Jan 30, 2024 Planning & Zoning Commission

[00:00:01]

GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.

[1.CALL TO ORDER]

FIRST ITEM IS GOING TO BE THE INVOCATION.

FATHER, WE'RE THANKFUL FOR THE WEATHER THIS WEEK, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE THE WARM WEATHER FOR THE REST OF THE WEEK.

WE THANK YOU FOR IT, AND WE PRAISE YOU.

LORD, WE PRAY THAT TONIGHT YOU'LL GIVE US THE WISDOM AND THE UNDERSTANDING AS WE LOOK AT THE ISSUES BEFORE US TONIGHT.

WE MAY EFFECTIVELY MAKE THE DECISIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE.

THANK YOU, FATHER, FOR YOUR LOVE, FOR IT'S IN YOUR NAME WE PRAY.

AMEN. PLEASE JOIN ME FOR THE PLEDGE.

ALLEGIANCE] ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO CITIZEN APPEARANCES.

THIS IS A TIME FOR ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE TO COME SPEAK ON ANYTHING THAT IS NOT LISTED IN A PUBLIC HEARING, SO WE'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]

UNLESS SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE, COMMISSION OR STAFF WOULD LIKE TO PULL AN ITEM.

OTHERWISE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

HAVE A MOTION BY MICHAEL.

A SECOND BY ASHLEY.

ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HANDS.

PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

[4.A. Dobson Townhomes (Case 23-003): Consider a site plan for Dobson Townhomes located at 200 S Dobson with a waiver to the development plan related to the maximum roof pitch for a Rural Farmhouse architectural style. (Staff Presenter: Lidon Pearce, Senior Planner)]

CONSIDER A SITE PLAN FOR DOBSON TOWNHOMES, LOCATED AT 200 SOUTH DOBSON, WITH A WAIVER TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN RELATED TO THE MAXIMUM ROOF PITCH FOR A RURAL FARM FARMHOUSE, ARCHITECTURAL STYLE.

STAFF PRESENTERS. LIDON PEARCE, SENIOR PLANNER.

GOOD EVENING CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS.

THIS IS FOR THE DOBSON TOWNHOME PROJECT, AS MENTIONED AT 200 SOUTH DOBSON.

IT'S APPROXIMATELY 0.30 ACRES.

AND YOUR ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT IS A SITE PLAN WITH A WAIVER TO THE MAXIMUM ROOF PITCH.

PER THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

SO THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED DISTRICT, AND IT'S LOCATED IN OUR OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT.

SO KIND OF A SUMMARY.

WHY YOU'RE SEEING THIS IS ANYTIME A SITE PLAN WITH A WAIVER IS REQUESTED, IT'S REQUIRED TO BE APPROVED BY P&Z AND COUNCIL.

OTHERWISE, IT COULD BE ADMINISTRATIVE IF THEY MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS.

IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT REQUESTED A WAIVER FROM THE OLD TOWN DESIGN STANDARDS FOR A RURAL FARMHOUSE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE.

THEY ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH EVERY OTHER STANDARD OTHER THAN THE MAX ROOF PITCH.

OUR CODE CURRENTLY REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 512, OR A MAXIMUM OF 712 ON THE ROOF PITCH FOR A RURAL FARMHOUSE STYLE.

SO UNLIKE OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY, OLD TOWN HAS SPECIFIC RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURAL STYLES THAT APPLICANT CAN CHOOSE FROM.

SO THEY'RE REQUESTING A 1212 PITCH.

THEY BELIEVE IT CONFORMS MORE TO THE STYLE, AND IT MATCHES MORE WITH THE EXAMPLES THAT ARE ACTUALLY CONTAINED IN OUR CODE.

SO THESE PICTURES YOU SEE ARE ACTUALLY PICTURES IN OUR CODE FOR RURAL FARMHOUSE.

SO THEY'RE TRYING TO MORE ALIGN WITH THOSE PICTURES.

SO THIS IS KIND OF A BREAKDOWN I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT, BUT I DID GET SOME PROGRAMS, HAVE PROTRACTORS AND DID SOME MATH.

AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE ROOF PITCHES ON THESE EXAMPLES ARE CLOSER TO NINE AND 1012 ON THAT HOME ARE ACTUALLY 712.

SO OUR EXAMPLES DO EXCEED, WHAT OUR TEXT SAYS.

SO THAT AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY ZONED FOR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED AS OPPOSED TO A DETACHED PRODUCT.

STAFF DOES SUPPORT THE WAIVER FOR THE ROOF PITCH.

