HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 02/20/2008 •
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Council Chambers-City Hall
Wednesday February 20,2008
5:30 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS: STAFF:
Rudy Garza,Vice-Chairman Bob Nix,AICP Assistant City Manager of
Atilano J.Huerta Development Services
James Skrobarczyk Johnny Pemles,PE,Deputy Director of
John C.Tamez Development Services/Special Services
Johnny IL Martinez Faryce Goode-Macon,Interim Assistant
Govind Nadkarni Director of Development Services/Planning
David Loeb Miguel S.Saldala,AICP,Senior City Planner
Mic Ranch,AICP,City Planner
ABSENCES: Shannon Murphy,AICP,City Planner
Gary Smith,Assistant City Attorney
R Bryan Stone,Chairman Yvette Aguilar,Attorney I
Evon I.Kelly Beverly Lang-Priestley,Recording Secretary
Si usted quiere dirigirse ala comision y su ingles es limitado,habri un inteiprete de espa0ol a
ingl6s en la junta pare ayudarle
I. CALL TO ORDER
A quorum was declared and the meeting was called to order at 5:39 p.m.by Vice-
Chairman Garza.
IL APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion to approve the February 6,2008,minutes was made by Commissioner Martinez
and seconded by Commissioner Nadkarni. Motion passed unanimously with Chairman Stone and
Commissioner Kelly being absent.
III. PLATS
1. Continued Plats
Mr.Miguel Saldafa read continued plat agenda items"a and c",shown below,into the
record and stated these items have been submitted for a continuance to the March 5,2008,
Planning Commission Meeting.
a. 1207156-P053
Bav View No.3,Block 10,Lot 3A(Final Replat-0.13 Acre)
Located south of Craig Street,north of Morgan Avenue and west
of Crosstown Expressway(SH 286).
c. 0208014-NP009
Saratoga Weber Plaza,Block 7,Lot 14(Final-0.574 Acres
Located east of South Staples Street and south of Timbergate
Drive.
SCANNED
.TI N
Planning Commission Minutes
February 20,2008
Page 2
As a courtesy,Vice-Chairman Garza asked if anyone present would like to come forward
in favor or opposition. Nobody came forward.
Motion was made by Commissioner Tamez and seconded by Commissioner Martinez for
approval of the continuance to March 5,2008. Motion passed unanimously with Chairman Stone
and Commissioner Kelly being absent.
Mr.Saldaita read continued plat agenda item"b",shown below,into the record and stated
this item has been submitted for approval and staff recommends approval.
b. 0108001-NP00I
Summerwind Village(Preliminary-56.946 Acres)
Located east of Weber Road(FM 43)and south of Saratoga
Boulevard(511 357).
Public hearing was opened.
Nobody came forward in support or opposition.
Public hearing was closed.
Motion for approval of staff recommendation was made by Commissioner Martinez and
seconded by Commissioner Skrobarczyk. Motion passed unanimously with Chairman Stone and
Commissioner Kelly being absent
2. Time Extensions
Mr.Saldafla read time extension agenda items"a through c",shown below,into the
record stating that item"a"has been submitted for a one-year extension and items"b"and"c"
have been submitted for a six-month extension. Staff recommends approval.
a. 0107002-NP002
Crosstown Commons Subdivision(Preliminary-227.09 Acres)
Located south of South Padre Island Drive(SH 358),west of the
Crosstown Expressway Business(SH 286)and north of Holly
Road.
b. 0207015-NP011
Surfside Addition Unit 2.PUD 2(Final-2.12 Acres)
Located between Laguna Shores Road and the Laguna Madre
north of Caribbean Drive.
c. 0207020-NP0I6
Gonzalez Center,Block 1.Lots 1,2&3(Final-4.476 Acres)
Located south of Yorktown Boulevard and eat of Cimarron
Boulevard.
Public hearing was opened.
i.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 20,2008
Page 3
Nobody came forward in support or opposition.
Public hearing was closed.
Motion for approval of staff recommendation was made by Commissioner Nadkarni and
seconded by Commissioner Loeb. Motion passed unanimously with Chairman Stone and
Commissioner Kelly being absent.
IV. ZONING
Vice-Chairman Garza requested a motion to move agenda item"2c.New Zoning/Case No.
0208-05"forward on the agenda to be heard at this time. Motioned was made,seconded and passed
unanimously with Chairman Stone and Commissioner Kelly being absent.
c. Case No.0208-05,The Mostaghasi Investment Trust: A change of zoning
from a"F-R" Farm-Rural District and 9B-1"Neighborhood Business District
to a "B-4" General Business District resulting in a change of land use from
vacant to commercial
8.905 acres,a portion of Annex No. 1 to the Nueces River Irrigation Park,
located on the northwest intersection of Northwest Boulevard(FM 624)and
County Road 69.
Ms.Shannon Murphy presented the above case stating that the applicant is The
Mostaghasi Investment Trust and the request is from a"F-R"Farm-Rural District and"B-I"
Neighborhood Business District to a"B-4"General Business District for a shopping center. Ms.
Murphy stated no details have been submitted on the development. The property to the north of
the subject property is located outside the city limits.Vacant land and an existing single family
residence are located to the north. An existing mini storage facility is located to the west.
Professional offices and vacant land are located to the east. To the south,across Northwest
Boulevard,there is vacant property
Ms.Murphy stated the"B-4"General Business District has been requested for the entire
site. The"B-4"District provides for all types of commercial and miscellaneous service activities,
particularly along certain existing major streets where a general mixture of commercial and
service activity now exists:Examples of uses permitted in the"B-0"District include multi-
family residential,auto and boat sales,restaurants,hotels,enclosed mini-storage,bars. The
required front yard setback is twenty(20)fret,with no side or rear yard setbacks unless adjacent
to a residential district,which would require a ten(10)foot side and rear yard setback.The"B-4"
District does not have a maximum building height.
