Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:01]

STANDING BY FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

[CALL TO ORDER]

>> BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS FIVE MEMBERS FOUR OF WHICH MUST BE PRESENT. LET ME MAKE A POINT AT THIS TIME TO THE APPLICANTS, IT TAKES ALL FOUR VOTE TOSS PASS THIS. YOU HAVE THE OPTION AT THIS POINT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DELAY THIS, WE'LL TABLE YOUR ACTION UNTIL WE HAVE A MEETING WITH FIVE MEMBERS. ANYBODY IN

THAT SITUATION? >> OKAY.

>> THE APPLICANT HAS 180 DAYS FROM THIS DATE TO OBTAIN A BILLING PERMIT IF ONE IS REQUIRED. A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME WILL BE REQUESTED BY THE BOARD. THE BUILDING PERMIT MAY BE ALPPLIED FOR THE DAY IT IS APPROVED AND THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED. IF THE REQUEST IS DENIED IT MAY NOT BE RECONSIDERED UNTIL 12 MONTHS. THE COURT OF RECORD, IT'S THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THIS DATE. WE NEED TO SWEAR IN ANYBODY WHOSE GOING TO PRESENT A CASE TODAY. SO, IF YOU WOULD STAND, RAISE YOUR RIGHT-HAND. I'M TOO P SHORT FOR THIS SCREEN.

RAISE YOUR RIGHT-HAND AND DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?

>> I DO. >> BE SEATED.

[1. Minutes: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Approving the Minutes from the Regular Meeting Held on July 13, 2021]

>> WE HAVE MINUTES? >> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO

APPROVE THE MINUTES? >> I MOVE.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE

THE MINUTES, MR. THOMAS? >> YES.

>> MR. ODLE? >> YES.

[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

>> AND CORN LANGHOLT. >> AT THIS POINT

>> CALL THE MEETING BACK IN SESSION. OUR FIRST AGENDA ITEM

[ 3. BA-2021-09: Receive a Report and Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing on a request from Titan Towers LP for approval of an 11-foot variance from the ordinary 12-foot limit on the height of signs allowed in Office (O) zoning districts. (Brad Stone)]

11-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE ORDINARY 12-FOOT LIMIT ON THE HEIGHT OF SIGNS ALLOWED IN OFFICE (O) ZONING DISTRICTS.

WE'LL RECEIVE A REPORT AND: >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MY NAME IS BRADLEY STONE AND I'M A PLANNER HERE ON DID I STAFF AND I'LL PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THIS CASE. THIS CASE CONCERNS THE SITE OF A 3-STORY OFFICE BUILDING AT THE CORNER OF INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD AND SOUTH TREADAWAY BOULEVARD THREE. AT PRESENT THERE ARE NO FREE-STANDING SIGNS ON THIS OFFICE PROPERTY. THE PROPONENTS ARE SEEKING TO INSTALL A 23 FOOT TALL POLE MOUNTED SIGN STRUCTURE THERE AND THAT IS 11 FETALER THAN THE 12 FOOT LIMIT ON THE HEIGHT OF SIGNS ORDINARILY ALLOWED IN THE OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THIS SLIDE HIGHLIGHTS THE LOCATION OF THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY AGAIN AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD AND SOUTH TRADE AWAY BOULEVARD. THE OTHER THREE CORNERS OF THIS SAME STREET INTERSECTION ARE OCCUPIED BY OTHER COMMERCIAL USERS IN OTHER COMMERCIAL ZONES DISTRICTS. THE BROADEST SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY IS IT'S REAR BOUNDARY WHICH YOU COULD SEE BACKS UP TO GOLF FAIRWAYS AND ABILENE COUNTRY CLUB. IN ZONING MAP HIGHLIGHTS THE OFFICE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY INDICATED BY THE COLOR BLUE. GREEN SHADING REPRESENTS THE AGRICULTURE OPEN SPACE ZONING OF THE ABILENE COUNTRY CLUB. HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING CHARACTERIZE THE REMAINING THREE QUARTERS OF THIS STREET INTERSECTION. HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND IN PARTICULAR, IT'S SOUTHWEST CORNER CLOSE TO THE

