Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[CALL TO ORDER ]

[00:00:04]

>> WE ARE AT 1:30. I WILL CALL THE MEETING TO

[INVOCATION ]

ORDER. REVEREND, BLESS OUR PROCEEDINGS,

PLEASE. >> GOD, WE COME TO THANK YOU FOR ALL THE THINGS YOU HAVE DONE FOR US.

WE THANK YOU, GOD, FOR THIS BEAUTIFUL DAY.

WE THINK FOR THE COOL WEATHER THIS MORNING AND, GOD, WE THANK YOU FOR KEEPING US, THE MANY OF US THAT HAVE BEEN AFFLICTED IN OUR FAMILIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS AND EXTENDED FAMILIES WITH COVID-19, BUT YOU PROTECTED US AND, GOD, WE PRAY THAT THOSE THAT'S BEEN CAUGHT UP IN THE ILLNESS, THAT YOU WILL MOVE SOME HOW AND MAKE THEIR BODIES AGAIN. BLESS THIS DEPARTMENT AND OUR FIRST DEPARTMENTS AND GOD BLESS OUR NATION, OUR STATE, OUR COUNTY AND OUR FAMILIES. WE ASK YOUR HOLY SPIRIT TO DWELL WITH US AS WE TAKE PART IN THIS MEETING TO SERVE OUR CITY THIS BLESSING AND OTHERS WE ASK IN YOUR SWEET SON JESUS' NAME,

[MINUTES ]

AMEN. >> AMEN.

>> FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OUR JULY 6TH MEETING. DO I HEAR ANY CHANGES OR A

MOTION TO APPROVE. >> I SO MOVE THAT THE MOTION BE

APPROVED AS PRESENTED. >> I SECOND.

>> MEIGS AND SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR?

>> AYE. >> AYE.

AND ARE WE READY FOR PLATS? NO, BECAUSE I HAVE TO READ MY THING. I FORGET THAT EVERY TIME.

FRED WAS MUCH BETTER AT REMEMBERING THAN THAT.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY FOR APPROVAL OF PLATS ON MORTS OF SANEING.

THE DISCUSSIONS OF THIS BOARD MAY BE APPEALED TO CITY COUNCIL NO LATER THAN 10 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS MEETING.

THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM OF DISCUSSION.

THOSE WISHING TO BE HEARD SHALL APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND PURPOSE FOR APPEARING. EACH PRESENTER IS TO SPEAK NO MORE THAN 5 MINUTES. JARED YOU'RE GOING TO DO PLATS,

RIGHT? >> MY NAME IS VARIED SMITH.

THERE ARE PLATS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

THE FIRST IS PP-4421, THE HERITAGE PARKS PRELIMINARY PLAT.

THE PACKET THIS CAME IN WAS 11 PAGES LONG.

WE DECIDED TO GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A LARGE PLAT. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, THERE ARE 799 HOMES THEY'RE PRIMARILY PLATTING STEMMING FROM A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST YOU ALL APPROVED IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR. THAT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL TO REZONE FROM AO TO RS6.

NEATH PLOT IS PRELIMINARY PLAT 4621, SANDY CREEK VILLAGE PRELIMINARY PLAT. THIS WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BY YOU

[PLATS ]

ALL LAST MONTH TO REZONE FROM A COMBINATION OF RS6 TO MEDIUM DENSITY. IT'S LAYING OUT 53 SINGLE FAMILY HOMESITES NEAR THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DOVE WRIGHT BOULEVARD AND JENNINGS. THESE WERE REVIEWED BY THE ABILENE COMMITTEE THE SUBDIVISION STANDARDS AND THEY'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO YOU ALL TODAY WITH NO CONDITIONS. THE NEXT PLAT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IS A FINAL PLAT, FP-4521, HAMPTON HILLS SECTION 8, SIMPLY A CONTINUATION OF AN EXISTING HAMPTON HILLS DIVISION JUST'S OF DIAS AIR FORCE BASE. THEY ARE PLATTING OUT 28 SINGLE FAMILY HOMESITES IN THE CONTINUATION OF HAMPTON HILLS.

THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY FOUND IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH CHAPTER THREE, ARTICLE TWO OF OUR SUBDIVISION STANDARDS AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.

CONSTRUCTION PLANS MUST SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER AND ULTIMATELY ALL ENGINEERS MUST BE IN PLACE OR A SUITABLE FINANCIAL SWORN TEE MUST BE PROVIDED TO ENSURE THE TIMELY CONSTRUCTION WITH ALL THE NECESSARY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE AT THIS TIME

[00:05:02]

REGARDING THESE THREE PLATS. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR JARED?

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> THESE PLATS CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO ANY ONE OF THE PLATS? SEEING NO ONE COME FORWARD, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION OR MORE DISCUSSION.

>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE. >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> WITH THE CONDITION ON THE

LAST ONE? >> YES, WITH THE CONDITIONS ON

THE LAST ONE. >> MOTION APPROVED AND A SECOND

WITH CONDITIONS. >> CALL ROLL.

[ZONING ]

>> THE MOTION CARRIES. Z-2021-20, REQUEST TO CHANGE ZONING FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENCE DENTAL MULTIFAMILY

DISTRICT. >> I'M NICK WATTS AND I WILL BE PRESENT THE CASE ON BAFFE OF BEL AIR WEST LLC AND THE OWNER RONNY GUERRERO. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO THE REQUE GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO MULTIFAMILY. THIS IS AN ODD CASE IN THAT THIS EXACT BLOCK IS SPLIT ZONED. THE WESTERN HALF OF THIS IS MULTIFAMILY IN THE EASTERN HALF AND YOU CAN SEE IT'S HIGHLIGHTED AND STRIPED IN YELLOW. THIS GIVES A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ZONING AROUND THE PARTICULAR SUBJECT PROPERTY, SO IT'S ABOUT 240-FEET OF THE EASTERN BLOCK OF THIS BLOCK THAT IS ZONED AS GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

THE REASON FOR THIS IS IN MAY OF THIS YEAR, OUR CITY STAFF HAS RECEIVED A SITE PLAN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT TWO NEW BUILDINGS ON THIS LOT IN WHICH A PORTION OF BOTH BUILDINGS ARE WITHIN THIS GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

CURRENTLY AS OUR ORDINANCE STATES, MULTIFAMILY UNITS ARE NOT PERMITTED WITHIN GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING.

THIS BUILDING WAS BUILT OR THE MAJORITY OF THE APARTMENTS WERE BUILT IN 1972. AT THAT TIME DURING THAT ZONING ORDINANCE, UP UNTIL 2010, MULTIFAMILY WAS PERMITTED WITHIN A GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

2010 THAT CHANGED AND WAS NO LONGER A CONFORMING USE, SO THIS IS CONSIDERED A LEGALLY NONCONFORMING USE PER SECTION 2.6.2.1. NOW THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE THIS GC PORTION TO MULTIFAMILY TO BRING IT INTO CONFORMANCE AND ALLOW FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEX AND THEN FOR IT TO PROCEED THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS. THESE ARE THE USES PERMITTED WITHIN GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

YOU CAN SEE THE AREA OUTLINED IN RED.

THERE ARE SEVERAL PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, GIVES YOU A BETTER IDEA OF THE LAY OF THE LAND.

THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.

