Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

30 uh February 16th. Um we have a quorum. We had one commissioner missing uh Commissioner Como and uh that takes us to the introduction of agenda and format staff.

Thank you chair. Good evening everyone. First tonight we will have a call to order followed by a staff report. Then the applicant will make their presentation. Afterwards the public comment will be open to share support or opposition to the request. Please state your name and address for the record and be brief and to the point within a threeminut time frame. Then the commission and staff will have their discussion and then the commission will vote to recommend approval as presented. Approval with conditions, denial of the request or to table the item. City council's consideration of tonight's zone change will be on the Monday, March 16th, 2026 meeting. Tonight on the consent agenda, we have excused absences along with the minutes from the February 2nd, 2026 planning and zoning commission meeting. And then on new business tonight, we have one zoning change request from general commercial to light industrial M1. And with that, I'll pass it back to you, chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Ka. All right, that takes us to uh the consent agenda. Anyone wishing to remove anything? All right. No. I'll entertain a motion and a second for approval of consent agenda. Commissioner Haskins motion to approve. Commissioner Fu second.

All right. Any uh discussion? Seeing no discussion, call for the vote. All those in favor sign by raising your right arm. All those opposed, same sign. That's six to zero. All right. That takes us to uh uh items removed from consent agenda. There was none. Which takes us on down to new business consideration and possible action public hearing. A request by Ashley Montavalo, applicant on behalf of um John Oya. I'm sorry. I know I butchered that. uh owner for approval of zone change for 13.256 acres of land from general commercial uh district to light industrial district located at south of Mard Road west of uh Macawa uh Paraland Texas. I'll entertain a motion in a second. Uh, Commissioner Fuertes will make a is making a motion to approve zone change number Z205-055.

Commissioner Haskin second. All right. Thank you. So, that takes us to staff report.

Good evening, commissioners. Um, as was read into the record, tonight's request is to reszone a property from general commercial to M1 or light industrial. The applicant's intent is to reszone this property to allow for industrial development of the site. We posted it in accordance with our um regulations and did not receive any written or phone calls for or against or any calls for additional information on this request. The property is zoned general commercial. The property to the south is zoned that M1 district and then across Macau or I'm sorry across Mard is more GC zoned property with R1 behind it and then M1 to the east across Macawa Road. The surrounding uses are undeveloped. There's a gas station that has recently been developed here at the corner. Um Hickory Slooh is along the south of the property here. And then there's a Perland ISD maintenance facility as well as some detention. Um this is detention over here as well as this here. And then single family residential that runs along the west side of this property on the future land use map. This ident this area is identified as public use. And then just as a notable configuration of the site, I've highlighted in purple the area which is in the flood way. The blue is the 100-year flood plane and the yellow is the 500year flood plane. So there is a substantial amount of flood area on this site. The history of this site is that it was annexed into the city in 1960 and it has not yet been platted. It is undeveloped at this time. As far as the criteria for a zone change request, um the first is the comprehensive plan, future land use plan. In this case, the um proposed M1 district is not consistent with that

public use place type. Public use is intended for things like churches, schools, um college campuses, libraries, fire stations, flood mitigation areas, um so detention areas, etc. Um it does have front edge AC along both MARD and Macawa. So Mard is a major thoroughare as well as Macawa the secondary thoroughare to be widened. Um so it is in compliance with having frontage on these and there's no conflict with the zone change for any of the frontages. If it would be approved, the proposed development would need to be compliant with the requirements of the UDC for the um M1 district as well as the highway corridor overlay district considering this is along Mard which is a a thoroughare and then the site does have access to water and sewer. The additional criteria which are found in section 2214 of our unified development code. Um again the site is identified as that future land use map public use place type um which does not align with the um M1 that is proposed tonight. And then the use per permitted being me keep trying here. I'm sorry guys. the uses permitted by the proposed zoning and the applicable uses being appropriate to the immediate area and the land to be reclassified. Um, in this case, this does partially meet the criteria. However, it does not partially meet the criteria. We have undeveloped land to the north um in the general commercial as well as the gas station across Bard Road to the north as well and the Perland ISD maintenance facility. those uses may be um something that would be uh compatible. The undeveloped land, it is yet to be determined. However, with it being zoned GC, um it is a lighter intensity zoning

