Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 09/05/2007 V �I V MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers-City Hall Wednesday—September 5,2007 5:30 P.M. COMMISSIONERS: STAFF: R. Bryan Stone,Chairman Johnny Perales, PE,Deputy Director of Development Rudy Garza,Vice Chairman Services/Special Services David Loeb Faryce Goode-Macon, Interim Assistant Director of Atilano J. Huerta *Arrived at 5:35 p.m. Development Services/Planning Evon J.Kelly Michael N. Gunning,AICP, Special Assistant to Johnny R. Martinez Development Services Govind Nadkarni Shannon Murphy,AICP,City Planner James Skrobarczyk Miguel S. Saldana,AICP, Senior City Planner John C.Tamez Gary Smith,Assistant City Attorney 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 5:33 p.m. 17. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS Faryce Goode-Macon and Michael Gunning presented to departing Commissioner Michael Pusley a Certificate of Appreciation from the City Mayor, a resolution from Development Services and a commemorative "Corpus Christi" plate in honor of his service on the Planning Commission from February 2001 through July 2007. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 22, 2007 Motion was made by Commissioner Huerta for approval of the minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Tamez and passed unanimously. IV. 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 September 19,2007. SCANNED Planning Commission Minutes `/ \4•1# September 5,2007 Page 2 1. Continued Plats a. 0507081-NP054 Chamberlin's Subdivision, Block 23, Lot 12A(Final - 0.189 Acre) Located west of King Street,south of Marguerite Street and east of North Staples Street. b. 0807113-P044 Lexington Subdivision, Block 2, Lot 23A(Final Replat-0.23 Acre) Located south of Johanna Street between Ayers Street and Richter Street. Chairman Stone, as a courtesy, asked if anyone present would like to come forward in favor or opposition. Nobody came forward. Motion was made by Commissioner Nadkarni for approval of the continuance. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Martinez and passed unanimously. 2. New Plats Miguel Saldafia read new plat agenda item"c"(shown below) into the record and stated this item has been submitted for a continuance to September 19,2007. c. 0907124-NP079 Holly Park, Block I, Lots 2, 3 &4(Final-7.865 Acres) Located north of Holly Road and east of Kostoryz Road. Chairman Stone, as a courtesy, asked if anyone present would like to come forward in favor or opposition. Nobody came forward. Motion was made by Vice-Chairman Garza for approval of the continuance. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Tamez and passed unanimously. Miguel Saldafia read new plat agenda items "a, b, d, e and P' (shown below) into the record stating these items have been submitted for approval. Staff recommends approval. a. 0907122-P046 Butler Addition, Lot 1 (Final- 5.721 Acres) Located north of Yorktown Boulevard between Cimarron Boulevard and Rodd Field Road. b. 0907123-P047 Lexington Estates,Block 5, Lot 9B (Final Renlat- 0.2634 Acre) Located east of Cosner Drive,north of South Padre Island Drive(SH 358) between Kostoryz Road and Carroll Lane. rV, ` .r Planning Commission Minute* September 5,2007 Page 3 d. 0907125-NP080 Lokey Subdivision Unit 2 (Final- 5.721 Acres) _ Located south of Holly Road,north of Nodding Pines Drive and west of Airline Road. e. 0907126-NPO81 Riverview Estates. Lots 4C&4D(Final Replat-5.48 Acres) Located north of Interstate Highway 37 and west of McKinzie Road. f. 0907127-NP082 Shannon Middle School Tract, Block I,Lots 4A&4B(Final Replat-2.807 Acres) Located south of South Padre Island Drive(SH 358)and east of Airline Road. Public hearing was opened. Nobody came forward in support or in opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Martinez for approval of staff recommendation. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Skrobarczyk and passed unanimously. V. PUBLIC HEARING-UDC Sign Focus Group Recommendation to Only Permit Off- Premise Signs in the "I-2" Light Industrial District and "I-3"Heavy Industrial District. Shannon Murphy presented the Sign Focus Group Recommendation along with a Power Point presentation, stating that on August 22, 2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Unified Development Code(UDC) Sign Focus Group recommendation as a text amendment to Article 33 "Supplemental Sign Regulations, Permits, Plats and Filing Fees" of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Murphy stated that during the public hearing, the focus group's recommendation to only allow off-premise signs in the "1-2" Light Industrial District and the "1-3" Heavy Industrial District was not highlighted by staff because staff wanted to hold a separate public hearing and invite representatives from the three