Okay, it's 6 o'clock. I'd like to call to order the regular meeting of the planning and zoning commission. It is Tuesday, September 10th. Miss Hall, could you take the role please? Commissioner Cargill. Here. Commissioner Sarge. Here. Commissioner Brownie. Here. Chairman Forsyte. Here. Commissioner Sarge. Here. Commissioner Brownie. Here. Chairman Forsyte. Here. Commissioner Ken Moore. Here. Commissioner Brewer. Here. Chairman Aquorum is present to conduct the meeting. All right. Thank you very much. Item number three. Planning zoning commissioners, comments, concerning items of community interest that may be discussed. Does anybody have anything that they would like to bring out? Here is nothing. All right, we'll move on to item number four city manages report. We have two announcements this evening. First, we want to introduce Mr. Mark Baker as our new senior planner here at the City of Portland. As the development services department continues to grow with all the growth that's going on in our community, having somebody of Mr. Baker's experience, as it can be really helpful, brings a real wealth of knowledge and experience. He recently comes from the City of Temple, spent over a decade there, and so he and his family are happy to be in the cultural bend, and we're happy to welcome him here to the city of Portland. So Mark, welcome. Thank you. It's a pleasure being here and being part of the community and looking forward to working with you in many years to come. Welcome. Welcome, awesome. Thank you. And as happy as we are to introduce Mark here, we are sad that Commissioner Forsyth has announced this will be his last meeting. So I want to take this opportunity to extend our gratitude to Mr. Forsyth. You know, Craig, you've spent 14 years on the PNZ, the last ten or so as chairman. And so we're really thankful for your service. And I know I speak on behalf of the City Manager Randy Wright. Thank you for your service to the City of Portland. I appreciate that, Ryan. It has been an honor. Thank you very much. All right. You didn't ask us if he could quit. We vote no. I think I'm not running that by anybody. No, I apologize. Item number five, public comment. Miss Solid, do we have any? There were no comments received. OK, thank you. Item number six, minutes. Planning zoning commission will consider approval the minutes of its July 9th, 2024 regular meeting. Is everybody had an opportunity to review that? Any comments, changes? Alterations of any kind? Nothing. I'll accept the motion. I'll move that we accept him as presented. Okay motion. That was second. And we'll start the voting down here. Four. Four. Four. Four. Four. All right motion carries. All right item number seven. Public hearing and rezoning will crest and I would first like to say that we've had Mrs. Brewer that has submitted an affidavit to abstain From both the public hearing and the rezoning request so We'll get that on record Item number seven Planning zoning commission will conduct a public hearing to listed comments from citizens and other interested parties concerning the request from Robert McCaffey McCoy to rezone approximately 1.9 1 acres of abstract 104 John Dennis survey 1.909 acres located at 2,000 more from R6 single family residential to a CDSG general commercial and Ms. Munoz. Chairman, can I ask you to please call the time for the public hearing. I'm sorry. 604. Good evening commissioners. Our agenda for tonight begins with the public hearing in which city staff will review our presentation then the applicant will have an opportunity to provide comments and we will close with public comments. Once closed the commission will provide any comments or questions and deliberate a recommendation for the City Council. The approval criteria for rezoning requests are specified in section 319 of the Unified Development Ordinance. The seven criteria to be considered are determining if the request is compatible with the city's plans and policies, if the request is consistent with the unified development ordinance, if it is compatible with the surrounding area, determining if the conditions have changed, if there is a community need for this request, in understanding the development patterns in the area. In your packet, we have provided the staff analysis and the applicant has provided their responses to each of these criteria. Robert and Kathy McCoy have requested the rezoning of their property located at 2,000 more from single-family residential zoning R6 to the general commercial zoning CG. This property was part of an annexation that took place in 2015. At the time of annexation, the property saw a variety of non-residential uses, including contractor storage. These uses after annexations were allowed and considered legally non-conforming per the UDO. Use of the property ceased in 2022, causing the non-conformity provisions to lapse since the property was dormant for over a year. The applicant has listed the property for sale and would like to make it more marketable for non-residential uses based on inquiries they have received. On your screen, the 1.9-acre property is located at 2,000 more on the south side of more avenue. It's east of Hunt Road and west of Doyle Drive. This is a street view of the property along more avenue. It currently has four unoccupied buildings. Two of the buildings are approximately 800 square feet in area and the other two are approximately 1700 square feet. All have a front entry door and a garage door. To the east and west of the property are scattered single-family residential uses on acreage and the hunt airport. To the north is WC Andrews Elementary School and to the south is largely undeveloped scattered single-family residential uses. The 2040 comprehensive plan was developed as a guide. This plan does identify this area as low density residential, given the expansion of more avenue to a five lane roadway by the Texas Department of Transportation within the next six months, and the location of the school. It can be anticipated that at some point this corridor will begin to transition with non-residential uses. There is retail office designation approximately 0.249 It can be anticipated that at some point this corridor will begin to transition with non-residential uses. There is retail office designation approximately .24 miles to the east which contains a pocket of existing CG zoning and waterfront mixed use designation west of Hunt Road. So this property does have access to water and wastewater services, fire hydrants are located across the street and at the property next door. Please note that any new developments at this site will require the property to be platted and the existing utilities to be