Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 10/20/2004 Minutes REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers-City Hall Wednesday—October 20,2004 5:30 P.M. Commissioners: David Berlanga,Chairman Bryan Stone,Vice Chairman Michael Pusley Fred Braselton Eloy H. Salazar Commissioners Absent: Neill F.Amsler Shirley Mims Richard Smith Robert Zamora Staff: B.A.Bailey,AICP,Director of Development Services Michael N. Gunning, MCP,Assistant Director of Development Services Mary Frances Teniente,PE,Assistant Director of Development Services Michelle Long,Recording Secretary Faryce Goode-Macon,City Planner Miguel Saldana,City Planner Si usted quiere dirigirse ala comision y su ingles es limitado,habra un interprete de espafiol a ingles en la junta para ayudarle. CALL TO ORDER A quorum was declared and the meeting was called to order at 5:42. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Braselton and seconded by Salazar to approve the minutes as submitted. PLATS Continued Plats Mr.Miguel Saldana,City Planner, stated the representatives for the following plat applicants requested their plats be tabled for two weeks: 0804155-NP74 El Diamante Perdido (Preliminary-153.51 Acres) Located east of Rodd Field Road between Brook Road(CR 26A)and Slough Road(CR 26). SCANNED Planning Commission Minutes October 20,2004 Page 2 0804153-P83 Padre Island—Corpus Christi Section No.4,Block 191, Lot IA (Final—0.22 Acre) Located south of Cruiser Street west of South Padre Island Drive(Park Road 22). 1004173-NP85 Sunbelt Industrial Park,Block 4,Lot I (Final—9.25±Acres) Located west of Navigation Boulevard south of Leopard Street. A motion was made by Braselton and Salazar to approve the two week extensions as requested. Mr. Saldana read the following plat into the record. 0804163-NP77 Great Outback (Preliminary— 137.27 Acres) Located southwest of the intersection of FM 624 and FM 1889. The public hearing was opened. No one appeared to be in favor or opposition. The public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Stone and seconded by Pusley to approve the plat as submitted. The motion passed by all present. New Plats Mr. Saldana read the following plat into the record. 1004166-P91 Cap Estates II Unit 1 (Final—8.29 Acres) Located south of Holly Road west of Martin Street. The public hearing was opened. No one appeared to be in favor or opposition. The public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Pusley and seconded by Stone to approve the plat as submitted. The motion passed by all present. Salazar abstained from the following plat and left room. Mr. Saldana read the following plat into the record. 1004170-P92 King's Crossing Unit 10 (Final—22.146 Acres) Located off Yorktown Boulevard and east of South Staples Street(FM 2444). The public hearing was opened. No one appeared to be in favor or opposition. The public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes October 20,2004 Page 3 Motion was made by Braselton and seconded by Stone to approve the plat as submitted. The motion passed by all present. Salazar returned to the room. Time Extensions Mr. Saldana stated the applicant for the following plat requested a time extension. 090394-P53 Crosstown Acres (Preliminary—25.38 Acres) Located between State Highway 286 and Ayers Street, south of Frederick Drive. The public hearing was opened. No one appeared to be in favor or opposition. The public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Salazar and seconded by Pusley to approve the six month time extension. The motion passed by all present. Mr. Saldana stated the applicant for the following plat requested a time extension. 040457-NP22 Pee Wee's Pet Addition,Block 1.Lot 1 (Final—4.556 Acres) Located south of Saratoga Boulevard and west of Greenwood Drive. The public hearing was opened. No one appeared to be in favor or opposition. The public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Braselton and seconded by Stone to approve the six month time extension. The motion passed by all present. ZONING New Zoning 1004-06-Ronald A. Voss Request: Change of zoning from"R-1B"One-family Dwelling District to"RE"Residential Estate District,resulting in a change of land use from low-density residential to one-acre low-density residential. Excerpts from Zoning Report Legal Description/Location:Being 18.21 acres out of Flour Bluff and Encinal Farm and Garden Tracts, Section 50,Lot 3, located along the south side of Glenoak Drive, approximately 500 feet west of St.Peter Street. Purpose of Request:Development of a /6acre lot subdivision 400 Planning Commission Minutes October 20,2004 Page 4 Area Development Plan:Flour Bluff The Flour Bluff Area Development Plan recommends the area develop with traditional neighborhood residential development. The requested "RE" District is consistent with the Plan's recommended land use. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the "RE"Residential Estate District Mrs.Faryce Goode-Macon,City Planner,provided graphics of the subject property and the surrounding area. The zoning report and tape recording are on file. She stated that there were 48 notices mailed. Two were received in favor and none in opposition. The public hearing was opened. Ronald Voss Jr., 3756 Bratton Road,had concerns. Staff had told him they would be able to use septic tanks as the City's septic system in that area was not reasonably available and did not have sufficient capacity. The wording on the zoning report did not make that clear. Mr. Saidana stated this issue would be addressed with the platting process. The information was simply provided to the Planning Commission. He also stated they had discussed the septic issue and as it stands,the City's system is at capacity. Mrs. Claudette Rocha,925 St.Timothy Street,appeared in opposition. She stated her house abuts the subject property. She had concerns with drainage,elevation,setbacks,neighborhood restrictions, easements for utilities and alleyways, septic systems and animal restrictions. She stated she did not receive a notice. She also stated that only one other person in her neighborhood received notice of the zoning change. Mrs.Mary Frances Teniente,Assistant Director of Development Services,stated that drainage is an issue and will be addressed with the platting process. A detention pond may be in order. Mr.Michael Gunning,Assistant Director of Development Services stated the developer is responsible to make sure the drainage accounts for the run on and run off of the property. Until the engineering calculations are seen,the issue can not be responded to. The developer is responsible to ensure this development does not flood any of the adjacent properties. Mr.Gunning stated the setbacks are 50 feet in the front and 25 feet for side yards. He stated that the types of animals allowed are not regulated by the zoning ordinance. Animal control is something that would be in deed restrictions of the properties which is up to the owner. Mr. Gunning stated there will be a second public hearing and staff will do their best to ensure notices are sent to all property owners within 200 feet. Mrs.Marla Chindla,929 St.Timothy,appeared in opposition. She stated she agreed with Mrs. Rocha and had a lot of concerns with flooding issues. Mr.Brad Sanders, 929 St.Christopher,appeared in opposition. He stated his concerns with hydraulic studies that may or may not have been done. He was surprised there would not be curbs and gutters and sidewalks. He also had concerns with underground septic systems. He had concerns with the drainage problem and stated there is not enough slope to get rid of water along Glen Oak. If large homes are built,homes,barns and driveways are built,water flow will be increased. He also stated concerns with the pipeline running through the subject property. He stated St.Christopher appeared to be designed for future expansion and asked about plans for that. 411114 Planning Commission Minutes October 20,2004 Page 5 Mr.Gunning stated the intent is to extend Christopher Street. Mrs.Teniente verified this and stated they were going to cull-de-sac the extension into the site. Chairman Berlanga inquired about the gas pipeline easement and stated that on Lot 2,the pipeline runs right through the property and asked if that someone would be able to build on it. Mrs.Teniente stated it is typical to get a letter from the pipeline company that identifies the lateral clearance on each side to the nearest building structure so that the restriction is addressed on the plat. It is unlikely a structure would be built over the pipeline assuming it is active. Mr. Voss stated they are waiting for a reply from the pipeline company. The pipeline is active. They were told the restriction on the property as is will impose a 25 foot minimum setback from the pipeline. The pipeline company will be back to steak out the setbacks next week. They will not sell Lot 2. Mrs.Teniente stated staff relies on the pipeline company for these dimensions. Mr. Gunning restated the infrastructure issues will worked out in the platting process. The City has a series of ordinances and codes in place under subdivision regulation to protect the public. Staff will be consistent with meeting these board and safety standards which include hydrology,drainage, and runoff.The developer will have to work with the company on the pipelines. Pusley stated he appreciated Mr. Gunning's comments that this is not the time to discuss infrastructure issues.He is not sure this is the appropriate time to approve this zoning. He has a friend who lives in the area who has experienced terrible flooding. Braselton stated this type of development is common in that area. Salazar stated the developer can not move forward until the sewer plan is in place. Mr.Voss stated they weren't leaning either way. If they needed to hook up to the City septic system,they would do so and have smaller lots. He also stated staff recommended they were not comfortable with being able to hook up to city. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Braselton and seconded by Salazar to approve the zoning change as submitted. The motion passed by all present. Salazar stated these issues will be raised during plat process.The Planning Commission has no control over deed restrictions. The lot size is up to the developer. 