Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 09/03/2008 ' J MINUTES ^$g 1011121co REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4' Council Chambers-City Hall M Wednesday September 3,2008 5:30 P.M. i Cl.i.,..,. to COMMISSIONERS: STAFF: -^ /- Rudy Garza,Chairman Bob Nix,AICP Assistant City Amer of A.Javier Buena,Vice-Chairman Development Services `CC9Z gt2 John C.Tamez Johnny Perales,PE,Deputy Director of Johnny R.Martinez Development Services/Special Services • James Skrobarczyk Faryce Goode-Macon,Assistant Director of Evan J.Kelly Development Services/Planning Govind Nadkarni Miguel Saldafa,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 James Skrobarczyk Govind Nadkarni I. CALL TO ORDER A quorum was declared and the meeting was called to order at 5:36 p.m.by Chairman Garza. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion for approval of the August 18,2008,Special Meeting Minutes and August 20, 2008,Regular Meeting Minutes was made by Commissioner Loeb and seconded by Commissioner Martinez. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Skrobarczyk and Commissioner Nadkarni being absent. III. PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS A. PLATS 1. Continued Plats Miguel Saldafla,Development Services,mad Continued Plats agenda item "a"into the record(shown below)and stated this is a final repiat has been submitted for approval. Mr. Saldafia stated the plat meets the requirements of the city and county subdivision regulations. Therefore, staff recommends approval. a. 0808080-NP062 SCANNEDRegia-2405 Acres Unit Block 2,Lots lA& IB(Final Located south of Barber Lane west of FM 1889 and south of Northwest Boulevard(FM 624). Public hearing was opened. Mr. Paul Pilarczyk,3775 Barber Lane,Robstown,Texas,came forward in opposition stating he lives in the Rio Lado Acres Unit 2. Mr.Pilarczyk stated he has reviewed the deed O 11110 Planning Commission Minutes September 3,2008 Page 2 restrictions that were filed in April 1977 and also the current plat that was filed at the same time. Mr.Pilarczyk stated the deed restrictions and the plat go hand-in-hand,however,there is one stipulation on the second page of the restrictions which stated that no more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted. Mr.Pilarczyk stated he believes that applies to the subdivision that was filed for record on that date. Mr.Pilarczyk stated he has met with many of the area land owners and has obtained signatures opposing any subdivision of the area. Mr.Paul Peeler,3796 Barber Lane,Robstown,Texas,came forward in opposition and agreed with Mr.Pilarczyk. Mr.Peeler stated they found no area land owner in favor and stated that according to their attorney,the original declaration of 1979 which states, "No more than one dwelling unit be permitted"can only apply to the size of the lots as they were originally platted in June of 1979. Mr.Peeler stated that according to the City's municipal regulations,and according to the Corpus Christi Urban Transportation Plan,where any provision of a planning ordinance imposes restrictions different from those imposed by any other provision of any other city ordinance,rule or regulation or any other provision of law,whichever provisions are more restrictive or impose higher standards,shall control and be reflected in the plat. Mr.Peeler requested that the restrictive covenant be upheld and remain in place. Ms.Betty Goodridge,4795 FM 1889,Robstown,Texas,came in opposition,stating she lives on Lot 3. Ms.Goodridge stated that the last paragraph of the document,written in 2007, signed by area owners in opposition states the replatting must be approved by the planning commission of the Robstown and questioned how Corpus Christi became involved. Mr. Miguel Saldana,Development Services,stated that the subject property is within the extraterritorial jurisdiction(ETJ)of Corpus Christi. Mr. Saldana stated he does not know why they added the city of Robstown,because this area has been with the city's area of influence for several years. Mr. Saldafta stated the subject property has never been part of or under the influence of the City of Robstown. Ms.Goodridge stated that water drains past her house down to the drainage ditch and that she just spent$35,000 to pull her house out of a hole and she doesn't want to see anymore concrete poured in that area. Ms.Goodridge stated she has nothing against the applicant,but she doesn't want anymore surface to take up more property. She stated a subdivision has been built on the other side with a detention pond,however,the detention pond is not holding all the water and her property is getting even more water. Ms.Goodridge presented some photographs from last year showing the flood conditions on her