district than the M1. So, you may or may not have compatibility with those uses. Um as far as the gas station and ISD, those are probably compatible with most of the uses that are in the M1 zoning district. But there's also the detention facility and the um single family residential properties that are to the west of the site which are less compatible with the M1 proposed district. The um zone change itself is not going to have a substantial impact for the public schools street water supply sanitary sewers. However, um with this being in the floodway, it is something to keep in mind. But again that would be based on the use that's proposed for the site and not for the zone change itself. So it is in conformance with that criteria as well as the final criteria which would be the public health safety morals or general welfare welfare. Um the zone change itself would not be in conflict with that. However, the use that is put on the site would be something that this this again would be reviewed against with the proposed zone change meeting. um two of the four established criteria and um needing to meet those requirements of the UDC. It is inconsistent with the comprehensive plans future land use map and it only partially aligns with the surrounding zonier land uses. So therefore staff cannot recommend approval of the zone change request. Um and that ends staff support. I'd be happy to answer questions when you come to that point. Thank you, Katie. Uh, is the applicant present? Uh, you wish to make a presentation, go to the back to the podium and, uh, state your name and address for the record.

Hi there. Uh, my name is Alex Quadra. Um, as for the address, do you need the site address or my personal address? your address. Um I'm at 5019 Isidor Lane in Missouri City, Texas, 77459.

Okay. Okay. Uh first and foremost, just want to thank the commissioners and staff for taking me on. I know I'm probably the only one on the agenda today, so I do appreciate your time today. Um this site um has been you know it's uh owned by our family uh for well over 10 or 11 years now. And originally when we had purchased it uh our intent was to um you know make it into a uh shopping center with you know a gas station on the southern side because at that point uh Mhard Road wasn't even flanking the north side. we only had the eastern uh border of it and um you know additionally when the land was purchased majority of it was in the uh flood plane um I don't know can we move to the next page okay so we we had done our due diligence and we had talked to the city planning uh department etc and we had they had requested that we do a drainage study we had at that point paid60 plus thousand dollars to do a drainage study to figure out, hey, how much of this portion of this 3 acre site can we develop? And we were told that it would be a little over an acre. So, we went and did the engineering for a very nice um you know, shopping center. It would have would have had a QSR, etc. You go on to the next um slide. You know, this is with all the landscaping, etc. All that was there. Um, I think we had I can't remember if there was a car wash or not on there, but you know, we were trying to do what we could have best uh done with the land. Um, had several meetings and shortly after, I think this was uh what date does that show down there? I can't see.

7:26 of 17.

Okay. I think this was like right before Harvey if I'm not mistaken. So when Harvey came in um obviously a lot of things changed for a lot of uh districts for you know counties, towns etc. And um come January, we had uh you know kind of gone in and asked, hey, can we start development? And it's like, hey, we need to go back and redo this um drainage study because of all the changes. And we're sitting there, you know, twiddling our thumbs like, okay, we've already spent so much money time uh on this project. Um now we're having to go back. And then when we did finally go back and do that, uh, the build line changed. Um, so we were no longer able to, you know, get this done. So the project, um, if you go back one page, um, I think this was submitted, uh, I can't remember what date that was, 2018 maybe. Uh, so yeah, I mean, uh, but moving forward, if you see that build line, um, there's not much on there. So next the next page will show you that there's like barely any area to be um even utilized. Of course then you know you you we find out that the city's bringing in mechard road on the northern side. So we're like okay um you know given that the southern side around there it's all industrial we can probably put together um an industrial land plan for logistics warehouse or whomever wants to come in there. Um and we had a couple meetings moving forward and because it was zoned general commercial we're like okay so we we should be able to move forward with that. Now one of the caveats of being zoned general commercial and trying to put in um a warehouse whether it's distribution or what have you the minimum requirements for office space is

