[1. Minutes: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on the Minutes from the Regular Meeting Held on July 12, 2022]

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING. >> MOVE.

>> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR? >>

(CHORUS OF AYES) >> IT STANDS APPROVED AS WRITTEN. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS HAS 5 MEMBERS AND FOUR MEMBERS SHOULD BE PRESENT AT EACH MEETING. FOR SPECIFIC EXCEPTION FOR VARIANCES GRANTED BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT HAS 180 DAYS FROM THIS DATE TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT IF ONE IS REQUIRED. A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS BOARD IF REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT AT THIS HEARING. A BUILDING PERMIT MAY BE APPLIED FOR THE DAY THE REQUEST IS APPROVED, AFTER THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED. IF THE REQUEST IS DENIED, IT MAY NOT BE RECONSIDERED BY THIS BOARD UNTIL 12 MONTHS AFTER THIS DATE.

COURT OF RECORD IN THE CASE IN THIS CASE, THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM THIS DATE.

IF YOU PLAN TO COME FORWARD TO PRESENT ANYTHING AT THE PODIUM THIS MORNING, WE NEED TO SWEAR YOU IN. SO, IF YOU WOULD RAISE YOUR RIGHT-HAND IF YOU PLAN TO COME FORWARD THIS MORNING.

>> DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

[2. BA-2022-04 (Tabled): Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a request for an 8-foot variance from the minimum 60-foot lot width ordinarily required for RS-6 (Residential Single-family) Zoning districts. (Clarissa Ivey)]

>> (INDISCERNIBLE) >> THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE ONE PREVIOUS ITEM TABLED FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING. BA 2022-04. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO

REMOVE THAT FROM THE TABLE. >> I MOVE. >> I SECOND.

>> OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? (CHORUS OF AYES) >> THAT ITEM IS RECEIVE A REPORT AND HOLD A DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR AN 8 FOOT VARIANCE FOR A MINIMUM 6 FOOT LOT WIDTH RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS.

MARISSA? >> GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS CLARISS I'M WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DEPARTMENT AND TODAY I'M PRESENTING BA 2022-06. THIS WAS PRESENTED BY

THE GO TED'S PROPERTY SOLUTIONS. >> I THOUGHT IT WAS '04. >> -04 WAS THE TABLED.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> THAT WAS PULLED BY THE APPLICANT. BECAUSE WE RAN INTO THE ORDINANCE AND IT WAS A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING LOT. SO, THE APPLICATION WAS WITHDRAWN. SO,

[3. BA-2022-06: Receive a Report and Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing on a Request from KeyCity Capital of a 10-foot Variance from the Minimum 60-foot Lot Width Ordinarily Required for MD (Medium Density) Zoning Districts. (Clarissa Ivey)]

THAT'S. >> OKAY. THAT'S-04? >> YES, SIR.

>> SO, I ASSUME THIS CASE IS BA 2022-06, RECEIVE A REPORT AND HOLD A DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FROM KEY CITY CAPITAL OF A 10-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 60-FOOT LOT WIDTH ORDINARILY REQUIRED FOR THE MEDIUM DENSITY. CLARISSA.

>> THEY'RE REQUESTING A 10-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 60-FOOT TYPICALLY REQUIRED LOT WIDTH ON AN EMPTY MEDIUM ZONING DISTRICT. THE LOCATION IS 1142 PECAN STREET, WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATIONS AND WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY IN FAVOR NOR OPPOSED. HERE, YOU COULD SEE A MAP OF WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IT WOULD BE ABOUT THE THIRD LOT SOUTH FROM THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH 12 GRAPE STREET. HERE YOU HAVE THE MIDDLE OF THE MD ZONING DISTRICT, AND TO THE NORTH OF IT, YOU COULD SEE OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT. THIS IS THE MAP SHOWING THE 200 FOOT BUFFER WHICH WE SENT NOTIFICATION TO AND WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY IN AVER OR ANY OPPOSED. AND, HERE YOU COULD SEE, SEVERAL DIFFERENT VIEWS FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

AND FROM THEIR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. IT WAS REVIEWED UNDER SECTION ONE.4.0.2 OF THE

[00:05:06]

DEVELOPMENT LAND CODE. IF IT WERE TO STRICTLY ENFORCE THE LOT WIDTH OF 60-FEET, THE OWNER, WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE THIS LIKE, THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THIS WIDTH REQUIREMENT TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY WOULD CREATE A HARDSHIP NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER HIMSELF. GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND IT WOULD NOT BE INJUROUS TO THE NEIGHBORS AND GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WOULD BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT PATTERN SURROUNDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE HARDSHIP EQUITY IS NOT CAUSED BY THE

PETITIONER. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR CLARISSA?

