HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 06/11/2008 ilr
,.7,13 14 75 76 71
MINUTES �' 'e......
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING r t
Council Chambers-City Hall c : F.
Wednesday June 11,2008 m ON
5:30 P.M. a ..`� '� ^,
cn cc'-!' \
COMMISSIONERS: STAFF: i '$' '
ti
R.Bryan Stone,Chairman Bob Nix,MCP Assistant City • r of gL%
Rudy Garza,Vice-Chairman Development Services -_ 6Z SZ I •
John C.Tamez Johnny Perales,PE,Deputy Director of
Johnny R.Martinez Development Services/Special Services
James Skrobarczyk Faryce Goode-Macon,Assistant Director of
Evon J. Kelly Development Services/Planning
David Loeb Miguel S.Saldafa,AICP,Sr.City Planner
Govind Nadkarni Mk Reasch,MCP,City Planner
Yvette Aguilar,Attorney I
ABSENCES: Beverly Lang-Priestley,Recording Secretary
Atilano J.Huena
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Stone declared a quorum was present and called the meeting to order at 5:33
p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion to approve the Planning Commission minutes of May 28,2008,was made by
Commissioner Garza and was seconded by Commissioner Tamez. Motion passed unanimously
with Commissioner Buena being absent.
lII. PUBLIC REARING AGENDA ITEMS
A. PLATS
1. Continued Plats
Mr. Miguel Saldafia, Development Services, read Continued Plats agenda items "a, b d,
and e"(shown below)into the record stating these items have been submitted for a continuance to
June 25,2008,with the exception of item"d"which is requesting a continuance to July 9,2008.
a. 0408035-NP-027
Parkdale Shopping Center,Block AR, Lots 1-10(Final—
29.733 Acres)
Located at the southwest corner of the intersection of South
Staples Street and Gollihar Road.
b. 0408037-NP029
Rodd Field Hospital Tracts,Block I,Lot 1 (Final—9.926
SCANNED and Rodd
Field Road(SH 357)between Holly Road
Wooldridge Road.
'fir rd
Planning Commission Minutes
June 11,2008
Page 2
d. 0508051-P012
Montrose Park Addition,Block 2,Lot I IA(Final Replat—
0.1073 Acre)
Located north of 25th Street south of South Port Avenue.
e. 0508052-NP040
Diamond Subdivision,Block 1,Lots 2-6&Block 2,Lots 1-4
(Final— 17.28 Acres)
Located west of Waldron Road and south of Graham Road.
As a courtesy,Chairman Stone asked if anyone present would like to come
forward in favor or in opposition of the continuances. Nobody came forward.
Motion for approval of the continuances was made by Commissioner Skrobarczyk and
was seconded by Commissioner Loeb. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner
Nadkarni abstaining due to a conflict of interest with item"b",and with Commissioner Huerta
being absent.
Mr. Saldafa read Continued Plats agenda item"c"(shown below)into the record stating
this item will require two actions;the first action being for a variance from several items of the
Platting Ordinance,and the second action being for action on the plat.
c. 0508050-Poll
Lola Johnson Lift Station.Block I.Lot 1 (Final—0.25 Acre)
Located east of Jamaica Drive and north of Lola Johnson Road.
Variance to sidewalk construction and block length.
ii. Action on plat.
Mr. Saldaiia stated the applicant is requesting a variance from the requirement of a 60-
foot right-of-way,a variance from providing a cul-de-sac at the end of the dead-end road and the
requirement of sidewalks along the frontage of the property. Mr. Seidaita stated the reason for the
requirement of the 60-foot right-of-way is that when the property is adjacent to zoning other than
single-family residential there is a requirement in the Platting Ordinance to provide a 60-foot
right-of-way,therefore,30-feet to centerline. The adjacent property to the south is already platted
showing only a 25-foot roadway and both properties on either side of that right-of-way have
already been platted,so additional right-of-way to bring it up to 50 feet would require the taking
of some property along the east side of the roadway,and since there is already existing
development in that area it would be very difficult to obtain and the roadway would lead to
nowhere. Mr. Saidaiia stated this road extends out around a platted lot that extends into
jurisdictional wetlands and,typically,the City would not construct a road into wetlands.
Therefore,the road would go nowhere and for a 60-foot roadway it would be un-useable. Mr.
