[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:20]
>> WE ARE GOING TO BEGIN WITH AWARD OF PRAYER -- A WORD OF PRAYER. DEAR HEAVENLY FATHER, WE THANK YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE TODAY. WE THANK YOU FOR THE GOOD PEOPLE WHO MAKE THIS COMMUNITY HAPPEN. WE THANK YOU FOR OUR LEADERS, CITIZENS, WE THANK YOU FOR THE PEEP HOLE THAT EACH DAY CHOOSE TO LOVE THEIR NEIGHBORS AND TAKE CARE OF THEIR NEIGHBORS. GIVE US WISDOM . BEEPERS THAT GO WITH EVERY PERSON PRESENTING AND SPEAKING. HELP US TO MAKE THE BEST DECISIONS WE CAN.
>> -- IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY OF APPROVAL APPLIES.
WHICH IS THE MAJORITY OF OUR AGENDA ZIP DOES CALL TODAY.
INAUDIBLE ] AND ALL APPEALS MUST BE IN WRITING. THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM UNDER CONSIDERATION TODAY, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THEIR RECEIVING RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CHAIR. THOSE WISHING TO BE HEARD, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. EACH SPEAKER IS ASKED TO LIMIT THE PRESENTATION TO NO
[MINUTES]
MORE THAN THREE MINUTES. ADDITIONAL TIME MAY BE GRANTED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR. OUR FIRST AGENDA ITEM IS THE APPROVAL OF THE LAST MEETING'S MINUTES. HAVE OUR COMMISSIONERS HAVE A TIME THAT WILL HAVE TIME TO REVIEW THE MINUTES? WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO SEE IF THE PUBLIC HAS ANY ISSUE OVER THE MINUTES. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.MOTION FROM KEVIN. SECOND FROM SHAWNTE FLEMING. ALL IN FAVOR
[ZONING (Part 1 of 2)]
SAY, AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, WE WILL MOVE ON. WE WILL LOOK JUST AT ZONING CASES. THE FIRST ZONING CASE, HOZ-2024-01.WE WILL RECEIVE A REPORT, HOLD A DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE AN ACTION ON A REQUEST FROM RACHEL ROWLAND TO APPLY HISTORIC OVERLAY ZONING TO APPROXIMATELY 0.31 ACRES IS OWNED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -- LOCATED AT THE 940 SAYLES
BOULEVARD. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MASON TEEGARDIN. I'M A PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF ABILENE. TODAY I WILL PRESENT CASE HOZ-2024-01. THE OWNER IS RACHEL ROWLAND. THE REQUEST IS AT TWO THAT'S GOT TO ADD THE HISTORICAL OVERLAY -- LOCATED AT 940 SAYLES BOULEVARD. THE SUBJECT RESIDENCE BUILT IN 1926 IS A SINGLE-STORY FRAME STRUCTURE WITH A STOCKHOLDER VENEER. THE RESIDENCE HAS A MODIFIED RECTANGULAR PLAN AND A TABLE WITH AN EXPOSED RAFTER. A ONE BAY FRONT PORCH, FRONT ENTRANCE PERPENDICULAR TO THE STREET DOES GO SLIGHTLY PROJECTED FRONT ROOM AND TAPERED BACK SUPPORT ON PEDEHERE, WE HAVE AN AERIAL LOCATION MAP. AND A ZONING MAP . IT IS OWNED RS, FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. HERE, WE HAVE SOME CURRENT VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND HERE WE HAVE A COUPLE OF HISTORIC PHOTOS THAT WE HAVE ON FILE FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. STAFF REVIEWED THE REQUEST THE COURT TO SECTION -- THE CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION FOR HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICTS, THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF ANYONE HAS A COMMENT ON THIS MATTER. SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL OPEN THE DISCUSSION TO COMMISSIONERS.
>> I MOVED TO APPROVE. >> I WILL SECOND .
[00:05:03]
>> A MOTION CARRIES. >> MATTER NUMBER THREE, SNC-2024-02, RECEIVED REPORT, HOLD A DISCUSSION IN PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST FROM JEROME ABOR FOR AN HONORARY STREET NAME CHANGE FOR A PORTION OF NORTH 13TH STREET TO GLADYS ABOR STREET. MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE PORTION ON NORTH 13TH STREET BETWEEN WALNUT STREET AND NORTH
TREADAWAY BOULEVARD. >> MASON TEEGARDIN, TODAY I WILL PRESENT CASE SNC-2024-02. THE APPLICANT IS JEROME ABOR .
THE REQUEST IS AN HONORARY STREET NAME CHANGE FOR PORTION OF NORTH 13TH STREET TO GLADYS ABOR STREET, LOCATED ON ORCHARD -- 13TH BETWEEN WALNUT AND TREADAWAY BOULEVARD. HERE WE HAVE AN AERIAL LOCATION MAP. AND A ZONING MAP. AND THEN WE HAVE SOME ABUSE OF THE SUBJECT STREET, AND NORTH 13TH. WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATION WITHIN A 200 FOOT BUFFER OF THE REQUEST. WE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR AND ONE IN OPPOSITION. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES NOT HAVE -- CONTAIN CRITERIA TO ASSESS WHEN THE STREET NAME CHANGE IS APPROPRIATE. IF THE COMMISSION APPROVES THE REQUEST AS APPROPRIATE, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND ADDING THE FOLLOWING CONDITION. THE APPLICANT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE NAME CHANGE, INCLUDING -- INSTALLING EACH NEW STREETSIDE. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> MASON, I SAW THE PACKET, FOR HONORARY STREET NAME CHANGE, A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE THAT HAS TO BE SIGNATURES --
>> IT IS 51%. THEY DID MEET THE THRESHOLD.
>> EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS ONE IN FAVOR AND ONE OPPOSED. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS? >> THE OPPOSITION. DID THE
>> I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. -- I AM SENIOR PASTOR OF THE MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH IN THE CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS. ALSO CURATOR OF THE -- CULTURAL CENTER THAT STORES THE HISTORY OF ABILENE TEXAS . I AM STANDING TODAY TO GIVE SUPPORT AND ASK THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD CONSIDER THE HONORARY STREET CHANGE HER MRS. GLADYS A BAR. THE REASON I SUPPORT THIS EFFORT IS BECAUSE BACK IN ABOUT 1997, 1998, MRS. GLADYS A BORE -- RETIRED FROM THE CITY. LIVED RIGHT IN THE HEART OF WHERE THE CRIME EXISTED THERE ON 13TH STREET. SHE HAD BEEN HAVING TO ENDURE THAT FOR SEVERAL YEARS . AND FINALLY GOT TO A POINT TO WHERE SHE FELT SHE NEEDED TO SPEAK UP TO TRY TO GET SOME HELP. THERE IS NOT MUCH BEING DONE AT THE TIME. SO CRIME WAS VERY PREVALENT. SOME OF EVERYTHING WAS TAKING PLACE AND SHE HAD FEAR THAT AS HER AND HER HUSBAND WERE TO REST AT NIGHT, THAT THEY WOULD BE OPEN TO HAVE GUNFIRE AT THEIR HOMES AS WELL.
SHE APPROACHED MYSELF AND SEVERAL OTHERS . I APPROACHED CITY HALL AND SPOKE WITH CHIEF MELVIN MARTIN. WE PUT FORTH THE EFFORTS AND ORGANIZED THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION -- MRS. GLADYS ABOR WAS ONE OF THE ONES THAT WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN COMING FORTH TO HELP US TO GET THE COMMUNITY INVOLVED . TO HELP US STAND UP AND TO GET THE NEIGHBORHOOD BACK TO WHERE IT NEEDED TO BE. SHE HAD WITNESSED SEVERAL YOUNG YOU IN THAT AREA , HAD BEEN KILLED FROM DRUG TRANSACTIONS. SHE FELT THAT AS SHE HAD AGED , AND HER HUSBAND WAS UP IN AGE, THEY WANTED TO SPEND THE LAST DAYS IN COMFORT, AND FREE FROM HAVING TO DEAL WITH CRIME. TODAY, THAT STREET IS VERY QUIET. THERE IS VERY LITTLE ACTIVITY THAT TAKES PLACE, OTHER THAN TRAFFIC DOWN THAT STREET. THERE ARE SOME PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE WILLING TO UPGRADE THE OPERATIVE. I THINK THERE'S
[00:10:02]
GOING TO BE DEMOLITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES. THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION -- WE WORK HARD TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TO TRY TO ENHANCE. REFILL THAT MRS. GLADYS ABOR IS DUE THIS. NOT JUST BECAUSE OF WHO SHE WAS, BUT WHICH SHE STOOD OR. AND THE EFFORTS SHE PUT FORTH. WE HAVE NOW BEEN IN EXISTENCE SOME 28 YEARS. AND WE WANT TO CONTINUE OUR EFFORT TO MAKE IT A PROMINENT NEIGHBORHOOD, A VITAL NEIGHBORHOOD. AND AS THE CITY IS DEVELOPING DOWNTOWN, THE DOWNTOWN AREA IS DEVELOPING AND BRINGING DIFFERENT BUSINESSES AND. WE WANT THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE AN ASSET, AND NOT A SITUATION THAT WOULD DETER PEOPLE FROM COMING DOWNTOWN -- WALK, AND LIVE. I SUPPORT THESE EFFORTS AND I ASK YOU WOULD CONSIDER AS YOU LOOK AT ALSO, TO GIVE HER THAT GREATER COMPLEMENT . AND FOR THE SAKE OF MRS. GLADYS ABOR. SHE WAS WELL RESPECTED, WELL KNOWN. SHE SERVED AS A NURSE FOR MANY YEARS FOR HENDRIX HERE IN TEXAS.>> ANYONE ELSE ? YES, MA'AM. >> THE AREA HE IS TALKING
ABOUT, I GRABBED MY AREA. >> CAN YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME.
>> MY NAME IS MARY JAMES DANSBY. -- HENDRIX DEDICATED A PLAQUE IN HER MEMORY , AND MRS. GLADYS ABOR WAS ONE OF HER CLOSEST FRIENDS. I CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT SHE INFLUENCE A LOT OF LIVES , ALONG WITH MY MOTHER. IS TREE IN HER HONOR IS WARRANTED. BECAUSE THEN, A LOT OF KIDS DO NOT HAVE GUIDANCE THAT SHE PROVIDED GUIDANCE. A LOT OF CHILDREN WERE ENCOURAGED TO STAY AWAY FROM WRONG AND DO RIGHT. I DO NOT LOOK AT HER AS A BLACK WOMAN, I LOOK AT HER AS A CHRISTIAN AND LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN , THAT INSTILLED MORALS AND VALUES INTO ALL OF US. I THINK WOULD BE AN HONOR FOR HER AND IT IS WARRANTED. THE ONLY THING I MISSED ABOUT THAT AREA, -- CHICKEN.
>> ANYONE ELSE ON THIS MATTER? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SORRY, ONE MORE.
>> THAT DISPLAY IS FOR -- MY NAME IS JEROME ABOR. I AM THE SON. THAT THE FRONT PAGE OF THE -- NEWS, THAT WAS PROVIDED BY REVEREND -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU APPROVE THIS OR NOT, IF YOU DO, I THANK YOU FOR A. I JUST WANT TO GIVE MY MOM HER PART IN ESTABLISHING THE REVITALIZATION OF THAT AREA. I THINK THIS WOULD LAST FOR A LONG TIME. I WOULD ALSO GIVE THANKS TO REVEREND -- THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS ABOUT WHAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT WHAT HE DID TO HELP THE SITUATION . FOR A LONG TIME, PEOPLE WERE COMPLAINING ABOUT 13TH STREET, AND SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT IT. AND NOTHING WAS DONE FOR YEARS. MY MOM LIT A MATCH , THE MATCH STARTED A FIRE. BUT IF YOU DON'T FUEL THE FIRE, IT WILL GO OUT. REVEREND PINS WAS THE FIRE. HE REALIZED THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT COULD HELP, WERE THE PEOPLE IN POWER, USING THE POWER TO DO IT. HE MET WITH THESE PEOPLE. HE WILL NOT TELL YOU THAT. HE MET WITH THESE PEOPLE IN A PARK. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S HIS WILL TO CHANGE PEOPLE'S MIND , OR HE PREACH A SERMON -- THEY ASSURED HIM THAT THEY WOULD DO SOMETHING TO CHANGE IT , AFTER ALL THESE YEARS, NOBODY HAD DONE THAT. HE DID IT. I WOULD LIKE TO HONOR HIM FOR DOING THAT. THAT'S WHEN THINGS STARTED TO CHANGE.
