Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 02/23/2005 Planning Commission Minor February 23,2005 Page 1 Planning Commission Minutes February 23,2005 Commissioners Present: David Berlanga, Chairman Bryan Stone, Vice Chairman Fred Braselton Rudy Garza Shirley Mims Eloy H. Salazar Richard Smith Commissioners Absent: Michael Pusley Robert Zamora Staff Present: B.A. Holly,AICP, Director of Development Services Michael N. Gunning, AICP,Assistant Director of Development Services Mary Frances Teniente, PE,Assistant Director of Development Services Oscar Martinez,Assistant City Manager/Support Services Lucinda Beal, Recording Secretary Faryce Goode-Macon, City Planner Miguel Saldana,AICP, City Planner Mic Raasch,AICP, City Planner Joseph Harney,Assistant City Attorney CALL TO ORDER Chairman Berlanga called the meeting to order at 4:36 p.m. PLATS Chairman Berlanga opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing was closed. NEW ZONING CASES 0305-01 -Jose Oscar Hinojosa: "A-1 Request: Owner Jose Oscar Hinojosa is requesting a zoning change from an "A-1"Apartment House District and"AB"Professional Office District to a to a"B-1"Neighborhood Business District,The property is located north of Holly Road. The existing zoning is a split zoning with "AB"district being to the south, and"Al"district to the north. The applicant is requesting a change in zoning in order to rehab the existing metal building that fronts along Holly Road for a restaurant. Our estimates are that the property in question is 1.72 acres, and that the existing metal building is a 2500 square foot metal building. The applicant is SCANNED Planning Commission Minui " February 23,2005 Page 2 also planning to place a drive through facility with this particular establishment. Therefore, they are requesting a"B1"district which is consistent with the surrounding business zoning to the east and west of the subject property. A view of the land uses near the property was shown to the commissioners.With Ms. Goode- Macon describing that there are residential homes across Holly and residential to the north of the proposed business. However as you travel down Holly Road on the north side, there is a church, non-profit entities, and a gas station further to the west. A view of the Future Land Use Map, which is recommending neighborhood commercial for this particular piece of property was shown to Commission and audience. Staff recommends approval of the"Br District. Chairman Berlanga asked if there were any questions for staff. Mr. Braselton asked Ms. Goode- Macon about the tract of land. Ms. Goode-Macon responded that there is one tract of land,and it has a split zoning. Public hearing opened. Mr.Joe Garcia 4626 Weber Road. Mr. Garcia stated that the building is intended to become a restaurant. It was formerly a dental office previously. It has been gutted and is ready to be remodeled, and ready to begin creating our restaurant. We hope that you will concur with the staff in recommending the"B1"zoning. The property is a deep piece property. The portion to the rear is intended at a future date to maybe take in some retail or office use, and of course the"81" would allow that. Mr. Garcia stated that he would be happy to answer any questions that the Commission or staff migh have. Ms. Mims asked Mr. Garcia if they are planning on using the property as a restaurant, and Mr. Garcia answered yes, and explained their planned purposes for the business. Ms. Mims asked Ms.Goode-Macon if a drive through would be allowed under the"B1"district. Ms. Goode-Macon responded yes that a"B-1"zoning would allow for a drive through. Mr. Garcia explained that there are two(2)existing driveways on the frontage, and they intend to use the one the far right as their drive through to keep traffic opened on the other end, so there's not a traffic problem in the interior of the parking area. Mr. Garcia stated that they will be bringing plans and site planning forward into building division as soon as zoning is approved. Ms. Mims what the future plans for the business were, and Mr. Garcia explained there is a longer range plan to do a basically L-Shape retail building in the rear,but not too far in the back because obviously we want to be able to see the buildings. The restaurant would act the anchor up in front, and then the building to the rear would become the retail and office use. Public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Zamora, seconded by Commissioner Salazar to approve staff recommendations for approval of the"Br Neighborhood Business District. Motion passed unanimously with Smith and Stone being absent. 0305-02 Request: Applicant requesting a change of zoning from a"R1-B"One family Dwelling District to a "B-1"Neighborhood Business District, resulting in land use change from a low-density residential to a neighborhood business use. Located south of the Corpus Christi Athletic Club 650 feet south Planning Commission MinuiW' • February 23,2005 Page 3 of Holly Road, and west of Airline Road. There was a series of lots between there and Walderock Drive that have been converting to"B-1"zoning districts. These two lots in question, the applicant is looking at developing a retail shopping center on the property. As indicated on the map there is town home development that's to the west of the property with undeveloped lands to the east. Ms. Goode-Macon showed a view of the subject property with the town home development to the rear of the property. As you can see, the existing uses that were there have been demolished and prepared for the retail shopping center. The applicant is planning a retail shopping center with approximately 13,000 square feet with various uses for this particular site. They are looking at a photography studio, hair salon, and an Edward Jones Office Framing Shop and Flower Shop. Ms. Goode-Macon: Presented a view looking back towards Holly Road where you have Holly and Airline with commercial development. She also showed