Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 01/07/2009 , i 11.0 } voi, � MINUTES RECEIVED REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers- City Hall MAR 0 4 2009 Wednesday January 7,2009 5:30 P.M. CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE COMMISSIONERS: STAFF: Rudy Garza, Chairman Bob Nix,AICP Assistant City Manager of A. Javier Huerta,Vice-Chairman Development Services John C. Tamez Johnny Perales,PE, Deputy Director of Govind Nadkarni Development Services/Special Services Johnny R. Martinez Miguel Saldafa, Special Services Evon J. Kelly Bob Payne, AICP, Senior City Planner David Loeb Jay Reining, First Assistant City Attorney *James Skrobarczyk Debra Brown,Assistant City Attorney Sylvia Sanchez, Recording Secretary ABSENCES: Mark Adame I. CALL TO ORDER A quorum was declared and the meeting was called to order at 5:33 p.m. by Chairman Garza. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion for approval of the December 10, 2008 minutes was made by Commissioner Tamez and seconded by Vice-Chairman Huerta. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Skrobarczyk not present and Commissioner Adame being absent. III. PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS A. PLATS 1. New Plats Mr. Miguel Saldafia, Development Services, read New Plats agenda items "a through d" (shown below) into the record, stating these plats are final plats and have been submitted for approval. Mr. Saidatla stated the plats are in compliance with all city regulations and staff recommends approval. a. 0109001-NP001 (08-21000028) SC kMED 100 South Padre,Block 1, Lots A, 1 &2 (Final—2.163 Acres) Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 2 Located between Opportunity Drive and South Padre Island Drive(SH 358),west of Investment Boulevard. b. 0109002-NP002 (08-21000029) Brighton Village Unit 3,Block 1, Lot 17A(Final Replat— 5.316 Acres) Located west of Cimarron Boulevard and north of Brockhampton Street. c. 0109003-NP003 (08-21000030) Nueces County Health, Welfare& Safety Center, Lots 3 &4 (Final Replat— 11.962 Acres) Located between Trojan Drive and South Padre Island Drive (SH 358),west of Prescott Street. d. 0109004-NP004 (08-21000031) Portairs Shopping Center,Block 1, Lots 1 &2 (Final Replat —6.21 Acres) Located between Home Road and Cuiper Street, east of Ayers Street. Public hearing was opened. Nobody came forward in support or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion for approval was made by Commissioner Martinez and seconded by Commissioner Nadkarni for approval of the plats. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Skrobarczyk not being present and Commissioner Adame being absent. Mr. Saldatla read New Plats agenda item "e" (shown below) into the record and stated this item has been submitted for a continuance to the January 21, 2009, Planning Commission meeting. • e. 0109005-NP005 (08-21000032) River Square Unit 2, Block 8,Lots 5A& 5B (Final Replat— 2.28 Acres) Located north of Interstate Highway 37 and east of McKinzie Road. As a courtesy, Chairman Garza asked if anyone present would Iike to come forward in favor or in opposition of the continuance. Nobody came forward. Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 3 Motion for approval of the continuance was made by Commissioner Nadkarni and seconded by Commissioner Martinez. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Skrobarczyk not being present and Commissioner Adame being absent. 3. Time Extensions Mr. Saldafla read Time Extension agenda items "a through c" into the record stating the applicants are requesting six month time extensions. Staff recommends approval. a. 0408037-NP029 Rodd Field Hospital Tracts, Block 1, Lot 1 (Final - 9.926 Acres) Located east of Rodd Field Road(SH 357) between Holly Road and Wooldridge Road. b. 0608057-P013 Island Acres,Block 1, Lot 1 (Final-25.963 Acres) Located west of State Highway 361 south of Sea Way Drive. c. 0608058-P014 Morningstar Estates Unit 3 (Final - 6.988 Acres) Located north of Wooldridge Road and east of Rodd Field Roads Public hearing was opened. Nobody came forward in support or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Chairman Garza stated the he would entertain a motion for item "a" only. Motion for approval for item "a" was made by Commissioner Tamez and seconded by Vice- Chairman Huerta. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Nadkarni abstaining, Commissioner Skrobarczyk not being present and Commissioner Adame being absent. Motion for approval for items "b and c"was made by Commissioner Martinez and seconded by Vice-Chairman Huerta. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Skrobarczyk not being present and Commissioner Adame being absent. *Commissioner Skrobarczyk arrived at 5:39 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 4 B. ZONING 1. Tabled Zoning a. Case No. 1008-05 Reimco, Ltd. -' A change of zoning from a "FR" Farm-Rural District to an "I-2" Light Industrial District resulting in a change of land use from rural to industrial, 42.19 acres out of Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, Nueces River Irrigation Park located on the northwest corner of County Road 69 and County Road 52. Mr. Payne presented the above case via Power Point, stating the applicant is Reimco, Ltd. The applicant requested the case be tabled to January 21, 2009. Mr. Payne stated that staff has reminded the applicant that this is the 3`d tabling. Staff is recommending tabling the case for January 21,2009. Public hearing was opened. Tim Clower,representative for Nueces Electric Coop, stated that they would be planning a new office and light industrial facility at the property. Currently the project is under the designed stage. The applicant has met with some property owners and there will be some elimination of uses that the property owners had issues with. The applicant is requesting tabling to January 21, 2009,as they would like to meet with additional property owners for further discussion before presentation to Planning Commission. Mr. Clower added that representatives and applicant would like to hear all issues from the community and resolve all their issues. Commissioner Tamez inquired if January 21m would be enough time to get all issues resolved. Mr. Clower confirmed that January 21s`is enough time. The final neighborhood meetings are scheduled to take place this weekend. Public hearing was closed. Motion for approval of staff recommendation to table to January 21, 2009 was made by Commissioner Kelly and seconded by Commissioner Martinez. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Adame being absent. b. Case No. 1008-01 Mark Rittgers — A change of zoning from a "B-4" General Business District to an "I-2" Light Industrial District resulting in a change of land use from commercial to light industrial *11110 *11.0 Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 5 Lexington Plaza Annex A, Block 2, Lot 9-B, located on the south side of South Padre Island Drive between Cosner Street and Carroll Lane. Mr. Payne presented the above case via PowerPoint, stating the applicant is Mark Rittgers. Mr. Payne stated that the case has been tabled several times since October 2009. In October the applicant requested that a change of zoning from a "B-4" General Business District to an "I-2" Light Industrial District in order to augment his auto repair services with "auto repair, heavy" uses defined in the Zoning Ordinance and to construct a billboard. At the public hearing in October, the applicant withdrew his intention to construct a billboard but stated that it was critical that Great State be allowed the heavy auto repair use. After staff recommended denial at the "I-2" District, the Planning Commission recommended that staff would go back and try to formulate a special permit that would work for staff and the applicant. The subject property is located at 3487, 3513, and 3511 South Padre Island Drive. There are 5 signs on the property; some of them are not in use and the applicant has agreed to remove 3 of them. Mr. Payne presented pictures of the property and surrounding properties. The future land use plan calls for commercial along SPID. There are residential lots behind the applicant's property. Staff met with applicant several times and visited the site. Mr. Payne stated that staff is recommending denial of the "I-2" Light Industrial District and in-lieu- thereof approval of a Special Permit subject to a site plan and with the following 15 conditions: 1. Uses: The only uses permitted by the Special Permit other than those uses permitted by right in the "B-4" Business District is a "auto repair, heavy" as defined in the Zoning Ordinance but excluding impound yards for wrecked vehicles. 2. Repairs inside a Building:No outdoor auto repair. 3. Building Expansion: The property owner will expand the existing building, per the site plan, to allow space for repair of a total of four heavy vehicles (dump trucks, buses, etc.)inside a building. 4. Easement: Remove any existing buildings out of a public easement or apply for a full or partial easement vacation. 5. Outdoor Storage:No outdoor storage of any type of materials. • 6. Storm drainage: Excess storm drainage from the site must drain on to South Padre Island Drive must be approved by TxDOT. Storm drainage shall not include effluent from vehicle repair operations. (See Attachments 12 and 13) 7. Existing Buildings / Environmental Quality: Existing buildings shall comply with environmental quality requirements, including oil separator requirements. See International Building Code requirement: 1003.4 Oil Separators Required which requires 6 cubic feet of capacity for the first 100 square feet of repair area and one cubic foot of additional capacity for each additional 100 square feet; International Plumbing Code: Chapter 11 Storm Drainage. 8. Propose Building Expansion/Environmental Quality: The building expansion shall require an oil separator of sufficient size to handle the volume of effluent from the 1111, 41110 Planning Commission Minutes October I,2008 Page 6 auto repair operations in accordance with the City's Building Code. The existing oil separator may be used for the building expansion if the separator is consistent with design requirements of the Building Code otherwise an additional oil separator will need to be installed per the Building Official and the Environmental Quality Department. See International Building Code requirement and International Plumbing Code requirements in Condition 7. 9. Hours of Operation: Business hours are limited to between 7:30 AM and 7:30 PM for auto repair,heavy uses. 10. Screening: A wooden screening fence or masonry wall with a minimum height of six (6) feet shall be located: a) Parallel to the south boundary line of the property per the site plan extending from the rear wall of the existing building east and west to the property line. b) Along the east property line in the rear half of the property as illustrated on the site plan. c) The screening fences must be installed within one (1) year of the date of this ordinance. 11. Landscaping: Compliance with new construction requirements in Article 27B. Landscape requirements pertaining to the existing street yard area to comply as if all existing structures are new construction. 12. Buffer Yard: A 25 foot rear buffer yard will be maintained by the owner. The buffer area will remain free of any structures,storage materials or dumpsters. 13. Signage: The property owner will remove three(3)of the five(5)free standing pole signs in the front yard as indicated on the site plan. 14. Lighting: All outdoor lighting must be directional and shielded away from adjacent properties, and light poles must be no higher than 15 feet. Cutoff shields are required for all lighting. No lighting is permitted to project beyond the rear property line. 15. Time Limit: This Special Permit for conditions 2,5,6,7,9,10,11,12, 13 and 14 expires in six (6) months from the date of this ordinance, unless the property is being used as outlined in Condition #1 and in compliance with all specified conditions except conditions three (3), four (4) and eight (8) which shall comply within two (2)years. Mr. Payne reported that the applicant currently has a building that allows for two heavy vehicles or a combination of one heavy vehicle and two cars. All the recommendations are for one year period except for recommendation, for two years on the building expansion. One of the issues with the applicant during the discussions was that one year is not enough time to complete the building. At that time staff notified applicant, that two years would be the recommendation. The applicant does not have a problem with the hours of operation. The applicant has an oil separator; the issues might be that it might not have the capacity when he expands his buildings and if it works properly for all the buildings in the property. Staff and applicant are in an agreement with the signage and lighting. Council has the option to recommend a longer period on item 15. At the time of the report there were 21 notices sent out and there was no opposition. *1110 4110 • Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 7 Commissioner Skrobarczyk inquired if the 25' buffer that the applicant needs is included in the 15' section and another 10' section shown in the site plan towards the back of the property and if there was another easement behind. Mr. Skrobarczyk added that if the property immediately towards the east is a PSP (Public Semi-Public) current usage. Mr. Payne affirmed that is the 25' buffer applicant needs and that the other easement behind is an un-built portion of Twig Street. Mr. Payne added that he believes that the property towards the east is a