Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 01/26/2005 id V Minutes • Regular Planning Commission Meeting • Wednesday—January 26,2005 4:30 P.M. Commissioners: David Berlanga,Charman Bryan Stone,Vice Chairman Fred Braselton Neill F.Amsler Michael Pusley Shirley Mims Richard Smith Commissioners Absent: Eloy H. Salazar Robert Zamora Staff: B.A. Bailey,AICP,Director of Development Services Michael N.Gunning,AICP,Assistant Director of Development Services Mary Frances Teniente,PE,Assistant Director of Development Services Michelle Long,Recording Secretary Faryce Goode-Macon, City Planner Miguel Saldafia,AICP,City Planner Joseph Harney,Assistant City Attorney 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 A quorum was declared and the meeting was called to order at 4:38 p.m. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION-ACCESS MANAGEMENT PRESENTATION AND PUBLIC DISCUSSION(4:30 p.m.—5:30 p.m.) Mr.Michael Gunning,Assistant Director of Development Services introduced Ms. Rory Mesa, TxDOT's Director of Roadway and Design. Mr.Gunning stated that any questions or comments from the public should be directed to the Planning Commissioners. Ms.Mesa stated that Access Management Rules became effective in June of 2004 and will continually evolve. The rules are a guide to improve safety and mobility,provide reasonable long term access to developments,and promote local government partnerships. Access management is not a one size fits all rule book. Every new driveway is based on its own merits Poorly designed access treatments can present traffic hazards and congestion that create a negative image of a shopping center. Studies show that as access density increases,crash rates increase. Reducing conflict points reduces crash potential. More than 50%of all urban crashes are conflict point related. The new access management rules will allow through traffic to move more efficiently,and separate speed differentials with less breaking and acceleration. SCANNED Planning Commission Minute January 26,2005 Page 2 Access has many economic effects. Travel time rather than distance is the best indicator of where to market development. We now have multiple driveway conflicts, signal spacing problems,and mobility problems. We need to work together. If we know when development is coming in,we can work with the developer make better judgments of access points. TxDOT is willing to work with cities and developers from the platting process before actually spending money. Cities with access management program elements may develop access management plans for permitting access. The administrative procedures allow cities to apply their access management plans, rules,ordinances,etc.to state highways within their jurisdiction if the authority is requested from TxDOT. The administrative procedures also allow opportunities for state/city/development cooperation. Cities have to present their access management rule,plan and ordinance to TxDOT. TxDOT would like to review and cooperate with permit approvals. Cities need to understand that there are liabilities. Another possible approach is a city may want to take part of the permit process and leave part of it to TxDOT. TxDOT will control the access on most new alignments through the ROW deed. Exceptions could include public streets on a city's thoroughfare plan. Any sale of TxDOT owned access must be approved by the Commission. Access is a real property value. Only five cities have requested to take over permitting and adopted an access management manual as their own. Cities plans are based on city streets which do not work with state highways. Some freeways can not provide access ramps due to safety issues. It would be safer to convert two way frontage roads to one way. There is flexibility built into the manual. TxDOT rules will never land lock a property but will look for safe locations for driveways. Access will never be denied,but the best place for it will be determined. TXDOT needs the cooperation of cities and counties and wants a reasonable and best access for properties. Ms.Mesa stated TxDOT welcomed questions,calls and opportunities to talk to developers. She gave TxDOT's website as www.dot.state.tx.us and asked if there were any questions. In response to Chairman Berlanga's questions,Ms.Mesa stated they want to look at plats at the same time as staff in case corrections need to be made or if traffic data is needed. The timeframe will be different for each plat. Usual permitting is done on the same day,big developments take longer. TxDOT does not sign off on a plat but does issue the driveway permit on driveways for state roads. TxDOT needs be involved early on in case adjustments need to made to the location of the driveway, and be able to ask for corrections at that time which would save time and money for the developer. TxDOT is working with the federal