[00:03:38]
GOOD AFTERNOON. WE'RE GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. WE'VE ESTABLISHED A QUORUM.
[1. Call Meeting To Order, Establish Quorum]
PLEASE RISE FOR PRAYER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.LET US PRAY. GOD OUR FATHER, WE THANK YOU FOR HAVING CALLED US TOGETHER.
THAT WE MAY HUMBLY SERVE YOU AT THIS MEETING.
[A. Prayer]
SEND YOUR HOLY SPIRIT UPON US AND REMAIN PRESENT AMONG US, AND LEAD US IN THE CONVERSATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS WE WILL HAVE.BLESS OUR WORDS AND THOUGHTS WITH HOLINESS, THAT WE MAY BE INSTRUMENTS OF YOUR GRACE.
AMEN. AMEN. PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.
ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR
[B. Pledge of Allegiance]
ALL. YOU CAN STILL DO THAT.OKAY. OKAY. WE HAVE A CERTIFICATION OF PUBLIC NOTICE.
YES, SIR. MISTER CHAIRMAN, STAFF DID NOTIFY THE PUBLIC AS PER THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT ON FRIDAY, JULY THE 3RD AT 5 P.M..
[00:05:01]
THANK YOU. PUBLIC COMMENTS.[2. Certification of Public Notice]
PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. IF YOUR PRESIDENT DESIRES TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE NOTIFY THE CHAIRPERSON PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING. A SPOKESPERSON FOR LARGE GROUPS IS REQUIRED.WE ASK FOR EVERYONE'S COOPERATION IN FOLLOWING THESE PROCEDURES.
WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER PUBLIC OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
[3. Disclosure of Conflict of Interest]
OH, YEAH. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST, COMMISSIONER? NONE. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER EXCUSING THE ABSENCE OF COMMISSIONER MEMBER RODOLFO[4. Meeting Procedures]
RUDY RAMIREZ FROM THE JUNE 26TH, 2020 REGULAR MEETING.MOVE TO APPROVE. SECOND, EVERYBODY IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANY OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES.
WE'LL CONSIDER THE EXCUSING THE ABSENCE OF CHAIRPERSON JORGE SOTELO FROM THE JUNE 26TH, 2020 REGULAR MEETING. MOVE TO APPROVE.
EVERYBODY IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. PRETTY OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES.
[A. All the items are generally considered as they appear on the agenda as each item]
NOW WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE JUNE 26TH, 2025 REGULAR MEETING. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CHANGE ON LETTER[B. Staff will present its findings and recommendation on the item being]
[C. The party making the request may make a presentation and may address the]
[D. Anyone in the audience desiring to speak in favor or in opposition may do so.]
EIGHT G. IT SAYS UNANIMOUSLY THAT SHOULD BE STRICKEN.OKAY. MOTION IS TO MAKE THAT WITH A CHANGE.
[7. MINUTES]
OKAY. I GOT A SECOND. I'LL SECOND.ALL RIGHT, EVERYBODY, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES.
WE'RE GOING TO GO TO ITEM EIGHT A.
WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM AUTO URBAN USES TO MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES.
AND THE REZONING REQUESTS FROM RESIDENTIAL PRIMARY DISTRICT TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT, BEING THE SOUTH HALF OF LOT 11 AND THE SOUTH HALF OF LOT 12,
[8. PUBLIC HEARINGS]
[A. Consider the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Auto-Urban Uses to Multi-Family]
BLOCK 1298. ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF EDINBURG, HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS, LOCATED AT TWO 221 WEST VAN STREET.STEPH. GOOD EVENING, ALEX GONZALEZ.
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT.
SO THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED OVER HERE ON THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH NINTH AVENUE AND WEST VAN WEEK. THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL PRIMARY DISTRICT, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO GO TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
THE FUTURE LAND USE FOR THIS PROPERTY IS OTHER URBAN USES.
WE MAILED OUT NOTIFICATIONS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS, AND WE DID RECEIVE ONE NOTIFICATION AGAINST AFTER THE REPORT WAS PREPARED.
CURRENTLY, THERE IS AN EXISTING HOME AT THIS LOCATION.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING HOME AND TO BUILD A DUPLEX HERE.
THIS REQUEST WAS TABLED AT THE JUNE 12TH, 2025 MEETING.
THEY HAVE. THEY DID SUBMIT A NEW PLANS THIS AFTERNOON.
THERE SHOULD BE A COPY THERE NEXT TO NEXT TO YOUR PACKET.
WE ARE RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THIS REQUEST BASED ON ADJACENT ZONING.
THE FUTURE LAND USE. AND THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PRESENT.
THE OTHER ONES THAT ARE AROUND THERE WERE DONE MANY YEARS AGO.
SO THOSE THERE WE DO HAVE SOME MULTIFAMILY ACROSS THE STREET.
CORRECT. RIGHT OVER HERE IN ORANGE.
I BELIEVE THEY DO HAVE A FOURPLEXES HERE.
