HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 10/03/2007 (b/ V
MINUTES FM
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING na
Council Chambers-City Hall a �;
Wednesday—October 3,2007
5:30 P.M. , c
COMMISSIONERS: STAFF:
Rudy Garza, Vice Chairman Bob Nix,Assistant City Manager/Development
David Loeb Services
Atilano J.Huerta Johnny Perales,PE,Deputy Director
Evon J. Kelly of Development Services/Special Services
Johnny R. Martinez Faryce Goode-Macon, Interim Assistant
Govind Nadkarni Director of Development Services/Planning
John C. Tamez Michael N. Gunning,AICP, Special Assistant to
Development Services
ABSENCES: Gary Smith,Assistant City Attorney
R. Bryan Stone, Chairman Miguel S. Saldafia, AICP, Senior City Planner
James Skrobarczyk Robert Payne, AICP, Senior Planner
Shannon Murphy,AICP,City Planner
Wes Vardeman,City Planner
Stephanie Voss,Project Manager
Beverly Lang-Priestley,Recording Secretary
Si usted quiere dirigirse ala comision y su ingles es limitado, habra un interprete de espanol a ingles en
la junta para ayudarle
I. CALL TO ORDER
A quorum was declared and the meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion was made by Commissioner Tamez for approval of the September 19, 2007, minutes.
Motion was seconded by Commissioner Nadkarni and passed unanimously with Chairman Stone and
Commissioner Skrobarczyk being absent.
III. PLATS
1. Continued Plats
Miguel Saldana read continued plat agenda items "a and b" (shown below) into the record and
stated these items have been submitted for a continuance to October 17, 2007.
a. 0507060-P020
LaMarr Womack&Associates Tract, Block I, Lot 1 (Final-
4.002 Acres)
Located between Interstate Highway 37 and Up River Road east
of Carbon Plant Road.
SCANNED
Planning Commission Minutes ' 'r/
October 3,2007
Page 2
b. 0507081-NP054
Chamberlin's Subdivision,Block 23, Lot 12A(Final Replat—
0.189 Acre)
Located west of King Street, south of Marguerite Street and east
of North Staples Street.
Vice-Chairman Garza, as a courtesy, asked if anyone present would like to come forward in
favor or opposition. Nobody came forward.
Motion was made by Commissioner Huerta for approval of the continuance and was seconded
by Commissioner Martinez. Motion passed unanimously with Chairman Stone and Commissioner
Skrobarczyk being absent.
Mr. Saldana read continued plat agenda item "c" (shown below) into the record and stated this
item has been submitted for approval. Staff recommends approval.
c. 0907130-NP085
Lawnview Annex, Block 4, Lots 14& 15 (Final Replat- 1.548
Acres)
Located north of Marguerite Street and east of Eighteenth Street.
Public hearing was opened.
Nobody came forward in support or in opposition.
Public hearing was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Kelly for approval of staff recommendation and was
seconded by Commissioner Loeb. Motion passed unanimously with Chairman Stone and
Commissioner Skrobarczyk being absent.
2. New Plats
Mr. Saldana read new plat agenda items "a through c"(shown below) into the record and stated
these items have been submitted for approval. Staff recommends approval.
a. 1007131-P048
The Esplanade,Block 3, Lot 2H(Final Replat-9.64 Acres)
Located east of The Esplanade Drive,north of Saratoga
Boulevard(SH 357)and east of South Staples Street.
b. 1007132-NP086
Joslin Tracts, Block A,Lot 9(Final- 8.57 Acres)
Located between McArdle Road and South Padre Island Drive
(SH 358)and west of Ennis Joslin Road(Spur 3).
Planning Commission Minute
October 3,2007 1111.0
Page 3
c. 1007133-NP087
The Lakes Northwest Unit I, Block 7,Lots 1-9&Block 8, Lots
1-4(Amending Reolat-2.79 Acres)
Located west of FM 1889 and south of Northwest Boulevard
(FM 624).
Public hearing was opened.
Nobody came forward in support or in opposition.
Public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Kelly stated she would abstain from voting on item"c".
Motion was made by Commissioner Loeb to support staff recommendation for new plat agenda
items "a and b" and was seconded by Commissioner Tamez. Motion passed unanimously with
Chairman Stone and Commissioner Skrobarczyk being absent.
Motion was made by Commissioner Loeb to support staff recommendation for new plat agenda
item "c" and was seconded by Commissioner Nadkami. Motion passed unanimously with Chairman
Stone and Commissioner Skrobarczyk being absent and Commissioner Kelly abstaining.
Vice-Chairman Garza stated that agenda item "VII." would be moved forward and heard at this
time.
