Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Mr. Kaye, correct me if I'm wrong, but a C1 is also considered in the uses in C1 for commercial neighborhood. Is that correct?

A C1 is commercial for neighborhoods or commercial areas, not a C2.

Yes, okay and so what you're proposing is an SUP to be put into a c1 zone That whereby an animal shelter can be by by SUP It can go in any C1, providing it has an SUP. Is that correct?

OK. So I guess my concern is throwing this back out is that if the animal shelter with an issue pay or can be in any see one in anywhere in the city as long as it's accompanied with an issue pay correct.

And once that an SUP goes to a piece of property, it is there for, what, five years?

WOULD AN SPCA BE AN ANIMAL WOULD AN SPCA BE AN ANIMAL WOULD AN SPCA BE AN ANIMAL SHELTER? SHELTER? SHELTER? I WOULD HAVE TO REFER TO I WOULD HAVE TO REFER TO I WOULD HAVE TO REFER TO MENALA ON THAT ONE AS WELL.

quick question of so this change with its only affect the animal shelter for the city but will private organization able will be able to open up one in the city of this change is only for the city

I GUESS SPCA WOULD BE ALLOWED BECAUSE THAT'S PHILANTHROPIC.

I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION IN THE AFFIRMATIVE TO APPROVE THE TEXT AMENDMENT OR TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE RELATIVE ELEMENT CODE AS WRITTEN.

JUST AS A GENERAL THOUGHT BEHIND THIS, I ACTUALLY DON'T MIND THIS TEXT AMENDMENT PERSONALLY BECAUSE I THINK THAT THIS IS, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SUP PROCESS, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING AND ALL THAT STUFF LIKE THAT. I DON'T CONSIDER 4A A BAD IDEA. I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY A GOOD IDEA SO THAT WAY WE HAVE MORE INPUT ON WHERE THE CITY MAY WANT TO ACTUALLY PLACE THE ANIMAL SHELTER. THAT'S MY THOUGHT.

Okay, so I would like to have seen this actually divided up in two parts, one for the C1 and the second one for an SEP. But I have no problems with the rezoning of the property being C1.

Sure. I'm looking at the agenda item 4A, which is about C1 going to C1 and a special use permit.

Okay. So I would have liked to seen it separated. I can see the property going to C1, but not the special use permit portion. Okay.

Yes, it's my understanding that that second one was a part of that, right? Like as far as the SUP, that is my understanding. Is that incorrect? Like when you say you want to, isn't it in its entirety already? When he says he wants it broken onto two?

SO THIS TEXT AMENDMENT ONLY APPLIES CITYWIDE, NOT FOR THESE TWO LOCATIONS?

Yes. I guess to complete what I'm saying is, regardless of where a C1 piece of property is in this city, I don't have a problem with it those being there in that category, but not an SUP for an animal shelter in a C1. Maybe it belongs, I think, in a C2, but not a C1.

A point of order and to the city attorney. Since 4A was denied and since the C1 category suggestion to council is that the SUP does not apply to a C1, can we even consider a SUP on the C1 that doesn't exist in the development code?

So for this purpose, the SUP goes away. We can talk about the C1. But we can't go forward with the SUP.

THANK YOU. WHY ARE YOU CHANGING THE ZONING FOR THE FIRE STATION?

JUST SOMETHING YOU GUYS TRY TO FIX SOMETHING?

I HAD ONE QUESTION. IN YOUR PRESENTATION YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE ALTERNATE LOCATIONS. WAS THERE A PRIMARY CONSIDERED?

MR. KAYE, SINCE IT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP, AND IT MAY BE BETWEEN YOU AND MINNAL AS TO before we open up the public hearing so that people understand what's going on and why two pieces of property and one of them is the fire station currently. Can you give us a little historical background on what happened that the fire station is there, we own another piece of property next door and it's still SF-10? which is single family, 10,000 square foot lots versus having been changed because of the building of the fire station.

Well, I think she wanted to continue to.

