Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 06/19/2013MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall Council Chambers June 19, 2013 5:30 P.M. COMMISSIONERS: STAFF: Govind Nadkarni, Chairman** Mark Van Vleck, P.E., Director, Philip Ramirez, Vice Chairman Development Services Mark Adame Daniel Biles, P.E., Director, Engineering Fred Braselton Services Marco Castillo Pete Anaya, P.E. Director, Planning & Gabriel Guerra** Environmental Services Chris Hamilton Miguel Saldana, AICP, Senior Planner Mike Lippincott Lisa Wargo, AICP, Senior Planner Curtis Rock Shelly Shelton, AICP, City Planner Kris Carpenter, Planning Technician **Absent Elizabeth Hundley, Assistant City Attorney Linda Williams, Recording Secretary I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Philip Ramirez at 5:35 p.m. and a quorum was declared. II. APPROVAL OF ABSENCES Motion to approve absences for Commissioners Adame, Castillo and Guerra for the June 5, 2013 meeting was made by Commissioner Hamilton and seconded by Commissioner Braselton. Motion passed with Chairman Nadkarni and Commissioner Guerra absent. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. June 5, 2013 Meeting Motion to approve Item "1," the June 5, 2013 minutes as distributed, was made by Commissioner Hamilton and seconded by Commissioner Lippincott. Motion passed with Chairman Nadkarni and Commissioner Guerra absent. IV. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS — DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: PLATS New Plats Shelly Shelton, Development Services, read Items 2 and 3 into record as shown below. Ms. Shelton stated the plats satisfied all requirements of the Unified Development Code (UDC) and State Law and the Technical Review Committee recommended approval. 2. 053044-P014 (13-22000016) Hill Country Estates. Block 1. Lots 1A, 1B, 1C & 1D (Final Replat — 3.472 Acres) Located north of Kingsbury Drive between McKinzie Road (FM 3386) and Robby Drive. Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 19 2013 Page 2 IV. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS — DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: PLATS New Plats (cont.) 3. 0513045-P015 (13-22000017) Graford Place Unit 3 (Final — 10.083 Acres) Located south of Lipes Boulevard and west of South Staples Street (FM 2444). The floor was opened for comments and discussion by commissioners. There being nono, the public hearing was opened with no one coming forward and the public hearin was closed. Vice Chairman Ramirez called for a motion. Motion to approve Items ''2^ and "3" was made by Commissioner Hamilton and seconded by Commissioner Rock. Motion passed with Chairman Nadkarni and Commissioner Guerra absent. Time Extensions Ms. Shelton read Items "4" and ^5^ into record as shown below. Ms. Shelton stated this was the fifth request for a twelve-month time extension for Item 4 and the sixth request for a six- month 4. 0310010-NP009 (10-20000001) BhdoeoonheLondinq. Block 1. Lot 8 (Preliminary —11.515Acres) Located south of South Padre Island Drive (SH 358) and east of Lexington Road. 5. 0410019-NP012 (10-21000005) 8hdoeoointe Landina. Block 1. Lot 6 (Final —11.515Acres) Located south of South Padre Island Drive (SH 358) and east of Lexington Road. Ms. Shelton read Items "6" and "7" into record as shown below. Ms. Shelton stated this was the third request for a six-month time extension for Item "6" and the first request for a six- month 6. 101082-NP039 (10-21000016) Admiral's Row PUD (Final — 8.658 Acres) Located north of Sea Way Drive between State Highway 361 and the Gulf of Mexico. 7. 1112117-P041 (12-22000040) Manhattan Estates Unit 6 (Final — 21.179 Acres) Located south of Lipes Boulevard and west of Airline Road. After Staffs preoentoUon, the floor was opened for discussion and comments by commissioners. Commissioner Braselton asked what the difference was between Items "4" and "5" because the plat dUe, acreage and location were the same. Ms. Shelton explained the request for Item "4" was for a twelve-month extension for the preliminary plat and Item ^5^ was for a six-month time extension for the final plat. The question was asked why Staff recommended denial for Items "4" and ^5^ and Miguel 8o(deha. Development Services, addressed the commission. Mr. Sa|dea stated previous commission members questioned how long Staff would continue recommending approval of time extensions for plats due to market and economic conditions, especially since some of the plats Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 19 2013 Page 3 IV. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS — DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: PLATS Time Extensions (cont.) were approved several years ago. Mr. So|daha continued when the extensions were initially recommended for approval, the economic climate was such that commissioners granted the extensions in an effort to assist the applicant with the thought that things would improve. Mr. Ga|dono continued that since the economic condition has improvmd. Staff made the decision to recommend denial of the requests for Items 4 and 5 and the applicant's representative was notified of that decision. Mr. Saldara stated Item 4, a preliminary plat, was approved in 2010 and under the current Unified Development Code, a new preliminary plat is active for twenty-four months unless a final plat is recorded within that time period. If a final plat is not recorded within that time period, the applicant can request up to two additional time extensions totaling six years. If no action has taken place after six ymora, the plat would expire. After Staffs pnasmnbaUon, the floor was opened for comments and discussion by commissioners. After a brief discussion by commissioners, the public hearing was opened. Murray Hudson, Representative for the applicant, addressed the commission. Mr. Hudson stated he felt Staff should have no recommendation regarding time extensions. Mr. Hudson continued he was notified of Staffs recommendation to deny the time extension requests for Items 4 and 5 this afternoon. Mr. Hudson stated he felt it was unfair in that the late notification did not allow him adequate time to notify the client of Staffs recommendation. Mr. Hudson briefly explained why the requests were needed. Commissioner Castillo asked what would be a reasonable time period for time extensions and Mr. Hudson stated that the decision should be based on a case-by-case basis and the developers should be given a reasonable period of time based on the circumstance for each case. Commissioner Rock stated this issue was an ongoing process and it should be determined how much longer Staff should make recommendations for time extensions. Commissioner Rock stated the letter contained in the packet stated Staff had no naoommandoUon, but at tonight's maaUng. Staffs recommendation was to deny the request. Mr. Sa|dofio apologized for the discrepancy in Staffs recommendation. After all comments and discussion concluded, the public hearing was closed. Vice Chairman Ramirez called for a motion. A motion to approve a twelve-month time extension for Item "4" and a six-month time extension for Items "5, "6" and "7" was made by Commissioner Hamilton and seconded by Commissioner Lippincott. After the motion was on the floor, Vice Chairman Ramirez stated the commission should have a clear policy in place regarding how many time extensions can be granted. Vice Chairman Ramirez continued there should be a specific time-frame, but he did not know what it should be. Commissioner Lippincott stated it would be good to have something in place but he did not think the commission should set a specific time frame. The determination should be made on a case-by-case basis. After all comments and discussion oono|udad, the motion passed with Chairman Nadkarni and Commissioner Guerra absent. Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 19 2013 Page 4 IV. PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS — POSSIBLE DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: ZONING New Zoning Kris Carpenter, Development Services, read Item ^8^ into record as shown below. Mr. Carpenter stated the purpose of the requested change of zoning was to develop a single-family subdivision. Mr. Carpenter continued the subject property is located in the Southside Area Development Plan and is planned for low density residential uses and the requested zoning change was consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. New Zoning 8. Case No. 0613-02 — Southside Ventures, L.P.: A change of zoning from the "FR" Farm Rural District to the "RS-4.5" Single-Family 4.5 Oisthot, not resulting in a chanae to the Future Land Use Plan. The property to be rezoned is described as Lots 3, 4 and 5, Section 27, Flour Bluff and Encinal Farm and Garden Tracts, located along the south side of Holly Road, approximately 1,160 feet east of Rodd Field Road. Mr. Carpenter presented several aerial views of the property. Mr. Carpenter continued the applicant is requesting a change of zoning to allow construction of a single-family subdivision with a total of 250 to 260 lots with a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet and the subdivision will be constructed in multiple phases. Mr. Carpenter stated 98 notices were mailed to owners in the notification area, two (2) were received in opposition and Staff recommended approval. After Staffs presentation, the floor was opened for comments and discussion by commissioners. There being none, the public