Mar 26, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission

[1. CALL TO ORDER ]

[00:00:15]

IT IS 7:00 P.M. AND WE HAVE A QUORUM. IS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551 .071 OF THE TEXAS CODE THIS MEETING RECONVENED FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEEKING CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON ANY AGENDA ITEM HERE . THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECONVENE, OR CALL AN EXECUTIVE SESSION OR ORDER OF BUSINESS AT ANY TIME PRIOR. FOR PROCESS AND PUBLIC INPUT, IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND IN PURPOSE, YOU MAY GO ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE BY 3:30 P.M. THE DAY OF THE MEETING.

PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING, FOR IN PERSON COMMENTS, REGISTRATION, INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE AT THE COMMERCE OF CHAMBERS. FIRST ITEM WILL BE CITIZENS INPUT. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS PLANNING AND ZONING ON A GENERAL ISSUE? I'M HEARING

[3. CONSENT AGENDA]

APPROVAL FOR A 30 DAY EXTENSION . GOOD, GOLLY. I WILL READ IT. I DON'T KNOW HOW I COULD POSSIBLY PARAPHRASE. TO APPROVE A 30 DAY EXTENSION FOR REVIEW OF THE FEC ADDITIONAL FINAL PLAT. 28 .28 ACRE SITE . SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 789, AT THE NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF MAIN STREET AND PRESENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE. ITEM 3C CONSIDERED APPROVAL OF A 30 DAY EXTENSION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT. THAT WOULD BE ON THE NORTH SHORE PRELIMINARY PLAT. APPROXIMATELY 35.314 ACRES SITE. SITUATED IN THE -- ABSTRACT NUMBER 229.

THE BROTHER SURVEY. IT IS LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CASTLE DRIVE, MERRITT ROAD. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. DOES ANYBODY WISH TO PULL ANY OTHER CONSENT ITEMS? DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? OKAY. WE HAVEN'T CALLED THAT YET. I AM READY FOR A MOTION. MR. HERNANDEZ?

>> I WILL MAKE THE MOTION. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND? MISS WILLIAMS? MISS WILLIAMS SECONDS. LET'S CALL A VOTE.

[4A. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on a request by the City of Rowlett to rezone the subject property from Planned Development to Single-Family Residential (SF-40) District and Limited Commercial (C-1). The approximately 25.426-acre property consisting of two parcels is located northwest of the intersection of Chiesa and Miller Roads in the James Hobbs Survey, Abstract No. 571, and addressed as 3399 Chiesa road and 6921 Miller Road in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

COMMISSIONERS. BACKGROUND ON THIS ITEM , DOES REQUIRE THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO INITIATE A REASONABLE PROCESS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT THAT HAS NOT . TWO YEARS BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE ORDINANCE FOR

[00:05:09]

BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT HAS NOT MOVED FORWARD, A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, THE FOUR ACRE TRACT, IT HAS REVERTED BACK TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER AND THAT OWNER SAYS HE INTENDS TO DEVELOP A RECREATIONAL RETAIL TYPE OF PROJECT ON HIS PORTION. THIS IS WHAT THE CURRENT PD, THE EXISTING PD ENABLES ON THE PROPERTY. ON THE LEFT YOU HAVE THE CONCEPT PLAN.

A LARGE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, A BUILDING, WITH PARKING AT THE CORNER OF -- AND MILLER. ALSO THREE SMALLER RETAIL BUILDINGS FRONTING ALONG MILLER ROAD THAT WOULD HAVE UP TO 20 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS ON SECOND AND THIRD FLOORS. A VARIETY OF SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS. THE LARGER LOTS BEING CLOSER TO THE LAKESHORE THAT WOULD HAVE MINIMAL LOT SIZES. 14,000 SQUARE FEET, GIVE OR TAKE, AND THEN A SECTION OF 7000 SQUARE-FOOT MINIMAL LOTS. THE CENTER OF THE PROJECT, SEVERAL LOTS IT WOULD BE SINGLE-FAMILY, 5000. THOSE THAT ARE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNED FOLLOW UNDER THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. IT WILL BE LOTS AS OF 7000 SQUARE FOOT , UP TO 20,000 SQUARE FOOT. IMMEDIATE RESIDENTIAL WHICH WILL BE LOTS LESS THAN 7000 SQUARE FEET. WE, THE STAFF, ARE PROPOSING TO BRING BACK THE SF 40 SHOWING IN THE RED WHICH WAS THE PREVIOUS ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY. THE SF 40 DISTRICT IS INTENDED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WITH THE MINIMUM DWELLING AREA OF 2400 SQUARE FEET. A MINIMUM LOT AREA, 40,000 SQUARE FEET. THIS IS THE PREVIOUS ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY. THE PREDOMINANT DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE AREA IS THE LOW AND MEDIAN DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. SF 40 IS IN SOME WAYS CONSIDERED TO BE A HOLDING ZONE UNTIL A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION WILL BE MADE FOR THE CONSIDERATION BY THIS COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL FOR DEVELOPING PROPOSAL THAT WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CHANGE WILL NOT PRECLUDE THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER FROM BRINGING FORWARD A REQUEST FOR ANOTHER PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR A COMMERCIAL PROJECT. OR FOR A SUBDIVISION WITH DENSITY COMPARABLE TO NEARBY DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS REALLY JUST WIPING THE SLATE CLEAN FROM THE EXISTING PD AND TAKES IT BACK TO THE STATE WHERE IT WAS PREVIOUSLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE ZONING. THE OTHER PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER THAT IS APPROXIMATELY FOUR ACRES. THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING FOR A C1 DISTRICT ON THIS PROPERTY. IT IS THE BASE ZONING OF THE PREVIOUS PLAN DEVELOP DISTRICT THAT GOVERNED THE USE OF THAT PROPERTY PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THIS PD. THIS OWNERSHIP HAS REVERTED BACK TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER. THERE IS NO ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ZONING REQUEST THIS EVENING. HOWEVER, LIKE I STATED, HAD SOME

