[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:07]
MARCH MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
TO ORDER. >> DEAR LORD GOD, WE THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE TODAY AND ASK THAT YOU BE WITH THIS COMMISSION AND BE WITH THE CITIZENS HERE TODAY TO GIVE US WISDOM AND GUIDANCE TO CONTINUE BUILDING THE BEST CITY WE CAN .
WE ASK FOR YOUR SPECIAL PROVISION ON THIS ELECTION DAY AS WE VOTE FOR OUR LEADERS AND ASK THAT YOU GIVE THOSE LEADERS WISDOM AND SERVICE TO BE WITH THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES AND BLESS THEM WITH YOUR PROVISION, GOD. LORD, WE LOVE YOU AND ASK THAT YOU CONTINUE TO SHINE ON THIS CITY , MAYBE BE A CITY THAT LIVES OUT YOUR MISSION OF LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOR'S. IN YOUR NAME WE PRAY. AMEN.
>> THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS THE FINAL APPROVAL AND ZONING. THE DECISION OF THIS COMMISSION MAY BE APPEALED TO THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY NO LATER THAN 10 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS MEETING AND ALL APPEALS MUST BE IN WRITING. THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO EKE ON ANY ITEM UNDER DISCUSSION. THOSE WISHING TO BE HEARD SHALL APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME, AND EACH SPEAKER IS
[MINUTES]
REQUESTED TO LIMIT THEIR PRESENTATION TO NO MORE THAN THREE MINUTES, TO BE GRANTED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR.FIRST WE HAVE MINUTES, AND THEY WERE IN THE PACKET. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY MODIFICATION OR DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING? I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DOES ANYONE HAVE COMMENTS ON MINUTE FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MOTION, SECOND? ALL IN FAVOR? OUR FIRST ITEM
[PLATS]
ON THE AGENDA IS PLATZ. ADAM IS OUT TODAY, SO.>> MY NAME IS MASON, PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF ABILENE. I WILL BE PRESENTING THE PLAQUES. THEY ARE 1124 PRELIMINARY, 1224 FINAL, AND THE SEVEN 22 AND 1824. THE FIRST IS 1124 PRELIMINARY, TRAVELING INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBDIVISION .
STAFF REVIEWED AND IS CONSISTENT WITH CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE TWO OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPRAISAL -- APPROVAL. THEN WE HAVE 1224 FINAL FOR ABILENE INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBDIVISION LOT ONE.
STAFF REVIEWED THIS AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE TWO OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS THAT ALL STANDARD CONDITIONS ARE RECEIVED BEFORE PLAT RECORDING. 7722 FINAL PLAT CONTINUATION ONE . STAFF REVIEWED THIS AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE TWO OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND OFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS THAT ALL PLAT DOCUMENTS ARE RECEIVED BEFORE RECORDING. THEN WE HAVE 1824 FINAL PLAT FOR FOUR PHANTOM HILL SUBDIVISION BLOCK THE LOT 101 THROUGH 103 . STAFF REVIEWED AND IT IS INCONSISTENT AND WITH CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE TWO OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BECAUSE THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED PAST THE DEADLINE, THE REVISED PLAT WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN TIME AND THEY DO HAVE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT THAT WERE REQUIRED AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE A 30 DAY REVIEW WAIVER FOR THIS TO CONTINUE, SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS DENIAL. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. >> WHEN WE DENY A PLAT, IS THERE ANOTHER CLOCK THAT HAS TO BEGIN? CAN THEY COME BACK NEXT MONTH, OR CAN THE REAPPLYING COME BACK OR IS IT A
SIX MONTH OR YEAR ? >> THEY CAN JUST START THE
PROCESS. >> JUST FIX IT AND BRING IT
BACK? >> WE WOULD HAVE THE ENGINEERING ON HAND TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT.
>> UNDERSTANDABLE. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS ANY OF THESE PLATZ. SEEING THEN I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING . DO WE HAVE A FURTHER DISCUSSION?
