ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE IT'S 6:00.
[00:00:03]
I'LL CALL THE SEPTEMBER 12TH EDITION OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING INTO ORDER.THE FIRST TIME ITEM IS INVOCATION.
DAVID, CAN YOU LEAD US, PLEASE? FATHER, WE'RE THANKFUL FOR THE BREAK IN THE WEATHER.
LORD, WE PRAY THAT TONIGHT, AS WE CONSIDER THE BUSINESS BEFORE US, THAT YOU'LL GRANT US WISDOM AND UNDERSTANDING THAT OUR QUESTIONS WILL BE PRECISE AND THAT THEY'LL BE OF USE AND AND THAT WE CAN TRULY HONOR YOU IN ALL THAT WE DO.
FOR IT'S IN YOUR NAME WE PRAY.
AMEN. I 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 ALL.
ALL RIGHT. MOVING ONTO ITEM TWO CITIZENS APPEARANCES.
SO I'LL OPEN IT UP IF ANYONE FROM THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
SEEING NONE. WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[3. CONSENT AGENDA]
THESE ARE ITEMS ENACTED WITH ONE MOTION.UNLESS SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE COMMISSIONER OR STAFF WOULD LIKE TO PULL AN ITEM.
OTHERWISE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
I HAVE A MOTION FROM TODD AND A SECOND FROM BILL.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS.
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 4 PUBLIC HEARING.
[4.A. 255 Centre Dr (Case 22-167): Hold a public hearing and consider approval of an ordinance for a zoning change request from “A”, Agricultural to “I”, Industrial for a 0.35 acre portion of 255 Centre Dr.(Staff Presenter: JP Ducay, Senior Planner) ]
CASE 22-167.HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE FOR A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST FROM A AGRICULTURAL TO I INDUSTRIAL FOR A 0.35 ACRE PORTION OF 255 CENTRE DRIVE.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION FOR THE RECORD.
JP DUCAY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PRESENTING CASE 22-167.
THIS IS A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST.
THIS PROPERTY IS ALSO ADDRESSED AS 255 CENTRE DRIVE.
AND JUST TO ADD ON THIS, THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST ALSO HAS AN ASSOCIATIVE COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN, WHICH IS UNDER CASE 22-165.
THAT IS ALSO ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
HOWEVER, THAT SITE PLAN DOES NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING.
AND AFTER THAT, THEN WE WILL BE ABLE TO MOVE ON TO THE PRESENTATION FOR THE SITE PLAN SPECIFICALLY.
SO TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, A LITTLE BIT OF ZONING INFORMATION FOR THIS REQUEST, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REZONE A 0.35 ACRE PORTION OF 255 CENTRE DRIVE FROM AGRICULTURAL TO INDUSTRIAL.
HOWEVER, IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER, THERE IS AN AGRICULTURALLY ZONED PORTION.
I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW THAT HAPPENED OR WHAT THE HISTORICAL RELEVANCE OF THAT IS.
ANOTHER REASON FOR THIS ZONING REQUEST, OTHER THAN ZONING CONSISTENCY FOR THE ENTIRE SITE IS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED A COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN, AND THAT SITE PLAN IS PROPOSING TO EXPAND LIQUID STONE CONCRETES OPERATION ONTO THIS SUBJECT SITE.
AND THE PROPOSED ZONING OF INDUSTRIAL DOES ALLOW FOR THE USE OF CONCRETE BATCHING PLANT BY RIGHT.
IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT IMAGE AGAIN, THE PROPERTY AGAIN DIRECTLY TO THE WEST ADDRESSES 221 IS LIQUID STONE CONCRETES CURRENT OPERATION. SO IT'S JUST MOVING OR EXPANDING THAT BUSINESS OVER TO THE PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.
[00:05:02]
AGRICULTURAL, OR AT LEAST A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY IS AGRICULTURAL.THE MAJORITY OF THAT SITE IS INDUSTRIAL.
FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES.
PUBLIC NOTICES WERE MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
A NOTICE WAS PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER AND A SIGN WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY INQUIRIES REGARDING THIS REQUEST AT THIS TIME.
I WILL MENTION THAT THERE ARE SOME ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN MAKING THIS RECOMMENDATION AND THOSE WOULD INCLUDE THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING OF INDUSTRIAL AND THE SUBSEQUENT USE OF A CONCRETE BATCHING PLANT DOES NOT NECESSARILY COMPLY WITH THE VISION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THAT WILL CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION ABOUT THE ZONING PORTION OF THIS REQUEST.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, MYSELF AND THE APPLICANT ARE AVAILABLE.
