[Call to Order]
[00:00:05]
WELCOME TO THE WEDNESDAY, MAY 20TH, 2020 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ZONING MEETING OR CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.
ASHLEY, DO WE HAVE A CORN OR ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS? I'M GOING TO DO A ROLL CALL.
COUNCILWOMAN GREEN PRESENT TENSE WOMAN.
SO HERE, PRESENT COUNCILMAN HUDSON.
IT'S ONE WORKERS ABSENT ANNOUNCEMENT.
[Item 1]
COUNCIL MEMBERS.WE'LL START WITH ITEM ONE WHICH REQUIRES EIGHT VOTES.
PA DAY OR 16 DASH 19 TWO TO FIVE 300 TO 400 UNDER UNITED PORT HUDSON PLAIN ROAD TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FROM AGRICULTURAL RURAL TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF PORT HUDSON PLAINS ROAD.
AND HE THE SAME AS ROAD ON F STEVENSON AND BES DAVIS AND TRACKS COUNCIL.
DISTRICT ONE WELSH COMMISSION ACTION WAS MOTIONS IN AND I CARRIED SEVEN TO ASHLEY AND WE HAVE SOME PUBLIC COMMENT.
I'M GOING TO FIRST READ THE LETTER FROM THE APPLICANT AND THEN UH, THE PROPONENTS AND THEN I'LL, WE'LL READ THE OPPONENTS.
AND FINALLY I'LL READ THE REBUTTAL FROM THE APPLICANT.
THIS IS FROM ERIC PIAZZA REPRESENTING THE DEVELOPER.
DEAR COUNSEL MEMBERS ARE REPRESENT THE DEVELOPER OF THE PROPOSED FOSTER CREEK SUBDIVISION WHICH IS LOCATED OFF PLANES PORT HUDSON ROAD.
THIS APPLICATION THAT IS BEFORE THE METROPOLITAN COUNCILS AND APPLICATION TO AMEND THE FUTURE BR LAND USE DESIGNATION.
THIS MATTER WAS PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL DISCUSSION ON MATTERS THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS APPLICATION.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED RURAL AND THERE IS NO REQUEST TO CHANGE THE EXISTING ZONING OF THE PROPERTY.
IN ADDITION, THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL DOES NOT INCLUDE A PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLOT OR CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT PLANS.
IN THE EVENT THAT THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL APPROVED THIS APPLICATION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL STILL HAVE TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLOT AND I'M SORRY, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS WILL ALSO HAVE TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT PLANS WHICH INCLUDE DRAINAGE PLANS.
THE ONLY MATTER REQUESTED IN THIS APPLICATION IS TO AMEND THE FUTURE BR LAND.
YOU STARTED A NATION FROM AGRICULTURAL RURAL TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
AS YOU MAY KNOW, BATON ROUGE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED THE FUTURE BR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE A VISION FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
IT WAS IMPLEMENTED IN THE PAST BUT ATTEMPTED TO PROJECT WHAT THE LONGTERM FUTURE MAY LOOK LIKE.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SPECIFICALLY STATE FUTURE BR SHOULD BE USED TO GUIDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF SMALLER SCALE PLANS AND RELATED IMPLEMENTATION LEGISLATION OR PUBLIC INVESTMENT STRATEGIES FOR THE SMALL AREAS WITHIN THE CITY PARISH.
THERE'S A POLICY DOCUMENT, NOT A REGULATORY DOCUMENT.
REGULATION OF PROPERTY SUBDIVISIONS AND DEVELOPMENT IS A FUNCTION OF THE UDC AND ZONING THAT THE LAND USE MAP SHOULD EVOLVE OVER TIME.
KEEPING TRUE TO THE OVERALL VISION, BUT ADJUSTING TO NEW NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS, UNFORESEEN OPPORTUNITIES AND MINOR ADJUSTMENTS THAT WILL ARISE.
IT SHOULD EVOLVE OVER TIME AS THE CITY GROWS AND CHANGES.
IT'S CLEAR FROM A READING OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT THE LAND USE DESIGNATION MAPS SHOULDN'T BE AMENDED AND UPDATED OVER TIME AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS REQUESTED IN THIS APPLICATION.
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION MAP CURRENTLY DESIGNATES THE PROPERTY IS AGRICULTURAL RURAL.
THIS DESIGNATION INCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON LARGE RURAL LOTS.
ANY APPLICATION IS A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE PROPERTY DESIGNATION DESIGNATION TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH PREDOMINANTLY INCLUDES SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
THIS IS THE ONLY CHANGE REQUESTED IN THIS IN THIS APPLICATION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGE.
ATTACHED IS A MAP SHOWING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND YOU WILL NOTICE THAT ALL OF THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST OF THE PROPERTY ARE DESIGNATED AS RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND NUMEROUS PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY ARE ALSO DESIGNATED DESIGNATED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IS COMPARABLE WITH THE SURROUNDING USES AND DESIGNATIONS AND IT SHOULD BE APPROVED.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN DISTRICT ONE AND WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH COUNCILMAN WELLS TO ADDRESS HIS CONCERNS AND THE CONCERNS OF HIS CONSTITUENTS.
IN ADDITION TO THE PRIOR PUBLIC MEETINGS, WE HOSTED ANOTHER PUBLIC MEETING ON MARCH 9TH, 2020 AND ADDRESSED THE QUESTIONS AND CONCERN RAISED BY THE OWNERS OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
THE DEVELOPER HAS ENGINEER RYAN HAWKINS,
[00:05:01]
COUNCILMAN WELCH AND I ALL ATTENDED THE MEETING.ALTHOUGH MANY OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS DO NOT WANT ANY NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA, WE WERE ABLE TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS OVER DRAINAGE AND TRAFFIC, WHICH DO NOT APPLY TO THIS APPLICATION AND I THINK THEY HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND HOW IT WORKS.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT COUNCILMAN WELCH OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTS THE APPROVAL OF THE LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGE.
I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND HOPE YOU WILL APPROVE THE APPLICATION TO AMEND THE FUTURE VR LAND USE DESIGNATION.
THE NEXT COMMENT IS A COMMENT IN FAVOR FROM BARRY CAUSEY.
UM, HIS COMMENTS ARE THIS AREA CAN HAVE POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE GROWTH OF THE NORTH BATON ROUGE AREA.
UM, NEXT, THE, UM, OPPONENTS SUBMITTED, UH, A, UM, A PETITION WITH 200 SIGNATURES IN OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM AND THE FOLLOWING WILL BE LETTERS RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM.
UM, I'M AUDREY CROCHET LOCATED AT TWO, THREE, TWO, ONE TREACLE LANE, ZACHARY.
WE ARE RESIDENTS IN OVER TWO ACRES THAT BACK UP TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
I'M WRITING TO EXPRESS OUR OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF POOR HUDSON PLAINS ROAD AND EAST OF SAMUELS ROAD ON THE F STEVENSON AND B STEVENSON TRACKS.
WE ASKED YOU VOTE NO ON PA 16 DASH 19 CONTRARY TO THE APPLICATION, THERE IS NO CHANGE IN CONDITIONS TO SUPPORT A DEMAND FOR SMALLER DENSE LOTS IN THIS PARTICULAR COMMUNITY.
ALSO, THE DEVELOPER SHOWED THE COUNCIL A MAP AT THE FEBRUARY 19TH MEETING WHICH SUGGESTS THIS PROJECT IS RESIDENTIAL JUST LIKE THE SURROUNDING SURROUNDING LAND AROUND IT.
SUPPOSEDLY HIS CLAIM WAS THAT THEIR PROJECT WAS NOT A LAND USE CHANGE BUT TO MAKE THEIR PROPERTY JUST LIKE THE SURROUNDING LAND.
HIS MAP REFLECTS THAT FUTURE LAND USE CONDITION ONLY IF YOU VOTE FOR THIS PROJECT.
THE LAND AROUND HIS PROJECT, HIS PROPOSED PROJECT IS RURAL AGRICULTURAL AND SHOULD REMAIN THIS WAY.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF PROVIDED AND A R G I S MAP WHICH SHOWS THAT PA DASH 16 DASH 19 IS NOT JUST LIKE ALL OF THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL LAND.
IT REFLECTS THREE SUBDIVISIONS, A LAKE JOLIE VIEW IN THE NORTH PLAINS LAND IN THE SOUTH AND SUNNYSIDE MARKED IN DARK YELLOW WHILE ALL OF THE LAND AROUND PA DASH 16 DASH 19 PARCEL IS STILL RURAL AGRICULTURAL IN A LIGHT YELLOW.
WE DO NOT WANT YOU TO BE MISGUIDED.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING LAND USE BIN THAT OUR COMMUNITY, THE PROPOSED PROJECT ALSO HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON OUR DRAINAGE SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE POTABLE WATER PIPED INTO THE AREA FROM ANOTHER PARISH, UNSAFE, DRY FIRE HYDRANTS AND SHELL GAS PIPELINE.
POTENTIAL FLOODING TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND DIRE IMPACTS OF INCREASED TRAFFIC ON OUR TWO LANE STREET.
RURAL ACREAGE LODGE REFLECT THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE APPEAL TO YOU TO MAINTAIN IT FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
PA DASH 16 DASH 19 NEXT COMMENT IS FROM HENRY AND BONNIE ALFORD.
WE ARE WRITING THIS LETTER AND OPPOSITION OF AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FROM AGRICULTURAL RURAL TO NEIGHBOR, EXCUSE ME, TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF PORT HUDSON PLAINS ROAD AND EAST OF SAMUEL'S ROAD, THE APP, STEVENSON AND B STEVENSON TRACKS.
THERE ARE MANY REASONS WE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS AMENDMENT.
WE DECIDED TO MOVE FROM THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE TO THE RURAL AREA FOR HUDSON FOR JUST THAT REASON.
WE WANT IT TO BE IN THE RURAL PART OF TOWN.
WE PURCHASED ONE AND A HALF ACRES TO MAKE SURE THAT WE REMAINED IN A RURAL EYED SPREAD AREA.
WE HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS OF EAST PLAINS POOR HUDSON ROAD FOR APPROXIMATELY 39 YEARS AND I'VE LOVED EVERY MINUTE OF IT.
WE ARE VERY CONCERNED THAT IF THIS SAID TRACT OF LAND IS APPROVED AND ALLOWED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF YET ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, THIS WILL INCREASE OUR MANY CONCERNS TO NAME A FEW THINGS SUCH AS MAJOR FLOODING IN THE 2000 FLOOD, ADDITIONAL EXCESSIVE TRAFFIC, SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN, WATER USAGE, OUR DEPARTMENT USAGE, AND MANY OTHER CONCERNS.
SINCE THE INCEPTION OF SEVERAL SUBDIVISIONS ON EAST PORT HUDSON ROAD TRAFFIC IS ALREADY HORRENDOUS TO US AND OUR BELIEF IS THAT YET ANOTHER SUBDIVISION OF THIS PROPOSED SIZE WILL BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO YET MORE TRAFFIC AND MORE FLOODING AND GOD FORBID IF WE WOULD HAVE TO ENDURE THE NIGHTMARE OF ANOTHER FLOODING ANYWHERE NEAR WHAT WE ENDURE DURING THE 2016 FLOODS.
WE ARE SENIOR CITIZENS AND ARE TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON OURSELVES AND THE THOUGHT OF HAVING TO GO THROUGH ANYTHING OF THIS MAGNITUDE AGAIN IN LIFE WOULD BE DEVASTATING TO US.
HOW WILL WE BE GUARANTEED THESE THINGS WILL NOT OCCUR AGAIN.
HOW WILL WE BE GUARANTEED AS TO WHERE THE WATER WILL RUN TO AND DRAIN IN THIS AREA? WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFETY OF OUR HOME IN THIS AREA? IT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN IN THIS AREA.
HOW WILL THE TRAFFIC CROSS AT THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY NEW 61 AND EAST PORT SPORT HUDSON ROAD? IT'S CURRENTLY ALREADY HELD TRYING TO CROSS IT.
WE WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THE SUPPORT AND THE OPERA.
[00:10:01]
THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE OUR CONCERNS AND WHY WE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS AMENDMENT.I AM REMA YOUNG REPRESENTING MY MOTHER LILY YOUNG AT TWO 13 EAST PLAINS PORT HUDSON ROAD IN ZACHARY.
WE ARE RESIDENTS OF THE POWELL STATE OF ABOUT 22 ACRES NEAR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
I AM WRITING TO EXPRESS OUR OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF FLORIDA, HUDSON PLAINS ROAD, EAST OF SAMUEL'S RIGHT ON THE F STEVENSON AND B STEVENSON TRACKS.
WE ASK YOU TO VOTE NO ON PA DASH 16 DASH 19 CONTRARY TO THE APPLICATION, THERE IS NO CHANGE IN CONDITION TO SUPPORT A DEMAND FOR SMALLER DENSE LOTS IN THIS PARTICULAR COMMUNITY.
CLOSER TO ZACHARY THERE THAT MAY BE THE CASE BUT NOT HERE.
IN FACT, THIS RURAL TRACT OF LAND HAS ONLY BEEN USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES OF CATTLE GRAZING.
A FISH POND, HAY PRODUCTION, HUNTING AND ASSOCIATED USES.
RESIDENTS ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY ARE TYPICALLY ON ACRE LOTS AND LARGER SUCH AS THE ANDERSON PROPERTY OF 50 ACRES.
NEXT DOOR, WASHINGTON PROPERTY OF TWO ACRES ON THE OTHER SIDE.
NUMEROUS HOMEOWNERS WITH PROPERTY ABUTTING THE REAR OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY ALONG TREACLE LANE ALSO HAVE LARGE ACREAGE.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON 72 ACRES OF WHICH 52 58 ACRES HAVE HOUSES WITH QUARTER ACRE LOTS IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING COMMUNITY AND WOULD CREATE TREACHEROUS DRAINAGE TRAFFIC INFRASTRUCTURE CONFLICTS THAT WE DO NOT SUPPORT.
WE'VE ASKED THE DEVELOPER TO CONSIDER LARGER ACREAGE LOTS IN THE RESPONSE WAS THAT THEY REDUCED THEIR PROPOSAL FROM 288 TO 162 LOTS FOR THE RECORD, THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND ALL APPLE APPLICATION FOR THIS PROJECT SUGGEST A ACREAGE EVEN SMALLER THAN A QUARTER OF AN ANCHOR PROJECT.
LOTS ARE 75 BY 145 SQUARE FEET IS 10,875 SQUARE FEET WHEREBY A QUARTER OF AN ACRE IS 10,890 SQUARE FEET.
OUR OPPOSITION IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING POTENTIAL NEGATIVE SIDE EFFECTS, DRAINAGE CONCERNS THAT WOULD EXACERBATE FLOODING ON OUR VERY FLAT LAND.
YOU SEPTIC TANKS AND MEHRDAD SEPTIC SYSTEMS AND THERE IS NO PARISH SEWER SYSTEM.
THE PROJECT HAS TO FLOW FROM AT LEAST 36.3 ACRES DRAINING INTO THE SOUTHEAST CULVERT THAT RUNS OVER EAST PLAN'S PORT HUDSON ROAD.
OUR DITCHES CANNOT HANDLE THE VOLUME OF FLOW FROM HUNDREDS OF FAMILIES.
THE DEVELOPER PLANS TO BUILD PONDS BUT MAINTENANCE WOULD FALL TO THE RESIDENCE.