MORE ARRESTS , AND THE SEEM LIKE OVERNIGHT -- IT CHANGED.
IF HE HAD NOT DONE THAT, I DO NOT THINK -- WOULD'VE CAME TO FRUITION. I JUST WANT TO THANK HIM FOR THAT.
[00:15:01]
ARE PICTURES OF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE HISTORICAL NATURE OR HISTORY OF -- OF COURSE, THEY WERE ALL DEAD. IT SEEMED THEY HAD TO DIE BEFORE THE RECOGNITION. I BELIEVE IF YOU GIVE A PERSON THE FLOWERS WHILE HE IS LIVING.IN THIS INSTANCE, REVEREND PINS NAME SHOULD BE ON THE WALL.
YOUR NAME SHOULD BE ON THE STREET. BECAUSE IF HE DID NOT COME FORWARD AS BE TO THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE POWER TO DO WAS NECESSARY, NOTHING WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WHATEVER YOU DECIDE, I APPRECIATE YOU.
>> ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY DISCUSSION FOR A MOTION?
>> I THINK WE HEADED FOR THE PERMANENT NAME CHANGE A FEW MONTHS BACK, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT BECAUSE OF THE NAME CHANGE. SO THE HONORARY WAS RECOMMENDED , IT SEEMS LIKE THEY HAVE DONE EVERYTHING TO MAKE THAT WORK AND COMPLY WITH THAT. I MOVED TO MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> I SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND A SECOND .
>> WITH THE CONDITION? >> YES, WITH THE CONDITIONS .
>> THE MOTION CARRIES . >> THANK YOU ALL FOR DOING THAT WORK. I KNOW FOR SOME REASON, THERE WAS AN ERROR IN OUR CODE, WHERE IT'S EASIER TO DO A PERMANENT CHANGE IN HONORARY CHANGE. AND IT TAKES A LOT OF WORK TO GO THROUGH OUR COMMUNITY AND GET 51% OF SIGNATURES. GOOD LUCK TO YOU ALL. THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE TODAY, WE APPRECIATE YOU.
OUR NEXT ITEM IS NUMBER -- Z-2024-14 THIS TO RECEIVE A REPORT, HOLD A DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST FROM THE OWNER, TO AMEND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT -- SPECIFICALLY, TO AMEND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT TO ADD A TRACT 3 WITH THE BASE ZONING OF AGRICULTURAL OPEN. THIS IS LOCATED ON 450 SOUTH 25TH STREET.
>> THIS IS MASON TEEGARDIN -- THE APPLICANT IS SANDRA MINUTE, THE REQUEST IS TO AMEND PD 61, TO AMEND THE BOUNDARIES TO ADD A TRACT 3 WITH THE BASE ZONING OF OUR CULTURAL OPEN , AND PERMANENT USE OF CARPENTRY SERVICES. LOCATED AT 450 SOUTH 25TH STREET. HERE, WE HAVE AN AERIAL LOCATION MAP. AND WE HAVE THE ZONING MAP. THE PORTION IS CURRENTLY ZONED A0.
HERE, WE HAVE THE EXISTING CONCEPT PLAN THAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL PD. AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN. HERE ARE THE USES AND THE AGRICULTURAL OPEN ZONING. AND SOME VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATIONS WITH THE 200 FOOT BUFFER. AND WE RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION. STAFF REVIEWED THE REQUEST AND BE DETERMINED IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -- THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF PD 61, THE GENERAL ACCEPTED PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND THE CRITERIA FOR -- IN THE LDC. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MASON? >> THANK YOU, MASON.
>> THANK YOU. >> I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO COME AND ADDRESS OF THIS MATTER? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY MOTIONS ON THIS MATTER? MOVES TO APPROVE.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES. >> ITEM NUMBER FIVE, Z-2024-19.
[00:20:06]
RECEIVED A REPORT, HOLD DISCUSSION AND A PUBLIC HEARING, AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST FROM THE OWNER, REPRESENTED BY GERALD RAAB, TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY ZERO .51 ACRES FOR MEDIUM DENSITY,MULTIFAMILY. >> MY NAME IS CLARISSA IVEY, I AM A PLANNER -- BEFORE, YOU HAVE CASE Z-2024-19. LOCATED AT 1665 SOUTH 15TH STREET. IT'S ON THE CORNER LOT WHERE -- AND SOUTH 15 INTERSECT. YOU CAN SEE HERE, IT IS AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD. CURRENTLY ITS OWN MEDIUM DENSITY. THEIR PROPOSAL TO REZONE TO MULTI FAMILY. THIS IS ALSO WITHIN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD EMPOWERMENT -- HERE ARE SOME VIEWS OF THE PROPERTY. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS -- BUILDING WHICH THEY ARE PROPOSING TO REMODEL. HERE THE PERMITTED USES. THEY ARE MEDIUM DENSITY.
ALONG WITH YOUR -- THEY ARE SOMEWHAT SIMILAR. WE SEND OUT NOTIFICATIONS AND WE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR FROM THE SCHOOL.
THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COPPER HAS A PLAN -- GENERALLY ACCEPTED PLANNING PRINCIPLES IN THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL IN -- CODE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. I WOULD BE
HAPPY TO ADD ANY QUESTIONS. >> IT LOOK LIKE IN THE PACKET THAT BASICALLY ARE JUST TRYING TO -- ONE MORE UNIT. IT'S ALMOST ABLE TO BE MEDIUM DENSELY -- DENSITY.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. IN YOUR MEDIUM DENSITY ZONING, IT PERMITS 12 UNITS PER ACRE. THE SIZE OF THIS IS 0.51 ACRES.
THAT WOULD GET THEM AT SIX UNITS. ON YOUR PACKET, YOU HAD A FLOOR LAYOUT OF WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING . SO THAT WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO HAVE A MULTI FAMILY ZONING, WHICH ALLOWS 24
UNITS TO THE ACRE. >> SO THEIR PROPOSAL -- IS AN EXTRA TWO UNITS AND A HALF ACRE?