Salda0a stated the cul-de-sac comes into play at this point because providing a cul-de-sac at the
end of the 25-foot roadway would be accessed only by the people who would be accessing the
proposed lift station, Mr. Saldafa stated the applicant has agreed to provide a hammer head that
would allow emergency vehicles and other city traffic,or incidental traffic,to be able to turn
around without having to back out all the way to Lola Johnson.
V V'
Planning Commission Minutes
June II,2008
Page 3
Mr.Saldaaa stated the third item is for the sidewalks. Mr.Saldaaa stated there are no
sidewalks adjacent to this existing roadway, it is rural section roadways with roadside ditches and
the road is not improved. Mr.Saldafia stated the development will have the roadway
improvement to provide two-way access from the lift station out to Lola Johnson.
Mr.Saldaaa stated that based on these items,staff recommends approval of the variances
and informed the Commission that this item requires a'/4 vote majority from the Commission in
order to pass.
Public hearing was opened.
Nobody came forward in support or opposition.
Public hearing was closed.
Motion for approval of the variances was made by Commissioner Skrobarczyk and
seconded by Commissioner Nadkarni. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Muerte
being absent.
Mr. Saldaaa stated the next item is the plat and staff recommends approval.
Motion for approval of the plat was made by Vice-Chairman Garza and seconded by
Commissioner Martinez. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Muerte being absent.
2. New Plats
Mr.Saldaaa read New Plats agenda item"d"(shown below)into the record stating this
item has been submitted for a continuance to July 9,2008.
d. 0608062-NP048
Packery Pointe Subdivison(Final Replat—54.974 Acres)
Located north of South Padre Island Drive(PR 22)between
Aquarius Street and Marina Drive.
As a courtesy,Chairman Stone 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 Tamez and seconded
by Commissioner Kelly. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Muerte being absent.
Mr. Saldaaa read New Plats agenda items"a,b,c,e and f(shown below)into the record
stating these items have been submitted for approval. Staff recommends approval;however,
there is a change to one of the items on Woodland Heights Subdivision,item"ft Mr. Saldaaa
stated the listed wastewater pro rata fee is incorrect and,for the record,the fee is actually
$3,781.59.
a. 0608057-P013
Island Acres,Block I. Lot 1 (Final-25.963 Acres)
Located west of State Highway 361,south of Sea Way Drive.
it
Planning Commission Minutes
June 11,2008
Page 4
b. 0608058-P014
Momingstar Estates Unit 3(Final—6.988 Acres)
Located north of Wooldridge Road and east of Rodd Field Road
(SH 357).
c. 0608061-NP047
Brown-Lex Tract,Block 1,Lots 8C&8D(Preliminary—6.013
Acres)
Located north of Old Brownsville Road(FM 665)and west of
South Padre Island Drive(SH 358).
e. 0608064-NP050
Sun Belt Industrial Park,Block 2,Lot 19A(Final Replat—
14.739 Acres)
Located south of Sun Belt Drive,south of Leopard Street and
east of McBride Lane.
f. 0608065-NP051
Woodland Heights Subdivision,Block 1,Lots 11-13(Final—
1.458 Acres)
Located west of Westchester Drive and south of Leopard Street.
Public hearing was opened.
Mr.Jim Urban,Urban Engineering,representative for applicant,came forward in
reference to New Plats agenda item"a",Island Acres,Block 1,Lot 1 (Final—25.963 acres),
stating he is unaware if the Commissioners received any"conditions"in their packet regarding
the plat,and stated that Urban Engineering received an email at 4:35 p.m.on this day that said
approval of the plat would be recommended,however,the plat could not be recorded with the
"note",and stated he was unsure what this meant.
Mr. Saldafla stated the email was in reference to Urban Engineering's note#8 on the plat
about the 60-foot right-of-way dedication.
In response,Mr.Urban stated the reason for the note was to force the City to make a
decision that is under the statute within the period of time stated under the statute and that Urban
Engineering and applicant are here today and the City is supposed to weigh in as to whether the
exaction of 60 additional feet of right-of-way is legal under the new exactions law. Mr.Urban
stated he would not be so picky about it, however,stated this process was started in March and
several meetings have been held,and several letters have been sent asking the City to make a
ruling one way or the other whether they certify under the law that this exaction for additional
right-of-way is proportionate to the applicant's use. Mr.Urban stated he has received responses
that it is not required on the preliminary plat and will be addressed before the final plat. Mr.