HE SAME PONDS ARE ALSO SUPPORT, SUPPOSED TO SUPPORT FIRE AND WATER IN THE EVENT OF A FIRE, INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTING AD, SORRY, INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND TO AN ALREADY DANGEROUS SITUATION ALONG EAST PLAINS PORT HUDSON ROAD, A TWO LANE EBR PARISH ROAD WITH A 55 MILE AN HOUR SPEED LIMIT CAUSING MORE ACCIDENTS AND DECK THREE INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES OF FIRE, POLICE AND WATER HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE DEVELOPMENT.
PROPOSED PLANS HIGHLIGHT THE IN COMPATIBILITY WITH THE EXISTING USES.
OUR UNINCORPORATED AREAS RECEIVE SERVICES FROM ZACHARY AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN SUFFICIENT COORDINATION OF THIS PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF ZACHARY.
WE KNOW WATER WILL NOT BE SUPPLIED BY ZACHARY AND THIS PROJECT.
YOU CAN NAME COUNTER OTHER ISSUES SUCH AS TRASH, TRASH PICKUP AND SCHOOL SYSTEM IMPACTS THAT WILL BE GROSSLY IMPOSED.
THAT IS 160 PLUS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS WATER WILL BE PIPED IN FROM EAST FELICIANA PARISH IN A LOW FLOW PIPE THAT WILL NOT SUPPORT ACTIVE FIRE HYDRANTS.
HENCE THE PLAN IS TO HAVE DRY FIRE HYDRANTS PER ZACHARY FIRE CHIEF DENNIS KIMBALL.
THIS IS A NEW CONCEPT TO EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH AND THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST DRY FIRE HYDRANT SYSTEM.
ANY SPANISH PARISH WHICH IS NOT A RECOMMENDED FOR FIRE PROTECTION.
THE PIPE TO WATER WILL CAUSE DESTRUCTION IN THE ROAD TO BUILD THE PIPE DELIVERY SYSTEM.
THIS PROJECT REFERENCE MITIGATING WETLANDS, BUT HE DOESN'T TELL US HOW MANY WETLANDS WILL BE DESTROYED THERE POTENTIAL FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF HISTORIC CIVIL WAR RELATED GRAVE SITES NEAR FOSTER CREEK AT THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY, THE LOSS OF NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER.
THIS PROJECT OFFERS AN ALL ELECTRIC COMMUNITY, NO GAS LAUNCH PLAN BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE APPROVAL FOR ZACHARY SERVICES.
IT ALSO TELLS US SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT, WHICH WOULD BE FIRST TO THIS AREA, HIGHLIGHTING THE IN COMPATIBILITY OF THIS PROJECT WITH OUR AREA.
NOTE, THERE ARE NO RESIDENTIAL SEWER TREATMENT PLANTS IN THIS AREA.
WE ARE OPEN TO, WE ARE OPEN TO ACREAGE LOT THE DEVELOPER CAN BUILD WITHOUT AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN.
WE ARE NOT AMENABLE TO ACCESS HOUSES BUILT SO CLOSE TO THE OTHER AS THIS PLAN BY THE DEVELOPER FOR THIS PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD.
A DECREASE IN THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR PROPERTY IS EXPECTED DUE TO THE COMPLICATIONS OF DISPROPORTIONATE SERVICES EQUALLY SEEING OUT VERSUS EAST BATON ROUGE VERSUS SACCHARIN CONCERN.
ONCE THE PROPERTY IS REZONED, THE DEVELOPER WOULD CHANGE THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT TO ADD EVEN GREATER DENSITY.
THE INITIAL PLAN WAS 288 HOMES AND IT IS EVIDENT THAT SOME LOTS WILL BE SMALLER THAN A QUARTER ACRE AND STILL COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM UDC REQUIREMENTS FOR MINIMUM ACREAGE AND RURAL ZONING.
I APPEAL TO YOU TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO VOTE ON APRIL 21ST AND
[00:15:01]
DENY PA DASH 16 DASH 19 THE APPLICATION TO AMEND THE LAND USE FROM RURAL TO RESIDENTIAL, WHICH ALLOWS SMALLER, HIGH DENSITY LOTS RURAL ACREAGE TO REFLECT THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.AND WE APPEAL TO YOU TO HELP US MAINTAIN IT FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
MY NAME IS FRANK JACKSON AND I'VE LIVED AT TRICKLE LANE FOR 45 YEARS.
I'M OPPOSED TO PA DASH 16 DASH 19 OR FOSTER CREEK DEVELOPMENT AS ARE THE 201 PEOPLE IN THE AREA WHO SIGNED THE PETITION.
MY OPPOSITION INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
THIS PROPERTY HAS PALMETTO AND I KNOW WHEN LAND HAS PALMETTO YOU HAVE WETLANDS.
THE ATTACHED AERIAL IMAGING SHOWS A BOUNDARY OF FOSTER CREEK.
THIS IMAGE WAS OBTAINED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM AN ONLINE ARC.
GIS SERVER HYDRIC SOILS ARE PRESENT ON A LAND WHICH INDICATES WETLANDS ARE PRESENT.
A DETERMINATION FROM THE U S CORPS OF ENGINEERS SHOULD BE OBTAINED ON THIS PROPERTY BEFORE 162 HOMES ARE BUILT.
MITIGATION EFFORTS MAY IMPACT DRAINAGE PLANTS AND SEWAGE TREATMENT.
PLANT ACTIVITY NUMBER TWO, FLOODING WITH 162 HOMES BUILT IN A WETLAND DEVELOPMENT.
FLOODING IS A GREAT CONCERN FOR THE RESIDENTS ON TREACLE LANE.
NUMBER THREE, FIRE PROTECTION.
HOW WILL LADDER FIRE TRUCKS MANEUVER IN THESE SMALL LOTS, ESPECIALLY AT THE BACK OF IT.
WE ARE IN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NUMBER ONE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS OF ZACHARY, WHICH FIRE DISTRICT WILL SERVICE THESE 162 HOMES.
OUR DISTRICT ONE HAS TO CONTRACT THE CITY OF ZACHARY FOR SERVICES.
IF THE CONTRACT IS NOT RENEWED, MY FIRE PROTECTION RATING WILL GO FROM A TWO TO POSSIBLY ATTEND WRITING FOR HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE PRODUCTION.
I DOUBT I NOR A LOT OF US COULD AFFORD FIRE PROTECTION WITH A TIN WRITING NUMBER FOR TRAFFIC.
THERE'S SO MUCH DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA.
ADDING 162 PLUS DRIVERS, A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF USI WAS 61 AND THE PLANT PORT HUDSON ROAD WOULD BE A NECESSITY.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTED SEVEN TO TWO TO DENY THIS ZONING CHANGE ON THE PROPOSED FOSTER CREEK LAND AND I URGE THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ALSO THE DON DENIED THIS APPLICATION AND THE VOTE NO FOR THIS CHANGE.
MY NAME IS GINGER LUMPKIN AND I LIVE AT TWO THREE TWO THREE ONE SUNNYSIDE LANE.
FIRST OFF, LET ME START BY SAYING I DROVE THIS ROAD ABOUT FOUR TIMES SIGN MAKING YOU A VIDEO WITH ME.
SPEAKING SO THAT YOU COULD GET A GLIMPSE AS TO WHAT WE HAVE TO DRIVE DAILY.
I WANTED YOU TO TAKE A RIDE WITH ME SO I KNOW YOU BECAUSE I KNOW YOU CAN'T GO EVERY PLACE.
SO YOU LOOK AT THE MAPS ON SHEETS OF PAPER, A SHEET OF PAPER WITH A LAYOUT OF WHAT IS AROUND AN AREA DOESN'T REALLY SHOW ANYTHING WE ARE WITH ON A REGULAR BASIS.
IF YOU LIVE THERE OR IF YOU HAD A LOVED ONE LIVING THERE, WOULD YOU WANT AN EXTRA 250 CARS ON THIS ROAD? LET ME PAINT THE PICTURE.
IT'S A TWO LANE CURVY ROAD WITH NO SHOULDERS, DITCHES EVERYWHERE.
SOME OF THE ROAD HAS LIGHTING, MOST DOESN'T AT NIGHT.
WHEN YOU MEET A CAR, YOU ARE BLINDED BY THEIR LIGHTS.
YOU PUT YOUR TRUST IN THE WHITE LINE ON THE RIGHT AND HOPE THAT THEY DON'T SWERVE INTO YOUR LANE.
HOPEFULLY THEY AREN'T ON THEIR PHONES.
NOW THE SPEED LIMIT IS 55 SOME DON'T DO IT AND SOME GO OVER.
IT'S PRETTY STANDARD, RIGHT? WELL NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT THE MAILBOXES ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE ROAD.
IF YOU WERE DRIVING WEST, THEY ARE ON THE LEFT.
THAT MEANS EVERYONE ON THE RIGHT SIDE HAS TO CROSS A TWO LANE ROAD WITH NO SHOULDERS, ONLY DITCHES AND CARS GOING A HUNDRED SORRY, CARS GOING 55 CLASS.
WE'RE PLAYING FROGGER TO GET THE MAIL.
THIS IS YOU OUT THERE OR YOUR LOVED ONE.
JUST TRYING TO GET THEIR MAIL DAILY NOW 136 OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS OF HOUSES BEING ADDED AND VEHICLES DOWN THE ROAD PLUS THEIR SPOUSES VEHICLES AND OR CHILDREN DRIVING.
HE IS TRYING TO SQUEEZE 136 PLUS HOMES ON 58 ACRES BECAUSE THE OTHER UH, ROAD AND PART BECAUSE THE OTHER IS ROADS AND CONS IS THE AREA DOESN'T WANT IT.
WE BOUGHT IN THE COUNTRY FOR A REASON.
THERE WAS PLENTY OF LAND FOR SALE AND HOUSE FOR SALE.
193 HOMES FOR SALE AND ZACHARY TO BE EXACT AS OF YESTERDAY.
SO WHY DO WE NEED THIS? ONCE HE COMES BACK AND BUILD THESE HOUSES THAT HIS PAPERS SHOW HE WILL HAVE, HE WILL DO A GREAT JOB.
THEN WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE PLAINS AREA WILL BE LEFT TO DEAL WITH ALL OF THE MISHAPS, LOOK AT COPPER MILL AND THE LAWSUIT WITH THOSE DEVELOPERS, BUT THEY ARE ON DOWN THE ROAD BUILDING ELSEWHERE.
THE PEOPLE ARE BEING PENALIZED.
THERE COMES A TIME WHEN WE HAVE TO SAY NO TO BUILDING NEW NEIGHBORHOODS AND START MAINTAINING AND INVESTING IN OUR OLD NEIGHBORHOODS, ROADS, WATER, SEWER AND MAILBOX SYSTEMS. IF I LEARNED ANYTHING FROM PROVE IT, I LEARNED THAT IT IS OKAY TO SLOW DOWN, TO TAKE TIME AND CLEAN UP SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TLC AND APPRECIATE YOUR LOVED ONES WITH THIS PROPOSAL.
I HOPE YOU WILL PUT YOURSELF IN OUR SHOES AND SEE US AS MORE OF A SHEET OF PAPER WITH A DRAWING OF PROPERTY LINES AND
[00:20:01]
THOUGH WITH THE PEOPLE OF THE PLANES AND SAYING NO, THESE LOTS ARE TOO SMALL FOR OUR COUNTRY LIVING AND FRANKLY THAT LAND IS MARSH.UM, FROM KIRA MOSS, I'M WRITING A LETTER TO URGE YOU TO VOTE AGAINST PA DASH 16 DASH 19 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
THIS IS A RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL AREA PRONE TO FLOODING AND CONDUCIVE TO NOT CONDUCIVE TO SUBDIVISION WHETHER IT IS IN A HISTORICAL LAND AREA WHERE THE BATTLE OF PORT HUDSON WAS FOUGHT WITH MANY SOLDIERS, BOTH CONFEDERATE AND UNION WHO WERE LIKELY BURIED AND LAID TO REST JUST YARDS AWAY FROM THIS PROPOSED TRACT OF LAND IS A SIZEABLE GRAVEYARD WITH SOME HEADSTONES STILL LEGIBLE.
THERE ARE MANY OTHER TRACKS OF LAND SURROUNDING ZACHARY THAT WOULD BE MORE SUITABLE AND APPROPRIATE FOR REASONING TO ALLOW SIZABLE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS GROWTH.
WE HUMBLY ASK YOU TO UPHOLD THE JANUARY PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE.
VOTE AGAINST THE LAND USE CHANGED FOR PAI DASH 16 DASH 19 THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, RYAN AND KYRA MOSQUE.
THIS NEXT COMMENT IS FROM PAULA JACKSON.
I OPPOSE PA DASH 16 DASH 19 TO A MINIMAL LAND USE FROM AGRICULTURAL RURAL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'M OPPOSED TO BUILDING 162 HOMES ON ABOUT A QUARTER ACRE LOT EACH.
THE REASON GIVEN BY THE PLANNING STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF INCREASED MARKET DEMAND FOR SMALLER LOTS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT CONCEPT AND SOMEWHAT AGREE.
HOWEVER, NOT IN THIS LOW LYING AREA WHERE WETLANDS HAVE BEEN INDICATED.
THE HOME SITES WILL HAVE TO BE BUILT UP, WHICH MEANS FLOODING POTENTIAL FOR SURROUNDING PROPERTIES INCLUDING NINE.
OUR PROTECTION CONCERNS ARE A MAJOR ISSUE WITH ME.
MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE LIVED ON TREACLE NAME FOR 45 YEARS AND WE HAVE ENJOYED A GOOD FIRE RATING FOR OUR HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE WITH THE ADDITION OF 162 PROPOSED HOMES AND NO GUARANTEE FROM THE CITY OF ZACHARY THAT FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES FOR DISTRICT NUMBER ONE WILL CONTINUE BY CONTRACT.
WHAT HAPPENS TO MY FIRE RATING? HOW WILL WE AND OUR NEIGHBORS AFFORD THE ASTRONOMICAL HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE RATES? PLEASE VOTE NO TO THIS CHANGE IN LAND USE.
I AM WRITING THIS LETTER FOR MYSELF AND MY HUSBAND, DUSTY PORSCHE.
WE LIVE AT TWO THREE TWO SEVEN FOUR ALBERTA LANE IN ZACHARY, LOUISIANA.
I'M WRITING TO EXPRESS OUR RESPECTFUL AND STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED TO THE PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF PORT HUDSON PLAINS ROAD AND EAST OF SAMUEL'S ROAD ON THE F STEVENSON AND B STEVENSON TRACKS.
I HAVE SOME DIRECT QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL AND I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST ANSWERS ON THE RECORD BEFORE OF IT.
THIS IS THE FIRST ISSUE SEEMS SMALL BUT IT'S ACTUALLY A GREAT IMPORTANCE.
IT IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ENTIRE LAND USE CHANGE REQUEST AND OR THE SUBDIVISION APPLICATION AS WELL.
THE PUBLIC, ESPECIALLY ALL OF THE RESIDENTS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW IF THE JUSTIFICATION GIVEN IS FACT-BASED AND RESEARCH SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PLAINS AREA.
BEING SPECIFIC TO PLANES IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THIS AREA IS COMPRISED OF MUCH LARGER LOTS, MOST AROUND TWO TO THREE ACRES AND MUCH LOWER DENSITY.
THERE ARE NO MEGA NEIGHBORHOODS IN THIS AREA.