25%. So if you move on to the next slide um this was a meeting that we had you know uh they were told that the office warehouse has to be 25% office and 75% warehouse use and that is what would be permitted in the um general commercial. Now, if I have a tenant that comes in that wants to utilize 50,000 square foot of warehouse space, am I going to sit there and tell them, well, 12,500 of this has to be an office warehouse or sorry, office space? That, you know, didn't make any sense to me because I would be basically underutilizing the area unless I had multiple smaller tenants, which, you know, may or may not be a electrician comes out there. or a a home builder or something of that sort that would actually be able to utilize 25% office uh space and 75% warehouse but then that also means I'm having to build a lot more in terms of um separation smaller buildings etc. So the area if you move forward a slide oh we'll go over this too. So this was the proposal you know I had um kind of uh shown in our last meetings that hey we would given the land that we have there after mitigation putting a detention out there um this is the only area that we would be usable um and it's I think a little over a couple acres out there. So the original land was 22 acres. The city came in and took uh a good portion of that on the northern side and then of course Hickory Slow has a a bunch of uh area that's taken up. So realistically of the 20some acres we were left with just maybe an acre or two to develop and even that um you know

we're being told we have to just keep as general commercial instead of light industrial which the southern track already is. surrounding areas already are um if we move to the next slide you'll see that area in itself that purple um I think this was from 2024 or so of the existing zoning um that's all light industrial over there and all we're asking is our other half of the track that we can only develop because we can no longer develop the southern track uh we be allowed to do light industrial so we aren't restricted if a tenant comes in and asks hey I want to just use this for a distribution center. I don't need, you know, 25% of my spot, my space as an office. That's all we're asking here. Um, so I would hope that the city and uh staff or the commissioners consider the request and you know um we will obviously do everything uh that is necessary to keep it up to code. Um, and one other thing, you know, y'all had mentioned that you wanted to use this as public use. There is a detention area. We had kind of thrown around the idea of maybe um using that as a soccer field for public use because realistically there's nothing else that can be done with that area. So, if you know city wants us to donate the unused land over because we can't do anything, that's always something we would be in favor of. And that that wraps up my uh comment. Okay. Thank you. All right. That brings us to anyone wishing to speak for or against this project. Seeing no one moving in that direction, I'll ask one more time. Anyone wishing to speak for or against this project? Seeing none, that'll open it up to commission. Uh Commissioner Eckles, you

want to start it off? Help me un understand, Katie, on on this request. The property is adjacent to even though it looks like it's still CG, but the property adjacent to it just west you said was residential. So you have residential in CG. Yes, there's there are currently residences in in the general commercial zoning district which is um to the west of this property right here. Okay.

Then looking I mean even even if we would reszone this M1 with this being in floodway and also in in the 100year flood plane. How much buildup will they have to do even under general consern general business or or general commercial that's not going to keep water from flowing onto the resident's property? would be a substantial amount of um mitigation that would have to take place on the site in order to develop it based on the flood zones. Um Francisco, I don't know if you can speak a little bit more detail to it. If not,

no, that's that's um it is going to need quite a bit of fill to be brought up and with it being in the floodway, it's makes it very difficult to it's challenging, right, to construct around it. Um, we have coordinated with them in the with the engineer in the past to submit a drainage study. Uh, we had some comments back, haven't resubmitted yet. Um, I'm not sure if they're also working with FEMA at the moment to obtain a Clommore, but all that to say, it is a challenging site to build on. It it looks like whether or not we do a zone change or not, this this parcel is going to have a difficult time being anything is with the flood way and the flood plane, right? So, okay, that answers those questions. I think the owner may may need to seek out with FEMA uh another way of doing business. Thank you.

Thanks for coming tonight. Um, one of the pictures in the presentation shows where they're apparently building which is outside of the flood way um, but still in flood plane and then significant uh, cut for flood mitigation to which you can even extend that further toward Macau if needed. But, um, I mean I I I think you're on the right track there. Um, I think it's a great great use of a of a piece of property that I mean, if it was residential, no one would want to couldn't get insurance or whatnot cuz you're in the in the flood plane there. So, um, you got a shell across the street, uh, light commercial south of you. I I I think it's a pretty good use kind of the only thing that's really really available. And if it's warehouse use, storage of that semi nature, that it's all insurable at a at a reasonable means. So, I I think it's a a a good look. Um do what you need to to to finish it out. Thanks.

