13. Ordinance (Final Reading) Z-2024-12: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on A Request From The Owner, Represented By Civetta Solutions, To Create A New Planned Development District (PD-187). The Proposed Planned Development District Will Allow Medium Density Residential With A Maximum Density Of 12 Units Per Acre And Would Remove The Requirement That Limits Development To A Maximum Of Four Units Per Lot. Located At 368 Centenary Drive. (Tim Littlejohn)

[13. Ordinance (Final Reading) Z-2024-12: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on A Request From The Owner, Represented By Civetta Solutions, To Create A New Planned Development District (PD-187). The Proposed Planned Development District Will Allow Medium Density Residential With A Maximum Density Of 12 Units Per Acre And Would Remove The Requirement That Limits Development To A Maximum Of Four Units Per Lot. Located At 368 Centenary Drive. (Tim Littlejohn)]

AGENDA ITEMS. WE NOW MOVED TO ITEM 13, AND I AM GOING TO ASK

-- >> THE ESL INTERPRETER -- IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S UP, AND IT'S VERY SMALL. IF SOMEONE WAS USING THAT, THEY MIGHT -- THANK YOU.

>> WE ARE GOOD. THANK YOU. >> GOOD MORNING MAYOR, CITY

[00:20:04]

COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS RANDY ANDERSON. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF TIM LITTLEJOHN, WHO WAS A LITTLE UNDER THE WEATHER THIS WEEK. THE FIRST ITEM UP IS Z-2024-12. IT IS LISTED AS 368 CENTENARY DRIVE. IT ENCOMPASSES MANY MORE PROPERTIES THAN JUST THAT ONE ADDRESS THAT IS LISTED. IN FACT, IT COMES AS ALL THESE LOTS THAT ARE SHOWN IN RED AND YELLOW ON THE OVERHEAD. THE LOTS IN QUESTION WERE PLATTED MANY YEARS AGO IN A TIME WHERE IT WASN'T A REQUIREMENT WHERE A DEVELOPER WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE STREETS AND UTILITIES AS A CONDITION OR A PREREQUISITE TO A FINAL GIVING A PLAT. AS A RESULT, THESE LOTS ONLY EXISTED IN THE RECORDER'S OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE. THEY ARE PAPER LOTS. THEY DON'T EXIST ON THE GROUND. THERE ARE NO STREETS WITHIN THE AREA . SO IF SOMEBODY WERE TO WANT TO BUILD ON THESE PROPERTIES, THEY WOULD NEED TO EXTEND THE STREETS AND ALL THE UTILITIES AS PART OF THE BACKGROUND OF WHY THE APPLICANT IS MAKING THIS REQUEST. HERE IS THE ZONING OF THE AREA OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE ZONE, RS-SIX, IS A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. YOU SHOULD PROBABLY ASSUME THEY ARE GOING TO BE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE WHEN IT IS DEVELOPED. HERE IS A LOOK AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY. ON THE FAR LEFT IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY YOU SEE. IT IS TOTALLY UNDEVELOPED. THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS FAIRLY STABLE , IT IS IN GOOD CONDITION. THE CONCERN THAT STAFF HAD AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS HOW TO MOVE UP THIS PROPERTY IN A WAY THAT WOULD NOT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THOSE ARE THE CONCERNS THAT WE DISCUSSED AS A STAFF AND A PLANNING COMMISSION. THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE REQUESTED FOR CHANGE, IF IT WERE TO BE APPROVED FOR THIS PD, IT WOULD ALLOW MULTI FAMILY AND MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY OR TOWNHOME, PATIO HOME , DUPLEX, TRIPLEX. THE OPTION FOR A QUAD PLEX WAS PULLED FROM THE AGENDA, FROM THE ITEM. SO THE MAXIMUM, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THREE DUELING UNITS ON ANY ONE LOT WITH THE PLAN SHOWN. YOU SEE THESE AREAS DO WELL ON ALL THREE OPTIONS.

DEVELOPERS TEND TO LIKE OPTIONS BECAUSE OF EXPENSES THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE TO BUILD THE ROADS AND PROVIDE RANGE IMPROVEMENTS OUT THERE ON UTILITIES. THIS GIVES THEM MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PLAY TO THE MARKET AND GET THE BEST VALUE FOR THE PROPERTY TO COVER THEIR EXPENSES TO DEVELOP IT. HERE IS THE AREA THAT WENT OUT . THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS VERY INVOLVED.

YOU SEE WE OFFICIALLY RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF OPPOSITION THAT WE ARE GETTING FROM PEOPLE WHO ATTENDED THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AND WE SUPPORT IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST AS SHOWN THERE, BUT WE DID NOT MEET THE THRESHOLD FOR A MAJORITY VOTE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING WAS A SYSTEM WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH DOES RECOMMEND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AT THIS LOCATION. THE REQUEST WOULD ALSO BE CONSISTENT WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED PLANNING PRINCIPLES FOR APPROVAL LETTER REQUIRED . SO BASED ON THAT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION WAS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE THREE CONDITIONS LISTED. AND BASICALLY, IT'S THREE UNITS PER LOT, LIMITED TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND EXCLUDE A QUAD PLEX FROM THE CLASSIFICATION OF USES IN THE EMPTY DISTRICT. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU

HAVE ANY AT THIS TIME. >> THIS MORNING, THERE'S LOTS OF ACTIVITY. A LOT GOING ON AT THE PARK. THEY'RE GETTING READY TO DO THE ROAD AROUND SOME OF IT. A GREAT IMPROVEMENT

TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. >> THANK YOU.

