Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:02]

>> ANTHONY WILLIAMS: GOOD AFTERNOON. I WILL CALL THIS MEANING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO ORDER. WE GENERALLY START WITH A

[INVOCATION]

PRAYER. I WILL ASK RECEIVE REMEMBERED LANGFORD.

>> GOD WE COME FIRST TO SAY THANK YOU. WE THANK YOU GOD FOR THIS DAY AND FOR BEAK WHO YOU ARE. GOD, WE THANK YOU FOR GOD RETURNING TO YOU THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN TO US. WE COME TOGETHER AS CITIZENS OF THIS CITY AND OF THIS BOARD TO DO THE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DONE TO ENHANCE OUR CITY. AND GOD WE PRAY THAT YOU WILL ALLOW YOUR HOLY SPIRIT TO BE WITH US AS WE MEET HERE THIS AFTERNOON.

BLESS ALL THE MEMBERS AND ESPECIALLY BLESSING OUR CITY, OUR NATION, OUR STATE, AND WE PRAY, GOD, THAT YOU WILL BLESS US WITH ALL OF THE BLESSING YOU THINK WE ARE IN NEED OF.

AND WE THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO AND YOU CONTINUE TO DO FOR THIS CITY, AND ALL OF THE BLESSINGS WE ASK IN YOUR SWEET SON JESUS' NAME.

AMEN. >> ANTHONY WILLIAMS: AMEN. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY OF THE APPROVAL OF PLATTS.

IT IS A RECOMMENDING BOARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN MATTERS OF ZONING.

THE DECISIONS OF THIS BOARD MAY BE APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE CITY SECRETARY NO LATER THAN 10 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS MEETING AND ALL APPEALS MUST BE MADE IN WRITING. THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM UNDER DISCUSSION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AFTER RECEIVING RECOGNITION FROM THE CHAIR.

THOSE APPROACHING THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR PURPOSE FOR A PERIOD.

PLEASE KEEP IT TO NO MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES. HOWEVER, ADDITIONAL TIME WILL GRANTED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR. THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA

[MINUTES]

IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM OUR JANUARY 7TH MEETING.

HOPEFULLY ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAD A CHANCE TO READ THOSE MINUTES.

ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS OR CHANGES OR I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION AS IS FOR APPROVAL OF

THE MINUTES. >> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> I HAVE A MOTION TO

APPROVE. DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> ALL IN FAVOR I IS A -- SAY I. OPPOSED?

[PLATS]

THANK YOU. WE ARE READY FOR PLATTS. FOR PLATS.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. PLANNING SERVICES. THERE ARE 3 PLATS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TODAY. THEY MET ALL SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS.

THEREFORE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND AGAIN THIS IS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS AND THOSE CONDITIONS WILL BE THE COMPLETION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS. THIS IS PART OF THE MOST RECENT HOUSE BILL PASSED THAT THE CITY MUST APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE. PLATS WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER IT IS FILED. THE FIRST IS FP-4118: ELM CREEK AT WYLIE, SECTION 2, JUST TO THE WEST DRAWN IN BLACK THERE. THE ROAD IS EXISTING LOTS.

THIS IS 18 NEW RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THIS IS JUST SOUTH OF WYLIE HIGH SCHOOL AND TWIN OAKS SUBDIVISION. THERE ARE TWO SLIDES ON THIS.

THIS IS FP-4919: LAKE FORT PHANTOM, SECTION 6. THIS IS THE LAST SECTION OF PLATTING CITY OWNED LOTS WITH SALE TO THE LEASEYS -- LESEES THAT OCCUPY THEM CURRENTLY.

THIS IS 88 LOTS TOTAL. HERE IS A LARMINGER -- LARGER SCALE IMAGE.

THE REST OF THE PLOTS WERE -- >>

CHOSE TO USE. >> NOTHING SIGNIFICANT? >> NO.

FINALLY THIS IS FP-5119: A PLAT OF ANTILLEY ROAD WEST SUBDIVISION, SECTION 3.

THE LAST MEETING YOU APPROVED SECTION 4 TO THE WEST HERE. THIS IS THE LAST SECTION OF PLAT LARGE LOT AND MAKES IT OUT TO BUFFALO GAP BY THE WYLIE LEGACY SUBDIVISION.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL WITH THE COMPLETION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ANNE

>> ANTHONY WILLIAMS: ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, SIR.

I I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WILL ANYONE CARE TO SPEAK TO THESE PLATS PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO WARP -- SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSION

OR A POSSIBLE MOTION? >> MOTION TO APPROVE, DO I HAVE A SECOND?

[00:05:10]

>> SECOND. >> A MOTION AND A SECOND. >> MR. BARNETTE.

>> YES. >> MISS RUSSELL. >> YES.

>> MR. ROSENBOUGH. >> REVEREND LANGFORD. >> YES.

>> AND MR. HANDLE. THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIES.

[5. Z-2020-04: Public hearing and possible vote to recommend approval or denial to City Council on a request from Bryan Pope to rezone property from Heavy Commercial ( MC) to Heavy Industrial (HI) District; Legal description being the north L8O feet of the west 140 feet of Lot 9 in J. McAllister Stevenson’s Subdivision ofOutlot Nos. 2 and 3 and North 140 feet of Outlot No.4 in Block 209 of Abilene’s Original Townsite. Abilene, Taylor County. and located at 1401 Cherry’ Street on southeast corner of Dimmitt and Cherry Streets.]

>> THE NEXT ITEM IS Z-2020-04, PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE VOTE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON REQUEST FROM BRYAN POPE TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM HEAVY WHERE SHALL, HC, TO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, L -- HI, DISTRICT.

THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION BEING NORTH 180 FEET OF THE WEST 140 FEET OF LOT 9 IN J MCALISTER STEVENSON'S SUBDIVISION OF OUTLOT NUMBERS 2 AND 3, AND NORTH OF OUTLET NUMBER FOUR IN BLOCK 209 OF ABILENE ORIGINAL TOWN SITE ABILENE TAYLOR COUNTY AND LOCATED AT 1401 CHERRY STREET ON SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DIMMITT AND CHERRY STREET.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. JERRY SMITH, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

I WILL BE PRESENTING CASE Z-2020-04. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS BRYAN POPE. HE IS ASKING FOR HEAVY COMMERCIAL TO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL REZONING. THE REASON IS HE WOULD LIKE TO UTILIZE THE LOT FOR FABRICATION AND STORAGE OF FREE BAR. RECEIVED 0 RESPONSES IN FAVOR AND 0 IN OPPOSITION. HERE IS OUR AERIAL MAP SHOWING THE LOCATION OF OUR SUBJECT PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE IT IS AT CHERRY STREET AND DIMMITT STREET.

OUR ZONING MAP SHOWING THE CURRENT ZONING IS HEAVY COMMERCIAL.