Okay. Um so, my only concern is the residences that it back up to it and it going to what are the all the potential uses for the M1? I mean, I don't have a problem if somebody just says, "Hey, I just want somewhere to store. I don't need a lot of office space. I just want to store." But I don't want to open it up to everything that could be under that list. I'd rather it be more specific to someone who's actually going to build something there and they know what they're going to put there because we are backing up to people that live there. Member Haskins, if I can chime in. The current zoning is general commercial and warehouse and distribution facility is a conditional use permit within the general commercial zoning district and therefore with that you would be required to have a site plan and a zoning change to the M1 district would not be necessary if the CUP was approved instead. Thank you. Okay. So, what would be if they if we change this, what would be the other possibilities? I think that's the main thing that I want to know.

Can you redefine your statement of if we change this? If he changed this from general commercial to M1, what would be the believe they would have to have a brand new application because we would need um the site plan and potential stipulations related to the site plan. Katie's going to bring it up. Yeah, it's so it's it's light industrial. It's a pretty extensive list, I think, is the direction you're going as far as uses that could not be great next to residential, but I mean it would be anything by right on this list. I don't know if you can zoom in a few more clicks or if those are on your screen, but

so but right now their application is for light industrial currently. But Oh, are you asking to amend the request? No, I'm asking what's all potential uses in M1. Oh, yeah. Yeah. So that's cuz like for example, I wouldn't be okay with putting um something that's manufacturing or could cause contaminants to go because they've got residential homes. But if it was a like she said, if they came in for a cup for GC and it was just it was specific to that use, I'd probably feel much more comfortable about that.

Yeah. But see, it could allow for a dump or landfill. So I I think for me, I'd prefer that they did left it as GC and then came and did a cup specific for that use versus just opening the all the other potential uses of light industrial. That that'd be where I'd lie on that as far as recommendation. And I'm sorry to continue Henriks and Miss Luniger, they would need a new application to start the conditional use permit process if that was the suggestion by this body. Yes, you would not be able to grant a conditional use permit tonight. That would that would be starting a separate application process.

That that's it for me. Um, in that same vein, um, would it be more advantageous to the city and also to the applicant or andor to the applicant for a for a PD request? Um, which would grant him the variances he needs that he's mentioned. that would uh be troublesome for a warehouse to have maintain that 25% or or could we do that in a CUP? I don't know if you get a variance from the rules at that point.

So, a use variance would not be something that could be permitted. Um so, they would need to meet the requirements of the use for the zoning district if they were to go for the cup. um for a plan development. I don't know that I could fully speak to the benefit of using it as a plan development. Um because a plan development, the intent behind them is to um kind of have a give and take. So ensure a higher quality design than that which could be done through straight zoning. Um, if this could be done as a warehouse distribution facility as a cup straight zoned, um, I would need additional information about what would be offered, what, um, you know, increased buffers, increased design standard, increased something that they would be offering in order to make that rather than just using the PD as a um, alternate for a use variance type um, you know, a singleuse specific PD. which does not exceed the expectations of our unified development code.

Sure. Thank you for that. That makes a lot of sense. Um in the one hand on the one hand, I don't have an issue with this because we have it's a corridor overlay district, so we're going to have higher standards. It's going to be a nicel looking building uh and has to be maintained as such. Um, on the other hand, I do feel for the neighbors, uh, and I'm not sure where their houses are here, but you know, we have that rule in the retail note, and I keep going back to it, right? The, uh, the angle of sight, right? and and I I did some math, you know, my homework concluded the math of the site plan itself, and it seemed to me that these were singlestory buildings because the square footage, if you looked at the length and the width and multiplied them, it was exactly that. Um, so I thought, well, no, no sense in bringing up the site. Today's the renditions I saw today, those were not singlestory looking buildings. those were multi-story heightwise even though they may be single story because you've got a warehouse type bay etc etc. Um so that line of sight I'm a little concerned with I say that only to say those parcels that he that are adjacent to this parcel the single family parcels are pretty darn long and narrow. So, I would imagine the homes seem to be buffered with trees and seem to be pretty far from the from the borderline. So, my concern with that site needing that that uh you know, guideline isn't isn't as uh as great as as prior. Uh plus, there's not going to be somebody on the second or third story overlooking this. It's a it's a warehouse use. Um, but from a building standpoint, I'm not