Urban stated it is now time to record the plat and if the note is removed,he is basically dedicating
the right-of-way. Mr.Urban stated the Planning Commission's obligation, under the law,is to
certify that it is proportional and,therefore,the City has a right to exact it. Mr.Urban stated this
is a piece of property along Highway 361 and the applicant has already given half of a 120-foot
Planning Commission Minutes
June 11,2008
Page 5
right-of-way. Mr. Urban stated this is a four-lot subdivision and the City is requesting the
applicant to give another 60 feet without compensation. Mr.Urban stated he understands it is in
the Master Plan and the City needs it,but also stated the City could buy it or that TxDOT could
get it. Mr. Urban stated it is not fair to the property owner and is not in accordance with the law
for the City to exact it without compensation. Mr.Urban stated the requirement for that portion
of the right-of-way was made as a condition. During the preliminary plat phase,there were letters
back and forth stating the applicant will grant that,subject to the City making the certification
that it is proportionate,because it is clearly defined what the City has to do,
Mr.Johnny Perales,Development Services,stated that the intent of the email was to state
that the recordation of the plat cannot take place until the issue is resolved,and the approval of
the plat,that is,by bringing the plat forward,the City is indicating its intent to resolve the issue
within the required timeline beginning from the time of this approval.
Mr.Urban stated his client purchased a metal building that was ordered three or four
months ago,the tract is zoned farm and rural. Mr.Urban stated that when his client went to get a
building permit he found out he had to plat the property because it was un-platted. Mr.Urban
stated then they found out about all the other requirements and have been working through it.
Mr.Urban stated the building his client purchased has been sitting in storage at a cost to his client
and they cannot get their building permit until they get a plat approved. Mr.Urban inquired as to
how many hours of time,since the preliminary plat was filed,have been spent on this and if it
cannot get resolved between the preliminary plat and the final plat,he does not know how much
more time it will take. Mr.Urban stated that all the plat comment says is,"We make this
dedication subject to the City certifying that it is in accordance with the law,and is proportional."
Mr.Urban stated that if the City will certify that it is in accordance with the law his client has no
problem with dedicating it. Mr.Urban stated,however,that he does not believe the City will
certify it because the City knows that it is not proportional to the client's use,therefore,the City
is stalling them out because they need the building permit.
In response to Chairman Stone,Mr.Pestes stated that staff is working toward that point
by bringing the plat forward.
Mr.Saldafta stated that typically,on preliminary plats,they get approved and then they
start working towards that end and nothing ever happens. Therefore,staff told Mr.Urban that
when the final plat gets approved by the Commission,staff knows that that is going to happen,
and then the City is going to incur the cost to hire an engineer to do the analysis of whether the
60-foot requirement is justifiable or not;but not until the final plat has been approved,because
the preliminary plat may or may not go away.
In response to Chairman Stone,Mr. Saldafta stated that note#8 is a"conditional"note
and a plat cannot be recorded with a note stating a condition"subject to". Mr.Saldafia stated it is
either a requirement or it is not a requirement,and the plat can be approved but the plat cannot be
recorded with the note. Mr. Saldafta stated the determination has to be made that the 60-foot
right-of-way is required and dedicated or that it is a 30-foot right-of-way or even a 20-foot right-
of-way;either way,the note has to come off before the plat can be recorded.
Mr.Urban stated that the City cannot require something of a plat that it does not have the
right to require and must render the list by law within the statutory limits which is 30 days from
the date of application.
In response,Mr.Saldafla stated staff complied.
N
Planning Commission Minutes
June 11,2008
Page 6
Mr.Urban stated it is either a legal requirement that the City does and certifies such,or it
is not a legal requirement;but if the City does not certify it,Mr.Urban does not believe the City
can require it. Mr.Urban stated he is fine with taking the note off and eliminating the
dedications,but the problem is the City must have a list of all of the requirements that are
required pursuant to the Platting Ordinance and acted on within 30 days. Mr.Urban stated that
what staff is implying is that they do not know if they are going to require it or not and the City
wants the applicant to wait. Mr.Urban stated he cannot get the plat filed and cannot do the
building until the City determines if it is a requirement or not. Mr.Urban stated that May 9,
2008,as conditions of the preliminary plat,he wrote a note to the City,to Mr.Saldafla,that,"We
would also like to reiterate that we agree to the 60-foot wide street dedication along State
Highway 361 as required by the City subject to the City's determination on the subject of
proportionality and subsequent feel of that process." Mr.Urban stated that at that time he told
staff that the applicant would pass on the preliminary plat and to go final plat and he was agreeing
to it subject to the City doing it. Mr.Urban stated that if the plat is approved today it is approved
in its form; if the note has to come off and it shows the dedication,staff is asking him to dedicate.
