12. Ordinance (First Reading): Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Take Action on amending Chapter 3 Subdivision Regulation, Article 1. Subdivision Procedures, Division 4. Plat Approval Procedure (Tim Littlejohn)

[12. Ordinance (First Reading): Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Take Action on amending Chapter 3 Subdivision Regulation, Article 1. Subdivision Procedures, Division 4. Plat Approval Procedure (Tim Littlejohn)]

>> ALL YESES. MOTION CARRIES. >> WE WILL NOW MOVE TO ITEM 12.

COUNCILMAN REGAN, YOU HAD QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE.

>> YES. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

OVERVIEW OF WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED HERE, WE ARE TAKING THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE A PLAT OUT OF COMMITTEE AND SHIFTING THAT POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY OVER TO THE DIRECTOR. IS THAT

CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> IN THE FIRST CONCERN WAS, IF THE DIRECTOR DENIES THE PLAT,

[00:15:05]

WHAT SORT OF APPEAL DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE? WHAT RECOURSE IF THEY SAID, THE DIRECTOR IS WRONG, CAN THEY APPEAL IT TO

THE COMMITTEE? >> ONCE IT IS DENIED ON A PLAT, THERE REALLY IS NO APPEAL PROCESS. TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, THE LEGISLATIVE CHANGE GIVING YOU ALL THE AUTHORITY TO NAME A PARTICULAR COMMISSION OR ENTITY FOR THE ABILITY TO APPROVE PLATS IN HOUSE -- THE REASON FOR THAT WAS THERE WAS A HUGE LOBBY TRYING TO SAVE TIME WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. THIS WAS A WAY TO GET THERE , TO ALLOW WHOEVER Y'ALL INNING TO BEAT THE APPROVER. WHETHER THAT BE THE COMMISSION OR THE DIRECTOR.

>> TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY, PLAT APPROVAL IS NOT REALLY A DISCRETIONARY THING. UNLESS THERE IS AN EXCEPTIONAL RECENT WHY YOU WOULDN'T, THE PLAT IS NOT APPROVED. IF YOU DO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, THE PLAT MUST BE APPROVED. THIS SAVES

EVERYBODY TIME AND MONEY. >> WOULD THIS REMOVE THE PUBLIC DISCOURSE ELEMENT OF THE PLAT APPROVAL PROCESS?

>> THERE WOULD BE NO PUBLIC MEETING ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLAT APPROVAL, SO YES, IT WOULD. AGAIN, IF YOU MEET THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE ESTABLISHED ON THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, IT IS NOT A DISCRETIONARY FUNCTION. IT HAS

TO BE APPROVED. >> OKAY. SO THROUGH PUBLIC DISCOURSE, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION. THE COMPANY MAY HAVE, WELL, THAT IS FIT IN THIS CRITERIA.

>> NO SIR. I THINK THAT THE BOARD CERTAINLY HAS THE FREEDOM TO SAY, WE THINK THAT COMPLIES. THEY ARE A BOARD. THEY ARE INDEPENDENT FROM THE DIRECTOR. MOST OF THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHEN IT COMES TO PLATTING -- THEY ARE FAIRLY PRESCRIPTIVE. THERE'S NOT A LOT OF OBJECTIVITY. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE THIS WATER LINE OR YOU ARE NOT. THERE'S NOT A LOT OF DISK -- DECISION-MAKING. IS THAT FAIR?

>> YES. THAT'S RIGHT. >> ARE MOST OF THEM APPROVED?

ARE THEY 90% APPROVED? >> THE VAST MAJORITY OF PLATS ARE APPROVED OR APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS. THERE MAY BE SOMETHING LACKING, BUT RATHER THAN MAKING THE APPLICANT COME BACK, WE JUST SAY, NO. THIS IS APPROVED, BUT YOU DO HAVE TO

BUT THAT WATER LINE IN. >> THANK YOU.

>> YEAH. ROBERT, I VISITED ABOUT THIS VERY THING YESTERDAY. JUST PHILOSOPHICALLY , I'M A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE SOLE AUTHORITY RESTING WITH ONE PERSON WITH NO RECOURSE FOR OUR CITIZENS. I DO APPRECIATE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING , ROBERT, BUT WE ALL KNOW WHEN IT COMES TO INTERPRETING SOME OF THESE THINGS, THAT THERE WILL LIKELY BE A TIME WHERE THERE IS A DISAGREEMENT OVER THE DEFINITION OF SOMETHING OR WHATEVER. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE -- AND I WILL COME DISCUSSION ON THAT APPEAL PROCESS. SHOULD IT BE TO PNZ OR TO ROBERT? LET ME CATCH THAT BY SAYING I APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS HERE BECAUSE I DO THINK THIS IS BEING DONE IN THE NAME OF EFFICIENCY AND REDUCING THE PLAT FEE. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> NO. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER, IN MY OPINION. IF WE ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED TO GO TO THE BOARD FOR THESE THINGS, THE COSTS GO DOWN AND THAT SHOULD BE REFLECTED BY THE FEE. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT PART OF THIS IT WOULD BE A SEPARATE ORDINANCE AND PROBABLY SOMETHING WE COULD DO AS PART OF THE BUDGET PROCESS FOR FY 25, OR IF YOU WANTED TO CONSIDER THAT AT THE FINAL READING, WE COULD DO THAT, TOO.