THERE IS ALSO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY AS WELL AS MEED YES, MA'AM -- MEDIUM ZONING. YOU MAY RECOGNIZE THIS AS ONE OF THE LOTS WE PREVIOUSLY REZONED FROM THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL. SINCE THAT TIME THE OWNER, MR. POPE, HAS FOUND A TENANT WHO WANTS TO UTILIZE THIS LOT FOR MANUFACTURING USE WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED IN THE HEAVY COMMERCIAL REZONING BACK TO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL.

THAT'S OUR REASON FOR HEARING THIS TODAY. THE NOTIFICATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY, ALL PROPERTY OWNERS IN THIS AREA WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST AND RECEIVED 0 RESPONSES IN FAVOR AND 0 IN OPPOSITION. PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY USED AS A STORAGE LOT. THIS IS -- STORAGE YARD.

THIS IS A VACANT LOT. PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES TO THE WEST IS A VIA CAN'T LOT -- IS A VACANT LOT. IT IS A RENTAL AND SALE FACILITY. THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND AND USE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THEREFORE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE AT THIS TIME. >> QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, SIR. I WILL OPEN FOR PUBLIC HEARING.

WOULD ANYONE CARE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? PLEASE COME FORWARD.

SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DISCUSSION FROM THE

COMMISSION? POSSIBLE MOTION? >> I MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND A SECOND.

>> MR. BARNETTE? YES. >> MISS RUSSELL.

>> YES. >> MR. BENHAM, YES. >> MR. ROSENBAU,.

>> YES. >> REVEREND LANGFORD,. >> AND MR. FAMIL, YES.

[6. Z-2020-O5: Public hearing and possible vote to recommend approval or denial to City Council on a request from KPLB LLC, agent Jacob & Martin Engineering, to rezone property from Residential Medium-Density (MD) to Residential Single-Family Patio Home (PH) District; Legal description being a certain 5.85-acre tract of vacant land out of southwest quarter of Lunatic Asylum Lands Section 8 in City of Abilene, Taylor County, Texas and located at 1826 Colony Hill Road approximately 500 to 800 feet east from its intersection with Maple Street.]

>> MOTION CARRIES. >> NEXT ITEM IS Z-2020-05, PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE VOTE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST FROM KPLB, LLC, AGENT JACOB AND MARTIN ENGINEERING TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY, MD TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY PATIO HOME, PH, DISTRICT.

THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION BEING A CERTAIN 5.85-ACRE TRACT OF VACANT LAND OUT OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF LUNATIC UH SIGH -- ASYLUM LAND SECTION 8 IN CITY OF ABILENE, TAYLOR COUNTY, TEXAS LOCATED AT 1826 COLONY HILL ROAD APPROXIMATELY 500 TO 800 FEET EAST OF THE INTERSECTION WITH MAPLE STREET. JI GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.

MY NAME IS NICK WATTS AND I AM WITH THE CITY'S PLANNING DEVELOPMENT STAFF.

[00:10:05]

I WILL BE PRESENTING THIS CASE, Z-2020-05. THE OWNER/APPLICANT CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION IS REQUESTING TO REZONE 1826 COLONY ROAD FROM MEDIUM DENSITY TO PATIO HOME DISTRICT. FROM THIS AERIAL LOCATION MAP YOU CAN SEE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OUTLINED AND HIGHLIGHTED AND STRIPED IN YELLOW.

THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED IN 2009 BY THE CITY OF AB -- CITY OF ABILENE.

IT WAS GIVEN THE ZONING OF AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE. IN JANUARY OF 2016 A REQUEST TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO RESIDENTIAL AND MEDIUM DENSITY WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS WELL AS CITY COUNCIL. SINCE APPROVAL, HOWEVER, A PLAN AND/OR SUBDIVISION PLAN WAS NEVER PROVIDED FOR REVIEW.

THIS IS A ZONING MAP SHOWING ALL OF THE VARIOUS ZONES AROUND HERE.

SUBJECT PROPERTY IS AT STAKE. TO THE WEST IS AGRICULTURE OPEN SPACE AS WELL AS TO THE SOUTH. TO THE EAST IS RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY RS6 AS WELL AS TO THE NORTH NORTHEAST. TO THE SOUTHEAST, HOWEVER, IS MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT.

WHAT GIVES A BETTER CLARIFICATION OF THIS PROPERTY AND ITS SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS I THINK IS THE TOP RIGHT PHOTO. THIS SAN EAGLE -- THIS IS AN EAGLE VIEW AND YOU CAN SEE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN BLUE WITH A GREEN PIN IN THE CENTER OF IT. YOU CAN SEE RESIDENTIAL TO THE WEST, VACANT LAND TO THE EAST AND YOU CAN SEE THE ELEMENTARY TO THE SOUTH AS WELL AS CARRIAGE HILL SUBDIVISION TO THE SOUTHEAST. STAFF PREPARED NOTIFICATION LETTERS AND HAD A 200-FOOT BUFFER. WE HAD RECEIVED ONE IN OPPOSITION AT 721 MAPLE

STREETS. >> WERE THERE NOTES ON THAT ONE?

ANY COMMENTS? >> YES. THE OWNER THINKS IT ADDS UNNECESSARY POPULATION CONGESTION TO THE AREA. HE THINKS THAT RS6 -- RS8 DISTRICT IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS AREA AND WOULD BE MORE IN CHARACTER WITH THE EXISTING HOME SETS AND THUS PRESERVING PROPERTY VALUES IN ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS.

HE ALSO THINKS THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE PARTICULAR AREA IS LACKING.

HE THINKS THE ROAD CANNOT SAFELY SUPPORT THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC IT HAS NOW.

HE SAYS IT IS A DANGEROUS STRETCH OF ROADWAY AND ADDING MORE TRAFFIC ISN'T GOING TO

MAKE IT BETTER. >> THANK YOU. >> YES.

ONE OF THE INCONSISTENCIES WITH THIS IS WHEN THE MAP WAS DEVELOPED IN 2004, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAD NOT BEEN ANNEXED BY THE CITY OF ABILENE. THEREFORE THE MAP PROVIDES NO GUIDANCE ON THE ZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. HOWEVER THE THOROUGHFARE PLANNING. IDENTIFIES MAPLE STREET AS AN ARTERIAL STREET AS A FUTURE AIR TEAR -- ARTERIAL STREET. PROPOSED PATIO HOME ZONING MAY OFFER EFFECTIVE TRANSITION FROM INTENSITY OF URBAN USE CHARACTERISTICS WITH ARTERIAL STREET AND ANTICIPATING RETAIL DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST AND LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO THE EAST.

