[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:18]
IT ACTS AS A RECOMMENDING BOARD IN THE MATTER OF ZONING.
THE DECISION MAY BE APPEALED TO CITY COUNCIL THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY NO LATER THAN TEN DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS MEETING. ALL APPEALS MUST BE IN WRITING.
THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO SPEAK AFTER RECEIVING RECOGNITION BY THE CHAIR. THOSE WISHES TO BE HEARD SHALL APPROACH THE PODIUM AND STATE THEIR NAME AND PURPOSE FOR APPEARING.
EACH SPEAKER IS REQUESTED TO LIMIT TO NO MORE THAN THREE MINUTES. ADDITIONAL TIME MAY BE GRANTED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE FAIR.
I WILL ASK CURVE KEVIN TO LEAD US IN THE OPENING INVOCATION.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE TIME TODAY. WE PRAY THAT YOU WOULD GIVE US WISDOM THAT WE MAKE FAIR AND WISE DECISIONS. WE ASK YOU TO HELP US TO LISTEN CAREFULLY AND TO UNDERSTAND CLEARLY ALL THOSE HERE TO PRESENT VARIOUS THINGS TO US TODAY.
PRAY YOU GIVE EVERY SPEAKER AND EVERY LISTENER WISDOM AND DISCERNMENT AS WELL. THANK YOU FOR OUR PLANNERS AND THE CITY THAT CONTINUES TO PREPARE THESE MEETINGS.
WE ASK YOUR BLESSING OVER THEM AS THEY DO THE LEG WORK BEFOREHAND. GO WITH US TODAY AND HELP US TO HON OR YOU. AMEN.
>> THE FIRST ITEM WE HAVE IS THE MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 7TH MEETING. ALL THE COMMISSIONERS HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THOSE. ANY COMMENTS THAT ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE? WE WILL OPEN THIS FOR GENERAL COMMENT.
ANY COMMENTS ON THE LAST MEETING?
[MINUTES]
SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON LAST MEETING'S MINUTES.
>> SECOND RIGHT HERE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[ZONING]
ANY OPPOSED? WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR FOUR CONDITIONAL USE OR ZONING CASES BEFORE US. I WILL REMIND EVERYONE WE ARE RECOMMENDING WHEN IT COMES TO THE MAT TERS OF ZONING OR CONDITIONAL USE.WHETHER IT'S APPROVED OR DENIES IT CAN MOVE FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL WHERE THERE WILL BE TWO HEARINGS. THE FIRST WILL BE NORMALLY A READING. THE SECOND IS WHERE THEY ENTERTAIN MORE CONVERSATION ABOUT EACH MATTERS. IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE PRO OR AGAINST THE DECISIONS WE MAKE, YOU CAN TAKE IT FORWARD WITH CITY COUNCIL IN THE COMING WEEKS.
FIRST MATTER THAT WE HAVE IS NUMBER TWO ON OUR AGENDA, CONDITIONAL USE 2025-03. RECEIVE A REPORT, HOLD A DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC HEARING TO TAKE ACTION REQUEST FROM THE OWNER TO APPLY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO . 9 ACRES OF LAND TO ALLOW FOR CONTACTOR SERVICES.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M THE DIVISION MANAGER FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
I WILL BE PRESENTING CASE CUP2025-03.
STEVE AND DIANA WALKER. THE REQUEST IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR CONTRACTOR SERVICES WITHIN GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING AT 625 EAST SOUTH 11TH STREET.
HERE WE HAVE AERIAL LOCATION MAP.
A ZONING MAP. IT'S ZONED GENERAL COMMERCIAL WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST.
HERE ARE THE USES IN GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING. WE HAVE SOME PROPERTY VIEWS AND SOME SURROUNDING PROPERTY VIEWS.
HERE IS THE INITIAL SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED DURING OUR SITE PLAN REVIEW.
YOU CAN KIND OF SEE A ROUGH LAYOUT.
WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATIONS WITHIN A 200 FOOT BUFFER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. WE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE REQUEST AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THE SURROUNDED USES IN ZONING, ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES AND APPROVAL IN LDC.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL TO THE PLAN OF OPERATIONS.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
[00:05:01]
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MASON? THANK YOU.
>> I WILL OPEN UP THE GENERAL HEARING.
IS ANYBODY HERE TO REFERENCE MATTER TWO? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANY COMMENT OR DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OR ANY MOTIONS?
>> IT LOOK STRAIGHTFORWARD. I MOVE TO APPROVE.
