[ CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:08]
>> IT IS 1:31 AND WE WILL CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.
WE ONLY HAVE FOUR COMMISSIONERS TODAY, SO THE WAY THIS WORKS IS UNANIMOUSLY ON ANYTHING FOR IT TO MOVE FORWARD.
HOWEVER, THE GOOD NEWS IS, WE ARE RECOMMENDED BY CITY COUNCIL.
IF SOMETHING GOES FORWARD, IT CAN GO FORWARD EITHER BY APPROVAL OR DENIAL THROUGH AN APPEAL PROCESS THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE. IF, FOR SOME REASON, SOMETHING DOES NOT GO THE WAY YOU WANTED IT TO OR ANTICIPATED, AS WE TRY TO SAY EVERY TIME WE HAVE THIS MEETING WE WOULD ALWAYS ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL HEARINGS.
IT'S HARD ON US WHERE THERE'S ONLY FOUR OF US, BECAUSE THINGS NEED TO BE UNANIMOUS. IT ALSO IMPACTS 2026-28.
TYSON IS ACTUALLY CONFLICTED BECAUSE HE'S WITHIN THE ZONE OF THIS PROPERTY AND FOR THAT I'M WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PULL IT, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH COMMISSIONERS PRESENT TO LOOK AT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7. SO IF YOU ARE HERE FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7, WE ARE SORRY, WE WILL PUT THIS ON THE JUNE MEETING AND GET YOU BACK HERE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
WITH THAT BEING SAID KAMI LET ME READ MY OPENING STATEMENT AND THEN WE WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH TODAY'S SESSION.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY FOR THE APPROVAL OF PLANS, BUT ACTS ONLY AS A RECOMMENDING BOARD TO CITY COUNCIL IN MATTERS OF ZONING.
THE DECISIONS OF THIS COMMISSION MAY BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL THROUGH THE OPPOSITE OF THE CITY SECRETARY NO LATER THAN TEN DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS MEETING.
ALL APPEALS MUST BE IN WRITING. THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM UNDER DISCUSSION AFTER RECEIVING RECOGNITION BY THE CHAIR. THOSE WISHING TO BE HEARD SHALL APPROACH THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND PURPOSE FOR APPEARING, AND EACH SPEAKER IS REQUESTED TO LIMIT THEIR PRESENTATION TO NO LONGER THAN 3 MINUTES. ADDITIONAL TIME MAY BE GRANTED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR. KEVIN, WOULD YOU MIND READING
OUR OPENING INVOCATION. >> THANK YOU FOR THIS DAY AND THE OPPORTUNITY WE HAVE TO COME TOGETHER AND CONSIDER THESE ZONING CASES AND TO HELP ADVANCE OUR CITY IN THE DIRECTION THAT IS BEST FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED. WE PRAY FOR CLARITY OF THOUGHT FOR EACH PRESENTER TODAY, FOR CLEAR UNDERSTANDING AND WISE JUDGMENT ON OUR PART TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL.
ALSO MINDFUL OF THE GIFTS TODAY, WE PRAY FOR ABUNDANT PROVISION FOR ALL OF OUR NONPROFITS IN THE CITY TO THRIVE AND GROW.
[ MINUTES]
>> OUR FIRST AGENDA ITEM TODAY IS MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING. SPEAKING BEFORE THE MEETING WITH TYSON, HE SAID HE HAD ONE OR TWO POTENTIAL AT IT.
WOULD YOU MIND ADDRESSING WHAT EDITS YOU HAVE?
>> THERE WAS ONE ITEM WHERE I DID NOT STEP OUT OF THE ROOM, I ACTUALLY JUST ABSTAINED. THIS WAS A MATTER ON A DOWNTOWN APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT'S GOING TO BE PUT IN NOT ON BEACH STREET, MAYBE ON ORANGE STREET. 1333 NORTH SIXTH.
>> YOU ABSTAINED BUT YOU DID NOT EXIT THE CHAMBER? SO THAT ZONING CASE 2026-11, THE ASTERISK SAYS COMMISSIONER STRAUSER EXITED THE CHAMBER WHICH WE WILL HAVE STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON LAST MEETING'S MINUTES? WE WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO ADDRESS MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING? NOBODY EVER DOES, BUT WE ALWAYS ASK.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. SEEING NONE WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. GIVEN TYSON'S EDIT, ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING
[ ZONING]
THAT EDIT. ANYONE OPPOSED.IT PASSES. WE MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBE, TAKE ACTION ON THE REQUEST FROM MCMURRY UNIVERSITY TO ABANDON A CERTAIN PORTION OF RIGHT OF WAY KNOWN AS ROSS AVENUE FROM SOUTH TO HUNCH STREET AND A PORTION OF SOUTH 16TH STREET FROM ROSS AVENUE TO 140 FEET WEST OF THE ALLEY.
MY NAME IS MASON TEEGARDEN, PLANNING MANAGER FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. TODAY I'M GOING TO BE PRESENTING CASE TC-2026-02, THE AGENT IS MCMURRY UNIVERSITY." THE REQUEST IS TO ABANDON CERTAIN PORTIONS OF RIGHT OF WAY INCLUDING ROSS AVENUE FROM SOUTH 15TH STREET TO HUNT STREET AND SOUTH 16TH STREET FROM ROSS TO AN ALLEY RUNNING NORTH AND SO SOUTH. HERE WE HAVE THE AERIAL LOCATION MAP. WE HAVE SOME PROPERTY VIEWS AND ADJACENT PROPERTY VIEWS. SENDING OUT NOTIFICATIONS WITHIN
[00:05:06]
A 200-FOOT BUFFER AND RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS SURROUNDING USES IN ZONING.STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
ALL UTILITIES MUST BE RELOCATED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE APPLICANT OR PLACED IN APPROPRIATE EASEMENTS.
EMERGENCY ACCESS AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT PROVIDED TO MEET THE STANDARDS SET BY THE FIRE MARSHALL AND THE PROPERTY MUST BE RE PLOTTED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE APPROVAL DATE OF THIS REQUEST. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. >> DID YOU SHARE THE CONDITIONS
>> DID THEY HAVE ANY OBJECTION ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. WE WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO COME UP AND ADDRESS IT? SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SORRY, SIR.
THAT WAS QUICK. >> MY NAME IS PAUL FRASER.
AM I READING THAT CORRECTLY? ARE THEY WANTING TO TOTALLY CLOSE OFF THAT STREET TO WHERE TO GO DOWN IT?
>> I'M NOT SURE, SIR. THEY'RE ASKING FOR AN ABANDONMENT. IT MAY BE THAT THEY WANT TO CONSTRUCT SOMETHING THAT TAKES UP PART OF THE ROAD.
IT MAY BE THAT THEY WANT TO CREATE A PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY.
THEY'RE JUST ASKING THE CITY TO GIVE UP BASICALLY ITS ACCESS APART FROM THE EASEMENTS THAT STILL WOULD NEED TO BE THERE FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES. THEY HAVE A YEAR TO REPLAT IT AND COME BACK AND SAY WHAT THEY'D LIKE TO DO, BUT AT LEAST WHAT'S PRESENTED TO US TODAY, WE DON'T KNOW THAT.
