Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 06/01/2005 V MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers-City Hall Wednesday—June 1,2005 5:30 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Shirley Mims B.A.Bailey Holly,AICP,Director of Rudy Garza Development Services Fred Braselton Michael Gunning,AICP,Assistant Director Shirley Mims of Development Services Michael Pusley Mary Frances Teniente,PE,Assistant Director Eloy H. Salazar of Development Services Richard Smith Priscilla San Miguel,Recording Secretary Robert Zamora Faryce Goode-Macon, Senior City Planner Miguel Saldana, City Planner COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: David Berlanga, Chairman Bryan Stone,Vice Chairman Si usted quiere dirigirse a la comision y su ingles es limitado,habra un interprete de espanol a ingles en la junta para ayudarle. CALL TO ORDER In absence of the Chairman and Vice Chairman,Commissioner Shirley Mims acted as Chair,a quorum was declared and the meeting was called to order at 5:45 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Garza,seconded by Commissioner Braselton to approve the May 18, 2005 minutes as submitted. The motions passed unanimously with Chairman Berlanga and Vice Chairman Stone being absent. AMENDMENT TO THE PARKS,RECREATION AND OPEN SPACES MASTER PLAN — public hearing and possible action Mr. Art Sosa stated that in November of 2002,the Planning Commission approved the Parks and Recreation Open Master Plan. Section 9 of the Plan calls for periodic updates. Staff is requesting an amendment to section 8.2 Guiding Concepts and Philosophy. The Plans supports converting some unused parks into lower maintenance green spaces. Section 8.6 Development of Needed Park Facilities recommends additional playground facilities throughout the city. There has been an increase in the interest of development of neighborhood parks with equipment. The Plan recommends that they be used as open green spaces as opposed to having equipment and additional maintenance. The proposed amendment would delete from Section 8.2 item 10. The quantity of smaller neighborhood parks continues to require more resources than the City can provide. The investment of a few more small parks may be feasible but not an answer for all the smaller parks. The greater focus should be on developing a neighborhood by neighborhood plan for converting the unused parks into more maintenance green spaces. Recommendations to address this issue are contained in this chapter. Staff is recommending deletion of the section. SCANNED 111110 Minutes-Planning Commissionleting June 1,2005 Page 2 In response to Commissioner Mims question, Mr. Sosa stated that the proposed amendment has been recommended by the Park and Recreation Board. Public hearing was opened for public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Braselton,seconded by Commissioner Zamora to approve. The motion passed unanimously with Chairman Berlanga and Vice Chairman Stone being absent. PLATS 1. Continued Plats Miguel Saldana read plats"a,b,and c" (shown below)into the record and stated Staff recommended approval. a. 0205028-NP16 Boat Hole Marine,Block 1,Lot 1 (Final—6.664 Acres) Located between Skipper Lane and Jester Street west of the Laguna Madre. b. 0405056-P28 South Fork Unit 4(Final—12.48 Acres) Located north of Brooke Road east of Rodd Field Road. c. 0505074-P32 Manhattan Estates Unit 2(Final—10.286 Acres) Located west of Airline Road and south of Brooke Road. A public hearing was opened. No one appeared to be in favor or in opposition. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Salazar, seconded by Commissioner Braselton to approve. The motion passed unanimously with Chairman Berlanga and Vice Chairman Stone being absent. Miguel Saldana read plat"d"(shown below)into the record and stated the applicants' representatives were requesting a continuance of two weeks. Staff recommended a continuance of two weeks. d. 0505075-NP43 Cornerstone Subdivision Unit 3 (Preliminary—28.44 Acres) Located north of Don Patricio Road and east of Flour Bluff Drive. A public hearing was opened. No one appeared to be in favor or in opposition. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Zamora to recommend a continuance to the June I5't hearing. The motion passed unanimously with Chairman Berlanga and Vice Chairman Stone being absent. 2. New Plats Miguel Saldana read plat"a and b"(shown below) into the record and Staff recommended approval. a. 0605090-NP52 Vacating Plat of Padre Island—Corpus Christi Commodore's Cove Unit 2 (Final— 19.546 Acres) Located west of Aquarius Street and north of Whitecap Boulevard. 11140 Minutes-Planning CommissionVeting June 1,2005 Page 3 b. 0605079-P33 Commodore's Point PUD 2,Unit 1 (Final—3.025 Acres) Located west of Aquarius Street at Lanyard Drive, both north of Whitecap Boulevard and west of South Padre Island Drive (PR 22). A public hearing was opened. No one appeared to be in favor or in opposition. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Salazar, seconded by Commissioner Braselton to approve. The motion passed unanimously with Chairman Berlanga and Vice Chairman Stone being absent. Miguel Saldana read plat"c and d"(shown below)into the record and stated the applicants' representatives were requesting a continuance of two weeks. Staff recommended a continuance of two weeks. c. 0605080-P34 Flour Bluff Estates No.2,Block 9,Lots 10A& 10B (Final Replat—0.379 Acre) Located south of Scotland Street,east of Naval Air Station(SH 358). d. 0605081-P35 King's Point Unit 2 (Final—4.964 Acres) Located north of Yorktown Boulevard and west of Cimarron Boulevard. A public hearing was opened. No one appeared to be in favor or in opposition. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Garza to recommend a continuance to the June l5`"hearing. The motion passed unanimously with Chairman Berlanga and Vice Chairman Stone being absent. Miguel Saldana read plat"f'(shown below) into the record and Staff recommends approval. e. 0605082-P36 Laguna Acres,Block 6,Lot 27A (Final Replat—0.184 Acre) Located north of Lolita Street and west of Teresa Street,both south of Home Road. A public hearing was opened. No one appeared to be in favor or in opposition. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Zamora, seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve. The motion passed unanimously with Chairman Berlanga and Vice Chairman Stone being absent. Miguel Saldana read plat"P"(shown below)into the record and stated that the plat required two separate actions. Staff recommends a request for variance to reduce the required right-of-way lane with skyline with a connection of two fifty foot right-of-ways. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Staff recommends approval of the plat dependant upon the action of the variance. 1. 0605083-P37 Padrednterstate 37 Business Park Unit 2,Block 1,Lots 1 & 2 (Final—22.514 Acres) Located south of Interstate Highway 37 and west of Lantana Road. i. Variance to reduce required right-of-way width. ii. Action on plat. A public hearing was opened. No one appeared to be in favor or in opposition. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Garza to approve the variance to reduce the required right-of-way width from 60 feet to 50 feet. The motion passed unanimously with Chairman Berlanga and Vice Chairman Stone being absent. 41110 Minutes-Planning Commission eeting June 1,2005 Page 4 A public hearing was opened. No one appeared to be in favor or in opposition. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Garza to approve the plat. The motion passed unanimously with Chairman Berlanga and Vice Chairman Stone being absent. Miguel Saldana read plat"g" (shown below)into the record and Staff recommended approval. g. 0605084-P38 Tropic Park Annex,Block 10,Lot 5 (Final—1.245 Acres) Located east of Debra Lane,north of Caribbean Drive. A public hearing was opened. No one appeared to be in favor or in opposition. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Pusley, seconded by Commissioner Braselton to approve. The motion passed unanimously with Chairman Berlanga and Vice Chairman Stone being absent. Miguel Saldana read plat"h,i,j, and k"(shown below)into the record and stated the applicants' representatives were requesting a continuance of two weeks. Staff recommended a continuance of two weeks. h. 0605085-NP47 Cervantes Subdivision (Preliminary—25.388 Acres) Located east of South Clarkwood Road(FM 2292)and north of McGloin Road(CR34). i. 0605086-NP48 Highway Village Section 2,Block 11,Lots 11D& 11E (Final Replat—0.310 Acre) Located south of Leopard Street and west of Robby Drive. j. 0605087-NP49 Mustang Island Section No. 2,Block 1,Lot 25A (Final Replat—4.359 Acres) Located east of State Highway 361 and south of Mustang Royal Boulevard. i. Variance to plat property without platting remainder of lot. ii. Action on plat. k. 0605088-NP50 Navigation Verizon Tract,Block 1,Lot 1 (Final Replat—6.156 Acres) Located east of Navigation Boulevard and south of Santa Elena Drive. A public hearing was opened. No one appeared to be in favor or in opposition. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Salazar, seconded by Commissioner Pusley to recommend a continuance to the June 15'" hearing. The motion passed unanimously with Chairman Berlanga and Vice Chairman Stone being absent. 3. Time Extensions Miguel Saldana read plat "a" (shown below) into the record and stated that the applicants' representatives have requested their first time extensions of six months. Staff recommended time extension of six months. a. 1204201-P100 Wooldridge Creek Unit 13,Block 1,Lot 1 (Final—9.817 Acres) Located north of Wooldridge Road and west of Dewberry Drive. Minutes-Planning Commission'Meeting June 1,2005 Page 5 A public hearing was opened for the above referenced plat. No one appeared to be in favor or in opposition. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Garza, seconded by Commissioner Braselton to approve. The motion passed unanimously with Vice Chairman Stone being absent. ZONING 1. New Zoning a. Case No.0605-01 TEMET Properties: "R-1A"One-family Dwelling District to a"R-2"Multiple Dwelling District Edgewater Terrace,Block 4,Lots 8, 9, 10 and II,located along the southwest corners of Ocean Drive, South Alameda Drive and Edgewater Drive. Commissioner Braselton abstained and left council chambers. Request: Change of zoning from 'R-1B" One-family Dwelling to "AB" Professional Office District Excerpts from Zoning Report Legal Description/Location: Edgewater Terrace, Block 4,Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11, located along the southwest corners of Ocean drive, South Alameda Drive and Edgewater Drive. Purpose of Request: To develop 7-single family town homes Area Development Plan: Southeast— The future land use maps recommends low-density residential uses for the subject property. Department Comments: The proposed "R-2"District provides for the development of town homes as a single-family residential product. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the "8-2"Multiple Dwelling District. Ms. Holly provided graphics of the subject property and the surrounding area. The zoning report and tape recording are on file. Ms. Holly stated that the subject property is located on Ocean Drive and South Alameda Street and bordered by Edgewater Drive, a local residential street. Jack Rice Turner with Turner, Hickey and Associates provided a development plan for the neighborhood and provided an overall consistent density with the single family homes to the south. Traditional density is usually 2 to 8 units to the acre. Ms. Holly stated that Mr.Turner is providing a three story town house development with the element of a base floor with an elevator. On the ground floor located near the garage, there will be an elevator as well as bedrooms, a study and bathrooms. On the second level there will be a kitchen dining and living room. Located on the third floor will be a balcony, master bedroom and an office. Some units will have a roof elevation that will allow tenants to have a hot tub with a view of the ocean. Staff recommends approval due to the fact that the applicant would like to provide only seven units. If he was limited to the four lots he had, the applicant would have developed four single family homes. Townhouses are a single family form of ownership. The traffic is very comparable from the 40 trips you would have from the four single family homes. With townhouses it is expected to have about 56 trips. Staff has been informed by Texas Department of Transportation that there will be no access point allowed off Alameda Street due to merging traffic. There is currently 38% opposition of this development. It will be a high quality *110 Minutes-Planning CommissioifMeeting June 1,2005 Page 6 residential development, and a single family home product that is very similar to the density that you would expect to see in a"R-IA"District. In response to Commissioner Pusley's question of not being allowed an access point, Ms. Holly stated that with seven units an access point is not required. The emergency egress was for emergency vehicles and not intended for residents. With TXDOT not allowing it,the design would need to allow the first drive-way coming in to have at least two lanes. Public hearing was opened. In response to Commissioner Pusley's question of the subject property being replatted, Mr. Gunning stated that the replatting would be forthcoming upon the action of the zoning case. Jack Rice Turner, 5525 South Staples, stated that the main opposition has to do with the orientation and location of the subject property. The main entrance is off Ocean Drive and the secondary entrance is not of great concern. What is of concern is the fact that we do not want Edgewater Terrace open to Alameda Street. We would be glad to work with the neighborhood to keep it opened up. Mr. Turner stated that he did not have an interest in going into Edgewater Terrace at all. The interest is to solve two problems by Edgewater Terrace. The first would be to take the drainage out to Ocean Drive and Alameda Street but at the same time see what could be done regarding the drainage problems that exist in Edgewater Terrace. We would like to work with the neighborhood in that respect. The other item suggested is that there are two representatives from the neighborhood to better understand what and how it is being done. The third item is that the owner would like to issue a letter to the neighborhood stating that this is the project that is going to be done which consists of approximately 3,000 square feet per unit, with a cost of $600,000 to $650,000 per unit, and it would be planned and operated it is presented to Planning Commission. The letter can be forthcoming if the neighborhood so desires. The rear access to the subject property is approximately 55 feet from the back property line. The access to the units themselves are from 55 to 65 feet from the rear property line. In the front, it is about 55 to 40 feet from Ocean Drive. The side property line is approximately 35 feet from the closest house that is located directly to the west. We are pretty well isolated on the over one acre property for the seven units. Since each unit will be three stories, with a beautiful roof top view, the approximate height would be about 40 feet. It would not be any higher than the next door neighbor's peak of their roof for the flat portion of the project. The "R-2" District density would allow 14 units per acre. The applicant is only requesting 7 units. The project would take approximately one year to develop. There will be an entry garden, a gated area with a fountain facility on Ocean Drive. Units will have three bedrooms, three and a half bath units with large kitchens. The master bedroom would be on the top floor, and will have a peek-a-boo view of the bay. The view of the bay from the 214 floor is minimal because there will ultimately be other developments on the other side of Ocean Drive on the bay. It will be possible to have the view from the third floor. Each of the units will have a patio with a potted yard area along with two balconies. One balcony will be located off the living room area and the other will be located off the master bedroom area on the third area. There will also be an observation area from the garden roof There will also be a masonry fence located in the rear of the property and all telephone poles will be taken down to accommodate underground wiring for telephones and electricity. Over the years I have designed several town homes and condominiums on Ocean Drive. The last high rise designed was the Twin Dolphin Condominiums. The applicant is ready to make this a first class project. It will also increase the value of the surrounding properties. Commissioner Pusley stated that it would be a great project for Ocean Drive. Constantine Tsaousis, 6026 Edgewater Drive, regarding lots 8, 9, 10, and 11, asked about how much are the surface areas of these lots? Minutes-Planning Commissionneeting June 1,2005 Page 7 In response to Mr. Tsaousis's question, Mrs. Goode-Macon stated that the surface area is 1.0968 acres for all four lots. In response to Mr. Tsaousis question of whether or not there can be three single family homes, Commissioner Mims stated that there can be four single family homes on the four different lots if the minimum lot size and setbacks are adhered