>> IF WE ARE GOING TO LOWER OUR COST, WE SHOULD LOWER THE COST FOR THE CITIZEN. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AN APPEAL PROCESS.

>> SO WITH THAT QUESTION, OTHER AREAS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND WITH OTHER ORDINANCES, WE CREATED AN APPEAL PROCESS WHERE IF AN ENTITY DISAGREES WITH THE STAFF OPINION, IT CAN BE APPEALED WITH THE CITY MANAGER. IF THEY DISAGREE WITH THE CITY MANAGER, CAN THEN BE APPEAL TO THE COUNCIL BOARD. IN THIS INSTANCE, I THINK IT IS MOST APPROPRIATE FOR THE PLAT TO GO TO PNZ. THEY ARE THE FUNCTIONAL EXPERTS IN THIS AREA. IF COUNSEL IS INTERESTED IN SEEING AN APPEALS PROCESS, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND ALL OF THAT. MY

[00:20:01]

RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT IT GOES TO THE DIRECTOR AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN. IF THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, IT GOES TO CITY MANAGER. IF THAT DIFFERENCE OF OPINION REMAINS, IT WOULD GO TO THE BOARD. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL. WE HAVE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE WRITTEN IN OTHER ORDINANCES THAT WE COULD PUT IN THIS ORDINANCE IN TIME FOR THE

SECOND READING. >> OKAY.

>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? >> AND WITH THAT LANGUAGE THEN, ALSO, IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT LOWER COST, BECAUSE IT IS LESS WORK FOR US, BUT THEN, WOULD WE INCUR , FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, A COST OF IT WAS APPEAL TO THE CITY MANAGER? THE WHOLE IDEA IS TO BRING THE COST DOWN BECAUSE IT IS LESS WORK -- IF

WE END UP DOING MORE WORK -- >> I THINK THE ACTUAL PERCENTAGE CHANCE OF AN APPEAL IS SO LOW -- HOWEVER, IT IS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE. I THINK WE CAN JUST CHARGE A FEE AND MOVE ON. UNDER THE ORDINANCE AS DRAFTED, THE DIRECTOR HAS THE ABILITY TO SAY, I'M SENDING THIS TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL . IF YOU'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH APPROVING SOMETHING THAT IS DIFFERENT OR WILDLY DIFFERENT, THERE IS A MECHANISM FOR THAT. I THINK YOU JUST LOWER THE FEE AND MOVE ON. I REALLY DON'T SEE THIS BEING A ROADBLOCK TO COMPLIANCE.

>> IF THE LIONS SHARE OF THEM GET THERE --

>> WE CAN ALWAYS REEVALUATE. >> THE CITIZEN HAS THE RIGHT TO

APPEAL. >> UNDER THE DRAFT, IT WOULD BE BACK IN THAT LANGUAGE. BOTH CAN SEND IT BACK TO THE BOARD

EVENTUALLY. >> DOES IT INCLUDE THE FEE REDUCTION? TO VISIT WITH STANLEY AFTER THE MEETING TO SEE IF WE INCLUDE THAT IN THE ORDINANCE. IF WE CAN, WE CERTAINLY WILL.

>> THANK YOU. CAN I OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 12? PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION AND A

SECOND. >> SO MOVED.

>> I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BEARD. SECOND BY COUNCILMAN REGAN. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? READY TO VOTE.

[13. Resolution: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Approval of a Commercial Lease of Approximately 2.596 acres, 4300 Southwest Drive, Located in Southwest Drive Complex Park, to Chick-fil-A, Inc. (Robert Hanna)]

>> ALL YESES. MOTION CARRIES. >> WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM 13. I WILL ASK ROBERT HANNA, CITY COUNSELOR TO PRESENT THIS ITEM.

