Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12027 ORD - 04/24/1974 (3)JRR:RWC:vp :4/24/74 • 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 DIANE H. KIRMSE BY GRANTING A SPECIAL, COUNCIL T)VRMTT FOR Ul- A pF TaL SKOESo ON LOTS 2. 2A AND 2B, BLOCK 9. SEASIDE ADDITION, SITUATED IN THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS INDICATED THEREON, A COPY OF WHICH IS ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF; 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 Diane H. Kirmse 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, April 24, 1974 , at Special 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: I 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 making the change hereinafter set out. 1202'7 SECTION 2. That a Special Permit be granted covering Lots 2, 2A and 2B, Block 3, Seaside Addition, located in the City of Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas, for gift and specialty shops, in accordance with the site plan and elevations indicated thereon, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, and subject to all other conditions of A -T District. In the event the Board of Adjustment grants any special exception or variance to the Zoning Ordinance, applicable to the property included in the Special Permit herein granted, other than the one specified in this Special Permit, said Special Permit will be void and of no force and effect whatsoever. 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 5. 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 the suspension of the Charter rule and that this ordinance be passed finally on the date of its introduction and take effect and be in full force and effect from and after its passage, IT IS ACCORDINGLY SO ORDAINED, this the day of April, 1974. ATTEST: City APPROVED Secretary DA OF APRIL, 19 MAYO f1�� THE CITY OF CORPUS CRRISTI, TEXAS City Attorney • Corpus Christi, Texas • day of , 19-7-If 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 Rev. Harold T. Branch Thomas V. Gonzales Ricardo Gonzalez Gabe Lozano, Sr. J. Howard Stark The above ordinance was passed by the following vote: Jason Luby James T. Acuff Rev. Harold T. Branch Thomas V. Gonzales Ricardo Gonzalez Gabe Lozano, Sr. J. Howard Stark 6 I'] OFFICE of the CITY ATTORNEY April 24, 1974 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 NO. 6106, AS AMENDED, UPON APPLICATION OF DIANE H. EMWE BY GRANTING A SPECIAL COUNCIL PERMIT FOR GIFT AND SPECIALTY SHOPS " ON LOTS 2, 2A AND 2B, BLOCK '3; SEASIDE ADDITION, SITUATED IN THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS; KEEPING IN EFFECT ALL OTHER PROVISIONS 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 Secretary, 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 hermony 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. r • The proposed change in zoning is not an extension of existing B -1 Neighborhood Business Zoning or any other.classification of business zoning. The subject property acquired its present A -T zoning approximately 25 to 30 years ago. To avoid one of the conditions of the objection on the basis of "spot zoning ", conditions of traffic, physical condition of existing structures, land use patterns, and population density must change subsequent to the time the property has acquired its present zoning status. In the 25 to 30 years that have expired since the subject property acquired its present A -T zoning, there is nothing to indicate that the factors discussed above have undergone any change. There has been no rezoning activity in the area since the subject property was annexed into the City during the 1941 -50 period. The fact that the improvements to Ocean Drive may have increased the traffic volume thereon would not, in and of itself, be a change in conditions sufficient to justify granting the proposed B-1 zoning. Assuming such a change has occurred and that the traffic speed has increased, such factors would, in my opinion, mitigate against the granting of business zoning in the subject area. Alternatively, the evidence before the Planning Commission shows the proposed use would be detrimental to the 1) traffic safety and /or circulation efficiency, 2) and would constitute a material increase in the prevailing noise level in the case area. Further, the permitted uses, if rezoning is granted as requested would create inconsistent and unharmonious uses in the case area, i.e., a parcel of B -1 would be thrust into a surrounding, established residential district. Tn addition, the requested change of zoning would permit a business use intrusion into an area entirely surrounded by lend zoned for residential uses, such uses being incompatible with the established residential character of the area. Therefore, to grant the request as discussed above would, in my opinion, constitute illegal "spot zoning ". RespectD,Ily submitted, James R. Riggs City Attorney BY { R. W. Coffin Senior Assist nt City Attorney cc: R. Marvin Townsend, City Manager Charles N. Cartwright, Chairman, Planning Commission Ernest Briones, Director of Planning and Urban Development 0 0 OFFICE of the CITY ATTORNEY April 24, 1974 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. 6106, AS AMENDED, UPON APPLICATION OF FRIENDLY FINANCE INC. BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONING ON 'LOTS 23 AND 24, BLOCK 3, LEXINGTON ESTATES SUBDIVISION SITUATED IN THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS, FROM "R -1B" ONE- FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT AND "AB" PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DISTRICT TO 'B-3 BUSINESS DISTRICT; KEEPING IN EFFECT ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE EXISTING ORDI- NANCE 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 Secretary, 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 objection filed herein is to the change proposed on Lot 23 only, from R -1B to B -4. 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, morals 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 in zoning is not an extension of existing B -4 General Business Zoning. The subject property acquired its present R -1B zoning approximately 25 to 30 years ago. To avoid one of the conditions of the objection on the basis of "spot zoning ", conditions of traffic, physical condition of existing structures, land use patterns, and population density must change subsequent to the time the property has acquired its present zoning status. In the 25 to 30 years that have expired since the subject property acquired its present R -1B zoning, there is nothing to indicate that the factors discussed above have undergone any change. The only condition referred to above that has experienced any change is the improvement to Padre Island Drive, which has resulted in the frontage street to Lot 24 being reduced to a one -way street. This fact would not render Lot 23 less useable as a residential property. Alternatively, the evidence before the Planning Commission shows the proposed use would be detrimental to the 1) traffic safety and /or circulation efficiency, and 2) would constitute a material increase in the prevailing noise and glare level in the case area. Further, the permitted uses, if rezoning is granted as requested would create inconsistent and unharmonious uses in the case area, i.e., a parcel of B-4 would be thrust into an established single - family area, pre- dominately developed and used as a residential district. Therefore, to grant the request as discussed above would, in my opinion, constitute illegal "spot zoning ". Respectfully submitted, James R. Riggs City Attorney � R. W. Coffin Senior Ass t City Attorney cc: R. Marvin Townsend, City Manager Charles N. Cartwright, Chairman, Planning Commission Ernest Briones, Director of Planning and Urban Development