PREEXISTING. DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG AGO THAT WAS? THOSE WERE DONE. THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT WAS DONE FAIRLY RECENTLY, BUT THEY DID HAVE THE ZONING IN PLACE FOR A WHILE NOW.
AT THIS TIME. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS. YOU WANT TO STEP UP TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE, AND STATE YOUR NAME. MY NAME IS IVAN JANOS. I'M GOING TO BE THE BUILDER.
GOOD EVENING COUNCIL. MY NAME IS CHRISTOPHER LOZANO. IF I MAY, I JUST WANT TO SHOW YOU GUYS.
THANK YOU. SIR. IF I MAY, THIS.
IT WON'T BE A DUPLEX LIKE APARTMENT.
IT WILL BE MORE OF A TOWNHOME SITUATION.
BUT THERE IS A FOUR PLEX BEING BUILT.
STILL BEING BUILT LIKE TWO STREETS DOWN THAT I THINK SHE JUST MENTIONED.
I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT ADDRESS, BUT MR., IS IT STILL GOING TO HAVE A COMMON WALL BETWEEN IT? YES. IT WILL HAVE A COMMON WALL.
AND IT'S A DUPLEX. SO I MEAN THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THAT'S ALL THAT CAN FIT ON THE PROPERTY.
[00:10:03]
A QUESTION FOR STAFF. LIKE WHAT WERE Y'ALL'S CONCERNS? I MEAN, THERE'S SOME MULTIFAMILY AROUND IT IN MY OPINION WITH REGARDS TO WAS IT JUST THE LOT SIZE OR. WELL, SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAD WAS THAT WE WANTED IT TO BE WE HAD OFFERED THE OPTION TO DO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ADU, BUT THEY WANTED TO SEPARATE IT AND HAVE INDIVIDUAL UNITS WITH THEIR OWN METERS.THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE IS THAT IF YOU APPROVE IT, IT DOESN'T MEET THE MINIMUM 8000FT² OF YOUR TYPICAL MULTIFAMILY LOT.
IF YOU APPROVE IT, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE TELLING US THAT THEY COULD ONLY DO TWO, THEY CAN COME BACK AFTER THEY GOT THE REZONING AND DO MORE.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE KIND OF LEANING TOWARDS STILL DENYING THIS REQUEST.
THEY CAN TRY TO DO MORE, BUT BUT THE CITY WOULD, WOULD STILL PUSH THE THE REQUIREMENTS.
CORRECT. SO THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO FIT MORE. CORRECT. WELL THEY COULD FIT THREE ON THE DENSITY. BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THIS LOT.
YEAH. WELL, I MEAN, YEAH, THE APARTMENTS WOULD I THINK WOULD BE REALLY SMALL. SO, YEAH, I MEAN, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO WAS WAS ANOTHER CONCERN MAYBE THAT NOW IF WE DO THIS, THEN YOU'RE SETTING ANOTHER PRESIDENT PRECEDENT WHERE SMALLER LOTS ARE GOING TO BE WANTING TO COME IN. SMALLER LOTS ARE GOING TO WANT TO DO THE SAME THING AND AND TURN IT INTO MULTIFAMILY.
WHEN THE UDC SAYS THAT FUTURE USE MAP SAYS THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES IN THE AREA. THAT'S CORRECT. SO SO ON LOT 11, JAIME ON 10TH AND EVENT WEEK, LOT 11 THAT MULTIFAMILY.
IT IT LOOKS LIKE THE EXACT SAME SIZE AS THIS.
I MEAN, JUST OFF OF THAT LITTLE GRID.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT'S THERE? THE PROPERTY JUST NORTH OF IT.
OKAY. THE CORNER. JUST EAST OF IT.
IT'S. IT'S SINGLE FAMILY AND IT'S YELLOW.
SO IT WOULD BE. NO NO NO NO NO.
SO, EAST. OH, I SEE ON THE OTHER BLOCK.
YEAH. ON THE OTHER BLOCK. BACK ACROSS THE STREET.
IT'S. I MEAN, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT IT HAS APARTMENTS. YEAH.
ACROSS THE STREET. THE OWNER HAS FOUR TOWNHOMES AS WELL.
CATTY CORNER, CATTY CORNER TO THIS PROPERTY.
IT'S IDENTIFIED AS A FEW YEARS, A FEW YEARS BACK.
IT'S IDENTIFIED AS RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY ORANGE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THAT, WHICH IS NUMBER SEVEN AND NUMBER SIX AND NUMBER FIVE.
ALL THOSE ACROSS THE STREET OF NUMBER 12.
DO YOU SEE THAT THE NET ON LOT SIX AND SEVEN.
SEPARATELY. OF THOSE LOTS ARE 50 BY 142, WHICH IS THE ORIGINAL COUNCIL, RIGHT? THIS OTHER 111 AND 12.
THE SECOND PROPERTY IS 12, SIR.
YOU'RE NOT? YEAH. IT'S 100 BY 71.
