Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 10/01/2008 .! V 466188' MINUTES 1;1' 0, REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING p.,�..,`t a\ Council Chambers-City Hall x ''irk w1, Wednesday 30 P.M.er 1,2008 4S,>2, /� Q '14,4 �� COMMISSIONERS: STAFF: `92 Rudy Garza,Chairman Bob Nix,AICP Assistant City -¢k gf01,6v A. Javier Huerta,Vice-Chairman*arrived at Development Services 5:31p.m. Johnny Perales,PE,Deputy Director of John C.Tamez Development Services/Special Services Johnny R.Martinez Faryce Goode-Macon,Assistant Director of James Skrobarczyk Development Services/Planning Evon J.Kelly Miguel Saldana, Special Services David Loeb Bob Payne,AICP, Senior City Planner Mark Adame Jay Reining,First Assistant City Attorney Yvette Aguilar, Attorney I ABSENCES: Beverly Lang-Priestley,Recording Secretary Govind Nadkarni I. CALL TO ORDER A quorum was declared and the meeting was called to order at 5:31 p.m. by Chairman Garza. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion for approval of the September 17, 2008, minutes was made by Commissioner Martinez and seconded by Commissioner Tamez. Motion passed unanimously. III. PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS A. PLATS 1. Continued Plat Miguel Saldana, Development Services, read Continued Plat agenda item "a" (shown below) into the record and stated this is a preliminary plat which has been submitted for approval. Mr. Saldana stated the plat meets the requirements of the city subdivision regulations, therefore, staff recommends approval. a. 0908093-NP074 West River Place Unit 2 (Preliminary-8.31 Acres) Located west of FM 1889 and south of Northwest Boulevard(FM 624). Public hearing was opened. Nobody came forward in support or opposition. Public hearing was closed. SCANNED Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 2 Motion for approval was made by Commissioner Kelly and seconded by Commissioner Loeb. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Nadkarni being absent. 2. New Plat Mr. Saldafia read New Plat agenda item"a" (shown below)into the record and stated this is a final replat which has been submitted for a continuance to the October 29, 2008, Planning Commission because the applicant needs to go before the Board of Adjustment. a. 1008097-P020 Flour Bluff Estates Unit 1,Block G, Lots 28A-28E (Final-0.9788 Acre) Located south of Lakeside Drive and west of Mounts Drive,both north of South Padre Island Drive(PR 22) and east of Waldron Road. As a courtesy, Chairman Garza asked if anyone present would like to come forward in favor or in opposition of the continuance. Nobody came forward. Motion for approval of the continuance was made by Commissioner Martinez and seconded by Commissioner Skrobarczyk. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Nadkarni being absent. 3. Time Extensions Mr. Saldafia read Time Extension agenda item "a" (shown below) into the record and stated this is a preliminary plat which has been submitted for a third one-year time extension. Mr. Saldafia stated that approval of this extension would put the plat into its fourth year extension and, as procedure, the third request is generally denied, therefore, staff recommends denial of the time extension. a. 0505067-NP036 Kitty Hawk Subdivision(Preliminary-350.00 Acres) Located south of South Staples Street(FM 2444)east of County Road 41. Commissioner Huerta recused himself from this case. Public hearing was opened. Mr. Pat Veteto, 820 Buffalo, representative for the applicant, came forward stating that Kitty Hawk is a 350 acre "RE" zoned subdivision and they have already filed and built Unit I and they are building houses there now. Mr. Veteto stated streets are there, storm lines and water lines are stubbed out; an easement for future drainage has been granted and there is a reimbursement agreement in place with City Council for a bridge. Mr. Veteto stated it seems to be a waste of his time, his client's time and money, and the Commission's time to come in each year and ask for an extension,but the Platting Ordinance requirements. Mr. Veteto stated that a denial will simply put Mir Planting Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 3 them through he platting hearing again and he does not understand the policy to deny a plat after three times when action has been taken on the preliminary plat. In response to Commissioner Tamez, Mr. Veteto stated the current economic conditions and the fact that the owner has not yet sold out Unit I are factors in this request. Commissioner Tamez stated that the Commission has to consider the current situation for all developer at this time, however, with a third request he would like to see a time table so that the Commission can determine if a year is sufficient,and if not, it would give a better idea how to gauge other plats that ask for extensions. Mr. Veteto stated he does not know if the applicant could come in with a Unit II within a year and stated that this is a 350 acre planned subdivision. Mr.Veteto stated that all 350 acres have been zoned "RE", the streets have been laid out, the streets are stubbed out to match the preliminary plat and he does not know what the purpose would be in denying the request because once they are ready for Unit II they will simply come in with the same layout and ask for approval of the underlying preliminary plat. Mr. Veteto stated that for preliminary plats that action has already been taken on and units built, it would seem to be a better ordinance to review every five years as opposed to every one year. In response to Commissioner Tamez, Mr. Saldafia stated there is no actual cost to the City for extending the plat, however, as ordinances change over time there could be repercussions, whether it be in design standard or in the fee amount. In