 250 square feet gross floor area. Based on the proposed layout of the boutique submitted by the owner, the boutique would require a minimum of three (3) off-street parking spaces with one (1) of the off-street parking space being a dedicated handicapped parking space. Single-family residential uses are required to provide two (2) off-street parking spaces according to the City code. The subject is in compliance with this regulation; however, by converting the pool house into a retail boutique, the property owner is changing the use of the pool house from a residential accessory structure into a commercial business and off-street parking must be provided in accordance with the adopted regulations prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being granted for a commercial business at this location. With the addition of the retail boutique in the pool house, the lot will become mixed use lot: with both residential and commercial uses located on it. When a lot is deemed mixed use, parking requirements for each separate use located on the lot must be met. Based on the proposed plans submitted by the owners, a minimum of five (5) off-street parking spaces must be provided to support both uses of the property and comply with the adopted regulations. The City is aware the property at one-time housed a home-based business, which is generally described as a business with limited use and on an appointment bases and is incidental and subordinate to the primary use of a property as a residential property. At various times, this home-based business was non-compliant and in violation of the Code and grew to become a nuisance to the neighborhood by obstructing the public streets with on-street parking to support its non-complaint business. At that time, the Building Official made code enforcement attempts to bring the property into compliance and eventually, the non-compliant business relocated to a bigger space which could support its clientele and parking needs. The City does allow for some commercial businesses to utilize on-street parking to count towards their required parking requirements if the business is located within the Downtown Business District (Section 21-92a). Additionally, the Director of Development Services may reduce the parking requirements for historic structures (Section 21-92(b)(7)). The proposed retail boutique is located within the Original Townsite Historic District, but it is not located within the within the Downtown Business District nor is it being located in a historic structure, and, therefore, does not meet any criteria in which the property would be exempt from any required off-street parking. The owners are requesting a variance to Section 21-92, which requires at the time any building, use, or structure is initiated, erected, enlarged or converted from one land use to another land use which requires an increase in the number of parking spaces, off-street parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with these regulations for the use of occupants, employees, visitors and patroons. If the owners do not provide

34 Agenda Item #: D-2 Pg. 3 the required off-street parking for both the residential use and the commercial use, they cannot be granted their certificate of occupancy. If the variance is granted, the owners will be allowed to open their commercial business and obtain their Certificate of Occupancy without having to provide off-street parking and on-street parking could be utilized by patrons. GENERAL DESCRIPTION: INFRASTRUCTURE: Water: Water service is being provided by an existing 8 line located in Stayton Avenue. Sewer: Streets: Sanitary sewer service is being provided by an existing 8 line located in Stayton Avenue. Vine Street Local Street Stayton Avenue Local Street Drainage: Drainage is in accordance with the master drainage plan of the City of Victoria. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the denial of the variance of waiving the off-street parking requirement for this commecial retail boutique finding it does not meet the criteria established in Section for granting variances: 1) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public safety, health, or welfare, or be injurious to surrounding property; 2) The granting of the variance is not based on a hardship which is self-imposed; 3) The hardship is not based solely on the cost of complying with the regulation; 4) The granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly development of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this chapter; and 5) There are special or unique circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that the strict application of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the property. This property is located within a primarly residential area, with an existing legally non-conforming dance studio located one block east of the subject property. The introduction of additional non-residential on-street parking has the potential to negatively impact the surrounding residential neighborhood. The City of Victoria does not have locational requirements for businesses, but has established development standards so that businesses do not negatively impact the public right-of-way, are developed in such a way so as to accommodate the commercial activity located on the site, and do not negatively impact surrounding properties. Attachments: 1) Variance Application 2) Variance Request Letter with Supporting Documents

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63 Minor Plat Development Services Monthly Development Report Jun-18 Name Address Owner(s) Agent Land Use Acreage Date 1 Juarez Subdivision No Pleasant Green Alfred Juarez Jr. and Yurii R Lozada Milton Bluhm R /11/2018 Major Plat Name Address Owner(s) Agent Land Use Acreage Date Site Plans Name Address Owner(s) Agent Land Use Acreage Date Jun-18 City Council Action PC Recommendation Council Action Land Use Codes: R-6 Manufactured Home Residential

64 City of Victoria Monthly Actvity Report Jun-18 Fiscal YTD - 9th month of year Jun-17 Description Total # Valuation (rounded) Total # Valuation (rounded) Total # Valuation (rounded) Residential Single Family 6 $ 881, $ 9,037, $ 1,114, RMH Placement 5 $ 174, $ 1,477, $ 131, Res Multi. Family 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - Res Add/Repairs 134 $ 1,010, ,173 $ 31,382, $ 405, Comm. New Constr 1 $ 330, $ 2,830, $ - Comm. Add/Repair 61 $ 4,240, $ 43,554, $ 1,115, Signs 11 $ 275, $ 957, $ 80, Other 48 $ 169, $ 747, $ 237, Plan Reviews 4 $ - 32 $ - 5 $ - TOTAL: 270 $7,082, ,312 $89,985, $3,086, M.E.P. Permits Issued Jun-18 Fiscal YTD - 9th month of year Jun-17 Total Total Total Electrical Permits 65 Electrical Permits 609 Electrical Permits 42 Mechanical Permits 79 Mechanical Permits 400 Mechanical Permits 57 Plumbing Permits 47 Plumbing Permits 488 Plumbing Permits 45 TOTAL: 191 TOTAL: 1,497 TOTAL: 144 Permit Fees Collected Jun-18 Fiscal YTD - 9th month of year Jun-17 Total Total Total Building $ 36, Building $ 654, Building $ 18, Electrical $ 4, Electrical $ 53, Electrical $ 4, Mechanical $ 6, Mechanical $ 47, Mechanical $ 4, Plumbing $ 2, Plumbing $ 41, Plumbing $ 3, License Fee $ 5, License Fee $ 90, License Fee $ 4, Plan Review Fees $ Plan Review Fees $ 11, Plan Review Fees $ 1, Misc. Fees $ 1, Misc. Fees $ 30, Misc. Fees $ 3, TOTAL: $58, TOTAL: $929, TOTAL: $40,506.00