APRIL 5, 2016 MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF RIDGELAND, MISSISSIPPI REGARDING A HEARING FOR THE, CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 21 AND 410.02 OF L A ‘THE OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RIDGELAND. BACKGROUND/How THIS ALL CAME ABOUT ‘The Costeo Development 2008: Ridgeland votes to adopt the Ridgeland Area Master Plan. Ridgeland has stated that the RAMP is the “directive on development within the City of Ridgeland” that should provide the basis for the City’s land-use and zoning decisions. The land use plan depicted in the RAMP (p. 86) shows the Costeo site as being zoned C-2 and along the eastern edge, greenspace. Under Ridgeland’s 2001 Zoning Ordinance then in effect, as with the current 2014 Zoning Ordinance, C-2 did not permit gas stations, fast food restaurants with drive thru, pharmacies with drive thru, banks, drive thra ATMs, food product carry-out or delivery stores, or laundry and dry cleaning pickup stations as either permitted or conditional uses. 2009: The RAMP was readopted by the newly-elected Board. That year, the Board also adopted an updated Comprehensive Plan, which incorporated the RAMP. By statute, Ridgeland’s zoning ordinances must be consistent with its Comprehensive Plan. As with the land use map depicted in RAMP, the 2009 ‘Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use and Transportation Plan Map depicts the Costco site as being zoned C-2 and greenspace along the eastern edge. February 4, 2014: Ridgeland adopts its current comprehensive zoning ordinance and zoning map and a revised Future Land Use and Transportation Plan, which is part of Ridgeland’s Comprehensive Plan. ‘March 2014: Just one month later, Alan Hart, Ridgeland’s Director of Community Development, provided concept plans to Costco to potentially locate a Costco in Ridgeland, August 2014: Ridgeland officials meet with Costco and provide information on 6 potential sites along I-55. A site along 1-55 was important to provide Costco high visibility. At that time, Costco informed Ridgeland that the Phase III site on Highland Colony Parkway suited its needs in light of the Lake Harbour Drive Extension, In fact, Costco has said that it is the only site that suits its Fequirements. ‘September 2014; Ridgeland officials create the phrase “Project Santa Claus” to refer to the Costeo project to preserve secrecy. November 5, 2014: Mayor Gene McGee emails Dan Venable, the Costco site procurer: “It was a pleasure to meet with you all today. Please know that we stand 1oxze0971 10, 13. 14. ready to work with you to successfully locate Costco to the City of Ridgeland, Our staff will bend over backwards to assist you with all your needs. | look forward to meeting with you all again soon, in the meantime if we can provide you with any information that will help in making your decision, please let us know. Again thank you for granting us time out of your busy schedule.’ November 12. 2014: Alan Hart emails a Costco representative to follow up on issues raised at the meeting the week before. Mr. Hart informs Costco that a service station would be inconsistent with the current zoning. However, he assures Costco that they can amend the zoning ordinance to accommodate ‘them, ‘When you develop the site plan further and can send it to me without any reference to Costeo, send it to me, and I can get preliminary reviews accomplished with the City Engineer and Publie Works Director.” Thus, at this point in time, Mr, Hart was even keeping Costco a secret from Ridgeland’s City Engineer and Public Works Director, not to mention its, Board of Aldermen. ‘November 18, 2014 The Clarion Ledger publishes an article regarding a Linkedin post for a job listing in Ridgeland. The article notes that two sites proposed in Flowood would “strip Costco of its lucrative liquor sales” and that “Costeo was the second largest liquor retailer in Washington State.” The Clarion Ledger further reported “Ridgeland mayor Gene MeGee said the city has not been in contact with Costeo. ‘T know nothing about November 19. 2014: The next day, when asked by a former Ridgeland employee whether Costco was considering locating in Ridgeland, Alan Hart responded: “We keep trying to talk to them.” Two hours later. Mattiace emails Hart: Call me when you have a moment, we have a BIG question regarding zoning.” February 10, 2013: Ridgeland’s lobbyist emails Alan Hart asking: “How much would we need for the Santa Claus project?” Hart responds: SOM for Lake Harbour Extension is also for the Santa Claus Project. They want the road extended,” February 27, 2015: Mayor McGee and Alan Hart inform the Board of Aldermen about Project Santa Claus at a Ridgeland retreat that was not open to the public and where no official minutes were kept, which is in violation of Mississippi's Open Meetings laws. Eebmuary-March 2015: Costco representatives and Ridgeland officials exchange site plans