[00:00:04]
>> I'LL CALL THIS MEETING, THIS DECEMBER PLANNING & ZONING MEETING TO ORDER. REVEREND, WOULD YOU BLESS US
ALMIGHTY AND EVER LASTING GOD, WE THANK YOU, GOD FOR ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE DONE FOR US.
AND GOD, WE THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO BE APPROACHING THE END OF ANOTHER YEAR. ABOVE ALL, GOD, WE THANK YOU FOR THIS ADVENT SEASON. GOD, WE ASK YOU TO BLESS THOSE FAMILIES THAT MIGHT NOT BE IN A POSITION TO HAVE THE MEAL THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE TO CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS.
BLESS SOMEONE TO GET IN THEIR PATHWAY SO THEY CAN BLESS THEM.
WE PRAY. GOD, WE CONTINUE TO ASK YOU TO BLESS THIS CITY, OUR STATE, AND OUR NATION.
BLESS THIS BOARD AND ESPECIALLY THE WAY WE PRAY.
[MINUTES]
IN JESUS' NAME, WE PRAY. AMEN.>> THE FIRST ITEM IS THE MINUTES FROM OUR PREVIOUS MEETING.
MELISSA, ON CASE-- IT IS ON THE-- LET'S SEE.
DO YOU HAVE A HARD COPY? DO YOU HAVE A HARD COPY THERE? IT IS ON PAGE SIX AT THE BOTTOM. YOU HAD SHAWNTE ABSENT.
SHE GOT BACK IN FOR THAT. SO SHE WAS HERE.
SHE WAS A YES ON THAT. AND THEN, OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, ON THE LATTER TWO, YOU HAVE ALEX AS ABSENT.
OF COURSE, SHE WAS HERE AND THEN SHE LEFT.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WAS ABSENT.
I DON'T KNOW. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? SHE LEFT. SHE JUST WASN'T HERE TO VOTE ON THOSE. SO I'M NOT SURE IF ABSENT IS THE RIGHT-- SHE LEFT THE MEETING. ANYWAY.
SHE VOTED YES ON THAT. ON CASE 2023-31.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON OUR MINUTES? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYONE OUT THERE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON OUR MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE HEARING. AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO
>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR? >> MOTION AND SECOND.
WITH THOSE CHANGES? >> WITH THE CHANGE.
[PLATS]
MOVING ON. ADAM, ARE YOU DOING PLATS?
OR THE PLAT? >> GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS ADAM HOLLAND. I'M A PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF ABILENE. I'LL BE PRESENTING 8423-FP, DENALI EDITION, LOTS 101-104. THIS PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND FOUND CONSISTENT WITH CHAPTER, ARTICLE 2 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. THAT ALL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS MUST BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS AND INSPECTED FOR ACCEPTANCE OR THE PUBLIC WORKS MUST BE GIVEN A FINANCIAL GUARANTEE IN ORDER TO SECURE THE OBLIGATIONS OF ALL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, PRIOR TO RECORDING.
CITY STAFF MUST BE FURNISHED WITH A TITLE OPINION OR COMMITMENT LETTER CONFIRMING OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTIES AND A SEALED METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY MUST BE INCLUDED WITH THE REPORTED PLAT.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR ADAM? THANK YOU, ADAM.
I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS PLAT? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER
DISCUSSION OR A MOTION? >> I MOVE TO APPROVE.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> I SECOND.
>> WITH CONDITIONS? >> WITH THE CONDITIONS.
>> WITH THE CONDITIONS. >> AND A SECOND.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES. >> BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO ZONING CASES, THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ACTS ONLY AS A RECOMMENDING BOARD OF THE CITY COUNCIL IN MATTERS OF ZONING TCHT DECISION OF THIS COMMISSION MAY BE APPEALED THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE CITY SECRETARY, NO LATER THAN TEN DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS MEETING. APPEALS MUST BE IN WRITING.
THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM UNDER DISCUSSION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AFTER RECEIVING RECOGNITION BY THE CHAIR. THOSE WISHING TO BE HEARD SHALL APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME, AND APPROACH.
EACH SPEAKER WILL LIMIT THEIR PRESENTATION TO NO MORE THAN THREE MINUTES. BEFORE WE MOVE INTO THE ZONING CASES, IT TAKES FOUR YESES TO MOVE A CASE FORWARD TO THE COUNCIL. WE ONLY HAVE FOUR FOLKS HERE.
[00:05:02]
IF THERE WAS ONE NO VOTE TODAY, A CASE WOULD BE DENIED.IF WE CALLED TO THE QUESTION AND WE HAD ONLY THREE YESES, THEN THE CASE WOULD BE DENIED. AND SO FEW WOULD LIKE TO TABLE YOUR CASE BECAUSE OF THAT, THEN WE WILL ENTERTAIN THAT WHEN WE GET TO THAT CASE. OR IS THERE ANYBODY HERE THAT HAS A CASE BEFORE US THAT WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER THAT? OKAY. WE CAN TABLE AS MANY TIMES AS WE LIKE. YEAH.
>> YOU YOU SAID YOU ONLY HAD FOUR PEOPLE PRESENT?
>> THERE IS FOUR COMMISSIONERS. FOUR COMMISSIONERS.
WE ARE THE COMMISSIONERS. WE ARE MISSING THREE COMMISSIONERS. OKAY?
[ZONING]
ALL RIGHT. DOING THAT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO CUP-2023-07. A PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A TRADE SCHOOL WITHIN GENERAL RETAIL ZONING LOCATED AT 2449 SOUTH WILLIS STREET. WP SUITE 204.>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MASON TEEGARDIN.
TODAY WE WILL BE REVIEWING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2023-04.
THE AGENT IS SHAWN GARRETT. THIS ALLOWS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITHIN GENERAL RETAIL ZONING FOR A TRADE SCHOOL AT 2449 SOUTH WILLIS STREET. SUITE 204.
WEST HERE WE HAVE AN AERIAL LOCATION MAP.
AND THE ZONING MAP, WE HAVE THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH. GENERAL RETAIL.
PROPERTIES TO THE EAST, ARE ZONED MULTIFAMILY.
AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST ARE ZONED OFFICE.
HERE WE HAVE A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS THE SUITE LOCATION.
IT IS TOWARD THE REAR OF THE BUILDING.
AND THEN WE HAVE SOME VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATIONS WITHIN A 200-FOOT BUFFER OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. AND WE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR AND ZERO OPPOSED. THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING, THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED PLANNING PRINCIPLES, AND THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL IN THE LDC. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLAN OF OPERATIONS.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS MAY HAVE.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MASON? THANK YOU, MASON.
>> THANK YOU. >> WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO COME UP AND VISIT WITH US ABOUT THIS CASE? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION OR A MOTION?
>> IT SEEMS LIKE WE JUST DID F ONE FOR THE SCHOOLS.
THIS ONE IS INSIDE THE BILLING. THE ONE WE DID WAS AT A MASSAGE-- THE PLACE OVER THERE ON SOUTH 7TH AND SALES ON
>> THIS IS A BRAND NEW CASE. I MEAN, IN OUR PACKET, THERE WAS AN OPERATIONS-- PLAN OF OPERATIONS.
THAT SEEMED TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR THAT.
SEEMS LIKE IT IS -- >> EMOTION TO APPROVE.
I DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT.
>> I MEAN, MASON HAD A COUPLE OF-- KELLY WILL GET US CORRECT.
THERE WAS A-- YOU SAID ACCORDING TO THE PLAN OF OPERATION.
>> A MOTION TO INCLUDE THE PLAN OF OPERATION.
>> I'LL LET MASON SPEAK TO THAT. BECAUSE --
>> GO BACK A SLIDE, MASON. STAFF RECOMMEND?
>> SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLAN OF OPERATION.
YEAH. WE NEED TO INCLUDE THE PLAN OF
OPERATION THERE. >> THAT IS THE MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY FROM 8:30 TO 2:30 AND THEN THE EVENING CLASS AT 6:00
THERE WAS A WHOLE LIST THERE. CALL THE PLAN OF OPERATION.