church and will verify and report back to commissioners. Mr. Payne stated that one of the big issues was the outdoor storage of the transmissions and that during discussions it was express by the applicant that it would not be feasible to enlarge the storage. Commissioner Martinez inquired if the applicant had a canopy on top would it be considered out door storage. Mr. Payne stated that it would still be considered. Jay Reining stated that all references to International Building Code and Plumbing Code need to be included with the Corpus Christi Building or Plumbing Codes so it will agree to the local amendments. These codes would need to be considered for items 7 and 8, especially on oily water separators, the city has extensive local rules to meet the wastewater requirements. Public hearing was opened. Joe Garcia, Business Owner at 4626 Weber Rd Suite 11, came forward and stated he is representing the owner, and that they do not have any issues with most of the conditions that are presented by city staff. Mr. Rittgers' main issue is being allowed to repair heavy vehicles outside and have open storage of rebuilt transmissions. Mr. Rittgers has stored the transmissions outdoors in various areas of the property since 2000. The transmissions were moved to the rear left corner when asked by city staff and Mr. Rittgers currently working on installing screening fencings. The open storage is critical to the business; the transmissions are completely drained before being stored in the open storage. City staff has preformed on-site inspections and have not found any leakage on the open storage transmissions. The repair work that is performed in vehicles is done in the building located toward the rear. Mr. Garcia added that Mr. Rittgers has a lift that is used on heavy equipment and in 2003 the owner was awarded a contract with the city to work on city vehicles. Approximately 2 months ago the City canceled the contract and he feels is due to the pending zoning case. Mr. Rittgers is willing to construct a building within a two year time frame. It is critical that the owner be allowed to continue operating the outside lift with the current work, while he completes and abides by all the conditions city staff has requested. If the capacity on the oil separator is not sufficient, Mr. Rittgers is willing to install another oil separator once the new building is completed. Chairman Garza asked Mr. Garcia to identify which conditions will create an undo hardship. Mr. Garcia stated that the critical items are items 2,to allow outdoor repair for two years before a new building is constructed and item 5, outdoor storage. Commissioner Nadkarni asked staff if the outdoor storage was a code violation. Mr. Payne stated that an outdoor storage is not allowed in a `B-4" zoning, which the current business is in. Bob Nix, Assistant City Manager, stated that in a "B-4" under 411110 Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 8 general business district regulations it states that sales and repair of variety of things, including tires, auto parts sales and services is permitted within a enclosed building. Mr. Nix added that accessory buildings and uses are permitted but outside storage is not permitted in "B-4" zoning district. Commissioner Nadkarni inquired to Mr. Garcia, when was the owner asked to move the outdoor storage to the back corner and inquired if it was a violation why was the move requested. Mr. Payne replied that staff never agreed with the owner to have an open storage and clarified that during discussions staff stated to the owner a request for an open storage in the least visible area can be submitted in a Special Use Permit but that the permit required approval. Mr. Garcia stated that Mr. Payne is correct but he understood that by moving it the Special Use Permit could possibly be approved with that condition. Commissioner Loeb asked staff if"B-4"does not allow outdoor storage why would it be address in a Special Permit. Mr. Payne stated that it would require to be addressed to give Mr. Rittgers the opportunity to continue the existing outdoor storage use. Commissioner Loeb asked if staff and the applicant under the same agreement that the applicant will continued to be allowed to have outdoor repair on that lift until owner gets the building completed; once the building is completed the outdoor repair will not be allowed. Mr. Payne stated that under the conditions of the special permit outdoor repair would have to stop immediately. Mr. Payne added that the Special Use Permit only allows repairs in a building. Mr. Garcia stated that Mr. Rittgers is requesting the Special Use Permit allow outdoor repairs until the building is completed within the 2 years time as stated in item 15. Vice Chairman Huerta asked to what would happen if Mr. Rittgers sold the building; the new owners could possibly continue to be non-compliant. Commissioner Skrobarczyk asked for a clarification from staff on when a Special Permit is granted was is the limitation on restriction and will there be any legal issues on the limited of time that the owner would be non-compliant. Chairman Garza replied that as many conditions can be placed and that there are no limitations. Mr. Reining stated that the Commissioners are able to grant land use, the Special Permit approval is granting him repair use in the large building. Mr. Reining added that commissioners can also grant the owner outside repair. Commissioner Loeb ask if applicant could go to the Board of Adjustment for a Special Use Permit to request for outside repair for one year. Mr. Reining stated that he would need to verify and report back to the commissioners. Mark Rittgers, Property and Business Owner, came forward and presented pictures of the property taken from the freeway that showed the outside storage is not visible from the roadway. Mr. Ringers presented pictures of the outside storage and emphasized that transmissions are stored on shelves, never on the ground and they always have cap plugs in all the ports. Pictures demonstrated the ground cleaned, no leakage and all the ends were sealed. In order to meet the city's requirements it will cost over$100,000 and he is willing to comply except for the limitations on outside storage and temporary outdoor repairs until the new building is constructed within two years. With the economic situation today, the business must be able to operate. Mr. Rittgers asked his staff to stand (approximately 23 people that stood);the constraints that the city wants to do will not only affect the owner, it will also affect all the employees and their families. Letters of recommendation from the r � *10 Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 9 surrounding business owners and residential neighbors were distributed to the commissioners and staff. The letters stated that they have not had any problems with the operation of