Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 04/11/2012MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers - City Hall April 11, 2012 5:30 P.M. COMMISSIONERS: Rudy Garza, Chairman A. Javier Huerta, Vice- Chairman Mark Adame absent; Marco Castillo Gabriel G uerra Arrived at 5:51 p.m. Evon J. Kelly Govind Nadkarni Absent* John C. Tamez John Taylor STAFF: Dan McGinn, AICP, Interim Manager, Land Development Annika Gunning, Interim Senior Planner Miguel S. Saldana, AICP, Senior Planner Robert Payne, AICP, Senior Planner Lisa Aguilar, Assistant City Attorney Linda Williams, Recording Secretary Si usted quiere dirigirse a la comision y su ingles es limitado, habra un interprete de espanol a ingles en la.junta para ayudarle. CALL TO ORDER . The meeting was called to order by Chairman Garza at 5:30 p.m. and a quorum was declared. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the March 28, 2012 minutes was made by Commissioner Taylor and seconded by Commissioner Tamez. Motion passed with Commissioners Adame, Guerra and Nadkarni absent. III. PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS A.' PLATS Continued Plat Miguel Saldana, Development Services, read Continued Plat Item "a" into record as shown below. Mr. Saldana stated Continued Plat Item "a" satisfied all requirements of the Unified Development Code and Staff recommended approval. a. 021201 8-P009 (12- 22000009) The Cotta es at Southlake Unit 1 Final — 10.236 Acres Located east of Rodd Field Road and north of Slough Road. The public hearing was opened with no coming forward in favor or in opposition and the public hearing was closed. Motion to approve Continued Plat Item "a° was made by Commissioner Tamez and seconded by Commissioner Taylor. Motion passed with Commissioners Adame, Guerra and Nadkarni absent. Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2012 Page 2 Ill. PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS (cont.) A. PLATS 2. New Plats Mr. Saldana read New Plats Items "a" into record as shown below. Mr. Saldana stated New Plats Items "a" satisfied all requirements of the Unified Development Code and Staff recommended approval. a. 0412033 -NP018 (12- 23000008) Padre Island- Corpus Christi Mariner's Cay, Block 85, Lots 1 A & 2A (Final Replat - 0.482 Acre)_, Located south of Jackfish Avenue and .west of South Padre Island Drive (PR 22). The public hearing was opened with no one coming forward in favor or in opposition and the public hearing was closed. Motion to approve New Plats Item "a" was made by Commissioner Tamez and seconded by Vice Chairman Huerta. Motion passed with Commissioners Adame, Guerra and Nadkarni absent. Mr. Saldana read New Plats Items "b," °c," "d," "e" and 'T' into record as shown below. Mr. Saldana continued that Staff received a letter from the representatives requesting that the plats be tabled to the April 25, 2012 meeting and Staff recommended approval of the request. b. 0.412035-N P020 (12- 23000010) Alameda Park, Block 6, Lot 24A (Final Replat - 0.512 Acre) Located east of Everhart Road between Pompano Place and Harry Street. C. 0412036 -NP021 (12- 23000011) Montrose Park Addition, Block 7, Lot 1A (Final Replat - 0.390 Acre) _ Located south of Ruth Street and east of Duncan Street. d. 0412037 -NP022 (12- 21000007) Beach Portion, Block 12, Lot 13 (Final Replat -1.34 Acres) Located north of Lawrence Street between Mesquite and Chaparral Streets. e. 0412038 -NP023 (12- 21000008) SPIDIRyan Addition Lots 1A & 1 B (Final Replat -- 2.50 Acres) Located south of South Padre Island Drive (SH 358) between Daly Drive and Nile Drive. t. 0412039 -NP024 (12- 21000009) Shannon Addition, Block 1. Lot 7BR (Final - 0,272 Acre) Located south of Coleman Street and east of North Staples Street. The public hearing was opened with no one coming forward in favor or in opposition and the public hearing was closed. Motion to approve tabling New Plats Items "b," "c," "d," "e" and "f" until the April 25, 2012 meeting was made by Commissioner Kelly and seconded by Commissioner Tamez. Motion passed with Commissioners Adame, Guerra and Nadkarni absent. KADEVELOPMENTSVC&SHAREW. PLANNING COMMISSIOW012 PM2012 MINUTES104.11.12,PCMINS.DOC Planning Commission Meeting April ii, 2012 Page 3 III. PUBLIC HERING AGENDA ITEMS (wont.) (Commissioner Gabriel Guerra arrived at 5:51 p.m.)" B. ZONING 1. New Zoning Annika Gunning, Development Services, addressed the commission. Ms. Gunning began her presentation by reading New Zoning Item "a" into record as shown below. Ms. Gunning presented several aerial views of the subject project. Ms. Gunning continued that the property was located in the Southside Area Development Plan and was planned for commercial uses. The purpose of the zoning request was to allow an extermination business to occupy a 1,000 square -foot tenant space and a fabrication business of decorative products for event rentals to occupy another 1,000 square foot tenant space within a 3,000 square foot office building located south of South Padre Island Drive between Ayers Street and Kostoryz Road. a. Case No. 0412 -02 (12- 10000012) — Robert Bujanos, Jr.: A change of zoning from a "CG -2" General Commercial District to an "IL" Light Industrial District resulting in a change of future land use from commercial to light industrial. Property is described as being the south 110 feet of Lot 9, Block 1, Lexington Subdivision, located approximately 1,100 feet east of Ayers Street and on the south side of South Padre Island Drive (SH 358). Ms. Gunning continued that the proposed zoning change was not consistent with the adopted Future Land Use Plan and the property's current zoning did not allow the proposed uses of an extermination business or fabrication of decorative products; which are both classified as "light industrial services." Ms. Gunning stated that