OKAY. AND THE REASON FOR THE DENIAL WAS BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OR BECAUSE OF THE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LOT. OKAY.
BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE SETBACKS, WHETHER VAN WYCK OR NINTH IS THE FRONT THERE'S NO POSSIBLE WAY FOR US TO ADD A THIRD UNIT TO IT.
IT WOULD ONLY FIT TWO BAYS ON ON CITY RESTRICTIONS AND CODES.
WHETHER 20 FOOT REAR SETBACK ON EITHER WAY, IT FACES OR 10TH.
WE STILL NEED A 18 INCH DRIVEWAY TO 20 PLUS A 25 FOOT FRONT SETBACK.
SO I DON'T SEE HOW THERE WOULD BE ANY POSSIBLE WAY FOR US TO ADD A THIRD UNIT.
A DUPLEX WOULD BE THE MOST THAT WE'D BE ABLE TO DO HERE. SO THEY'RE REQUIRING A THIRD UNIT OR THEY CAN'T DO A DUPLEX THERE.
WE ONLY WANT TO DO A DUPLEX, BUT THEIR REBUTTAL IS THAT WE MIGHT ADD AN ADDITIONAL ONE. BUT THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE.
YEAH, BUT IT HAS TO GO THROUGH PLANNING.
NOW ANOTHER THING IS THAT WE WE WE HAD ASKED FOR THE SITE PLAN OF WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE POSSIBLY BUILDING A WHILE BACK.
SO WHEN WE WROTE THE WRITE UP, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO GO BY.
SO HOW DO YOU SEE IT NOW? DID YOU HAVE IT? IT HAS THE.
IT HAS THE CARS BACKING UP INTO THE STREET.
THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S IT'S A DUPLEX.
BUT IF YOU IF YOU LOOK AT THE DRIVEWAY, IT KIND OF HAS LIKE A GARAGE AND CARS BACKING OUT INTO THE STREET. YEAH WE DO.
OH, IT DOESN'T HAVE A TURNAROUND. IT DOESN'T HAVE A TURNAROUND. NO. ON THE SITE PLAN. WE DO HAVE A WHAT YOU DO THIS HERE.
YOU GOT TO BE OVER AT THE SOD.
ALL THAT GRASS NEEDS TO BE CONCRETE.
YES, WE DO HAVE IT ON THE SITE PLAN.
RIGHT, RIGHT. SO THAT YOU CAN COME OUT THIS WAY INSTEAD OF HAVING THAT GRASS.
YOU SEE ALL THAT WOULD BE THROUGH YOUR STAFF PLANNING AND ALL THAT.
BUT AS FAR AS SQUARE FOOTAGE, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD THIS IN THAT LOCATION WITH JUST AS LONG AS YOU CHANGE THE DESIGN.
IS WHAT I'M HEARING, RIGHT? CORRECT. ON THE SITE PLAN, THERE IS A BACKUP FOR THE BACKUP.
OH, THERE'S A REAR PARKING OR SOMETHING ON THE SIDE.
[00:15:02]
SIDE, SIDE? YEAH, IT'S.OH, IT'S NOT SHOWING. THAT'S JUST FOR A RENDER. THAT'S FOR CONCEPT PURPOSES. HERE YOU HAVE A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS THAT YOU DO HAVE A SIDE HE'S CONCERN IS THAT WE DON'T WANT CARS TO REVERSE INTO THE STREET.
CORRECT. IS THERE A WAY THAT YOU CAN DESIGN IT SO IT DOESN'T DO THAT? IS THERE ENOUGH THERE? THEY ARE DESIGNED THAT WAY. OKAY.
DID I GET. SO THIS ONE IS THE FRONT DOOR.
THIS IS IT CORRECT. IT WOULD JUST BE A MATTER OF WHAT THE CITY PREFERS TO IDENTIFY AS THE FRONT. THAT WAY. FROM THERE, WE CAN WORK ON.
BECAUSE THE REAR IN THE FRONT SETBACKS ARE WAY DIFFERENT THAN THE SIDE SETBACKS, OF COURSE. RIGHT. SO WE PROPOSE TWO DIFFERENT OPTIONS.
JUST BASED ON WHAT? YOU GUYS OKAY? YES. YEAH. YEAH. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS? RIGHT NOW, WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT THE AT THE REZONING. OKAY.
REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, I THINK IT'S JUST MORE ABOUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LOT. RIGHT.
AND THAT. AND THAT IT DOESN'T MEET THE CODE.
THAT'S. THAT'S WHAT DOESN'T MEET THE CODE. DOESN'T MEET THE DENSITY REQUIREMENT. WELL, YEAH, IT'S THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
HOW MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE WAS IT? HOW MUCH DIFFERENCE? 900FT². I THINK IT'S WE'RE 900 SHORT.
IT'S ABOUT 900FT², WHICH I STILL BELIEVE WE HAVE ENOUGH SPACE FOR, FOR OUR DETENTION PONDS.
MORE THAN ENOUGH. MORE THAN ENOUGH.