BUYERS HERE ARE LOOKING FOR EXACTLY WHAT PLANES IS ALL ABOUT.
BEAUTIFUL LAND, LOW DENSITY COUNTRY LIGHT APPLICATION SITES, PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS FOR THIS APPLICATION AS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BASED ON A CHANGE IN CONDITIONS, SPECIFICALLY INCREASED DEMAND FOR SMALLER LOTS.
MY QUESTION TO THE COUNCIL THAT I REQUEST COMPLETE DISCLOSURE BEFORE VOTE ARE WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF THE STATEMENT? WHAT STUDIES OR SURVEYS IS THE STATEMENT BASED UPON IF THE STATEMENT DOES DERIVE FROM A STUDY SURVEY, WAS IT LOCALLY BASED? NOT JUST LOCAL BUT EBR, BUT LOCAL TO THE PLAINS.
ALL MARKETS ARE DIFFERENT, SO WHERE THE INFORMATION COMES FROM IS EXTREMELY RELEVANT.
PLEASE PROVIDE A PUB, THE PUBLIC A COPY OF ALL SOURCE MATERIALS FOR ARRIVING AT THIS CONCLUSION UNLESS PROVEN OTHERWISE BY THE DATA PARTICULAR TO THE PLAINS AREA.
THIS JUSTIFICATION IS NOT TRUE OR CORRECT.
CONTRARY TO THE APPLICATION, THERE IS NO CHANGE IN CONDITION TO SUPPORT DEMAND FOR SMALLER DENSE LOTS IN THIS PARTICULAR COMMUNITY.
CLOSER TO ZACHARY THAT MAY BE THE CASE BUT NOT HERE.
IN FACT, THIS WORLD TRACT OF LAND HAS ONLY BEEN USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES OF CATTLE GRAZING.
A FISH POND, HAY PRODUCTION, HUNTING AND ASSOCIATED USES.
RESIDENTS ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY ARE TYPICALLY ON ACRE LOTS AND SUCH, SUCH AS THE ANDERSON PROPERTY OF 50 ACRES.
NEXT DOOR, WASHINGTON PROPERTY OF TWO ACRES ON THE OTHER SIDE.
NUMEROUS HOMEOWNER'S PROPERTY, A BUDDING THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY ALONG TREACLE LANE ALSO LIVE ON LARGE ACREAGE, LOTS OF PATTERN WHICH CONTINUES AS THE NORM THROUGHOUT ALL THE CLIENTS.
THE REMAINDER OF THIS LETTER IS ADDRESSING THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION.
I AM AWARE THAT THIS IS NOT ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW, BUT CHANGING THE LAND, USABLE, OPEN THE DOOR FOR THIS PROJECT, WHICH DOES NOT REFLECT THE AREA'S CURRENT MAKEUP AND ACTUALLY HAS A HIGH POTENTIAL FOR NEGATIVE
[00:25:01]
EFFECTS.SO IT IS RELEVANT TO CONSIDER THESE THINGS WHILE WEIGHING THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE COUNCIL OF GOING AGAINST THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND PASSING THIS CHANGE.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON 72 ACRES WITHIN THE QUARTER ACRE LOTS IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING COMMUNITY AND WE WOULD AND WOULD CREATE TREACHEROUS, UH, TREMENDOUS CHANGES TO DRAIN IT.
NEXT COMMENT IS FROM BRENDA YOUNG TO THE METRO COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I'M A LIFELONG RESIDENT OF THE COMMUNITY CITED FOR THE FOSTER CREEK PROJECT.
I KNOW THAT CHANGING FROM RURAL AGRICULTURAL TO RESIDENTIAL, IT WOULD GREATLY IMPACT OUR FAMILY FRIENDLY FAMILY FRIENDLY COMMUNITY.
I HAVE ALWAYS ENJOYED THE FACT THAT ALL OUR NEIGHBORS HAVE A ONENESS, ALWAYS ABLE TO BE CLOSE ENOUGH TO EACH OTHER WITHOUT GETTING IN THE OTHER SPACE.
THIS CHANGE WOULD IMPACT OR TRAFFIC IN A BIG WAY UNABLE TO ACCESS PLANE'S PORT HUDSON ROAD IN SAMUEL'S ROAD.
ALSO FLOODING WOULD AFFECT ALL EXISTING RESIDENTS IN THE AREA.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COUNCIL TO VOTE NO ON THE PROPOSED FOSTER CREEK PROJECT, PA DASH 16 DASH 19 THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
MY HUSBAND AND I ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PLAN NEAR OUR HOME.
IT WILL NEGATIVELY AFFECT US AND OUR NEIGHBORS BY CAUSING FLOODING ON OUR STREET INCREASED NOISE IN THIS QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD AND EXCESSIVE TRAFFIC IN THE AREA.
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO MY COMPLAINT.
PLEASE VOTE NO TO CHANGING THE LAND USE FOR PA DASH 16 DASH 19 HMM.
THIS IS FROM A ROSALIE KELLY MILNER.
AFTER SEARCHING REAL ESTATE LISTINGS FOR OVER A YEAR, MY HUSBAND AND I FINALLY AGREED ON A BEAUTIFUL OLDER HOME ON ALBERTO LANE.
OUR FIVE ACRE LOT STRETCHES FROM ALBERTA TO TREACLE LANE.
OUR PREVIOUS HOME HAD BEEN ENCROACHED UPON BY THE CENTRAL THRUWAY, WHICH WAS LOCATED ABOUT 60 FEET FROM THE SIDE OF OUR HOUSE.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE NOISE AND TRAFFIC WAS UNPLEASANT TO SAY THE LEAST.
WE'D KEPT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE PHONE NUMBER OF NEARBY AS THE PASSING VEHICLES OCCASIONALLY ENDED UP IN OUR YARD.
HAD WE KNOWN THAT WE WOULD BE FACING THE SAME TYPE OF INVASION WE SPENT OUR SAVINGS TO GET AWAY FROM, WE NEVER WOULD HAVE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.
WE ARE CURRENTLY ENJOYING THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC NOISE AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY IS A VALID CAUSE.
DEVALUATION OF PROPERTY IS A VALID CAUSE OF ANGST FOR US AND THE OTHER CONCERN PROPERTY OWNERS IN THIS AREA THAT WE DO NOT HAVE CHILDREN OF SCHOOL AGE.
I FEEL THE SCHOOL RATING AND THE QUALITY OF THE LOCAL SERVICES ARE GOING TO GREATLY SUFFER.
I AM ALSO EXTREMELY WARY OF THE QUOTE UNQUOTE PROMISE THAT THE ADDITION OF CONCENTRATED HOUSING WILL NOT CAUSE FLOODING IN THE AREA.
THE SITE OF THE BOULDERS, BULLDOZERS, DEMOLISHING AND 92 YEAR OLD HOME IS STILL FRESH IN MY MIND FROM THE 2016 FLOOD.
PLEASE ADD MY NAME TO THE OPPOSITION TO CASE PA DASH 16 DASH 19 AND PLEASE VOTE NO TO CHANGING THE LAND USE FROM RURAL AGRICULTURAL.
NEXT, UM, OPPOSITION IS FROM DAVID ANDERSON IN REFERENCE TO PA DASH 16 DASH 19 THE METRO COUNCILS VOTE TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE YET LAND USE PLAN FROM AGRICULTURAL TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WILL PRETTY MUCH DETERMINE THE DIRECTION OF THIS PROJECT.
THE DEVELOPER AND COUNCILMAN WELCH ARE PUSHING FOR THE PASSING OF THIS PROJECT SO MUCH.
THEY HAVE DISREGARDED THE CONCERNS OF COUNTERMAN WELCH'S CONSTITUENTS AND SURROUNDING RESIDENTS.
I HAVE THREE AREAS OF CONCERN WITH THIS PROJECT.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ON EAST PLANS, PORT HUDSON ROAD FLOODING TO NEARBY RESIDENTS AND COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING HOMES AND LOTS IN THE METRO COUNCIL MEETING ON FEBRUARY 19TH WHEN THIS ISSUE WAS FIRST ADDRESSED, I INQUIRED ABOUT A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY.
COUNCILMAN WELCH'S REPLY WAS THAT A STUDY HAD BEEN COMPLETED.
IT WAS DETERMINED THAT EAST PLAINS PORT HUTCHIN ROAD, IT HANDLED 22,000 VEHICLES OF TRAFFIC PER DAY AND THE STUDY SHOWED THAT IT WAS CURRENTLY HANDLING ABOUT ONE FIFTH OF THAT VOLUME NOW OR ROUGHLY BETWEEN 4,000 AND 5,000 VEHICLES PER DAY.
IF YOU PERFORM SOME SIMPLE MATHEMATICS, YOU WILL SEE THE 22,000 EQUATES TO A VEHICLE PASSING IN FRONT OF MY HOME ABOUT EVERY FOUR SECONDS AND ONE FIFTH OF THAT WOULD EQUATE TO A VEHICLE EVERY 20 TO 30 SECONDS WITH NO SHOULDERS, BARELY DEEP DITCHES ALONG OUR ROAD.
IT'S SCARY TRYING TO MOW YOUR LAWN NEXT TO THE ROAD WITH CARS FLYING BY YOU AT 55 MILES PER HOUR EVERY 20 SECONDS ALREADY.
I COULDN'T FIND ANY STUDY COMPLETED FOR EASE POINTS, PORT HUDSON ROAD AND PERFORM THAT WAS PERFORMED BY THE STATE OR THE PARISH.
SO IN A LOCAL TOWN HALL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9TH I ASKED COUNCILMAN WELCH ABOUT THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AND HOW IT WAS CONDUCTED.
[00:30:01]
IT APPEARS THAT SOMEONE CHECKED OFF THE TRAFFIC FOR AN UNKNOWN AMOUNT OF TIME AND HE WASN'T SURE ABOUT THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES.PA DASH 16 DASH 19 KNOWING THAT NO LEGITIMATE STUDY OF TRAFFIC HAS BEEN CONDUCTED DURING THE MEETING ON MARCH 9TH I ALSO ASKED THE DEVELOPER HOW THE ELEVATION OF THE PROJECT HAD, I'M SORRY, ELEVATION OF THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN DETERMINED AND HOW HE KNEW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PARCEL OF LAND THAT IS KNOWN AS PARTIALLY FLOOD WILL NOT CAUSE ADDITIONAL FLOODING TO OTHER PROPERTIES.
HIS ANSWER WAS THAT HE WAS NOT GIVING, HE WAS NOT GIVING, UH, GOING TO ALTER THE EXISTING ELEVATIONS TO THE PROJECT.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S POSSIBLE.
PA, THEY'RE 16 DASH 19 I KNOW THAT NO SURVEY WAS PERFORMED SHOWING ELEVATIONS WITH THE PROPOSED 162 HOMES SUBDIVISION AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF 160 TO ONE 40 ACRE.
THAT'S BECAUSE THERE ARE NO ACUTE OTHER ACCUMULATION OF SMALL LOTS IN THIS AREA.
THE DEVELOPER SAYS THAT HE JUST WANTS THE LAND USE TO BE THE SAME AS THE SURROUNDING RANT.
REALLY IN USE OF THE SURROUNDING AREA IS LARGE LOTS.
HE'S TRYING TO MAXIMIZE PROFITS BY DEVELOPING THIS AREA IN THE SMALLEST FEASIBLE LOTS THAT HE COULD SELL.
HE WOULDN'T MAKE AS MUCH MONEY WITH LARGER LOTS.
PLEASE LOOK AT WHAT THE ZACHARY CITY COUNCIL HAS ALLOWED TO HAPPEN ON ROLLINS ROAD.
WHAT USED TO BE OPEN LAND NOW HAS A THOUSAND HOMES ON IT.
ACCORDING TO MAYOR AMRHEIN RESIDENTS NOW HAVE STANDING WATER IN THE YARD AFTER RAIN BECAUSE OF THE TAXATION ON DRAINAGE.
PA DASH 16 DASH 19 AND TURN A BEAUTIFUL AREA INTO A ROLLINS DREAD.
NEXT LETTER IN OPPOSITION IS AVANT.
I HUMBLY ASK THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO VOTE NO ON PA DASH 16 DASH 19 THE LAND IS AGRICULTURAL LAND.
IT IS LOW, VERY WET, AND SURROUNDED BY RAVINES THAT MAKE IT UNSTABLE.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT OFF EAST PLANS PORT HUDSON IS NOT SUITABLE FOR 162 HOMES.
ZACHARY ZONING COMMISSION THAT TURNED THE DEVELOPER DOWN REFUSING TO SUPPLY WATER.
THE DEVELOPER CONTRACTED WITH EAST FLEECY IN A WATER SYSTEM TO GO ACROSS PARASITES TO PROVIDE WATER FOR THIS AREA.
PLEASE VOTE NO TO PA DASH 16 DASH 19 THE NEXT COMMENT IS FROM LAMBERT RETARD.
UM, HE SAYS IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM, THIS PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT LAND USE FROM AGRICULTURAL TO RESIDENTIAL.
I'M WRITING TO EXPRESS MY OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF PORT HUDSON PLAINS ROAD AND EAST OF SAMUEL'S ROAD ON THE F STEVENSON AND B STEVENSON TRACKS.
I AM LAMBERT RETARD, A RESIDENT ON TREACLE LANE.
I'M THE OWNER OF ABOUT 29 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED NEXT TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN THIS PART OF THE PARISH.
OUR TRACK OF LAND HAS BEEN USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AND WE DO NOT NEED A SUBDIVISION THAT WILL CHANGE THE ECOSYSTEM.
MY OPPOSITION IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING NEGATIVE SIDE EFFECTS THAT WOULD HAPPEN.
DRAINAGE CONCERNS THAT WOULD EXACERBATE FLOODING ON OUR VERY FLAT LANDS.
WATER DOES NOT GO THROUGH CEMENTED SLABS AND ASPHALT STREETS AND HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.
INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION ADDING TO THE ALREADY VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION ON EAST PLAINS, PORT HUDSON ROAD, A TWO WAY EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH ROAD WITH A 55 MILE AN HOUR SPEED LIMIT CAUSING MORE ACCIDENTS AND DEATH AND A VERY THING VERSE CROSSING WITH HIGHWAY 61 INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES OF FIRE.
POLICE AND WATER HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT.
THIS PROJECT REFERENCED MITIGATING WETLANDS BUT DOESN'T TELL US HOW OR HOW MANY WETLANDS WILL BE DESTROYED.
THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF HISTORIC CIVIL WAR RELATED GRAVE SITES NEAR FOSTER CREEK AT THE BACK OF THIS PROPERTY, THE LOSS OF NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER.
WE'RE OPEN TO ACREAGE BUT NOT EXCESSIVE HOUSES TO SATISFY THE DEVELOPER RATHER THAN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ONLY A DECREASE IN THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.
IN CLOSING, I ASKED COUNCIL MEMBERS TO DENY PA 16 DASH 19 TO THE MEN THE LAND USE FROM AGRICULTURAL TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THIS SUBJECT IS AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
SINCE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY CAN NOT EXPRESS OPPOSITION IN PERSON, IT SHOWS COMPLETE LACK OF CONSIDERATION FOR ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AND MADE IT A NICE PLACE TO LIVE AND WANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY.
NEXT OPPOSITION IN X OPPOSITION IS FROM JAMES AND LINDA GIBSON.