WE HAD TO ORIENT IT A DIFFERENT WAY THAN WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, SO THIS IS JUST A BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE PORTION THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE WITHIN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT. WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATIONS TO EVERYONE WITHIN A 200-FOOT BUFFER AND WE RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION. STAFF PURSUED THIS PURSUANT TO 1.4.1.4 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL AND THE STAFF IS SUGGESTING APPROVAL. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR NICK? >> ARE THERE ANY COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ALONG THAT ROAD OR IS IT JUST THIS ONE?

>> WE'LL GO BACK TO THIS ZONING MAP.

YOU CAN SEE THAT GENERAL COMMERCIAL IS TO THE SOUTH RIGHT THERE AS YOU WILL SEE THAT IT IS THAT SOUTH NEIGHBORING PROPERTY RIGHT THERE, CITY OF ABILENE RIGHT THERE, THE WATER TANK, AND THEN TO THE EAST, THOSE ARE CAR LOTS.

>> ACROSS THE STREET? >> YEAH.

>> SO IT WON'T BE AFFECTING ANY ALREADY OPERATING BUSINESSES.

[00:10:03]

>> CORRECT. >> OKAY.

THANKS. >> YEAH.

>> ANYTHING ELSE FOR NICK? THANK YOU.

>> WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO COME UP AND DISCUSS THE CASE? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN A

MOTION OR SOME MORE DISCUSSION. >> I WILL MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.

>> MR. BEN HAM >> YES.

MISREUSS SELL YES NOONAN YES, REVEREND LANKFORD.

>> YES. AND THE MOTION CARRIES.

Z2021-21. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

MY NAME IS BRAD STONE AND I'M ONE OF THE PLANNERS ON OUR CITY STAFF. THIS REQUEST IS TO CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY DENSITY. THE PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING OR MF ALLOWS AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF DWELLING UNIT ONES A SINGLE LOT BUT AT A DENSITY OF NO MORE THAN 24 SWELLING UNITS ON ANYS ONES A SA DENSITY OF NO MORE THAN 24 SWELLING U ONES A SINGLE LOT BU A DENSITY OF NO MORE THAN 24 SWELLING UI ONES A SINGLE LOT BT A DENSITY OF NO MORE THAN 24 SWELLING U ONES A SINGLE LOT BU A DENSITY OF NO MORE THAN 24 SWELLING UO ONES A SINGLE LOT BT A DENSITY OF NO MORE THAN 24 SWELLING UV ONES A SINGLE LOT B AT A DENSITY OF NO MORE THAN 24 SWELLING U ONES A SINGLE LOT BUT A DENSITY OF NO MORE THAN 24 SWELLING U ONES A SINGLE LOT BU AT A DENSITY OF NO MORE THAN 24 SWELLING UONES A SINGLE LOT BUTT A DENSITY OF NO MORE THAN 24 SWELLING UNES A SINGLE LOT BUT A DENSITY OF NO MORE THAN 24 SWELLING UES A SINGLE LOT BUT AA DENSITY OF NO MORE THAN 24 SWELLING US A SINGLE LOT BUT AT DENSITY OF NO MORE THAN 24 SWELLING U A SINGLE LOT BUT AT DENSITY OF NO MORE THAN 24 SWELLING UNITS ON ANY GIVEN LOT. THIS SHOWS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTED BY THE YELLOW STRIPING IN THE CENTER OF THE YELLOW. THIS INCLUDES APPROXIMATELY 3.5 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED GIST 1 BLOCK EAST OF BUTTER NUT STREET. THIS HAS BEEN INCORPORATED SINCE AT LEAST 1895. THE SIDE IS DOMINATED BY THE OLD TRAVIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HAVING BEEN CONSTRUCTED APPROXIMATELY 100 YEARS AGO. A SINGLE STORY ANNEX TO THE SCHOOL BUILDING APPEARED ON THE SAME SITE SOMEWHAT LATER AND BETWEEN THE YEARS 1956 AND 1964. NO OTHER BUILDINGS NOW EXIST ON THIS 3.5-ACRE SITE. THIS SHOWS THE EXISTING ZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE PROPERTIES WHICH SURROUND IT. THE COLOR RED INDICATES COMMERCIAL ZONING. MOST LAND TO THE WEST OR LEFT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS PART OF AN ELONGATED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT BORDERING BUTTERNUT STREET. BUTTERNUT STREET IS A MINOR ARTERIAL TO AN OLD COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR.

LAND LOCATED TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, AND EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS COLORED WITH THE PALE YELLOW COLOR AND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE SAME IMMEDIATE I DIDN'T MEAN DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISSTRIBLTH AS THE SUBTRICT AS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ITSELF. THIS DISTRICT, THE ONE SURROUNDING THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY IS TYPIFIED BY SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTS. ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT THERE IS OCCUPIED BY STORAGE BUILDINGS OF SOME CONSIDERABLE BULK AS WELL AS A TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER. THIS SLIDE ITEMIZES THE DIFFERENT USES ALLOWED IN MULTIFAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS.

SOME ARE ALWAYS PERMITTED, DOE NOTED BY LETTER P AND OTHERS ARE ONLY BY PRIOR APPROVAL. MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ARE ALLOWED BUT ONLY TO A HEIGHT OF 3 STORIES.

[00:15:10]

THIS SLIDE SHOWS SOME PHOTOS TO THE UPPER LEFT IS A VIEW FROM THE EAST SIDE OF THE SITE LOOKING IN THE DIRECTION OF BUTTERNUT STREET BEYOND THAT ROADWAY OF TREES IN THE MIDDLE GROUND OF THE PHOTO. YOU CAN SEE HERE THE OLD TRAVIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, RED BRICK BUILDING, 3 STORIES IN HEIGHT, PRACTICALLY A HUNDRED YEARS OLD. TO THE RIGHT, UPPER RIGHT, WE SEE A PHOTO OF SOME OF THE SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DENTAL HOMES WHICH SIR ROUND THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH,TIAL HOMES WHICH SURRD THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, AND EAST. THE SCHOOL ITSELF, OR THE FORMER SCHOOL, WOULD BE TO THE LEFT OF THE PARAGRAPH, THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHICH YOU CAN SEE IS PRACTICALLY VACANT.

THE PHOTO ON THE LOWER RIGHT SHOWS SOME OF THE STORAGE BUILDINGS THAT ARE LOCATED ALONG THE BUTTERNUT STREET CORRIDOR AND LIE DIRECTLY WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THE PHOTOGRAPHER IN THAT PARTICULAR PICTURE HAS THE FORMER TRAVIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DIRECTLY BEHIND HIM AND, AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE BULKY STORAGE BUILDINGS ALONG THE BUTTERNUT STREET CORRIDOR. CITY STAFF NOTIFIED 34 OWNERS OF ADJACENT AND NEARBY PROPERTY OF THIS REQUESTED ZONE CHANGE TO AN MF DISTRICT. CITY STAFF RECEIVED NO WRITTEN RESPONSES FROM THEM, NONE IN FEVER AND NONE IN OPPOSITION.

CITY STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVING THIS ZONE CHANGE PRAY MARLY BECAUSE PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING CAN PROVIDE A SUITABLE TRANSITION AND INTENSITY OF USE BETWEEN COMMERCIAL USE ALONG THE BUTTERNUT STREET CORRIDOR AND RELATIVELY LOW DENSITIES TO RESIDENTS TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, AND EAST OF THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY.

