[INVOCATION]
[00:00:07]
>>> THANK YOU FOR THE DAY AND THANK YOU FOR THE NEW YEAR AND WE THANK YOU THAT WE CAN LIVE IN A CITY THAT DOES THE THINGS IT THE DOES AND GIVES US THE ABILITIES AND THE ENGAGEMENT AND EXCITEMENT AND PLEASURE THAT WE BRING TO THAT AND WE ASK THAT YOU BLESS US IS THAT WE MAY DO
YOUR SERVICE. AMEN. >>> IF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS THE FINAL MAJORITY OF THE FOR THE APPROVAL OF PLANS ONLY AS RECOMMENDED BY THE BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL, THE DECISIONS THIS BOARD MAY APPLY TO THE CITY COUNCIL THROUGH THE OFFICE NO LATER THAN TEN DAYS FROM THE DAYS OF THIS MEETING, ALL DEALS MUST BE IN WRITING.
THOSE WISHING TO BE HEARD SHALL APPROACH THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND WOUND PURPOSE FOR APPEARING. EACH SPEAKER IS LIMITED TO TEN MINUTES.
[MINUTES]
THE FIRST ITEM IS THE MINUTES IN OUR PACKET. DID EVERYBODY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE? ANY COMMENTS OR CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE? THIS CALLS FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE CARE TO COMMENT ON THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING? SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THAT.DO I HEAR A MOTION? >> MOTION TO APPROVE. >>
[PLATS]
>>> THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS PLATTEDS. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS JARED SMITH CITY WORK FOR ADVANCE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.
THERE'S ONLY ONE PLAT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, IT IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF CIMARRON MEADOWS SECTION TWO, PRELIMINARILILY LAYING OUT 169 LOTS ON THE EAST SIDE OF MAPLE STREET THIS. PLAT WAS REVIEWED AND FOUND IT WAS CONSISTENT PER CHAPTER THREE ARTICLE TWO OF OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT COAT AND THE DRC IS REPRESENTING APPROVAL TO YOU ALL TODAY.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE AT THIS TIME. >> THANKS, JARED.
>>> I'LL OPEN IT FOR PUBLIC HEARING. ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO SPEAK TO THIS PLAT? SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO I HEAR A NOTION? FURTHER SUGGESTION. >> I MOVE TO APPROVE.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE? >> SECOND. >> SENTED.
>> MOST FOR APPROVAL OF THE PLAT. MR. BARNETT . . .
THIS COMMISSION HAS SEVEN MEMBERS ON IT AND YOU ONLY HAVE FOUR HERE TODAY.
ARE ANY GOING FORWARD TO BE APPROVED IT TAKES FOUR VOTES SO IF WE HAVE A SPLIT VOTE WOULD IT
BE A DENIAL? >> YES. >> SO YOU CAN ASK TO TABLE YOUR CASE UNTIL NEXT MONTH WHEN WE HAVE FOUR OR MORE THAN FOUR COMMISSIONERS OR WE CAN PROCEED ON WITH IT. SO JUST BE ATHEIR WE HAVE FOUR TODAY AND IT WILL TAKE A
UNANIMOUS VOTE TO MOVE FORWARD. >> TAKE CARE OF THAT WHEN GET THERE.
[ZONING]
>> FIRST ON THE CASE TODAY IS Z 2021-38. COUNCIL [INDISCERNIBLE] SPECIAL HOLDINGS TO AMEND THE TERMSES AND CONDITIONS [INDISCERNIBLE] NORTH AND SOUTH EAST BOUNDARIES OF TRACT RESTAURANT IT'S OCCUPIED AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AND BUILDING.
I BELIEVE WE NEED TO MOVE THIS TO THE TABLE. >> I'LL MOTION TO REMOVE IT FROM
THE TABLE. >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR.
>> ONCE AGAIN MY NAME IS JARED SMITH. I'LL BE PRESENTING Z 2021-38.
THE PROPERTY IS EXCEPTIONAL HOLDING LP REPRESENTED BY MICHAEL BURTON, THE REQUESTED TO AMEND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFICALLY AS THEY PERTAIN TO SCREENING THE PARKING LOTS AND VEHICLE MANEUVERING AREAS AT THE SITE OF MIGUEL'S, LOCATION IS 2901 -- 3001 SOUTH DANVILLE DRIVER CITY SENT NOTIFICATION LETTERS TO ALL OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET AND RECEIVED TWO RESPONSES IN FAVOR AND THREE OPPOSEED. HERE'S THE LOCATION MAP SHARING AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. WE ARE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
[00:05:05]
NORTH DANVILLE DRIVE: ONCE AGAIN CURRENTLY THIS IS THE SITE OF MIGUEL'S.CURRENT ZONING MAP SHOWING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS PRESENTLY WITHIN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH ARE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND THEN OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE FRONTAGE ROADS AS WELL. SO THIS COMMISSION DID HEAR THIS REQUEST LAST MONTH AS YOU STATED, IT'S THE REASON FOR YOUR UNTABLING OF THIS CASE.
THE INITIAL REQUEST WAS TO REMOVE THE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS, CURRENTLY THE PD REQUIRES AN EVERGREEN HEDGE WITH A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF EIGHT FEET TO BE MAINTAINED ON THE NORTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND THE EASTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY IN AN EFFORT TO SCREEN THE PARKING LOTS AND THE VEHICLE MANEUVERING THE AREAS FOLLOWING THE FREEZE FROM LAST YEAR, THOSE MENTALES HAVE DIED AND THEY'VE BEEN REMOVED AND THE INITIAL REQUEST WAS TO REMOVE THIS REQUIREMENT ENTIRELY, WHAT LED TO THE TABLING OF THAT REQUEST IS YOUR THIS REQUEST FOR THE APPLICANT TO GET WITH CITY STAFF TO COME ONE A COMPROMISE OR AGREEMENT THAT WE CAN BOTH AGREE ON.
SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS THAT COMPROMISE, IT IS THE NEW AMENDMENT, THE LANGUAGE THAT WILL BE ADDED TO THE PD SO WE'LL REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT OF THAT HEDGE AND ADD THIS REQUIREMENT TO HAVE A THREE FIT HEDGE OR A BERM OR A FENCE OR A WALL ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND THE EASTERN T PRO-BOUNDARY WHETHER A PARKING LOT, PARKING SPACES OR VEHICLE MANEUVERING AREAS ARE PRESENT IN AN EFFORT TO SCREEN THE PARKING LOTS AND PARKED VEHICLE.
THIS IS A STANDARD THAT IS ORDINARILY APPLIED IN THE STIFF OF ABILENE ELSEWHERE WITH COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS SO WE'RE JUST REITERATING THAT IN THIS PD DISTRICT.