[00:05:03]

INTERSECTION OF INDUINDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD AND SOSOUTH TREADAWAY BOULEVARD WHERE THE PROPOSED SIGN IS PLANNED TO BE SITUATED.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN AN OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT AND HAS BEEN SINCE 1980. THE THREE-STORY OFFICE BUILDING THERE WAS COMPLETED IN 1982. IN OFFICE ZONING DISTRICTS, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED FOR A FREE-STANDING SIGN IS 12 FEET AND THIS HAS BEEN THE STANDARD SINCE 1974 WHEN THE CITY OF ABILENE INITIALLY ADOPTED ANY FORM OF SIGN REGULATION. THE 12 FOOT SIGN HEIGHT LIMIT IN OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT SUNSHINE INDEED SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER IN MOST OTHER COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE AS MUCH AS 50-FOOT TALL POLE MOUNTING SIGNS ARE ORDER INARILY ALLOWED. IT' INTENDED TO ENCOURAGE OFFICE DEVELOPMENT IN HIGH QUALITY IN A GENERALLY NON-COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENT. END OF QUOTE. REDUCING THE VISUAL IMPACT OF SIGNAGE AS COMPARED TO WHAT IS ORDINARILY ALLOWED FOR RETAIL ORIENTED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE NON-COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISTIC OF OFFICE ZONES WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN DESIGNING THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY'S REZONING TO OFFICE ZONING MORE THAN 40 YEARS AGO, ON LAND ADJACENT TO ABILENE COUNTRY CLUB. SEVEN DIFFERENT OWNERS OF NEARBY PROPERTY WERE NOTIFIED OF THE VARIANCE FROM THE ORDINARY 12 FOOT LIMIT. WE RECEIVED ONE WRITTEN RESPONSE IN FAVOR FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER WITH THE GREEN DOT ON IT. WE RECEIVED NO WRITTEN COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION.

CITY STAFF FINDS NO INHERENTLY SPECIAL CONDITIONS BY WHICH STRICT APPLICATIONS OF SIGN HEIGHT LIMITS WILL CREATE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP FOR THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY. FUNDAMENTALLY, THE SAME SIGN FACE MAY LAWFULLY BE INSTALLED AS A MONUMENT TYPE SIGN ELEVATED 1 FOOT ABOVE GROUND LEVEL SO LONG AS IT'S SET 25 FEET FROM PROPERTY LINES.

THIS TIME OF MONUMENT SIGNAGE IS ADMITTINGLY NOT AS VISIBLE AS A POLE MOUNTED IT SIGN ELEVATED 12 FEET AS IS NOW PROPOSED. BUT THE LOWER MONUMENT TYPE SIGN WOULD BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE QUOTE UNQUOTE NON-COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENT ENVISIONED FOR ABILENE'S ZONING REQUIREMENTS. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> WITH THERE BEING NONE, I'LL

SIT DOWN. THANK YOU. >> WILL THE PROPONENT PLEASE COME FORWARD TO THE MICROPHONE, STATE YOUR NAME AND WHY YOU ARE

REQUESTING THE VARIANCE? >> YES, SIR.

>> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS GOURDEN WASHINGTON I'M WITH TI TITAN TOWERS LP. THIS IS MY FIRST TIME TO EVER BE IN FRONT OF ANY BOARD.

>> WE DON'T BITE. >> LET'S SEE. SORRY, WONGOWER TIME TO EVER BE IN FRONT OF ANY BOARD.

>> WE DON'T BITE. >> LET'S SEE. SORRY, WONG ONE.