ALSO, THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY LIES JUST ONE SHORT BLOKE FROM BUTTERNUT STREET, A MINOR ARTERIAL, INCREASED TRAFFIC FLOW FROM MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE IS MORE LIKELY TO MAKE USE OF THIS SHORT STREET CONNECTION TO BUTTERNUT AND NOT NOTICEABLY INCREASE TRAFFIC FLOW ON LOCAL STREETS SURROUNDING THIS SITE.

FOR THOSE REASONS, CITY STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVING THIS REQUESTED ZONE CHANGE. I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU.

>> ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR BRAD?

THANK YOU, BRAD, APPRECIATE IT. >> THANK YOU.

>> I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO COME UP AND VISIT WITH US ABOUT THIS CASE? YES, SIR?

>> MY NAME IS NATE MILLER, I'M WITH OVER LAND PROPERTY GROUP OUT OF LEEWOOD KANSAS. WE WERE AWARDED FUNDS 2 WEEKS AGO AT THE BOARD MEETING FOR TAX CREDITS FOR THIS PROJECT.

WE'RE GOING TO PROPOSE 29 ELDERLY UNITS.

THIS IS NOT MULTIFAMILY, THIS IS ELDERLY.

THE TWO BUILDINGS YOU SEE TOWARDS THE NORTH, WE'RE UTILIZING THOSE AS WELL. THAT WILL UTILIZE 22 OF THE 29 UNITS WE'RE PROPOSING. THE ONE THAT'S NOT BUILT YET WILL ENCOMPASS ONE OF THE OTHER SEVEN BUILDINGS.

I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS Y'ALL HAVE IF YOU HAVE ANY.

>> SO YOUR INTENT IS TO REUSE THE EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THE

SITE? >> CORRECT.

THE ONE TO THE NORTH, THAT ONE IS 3 STORIES, THAT WILL BE 18 UNITS AND I BELIEVE IT'S THE ANNEX JUST TO THE LEFT OF THERE, THAT'S FOUR AND THEN SEVEN ON A 1 STORY BUILDING THAT'S NOT BUILT YET. WE'LL HAVE A DOG PARK, WALKING TRAILS AND A HORSESHOE THING AS WELL.

AND THIS IS ELDERLY, 62 AND ABOVE.

>> UNITS ON THE THIRD FLOOR AS WELL?

>> YES. >> WILL THERE WITH AN ELEVATE

[00:20:01]

SNEER >> NO.

WHAT YOU SEE AS FAR AS ELEVATION WISE, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE

TALLER THAN THAT. >> ELEVATOR.

>> A, YES, THERE WILL BE. >> THERE WILL BE AN ELEVATOR?

>> YES. >> THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY

QUESTION. >> YEAH, WE GET A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT ANIMALS AS WELL AND WE'RE DOG FRIENDLY, SO.

>> GOOD. THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD.

>> ANYTHING ELSE FOR NATE? APPRECIATE YOU COMING UP.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

ANYTHING ELSE? THIS MAKES A LOT OF SENSE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. OH, YES, MA'AM, COME ON UP.

I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. COME ON.

>> MY NAME IS STACY CASTILLO, I'M AT 901 SYCAMORE STREET.

I'M HERE WITH MY PARENTS WHO OWN A HOME RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE MAIN BUILDING. WE'RE COMING IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ZONING CHANGE. FROM THE STAFF REPORT THERE WERE DIFFERENT POINTS BROUGHT UP THAT I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON.

ONE WAS WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE A GOOD USE OR THE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL AREA ON BUTTERNUT AND THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. WE TAKE BUTTERNUT ALL THE TIME IN OUR TRAVELS THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND WE DO SEE THAT THERE'S A LOT OF IMPROVEMENT ALONG THE STREET, THERE'S A LOT OF BUSINESSES THERE, BOO BOY BOUTIQUES BUT WE DON'T SEE IT AS BEING AWE DON'T SEE IT AS BEINGY COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR.

IT'S STILL SOMETHING SMALL WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY.

NOT A LOT OF TRAFFIC LIKE SOUTHWEST DRIVE OR CAT CALL OR BUFFALO GAP THAT WE WOULD SEE THAT WOULD REALLY BE FIT THIS TYPE OF RESIDENCE WITHIN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD REALLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM OUR HOUSE AND OUR HOMES.

ANOTHER POINT IS WOULD THIS ZONING AND USE BE APPROPRIATE TO THE MEDIA AREA OF THE LAND. YOU ALL BROUGHT UP SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE 3 STORY BUILDING BEING USED AND THE ANNEX AS WELL AND THOSE ARE SOME OF OUR CONCERNS. WE KNOW FROM LIVING HERE, WE JUST HAD I THINK OUR 14 YEARS OF MOVING TO ABILENE AND MOVING TO OUR HOME SO WE KNOW THAT FOR I THINK MOST OF THAT TIME, RIGHT? THE BUILDINGS WERE VACANT AND SO WITH THAT, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF NEGATIVE TRAFFIC AROUND THE AREA AND SO -- WHICH CAN BE SEEN NOT IN THE PICTURES SHOWN BUT THERE WAS GRAFFITI COVERED UP, THE BUILDING HASN'T BEEN TAKEN CARE OF.

THE FIELDS WOULD BE GROWN OVER REALLY TALL AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN BE CUT DOWN AND SO THERE'S JUST NOT A LOT OF CARE FOR THESE BUILDINGS SO IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THAT THEY WOULD BE USED FOR THESE RESIDENCES.

ONE OF MY QUESTIONS WAS THERE WAS TALKS THAT THERE WERE GOING TO BE FUNDS FOR HISTORICAL RESTORATION, THAT IT WOULD BE RESTORED TO THAT IT WAS A SCHOOL BUT ALSO IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THAT IT WOULD ALSO BECOME THESE RESIDENCES.

IT WAS NOT NEWS, THEY WERE MENTIONING THAT THERE WERE SHOE CUB BYES PUTI NEWS, THEY WERE MENTIONING THAT THERE WERE SHOE CUB BYES N NEWS, THEY WERE MENTIONING THAT THERE WERE SHOE CUB BYES NEWS, THEY WERE MENTIONING THAT THERE WERE SHOE CUB BYES T NEWS, THEY WERE MENTIONING THAT THERE WERE SHOE CUB BYES H NEWS, THEY WERE MENTIONING THAT THERE WERE SHOE CUB BYES NEWS, THEY WERE MENTIONING THAT THERE WERE SHOE CUB BYES PUT IN THE CLOSETS OR BLACK BOARDS AND WE DON'T KNOW HOW THESE WOULD BE USED FOR THE RESIDENTS.

ANOTHER CONCERN IS THE TRAFFIC. THERE WAS A STATEMENT THAT THERE WOULD BE -- SORRY, LET ME FIND IT.

INCREASED TRAFFIC FLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES LIKELY TO MAKE USE OF THIS SHORT CONNECTION TO BUTTERNUT STREET BUT THERE'S REALLY NOT A CONNECTION FROM BUTTERNUT TO THIS AREA. THAT MEANS IT WOULD INCREASE THE TRAFFIC ON SOUTH 9TH, ON SOUTH 11TH, ON ELM, ON SYCAMORE.

[00:25:01]

I DON'T SEE THAT AS MAINTAINING THE TRAFFIC THAT WE HAVE.

SO I DON'T REALLY AGREE WITH THAT.

AND THERE ARE STILL CHILDREN IN THE AREA.

OUR NEIGHBORS HAVE SMALL CHILDREN, WE STILL HAVE THE SCHOOL BUS THAT COMES THROUGH DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR.