government to try to maximize the dollars that come back to our state. In response to Chairman Berlanga's question regarding S.P.I.D and the frontage roads along it with access points to shopping centers,Ms.Mesa stated anytime there is a possibility for reconstruction, they will look at the driveways and look at working with property owners to possibly consolidate driveways or determine the type of driveway needed. TxDOT will take any opportunity to look at making improvements. Ms. Minis asked what TxDOT was doing for new development along frontage roads along S.P.LD.and also had questions regarding Highway 624. Janan Lee,TxDOT's Assistant Area Engineer for Nueces County, stated they were not approaching property owners on the Crosstown project to reconstruct driveways or combine driveways. Planning Commission Minute January 26,2005 Page 3 When the project began,these access management rules were just a thought. Ms. Lee handles the driveway permitting process for the office and is aware of a lot of new developments going on. She stated she had no information regarding FM624. She handles the construction end,not the planning and development. TxDOT is in the process of reviewing FM624. There was a public meeting two months ago at Calallen High School. She stated she did not attend the meeting but they are looking at controlled access,raised medians,and restricted left toms at certain locations. There are also ongoing projects on Highway 77 and 1889 which will relieve congestion on 624. Getting back to S.P.I.D.and this being a continuous changing program,Ms.Mims asked if there is a reason TxDOT has not tried to see if some businesses would combine driveways. Ms.Lee stated the construction is not on the frontage road but is on the retaining walls but the main lanes in the middle and is not touching driveways in the area. It goes back to getting cooperation of the property owner. A lot of the lots are small. It would be our best interest for some of the property owners,to give up their driveway and share access or have cross access. She has asked that when a reconstruction or remodeling project comes up, she be asked to look at it. The property may have once been residential or a commercial property with a different use and multiple driveways can no longer be justified. They are starting to get cooperation from businesses and see improvements. Ms.Mims inquired about the problem from the Island to Port Aransas and Park Road 22. Ms. Lee stated it goes back to how the plat is approved and what the developer is required to do. When a large tract of land is subdivided into smaller lots,it creates a problem. We need to rethink our platting and development processes which will take some time. There is an appeal process for driveway permits which goes to Austin. Ms.Lee stated as far as looking at plats,if she does comment,she attends the meeting. Mr. Braselton stated his concern is shared access can not always be done in smaller towns like Corpus Christi where growth along main roadways is done with smaller developers and owners rather than that of big box retail. This shared access could land lock some properties along the growth corridor. Ms.Mesa stated they would allow smaller tracts to have access or shared access. They would not land lock any tract of land. In response to Vice Chairman Stone's question,Ms.Lee stated they controlled Staples from Saratoga south, and Weber from S.P.I.D. out to the south. In response to Chairman Berlanga's question,Mrs.Teniente stated we do not have an access management policy,we have a driveway manual. We had a draft access management manual and have no set timeframe for review and adoption. We do need to prepare one. Chairman Berlanga stated this meeting is a starting point to fix long term problems. Mr.Pusley inquired about ramp reversal along S.P.I.D. Mrs.Holly stated the City was working on a study with TxDOT now,which is in the planning stages. The public hearing was opened. Mr.Ed Bakta,7438 Lake Meggori,has an interest in Saratoga. The restrictions and comments being made are alarming. He asked how we are going to facilitate disagreements between developers,the City and TxDOT and who would have the final say so. Murf Hudson,2725 Swantner,stated platting is a process of subdividing property. Access management should not be an issue until the property is developed. Notes should not be placed on plats Planning Commission Minutes January 26,2005 Page 4 saying that access was denied to this road or that. In order to communicate with the development community,we need good strong rules and guidelines to follow. Plats can't move forward due to access issues which are not platting issues. Ms. Mims asked Mr.Hudson what he did when this happened. Mr.Hudson stated he has plat tonight which will be tabled due to access issues. It has been tabled for six weeks trying to work out