Ms.Murphy reviewed the numerous Comprehensive Plan policy statements that indicate
the zone change is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,all of which were provided to the
commissioners in the Planning Commission packet. Ms. Shannon stated that with the lack of a
site plan,or any development plans,staff has no information for a traffic generation capacity.
Ms.Murphy stated the comprehensive plan indicates commercial for the front portion of the
property and low density residential for the rear portion of the property. Existing zoning to the
east is "B-1" Neighborhood Business District and "R-1B" One-Family Dwelling District. The
land zoned "R-IB" One-Family Dwelling District is currently owned by Calallen Independent
School District and future land use is low density residential. Although the land to the north is
V d
Planning Commission Minutes
February 20,2008
Page 4
outside the city limits and does not have a zoning designation,fixture land use is planned as low
density residential. A zoning change to"B-4"General Business District would be incompatible
for the subject property due to future low density residential to the north and east,as well as due
to Calallen High School located to the east on Northwest Boulevard.The"B-4"General Business
District permits uses that are incompatible with low density residential and schools,such as minor
and major automotive repair and taverns,lounges,and bars.
Ms.Murphy stated that of the seventeen(17)notices mailed to property owners within
200 feet,zero were returned in favor or in opposition. Ms.Murphy stated that one response was
received in opposition from outside the notification area and also one from County Commissioner
Peggy Bailales.
Staff recommends denial of the"B-4"General Business District for the subject property,
and in lieu thereof,approval of a"B-I"Neighborhood Business District for the front portion of
the property as indicated on the Future Land Use map.
Public hearing was opened.
Ms.Peggy Satiates,County Commissioner,3134 Seven Trees,came forward in
opposition to the request stating that the subject property is one of the premiere areas in the
United States for hawk watching activities and that any business development in the immediate
area could have an adverse impact on the flight patterns of the hawks and have a negative impact
on eco tourism. Ms.Bailees also stated that County Road 69,north of FM 624,serves as the
entrance to Hazel Bazemore Park and should not have commercial traffic mixed with the park
traffic and should be kept as a low volume road because of the park. Ms.Batiales stated she
encourages economic development,but in this case any proposed development should be
compatible with the surrounding environment. Ms.Banks stated that,if the development should
be approved,the drainage issue should be a priority and looked at very carefully.
Dr.Lisa Mitchell,5027 County Road 69,came forward in opposition to the request. Dr.
Mitchell stated she is a member of the Lewis Family who has lived on the subject property since
1954. Dr.Mitchell stated she received no notice for this request. Dr.Mitchell stated she is
concerned that the city's current focus on economic development is about to lose a valuable
resource. Dr.Mitchell stated that the arra has served as a nursery and protected enclave for the
wildlife that make Hazel Bazemore County Park such a resource for eco-tourism. Dr.Mitchell
requested that the Commissioners find a way to purchase this land in conjunction with the county
so that it will always be there for the future. Dr.Mitchell suggested the Commissioners consider
an environmental impact study to better determine the long-term effects to both the wildlife and
regarding the amount of chemicals that will be increasingly deposited in the park and river from
such commercialized spaces.
Mr.David Robeau,5011 County Road 69,came forward in opposition to the request
stating his concern with the vagueness of the"B-4"designation. Mr.Robeau stated he and
neighbors do not bars,welding shops,or any unplanned businesses on this street. Mr.Robeau
stated there is a lot of wildlife on the road and he wants to keep it that want. Mr.Robeau stated
that permission to CPUs right-of-way will be an issue,as well as drainage. Mr.Robeau stated
that since a neighborhood went in behind the golf course he has had to purchase flood insurance,
which he has never had to do in the past. Mr.Robeau stated that"B-1"might be okay on the
corner,but definitely not"B-4"with its vagueness.
Mr.James Robeau,4991 County Road 69,came forward in opposition to the request
stating that drainage is the main issue and needs to be addressed. Mr. Robeau stated"B-4"is too
V V
Planning Commission Minutes
February 20,2008
Page 5
vague and could allow large development which would have a huge impact on the drainage
system.
Mr.Sheridan Lewis,County Road 69,stated his family has lived on that mad for 53
years. Mr.Lewis stated that at times they see enough rain to flood the streets and in the`sixties
the street was raised. Since then,with the drainage from the new subdivision,greater and greater
drainage is being seen,affecting the road as well as the park. Chemicals and toxic substances
draining into the park need to be addressed. Mr.Lewis stated that with a'B-4",many types of
businesses could go in that would affect the family environment and would be increased
questionable traffic into the park.
Mr. Steve Dean, 11753 Jacob,came forward in support of the request,representing Mr.
Mostaghasi. Mr.Dean stated the reason they are requesting a"B-4"is because it seems to be a
natural extension to the existing"B-4"to the west. Mr.Dean stated one mason they chose this
site was because of the traffic light at the corner which would relieve some traffic problems in
relation to CR 69. Mr.Dean stated the drainage issue is of concern to Mr.Mostaghasi and will be
worked out with city staff. Mr.Dean stated they have been working with an out of town
developer fora major project on the corner which has not been finalized,which may or may not
happen.
In response to Commissioner Nadkarni,Mr.Dean stated the developer will not disclose
to him what type of business is being considered.
In response to Commissioner Buena,Mr.Dean stated that they are requesting the entire
tract be changed to a"B-4"zoning.
Mr.Larry Bittle,5039 County Road 69,came forward in opposition to the request,
stating that he is a new resident to the area and can see the property values in the area being
affected by the development on County Road 69. Mr.Bittle stated the city has been working and
continues to work on the area to make it accommodating to heavy traffic density. Mr.Bittle
stated that without traffic lights,he would not be able to make a left hand turn on the road,and
increased traffic due to businesses on County Road 69 and Hazel Bazemore Road will have an
impact on the neighborhood.
Public hearing was closed.
