Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 01/09/2008 ��h5 72gyoj, . MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers-City Hall o FEB 2008 Wednesday—January 9,2008 5:30P.M. N Cl.-_ COMMISSIONERS: STAFF: ``�s� ,u6'' R.Bryan Stone,Chairman Bob Nix, AICP, Assistant City ant Rudy Garza,Vice Chairman Services A,Javier Huerta Johnny Perales, PE, Deputy Director/Development James Skrobarczyk Services/Special Services John C.Tamez Robert Payne,AICP,Senior City Planner Johnny Martinez Miguel S. Saldafia,AICP,Senior City Planner Evan 1. Kelly Mic Raasch,AICP,City Planner Govind Nadkarni Shannon Murphy,AICP,City Planner David Loeb Wes Vardaman,City Planner Dan McGinn, Project Manager ABSENCES: Andrew Dimas,Intern Gary Smith,Assistant City Attorney NONE Yvette Aguilar,Assistant City Attorney Beverly Lang-Priestley,Recording Secretary Si usted quiere dirigirse a la comision y su ingles es limitado,habni un interprete de espaftol a ingles en la junta para ayudarle I. CALL TO ORDER A quorum was declared and the meeting was called to order at 5:33 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Tamez for approval of the minutes for December 12,2007. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Nadkarni and passed unanimously. M. PLATS I. Continued Plats Miguel Saldada read continued plat agenda items"a through c"(shown below)into the record and stated that item"a"has been submitted for a continuance to the Planning Commission meeting of February 6,2008,and items"b"and"c"to the January 23,2008,Planning Commission meeting. a. 1006191-NPI 13 Rose Acres,Lots 17A— 18B& 19-22(Final Replat-4.79 Acres) Located north of FM 665 and east of FM 763. b. 1107149-NP 100 Rodd Village. Block 4, Lots I &8 through 13(Amending—4.206 Acres) Located east of Dalmatian Drive,south of Yorktown Boulevard and west of Rodd Field Road. SCANNED 11110 411 Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2008 Page 2 c. 1107153-NPI03 Island Business Center Unit 1,Block C,Lots IA through IE(Final plat-23.421 Acres) Located south of Knickerbocker Street and east of Waldron Road. Chairman Stone,as a courtesy,asked if anyone present would like to come forward in favor or opposition. Nobody came forward. Motion for continuance as requested was made by Commissioner Skrobarczyk and was seconded by Commissioner Loeb. Motion passed unanimously. 2. New Plats Mr. Saldafia read new plat agenda item"a"(shown below)into the record and stated this plat is being submitted to be continued to the February 20,2008,Planning Commission hearing. a. 0108001-NP001 Summerwind Village Subdivision No. I (Preliminary-56.946 Acres) Located east of Weber Road(FM 43)and south of Saratoga Boulevard (SH 357). Chairman Stone,as a courtesy,asked if anyone present would like to come forward in favor or opposition. Nobody came forward. Motion for continuance as requested was made by Commissioner Skrobarczyk and seconded by Commissioner Nadkarni. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Saldatia read new plat agenda items"b,c,d,and f"(shown below)into the record and stated these plats have been submitted for approval and staff recommends approval. b. 0108002-P001 La Paloma Addition.Block I.Lot 38A(Final Reulat—0.16 Acre) Located south of Buford Avenue and east of Sabinas Street. c. 0108003--P002 Rancho Vista Subdivision Unit 2(Final-4.772 Acres) Located south of Yorktown Boulevard,between Freds Foley and Rancho Vista Drive. d. 0108004-P003 Shoreline Oaks Subdivision Unit 2(Final—9.313 Acres) Located north of Purdue Road and west of Flour Bluff Drive. f. 0108006-NP003 North Ridge Unit 1 (Amending—9.88 Acres) Located east of Sessions Road and north of Interstate Highway 37. V Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2008 Page 3 Public hearing was opened. Nobody came forward in support or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion to approve was made by Vice-Chairman Garza and seconded by Commissioner Martinez. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Salde0a read plat agenda item "e"(shown below)into the record and stated this plat requires two separate actions by the Planning Commission. The first action is the request for a variance from Section IV.A.7 of the Platting Ordinance that requires a minimum separation of 125 feet between centerlines. Mr.Saida&a referenced Bahia Street which intersects with Debra Lane which also intersects with Lola Johnson Road. Mr.Saldane stated the centerlines of those two streets are approximately 87 feet between,which is less than the required 125 feet. The applicant has submitted a variance requesting waiver of that requirement due to the constraints of the development of the property. Staff has prepared an option that show Lola Johnson extending west across Debra Lane and making an S-curve back up to Bahia Street Mr.Saldafa stated the problem is the 87 feet between both center lines and the curb line between those streets is only 58 or 59 feet,making a short separation between the two streets. Debra Lane,being a collector,is designed to handle higher volumes of traffic than a local residential street so the concern is that the traffic coming off of either Lola Johnson or Bahia Vista going onto Debra Lane and then wanting to turn on another street not having enough stacking distance to make the left hand turn and possibly backing up the traffic on Debra Lane. Mr.Saldafla stated that currently there is no extension to the north or south of Debra Lane,therefore,as it stands right now the impact would not be felt. However,in the future when Debra Lane is extending north and south,then the traffic will be impacted. Mr. Saldafla stated staff recommends denial of the variance. Mr.Salda0a further stated that if the variance is denied by the Planning Commission,the Planning Commission cannot approve the plat as submitted because the plat currently shows offset. e. 0108005-NP002 Bahia Vista Subdivision(Preliminary-68.17 Acres) Located between Waldron Road and Laguna Shores Road,north of Lola Johnson Road. i. Variance to Section IV.A.7.