>> THANK YOU. BEFORE YOU IS THE APPROVAL FOR CITY COUNCIL TO ENTER FOR APPROVAL OF A COMMERCIAL LEASE OF APPROXIMATELY 2.596 ACRES, 4300 SOUTHWEST DRIVE, LOCATED IN SOUTHWEST DRIVE COMPLEX DRIVE. THAT WOULD BE MOVED TO A NEW LOCATION. I THINK WE ARE IN DISCUSSIONS WITH WALMART. THE INTENT WOULD BE TO ME THAT THERE OR TO ANOTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS COMMERCIAL LEASE WOULD BE CHICK-FIL-A. CHICK FLICK OPERATES THE LOCATION AT THE CORNER . WE UNDERSTAND THE CONGESTION WITH THAT RESTAURANT, AND THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL, WHICH IS GREAT FOR THE ABILENE ECONOMY, AND I GUESS GOOD FOR CHICK-FIL-A. THEY CAME TO US FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. WE DID NOT SOLICIT THIS. THIS IS A LEASE, VERSUS A SALE. SINCE THIS IS PARK LAND, WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SELL IT.

WE CAN LEASE THE PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL VENTURE. THAT INCLUDED PUBLIC NOTICE AND PUBLIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR DISCUSSION. THIS IS A 15 YEAR INITIAL TERM, BUT THERE ARE OPTIONS UP TO A 40 YEAR TOTAL TERM. THERE IS A RESENTMENT PROVISION IN THE LEASE . BY YOUR 35, THEY COULD REASSIGN IT TO ANOTHER ENTITY AND THEY COULD NEGOTIATE A NEW LEASE WITH THE CITY AT THAT TIME. IT COULD BE FOR 40 YEARS.

CHICK-FIL-A IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT COSTS.

CHICK-FIL-A WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL TAXES PAID AS SOON AS THEY ARE OPEN FOR BUSINESS. THERE IS PROVISION LANGUAGE IN THE LEASE AGREEMENT THAT WOULD OBLIGATE THE CITY TO PAY ANY PORTION OF TAXES PRIOR TO THEM OPENING. WHAT THAT MEANS IS WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF PROPERTY TAX LIABILITY WHEN THEY START

[00:25:01]

CONSTRUCTING THE CHICK-FIL-A. IF THAT IS NOT DONE IN THE 12 YEARS AGO FOR APPRAISAL PURPOSES, WE MAY HAVE SOME TAXES WE MAY HAVE TO PAY OFF OF THAT. IT WILL BE MORE THAN OVERCOME BY THE ANNUAL RENT DERIVED FROM THAT FACILITY. IT WILL BE PARTIAL, ANYWAYS. IT IS POSSIBLE. THE FACILITY ADJACENT TO IT REMAINS . THERE WILL BE SENT IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS. CHICK-FIL-A WILL HAVE TO MAKE THOSE SITE IMPROVEMENTS. STANLEY, WHAT AM I MISSING? ANYTHING?

>> NO, OTHER THAN THERE IS SPECIAL LANGUAGE WE HAVE IN THE MOTION THAT IS ON PAGE 135 OF THE PACKET. THERE ARE TWO FINDINGS THAT THE COUNCIL HAS TO MAKE PURSUANT TO THE PARKS AND WILDLIFE CODE, WHICH ARE -- THEY ARE FINDINGS THAT APPEAR BURDENSOME, BUT THEY ARE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COUNCIL. IF WE MAKE THAT MOTION IN THOSE FINDINGS, WE ARE COMPLIANT WITH

THE LAW. >> DOES COUNSEL HAVE ANY

QUESTIONS? >> THE MAIN REASON, ROBERT, IS THE DRIVE-THROUGH IS PUSHING PEOPLE OUT OF THE SOUTHWEST, WHICH IS CREATING A TRAFFIC HAZARD WHERE IT CURRENTLY IS UNDER THE CURRENT DESIGN. NOW, WE ARE SHIFTING IT DOWN ON SOUTHWEST. UNDER THE CURRENT DESIGN, IS THERE A LONGER DRIVE-THROUGH? OR IS IT THE SAME ISSUE BUT FURTHER DOWN?

>> THAT IS ANOTHER QUESTION ASKED BY ANOTHER MEMBER. THIS SITE LAYOUT HAS LONGER CUEING THAN THE CURRENT SITE. THEY RECOGNIZE THE TRAFFIC CONCERN. THIS SITE WILL BE DESIGNED APPROPRIATELY TO MANAGE THE VOLUME THEY EXPERIENCE. THAT THEY EXPECT TO HAVE AT THIS PARTICULAR RESTAURANT.

>> HAVE WE DONE A CHEMICAL ANALYSIS ON THE CHICKEN TO DETERMINE WHY IT MAKES PEOPLE STOP IN THE MIDDLE OF A SIX