SO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:08.
I'LL ASK IF ANYONE FROM THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
ONE IS BROOKS BACA AND THE OTHER IS JASON BURGHART.
EITHER ONE OF YOU GENTLEMEN LIKE TO SPEAK OR JUST HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS? ANSWER QUESTIONS. OKAY.
SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE COMMISSION FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
BACK UP TO SLIDE FOUR, PLEASE.
ONE MORE. WHO IS THE OWNER OF THE OR WHAT IS THE USE IN THE ZONING OF NUMBER 14? I BELIEVE A MAJORITY OF THAT PROPERTY IS INDUSTRIAL.
OKAY. WITH THAT BASICALLY OR ESSENTIALLY MOVING OVER A LITTLE BIT.
IS IT GOING TO REQUIRE ANY KIND OF SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR CHEMICAL STORAGE OR DISPOSAL OR ANYTHING? SO WE DO HAVE SPECIFIC STANDARDS WITHIN OUR I-35 AND IN OUR INDUSTRIAL SECTION THAT THEY HAVE BEEN THAT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE SITE PLAN AND HAVE BEEN PUT INTO COMPLIANCE AND WILL BE MONITORED THROUGHOUT THE OPERATION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT PARTICULARLY.
I'LL SECOND THAT. I HAVE A MOTION FROM CLINT AND A SECOND FROM TODD.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS.
ALL RIGHT, MOVE ON TO SECTION FIVE REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS.
[5.A. Liquid Stone Concrete at 255 Centre Dr (Case 22-165): Consider a resolution for a site plan of Liquid Stone Concrete located at 255 Centre Dr.(Staff Presenter: JP Ducay, Senior Planner)]
LIQUID STONE CONCRETE AT 255 CENTRE DRIVE CASE 22-165.CONSIDER A RESOLUTION FOR A SITE PLAN OF LIQUID STONE CONCRETE.
OBVIOUSLY WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE IN QUESTION.
AGAIN, A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND.
LIQUID STONE CONCRETE CURRENTLY OPERATES IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS SITE IS THAT IT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE I-35 OVERLAY, AND ALL OF THOSE STANDARDS WERE APPLIED TO THIS SITE PLAN DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS.
BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE ANY WAIVERS THAT ARE REQUESTED TO THAT SECTION OF THE CODE DO NOT REQUIRE A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
AND SO WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN TODAY, THERE WILL BE WAIVERS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
HOWEVER, WE CANNOT CONSIDER THOSE WAIVERS WHEN PROVIDING A RECOMMENDATION.
PER THAT SECTION OF THE CODE, THE SITE PLAN, IF THERE ARE WAIVERS ASSOCIATED WITH IT, SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE AND THEN ESSENTIALLY PLACED ON AN AGENDA FOR CITY COUNCIL.
HOWEVER, BECAUSE THERE IS A ZONING CHANGE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SITE PLAN THAT WE JUST WENT THROUGH AND WAS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL, IT SHALL ALSO RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH IT.
[00:10:01]
SO WE ARE ESSENTIALLY LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN TODAY, NOT NECESSARILY THE WAIVERS AS WELL.SO THE SUMMARY OF THE SITE PLAN WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING A 1200 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, THAT BUILDING WILL BE 24FT IN HEIGHT AND IT WILL BE TWO STORIES. AND THE USE OBVIOUSLY WILL BE THAT OF A CONCRETE BATCHING PLANT.
AND AS I MENTIONED, THERE ARE WAIVERS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SITE PLAN.
THERE ARE SIX IN TOTAL AND ALL OF THEM ARE TO THE I-35 DESIGN STANDARDS.
AS FOR GENERAL CONFORMANCE TO NOT ONLY THE I-35 STANDARDS, BUT OUR OTHER GENERAL STANDARDS, THE SITE PLAN IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THESE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SUCH AS LANDSCAPING AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE SIX WAIVERS TO THE I 35 SECTION AND I'VE BROKEN THOSE DOWN, FOUR OF THEM ARE TO THE BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE I 35 SECTION ONE OF THEM IS TO A LANDSCAPING STANDARD IN THE I 35 SECTION.
AND THE FINAL ONE IS A SCREENING STANDARD WITHIN THAT I 35 SECTION.
THIS IS THE FIRST WAIVER REQUEST AND IT'S TO THE I-35 BUILDING DESIGN SECTION.
HOWEVER, A SIDEWALK WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ALONG THAT PRINCIPAL STREET.