>> REAL QUICK, SIR. 12 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE RIGHT NOW IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS ALL JUST SINGLE HOMES, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. >> IS THIS -- IS THIS USUAL, TO PUT A POTENTIAL APARTMENT COMPLEX OR THIS TYPE OF DWELLING WITHIN A NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE THIS?

[00:25:01]

>> AN APARTMENT COMPLEX IS NOT BEING PROPOSED. THE MAXIMUM UNIT YOU CAN HAVE THERE IS A TRIPLEX, WHICH IS NOT AN APARTMENT. PEOPLE CAN USE THAT TERM INTERCHANGEABLY. THAT IS NOT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. A PATIO HOME, POTENTIALLY AN ATTACHED TOWNHOME OR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THE PROBLEM WITH THIS PROPERTY, AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, IS IT IS IN A KNOWN FLOODING AREA. THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF UP FRONT COSTS NOT ONLY TO MITIGATE THE FLOODING ISSUES OUT THERE, BUT ALSO TO BUILD THE ROADS AND UTILITIES THROUGHOUT THERE. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS WHAT WE USED AS OUR GUIDE, AND THE PLAN -- THE AUTHORS OF THE PLAN RECOGNIZED THOSE, AND THE PLAN DOES RECOMMEND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THERE. I THINK BECAUSE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT ARE INVOLVED. IF THEY DO COME IN WITH THE MEDIUM DENSITY DEVELOPMENT, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE THAT AS PART OF THAT DEVELOPMENT. FOR THEIR SINGLE-FAMILY OR PATIO HOME. BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE SHORT ANSWER IS, NO, THAT IS NOT TYPICAL. THESE LOTS WERE PLATTED BACK IN THE 50S, EARLY 60S. THESE PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN PASSED OVER FOR 60+ YEARS BECAUSE OF ALL THOSE ISSUES.

AND I THINK THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOGNIZED THEY NEEDED TO GIVE THE DEVELOPER ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES TO PROVIDE THE RIGHT KIND OF RESIDENTIAL TO OFFSET THE COST WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PROPERTY. SO THAT IS WHERE WE AS A STAFF AND A PLANNING COMMISSION CAME UP WITH A RECOMMENDATION BEFORE

YOU TODAY. >> IS THERE A CONCERN ONCE THESE ARE DEVELOPED THAT THEN IT CONTINUES? OR THERE WILL BE

MITIGATION STEPS? >> THERE IS ALREADY FLOODING THAT IS THERE. WE ARE NOT GOING TO REQUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO GO BACK AND FIX FLOODING ISSUES THAT ARE NOT PART OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT. I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, SO I'M THINKING IN A BROAD STROKE. THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO MITIGATE THE WATER TO THE NEXT PROPERTY WITHIN THE CRITERIA OF OUR DRAINAGE. WILL THERE STILL BE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS IN THE AREA? YES.

BECAUSE IT'S A BIGGER ISSUE THAN JUST THESE PROPERTIES.

THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH MOST OF THE PROCESSES THE WAY DEVELOPMENT WOULD, AND IT'S TURNING THE DRAINAGE PLAN TO RECEIVE CITY PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW AND APPROVAL. IF THEY CAN'T PASS THAT BURDEN, THEN -- THAT'S IT BESIDES THE

COMPATIBILITY CONCERN. >> IF YOU LOOK AT THE LEFT SIDE OF THE MAP ON THIS ONE, THE COMPARISON ,

>> WHAT IS THERE NOW, THEY ARE QUARTER ACRE SIZED LOTS.

THAT'S USUALLY ABOUT FOUR, 4.5 PER ACRE.

>> THIS WOULD PUT IT IN THE RANGE OF UP TO 12. IT WOULDN'T GO OVER 12 BY THE ORDINANCE. BUT IT WOULD PROBABLY BE WITHIN A RANGE OF 7 TO 9 OVERALL. ROUGHLY.

>> WE HAVE USED THIS OFFER PROCESS WITH A MULTIFAMILY RIGHT NEXT TO THESE HOMES. IT'S IMPORTANT TO THE MEDIUM DENSITY PATIO HOMES. IN THE AREA IS PRONE TO FLOODING. THEY HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR PROPERTY. THEY CAN'T CHANGE THE ENTIRE LANDSCAPE OF THEIR FLOODING ISSUE.

>> THEY HAVE A DOUBLE BURDEN OF BOTH SIDES.

>> THAT IS ADDRESSED DURING PLOTTING.

>> IS ADDRESSED DURING THE PLANNING PROCESS.

>> ANY MORE QUESTIONS? >> SO WHAT IS PROPOSED IS A RECOMMENDATION OF THREE UNITS.

>> A MAXIMAL BOOK TO THREE UNITS PER LOT. THREE UNITS PER

ACRE. >> WE WANT TO COME BACK AND

REPLANT THIS. >> THANK YOU.

>> AT THIS TIME, WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 13?

PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> GOOD MORNING, CHERYL SAWYERS. I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS. THE CLIENTS CAME TO ME REALLY WANTING TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE TWO CLIENTS WHO OWN THESE PROPERTIES HAVE

[00:30:01]

BEEN MEMBERS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OVER 20 YEARS.