BEFORE THE FENCE WAS PUT UP, WE WOULD USE THE FIELD FOR SPORTS.

THERE WAS A BASKETBALL COURT USED ALL THE TIME.

PEOPLE WOULD USE THE BLACK TOP FOR STATE BOARDING, TEAMS WOULD COME OUT AND PRACTICE, THERE WERE A LOT OF FAMILIES, THE IN THE AREA WOULD USE THE AREA SO IT WAS A FAMILY PLACE, A CENTRAL PLACE FOR DIFFERENT FAMILIES TO COME UP AND SO TURNING IT INTO THE ZONING FOR MULTIFAMILY FOR THESE RESIDENCES DOESN'T REALLY FIT IN WITH WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN.

WE JUST DON'T SEE IT AS A GOOD FIT.

WITH ALL OF THAT, WE ARE OPPOSED BUT THANK YOU FOR LETTING US

SHARE. >> ANY QUESTIONS?

>> CAN WE ASK YOU A QUESTION? >> SURE.

>> BEFORE TODAY DID YOU KNOW WHAT THEY WERE PLANNING TO BUILD

THERE? >> THANK YOU FOR ASKING.

JUST FROM THE NEWS, YEAH. AND ACTUALLY I WANTED TOO MENTION THAT WE, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, DID NOT RECEIVE THE LETTERS REGARDING THIS ZONING MEETING THAT WAS GOING TO TAKE PLACE.

WE DID COME UP AND SPINNING WITH MS. SAWYERS WHO GAVE US A PRESENTOUT BUT WE WITH MS. SAWYERS WHO GAVE US A PRESENTOUT BUP WITH MS. SAWYERS WHO GAVE US A PRESENTOUT BUE WITH MS. SAWYERS WHO GAVE US A PRESENTOUT BUA WITH MS. SAWYERS WHO GAVE US A PRESENTOUT BUK WITH MS. SAWYERS WHO GAVE US A PRESENTOPRIOUT BU PRINTOUT BUT WE DID NOT SEE IT. WE DID RECEIVE ONE FOR THE CLOSURE WHICH IS LATER BUT OTHER WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY IDEA.

AND IN FEBRUARY, THERE WAS A MEETING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL TO SUPPORT AN APPLICATION FOR THE TAX CREDITS.

WE SAW THAT THAT WAS JUST PASSED ON THROUGH WITHOUT ANYONE -- WE WERE NOT NOTIFIED THAT WAS GOING TO BE HAPPENING IN. IN IN THAT MEETING THEY DIDN'T REALLY TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THAT PLAN OR THE PLAN FOR WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE PROPERTY AND SO THAT PUTS A SOUR TASTE IN OUR MOUTH REGARDING ANY PROGRESS THAT WOULD BE GOING WITH THIS PROJECT.

>> LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION. ACCORDING TO THE DEVELOPER, THEY'RE GOING TO BE BUILT FOR SENIOR CITIZENS.

THE YURT OF THEM PROBABLY WON'T BE EMPLOYED AS A RESULT.

THEY WON'TMAJORITY OF THEM PROB WON'T BE EMPLOYED AS A RESULT.

THEY WON'T BE DROVING A LOT. IF THAT'S THE CASE, I DON'T SEE HOW IT WOULD AFFECT THE TRAFFIC THAT MUCH.

>> IT MAY -- WELL. THEY MAY STILL BE WORKING IF IT'S LOW INCOME. THEY MAY STILL NEED TO WORK AND THINGS BUT THAT MAY THEN CALL FOR BUSES TO COME AND PICK UP THE RESIDENTS TO TAKE THEM IF THEY NEED TO GO OR IF THEY NEED TO HAVE FAMILY COME BY AND DROP OFF NECESSITIES AND DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT. WE'RE THINKING IT MAY STILL SEE

INCREASED TRAFFIC. >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE YOU COMING UP. BRAD, IF THEY DID MEDIUM DENSITY HOW MANY DWELLINGS WOULD YOU GET ON HERE IF YOU DID MD?

>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, IF THEY DID MD, THERE COULD BE NO MORE THAN FOUR DWELLING UNITS ON ANY GIVEN LOT SO THAT --

>> BUT IF THEY REPLATTED IT TO MAKE -- HOW MANY ACRES ARE

THERE? >> APPROXIMATELY 3.5 ACRES TIMES

12. >> SO YOU COULD GET 36 OR

BETTER. >> 36 OR BETTER.

>> SO THEY COULD DO MD RIGHT NOW AND GET 36 UNITS ON THERE AND HE'S ONLY TALKING ABOUT 27 OR 29 SO IT WOULD BE LESS UNITS THIS WAY THAN IF YOU JUST DID MEDIUM DENSITY.

>> IF THEY DEMOLISH THE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND SUBDIVIDED IT TO

CREATE A SERIES OF LOTS. >> HE'S NOT GOING TO MAKE USE OF EXISTING BUILDING -- I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET TO A NUMBER OF COMPARISON. WHAT YOU COULD DO ON THIS LOT VERSUS WHAT'S GOING TO BE DONE. SO THIS IS ABOUT THE SAME

ROUGHLY WHAT HE'S PROPOSING. >> THIS IS A HISTORIC BUILDING,

[00:30:05]

RIGHT? >> IS IT?

>> IT DOESN'T HAVE HISTORIC OVERLAY BUT IT'S A HISTORIC

BUILDING. >> DESIGNATED?

>> I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK WITH OUR HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER TO SEE IF IT'S DESIGNATED OPT THE TEXAS LIST BUT THE CITY OF ABILENE, THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO TO LANDMARKS COMMISSION TO DO ANYTHING TO THE FACADE.

>> OKAY. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE READY FOR THAT.

>> I THINK IT'S A GOOD USE OF THE PROD.

IT'S A GOOD REUSE OF THE BUILDING.

I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO. I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I THINK THERE'S ACCESS TOO BUTTERNUT.

IF PEOPLE WERE USING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FOR ANY MEANS THEY WOULD PROBABLY USE ONE OF THE EXISTING BUS STOPS OFF BUTTERNUT AND THEY WOULDN'T HAVE T REROUTE THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> I HAVE A MOTION. >> I WILL SECOND.

>> A MOTION TO APPROVE AND A SECOND.

>> BEN HAM, RUSSELL, NOONAN, LANKFORD, FEMMING, AND

ROSENBAUM. >> YES.

>> THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIES.

>> ZONING CASE HOZ-2021-01, REQUEST FROM DAN STEVEN AND TRAY PSI A MORGAN MCNEIL TO APPLY A HISTORIC OVERLAY ZONE ON TO THE UNDERLYING RESIDENCE ACCEPTABLE ZONING DIG STRINGS AT 701 SAYLES

DRIVE. >> WINCE AGAINS, NICK WATTS, THE NOTIFICATION IS INCORRECT. WE RECEIVED TWO IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE LOT 702 SAYLES DRIVE. IT'S A PRIVATE DRIVE AND IT INCLUDES THE RESIDENCE ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF SAYLES DRIVE AND ALSO THAT LITTLE TRACT OF LAND TO THE EAST OF SAYLES DRIVE.

IT'S JUST GREEN SPACE. HERE'S THE ZONING MAP INDICATING THE ZONING OF THIS PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY PROPERTIES. THERE'S NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES, ONLY WIN HISTORIC PROPERTY TO THE NORTHEAST ON SAYLES BOULEVARD. SO HERE ARE SEVERAL PHOTOS OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF. IT IS A 2 STORY COLONIAL REVIVAL, BUILT IN 1926. THE ARCHITECT OF THE BUILDING IS UNKNOWN. WE COULDN'T FIND TOO MUCH INFORMATION AS FAR AS PERMITS FOR THIS PROPERTY ITSELF.