I CAN ASK MASON IF SHE KNOWS WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO, BUT THEY
DON'T HAVE TO SHARE THAT. >> RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT TOTALLY
CLOSED OFF. >> THAT'S NOT MY UNDERSTANDING.
BUT DO YOU KNOW? WE WILL GET AN ANSWER TO THAT
FROM THE AGENT. >> MY CONCERN IS, ROSS BEING AS WIDE AS IT IS, IT'S ONE OF THE MAIN ROADS FOR PEOPLE ALL THE WAY DOWN SOUTH 27TH ON EITHER SIDE THAT COME TO ROSS AND USE IT TO GET TO 14TH RATHER THAN GO ALL THE WAY TO BARROW.
I LIVE DOWN MAIN AND I AM GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE A DIFFERENT ROUTE TO GET TO WHERE I NEED TO GO.
IF YOU GO THIS WAY AND THIS WAY AND BACK UP HERE, WITH THE PRICE OF GAS RIGHT NOW IT'S KIND OF EXPENSIVE.
THAT WAS MY CONCERN. >> THANK YOU, SIR.
WE WILL KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN.
WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS MATTER?
>> I'M KENDRA HANFIELD, WITH PARK HILL AND THE PROJECT.
THE INTENT IS TO CLOSE A PORTION OF THAT ROAD AND LEAVE ONLY PART OF IT OPEN FOR EMS, FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS FOR COVERAGE TO THE NEW FACILITIES THAT ARE BEING BUILT, THE CONCESSION STAND AND BLEACHERS ON THE FOOTBALL STADIUM.
BUT THEN TO MAKE IT MORE OF A PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY AREA.
I'M SURE A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE AWARE, BECAUSE IT IS A THOROUGHFARE, THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC THAT GOES THROUGH AT A HIGH RATE OF SPEED AND WITH THE AMOUNT OF PARKING ON THE EDGES, IT'S HAZARDOUS TO PEOPLE WALKING FROM CAMPUS BACK AND FORTH.
SO THE INTENT IS TO CLOSE THAT OFF FOR THAT PURPOSE WITH THE SCHOOL TO MAINTAIN ACCESS ACROSS.
>> UNDERSTOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING H HERE.
ANYONE ELSE TO ADDRESS THIS MATTER? SEEING NO ONE COME A WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DISCUSSIONS AMONG COMMISSIONERS OR MOTIONS.
SINCE WE DON'T HAVE MANY PEOPLE, I'LL PROBABLY TALK MORE THAN I NORMALLY DO. I UNDERSTAND THE INCONVENIENCE OF NEEDING TO GO AROUND, HOWEVER THE SAFETY OF PEDESTRIANS WALKING WITH COLLEGE KIDS AND EVERYTHING, WE DID A SIMILAR THING PROBABLY TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO WITH SOME OF THE INTERIOR STREETS TO PROTECT THEIR PARKING LOTS.
TO ME, IF IT'S SOMETHING THE SCHOOL IS LOOKING FOR FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT RELATED TO A HIGH TRAFFIC AREA, TO ME IT MAKES SENSE. AND THAT'S NOT DISCOUNTING THAT IT IS NOT CONVENIENT FOR ANYONE WHO LIVES CLOSE TO THERE AND
NEEDS TO GO AROUND. >> I 100% AGREE.
I GET BOTH SIDES OF IT. AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK MCMURRY HAS THAT STADIUM THAT RIGHT UP AGAINST, AND ALLOWING PEOPLE TO GET OUT OF THERE FOR SAFETY MAKES SENSE TO ME.
>> IS THIS A CITY ISSUE? DID THEY GET APPROVAL?
[00:10:03]
>> THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE ASKING AND THEN THEY GO TO CITY.
>> I THINK IT'S MORE OF A CITY COUNCIL QUESTION.
>> WE CAN HEAR THE OBJECTIONS. I THINK IF THE PLANNING OFFICE HAD THOUGHT THIS IS NOT A ROAD WE WANT TO CLOSE, THEIR APPROVAL WOULD STAND. SO I DO THINK AT LEAST THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS HAS VETTED ENOUGH NOT TO MAKE OBJECTIONS. DO WE HAVE ANY MOTIONS RELATED TO THIS MATTER OR FURTHER DISCUSSION?
>> MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE STATED CONDITIONS.
>> SECOND. >> AND AGAIN I WILL STATE, WE WILL NEED TO BE UNANIMOUS ON ALL ISSUES TODAY.
HOWEVER EVERYTHING WILL MOVE FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL EITHER THROUGH AN APPEAL PROCESS OR THROUGH THE NORMAL VOTING.
JACK, I SAW YOU WALK IN LATE. WE WILL NOT HAVE QUORUM FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7, SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PULL THAT.
SO IT WILL BE IN JUNE'S MEETING. MY APOLOGIES.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. >> THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3 IS ZONING CASE Z-2026-23, RECEIVE A REPORT, HOLD A DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC HEARING TO TAKE ACTION ON A REQUEST FROM THE OWNER TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 99.3 ACRES FROM AGRICULTURAL OPEN TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT KNOWN AS PDD-199 TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY AND SINGLE FAMILY USES WITH AN AMENDED STANDARDS.
THIS IS LOCATED ON CALDWELL ROAD AS WELL AS ON TAP RAILWAY
COMPANY BLOCK 14. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.
IN Z-2026-23, THE REQUEST IS TO CREATE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW MEDIUM DENSITY AND RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY USES WITH SPECIFIC STANDARDS. HERE WE HAVE THE AERIAL LOCATION MAP, THE ZONING MAP. IT IS ALL CURRENTLY ZONED A L.
WE HAVE SOME PROPERTY VIEWS AND SUBJECT PROPERTY VIEWS, SORRY, ADJACENT PROPERTY VIEWS. HERE WE HAVE A CONCEPT PLAN SHOWING THE LAYOUT AS WELL AS TRACK TWO.
ON TRACT ONE, THEY ARE PROPOSING MEDIUM DENSITY BASED ZONING WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS. MINIMUM LOT AREA 4000 SQUARE FEET COMMA MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 40 FEET AND MINIMUM SETBACK OF .
ON TRACK TWO, BASE ZONING WILL BE RS6 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS. MINIMUM LOT AREA 5000 SQUARE FEET. MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AT 50 FEET AND MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK OF 5 FEET. HERE ARE THE USES IN AGRICULTURAL ZONING. THE USES IN MEDIUM DENSITY ZONING. NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT WITHIN A 200-FOOT BUFFER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
WE RECEIVED ONE IN OPPOSITION RESULTING IN A 16.1% IN OPPOSITION. THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SURROUNDING USES OF ZONING.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> CAN WE GO BACK TO ONE ON THE ADJUSTED SIZES OF THE LOTS? NOT LIKE A POP QUIZ, BUT ON TRACT TWO, WHAT WOULD BE THE STANDARD LOT AREA WIDTH AND SETBACKS FOR RS6?
>> WITHOUT THE PD? IN RS6 THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE IS 6000 SQUARE FEET WITH BASICALLY 6-FOOT SIDE YARD
SETBACKS. >> SO NOT A HUGE CHANGE.
ON TRACT ONE, WHAT'S THE ADJUSTMENT THERE?