50 YEARS HAVE BEEN A PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE ITS INCEPTION. AND THEY ARE NOT JUST A DEVELOPER COMING IN AND WANTING TO MAKE A FEW DOLLARS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WHAT THEY ARE REALLY TRYING TO DO IS REVITALIZE THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THEY COME TOGETHER AND INVITED A LOT OF THEIR NEIGHBORS TO ALSO BE INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS AND ALLOWED THE NEIGHBORS TO REALLY WEIGH IN ON WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN, WHICH IS HOW THEY END UP HAPPENING WITH THREE UNITS PER LOT RATHER THAN HAVING A MAXIMUM OF, YOU KNOW, THE QUADRO PLEX AS WELL AS OTHER OPTIONS THAT THE CITY IS CURRENTLY INTERPRETING IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY ENVIRONMENT. SO FOR 74 YEARS IS THE ACTUAL NUMBER. A THIRD OF IT HAS REMAINED UNIMPROVED. WHAT THEY ARE REALLY JUST TRYING TO DO IS TRYING TO CREATE A SPACE FOR MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO FINISH UP THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD , TO ADD TO THE TAX BASE, TO ALSO BRING UP, YOU KNOW, THE LANDSCAPING AND EVERYTHING AROUND THERE. IT IS PRETTY DENSE. REALLY, IT IS JUST A MATTER OF TRYING TO FINISH OUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE THERE IS MORE COMMUNITY. I WOULD SAY AS FAR AS THE MEETING THAT WE HAVE WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND THEN ALSO WORKING WITH THE STAFF, WE CONCUR WITH EVERYTHING STAFF HAS SAID TODAY. EVERYTHING THAT THEY HAVE OUTLINED IS CORRECT.

AND SO WITH THAT, I TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

>> THE DEVELOPER IS TAKING PART IN THE DEVELOPING PROGRAM?

>> THERE'S CERTAIN ASPECTS OF IT THE PROBABLY WOULDN'T QUALIFY, BUT THEY ARE HAVING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT . AS WELL AS OTHER AVENUES THAT THEY'VE GONE THROUGH WITH THE STATE, AND THEN THE REZONING IS JUST THE FIRST STEP TO APPLY FOR SOME GRANTS TO HELP WITH SOME INFRASTRUCTURE.

>> WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 13?

>> GOOD MORNING. I AM SENIOR PASTOR TO THE BAPTIST CHURCH HERE IN ABILENE, TEXAS. ALSO, I AM ONE WHO GREW UP IN PASADENA HEIGHTS. ALMOST 70 YEARS AGO. AND AS I SIT AND OBSERVE , AS I HAVE SEEN THOSE WHO HAVE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF PASADENA , THEY HAVE DONE EXCEPTIONALLY WELL TO KEEP THEIR PROPERTIES UP, TO KEEP IT ALL GROOMED AND CLEAN. I AM HERE TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE, BECAUSE AS I THINK ABOUT 70 YEARS, THERE HAS BEEN VERY LITTLE TO NO DEVELOPMENT.

TWO THINGS THAT STAND OUT IN MY MIND, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INFIELD DEVELOPMENT. I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL BRING GREATER AWARENESS , AND IT WILL OPEN THE COMMUNITY UP TO BECOME A PROMINENT NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WOULD ALSO BE A PRODUCTIVE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WOULD BRING PRODUCTIVE PEOPLE INTO THAT AREA. AS WE KNOW, THAT NEIGHBORHOOD HAS SORT OF BEEN CONSIDERED THE FLOODPLAIN. I SERVED ON THE STUDY SEVERAL YEARS BACK , ALMOST 20, 30 YEARS NOW. BUT WE FOUND THAT THE WATER THAT COMES IN THAT AREA ACTUALLY RUNS FROM SOUTH TO NORTH. COMING OUT OF LOTTO CREEK INTO THE NORTHWAY DRIVE AREA. WHEN DEVELOPMENT WAS TAKING PLACE ON THE BACKSIDE OF PENROSE , AND WALMART BUILT THEIR STORES THERE. THEN THERE WAS FLOODING TO THE BACKYARD FOR BOTH RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA. BUT THERE WERE OTHER PORTIONS OF PASADENA , PASADENA DRIVE AND UP ON THE FAIR STREET. NONE OF THAT HAS EVER, THAT I KNOW, HAVE ANY MAJOR FLOODING. SO WITH THE WATER RUNNING FROM SOUTH TO NORTH, I THINK THE MORE IN-DEPTH STUDY WOULD BE FEASIBLE FOR THE CITY TO RESEARCH AND STUDY TO ALLOW THIS DEVELOPMENT TO TAKE PLACE THAT WOULD ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT WOULD IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND BRING A

[00:35:05]

GREATER DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING YOU'VE DONE FOR THIS COMMUNITY. WE APPRECIATE IT. STILL IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT

PERIOD. >> I WASN'T GOING TO SPEAK, BUT -- 376 PINWHEEL. AND LIKE I SAID, I HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT JUST RIGHT ABOUT 50 YEARS. WHEN IT WAS ACTUALLY WEST OF PENROSE FROM JUDGE ELY TO TRACY LYNN WAS DEVELOPED. ONCE THEY WENT IN THERE AND CUT THOSE STREETS AND, IN AT THAT POINT, THAT WATER, IT IS 14.7 FOOT HIGHER IN JUDGE ELY THAN IT IS IN NORTHWOOD. I NEED YOU GUYS TO REALLY UNDERSTAND. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT FLOODING, WE HAVE NEVER HAD WATER RUN INTO ANY OF THE HOMES. THE STREETS OF ABILENE CARRY WATER . THEY ARE DESIGNED TO CARRY WATER. THE SAD PART ABOUT THIS IS RAINY CREEK, WHICH SITS OUT THERE AT THE ZOO -- WHEN THAT FILLS UP FROM THE AIRPORT AND SO FORTH, THEN IT RUNS OVER. IT IS DESIGNED TO DO THAT. SO IF WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM -- AND MANY TIMES, I WORKED WITH COMMITTEES OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO TRY AND GET SOMETHING DONE WITH NORTHWAY, THAT IS THE ONLY STREET THAT CARRIES THE WATER . THE REST OF IT, IT RUNS DOWN TO NORTHWAY.