THAT IS WHAT THAT WHOLE PAGE IS DIALED.
OKAY. A MOTION SUBJECT TO THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLAN OF OPERATION.
>> A SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES. >> CASE 2023-36.
TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 7.07 ACRES FROM PD96-A TO GENERAL RETAIL LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BUFFALO GAP ROAD. WE WILL REQUIRE PULLING IT OFF THE TABLE. DO I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO BRING THIS CASE OFF THE TABLE?
>> MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR?
[00:10:02]
ADAM, YOU ARE GOOD TO GO. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS ADAM HOLLAND. I'M THE PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF ABILENE. THIS IS A REZONE REQUEST.
REPRESENTED BY JACOB MARTIN. THIS IS A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF PD96-A FROM THE PD96-A TO GR.
THIS IS LOCATED AT 5333 BUFFALO GAP ROAD.
HERE IS AN AERIAL LOCATION MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTY.
HERE IS A ZONING MAP SHOWING THE AREA.
THIS IS CURRENT ZONING OF THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH.
THERE IS EXISTING GR ACROSS BUFFALO GAP ROAD.
THERE IS MEDICAL USE ZONING. JUST SOUTH IS RS-8.
AND THEN JUST EAST OF THE PROPERTY IS RS-6.
F WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY.
HERE ARE SOME VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
CURRENTLY, THERE IS A STARBUCKS BEING BUILT AT THE PROPERTY.
WITH VACANT LAND IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
HERE IS THE PROPOSED STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
STAFF RECOMMENDS LOT 203 TO BE ZONED TO GR.
AND LOT 202 AND 206 TO BE ZONED NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL.
WHICH IS A LESS INTENSE ZONING DISTRICT.
WE RECEIVED MANY NOTIFICATIONS BACK IN OPPOSITION.
EQUALING A 29.35% OPPOSITION FOR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
WE ALSO RECEIVED ONE ADDITIONAL OPPOSITION AT 5336 HUNTER'S CIRCLE. THE PROPOSED REQUEST FOR GR, FOR THE FRONT PORTION OF THE SITE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GENERALLY ACCEPTED PLANNING PRINCIPLES, SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING ANT AND THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL AND THE LDC. THE POTENTIAL DOWN-ZONING OF LOTS 202 AND 206 WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WOULD PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATE BUFFER FOR THE CURRENT LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING FOR GENERAL RETAIL ON LOT 203 AND DOWN-ZONING THE REQUEST FROM GENERAL RETAIL TO NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL ON LOTS 202 AND 206. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. >> SO GO BACK UP TWO SLIDES.
EXPLAIN WHY THE NR-ZONING WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE BUFFER.
FOR THE CURRENT LOW-DENSITY. >> THE NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT IS A LIGHTER INTENSITY ZONING DISTRICT, WHEREAS THE GR IS A LOWER INTENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL ZONING ALLOWS FOR LESS INTENSIVE USES AND IMPOSES AN HOURS OF OPERATION AS WELL.
>> SO YOU DON'T HAVE THE TWO, THE NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL AND THE GENERAL RETAIL, THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO AS FAR AS --
>> NOT IN THIS POWER POINT. >> OKAY.
IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? THAT WILL REQUIRE A SUPER
MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL IN. >> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ADAM? THANKS, ADAM.
I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO COME UP AND VISIT WITH US ABOUT THIS CASE? LY SAY I WILL SAY WE DID HAVE A PRETTY GOOD DISCUSSION LAST MONTH ON THIS. WE ARE PRETTY WELL UP TO SPEED.
WE SHOULD BE UP TO SPEED WITH WHAT THE ISSUES ARE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. AGENT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER.
I'M GOING TO TRY TO TALK BACK THROUGH THAT AGAIN.
THERE IS AT LEAST ONE HERE THAT WASN'T HERE LAST WEEK.
>> RIGHT. >> UNFORTUNATELY, WE'VE GOT FOUR AGAIN. BEFORE I START, ONE QUESTION, I GUESS, FOR KELLY. THE SUPER MAJORITY REQUIREMENT
IS FOR COUNCIL ONLY, CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> THIS PROPERTY PRIOR TO THE PD ZONING THAT EXISTS TODAY WAS A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY WAS LIMITED COMMERCIAL.
THIS WAS PRIOR TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 2008, SETTING UP NEW ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS.
LIMITED COMMERCIAL, YOU MAY NOT REMEMBER WHAT ALL WAS INCLUDED, BUT THAT WAS A MORE INTENSE USE THAN GENERAL RETAIL.
THE BACK SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY WAS AO.
AT THE TIME, I BELIEVE IT WAS EARLY 2000S.
2004 MAYBE WHEN THE PD CAME ABOUT.
AGAIN, PRIOR TO THE 200 # LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AND LIKE, UNFORTUNATELY, SO MANY OF THESE PDS, IN MY OPINION, WAS
[00:15:04]
NOT WRITTEN VERY WELL. AND THAT IS REALLY THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THE, FOR THE REQUEST. FROM MY CLIENT.SO THE PROPERTY THAT FRONTS THAT WAS LIMITED COMMERCIAL.
THE PD REPRESENTED SOMEWHAT OF A DOWN-ZONING.
ONE VERY IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF THIS PD THAT I NEED TO POINT OUT IS THAT IT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY BUFFERING TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. NONE.
OF COURSE, IN 2008, WHEN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WAS REWRITTEN, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS ADDED TO ALL RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS WHEN ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE IT IS APPROPRIATE.
THE REQUEST FOR GR ACROSS THE ENTIRE TRACT, THAT WAS THE REQUEST OF MY CLIENT. BASED ON THE FIRST MEETING LAST MONTH, AND HEARING FROM THE NEIGHBORS, ALSO SEEING WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS, I THINK MY CLIENT IS COMFORTABLE MODIFYING THE REQUEST TO INCLUDE A COMBINATION OF NR AND GR.
BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO SET THE DIVISION LINE AS OUR REQUEST.
MATCHING THE REAR OF THE GR TO THE NORTH AND EXTEND THAT DUE SOUTH. AND THAT REPRESENT THE DIVISION LINE BETWEEN GR AND NR. WHICH MORE CLOSELY MIMICS WHERE THE LIMITED COMMERCIAL, AGAIN, TWO ZONINGS AGO, PRIOR TO THE PD, WHERE THAT WAS IN PLACE. YOU KNOW, I HEARD --
>> I HEARD LAST TIME FROM THE NEIGHBORS.
IN OTHER WORDS, A MAJOR CONCERN ON THEIR PART ABOUT HOW CLOSE THE STARBUCKS WAS BUILT TO THE ALLEY THAT EXISTS THERE NOW.
NO QUESTION. IT SITS RIGHT UP AGAINST IT.
IT SITS THERE BECAUSE THERE IS NO BUFFER.
THERE IS NO BUFFERING REQUIREMENT IN THE PD.
IT DOESN'T MEET THE CURRENT LDC IF WE WERE TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY TO GR AND NR. BOTH HAVE SIGNIFICANT BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS. ONE IMPORTANT THING TO UNDERSTAND IS WHILE THAT PROPERTY IS UNDER DEVELOPMENT ALREADY AND WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED BASED ON THE PD THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WAS STARTED UNDER, IF THERE IS ANY MAJOR RENOVATION OR REDEVELOPMENT OF THAT PROPERTY, AND THIS ZONING IS APPROVED, THEY WOULD HAVE TO THEN MEET THE NEW BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS. IT IS NOT THAT IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN. IT IS THAT IT IS GOING TO TAKE THAT MAJOR RENOVATION STEP TO TRIGGER IT.
BUT MOST CERTAINLY, THAT BUFFERING REQUIREMENT WOULD BE IN PLACE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY.
ONE THING I WANT TO MAKE VERY CLEAR.