>> BASICALLY LOT AREA AND WIDTH. MEDIUM DENSITY IS THE SAME AS WELL. 60 BY 100-FOOT LOTS.
>> THAT'S A LITTLE MORE SIGNIFICANT.
>> IN 6-FOOT SETBACKS. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MASON? THANK YOU.
WE WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER.
WAIT, I REMEMBERED. CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR A SECOND. CAN WE GO TO THE MAP WITH THE WATER LINE? IS THIS THE FLOOD ZONE MAP?
[00:15:04]
>> THE FLOOD ZONE MAP WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET, BUT BASICALLY THE RED HATCHES ARE THE FLOOD ZONE.
>> I SAW THIS ONE AND ALL THE BLUE AND I WAS INTERESTED.
I GUESS THEY COULD BUILD RETAINING THINGS.
BUT IT JUST SEEMED LIKE A LARGE SECTION WAS HIT BY WHERE SOME OF THE FLOODING AREA MIGHT BE. THANK YOU.
NOW I WILL OPEN UP PUBLIC HEARING.
>> I'M NANCY LUGO. I LIVE IN THE HOUSE AT THE TOP OF THE BLUE AREA AND RECEIVED ONE OF THE NOTICES FROM THE 200-FOOT BARRIER. REGISTERING A SECOND OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL PLAN ARE MY CONCERNS ARE THE ROAD THAT RUNS IN FRONT OF US IS ALREADY EXPERIENCING INCREASED TRAFFIC FROM THE BUILD FOR WEST TEXAS LAND GUYS AT THE END OF THE ROAD. THERE WAS NO PLAN AT THE HEARING FOR THAT ONE TO ADD ADDITIONAL LIGHTS, BUT WE'VE DEFINITELY SEEN AN INCREASE IN TRAFFIC. I'M CURIOUS WHAT THE PLANS ARE FOR THAT ROAD THAT GO ALONG WITH THIS INCREASED DENSITY OF HOMES GOING IN AND OUT USING THAT ROAD.
>> TYPICALLY THEY REALLY JUST PLATTING THE LAND FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND IT WILL DEPEND HOW QUICKLY THAT DEVELOPS.
BUT AS MORE HOMES LEAD TO MORE TRAFFIC, THEN THEY CAN COME AND ADJUST TRAFFIC PATTERNS, WIDEN THE ROADS.
SO THAT'S KIND OF THE NEXT LEVEL.
WE HAVE CERTAIN THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND READY TO BE DEVELOPED BUT IT JUST HASN'T DEVELOPED FOR 20 YEARS.
SO THEY WON'T NECESSARILY MAKE THE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE ROADS OR DO THE STUDY UNTIL AFTER THEY START SEEING THE INCREASED TRAFFIC. AND THAT COULD ALREADY BE HAPPENING, SO THEY MAY ALREADY BE DOING THE STUDY.
BUT OUR MAIN THING IS LOOKING AT IF THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE USE FOR THIS LAND AND THEN IS IT OUR HOPE AND BELIEF THAT THE TRAFFIC IN THE ROAD CONCERNS CONNECTED TO ANY DEVELOPMENT WILL BE TAKEN
THAT'S A GOOD SEGUE INTO MY NEXT QUESTION.
YOU SAID IT'S BEEN UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR SOME TIME?
>> THERE'S TIMES WHEN WE'VE HAD TRACTS LIKE THIS THAT WE'VE APPROVED A SUBDIVISION, AND IT MAY TAKE 25 YEARS FOR THAT TO BE BUILT OUT. IF IN THE BEGINNING ONLY TEN HOMES GO IN BUT IT'S REGISTERED TO BE THIS IN THE FUTURE, THAT MAY LEAD TO THE ROAD BEING DEVELOPED SLOWER.
I WOULD ASSUME THAT THERE WOULD BE NOTICE TO THE ROADS VERY
QUICKLY. >> I SEE WHAT YOU WERE SAYING.
I'M GOING TO SAY IT BACK. SO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS BECAUSE THIS COULD TAKE 25 YEARS TO DEVELOP TO THE PICTURE THAT'S SHOWN UP THERE, THE ROAD PIECE, FIRST OF ALL IS SEPARATE AND SECOND OF ALL IT MAY TAKE A WHILE FOR THOSE TRAFFIC STUDIES TO REVEAL THE RESULT BECAUSE THE BUILDING HASN'T HAPPENED YET.
IT'S NOT PART OF THIS PLANNING. >> IT'S NOT PART OF THIS PLANNING. IT IS A RESPONSE OF AGENCY TOWARD DEVELOPMENT RATHER THAN NECESSARILY INCLUDED IN DEVELOPMENT. ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO STATE HIGHWAYS AND STATE ROADS. SOMETIMES WE WILL HAVE THINGS THAT ARE CITY BASED AND THAT'S PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
BUT ON ONES INVOLVING HIGHWAYS, THEY WILL RESPOND WHEN THEY SEE
DEVELOPMENT HAPPENING. >> I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.
AT THE TOP LINE THAT RUNS, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO POINT TO IT.
BUT RIGHT UNDERNEATH THE NORTH SIGN, THERE'S A SEWER LINE RIGHT THERE. WITH A RATHER LARGE EASEMENT.
ARE THERE ANY PLANS TO MOVE THAT SEWER LINE TO ACCOMMODATE THIS?
>> I DO NOT KNOW OF THAT. I WOULD SAY THEY WOULD NEED TO KEEP IN PLACE OR BUILD INTO THE EASEMENT SIMILAR TO THE LAST CASE OF IF THEY NEEDED TO MOVE STUFF, THEY WOULD NEED TO WORK WITH THE CITY UTILITIES OR GOVERNMENT UTILITIES TO MAKE SURE THOSE THINGS CONTINUE. THEY WOULDN'T JUST GET RID OF
IT. >> AND IN TERMS OF WATER, THAT CREEK IS IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S PART OF OUR WATER FOR THE CITY WHERE IT FLOWS OUT AND EVERYTHING.
WHAT I'M SEEING ON THE SCREEN, DO YOU ANYTHING ABOUT THAT? IS THAT A RETENTION POND? THE BLUE.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS A RETENTION POND.
THAT WAS WHY I WAS ASKING THE QUESTION.
THE FLOOD MAP IS IN OUR LARGER PACKET.
[00:20:03]
NORMALLY IN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THIS SIZE THEY WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO BUILD RETENTION PONDS THAT HELP CONTINUE THE WATER FLOW TO OFFSET THE NEW DRIVEWAYS, ALL THE NEW DIFFERENT THINGS. SO THE AREA THAT'S NOT DEVELOPED ON THE FAR EAST SIDE OF THAT PROPERTY FROM MY UNDERSTANDING IS PROBABLY RESERVED EITHER TO CREATE THOSE RETENTION PONDS OR OVERFLOW. ANYTHING TO ADD?>> THE FLOODWAY CAN DEVELOP WITHIN THEIR, BUT I THINK THE BLUE AREA MAY BE... I'M NOT REAL FAMILIAR WITH THIS
EXHIBIT. >> THAT ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE FROM WHERE MY HOUSE IS. SO THEY CAN DEVELOP 100 YEAR FLOOD. AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE PLANS ARE TO PROTECT THE CREEK? WE ALREADY HAD THAT SEWAGE LEAK INTO IT AND THAT AFFECTED DRINKING WATER.