HERE ARE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES AS WELL AS GIANT PROPERTIES, THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAND PHOTO IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THIS IS TRACT ONE THE PDS WORKING TWO TRACTS, TRACT ONE AND TRACTED TWO. TRACT TWO IS THE TRANSPLANT THAT HAS THE MIGUEL'S ON IT.
TRACTS ONE IS A TRACT THAT IS TO REMAIN AN OPEN SPACE OR OPEN AREA, IT IS TO REMAIN UNDEVELOPED FOR RECREATION PURPOSES AND THEN THE REMAINING PHOTOS ARE THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTS WHICH ARE ON THE NORTH AND EAST SIDE ORGANIZATION THIS HAVE PROPERTY.
CITY STAFF SENT OUT NOTIFICATION LETTERS TO OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND WE DID RECEIVE THE THREE RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION ILLUSTRATED WITH THE REDOUTSES
HERE AND TWO IN FAVOR WHICH ARE ILLUSTRATED WITH THE GREEN DOTS. >> THIS IS PRIOR --
>> YES, THESE ARE THE SAME INDIVIDUALS WHO RESPONDED IN OPPOSITION ORIGINALLY.
THIS REQUEST WAS FOUND TO BE QUANTITY WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP AND REVIEWED PURSUANT TO SECTION 1414 OF OUR O LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND CITY STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO YOU ALL THIS AFTERNOON. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR JARED? ALL RIGHT.
APPRECIATE IT JARED. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO COME STANLEY CUP ADDRESS THE UP AND ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE
MIGHT BE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> I THINK LOOKING IT WILL LAND USE REQUIREMENTS AND WHAT THEY COME UP WITH IN THIS AGREEMENT I THINK IT THE TREE TRILY MEETS THE INTENT. NOT BEING ABLE TO BE DEVELOPED YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT MET AND I THINK WITH THE LOW HEDGE, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD COMPROMISE.
>>> AND IT DOES GIVE US THE SCREENING ON WISTERIA DRIVE I BELIEVE IT IS.
>> CORRECT. >> I THINK IT'S A GOOD COMPROMISE.
>>> I MOTION TO APPROVE. I THINK THEY DID EVERYTHING WE ASKED THEM TO DO.
I THINK IT'S TAKEN. >> SO THAT A NOTION TO APPROVE. >> YES, SIR.
>> SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND A SECOND. >>
>>> ROLL CALL VOTE.] THERE SHALL. >>> THE MOTION TO APPROVE
CARRIES. >>> ZONING CASE C 202201. ZONING FOR AGRICULTURAL SPACE TO
[00:10:07]
PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IT WOULD CORNER OF HAMPDEN ROAD AND FAIR WAY OAKS BOULEVARD.>> ONCE AGAIN I'M JARED SMITH. I WILL BE PRESENTING Z 22-01, HAPPY TO HEAR EVERYONE.
THE THE PROPERTY IS LEE YOUNG AND [INDISCERNIBLE] REPRESENTED BY AGENT JACOB AND MARTIN IS THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, THIS WILL SPECIFICALLY BE PD NUMBER 175. THE PD WILL ESSENTIALLY FUNCTION LIKE A GENERAL RETAIL ZONING CLASSIFICATION WITH THE ALLOW ANSWER OF LANDSCAPING CONTRACTOR SERVICE THAT'S A USE THAT IS ORDINARILY NOT ALLOWED IN GENERAL RETAIL ZONING.
IN ADDITION EC THAT BASE ZONING OF GR THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS PERTAINING TO THE SCREENING AND STORAGE OF MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT THAT MAY BE ASSOCIATE WITH THE THOSE CONTRACTOR SERVICES. THE LOCATION IS 6325 FAIR IT'S FAIR WAY OAKS BOULEVARD, SENT NOTIFICATION LETTERS TO OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET AND WE RECEIVED ONE RESPONSE IN FAVOR AND TWO IN OPPOSITION. EXCUSE ME, I'M SORRY. HERE IS A LOCATION MAP SHOWING AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE PROPERTY, WE ARE THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ANTLY ROAD AND FAIR WAY OAKS BOULEVARD. CURRENT ZONING MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN AGRICULTURAL DEFENSE DEFENSE ATTORNEYING CLARK AND TO THE NORTH IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PD NUMBER FOUR COMMONLY REFERRED TO FAIR WAYS PD AND WITHIN THAT THERE ARE TOWNHOMES AS WELL AS SOME SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND OFFICES. TO THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE OF FAIR WAY OAKS BOULEVARD ARE PATIO HOMES AND SOMETHING TO NOTE IS WE ARE AT THE INTERSECTION OF A COLLECTOR ROAD AND ANTEDLY ROAD WHICH IS A MAJOR ARTERIAL ROAD. THE INTERSECTIONS A PROMOTE FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS AND COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS WHICH IS THE REASON FOR STAFF'S FAVORABLE APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST AT THIS TIME. HERE'S A FLOOD MAP SHOWING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY WITHIN A FLOOD HAZARD AREAS AS WELL AS THE FLOODWAY, WHITE THEA IN BLUE. THE AREA IN ORANGE SATELLITE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN AND THE RED IS THE 500 YEAR FLOODPLAIN SO THE MAJORITY OF THIS SITE IS INUNDATED WITH SOME TYPE OF FORM HAZARD AREA. AND THE PERMITTED USE SLIDE SHOWING ALL THE USES THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE A BASE ZONING OF GENERAL RETAIL AS IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN.
AND HERE'S A GRAPHIC CONCEPT PLAN WHICH IS PROVIDED BY THE AGENT OF THE APPLICANT F ESSENTIALLY SHOWING THE LAYOUT OF THIS SITE WHAT WE MAY EXAMINE TO SEE IF THIS ZONING AND APPROVED AND DEVELOPMENT DOES OCCUR ON THIS SITE. PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS WELL AS SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, THE TOP LEFT HAND PHOTO IS A PHOTO OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THAT'S TAKEN FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ANTLY ROAD AND FAIR WAY OAK BOULEVARD.
