By Karen Gleason
The 830 Times
A deeply divided city council denied a rezoning request during its regular meeting on Tuesday, Aug. 25, for the opening of an events center, but left the door open for the request to be reconsidered in the future.
City council members voted 2-2-3 on a motion to approve a zoning change request for a property at 114 Fletcher Drive from multiple family district (R-M) to local commercial district (C-1), made by Donato B. Guajardo III, representing Guajardo Family Properties LLC.
Councilman J.P. Sanchez made the motion to approve the request, and he and Mayor Al Arreola voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Leno Hernandez and Councilwoman Carmen Gutierrez voted against the motion, and Mayor Pro-tem Randy Quinones, Councilman LeRoy Briones and Councilwoman Elsa Reyes abstained. A council majority of four votes in favor is required for a motion to pass.
Before the vote and the discussion that preceded it, council members heard from four persons during the “Citizen Comments” portion of the meeting.
center on Fletcher Drive, saying the owner, Donato B. Guajardo III, was not trying to harm
anyone and the facility would be a service to the community. (Photo by Karen Gleason)
Jorge Suday, Victoria Martinez and Stephen Powers asked the council to deny the rezoning request, and Rosalinda Perez asked the council to approve it.
After taking up several other items on the agenda, the council moved to considering an ordinance approving the rezoning of the property.
After City Secretary Mari Acosta read the heading of the ordinance, Arreola asked if there was a motion. No one made a motion to approve the ordinance, and after a few seconds of silence, Arreola asked if there was a motion to discuss the issue.
Hernandez then made a motion “for discussion.” Sanchez gave the second.
Hernandez asked city staff members about the planning and zoning commission’s discussion of the rezoning request, asking them to describe any findings made by the commission.
City Planner Eivon Garcia responded, “The item was presented back to the planning and zoning commission on Aug. 12. The applicant did present some proposed solutions to the noise and the traffic and presented a petition. The board members did discuss the item and noted that most of the concerns would be addressed during the plan review phase, so they reaffirmed (their previous) vote, 5-0 for approval.”
Hernandez expressed concern that the name of one of the citizens, Powers, who spoke against the rezoning request, appeared on a petition presented by Guajardo showing area residents in favor of the request.
City Attorney Ana Markowski Smith said, “Just to clarify: The petition isn’t required. . . so anything to do with the petition shouldn’t be considered, for or against.”
Hernandez said, “My concern will always be with the residents and the citizens who are going to be affected. . . While we’re being told that this petition cannot be taken into consideration, it does compile a list of people who (are) in favor and we also, obviously, have people who are against it.
He asked if any planning and zoning commission members voiced concerns during their discussion.
Garcia replied the commissioners discussed possible issues with increased noise and traffic in the area. She added Guajardo proposed soundproof walls for the building and said he would provide 65 parking spaces outside the center for those attending events.
Hernandez said, “I have some concerns. . . I’m asking the city attorney, what’s the best way to present those concerns, based off the information that was provided in our packet?”
Smith replied, “Well, the concerns would be limited to the use of property. Look at property values, how the rezoning is going to affect the neighboring properties. Were there any specific things?”
Hernandez said, “Well, it’s because there’s letters of support and letters of, against, in this packet. Why would that be presented to us if you can’t take that into consideration?”
Smith responded there were letters sent to the planning and zoning commission, which can be considered, but any documents not required as part of the process should not be considered.
The city attorney then asked Garcia if there had been a public hearing on the rezoning in the planning and zoning commission meeting to give members of the public an opportunity to comment, and Garcia replied there had been a public hearing at the commission’s meeting on July 8.
Smith asked, “But at some point did the public have an opportunity to comment, either at the first or second meeting?”
Garcia replied, “Yes, they did.”
“When they came to city council, was that true too? Was there an opportunity to comment when they came to city council?” Smith asked.
“Yes, there was a public hearing at the city council meeting as well,” Garcia replied.
Arreola asked, “But Eivon (Garcia), this last one, there were both parties at the planning and zoning commission (meeting)? They were both there? The Guajardos, Mr. Suday, the citizens, whoever?”
Garcia replied that one citizen opposing the rezoning had been present at the commission meeting via Zoom.
Arreola, Hernandez, Smith, Garcia and City Planning and Zoning Director Janice Pokrant further discussed the petition and whether they could be factored into the council’s decision.
Hernandez said, “I do want to say that I still remain with some particular concerns about this particular rezoning. Not about the project. Not about the personalities involved or anything else, but I do have a sense of unease about the particular rezoning, and for that, I’ll kind of stop for now and let any other council member to have any input.”
Smith said, “And just to clarify, rezoning is the key issue.”
Arreola asked if there were any other questions.
Gutierrez said she had a question for the city attorney. She asked again about the petition and whether any petitions, for or against, could be considered.
Smith said the petition was not part of the rezoning process, adding since it was not, she believed that considering it was not appropriate, either for or against.
Gutierrez said she echoed Hernandez’s comments, adding she loved the idea of an events center where families could gather after a funeral.