billboard companies that currently have sign permits in Corpus Christi. The three companies are Lamar Advertising, Cooper Outdoor Advertising, Inc., and Tri-State/Magic Media. Ms. Murphy stated that an off-premise sign is defined as "a sign advertising an establishment, merchandise, service, or entertainment which is not sold, produced, manufactured, or furnished on the premise on which it is located" and are currently regulated by our Zoning Ordinance and the Highway Beautification Ordinance. Ms.Murphy stated that,according to the department's permitting system,there are currently two hundred and thirty-nine (239) permits for off-premise signs in the "B-5", "8-6", "1-2", and"1-3" Districts,with thirty-three(33) of these being located in the"8-5"and "B-6"Districts. The"I- 2" Light Industrial District has one hundred seventy-one (171) off-premise sign permits and the "1-3" Heavy Industrial District has thirty-five(35)off-premise sign permits. Ms. Murphy stated that the Article 33 text amendment, which is consistent with what is written in the Unified Development Code, proposes to eliminate off-premise signs(billboards)from the Planning Commission Minutes `/ September 5,2007 Page 4 "B-5" Primary Business District and "B-6" Primary Business Core District. These districts are in the downtown area, Six Points, and portions of Staples Street. The amendment proposes off-premise signs to be located only in the"1-2"Light Industrial District and the"1-3"Heavy Industrial District. Of the signs in the "B-5" and "B-6" Districts, six(6)are owned by Cooper Outdoor Advertising, twenty-seven (27) by Lamar Advertising and Tri-State currently has none in the "B-5" and "B-6" Districts. Ms. Murphy presented photos of some areas around town that would be affected by the text amendment. Ms. Murphy stated that off-premise signs currently located in the "B-5" and "B-6" Districts that have a valid permit and are current with the required annual permit renewal fees will be allowed to remain as a nonconforming sign. If the sign is discontinued for ninety (90) days or more, i.e., blank panel or painted over, the sign shall be eliminated. Ms. Murphy defined a "nonconforming sign" as a sign that was lawfully established prior to the effective date of the amendment, which would be the date it passes City Council,but does not comply with the current regulations in Article 33-1. Ms. Murphy reviewed the revisions, as provided to the Commissioners, regarding Article 33-1.20 Off-Premise Signs, Article 33- 1.25 Nonconforming Signs (A) Alterations, (B) Discontinuance and (C) Immediate Termination of Nonconforming Signs. Ms. Murphy stated the UDC Sign Focus Group and Staff recommends permitting off-premise signs only in the "I-2" Light Industrial District and "1-3" Heavy Industrial District and continued adherence with the Highway Beautification Ordinance. In response to Chairman Stone, Ms. Murphy stated that the items listed under Article 33-1.20 Off-Premise Signs are not new items because they are part of the Highway Beautification Ordinance; however, they are newly referenced in the text amendment. In response to Commissioner Loeb, Ms. Murphy stated there are no changes proposed for the Highway Beautification Ordinance. Mr. Michael Gunning, Special Assistant to Development Services, stated that possibly ninety percent(90%)of the existing signs downtown are legally nonconforming based on the Highway Beautification Ordinance alone. In response to Commissioner Loeb, Ms. Murphy stated that in the Area Development Plans several references are made to certain areas as "scenic area" or "scenic corridor"and those are adopted by City Council. In response to Commissioner Huerta,Ms. Murphy stated that staff chose to hold a separate public hearing on the off-premise signs because of the issues involved. In response to Commissioner Tame; Ms. Goode-Macon stated that the impact on the businesses affected is limited to the number of signs owned by Lamar,Tri-State and Cooper. Commissioner Huerta stated that Lamar Advertising came to the Signs Committee stating that the impact of this amendment would limit the growth of his business because it would restrict further expansion in places such as the Crosstown Extension and SPID. Michael Gunning stated that part of the initiative was based on the IBC on-premise "billboard" type sign located in a"B-5"zoned area at Staples and Everhart, bringing staff to realize the potential for off-premise advertising, or billboards, to be placed in these districts as a matter of right. The majority of the downtown area is still free of billboards. Public hearing was opened. Planning Commission Minute September 5,2007 Page 5 Michael Wilson, Lamar Advertising, 133 North Padre Island Drive, Corpus Christi, Texas, came forward in opposition to the text amendment, stating there are