>> A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION AS -- WITH THE CONDITION SUBJECT TO THE SITE
A SECOND FROM FORMER MISS FLEMING.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS.
>> HOLD A DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC HEARING ON THE OWNER REPRESENTED BY PRECISION CONTRACTORS TO APPLY A CONDITIONAL PERMIT TO 1. 81 ACRES TO ALLOW FREIGHT CONTAINERS LOCATED AT 718 SOUTH CLACK STREET.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M A PLANNER WITH ABILENE.
BEFORE YOU TODAY WE HAVE CUP 2025-04.
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FREIGHT CONTAINERS AT 718 SOUTH CLACK. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH 7TH AND SOUTH CLACK.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED GENERAL COMMERCIAL.
THEY ARE WANTING TO PLACE THE FREIGHT CONTAINERS BEHIND THE FURNITURE ROW STORE. AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY HAVE STARTED IMPLEMENTING MEASURES OF DOING FENCING AROUND THE FREIGHT CONTAINERS. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY VIEWS.
IT'S MOSTLY COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WITH SOME RESIDENTIAL STRICTLY RIGHT BEHIND THEM.
ALONG PUEBLO DRIVE. WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATIONS AND RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING. AND THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL IN THE LDC. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO A BUILDING PERMIT BEING OBTAINED WITHIN 30 DAYS AND ALSO THE FREIGHT CONTAINERS BE SUBJECT TO THE SUBMITTED CONCEPT PLAN AND ALL THE APPLICABLE LDC REQUIREMENTS.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION U.S. S YOU MAY HAVE.
>> WHAT ARE THEY BUILDING? IF THEY ARE PUTTING FREIGHT CONTAINERS, WHAT'S THE BUILDING PERMIT? A NEW --
>> IT HAS TO MEET SETBACKS. THEY ARE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT. THEY WILL HAVE TO BE SET A CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINES, FROM OTHER BUILDINGS.
THEY WILL HAVE TO BE SCREENED, NON- DOUBLE STACKING.
>> THE FANS ENCE THEY ARE BUILDING?
>> YES. >> THAT'S MY ONLY QUESTION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.
WE WILL HAVE A GENERAL HEARING.
ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON MATTER THREE? SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. APPEARS IT IS THERE MOVING FORWARD.
IS YOUR NAME MITCHELL? >> IT IS.
>> ON THE LAST ONE, IT SEEMS RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND TRYING TO GET IN COMPLIANCE.
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE THAT ONE,
>> KEVIN SECONDS. CAN THE CONDITIONS STATED.
>> I WILL GET THAT AT SOME POINT.
>> COMING UP ON FOUR, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2025-05.
RECEIVE A REPORT, HOLD A DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC HEARING TO TAKE ACTION TO APPLY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO 15. 03 ACRES TO ALLOW AN RV RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK LOCATED AT 3201 DUB RIGHT
PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF ABILENE. THIS IS A REQUEST FROM THE OWNER REPRESENTED BY JACOB MARTIN FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN RV PARK AT 3201 DUB RIGHT BOULEVARD. HERE IS THE LOCATION MAP SHOWING THE AREA OFTHE PROPERTY TO BE UNDER THIS CUP. HERE IS THE CURRENT ZONING MAP SHOWING THE EXISTING ZONING OF
[00:10:01]
PROPERTIES NEARBY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.THIS IS ZONED AO, WHICH PERMITS AN RV PARK.
THROUGH A CUP. TO THE SOUTH, SOUTHEAST WE HAVE GENERAL COMMERCIAL THAT'S USED AS SELF-STORAGE UNITS. SHEER HERE IS A CONCEPT PLAN SHOWING WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING FOR THIS RV PARK.
CURRENTLY, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ARE VACANT WITH SELF- STORAGE UNITS TO THE SOUTHEAST AS I MENTIONEDERER. WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATIONS.
WE RECEIVED ONE AS OF TODAY WITH AN UNDECIDED PERSPECTIVE ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
STAFF FOUND THIS REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR FINDINGS OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL IF THE LDC.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE PERIMETER PLAN BE OPAQUE.
IT WAS NOT SPECIFIED IN THE PLAN.
CITY STAFF IS ASKING THAT THAT BE SPECIFIED. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
>> WHAT IS THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE?
>> TYPICAL FENCES IN ABILENE ARE LIMITED TO SEVEN
FEET. >> IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE? IT CAN BE UP TO SEVEN FEET?
>> IS THE REQUEST FOR THE OPAQUE FENCING BECAUSE OF THE NEARBY RESIDENTIAL?