1004-07-Murray Architects Request: Change of zoning from"AB"Professional Office District to"B-I"Neighborhood Business District,resulting in a change of land use from professional office to neighborhood business. 11110 Planting Commission Minutes October 20,2004 Page 6 Excerpts from Zoning Report Legal Description/Location:Brayton Addition, Block 2,Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and Chapman Addition, Block 2,Lot I, located north of Agnes Street and between South Tancahua and South Carancahua Streets. Purpose of Request: Office building and to provide for larger sign. Area Development Plan:South Central- Transitioning of the apartment district areas to neighborhood business uses is recommended by the Plan. A change in the district classification should be based on the type of use for the property and not for signage. Department Comments: Proliferation of signs is a major concern of the city in that a sign committee has been developed to address the issue. Staff is assisting the committee, which includes members of the Planning Commission and the sign industry, in developing improved sign regulations for the city. June 23, 2004, the applicant applied for a Special Use Exception to omit the off-street loading space requirement through the Board of Adjustment. The requested action was approved by the Board of Adjustment. Staff Recommendation: Denial ofthe 'B-I"Neighborhood Business 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 ten notices mailed. None were received in favor and one from outside the area was received in opposition. Mrs.Goode-Macon stated that rezoning to increase signage is an unacceptable practice as far as land use and planning. Land use is the primary factor in determining what the future zoning on a piece of property is to be. The public hearing was opened. Ms.Emily Rozypal,4633 Bethlehem,representative of the applicant,stated she just received the zoning report when she arrived at the meeting and did not receive the notice until Monday. After her preliminary meeting with a City Planner,it was her understanding that the square footage only pertained to the lettering on the signage. She stated the side signage faces over Business 44 and is not imposing on any buildings. She stated they were meeting all of the zoning requirements for parking spaces which left no space. The setback for signage on the west is not allowing for a monument sign. Berlanga asked how many square feet are allowable and how many feet will the applicant have. Mrs.Goode-Macon stated she can have 20 square feet which she now has over the door. She can also have one freestanding sign in the"A-B"District. Berlanga asked what she will be allowed for signage with"B-I". Mrs.Goode-Macon stated she will have unlimited wall signage and 40 square feet for street signage. She has the zoning required for the office,the building permit,and the office is currently under Planning Commission Minutes October 20,2004 Page 7 construction. Mrs.Goode-Macon reiterated we do not rezone a property because of signage. That is an unacceptable land use practice. Ms. Rozypal stated she misunderstood and thought only"A.G.Edwards"counted in the square footage and the date and time did not. Mrs. Goode-Macon stated the whole sign face counts but the base does not. Ms.Rozypal stated the issue on Tanchua was in meeting the requirements for the parking lot; there was not enough space left for the signage allowed for the present zoning. Mrs.Goode-Macon stated if the property were zoned"B-1"it could have a 40 foot sign facing each street. Pusley commented that zoning stays with property forever. Stone stated they are already building and are just now coming to the Commission to ask for zoning for signage which should have been considered before. He stated with the current zoning they were allowed to put signage on each side. Ms. Rozypal stated that was correct but the site requirements don't allow the space for it. Mrs.Goode-Macon stated that the time and temp on one sign is not allowed either. Mr.Gunning stated it appeared Ms.Rozypal thought she was told something other than what was in the zoning report. Ms.Rozypal stated on the front monument sign it was her understanding they were allowed to have the time and temperature and it did not count toward the signage square foot requirements. This was discussed months ago. Mr.Mat Paul,5333 Northwest Trail,Branch Manager of E.G.Edwards stated he had conversations with sign companies they had conversations with staff. It was the sign companies understanding there was not an issue with the monument sign. He thought the issue they were coming to discuss tonight was the question of putting a sign on the north side of the building. If the issue is being to close to property line they could probably do without that,but they can not do that and not have a sign on the wall either. There were issues were being brought up tonight that they were told would not be an issue. He stated he is disappointed and they were told by staff that rezoning was the way to solve this issue. Mr.Gunning stated that Mr. Saldafa was the planner at that time and told them time and temp was