Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 06/14/2006 MINUTES /1.e ; REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers-City Hall '5 �I'i� . Wednesday—June 14,2006 5:30 P.M. gi rt STAFF PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael Gunning,AICP,Acting R. Bryan Stone,Chairman Director of Development Services Rudy Garza,Vice Chairman Faryce Goode-Macon,Acting Director of Fred Braselton Development Services/Planning Atilano J. Huerta Mary Frances Teniente,PE, Assistant Director Johnny R. Martinez of Development Services/Special Services Michael Pusley Miguel S. Saldafia,AICP,City Planner Eloy H. Salazar Shannon Murphy, AICP,Planning Consultant Robert Zamora Adriana Trujillo, City Planner Beverly Lang-Priestley, Recording Secretary COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Gary Smith,Assistant City Attorney James Skrobarczyk, Sr. I. CALL TO ORDER A quorum was declared present and the meeting was called to order at 5:33 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion for approval of Planning Commission minutes of May 24,2006,was made by Commissioner Pusley and seconded by Commissioner Braselton. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Skrobarczyk being absent. III. PLATS 1. Continued Plats Miguel Saldafia read continued plat agenda item"a"(shown below)into record and requested it be moved to the end of the Platting section. a. 0506098-P043 Castle River Subdivision Unit 2,Block 3, Lot 29A(Final Replat-0.433 Acre) Located north of McKinzie Road and east of Castle River Drive. The Commission agreed to move the item to the end of the Platting Section. SCANNED Planning CommissiOnutes June 14,2006 Page 2 2. New Plats Miguel Saldafia read new plat agenda items"a,b,c&j"(shown below)into the record and stated that items"a"&"b"had been submitted for continuance to the Planning Commission Meeting of July 12,2006,and agenda items"c"and"j"had been submitted for continuance to the Planning Commission Meeting of June 28, 2006. a. 0606105-P044 Bass Subdivision,Block 27, Lot 8 (Final Replat—1.084 Acres) Located south of Sandra Lane and east of Airline Road. b. 0606106-P045 Bass Subdivision,Block 28, Lot I (Final Replat—9.70 Acres) Located north of Sandra Lane and east of Airline Road. c. 0606107-P046 Caribbean Subdivision(Final Replat—4.86 Acres) Located north of Haven Drive and east of Violet Road. j. 0606116-NP060 Southlake Subdivision(Preliminary— 146.48 Acres) Located east of Rodd Field Road between Brooke Road(CR 26A)and Slough Road. Motion for approval of continuance was made by Commissioner Garza and seconded by Commissioner Martinez. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Skrobarczyk being absent. Miguel Saldana read plat agenda items"d,e, h,i,and k"(shown below)into the record and stated these plats had been submitted for approval and Staff recommends approval. d. 0606108-P047 Highway Village Section 1 Annex, Block 7,Lot 3 (Final—0.826 Acre) Located east of McKinzie Road(FM 3386)between Up River Road and Leopard Street. e. 0606109-P048 Mahan Acres,Block 6,Lot 9A(Final—0.253 Acre) Located north of McArdle Road and east of Cosner Drive. h. 0606112-P051 Sunrise Business Park(Final—5.739 Acres) Located south of State Highway 44 and west of Clarkwood South Road(FM 2292). Planning Commissi‘nutes June 14,2006 Page 3 i. 0606115-NP059 Saratoga Weber Plaza,Block 7, Lot 11 (Final—0.574 Acre) Located north of Acushnet Drive and west of Weber Road(FM 43). k. 0606124-NP061 Joslin Tracts,Block 2,Lots 2-5 (Final—6.00 Acres) Located north of South Padre Island Drive(SR 358)between Rodd Field Road and Ennis Joslin Road(Spur 3). Public hearing was opened. No one was present in favor or in opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion for approval was made by Commissioner Pusley and seconded by Commissioner Martinez. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Skrobarczyk being absent. Mr. Saldafia read plat agenda items"£'and"g"(shown below)into record and stated that these plats had been submitted for approval and Staff recommends approval. f. 0606110-P049 Rancho Las Brisas Unit 1 (Final— 11.739 Acres) Located south of Slough Road(CR 26)and east of Rodd Field Road. g. 0606111-P050 Rancho Vista Subdivision Unit 3 (Final— 15.760 Acres) Located south of Yorktown Boulevard and east of the Rodd Field Road extension. In response to Commissioner Salazar's inquiry to Legal Counsel as to whether a clarification has been made as requested in the May 31,2006,Planning Commission meeting as to whether a conflict of interest exists for Commissioner Salazar involving agenda item"g", since he lives in King's Crossing. Legal Counsel Gary Smith referred to the memorandum distributed to each Commissioner which states that unless there is substantial interest in the entire subdivided tract there is no conflict of interest. It is the opinion of Counsel that owning a single lot within the subdivision does not represent a conflict of interest. Commissioner Salazar stated that previous recommendation by other Legal Counsel was to abstain;therefore,for the past five years, Commissioner Salazar has abstained from voting on any case involving King's Crossing. Commissioner Salazar stated for record there has been a change in policy in the Legal Department for Commissioners in this regard. Legal Counsel stated that the City Attorney has reviewed and concurs with this interpretation,and stressed that this interpretation is for Platting only and does not apply to Zoning. Public hearing was opened. Planning Commissi4nutes June 14,2006 Page 4 No one was present in favor or in opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion for approval was made by Commissioner Martinez and seconded by Commissioner Pusley. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Braselton abstaining and Commissioner Skrobarczyk being absent. 3. Time Extensions Mr. Saldafia read time extension agenda items"a","b""c",and"d"(shown below)into record, stating these items have been submitted for a six month continuance and Staff recommends approval. a. 0605104-P047 Port Aransas Cliffs&Ryan Subdivision,Block 221,Lot IC& Block 1, Lot 1 (Final— 1.13 Acres) Located between Ocean Drive and Santa Fe Street and between Mitchell Street and Ocean View Place. b. 0605096-NP53 London School Tract,Lot 1 (Final-2.861 Acres) Located north of FM 43 and County Road 33. c. 1205202-NP122 William J. Robertson Farm Tracts,Tract 7,Lot 2(Final—5.007 Acres) Located south of Saratoga Boulevard(SH 357)between Old Brownsville Road(FM 665) and County Road 37. d. 1205203-NP123 Rodd Field Public Improvement District,Lots 1-16(Final— 84.17 Acres) Located south of Yorktown Boulevard and west of Rodd Field Road. Public hearing was opened. No one was present in favor or in opposition. Public hearing was closed. Commissioner Salazar stated he must abstain from voting on agenda item"d"and requested agenda item"d"be voted on separately. Commissioner Garza made a motion to approve agenda items"a","b", and"c"and Commissioner Zamora seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Scrobarczyk being absent. Planning Covunissk nutes June 14,2006 Page 5 Commissioner Pusley made a motion that agenda item"d"be approved and Commissioner Garza seconded. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Salazar abstaining and Commissioner Skrobarczyk being absent. Miguel Saldana read continued plat agenda item"a"(shown below) into record and stated that this item is a continuance from the previous Planning Commission meeting and Staff recommends denial of a plat that was being submitted in order to allow access onto McKinzie Road. 1. Continued Plats a. 0506098-P043 Castle River Subdivision Unit 2,Block 3,Lot 29A(Final Reolat -0.433 Acre) Located north of McKinzie Road and east of Castle River Drive. In response to Commissioner Pusley,Ms.Teniente stated there was a traffic count done at the subject location,but it is not truly representative of the volume of traffic on McKinzie because of the shortened duration of the survey and the fact that school was not in session. Ms. Teniente stated that the Traffic Engineering office obtained a speed survey on Monday and Tuesday. The total traffic crossing computed at that point(not directional)is about 1,016 vehicles per day. With respect to the speed survey, which was taken overnight,the 85'h percentile in turn is reading a high value, about 40 mph based on state law. Speed limit is typically set based on a sampling of drivers' speed across a specific point. The value is high in this case, you can get an idea of the questionable/validity or the idea of the sampling that is represented when you look at the 10 mph pace speed,which in this case means that the majority of the vehicles sampled are between the range of approx. 25-34 mph. This means there were a few speeders in there that beefed up the 85th percentile. These statistics were taken during a time when school was not in session. When asked by Commissioner Pusley if these statistics took into consideration the two new subdivisions underway that will also be accessing McKinzie,Ms. Teniente stated that the surveys did not consider the two new developments in the area. In response to Commissioner Salazar's question concerning the possibility of speed bumps, Ms.Teniente stated that the City Traffic Engineering office does have a Residential Traffic Management program. A copy was provided to each Council member. Ms.Teniente stated that some"collector roads"are eligible for speed bumps and some are not. The definition of which "collectors"are eligible and which ones are not is on Page 15, Section Two(2)"Eligibility Requirements". The first sentence would appear to make McKinzie Road eligible for speed bumps, but wording in the subsequent sentence makes it clear that McKinzie Road is not eligible for speed bumps due to wording in the City Code of Ordinances 53251. In response to Commissioner Salazar's inquiry concerning a similar situation with a driveway on Lipes Street,Miguel Saldana stated that he could find nothing in the files indicating an amendment to any plats,therefore,he believes the driveway on Lipes Street was put there in error. In response to Commissioner Salazar,Ms. Teniente stated that the driveway on McKinzie Road does not create a safety issue at the posted speed limit. Commissioner Pusley stated that a driveway in the Court of St.James subdivision off of Lipes near the intersection of Cedar Pass and Lipes was built in the 1970's. To his knowledge there was no amendment to the plat at that time. Ms. Teniente stated the only driveway looked at by them was in Barclay Grove. Michael Gunning stated that he was aware of two instances,the one Mr. Saldana referred to which was done in error,and a second one,which the Commission Planning Commissi‘nutes June 14,2006 Page 6 approved, involved a family with a child with disabilities needing access from Lipes Blvd. on a corner lot. He recalls it