ROBERT? >> JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS 1142 GRAPE?

>> YES, SIR. >> THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS WHY IS THE VARIANCE REQUIRED?

>> THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR MEDIUM DENSITY IS 60 FEET AND THIS LOT IS ONLY 50-FEET WIDE.

TYPICALLY, ON THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IT STATES THAT IF IT WAS PREVIOUSLY PLATTED, AS A LOT, UM, I GUESS, BACK WHEN IT WAS CREATED, IF IT WAS PLATTED AND LEGAL AS A 50-FOOT LOT, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ISSUE A PERMIT THIS, FORTUNATELY IS NOT A PLATTED PIECE OF PROPERTY, THEREFORE WE'RE NEEDING TO COME FORWARD WITH A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THIS TO BE A NON --

>> SO, THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ONE THAT WAS WITHDRAWN AND 8:37 A.M.,

(LOST AUDIO) >> THE NEW TREND IN ATTENDANCE, PEOPLE WANT

COMPONENTS. >> WE OUTNUMBER THE PROPONENTS? >> YES.

>> I ASSUME ALL OF THE NOTIFICATIONS WERE MADE? >> THANK YOU.

>> I'M ASSUMING THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS APPROVING ON THE WIDTH OF THE LOT, THEN, CORRECT, IS WHERE THE VARIANCE GOES IN, THERE'S NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY STRUCTURE, AT THIS POINT IN

TIME? >> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARITY.

>> HOWEVER, LACK OF THE PROPONENT, IS DISCONCERTING. >> THE PROPONENT IS NOT

PRESENT, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST? >> PLEASE COME FORWARD.

>> SIR, YOU WEREN'T SWORN IN PREVIOUSLY, IF YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT-HAND. DO YOU SWEAR TO

TELL THE TRUTH AND THE WHOLE TRUTH? >> YES.

>> YOUR NAME? >> KELCE OWNER OF THE I'M REPRESENTING THE CLIENT.

>> THANKS FOR BEING HERE. >> YES, SIR. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THERE WAS A PRIOR VARIANCE GRANTED FOR THE ADJOINING LOT WITHIN THIS REPLAT OF A SUBDIVISION. UM, THE CLIENT WASN'T AWARE THAT ANOTHER VARIANCE WAS GOING TO BE NEEDED SO, THAT'S KIND OF THE REASON FOR THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. THIS LOT IS VACANT AT THIS TIME, HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY PLANS TO BUILD ON IT. BUT, IN ORDER TO GET THE PLAT APPROVED, WE HAVE TO GET THIS VARIANCE LIKE WE DID ON THE ONE BEFORE. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. WILLIAMS?

[00:10:09]

>> IS THIS 06? >> I'M ASSUMING THIS IS 06. >> NO QUESTION, THANK YOU,

MR. WILLIAMS. >> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK IN

FAVOR? >> ANYONE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL

CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION. >> I THINK THIS ONE IS VERY CLEAR-CUT, IT'S ALWAYS GAB TO BE 50-FOOT, IT'S NEVER GOING TO GROW 10 FEET, IT'S LIFT OVER AND

CLEANING IT UP, IT'S ALL GOOD. >> I AGREE. >> BASED ON THAT, I MOVE --

>> WAIT. >> IS THERE A HOUSE ON THIS LOT?

>> NO, IT'S VACANT. >> I MOVE WE APPROVE THE VARIANCE BASED ON THE FINDINGS AS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS NO ACTION TO BE TAKEN AND EXCEEDS THE

MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE LOT IN ANY CASE. >> I SECOND THAT.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE, MR. THOMAS? >> YES.

>> YES. >> MR. BEERMAN? >> YES.

[4. BA-2022-07: Receive a Report and Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing on a Request from Blue Heritage Investments, LLC Represented by Geotex Property Solutions of a 20-foot Variance from the Minimum 60-foot Lot Width and 24-foot Variance from the Minimum 100 foot Lot Length Ordinarily Required for RS-6 (Residential Single-Family) Zoning Districts. (Clarissa Ivey)]

>> MR. LATTERMILL? >> YES. >> MR. HAZY?

>> YES. >> AND THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIES.