PATIO HOME ZONING CLASSIFICATION IS DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, A LOT SMALLER THAN EVEN THE MOST COMPACT RS6 ZONES TO THE WEST. MEDIUM DENSITY, HOWEVER, IS INTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE DEVELOPMENT OF DUPLEXES, TRI-PLEXES AND QUADRIPLEXES. THROUGH OUR RESEARCH WE FOUND PATIO HOME ZONING TYPICALLY ALLOWS DENSITIES OF SEVEN AND A HALF UNITS OF -- PER ACRE AS OPPOSED TO MEDIUM DENSITY ZONING ALLOWING NINE PER ACRE.

[00:15:01]

WERE THESE DENSITIES DIFFER IS MEDIUM DENSITY DOES NOT PERMIT THE USE AND BUILD OF HOMES DUE TO LAND CHARACTERS PARTICULAR TO LAND DEVELOPMENT. IF IT IS SUBDIVIDED TO LOTS SMALLER THAN PATIO HOMES THEY WILL KNOW ONLY PATIO HOMES WILL BE CONSTRUCT OWED THESE LOTS COMPARED TO DUPLEXES, TRY -- TRI-PLEXES AND QUAD-RIPLEXES.

THE STAFF FINDS THIS ZONING CLASSIFICATION IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SIDE OF -- THIS SIZE TRACT OF LAND AND COULD CREATE LESS TRAFFIC TOO THE DEVELOPING AREAS TO THE WITHEST AND ELEMENTARY TO THE SOUTH. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND THE REZONING COMPLIES WITH SECTION 1.4.1.4 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.

I WOULD BE HAPPY TO NENS -- TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> ANY QUESTIONS?

>> DID YOU SAY PATIO HOME IS LESS INTENSE THAN --

>> YES. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE CARE TO SPEAK TO THIS

ITEM, PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. TALL FILLINGHAM.

IT WAS THE SAME DEVELOPER THAT REZONED IT FROM AO TO MD IN 2016.

THE THOUGHT AT THE TIME PRIOR TO MOST OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS OCCURRED OUT THERE TO DATE WAS DUPLEX -- DUPLEXES WAS THE INTENT. THAT WAS THE MARKET HE FELT WAS APPROPRIATE THERE. HE PUT THE PROJECT ON HOLD AND WAITED FOR THINGS TO HAPPEN, AND HAS SINCE DECIDED PATIO HOMES IS A BETTER MARKET AND MORE APPROPRIATE AT THIS LOCATION. THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST.

IT IS A DOWN ZONING FROM MD TO PATIO HOME. WE BELIEVE IT IS APPROPRIATE

AT THIS LOCATION AND WE ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL. >> WHY DON'T YOU GO ALL THE

WAY TO THE NORTH? >> SO TO THE NORTH IS A DETENTION POPPED FOR SOUTH LAKE ESTATES. IT IS PART OF THAT PLAT. WE CONTEMPLATED THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK THE DEVELOPER THERE WAS WILLING TO ALLOW THAT TO GO THROUGH.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK Y'ALL.

APPRECIATE IT. >> ANYONE ELSE CARING TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> I WILL AGREE.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> PICK ONE. >> MR. BARNETTE. YES.

>> MR. RUSSELL. >> YES. >> MR. BENAHAM.

>> YES. >> REVEREND LANGFORD. >> YES.

>> AND MR. FAMBLE. >> THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIES.

[7. TC-2020-02: Public hearing and possible vote to recommend approval or denial to City Council on a request from Homer Hills, agent Riley Griffith of EnprotecHibbs & Todd, to abandon an unimproved west margin (0.0469 acre) of right-of-way available for Lytle Acres Drive and adjacent to vacant building site at 1208 Lytlc Acres Drive occupying Block D of Lytle Lake Gardens.]

>> NEXT IS TC-2020-02, PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE VOTE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON A REQUEST FROM HOMER HILLS, AGENT RAILLY GRIFFITH OF ENPROTEC/HIBBS AND TODD TO ABANDON AN UNIMPROVED WEST MARGIN 0.0469-ACRE OF RIGHT OF WAY AVAILABLE FOR LY TLE ACRES DRIVE AND ADJACENT TO VACANT BUILDING SITE AT 1208LYTLE

ACRES DRIVE OCCUPYING BLOCK D OF LYTLE LAKE GARDENS. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

MY NAME IS BRAD STONE AND I A PLANNER HERE ON THE CITY STAFF.

AS THE CHAIRMAN MENTIONED THIS REQUEST IS TO ABANDON WHAT IS REPORTED TO BE SURPLUS RIGHT OF WAY ALONG THE WEST MARGIN OF LYTLE ACRES DRIVE. IT IS UH.

>> -- IT IS ADJACENT TO A BUILDING IN EAST CENTRAL ABILENE.

THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE SUBJECT RIGHT OF WAY HIGHLIGHTED WITH THE YELLOW STRIPING.

IF THIS SEGMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY IS ABANDONED AS REQUESTED, THEN OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND WILL REVERT TO THE OWNER OF VACANT PROPERTY DIRECTLY TO THE WEST.

IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THE OWNERS OF THIS VACANT PROPERTY PLAN TO SUBDIVIDE THEIR ONE VACANT LOT INTO AS MANY AS THREE NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME SITES.

ABANDONING THE SURPLUS RIGHT OF WAY AND ITS INCORPORATION INTO THE LAND VEIL FOR

[00:20:02]

RESUBDIVISION IS SOMEHOW KEY TO THIS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.

THIS SLIDE ALSO ILLUSTRATES HOW ABANDON OF THIS PARTICULAR TRIANGLE SURPLUS RIGHT OF WAY WILL STILL LEAVE A UNIFORMLY 60-FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY FOR LYTLE ACRES DRIVE.

SUCH 60-FOOT RIGHTS OF WAY ARE COMMON ON MOST RESIDENTIAL STREETS IN ABILENE.

THE CITY STAFF CONSIDERS THIS TRY ANGULAR SEGMENT TO INDEED BE TRULY SURPLUS.

IT IS NOT NOW NEEDED FOR STREET PAVE -- PAVEMENT OR UTILITIES OR STREET LAMPS OR EVEN FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND NOR IS IT EXPECTED TO BE SO NEEDED IN THE FUTURE.

THIS THIRD SLIDE SHOWS THIS PARTICULAR SEGMENT OF LYTLE ACRES DRIVE TO BE WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT. THIS NEXT SLIDE SHOWS SOME OF THE PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY INCLUDING THE VACANT TRACT TO THE WEST WHICH IS PLANNED TO BE RESUBDIVIDED. THE UP -- THE UPPER LEFT PICTURE DOES SHOW THAT SUBJECT ON -- SUBJECT PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE IT IS VACANT. THE LOWER LEFT PHOTO SHOWS THE SAME PROPERTY, BUT FROM THE EAST AND LOOKING TOWARD LYTLE ACRES DRIVE.

FROM THE CENTER THE PHOTOGRAPH TER -- THE PHOTOGRAPHER IS LOOKING NORTH.