But if later,on it is determined that he should not have done that,how does it get corrected?
Commissioner Loeb stated he does not find in the Planning Commission packet where it
states that the note must come off. Mr. Saidafla responded that the note came in when the
corrected plat was submitted;it was not in the original submission.
In response to Commissioner Loeb,Mr. Saidafla agreed that the conflict is that staff's
contention is that the right-of-way is needed and the question is whether the City has to pay for it
or not. Mr. Saldafla stated that after the final plat is approved is when the City makes the
determination.
In response to Chairman Stone,Mr.Urban stated this is the first plat to be considered
under the new law and the law says that it is supposed to be done in advance of the platting. Mr.
Urban stated the City has a legal opinion from Mr.Tarry Morgan from 2006 that tells the
procedure that is supposed to be set up to do and that has not been done. Mr.Urban stated the
legal opinion recommends an ordinance be set up for exactions and go through the entire
procedure. Mr.Urban stated he has worked with the City to get the exaction provisions put into
place and it has not been done. Mr.Urban stated this goes back to a landmark case called
"Flower Mound"where the city did virtually the same thing,which was to say the city wants the
applicant to give more right-of-way,or we want you to redo a road next to a subdivision and the
developer ended up putting it in at a cost of approximately$450,000,then sued the city saying he
did not need that road because he is a four-lot subdivision with a highway in front;a 240-foot
right-of-way benefits people other than the developer. Mr.Urban stated the guy won the case,
had$60,000 worth of costs and the city had$460,000 plus all the legal cost. Mr.Urban stated the
legislature came back in the next session and passed a law that basically said cities must certify
on any exactions that they are proportionate to the development. Mr.Urban stated,therefore,
they are saying it is a state highway 120 feet wide. Mr.Urban stated the widest residential
collector in a residential subdivision is 60 feet and they already have 120 feet,yet the city is
looking to get another 120 feet for a state highway,of which 60 feet will be from his client.
Mr.Urban stated his request is that the requirement for the dedication be removed,or the
condition is left on the plat.
Chairman Stone stated it sounds like a legal question and does not know how to proceed
or what is to be voted on at this point.
In response to Chairman Stone,Mr. Salda0a stated the Commission can vote to approve
or deny the plat,but cannot take action on removing the condition unless the Legal Department
�Ir v
Planning Commission Minutes
June 11,2008
Page 7
advises otherwise. Mr.SaldeBa stated the plat can be approved with the note,but cannot be
recorded with the note.
Commissioner Martinez suggested approving the plat while making it a condition that the
City address the matter.
Mr.Urban stated that that would not affect their need. Mr.Urban stated that the City has
a duty to do their work beforehand,making the requirements and put them forth;then the
applicant would say either yes or table it to go back. Mr. Urban stated it has been three months
that he has been trying to get the City to figure this out.
In response to Commissioner Loeb,Mr.Bob Nix,Development Services,stated he does
not agree with staff's recommendation and it is his opinion that the plat should be denied. Mr.
Nix stated he now understands why the Urbans opposed the ordinance that was put into place that
he is referring to that the City should have adopted but was delayed. Mr.Nix stated the Urbans
had a project in-house that they knew was coming forward and that if that ordinance were in
place there would have been a clear process. Mr.Nix stated the Commission approved the
ordinance and recommended adoption to the Council. Mr.Nix stated it was attached to an
ordinance that deals with the extension of utilities outside of the city limits. Mr.Nix stated that
staff has been working through issues with that,and for that reason the ordinance that the City has
been castigated for not putting forward has been delayed. Mr.Nix stated that now there is a
situation before the Commission that fits that situation perfectly. Mr.Nix stated he agrees with
staff in that a plat should not be approved that has a condition such as this on it,and then the
question from the applicant is whether the City should pay him and how much,which is the rough
proportionality test. Mr.Nix stated that is a different question as to whether the applicant should
give the City the property. Mr.Nix stated that if the determination is that as the City goes
through the rough proportionality issues,does the City in fact owe him money. Mr.Nix stated
that if the City decides it is not worth it,an agreement can be made to abandon amending this
plat. Mr.Nix stated it should not be a contest;it either needs to be tabled and the issues resolved
and come back at a later meeting with a solution;or it should not be moved forward.
