Aug 16, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission

[Call to Order and Determination of Quorum.]

[00:00:06]

>> PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION TO ORDER.

AND FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO CLAIRE F FAWR Q QUORUM WHICH.

[002 Staff review of the cases that were heard by City Council in the last sixty (60) days.]

ANYONE CITIZENS TO BE HEARD? NO CITIZENS TO BE HEARD.

NEXT ITEM, STAFF REVIEW OF THE CASES THAT WERE HEARD IN THE

LAST 60 DAYS. >> FOUR DIFFERENT BUILDINGS, THEY GOT APPROVED BY 5-0 BY CITY COUNCIL.

4621 PLAINVIEW ROAD DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE ROOF PITCH AND ALLOWING FOR AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN FRONT OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, ALSO APPROVED 5-0 BY COUNCIL, APPROVED 7-0 BY P&Z. THOSE WERE FOR OUR JULY 26TH MEETING DATES. TO THE AUGUST 10, EARTH TONE WELL APPROVED 6-0 BY COUNCIL AND APPROVED 6-0 BY P&Z.

AND LASTLY THE RAILPORT PARKWAY DEVELOPMENT OVER WITH THE GOOGLE DATA CENTER, IN THAT AREA, APPROVED 7-0 BY COUNCIL AND APPROVED 6-0 FOR P&Z. THOSE ARE THE CASES OVER THE

[CONSENT AGENDA]

LAST 60 DAYS. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

WE WILL MOVE DOWN TO CONSENT AGENDA.

WE HAVE TWO ITEMS THERE, ITEM 003 AND 004.

DOES ANYBODY WANT TO REMOVE EITHER ONE OF THOSE? IF NOT, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN IN FAVOR, AYE.

[005 Conduct a public hearing to consider and act upon an ordinance amending the zoning of Lot 3, R. Horton Addition, from Residential three (R-3) to an Urban Village Planned Development for duplex use. The property is located at 403 S. 6th Street. (Case No. Z37-2022-145).]

REGULAR AGENDA. THERE IS A REQUEST TO CONTINUE.

CAN WE MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE?

>> YES. >> MOTION TO CONTINUE.

GO AHEAD AND READ THIS THE THISE RECORD.

CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING OF LOT 3, R. HORTON ADDITION, FROM RESIDENTIAL THREE, R-3, TO AN URBAN VILLAGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR DUPLEX USE.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 403 SOUTH 6TH STREET.

HAVING ENTERED THAT INTO THE RECORD, WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO

CONTINUE THIS UNTIL NEXT MONTH. >> MOTION.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO CONTINUE THIS CASE UNTIL NEXT MONTH. ALL IN FAVOR AYE.

[006 Conduct a public hearing to consider and act upon an ordinance amending the use and development regulations of ±375.68 acres within Planned Development District No. 24 (PD-24) as set forth in Section One (1), Subsection B of Ordinance 2005-43, adopting regulations for temporary placement of storage containers. The property is located at 400 S. Highway 67. (Case No. Z38- 2022-148).]

ITEM 006, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF -- THAT SHOULD BE 27.71 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES, WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 24 AS SET FORTH IN SECTION ONE, SUBSECTION B OF ORDINANCE 2005-43, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR TEMPORARY PLACEMENT OF STORAGE CONTAINERS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 400 SOUTH HIGHWAY 67. AND WE DO HAVE -- WELL, I WILL GO AHEAD AND READ THAT WHEN WE GET TO IT.

GO AHEAD. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN RKS NEXTT CASE THIS EVENING, CASE NO. 6, CASE NO. Z38-2022-148.

FOR A PLANNED DEVEL DEVELOPMENTD AMENDMENT TO,ISTING WALMART.

27.71 ACRES. SORRY FOR THAT TYPO THERE.

AGAIN, THIS IS AN EXISTING WALMART AND THE APPLICANT, WALMART, IS REQUESTING TO AMEND THE EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 24 TO ALLOW FOR THE USE OF STORAGE CONTAINERS ON THE SIGHT FOR A FOUR-MONTH PERIOD, SEPTEMBER TO JANUARY 1ST.

SO I DO WANT TO GIVE SOME CASE HISTORY ON THIS SITE.

I'M SURE YOU GUYS ARE FAMILIAR WITH THIS ALSO.

COUNCIL AS WELL. BACK IN JANUARY OF 2021 LAST YEAR, CITY COUNCIL VOTED 6-1 TO DENY THE PROPOSED SHIPPING CONTAINERS. THIS IS, AGAIN, FOR WALMART.

THEY CAME, GOT DENIED BY COUNCIL.