VII. PUBLIC HEARING - To consider adoption of the Wastewater Collection System Master
Plan South of Oso Creek
Mr. Dan Leyendecker, President of LNV Engineering, Inc., came forward to present the above
item. Mr. Leyendecker described the area of study south of Oso Creek bounded by the King Ranch on
the south, County Road 53 and 55 on the west, Oso Creek on the north and on the east, stating that it is
mostly undeveloped with the exception of a small portion of land on the southeast side of the service area,
and is comprised of 16,845 acres. Via Power Point, Mr. Leyendecker demonstrated size comparisons of
the subject area to the Greenwood WWTP service area at 24,808 acres and the Oso WRP service area at
18,701 acres. The ultimate flow for the South of Oso Creek service area is twenty-three (23) million
gallons per day, which includes an eight (8) million gallon per day transfer from the Oso Basin. Mr.
Leyendecker stated the Master Plan is based on the adopted Future Land Use map which was adopted by
City Council on May 24, 2005. Other consideration were the 2000 Census Data, interviews and
comments from City Wastewater Staff,Engineering Services,and Development Services Staff, as well as
interviews and comments from the development community and other consulting engineers. Mr.
Leyendecker stated the subject land is primarily low density residential, estate residential and parks, and
includes some commercial and public/semi public uses, and that wastewater flows are calculated based on
the land use classification for the Master Plan.
Mr. Leyendecker described three "sub-basins", the Staples sub-basin, the Weber sub-basin and
the Oso Creek sub-basin. Mr. Leyendecker stated the Master Plan objectives are based on and consistent
with the City of Corpus Christi's adopted plans, are flexible enough to accommodate the pace of the
development community,will meet the developers' demands and the City's needs.
Planning Commission Minutes`/
October 3,2007
Page 4
In reviewing the approval schedule for the Master Plan, Mr. Leyendecker stated that public
outreach was accomplished on August 6, 2007, public notice and distribution to the development
community and thirty-six consulting engineers on August 13, 2007. Development Services comments
were received on September 13, 2007, and on September 19, 2007, LNV incorporated the comments and
revisions, which were presented to DSAG on September 20, 2007. Mr. Leyendecker stated that the first
reading before City Council is scheduled for October 23, 2007, and the second reading on October 30,
2007.
In response to Commissioner Huerta, Mr. Leyendecker stated that addressing the capacity of the
Greenwood plant and its adequacy was not part of the task at hand and at some point that does need to be
addressed. Mr. Leyendecker stated that the Greenwood treatment plant has room for expansion, whereas
the Oso Creek treatment plant does not, and, in addition, there are tentative future plans for Texas A&M
University to expand into that area. Mr. Leyendecker stated that because of these reasons, and due to in-
fill north of the Oso, it is necessary to put in an eight(8)mgd ultimate transfer lift station, which will be a
city funded CIP project with the first phase being a 4 mgd transfer,which will take care of the in-fill. Mr.
Leyendecker further stated that then the transfer gets shipped to the Greenwood wastewater treatment
plant which is currently being expanded by four(4)mgd.
In response to Commissioner Tamez, Mr. Leyendecker stated he was not charged with doing an
environmental audit of septic systems in the area.
In response to Commissioner Nadkarni, Mr. Leyendecker stated that of the thirty-six reports sent
out to consultants, there were four responses. One response was from the Laureles Corridor Association
who stated the series of lift stations was too cost prohibitive to build and will prevent logical and orderly
development. Mr. Leyendecker stated The Laureles Corridor Association is in favor of large gravity lines
and would like the City to delay adoption of the Master Plan. Mr. Leyendecker stated they met with the
Laureles Corridor Association and felt like progress was made, with the final question being, "Do you
build a sixty-inch (60")gravity line on the east side nearest Oso Creek,yet you don't have the flow to fill
that line because of the ultimate demand that will be required?" Mr. Leyendecker stated that even with a
sixty-inch (60") gravity line, the developers will still have to build a temporary lift station at their cost.
Mr. Leyendecker stated that with the current proposal with lift stations arranged as they are, no matter
who wants to develop when the opportunity is there to develop without waiting on infrastructure
developing from the east nearest the creek going out to the far west of the creek.
In response to Commissioner Nadkarni, Johnny Perales, Deputy Director of Development
Services, stated that under the existing platting ordinances and procedures, a developer would qualify for
full reimbursement of the construction of a master plan lift station or trunk gravity line which is identified
in an adopted master plan,and those funds would come from developer trust fund.
