Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WELCOME TO THE CITY OF ROWLETT SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, THIS MEETING MAY BE for the purpose of seeking confidential legal advice from the city attorney on any agenda item herein. The city of Rowlett reserves the right to reconvene, recess, or realign the regular session or called executive session or order of business at any time prior to adjournment. Process for public input. If you are not able to attend in person, you may complete the citizen input form on the city's website by 3.30 p.m. the day before the meeting. ALL FORMS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING. FOR IN-PERSON COMMENTS, REGISTRATION FORMS INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. WE HAVE A QUORUM. IT IS 7.01 P.M. AND I'M CALLING THIS MEETING TO ORDER. At this time, we'll have citizens' input. Three-minute comments will be taken from the audience on any topic. No action can be taken by this commission during citizens' input. Do I have any speakers?

Shelby Coleman.

Shelby Coleman, Rowlett. I am here primarily to support the Animal Shelter Advisory Board's request to evaluate additional locations for the new shelter. I appreciate the work that has gone into identifying the Shrady Road site, and I don't have a strong preference for one location. I do want us to compare reasonable options thoroughly before making a final decisions. The concerns raised about the noise from the fire station number two deserve attention. So does the question of where volunteers could safely walk dogs if there are limited sidewalks or connections to nearby parks. I understand a professional noise study is still pending. Its findings, along with safe access and animal welfare, should be a part of consistent comparison of sites. I would specifically like the city owned Miller Heights Furnished Property evaluated or a clear evaluation of why it was excluded. I'm referring to the property along George Bush Service Road, not the wooded bike trail area of Pecan Grove that residents worked to protect. Proximity to Pecan Grove could offer walking opportunities, and nearby Rowlett High School could offer opportunities for student volunteers. Those are possibilities to assess alongside cost, noise, and access. I worry if a reasonable property was left off the list because it was considered politically difficult, then the comparison may be incomplete. I'M ASKING YOU TO SUPPORT THE BOARD'S REQUEST SO WE CAN MAKE A WELL-INFORMED DECISION AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SHELTER SWIFTLY. I ALSO WANT TO BRIEFLY MENTION DOWNTOWN EAST. I'VE EMAILED MY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE 17 ACRE FINAL PLAT ON TODAY'S AGENDA TO THE COMMISSION AND COUNCIL. MY CONCERN IS ENSURING THAT THE COMMERCIAL FRONTAGE SHOWN IN THE 2018 PHASE MASTER PLAN REMAINS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT. Sorry, guys. I really just want to make sure that the commercial property, it's not just apartments, that we get commercial as well. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Okay. Are there any other speakers for citizens' input? Please step forward. Seeing no one, I'll close the citizen input. Our next item on the agenda is the consent agenda. Item 3A, consider approving the minutes of the August 25th, 2026 regular meeting. And item 3B, we are removing from the agenda tonight. So the only item on the agenda is to consider approving the minutes of the August 25, 2026 regular meeting. Do I have a motion? You've got Mr. Jones making the motion. Motion from Commissioner Joe to approve the minutes from August 25th, 2026 as presented. Do I have a second?

Second.

I have a second from Commissioner Pollard. Any discussion? Let's take a vote. Okay, and that passes. Our next item on the agenda for individual consideration is item 4A. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE ROW LET DEVELOPMENT CODE AT SECTION 77-301 TO ALLOW AN ANIMAL SHELTER WITHIN THE LIMITED COMMERCIAL RETAIL DISTRICT C-1 SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ANIMAL SHELTER USE. AND MAKING THAT PRESENTATION THIS EVENING, is Allison Duque, planning manager.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS A PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE RELATE DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATED TO ANIMAL SHELTERS WITHIN THE C1 LIMITED COMMERCIAL RETAIL DISTRICT. THE REQUEST IS TO AMEND SECTION 77-301 OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW AN ANIMAL SHELTER TO BE CONSIDERED WITHIN THE C-1 DISTRICT THROUGH APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THIS ITEM IS A RECOMMENDATION, THE ITEM TONIGHT WE ARE REQUESTING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL. The proposed amendment would add animal shelters as an SUP eligible use in the C1 zoning district. And it is important to note that this would not make animal shelters permitted by right. Each request would still require its own SUP and public hearing process. The SUP process provides for site specific review and it allows the city to consider the surrounding area, the site design, access, operations, compatibility, and any conditions that may be appropriate for a particular property. THIS ITEM IS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED CITY ANIMAL SHELTER AT 8502 SHREDI ROAD. HOWEVER, THE REZONING AND SITE SPECIFIC SUP FOR THAT PROPERTY ARE SEPARATE ACTIONS AND WILL BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM TONIGHT. staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to section 77-301 as this would allow the animal shelters to be considered in c1 through an sup while preserving individual review and public hearing for each request and that concludes my presentation i'll take any questions you may have at this time thank you any questions commissioners commissioner poehler

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?

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding your question.

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

See one. Yes, sir. The uses align more with the surrounding residential areas for these specific uses.

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?

Yes, sir. The proposed text amendment would actually just allow for animal shelters, as you said, to be allowed in the C1 district generally. However, regardless of the location, a SUP would be required.

So define an animal shelter for me.

I actually have not included that. We do have it defined in our code. I do not have it on this slide exactly, so I don't want to misquote the ordinance and its specific definition.

Commissioners, we'll pull that definition up for you in just a second. Bear with us.

Okay.

Commissioners come bow is considered a kennel not an animal shelter and that's why we're going to pull up the definition fee. It's considered a kennel.

Any of the questions. Commissioner Powell.

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.

Yes, sir, considered on a case-by-case basis.

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

I don't believe five years.

It goes with the land. The SUP is a zoning action, and therefore the zoning goes with the land. It's a land use.

So it would be there for?