>> 1824. LET'S TAKE THAT SEPARATE AND HAVE A
[00:05:05]
RECOMMENDATION . LET'S TAKE THOSE THREE.>> LET'S MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS.
>> I WILL SECOND. >> THE FIRST THREE, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION. MR. BARNETT. MS. KIKER. MR. HALLIBURTON. MS. FLEMING. MR. SITES. I MR. ROSENBAUM. MOTION CARRIES. NECKLACE THE COMMOTION ON
FURTHER DISCUSSION . >> IF THEY COULD COME BACK AND REMEDY IT, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THIS POSITION WITH MOTION
TO DENY. >> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY?
>> AND A SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY ON 1824 FINAL PLAT. MR. BARNETT. MR. HALLIBURTON. MS. FLEMING.
[ZONING]
AND THE MOTION TO DENY CARRIES.>> ZONING CASE CUP 24 E- 02 CONDITIONAL USE FOR A DUPLEX FOR THE PROPERTY AT 2781 BEECH STREET.
>> I AND A PLANNER FOR THE CITY, I AM HERE ON CASE 2024-02 , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A DUPLEX ON THE SITE THAT IS ZONED RS SIX AT 2781 BEECH STREET . HERE IS THE LOCATION MAP . THESE ZONING MAPS . PERMITTED USES . VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY . THE NOTIFICATION AREA , ONE IN FAVOR AND ONE OPPOSE AND THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SURROUNDED USES IN ZONING, GENERALY ACCEPT THE PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL , STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. >> IS THE REASON FOR THIS, IT WASN'T OUT OF ZONE, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M ASKING.
>> THE BACKGROUND IS THIS WAS TWO HOUSES THAT WERE COMBINED INTO A DUPLEX IN THE EARLY 1980S AND NOW I BELIEVE THEY ARE JUST TRYING TO GET TO THE CUP TO MAKE IT RIGHT.
>> THEY HAVE TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS.
>> IT'S BEEN ACTING AS A DUPLEX FOR YEARS. AND NOW THEY WANT TO RENOVATE OR SOMETHING.
>> I BELIEVE THEY HAVE IT LISTED TO SELL.
>> THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS?
>> COULD YOU FOOLISHLY OPPOSED IN HIS FAVOR AGAIN?
>> DID THESE COME IN AFTER THE PACKET?
>> I BELIEVE SO, I BELIEVE YOU CAME IN RIGHT AT THE SAME TIME
FRAME. >> WITH THEIR COMMENTS ON
EITHER ONE? >> IS AN EMAIL WITH A PICTURE
OF THE OPPOSED AND IN FAVOR. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU DID I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ZONING CASE? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING . ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION ?
>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.
>> MR. BARNETT , MS. KIKER, MR. HALLIBURTON, MS. FLEMING, MR. SITES, AND MR. ROSENBAUM . MOTION CARRIES.
>> CHANGING ZONING OF 1.49 ACRES FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL RETAIL AND BACK LOCATED AT BUFFALO
ROAD. >> I AM A PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF ABILENE AND I WILL BE PRESENTING THIS CASE . THE AGENT IS PAUL JOHNSON AND THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF 1.9 ACRES FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL RETAIL AT 6466 BUFFALO GAP ROAD.
>> HERE IS THE AREA LOCATION MAP.
>> WE HAVE THE ZONING MAP IN THE BUFFALO GAP COURT OR
[00:10:02]
OVERLAY TO THE NORTH AND NORTHEAST AND THEN WE'VE GOT NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL TO THE SOUTH. HERE, WE HAVE SOME VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND THESE ARE IS IS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING, AND THE PERMITTED USES IN GENERAL RETAIL ZONING. WE RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR AND ZERO OPPOSED. STAFF REVIEWED THE REQUEST AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING, THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED PLANNING PRINCIPLES, AND THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL IN THE LPC. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.ADDRESS? >> NAME AND ADDRESS .