the applicant has his law practice in the existing structure, which totals 3,000 square feet. The applicant's plan is to lease 1,000 square feet each to two tenants - an extermination business for office and storage space and a fabrication business of large decorative products used for special events. The applicant's law practice would continue in the remaining 1,000 square feet for office space. Ms. Gunning continued that north of the subject property was the freeway; which included commercial uses, south of the property was an apartment building consisting of ten (10) units located in an industrial zoning district, east of the property were commercial uses of retail sales and west of the property was .a vacant commercial building. Ms. Gunning stated that fourteen (14) notices were mailed to property owners within the notification area and only the applicant returned a notice in favor. Ms. Gunning continued that Staff's recommendation was denial of the change of zoning to the "IL" Light Industrial District and in lieu thereof approval of the "CG-2/SP" General Commercial District with a Special Permit subject to the following conditions: USES: The only use allowed other than those allowed by right in the "CG -2" General Commercial District is an extermination services use and fabrication of decorative products for event rentals. K:10EVELOPMENTSVCSISHAAEDII. PLANNING COMMISSION12012 P02012 MINLITE15SO4.11.12.PWINS.DOC Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2012 Page 4 III. PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS (cont.) B. ZONING 1. New Zoning 2, STRUCTURE: The floor area of the extermination service use is limited to 1,000 square feet. The floor area of the fabrication of decorative products for event rentals is also limited to 1,000 square feet. Expansion of the structure for the allowed uses or accessory uses is not permitted. 3. OUTSIDE STORAGE: Outside storage of supplies, materials and equipment is prohibited. 4. SCREENING: A solid screening fence is required where the property is adjacent to residential uses. TIME LIMIT: This Special Permit shall expire one year from the date of this ordinance unless the property is being used as outlined in Conditions 1, 2, 3 and 4. After Staff's presentation, the floor was opened for comments and discussion from commissioners. Commissioner Taylor asked if staff had an idea of what kind of materials that could be stored on site and if they were hazardous and Ms. Gunning answered that chemicals used in the exterminating business would be stored, but not in large quantities and she did not know the level of hazard associated with them. Commissioner Castillo asked what type of decorative products for rentals would be fabricated on the site and Ms. Gunning answered the products included waterfalls or fountains, plastic columns, arches, portable dance floors — any type of decorations that could be used for weddings, parties or other social events. Ms. Gunning added that an event coordinator would come to their site and rent those items needed for the occasion. Commissioner Castillo asked if the applicant lost his tenants for whatever reason, would the special permit be voided and the zoning would go back to its original base zoning and Ms. Gunning answered yes. Vice Chairman Huerta stated that in order for the applicant to be able to lease the space for occupancy, he has to ensure there was a two -hour wall separation in place. After further discussion concluded, the public hearing was opened. ,John Kendall, 5866 South Staples Street, Suite 330 addressed the commission. Mr. Kendall stated he was the applicant's representative and he was at the meeting to answer any questions commissioners might have. Mr. Kendall stated in response to the inquiry regarding the types of materials that would be stored at the site, the pesticides would be housed in 6- gallon containers and the amounts on site would depend on how many customers would be serviced. Mr. Kendall stated the exterminating owner was from out of town and would not be there every day. Mr, Kendall continued that the applicant has been trying to lease this space for some time and the site was more prone for service type industries. Mr. Kendall stated the applicant would like to keep the "IL" Light Industrial base zoning in that as a tenant changed, he would not have to come back to the Planning Commission requesting a zoning change in order for him to be able to lease the space because the uses associated with the special permit were restrictive. KaOEVELOPMENTSVMSHAREW PLANNING COMMISSIONUO12 PC12012 MINLITESl04.11.12.PCMINS 00C Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2012 Page 5 III. PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS (cunt.) B. ZONING 1. New Zoning Commissioner Taylor asked if the time limit would change for the special permit if one of the tenants moved out and it was answered 2the special permit would not be affected as long as the new tenant's business was the same as the previous tenant and satisfied the conditions of the special permit. Commissioner Tamez asked how would the "IL" Light Industrial District affect some of the surrounding businesses and Mr. Kendall answered that the businesses would .not be impacted at that location. Mr. Kendall restated that the apartment building was located in an industrial zoning district. Vice Chairman Huerta stated if the Planning Commission approved staff's recommendation, the building would be divided for the two tenant spaces — 1,000 square feet for each half. Vice Chairman Huerta continued that if one of the tenants decided to leave and a new tenant could not be found that fitted the conditions, the applicant could lose the special permit or he would have a 3,000 square -foot building with 2,000 square feet of it restricted by a special permit. The