IF IT WAS SOMETHING TO AMELIORATE THE WATER ON NORTHWAY, WE WOULDN'T HAVE A FLOODING PROBLEM, OKAY? IN THE PROPERTY THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, NATURALLY, BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORHOOD SIT LIKE SO. NORTHWAY DOES. SO WE CAN FIGURE OUT SOMETHING TO DO WITH NORTHWAY , THEN WE WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM AT ALL. AND WE'VE HAD MAJOR DIFFICULTY AND NEVER ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING WITH THE CITY ABOUT NORTHWAY.

SO THAT IS THE ONLY PROBLEM THAT IS THERE. THANK YOU.

>> THE ONLY COMMENT I WANTED TO MAKE WAS IN RESPONSE TO COUNCILMAN RAGAN, YOUR QUESTION AROUND, IS IT NORMAL TO HAVE THIS KIND OF DEVELOPMENT NEXT TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES? AND I AGREE WITH THE ANSWER THAT WAS GIVEN AROUND THAT, EXCEPT THAT ANSWERS CONTEXTUAL ONLY THE POST-WORLD WAR II. WHEN WORLD WAR II CAME AROUND, THE G.I. BILL, THEY WERE TRYING TO BUILD AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE TO HELP THE GIS COMING BACK FROM THE WAR SPEND THEIR MONEY ON BUYING A NEW HOUSE. BEFORE THAT, WE HAD A LOT MORE THIS KIND OF DEVELOPMENT HAPPENING THAT WAS PAIRING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WITH MULTIFAMILY HOMES. AND SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IN THE DEVELOPMENT WAS CALLED MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING, AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE DESPERATELY NEED MORE OF FOR THE TAX BASE TO GENERATE MORE REVENUE. AND THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DESPERATELY NEED MORE OF IN OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. ROSTON KELLERMAN , AND I AM WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY IN THIS MOMENT AND I MADE PUBLIC RESIDENT.

>> WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 13?

>> GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL. MY NAME IS CODY BROWN. I'VE BEEN LIVING IN THE PASADENA AREAS . ONE IS YOU ENTER, ANOTHER ONE WEST. OF PASADENA. I WANT TO COME IN AND LET YOU KNOW THAT THE -- WE HAVE -- AT LEAST I DO, AND I AM WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT ALSO TO GIVE WHATEVER INSIGHT I CAN. I WAS PART OF THE DESIGN -- ASSISTANT DESIGN OF THAT RETENTION POND. AND WE ENDED UP -- I WILL PUT SOME NAMES OUT THERE THAT SOME OF Y'ALL MAY NOT KNOW. HE WAS DOING A LOT OF THE CALCULATIONS THEN. AND WE ENDED UP DESIGNING THAT RETENTION POND TWICE AS BIG TO HANDLE THE WATER THAT MR. MACQUARIE WAS ALLUDING TO .

[00:40:08]

ME LIVING OUT THERE AND KNOWING, AS WE LOOK AT THIS MAP OR OVERLAY THAT IS UP HERE, YOU GOT WATER THAT IS COMING BACK FROM THE OLD WALMART. ALL THAT WATER, AS YOU SAID, THOSE APARTMENTS, EVERYTHING HAS BEEN BUILT AND COMES DOWN THE ALLEY , WHICH YOU DON'T SEE. YOU DON'T SEE THAT -- NO, YOU DO SEE THAT ALLIE. PASADENA DRIED THERE AT THE BOTTOM. THAT WATER COMES IN FROM THE SOUTH GOING EAST DOWN INTO NORTHWAY THROUGH THE ALLEY. IT ALSO COMES IN CLOUDY ROYALS. FROM THE NORTH , WEST SIDE. ALL THAT WATER COMES IN , AND WE THINK YOU FOR FINALLY BEING ABLE TO GET THE PROJECT DONE ON NORTHWAY. THEY STARTED THAT YESTERDAY. I WAS OUT THERE WITH KIND OF SEEING WHAT IS GOING ON. A LOT OF THOSE ARE RIGHT THERE ON MY PROPERTY. THAT BEING SAID, THAT'S GOING TO CATCH A LOT OF THE WATER. THE ADDITION IS UP AT A HIGHER ELEVATION, OF COURSE, BUT GOING EAST. AND, YOU KNOW, AS YOU DEVELOP A SITE PLAN -- BECAUSE TXDOT WILL BE INVOLVED AS WELL BECAUSE WE HAVE IT COMING INTO THE PROPERTY OFF OF 80. AND SO JUST YOU KNOW THAT THEY HAVE SOMEBODY WHO IS AWARE AND USED TO WORKING WITH THE CITY ON CALCULATIONS AND HOW TO DRAIN THAT WATER, THAT IS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE. SO HAVING WORKED FOR DEALING WITH THE WATER COMING DOWN NORTHWAY, I THINK WE GOT AN OPPORTUNITY. AND WITH YOUR IMPROVEMENTS, I THINK WITH THE FLOODING ISSUE WILL BE MINIMAL , IF ANY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 13?