>> I OWN THE PROPERTY JUST NORTH. IT'S CONTROLLED BY THE STATE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE AN ENTRANCE AND HOW FAR APART THOSE ENTRANCES ARE. WHEN WE PUT IN OUR BUILDINGS , WE ARE 450 FEET APART. THAT PASSES THIS PROPERTY GOES DOWN TO THE NEXT ONE, SO THE WAY THAT WE WERE EXPLAINED IS THAT YOU COULD NOT HAVE ANOTHER OPENING FOR 450 FEET UNLESS YOU KEPT IT RESIDENTIAL. IF YOU CHANGE IT TO COMMERCIAL, THEN THAT CHANGES THE GAME, SO I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE, BEFORE SOMEONE SPENDS A LOT OF MONEY AND BUYS A PIECE OF PROPERTY, HAS THE STATE CHANGE THAT RULE TO WHERE THEY CAN HAVE AN OPENING THAT CLOSE TO MY OPENING?
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I AM PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION IN SO I WILL GIVE YOU WHAT I UNDERSTAND, OKAY? I'M PRETTY SURE THAT 450 FOOT IS CORRECT AND THAT'S NOT AN JALANDHAR CENTERLINE , INSIDE OF SIDE OF ENTRANCE. IF THEY WERE, IF THEY WERE TO REQUIRE OR REQUEST AN ENTRANCE, THERE, I'M NOT TOO SURE RESIDENTIAL WOULD EVEN REQUIRE THIS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TO DETERMINE WHAT THE TRAFFIC IMPACT WOULD BE ON SOMETHING , AND THEN THE STATE WOULD PROBABLY APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE, SO, I DON'T KNOW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER THAT IT WOULD BE APPROVED EITHER WAY.
OF COURSE, THAT'S LOGISTICS THAT WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE INTERESTED IN RIGHT NOW . WE ARE JUST INTERESTED IN THE ZONING OF IT. BE BACK EXACTLY. WITH SOMEONE SPENDING MONEY ON
>> IT'S A GOOD PIECE OF PROPERTY AT A GOOD PRICE AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, IF IT TURNS INTO JUST WHERE YOU CAN HAVE IT RESIDENTIAL, THEN IT'S A HEADACHE FOR EVERYBODY.
>> I LOVE THE POWELLS, THEY OWN THE PROPERTY. I ALSO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO MY TENANT TO PROTECT THEM, AS WELL.
IT'S KIND OF A SAFETY ISSUE IF YOU ARE GOING TO, THAT'S WHY THEY ARE PUTTING MEDIANS ALL UP AND DOWN , BECAUSE TOO MANY PEOPLE COULD BE TURNING IN. I AM HERE TO GET MY FOOT OUT THERE AND SAY, IS THIS REALLY GOING TO GET ME -- GOING TO GET CANCELED IN A FEW WEEKS OR MONTHS AND MAYBE THEY ALREADY HAD APPROVED AND I DON'T KNOW THAT.
>> I THINK AMIR JOHNSON IS HERE TO REPRESENT THAT AND HE'S GOT
SOME INSIGHT ON THAT. >> COULD BE.
>> THAT'S ALL I GOT. THANK YOU.
>> I AMIR JOHNSON WITH PAUL JOHNSON AND MRS. GOETZ AND I'M HERE TO REPRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE SELLERS, THE POWELLS, AND WE ARE HERE TO JUST ASK THAT THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST , IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, LET ME KNOW.
[00:15:02]
>> MOVE YOUR MIC DOWN SO WE CAN HEAR YOU.
>> HAVE THEY DONE ANYTHING TO EXPLORE THAT WITH TXDOT ?
>> THEY ARE GOING TO LOOK AT THE CHANGE IN USE, HIS CONTRACTORS ARE IN TALKS WITH ENGINEERING AND TXDOT.
>> THANK YOU. >> ANY MORE QUSTIONS? THANK
YOU. >> YOU BET POINT THANK YOU.
