Applicant withdraws rezoning request after commission finds mismatched plans, prior granite‑shop rejection noted

The Planning Commission heard a rezoning request that would convert a group of parcels under common ownership to C‑3 commercial uses and deemed the item withdrawn at the applicant’s request after commissioners and staff discovered inconsistent application materials and unresolved details.

Unidentified Speaker 1, a commission member, told the panel the packet shows only the western portion of the property in detail (labeled phase 1) while the rest of the parcels are included in the rezoning application with no clear plans for phase 2 or phase 3. "This application is actually a proposal to rezone that entire group of properties that's under common ownership," Unidentified Speaker 1 said, noting the commission had previously seen a granite‑shop proposal on the western lot that the city council rejected in a 6–3 vote.

Planning staff (Unidentified Speaker 2) said the phases were included mainly for illustrative purposes to show intent for assembling larger lots under the town‑center overlay and that any uses requiring a special‑use permit would still have to return to the council. Staff and commissioners repeatedly pressed whether the applicant planned to rely on later phases to address traffic, setback and buffering concerns near adjacent residences.

Applicant Victor Vasquez told the commission he intended phase 1 to include a 1,000‑square‑foot showroom and a 4,000‑square‑foot area for granite work or display. "The front portion of the building, 1,000 square foot, will be used as a showroom. The back portion of the building, 4,000 square foot, will be used as a granite shop," Vasquez stated to the commission. Commissioners noted the application on file described a shop (which implies on‑site cutting/grinding) while Vasquez later said his preference was retail/showroom, and that discrepancy contributed to the confusion.

Commissioners also raised a code question about the town‑center overlay: the simplified PUD/SPD eligibility language in the ordinance references a combined minimum frontage of 120 feet. Unidentified Speaker 1 cautioned that if a judge later interprets the requirement to demand 120 continuous feet rather than a combined amount across separate islands of frontage, that could create legal risk for any approval absent clear conditions.

During testimony staff and commissioners discovered two versions of plan material in the packet, including an older March 21, 2022 master design statement and a later package that updated the mailing radius for notified property owners; the underlying site plans and the applicant’s stated intentions did not align. Given those material differences, commissioners advised the applicant to withdraw, correct the application to reflect the project he intends and resubmit with an updated radius list so proper notice can be sent.

At the applicant’s request, the commission deemed the item withdrawn to be resubmitted. Staff advised Vasquez to coordinate with the city’s planner (Mike) about filing deadlines and the updated radius list if he wants the item to appear on the next month’s agenda; otherwise the item would be deferred to a later meeting.

The commission did not take formal votes on the rezoning at the meeting; the action recorded was the item’s withdrawal and instruction to resubmit corrected materials.