to. Mr. Tsaousis stated that according to Mr. Turner,he is able to place 14 units on the four lots. He leads us to believe that he is doing us a favor by placing only seven units instead of the fourteen instead of the present four. What law supports this concept? Mr. Gunning indicated that the fourteen units is based on the "R-2" District density standard which allows a maximum of fourteen units per acre. That is the zoning district the applicant has applied for. The applicant is proposing to develop a property under the "R-2"District for seven units. The seven units are less than the fourteen units allowed. If the property were to be developed under the current zoning of"R-IA"District,the applicant could only have one single dwelling unit per lot. Mr. Constantine Tsaousis stated that the neighborhood is aware of the significance the proposed property would bring. We know what the significance is for Ocean Drive and for the life of the city. Whenever there are negotiations for conventions or other events, we meet here. I would like for the Planning Commission to see what significance Jackson's Landing has done to Ocean Drive. When they were first built, they sold for approximately $30,000 and have since multiplied in value. I would like to argue this position because the Planning Commission should be the watch dogs for maintaining Ocean Drive and the rest of the city. Will the applicant stay with the original plan? Colleen Thomas, 5909 Edgewater, stated that she is married with two sons and has resided at Edgewater for eight years. Some of the neighbors have been in their homes for 51 years. Our home is located at the corner of Country Club Drive and Edgewater. It is the first corner coming from Ocean Drive into the neighborhood. Mrs. Thomas chose the oversized lot with the unique home for the quiet tree filled, country home neighborhood to raise the family. There is not one straight street in the neighborhood. They are all winding and curved. They do not have curbs and sidewalks and it is enjoyed in that perspective. The special inter working of Edgewater Terrace created a community of neighbors and drivers who cannot exceed the 30 mile per hour residential speed limit on the winding road for fear of hitting a fellow neighbor. Recent construction has increased overflow and excessive traffic from delays down Country Club Drive which connects Ocean Drive to Alameda Street. I recently met with three motor-cycle police officers parked behind my home. They were dispatched to dispense speeding tickets to motorists using Country Club Drive as a pass thru from Ocean Drive to Alameda. The officers stated that they have had several complaints from residents throughout the Edgewater Terrace area. Captain McDonald of Traffic Division stated that the intersection of Ocean Drive, Ennis Joslin and Alameda Street is a heavily populated area for traffic violations. On May 25, a request for a speeding ticket report for the past two to four months for this specific area. Due to lack of time prior to the meeting, the information was not obtained. The developer should have an analysis of the current traffic capacity for this area and how the new traffic will affect it. As stated in Article 2 of the zoning ordinance, the Commission should lessen the congestion to prevent the overcrowding of land and avoid the undue concentration of population. I oppose the zone change due to the safety and traffic issues. In response to Commissioner Pusley's question of possible speed bumps,Mrs.Thomas stated that the neighborhood has considered the possibility of speed bumps. There is currently a natural speed bump that is located not far from the corner of Country Club and Edgewater on Country Club Drive. It is a manhole that is indented with a bump. The way that the street is designed, a speed hump would not actually slow traffic down. It is naturally slow because of the curve. Minutes-Planning Commission1eeting June I,2005 Page 8 Commissioner Pusley stated that a similar situation was occurring in his neighborhood. The neighbors can pick up a packet of information on speed bumps from the City that would support the decision to assign speed bumps. Neighborhoods have been very successful in getting speed bumps other areas to slow down traffic. People learn to detour the area due to the speed bumps. Mrs.Thomas stated that Captain McDonald stated to her that the completion of the intersection as it is now will eliminate or alleviate the problem of the cut through. Mohammad Motaki, 6049 Ocean Drive, stated that he lives adjacent to the proposed site. He has owned the property for five years and has resided there for four years. Prior to purchasing the property, he specifically asked the landowner of what may be built in the vacant area. He assured him that it would be a single family dwelling. Mr. Motaki stated that he hopes that it will remain the same. Having a townhome right next door would invade the privacy of the neighbors. The tenant would have a great view of the back yard due to the three stories that is being proposed. Average home owners on Ocean Drive have five cars, adding two more residents will bring at least ten more cars to the property. His daughter attends Texas A&M University — Corpus Christi and every morning she needs at least fifteen additional minutes to exit his property to get onto Ocean Drive. A few months ago she encountered a bad traffic accident in front of his residence. There is a big safety and privacy issue when it comes to the development of this project. We would like to keep this a single family resident area. Valerie Goodwin, 5926 Rio Vista. She stated that she has resided at Edgewater Terrace for thirty one years in three different houses in the same subdivision. She chose to live in Edgewater Terrace for its rural and country setting. The