>> ANYONE ELSE? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> I THINK SOMEONE MAY HAVE
WANTED TO SPEAK. >> YEAH? I WILL REOPEN THE
PUBLIC HEARING. >> I AM MARY POWELL, THE PRESENT OWNERS AND HOPING TO SELL. I, THROUGH THE YEARS, I HAVE TALKED WITH TXDOT. IT WAS A FEW YEARS AGO BECAUSE IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION AND I SAID, HOW WILL THIS PLAY OUT? HE DIDN'T HAVE SPECIFIC INFORMATION BUT HE DID SAY WE CAN'T KEEP YOU FROM GETTING TO YOUR PROPERTY IN SOME FORM, SO THAT'S WHAT THEY TOLD ME AT THAT POINT.
>> I CAN TELL YOU THAT TEXT , THE THINKING HAS CHANGED DRASTICALLY IN THE LAST COUPLE YEARS . MR. CASEY IS RIGHT IN HIS THINKING . I WILL LET YOU KNOW BECAUSE I'M AN ENGINEER AND I GET INVOLVED IN THIS, SO I CAN JUST TELL YOU IT MAY BE MORE DIFFICULT TO GET AN ENTRANCE THERE THAN WHAT YOU
MIGHT THINK. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> ANYBODY ELSE? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING . THE QUESTION BEFORE US, IS THIS APPROPRIATE FOR GENERAL RETAIL
>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> ZONING CASE Z 24-0'S EX , CHANGE ZONING OF 138.26 ACRES TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY LOCATED WEST ABOVE MEADOWS
PARKWAY. >> MY NAME IS KYLIE, AND A PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF ABILENE. I'M HERE ABOUT THE REZONING , EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY . HERE IS THE AERIAL LOCATION MAP . THE ZONING MAP . PERMITTED USES . PERMITTED USES IN RS SIX . VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY . THE NOTIFICATION MAP , WE DID RECEIVE ONE IN FAVOR AND ONE OPPOSED , AND THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING, AND THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL , STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. >> IS THIS , WAS THIS PART OF THAT PLAN WE APPROVED FOR THE SUBDIVISION? IS THIS JUST A
STEPPING OF THAT? >> I BELIEVE IT'S JUST AN
EXTENSION. >> IT LOOKS TO BE, I JUST DON'T REMEMBER BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A WHILE. IT APPEARS THAT THIS PIECE, THERE'S A GENERAL PLAN AND THIS SEEMS LIKE THE
NEXT PHASE OF THAT . >> I BELIEVE THAT IT IS.
>> ALL RIGHT. ANY MORE QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. I WILL
OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> GOOD AFTERNOON , ENGINEER AGENT FOR THE DEVELOPER. THIS IS AN EXTENSION OF BUTTERFIELD MEADOWS. OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS, STREET HERE, STREET FAIR, THIS IS INSTEAD OF BRINGING 20 DIFFERENT REZONING CASES , TO LOCK IT IN AND LET THEM CONTINUE TO DEVELOP THAT
[00:20:04]
PLAN OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS. >> IT SEEMS TO ME, THERE WAS A PLAN AND THIS SEEMS LIKE THE NEXT PIECE OF IT I THINK THIS
WAS INCLUDED. >> THIS IS THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD INCLUDE THAT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND IT WOULD BE TAKEN DOWN AT ONE TIME BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BUILD IT BUT THIS IS A STEPPING STONE, LIKE YOU SAID.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? APPRECIATE IT, THANK YOU.
>> WOULD ANYONE ELSE ? YES , SIR?