WE DID LOCATE A RESOLUTION NUMBER AND THAT'S RESOLUTION 5-1999 WHICH INDICATES THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A CONTRIBUTING PROPERTY WITHIN CITY COUNCIL'S ADOPTED HISTORIC PROPERTIES, 1985. WE FOUND A HISTORICAL RESOURCE SURVEY FROM 2011 AND THIS IS A NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES WHICH INDICATES THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A CONTRIBUTING PROPERTY WITHIN THE NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED SAYLES BOULEVARD HISTORIC DISTRICT. WHEN I EMPHASIZE NATIONALLY, THAT'S BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A LOCALLY RECOGNIZED DISTORQUE DISTRICT HERE. IT'S NATIONALLY.

IT'S NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE IF IT WAS LOCALLY, WE WOULD HAVE AUTHORITY IN HOW THINGS ARE DONE AND ANY CHANGES TO THE PROPERTIES ITSELF BUT WITH THE NATIONALLY, IT'S JUST RECOGNIZED BY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. THESE ARE SEVERAL OTHER PHOTOS OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF. THE BOTTOM LEFT IS JUST STORAGE BUILD THAT'S NOT CONTRIBUTING AND ALSO A POOL, NONCONTRIBUTING BUT THE BUILDING EIGHTH, THE FENCE, AND THE GARAGE IS CONSIDERED CONTRIBUTING, BUILT AROUND THE SAME TIME PERIOD.

THIS IS NOTIFICATION MAP INDICATING ONE IN FAVOR AND THE OTHER ONE IS FOR 642 SAYLES BOULEVARD AND THAT'S -- I

[00:35:05]

APOLOGIZE. IT'S FOR 740 SAYLES DRIVE PARCEL ID 76313. THIS WAS REVIEWED PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.3.4.4 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS OH PROVED BY LANDMARKS COMMISSION. WE PUSH IT ONTO YOU GUYS TO REVIEW AND WE REVIEW PURSUANT TO 1.4.1.4 OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. CRITERIA OF APPROVAL.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS. >> NICK, YOU'RE TELLING US IT'S STILL ACTIVELY AND CURRENTLY ON THE THE NATIONAL REGISTER LIST?

>> CORRECT. >> BECAUSE THAT'S AN ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION TO MAINTAIN YOUR STATUS ON THAT LIST SO WINCE YOU GET DESIGNATION, IF YOU DON'T CONTINUE TO PAY FOR THAT, THEN YOU CAN FALL OFF THE LIST SO I GIST WANT TO MAKE SURE?

>> YEAH, I'M NOT TOO SURE AS FAR AS PAYMENT STATUS.

I WOULD HAVE TO DO A LITTLE RESEARCH INTO HOW THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE MAINTAINS THE STATUS OF BEING NATIONALLY

RECOGNIZEDMENT >> WHEN YOU RESEARCHED IT IT WAS

ON THE LIST. >> CORRECT.

>> SO IT'S PROBABLY CURRENT? >> YEAH, IT'S NOT PACKET AS

WELL. >> HE MENTIONED CONTRIBUTING BUT 702 IS ON THAT LIST. SO IS IT --

>> WE'RE CONSIDERING LOCAL HISTORICAL OVERLAY.

WHAT THAT DOES IS IT'S THE PRESERVE THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF ABILENE AND THE ARK TECHS HERE AND DEVELOPED A LOT OF THE BUILDINGS HERE IN THE CITY OF ABILENE AND IN THE EVENT THAT THEY WANT TO MAKE ANY TYPE OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING OR TO THE STRUCTURAL LARGE PLUMBING ISSUES, THEY WOULD HAVE TO SEEK THE APPROVAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO SEE IF THEIR MODIFICATION IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE TIME PERIOD IN WHICH IT WAS BUILT.

IN THE EVENT THEY DON'T WANT TO SEEK THAT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH ANDRY MOVE THE HISTORIC OVERLAY ZONING AND GO AND DO WHATEVER THEY WOULD LIKE TO THE BUILDING.

IT JUST ADDS TO THE CHARACTER OF ABILENE.

>> THEY CAN'T ADD ON TO THE BUILDING.

>> LOOKS LIKE THERE IS SOME ADD ON.

>> BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE A LOCAL DESIGNATION.

NOW THEY'RE ASKING FOR THAT LOCAL DESIGNATION.

I'M HESITATING A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE WE GOT INTO A GROOVE THERE FOR A WHILE. THEY CAME IN AND WE JUST APPROVED THEM AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE WERE GETTING STUFF WE SHOULDN'T BE APPROVING SO WE BACKED OFF OF THAT FOR A WHILE.

THIS IS THE FIRST CASE THAT'S COME UP IN A WHILE, I THINK.

>> I WOULD AGREE AND WE HAD THE DISCUSSION.

>> I LEAN MORE TOWARDS NOT. THERE'S GOT TO BE A VERY DEFINITIVE REASON TO DO THAT AND WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE ARCHITECT WAS OR WHY IT'S HISTORIC. I'M QUESTIONING WHETHER IT'S

APPROPRIATE OR NOT. >> WELL, I THINK SOME OF THOSE OTHER CASES WE LOOKED AT, WE WERE LOOKING AT THE LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION OF IT AND WONDERING WHO THE ARCHITECTS WERE AND WHAT THE LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE WAS.

THIS ONE IS PROVEN THAT IT'S NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT TO THE SAYLES DISTRICT. THERE'S PRECEDENT ON THIS ONE THAT HAS HISTORIC DESIGNATION THAT IS WE KNOW THAT THEY FELT IT WAS A CONTRIBUTING PIECE OF ARCHITECTURE AND SO WE MAY NOT KNOW WHO THE ARCHITECT WAS FOR LOCAL REFERENCE, BY IT DOES HAVE

HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE. >> BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHY.

>> AND YOU'RE WELCOME TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURALS IS PACT OF IT AND WHY WE'RE CONSIDERING IT FOR APPROVAL AND ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS IS BECAUSE THE SAYLES DISTRICT IS ONE OF THE FIRST BRAND ANY SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF ABILENE, A VERY AFFLUENT AREA BACK AT THE TIME AND A LOT OF BUILDINGS THERE ARE HISTORIC IN NATURE AS FAR AS THEIR ARCHITECTURAL ASPECTS. THERE'S THE COLONIAL REVIVAL.

THERE'S NOT VERY MANY OF THOSE IN THE CITY OF ABILENE.

WHEN WE START TO BUILD NEW RESIDENTS, IT'S VERY EXPENSE I HAVE TO START BUILDING BUILDINGS LIKE THIS AGAIN.