In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk,Ms.Satiates stated that the beautification
efforts by the county have been within the park and that one reason the park is maintained as it is
because during heavy rains the wildlife in the area seek higher ground and that higher ground is
the Hazel Bazemore Park area. Commissioner Skrobarczyk pointed out that,as currently zoned,
there will indeed be increased residential developments contributing to drainage and suggested
that the city and the county consider purchasing the park.
In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk,Ms.Murphy stated that in reference to
property owners who did not receive a notice,one notice was sent to the property owner listed
which was the mother of one of the Robeaus;the others have been added to the list and will
receive any future notices.
Motion for approval of staff recommendation was made by Commissioner Buena and
seconded by Commissioner Martinez.
Iy 111110
Planning Commission Minutes
February 20,2008
Page 6
Commissioner Loeb stated he does not feel comfortable re-orchestrating the applicant's
request and that we should approve or deny the current request.
Ms.Murphy displayed a diagram and stated that if the Commission approves staff's
recommendation of a"B-I",recommends moving the"F-R"zoning to line-up with the existing
commercial zoning to the east across Hazel Bazemore Road.
Commissioner Huerta amended his motion to reflect this boundary.
Commissioner Tamez stated the applicant should be asked whether the recommended"B-
1"zoning would suit his needs. Mr.Dean stated that information is unknown at this time.
Commissioner Skrobarczyk stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Loeb in that the
commissioners are redesigning somebody else's request and it should simply be denied and let
the applicant come back with an alternative plan or let them withdraw.
In response to Commissioner Nadkarni,Mr.Gary Smith,Legal Counsel,stated that if the
Planning Commission takes action on the motion,and then the case is withdrawn the applicant
will have a twelve-month waiting period before he can re-apply for a rezoning on the same
property,unless the waiting period is waived by the City Council.
Roll call vote was taken on the motion on the floor. Motioned failed with Commissioner
Huerta and Commissioner Martinez voting in favor and Chairman Stone and Commissioner Kelly
being absent.
Motion to deny the"B-4"request was made by Commissioner Loeb and seconded by
Commissioner Nadkarni. Roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Commissioner
Huerta and Commissioner Skrobarczyk voting in opposition and Chairman Stone and
Commissioner Kelly being absent.
Vice-Chairman Garza stated we would return to the original agenda order at this time and
agenda item"la.Tabled Planned Unit Developments/Case No.0108-01"will be heard.
1. Tabled Planned Unit Developments
a. Case No.0108-01
Roberto Cardenas — A change of zoning from a "R-IB" One-Family
Dwelling District to a"R-2"Multiple Dwelling District resulting in a change of
land use from low density residential to medium density residential
Bass Subdivision,Lot E,Block 28,located on Sandra Lane approximately 1,500
fret east of Airline Road.
Ms. Shannon Murphy,AICP,Developments Services,presented the above case stating the
request is for a change of zoning and the applicant is Roberto Cardenas. The applicant is requesting a
change of zoning from a"R-1B"One-Family Dwelling District to a"R-1B"with a Planned Unit
Development-2 Overlay. The case has been tabled for several meetings,originally submitted for a
change to an 'R-2"Multiple Dwelling District,but the applicant has revised it to do a planned unit
development. Ms.Murphy stated the property is located on Sandra Lane east of Airline. Existing
land uses in the area are low density residential to the north,commercial to the south,and vacant to
the west and east with a single family resident to the east along Sandra Lane.
1/40 ltd
Planning Commission Minutes
February 20,2008
Page 7
Ms.Murphy presented a slide presentation depicting surrounding land uses. Ms.Murphy
stated the applicant is requesting a planned unit development and the concept of a PUD is a
recognition that at times greater quality of development can be achieved by permitting modification
of established zoning and subdivision regulations. The PUD-2 is requested because of special
development consideration or particular plan application and gives the applicant the flexibility
necessary to establish regulations different from those in other zoning districts. Because the proposed
townhouse project the applicant has submitted does not comply with the density requirements of the
"R-1B",which is 7.26 dwellings per unit,they have requested a planned unit development. Ms.
Murphy stated the applicant has submitted a plan for the development and they propose 18 dwellings
units on 1.82 acres for a maximum density of 9.9 dwellings unit per acre. The townhomes are
proposed with one story heights,and will provide 36 dedicated residential garage parking spaces,
which is two garage spaces per dwelling unit with an additional 18 visitor parking spaces on site. The
private drive is indicated as a"no parking"fire lane for the length of the drive in order to maintain a
dedicated 20-foot wide fire lane. A 42-foot diameter turn-around has been provided at the end of the
property. Ms.Murphy stated the site plan has been reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshall.
Ms.Murphy stated the development plan also proposes a 20-foot set back along Sandra Lane,
10-foot side and rear yard setbacks and a 55-foot drainage easement in the rear. They are proposing a
six-foot high privacy fence on the perimeter of the property;they are proposing two floor plan types,
the Unit A and Unit B;a fire hydrant has been provided;they are requesting a two-year time limit for
the planned unit development.
Ms.Murphy stated 19 notices were mailed to property owners within 200 feet and received
one in opposition,which totals 1.26%.
Approval of a"R-1B/PUD-2" One-Family Dwelling District with a Planned Unit
Development-2 Overlay,as shown in the attached Angel's Cove Development Plan,subject to the
following twelve(12)conditions:
1. Development Plan: The property shall be developed subject to the design features and
elements contained in the Angel Cove Development Plan.
2. Height: Buildings shall not exceed one-story in height.
3. Density: The density of the development shall not exceed 9.9 dwelling units per acre.
There shall be four one-story buildings with five units in Buildings A and C and four
units in Buildings B and D,as shown in Exhibit D of the Development Plan.
4. Parking: Each dwelling unit shall provide two parking spaces within a garage. A total
of visitor parking spaces shall be provided as indicated in the Development Plan.