[00:10:09]

THE MEDIUM CITY RESIDENTIAL AND THE OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY CLOSER TO THE LATE . THE LOWER DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY USE. THE PROPOSED SF 40 AND C1 ZONING DESIGNATIONS WOULD GENERALLY FIT IN WITH THE LAND USE CATEGORIES. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE WILL BE A REQUIRED LIMIT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE LEAVE NOTIFICATION, WE DID SEND OUT THE LEGAL NOTICES REQUIRED ON MARCH 15, 2024. THERE WERE 26 THAT WERE SENT OUT. SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF THE PACKET , THE NOTICES WE RECEIVED, ONE NOTICE IN OPPOSITION. TWO IN FAVOR. 500 COURTESY AREA, 500 FOOT COURTESY AREA, WE SENT OUT 51 NOTICES. RECEIVED, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. TWO IN FAVOR. I BELIEVE THERE WERE A COUPLE RESPONSES THAT WERE RECEIVED THROUGH THE CITIZEN INPUT PORTAL. STAFF RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO APPROVE THE REZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE CURRENT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO THE SF 40 DISTRICT AND LIMITED C1 DISTRICT. APPLYING THE SF 40 DISTRICT TO THE 21.42 ACRE PARCEL AND APPLYING THE C1 DISTRICT TO THE 4.028 ACRE PARCEL. WITH THAT, I WILL ENTERTAIN QUESTIONS. BOTH THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE HERE THIS EVENING. I BELIEVE THEY WILL BE ADDRESSING? IS AN ACTION TAKEN BY THE CITY?

>> CORRECT. >> THE CITY IS ESSENTIALLY THE APPLICANT? ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO ADDRESS US WOULD BE LIMITED

TO THREE MINUTES? >> I BELIEVE YOU DO HAVE THE DISCRETION TO ALTER THAT IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE. I WOULD ALSO SAY PERHAPS IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. IT'S AN UNUSUAL

SITUATION. YES. >> COMMISSIONERS? ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY STAFF AT THIS TIME? MISS WILLIAMS?

>> THE PD PROJECT, DID IT NOT MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE OF COVID? MOVE FORWARD. YOU CAN ASK THAT OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

>> THANK YOU.

HAD US CHANGE, HAD US CREATE THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR THEM , THEY CREATED THEM FOR US AND WE CHANGED THE ZONING. THEY STILL OWN A PORTION OF THE LAND? OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. AND THEY ARE THE PEOPLE THAT YOU HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING BACK FROM WHETHER OR NOT IT IS MOVING FORWARD?

>> WE HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING IN THE WAY OF REQUESTS FOR

ADDITIONAL APPROVALS. >> OKAY. THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION. IT IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY BUT DID WE CONTACT THEM TO LET THEM KNOW WE WERE MAKING THIS CHANGE?

>> YES. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF? OKAY. THANK YOU. ALEX,

WOULD -- >> I WOULD SUGGEST A PUBLIC HEARING FOR CLARITY. HANDLE THE APPLICANT'S DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. YEAH.

>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

>> SO WE DO NOT FORGET IT. >> OKAY. AT THIS TIME WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I THINK WE HAVE A COUPLE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SPEAK? NO? OH, YOU DO? YOU FILLED OUT A CARD?

[00:15:03]

SIX MONTHS TO A YEAR. >> MY NAME IS CHARLES HENDRICKS. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER. OUR REASONING FOR WANTING TO KEEP IT, THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE FOR THE CITY WOULD BE A MORE DENSE POPULATION WITH THE RETAIL INVOLVED. YOU GET SALES TAX REVENUE AND MORE PROPERTY TAX ON MULTIPLE PROPERTIES. I THINK IT WAS 40,000 SQUARE FEET? ALMOST AN ACRE OF PROPERTY. THE DENSITY WILL BE A LOT LESS. AS FAR AS MOVING FORWARD, IN JANUARY, THE OWNER MOVED TREES IN AN EFFORT TO MOVE FORWARD. ESSENTIALLY, THE PROJECT WAS A BIGGER PROJECT FROM FINANCIAL STANDPOINT AND FROM EXPERTISE STANDPOINT. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS SELL THE PROPERTY. WE'VE HAD A LOT OF INQUIRIES AND IS BEEN ON THE MARKET FOR 64 DAYS . IN EARNEST TRYING TO SELL THE PROPERTY INTO SOMEONE INTERESTED IN A BIGGER DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE HAD INQUIRIES FROM PEOPLE THAT ARE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING SENIOR LIVING FACILITIES . WE HAVE HAD PEOPLE THAT EXPRESSED INTEREST IN BUILDING TOWNHOMES, THAT SORT OF STUFF. WE HAD PEOPLE REACH OUT TO ASK ABOUT THE HARD CORNER. THERE ARE A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES TO DO SOMETHING WITH THIS PROPERTY OTHER THAN TURNING ACK TO SINGLE-FAMILY.

I UNDERSTAND BASED ON MR. KONY'S PRESENTATION THAT PEOPLE CAN REAPPLY FOR ZONING AND ALL THESE OTHER THINGS WITH IT. SUDDENLY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF, YOU KNOW, MAKING IT ATTRACTIVE TO A DEVELOPER TO SPEND THAT KIND OF MONEY, WE ARE SUGGESTING THE PD BE BASICALLY IN THE CITY'S BEST INTEREST , AS WELL AS OURS. IF NOBODY REQUESTED TO REZONE IT SPECIFICALLY, THIS IS JUST A PROCEDURAL ISSUE BASED ON THE WAY THE CITY DOES BUSINESS. WE ARE ASKING FOR AN EXCEPTION FOR A STAY. WHATEVER THE APPROPRIATE TERM IS THAT I NEED TO USE TO DISCUSS IT. THAT IS BASICALLY WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR. JUST, NOT YET. QUESTIONS?

>> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. YOU CAN TALK TO US AND WE WILL

ASK QUESTIONS. >> OKAY. I AM FINISHED.

>> YES, SIR. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSIONER? HEARING NONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

OKAY. DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> A QUESTION FOR YOU AND STAFF. THIS IS A INTERESTING CASE. VERY, VERY INTERESTING, FOR A LOT OF REASONS. THE FIRST OF WHICH IS THAT IT IS A STAFF INITIATED REQUEST. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE A PROTOCOL THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO FOLLOW. I RESPECT THAT. I COMMEND YOU FOR TRYING TO FOLLOW THE RULES. HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS THAT THIS REQUEST TRIGGERS . I WILL TAKE HALF A STEP BACK BY GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL COMPREHENSION LAND-USE PLAN, WHICH, THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT EXHIBIT WITH US. IT SHOWS THAT THE CORNER OF -- AND MILLER , THE NORTHWEST CORNER, WAS ENVISIONED TO BE A RETAIL COMMERCIAL AREA.

CORRECT? THIS IS A LAND-USE MAP, SO IT IS NOT SET IN STONE.

IT IS A CONCEPT. CORRECT? THERE WAS A MIDDLE SECTION THAT WAS A TRANSITIONAL AREA BETWEEN THE HARD-CORE RETAIL COMMERCIAL COULD BE MIXED USED DEVELOPMENT . AM I READING THAT

[00:20:07]

CORRECT? >> NO. THE TWO OTHER DESIGNATIONS ARE STRICTLY SINGLE-FAMILY DESTINATIONS.

>> THE ORANGE SECTION WOULD NOT NECESSARILY HAVE BEEN LESS

>> THAT IS A MEDIUM DENSITY. >> IN THAT REGARD, THE PD THAT YOU HAVE NOW IS A BETTER MODEL IN TERMS OF LAND-USE IN TERMS OF INTEREST OF THE CITY? IN TERMS OF TAX REVENUES ? WHAT IS THE PROPER WORD THAT THEY USE? THE BEST LAND-USE -- THE HIGHEST AND BEST. THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR. AND I READING

THAT CORRECTLY? >> I WILL NOT DISPUTE THAT. THE CURRENT PD DOES BETTER REFLECT WHAT THE CURRENT CONFERENCE OF PLANNED SUGGESTED. THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE FUTURE ENERGY WAS HIGHLY INFORMED BY THE ZONING WAS IN PLACE. KNOWING THAT THIS ZONING TOOK PLACE AFTER THE PD -- THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS UPDATED. I WOULD ASSUME IT WAS A DANGEROUS THING TO DO BECAUSE I WAS NOT AROUND WITH THE CITY IN 2019. BUT, THIS CURRENT PD , WHICH WAS PROBABLY UNDER DISCUSSION AT THAT POINT OF TIME WHEN THEY WERE UPDATING THE PLAN, PROBABLY DID INFORM WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN LOOKED LIKE TO SOME EXTENT. LIKE I SAID, I AM NOT GOING TO DISPUTE . I WILL AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE EXISTING PD DOES BETTER TO RECOGNIZE WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE SHOULD BE.

>> JUST TO CLARIFY , THE EXISTING PD WAS NOT DISCUSSED OR TALKED OR BROUGHT UP IN ANY WAY MENTIONED , WHEN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE FUTURE LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS ACTUALLY IN MOTION? THAT CAME FIRST? THE CURRENTLY EXISTING PD CHANGED THE ORIGINAL ZONING AND IT WAS NOT NECESSARILY IN LOCKSTEP WITH THE --

>> I WOULD ALSO SAY FROM A PLANNING THEORY PERCENT OF, THIS TYPE OF LAND-USE DOES CONFORM TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO IMPLANT AT THE HARD CORNER AND FEATHER UP DIFFERENT DENSITIES OF RESIDENTIAL FROM THERE.

>> I FOUND IT INTERESTING -- THE ORIGINAL COMPREHENSIVE LAND-USE PLAN STATED THAT THE HARD CORNER WAS BEST USED AS A COMMERCIAL ZONE . MY ONLY OTHER THING WOULD BE THAT THE ORANGE AREA IN MY MIND PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN A MIXED USE.

YOU STATED IT WAS MORE OF A RESIDENTIAL. I RESPECT THAT.

THAT WAS THE BIG PICTURE THINKING AT THE TIME, WHICH IS OKAY. THE POINT BEING, THE EXISTING PD THAT WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS TODAY SHOWS TWO VERY INTERESTING DEVELOPABLE AREAS. ONE BEING THE SAME COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION FOR THAT NORTHWEST CORNER . IT ALSO ADDS THE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE MORE SIDE OF MILLER. TO ME IT SEEMS MORE ATTRACTIVE. THE REASON I BRING THAT UP, IF WE WERE TO REVERT BACK TO A PD 40, I THINK WE TAKE THE RISK THAT A FUTURE DEVELOPER COULD COME IN AND SAY THAT IT HAS GONE OUT THE WINDOW. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAD THAT HARD CORNER DESIGNATED COMMERCIAL, BUT, NOW WE HAVE GONE BACK TO PD 40 -- WHAT CAN WE AS A REGULATORY BODY USE TO MOTIVATE, OR TO KEEP A DEVELOPER HONEST , IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THAT WE DON'T SEND A MIXED SIGNAL HERE? ARE YOU WITH ME? WE ARE ABOUT TO SEND THIS BACK TO PD 40 AFTER HAVING BEEN IN -- SF 40, I AM SORRY. THANK YOU FOR THE CORRECTION. SINGLE-FAMILY 40. THEY ARE HUGE LOTS FOR VERY LARGE HOMES. HOMES, MORE THAN LIKELY. THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOMES IS ABOUT 24 OR 25. THAT'S A MINIMUM. IF YOU HAVE

[00:25:03]

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG -- >> HOLD ON. YOU ARE SAYING, REVERT BACK. HE IS SAYING THAT WE WANT TO CHANGE FROM THE CURRENT ZONING TO SF 40. IF YOU WERE TO REVERT BACK, WHAT

WAS THE ORIGINAL ZONING? >> THE ORIGINAL ZONING ON THE 21 ACRE WAS SF 40. THAT WAS BEFORE THIS PD.