AT THAT POINT, THRP REQUESTING THEY WEREREQUESTING TO HAVE CONS FROM OCTOBER 12 1 TO DECEMBER 3. WE AT THE TIME AS THE CITY DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING IN PLACE TO REPRESENT REGULATE AND MONITOR THE STORAGE CONTAINERS WITHIN THE CITY.

SO WITH THAT DENIAL BEING 6-1 BY COUNCIL, COUNCIL REQUESTED STAFF TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD, IF YOU WILL, AND COME UP WITH

[00:05:04]

COUNCIL VOTED TO APPROVE THAT ORDINANCE 7-0.

AGAIN, THAT ALLOWED -- THAT WE AMENDED OUR USE TABLE WITHIN OUR CITY ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH ALLOWED FOR SHIPPING AND STORAGE CONTAINERS PER SPECIAL EXCEPTION BY P&Z AND COUNT.

COUNCIL. WE DID WANT TO MAKE NOTE THAT AFTER THAT, WALMART WAS -- DID RECEIVE TWO VIOLATIONS FOR THAT AND THAT WAS FOR SEPTEMBER 20TH, 2021 AND JANUARY 3RD, 2022 FOR THIS YEAR. THEY RECEIVED VIOLATIONS FOR HAVING STORAGE CONTAINERS ON THE PROPERTY WHEN NOT GETTING THEIR PD AMENDMENT APPROVED BY COUNCIL.

WE DO NOTE, ONCE THEY WERE NOTIFIED, THEY DID REMOVE THE STORAGE CONTAINERS OF THE SITE. THE SITE LAYOUT HOW THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO HAVE THE STORAGE CONTAINERS IN THE SITE. OUTLINED IN RED, TWO SECTIONS IN THE REAR, ONE SECTION OVER ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING WHERE THE PHARMACY IS. 20 INDIVIDUAL STORAGE CONTAINERS 40-FOOT LONG LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND EAST SIDES OF THE BUILDING. THAT'S TO STORE ADDITIONAL MERCHANDISE DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON.

THIS IS PROPOSED DURING THE FOUR-MONTH PERIOD, SEPTEMBER TO JANUARY 1ST. AND ROUGHLY IT WILL TAKE UP 800 SQUARE FEET OF STORAGE CONTAINER SPACE ON THE SITE, WHICH EQUIVALENT TO 20 PARKING SPACES. BUT THE APPLICANT IS STILL WELL IN COMPLIANCE OF HAVING SUFFICIENT PARKING FOR THE SITE.

WE DO WANT TO NOTE THAT. AND THE SCREENING FOR THE SITE WILL BE 8-FOOT CONSTRUCTION GRADE FENCING WHICH YOU WILL SEE ON THIS NEXT SLIDE HERE. SO TO THE LEFT IS IMAGE OF THE STORAGE CONTAINER OF WHAT WILL BE PROVIDED ON THE SITE AND THEN OVER TO THE RIGHT IS EIGHT-FOOT CONSTRUCTION GRADE FENCING, PRIMARILY CHAIN-LINK FENCING WRAPPED WITH WALMART MATERIAL THERE OUTLINED IN BLUE. WE DO WANT TO NOTE THAT THE CURRENT PD, AGAIN, DOES NOT ALLOW FOR ANY OUTSIDE STORAGE UNLESS APPROVED BY P&Z AND CITY COUNCIL WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT IS COMING TO YOU GUYS AND ULTIMATELY S CITY COUNL FOR. THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF ORDINANCE 2021-77 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SECTION 1-C OF THAT ORDINANCE.

AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT THAT SAYS, I CAN READ TO YOU GUYS, OR I CAN SUM IT UP. BUT IT SAYS THAT STORAGE CONTAINERS SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY IDENTIFIED PER SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A TIME PERIOD NO MORE THAN 90 DAYS WHICH IS ROUGHLY EQUIVALENT TO THREE MONTHS.

THE APPLICANT CAN GET AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS, WHICH IS 120 DAYS WITH THE EXTENSION APPROVAL REQUEST FROM CITY COUNCIL.

SO FOR FOUR-MONTH PERIOD, MAXIMUM LOOKING JUST OVER 120 DAYS, AROUND 122 DAYS. AND SO, AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS BUILDING TO MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT ORDINANCE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THAT ONE. HOWEVER, THE EXTENSION WILL JUST BE ROUGHLY TWO TO THREE DAYS OVER THE MAXIMUM LIMIT.

HOWEVER, STAFF DOES BELIEVE THAT THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL ORDINANCE 2021-77. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL PER STAFF COMMENTS. THAT AGAIN ALL STORAGE CONTAINERS MEET THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 1C OF ORDINANCE 2021-77 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SECTION 1C9.

THAT'S THE STATEMENT NAY JUST READ TO YOU GUYS.