>> I DON'T KNOW, BUT MAYBE WE CAN ASK THE DEVELOPER.
>> THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS. AS A CITIZEN WHO'S CONCERNED ABOUT IT, HOW DO I STAY IN TOUCH WITH THIS PROJECT AND WHAT
HAPPENS? >> YOU CONNECT WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT." THIS WILL HAVE TWO HEARINGS BEFORE CITY COUNCIL. THE FIRST IS NORMALLY PART OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, THE SECOND ONE IS VOTING ON IT.
THOSE NORMALLY HAPPEN OVER THE NEXT MONTH.
IF YOU WANT TO CONNECT WITH THE PLANNING OFFICE ON WHEN THOSE HEARINGS ARE OR GET YOUR NEIGHBORS TO COME COME IN JUST TO MAKE SURE. IT'S ALWAYS NICE TO CONNECT WITH THE DEVELOPER TO ASK DIRECTLY. SOMETIMES THEY HAVE ANSWERS THAT MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER ABOUT THE SITUATION.
THANK YOU FOR COMING. >> THANK YOU.
>> WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO COME TALK?
>> CLAYTON FARROW, AGENT FOR THE APPLICANT.
I TOOK SOME NOTES ABOUT MISS LUGO TALKED ABOUT.
THIS IS A REQUEST ON WHAT IS EXPECTED TO BE A PRIMARILY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE CONCEPT PLAN, THERE'S NOT REALLY AN EXPECTATION OF SUBDIVIDING THAT TRACT. THERE'S SOME ACCESS ISSUES WE ARE TRYING TO WORK THROUGH WITH THAT ACROSS A RIGHT OF WAY THAT'S IMPACTFUL TO THIS CONVERSATION.
BUT IT'S THERE TO BE A 50-FOOT WIDE ESSENTIALLY FOR A FLAG LOT TO GET ACCESS ACROSS THAT TRACT. TRACT ONE OBVIOUSLY IS THE ONE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. THAT'S EXPECTED TO BE 40-FOOT IS WHAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD LIKE TO DO.
40-FOOT SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING. THE REASON FOR THE MEDIUM DENSITY REQUEST IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SINGLE FAMILY, STANDARD TRADITIONAL DUPLEXES THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY DROP LOT LINES TO ACCOMMODATE. THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY INTENT, OTHERWISE WE WOULD HAVE COME BACK WITH MODIFIED RS SIX PD.
LET ME TRY TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION THAT CAME UP EARLIER.
THE BLUE YOU TALKED ABOUT IS STUDIED BY FEMA.
THE RED HATCH IS FLOODWAY, THAT'S DO NOT TOUCH, WHICH IS WHY WE STAYED OUT OF IT. THE BLUE IS ALLOWED TO BE DEVELOPED AND FEMA HAS GUIDELINES AS TO HOW THAT CAN BE DONE. THIS IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE WHOLE PROCESS. YOU KIND OF MENTIONED IT MIGHT TAKE A WHILE. THERE'S A LONG PROCESS FOR THESE THINGS TO PAN OUT. MULTIPLE AGENCIES, MULTIPLE REVIEW AGENCIES THAT HAVE TO SIGN OFF ON THE VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF THIS. FEMA HAS TO BE INVOLVED, AND ANY CONNECTION WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH TEXDOT FOR PERMITTING.
THEY ARE REQUIRING TIAS ON SOMETHING OF THIS SIZE, SO I WOULD EXPECT SOME SORT OF STUDY TO DETERMINE IF WE ARE GOING TO CONNECT. THAT WOULD INCLUDE TYPICALLY TRAFFIC STUDIES AND ACCOUNTS. BUT THAT'S NOT TO SAY THIS COULDN'T BE MODIFIED AGAIN. BUT THIS WAS THE FIRST LAYOUT OF THIS TRACT JUST FOR ZONING PURPOSES.
>> AS PART OF THAT ENGINEERING, YOU WILL BE ASKED TO KIND OF HELP PROTECT THAT CREEK IN YOUR DESIGNS.
WE WOULD DO AS MUCH BANK STABILIZATION AS NECESSARY.
YOU CAN SEE WITH THE CONCEPT WE AREN'T EXPECTED TO REALLY GET INTO THE CREEK AT ALL, AND ANY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUE AREA WOULD BE ENOUGH TO RAISE THOSE LOTS OUT OF THE STUDIED FLOODPLAIN ELEVATIONS TO MEET FEMA REQUIREMENTS.
[00:25:07]
YOU ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE SEWER LINE AND EASEMENT.FOLLOWING ZONING WE WOULD NEED TO MEET WITH PUBLIC WORKS AND WATER WITH THE APPROPRIATE DESIGN REVIEWS AND APPROVALS.
THAT WOULD ACCOMMODATE ALL THOSE SEWER LINES AND EASEMENTS.
AND THEN POND AND OVERFLOW, AGAIN, THE EXPECTATION WOULD BE TO TRY TO UTILIZE SOME OF THE AREA, AND GIVEN THAT THIS IS A STUDY THERE MAY BE SOME OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE TIMING OF THAT AND SEE IF IT'S EVEN NECESSARY.
A LOT OF TIMES PONDS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO A CREEK CAN MAKE IT WORSE. BUT THAT WOULD BE A STUDY WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK TO COMPLETE AND SHOW THE CITY THE OUTCOME.
SO THAT WOULD ALL BE PART OF THE PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW
PROCESS. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR CLAYTON? YOU GUYS ARE DROPPING THE RECOMMENDED LOT SIZE BY OVER 2000 SQUARE FEET. WHICH IS ACTUALLY SMALLER THAN CITY PLANNING ALLOWS FOR. ARE YOU AT ALL CONCERNED, OR HOW
ARE YOU ADDRESSING THAT? >> SURE.
IT ACTUALLY MATCHES THE CURRENT MINIMUM WIDTH.
IT WOULD GENERALLY MATCH THAT. THE DIFFERENCE IS THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN TODAY, IT'S A ZERO LOT LINE REQUIREMENT TYPICALLY.
SO THE DEVELOPER WANTED TO BUILD STANDARD SINGLE FAMILY ZERO LOT LINE. SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR WRITING
IT THE WAY WE DID. >> THESE ARE DUPLEXES THOUGH.
>> THERE WOULD BE A POSSIBILITY FOR DUPLEXES.
BUT WE WOULD LARGELY HAVE TO MEET THE CONCEPT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. >> KEEPING THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN, WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS MATTER? SEEING NO ONE COME WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DISCUSSION FROM COMMISSIONERS AND MOTIONS.
IS THERE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS? I DON'T THINK THERE WERE CONDITIONS ON THIS ONE. RECOMMENDED JUST APPROVAL.
ANY DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMISSIONERS?
>> I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE DENSITY OF THIS ONE.
WOULDN'T WORRY TOO MUCH ABOUT IT AS PATIO HOMES, BUT MULTIFAMILY IS ON A MUCH SMALLER LOT. WE ARE GOING TO 4000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. I KNOW THE ENGINEERING IS GOING TO BE SOUND, BUT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT DENSITY FOR MULTIFAMILY IN PARTICULAR. DO YOU KNOW IF WE'VE DONE MULTIFAMILY ON THIS LOT SIZE ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY? ONE S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN MEDIUM DENSITY.