came back to the Commission,but could not recall if it involved a replat. Public hearing was opened. Chairman Stone invoked the three-minute rule for each speaker. Victor Medina, 2460 Crooked Hollow,representing contractor and owner,stated the Lipes and Barclay issues prove that it's been done in the past. Mr.Medina stated that the builder was issued a building permit,then they gave him an order to stop work when he's pouring the slab. Mr. Medina further stated that at the last meeting staff was given two orders: 1)to provide a traffic count and a recommendation and they did not; and,2)to provide information at this meeting concerning a driveway on Lipes and they came back with the wrong driveway. Mr. Medina stated that this is not in favor in helping the Commission make the proper decision and requests the Commission to vote in favor of letting the building go ahead. Commissioner Zamora inquired about the alternate site plan provided at the last meeting which provided for a circular driveway as the solution. Flores Sanchez, 101 McGee,Robstown, Texas,builder, stated he drew up the alternative plan at the request of Alonzo Garza. Commissioner Zamora inquired if the alternate site plan provided enough room to turn into the garage. Mr. Sanchez stated there was not. Commission Zamora stated that due to there not being enough room to turn into the garage,the garage and home are effectively rendered unusable unless the entire design of the home is changed. In response to Commissioner Zamora, Ms.Teniente stated that the traffic count was done at the Castle Ridge and McKinzie intersection,as well as the speed survey and that Section 53251 identifies a through-street,which McKinzie falls under,and the speed bumps are also prohibited on a through-street. In response to Commissioner Salazar, Ms.Teniente stated concerning the safety issue there was no heavy traffic movement,and that the sample is not truly representative of the traffic count due to school not being in session. The speed survey is on the high side,but was taken at night. The safety issue is that backing up onto a higher classification street than a local street. Anything above a local street is more traffic with a greater probability of conflicts. The backup maneuver is an issue due to the placement of the side fence because the driver cannot see oncoming traffic. Commissioner Salazar responded that it would be up to the builder to ensure the setbacks for the fence were such that the line of vision needed is provided for. Commissioner Salazar stated that certain provisions,i.e.,setback of fence,could be noted on the replat. In response to Commissioner Pusley, Ms.Teniente stated that a traffic count would normally be done over a 24-hour period,and to make it a truly average daily traffic count it would include it being done when school is in session. Ms. Teniente responded to Commissioner Pusley, stating that the subdivisions going in north of Granite Peak, and south of Sessions behind Grand Teton,all of which will be using McKinzie as ingress/egress point were not considered. If that is taken into consideration,the traffic count far exceeds the 1,016 traffic count previously stated. Commissioner Pusley stated that last year the area residents requested speed bumps and were told McKinzie was not eligible for speed bumps. In reference to the notion that others would now come forward requesting a driveway onto McKinzie because of the precedent set,Commissioner Salazar stated he does not believe that will be an issue because the rules are clear and this instance is due to a mistake being made and no other options available to remedy the situation other than tearing down the garage and moving it elsewhere. Planning Commissi‘nnutes June 14,2006 Page 7 Commissioner Salazar stated that the Commission has always tried to work with the building community in resolving mistakes and errors and this one is no different. Commissioner Salazar continued,stating the traffic count on Kostoryz exceeds 40,000 cars per day and there are driveways all along that road with people backing into traffic successfully. Therefore,the traffic count of 1,016 on McKinzie is not substantial. In response to Chairman Stone, Mr. Sanchez stated that the homeowner on McKinzie would not be backing out of the driveway onto McKinzie because the plan is to build a backup driveway on the ten(10) feet available between the property line and the building. Ms. Monica Spivey, subject homeowner, stated the traffic count was taken at an intersection 200 feet down the road from her house which facilitates traffic going to areas other than McKinzie and does not believe it to be representative of the traffic passing by her home. Ms. Spivey stated that if the traffic count is a factor in the decision process,then the traffic count should be redone and positioned on McKinzie in conjunction with her property. Addressing the eleven other homes with driveways onto McKinzie,Ms. Spivey stated that those homes were part of the original Castle River Subdivision. Twenty(20)feet up the road is High Ridge with driveways coming onto McKinzie. Castle Ridge was developed later,but Ms. Spivey states she does not understand the difference. Phyllis McBride,3818 Castle Ridge Drive, stated that the traffic count was taken right at the spot where the homeowner's driveway would come onto McKinzie Road,not 200 feet up the road at the intersection,meaning those 1,016 vehicles passed right by the proposed