>> YES. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO COME UP AND ADDRESS THIS MATTER? WE ARE ON A ROLL. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. FOR
THE COMMISSION, ANY COMMENTS? >> I THINK THIS IS GREAT USE OF THAT PROPERTY. IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE PREVIOUS ONE. I THINK 20 YEARS AGO, YOU MIGHT NOT EVEN HAVE TO BRING IT TO --
IT'S RIGHT ON THE EDGE. >> MOTION TO APPROVE. NO
>> ITEM NUMBER SIX, Z-2024-20. RECEIVED A REPORT, HOLD A DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST FROM THE OWNER, REPRESENTED BY ERIC JOHNSON, TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 10.1 ACRES FROM AGRICULTURAL OPEN TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL. DISLOCATED AT 39 BLIND ASYLUM LANDS.
>> TODAY I AM PRESENTING Z-2024-20.
CHANGE APPROXIMATELY 10.1 ACRES FROM AGRICULTURAL OPEN ZONING TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL ZONING. HERE IS A LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY TO BE REZONE. IS JUST ON THE SOUTH CORNER OF LUKE 322 AND E STAFFORD STREET. HERE IS THE CURRENT ZONING MAP OF THE PROPERTIES ADJACENT AND NEARBY. YOU CAN SEE TO THE SOUTH, WE HAVE SOME AGRICULTURAL OPEN ZONING. ACROSS THE HIGHWAY, EAST INTERSTATE 20, YOU HAVE SOME HEAVY COMMERCIAL ZONING, AS WELL AS SOME GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING AND GENERAL RETAIL ACROSS THE STREET . FURTHER TO THE WEST, YOU HAVE GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND RECENTLY REZONE PARCEL THAT WAS OWNED TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL AS WELL. HERE ARE SOME VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT
[00:25:01]
PROPERTY. IT'S CURRENTLY VACANT LAND. HAS NOT BEEN DEVELOPED. HERE ARE THE PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL OPEN ZONING DISTRICT. FOLLOWED BY THE PERMIT USES AND THE HEAVY COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT. WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATIONS AND TODAY WE DID RECEIVE ONE IN OPPOSITION, THAT'S FROM 901 NORTH LOOP 322. HIS PARCEL ISJUST TO THE SOUTH. >> CAN YOU GIVE ANY DETAILS?
>> WE JUST RECEIVED A RESPONSE.
>> THANK YOU. >> THE REQUEST HAVE BEEN FOUND CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING , WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR ADAM? THANK YOU. I WILL OPEN THE
PUBLIC HEARING . YES, MA'AM. >>
>> THIS ISSUE WAS JUST BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION. MY NAME IS K GRIFFITH HIBBS . I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY. I CURRENTLY OWN IT. ANY TIME THERE IS A REQUEST FOR A ZONING CHANGE, THERE IS A PRESUPPOSITION -- THERE IS AN ASSUMPTION THAT BOTH THE OWNERSHIP AND OF THE SURVEYS ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. THERE ARE SERIOUS ISSUES HAVING TO DO WITH OWNERSHIP OF THIS PROPERTY, AS WELL AS SURVEY ISSUES. I HAVE DECIDED TO SEPARATE THAT OUT. I WILL DEAL WITH THE OWNERSHIP ISSUES FIRST-PERIOD FIRST OF ALL, I WAS BORN IN 1948. BY MY PARENTS -- TWO IS NOW THE RED BRICK HOUSE ON THE HILL , THAT IS ADJACENT TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. THAT WAS MY FIRST EXPOSURE TO THE FARM. IN 1989, ROY AND ORA GRIFFITH, MY PARENTS, SOLD FOUR ACRES TO SKINNY'S. I HAVE, IN MY POSSESSION, THE ORIGINAL LETTER FROM THEIR ATTORNEY, WILLIAM BRADSHAW, TALKING ABOUT IT. IT ALSO HAD SURVEYS, AND AERIAL VIEWS. IN THAT, THERE IS NO NOTCH OUT OF THE FOUR ACRES THAT YOU NOW SEE CURRENTLY. AS SOON AS I NOTICED THE MAP LAST WEEK -- IT WAS AN ACCIDENT I TURNED THE LETTER OVER. I THOUGHT IT WAS ABOUT ACROSS THE HIGHWAY. AS SOON AS I SAW THERE WAS A PROBLEM, I IMMEDIATELY CALLED AND SPOKE WITH ADAM HOLLAND, AND TOLD HIM THERE WAS A SERIOUS MISTAKE ON THE MAP, AND IT HAD TO BE ABOUT THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE HIGHWAY. I WAS TOLD THERE WAS NO MISTAKE.
I WAS LIKE, I NEED TO GET OFF THE AGENDA UNTIL THESE LEGAL ISSUES ARE RESOLVED. I WAS TOLD THAT COULD NOT HAPPEN. I WAS TOLD THE SUPERVISOR WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT. I ASKED FOR THE SUPERVISOR TO CONTACT ME SO I COULD EXPLAIN WITH THE ISSUES I. INSTEAD OF HEARING FROM THE SUPERVISOR, I RECEIVED A MESSAGE. I WAS OUT OF TOWN. I RECEIVED A MESSAGE FROM ERIC JOHNSON, TELLING ME NOTHING TO SEE HERE, HIS SURVEYS WERE ACCURATE AND IF I WOULD SEND HIM A COPY OF MY SURVEYS, HE WAS SURE HE COULD SHOW ME THE MINUTE ERRORS ON MY SURVEY. SO I SENT HIM BACK A MESSAGE AND SAID, IT'S A LOT MORE THAN THAT. I'M OUT OF TOWN. I WILL GET BACK WITH YOU WHEN I'VE HAD A CHANCE AND HAVE ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND OUT OF ME. IN FRONT OF ME. IF HE IS HERE, THIS IS THE RESPONSE. IN 1989, THEY SOLD FOUR ACRES. SHORTLY THEREAFTER --
>> THAT IS YOUR TIME. I WILL GIVE YOU A BIT MORE TIME. MR.