In perpetuity unless the zoning is changed and the SUP is repealed. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER POLLARD. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER POLLARD.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER POLLARD. COMMISSIONER BLATES. COMMISSIONER BLATES. COMMISSIONER BLATES.

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.

MENALA ON THAT ONE AS WELL. MENALA ON THAT ONE AS WELL. I'M NOT SURE WITH THAT I'M NOT SURE WITH THAT I'M NOT SURE WITH THAT BUSINESS. BUSINESS.

We would have to identify the uses associated with it. I'm not completely familiar with the uses in the SPCA. If you'd bear with us for just a second, we'll pull up the definition of animal shelter, and that might solve some of the queries that you have.

Thank you, Commissioner Blade.

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

Would it fall under this? Yes. That would again need to be addressed in the definition here.

So the purpose of the item in front of you commissioners is to propose staff, the city is proposing a text amendment to the Rowlett Development Code. The Rowlett Development Code has a schedule of permitted uses. Associated with the uses is an action that for certain land uses requires approval through the public hearing process of a special use permit, an SUP. The request before you states that a text amendment to allow an animal shelter in the C1 district only with the approval of a special use permit through the public hearing process for an animal shelter. So it won't be any C1 district that would carte blanche allow the use. It would require approval of an SUP. So a recommendation from yourselves. AS WELL AS THEN AN ACTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL. AND AN ANIMAL SHELTER BY THE RALLET DEVELOPMENT CODE. NOW, I DO WANT TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT. THE LARGER BROADER UMBRELLA FOR SOME OF THE CITY USES IS A COMMUNITY FACILITY. A COMMUNITY FACILITY INCLUDES BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES OR FACILITIES OWNED, OPERATED OR OCCUPIED BY GOVERNMENTAL PHILANTHROPIC agency to provide a service to the public. The specific uses, not necessarily just limited to this, is animal shelter, which is a permanent facility for the purpose of collecting and impounding stray, wild, and or unclaimed animals, reptiles, et cetera, both domestic and non-domestic. And with that, I'll try and answer more questions.

THANK YOU.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS?

COMMISSIONER BLADE?

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

WITH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, CORRECT.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BLADE. This is a public hearing. If no one has any further questions of Allison, I'll open up the public hearing at this time. Do we have any speakers? Okay. I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY FOR THIS PUBLIC HEARING THAT WE HAVE ANOTHER ITEM FOR THE ANIMAL SHELTER. THIS IS JUST A TEXT AMENDMENT TO OUR RALLY DEVELOPMENT CODE. SO IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THE TEXT AMENDMENT, THEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN NOW. YOU CAN'T SPEAK?

THEY CAN'T SPEAK ON BOTH?

If you want to speak on both, then you'll have to fill out two cards. So do we have any public hearing speakers on this item?

We asked and most of them wanted to speak on 4B.

One for be okay then with no one speaking. I will close the public hearing Do I have a motion commissioners Commissioner Hernandez

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.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. DO I HAVE A SECOND? NO SECOND.

YOUR MOTION FAILS. WE DO HAVE A SECOND?

Commissioner Joop seconds. Any discussion? Well, I have something I would like to say. Oh, go ahead, Commissioner Hernandez.

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.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS ITEM TONIGHT. SO I WOULD LIKE TO TABLE IT.

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.

I have a real problem at this point in time with the SEP. We have to be very clear on sticking to the action item for 4A and not delve into the matter subsequent to this.

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

Correct. Just clarifying that we don't.

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.

Thank you, Commissioner Politz. Commissioner Wilson.

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?

Commissioners, allow me to try and clarify, and I'll try my best. And please ask me any questions that you have. The first item on your agenda that you are acting on to which the public hearing has been closed is item 4A, which is strictly addressing a text amendment to the Rowlett Development Code. Yes. And so that is the only item that is on the table right now. Yes. THE TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AN ANIMAL SHELTER WITH AN SUP.

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

This amendment is applicable to the Rowlett development code which would then be applicable to properties that fall within the development code parameters.

Any further discussion?

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.

Thank you, Commissioner Pollard. Any other comments? So we have a motion on the table from Commissioner Hernandez to approve, seconded by Commissioner Joe. Time to vote. Oh. I take back the vote. Commissioner Blades has a comment.

I thought you made a motion to table.

Well, we have to kill the first motion and start over.

Okay.

Let the mayor learn it. So we'll have to take a vote on the first motion, and then I'll make a motion to table.

Is that right, council? If it passes.

Correct. HELP FACILITATE THE PROCESS AND CITY ATTORNEY IS HERE TOO. THERE IS ALREADY A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO APPROVE THE REQUEST AND IT HAS BEEN SECONDED. NEXT ACTION IS TO TAKE A VOTE ON THAT AND THEN DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME, THEN NEXT STEPS.

OKAY. SO WE'LL TAKE A VOTE AT THIS TIME. And the motion fails, four to three. So at this time, I would like to make a motion to table this item until we get further information. Do I have a second? Take that back. ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM 4B, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A CITY INITIATED REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 8.43 ACRES LOCATED AT 8502 AND 8602 SHRADY ROAD FROM THE SF10 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO THE C1 LIMITED COMMERCIAL RETAIL DISTRICT AND A SPECIAL USE PERMIT to allow an animal shelter use at 8502 Shrady Road. Allison Duque, planning manager, will make the presentation.

Oh, I think we're on.

We're good. Thank you, guys.