I'VE HIGHLIGHTED WHERE THAT SIDEWALK IS TO BE PROPOSED IN YELLOW AND THEN OF COURSE THE ARROW IS FACING OR IS FACING OUT OF THE PRIMARY FAÇADE OF THE BUILDING. THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS IS THAT THE PRIMARY USE OF THE SITE IS INDUSTRIAL AND THE MAIN BUILDING/SITE WILL NOT BE INTENDED FOR PUBLIC USE AND IS GOING TO BE SCREENED ACCORDINGLY, MEANING THAT PUBLIC ACCESS WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE.
THE NEXT WAIVER REQUEST IS AGAIN TO A I-35 BUILDING DESIGN PORTION, WHICH REQUIRES THAT ON THE BUILDING FAÇADE FACING THE PRINCIPAL STREET, AT LEAST 35% OF THE WALL AREA ON THE FIRST FLOOR SHALL CONSIST OF WINDOWS OR SIMILAR GLAZING.
OTHER THAN THAT SOUTH FAÇADE THE PRINCIPAL FAÇADE TECHNICALLY THE NORTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS WILL HAVE GLAZING, BUT THE ONE ELEVATION FACING THE PRINCIPAL FAÇADE WILL NOT.
WINDOWS ARE INTENDED FOR OBSERVATION OF STRATEGIC OPERATIONS AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS.
AND THIS REQUIREMENT STATES THAT ON ALL OTHER PUBLICLY VISIBLE FACADES, AT LEAST 20% OF THE WALL AREA SHALL CONSIST OF WINDOWS OR SIMILAR GLAZING, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING THAT THE OTHER PUBLICLY VISIBLE FAÇADE, WHICH IS THE EAST ELEVATION, WILL PROVIDE 13% GLAZING AND ADDITIONALLY THE NORTH ELEVATION WILL PROVIDE 15%.
THE JUSTIFICATION IS AGAIN THAT THE BUILDING IS DESIGNED AS A CONTROL AREA.
IT'S REALLY FOR SPECIFIC VIEWS OF EQUIPMENT AND THE DAILY OPERATIONS.
IT'S REALLY FOR SAFETY AND GENERAL DAILY OPERATIONS.
THE NEXT WAIVER REQUEST IS AGAIN TO BUILDING DESIGN, WHICH REQUIRES THAT BUILDINGS PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF THREE DESIGN ELEMENTS AS PROVIDED IN THE I 35 BUILDING DESIGN SECTION.
AND THIS SITE, AGAIN, IS NOT FOR PUBLIC USE.
THE NEXT IS A WAIVER TO THE LANDSCAPING SECTION OF THE I-35 SECTION.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PROVIDE 14.3% OPEN SPACE IN LIEU OF THAT 25% REQUIREMENT.
[00:15:02]
AND THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT THE DETENTION REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL AS EQUIPMENT, CIRCULATION AND SAFETY.THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE CANNOT BE SATISFIED ENTIRELY.
THE FINAL WAIVER REQUEST IS TO THE SCREENING SECTION OF THE I-35 STANDARDS.
THIS REQUIREMENT REQUESTS THAT ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND OTHER SUPPORT ELEMENTS FOR BUILDINGS BE SCREENED FROM THE VIEW OF ANY PERSON STANDING ON THE PROPERTY LINE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN EIGHT FOOT MASONRY WALL ALONG THE SOUTH AND EAST SIDES OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH YOU CAN SEE IS INDICATED BY THE YELLOW LINE ON THE IMAGE ON THE SCREEN, AS WELL AS A 12 FOOT MASONRY WALL ALONG THE NORTH OR REAR PROPERTY BOUNDARY, WHICH IS INDICATED BY THAT RED LINE.
THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS REQUEST IS THAT SCREENING THE EQUIPMENT ENTIRELY CANNOT BE ACHIEVED DUE TO THE JUST GENERAL HEIGHT OF BATCHING EQUIPMENT, WHICH CAN RANGE FROM ANYWHERE FROM 40 TO 85FT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
AND SO OBVIOUSLY, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SCREEN ANY OF THAT TYPE OF EQUIPMENT ENTIRELY.
BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT PER THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, THAT YOU MUST EITHER HAVE A 12 FOOT SCREENING WALL OR A 50 FOOT BUFFER FROM ALL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED.
SO AGAIN, I PROVIDED THE SITE CONFORMANCE TABLE ONCE AGAIN.
THAT'S BECAUSE WE DID RUN THROUGH SIX WAIVER REQUESTS THERE.