JOHNSON IS HERE. >> THIS IS A RESPONSE TO MR. JOHNSON OUT THERE. SKINNY'S CAME BACK TO MY PARENTS AND ASKED TO PURCHASE A FEW MORE ACRES. MY PARENTS AGREED. HERE IS THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR THAT. THEY DID THE SURVEY. THIS CONTRACT WAS FILED AT THE COURTHOUSE. WENT TO THAT, I WAS
[00:30:01]
TOLD BY MULTIPLE PEOPLE THAT SKINNY'S BACKED OUT ON THE PURCHASE BECAUSE OF ISSUES HAVING TO DO WITH -- SO THE CLOSING NEVER HAPPENED. FAST-FORWARD, THE CONTRACT WAS SIGNED . AND THEN IN 1999 AND 2000, MY PARENTS DIE. FOLLOWING THAT, I WAS AWARDED THE HOMEPLACE. MINUS THE ACREAGE THAT WAS SOLD TO MY COUSIN, WHO WAS SITTING HERE. MARY JANE GRIFFITH BROWN. AND THE ACREAGE THAT HAD BEEN SOLD TO SKINNY'S.I STARTED PAYING TAXES THE PROPERTY. IN 2015, -- I RECEIVED -- A CERTIFIED LETTER FROM THE CITY OF ABILENE. AND AN ENGINEER FOR THE CITY SAYING THEY IDENTIFIED ME AS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY BEHIND THE TAKEDOWN. AND IF THEY -- THEY WANT TO USE PART OF IT, AS A STAGE IN A WORK AREA TO PREPARE FOR THE BORING UNDERNEATH INTERSTATE 20. I WAS SENT THIS LETTER IN 2015, CLEARLY STATING ABILENE AND DETERMINE I OWNED THE PROPERTY. I CONTINUE TO PAY TAXES. THE FIRST TIME I KNEW THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE ZONING WAS WITH THE LETTER LAST WEEK. SUNDAY OF THIS WEEK, I DECIDED, I HAVE A RECEIPT FOR TAXES. I PULLED MY RECEIPT UP . I GOT ON THE WEBSITE FOR THE TAXING AUTHORITY. I PUT IN MY NAME AND THE GEOGRAPHICAL I.D.
FOR THIS PROPERTY. I'VE BEEN PAYING TAXES ON IT. IT CAME UP, NO MATCH. I TRIED IT TWO OR THREE TIMES. I'M LOOKING AT A RECEIPT. THEN I THOUGHT, I WILL CHECK THIS OUT. I PUT IT AT THE SAME GEOGRAPHICAL I.D. FOR THE PROPERTY AND PUT IN SKINNY'S .
IT CAME UP AS A MATCH. IT IS LIKE, WHEN AND HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? I NEVER SOLD AN INCH OF THAT PROPERTY. THAT TAKES US TO THE SURVEY. THE INITIAL SURVEY AND OVERHEAD DESCRIPTIONS AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY DO NOT SHOW THE NOTCH -- INAUDIBLE ] ON THE CORNER. THAT IS OUT OF THE FOUR ACRES.
INAUDIBLE ] >> WOULD YOU GO BACK TO THE MICROPHONE SO TO BE ON THE RECORD? I WANTED TO BE CLEARLY
ON THE RECORD. >> CLEARLY ON THE RECORD. THAT NOTCH IS NOT SHOWN IN THE RECORDS FROM THE ATTORNEY. FROM BACK WHEN THE ORIGINAL SALE OF FOUR ACRES. IN THE EVENT THAT SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SPECIFICS ARE WHEN THE -- SECURED AND ACQUIRE THAT PROPERTY FOR THAT NOTCH . I DO NOT KNOW IF THEY PAY FOR IT, OR HOW THEY ACQUIRED IT. IF IT WAS AFTER MY PARENTS ' SALE TO SKINNY, -- IT IS LIKELY A PART OF THE FOUR ACRES. HENCE, THE SURVEY HAS TO BE OFF. THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF ISSUES. SOME SERIOUS LEGAL ISSUES. I REQUEST THAT Y'ALL TABLED THIS ISSUE UNTIL I GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT. BECAUSE OF THESE ARE ALL SERIOUS LEGAL ISSUES. UNTIL I CAN GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT AND GET THE ISSUES RESOLVED. TO ADAM AND ERIK JOHNSON, THIS IS MY RESPONSE. WE NEED TO SIT DOWN. I NEED TO KNOW EXACTLY WHEN IT HAPPENED, HOW IT HAPPENED, AND GET THE LEGAL ISSUES RESOLVED. IN ALL MY RECORDS, SAYS I OWN THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY BEING REQUESTED FOR A ZONING CHANGE. I DO NOT WANT A ZONING CHANGE ON MY PROPERTY. IS GOING TO BE EASIER IF YOU TABLE IT UNTIL THE LEGAL ISSUES CAN BE RESOLVED. ANYONE ELSE ?
>> I AM ERIK. NICE TO MEET YOU. ERIK JOHNSON, PAUL JOHNSON AND ASSOCIATES . I AM NOT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. HERE IS THE
[00:35:01]
SURVEY , IF I CAN GIVE YOU THAT. -- IT HAS BEEN IN CONTRACT FOR ABOUT THAT LONG. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. THERE IS A LOT OF MONEY INVOLVED IN THE ENGINEERING. THAT'S ANOTHER STUDIED AREA, ZONE A. THERE IS A PIECE OF PROPERTY DUE WEST OF THAT. THE OPPOSITE CORNER THAT IN CONTRACT WITH ANOTHER OFFICER IN OUR OFFICE. THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF WORKING ON TRYING TO RESOLVE THAT, AND GET THAT AREA STUDIED. AND USING THEIR ENGINEERS . THE ZONING REQUEST TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL IS BECAUSE THE INTENDED USE WOULD FALL INTO THE CATEGORY OF HAVING MACHINERY EQUIPMENT, SALES, SERVICE AND LEASING. SIMILAR TO THAT OF YELLOW HOUSE, WHICH IS THE BUILDING ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY ALONG E STANFORD . AND SIMILAR TO -- AND JOHN DEERE. AGAIN, I HAVE A SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY. SKINNY'S INCORPORATED IS THE CURRENT OWNER. WHICH IS A PART OF -- MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY OWN THE PROPERTY . IF THERE'S ANY INFORMATION OTHERWISE, I HAVE NOT BEEN NOTIFIED. AS FAR AS I KNOW, THE SURVEYOR HAS GIVEN ME A GOOD SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY. I DID GET AN EMAIL ADDRESS FROM THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH , I EMAILED HER LAST WEEK. I NEVER GOT A RESPONSE. IF YOU DID, DID NOT COME THROUGH I WENT TO MY SPAM OR SOMETHING. BUT I TRIED TO REACH OUT ABOUT SIX WEEKS AGO , EIGHT WEEKS AGO. I DID TALK WITH MARY JANE. SHE LIVES ACROSS THE NOTCH PIECE AT THE 5907 TRACT . SHE IS PART OF THE GRIFFITH FAMILY. VERY FAMILIAR WITH ALL OF THE SURROUNDING AREA AS IT IS BEEN DEVELOPED OVER THE YEARS. AND WE'VE BEEN TALKING AND CHATTING ABOUT ALL OF THAT. AND I TOLD HER WITH THE INTENDED USE WAS FOR THAT CORNER. AND WE ALSO DISCUSSED THE ACCESS -- AND I SUGGESTED IT COULD BE A BENEFIT TO CROSS UTILIZE USING THAT PARCEL SINCE THAT IS LINING UP WITH THE STREET THERE. I HAVE ALSO BEEN IN DISCUSSION WITH -- REGARDING THAT. AND TRYING TO DO THINGS TO KEEP IT SAFE.>> PRIOR TO BEING CONTACTED LAST WEEK, HAVE YOU HAD ANY
INCLINATION -- >> I SENT OUT AN EMAIL BECAUSE I WAS GIVEN AN EMAIL ADDRESS . YOU DID GET THE EMAIL?
