City Planning Commission Meeting - February 25, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
City Planning Commission Meeting - February 25, 2025
The City Planning Commission met on February 25, 2025 at 1:44 PM to consider several agenda items, including a zoning text amendment, a reconsideration of a previous subdivision approval, a new subdivision proposal, and subdivision ratifications. The meeting included public testimony and commission deliberation.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Zoning Docket 011/25: Miles Grant (800 Baronne Street) expressed concern that a vote failing to achieve a majority would be forwarded as a denial, potentially misleading the City Council, especially when a 3-1 vote with a quorum appears as a defeat despite strong majority support.
- Subdivision Docket 088/23 Reconsideration: Miles Grandison (800 Baronne Street, applicant) supported the staff recommendation to remove the addendum requiring Fort Pike Volunteer Fire Department approval, noting that fire code will be addressed at building permit stage and that the fire chief clarified concerns after learning lots abut Highway 90.
- Subdivision Docket 076/24: Evan Patan (C Developers LLC, owner) expressed commitment to working with the English Turn Property Owners Association (POA). Miles Grandison (attorney) requested modification of proviso 2 to allow “agreement or other evidence” and remove the recording requirement, citing existing declaration and civil code access rights. Ernest Leger (President, English Turn POA) supported the staff recommendation as written, stating it protects community interests while negotiations continue.
Discussion Items
Zoning Docket 011/25 – Text Amendment
- Proposal: City Council Motion M-24-777 to amend CZO Article 4, Section 4.2.D.3 so that votes failing to receive a legal majority are forwarded as a recommendation of denial instead of “no recommendation.”
- Staff Recommendation: Approval, stating it is a policy/legal question, not a technical planning issue.
- Commission Discussion: Commissioners expressed concerns that the change could misrepresent the commission’s vote (e.g., a 4-1 approval would become a denial). Commissioner Flick moved for denial of the text amendment, arguing that the current system already provides Council with necessary information. The motion carried.
- Outcome: Zoning Docket 011/25 denied.
Subdivision Docket 088/23 – Reconsideration
- Background: Previously approved on February 11, 2025 with an addendum requiring Fort Pike Volunteer Fire Department approval. Staff and legal determined the addendum was problematic.
- Commission Action: Voted to reconsider the prior approval (motion passed). Then voted to approve the subdivision subject to the original three provisos, removing the Fort Pike addendum (motion by Johnson, seconded by Whitry, passed).
Subdivision Docket 076/24 – English Turn
- Proposal: Resubdivision of 98 Eagle Point Lane into 12 lots (including new private street) for single-family homes.
- Staff Recommendation: Approval subject to eight provisos, including proviso 2 requiring a recorded agreement establishing access via Eagle Point Lane.
- Commission Discussion: Commissioners debated the clarity of proviso 2. Commissioner Witcher moved to approve as recommended by staff, seconded by Brown, emphasizing the importance of protecting community interests. The motion passed.
- Outcome: Subdivision docket approved as recommended.
Subdivision Ratifications
- Staff identified three applications eligible for administrative approval. Commission voted to approve (motion by Johnson, seconded by Whitry, passed).
Key Outcomes
- Meeting minutes of February 11, 2025 adopted unanimously.
- Zoning Docket 011/25 (text amendment) denied.
- Subdivision Docket 088/23 approved with revised provisos (removing Fort Pike fire department approval).
- Subdivision Docket 076/24 approved as recommended by staff.
- Three subdivision ratifications approved.
- Meeting adjourned.
Meeting Transcript
Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. Uh, thank you for coming to today's city planning commission. It is Tuesday, February 25th, now 144 p.m. Um, first up, we will start with uh roll call followed by the adoption of uh previous meetings minutes and continue on with regular business. Um before we go there, first I will read the formal public hearing rules. So the city planning commission has established certain rules governing the procedures to be followed at public hearings before speaking, each person shall give their name, address, and state whom he or she is representing. Proponents for the proposal will speak first for a period of 10 minutes. Each speaker shall be allowed a maximum of two minutes. Opponents or other interested parties will speak second for a period of 15 minutes. Each speaker shall be allowed a maximum of two minutes. Proponents will be allowed a period of six minutes for a rebuttal. Each speaker shall be allowed a maximum of two minutes. Opponents will not be allowed to rebut. No material, including written matter, photographs, maps, and other items will be accepted by the commission or its staff at any time during this public hearing. This procedure shall be followed followed except at such a time when the presiding officer shall with the per approval of commission members present, extend such time. And before we get started, I will call Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Flitt. Present. Commissioner Whitchery. Present. Commissioner Jordan, present, Commissioner Brown, present. Commissioner Steve. Here okay. So uh first item of business is adoption of meeting minutes from our February 11th meeting. Commissioner Flick will make a motion for adoption of the February 11th meeting minutes. Which trail second. Okay, we have uh a motion and second on the floor for approval of meeting minutes. If there's no further discussion, we will vote our machines. So mo a motion uh from Flick, seconded by Whitry. Yes. Okay, and meeting minutes are adopted. Next is zoning docket item 01125. Zoning Docket 01125 is a request for a tax amendment of Article 4 by City Council Motion M247. The motion requests to change the language in section 4.2 point D point 3. So that a vote that fails to receive a legal majority will be considered a denial instead of having a decision of no recommendation. This change will ensure that each case gets either approval or denial. The case was deferred from the February 11th City Planning Commission meeting to incorporate additional citations so that all three relevant sections for actions by the city planning commission are included. 4.2 point D point 3 for zoning text amendments, 4.3 point D.3 for conditional uses, and 4.4 point E. Thank you. Um we have no comment cards on this item. Oh, you have an somebody get that thank you. Can you just state your name and address for the record? Uh Miles Grant and 800 Barone. I'm actually not particularly here for this one, but since this one's here, I do want to make a comment. Uh I understand the purpose behind it, but I might note that um there's already a circumstance where you need a majority of the board to vote on any given matter to get approval. And there are many times where you have a bare minimum of a quorum. So you might have a situation where you have a three to one vote, but it's going to council looking as though it is a uh defeat, and I think that presents a a false picture, which it kind of already even does when it goes forward with no recommendation when it was a 75% majority. I would just suggest that we might not want to make that um look even worse than it is, and it puts the council in a position to have to overturn something that was actually voted on by a large majority of the um council. I mean the commissioners present.
openpublica.com