a view of property from across Airline Road with vacant agricultural land and multi-family. Showed map of another shopping center to the south of subject property where there is a car wash,and a Miller's Bar-B-0. Ms. Goode-Macon showed future land use map is recommending"Neighborhood Business Development", and a view of subject property, in which Ms. Macon pointed out how that the Commission has viewed on other occasions to the north and to the south for"B-1"district. Commissioner Mims stated to Ms. Goode-Macon that she was under the impression a family owned all of the property in question, and if all family members that own the different pieces of property that were rezoned would be attempting to do something together as a unit. Ms. Goode-Macon noted to Ms. Mims that she personally spoke with the realtor representing the owners of the subject property, and was informed that as the heir's received their different parcels of approximately 3 or 4 each one has asked for a rezoning individual, and that they are separately selling because what appears to be happening is that there will be a shopping center, a real estate office, and there will be individual lots. No one has thought about grouping it up. Ms. Mims asked what would happen to the driveway cuts. Ms. Goode-Macon responded that they already have existing driveway cuts. Ms. Mims asked if the existing driveway cuts would be used and not create anymore. Ms. Goode-Macon responded yes that owners of subject property would be using the existing driveway cuts,and not creating anymore. Chairman Berlanga asked Ms. Goode-Macon if there was enough room to accomplish what the applicant is trying to do. Chairman Berlanga noted that he is familiar with that area, and he understands what the applicant is trying to do. Chairman Berlanga noted that the plan looks good on paper, however, he's concerned. Ms. Goode-Macon noted that if the applicant has the space for parking and an I-shaped building. Chairman Berlanga also noted that he recalled the family heirs wanting the proportional amount of the estate that was due to them. Chairman Berlanga also said he would also like to see the heirs come together and keep the property as one zoning, as opposed to disjointed typed of real estate zoning development. Ms. Goode-Macon mentioned that staff had spoken with the real estate agent in charge. Ms. Goode-Macon spoke of how the real estate agent at the recommendation of staff attempted to about 2 (two)years attempting to have the heirs come together as one zoning case for a unified rezoning at trying to sell it, but the agent was unsuccessful. Chairman Berlanga asked if it could be required to have some sort of a connectivity between the different developments as they come forward to before the Commission. Ms. Goode-Macon responded that the property has already platted, and she does not what mechanism could be used, unless the applicant came in to do some type of replatting. Public hearing was opened. Mr.Jay Salazar 2033 Airline, stated that he owns four(4)tracts, and he knows another gentleman that owns another 3(three)tracts, and that gentleman wants to do the same thing. He 11110 Planning Commission MinutSs February 23,2005 Page 4 also stated that there is Shelby Real Estate is in between, and own two(2)tracts. He attempted to have the owners of Shelbys to get involved in building one continuous shopping center. He stated the Shelbys just bought the property, and that they are not really interested. However the gentleman that owns the three(3)tracts that's closes to the Athletic Club(tracts 1,2, and 3). A gentleman, Eric,with Golden Real Estate, and is the General Contractor Mr. Salazar will use to construct his building. Mr. Salazar also stated that his General Contractor has an interest in building the exact type of structure as Mr. Salazar. However Shelby Real Estate owns two(2) tracts in between them. I do not that it is not real deep, but if you look at how deep Miller's Bar-B- Q is, that is exactly how deep we anticipate building our small shopping center. Chairman Berlanga: As a consumer,there a lot of areas in town where if you drive around, you can't get from one to the other business. One that comes to mind is Luby's Cafeteria and a Sam's Club over on Greenwood. Trying to get from Lubys to Sam's is next to impossible if you decide you're going to eat first, and then if you decide to go Sam's, and that's my point Mr. Salazar. Is it possible to have some interconnectivity because if someone is at your location looking at the map, and they decide to come down further towards the athletic club, it's real hard for them to do that depending on the time of day because of the volume of cars going up and down Airline, and we are not going to tell you what to do, but I would strongly urge you as a consumer to go ahead and have some sort of connectivity. It just makes sense. Mr. Salazar stated that he would like to do so, and agrees with Chairman Berlanga,that it sounds like a good idea to have Shelby Real Estate to get involved and the entire project would be continuous. Mr. Salazar stated that Shelby may be interested in becoming involved later, but not at this time due to the fact they had just recently purchased the property. He also stated that the right now as it stands, this zoning application is the last two(2)pieces that are"B-1",and with this zoning change, he could build 13,000 square feet which he believes is adequate for his business. Public hearing closed Motion to approve by Ms. Mims, and seconded by Mr. Braselton to forward a recommendation for approval. Motion passed unanimously with Smith and Stone being absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Braselton, seconded by Commissioner Garza, to approve minutes as presented. Motion passed unanimously with Smith and Stone being absent. PUBLIC HEARING: CORPUS CHRISTI MPO BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN PRESENTATION BY KEVIN ST.JACQUES (Request to postpone to April 