>> I THOUGHT IT WAS SS SEVEN. SF 40? ACTUALLY, HOLD ON. THIS IS FROM NOVEMBER 12, 2019. THE ITEM CAME BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. BY THE WAY, WHEN IT CAME TO US, WE REJECTED IT. HE SUBSEQUENTLY WENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THEY APPROVED IT. THIS IS THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN. THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT SIX 917 MILLER ROAD, 3.99 ACRES, IS CURRENTLY ZONED PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY SF SEVEN , DISTRICT AND LIMITED COMMERCIAL C1. IT IS UNDEVELOPED BUT DOES CONTAIN FIVE FREIGHT CONTAINERS. THE PURPOSE OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY SF 7 DISTRICT IS TO ACCOMMODATE PRIMARILY SINGLE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH A MINIMAL LOT AREA OF 7000 SQUARE FEET. VARIOUS PERMANENT USES INCLUDE SINGLE-FAMILY DRAWINGS. PRIMARY OR SECONDARY SCHOOLS.

AGRICULTURAL CULTIVATION AND OPEN SPACES. MAXIMUM DENSITY, 6.2 UNITS PER ACRE. THE MINIMUM LOT WITH THE 65 -- THE DEPTH OF 110 FEET. MAXIMUM, 45%. THE LOT COVERAGE. HOW COME IT DOES NOT ADDRESS -- OH, 21 ACRES PARCEL ZONE SINGLE-FAMILY SF 40 IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. IT BASICALLY SAYS IT WAS SF 40. FOR THE LARGER LOT. IF WE WERE TO REVERT BACK , IT WOULD BE REVERTING BACK TO SF 40. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS. IT'S A VALID POINT THAT THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY. BECAUSE OF INACTION ON THE PART OF THE DEVELOPER. IN A TWO YEAR PERIOD. THE QUESTION, IF WE TAKE THE ACTION , HOW SHOULD THE ACTION -- WHAT COURSE OF ACTION SHOULD THAT TAKE? IN MY SUGGESTION, WE REVERT BACK TO THE ZONING THAT WAS IN EFFECT PRIOR TO CHANGING IT FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. OR, CHANGE IT TO REFLECT OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.

IT WOULD THEN MAKE THE HARD CORNER C1 . THE OTHER OPTION WOULD BE NOT TO DO ANYTHING ON IT.

I AM SORRY, MISS WILLIAMS? >> WHAT IS THE ZONING ON THE

FOUR ACRE TRACT? >> IT WAS ORIGINALLY SF 7.

THE LIMITED COMMERCIAL C1 DISTRICT USES. I DON'T KNOW HOW THE FOUR ACRE WAS DIVIDED UP?

>> THE ZONING IN THE PD FOR THE FOUR ACRE TRACT IS COMMERCIAL? OR, SF 73 NECK WHEN IT CAME BACK, IT CAME BACK TO ASK US TO REZONE THAT WITH THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT THAT HAD MIXED-USE . THERE WERE A COUPLE LARGE RESIDENTIAL LOTS STILL THERE. THERE WAS SOME MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING, I BELIEVE IT WAS TOWNHOUSES. AND, RETAIL. ALONG THE ROAD THAT HAD CONDOS ABOVE THE FIRST FLOOR RETAIL.

[00:30:04]

>> THAT WAS ON THE 21 ACRES?

>> WHEN THEY DID THAT, THEY COMBINED.

>> THE 21 ANDY -- OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> MISS WILLIAMS?

>> YOU MENTIONED THE FOUR ACRE TRACT HAS REVERTED BACK TO THE OWNERS. IF A CONVERTED BACK TO THE OWNER, IS THE ZONING ON

THAT COMMERCIAL? >> I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT HE

IS REQUESTING WE DO. >> THE FOUR ACRE TRACT HAS REVERTED BACK TO THE ORIGINAL OWNER. IS THE ZONING ON THAT

TRACK COMMERCIAL? >> THE ZONING DOES NOT CHANGE BECAUSE THE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP HAS NOT CHANGED. THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE ACTION TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ORDER TO CHANGE

THE ZONING. >> IN THE CURRENT ZONING, SF 7? BRING THE PRESENTATION BACK UP?

>> A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP DOES NOT CAUSE A CHANGE IN ZONING.

WHAT IS THE ZONING? >> THE CURRENT ZONING IS THE PLANT DEVELOP DISTRICT WHICH HAS A USES OF COMMERCIAL ONE .

AND IT ALSO HAS THE BAYES ZONE, IT HAS OTHER BASE ZONES LETTER SINGLE-FAMILY, 15. SINGLE-FAMILY, SEVEN.

SINGLE-FAMILY, FIVE. THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD ENTITLE IS THIS CONCEPT PLAN HERE ON THE LEFT. THOSE AREAS OF THE COMMERCIAL AREAS. THIS IS COMMERCIAL OVER HERE. THIS, RETAIL. CONDOMINIUMS ABOVE. MIXED-USE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.