UM, IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM, THERE ARE CURRENTLY MULTIPLE SUBDIVISIONS BEING BUILT IN THE ZACHARY AREA WITH NOTHING BEING DONE TO GET US MORE INFRASTRUCTURE.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE THE SAME ROADS IN THIS AREA THAT WERE THERE WHEN WE MOVED TO ZACHARY 48 YEARS AGO WITH THE AMOUNT OF NEW HOMES IN THE AREA WITH SMALLER LOTS.
WE NEED BETTER ACCESS TO UTILITIES, CABLE, WATER,
[00:35:01]
ELECTRICITY, ET CETERA.PLANES, PORT HUDSON ROAD STILL HAS TWO.
IT'S STILL A TWO LANE ROAD THAT HAS MULTIPLE CURVES AND IT HAS NO SHOULDERS.
THIS SUBDIVISION WOULD ADD AT LEAST 324 CARS ON THIS ROAD THAT IS ALREADY HEAVILY TRAVELED AND NOT UP TO STANDARDS FOR THIS.
UH, NEXT LETTER IN OPPOSITION IS TROY TARVER.
I OPPOSE THIS LARGER NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE ARE ALREADY SEVERAL VERY LARGE NEIGHBORHOODS IN ZACHARY THAT AREN'T FILLED.
HOUSES ARE EMPTY OVER DUE TO GP CLOSING.
THERE IS NOT GOOD INFRASTRUCTURE TO HAVE ANOTHER 200 SPOT DEVELOPMENT.
ROADS AND DRAINAGE ARE HORRIBLE AND THE MAYOR WON'T HELP.
NEXT IN OPPOSITION IS ALBERT AND PATRICIAN NEW ENGLAND.
WE OPPOSE THE REZONING PLAN FROM AGRICULTURAL RURAL TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF PORT HUDSON PLAN'S ROAD AND EAST OF SAMUEL'S ROAD ON F STEVENSON AND BAY STEVENSON TRACKS THE INCREASE OF TRAFFIC ON A SUBSTANDARD ROAD AND FLOODING ISSUES THAT WILL OCCUR OR THE REASONS FOR OUR OPPOSITION.
ASK DAVIS, I AM OPPOSED TO THIS DEVELOPMENT WHICH WILL BE DIRECTLY BEHIND MY HOUSE.
I FIRMLY BELIEVE THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE CLOSER TO THE CITY LIMITS AND LEAVE THE RURAL AREAS ALONE.
THIS LAND IS AGRICULTURAL AND NEEDS TO STAY THAT WAY.
HIS PROPERTY WOULD BE BETTER SERVED AS SOMETHING LIKE THE LOUIS MOOT CIVIC CENTER AND ARENA IN WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH TO BETTER OFF OUR CHILDREN.
THEY NEED TO BE THE LIKES OF FOUR H AND FFA.
ZACHARY USED TO BE A VERY BIG IN FOUR H AND FFA AND THAT IS ALL GONE NOW AND WE HAVE MORE CRIME IN OUR LITTLE TOWN.
WE ALSO OPPOSE THAT TRAFFIC THAT WILL BE ON OUR PLANE.
THE ENTRANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION WILL BE IN A CURVE AND THAT IS VERY DANGEROUS.
WE DID NEIGHBORS OF TREACLE LANE AND SURROUNDING AREAS THAT POSE THIS CHANGE, LEAD IT TO AGRICULTURAL AND THINK ABOUT A CENTER LIKE WESTBOUND OR HAS FOR CHILDREN CIVIC CENTER CAN BRING MORE MONEY INTO THE PARISH AND PROZAC, RIGHT NEXT OPPOSITION IS AMY TARVER.
UM, I DO NOT WANT A 163 HOME NEIGHBORHOOD AND NEIGHBORHOOD OF THIS SIZE WILL TERRIBLY IMPACT OUR SUBSTANDARD ROADS.
WATER AND DRAINAGE IS ALREADY AN ISSUE.
NO POLICE CLOSE, NO FIRE STATIONS, NO SURROUNDING GAS STATION, ET CETERA TO ACCOMMODATE A LARGE SUBDIVISION.
UM, SHE IS IN OPPOSITION TO THIS, UH, THIS ITEM BECAUSE IT IS TURNING IT INTO RESIDENTIAL.
THE NEXT OPPOSITION IS UM, LOIS WASHINGTON.
I'M OPPOSED TO THIS REZONING FOR THE PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL RURAL TO RESIDENTIAL.
REASON BEING FOR ONE, THE LAND DEVELOPER THAT'S BEHIND IT LIED AND SAID HE SPOKE TO THE NEIGHBORS AND THAT'S NOT SO BECAUSE I LIVE NEXT DOOR TO THE PROPERTY AND THAT, AND MY HUSBAND IS RETIRED AND NOBODY EVER CAME KNOCKING AT MY DOOR TO TALK ABOUT IT.
THERE'S ONE WAY INTO THIS PROPERTY AND ONE WAY OUT.
AND LIKE I SAID, MY PROPERTY SITS RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO IT AND THE WAY THAT THEY ARE TALKING OF MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE DON'T FLOOD.
I HATE TO SAY IT WITH ALL THIS ADDITIVE THAT THEY ARE TALKING TO PUTTING INTO THE SOIL, IT'S GOING TO CAUSE FLOODING.
THERE'S STILL GOING TO BE AN INCREASE IN TRAFFIC.
IT MAY NOT INCREASE IT TOMORROW.
IT MAY NOT INCREASE IT NEXT WEEK AND IT MAY NOT INCREASE IT NEXT YEAR, BUT IT WILL BE INCREASED AND WE DON'T NEED IT.
WE MOVED HERE BECAUSE WE WANT TO BE RURAL AND WE DON'T WANT TO BE PART OF A HUGE SUBDIVISION OR NEXT DOOR TO A SUBDIVISION.
PLEASE LET US BE A COUNTRY AND QUIT TRYING TO BUILD UP THIS AREA.
THERE'S PLENTY OF LAND AVAILABLE ON HIGHWAY NINE 64 GO DEVELOP THAT.
YOU WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT WATER ISSUES OR SEWER ISSUES BECAUSE YOU'RE CLOSER TO ZACHARY ITSELF.
UM, THIS NEXT COMMENT IS FROM LEE.
READ HIS EMAILS TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN OF THE PROPOSED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OFF OF PLANES.
PLEASE DO NOT PASS THIS MOTION TO PASS THEIR REQUEST.
OUR FAMILY IS IN THE AREA AND DO NOT WANT ADDITIONAL HOUSING OR TRAFFIC ON THIS ROAD.
WE HAVING DRAINAGE ISSUES NOW.
PLEASE DON'T MAKE IT WORSE BY ADDING ADDITIONAL HOUSING.
I HAVE CONCERNS REGARDING FLOODING FOR POTENTIAL FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THE SUBDIVISION WE RESIDE IN IN PLAINS LANDS ESTATES AFTER REVIEWING THE ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY MR ENGINEERING LLC, CHAD STEVENS.
REASONS FOR OPPOSITION FLOODING ISSUES ARE VERY PROBABLE.
WE PURCHASED FLOOD INSURANCE FOR OUR HOME AND PROPERTY LATE LAST FALL BECAUSE WE HAD SEEN RISING WATER FROM HEAVY RAIN AND FLASH FLOODING.
ADDING OVER A HUNDRED HOUSES TO THE AREA WILL MORE THAN LIKELY CONTRIBUTE TO ADDITIONAL FLASH FLOODING
[00:40:01]
FOR OUR NEIGHBORING SUBDIVISIONS.THE SOIL SAMPLES REVIEWED BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEER AND IDENTIFY A SOIL SAMPLE THAT IS INDICATIVE OF POSSIBLE WETLANDS IN CLOSE VICINITY TO WHERE THE SAMPLE WAS TAKEN DUE TO THE REDUCED SURFACE AREA CAUSED BY ADDING THE ADDITIONAL HOMES WILL CERTAINLY INCREASE THE POSSIBILITY OF FLASH FLOODING IN OUR AREA.
THE NEXT COMMENT IS FROM CHERYL PEYTON.
WE PURCHASED INSURANCE THIS YEAR.
WE HAVE LOOKED OVER DRAINAGE IMPACT STUDY BY DEVELOPERS.
I AM A MASTER'S DEGREE IN SOCIAL WORK AND MY HUSBAND HAS 50 YEARS IN INDUSTRIAL PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION.
WE'RE STILL VERY WORRIED ABOUT 162 HOMES IN AN ALREADY WET AREA AND FUTURE IMPACT ON ONLY FOOTAGE AWAY, BUT WE'LL TAKE RESPONSIBILITY WHEN WE GET MORE FLOODING.
WE HAVE RECEIVED IN THE PAST SINCE THERE HAVE BEEN NO CORRECT.
NEXT COMMENT IS COURTNEY SCHWARZENBERG.
WE SPECIFICALLY CHOSE OUR HOUSE BECAUSE IT WAS IN A RURAL AREA WITH LARGE LOTS.
WE WOULD LIKE FOR OUR AREA TO REMAIN RURAL AND MAINTAIN THE COUNTRY, FEEL SEVERAL HOMES AROUND US FLOODED AS CLOSE TO TWO DOORS DOWN DURING THE GREAT FLOOD.
WE DID NOT WISH TO CAUSE FURTHER DRAINAGE ISSUES BY ADDING A LARGE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH SMALL LOTS AND CHANGING THE LAND.
IT WOULD CHANGE THE FEEL OF THE ENTIRE AREA.
IT WOULD BE VERY UNFAIR TO THOSE OF US WHO WISH TO MAINTAIN OUR QUIET LIVES OUT HERE.
FINALLY, THIS IS THE REBUTTAL LETTER FROM THE DEAR COUNCIL MEMBERS IS AFTERNOON.
YOU HEARD NUMEROUS COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION, BUT PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THIS APPLICATION THAT IS BEFORE THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL IS ONLY AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE FUTURE BR LAND USE DESIGNATION.
HOW MANY IS INVOLVING TRAFFIC, DRAINAGE DENSITY, FLOODING, UTILITIES, FIRE CAPACITY AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS APPLICATION.
THESE CONSIDERATIONS WILL BE RELEVANT WHEN THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLOT IS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
YOU ARE NOT BEING ASKED TO REVIEW OR APPROVE ANY OF THOSE ITEMS IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS WILL STILL HAVE TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION PLOT AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS.
THE ONLY MATTER REQUESTED IN THIS APPLICATION IS TO AMEND THE FUTURE BR LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM AGRICULTURAL WORLD TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
I CONCLUDE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.
YOU SURE THAT'S ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.
ALRIGHT, SO YOU KNOW, THE THING IS, IS THAT I, YOU KNOW, I READ ALL THE OPPOSITIONS THAT WERE READ INTO THE RECORD TODAY.
UM, UH, READ EVERY ONE OF THEM.
AND AFTER THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING, ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE SAID THAT WE WOULD DO IS, IS HAVE A, UM, A TOWN HALL TYPE MEETING WHERE, YOU KNOW, ANYBODY THAT HAD ANY QUESTIONS COULD COME IN AND THEY WOULD HAVE THE ENGINEER THERE, THE DEVELOPER THERE.
UM, AND I WOULD BE THERE AND WE DID THAT AND WE DIDN'T DO IT FOR AN HOUR.
WE DID IT FOR THREE TO FOUR HOURS AND WE STAYED FOR AS LONG AS ANYBODY HAD ANY QUESTIONS.
ALL THESE SAME THINGS THAT CAME UP, UM, THAT WERE TALKED ABOUT TODAY WERE TALKED ABOUT.
THEN AGAIN, THIS IS STRICTLY A LAND, A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION, ALL THE PARTICULARS ABOUT WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE THERE.
I JUST, WHENEVER, WHENEVER I BROUGHT ALL OF THIS UP, I KNEW THAT THERE WAS A SUBDIVISION THAT WANTED TO GO INTO THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.
SO THERE WAS NO BETTER TIME THAN TO BE TRANSPARENT AND TO BRING IT ALL UP AT ONE TIME.
I THINK A LOT OF IT HAS GOTTEN OUT OF OUT OF UM, MISINFORMATION AND RUMORS THAT GET SPREAD.
SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE JUST ABSOLUTELY INACCURATE.
YOU KNOW, AND I DON'T BLAME THE PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING THEM ACCURACIES.
UM, I BLAME THE IDEA THAT EVEN WHEN PRESENTED WITH THE, UM, EVIDENCE OF, YOU KNOW, WHO IS GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE IF SOMEONE'S GONNA FLOOD THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE, IN THE MEETING WHERE THE ENGINEER OR THE PROJECT SAID THAT STAMP, I'VE BEEN IN THIS BUSINESS FOR 30 YEARS, I HAVE TO GET MY CERTIFICATION FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.
WHEN THERE IS SOMETHING THAT GOES ON, I PUT NOT ONLY MY NAME AND MY REPUTATION THERE, BUT ALSO PUT
[00:45:01]
MY LICENSE UP.IT'S THE SAME THING I DO AS A, AS A, AS AN ATTORNEY.
WHENEVER I GO IN AND I PUT MY NAME ON SOMETHING, IT'S BECAUSE I HAVE ADDED IT AND MADE SURE THAT IT'S A CORRECT THING.
SO PRESENTED WITH EVIDENCE SAYING THAT THE UNIMPROVED LAND WILL NOT FLOOD.
AND IN FACT THROUGH THE STUDIES THAT WERE DONE BY THE SURVEYS BECAUSE I THINK ONE OF THE UM, PEOPLE SAID THAT THERE WASN'T EVEN A STUDY, A SURVEY DONE AND THAT WAS ABSOLUTELY WE HAD TOPOGRAPHICAL MAPS THAT WERE THERE BEFORE TOPOGRAPHICAL MAPS THAT WOULD, WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE AFTER THAT.
THE, THE RATE OF WATER SHEDDING OFF OF THAT PROPERTY WOULD BE CUT JUST ABOUT IN HALF FROM AN UNIMPROVED PART.
THE UH, FIRE DEPARTMENT, THE THINGS LIKE THAT SPOKE WITH THE CHIEF, UH, ZACHARY FIRE DEPARTMENT.
HE SAID HE DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE, BUT HE HAS A PROBLEM WITH DRY FIRE HYDRANTS.
I DON'T, I HAVE, HE IS GOING TO HAVE THE ULTIMATE SAY WHEN THIS COMES UP, IF IT EVEN COMES UP IN FRONT OF, UM, TO GET THE PERMIT.
SO THE FIRST BEFORE ONE STICK OF WOOD CAN GO VERTICAL.
ALL THESE PERMITS ARE HAVE TO GET, WE, WE HAVE PUT ALL OF THIS STUFF IN FRONT BEFORE THE EXPERTS HAVE GOTTEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO EVEN TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
THESE, THESE ARE POSSIBLE PLANS OF WHAT'S BEING ASKED.
AGAIN, EVERYONE WHO IS PUT AN APPLICANT HAS PUT AN OPPOSITION, HAS THE FUTURE LAND USE OF RESIDENTIAL RULE AND THAT'S WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IS AND IT UH, BUTTS UP TO IT.
SO TO SAY, TO NOT ALLOW THE FUTURE LAND USED TO BE CHANGED FOR NOTHING MORE THAN THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL AREA.
IT ONE TIME WAS AGRICULTURAL, THERE WAS A CONTRARIAN, THERE WERE 30 SITES.
THERE ARE ALL OF THOSE THINGS ON THAT AND THEY ALL BECAME HOUSES.