acceptable. The City has permitted time and temperature to be incorporated into"B-I"signage for some uses. The concern is now is with the height of one sign being proposed. Mr. Paul stated they may be able to adjust that with the design of the sign. Chairman Berlanga clarified that the holdup is the monument sign and the wall sign because of the zoning. Braselton stated they would try to accommodate"B-1"signage if possible. There is no residential in area that this signage would be problem for. Planning Commission Minutes October 20,2004 Page 8 Stone stated the City does have a sign problem and it bothers him the applicant started building and then asked for a zoning change. He proposed a special permit. Mrs.Goode Macon stated that is not allowed in the ordinance. We either have to rezone or deny it. Salazar stated he had no issue with sign but he had an issue with"B-1". If they were granted the zoning change they could do what they wanted with the property. He asked staff if there were any way to give them what they want without rezoning. Mr.Gunning stated there was no way other than possibly deed restricting the property. Mr. Andy Lerman, 3360 Mavis,General Partner and Developer, acknowledged Stone's concerns regarding the timing of the zoning request. He stated there were discussions between the architect and staff and this is the route the city asked them to take. He was closely involved as a general partner and if they had known about this problem,would have been here earlier. He stated the tenant signed ten year lease with two-five year options and had no intention to make it into another business. Everything is being done first class. He hoped Commission agrees the City in need of expansion and opportunities to bring in new business to the downtown area. Mr.Lerman stated they had made a big investment and hoped the people involved in making this decision don't discourage people from developing. They have done everything the City has asked. Signage is very important to them. Mrs.Goode-Macon stated she did meet with Ms.Rozypal and explained the only option for her to investigate would be rezoning and that staff's recommendation would be for denial. Pusley stated this Commission has been very pro-business and he takes it perspnal when someone says this Commission is not. He stated it is late in the game to try to change zoning now to allow for additional signage. Mr. Lerman stated his comments were not intended to be interpreted like that. Ms.Rozypal stated there was a misunderstanding. When they begin designing the project, staff told them they were in a"B-I"District and the project was designed around that. When they went in for permitting is when Mr. Saldana informed them they were zoned"A-B". The public hearing was closed. Berlanga commented this is a beautiful building and commend the applicant for making this investment in the area. The Commission's philosophy is that it is wrong to change zoning for additional signage but they do want to encourage investment. He did not feel the building will turn into bar or convenience store. This puts the Commission in a dilemma. However it goes,the applicant will have another opportunity with Council. Stone stated he agreed with Berlanga that this goes against principal to get additional signage by rezoning. There was miscommunication along the way and in this case,we may have special circumstances and should rezone. Braselton stated did not think this was a bad place for"BA"zoning and is for the change. Salazar stated he did not like"B-l. He asked what"the South Central transitioning of the Apartment District to the Neighborhood Business Use is recommended by the Plan"means. 11111# 1/411110 Planning Commission Minutes October 20,2004 Page 9 Mrs.Goode-Macon stated the South Central Plan does recommend the corridor between Tanchua and Caranchua to develop as"B-I",however it is against Development Services land use practices to change zoning due to signage. It is up to the Commission to make their recommendation to Council. Salazar stated he would swing with Braselton and Stone. The area is high traffic anyway. Pusley asked Mr. Gunning about staff telling Ms.Rozypal they were zoned"B-1". Mr.Gunning replied he does not engage anyone on who said what,especially two years ago;he asks staff to provide written response's so there is a record. Zoning maps have been on the City web site for some time for applicants to check information. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Stone and seconded by Salazar to approve the"B-1"District. The motion passed with Pusley in opposition. Salazar stated we should take into account that in this Master Plan recommends development in that direction. His consideration has nothing to do with signage. Mrs.Goode-Macon stated the applicant for the following case asked to be withdrawn. 1004-08-Mostaghasi Investments Request: Change of zoning from"A-1"Apartment House District to"R-1C"One-family Dwelling Neighborhood District,resulting from medium-density residential to low-density residential. 