>> GOOD MORNING. I'LL RONALD KELLY AND I AM THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THE THING I WANT TO DO IS IMPROVE THE AREA. BACK IN THE 50S , WE DIDN'T HAVE NO CHOICE IF YOU WANT TO BUY A HOME. THAT WAS THE ONLY PLACE A PERSON OF COLOR COULD BUY A HOME. AND FOR YEARS, THERE'S NOT BEEN A WHOLE LOT OF IMPROVEMENT. I WANT TO HELP. I AM NOT HERE TO CAUSE NO PROBLEMS. BUT THAT AREA DO NEED TO BE WORKED ON, BECAUSE IT IS EMPTY. AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING , PEOPLE MAKING $80,000 A YEAR , IT IS STILL HARD FOR THEM TO BUY A HOME. VERY HARD. AND THE THING I'M PLANNING ON DOING, IT'S NO SECRET ABOUT THAT. I MEAN, $80,000, 250, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT $1600 A MONTH .

YOU GOT THREE KIDS, YOU GOT A CAR PAYMENT, INSURANCE AND EVERYTHING ELSE -- WAIT A MINUTE. SO THIS WOULD HELP THESE APPLICANTS TO BUY HOMES . EVEN IF YOU ARE WORKING AT MCDONALD'S, IT'S GOING TO BE HARD . SOME OF THESE PEOPLE WOULD GET THE CHANCE TO BUY A HOME, AND THIS IS WHY -- THIS IS WHY I WANT TO DEVELOP THE AREA. I HAVE BEEN HERE SINCE 1966. AND IT IS NO CHANGE. THE PEOPLE OUT THERE , THE PEOPLE ARE HARD WORKERS. AND THIS PROJECT HERE IS GOING TO HELP THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOT ONLY HELP THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT ANYBODY LIKE THAT MIGHT HELP. THANK YOU.

>> STILL IN PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD . WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 13 ? IF NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC

[00:45:01]

COMMENT HEARING. FORMER MAYOR ANTHONY WILLIAMS IS HERE WITH US TODAY. ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE YOU. APPRECIATE YOU HERE. SORRY

WE MISSED YOU. >> I DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER TO STAND. I AM STILL WORKING THROUGH THAT.

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON SOMETHING THAT WAS SHARED EARLIER. I THINK ROSS IS THE ONE THAT SHARED IT. KIND OF WHAT HE ALLUDED TO WITH THE G.I. BILL AND THAT IS ALSO KNOWN AS THE SERVICE ACT OF 1944. ALTHOUGH IT DIDN'T NECESSARILY MANDATE THE CHANGE, IT DID HEAVILY INFLUENCE THE IMPACT OF HOUSING. SO I APPRECIATE PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO STEP UP AND DEVELOP DIFFERENT AREAS AS WELL AS, I FOR ONE WOULD LOVE TO MAKE A MOTION, IF NO ONE ELSE HAS ANYTHING AHEAD.

>> I WILL ACCEPT THE MOTION . IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY

COUNCILMAN PRICE. >> I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THIS ENTIRE COMMUNITY FOR THOSE WHO ARE ACTUALLY AGAINST THIS AT FIRST WE CAME TOGETHER. WE'VE HAD SOME WONDERFUL CONVERSATIONS WITH THIS PART OF OUR COMMUNITY. THIS IS PART OF OUR COMMUNITY COMING TOGETHER FOR SOMETHING THAT IS A GREATER GOOD FOR ABILENE. WE APPRECIATE YOUR INVESTMENT IN ABILENE.

JUST THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. THIS IS VERY POSITIVE. READY TO VOTE.

>> I BELIEVE COUNCILMEMBER MCALISTER IS ABSTAINING, BUT

THE MOTION CARRIES. >> MOTION CARRIES.

[14. Ordinance (Final Reading) Z-2024-13: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on A Request From Walmart Stores Texas, LLC, Represented By Madeline Hart, To Amend The Terms Of The Planned Development District 57 To Allow The Storage Of Shipping Containers At Designated Locations. Located At 4350 Southwest Dr. (Tim Littlejohn)]

>> WE WILL GET READY TO ONCE AGAIN PRESENT THIS ITEM.

>> ITEM 14 IS AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

PD NUMBER 57 , IT WAS CREATED BACK IN MARCH OF 1995. AS MANY OF YOU ARE AWARE, WALMART HAS BEEN LOCATING THEIR STORAGE TRAILERS MAINLY IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, KIND OF IN THE PARKING LOT, TAKING UP PARKING PLACES. THEY BLOCK FIRE LANES AND DRIVING AISLES AND WHATNOT. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM OVER THE YEARS. THERE'S BEEN SOME CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES BACK AND FORTH. WE FINALLY CAME TOGETHER WITH THEIR STAFF AND OUR STAFF TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO FIND A PLACE -- UNAPPROPRIATE PLACE FOR THOSE TRAILERS TO BE STORED IN A LOCATION THAT WOULD MITIGATE THE OTHER ISSUES WE HAVE SEEN OVER THE YEARS. FIRST OF ALL, THE REQUEST ISN'T REQUESTED TO ALLOW THE TRAILERS TO BE STORED OUT THERE YEAR-ROUND. IT IS SEASONAL. THEIR CHRISTMAS SEASON, AS HE INDICATED THE STAFF, IS OCTOBER 1ST THROUGH THE FIRST OF JANUARY THE FOLLOWING YEAR. SO THEY HAVE A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS WERE THEY NEED THE TRAILERS OUT ON THE PROPERTY SOMEWHERE IN ORDER TO KEEP THE SUPPLY OF PRODUCT ON THE SHELVES. THEY ARE ADVERTISING TVS, IF THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PRODUCT TO RESTOCK ON THE SHELVES, THEN PEOPLE COME IN AND THEY CAN'T FIND THEIR TVS BECAUSE IT'S NOT STOCKED.

THIS IS WHAT THEY USE TO KEEP THE BALL ROLLING SO THEY CAN KEEP SELLING MERCHANDISE THAT IS BEING ADVERTISED FOR SALE.