>> THE NEXT ITEM IS BA 2022-07, RECEIVE A REPORT AND HOLD A DISCUSSION ON PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FROM BLUE HERITAGE INVESTMENTS LLC, REPRESENTED BY GEOTEX PROPERTY SOLUTIONS FOR A 20-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 60-FOOT LOT WIDTH AND THE 24-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 100 FOOT LOT LENGTH ORDINARILY REQUIRED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY

ZONING. CLARISSA? >> THIS IS CASE BA-2022-07, OWNER IS BLUE HERITAGE INVESTMENTS REPRESENTED BY GEOTEX PROPERTY SOLUTIONS. THE LOCATION IS 2942 SOUTH 7TH.

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR THE 20-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 60-FOOT LOT WIDTH, A 24-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 100 FOOT LOT LENGTH ORDINARILY REQUIRED FOR THE RS-6 ZONING DISTRICTS. HERE, YOU COULD SEE THE LOCATION OF THIS PROPERTY IS ON THE CORNER OF SOUTH 7TH STREET AND LARCAN STREET. THIS IS THE ZONING MAP, YOU COULD SEE IT'S IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, IN RS-6. ON THE RS-6 LOTS, THE TYPICAL MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS IS 60 X 100. HERE YOU COULD SEE THE NOTIFICATION MAP AND WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATION ON A 200-FOOT BUFFER AND RECEIVED ONE IN OPPOSITION. HERE, YOU COULD SEE SEVERAL DIFFERENT VIEWS ON YOUR TOP LEFT-HAND CORNER, YOU COULD SEE THE ACCESSORY DWELLING WHICH IS IN THE REAR PORTION OF THIS LOT. INTO YOU COULD SEE YOUR EASTERN, SOUTHERN, AND WESTERN NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. HERE'S A CONCEPT MAP, YOU COULD SEE HOW IT WAS ORIGINALLY PLATTED AND WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, SO, THEY'RE PROPOSING TO CREATE TWO LOTS, LOT 101 AND LOT OF TWO, AND THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE NEEDING THE VARIANCE ON THAT REAR LOT 101. SO, THE LOT COMBINED WITH THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE CREATES A CONFORMING LOT, SEPARATING THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT CREATES A NON-CONFORMING LOT FOR THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND THE PROPOSED LOT WOULD INCREASE THE DENSITY OF THE NEIGHBORING R-6 ZONING AND MAY CREATE A PRECEDENT FOR SUB-DIVIDING ADU

[00:15:03]

FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE CITY OF ABILENE'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES NOT ALLOW ACCESS REDWELLING UNITS TO BE SOLD SEPARATELY FROM PRIMARY RESIDENCES. THE HARDSHIP OR INEQUITY IT IS CAUSED BY THE PETITIONER. DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME?

>> IS THERE ANY REMARKS ON THE PERSON OBJECTING IN. >> NO, SIR, WE JUST RECEIVED

NOTIFICATION AS OPPOSED. >> IT DIDN'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON IT?

>> NO, SIR. >> OKAY. IF THIS IS NOT APPROVED, WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS

FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER WITH THIS ACCESSORY DWELLING? >> HE MAY CONTINUE TO USE IT AS AN ACCESSORY DWELLING, FAMILY MEMBERS MAY LIVE THERE. THE PROPERTY OWNER, MAY ALSO HAVE A SECOND ADDRESS IF NEEDED FOR A SEPARATE METER, IF FOR SOME REASON HE NEEDED THAT. HE OR SHE COULD POTENTIALLY ADD TO THAT PROPERTY, OR HAVE AN ACCESSORY OTHER ACCESSORY USES TO THAT LOT IF IT WERE TO REMAIN AS ONE. ONCE YOU CREATE THAT REAR PROPERTY, I MEAN, IT WON'T HAVE MUCH SPACE, SO, IT WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ALLOW EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WOULD BE TYPICALLY ALLOWED

IN AN RS-6. >> IF WE APPROVE THIS, WOULD THAT ALLOW THEM TO SELL THIS AS

TWO PIECES THE PROPERTY? >> YES, SIR. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR

CLARISSA? >> THANK YOU, CLARISSA. >> I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, WILL THE PROPONENT COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AUDIO)