driveway. Ms. McBride stated that,according to the Code,the responsibility for the mistake falls directly on the builder,the owner and the professionals who did the Plat. The City is held harmless. Ms.McBride stated that the guidelines were set and the builder failed to meet those guidelines. Ms.McBride stated that the builder was notified on the 17th that there was a problem and the concrete was not poured until the 27th, which shows the builder to be responsible. Public hearing was closed. Commissioner Braselton addressed the conflict as to when the plans were approved,when the permit was issued and when the stop work order was issued,stating that at the last meeting Alonzo Garza said there were discussions prior to the 27th,which was the date the slab was poured and also the date the stop work order was issued,however,there appears to be nothing in writing prior to the 27th. Michael Gunning addressed the Commissioners acknowledging that there were discussions and a lack of documentation. Mr. Gunning inquired of Mr. Sanchez if Mr. Sanchez was aware before construction that the driveway was prohibited on McKinzie. Mr. Gunning stated he was advised that the former Director had spoken to Mr. Sanchez prior to the pouring of the concrete. Mr. Gunning stated that his building official,who could not be at this meeting, had met with Mr. Sanchez in mid-April and drew up a site plan that was showed two weeks ago where they would extend the driveway from the garage to Castle River instead of McKinzie and there was an agreement that that is what they would do. Based upon that conversation,Mr. Garza lifted the stop work order. Mr. Gunning stated that what was heard from the owner and Mr. Sanchez at the last meeting is that the owner did not think it was a good option because of the size of their vehicles and the difficulty in maneuvering them in such a tight area. Commissioner Braselton stated that Mr. Sanchez has indicated he was told on the 27th that he couldn't put the driveway on McKinzie and that he needed to stop work,and that he was pouring concrete at that time. • Planning Commissi‘nutes J June 14,2006 Page 8 Commissioner Braselton stated that he was looking for some documentation to clarify the timeline. Mr. Gunning acknowledged that a better job of communication and documentation needs to be done and will be done. Commissioner Pusley said that Alonzo Garza lifted the restriction on the work permit based on an agreement Mr. Garza thought he had with the builder to resolve the driveway conflict. Mr. Gunning agreed that was Mr. Garza's testimony. Commissioner Pusley stated that he had a conversation with Barbara Holly,the former Director,long before the slab was poured and that she had said she had a conversation with Alonzo and Mr. Sanchez and had told Mr. Sanchez that the driveway was prohibited on McKinzie and he had to come up with an alternative solution. Mr. Gunning agreed with Commissioner Pusley's recollection. Commissioner Pusley further stated that he had phoned Mr. Sanchez long before the slab was poured and told Mr. Sanchez there was a problem,that his plans had been approved by the Architectural Control Committee,but there was a problem with the driveway based on the platting ordinance. Commissioner Pusley stated that Mr. Sanchez's response to that was that the City had given him a permit and he was going to build according to the permit; that the Building Inspections people had made a mistake but it was not his fault they made a mistake. Mr. Gunning stated that he sent a code inspector out at least one week prior to March 27th to issue a stop work order and the inspector failed to do that until the March 27'"date; and only because a resident called that day and said they were in the process of pouring the foundation so Mr. Gunning sent the same person to the site again. Commissioner Pusley stated to Mr. Saldana that on the plat the road marked Castle River Drive should be Castle Ridge. Mr. Saldana stated that would be corrected. Commissioner Braselton stated he has information that the approval by the Architectural Control Committee occurred on the 20th of March,only seven days before the slab was poured and finds it difficult to penalize the owner several thousand dollars considering just around the corner they have street cuts anyway. Commissioner Huerta stated that the design professional is responsible for the design of the property. If there was no design professional it is the fault of the owner for not hiring a professional when the plans were designed. It is the responsibility of the design professional to study the design of the plat,the conditions and statement of the plat or subdivision and determine what is required. There have been other cases before the Commission where the design professional makes the mistake and the Commission has to consider the hardship on the owner. In so doing,the Commission is saying that what applies to some does not apply to all. There being no further comments,Commissioner Pusley made the motion to deny the plat as recommended by Staff. No second to the motion was received. Commission Salazar made the motion to approve the plat as submitted. Commissioner Martinez seconded the motion. In reference to the fence being a visual obstruction,Mr. Gunning advised the Commission that they could prohibit any type of visual obstruction along that section of the road and note it on the plat and the Ordinance does allow that. Commissioner Salazar amended