Mr. Leyendecker continued that the second response was from Bass and Welsh Engineering who
wanted to serve the London School area. A third response was from Development Services pertaining to
the Coastal Bend park; and the fourth response was from RVE, Mr. Pat Veteto, who felt the growth
shown was too fast since it was based on a fast-growth period of 1995 to 2005.
ht response to Commissioner Buena, Mr. Leyendecker stated no consideration about another
treatment plant, that their instructions were to divert everything to Greenwood. Mr. Leyendecker
responded that it does make sense from an engineering standpoint because the land is already acquired,
the permits are already in place which would need to be adjusted each time, not to mention the
environmental requirements needed to install a brand new plant.
Planning Commission Minutes
October 3,2007
Page 5
In response to Vice-Chairman Garza, in the event of transfer flows from the Broadway basin,the
City would have to accelerate their expansion of Greenwood WWTP.
In response to Commissioner Tamez, Mr. Leyendecker stated the population is based on lots per
acre and the trend right now in that area is acre lots and septic systems due to there being no wastewater
system to the area. Mr. Leyendecker stated that if the trend of one acre lots continued into the future, it
would decrease the average daily flows by three-quarters.
Public hearing was opened.
Mr. Gene Graham, 13702 Prima Vera, Padre Island, Texas, came forward stating he has been a
developer in the area for many years and is with the Laureles Corridor Association. Mr. Graham stated he
met with the City after they found out about the plan. Mr. Graham stated that with a projected population
of 150,000 this area is the main direction of growth for Corpus Christi,and as such, is a very critical area.
Mr. Graham requested the opportunity to allow his engineer to meet with city engineers and others to
explore the options. Mr. Graham stated he has some questions and would appreciate more time before the
city adopts the Wastewater Collection Master Plan South of Oso Creek.
In response to Commissioner Nadkarni, Mr. Graham stated his engineer was on the mailing list
for the Master Plan,however,his engineer never received it.
In response to Commissioner Tamez, Mr. Graham stated he would like to see a wastewater
system installed, and that would encourage smaller lot development. However, Mr. Graham stated that
lift stations are very expensive and this master plan has thirteen(13). Mr.Graham stated that although the
funds are reimbursable, it depends on the fund having the money available to reimburse, and then it takes
a lot of time to get the reimbursement which ties up developer funds. Mr. Graham reiterated that his
group does want a wastewater master plan,however,perhaps not this particular one.
In response to Commissioner Nadkami, Mr. Graham stated their engineer could come back in two
weeks; however, thirty-days would be better. Mr. Perales stated it would make the City Council dates
tight but could be done.
Commissioner Loeb stated that this is a big and important project and that if the land owners need
thirty days to review it we should try to accommodate that.
In response to Commissioner Huerta, Mr. Graham stated the Laurels Corridor Association owns
approximately 16,000 acres.
Mr. Bill Brown came forward representing himself and several others in the immediate vicinity of
the London School south of the Oso Creek. Mr. Bill Brown stated they were not put on the list of
stakeholders and were not notified timely. Mr. Brown stated their concern is based on comments from
their engineers upon reviewing the master plan. Mr. Brown would like their engineers and the city
engineers to get together and discuss things like flow rates and stated that Corpus Christi's lift station
density is not a model to be proud of. Mr. Brown further stated that development would take decades
with the current plan and there might be alternatives.
Commissioner Huerta stated his opinion that two weeks or even a month is not adequate time for
a new group of engineers to review the master plan and come up with a solution. Commissioner Huerta
stated that different engineers could conceivably come up with alternate plans; however, he stated he
Planning Commission Minutes`o
October 3,2007
Page 6
supports the City's engineer because of the time invested in the study and design and trusts that this is the
best plan according to this engineer.
Mr. Brown stated that their engineers have been looking at the plan for almost two weeks and
have come up with some interesting concepts about flow, size of pipes, gravity flow, and dividing
different areas in different ways, all of which result in significantly lower costs for development. Mr.
Brown stated that as land owners, they respectfully request at least two weeks to see what they can come
up with.
In response to Commissioner Nadkarni, Mr. Perales stated that the procedure for changing a
Master Plan remains as it always has been, however, administrative procedures have made it easier to
facilitate.
Commissioner Loeb stated that based on his experience, it would be better to take thirty days to
review the plan now,rather than take a year later to try and get it revised.
Public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Tamez stated he will abstain from voting on this item.
Motion was made by Commissioner Loeb to table the item until the next Planning Commission
meeting of October 17, 2007,and was seconded by Commissioner Martinez. Motion passed unanimously
with Chairman Stone and Commissioner Skrobarczyk being absent and Commissioner Tamez abstaining.
IV. ZONING
1. New Zoning
a. Case No. 1007-01
Southside Ventures,LP: A change of zoning from a
"R-1B"One-Family Dwelling District,`R-1B/SP"One-family
Dwelling District with a Special Permit,and"B-1"Neighborhood
Business District to a"R-1C"One-family Dwelling District
resulting in a change of land use from vacant to single-family
residential
32.82 acres of land situated in Lots 5 and 6,Block II of Bohemian
Colony Lands, located approximately 300 feet east of the intersection
of Weber Rd(FM 43)and Bratton Rd.