business at any time. Chairman Garza stated that the effect that there are no oppositions to the special permit or the zoning request speaks volumes. The business has been a good neighbor and has made a presentation and requested some relief so he could be compliant. It seems that city staff is asking him to jump over huge hurdles in order to comply. The reason for the regulations on the outdoor storage is to keep areas from being unsightly; usually the screening takes care of the issues. In this business the back area is not visible from the freeway. The city is asking him to do something that will not affect anyone and will place a burden to the owner. Mr. Payne stated that staff is trying to be as sensitive as possible, but there are others cases that have outdoor storage that are non-compliant and staff has to enforce the zoning regulations equally. Mr. Payne added that the positives of this case are that there are 15 conditions and there are only 2 remaining issues. It is very impressive for this kind of business not to have the neighborhood complaining. Commissioner Martinez stated that he agrees with Chairman Garza and that he was ready to grant him the special permit during the last time the case was presented. Commissioner Martinez also agreed that the applicant has committed to significant improvements. Vice Chairman Huerta asked the applicant if the outdoor repair would be discontinued once the new building is completed. Mr. Ringers agreed that the outdoor repairs would be terminated after the building is constructed. Commissioner Martinez and Chairman Garza asked for legal opinion if there could be a possibility of allowing the outdoor repair until the new building is complete. Mr. Reining stated that it will not be possible because it would down zone the property. Mr. Nix stated that currently in the"B-4" district regulations heavy or major automotive repair is provided if all the work is performed inside the building. Mr. Nix inquired if a Special Permit is granted would it be done in a way that is consistent with the impositions we placed on all the other property owners in that zoning district and are we going to do something to screen this activity from view or limit its hours of operations because of the noise due to the residential houses behind this business. It can also have some other conditions can be placed so that it can be carried out in a matter that it is consistent with the intent of the districts regulations. Mr. Nix stated that staff would need to discuss the vehicle lift on its use as to how is it protected from view and how is the noise controlled. Commissioner Loeb inquired if the new building would be where the current lift is. Mr. Ringers stated the statement is correct and he does not have a problem if staff wants to place a condition that this is the only allowable outdoor repair area where work can be performed until the new building is completed. Mr. Reining stated that the condition can be worded in that matter if outside repair would be allowed for a certain time frame. *1110 *11110 Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 10 Commissioner Tamez asked Mr. Rittgers if he has looked into the cost of the outdoor storage. Mr. Rittgers replied that he has purchased all the shelving and all he has to do is finish erecting it and move everything to the corridor where it will be placed. The new building, the additional water oil sand traps, fencing, landscaping and the signage are estimated to cost at least $100,000. Commissioner Nadkarni stated that just because a business has been operating in a non-confirming matter for years does not mean that it should be allowed to continue. Mrs. Rittgers, Property and Business Co-Owner, came forward and thanked the commissioners for giving to her and her husband an opportunity to speak. Mrs. Rittgers added they were not aware they were not compliant, and reiterate what her husband stated earlier that if they are not allowed to continue to work on heavy machinery that the business will not been able to stay in business. Public hearing was closed. Commissioner Loeb made a motion and Second by Commissioner Skrobarczyk for denial of the"I-2"and in lieu thereof approval of the Special Permit to allow the outdoor work to temporarily continue at as the new building site on the site plan(attachment 14) and with the second condition on the outdoor storage will only be permitted on the designated areas of the site plan(attachment 14) and should be properly screened as specified in condition 10. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Adame being absent. 2. New Zoning a. Case No. 0109-01 Arnold Brothers Properties—A change of zoning from an "I-2" Light Industrial District to an "I-3" Heavy Industrial District resulting in a change of land use from light Industrial to heavy industrial 12,350 square feet out of Lot 6, Holly Industrial Subdivision. Mr. Payne presented the above case via Power Point,stating the subject property is located at Holly Industrial Subdivision, Lots 6. The applicant is requesting a change of the "I-2" Light Industrial District to an"I-3" Heavy Industrial District on a 12,350 square foot area on lot 6. The Arnold Oil Company sells bulk lubricating oils and lubricants and has a new office and industrial warehouse at AyersStreet and Gibb Street. The applicant proposes to remove the existing 27 downtown above ground fuel storage tanks and create a new above ground fuel storage tank area. The 12,350 area will have sufficient capacity to handle 70 tanks with a capacity of 4,000 to 8,000 gallons for each tank. The tank area will be enclosed by a retaining wall of appropriate height and design to safely capture any fluid releases from a breach in a tank and to meet all local, state and federal safety requirements. The applicant has indicated that oil, not fuel will be stored in the tanks. The "I-2" district provides for light industrial activities, but not above ground fuel storage tanks. There have been similar cases which an "I-3"district has been required; once City Council approves it 11110 Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 11 the property owners would be required to go to Zoning Board of Adjustment. Granting the special permit would allow the owner to move the business from the downtown area, where it is not compatible with the City's downtown area. The tanks will be compliant with the fire code. The applicant has agreed with the staff's recommendation. Mr. Payne stated that staff recommendation is denial of an"I-3"Heavy Industrial District, and in lieu thereof, approval of a Special Permit with the following four(4) conditions: 1, Uses: All uses allowed by the base zoning district plus up to seventy (70) API650 above ground fuel tanks not to exceed 8,000 gallons each. 2. Fire Department Approval: The above ground fuel tank shall meet all Fire Department requirements. 