>> I SENT A RESPONSE BACK. >> I NEVER GOT A RESPONSE. I SENT MY PHONE NUMBER AND EVERYTHING. -- IS A CORPORATION
THAT IS BUYING IT. >> TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DID YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY WAS UNDER --
>> I WAS COMING INTO THIS COMPLETELY BLIND. I WENT DIRECTLY TO THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY BASED ON THE APPRAISAL DISTRICTS OFFICE AND CONTACTED THEM DIRECTLY AND DISCUSSED IF THEY WOULD SELL. WE NEGOTIATED AND HAVE A CONTRACT THAT NOW IS ABOUT 60 DAYS DEEP. SOMETIMES OF THE ESSENCE. AGAIN, YOU HAVE MONEY IN FOR THE SURVEY, AND MONEY IN FOR THE ZONE CHANGE.
AND POTENTIALLY 60 OR $80,000 FOR AN ENGINEERING STUDY TO FEMA, AND TO THE ENGINEER FOR GETTING THIS AREA STUDIED SO THAT THE FLOOD ISSUES ARE REMEDIED . I STAND TO LOSE CLOSE TO $100,000 IF THE CONTRACT IS TERMINATED . I'M
[00:40:03]
JUST HERE TRY TO GET THE ZONE CHANGED ON IT SO I CAN MOVEFORWARD ON THE PROJECT. >> ONE QUICK QUESTION. IN THE EVENT THAT SO I DON'T KNOW WHO WOULD HAVE TO CALL TO TALK TO , BUT IF WE HAVE THE TENTATIVELY APPROVED THE ZONE CHANGE, PENDING LEGAL RESOLUTION, WOULD THAT ALLOW YOU TO MOVE FORWARD?
>> I GUESS IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE A MUTUAL AGREEMENT WITH THE SELLER AND MYSELF AS THE BUYER. I WOULD NEED TO DISCUSS THAT WITH THEM TO SEE WHAT IS THE TIMEFRAME .
>> I THINK WE WOULD NEED TO DISCUSS IT AS WELL.
>> -- ARE YOU ABLE TO TABLE IT?
>> I AM NOT SUGGESTING YOU SHOULD.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION BACK. IF THE ZONE CHANGE IS APPROVED TODAY, AND THERE IS A BOUNDARY DISPUTE LATER , WOULD THAT LEAVE A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY , IT WAS FOUND THERE WAS A BOUNDARY DISPUTE AND SOME OF THAT WAS TAKEN OUT OF THAT PARTICULAR EXHIBIT -- HOW WOULD THAT WORK?
>> WE WOULD NEED TO ASK. >> UNDERSTOOD. IF IT WAS TABLED, I JUST NEED TO KNOW TIMELINE WISE WHAT WE ARE TALK ABOUT. BECAUSE I NEED TO GET WITH THE PARTIES AND FIGURE OUT
WHAT WE NEED TO DO NEXT. >> ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS
FOR MR. JOHNSON? THANK YOU. >> MY NAME IS BROOKE JOHNSON. I AM MARY JANE GRIFFITH , THAT'S MY MOTHER MY. I BELIEVE -- AND I'M NOT 100% CERTAIN ON THE ORDINANCE INVOLVED. THERE IS SOME SORT OF REGULATION ON A DRIVEWAY ACCESS . HOW MANY DRIVEWAYS WITHIN HOW MANY FEET, YARDS, I AM NOT SURE WHAT THE RULE IS. THE DRIVEWAY ACCESS ON LOOP 322 TO THE INTERSTATE ACCESS ROAD -- BELONGS TO MARY JANE GRIFFITH, MY MOTHER-IN-LAW. I KNOW MR. JOHNSON SAID HE SPOKEN WITH MARY JANE. MARY JANE GRIFFITH IS UNWILLING TO MOVE HER DRIVEWAY, IS UNWILLING TO GIVE UP HER DRIVEWAY . ALSO, I DO NOT SEE HOW THERE COULD BE A ZONING CHANGE , HOW YOU CAN APPROVE A ZONING CHANGE WHEN THERE IS DISCREPANCY OF OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. I DO NOT SEE HOW THAT IS POSSIBLE. AS FAR AS DRIVEWAY ACCESS GOES TO LOOP 322, THE ONLY DRIVEWAY THERE IN THAT AREA . AGAIN, I AM UNCERTAIN OF THE REGULATION. THE ONLY DRIVEWAY THERE BELONGS TO MARY JANE GRIFFITH AND SHE IS NOT WILLING TO MOVE HER DRIVEWAY, OR TO ALLOW EASEMENT ON THAT DRIVEWAY. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN YOUR DECISION AT THIS TIME. THANK
YOU. >> ONE THING TO NOTE. I DID NOT REALIZE, THERE IS SOME WRITING ON THE BACK OF THIS NOTE AS WELL. THIS IS A CONCERN FOLLOWING WHICH JUST MENTIONED.
THE DRIVEWAY REQUIREMENTS IS A CONCERN. AND THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC WOULD MAKE IT MORE OF A PROBLEM.
>> ANYONE ELSE ON THIS MATTER?