20,2005) Mr. Michael Gunning,Assistant Director of Development Service asked the Commission to postpone the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan until April 20,2005. Mr. Gunning indicated that the Bicycle& Pedestrian Plan prepared by the MPO, as well as the Transportation Plan and Future Land Use Plan to the Commission would be presented at the same time at one Public Hearing on April 20,2005. Motion by Commissioner Mims,seconded by Commissioner Garza to move the Public Hearing of Corpus Christi MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Presentation to April 20,2005. Motion passed unanimously with Smith and Stone being absent. Commissioner Braselton asked Mr.Gunning if the Transportation Plan had gone out to the engineering community. Mr. Gunning responded that it had not been presented to the engineering community. Mr.Gunning stated that they are minor amendment updates to changes that have occurred, but that staff would be glad to get the information out to the engineers. Planning Commission MinuiW February 23,2005 Page 5 Commissioner Braselton noted that he is not as familiar with the Transportation Plan document as the engineers. However, there were a few things that caused him some concern. Commissioner Braselton stated that he would like to make sure that the engineering community understands what is going on, and that they are in agreement with it. Mr. Gunning noted that staff should go ahead and move forward with posting the Transportation Plan on the website as a Draft Plan. Mr. Gunning also pointed out that you can tell by looking at the size of the document, that if the document is not printed at the normal size, it becomes unreadable. He noted that pulling off the website allows for downloading, and you may be able to read it better with the ability to zoom in and print at different sizes. Chairman Berlanga asked if there was any further discussion concerning the postponement of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan to April 20,2005. There was no further discussion,and a motion made by Chairman Berlanga to approve the request was passed unanimously with Chairman Smith and Chairman Stone being absent. PLATS(Mary Francis Tiente) Continued Plats a. 0105004-NP02 (Public Hearing) b. Lake View Acres, Block 2, Lots 12A 8 12B (Final Reolat—2.889 Acres) Located south of Lakeview Drive and west of Rodd Field road (SH 357). Ms.Tiniente stated that Staff recommends approval as submitted. Commissioner Braselton asked Ms.Tiente what the delay up was. Ms.Tiente stated that the delay was due to the requirement to include on the plat specific items having to do with access restriction. There as one that required a note stating that the driveway access to State Highway 357 be prohibited per TXDOT Access Management Plan. The applicant has talked to and made application to the Highway Department, and in effect that is a restriction that they will be required to comply with at the building permit. The applicant did not want to have this information stated on the plat,and we have conceded on that provision. In talking to the applicant further, there was a second note stating that the shared vehicle access across lots 12A and 12B will not be obstructed. That note is not on this plat, but we have their verbal agreement to include the note on the plat prior to it being recorded. Motion by Commissioner Mims, and seconded by Commissioner Braselton Berlanga opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Chairman Berlanga asked if there was any further discussion,and Commissioner Pusley asked Ms.Tieniente to explain again what note was not to be included on the plat. Ms. Tieniente further explained that there was a note identified as a requirement under Item 3 on the plat itself which made reference to restriction of driveway access to lot 12B, per the TXDOT Access Management Plan. Mr. Pusley reiterated whether the applicant asked for this information not to appear on the plat. Ms.Tieniente replied that is correct,and that the applicant has made application with the State Highway Department, and that the Highway Department is imposing this requirement upon the applicant. Commissioner Pusley asked why this information should not appear on the plat. Planning Commission Minui February 23,2005 Page 6 Barbara A. Holly, Director of Development Services emphasized that Mr. Clower is concerned about what TXDOT Highway is doing with their driveway access. Director Holly indicated that if they change their minds in the future, they would have to come back and amend the plats. Therefore, the City is interested in making sure that there is cross access between the two properties, which Mr. Clower agrees with,so we are not going to stand in front of TXDOT and put their requirements right now on the plat when I believe there are some pending lawsuits against the state on the driveway issue, and that seems to be the right way to do it. Commissioner Mims addressed Commissioner Pusley stating that approximately two(2)weeks ago we had a plat before us with the same issues,and TXDOT could possibly because it's happening all over the state, and the policy could be changed. Once you put it on the plat, it is recorded on the plat. Then you would have to go through the entire platting process if it needed to be removed. So it's a deterrent to having something like that on your plat. Commissioner Pusley stated that he wants to make sure that City of Corpus Christi is doing what we are supposed to be doing, and no can come back later to us as a governing body and accuse us of not doing our jobs well. Chairman Berlanga asked if this is something that will be required on all future plats until we are told otherwise. Ms. Tieniente responded by stating that is the approach the staff have been taking. Chairman Berlanga expressed his thanks, and called for motion to approve. Public Hearing was opened. Motion by Commissioner Mims, and seconded by Commissioner Braselton Commissioner