>> WOULD THAT JUST BE OPAQUE FENCING ON THE SIDE THAT ABUTS THE OTHER PROPERTIES OR THE STREET SIDE AS WELL?
>> THEY DIDN'T SPECIFY THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY IN THE PLAN OF OPERATION.
IT WAS GOING TO BE AROUND THE WHOLE PROPERTY.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ADAM?
>> WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER. ANYONE CARE TO COMMENT? SIR, THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAD, IF WE LET CLAYTON COME UP FROM JACOB AND MARTIN AND SHARE A LITTLE BIT. MAYBE HE WILL BE ABLE TO REMEDY -- ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
>> AGENT FOR THE DEVELOPER. THIS REQUEST AS YOU KNOW IS A CUP FOR RV PARK. RV PARKS ARE NOT PERMITTED IN ANY OTHER ZONING DISTRICT. YOU HAVE AG OR GC IS OUR OPTION.
WITH THIS BEING AG, IT WAS A NATURAL FIT TO GO AHEAD AND SUBMIT A CUP AS IS.
YOU HAVE A ROBUST PLAN OF OPERATIONS IN FRONT OF YOU WHICH DOES TALK ABOUT PERIMETER FENCING.
THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO FENCE THE ENTIRE PROPERTY. OUR REQUEST IS TO NOT REQUIRE OPAQUE. I DON'T KNOW HE KNOWS WHAT HE WANTS TO DO IN TERMS OF MATERIALS OR WHERE THAT'S GOING TO GO. HE MAY DO OPAQUE IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THAT FENCING THAT WOULD OUT AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN PROCESS.
BEING THAT IT'S NOT REQUIRED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THERE'S GC JUST SOUTH AND EAST THAT'S NOT OPAQUE FENCING FOR SELF-STORAGE.
TO THE WEST IS DUB RIGHT AND TO THE NORTH IS AG.
REQUEST TO NOT REQUIRE IT ON ANY PORTION.
THERE MAY BE BUT TO NOT REQUIRE IT AS A CONDITION OF THE PERMIT. ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS I CAN TRY TO ANSWER?
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR CLAYTON? THANK YOU.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YOU ARE WELCOME -- IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. IF WE DON'T HAVE --
>> IT'S HARD TO HEAR ANYTHING. WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE FENCING?
>> YES, SIR. STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE.
>> I'M SORRY. MY NAME IS RAY REN FROE. I OWN A PIECE OF THE PROPERTY THAT BACKS UP TO
THIS. >> WHAT QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS DO YOU HAVE?
>> QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE FENCING.
WHAT TYPE OF FENCING IS IT GOING TO BE METAL? HOW HIGH IS IT GOING TO BE? WHO ARE THE OWNERS? DO THEY HAVE PROPERTY LIKE THIS ALREADY? IS THIS A FIRST VENTURE? A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS HAVE TO DO WITH HOW IT WILL BE RUN.
WILL IT ALLOW EXTENDED LEASES OR WILL IT BE PROPERTY THAT COULD END UP HAVING LONG LEASES WHERE PEOPLE ARE LIVING THERE LONG PERIODS OF TIME? PREFER NOT TO HAVE A TRAILER PARK. AN RV PARK, THAT'S DIFFERENT WHERE PEOPLE ARE IN AND OUT VISITING THE CITY, ET
[00:15:01]
CETERA. THOSE ARE THE KIND OF QUESTIONS.I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE FORMAT TO ANSWER THOSE.
>> IT IS NOT. I WILL TELL FROM YOU WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY, THERE'S NOT A HEIGHT REQUIREMENT ON THE FENCING. THERE'S NOT DETERMINATION ON WHAT THE MATERIALS OF THE FENCING WOULD BE.
THE CITY HAS RECOMMENDED THE FENCING BE SOLID SO YOU CAN'T SEE THROUGH IT. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THAT THAT NOT NECESSARILY BE A CONDITION ON THE PERMIT. WE WILL INVITE HIM BACK UP TO ADDRESS ANYTHING ELSE MAYBE THAT HE CAN ON THE PROJECT RELATED TO THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.
AS FAR AS WHAT'S BEEN TOLD TO US TODAY, THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY INFORMATION WE HAVE BEFORE US IS WHAT'S BEEN ON THAT APPLICATION.
>> WITH THAT SUBMITTED AND WITH WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD TODAY, DO YOU NOT HAVE THE DECISION MAKING POWER ABOUT THE FENCING? IS THAT LEFT UP TO WHOEVER IS GOING TO DO IT?