as concerned because again, it's going to need to be um it's it's going to need to meet the overlay district and if we have the rules and the and the stringent guidelines, should we trust them or should we not? Um, and secondly, manufacturing. It's adjacent to multiple manufacturing sites or not manufacturing sites, manufacturing zoning to the east and to the south. Um so and there's a big road on the north side. So um I guess I'm not having as much heartburn as as some of my other commissioners. Um, but it does, this one, when I looked at it this this weekend, um, and I had a conversation already with staff about this. Um, this is public use in our, uh, let's see, future land use map. Um, and I guess being part of of the process, um, we we we glossed over some of this stuff. It was we didn't look and we're told not to look parcel by parcel, but this is one of those to me that really could go either way. My goodness, you have traditional residential to the north, public use to the to the west, manufacturing to the south and to the east. So, which should this piece piece or parcel be? Um, for me, those houses there don't make it public use. I think though the intent was it's public use because because of the floodway there and the and the drainage needed for some of the road improvements. It was thought it could be a a detention facility or use

for detention. So that's why it was public but public use. But I I was going to ask before I heard that, I was going to ask that, you know, at some point this year, maybe we utilize utilize the the PNZ commissioners um and have us look at instead of paying a consultant, but have us look at the LUM instead of LUP. Um maybe us look at it and and go zone by zone in the city and kind of pick out some parcels where this doesn't happen. Um that just a thought. Um the other thing I thought of and I think Mr. Francisco uh leaned upon it with that roadway in there. It reminds me of Massie some of the problems that they're having in Massie Ranch or Massie Oaks. um that there's a there's a section just south of Harky Road, no county road 100 that has some some floodway in it, but with the road construction and with the deepening of the channels, it really should be gone. And so all those homeowners have filed a Clomar uh or they are going to file a Clomar um to remove the floodway designation. And I wonder with this road, um, new road, uh, you have floodway to the north and to the south bisected by a road. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. But I might be ignorant on that. So please

No, no. I mean, you're correct. It's um, one of those things whenever the road was obstructed was intended to be outside of the floodway, right? So the road itself can be outside of the floodway or might be currently outside of the floodway. However, the tract is just adjacent to Hickory Slooh. So, still within that floodway portion, but that's part of what they're working on study, right, to submit to FEMA and try to get that Clomar.

See, and and and I don't know if we're doing the cart before the horse here, if that's the right saying. um if in fact they get the study and the the clo comes back and they get the engineering write off and the city write off or whoever has the sign off a FEMA has a sign off now we're talking 13 acres of M1 versus three acres. Um so so my my empathy for but wanting to vote yes because you've been constricted and you know you pretty much have handcuffs on you at this point um would be gone and I don't I don't know what that future looks like for a 13acre parcel of M1 versus a 3acre parcel of M1 right there in a corridor overlay district etc. So, I'm a little confused or

Hey, Alex, I have a quick question. So, you're wanting to not be general GC because you don't want the percentage, the split on the 2575. Could you please go up to the Sorry, cuz if you kept it at GC, the warehouse distribution fits with within that realm. Yeah. I think it's it sounds to me like that's really what you're looking for. And honestly speaking, if someone comes in and says, "Hey, I want 50,000 square foot of logistics distribution." I'm all for it. It's just I don't want to put a you know restriction on him like hey well 12,500 you you just have to have like a big

area machines. It's very common to have those restrictions and I think people are used to that.

Yeah. just given given the zone that it's in because um you know as Francisco and uh commissioners were saying there is a whole Clomar process and a Lomar process that we have to go through now is that going to allow us to build 13 acres of the site probably it probably won't uh based on um our previous findings with the drainage reports and this new drainage report it'll maybe allow us to build um you know on this instead of just like that whatever half an acre 1 acre Maybe it'll allow us to build enough so we can get these three buildings in there and you know per the plans um you may have the rest just as a mitigation zone because there will definitely be quite substantial amount to mitigate um but it has to come from the site right like we can't bring in outside dirt for mitigation now if you were to tell me the southern portion that 3 acres I can go and you know build uh my warehouses down there and not be restricted because if someone comes in and says Hey, I want to go put in an auto shop or, you know, manufacturing facility for I don't know uh uh beauty chemicals or something. I'm not sure. You know, I just don't want to restrict uh the tenants that come in there to hey, this is the only thing you can do and by the way, we will have to go to the city to get this approval. So, what happens if you know we find someone and we don't get that approval? that I think that was the only caveat in me requesting the M1 where I'm not putting the handcuffs on them and restricting them. Um, and I, you know, to the public use, I do understand that, you know, there are residences out there, but I think right now this is a heavily wooded area. So, when this does get developed, that wooded area would just kind of stay wooded as that buffer, whatever the 25 or 50 foot zone that is between the two