Stephanie Voss, Project Manager/Development Services, presented the above case via Power
Point,stating the applicant is Southside Ventures, LP,requesting a change of zoning from a
"R-IB" One-family Dwelling District,"R-IB/SP" One-family Dwelling District with a Special Permit
and ""B-1" Neighborhood Business District to a "R-1C" One-family Dwelling District to allow for a
single family subdivision with lot areas of less than 4,500 square feet. Ms. Voss stated the section of
property zoned"R-1B/SP"One-family Dwelling District with a Special Permit was proposed as an 8.60
acre site for a town home development in October 2005, but development plans have changed and they
are now requesting a"R-1C" District. The proposed development is consistent with the future land use
map and the South Side Area Development Plan. Ms. Voss stated the property will be served by Weber
Road off of Bratton Road which is a local street and that traffic generation is approximately 22,370
Planning Commission Minutes V
October 3,2007
Page 7
vehicle trip ends per day. Ms. Voss stated that prior to issuance of the building permit, platting is
required.
Of the twenty-eight (28) notices mailed, zero were returned in opposition and zero were
returned in support. Staff recommends approval.
In response to Commissioner Buena, Ms. Voss stated that Grant Middle School and Dawson
Elementary School were notified and no response was received.
In response to Commissioner Loeb,Ms. Voss stated the Special Permit on the existing
"R-1 B" District allowed for townhouses.
Public hearing was opened.
Nobody came forward in support or in opposition.
Public hearing was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Martinez to approve staff recommendation and was
seconded by Commissioner Nadkarni. Motion passed unanimously with Chairman Stone and
Commissioner Skrobarczyk being absent.
b. Case No. 1007-02
AEP Texas Central Company: A change of zoning from a
"R-1B"One-Family Dwelling District to a"1-2"Light Industrial
District(Tract 1)and a"1-3"Heavy Industrial District(Tract 2)
resulting in a change of land use from vacant to industrial
15.38 acres(Tract 1)and 0.029 acres(Tract 2)of land situated in Lot 2,
Block 7 of Bohemian Colony Lands, located approximately 700 feet south
of the intersection of Frederick Drive and Ayers Street.
Wes Vardeman, City Planner/Development Services, presented the above case via Power Point,
stating the applicant is AEP Texas Central Company and the property is located north of Saratoga
Boulevard and south of Holly Road, approximately half way between Holly and Saratoga and is
bounded by the Crosstown Extension and Ayers Street. Mr. Vardeman stated the existing land use
across the street to the east of the subject property is mixed use, including mobile homes, commercial
development and an existing utility substation, as well as farm land. Mr.Vardeman stated the request is
to rezone 15.38 acres from a "R-1B" One-Family Dwelling District to a "I-2" Light Industrial District
for Tract I and 0.029 acres to an"1-3"Heavy Industrial District for Tract 2, resulting in a change of land
use from vacant to industrial. The "1-2" District will allow for the future construction of an office
building, the open storage of electrical service materials, and service fleet vehicle parking, and within
the "1-3" District a 10,000 gallon above ground unleaded fuel storage tank for AEP fleet trucks and
equipment on site refueling.
Mr. Vardeman stated that Article 24 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front yard
setback of twenty (20)feet without a minimum side or rear yard setback for both the"1-2& 1-3"zoning
districts. There is also no height restriction. A zero lot line structure or building will require a fire rated
wall,and all outside storage must be screened from public view. Mr. Vardeman stated that the
Planning Commission Minutes
October 3,2007
Page 8
"1-3" Heavy Industrial District is the only district which allows for sexually oriented businesses. The
future land map recommends a light industrial use for the subject property, but does not recommend
heavy industrial uses for the subject property or any adjacent properties within the surrounding area.
Mr. Vardeman stated that of the fourteen(14) notices mailed, zero were returned in opposition and zero
were returned in favor. Staff recommends approval.
Public hearing was opened.
Nobody came forward in support or in opposition.
Public hearing was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Nadkarni for approval of staff recommendation and was
seconded by Commissioner Loeb. Motion passed unanimously with Chairman Stone and
Commissioner Skrobarczyk being absent.
V. PUBLIC HEARING - UDC Sign Focus Group Recommendation to Permit Off-Premise
Signs Only in the "1-2" Light Industrial District and "I-3"Heavy Industrial District.