SO YOU CAN JUST KIND OF SEE THERE SOME OF THOSE AND I'LL GET TO SOME EXAMPLES.

YOU'LL SEE THEIR ILLUSTRATIONS.

SO THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.

AND YOU CAN SEE THERE THE 1212 PITCH ON THE TOP.

THIS IS THE SIDE ELEVATION.

REAR ELEVATION FOR THE PROPERTY.

AND THEN THIS IS JUST KIND OF A LAYOUT SHOWS YOU EVERYTHING ELSE CONFORMS WITH OUR LANDSCAPING SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS, THE ZONING THAT THEY'VE HAVE ON THE PROPERTY AND ALL THE OLD TOWN STANDARDS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ROOF PITCH.

WE DID GO BEFORE OLD TOWN DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE, AND THEY DID, KIND OF AGREE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND THEY DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL UNANIMOUSLY OF THE WAIVER TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

NOW, YOUR ACTION TONIGHT IS ON THE SITE PLAN.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS OLD TOWN HAS JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY OVER DEVELOPMENT PLANS, WHICH IS ARCHITECTURAL IN NATURE ONLY, WHEREAS THIS BODY AND COUNCIL HAS AUTHORITY OVER SITE PLANS WITH WAIVERS, WHICH ENCOMPASSES THE WHOLE PROPERTY.

SO WE LOOK AT LANDSCAPING, WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, JUST NOT THE ARCHITECTURAL.

[00:05:01]

AND I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL AS THE ARCHITECT FOR THE PROJECT, IF YOU HAD QUESTIONS FOR THEM.

ALL RIGHT. THANKS LIDON.

I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:05.

ASK IF ANYONE FROM THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.

IF NOT, THEN I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE COMMISSION FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.

QUICK QUESTION, ON THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, THE FIRST DUPLEX.

THAT APPEARS TO BE A STUB OUT FOR A GAS METER RIGHT THERE AT THE VERY EDGE OF THE DRIVEWAY.

I YEAH, I CAN'T.

SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I LOOKED AT NECESSARILY IN THE SITE PLAN.

WELL I JUST PASSED THAT ON BECAUSE THAT'S A, THAT'S AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN.

IT LOOKS LIKE. OKAY.

YEAH DEFINITELY.. ON THE YOU COULD BLOW IT UP ON THE WHAT WE GOT IN THE WEBSITE, AND YOU CAN SEE IT'S LABELED AS A GAS STUB OUT FOR GAS METER.

SO I KNOW IN THEIR CIVIL CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND CIVIL REVIEWS, ENGINEERING IS HAVING THEM MOVE SOME OF THOSE FEATURES.

THEY'RE JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT'S PART OF THE SITE PLAN THAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY.

SO NO IT'S A GOOD IT'S A GREAT COMMENT.

I'M NOT TRYING TO SILENCE YOU AT ALL.

BUT THAT THAT IS LOOKED AT ON THE CIVIL AND I DO KNOW THEY'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT MOVING MULTIPLE METERS.

I JUST DON'T WANT TO SPEAK OUT OF MY ELEMENT BECAUSE WATER METERS, GAS METERS, I DON'T WANT TO SAY SOMETHING AND THEN GET BEAT UP BY THE CITY ENGINEER TOMORROW.

BUT I DO KNOW THAT THEY'VE DISCUSSED THAT DURING THE CIVIL REVIEWS.

IT'S IT'S PURELY ESTHETICS IS A LOT OF IT, BUT IT'S THE NARROWNESS OF THE LOT.

AND IF YOU TRY TO DO THAT FLATTER PITCH, 7 OR 512, YOU KNOW, YOU END UP PUSHING THE UNITS WIDER AND THEN YOU CAN'T FIT A TOWNHOME. SO THAT CODE, JUST TO BE COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT, IS NOT WRITTEN FOR A TOWNHOME OR A DUPLEX.

IT'S WRITTEN WITH THE INTENT OF A DETACHED HOUSE.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO APPLY THOSE STANDARDS.

AND THIS IS WE WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT.

THEY WERE ABLE TO MEET ALL THE OTHER STANDARDS.

AFTER A LOT OF GOING BACK AND FORTH.

THAT WAS JUST ONE THAT THEY TRIED AND THEY COULDN'T MAKE IT WORK WITH THE NARROWNESS OF THE SFA LOTS.

WHAT WERE SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP WITH OLD TOWN ADVISORY? SO OLD TOWN, THERE WASN'T A LOT OF DISCUSSION, I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU.