MEDIUM DENSITY IS 12 UNITS FOR STANDARD.
AS THE MARKETS AND SOCIETY CHANGE, WE'VE LOWERED OUR LOT SIZES. A LOT OF THE YOUNG PROFESSIONALS DON'T WANT A BIG YARD ANYMORE, THEY DON'T WANT THAT MUCH TO TAKE CARE OF. SO THIS SIZE LOT IS VERY ATTRACTIVE TO SOME OF THE YOUNGER GENERATION OR EVEN SOME OF THE OLDER GENERATION THAT DOESN'T WANT TO TAKE CARE OF IT.
AND I'M GETTING THERE. THE MARKET KIND OF DRIVES IT.
IT'S GOING THROUGH ALL THE PROPER CHANNELS.
AND THEN ALL THE CONCERNS THAT THE PUBLIC HAS BROUGHT UP IS BEING ADDRESSED THROUGH THE PROCESS.
TXDOT IS ALREADY INVOLVED. >> DO WE HAVE ANY THAT WE'VE
DONE LIKE THIS BEFORE? >> MAYBE NOT QUITE THIS ONE, BUT SOME THAT ARE SIMILAR. IT'S REALLY NOT A CONCERN FOR
STAFF. >> WE PROBABLY HAVE SOME
MULTIFAMILY ZONED. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR ANY MOTIONS? WE NEED THE HOUSING AND THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE CONCERNS. MOTION TO APPROVE.
[00:30:05]
THE MOTION CARRIES. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4, ZONING CASE TO TAKE ACTION ON THE REQUEST FROM THE OWNER TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 6.86 ACRES FROM GENERAL RETAIL TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT KNOWN AS PD D.-200 LOCATED AT
256 EAST BELTWAY. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS KERA VALOIS. TODAY I'M REPRESENTING THE AGENT JACOB AND MARTIN, THE OWNER IS THE SHOPPES AT CARRIAGE HILLS.
THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 6.86 ACRES FROM GENERAL RETAIL TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
HERE WE HAVE THE AREA LOCATION MAP, THE ZONING MAP.
HERE'S THE CONCEPT PLAN. THE SPECIFIC MODIFICATIONS FOR THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING IN THIS IS THE STREET SET BACK 15 FEET, THE REAR SET BACK 15 FEET AND THE SIDE SETBACKS, 15 FEET.
HERE WE HAVE SOME PROPERTY VI VIEWS.
SURROUNDING PROPERTY VIEWS. THE PERMITTED USES IN MULTIFAMILY ZONING. NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT IN A 200-FOOT BUFFER. WE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR AND TWO IN OPPOSITION, RESULTING IN A 7.9% IN OPPOSITION.
THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. A MINIMUM OF ONE TREE LOCATED WITHIN EACH PARKING ISLAND WITH A MINIMUM OF EIGHT PARKING ISLANDS. A PRIVACY FENCE LOCATED ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE. WROUGHT IRON FENCING LOCATED ALONG EAST BELTWAY AND ORNAMENTAL TREES ALONG EAST BELTWAY AT A RATE OF ONE PER 60 FEET IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIRED STREET TREES. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. >> HAVE YOU SHARED THOSE CONDITIONS WITH THE DEVELOPER, DID THEY HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS?
WE WERE JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT A LITTLE NICER WALKING AROUND THE EDGES WITH THE REDUCED SETBACK LINES.
>> THANK YOU. WE WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THIS MATTER. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO ADDRESS IT?
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. AGENT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER.
THIS ZONING REQUEST PD SPECIFICALLY IS TO SUPPORT CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT OF THE CARRIAGE HILLS DEVELOPMENT EXTENDING FROM COLLING HILL ROAD ALL THE WAY AND IT'S BEEN PLANNED FROM THE BEGINNING FOR THIS PROPERTY TO BE MORE INTENSE THAN JUST SINGLE FAMILY. THE MAJORITY OF CARRIAGE HILLS IS SINGLE FAMILY, A LITTLE BIT OF A MIXTURE OF SOME MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY DUPLEXES. WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY ZONED GENERAL RETAIL, THE INTENT WAS TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY.
IT WAS A LITTLE BIT UNKNOWN HOW WE WOULD HANDLE THE SPECIFIC USE. AT SOME POINT SEVERAL YEARS AGO, ORIGINALLY MULTIFAMILY WAS ALLOWED IN GENERAL RETAIL.
UNTIL THIS ZONING CASE CAME UP I DIDN'T REALIZE THIS HAD GONE THROUGH. BUT THEY SPECIFICALLY REMOVED MULTIFAMILY AS A PERMANENT BY RIGHT USE IN GENERAL RETAIL.
NOT SURE OF THE REASONS WHY. BUT OUR INTENT ALL ALONG WITH THIS TRACT WAS THAT IT COULD BE MULTIFAMILY, AND THAT'S THE DIRECTION MY CLIENT HAS DECIDED TO GO.
>> YOU MISSED OUR ARGUMENT OVER APARTMENTS ON MEMORIAL, BECAUSE THAT'S THE EXACT ISSUE THAT WE HAD COMING THROUGH.
IT WAS INTENDED AND THEN IT WAS CHANGED AND HAD TO COME BACK THROUGH. SO MAYBE THERE WAS A SPECIFIC
ZONING CASE THAT IMPACTED IT. >> IT HAPPENED BEFORE THAT CASE,
BUT THE SAME THING. >> NONETHELESS, WE DO BELIEVE MULTIFAMILY IS AN APPROPRIATE LAND USE AT THIS LOCATION.
THE CONDITIONS THAT STAFF PROVIDED, I'VE REVIEWED THOSE WITH MY CLIENT AND WE HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THAT.
IT LINES UP CLOSELY WITH WHAT WE WERE WANTING TO DO ANYWAY.
SO WE ARE REQUESTING, ONE OF THE BIG REASONS FOR THE PD ITSELF AS OPPOSED TO GOING STRAIGHT TO ZONING IS ADJUSTMENT TO SETBACKS. THIS PROPERTY IS UNIQUE IN A COUPLE WAYS. TO THE NORTH WE HAVE
[00:35:01]
TRANSMISSION RIGHT OF WAY THAT'S 100 FEET WIDE THAT BUFFERS BETWEEN THE MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY AND THIS TRACK IN PARTICULAR. AND 707 IS DESIGNATED AS AN EXPRESSWAY. THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION FOR THIS ROADWAY CURRENTLY STANDS I BELIEVE AT 200 FEET AND THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO GET EVEN WIDER.THE PARKWAY WIDTHS ARE SUBSTANTIAL.
THAT MEANS THE DISTANCE FROM THE ACTUAL EDGE OF PAVEMENT TO THE RIGHT OF WAY. IF YOU LOOK TO THE EAST, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE TODAY IF YOU WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE SAWGRASS NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE SCREEN AT ALEX WAY AND PERIWINKLE TRAIL, WHERE THAT FENCE CURRENTLY IS, THAT'S HOW MUCH PARKWAY THAT THERE IS.
THAT HOLDS TRUE FOR THIS TRACT AS WELL.