THIS IS A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS GOING TO ADD TO THE FAMILY FRIENDLY.
IT'S GOING TO BE HAVE VALUE HOMES AND IT'S GOING TO ADD TO THE AREA, NOT DETRACT FROM IT.
AND I TRULY HEAR WHAT'S BEING SAID, BUT YOU WANT YOUR EVIDENCE REPORT SOMEWHERE ELSE AND I'LL RESERVE MY TIME.
ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? ANYONE ELSE? DON, CAN WE MAKE A MOTION? YES MA'AM.
I HAD A MOTION TO DENY BY BANKS.
IS THERE A SECOND? THEY'RE SECOND TO DENY.
DO YOU SEE? NO SECOND NOW I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE.
LACK OF MOTION TO APPROVE BY WELSH SECOND BY HUDSON.
ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS, ANY OBJECTIONS? I SAY YOU WANT TO TALK MATT, PLEASE HOLD THE FLOOR IF YOU HAVE SOMEWHERE.
DON, I THOUGHT YOU WERE, GO AHEAD DONNA.
SHE SAID TRACE ON A TALKING AGAIN.
NOW JUST WANTED TO POINT AND I DID NOT WANT TO INTERRUPT ASHLEY YOU WITH THE COMMENTS, BUT, AND IF RYAN IS ON THE PHONE, THE COMMENT CARDS, UM, IF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN IN THE CHAMBER WERE NOT REALLY RELEVANT TO THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA BECAUSE ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS NOT TO APPROVE A SUBDIVISION, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE RELEVANT DOWN THE ROAD.
AND RYAN CAN SPEAK TO THIS, UH, ALSO IF YOU, IF HE WANTS TO.
UH, BUT I KNOW THAT THAT WAS ONE OF RESPECT, PEOPLE'S, UH, ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK BECAUSE WE'RE NOT IN THE CHAMBER.
AND SO I DON'T KNOW HOW RELEVANT A LOT OF THE CONVERSATION WAS.
THAT WAS ONE THING THAT UM, FRANK USED TO ALWAYS, UH, CAUTION THE PLANNING COMMISSION ABOUT HIS SPEAKING ON ITEMS, UH, FROM THE PUBLIC AND FROM THE COUNCIL, FROM THE COMMISSIONER'S SEAT IN TERMS OF THOSE ITEMS NOT BEING RELEVANT, NOT BEING AT ALL WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON FOR THE TIME BEING.
SO JUST KIND OF WANT TO CAUTION THAT IN TERMS OF ALL THE COMMENTS THAT ARE RED BECAUSE IF WE LET THAT WAIT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS NOT RELEVANT AT THIS POINT.
IT CAN BE RELEVANT IN THE FUTURE AND I KNOW IT, IT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE RELEVANT, BUT FRANK HAS ALWAYS CAUTION OR SOMEONE THAT, AND IF RYAN IS ON THE PHONE WHEN HE MAY BE ABLE TO SPEAK A LITTLE
[00:50:01]
BIT MORE TO THAT, BUT I JUST WANT TO THOSE COMMENTS FOR THE RECORD, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.WE'RE GOING ALL THE WAY CHANGE ONLY AND THOSE ITEMS WOULD HAVE TO BE A COME BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO BE CONSIDERED AT THAT TIME.
MAY I APPROACH THE MEMBERS OF THE
THIS ITEM IS JUST THE, THE PLAN AMENDMENT, THE SUBDIVISION, UH, THAT YOU HEARD COMMENTS ON TONIGHT THAT IS NOT BEFORE YOU, THE SUBDIVISION IS NOT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL TO HEAR.
COUNCILWOMAN BANKS AND THEN WE'LL GO TO YOU MATT.
SO, UM, IF I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT, UM, DONNA IS SAYING WITH TREY IS SAYING, AND ALSO ALSO, BUT IF YOU THINK ABOUT, UM, A LAND USE DESIGNATION, IT'S ABOUT POTENTIAL UTILIZATION AND YOU OPEN THE DOOR, YOU KNOW, LET, LET YOU BE SMART.
YOU'RE OPENING A DOOR FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF THE FUTURE USE OF THIS LAND BEING CHANGED TO, TO ENABLE A RESIDENTIAL.
AS FOR WE ALREADY KNOW THAT ALL THAT WHAT THESE RESIDENTS ARE SAYING AND WHY, WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS RELEVANT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE SPEAKING.
THEY ARE SAYING, WE DON'T WANT TO EVER HAVE TO DEAL WITH A FUTURE DESIGNATION CHANGE.
WE DON'T WANT THE LAND AROUND OUR AREA.
THE PURPOSE OF IT, THE, THE, THE, UH, AGRICULTURE INTENT, THE CARE TO INTAKE CHANGE.
SO WHAT YOU HEARD WERE RESIDENTS SAYING, NOT THAT IT'S NOT THAT THERE ARE, THEY MISUNDERSTAND THE, THE DIFFERENT, UM, WHAT, WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY FROM WHAT THE FUTURE.
BUT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS MAKING SURE THAT THE LEGAL USES, WHICH WOULD LEAD TO THOSE DIFFERENT PERMITS ARE OPEN FOR THE DEVELOPER.
AND WHAT THOSE RESIDENTS ARE, HAVE SAID TO US IS WE DON'T WANT THE LEGAL POSSIBILITY, THE FUTURE USE THE EVENTUAL PERMITTING, THE EVENTUAL SUBDIVISION TO HIT US.
NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS IS, FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE 200 ITEMS AND IT IS A DISH, A SHAME AND A DISGRACE FOR US TO HOLD THIS WHEN THESE RESIDENTS ARE NOT ABLE TO BE IN HOUSE CHAMBERS.
THE ANDERSON PROPERTY I KNOW VERY WELL BECAUSE THEY ARE RELATIVES OF MINE.
IT IS THE COUNTRY AND IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE FOR US TO INUNDATE THIS COMMUNITY WHEN THERE ARE SO MANY VACANT HOMES IN ZACHARY, THERE ARE SO MANY VACANT HOMES.
THE OTHER THING IS JUST LIKE THE CHIEF, UH, CLARK, UM, OF, UH, ZACH RIPLEY SAID HE DOESN'T WANT DRY HYDRANTS.
THE REASON HE DOESN'T IF IT'S CAUSE DRY HASN'T AFFECT THE RATING.
SO THIS WOULD BE AN ADDED BURDEN FOR THE UM, THE PO, THE ZACHARY FIRE DEPARTMENT, WHICH MEANS THAT THE RATING WILL AFFECT EVERY RESIDENT IN THE CITY OF ZACHARY AND IN THAT AREA.
THE OTHER THING IS WHAT THIS WOULD BE THE DRENCH WOULD BE WITH THE EATALY.
SHE HAD A PARISH RURAL WATER SYSTEM.
I SPOKEN TO SOMEONE THAT THEY DO NOT WANT THIS RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE THEY ARE BEING BOMBARDED WITH HAVING TO DEAL WITH THE TOWN OF CLINTON.
THEY ARE ALREADY HAVING TO GO BEFORE THE STATE TO MAKE AN AGREEMENT WHERE EAST FELICIANO AND THE SOUTHEAST PATCHES, WHICH INCLUDES THIS PART OF EAST BATON ROUGE HAVE TO WORK ON A REGIONAL DRAINAGE PLANE.
THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS.
IT IS WRONG FOR US TO, UM, ADD A BURDEN TO THESE PEOPLE WHO'VE RUN AWAY FROM THE CITY AND NOT IT GOT TO RUN AGAIN.
AT SOME POINT WE'LL ALLOW PEOPLE IN TIT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT A DESIGNATION IS, FUTURE ANTI.
AND THESE PEOPLE INTENT WAS TO LIVE ON A ONE, TWO, THREE AND FOUR ACRES AND NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH TRAFFIC.
AND IT JUST, AGAIN, I, FOR CHRISTMAS I WAS OUT IN THIS AREA.
I COME TO A STOP WHEN I HAD AN ONCOMING CAR AND SO I AM AGAIN, I'M RECOMMENDING THAT WE DENIED THIS.
IT IS WRONG TO DO THIS WHEN THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT ABLE TO, THAT THEY, FIRST OF ALL, THEY'VE ALREADY PROVED THAT THEY HAD THE MEETING ON MARCH 9TH BASED ON, WE DID ASK FOR A TOWN MEETING BASED ON THE COMMENTS THAT
[00:55:01]
I GOT.THEY WERE NOT, NONE OF THEIR QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED.
NOT AT COUNCILMAN WELCH TO OVER THEIR MEETING.
PEOPLE HELD, THE ELDERLY PEOPLE CAME AND SAID THEY WALKED OUT BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT BECAUSE THEY WOULD HOLD THEIR HANDS UP SO LONG AND TALK ABOUT EVERYTHING FROM THE CITY OF BAKER TO ALL HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AND SO THAT HAS A PROBLEM AND WE'RE NOT DOING THESE PEOPLE RIGHT.
AND YOU KNOW, IF THAT WAS A, ANOTHER SOMETHING TO RUN FOR, I DON'T THINK TREY WOULD BE TAKING THIS POSITION.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S RIGHT.
AND AGAIN, I STAND AND WE'D NEED TO DENY THIS, UM, THIS APPLICATION.
NEXT I HAVE IS MATT AND AN ENTIRE, SO MATT, GO AHEAD, COUNSEL.
UH, I THINK IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WHEN WE STARTED HEARING THIS ITEM AT THE LAST MEETING THAT WE HAD IN PERSON, I THINK IT WAS A TERRIBLE MISTAKE TO COME OUT AND HAVE HALF OF THIS DISCUSSION BE THE DETAILS AND THE MAP OF A SUBDIVISION THAT MIGHT NOT EVER GET BUILT.
AND IF A SUBDIVISION DOES COME, IT PROBABLY SHOULDN'T LOOK VASTLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE LOOKED AT.
BUT NONE OF THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN AS EVIDENCE.
AND I THINK IF YOU ASK RYAN HOLCOMB, YOU COULD SAY ANYTHING THAT THEY'RE SHOWING NOW WOULD NOT BE ANYTHING THAT ANYONE NEEDS TO HOLD ONTO AS EVIDENCE OF WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD DOWN THE ROAD.
THIS, AS BEEN STATED NUMEROUS TIMES AS A CHANGING LAND DESIGNATION, IT IS NOT A CHANGE IN ZONING.
AND I'LL TELL YOU, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM IN THE CHANGE OF THE LAND DESIGNATION, BUT I'LL TELL YOU, I WILL ABSOLUTELY MAKE SURE THAT I FIGHT TO MAKE SURE THAT ANYTHING THAT GOES BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THAT EVERYONE KNOWS HOW I FEEL ABOUT THIS AND THAT EVERY RULE ON THE DRAINAGE, NOT JUST LEAVING IT UP TO THE ENGINEERS, BUT MAKING SURE DPW LOOKS AT IT, MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S AN ACCURATE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT'S DONE WHILE THE SCHOOLS ARE IN SESSION.
SO WE GET AN ACCURATE STUDY ON THE TRAFFIC.
ALL THOSE THINGS COME LATER ON WHEN THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THEY'VE DENIED IT BEFORE AND I THINK A LOT OF IT WAS BASED ON LOOKING AT THESE MAPS OF A SUBDIVISION THAT PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE BUILT.
BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT A LAND DESIGNATION AND I THINK THAT THEY COME BACK WITH THE SAME MAP BEFORE OR ANYTHING THAT'S NOT VASTLY BETTER.
IT'LL GET DENIED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AGAIN.
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES MA'AM.
UH, JUST WANTED TO GO BACK TO ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WAS MADE ABOUT ONE OF THE, UM, THE RESIDENTS AND, AND Y'ALL JUST KIND OF CLARIFY THIS FOR ME.
I KNOW, I THOUGHT THAT BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE ARE, I'M STILL TRYING TO COME OUT OF THE, THE STAY AT HOME ORDERS AND WE'RE UNDER THE WHOLE CODED, UM, RULES THAT WE, UH, I THOUGHT THAT WE WEREN'T GONNA TRY TO TAKE ANYTHING THAT WAS, UM, MORE CONTROVERSIAL UNTIL WE WERE ABLE TO BE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND HAD AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO ADEQUATELY, UH, PARTICIPATE.
SO I'M JUST WONDERING, DID WE MAKE THAT DECISION BASED ON, COULD THIS NOT BE HEARD AT A LATER DATE WHEN WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYONE TO BE THERE TO PARTICIPATE IN, SORT OF SEE EACH OTHER EYE TO EYE AND, AND HEAR THE EMOTIONS AND SEE WHAT PEOPLE ARE REALLY TRYING TO, UM, TO RELAY HERE.
RYAN, DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS, COUNSEL? WANT ME TO FINISH? I AM.
RYAN, DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? ANY OTHER COMMENTS? STUDENT, THERE'S NO EXISTING POLICY THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS IN.
AND I'M NOT SURE IF ASHLEY HAS ANY POLICY IN PLACE ON, UM, CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS ON, ON HOW THEY'RE TAKEN UP.
UM, YOU KNOW, THIS ITEM WAS ADVERTISED PROPERLY.
IT IS A LAND USE CHANGE IN THE LAND USE MAP THAT'S ON PAGE FIVE OF THE ATTACHED STAFF REPORT IS REALLY UM, KIND OF PAINTS A PICTURE FROM WHERE STAFF CAME CAME FROM ON THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THAT THIS PROPERTY DIRECTLY ABUTS RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE.
UM, AND THE AFRICANS ASKING FOR CHANGE TO MATCH THAT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE.
JUST ONE, JUST ONE OTHER QUESTION.
UM, AND I DON'T KNOW WHO TO REALLY ADDRESS THIS TO THE DEVELOPER OR TREY OR, UM, IF WE DEFER THIS ITEM, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO BE BACK.
UM, SCOTT, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, MAYBE AT OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING WE MAY BE BACK IN THE CHAMBER IN SOME WAY, FORM OR FASHION.
DOES IT THROW SOMETHING OFF TERRIBLY WITH
[01:00:01]
WHAT'S TRYING TO GO ON? IF WE DEFER THIS UNTIL WE'RE BACK IN CHAMBER A COUNCILWOMAN, I KNOW WHAT THE CAPACITY OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, IT'S 38 PEOPLE RIGHT NOW WITH 25%.AND WITH DEPENDING ON HOW MANY COUNCIL MEMBERS, I GUESS AFTER JUNE 5TH, AND SOMEBODY CAN CORRECT ME, COUNCILMAN
I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT NOT CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS, BUT WE DON'T, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS ITEM AND WE HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE AND I KNOW WE DEFERRED IT, BUT I KNOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS WANTING TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS ITEM.
UH, SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE AT AT THE JUNE 17TH MEETING AS FAR AS THE, UH, PHASE TWO AND WHERE WE'RE AT.
SO I, I HATE TO SAY, BUT I MEAN THAT'S SOME DISCUSSION THAT WE CAN HAVE AS FAR AS WHAT WE KNOW, WHERE WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO MOVE AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU BRING THE PUBLIC IN.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WAS MY COMMENTS TODAY.
I MEAN WHO YOU PICK, WHO COMES IN, WHO DON'T COME IN.
I MEAN THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WHO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S THE QUESTION THERE.
SO, I MEAN, HOW DO YOU DO THAT? FAIRLY SO, BUT ANYWAY, I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION WANTING TO MOVE ON IT.