>> THAT AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS WILLIAM HIBBS. I AM KAY'S SON . IS INTERESTING THING FROM A ZONING STANDPOINT THAT YOU ONLY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, IRRELEVANT OF THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY, THE AREA IN QUESTION IS A WETLANDS. CHANGING TO HEAVY EQUIPMENT ON THE BACKSIDE OF THAT IS GOING TO CAUSE SOME SERIOUS PROBLEMS. 100 $250,000 DOES NOT WANT TO TOUCH WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO. I CAN ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE WE OWN THE
[00:45:01]
PROPERTY NEXT TO IT , AND WILL CAUSE THE WETLANDS HAS BEEN THERE SINCE THE 1950S. AND IT'S A HUGE TANK CALLED THE RJ GRIFFITH TANK. THAT PROPERTY THAT IS UNDER QUESTION HAS HAD A SECURE FENCE AROUND IT, IT DETERMINES THE PROPERTY LINE FOR QUITE SOME TIME. THE CITY ITSELF HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THE PROPERTY AS BEING K GRIFFITHS -- AT LEAST 6.2 OF THE 10.1.THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT SKINNY'S AND SUBSEQUENT OWNERS OF SKINNY'S OWNS THE FOUR ACRES RIGHT NEXT TO 322 AND ADJACENT TO INTERSTATE 20. THE STATE OF TEXAS HAS TAKEN A CONDEMNED PART OF THAT LAND ALREADY AND USE IT FOR THE EXPANSION OF 322. CURRENT -- IS LOOKING AT TAKING A LARGE SECTION OF THAT AREA, OF THE FOUR ACRES AND THE PERSON THAT OWNS THEM, AS WAS PART OF OUR 6.2 ACRES -- THERE IS A HIGH LIKELIHOOD THAT THE WHOLE CORNER WILL BE GONE. AND BE PART OF TEXTILE. FOR THE EXPANSION OF 322 AND INTERSTATE 20 E■XPANSION, HICH THE CITY LOOKING AT. FROM A ZONING STANDPOINT, I HOPE YOU TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. I HOPE YOU TABLED THIS ISSUE UNTIL WE CAN GET CLARIFICATION ON OWNERSHIP FOR THE 6.2 ACRES IN QUESTION. AS WELL AS WHAT -- IS WHAT TO DO WITH THE CORNER. THANK YOU.
>> ANYONE ELSE ON THIS MATTER ?
>> SINCE A COUPLE OF THESE ITEMS WERE BROUGHT UP. NEW INFORMATION AND THE ALLEGED AREAS -- THAT THE SURVEY WOULD BE ABLE TO GO OUT AND SURVEY THE PROPERTY. -- SOMEWHERE THAT HAS NOT BEEN FILED. AS I INTEND TO HAVE THE USE THAT FALL UNDER HC ZONING. I COULD PROBABLY GIVE FOUR WEEKS, IF THIS WAS APPROVED TODAY WITH AN AMENDMENT, OR UNTIL WE CAN FURTHER DISCUSS WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER . AND THE CITY ATTORNEY TO TALK ABOUT THIS BOUNDARY ISSUE. AND IF IT'S FOUND TO BE NOT WHAT IT IS, THEN CERTAINLY THAT COULD BE A CONTINGENCY . YOU COULD CHANGE THE ZONING CONTINGENT ON WHAT NEWS AND INFORMATION COMES UP IN FOUR WEEKS. WITH A FOLLOW-UP TO THIS ZONE REQUEST. SO I PROPOSE THAT THE ZONE CHANGE PAST CONTINGENT ON FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE ACTUAL BOUNDARIES ARE FOR THE ADJACENT OWNERS. AND ALSO TO GIVE THE OWNERS OF THE SUBJECT AT 10 ACRES IN THE KNOW AS WELL. THEY ARE ASSUMING THEY HAVE THE 10 ACRES TO SELL AT THIS POINT. THAT IS MY REQUEST.
>> YES, MA'AM. >> FOR THE RECORD, I DID RESPOND. I SAID I HAD TO GET MY DOCUMENTS IN PLACE. WHY IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A MONTH TO TRY TO RESOLVE THE OWNERSHIP ISSUE, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU ALL TABLING THE REZONING PRIOR TO THAT MONTH AND GETTING IT BACK TOGETHER? WHY DID YOU HAVE TO BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO SOMETHING FOR A MONTH, RATHER THAN TABLED FOR THE MONTH? WHILE WE WORK ON GETTING THE OWNERSHIP RESOLVED .
>> I THINK THE CONTRACT TIMELINE THAT MR. JOHNSON IS REFERRING TO -- HE COULD POTENTIALLY LOSE THAT DEAL. HE IS HAPPY TO THIS DESK WILL CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION.
>> IF IT TURNS OUT YOU CHANGE THE ZONING ON WHAT THE MAJORITY OF THAT 10 ACRES IS MINE, HOW DO I GET BACK INTO -- YOU'RE
GOING TO HAVE A COMMERCIAL. >> WE ARE JUST A RECOMMENDING A
[00:50:01]
BODY. IF HE WAS TO MOVE FORWARD, I'M NOT SAYING IT WELL, THERE WOULD BE A TIMELINE WHERE IT WOULD GO TO CITY COUNCIL. AT THE CITY COUNCIL HEARING -- AND SO AT THE FINAL HEARING , THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD BE VOTING -- THERE WOULD BE CLARITY, HOPEFULLY, ON THE PROPERTY. SO THE CITY COUNCIL AT THAT TIME COULD -- NO, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO INAUDIBLE ] US VOTING YES OR NO ON THIS TODAY , US WORKING WITH PEOPLE TO TABLE IT , THAT WOULD BE THE PEOPLE THAT BROUGHT THE ISSUE TO TABLE IT. REALLY, WHAT WE DECIDE TODAY JUST MOVE THE BALL FORWARD TO THE NEXT THING. AND IS NOT A DETERMINANT OF US VOTING YAY OR NAY. IF WE VOTE NO, MR. JOHNSON COULD APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL. IF WE VOTE YES, IT COULD MOVE TO CITY COUNCIL.>> PLEASE LET THE RECORD REFLECT I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF LAST WEEK. I DID RESPOND. AND I ASKED TO BE TAKEN OFF YOUR AGENDA UNTIL I GOT WITH MR. JOHNSON AND THE PEOPLE WHO OWN IT SO WE CAN GET THIS RESOLVED.
I DO LET YOU KNOW THAT WAS MY REQUEST. SO WE ARE NOT SPENDING TIME IN THIS HEARING TODAY TO TRY TO GET IT RESOLVED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. I APPRECIATE THE TIME.
