Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Change Of Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner disputes staff's change‑of‑use finding for Velocity Motors property; staff requests landscaping, ADA and stormwater items and offers to work on variances
Summary
The Planning Commission discussed a change‑of‑use site plan for the Velocity Motors property at 331 West Main Street after staff concluded a prior staffing‑agency occupancy and the proposed automotive retail use triggered formal change‑of‑use review.
The commission heard an extended discussion about a change‑of‑use site plan for a property at 331 West Main Street proposed for Velocity Motors.
Michelle Haines, the property owner, and Andrew Gonzales, representing Velocity Motors, told the commission they believe the property has historically been used for retail and services and questioned why staff classified the submittal as a change of use. “It this has always been retail. You all remember Howard's vitamins… also there was Randy Records on that shop on that lot,” Haines said, explaining that a staffing agency occupying the building before COVID later went remote.
Planning staff explained that the city’s change of use process applies when the interior use of a building changes and that such a change is an opportunity for the city to require site improvements to move the property closer to current code. Staff listed typical items required for a change of use site plan: landscape buffers, parking striping, ADA parking, and stormwater review. A staff member said these requirements are part of the city’s ordinance and municipal code and that the planning commission does not have authority to remove comments that arise from the stormwater ordinance.
The owner urged leniency, saying some stormwater improvements would be infeasible because the parcel receives off‑site drainage flows and that much of the lot surface is gravel. Staff said they were not requesting extreme measures such as full detention ponds in every case and that some projects (for example, North Lake Automotive) had worked out site improvements that balanced code compliance and feasibility. Staff offered to meet with the applicant to identify reasonable, less burdensome improvements and said applicants may later seek variances for items they cannot practicably meet.
Commissioners encouraged the parties to meet with staff and work through solutions; staff said it would be willing to do so. The item did not advance to a vote; the commission suggested the applicant return after meetings with staff or to request variances for items found impracticable.