Yep, we're good to go. Thank you, guys. The item before you tonight is a city-initiated rezoning and special use permit request for approximately 8.43 acres at 8502 and 8602 Shrady Road. The request is to rezone both properties from SF10 to C1 and to consider an SUP for an animal shelter at 8502 Shrady Road. The request includes two city-owned properties, that being 8502 Shrady Road, which is approximately 4.21 acres and is currently undeveloped, and then 8602 Shrady Road, which is approximately 4.22 acres and developed with Fire Station 2. The surrounding area includes a mix of residential, commercial, and public uses. THE MAP SHOWN HERE SHOWS THE EXISTING ZONING ON THE LEFT AND THE PROPOSED ZONING ON THE RIGHT. BOTH PROPERTIES ARE CURRENTLY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY TEN AND ARE PROPOSED TO BE REZONED TO COMMERCIAL ONE OR THE C-1 ZONING DISTRICT. THE ANIMAL SHELTER S.U.P. WOULD APPLY ONLY TO THE PROPERTY 8502 SHRADY ROAD. FOR SOME BACKGROUND, IN MAY OF 2023, RAULETTE VOTERS authorized an 8.4 million GO bond for an animal shelter facility. And then earlier this year, council directed staff to evaluate alternative locations, at which time they identified 8502 Shrady Road as a potential site. Staff evaluated whether the C-1 zoning district would be appropriate for these properties. And it should be noted that the district is intended for community serving uses and better reflects the existing and proposed non-residential use of the city-owned properties. It would also extend the existing C-1 zoning along the Shrady Road corridor. C1 is the city's limited commercial slash retail district and may accommodate community serving uses near residential areas. And it is also subject to applicable development and neighborhood protection standards. The proposed shelter site at 8502 Shrady Road is approximately 745 feet deep, which which would provide an opportunity for separation from the nearby residential properties. And it should be noted that the site layout has not been approved and would be evaluated through the standard development review process. The special use permit component is going to be considered separately as we've noted and the rezoning alone would not authorize this animal shelter use. The SUP would provide that site specific review of the proposed use and would also allow for consideration of potential impacts as well as appropriate conditions as necessary. Because this property is within 300 feet of a residential zoning district, the city's neighborhood protection standards apply, and these items will address noise, outdoor activities, lighting, refuse areas, and hours of operation. noise has specifically been considered due to the proposed use and its adjacency to the fire station the animal services advisory board requested that a professional sound study or noise study be conducted which will be completed as the project continued to move through the design and as mentioned at council will be provided in the future Additionally, staff also conducted a onsite noise exercise at the six marked locations on the property, including measurements associated with the fire truck and ambulance sirens to provide additional context regarding the existing noise conditions. And staff also provided the fire station run numbers since October 1st of 2025. Fire station two has received approximately 2,200 calls for service, averaging about six to seven vehicle responses per day. If the project were to move forward, noise generating activities, service areas, and similar site features would be located and screened to minimize any impacts and potential nuisances on nearby residential properties where feasible. Another consideration has been the hours of operation and lighting. The animal shelters public hours are Tuesday through Saturday from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. with staff presence seven days a week to do animal care and facility operations. Exterior lighting would also be downlit and required to comply with the standard ROLIT development code requirements. The site plan shown here is for illustrative purposes only and is not being approved with this request. The project would still require, as I said, the full development review process and would at that time consider the review for access, utilities, drainage, landscaping, screening, lighting, and all other applicable standards. Staff, public notice was sent out for this item on September 4th of this year and within 200 feet staff sent out 29 public notice letters and received one in opposition of the request and zero in favor for the request. And then staff sent out 82 courtesy notices within 500 feet of the proposed request and received back four letters in opposition and one in favor. Additionally to that, staff received 10 citizen input forms submitted through our city website. staff recommends approval of the rezoning from sf10 to c1 and approval of the sup for a city operated animal shelter at 8502 shredy road and tonight the commission may recommend approval approval with conditions or denial to the city council and that concludes my presentation thank you thank you allison any questions commissioners i have one of order

Commissioner Pollard.

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?

No. I mean, we voted to deny the allowance of that. I mean, we then can't on 4 allow that to happen.

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

No. I mean, no.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IF WE NEED TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, WE ABSOLUTELY CAN DO THAT TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION.

WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. WELCOME BACK. IT IS 7.51 AND WE ARE RECONVENING THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ALLISON. WOULD YOU PLEASE CLARIFY EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE ASKING THIS COMMISSION TO CONSIDER?

Yes, ma'am. So item 4B, the request is to rezone both properties 8502 Shrady Road and 8602 Shrady Road to be rezoned from the SF 10 zoning district to the C1 zoning district and additionally to allow an animal shelter be permitted OR FOR THE 8502 TO ALLOW AN SUP FOR AN ANIMAL SHELTER. SO THAT IS FOR ITEM 4B TOGETHER. THAT IS THE CONSIDERATION. SO BOTH PROPERTIES ARE PROPOSING REZONE TO C1, WHEREAS ONLY 8502, WHICH IS THE UNDEVELOPED PARCEL, WOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR AN SUP.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? Is it on now?

It's me. It's me.

Commissioner Joe?

I guess one of my concerns is, and I wish we did have the information as far as the decibels and the fire station. That actually bothers me less. What more concerns me is the neighborhoods. Something like this very similar happened to me in Arkansas where there was a subdivision, an animal shelter. was put in place. And then what happened was if I was going out at 9 a.m. for my cup of coffee and then that's when they let all the animals out in the cages and then that noise, the constant barking was disruptive to the communities literally. And they had done beautiful walls and trees. But when you've got, you know, And I don't know if you have the answer to that, how many times a day the dogs come out. I know the shelters open from eight to five. That is more of my concern as far as the surrounding properties with the neighborhoods, because when the dogs go out, they see a squirrel, all of a sudden they're barking 24 seven. and I could no longer enjoy my cup of coffee. And they were probably half a mile away from where my subdivision was. So that is my biggest concern is the location of the animal shelter based on where the properties are. And I just didn't know if we had information how many times the dogs come out during the day, how that works, if you can even answer that question.

I'm going to refer to Manal on that one for the animal shelter specific questions.