for the Costco development. Ridgeland continues to lobby the legislature for money for Project Santa Claus, March 18, 2015: Mayor McGee emails his lobbyist that “Santa Claus called and wwe will be meeting with them in a couple of weeks. They want to know for sure about the money for Lake Harbour extension.”2200073 16. Ag March 30, 2015: In response to a request from a state senator, Andrew Mattiace’s attomey sends Alan Hart a letter with the subject “Retail development — East side of Highland Colony Parkway, Ridgeland, MS.” The letter states: “Thank you for your assistance and cooperation regarding the development of my client’s anchor retail store on the referenced property. The following list includes some of the conditions precedent for the retailer and the development: Extension of Lake Harbour Drive from Highway 51 across I-55 to Highland Colony Parkway, A full service traffic signal for the development ata location to be mutually determined.” April 23, 2015: Mattiace’s attorney sends Alan Hart an email with the subject “Proposed Amendment of Zoning Code.” The email states: Andrew Mattiace’s company, MHC Land, LLC, is approaching the time that it will sign a contract with the proposed purchaser of the Santa site on Highland Colony Parkway. The Purchase and Sale Agreement will require that the seller make representations about the zoning status of the property, including the fact that the property can be used for a vehicle fueling facility. Since the Santa site is zoned C-2, the seller cannot make that representation exception to explain that the property cannot be used for a vehicle fueling facility. Andrew indicated that the City is proposing an amendment of the zoning code to resolve this matter. Mattiace’s attomey then asked Mr. Hart 10 provide a copy of the proposed amendment and information about the proposed schedule for its adoption, Mr, Hart responds: 1 will have something to you by the beginning of next week provided Andrew can provide me some specific parameters of the project, which will assist me in shaping the ‘draft’ ordinance amendment. Information like use types and square footages of each would be a good start. T would also ask for any wisdom regarding anything else that would make this development unique to any other. We also discussed the importance of making the uses “Permitted Uses.” Again, showing the proposed amendment was indeed “uniquely” designed for Mattiace and Costco. Hart further stated the quickest way they could make this happen would be for the Mayor and Board to hold a Work Session on May 4 and vote on the amendments at the June 2 Board meeting, Hart then told Mattiace’s attorney that they would be ‘good to go so long as no one filed a bill of exceptions appealing the decision t0 Circuit Court by June 12. May 1, 2015: Hart sends the proposed amendment to Mattiace’s attomey stating “T would like your comment before T send to Santa Claus for review.” In othero2so07 18. 19. words, the proposed zoning amendment language was sent to (1) Mattiace and (2) Costco for review and approval, and based upon the documents provided to us by Ridgeland pursuant to a public records request, no one else. Mr. Hart's proposed amendment changed the definition of “Service Station” to include the sale of “propane, other fuels, and/or the sale or installation of automobile accessories” and created an entirely new “Large Master Planned Commercial Development” as a permitted use in C-2 Districts. It is significant that the new use was designated a “Large Master Planned Commercial Development.” As I'm sure the Board and everyone in the audience is aware, Mr. Maitiace is hoping to obtain approximately $30 million in government subsidies with the Costco Project. In order to obtain those subsidies, the project must (a) be located within a “qualified resort area” and (b) be part of a “master-planned development.” The proposed amendment gives Mattiace the second piece to the puzzle ~ master planned development status May _5, 2015 at 4:08 p.m: Mattiace’s attorney responds to Hart’s proposed language: “Andrew and I discussed your draft of the proposed amendments to Zoning Ordinance.” He then says, regarding the definition of Service Station, “Your proposed language is acceptable for the new definition.” Mattiace’s attomey then proposes the following changes to the definition of Large Master Planned Commercial Development: Any large commercial development consisting of a group of one (1) or more contiguous separately owned or ground leased tracts or parcels that eontains contain, among the group of tracts or pareels, at least one building for occupancy for retail/wholesale eeewpast purposes exceeding 425100,000 square feet of heated and cooled space for the indoor display and sale of goods, a site with a minimum of 15 contiguous acres, access to an Arterial Street, and approved by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen which may or may not include