The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11957 ORD - 03/20/1974JRR :W :2- 27- 74:lst AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI ADOPTED ON THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1937, APPEARING OF RECORD IN VOLUME 9, PAGES 565, ET SEQ, OF THE ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION RECORDS, AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME AND PARTICULARLY AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 6106, AS AMENDED, UPON APPLICATION OF VICTOR GONZALEZ AND DR. ERNESTO SIERRA BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONING ON LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK C, STASA SUBDIVISION SITUATED IN THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS, FROM "R -1B" ONE- FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT TO AB PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DISTRICT ; KEEPING IN EFFECT ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE EXISTING ORDINANCE AS AMENDED; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has forwarded to the City Council its reports and recommendations concerning the application of Victor Gonzalez and Dr. Ernesto Sierra for amendment to the zoning map of the City of Corpus Christi; and WHEREAS, public hearing was held at which hearing all persons wishing to appear and be heard were heard, to consider the same before the City Council of the City of Corpus Christi, in accordance with proper notice to the public, said public hearing having been held on Wednesday February 27, 1974 , at Regular Council Meeting of the City Council in the Council Chamber at City Hall in the City of Corpus Christi; and WHEREAS, by motion duly made, seconded and carried, it was decided by the City Council that to approve the hereinafter set forth amendment would best serve public health, necessity and convenience and the general welfare of the City of Corpus Christi and its citizens: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED -BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Corpus Christi, Texas, passed on the 27th day of August, 1937, appearing of record in Volume 9, Pages 565, et seq, of the Ordinance and Resolution Records, as amended from time to time, and in particular as amended by Ordinance No. 6106, as amended, be and the same is,hereby amended by malting the change hereinafter set out. 11957 SECTION 2. That the zoning of Lots 1 and 2, Block C, Stasa Subdivision, located in the City of Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas, be and the same is hereby changed from "R -1B" One - family Dwelling District to "AB" Professional Office District. SECTION 3. That the official zoning map of the City of Corpus Christi, Texas, be, and the same is hereby, amended as herein ordained. SECTION 4. That the Zoning Ordinance and Map of the City of Corpus Christi, Texas, approved on the 27th day of August, 1937, as amended from time to time, except as herein changed, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION S. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in con- flict herewith are hereby expressly repealed. SECTION 6. That the necessity of immediately making aforesaid change for the purpose of maintaining at all times a comprehensive zoning ordinance for the City of Corpus Christi creates a public emergency and an imperative public necessity requiring the suspension of the Charter rule that no ordinance or resolution shall be passed finally•on the date of its introduction and that such ordinance or resolution shall be read at three several meetings of the City Council, and the Mayor having declared that such emergency and necessity exist, and having requested Corpus Christi, Texas 42�f& day of 19_ TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Corpus Christi, Texas For the reasons set forth in the emergency clause of the foregoing ordinance, a public emergency and imperative necessity exist for the suspen- sion of the Charter rule or requirement that no ordinance or resolution shall be passed finally on the date it is introduced, and that such ordinance or resolution shall be read at three meetings of the City Council; I, therefore, request that you suspend said Charter rule or requirement and pass this ordi- nance finally on the date it is introduced, or at the present meeting of the City Council. Respectfully, MAYO THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS The Charter rule was suspended by the following vote: Jason Luby James T. Acuff Q�N Rev. Harold T. Branch -4 Thomas V. Gonzales Ricardo Gonzalez Gabe Lozano, Sr. J. Howard Stark The above ordinance was passed by the fo lowing vote: Jason Luby James T. Acuff Rev. Harold T. Branch Thomas V. Gonzales Ricardo Gonzalez Gabe Lozano, Sr. J. Howard Stark .I 1�1 OFFICE of the CITY ATTORNEY February 24, 197+ LEGAL OBJECTION TO AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI ADOPTED ON THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1937, APPEARING OF RECORD IN VOLUME 9, PAGES 565, ET SEQ, OF THE ORDINANCE AND,RESOLUTION RECORDS, AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME AND PARTICULARLY AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE N0. 61o6, AS AMENDED, UPON APPLICATION OF VICTOR GONZALEZ AND DR. ERNFSTO STERR4 BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONING ON LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK C S ARA S DIMS ON SITUATED IN THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS, FROM "R 1B" ONE- FAMILY MIELLING DISTRICT TO "AB" PROFESSIONAL (]R`fi Tr,T- DISTRICT; DING IN EFFECT ALL OTHER PRO- VISIONS OF THE EXISTING ORDINANCE AS AMENDED; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. For the reasons hereinafter stated, legal objection is hereby filed, through the City Secretory, with the City Council to the captioned ordinance, pursuant to City Charter, Article IV, Section 25(a), and prior to action upon said ordinance by the City Council: The rezoning to be effected by the captioned ordinance constitutes "spot zoning ", or irrelevant zoning, by the rules of law in the State of Texas. Rezoning is to be made on changed conditions or for the substantial improvement of or protection of the public health, safety, morale or welfare, consistent and in harmony with the use of surrounding property and, in no event, may rezoning be to the detriment of rights of other property owners. It is my opinion that there is not a sufficient change in conditions relative to the subject property to warrant rezoning, and the evidence in the case fails to show that this rezoning will substantially improve or protect the public health, safety, morals or welfare. The evidence does compel the conclusion that the rights of other property owners in the surround- ing area will be adversely affected and the use proposed is not harmonious with adjacent uses. The proposed change would rezone R -1B Lot to AB Professional Office District. Uses permitted in the AB District that would be incompatible with the surrounding R -1B District include two - family dwellings, multiple family dwellings, boarding, rooming, or lodging houses, private clubs, fraternities, sororities, business and professional offices, clinics or hospitals, includ- ing a pharmacy shop, child nurseries, apartment hotels, studios for artists, photographers, sculptors, musicians, and /or a beauty culturist and hair stylist shop, each of which is a business or commercial enterprise. There- fore, the proposed change would create a business use in the midst of and entirely surrounded by a neighborhood of single- family uses. The proposed change in zoning is not an extension of an existing AB District or any other classification of business zoning. The subject property acquired its present R -1B zoning by virtue of annexation in the period of 1941 to 1950. With one exception of a 3-1 zoning West of subject property which was granted approxi- mately eight years ago, there has been no rezoning activity in the area of the request since the annexation. To avoid one of the conditions of the objectional basis of "spot zoning ", conditions of traffic, physical condition of existing structures, land use patterns, and population density must change subsequent to the time property has acquired its present zoning status. The only significant change in the conditions described that has occurred in the area of the request is the widening and improvement of Gollihar Street. As a result of this improve- ment, traffic volumes have unquestionably increased on Gollihar Street. How- ever, this factor alone would not justify business development to intrude into the residential area of the neighborhood of the subject property. Therefore, to grant the request as discussed above would, in my opinion, constitute illegal "spot zoning ". Respectfully submitted, James R. Riggs City Attorney By /& Q ... R. W. Coffin Senior AssisIght City Attorney cc: R. Marvin Townsend, City Manager Charles N. Cartwright, Chairman, Planning Commission Ernest Briones, Director of Planning and Urban Development