MR. STONE WAS KIND ENOUGH TO ALREADY SHOW PICTURES. TWO OF THE PICTURES ARE PICTURE THAT THAT YOU'VE SEEN ALREADY. SO, THE REASON WE'RE REQUESTING THIS WELL, THERE'S A COUPLE OF REASONS, ACTUALLY, ONE IS OUR CURRENTLY WE HAVE 25 TENANTS IN OUR OFFICE COMPLEX BUILDING AND ON OUR SIGN WE ALLOW UP TO EIGHT TENANTS TO SHOW FOR ADVERTISING MARKETING FOR THEIR PARTICULAR BUSINESS. WE HAVE A LAW FIRM AND A COUPLE OF ACCOUNTING COMPANIES AND A COUPLE OF INSURANCE COMPANIES. AND EVERYBODY WANTS MARKETING. EVERYBODY WANTS TO KNOW WERE YOUR FOUND AND HOW TO FIND YOU. SO, ONE OF THE PICTURES I SHOWED, WELL, THE FIRST ONE, AND AGAIN, HE'S KIND OF ALREADY TAKEN SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS GOING TO MENTION KINDLY. AS

[00:10:12]

MR. STONE MENTIONED, WE DO HAVE THIS HEIGHT OF 12-FEET, AND THEN THE COUNTRY CLUB BEHIND US HAS A 35 FOOT HEIGHT WITH 3700 SQUARE FEET AVAILABLE FOR SIGNAGE. WE'RE ALLOWED 36, ACCORDING TO THE OLD SIGN ORDINANCE. ACROSS THE STREET, ONE OF THE PICTURES I HAD FOR TRAVIS AUTO, I HAD 50 FOOD HIGH AND 300 SQUARE FEET AND ACROSS THE CORNER AT 711, THEIR'S IS 50 FOOT TALL IN 300 SQUARE FEET. THE CRATE AND MYRTLE BEDS. AT ONE POINT THERE WAS A FOUNTAIN IN IT BUT THAT FOUNTAIN WAS COMPLETELY DESTROYED DURING A STORM WE HAD IN MARCH AND THAT CIRCLE STILL STAND AND THE CREPE MYRTLES ARE PLANTED YEARS AND YEARS AGO.

THE GLOBE, THE SIGN THAT USED TO BE THERE THAT WAS ABOVE THAT INSIDE THAT FOUNTAIN WAS ABOVE ALL THAT CRATE MYRTLES, AND FOR US IT LOOKED VERY NICE FOR THE BUILDING WITH THE GLASS SHINING OFF OF THE BACK SIDE OF IT. IT WAS ATTRACTIVE, THE TENANTS LOVED IT. AND, WE'RE HOPING TO BASICALLY PUT A SIGN IN THAT SAME SPOT, THAT SAME CIRCLE WITH THE SIDEWALK AROUND IT ABOVE THE 10-FOOT CALL CRATE MYRTLES, INSTEAD OF A SINGLE POLE IT WOULD HAVE A DOUBLE POLE, SOMETHING THAT WOULD STAND UP, HOPEFULLY TO ANY STORM THAT WOULD COME THROUGH. IT IS 46 FEET FROM THE CUSHION INDUSTRIAL AND 58 FEET FROM THE CUSHION TREADWAY. I'VE BEEN TOLD, THE TYPES OF SIGNS THAT WE COULD HAVE. I KNOW ABOUT THE FOUNDATION, THE LOW ONE THAT'S ONLY A FOOT OFF THE GROUND, I UNDERSTAND THAT I CAN HAVE ONE FOR EVERY TENANT WE HAVE. I'M NOT GOING TO PUT 20 SIGNS OUT THERE FOR 25 TENANTS. THE SIGN ITSELF MATCHES IN COLORS AS THE BUILDING MATERIALS, THE METAL AND GLASS. WE'RE WANTING IT IN ONE SINGLE LOCATION. THIS IS EASY TO SEE PAST WE'RE ON THE CORNER, I'VE BEEN THERE MANY TIMES TO COME UP, WHEN IT IS HIGH, YOU COULD AT LEAST SEE THE SIGN AND YOU COULD SEE IT WITHOUT WORRYING ABOUT LOOKING AT CROSS TRAFFIC OR WHAT HAVE YOU, YOU COULD PULL UP THE SIGN AND VERIFY WERE YOUR GOING. AND ON TOP OF THE SIGN WE WOULD LIKE OUR ADDRESS JUST TO LET PEOPLE KNOW WHERE WE'RE LOCATED AND WHERE OUR 25 TENANTS TELL THEIR PEOPLE WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED TO FIND THEMSELVES. ANY QUESTIONS?