>> NAME AND ADDRESS ? >> I LIVE AT 3201 IN ABILENE, TEXAS AND REPRESENT IST, AND IF WE CAN GET MORE NEW HOUSES, IT'S A GOOD THING. I JUST WANTED TO COME DO MY DUTY AND SUPPORT THIS IN FRONT OF YOU ALL. ANYONE ELSE? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS? MOTION TO APPROVE? TERMS AND CONDITIONS , SPECIFICALLY TO ALLOW THE USE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL AND ACCESSORY USE AND AMEND THE CONCEPT PLAN
AT PIONEER DRIVE. >> I AM RANDY ANDERSON . FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE NEW TO THE COMMISSION, I WILL GO BACK ONE YEAR AND EXPLAIN HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE AT, TODAY.
ON THE PROPERTY , CURRENTLY, ON THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY IS A CREAMERY, SO IT'S A QUALIFIED COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL USE AND THERE ARE SEVERAL BUILDINGS ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE PROPERTY , AND ALLEY TO THE EAST, ONE TO THE SOUTH, THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SET VACANT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, THE APPLICANT PREVIOUSLY, NOW THE OWNER , HAS CONSUMMATED THE DEAL AND PREVIOUSLY WAS AN AGENT FOR THE FORMER OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THAT OWNER WOULD LIKE TO REPURPOSE THE BUILDING , MAINTAINING THE EXTERIOR HISTORICAL , FROM INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL TO SENIOR LIVING . IN ADDITION TO THE PRIMARY BUILDING BEING REFURBISHED , HE ALSO PROPOSES A ONE-STORY BUILDING BEHIND THAT BUILDING AND PUTTING IN NEW AND IMPROVED PARKING AND SO FORTH. SO, THEY APPROVED IT TO CREATE A PD TO ALLOW THAT USE TO BE ESTABLISHED AND WHAT THE OWNERS NEED TO DO IS GO TO THIS HISTORICAL COMMISSION AND TO APPLY FOR FUNDING AND APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT TO BE DESIGNATED BY THC AS A HISTORIC BUILDING. THE LONG AND THE SHORT OF THIS IS DRESSED UP AND THEY WERE VERY HAPPY WITH THAT IDEA. THEY DIDN'T ANTICIPATE THESE BUILDINGS, ON THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER. THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS TO TAKE THOSE DOWN AND THC SAYS IT'S PART OF THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT . AS A RESULT, THE NEED TO ADJUST TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT. BEFORE I GET TO THE CHANGES, THIS PROPERTY IS AT THE INTERSECTION
[00:25:01]
OF THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL , NORTH, NORTHWEST AND RESIDENTIAL USES FOR SOUTH, SOUTHEAST. COUNSEL, A YEAR AGO, THOUGHT THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE IT WOULD PROVIDE A CHANGE . THEY STILL BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE. IT'S A SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND SOME OF THE MECHANICAL THINGS , WILL PROBABLY BE REPLACED AND RESTORED BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL SPLENDOR, BACK TO THE 1920S AND THE BUILDING WILL ESSENTIALLY CONTINUE TO LOOK LIKE IT IS RIGHT THERE. IT HAS HISTORICAL FLAVOR, YOU DON'T SEE A LOT OF BUILDINGS BEING PRESERVED LIKE THIS WITH OTHER THINGS PUT IN THEIR PLACE. YOU ARE SEEING HOW IT WILL LOOK . SINCE WE SENT OUT A NOTICE, WE DID HAVE ONE PERSON IN FAVOR . THEY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THEIR POSITION ON THE PROJECT. GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN, THIS IS WHAT WAS PROPOSED . THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE A DOUBLE LOT. THE BUILDING IN BLUE IS THE ONE-STORY BUILDING , STEPPING DOWN FROM THE TWO STORY PRIMARY BUILDING TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE EAST. THAT IS HOW IT WAS DESIGNED AND THE IDEA