WE TALKED ABOUT, THE ONLY KIND OF QUESTION REALLY DIDN'T PERTAIN TO THE DEVELOPMENT ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, THERE WAS ONE COMMENT.

IF THEY WERE GOING TO BE, FOR SALE BY OWNER OR RENTALS, AND THE ARCHITECTS HAVE NO DATA ON THAT.

THEY'RE STILL SO EARLY IN THE PROCESS.

THEY DON'T KNOW THAT INFORMATION.

BUT THAT WAS THE ONLY REAL DISCUSSION THAT I RECALL ABOUT THIS REQUEST.

YEAH. FOR ANYBODY ON THE COMMISSION THAT DOESN'T REALIZE WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IN PITCH IS, WHATEVER THE WIDTH IS, HALF OF THAT, EVERY 12FT YOU GO ACROSS THE HEIGHT, 1212 WILL BE 12FT STRAIGHT UP 512 WILL BE FIVE FOOT STRAIGHT UP.

SO IT DOES PUT IT UP THERE.

I THINK THIS ONE HERE IS LISTED OVER 39FT.

THE AVERAGE TWO STORY HOME, YOU MIGHT GET 2620 EIGHT FOOT OF HEIGHT, THE ROOFLINE.

SO THIS ONE HERE WILL BE QUITE A BIT OVER THAT.

SO I CAN TELL YOU THAT THEIR HEIGHT IS IN IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING.

THE OLD TOWN ADVISORY. YES, YES.

SO IN OLD TOWN IS ONLY LOOKING AT THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS.

THEY'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE ZONING ELEMENT.

SO THEY'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE LANDSCAPING.

THEY'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE SETBACKS.

THEY'RE ONLY LOOKING AT THE THE MATERIALS, THE DESIGN, ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND ELEMENTS.

THAT'S OLD TOWN'S, PURVIEW.

YEAH. MY ONLY CONCERN. LIKE I SAID, IT'LL BE THROUGH THEM.

I HOPE THAT THEY DO LOOK INTO MAKING SURE, PUTTING SOME KIND OF STIPULATION THAT IT WILL NOT BE MADE INTO A THREE STORY BUILDING.

SO. SO THIS SITE PLAN AND THEIR BUILDING PERMITS THEY THIS THIS IS THE SITE PLAN.

SO IF THERE'S ANY CHANGES WHEN THEY GO THROUGH BUILDING PERMITS AND THEY PROPOSE SOMETHING THAT WAS SO LET'S SAY THEY SUBMITTED SOMETHING SEVEN STORIES TALL TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

THEY WOULD GET FLAGGED AND IT WOULDN'T BE APPROVED BECAUSE IT WOULD VIOLATE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS.

YEAH, BECAUSE A FEW OF THE JOBS I'VE DONE IN OTHER CITIES, WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS THEY'VE DONE SOMETHING SIMILAR.

THEY SNUCK IN A THIRD LEVEL, AND THEN SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS WERE CONCERNED, WHICH I WOULD BE TOO.

I MEAN, I'M HERE TO GO BY THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CITY.

I ALSO WORRY ABOUT NEIGHBORS AND STUFF SOMETIME BEING DWARFED WHERE THEY CAN NO LONGER SEE, MAYBE THE LOW LYING STARS OR TREE LINE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

BUT IF IT'S IN CONFORMANCE, THERE'S NOTHING I CAN ARGUE ON THIS.

YEAH, WE DID TALK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE, IF YOU RECALL, DURING THE ZONING, IT'S BEEN A WHILE.

THIS IS A PRETTY OLD CASE.

THE ZONING WAS OVER A YEAR AGO, BUT THOSE CONCERNS WERE..

YEAH, I REMEMBER IT THEN I APPRECIATE IT.

YES, SIR. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION?

[00:10:03]

I DO A MOTION TO APPROVE CASE NUMBER.

I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.

CASE NUMBER 23-003.

I'LL SECOND. HAVE A MOTION BY BILL, A SECOND BY COBI.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS.

PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO ITEM 4B6 25, 631 AND 637.

[4.B. 625, 631, and 637 Mockingbird Ln (Case 23-350):Hold a public hearing and consider an ordinance for a zoning change request from “A”, Agricultural to “C" Commercial for existing commercial uses at 625, 631, and 637 Mockingbird Ln. (Staff Presenter: Lidon Pearce, Senior Planner)]

HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE FOR A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST FROM AGRICULTURAL TO C COMMERCIAL FOR EXISTING COMMERCIAL USES AT 625, 631 AND 637 MOCKINGBIRD LANE, STAFF PRESENTER LIDON PEARCE, SENIOR PLANNER.