conditions, Large Master Planned Commercial Developments may include any of the uses permitted in the underlying Zoning District as well as Service Stations; Banks, branch banks, drive-thrt ATM’s, and other banking facilities; Food product and cary-out and delivery stores, laundry and dry cleaning pickup stations; Fast Food Restaurant with drive-thru; Fast Casual Restaurant with drive-thru; Pharmacy with a drive-thru, and outdoor display of goods in designated areas approved by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen in one (1) or more locations not exceeding an agaregate of 15,000 square feet. May $, 2015 at 6:00 p.m.: The Mayor and Board of Aldermen conduct their regulatly scheduled public meeting. Nothing regarding the zoning ordinance amendment is on the agenda for the meeting. The Mayor and Board go into executive session, which required everyone in attendance at the meeting to leave. ‘They then reopened the meeting to the public and voted to set a public hearing on20. 23 24. 25, the Costco Amendments Mattiace’s attomey gave Alan Hart less than 2 hours earlier. ‘May 6, 2015: Hart emails Mattiace’s attorney to let him know that the Mayor and Board approved his proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Hart asks Mattiace’s attorney 10 share this information with Santa Claus and explain the amendment language ‘May 14, 2015: Ridgeland publishes a notice in the Madison County Journal that there will be a public hearing “for the purpose of determining whether amendments to Section 21 and Section 410 of the Official Zoning Ordinance of the City of Ridgeland shall be granted.” The notice doesn’t say anything about the substance of the proposed amendments or why the ordinance is being amended, May 27, 2015: Mattiace’s attorney emails Alan Hart to ask “Is the amendment on track for adoption?” Hart reassures him the Costco Amendment is on the agenda for the June 2 Board meeting. June 2, 2015: Ridgeland adopts the exact definition of Service Station which Maitiace said was “acceptable” and the exact definition of Large Master Planned ‘Commercial Development provided by Mattiace’s attorney. June 9, 2015: Mattiace emails Mayor McGee's assistant and Hart asking “Could you please send me the documentation for the Zoning Variance which was approved on Monday, June 2." June 11, 2015: An individual on behalf of Mattiace emails Hart a leter to Gene McGee requesting that the City approve the 45 acre tract for the Costco Development for resort status designation, June 16, 2015: During executive session, Ridgeland’s Mayor and Board vote to designate the Costco Site as a qualified resort area, which you'll recall is the other requirement for Mattiace to get his $30 million taxpayer handout. July 10, 2015: Dan Venable on behalf of Costco emails Mayor McGee for an update on the Lake Harbour Drive extension, reminding the Mayor that “the completion of this road project is important in our decision making to move forward on this transaction.” July 12. 2015: McGee responds: “As you know the city of Ridgeland committed to getting this project done and is investing a large amount of capital to do 50.” July 16, 2015: Alderman Brian Ramsey emails Alan Hart to tell him he just got his first “anti-Santa” email “from the west.” Hart responds: “Probably many more260971 30, 31. 32, 33 34, to come.” This shows Mr. Hart knew what they were doing would've been strongly opposed if people had known about it. Meanwhile, the citizens of Ridgeland do not begin to catch wind of this project that had been in the works in secret for well over I year until mid-July. When the citizens did find out, they immediately sent dozens if not hundreds of emails to Mayor McGee expressing their disapproval July 21. 2015: Hart email to Mattiace re: Santa Claus traffie demands. “I'm working on a host of good points about the Santa Claus project and need some information about traffic.” Mattiace responds that traffic count is expected to be 3.100 automobiles per day. This would increase traffic on this segment of Highland Colony Parkway, which currently generates about 8,000 trips per day, by 40%. This is based on Mattiace’s and Costco’s own estimates provided to Ridgeland in response to its request for “good” talking “points.” As Mr. Donovan Scruggs will explain momentarily, Mattiace’s numbers likely grossly underestimate the actual traffic impact of the Costeo Development. In any event, itis evident that Ridgeland did not even consider the traffic impact of the Costco Development prior to adopting the June 2 amendment which was designed specifically for it. July 21, 2015: Michael Simmons, a reporter from the Madison County Journal emails Gene McGee a draft article that he intends to post online and ssks McGee to “make sure J have all the facts correct.” The draft states: “Rumors of a Costco coming to town have no validity, Mayor MeGee said Tuesday morning. He said there were no specific companies