THE INTENT WITH OUR DEVELOPMENT IS TO TRY TO PUSH THE BUILDINGS OUT AND HAVE PARKING IN THE INTERIOR.
SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN TRADITIONAL.
A LOT OF TIMES YOU CAN PUT YOUR BUILDING BACK END PARKING IN FRONT. THEY ARE TRYING TO HELP ENCLOSE THE DEVELOPMENT BY PUSHING THE BUILDINGS OUT A LITTLE BIT.
SO THIS GIVES US A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY BY ADJUSTING THESE SETBACKS. CERTAINLY STAFF, YOU CAN SEE THE CONCEPT PLAN HERE. CERTAINLY STAFF FELT LIKE WE NEEDED TO ADD A COUPLE CONDITIONS BECAUSE OF THAT.
THAT WAS OUR INTENT ANYWAY. I EXPECT THIS WILL BE A VERY NICE PRODUCT. WE THINK ALL THE CONDITIONS ARE APPROPRIATE AND WOULD BE ASKING FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
>> HOW IS INGRESS AND EGRESS GOING TO WORK?
>> IT'S CURRENTLY SHOWN OFF FREEDOM CREST AVENUE TO THE WEST, WHICH IS CONNECTED BACK TO CARRIAGE HILLS AS A COLLECTOR.
CURRENTLY NOT SHOWING. HOWEVER, I THINK THERE'S A HIGH LIKELIHOOD THAT ON THE FAR EAST, ONE BUILDING FROM THE FAR EAST SIDE MAY HAVE A CONNECTION BACK TO FM 707.
THAT IS A TXDOT CONTROLLED THOROUGHFARE.
WE HAVE TO GAIN THEIR APPROVAL AND JUMP THROUGH ALL THOSE HOOPS. SO WE WILL SEE WHERE THAT LANDS ULTIMATELY. BUT THAT'S OUR INTENT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE IT. >> I'LL KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO COME UP AND ADDRESS THIS MATTER? SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY DISCUSSION BY COMMISSIONERS? MOTION'S. I THINK IT MAKES SENSE FOR THE PROPERTY. THAT'S GOING TO BE A MAJOR ROAD.
I THINK THEY DO AS GOOD A JOB AS ANY ENGINEER TRYING TO HELP HIS CLIENTS TALKING ABOUT MORE A SINGLE FAMILY TO MEDIUM DENSITY TO MULTIFAMILY, THAT PROGR PROGRESSION.
THINKING ABOUT TRAFFIC ISSUES BEFOREHAND.
TO ME, WHILE THIS IS A BIG DEVELOPMENT IT'S ON A ROAD THAT'S MADE TO HANDLE A BIGGER DEVELOPMENT.
THAT IS QUITE A SETBACK WITH THOSE TRANSMISSION LINES.
SO FIGURING OUT A WAY TO SQUEEZE THAT A LITTLE TIGHTER MAKES MORE SENSE, EVEN IF WE ARE GENERALLY RESISTANT TO PDS.
IT MAKES SENSE IN THIS CASE. SO I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE IF WE HAVE A MOTION WITH THE CONDITIONS.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITIONS.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5 IS ZONING CASE 2026-25, TAKING ACTION ON A REQUEST FROM THE OWNER TO CHANGE ZONING FROM APPROXIMATELY 1.21 ACRES FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST SOUTH 11TH STREET AND OLD
OLDHAM LANE. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS CLARISSA. BEFORE YOU, YOU HAVE Z-2026-25, THE REQUEST FROM MISS CAITLIN SHAW TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM RESIDENIAL SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST SOUTH 11TH, AND THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. THESE ARE SOME OF THE USES FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS WELL AS NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
THIS IS A LIST OF PERMITTED USES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING.
AND THESE ARE THE USES ALLOWED IN GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING.
WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATIONS AND RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR AND ZERO
[00:40:03]
IN OPPOSITION. THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, GENERALLY PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND THE CRITERIA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> THE PART RIGHT THERE, IS THAT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT WILL HAVE TWO GENERAL COMMERCIALS ON
>> BUT THEN THAT ONE THAT'S GENERAL COMMERCIAL IS A SINGLE
FAMILY HOME AS WELL. >> IT'S SEVERAL UNITS.
IT'S MULTI-FAMILY. >> ON THE CORNER?
>> YES, SIR. AND ACROSS IS RETAIL.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR CLARISSA? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER.
WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO COME UP AND ADDRESS IT?
I CURRENTLY OWN THIS PROPERTY. I PURCHASED IT TO BUILD A NEW COSMETOLOGY SCHOOL ON. OVER THE PAST YEAR WE'VE ACTUALLY OUTGROWN OUR CURRENT SPACE AND WILL NOT FIT IN THIS SPACE AS WELL. SO I HAVE IT LISTED FOR SALE, TRYING TO SELL IT AS GENERAL COMMERCIAL RATHER THAN RESIDENTIAL. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS MATTER? SEEING NONE WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANY DISCUSSION BY COMMISSIONERS, OR MOTIONS? TO ME GENERAL COMMERCIAL OR RETAIL MAKES SENSE, AND THAT'LL
HELP HER SELL IT. >> IT'LL SAVE SOMEONE THE EXPENSE OF REZONING IN THE FUTURE."
>> WOULD ANYBODY -- THERE'S NO CONDITIONS ON THIS? ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS MATTER.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> MR. STRAUSER.
>> THANK YOU. OUR FINAL TODAY IS A REPORT ON DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC HEARING TO TAKE ACTION ON THE REQUEST FROM THE OWNERS TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 81 ACRES FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL LOCATED AT THE 1700, 1718, 1726, AND 1742 LOTS OF AMBLER AVENUE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M A PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF ABILENE. TODAY I'M REPRESENTING CASE Z-2026-27. THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 0.81 ACRES FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL. HERE WE HAVE THE AERIAL LOCATION MAP, THE ZONING MAP, PROPERTY VIEWS.
HERE ARE SOME SURROUNDING PROPERTY VIEWS.
THESE ARE THE PERMITTED USES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING.
PERMITTED USES IN GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING.
NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT IN A 200-FOOT BUFFER.
WE DID RECEIVE ONE IN FAVOR. THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING, THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED PLANNING PRINCIPLES, AND CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL." STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUES QUESTIONS.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY. >> I'M JUST WONDERING...
>> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. >> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO ADDRESS
THIS MATTER? >> GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS GARY UNDERWOOD. I LIVE ON THE CORNER OF SWENSON AND AMBLER. CAN WE GO TO THE MAP? I LIVE ACROSS THE SOUTHWEST FROM SWENSON TO MERCHANT.
MY MAIN CONCERN IS THE TRAFFIC COMING IN.
RIGHT NOW, IT'S TERRIBLE. IT'S JUST GOING TO ADD FIRE.
IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE CHICK FIL A GETTING IN THERE.
RIGHT NOW YOU CAN HARDLY GET OUT ONTO AMBLER AT CERTAIN TIMES OF DAY. AND I'M FIGHTING TRASH ISSUES FROM ALL THE OTHER BUSINESSES THERE.
SO MY MAIN CONCERN IS THE TRAFFIC.