THE TOP RIGHT HAND PHOTO IS LOOKING AND ON THE RIGHT SAND SIDE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ON THE LEFT SIDE IS THE LANDSCAPED MEDIAN AND JUST FURTHER LEFT ARE THE HOMES WITHIN THE PATIO HOME DISTRICT. THE BOTTOM PHOTOS SHOW THE EXISTING OFFICES ON ANTLY ROAD AS WELL AS THE TOWNHOMES AND THEN THE BOTTOM RIGHT HASN'T PHOTO ACTUALLY SHOWS THE INTERSECTION OF ANTLY ROAD AND FAIR WAY OAKS BOULEVARD. NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MAP SHOWING THE EXTEND OF THE 200 FIT NO FURTHER QUESTIONS AREA, ONCE AGAIN CITY STAFFER SENT NERVOUS LETTERS TO OWNERS OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THIS 200-FOOT AREA AND WE RECEIVED TWO RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION WHICH IS INDICATED BY THE RID DOTS AND ONE IN FAVOR WHICH IS INDICATED BY THE GREEN DOT. STAFF DID FIND THIS REQUEST WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FUTURE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP, IT WAS REVIEWED PURSUANT TO SECTION 1414 OF OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES CAN THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL AND CITY STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO ALL THIS AFTERNOON. EACH HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE AT THIS TIME. >>> [INDISCERNIBLE] I DID NOT GET ANYTHING IN WRITING, JUST THE SLIPS RETURNS THAT THEY WERE IN OPPOSITION.
>> SO DOES THIS LOOKS TO BE A CHALLENGING SETUP. >> SO IT'S MINE THE AGENT DID HAVE SOME PRELIMINARY CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR CITY ENGINEER.
IT WILL BE A CHALLENGE, WHICH IS PART OF THE REASON WHY IT'S BEEN VACANT FOR SINCE THE DAWN OF
[00:15:04]
TIME, SO THEY WILL NEED TO DO SOME SORT OF STUDY, SOME SORT OF FLOODWAY STUDY TO FIGURE HOW MUCH OF THE SITE IS DEVELOPABLE, BUT YES THE GRAPHIC CONCEPT PLAN THAT THEY PROVIDED SHOWS THE BUILDINGS BEING ENTIRELY OUT OF THE FLOODWAY BUT THE PARKING AREAS WILL BE ACCORDING TO HOW FEMA HAS THE FLOODWAY ALIGNED TODAY SOME OF THAT WILL BE WITHIN THE FLOODWARE SO THAT WILL REQUIRE SOME SORT OF FLOODWAY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THAT TO TAKE PLACE.BUT AGAIN TALA IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE REGARDING THAT.
>> THANKS, JARED, ANYTHING ELSE? THANK YOU. >> I'LL OPEN IT TO PUBLIC HEAR
ING. >> MY NAME IS DONNA WILLIAMSON, I LIVE -- THE BACK OF MY HOUSE IF WOULD BE THE EAST SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY WHERE THE MEDIAN IS.
YOU SEE THERE IN THE BOULEVARD OF FAIR WAY OAKS, I'M THE FIRST HOUSE AS YOU COME INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE RIGHT. I WASN'T AWARE THAT I WAS SUPPOSED TO VOTE BEFORE COMING TO THIS MEETING BUT -- BECAUSE WE THOUGHT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO GET MORE INFORMATION HERE.
IF POSSIBLE, I WOULD LIKE A COPY OF THE TWO PAGES THAT WERE SHOWN WITH THE TINY PRINT ON IT ON WHAT BUSINESSES ARE AMENABLE IN THIS AREA BECAUSE THAT IS PART OF OUR CONCERN.
AND -- >> CAN YOU PUT THAT BACK UP THERE, JARED?
>> I MEAN, I REALIZE I'M OLDER BUT THAT'S REALLY HARD TO READ. AND IN LIGHT OF APPROXIMATELY ONLY THE NORTHEAST TWO ACRES OUT OF THAT 12.94 ACRES IN IN IS READILY BUILDABLE DUE TO THE FLOODING ISSUES. WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS. ALSO ABOUT THE HOURS, ARE THERE GOING TO BE LIMITS ON THE HOURS OF OPERATION. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT LIGHTING FROM THIS AREA IS GOING TO BE DOWNWARD AND NOT IMPACT OUR HOMES, LIKE THAT HIDEOUS NEON SIGN OUT ON ANTLY ROAD. ALSO A FENCE THAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT.
NOW, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IT'S -- THAT I SAYING ANYWHERE FROM EIGHT TO TEN -- NO, NINE TO TEN FEET MASONRY INTELLIGENCE ON -- FENCE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY.
BUT SITTING HERE I UNDERSTAND THE PROPERTY OVER AT MIGUEL'S THAT STARTED OUT BEING TALLER SHRUBS IS NOW REDUCED TO THREE FEET AT ACCEPTABLE, AND I JUST HAVE CONCERNS.
I HAVE CONCERNS. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THIS BE TABLED UNTIL FURTHER STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE ON THE FLOODING ISSUES, AND ALSO WHAT KIND OF BUSINESSES WOULD BE COMING IN HERE. WE ARE VERY MUCH A QUIET, RESPECTABLE HOUSING AREA THERE, AND WE WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO REMAIN THAT WAY. WE UNDERSTAND THAT A BUSINESS MIGHT GO IN OTHER THERE BUT WE'RE JUST VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE QUESTION MARK OF OTHER RETAIL BUSINESSES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
>>> JARED, DO YOU MIND ADDRESSING THE HOURS OF OPERATION AND THE LIGHTING?
[00:20:02]
>> YES, SO IN GENERAL RETAIL, WHICH IS THE BASE ZONING THIS PD WILL DEFAULT BACK TO, THE THERE'S NO LIMIT TO THE HOURS OF OPERATION, IT CAN THEORETICALLY BE A 24 HOUR LANDSCAPING CONTRACTOR SERVICE. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE BUSINESS THAT OPERATES HERE. I CAN'T CONFIRM THAT, THE ONCE AGAIN TALA IS HERE TO ADDRESS THAT AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED BUSINESS OWNER. AS FAR AS THE LIGHTING GOES ANY SORT OF DEVELOPMENT HAS TO MEET ABILENE'S CURRENT LIGHTING STANDARDS WHICH HAS THAT THEY HAVE TO BE DIRECTED DOWNWARD AND NOT HAVE ANY LIGHT SPILL OVER GLARING INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS AND THE GIANT RESIDENTIAL ZONING IF DISTRICTS. BUT THEY WILL BE HELD TO THE
SAME LYING STANDARDS AS ANYONE ELSE IN THE CITY OF ABILENE. >>> SO AS FAR AS BUILDING
SETBACK OFF OF FAIRWAY OAKS AND -- >> SO THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
SO ONCE AGAIN THIS SITE IS GREATLY IMPACTED BY THE FLOOD HAZARD AREAS TYPICALLY SPEAKING, THE MINIMUM BUILDING SET BACKS FOR A MAJOR ARTERIAL ROAD SUCH AS ANTLY IS 30 FEET AND FROM FAIR WAY OAKS IT'S GOING TO BE 20. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS IS DIMENSIONALLY BUT IF NOTHING IS IN TEEN THE BUILDING FACADE AND THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY SO NO PARKING ESSENTIALLY IS WHAT I MEAN BY THAT, THEY CAN REDUCE THE BUILDING SETBACK TO 15 FEET, WHICH WOULD HELP THEM MAKE USE OF THIS SITE. SO YES I'M I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE DIMENSION IS AS ILLUSTRATED BUT IT COULD BE AS CLOSE AS 15 FEET AS CURRENTLY ILLUSTRATED WITH NO
PARKING. >>> [INDISCERNIBLE] NO. NOT WHEN YOU'RE ACROSS A RIGHT OF WAY. WHENEVER YOU'RE ACROSS A RIGHT OF THE LAND USE BUFFER DOES NOT COME INTO PLAY BUT WHAT DOES COME INTO PLAY HERE IS AS OUR STANDARD THAT BEING 'EM BODILY FLUID EMPLOYED AT MIGUELS WHERE PARKING AREAS HAVE TO BE SCREENED SO THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE HOMES ON THE EAST SIDE OF FAIR WAY OAKS BOULEVARD BY SOME FORM OF HEDGE, WALL,
INTELLIGENCE, LANDSCAPING BERM, SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. >>> THANKS.