Ms. Shannon Murphy presented the UDC Sign Focus Group Recommendation stating this item is
a continuation of the public hearing from the September 5, 2007, and September 19, 2007, Planning
Commission meetings for a text amendment concerning off-premise signs and allowing them only in the
"1-2" and "1-3" Industrial Districts. The item was previously tabled to allow staff enough time to meet
with representatives of the off-premise sign industry, who originally had concerns with the proposed text
amendment in regard to several definitions they felt needed to be added. Another issue concerned the
proposal for properties that would not be able to contain both an on-premise sign and an off-premise sign
and the off-premise signs would no longer be permitted in the"B-5"and"B-6"Business Districts.
Ms. Murphy stated that the Unified Development Code does have definitions for the term
"discontinue" and the term "developed". These definitions are listed in the Unified Development Code
and apply to the entire document; therefore, it applies to the signs section. The definitions have been
included in the signs section for clarity.
The sign industry also had concerns with Section 33-1.20(E) and (F). Ms. Murphy stated that
additional revisions were necessary so the intent of the section is clear. Ms. Murphy stated the intent of
Section 33-1.20(E) was to remove off-premise free-standing signs only if the property was requesting an
on-premise freestanding sign,thereby, reducing the number of freestanding signs located on the property.
Ms. Murphy stated the word "on-site" has been revised to "on-premise" and the word "freestanding"
needs to be added so there is no confusion with building signs that would be allowed to co-exist with an
off-premise freestanding sign. Ms. Murphy stated that Section 33-1.20(F) was originally written with the
intent to not allow freestanding signs to be sited on unplatted property and it is staff's position that the
intent was to continue with the same provision that exists in that off-premise freestanding signs may be
located on unplatted property. Therefore, Section 33-1.20(F) should only reference the removal of
freestanding signs when the property is platted and a permit for an on-premise freestanding sign is
requested.
Ms. Murphy stated that on September 5th and again on September 27'", staff met with Lamar
Advertising representatives and invited Gordon Cooper of Cooper Outdoor Advertising to the September
27th meeting. Lamar had made a presentation to the Sign Focus Group in April 2007; after that
presentation the Focus Group's recommendation was to permit the off-premise signs only in the"1-2"and
Planning Commission Minute
October 3,2007 V
Page 9
"I-3" Districts. Ms. Murphy stated that on September 27't, Lamar presented several options which have
been made available to the Planning Commission. One recommendation was for a "Cap and Replace
Ordinance" and the second recommendation was to allow location of off-premise signs in all commercial
zoning districts subject to the distance requirements of the Highway Beautification Ordinance. And the
third recommendation was to allow off-premise signs in certain corridors of Corpus Christi where existing
off-premise signs would be removed from non-preferred locations and relocated to preferred corridors
with the city.
Ms. Murphy stated that on October 2, 2007, staff met with Gordon Cooper and at that time, Mr.
Cooper proposed additional suggestions which have been provided to the Planning Commission. Those
suggestions are I) allow but limit the size of billboards within the "B-5" and "B-6" Districts to 10'x30',
i.e., three hundred (300) square feet; 2) The cap and replace proposal suggested by Lamar Signs is an
unacceptable strategy for billboards, due to Mr. Cooper's limited number of signs that exist in those
unpreferred locations; 3) eliminate billboards in the "B-5" and "B-6" districts located along scenic
Shoreline Drive and Ocean Drive, specifically from the general area of the Art Museum to Emerald
Beach; and, 4) allow one on-premise freestanding sign and one off-premise freestanding sign (includes
billboards)to co-exist on developed and platted property.
Ms. Murphy stated that staff has identified numerous options for consideration by the Planning
Commission, including:
1. Pass the text amendment as presented.
2. Table this item for another thirty (30) days to work on a "Cap and Replace" ordinance. The
"Cap and Replace" ordinance would provide an opportunity for public benefit where staff can
explore reducing the number of off-premise signs and removing them from non-preferred
locations at a ratio greater than 1:1.
3. Pass the text amendment, but delete the provisions for off-premise signs completely. Staff
would bring the off-premise signs portion to the Planning Commission at a later date to allow
more discussion with the industry.
4. Provide a recommendation of some form of what the sign industry is requesting.
5. Prohibit off-premise signs completely from the City limits.
6. Allow off-premise signs in specific commercial districts, but at a reduced size.
Ms. Murphy ended the presentation stating to the Commissioners that the UDC Signs Focus Group
recommendation remains as originally presented,which is to permit off-premise signs only in the
"I-2"and"1-3"Industrial Districts and continued adherence to the Highway Beautification Ordinance.
Mr. Bob Nix, Assistant City Manager of Development Services, stated that in a previous
meeting Mr. Cooper had another proposal which was to allow off-premise signs in the"B-5"and
"B-6"Districts but no larger than three hundred(300) square feet.