UH, I THINK TREY, TARA, WHEN YOU FINISH, I THINK TREY, DID YOU WANT TO TALK AGAIN? YEAH, JUST FOR, JUST FOR A QUICK SECOND.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL CAN SEE ME OR NOT, BUT ANYWAY, FOR A QUICK SECOND, ONE OF THE THINGS WAS, IS THAT WE'VE HAD THIS, UM, WE'VE HAD THIS PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE KOGAN STARTED.
UM, WE HAD DEFERRED, WE HAD DEFERRED, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT TIMES.
WE DEFERRED LAST TIME WHERE WE HAD ABOUT THE SAME NUMBER AND, UH, AMOUNT OF WHAT YOU SAW TODAY AS FAR ARE WHAT YOU HEARD TODAY, UM, AND WAS ABLE TO BE PUT INTO, UM, WORDS AND READ INTO THE RECORD.
UM, I THINK THE PASSION YOU SAW ON THE FIRST, UH, PUBLIC HERE AND NONE OF THAT PASSION HAS CHANGED.
SO IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, IT HADN'T CHANGED.
UM, IT'S JUST ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS ALL THE THINGS THAT I'VE HEARD VERSUS ALL THE THINGS THAT WHENEVER THOSE QUESTIONS ARE ASKED, NOT JUST I HAVE THIS CONCERN, IT'S LIKE, OKAY, WELL LET'S GET THE ANSWER THAT CONCERN.
YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY CIANNA WAS, IS THAT IT WOULD CHANGE EVERYBODY IN THE CITY OF ZACHARY'S FIRE RATING.
IT COULDN'T BE FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS, BUT IT'S THAT TYPE OF STATEMENTS WITHOUT FACTUAL BASIS THAT HAS GOTTEN US INTO THIS, UM, WHERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A SUBDIVISION AS OPPOSED TO TALKING ABOUT A LAND USE CHANGE.
EVERYONE THAT IS PUT IN AN OPPOSITION TO THIS HAS THE LAND USE DESIGNATION THAT THE PERSON WHO OWNS THIS PROPERTY IS ASKING FOR AS WELL.
THEY'RE NOT WANTING ANYTHING MORE.
THEY'RE NOT WANT ANYTHING MORE DENSE THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY ENJOYED ON EVERYONE ELSE TO THE EAST.
THAT A BUTS THEIR PROPERTY, NOTHING ELSE HAS CHANGED.
UM, AND ALL THE QUESTIONS, ALL THE STUDIES, ALL THOSE THINGS, WHENEVER IT COMES FARTHER SUBDIVISION WOULD HAVE TO BE ANSWERED PRIOR TO THEM BUILDING ANYTHING.
EVEN HAVING THEIR SUBDIVISION EVEN APPROVED, NONE OF THAT HAS HAPPENED.
IT HAS TO BE DONE TO THE PLAN AND COMMISSION STILL.
AND THERE'LL BE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THAT.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I TEND TO AGREE ABOUT THE CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS HAD THIS THING NOT BEEN SOMETHING THAT HAD BEEN PASSED ON AND PASSED ON AND PASSED ON AND YOU KNOW, HAD THE PUBLIC MEETINGS THEN HAD PUBLIC MEETINGS TALKING TO RESIDENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, SO I'D MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE LAND USE CHANGE AND LEAVE THE, UH, SUBDIVISION TO WHEN PROPER TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
COUNCILMAN? I HAD A MOTION ALREADY BY YOU AND TUCKSON.
UH, I THINK MATT, MATT, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK?
RYAN, ARE YOU ON THE LINE? RYAN HOLCOMB.
[01:05:01]
I'VE GOT A QUESTION HERE.WE'RE, WE'RE CHANGING THE LAND DESIGNATION.
IF, IF THIS PASSES FROM AGRICULTURAL, RURAL TO RESIDENTIAL IS, DOES THAT IN ITSELF HAVE ANY KIND OF ZONING IMPLICATIONS IN THAT CHANGE? SO THE CURRENT OF RURAL AG LAND USE, THE CURRENT FUTURE BR DESIGNATION OF THIS PROPERTY IS RURAL AG.
THE CURRENT ZONING IS WORLD IN ZONING IS NOT IN PLAY AND IS NOT CHANGING.
THAT COMBINATION REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF ONE ACRE LOT SIZE.
IF THE PROPERTY WERE TO CHANGE TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD PER THE REQUEST, THEY COULD DO 4.1 UNITS PER ACRE AND ONE UNIT PER ACRE, 1,500 SQUARE FOOT LOTS.
THEY CAN DO 4.1 UNITS OR MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 4.1 UNITS PER ACRE OVERALL.
I WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU KNOW I WANTED FOLKS TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE NOT NECESSARILY DOING ANY REZONING BECAUSE EVEN IF THE LAND DESIGNATION IS DIFFERENT, THE SUBDIVIDING OF THE PROPERTY AND THE PLAT WOULD AGAIN BE SOMETHING DOWN THE ROAD.
THERE'S A POTENTIAL FOR THAT THERE, BUT IT DOES NOT GUARANTEE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM THAT THIS WILL EVER HAPPEN UNLESS AGAIN IT IS JUST ABSOLUTELY BY THE BOOK A GREAT SUBDIVISION THAT WILL BE IN ACCORD WITH THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO SHOW UP AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS THEY DID BEFORE, WHICH HAD THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED.
SO RYAN, WHAT WAS THE VOTE FROM THE PLANET CONDITION BY THE MEMBERS? YOU HAVE THAT VOTE IN FRONT OF YOU? YEAH, THE VOTE WAS A TO DENY SEVEN TO TWO.
WHAT WAS THE VOTE? WHO VOTED? VOTED? HOW WAS ONE WONDERFUL RECORD? GIVE ME JUST A MINUTE.
AND I KNOW THAT THE, THE, YOU PROBABLY KNOW THEY CAN BUILD HOMES ON IT NOW.
PROBABLY NOT AS MANY AS THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE HOME.
BUT AGAIN, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT I'M IN FAVOR OF USING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, I JUST KNOW THAT WHAT WE'RE BUILDING IS A PLANNING CONDITION TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT IS BEFORE ELLS.
WE ARE ALWAYS CAUTIONED TO TAKE THE ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA AND EVEN THOUGH THAT THERE MAY BE USE, IT STILL HAS TO COME BACK BEFORE THE BODY AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE ACTUALLY NOT, IT SEEMS IS AS IF IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE PERSON ASKING FOR THE DESIGNATION CONSIDERATIONS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN.
AND SO THAT FROM A PLANNING STANDPOINT, THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE LOOK AT IT AS AN ITEM AT A TIME AND NOT THE COMBINED EFFORT.
THE POTENTIAL BEFORE THE MO, THE MOTION TO DENY WAS BY ROWDY GO DAY WITH SN AS THE SECOND, THE MOTION CARRIED SEVEN TO TWO WITH GROUT AND ALLEN VOTED NO.
SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE VOTING NO, IS WAS SAYING TO THE FULL BODY, CORRECT? CORRECT.
OKAY, SO I HAVE TO GO INTO THAT FOR THE RECORD.
YOU GUYS WOULD KNOW HOW IT WAS DECIDED BECAUSE IF IT HAD BEEN DENIED BY EVERYONE AT THE POINT YOU COMMISSION LEVEL, WE WOULD NEVER BE SEEN AT NOW.
SO I JUST WANTED YOU GUYS TO KNOW THAT.
I HAD A MOTION BY WELCH HAS SECOND BY HUDSON.
ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS? I'M GOING TO OBJECT.
ANY OTHER OBJECTIONS? ANY OTHER OBJECTIONS? OKAY.
WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL ON A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM.
WANT TO AMEND THE LAND? COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE.
COUNCILMAN WELCH, YES OR NO ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE TO GET THERE.
WELL, Y'ALL HEAR ME? YEAH, I CAN HEAR YOU NOW.
COUNCILWOMAN GREEN IS A STEP OUT OF THE ROOM.
COUNCILMAN COLLIN SAYS YES OR NO AND THE
[01:10:01]
MOTION TO APPROVE? NO.I JUST JOINED THE CALL SO I DIDN'T HIT IT.
UM, HAVE YOU AS AN ABSTENTION ALSO AN MRI, SIR? NO.
COUNCILMAN WICKER COMES FROM WORK OR YOU'RE NEEDED? IT'S A YES OR NO.
RIGHT, BUT I DIDN'T MAKE THE MOTION NOW.
JUST FOR THE MAIN AMENDMENT, NOT FOR THE SUBDIVISION, OBVIOUSLY.
THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS THE PLAN AMENDMENT, SO YES.
ONE ABSTENTION AND ONE ABSENT.
SO YOU CAN MAKE A, CAN I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DEFER THE ADAM MOTION BY WICKER TO DEFER FOR THE 30 DAYS THAT WAS A WOMAN? YES.
WHILE WICKER SECOND BY WATSON, ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO DIFFER FOR 30 DAYS? YEAH.
HOW ARE WE GOING TO GO BACK AND DO THAT? IT'S ALREADY FAILED.
WELL, YOU CAN GO BACK THE MOTION.
SHE CAN MAKE A MOTION AFTER VOTE.
I NEED TO ASK THE PARISH ATTORNEY ABOUT THAT.
THE PARENTS' ATTORNEY ON THE PHONE.
THAT IS, I JUST NEED IT ON THE RECORD.
SO THESE PEOPLE WHO LOOK AT WATCHING, I'VE NEVER VOTED IN THE LOW BACK.
SO THE MOTION, THE MOTION THAT, UM, THE MOTION THAT SCOTT, IT'S FAILED MOTION FAILED SIX TO THREE TO ONE AND ONE THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.
IT'S WITHDRAWAL AND EMOTION TOO.
I'LL WITHDRAW MY SECOND MATH WITHDRAWN IN SECOND.
[Item 2]
TO ITEM TWO RB DASH ONE DASH 20 HILLCREST ACRES REQUESTS TO REVOKE A 23 ALLEY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CAROLYN SUE DRIVE NORTH OF OLD HAMMOND HIGHWAY BETWEEN LOT 11 ACRE SUBDIVISION AND LOT B DASH ONE OR THE MJ SHORT PROPERTY COUNCIL DISTRICT 11 WATSON COMMISSION ACTION.NO HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION REQUIRED ON UDC SECTION 3.6 0.3 ASHLEY.
ANY COMMENTS ON ITEM TWO? NO COMMENTS ON ITEM TWO COUNSELOR'S MOTION TO APPROVE.
ITEM TWO MOTION WATSON SECOND BY COLLINS LEWIS.
ANY OBJECTIONS HEARING NON ITEM TWO HAS BEEN APPROVED.
[Item 3]
K SIX DASH 2043 50 SCENIC HIGHWAY CAN RESOLVE FROM LIGHT COMMERCIAL AND TRANSITION TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES LOCATED ON EAST SIDE OF THE SINGLE CUTAWAY ON NORTH SIDE OF DAYTON STREET OFF TO THE WEST OF THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY ONE 10 AND SOUTH OF SHERWOOD STREET.HELD A DISTRICT 10 WICKER COMMISSION ACTION MOTION APPROVED.
CARRY FIVE ZERO ASHLEY, ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM THREE ONE I'M SORRY, GOING ON.
I HAVE SEVERAL COMMENTS ON ITEM THREE THE FIRST COMMENT FROM THE APPLICANT, DEAR COUNSEL MEMBERS ARE REPRESENT THE APPLICANT WHICH OWNS 18 LOSS LOCATED AT 43 50 SCENIC HIGHWAY.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY COMPRISED OF FIVE LOTS WHICH CURRENTLY ARE ZONED IN ONE FIVE LOTS WHICH ARE CURRENTLY ZONED C1 AND EIGHT LOTS WHICH ARE CURRENTLY ZONED TO BE ONE.
THE APPLICANT'S EXISTING WELDING TESTING SERVICES BUSINESS IS LOCATED ON THE AND THE APPLICANT IS INTERESTED IN INVESTING IN ITS BUSINESS AND EXPANDING ITS OPERATIONS ON THE PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR PLANS GROWTH.
THEY'RE REQUIRED TO REASON THE B ONE AND C ONE PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY TO M ONE TO PROVIDE FOR CONTINUITY FOR THEIR OPERATIONS.
I BELIEVE THAT REZONING THE B ONE AND C ONE PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY TO IN ONE ZONING DOES NOT CAUSE ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA.
IN FACT NUMEROUS SIZABLE PROPERTIES OWNED BY EXXONMOBIL ARE SITUATED DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPERTY IN ARE CURRENTLY ZONED TO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AND REPRESENT SOME OF THE LARGEST CONCENTRATIONS OF MTS ZONING AND HIS BATON ROUGE PARISH.
I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY OPPOSITION TO THE ZONING AND THE APPLICANT.
APPLICANT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND HOPE YOU WILL APPROVE THIS APPLICATION.
SECOND COMMENT IS FROM EDWARD ROTENBERG.
[01:15:02]
UM, SHE UH, LODGED A UM, LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICANT.THE NEXT COMMENT IS FROM THOMAS LUSKO.
UM, HE ALSO LODGED A LETTER IN SUPPORT THE APPLICANT.
UM, ALSO LODGED A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICANT.
FINALLY, MATTHEW SHIRLEY ALSO LODGED A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICANT.
THOSE ARE ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS. HEY, COUNCIL MEMBERS, PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED.
MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM THREE BY WICKER.
IS ANY THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY ROCCO.
ANY OBJECTIONS HEARING? NON ITEM THREE HAS BEEN APPROVED.
[Item 4]
TWO DASH 2056 ZERO FIVE JONES CREEK ROAD TO REZONE FROM RURAL TO LIGHT COMMERCIAL ON LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER, JONES CREEK ROAD AND FARROW AVENUE WEST OF SOUTH ALLEGIATE.COURT COUNCIL DISTRICT NINE HUDSON.
ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? NO COMMENTS.
MOTION TO APPROVE BY HUDSON SECOND BY ROCCA OR IN ANY OBJECTIONS HEARING ON ITEM FOUR HAS BEEN APPROVED.
COUNSELOR IS GOING TO TAKE FIVE ITEMS FIVE AND SIX TOGETHER.
[Items 5 & 6]
WE'LL VOTE ON THEM SEPARATELY.ITEM FIVE REQUIRES EIGHT VOTES.
PA DASH FIVE DASH 22 ZERO SEVEN ZERO SOUTH OF CANYON THREE WAIT A MINUTE.
COMPREHENSIVELY FROM INSTITUTIONAL TO OFFICE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH ACADIAN THREE-WAY AND NORTH OF INTERSTATE 10 COUNCIL DISTRICT SEVEN COLE COMMISSION.
ACTION MOST IMPROVED CARRY NINE ZERO ITEM SIX CASE EIGHT DASH 22 ZERO SEVEN ZERO SOUTH ACADIAN THROUGH RAIDER ZONE FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL OFFICE.
LOW RISE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH ACADIAN AND NORTH OF INTERSTATE 10 COUNCIL DISTRICT SEVEN COLE COMMISSION.
MOST IMPROVED NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE CARRY NINE ZERO ASHLEY ONLY THE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS FIVE AND SIX NO PUBLIC COMMENTS.
COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCILMAN COACH I TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM FIVE THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN.
SO MO MOTION BY KOHL'S THERE SECOND SECOND BY COLLINS LEWIS.
ANY OBJECTIONS? VERY NON ITEM FIVE HAS BEEN APPROVED.