>> KELCE WILLIAMS, GEOTEX SOLUTIONS. THIS ONE HAS A RESIDENCE ON IT, AND THE CLIENT WANTED TO SEPARATE THE TWO RESIDENCES SO THEY COULD BE SOLD SEPARATELY. AND THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE REPLAT, CREATING THE LOTS 101-102. THIS LOT IN PARTICULAR, 101, LIKE WAS MENTIONED DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM 60-FOOT FRONTAGE. I THINK IT'S 40, THE DEPTH ON IT IS ABOUT 80 FEET. AND I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN, THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST IS THAT IT DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM 60-FOOT, IT DOES HAVE A RESIDENCE ON IT, THEY'RE NOT SEEKING A BUILDING PERMIT AT THIS TIME, THEY JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO SELL THE PROPERTIES

SEPARATELY, AS OPPOSED TO WITH ONE PROPERTY. ANY QUESTIONS? >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR

MR. WILLIAMS? >> JUST A COMMENT. >> ROBERT?

>> THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE OTHER PROPERTY WERE A DEFEND NATURE IMPROVEMENT FOR THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO, I LIKED THE IMPROVEMENTS DONE, NOT NECESSARILY TO THIS ONE, BUT TO THE REST OF THE LOT. I HAVE A QUESTION, WHERE HAVE YOU SEEN THIS TYPE OF WORK BEFORE?

>> WHERE HAVE I SEEN WHAT? >> WHERE HAVE YOU SEEN THIS TYPE OF VARIANCE WORK BEFORE?

>> JUST HERE WITH THE CITY OF ABILENE. >> THIS IS THE FIRST ONE THAT

YOU'VE HEARD OF. >> NO, SIR. >> HAS IT WORKED OUT FOR OTHER

FOLKS DOING SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THIS? >> YES, SIR. A LOT OF THAT

[00:20:14]

GOES BACK TO THE LOTS OF 50 FOOD WIDE AND 140 DEEP. I THINK PEOPLE REALIZED 50 FOOT WAS NOT ENOUGH TO BUILD ON AND DO WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO WITH THEM. IF YOU LOOK AT LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF OLDER HOUSES, YOU'LL SEE, LOT 1 AND THE NORTH, 10-FEET OF LOT TWO. AND THAT'S WHERE YOU GET INTO HAVING TO REQUEST THESE VARIANCES ON STUFF LIKE THAT, IT'S COMMON, BUT, I THINK A LOT OF THE EXISTING HOMES, THEY MAY NOT GET SOLD, SO, IT MAY NOT GET BROUGHT UP.

>> ONE BIG DIFFERENCE IS SEEMS TO ME, MR. WILLIAMS IS THAT I COULD UNDERSTAND A FAMILY HAVING AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT THAT THEY PUT FAMILY IN, AND THAT'S ACCEPTABLE WHEN THAT'S FAMILY, BUT, I THINK IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY WHEN THEY COULD SELL THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY AND KNOW THAT YOU GOT SOMEBODY THAT YOU DIDN'T APPROVE OF LIVING IN YOUR BACKYARD, AND NOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN, OWNS THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, AND, IT'S, UM, INCREASING THE DENSITY OF THE DWELLING INTENDED FROM THE CODE, AND THAT SEEMS LIKE A BIG STRETCH TO ME.

>> YES, I AGREE. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT

WE SHOULD CONSIDER? >> I DON'T KNOW IF THIS, IF ANYBODY HAS THE, YOU KNOW, THE GIS THAT SHOWS THE AERIAL VIEW, BUT, THIS ONE IN QUESTION IS NOT ESSENTIALLY IN THE BACKYARD.

THERE IS A DIVIDING FENCE BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES, OR WAS A DIVIDING FENCE. I'VE GOT A COP

OF THE ABILENE GIS MAP HERE THAT SHOWS. >> I THINK THAT YOU COULD BRING

UP THE AERIAL, CAN'T YOU? >> YES, SIR. >> I THINK THEY COULD BRING IT

UP ON SCREEN. >> SO, THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS TO THE NORTH OR THE TOP OF

THE PAGE FROM THE HATCHED IN PROPERTY. >> BOTH 2942 SOUTH 7TH, AND 617 LARKAN ARE PART OF THE REPLAT THAT WE'RE WORKING ON. THE HOME LOCATED ON 617 LARKAN IS THE ONE THAT DOES NOT MEET THE WIDTH REQUIREMENT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS NO CONCLUSION AS FAR AS, THERE IS AN OUTBUILDING BEHIND THE HOUSE LOCATED ON AT 2942 SOUTH 7TH,

BUT THAT'S NOT THE ADJOINING HOUSE WHICH IS IN QUESTION. >> THE TWO BUILDINGS SHOWN ON THAT LOT IN THE HATCHED AREA, THE NORTHERN ONE IS THE ONE THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING TO SEPARATE?