—Street Jogs In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk,Mr. Saldada stated the concern is general traffic flow in the area,particularly in the future when Debra Lane is extended. Public hearing was opened. Mr. Donny Rehmet with Coym,Rehmet,Gutierrez Engineering,5656 South Staples,Corpus Christi,Texas,came forward in support of the variance,stating with him is David Keast and Spence Collins,both representatives of the applicant. Mr. Rehmet stated that normally when they start a subdivision,they comply with everything in the code. However,this one was different in that the entrance up to Waldron Road requires for them to get a lot count that they run a roadway down through the center of the long,rectangular part,or the"panhandle". Mr.Rehmet stated that wetlands to the east and the drainage ditch and wetlands on the west restrict their options. Via Power Point,Mr. Rehmet illustrated the constraints of the geometry that pushes the applicant into requesting the variance. NO V Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2008 Page 4 Mr.Rehmet further stated that the Flour Bluff Independent School District land to the south has deed restrictions prohibiting any use or development of the land other than education,research and recreation until the year 2020. Mr.Bob Payne,Senior City Planner,stated that when the Flour Bluff plan was developed staff was well aware of the wetlands issue in the area and the difficulties. Mr. Payne stated that what staff was faced with at that time was that Laguna Shores is essentially zero elevation and any investment in Laguna Shores will be very difficult at zero elevation. The Jamaica/Debra connection would provide the north/south route needed and the existing portion of Jamaica is not the intended connect. The intent was to split the wetlands areas and then connect up to Graham Road. The idea is to get on higher ground and not create a major traffic mover through wetlands. In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk,Mr. Payne stated that in the Transportation Plan Debra Lane is designated as a collector. Mr.Saldafa stated the intent is not to replace Laguna Shores which is a parkway road and will remain as one of the main north/south arterials. Debra Lane will serve as a relief to Waldron and Laguna Shores,with significant traffic on Debra Lane. Mr.Rehmet stated they are not asking that Debra Lane be done away with. However,they do feel that it may be a while down the road before that happens and once the new Debra Lane is built and a right of way dedicated by the City,then there isn't much roadway at that time and possibly what could happen is that Lola Johnson Road could be readjusted to get the required separation because by that time they will have negotiated with the school district. Mr.Rehmet stated that it would be desirable to not have their awkward layout considering the area could be altered,keeping the separation as far as the future Debra Lane is concerned. Clarifying that Debra Lane will be a collector at some point,but until then Bahia Vista will be main way traffic gets into and out of the subdivision,Commissioner Loeb stated it appears to be a bad idea to have several hundred people traveling into and out of the subdivision twice a day on the proposed road. Commissioner Skrobarczyk agreed that the gooseneck portion of the road is a real problem with all the traffic coming off of Waldron which will be the main lead into the area. In response to Commissioner Huerta,Mr. Rehmet illustrated via Power Point the roads and future roads of the area. After some discussion,Commissioner Huerta rendered a sketched revision to the Debra Lane,Bahia Vista and Lola Johnson layout at the intersection of the subdivision and suggested such revision could resolve the problem of the future Debra Lane corridor and the gooseneck problem. Public hearing was closed. In response to Commissioner Nadkarni,Mr.Saldaaa stated that the reason staff is recommending denial of the variance is because of the planned future expansion of Debra Lane and the resulting traffic patterns and bottlenecks the development would impose. Motion to accept the variance request was made by Commissioner Skrobarczyk and seconded by Commissioner Tamez. In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk,Mr. Saldada stated that staff did not have enough time to work with the applicant in an effort to come up with alternatives. Mr. Saldafia stated the development is very tight and he believes there are several options to possibly get the 125 foot separation. �r V' Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2008 Page 5 Vice-Chairman Garza stated that he does not believe there will be heavy development in the future in this area because of the wetlands and the hindrances of the school property and the Exxon property;therefore,he supports the variance request. In response to Commissioner Huerta suggesting it might be best to table the case to further explore options,Mr. Gary Smith,Legal Counsel,stated the case can be tabled at the request of the applicant only. Commissioner Tamez stated he believes there are options in the future should the traffic build up become a problem in the area and he supports the variance request as the best option. A roll call vote was taken for the motion on the floor. Motion passed with Commissioners Huerta,Martinez and Kelly voting in opposition. ii Action on plat. Chairman Stone,as a courtesy,asked if anyone present would like to come forward in favor of or in opposition to the associated plat. Nobody came forward. Motion was made by Commissioner Skrobarczyk and seconded by Commissioner Loeb for approval of the plat. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Time Extensions Mr.Saldana read time extension agenda item"a"(shown below)into the record and stated this item is being submitted for a six month time extension. Mr.Saldaila stated this is the fourth time extension requested and the applicant's reason for the request is because the builder is not ready. Staff recommends denial of the time extension. a. 0106003-P003 Lynwood Place Unit 1,Block 10, Lots IA—6A(Final Replat(1.41 Acres) Located north of Tiger Lane,between Surrey Lane and Lamp Post Lane. Motion for denial was made by Commissioner Huerta and seconded by Vice-Chairman Garza Motion passed unanimously. B. REZONING I. Tabled Rezoning a. 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 from residential to light industrial Shoreline Park Addition, Lots 9 through 11, Block 8, located on Dempsey Street,approximately 100 feet west of N.Port Ave. Wes Vardeman presented the above case via Power Point, stating the case was originally presented to the Planning Commission on December 12,2007,and was tabled at that time with a request for the applicant to meet with the neighborhood. The subject property is located along the north side of Dempsey Street, V• rll�l Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2008 Page 6 approximately 100 feet west of Port Avenue and is currently zoned "R-113"One-family Dwelling District and the applicant is requesting an 1-2" Light Industrial District. The site has recently been cleared of several structures with one remaining to be removed prior to the construction of an improved parking lot surface, fence and landscape area. Mr. Vardeman stated that ninety-one (91) notices were originally mailed to property owners with 200 feet of the subject property; As a courtesy, an additional ninety-one(91)courtesy notices were mailed to residents listed on a document provided by residents at the December 12th Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Vardeman stated that the resulting mailing list will be used in the future for the Hillcrest neighborhood. The applicant, Mr.Williams of the Hillcrest Neighborhood interest group and Wes Vardeman met on December 28,2007,to discuss conditions for the property that would protect the neighborhood for the proposed vehicle storage yard.Staff recommends denial of an"1-2"Light Industrial District and,in lieu thereof,a Special Permit to allow for the construction and operation of an outdoor vehicle storage yard subject to a site plan and the following six(6)conditions: L)Uses:The uses permitted by the Special Permit other than those uses permitted by right in the"B- 4"General Business District is the outdoor storage of company and/or employee vehicles only. 2.) Landscape Strip: A ten (10) foot wide visual landscape strip shall be installed and maintained running parallel to,in front of,and the distance of the required six(6)standard screening fence. 