THIS ZONING REQUEST IS NOT TO WRITE ANY-- RIGHT ANY WRONGS.
F THIS IS AN EFFORT TO GET RID OF A PD THAT NUMBER ONE, DOESN'T HAVE ANY BUFFERING. NUMBER TWO, IT DOES ALLOW A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY WITH USES.
BUT AGAIN, IN 2008, WE DEEMED NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL AND GENERAL RETAIL APPROPRIATE NEXT TO NEIGHBORHOODS AS LONG AS THAT BUFFERING WAS PUT IN PLACE. THAT WAS THE DECISION IN 2008.
THE FLEXIBILITY OF THE USES AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO-- WELL, YOU HAVE TO LINE THAT CHART, THE CURRENT CHART UP WITH THE USES THAT ARE SPELLED OUT. THERE ARE VERY FEW ADDITIONAL USES WITHIN THE CURRENT NR AND GR.
THERE IS JUST A HANDFUL OF EDUCATIONAL AND DAY CARE TYPE-RELATED USES. FUEL SALES ARE STILL NOT ALLOWED. I MEAN, A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK WOULD BE NOT NECESSARILY APPROPRIATE TO RESIDENTIAL ARE STILL NOT ALLOWED WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICTS.
SO AGAIN, I OUR REQUEST-- I WANT TO MODIFY IT FROM THE ORIGINAL SUBMISSION TO INCLUDE A COMBINATION OF GR AND NR, BUT WITH THE BOUNDARY LINE AS I HAVE OUTLINED.
AND I DON'T HAVE AN EXHIBIT TO SHOW YOU.
THE BACK SIDE OF THE NR TO THE NORTH, YOU JUST EXTEND THAT DUE SOUTH. THAT IS WHERE WE WOULD ASK THAT
THE BOUNDARY LINE BE. >> SO WHILE YOU ARE HERE, LET'S TALK A MINUTE ABOUT THIS BUFFERING REQUIREMENT.
OKAY? SO RIGHT NOW, WHAT THE PD SAYS IS WE ARE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING, SETBACK SHALL BE 35 FEET. AND SO RIGHT NOW, YOU COULD PUT A BUILDING 35 FOOT FROM THE BOUNDARY LINE.
[00:20:01]
>> ALL THAT IS IS A BUILDING SETBACK BUFFER.
WHERE THE EDGE OF THE BUILDING SITS.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PARKING, LANDSCAPING, FENCING, VEGETATION. ALL OF WHICH WOULD BE REQUIRED
AND INCLUDED IN ANY GR-NR ZONE. >> SO THE BUFFERING NOW-- THERE IS KIND OF A COMBINATION OF THINGS.
THE EAST BECAUSE THERE IS AN ALLEY THERE.
SO IF YOU SAID BUFFERING THERE FIND AND YOU USE A FENCE OR WHATEVER FOR YOUR BUFFERING, YOU PUT A FENCE OR SOMETHING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ALLEY AND ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE ALLEY IN THAT AREA. IN THE FRONT PART OF THAT, THERE APPEARS TO BE MAYBE THE FIRST SIX LOTS OR SO, HAVE SET THEIR FENCES BACK OFF THE PROPERTY LINE TO ALLOW FOR AN ALLEY IN THERE. FOR IT TO GIVE THEM AN ALLEY.
THE PROPERTY LINE IS ACTUALLY NORTH OF WHERE THE FENCE IS.
AS YOU GET CLOSER TO THE CUL-DE-SAC THERE, TO THE EAST, THOSE LOTS AND THAT CUL-DE-SAC, THEY APPEAR-- THE FENCE IS MOVED
BACK TO THE PROPERTY LINE. >> YES, SIR.
>> IN THAT CASE, WOULD WE USE-- YOU KNOW, MAYBE RIGHT THERE WHERE THAT SWIMMING POOL IS AND THOSE LOTS RIGHT THERE FOR THAT CUL-DE-SAC ON TO THE EAST. IF YOU HAD A BUFFER THERE, WHAT
WOULD THE BUFFER LOOK LIKE? >> SO IT IS BASED ON-- PER THE
>> IT IS BASED ON A POINT SYSTEM.
NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL, IT IS EITHER 20 OR 25 POINTS.
WHICH IS GOING TO CONSIST OF A COMBINATION OF SPACE, MINIMUM OF TEN FEET, BUT YOU PICK UP POINTS FOR ANY ADDITIONAL FOOTAGE THAT YOU SET BACK. THAT INCLUDES ANY AND ALL
>> IT WOULD BE VEGETATION ONLY ALLOWED IN THAT SPACE.
OPAQUE FENCE. OPAQUE MEANING YOU CAN'T SEE THROUGH THE FENCE. MATERIAL TO BE DETERMINED.
AND SO THE TREES HAVE TO BE SPACED AT, I BELIEVE, 25 FEET ON CENTER. THERE IS MINIMUM SIZE FOR THE TRUNK AND HEIGHT. MATURE HEIGHT.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO USE A COMBINATION OF THOSE ITEMS TO
MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. >> AS I UNDERSTAND RIGHT NOW, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANY OF THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> STAFF SEPARATED-- I GUESS THERE IS ESSENTIALLY THREE LOTS SITTING HERE.
THEY SEPARATED THE SOUTHWEST CORNER LOT AS GR AND THEN THE OTHER TWO AS NR. YOU KNOW, THERE IS TWO FINGERS THAT JUT OUT TO THE WEST TOWARDS BUFFALO GAP ROAD AND TO THE NORTH. IT DOESN'T MAKE-- IN TERMS OF THE LOT SIZE, TO ME, IT DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO EXTEND NR TO THE ROAD. AND REALLY I THINK WHEN THEY PUT THAT IN PLACE, IT WAS SIMPLE FOR THEM TO IDENTIFY THE LOTS.
I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN KNO KNOWING, YOU KNOW, WHY THEY PICKED THOSE BOUNDARIES, IF IT WAS SIMPLY THAT LOT PROVIDED THE REAR DEPTH. WHERE YOU ARE BOUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL ON THREE SIDES. RIGHT? I MEAN, TO ME, THAT MAKES SENSE TO PROVIDE NR IN THAT LOCATION.
AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, 2008, WHEN NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL WAS ESTABLISHED AS A ZONING DIS DISTRICT, IT WAS INTENDED TO BE PLACED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SUBDIVISION.
ANYWHERE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL.
AS LONG AS THEY MET THOSE BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS WHICH ARE REQUIRED. IT IS NOT THAT IT IS INAPPROPRIATE. IT IS, IT IS ACCORDING TO WHAT IT WAS APPROVED IN 2008. THIS IS AN IDEAL SPOT FOR THAT.
FOR THAT ZONING DISTRICT. >> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. >> MY NAME IS DENISE JONES.
I LIVE AT 3249 WOODHOLLOW CIRCLE, INSIDE THE AREA THAT RECEIVED THE LETTERS. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL. I KNOW YOU ARE USING YOUR OWN TIME TO VOLUNTEER TO DO THIS. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.
AND I HOPE THE COMMUNITY REALIZES HOW FORTUNATE WE ARE TO HAVE YOU. I HAVE TO TELL YOU, I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED NOW BECAUSE I HAD MY PAPERWORK ALL SET UP TO KIND OF LINE THIS UP FOR YOU. THE FIRST THING THAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST IS THAT SINCE STARBUCKS IS ALREADY THERE AND ALREADY IN THE PROCESS OF BEING BUILT, AND IT WAS PUT IN UNDER THE PDD, WE HONESTLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE ZONING NEEDS
[00:25:03]
TO BE CHANGED AT ALL FROM PDD. SECONDLY, THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST FOR THAT ACREAGE BEHIND, IT IS TOTALLY SPECULATIVE.IT IS HARD FOR US AS NEIGHBORS WHO ABUT THAT AREA TO EVEN KN KNOW-- I MEAN, I HAVE STUDIED NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE, OFFICE, NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL, GENERAL RETAIL.