3. Zoning Board of Adjustments Approval: The above ground fuel tank will not be allowed without Zoning Board of Adjustment approval. 4. Time Limit: Such Special Permit shall be deemed to have expired within one year of the date of this ordinance, unless the property is being used as outlined in Condition#1 and in compliance with all other conditions. Commissioner Skrobarczyk stated that"I-2"does not allow any on-site residential and inquired if there will be a guard allowed to live on the property, with the quantity of tanks that the property will have. Mr. Reining stated that the city authorizes one watchman's quarters on industrial properties. Commissioner Huerta asked for clarification of the type of fuels that would be stored in the tanks. Mr. Payne stated that the intent of the applicant is to store reprocesses oil. Public hearing was opened. Moody Boatwright, Engineer assisting with the project, stated that there are a lot of advantages to the business and the city for the relocation of the tanks. Mr. Boatwright stated that the tanks are oil tanks not fuel tanks. The owner purchased several acres that will allow for the relocation. The present tank area is smaller than the new location. In motor oil there will stock approximately 10 to 15 different grades for different companies (Gulf Oil, Texaco, etc). Each different grade has to be stored separately. The capacity of each tank is 8000 gallons, which the dimensions of the tanks will be 8' x 22' high. The tanks will be placed on concrete base, enclosed, and they will have containment in case tanks leak. They will meet the EPA requirements; the area is isolated. The back will be highly fence to protect the tanks. All the tanks will have values with locks and will be well secured. The new facility will be neater and more environmental safe than the one downtown. Commissioner Nadkarni inquired if there will be a concrete base as well as a concrete curb and how will the rainfall be removed. Mr. Boatwright stated that tanks would be in a EPA oil spill containment area. Mr. Boatwright added that given the rainfall for Corpus Christi in that area is that the size at the site and evaporation will be sufficient any for any moister problems. Public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 12 Motion for approval of staff recommendation to deny the "I-3" in lieu there of creating a Special Permit for above ground storage tanks with 4 conditions, was made by Commissioner Nadkarni and seconded by Commissioner Skrobarczyk. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Adame being absent. b. Case No. 0109-02 ClosnerBrownstone Ventures, Corpus, LLC — A change of zoning from a i'I-2" Light Industrial District to an "I-3" Heavy Industrial District resulting in a change of land use from light to heavy industrial 800 square feet out of a 4.011 acre tract out of Lots 3 and 6, Section 5, Range VIII, Gugenheim & Cohn Farm Lots, located on the west side of North Padre Island Drive between Old Brownsville Road and Corporate Drive. Mr. Payne presented the above case via Power Point, stating the applicant is Closner/Brownstone Ventures, Corpus, LLC. Mr. Payne stated the subject property is 4.011 acres out of Gugenheim & Cohn Farm Lots, located on the west side of North Padre Island Drive between Old Brownsville Road and Corporate Drive. The request is from "I- 2" Light Industrial District to "I-3" Heavy Industrial District. The applicant is requesting an above storage tank site of 800 square feet. Applicant wants 2 tanks or one combined tank. The proposed 2,000 gallon tank will be used for diesel fueling and the 500 gallon tank will be used for gasoline fueling. The applicant is under construction for a new Hertz Rental car business. The applicant has a contingency plan where they had designed for underground fuel storage if necessary. The plans that was presented to staff were submitted with specification that if they are not approved for the above ground fuel storage tanks, they will do underground storage tanks. If the zoning is approve the applicant will amend their building plans to show above ground fuel storage tanks. Mr. Payne added that staff is recommending denial of an "I-3" Heavy Industrial District, and in lieu thereof, approval of a Special Permit for two UL2085 above ground fuel storage tanks or one combined above ground fuel storage tank subject to a site plan with the following conditions: 1. Uses: All uses allowed by the base zoning district plus two UL2085 above ground fuel tanks or one combined tank with a capacity to store 2,000 gallons of diesel fuel and 500 gallons of gasoline. 2. Fire Department Approval: The above ground fuel tank(s) shall meet all Fire Department requirements. 3. Zoning Board of Adjustments Approval: The above ground fuel tank(s) will not be allowed without Zoning Board of Adjustment approval. 'fir ) �rrd Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 13 4. Time Limit: Such Special Permit shall be deemed to have expired within 12 months of the date of this ordinance, unless the property is being used as outlined in Condition#1 and in compliance with all other conditions. Public hearing was opened. Public hearing was closed. Motion for approval of staff recommendation of denial of an"I-3" Heavy Industrial District, and in lieu thereof, approval of a Special Permit with the specified conditions was made by Commissioner Martinez and seconded by Commissioner Nadkarni. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Adame being absent. c. Case No. 0109-03 Andrew Salmon — A change of zoning from a `B-1" Neighborhood Business District to a "I-2" Light Industrial District resulting in a change of land use from commercial to industrial use. Carroll Place, Unit 7, Block 1, Lot 3, located at 3430 Holly Road. Mr. Payne presented the above case via Power Point, stating the applicant is Andrew Salomon. Mr. Payne stated that the subject property is at Carroll Place, Unit 7, Block 1, Lot 3 located at 3430 Holly Road. The applicant is requesting a change of zoning on 1.93 acres from a`B-1"Neighborhood Business District to an"I-2"Light Industrial District. The applicant is selling slabs of granite for kitchen counter tops, offices, etc. The applicant would like to rezone the property to allow outdoor storage which is not allowed in the"B-I"Neighborhood Business District. "B-1" District does allow for some retail displays, provided the area is within ten feet of the store front,the area is not more than 50%of such retail sales store front area and the outside retail sales area may not include the areas within the zoning district setback areas. This would allow the applicant to have some samples of granite that could be stored outside the building. Mr. Payne stated that applicant had several zoning code violations from November 2007 to October 2008. Staff Recommendation is denial of the request for an"I-2" Light