response, Mr. Veteto stated that any design standard changes would be taken care of with the Unit II or Unit III submission. Mr. Jay Reining, Legal Counsel, stated that as long as the preliminary is out there, vesting statute would subject everything to the current rules,not any future rules that may be adopted as for the UDC,etc. Therefore,they would avoid being subject to the new provisions of the UDC. In response to Commissioner Loeb, Mr. Saldana stated the things that are currently different than when this plat was first applied for is increased acreage lot fees, and the park settlement fee has changed, as well as other easement requirements. Mr. Saldana stated he believes the Kitty Hawk Subdivision is,however,proceeding with the new easement requirements. Mr. Reining stated that with each final plat submitted the new fees would be applied, however, it is the substantive rules that change, for example, the right of way widths or whether an extra turn out is needed. In response to Commissioner Martinez, Mr. Saldafia stated the costs incurred by the applicant up to this point include the engineering fees,the design fees and plat applicant fees. In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk, Mr. Nix stated that according to several developers he has spoken with, the typical time to build out a subdivision such as this is about ten years. Mr. Nix stated that typically, once an investment has been made, i.e., concrete and steel in the ground,the infrastructure for the subdivision has been built, at that point it becomes vested. If this has not been done, then depending on the law of the state, it is not vested. Mr. Nix stated it is his opinion that since only engineering work has been done,this project is not vested. Mr. Johnny Perales, Development Services, pointed out that staffs recommendation for denial of the time extension is based on precedents and directives issued by previous Planning ate Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 4 Commissions under different economic conditions and this might be an opportunity for the sitting Commission to issue different instructions or request staff to come back with different procedures to use in the interim until the final UDC is adopted. Commissioner Loeb suggested that projects which are multiple phase projects and have been planned and on the books for a couple of years be allowed continuances and to go on as originally engineered. However,projects submitted just prior to the UDC being implemented with the purpose of circumventing the system should be denied extensions in the future. Chairman Garza stated he believes the tentative economic situation will prevent that sort of thing from occurring, however, Mr. Reining stated that that type of activity normally happens every time building codes change or any time substantive changes to the platting ordinance occur. Commissioner Tamez requested that staff instruct the applicant to include in their letter for extension more detail on their situation and when they believe they will be able to start again. Public hearing was closed. Motion for approval of the extension was made by Commissioner Tamez and seconded by Commissioner Martinez. Commissioner Loeb proffered an addition to the motion stipulating that staff use their judgment in future recommendations based on whether the continuances are for economic circumstances or in an effort of avoidance of new regulations. Commissioner Tamez and Commissioner Martinez accepted the amendment. Amended motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Huerta abstaining and Commissioner Nadkarni being absent. b. 0906164-NP095 Mr. Saldana read Time Extensions agenda item "b" (shown below) into the record and stated this is a final plat which has been submitted for a fourth six-month extension. Staff recommends denial. Mustang Island Resort(Final -22.94 Acres) Located between State Highway 361 and the Gulf of Mexico and between Beach Access Road No. 2 and Mustang Island State Park. Commissioner Skrobarczyk stated this item has been discussed before and it was implied to the applicant that there would be no problem. The extension is requested because the applicant is still trying to garner financing for the $400-600 million project. Commissioner Skrobarczyk stated that any community in the nation would appreciate having a project of this magnitude in this economic climate. Commissioner Slcrobarczyk stated he just wants everybody to know the importance of this project. Public hearing was opened. Nobody came forward in support or opposition. Public hearing was closed. V Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 5 Motion for approval of a six-month extension was made by Commissioner Huerta and seconded by Commissioner Skrobarczyk. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Nadkami being absent. c. 0408027-P008 Mr. Saldafia read Time Extensions agenda item "c" (shown below) into the record and stated this is a final plat which has been submitted for a first time six-month extension. Staff recommends approval. Crosswind Estates Unit 2 (Final -5.774 Acres) Located north of Bison Drive,south of Yorktown Boulevard and east of Cimarron Boulevard. Public hearing was opened. Nobody came forward in support or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion for approval of a six-month extension was made by Commissioner Huerta and seconded by Commissioner Skrobarczyk. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Nadkarni being absent. (THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RECESSED AT THIS POINT) B. CORPUS CHRISTI BEACH/DUNE COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA CORPUS CHRISTI BEACH/DUNE COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday—October 1,2008 City Hall Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Garza called the Corpus Christi Beach/Dune Committee Meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. 