his motion. • Planning Commissi4Onutes June 14,2006 Page 9 Commissioner Pusley stated his sympathy to the owner. Commissioner Braselton clarified that there is no fence along the section of McKinzie in question. Mr. Saldana responded that the fence has yet to be built. Commissioner Braselton asked for verification that this access is for this particular lot only and Mr. Saldana stated that is the only plat to be affected. Commissioner Huerta made a motion to amend the original motion to limit the fence line to the face of the building which would be the garage. Ms.Teniente asked if the applicant was offering to construct the driveway so that he would not have to backup and could exit the driveway with the car facing the street. Upon review of the drawing submitted by the builder at the last Commission meeting,the builder stated that they are willing to move the fence line to match the garage; and that the proposed backup slab would be for backing up only. Commissioner Salazar questioned the Commission as to whether the notices mailed out request the neighborhood not to discuss the case with Commissioners outside of the meeting. Mr. Gunning replied that the notice to property owners and to applicants does include a request to refrain from discussing the issues with any Commissioners because that is what the Public Hearing is for. Commissioner Zamora stated that regarding the fence along McKinzie,would a four(4) foot fence alleviate that concern or must the fence be prohibited all together. Ms. Teniente stated the City Code has a site distance triangle and there is a provision in that. Ms. Teniente requested the motion include a provision requiring the backup slab to be constructed in such a way as to allow the vehicle to exit the driveway front first. Addressing the precedent being set with this ruling,Commissioner Zamora stated this will not affect other plats coming from this neighborhood and this Commission and future Commissions can deny any requests for future cuts onto McKinzie Road. Commissioner Huerta stated that for the backup drive to work, considering the turning radius,will require the slab to be within five feet of the building line. Commissioner Pusley addressed Ms.Teniente concerning previous requests for"no parking"signs along this stretch of McKinzie and asked if the request could be reconsidered. Ms. Teniente stated that it will be reexamined in coordination with Traffic Engineering. Commissioner Pusley requested Ms. Teniente to make Traffic Engineering aware that big trucks are already parking along McKinzie Lane and it won't be long before it occurs along McKinzie Drive. Commissioner Huerta stated there are options to tapering the fence,the height of the fence and where the fence starts and stops. Mr. Sanchez stated the owner has no intention of constructing a fence on the west side of the driveway towards Castle Ridge,only from the garage towards the back end. In response to Commissioner Pusley, Mr. Gunning stated that Development Services would have an inspector visiting the site regularly to ensure compliance with the ruling as agreed upon in this hearing. • Planning Commissi`nutes June 14,2006 Page 10 Commissioner Stone stated it is a difficult situation where the Commission tries to work with the owner so they are not penalized by the mistakes of others and that the City needs to ensure more documentation to avoid more matters such as this. Mr. Gunning stated that there are procedural revisions being made that will ensure better chronological documentation of events within Development Services. Commissioner Martinez stated the Commissioners are here free of charge to help the community and it is not right that the Commissioners should have no say to citizens of Corpus Christi just because they are Commissioners. As individuals,the Commissioners should be able to communicate with others in the community just as any other citizen has that right as long as no undue influence is used. The motion and the second to approve the replat was amended subject to the following conditions: 1)being that the fence be modified in accordance with the site distance triangle ordinance; and 2)being that there be sufficient concrete area for homeowners' vehicles to turn around in driveway and exit onto McKinzie Road front first,alleviating the need to back out onto McKinzie Road. The motion passed with seven votes in favor,with Commissioner Pusley voting for denial of the motion,and Commissioner Skrobarczyk being absent. IV. ZONING New Cases a. Case No. 0606-01 Grace United Methodist Church: From a"R-1B" One-family Dwelling District to a"B-I"Neighborhood Business District Tract 7 out of the Shell Road Poultry Acres/Pugh Tract,located on Church Street and approximately 215 feet northeast of Leopard Street. Adriana Trujillo presented the above case with a Power Point presentation showing the subject property located one-half block north of Leopard Street along the west side of Church Street. The applicant is requesting a change in zoning from an"R-113"One-family Dwelling District to a"B-1" Neighborhood Business District for the purpose of developing a thrift store. The location of the subject parcel is adjacent to Grace United Methodist Church(GUMC). On the east side of the GUMC is commercial use at the corner of Church Street and Leopard. On the north and east side of the subject parcel is residential use. On the south side is commercial and light industrial use. Grace United Methodist