THE SUBJECT RIGHT OF WAY TO BE ABANDONED IS IN THE CENTER OF THE CENTER PHOTOGRAPH.

CITY STAFF GENERALLY RECOMMENDS APPROVING THIS REQUEST OF ABANDONMENT.

DOING SO WILL HELP PROMOTE RESUBDIVISION AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THAT ADJOINING PROPERTY IN A WAY THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING ZONING.

IN ORDER TO FULLY EXERCISE SUCH ABANDONMENT A FORMAL REPLAT OF THE PROPERTY WILL SOME DAY NEED TO BE COMPLETED AND APPROVED BY THIS COMMISSION SHOWING HOW THAT ABANDONED RIGHT OF WAY WILL INDEED BE INTEGRATED. 13 OWNERS WERE FORMALLY NOTIFIED OF THE REQUESTED ABANDONMENT. ONE RETURNED A WRITTEN RESPONSE IN FAVOR AND WE RECEIVED NO WRITTEN RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION.

OF COURSE I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> YES -- QUESTIONS? >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE CARE TO SPEAK TO THIS

ITEM PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> FRED, I WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION BEFORE WE GOT STARTED.

THE LINE OF DEMARCATION OF PEOPLE. >> DON'T START! DAVID, DAVE I HAD, DAVID -- DAVID, I AM JUST SAYING WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS.

DON'T START. THAT IS MELISSA. YOU NEED TO TALK TO MELISSA.

>> SHE NEEDS TO FIX THAT. >> WE TALKED ABOUT THAT. >> MR. GRIFFITH IS SICK TODAY SO I BELIEVE I AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK ON HIS BEHALF. I DON'T KNOW NOAH LOT ABOUT -- KNOW A LOT ABOUT THIS, BUT I WILL TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, DAVID. ANYONE ELSE CARE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSION OR A POSSIBLE MOTION?

HAVE MOTION TO APPROVE. DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE AND A SECOND. >> THERE BARNETTE.

>> YES. >> MISS RUSTLE. >> YES.

>> MR. BENHAM. >> YES. >> MR. ROSENBAM, YES.

>> REVEREND LANGFORD. YES. >> THE MOTION TO APPROVE

[8. OAM-2019-03: (TABLED FROM MEETING IN JANUARY) Public hearing and possible vote to recommend approval or denial to City Council on proposed amendments to Land Development Code for the City of Abilene, removing the entire text of existing Section 2.4.4.2 in Chapter 2 (Zoning Regulations) and which specifically concerns carports and patio covers, replacing said existing text with a new Section 2.4.4.2 regulating the size, height, placement and architectural character of certain carports and patio covers; and adopting new definitions of both “carport” and “patio cover” as those terms appear in Chapter 5 (Definitions) of the Land Development Cod]

CARRIES. >> THE NEXT ITEM IS OAM- 2019-03 WHICH WAS TABLED FROM OUR MEETING IN JANUARY. PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE VOTE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR THE CITY OF ABILENE REMOVING THE ENTIRE TEXT OF EXISTING SECTION 2.4.4.2 IN CHAPTER 2 ZONING REGULATIONS AND WHICH SPECIFICALLY CONCERNS CARPORTS AND PATIO COVERS, REPLACING

[00:25:06]

SAID EXISTING TEXT WITH A NEW SECTION 2.4.4.2 REGULATING THE SIZE, HEIGHT, PLACEMENT AND ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER OF CERTAIN CARPORTS AND PATIO COVERS, AND ADOPTING NEW DEFINITIONS BOTH OF CARPORT AND PATIO COVER AS THOSE TERMS APPEAR IN THE CHAPTER FIVE DEFINITIONS OF THE LAND DSM MEANT CODE. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

SINCE THIS WAS TABLED I NEED A MOTION TO REMOVE THIS FROM THE TABLE.

>> I MOVE TO REMOVE IT FROM THE TABLE. >> DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY I. >> I.

>> OPPOSED SAY SIGN. THANK YOU, VERY MUCH. SORRY, BRAD, HOUSEKEEPING.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I BRAD STONE AND A PLANNER ON THE CITY STAFF.

AND DURING EACH OF THE PAST TWO COMMISSION MEETINGS I HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT ABILENE'S ALMOST 20-YEAR SPEARMENT WITH DIFFERENT MEANS OF REGULATING CARPORTS AND PATIO COVERS IN PARTICULAR ON STREET SIDE YARDS. THAT MEANS ON THE FRONT OF THE LOT AND THE EXTERIOR SIDE, THE CORNER LOT. BEFORE 2001 ALL BUILDINGS INCLUDING CARPORTS AND PATIO COVERS WERE ALWAYS PROHIBITED FROM MINIMUM YARDS REQUIRED ALONG STREET SIDE BOUNDARIES. THE ONLY MEANS OF RELIEF FROM THIS PROHIBITION IS SEEKING A VARIANCE FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THAT CARRIES A FAIRLY HEAVY BURDEN OF PROOF FOR THE APPLICANT. MINIMUM YARDS ARE REQUIRED TO PROMOTE AN OPEN SPACE AND THAT PROPERTY OWNERS EXPECT AND DESIRE PARTICULARLY IN A RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT.

AND TO DISPLAY THE FRONT FACADE OF BUILDINGS. IN DOING SO, EVERYONE'S PROPERTY VALUES ARE BELIEVED TO BE ENHANCED. AFTER LAST MONTH'S MEETING, THE CHOICES UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THIS COMMISSION WERE BASICALLY THREE FOLD. THE FIRST WAS TO GO BACK TO THE 20TH CENTURY APPROACH OF ROUTINELY PROHIBITING THE OPEN CARPORTS IN MINIMUM ARDS REQUIRED ON THE STREET SIDE BOUNDARIES IN MOST RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. THE SECOND CHOICE WAS TO ROUTINELY ALLOW OPEN CARPORTS AND PATIO COVERS AND MINIMUM YARDS REQUIRED ALONG STREET SIDE BOUNDARIES SO LONG AS THEY ARE SETBACK AT LEAST FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND 15 FEET FROM THE STREET PAVEMENT. AND THAT THEY COMPLY WITH THE BUILDING CODE AND ARE PROPERLY PERMITTED AS SUCH. THE THIRD CHOICE WHICH HAD SOME CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION WAS TO ROUTINELY ALLOW THE OPEN CARPORTS AND PATIO COVERS IN THE STREET SIDE YARDS, BUT ONLY IF THEY EXHIBIT SOME MEASURE OF ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY WITH THE RESIDENTS ON THE SAME LOT. DURING THE PAST MONTH AND THAT IS SINCE OUR JANUARY MEETING, AND IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS MADE BY THE COMMISSION CITY STAFF HAS COMPOSED NEW LANGUAGE ABOUT ARCHITECTURAL COMBATABILITY IN A WAY THAT I BELIEVE IS MORE GENERALIZED THAN WHAT WAS PRESENTED EARLIER AND WHICH OFFERS MORE FLEXIBILITY. IN PARTICULAR THE STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED THREE GENERALIZED MEASURES OF COMPATIBILITY, ONLY TWO OF WHICH MUST BE PRESENT FOR THE CARPORT AND PATIO COVER TO QUALIFY AND BE CONSIDERED ARCHITECT -- ARCHITECTURALLY COMPATIBLE.