Bedanga opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioners Smith and Stone being absent. c. 0205016-NP09 Cedar Grove Subdivision, Block, 3, Lot 9 ((Final—7.987 Acres) Located north of Holly Road and west of Greenwood Drive. Ms. Tieniente stated that Staff recommends approval of plats, and all requirements have been met. Public Hearing was opened Mr. Hudson, Urban Engineering Representative for the owner appeared before the Commission Address:2725 Swatner Lane. They have submitted the platt in compliance with the City's requirements. However, he would like to state for the record that they are in objection to those requirements. He stated that when they originally submitted the platt,the City had requested drainage easement along the west boundary of the property, and a significant amount of drainage easement. The reason the gave us for this request was that according to the proposed master plan,that much easement would be required. After reviewing this with the city,and speaking to them about the requirements,we've significantly reduced what they were requesting and he stated they cannot hold them to a standard of the new proposed master drainage plan because it's not a master plan at this point. They cannot hold us to a standard that doesn't exist. 1411110 Planning Commission Minufr February 23,2005 Page 7 Therefore, the City conceded that point,and then the City said they would request of 5 foot of dedication for maintenance purposes. So I asked them what their justification for asking the 5 foot dedication was. The ditch that is along the west boundary of this property is a fully developed master plan ditch. It has a concrete lined. It has a maintenance strip down the side of it adjacent to this property. He noted that he asked the City if that had approached the property owner about any problems with maintaining the ditch with the available maintenance strip that they do have. There has not been any approach to the property owner requesting additional easement. There has not been any complaints about any problems of trying to maintain that ditch. So from the property owners standpoint, he wants some justification as to why the City is asking for 5 foot of dedication, other than, you're platting so we're asking for dedication. There has to be some justifiable reason for it. Ms.Tieniente stated: Airport Ditch is concrete lined, and there is an existing width of 15 feet at the top for maintenance vehicles. We have asked for the additional 5 feet of drainage easement in order to provide for a 20 foot,as opposed to the bare minimum 15 feet. This is an operational need for our storm water crews to be able to have safe access, and that's why the requirement was made. We are trying to improve more than just the bare minimum 15 feet of width. Commissioner Mims asked Ms.Tieniente about the equipment use. Ms. Tieniente responded the equipment has to move up and down the ditch for maintenance purposes for approximately 23 years. Commissioner Mims asked why they had maintained the ditch for 23 years or so with 15 feet, but now suddenly they require 5 more feet. Ms. Tieniente stated that there has been significantly deterioration of the concrete realigning of that ditch. There's a rehab project underway to repair that. There were more recently ramps accessing the ditch that were constructed to be able to clean out the concrete lined ditch section. The 20 foot width simply provides for wider safer removability for that equipment to access those ramps, and in turn it allows access to the concrete section where those ramps are located in order to clean out the"foatable trash" that becomes a nuisance to property owners. Mr. Hudson, Engineering Representative of Owner: Asked Ms.Tieniente if any of the ramps are planned for the property adjacent to this tract? Ms. Tieniente responded: No they were not planned. Ms. Tieniente also noted that the ramps that are there were constructed in the last five(5)years or so. Mr. Hudson, Engineering Representative of Owner: Asked Ms. Tieniente does this tract have any need for vehicles to travel down the ramp adjacent to this tract? Ms. Tieniente responded that is correct. Ms.Tieniente also noted that the City is not requiring the full width per the unadopted Storm Water Master Drainage Plan, which I believe was substantially more than what is there now. We in turn were looking to improve our operational needs of our Storm Water Department, not the full drainage width to widen that ditch, since it is already lined. Mr. Hudson, Engineering Representativ of Owner: We understand. However, we believe there needs to be justification for taking private property interests. There has not been any demonstrated justification for this, other than we're platting and the opportunity to exist to acquire additional right-of-way. There has Planning Cannlssion Minutia February 23,2005 Page 8 not been any attempt made by the city or any complaints from the City regarding inadequate access currently in that area. Commissioner Braselton: Asked if the City would be looking eventually to have a Utility easement down that strip also, and taking 10 more feet? Ms.Tieniente: Stated that she is not aware of any plans to anything like that. Commissioner Braselton: Mentioned that this is just a"big lot", and sooner or later something would be done on the property, and that you would need utilities down that side, and that's what I'm afraid of. Ms. Tieniente: Responded that she believes there are buildings already out there. Mr. Hudson, Engineering Representative of owner: Responded that it is currently a lay down yard for a construction contractor. The property owner currently has a single platted lot that is the office building structure. The remainder or the tract and a large portion of the tract are unplatted. He came to us wanting to platt the entire property so that the can obtain a building permit to construct additional facilities, improve the valuation of the property, increase his taxes to the City. He will also be responsible for paying in acreage fees at that point to the City for the entire tract because those as an unplatted tract have not been paid at this time. The property owner has been asked to do a lot in this case, and is willing to do so which is why the owner is questioning the real need for this easement. d. 0205030-NP18 Manhattan Estates (Preliminary-129 Acres) Located west of Airline Road north of Yorktown Boulevard. 