>> TELL ME AGAIN WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ORIGINAL SIGN?

>> IT WAS DESTROYED ON MARCH 29TH DURING OF THE STORM.

>> OKAY. >> JUST AFTER THE ICE STORM, I GUESS, THE NEXT WIND STORM HIT IT AND TOOK IT OUT.

>> WE'RE DISCUSSING THE ISSUE OF HEIGHT.

>> YES, SIR. >> WHAT WOULD BE THE PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE SIGN ITSELF?

>> IT IS, LET'S SEE HERE, IT WOULD BE I BELIEVE IT'S 80 SQUARE FEET, 8 BY 10. YES, SIR, THE TENANT SIGN IS 10 BY 8. AND OUR SIGN, THE TRIAD 15 INDUSTRIAL. WHICH IS 3 FOOT

ADDITION. >> THE WAY BACK PART OF MY MIND, DO I REMEMBER CORRECTLY THAT IF IT'S A REPLACEMENT FROM A PREVIOUS SIGN, THAT NO VARIANCE IS NECESSARY TO REPLACE

IT. IF IT WAS A POLE SIGN? >> , SO THE POLE SIGN WAS NEVER

[00:15:04]

ALLOWED IN THAT DISTRICT. AND SO, WE'RE NOT SURE, STAFF IS NOT SURE WHEN THAT POLE SIGN WAS ERECTED, THERE WAS A FOUNTAIN THERE AT ONE POINT IN TIME AND WHEN THE FOUNTAIN WENT AWAY, THE SIGN SHOWED UP. WE COPYEDIT FIND BUILDING PERMITS THAT WOULD

ALLOW THAT SIGN TO EXIST. >> IT WAS ACTUALLY IN THE FOUNTAIN. THE POLE WAS IN THE FOUNTAIN, IT HAD A TRIAD GLOBE ON TOP OF IT IN THE VERY BEGINNING BACK IN THE DAY.

>> YOU'RE SAYING THE OTHER SIGN THAT THIS IS REPLACING WAS NOT A

PERMITTED SIGN? >> IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A PERMITTED SIGN FOR OFFICE SEASONING.

>> SOMEBODY, HELP ME WITH HEARING THIS. I LOVE THE MASKS.

I'M HEARING IMPAIRED. >> IT IS NOT A PERMITTED SIGN

FOR OFFICE ZONING. >> FOR OFFICE ZONING IT WOULD

NOT BE A PERMITTED SIGN. >> BUT IT WAS ORIGINALLY

PERMITTED? >> THE FOUNTAIN WAS PERMITTED.

>> IT WAS NOT? >> YES.

>> OKAY. >> IT WAS NOT PERMITTED FOR

THAT. >> OKAY.

>> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> ALL RIGHT. YOU MAY BE SEATED.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANY PERSON OPPOSED TO THIS

REQUEST? >> WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC

HEARING AND HAVE OUR DISCUSSION. >>

(INAUDIBLE) >> IT IS IN ESSENCE A REPLACEMENT, LEGITIMATE OR NOT, BUT IT WAS THERE BEFORE. AND IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT APPLYING THE NEW STANDARDS AFTER THE LANDSCAPING, ET CETERA, WENT IN, AFTER THE ORIGINAL, WHEN THIS SIGN WAS THERE, I DON'T SEE A REAL OPTION THAN A POLE SIGN.

>> I THINK, I WOULD HATE TO SEE THE CREPE MYRTLES HAVE TO GO. I WOULD HATE TO SEE THE BUSHES HAVE TO GO.