identified. Most of the land in question is owned by banks.” McGee responded to the reporter’s request to correct any ‘misstatements in the article: “I would change the wording to was owned by banks instead of is owned by hanks, otherwise is fine.” July 28, 2015: Aldermen D.L. Smith emails Dinsmor residents, where he lives, that “You may have heard rumors of a possible Costeo being located on Highland Colony Parkway ... nothing has come before the Board of Aldermen.” Aldermen Smith then tells his neighbors to see the Madison County Journal article below, which is a link to the July 22 Michael Simmons article entitled “Mayor says rumors of Costeo are false.” July 29, 2015: Mayor MeGee receives a forward of an email chain amongst homeowners disgruntled over Costco. Mayor McGee responds that he would “love” for the citizen who forwarded him the email to prepare a response “Just, don’t let them know you are sending me the emails.” August 6, 2015: A Ridgeland citizen who is also a professional engineer emails Mayor McGee expressing concem about increased traffic and asking what the projected vehicle count would be for the Costco Development. McGee thenconser 39, 36 37, 38, forwarded the email to Hart, Ridgeland’s City Engineer, and Ridgeland’s Public Works Director and asked them to come up with an answer. Hart ultimately responds: “The truthful statement is that we do not know at this point” before discussing site plans and other factors. McGee responds: “Should T just cut and paste your email without the first sentence” that Ridgeland doesn’t know? August 16, 2015: Alderman Ken Heard replies to a citizen’s email: “Of all the emails I've read on the Costco project, I think yours absolutely nails all the key issues. I hope the Mayor and other aldermen will decide this is a very bad idea. I copy them in my reply to you to once again let others have no doubt as to my position, This project in this location is ludicrous, and a slap in the face to our past planning, but mostly to our citizens.” August 18, 2015: Ridgeland issues a press release prepared by professional marketer regarding Costco, August 22. 2015: Alderman Scott Jones emails Mayor McGee and Alan Hart ‘want you to know that regardless of Costeo’s decision, as soon as the dust settles, I will push for a final resolution of the board conceming Highland Colony Parkway development. We can discuss the particulars in due time, but we do not need to face this fight but one last time. If we set a concrete, understood policy and stick by it, the message will be to the irrational and elitist career objectors that they need to shut up or move along and that it does not matter to the rest of us which it is, because they are easily replaced.” larch 16, 2016: The Mississippi Senate passes SB 2922 by a vote of 49-1. That bill contains three key provisions: a) A certificate designating an entity as an approved participant and authorizing the approved participant to participate in the incentive program that is issued for tourism projects that are cultural retail attractions shall expire on July 1, 2016, if the project has not been completed as described in the initial application by that date. b) A certificate of participation for a cultural retail attraction shall authorize the participation in the incentive program only if the project is as described in the application for the project that was made before July 1, 2014. Any change in the location or any other aspect of the project from what was described in the application shall render the certificate of participation void. ©) A centficate of pantcipation may not be transferred to an entity that is not named in the certificate. When SB 2922 becomes law, it will kill any chance Mattiace has to obtain his $30 million government handout and likely doom the Costco Development. Yet, ifoxs0971 39, 40. Ridgeland does not repeal the June 2, 2015 amendments, we'll still be left with this zoning ordinance amendment designed specifically for Mattiace and Costco. In sum, it is clear that the amendment we're talking about is for Mattiace and Costco and that Ridgeland Officials went out of their way to mislead the public and prevent any meaningful discussion on the proposed amendments until today. It is equally clear that Ridgeland Officials circumvented Mississippi law regarding the procedures and standards for amending its Zoning Ordinance. This is inconsistent with the Ridgeland Area Master Plan, as well as general good governance principles. a) The RAMP states: “The community should be made frequently and more importantly ‘consistently’ aware of the happenings and policy changes taking place within Ridgeland, New projects and initiatives taken on by local ernment should be shared with the public to build continuous support for efforts taking place.” (37) b) Likewise, the RAMP says “A successful city requires the active participation of local residents in the decision-making process.” (38). ©) And the RAMP states: “A fundamental assumption imbedded within the process is the commitment of the local community or user group to participate in the planning process. In essence, the master plan process requires that a partnership of trust and honesty be established between the planners and the community.” 