HONESTLY, TO ME, THERE WASN'T A WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENCE UNLESS YOU JUST GO WITH PURE OFFICE WHICH IS WHAT WE WERE TOLD EARLY ON WHEN THAT LAND WAS REZONED. IT WAS AGRICULTURAL AND LIMITED COMMERCIAL. THE THREE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT TOTALLY ABUT THAT WITH NO INGRESS OR EGRESS, EXCEPT BUFFALO GAP ROAD, IT IS NOT REALLY A PRIME AREA TO HAVE ANY KIND OF HEAVY-DUTY. BUT HERE IS WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND. THE PDD THAT I HAVE, AND THE PDD THAT WE GOT FROM THE PLANNING & ZONING CLEARLY, IT CLEARLY SPECIFIES THAT FIRST OF ALL, IT SAYS THAT IN OUR PDD, IT ALSO REFERS TO THE QUARTER OVERLAY. MOST OF YOU WEREN'T HERE MANY YEARS AGO WHEN IT USED TO BE CALLED THE BUFFALO GAP CORRIDOR OVERLAY. THEY DROPPED THE WORDING "BUFFALO GAP." IT IS STILL THE CORRIDOR OVERLAY. THERE IS ONE FOR PINE STREET AND AMBLER. SO THE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DOES STATE THAT IT IS TO PROMOTE QUALITY DEVELOPMENT AMONG A MAJOR CORRIDOR IN HARMONY WITH ADJACENT LAND AND THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT. IT IS TO ENSURE THAT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS ARE PROTECTED FROM ENCROACHMENT OF INCOMPATIBLE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES THAT OCCUR ALONG THE CORRIDOR.
ESTABLISH THAT THE CORRIDOR IS DEVELOPED WITH SPECIAL AND SPECIFIC STANDARDS AND DESIGN TO PROVIDE A PLEASING AND POSITIVE IMAGE. ALL CORRIDOR OVERLAY REGULATIONS FOR SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS AND OTHERS SHALL APPLY. ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING SETBACK SHALL BE 35 FEET. THAT IS IN THE PDD.
LIGHTING SHALL BE DIRECTED AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECTED PARCEL. THAT IS IN THE PDD.
SCREENING SHALL BE REQUIRED ON ANY NON-RESIDENTIAL SITE REQUIRING A SITE PLAN. A SOLID WALL OR FENCE OF MATERIALS HAVING A NATIONAL EARTH TONE COLOR AND HEIGHT OF 6 TO 7 FEET. WE BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A SOUND PROOF WALL ALONG THE STARBUCKS PERIMETER TO BUFFER THE SOUND AND THE NOISE THAT IT IS GOING TO ENTAIL. IT IS ALSO OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT STARBUCKS IS NOW USING TOUCHSTONE SCREENS.
THE VIEW OF ALL PARK VEHICLES SHALL BE SCREENED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, IN REFERRAL TO MY COMMENT REGARDING THE WALL. THAT IS LISTED IN THE CORRIDOR OVERLAY. EXISTING TREES ON THE SITE DETERMINED TO BE HEALTHY SHALL BE PRESERVED TO THE GREATEST EXTENT. WELL, THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN CUT DOWN. ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.
ALL LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING SHALL BE KEPT IN A VIGOROUS AND HEALTHY CONDITION FREE FROM DISEASE, PESTS, WEEDS, AND LITTER. THE DRIVEWAY TO ACCESS MANAGEMET REGULATIONS OF THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, THE CITY OF ABILENE, AND THIS SECTION OR WHATEVER IS THE MOST RESTRICTIVE. DUE TO THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS, WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO REQUEST THAT THE TIMES BE ADDED TO THAT. NO EARLIER THAN 6:00 A.M. AND NO LATER THAN 10:00 P.M. JUST FROM A CONCERNED CITIZEN, WE FEEL LIKE WE REALIZE THAT PROGRESS-- WE ARE NOT TRYING TO STOP PROGRESS AT ALL. WE KNOW THAT THAT IS A VERY UNUSUAL PLOT RIGHT THERE THAT IS SURROUNDED BY THREE NEIGHBORHOODS WITH ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT ON BUFFALO GAP ROAD. WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND THE INVESTMENTS THAT WE HAVE ALL MADE IN OUR PROPERTY. WE HAVE LIVED THERE FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. I DO HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE FOLKS THAT REQUIRED THIS. IT IS-- THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE A DOG IN THE HUNT. I'M NOT SURE WHY BECAUSE THEIR
[00:30:04]
ESTABLISHMENT IS EXCLUDED. YOU MAY NOT KNOW THE ANSWER.EXCUSE ME. I GOT SOMETHING IN MY-- I WAS JUST CURIOUS SINCE THEY REQUESTED IT AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS DIDN'T. AND MY HUSBAND-- I DON'T KNOW-- I HAD THE PLATS ENLARGED. WE WOULD BE CURIOUS BASED ON MY INFORMATION WHERE THE WALL WOULD GO AND WHERE THE LANDSCAPING WOULD GO AND WHAT TYPE OF WALL AND HOW FAR THOSE 5-FOOT
SETBACKS ARE. >> SO YOU SAID A LOT.
I'M CONFUSED ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID, TOO.
>> OKAY. >> SO ARE YOU SAYING YOU DON'T WANT THE GENERAL RETAIL TO GO IN?
>> YES, SIR. THAT IS ONE THING.
>> OKAY. WE CAN'T CHANGE THE PD.
>> IT IS ALREADY IN THERE. IT IS ALREADY IN THERE AS PDD.
WHY DOES IT NEED-- WE ARE CURIOUS WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE CHANGED? IT IS BEING BUILT UNDER THE PDD.
IT HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR PDD. >> WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT.
THE PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTED TO CHANGE IT TO GENERAL RETAIL BECAUSE HE PROBABLY FEELS THAT THERE IS MORE USES, AND HE COULD PROBABLY HAVE A BETTER SELLING OF THAT PROPERTY IF IT WAS ZONED
BUT THE PROPERTY OWNER DIDN'T REQUEST IT.
>> I BELIEVE THEY DID. >> WELL, GOLDEN CHICK DOESN'T OWN THAT PROPERTY. GOLDEN CHICK IS THREE BRANDS.
THE PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT REQUEST IT.
THAT IS PAT HARRIS THAT OWNS THAT PROPERTY.
>> OKAY. WE WILL GET TO THAT IN A MINUTE.
>> PARDON ME? >> WE WILL SORT THROUGH THAT
HERE IN JUST A MINUTE. >> OKAY.
YES. THE ZONING CHANGE WAS NOT
REQUESTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. >> YOU WANT THE PD TO STAY
I WOULD ALSO LIKE THE RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE IN THE PDD THAT I JUST QUOTED THAT GO WITH THE PDD ZONING, I WOULD LIKE FOR THE BARRIER WALL, THE BUFFER TO BE INCLUDED.
>> OKAY. WE CAN'T CHANGE THE PD.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
>> THE QUESTION BEFORE US TODAY IS-- YES.
>> CAN WE CHANGE FROM GENERAL RETAIL TO-- FROM PDD TO GENERAL
I'M CUTTING IT ALL BACK TO, SAY, WE BELIEVE THAT STARBUCKS IS ALREADY IN THERE UNDER PDD. AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS DIDN'T REQUEST A CHANGE FOR STARBUCKS. GOLDEN CHICK DID.
GOLDEN CHICK IS ALREADY IN THERE.
WE JUST BELIEVE IT SHOULD REMAIN PDD, AND THEN WHEN THE OWNER HAS A PROPERTY OR A PROSPECTIVE COMPANY THAT HE WANTS TO BE PUT IN THERE, THEN WE WOULD LIKE TO BE NOTIFIED AND FIND OUT WHAT KIND OF ZONING CHANGE THAT THEY WOULD BE REQUESTING.
>> THANK YOU ALL FOR LETTING US BE HERE TODAY.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE VERY MUCH.