applicant would have to come back to the commission to rezone the property or amend the special permit so that he would be able to lease it. Dan McGinn, Development Services, addressed the commission. Mr. McGinn stated that staff could go back and review the list of light industrial uses to see if any other uses would be appropriate in the commercial district. Mr. McGinn continued that the special permit would not be limited to just the square footage, but it would affect the entire building. Vice Chairman Huerta stated the special permit would either be for the entire building or the subject property would be rezoned to the "IL" Light Industrial District. The special permit only allows those two uses — extermination and fabricator. Commissioner Tamez stated if the "IL" Light Industrial District was approved what kind of restrictions or uses would be imposed and it was answered that a buffer beyond that of a fence would not be required next to the apartments because the apartments are in an 112' District. Because of some of the allowable uses in an "IL" district, staff would not recommend the "IL" District because it was adjacent to residential properties, even though the apartment building was located in an "IL" District. Mr. McGinn continued that the apartments were considered to be a non - conforming use; which was grandfathered and allowed to remain. Mr. Kendall stated the "IL" Light Industrial zoning would be acceptable because of the size of the building. Mr. Kendall restated again that the applicant had been trying to lease the building for some time and the only businesses that indicated an interest were industrial uses. Chairman Garza stated he had concerns with approving the 112' zoning for the property. Chairman Garza continued that the apartment building looked to be in good condition and would be there for a while and his concern was the exterminating service. By retaining the current zoning and adding the special permit; they would not be able to mix or make the chemicals on site. If they were to be given the "IL" zoning, the light manufacturing use associated with the chemicals would not be a safe environment for the residents. KADEVELOPMENTSWSISHARED11. PLANNING COMMISSIOW012 PC12012 MINUTES104.11.12.PCM1NS.D0C Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2012 Page 6 III. PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS (cant.) B. ZONING 1. New Zoning Mr. Kendall stated with staff's recommendation, the applicant would be locked into those two uses only, and if one of the tenants left, the owner will have to go through the zoning process again, which could become costly. Commissioner Tamez asked if apartments were allowed in an "IL" district and Mr. McGinn answered no, but the apartments were grandfathered into that district and they were non - conforming. If the apartments were destroyed, redevelopment would have to meet current zoning and building codes. Mr. Robert Bujanos, Jr., 2533 South Padre Island Drive, Law Office, 5213 Grafford Place, addressed the commission. Mr. Bujanos stated that he would not lease to any tenant whom he felt their business would not be safe. Mr. Bujanos continued that his law practice was located in the building and oftentimes, his children were also in the building and he would not jeopardize his practice or his family's safety by allowing a business that would not be safe. Mr. Bujanos stated with regard to the amount of chemicals that would be on premise, he was assured by the proposed tenant that the maximum size of the containers for the chemicals would be five (5) gallons. Mr. Bujanos went on to say that for the past six years, he has been trying to lease the space and the only people that have shown an interest were in service type businesses. Commissioner Taylor asked if the tenants would be accessing the front or back door to the building and Mr. Bujanos answered that for unloading materials in and out of the trucks, the back door would be used. Commissioner Taylor stated that with the law firm's clients would likely enter through the front, but he could not see how the exterminator company would be able to use the front entrance and he was curious as to how it would function. Mr. Bujanos stated that the tenant for the exterminating company normally worked out of town, but he has some clients here in the city.. Mr. Bujanos continued that on one side of his building, there was a vacant yellow building, a tattoo shop and a motorcycle shop. Commissioner Kelly stated she was hesitant in approving the "IL" district even though there were certain uses that fell into that zoning district. Commissioner Kelly continued that with the Future Land Use Plan recommended the area remain commercial and she felt if the light industrial zoning was granted, there would be no way to control what uses would be in place, especially with no restrictions on the uses permitted. Mr. Bujanos stated the uses there were pre- existing and he felt he would be pigeon holed by the restrictions of the special permit. If either of the tenants left, it would be even more costly for him to find a tenant with the same type of business use. Commissioner Kelly stated hopefully the tenants would be long- standing and this would not be a problem. Vice Chairman Huertaa asked staff if there was a way to add additional uses to the special permit that would be compatible to allow more flexibility and Mr. McGinn answered that staff met with the applicant and only discussed the two uses that were presented. Vice Chairman Huerta continued that maybe staff could look at the list again and outline additional uses that could be added. Commissioner Guerra stated he sympathized with the applicant, and if the commission was to add more uses to the special permit, the list could go on, not only to K:10EVELOPMENTSVCSISHAHEM1. PLANNING