Mr.Urban stated the plat can be approved without the requirement of a right-of-way. Mr.
Urban stated the client is paying rent to store a building and cannot get a building permit. Mr.
Urban stated that if they can get a building permit it would be a different situation; but the
ordinance allows a building permit only upon a platted piece of property.
Mr.Nix stated the applicant is looking for a building permit to put shed storage on the
property,and that is considered an unlawful expansion of a non-conforming use at this time,and
there has been no information to indicate otherwise,and that for zoning reasons,it is likely to be
denied unless information is received that shows that it is not an unlawful expansion of a non-
conforming use. Mr.Nix further stated that if it was an agricultural shed,which is one of the
allegations that was made about the building,and it serves a lawful agricultural purpose,it is
exemption permitting.
Mr.Urban stated that discussions with staff have been had on this topic and the applicant
is doing exactly what staff suggested;therefore,if Mr.Nix believes a building permit will not he
issued,that is another problem.
Mr.Nix stated he had a discussion with one of the Urban engineers and that that
conversation reflects what Mr.Nix just stated for the record.
In response to Mr.Urban,Mr.Nix stated the engineer was one of the Urban boys,
perhaps the son, Chip.
111l► V
Planning Commission Minutes
June 11,2008
Page 8
Mr.Urban replied that he has no son.
Mr.Nix stated that in any case, it was discussed with Mr.Urban's engineer when this
came up;Mr.Urban replied that he was not sure if this is the right project because he is the
engineer and the only engineer on it.
Mr.Nix stated that perhaps he has a different project and verified whether this is the
mining project,the one that had the shed.
Mr.Saldafla clarified that the conversation was had with Mr.Jim Urban and the
conversation was that if the use is for an agricultural barn then a building permit would be issued
once the property was platted. Mr.Saldata stated that the issue was that it was for the expansion
of a mining use,which is sand and gravel,and since the property is zoned"F-It"Farm-Rural it
does not permit that type of use. Mr. Saldafla recalled that Mr.Urban indicated he would be
requesting a change of zoning and Mr. Saldafla does not know if that has occurred or if the
applicant is waiting to see if the plat was going to happen.
Mr.Nix stated there is more wrapped up in this issue than meets the eye and supports
staff in saying that if the applicant removes the note,and there is not a conditional conveyance,
then it can be approved. If the applicant does not agree to do that,then it either needs to be tabled
or it needs to be denied. Mr.Nix stated that under Texas statute,the applicant has four years to
contest the rough proportionality issue. Mr.Nix stated that the ordinance,which would have
created administrative conditions and would have allowed us to deal with it today,is not in place
yet. Mr.Nix stated that if the Urbans Want to deal with it today,that is fine. Mr.Nix stated there
is a lot to the rough proportionality test and it is not just how wide is the road and whose traffic is
using it. Mr.Nix acknowledged that it is the City's responsibility to do that,but not necessarily
before the plat is recorded. Mr.Nix pointed out that a mining operation uses heavy equipment
and heavy equipment puts a lot of wear on a road and that is a factor that needs to be considered
in connection with this piece of property. Mr.Nix stated there is a cost associated with that and
there is more to rough proportionality than how wide is the road and how wide does it need to be
for this project and that it is complicated.
In response to Commissioner Loeb,Mr.Nix stated that nobody is saying that if the note
is removed and the plat is approved that the property owners give up the right to seek
compensation for the right-of-way and the property owner has four years to do that.
Mr.Urban stated that he recognizes that and,that normally,approval of the plat waives
the right because the plat is being accepted. Mr.Urban stated that if he takes the plat without the
note he does so without waiving his right to seek compensation for that. Mr.Urban stated he has
written that letter before,but it is a difficult thing for a 60-foot strip of land along the front for
somebody to sue the City for that compensation;the law sets out that the City has to do that and
Mr.Urban stated he disagrees with Mr.Nix and believes that it is supposed to be done in
advance. Mr.Urban stated,however,that he will accept the plat without waiving his right and
the note can be removed,but only if the City agrees to do the proportionality determination. Mr.
Urban requested a time period be set that is reasonable to get that proportionality determination.