So all your questions, hopefully I'll get to them. If I forgotten one, would you please repeat it? So I try and address that too. So we met with our animal services advisory, I beg your pardon, animal services division manager, Kalia Morris, to ask these very specific questions. And the team is here too. They deal with these animals very intimately in terms of their routine. so question number one was how many hours do the dogs spend outdoors which was a question you had so weather permitting the dogs typically spend about five hours a day outside again this can depend you know it depends varying on the weather is it too hot is it too cold so on average it's about five hours a day and what was your next question I think you had two if I'm not mistaken

what the consideration, if that was taken into account, how many times the dogs were let out there, and if that was taken into consideration as far as the noise levels and if any research was done, because I know, again, because of my past experience, that that was very disturbing for the neighborhood.

Sure. And one of the questions, you ask a very valid question and the commentary associated with that, especially it's also memorialized in the staff report where we've talked about neighborhood protection standards. Because of the use itself being and having adjacency to a residential district, there are specific neighborhood standard requirements that have to be taken into consideration. SO ALTHOUGH WE DO NOT HAVE A FULL-BLOWN SITE PLAN AT THIS TIME, WE HAVE AN ILLUSTRATIVE DIAGRAM THAT DESCRIBES THE SPATIAL ASPECTS OF THE BUILDING OR THE USE IN RELATIONSHIP TO THAT PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, WE WILL ALSO DURING SITE PLAN REVIEW TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE PLACEMENT OF, FOR INSTANCE, THE OUTDOOR KENNELS OR THE outdoor walking of the animals, for example. One of the questions you mentioned was noise. One of the components as part of this program is to have our consultant conduct a noise study. So we're waiting on scope and finalization of that. And we are cautiously optimistic that we will have that information available at the October 20th city council meeting, for example. So we are looking or taking into consideration those very aspects, not just the fire station adjacent to the animal shelter, but also the animal shelter and its adjacencies.

Thank you, Mina. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER WHITE?

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

BECAUSE THE C-1 ZONING DISTRICT BETTER FITS THE USE OF THE FIRE STATION THERE WHERE IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED SF-10 AND SO THE ZONING DOESN'T REALLY APPLY AND MATCH WITH THE ACTUAL USE OF THE LAND AS A FIRE STATION.

JUST SOMETHING YOU GUYS TRY TO FIX SOMETHING?

YES, WITH THESE BOTH BEING TWO CITY OWNED PROPERTIES, IT IS A CORRECTION AND THEN A POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITY TO ALSO UTILIZE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY FOR A SIMILAR USE.

THANK YOU.

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

That's just the background information I have that there was discussion of alternate locations. I could let Manal speak to that further about specifics though.

Thank you. We have engaged with Heffer Welker. They are a consultant and they have conducted numerous phases of this program. one of which was to look at multiple properties, understand their applicability from entry points to arterial roadways to city assets. So they looked at numerous properties associated with that. As that program was underway, the parcels that they identified of those parcels, they narrowed those parcels down to, I believe, 16, and it consisted of the animal services or the animal shelter, the public safety and the municipal complex. There have been a few council meetings as well where we've broken up the program to make sure and in keeping with our opportunities to provide municipal services and one of these parcels is in fact the Shrady Road property. This is, I mean, the assessment continues. An in-depth assessment of these parcels, including this one, will continue. LET'S ASSUME THAT THIS PROPERTY IS SELECTED OR CHOSEN OR THE ACTIONS THAT ARE PROPOSED IN FRONT OF YOU DO OCCUR, THEN THE ENTITLEMENTS WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE IN PLACE.

THANK YOU, MINNAL. COMMISSIONER POLLARD?

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.

That is prior to my time here. I will also pass that off to Manal. Thank you.

I want to ensure I stay within the remit of the agenda item. So I need to seek the attorney's counsel if we can answer the question.

Sorry, what was the question again? Well-

Well, I think she wanted to continue to.

Commissioner Pollard is requesting some historical reference associated with the zoning, the historical zoning of the property and I just want to make sure we're in remit of answering the question.

Thank you, counsel. Any other comments?

Yes.

Then I have a question back to the city attorney.

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

AND I WILL ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION BECAUSE I DID NOT AT FIRST. THE FIRE STATION PROPERTY IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY. WHEN THE FIRE STATION WAS CONSTRUCTED IT WAS NOT REZONED TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY. TECHNICALLY ACCORDING TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE THE USE IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT. THIS MUNICIPAL SERVICE IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT. ADJACENT OWN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY, WHICH IS ALSO PART OF THIS SUBJECT CASE, IS ALSO ZONED SINGLE FAMILY 10. THE IMMEDIATE PROPERTY, THE ADJACENCY TO THE EAST, IS ZONED COMMERCIAL 1 AND PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET. SO FROM A CONSISTENCY STANDPOINT OF ZONING ALONG SCHRADE ROAD, THE LOGICAL ZONING EXTENSION WOULD BE C1 IN THIS INSTANCE. AND IT WOULD ALSO BRING THE TWO CITY-OWNED PROPERTIES INTO A NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING CLASSIFICATION, MORE APT OR SUITED FOR THE SUBJECT SITES.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

Commissioner Jo, you have a question? No?

Okay. Then I will open the public hearing at this time.

Okay. We have quite a few.

So we're going to start with James Stakelin. After him, we can do Beth Crockett.