property. Ms.Goodridge stated when she built her house she knew it was subject to flooding,therefore,she built it up 18 inches and in 25 years has not been flooded out yet. However,with the influx of houses she is greatly concerned. Public hearing was closed. In response to Commissioner Tamez,Mr.Saldafia stated this is the final plat up for approval and if it gets approved the next step for the owner is to have it recorded. Mr.Saidana stated he has reviewed the deed restrictions and forwarded them to the Legal Department for review. Mr.Saldafla stated there is a clause in the deed restrictions of Unit I that states that no property shall be sold by metes and bounds or subdivided unless approved by the Planning Commission of Robstown,but Robstown has no jurisdiction on the subject property,therefore,the Legal Department responded that a plat could be filed without violating the deed restrictions. In response to Commissioner Huerta,Mr. Saldera stated since the plat meets all the requirements of the ordinance the Planning Commission is has no option but to approve the plat. Chairman Garza stated that by law the Planning Commission must approve the plat if it meets all the requirements of the ordinance,and the purpose of the public hearing is to hear the 440 Planning Commission September 3,2008 Page 3 concerns of the surrounding land owners and then to request that staff take action to mitigate those concerns. Chairman Garza stated that many of the bond proposals that came forward are from areas where infrastructure,such as drainage and storm water,needed to be corrected. Chairman Garza assured the public that their concerns were heard and will be addressed. Mr. Saidalfa stated that a storm water plan will have to be provided when the applicant submits the redevelopment plans. Mr.Saldafia stated that these actions do not preclude the area land owners from seeking legal action against the applicant in accordance with their legal representative's interpretation of the deed restrictions. Mr.Bob Nix,Assistant City Manager for Development Services,stated that in a proceeding such as this it is an administrative hearing process where testimony is taken,and if the commissioners believe they have received factual testimony on the facts it has a bearing on whether or not the plat actually does comply with the requirements of the ordinance or state law,the commission can act on those facts. Mr.Nix stated the commissioners must weigh the testimony in their minds and make a decision as to whether or not the plat complies. Mr.Nix stated if it is the belief of the commission that the plat complies,then it is their responsibility to approve it;however, . if they believe they have received factually testimony to the contrary then they can act on that information. Mr.Nix stated if there is a doubt in the minds of the commissioners then they would be inclined to vote against approval of the plat unless the applicant tables the case. If there is no doubt in their minds and they are comfortable with the factual evidence that was submitted being related only to deed restrictions that the city does not enforce,then approval of the plat would be in order. Mr.Nix pointed out that the city does not enforce deed restrictions as they are private contracts between private parties. In response to Commissioner Loeb,Mr. Saldafia stated the general requirements of plats in this particular area where there are no wastewater services is one-half acre lot minimum, compliance with Nueces County Subdivision Regulations,street frontage,direct access to a public road,and 25-foot building lines. Mr.Johnny Perales,Deputy Director of Development Services added that since the property is outside the city limits,the zoning ordinance does not apply. Mr.Nix stated them should also be survey requirements,i.e.,a test by a city surveyor to ensure that the survey closes properly and is within an acceptable area for a survey,and requirements to monument the lot corners and perhaps to place other monumentation on the site as well. Mr.Perales stated the proposed lots must have access to an approved public water supply and waste water system,or meet the requirements for onsite water supply and wastewater disposal. Motion to reopen the Public Hearing was made by Commissioner Loeb and seconded by Commissioner Tamez. Public hearing was reopened. Ms. Goodridge stated that two years were spent working on the drainage a couple of years ago,therefore,that is not the answer to the problem of flooding in her area. Ms. Goodridge stated that deeper ditches and bigger pipes would be needed in order to keep her property from being flooded out. In response to Ms.Goodridge's inquiry as to whether the area land owners can do anything about the proposal for