2. NEW BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATES a. Case No.BCC 1008-01 Ron Wolfe-Application for a Beachfront Construction Certificate for sand mitigation Beach View Estates,Block 1, Lot 19, 105 Beach View Drive, Corpus Christi,Texas I V Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 6 Mr. Bob Payne, Development Services,presented the above case via Power Point, stating the applicant, Ron Wolfe, has petitioned the City for a Beachfront Construction Certificate for sand fill mitigation seaward of the erosion area line on the above-described property. Mr. Payne stated this is part of the Coastal Management Program jointly with the City of Corpus Christi and Nueces County. Mr. Payne stated the City has the authority for Beachfront Construction Certificates granted by the state which requires a review by the General Land Office either ten or thirty working days prior,depending on the size of the project. Mr. Payne stated the City's concern and authorization has to do with beach access and protecting the public's right of access along Gulf beaches and for access ways to the beach on the City's plans. Nueces County's authority is protection of the dunes. Mr. Payne stated that this application is about protection of the dunes and the state requires that when one application is made,both applications have to be reviewed. Mr. Payne stated that Nueces County has required the property owner of Lot 19 to mitigate destruction of dunes relating to single family residence. The property owner is proposing to place 50 cubic yards of sand within the erosion area line and staff recommends issuance of the Beachfront Construction Certificate for sand fill mitigation based on the finding of facts as follows: 1. Is located seaward of the 200 foot Erosion Area Line; 2. Is not located adjacent to an existing public beach access road; 3. Does not functionally support or depend on,or otherwise relate to proposed or existing structures that encroach on the public beach; 4. Does not include retaining walls or impervious surfaces within 200 feet of the vegetation line; and 5. Is consistent with the City of Corpus Christi Beach Access Plan and applicable state law. In response to Commissioner Loeb, Mr. Payne stated that only the house and the driveway to the house have been built. The long term plan is to submit another dune permit and Beachfront Construction Certificate for the some of the amenities that would be behind the house, therefore,the mitigation is due to the construction of the house. In response to Commissioner Loeb, Mr. Payne stated that this same process will need to be followed for the other three lots in Beach View Estates when they are constructed. In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk, Mr. Payne stated the mitigation is westward of the vegetation line. Public hearing was opened. Mr. Mark Paulson, 507 Oak Leaf Drive, San Antonio, Texas, 78209, came forward stating he and his wife own Unit 43 of the Lost Colony Villas. Mr. Paulson stated he has ten signed notices in opposition to the Beach Dune Permit; however, in principle,they are not against the permit. Mr. Paulson stated he has been struggling with the developer and the city because the subject subdivision should never have been approved. The original dune mitigation for the V Planning Commission Minutes October I,2008 Page 7 subdivision was never done. Mr. Paulson stated the developer came in and built the subdivision and blocked the drainage for the Lost Colony Villas, and in a series of emails over the past two days, he has finally gotten the developer to agree to put up a performance bond to solve the Lost Colony Villas'drainage issues. Mr. Paulson stated that until this point it was headed for a lawsuit. Mr. Paulson stated he does not want to hold Mr. Wolfe up on his project,but he does not want to see anymore work done until they receive some protection where they have suffered damages. Mr. Paulson stated he has provided drawings to Johnny Perales, they've hired an attorney who has spoken with the Mayor and Angel Escobar. Mr.Paulson stated it appears they are close to getting an agreement to take care of the problem, but in principle, until that agreement is taken care of, Mr. Paulson asks that the case be tabled or denied until secure protection is put in place. Mr. Paulson stated the drainage for Lost Colony Villas in the past went straight across the area known as Beach View Estates. They came and filled it up with sand and built a road, which acts as a dam,and is a direct violation of state statutes. Mr. Perales stated that Beach View Estates goes back four to six years and the information in the files indicates that the plat was recorded under the 75% completion rules; not all the improvements had been completed. Mr. Perales stated that the proper affidavits were filed, and the 75% completion was certified at that time. With the 75% completion, the developer was able to record the plat, and looking at the project history, that is where some of the problems began. With the plat being recorded, some of the properties were legally sold off; the problems with the subdivision began to appear some time after that. Notification was sent to the developer that there were problems with the subdivision; they came for various staff meetings of different levels and the developer agreed to hire a consultant to complete 100% of the project improvements. Mr. Perales stated that it is his understanding that at this point the consultant is still working for the developer and the City has seen some of the preliminary work he has come up with and some of that information has been shared with the Beach Dune Committee for