COUNSELOR AND THEY HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
ITEM SIX ON THE APPROVED A NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE MOST PROVE ITEM SIX NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE MOTION BY COUNCILMAN COLE? YES SIR.
[Item 7]
MEMBERS WON'T GO TO ITEM SEVEN.ITEM SEVEN IS PA DAY SIX DASH 2095 ZERO NINE JEFFERSON HIGHWAY TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FROM RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS COMMERCIAL ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF JEFFERSON HIGHWAY TO THE WEST OF BLUE AND BOULEVARD COUNCIL DISTRICT WATSON.
ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SEVEN ITEMS? SEVEN NO PUBLIC COMMENTS.
SECOND BY ROCKER IN THE OBJECTIONS HEARING NONE.
[Item 8]
CASE 15 DASH 29 FIVE OH NINE JEFFERSON HIGHWAY REZONE FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL OFFICE LOW RISE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF JEFFERSON HIGHWAY TO THE WEST OF BLUEBONNET BOULEVARD.COMMISSION ACTION MOTION PROVEN MOTION TO APPROVE NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE CARRY NINE ZERO ASHLEY, ANY COMMENTS ON ITEM EIGHT WE DO HAVE PUBLIC COUNCIL MEMBERS.
FIRST COMMENT ON ITEM EIGHT IS MATTHEW SHIRLEY.
I REPRESENT MR. THOMAS LUSKO, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON JEFFERSON HIGHWAY.
THE PRACTICE IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF JEFFERSON HIGHWAY AND LOCATED TO LOSS WEST OF BLUEBONNET BOULEVARD.
A LOT BETWEEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND BLUE BONNET BOULEVARD IS A IS HOME TO RESOURCE BANK.
WE FEEL GIVEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES, JEFFERSON HIGHWAY FRONTAGE AND PROXIMITY TO THE INTERSECTION OF JEFFERSON HIGHWAY AND BLUE BONNET, BUT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOULD ALLOW FOR A HIGHER DENSITY USE.
WE ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED THE REZONING REQUEST TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM
IT'S JUST DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE HAD AN ATTORNEY GROUP LOOKING TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AND BUILD AN APPROXIMATELY 7,000 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE STORY OFFICE BUILDING.
WHILE GENERAL OFFICE LOW RISE ALLOWED THIS USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION WAS TOO BROAD IN THE EVENT THE PURCHASE GO THROUGH AND WOULD POTENTIALLY ALLOW A MULTISTORY BUILDING ON THE SITE IN THE FUTURE.
YOU OWNER UNDERSTOOD THE NEIGHBOR'S CONCERNS AND DECIDED TO SCALE OUR RESENTING REQUEST TO NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE.
HOWEVER, NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE ALSO ALLOW USES.
THE NEIGHBORS OBJECTED TO AND I'M SORRY THEY HAVE, UH, THE ORIGINAL CHANGE WAS TO AND C, HOWEVER, NC ALSO ALLOWED USES THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD OBJECTIVE DO IN BEING GOOD NEIGHBORS.
WE DECIDED TO SCALE OUR REQUEST BACK TO NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE.
AFTER SPEAKING TO MATT WATSON, WE BELIEVE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE ZONING CLASSIFICATION CAPTURES THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
[01:20:01]
THAT IS NEEDED FOR THIS USE.UM, HE LODGED A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE ITEM.
BRIAN NICHOLAS ALSO LODGED A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE ITEM.
THOSE ARE ALL THE COMMENTS ON ITEM EIGHT.
THANK YOU ALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, CLOSE COUNCIL MEMBER CUSTOMER AND WATCHING MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARTISTS.
I WANT TO SAY FIRST THAT THE DEVELOPER, THE PROPERTY OWNER WORKED HAND IN HAND OVER MANY EXCHANGES WITH THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD AND WERE WONDERFUL TO WORK WITH.
THE NEIGHBOR'S CONCERNS WERE WERE HURT.
THEY WERE VERY, WE EDUCATED PEOPLE BOTH SIDES ON WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO AND WHAT THEY NEEDED TO GET IT DONE.
I'M VERY IMPRESSED WITH THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WENT BACK AND FORTH AND I MOVED SO THAT WE CARRY WHAT THE PLANET COMMISSION CARRY IS THAT IT CHANGED FROM A ONE TO NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE AND A MOTION BY WATSON TO APPROVE NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE ON ITEM EIGHT IS THERE A SECOND SECOND BY WICKER OR ANY OBJECTIONS? VERY NON ITEM EIGHT HAS BEEN APPROVED.
COUNSELOR'S GOING TO TAKE ITEMS NINE AND 10 TOGETHER.
[Items 9 & 10]
ITEM NINE REQUIRES EIGHT VOTES.ITEM NINE PA DASH SEVEN DASH 2225 IN TWO THREE FIVE STORING LANE TO ME IN THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FROM RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS TO OFFICE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE STORING LANE AND SOUTH OF MENLO DRIVE.
SOUTH OF COUNCIL DISTRICT 12 ROCCA.
MISSION ACTION MOTION APPROVED CARRY NINE ZERO ITEM 10 CASE 21 DASH 2225 AND TWO 35 STORING LANE TO REZONE FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL OFFICE LOW RISE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF STORY LANE SOUTH OF MENLO DRIVE COUNCIL DISTRICT 12 ROCCA COMMISSION ACTION MOST IMPROVED.
TERRY NINE ZERO ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NINE AND 10 NO COMMENTS ON ON ITEMS NINE AND 10 COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCILMAN ROCCO, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON ITEM NINE MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM NINE ON THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN.
IS THERE A SECOND SECOND BY HUDSON OR ANY OBJECTIONS? HEARING NONE OR NOT HAS BEEN APPROVED.
COUNCIL MADE ANY MOTION TO APPROVE.
ITEM 10 COUNCIL MOTION BY COUNCILMAN ROCK AND SECOND BY COLLINS LEWIS.
ANY OBJECTIONS HEARING ON ITEM 10 HAS BEEN APPROVED.
COUNCIL MEMBERS GOING TO TAKE ITEMS
[Items 11 & 12]
11 AND 12 AND WE'LL VOTE ON THEM SEPARATELY.ITEM 11 IS PA DASH EIGHT DASH 20 LA 30 AT BLUE BONNET BOULEVARD TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FROM RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO MIXED USED ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON SOUTH OF BLUEBONNET BOULEVARD AND EAST OF NICHOLSON DRIVE COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE LOOP COMMISSION ACTION MOTION APPROVED CARRY NINE ZERO ITEM 12 A DASH ONE DASH 20 HARSON DISTRICT CONCEPT PLAN TO REZONE FROM RURAL TO PLAN UNION DEVELOPMENTAL PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF BLUEBONNET BOULEVARD EAST THE NICHOLSON DRIVE COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE LOOP COMMISSION ACTION MOTION APPROVED CARRY NINE ZERO ASHLEY, ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS 11 AND 12 WE HAVE COMMENTS.
FIRST COMMENT IS FROM JOSEPH YARBROUGH ON BOTH ITEMS 11 AND 12 THESE ITEMS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CRITERIA FOR A PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE PLANNING STAFF TO VERIFY THAT THEY CONFORM WITH THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER.
ASKED THE METRO COUNCIL APPROVED THESE ITEMS. SECOND COMMENT IS FROM PHILLIP LARGE CONCERNING HARVESTING, I REQUEST THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL AND ANY EXISTING HOMEOWNERS AND HARVEST HARVESTING BE MADE AWARE OF EXACTLY HOW THE HARVEST AND T TIF TAX FUNDS WILL BE SPENT AND MADE AWARE OF HOW OTHER AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY PARISH ARE STRUCTURED AND POSSIBLE CA OR OTHER AGREEMENTS.
NOW THAT HARVESTING HAS BEEN MADE, A SPECIAL DISTRICT, I REQUEST THAT ALL OF THAT INFORMATION BE MADE PUBLIC BEFORE ANY NEW ZONING REVISIONS ARE APPROVED.
THAT CONCLUDES PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS 11 AND 12 OKAY.
WHAT WAS THE PUBLIC COMMENTS? COUNCIL MEMBERS, ANY COMMENTS? IF NOT, THERE'S A MOTION ON ITEM 11 TO APPROVE THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE.
THERE'S A SECOND BY THE CHAIR.
ANY OBJECTIONS? VERY NON ITEM 11 HAS BEEN APPROVED.
COUNCIL MEMBERS THE MOTION APPROVE.
ITEM 12 MOTION BY LOOP SECOND BY WICKER.
ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS ON ITEM 12 HEARING NONE.
[Item 13]
TO ITEM 13 TA DASH ONE DASH 20 CHAPTER FOUR SITE PLANS AND PLATS, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT RELOCATES AND UPDATES LANGUAGE RELATIVE TO THE UTILITY REQUIREMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS CURRENTLY CHAMP.IN CHAPTER 14 UTILITIES TO CHAPTER FOUR SITE PLANS AND FLATS COMMISSION ACTION MOST APPROVED CARRY NINE ZERO ACTUALLY COMMENTS ON ITEM 13 NO COMMENTS ON ITEM 13 COUNCILORS OR ANY MOTION ON ITEM.
[01:25:01]
ITEM MATT IS OUT OF MOTION OR TALL.MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 13 IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND BY ROCK OR ANY OBJECTIONS HEARING ON ITEM 13 HAS BEEN APPROVED.
[Item 14]
TA DASH TWO DASH 20 CHAPTER 14 UTILITIES PROPOSAL MEMBER THAT REORGANIZE UPDATES REVISIONS OF CHAPTER 14 DELETING LANGUAGE BEING REMOVED TO CHAPTER THREE PROCESSES FOR SITE PLANS AND PLATS IN 19 DEFINITIONS.MOTION APPROVED CARRY NINE ZERO ASHLEY, ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON UNIMPORTANT? NO PUBLIC COMMENTS.
COUNCIL MEMBERS, ANY COMMENTS OR EMOTIONAL ITEM 14 MOTION ON ITEM TO APPROVE ITEM 14 BY COS LEWIS SECOND BY WATSON ON ANY OBJECTIONS HEARING NONE.
[Item 15]
TA DASH THREE DASH 20 CHAPTER 19 DEFINITIONS PROPOSAL AMENDMENT THAT RELOCATES DEFINITIONS CURRENTLY IN CHAPTER 14 UTILITIES.TWO CHAPTER 19 DEFINITIONS, PERMISSION ACTION.
ASHLEY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM 15 NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NINE 15 COUNCIL MEMBERS ANY COMMENTS OR MOTION TO APPROVE.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY ROCKER.
[Item 16]
NINE DASH 2016 ZERO FOUR FOUR TIGERMAN ROAD IN 69 69 ANTIOCH ROAD TO REZONE FROM RURAL TO GENERAL OFFICE LOW RISE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER.TIGERMAN RONA ANTIOCH ROAD TO THE EAST OF SUGAR SPRINGS DRIVE COUNCIL DISTRICT NINE HUDSON.
MOTION TO APPROVE CARRY NINE ZERO.
ASHLEY, ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM 16 NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM 16 COUNCILMAN HUDSON.
ANY COMMENTS OR MOTION TO APPROVE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
I DO WANT TO MAKE THE COMMENT THOUGH THAT THIS ITEM IS, IS SIMPLY ALLOWING THE CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH OUR CURRENT ZONING.
SO IT'S NOT AN INCREASE IN THE WAY THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE USED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
IT'S SIMPLY ADDRESSING A, UM, AN OUTDATED, UH, ISSUE IN THE AREA AND A MOTION TO APPROVE ON ITEM 16 BY HUDSON.
IS THERE A SECOND SECOND BY WICKER OR ANY OBJECTIONS? HEARING NONE.
[Item 17]
11 DASH 2013 213 300 AND DESIGNATED AIRLINE HIGHWAY.THE REZONE FROM PLANNING UNION DEVELOPMENT TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AIRLINE HIGHWAY, SOUTHWEST THUNDERBIRD LANG COUNCIL DISTRICT NINE HUDSON COMMISSION.
CARRY NINE ZERO ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM 17 NO COMMENTS ON ITEM 17 COUNCIL COUNCILMAN HUTSON.
ANY COMMENTS OR MOTIONS? MOTION IN PERSON TO MOTION APPROVE ITEM 17 BY HUDSON.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY A ROCKER.
[Item 18]
18 FACE 11 I'M SORRY.CASE 12 DASH 2026 78 GOVERNMENT STREET TO RESOLVE FROM LIGHT COMMERCIAL TO COMMERCIAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CAB TWO ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GOVERNMENT STREET, WEST OF SOUTH EUGENE STREET COUNCIL DISTRICT SEVEN COAL COMMISSION ACTION MOTION APPROVED.
CARRY NINE ZERO ASHLEY, ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM 18 NO COMMENT.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM 18 COUNCILOR MOTION TO APPROVE.
MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 18 BY KOHL'S THERE.
[Item 19]
DASH 2041 98 AND 42 28 PASADENA DRIVE THE REZONE FROM HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND LIGHT COMMERCIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON EAST SIDE OF PASADENA DRIVE SOUTH OF GREENLAND SPRINGS ROAD COUNCIL DISTRICT SIX COLLINS LEWIS.MISSION ACTION MOTION PROOF CARRY NONE.
ASHLEY ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM 19 ONE PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM 19 THIS IS FROM RUTH DEVAL.
WE WOULD LIKE TO REZONE FROM HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND LIGHT COMMERCIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.
THIS REASONING WILL MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A CHANGE ZONING AND WILL BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THAT CONCLUDES THE COMMENTS ON IT.
COUNCIL MEMBERS LOVES THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.
COUNCIL MCCOMBS LEWIS APPROVED ITEM 19 BY CARL'S LEWIS SECOND BY A WICKER ON ANY OBJECTIONS, HEARING NONE.
[Item 20]
CASE 14 DASH 20 1774 NORTH FLANNERY ROAD TO RESOLVE FROM RURAL TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON EAST SIDE OF NORTH FLANNERY ROAD, NORTH OF FLORIDA BOULEVARD.COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR WILSON COMMISSION ACTION MOST IMPROVED CARRY NONE.
ASHLEY, ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM 20 NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM 20 I MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 20 BY THE CHAIR.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY A ROCKER.
ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS HEARING NONE.
[Item 21]
COUNCIL MEMBERS NEED A MOTION TO DELETE.ITEM 21 A 16 DASH 2012 200 TO 12 300 AND DESIGNATED PARK NO AVENUE.
THE RESULTS FOR RULE TO ZERO LOT LINE RESIDENTIAL ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
[01:30:01]
ONLY STREET IN A PARK.NO AVENUE TO THE WEST OF PARKVILLE COURT.
ELTON DISTRICT EIGHT MROC COMMISSION ACTION WAS MOTION TO WITHDRAW CARRY NINE ZERO WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT.
APRIL 23RD ASHLEY, ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM 21 NO PUBLIC COMMENTS? I NEED A MOTION DELETE BY AMA ROSA.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY WICKER OR ANY OBJECTIONS? HEARING NONE.
[Item 22]
CASE 18 DASH 2038 51 THROUGH 38 79 AND 3,900 FOR 4,000 SUSCEPTIBLE WERE STREET AND 38 63 38 88 38 89 BATON ROUGE AVENUE, THE ZONE FROM TRANSITION TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL ON LIMITED RESIDENTIAL ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON BATON ROUGE AVENUE TWO AND TUSCARORA STREET TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF MOHICAN STREET.COUNCIL DISTRICT 10 WICKER MOTION COMMISSION ACTIONS.