>> NO, SIR. >> YOU SAID NO? >> NO.

>> THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OF THAT LOCATED AT 617 LARKAN IS THE ONE THAT DOES NOT MEET THE 60-FOOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT. BUT THE SMALL BUILDING SOUTH OF IT IS THE 625 LARKAN?

>> THE SMALL BUILDING IS LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY USED BY IT 2942 SOUTH 7TH.

>> AND THAT'S THE ONE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY? >> FROM MY UNDERSTAND, NO, IT'S THE PROPERTY AT 617 LARKAN STREET, THERE'S A HOUSE LOCATED THERE.

>> 617 LARKAN DOESN'T SHOW UM ANYWHERE IN THIS DISCUSSION. >> LET ME BE SURE THAT I HAVE

MY ADDRESS RIGHT. >> IT'S WAY BEYOND CONFUSING. >> IT'S SOMETHING ELSE.

>> I HAD INTERPRETED THIS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT WHEN I LOOKED AT THE PACKET ORIGINALLY.

>> ME TOO. >> I DID AS WELL. >> SO, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, BASICALLY, YOU'RE WANTING US TO CONSIDER IN THIS VARIANCE, BRINGING 617 LARKAN IN ON THE 2942 -- I'M CONFUSING THINGS RIGHT THERE, YOU'RE WANTING US TO SEPARATE 617 AND CUT THE LOT,

[00:25:04]

ESSENTIALLY IN HALF, IS THAT THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING? >> THIS IS A BETTER

INTERPRETATION OF WHAT'S GOING ON. >> NOT WITHOUT THE HOUSES ON

IT, IT ISN'T. >> THIS ONE SHOWS LOTS 101-102 PROPOSED. LOT 102 HAS NO ISSUES, IT'S MORE THAN WIDE ENOUGH, IT'S THE LOT 101 THAT, IT'S TOO SMALL. IT'S 40-FOOT

WIDE. >> LOT 102 IS ESSENTIALLY 2942 SOUTH 7TH.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND LOT 101 WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE 625 --

>> IT SHOULD HAVE A LARKAN ADDRESS. I MAY HAVE HAD THE NUMBER INCORRECT, BUT IT'S ON

LARKAN. >> IT SAYS THE LOCATION IS 625 LARKAN ON THIS THING.

>> SO, IT LOOKS LIKE IT SAYS. >> THAT'S THE NUMBER WHICH IS ON THAT BUILDING.

>> 617 LARKAN IS OWNED BY SOMEBODY COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. >> THAT HATCHED IN AREA, I GUESS, SHOWED THE HATCHED IN AREA ENCOMPASSING TOO MUCH LAND AND DIDN'T SHOW THE LOT SPLIT.

AND 625 DOES SHOW UP ON THE GIS MAP AS IT'S OWN ADDRESS? >> YES, SIR.

>> BUT, IT'S STILL CONNECTED TO PROPERTY ID 13466? >> YES, SIR.

>> NO WAY. >> SO, I THINK YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S WHY THE WHOLE AREA WAS HTCHED, BECAUSE THERE'S NOT TWO LOTS, SO, THE APPLICATION IS FOR THAT WHOLE LOT BECAUSE THEY'RE

SEEKING TO REPLAT IF THEY GET THE VARIANCE. >> IT'S JUST BOTH LOTS?

>> HOW DOES A PLACE GET A MAILING ADDRESS? >> THAT'S A DIFFERENT PROCESS.

>> THEY HAVE TO BE PLATTED FIRST, AND THEN THERE'S A DIFFERENT PROCESS FOR THAT.

BEYOND THE DISCUSSION OF WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY. >> IT'S A PROCESS.

>> YES, WAY BEYOND THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE HAVING TODAY.

>> IT'S OKAY, THE DWELLING ON NORTHSIDE IS THE ONE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT DOESN'T MEET THE

60-FOOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT. >> CHAIR LITTLEJOHN: STAFF MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS, BUT WAS THERE A BUILDING PERMIT DONE FOR THAT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT?