3.) Screeniae Fence: A six (6) foot standard screening fence shall be installed and maintained to provide a visual barrier between the vehicular storage yard and surrounding neighborhood. 4.) Llvhtine: All security lighting must be shielded and directed away from adjacent residences and nearby streets. Cutoff shields required for all lighting. No light projection permitted beyond the property line near all public roadways and residential development. 5.) Hours of Operation: The hours of operation for the storage yard shall be limited to 6:00 AM through 9:00 PM Monday through Friday. 6.)Time Limit:,Such Special Permit shall be deemed to have expired within twelve(12)months from the date of this ordinance, unless the property is being used in Condition lit and in compliance with all other conditions. In response to Commissioner Nadkarni,Mr.Vardeman stated staff and applicant met with the Hillcrest neighborhood residents,not the Washington Coles residents. Motion to reopen the public hearting was made by Commissioner Nadkarni and seconded by Commissioner Huerta. Motion passed unanimously. Lamont Taylor, 1701 Stillman,Corpus Christi,Texas,came forward representing the Hillcrest Neighborhood Association,stating that Mr.Vardeman and the applicant did meet with the Hillcrest neighborhood. Mr.Taylor stated that the neighborhood's concern is encroachment upon the neighborhood by surrounding businesses. Mr.Taylor stated the neighborhood association realizes that the property belongs to Scott Electric property and they have the right to do what they want with their property,however,the neighborhood also realizes they have the right to protect and maintain their neighborhood. Mr.Taylor stated the neighborhood association supports the Special Permit with the six conditions worked out with Scott Electric. Public hearing was closed. Motion for denial of an"1-2"Light Industrial District and, in lieu thereof,a Special Permit and the six(6)conditions was made by Commissioner Nadkami and seconded by Commissioner Martinez. Motion passed unanimously. V Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2008 Page 7 2. New Rezoning a. Case No.0108-01 (The applicant has requested this item be tabled to January 23,2008.) 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 feet east of Airline Road. Chairman Stone,as a courtesy,asked if anyone present would like to come forward in favor or opposition to the tabling of this item. Nobody came forward. Motion to table until January 23,2008,was made by Commissioner Loeb and seconded by Commissioner Nadkarni. Motion passed unanimously. b. Case No.0108-02 Ronald A.Voss-A change of zoning from a"F-R Farm-Rural District to a"1-2"Light Industrial District resulting in a change of land use from agricultural to light industrial 14.899 acres(Tract I)and 2.000 acres(Tract 2)both out of Bohemian Colony Lands,Lot 7, Section 14, located on Greenwood Drive approximately 1,275 feet south of Saratoga Boulevard. Mr. Bob Payne, AICP, Senior City Planner for Development Services, presented the above case via Power Point, stating the applicant, Ronald A. Voss, is requesting a change in zoning from a "F-R" Farm-Rural District to an "1-2" Light Industrial District. Mr. Payne stated the location of the property is on Greenwood Road and reviewed the area maps to identify the area. Mr. Payne stated the applicant has requested the zoning to"[-2" Light Industrial District on Tract l to be platted into smaller tracts for light industrial uses; and on Tract 2 for an engineering office, warehouse and home building company. Mr. Payne stated the"1-2"District requires a minimum 20 front yard and no side or rear yards unless abutting a residential district then 10 foot side and rear set back is required. The "1-2" District does not have a minimum lot size, lot frontage, height limitation, open space requirement or floor area intensity factor requirement. Existing uses in the area include a wastewater treatment plant, an outdoor amusement facility(softball fields),and a deep injection facility for hazardous wastes. Some of these properties are zoned either Light Industrial or Heavy Industrial. Mr. Payne stated that while the long term plan for this area includes conversion of the landfill into a regional park which would be compatible with residential uses, the current uses near the site make residential use of the property difficult or undesirable. Conversion of the landfill to a regional park is unlikely to occur in the near future. Mr. Payne stated that approval of the rezoning will also amend the Comprehensive Plan and assure consistency as required by City Charter. Public hearing was opened. Mr. Ronny Voss,applicant,came forward stating he was availing himself to any questions the Commissioners or public might have. Cllr V Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2008 Page 8 Public hearing was closed. Motion to approve the request was made by Vice-Chairman Garza and seconded by Commissioner Skrobarczyk. Commissioner Nadkarni and Commissioner Loeb stated that staff needs to be directed to make the change to the land use plan. Motion passed unanimously. C. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Amendment to Article 27B Landscape Requirements—This agenda item incorporates the Unified Development Code Landscape Focus Group recommendations on landscaping. Mr.Mickey Raasch,City Planner,presented the above text amendment,stating that on November 14,2007,staff presented to the Planning Commission the UDC Landscape Focus Group recommendations to amend the existing landscape ordinance, Article 27.B of the Zoning Ordinance, which is in the Planning Commission packet. Mr.Raasch stated the Landscape Focus Group elected to not include the"buffer yard"requirements as proposed by the UDC consultant in their recommendation and that it be referred to the Base Zoning Focus Group. Staff convened a joint meeting between the Landscape Focus Group and the Base Zoning Focus Group to discuss the district boundary buffer yards only,which applies when there are adjacencies between businesses or offices to a residential area. Buffer yards are required in addition to screening fence requirements to mitigate the negative impacts of more intense development, such as noise,lighting,unsightliness, etc. Mr.Raasch stated that what is now before the Planning