>> THANK YOU >>> ANYONE ELSE? >>> GOOD AFTERNOON, AGENT FOR THE DEVELOPER. THIS ZONING REQUEST IS TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW EXTREME [INDISCERNIBLE], MAKE NO MISTAKE THIS IS GOING TO BE A HIGH PEND DEVELOPMENT.
CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE AREA.
QUITE HONESTLY I THINK ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OFWAY WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD ALLOWABILITY TO SEE IN YOUR BACK BACKYARDS.
THAT'S THE KIND OF PRODUCT THEY PRODUCE, I KNOW THE FACILITIES THEY INTEND TO BE HERE ARE GOING TO BE NO EXCEPTION. YES, THE SITE HAS SOME ISSUES WITH IT.
NOT ONLY DO WE HAVE A FLOODPLAIN BUT WE HAVE A GAS LINE THAT RUNS THROUGH THE PROPERTY.
WE WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE DRAINAGE ISSUES AND WE TAKEN THAT INTO ACCOUNT.
WE HAVE HAD SOME PRELIMINARY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CITY ENGINEER.
THERE IS LIMITED SPACE AVAILABLE,, IT HAS A DEFINED FLOODPLAIN AND CERTAINLY WE CAN DEVELOP WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN AREA AND AND JARED IS RIGHT WE INTEND TO TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF THE SETBACKS THAT ARE ALLOWED THERE AT 15 FEET AND WILL NOT PROVIDE ANYTHING BUT LANDSCAPING BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE PARKWAY OR THE RIGHT OF WAY. THERE IS A RETAIL SIDE TO THE BUSINESS. IT IS NOT AS COMPARED TO MOST RETAIL IT'S NOT A SIGNIFICANT SOURCE OF TRAFFIC, I KNOW THEY WANT THIS TO BE SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ONLY ATTRACTIVE TO THE O NEIGHBORHOOD BUT ATTRACTIVE TO THEIR CLIENTS THAT COME AND USE THE FACILITY, WE'RE GOING TO
HIRE THEM TO DO A PROJECT AT THEIR OWN HOUSE. >> WOULD YOU MIND POINTING OUT -- IT'S HARD TO DIAL IN -- WOULD YOU MIND TELLING THE PUBLIC WHAT THE PURPLE AND YELLOW ARE
>> THE PURPLE ARE ACTUAL STRUCTURES, ENCLOSED BUILDINGS. THE YELLOW AREA WOULD BE THEIR PRIMARY RETAIL OUTDOOR STORAGE OR RETAIL PATIO. IF YOU'VE BEEN TO THEIR FACILITY
[00:25:02]
HERE IT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THAT BUT I THINK A LEVEL UP. AND IN THE BOTTOM LEFT CORNER, CERTAINLY WITH THEIR BUSINESS, THERE IS SOME LIGHT EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL, A TEMPORARY MATERIAL STORAGE INVOLVED AS THEY MOVE IT FROM THE SUPPLIER TO THEIR SITE AND THEIR WORK SPACE. THE BENT IS TO FULLY SHIELD THAT AND YOU'LL SEE THAT REPRESENTED IN THE PD. WE WORKED WITH STAFF TO GET THIS PD WRITTEN SO THAT -- BECAUSE I KNEW THAT WOULD BE A CONCERN. WE ALL DID AND THEIR INTENT IS TO FULLY SHIELD THAT, YOU PULL UP TO THE SITE AND DRIVE DOWN ANTLY YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THAT.IT WILL BE FULLY SHIELDED. THE INTEND IS TO STORE THAT IN THAT BOTTOM LEFT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. CERTAINLY A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE SITE IS NOT USABLE, I MEAN, IT CAN'T BE USED FOR ANYTHING BUT JUST VEGETATION AND THAT'S THE WAY IT'S GOING TO REMAIN. IF ANYTHING I THINK THEY WOULD IMPROVE THAT VEGETATION TO MATCH
WHAT THEY INTEND TO DO AROUND THEIR BUILDINGS PROPER. >> WHAT IS THE BLACK AREA THERE?
>> SO THAT WOULD BE THE THE BUILDING ON THE SOUTH END, ENCLOSED STRUCTURE, THAT WOULD BE A TEMPORARY YARD OR STORAGE AREA FOR MATERIALS THAT WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY LEAVING THE SITE.
AGAIN, FULLY ENCLOSED. NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN SEE FROM THE EXTERIOR.
UPPED HAVE TO WALK THROUGH A GATE TO BE ABLE TO SEE THAT. THERE IS ONE ITEM IN THE PD AS WRITTEN THAT I WOULD ASK TO BE REMOVED. I DO NOT -- AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS I DO NOT BELIEVE IT TO BE A LAND USISH. I THINK STAFF WAS ATTEMPTING TO ADDRESS ANY FLOODWAY OR FLOOD PLANE ISSUES THAT EXIST WITH THIS PROPERTY.
CITY CODE AND ALL THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE ENGINEERING REQUIRE US TO DEAL WITH THAT. THERE IS A PROCESS ALREADY IN PLACE.
JUST IT WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT TO ADD LANGUAGE TO THIS PD TO SAY WELL THIS IS REQUIRED.
WELL THE SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED, THERE'S NO REASON TO INCLUDE IT IN THE BIRTHDAY SO I REQUEST THAT BE REMOVED. THERE IS EC NEED TO REFERENCE THE FLOODWAY OR FLOODPLAIN, WE ALL KNOW IT IS THERE, THIS IS STRICTLY DEALING WITH LAND USE. OTHER THAN THAT WE'RE GOOD WITH THE PD. I THINK IT ACCOMPLISHES EVERYTHING THAT MY CLIENT WANTS TO DO ON-SITE. WE SELECTED RETAIL AS THE ZONING, AGAIN, WITH STAFF.