>> IF A MONUMENT SIGN WAS PUT IN, WHICH WE DON'T LIKE TO DO IN

EAST TEXAS. >> THE ONLY THING I'M WONDERING ABOUT IS WHEN THAT FOUNTAIN WAS BUILT AND COMPLETED IN 1982, HOW DID THE ORIGINAL SIGN GET THERE. THAT'S IMMATERIAL TO THIS, BUT THAT'S STILL A QUESTION IN MY MIND. IN LOOKING AT THE INTERSECTION THERE, THIS IS A DIFFICULT INTERSECTION TO PUT ANYTHING LOWER IN THAT AREA IN MY OPINION BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT, A, THIS IS A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL AREA OUT HERE, THE SIGN ITSELF WILL NOT HAVE ANY DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS TO ANY OF THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH OR EAST ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET THERE, SINCE IT WILL BE BEHIND THE BUILDING.

AND I BELIEVE IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, TO LET PEOPLE KNOW, SINCE WE'RE COMING INTO THE FIRST MAJOR TRAFFIC INTERSECTION IN THE CITY OF ABILENE, SOMEONE'S LOOKING FOR SOMETHING, IT WOULD BE A LOT EASIER THAN SOME OF THESE MONUMENT SIGNS WHICH ARE VERY WELL BURIED BEHIND THE LANDSCAPING AND THINGS LIKE THAT. JUST MY THOUGHTS.

>> AND THE TWO POLES WOULD PROVIDE LETTER LOW VISIBILITY FROM A SAFETY ASPECT TO SEE THROUGH IT FROM MORE ANGLES THAN

A MONUMENT SIGN WOULD. >> I BELIEVE THAT TO BE A TRUE

STATEMENT, YES, SIR. >> MORE DISCUSSION?

>> IN THE FORM OF A MOTION, PLEASE.

>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS VARIANCE ON THE BASIS OF WHAT HAS ON THE BASIS OF THE PRESENTATION HERE TODAY AND ALSO THE FACT THAT I BELIEVE THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE SITUATION OF THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING AT THIS

POINT IN TIME. >> AND I SECOND THAT MOTION.

[00:20:01]

>> OKAY. MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. DO WE HAVE A

VOTE? >> MR. THOMAS?

>> YES. >> MR. ODLE?

>> YES. >> MR. LOUDERMILK?

>> YES. >> AND COLONEL LANGHOLTZ?

>> YES. AND THE MOTION CARRIE >> SECOND ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS

[ 4. BA-2021-10: Receive a Report and Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing on a request from KJack Holdings LLC for approval of a 16-foot Variance request to allow a lot width less than 60-feet wide within a Medium Density (MD) Zoning district, on .1414 acres of land at 926 Poplar Street in south-central Abilene. (Jared Smith)]

>> SECOND ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS 60-FEET WIDE WITHIN A MEDIUM DENSITY (MD) ZONING DISTRICT, ON .1414 ACRES OF LAND AT 926 POPLAR STREET IN SOUTH-CENTRAL ABILENE.

>> GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS JARED SMITH AND I WORK FOR THE ABILENE PLANNING AND ZONING SERVICE OFFICES. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS KJACK HOLDINGS LLC, THE QUESTION IS A 16 FOOT VARIANCE. ORDINARILY REQUIRED WITHIN THE MD, MEDIUM DENSITY ZONING DISTRICT. LOCATION IS 924, 926 POPLAR STREET. THE NORTH 44 FEET OF THE EAST 150 FEET OF WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY LOT FOUR OF THE GOW SUBDIVISION. CITY STAFF SENT OUT NOTIFICATION LETTERS AND RECEIVED ZERO RESPONSES IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION. HERE IS A LOCATION MAP SHOWING AN AERIAL IMAGINE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTED WITH THE YELLOW CROSS HATCHING.