the issue. The City wants to put a note put on the plat which says the developer is denied access to a city street. The developer feels he has rights to that access does not want the note on the plat. Mr. Hudson doesn't want to be in confrontation in Council Chambers all the time. He stated through a series of meetings with the city,they usually come to an agreement but it is time consuming. Mr.Gunning stated staff has always used driveway prohibitions as notes on plats to protect certain roadways. Plats do not show driveway cuts. In response to Chairman Berlanga's question,TxDOT and the city will work with the developers in partnership in coming up with access points for each development. We need to look for compromises that are reasonable where we have access problems. There is a new twist on development; easements are worked out ahead of time. We are working on Developers and landowners knowing up front what can be put on their property. Ms.Mesa stated corridor access management plans were discussed. If an area is recognized that is going to be developed,and you want to preserve access,mobility and the safety of that corridor,you can look at a mile and one-half stretch what type of roadways and where access points are. Everyone will know up front what will be approved and the developer can work within that. Chairman Berlanga asked if TxDOT is in the position to look at any state highway in the city, with most of the activity and determine on a one mile stretch,how many access points there will be. Ms. Mesa stated they could with the city's cooperation. TxDOT is limited to ROW to ROW. What the City allows in the zoning or platting approval is up to the City. We can be on the same page in knowing where the access points are. With an approved corridor plan one could look at it and know where the access can be. The exact location can be moved but we know how many access points will be available. The city of San Antonio does this a lot with large developments. TxDOT could try to dedicate someone to help the city accomplish this. Ms.Teniente suggested the Planning Commission or the City writing a letter to ask for assistance to lay out corridor studies. Ms.Mesa stated a letter was fine and also offered assistance from Austin office to help develop the City's access management policy. They have a lot of reference material that they could share to get started. She also offered to look at the city's existing draft and comment on it. Mr.Bill Brown,2840 McArdle,stated he was not sure of the purpose of the meeting. He thanked TxDOT and representatives for the outstanding workshop this morning. He was concerned that the Commission in Austin came up with the rules in 2003 and produced the manual in June of 2004 and we did not hear about it until October of 2004. The playing field is reversed and competitors need to have information. Mr.Brown thanked Mrs.Holly for notification of the meeting. He stated he was alarmed that the requirements seem to be one size fits all. State highways in Corpus can not be considered similar to major state highways in large cities. There needs to be more input from development community before moving forward. Mr.Gunning stated there was no action required. The Commission had asked for this presentation of what the access management manual stated. This was an opportunity for developers to become informed and provide comments. 1610 11100 Planning Commission Minutes January 26,2005 Page 5 Chairman Berlanga stated,not going into details of the plan,he did share Mr.Brown's concerns. We need more experience under belt to know what is in the manual. He could see where some land could become very valuable and some devalued. He trusts staff will work with the development community to find a reasonable solution. The Planning Commission will try to help in any way possible. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Braselton and seconded by Pusley to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion passed unanimously with Amsler being absent. PLATS Continued Plats Mr. Saldafia read the following plat into the record and stated staff recommended approval as submitted. 0704116-P66 King's Crossing Unit 19 (Final—21.40 Acres) Located northwest of Cimarron Boulevard south of Lens Drive. The public hearing was opened. No one appeared to be in favor or in opposition. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Smith and seconded by Amsler to recommend approval as submitted. The motion passed unanimously with Salazar and Zamora being absent. Mr. Saldafia stated the applicant for the following plat requested a two week continuance. 1204197-NP104 Shannon Middle School Tract,Block 1,Lots 2,3 &4 (Final Replat— 18.726 Acres) Located south of South Padre Island Drive(SH 358)east of Airline Road. A motion was made by Amsler and seconded by Braselton to continue the plat for two weeks as requested. The motion passed unanimously with Salazar and Zamora being absent. Mr. Saldafia stated the applicant for the following plat also requested a two week continuance. 