James Daiklin, Lakeshore Village Rowlett. Specific use permit for the animal shelter at 8502 Schrade Road. After reviewing the staff report, my primary concern is that the commission is being asked to approve a zoning and SUP before critical information needed to evaluate neighborhood compatibility is available. The staff report acknowledges that the consultant noise study is not complete and is expected to be provided at city council in October. It also states that the conceptual site plan is illustrative purposes only. And that the final layout and placement of the outdoor exercise areas and other potential noise generating activities will be evaluated later. How can the commission make a fully informed compatible finding before the noise study is completed before final site design is known? The report repeatedly indicates the potential impacts involving noise, lighting, deliveries, refuse handling, outdoor activities may be addressed later through SUP conditions, neighborhood protection standards, or development review. But the actual conditions needed to protect the neighborhood are not presented in this packet. In effect, the commission is being asked to recommend approval first and determine the necessary protections afterwards. I also noticed that the report analyzes zoning, setbacks, assets, lighting and operations, but does not analyze residential marketability, nearby property value or potential effects on the city's property tax base. I'm not claiming the values will definitely decrease. I'm saying that the issue has not been studied. Noise, outdoor traffic, odor, traffic, land use, compatibility can influence buyer demand. If residential marketability is negatively affected, homeowners could lose value and the city could experience reduced future property tax revenue from the surrounding neighborhood. The report explains that the Charade Road property was identified because it's city owned and is next to an existing city facility and would avoid removing another property from the tax roll. These may be financial or operational advantages for the city, but ownership and convenience do not establish compatibility with nearby homes. Rowlett currently operates Animal Shelter and Industry Street, The packet does not provide an objective comparison showing why the residentially adjacent location is preferable to industrial or commercial oriented alternatives. The staff report also says the site's about 745 feet deep and the separation and buffering can address impacts, but without the final layout and noise study, the commission cannot yet verify how much potential separation will exist between the shelter's noise generating activities, nearby homes, or neighborhood playground. FOR THESE REASONS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COMMISSION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL. AT MINIMUM, PLEASE DEFER ACTION UNTIL NOISE STUDY FINAL LAYOUT SPECIFIC SUP CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS OF NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTY VALUE IMPACTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW. ALSO, I ASK, WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE THIS IN YOUR BACKYARD? THANK YOU ALL.

THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT SPEAKER.

Beth Crockett, Rowlett. Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I come to you tonight knowing that the primary purpose of this hearing tonight is to recommend whether or not to change the zoning of 8502 Shrady Road to commercial zoning with an SUP to allow an animal shelter to be built on this property. I realize that it is not your job to decide the shelter should be built here, but I want to go over the reasons that this location is not conducive to build the animal shelter on. First, it is located next door to the fire station. The fire station sirens will make the dogs bark and howl for an extended period of time when they leave the station. This will be unbearable for the animals and the staff. Number two, this is not centrally located. It is within a few thousand yards of being in Rockwall County. Number three, there is no way to walk the dogs on Shrady without building extensive sidewalks along Shrady Road into the neighborhood and behind the shelter. Number four, the goal of shelter is to increase adoptions. By being so far from downtown, this shelter's adoption rates could decrease and euthanasia could become necessary again. We're currently a no-kill shelter. Volunteers are important to the shelter. This last year, 70 volunteers have volunteered an average of 30 hours per week for a total of 1,566 hours in the last year. There is a concern with volunteers not wanting to go all the way out to the stray location to volunteer. Six, we need to do the sound study by an animal shelter advisor that can do the study based on how the sirens will affect the dogs, not the decibels on the property. This was requested by the Animal Shelter Advisory Board on August 20th. The Animal Shelter Board also requested the council look at alternate sites. we build a more commercial location we don't have to spend the money on a sound study building extensive sidewalks a sound barrier and screening for the neighborhood and shelter and complaints from the neighborhood about the shelter noise by proceeding tonight with the rezoning this property the piece the pnz is ignoring requests by the ace animal shelter advisory board to look at alternate locations while this It makes no sense to choose a location because the city owns the property. We should look at what is the best location to build a shelter for the staff and animals. This decision has long-term negative repercussions. A shelter should be built in a location that is conducive to more adoptions, recruiting volunteers, and what is best for the animals and staff. If I ask that you deny this case tonight, and at least recommend approval with conditions that the noise study be done by an appropriate animal shelter advisory company such as Animal Arts, who's the architect for this, and take into consideration that this is just not the right location.

Thank you.

Okay, next I have Rex Simmons. After that, we'll have Dan Hope. And after that, we will have Lois Blaints. Thank you.

Rex Simmons. I live over in Lakeshore Village, directly behind the properties in question for rezoning. A lot of items have already been addressed. I'm going to try not to repeat too much what you've already heard. I think the issues and concerns of the public should be pretty apparent. um obviously noise and smell is a concern the only point on that i will add is just i do find it amazing that this is being brought to a vote when studies have not been done to truly assess the sound and noise issues that are tied to this that just that that doesn't make sense to me from just a practicality standpoint and i think without that it's difficult for you all even consider this as an option Obviously for me as a resident, the noise and the smell greatly concern me. It concerns me and my wife. We're expecting our newborn son here in the coming year. I did not move to Rowlett last year to deal with this type of issue after I built a home in this area. Broader and more systematically, there are really two concerns I have with this that I think both you need to, the community here needs to understand. one is this negative impact to the residents that are going to be close by this lot and two broader fiscal issues that i see with the city and putting it in this area i'll try to break that down and be respectful of time The first is for us in this area, in the residence, and aside from the noise and the smell concerns, as one of my neighbors just alluded to, there's a serious concern with property values. I don't see a reason as to why this would help property values in our area. That's going to hurt the city of Arlette because it's going to hurt appraisals and it's going to hurt the property tax base. Quite simply put, whether this shelter is on this lot or if it is 10 minutes away, 15 minutes north, it doesn't add incremental benefit to us as residents. Do we need a close fire station? Absolutely. but whether or not a shelter is close by or further away is not going to help us the residents who live close by that's not right i think it's a fair reason you should consider to not pass this the second is just an overall fiscal discussion that is good land the land that we are talking about is very good whether you guys would choose to use it for a more traditional commercial use or for another single family residence That would at least be good land to generate good properties with good values to again add tax revenue to the city. The animal shelter doesn't do that. It doesn't benefit putting the animal shelter on that good land. Ideally, and you can see the city of Garland did it with theirs, the city of Sachse did it with theirs, They put it a bit further out, not as close to prime residential area because they needed the land and the space. And that was better use for that type of project, not wasting good land that has good property value. I oppose this. I think the rest of you should oppose this. It's not to the benefit of the community. And I ask that you please listen to the public, which clearly show that they also don't want this. Love an animal shelter, need an animal shelter, put it somewhere else. Thank you.