5. Setbacks: A minimum twenty(20)foot front yard setback shall be provided along
Sandra Lane. A minimum ten(10)foot side yard and mar yard setback shall be provided.
6. Screening Fence: A solid wood screening fence with a height of not less than six(6)
feet shall be provided along the north,west and east property lines.
7. Lighting: Outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed away from adjacent single
family residences with no more than two foot candles at all property lines.
8. Landscaping: Eight 2-inch caliper trees shall be provided along Sandra Lane as shown
on Exhibit B of the Development Plan.Landscaping shall not be located within utility
easements. Additional landscaping may be required in compliance with Article 27B,
Landscape Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
9. Fire Lane: The private drive shall be striped to indicate"Fire Lane/No Parking"as
shown on Exhibit A of the Development Plan. A forty-two(42)foot diameter turnaround
shall be provided at the terminus of the private drive as shown on Exhibit A of the
Development Plan.
0 V
Planning Commission Minutes
February 20,2008
Page 8
10. Fire Rated Walls: Construction shall comply with International Residential Code(IRC)
required 2-hour fire rated walls between attached dwelling units.
11. lire Flow Teat:Prior to recordation of the plat,a certified fire flow test indicating a fire
flow of 1,500 gallons per minute with a residual pressure of 20 pounds per square inch
shall be submitted to Development Services.
12. Time Limit: Construction of the townhouse development shall commence within two(2)
years from the approved ordinance date of the"PUD-2"Overlay and construction shall
be completed within three(3)years from the approved ordinance date of the"PUD-2"
Overlay,or the"PUD-2"expires.
In response to Commissioner Loeb,Ms.Murphy stated a revision to the lighting provision
will be made to reflect"foot candles"instead of"lumens".
In response to Commissioner Huerta,Ms.Murphy stated the applicant is proposing a 55-
foot drainage easement along the rear of the property and is also shown on the plat. Ms.Goode-
Macon stated that because this is a PUD,the plat is a companion to the rezoning application and
is addressed on page 87 of the Planning Commission packet
In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk,Ms.Murphy stated the applicant has two
years to begin the development and one additional year to finish construction.
Public hearing was opened.
Nobody came forward in support or opposition.
Public hearing was closed.
Motion to approve staff recommendation was made by Commissioner Skrobarczyk and
seconded by Commissioner Loeb. Motion passed unanimously with Chairman Stone and
Commissioner Kelly being absent.
Mr.Johnny Perales,Deputy Director,read zoning plat agenda item"c",shown below,
into the record and stated this item have been submitted for approval and staff recommends
approval.
b. 0208015-P006
Bass Subdivision.Block 28,Lot 5 PUD(Final Replat- 1.93 Acres)
Located north of Sandra Lane and east of Airline Road.
Mr.Perales stated that in reference to drainage,there is a master drainage channel that
abuts the property just to the north and it will collect water from the property,as well as
draining to Sandra Lane in front of the property. Mr. Perales stated they do not expect drainage
to be a problem.
Public hearing was opened.
Nobody came forward in support or opposition.
Public hearing was closed.
4 V
Planning Commission Minutes
February 20,2008
Page 9
Motion to approve staff recommendation was made by Commissioner Loeb and
seconded by Commissioner Martinez. Motion passed unanimously with Chairman Stone and
Commissioner Kelly being absent.
(Note: Agenda items IV.1.c&d were inadvertently skipped and then picked up after the
following agenda item.)
2. New Zoning
a. Case No.0208-02,George Hinojosa,Jr: A change of zoning from
a "It-1B" One Family Dwelling District to a "R-1C" One Family
Dwelling District resulting in a reduced lot size
0.11 acres being the west 50 feet of the east 150 feet of Molina 2,Block
10,Lot 13,located approximately 50 feet east of the intersection of
Villarreal Drive and Molina Drive.
Mr.Bob Payne,AICP,Development Services,presented the above case via Power Point
showing the subject property and surrounding area. Mr.Payne stated the Comprehensive Plan
indicates the future land use as low density residential and the applicant's request is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is located in the Westside Area Development
Plan. Mr.Payne stated the applicant is George Hinojosa and the request is for a change of zoning
from"R-1B"One-family Dwelling District to a"R-1C"One-family Dwelling District. Mr.Payne
stated the property contains 4,900 square feet and does not meet the 6,000 square foot minimum
lot size requirement for the"II-1B"zoning district. Mr.Payne stated that the property is not
platted since the property is only a portion of the original Lot 13 of the Molina 2 Subdivision.
Staff recommends approval and Mr.Payne stated that staff recommendation is supported by
Policy Statement B.3,which states,"Encourage new owner occupied housing in the area by
reducing local street widths,required lot sizes,and by encouraging innovative designs and
technologies."
Mr.Payne stated that of the 40 notices mailed to surrounding property owners,zero were
returned in favor and zero were returned in opposition.
Public hearing was opened.
Nobody came forward in support or opposition.
Public hearing was closed.
Motion for approval of staff recommendation was made by Commissioner Loeb and
seconded by Commissioner Skrobarczyk. Motion passed unanimously with Chairman Stone and
Commissioner Kelly being absent.
c. Case No.0108-04—APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED
CASE BE TABLED TO MARCH 5,2008
J.Golden Properties,Inc.-A change of zoning from an
"AT" Apartment-Tourist District to an "AT/PUD-2" Apartment-Tourist
District with a Planned Unit Development-2 Overly resulting in a change
of land use from vacant to single family residential
Brooklyn,Lots I through 9, I I,A,and B,Block 19,located on the east
side of Gulfbreeze Boulevard,between Neal and Hayes Streets.