feeling of the oversized lots and open country side are very enjoyable. There are currently no curbs and gutters and it is very appealing to all the residents of the neighborhood. It is a rare feature in Corpus Christi with a strong appeal to the people who live there now as well as protect from future prospective buyers. The ambience and quietness of the neighborhood is enjoyed by our neighbors and neighboring residents. King High School's cross country team uses the neighborhood for practices. There are many bird watchers. People are usually strolling around with binoculars. Corpus Christi staff writer Phyllis Yokum has signed the petition opposed to the zone change. In her article on May 21, she noted that the sites and sounds are one of the benefits of living in Edgewater Terrace. The original master plan that was developed in 1938 called for Edgewater Terrace to consist of single family residents and zoned "R-1A" District. 'R-IA" suits the neighborhood because the lots have a spacious character in a residential surrounding. Changing the zoning and increasing the traffic patterns to accommodate seven or more additional families will have a detrimental affect on the ambiance of our neighborhood. It will increase the traffic and noise which will decrease the enjoyment of our neighborhood. Bill Braselton, 6038 Edgewater, the neighbors that were heard represent the neighborhood. As indicated on the petition, the blanks represent an absent neighbor due to them being out of town or renting. What the neighbors are trying to do is keep the zoning as it is. If we did not want zoning, we could reside in Houston,Texas. We have zoning that states that it is for the general welfare of the City of Corpus Christi. We do not see that this project is for the general welfare of the City of Corpus Christi. In the general area that we requested there were over 400 speeding tickets issued in a few short months period. This now is a dangerous intersection,when the construction is complete, cars will not slow down so it will make it even more dangerous. It may take up to thirty minutes to get out of the driveway in the morning due to the increased congestion of the neighborhood and construction. The stated purpose states that it is to lessen congestion in the streets,to secure safety, prevent overcrowding on the streets,to avoid undue concentration of population, to enhance the character of the district and conserve the values of the building. These are all statements that are written into the Planning Commission's mission statement and the neighbors that had the opportunity to speak, spoke of each specific thing that you are in charge to protect and how this project endangers them. It is very detrimental to the community. 11140 Minutes-Planning Commissioneeting June 1,2005 Page 9 Bill Pope, 6041 Ocean Drive, stated that he was unable to attend last weeks meeting due to more important things that needed to be done. When I walk out the front door, I am on Ocean Drive, I love to take a left and walk down Edgewater Terrace,because it is a wonderful and beautiful subdivision as other people have mentioned. There is an obvious difference between Ocean Drive and Edgewater Terrace. Ocean Drive is very busy and Edgewater Terrace is very quiet and the ambiance has remained. There is a mistake on the map, the "A-2" zoning is no longer there. It has been rezoned to single family dwellings now. It would be nice to have something on the lot other than trash, which is what is there now. I am ready to see the lot developed. Some of the arguments are valid,most are not. From a marketing point of view,the"A-2"zoning on the water side did not ever take. Judith Sutherland, 229 Country Club Drive, Professor at Texas A&M University — Corpus Christi, stated that she purchased her home two years ago in order to live in this neighborhood. This area of Corpus Christi is one of the oldest and most represented. The development here began in the 1920's and many of the homes were moved from other areas. There are very few areas in the city that have such undisturbed beauty. The development on Edgewater Terrace would increase traffic down Edgewater, Evanwood and Ocean Drive. I am in the process of researching and validating the history of my home. With the information that I currently have, it appears to have been the plantation of Walter Elmer Pope. He was a very influential lawyer and statesman senator who worked very hard for the City of Corpus Christi. He was instrumental in the development of the Port,Bay and other projects. It was moved to the lot by Ted Anderson's father, H.Q. Anderson when he purchased it from Mr. Pope. It is imperative that this area remain a reflection of the era within which Mr. Pope lived and worked. He died of a stroke in 1944. With this in mind, I implore that you present the violation of this historical area by excessive traffic and the outcomes of that problem such as the historical attributes of the area and its roads. Robert Benson, 6025 Idlewood, stated that the proposed development is one of the ugliest developments that he has seen in a long time. As you vote, please consider if you would like this development in your neighborhood. Willie Cosca, 6017 Ocean Drive, stated that up until last year,people living across the street were given discounts of their property evaluations due to the location and due to the traffic. This just adds to the traffic problem. Sherry Gilliland, 100 Country Club Drive, stated that she walked around the neighborhood and started the actual petition. She also stated that she would like to have everyone stand that signed the petition. Candy Skelton, 6046 Edgewater Terrace, stated that she resides at the property behind the subject property. Ms. Skelton stated that she would like to reinforce that at the end of Ocean Drive