THESE WOULD BE LARGE LOT, SINGLE-FAMILY. THESE WITH THE SINGLE-FAMILY, 15. THESE AREAS ARE THE SINGLE-FAMILY, SEVEN. THIS AREA IS THE SINGLE-FAMILY, FIVE , TO MY RECOLLECTION. THE PROPERTY, BECAUSE IT HAS NOT DEVELOPED , A PORTION OF IT HAS REVERTED BACK TO THE PREVIOUS OWNERSHIP . I DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THE LINE FALLS? MY BEST GUESS IS SOMEWHERE IN THIS RANGE HERE. IT TAKES OUT ONE OF THESE BUILDINGS. IT TAKES OUT ONE OF THE LARGE LOTS. IT MAKES CONFORMANCE WITH THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. THAT WOULD BE THE SITUATION. AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT SMALLER FOUR ACRE PARCEL THAT HAS GONE BACK UNDER OWNERSHIP OF A DIFFERENT OWNER. IT ENCUMBERS HIM WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT HE CANNOT DEVELOP THAT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE NECESSARILY TO DEVELOP JUST ABORTION OF THIS LARGER DEVELOPMENT. HE'S UNDER THOSE RESTRICTIONS.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

>> THE CITY IS BASICALLY DOING THE ZONING FOR THE LANDOWNER? FOR THE LANDOWNER. WE ARE TAKING A BACK TO A STATE AS A CLEAN SLATE. TAKING IT BACK SIMILAR TO WHAT IT WAS PRIOR

TO ENABLING THIS PD. >> THANK YOU. INTERESTING.

INTERESTING CASE BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE AN EXHIBIT THAT SHOWS A MODIFIED PD THAT WOULD EXTRACT OUT THAT C1.

>> WAS THAT NOT AN EXHIBIT? >> YOU DID. IS JUST THE EXHIBIT OF THE C1, PURSEL TO FOUR ACRE. WHAT IS MISSING, IF YOU TOOK THAT OUT OF THIS -- HOW THIS GETS REFLECTED. THIS IS A VERY ODD CASE. I THINK THERE IS ANOTHER OPTION WHICH I WOULD LIKE US TO CONSIDER. IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT WE COULD GIVE OURSELVES AS A COMMUNITY , STAFF, AND THE

[00:35:06]

>> YES. THAT COULD BE PART OF A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. THERE ARE TWO PARCELS IN QUESTION HERE. ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS WAS INTERESTED TO MAINTAIN THE C1 OR THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT. THEREFORE, STAFF LOOKED AT IT AND SAID THAT IT MAKES SENSE. FOR THE OTHER REMAINDER PARCEL, THE SF 40 IS MORE OF A PLACEHOLDER FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. WE ALL REALIZE THAT THERE WILL NOT BE LARGE LOT DEVELOPMENTS ON THIS HARD CORNER. THE LAND IS TOO VALUABLE. WE BELIEVE IF IT IS REZONED TO SF 40, AS SOMETIME IF PROPERTY OWNER WILL COME IN TO MODIFY THE ZONING.

IDENTIFYING THE HARD CORNER AS C1 OR SOME OTHER COMMERCIAL USE, AS STAFF, HOW ARE WE TO KNOW WHAT SIZE IT SHOULD BE OR THE SHAPE ASSOCIATED WITH IT? THEREFORE, THAT'S WHY THE RECOMMENDATION WAS STRAIGHT SF 40 BASED UPON THEIR LOT. AS WELL AS THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNER KEEPING IT CLEAN AS C1.

THAT WOULD REQUIRE A NEW DEVELOPMENT TO COME BACK FOR YOU , AS WELL AS COUNSEL, IF THEY WANT TO MODIFY THE ZONING.

THE RISK THAT I'M TRYING TO AVOID IS HAVING THIS REVERT BACK TO A CITY FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOSING THE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD THE FUTURE DEVELOPER COME IN. I CAN SEE THAT IT WILL NOT BE NSF 40 DEVELOPMENT . SOMEBODY COULD COME AND ASK FOR THE ENTIRE TRUCK TO BE NSF 7. AT LEAST NOW WITH PD WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS A LITTLE BIT HARDER TO HOLD ONTO . IF WE REVERT BACK, THE ONLY THING WE HAVE THAT FORCES THEM INTO A COMMERCIAL SCENARIO IS THE -- LAND. I COULD USE SOME HELP.

>> ANY REZONING , ANY ZONING OTHER THAN SF 40 WILL REQUIRE REZONING FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION AS WELL AS CITY COUNCIL. AT THAT TIME YOU COULD DENY BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT IDENTIFIES THE HARD CORNER IN GENERAL AS COMMERCIAL. YOU WOULD STILL HAVE THAT ABILITY TO DENY A FUTURE APPLICATION UNLESS THEY WERE TO COME IN WITH A STRAIGHT SF 40 WITH NO MODIFICATIONS TO ZONING. AGAIN, IT IS IN YOUR PURVIEW TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION OF A STATE, SIX MONTH EXTENSION, WHATEVER IT MAY BE. ULTIMATELY IT WILL BE COUNCIL'S

DETERMINATION. >> THANK YOU.

>> I'M STAYING HERE BECAUSE WE HAD A LATE AUDIENCE MEMBER WHO HAD A REQUEST TO ADDRESS ALYSSA

>> MY PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.

>> ALL RIGHT. OKAY, WE CAN REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK?

>> BRIAN. I'M FAIRLY FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY. UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER FRISBY'S CONCERN. I THOUGHT IT WAS AN EXCELLENT USE OF THIS PROPERTY. THE WAY THE PD PROCESS WORKS WHEN THE

[00:40:03]

IT'S NOT CONCRETE. EIGHT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS PART OF THE PD, IT TIES TO THE LAND. IT SAYS THAT THEY CAN BUILD A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FAMILY UNITS OR COMMERCIAL.

THEY CAN DO CERTAIN THINGS WITH THE RESIDENTIAL. THE MUNICIPAL CODE SAYS THAT IF NOTHING IS DONE ON A PD AFTER TWO YEARS, THE CITY SHALL -- THERE IS NO MAY OR OUGHT TO, IT IS SHALE.

THAT MEANS THEY MUST BRING TO THE BODY A RECOMMENDATION TO REVERT THE ZONING BACK SO IT'S BASICALLY A RESET. TO COMMISSIONER FRISBY'S CONCERN, ANYONE WHO BRINGS THE PROPERTY FORWARD OTHER THAN SF 40 FOR THE WHOLE THING, I AM SURE YOU ALL KNOW THAT THE CORNER IS NOT GOING TO HAVE A HOUSE SITTING THERE WITH A 40,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY.