Industrial District. The"I-2" District is not supported by the City's Comprehensive Plan; not compatible with the abutting residential districts and approval of the"I-2"District would set a precedent for industrial land use along Holly Road. Commissioner Skrobarczyk inquired what the zoning use was for the adjacent lots to the east. Mr. Payne stated that adjacent lost was a church with a residence, and a funeral home. Public hearing was opened. Andrew Salmon,owner of the property, stated that he purchased that property to do a granite showcase. There will be no industrial placed on the property; it is strictly used to show the customers the materials that are sold. The only way that the material can be } Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 14 shown to the customer is placing it outside. Since the granite slabs were moved, per city's request, business has dropped approximately 60%. The granite was previously placed where customers could drive by and see the granite slabs. The slabs are not intended to stay outside due to the elements could destroy the granite if it is left outside for long periods of time. Improvements that are be done include, granite fencing, landscaping and other improvements. Mr. Salmon stated that he was not aware when he initially purchased the property that he was not able to use the property to show the granite outside. The real estate agent that he was working with stated that there would not be a problem with the granite outside. Because the granite slabs are very heavy it cannot be brought in at the end of every business day. Mr. Salmon added that his intention was not to violate any city laws and he would like to work with city staff to see how he can be in compliant. JoAnn Gilbertson, property owner at 4601 Gulf Breeze Blvd., stated that she has been in Mr. Salmon's Granite store and wanted to get a clarification about being able to display the granite as long as you stay within 10' of the building. Mr. Payne stated that samples can be displayed within 10' feet of the front of the building. The display cannot be in the side yard, or the front yard even if it is within 10' of the building. Ms. Gilbertson stated that she has visited the business and has not purchased anything and having a degree in design, the granite outside will assist the business dramatically, because customers want to view the granite outdoors. Mr. Payne read the zoning ordinance section 3-1.50.2: > Outside Retail Display. An unenclosed area used as an accessory use to a primarily retail sales use to display items for sale. When allowed,such area: 1) Shall be limited to ten feet of the retail sales store-front which fronts the front yard; 2) Shall not extend greater than 50%of such retail sales store-front; 3) Shall not encroach upon minimum yard, minimum parking area, or fire lane. Commissioner Loeb clarified the intent of the outside retail sales area by giving examples where HEB and Stripes having plants or sodas outside the door for sales. Mr. Salmon stated that the display of his business only going to be on the side of the building and it will not be on the parking lot or in the front. Commissioner Loeb asked staff what zoning classification is needed for the sales of building materials and if Mr. Salmon had his inventory inside,would his business be classified at retail or material business. Mr. Payne added that"1-2"District it refers to outdoor storage—a entire inventory of the business cannot be stored outside but retail sales are allowed. Commissioner Martinez inquired on the average amount of slabs kept on the property. Mr. Salmon stated that depending on the quantity of color; the amounts are approximately 50 to 80 slabs. Mr. Salmon stated that the forklift is kept in the back, it is used to unload from the truck or when it is being transported inside. Vice Chairman Huerta stated a possible reason why business has dropped could be there is no signage on the building and that reasonable size samples can be placed in the front and still be moved inside at the end of each business day. Commissioner Kelly inquired if Mr. Salmon created a sample board to be displayed in the front and add a building in the back where the inventory can be stored would he be compliant. Mr. Payne stated that in the current zoning district he would be compliant. Mr. 4111110 } r"r+ Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 15 Payne stated that as long the back yard does not become the primary warehouse use of the property; if the back of the property is used for a primary warehouse it will become an industrial use. Mr. Nix stated that generally retail sales of stone and pottery is usually in"I-2" District,where it is first permitted as a use. Mr. Nix stated that the property next door is "B-4"and there could be a possibility in extending"B-4"to Mr. Salmon's property. This would deny his "I-2"and give him a"B-4"with a Special Permit to allow the retail sales of the stoneware subject to the limitation on display of his wares that are in the"B-4" District. This will allow him to place them on the side, behind the fencing and on the rear of the building, like other districts displays their wares in the "B-4"district. Mr. Salmon requested to table the case until January 21s`, so he can meet with staff and further discuss all issues. Chairman Garza stated that Mr. Salmon has to keep in mind that if those conditions are written and the Planning Commission approves the Special Permit with the conditions he will be required to adhere to all the conditions. The history of non- compliance is not a track record that applicants should keep. Public hearing was closed. Motion to table the case for two weeks to allow the applicant to meet with staff was made by Commissioner Nadkarni and second by Commissioner Martinez. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Adame being absent. d. Case No. 0109-04 Augustine Charles Prochazka—A change of zoning from"FR" Farm and Rural District to an "R-1A" One Family Dwelling District resulting in a change of land use from farm and rural to single family residential use 0.91 acres out of a 15.11 acre tract recorded in file number 2008025662 of the Deed Records of Nueces County,Texas located on the east side of Figueroa Road between Up River Road and the Nueces River. Mr. Payne presented the above case via Power Point, stating the applicant is Charles Prochazka. Mr. Payne stated that the subject property is 0.91 acres out of a 15.11 acre tract recorded in file number 2008025662 of the Deed Records of Nueces County, Texas located on the east side of Figueroa Road between Up River Road and Nueces River. The applicant is requesting rezoning to the"R-1A"One Family Dwelling District to replat the property with a lot smaller than five acres required by the"F-R"District and bring the nonconforming existing fishing pier into compliance. Additionally, electrical