Commission are the amendments to the existing Landscape Ordinance by the Landscape Focus Group. Mr. Raasch stated the current landscape ordinance has been in effect since August of 1988,and that the preamble clearly states the purpose as being to improve the appearance,quality and quantity of landscaping visible from public rights-of-way. Mr. Raasch stated that the Landscape Focus Group,which consists of a diverse group of community leaders,developers,designers and various organizations,first met in December 2006,chaired by Mr.Rudy Garza,and vice-chaired by Leon Loeb. The Landscape Focus Group felt the current Landscape Ordinance(Article 27.8)and its point system had been working well for Corpus Christi,and used it as an opportunity to update the current regulations and to improve language to clarify and simplify requirements and, in many cases,to expand the application of the ordinance. Mr.Raasch stated that some of the many benefits of landscaping includes providing windbreaks, sun shading,natural ventilation and air quality improvement,filtration and absorption of storm water, increased property values,and promotes human health and well being,reduction of noise and visual screening of negative land uses. Mr. Raasch stated more detailed information on these benefits is provided on pages 100 and 101 of the Planning Commission packet. In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk,Mr. Raasch stated that what the Commission is currently voting on,or amending or tabling, is pages I I l through 128,the Landscape Focus Group's proposed amendments to the landscape ordinance. V V Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2008 Page 9 In response to Commissioner Huerta, Mr. Raasch stated that pages 105 through 107 highlight or summarize the improvements to the ordinance. In reference to page 112,Mr.Raasch stated the reason the Landscape Review Committee is being proposed for elimination was because the Focus Group felt that instead of a two-step process which takes about two months,it would be better to go directly to the Zoning Board of Adjustment,which takes only one month. To compensate for the loss of the Landscape Review Committee,members can be requested to be at the ZBA meeting as advisors if needed. Commissioner Huerta stressed his concern about the elimination of the review committee because of the different focus and points of view the independent committee provided. Commissioner Loeb suggested required irrigation for the required landscaping and Commissioner Skrobarczyk questioned whether it could be written in that the irrigation could be disconnected after a year or so for those who choose a Xeriscape landscape and still meet the requirements. Commissioner Buena stated he has been told that the front yard setback for the big box stores is determined by the front tenants to the street and the rear part of those tenants back to the box store is not covered by the requirement. Mr. Raasch referred to page 114"Isolated Buildings"of the Planning Commission packet and stated that to take advantage of that feature 25%of the total square footage of that master planned development in the pad sites out front before the area behind them can be exempted. Mr. Robert Nix,Assistant City Manager/Development Services,stated that the typical ordinance will have a landscaping requirement for all parking facilities and will layout what the requirements are. As an example,Commissioner Huerta stated that in a 35 acre development,the developer will leave some tenant spaces in the front as green space to satisfy the 25%requirement,however, in the future that green space will be developed. Commissioner Huerta used Kohl's Department Store as an example of the green space that has disappeared and been developed. Commissioner Huerta stated it needs to be written that a site plan is needed showing the entire master plan development with square footage calculations of all the pads in order to determine that the 25%will be met. Mr.Nix responded that one of the problems is the definition of vehicular use area within the street yard and the required front yard setback. Mr.Nix stated that normally when one wants to landscape the vehicular use area,just say that and provide landscaping standards for the vehicular use area. Commissioner Huerta stated he was glad to see that more shade trees,such as Oaks,were on the plant list with more points appropriated to them as opposed to palm trees which were high in points and low in shade. Commissioner Loeb stated that oak trees attract birds,therefore,nobody wants to park beneath them,and they also drown out so much sunlight that nothing will grow beneath them,not even grass. Commissioner Loeb stated they are a big maintenance problem from a property management standpoint. Vice-Chairman Garza stated his agreement with many of Commissioner Huerta's concerns and stated he believed many loopholes were closed during the group's deliberations. One of the concerns in the beginning was that the new landscape ordinance raised the bar not only for big businesses,but also for the smaller business owners, making it very difficult to redevelop older areas of town. Mr. Raasch referred to page 117, stating that the proposal is designed to allow more flexibility to the older areas of town where we can reduce the five foot minimum landscape effective visual screen area down to three feet as long as the total frontage area averages five feet. Mr.Raasch stated that in reference to the utility easements,typically located to the rear of properties or sometimes in front, staff is researching a concept that will work with utility departments Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2008 Page 10 inputting language that would allow trees to be permitted within utility easements,at least on the outer fringes of the utility area, if a root barrier system can be installed with concrete or a new geo-tech style fabric. In response to Commissioner Huerta,Mr.Perales stated that in the past the type of material used for sanitary sewer installation was vitrified clay. The joints in vitrified clay pipe tend to leak water over time and especially in drought conditions which attracts the tree roots like a magnet,causing damage and accelerating the deterioration process. The pipe joints of the new PVC materials is much tighter preventing the problem. Mr. Perales stated the only issue with the installation of large trees in the middle of utility easements is accessibility at a later date if maintenance or repairs is required. Commissioner Huerta stated his support of making Corpus Christi a pedestrian friendly city and believes that proper landscaping is an integral part of this. Commissioner Huerta stated the city needs to pursue the root barrier system for use of utility easements in landscaping. Mr.Nix stated that during an infrastructure committee meeting there was discussion concerning utility easements adjacent to streets and we were looking at ten foot minimum easements