2. New Plats a. 0305032-P13 Maple Hills Unit 2(Final— 10575 Acres) Located west of Charles Drive and south of Stonewall Boulevard, both east of McKinzie Road and north of Leopard Street. b. 0305033-P14 Maples Hills Unit 3 (Final— 10.83 Acres) Located east of Charles Drive and south of stonewall Boulevard, both east of McKinzie Road and north of Leopard Street. c. 0305034-P15 Royal Creek Estates Unit 2 (Final— 15.99 Acres) Located east of Rock Crest Drive, east of Cimarron Boulevard and south of Yorktown Boulevard. d. 0305035-P16(Commissioner Braselton recussed) • Planning Commission Mlnu<85 February 23,2005 Page 9 Windward Unit 3 (Final—8349 Acres) Located north of Wooldridge Road and east of Airline road. e. 0305036-NP20 Lexington Industrial Center, Lot 26R(Final Replat—2.84 Acres Located south of South Padre island Drive SH 358)and west of Flour Bluff Drive. f. 0305037-Np21 Saratoga Weber Plaza, Block 8, Lot 3 (Final—1.638 Acres) Located east of Kram Road between Acushnet Drive and Way Out Weber, west of Weber Road. TIME EXTENSIONS Chairman Motion ---------------------- Ms Goode-Macon stated that the Commission has seen a change in zoning along this corridor for the past two years, in which there has been a series of The proposed zoning Excerpts from Zoning Report Applicant requesting a change of zoning from "R-2"Multiple-family Dwelling District to "A-2"Apartment House District to allow for a 20-unit apartment complex on a 0.78 acre area. Four residential units are located on the subject property and are planned for relocation. The"R-2"District allows a density of 14.52 units per acre and the"A-2" District allows a density of 36.30 units. Proposed development plans identify the apartments as affordable housing units.Three 2-story buildings are planned on the subject property, containing eighteen (18)2-bedroom units and two 3-bedroom units.A laundry facility,community/educational room and office are planned on site. Fifty percent or more units will be leased to HUD Section 8 tenants. Leasing of the remaining units is targeted towards senior citizens, citizens with disabilities, veterans and the market rent population. 14.0 Planning Commission Minutes February 23.2005 Page 10 The requested"A-2"District is consistent with the future land use map that recommends low to medium density residential. Department Comments: Property east of the subject property, along Mueller Street and Nandina Street,was rezoned to"A-1"Apartment House District for an apartment house complex September 2004. Staff recommendation: Approval of the"A-2"Apartment House District Public hearing was opened. Ms.Alvarado, 3745 Mueller, stated that the area is not a high crime area and she is concerned about the security of her home if the proposed development is approved. She added that there is high speed traffic in the neighborhood. George Hodge, 6222 Lost Creek,Advanced Housing Alternatives Corporation Board Member, addressed Ms.Alvarado's concerns by stating that the Corporation has a good relationship with Nueces County and the Corpus Christi Police Department. He added that the Corporation would be willing to deal with the neighborhood's concerns. Chairman Berlenge asked if the Corporation has looked at the area to see if there is a fast traffic in the area. Mr. Hodge stated that he is involved in Weed and Seed which has been in the neighborhood to provide a better quality of life. The apartments would be safe and affordable for the citizens of Corpus Christi. Public hearing was closed. Motion by Mims,seconded by Stone, to forward a recommendation for approval. Motion passed unanimously with Pusley and Zamora being absent. 0205-02-Kiko's Restaurant Request: "R-1 B/SP"One-family Dwelling District with a Special Permit and"AB" Professional Office District to a"B-1"Neighborhood Business District, resulting in a land use change from office to neighborhood business on property located east of Everhart Road and north of Cain Drive and south of Bonner Drive. Excerpts from Zoning Report The representative for the applicant has submitted a conceptual layout of the banquet hall and parking lot proposed for the subject property. Design and square footage of the banquet hall, as well as the parking lot is in the preliminary stage. In 1991 the"R-1B"/SP One-family Dwelling District lot was granted a Special Permit for a parking lot to serve the existing Kiko's Restaurant. Development of the parking lot was subject to five(5)conditions.The conditions authorized the use of the parking lot for the existing Kiko's Restaurant only, required a 25 foot setback and single driveway along Bonner Drive, installation of a 6 foot screening fence along the residential boundaries, lighting shielded and directional from residential area,and compliance to the landscape ordinance with additional landscaping. Kiko's Restaurant developed the requested parking lot and met the requirements of the Special Permit.Over more than a decade conditions of the Special Permit have been maintained. Planning Commission Minui February 23,2005 Page 11 The proposed banquet hall with some parking is proposed within the"R-1B"/SP One- family Dwelling District area along Bonner Drive,while the"AB"Professional Office District lot, along Cain Drive, is planned entirely as a parking lot. Across Bonner Drive from the"R-16"/SP District subject properly are three vacant"R-1 B" District lots.Along the rear of the'R-18"/SP District subject property is a single-family residence in a"R-1B"District. The"AB" District subject property