In response to Commissioner Loeb, Michael Gunning, Special Assistant to Development
Services, stated that staff has not measured how much of"B-5"and"B-6" Districts is not within fifteen
hundred feet (1,500') of a park or scenic corridor. Commissioner Loeb asked that that information be
researched.
Public hearing was opened.
Mr. Denny Barre, attorney for Lamar Advertising, came forward in opposition, stating that they
were presented with the Planning Commission options one through six at the meeting that occurred with
Planning Commission Minutes%tame
October 3,2007
Page 10
staff on September 27,2007. Mr. Bane stated that option number three would pass the text amendment,
but delete the provisions for off-premise signs completely allowing an opportunity to continue working
with staff to come up with an ordinance acceptable to all. Mr. Bane stated this action would allow the
Commissioners to move forward with the on-premise signs provisions, yet allow the industry to have
input with city staff. Mr. Bane stated they have serious concerns with the proposal to pass the text
amendment as presented on September 5, 2007. Mr. Barre stated they are not opposed to option number
two, tabling the item to a future date, and stated there are serious concerns with the wording of the
proposed document and there are many issues that need to be addressed. Mr. Barre reminded the
Commissioners that there was not an off-premise representative from the industry to make suggestions
in developing the proposed ordinance and they believe progress is being made in coming up with
something acceptable to all.
Mr. Barre further stated that in the beginning there was a mandate handed down that everybody
wanted to move on this deal and we just received today or yesterday the comments of the consultant.
Mr. Barre stated that upon reviewing the consultant comments in regard to billboards, there were only
five comments, and only one of the five could be perceived as negative to the billboard industry. Mr.
Barre stated he believes the real problem and concern is on-premise signs, and the ordinance being
proposed does not accomplish the goals or the intent of the Commission. Mr. Barre further stated that
the proposed ordinance will not change South Padre Island Drive. Mr. Barre stated there are only
eleven billboards on South Padre Island Drive and all other signs are on-premise signs. Mr. Bare stated
the proposed ordinance that affects the off-premise advertising will do nothing to affect the on-premise
signs, except harm the local advertisers, which comprise 83% of the advertisers with Lamar
Advertising. Mr. Barre asked the Commissioners to delay their decision on the off-premise signs
portion of the ordinance allowing the off-premise signs industry to continue working with staff.
Having been a member of the UDC Signs Focus Group, Commissioner Huerta stated it was his
opinion that during meeting process the distinction of on-premise signs versus off-premise signs was not
the issue. The issue was "signage" overall. Commissioner Huerta further stated there would be no
negative impact on local businesses because the existing off-premise signs will continue to exist and
will not be affected.
In response, Mr. Barre stated that an undeveloped tract of land that currently has an off-premise
sign on it and somebody wants to come in and develop,the advertiser will be hurt because that sign has
to come down. Mr. Bane stated that in essence that is considered a "taking" and they have serious
concerns with those types of issues. Mr. Barre stated they have reviewed it and are comfortable with
their position and believe that if it goes forward there will be ramifications. Mr. Barre stated the
industry wants to work with staff and one of the proposals given to staff is the "Cap and Replace"
system, which constitutes taking one or two billboards down when another one is put up. Mr. Bane
stated he provided the fifty-page "Cap and Replace" report to staff, which was written by experts in the
field.
Commissioner Huerta stated the "Cap and Replace" system can be implemented at any point,
perhaps as a strategy tool within the market to look at options for growth, but that program does not
prohibit the City from passing what has already been worked on. In response, Mr. Barre stated that if
the Commission passes what they have already worked on, it eliminates the ability to implement that
system.
Mr. Jim Boller, 5922 Parkland, Corpus Christi, Texas, and SPID property owner, came forward
in opposition stating that not only do the advertisers benefit from billboards, but also property owners.
Mr. Boller stated he invested in property on SPID years ago specifically because it contained an off-
Planning Commission Minutes(
October 3,2007 V
Page 11
premise sign and an on-premise sign and he planned on building another development. However, the
restrictions set forth in the proposed ordinance would prohibit him from developing unless one of the
signs is eliminated. Mr. Boller stated he is vehemently opposed because his property has had a history
of both signs being onsite. Mr. Boller stated that restricting off-premise signs to the"1-2"and
"1-3" Industrial Districts limits the exposure the advertisers receive due to the rural aspect of those
districts.
Commissioner Huerta stated that as a property owner, Mr. Boller would still have the option to
have an off-premise sign and an on-premise sign under the proposed ordinance; however, he could have
only one sign pole and would have decisions to make in sharing the available three hundred square feet.
Mr. Boller stated that it seems unfair that a person can purchase a piece of property based on
certain aspects of that property and then the City changes the game plan. To clarify, Ms. Murphy stated
that should Mr. Boller apply for a building permit to build a structure he would receive it, however, he
could not then get a second freestanding sign on the property.