GOOD EVENING AGAIN. THANK YOU.

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR ZONING BY THE BY STEVEN MARTIN AND JASON THARP, THE OWNERS.

AND AS YOU MENTIONED, IT IS A REQUEST FROM THE BASELINE AGRICULTURAL ZONING TO A C COMMERCIAL FOR EXISTING COMMERCIAL USES AT THE PROPERTY.

SO THIS SHOWS YOU THE COMP PLAN AND THE CURRENT ZONING.

I WILL TELL YOU, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS THIS AREA IN NEIGHBORHOODS.

SO, WE HAVE DETERMINED STAFF HAS DETERMINED IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND PURSUANT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 211.04.

AN AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE IF REZONE FOR THE PROPOSAL? SO ALL THAT TO SAY, THIS CURRENT USES DO EXIST CURRENTLY.

SO THIS IS NOT A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE USES.

THIS IS MORE A PROPOSAL TO BRING THE ZONING MORE INTO ALIGN WITH WHAT THE APPLICANT IS ALREADY DOING.

THEY HAVE CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY FOR THEIR USES AT THE SITE.

THESE USES, I CAN GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND INFORMATION FROM TALKING WITH SOME OF THE PERSONS THAT ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA.

WE BELIEVE SINCE AT LEAST THE LATE 70S, WE KNOW FOR SURE THE 80S THESE STRUCTURES HAVE EXISTED AND HAD SOME FORM OF INDUSTRIAL USES SINCE THAT TIME.

THE FABRICATION AND THE CABINET SHOP ARE THERE.

THEY HAVE CERTIFICATE OCCUPANCY THE THREE IN THE BACK, I CAN TELL YOU, HAVE EXISTED FOR WELL OVER 20 YEARS.

IT'S JUST BEEN A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP AND COMPANY NAME.

AND THEN THE FRONT BUILDINGS ARE THE OTHER APPLICANT.

SO IF THIS ZONING CHANGE WERE NOT APPROVED, THEIR USE WOULD STILL BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO EXIST AS A LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE.

SO I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU THAT INFORMATION.

THIS IS MORE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE.

WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE APPLICANT CLEANING UP THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND MAKING SURE, YOU KNOW, THEY CAME IN TRYING TO FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE CITY.

THEY DID REQUEST TO BRING THE ZONING INTO CONFORMANCE WITH WHAT THEY ARE DOING IN CASE THEY IT'S NOT EXPAND, BUT IN CASE THEY WANT TO SELL THE BUSINESS OR PUT ANOTHER TENANT IN ONE OF THOSE USES.

THIS WOULD BE A REQUIRED FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO DO SO.

WE DID SEND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES.

YOU'LL SEE ON THE MAP THERE.

AND WE POST A NEWSPAPER AND I POSTED A SIGN ON THE PROPERTY.

SO WE DID RECEIVE, AT THE TIME THE AGENDA BEING POSTED, WE HAD NO OPPOSITION.

BUT THIS AFTERNOON WE RECEIVED ONE LETTER.

YOU SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF THAT WITH YOUR PACKET.

MR. PHILIP REED, I BELIEVE, IS HIS NAME, SO I WON'T READ HIS LETTER, BUT I'LL KIND OF JUST, HIGHLIGHT HIS CONCERNS, AND THEN I WILL KIND OF GIVE YOU SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT I FOUND, IN RESEARCHING HIS CONCERNS.

SO MR. REED IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE CALICHE ROAD.

SO I'M GOING TO SWITCH TO A KIND OF A BETTER MAP FOR YOU.

SO IF YOU SEE THIS PROPERTY HERE, THERE'S A CALICHE ROAD, DIRT ROAD THAT HAS EXISTED THAT GOES ALL THE WAY FROM MOCKINGBIRD LANE.

THE PROPERTY'S ADDRESSED ALL THE WAY DOWN TO WILSHIRE.

THIS IS A PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT.

SO SOME OF THAT IS ADJACENT TO JOSHUA ISD.

AND THE MAJORITY OF IT WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION, WILLOW CREEK.

THE SMALL PORTION, THAT'S GOING TO BE KIND OF IN THE WAY.

SORRY IF YOU CAN SEE THE BLUE LINE.

OF COURSE IT'S GOING TO BE UNDER THAT RIGHT ABOUT HERE IS WHERE THEIR PROPERTY ENDS.

SO THE REST OF THAT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH IS RANCH WAY DRIVE IS UNDER THE HOA, NOT UNDER THE APPLICANT. SO JUST MAKE THAT CLEAR.