reviewed and analyzed for any new demands. Further requirements in the UDO, the public hearings were published in the news of San Patricio on August 22nd and mailed via certified mail to nine property owners within the 200 feet of the zoning request. As of today we have not received any comments. The next public hearing will be held at the next city council meeting on September 17th at 7 p.m. So just to recap this request. This property was annexed in 2015, the owners have provided a request in which they're requesting CG zoning but they're flexible with the CR zoning. A table reflecting comparisons between the R6 professional commercial retail and commercial general zoning districts had been provided in your packet. The main takeaway is that the CR and CG districts allow for a wider variety of non-residential uses as well as intensive uses by rights such as restaurant fuel sales, gas station, including vehicle servicing, which may not be permitted by this or appropriate for this location. Professional contractors' office is only permitted by right in the CG district. City staff believes that the CG district would revert the property back to pre-annexation uses. It's worth noting that the size of the lot in it of itself is a limitation. In other words, the size of the lot may not be able to accommodate all the development standards such as parking, landscaping setbacks, which could be large enough for a big building footprint to be viable in this location. Additionally, the UDO provides buffering and screening standards between residential and non-residential uses that would be required if this became a commercial site. Again, I'd just like to reiterate that the comprehensive plan was developed as a guide, not a restrictive document. In accordance with the UDO, staff recommends the commission consider adopting one of the following motions. Recommend that the City Council approve the rezoning request or recommend the City Council approve the rezoning request with modifications or recommend the City Council deny the rezoning request. At this time I'd like to invite the applicant if they would like to come to the podium and provide any additional information. Downsizing because of health reasons in 2015 my husband had a kidney transplant which his son Donated the kidney and then in 2018 had a stroke and so we're just trying to get all of our ducks in a row and did not realize At the time that that was part of the annexation or we would have said something at that time But we had a lot of stuff on our plate in 2015. So we apologize for that. But it has been as long as I have been in Portland since for 62 years. It was a business. It was a commercial type property as Bishop's Opulstery. They even had a towing company there, Nardini, our electronics was there, they did a speaker installing speakers and cars. It's never been residential. So anyway, I appreciate your work and approval, hopefully that would get it zoned back to commercial. Thank you. And we're available for any questions. We close the public hearing 611. And we will move on to item number 8. Resonant request, the Planning and Zoning Commission will consider a request from Robert and Kathy McCoy to Reson approximately 1.91 acres. I abstract 104 giant dentists survey 1.909 acres located at000 more from R6 single family residential to a CD general commercial and marks up this time. Ms. Mignosa. It's back to me. Again, commissioners, as we just presented, the applicants would like to rezone their current property from R6 single-family residential to CG general commercial based on the previous uses staff believes that the CG general commercial zoning district would revert this property back to the uses that were available pre-annexation and I'm available for any questions. On the back thank you for putting together the little chart in the back. The partial marks brilliance. I'm sorry. Mark Mark's brilliance over here. The comprehensive plan would be revised based on rezoning. So the city's concern is that and again I heard you say that's a guy, not a, it's not stolen, that we would need to revise that. And then the other piece is right below it that it might set a precedent with allowing this to read, to happen again with someone else. It could happen in a larger scale or a different scale. Am I understanding that the city's concerns correctly? Again, this property is a little bit different. So as I mentioned before the Texas Department of Transportation is going to be widening more avenue to a five lane roadway Which is why we feel that in this particular instance commercial uses could be more appropriate versus several residential conflicts that could come about through putting additional driveways through there. Again, we look at each property individually and just feel based on the infrastructure that's there, the uses that were there prior, it could be appropriate to consider this area to revert it back to the general commercial zoning. It seems kind of like that to me because it doesn't seem like it would be a residential use. I see all these as well. So I just, I wanted to understand, yes, I wasn't missing something as a representative of this. Anybody else? So the abutting properties, Sarah are larger lots anyway, right? Yes, Commissioner. So even if they're to establish some type of business, it's not going to be so big because it's so small, they're limited in space to cause any type of nuisance to the existing neighbors. Yes, Commissioner. Just like we mentioned, the parking requirements for commercial, if a commercial use were to come about, they would still have to meet the parking requirements. They'd still have to have the buffers between residential and commercial, which is an eight foot masonry fence. They'd have to have the landscaping so there's a lot of requirements that would come about should this become a more intense commercial use on the property. Thank you and we're looking at just CG right yes being close to the school the only thing this limited is a liquor store is that right? You couldn't have a liquor store there because it's too close to the school correct. That's the only thing it could not I'll make a motion that we recommend to the City Council they approve the resounding request. Second. All right. Motion in a second. Just to be clear, that's for the CG zoning district. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I was just ready. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying that. Start down here. Four. Four. Four. Four. Four. Four. Four. Four. All right motion carries. And we have nothing else on our agenda. We are adjourned. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Congratulations.