is a vacant lot.Across Cain Drive from the"AB"District is a single-family residence and a legal nonconforming mechanical shop. To the west are commercial lots with frontage along Everhart Road and are zoned a"B-1"District.Along the east boundary of the"AB"District subject property is a single-family residence within a "R-1B" District. A change of zoning to a"B-1"Neighborhood Business District does not ensure added protection to the adjoining residential area.A new Special Permit in the"R-1B"/SP District and a Special Permit in the"AB"District would allow for the requested uses while providing enhancement features. Department Comments: Recommended Special Permit conditions for the subject property are identical to the 1991 conditions approved Planning Commission for Lot 3 with the exception of items 5 and 6, pertaining to trash receptacles and grease traps. Staff Recommendation: Denial of the"B-1"Neighborhood Business District, and in lieu thereof, approval of a new Special Permit on Lot 3 and a Special Permit on Lot 18, subject to eight (8)conditions: 1. USE: The only use authorized by this Special Permit other than the basic"R-1 B" One- family Dwelling District uses in Gardendale Subdivision, Block 3, Lots 3 and 18, is an expansion to the existing restaurant as a banquet hall and a parking lot to serve the existing restaurant and proposed banquet hall. 2. SETBACK: A 25 foot minimum building setback and parking setback along the front lot lines of the subject properties shall be maintained, except one driveway per lot may be permitted within the setback area. 3. SCREENING: A six(6)foot tall solid screening fence shall be maintained along the east boundary line of the subject property.The screening fence must be setback a minimum of 25 feet from the Bonner Drive right-of-way and Cain Drive right-of-way. 4. LIGHTING: All lighting on the property must be shielded and directional lighting and shall be directed away from the single-family residential area. 5. TRASH RECEPTICLE: Placement of trash receptacle must not be closer than 50 feet from the east property line of the subject property and shall not be within the front setback area. Screening of the trash receptacle with a six(6)foot solid fence is required. 6. GREASE TRAPS: Placement of any new or relocated grease trap shall not be closer than 100 feet from the east(rear)property line nor closer than 75 feet from the north and south (front)property lot lines. 7. LANDSCAPING: In addition to complying with the Landscape Ordinance, a minimum of four(4)5-inch minimum caliper mesquite trees must be located within the 25'front yard setback areas of the subject property. Planning Commission Minu l February 23,2005 Page 12 8. TIME LIMIT:The Special Permit shall be deemed to have expired within one(1)year from the date of this ordinance unless the property is being used as outlined in Condition#1 and in compliance with all other conditions. Public hearing was opened. Joe Garcia,4626 Weber,represented the applicant. Mr. Garcia stated that the applicant agreed with the Special Permit conditions, but preferred a"B-1"Neighborhood Business District zoning. In response to the Commission, Staff stated that"B-1"District uses are more intense. Adjacency to the residential area was also a deciding factor. Public hearing was closed. Motion by Smith,seconded by Braselton,to forward a recommendation for approval. Motion passed unanimously with Pusley and Zamora being absent. 0205-03-Steven Krol Request: "R-1B"One-family Dwelling District to a"B-1"Neighborhood Business District,resulting in a land use change from low-density residential to neighborhood business on property located along the northeast corner of Everhart Road and Harry Street. Staff Summary: The applicant is requesting a change of zoning to a"B-1"Neighborhood Business District for the development of a physical therapy office within the existing structure. The subject property has direct access to a major arterial, Everhart Road, with secondary access to Harry Street,a local street.Traffic generated by the physical therapy use could traverse the residential area to the east. A physical therapy use,classified as a medical office use would generate 41 average daily vehicles. Everhart Road would accommodate the additional traffic projected by the proposed use. A medical office use is permitted within the"AB"Professional Office District,as well as a "B-1"Neighborhood Business District.Traffic generation would typically be less in the"AB" District than the"B-1"District.A change of zoning to an"AB"District would ensure less traffic traversing the adjoining residential area than a"B-1"District. A water/wastewater demand of the proposed office use is projected at 340 gallons per day with a solid waste demand of 13 lbs. daily. Properties along Everhart Road are slowly transitioning to office and neighborhood commercial uses. Further north and to the south of the subject property are professional office uses zoned an"AB"Professional Office District. Over the past decade, properties along Everhart Road have been transitioning to nonresidential uses. An"AB"District allows for one(1) 1-sided or 2-sided detached freestanding sign with an area not to exceed twenty(20)square feet, per street frontage.Wall signs in the"AB"District are not to exceed four(4)square feet in area and the total sign area for the individual building does not exceed twenty(20)square feet. The"B-1"District permits one(1)freestanding sign per premise, not to exceed forty(40)square feet in area or twenty(20)feet in height.Wall signs are Planning Commission MinuiT February 23,2005 Page 13 unlimited as to area and size, but shall not project from the building more than eighteen (18) inches. The requested"B-1" District is inconsistent with the future land use map that recommends"AB" Professional Office District. An"AB" District is supported for the subject property that allows for the physical therapy use. Staff's Recommendation: Denial of the"B-1"Neighborhood Business District and in lieu thereof, approval of an"AB"Professional Office District. Public hearing was opened. Steven Krol,410 Krol Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that he would like to move from his present location in the Town and Country shopping center to the subject property which is approximately 1.5 blocks away. He informed the Commission that his business did not product high traffic, only 10—12 vehicles per day. Mr. Krol supported the"AB"District zoning. Pubic hearing was closed. Motion by Salazar, seconded by Mims,to forward a recommendation for approval. Motion passed unanimously with Pusley and Zamora being absent. *Mims left the meeting. 