SO IT'S A PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT WAS PLATTED.

THIS PROPERTY WAS ZONED PD IN 1999.

THEN IT WAS PLATTED THE FOLLOWING YEAR.

THAT'S A PLATTED AS A PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT.

LOOKING IN THE ZONING, I WILL TELL YOU, IT WAS NOTED THAT A PRIVATE ROADWAY TRAVERSES THE PROPERTY AND PROVIDES ACCESS TO THE INDUSTRIAL USES FROM

[00:15:08]

SO THIS USE EXISTED PRIOR TO THE SUBDIVISION? THEN IN 2006, THE HOA PETITIONED THE CITY, CITY COUNCIL TO ALLOW THIS GAS.

WELL, THAT YOU SEE IN NEXT TO THEIR PROPERTY.

SO THAT CAME AS A PETITION IN 2006 AFTER THE SUBDIVISION WAS BUILT, OBVIOUSLY AFTER THIS USE EXISTED.

AND THEY, I HAVE A LETTER FROM THAT HOA FROM THEN IF IT MATTERS, BUT THEY WERE ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT THESE LOTS COULD BE ACCESSED VIA THEIR CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE, WHICH IS MOCKINGBIRD LANE, AND WERE LARGE ENOUGH TO ALLOW FOR PLACEMENT OF THE TRUCKS FROM THE FACILITIES, AND THAT THIS IS ABOUT 1600 FEET FROM THE HOUSES. SO THIS IS ALL KIND OF INFORMATION THAT OVER THE YEARS HAS KIND OF BEEN BROUGHT IN DIFFERENT PUBLIC HEARINGS AH RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS POPPED UP AROUND THE SUBJECT SITE.

SO HIS PRIMARY CONCERNS, MR. REED, ARE RELATED TO THAT ROAD AND CHANGING THE RESULTS OF THE ZONING AND THE TRAFFIC.

TWO THINGS I WOULD JUST STATE IS THAT RANCH WAY DRIVES PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

SO, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE RESIDENTS ARE FRUSTRATED BECAUSE PEOPLE USE THE PUBLIC STREET TO ACCESS THE PRIVATE EASEMENT TO GET BACK TO THE DEVELOPMENT.

HIS LAST PARAGRAPH, WHEN HE KIND OF IS ASKING IF THE ZONING CHANGES IS APPROVED.

HE REQUESTS THEY BE REQUIRED TO DO SOME OF THESE THINGS.

I WOULD JUST TELL YOU, THOSE ARE NOT THINGS THAT YOU CAN CONDITION.

SHOULD YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CHANGE? THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND THE PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT.

JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR IN HIS LETTER THAT THOSE LAST, THOSE ARE NOT THINGS THAT YOU WOULD CONDITION WITH THE ZONING.

SO. AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER, I'M SURE THERE'S QUESTIONS ABOUT ALL THAT.

THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION, BUT JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH WHAT STAFF FOUND SINCE ROUGHLY ABOUT 4:00 THIS AFTERNOON.

SOME OF THOSE EXTRA DETAILS.

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

WE'RE UNDER ABLE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET THE COMP PLAN.

HOWEVER, BASED ON THE FACILITY AND USES ALREADY EXISTING.

WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THAT ZONING CHANGE REQUEST.

ADDITIONALLY, IT'S LOCATED DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO A RAILROAD AND HAS THE GAS WELL PAD SITE.

SO STAFF USE IT VERY UNLIKELY TO DEVELOP AS A NEIGHBORHOODS AS PART OF THE COMP PLAN.

AND YOU CAN EVEN KIND OF SEE THE ADJACENT, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS GOING IN.

YOU KNOW, EVEN THEY LEFT A PRETTY LARGE BUFFER BETWEEN THEM AND THE RAILROAD.

SO THAT GENERALLY PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE A DESIRABLE, USE FOR RESIDENTIAL.

SO WITH THAT STAFF, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THE ZONE CHANGE.

WE KIND OF LEAVE THAT UP TO YOUR DISCRETION FOR RECOMMENDATION, WITH THE FACTS THAT WE PROVIDED, AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THAT, THE BEST OF MY ABILITY. ALL RIGHT.

THANKS. I APPRECIATE YOUR DUE DILIGENCE IN REGARDS TO MR. REED'S LETTER.

I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:18 P.M..

IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? SEEING NONE, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE COMMISSION FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.

I WAS WONDERING THE PARTICULAR REASON FOR THE REQUEST FOR THE ZONING CHANGE.