WE'RE NOT USING THAT GENERAL RETAIL FOR THE UNDERLYING USES. THOSE ARE REALLY IRRELEVANT.
WE'RE USING THAT FOR SETBACK ASKS REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTANCE OUTDOO STORAGE CAN BE AWAY FROM THE BUILDINGS. THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER RULES THAT ARE TIED TO ZONINGS THAN JUST USES AND OUR BESOTS GENERAL RETAIL IS FOR THAT REASON. WE ADDED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SERVICES, THAT'S OUR ONLY USE SO THAT'S WHY WE SET THE PD UP THE WAY WE DID.
CERTAINLY WE BELIEVE THE ZONING IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS LOCATION AND WE DO ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
>> DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC PARAGRAPH IN THAT PD? >> NUMBER SIX.
>> SORRY, MY COMPUTER LOCKED UP HERE. >>> AND JARED AND I HAD A CONVERSATION AND BRAD, OTHERWISE I WOULD HAVE BEEN WITH YOU AT CITY HALL.
HE REMINDED ME WHEN WE ARE HERE TODAY, SO THANK YOU JARED, WE HAD A CONVERSATION RIGHT BEFORE LUNCH TODAY. THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE THAT I SAW THERE I THINK HAD BEEN MODIFIED BASED SON ON INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF. I'M NOT SURE THE WAY IT READS
BUT IT THINK IT SHOULD BE REMOVED AND THAT'S OUR REQUEST. >>> SO AGAIN, I'M NOT SEEING
WHAT YOU'RE SPECIFICALLY REFERENCING IN THE PD. >> PARAGRAPH NUMBER SIX.
>> IN THESE REQUIREMENTS -- >> YES, IT'S JUST AFTER FIVE. IT SHOULD SAY SOMETHING TO THE
[00:30:04]
EFFECT OF -- >> SAYS USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF A LA PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -- [INDISCERNIBLE] WHICH IS THAT ATTACHED HERE TO AND MADE PART OF THIS ORDINANCE FOR ALL PURPOSES . . .
IT DOESN'T -- SOMETHING WAS LOST. THERE IS ITEM SIX, WHICH PREVIOUSLY STATED AS HE INDICATED THERE IS A PROHIBITION AGAINST STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS AS WELL AS FENCING, WITH SOLID INTELLIGENCE WITHIN THE FLOODWAY, AND FOLLOWING CONVERSATION WITH [INDISCERNIBLE] I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH PUBLIC WORKS AND I THINK WHAT WE DECIDED TO DO WAS MODIFY THAT RATHER THAN ADDING PROHIBITION, HAVE A -- ESSENTIALLY SAYING THE STORAGE OF QUILT EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS MUST COMPLY WITH CITY STANDARDS WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO GIVE A FLOODWAY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO STORE MATERIALS FOR MORE THAN 180 DAYS OF THE CALENDAR YEAR AS WELL AS FENCE ANY TYPE OF -- [INDISCERNIBLE] ANY KIND OF FENCING. WHOEVER PULLS THE PD IS MADE AWARE THAT THERE IS SIGNIFICANT FLOODPLAINS AND FLOODING [INDISCERNIBLE] PROBABLY CONSULT WITH THE ENGINEER'S OFFICE AS TO WHAT TO DO AND NOT TO DO [INDISCERNIBLE].
>>> SO IT'S ACTUAL PARAGRAPH 4 AND SAYS STORAGE OF MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT AND/OR . . .
>>> SORRY. >> IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?
>> YES, SIR. >> SO I'VE ACTUALLY SEEN THIS IN USE AND I KNOW -- I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID, BUT I LIKE THIS BEING IN THERE JUST FROM THE PERSPECTIVE THAT IT DOES WHAT JARED SAYS. IT POINTS OUT THAT IF THERE IS FLOODWAY ISSUES AND THEY DON'T
WANT YOU BUILDING IN THERE. >> BUT THAT EXISTS IN THE CODE ALREADY.
YOU CAN'T BUILD IN THE FLOODWAY. >> WELL, BUT THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ZONING, WHETHER THE ZONING REITERATES AN EXISTING RULE OR IT DOESN'T, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR PERSPECTIVE, BUT I'LL HAVE TO AGREE TO DISAGREE WITH YOU. OUR REQUEST IS TO REMOVE THAT.
THERE'S A FLOODWAY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS IN PLACE. WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT.
YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BUILT INSIDE FLOODWARE WHERE THE ZONING SAYS IT OR NOT.
IF ANYBODY IS BUILDING IN THE FLOODWAY, THEY SHOULDN'T, THEY'RE BREAKING THE RULE AND AS CITY STAFF IDENTIFIES THAT THEY SHOULD FOLLOW UP ON IT. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION IT'S NOT A
PART OF LAND USE WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. >>> ANYTHING ELSE?
APPRECIATE IT. >> THANK YOU ALL. I APPRECIATE IT.
>> ANYTHING ELSE ANYBODY WANTS TO ADDRESS? >> CITY MANAGER, IT'S OUR INTENTION THAT THEY CAN'T HEAR US ON TV SO WHEN YOU'RE UP HERE SPEAKING IF YOU WOULD PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU'RE TALKING INTO THE MICROPHONE, JUST A POINT OF CLARITY SIR IF YOU DON'T MIND.
>>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ANYONE ELSE? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SOME DISCUSSION HERE I GUESS. YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S CHALLENGES HERE AND I THINK THEY'VE DONE A GOOD JOB AT MILLIGRAMMING THE CHALLENGES. YOU KIND OF HAVE TO DIVE INTO THE PD WHICH I DON'T KNOW I THINK JARED YOU DIDN'T HAVE A BULLET ITEM KIND OF THING THAT WENT THROUGH ALL THIS, YOU HAVE TO READ THROUGH THE BIRTHDAY TO UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT COVERS EVERYTHING, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE IN DISAGREEMENT ON THE PARAGRAPH THERE BUT OTHER THAN THAT I THINK IT DOES PRETTY WELL TO ADDRESS THE GENERAL RETAIL YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE INTERSECTION OF TWO MAJOR ARTERIALS SO MAJOR THOROUGHFARE SOSES IT'S ASPORTS FOR GENERAL -- SO IT'S A SPOT FOR GENERAL RETAIL. BE HAPPY TO [INDISCERNIBLE]
>>> I THINK IT'S A GREAT FIT FOR THE THE THE SITE. I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD LOOKS LIKE, IT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE NICEST FRONTAGES IN ABILENE, SO I HAVE
[00:35:07]
ZERO CONCERNS. >>> ACTUALLY LIVE RYE RIGHT BY THERE AND WAS HAPPY TO SEE THAT IT'S A USE FOR A LAND THAT DOESN'T CREATE THAT MUCH TRAFFIC BECAUSE AS MUCH AS THAT IS TWO ARTERIALS AND BUSES GO THAT ROUTE TWICE A DAY DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR SO IT HAS TRAFFIC ISSUES BUT AS FAR AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD ACROSS THE BOULEVARD, THEY HAVE GOOD [INDISCERNIBLE] AND SO THERE'S A BUFFER AS WELL AS WHAT THEY'LL DO DEVELOPING THEIR SITE TO CREATE ANOTHER SCREEN, SO AS A MAYBE TO THIS PROPERTY IT SEEMS LIKE A USABLE PIECE OF PROPERTY
THAT THEY HAVE A USE FOR AND ILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS >>> I THINK THE CON ACCEPTABLE PLAN, OTHER THAN RIGHT THE INTERSECTION WHERE THEY'RE BUILDING THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT OR THE REST OF THE SITE ALONG ANTLY LOOKS LIKE IT WILL BE VERY ATTRACTIVE.