MY NAME IS STEVE CARRIGAN. I LIVE ON THE EAST CUL-DE-SAC.
I'M GOING TO ADDRESS SAFETY ISSUES TODAY.
WITH ONE ENTRANCE AND EXIT LOCATION WITH ALL THIS PROPERTY, THERE IS 11,000 CARS GOING UP AND DOWN BUFFALO GAP EVERY DAY.
AT LEAST. LONG STORY SHORT, STARBUCKS, I
HAVE DONE SOME RESEARCH-- >> IF YOU ARE GOING TO TALK TRAFFIC, I WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL TO THAT.
THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT CONTROLS THAT.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. THEY DON'T CONTROL THE ENTRANCE
AND EXIT RIGHT THERE. >> YES, THEY DO.
YOU -- >> WOULD YOU PLEASE LET ME SAY
WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY IN. >> YES, SIR.
>> YES. THAT IS THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY'S LANE. I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. THE STORY IS THIS.
THERE ARE 500 TO 800 CARS THAT WILL BE GOING THROUGH STARBUCKS DAILY. DOUBLE THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE COMING IN AND OUT THE SAME LOCATION.
CONSEQUENTLY, WE ARE LOOKING AT 1,500 ENTRANCES AND EXITS OF VEHICLES ENTERING STARBUCKS ALONE.
THE GOLDEN CHICK LOCATION, THERE WAS NOT A LOT OF SOLID DATA ABOUT HOW MUCH VOLUME THEY DO. I CAN ASSURE YOU THEY ARE DOING
AT LEAST 300 A DAY. >> YOU ADD THOSE TWO TOGETHER, NOT EVEN COUNTING WHAT MIGHT COME TO THE BACK SIDE OF THIS
[00:35:03]
LOCATION, WE ARE ALREADY LOOKING AT NEAR 2,500 CARS TRYING TO ENTRANCE AND EXIT AT THE SAME LOCATION.NOW, THERE IS A TURN LANE IN THE MIDDLE OF.
THAT I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT.
BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF TRAFFIC COMING FROM THE SOUTH SIDE THAT TURN IN ALREADY. GOING TO THE GOLDEN CHICK.
THEY ARE GOING TO TURN INTO THE STARBUCKS EVEN MORE.
NOW, WHAT HAPPENS ALREADY, AND IT IS SOMEWHAT DUE TO CONSTRUCTION. SOME OF IT IS DUE TO THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC. THAT STUFF BACKS UP ALL THE WAY TO THE WOODS CAN LAKE ENTRANCE. AT 7:00 IN THE MORNING TO 8:00 IN THE MORNING, FOR STARBUCKS, THEY ARE GOING TO BE TRYING TO TURN RIGHT INTO STARBUCKS IN THAT ONE LOCATION.
THAT TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BACK UP.
IF ANYBODY IS TRYING TO PULL OUT AND GO SOUTH, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO RUN INTO THAT TRAFFIC AND BEAT THE TRAFFIC ACROSS TO GO TO THE SOUTH SIDE LOCATION. SO THIS IS A PURE SAFETY ISSUE.
I DON'T CARE WHO OWNS THE STREET.
THIS IS SAFETY. FOR EVERYBODY SOUTH OF THIS WHO LIVES THERE IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA.
THEY HAVE TO PULL OUT ON TO THAT STREET.
FIRST THING THEY ARE GOING TO RUN INTO IS A BOG-DOWN AT THAT TURN-IN. EVERY MORNING, TRYING TO GO TO WORK. EVERY MORNING, 7 DAYS A WEEK.
IT IS A SAFETY CONCERN. IT NEEDS TO BE EVALUATED.
I'M NOT EVEN-- WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT'S GOING IN THE BACK.
THAT MAY EXACERBATE THE PROBLEM EVEN MORE.
IT WILL. MORE TRAFFIC IS MORE TRAFFIC.
I DON'T CARE HOW YOU CUT IT. >> THANK YOU.
>> THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY. ONE LAST THING, THOUGH.
EVEN IN YOUR DESCRIPTION OF WHAT A GENERAL RETAIL DISTRICT IS, AND THE CITY'S PAPERWORK, IT SAYS THE GENERAL RETAIL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT SHOULD GENERALLY OCCUR IN NODES AT INTERSECTIONS OF MAJOR THOROUGHFARES. THERE IS NO INTERSECTION HERE.
IT IS ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT.
THIS IS YOUR VERBAGE. NOT OURS.
WHY IS THAT NOT BEING ADDRESSED? >> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU ALL. >> ANYONE ELSE?
>> I'M CHARLES CARTER. I LIVE AT 3010 WOOD WEST CIRCLE.
I CAME TO YOU LAST TIME ABOUT NEEDING INFORMATION.
WE HEARD A LOT OF NEW INFORMATION TODAY THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW BEFORE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT-- WE ASKED FOR THE PLATS. NO.
WE DON'T HAVE THE PLOTS. WE SEE THEM RIGHT HERE.
WE DIDN'T SEE THEM IN ANY OF THE HANDOUTS THAT CAME OUT.
SO APPARENTLY, THE PLANNING PEOPLE DON'T EXPECT US TO HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION THAT IS AVAILABLE.
WE JUST GET IT HERE. THEN WE HAVE THE GENTLEMAN COME UP AND THEN CHANGE WHAT THE DEAL IS GOING ON NOW.
FROM WHAT WE WALKED IN HERE THINKING IT WAS.
SO I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT, I THINK, TO BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH SOME CLARITY. TO HAVE THE INFORMATION-- EVERYBODY HAVE THE INFORMATION AT THE SAME TIME.
I KNOW THAT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO HAVE, BUT IT CAN BE DONE.
IF WE JUST-- IF THINGS WERE WORKED TOGETHER.
I APPRECIATE YOU LISTENING TO ME.
I HAD HOPED THAT WE HAD MORE INFORMATION THIS TIME.
THE LETTER CAME OUT EXACTLY THE SAME.
IT IS JUST CUT AND PASTED. THE TIME AND DATE.
WE KNEW NO MORE THAN WE DID BEFORE.
>> MY NAME IS MIKE WILDER. I LIVE AT 3126 CHERRY BARK.
THE CUL-DE-SAC THAT BACKS UP ON THE EAST SIDE OF THIS AREA THAT IS ACTUALLY BEING LOOKED AT FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT AREA. I REALIZE IT IS AN ODD, ODD AREA. I WAS A REALTOR IN ABILENE FOR 25 YEARS. I HAVE LIVED IN MY HOUSE FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS. AND BELIEVE ME, IF I HAD LIVED THERE WHEN WALGREEN'S WAS BUILT, I WOULD HAVE PITCHED A FIT UP AND DOWN AND SIDEWAYS. TO KEEP ANYTHING LIKE THAT FROM BEING BUILT RIGHT UP NEXT TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA.
THE GENTLEMAN SAID NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL WAS DESIGNED TO BE PUT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA.
DESIGNED BY PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIVE THERE.
WHO DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO THE NOISE, THE NOISE POLLUTION OF THE DUMPSTERS BEING DUMPED, THE TRASH THAT BLOWS ON TO THE
[00:40:02]
RESIDENTIAL AREAS SURROUNDING IT, THE TRAFFIC, AND AS THE GENTLEMAN SAID, BUFFALO GAP ROAD IS ALREADY A NIGHTMARE.I KNOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO IMPROVE WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION IS FINISHED. BUT RIGHT NOW, IT IS TERRIBLE.
I DON'T SEE IT GETTING THAT MUCH BETTER, AND YOUR PREVIOUS COMMENT LAST MEETING WAS THAT BUFFALO GAP ROAD IS DESIGNED FOR HIGH TRAFFIC. IT IS A STATE HIGHWAY.
YEAH, WELL, IT WAS DESIGNED FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC.
NOT TRAFFIC TRYING TO TURN LEFT AND RIGHT GOING NORTH AND SOUTH.