IF ANYONE ELSE HAS ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT, YOU START TO SEE, AS WE MOVE FARTHER DOWN SOUTH, THAT A LOT OF THE HOMES ARE CORRECTED VERY QUICKLY, THEY'RE VERY EFFICIENT AND THEY'RE VERY WELL DONE BUT AS FAR AS THIS, IT STANDS OUT FROM WHAT WE SEE BUILD NOWADAYS SO WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE THIS WITHIN THE CITY OF ABILENE AND THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION, THEY

[00:40:03]

RECOGNIZED IT AS A HISTORIC BUILDING BACK IN THE DAY BUT WHEN EARP TRYING TO ADD THIS TO THE HISTORIC DATABASE, THE PROPERTY OWNER REFUSED TO ADD IT AS A HISTORICAL BUILDING BECAUSE FROM WHAT I KNOW FROM THE DOCUMENTS IS THEY DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH ANY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IN THE EVENT THEY WANTED TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS TO THEICS TIER YOUR OF THE BUILDING. NOW THE NEW OWNERS WOULD LIKE TO PRESERVE THE BUILDING AND MAINTAIN ITS HISTORIC CHARACTER.

>> AND WHAT THAT'S STAYING ABOUT THE CLASSICAL REVIVAL STYLE, IT INDICATES HERE IT'S THE FORMER HOME OF MERCHANT R.H. GAM BELL.

I DON'T KNOW WHO THAT HAS BUT IT WAS ENOUGH TO BE REPORTED.

>> WHEN LANDMARKS IS MAKING THEIR APPROVAL CONSIDERATION, THEY HAVE A COUPLE CRY TIER CAMBRIA FOR APPROVAL.

ONE IS A PROMINENT FIGURE WHO BUILT THE HOUSE OR LIVED IN THE HOUSE AT THAT TIME PERIOD. THE OTHER IS THE ARCHITECTURAL ASPECTS AND THAT'S WHAT STAFF CONSIDERED IT AS AND BASED OFF THE TIME PERIOD, HOW IT WAS CORRECTED, EVERYTHING ELSE, THAT'S WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO LANDMARKS TO. THEY AGREED TO THAT AND NOW IT'S

UP TO YOUR CONSIDERATION. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR NICK?

>> IS THERE ANY ESTIMATE OF WHAT CITY PROPERTY TAXES ARE ON THIS

PROPERTY? >> I DO NOT HAVE THAT BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK INTO. AS IN WHAT WOULD HAPPEN?

>> NO, I KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WITH THE HISTORIC OVERLAY.

WE KNOW THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LOT SIZE, I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ANNEST MAT OF CITY TAX ON THE PROPERTY.

>> I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO TALK TO US ABOUT THIS CASE? HEARING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ARE WE WAITING FOR MORE DISCUSSION? CHERYL IS NOT MOVING HER FINGERS FAST ENOUGH.

>> I KNOW, INTERNET. 702, RIGHT? . I WILL SAY I THINK THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN SOMEBODY HAVING AN OLD HOUSE AND WANTING A OVERLAY ONDIFFERENT THAN SOMEBO AN OLD HOUSE AND WANTING A OVERI WILL SAY I THINK THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN SOMEBODY HAVING AN OLD HOUSE AND WANTING A OVERLAY ON TOP OF IT.

I THINK I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS PARTICULAR DESIGNATION IN THIS

CASE. >> THE TOTAL TAXES IS 5616 SO THEY WOULD RECEIVE, BY ADDING THIS OVERLAY, THERE'S AN INCENTIVE TO IT, A 20% ANNUAL REDUCTION NOT TO EXCEED 10 YEARS. AS FAR AS I KNOW FROM THE APPLICANT ITSELF WHEN I MENTIONED IT TO HER, SHE SAID SHE'S INTERESTED IN THE HISTORIC OVERLAY JUST TO PRESERVE IT.

SHE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN THE TAXES BUT, I MEAN, YOU SAVE MONEY,IYOU SAVE MOFYOU SAVE MO YOU SAVE MONEY, YOU SAVE MONEY.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANKS, NICK.

>> I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM.

>> I SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND.

>> BEN HAM. RUSSELL.

NOONAN. LANKFORD.

FLEMMING, ROSENBAUM. >> YES.

>> AND THE MOTION CARRIES. >> TC-2001-02 TO ABANDON TO PUBLIC'S RIGHT OF WAY WITHIN THE FOLLOWING STREETS AND ALIGN SEGMENTS IN SOUTH CENTRAL ABILENE.

JARED? >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

MY NAME IS JARED SMITH. I WILL PRESENT TC-2021-02.

OWNER OF THE PROCESS IRIS ABILENE CAMP BARKELEY.

THEIR REQUEST IS TO ABANDON THREE SEPARATE RIGHT OF WAYS.

[00:45:01]

THEY WERE ALL DEDICATED LAST CENTURY SO ONE WAS BY SUBDI SUBDIVISION PLAT IN 1804, ONE IS A 60 FOOD WIDE RIGHT AWAY WHICH COINCIDES WITH THE ALIGNMENT OF SOUTH 10 STREET, 300-FEET FROM ELM STREET'S EASTERN MOST RIGHT OF WAY BOUNDARY, THE OTHER RIGHT OF WAY THAT WAS DEDICATED WITH THAT GOW GELONICS PLAT WAS A 20-FOOT WIDE ALLEY BETWEEN ELM STREET AND SYCAMORE INTERSECONDING BLOCK A AND THE LAST RIGHT OF WAY FOR ABANDONMENT IS A 20 FOOD WIDE ALLEY THAT EXTENDS APPROXIMATELY 150-FEET SOUTH FROM THE SOUTHERN MOST RIGHT OF WAY BOUNDARY FOR WHAT WAS FORMALLY CHURCH STREET AND IT WOULD NOW COINCIDE WITH SOUTH TENTH STREET.

CITY STAFF SENT NOTIFICATION LETTERS TOO ALL RESIDENTS WITHIN 200 YARDS. WE RECEIVED ZERO FOR OR ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THEY'RE WANTING TO ABANDON THESE RIGHT OF WAYS TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEW BUILDING LOCATED ON THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY. LOCATION MAP SHOWING AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THESE SUBJECT RIGHT OF WAYS.

IT'S THE EXACT SAME PROPERTY THAT YOU CONSIDERED EARLIER TODAY. THE LARGER PORTION IS THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR CHURCH STREET. THE TWO MORE NARROW ARE THE TWO ALLEYS. CURRENT ZONING MAP SHOWING THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT THESE RIGHT OF WAYS INTERSECOND IS MEDIUMT IS MEDIUM DENSITY ZONING.

AN EXHIBIT THAT HIGHLIGHTS BETTER THE EXTENT OF THOSE RIGHT OF WAYS, THESE ARE THE SIB DIVISION PLATS THAT DEDICATED THOSE RIGHT OF WAYS. WHAT'S IN ORANGE ARE THOSE RIGHT

OF WAYS. >> IS THAT FROM 1907?

IS THAT WHAT THAT SAYS? >> 1907, YES.

>> THE SUBJECT RIGHT OF WAYS, THE TOP LEFT HAND PHOTO IS WHERE SOUTH TENTH STREET WOULD EXTEND THROUGH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

ONCE AGAIN, THAT WAS ORIGINALLY DEDICATED AS CHURCH STREET.