IT'S NOT JUST GRASS IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE DEVELOPED, LANDSCAPED NICELY SO I THINK
IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT. [INDISCERNIBLE] >>> SO IT'S NICE TO BE THERE IN THE CORNER AND IS HAVING THAT PARKING LOT IN THE BACK, HAVE A GREEN SPACEY THINK WE NEED -- I UNDERSTAND WE'RE GOING TO TABLE IT BUT FROM THE DEVELOPER'S STAND THEY NEED THE ZONING PASS THE ALLOW THEM TO DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE TAKE THAT NEXT STEP FOR THE CITY TO DEVELOP THE SITE PLAN, GET WITH THE CITY ENGINEERS TO MAKE SURE YOU CAN ACTUALLY DEVELOP IT.
SO UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER COMMENTS I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> ONE MORE COMMENT HERE, WHAT DO WE THINK ABOUT PARAGRAPH 4? I UNDERSTAND HIS POSITION, I KIND OF HAVE A LITTLE DIFFERENT POSITION BUT HE'S RIGHT TO ASK FOR THAT.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT IT HURTS ANYTHING, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT CHANGES ANYTHING ONE WAY OR THE
OTHER. >> I WOULD BE IN APPROVAL [INDISCERNIBLE] NOT OUT RIGHT PROHIBITION BUT PUTTING THE POTENTIAL OWNER ON NOTICE THAT [INDISCERNIBLE] SO IF IT IS GOING TO BE MODIFIED TO WHAT JARED SAID JUST TO PUT [INDISCERNIBLE] ILL DO AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY. >> I'VE ALREADY MODIFYIED THAT. >> YES, I'VE ALREADY MODIFIED THAT LANGUAGE IN THE PD FOLLOWING CONVERSATIONS WITH CITY STAFF.
AS IT STANDS TODAY IT'S VERBATIM SAYS STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SOLID FENCE OR WALL WITHIN THE FLOODWAY SHALL BE IN ACOLONELS WITH CURRENT CITY OF ABILENE STANDARDS WHICH WOULD MEAN IF THEY'RE GOING TO STORY ANYTHING FOR THE 180 DAYS OR MORE THEY HAVE TO GET A FLOODWAY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. AGAIN THIS IS MORE OF A LIABILITY CONCERN FOR THE CITY TO GET OUR HASN'TS OUT OF THE POT AND LETTING THEM KNOW IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE TO DO THIS PER THIS ORDINANCE YOU NEED TO CONSULT WITH THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO DOING THAT. SO HE'S RIGHT IT'S NOT A LAND USE CONCERN BUT I THINK IT'S WISE TO GO AHEAD AND PUT WHOEVER. S THIS LAND IN THE FUTURE ON
NOTICE. >>> [INDISCERNIBLE] ABSOLUTELY. >> I'LL MOTION TO APPROVE AS
AMENDED PER JARED'S CONVERSATION. >> INCH SECOND THAT.
>> MOTION AND A SECOND. >>> ROLL CALL VOTE.]. >> THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIES AND I HAVE TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM THIS NEXT COMING CASE SO I'LL PASS IT OVER TO BRAD.
[00:40:08]
>>> MY NAME IS BRAD STONE, I'M A STAFF PLANNER HERE WITH THE CITY OF ABILENE.
AND I'LL BE PRESENTNG THIS CASE TODAY. IT'S CASE NUMBER 2022-02 WHICH IS AN APPLICATION TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF SOME AGRICULTURAL ACREAGE FROM AN AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE OR AO DISTRICT TO A PATIO HODA HOME ZONEING CLASSIFICATION IS THE INTENDED DEVELOPMENT IS SINGLE FAMILY RINSES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY EMBRACES 46 ACRES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MAPLE AND SOUTH 27TH STREETS THIS SOUTHEAST ABILENE.
THE EXISTING ACREAGE THERE MAY BE DESCRIBED AS PRIMARILY AGRICULTURAL LAND BUT IT DOES HAVE A LARGE RESIDENCE AND BARN IN THE CENTER OF IT. THE WEST BOUNDARY OF THIS ACREAGE BORDERS MAC WELL MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE AND THE FLOODPLAIN FOR CEDAR CREEK, AND I THINK YOU CAN PLAINLY SEE THESE FEATURES ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE AERIAL PHOTO ON THE SLIDE. THIS NEXT SLIDE SHOWS THE VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS WHICH SURROUND THE ACREAGE PROPOSED TO BE REZONED FOR PATIO HOME DEVELOPMENT.
GREEN COLOR REPRESENTSER AGRICULTURAL OF SPACE ZONING AND THE SAME AO ZONING THAT COFFERS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ALSO COVERS MAC WELL GOLF COURSE TO THE WEST AS WELL AS AGRICULTURAL LAND TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. TO THE SOUTHEAST OF THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A GRAY COLOR WHICH IS REPRESENTATIVE OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING.
AND CLUSTERED AT OR NEAR THE OTHER THREE CORES OF MAPLE AND SOUTH 27TH STREETS ARE RED COLORS REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING. THE OWNER OF THESE 46 ACRES, THAT IS THE FOUR SICK ACRES HIGHLIGHT BID THE THE DIAGONAL STRIPING IS SEEK PATIO HOME ZONING ON ALL OF THESE FOUR SICK ACRES. IN ABILENE ZONING ORDINANCE THERE ARE NO FEWER THAN SIX ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS INTENDED PRIMARILY FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. OF THESE SIX ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS PATIO HOME OR PH ZONING IS POTENTIALLY THE MOST DENSE OF THEM. ALLOWING HOMESITES AS LITTLE AS 40 FEET WIDE AND HOMES SEPARATED BY AS FEW AS TEN FEET FROM ONE ANOTHER.