AND ADDING MORE BUSINESSES TO THAT PLOT OF LAND IS GOING TO DO NOTHING MORE THAN AS THE PREVIOUS GENTLEMAN SAID, EXASPERATE THE PROBLEM. THANK YOU.
>> MY NAME IS VAN JONES. I'M AT 3249 WOOLHOLLOW CIRCLE.
MR. ROSENBAUM, DID YOU JUST SAY THAT THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT COULD NOT BE CHANGED? COULD NOT BE --
>> THAT IS NOT WHAT IS BEFORE US TODAY.
>> I'M SORRY? >> THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS NOT BEFORE US TODAY. DOING AWAY WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND BRINGING IN GENERAL RETAIL IS BEFORE US TODAY. THERE IS NO AMENDMENT TO THE
WELL, I WOULD PROPOSE-- I REITERATE WHAT MY WIFE SAID, THAT THE ZONING SHOULD REMAIN JUST AS IT IS.
AS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. IN THE WISDOM OF WHOEVER WROTE THAT, AND THE CORRIDOR STUDY, WE BACK WHEN, I THINK THEY REALIZE THAT WOULD BE A BAD LOCATION FOR A LOT OF TRAFFIC.
AND A LOT OF ACTIVITY. WE HAD TO REALLY STUDY THIS WHEN UNITED SUPERMARKETS WANTED TO PUT IN THEIR BIG STORE THERE AND A FUELING STATION. IT WAS JUST NOT GOING TO WORK.
WE QUOTED ALL THE CRITERIA IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
AND ANYWAY, YOU KNOW, THAT WENT AWAY.
WE WERE SATISFIED WITH THAT. I WOULD RECOMMEND AND PROPOSE THAT THE WORDING-- I HEARD WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
TO ME, THAT WOULD BE THE SOLUTION.
TO TO TAKE OUT THAT CRITERIA OF SPECIALTY STORE.
THE GENTLEMAN WITH JACOB MARTIN CALLS IT SPECIALTY USE.
THAT IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS. SPECIALTY STORE.
THAT SEEMS TO BE A LOOPHOLE THAT GOT GOLDEN CHICK AND STARBUCKS INTO THIS AREA WHICH WAS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, AND YOU KNOW, THE OVERALL CORRIDOR STUDY. WE JUST WANTED AN AREA FOR PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS AND, YOU KNOW, THE STANDARD RESTAURANT.
WHICH IS PROVIDED IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
NOT A FAST FOOD STORE. YOU KNOW, WITH ALL THE TRAFFIC THAT COMES WITH THAT. JUST A STANDARD RESTAURANT.
A SITDOWN MENU, ET CETERA. SO ANYWAY, I SECOND THE DEMAND FOR THE ACOUSTICAL FENCE WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> SORRY TO COME BACK UP. ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
THAT I HEARD. THE GENTLEMAN THAT SPOKE JUST BEFORE ME. I FORGOT TO MENTION THIS EARLIER. SPECIALTY USE IS ONE OF THE BIG FACTORS BEHIND THE BIG DRIVERS BEHIND CHANGING THIS ZONING.
THAT IS NOT, THAT IS NOT A USE ANY LONGER.
I'M NOT EVEN SURE IT WAS WHEN THE PD WAS WRITTEN.
IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR STAFF I THINK-- I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THEM. YOU CAN ASK THAT QUESTION OF THEM. CERTAINLY, IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR MY CLIENT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HE IS ALLOWED TO PUT ON THE PROPERTY. AND SO THAT IS A BIG DRIVER BEHIND THE REQUEST. AS FAR AS I HEARD-- OWNERSHIP.
I NOTICED. THAT I GOT ON GIS BEFORE I CAME UP HERE. I HADN'T CLICKED ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY BEFORE BECAUSE I KNOW MY CLIENT.
OWNS IT. THE $FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE
[00:45:01]
GIS IS INCORRECT. IT SHOWS-- THEY DO OWN THE GOLDEN CHICK, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY JUST NORTH OF STARBUCKS. NORTH OF THAT FINGER THAT RUNS OUT TO BUFFALO GAP. THAT 3W IS SHOWN ON THE TRACTS.THAT IS NOT ACCURATE. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? THANK YOU.
>> HANG ON A SECOND. I'M READING THIS.
3W BRANDS LLC IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE TRACT? ALL RIGHT. THANKS.
ANYONE ELSE? >> THAT 3WLLC HAS BEEN ON ALL THE CORRESPONDENCE. I'M CURIOUS NOW WHY THEY ARE NOT THE OWNERS. THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO SAY, AND I THINK I SPOKE TO SOME OF YOU ABOUT THIS LAST TIME.
SPECIALTY STORE IS NOT DEFINED ANYWHERE, ANYWHERE.
WE HAVE HAD THREE DIFFERENT ATTORNEYS STUDY THE ENTIRE SECTION OF ANY CODE THAT GOES WITH THE CITY OF ABILENE.
THERE IS NO, THERE IS NO SUCH WORD IN THERE AS SPECIALTY STORE. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WAS CURIOUS HOW THAT EVEN MADE IT. I CONTACTED YOUR CITY MANAGER.
HE SAID "I AGREE. IT IS NOT IN THERE, BUT MAYBE STARBUCKS WOULD, IF IT WERE SUCH A THING, THEN STARBUCKS MIGHT QUALIFY." SO THAT IS OUR CHALLENGE ABOUT SPECIALTY USE. OR SPECIALTY STORE.
THERE IS NO DEFINITION, AND IT IS NOT LISTED ANYWHERE IN ALL OF YOUR WHOLE CODING SECTION. THANK YOU.
>> ANYONE ELSE? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO I GUESS TWO QUESTIONS IS, ARE WE, ARE WE WRONG ON THE AGENDA? I MEAN, ADAM, YOU WANT TO-- OR-- SO ARE WE-- HAVE WE SENT OUT THE
STUFF WRONG? >> WE ARE REQUIRED BY STATE LAW TO USE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT
>> I THINK IN THIS CASE, WE DID LIST THE CORRECT PROPERTY OWNER.
GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE. PAT HARRIS ENTERPRISES IS HOW WE IDENTIFIED THE APPLICATION. THAT IS CORRECT.
FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THAT IS CORRECT.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. BUT ON THE AGENDA, IT IS NOT.
ON THE AGENDA, IT IS 3W BRANDS LLC.
THEY STATED WHEN THEY GOT ALL OF THEIR STUFF, IT WAS 3 BRANDS
I WOULD CONSULT WITH YOUR CITY ATTORNEY.
BUT THE CORRECT NOTICE OF WHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR WAS SENT OUT.
THE CORRECT PROPERTY OWNERS WHO ARE ENTITLED TO NOTICE WERE NOTIFIED, AS EVIDENCE, WE HAD 29 PEOPLE OPPOSED TO.
THAT I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAD A FAULTY NOTICE.
WE MAY HAVE MADE A MISTAKE ON THE AGENDA.
THE NOTICE WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW.
>> OKAY. >> THAT IS MY OPINION.
AS A PLANNING PROFESSIONAL. >> SO YOU KNOW, WE ARE DISCUSSING TAKING OUT THIS PD FOR A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
AND WE ARE LOOKING TO GO INTO GENERAL RETAIL.
IT APPEARS TO ME THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF CONFUSION AS TO WHAT IS A I LOUED IN THIS PD BUT BY JUST THE WORDING OF THE PD ITSELF.
THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF CONFUSION TO.
ME, THE GENERAL RETAIL CLEARS THAT UP.
I MEAN, WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE GETTING WITH GENERAL RETAIL.
WE ARE BACK INTO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
WE ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY INTO WHAT THE PD SAYS.
SO WE ARE INTO-- WHAT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE-- BACK INTO THE STANDARD THINGS THAT WE GET INVOLVED IN.
THE OWNER IS REPRESENT-- IS STATING THEY WANT TO GO TO NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL. THAT SEEMS TO BE A FOOD COMPROMISE ON WHAT WE NEED TO DO.