WAS GOOD. IT MADE ALL OF OUR CODES AND REQUIREMENTS , THAT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA. SINCE THEY MADE THE JUDGMENT AND RULING, THEY HAD THE MODIFIED SET PLANS AND NOW YOU ONLY THE ONE PARKING LOT. THE BUILDING THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CLOSER TO THE ALLEY AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOW PUSHED FARTHER TO THE WEST, AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND BEHIND THAT BUILDING IS OPEN SPACE . NOW, THERE'S MUCH MORE OF A OFFER YARD -- BUFFER YARD . AS FAR AS STAFF IS CONCERNED, THIS IS A MUCH BETTER PROJECT BID YOU'LL SEE ON THE SITE PLAN , THE NORTHEAST AND THE SOUTHEAST ARE THE TWO BUILDINGS BEING RESTORED AND MAINTAINED. THE INTENTION OF THE OWNER, TO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO REPURPOSE THAT BUILDING AND PUT IN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF DWELLING UNITS AND TO SOUTHEAST THEY HAVE THE MAINTENANCE . THEY PROPOSE 26 UNITS BEFORE AND ARE PROPOSING 26 AGAIN. YOU HAVE THE SPATIAL BUFFER AND THE OWNER IS REQUIRED, NOW, BECAUSE OF THE NEED TO GET EMERGENCY ACCESS THROUGH THE SITE AND OUT OF THE SITE THAT YOU'LL BE IMPROVING THE ALLEY TO THE SOUTH, SO IT WILL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL RADIUS , SO THAT VEHICLE CAN PULL IN AND PULL THROUGH AND OUT .BEFORE, YOU ARE TWO ACCESS POINTS , I BELIEVE. YOU HAD ONE ACCESS POINT TO THE ALLEY FROM THAT MAIN DRIVEWAY IN AND NOW, YOU SEE THERE IS NO ACCESS TO THE ALLEY SO ALL THE ACCESS COMES OFF PIONEER TO THE SOUTH AND BACK OUT TO PIONEER.
OTHER THAN THOSE CHANGES , THE PROJECT IS THE SAME AS WHAT P AND Z SAW LAST YEAR AND WHAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVED AFTER.
IN THE PD TEXT, WE'VE HAD , WHEN IT WAS FIRST WRITTEN, THE ONLY COMMENT WE HAD WAS, AT NUMBER ONE , BECAUSE THOSE BUILDINGS HAVE TO REMAIN , THEY HAD TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION THAT THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS WOULD NOT APPLY TO THOSE BUILDINGS BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE IN OPPOSITION . SO WE ADDED THOSE NEEDS ACCOMMODATION , SO BASED ON ALL OF THAT, PD WILL
[00:30:10]
STILL MAINTAIN THE SPIRIT AND INTENT , WITH THE ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND THOSE ARE ALL ALIGNED WITH TH PROVIDE ADDITIONAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL OF OUR POPULATIONS , YOUNG AND OLD. BASED ON ALL OF THAT, THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE ADVISED CONCEPT PLAN AND THE AMENDED PROPOSED ZONING LAND USES WHICH THE ONLY CHANGE IS JUST TWO, OTHERWISE THEY ARE ALL THE SAME AND WITH THAT I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR RANDY? THANK YOU. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO COME UP AND JUST AS? -- ADDRESS THIS?
>> MY RESIDENCE IS DIRECTLY TO THE EAST OF THIS PROPERTY AND THE ONLY THING I HAVE, I'M NOT OPPOSED, BUT BASED ON THE REQUESTED CHANGES TO THE PLAN, I'D LIKE TO REQUEST THAT THERE BE AT LEAST SEVEN FOOT PRIVACY FENCES ALONG THE EAST PERIMETER AND I WOULD LIKE TO BE ASSURED THAT THERE WILL BE SHIELDED LIGHTING TO THE EAST , AND UNLESS SHIELDED, WOULD BE SHINING IN MY RESIDENCE. THAT'S WHAT I'VE
GOT. >> HELLO. MY NAME IS RYAN GARCIA AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IN REGARDS TO THIS TO MAKE SURE THE LIGHT SHINING IN. GIVEN HOW THE HISTORIC CONDITION IS, I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A PROMISE OF A SEVEN FOOT PRIVACY FENCE BECAUSE YOU MAY COME BACK AND SAY IT'S NOT HISTORIC, I DON'T WANT TO PROMISE SOMETHING I CAN'T DELIVER ON . YOU ARE CALLING FOR THAT SIX FOOT FENCE . WILL THERE BE AN OBJECTION?