COMMISSION12012 PC12012 MINLITES104.111.12.PCMIN5.00C Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2012 Page 7 Ill. PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS (cost.) B- ZONING �. New Zoning South Padre Island Drive, but also into other areas, and once the zoning was approved, there would be no way to control the uses. Commissioner Castillo stated that the commission needed to be very careful in the decision of whether the property should be rezoned to the "IL" District even though there was one property located in an industrial district. Commissioner Castillo continued that South Padre Island Drive was the secondary entrance to the community and that needed to be maintained. Commissioner Tamez stated he felt there comes a time when a case that is presented stands alone and sometimes thinking outside the box is warranted. Commissioner Tamez continued that he felt not approving the "iL" Light industrial zoning would restrict the owner in what can be done with the property, especially when the "IL" zoning already existed in the back. Commissioner Kelly suggested that staff and the applicant meet to discuss the possibility of adding more uses to the special permit that would provide more flexibility and bring back a new recommendation for the commission to consider. After all discussion and comments concluded, Chairman Garza called for a motion. A motion to approve a change of zoning from a "CG -2" General Commercial District to an "iL" Light Industrial District was made by Commissioner Tamez. The motion failed due to lack of a second. Mr. McGinn stated that if additional information was needed for the commission to be able to make a decision, staff would re- evaluate the list of uses associated with the "iL" Light Industrial District and meet with the applicant to see if some of the options contained in the service chart of Article 5 would be applicable. Chairman Garza asked Mr. Kendall if his client would be willing to table his zoning case to the next meeting to meet with staff to discuss possible options for his case and Mr. Bujanos stated he was willing to table the case. After all comments and discussion concluded, Chairman Garza called for a motion to table the zoning case. A motion to approve tabling action on New Zoning Item "a" to the April 25, 2012 meeting was made by Commissioner Taylor and seconded by Commissioner Kelly. After the motion was on the floor, a brief discussion ensued. Vice Chairman Huerta stated that rezoning of this one property to make it more marketable was not the issue, but what was at issue were the uses that can be supported at this location. Commissioner Taylor stated to Mr. Bujanos that he should not think the commission was opposed to the proposed tenants for the building, but just wanted to ensure that the outcome would be the best for the future. Chairman Garza stated the commission wanted to ensure that the area did not become like the Way out Weber (WOW) area. Commissioner Castillo stated that it may be difficult to categorize which of the uses in the "iL" Light Industrial District would be appropriate to add to the special permit and it would be hard to say where the line should be drawn. Commissioner Castillo continued that for the long -term, maybe a discussion should be held on where the lines should be drawn. KADEVELOPMENTSVC&SWAREDII. PLANNING COMMIssrON\m2 PM2012 MINUTES104.11.12.PCMINSAMC Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2012 Page 9 III. PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS (cont.) B. ZONING 1. New Zoning Mr. McGinn stated the subject property was a small lot and there was no way to differentiate between size of the property and use compatibilities for the property. Chairman Garza stated that, as a member of the Unified Development Code Base Zoning Focus Group, it took over two years of discussion to arrive at this point. After final discussion concluded, the motion passed with Commissioners Adame and Nadkarni absent. C. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Ms. Gunning read Planned Unit Development Item "a" into record as shown below. Ms. Gunning presented several aerial views of the subject property. The subject property is located in the Southside Area Development Plan and is planned for medium density residential uses. The proposed zoning change with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay was consistent with the adopted Future Land Use Plan. a. Case No. 0412 -01 (12- 30000001) — Luxury Spec Homes Inc. — A change of zoning from the "RS -TF" Two - Family District to the "RS -TF /PUD" Two - Family District with a Planned Unit Development Overlay, no, resulting in a change of future land use The rezoning also includes the associated PUD repfat. Property is described as Cedar Ridge Unit 1, Block 7, Lots 1 B and IC, located to the southeast of Weber Road and east of Yorktown. Boulevard. Ms. Gunning stated the purpose of the zoning request was to allow the owner to construct a residential development consisting of nine (9) single- family attached houses, totaling eighteen (18) dwelling units. Each dwelling unit would be constructed on a separate lot and share a common wall along the property line. The PUD overlay was requested because the proposed development does not strictly comply with public access and street design standards and other dimensional requirements for the property as required by the Unified Development Code (UDC). Ms. Gunning continued the applicant proposes to construct nine (9) single- family attached one -story buildings with two dwelling units per building totaling eighteen (18) units on the 2.401 -acre site with 1,500 square feet of floor space per unit. Each unit will be built on its own lot to allow the units to be sold with the land. Construction of all nine (9) units would be completed by the end of 2012. Ms. Gunning stated the property was currently zoned "RS -TF" Two - Family District that allowed for a single- family detached or attached house and two - family or townhouse uses and the zoning was consistent with the adopted f=uture Land Use Plan. The property is located in an Accident Potential Zone (APZ -2) and as per the Navy's recommended land uses, the proposed development was not considered compatible. K:IDEVEL6PMENTSVCSI6HAREV% PLANNING COMMISSION\2012 PC12012 MINUTES104.11.12.PCMINS.DOC Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2012 Page 9 III. PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS (cant.) C. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Ms. Gunning continued that sixty (60) notices were mailed to property owners within the notification area and one notice was returned in opposition and Staff recommended approval of the "RS -TF" Two - Family District with a Planned Unit Overlay with the following conditions: 1. DEVELOPMENT PLAN: The property shall be developed in accordance with the plat. Each building containing two (2) dwelling units must be constructed at the same time and by the same developer. 2. DENSITY: The density shall not exceed eighteen (18) dwelling units over 2.401 acres. There shall be nine (9) buildings with two (2) dwelling units in each building. 3. HEIGHT: Buiidings.shall not exceed one -story and 35 feet in height. 4. PARKING: Each dwelling unit shall be provided two (2) parking spaces in a private garage. Guest parking shall be provided on Lot 8. 5. SETBACKS: A minimum twenty (20) foot front yard setback shall be provided along Cedar Pass Drive. A minimum ten (10) foot rear yard setback and a five (5) foot side yard setback where the building does not share a common wall with another dwelling unit is required. The front yard setback on individual lots along the private street shall be eighteen (18) feet. The front yard setback on Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12 shall be no less than four (4) feet. 6. ACCESS: Each lot will have access to a private street of 24 feet as measured from back of curb to back of curb. The private street shall be striped to indicate "Fire Lane /No Parking" so as to maintain a twenty (20) foot wide access drive for emergency vehicles. 7. SIDEWALK: A four (4) foot sidewalk shall be constructed on one side of the private street and located in a dedicated sidewalk easement. 8. TIME LIMIT: Construction of the development shall commence within two (2) years from the approved ordinance date. After Staff's presentation, the floor was opened for comments and discussion by the commission. Commissioner Tamez asked if there was any development on the site and Staff answered the property was vacant. Vice Chairman Huerta asked why the second statement was included in Condition 1 regarding the units being constructed at the same and by the same developer. Vice Chairman Huerta continued that if the design plans for the project were the same, there should be no restrictions regarding having the same developer since all of the units would be the same. After a brief discussion, Mr. Saldana answered that he met with Ms. Gunning and discussed the wording for Condition 1. Mr. Saldana continued that he recommended the statement be included to ensure that once construction was begun on a unit, both units had to be completed since the units would be considered as two attached single - family dwellings. Each unit would have its, individual building permit because they would be sited on individual rots. Mr. Saldana continued that including the KADEVELOPMENTSVCSISHAREM1. PLANNING COMMISSIOM2012 PCW012 MINLITESZ4.11.12- MMINS.DOC Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2012 Page 10 III. PUBLIC NEARING AGENDA ITEMS (cunt.) C. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT statement would prevent the sale of one of the lots without a structure. Each unit has its own meter and address. Commissioner Castillo recommended the wording "and by the same developer" be removed from the condition and end the sentence with "at the same time." After commissioners' comments and discussion concluded, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Don Zimmerman, Community Liaison for the Naval Air Station, addressed the commission. Mr. Zimmerman provided commissioners with a photograph of a Navy F18 aircraft crash site in Virginia Beach. Mr. Zimmerman stated he wanted commissioners to see this particular crash site because the location was similar to the Cedar Pass PUD development. Mr. Zimmerman continued that the crash impacted all of the buildings surrounding the crash site. Mr. Zimmerman stated the more areas that are in- filled, the hazards are increased for aircrafts to safely land in an emergency. Commissioner Castillo asked what process the commission should be putting in place to address the Navy's concern regarding development occurring in an APZ -2 area for future cases that may be presented. Commissioner Castillo continued that several months ago, the commission was presented a similar case regarding a property located in Flour Bluff and the commission denied the case. There seems to be an inconsistency in determining which cases will be approved or denied. Mr. Zimmerman stated that even though this property was located in an APZ -2 area, the Navy could not advocate a solution. Mr. Zimmerman continued the Navy's responsibility was to provide the best information available so the City would be able to make an informed decision. Mr. Zimmerman stated there were no easy answers, but a decreased density in these areas was a great beginning. Mr. Zimmerman continued that according. to a report released by the Secretary of Defense, the City was very dense around two of the Navy's airfields; which creates an even greater situation in