0205-04-BL Real Estate Holding Company, LP Request: "R-1C"One-family Dwelling District to a"B-2"Bayfront Business District on Tract 1 and "R-1 C"One-family Dwelling District to an"Ar Apartment-Tourist District on Tract 2, resulting in a land use change from low-density residential to resort business—Tract 1 and a low density residential to apartment tourist—Tract 2 on property located east of Laguna Shores Drive, north of Wyndale Drive and Claudia Street. Planning Commission Minu� February 23,2005 Page 14 Excerpts from Zoning Report The applicant is requesting a change of zoning to"B-2"Bayfront Business District on Tract 1 for the development of an event center as an accessory use to the recently redeveloped commercial marina and restaurant uses across Wyndale Drive and to"AT"Apartment Tourist District on Tract 2 for the development of a 26 unit motel. Tract 1 has direct access to a collector street,Wyndale Drive,with secondary access to Claudia Drive, a local street. Traffic generated by the event center would primarily use Wyndale Drive via Laguna Shores Drive, the primary collector street serving this area. Tract 2 has direct access to a local street, Claudia Drive,and is located at the intersection with Laguna Shores Drive. The event center use(Tract 1)classified as a restaurant/drinking place use would generate approximately 117 average daily vehicles. The 26 unit motel (Tract 2)would generate approximately 230 average daily vehicles. Laguna Shores Road would accommodate the additional traffic projected by the proposed uses. A water/wastewater demand of the proposed restaurant/drinking place use(Tract 1) is projected at 600 gallons per day with a solid waste demand of 340 lbs. daily. A water/wastewater demand of the proposed motel use(Tract 2) is projected at 644 gallons per day with a solid waste demand of 232 lbs. daily. Tract 1 -The'B-2"District allows for signs not exceeding sixty(60)square feet in area and used only to advertise the principal business or activity conducted on the premises. For each one(1) foot of lot frontage in excess of one hundred (100)feet, one(1)additional square foot of sign area shall be permitted, provided the total sign area shall not exceed two hundred and sixty(260) square feet. The permitted square feet in sign area may be divided among several smaller signs, provided only one sign, not attached flat against a wall of the building shall be permitted for each lot or other area greater than one lot under one ownership. No sign which is other than flat against the wall shall in any event exceed one hundred fifty(150)square feet in area. In no case shall any sign project above the height of the building,and if attached flat against a wall of the building such sign shall not project more than eighteen (18) inches from the wall of the building or structure. No signs shall be permitted, regardless of size,which revolve, whirl, move,flash,or make noise. No agency of the City of Corpus Christi may grant a variance, exception, or take any action which would permit a sign to be erected in excess of the size provided herein or different from the provisions contained herein. Tract 2—The"AT"District allows accessory buildings and uses including signage not exceeding sixty(60)square feet in area and used only to advertise the principal business or activity conducted on the premises. For each one(1)foot of lot frontage in excess of one hundred (100)feet, (1)additional square foot of sign area shall be permitted provided the total sign area shall not exceed two hundred sixty(260)square feet.The permitted square footage of sign area may be divided among several signs, provided only one(1)sign not attached flat against a wall of the building shall be permitted for each lot or premise and provided that only one(1)wall sign shall be permitted per street frontage. The one(1)freestanding sign shall not, in any event, exceed sixty(60)square feet in area or twenty(20)feet in height. In no case shall any wall sign project above the height of the building,and when attached flat against a wall of the building such sign shall not project more than eighteen (18)inches from the wall of the building or structure. No signs shall be permitted, regardless of size,which revolve,whirl, move,flash,or make noise. No portable signs shall be permitted. A change of zoning to a "B-2"Bayfront Business District on Tract 1 does not ensure added protection to the adjoining residential areas. However, a new Special Permit in the "R- 1C"/SP District would allow for the requested uses while providing protection for the adjacent residential uses. A change of zoning to a"AT"Apartment-Tourist District on Tract 2 is consistent with the future land use map and is recommended. • Planning Commission Minu February 23,2005 Page 15 Department Comments: The objectives of economic development of shoreline areas accessible by navigable channels for marinas will be significantly enhanced by these changes of zoning while at the same time providing protection for the surrounding residential area. TRACT 1: Denial of the"B-2"Bayfront Business District on Tract 1 and, in lieu thereof, approval of a Special Permit for an events center with the following conditions: 1. USE: The only use authorized by this Special Permit other than the basic"R-1C"One- family Dwelling District uses in the Tyler Subdivision, Lots 1 & 12, is an accessory banquet hall to the existing restaurant and marina located across Wyndale Drive and parking to serve the proposed banquet hall and the existing restaurant and marina. Preparation of food is not permitted at this location. Only catered food or food not requiring cooking is permitted to be served. 