Mr.Nix responded that it is his belief that the City has 30 days to do the determination if
the request is today. Mr.Nix stated it is recognized that this will be costly to the City and that as
the issue is addressed with engineers and other experts hired by the City,the City needs to look at
whether or not that cost will be passed on to the applicant and share in the cost. Mr.Nix stated he
will have to consult with Legal Counsel as to how that might be done,but if Mr.Urban is raising
the issue the City is obligated to address it.
rrl
Planning Commission Minutes
June 11,2008
Page 9
In response to Commissioner Loeb,Mr.Nix stated it is his hope that Mr.Urban's
insistence on getting this done on this project,that the City is able to get the ordinance passed so
that associated costs are clear in the beginning. Mr.Nix stated that,however,since the ordinance
has been delayed,the City now has something coming in between the cracks and has an
obligation that it must be dealt within the legal requirements defined. Mr.Nix stated that once
the ordinance comes into place there will be a process with appropriate fees. Mr.Nix stated that
one of the conditions the ordinance provides is that once the applicant makes that request he will
pay fees and provide studies which have been avoided by this application coming in ahead of the
adoption of that ordinance,which is much to the applicant's credit. Mr.Nix stated that the City
now has an obligation to address this within 30 days after this request is formally made,which is
presumably this day. Mr.Nix further stated that,based on previous discussions,he was under the
impression that this would not be an issue and is surprised that it came up.
Mr.Urban stated that he is in agreement with removing the note at this time for this client
to move the plat through. Mr.Urban further stated that he and Mr.Nix have met and discussed
this ordinance. Mr.Urban stated he has read the ordinance and has critiqued the ordinance. Mr.
Urban suggested that the Commissioners review the ordinance and stated he believes it is a
horrible ordinance. Mr.Urban agreed that an ordinance was needed for exaction,but this
ordinance is a bad one. Mr.Urban presented to Chairman Stone information from Terry Morgan
&Associates,P.C.,which the City hired,that tells what the City can do and the ramifications of
not passing an ordinance. Mr.Urban stated it is his belief that the law does not anticipate that the
City is going to dump the responsibility to do all this determination back on the guy asking. Mr.
Urban stated it is his belief that this is the typical attitude of the City,that the State comes in and
says'you need to do this',and the solution is the City is going to charge the applicant and make
him do it,resulting in a six month or a year delay on every plat. Mr.Urban stated again that he
would take the provision off the plat subject to the City,within 30 days,rendering an opinion;
and if the opinion is that it is not required,Mr.Urban states he will then amend his plat to remove
it subject to them signing on it.
In response,Mr.Nix stated that the City's alternative is to build in the estimated cost of
that into the fee structure for every application received so that it is paid in advance. Mr.Nix
stated he is comfortable with the fee structure that does that in the ordinance that was proposed
and approved by the Commission which was sent on to the City Council.
Mr.Nix stated he has no problem with Mr.Urban removing the note and the plat being
approved tonight and recorded,then going forward to work with Legal staff to resolve the rough
proportionality issue.
Public hearing was closed.
It was determined that New Plats item"a.0608057-P013,Island Acres,Block 1,Lot 1
(Final—25.963 Acres),located west of State Highway 361,south of Sea Way Drive"would be
voted on independently from the other plats read into the record with it.
Motion was made by Commissioner Loeb for approval of the removal of note#8 from
the plat and approval of the plat as such,based on staff making a determination within 30 days.
Motion was seconded by Commissioner Nadkarni.
Commissioner Skrobarczyk clarified that the removal of note#8 is at the request of the
applicant, not the Commission.
Motion passed unanimously.
wr111150
Planning Commission Minutes
June 11,2008
Page 10
Motion to approve the remaining New Plats agenda items"b,c,e and P"was made by
Commissioner Loeb and seconded by Commissioner Tamez. Motion passed unanimously.
3. Time Extension
Mr. Saldana read Time Extension agenda item"a"(shown below)into the record and
stated this item has been submitted for approval. Mr. Saldefia stated this is the second time
extension of six months requested by the applicant and that the applicant has been advised that if
they request a third extension they must come in with extenuating circumstances.
a. 0107011-P002
River Pointe Estates(Final- 16.7 Acres)
Located north of Up River Road and Violet Road.
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 Skrobarczyk. Motion passed unanimously.