next to streets. Landscaping code is looking at a five foot landscape buffer. Therefore,all the landscaping is going on the street side of the easement and ending in the middle of the easement and the parking facility is beginning in the middle of the easement and going back. Mr.Nix stated there is an issue as to how this is done with a five-foot wide landscape buffer. Mr.Nix stated a decision needs to be made such as we are going to have street trees on the street side,shading the sidewalk and make provisions for that and figure how that is going to work with the maintenance requirements for the utility or on a private parking facility like the front lawn and put the tree back at the back side of the easement and that would mean back in the back three-feet of that ten-foot wide easement. Mr.Nix stated he is not convinced these codes are well coordinated. Mr.Nix stated the root barriers would work on either extreme of the utility easement,but right now we have only one extreme we can work with,which is the street side. Public hearing was opened. Mr. Leon Loeb,3845 Ocean Drive,Corpus Christi,Texas,owner of Landlord Resources,came forward. Mr.Loeb stated his company owns and manages about 300,000 square feet of various commercial and office property around the city. Mr.Loeb stated he had the pleasure of serving as vice- chairman on the Landscape Committee and he was also on the committee that prepared the original landscape ordinance in the'80s along with Mic Raasch and Fred Braselton. Mr. Loeb stated the largest challenge facing the committee was to bring the ideal of a beautiful community together with the reality of what and who we are in Corpus Christi,and to develop a sort of regulatory scheme that would not make fools of those who do try to comply. Mr.Loeb presented photos of three projects stating one of them is about I5 years old and the other two are brand new. Mr.Loeb stated it would be difficult to find the effective visual screen on any of them. Mr. Loeb stated that when the committee first began it discussions Mr.Loeb asked staff why are we here,what is the problem we are trying to resolve;what is the greatest problem with the current ordinance,and the answer was"enforcement". Mr.Loeb asked if the city has a landscape inspector. Mr. Loeb stated the greatest challenge is enforcing the ordinance the city currently has,starting with installation and then maintenance of the planned landscape as approved. Mr. Loeb stated one of the significant things done was to remove the reduced landscape requirements for churches,schools and public buildings. Mr. Loeb stated they should be the exemplars in our community and they are not. Short of being able to rely on the City of Corpus Christi,Nueces County and Corpus Christi Independent School District and our churches for moral leadership in this area,they ought to have to at least comply with the same rules as everyone else. Ili Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2008 Page I I Mr. Loeb stated the little change that requires total compliance for any building changing from a residential to a commercial use we hope will stem the tide of unsightly single family redevelopments as commercial along Everhart and Airline and other areas. Mr.Loeb stated a lot of people worked a lot of hours and put a lot of blood and sweat into this issue and that Corpus Christi is not ready for the type of landscape ordinance complete with tree preservation that was envisioned by the consultants and the fact that it wasn't is why these focus groups came into effect. Mr.Loeb stated the committee has made some worthwhile changes to the existing ordinance and that if those are actually incorporated into an enforceable plan we will have a much better looking and a much healthier city. Public hearing was closed. In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk,Mr.Nix stated that if any of the Commissioners are uncomfortable with what they know right now or feel that more time is needed,then that is a legitimate reason to continue a hearing. Mr.Nix stated that as for the coordination of the easements and the landscaping and some of the different elements of the code,that coordination will happen with the administration committee,which is a subcommittee of the infrastructure committee. Mr.Nix stated Development Services' mandate is to get this to the Council in March or April and if it is not ready to go, we will take recommendations to the Council and will tell them what the status of it is and ask for further direction. Commissioner Skrobarczyk stated he needs at least one more meeting to absorb all the information and stated he would like to have heard more from the focus group tonight. Commissioner Skrobarczyk stated the groups have put in a tremendous amount of work and requested that at future meetings more members of the focus group be present for input on issues raised which may be the some of the same issues they have spent two years on resolving. Mr.Nix stated there is always a"glitch-spill"when a big ordinance is done and the administration committee will be coming back to the Planning Commission with recommendations to clean up and finalize the Unified Development Code. Motion was made by Commissioner Skrobarczyk to table the case until the January 23,2008, Planning Commission meeting and was seconded by Commissioner Kelly. Commissioner Loeb stated he supports tabling the item,however,does not want to go through the ordinance line by line. Commissioner Loeb stated the focus groups have already done that and he does not feel that the Commission needs to go in and change a lot of language. Vice-Chairman Garza stated there were several issues discussed tonight and he would like staff to go back and write it in such wording that the Commissioners are comfortable with. Vice-Chairman Garza stated he'd like to get an idea as to how the Planning Commissioners feel about the ordinance overall,and to avoid going through the revisions line by line. Commissioner Huerta stated he'd like a formula developed with regard to the 200 foot notification area which would appropriately notify a larger number of people on large impact projects. Vice-Chairman Garza stated the 200 foot notification area should not be bundled with the landscape ordinance. id V • Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2008 Page 12 Chairman Stone stated that we need to keep the agenda moving,and there were specific items questioned tonight that staff can help us with next time. Chairman Stone also stated that the Commissioners may have additional comments at the next meeting,and then from there perhaps one more and that finalize it. Motion on the floor passed unanimously. D. PLATTING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Amendment to Section V.B."Minimum Standards"and add new sections regarding waterlines,connection to water supply, reimbursements and share of waterline construction. Mr.Juan ['crates,Jr., P.E.,Deputy Director/Development Services/Special