2. HOURS OF OPERATION: Hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 AM until 10:00 PM on Sunday through Thursday and 6:00 AM until 11:00 PM on Fridays and Saturdays. 3. LIGHTING: All outdoor lighting on the property shall be shielded directional lighting and directed away from adjacent residential uses. All outdoor lighting on poles shall be a maximum of 20 feet in height. 4. TRASH RECEPTACLE: Placement of any trash receptacle shall be no closer than 50 feet from any residential structure and shall not be within the front or rear setback area. Screening of any trash receptacle with a six foot solid fence with gate is required. 5. LANDSCAPING: In addition to complying fully with the landscape requirements of the Zoning Ordinance,a minimum of four palm trees with a minimum of seven foot trunk height on minimum 20 foot on center spacing must be located within the 20 foot setback areas of the subject property. 6. TIME LIMIT: The Special Permit shall expire within one year from the date of this ordinance unless the property is used as specified and in full compliance with all conditions of the Special Permit. 7. SETBACK: A 20 foot minimum building and parking setback along Wyndale Drive and Claudia Drive shall be maintained, no driveway is permitted within the setback area along Wyndale Drive. 8. SCREENING/NOISE ATTENUATION: Solid masonry walls with a minimum of eight feet in height to serve as visual and sound barriers shall be maintained along all perimeters where the proposed banquet hall is adjacent to or across any public street from residential uses. The walls must be covered with evergreen vines within two years of the date of this ordinance. The walls must be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the adjacent street rights-of-way. Live entertainment and/or disc jockey music will require the garage doors of the event center to be closed. TRACT 2: Approval of the"AT"Apartment-Tourist District on Tract 2 • • • •• Public hearing was opened. Spence Collins, applicant, P.O. Box 5943,Austin, Texas, appeared before the Commission. He provided drawings of the project as it would be completed and discussed them with the Commission and audience. Jose Olivarez, 7705 Steinberg Lake,stated that he owns property near Tract 2,4218 Laguna Shores. He expressed concerns regarding flooding on the property and resulting from the subject • Planning Commission Mlnute7 February 23.2005 Page 16 properly. He said that there would be potential problems resulting from trash and fencing when the motel is built. Mary Frances Teniente, Assistant Director of Development Services, explained that drainage would be addressed and reviewed during the building permit process. Bob Ealy, 4114 Claudia, also expressed concerns regarding flooding and added traffic as an issue. He requested that there be"tighter"language in the report and that an occupancy limit be placed on the event center. Mr. Easly also requested that live music and game room be omitted from the uses. Mr. Gunning explained that the occupancy rating would be addressed during the building permit phase. Mrs. Ealy,4114 Claudia, stated that she would like to see an increase in police protection and also expressed concerns with flooding. Mr. Collins addressed drainage concerns by stating that the property would drain into the Laguna Madre. He stated that if the Fire Department approves his occupancy rating,the rating would be 400. Captain Bill Sheeka stated that there are no event centers for people coming to fishing tournaments. He said that there are thousands of visitors every year and the project would be revenue generator for Corpus Christi. Mr. McGrath, owner of Fun Trackers and the Flour Bluff Convention Center, stated that his business will profit from the proposed marina development. Bad Morris,3732 Meca, stated that he was a 23 year resident of Flour Bluff and he was supportive of the proposed development. Public hearing was closed. Motion by Salazar,seconded by Stone, to forward a recommendation for approval. Motion passed unanimously with Mims, Pusley, and Zamora being absent. * Braselton left the meeting. DEFERMENT AGREEMENT—Public Improvements and Half Street Mary Frances Teniente, Assistant Director of Development Services,said that the Commission is asked to determine reasonable cause to delay the 75% requirement as provided by the requirements in the Platting Ordinance. The developer has met all conditions required. Public hearing was opened. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion by Smith, seconded by Salazar, to approve the deferment agreements for public improvements and half street construction due to the finding by the Commission as follows: "There exists reasonable cause to delay the 75%requirement to expedite the recordation of the plat. There exists reasonable cause to defer construction of half-street given the uncertainty as to when the south half of the required street will be constructed and the safety issue associated with construction of half of a street section. Motion passed unanimously with Braselton, Mims, Pusley, and Zamora being absent. 1/41111 • Planning Commission Minutes February 23.2005 Page 17 EXCUSED ABSENCES Chairman Berlanga requested an excused absence from the February 9, 2005 meeting due to illness. Motion by Salazar, seconded by Stone,to excuse the absence. Motion passed unanimously with Braselton, Mims, Pusley, and Zamora being absent. ADJOURN Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Michael N. Gunning, AICP Lucinda P. Beal Assistant Director of Development Services Recording Secretary