SOMEONE WILL WANT TO PUT COMMERCIAL THERE. IT WILL COME BACK BEFORE THIS BODY WITH PROBABLY ANOTHER PD. SOMETHING SIMILAR AND I WISH THEY WOULD BRING THIS EXACT PD FORWARD. I THOUGHT IT WAS A GREAT CONCEPT. I RE-WATCHED ALL OF THE HEARINGS AND THE COUNCIL HEARINGS AND PRESENTATIONS.

THEY DID A GREAT JOB. A GREAT PLAN. FOR SOME REASON I DID NOT WATCH THE PART WHERE THEY SAID IT DID NOT COME TO FRUITION. IT DID NOT. YOUR OPTIONS ARE TO DO A RESET. YOU CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL FOR SME OTHER ZONING. THAT IS IN THE CODE. THAT JETTISONS IT BACK TO COUNCIL TO DECIDE . IT RESETS THE WHOLE BALL WHICH WILL GO OVER AGAIN. I DO NOT KNOW THAT IT DES ANYTHING FOR THE LANDOWNER? I THINK THE LANDOWNER WOULD LIKE TO GET AS MUCH VALUE FOR THIS PROPERTY AS THEY CAN? SELLING IT WITH THE CONCEPT IT HAS COMMERCIAL ON THE CORNER ALREADY, PROBABLY ADDS VALUE FOR THEM. THEY ARE FREE TO COME BACK WITH A DIFFERENT ZONING FOR THE 21 ACRES, SEPARATE FROM THE OTHER OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. HE WAS THE ORIGINAL PD. THAT GIVES YOU THE OPTION TO RESTRICT THAT CORNER TO COMMERCIAL. THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, I ADVISED THAT AS COMMERCIAL. ALL FOUR CORNERS WERE THE CHURCH ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER WAS COMMERCIAL. SOUTHEAST CORNER IS ZONED COMMERCIAL SOUTHWEST CORNER IS COMMERCIAL. NORTHWEST CORNER IS PD. WAS ORIGINALLY SF 40. THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IDENTIFIES THAT AS COMMERCIAL. MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO HIT THE RESET BUTTON. IF THE ORIGINAL OWNER WANTS TO CHANGE IT TO A DIFFERENT CONCEPT THAT EXCLUDES THE PD PROPERTY, THEY ARE FREE TO DO THAT. THEY CAN SELL IT WITH THE COMMERCIAL -- OTHER FOLKS TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? HEARING , NONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

LET ME STRIKE THE CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING.

THERE IS NO MISUNDERSTANDING, WE REOPENED THE PUBLIC

HEARING. STATE YOUR NAME. >> CHARLES HENDRICKS. I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT BEING THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE PROPERTY. IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE SF 40 IS A PLACEHOLDER. MY QUESTION, IF WE GAVE AN EXTENSION ON THE PD, WHY CAN'T THAT BE A PLACEHOLDER? SIX MONTHS TO 12 MONTHS? AS OPPOSED TO , I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU SHALL REVERT BACK. I HEARD THAT LANGUAGE SO IT DOES NOT GIVE A LOT OF OPTIONS. DO YOU HAVE TO REVERT BACK WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME? OR DO YOU HAVE THE DISCRETION OR

OPTION TO DELAY THAT? >> A PLACEHOLDER IS JUST A FIGURE OF SPEECH. ARE YOU DONE?

>> I GUESS THAT I AM. YES. >> THANK YOU. MR. HALL? DID YOU FILL OUT A CARD? ARE YOU LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE WHO WILL DO

[00:45:02]

IT AFTER YOU SPEAK? >> UNLESS YOU WANT TO WAIT

UNTIL I FILL IT OUT? >> NO, THANK YOU.

>> IT'S INTERESTING TO SEE HOW THIS WORKS. THE TRANSPARENCY IS OUTSTANDING. THE ONE QUESTION I WOULD ASK, THIS IS SORT OF FALLING TOGETHER, WHAT HAPPENS TO MY FOUR ACRES? WHAT CAN I DO IF WE HAVE A SIX MONTH EXTENSION? I HAVE BEEN WAITING A LONG TIME TO GET BACK ON THIS TO GET SOMETHING GOING. MY QUESTION TO YOU, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOU DISCUSS IT POSSIBLY IF YOU WOULD, WHAT HAPPENS TO MY FOUR ACRES? IT IS MY PERSONAL PROPERTY, WHILE THE OWNER OF THE OTHER 21 ACRES IS DOING SOMETHING WITH THEIRS? THANK YOU FOR THE CHANCE TO

ADDRESS IT? >> WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? OR PROVIDE WITH SOME DIRECTION? I'M HEARING ON. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WHAT? WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

QUESTION, BECAUSE IT IS HIS PROPERTY, HE HAS EVERY RIGHT DEPENDENT ON WHAT ACTION TAKES PLACE HERE , AS WELL AS CITY COUNCIL, HE HAS EVERY ABILITY TO FILE A REZONING FOR HIS HARSH AND -- HIS PORTION OF PROPERTY IF THERE IS A POTENTIAL STAY OR THE PROPERTY IS NOT REVERTED BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ZONING. OR IF THE PROPERTY IS NOT REZONED PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. MR. HALL HAS EVERY RIGHT TO BRING FORWARD HIS ZONING AT ANY TIME HE FEELS OR CHOOSES.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. MISS WEISS.

>> I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE SHELL SITUATION. THIS DOCUMENT SAYS THAT WE SHALL PUT IT BACK TO THE PRIOR PROPERTY OR IN LIGHT OF OTHER CONDITIONS TO ANOTHER ZONING CLASSIFICATION. CAN THE STAFF CLARIFY? PLEASE?