their input. Mr. Perales stated the process has taken longer than desired, and the City is monitoring the situation to ensure the consultant is still under contract and working on a solution. At such point in time that the City learns otherwise, the City will be forced to take different enforcement action on the project. However, currently, based on directions received and work that is underway, the City is allowing them to continue to pursue completion of the project. In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk, Mr. Payne stated the county has the authority for the dune mitigation and the City does not have dune permit authority; however, the City is required by state law to submit a concurrent application for Beachfront Construction Certificate. Mr. Reining stated the City has separate independent authority. The County can decide to do one thing and the City can disagree and not issue the Beachfront Construction Certificate. Mr. Reining indicated that Corpus Christi is the only large city in Texas that has not been delegated dune permit authority by a county. Mr. Payne added that it has taken more than six months, and closer to a year, for Mr. Wolfe to get to this point with the county. Mr. Paulson reiterated that he does not want to interfere with Mr. Wolfe's project, but his fear is that the project will get built out and Lost Colony Villas will be stuck with mosquito ponds and no drainage. Mr. Paulson acknowledged the time and effort Mr. Wolfe has expended in getting everything done,and all the property owners on the beach encounter the same difficulties. He again stated that he is not against Mr. Wolfe, he just wants protection until the Lost Colony Villas' problem is addressed and taken care of. Mr. Paulson suggested withholding any more building permits until his agreement is in place. Planning Commission Minutes October I,2008 Page 8 Ms. Christina Thompson, Lost Colony Villas, came forward in agreement with Mr. Paulson. Ms.Thompson stated she wants the mitigation to go forward because the dunes are her protection from a storm coming in and damaging her two units at Lost Colony Villas. Ms. Thompson emphasized,however,that she is opposed to any additional building on the beach until the drainage issue is resolved. Public hearing was closed.- Commissioner losed.Commissioner Loeb stated his concern with nothing being done in response to the default on the 75%completion rule and further stated that the drainage issue is not creating just mosquito ponds,but is creating wetlands. Commissioner Loeb stated he drove out there and could not find a lot according to the map until he realized it was the "wetlands" area created by the drainage problem. Commissioner Loeb inquired as to what tools the City has in place besides asking nicely for forcing somebody to finish what they have agreed to do. Mr. Reining stated that what should happen is that the City enforces the Deferment Agreement, cash the letter of credit,take the money from the trust fund and do the improvements ourselves, or call the bond, if it is a bond. Mr. Nix stated there is no deferment in this case and it is unknown how many other cases where we do not have deferment agreements. Mr. Nix stated discussions with Legal will be had and a briefing with the City Manager recommending a course of action. Mr.Nix stated the City will explore its options in this case,and swift action needs to be taken in future cases. In response to Commissioner Loeb, Mr. Nix stated that when the City enters into deferment agreements, it should be requiring a surety for them and getting that put up to cover 110%of the cost of any improvements that are not constructed. Mr. Perales stated that current day, that is correct. When any required improvements are deferred, the city uses a deferment agreement to establish the factors that will be associated with that deferment including securities, i.e., bonds, letters of credit, etc., and the conditions whereby the city can use those if necessary. In response to Commissioner Tamez inquiring if a possible tool would be denial of any more building permits in the area,Mr. Reining stated that the City could turn off the utilities, but Mr. Nix stated that would affect the people who have purchased property more than it would affect the developer. In response to Commissioner Tamez, Mr. Perales stated that the developer still owns about 50% of the lots, which is a substantial investment. Mr. Perales stated the ordinance calls for the shutting off of utilities to the properties, but the problem is that water service to this property is not from the City of Corpus Christi, but is from the Nueces County District Four, which the City does not control. In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk, Mr. Perales stated that the original approved plans did provide for drainage, i.e, two detention ponds adjacent to State Highway 361, and the project's drainage was supposed to be channeled to that point. Motion for approval of the sand fill mitigation was made by Commissioner Skrobarczyk and seconded by Commissioner Martinez. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Nadkarni being absent. v V Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 9 Motion to adjourn the Beach/Dune Committee meeting was made and seconded. Meeting adjourned at 6:36 p.m. Chairman Garza reconvened the Regular Planning Commission Meeting at 6:36 p.m. C. ZONING 1. New Zoning a. Case No. 1008-01 Mark Rittgers—A change of zoning request 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 2.33 acres out of 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 Power Point, stating the applicant is Mark Rittgers and the subject property is located on the south side of South Padre Island Drive between Cosner Street and Carroll Lane. Mr. Payne stated there are three addresses, however, it is one lot. The applicant is requesting a change of zoning from a "8-4" General Business District to an "1-2" 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. Mr. Payne stated the land use statement indicates the applicant already has a contract with the city for transmission work on all smaller vehicles and they want to have the ability to work on the city's truck fleet as well. The applicant is also requesting an off-premise sign, i.e., a billboard, 14'x40', which will be set back 36 feet or more as required. Mr. Payne stated that to the south behind the subject property is zoned "R-IB" One-family Dwelling District along Heritage Street. Mr. Payne stated the "B-0" Business District allows a wide variety of commercial activity and is generally best not located next to a residential area due to objectionable uses such as bars and auto repair that tend to disturb the neighborhood. The that the "B-4" General Business District also allows for multi-family dwellings, boat and auto sales, hotels and taverns. Front yard setback is 20 feet with no height requirement, and no rear or side yard requirements unless adjacent to residential,in which case there is a ten foot setback. Mr. Payne stated the "1-2" Light Industrial District allows commercial, light manufacturing, fabricating, warehousing, and wholesale distributing uses preferably with access to an arterial street, freeway, or railroad in central or outlying areas of the city. The "I-2" District requires a minimum 20-foot front yard setback and no side or rear yards unless abutting a residential district; then 10-foot side and rear set back is required. Dwellings are not permitted in the"1-2" District. Mr. Payne stated that Great State Transmissions is located on the subject property which is used for auto repair and several commercial business uses. A retail store and a church are located east of the property. To the west is an AT&T retail store. Single family dwellings are located south of the subject property. Mr. Payne pointed out a group of five sign posts on the subject property 411.0 1111110 Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 10 and stated the applicant has indicated that several of those would be removed if the rezoning is approved, although not a requirement of the rezoning request. Mr. Payne stated the sign posts are nonconforming. Mr. Payne stated there is no "1-2" zoning he aware of on the south side of South Padre Island Drive is from Ayers to the Cayo del Oso; and on the north side there is a strip of"1-2" Light Industrial located between Everhart and Weber. Mr. Payne stated the adopted Future Land Use Plan designates the subject property for commercial uses, therefore, the proposed "I-2" Light Industrial District is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Payne stated that some of the proposed uses requested by the applicant for "automobile, heavy repair" and allowed in the "I-2" District are not compatible with the adjacent commercial uses and the single family neighborhood behind the property. These uses include repair of auto bodies, frames, or fenders, painting, undercoating, or rust proofing; impound yards for wrecked vehicles in association with wrecker services; repair of heavy load vehicles such as recreational vehicles,tractor trailers, commercial dump trucks, or transit vehicles;and other similar heavy repair services, as well as outdoor storage. Mr. Payne stated other uses in the "I-2" District under the unclassified section allows for animal pound, animal poultry and bird raising, and building material storage and sales. Mr. Payne added that even more objectionable uses are permitted in the "I-2", such as bus garage and repair shop, coal and coke storage and sales, contractor shop and storage yard, laboratories, research and experimental including combustible motor testing, tire sales and service, tire retread and vulcanizing, truck or transfer terminal, truck sales and repair, truck stop overnight accommodations, and vehicle impound yard. Mr. Payne stated that although it is unlikely that any of these types of businesses would fit in this area,the "1-2" zoning would allow them. Mr. Payne pointed out that South Padre Island Drive is designated a scenic corridor and once the property is rezoned to "I-2" it remains "I-2" even if the current business moves out. Mr. Payne also pointed out that signs are an issue on South Padre Island Drive. Staff recommends denial due to (1) the request is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, (2) the request is not compatible with the adjacent neighborhood, and(3)the City is attempting to improve the scenic characteristic of South Padre Island Drive. Of the 21 notices mailed zero were returned in favor and zero were returned in opposition. However,one unsolicited response was received in opposition. In response to Commissioner Tamez, Mr. Payne stated that the 3.56 square miles of light industrial is a good amount of industrial land and is congregated toward the port and to the south and where the airport is. Mr. Nix stated that the American Planning Association studies of 100 metropolitan regions in the United States typically shows between one and three percent of the developed area of the metropolitan region as industrial uses. Commissioner Huerta stated that the property currently zoned as a "B-4" General Business District is entitled to a monument sign with multiple tenants. Mr. Payne stated the restriction is one sign per frontage. In response to Commissioner Huerta,Mr. Perales stated it is his opinion that the unfinished street behind the subject property, Tweet Street, dates back to pre-S.P.I.D. and is probably a half- street dedication that was affected when the Padre Island Corridor came into play. Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page II Commissioner Loeb stated that an off-premise sign is not allowed in the "B-4" District. Commissioner Loeb stated that under the new proposed sign ordinance the sign posts on the subject property would be in violation and would probably also violate the maintenance requirement. Commissioner Skrobarczyk further stated that upgrading property for the specific purpose of putting a billboard on S.P.I.D. is a very bad idea. In response to Commissioner Adame,Ms. Goode-Macon stated that staff has no proof as to whether the applicant has a contract with the city to service its vehicles,but the type of trucks they are wanting to repair are the larger tonnage trucks,not just the regular pickup truck. Commissioner Adame stated that if there is a way to allow the applicant to continue business and have the site cleaned up a bit and the signs removed,overall that would be a win-win situation. Public hearing was opened. Mr. John Wilson, representative for the applicant, 2794 FM 1540, Sandia,Texas, came forward stating the applicant does want an "1-2" Light Industrial District because they do want the off-premise billboard. Mr. Wilson stated it is his belief that the thing staff is concerned about with the "I-2" is the "bee, beep, beep" of the trucks, the noise to the neighborhood. Mr. Wilson stated there are a couple of ways to deal with that concern: 1)there is a 150'x35'brick and metal building on the back of the subject property which will help shield some of the noise; 2) the other thing is that the "1-2" could be cut in half if necessary; Mr. Wilson stated they need the "I-2" for the contract with the city for the big trucks and they want the off-premise billboard. Mr.Wilson stated the contract for the big trucks is huge for them and they have already saved the city a lot of money. Mr.Wilson stated they have no intention of having a bird farm. Mr. Wilson demonstrated how there would be a buffer of at least 150 feet between the neighborhood and the work area and that the applicant does have the capacity to work on the big trucks. Mr.Wilson stated the noncompliant signs will be coming down and they want the billboard sign which would be 20 feet from the roadway as required. Mr. Wilson stated that he has spoken with all the businesses and nobody was against this request. Mr.Wilson stated the subject property is deep enough to give 150 to 200 feet of buffer between the neighborhood and zone just the front portion of the property as "I-2" so they can have the contract with the city and the billboard, too. Mr. Wilson stated that if they have to go with a "B-5" Primary Business District they will, as long as they can still have the billboard. Commissioner Tamez stated that it is the objective and the city and staff to keep the "I-2" District in a certain area of the city so that it works with the growth of the city. Commissioner Tamez stated we need to make sure it is a good fit. Mr. Wilson stated that as close to the freeway as the property is there is noise everywhere, therefore, if the lot is cut in half, or even two-thirds, the "1-2" would fit because there wouldn't be enough "I-2" for anybody else to come in with a chicken farm or to do anything with. Mr. Mark Rittgers, applicant and owner of Great State Transmission, came forward and stated that the business was built in 1979. Mr. Rittgers stated that is what he does for a living and that is the whole purpose of the request. Mr. Rittgers stated he has maintained the city contrsct for six years, doing the smaller vehicles and pickup trucks and police cars. Mr. Rittgers stated that, unbeknownst to him, they have even worked on fire trucks and ambulances and he was not aware that an "I-2" was required for that work. Mr. Rittgers stated that the bigger trucks, i.e., garbage trucks, and such, the city has been using Stewart & Stevenson which is quite a distance from the 111110 rl Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 12 city maintenance yard and there is a difference in thousands of dollars as to what Mr. Rittgers can do for the city versus what is currently being spent. Mr. Rittgers stated he has been told that he has saved the city hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past six years. Mr. Ringers stated he would like to continue working with the city and wants to increase the business to a larger scale and be able to give the city the quality repair as in the past. In reference to the signs, Mr. Rittgers stated that the current signage has been grandfathered and has been there since 1978, and acknowledged that it could be cleaned up and maintained better. Mr. Rittgers stated that is one of the reasons they are asking for the "I-2" is so they consolidate and clean it up to be more presentable than it currently is. In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk, Mr. Rittgers stated he has contracts with various commercial industries, mostly regular pickup trucks. Mr. Rittgers stated he is the largest transmission shop in the city and it is because they manage and take care of the vehicles the way it is supposed to be done. Mr. Rittgers stated that percentage-wise, they currently do about 80% small vehicles and 20% a little bit bigger than pickup trucks. Mr. Rittgers stated they do have a resale business and part of the business is parts distribution and they supply the other transmission shops the city, and CCISD with parts. Mr. Rittgers stated that with the CCISD contract, they currently do school buses on the subject property. Mr. Rittgers reiterated that he was unaware that he needed an "I-2" for this type of business. In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk, Mr. Ringers stated that even though he has an economically feasible piece of property, he cannot afford to lose his