I'M OPEN FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM ANYBODY.
>> I GUESS WE ARE SAYING GENERAL RETAIL, BUT I MEAN, THE MAJORITY
[00:50:01]
OF THIS WOULD BE -- >> DO I NEED TO OPEN UP A
HEARING FOR YOU, SIR? >> HOWEVER YOU PREFER TO DO IT.
>> YOUR OWN STAFF. >> I WAS WATCHING ON P & Z.
I NOTICED THE DISCUSSION ON THE POSTING IN THE AGENDA TITLE.
I WOULD ASK KELLY DIRECTLY. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE NOT VIOLATING THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT.
IF THE AGENDA SAID 3W BRANDS LLC AND IT LOOKED LIKE IT DID, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS PAC HARRIS, I'M CONCERNED THIS WAS NOT PROPERLY NOTICED ON THE AGENDA.
EVEN THOUGH IT IS EMBARRASSING, WE NEED LEGAL COUNSEL TO WEIGH IN ON. THIS.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS AN OPEN MEETINGS ACT ISSUE.
THE PROPER PROPERTY IS LISTED. THERE IS A LOT OF DETAIL TO HAVE ONE THING THAT IS INACCURATE DOESN'T, I THINK, VIOLATE THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT. BUT I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO LOOK INTO, YOU KNOW-- I DON'T HAVE THE LAW BEFORE ME REGARDING THE ZONING NOTICE REQUIREMENT. AND SO I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. WITHOUT GOING TO LOOK.
I'M SATISFIED WITH, YOU KNOW, WHAT RANDY SAID.
I BELIEVE THAT IS PROBABLY ACCURATE.
I CAN'T TELL YOU 100% WITHOUT HAVING THE CHANCE TO GO AND LOOK UP TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THOSE ELEMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED ARE ACCURATE. BECAUSE HAT MAY NOT BE --
>> I BELIEVE THE LEGAL NOTICE WAS CORRECT.
MY CONCERN IS THE AGENDA. IF THE LEGAL COUNSEL IS COMFORTABLE, IT IS NOT MY COURSE OF ACTION TO NORMALLY COME HERE AND INTERRUPT THESE MEETINGS. THIS IS A FAIRLY IMPORTANT ISSUE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE ON
SOLID GROUND. >> YOU KNOW, WE CAN ALWAYS TABLE THIS ONE MORE TIME. YOU KNOW TO BE 100% SURE ON THESE QUESTIONS. I'M INCLINED TO SAY THERE IS A LOT OF DESCRIPTION ABOUT WHAT WE ARE BEING DISCUSSED TODAY.
THE PUBLIC KNOWS WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING.
YEAH. >> FROM AN OPEN MEETINGS ACT
THANK YOU. >> IT IS ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE YOU.
GLAD YOU CAME UP. >> ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE YOU.
>> YES, SIR. >> SO BACK TO WHERE WE WERE AT BEFORE WE GOT INTERRUPTED. YOU KNOW, I THINK GENERAL RETAIL CLEANS UP A LOT OF STUFF FOR THIS THING.
AND THIS IS A VERY OPEN-ENDED KIND OF THING.
YES, MISS. >> THE LEGAL NOTICE IS WRONG.
THEY NOTIFIED US TO SAY THAT. >> I'M GOING TO REQUEST THAT Y'ALL JUST TABLE THIS WHOLE THING UNTIL MY STAFF CAN GET WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THE HELL WE ARE DOING HERE. I APOLOGIZE FOR THIS ON BEHALF OF THE STAFF, THE CITY OF ABILENE AND THE CITIZENS HERE THAT HAVE COME TO SPEAK. I'M SURE THEY WANT A RESOLUTION TO THIS PROJECT. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE GET THE
NOTICES RIGHT. >> WE ARE ALSO DEALING WITH AN
>> I'M LOOKING UP THE-- IT DOES SHOW 3W BRANDS LLC.
AS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTIES. AS FAR AS WHAT IT SAYS ON THE PRESENTATION PACKET HERE, THE NOTIFICATION THAT WE SENT OUT WHICH WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO BY LAW, AS RANDY SAID.
LOOKING IT UP RIGHT NOW. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, IT DOES SHOW # W BRANDS LLC. THAT IS HOW WE PULL OUR INFORMATION FOR NOTIFICATIONS. THE NOTIFICATIONS THAT DID GO OUT ARE ACCURATE. THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD BE OFF IS WHO THEY ARE NAMING AS THE OWNER ON THE PRESENTATION.
THE NOTIFICATION IN THE AGENDA-- AND THE AGENDA WOULD BE CORRECT.
THE PRESENT INFORMATION AS TODAY.
>> I'M CONFUSED NOW. ARE WE STILL GOING TO TABLE IT OR MOVE FORWARD? I'M GOOD WITH MOVING FORWARD.
WE GOT THE MAIN GUYS OVER HERE SAYING CUT IT OFF.
>> CHAIRMAN, YOU DO WHAT YOU WANT TO, SIR: MY RECOMMENDATION AS CITY MANAGER IS THAT YOU TABLE THIS.
I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THIS RIGHT NOW.
>> YES, SIR. >> ARE WE READY FOR A MOTION?
>> YES. WE NEED A MOTION TO TABLE.
>> I MOVE THAT WE TABLE THIS UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.
>> THE NEXT MEETING. IN JANUARY.
>> OUR JANUARY MEETING. >> OUR JANUARY MEETING.
>> I SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE UNTIL THE REGULAR MEETING IN JANUARY. MR. BARNETT?
>> YES. >> THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> ALL RIGHT. >> THE ZONING CASE Z-2023-37,
[00:55:06]
CHANGE ZONING FROM APPROXIMATELY 2.2 ACRES FROM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT SPACE TO GENERAL RETAILED LOCATED AT 3509 BELTWAY, ABILENE, TEXAS, 29606. 79606.>> HI. MY NAME IS KILEY THANNA.
I'M A PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF ABILENE.
I'M HERE FOR A CASE Z-2023-37. IN REGARDS TO COSPER PROPERTIES AS THE OWNER. WITH JACOB & MARTIN.
REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL OPEN TO GENERAL RETAIL.
AT BELTWAY SOUTH. HERE I HAVE AN AERIAL LOCATION MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTY. HERE IS THE ZONING MAP.
SOME PERMITTED USES IN AGRICULTURAL OPEN.
AND GR AS WELL. VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES. HERE I SHOW THE NOTIFICATION MAP WHERE WE SHOW THE NOTIFICATIONS. A BUFFER AREA.
WE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR. AND THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNED SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING, GENERALLY ACCEPTED PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND THE CRITERIA FOR THE LDC.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. >> THIS CASE CAME BEFORE US LAST
>> AND WE APPROVED IT LAST MONTH.
>> YES. >> SO WHAT IS THE ISSUE THIS
TIME? >> THERE WAS A TECHNICAL ISSUE WITH THE NOTIFICATIONS THAT WERE SENT OUT.
>> SO WHAT WAS THE ISSUE? >> WHEN WE PULLED THE OWNERS FOR THE 200-FOOT BUFFER TO SEND OUT THE NOTIFICATIONS, IT DIDN'T COME OUT CORRECTLY. THEY WERE NOT PROPERLY NOTIFIED.
THERE WASN'T ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE PROPERTY OR ANYTHING LIKE.
THAT IT WAS JUST STRICTLY THE NOTIFICATION.
>> YES. >> ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR KILEY?
>> THANKS, KILEY. >> I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYBODY LIKE TO VISIT WITH US ABOUT THIS ONE?
>> I'M THE AGENT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER.
CLINT, LIKE YOU SAID, THIS ONE WAS APPROVED LAST TIME.
I THINK JUST MAYBE SOMETHING WAS MISSED ON NOTIFICATION.
HOPEFULLY, SINCE IT WAS APPROVED LAST TIME, IT WOULD BE THIS TIME AS WELL. WE CERTAINLY THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE AND ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
>> ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION?