Services presented the above case via Power Point, stating a brief history of the Platting Ordinance and amendments prepared based on issues that have come up with development primarily outside of city limits, developments taking place in rural areas, primarily one acre lots, relatively small developments compared to their impact on the trust funds. During the same time frame, various issues came up with the operation and maintenance of the city's water supply system. One of the critical items included in the TECQ report was dead end water mains and the extra maintenance required. Mr. Perales stated that the amendments to the Platting Ordinance will now require every platted lot within the City's EV to connect to the public water supply system. Previously,the requirement to connect was if the lot was within one mile of existing service. The provisions for on-site water wells have been taken out. Definitions in language have been added prohibiting the installation of dead end water systems. Through discussions with representatives of the health community, staff agreed that the original definitions and requirements were strict. Staff revised the definitions and requirement to allow construction provided the development is in compliance with the TECQ regulations. Mr. Perales stated other amendments to the Platting Ordinance dealt with the development trust fund. One of the problems associated with rural type projects is that there were a couple that did take place in September, we were aware of a half dozen more on the immediate horizon, so we saw a possibly bad situation about to become significantly worse. That section of the water system was going to be stretched beyond reason. Mr. Perales stated that rural type developments typically have a low contribution into the trust funds,while at the same time,reimbursements exceed contributions. The contribution into the trust fund is based on acreage,while reimbursement from the trust fund is typically 100%reimbursement for large diameter water mains. Based on a historical review of the trust fund account,over 90%of the reimbursement activity was $150,000 or less. Therefore, a proposed ceiling of$200,000 on reimbursements using the existing procedures,with no further evaluation,was put in place. When the reimbursement exceeds $200,000, language has been added to require a rough proportional analysis to determine the amount of the reimbursement. For example,a 100-acre development,one mile from the existing point of service requires an 8-inch water main to provide service at the minimum standards. As a part of the mast plan, the City would require installation of a 16-inch water main. Under rough proportionality, the developer would be responsible for the cost to extend the 8-inch main. The amount of the reimbursement would be the difference in cost between installation of the 8-inch main and the 16-inch main. In response to Commissioner Tamez, Mr. Perales stated that since the city is not reimbursing developers from the trust fund, the city cannot require the developers to pay into the trust fund. V Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2008 Page 13 Public hearing was opened. Mr. Chuck Urban, Urban Engineering, 2725 Swantner, Corpus Christi, came forward stating the current ordinance has the teeth by reference of the water distribution standards to keep developers from building the dead end lines. Mr. Urban stated he would like to see a little more work done, particularly in paring down how often something has to be taken to City Council. In response to Commissioner Tamez, Mr. Urban stated that urban sprawl is a big concern, along with the lack of capital improvement projects to expand the system in a timely fashion. Motion to table to the next Planning Commission meeting was made by Commissioner Tamez and seconded by Commissioner Martinez. Motion passed unanimously. E. Motion to recess the Planning Commission Meeting at 8:45 p.m.was made by Commissioner Nadkarni and seconded by Vice-Chairman Garza. Motion passed unanimously and the Corpus Christi Beach/Dune Committee Meeting convened. MINUTES CORPUS CHRISTI BEACH/DUNE COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday—January 9,2008 8:45 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission recessed and the Corpus Christi Beach/Dune Committee Meeting was called to order at 8:45p.m. 2. DRAFT PACKERY CHANNEL DEVELOPMENT PLAN— PRESENTATION ONLY,NO ACTION Mr.Dan McGinn presented the above case via Power Point,stating that this item is for presentation only and that no action is required by the Planning Commission at this time. Packery Channel is a historical,natural pass and was closed in 1912 with the dredging of the original Corpus Christi Ship Channel. The dredging of the channels has now opened up a navigable channel from the inter-coastal waterway to the Gulf of Mexico,providing additional storm protection to the sea wall by restoring the beach in that area and it has also enhanced the natural habitat by serving as a direct migratory path for sea life and allows a free water exchange. Mr.McGinn stated the funding began in 1999 with Congress passing the water resources and development act of 1999. The project cost is approximately$30,000,000 and the Corps of Engineers is the lead on the project and 65%of the funding will come from the federal government. The City of Corpus Christi,Nueces County and the Del Mar College District are providing funding through a TIF District. Mr.McGinn stated the GLO has also provided funding through the Coastal Erosion and Planning Response Act,and funding has also been received from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for a boat ramp facility. Mr.McGinn stated the project was constructed on state land,which is under lease at this time,under the direction of the Texas General Land Office. One of the conditions of the lease is the approval of a development plan for the leased area. With that plan,gross revenues need to be maximized from the site and the plan is required to have approval before the close out of the project by the Corps of Engineers. The Corps of Engineers is working on the last few elements of the project and i� V► • Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2008 Page 14 staff anticipates finalization between six and nine months. Mr.McGinn stated the following plan was taken from some plans drawn up in 2002 between city staff and the Corps of Engineers. Mr. McGinn stated the lease is broken down into five tracts;tracts 2 through 5 are the plan area and Tract 1 is the channel. Mr.McGinn stated that Area 1 is at the intersection of Zahn Road and State Highway 361,which is considered to be a prime commercial lease opportunity,such as fishing gear or bait. Area 2 is the utility corridor with an existing 30-inch casing that was installed during the construction of Packery Channel. Area 13 is the proposed master plan lift station that was approved in 2007. This private project will be