0105005-NP03 Clarkwood Tract Subdivision,Block 7.Lot 14 (Final—2.862 Acres) Located east of Clarkwood Road south of Sedwick Road. A motion was made by Pusley and seconded by Smith to continue the plat for two weeks as requested. The motion passed unanimously with Salazar and Zamora being absent. Planning Commission Minute v January 26,2005 Page 6 New Plats Mr. Saldafia read the following plats into the record and stated staff recommended approval as submitted. 0804128-P73R (Public Hearing) The Boardwalk Unit I (Revised Final—24.109 Acres) Located between Brighton Village Subdivision and South Staples Street(FM 2444), south of The Village at Dunbarton Oak Subdivision. 0105009-P03 (Public Hearing) The Boardwalk Unit 2 (Final— 17.695 Acres) Located between Brighton Village Subdivision and South Staples Street (FM 2444), north of Barclay Grove Subdivision. 0105010-PO4 (Public Hearing) Corpus Christi Retirement Residence Addition.Block I,Lots 1,2 and 3 (15.71 Acres) Located north of Lipes Boulevard,west of South Staples Street(FM 2444). The public hearing was opened. No one appeared to be in favor or in opposition. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Stone and seconded by Braselton to recommend approval of the above plats as submitted. The motion passed unanimously with Salazar and Zamora being absent. Time Extension Mr. Saldafia read the following plat into the record and stated the applicant requested a six month time extension. 0704106-P61 Country Creek Unit 6 (Final—46.531 Acres) Located north of South Staples Street(FM 2444)between South Oso Parkway and County Road 41. The public hearing was opened. No one appeared to be in favor or in opposition. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Smith and seconded by Pusley to recommend approval of the six month time extension. The motion passed unanimously with Salazar and Zamora being absent. Fee Exemption Request for Exemption from Wastewater Acreage Fees—River Ranch Estates Mr. Saldafia stated River Ranch Estates was outside of the amended Allison Master Plan for wastewater. The Wastewater Department indicated there is no likely-hood of any service to be provided in the next 15 years. The Water Department recommended exempting River Ranch Estates from payment of acreage fees. The public hearing was opened. No one appeared to be in favor or in opposition. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Amsler and seconded by Smith to recommend approval of the exemption as recommended. The motion passed unanimously with Salazar and Zamora being absent. Planning Commission Minutes January 26,2005 Page 7 ZONING New Zoning 0105-06-Ike Ornelas Request: change of zoning from"R-1B"One-family Dwelling District to"A-2"Apartment House District resulting in a change of land use from low-density residential to medium density residential. Excerpts from Zoning Report Purpose of Request:Development of a 36-unit apartment complex Area Development Plan:Southside- The future land use plan recommends low-density residential on the subject property. However, the "A-2"Apartment House District is supported as a buffer district between the "B-4"District to the west and the "R-IB"One-family Dwelling District to the east. The "A-2"Apartment House District will provide for a medium-density residential use that will serve as a buffer between the low-density properties and business properties east and west of the subject property. Approval of the "A-2"Apartment House District Mrs.Goode-Macon provided graphics of the subject property and the surrounding area. The zoning report and tape recording are on file. She stated that there were 11 notices mailed. None were received in favor and one was received in opposition. The public hearing was opened. Mr.Joe Garcia,4626 Weber,stated he represented Mr.Ornelas. He stated this property and area are in a transition. Staff is correct in stating the"A-2"Apartment House District will provide for a medium-density residential use that will serve as a buffer between the low- density properties and business properties east and west of the subject property. This is an appropriate use for the property as it is not conducive for residential development. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Braselton and seconded by Amsler to recommend approval as submitted. The motion passed unanimously with Salazar and Zamora being absent. 