business and relocating to a different area would be a killer because of the loss of the drive-in business from the general public from S.P.I.D. Mr. Wilson stated the citizens are 80% of the business and relocating is financially out of the question. Mr. Wilson stated that,however,it is also a killer if they cannot get their commercial clients in,therefore,they are willing to do whatever it takes to make everybody happy. Public hearing was closed. In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk, Ms. Goode-Macon stated that a "B-5" would only get them the requested billboard allowance, not the big trucks. Mr. Nix stated that according to the application the primary objective is to get an off premise billboard sign and that is a very poor reason to rezone the property to an "I-2" or "B-5". Mr. Nix stated the direction staff is currently headed is to create incentives to remove billboard signs from certain areas of the city or to at least reduce the number. Mr. Nix stated the other business related issues of the applicant could possibly be addressed, although it is not certain. Mr.Nix stated there are two vehicles available for them to address that would be a Special Use Permit in the "B-4" General Business District where the business could be expanded inside a building. The "B-4" District allows major automotive repair but not heavy automotive repair inside an enclosed structure. It is possible that certain additional heavy automotive repair activities could be allowed in that structure with an appropriate site plan. Another possibility would be a Planned Unit Development application. Mr. Nix stated these are options where the city could help out the applicant in his business endeavors without rezoning the property. Commissioner Huerta stated he likes the idea of a Planned Unit Development and is against rezoning to an "I-2". Commissioner Huerta stated he is concerned about an "open blanket" allowing heavy machinery and equipment to be repaired at this site because the location is in a ' V V Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 13 scenic corridor area. Commissioner Huerta stated he has a problem with a parking yard with a lot of heavy equipment and vehicles in this area,therefore, a PUD with certain restrictions could work. Commissioner Huerta made a motion for denial of the "1-2" Light Industrial District which was seconded by Commissioner Kelly. Commissioner Martinez stated that it appears that the "1-2" is out of the question, and suggested that the applicant be given more time to work with staff to come up with an agreement. Commissioner Loeb stated that the billboard issue is a very bad idea for this area of the city and that if a Special Use Permit is negotiated that one of the requirements be that they remove three of the sign posts on the property. Commissioner Martinez stated there should also be a limit set on how many large vehicles can be on the premises at any given time. Commissioner Huerta stated that a PUD is a good idea and he will entertain that idea. In response to Ms. Goode-Macon, Mr. Rittgers stated he does have a contract at this time with CCISD to repair school buses,pickup trucks and all their other vehicles. Ms. Goode-Macon stated the facility size will have to be taken into account when developing the PUD. Mr. Nix stated that if an SP or PUD is being entertained, he suggests the applicant request the case be continued so that the applicant and staff can get together to work out the details on the amended request without the current request being denied, which would require the applicant to wait one year before being able to re-apply for any action on this particular property and thus, incurring additional fees. Motion to re-open the public hearing was seconded and the public hearing was reopened. Mr. Rittgers stated that although he would like to have the billboard because of the potential of generating extra income, he must speak from a business perspective and stated that he is willing to work with staff and forfeit the billboard in order to be able to enhance his business options by having contracts for heavy automotive repair with the city and CCISD. Mr. Rittgers stated he needs those contracts to survive and if the billboard issue is the killer, then he can do without the billboard. Mr. Rittgers stated he has bills to pay and the economy is not good, and that if he loses the 20%of business brought in by those contracts he will be put out of business. Mr. Rittgers stated he would like the case continued so something can be worked out and stated that he wants the Commissioners to understand that these contracts are absolutely vital to his business. Public hearing was closed. Commissioner Huerta amended his motion to accept the applicant's request to table the case in order to work with staff. Commissioner Huerta pointed out to the applicant that all the details need to be worked out before the case goes before City Council, without any ambiguities. Commissioner Huerta stated the applicant needs to put forth exactly what he wants to do,what type of business and what the applicant's capacity is in order for this to work. V rd Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 14 Commissioner Kelly seconded the amended motion. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Nadkarni being absent. Case was tabled to the November 12, 2008, meeting of the Planning Commission. IV. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Nix stated that the UDC provisions should be distributed this month, however, might be delayed until the first meeting in November. Mr. Nix stated the sign code issue went to City Council and the billboard industry objected to it,and therefore, staff was instructed by City Council to enter into discussions with the billboard industry. Mr. Nix stated they have been unable to come up with a compromise. Mr.Nix stated staff went back to the consultant and the consultant had not taken into account the scenic road ordinance and they had not looked at the other sign provisions in various sections of the Zoning Code. Mr. Nix stated those items were cleaned up and a set of changes was submitted to staff. Mr. Nix stated they are working on an approach where the billboard companies will be able to remove billboard signs from certain areas, not other signs owned by the industry, and then replaced in different areas. Mr. Nix stated they are trying to work out the details,particularly as to how many signs will be left and whether or not the overall number in the city will be reduced or maintained at its current level so that we have an ordinance that makes sense. Mr. Nix stated they are working on replacement ratios so that if they put in tri-fold signs they might have to remove two or three of the existing signs in exchange; or if they want to put in an LED sign they might have to remove four or five of the existing signs in exchange with a limit on the number of LED signs. Mr.Nix stated that during the Hurricane Ike activation,a report was received from the consultant but he has yet to review it. Mr. Nix stated he would review the report and go over any changes with the Commission as soon as possible. Mr. Nix stated the item will have to come back to the Planning Commission because it changes some of the other ordinances, and then it will go back to City Council. Mr. Nix stated that in the intervening time, staff has had several issues with billboard construction in the city. Particularly, with a nonconforming sign that was removed and replaced with a "conforming" sign that is actually an illegal sign. The permit was issued for the illegal sign, however, the application did not contain all the information that would let the staff person reviewing the application know that it did not comply with city codes. Mr.Nix stated that one face of it is a billboard and the other face of it is an LED and it is an off premise sign in an area where off premise billboards are prohibited. Commissioner Loeb stated that the UDC Focus Group did take the scenic corridor into account as they reviewed and revised the sign ordinance and that discussion centered on the downsizing of certain arterials to collectors, or highways to arterials, in terms of overall signage. Commissioner Loeb suggested a step be added if the consultant has modified anything to any extent other than the billboard stuff and send it back out to the Focus Group for review. Commissioner Loeb stated the Signs Focus Group was a group and a lot of those items were hard negotiations and the commitment the group had from the city was that what the Focus Group came up with was what would go to the Council. Mr. Nix apologized and stated that he did not make that commitment, and in fact, in his discussions with staff the direction that was given when those focus groups were formed was completely different. Mr.Nix agreed that what the Focus Groups proposed as a result of their work is going to go before the Council, but the staff is also going to make an alternate proposal where staff believes it is necessary to do. Mr.Nix stated that the direction they are looking at is to look at the entry ways to the city, look at the downtown area and what the billboards did to the gateways of V Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 15 the downtown area of the city and the island, in relation to the scenic rules and their objectives. Mr. Nix stated the challenge is for the billboard industry to find economic sense to remove the existing signs where we don't want them and replace them with signs in the area where we do want them. Commissioner Loeb stated his concern centers around on premise signs regulations and stated that a lot of work over a long period of time was expended and there were a lot of things within the ordinance that were important from the private citizen perspective in limiting the number of signs as well as from the business persons'perspective in allowing things that are good but not allowed because of various technicality stuff in the current ordinance. Commissioner Loeb stated it is unfair to allow the billboard guys stamp their feet and prevent the rest of the ordinance from passing because of their concerns. Commissioner Loeb urged staff to expedite the process so that the changes can go into effect while the agreed upon changes are still fresh in the minds of those who worked out the details,i.e., the Focus Group members. A. EXCUSED ABSENCES None B. FUTURE SCHEDULED MEETINGS October 15, 2008 October 29,2008 November 12,2008 D. CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON ZONING CASES September 23,2008 Case No. 0808-03 — Southside Paint and Body, LLC — Denial of "I-2" and approval of SP and seven conditions. September 30,2008 Case No. 0708-04 — Patrick and Amy Nolan d/b/a The Storage Place — Denial of "B-4" and approval of SP with six conditions. E. ZONING CASES SCHEDULED FOR CITY COUNCIL October 14,2008 Case No. 0908-01 —Titan Support Systems October 21,2008 Case No. 0908-02—Martin Hameka Case No. 0908-03 —Brown&Ortiz Commissioner Tamez stated that, if it is a concern of this Commission, he would like an update at the next meeting on the state of the Mimi-Bonds situation within the City. i✓ y Planning Commission Minutes October 1,2008 Page 16 VI. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Martinez and was seconded by Commissioner Huerta. Meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Faryce Goode-Macon Beverly Lang-Priestley Assistant Director of Recording Secretary Development Services/Planning H.\PLN-DIR\SHARED\WORD\PLANNING COMMISSIONU1MUTES@008\IO-01-08MINUTES.DOC