THE PHOTO THAT'S IMMEDIATELY TO THE RIGHT OF THAT IS THE 20-FOOT WIDE ALLEY, THE NORTHERN MOST ALLEY THAT INTERSECTS BLOCK A OF GOW GELONICS AND THE OTHER ALLEY EXTENDS SOUTH FROM THE CHURCH STREET RIGHT OF WAY. AS I STATED PREVIOUSLY, CITY STAFF SENT OUT NOTIFICATION LETTERS TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200-FEET OF THESE RIGHT OF WAYS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE ABANDONMENT. WE RECEIVED ZERO RESPONSES IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THESE CLOSURE REQUESTS WERE REVIEWED. THEY ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO YOU ALL TODAY SUBJECT TO THESE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: PRIOR TO THE OFFICIAL APPROVAL, FINALIZATION, PRIOR TO THE OFFICIAL FINALIZATION OF THESE CLOSURES, THEY MUST SUBMIT A REPLAT THAT SHOWS HOW THE RIGHT OF WAYS FOR THE ALLEYS AND WHAT WAS CHURCH STREET'S RIGHT OF WAY WILL BE EMBRACED WITH ONE OR MORE ADJACENT LOTS. ALSO ON THAT REQUIRED REPLAT, THEY WILL HAVE TO DEDICATE SOME OH SORT OF EASEMENT IS FULLY IMPROVED. THEY HAVE A THREE CIINCH THEY HAVE A THREE CII INCH RIGH WAY OR -- THEY WOULD NEED TO FURNISH A GUARANTEE FOR A TIMELY MOVING OF THE UTILITIES AND WE NEED TO BE FURNISHED WITH PROOF FROM THE UTILITY PROVIDERS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN FURNISHED WITH A TIMELY RELOCATION OF THOSE UTILITIES. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE REGARDING THESE THREE RIGHT OF WAYS AT THIS

TIME. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF JARED?

THANKS, JARED. >> THANK YOU.

>> WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO COME AND TALK TO US ABOUT THIS ZONING

CASE? >> HI, NATE MILLER.

5341 WEST 151ST TERRACE, LEEWOOD, KANSAS.

[00:50:04]

EVERYTHING JARED OUTLINED IS CORRECT.

A FEW WEBS AGO WE RECEIVED A NOTIFICATION THAT WE WERE AWARDED THE FUNDS FOR THESE PROJECTS.

IF THESE ALLEYS AND RIGHT OF WAYS ARE NOT ABANDONED BY NEXT MONTH, WE LOSE THE RISK OF LOSING THOSE FUNDS.

THIS IS LIKE THE FIRST THING WE HAVE TO DO TO RESERVE THE TAX

CREDITS. >> WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR INTENT WITH THOSE? ARE YOU GOING TO PROVIDE THE EASE. S? ARE YOU GOIM? ARE YOU GOING E TE? ARE YOU GOING TO RELOCNT? ARE YOU GOING TO RELOCS? ARE YOU GOING TO RELOC ARE YOU GOING TO RELOCATE THE UTILITIES?

>> YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS THAT MORE WHEN I GET BACK HOME.

OUTLINED SEENED SATISFACTORY. >> IS YOUR PLAN -- YOU TALKED ABOUT A WALKING TRAIL, DOG PARK S THAT OPEN TO THE COMMUNITY OR

GATED FOR THE FACILITY? >> I THINK IT WOULD BE OPEN TO THE RESIDENTS BUT I CAN GET THAT ANSWER FOR YOU.

AND HE WAS RIGHT, THE NEW BUILDING WHERE THERE WILL BE 7 UNITS, THAT'S MAINLY WHERE THE ALLEY IS BUT EVERYTHING ELSE NEEDS TO BE TAKEN CARE OF AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU, NATE. APPRECIATE YOU COMING OUT.

YES, MA'AM? >> MY NAME IS STACY CASTILLO, MY ADDRESS IS 901 SYCAMORE. COMING UP HERE, AGAIN, IN OPPOSITION TO THE THOROUGHFARE CLOSURE.

MVING FORWARD WOULD ALLOW THE PROFESSION PARTICULARLY OF THAT THIRD BUILDING, THAT PART OF IT WOULD BE ON SYCAMORE STREET WHERE WE LIVE. WE DON'T SEE THAT AS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE POSITIVE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SO WE WOULD BE

OPPOSED TO THAT. >> THANK YOU.

ANYBODY ELSE? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OH MOTION?

>> I MOVE. >> MOVE TO APPROVE?

>> MOVE TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION.

>> AND I WILL SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND.

>> MR. BENHAM. MS. RUSSELL.

MR. NOONAN, LANKFORD, FLEMMING, ROSENBAUM.

>> YES. >> AND THE MOTION TO APPROVE

WITH CONDITIONS CARRIES. >> THOROUGHFARE CLOSURE 2021-06 FROM BARBARA ROBIN SON AND DILL LAIN GOLDEN.

>> THANK YOU, ONCE AGAIN. I'M JARED SMITH.

I WILL BE PRESENTING TC-2021-06. THIS PROPERTY IS AN ALLEY WEDGED BETWEEN TWO PLATTED LOTS. THE OWNERS ARE BARBARA ROBIN SON AND DYLAN GOLDEN REPRESENTED BY ENPROTEC/HIBBS AND TODD.

THE WESTERN MOST RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR MELISSA LANE.

ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200-FEET OF THIS ALLEY WERE NOTIFIED AND WE RECEIVED ONE RESPONSE IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THE REASON FOR THIS REQUEST TIES INTO THE RELIMB NAIR PLOT THAT YOU CONSIDERED EARLIER IN THIS MEETING T SANDY CREEK VILLAGE PLOT SO WITH THAT PRELIMINARY PLAT, THEY HAVE TO MEET A CERTAIN ACREAGE REQUIREMENT TO SCRAGGED THE DUPLEXES THAT THEONSTRUCT THE DUPLEXES THAT THEY'RE WANTING TO. TO DO THAT, THEY HAVE TO CLOSE THIS PORTION OF THE ALLEY THAT WOULD HAVE TO EXTEND WEST FROM THIS LOCATION. IN ORDER TO NOT END UP WITH A DEAD END ALLEY AT A FUTURE DATE, THEY'RE WANTING TO ABANDON THIS ALLEY NOW SO WE HAVE A CLEAN SLATE MOVING INTO THAT PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SANDY CREEK.

THIS IS AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE EXTENT OF THE CURRENTLY EXISTING ALLEY. CURRENT ZONING MAP SHOWING THAT THE PROPERTY NORTH OF THE ALLEY IS ZONED RS6.

A FEW PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT PORTION OF THE ALLEY AS WELL AS THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. NOTIFICATION MAP SHOWING THE EXTEND OF THAT 200-FOOT NOIFICATION AREA, ONCE AGAIN,

[00:55:01]

ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200-FEET OF THIS ALLEY WERE NOTIFIED AND WE RECEIVED ONE RESPONSE IN FAVOR HIGHLIGHTED BY GREEN AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THIS REQUEST WAS REVIEWED BY ABILENE'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE WHO FOUND IT WAS SATISFACTORY AND THEY ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. PRIOR TO THE OFFICIAL FINALIZATION, THEY MUST SIB MITT A REPLAT SHOWING HOW THIS ALLEY WILL BE INTEGRATED WITHIN ONE OR MORE OF THE ADJACENT LOTS.

SUITABLE EASEMENTS MUST BE RESERVED FOR UTILITYING PLANNED TO REMAIN IN PLACE. THERE'S A WAR MAIN AND A SEWER MAIN. IF THEY PLAN TO RELOCATE ANY OF THOSE UTILITIES IT WILL BE AT THE PROPERTY OWNER'S EXPENSE TO DO SO. THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TOO PROVIDE US SOME SORT OF DOCUMENTATION THAT THOSE UTILITIES HAVE BEEN RELOCATED OR THAT SOME SORT OF SUITABLE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT HAS BEEN PUT IN PLACE FOR THE TIMELY RELOCATION OF THOSE UTILITIES. I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE AT THIS TIME.