V
Planning Commission Minutes
February 20,2008
Page 10
Ms.Murphy stated the applicant for Zoning Case No.0108-04 has requested the case
be tabled until the March 5,2008,meeting of the Planning Commission. Motion was made by
Commissioner Skrobarezyk and seconded by Commissioner Tamen Motion passed
unanimously with Chairman Stone and Commissioner Kelly being absent.
d. 0108008-NP005-APPLICANT REQUESTED CASE BE TABLED
TO MARCH 5,2008 MEETING
Blue Residences(PUD)(Final- 1.937 Acres)
Located east of Gulfbreeze Boulevard between Neal Street and
Hayes Street.
Ms.Murphy stated the applicant for Plat No.0108008 has requested the item be tabled
until the March 5,2008,meeting of the Planning Commission. Motion was made by
Commissioner Huerta and seconded by Commissioner Skrobarczyk. Motion passed
unanimously with Chairman Stone and Commissioner Kelly being absent.
b. Case No.0208-03,Enterprise Rent A Car: A change of zoning from a
"B-1" Neighborhood Business District to a "B-4" General Business
District resulting in a change of land use from neighborhood business to
general business
Osage Addition,Block 2,Lot 4-A,located on the west side of Everhart
Road approximately 575 feet south of Staples Street.
Mr.Mic Raasch presented the above case via Power Point,stating the applicant is
Enterprise Rent A Car and the site is located along the west side of Everhart Road 550 feet
south of Whataburger Way Drive or 800 feet south of Staples Street. Mr.Ranch stated the
applicant is requesting a change of zoning from a"B-1"Neighborhood Business District to a
"B-4"General Business District to allow for a car rental business. The property is described as
Osage Addition,Block 2,Lot 4A,also known as the Red Carpet Carwash which has been
abandoned for several years.
Mr.Raasch stated the existing zoning,"B-I"Neighborhood Business District,provides
primarily for retail shopping and personal service uses in close proximity to residential areas.
Mr.Ranch stated the minimum front yard setback is 20 feet with zoo setback where adjacent
to business districts and ten foot where adjacent setbacks are adjacent to dwellings. The
proposed"13-0"General Business District provides for space in appropriate locations for all
type of commercial and miscellaneous service activity. Mr.Raasch stated the"B-4"zoning
district allows for bars,taverns,and lounges and automotive repair uses,as well as other heavy
commercial uses.
Mr.Raasch stated the future land use plan calls for commercial use in this area. The
current zoning is"13-1"Neighborhood Business District to the west of Everhart Road and east
of Everhart is the old Auto Town area which is zoned 'B-5"Primary Core District. Mr.Raasch
stated the requested use is for a car rental business. Mr. Raasch stated there will be many cars
parked on the property and there will be vacuuming and spray washing of vehicles to the rear of
the property adjacent to the residential properties to the west. Mr.Ranch stated display storage
of vehicles is not compatible to adjacent residential uses or the surrounding area. Staff's
opinion is the visual cluster of vehicles and associated increase in lighting on the property
detracts from the adjoining neighborhood environment and uses located in the area.
V V
Planning Commission Minutes
February 20,2008
Page I I
The Comprehensive Plan indicates the future land use as commercial use. The subject
property is located in the Southeast Area Development Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies
policy statements for land use decisions. The intent of the proposed land use plan is to support
existing and planned residential neighborhoods and related growth in the Southeast ADP areas.
The plan provides for a compatible configuration of activities with emphasis on: accommodation
of existing zoning patterns;the protection of low-density residential activities from incompatible
activities; the placement of commercial activities at locations with good access and high
visibility; and the identification of environmental sensitive areas that should be preserved. Mr.
Raasch stated it has been a commitment on the part of the Planning Commission and City Council
to hold the line with neighborhood type commercial uses and in retaining the neighborhood
zoning in this area.
Mr. Raasch stated staff believes this use would be an incompatible use to the residential
properties located to the west along Mildred Street and is also not consistent with Policy
Statement B.I and the Corpus Christi Residential Policy states that,"Incompatible industrial and
commercial land uses should not abut residential areas." The proposed use is not consistent with
this policy and is not compatible with the adjacent low density residential uses to the west
Additional methods in minimizing conflict of commercial uses adjacent to neighborhoods am
reduction of clays and hours of operation; placement and display of storage vehicles within the
front half of the property only;and allow vehicle drop-off boxes only when the business is open;
and security lighting only permitted in the front half of the property with reduced lumens and
shielded. Mr. Raasch stated that further mitigation might be needed in regard to the vacuuming
and cleaning of vehicles at the rear property line.
Mr. Raasch stated that true commercial neighborhood activity should be aimed toward
meeting the daily convenience of retail needs of nearby residents for food, medical and personal
uses. Staff believes the location for the subject business is not appropriate and will negatively
impact on the surrounding neighborhood,including visual cluster of display storage vehicles and
an intrusion of increased lighting into the adjoining residential areas and noise from the
vacuuming and spray washing of vehicles.
Staff recommends denial of the"B-4"General Business District. Mr.Rauch stated there
were 25 notices mailed to property owners within 200 feet of the subject property and seven were
mailed outside the 200 foot area. Twelve notices from within the 200 foot notification area were
returned in opposition to the "B-4" General Business District, but in support of a special permit
on the "B-1"Neighborhood Business District. Two notices from outside the 200 foot notification
area were returned with the same sentiments.
Commissioner Huerta stated he believes the special permit will work in this case.
Commissioner Huerta stated the property is vacant and Enterprise is a good business for the area.
Commissioner Martinez stated the car rental business will be less intrusive on the
surrounding residential area than the previous full car wash business and that traffic will be
impacted less also. Commissioner Martinez stated that lighting could be a possible problem but it
can be addressed in the special permit.
Commissioner Loeb stated that care should be taken in requiring a reduction in lighting
for commercial properties. Commissioner Loeb stated that lighting is a security issue that should
be welcomed by the residential area.
i✓ V
Planning Commission Minutes
February 20,2008
Page 12
Commissioner Loeb stated that smart growth is not having people come in and apply for
a rezoning and then shake them down for stuff. Commissioner Loeb stated this results in nobody
knowing what they have to do to get anything done.