>> CANASTA WITH QUESTION. I'VE JUST BEEN ON THE CITY'S -- SITE. IS SHOWN DUE ON THE TRACT DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH, 106 ACRES . AND THEN ON THE EAST , DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT?
IT, I INHERITED THE ENTIRE HOMEPLACE -- MINUS WHAT WAS SOLD TO MARY JANE. AND THE ACREAGE SOLD TO SKINNY'S. I SAID, I HAVE THE ORIGINALS , THE CONTRACT THAT FELL THROUGH WITH SKINNY'S. THERE IS PLENTY OF ROOM WHERE THERE COULD'VE BEEN ASSUMPTION ON THE PART OF CORPORATIONS ALONG THE WAY.
>> I GUESS MY OTHER QUESTION IS THE 10 ACRES , WHICH I THINK IS PROPERTY -- THE WEBSITE SHOWS -- CHANGED IN MAY, 1989. AND THE MAILING ADDRESS OF WHERE THE TAX BILLS ARE GOING IS
SKINNY'S INCORPORATED. >> THE PROBLEM IS, I HAVE TAX RECEIPTS FROM 2004. I WOULD HAVE GONE TO THE TAX OFFICE.
IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS ON MY AGENDA IN ABILENE. TO FIND OUT WHEN HE GOT BACK DATED. I HAVE ASSERTED BY A GLITTER -- LETTER SAYING THEY HAD IDENTIFIED ME AS THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE 6.2 ACRES IN THAT AREA. THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF CONFLICTING INFORMATION. I HAVE TAX RECEIPTS. I HAVE LETTERS. I HAVE THE ORIGINALS FROM MY PARENTS' ATTORNEYS. I HAVE ALL KINDS OF DOCUMENTATIONS. I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT GOT CHANGED AT THE TAX OFFICE. I PAID THE TAXES. THERE IS AMPLE ROOM FOR DISCUSSION AND FIGURING IT OUT. I AM JUST ASKING FOR THAT TO BE ABLE TO BE DONE.
>> I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND. DO YOU REMEMBER THE LAST TIME YOU RECEIVE MAIL ON THIS POTENTIAL TRACT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANYONE ELSE ON THIS MATTER? >> FROM AN ARCHITECTURAL STANDPOINT, I THINK IT'S SAFE TO SAY THE FOUR ACRES THAT SKINNY OWNS, WE ARE NOT CONTESTING THE ZONE CHANGE AT ALL . THE 6.2 ACRES WAS A POSSIBLE BYE-BYE SKINNY'S, THE SKINNY'S DID NOT EXERCISE IN THEIR CONTRACT, IS WHAT IS
[00:55:01]
UNDER CONTENTION. IF YOU CHANGE THE ZONING OF THE 6.2 ACRES , OR YOU INCURRED TO CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR THE ADDITIONAL 6.2 ACRES, THAT MAY PUT AN UNDUE BURDEN ON US TO GET THE ZONING CHANGE TO BACK ON THAT 6.2 ACRES THAT IS IN QUESTION -- THAT IS WHAT WE USE IT FOR. THE REASON IT LOOKS RUN DOWN AND HAS -- CATTLE IS ON IT . THERE'S A LOT OF AGRICULTURAL USE. THAT IS WHY WE WOULD ASK THAT THE 6.2 ACRES THAT IS IN QUESTION BE THE REASON THAT YOU EITHER NOT GIVE AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE FOR CHANGING THE ZONING, OR TABLE THIS ISSUE UNTIL WE CAN GET THIS RESOLVED. THANK YOU.[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
>> ANYONE ELSE ON THIS MATTER ? I WILL QUOTE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK OUR ATTORNEY TO ADVISE US A
BIT. >> FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE THE OPTION OF GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SECTION -- SESSION. WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO THAT? YOU WOULD ANNOUNCE A RECESS AT THIS TIME.
WE ARE GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. AND YOU CAN READ THE EXECUTIVE SESSION LANGUAGE FOR THE RECORD. I HAVE 2:26. YOU CAN LOOK AT THE AGENDA ITSELF.
>> I AM NOT NORMALLY IN THIS POSITION.
>> IS ON THE ACTUAL AGENDA. >> THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF ABILENE RESERVE THE RIGHT INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION -- PURSUANT TO TEXAS CODE -- IT IS TO: 27 BY MY WATCH. WE ARE GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR 10 MINUTES. WE WILL RECONVENE AT 2.37. HOPEFULLY, WE WILL HAVE SOME GUIDANCE AND BE ABLE TO
[ZONING (Part 2 of 2)]
>> IT IS TO: 38, WE ARE ONE MINUTE LATE. WE ARE RECONVENING FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION. NO DECISIONS OR VOTES. WE SIMPLY GOT ADVICE FROM COUNSEL ON THE LEGALITY AND MATTERS . ONE THING WE DID ASK FOR CLARIFICATION ON. WE ARE RECOMMENDING BODY. THE FINAL READING , IF IT WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WOULD BE ON SEPTEMBER 12TH. THAT WOULD GIVE APPROXIMATELY -- TO ALLOW THERE TO BE MORE CLARITY OR DETERMINATION ON THIS PROPERTY, IF THE MATTER WAS TO MOVE FORWARD. DEPENDING ON HOW WE ELECT TO VOTE, IT POTENTIALLY COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH AN APPROVAL. AGAIN, NOTHING FINAL.
AND APPROVAL IS A RECOMMENDATION. OR TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DECLINE IN MR. JOHNSON CAN APPEAL. -- JUST TO ADVISE EVERYBODY ON THIS PROCESS. LOTS OF TIME, THE ONLY TIME YOU'RE IN FRONT OF PLANNING AND ZONING IS THE ONE AND ONLY TIME. THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE. THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD TODAY. AT THIS TIME, I AM NOT GOING TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. BUT I WILL ENTERTAIN ANY DISCUSSION OR MOTIONS ON THIS MATTER.
>> GIVEN THE CLARIFICATIONS , -- IT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY REVERT BACK. I DON'T SEE A REASON NOT TO CONTINUE . I MAKE
ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND-PERIOD
>> THE MOTION CARRIES. >> THE FINAL READING WILL BE AN INITIAL READING BEFORE COUNSEL. BUT THE FINAL READING WOULD BE SEPTEMBER 12TH. YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> AUGUST 20 SECOND-PERIOD >> THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR THE
[01:00:07]
DISCUSSION. WE WILL FORWARD TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. ZONING CASE Z-2024-21.* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.