Did you know that a Zoning Change on South Ford St. from Residential to Commercial Almost Passed?

This picture shows what happens without zoning - a beautiful, historic Llano house smothered by an ugly commercial building and destroying the beauty of the entry to our city. This happened before the 1997 zoning ordinance and shouldn't happen now - unless Mayor Virdell's and City Manager Lewis' vision of South Ford St. being rezoned to commercial becomes a reality.

It almost happened at the 1/15/15 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting.

A long-time property owner of a residence on South Ford St. submitted an application to have her property rezoned from Residential (SF2) to Retail because she predicted that she wouldn't be able to sell it as a residence and it would be easier to sell as commercial.

Facts:

1. Hers is a similar situation to the picture above, where a retail business is adjacent to her house.

2. An incomplete application was presented to the City and Planning & Zoning Commission. Back when Llano had a proper zoning process, this application would have been rejected by the building department long before it went to P&Z.

3. The application was not submitted to or vetted by the building department as is proper procedure. It was presented to the City Secretary. City Manager Lewis participated in this application and should have routed it to the building department.

4. The property owner wanted potential buyers to be an office for a lawyer or doctor. City Manager Lewis and all commissioners agreed that this was allowed in SF2 and rezoning was not necessary. Proper process would have exposed this and saved the applicant the $344.80 fee for the zoning application.

5. A bizarre statement by the property owner saying she knew that "the city is rezoning everything up and down Ford St to commercial." How did she learn this? From whom and when?

6. The property is too small for most retail and commercial with not enough parking.

7. As a commercial property, there could be more storage units or a big parking lot and storage for the business next door. This would exacerbate the problem and just move the problem one house south.

8. The notice for a public hearing before city council was already published in the paper - well before P&Z actually voted.

9. In a bizarre procedural mess-up, the scheduled public hearing didn't happen. They went straight to discuss/vote.

Dianne Firestone was in favor of the rezoning saying that: 1) there was an existing building there so nothing would change; 2) the zoning change application said should instead of must so it didn't have to be complete or have drawings or show why the change was necessary.

Fortunately, one Planning & Zoning Commissioner, Stan Venable, understood the situation, saying there was insufficient information to consider rezoning and this could cause a domino-rash of rezoning down the street. He raised a motion to deny the rezoning request but no other zoning commissioner would second. One would assume, then, that they approved of the rezoning request.

It was very bizarre that no one spoke after Commissioner Venable's motion was called. All commissioners, and even Brenton Lewis, seemed in agreement that the request was inappropriate and not even necessary. But they did not second the motion to deny, did not raise any other motions, did not amend the motion to deny, did not abstain - nothing.

The city manager gave some incorrect procedural advice and actually left the room before the procedural advice was discussed and dismissed.

The request for rezoning was neither approved nor denied.

The City Manager, Mayor, and P&Z Chairwoman are on a path to eliminate retail zoning to be replaced by commercial even though they weaseled on this when asked at the meeting. So this request was actually a request for rezoning to commercial which is the ultimate goal of Mayor Virdell, City Manager Lewis and P&Z Chairwoman Firestone -changing South Ford St to commercial zoning.

Also bizarre, was Mike Hazel stating his strong support for the complete overhaul of the zoning ordinance and requested a change to the general residential and commercial zones to include apartments so new businesses will be encouraged to come to town. What? Mike Hazel is a spec builder and knows how zoning works. If a builder sees an business opportunity for apartments, that builder would find a property, draw some preliminary plans, and present to P&Z for rezoning. This would maintain the integrity of the zoning process and respect the neighbors of the rezoning. Sound familiar? Hazel knows this. But why now? The GR zone was discussed last year. It already allows multifamily up to 8. If it is so important, shouldn't he participate in the zoning overhaul that he supported as an alderman? What is the agenda here? Chair Dianne Firestone, rather than properly refraining from comment, gleefully said "we agree".

So, an incomplete application getting to P&Z; requestor's needs already satisfied by current zoning; zoning commissioners, except Stan Venable, remained silent and refused to vote for or against; City Manager Lewis leaves the meeting before a vote; procedural errors; requested change was in line with Virdell/Lewis/Firestone goal of making South Ford St. commercial; and Mike Hazel's zoning change request sums up to a very bizarre P&Z meeting.

And, it is bizarre that we still don't know why Mayor Virdell, City Manager Lewis, and P&Z Chair Firestone want South Ford Street to be changed from residential to commercial. It isn't necessary or wanted by the property owners. It surely isn't aesthetics or Mayor Virdell would at least put some plants in front of his storage units (see picture at top).

Zoning rights and property rights are too important to allow these hidden agendas to continue.

There are two P&Z Commission openings. We need some honorable, thinking commissioners who respect property rights and understand that property owners own the property - not the city. Of course, these are appointed positions so we also need a mayor and council members who respect property rights and understand that property owners own the property - not the city.

BACK