4) think we can all agree that is not what happened here. Now that we're here today, let me tell you why the Board should reject the amendment and repeal the one adopted on June 2. WHAT THE COSTCO AMENDMENT DOES First, it Adds C-2A Uses as Permitted Uses in C-2, including: Banks, branch banks, drive-thru ATMs, and other banking facilities (C-2A) Food product and carry-out and delivery stores (C-2) Laundry and dry cleaning pickup stations (C-2A) a) The 2014 Zoning Ordinance, with respect to C-2A zoning districts, states “{t]he purpose of this district is to allow property zoned General Commercial(C-2) located on arterial streets 10 have additional uses because of the volume of traffic located in these areas.” b) Thus, Ridgeland has recognized in its own ordinance that these additional uses are not appropriate in C-2 zones because of the volume of traffic associated with them, Even worse, it Uses in C- Adds C-3 Uses ~ 2 levels of intensity above C-2 — as Permitted . including: Service Stations (C-3) Fast Food Restaurant with drive-thru (C-3) Pharmacy with drive-thna (C-3) a) With respect to C-3, the 2014 Zoning Ordinance states “the purpose of this district is to establish specific areas for the development of convenience commercial uses. These uses generate heavier vehicular traffic volumes than uses first allowed in the C-2 General Commercial districts. The uses first permitted in this district tend to generate more noise and litter than General Commercial uses. These districts are appropriate for location uses.” b) In other words, Ridgeland’s own ordinance shows that these new uses are not appropriate in C-2 districts and particularly on the Costeo site which is so close to residential neighborhoods. ©) Ridgeland seemed to recognize this on February 4, 2014 when it adopted its current zoning map and furure land use plan, neither of which provide for any new C-2A or C-3 uses on the West side of I-55. The only distriets zoned C-2A or C-3 on the West side of I-55 were already developed when the ordinance was adopted, and the future land use plan even eliminates those districts. Additionally, the proposed amendments would permit 15,000 square feet for the Outdoor Display of Goods ‘The uses currently permitted in C-2 do not allow this type of use. a) Restaurants, coffee shops, and carry out food establishments if located within an office building, b) Office showroom facilities in which at least 50% of the tenantable area is outfitted as an office and in which all loading facilities are at the rear of buildings and completely screened from view of public streets and any adjacent residential property.ml. B. Vv. ©) Commercial uses in where services performed and merchandise offered for sale are conducted or displayed entirely within enclosed structures, including department stores and furniture and appliance stores. d) Veterinary elinies and pet shops, excluding outside runs (kennels). Donovan ScRUGGS Introduction (Sheldon) Presentation SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD/PUBLIC NEED Town of Florence v. Sea Lands, Ltd., 759 So. 24 1221 (Miss. 2000) ‘The Mississippi Supreme Court presumes that comprehensive zoning ordinances, adopted by cities are well planned and designed to be permanent, subject to change only to meet a genuine change in conditions. Therefore, before property is, reclassified from one zone to another, there must be clear and convineing proof that (1) the character of the neighborhood has changed to such an extent as to justify rezoning and (2) that public need exists for the rezoning, The use of property in accordance with the original zoning plan is not a material change of conditions warranting rezoning. Cockrell v. Panola County Bd. of Supervisors, 950 So. 2d 1086, 1092 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Cioverleaf Mail Ltd. v. Conerly, 387 80. 24 736, 740 (Miss. 1980)). The Supreme Court has said that a rezoning is per se arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable in the absence of a showing by clear and convincing evidence of a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood and public need. Bd. of Alderman v. Conerly, 509 So. 24 877 (Miss. 1987) The City is required to find by clear and convineing evidence a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood and a public need prior to rezoning even for City-initiated zoning changes. In Town of Florence, the Mississippi Supreme Court cautioned that the decision to adopt a zoning change a mere two years after the adoption of a revised comprehensive plan is suspect. Here, the City of Ridgeland adopted an updated Future