there are single family dwellings and we do have the rural setting of the neighborhood. We would very much appreciate the Commission's support in keeping the zoning as"R-1A". Public hearing was closed. In response to Commissioner Pusley's question of traffic counts, Ms. Holly stated that there would be 13,210 east bound and 20,490 west bound on Ocean Drive which is a four lane section. On Alameda Street there are 6,080 trips. The higher the traffic volume is,the less attractive it is for detached single family. The subject property has been vacant for thirty years or more. In response to Commissioner Salazar's comment, Ms. Holly indicated that the map is accurate and that the property northeast is zoned an "A-2" District. "A-2" District is a multi-family residential district, but owners can build single family homes within that district. Due to the higher traffic, Staff is recommending a zoning change on the subject property. It was a reasonable transition from the business usage to the east. Minutes-Planning Commissioeting June 1,2005 Page 10 Mrs. Teniente stated that there is no information on the open roadway design. The road is under construction by the highway department. We will take over that right-of-way once the city turns over that right-of-way. It would need to be done in conjunction with the highway department. In response to Commissioner Salazar's question, Mr.Gunning stated that a single family dwelling can be built at the height of 35 feet. The single family detached residential districts 'R-I A" and 'R-1B" District can have a 35 foot maximum height with three stories. The"R-2" District's maximum height is 45 feet not to exceed three stories. What the applicant has proposed is not to exceed the height of 39 feet. Commissioner Smith stated that the presentations have been effective. He also stated that this development which would be a tremendous asset to the community. Commissioner Smith indicated that he understood where all the neighborhood is coming from. It is a complex issue because of the quality of the development. Mrs. Holly stated that if the Planning Commission and City Council were to grant an `R-2" District, the applicant could increase the number of units to fourteen rather than seven on the existing four. Mr. Turner and the Planning Commission may want to consider changing the zoning to a Planned Unit Development-2 (PUD-2) recommendation and tie it to plans that the applicant has developed. It would limit the applicant to the height, the number of units and the form of development. It is something that may make the Planning Commission and the residents more comfortable. In response to Commissioner Mims's questions,Ms.Holly stated that the only access would be to Ocean Drive. Traffic would consist of approximately 40 trips for four houses and 56 trips for seven town homes. All trips would exit onto Ocean Drive and not the surrounding neighborhood. Mr.Turner stated that the height of the development would be 39 feet. In response to Commissioner Mim's question, Mrs. Teniente stated that Texas Department of Transportation's planned improvements on Ocean Drive extend just beyond the limits of the subject site. The entire project is along the limits of the current projects improvements. Ms. Holly stated that the project should not make drainage any worse. Under today's development scenario,they should be managing the water that is caused by the development. Mr.Turner has suggested that he would go beyond that and assist with some of the historic drainage problems. That would be part of the plat which has not yet been submitted. In response to Commissioner Zamora's question regarding the drainage situation, Ms. Holly stated that if the proposed development is approved as a PUD-2, the drainage can be enforced. Mr. Holly also stated that an "R-2"District would allow fourteen units to the acre and 45 feet maximum height as a matter of right. In response to Commissioner Salazar's question, Mr. Turner stated that he would consider a PUD-2 limiting him to seven units per acre. Commissioner Salazar stated that if the Planning Commission were to recommend the Planned Unit Development-2,Mr.Turner would need a 7-2 vote in favor from the City Council since there is 38% opposition to zoning. Commissioner Mims stated that Mr. Turner and Staff have proposed a PUD-2 with specific heights, units and other specifications. That eliminates the applicant from being able to create fourteen units. It will also limit the applicant's access to Ocean Drive not affecting the surrounding neighborhood. 11110 Minutes-Planning Commissioeeting June 1,2005 Page 11 Public hearing was opened. In response to Commissioner Pusley's question on tabling the case, Ms. Holly stated that the zoning case could be tabled due to the fact that the language is not yet formulated for the PUD-2. Ms. Holly also indicated that she would be comfortable tabling this particular case so that specifications could be drafted. Pam McDowel,6026 Evanwood, stated that the plans are irrelevant. The project is targeted to the more wealthy, retiree who may need an elevator in some point in time. Ocean Drive is fast and will stay fast because there will be no speed bumps in place. To expect elderly,retiree people that need elevators, to safely leave that unit on Ocean Drive would be extremely hard for them to do. Colleen Thomas, 5909 Edgewater, with what Texas Department of Transportation has provided, there are not 4 lots there are only three lots. The second clarification would be that according to the map provided, there is no way to make a left turn from the proposed development to Ocean Drive. The third clarification is that the height issue would still be considered a problem with any fly away objects. The wind can be very strong. There cannot be anything that can easily blow