WHICH. THERE SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE.
I MEAN, IS THERE AN ALLEY THERE? THERE'S NO ALLEY BACK? NO.
OKAY. SOMETIMES IN THOSE OLD TOWN LOTS THEY HAD.
YEAH, OLD ALLEYS IN THE BACK THAT MIGHT HAVE GIVEN A LITTLE MORE SPACE.
LET'S SEE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
Y'ALL HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, GUYS? NO, JUST THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. APPRECIATE IT. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? PLEASE STEP UP TO THE PODIUM.
I'M GOING TO GO AND CLOSE THE FLOOR COMMISSION.
ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE A I'LL MAKE A MOTION.
I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO DENY BASED ON ON REQUEST FROM STAFF.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
SO WE HAVE A SECOND. EVERYBODY IN FAVOR? PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ARE YOU OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES.
WE'LL GO TO ITEM NINE A THE VARIANCES.
WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE CITY OF EDINBURGH UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE THREE LOT AND DESIGN STANDARDS SECTION 3.202 STANDARDS FOR NON RESIDENTIAL
[9. VARIANCES]
[A. Consider the Variance Request to the City of Edinburg Unified Development Code, Article]
AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.TABLE 3.202-2 NON RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE BUILDING PLACEMENT STANDARDS.
BEING A 2.393 OF AN ACRE TRACT OF LAND.
ALSO BEING OUT OF LOT TEN LOCATED AT 1102 NORTH BUSINESS HIGHWAY 281 STAFF PLANNER TWO HERE WITH CITY OF EDINBURGH. SO THE PROPERTY HERE IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF NORTH CLOSNER BOULEVARD JUST NORTH OF EAST JUNIOR STREET.
IT CURRENTLY HAS THE LOCATION OF THE RESTAURANT LOS COMALES.
THEY ALSO HAVE A CURRENT EXISTING METAL BUILDING TOWARDS MORE INTO THE PROPERTY.
THEY'RE PROPOSING TO DEVELOP A ONE.
JUST KEEP IT A ONE LOT FOR COMMERCIAL WITH JUST THE FRONTAGE ALONG KLAUSNER.
THEY DID SUBMIT FOR A MINOR PLAT FOR EVELYN SUBDIVISION BACK IN OCTOBER 7TH, 2024. SO WE ARE ALSO PRESENTING THIS AS A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL ON TODAY'S CONSENT AGENDA. DUE TO THE REQUEST OF THE SUBDIVISION VARIANCE.
SO THE THE REQUEST, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS FOR ARTICLE THREE LOT AND DESIGN STANDARDS ON THE TABLE FOR BUILDING PLACEMENT STANDARDS.
THE DEVELOPER IS REQUESTING NOT TO COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK AND HAVE AN ENCROACHMENT RANGING FROM HALF A FOOT TO THREE AND A HALF ON THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, AS WELL AS A 20 FOOT FRONT SETBACK INSTEAD OF A 25 FOOT FRONT SETBACK ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURES. LET ME GO AHEAD AND PULL UP THIS SURVEY RIGHT HERE.
SO THEY'RE REQUESTING TO ALLOW FOR THE REMAINING STRUCTURES.
SO YOU DO SEE THREE PADS ON THE SURVEY? THE FIRST ONE IS A STRUCTURE, THE SECOND IS A CONCRETE PAD, AND THE THIRD ONE IS A IT'S THE SECOND STRUCTURE THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING THE VARIANCE FOR. WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST ON THE EXISTING BUILDINGS.
HOWEVER, WITH THE CONDITION FOR ANY FUTURE BUILDINGS AND OR IMPROVEMENTS,
[00:20:04]
THEY MUST COMPLY WITH THE BUILDING SETBACKS AS PER THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.IS DOES THAT ALSO INCLUDE THAT PAD? BECAUSE IT'S JUST A PAD, RIGHT? CORRECT. IT'S JUST A PAD.
THEY COME IN AND SAY THEY WANT TO BUILD SOMETHING ON THAT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE THEM ADJUST THAT. SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO AND I BELIEVE THE CURRENT PAD ONLY HAS IT'S IT IS ALREADY FROM THE, FROM THE SURVEY.
IT SHOWS THAT IT'S AT SIX FEET.
SO IT WOULD COMPLY EVEN IF THEY WERE TO POSSIBLY BUILD THAT JUST DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE BUILDING ONCE IT GOES THROUGH PERMIT REVIEW AND ALL THAT FIRE AND ALL THAT. THEY WOULD LOOK INTO THAT DEPENDING ON WHAT THE USE IS FOR. THAT ONE WAS ALSO OVER THE SETBACK LINE.
NO, IT WOULD JUST BE THE ACTUAL BUILDINGS.
YES, SIR. OKAY. SO AT THE TIME THEY DO ANYTHING, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET A PERMIT AND THEN THAT PERMIT WOULD GO UNDER REVIEW. SO ANY FUTURE STRUCTURES THAT WERE TO GO UP OR ANY OF THE FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE ACTUAL CODE.