THIS NEXT SLIDE SHOWS IN BLUE THE EXTENT OF THE HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD WAY FOR CEDAR CREEK AS IT ADJOINS THIS PROPERTY. IN FLOODWAY COVERS APPROXIMATELY FIVE ACRES OF THE SUBJECT PROSECUTE'S 46 ACRES. IN 1986 PLAN FOR FUTURE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTHEAST ABILENE IDENTIFIES THE LION'S SHARE OF THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY TO BE MOST SUITABLE FOR FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE, HIGHER DENSITIES OF RESIDENTIAL USE AT THIS LOCATION MAY MAKE AN EFFECTIVE TRANSITION IN THE INTENSITY OF USE TEEN THE WIDE OPEN SPACES AT MAXWELL MUNICIPAL GOLFS YOU AND FUTURE INDUSTRIAL USE ACROSS MAPLE STREET. HOWEVER THAT SAME 1986 LAND USE PLAN ALSO DESIGNATED APPROXIMATELY ONE AND A HALF ACRES OF THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE DIRECTLY AT THE INTERSECTION OF MAPLE AND SOUTH 27TH STREETS.
BOTH MAPLE AND SOUTH 27 STREETS FUNCTION AS MAJOR ARTERIAL STREETS AND RETAIL COMMERCIAL USE IS MOST APPROPRIATE AT OR NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF SUCH ARTERIAL STREETS.
MAXIMIZING EXPOSURE OF RETAILERS TO PASSING MOTORISTS WHILE MINIMIZING I WANT IMPACTS.
LIKEWISE THE MOST RENO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS INTERSECTION OF MAPLE AND SOUTH 27 STREETS TO BE THE FOCUS OF WHAT IS TEMPLED TO BE A LOCAL ACTIVITY CENTER.
[00:45:05]
THE TEXT OF THAT PLAN DESCRIBES LOCAL ACTIVITY CENTERS AS I QUOTE CONTAINING A MICK OF SHOPPING, EMPLOYMENT, ENTERTAINMENT AND CIVIC USES FOR A NUMBER OF SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. I'M STUCK HERE. THE I CAN'T MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE. THIS NEXT SLIDE ITEM ICES THE RAIN OF USES ALLOWED AND POTENTIALLY ALLOWED WITHIN EXISTING AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE CATEGORY OF THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY THE AO ZONING CLASSIFICATION IS USED PRIMARILY AS A HOLDING ZONE FOR AGRICULTURAL AND UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY UNTIL ITS REZONING TO SOME MORE INTENSIVE URBANIZED CATEGORY IS SOMEDAY APPROVED THIS. ITEMIZE IT IS USES ALLOWED WITHIN THE PATIO HOME ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND AS I MENTIONED EARLIER PATIO HOME OR PH ZONING IS THE MOST DENSELY DEVELOPABLE OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS INTENDED FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. MY RECENT EXPERIENCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT IN PATIO HOME DISTRICTS SUGGESTS THAT WE COULD EXPECT AN OVERALL DEVELOPMENT DENSITY OF PERHAPS SIX DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THIS NEXT SLIDE SHOWS SOME PHOTOS. AND AS I MENTIONED AT THE OUT SET THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS PRIMARILY AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE ALTHOUGH YOU DO SEE SOME OF THE PAVEMENT ON SURROUNDING STREETS.THE SURFACE OF BOTH MAPLE AND SOUTH 27TH STREETS WAS ORIGINALLY PAVED IN THE 1970S TO BE 40 FEET WIDE BUT AS YOU MAY SEE PARTICULARLY IN THE PHOTO TO THE UPPER RIGHT THERE HAS BEEN SOME DEERS AT THE EDGE OF THAT PAYMENT GIVEN THE ABSENCE OF CURBS.
PLANS ARE NOW UNDERWAY FOR MAPLE STREET TO BE IMPROVED IN FRONT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND FOR AT LEAST ONE MILE NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THAT IMPROVEMENT WOULD INCLUDE SOMEWHAT WIDER PAVEMENT BORDERED BY CURBS. NO FURTHER QUESTIONSES WERE MAILED TO 15 OWNERS OF ADJACENT AND NEARBY PROPERTY IN AVERAGES AVERAGES OF ADVANCE OF THIS HEARING AND CITY HAS RECEIVED NO WRITTEN COMMENTS EITHER IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION CITY STAFF GENERALLY RECOMMENDS APPROVING THE PROPOSED PATIO HOME ZONING EXCEPT FOR AT LEAST A 250-FOOT BY 250-FOOT PORTION CARVED FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE INTERSECTION OF MAPLE AND SOUTH 27TH STREET. THIS NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES IN FACT LIE AT THE INTERSECTION OF TWO ARTERIAL STREETS AND IS BEST SUITED FOR RETAIL COMMERCIAL USE. THIS RECOMMENDATION IS REFLECTED IN ABILENE'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH RECOMMENDS A LOCAL ACTIVITY CENTER AT THIS LOCATION AND AGAIN I QUOTE CONTAINING A MICK OF SHOPPING, EMPLOYMENT AND CIVIC USES.
ANY SUCH AREA RESERVED FOR COMMERCIAL USE SHOULD EXTEND AT LEAST 250 FEET IN DEPTH FROM BOTH MAPLE AND SOUTH 27TH STREETS TO ACCOMMODATE MODERN RETAILERS WHO DEMAND PLENTY OF ROOM FOR CUSTOMER PARKING AND EVEN DRIVE THROUGH SERVICE. OTHERWISE THE PROPOSED RESIDENT DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY MAY PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE TRANSITION IN THE
[00:50:04]
INTENSITY OF USE BETWEEN THE OPEN ENVIRONMENT AT MAC WELL GOLF COURSE TO THE WEST AND FUTURE INDUSTRIAL USE PLANNED EAST OF MAPLE STREET. BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONSTHAT YOU MAY HAVE. >>> SO BRAD THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO CARVE OUT 250 BY 250 FEET
AT THE CORNER. >> AT LEAST 250 BY 250 FEET. >> WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT 40 BULLET POINT THAT TALKS ABOUT SEVEN TO 765 FEET.