off. Constantine Tsaousis, according to the dimensions or the diagram he has, lot 11 has 15 feet and 11 feet. This is not a buildable site; it is just the easement. We are bombarded here with technicalities that we characterize and distinguish as not a real lot, so in essence we give the developer the opportunity to add more units. From the three units there is an increase to four and that will allow him to go to fourteen units instead of seven. Mr. Gunning stated that essentially it is one dwelling unit per lot under the current zoning of"R- MA" District. If it is three conforming lots, then three single family dwellings would be permitted. The applicant would be allowed fourteen units per acre in the "R-2" District regardless if it is three or four lots. It is based on a total gross area. Candy Skelton, 6046 Edgewater stated that the proposed development is near the university. There are student drivers there that are not as apt to slow down. Mr. Gunning stated that the "R-1B" District is a One-family Dwelling District that requires a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. It is very similar to an"R-1A". Public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Zamora, seconded by Commissioner Salazar to table until June 15th hearing. The motion passed unanimously with Chairman Berlanga and Vice Chairman Stone being absent. b. Case No.0605-02 HEP Developers,Inc.: "R-1B"One-family Dwelling District to a"RE" Residential Estate Division. Being 19.98 acres out of Flour Bluff and Encinal Farm and Garden Tracts,Lot 18, Section 48,located along Graham road and 670 feet east of Flour Bluff Drive. • Request: Change of zoning from"R-1B"One-family dwelling District to"RE" Residential Estate District Excerpts from Zoning Report 1100 Minutes-Planning Commission eeting June 1,2005 Page 12 Legal Description/Location: Being 19.98 acres out of Flour Bluff and Encinal farm and garden Tracts, Section 48, Lots 18, located along Graham Road and 670 feet east of Flour Bluff Drive. Purpose of Request: Development of a 19-lot single-family subdivision on one(1) acre lots. Area Development Plan: Flour Bluff— The future land use map recommends the subject property develop as low-density residential rather than estate residential. The "RE"District is not supported by the Plan. Department Comments: The problem if insufficient drainage will continue to compound as land is developed with the "RE"District that eliminates curbs, gutters(inlets)and sidewalks. In June 2003, 25-acres along Flour Bluff Drive, Don Patricio and Meeks Road was rezoned to a "RE" District. Along Flour Bluff Drive, Cornerstone Drive and Meeks Road, 22-acres were rezoned to a "RE"District in April 2004. November 2004, 18-acres were rezoned along Glenoak Drive and St. Peters Street to a 'RE"District Additionally,sufficient funding through the City's CIP Program is needed to correct drainage issues in the Flour Bluff area. Staff Recommendation: Denial of the "RE"Residential Estate District Ms. Holly stated that there has been difficulty with maintaining any positive drainage or overland drainage because the sandy soils drift up and there is no longer drainage. There is an estimate of$60 million needed for improvement in this area. The curbs and gutters are needed under current conditions. The"RE"zoning Districts was equivalent to saying that it was allowed to do septic and that would not be the case. Mrs. Goode-Macon provided graphics of the subject property and the surrounding area. The zoning report and tape are on file. Mrs. Goode-Macon stated that the applicant is requesting a change of zoning from an"R-1B" District to an"RE"District. The subject property is located between Graham Road and the Cornerstone Subdivision of Flour Bluff Drive. Currently the zoning is"R-1B"District with`B-I"District to the west and an"R-1B"District tract to the east. Towards the north and south there is existing"RE"District development that was recommended by the staff,recommended by Planning Commission and approved City Council between the years of 2003 and 2004. As indicated,the Future Land Use Map is consistent with existing zoning of"R-1B"District. The applicant has approximately 19.96 acres which is proposed as a large lot development with approximately eighteen lots. Staff is recommending denial of"RE" District. There were zero notices received in opposition or in favor. Public hearing was opened. Chip Urban, 2725 Swantner,Urban Engineering, stated that he is representing the developer in this particular case. The City Engineer has stated that sanitary sewer is reasonably accessible. The developer feels that it is not reasonably accessible. The off site development cost for receiving sanitary sewer system would be $600,000 to$1.3 million. In order to get to the lift station,there would be a very deep 27 inch sewer line and a 30 inch sewer line that would extend over a mile. This option would cost $1.3 million because it is not currently in place. The other option would be to do a master plan amendment and go to more of an area that was suggested in the zoning report. The closest sanitary sewer would be from 1,000 to 3,000 feet away. It would be 1,000 feet north and 3,000 feet east totaling 4,000 feet away. The closest manhole with adequate depth was 4200 feet away. This option could cost up to $600,000. It does not make the property viable. The additional costs would not be reasonable and accessible. For this reason, I believe that there should be allowed septic systems on site. Drainage has been an issue with some developments recently. The property adjacent called Cornerstone had drainage Minutes-Planning Commissiontteeting June 1,2005 Page 13 issues. Some culverts were placed improperly. As constructed commenced,trucks would drive thru the ditches. The ditches would be disturbed and not