>> I BELIEVE THIS PROPERTY WAS BUILT PRIOR TO OUR ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS AND ALSO BEFORE

ZONING WAS ADOPTED AS WELL. >> IT APPEARS THAT IT MAY NOT MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

>> YEAH. >> BUT, YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND, ALSO, THAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT AS A GARAGE, WAS IT NOT. AND IT WAS CONVERTED INTO A ADU? SO, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING LIKE A GARAGE THAN THEY ARE FOR A PRIMARY STRUCTURE, WHICH, IF YOU APPROVE THIS VARIANCE, THIS BECOMES THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON A SMALL LOT. SO, THEN, THAT KIND OF SHAPINGS THE THINGS AROUND. AS OPPOSED TO THIS BEING JUST A GARAGE. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE IN THE SETBACKS.

>> YEAH. >> THIS IS, UM, MORPHING INTO SOMETHING WAY DIFFERENT THAN IT

WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED. >> EXACTLY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR

MR. WILLIAMS? >> CHAIR LITTLEJOHN: THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THANKS. >> ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST?

>> SEEING NONE, ANYONE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

[00:30:03]

ANY DISCUSSION? >> YES. THE BIGGEST THING THAT COMES TO MIND AS WEIRD AS THIS IS, IS THAT WE'RE SETTING A HELL OF A PRESIDENCY DEPARTMENT HERE.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> BECAUSE THIS MAY BE MUCH WEIRDER THAN MOST, IT'S AS EVERYBODY WITH A MOTHER-IN-LAW PROPERTY BEHIND THEIR PROPERTY, SAYS "LOOK AT THIS, THEY DID IT HERE." AND ONCE THESE NUMBERS GET UNSCREWED OR RESCREWED, OR WHATEVER THEY ARE, THERE'LL BE NO SORTING OUT, IT'S A TERRIBLE PRES PRECEDENT IT SET. THERE'S GOT TO BE A BETTER WAY TO FIX THIS, ESPECIALLY IF JUST THE WHIM OF A PERSON TO SELL SOMETHING OFF.

IF YOU WERE HERE TO GIVE ME A HEART-BREAKING STORY, LIKE WATCHING TV IN THE AFTERNOON,

MAY BE IT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE. BUT. >> IF YOU START TO SPLIT LOTS AND SPLIT HAIRS, YOU COULD CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN EVEN WHAT WAS CREATED BACK THEN. SO, IT'S A HARD, YOU KNOW, IT'S A TOUGH ONE AND AGAIN, I WISH, KIND OF LIKE YOU, THAT WE HAD SOMEBODY HERE TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY WANTED DO THIS AND WHAT THE PURPOSE WAS, BUT, YOU KNOW, AT

THIS POINT, IT'S A HARD SELL FOR ME. >> YES, THE STAFF, I THINK THERE'S A WAY TO WORK THIS, REDO THIS WHOLE REIF YOU WOULD. TO SEPARATE THE WHOLE THING OUT SO THAT IT DOES NOT DO WHAT THIS IS ASKING US TO DO, BUT DOES WHAT IT'S ASKING US TO DO.

>> I DON'T THINK SO. >> I DON'T EITHER. >> BECAUSE, I MEAN, THE LOT IS WHAT IT IS, IT'S NOT GOING TO GET BIGGER OR WIDER. IF YOU ALLOW AN ADU ON A PROPERTY, THAT PROPERTY SHOULD NOT BE SUBDIVIDED. THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF AN ADU WOULD BE A MOTHER-IN-LAW FLAT OR FOR YOUR AILING PARENTS OR A SISTER, IT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE SPLIT OFF INTO ANOTHER DWELLING, LOOK AT ALL THE LOTS AROUND THIS AREA, YOU DON'T SEE ANYTHING OUT THERE AS SMALL AS WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED. TO ALLOW ANYTHING SMALLER THAN THAT, IT'S AN AUTOMATIC INCREASE IN THE DENSITY, AND IT'S ZONED RS-6. ABILENE'S FULL OF ADUS, IT WOULD SET A PRECEDENT, PEOPLE MAY WANT TO CONSIDER SPLITTING OFF THE PROPERTY, MAKING EXTRA INCOME, SELL IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO AND THERE'S NO WAY TO FIX THAT, THE DENSITY AND THE LOTTING HAS BEEN THIS WAY FOR 70 YEARS OR MORE, AND YOU CAN'T FIX

HOW IT'S DEVELOPED, IT'S ALL BUILT OUT. >> THANK YOU.