MOTION APPROVED CARRY NINE ZERO ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM 22 NO PUBLIC COMMENTS.
COUNCIL MEMBERS, COUNCIL WOMAN WICKER.
NEED ANY COMMENTS OR MOTION TO APPROVE MOTION.
MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 22 BY WICKER IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY WATSON.
[Item 23]
20 DASH 2043 51 WROTE A DRIVE TO RESOLVE FROM GENERAL RESIDENTIAL TO LIGHT COMMERCIAL AND PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE CALL AND DRIVE SOUTH OF CHERRY HILL AVENUE OR NORTH OF ALCO AVENUE COUNCIL.DISTRICT EIGHT EMMA ROSA COMMISSIONED ACTION MOTION IMPROVED CARRY NINE ZERO ASHLEY, ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM 23 NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM 23 COUNCILWOMAN MRO SO ANY COMMENTS OR MOTION TO APPROVE? NOPE.
MOTION TO APPROVE ON ITEMS. MOTION TO APPROVE.
IS THERE A SECOND SECOND BY THE CHAIR.
[Item 24]
POD FOUR DASH ZERO EIGHT WOMAN'S HOSPITAL ADDITION REVISING BOUNDARIES TO AN EXISTING PUD ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON EAST SIDE OF AIRLINE HIGHWAY, EAST OF PICU LANE COUNCIL DISTRICT NINE HUDSON COMMISSION.ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM 24 NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM 24 ANY COMMENTS? COUNCILMAN HUDSON.
MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 24 BY HUDSON SECOND BY THE CHAIR OR ANY OBJECTIONS HERE? NONE.
[Item 25]
DASH TWO DASH 20 RIVERHOUSE LOTS PROPOSED HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN AN EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED SOUTH OF OKLAHOMA.STRAIGHTEN IN WEST OF NICHOLSON DRIVE, KELTON DISTRICT 10 WICKER COMMISSION ACTION MOST IMPROVED CARRY NINE ZERO ASHLYN.
ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM 25 HAVE BEEN PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM 25 COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL ONE WICKER MOTION ITEM 25 MOTION BY WICKER SECOND BY ROCKER.
[Item 26]
I SUPPOSE THERE'S THREE DASH 27 WOULD GROW THE REZONE FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO INFILL MIXED USE.SMALL PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SATIN DRIVE, NORTH OF MARY DALE AVENUE IN EASTERN AIRLINE HIGHWAY COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE GREEN COMMISSION ACTION MOST IMPROVED CARRY NINE ZERO ACTUALLY.
ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM 26 NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM 26 COUNCILWOMAN GREEN.
ANY COMMENTS? MOTION TO APPROVE MOTION APPROVED BY COLLINS LEWIS OF SECOND SECOND BY WATSON.
[Item 27]
H L DASH ONE DASH 29 SIX THREE TERRACE AVENUE PROPOSED THAT CONNECTION OF LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TERRACE AVENUE TO THE EAST SIDE OF TOWN WAS AGENT DELPIT DRIVE COUNCIL DISTRICT 10 WICKER PERMISSION ACTION.CARRY NINE ZERO ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM 27 TWO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS 27 THE FIRST BULLET COMMENT IS FAIRLY JACKSON PRESERVE THE MUSEUM HAS WORKED WITH THE BUTLER FAMILY TO APPLY FOR THIS DESIGNATION OF THE DR. LEE S BUTLER FAMILY HOME AS A LOCAL LANDMARK BUTLER HOME ON TERRACE STREET WAS BUILT IN 1927 THE HOME IS DR BUTLER'S PHYSICIAN'S CLINIC.
IT WAS A GATHERING PLACE FOR COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND VISITORS TO THE AREA THROUGH SEGREGATION, THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT AND BEYOND THE FAMILY'S CONTRIBUTION TO OLD SOUTH BATON ROUGE HAS BEEN KNOWLEDGE THROUGH THE DEDICATION OF COMMUNITY CENTERS AND PUBLICATIONS AND MORE THE DESIGNATION OF THEIR FAMILY HOME AS A LOCAL LANDMARK WILL CELEBRATE THEIR FAMILY LEGACY AND PROVIDE INSPIRATION FOR THE COMMUNITY FOR GENERATIONS TO COME.
THE ANA IS PROUD TO SUPPORT THIS DESIGNATION.
NEXT COMMENT IS FROM HEIDI BUTLER.
THIS COMMENT IS REGARDING THE DESIGNATION OF THE BUTLER FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT NINE 63 TERRACE AVENUE AS A LOCAL LANDMARK AND OLD SOUTH BATON ROUGE.
BEYOND THE ENDURING PERSONAL MEMORIES WE ALL SHARE OF THE PLACE WHERE WE WERE ALL BORN AND GREW UP.
WE ARE AWARE OF THE HOMES GREATER HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AS AN ASPIRATIONAL FOR GENERATIONS.
IT SPOKE TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF A YOUNG MAN FROM
[01:35:01]
TRULY HUMBLE BEGINNINGS WHO WENT ON TO EARN A MEDICAL DEGREE AND RETURNED TO BATON ROUGE AND TO WORK WITH HIS WIFE ESTELLE TO SERVE THE UNDERSERVED IN AN OFFICE IN THE HOME HE BUILT ON TERRACE LATER RELOCATED TO THE BUTLER BUILDING ON BEN EAST BOULEVARD WHILE SETTING UP A GRACIOUS, ELEGANT AND WELL APPOINTED HOME IN TIME.IT BECAME A GATHERING PLACE FOR THE ACTIVITIES OF CIVIC, SOCIAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS HOME THAT HOSTED PROMINENT NATIONAL VISITORS IN A SEGREGATED SOCIETY THE MOST OF ALL.
IT WAS AN IMPOSING, WELL-MAINTAINED STRUCTURE THAT WELCOMED IT, INSPIRED THOSE EXCEPT BATON ROUGE, THE COMMUNITY MY PARENTS LOVED AND SUPPORT THROUGH EXPORTED THROUGHOUT THEIR LIFETIME THROUGH THIS COVENANT LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION.
WE FULLY INTEND TO CONTINUE THEIR TRADITION BY EXPLORING WAYS TO CREATE A SALON TYPE SETTING IN THE HOME TO SHARE, NOURISH HISTORY AND CREATE NEW AND EXCITING CHAPTERS AND THE COMMUNITIES ILLUSTRIOUS AND ONGOING.
COUNCILMAN, COUNCILMAN SPEAK ON ITEM 27.
I WOULD, I WOULD, I WANT TO JUST SAY I'M SO GRATEFUL FOR THIS, THIS, UM, AGENDA ITEM.
UH, IT'S ABSOLUTELY A WONDERFUL, I ONLY HOPE AND WISH THAT WE WERE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY DO A PRESENTATION AND HOPEFULLY LATER WE WILL BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
I WANT TO THANK, UM, FAIRLY WITH PRESERVED LOUISIANA AND THE YOUNG LADIES FROM THE ECONOMIC REDEVELOPMENT GROUP IN SOUTH BATON ROUGE.
UM, MYSOLINE WOODFIELD CALL ME MS. WE MUST HAVE TALKED SOME TIME LAST YEAR ABOUT THEIR DESIRE TO DESIGNATE THIS HOME, UM, AS A HISTORICAL PLACE IN THAT AREA.
IT IS DEFINITELY SERVING AS A CATALYST FOR REVITALIZATION IN THAT AREA, UH, WITH MS. JEAN BUTLER STILL LIVING THERE, LIVING AND HOLDING TO THE PROMISE TO SO FATHER THAT THEY OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND SO WE RESPECTFULLY, UM, HONOR THAT FAMILY.
WE HAD A CHANCE TO SIT FOR ABOUT THREE HOURS IN, UH, WITH MS LYNWOOD BILL AND HER DAUGHTER, GRACE AND MS. BUTLER AND HER SISTER AND, AND THEIR KNEES.
AND JUST TALK THROUGH THE HISTORY AND THE VALUE OF THIS PARTICULAR HOME AS IT RELATES TO THE HISTORICAL, UH, UH, SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WHOLE SOUTH BATON ROUGE COMMUNITY.
SO I LEARNED SO MUCH, UM, AND JUST REALLY HONORED TO BE A PART OF THIS DESIGNATION AND UM, JUST SO THAT EVERYONE WILL KNOW SOUTH BATON ROUGE RIGHT NOW THROUGH THEIR ECONOMIC REDEVELOPMENT GROUP IS ALSO, UH, LAUNCHING A HISTORICAL SURVEY, UH, TO GO OUT AND IDENTIFY ALL OF THE CONTRIBUTING UNITS, UM, AND LOOKING FOR THAT HISTORICAL DESIGNATION FOR THE SOUTH BATON ROUGE COMMUNITY.
SO PLEASE PARTICIPATE AND SUPPORT THEIR EFFORTS, UH, AS WELL.
THEY'LL BE MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT IN JUNE.
SO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR Y'ALL SUPPORTING THIS ITEM AND A MOTION TO APPROVE BY WICKER SECOND BY ROCCA ARE ANY OBJECTIONS HEARING ON ITEM 27 HAS BEEN APPROVED.
[Item 28]
ITEM 28 RV DASH THREE DASH 20 BOOZ WASH STREET IN WEST AIRLINES.THE SERVICE ROAD REVOCATION OF A 40 FOOT RIGHT AWAY ON A PORTION OF THE HIGHWAY FOOT FRONTAGE ROAD LOCATED NORTH OF MASON AVENUE AND EAST OF CASPER STREET COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE GREEN.
CARRY NINE ZERO ANY COMMENTS ON ITEM 28 NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM 28 I NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE.
THERE ARE SECOND SECOND BY WATSON.
ARE THEY ANY OBJECTIONS? EVERY NONE.
[Item 29]
S AND C DASH ONE DASH 20 IN RIYADH ADAMS ROAD TO BORROW, BORROW ROAD.THEY PROPOSED STREET NAME CHANGE FOR HENRY ADAMS ROAD LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF INTERSECTION.
HOLLY ROAD AND DELGADO DRY COUNCIL.
DISTRICT 12 ROCCO MISSION ACTION MOST IMPROVED.
ASHLEY, ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM 29 PUBLIC COMMENTS? UH, COUNCIL MEMBERS.
JOHNNY, YOU HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT? YOU MUTE IT.
HOW'S A WOMAN RECOR WHO IS BOROUGH? I MEAN, WHAT'S, WHAT STILL WAS THE NAME? THAT WOULD BE JOE BURROWS.
AND WHO IS HENRY ADAMS? I THINK HE WAS A PAST PRESIDENT, BUT I'M NOT SURE.
TERRY HAS PRESIDENT OF LINEN STATE.
IT COULD BE THE LAST GUY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS THE, USUALLY STREETS ARE NAMED AFTER PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR IN THE SUBDIVISIONS.
NONE OF THE RESIDENTS HAD ANY OBJECTION TO NAMING THE ROAD.
I WAS JUST WONDERING, CAUSE WE'VE IN, UM, I'VE HAD, UM, THIS NAME CHANGE.
AND BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY, OUR FAMILY OR THEY DON'T DO THE RESEARCH, THEY'RE TAKING ONE FAMILY'S NAME DESIGNATION
[01:40:01]
AND PUT IT IN ADVANCE, YOU KNOW, GIVING IT TO ANOTHER FAMILY.WHEREAS OTHERS IN HIS FAMILY MAY HAVE STARTED TO SUBDIVISION, UH, THAT HIS FAMILY MAY NOT LIVE HERE ANYMORE.
BUT I WAS JUST WONDERING WHAT KIND OF RESEARCH WENT FORTH BECAUSE I THINK, I THINK IT'S ALSO BORROW, BUT I DON'T WANT US TO ALL TO DISHONOR A, WHATEVER LEGACY HENRY ADAMS MAY HAVE HAD ON THE COMMUNITY.
AND I'M ONLY SAYING THAT CAUSE THIS HAS HAPPENED TO MY COMMUNITY, UM, MORE THAN ONCE.
IT IS MOSTLY BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DIDN'T KNOW WHY THE, IT WAS NAMED AFTER THAT PERSON.
IF IT WASN'T A PERSON, I WOULDN'T BE BRINGING UP THIS ISSUE.
BUT OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING BODY ANDREW ADAMS WHERE THEY NAMED THE STREET AFTER HIM, MAYBE FIVE HOURS DEFERRED AND FIND OUT AND JUST WE DON'T, WE DON'T WANT TO DISCOUNT ANYONE.
COUNSEL, ARE YOU FINISHED WITH YOUR COMMENTS? COUNCILWOMAN BANKS, SIR? YES SIR.
COUNCILMAN ROCCA YOU WERE NEXT GOING TO BOLT.
SO GET A RYAN, ARE YOU ON THE PHONE OR RYAN COME HERE.
DID, WERE THERE ANY RESIDENTS THAT OPPOSED THIS ON THAT PARTICULAR STREET? NO, WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN ANY, UH, ANY COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION? NO PHONE CALLS, UH, QUESTIONING THE, THE REZONING IN ADDITION TO OUR REGULAR ADVERTISEMENT, WE DID MAIL OUT PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION TO EVERYONE, UH, IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA AS WELL AS ANY BUDDING NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND NO ADDITIONAL COMMENT OR CONCERN FROM ANYONE ON THIS.
DO YOU KNOW WHEN TO ADD ON THE ADAMS ROAD IS REFERENCING? I DO NOT KNOW THE SPECIFIC ADAMS. UM, THAT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THE, OF THE CHANGE.
SOMETIMES THE APPLICANT MAY DO ADDITIONAL RESEARCH AND PROVIDE THAT, BUT THERE WAS NO NOTE IN THE FILE ON THAT.
HAVE WE GOT A MOTION BY ROCCO SECOND BY WATSON HEARING NONE.
UH, ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS? HEARING NONE.
COUNCIL MEMBERS, I NEED A MOTION TO ADJOURN BY THE CHAIR.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY WICKER? IF I CAN MAKE A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE, I GUESS IF YOU'D LIKE TO.
WELL, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ASK EVERYONE WHEN YOU SAY YOUR PRAYERS TONIGHT TO THINK ABOUT MY HOMETOWN THAT I HAVEN'T SEEN IN MANY, MANY YEARS.
MIDLAND MICHIGAN, WHICH HAS BEEN A VICTIM OF TWO DAMN COLLAPSES AND HAS HAD THE WORST FLOODING IN THE HISTORY OF THAT TOWN.
WHEN I WAS A KID, WE HAD TERRIBLE FLOODING WHERE IT WAS 30 FEET ABOVE FLOOD STAGE AND IT'S GOING TO GET 36 FEET ABOVE FLOOD STAGE PROBABLY IN THE NEXT HOUR OR TWO.
WE'VE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE GET FORCED OUT OF THEIR HOMES WITHOUT EVEN TIME TO COLLECT FOOD OR WATER OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO IT'S JUST WITH THE DAMS BREAKING, IT WAS A RUSH OF WATER AND LUCKILY NO ONE HAS DIED YET BECAUSE OF THIS OR BEEN INJURED SO FAR.
BUT IF YOU, IF YOU PRAY, PLEASE THINK OF THE PEOPLE IN MY HOMETOWN WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU PRAY TONIGHT.
COUNCIL MEMBERS HAS BEEN ENJOYABLE.