IF YOU BEAR WITH ME A MOMENT I WILL CITE THOSE THREE MEASURES.

THE PICTURE SLOPE OF THE ROOF LINE MUST BE PHYSICALLY INTEGRATED OR OTHERWISE VISUALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE APPEARANCE OF THE ROOF LINE ON THE PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE.

NUMBER TWO, THE ROOF COVERING ON THE PATIO COVER MUST BE SIMILAR IN COVER AND MATERIAL COMPOSITION TO THE ROOF COVERING ON THE PRINCIPAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING.

THE THIRD ONE, BEAMS OR RAFTERS SUPPORTING THE COVERING MUST BE MADE OF WOOD OR MADE OF METAL COVERED FROM EXTERIOR VIEW OF WOOD WITH SOME COMPARABLE EFFORT.

I DO HAVE A FEW MORE -- I WANTED TO REITERATE OF THE THREE MEASURES OF

[00:30:01]

ARCHITECTURAL COME PAT -- TWO WOULD HAVE TO BE PRESENT.

NOT ALL THREE, BUT ONLY TWO OF THE THREE. I HAVE A FEW SLIDES TO SHOW.

THIS FIRST SLIDE SHOWS SOME OF THE OTHER MORE DETAILED CHARACTERISTICS OF WHAT WE DISCUSSED. ONE THING THAT IS DIFFERENT IS THE COMMISSION MEMBERS SEEM TO THINK THAT AN EIGHT-FOOT MEASURE OF GROUND CLEARANCE WAS TOO MUCH.

ONLY A SEVEN-FOOT CLEARANCE IS NECESSARY TO QUALIFY AS AN OPEN CARPORT AREA.

I DO POINT OUT ONE THING I MENTIONED EARLIER AND THAT IS AS PROPOSED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS WOULD BE OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF CONSIDERING SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS.

THEY STILL HAVE THEIR AUTHORITY TO LOOK AT VARIANCES THAT CARRY A HIGHER BURDEN OF PROOF, BUT LOOKING AT SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS WOULD NOT BE PART OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF SLIDES THAT SHOW VERY ARC TEAK TOUR RALLY -- ARCHITECTURALLY -- OF A HIGHLY COMPATIBLE NATURE. THIS IS WHAT IS ON NORTONTH STREET AND THIS IS WHAT I LOOK -- I BELIEVE IT IS WEST MORLAND. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THESE THREE PICTURES FROM -- WELL, FROM SOMEPLACE OTHER THAN ABILENE.

OF THESE THREE PICTURES CARPORT A WOULD NOT QUALIFY UNDER THESE PROPOSED NEW MEASURES OF ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY. BUT CARPORTS B AND C COULD CONCEIVE -- CONCEIVABLY QUALIFY. IT HAS ROUTINELY ALLOWED NO MEASURE OF ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY OR ROUTINELY ALLOW THE OPEN SIDED CARPORTS AND PATIO COVERS WITH SOME MEASURE OF COMPATIBILITY. IT IS TO GO BACK TO THE 20TH CENTURY WAY AND WE KEEP EVERYTHING THE WAY WE HAVE FOR BETTER OR WORSE.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? >> CAN WE PUT UP THE PICTURE OF THE THREE? I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A QUESTION. I JUST WANT TO LOOK AT IT

ALL. >> BRAD? BRAD, DO YOU WANT TO STAY UP

THERE. >> I THOUGHT HE WAS RUNNING. >> I MEAN, I COME TO THE REALIZATION WHEN REVIEWING OUR PACKET THAT WE HAVE BEEN DIALED IN ON CARPORTS, BUT THESE ARE PATIO COVERS. I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN BE COMFORTABLE OR IF YOU CAN GET ME COMFORTABLE AS THE SAME LANGUAGE GOING IN FRONT WITH A PATIO COVER AS I WITH A CARPORT. A PATIO COVER TO ME SAYS YOU WILL HAVE PEOPLE OUT THERE UNDER KNELT THE PATIO -- UNDERNEATH THE PATIO AND WE ARE PUSHING IT OUT TO THE

STREET. >> I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THERE IS -- OKAY.

>> THE ZONING REGULATIONS FOCUS ON BUILDING. OR IN THE CASE OF AN OPEN SIDED CARPORT OR PATIO COVER THE ABSENCE OF BUILDING. QUO -- WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE A SERIOUS DISTINCTION BETWEEN A ROOF COVERED OR OPEN SIDED STRUCTURE.

RATHER THAN SAYING ROOF COVERED, BUT OTHERWISE OPEN SIDED STRUCTURE WE SAY CARPORT OR PATIO COVER. FUNDAMENTALLY WE ARE LOOKING AT TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUILDING MASS. ONE IS OPEN SIDED AND ONE IS NOT.

[00:35:02]

>> HERE IS THE THOUGHT. WE ARE OPENING THIS UP FOR CARPORTS.

HAVE WE BEEN HAVING A PROBLEM WITH PATIO COVERS ? >> OCCASIONALLY WE WILL HAVE SOMEONE WHO WANTS AN OPEN SIDED PORCH OR PATIO COVER TO OPEN TO THEIR YARD IN THE SAME

FASHION AS A CARPORT. >> CAN WE GO BACK TO THE PICTURE THAT ALEX ADD FOR A SECOND? THE THREE? OKAY.

MY UNDERSTANDING, BRAD, THAT WE ARE CALLING, A, WHICH IS NOT ARCHITECTURALLY COMPATIBLE, WE ARE CALLING THAT A CARPORT AND A PATIO COVER?

IS THAT WHAT I UNDERSTANDING? >> FUNDAMENTALLY WE CONSIDER THEM THE SAME THING.

IT IS OPEN SIDED. IT IS ROOF COVERED. >> THAT'S WHAT I NEED.

>> IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU ARE USING IT FOR. >> GOT YOU.

>> MY MIND WAS TAKEN BACK TO GOOD TIMES AT MY BROTHER-IN-LAW'S HOUSE WHERE WE WOULD MOVE OUR CARS OUT OF THE PATIO COVER AND WE WOULD HAVE A PICNIC OR DANCE UNDER THE PATIO COVER. WHEN WE WERE DONE WE PUT THE CARS BACK IN THERE.