>> I'M INTERESTED IN KNOWING WHAT OTHER BOARD HAVE DONE ON SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THIS BEFORE? PARTICULARLY, SAN ANGELO, LUBBOCK, AMARILLO? ANYBODY HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE IN THAT AREA, OR HAVE HANDLED ANYTHING SIMILAR TO THAT? I DON'T LIKE TO BE COMPARED TO

PEER CITIES, BUT SOMEBODY'S RUN PASSED IT SOMEWHERE. >> I'VE SEEN THINGS LIKE THIS ACROSS MY CAREER, AND THEY'RE EXPLICITLY PROHIBITED BY THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE OF THE INCREASE IN THE DENSITY, IN PLACES LIKE, IN PLACES WHERE YOU'RE LIVING NEAR AN AREA WHERE YOU HAVE A LOT OF TRANSITORY PEOPLE, WHERE YOU'RE IN THE OIL FIELDS, WHERE PEOPLE COME IN FOR 10-12 MONTHS, WORK A PERIOD TO LEAF, THEY ALLOWED ADUS TO BE CONVERTED FOR ROOMS FOR RENT FOR THE TRANSITORY PEOPLE, BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED A HOUSE, IT'S EITHER NOT HOUSING AVAILABLE FOR APARTMENTS AVAILABLE, SO, THEY ALLOW AN ADU TO BE SPLIT INTO ROOMS SO, I CAN RENT ROOM 1, AND YOU COULD RENT ROOM 2, AND WE'RE THERE FOR SIX-12 MONTHS, BUT TO ALLOW IT FOR A PRIMARY RESIDENCE? THERE'S NOT PRECEDENT THAT I'M AWARE OF IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.

[00:35:04]

>> IT'S CONSIDERED TO BE A REMEDY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND FOR, HOUSING FOR TRANSITORY PEOPLE. BUT TO SPLIT IT AND SELL ME THE BACK END OF A PROPERTY, THERE'S NOT A -- I'M NOT AWARE OF A WHOLE LOT OF PRECEDENT THAT I'VE SEEN AND I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR 30-SOMETHING YEARS. IT'S JUST NOT THE WAY MOST CITIES OPERATE TO ALLOW TINY LOTS.

>> THANK YOU, EXPERIENCE SPEAKS. I FULLY UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST, BUT IT'S JUST AN ENTIRELY TOO SMALL A LOT TO APPROVE IN THIS AREA. AND, I JUST, YOU KNOW, IT'S A 3,000-FOOT LOT IS WHAT WE WOULD BE APPROVING. AND THAT, TO ME, IS JUST OUT OF THE QUESTION BASD ON THE INFORMATION HERE. WE COULD PRESUPPOSE ANYTHING THAT WE WANT TO, BUT, BASED OBJECT THE INFORMATION HERE, IT'S JUST TOO SMALL IN MY OPINION.

>> I THINK NOT ONLY IS IT TOO SMALL, ABOUT YOU IT'S NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO AND IT WOULD ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT THAT WE WOULDN'T WANT TO LIVE WITH DOWN THE ROAD. SO.

>> IN LIGHT OF THAT, I MOVE THAT WE DISAPPROVE THE REQUEST AS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

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

THIS QUESTION. MR. THOMAS? >> YES. >> COLONEL?

>> YES. >> MR. BEERMAN? >> YES.

[5. BA-2022-08: Receive a Report and Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing on a request from Paul Herrera of a 5-foot variance from the minimum 60-foot lot width ordinarily required for MD (Medium Density) Zoning districts. (Adam Holland)]

>> MR. LOUDERMILK? >> YES. >> AND MR. HAYSE.

>> THE NEXT IS BA 2021-08 RECEIVE A REPORT AND HOLD A PU PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE REQUEST ON A 5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE FEED.

>> THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CURRENTLY, THIS IS A PORTION OF A PLATTED LOT, OR TWO PLATTED LOT THE, I SHOULD SAY. UM, HERE'S THE ZONING MAP SHOWING MD ZONING SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY WITH A COLLECTOR'S STREET, ONE STREET OVER ON OAK STREET. HERE IS NOTIFICATION MAP. WE RECEIVED ONE NOTIFICATION IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD EMPOWERMENT ZONE. HERE ARE VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AS YOU COULD SEE, IT IS A VACANT LOT, CURRENTLY, AND THAT WOULD WISH TO BUILD A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, HERE IS A CONCEPTUAL PLAN SHOWING THE PROPOSED BUILDING, HE WILL MEET THE SET BACKS AS SHOWN WITH THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN. THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1442 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND WE FIND THAT THE STRICT APPLICATION FOR THE LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT FOR THE THIS PROPERTY WOULD PROVIDE HARDSHIP, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, AND IT WILL NOT BE INJUROUS TO NEIGHBORS OR DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELL FAIR. GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THIS LOT BEING CREATED WOULD BE 7,975 SQUARE FEET WHICH EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM 6,000 SQUARE FOOT REQUIREMENT FOR MD ZONING AND THE HARDSHIP OR INEQUITY IS NOT CAUSED BY THE PETITIONER. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE FOR ME? >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR ADAM? >> AT THIS POINT, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, WILL THE PROPONENT COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THE

[00:40:05]

REASON FOR YOUR REQUEST? MY NAME'S DALE ESTES, WITH ESTES SURVEY.

>> DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> I DO.

>> PROCEED. >> THIS WAS TWO PARTIAL LOTS AND THTHEY WERE ADDED TOGETHER.

BASICALLY, HE WANTS TO BUILD A HOUSE THERE AND IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD SO THAT WE DON'T

HAVE A VACANT LOT OUT HERE. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PROPONENT?

>> THE HOUSE WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT. >> YES, SIR, DEFINITELY, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, HE'S GOING OUT HERE AND BUILDING IN THESE LOTS THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING OUT THERE. I MEAN, IT'S A VACANT LOT, YOU KNOW, IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT, BRINGS IN CITY TAXES AND GETS RID OF THE AREA THAT YOU KNOW, FOR, NUISANCE, OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT MAY LIVE OUT

THERE. >> THANK YOU, SIR, ANY QUESTIONS?

>> THANKS. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK IN

FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST? >> ANYONE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?

>> CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. DISCUSSION? >>

>> IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHT FORWARD TO ME, TOO, I KNOW THAT STAFF SUMMARIZED THE SITUATION QUITE

WELL IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED AND BASED

ON THE INFORMATION AND THE STAFF REPORT. >> I'LL SECOND THAT.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE, MR. THOMAS? >> YES.

>> COLONEL LANGHOLTZ? >> YES. >> MR. BEERMAN?

[6. BA-2022-09: Receive a Report and Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing on a request from Paul Herrera of a 10-foot variance from the minimum 60-foot lot width ordinarily required for MF (Multi-family) Zoning districts. (Adam Holland)]

>> YES. >> MR. HAY. >> YES.

>> AND THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIES. THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS BA-2022-09, RECEIVE A REPORT AND HOLD A DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FROM THE PAUL HERRERA OF A 10-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 60-FOOT LOT WIDTH ORDINARILY REQUIRED FOR MULTI-FAMILY ZONING

DISTRICTS. >> ORDINARILY REQUIRED IN THE MD ZONING. LOCATED AT 834 POPLAR STREET, AND WE'VE RECEIVED ONE NOTIFICATION IN FAVOR AND 0 IN OPPOSITION.

HERE'S A LOCATION MAP SHOWING THE SUBJECT PARCEL. THIS IS CURRENTLY A PORTION OF TWO LOTS AS WELL. AND THIS IS CURRENTLY A VACANT LOT AS WELL. HERE'S A ZONING MAP, SHOWING THE CURRENT ZONING FOR ADJACENT AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CURRENTLY, IT IS SEASONED MD OR MEDIUM DENSITY. WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATIONS TO A 200-FOOT BUFFER AND RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR, AT 841 POPLAR STREET. AND HERE ARE VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CURRENTLY, THIS IS IN A VACANT LOT, WITH NEIGHBORING SINGLE-FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCES. STAFF FINDS THAT THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY WOULD RESULT IN INEQUITABLE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. GRANTS THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AND IT WILL NOT BE INJUROUS TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OR DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC WELFARE, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSES FOR LOTS. THIS LOT BEING CREATED WOULD BE 7,000 SQUARE FEET WHICH EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM 6,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT REQUIREMENT FOR MD ZONING AND THE HARDSHIP IS NOT CAUSED BY THE PETITIONER. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE FOR ME.

>> THANK YOU, ADAM, ANY QUESTIONS? >> NONE HERE.

>> THANK YOU. >> AT THIS POINT, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, WILL THE PROPONENT COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THE REASON FOR YOUR REQUEST.

[00:45:08]

>> DALE WITH . THIS IS A VACAT LOT, WE WANT TO PUT IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, CLEAN UP THE

NEIGHBORHOOD, AND MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE NEED. >> QUESTIONS?

>> WHAT LIKE WHAT YOU'RE DOING? >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> WELL, WE KEEP LOOKING FOR THEM. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR?