[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:03]
>> IT IS 1:30, WE ARE UP HERE. I WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER . WOULD YOU MIND LIVING WITH A PRAYER?
>> PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY FOR APPROVAL OF PLATS BROUGHT BEFORE US HOWEVER X IS ONLY RECOMMENDED BOARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL ZONING. THE DISCUSSION MAY BE LATER THAN 10 DAYS ON THE DATE OF THIS MEETING. ALL APPEALS MUST BE IN WRITING. PUBLIC IS INVITED VOLUME ] UNDER DISCUSSION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AFTER SAID RECOGNITION BY THE CHAIR, THOSE WISHING TO BE HURT SHOULD APPROACH A PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND PURPOSE. EACH SPEAKER IS LIMITED TO ONE OR MORE THAN THREE MINUTES
[MINUTES]
ADDITIONAL TIME MAY BE GRANTED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR AND THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER MEETING. ANY COMMENTS OR ADDITIONS TO>> I THINK YOUR NAME IS ON THERE.
>> I THINK YOUR NAME IS IN THE ATTENDEE LIST.
>> YOU ARE HERE, BECAUSE YOU APPROVED --
>> YES. >> SHE IS NOT IN -- LISTED IN
THE FIRST PARAGRAPH. >> YOU WERE HERE .
>> HAS YOU ON THE BOTTOM PARTS. >> GOT THAT, MELISSA?
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING WITH ANYONE LIKE TO ADDRESS THE MEETING OR MINUTES
FROM THE PREVIOUS.? >> SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION ? >>
>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.
[ZONING]
>> FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA TODAY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20 2409, PERMIT TO ALLOW ANTENNA TOWER AT 20 588 E. LAKE ROAD.
ADAM ? >> GOOD AFTERNOON, AND HOLLAND, PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF ABILENE.
VOLUME ] CUP 20 2409, REPRESENTED BY CRAFTING COMMUNICATION AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW - LOW VOLUME ] 50 FOOT TALL E. LAKE ROAD. HERE IS AN AIR LOCATION MAP, SHOWS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY. SUBJECT PROPERTY, HERE IS A CURRENT ZONING MAP, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AS YOU CAN SEE JUST SOUTH AND EAST OF THE PROPERTY, ZONE AGRICULTURAL OPEN WITH L.A. TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY AND NORTH IS GR, GENERAL RETAIL. HERE IS A CONCEPTUAL PLAN SHOWING THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE TOWER.
YOU CAN SEE THAT PROPOSED LEASE AREA IN THE SOUTH WEST PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY. HERE ARE PROPERTY VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. CURRENTLY THIS IS USED AS A BED OF ROSES. SOME NEIGHBORING BUSINESSES SUCH AS THE HALF NEARBY, VACANT PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY. WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATION AND RECEIVE NONE IN FAVOR OR POST TO THIS REQUEST. THE USE OF THE SITE FOR COMMUNICATION TOWER IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL IN THE ELDEST AND GENERAL EXIT PLANNING PRINCIPAL. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
>> HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.
>> ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >>
>> APPRECIATE IT, TICKET. ANYONE LIKE TO COME UP AND
ADDRESS THIS? >> GOOD AFTERNOON, BRIAN SULLIVAN CRAFTING COMMUNICATIONS. HERE ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN TERROR COMPANY, , BUT HE ROSE HOLDINGS, COLLEGE OF SAID HERE TODAY. AMERICAN TOWER IS THE WORLDS LARGEST TOWER OWNER
[00:05:02]
THOUSANDS OF POWERS OWNED IN TEXAS. WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TODAY IS FOUR 150 FOOT TALL MONOPOLE TOWER, IT WILL BE INSIDE OF A 50 FOOT BY 35 FOOT SECURITY COMPOUND. THE REASON THAT WE NEED THIS TOWER IS, BECAUSE THE EXISTING TOWER, NEARBY, NEEDS TO BE REMOVED, DUE TO THE LEASE EXPIRING.EXISTING TOWERS ON COCA-COLA PROPERTY, JUST ACROSS THE PROPERTY OR STREET FROM THE COCA-COLA PLANT. WE NEED TO RELOCATE THAT TOWER, FOUND A LOCATION NEARBY IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE EXISTING TENANTS , T-MOBILE AND AT&T, TO HAVE A NEW PLACE TO OPERATE FROM. THE CELL TOWER HAS VERY LIMITED TRAFFIC, TECHNICIANS WILL COME OUT TO THE SITE, LIMITED BASIS.
ONCE A MONTH OR ONCE A QUARTER. THEY ONLY DO IT IF IT IS HAS A PROBLEM, THE EFFECT ON INAUDIBLE - LOW VOLUME ] WITHOUT THIS TOWER, WE WILL ORDER WILL BE SIGNIFICANT DROP IN COVERAGE FOR T-MOBILE AND AT&T AREA. WE WOULD EXPERIENCE DROPPED CALLS, THINGS LIKE THAT, SHORTAGE, NETWORK, WITHOUT THIS TOWER. WE ARE ASKING FOR A REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING TOWER, EXISTING TOWER WILL BE TAKEN DOWN SHORTLY AFTER THE PROPOSED TOWER IS CONSTRUCTED. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
>> ANY DIFFERENCE IN HEIGHT OR MAKEUP OF THE TWO TOWERS
EXISTING THAT ARE PROPOSED? >> NO, WE WILL PROPOSE EXACT SAME TOWER AS WE HAVE EXISTING.
>> NO QUESTIONS. >> ANYONE ELSE?
>> RESPECTS ME 4425 OPEN LANE. ABILENE. I DO NOT THINK THIS INFORMATION IS PERTINENT TO WHAT PNC DOES TODAY, BUT I THINK IT IS ONLY NEIGHBORLY TO ALERT THE PUBLIC -- PUBLICLY THERE ARE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS ON THIS PROPERTY.
RECORDED AND I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE COVENANT RESTRICTIONS THAT THIS USE OF -- WOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM IN TO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. IN THE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS AND ONE IS SECTION 3.1 AND ALSO A HEIGHT RESTRICTION OF 27 FEET, GIVING SOME RESTRICTIONS. LOWS DEVELOP THESE RESTRICTIONS WHEN THAT WAS DEVELOPED .
MR. MUSGRAVE SIGNED IT WHEN HE WAS A LIFE.
>> THE COVENANTS KNOW THAT THIS PROPERTY ARE IN THE SALE?
>> UH-HUH . >> LIKE I SAID IT IS NOT PERTINENT TO THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE, BUT I MADE A COPY FOR THE NEIGHBORLY THING TO DO TO MAKE PEOPLE AWARE THAT THESE RESTRICTIONS ARE IN PLACE AS YOU DO NOT WANT TO FIND OUT IN THE LAST SECOND THAT THEY HAVE BEEN PLACED.
>> ANY QUESTIONS? >> THANK YOU, APPRECIATE IT.
>> ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COME UP AND ADDRESS THIS?
>> BRIAN SULLIVAN AGAIN. BETTY ROSES HOLDING -- HEATHER TURNEY LOOKED AT THE COVENANTS AND HIDDEN HIS OPINION THEY DO NOT APPLY TO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING HERE. THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION USE AND AS MR. BIXBY NOTED, I THINK IT HAS BEEN NOTED BY STAFF THAT THIS IS A MATTER THAT IS NOT REALLY IN THE PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THE CITY ATTORNEY, IF HE HAS ANY COMMENTS ON THAT?, BUT ALSO, AND OUR OPINION THIS DOES NOT APPLY.
>> . >> I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING . >> AS FAR AS THE CONDITION USES LOW VOLUME ] USE FOR THE LAND, BUT I THINK IT REALLY IS,
[00:10:05]
INAUDIBLE - LOW VOLUME ] OTHER PEOPLE TO FIGURE OUT THE LENGTH OF THE INSTRUCTION OR CONSTRUCTION. I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF IT, AS EXTENDED CONDITION VOLUME ] I WILL MAKE THAT MOTION .>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM BRAD.
>> MOTION CARRIES. >> USE CASES TC 2024-02, ABANDONMENTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY ON OLD HAMM LANE. THAT AFTER NO, AND APOLLO, THIS IS A CITY -- TO ABANDON CERTAIN PORTIONS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG HOLD 'EM LANE, PORTION OF THE AIR LOCATION MAP, AS YOU CAN SEE AT THE INTERSECTION OF HARBISON AND OLDHAM, WESTSIDE AND NORTH OF THAT ALONG HOLD 'EM, ACROSS THE FRONTAGE OF THE OLDHAM LANE CHURCH OF CHRIST PROPERTY. SEVERAL OTHER PLOTTED LOTS RUNNING UP NORTH, TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE INTERSECTION OF EAST INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD AND HOLD 'EM LANE. IS A REQUEST TWO -- TO ABANDON CERTAIN PORTIONS ABOUT 10 FEET RIGHT AWAY, THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF ABILENE. DREW PLATT TEAM. THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO US, BUT TEXT. , THEY ARE EXPANDING THE ROAD OUT THERE SO THEY NEED TO OWN ALL THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT ON THIS ROAD. HERE IS IS ONLY MAP SHOWING THE ZONING OF THE ADJACENT AREAS . AS YOU CAN SEE IT IS MOSTLY SINGLE-FAMILY , RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS AGRICULTURAL OPEN ZONING. HERE IS A FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THAT MAP FOLLOWED BY THE FOLLOW CONTINUATION OF THIS MAP. WITH SOME GC JUST NORTH OF THE EAST INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD . HERE ARE SOME VIEWS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THIS IS CURRENTLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, IT IS USED AS PART OF THEIR DRAINAGE, PART OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY 1750 OLDHAM LANE. WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATIONS TO EVERYBODY ADJACENT TO THESE ABANDONED PORTIONS. WE RECEIVED NONE IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST ONCE AGAIN IS TO CONVEY EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY HELD BY THE CITY OF ABILENE TO THE STATE OF TEXAS. TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO FM 1750 AND THE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REVIEW THIS REQUEST AND MADE NO COMMENT SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU
MAY HAVE. >> IF HE ABANDON THAT, DOES THE PROPERTY OWNER HAVE RIGHT TO LIFE FEET OF IT?
>> THIS IS PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF
SPEAKERS ] >> WOULD NOT BE LIKE AN ALLEY OR SOMETHING ELSE SO THE OWNERS COULD HAVE A TO THE HAPPILY. ?
>> WE INTEND TO RIGHT-OF-WAY PLANE DEED TO THIS PROPERTY, TEXT. INTENDS TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY ITSELF. TEXT.. EITHER FROM THE OWNER OR
THAT OWNED IT. >> I NOTICED THE RIGHT-OF-WAY PORTION IS NOT CONTINUOUS ON
>> LOTS OF GAPS IN IT ? >> YES, THIS IS ALL PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN DEDICATED TO US TO PLATTING.
>> AS PROPERTIES, DID YOU SEE THEM OR GAPS IN THEM ?
>> THEY CAN JUST TAKE THAT SECTION
VOLUME ]. >> FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER.
>> OKAY IN THE PLATTING PROCESS THEY ASKED FOR 18 FOOT RIGHT AWAY
>> OTHER PROPERTIES COULD GO OUT TO THAT.
>> DID I EXPLAIN THAT PROPERLY?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ADAM?
>> THANK YOU. >> OPEN THE PUBLIC AREA, SIMPLY LIKE TO COME UP AND VISIT WITH US WHY MY NAME IS STEPHEN HARDIN , ONE OF THE MINISTERS AT GOLDEN LANE CHURCH OF CHRIST WHICH THE MAJORITY OF THIS LAND WOULD BE OR COMING FROM OUR SECTION OF LAND THAT WE HAVE THERE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE CONCERNED WITH AND IN FACT REGARD YES, WE KNOW THAT
[00:15:04]
IS A TRAFFIC AREA WITH A NEW SCHOOL BUILT THERE, INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL FOR A WHILE, EASE, A HARD TURN INTO THOSE LANES AND ASSUMING THAT IS WHAT THIS IS GOING TO BE USED FOR TO CREATE TURNING LANES OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES AS WELL AS BEFORE, AFTER THE CHURCH SERVICES, IMPEDING TRAFFIC ALONG THOSE, BUT WE HAVE ALSO OTHER THINGS THEIR .THOSE ARE DRAINAGE DITCHES THAT ARE PART OF THE WATER MANAGEMENT AS A PART OF THE PARKING LOT, THAT IS WHERE THE WATER IS DRAINING TOWARDS. SO WE HAD CONCERNS WITH REGARDS TO JUST ABANDONING THIS AND GETTING COMPENSATED BY THE TXDOT, WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH THE REST OF THIS LAND, WOULD WE BE OR THIS BE BUILT UP OR IS THAT A TXDOT QUESTION TO REBUILD THE ENTRYWAYS INTO LARGER CONGREGATION? AS WELL AS INTO THE INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL IMMEDIATELY BESIDE US? IF THAT IS THEIR ONLY ENTRYWAY INTO THERE AS THEY ARE DOING CONSTRUCTION? AS WELL AS HOW WILL WE BE COMPENSATED FOR IN TERMS OF HAVING TO REBUILD OUR DRAINAGE AREA FOR THE CHURCH AND THE PARKING LOT AS PART OF THAT CONSTRUCTION?
>> I CANNOT SPEAK FOR TXDOT, BUT I'M SURE THAT IS A NEGOTIATING POINT WITH THEM , BUT TXDOT WILL HAVE TO TAKE ALL THAT INTO ACCOUNT WHEN THEY DO THEY DESIGN ON 1750 SO THAT
WILL COME INTO ACCOUNT. >> SO YES, WE ARE IN FAVOR OF IT, BUT WE ALSO NEED THOSE QUESTIONS ADDRESSED AS PART OF IT, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT COST AND A BURDEN FOR BOTH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE CHURCH AS ALMOST ALL OF THIS IS ON THE LAND THAT IS BEING ASKED TO BE ABANDON FOR
PART OF THIS. >> THAT WAS MY CONCERNS IN REGARDS TO THIS, IN REGARDS TO THIS ISSUE.
>> THANK YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, SAM WALKER ONE OF THE OWNERS OF ONE OF THESE PROPERTIES ON OLDHAM LANE. JUST WANT TO ASK FOR QUICK FOR QUITE LOW VOLUME ] ALSO WHAT WAS ON THE FLIGHT SLEEP , THIS 10 FOOT ABANDONED AREA IS BEING CONVEYED FROM THE CITY TO TXDOT. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS LOCATION IS BEING VENTED FROM THE CITY GIVEN TO LANDOWNERS AND ACQUIRED FROM THE LANDOWNERS BY TXDOT THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SERVING THAT I HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY TXDOT THAT SHOWS 10 FOOT ACQUISITION AS PART OF THE DOCUMENT APART FROM BEING ACQUIRED FROM THEM FROM THE PROPERTY THAT I ALSO JUST ASKING FOR THAT CLARIFICATION TODAY IF THAT IS OKAY? THANK
YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COME UP
AND VISIT WITH US? >> BRUCE BIXBY , I THINK THIS IS RIGHT. THE TURN LANE , NEEDED OUT THERE. I DO NOT KNOW -- THIS IS NOT REALLY AN ACTION FROM PNC , IS IT?
>> WELL , BRUCE, WENT WE GET TO THAT POINT, IN A MINUTE, --
>> I WAS CONFUSED BY HIM ALSO A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THE QUITCLAIM DEED HOW THAT WORKS, MAYBE
] CAN EXPLAIN THAT ? >> YEAH, WE WILL DISCUSS THAT
IN JUST A MINUTE, OKAY? >> THAT IS ALL.
>> OKAY. >> THANK YOU, MR. BIXBY.
>> ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COME UP AND VISIT WITH US?
>> I WOULD CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, ADAM, WANT TO COME
BACK UP? IN THE HOT SEAT? >> YEAH, I GUESS I NEED TO UNDERSTAND, CONVEYANCE VERSUS QUITCLAIM VERSUS OUTRIGHT ABANDONMENT SO WHAT ARE WE ACTUALLY DOING HERE ? ABANDONING THE RIGHT AWAY, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I UNDERSTOOD THE CASE TO SAY, BUT IF WE DO THAT, IN MY OPINION THE STATE HAS A RIGHT TO HALF OF IT. THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS A
RIGHT TO HALF OF IT. >> WHAT WE ARE DOING IS INTENDING TO ABANDON THIS PROPERTY AND WE ARE CLAIMING THIS PROPERTY BASICALLY SAYING THAT WE ARE NOT OWNING THE PROPERTY ESSENTIALLY. IF YOU WOULD --
>> IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO STEP UP?
>> WE WILL LET YOU TURN OVER THE PODIUM .
>> MICHAEL RICE, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER. WHAT WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS WHOLE PROCESS , IT WOULD BE RELEASE RIGHT AWAY.
RIGHT-OF-WAY IS NOT OWNERSHIP, BUT BASICALLY IS A SERVICE
[00:20:01]
RIGHT FOR US TO MAINTAIN WITHIN THOSE BOUNDARIES. TEXT THAT HAS A POLICY THAT THEY DO NOT WORK WITHIN RIGHT AWAY, BUT WITH THEM PROPERTY THEY OWN IN FEE SIMPLE SO AS A WAS DISCUSSED THE FIRST STEP IS FOR US TO RELEASE OUR RIGHTS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY WHICH IS THE PROCESS WE ARE GOING TO DO TODAY, BUT AFTER THAT TXDOT WILL GO THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCESS OF ACQUISITION END OF THE ACTUAL PROPERTY . THAT WILL MAKE COMPENSATION FOR THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICIES WITH THE STATE GUIDELINES AND USUALLY THAT IS A NEGOTIATED -- THEY ALSO HAVE THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN IN THE EVENT THEY CANNOT DECIDE UPON A REASONABLE VALUE , BUT THE STATE HAS ABILITY TO TAKE THAT. EVENTUALLY GOES TO COURT AND SETTLED AT THAT POINT. THIS IS JUST THE FIRST STEP IS NO DIFFERENT THAT WE DID ON BOTH LOOK AT WHEN WE DID THE PROJECT ON THE GAP AS WELL. SEVERAL PIECES ON RIGHT AWAY, BUT THE CAN BEFORE PLANNING AND ZONING, BUT BASICALLY MADE RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL TO REVIEW THAT AND TO RELEASE SO WE NO LONGER HAD ANY LEGAL RIGHTS TO THE ACCIDENT PROPERTY ITSELF. THIS IS A FIRST STEP IN MULTISTEP PROCESS.>> I GUESS I AM STILL KIND OF BACK ON -- WHAT IS THE PROPERTY OWNER WRITES TO GO AGAINST THAT? CAN THEY CLAIM THAT HALF OR THE 5 FOOT OF THE FRONTAGE?
>> SO TECHNICALLY -- I'M NOT AND ATTORNEY, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS A RIGHT-OF-WAY IS NOT OWNERSHIP . WHEN WE RELEASE THE RIGHT AWAY IT IS JUST A SERVICE OVERLAY SO IT OVERLAYS REMOVE, PROPERTY GOES BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY
OWNER . >> OKAY, WHOLE TEMPLATE WILL GO
SPEAKERS ] >> YES, TEXT -- TXDOT WILL INAUDIBLE - LOW VOLUME ] FOR THE PROJECT. WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IS IDENTIFIED AREAS WHERE THERE IS INSUFFICIENT RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE PROJECT AND THEY ASKED US TO COOPERATE WITH THEM AS A CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE IMPROVEMENT TO
HOLDEN LANE. >> OKAY SO IF I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU SAID, THE 10 FOOT SHOWING UP IN THE HIGHLIGHTED AREA GOES BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY OWNER?
>> WHOEVER CONVEYED THE RIGHT AWAY TO THE CITY, THEY GET THAT, BASICALLY PRIVILEGES JUST REMOVED. OWNERSHIP DOES NOT
CHANGE. >> OKAY, ALL RIGHT. ANYMORE
QUESTIONS FOR MR. RICE? >> THANK YOU .
>> ACCUSER I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING BACKUP TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD THAT. ANYBODY LIKE TO COME BACK UP IF NOT I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> GO AHEAD . >> I WILL LEAVE IT OPEN.
>> RESPECTIVELY. I ACTUALLY CONVEYED THE PROPERTY TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE CITY WHEN I BUILT THOSE LOTS . DOES NOT COME BACK TO ME, BUT IT GOES BACK TO THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT BOUGHT THE LOT, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT WOULD BE MY UNDERSTANDING, YES.
>> NO QUITCLAIM IS THERE A? >> IN MY OPINION THERE IS NOT.
>> ANYONE ELSE ? >> I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC
SPEAKERS ] >> I AM GOOD UNLESS THE BOARD HAS A QUESTION OF ME, I COULD ANSWER IT, BUT I WOULD STAND BEHIND EXACTLY THE WAY MR. RICE EXPLAINED IT.
>> ALL RIGHT. >> CITY DOES NOT OWN THE PROPERTY, BUT JUST THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP SOMETHING ON THAT
INAUDIBLE - LOW VOLUME ]. >> RIGHT TO DEVELOP IT?
INAUDIBLE - LOW VOLUME ]. >> IT DOES NOT GO TO THE PROPERTY OWNER
SPEAKERS ] >> THEY JUST HAVE THE RIGHT .
>> IT IS LIKE THE MOST RESTRICTIVE EASEMENT YOU CAN HAVE. IF THERE IS AN EASEMENT ACROSS YOUR YARD AND IT IS ABANDONED, IT IS YOURS, BUT IF IT IS PROPERLY ON YOUR INAUDIBLE - LOW VOLUME ] IT IS THERE, WERE RESTRICTIVE EASEMENT I COULD THINK OF , A GRANT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, BUT IT IS NOT OWNERSHIP FEE SIMPLE SO WE ARE ASKING THE BOARD TO DATE TO RECOMMEND ABANDONMENT OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
>> TXDOT DETERMINE WHERE THE LINES ARE.
>> ANYMORE QUESTIONS OR FURTHER DISCUSSION?
>> MOTION? >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A
MOTION TO APPROVE. >> MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> MR. ROSENBACH? >> YES MOTION CARRIES.
[00:25:09]
AND PUBLIC HEARING, AND TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST FROM THE OWNER, REPRESENTED BY LAW FIRM OF CHAILE ALLEN, PLLC, TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 0.49 ACRES FROM CENTRAL BUSINESS TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT .>> EPICENTER BY KAYLEE ALLEN, THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE FROM CENTRAL BUSINESS TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 189 LOCATED AT 633 AND 641 PEAK ON, IT WOULD BE THE CORNER OF PIQUANT AND SOUTH SEVENTH STREET. CURRENTLY THE PROPERTY IS ZONED CENTRAL BUSINESS , SOME HEAVY COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH . AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, HERE ARE SOME PROPERTY VIEWS.
THEY ALREADY HAVE SOME CONTAINERS IN THE AREA AND THESE ARE IMAGES, SLIGHTLY OLDER, BUT THEY HAVE GONE THROUGH AND DONE KIND OF LIKE A SEE-THROUGH MESH. THESE ARE SOME PROPERTY VIEWS , FROM THE SURROUNDING AREA. YOU CAN SEE OF THE COMMERCIAL USES TO THE SOUTH, AS WELL AS RESIDENTIAL USES OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS SLIGHTLY TO THE NORTH. THE CONCEPT PLAN, THEY PLAN TO SET UP THE SHIPPING CONTAINERS THROUGH WITHIN OPAQUE FENCE AND KEEP THE AREA GATED. THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT 189 WILL HAVE A BASE CENTRAL -- KEEP THE -- BASE ZONING OF CENTRAL BUSINESS SO HERE IS ] PERMITTED USES
ZONING. >> WE SENT OUT NOTICES AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE EITHER IN FAVOR NOR OPPOSED. THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CONFERENCE OF PLANT SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING GENERALLY ACCEPT THAT PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL. IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, STAFF RECOMMENDATION TODAY IS APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO THE SITE PLAN AND PLAT FOR
>> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
>> THESE ARE TEMPORARY STRUCTURES, NOT ANCHOR DOWN ? I KNOW IN THE PAST WE HAVE REJECTED A REQUEST FOR STORAGE CONTAINERS, BECAUSE OF THE ANCHOR .
>> WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE SITE APPROVAL PROCESS, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL MAY ASK SOMEONE TO ANCHOR DOWN THE STRUCTURES .
SINCE ALSO IN THE CONCEPT PLAN, THEY HAVE, KIND OF, DESIGNATED AREAS, WE WILL GO THROUGH AND WHENEVER WE GO THROUGH THE APPROVAL PROCESS WE MAKE SURE THEY ARE NOT TOO CLOSE TO THE BOUNDARY LINE. BUILDING INSPECTIONS WILL ALSO GO AND MAKE SURE IT MEETS REQUIRED SEPARATION AND ALSO IF NEEDED, THEY MIGHT MEET TO BE ANCHOR DOWN .
>> SO LOOKING AT THIS PLAN , I WOULD INTERPRET THIS THAT THE OPAQUE FENCES ON PECAN AND SEVENTH?
>> I CAN SEE WHAT YOU MEAN. THERE ARE TWO -- HERE. THE FREIGHT CONTAINERS NEED TO BE SCREENED FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY. THE EXCEPTION IS AN ALLEY SO IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE SCREENED OFF THE ALLEY. WE HAVE -- PROPERTY OWNER WHETHER HE WANTS TO CONTINUE THE FESSING --
SPEAKERS ] >> WHAT YOU SAY IS IT IS NOT
ALL AROUND THE PROPERTY? >> RIGHT --
>> ONLY ON SEVENTH AND PECAN >> YES.
>> OKAY, WHAT YOU HAVE THERE DOES IT STIPULATE A HEIGHT? I DO NOT REMEMBER SEEN ANYTHING ABOUT THAT IN OUR PACKET . IS THERE A HEIGHT STIPULATION ON THE FENCE?
>> IT JUST SAYS ON THE LAND BUILDING CODES, IS HAS ALTERNATIVE, THEY CAN DO 7 FEET OF OPAQUE MATERIAL. THAT IS WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE HAS FOR SCREENING OF FREIGHT CONTAINERS A MINIMUM OF SEVEN, BUT THEY CAN GO HIGHER AS
NEEDED TO SCREEN IT. >> SEVEN IS NOT INCLUDING INAUDIBLE - LOW VOLUME ] SEVEN IS A POOL OPAQUE?
>> OKAY. DOES IT ADDRESS STACKING CONTAINERS OR ANYTHING
[00:30:03]
ON TOP OF CONTAINERS, BECAUSE HE SAW IN THE PICTURE THEY WERE STACKED ON TOP OF THE CONTAINERS. THERE NEEDS TO BE WORDS IN MY OPINION THAT THEY SHOULD CONTINUE AT GRADE AND NOT STACK ANYTHING ON TOP OF THEM.>> THAT IS CORRECT. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR FREIGHT CONTAINERS TO BE SET --
>> DOES IT ADDRESS STACKING THINGS ON TOP OF THEM LIKE IN
THOSE PICTURES? >> I SEE SOMETHING STACKED ON TOP, I'M SORRY . I WAS PICTURING A WHOLE FREIGHT CONTAINER ON TOP, BUT IT DOES NOT SPECIFY WHETHER MATERIAS CAN BE STACKED ON TOP OF THEM, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN POSSIBLY ADD TO THE ORDINANCE , REQUIRED CONDITION
>> IF YOU PUT IT IN THE AUDIENCE WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE SIMPLE PROCESS WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT IS --
>> WE ARE DEVELOPING THE PD SO WE CAN DO THAT.
>> I WOULD AGREE OR THINK IN THE SAME THING , COMING FROM CALIFORNIA, THERE ARE SOME PLACES WHERE THEY HAVE FOUR, FIVE, HIGH, YOU KNOW, 7 FOOT FENCES AND PUTTING STUFF ON TOP
OF THAT. >> IN MY OPINION, LOOKING AT THIS YOU SHOULD HAVE A SENSE ALL THE WAY AROUND IT, BECAUSE IT IS IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, BUT IF IT WAS OUT SOMEWHERE ELSE, SOME OTHER DISTRICT, OUT AWAY FROM SOMEWHERE, IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT STORY, BUT MY OPINION IT IS IN THE CENTRAL DISTRICT, FENCE AROUND THE, SHOULD BE 7 FOOT HIGH. THE CONTAINER SHOULD BE SET AT GRADE AND NOT STACK MORE THAN ONE HEIGHT AND NOTHING ON TOP OF THEM. THOSE ARE KIND OF MIGHT --
>> ACROSS THE ALLEY WAS LIKE YEAH, IT IS IN THE CENTRAL
BUSINESS DISTRICT. >> YOU KNOW, AND THE NEXT CASE, IT IS SOMEWHERE ELSE, DIFFERENT CASE. IF IT IS IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS, ESSENTIALLY DOWNTOWN.
>> OKAY. >> KIND OF MY OPINION.
>> ANYTHING ELSE FOR US, CLARISSA?
>> THANK YOU. >> I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC AREA, SOMEONE LIKE TO VISIT WITH US IN THIS CASE?
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, KELLY ALLEN, REPRESENTING MR. AND MRS. BOOKS, OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND REQUESTS THAT WERE EXPRESSED TODAY WERE AGREEABLE TO THEM I'M HAPPY TO COMPLY WITH KEEPING IT AT ONE LEVEL , MAKING THE FENCE OPAQUE ALL THE WAY AROUND, 7 FOOT. TO KIND OF CLARIFY SOME OF THE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY THIS IS EVEN COMING ABOUT, AND WE GO BACK TO THE PICTURE THAT HAS THE AERIAL VIEW? MR. BOOK -- GO BACK, YOU PASSED IT SORRY. THAT ONE, YEAH. THIS ONE IS EASIER TO SEE. IF YOU LOOK AT A CORNY FROM WHERE THE -- CATTY CORNER FROM WHERE THE HIGH SECTION IS, AT THE COULD SAYS 809, MR. BOOKS MACHINE SHOP. HE DOES ON THE PROPERTY CATTY CORNER TO IT SO THIS IS -- HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND BEING USED APPROPRIATELY.
SO HE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET, SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THE ZONING SO THAT IS WHAT BROUGHT US HERE TODAY. IT IS CONNECTED TO HIS WORK AND NOT COMPLETELY OUT OF THE BLUE THAT HE JUST WANTS TO STORE THIS HERE, BUT I WAS HOPING TO CLARIFY THAT, BUT ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT YOU ADDRESSED SHOULD NOT OR NOT AN ISSUE WITH MR. BOOK AND ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS BY THE BUILDING INSPECTORS OR FIRE MARSHALS ARE ANYONE, WE ARE HAPPY TO COMPLY WITH THEM.
>> THE REASON I'M STICKLER ON THE FENCES IT IS IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS IS REST OF THAT WILL DEVELOP. COULD BE OTHER THINGS IN THE BUSINESS OTHERWISE SO I THINK IT IS, BECAUSE OF THAT.
>> ALL RIGHT . ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING . FURTHER DISCUSSION ?
>> AND HE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> CAN WE GO TO THE RECOMMENDATION PAGE?
>> TALKING IT OUT , APPROVE IT ? APPROVED TO ADJUST THE PLAN DEVELOPED -- THE CHANGE TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WITH THESE LOTS HAVE IN THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS , OPEC FENCE ALL THE WAY AROUND THE PROPERTY, THAT ANY GRANT CONTAINERS WOULD BE SET AT GROUND LEVEL GREAT AND NOTHING PERMITTED TO BE STEPPED ON THOSE CONTAINERS. ANY OF THE CONDITIONS OR ANYTHING ELSE?
>> RIGHT, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CHANGE FROM THE
[00:35:01]
CENTRAL BUSINESS TO THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM , WHAT THAT HAVE THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND OPAQUE FENCE SERENITY PROPERTY IN QUESTION, 7 FOOT IN HEIGHT MINIMUM, ALL SHIPPING CONTAINERS WILL BE SINGLE HEIGHT , SET AT GROUND LEVEL , FOLLOW ALL RECOMMENDED BUILDING CODE CONDITIONS PRESENTED , ATTHE SITE PLAN. >> THAT THE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE STACKED ON TOP OF DOCUMENT NOT JUST OF THE
>> OKAY, THAT COVERS IT. >> OKAY.
>> SEAN TASTE SECOND. >> MR. BURNETT?
>> MOTION CARRIES. >> CASE Z-2024-28, CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 0.30 ACRES FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY LOCATED AT 602 & 610 N 16TH STREET.
>> I APPRECIATE YOU COMING . >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CLARISSA IVEY, PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF ABILENE. TODAY WE HAVE THE 2024 28, A REQUEST FROM THE OWNER, MR. ALVARO, SANTOS TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL ZONING IN THE FAMILY TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL. ACTUALLY TWO LOTS, SITS TWO AND VOLUME ] THEY ARE JUST RIGHT BEHIND -- BUSINESS OF T'S BOOTS. RIGHT OFF NORTH TREADWAY, NEAR 16TH. THIS IS CURRENTLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY. ALSO TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE WEST, WITH THE HEAVY COMMERCIAL BEEN TO THE EAST ON NORTH TREADWAY. THIS IS THE CURRENT VIEW OF THE PROPERTY. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE SOME STORAGE BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ARE RESIDENTIAL AND THE SOUTH NEIGHBORING PROPERTY , APPEARS TO BE VACANT, BUT ALSO A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE THERE.
] PROPERTY BEING COMMERCIAL USE.
>> THESE ARE THE ALLOWED USES IN YOU RESIDENTIAL ZONING .
THESE WOULD BE YOUR ALLOWED USES IN THE HEAVY COMMERCIAL , THE ZONING. WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATIONS AND WE RECEIVED ONE, IN OPPOSITION AND ZERO IN FAVOR. THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CONFERENCE A PLAN, VOLUME ] THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL IN THE LAND BUILDING COLD . STAFF RECOMMENDATION TODAY IS APPROVAL. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE .
>> BUFFERING BETWEEN HAVING COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL?
>> I'M SURE THERE IS SOME. >> YES, SIR.
>> I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE A TYPE TRANII.
>> OKAY. >> QUESTION FOR CLARISSA?
>> THANK YOU. >> I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, ANYONE LIKE TO COME UP AND ADDRESS THE CASE BEFORE US?
>> SEEING KNOW AND I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYMORE
DISCUSSION OR EMOTION? >> NEW BUSINESS OR JUST
INAUDIBLE - LOW VOLUME ] . >> THEY HAVE BEEN USING THIS PROPERTY FOR RESEARCH BACK IN 2003 FOR THE SAME USE. ONE OF THEM OR STORAGE BUILDINGS GOT DILAPIDATED SO THEY ADDED THIS CONTAINER TO MOVE THEIR SUPPLIES INTO WHICH TRIGGERED THE ZONE REQUEST. THIS IS PLANNING VOLUME ] USING IT FOR A LONG TIME.
>> OKAY, SOMETHING YOU ARE JUST
>> I DO NOT SEE ANY INDICATION OF A TYPE TRANII BUFFER IN THE
PHOTOGRAPHS. >> THAT WOULD COME DURING THE SITE PLAN PROCESS OR STUFF LIKE THAT, A DIFFERENT PROCESS.
INAUDIBLE - LOW VOLUME ]. >> OKAY.
>> JUST MENTIONED THAT SINCE YOU MENTIONED IT HAS BEEN USED
FOR THIS PURPOSE. >> ENTERTAIN A MOTION?
>> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE . >> KEVIN TO APPROVE .
>> ZONING CASE Z-2024-29 CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY
[00:40:08]
4.78 ACRES FROM MULTI- FAMILY (MF) TO A PLANNED .>> MARTIN , REQUEST IS TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 4.78 ACRES FOR MULTI FAMILY TO A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WHICH WOULD BE PDD 188. THE BASAL NEED OF TOWNHOME ZONING. THE PROPOSED -- THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF TOWNHOMES WITH A MAXIMUM OF TWO DWELLING UNITS AS WELL AS DUPLEXES. THESE ARE LOCATED ALONG MINDA STREET AND HALEY STREET AS OUTLINED IN THE AREA LOCATION MAP. HERE WE HAVE THE ZONING MAP CURRENTLY ZONED MULTIFAMILY .
>> WE HAVE SOME PROPERTY VIEWS . THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF BEING PLATTED, WHICH IS TRIGGERING ALL OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE WATER AND SEWER SO THAT IS WHY IT LOOKS WHY IT -- WHY LOOKS THE WAY IT DOES. HERE ARE SOME MORE SURROUNDING PROPERTY VIEWS /PROPERTY VIEWS . HERE ARE THE PERMITTED USES IN MULTIFAMILY ZONING. THE PERMITTED USES IN TOWNHOME ZONING. WAS SENT OUT NOTIFICATIONS WITHIN A 200 FOOT BUFFER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES. WE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING, GENERALLY ACCEPTED PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL IN THE LEC. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY
HAVE. >> DO WE HAVE ANY DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS AREA IN THE LAST FEW DECADES?
>> NO, I BELIEVE IT HAS BEEN -- THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SPECIFICALLY, HAS BEEN -- IT WAS ANNEXED IN 1957. AS FAR AS YOU CAN TELL IT HAS REMAINED VACANT EVER SINCE.
>> NO, SIR. >> DID NOTHING SO.
- LOW VOLUME ]. >> COULDN'T TOWNHOMES GOING TO
>> SO I THINK KELLY CAN EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR THAT BETTER THAN I
COULD. YES. >> THAT IS MIGHT -- SEEMS LIKE IT IS PROPOSING LESS THING, BETTER FOR THE COMMUNITY --
>> YEAH, BUT THE REASON IS THEY WANT TO LIMIT IT TO THE TWO , BUT DO NOT WANT MORE THAN THAT. TOWNHOMES BY DEFINITION ARE
THREE, KIND OF, CONSECUTIVE. >> THEY WANT TO CONTROL THE
SPEAKERS ] >> FOR THAT -- FROM WHAT I
>> THANK YOU. >> WHAT IS THE PD ACTUALLY
SAYING ? >> SO THE LANGUAGE FOR THE PD IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF TOWNHOME ZONING EXCEPT AS MODIFIED WHICH IS BASICALLY TO EXTENT ALLOWING DUPLEXES AND ALLOWING TOWNHOMES, BUT TOWNHOMES WILL BE GROUPED NO MORE THAN TWO . SO YOU CANNOT HAVE THREE, FOUR, BUT ONLY TWO SO ESSENTIALLY IT IS A DUPLEX. JUST THE VERBIAGE TO BE CHANGED
>> YOU SAID THIS WAS ANNEXED IN 1957?
>> PUBLIC HEARING? >> TALLY, WANT TO COME UP?
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, TOWEL, AGENT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER, GOOD TO SEE YOU , A FEW MONTHS AS I HAVE BEEN HERE.
>> IT IS SENSIBLE AS THIS, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CURRENTLY DOESN'T NOT ALLOW FOR DUPLEX TO BE SPLIT AND SOLD IN HALVES . THIS HAS BEEN OUR CREATIVELY OF ALLOWING THAT . WAS THE SPECIFIC PD -- WE USED IT A NUMBER OF TIMES, BUT OUR CLIENT ORIGINALLY DID NOT BELIEVE THAT WAS THEY TACTIC THEY WANTED TO TAKE. OBVIOUSLY THE PROPERTY IS BEEN INVOLVED CURRENTLY, IN THE INTENT, DUPLEXES, BUT HE WANTED ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY SO HE KIND OF CHANGEDHIS POSITION ON THAT. THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST. IT IS STILL INTENDED TO BE A DUPLEX
[00:45:03]
DEVELOPMENT , BUT JUST AFFORDS OUR CLIENT THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEPARATE THOSE RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE STRUCTURE.OBVIOUSLY WE ARE WORKING ON THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, HAD OPPORTUNITY TO BE A PART OF THE COMPANY -- COMMITTEE SO WE WILL FIX THAT SO BASIS OF OUR REQUESTED A. WE DO ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
>> LOT SIZES OR K OR YOU WANT ME TO CHANGE THE LOT?
>> THANK YOU ALL. >> THANK YOU .
>> ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COME UP AND ADDRESS THE CASE?
>> I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY DISCUSSION OR
>> I WILL SECOND. >> MITCH, GRANT?
>> MOTION CARRIES. >>
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.