>> I MOTION TO APPROVE. >> MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> AND THE MOTION CARRIES. >> CASE Z2023-40.
LET'S SEE. CHANGE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 11.14 ACRES FROM AGRICULTURAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL.
LOCATED AT 7542 SOUTH CLACK, ABILENE, TEXAS.
>> HI. KILEY HANNAH AGAIN WITH THE CITY OF ABILENE. I'M HERE ABOUT Z-2023-40.
AGENT OF JAY CON AND MARTIN. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE 11.41 ACRES FROM AGRICULTURAL OPEN TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL AT 7542 SOUTH CLACK. I HAVE THE AERIAL LOCATION MAP HERE. THE ZONING MAP.
SOME PERMITTED USES AND AO. THE PERMITTED USES AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL. VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE AREA NOTIFICATION MAP. WHERE I DID RECEIVE ONE IN FA FAVOR. AND THAT WAS THE PROPERTY OWNER.
[01:00:02]
AND THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING, GENERALLY ACCEPTED PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL AND LDC. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.>> KILEY, SCROLL BACK UP TO WHERE IT SHOWS THE ZONING.
RIGHT THERE. THAT STRIP RIGHT THERE IS
ALREADY GENERAL COMMERCIAL. >> YES.
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR KILEY? THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYONE LIKE TO COME UP AND VISIT WITH US? MAN, YOU HAVE MADE THE WHOLE DEAL TODAY.
YOU ARE GOING TO STAY FOR THIS NEXT CONVERSATION, TOO?
>> JUST ME AGAIN. SO MY CLIENT-- CAN WE GO BACK TO THE ZONING MAP? SO MY CLIENT OWNS-- THAT I'M REPRESENTING FOR THIS PARTICULAR TRACT OF LAND OWNS ALL THE PROPERTY FROM HERE NORTH TO DENALI, MCKINLEY.
IF YOU KNOW WHERE THE NEW H&H BEVERAGE HAS GONE IN, MY CLIENT OWNS ALL OF THIS PROPERTY. THIS IS REALLY A CONTINUATION OF DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA. AS WE TRANSITION SOUTH, OBVIOUSLY, UP TO THE NORTH SIDE, WHERE WE STARTED THIS MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, THERE WAS AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF FDLIC. YOU SEE SOME MIXED USES FROM MULTIFAMILY GR, UP ALONG THE FRONTAGE.
AS WE TRANSITION SOUTH, OUR EXPECTATION IS THAT INTENSITY IS GOING TO PICK UP. OBVIOUSLY, WE ARE FRONTING HIGHWAY 384. ONE OF THE THREE EXPRESSWAYS IN TOWN. CERTAINLY, WE THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE, THIS LOCATION. AND WE ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
>> ANYONE ELSE? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANY MORE DISCUSSION? >> I MOVE TO APPROVE.
>> MOTION TO AIMPROVEMENT. >> I SECOND.
>> AND A SECOND. >> MR. BARNETT?
>> YES. >> AND THE MOTION CAR RHYS.
>> ORDINANCE AMENDMENT THAT WAS TABLED, 2023-01.
DO WE WANT TO LEAVE IT TABLED, RANDY? DO WE WANT TO TRY TO DO IT AGAIN?
WE HAVE FOUR HERE TODAY. >> WELL, LET'S SEE.
BRAD WAS HERE LAST TIME AND HE HEARD IT.
>> KEN: WAS HERE LAST TIME, AND HE HEARD IT.
>> RIGHT. IF I WERE TO GIVE IT TODAY, ALL OF YOU WILL HAVE HEARD THE-- WAS ALEX HERE?
>> NO. WE MOVED THIS TO THE END.
ALEX HAD LEFT BY THAT TIME. >> BUT I THINK THE MAJORITY OF
US WILL HAVE HEARD IT. >> I HAVE NO RESERVATIONS.
IF YOU WANT TO MOVE IT TO JANUARY.
HOWEVER, THOSE OF YOU-- WHO WEREN'T HERE LAST TIME, WE DID DISCUSS THE PRESENTATION THAT I WAS PREPARED TO GIVE TODAY.
AND THERE WAS A LOT OF SMILES AND AGREEMENT, AND A POSITIVE VIBE THAT THE COMMISSIONERS HAD AT THAT MEETING.
IF YOU ALL HEAR IT, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD HAVE A COMPLETE BODY OF COMMISSIONERS WHO HAS HEARD IT. IF YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THE RESULT GOING TO CITY COUNCIL UNDER THAT CONTEXT, LET'S HEAR IT. IF YOU ARE NOT, LET'S TABLE IT.
>> I SUPPORT THE MAJORITY. IF THAT IS WHAT THEY WANT, I'M
IF WE CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THIS, KELLY, DO I NEED TO GO AHEAD AND
GO AHEAD AND UNTABLE IT. >> OKAY.
LET'S TAKE THIS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO REMOVE IT FROM THE TABLE?
>> SO MOVED. >> MOTION AND A SECOND?
>> AYE. >> SO HERE IS MY RESERVATION, RANDY. I THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA, BUT I THINK-- I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS AND SOME DISCUSSION.
I WOULD LIKE FOR MORE COMMISSIONERS TO BE HERE TO FEED
THAT DISCUSSION. >> UNDERSTANDABLE.
>> THAT IS MY POINT. THAT IS WHY I'M KIND OF HESITATING. TO MOVE IT ON TO COUNCIL, IF WE ARE IN A BIND WHERE WE NEED TO GET IT TO COUNCIL, I FEEL LIKE IT IS APPROPRIATE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION TODAY AND MOVE IT ON.
I HATE TO POSTPONE IT NEXT MONTH, AND THEN WE STILL WIND UP-- IF WE WIND UP WITH FOUR COMMISSIONERS NEXT MONTH, WE ARE
GOING TO MOVE IT FORWARD. >> THERE IS NO TIME-BIND.
>> OKAY. >> THERE IS LOTS THAT PEOPLE LIKE TO BUILD ON. THERE IS NO ONE KNOCKING ON OUR
[01:05:02]
DOOR, KNOWING THIS IS OUT THERE WHO HAS A PROJECT PENDING.>> YEAH. >> UNTIL THAT GETS DONE.
>> IF YOU WERE TO TABLE IT ONE MONTH, IT IS NOT GOING TO HURT
ANY INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER. >> OKAY.
THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE. GO ONE MORE MONTH.
IF WE WIND UP WITH THE SAME KIND OF SHARE THE OWE NEXT MONTH, THEN WE WILL HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AND MOVE IT FORWARD.
I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT IS GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING.
>> YES. >> I HAVE SOME INSIGHTS AND THOUGHTS THAT I WOULD LIKE FOR EVERYBODY TO KNOW.
>> IT LOOKS BETTER IF THE WHOLE COMMISSION OR AT LEAST SIX OR SEVEN ARE PRESENT TO VOTE ON SOMETHING.
>> THEY HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB WITH WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO US. IT IS VERY APPROPRIATE.
YOU UNDERSTAND THAT FROM RANDY'S PRESENTATION.
READ WHAT'S IN YOUR PACKETS. YOU WILL GET A VERY GOOD IDEA OF THAT. SO IT IS GOOD.
I MEAN, IT IS VERY GOOD. AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS PROBABLY APPROPRIATE TO MOVE TO COUNCIL.
I WOULD RATHER HAVE MORE OF THE I APPRECIATE KEVIN AND BRAD'S INPUT AND ALEX AS WELL. I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS, YOUR INPUT. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM EVERYBODY. NEXT MONTH, IF WE HAVE THIS SAME THING, WE ARE MOVING IT ON. OKAY?
GOOD ENOUGH. >> DO I HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE
UNTIL NEXT MONTH? >> MOTION TO TABLE TO NEXT
>> MOTION AND A SECOND. >> MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING IN JANUARY.
MR. BARNETT? >> REVEREND LANKFORD?
>> YES. >> THE MOTION
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.