IT WOULD JUST BE FOR THE EXISTING STRUCTURES BEING THEY HAVE THOSE CURRENT STRUCTURES, THE MALES THERE IN THE FRONT ALONG KLAUSNER, AND THEN THE OTHER BUILDING THAT THEY HAVE THERE ON THE REAR. BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT A SURVEY HERE AND IT LOOKS LIKE THAT FOUNDATION IS OVER. THAT SETBACK LINE IS THAT AM I SEEING IT INCORRECTLY THERE.
SO THEY DO HAVE MORE THAN SIX FEET.
YEAH. SO THE PROPERTY LINES ARE MORE SOUTH OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, WHERE THERE'S A DASHED LINE THAT THE SURVEY IS CALLING OUT FOR.
SO THE PROPERTY LINE IS THE IS IS THE IS THE THE DASHED LINE I THOUGHT WAS THE SETBACK LINE. SO THEY HAVE IT IDENTIFIED AS A DIFFERENT SETBACK.
THEY'RE CALLING IT A TEN FOOT SIDE SETBACK ON THE SURVEY.
BUT IT'S NOT. IT'S A IT'S A FIVE FOOT SETBACK FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.
THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. SO THEY HAVE THE CALL OUT ON THE SETBACK WRONG ITSELF. OKAY. SO IF WE LOOK ON THE CONCRETE FOUNDATION THAT THEY HAVE, IT HAS AT 6.06 TO THE ACTUAL PROPERTY LINE.
BUT THE CURRENT SETBACKS FOR THE COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD. FOR WHAT? IT'S ZONED.
IT'S FIVE FEET. OKAY. AND THEN IT'S 25 ALONG THE FRONT.
THEY'RE PROPOSING 20. THAT'S OKAY.
I MEAN, YOU ALL ARE WANTING TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE IT ANYWAY, BUT IT'S JUST FOR THE EXISTING STRUCTURES.
AND WE DO HAVE ALSO WHERE DO THEY WANT TO BUILD THERE, OR DO THEY WANT TO JUST DO PARKING LOT OR WHAT THEY WANT TO DO? THEY ARE TRYING TO DO AN ADDITIONAL BUILDING.
SO ANYTHING YOU KNOW, IT WOULD TRIGGER ANY OF THE PROCESSES, YOU KNOW, DETENTION, LANDSCAPING, PARKING, ANY OF THAT. OF COURSE, OUR DEVELOPMENT TEAM WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT IT AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW. ONCE THEY GO. SO THIS IS TRIGGERING THE PLANNING PROCESS BECAUSE THEY DO HAVE TO GET A PERMIT AND YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT PERMIT WITH ANY IMPROVEMENTS 70FT WIDE.
IT'S YOU CAN IT'S VERY LIMITED TO VERY LIKE WHAT CAN YOU DO THERE.
YOU KNOW 70FT WIDE FOR AT THE BACK, THE BACK AREA.
OR THIS IS NOT FOR TO INCLUDE THE BACK.
THAT SLENDER PROPERTY IN THE BACK.
WHERE THE DITCHES IN THE BACK.
OH, ALL THE WAY TO THE THE REAR.
YEAH. SO ALL THE WAY TOWARDS THE EAST SIDE? YES. SO THAT'S SOMETHING ALSO THE ENGINEER IS LOOKING INTO.
AND WE HAVE THEM HERE PRESENT.
IF THEY'RE GOING TO JUST BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, WHAT THEY'RE FOCUSING ON IS ON THE FRONT ALONG NORTH GLOUCESTER.
ANYTHING TO THE REAR? THERE IS ACTUALLY A PORTION THAT'S STILL A VERY SMALL PORTION THAT'S SINGLE FAMILY AT THE VERY BACK.
SO THEY'RE THINKING THEY MAY ALSO JUST LEAVE THAT PORTION OUT SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO INCLUDE IT AND DO SOME SORT OF DEPENDING.
THEY ALSO MIGHT JUST REZONE THE WHOLE THING WHILE THEY'RE AT IT, DOING THE CURRENT IMPROVEMENTS RIGHT NOW WITH THE PLANNING PROCESS. SO THE REQUEST TODAY IS TO REZONE.
NO, NO, NO, THE REQUEST TODAY IS FOR THE CURRENT STRUCTURES AND THE SITE AND THE ON THE CURRENT STRUCTURES AND THEIR ENCROACHMENTS.
YES. OKAY. WERE THOSE STRUCTURES BUILT WITH PERMITS? WHY WHY ARE THEY ENCROACHING? I WOULD HAVE TO SEE SINCE HOW LONG? THEY PROBABLY WERE NOT BUILT WITH PERMITS. WELL, YOU SEE, THAT'S THE THING. JUST JUST BECAUSE IT'S BUILT NOW, HOW DO YOU JUST APPROVE THINGS THAT BECAUSE THEY WERE, BECAUSE THEY'RE DONE.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF THEY WERE DONE WRONG. IF I MAY GO TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS NOT TO WRITE, IF I MAY. IT IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THOSE BUILDINGS WERE PLACED PRIOR TO OUR CHANGES OF THE UDC. OUR UDC WAS ADOPTED IN 2007, SO WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK BACK TO SEE WHEN THOSE BUILDING PERMITS WERE ISSUED FOR THOSE.
AND THERE WAS A DIFFERENT TYPES OF SETBACKS DEPENDING ON IF BACK THEN THEY WOULD USE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION AS C1, C2.
AND THOSE SETBACKS WERE DIFFERENT.
[00:25:01]
I'VE SEEN ALSO BACK IN THE DAY THAT IN THE C1 ZONING DESIGNATIONS WE'VE HAD ZERO LOT LINE SETBACK ALSO. SO IT'S A POSSIBILITY ENCROACHING INTO THE ZONE OR TO THE OTHER PROPERTY. IT'S ENCROACHING TO THE SETBACK, TO THE SETBACK SETBACK THAT WE CURRENTLY REQUIRE FOR OUR UDC, THE THE EXISTING SET SETBACK.SO CURRENTLY YOU'RE REQUIRED FIVE FEET BASED ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL THEY HAVE.
SO THE ONE ALONG THE FRONT HAS ABOUT THREE FEET, ABOUT 3.5FT, AND THE BUILDING IN THE REAR HAS ABOUT HALF A FOOT, A LITTLE MORE THAN HALF A FOOT.
THE PROPERTY LINE. IS THIS A VARIANCE TO APPROVE AS AS THE WAY IT IS.
AS IS? YES. JUST FOR THOSE TWO STRUCTURES.
THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO DEMO IT OR THEY'RE GOING TO. YEAH. BASED ON WHAT THEY'RE TELLING US AND ON THEIR APPLICATION, THEY'RE STATING BECAUSE OF THE EXPENSES AND BECAUSE OF HOW LONG THEY HAVE BEEN THERE THAT THEY DO NOT WANT THEY DO NOT SEE THAT HAPPENING. THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO DO MORE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SITE, AND THEY CAN'T DO ANY IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT PLOTTING. BUT BECAUSE THEY HAVE THESE EXISTING STRUCTURES, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY GET A VARIANCE FOR WHAT'S THEIR NEW STRUCTURES NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK.
CORRECT. SO JUST BECAUSE THIS ONE IS NOT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE.
CORRECT. SO SO THAT WOULD BE THAT THE CONDITION THIS VARIANCE IS JUST FOR THE EXISTING STRUCTURES. FOR ANY FUTURE STRUCTURES THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY.
IF THE VARIANCE DOES NOT GO THROUGH THEN AT THE TIME THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO GET THE PERMIT, THEN THEIR OTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO DO THE DEMOLITION IN ORDER FOR THEM TO DO THE COMPLETE PLAT PROCESS.
YEAH. OR JUST LEAVE AS IS OR LEAVE AS IS AND AND NEVER DO ANY IMPROVEMENTS ON THE SITE.
THEY COULD DO ANY, LIKE, MINOR REPAIRS OR MAINTAINING.
DID YOU SAY THE ENGINEER WAS HERE OR. YES.
WE DO HAVE THE ENGINEER RECORD HERE. OKAY. DID HE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE HERE? NO.
HELLO. I'M BRIDGET GONZALEZ WITH ATLAS ENGINEERING AND REPRESENTING THE OWNER, BASICALLY, AS SHE HAD MENTIONED THE OWNERS REQUESTING THIS VARIANCE BECAUSE THEY JUST DON'T HAVE THE FUNDS IN ORDER TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING BUILDINGS BECAUSE THEY ARE LIKE RUNNING BUSINESSES. IT'S A RESTAURANT THAT'S BEING USED AND THEN THE METAL BUILDING IS A GYM, COMMERCIAL GYM. SO THEY'RE LIKE THEY'RE BEING THEY'RE IN USE.
AND THE OWNER HAS CONFIRMED THAT THAT OR THEY KNOW THAT IF THEY WANT TO DO LIKE FUTURE STRUCTURES OR FUTURE BUILDINGS THAT IT WON'T BE OBVIOUSLY ON THE SETBACK OR LIKE THEY, THEY KNOW. OKAY. THANK YOU MA'AM.
YEAH. THE ONLY ISSUE I SEE IS, LIKE I MENTIONED, THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT REAR TO BE ABLE TO KEEP UP WITH IT.
I GOT A MOTION. I'LL I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE ON THE EXISTING BUILDINGS WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL FUTURE BUILDINGS AND OR IMPROVEMENTS MUST COMPLY WITH BUILDING ABILITY SETBACKS AS PER THE UDC.
SECOND IN FAVOR? PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
THANK YOU. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS TEN A, TEN B, TEN C AND TEN D. CAN I GET A MOTION? SO MOVED. SECOND. IN FAVOR? PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. OPPOSED.
[10. CONSENT AGENDA]
THANK YOU FOR. GOOD EVENING.BOARD MEMBERS FOR FOR THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT, I WANT TO REPORT ON SOME OF THE CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS OF THE JUNE 17TH MEETING.
[11. DIRECTOR’S REPORT]
WE HAD QUITE A MEETING. WE HAD FOUR ITEMS ON THAT MEETING. FIRST ONE WAS A MULTIFAMILY REZONING REQUEST. THIS WAS AT 1115 SOUTH EIGHTH AVENUE.THIS WAS THE PROPERTY THAT HAD A LARGE HOME ON IT, AND THEY WANTED TO CUT IT UP INTO APARTMENTS.
THERE WAS A LOT OF, A LOT OF OPPOSITION THAT SHOWED UP.
I BELIEVE AT THE PNC MEETING, THERE WAS SOME OPPOSITION.
THEY SHOWED UP EVEN EVEN MORE AT THE AT THE CITY COUNCIL.
PNC DENIED IT. SO DID THE COUNCIL.
AND THE OTHER ONE WAS A COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
REZONING TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL AT 2610 WEST CANTON.
THIS IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CANTERBURY ELEMENTARY.
THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS GRANTED A A REZONING HERE.
A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL WENT TO CITY COUNCIL, AND IT ALSO PASSED. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE SEEING WITH THESE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIALS IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE WANTING TO REZONE TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL.
SO RIGHT NOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE CARPORTS AND WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING AMENDMENTS TO THE UDC.
WE MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER RELAXING A LITTLE ON THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOR
[00:30:04]
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, BECAUSE IT IS 50% OF THE PROPERTY.SO THAT'S HALF OF THE LOT HAS TO BE GREENERY.
SO THEY'RE PUSHING BACK AND SAYING IT'S TOO MUCH.
IS THAT IS THAT PART OF THE UDC OR IS THAT PART OF THE UDC? SO WOULD WE HAVE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THAT OR WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THE UDC IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS AND MAKING SOME CHANGES, PROBABLY LATE IN THE FALL.
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE COULD LOOK AT.
WHAT'S WHAT'S THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS FOR REGULAR GENERAL COMMERCIAL A LOT LESS.
I MEAN, YEAH, BUT THE THING IS IT'S GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND THIS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.
SO THE ONLY THING IS THAT NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TELLS YOU THAT THE ESTHETICS NEED TO RESEMBLE THAT OF A HOME.
THE FACADE NEEDS TO LOOK MORE HOME LIKE.
AND IT NEEDS A LOT MORE LANDSCAPING.
SO I GUESS THEY DON'T MIND THE FACADE PART.
IT'S THE LANDSCAPING PART THAT'S KIND OF KILLING THEM. OKAY.
I WAS JUST SAYING. WELL, IF YOU START REDUCING THE LANDSCAPE, AREN'T YOU GETTING CLOSER TO THE GENERAL? WELL, NO. WE COULD KEEP THE FACADE PART. YEAH.
NOT IF YOU CHANGE THE ESTHETICS OF THE BUILDING. RIGHT. YEAH.
WE CAN STILL KEEP THAT COMPONENT AND JUST RELAX A LITTLE BIT ON ON THE LANDSCAPING.
YOU NEED SOME ADDITIONAL PARKING TYPICALLY ON THOSE.
NOT NOT REALLY. IT'S TYPICALLY LESS BECAUSE WHAT WE SEE IN THOSE TYPES OF BUSINESSES IS LIKE ENGINEERING OFFICES, LAW OFFICES LIKE LOWER SCALE 8 TO 5 TYPE OF BUSINESSES, INSURANCE OFFICES.
YEAH, IT'S IT'S THE ONE THAT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE ONE THAT WAS APPROVED AT CITY COUNCIL.
I DIDN'T REALIZE THEY HAD CONVERTED THAT THING INTO A NAIL SHOP OR SOMETHING.
AND IT'S THE HOUSE THAT IT LOOKS LIKE WAS THERE.
AND. BUT THEY'VE ADDED A WHOLE STRIP OF CONCRETE ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK AND AND ACROSS THE FRONT OF THAT PROPERTY.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE THEY DEFINITELY DIDN'T LEAVE 50% GREEN.
IS THIS THE AREA ON KENTON ACROSS FROM THE MOVIES? YES. WE ARE LOOKING INTO THAT LOCATION.
OH YEAH. BUT THAT IS ZONED COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD BASED OFF OF. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY DID IT WITHOUT PERMIT OR.
WELL, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE LOOKING INTO WITH OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT BECAUSE WE DID RECEIVE A CONCERN.
I ONLY SEE IT BECAUSE I LIVE IN THAT AREA.
SO THERE'S CURRENTLY A LOT IN THAT AREA THAT'S COMING UP FOR AIR OR THAT WAS JUST APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL. SO THAT'S RIGHT.
THAT'S WHAT TRIGGERED US TO KIND OF SAY WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO THERE, RIGHT AT THAT LOCATION, AT THAT LOCATION, AT THE AT THE ONE THAT JUST APPROVED AT CITY.
A WHAT A PLAZA ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? THE THE ONE IN THE CORNER, IT'S THE SAME OWNER, A PLAZA, A LIKE A STRIP MALL? YES. WOW. I DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S GOING TO FIT IN THERE.
IT'S THE SAME SIZE LOT AS THE ONE IN THE CORNER, AND HE'S GOING TO MIRROR IT. HE'S JUST GOING TO FLIP IT. I THINK IT'S HECTOR DOMINGUEZ.
DOMINGUEZ? YEAH. IT'S A BEAUTIFUL HOME THERE.
I DON'T KNOW WHY HE WOULD WANT TO DEMOLISH IT I DON'T KNOW.
SO AND THEN THE NEXT ONE THIS ONE WAS A REZONING OF 16.277 ACRES ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF DAVIS ROAD, JUST WEST OF EXPRESSWAY I-69.
AND WHEN THIS ONE CAME TO PNC, IT WAS TO CHANGE IT FROM AGRICULTURE CULTURE OPEN TO SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL.
IT WAS GOING TO BE HALF ACRE LOTS.
AND BEING THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE FOR SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL, IT JUST MADE SENSE TO APPROVE IT.
PNC APPROVED IT. WHEN IT GOT TO CITY COUNCIL, THERE WAS OPPOSITION. ABOUT 3 OR 4 NEIGHBORS SHOWED UP.
IT DIDN'T HELP THAT THE APPLICANT DIDN'T SHOW UP AND THE ENGINEER DIDN'T SHOW UP.
SO IT WAS MET WITH OPPOSITION AND CITY COUNCIL DENIED THE REZONING REQUEST.
IS THERE ANY WAY FOR THAT TO COME BACK? I MEAN, THEY WOULD HAVE TO WAIT A YEAR FOR US TO RECONSIDER IT. WHAT WAS THAT? WHAT WAS THAT PROPERTY? IT'S THE DAVIS ROAD ON DAVIS ROAD ON THE.
ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE EXPRESSWAY. YEAH, IT WAS A 16 ACRE TRACT OF LAND DOWN THERE, AND I THINK THEY WERE EVEN GOING TO PUT IN A NEW ROAD. THEY WERE EVEN GOING TO WIDEN THE ROAD. WIDEN THE ROAD? WELL, IT WASN'T EVEN GOING TO FRONT DAVIS. I THINK IT WAS GOING TO FRONT THAT STREET SOUTH OF IT.
NO, I THINK ULTIMATELY THEY WANTED TO USE DAVIS.
THEY WANTED THEY WERE GOING TO WIDEN IT ALL THE WAY THROUGH. NO NO, NO. IT'S ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE. TO THE OTHER SIDE. ON THE WEST SIDE.
ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE EXPRESSWAY. YEAH. AND THEN LASTLY THERE WAS A COMMERCIAL GENERAL TO MULTIFAMILY, AND IT WAS COMMERCIAL GENERAL AND RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY.
AND THEY WANTED TO CHANGE IT TO TOWNHOMES. THIS WAS AT 2301 EAST WISCONSIN.
PAST PNC AND IT PASSED THE CITY COUNCIL.
THERE WAS NO ISSUES HERE. AND FINALLY, I WANT TO PRESENT CLARENCE CRUZ JUNIOR.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE NOTICED HIM, BUT HE'S BEEN HERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME NOW, AND I'VE FAILED TO PRESENT HIM FORMALLY TO THE PNC BOARD.
BUT CLARENCE IS AN EDINBURGH BOY.
HE'S A NATIVE HERE FROM EDINBURGH.
HE WENT TO BOBCATS. HE PLAYED FOOTBALL WITH THE BOBCATS.
AND THEN HE'S A GRADUATE FROM THE VAQUEROS, AREN'T YOU?
[00:35:03]
ALL RIGHT, SO HE WE STOLE THEM FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT.HE MADE HIS HIS MOVE A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.
AND HE'S BEEN HERE FOR A LITTLE BIT OVER A MONTH NOW.
WELCOME, SIR. THANKS, CLARENCE.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SUIT UP FOR THE TEAM HERE. NO.
I GUESS YOU'LL UPDATE US ON THAT MEETING YOU ALL WANT TO HAVE WITH THE RIGHT.
WE SENT OUT SOME EMAILS EARLIER TODAY TO SEE WHAT YOUR SCHEDULES LOOK LIKE.
WE'RE TRYING TO SET SOMETHING UP IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS. SURE.
FOR THE CARPORTS. THE CARPORTS DISCUSSION.
YEAH. APPRECIATE IT. GOT A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
SO MOVED. SECOND. BE IN FAVOR? PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
[12. ADJOURNMENT]
THIS IS ALL. THANKS TO HAVING.ONE OF THOSE IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER.
THE SAME. IT'S JUST DIFFERENT NUMBERS,
BUT IT'S.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.