Mr. Nix stated that there are standards applied in a site plan review published by the
Illumination Engineering Society of North America that provides for minimum levels of safe
lighting and that Commissioner Loeb is correct in stating the safety issue. Mr. Nix stated the
required levels are actually fairly low and some commercial establishments, especially offices,
have one level of lighting when people are present and then a reduced minimum light safe level at
night to save energy while providing safety. Mr.Nix stated that the glare on adjacent properties
is a nuisance we are working on and one way to do that is at the site plan level.
Vice-Chairman Gana stated that rules of development need to be flexible to allow for
redevelopment of properties such as this and consider each case on its own merit. Vice-
Chairman Garza stated the city needs to be work with requests such as this to encourage
redevelopment,not discourage it.
Public hearing was opened.
Mr.Richard Sema, 5329 Fulwell,came forward in support of the request,stating the
property was in litigation from 2001 until he purchased it in August 2007. Mr.Sema stated he
did extensive improvements on the property,including eradication of rats and bugs. Mr. Sema
stated he has gone through the process of getting all the permits necessary,such as electrical,
plumbing,roofing,etc.
Mr.Sema stated he became frustrated with staff as he worked through the process,
stating it was difficult to except staff's recommendation considering the previous business was
a full car wash and more intrusive than a car rental business. Mr. Sema stated it was his
experience that the neighbors welcomed the car rental business as opposed to what was there
previously. Mr. Serra stated he has designed in less lighting than the previous car wash used.
In response to Commissioner Tamez,Mr.Sema stated the"B-I"Neighborhood
Business District with a special permit would work for him and staff stated one of the issues to
be addressed in the special permit includes lighting.
Mr.Chris Weller,8158 Marside Drive,Enterprise Rent A Car,came forward
supporting the request stating their request is for a"B-I"Neighborhood Business District with a
special permit. Mr.Weller stated it is their intent to bring the property back up to code,
landscape the property and preserve the integrity of Everhart Road. Mr.Weller stated they
have no intention of putting in additional lighting,and that spray hoses will be used when
washing the cars. Mr.Weller stated that Enterprise does not use drop boxes in it inter-city
locations and that only about 15 to 20 cars will be on the location at any one time. Mr.Weller
stated the hours of operation of 7:30 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday,and on
Saturdays from 9:00 a.m,until 12 noon,and closed on Sundays. Mr. Weller stated that
Enterprise has a location on SPID that backs up to the same neighborhood as this one and they
have never had a complaint.
In response to Commissioner Huerta,Mr.Weller stated the industrial components of
the previous car wash business have been removed.
Public hearing was closed.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 20,2008
Page 13
Commissioner Nadkarni motioned to approve a''B-I"Neighborhood Business District
with a special permit,addressing lighting restrictions,time of operation restrictions and no drop
box. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Martinez.
In response to Commissioner Huerta,Commissioner Nadkarni amended his motion to
include meeting the current landscape requirements.
Commissioner Loeb stated the building has been vacant for six years,the applicant
went out and spoke with the neighbors and came to an agreement with them and he does not
understand why the commission is running up the score on this guy.
Mr.Raasch stated that there is a provision in the Landscape Ordinance that anytime a
property has been vacated for more than one year,before a building permit can be issued they
must meet all code requirements,including landscaping.
Public hearing was reopened.
Commissioner Nadkarni stated that the intent of his amended motion is to not require
additional landscaping requirements,but to adhere to what is currently in the code. Therefore,
the motion is to approve a"B-I"Neighborhood Business District with a special permit,
addressing lighting restrictions,time of operation restrictions,providing for no drop box and
adherence to applicable landscape requirements.
Motion passed unanimously with Chairman Stone and Commissioner Kelly being
absent.
V. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM-ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
TO ARTICLE 27B LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
(TABLED FROM THE JANUARY 9 AND JANUARY 23,2008,MEETINGS)
Amendment to Article 27B Landscape Requirements—This agenda item includes
consideration of I)the Unified Development Code Landscape Focus Group
recommendations,and 2)staff recommendations utilizing the consultant's landscape
document.
Mr.Nix stated that staff had put forward in ordinance form a text amendment in white paper
form,but that is not what staff is recommending. The purpose of that is to point out that there are items
that need to be considered by the Council that are in the consultant's recommendations that were not
recommended by the landscaping committee because they decided to abandon the consultant's
recommendations and to instead tweak the existing code. Therefore,the consultant's landscape
recommendations would not be reviewed by City Council unless staff puts them forward.The Council
has asked to see the consultant recommendation as well as the UDC Focus Group recommendation.
Mr.Nix stated that what we should be responding to is the Planning Commission's discussion
about the landscaping committee's presentation and the question of what happens behind the street
yard,i.e.,the issue of the parking lots that aren't getting landscaped which is what this committee was
concerned about. Mr.Nix stated there is a section in the proposed Unified Development Code that
addresses landscaping of parking facilities and that could solve the problems that the commission is
concerned about. In addition,there has been a lot of discussion about how to enforce these items.
Enforcement is dependant upon funding and staffing levels. Mr.Nix stated that staff has discovered
ordinance provisions in Fort Worth worthy for review by the Commission which provides for a funding
14 *IMO
Planning Commission Minutes
February 20,2008
Page 14
mechanism,annual inspections and enforcement procedure dealing with landscape maintenance and
installation.
With that being said,Mr.Nix stated the only thing staff is really recommending is the
provisions of parking lot landscaping,tree protection credit,annual inspection fees,and the
maintenance enforcement provisions.
Mr.Ranch presented the above item stating that the consultant had indicated they wanted to
consider adding landscape requirements in those parking areas that are behind the street yard or the out
parcels on larger developments and to increase the 200 foot notification area for landscape variances
and alternative compliance. Additions that staff is asking the commission to consider is to address a
tree protection credit,to address the maintenance issue;and stiffer language to beef up the enforcement
section.