>> WE HAVEN'T MADE THAT DETERMINATION ON WHETHER WE BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE OPAQUE FENCING AS THE CITY RECOMMENDED OR WHETHER WE SHOULD BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
AGAIN, WE WILL RECOMMEND THIS TO CITY COUNCIL.
CITY COUNCIL WILL MAKE THE FINAL
DECISION. >> THEY ARE THE ONES THAT DO
SIR. >> YOU MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THEM? I THINK WHAT I HEARD IS THE CITY HAS RECOMMENDED THAT IT BE OPAQUE.
>> CITY PLANNERS HAVE RECOMMENDED IT BE OPAQUE.
CITY COUNCIL WE MAKE THAT FINAL DECISION.
>> IS THERE A MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL BEFORE THESE DECISIONS ARE MADE?
>> YES, SIR. THERE WILL BE TWO
MEETINGS. >>> THE FIRST, THEY WILL READ AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE TO HELP THE CITY BE AWARE THAT THIS IS A PROPERTY THAT'S UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEN NEXT READING WILL BE A CHANCE FOR PEOPLE TO ASK QUESTIONS, PUSHBACK IF THEY DISAGREE OR COME IN SUPPORT OF A PROJECT.
>> HOW WOULD ONE DETERMINE WHO THE OWNER IS, WHAT OTHER PROPERTIES THEY HAVE AND HOW ARE THEY MANAGED?
>> I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT CLAYTON WOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER OR YOU CAN TAKE FORWARD AT CITY COUNCIL AS WELL. THANK YOU.
>> YOU ARE WELCOME. THANK YOU.
>> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, HE WILL BE ABLE TO DOWNLOAD THE PACKET WE ARE REVIEWING? HE WILL BE ABLE TO ACCESS THAT FROM --
>> THERE'S A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF OPERATION WITH DETAILS YOU ASKED ABOUT THERE'S AVAILABLE THROUGH THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
>> IT LISTS WHO THE OWNER IS. ANYTHING THAT YOU BROUGHT UP THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS?
>> YES, SIR. AS THE COMMISSION MENTIONED, THERE'S A PLAN OF OPERATIONS THAT'S LENGTHY THAT'S POSTED AS PART OF THIS AGENDA THAT GOES INTO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS, OPERATING HOURS, QUIET HOURS, TYPES OF VEHICLES THAT ARE ALLOWED.
I DON'T KNOW IT SPECIFICALLY TALKS ABOUT DURATION OF STAY. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN -- I CAN ASK MY CLIENT WHETHER HE IS -- CAN CLARIFY THAT FOR THE FUTURE MEETINGS THAT ARE GOING TO BE DISCUSSED.
FENCING MATERIAL, LIKE I SAID, IN THE PLAN OF OPERATIONS, HE WILL REQUIRE FENCING AROUND THE PERIMETER. WHAT MATERIAL THAT IS, I THINK HE IS TRYING TO GET BLESSING ON THE USE BEFORE HE GETS -- DIVES INTO FULL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR ALL OF THAT.
THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED AT THAT TIME AS WELL.
WOULD BE PART OF THE SITE PLAN PROCESS.
>> ALSO, THE FIRST HEARING ON THIS FOR CITY COUNCIL WILL BE FEBRUARY 27TH. THAT WILL BE AT 8:30.
ANYONE ELSE TO ADDRESS THIS MATTER? SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANY DISCUSSION AMONG THE COMMISSIONERS RELATED TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THE CONDITIONS OR ANYTHING ELSE?
>> I KIND OF QUESTION WHETHER WE OUGHT TO REQUIRE THE OPAQUE FENCE AT THIS TIME. SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DON'T TYPICALLY REQUIRE THAT OF EVERYONE.
I THINK WE NEED TO BE FAIR IN THE WAY WE APPLY THESE ZONING . I DO UNDERSTAND THE CITY'S DESIRE TO REQUIRE THE OPAQUE. CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND YOUR DESIRE TO HAVE IT. I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE THAT UP TO THEM AND STRONGLY URGE THE DEVELOPER TO CONSIDER OPAQUE FENCE. IT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION.
>> WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT WITHOUT CONDITIONS SUCH AS TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE?
>> LET MY TRY AND SEE IF I CAN DO IT.
[00:20:02]
WILL MOVE TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE SUBMITTED PLAN OF OPERATION WITHOUT THE PERIMETER FENCE CONDITIONBEING OPAQUE. >> MOTION BY MITCH.