THERE'S NO OTHER REASON WHY THEY REQUESTED THEM OUT HERE OTHER THAN TO THAT PURPOSE. SO WHAT WE HAVE COME UP WITH IS A SOLUTION WHERE WE CAN AMEND THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BACK IN 1995 TO ALLOW THE TRAILERS TO BE STORED IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING AND ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING WHERE THE TIRE EXPRESS IS LOCATED. THOSE ARE AREAS WHERE THEY ARE NOT VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. YOU CAN SEE FROM THE RIGHT AWAY. THEY ARE A GOOD DISTANCE FROM THE NEAREST RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY .

SO BY PUTTING THEM THERE , IT FREES UP THE FRONT PARKING LOT.

YOU DON'T HAVE THAT VISUAL IMPACT, AND YOU DON'T HAVE TRAILERS IN A POSITION BLOCKING FIRE LANES OR DOING ANYTHING OTHER THAN JUST BEING WHAT THEY ARE USED FOR. SO THE CONDITION

[00:50:05]

IN THE ORDINANCE IS BASICALLY STATING THAT THE TRAILERS WILL BE OUT THERE FROM OCTOBER 1ST THROUGH DECEMBER 31ST ANNUALLY.

ALL SEASONAL CONTAINERS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE PROPERTY NO LATER THAN JANUARY 15TH, AND FIRE LANES REMAIN OPEN AT ALL TIMES. SEASONAL SHIPPING CONTAINERS CAN ONLY BE STORED AT THE LOCATION SHOWN. THEY WON'T BE SEEN ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE PROPERTY OR THEY ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF THIS PD AS AMENDED, AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE STACKED ON TOP OF ONE ANOTHER. AS FAR AS THE COMMENTS BY THE APPLICANT, HERE IS A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE BACK OF THE STORE. THERE IS A GOOD DEAL OF SPACE. THERE IS A FLOODPLAIN , AND THEY ARE PERFECTLY WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS TO STORE THEIR UNITS IN THE FLOODPLAIN, BECAUSE WE HAVE A DIFFERENT ISSUE. BUT THAT CERTAINLY WOULD BE WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS TO DO THAT. MOST OF THE UNITS WILL BE PLACED ON THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF THE BUILDING , AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL WOULD BE LOCATED ON THE NORTHERN END BY THE RESIDENCE. HERE YOU SEE THE ZONING PD. THE PD IS THE TEAL COLOR PROPERTY . TO THE NORTH IS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES. ON THE SITE PLAN, YOU SEE WHAT WAS MENTIONED BEFORE. THE TRAILERS WILL BE STORED ON THE BACKEND OF THE PROPERTY. THEY ARE DIRECTLY IN LINE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THE SUB PLAN. WE HAVE A REVISED SITE PLAN TO THE NORTH NEXT TO THE TIRE LUBE EXPRESS, WHICH IS AT THE TOP OF THIS PICTURE. IT IS FURTHER NORTH, ABOVE THE WALMART. HERE IS THE AREA WHERE IT WOULD BE LOCATED IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING. THERE'S BUFFERING, STORAGE, FENCING THAT WOULD MITIGATE THE IMPACT. OF THE UNITS THAT WERE PUT OUT THERE. WE DID RECEIVE ONE LETTER IN OPPOSITION . THAT'S THE LADY THAT WAS HERE THIS MORNING TO SPEAK WITH YOU. OTHERWISE, WE HAVE HAD NO OPPOSITION FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID FIND THAT THE USE WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN , THE SURROUNDING USES OF THE ZONING, AND WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF PD 57 WHEN IT WAS CREATED. AND THE CRITERIA OF THE LDC. THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL , WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS. >> SO YOU SAID THERE IS A REVISED SITE PLAN. THE TIRE AND LUBE EXPRESS IS ON THE SOUTH END ? THAT'S NOT THE NORTH END. THE NORTH END IS A CURBSIDE PARKING FOR GROCERY PICKUP. SO IT'S A VERY NARROW SECTION OF PAVEMENT ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE WALMART. IF WE ARE GOING TO LET THEM STACK, WE WOULD PUT THOSE CONTAINERS THERE, I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE FIRE LANE IMPACT. BECAUSE THAT IS A VERY NARROW STRIP OF PROPERTY.

>> I THINK WE HAVE AN AMENDED SITE PLAN THAT WE INCLUDED

HERE. >> THAT WAS MY QUESTION AS

WELL. >> CAN YOU STEP UP TO THE MIC?

>> HI, I AM MADELEINE HART, THE REPRESENTATIVE , WORKING WITH WALMART ON THIS PROJECT. YES. SO THE INTENT -- I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT AND THE CONCERN AROUND THE FIRE LANE IN THE BACK THERE. WE WON'T BE CHANGING THE EXISTING FIRE LANE. WE ARE PURELY ADDING THE PAVEMENT ALONG THE EDGE IN THE BACK THERE. SO IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE PLAN VIEW WEST, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE FIRE LANE IS MARKED WITH SOME DARK LINES.

THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE IN THE LOCATION OF THAT. SO IT'S ALREADY THE SAME TERM, SAME WITH THE FIRE LANE THAT IS ALREADY TESTING TO GET AROUND THE REMITTER.

>> SO YOU ARE ADDING PAVEMENT ON THE LOWER SIDE?

>> ONLY ON THE AREA NOTED ON THE SOUTH, MOSTLY WESTSIDE.

>> ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE SOUTH SIDE. I'M JUST CONCERNED

ABOUT THE NORTH SIDE. >> THAT WAS NOT PART OF OUR

PLAN. YEAH. >>'S WHILE THE CONTAINERS ARE STORED OFFICE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD?