Gutierrez said, “If we approved the rezoning and for whatever reason, the business venture didn’t pan out, and then the property owner decided to utilize what is the existing venue right now for something else, it would fall under any of these other (uses) that were identified the last time. Is that correct, Ms. Janice (Pokrant)?”
Pokrant replied, “Yes, ma’am, that is correct.”
Gutierrez said, “We would open the door to these additional (uses), . . . so we are not just approving the commercial establishment right now, we are approving the change in the zoning which would allow additional varieties of commercial establishments to be erected there in the future. Is that correct?”
Pokrant replied, “Yes, ma’am, that is correct.”
Gutierrez said, “Thank you. That’s all I have.”
Arreola next called on Hernandez again.
Hernandez asked if anything in the Fletcher Driver property’s current zoning classification prohibited Guajardo from offering the “bereavement events,” like dinners or gatherings after a funeral.
Pokrant replied, “With their existing funeral home that they have there, which is a non-conforming use, that is something I believe they could do with that.”
Hernandez said, “So the rezoning does not stop them from continuing providing those particular services they describe, but the rezoning opens it up to a different opportunity. Is that correct?”
Pokrant responded, “Correct; so with this rezoning and the use that they had told us they wanted to change it to, was this event center, where you could have different events, one of those would be bereavement events, but then also other events, like quinceaneras and those things.”
Hernandez said, “Okay. So I want that to be clear: We’re not stopping people from being able to gather after funerals or anything like that because (the building) can currently function as it’s zoned. Is that right?”
Pokrant said, “Yes, and so, just to be clear: The funeral home is a non-conforming use, so that use wouldn’t normally be allowed in this zoning district, the multi-family zoning district, but because it’s been there (so long), . . . that use, the funeral home, along with the bereavement events, that would be incidental to their funeral home, yes.”
She added, “When you change it to just an event center, that’s when it changes that, the non-conforming use kind of goes away and you’re changing it to a different use, and that’s why the zoning. . .”
Arreola pointed out the planning and zoning commission twice voted in favor of the rezoning requests, and both votes were unanimously in favor.
Pokrant replied, “Yes, sir.”
Arreola said, “So they (the planning and zoning commission) have reviewed it twice and still come out with the same conclusion.”
Pokrant replied, “Yes, sir.”
Arreola said, “Traffic is going to be everywhere, including where I live. Music is going to be played everywhere. I got neighbors that come in with the boom box at full blast 24/7. I think this gentleman (Guajardo) has invested some money in it. Hopefully, his heart is in the right places to what he believes he’s going to be doing with it. Personally, as far as I can see, (this) is something that’s going to be a positive thing for this community. How big is it going to get? God knows. How long is it going to last? God knows. Cause he could open his doors one month and close it the following month.”
Smith asked Pokrant to once again explain that the funeral home was being operated under a “non-conforming use.”
Pokrant responded, “Right now, it’s zoned multi-family use, and the funeral home was allowed to operate in the multi-family zoning district because it had always been there. I didn’t go back and look at the history, but as far as we could tell, it had been there for a long time, and so it was operating under a non-conforming use, which means the base zoning might not be correct, but it’s been operational all that time. It can continue to operate, as long as it doesn’t stop operating for more than six months.
“So when they wanted to change the use to an event center, that’s where the zoning needs to match what the use is,” she added.
Arreola asked once again if there were any questions, then announced there had been a first and a second on the ordinance.
Sanchez said, “The planning and zoning commission voted 5-0 for it, correct?”
Pokrant said, “Yes, sir.”
Sanchez said, “And also the city staff recommends granting the change?”
Pokrant replied, “Yes, sir.”
Sanchez said, “Mayor, with that said, I want to make a motion to approve the zoning request.”
Arreola asked if there was a second.
Briones said he wanted to reaffirm that he would be abstaining from the vote.
“I am also abstaining,” Reyes said.
Arreola said he would second Sanchez’s motion.
After the vote, Guajardo, who was in the audience along with a group of supporters, called out and asked if there was any way the vote could be rescinded and proposed that he would use the building “just for the purpose we’ve intended?”
Arreola said, “Mr. Guajardo, my suggestion is for you to come in and visit with Mr. Chavez and Ana (Smith), and they can give you the full cause and all that and proceed.”
When Guajardo called out and asked whether anyone would make a motion to rescind, Arreola said, “You can’t do that, sir, I’m sorry.”
After Acosta clarified the vote, Smith said, “The motion dies, but that doesn’t mean the issue dies. It could come back at a later time.”
Hernandez said, “Since the motion dies, for clarification, the issue can always come back, but it requires, I’m assuming discussion with the city manager to get it back on (the agenda) at some point with new data?”
Smith said, “Any member of council can bring it back.”
Pokrant added, “Also, for zoning ordinances that are opposed or do not pass, too, there is a six-months before they can apply again. If something’s opposed, so that would be a question for the attorney.”
The writer can be reached at delriomagnoliafan@gmail.com.