determining what the right answers should be. Commissioner Castillo asked Mr. McGinn what was staff's response to the Navy's recommendation and Mr. McGinn answered Staff reviewed and discussed the project and its location in a Navy AICUZ area. Mr. McGinn continued staff decided that restricting the total number of units in the PUD would lower the density rate even further. Commissioner Castillo asked if staff was working on an amendment to Article 6.5 of the UDC to address this concern and Mr. Robert Payne, Planning Department, answered no. Mr. Payne continued that staff was currently working with the consultant and felt the best path to pursue was to take action on the JLUS. Mr. Payne continued staff was trying to have everything completed by the end of June. Commissioner Castillo commented that in the interest of the AICUZ, the commission did not want to make any decisions that placed limitations that the City could not live up to. Chairman Garza stated the PUD provided more restrictions and staff could create specific restrictions so that the project would fit with the surrounding area. Chairman Garza continued that staff would still have to bring any recommendations before the commission and city council. Chairman Garza stated that in any scenario, there will be some compromise. The task would be to make the best decisions as possible. Mr. McGinn stated that if the amendments to Article 6.5 were initiated, the commission would have an opportunity to review them. After all comments and discussion concluded, the public hearing was closed. KMEVELOPMENTSVC&SHAREM1. PLANNING COMMIS&ON2012 PC12012 MINUTE5104.11.12.PWINS.DOC Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2012 Page 11 III. PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS (cont.) C. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Chairman Garza called for a motion. A motion to approve a change of zoning from the "RS -TF" Two - Family District to the "RS -TF /PUD" Two - Family District with a Planned Unit Development Overlay, subject to the eight (8).conditions outlined by Staff, and that Condition 1 be modified by deleting "and by the same developer" from the sentence, was made by Commission Tamez and seconded by Commissioner Guerra. Motion passed with Commissioners Adame and Nadkarni absent. Mr. Saldana read Planned Unit Development Item "b" into record as shown below. Mr. Saldana continued that the PUD replat associated with the zoning case met of the requirements of the Unified Development Code and Staff recommended approval. b. 0412032 -P015 (12- 22000015) Cedar Ridge PUD Unit 1 (Final Reolat — 2.401 Acres) _ Located south of Cedar Pass Drive and east of Sun Valley Drive. The public hearing was opened with no one coming forward in favor or in opposition and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Garza called:for a motion. A motion to approve Planned Unit Development Item °b" was made by Commissioner Kelly and seconded by Commissioner Taylor. Motion passed with Commissioners Adame and Nadkarni absent. IV. PRESENTATION & DISCUSSION ON JOINT EROSION RESPONSE PLAN Mr. Robert Payne, Planning Department, addressed the commission. Before Mr. Payne's presentation, he introduced Mr. Fred McCutcheon, Chairman of the Nueces County Beach Management Advisory Committee and a member of the City /County Erosion Response Plan Working Group and Mr. Greg Smith, Chairman of the City /County Erosion Response Plan Working Group and a committee Member of the County Management.Advisory Committee. Mr. Payne expressed thanks to Commissioner Taylor and former Planning Commissioner James Skrobarczyk who also worked on the subcommittee and did a good job. Mr. Payne stated he was at tonight's meeting to update the commission on where staff was in the process of updating the City's Erosion Response Plan. Mr. Payne began his presentation by stating the purpose of the plan was to reduce storm damage along the city and county gulf coastlines. Mr. Payne stated the 81 Legislature amended Chapter 33 of the Natural Resources Code which provided authority to the Texas General Land Office (GLO) to formulate rules to assist local governments in creating an Erosion Response Plan if gulf coastlines were within their jurisdiction. Mr. Payne continued any city that had a response plan would be eligible to apply for certain GLO grant funding. Mr. Payne stated that the City and Nueces County have partnered together to formulate a plan whereby both entities would be able to apply for grant funding. The funding could be used for beach re- nourishment, enhancing the current dune systems and providing ongoing improvements for public beach access. Mr. Payne stated staff presented a draft of the City's plan to City Council in June 2011 and their recommendation was to submit the draft to the GLO for further review after revisions were made. Mr. Payne continued that at that same meeting, City Council directed staff to develop the final plan to be the same and in line with the County's plan. Mr. Payne continued that after the revisions were made and the plan was submitted to the GLO for review. Mr. Payne continued staff received the GLO's comments in October KADEVELOPMENTSVCWHAREM1. PLANNING COMMISSION12012 PC12012 MINUTES104.11.12.PCMINS.DCC Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2012 Page 12 IV. PRESENTATION & DISCUSSION ON JOINT EROSION RESPONSE PLAN (cont.) 2011. Mr. Payne continued that upon receipt of the GLO comments, the City /County Erosion Response Plan Working Group was formed, which included representatives from the City Beach Dune Committee, County Beach Management, Dune Protection Advisory Committee, Water Shore Advisory Committee and the Island Strategic Action Advisory Commission. The working group has been meeting to finalize the plan. Mr. Payne presented an executive summary