>> GOT IT. >> IT IS THE SAME BUILDING MASS OR DABBING -- OR LACK OF

IT. >> IF IT WAS THE MIDDLE OF THE HOUSE IT WOULD EXTEND THE PATIO. IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR CARS, BUT IT IS BASICALLY THE SAME THING. YOU ARE BUILDING AN AWNING OFF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE WHETHER IT IS FOR YOUR PROTECTION OR CAR PROTECTION. YOU ARE STILL PROTECTED FROM

THE SUN. >> LIKE I SAID, MY ONLY THOUGHT WAS I HAVE BEEN DIALED IN ON CARPORTS. IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE WAY IT IS NOW, I GUESS PATIO COVERS FALL INTO THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. IT DOESN'T SAY IT CAN'T EXTEND PAST THE FRONT SETBACK. IT IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION NOW, RIGHT?

>> YES. >> THEY COULD EXTEND PAST THE FRONT SETBACK.

>> YES. >> WITH A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. >> WHEN THE HOMEOWNERS COME TO US AND SAY WE WOULD LIKE A BIG , FRONT PORCH. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE IT OPEN SIDED. IF IT ENCROACHES INTO THE FRONT YARD WE MAY BRING THEM

TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION ON THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION. >> AND AS LONG AS IT IS FROM

THE PROPERTY LINE. >> WE WOULD FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES TREAT IT EXACTLY THE

SAME AS A CARPORT. >> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ADDED PARAGRAPH C.

PARAGRAPH C HAD SOME MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION WHERE WE ADDED THE ORDINANCE OF CHAPTER EIGHT

WHICH I GUESS -- PARAGRAPH C. >> PARAGRAPH C CONCERNS ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY.

PARAGRAPH D SAYS IF YOU WANT SOMETHING TO QUALIFY AS AN ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBLE

CARPORT OR PATIO COVER YOU HAVE TO SHOW US. >> YOU'RE UNDER F.

I AT THE TOP. A IS GENERAL AND B IS PER FITS AND C -- PER FITS AND C IS

MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION. I ON THE FIRST PAGE. >> OH, YES.

METHODS AND MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION BASICALLY SAYS THAT ALL CARPORTS AND PATIO COVERS HAVE TO HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT AND THEY HAVE TO EXHIBIT COMPLIANCE WITH THE

BUILDING. >> AND IT DIDN'T SAY THAT IN THE ORIGINAL I DON'T THINK.

>> IT DID. IT SAID THAT IN WHAT WE PRESENTED TO YOU IN JANUARY FOR SURE. I BELIEVE POSSIBLY IN DECEMBER.

>> IN THAT ORDINANCE OF CHAPTER EIGHT, THE CONTRACTOR DOES THIS HAS TO BE LICENSED?

IF THAT'S THE WAY I READ IT. >> WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS. >> TO GET A PERMIT.

I A LICENSED CONTRACTOR. CAN I GET A PERMIT TO BUILD A CARPORT IN THE FRONT YARD?

>> AGAIN, I AM NOT A BUILDING CODE EXPERT, BUT IT IS MY LAYMAN'S UNDERSTANDING THAT IF

YOU ARE THE HOMEOWNER, IF IT IS YOUR HOMESTEAD -- >> YOU COULD?

>> YOU COULD GET A BUILDING PERMIT, AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE LICENSED AND BONDED.

>> IN B, THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION, SHALL COUNT THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED

FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. >> IN MOST RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS -- LET'S SAY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS THERE IS A 10% LIMIT ON LOCKED COVERAGE DETACHED

[00:40:07]

BUILDINGS. AS LONG AS A CARPORT IS ATTACHED OR ABUTTING IT IS NOT COUNTED IN THE 10%. IF IT IS DETACHED BY MORE THAN SIX INCHES, IT IS CONSIDERED DE PATCHED -- DETACHED AND SUBJECT TO THE 10% LIMITINGS -- LIMITATION.

THAT IS A FEATURE THAT IS NOT PROPOSED TO BE CHANGED. >> I DON'T MEAN TO DOMINATE

THE CONVERSATION. >> GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD.

>> I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AFTER YOU FINISH. >> I HEEDING -- I READING HERE.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY I APPRECIATE WHAT AFTER THE COMMENTS IN JANUARY I APPRECIATE THE GUIDANCE THAT Y'ALL PROVIDED BOTH TO CITY STAFF AND CITIZENS ON WHAT ARCHITECTURAL COMPLIANCE COULD BE WHILE STILL GIVING FLEXIBILITY TO WHAT THAT NEEDS

TO LOOK LIKE. >> THE IMPRESSION WAS YOU DID NOT WANT A RIGID DEFINITION OF ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY, BUT SOMETHING THAT COULD EXHIBIT SOME MEASURE OF FLEXIBILITY AND PERHAPS OFFER MORE THAN ONE OPINION ON WHAT IS OR ISN'T ARCHITECTURAL.

>> IT SEEMS LIKE YOU GAVE THE CITY EMPLOYEES SOME GROUND TO STAND ON FOR CERTAIN THINGS, BUT ALSO YOU GAVE THE CITIZEN THE OPTIONS TO HAVE A LITTLE FLEXIBILITY IN THE WAY THEY BUILD IT. THE TWO OUT OF THREE PRONGS, I THINK THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN JANUARY SO THAT'S GOOD TO COME UP WITH A COMPROMISE.

>> AND IT DOESN'T -- WHILE WE ARE GIVING FLOWERS OUT, IT DOESN'T -- WELL, WE ARE.

IT DOESN'T HAVE THE INHERENT INTENT THAT WE DON'T WANT TO YOU DO THIS.

I LIKE THAT. >> IT IS LETTING PEOPLE WHO WANT A CARPORT BUILD A CART

PORT. >> IT IS NOT IMPOSITION -- IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO DO IT.

>> AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE ASKING. MOST OF THE PIEM -- MOST OF THE TIME THEY GOT ONE. AND SO IT IS TRYING TO BUILD ALL OF THAT.

>> THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THERE WON'T BE TOUGH JIEMENT CALLS TO MAKE -- TOUGH

JUDGMENT CALLS TO MAKE. >> AGREED. >> HOPEFULLY WE WILL GET

THERE. >> THIS IS ON PAGE THREE. THE INTERIOR SIDES BUILDING SETBACK IN PARAGRAPH A THERE, WE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ATTACHED AND DETACHED, AND PART OF THAT YOU JUST ANSWERED WAS DETACHED FALLS INTO THAT -- WELL, IT IS MORE THAN SIX INCHES. IT FALLS UNDER THE ACCESSORY OF STRUCTURE CRITERIA.

WHY DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ATTACHED AND DETACHED OTHER THAN FOR THAT?

>> TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE EXPECT IN OTHER RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.

IT IS A DEBATABLE ISSUE. >> AND YOU SAID IT WAS ONE OF THE HARDEST THINGS YOU HAD TO

DO. I ASKED THE SAME QUESTION. >> IT IS A DEBATABLE ISSUE.