[00:45:03]
IT'S BAD RIGHT NOW AND IT'S JUST GOING TO PUT MORE FIRE, MOREGASOLINE TO THE FIRE. >> I THINK WE ARE PART TO BLAME.
IT'S A PRETTY BUSY ROAD. >> IT'S ALWAYS BEEN BUSY, BUT SINCE THEY HAVE DONE THAT, LIKE IN THE MORNING THE TRAFFIC WOULD BE BACK FROM AMBLER BACK TO MERCHANT AND THEN IN THE AFTERNOON FROM ABOUT 6:00 UNTIL 10:00, IT'S BACKED UP.
IF I WANT TO GO ANYWHERE I HAVE TO GO BACK UP THE OTHER DIRECTION AND HIT 18TH AND GO THAT WAY.
BUT THAT'S MY MAIN CONCERN. AN AMBLER IS A RACETRACK.
BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S JUST MY MAIN CONCERN.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. THIS MATTER?
>> MY NAME IS LINDSEY VERMILION. I LIVE IN THE LOT MARKED 70024 ON SANDFORD STREET. I GUESS MY MAIN CONCERN IS WHEN THEY SAY GENERAL COMMERCIAL WHAT ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT? RESTAURANTS, RETAIL? WHAT IS THE PLAN FOR THAT AREA?
>> WE ARE NOT SURE. HOWEVER, THE DEVELOPER IS HERE.
IF HE'S THE NEXT PERSON TO COME UP THEY MAY BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT. IT COULD ALSO POTENTIALLY AT TIMES BE LIKE THE PREVIOUS CASE WHERE SOMEONE'S GETTING A SECTION REZONED IN HOPES TO SELL IT.
SOMETIMES THE PERSON THAT'S HERE DOESN'T NECESSARILY KNOW WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO. WE ARE TRYING TO GET IT ZONED AS
SPEC TO SELL. >> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE TWO HOUSES IN THE MIDDLE OF THOSE, BUT THE TWO ON THE END ARE CURRENTLY OCCUPIED. ARE THOSE OWNERS BEING TAKEN
CARE OF? >> THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE PART OF THIS. SO THEY ARE EITHER IN AGREEMENT TO SELL OR INCLUDED WITH THE ZONING.
YOU CAN'T ZONE IT FROM UNDERNEATH THE EMPIRIC UNLESS THEY ARE RENTERS, AND THEN THE LANDLORD WOULD BE DOING IT.
>> AND I KNOW TRAFFIC IS A TXDOT THING, BUT AT THAT INTERSECTION, ON GRAPE THERE'S NO LEFT TURN ARROW IN THAT AREA.
SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO ADD ADDITIONAL RETAIL, TRAFFIC IS A NIGHTMARE ALREADY. YOU GREATLY INCREASE THE CHANCE OF SOMETHING HAPPENING TRAFFIC WISE BECAUSE THERE ARE NO LEFT TURN ARROWS ON GRAPE STREET. AND LIKE YOU SAID, AMBLER IS A RACEWAY. AND JUST AGAIN FROM WHERE I'M AT, I DO HEAR OF THE OCCASIONAL I KNOW IT IS A TXDOT THING, SO I HOPE THEY TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
>> I THINK YOU COMING TO SAY THAT IS IMPORTANT.
TO LET PEOPLE KNOW IT WOULD HELP TO HAVE A PROTECTED ARROW.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO
ADDRESS THIS MATTER? >> HEY, EVERYONE.
I'M WORKING WITH THE OWNERSHIP ON THESE PARCELS.
THE FIRST THING OBVIOUSLY TO SAY IS I HAVE WORKED WITH MR. FLOREZ WHO OWNS ACROSS THE STREET, WITH THE OWNERSHIP OF THE GROUP THAT OWNS WILD BILL'S POND, WHICH THAT WENT THROUGH APPROVAL IN THE FALL OR THE SUMMER FOR REDEVELOPMENT AND REZONING.
FROM A CONSISTENCY STANDPOINT, THAT INTERSECTION, REZONING TO COMMERCIAL IS VERY CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE.
I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE ALL THE CONCERNS BROUGHT UP AS WELL.
ONE THING TO SAY ABOUT THAT, THERE'S AN OLDER COUPLE THAT LIVES ON THE VERY LEFT AND ALSO THE COUPLE THAT OWNS A HOUSE ON THE RIGHT. THEY ARE VERY MUCH IN FAVOR.
IN FACT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR ABOUT THREE YEARS.
INITIALLY IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A STARBUCKS PARCEL.
WE ALREADY HAD A DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY, PRESENTED A SITE PLAN THAT WAS NOT GOING TO WORK AS SHE SAID WE PUT AN INGRESS AND EGRESS ON GRAPE STREET, AND AMBLER ON THAT CORNER AND THE CITY RECOMMENDED THAT WAS NOT GOING TO WORK.
SO WE CHANGED THE SITE PLAN TO WHERE INGRESS AND EGRESS WILL COME OFF OF AMBLER AS WELL AS A TRASH COMPARTMENT ON THE BACK
[00:50:04]
SIDE OF SWENSON. SO THE FLOW WORKS REALLY WELL.0.81, I BELIEVE, IT'S QUITE A BIT OF ACREAGE FOR A PARCEL LIKE THAT. IT'S NO LONGER A STARBUCKS.
THE GROUP THAT WE ARE TALKING TO CURRENTLY IS DUTCH BROS COFFEE.
SO IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, IT WOULD BE A QSR CONCEPT.
SO EITHER DUTCH BROS OR WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OTHER GROUPS ON TAP THAT WOULD DEVELOP THERE. BUT A LOT OF THE TIME THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING IS PRETTY SMALL AND LEAVES A LOT OF ROOM FOR PARKING AS WELL AS MOVEMENT AROUND, AND WITH THE INGRESS EGRESS, THE FLOW WOULD REALLY WORK WELL.
WE'VE TALKED TO THE CITY ABOUT THIS A YEAR AGO.
SO THAT'S PRIMARILY IT. WHAT I'VE HEARD A LOT FROM THESE OWNERS, TWO PROPERTIES IN THE MIDDLE ARE CURRENTLY VACANT.
SO IT'S NOT BEEN OCCUPIED FOR SEVERAL YEARS.
IF IT REMAINS RESIDENTIAL, WHAT'S LIKELY GOING TO HAPPEN IS THE OLDER COUPLE IS GOING TO MOVE, BECAUSE THEY'VE EXPRESSED THAT TO ME FOR TWO YEARS NOW. THAT WILL PROBABLY RENDER IT ALSO NOT REALLY LIVABLE. MAYBE THE CORNER STAYS THAT WAY FOR A WHILE. BUT THOSE HOUSES WILL JUST SORT OF REMAIN IN EFFECT KIND OF AN EYESORE FOR A WHILE WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY REAL CAPITAL PUT INTO IT.
SO IT'S EITHER IT STAYS RESIDENTIAL AND SOMEONE PUTS A LOT OF MONEY INTO MAKING THAT CORNER WORK OR IT'S REDEVELOPED NICELY TO FIT EVERYTHING ELSE AROUND IT ON THE CORNER THAT FLOWS WELL, AND AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN WE HAD TO GIVE A PART OF THE PARCEL TO THE CITY FOR BEAUTIFICATION.