platting,Chairman Garza stated that in order to enforce their interpretation of the deed restrictions would require legal action on their part. v ISO Planning Commission Minutes September 3,2008 Page 4 Mr.Nix stated that the city does not and cannot enforce deed restrictions because they are a contract between private parties,not something public agencies enforce. Mr.Nix stated that if any of the testimony from the area land owners indicates factual information that the proposed platting does not comply with the requirements of state law or with the city code for platting,then the Planning Commission can consider that information in the course of their deliberations in making a decision as to whether or not to approve the plat. In response to Ms.Goodridge,Chairman Garza stated that the proposed platting case applies only to the applicants property and that if Ms.Goodridge should desire to subdivide her land she would need to go through the same replotting process. In response to Ms.Goodridge stating that she does not interpret the document in the same manner,Commissioner Loeb replied that the document she refers to is the deed restriction and the Planning Commission cannot enforce deed restrictions within the city limits or outside the city limits. Commissioner Loeb stated that deed restrictions are a private contract and the city does not have the ability to enforce them. Mr.Payne stated that,although of no consequence at this time,this subdivision is immediately adjacent to the city limits,and outside the city limits the city cannot control lot size with zoning. However,within the city limits one of the benefits of the zoning ordinance is that it can offer some protection against lot size. Unfortunately,the subject property is outside the city limits,therefore,has no such protection. The area land owners'only protection at this point would be through legal action in an effort to have the deed restrictions upheld by a court of law. Jay Reining,Legal Counsel,stated he has reviewed the deed restrictions and it does not prohibit the subdivision of property which is restricted to the approval of the Robstown Planning Commission,which has no jurisdiction here since the property is within the City of Corpus Christi's ETJ,and therefore,for all practical purposes it means the City of Corpus Christi's Planning Commission. Mr.Reining stated that as long as this property meets the state and city standards for subdivision,there is no prohibition against subdivision in those deeds. Therefore,if the request meets all the standard requirements of subdividing,then it is the duty of the Planning Commission to approve the plat. In response to Commissioner Muerte,Mr.Reining stated the deed restriction does not prohibit subdividing because it says it can be done subject to the approval of the Robstown Planning Commission,in this case the City of Corpus Christi Planning Commission. Commissioner Huerta stated that if the jurisdiction overseeing this case is the Corpus Christi Planning Commission,then the prohibition of subdividing the property is left up to the Commission to allow that to happen. Mr.Reining stated that the Planning Commission's decision of whether or not the subdivision should be approved is based on the standard of state law and the city's platting ordinance. If it meets all the conditions of the state law and the platting ordinance,then the Planning Commission should approve the plat. Mr.Reining stated that according to staff,these lots are large enough so they meet these requirements,therefore,the Commission should approve the plat, In response to Commissioner Loeb,Mr.Reining stated that if the area land owners can find a judge who has a different interpretation then the judge could vacate the plat. In response to Commissioner Loeb,Mr.Perales stated that the general rule of thumb in regard to drainage is that post-development run-off rates not exceed pre-development run-off rates. `r Planning Commission Minutes September 3,2008 Page 5 Mr. Pereles staled that is the standard by which storm water management plans that are submitted are rated. Public hearing was closed. Motion for approval was made by Commissioner Martinez and was seconded by Commissioner Tamez. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Skrobarczyk and Commissioner Nadkarni being absent. 