Mr. Nix stated that one has the option of keeping the off-premise sign and advertising one's
business on that sign, which would keep the revenue stream from that off-premise sign, but then
negotiation has to take place as to how to share the space. Mr.Nix stated that this proposed ordinance is
not regulating the content that is on the sign, rather it is setting a limit as to how many structures you
can have. It treats the property consistently with other properties. Mr. Boller reiterated his opposition.
Mr. Nix stated this is a substantial change to the existing ordinance. The existing ordinance
deals with a specific situation where an off-premise sign is placed on unplatted property, undeveloped.
It does not apply to unplatted property that is developed. Therefore, if one has a contract with a
billboard company, and you decide to develop the property, currently you must come in and plat the
property. In addition to that, the regulation says when there is a change of use the billboard has to be
removed, it is not clear on what that means. What"use" are you changing? There as some ambiguities
in the ordinance. One could come in and plat a piece of property and exclude certain portions of the
property from the plat.
In response to Commissioner Loeb,Mr. Nix stated the way the ordinance was proposed is that if
one were to put a billboard on undeveloped property, platted or unplatted, one could develop the
property and leave the billboard, but no other freestanding sign permit would be issued. A decision
would have to be made between the off-premise sign or the on-premise sign. Mr. Nix stated the
provision is clear with no ambiguity.
In response to Commissioner Tamez, Mr. Boller stated he has no knowledge of how many local
businesses would be affected by the proposed ordinance, and he stated he believes there are businesses
out there that will be affected yet have no idea the ordinance is being amended. Mr. Boller stated he has
already had plans drawn and has spent money on his future project, but now this could affect that
project and he is very concerned. Commissioner Tamez stated that the eleven signs on South Padre
Island Drive mentioned earlier would be a good indication of that impact.
Commissioner. Tamez stated his concern is the impact this might have on the "mom and pop"
businesses around town.
Mr. Gunning reminded the Planning Commission that the initial recommendation from the
Signs Focus Group was to eliminate billboard signs from the "B-5" and "B-6" zoning districts and to
keep the existing regulations that allow the off-premise signs in the "1-2" and"1-3"as-is. Mr. Gunning
Planning Commission Minutes`/ J
October 3,2007
Page 12
stated it appears that Lamar Advertising and possibly Mr. Cooper is seeking an opportunity to have a
more comprehensive look at the entire sign package for off-premise advertising,which is far beyond the
"B-5" and "B-6" zoned areas. Mr. Gunning stated that is not the issue at this time. At this time the
issue is eliminating billboard signs entirely from the"B-5"and"B-6"zoning districts.
In response to Vice-Chairman Garza, Mr. Nix stated that the options before the Planning
Commission have been discussed with Lamar and Cooper. Mr.Nix stated he has no objection to tabling
the item for thirty days to talk with them about the City's version of the "Cap and Replace" program
that might allow us to remove even more the off-premise signs even more rapidly from the "B-5" and
"3-6" Districts, consistent with the current ordinance and maybe accommodate some of their concerns
as well if we can find an acceptable approach to do that. Mr. Nix stated staff is still recommending the
sign ordinance as it stands. Mr. Nix further stated that should the Commission choose to pass a part of
the ordinance and leave the billboard considerations out of the picture while we continue negotiations,
staff recommendation would be not to leave the current ordinance in place, but to simply eliminate the
permission for billboards entirely from the current ordinance, giving them incentive to negotiate with
the City. Mr. Nix reiterated that staff recommendation is moving the ordinance forward as was
basically recommended by the Signs Focus Group.
Mr.Nix further stated that State regulations are changing regarding LED signs and the City will
be discussing potential changes in the City's regulations with the industry and others between now and
January 2008,which is when the new regulations come into effect.
Public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Huerta stated this is an opportunity to clean up the current ordinance and
motioned that the proposed ordinance be approved as presented with the amended text clearing the
language. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Martinez.
Commissioner Tamez stated that due to a conflict of interest he will abstain from voting on this
item, but further stated that he wants due consideration given to the small business community that this
proposed ordinance will impact.
Commissioner Loeb recommended adding to Commissioner Huerta's motion that staff work on
a "Cap and Replace" deal with the sign industry people in relationship to LED signs. Commissioner
Loeb stated he supports approval of the proposed ordinance as presented and suggested that the "Cap
and Replace"program is a totally different issue than this sign ordinance and deserves its own process.
Motion was amended by Commissioner Huerta to include that staff continue negotiations
regarding the"Cap and Replace"program with the sign industry.