positive economic and social impacts of their industry:jobs, enhanced value for land owners, public service provided, and affordable advertising for local businesses. Mr. Wilson stated that, in reference to jobs, statewide this industry provides approximately three thousand, two hundred jobs that are well above average in terms of compensation and benefits. In terms of enhanced value for land owners, statewide the industry pays approximately$40 million per year in annual rents. According to Mr. Wilson, locally, Lamar Advertising paid over $1 million to local land owners in the form of rent and considerations for land use. As for public service, in Texas $5 million worth of advertising space was donated last year to charities and in Corpus Christi, Lamar Advertising provided approximately$50,000 of space and production to local charities and causes at no cost. Mr. Wilson commented further on the affordability of outdoor advertising in terms of dollar for dollar compared to other advertising media and stated that eighty percent(80%)of their customers are local businesses. Mr. Wilson stated that the general purpose for signs as listed in the UDC involves four points: (1)to encourage the effective use of signs as a means of communication in Corpus Christi; (2)to maintain and enhance an image that is attractive to business;(3) improve pedestrian and traffic safety; (4) minimize the possible adverse effects of signs on nearby public and private property. Mr. Wilson suggested the current proposed UDC, in reference to off-premise signs, does not adhere to these four items. In response to Chairman Stone,Mr. Wilson stated it is Lamar's position that they are not growing as a business at this point and the proposal disallows them to grow with the community. In response to Chairman Stone, Mr. Wilson stated that nobody from his industry was invited to participate on the Unified Development Code Signs Focus Group. In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk, Ms. Goode-Macon stated that as "1-2" and "1-3" Districts grow,the UDC Off-premise Sign regulation goes with it. In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk, Mr. Gunning stated that the Joe Fulton Corridor is outside of city limits. Gary Smith,Assistant City Attorney,stated that off-premise signs in the ETJ would remain under the jurisdiction of TXDot. Mr. Wilson suggested that more forethought should go into this subject and that the industry would like to submit some recommendations for consideration. Commissioner Huerta stated that one thing that could be negotiated to enhance those areas where signs are closer than the 1500 feet is possibly the electronic billboards. Commissioner Huerta stated that advertising on television is suffering due to viewers flipping channels,therefore,messaging on the streets, i.e., billboards is going to increase, and going to electronic billboards will give the medium more customers per space. Commissioner Huerta pointed out that the industry is not going to go out of business by this,but they will have to adapt,stating that Mr. Wilson brought some good ideas to the Signs Focus Group. Commissioner Huerta stated there is room for negotiation, but billboards in the downtown area is not desired. Ms. Goode-Macon stated that TXDot is reviewing for LED allowances and hopefully that will help in the future, but that will only address signs that are conforming, not legally nonconforming signs. Legally nonconforming signs cannot be upgraded,they must remain as is. Mr. Wilson stated that Corpus Christi has been designated as certified by TXDot, which gives Corpus Christi the flexibility to be more or less restrictive regarding size, spacing and lighting of signs, Planning Commission Minutes `/ September 5,2007 Page 6 and that is one of the arguments that Lamar Advertising has been making for the last year and half concerning the digital display. Mr. Smith stated that according to TXDot rules, the LED signs are not permitted except within cities; and the cities have to choose to allow them. Mr. Smith further stated that in all likelihood,the City will propose an amendment that will follow very closely the TXDot regulations. The City would then be able to permit an LED sign as an off-premise sign. Mr. Smith stated that currently LED signs are permitted as on-premise signs. Mr. Smith stated it is his belief that an existing conforming off-premise sign can be converted to an LED sign. In addressing Commissioner Skrobarczyk's question as to regulating outside the city limits in the ETJ, Mr. Smith stated that in Article 33-1.06,the sign ordinance is extended into the ETI, quoting, "....Any other area in the ETJ shall meet all sign regulations that apply in the"FR" zoning district." Mr. Smith pointed out that LED signs would not be permitted because it is not within the city