2. New Plats Mr. Saldafa read New Plats agenda item"a,b,c,d,e,and t"(shown below)into the record stating these items have been submitted for approval. Staff recommends approval. a. 0908084-NP066 Comstock Tract.Block 1.Lot 1 (Final- 13.851 Acres) Located south of Interstate Highway 37 between Hart Road and Martine Street. b. 0908085-NP067 Furman Addition,Block 1,Lot 7(Final Replat-2.952 Acres) Located north of Furman Avenue,between South Carancahua Street and South Water Street. c. 0908086-NP068 Laguna Acres,Block 6,Lots IA& I B(Final Replat- 0.402 Acre) Located south of Home Road and west of Teresa Street. d. 0908087-NP069 Padre Island-Corpus Christi,Section D,Block 1,Lot 34R(Final Reolat- 1.595 Acres) Located north of Granada Drive,west of Leeward Drive and north of Whitecap Boulevard. e. 0908088-NP070 Starcrest Place Unit 2,Block 4,Lots 16C, 16D& 16E (Final Reolat-9.061 Acres) Located south of Neptune Street,between South Navigation Boulevard and Centaurus Drive. f. 0908089-NP071 Thirty-seven Industrial Park(Preliminary-54.057 Acres) Located south of Interstate Highway 37 and east of Southern Minerals Road. d Planning Commission Minutes September 3,2008 Page 6 Commissioner Loeb stated that item "b",Furman Addition, is a big and important project and a way needs to be worked out to not make people who are redeveloping and putting money into the older sections of town have to pay the same pro rate fees as everybody else,stating that those lots have been in the city limits a long time and that area is needing a lot of development. Mr.Nix stated that that is something being worked on. Mr.Nix stated the developer's big objection wasn't pro rata fees,but it was the park fee,which the developer said was one-third of his land cost. Mr.Perales stated the purpose of pro rata fees is to reimburse construction for improvements built by someone else. In most of the newer parts of the city,that is another developer,in which case those funds go into the Developer Trust Fund. There are other areas over parts of the city where the infrastructure was funded and built by the city and in those cases it goes into a different account. In response to Commissioner Loeb,Mr.Saldatla stated that it is still allowed to build across lot lines without replatting,however,the development must be within those lots being built across. The pro rata fee is charged at the platting stage,and if not,then they are charged at the building permit stage. Public hearing was opened. Nobody came forward in support or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion for approval was made by Commissioner Loeb and seconded by Commissioner Muerte. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Skrobarczyk and Commissioner Nadkarni being absent. Mr. Saldatia read New Plats agenda item "g" (shown below) into the record stating this item has been submitted for a continuance to the October 29,2008,Planning Commission meeting. R. 0908090-NP072 Westside Industrial Tracts(Final Renlat- 13.771 Acres) Located west of North Navigation Boulevard and south of Leopard Street. 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 Loeb and seconded by Commissioner Martinez. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Skrobarczyk and Commissioner Nadkarni being absent. B. ZONING 1. New Zoning �► V Planning Commission Minutes September 3,2008 Page 7 a. Case No.0908-01 Titan Support Systems,Inc.-A change of zoning from a "B-3" Business District to a "1-2" Light Industrial District resulting in a change of land use from commercial to light industrial consisting of light manufacturing Flour Bluff Park,Block 16,Lots 20 thru 25&45 thru 47, located at 9830 South Padre Island Drive,between McIver Street and Greenbay Drive. Commissioner Adame stated he will abstain from this case. Mr.Payne presented the above case via Power Point stating the property is located along South Padre Island Drive on the north side in the Flour Bluff area,between McIver Street to the west and Greenbay Drive to the east. The applicant has requested rezoning from a"B-3"Business District to an"I-2"Light Industrial District resulting in a change of land use from commercial to light industrial consisting of light manufacturing. Mr.Payne stated the purpose of the change is to accommodate an Internet mail order business that specializes in the business of strength sports consisting of cutting and sewing of fabrics. The applicant does not require outdoor storage and all activities of the business will be conducted indoors. The building is a 12,000 square foot building with parking in the front next to S.P.I.D. The"B-3"Business District does not allow"Textiles, Fibers,and Bedding"uses as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. The"1-2"Light Industrial District does allow"Textiles,Fibers,and Bedding"uses defined in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr.Payne stated staffs recommendation is Denial of the"1-2"Light Industrial District and in-lieu-thereof approval of a Special Permit for"light manufacturing use for cutting and sewing of fabrics and elastics" without outdoor storage on the subject property and the following seven (6) conditions: 1. Uses: The only uses permitted by the Special Permit other than those uses permitted by right in the "B-3" Business District is a "light manufacturing for cutting and sewing of fabrics and elastics"use. 2. flours of Operation: The operation of the`light manufacturing for cutting and sewing of fabrics and elastics"use shall be limited to the hours between 7:30 AM and 6:00 PM. 3. Screening A standard screening fence with a minimum height of six (6) feet shall be located along the north,east and west boundary lines of this Special Permit. The screening fence must be installed within one(1)year of the date of this ordinance. 