required to construct this facility and to run a force main that will utilize the existing casing. Area 9 is the parking lot and access road to the boat ramp facility,which is the area to be discussed in the Beachfront Construction Certificate project that follows. Area 8 is broken down into three areas,8A, 8B,and 8C. These areas are potential lease opportunities for commercial and/or city facilities. Areas 9, 12 and 4 will all have to continue with roadway,with excess to 12 from 9. Area 12 is another commercial opportunity,such as a restaurant or bait stand. Area 4 will be access and parking to the channel,with a continuous path or sidewalk with access to the entire length all the way out to the tips of the jetty. Area 4 continues back to Zahn Road,offering a second access point. Area 5 is designated as a bath house,restroom facility,fish cleaning,and some shade structures. Area 3 is identified as primary dune areas with limited opportunity,perhaps picnic tables or walkover area. Mr. McGinn stated that crossing to the south side of the channel is Area 6 which has the potential for public access,but is more in the line of maintenance in case big machinery is needed in the furore. Area 7 is a dredge disposal site that was used for anything that was not of quality to be placed back on the beach. Area 5 is also a restroom/bath house and fish cleaning facility. Mr.McGinn stated this project is part of the comprehensive plan. There will be several more public meetings,including Park Board,the Board of Shore Advisory Committee,Padre Island homeowners and an island action committee recently formed. Mr.McGinn stated after meeting with these groups the item will come back to the Planning Commission sometime in February and then to City Council for adoption to amend the Mustang Padre Island Area Development Plan. In response to Commissioner Huerta, Mr.McMcGinn stated that Area 7 would have accessibility problems from the area behind the seawall. Commissioner Huerta stated his belief that the south side and Area 7 could be prime commercial property for pedestrians who cannot get to the north side. 3. NEW BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATES a. Case No. BCC 0108-01 A Beachfront Construction Certificate for a public parking lot and access road to serve the new existing public boat ramp on Packery Channel, State of Texas,Tract No. 1,a 138 acre parcel out of the William Bryan survey on Mustang Island Mr. Mic Raasch presented the above case via Power Point, stating this construction certificate is for a public parking lot and access road to serve the existing boat ramp on the north side of Packery Channel,Area 9. Mr. Raasch stated that Area 9 is the proposed parking lot and roadway to the existing boat ramp,which was constructed as part of Phase I improvements for construction of the channel. Phase 11 improvements include the proposed parking lot and roadway. Mr. Raasch stated the parking lot spaces are extra long to accommodate vehicles with boat trailers. Mr. Raasch stated the public parking lot and access road are located landward of the Erosion Area Line and is outside of the Nueces County Dune Protection Line. The site is located adjacent to an existing public beach access way, Zahn Road. The project site does not functionally support or depend Ike '11110 • Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2008 Page 15 on, or otherwise relate to proposed or existing structures that encroach on the public beach; does not include retaining walls or impervious surfaces within 200 feet of the vegetation line; and is consistent with the City of Corpus Christi beach access plan and applicable state law. Mr. Raasch stated the Engineering Department put together the application and will be administering the project. Construction drawings have been completed and the Engineering Department says that once a grant is provided by the Texas Parks and Wildlife,construction will begin. Mr. Raasch stated construction is anticipated to start this fall. Staff recommends issuance of the Beach Front Certificate for this facility. One notice was mailed with zero being returned. Public hearing was opened. Nobody came forward in support or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion to approve was made by Vice-Chairman Gaya and seconded by Commissioner Kelly. Motion passed unanimously. 4. ADJOURNMENT OF BEACH/DUNE COMMITTEE Motion to adjourn the Beach/Dune Committee was made by Commissioner Nadkarni and seconded by Vice-Chairman Garza. Motion passed unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 9:07- p.m.. (RECONVENE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) The Regular Planning Commission Meeting reconvened at 9:07 p.m. IV. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. PRESENTATION ON RESTRUCTURING THE WASTEWATER TRUST FUND. The presentation will address maintaining solvency of the fund and recommendations on the distribution of costs between the City and the developer. Mr. Perales presented the case stating that the Developer's Trust Fund was created in the early'80s through a cooperative effort between the development community and city staff. The intent was to pool financial resources toward the building of necessary water and wastewater infrastructure needed for new development. Prior to that each development needed to finance their own way regardless of how much was needed in infrastructure improvements. Four Development Trust Funds were created,two wastewater funds and two water trust funds. The wastewater trunk line trust fund was designed to finance a large scale/diameter wastewater lines. The wastewater collector line trust fund was designed to finance smaller scope improvements. The water arterial and grid main trust fund is the water system equivalent to the wastewater trunk line trust fund and is designed for extension of the water arterial and grid main system. The water distribution line trust fund is designed for minor improvements designed to improve local service as opposed to service beyond a sub-service area. Mr.Perales stated these funds primarily functioned as originally created for the first 20 years. There was not a lot of activity in the wastewater trunk line trust funds,because a primary component of wastewater service was wastewater lift stations. The lift stations were not addressed or included in the original wastewater trunk line trust fund concept. Therefore,the lift station improvements did not qualify for reimbursement. On the negative side,it either took the City in building these lift stations,or large development projects,which were few and far between. The net result was a barrier to development. In V Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2008 Page 16 2003,qualified reimbursements from the mink line trust fund were expanded by an ordinance amendment that included master plan wastewater lift stations and force mains. Subsequently,activity increased by opening land for development by the construction of