AS YOU COULD SEE IN THIS IMAGE THERE'S A RESIDENTS SHOWING ON THAT LOT. IT IS NO LONGER THERE BUT IT REDATES BUILDING RECORDS AND WE DO HAVE SOME RECORDS OF AN ADDITION TO THAT RESIDENCE AS WELL AS A GARAGE. THAT WAS BETWEEN 1946-1952. AND IN 2019, THE CITY OF ABILENE CODE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT ISSUED A OPENED A CONDEMNATION CASE FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND IN 2020 DEMOLITION WAS PERMITTED FOR THE REMOVAL. THE REASON FOR THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS ULTIMATELY IT WAS A PORTION OF WHAT WAS LOT FOUR OF THE SUBDIVISION PRIOR TO A NEW RESIDENCE BEING PUT ON THAT LOT, THE PROPONENTS HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS AND BEFORE THE SUBDIVISION PLAT CAN BE APPROVED THEY HAVE TO BE GRANTED A VARIANCE ALLOWING A LOT AS NARROW AS 44 FEET IN WIDTH. HERE'S THE ZONING MAP SHOWING THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN THE MD MEDIUM DENSITY ZONING DISTRICT. THE ACTUAL HOME THAT THEY INTEND ON PUTTING ON THIS LOT. THIS EXHIBIT IS IMPORTANT. IT SHOWS THAT THE HOME ITSELF IS 30-FEET WIDE. SO, WITH A HOME THAT'S 30-FEET WIDE, YOU COULD CONCEIVABLY PUT THAT ON A LOT 44 FEET WIDE AND STILL MEET THE 6-FOOT MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED IN THE MD ZONING DISTRICT. A FEW PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE BOTTOM LEFT-HAND PHOTO IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ITSELF. THE TOP LEFT-HAND PHOTO IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD NORTH OF THE PHOTO IS THE NEIGHBOR TO THE AND THE BOTTOM ARE THE HOMES JUST EAST OF PAPLAR STREET. HERE'S NOTIFICATION MAP SHOWING THE EXTENT OF THE AREA. ONCE AGAIN ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WHO FALL WITHIN THESE 200 FOOTNOTE FICK INDICATION WERE NOTIFIED AND CITY STAFF RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR AND ZERO OF OPPOSITION.

THE BOARD SHOULD TAKE IN ACCOUNT THESE FOUR IN MAKING THEIR DETERMINATION. THE CITY STAFF BELIEVE THAT THE STRICT REQUIREMENT DOES CREATE A HARDSHIP FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER.

IT ESSENTIALLY RENDERS THEIR PROPERTY USELESS TO THEM IF WE ACTUALLY HOLD THEM TO THE 60 FOOT LOT WIDTH, THE LOT ITSELF WILL REMAIN UNDEVELOPED FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE AND ONLY OF USE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE SOUTH, IF THEY WERE TO PURCHASE IS AND ABSORB IT IF YOU WOULD BY VIRTUE OF A REPLATTE. THE

[00:25:04]

REASON WE HAVE THESE MINIMUM LOT WIDTHS AND DEPTHS IS TO PROMOTE SOME LEVEL OF OPEN SPACE THAT IS DESIRED IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. OUR SMALLEST SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT IS RS-6 WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 6,000 SQUARE FEET.

BY GRANTING THIS VARIANCE, EVEN THOUGH YOU WOULD BE ALLOWING A LOT WHICH IS 44 FEET WIDE, THE OVERALL SIZE OF THIS LOT IS STILL LARGER THAN 6,000 SQUARE FEET, IT'S JUST OVER 6100 SQUARE FEET, SO IT STILL MEETS THE INTENT OF PROMOTING AN OVERALL OPEN STATE WITHIN THIS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND FURTHER MORE IT WOULD ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO PUT A NEW HOME IN THIS AREA WHICH IS A GREAT USE FOR THE CITY OF ABILENE. WE WANT TO TRY TO PROMOTE INFIELD DEVELOPMENT. IT WOULD BE A SHAME TO SEE IT UNDEVELOPED FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE PERTAINING TO THIS VARIANCE REQUEST AT THIS TIME.

>> ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> NO QUESTIONS.