AND CURB CUT. SO DOING THAT I BELIEVE WOULD PROVIDE QUITE A BIT OF WAY TO BE ABLE TO HAVE AN ARROW TURNING LEFT. THAT'S WHAT I HAVE IF THERE ARE
ANY QUESTIONS. >> I DIDN'T -- YOU SAID YOU HAD TO GET A PARTIAL PORTION TO THE CITY FOR BEAUTIFICATION?
>> YES. I THINK IT WAS 35 OR SOMETHING FEET FROM THE CENTER OF THE ROAD COMING INTO OUR PARCEL.
SO WHEREAS WE EVENTUALLY HAVE 0.8, I THINK IT REDUCES IT TO 0.65 ONCE WE REPLAT IT TO WHERE IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE.
>> I BELIEVE HE'S SPEAKING ON RIGHT OF WAY.
>> YES, I'M SORRY. >> JUST TO HELP FOR THE SHAPE OF
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND WE APOLOGIZE FOR MOVING THE NEXT ITEM TO JUNE.
>> THANK YOU. >> WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO
COME UP AND ADDRESS THIS MATTER? >> I'M THE OWNER OF 21627.
I UNDERSTAND THE OPINIONS, BUT I'M GOING TO HAVE TO AGREE WITH MY NEIGHBORS ON THE NUISANCE OF TRAFFIC.
FOR ONE, JUST OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS IT'S BEEN INCREASING A LOT. I THINK THERE HAS BEEN A FEW MORE TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS. MY CONCERN IS YOU STATED PREVIOUSLY FOR THE PREVIOUS ZONING THAT THAT ROAD COULD HANDLE COMMERCIAL. GRAPE CANNOT HANDLE COMMERCIAL.
ON TOP OF THAT, BUSSES COME THEIR, KIDS GET OFF THE BUS ALONG SWENSON. I BELIEVE.
AND MAINLY GRAPE, BECAUSE MY SON HAS GOT OFF OF THAT BUS BEFORE.
I AGREE WE NEED THE ARROW, BUT THE CONGESTION IS GOING TO BE EVEN GREATER AND THERE'S NO ROOM FOR EXPANSION.
IT'S ONLY TWO LANES. YOU WOULD HAVE TO CUT MANY HOMES, EITHER WAY. ALSO WITH MY CONCERN AGAIN, I THINK I'M NOT SURE ABOUT A COFFEE SHOP PREVIOUSLY BUT I THINK THE INTERCOM WAS GOING TO BE KIND OF A DISTURBANCE TO THE NEIGHBORS. I THINK IF IT'S A COFFEE SHOP IT'S GOING TO BE LOUD, AND I KNOW YOU DO HAVE A LOT OF STUDENTS THERE. BUT I JUST DON'T SEE WHERE IT'S GOING TO NOT CAUSE ANY MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT ALREADY HAS.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR COMING.
[00:55:01]
WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS MATTER?>> I WANTED TO -- >> WAIT UNTIL YOU'RE AT THE MIC
BECAUSE WE ARE STREAMING ONLINE. >> I WANTED TO ADDRESS THE POINT ON THE CORNER OF GRAPE STREET. THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC NECESSARILY CREATED COMING OUT OF THE PARCEL.
CURRENTLY, THERE IS INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM THERE FOR THE CURRENT TENANTS WHO LIVE THERE, AND THEY'RE ABLE TO GET IN AND OUT. OUR SITE PLAN WOULD COMPLEELY CLOSE THAT OFF TO WHERE THERE ARE NO CARS GOING OUT AT ALL.
SO THAT SHOULDN'T CREATE AN ISSUE.
IN REGARDS TO NOISE, THE WAY OUR SITE PLAN WORKS IS THE BUILDING IS MUCH CLOSER TO AMBLER. SO WHERE THE DRIVE THRU IS, FACES ON THE AMBLER SIDE, THE NOISE THAT EXISTS WOULD NOT BE SUPERSEDING WHAT WOULD BE CREATED.
>> WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS MATTER? LAS MONTH WE WERE HERE FOR FOUR HOURS, SO YOU ARE DOING OKAY.
>> IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE CHICK FIL A WHERE THEY HAD TO MOVE THE CHICK FIL A. YOU'VE GOT A RED LIGHT RIGHT THERE CONNOR AND TRYING TO GET IN THERE, THAT'S GOING TO BE...
MY HOUSE IS A HISTORICAL HOME ACROSS THE STREET.
IT IS REGISTERED AS HISTORICAL. I'M JUST CONCERNED OF THEM TRYING TO GET IN THERE, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE WAITING AND YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE COMING DOWN AMBLER.
ANYWAY, THANK YOU. >> UNDERSTOOD.
WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS MATTER? SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DISCUSSION BY COMMISSIONERS? >> AMBLER IS AN ARTERIAL ROAD, AND GRAPE IS A MINOR ARTERIAL. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'LL INCREASE A LOT OF TRAFFIC ON GRAPE.
THESE ROADS SHOULD BY THEIR DESIGNATION BE DESIGNED TO HANDLE TRAFFIC. I DO UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN.
THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT DEVELOPMENT ADDS TRAFFIC.
I DO THINK CHICK FIL A IS UNIQUE IN REGARDS TO IT BACKING UP INTO THE ROAD. I THINK YOU COULD ALSO POINT TO MANY RESTAURANTS, COFFEE SHOPS IN TOWN WHERE THEY DON'T NECESSARILY -- THEIR QUEUE DOESN'T END UP IN THE ROAD.
YOU WOULD JUST HOPE THIS WOULD BE ONE.
THAT WOULD BE A FRUSTRATING CORNER TO HAVE PEOPLE HALF IN AND HALF OUT ESPECIALLY WITH THE WAY GRAPE CURVES AND AMBLER IS GOING. HOPEFULLY SOME OF THIS DEVELOPMENT COULD LEAD TO SOME OF THE TRAFFIC THINGS THAT WERE ADDRESSED, ARROWS AND BETTER FLOW AND BETTER PROTECTIONS RELATED TO THAT. THERE'S ALWAYS THE CHANCE FOR THOSE TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS AS WELL.
TO ME THIS COULD BE GENERAL COMMERCIAL OR GENERAL RETAIL AND IT MAKES SENSE FOR WHERE THOSE IS.
AND WHETHER THOSE ROADS ARE OPERATED AND WHAT THEY ARE DESIGNED TO DO, THAT'S ALSO A THING FOR THE CITY OR WHOEVER'S CONTROLLING THOSE ROADS TO ADAPT AND MAKE THEM DO WHAT THEY WERE MEANT TO DO. AND IT NEEDS TO BE DONE SAFELY.
>> THE LAND USE MAKES SENSE. >> YES.
ARE THERE ANY MOTIONS OR FURTHER DISCUSSION?
>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.
>> MR. SKAGGS. >> BEFORE WE ADJOURN I WOULD REMIND EVERYBODY THAT THESE ITEMS WILL MOVE FOR CITY COUNCIL FOR FIRST READING FOLLOWED BY A SECOND READING.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE YOUR CONCERNS TO CITY COUNCIL TO ALLOW THEM TO HEAR AND EXPRESS ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7.
WE WILL HEAR THAT AT OUR NEXT MEETING IF WE HAVE A QUORUM,
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.