SO ORIGINALLY, SO THOSE ARE THERE'S TWO THERE'S A COUPLE PROPERTIES THERE.

SO THIS IS CONJOINED PROPERTY OWNERS.

THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY OWNER CAME IN AND WANTED TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.

IF HE SOLD ONE OF THE THEIR QUINTESSON HUTS, THE ONES THAT THEY'VE BEEN THERE SINCE 70S 80S.

IF HE USED ONE OF THOSE SPACES FOR ANOTHER TENANT, WHAT HE HAD TO DO TO BE ABLE TO GET THEM LEGALLY, LAWFULLY IN ONE OF THOSE HUTS, AND WE TOLD THEM YOU'D HAVE TO REQUEST A REZONE TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.

YOU'RE ALLOWED TO EXIST BECAUSE YOU'RE LEGAL, NON-CONFORMING.

BUT IF YOU WANTED A NEW USE, LET'S SAY SOMEBODY WANTED TO COME IN THERE WITH SOME LATHES AND, AND MAKE THINGS, AND IT WASN'T WHAT WAS CURRENTLY ON THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

THEY WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT.

SO WE KIND OF TALKED THEM THROUGH HIS OPTIONS.

YOU CAN CONTINUE TO DO WHAT YOU'RE DOING WITH THE USES THAT FALL UNDER YOUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, OR YOU COULD REQUEST A REZONE.

OR IF THE PROPERTY IS ABANDONED, IT LOSES THIS NON-CONFORMING STATUS.

SO HE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS HE LATER DECIDED NOT TO RENT OUT OR SELL THE PROPERTY, BUT HE WANTED TO PURSUE A ZONING CHANGE SO THAT IF IN THE FUTURE, IF HE DOES WANT TO HAVE A TENANT COME IN NEXT TO HIS BUSINESS BECAUSE THERE'S MULTIPLE HUTS THERE, I GUESS IS THE BEST WAY TO PUT IT, HE WOULD NEED TO HAVE A ZONING TO ALLOW HIM TO DO THAT.

UNDER THE AG ZONING, HE WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED FULL USE OF THAT PROPERTY.

WITHOUT THE CORRECT ZONING, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE EXISTING BUILDING.

[00:20:01]

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SUBMIT ENGINEERING STUDIES.

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SUBMIT SITE PLANS, BRING EVERYTHING UP TO OUR CODE.

SO, JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT, THIS RIGHT NOW, THEIR INTENT IS SOLELY TO USE WHAT IS THERE AND NOT TO CHANGE ANYTHING.

BUT AS WE KNOW, THINGS IN THIS CASE, THEY HAVEN'T CHANGED IN A LONG TIME HERE, BUT THEY COULD VERY WELL CHANGE.

NOW, THERE'S SOME LOGISTICAL CHALLENGES WITH THAT LONG, WINDING PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT.

I DON'T KNOW THAT LIKE A MCDONALD'S WOULD BE VERY VIABLE IN THIS LOCATION, BUT JUST KNOW THAT AT THAT TIME, IF THEY DID PROPOSE ANYTHING NEW STRUCTURES, THEY HAVE TO BRING EVERYTHING UP TO CODES.

DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? MAYBE TOO MUCH. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT LIDON THIS IS DEFAULT AG.

SO THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY HAS NEVER RECEIVED A ZONING DESIGNATION FROM THE CITY IT WAS ANNEXED IN.

WHEN YOU'RE ANNEXED IN, YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY ASSIGNED THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF AGRICULTURAL.

WELL, HONESTLY THIS HASN'T BEEN AN AGRICULTURAL USE IN SOME TIME.

IT RECEIVED THAT DESIGNATION UPON ANNEXATION.

SO IT'S NEVER RECEIVED A ZONING A BASE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM THE CITY OFFICIALLY.

SO THE PROPERTIES AROUND IT ARE THEY HOW ARE THEY ZONED? SO THOSE PROPERTIES AND I WILL SAY THEY'VE ALL COME AFTER THIS EXISTED.

SO WILLOW CREEK, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT'S DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH OF THEM, THEY'RE ZONED TO PD.

SO THEY PETITIONED TO BE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING.

AND THEN THEY ADDED ON TO THAT THE GAS.

WELL, WITH A LATER PETITION, THE ONE TO THE EAST IS ALSO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL.

TO THE NORTH YOU HAVE THE ETJ AND THE RAILROAD, AS WELL AS TO THE DIRECT WEST AS THE RAILROAD AND THE ETJ.