COMMENT NO. 2, STORAGE CONTAINERS ARE ALLOWED ON THE SITE NO EARLIER THAN SEPTEMBER 1ST AND NO LATER THAN JANUARY 1ST, PENDING COUNCIL APPROVAL.

ALL APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE 2005-43, THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE, REQUIRED TO BE ADHERED TO.

EVERYTHING FROM LANDSCAPING, SCREENING, JUST OVERALL AESTHETICS OF THE SITE. SO PRIMARILY WITH THAT WE DO WANT TO NOTE THAT LANDSCAPING WE NOTICE ON THE SITE, SOME ISLANDS MISSING TREES OR DEAD TREE POSSIBLY.

AND SO THIS IS AN IMAGE OF WHAT WE EXPECT TO SEE.

THE APPLICANT, WE DO WANT TO NOTE, THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO GO BACK AND CORRECT ALL OF THOSE CHANGES AND SO, AGAIN, THAT'S SOMETHING WE DID WANT TO NOTE.

STAFF IS, AGAIN, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL PER THOSE COMMENTS

BEING MET BY THE APPLICANT. >> QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

>> ONLY QUESTION I HAD, WHEN YOU SAID SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, YOU ARE TALKING, THIS WILL BE TO A SUP PROCESS?

>> SO RIGHT NOW, THIS REQUEST IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT

[00:10:05]

THEY ORIGINALLY WERE DENIED 6-1 AND COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO COME BACK WITH A WAY THAT THE CITY CAN HELP REGULATE STORAGE AND SHIPPING CONTAINERS WITHIN THE CITY.

WE CAME BACK NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR, 2021, WITH THAT ORDINANCE THAT AMENDED THE USE CHART WITHIN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWED FOR STORAGE AND SHIPPING CONTAINERS WITH SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. DUE TO THIS BEING AN EXISTING PD, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO AMEND THE PD.

HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT IS STILL WILLING TO MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THAT ORDINANCE 2021-77 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ITEM NO. 9 WHICH MENTIONED THAT MAXIMUM OF 90 DAYS WITH A POSSIBLE 30-DAY EXTENSION APPROVAL BY COUNCIL BE ALLOWED. HOWEVER, WITH THE FOUR MONTH PERIOD, APPLICANT MAY GO OVER JUST OVER 120 DAYS, AND SO THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING NOT TO

MEET. >> SO IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE WAY THE SHIPPING CONTAINERS WOULD WORK, I MAY HAVE -- IT MAY NOT APPLY WITH THIS SITUATION.

SHIPPING CONTAINERS WOULD BE ADDED IN A SUP PROCESS.

WAS THAT ONLY FOR MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT PROCESS, THAT DID NOT INCLUDE THIS RETAIL DISTRICT.

MY NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE, NOW THAT MR. LESLIE HAS STRAIGHTENED ME OUT, IF -- ONCE THIS AMENDMENT IS MADE, IT WILL PROVIDE A CONTINUANCE OR ALLOWANCE WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS AGAIN, BECAUSE IT WILL BE AMENDED INTO THEIR PD

ARRANGEMENT? >> SO TECHNICALLY IT WOULD BE LIKE THAT. HOWEVER, WITH THE PER ORDINANCE 2021-77 -- I APOLOGIZE, I SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED THESE 12 ITEMS WITHIN THIS PRESENTATION. HOWEVER, ONE OF THE ITEMS STIPULATES THAT ALL SHIPPING, STORAGE CONTAINERS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE PROPERTY ON OR BEFORE THE LAST DATE IDENTIFIED IN THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. IN THIS CASE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, FOR PLACEMENT OF CONTAINERS ON THE PROPERTY.

SO AGAIN, IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THAT 120 DAYS EXTENSION -- OR 120 TOTAL DAYS ALLOWED.

AND SO WHAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT, IF YOU GUYS AND ULTIMATELY COUNCIL APPROVES THIS, WE CAN STATE THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN OR ORDINANCE 2021-77 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THAT, THAT ALSO INCLUDES THAT ON THE LAST DATE APPROVED, IN THIS CASE IS SEPTEMBER 1 TO DECEMBER 31ST OF EVERY YEAR, IT SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE.

>> I DON'T HAVE A -- I GET ALL THAT.

I KNOW THEY ARE IN A TIME CRUNCH FOR ACCEPTANCE AND REMOVAL.

WILL THEY BE COMING BACK IN 2023 TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXCEPTION OF WANTING TO DO IT AGAIN. OR BECAUSE IT IS BEING PLACED IN THE PD, THEN THEY JUST GET TO DO IT EVERY SINGLE YEAR AS LONG AS THEY FIT WITHIN THE TIME. THAT'S MY QUESTION.

>> RIGHT. >> KIND OF LIKE IF YOU HAVE A A SUP, THEN TO ADD OR CHANGE IT REQUIRES A NEW SUP EACH TIME.