B. ZONING
1. New Zoning
a. Case No.0608-02
Eloy Salazar and Ricardo Martinez: A change of zoning from
"F-R" Farm-Rural District on Tract 1 to "1-2" Light Industrial
District resulting in a change of land use from agricultural to
light industrial use and a change of zoning from "F-R" Farm-
Rural District on Tract 2 to "B-4" General Business District
resulting in a change of land use from agricultural to commercial
use
Being 8.012 acres (Tract I) out of Lots 25 & 26, Section 21,
Flour Bluff Encinal Farm and Garden Tracts, located south of
Rodd Village and west of the future extension of Rodd Field
Road and 18.092 acres (Tract 2)out of Lots 8 & 9, Section 22,
Flour Bluff Encinal Farm and Garden Tracts, located south of
Rodd Village and west of the future extension of Rodd Field
Road.
Mr.Mic Raasch,Development Services,presented the above case via Power Point stating
the applicants are Eloy Salazar and Ricardo Martinez. Mr.Raasch stated the subject property is
two tracts of land,8.012 acres(Tract 1)out of Lots 25&26,Section 21,Flour Bluff Encinal
Farm and Garden Tracts and 18.092 acres(Tract 2)out of Lots 8&9, Section 22,Flour Bluff
0 old
Planning Commission Minutes
June 11,2008
Page 11
Encinal Farm and Garden Tracts,located south of Rodd Village Industrial Park and west of the
future extension of Rodd Field Road. Mr.Raasch stated the portion labeled Tract 1 is being
requested to change zoning from a"F-R"Farm-Rural District to an "1-2"Light Industrial District.
Tract 2 is being requested to change zoning from a"F-R"Farm-Rural District to a"B-4"General
Business District.
Mr.Raasch stated the"1-2"Light Industrial District provides for light manufacturing,
fabricating and warehousing and wholesale distribution;the front yard setback is 20 feet,side and
rear setbacks are zero unless adjacent to residential zoning, in which case the side and rear
setbacks are ten feet. Mr.Raasch stated the "B-4"General Business District provides for all types
of commercial and miscellaneous service activities and allows for multi-family dwellings,
shopping centers,hotels and taverns. Mr.Raasch stated the minimum front yard setback is 20
feet;minimum side and rear is zero unless adjacent to residential zoning, in which case it is ten
feet. Mr.Raasch stated there is no maximum height for structures in the"B-4"Zoning District.
Mr. Raasch stated the Future Land Use map calls for light industrial uses for Tract 1 and
commercial uses for Tract 2.
Mr.Raasch stated that of the 13 public notices mailed to property owners within the 200'
notification area,ten notices were returned in favor and zero were returned in opposition.
Staff recommends approval.
In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk,Mr.Raasch stated that"1-2"zoning and the
"LI"in the section to the north are the same,that is,light industrial.
Public hearing was opened.
Mr. Michael Gunning,738 Crestview,representative for the applicants,came forward
stating he is available for any questions the Commissioners might have.
Public hearing was closed.
Motion to approve was made by Commissioner Martinez and seconded by Commissioner
Skrobarczyk. Motion passed unanimously.
IV, DIRECTOR'S REPORT
A. FUTURE SCHEDULED MEETINGS
Ms.Faryce Goode-Macon,Development Services,reminded the Commissioners
of the upcoming meeting dates(shown below)and asked that the Commissioners advise staff if
and when they know of meetings they might miss in order that a quorum or cancelled meetings
can be established.
June 25,2008
July 9,2008
July 23,2008
July 30,2008
L
Planning Commission Minutes
June 11,2008
Page 12
In response to Chairman Stone,Ms.Goode-Macon stated that Chairman Stone's term
will be expiring on July 31, 2008, and that the reappointment of other commissioners will be
addressed at the next meeting.
D. EXCUSED ABSENCES
Motion to excuse the absence of Commissioner Skrobarczyk from the May 28,2008,
meeting was made by Commissioner Tamez and seconded by Vice-Chairman Garza. Motion
passed unanimously.
V. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn was made by Vice-Chairman Garza and was seconded by
Commissioner Martinez. Meeting adjourned at 6:20p.m.
• II.
S:_I- tt �•
Faryce Gr Ire-Macon tev ny y' iestley
Interim A:• stant Director of Recording Se retary
Development Services/Planning
H1PLN-DIRISHARED IWORDWLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES12008106-I I-08MINUTES.DOC