SO WHERE IT SAYS RAMON OR RAMEN OR WHATEVER THAT IS, JOE'S STREET ALL THAT IN THERE IS RESIDENTIAL.

SO IT'S A POSSIBILITY, THEY WANT TO MAKE THAT COMMERCIAL TO DO A DEVELOPMENT THERE OF SOME TYPE BECAUSE OF ALL THE WHICH IS, I GUESS, BEYOND MY IT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, BUT A LOT COULD CHANGE.

SO IF YOU I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR, YOU KNOW YOU DRIVE OUT THERE IT'S IT'S PRETTY WELL SEPARATED.

YOU CAN SEE THE BACKS OF THOSE HOUSES.

IT'S A, FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO RANCHWAY DRIVE, IT'S ABOUT 1600 FEET OF DIRT ROAD.

AND THEN THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF VEGETATION BETWEEN THE TWO.

WHEN THIS ZONING CAME IN, INITIALLY, ONE OF THE CONCERNS WAS THERE'S ALREADY AN INDUSTRIAL USE THIS SITE OUT THERE.

HOW ARE WE GOING TO BUFFER THAT FROM THE RESIDENTIAL COMING IN? AND THE REASONING THEN? I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE A VIDEO OR ANYTHING IIS 99.

BUT THE REASONING THEN WAS THERE ARE 1800 TO 2000FT AWAY FROM THE HOUSES AND IT'S VEGETATED BETWEEN IT.

SO IT'S AN ADEQUATE BUFFER BETWEEN WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING RESIDENTIAL AND THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL.

AND THAT STILL EXISTS.

THERE'S STILL THAT VEGETATED AREA.

IT'S STILL 2000 ROUGHLY FEET FROM THE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING TO THE HOUSES.

I JUST KEEP SAYING THEY CAME AFTER.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. A LOT OF CASES, YOU'LL SEE, IN SOME OF THE SUPREME COURT WHO, YOU KNOW, COMING TO THE NUISANCE ESSENTIALLY.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE THIS APPLICANT BUILT THESE AFTER THE SUBDIVISION.

IF YOU WANT TO CALL THIS A NUISANCE, IF YOU WILL.

THEY CAME TO IT.

THEY CAME AFTER IT EXISTED FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

JUST ALL THE AREA IN BLUE IS WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE FOR THE YES, THAT IS THE ONLY AREA WE'RE DISCUSSING IS THE BLUE AREA.

WELL, I MEAN, WE'RE DISCUSSING THE SURROUNDINGS FOR CONTEXT, BUT THAT IS THE ONLY AREA THAT'S SUBJECT TO THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST.

SO IF WE DON'T APPROVE, THEY STILL GET TO OPERATE, THEY'RE GRANDFATHERED IN.

THEY STILL GET TO OPERATE BUSINESS AS THEY HAVE BEEN.

THAT IS CORRECT OKAY.

YEAH, THIS IT WON'T CHANGE THE CURRENT OPERATIONS IF THEIR ZONING IS NOT APPROVED.

THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO FOLLOW THE RULES AND TRYING TO GET THEIR ZONING TO MATCH WHAT THEY'RE DOING SO THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY WITH FUTURE CERTIFICATE OCCUPANCIES, THEY DON'T HAVE A THEY JUST WON'T BE ABLE TO GET IT PROCESSED OR APPROVED.

AND LISTEN TO ALL THIS.

I'LL BE LEANING TOWARDS DENYING IT.

AGAIN, THIS IS A THING WHERE YOU GOT TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE HOMEOWNERS THAT ARE IN THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS RIGHT THERE.

IS THERE A POSSIBILITY OF DOING A COMMERCIAL WITH AN SUP? SO THE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT HAS SUP LAND USES.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.

COULD YOU SAY THAT THEY HAVE TO GET AN SUP FOR ANY FUTURE USES? YEAH, SO THAT WOULD BE..

SO WE CAN PROTECT THE HOMEOWNERS? NO, THAT'S NOT REALLY.

YOU COULD, THEY COULD PROPOSE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH A LIST OF USES.

[00:25:06]

AND I JUST WANT TO STATE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT ENFORCED WITH THE COMP PLAN.

YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE REASONS STAFF ISN'T OPPOSED TO IT IS BECAUSE THIS EXISTED 30 YEARS BEFORE ANY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS WERE IN THE AREA.

THESE PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS, THESE DEVELOPERS CHOSE TO COME TO THIS SITE WHERE THIS INDUSTRIAL USE ALREADY EXISTED TO BUILD THESE HOMES.