So we're talking about a land zoning change from SF 10, a single family, 10,000 square foot zone currently, to a C1, a commercial zone. And I guess what I'm asking for is before we open up public hearing so that the public understands and knows the background of why there is a request from a single family to a C-1 on especially the piece of property that is currently a fire station. maybe it won't help but i think it would help

Madam chairman, I would like to make a motion So we can discuss this further I would like to recommend that we Recommend to the City Council rezoning of this property from SF 10 single-family residential district to see one limited commercial retail district and And I would like to table the SUP to a date certain.

SEPARATING THAT FROM THE ZONING FOR THE ANIMAL SHELTER.

THE QUESTION I HAD WAS CAN WE SEPARATE THE ZONING FOR THE FIREHOUSE FROM THE SECOND PROPERTY? IS THAT POSSIBLE TO DO TWO MOTIONS THERE?

SO CHANGE THE ZONING FOR THE FIRE HOUSE AND THEN THE SECOND PROPERTY WERE DECISIONS MADE THERE SEPARATE FROM THE FIREHOUSE BEING ZONED CORRECTLY.

A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT WE DO JUST WHAT MR. WHITE REQUESTED, THAT WE AMEND MR. POLLARD'S MOTION TO SEPARATE IT INTO TWO ITEMS, ONE FOR THE FIREHOUSE PROPERTY AND ONE FOR THE VACANT PROPERTY.

Yes. And I apologize to for raising the same question.

I'm just saying the ultimate would be three votes. If you ever did get there.

The friendly amendment would be to vote on the firehouse, a change of zoning, one vote. Second vote would be the change of zoning for the vacant property. And the third vote would end up being the SUP. The table of the SUP. The table of the SUP, yes. Okay.

I would be agreeable to Mr. Blight's amended motion to take a separate vote on one, the fire station property, two, the vacant property, the two different addresses, and then to table the SUP to date certain.

Any comments? Yes. Just to be clear, I'm not sure why we're separating them, to be honest with you. I don't know why we have to complicate that. It seems to me like there's, I would, REALLY QUESTION WHY WOULD WE NOT ALSO ZONE THE ONE THAT'S IMMEDIATELY NEXT TO THE FIRE STATION. THAT SEEMS A LITTLE TOO GRANULAR TO ME. IT SEEMS LIKE THIS WHOLE AREA SHOULD BE C1 JUST BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY TO THE FIRE STATION. I DON'T KNOW WHY IT NEEDS TO BE SEPARATE. um as a matter of the sup i'm very much in line with where i think everybody else feels this is the wrong place for the animal shelter but since

I think I'm already on. Okay, so I too, I'll be amenable to take the vote on two separate, but I will say this. I think that the expectations when I move to a new neighborhood that backs up to this or I buy an older home that's already established, that the city should have, when they bought the property in the beginning, should have rezoned the entire area. And they didn't. And what this does is to take it out of residential SF-10 and make it commercial one. And that way, anybody that buys into an older neighborhood or the new neighborhood under construction, their expectations would be that

ONE OTHER POINT I WANT TO MAKE. COMMISSIONER POWELL, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING ONE OF THE POINTS YOU WERE MAKING. MULTI-FAMILY IS NOT C1, CORRECT? CORRECT. SO THERE'S, IF THESE ARE ZONE C1, APARTMENTS SHOULD NOT APPEAR THERE? CORRECT. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. HERNANDEZ, AS TO WHY I ADDED TWO VOTES. I WAS TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE BROTHER WHITE'S CONCERN ON CHANGING THE FIREHOUSE SEPARATELY. I PLAN ON VOTING YES ON BOTH OF THEM, BUT I WAS JUST TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE MR. WHITE.

WELL, THE REASON WHY WAS THE NEW FIREHOUSE WAS AN ERROR THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED FROM THE PAST. SO WE NEED TO FIX THAT. YES. NOW, THE SECOND STORY IS ABOUT THIS UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY. Since that is zoned for SF10, which is a single-family home zoning, leave it there for the next developer or whatever happens. So not touching existing, not changing anything there, because my belief is that this is the wrong location for an animal shelter. but we need to fix something from the past we need to fix. Leave existing and get the additional information from the city so you can finally do what the next de

My only comment back to you, Mr. White, in all due respect, whoever buys in that area, whether it's a new home and you build a new one, An existing home the buyer has an expectation of what is around and if you leave that vacant property owned by the city Of sf-10 the city could sell it and And have a change requested on it. And whoever buys, their expectation is it's going to be single family. And I doubt very seriously the city would sell that and put homes on there.