IT HAS BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE, AND THIS STEMS FROM DEALING WITH PEOPLE'S QUESTIONS ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS. IT IS NOT NOW ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT IF I'M -- IF I'M ATTACHING OR -- IF I'M ATTACHING AN OPEN SIDED CARPORT TO A PATIO HOME, STRICT APPLICATION OF THE RULE WOULD SAY THAT IT'S GOT TO BE THREE FEET FROM THE INTERIOR SIDE PROPERTY LINE, EVEN IF IT IS ATTACHED TO MY PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE WHICH HAS A 0 LINE.

THAT SOUNDS PECULIAR. WE SAY, OKAY, WE'LL COME UP WITH AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING THAT IF IT IS ATTACHED TO THE PATIO HOME, WELL THE CARPORT COULD BE THERE.

[00:45:04]

IT CAN GO OVER THE SAME WAY. WE DID NOT GO SO FAR AS TO SAY WELL, IF IT IS DETACHED THEN YOU COULD DO IT WHENEVER YOU WANTED. THAT'S JUST TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH HOW WE TREAT THE DETACHED CARPORTS IN OTHER RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.

IT IS A DEBATABLE ISSUE. >> IN B, I AM NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND WHY WE HAVE TWO AND A HALF -- AT LEAST TWO AND A HALF OF THREE SIDES. I AM NOT SURE WE UNDERSTAND

THAT. >> WE GET ALL KINDS OF INTERESTING AND I I WILL SAY IT, BIZARRE SELECTIONS THAT HOMEOWNERS HAVE PARTICULARLY SURROUNDING THE OUTDOOR KITCHENS THAT PEOPLE WANT TO HAVE, AND THAT PEOPLE WANT TO HAVE THEM UNDER A PATIO COVER THAT EXTENDS CLOSE TO THE SIDE YARD. SOMETIMES THEY MEET THE STANDARDS OF OPENNESS, AND SOMETIMES THEY DON'T. BECAUSE IT IS AN OUTDOOR KITCHEN YOU MIGHT WANT TO HAVE COUNTER SPACE. YOU MIGHT WANT TO HAVE OUTDOOR GRILLS. IF IT IS IN THE SIDE YARD THAT IS OTHERWISE REQUIRED AT THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING WE ALLOW IT TO BE CONSIDERED OPEN IF IT IS OPEN ON TWO AND A HALF OF

THREE SIDES. >> OKAY. >> WE GET A LOT OF INTERESTING OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES THAT HOMEOWNERS SELECT, BUT WE THOUGHT WE NEEDED SOME MEASURE OF OPENNESS IF YOU'RE GOING TO EXTEND INTO THE SIDE YARD THAT IS OTHERWISE REQUIRED IN THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING. IN SHORT THAT MOSTLY CONCERNS PATIO COVERS AND NOT CARPORTS.

>> RIGHT. >> I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAD. KIND OF A CLEAN UP ITEM ON PAGE 5, BRAD, AT THE VERY TOP THERE. IT SAYS REMOVE PARAGRAPH 12 FROM THE SUBSECTION, THAT SHOULD BE 1441D. THE VERY TOP.

>>, OH, OKAY. >> AT THE TOP REMOVE PARA -- PARAGRAPH 12 FROM 1441D.

>> D? >> YES. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ? I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE CARE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AGAIN, I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE ON THIS AND AGAIN WITHOUT REPEATING MYSELF TOO MANY TIMES, I APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT IN WHICH THIS IS DONE. SO MANY TIMES WE DO THINGS I THINK AND THE SPIRIT IS NO,

BUT THIS TO ME IS NOT THAT, AND I APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT. >> I STARTED IN -- OF COURSE, BRUCE IS GONE, BUT BRUCE AND I HAVE COME UP WITH SOMETHING REALLY GOOD OR YOU GUYS HAVE COME UP WITH SOMETHING REALLY GOOD, AND I APPRECIATE THE ARCHITECTURAL STUFF.

I STRUGGLE WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL STUFF. WE PUT IN THREE OPTIONS AND YOU GAVE ME TWO OF THEM AND SO IT SEALED THE DEAL. I THINK IT IS SOMETHING WE

OUGHT TO MOVE IT ON TO COUNCIL. >> IS THAT A MOTION?

>> I WILL MAKE IT A MOTION. >> I HAVE A MOTION TO SEND IT TO COUNCIL.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> I WILL SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A

SECOND. >> MR. BARNETTE. >> YES.

>> MISS RUST -- RUSSELL. >> YES. >> MR. ROSENBAUM.

>> YES. >> REVEREND LANGFORD. >> YES.

>> THE MOTION CARRIES. >> DIRECTORS REPORT PLEASE. >> YES, THANKS, CHAIRMAN.

[DIRECTORS REPORT]

ONLY TWO ITEMS IN THE REPORT TODAY. THESE ARE TWO CASE THAT'S WERE PREVIOUSLY BEFORE THIS BOARD. BOTH WERE APPROVED BY COUNCIL AT THE JANUARY 9TH MEETING. ANY QUESTIONS? I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT AGENDA ITEM IT SAYS THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS.

[9. Election of Officers]

I WILL ACCEPT SOME GUIDANCE. WE NEED TO FILL ALL OF THE SLOTS.

[00:50:01]

I NEED HELP HERE PLEASE. >> SURE. SO POSITIONS THAT ARE

AVAILABLE -- >> WOW. >> I A SMALL PERSON.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER CHAIRMAN PRO-TEM SECRETARY TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN AND SERGEANT AT ARMS. AND I CAN GO OVER THE DEFINITIONS OF THOSE.

>> THOSE ARE THE POSITIONS? I THINK WE NEED TO GO OVER THEM.

>> THE PRESIDING OFFICER IS THE COMMISSION SHALL ELECT A CHAIRMAN FROM AMONG ITS OFFICIAL MEMBERS ANNUALLY AT THEIR REGULAR MEETING. THE CHAIRMAN MAY BE RE-ELECTED OF THE OFFICE AND MAY SERVE NO MORE THAN THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS IN THE OFFICE.

>> IS THIS MY THIRD ONE? DO YOU KNOW? DOES ANYBODY KNOW?

>> I CANNOT ANSWER THAT. YOU STUMPED ME. >> I JUST ASKING.

NEVER MIND. KEEP GOING. HUSH.

LET HER TALK. I DON'T KNOW. >> APPOINTMENT HISTORIES.

ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE. 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015. >> FROM WHICH DATE?

THE FIRST ONE WAS WHEN? >> JULY 13TH, 2006. >> LORD HAVE MERCY.

I'M SORRY. >> THAT'S SERVICE. I UNSURE AS TO HOW MANY TERMS

YOU SERVED AS CHAIRMAN. >> I DON'T KNOW. >>

>> I THINK I DID. OKAY. >> SO THIS WOULD BE YOUR

SECOND. ONE MORE. >> WOW.