>> AS LONG AS THEY HISTORIC COMMISSION IS ALL RIGHT WITH THAT, WE HAVE PART ONE APPROVED . THE COMMISSION
GIVES US A BLESSING. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'M
WONDERING . >> IT'S BEEN A LABOR OF LOVE.
THE COMMISSION? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ARE THE CRITERIA , IS THERE CRITERIA ABOUT DANCING ?
>> ABOUT FENCING? NO, NOT PER SE. THE WHOLE PURPOSE IS TO KIND OF -- THE MAC THERE WAS NO BUFFER REQUIREMENT AS I RECALLED WHICH WOULD REQUIRE --
>> NORMALLY WE ALWAYS LIKE TO HAVE A BUFFER BETWEEN DIFFERENT LAND USES , SINGLE-FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY .
THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF WAYS TO CREATE A BUFFER. TREES, LANDSCAPING , OTHER TECHNIQUES . THE POINT I MADE BEFORE , IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLAN BEFORE, THERE WAS DEFINITELY A NEED FOR A BUFFER . YOU HAD A NICE GREEN STRAP BETWEEN THE ALLEY AND THE PARKING LOT AND I WOULD ARGUE , YOU HAVE TWO HOLD THAT AREA WHERE IT'S QUIET BEFORE, YOU WOULD HAVE HAD HEADLIGHTS AND PEOPLE BACKING IN, PULLING OUT AND THAT MANEUVER. NOW, YOU HAVE THE QUIET . IS THERE A NEED TO PUT
[00:35:14]
IN THE LIGHTING BACK THERE? THERE IS A SIDEWALK THAT GOES AROUND THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY AND THERE WOULD BE SOME LIGHTING , FOR A CUT OFF LIGHT FIXTURE. THIS AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION, SO I THINK THAT BY HAVING THAT, THERE'S A LOT THAT THE BUFFER YARD DOES. THE BUILDING ITSELF SCREEN THE LIGHTS IN THE PARKING LOT AND I THINK BY VIRTUE OF ALL OF THOSE THINGS, THERE WILL BE LESS LIGHTING THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PROPOSED FOR THE ORIGINAL PLAN. IS YOUR PREROGATIVE TO DO MORE, ALWAYS .>> IT DOES SAVE PROPOSED, SIX FOOT .
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S WORTH THAT STICKING POINT .
>> ANYONE PRESERVING THE HISTORIC BUILDING .
>> THAT'S A FEW DIFFERENT LEVELS ABOVE.
>> IT'S QUIET. >> WE MAY BE NITPICKING ON THIS. I WANT TO BE SURE IF WE APPROVE THIS WITH THE SITE PLAN THAT WE TALK ABOUT IT BECAUSE I DON'T THIS COLLECTION ON HERE.
ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE BUILDING, I KNOW IT'S HARD TO SEE. YOU SEE THAT CROPS PATCHED AREA?
>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> THERE WILL BE , TALKING ABOUT THE ALLEY, FROM THE GUESTS, THE RESIDENCE AND THEIR GUEST WILL COME IN OFF THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE ON PIONEER , COMING OUT THE OTHER WAY , FOR JUST PUBLIC AND EMERGENCY SERVICES, SO NO ONE ELSE WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THE FIRE STAFF CAN OPEN THE GATE AND GET IT OUT OF THERE. THIS WILL GENERALLY BE A QUIET SIDE. IT WILL BE A BUSY ALLEY TO CREATE
PROMISE . >> ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR
RANDY? >> I MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONS OF THE SETBACK ALLOWANCE.
>> AND THE NEW UPDATED PLAN? >> I SECOND THAT.
>> MOTION AND A SECOND. MOTION CARRIES.
>>
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.