>> YEAH, IN THE TRIANGLE AREA.

>> I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. WE TALKED ABOUT IT LAST TIME, THAT

[00:55:04]

WAS MY IMPRESSION. SHE HAS CORRECTED THE RECORD, THEN --

>> THIS IS ACCURATE? >> YEAH.

>> SO THIS DOTTED, SHADED AREA THAT IS INSIDE THE TRIANGLE, THAT IS CURRENTLY GRASS AND THAT IS GOING TO BE PAVED WITH

CONCRETE? >> YEAH.

>> WITH REGARD TO THE SITE PLAN, YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE'S FIVE THINGS IN THE PD THAT WE ARE DOING. BUT WITH THE PD, YOU NEED TO AGREE AND COMPLY WITH THE SITE PLAN THAT IS PART OF THAT. THE SITE PLAN INCLUDES A NINE FOOT FENCE AND A SCREAMING FENCE ALONG THEIR AND CHANGES TO DRAINAGE TO ADDRESS THAT. AND THEN PUTTING IN CONCRETE WHERE THAT GRASS IS, AND THAT IS WHERE ALL THE CONTAINERS WILL BE STORED.

>> CORRECT. >> BUT HAVING THAT EXTRA SCREENING TO PROTECT PROPERTIES TO THE WEST -- BUT FROM SEEING

-- >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> THAT PART OF THE SITE PLAN WAS FROM THE ORIGINAL 1995 SITE

PLAN. >> IT SAYS REMOVE EXISTING TREES AND PUT THE NINE FOOT SCREAMING FENCE. ON PAGE 242.

IT IS ADDING A RETAINING WALL FOR REDUCING WATER FLOW COMING OFF OF THE NEW CONCRETE , A NINE FOOT SCREENING FENCE, AND EXISTING CONCRETE THAT IS STAYING IN PLACE.

>> OKAY. THE SITE PLAN, IF YOU LOOK ON PAGE 232 , THAT IS -- THE REDLINE CHANGES -- THE ORIGINAL FROM 1995 HAD SCREENING REQUIREMENTS AND ALL THAT STUFF THAT THEY DID . NONE OF THAT IS REDLINE. SO TO BE CLEAR, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE ENGINEERING DRAWINGS HAVE THIS PLAN FOR THIS, BUT THE ORDINANCE IS NOT REQUIRING THIS.

>> YEAH. I WOULD POINT OUT, AS PRESENTED, THE EXHIBIT B IN THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT HAVE THE SITE PLAN , COUNCILMEMBER PRICE, THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO. SO IF YOU WANT TO INCLUDE THAT, AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN AND THE ORDINANCE, WHICH WOULD CLARIFY IT, I THINK YOU CAN MAKE THAT MOTION TO INCLUDE THAT. I THINK THAT IS THE INTENT, BUT IT'S NOT LISTED IN THE EXHIBIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED.

>> WERE NOT MODIFYING ANY OF THE CONDITIONS. JUST TO ADD THE ONE USED AT THE ONE LOCATION OF THE SITE PLAN.

>> AND I DO WANT TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE WE HAVE KIND OF GONE BACK AND WORTH. FOR THE SOUTH SIDE LOCATION, WALMART IS NOT LOOKING TO PUT ANY CONTAINERS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING, WHICH WILL BE CLOSEST TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA, AND THEY ARE NOT LOOKING TO ADD ANYTHING TO THE SOUTH. I KNOW THAT IS KIND OF BEHIND THE AUTOZONE AREA, BUT NOT ANYTHING TO THE SOUTH, WHICH WOULD PUT THIS BACK UP TO TRACTOR

SUPPLIES IN THAT AREA. >>> THEY CANNOT STACK THOSE.

>> THINK IT THE QUESTION. TO HER POINT ABOUT HOW MANY CONTAINERS THEY CAN PUT OUT, INITIALLY 15 TO 30 AND MAY BE REVISED 3250, AND HERE I DO NOT SEE A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER. WHAT

IS THE ANSWER TO THAT? >> WE DISCUSSED THAT BY CONFINING THEM TO THE AREA SHOWN, AND PREVENTING THEM FROM BEING STACKED, STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION INTENDS TO LET THEM STACK WHAT THEY CAN IN THAT SPACE. SO, IF THAT IS 32 OR 50, IN THE APPLICATION THEY MAY HAVE DONE IT BUT THEY DID NOT PUT THE REQUIREMENT IN THERE TO CAP THE NUMBER BUT THEY HAVE CAPPED IT BY THE SPACE.

>> AND THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO STACK THEM.

>> YES, I WAS CONCERNED THEY WOULD DO THAT.

>> TO TAKE AWAY FROM COUNCILMAN PRICE IS THERE WILL BE A

PRIVACY FENCE OR NOT? >> IF WE ADOPT THIS AS PART OF

THE ORDINANCE. >> I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT,

[01:00:01]

APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING, THE PROPOSED PLAN ON THE SCREEN HAS THE TRIANGLE IN RED BUT THAT IS NOT THE SITE PLAN ATTACHED TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE SO I WOULD SUGGEST YOU REPLACE EXHIBIT B ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WITH THIS PROPOSED SITE PLAN WITH THE RED TRIANGLE AND ALSO ADD PAGE 244 , THE MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT THAT AREA. THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE WHICH I THINK IS THE INTENT.

>> FROM , MISS HUNT? HEART SORRY.