4. Landscaping: Compliance with Article 27B. Landscape Requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. 5. Lighting: All security lighting must be directional and shielded, be directed 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 property line. 6. Time Limit: This Special Permit expires two (2) years from the date of this ordinance, unless the property is being used as outlined in Condition g and in compliance with all other conditions. In response to Commissioner Martinez stating the main reason for the objection to the"1-2" is I)because anyone else that goes in there could probably do whatever they wanted;and 2)there's more congregation in the 1-2 than there is on a B-3,Mr. Payne stated he didn't mean that the 1-2 is better from that instance,but this particular use appears to be well suited to the lower end of the density scale. V Planning Commission Minutes September 3,2008 Page 8 Commissioner Martinez stated that the city keeps coming back to special permits,and I guess Commissioner Skrobarczyk never understood that the main reason for that is that the city can control more of what is happening with a special permit than if an"1-3"were approved. Commissioner Martinez pointed out that that is why staff keeps coming back to that. Commissioner Loeb stated that the city has in its Master Plan policy statements that people can't build tall buildings in the approach zones for the navy bases. Mr.Payne stated that we have an ordinance that controls height and it's the military airport zoning ordinance and it institutes what we call an imaginary surface around our airports to control height. Commissioner Loeb stated that technically we have an overlay,but we just don't really mark it on anything and he believes we should start marking it on stuff so people understand. Mr. Payne responded that we can take a look at it and that we should at least make it very available,however, it is a very complex map and difficult to interpret. • In response to Commissioner Loeb,Payne stated that low-density industrial park may be a good match for that area and maybe we should change the land use plan. Chairman Garza stated he believes that area is still in transition and it's still too early to tell what's actually going to work there in terms of commercial. What was there in terms of commercial activity in the'60s is different than what will be there twenty years from now. In terms of local commercial,you're probably looking at businesses that actually cater to the local population,Flour Bluff;as it re-develops. Chairman Garza stated he believes this particular venture by this business to redefine itself in light industrial is a great attempt at creating a viable business where it might be difficult to continue to exist the way they were,and believes a special permit is extremely appropriate at this time. Public hearing was opened. Pete Alaniz,president of Titan Support Systems,stated it is a clean industry—light manufacturing and is a responsible corporate citizens with no toxic waste,no noise pollution,no fumes or gas. Other companies within the neighbor include marine companies repairing boats dealing with oil,transmission fluids,potential hazmat materials. Mr.Alaniz stated they am a mail order company and manufacture goods for the sport of power lifting and weight lifting. Mr.Alaniz stated there are only four companies registered within the International Power Lifting Federation to supply this type of gear to the athletes,and they are one of them right here in Corpus Christi. Mr. Alaniz stated they bring money from outside of the state to Corpus Christi and have a payroll that is over a million dollars this year and will bring employment to the city. Mr.Alaniz stated there will be less retail traffic with his company than with the current company that is there and that his is a closed shop,working the phones,the emails,the faxes. The only thing you will see come into the business is FedEx and UPS trucks and the only waste seen from them will be fabric scraps. They will be the business you never notice,but at the same time will be providing employment to people, contributing