In response to Commissioner Huerta, Ms. Murphy stated the revisions made to the original
Focus Group Recommendation were clarified definitions for "discontinue" and "developed" and
revisions to "E"and"F"which were provided in memo to the Commission.
Commissioner Huerta restated his motion and referenced revisions made.
In clarification, Mr. Nix stated that the current provision regarding the replacement of signs on
unplatted property remains unchanged.
Planning Commission Minutes
October 3,2007
Page 13
Motion on the floor passed unanimously with Chairman Stone and Commissioner Skrobarczyk
being absent and Commissioner Tamez abstaining.
VI. PUBLIC HEARING—UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE(UDC)PARKS
FOCUS GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Bob Payne presented the above case, stating that staff originally presented the
recommendation to the Commission at the last Planning Commission meeting of September 19, 2007.
Mr. Payne stated that Sally Gavlik, Director of Parks and Recreation, and Billy Delgado, also of Parks
and Recreation are present, and the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the UDC Parks Focus Group were
present,but had to leave.
In review, Mr. Payne stated the existing Park Dedication Requirement applies to all land within
city limits and the Extra Territorial Jurisdiction and is applied upon a subdivision plat. Mr. Payne
stated that existing rules are five percent (5%) of residential property that is platted is required to
dedicate park land or to pay a fee,at the City's option. The fee is paid before the plat is recorded and is
based on fair market value at time of construction start. If the fees are not used within four years the
property owner may request a reimbursement. Mr. Payne stated that subdivisions with five acre lots are
exempt and up to a fifty percent (50%) of the dedication requirement may be fulfilled by private park
facilities.
Mr. Payne stated one of the issues addressed is creating an equitable park dedication requirement.
Currently, the ordinance requires the same amount of land (or money in lieu of land) for a one unit per
acre development as for a thirty(30)unit per acre development(currently a five percent (5%} dedication.)
While the requirement is the same for either development, the need for park and recreation
facilities/services is much greater for the thirty (30) unit per acre development. Therefore, the
recommendation is for one acre of park land dedication per one hundred (100) single family dwellings;
one acre of park land dedication per 200 multi-family dwellings or for mixed single and multi-family
subdivisions; and the applicant may choose to a pay a fee in lieu of dedication—payment proportional to
amount of land required to be dedicated using the fair market value of the land at the time of construction
start.
Mr. Payne stated that a method was needed to fund community and regional park improvements
in areas beyond the 1 '/2 mile limit, therefore, a new Park Development Fee requirement of$50.00 is
proposed and stated the funds can be spent on neighborhood park improvements within 1 ''A miles of the
subdivision. The existing requirement of spending the funds within four years has been changed to seven
years.
Mr. Payne addressed an issue raised during the past UDC Parks Focus Group Recommendation
presentation at the Planning Commission meeting of September 19, 2007, stating that in an effort to
encourage development and infill in older areas that have already been platted, the staff proposes that
additional park dedication requirements will be required only in the renewal community area if the density
of newly constructed structures is greater than the former assumed density and will be required to pay fifty
percent(50%)of the park dedication fee.
In reference to verbiage in the proposal under "IV.G.S.b and c", Mr. Payne stated that the
sections were clarified so that the "ratio" of one acre for each 100 proposed dwelling units is the clear
method of determining the park dedication requirement.
Planning Commission Minutes%tool 1•4
October 3,2007
Page 14
Commissioner Loeb expressed his gratitude to staff for addressing the issue of the older areas of
town and their platting requirements.
Public hearing was opened.
Nobody came forward in support or in opposition.
Public hearing was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Loeb to approve the proposal and was seconded by
Commissioner Kelly. Motion passed unanimously with Chairman Stone and Commissioner Skrobarczyk
being absent.
VIII. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
A. FUTURE SCHEDULED MEETINGS
Ms. Faryce Goode-Macon, Interim Assistant Director of Development Services/Planning,stated
the next scheduled meetings for the Planning Commission are October 17,2007,and October 31, 2007.
Mr. Gary Smith, Legal Counsel, introduced Yvette Aguilar, stating Ms. Aguilar has been with
the Legal Department for many years, previously working in the juvenile municipal court. Mr. Smith
stated that Ms.Aguilar will be cross training and available to staff as needed.
B. EXCUSED ABSENCES
None
C. OTHER MATTERS
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn was made at 7:40 p.m. by Commissioner Loeb and was seconded by
Commissioner Huerta. Motion passed unanimously with Chairman Stone and Commissioner
Skrobarczyk being absent.
Faryce Goode-Macon Beverly Lang-Priestley
Interim Assistant Director of Recording Secretary
Development Services/Planning
I :\PLN-DIR\SHARED\W ORDWLANN ING COMMISSION\MINUTES\2007\I0-03-07MINUTES.DOC