Land Use and Transportation Plan and the 2014 Zoning Ordinance and Map on February 4, 2014 — 16 months before the Costco Amendments were originally adopted last year. 10Modak-Truran ¥. Johnson, 18 So. 34 206 (Miss. 2009) and Drews ». City of Hattiesburg, 904 So.2d 138 (Miss. 2005) a) b) °) b) ) a The requirement that the City find by clear and convineing evidence a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood and a public need applies even in the case of text amendments. In Modak-Truran, which involved a text amendment to accommodate the Fairview Inn in Belhaven, the City of Jackson insisted that the amendments in question were purely “text amendments” and not a rezoning. The circuit judge agreed, reasoning that “{t]he text amendments do not make any changes to the City’s zoning map." and that the area would maintain its R-2 zoning classification. The circuit judge also concluded that the amendments would “simply modify a “use” definition.” The Mississippi Supreme Court flatly rejected this argument, stating that “the labeling of an action as a “text amendment’ does not make it so if the actions effectively rezone” a plot for a different use. The Court held that the amendments significantly altered and expanded the activities previously permitted on R-2 properties, and effectively rezoned the Fairview Inn property. Spot Zoning The Court also found that there was no dispute that the amendment was designed to favor the Fairview Inn, and such preferential treatment constituted illegal spot zoning. ‘Spot zoning” is defined as “a small island of relatively intense use surrounded by a sea of less intense use.” The term has been used to describe a zoning ordinance which is amended to reclassify one or more tracts or lots for a use prohibited by the original zoning ordinance and out of harmony therewith. Spot zoning is invalid when it is primarily for the private interest of an owner of the property affected and not related to the general plan for the community as a whole. In other words, a zoning amendment which favors a particular landowner over adjacent landowners will be viewed as an arbitrary and discriminatory use of zoning authority unless there is “substantial evidence of change in the neighborhood in order to justify the reconing of a small tract as an ‘amendment in keeping with the comprehensive plan.” The 2014 Zoning Ordinance likewise defines “Spot Zoning” as “t]he improper zoning or rezoning of a Jot or parcel of land to benefit an owner for a use incompatible with surrounding uses.” Ridgeland’s Comprehensive Plan also defines and prohibits spot zoning. uie. °) Yet, as in Modak-Trurun and as Mr. Scruggs explained, the Costeo Amendments would significantly change the permitted uses in C-2 Districts in a way inconsistent with the area. In fact, Ridgeland has said that prior to the adoption of the February 4, 2014 zoning ordinance and map, part of the property where the Costco is proposed to be located was zoned C-4, C-4 allowed service stations, fast food with drive-thru, food product carry-out and delivery stores, branch banks, ATMS, and other banking facilities, and laundry and dry cleaning pickup stations as conditional uses. C-2 does not allow any of these uses as either permitted or conditional uses. Thus, the City intentionally eliminated these uses from the property where the Costco is proposed in February 2014. And, as we saw earlier, the amendments were specifically written to accommodate Andrew Mattiace and Costco, This is almost a textbook case of illegal spot zoning. ‘There Are No Substantial Neighborhood Changes Here The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that, for purposes of determining substantial change in the character of the neighborhood, the pertinent neighborhood is the property and immediately surrounding areas. Changes ‘occurring more than 1 mile away are outside of the “neighborhood.” The only changes relevant are those that have occurred since the property was last zoned — February 4, 2014, To support on appeal a reclassification of zones, the record at a minimum should coniain a map showing the circumstances of the area, the changes in the neighborhood, and statistics showing a public need. There is no evidence that anything has changed in this neighborhood or Ridgeland, much less that anything has changed that wasn’t anticipated at the time the City adopted its current zoning ordinance and map and updated its Future Land Use Plan on February 4, 2014, The only thing that has changed is Andrew Mattiace wanting to build a Costco and benefit from $30 million in government subsidies. ‘There is no evidence of recent rezonings. There is no evidence of a population change. There is no evidence of changes in development pattems or new developments. 