BUT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE SIX REQUESTS, IT IS IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH ALL OTHER DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ALL OTHER GENERAL LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS AND ALL OF THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT OUR CODE REQUIRES.
STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS RESOLUTION FOR A COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN.
BUT I ALSO WANTED TO REMIND YOU THAT WHEN MAKING THIS RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT, THIS RECOMMENDATION WILL NEED TO BE MADE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THOSE AFOREMENTIONED WAIVERS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS MYSELF AND THE APPLICANT ARE AVAILABLE.
ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? I HAVE A QUESTION.
IT'S JUST HOW LONG HAS THE EXISTING LIQUID STONE CONCRETE BEEN IN ITS EXISTING LOCATION? JASON COME ON UP.
GOOD EVENING, JASON BURGHART, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
SO WE INTEND TO STAY FOR A WHILE TOO.
AND WHAT TYPE OF BUSINESSES DO YOU.
I MEAN, WHAT DO YOU DO EXACTLY? SO WE ARE WHAT'S IN THE INDUSTRY CALLED READY MIX CONCRETE AND GENERAL TERMS. WE MAKE IT AND WE DELIVER IT.
SO WE BRING IN THE RAW MATERIAL FOR CONCRETE, WHICH WOULD BE SAND AND STONE AND CEMENT.
AND ARE YOU ALL REGULATED BY THE EPA AT ALL? TCEQ BECAUSE WE'RE HERE.
SO THEY ARE OUR REGULATING ENTITY.
EPA WOULD, I SUPPOSE, SET OVER THAT.
AND THERE'S ONE FORM THAT WE HAVE TO FILL OUT FOR THEM.
BUT TCEQ IS THE ONE THAT IS THAT WE WORK MORE CLOSELY WITH.
BUT YOU DON'T YOU'RE NOT CONSIDERED AN ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD TO ANY MAYBE SURROUNDING AREA RESIDENTS OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE? I MEAN.
NO, THE MATERIALS WE DEAL WITH ARE NOT CONSIDERED HAZARDOUS.
DIESEL FUEL IS PROBABLY ABOUT AS HAZARDOUS AS IT GETS BECAUSE WE HAVE BIG TRUCKS.
OKAY. THANK YOU. JUST THOSE WERE QUESTIONS I WAS CONCERNED WITH.
THANK YOU. I JUST HAD ONE QUICK QUESTION, JP.
NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, BUT IT'S JUST FOR MY OWN KNOWLEDGE.
WHEN WAIVERS LIKE THIS ARE DONE, ESPECIALLY ON LIKE WINDOWS OR GLAZING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IF FOR SOME REASON THEY DECIDE TO VACATE OR MOVE OR SOMETHING FROM THAT SITE, IF SOMEBODY ELSE COMES IN AND TAKES OVER THAT BUILDING, IS IT EVERYTHING GRANDFATHERED IN? OR IF THEY WANTED TO ADD JUST 1 OR 2 WINDOWS OR WOULD THEY HAVE TO CONFORM TO THE BASIC STANDARDS?
[00:20:01]
IT WOULD ALL COME DOWN TO WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO DO SPECIFICALLY.ALL RIGHT. APPRECIATE IT. AGAIN, THAT WAS JUST FOR MY KNOWLEDGE, FOR FUTURE.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO RECONCILE SLIDE FOUR SLIDE 10 OR 9.
THE RECONCILIATION BETWEEN THE 100% COMPLIANCE WITH LANDSCAPING AND THEN THE WAIVER REQUEST.
WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER THAT.
WELL, THE LANGUAGE IS IT IS IN COMPLETE COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF AND THEN THESE THOSE SIX STANDARDS. SO WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ONE I-35 LANDSCAPING STANDARDS, WHICH IS FOR OPEN SPACE, ALL OTHER LANDSCAPING STANDARDS ARE BEING MET.
BUT YOU'VE GOT JP DID A GOOD JOB EXPLAINING IT.
YOU GOT TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS, ONE WHERE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAKES A RECOMMENDATION.
BUT ON THE I-35 OVERLAY DISTRICT, IT'S COUNCIL THAT HEARS THE WAIVER.
RECOMMEND THE YEAH. AND I SEE NO PROBLEM WITH IT.
ALL RIGHT. IF NOBODY HAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE SITE PLAN.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO PASS CASE NUMBER 22-165.
ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY BILL.
SECOND BY CLINT. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS.
ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO ITEM SIX.
THERE ARE NO COMMUNITY INTEREST ITEMS AND THERE WILL BE NO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
SO I WILL ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:24 P.M..
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.