Mr.Raasch reviewed the consultant's recommendation concerning interior islands,terminal
islands and median islands by showing a slide of an existing development with the consultant's
recommended landscaping applied.
Mr.Ranch also reviewed the focus group recommendation which is basically no landscaping
required beyond the out parcel areas. The current ordinance and the focus group's recommendation is
to require landscaping only in the parking areas within the street yard. Anything beyond that will not
be landscaped.
Mr.Raasch stated the tree protection credit is recommended for consideration by staff. The
tree preservation provision would protect existing stands of trees or significant trees or palms on the site
by reducing parking requirements up to 5%as an incentive.
Commissioner Loeb stated he was under the impression that when the commissioners met for
this meeting they would have specific amendment language presented to them to vote on and move
forward. Commissioner Loeb stated he wants to see language. Commissioner Loeb stated he is fate if
more landscaping is required,but asks if the parking requirement can be taken out in exchange.
Commissioner Loeb stated that at a previous meeting he offered specific language and it seems to have
disappeared and he doesn't know why.
Commissioner Skrobarczyk stated he is in favor of a point system where the points can be
added up and he likes the tree protection credit. Commissioner Skrobarczyk stated the parking space
loss could possibly affect the business.
Commissioner Huerta stated it is his understanding that the loophole which exists and is what
the commission is trying to fix is the requirement that only 20%of the front parcel of that front business
would be required to have landscaping. Everything to the rear would be without any requirement of
landscaping. The suggestion was to require the back business to have either the same percentage or a
reduced percentage of the landscape requirement or come up with a system that would distribute that
requirement throughout the parking area. Commissioner Huerta stated he is okay with the suggested
text.
Commissioner Nadkarni stated he is in favor of the point system,but would like to see it in
language.
Mr.Nix,in an effort to verify,reiterated the two points he has heard from the commissioners,
stating 1)a point system relating to landscaping in parking areas behind the street yard;2)a standard
for the percentage of lot area.
fir+
Planning Commission Minutes
February 20,2008
Page 15
Commissioner Loeb asked if a vote could be taken on each of the issues because he sometimes
feels that two different issues are being discussed. Commissioner Loeb stated he wants to avoid putting
staff in a position such as this,trying to please everybody. Commissioner Loeb stated his suggestion is
for lots that do not have a front yard the vehicular use area is the front yard for purposes of calculating
landscaping.
Mr.Nix stated there is more to parking lot landscaping than just beautification. There are
safety issues worked in also. Landscaping can provide pathways for people to use instead of walking in
the parking areas. Landscaping can deter high speed vehicular use.
Commissioner Tamez stated his agreement with Commissioner Loeb,and further stated he
wants to avoid creating a monster for the smaller developments when the target is the big box store type
developments. Commissioner Tamez stated it would be wise to re-examine exactly what is trying to be
accomplished. Commissioner Tamez stated that the most effective use for landscaping is on the front
along the road so that more people can enjoy it.
Commissioner Skrobarczyk suggested re-examining the intention and putting that intent it in
writing in the ordinance,and then let the devil work out the details.
Public hearing was opened.
Mr.Leon Loch,921 N.Chaparral,vice-chair of the Landscape Focus Group,came forward
stating that fellow citizens met 500 or 600 man hours getting the focus group recommendations to the
Planning Commission as they are today. Mr.Loeb stated that the focus group spent a great deal of time
reviewing the consultant's recommendation and ultimately decided that many principles used were not
consistent with the community's values and likely would not be implemented in a useful way. Hence,
the Focus Group decided that an evolution of the existing point system beautification ordinance was the
most appropriate thing. Mr.Loeb stressed that this conclusion was not reached easily and much
discussion went into it.
Mr.Loeb stated several items need to be touched upon,one of them being Moore Plaza
"problem"where the street yard landscaping definition does have a loophole that exempts an area
behind a row of out buildings from landscaping and as was discussed at one of the past public hearings,
that can be dealt with by cleverly redefining the street yard.
Mr.Loeb stated the buffering issue was also a concern,has been moved for consideration to the
Base Zoning District where the Landscape Committee felt it could be better dealt with in the context of
transition between uses. Mr.Loeb encouraged the commissioners to come to his conclusion in
reference to the Duncan&Associates draft. Mr.Loeb stated the consultant's draft clearly originated
outside of our region and does not understand our conditions. In direct contrast,the committee
consisted of individuals with directly related experience to the landscape challenges and opportunities
in the community.
Public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Huerta motioned to go with the suggested text for the parking area interior
landscaping,Section 27B-25,as an inclusion into the Landscaping Ordinance,to include this Section
27B-15 Parking Area Interior Landscaping,with its specific language,found on pages 208 and 209 of
the Planning Commission packet. Motion failed for lack of a second.
Commissioner Loeb motioned to accept the Committee's recommendation with staff going
back and.....I'd like to make a motion that we direct staff to,based off of the Committee's
y V
Planning Commission Minutes
February 20,2008
Page 16
recommendation,to either clarify the definition of street yard so as to make buildings that are behind
out parcels or lots that are behind out parcels have the same landscaping requirement,not necessarily in
islands,the tree preservation stuff,the enforcement and maintenance provisions. Motion was seconded
by Commissioner Tamez.
Vice-Chairman Garza summed up the motion as a motion to ask staff to take the Landscaping
Committee's recommendation and add in a modification to the street yard definition to include parking
lots on the side of the building,the back parking lot,the front portions,to include,having the same
landscaping requirements as the street yard. And we also want to incorporate your maintenance and
enforcement language from the City of Fort Worth,and tree protection credit,as recommended by staff.
Commissioner Loeb stated the commission needs to choose three smart people,i.e.,Leon Loeb,
Bob Nix and a third person they can each agree upon,put them in a room and let them figure it out.
Vote was taken on the motion on the floor and it passed unanimously with Chairman Stone and
Commissioner Kelly being absent.