Thank you.

Not on. Here we go. Dan Haft, Rowlett. This tonight reminds me of our previous city manager, David Hall, trying to jam a bunch of stuff on city property, which happened to be a park. And why we're discussing this city on land is just another bad decision. Yes it could be put here but there are better places for it. There are alternate sites that are more centrally located and they're down in the downtown corridor. There are places on industrial. By building in a more commercial area you're not going to have to have a sound wall and other amenities. We're talking about pouring sidewalks and whatnot. But I hate the fact we're even here talking about it before everything's gathered up. It's like planting a tree before you have water to it. It makes no sense. let's think about what we're doing before we start grabbing things out of the air to pass something to you know shove a square peg in a round hole it's just guys it's just not right let's get our work done first I'm all for the animal shelter. We desperately need it. I'm glad the city's considering moving on it before tying it to a bunch of other city projects that keep delaying it. But we need to do it correctly. It's okay to wait on the sound study if that's necessary. But we're just sending good money after bad when there are better alternative sites. Thanks.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Lois Blanks. We'll just keep moving on. Next speaker would be Deanna Siegler. And after that would be Tamara Appernathy.

Good evening. My name is Deanna Siegler, resident of Rowlett. I'm here as a member of the Rowlett Shelter Advisory Board. We received a presentation on the proposed placement of the animal shelter at Shrady Road. Our recommendation as the Rowlett Shelter Advisory Board was that the city continue site selection surveys. We were informed that there was a team looking at alternative sites. We were not pleased with the 8502 Shrady location due to the potential sound impact. We suggested that if they do choose to proceed with that site, that the sound survey needed to be done. And we don't understand why this is coming before this board, before the site selection alternatives have been reviewed and the sound study been completed. Don't get me wrong, we need a new animal shelter. I'm a strong proponent of a new animal shelter. I just want to make sure that it goes in the right location. I'm also very concerned about volunteer engagement involvement at the 8502 Shrady location. It is on the far edge of Rowlett, not in the more central part of Rowlett. It's also not a location that many people just naturally drive by. So I'm worried about volunteer participation reducing. I'm worried about adoptions possibly reducing with it not being an ideal location. SO MY REQUEST IS THAT YOU NOT APPROVE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, ALTHOUGH I THINK THE PRIOR ACTION ALREADY SAID YOU COULDN'T DO THAT ANYWAY. AND THAT INSTEAD THE CITY LOOK AND CONTINUE THE SITE SELECTION AND CONSIDER OTHER ALTERNATIVES FOR THE SHELTER. THANK YOU.

Greetings, my name is Tamara Abernathy and I am a resident of Lakeshore Village and I would like to let you all know that I oppose the animal shelter being placed in that residential area. Many of the concerns that I have have been spoken already. In addition to that, that is a fairly newly built and we're still building in that neighborhood. We have very young children who catch bus there, go to school walking. We have a lot of people that are, you know, walking that area. And not only for the noise, the smell, the location, I don't think it's a good fit for that area. And again, Shady Road is not a a road that has a lot of visibility. Delrock has a lot of visibility. 66 Lakeview. There are other many sites that could be considered for this shelter. I just really place upon you to oppose this. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, last two. We have Dave Hull, and after him will be Michael Ura.

Dave Hall, Rowlett. I want to remind you about the history of the piece of land on the west side of the current Shrady Road fire station. After the 2015 tornado, I was trying to rebuild my house at 6809 Miller. The city manager would not issue a building permit unless I dedicated an additional five feet of right-of-way on the south side of Miller. How many of you had to give the city a piece of your property to rebuild your house? after it was destroyed by the tornado. About a year later, I was unable to get the water connection from the city for my new house, so the city scheduled a meeting with me, my contractor, the vineyards developer, the public works director, the development services director, and several additional public works staff. During this meeting, the public works director looked at the vineyards developer and stated, begin, quote, you dropped those loads of dirt on the wrong lot. It was supposed to be on the next door lot. The developer said, oh no, I dropped them on the address you required and I have the pictures, end quote. In order for the developed project to move forward, the public works director had forced the developer to deliver A couple loads of dirt for the city's communication site on Shrady. More quid pro quo corruption with historical Rowlett development process. A few weeks later I was at the fire administration building and overheard a couple people talking about how the city had started building the new fire station and communication tower on the wrong address. I chimed in that I was aware of this. Next, you built the public safety project on your neighbor's private property. Next, the mayor ordered an investigation which was conducted by a friendly public works group, not a credible CPA auditing organization. Next, the city bought the neighbor's land for a premium since he had the city over a barrel. Next, the city used the public safety bond funds to buy this land. Next, from today's original packet, I found Google Maps gave me two conflicting addresses for the proposed animal shelter property. Next, Christoph has rushed this project through without adequately listening to the residents in Animal Shelter Board. In the south, we have a saying for when we want to hide the facts of the past and move on. It's let dead dogs lie. How dumb is it to build an animal shelter on a location with a legacy and foundation of let's let dead dogs lie? I suggest P&Z send this zoning request back to staff on the basis that staff has not completed the necessary work for this change to come to P&Z. Thank you.