>> YES. >> SO, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THE

RED TRIANGLE AND PAGE 244? >> YES, YEAH, YEAH, THE

SPECKLED AREA. >> WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT IS

GOOD. >> THAT IN MIND.

>> THAT'S THE INTENT, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE.

>> SHOULD I STAY FOR MORE QUESTIONS?

>> NO, I'M SORRY. >> ARE YOU REFERRING TO EXHIBIT B ON PAGE 238 WE DON'T HAVE THE EXHIBIT.

>> PAGE 226 IS THE PROPOSED EXHIBIT B TO THE ORDINANCE AS DRAFTED. WHICH IS A SITE PLAN, BUT DOES NOT HAVE THE TRIANGLE AND IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL PAGE.

>> ON THE NOTIFICATION, THIS COMES QUITE OFTEN. WE CAN ONLY POST THE 200 FEET , WE HAVE STANDARDS WE HAVE TO DO.

>> YES OR , THAT IS STATE LAW.

>> WE HAVE ELECTED TO ADD THOSE SIGNS ON THE NOTIFICATION OF

PEOPLE. OKAY. >> ANIMAL QUESTIONS? I WILL OPEN OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OREGON'S ITEM 14, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

>> MELANIE MYERS AGAIN. SO, THE GENTLEMAN FROM THE ZONING COMMISSION SAID THAT THESE ARE AWAY FROM RESIDENTS SO THERE WILL NOT BE ANY DISRUPTION TO THE RESIDENCE. SINCE THE ZONING MEETING, THEY HAVE BEEN CONDUCTING CONSTRUCTION BEHIND WALMART AND THEY HAVE BEEN DOING SOME CONSTRUCTION ON THAT SIDE OF WALMART AND WE ARE HEARING THAT. CONSTRUCTION STARTS AT 7:00 IN THE MORNING, GOES UNTIL 7:00 OR 8:00 AT NIGHT. IT HAS BEEN EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK AND WE HEAR THAT ON THE FAR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, OVER BY THE TIRE AND LUBE CENTER BECAUSE WE HAVE GONE TO LOOK BACK TO SEE WHAT'S GOING

ON. SO IT DOES AFFECT US. >> STILL THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK?

>> YES, I CAN COME ANSWER MORE QUESTIONS. NATALIE HART AGAIN.

THE CONSTRUCTION GOING ON IS TEMPORARY. WE ARE REPAIRING SOME ADDITIONAL CONCRETE ISSUES FOR THE EXISTING CONCRETE AND THAT WAS APPROVED WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PRIOR.

THERE'S A LOT OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES THERE THAT WE PLAN ON UTILIZING AND ENHANCING TO FIT THE NEW CONCRETE AREA. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I CAN FIELD THOSE, AS WELL.

>> CURIOUS SINCE IT HAS COME UP TO YOU HAVE AN APPROXIMATE

NUMBER OF CONTAINERS? >> I DO NOT, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY EVEN KNOW EXACTLY WHAT SIZE OF CONTAINERS, IT WILL DEPEND ON THE MATERIALS THAT COME TO BE STORED, BUT THEY WILL STAY EXACTLY AS THE GENTLEMAN SAID IN THE AREA, NOT

STACKED. >> STILL IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 14 , C KNOW WHEN I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DISCUSSION, IF NOT I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION AND SECOND.

>> HANG ON. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE AMENDMENT THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN ON PAGE 238 IN THE PACKET EXHIBIT B WITH THE ADDITION OF

[01:05:06]

THE ENGINEERING SCHEMATICS AND DETAILS ABOUT THE FENCING AND

OTHER PRIVACY CONCERNS. >> IS THAT THE ONE THAT WAS

PAGE 244? >> PAGE 244.

>> THAT IS MY MOTION. >> OKAY.

>> A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN PRICE. AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER REGAN. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

[15. Ordinance (Final Reading) Z-2024-17: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on A Request From Walmart Stores Texas, LLC, Represented By Tim M. Martin, To Amend The Terms Of The Planned Development District 91 To Allow The Storage Of Shipping Containers At Designated Locations. Located At 1650 Hwy 351. (Tim Littlejohn)]

>> ALL YES, THE MOTION CARRIES.

>> ITEM 15, ONCE AGAIN.

>> THANK YOU AGAIN. THIS NEXT ITEM A SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS ONE OBVIOUSLY. PERTAINING TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE WALMART SUPERCENTER HIGHWAY 351. THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE FAIRLY SIMILAR. RIGHT NOW THERE IS PARKING THAT IS OCCURRING APPROXIMATELY ACROSS FROM THE GARDEN CENTER. OUT IN THE PARKING LOT THAT'S A CONGESTED AREA WHERE PEOPLE CAN EITHER GO TO CHICK-FIL-A OR STARBUCKS AND EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE AREA, BECOMING VERY CONGESTED AND IT HAS BEEN A CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO RESOLVE FOR A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF TIME. LIKE THE LAST WE HAVE MET WITH WALMART REPRESENTATIVES TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION THAT WOULD MITIGATE THOSE ISSUES. IN THIS CASE YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY SHOWN IN YELLOW. THE CROSSHATCH AREA ON THIS MAP, THE AREA IS PRIMRILY RETAIL, GENERAL RETAIL ALL AROUND THE PROPERTY. DOES NOT HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE THE PREVIOUS. THE AREA PROPOSED FOR THE STORAGE IS SHOWN IN THE PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN ON THE SCREEN BEFORE YOU NOW LOCATED BASICALLY IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER IN THE BACK OF THE SUPERCENTER. LIKE THE LAST THEY ARE ADDING CONCRETE WHICH WILL EXTEND IT AWAY TO THE SOUTH .