that highlighted areas of the Erosion Response Plan that addressed the following: • Assessment of the foredune ridge in the Corpus Christi and Nueces County jurisdictions; • Review of scientific studies concerning storm surge, coastal erosion, and sea level rise; • Review of FEMA velocity zones on Mustang and Padre Islands; • Defines the near shore beach as the first line of defense to storm surge and the foredune ridge was the second line of defense; • Defines the minimum width of the public beach for provision of public beach access as 100 feet wide from the line of vegetation.to the wet/dry line on the beach; ■ Goal for enhancing the foredune ridge to establish a dune system of at least 14 feet high, 350 feet deep and containing at least 50 vegetative coverage; ■ Mitigation sites for enhancing the foredune ridge are identified and prioritized; ■ Establishment of a 350 -foot building setback line located 350 feet landward of the line of vegetation along the Gulf beach. The setback line would prevent new construction of residential or commercial buildings within the foredune ridge; however, existing structures are exempt from the setback prohibition; • Land landward of the seawall is exempt from the building setback; • Plan addresses enhancements to public beach access. Generally, these enhancements to public access focus on designs to reduce damage to the-public access ways after storm events; and • Criteria for potential acquisition of property seaward of the building setback line. After Mr. Payne concluded his presentation, the floor was opened for comments and discussion. Mr. Smith stated the city and county did not want what happened to the City of Galveston in 2008 to happen to our beaches. Mr. Smith continued that the Committee has been working diligently on the plan and was working toward `a May 2 "d date to present the plan to the County Committee for discussion and action. The outcome of the Committee meeting will determine when the plan will be presented for action by the Planning Commission and ultimately by City Council. K OEVELOPMENTSVCSISHAREM1. PLANNING COMMISSIONr2012 PM2012 MINUTES144.11.12.PCMIN8.00C Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2012 Page 13 IV. PRESENTATION & DISCUSSION ON JOINT EROSION RESPONSE PLAN (coat.) Mr. Smith stated that in comparison with other coastal cities, we did not have as big of issues with dune erosion, even though there has been some over the past several years. The beach provides the first line of protection and, in gathering and reviewing data for inclusion in the plan, it was found that approximately 20 feet of beach has been lost to the dunes. Commissioner Taylor asked Mr. Smith to clarify what was meant by the term "front stacking" and Mr. Smith answered that seaweed removal and sand were used to build up the dunes and this mixture was placed in front of the dunes at its base level. Mr. Smith continued that to further strengthen the dunes, mid stacking and back stacking can also be used. Mr. Smith continued that "stacking" was a good use of the sand and seaweed mixture to help the dunes retain their necessary nutrients. Mr. Taylor stated he appreciated the opportunity to serve on the committee and he enjoyed working with former Commissioner Skrobarczyk and other members of the committee. Chairman Garza asked if more research was done and what will be the process for plan approval and Mr. Payne answered that the approval process would be approval by the Beach Dune Committee, Nueces County, Planning Commission and final action by City Council with the approved plan forwarded to the General Land Office. Once the plan has been submitted to the GLO, the plan will be placed -in the Texas Register for public comment, which is part of the GLO's approval process. Mr. McCutcheon concurred with Mr. Smith's previous statement that the City and County have been working very hard on the plan trying to ensure the plan will be comprehensive and thorough. Mr. McCutcheon continued that Mr. Payne has been a great asset to the committee and has attended all of the committee meetings. Mr. Smith stated that it was very important that beach maintenance be maintained and when seaweed remains on the beach, it lowers the beach level. Mr. Smith continued that the Erosion Response Plan will be an appendix to the Beach Management Plan. Mr. Smith continued it was critical to have a completed plan, which will help us in to obtain federal funding. Mr. Smith stated the City of Corpus Christi and Nueces County have been ignored by the GLO in the past, and out of the $21 million that was allocated last year, the City and County received nothing. After ail comments and discussion concluded, no action was taken. Mr. Payne expressed thanks to Chairman Garza and Commissioners Taylor and Tamez for their willingness to serve on the committee. V. DISCUSSION OF OUTDOOR RETAIUSTORAGE IN OTHER TEXAS CITIES Ms. Gunning stated this item came about as a result of a previous zoning case the commission approved. Ms. Gunning continued staff wanted to get the commission's feedback and possible other options on how to proceed in possibly amending the UDC. Chairman Garza stated the commission wanted to ensure the amendment would not punish the smaller businesses versus the larger businesses. There has to be a middle ground that would accommodate any business. KADEVELOPMENTSVCSISHAREM1. PLANNING COMMISSIOW012 PC\2012 MINUTES104.11.12.PCMINS.000 Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2012 Page 14 V. DISCUSSION OF OUTDOOR RETAIUSTORAGE IN OTHER TEXAS CITIES (cont.) Ms. Gunning gave a brief Power Point presentation that outlined what "Outside Storage and .Retail" was, the limitations and where it is allowed. Ms. Gunning continued there were three (3) types: • Outside Retail Display - allowed in the following zoning