1004-09-Henry Tucker Request: Change of zoning from"F-R"Farm-Rural District to"12-1B"One-family Dwelling Neighborhood District,"R-1C"One-family Dwelling District,and"B-4"General Business District, resulting in a land use change from agriculture to low-density residential and general business. Excerpts from Zoning Report Legal Description/Location: 136.73 acres out of 147.96 acres recorded in V.2210,P.748, D.R.N.C.T.;located south of F.M. 624(Northwest Boulevard)and west ofFM 1889. Purpose of Request: Tract 1—317 single-family residential lots Tract 2—145 single-family residential lots Tract 3— Undecided; eventually to be developed with uses allowed in "B-4"Zoning District. Area Development Plan: Northwest— The requested "A-1B"District and "R-IC"District are consistent with the future land use map. The requested "B-4"District is inconsistent with the future land use map which recommends multi family residential and traditional neighborhood residential uses. • 410 Planning Commission Minutes October 20,2004 Page 10 Staff Recommendation: Tract 1—Approval of the "R-IB"One-family Dwelling District. Tract 2—Approval of the "R-IC"Onefamily Dwelling District. Tract 3—Denial of the "B-4"General Business District and approval of"B-1"Neighborhood Business District. Staff feels that Neighborhood Business Zoning is more appropriate for this location which will be adjacent to traditional neighborhood residential uses to the west, south and to the east across FM 1889. "B-1"Neighborhood Business Zoning will also provide a transitional use from the "B- 4"General Business Zoning to the north and the proposed traditional neighborhood residential uses to the south. 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 37 notices mailed. One was received in favor and none in opposition. Mr.Benny Perez,3782 Barbara Lane, stated he had concerns with drainage. He stated there is tremendous flooding in that area and water drains to the corner of 1889 and the south boundary line of Tract 1. Berlanga asked if this is the case with detention ponds. Mr. Saidada stated the preliminary plat passed tonight and this issue will be defined in the plat process Mr. Pat Veteto,Buffalo Street,stated they would create a detention pond in the subdivision. They would also widen the road and improve the ditch. It will be sized for a two year storm event;will retain water from the subdivision and drain at a two year rate. It will also hold a 100 year storm event and will discharge at 200 year storm event. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Braselton and seconded by Salazar to approve the"R-1B"District on Tract 1,the"R-1C"District on Tract 2,and denial of the"B4"and in lieu of,approval the"B-1"District on Tract 3. The motion passed by all present. 1004-10-Esparza Pest Control Request: Change of zoning from"A-1"Apartment House District to"B4"General Business District, resulting in a land use change from medium-density residential to general commercial. Excerpts from Zoning Report Legal Description/Location:South Park Subdivision,Block 2,Lot 1, located northeast of South Padre Island access road and Anthony Street intersection Purpose of Request:Pest control business 400 Placating Commission Minutes October 20,2004 Page I I Area Development Plan: Southeast—The Southeast Area Development Plan's future land use map recommends the area to develop with general commercial uses. The requested "B-I"District accomplishes the objectives of the Plan. Staff Recommendation: Denial of the "B-4"General Business District and Approval of a "B-I" Neighborhood Business 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 25 notices mailed. None were received in favor or in opposition. The public hearing was opened. No one appeared to be in favor or opposition. The public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Salazar and seconded by Braselton to recommend approval as submitted. Motion passed by all present. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT—DEFINITION—SIGN Mr. Gunning stated the purpose of the request is to address issues with glass storefront signs and asked that the Commission recommend this change. Motion was made by Braselton and seconded by Pusley to recommend approval as submitted. Motion passed by all present. DIRECTOR'S REPORT FUTURE SCHEDULED MEETINGS The holiday meeting schedule was discussed and it was decided to cancel the December 29,2004 meeting. Motion was made by Braselton and seconded by Stone to recommend cancellation of the December 29,2004 meeting. Motion passed by all present. EXCUSED ABSENCES Pusley requested an excused absence for the for the October 6,2004 meeting. Motion was made by Salazar and seconded by Stone to recommend approval. Motion passed by all present. OTHER MATTERS Mr.Gunning announced the Texas APA Conference will be in Corpus Christi in 2006. He stated there were about 100 Planning Commissioners at the recent Austin conference. Planing Commission Minutes October 20,2004 Page 12 ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Pusley and seconded by Stone to adjourn at 7:37 p.m. Motion passed by all present. Michael N.Gunning,AICP Michelle Long Assistant Director of Development Services Recording Secretary H:\PLN-DIR\SHARED\WORD\PLANNING COMMISSION\AGENDAS\2004\102004.DOC