areas. And then um you know hopefully it's just logistics out there. But again that's that's something me as a developer um you know I don't want to restrict because then that restricts whoever comes in and the last thing I want to do is build something hoping it'll be logistics versus you know a user that comes in requesting a certain use. So um hope that answers the question. It did. Thank you. Hang on. Um, are you three?

Okay. Um, one of the things I I you was talking about building warehouses and then you just said that you're you're not sure about about doing, you know, you if you get a tenant. So, if if a tenant wanted to come in there and would you build to that tenants's to his his needs? So, we're going to market it with the current land plan to see if there are users because the last thing I want to do is build um you know $5 million worth of warehouses with no users out there. So, we're you know right now we're working with a industrial real estate agent to see what would be the best use. And originally we had smaller, you know, um, office warehouses out there. And his, uh, comment was, "Well, we're seeing these larger units out there." And then if you needed to subdivide, you can definitely do that. But a lot of these guys right now, they're going for storage, they're going for distribution, but, you know, there is a lot. He looked at the area and he said there is there are some manufacturing uh, facilities out there. So if someone comes in and says, "Hey, I want to manufacture." you don't want to be restricted. So, yeah, we'll market it as as is, but if someone comes in and says, "Hey, we want to come in and not do these three units. We want to just do one large unit," then, you know, we'll say, "Okay." But it all has to be, of course, approved by the council and commissioners.

Okay. Uh maybe I'm I'm hearing it wrong, but what I'm what I'm not what I'm hearing is you don't have a specific plan. So this would be one of those things where as they say, you zone the dirt after we've zoned it. He could actually come in there and put anything that he wanted to within. Of course, he could anyway once we change the zone, he can build anything on that on that list. uh with within the M1. Are you referring to Well, I mean he could he pardon what' you say?

Sorry, I'm just uh clarifying. So within the M1, so if it hypothetically if it gets changed to M1, we would be able Yeah, there's stuff you can put in there by Right. Uh, you know, I've I've got a little bit of heartburn because, uh, if you go over, you go across a bridge over there, you've got we've got a couple of projects working over there that are going to be the same thing, except they're a lot bigger. Um, you know, I just I don't

Yeah, we're just trying to get the best use case, you know, after the past 11 years because originally we would have just put a shopping center C store on the south, but we were told we couldn't do that. And now, you know, after we met, uh, at a certain point, the store across the street had already submitted their application, so we were told, well, no, you can't build it anymore because there's already one coming across the street. Um, so at this point we're like, "Okay, well, what do you do?" We can't put apartments there. You can't put a shopping center there because there's just not enough density. So, uh, logically, I think the only thing we could potentially use would be warehouse space for storage. Storage. I mean, if that's something.

Yeah. Okay. Uh, Tom, you have something else?

Okay. on the future use. I see this property as public use on the zone today, the single family dwellings. It looks like that is still zone GC, but yet they have the right of the R1. Is is that what I'm seeing? They are currently general commercialzoned properties that have existing nonconforming uses on them. However, those existing nonconformities um were built likely before this. I I unfortunately don't have the date of each one of those houses that was built. However, they can continue in perpetuity until they change it. So, if if one of those residences decides to come in, tear their house down, and then come and talk to us and say, "Hey, can I build another house here?" They would need to comply with the regulations of the zoning district or um have a reszone approved prior to an residential district prior to being able to rebuild a house in that location. Um, so they are they are existing houses that may continue to exist and any development that happens around them is still it's a residential zoning district or residential use is how our code language reads for things like buffers and protection of those property um residents to ensure that people who are currently living somewhere are not ousted because of of development taking place. Okay. I I think I understand. What I don't understand is that if this this body changes it over and it's proved through council