back to the community. A few of the issues with the Special Permit Mr.Alaniz pointed out is if you require a screened fence to surround the property it will be an eye-sore,a graffiti canvas and asked what difference is it if you have 50 retail customers park there or 50 employees park there? As it is right now,it's no different than the parking at HEB or Wal-Mart. There is no screen around them and they have hundreds of cars. The other issue is hours. Mr, Alaniz stated he has no intentions of running any evening shifts or any grave yard shifts,but just on the principle of the thing,if a situation arises where he needs to get an order out and has to put in a couple extra hours,it'd be nice to know that he can do that. There are no houses adjacent to the 13-3 which is in the front. All the rental properties are adjacent to the 1-3 in the back,so there are actually no residences that would be impacted by that. b 410 Planning Commission Minutes September 3,2008 Page 9 Commissioner Gana stated the screening fence,by and large,is something that staff recommends because of the fact that when you do have a manufacturing concern sometimes there is materials or items that are staged outside that then becomes unsightly. In response,Mr. Alanizl assured him that they have no intention of putting outside storage. And even if he did,the property in question has 1-2 that is in the back and that is where it would go. It would go into the property that is already 1-2. Mr.Payne agreed that some relief is needed on the screening fence requirements and stated that where the parking lot is located there would need to be landscape screening, ie,a four-foot landscape area which is required around parking lots. The parking should be subject to Article 27. The property to the east on the frontage road toward Greenbay has two houses,one residential and one commercial use. No residence on the west to protect with a screening fence. The parking lot abuts that property along McIver Street and to the Frontage Road therefore no landscaping required. Then,we wouldn't need a fence next to the commercial use that exists to the east. Mr.Payne further stated that we don't need a screening fence along certain edges where there is adjacent"1-"zoning. Follow Article 27 because screening fences are required where it is next to a residential district. A screening fence needs to be next to Lot 44,which is zoning residential. Mr.Payne stated some buffer for the 1-2 uses which could be strictly outdoor storage of any kind adjacent to a freeway is a concern. Behind the uses next to the freeway where there is less public visibility by the arriving public to the Island,it's a little less visibility to the 1-2 as opposed to having an industrial character along this major highway. In response to Commissioner Loeb stating that if instead of doing a special permit,we left B-3 zoning on the parking lot section in the front and zoned the rest of it 1-2,which would solve staffs issue,Mr.Payne responded that staff would rather keep the logical existing line as commercial and show it as commercial and that is what special permit rezoning would do. We have had for years a standard line of commercial uses along SPID and we don't want to erode that. Therefore,the Special Permit has some advantages. Item#3,the standard screening fence,we could change that to where adjacent to a residential district and that would cover it. And they would have to meet Article 27 in Item#4 under Landscaping. In response to Chairman Garza,Mr.Payne stated that the landscape ordinance is not going to kick in because they are not expanding the use by what the ordinance calls for. Therefore,what might be advisable for the special permit to say on landscape screening is at least landscape screening in the front,and that wouldn't trigger them having to meet the full requirements of the landscaping ordinance. Jim Boller,400 Mann,Suite 400,representative for applicant,came forward stating that several things previously addressed are right on target. TXdot freeway improvements have the complexion of the area to a point where industrial is a more appropriate use. As for the fencing,the applicant's property will be divided if there is a fence between his 1-2 and B-3. Another issue is the hours of operation. Mr.Boller stated he believes we are e stepping on holy ground when we try to tell people what hours they can work and cannot work,especially in this case where it is all inside the 12,000 square foot building. If there is a large job that needs to get out and he's told he can't work past a certain hour,that's criminal. Also,the applicants first preference was to leave the parking lot B-3 and rezone the remainder 1-2,but they were advised that the parking would