>> AGAIN, THE RECOMMENDATION IS FOR AT LEAST 250 FEET BY 250 FEET BUT AS WE'VE SEEN ELSEWHERE AT THE SELECTION OF TWO ARTERIAL STREETS SOMETIMES FIVE OR 700 FEET, AGAIN, LIES WITHIN THAT SPHERE OF COMMERCIAL ATTRACTION SURROUNDING THE INTERSECTION OF THOSE TWO MAJOR
STREETS. >> BUT THAT'S NOT YOUR RECOMMENDATION RIGHT NOW IT'S
JUST IT COULD HAPPEN BECAUSE IT HAPPENS IN OTHER LOCATION. >> THAT'S CORRECT, AND OTHER LOCATIONS OF WHERE WE HAVE INTERSECTIONS OF TWO ARTERIAL STREETS WE'VE SEEN THAT SPHERE OF COMMERCIAL ATTRACTION, AGAIN AS MUCH AS 750 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THOSE TWO
STREETS. >>> BRAD DID I HEAR IS THIS YOUR POTENTIALLY LAST ZONING MEETING?
>> >> YES, I'M PLANNING TO RETIRE AT THE END OF THE MONTH AND THIS WILL PRESUMABLY BE THE LAST MEETING THAT APPEAR IN IN THIS OR ANY OTHER CITY.
>> WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. WE'LL OPEN IT FOR PUBLIC --
>> BRAD, EXCUSE ME. IF YOU COULD TAKE A BRIEF RECESS UNTIL SHE STEPS BACK IN.
>> WE'LL TAKE A BRIEF SAYS SO RESIDENT SO WE'LL HAVE A QUORUM
>>> WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF ANYONE WOULD LINING LIKE THE MAKE A COMMENT.
>>> I'M THE RIVER OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. WE'VE OWNED THAT PROPERTY SINCE 75 AND I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE WANTING A COMMERCIAL CORNER THERE.
THERE'S THREE OTHER CORNERS -- THE ONE ACROSS THE STREET TO THE NORTH THEY TORE A COUPLE HOUSES DOWN TO BUILD A CONVENIENCE STORE. DIDN'T MATERIALIZE BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH TRAFFIC THERE. TO THE EAST OF US THERE'S 15 ACHEST E-ERS THAT'S MORE CONDUCIVE TO A STRIP CENTER. TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEY ALLOWED COMMERCIAL IN THERE AND THEY PUT STORAGE UNITS AND A JUNK YARD IN THERE BECAUSE THOSE NO SCREENING UP SO WE'RE ASKING FOR THE 250 TO GO AWAY AND LET US PUT PATIO HOMES IN THERE AND DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY AND NOT HAVE A CORNER THAT WILL NEVER SELL BECAUSE THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS MORE TOWARDS THE LOOP. EVEN LIKE INDUSTRIAL AND SYSTEM 50 THEY PUT A DOLLAR GENERAL THERE'S TWO OTHER VACANT CORNERS THERE THAT ARE COMMERCIAL AND NOT DEVELOPED. ON THE SOUTH END OF MAPLE THERE'S THREE CORNERS OF COMMERCIAL NOT DEVELOPED ONE OF THEM THE CITY OWNS AND THERE'S A FOURTH CORE THAT HAS A HOUSE ON IT AND IT WILL PROBABLY GET TORN DOWN, SO WE'RE ASKING THE 250 GO AWAY SO WEB SELL THAT AND MAKE A NICE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THERE AND PLUS IT WILL HELP THE GOLF COURSE WITH CUSTOMERS AND HELP THE CITY SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. ANY QUESTIONS?
>> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE PICTURES IF YOU WANT TO SEE ALL THE OTHER CORNERS BUT
I'M SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THEY'RE VACANT LAND THE. >>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT FOR DISCUSSION. AM I CORRECT THAT IF WE WERE TO
DISAGREE WE NEED ALL FOUR PEOPLE TO VOTE TO APPROVE, CORRECT? >> RIGHT.
[00:55:05]
SO WHATEVER THE MOTION IS IT WOULD NEED TO BE UNANIMOUS TO GO ON TO CITY COUNCIL.SO IF WE HAVE TO -- LET'S MAKE SURE WE HAVE DISCUSSION ON IT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE FULL QUORUM TOGETHER. SOMETIMES CITY COUNCIL GETTINGSTS IN TROUBLE --
>> IF SOMEONE MAYBES AN AFFIRM ATIVE VOTE AND IT FAILS YOU HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION -- IT
HAS TO BE UNANIMOUS TO PASS IT TO CITY COUNCIL. >> ANY DISCUSSION?
>> I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH BRAD THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO USE THAT CORNER FOR SOMETHING OTHER THAN PATIO HOMES. IF WHY LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON THERE NOW AND YOU HAVE THE THE INTERSECTION OF TWO ARTERIALS PUTTING PATIO HOME AT THE INTERSECTION DOESN'T NECESSARILY MAKE A TON OF SENSE TO ME BUT I ALSO SEE THE PROPONENTS' SIDES THAT NOTHING'S REALLY DEVELOPED THERE YET AND I THINK YET IS THE KEYWORD. THAT MAPLE STREET COULD DEVELOP IN THE FUTURE, YOU COULD START SEEING MORE GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL DEVELOP ON THERE.
I DON'T KNOW, BUT IT'S A TOUGH CALL RIGHT NOW JUST BECAUSE IT'S TAKEN SO LONG TO DEVELOP THAT CARVING OUT 250 SQUARE RIGHT THERE -- I DON'T KNOW, IF THAT'S MORE [INDISCERNIBLE] OR NOT.
>>> I WOULD BE FOR THE PROPONENT TO ZONE IT THE WAY THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT DEVELOPED.
THE EARLIER CASE WE HEARD ABOUT THE -- THAT SUBDIVISION THAT'S RIGHT ACROSS THE SINGLE FAMILY HOPES IS RIGHT ACROSS THAT DEVELOPMENT. THAT -- THAT WASN'T CAMP IT IT'S CARVED OUT -- EVEN THOUGH THAT'S TWO ARTERIAL ROADS IT'S A DEVELOPED AREA AND [INDISCERNIBLE] I WOULD BE MORE IN FAVOR OF LEAVING IT UP TO SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO USE IT
DEVELOP IT . >>> I AGREE, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE THE TRAFFIC COUNT THERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME TO ATTRACT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND I THINK IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO TAKE THE RISK ON 46 ACRES INSIDE THE LOOP FOR DEVELOPMENT, WHICH I THINK WE NEED MORE OF I THINK
WE NEED TO DO THAT. >>> SOUNDS GOOD TO ME. >>> I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE COMMERCIAL 250 BY 250. >> I SECOND.
>> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE 250 BY 250 . >>> YOU.
>>> DO WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? >> BRAD YOU BEAT ME TO THE PUNH BUT BRAD WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE ALL THAT YOU'VE DONE AND YOUR GUIDANCE AND LEADERSHIP AND THE DRINKS ARE ON YOU, IS THAT THE
WAY IT GOES? >> WITH THAT WE ARE ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.