lift stations. On the negative side,a true financial impact of this increased activity was not considered as far as the revenue into the trust fund. For this,and other reasons,the balance in the trust fund quickly dropped. The ordinance permits the transfer of monies from one fund to another. Five transactions over the last ten years have transferred monies totaling$1.5 to $2 million dollars from the trunk line trust fund to the smaller collector line trust line,over the last ten years,totaling$1.5 to$2 million dollars. The transfers have had a significant impact on that fund. As a result,Duncan Associates was hired to perform a utility financing study which was completed and presented to City Council in 2006. A volunteer focus group was established from the development community to start evaluating the trust funds and develop new approaches to keep the trust funds solvent. In late January,the focus group provided comments and recommendations on how the process should be amended. Staff responded to the comments. The group responded with additional comments. There has been constant interaction between staff and the focus group for almost a year. Progress has been made and a finished product will soon be presented. Mr.Perales stated that the developer group has some important issues,particularly the"Lack of defined scope of City participation in development related infrastructure costs." Mr. Perales stated that there are different approaches taken by different cities. Cities that take a proactive approach tend to fund _ ---- most of the improvements. The negative side to this approach is the cost. The positive side is a tight control on the development that takes place. Some of the cities use impact fees assessed on developers to fund some of these improvements. The City of Corpus Christi has a grandfathered lot and acreage fee system in place. As long as that is in place,the City will not have to go into the impact fee process,which is a big undertaking. This process typically takes two to three years with a large investment in staff time and consultants. Another issue brought up by the focus group is the definition of"developer"within the Planing Ordinance. Options have been looked at,but doing so would create legal liabilities as for exclusion or inclusion of different entities or groups within the city. Therefore,staff's opinion at this time is that no revision of the definition will be forthcoming. Another issue brought up by the developers was the lack of historical data related to the trust fund activity. Recent data is very detailed,however, historical records are not as detailed,but enough to establish trends and disbursements. As for roles and responsibilities,the City funds major rehabilitation,repairs and maintenance of the wastewater collection system. In 2007-2008,the City budgeted about$15 million to reduce debt and$27 million for maintenance and operation of existing wastewater treatment plants, lift stations land collection system. The City has committed$1D million in capital projects. In summary, staff concurs with the Duncan&Associates recommendations to modify the City's existing acreage and lot fee system as an interim approach to managing infrastructure costs associated with new development,and to evaluate impact fees as a future solution. Staff is requesting a City Council directive to codify these proposed changes to the methods of calculating and assessing wastewater acreage and lot fees by amending the City's Platting Ordinance. Staff is requesting a City Council directive to develop an implementation plan and scope of services,with associated timelines and cost estimates, necessary to develop a true"impact fee"system. In response to Commissioner Loeb,Mr. Perales stated nobody on existing platted property would have to pay acreage on new construction unless they are replatted and created an additional lot. 1r S Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2008 Page 17 B. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. FUTURE SCHEDULED MEETINGS January 23,2008 February 6,2008 February 20,2008 2. CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN ON REZONING CASES December 11,2007 Case No. 1007-03,Gary D.Gray—"1-2"Light Industrial District to"1-3"Heavy Industrial District Whelan Tract Unit 2, Block I,Lot 4, located on High Start Drive,approximately 475 feet north of Leopard Street-Denial of"I-S"Heavy Industrial District, and in lieu thereof,approval of"I-2"Light Industrial District with a Special Permit. Cas"No. 1107-01,Turner Industries,LLC: "R-IB"One-Family Dwelling District to"B-4"General Business District on Tract I and"I-3"Heavy Industrial District on Tract 2 3.726 acres of land(Tract I)and 31.926 acres of land(Tract 2)both out of the Consolidated El Paso Irrigation&Manufacturing Company State Survey 500, Abstract 582, located at the intersection of IH 37 and Clarkwood Road—Approval of"B-4"General Business District on Tract 1 and denial of the"1-3"Heavy Industrial District on Tract 2,and in lieu thereof,approval of"1-2"Light Industrial District with a Special Permit. December 18,2007 Waiver Request,Kenneth Brown(Timbergate Wal-Mart Inc.site): Request for a waiver of the twelve month waiting period to reapply for a zoning change request. 33.6 acres out of Lots 17, 18, 19 and 20, Section 11,Flour Bluff and Encinal Farm and Garden Tracts,located on the southeast intersection of South Staples Street and Timbergate Drive—Approval of waiver request. 3. REZONING CASES SCHEDULED FOR CITY COUNCIL January 15,2008 Case No. 1207-03, U Store C.C. IV, LLC: A change of zoning from a "B-4" General Business District to an"1-2"Light Industrial District 3.117 acres out of Bohemian Colony Lands,Lot 5,Section 2, located approximately 170 feet north of Holly Road and approximately 275 feet east of Kostoryz Road. Planning Commission Minutes January 9,2008 Page 18 4. WITHDRAWN REZONING CASES Case No. 1207-02, Marcelino Solis-"AB" Professional Office District to a"B-1" Neighborhood Business District Alameda Park,Lot 1, Block 7,located at the intersection of Everhart Road and Harry Street. 5. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PLATTING ORDINANCE SCHEDULED FOR CITY COUNCIL January 15,2008 (1"Reading) Amendment to Section V.B."Minimum Standards"and add new sections regarding waterlines,connection to water supply,reimbursements and share of waterline construction. January 22,2008 ._......_ . (2"d Reading) Amendment to Section V.B."Minimum Standards"and add new sections regarding waterlines,connection to water supply,reimbursements and share of waterline construction. 6. OTHER MATTERS V. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made at 9:55 by Commissioner Loeb and seconded by Commissioner Huerta. Motion passed unanimously. Faryce .14 Macon :ever Lang-Priest I Interim Ass' ant Director of Recording Secretary Development Services/Planning H:\PLN-DIR\SHARED\WORD\PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES\2008\01-09-08MINUTES DOC