>> IS AT THE SECOND PORTION YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THE

CLARIFICATION ON? >> I'M WONDERING IF I'M

WRITING THE ZONING RULE? >> WE MUST BRING FORWARD THIS ACTION TO REZONE THE PROPERTY. THE SECOND PART GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADD OUR PROFESSIONAL DISCRETION. OUR PROFESSIONAL ONION AND FOR THE COMMISSION AND COUNCIL TO HAVE THAT LEEWAY TO SAY SOMETHING DRASTIC HAS CHANGED IN THE WORLD. THEREFORE, GOING BACK TO WHAT IT WAS BEFORE IS NOT APPROPRIATE. SO MOVING IT TO A DIFFERENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION IS APPROPRIATE. IN MY OPINION IT IS A COVER ALL THE BASES

KIND OF SITUATION. >> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING.

>> AS FAR AS THE WRITING ON THE WALL, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO BRING IT FORWARD. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING. WHETHER WE TAKE THEM UP ON THEIR ACTION OR ASK THEM TO POSTPONE OR MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO POSTPONE THE ACTION, THAT IS WELL IN OUR PURVIEW. IT IS NOT EXCLUDED FROM THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS

WRITTEN. MISS WILLIAMS. >> CAN WE GIVE AN EXTENSION ON THE 21.4 ACRES? AND THE C-1 DISTRICT ON THE FOUR ACRES? DOABLE. IF WE JUST GO AHEAD AND SAY THAT WE WILL HOLD IT FOR SIX MONTHS TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS, IF THE PROPERTY OWNER WANTS TO COME FORWARD AND ASKS TO REZONE IT, THAT IS HIS RIGHT TO DO SO.

DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? I AM SORRY.

THE PROBLEM WITH REZONING THE FOUR ACRES TO SEE ONE AND HAVING US STAY ON THE PD, ON THE 21 ACRE PD, I THINK IT MUDDIES THE WATER A LITTLE BIT MORE.

[00:50:06]

I DON'T KNOW? >> THE FOUR ACRES WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE PD. NOW IT HAS BEEN SEPARATED OUT OF

THE PD. >> THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS EVERY RIGHT TO COME ASK US FOR A ZONING CHANGE. THEY COULD DO SO AT ANY POINT IN TIME WHEN HE'S GOT HIS DUCKS IN A ROW TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS TO DO WITH IT.

>> THEREFORE, THE PD THAT WAS INITIALLY APPROVED IS NOT THE

PD THAT IS THERE TODAY? >> THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN , CORRECT, WOULD BE A BUST. JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER PD , IT IS A CONCEPT. SO THE PD WILL CHANGE AND THE CORNER OF THE PROPERTY

WILL DISAPPEAR . >> DO WE AS A COMMISSION HAVE ANY DISCRETION WHEN THE CODE SAYS THAT IT SHALL REVERT

BACK? >> NO, THEY SHALL BRING IT TO US. THEY SHALL INITIATE AN ACTION. IT DOES NOT SAY YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT. I MEAN, THE ACTION IS BEING TAKEN RIGHT

NOW. HOLD ON A SECOND. >> WITH THE OPTION TO GIVE AN EXTENSION, WE HAVE AN OPTION TO RESET, OR , WHAT OTHER OPTIONS? OPTIONS TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL. ALL OF WHICH -- MR. HERNANDEZ.

>> A POINT OF DISCUSSION, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF THESE ARE FIGURES OF SPEECH, PLACEHOLDERS, I GUESS IN MY MIND THERE WOULD BE NO HARM TO BASICALLY SAY, HOLD ON. TAKE A BREAK. IF IT IS RESETTING, THIS IS STILL A RESET ANYWAY.

IF THE OWNER OF THE SMALLER TRUCK WANTS TO HAVE A REZONING, I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT LOGICAL STEP ANYWAY.

OTHER QUESTIONS? YOU GOT TO PUSH A BUTTON. MR. FRISBY.

>> TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR ADVANCING -- AGAIN, VERY INTERESTING CASE. IT HAS A LOT OF LITTLE TWISTS AND TURNS.

THE, SHALL, THAT IS REQUIRED PROCEDURALLY PER CODE FOR STAFF, SIMPLY BY HAVING THIS MEETING WE HAVE MET THAT CONDITION? THE SHELL, DOES NOT REQUIRE US AS A BODY TO TAKE A PARTICULAR COURSE OF ACTION? IT REQUIRES US TO HEAR IT?

>> CORRECT. IN FACT, ONE OF THE OPTIONS IS THAT THEY BRING IT FORWARD AND WE SAY, FINE, LET'S LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS.

WE COULD DO THAT FOR TWO YEARS BEFORE THEY HAVE TO BRING IT BACK TO US. BECAUSE NOBODY DID ANYTHING. OR IN THE TWO YEARS, THE OWNER OF THE FOUR LIQUOR -- FOUR ACRE LOT COULD SAY I WANT X, Y, Z, THE OTHER OWNER COULD COME BACK WITH SOMETHING ELSE.

ARE, WE CAN -- >> HANG ON.

>> WE'RE LOOKING FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO YOU TO CITY COUNCIL. THE RECOMMENDATION, WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET IT, WE COULD DO NOTHING AND RECOMMEND THE ZONING STAY AS IS. YOU CAN PROVIDE SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATION WHERE YOU IDENTIFY THE C-1 FOR THE SMALLER PARCEL AND REMAINING PD FOR THE REMAINDER. OR, SOMETHING ELSE. AGAIN, IT'S A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL.

>> I DO NOT MEAN TO BELABOR THIS BUT IT SEEMS THAT THE CHOICES ARE THAT WE TAKE THE CITIES STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS

[00:55:05]

>> OR THE OTHER ONE IS TO LEAVE IT AS IT IS. THAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS YOUR, LET'S GIVE IT A SIX MONTH EXTENSION. WHAT THAT WILL DO IS GIVE IT A TWO YEAR EXTENSION.