>> SIR WHO CAME AND SPOKE, AGAIN AS MISS LEWIS MENTIONED THERE WILL BE A HEARING BEFORE CITY COUNCIL THE FIRST TIME THIS WILL BE ADDRESSED AT THEIR FEBRUARY 27TH MEETING AT 8:30 A.M. THANK YOU.
ITEM FIVE, ZONING CASE 2025- 03, RECEIVE A REPORT, HOLD A DISCUSSION PUBLIC HEARING TO TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST FROM THE OWNER TO CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURE OPEN TO MULTIFAMILY LOCATED AT 6310 BUTTERFIELD TRAIL.
>> I'M GOING TO BE PRESENTING CASE 2025- 03, THE AGENT IS JACOB AND MARTIN.
THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 22.
14 ACRES FROM AGO -- AGRICULTURAL TO OPEN TRAIL.
WE HAVE A MAP. THE ZONING MAP, IT IS ZONED AO.
AS WELL AS SURROUNDING PROPERTY VIEWS.
HERE WE HAVE THE USES IN AGRICULTURAL OPEN ZONING.
THE USES IN MULTIFAMILY ZONING.
WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATIONS WITHIN A 200 FOOT BUFFER.
WE RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SURROUNDED USES AND ZONING, ACCEPTED PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND APPROVAL IN LDC.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ON THIS PACKET, IT SAYS THERE WAS ONE IN FAVOR. IS THAT RIGHT OR NO?
SORRY. I DIDN'T KNOW THEY Y'ALL GOT THAT
SLIDE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MASON?
>> WE DO NOT HAVE A SITE PLAN DEVELOPED FOR THIS AT THIS POINT?
>> I GUESS, WILL THERE BE ONE WHEN IT GOES TO COUNCIL? DO YOU KNOW?
>> IT DEPENDS ON HOW THEY USE IT.
THE REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE. HE MAY HAVE SOME MORE INFORMATION. THE WAY WE GOT IT IS STRAIGHT TO MULTIFAMILY AT THIS TIME.
>> ANYTHING ELSE FOR MASON? THANK YOU.
>> WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER.
>> CLAYTON, AGENT FOR THE DEVELOPER.
THIS IS A STANDARD ZONING REQUEST FROM AG TO MULTIFAMILY.
NO PD, NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT IT. IT'S A STANDARD MULTIFAMILY REQUEST. THERE'S NOT A SITE PLAN AVAILABLE. WE'RE WORKING THROUGH WHAT THAT LAYOUT MIGHT LOOK LIKE WITH THE DEVELOPER.
HE MAY HAVE SOMETHING HE IS WILLING TO RELEASE AT THAT TIME. IT'S PRETTY PRELIMINARY AND IS LOOKING FOR APPROVAL. I WILL SAY -- APPROVAL OF THE POSSIBILITY DO SOMETHING ON A MULTIFAMILY TRACT. YOU HAVE GENERAL COMMERCIAL SOUTH OF US. I BELIEVE THE ZONING IS MEDIUM DENSITY NORTH OF US. I MIGHT BE WRONG.
IT'S MEDIUM DENSITY NORTH. MULTIFAMILY FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE IS A TRADITIONAL TRANSITION ZONING BETWEEN THOSE TWO. WE WOULD ASK YOUR AL FOR THAT. IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER, I'M HAPPY TO TRY.
>> THIS IS ACROSS FROM THE OTHER PROPERTY?
>> I WAS LOOKING AT IT. THAT FITS LIKE A PUZZLE.
ANYTHING ELSE FOR CLAYTON? ANY QUESTIONS?
>> THIS IS JUST A STRAIGHT ZONING REQUEST.
NO PLANS YET FOR THE PROPERTY OTHER THAN ZONING.
ANY DISCUSSION AMONG THE COMMISSIONERS?
>> I THINK IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT I WOULD EXPECT TO SEE IN THAT AREA.
[00:25:01]
>> I WOULD AGREE. IF YOU CAN'T PUT MULTIFAMILY ALONG ARTERIAL ROADS, WHERE DO YOU PUT IT? IT'S IN PROGRESSION FROM THAT TO MEDIUM DENSITY.
I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE. ANYTHING ELSE? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ANY MOTIONS? NO CONDITIONS REQUESTED FROM THE CITY. JUST A STRAIGHT MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> YES. >> THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> THOSE ARE ALL OUR MATTERS FOR TODAY.
I WILL ENCOURAGE EVERYONE AT 3:30, DOWNTOWN DOUBLE TREE THE MAYOR
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.