to go to M1, some of the usage by right of M1 could have effect upon single family dwellings. And and now here we would be giving them the okay of a zone change then by right putting in manufacturing that will effect the residents especially if it's a 24-hour operation manufacturing with noise and everything else that could happen. So I'm that kind of convolutes in in some sense to me for us to zone something M1 right next to a residential that actually is not even zone residential, but we have to appreciate and respect their residencies. So that that me that uh that puts us between rock and hard place puts us behind a eightball. I'm good. Quick question for the uh commissioners. Um hypothetically uh this was something that had been asked uh by a previous realtor or you know when I was uh speaking to them they had said oh well what if you went out and bought the residences in the back. So, hypothetically, if the residences in the back were purchased and I, you know, there are no longer residences in in the vicinity and that entire tract is requested to be zoned to M1, would that be an issue if there are no longer residences butdding up against it?

That's a tough hypothetical. Um, but you know, it just makes me want to clean up our zoning map a little bit because uh I don't know that the corner of Woody and Mard is a true GC corner to begin with. I mean, Woody's not a major thoroughare like Macaua. Macau, it makes sense for those four corners to been GC. Um, although now you have a you have a declining roadway that doesn't give access to the east side. Um, so I don't know that that's a good GC corner, but I I just don't see the gas station made sense where it's at at the northeast corn northwest corner of Macau and Mard because of access uh egress, etc., you know, coming onto Mhard andor Macaua both. Um, this one doesn't because it's not, you know, it's got a floodway right there at that at that corner and and limited uh depth uh from from Mard, but Woody itself is not a major road. Um, we had resistance with a gas station down the street on Mard, the brand new road. Um, we had resistance from uh sta council turned it down uh similar gas station type use. Um, but you know, I don't know if you bought all five of those, if somebody else bought all five of those and came in and said they wouldn't have to come in. They could do anything in that GC by right. Just don't know if that's that's a a good use for that land. Um, it just seems to me I'm I'm looking up, you know, even north of Mard, uh, and and east of Woody, uh, it says traditional residential. Are all those traditional residential?

But when you look at the future land use plan of this Oh, that is the future land use plan. I'm sorry. This is the current zoning. There's there's R1's there, but there's also a lot of that in red, uh, which is general commercial. So, we've have more non-conforming. I just don't know if if we don't need to do some exercises to clean this up, and I'm not volunteering that for staff. I'm more than willing to uh utilize the PNZ or at least me to do that.

Just to clarify, commissioners, the current zoning of the property west of Macawa, but north of Mard in that area is general commercial. The future land use map identifies that area as traditional residential. So the future land use map of this is saying we should be looking at that intersection, that woody intersection and and things east of I'm sorry, west of Macawa, north of Mard, um or just generally west of Macawa as lower intense uses rather than increasing them. So a lot of times you see it go from, you know, a a residential to a commercial or a res or commercial to an industrial. In this case, the future land use map is saying, "Hey, let's soften this corridor and make this public use on the south here where there there is already a large detention area here as well as the smaller detention area in this corner that is zoned M1 currently. But then instead of the commercial uses along this intersection, it's going from from that commercial to a residential and then compact residential. So um while I cannot speak to the application in a future, we would be taking a look at the same future land use map through 2040 to take a look at that.

I know that we're going to be expanding Macaua. Do we know how far out that is? any idea? I would have to verify it. Okay. Uh let's call for the vote. All those in favor, sign by raising your right hand.

Wait, what? I guess I was still under the impression that we we might recommend a a cup or a PD or something to that effect. We not want to make any of those into consideration. I think you would still need to have an action on this item. I mean, there's no changing what's in front of you tonight. That's not a motion that we can make. You are absolutely correct.

All right. Call for the vote. All those in favor, sign by raising your right hand. All those opposed. One, two, three, four. Well, okay. All those in favor of of sign by raising your right hand. All those opposed. That's three to three. It's motion fails. Correct. All right. That is correct.

All right. That takes us uh takes us into discussion items. Uh city council update report. Thank you, chair. We had council on the 9th of February and it was the second reading of ordinance number UDC 2000T-41 for the revisions to the definition of family in the addition of the short-term rental and it was recommended for approval with the success vote of 7 to zero. Okay. Thank you.

All righty. Our next PNZ meeting will be March the 2nd. Uh does anyone uh know of any conflict? All right. Uh that brings us to it is 7:20 and we adjourn this meeting.