>> I DO NOT KNOW THAT I WOULD WANT TO GIVE IT A TWO-YEAR EXTENSION. GOOD. IT'S IMPORTANT. THIS IS A COMPLICATED THING. IT IS NOT OUR TYPICAL CASE THAT WE HEAR.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE AS A BODY UNDER DAN THE RULES OF

THE GAME AND OPTIONS. >> I THINK THE ONLY REASON I SAY THAT LEAVE IT AS IS, THEN EITHER OWNER CAN AT ANY TIME DURING THE TWO YEAR PERIOD, THEY CAN COME BACK TO US AND ASK FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING. OR, IF THE 21 ACRE LOT IS SOMEHOW , THEY FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THE PD, THEY MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. AND WHO KNOWS? YOU MIGHT WANT TO PICK UP THE OTHER FOUR ACRES AND MOVE ON. THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT.

ANYTHING ELSE? MISS WILLIAMS? SHE MET NOW I AM REALLY

CONFUSED. >> THIS IS FUN.

>> IF WE GIVE A SIX MONTH EXTENSION, YOU ARE SAYING IT REALLY IS A TWO YEAR EXTENSION?

>> NO, MA'AM. I AM SAYING THAT WE DO NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO PUT A TIME DEADLINE . ONE OF THE OTHER OPTIONS WILL BE TO GO AHEAD AND ACCEPT THE SITUATION THE WAY IT IS.

LEAVING THE ZONING THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW. THAT WILL EXTEND, IT WILL RESET THE TWO YEAR CLOCK. IF THERE IS NO DEVELOPMENT , NO MOVEMENT ON THE DEVELOPMENT IN TWO YEARS, WE WILL BE BACK HERE ASKING , WHAT DO WE DO? OKAY? THE BENEFIT IS THAT IT SAVES ALL OF THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THAT AREA , WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT. AT THE SAME TIME, IT DOES NOT PRECLUDE ANYBODY, ANY OTHER LANDOWNER FROM COMING IN AND ASKING FOR A ZONING CHANGE BASED ON WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO IN THE FUTURE.

>> MR. HENDRIX MENTIONED IN HIS PRESENTATION THAT ONE OF THE INTERESTED PARTIES WAS THINKING ABOUT A SENIOR CENTER. HOW WOULD THAT FIT INTO THIS PD?

>> THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME TO THE CITY WITH A DEVELOPMENT

PLAN. >> WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE BASE ZONING . LOOK AT THE PD, THE AREA IN QUESTION, IF SENIOR HOUSING WAS ALLOWED. IF IT WAS NOT, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THEY HAVE TO MODIFY ON THE PD. THEY WOULD REQUIRE ANOTHER ZONING ACTION. THEY HAVE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN PLACE. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK TO SEE WHAT IS ALLOWED UNDERNEATH THE BASE ZONING THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING. AS WOULD ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES IN. IF IS NOT ALLOWED, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MODIFY THE PD.

[01:00:02]

EXTEND THE EXISTING PD FOR SIX MONTHS.

>> MR. HERNANDEZ HAS SECONDED THAT MOTION. END OF THE DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION. ANY PARTICULAR REASON WHY --

GO AHEAD. >> I WILL REPHRASE MY MOTION TO EXTEND THE EXISTING PD FOR SIX MONTHS WITH THE EXTRACTION OF THE FOUR ACRES TO A C-1 DESIGNATION.

>> MR. HERNANDEZ, DO YOU AGREE OR CONCUR WITH THAT?

>> I WILL GO AHEAD AND LEAVE MY SECOND IN PLACE. I DO THINK THERE IS A SMALL RISK THAT IF WE DO TAKE THE PARCEL OUT, THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MAY LOOK AT THAT AS THAT I CANNOT DEVELOP THIS OR THAT. I DO THINK THAT THE EXISTING PD STILL AT LEAST GIVES THE CITY THE BEST BANG FOR ITS BUCK.

>> MISS WILLIAMS? TWO THE FOUR ACRE PARCEL IS ALREADY -- AND REVERTED BACK. IT IS NOT IN THE PD.

>> CORRECT. HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY NEED TO BE

EXCLUDED -- >> IF WE EXTEND THE PD, DOES THAT PD BY DEFINITION INCLUDE THE FOUR ACRE TRACT?

>> IT DOES. IT IS NOT PRECLUDE THE OWNER OF THE TRACK TO REQUEST A ZONING CHANGE FOR WHATEVER HE WANTS. IT MIGHT NOT

BE C-1. WHO KNOWS? >> IF WE GRANT AN EXTENSION ON THE CURRENT PD, WHICH INCLUDES THE FOUR ACRE TRACT --

>> THE ZONING ON THAT , YES. THE ZONING. NOT THE OWNERSHIP.

NOT ANYTHING OTHER THAN EXTENDING THE CURRENT ITEM FOR SIX MONTHS. THE CURRENT ZONING FOR SIX MONTHS.

>> THAT WOULD FORCE THE OWNER OF THE FOUR ACRE TRACT TO COME THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS? TO COME BEFORE US TO DO A REZONING PROCESS? I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.

>> THAT PUTS IT IN HIS BALLPARK. AT HIS DISCRETION TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS OR TO REQUEST WHAT HE WANTS AT THAT TIME. TWO WE AS A COMMISSION , WE CAN DESIGNATED A C-1 TONIGHT IF WE CHOOSE? IS THAT CORRECT?

>> WE CAN MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION. YES.

>> OKAY. IT IS GETTING CLEARER.

>> THERE IS JUST A MOTION WITH A SECOND ON THE TABLE.

>> RIGHT. WE WERE DISCUSSING IT. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION WITH A SECOND ON THE TABLE TO EXTEND THE CURRENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE 21 ACRE SECTION FOR SIX MONTHS. WITH CHANGE IN ZONING TO THE FOUR ACRE LOT TO SEE ONE. IS EVERYBODY CLEAR WITH THAT? LET'S CALL A VOTE.

I PASS THIS, 5-1. WE ARE ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.