limits. Mr. Gunning stated that it was not staff's intent to attack the off-premise sign industry, but the City is recognizing there are areas around town to be protected from the proliferation of off-premise signs and he can't recall the last time an off-premise sign was permitted in a "3-5" or "B-6" District. Mr. Wilson stated they do view the downtown area as a potential growth area,particularly for digital signs. In response to Commissioner Tamez, Mr. Wilson stated the most damaging effect from this proposal will be its long-term effect, it's restriction on growth. Mr. Wilson stated they are maintaining older inventory in areas that they are forced to maintain because of the limitations of new areas. Advertisers are being forced to advertise in areas that may not be their first choice, whereas, if there were something more accommodative to the industry that allowed them to grow with the city as the business community grows, local businesses would be better off. In response to Commissioner Loeb, Mr. Wilson stated that converting a currently existing sign to an LED sign would cost more than 60%of the cost of the initial sign. He further stated that with the very restricted number of conforming locations to build new structures, the development of the LED technology and subsequently the removal of a lot of older, unattractive structures won't happen. In response to Chairman Stone, Mr. Wilson stated he believes that current regulations allow the placement of an off-premise sign where there is an existing on-premise sign. Mr. Wilson stated that the new regulation disallowing on-premise and off-premise signs on the same property forces the landowner to make a choice between having the revenue from an off-premise sign or having his own on-site sign. In reference to Chairman Stone's earlier question about an off-premise sign being on a property and then somebody wanting to erect an on-premise sign, Mr. Smith stated that if the circumstance is such that the property is unplatted and has the off-premise sign on it, our current ordinance requires removal of the off-premise sign upon platting of the property if an on-premise sign is going to be placed there. Kevin Piland, Lamar Advertising, 8033 SPID, Corpus Christi,Texas,came forward in opposition to the proposal, stating that as far as growth goes, without the"B-5"and"B-6" Districts there is no room for expansion. Mr. Piland stated that since 2002, they have taken down approximately 130 "faces", i.e., approximately 65 billboards, and have built only ten. Mr. Piland stated that without the LED signs,there is basically nowhere else to go. Mr. Piland stated that Section F will steer the situation into litigation because it is his belief that enters into "compelled taking" which will be a problem legally as for remuneration and stated he'd like to sit down and talk to the Commission about that. In response to Vice-Chairman Garza, Mr. Gunning stated that an off-premise billboard sitting upon platted property is grandfathered and does not count toward the free standing sign allowance. Mr. Planning Commission Minute September 5,2007 Page 7 Smith stated that if an off-premise sign has been properly permitted on a platted piece of property it is permitted to be there; an on-premise sign would not be permitted. The only situation where the city says the sign has to leave is when the property is not platted and when something is being done with unplatted property. Mr. Smith stated that it is clear in the UDC that one cannot have on-premise and off-premise signs,however,under the existing ordinance it might be possible. In response to Commissioner Loeb, Mr. Gunning stated that it was the intent of the Code to regulate the sign allowances for on-premise free-standing signs and to regulate the sign allowance for off- premise signs. It does not discuss in the Code the combination of the two if they occur on the same piece of property. Norma Urban, Executive Director of the Downtown Management District came forward requesting additional information, stating that it is the Downtown Management District's intent to do improvements and services to the downtown area, particularly in a scenic corridor area. Ms. Urban stated she needs clarification on the status of the two signs at the intersection 1-37 and Shoreline, stating there are plans in place for that greenbelt involving sculptures and grandiose landscaping for that area. Mr. Gunning responded that those two signs are grandfathered. In response to Ms. Urban, Ms. Murphy stated that if the property of which a billboard is grandfathered is sold, it would be up to the new owner as to whether or not to renew the lease with the outdoor advertising company and that under the UDC, no new off-premise sign permits would be issued for the"B-5"and"B-6"Districts. Mr. Doug Bircher, Anderson, Lehrman, Barre & Maraist, 5910 Bishops Mill, Corpus Christi, Texas, came forward in opposition, stating that Lamar Advertising has hired his firm to take a look at the proposal, and he understands about the desire to beautify Corpus Christi. Mr. Bircher further stated that due to the lack of clarity in the ordinance litigation will arise that will cause the city to incur a lot of expense it should not have to incur if the ordinance is reworked to a situation that is clearer. Mr. Bircher suggested that staff could work with the law firm to try and reach some clarity on some of the issues raised today. Mr. Bircher stated that inconsistencies between the UDC and the TXDot regulations could be questionable. Another problem area could involve freedom of speech in that a person could not advertise his own company on his own property if he, in fact, is making money off that property by allowing an off-premise sign. Another issue of contention is the phrase "discontinued use" and what warrants "discontinued use". For example, if a contract is signed before the 90 day period expires, however,the face of the billboard does not go up until after that 90 day period. In response to Chairman Stone, Mr. Bircher stated that it is his opinion that there are legal issues that need to be worked out and from the discussions had at today's meeting people are already disagreeing about what the ordinance says and the City is just asking for a lawsuit and should try to avoid that sort of expense. Commissioner Huerta stated that when Lamar Advertising came to the Sign Focus Group, it is his opinion that things were discussed and things were balanced; but then the issue of legal threats evolved with Lamar Advertising advising the group that they have a big department of legal attorneys and that if the Sign Focus Group did not do as Lamar Advertising wanted them to do they would sue the city. Commissioner Huerta stressed that this was actually said in one of the Focus Group meetings and he understands their right to protect their business and freedom of speech. However, Commissioner Huerta stated that the City also has its rights in establishing what is best for the city and expressed his distaste with thecomment. Commissioner Huerta stated the impression left by that particular meeting was that Lamar wants the status left as it is, plus let them have what they want or they will sue the city. Commissioner Huerta stated the Focus Group was formed in good faith and he resents legal threats being brought into the mix. Commissioner Huerta stated he has seen no compromise or negotiation on Lamar's part. Planning Commission Minutes `/ September 5,2007 Page 8 Chairman Stone responded that he is uncomfortable with the fact that Lamar Advertising was not allowed to participate on the Focus Group. Commissioner Skrobarczyk stated that perhaps input from various attorneys is needed in order to get varying opinions at the ground level so that unforeseen problems don't arise down the line. Commissioner Loeb stated he was in attendance at the Sign Focus Group meeting when Lamar made their presentation and that many recommendations were suggested to the committee, some of which were met, some of which were not, and that some of the issues brought up today were not touched upon. Commissioner Loeb stated the consensus amongst the group strongly reflected that of Commissioner Buena. Commissioner Kelly stated that the Focus Group committees are open to everyone and that if you became aware that the committee exists then it is your responsibility to express interest in serving on the committee. Commissioner Kelly stated it was her opinion that nobody was denied the right to serve on the committee. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Gunning stated that the City's Legal Department has had an opportunity to review the ordinance, and due to today's comments, there might be areas that could be clarified; however, Mr. Gunning stated there are growth areas, particularly downtown, that need to be protected. Mr. Gunning stated that the draft Unified Development Code has been available to the public since May 2006, there was a 45-day review period where staff held twenty-nine (29) meetings and made presentations to different groups and staff took public comments in writing or email or orally at the public meetings. All those comments were consolidated which is how the focus groups were created. Mr. Gunning stated that this was not one of the issues raised during that period and expressed surprise that Lamar was so interested in protecting the downtown area,the"B-5"and"B-6" Districts,as a potential growth area. Mr. Gunning stated it is his understanding that Lamar is targeting downtown as their future growth area. Motion was made by Commissioner Martinez to support staff recommendation of off-premise signs being located only in the "1-2" Light Industrial District and the "1-3" Heavy Industrial District. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Huerta. Commissioner Tamez stated he would abstain from voting on this amendment. Vice-Chairman Garza stated he will vote in favor of the motion, however, he agrees there are areas that need to be addressed as Mr. Gunning stated. Vice-Chairman Garza stated that at times ordinances or codes are passed that end up being too restrictive, making it difficult to redevelop existing areas of town in need, such as the west side, the Leopard Street corridor, Agnes Street and downtown. Vice-Chairman Garza stated that if the future shows that these restrictions are too tight and don't allow for redevelopment,then the codes and ordinances can be revisited. Commissioner Nadkarni expressed his agreement with Commissioners Loeb and Kelly, stating the committee has been working a long time on this amendment, and as Mr. Gunning stated, there was a 45-day review period. Commissioner Nadkarni stated that the concern expressed by those present should have been expressed during the review process, which basically began in May 2006. Commissioner Nadkarni stated that waiting until the last minute to voice concerns like this is improper. Planning Commission Minute September 5,2007 Page 9 Commissioner Skrobarczyk clarified his position in that by listening to others, particularly in the legal field, the city could possibly avoid future litigation. Commissioner Skrobarczyk further stated that perhaps Lamar Advertising should have stepped forward a little sooner in the review process with their concerns. Chairman Stone stated he encourages staff to take a little more time to review the proposal even though it is late in the game because he does have some legal concerns. In response to Commissioner Nadkarni, Mr. Smith stated that he has given Mr. Bircher his business card and is willing to discuss the subject. Mr. Smith is confident that zoning rules can be established that apply in the future and prohibit outdoor advertising, i.e., off-premise advertising. In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk, Mr. Smith stated that,short of tabling the case, if new information becomes available, it would be desirable that staff have the ability to bring it back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk, Mr. Gunning stated that he is always open to meeting and if a product can be improved it should be. Mr. Gunning stated that as for his UDC schedule,the item will be presented to City Council on September 25, 2007, and it would be his desire to have everything in order at that time. Mr. Gunning restated his willingness to meet and review further, especially in regard to the questions asked by the commissioners, however, he stated he is not willing to do away with the entire ordinance. Mr. Gunning stated the first public hearing is October 9ih and the second reading on October 25th, leaving plenty of opportunity to consider other changes. In response to Mr. Gunning, Ms. Goode-Macon stated the case could be brought back to the Planning Commission on September 19th. In response to Commissioner Nadkarni, Mr. Bircher stated he would be willing to try and work something out by September 19th. Commissioner Loeb recommended that only clarification points be worked on further and he added that a map of all the parks within 1500 feet of`B-5" and "B-6" Districts be created to determine how much of an area we are actually talking about. A roll call vote was taken on the motion on the table. Motion failed five to three, with Commissioners Huerta, Martinez and Kelly voting in support of the motion and Commissioner Tamez abstaining. Motion was made by Commissioner Loeb to table the proposal to the September 19, 2007, meeting of the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Nadkarni and a roll call vote was taken. Motion passed five to three with Commissioners Huerta, Martinez and Kelly voting in opposition and Commissioner Tamez abstaining. VI DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. FUTURE SCHEDULED MEETINGS September 19,2007 • Planning Commission Minutes `/ September 5,2007 Page 10 B. EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Govind Nadkami C. OTHER MATTERS Ms. Goode-Macon stated that staff keeps a file for persons interested in serving on future boards or commissions and encouraged the Commissioners to submit biographies of persons they know of who are interested. VII ADJOURNMENT Chairman Stone seconded the otherwise unanimous motion to adjourn and meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Faryce Goode-Macon Beverly Lang-Priestley Interim Assistant Director of Recording Secretary Development Services/Planning H:\PLN-DIR\SHARED\W ORD\PLANNING COMMISSIOMMINUTES\200]\09-05-07MINUTESDOC