Church is for public use. Access to the subject property is through Church Street. The property is 20,758 square feet and contains a 900 square foot building used as a church annex for Sunday school classes. It is handicap accessible and faces Church Street. The comprehensive plan does not promote commercial use because it is not compatible with the existing adjacent neighborhood. The future land use shows commercial development all around the subject parcel. The parking requirement for this property,if it is developed as a thrift store, is five(5) parking spaces, i.e.,one space per 200 square feet of floor area. Staff recommendation is denial of the"B-1"Neighborhood Business District and approval of a Special Permit for a church-related thrift shop with the following six(6)conditions: 1. USES: The only use permitted by this Special Permit other than those uses permitted by right in the"R-1B"One-family Dwelling District is a church-related thrift shop. • Planning Commissithiinutes • June 14,2006 Page 11 2. BUILDING: The existing building shall be used for the church-related thrift shop. 3. HOURS OF OPERATION: Hours of operation shall be Monday through Saturday from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm. 4. EMPLOYEES: Employees shall be limited to a maximum of six(6)volunteers. 5. ACCESS: Vehicular access to the church related thrift shop is limited to Church Street. 6. TIME LIMIT: Such Special Permit shall be deemed to have expired within one (I) year of the date of this ordinance unless the property is being used as outlined in Condition #1 and in compliance with all other conditions. In answer to Commissioner Stone's question, Ms. Trujillo stated that the applicant is aware of the Special Permit and is in agreement. In response to Commissioner Pusley,Ms. Trujillo stated that the existing building would be used for the thrift shop. Public hearing was opened. In response to Commissioner Pusley, Faryce Goode-Macon stated the church is being used as a Sunday school facility, which means they have already taken care of the educational/commercial building code and will be using the building in the same capacity. In response to Commissioner Martinez,Joan Morgan, 10921 Mayfield Drive,Project Coordinator for the thrift shop,stated that tract six(6)adjacent to the thrift shop site is zoned residential and houses a church employee. Public hearing was closed. Motion for denial of the"B-I"Neighborhood Business District,and in lieu thereof, approval of a Special Permit for a church-related thrift shop with the six(6) stated conditions was made by Commissioner Pusley and seconded by Commissioner Zamora. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Skorbarezyk being absent. Commissioner Pusley was excused from the meeting. b. Case No. 0606-02 Dinah Morton: From a"F-R"Farm Rural District to a'R-1B" One-family Dwelling District Being a 5.255 acre tract of land situated in and out of a portion of Lot 15, Section 41,Flour Bluff&Encinal Farm&Garden Tracts and located on Flour Bluff Drive approximately 225 feet from Graham Drive Adriana Trujillo presented the above case with a Power Point presentation showing the subject property located on the west side of Flour Bluff Drive and one-half block from Cantera Trail. The request is from an"F-R"Farm Rural District to an"R-1B"One-family Dwelling District. The property has 5.255 acres. The purpose of the request is the development of ten lots for a residential subdivision with a portion being dedicated for church use on the east. The subject property is primarily vacant land. The properties adjacent to the subject parcel are vacant lots and currently zoned"B-I"Neighborhood Business District and"A-I"Apartment House District. • Planning Commissi‘nutes June 14,2006 Page 12 Direct access to the property is from Flour Bluff Drive. The proposed subdivision will make provisions for public wastewater when improvements to the system along Flour Bluff Drive occur. Until public wastewater lines are available,the use of septic systems on half acre lots will be allowed. The proposed development is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the area. The residential use is consistent with the existing growth patterns. Staff recommends approval of an"R-1B"One-family Dwelling District. Of thirteen notices mailed, zero(0)were returned in favor and two(2)in opposition. Public hearing was opened. Darrin Morton,2942 Horn Road, son of applicant, stated there are concerns such as drainage and they are working with engineers to develop a plan. The houses will consist of homes with four to five bedrooms,two-story,single family dwellings on half acre lots. The private park will be on the right hand side consisting of a retention pond if feasible. Drainage will probably go through to Cantera Trail. Susan Ludka, 1631 Graham Road, stated she lives on lots 19 through 24 of the Oak Harbor Estates,abutting the subject property. She opposes the zoning for three reasons, the first being the owners are planning to be the developers of the parcel. Ms. Ludka stated the owners are currently in violation of several City Ordinances, such as having several motor homes in disrepair on the property that are inhabited by people making donations to the church. Number two,the back of the property,which directly abuts her property,is never mowed, is filled with debris,sheds that have fallen,and rusting trailers. Ms. Ludka stated there was a port-a-potty on the lot for