So you're asking to answer a question of the future. We don't know what will happen with any property or any piece of parcel in the city. So anything like that could happen in the future. You really can't govern that or you can't control that from this vote right here. So all you can do is leave it as existing and then wherever the city's policies for settlement, that's a future decision that will be made. So you can't control that here. So I think we should leave that alone.

But if I bought a lot that backs up to this and it's SF1, what's my expectations? IT'S GOING TO BE BUILT AS SF1, OR SF10, I'M SORRY, THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. AND THAT MAY NOT BE TRUE.

NO, BUT THE CITY, THE MERE FACT THAT THE CITY OWNS IT AND PROBABLY IS NOT GOING TO SELL IT, THE CITY CAN COME IN THERE AND BUILD ANOTHER CITY OWNED BUILDING AS FAR AS THAT'S CONCERNED. BUT THE NEIGHBOR THAT JUST BOUGHT ADJACENT TO IT IS THINKING going to be have homes behind me single-family homes i'm just saying the expectation of whoever buys and builds especially that it backs up to it that that at least they have uh somewhat of a heads up well no vote we can make today we can control what the city will happen five ten or twenty years from now for that property is that a true statement that

20 years from now, that could change. But we don't know that. Like when I live in Lakewood Point, the property behind us is undeveloped. That could come in something different. So we don't know if we can control that right now. We know when that comes up, we'll be meeting like such and we'll have some votes with individuals who live in our neighborhood to say what they want and what they don't want in their neighborhood. Okay?

I just wanted to add, you know, after all this discussion about this item, it still goes back to if you are for it or against it. I think we're going beyond what needs to be discussed because at that time, homeowners would have to be notified at that time anyway, and they would have that opportunity to decide if they're for or against it. Because if they weren't notified at that time, that would not be good. It would be illegal. So, it's like what we're talking about tonight is the recommendation for this item whether you vote for it in its entirety or if you dissect it, I think it's clear. Bu

I think we're voting on whether to change the zoning for the firehouse.

whether we should change the the zoning for the firehouse to.

And that's to change it to see one. That's.

Correct. And that's also for a C1. Mm-hmm.

CHAIR. POINT OF ORDER ON THIS. IF WE'RE VOTING TO TABLE THE SUP BUT WE'VE JUST REJECTED, DOES THE TABLE BASICALLY BECOME A MOVE POINT?

THE MOTION WAS TO TABLE THE SUP, EXCUSE ME. BUT IF WE'RE VOTING TO DENY THE CHANGE IN ZONING TO C1 FOR THE VACANT PROPERTY, THERE'S NOTHING REALLY TO TABLE AT THIS POINT.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE ACTION ON THE SUP? SO IS THERE A NEED TO DO A VOTE ON THAT OR DO WE JUST SIMPLY SAY TABLE?

right and it's it's and you're absolutely correct i think it is a moot point but at the same time because like you said we are a recommending body if if we say to table it does that basically force council to say only dealing with the zoning and then once the complete studies are done for the sup then they can come back to us and correct yes or no right so the only action depending on you know when these move forward to city council the only action would be on

TO SAY WE'RE TABLEING THIS? TO SAY WE'RE TABLEING THIS? I DON'T REMEMBER. I DON'T REMEMBER. I DON'T REMEMBER. I DON'T BELIEVE WE EVER HAD TO.

SINCE I MADE THE MOTION TO TABLE THIS TO A DATE CERTAIN, DO WE NEED TO GIVE A DATE? AND I'LL SUGGEST NOVEMBER 10.

Do I have? Ms. Chairman. Before we close since that was the last. I would like to make a comment under the members of the planning zone Commission request topics to be placed on the agenda for subsequent meetings. I'd like to know what the status is on the condos or apartments up here at Main and Kirby, since that's a form-based code SUP for urban village. There was talk about that being up for sale and so forth. The sign was not there today, but I'd like to know what the status would be if that goes away since an SUP follows the zoning and if whatever we voted on is now potentially doesn't ex