also need the industrial zoning.. ` OW Planning Commission Minutes September 3,2008 Page 10 Commissioner Garza stated that with loading and unloading being done on Greenbay there would be a benefit to putting screening fence between the residential house and the industrial area. Closed Public Hearing. Commissioner Garza stated that he,along with Mr. Boller,feels that we are handcuffing the business by putting in hours of operation because if they do get into a situation where they can't meet their delivery schedule overtime would be needed. In manufacturing it is very important to give flexibility for additional shifts,particularly if it is not going to impose or impede on the existing neighbors. Commissioner Loeb motioned that the front section along the line created by the farthest line of the lots 15 and 16 going across between Greenbay and McIver towards SPID be B-3 and the other section be 1-2. That means that the front parking lot will be B-3 and the rest of the site will be 1-2. That would mean they still have to screen the 1-2 from the residential and it protects from outdoor storage being in the front parking lot which remains B-3,and it preserves the parking lot as being a parking lot instead of getting a fenced wall. In response,Mr.Payne stated that a special permit on the parking lot would he required to allow it to serve the 1-2 use that is behind it,because it is a commercial district and it cannot supply parking to the industrial use. For example,a parking that is located in an apartment district cannot be used to supply parking for the bar next door. Commissioner Loeb amended his motion to reflect that. Otherwise,no conditions,and no hours of operation restriction. There was no second on the motion. Commissioner Martinez made a motion to go with the"B-3"with a Special Permit and have staff follow recommendations stated in this meeting as for as the fence on Lot 45,the landscaping in the front,and lighting and to eliminate the hours of operation. Motion seconded by Huerta. Commissioner Loeb reiterated that he believes that making them do landscaping when we don't have an ordinance that actually says that that's what we want people to do landscaping wise and that by doing so we are creating a box where they have to come up to code on business landscaping whereas if it just stayed the same they wouldn't have to do it. Commissioner Martinez amended the motion to no additional landscaping. Commissioner Huerta seconded the amended motion. Motion passed unanimously. B-3 with a Special Permit to allow light manufacturing,with a screening fence on the north residential property line,no additional landscaping and with no restrictions on hours of operation. Commissioner Adame abstained from all discussion and action on this case. 11110 ‘100 Planning Commission Minutes September 3,2008 Page 11 b. Case No.0908-02 - WITHDRAWN Martin Hameka-A change of zoning from a"F-R"Farm Rural District to an"1-2"Light Industrial District resulting in a change of land use from vacant farm land to light industrial uses 2.006 Acresout of Margaret Kelly Land,Tract 3 located at 5802 Old Brownsville Road,located north of Old Brownsville Road and approximately 340 feet west of Tupper Lane. The above case was withdrawn at the applicant's request. Chairman Garza suggested that certain discussion that is slightly outside the scope of the agenda concerning particular cases be saved and rescheduled on the agenda under the item of"Other." IV. ISLAND ACRES: DRAFT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI,TEXAS AND MELVIN LITTLETON The above case was delayed to a future unspecified date. V. DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. EXCUSED ABSENCES None B. FUTURE SCHEDULED MEETINGS September 17,2008 October 1,2008 October 15,2008 C. HOLIDAY PLANNING The November 26th meeting falls the day before Thanksgiving. The December 24th meeting falls on Christmas Eve. D. CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON ZONING CASES None E. ZONING CASES SCHEDULED FOR CITY COUNCIL September 9,2008 Case No.0708-02-Greenwood Molina Children's Center Case No.0708-05-Anchor Harbor Mobile Home Community September 16,2008 Case No.0708-01 -Dan Henderson Case No.0808-01 -David and Kacy Alexander Case No. 0808-02-Kuhn Equipment Company 160 v Planning Commission Minutes September 3,2008 Page 12 September 23,2008 Case No.0808-03—Southside Paint and Body,LLC VI. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made at 7:40 p.m.by Commissioner Loeb and was seconded by Commissioner Martinez. Meeting adjourned. Faryce C.f.de-Macon Beverly Lang-Priestly Assistant Director of Recording Secretary Development Services/Planning H:PLN-DIR\SHARED\W ORD'PIANNING COMMISSIONIMMUTES\2008\09-03-08MINUTPS.DOC