Thank you.

uh good evening chair commissioners uh thank you for everything first of all that you do really appreciate what you do for the city so thank you for your time um my name is michael unruh uh in roulette been in roulette for 10 years i've moved back here bought a home really excited to be back in the city i am the lakeshore village hoa president behind on watersway street where the animal shelter will be affected i am speaking opposition items 4b for the homes along that item and watersway In general, we support the city having a modern animal shelter. Voters funded for one in 2023 and understand our animal services staff deserve a proper facility. Our concern is with the location specifically, and we respectfully ask the commission to recommend denial of item 4B. Our position rests on the provided packet information. On September 15th, staff measured a sound at 8502 Shrady. Ambient at the property, the line was 60 to 70 decibels. During a fire truck deployment, property line readings were 111, 114, and 123 decibels. The report also notes Station 2 has responded to 1,531 calls just this year. And that sirens are activated as vehicles turn onto Schroeder Road specifically, which fronts this lot. This raises a question we do not believe has been answered. The conditions available through a SUP run in one direction. Enclosed kennels, masonry screenings, setbacks, limits on outdoor runs, each may limit the animals. None shields the animals from the sirens. And sound rated construction is designed to hold noise rather than keep it out. The conceptual plan also places the buildings toward the north end, which I believe was figure six on the map you provided up there. This limits the separation of the 745-foot lot and is closest to our neighborhood. That brings me to our main request. On August 20th, the Animal Shelter Services Advisory Board asked that a noise study be conducted if this site were selected. confirm it is not complete and will come to the city council on October 20th. We would ask the commission to not recommend approval of this use four weeks before the study of this central impact is available. Further concerns remain on record. Noise from the facility staff during the week and against back fences that form the property line, our children's park in our neighborhood, traffic from the public drop-offs, waste and control vehicles near children's play and areas where people will walk their dogs and dogs. their families. Um, and the effect on property value since a permanent noise source behind a home is as close to future buyers and current property value homeowners. So request is this recommend denial of item for being which would permanently rezone 8.43 acres to see one. I will close as a neighbor and a one week old new father. And there are many families that are here on our street with small Children. I would ask each of you to consider how you would weigh this if you were proposed behind your own home. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing at 8.27 PM. Commissioner Pollard?

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.

I have a motion on the table from Commissioner Pollard. Do I have a second? Commissioner White? No.

SEPARATING THAT FROM THE ZONING FOR THE ANIMAL SHELTER.

WELL, FIRST I HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE. I NEED A SECOND AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS. COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ SECOND. NOW WE CAN DISCUSS.

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?

MOVE NOW.

The notice I'm contemplating the notice that had that was published states and I'm looking at us into a request to change the zoning from SF 10 to see one for 80 for both properties independently. So in that instance and I'm going to seek a confirmation from the city attorney that that is an option available to the commission.

IS TO SPLIT THE ZONING INTO ONE FOR THE FIRE STATION PROPERTY AND ONE FOR THE UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY, IS THAT CORRECT?

YES, THAT'S THE QUESTION.

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

TO CITY ATTORNEY, THE WAY THE NOTIFICATION AND THE CAPTION IS TITLED IS TO REQUEST A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR BOTH PROPERTIES AND APPROVAL OF AN SUP FOR AN ANIMAL SHELTER.

COMMISSIONER BLAKE.

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.

STAFF IS SEEKING CLARIFICATION. ARE YOU REQUESTING TO JUST CLARIFY IS THE MOTION ON THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO REZONE BOTH SF10 PROPERTIES TO SINGLE FAMILY OR JUST THE FIRE STATION PROPERTY? And again for clarification one for the firehouse for simply a change in zoning and the other for a change in zoning and an sup.

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

There's a request to change the zoning by the notification on both properties understanding that you want to split them the action. you're suggesting to or recommending to vote for the change in zoning on one, the change in zoning on the second, and the SUP on the second. I mean, you have to act on it because it's whether you table it or whether you, I'm just saying that your action would include those three. Okay, perfect. Perfect, thank you. I just wanted to be absolutely sure.

Yet the city attorney has said that is OK. Commissioner Pollard you second.

So I guess I have a question.

Commissioner White.

Who's second? Hernandez.

Commissioner Hernandez.

And to table the SUP. No.

We're not for the SUP yet.

Okay. You said three votes.

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

Commissioners, would you please articulate the friendly amendment? or rearticulate the friendly amendment.

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.

That I would be amenable to.

I guess real quick, just for the I BELIEVE THE MOTION, IT WASN'T A TABLE, IT WAS TO MOVE TO A DAY CERT AND JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ON THAT LANGUAGE.

OKAY. WILL YOU ARTICULATE THE MOTION SO IT'S CLEAR TO EVERYONE? COMMISSIONER BLAKES.

If I can jump into, it's broken down up there on our language. So if we want to look at these as three separate considerations, they are separated by the two lots and then the separate SUP, just for your reference, if it makes it easier as a guide.

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.

So Commissioner Hernandez seconds. Now we can have a discussion.

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 we're going to table it because we don't have enough information of it and because we've already previously said that we don't believe an sup should apply to c1 i'm hoping that doesn't go anywhere future-wise

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 knowing that that vacant property over there would not be homes. And I think that's fair to the people in that area. I don't think that anybody wants to see more apartments over there I think you're looking at you have the Lux next door on the corner. You've got across the street from the fire station. Not sure what that's going to be, but I think the way it's laid out, it was originally going to be apartments. Not sure about that, but when you see everything's sticking out of the ground, that's what it looks to be. So I don't think that that's what you want, but the city has a right to sell that off. And if they wanted to sell it off to somebody in the future, the vacant lot, they could go back to a... single family designation. But if it's sold off, at least the expectations for those that's buying there is that it's probably not gonna be homes. And if the city develops it, to whoever buys in the future, it won't be a home. So it'll be a city building of some type or whatever. So that's number one. Number two is that the SUP part of it, I am for tabling it to see what the noise study says since that has already been commissioned. but I too am in concurrence with Mr. Hernandez. I just don't think that this is a place for it. We'll see what the noise says on it, but you know, you've got dogs that, as I told one of the staff members, the ambient noise that's already there doesn't bother me, but Dogs over there, and when an ambulance or a fire truck pulls out and those sirens go off, or when they get down to Dalrock and the sirens go off, that high-pitched sounds, the dogs, they don't care what time of the day it is. It could be 1 o'clock in the morning. It could be 3 o'clock. It could be 2 in the afternoon. They'll go off. And the dogs, with many dogs, not one or two, many dogs going off and howling, is not conducive to the neighborhood around it. So that's that's my thoughts.