Y'ALL SURE KNOW HOW TO HURT A GUY. >> THE COMMISSION CAN CHOOSE A CHAIRMAN PRO-TEM IN CASE YOU ARE ABSENT AND THAT PERSON DOES TAKE OVER THE DUTIES OF

THE CHAIRMAN. >> OKAY. >> AND THEN SECRETARY IS THE MEMBER -- THIS ONE DOES HAVE SOME STIPULATIONS. MAY SERVE NO MORE THAN TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS IN OFFICE. I THINK OUR SECRETARY -- RIGHT, OUR SECRETARY SIGNS THE PLATS, BUT I BELIEVE WE NEED TO ELECT A SECRETARY BECAUSE THAT POSITION WAS VACANT.

AND 10 -- AND THEN A TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN IN CASE THE CHAIRMAN AND THE PRO-TEM CHAIRMAN ARE

NOT AVAILABLE. >> WOW. >> WE ARE COVERING ALL OF OUR

BASES. >> WOW. >> AND THEN SERGEANT OF ARMS IS SOMEBODY WHO IS APPOINTED FOR ONE YEAR -- STARTING IN OCTOBER.

NOT SURE WHY THAT IS THE FIRST TERM STARTING ON THE FIRST MONDAY IN OCTOBER.

BASICALLY THAT'S THE PERSON WHO MAKES SURE THERE IS KIND OF A POINT OF ORDER THERE AND

KEEPS EVERYBODY ON TRACK. >> THAT WAS ME. >> WOW.

OKAY. >> IT IS HARD TO SAY CHAI MAN AND VICE -- CHAIRMAN AND VIE

CHAIRMAN AND A THIRD ALTERNATE. >> JUST IN CASE.

>> WE HAD THAT HAPPEN. I HAD TO AB -- ABSTAIN FROM A DISCUSSION AND I WAS LEADING BECAUSE FRED WAS GONE. WE BROUGHT IN TIM TO LEAD THE DISCUSSION.

>> SO IN TERMS JUST LIKE THAT OR IF TWO PEOPLE -- IF THE TWO PEOPLE WERE MISSING, THEN THAT

THIRD PERSON COULD STEP IN. >>

THAT YOU CAN ELECT. >> CAN ONE PERSON HOLD TWO POSITIONS?

>> I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. >> SECRETARY, WHO ARE THE TWO

THAT -- SO NO. >> EXECUTIVE PRO-TEM WOULD BE THE THIRD IN LINE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THE BI-LAWS ARE DETAILED ENOUGH THAT THEY PROHIBIT SOMEONE FROM BEING, FOR EXAMPLE, A SECRETARY AND A PRO-TEM. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT IS NECESSARILY PROHIBITED. I WILL SAY THAT THIS WAS SET UP A LONGTIME AGO, THESE

BI-LAWS WERE FORMED MANY YEARS BEFORE I CAME, FOR EXAMPLE. >> SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SECRETARY, PRO-TEM AND WHAT IS THE OTHER POSITION? I'M SORRY.

>> PRO-TEM, SECRETARY, TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN AND THE SERGEANT OF ARMS.

>> TEMP CHAIRMAN? TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN, SECRETARY. IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

THAT AND PRO-TEM? >> TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN IS IF PRO-TEM AND CHAIRMAN WERE ABSENT OR MAYBE A PERSON WHO IS ACTING AS CHAIRMAN HAS TO ABSTAIN.

[00:55:04]

>> AND WE NEED TO ELECT THESE OFFICERS TODAY, DO I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY?

IS THAT RIGHT? >> THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN, IS THAT ELECTED OR CHOSEN WHEN

THE TIME IS NEEDED? >> IT CAN BE CHOSEN AT THE TIME IT IS NEEDED.

THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION SHALL SERVE AS A TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN IN THE

EVENT THAT YOU MIGHT NEED THAT. >> SO A TEMP CHAIRMAN IS NOT

AN ELECTED POSITION? >> I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO CHOOSE A TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.

>> SO APPOINTING AT THE TIME OF NEED. >> SECRETARY PRO-TEM AND THEN

SERGEANT OF ARMS. >> YES. >> OKAY.

>> DO WE NEED TO NOMINATE --

AGAIN. >> IT IS A GOOD IDEA. >> DO YOU DO THESE INDIVIDUALLY OR ALL AT ONCE? SOMETIMES IT IS CLEARER IF YOU DO IT INDIVIDUALLY.

IF THIS IS SOMETHING WHERE THERE IS NOT A LOT OF CONTROVERSY AND SOMEBODY MAKES A MOTION FOR THE SLATE AND THERE IS A SECOND AND EVERYBODY IS IN FAVOR WOULD BE PRETTY CLEAR. YOU CAN DEFINITELY BREAK IT UP OR VOTE ALTOGETHER.

>> FOR THE SAKE OF THE MINUTES,ING IT MIGHT BE -- MINUTES, IT MAY BE EASIER TO

GO ONE BY ONE. >> I CAN SAY I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE FRED FOR CHAIRMAN.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SECOND THAT. >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY I?

>> I. >> OPPOSED. I AM NOT GOING TO OPPOSE.

THAT IS DONE. YOU SAID AFTER THAT WAS VICE CHAIR? OH, PRO-TEM. WE NEED A NOMINATION FOR PRO-TEM.

I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE REVEREND CLINT. >> I WILL SECOND THE MOTION.

>> ALL IN FAVOR SAY I. >> I. >> OPPOSED SAME SIGN.

THAT'S PRO-TESTIMONY. THE -- PRO-TEM. THE NEXT ONE IS SECRETARY.

ANY NOMINATIONS FOR SECRETARY? >> I WILL NOMINATE BILL?

>> YOU WILL NOMINATE BILL? >> SECOND. >> WHOA! A QUICK DRAW.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY I? >> I. >> OPPOSED SAME SIGN.

BILL, YOU'RE IT. WELCOME. AND THEN SERGEANT OF ARMS. NOMINATIONS FOR SERGEANT OF ARMS. SOMEBODY TO KEEP US IN LINE.

GOOD LUCK. >> I NOMINATE ALEX. >> ALEX?

>> I SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY I. >> OPPOSED SAME SIGN.

WELCOME AND GOOD LUCK. DID I GET THEM ALL? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> SO NOW DO WE NEED TO DO A THIRD IN CASE OR WE CAN WORK THAT OUT AT THE TIME.

>> WORK IT OUT WHENEVER IT COMES TO THAT POINT. IT DOES SAY THAT YOU CAN JUST SAY THE SECRETARY IS THAT PERSON. OR YOU CAN APPOINT SOMEBODY

ELSE. >> SO IT HASN'T BEEN A PROBLEM BECAUSE FRED MAKES SURE WE --

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.