service to the pier has been denied by the electrical provider until the property is platted. The requested zoning will allow the applicant to plat the property with the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet provided by the"R-1A"District and provide for the development of an accessory use prior to the construction of a principle use. Once the property is rezoned the applicant will propose replatting of the property. A lease from the Texas General Land Office is also needed as the pier extends from the applicant's property out over the Nueces River which is owned by the State of Texas. With the rezoning and } Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 16 replatting of the property and GLO lease the fishing pier would become compliant and enable electrical services to be provided. Mr. Payne stated that the applicant will remove the trailer that is on his property. Staff has discussed this case with the Legal Department and would like to recommend since the applicant is not present to table the case. The initial recommendation which may change is approval of the "R-1A"One Family Dwelling District and a special permit subject to a site plan with the following two (2) conditions: 1. Uses: The only uses permitted by the Special Permit other than those uses permitted by right in the "R-1A" One Family Dwelling District is an accessory pier without first constructing a primary residential structure per Article 27-3.02.06 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Time Limit: This Special Permit expires two (1) years from the date of this ordinance, unless the property is being used as outlined in Condition #1 and in compliance with all other conditions. Mr. Reining stated that applicant could build the dock in the "F-R" District since the existing brush and pasture land is the existing primary use. The "F-R" District does not require a primary residence. In order for the applicant to get a building permit the property has to be platted. He can build a dock as an accessory structure under the current zoning. One of the issues is that he is unable to get a building permit because the property is not platted. If the property is rezoned to the "R-1A" District than a special permit is needed for the accessory pier use. Mr. Payne read the zoning ordinance in article 27-3.02.06: > No accessory building shall be constructed upon a lot until the construction of the main use building has actually commenced. No accessory building shall be used unless the main use building on the lot is also being used. Mr. Payne noted that the property is located in a remote location and is a large overall acreage (15 acres). Chairman Garza inquired if the property is in city limits and had the property owner indicated what future plans he has for the property. Mr. Payne stated that the property is in city limits and that the owner has indicated no interest in building anything else but a pier to be use for fishing. He would like to get an electrical permit to get some light at the pier. Chairman Garza inquired if there is a way to get city services in the property. Mr. Payne stated that it would be very difficult to get full compliment of city services there. Public hearing was opened. Nobody came forward in support or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion to table the case until January 21, was made by Commissioner Nadkarni and seconded Commissioner Kelly. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Adame being absent. 1110 1111110 ) Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 17 C. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 27B LANDSCAPE REQUIRMENTS, SECTION 11 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES (Continuation) Mr. Payne stated that the issue is to allow designers with a degree in landscape architecture and that are not registered but have experience,to submit landscape plans. Only a registered architect,registered landscape architect or certified nursery professional are currently allowed to submit landscaped plans. The proposed amendment would allow a non-certified designer and non-registered person must have: 1. A degree in Landscape Architecture, and 2. Experience under the direction of a registered Landscape Architect or successful experience in submitting landscape plans to the city. A non- registered designer does not have to meet the professional requirements enforced by an agency or professional organization. Staff also proposes to allow registered professional engineers to submit landscape plans consistent with state law. Mr. Payne added there are certain cases where the landscaping is more technical and would require a registered Landscape Architect: > When the location of the city's utility infrastructure is in direct conflict with landscape requirements. > When landscaping is too close to building structures,understanding what plants can be placed where is important. > One of the issues in working with non-registered Landscape Architects has been a delay of projects because there are numerous errors in the landscape plan submission process. > Architects and Landscape Architects are prohibited by state law from installing landscapes that they have designed. Comparisons from other Texas cities: > Arlington—requires a Landscape Architect to seal landscape plans submitted with a building permit. > Austin—landscape plans for sites greater than one acre are required to have the seal and certification of a registered professional landscape architect. > San Antonio—only a certified irrigator can submit a landscape plan > College Station—there is no professional requirement. Mr. Payne referred to Attachment 1 Text Amendment Landscape Ordinance Page 4, and stated that the introductory paragraph to item 11 has been change to include registered professional engineer and appropriate design professional to the list those that may submit landscape plans. The next paragraph defines the appropriate design professional as somebody who has a degree in landscape architecture but not registered and at least 5 years of successful experience working under the supervision of a registered landscape architect or a degree in landscape architecture and a minimum of 5 years of successful experience submitting landscape plans to the city. Mr. Nix stated that staff will add the licensed professional engineer, architect and the registered landscape architect to *1100 ) 41111110 ) Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 18 item b. It will also add on item b iii to read, "where trees are proposed within ten(10) feet of a building structure, foundation, roof structure, or wall." Commissioner Huerta stated that(b) i and ii can be combine into one item to read where the landscaping plan contains any tree or crown of the tree to encroach in the easement and on item iii to read if there is a tree or the crown of the tree is within the perimeter of the building because there are trees that are larger than 10 feet. Mr.Nix stated that most of the commercial properties are in approximately 1.2 acres. Staff will add the proposed amendment to read a lot of 2 acres or larger. Commissioner Kelly stated that item iii should remain as landscape material, due to there are things other than trees that will eat pipes so fast. Motion was made to table the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to the next meeting was made by Commissioner Nadkarni and seconded Commissioner Skrobarczyk. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Adame being absent. • IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. ZONING TEXT POTENTIAL AMENDMENT—PARKING REGULATIONS Mr. Nix stated that staff has prepared a proposed Unified Development Code (UDC) draft parking ordinance that is scheduled to be discussed by the Administrative Focus Group on January 8 and possibly January 22, 2009. Most of the provisions that will be discussed are included in a proposed revision to the current parking ordinance. Mr. Nix gave a brief description of the background information and issues surrounding the approval of a parking Special Use Exception. The UDC Administrative Group will be reviewing the proposed changes for inclusion into the UDC. Mr. Nix added that staff reviewed the existing parking code to determine what changes could be quickly made that would protect public health, safety and welfare while also changing the parking requirements that have been at issue. It will provide distinctions between intensely developed areas and those areas that are more suburban in nature. It will also provide more options for parking flexibility in the ordinance. Mr. Nix stated that there are significant costs associated with the provision of parking to support development. If the public accepts these costs as legitimate taxpayer expenses,the acceptance would ideally occur with adequate and broad public participation and full consideration of the fiscal impact. An example of public costs associated with parking in a redevelopment area was given. While planning is taking place, interim measures that benefit early development would buy the time needed for adequate public participation in the creation of area development and redevelopment plans. The provision of adequate parking is essential to public safety by keeping vehicles off the streets due to inadequate or poorly designed parking facilities. The staff's first attempt at dealing with the issues, are to use literature review to amend several specific parking requirements,as follows(Mr.Nix gave explanation of each): shopping centers,office development and furniture and appliance stores. The potential amended ordinance permits the following flexibility that does not exist in our current parking regulations: *00 Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 19 1. Alternative parking plans with supporting analysis may be submitted by a developer in order to meet parking requirements. Plans are subject to administrative review. 2. Applicants may submit data justifying a different parking requirement than the one specified in the code, subject to administrative review and approval. 3. Applicants may propose to use on-street parking to meet some or all of their parking requirements. 4. Some of the limitations on shared parking have been removed, and the distance separation has been expanded from a maximum of 300 feet to a maximum of 500 feet. 5. Credit can be obtained for providing bicycle parking to reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces. 6. Tandem parking is permitted for residential development and redevelopment on substandard zoning lots when the development or redevelopment is supported by the city's affordable housing program. Mr. Nix stated in conclusion that the potential changes provide a substantial alteration of existing regulations in advance of adoption of the UDC that addresses the most recent issues regarding parking. Commissioner Skrobarczyk inquired if there should be a Board of Adjustments that deal strictly with parking because of the downtown redevelopment coming up and it would be very difficult to write everything down to satisfy everybody. Commissioner Skrobarczyk added that the off-site parking should be extended 2,000' instead of 500' and to add additional tandem parking in other areas other than just in affordable housing areas. Vice-Chairman Huerta stated that if 600' is a city block and that the extension should change. Mr. Nix suggested that a change can be done on the suburban areas to 500' and urban areas to 1,200' and add the tandem parking in some of the older areas in the city,or by adding employee parking to some commercial areas. Commissioner Loeb stated that the downtown area does not have a parking requirement and the reason it was removed, was to promote the downtown redeveloped in a style that is different from the typical suburban style development because of the parking requirements. B. FOLLOW UP PRESENTATIN/DISCUSSION ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OF JANUARY 7,2009, RELATED TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI PLATTING ORDINANCE. Mr. Payne stated that staff will bring the item to next schedule Planning Commission on and that item did not require any action. V. DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. ABSENCES Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 20 Mr. Payne stated that Commissioner Nadkarni was absent on December 10th due to state government business. Mr. Payne added that this does not require any commission action. B. FUTURE SCHEDULED MEETINGS Mr. Payne stated that there is a heavy meeting schedule,the following the upcoming meeting dates: D January 21,2009 D January 28,2009—Planning Commission Workshop from 2:00 p.m. —5:00 p.m. D February 4, 2009 C. UDC ADOPTION SCHEDULE Mr. Nix stated staff will present the UDC in February 2009; after discussion with the Focus Group an initial copy will be distributed to Chairman Garza. Mr. Nix added that the only significant changes are chapters 1 —3,which deal with administrative processes;there are changes in chapter 7 part II and the new trust fund language was added to chapter 8. D. CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON ZONING CASES Mr. Payne stated that the upcoming cases scheduled for City Council include the following: D Case No. 1108-02 Al Croszeir/Prime Income Asset Management D Case No. 1008.04 Raquel Medina E. IDENTIFY ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON NEXT AGENDA No items were identified for placement on next agenda VI. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Skrobarczyk seconded by Commissioner Nadkarni. Meeting adjourned at 9:41 p.m. %91‘4- Owl - I it 'A aryce e`'ode-Macon Sylvia Sanchez Assistan Director of Recording Secretary Development Services/Planning