AND THAT WAS LAID OUT TO COUNCIL IN 1999 AND THEN AGAIN IN 06.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE, THEY'RE REQUESTING TO BUILD SOMETHING NEW.

THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO CLEAN UP THEIR ZONING.

THAT'S, OBVIOUSLY THIS COMMISSION'S AND THE CITY COUNCIL'S DISCRETION ON THE ZONING, BUT AN SUP FOR A BASE ZONING WOULDN'T BE APPROPRIATE.

THEY COULD COME BACK WITH A PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

THE THING IS, THEY DON'T HAVE ANY INTENTION TO REDEVELOP.

THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT USES, THESE USES MAY STAY FOR ANOTHER 50 YEARS.

THEY JUST WANT TO CLEAN UP THE ZONING, THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PROCESS FOR WHAT THEY HAVE.

AND I APPRECIATE THE DESIRE NOW, BUT WHO KNOWS WHAT THEIR DESIRE WILL BE IN TEN YEARS, OR A YEAR FOR THAT MATTER.

NO, THAT'S THAT'S VALID POINTS.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS VALID.

IS THE CURRENT THINKING ON THE REZONING STATUTES IMPACT WHAT GOES ON HERE? SO THE CURRENT ZONE.

YOU MEAN THE ZONING CHANGE? TALKING ABOUT REDUCING ZONING CHANGES AND..

SO THEY KNOW THEY WOULD BE VESTED.

YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT REALLY GOING TO AFFECT THAT.

WHAT I COULD SAY, WHAT I WILL SAY IS IF THEY DO GET THE ZONING AND THEY PROPOSE SOMETHING NEW AND NEW DEVELOPMENT, THEY WILL HAVE TO BRING EVERYTHING IN THE CITY CODE. THAT MEANS THEY POTENTIALLY HAVE TO SUBMIT TIAS.

THEY MAY HAVE TO IMPROVE THIS ROAD AND MAKE IT A CONCRETE ROAD, WHICH WOULD ADDRESS MR. REED'S CONCERNS.

IT MAY BE TO THE BENEFIT ULTIMATELY, RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES THAT ARE HAPPENING WITH NO ENHANCEMENTS.

IF IT WERE TO REDEVELOP NEW STRUCTURES, THEY'D HAVE TO PUT IN LANDSCAPING, THEY'D HAVE TO PUT IN SCREENING, WHICH DOESN'T EXIST.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO BRING IN ALL THOSE THINGS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO CURRENTLY, WOULD HAVE TO BE BROUGHT UP TO CODE.

SO WE ALSO LOOK AT GEOGRAPHY.

YOU KNOW, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 2000FT OF A CALICHE ROAD TO PUT A USE BACK THERE.

THAT'S QUITE AN INVESTMENT IF SOMEBODY'S GOING TO DO THAT.

SO YOU HAVE TO KIND OF LOOK AT REALISTICALLY THE GEOGRAPHY OF WHERE THE SITE'S LOCATED.

IF THIS PARCEL WENT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO WILSHIRE IS DEFINITELY A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION ON STAFF'S LEVEL, BECAUSE IT'S MORE ACCESSIBLE, THERE'S A LOT MORE VIABLE COMMERCIAL USES THAT MAY GO IN THERE.

IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS CONCERNS FROM THE COMMISSION? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:28 P.M.

AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY CASE 23-350.

I'LL SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY MICHAEL.

A SECOND BY BILL.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS.

LOOKS LIKE THAT IS UNANIMOUS.

I WILL NOTE COMMISSION, SORRY.

EVERY TIME I TALK, I FEEL LIKE EVERYONE LOOKS UP FRONT.

THAT BECAUSE IT'S A DEFAULT, AG, THIS WILL NOT TRIGGER THE SUPERMAJORITY REQUIREMENT.

TYPICALLY, WHEN, THE ZONING COMMISSION DENIES A CASE, IT TRIGGERS A SUPERMAJORITY REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL TO APPROVE OVERRIDE YOUR DENIAL. HOWEVER, WHEN IT'S DEFAULT AG, THAT DOESN'T APPLY.

SO THIS CAN BE APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED BY SIMPLE MAJORITY OF COUNCIL.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE ON TO REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS.

THERE ARE NONE COMMUNITY INTEREST ITEMS.

[6.COMMUNITY INTERESTS ITEMS]

SO WE WANT TO THANK HIM FOR HIS SERVICE ON THE COMMISSION AS WELL AS CITY COUNCIL OVER THE YEARS.

THERE'S NO EXECUTIVE SESSION THIS EVENING, SO I WILL ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:29 P.M..

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.