I'd like to share my thoughts. A project of this magnitude in community impact requires vigorous due diligence. We must ensure we are investing rally taxpayer dollars wisely and selecting a location that serves the city's needs for decades to come. Specifically, a thorough evaluation must include a head-to-head comparison with other viable properties to definitively prove which location serves as the best long-term home for our shelter. AS IT STANDS, THIS COMMISSION IS BEING ASKED TO MAKE A PERMANENT LAND USE DECISION COMPLETELY IN THE While I fully support our city's needs to address the welfare of our local animal population, I suggest that this commission table the rezoning request until a comprehensive needs assessment, a site comparison, a noise study, and a preliminary cost analysis are completed and made available to the public.

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.

YEAH.

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 decision has to be made here.

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.

IS THAT TRUE ANYWHERE IN THE CITY?

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's true okay so right now we know that if we leave it the same it is the same today

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?

Excuse me.

Excuse me.

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. But mainly what we were seeking clarification on is what was our expectation as a body of PNZ. So tonight, whether if we do it or not, to me, the ultimate decision is if we're for or against it. To me, I don't have enough information. And being a homeowner, I wouldn't want that to abut my property. So it's just that clear to me tonight. It seems like we're discussing other things that probably could be discussed during a future meeting. I don't know if it's just me, but it's clear to me what we need to do. And it's mainly that if we are for this or are we against it, do we feel we need additional information. I feel I do. So that's just my take on this tonight. So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Well, I agree with you. We do not have enough information to make a decision. So now we have a motion on the table. Repeat the motion.

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

Well, what is the motion?

Individually. Okay. So what is the first motion?

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

What number is that?

Firehouse is 80. What's the address?

8502 or 8602.

Can you clarify who's making the motion for us?

OK, so it is.

OK. Okay, so we are taking a vote on the property at 8602 Shadyville.

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

And that passes five to two. The second motion is on the property at 8502 Shrady Road.

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

So...

Yes.

Got it.

AND THAT MOTION FAILS 4-2.

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?

So if the vote has been to deny the change in zoning on that subject property, then the SUP is a moot point. And so that motion would fail as well.

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.

We're the recommending body still, so I mean, we're still making a recommendation, so I mean, it still can go through.

Just vote on it, but it's a moot point, yeah. Okay, so the next one.

Well, do we need to vote for Taylor?

Do we really need to vote for Taylor? That's, the city attorney needs to answer the question.

THEY CAN THEN CHOOSE TO VOTE ON THE THIRD PIECE EVEN THOUGH, YES. THE THIRD MOTION, THE THIRD ITEM FOR THESE MOTIONS WOULD BE THE ACTION ON THE SUP, THE VOTE ON THE SUP.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE ACTION ON THE SUP?

YES.

SO IS THERE A NEED TO DO A VOTE ON THAT OR DO WE JUST SIMPLY SAY TABLE?

FOR TWO OF THE THREE ITEMS, WE'RE SENDING TWO TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BUT THEN WE'RE JUST GOING TO KEEP THIS THIRD ONE HERE, AND THEN IT WOULD PROBABLY HOLD UP THE WHOLE CITY COUNCIL PROCESS BECAUSE WE PUT THE ONE ITEM IN THE 3E.

WE CAN MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS. IT'S A BIT OF A MOVE POINT, THOUGH.

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

THE TWO ZONING ACTION ITEMS AND NOT THE SUP ZONING ACTION. CORRECT. CORRECT. CORRECT. IS THERE A NEED TO ACTUALLY VOTE IS THERE A NEED TO ACTUALLY VOTE IS THERE A NEED TO ACTUALLY VOTE TO SAY WE'RE TABLEING THIS?

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.

I DON'T BELIEVE WE EVER HAD TO. I DON'T BELIEVE WE EVER HAD TO. THERE IS A NEED TO VOTE ON IT THERE IS A NEED TO VOTE ON IT THERE IS A NEED TO VOTE ON IT BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT THREE ITEMS BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT THREE ITEMS BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT THREE ITEM

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.

I HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE THE SUP DECISION UNTIL NOVEMBER 10. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECONDED BY Commissioner Hernandez will go to vote. And that passes unanimous.

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 exist if they sell the property. Because I don't think a buyer is beholden to the plans that we approved. So I would like to have an update on that. I would also like to have an update on the regulations. And I believe that this was already MENTIONED THAT THERE IS NO EXPIRATION AFTER FIVE YEARS AND IT JUST GOES WITH THE PROPERTY, BUT IF IT'S WITH THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT SELL THE PROPERTY, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST, SHOULD WE LOOK AT REDOING THE REGULATIONS THAT GIVE AN EXPIRATION DATE ON AN SUP? AND THIRDLY, I WOULD LIKE TO And an item was pulled this evening. I would like for a review of the zoning that's on the existing property of what would have been item 3B. Because I think that my recollection is that is commercial all the way through there and what I saw that was requested had to do with multi-family. So I'd like to have an update on that by staff. Thank you, Commissioner Powell.

Do I have a motion to adjourn?

I don't need one.

OK, good.

We're adjourned.

We are adjourned at 9 o'clock p.m.