Stafford planning commission recommends approval of variance and replat for Lovett 90 Logistics Center

Stafford Planning and Zoning Commission members on July 8 recommended city council approve a variance and a replat for the Lovett 90 Logistics Center that would create a flag-shaped lot to provide legal access to the southern parcel and enable its sale.

The variance request would allow a flag-lot access drive longer than the 200-foot maximum identified in city code. Commission members recommended approval after hearing from Levitt Industrial representatives that both buildings on the property are already built, that the flag-shaped parcel is intended to provide private driveway access to the southern building, and that utilities and stormwater will remain shared across the site.

Why it matters: The replat and variance together formalize access for a logistics/distribution user interested in purchasing Building 2 and clarify property lines and rights-of-way. If the variance were denied by city council, the replat could not proceed, commission members noted.

Levitt Industrial associate Melissa Breckner and Levitt Industrial representative Carmen Pearson answered commissioners’ questions about site layout and operations. Breckner said the developer initially planned to sell the parcel as a whole but now has a buyer interested only in Building 2, which prompted the subdivision. Pearson described the site as a cross-dock layout with loading docks on both buildings and shared truck parking between them.

Commission discussion and clarifications included: the drive created by the flag lot will be a private driveway serving truck access; both buildings are already constructed; stormwater and utility infrastructure will be shared under a common area agreement; the intended occupant is a logistics/distribution user and commissioners understood large trucks (18-wheelers) could use the access; and the city engineer’s final requirements and a current title policy no older than 30 days must be met for the replat.

A commissioner asked whether the fire marshal had reviewed the plat; staff replied the fire marshal had not yet reviewed it. Commissioners also confirmed that a recommendation to decline the variance would render the replat moot if city council upheld that recommendation.

Formal actions: A motion to recommend approval of the variance (agenda item 3) was made and seconded and passed with no opposition. A related motion to recommend approval of the replat (agenda item 4) was subsequently made and seconded and also carried with no opposition. The transcript records the motions and that the motion for each item “carries” with no hands raised in opposition.

Next steps: Both recommendations will be forwarded to city council for final action. The transcript does not record a city council decision or any timeline for council consideration.