braided properly. The City is proposing to keep the B"District which would require a curb,gutter and sidewalks. In order to put in curb and gutters with the assumption that there will be underground storm sewer. Underground storm sewers are considerably deeper than surface ditches. If underground storm sewers are the route that needs to be taken, with the existing drainage infrastructure,the applicant cannot get onto Flour Bluff Drive. The culverts and ditches on Flour Bluff Drive are not low enough. The applicant is proposing to remedy some of the problems by placing drive-ways when the development is built and install culvert pipes. The construction would not need to go through ditches and the culverts would be large enough. The property cannot be developed as an"R-1B". In response to Commissioner Mims question, Mr.Urban stated that there would be significant offsite costs that would not be reimbursable from the City. Mr.Urban also stated that in the previous zoning case, there were two people that stated that they really enjoyed having road side ditches and not having sidewalks, curb and gutter. People want to go and be in that environment. In response to Commissioner Braselton's question,Mr. Urban indicated that there is a third option that would allow the applicant to put in a sanitary lift station and a force main to get to some places closer. However,the last time a lift station was done, it came in over$300,000. That cost does not include the force main or the right-of-way acquisition and the applicant would have to cut through several existing lots to get there. It would not be an easy task. The applicant would also be willing to place a retention/detention pond to help any increased run off from the development. That would be placed on the adjacent business piece of property. Ms. Holly stated that under the drainage scenario,there have been flooding problems on Graham Road. Once the land is developed and drainage ditches put in,the sand does not hold the ditch depth that needs to be held in. The ordinance states that you are allowed to do overland drainage if the ditch level is no more than one foot below the street. Mr. Urban stated that if the homeowner's association takes responsibility for sizing,locating and placing culverts in the driveways and maintaining the ditches, it would relieve some of the concerns that we are able to control. The other concerns of flooding and being able to get across Flour Bluff Drive,the applicant cannot do anything about it. In response to Commissioner Salazar's question, Mr.Urban stated that the applicant would be willing to place a retention/detention pond,but it is not something that was originally proposed on the zoning application. Ms.Holly stated that if the zoning case was approved with a Special Pet wit or a Planned Development-2,it could be done. The applicant would only be allowed to do an"RE"District type development under a PUD-2. That is something that can be brought to the city engineer when processing the plat. Bill Meredith,5734 Ocean Drive,attorney representing ATP Developers, stated that the developers invested in this tract of land with the feeling that it could be used as an"RE"District. The minimum square footage would be 2,000 square feet for each residential unit,and it would be a first class development. The approximate price range would be from$250,000 to$300,000 to start. It would be a great advantage to that part of town. Ms. Holly stated that she would need figures from Mr. Urban to present to the City Engineer. As a general policy it is preferred not to have septic systems due to environmental damages. The"RE"District could be denied and approved as an "R-1B" District with a Special Permit for a large lot, single family development. A retention or detention facility constructed to manage a twenty-five year llhen Minutes-Planning Commissioeting June 1,2005 Page 14 storm could be part of the Special Permit. This should resolve the concerns from Staff and also meet the applicant's conditions. Motion was made by Commissioner Braselton, seconded by Commissioner Pusley to approve "R-IB"District with a Special Permit with the condition that a detention/retention pond is provided. DEFERMENT AGREEMENT—Bent Tree Unit 2,Block 6,Lots 9A& IDA Mrs.Teniente stated that the developer is proposing a deferment agreement to expedite the recordation of the plat by deferring construction of a sanitary sewer line that is part of the plat that is being proposed for this site. This is an existing platting lot the developer is reconfiguring to be able to develop as a senior care facility. The developer is proposing to deposit$31,861.28 in the form of a letter of credit. That would be a 110%of the cost of construction. The deferred construction is approximately 618 feet of 8 inch sanitary sewer line to serve the subdivision. The applicant would like for Planning Commission to find reasonable cause to defer the construction of the 8 inch sanitary sewer line to expedite the recordation of the plat. A motion was made by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Garza to the deferment agreement. The motion passed unanimously with Chairman Berlanga and Vice Chairman Stone being absent. DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. FUTURE SCHEDULED MEETINGS B. EXCUSED ABSENCES C. OTHER MATTERS ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Commissioner Garza,seconded by Commissioner Braselton to adjourn the meeting at 7:43 p.m. POSTING STATEMENT: This agenda was posted on the City's official bulletin board in the Leopard Street entry foyer, 1201 Leopard Street at AM/PM on ,2005. Michael N.Gunning Priscilla San Miguel Assistant Director of Recording Secretary Development Services Development Services H:\PL -DIR\SHARED\WORD\PLANNING COMM ISSION\AGENDAS\2005\060105 AGENDA-DOC