VL (THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RECESSED AT 8:40 p.m.)
(THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RESUMED AT 9:00 p.m.)
Vii PUBLIC HEARING ITEM-PLATTING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
(ITEM TABLED AT JANUARY 23&FEBRUARY 6,2008 MEETINGS)
1. Amendment to Section XIII;and add new Sections VA,XIILA and XIII.B to
provide for development exactions determination, an appeals process; and
provide a repealer clause.
2. Amendment to Section V.B to require connection to approved treated water
supply, to require looped water lines, and to modify the provisions for
reimbursement and developer share of water arterial, grid main and water
distribution line construction costs; to provide a repealer clause; provide a
penalty clause;provide for publication;and provide an effective date.
Mr. Perales presented the above item referring to page 241 of the Planning
Commission packet. Mr. Pandas stated this item had been brought before the commission on
January 23 and on February 6,2008,both times being tabled by the Planning Commission. Mr.
Perales stated that staff took the amendments to City Council on January 29,2008,for the first
reading. Associated therewith,City Council voted to move forward with a very limited portion
of the proposed platting ordinance amendments. Mr. Perales stated these items could be found
on pages 256 and 257 of the Planning Commission packet. Mr. Pemles stated those five
paragraphs dealing with dead end water mains, water system looping, etc., were taken to
second reading before City Council and adopted. Mr.Perales stated staff was directed to return
to the Planning Commission and re-present the item. Mr.Perales stated this is a very involved
assignment. Mr. Perales stated they have had several meetings with representatives of the
development community and,although progress is being made,they expect this to go on for a
while.
Mr.Perales requested the item be tabled until further notice.
In response to Commissioner Tame; Mr. Perales stated that there are three revenue
components that go into the developer trust funds, the primary one being the lot and acreage
41100
Planning Commission Minutes
February 20,2008
Page 17
fees paid by the typical developer;secondary to that are connect surcharge fees paid by the end
user; and lastly are the pro rata fees. The percentage of each which funds the trust fund is
roughly lot and acreage fees at 65-70%, connection surcharge fees at approximately 30%; and
pro rata fees at about l%or 2%.
Public hearing was opened.
Nobody came forward in support or opposition.
Public hearing was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Loeb that staff bring back the item when ready.
Motion was amended to provide monthly updates and seconded by Commissioner Nadkarni.
Motion passed unanimously with Chairman Stone and Commissioner Kelly being absent
VIII. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM-HALF-STREET DEFERMENT
AGREEMENT-SARATOGA WEBER PLAZA,BLOCK 9,LOT 6(ACUSHNET
DRIVE)
The applicant's representative, Urban Engineering, submitted documentation
requesting the City to waive the construction requirement for Acushnet Drive, a half-
street, and its related water, wastewater, drainage and paving infrastructure
improvements until the undeveloped lands to the south of Saratoga Weber Plaza,Block
9, Lot 6 are platted and are required to participate in the construction of Acushnet
Drive.
Mr.Perales presented the above item stating it involves the extension of Acushnet Drive,
which is parallel to Saratoga and west of Weber Road. Mr.Perales stated it will be a 200 foot
extension of Acushnet to the west and will include water,waste water,storm water,and those
improvements are included in the cost estimate for the half street deferment. The total estimated
cost of the full street and all utility improvements is$270,480.00. Fifty percent of that amount is
requested of the developer,which is$135,240.
Staff recommends approval of the deferment agreement.
Motion to approve staff recommendation was made by Commissioner Skrobarczyk and
seconded by Commissioner Loeb. Motion passed unanimously with Chairman Stone and
Commissioner Kelly being absent.
IX. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
A. FUTURE SCHEDULED MEETINGS
March 5,2008
March 19,2008
April 2,2008
. V V
Planning Commission Minutes
February 20,2008
Page 18
B. CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN ON REZONING CASES
February 19,2008
Case No. 0108-02,Ronald A. Vow 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 designation from agricultural to light industrial on
14.899 acres (Tract 1) and 2.000 acres (Tract 2) both out of Bohemian
Colony Lands, Lot 7, Section 14, located on Greenwood Drive
approximately 1275 feet south of Saratoga Boulevard.
Case No.1207-01,Scott Electric Co.,Inc.: A change of zoning from a
"R-IB"One-family Dwelling District to an"1-2"Light Industrial District
resulting in a change of land use designation from residential to light
industrial Shoreline Park Addition, Lots 9 through II, Block 8, located
on Dempsey Street,approximately 100 feet west of N.Port Ave.
C. ZONING CASES SCHEDULED FOR CITY COUNCIL
February 26,2008
Case No. 0108-03, Veolia Environmental Services - A change of
zoning from an "1-2" Light Industrial District to an "1-3" Heavy
Industrial District resulting in a change of land use from light industrial
to heavy industrial
237.36 square feet out of Robles Industrial Area,Lot 15,Block 6,
located on the east side of Flato Road approximately 1,050 feet north
of Bates Road.
D. OTHER MATTERS
Ms. Goode-Macon informed the commissioners that the note on the public
notices which states that the public should not discuss the case with the commissioners
prior to the meeting has been eliminated.
Ms. Goode-Macon announced the Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission to
be held at the Natural Resource Building from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on February 21,
2008,to discuss the erosion response plan proposed at the last session of the legislative
session.
X. EXCUSED ABSENCES
None
'V
Planning Commission Minutes
February 20,2008
Page 19
XL ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Skrobarczyk and seconded by
Commissioner Huerta. Motion passed unanimously with Chairman Stone and Commissioner
Kelly being absent and the meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m.
� 7h -- P �
aryce Good I1aco Beverly Lang-PD tley
Interim Assist Director of Recording Secretary
Development Services/Planning
H:PIN-DIR'SHARED\WORDiPLINNMG COMMISSIONMMUTES12001A2-20-08MINUTES.DOC