years. Lastly, Ms. Ludka stated there is no need for additional"R-1B"due to 400 lots zoned"R-I B"waiting to be developed. She stated that the exiting infrastructure is overburdened and Flour Bluff Drive and Graham Road flood heavily. Flour Bluff Drive is heavily traveled and needs traffic control. Ms. Ludka requests investigation of existing violations before allowing this change of zoning. Frank Pompa, owner and future resident of Block 8,residing at 1602 Cantera Trail,spoke in opposition, stating there is no entrance to the subdivision off Cantera Trail or Graham Road,only off Flour Bluff Drive. Mr. Pompa stated that drainage could not go through Cantera Trail#9 because the land is being cleared for construction. Mr. Pompa stated he invested a lot of money in his lot and home and is concerned the property value will go down due to unkempt conditions in the proposed development. His concerns include how close the proposed homes would come to his property line; and there's a natural gas pipeline crossing the subject property. Mr. Pompa stated he understood the city was not going to allow any more development unless the sewer system was already in place. Due to the size of the homes planned,he expressed concern that the homes were being built to house more than one family. Ms. Goode-Macon addressed some of Mr. Pompa's concerns,stating the gasline will remain and does not impede development of the land. In response to his concern about the development becoming multiple family dwellings, Ms.Goode-Macon stated that the ordinance allows for renters or persons to live in their home. The number of people is not defined in the code's definition of family; the code does define the number of boarders,which is up to four(4). When asked if the developer was going to sell or rent,Ms. Goode-Macon stated it is the decision of the developer. Addressing the unkempt condition of the subject property, Mr.Morton stated that a cleanup effort has been underway for two years and 100 tons of trash has been removed. He further stated that to develop the land,it will have to be cleared. • Planning Commissi‘nutes 111111 June 14,2006 Page 13 In response to Commissioner Huerta,Mary Francis Teniente stated that in the"R-1B" District he is required to construct and extend wastewater to each lot and that a septic system could be allowed in a"R-1B"District with large lot developments. David Pyle,418 Cape Cod, stated that engineers are working with staff on the sanitary sewer situation so it can be resolved at the platting level. Public hearing was closed. In response to Commissioner Braselton,Ms. Teniente stated that the nearest sewer to the subject property is on Flour Bluff Drive south of Nickerbocker Driver. In response to Commissioner Braselton,Mr. Gunning stated that city practice has been that a sewer system within one mile of the development is reasonable distance. Mr. Gunning stated that considering the size of the land and the fact that it includes a church,the developer needs to tie into the sewer. Mr. Gunning stated that if it is not economically feasible to extend the wastewater to the lots at this time, then it is Mr. Gunning's preliminary recommendation that they put a hold on their development until the sanitary sewer is within a reasonable distance. Motion to approve was made by Commissioner Salazar and seconded by Commissioner Zamora. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Skrobarczyk being absent and Commissioner Pusley excused from the meeting. c. Case No. 0606-04 Hogan Development Co., L.P.: From a "F-R" Farm-Rural District to a "R-1B" One-family Dwelling District Being a 26.53 acre tract of land comprised of Lot 1 and a portion of Lot 2, Section 32,located on Holly Road approximately 2,560 feet from Lexington Road. Shannon Murphy presented the case with a Power Point presentation showing the subject property located on Holly Road. East of Holly Road the existing land use is vacant. The existing land use to the west is single family residential and to the north,south and east is vacant land. The purpose of the request is to allow a 109 lot single family subdivision that will be connected to Monte Verde at Terra Mar to the west. The future land use map recommends low density residential for the site. The proposed subdivision will develop 109 lots for single family residential. Proposed entrances are from Holly Road and the future Oso Parkway. Staff recommendation is approval of the"R-1B"One-family Dwelling District. Seven notices were mailed. Zero(0)were returned in favor and zero(0)in opposition. Public hearing was opened. Karen Howden, 5637 Lexington Road,expressed concern with the traffic created by the development and its effect on Lexington Road. Ms.Howden stated that Lexington Road will become an alternate route to Rodd Field Road and that Lexington Road is residential in character, narrow, and is used by children and other pedestrians. In response to Commissioner Stone,Ms. Murphy stated that Lexington Road is to the west of this development off of Holly Road. In response to Commissioner Stone,Ms.Teniente stated there are no current plans to improve Lexington Road. In response to Ms. Howden,Ms. Teniente stated the City's policy based on the Residential Traffic Program does not install speed humps on streets that lack curb and gutter because of the tendency of the driver to go around the raised hump. Mr. Gunning stated that the Planning Conunissiinutes June 14,2006 Page 14 Traffic Engineering Department would be responsible for establishing a traffic management program if a traffic issue exists on Lexington Road. In response to Commissioner Salazar,Mr. Gunning stated that the Planning Commission can deny at the platting stage if they determine the infrastructure to be inadequate, i.e.,a road being inadequate to support the traffic created by the new subdivision. The public hearing was closed. Motion to approve the"R-1B"One-family Dwelling District was made by Commissioner Huerta and seconded by Commissioner Braselton. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Skrobarczyk being absent and Commissioner Pusley excused from the meeting. V. DEFERMENT AGREEMENT: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOXWOOD ESTATES—PHASE I PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Ms. Teniente presented the deferments stating that Foxwood Estates is a preliminary plat that has been reviewed and approved with Units I and III as part of this deferment. The developer has requested to expedite recordation of the plat. Developer has provided detailed cost estimates for both units and is proposing to submit a letter of credit for the dollar amount. Ms. Teniente stated the construction of water and wastewater is an important element and is required before the plat is recorded despite the fact the developer does put up the letter of credit. Units I and III are different amounts. Commissioner Stone abstained due to conflict of interest. Commissioner Garza took over as chairman. In response to Commissioner Braselton,the developer states that recordation of the plat is a condition of a pending sale. Motion was made to approve the Deferment Agreement for Foxwood Estates,Unit I and Unit III by Commissioner Huerta and seconded by Commissioner Salazar. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Skrobarczyk being absent and Commissioner Pusley being excused from the meeting. VI. DEFERMENT AGREEMENT: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOXWOOD ESTATES—PHASE III PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS (Combined with Foxwood Estates Phase I) VII. TEXT AMENDMENT TO PLATTING ORDINANCE FINAL PLAT, SECTION III.H.5—CONDITIONS FOR ENDORSEMENT OF FINAL PLAT Ms.Teniente presented the text amendment stating a notice was posted in the newspaper announcing a Public Hearing at Planning Commission. The purpose of the text amendment is to address and clarify the conditions for endorsement of a final plat in a situation where water and wastewater requirements are provided by an entity other than the City of Corpus Christi,as in the case of the Island Park Estates Subdivision and the Porto Villageo Subdivision in the Mustang Island area. • Planning Commissi Vnutes June 14,2006 Page 15 Whereas City Ordinance requires 75%of the required improvements be in place,other entities such as the Nueces County Water Control and Improvement District No.4 do not have provision for 75%completion. The text amendment would make the more stringent requirements of the City of Corpus Christi or other entity providing water and wastewater applicable prior to final endorsement of the plat. With this provision in the ordinance, Development Services will have the authorization to deny recordation of the plat until the requirements of the other entity are met, making the decision to record or not record the plat less difficult and more straight forward. A Public Hearing before Council is scheduled on the June 27th agenda. Motion for approval of the text amendment was made by Commissioner Huerta and seconded by Commissioner Salazar. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Skorbarczyk being absent and Commissioner Pusley excused from the meeting. VIII. DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. FUTURE SCHEDULED MEETINGS Ms.Goode-Macon stated the next scheduled meeting is June 28th. B. EXCUSED ABSENCES C. OTHER MATTERS Ms. Goode-Macon stated the Department has been successful in having DSAG meetings. A schedule plan for the UDC has been developed and staff will be meeting with various community groups, developers, civic groups and citizens of the city. The first series of meetings starts next week. Mr. Gunning stated a number of agencies, city organizations and professional groups have requested to be briefed on the UDC. Mr. Gunning encourages Commissioners to attend some of the meetings as non-participants and asks that they help spread the word. Mr. Gunning stated the goal is to finish it before the Thanksgiving holidays. Ms. Goode-Macon called upon the Commissioners to inform their colleagues and neighbors to look at the document, which is available online and has a public comment section available. In response to Commissioner Huerta, Mr. Gunning stated that a matrix is available which summarizes all the changes and their impact. Mr. Gunning stated that on the next agenda he would like to have the cancellation of the October 18th meeting due to our office hosting the State APA conference during that time. • Planning Commissi4.0nutes June 14,2006 Page 16 IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:33 p.m. and was seconded. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Skorbarczyk being absent and Commissioner Pusley excused from the meeting. Faryce Goode-Macon Beverly Lang-Priestley Acting Director of Development Services/Planning Recording Secretary H 1PLN-DIR\SHARED\WORD\PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES\2006\061406.DOC