districts: "CN /CR," "CG," "Cl and "IIJIH "; • Outside Retail Sales - allowed in "CG," "Cl" and "IL/IH and; • Outside Storage allowed in "CG," "Cl," and "IL/IH" The presentation outlined that Outdoor Retail /Storage applied to any merchandise, material or equipment located outdoors in nonresidential zoning districts. Outdoor Retail /Storage does not apply to the following: Sale or rental of: Portable buildings RVs Automobiles Boats /boat trailers Motorcycles Manufactured Homes Temporary Outside Storage allowed during holiday season (October 15 - February 15) Temporary Storage containers allowed in all zoning districts for seventy - two (72) hours or need a "Temporary Use Permit" for up to ninety (90) days. OUTSIDE RETAIL_ DISPLAY Definition: Outside retail sales is the sale of individually- packaged retail items in an area not enclosed by four walls and a roof. Limitations: • Located next to principal structure's wall; • 5 -foot maximum width or height; • Maximum 30 percent of the wall length; and • Not allowed to block windows, entrances, exits or pedestrian use of the building. OUTSIDE RETAIL SALES Definition: Outside retail sales is the sale of individually- packaged retail items in an area not enclosed by four walls and a roof that accommodates customers and contains items for sale beyond the allowable outside retail display area. K:10EVELOPMENTSVCSISHANEM1. PLANNING COMMISSIOW012 PC52012 MINUTESO4.11.12XIVIINS.QOC Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2012 Page 15 . V. DISCUSSION OF OUTDOOR RETAIL/STORAGE IN OTHER TEXAS CITIES (cant.) Limitations: ■ 1,000 square feet or 10 percent of the total site area, whichever is greater; Screened from the right -of -way and adjacent properties if more than 1,000 square feet or 10 percent in the following districts: Commercial Intensive (old "B -5" Business District) Light industrial and Heavy District ■ Not allowed in public right -of -way, street or side yards, parking or fire lanes; ■ Square footage of outside sales area is used toward calculation of parking and loading requirement. OUTSIDE STORAGE Definition: Outside storage consists of all remaining forms of outside display and storage not classified as outside retail display or outside retail sales, including items stored in shipping containers, conexes and semi- trailers not attached to a truck. Limitations: • Outside storage consists of all remaining forms of outside display and storage not classified as outside retail display or outside retail sales, including items stored in shipping containers, conexes and semi - trailers not attached to a truck; • Cannot be located in these areas: a) Required street or side yards; b) Between a required street yard and the building; or c) Required off - street parking areas or fire lanes. WHERE IS IT ALLOWED? ■ Outside Retail Display — allowed in the following zoning districts: "CN /CR," "CG," "Cl and "IL/1H "; ■ Outside Retail Sales - allowed in "CG," "Cl" and "ILIIH and; ■ Outside Storage allowed in "CG," "Cl," and "IL/IH" ■ Outside Retail Display — allowed in "ON," "CBD," 'BP" and "RV" through a Special Permit After Ms. Gunning's presentation, a brief discussion ensued. Mr. McGinn stated staff would be reviewing definitions of what uses would be allowed for outside storage versus outside sales. Mr. McGinn continued that the Nueces Stone Quarry zoning case would be a great example in formulating possible options. Ms. Gunning stated that at a future meeting date, Staff would like to present information on how other cities regulate outdoor retail /storage uses. Chairman Garza stated the commission and staff needed to find a way to make things more equitable for the smaller businesses. KMEVELOPMENTSVCSISHAREMI. PLANNING COMMISSION12012 PC12012 MINLITESQ4.11.12.PCIVIINS.DOC Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2012 Page 16 VI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT *4 Dan McGinn, AICP Interim Secretary to Planning Commission Four zoning cases were approved by City Council: ■ Zoning Case No. 0212 - 01, Urban Engineering (The Cottages) ■ Zoning Case No. 0212 - 02, flint Hills Resources _ ■ Zoning Case No. 0212 -03, Encore Multi- Family, LLC ■ Zoning Case No. 0212 -04, City of Corpus Christi Planning Department staff has requested that a workshop be scheduled for the May 9, 2012 meeting to present the CIP. The workshop will start at 4 p.m. and conclude at 5:30 p.m. with the regular meeting continuing. Commissioners were reminded of the deadline for completing and submitting the Annual Report to the City Secretary's office. Reports are to be delivered and cannot be faxed or em ailed. Mr. McGinn informed the commission that Mr. Mark Van Vleck has been appointed as Interim Director of Development Services and Ms. Toby Futrell has been appointed as the Interim Assistant City Manager. Mr. McGinn continued that management is actively recruiting for an Assistant City Manager, but the director's position has not been posted yet. Vice Chairman Huerta stated that several years ago, wording in the City Charter was changed for the position of the Building Official to include that the person be a licensed engineer or architect.. Vice Chairman Huerta continued that it was crucial that the .person had the knowledge and understanding of building and construction codes. The Building Official position was unique and was responsible in preserving the safety and welfare of the community. VII. AWDOURNMENT There being no further business, motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Taylor and seconded by Commissioner Kelly. Motion passed with Commissioners Adame and Nadkarni absent. The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Date: !� Date: p`l�/lo Linda illiams Records g Secretary KADEVELOPMENTSVCS \SHAREDN. PLANNING COMMISSIOM2012 PC\2012 MINLITW04A 1.12.PCMIN5. 00C