>> NO. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> NICE PRESENTATION. THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. WILL THE PROPONENT COME TO THE MIC AND STATE YOUR

NAME. >> I'M MA IT, T WE'RE AND I'M THE REPRESENTATIVE OF KJACK HOLDINGS LLC. LAKE JARED STATED IT WAS CONDEMNED, IT WAS PREVIOUSLY A 2,000 SQUARE FOOT DUPLEX IT LOOKED LIKE IT HAD BEEN ADDED ON OVER TIME. IT WAS IN AN ADVANCE STATE OF DISREPAIR, NEEDED A REPLUM, REELECTRIC, FOUNDATION, ROOFING, SIDING. THIS IS ONE OF OUR FIRST HOUSES TO HAVE DONE A NEW BUILD ON. WE WERE NOT AWARE THAT THERE WAS A 60-FOOT MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR LOTS. WE SEISMED SINCE THERE WAS ALREADY PROPERTY ON THERE, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD BACK WITH A NEWER ONE. WE PROCEEDED WITH THE DEMONSTRATE POLITICIAN AND WENT THROUGH THE REPLATTING PROCESS AND DURING THAT PROCESS WE WERE NOTIFIED THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD. WE WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO A 1450 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING NEW BUILD.

>> SINGLE FAMILY THIS TIME? > YES, SIR.

>> I BELIEVE DUE TO THE AMOUNT OF DWELLINGS PER ACRE WOULD NOT ALLOW ANY SORT OF DUPLEX IN THAT AREA, SO....

>> QUESTIONS? >> DO YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE A

UPDATED PLAT PLAN? >> SO, GEO TECH IS WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW. THIS IS MY FIRST TIME HAVING TO DO A REPLATTE T THROUGH MY CORRESPONDENCE WITH THEM, I HAD TO GET THE VARIANCE APPROVED. I HAVE TO GET THE VARIANCE REQUEST IN FIRST BEFORE GEO TECH CAN FINISH THE PLATTING PROCESS.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK, Y'ALL. >> ANYONE OPPOSED, COME

FORWARD. >> OKAY. I CLOSE THE HEARING

AT THIS TIME. DISCUSSION? >> I KNOW MY QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED DURING THE INITIAL PRESENTATION. THE WAY THAT I TOOK IT IS IF THIS IS DENIAL THEN WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER EMPTY LOT IN THE INFIELD. WHICH I THINK IS

SHAME. >> I THINK THAT WOULD BE RIDICULOUS, AND THIS IS THE ONLY KIND OF THING THAT WOULD GO

THERE. >> MY ASSUMPTION WOULD BE THAT THE RULES, THE 60-FOOT LOT IS MORE SET FOR A NEW SUBDIVISION GOING IN AS OPPOSED TO SOMETHING ALREADY EXISTING. THERE'S NOTHING ELSE THAT CAN GO THERE. YOU LOOK AT THE IMAGERY, YOU GOT OVERGROWN BUSHES AND WEEDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THE DEMOLITION. AND THAT'S JUST GOING TO BE A HINDRANCE TO EVERYBODY AROUND THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. I MEAN, I FIND ZERO REASON TO FEEL LIKE THAT THIS WOULD BE ANYTHING NEGATIVE FOR OUR CITY, BUT ALL POSITIVE.

>> I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET RID OF A N

[00:30:17]

NUISANCE. >> YOU KNOW, THIS DOES START THINGS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND A WILL THE OF PEOPLE WILL

FOLLOW. >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> HOPEFULLY. >> I'M VERY OPTIMISTIC ABOUT

THAT RIGHT THERE. >> LOVE IT.

>> ANYBODY ELSE? >> I NEED A MOTION.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GRANT THIS VARIANCE. YOU KNOW, BASED OFF THE DISCUSSIONS AND PRESENTATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO US AND WE ALLOW KJACK HOLDINGS LLC TO PROCEED WITH THEIR DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY.

>> I'D LIKE TO SECOND THAT MOTION.

>> OKAY. WE'VE HAD A MOTION AND A SECOND. TAKE A VOTE.

>> MR. THOMAS? >> YES.

>> MR. ODLE? >> YES.

>> MR. LOUDERMILK? >> YES.

>> AND COLONEL LANGHOLTZ? >> YES.

>> AND THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIES.

>> THERE'S NO OTHER BUSINESS AT THIS POINT, SOMEBODY GIVE ME A MOTION OR ADJO

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.