I'M WONDERING IF WE HAVE CONSIDERED THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE WITHIN THE PD AND ONCE THEY DO IT THE FIRST TIME, THEY GET TO DO IT EVERY SINGLE YEAR AS LONG AS THEY ARE IN THE TIME INCREMENTS OR HOW THIS IS GOING TO WORK.

>> SORRY, I MISUNDERSTOOD. YES, WE ARE REQUIRING THEM TO COME BACK TO YOU NEXT YEAR OR ANY YEAR THEY WANT TO DO THAT.

THAT GOES BACK TO THE ORDINANCE IN THE 2021-77, ONE OF THOSE SKIPPINGSES REQUIRE THAT APPLICANTS DO GO BACK IN, REMOVED AFTER A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD.

WITHIN OUR COMMENTS, WE ARE REQUESTING THAT T THE APPLICANT MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COME BACK. ONLY THING THEY WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED TO MEET IS THE 120 DAYS.

THAT'S JUST EXTENDING OVER A FEW DAYS.

>> THE FINAL QUESTION WOULD BE, I KNOW I HEARD YOU SAY THIS, I'M JUST DOUBLE CHECKING, THEY HAVE A MAX NUMBER SQUARE FOOTAGE OF STORAGE SPACE ALLOWABLE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE WAY THIS IS SET UP, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CONTAINERS THAT'S ALLOWABLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT.

WE ARE NOT GOING TO, FOR SOME REASON END UP WITH 452 MORE CONTAINERS. THERE'S A MAXIMUM ALLOWANCE?

[00:15:02]

>> MAXIMUM ALLOWED, 20 STORAGE CONTAINERS.

I THINK WHAT YOU ARE REFERENCING, WE WERE SAYING THAT IT IS GOING TO ROUGHLY TAKE UP 800 SQUARE FEET OF IT WHICH IS

LIKE 20 PARKING SPACES. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> OTHER QUESTIONS? >> APPLICANT IS NOT HERE, RIGHT?

>> WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE HERE, YES, SIR.

>> DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK, SIR? >> NO, SIR.

APPRECIATE ANYTHING YA'LL DO. I UNDERSTAND IT IS A PROCESS.

LAST COUPLE YEARS TO THIS, IT IS NEW TO US.

I APOLOGIZE FOR ANY DELAY.

>> QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU, SIR.

I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MOTION TO CLOSE. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION AND SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS.

FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. WE DID HAVE ONE SUBMITTAL IN FAVOR. IF I PRONOUNCE THIS RIGHT, WE WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE. MABUB HIMANI IS IN FAVOR OF THAT. NOW THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR

DISCUSSION OR ACTION. >> WILL WE DO THIS EVERY YEAR, COULDN'T THEY BUILD A STRUCTURE RATHER THAN HAVING CONTAINERS MOVED IN AND OUT TO HAVE THE SAME TYPE OF STORAGE, BE MORE ATTRACTIVE. JUST A THOUGHT.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT, SIR?

>> REPEAT THE QUESTION, SORRY. >> I GUESS THIS IS I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY YEARS YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THE CONTAINERS BROUGHT TO THE FACILITY, BACK AND FORTH IN THIS TIME PERIOD STATED.

IS THERE NOT A WAY WALMART COULD BUILD A STRUCTURE THAT WOULD WAREHOUSE THE NEEDS FOR YOU GUYS INSTEAD OF HAVING CONTAINERS BACK AND FORTH? THE SAME NEED TO BE MORE ATTRACTIVE IN THE AREA, THAT FIT THE SAME NEEDS.

>> WE ACTUALLY -- WE HAD A REMODEL SCHEDULED BUT IT WAS CANCELED THIS YEAR. IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE -- IT IS BACK ON THE BOOKS FOR JUNE OF NEXT YEAR WHERE WE WILL EXTEND THE BUILDING TEN THOUSAND FEET. SO THAT WILL REMEDY SOME OF THIS. BASICALLY, IT IS OVERFLOW FREIGHT FOR THE HOLIDAYS. WE HAVE A REALLY SMALL BACK ROOM WHICH IS WHY WE ARE DOING A REMODEL, TO EXTEND THAT SO WE CAN GET NOR PROD MORE PRODUCT IE STORE.

DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? >> OKAY.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU.

>> MOTION? OR DISCUSSION?

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE AS PRESENTED WITH WHATEVER STAFF MIGHT HAVE ADDED. I BELIEVE BELIEVE STAFF --

>> THEY HAVE THREE RECOMMENDATIONS.

>> WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, ANYBODY

[Staff and Commissioner Announcements]

ADJOURN. >> MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO ADJOURN. ALL IN FAVOR AYE?

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.