hearing was opened with no one coming forward Vice Chairman called for a motion. A motion to approve a change of zoning from the "FR" Farm Rural District ho the ^R8-4.5^ Single-Family 4.5 District was made by Commissioner Rock and seconded by Commissioner Hamilton. Motion passed with Chairman Nadkarni and Commissioner Guerra absent. Mr. Carpenter read Item "9"into record as shown below. Mr. Carpenter stated the City of Corpus Christi is the applicant for this zoning case and the purpose of the requested change of zoning was to eliminate nonconforming status for several properties. Mr. Carpenter continued the subject properties are located in the Northwest Area Development Plan and are planned for park uses. Mr. Carpenter stated the requested zoning to the ^R8-6^ Single-Family 6 District was not consistent with the adopted Future Land Use. Several aerial views of the property were presented. 9. Case No. 0613-03— City uf Corpus Christi: A change of zoning from the "ON" Office District to the "RS-6" Single-Family 6 District, resulting in a change to the Future Land Use Plan from ark to low density residential. The property to be rezoned is described as Lots 13-16 and Lots 18-21, Block G, Jackson Woods Subdivision Unit 1, located on Gettysburg Street and Potomac Street, east of Peachtree Street. Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 19 2013 Page 5 IV. PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS — DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: ZONING New Zoning — Item 9 (cont.) Mr. Carpenter stated he spoke with Planning staff regarding revising the Future Land Map from "parks" to low density residential and they agreed with the revision. Mr. Carpenter stated 37 notices were mailed to owners within the notification area, three (3) were returned in favor and Staff recommended approval of the requested zoning change. After Staffs presentation, the floor was opened for discussion and comments by commissioners. Vice Chairman Ramirez asked if there were any fees assessed and Staff stated no. There being no further comments or discussion, the public hearing was opened with no coming forward and the public hearing was closed. Vice Chairman Ramirez called for a motion. A motion to approve a change of zoning from the "ON" Office District bo the ^RS-6" Single-Family 6 District was made by Commissioner Hamilton and seconded by Commissioner Castillo. Motion passed with Chairman Nadkarni and Commissioner Guerra absent. Planned Unit Development Commissioner Braselton requested the record reflect that he abstained from the discussion and action taken on Items "10" and "11." Mr. Carpenter, read Item ^10^ into record as shown below. Mr. Carpenter stated the purpose of the requested change of zoning was to develop a single-family subdivision with a Planned Unit Development Overlay. Mr. Carpenter continued the subject property is located in the Southside Area Development Plan and the proposed rezoning with a Planned Unit Development Overlay is consistent with the adopted Future Land Use Plan. 10. Case No. 0613-01 — Yorktown Oso Joint Venture: A change of zoning from the "RS-4.5" Single-Family6 4.5 District to the "RS-4.5/PUD" Single-Family 4.5 District with a Planned Unit Development Overlay, not resulting in a change to the Future Land Use Plan. The property to be rezoned is described as being a 5.74-acre tract of land out of Lots 19, 20, 29 and 30, Section 25, Flour Bluff and Encinal Farm and Garden Tracts, located east of Rancho Vista Boulevard East, between Stampede Drive and Vaquero Drive. The rezoning also includes the associated PUD plat. Several aerial views of the property were presented. Mr. Carpenter stated the applicant is requesting a rezoning with a Planned Unit Development Overlay to allow construction of a gated aing!e-family subdivision. Fifty-eight (58) notices were mailed to owners within the notification area with no notices returned and Staff recommended approval of the requested PUD subject to six conditions that were read into the record. Mr. Carpenter continued that as part of the PUD, approval will be needed on the associated plat. After Staffs presentation, the floor was opened for comments and discussion by commissioners. There being nono, the public hearing was opened with no one coming forward and the public hearing was closed. Vice Chairman Ramirez called for a motion. A motion to approve the change of zoning from the "RS-4.5" Single-Family 4.5 District to the ''RS-4.5/PUO^ Single-Family 4.5 District with a Planned Unit Development Overlay subject to six conditions was made by Commissioner Rock and seconded by Commissioner Lippincott. Motion passed with Chairman Nadkarni and Commissioner Guerra absent and Commissioner Braselton abstaining. Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 19 2013 Page 6 IV. PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS — POSSIBLE DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: ZONING Planned Unit Development (cont.) Ms. Shelton read Item ^11^into record as shown below. Ms. Shelton stated the plat satisfied all requirements of the Unified Development Code (UDC) and State Law and the Technical Review Committee recommended approval. 11. 0613053-P022 (13-22000023) Rancho Vista Subdivision Unit 9 (Final — 7.06 Acres) Located south of Yorktown Boulevard and east of Rodd Field Road. After Staffs presentation, the floor was opened for comments and discussion by commissioners. There being none, the public hearing was opened with no one coming forward and the public hearing was closed. Vice Chairman Ramirez called for a motion. A motion to approve Item "11" was made by Commissioner Hamilton and seconded by Commissioner Adame. Motion passed with Chairman Nadkarni and Commissioner Guerra absent and Commissioner Braselton abstaining. V. PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED BOND 2014 STREET PROPOSITIONS Dan Biles, Director, Eng Services, addressed the commission. Mr. Biles state at the June 5, 2013 meeting, the Planning Commission approved Staff's recommendation on the 2013-2014 Capital Budget and Capital Improvement Planning Guide. Mr. Biles continued at tonight's mneeding. Staff is presenting a power point presentation and overview of the proposed bond 2014 street propositions. Mr. Biles stated the 2014 bond program was an initiative to pre- design projects that will present a better idea of what the costs will be. This was a directive from the City Manager and the intent is to present the list, receive feedback and complete the process to City Council before the 2014 bond election so that the design work can begin. Mr. Biles stated the staff-recommended list of street projects for a future bond election consists of two propositions. Mr. Biles continued that the first proposition valued at $55 million represents streets in the greatest need of repair and reconstruction and the second proposition valued at $27 million represents streets capacity and safety improvement projects. Mr. Biles went on to say that the selected streets for the two proposiUono, proposed ochadu|a, project criteria matrix and the results and location street map were included in the packet. Mr. Biles briefly described each of the supporting documents. Mr. Biles continued the total matrix score equaled the sum total of: D Community and public image; D Health and Safety; �~ PCI weight; and D Road classification weight D Priority score totals 100 minus the total matrix score After Mr. Biles' presentation concluded, the floor was opened for comments and discussion by commissioners. Commissioner Castillo asked if every street within the city limits was a potential candidate for the project list, namely Slough Road from Rodd Field and Mr. Biles stated every street is inspected every three years. Mr. Biles continued the data gathered is used to determine if a residential street will score high enough to be included on the list. Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 19 2013 Page 7 V. PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED BOND 2014 STREET PROPOSITIONS (cont.) Commissioner Castillo asked what happens to those proposed street projects if the bond election fails and Mr. Biles emphasized that the only way the proposed streets projects could be funded is through GO bonds. Mr. Biles continued that if the election fails, only those projects that were included in previous capital improvements and those new projects considered to be critical will be funded. Mr. Biles continued there are different factors taken in consideration and every city uses the same method of calculating the formula. Commissioner Hamilton stated he applauded Staffs effort in continuing to keep up with the street improvements. Commissioner Hamilton asked if the City will every catch up with the lifetime of a street and Mr. Biles stated no. Mr. Biles continued that until Staff knows what the ad valorem would be, it makes it more difficult to project. Mr. Biles stated that at this point, the Planning Commission is recommending Staff to move forward with the proposed street propositions. Mr. Biles stated that with the limited capacity of contractors, Staff is looking at contractors from San Antonio and Houston. If the City is to continue with the $55 million, we need to be predictable and continuous. After all discussion and comments concluded by commissioners, the public hearing was opened with no one coming forward and the hearing was closed. Mr. Biles stated Staff wanted to update the Planning Commission on the proposed bond street projects because revisions were made to the project list since the last meeting. After all discussion concluded, no action was taken. VI. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC) BY ESTABLISHING A NEW SECTION 6.10 "TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) OVERLAY DISTRICT" AND ASSOCIATED APPENDICES "A THROUGH D" UNDER ARTICLE 6 "SPECIAL ZONING DISTRICTS," AND BY ASSIGNING TRANSIT- ORIENTED OVERLAYS OVER THE CITY'S FOUR TRANSIT STATIONS; AND BY ESTABLISHING A NEW SECTION 6.9 "TRADITIONAL NEIGBORHOOD DEVELOMENT STANDARDS" (TND) UNDER ARTICLE 6 "SPECIAL ZONING DISTRICTS; AMENDING RELATED ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY Ms. Lisa Wargo, Planning and Environmental Services, addressed the commission. Ms. Wargo stated this presentation was previously presented to the Planning Commission. Ms. Wargo continued the previous presentation did not have detailed information and no definitions were included. Ms. Wargo stated this power point presentation on several proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code. The proposed amendment would create a new Section 6.10 "Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District" with associated Appendices "A through D" under Article 6 "Special Zoning Districts" and assign transit-oriented overlays over the existing four transit stations. The amendment would also establish a new Section 6.9 "Traditional Neighborhood Development Standards. Ms. Wargo stated the proposed Section 6.9 "Traditional Neighborhood Development Standards" are designed to accommodate, encourage and promote innovative designed developments that involve residential and non-residential land uses. Ms. Margo continued that the goal of the combination is to form an attractive and harmonious mixed use development that would create an internal and consistent balance of building and street types. Ms. Wargo presented aerial views of examples of what the overlay district would look like at each of the transit stations. Commissioner Castillo asked if there was anything in the proposed amendments that would be more restrictive that would upset the citizens that use the transit system and would the overlay zone replace the existing zoning and Ms. Wargo answered no. Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 19 2013 Page 8 VI. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC) (cont.) system and would the overlay zone replace the existing zoning and Ms. Wargo answered no. Ms. Wargo stated amendments to Article 1.1.1 "Defined Terms" were added because the current verbiage did not provide enough information and there were no definitions for certain items included. Ms. Wargo briefly reviewed Section 9.1 "Non-conforming Lots," and amendments to the ordinance regarding "Accessory Dwelling Units," and "Urban Agricultural Community Garden Standards." After Staff's presentation concluded, Ms. Wargo requested the commission to approve the amendments. After further discussion and comments, Ms. Hundley clarified that no action could be taken because the agenda item was not properly posted. The agenda item will be rescheduled for the July 17, 2013 meeting for action. VII. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mark Van Vlach Director, Development Services, addressed the commission. Mr. Van Vleck informed the commission that the department has hired four additional inspectors which will greatly help in decreasing the backlog. Mr. Van Vleck continued that the job posting was re- advertised for the Major Project Engineer position and Staff will keep the commission abreast of the outcome. Mr. Van Vleck stated at the previous meeting, the Chairman discussed the upcoming vacancies on the commission and requested that the item be scheduled for discussion for the commission to submit recommendations. Mr. Van Vieck continued that City Council is changing the existing policy on how board appointments are made. In the pont, board members were requested to submit their recommendations to be considered. Out of approximately 80 boards/committees, City Council decreased the number of boards to ten that recommendations would be accepted and the Planning Commission was not one of the boards listed. The resolution is scheduled for City Council approval on Tuesday, July 9, 2013. VIII. Items to be Scheduled None IX. Adjournment There being no further business, motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Hamilton and seconded by Commissioner Lippincott. Motion passed with Chairman Nadkarni and Commissioner Guerra absent. The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. �� � -,. P.-E., Director Date - f` /` Mari E. Development Service Department Secretary to Planning Commission illiams Deve opment Services Depart Reco ding Secretary Da e