>> THIS IS FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER ON THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH BUT TECHNICALLY THE DEVELOPER IS THE ONE DOING ALL THE WORK.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> OKAY.

THANKS, JARED. >> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO ADDRESS THE --

>> THANK YOU, DAVIDED TO, 402-CEDAR, REPRESENTING THE PROPONENTS OF THIS ALLEY CLOSURE.

WE CONQUER WITH TUER WITH THE CF THE CLOSURE.

>> THANK YOU, DAVID. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> MR. BENHAM. >> REUSS SELLUSSELL,

THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIES. >> THIS IS MY MOST FAVORITE SUBJECT COMING UP NEXT. RECEIVE A REPORT AND HOLD A

[AGENDA ITEMS ]

DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION UPON THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. ARE YOU THE LUCKY PERSON THIS

TIME? >> I GUESS.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> CHERYL SAWYERS, PLANNING SERVICES MANAGER FOR THE CITY OF ABILENE.

WE HAVE BEFORE YOU THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

WE ARE REQUIRED BY OUR CHART TORE BRING THE LIST BEFORE YOU AND GET ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO INCLUDE IN NEXT YEAR'S FISCAL YEAR BUDGET.

AS YOU CAN SEE, WE DO HAVE AN EXTENSIVE LIST.

MANY OF THE THINGS ON THIS LIST ARE GOING TO BE FUNDED THROUGH DIFFERENT MECHANISMS AS YOU CAN SEE HERE.

WE HAVE OUTLINED WHERE THE FUNDING SOURCE WAS GOING TO BE COMING FROM AND WHICH DEPARTMENTS WERE GOING TO BE PART OF THIS PROGRAM, BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, THERE'S NOT A FUND, A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND THAT THESE PROJECTS ARE GOING TO BE COMING FROM. AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANY SUGGESTS TO ADD TO THE LIST OR TAKE AWAY OR WHATEVER, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TAKE THOSE AT THIS TIME AND ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS THAT I CAN ANSWER. >> SO THERE ARE NO DOLLARS?

>> NOT THAT I KNOW OF. SO BASICALLY ALL OF THE MONEY THIS YEAR WE'VE GONE TO A ZERO BASE BUDGET SYSTEM.

THIS WILL BE OUR FIRST YEAR TO DO THAT AND OWL OF THESE FUNDS HAVE BEEN EARMARKED ALREADY, ESSENTIALLY, TO CREATE IMPROVEMENTS IN THESE PARTICULAR AREAS.

SO FOR THE MIP IS THE MINOR IMPROVEMENT FUND.

THAT IS KIND OF LIKE A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND BUT IT'S NOT EXACTLY SET FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT SO THOSE FUNDS CAN

BE USED FOR DIFFERENT THINGS. >> ARE YOU JUST MAKING A PRESENTATION OR ARE WE SUPPOSED TO APPROVE SOMETHING?

>> I'M MAKING A PRESENTATION AND ASKING FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO MOVE FORWARD OR ADD TO THE LIST.

>> THERE'S NOTHING TO ADD, I MOVE THAT WE ASK THE CITY TO

MOVE FORWARD. >> THANK YOU.

DIE HEAR A SECOND? >> I BELIEVE THIS DOES REQUIRE A

PUBLIC HEARING. >> DOES IT? ALL RIGHT. LET ME OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE YOUR MOTION. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO VISIT WITH US ABOUT THESE ITEMS ON THIS LIST?

>> THANK YOU. >> SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE

THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> ONE MORE FOR FORQ FORN FOR C.

[01:00:14]

THE BOND HERE, IS THAT UPCOMING? >> NO.

>> SO THESE WERE PREVIOUSLY AWARDED OR APPROVED?

>> MICHAEL RICE. YES, IT'S BOTH.

IT'S BEEN OUT THERE AND SOME OF IT WILL BE NEW BOND MONEY COMING FORWARD. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO WATCH THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON THURSDAY OF NEXT WEEK.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO MOVE IT FORWARD. DO I HEAR A SECOND?

>> I WILL SECOND. >> SECOND.

>>

[DIRECTOR’S REPORT ]

>> ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE US THE RECORDS REPORT?

SHOULD HAVE PUT HIM ON THE SPOT. >> HE WILL HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY IN THE EVENT THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE TIM AS OUR INTI REM DIRECTOR OF PLANNING SERVICES.

HIVES APPOINTED LAST ERIM DIREC PLANNING SERVICES.

HIVES APPOINTED LAST WEEK. HE'S BEEN IN THAT POSITION LESS

THAN A WEEK. >> IS THAT A CONGRATULATIONS OR CONDOLENCES? [LAUGHTER]

COMBINATION OF BOTH, RIGHT? >> ABSOLUTELY.

JUST A QUICK SUMMARY OF THE CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS TAKEN BACK ON JULY 8TH. THEY LOOKED AT EIGHT ITEM THAT IS YOU CONSIDERED. THE FIRST WAS A REZONING OF THE HERITAGE PARKS AND I BELIEVE YOU SAW THAT TODAY, THE PLAT, THAT WAS A REQUEST TO MOVE TOO RIESE DENTAL SIX, THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL 5-0. THERE WAS ALSO A REQUEST TO DO A CHANGE AT 1243 SOUTH FIRST. WE WERE DOING A PLAN DEVELOPMENA CHANGE AT 1243 SOUTH FIRST. WE WERE DOING A PLAN DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW FOR AUTOMOBILE SALES. THAT WAS ALSO APPROVED 5-2 BY CITY COUNCIL. THERE WAS APPROVAL FOR CHARLIE FOX TO DO DEVELOPMENT THAT HE WAS WORKING ON, MOVING IT FROM NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL. COUNCIL APPROVED THAT 5-50.

THERE WERE ORDINANCES AT SHOPS AT CAROL HILL THE ONE THAT THEY'RE JUST OTHERS OF MAPLE STREET.

IT'S ABOUT 17 ACRES ROUGHLY THAT, AGAIN, WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL 5-0. THE RIGHT OF WAY ABANDONMENT OFF SOUTH 9TH. IT INCLUDED THAT AND A PORTION OF THE ALLEY WITH CONDITIONS AND THAT, AGAIN, WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL 5-0. THERE ARE THREE MORE ITEMS, ONE WAS ZONING BY BETHANY AND CAYDEN CON KNELL, THIS ONE ON HUCKLEBERRY, THEY WANTED TO REZONE IT TO AGRICULTURE SO THEY COULD HAVE SOME ANIMALS. THAT WAS ALSO APPROVED BY COUNCIL 7-0. NEXT TO LAST ONE, THIS WAS A REQUEST TO DO A ZONE CHANGE FROM HEAVY INDUSTRIAL TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL AT 2249 BUTTERNUT STREET ON THE CORNER OF BUTTERNUT AND SOUTH 23RD, APPROVED 7-0 AND THEN THE LAST ITEM, THIS WAS THE THOROUGH FAIR CLOSURE BY HARDEN SIMMONS UNIVERSITY. AND THAT WAS APPROVED 6-0.

SO IN EVERY SINGLE ITEM YOU PUSHED FORWARD, IT WAS A POSITIVE VOTE WITH 0 IN OPPOSITION IN EVERY SIGNING LEA ITEM THAT YOU TOUCHED. WITH THAT, I WOULD BE GLAD TO

TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MICHAEL? APPRECIATE IT. AND WITH THAT, WE'RE ADJOURNED.

>> OKAY.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.