2vxz00871 ML. 15, 16. There are no maps showing the changed circumstances of the area or even the City. There are no statistics or evidence of public need. Rather, in rezoning the Costco property from C-4 to C-2 on February 4, 2014, the Board of Aldermen determined that there was no public need for the uses permitted by a Large Master Planned Commercial Development at this location or anywhere on the West side of I-55. There is no traffic analysis supporting a need for rezoning. By the City's own admission, no traffic study was conducted prior to the June 2 vote approving the amendment. There is no evidence of any of these changes, no quantification of any change, and no evidence of how the impacts of any changes would necessitate the proposed zoning ordinance amendment. The proposed amendment is not consistent with Ridgeland’s zoning ordinance and map, the RAMP, or the Comprehensive Plan, There is no evidence that the Costco site or the other areas permitting C-2 uses are no longer suited for those uses. Prior to adopting the June 2, 2015 Costco Amendment, there was no showing as to what impact the zoning ordinance amendment or the Costco development ‘would have on crime, traffic, the provision of city services, fire calls, police calls, road safety, neighboring property values, noise, litter, pedestrian travel. These simply were not considerations when Ridgeland made the decision to rezone. ‘There doesn’t appear to be any information before the Board that would permit it to make a reasoned, informed, and thoughtful decision that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment should be adopted. INCONSISTENT WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Page 6: “[ZJoning and other land use regulations must be based upon a comprehensive plan. This means that zoning and subdivision regulations, at a minimum, must conform to the local comprehensive plan. Regulations that are consistent with, or conform to, a comprehensive plan must be consistent with a plan's, policies, goals and objectives as well as the land use plan map and the other plan elements, As Mr. Scruggs explained in his presentation and in his report, the proposed zoning ordinance amendment is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's policies, goals, and objections, nor is it consistent with the land use plan map which shows this area zoned for the C-2 uses spelled out in the 2014 Zoning Ordinance. BC. Neither the 2014 Zoning Map nor the 2014 Future Land Use and Transportation Plan anticipate the development of any uses more intense than C-2 West of I-55. The only areas West of I-55 zoned for uses more intense than C-2 are already developed, VIL MATTIACE SHOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A REZONING OF THIS PARCEL TO C-3. A. Because This is a De-Facto Rezoning, or as Mattiace termed it, “Variance.” Mattiace Should Be Required to Go Through the Rezoning and/or Variance Process to Achieve What he Wants. 1. If he did, there is no way he could satisfy the requirements of Ridgeland’s own Zoning Ordinance, which as a threshold matter, requires that: (a) The proposal must not be a small parcel of land singled out for special and privileged treatment. (b) The proposed change must be in the public interest and not only for the benefit of a land owner(s). (©) The proposed change is consistent with all elements of the comprehensive plan and sound planning principles as follows: (d) The proposed change must not create an isolated district unrelated and incompatible to adjacent d ? s * For the many reasons already covered today, Mattiace could not satisfy any of these threshold requirements. However, even if he could, the Board would still have to consider questions such as: (a) Whether the existing land use pattern will change and/or possibly increase or overtax the load on public facilities such as schools, utilities, or streets (b) Whether existing zoning district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change: (©) Whether changed or changing conditions made the passage of the proposed re-zoning necessary. That is, has the character of the neighborhood changed to such an extent as to justify reclassification, and is evidence of a PUBLIC NEED for the re-zoning in that location? (a) Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions and/or property values in the neighborhood: (e) Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise aflect public safety: ozz50871 14(8) Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning: (g) There is convincing demonstration that all uses permitted under the proposed district classification would be appropriate in the area included in the proposed change. (h) There is convincing demonstration that the character of the neighborhood will not be materially and adversely affected by any use permitted in the proposed change. Again, for the reasons already discussed and for additional reasons I’m sure you will hear about from others in the audience today. Mattiace cannot and has not even attempted to present the Board with evidence to satisfy these numerous requirements. ozs0271 15