0105-07—Citgo Refining and the City of Corpus Christi Request: Change of zoning from"R-1B"One-family Dwelling District and"R-1C"One-family Dwelling District,"R-2"Multiple Dwelling District and"A-1"Apartment House District to"I-2"Light Industrial District on Tract 1 and from"R-IB"One-family Dwelling District to"1-3"Heavy Industrial District on Tract 2,resulting in a change of land use from low and medium density residential to light industrial on Tract 1 and heavy industrial on Tract 2. Excerpts from Zoning Report Legal Description/Location: Tract-I being 35.26 acres out of a portion of Oak Park, Grace Heights, Oak Lawn and Harbor View Estates Subdivisions and Tract-2 being 22.20 acres out of Harbor View Estates Subdivision, located north of IH 37, south of Gibson Street, east of Poth Lane and west of Buddy Lawrence Drive. 110 Planning Commission Minutes January 26,2005 'Page 8 Area Development Plan:Port/Airport/Violet—The requested "1-2"and "1-3"Districts are consistent with the long range plan for the subject property. Long range plans for the subject property support the removal of low-density residential uses and the transitioning of the subject property to an industrial district. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the "1-2"Light Industrial District on Tract-1 and Approval of the "1-3"Heavy Industrial District on Tract—2. Mrs.Goode-Macon provided graphics of the subject property and the surrounding area. The zoning report and tape recording are on file. She stated that there were nine notices mailed. None were received in favor or in opposition. In response to Chairman Berlanga's question,Mrs. Goode-Macon stated Citgo wants to put in a lay down pipe yard facility and parking area on the property. Mr. Gunning stated Citgo has a petroleum transfer point coming in and will need the"I-3"zoning for that use. The public hearing was opened. No one appeared to be in favor or in opposition. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Smith and seconded by Pusley to recommend approval as submitted. The motion passed unanimously with Salazar and Zamora being absent. DEFERMENT AGREEMENT—THE BOARDWALK UNIT 2 The deferment agreement for Boardwalk Unit II was requested in order to expedite the Onac development which is also the site of a new school on the south side. In order to meet the school's time schedule,they are proposing to defer the public improvements which consist of water,wastewater,and street drainage. Ms.Teniente stated the Commission needed to find a basis for waiving 75 percent since the developer is putting up funding for the public improvements. Staff is working with the developer and the school district. The plans are still in design. The deferment agreement won't go to council until plat requirements are met. Commissioner Amsler stated we should do this for anything involving a school site. Unless there is a requirement in here for the developer to put up a letter of credit for the deferment to get the plat filed on the rest of Boardwalk Unit 2,is beyond where the Commission should go. Ms.Teniente stated the Unit 2 includes the school site and provides for the extension of Stonehenge and the surrounding streets to serve the school. If we grant the deferment,Council passes it and the plat gets filed for all of Unit 2,we have a situation where they can apply for a building permit and start building houses in Unit 2 without having paid for a deferment. Ms.Teniente stated we did not have a cost estimate from the developer yet,but the developer will be required to put up a letter of credit for the amount. It is primarily the school's site. She stated the school is a public entity and they will provide the letter of credit. Planning Commission Minute January 26,2005 'Page 9 The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Braselton and seconded by Stone to recommend approval with the finding that there exists reasonable cause to delay the 75%requirement to expedite the recordation of the plat. The motion passed unanimously with Salazar and Zamora being absent. DIRECTOR'S REPORT FUTURE SCHEDULED MEETINGS No meetings were discussed. EXCUSED ABSENCES There were no excused absences OTHER MATTERS Vice Chairman Stone stated there are nice corridors in Houston and Dallas. Mr. Brown's concern is that the areas being looked at in Corpus are several little land owners and it's a chore to get them all together on a large project. We should be sensitive to them and we should tread lightly on this. We should put the word out,possibly by newspaper to let the public know what is going on. Ms.Bailey stated this was adopted by TxDOT and is beyond our recommendation authority. We can enact our own standards but if they are different from what is recommended by TxDOT, we don't get funding for those roads. Them is a lot of treading lightly that needs to be done. We need to try to comply with them. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Pusley and seconded by Braselton to adjourn 6:46 p.m. Michael N.Gunning,AICP Michelle Long Assistant Director of Development Services Recording Secretary H:\PLN-D IR\SHARED\W ORD\PLANNING COMM ISS ION\AGENDAS\2005\012605 AGENDA.DOC