Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 01/17/2001 V V Planning Commission Minutes �N:; r, January 17,2001 [IN! , , g RECEIVED Commissioners Present: David Berlanga,Chairman g arrARy'F I Shirley Mims,Vice Chairman* OFFICE re Neill F.Amsler 4 �o W. David Cheek «9l Sl bl£l2> William 1. Kelly Elizabeth Chu Richter Eloy H. Salazar Brooke Sween-McGloin Robert Zamora Staff Present: Michael N.Gunning,AICP,Director of Planning Lucinda P.Beal,Recording Secretary Miguel S.Saldana,AICP,City Planner Harry J.Power,City Planner Doyle Curtis,Assistant City Attorney Leo Farias,P.E.,Special Services Engineer Marcos A. Cisneros,Director of Park and Recreation CALL TO ORDER Chairman Berlanga declared a quorum and called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. NON PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS APPROVAL OF MINUTES—December 20,2000 Commissioner Sween-McGloin requested corrections to Page 1, Paragraph 3: Commissioner Sween- McGloin suggested that panel participants could include members of the American Institute of Architects Sou0iwest Corpus Christi Chapter. Page 2, Paragraph 4. - . .. • .. . . . • : :: _:-: - -, - the..losar.. of a-8.fcct. Commissioner Sween-McGloin asked how often a street closure can be discussed and decided. This street closure was discussed and decided by Council in 1984. Mr. Curtis said plat any time a citizen asks to revisit a street closure it will be h-ard. -re is no limit to the number of times that it could be revisited until the street is actually built and improved. Page 2,Paragraph 5. Commissioner Sween-McGloin asked if there is at this time an existi g caliche street for a second exist per the plat reauirements. Page 5, Paragraph 2. Mr. J.unquist stated that the property owner had not been able to sell the property after two years and has paid approximately$26.000 in city taxes on property not being utilized Page 5, Paragraph 3. Commissioner Sween-McGloin asked whether the new sign erected on the property was allowed in a"13-2"or"8-5"District and asked whether the new canopy erected on the property and the outdoor merchandising being done on the property was allowed in a"B-2"or"13-5"District. She said that the"B-T'District zoning is important to the City development to out used cars on that site and expressed concern with a Special Permit having a time limit. She continued that once the used cars and outdoor merchandise are allowed it would be very difficult to get the users to stop the use on the subiect property " Mims arrived at 6:35 p.m. SCANNED Planning Commission Minutes January 17,2001 Page 2 Motion by Sween-McGloin, seconded by Salazar, to approve the December 20, 2000 minutes as amended. Mgtiotltglpssed unanimously with Mims being out of the room. 1 EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissidner Zamora did not request an excused absence for December 20,2000. FUTURE SCHEDULED MEETINGS Chairman Berlanga asked Mr. Gunning, Director of Planning, if the February 14, 2001 meeting could be rescheduled from 5:30 p.m. to early afternoon at approximately noon or 1 p.m. Mr. Gunning responded that Staff would need to check the availability of the Council Chambers on February 14,2001 to ensure that there will not be a meeting being conducted at that time. He stated that he would also check the availability of the Basement Training Room on February 14,2001. OTHER MATTERS Mr. Gunning informed the Commission of City Council decisions regarding zoning cases presented. After tabling the Don Hodges zoning case, City Council approved a Special Permit for an auto sales use. Emilio Cano zoning request for "R-IB" One-family Dwelling District was approved. The Plat Ordinance amendments were passed on the second reading after amending the radius of the park requirement from 3.0-miles to 1.5-miles. Mr. Gunning informed the Commission that Staff is addressing issues regarding bar uses and stated that he and Council Member Longoria would be meeting with neighbors near the former Model Market located at the comer of McKenzie and Leopard. The new owner of the property plans to open a bar and grill which has caused controversy in the neighborhood. In addition there is another bar use, Cats Hite Club, near Del Mar College that Council Member Colmenero asked staff to review. Mr. Gunning continued that several Council members have asked Staff to review the zoning districts that allow bar uses near residential neighborhoods. Mr. Gunning stated that he would like to present zoning amendments for the Commission's review. The issues to be reviewed are the garage use, amendments to the"B-IA"District,half-way houses and shelter uses, and amendments to driveways. A discussion item will be placed on the Commission's agenda in the future regarding these issues. Commissioner Sween-McGloin asked whether the Parks and Open Space Master Plan would be impacted by the Plat Ordinance Amendments approved by City Council. She continued that the Staff and Commission needed to promote better communication to assist the City Council in understanding the concepts recommended by the Planning Commission and Staff. Commissioner Sween-McGloin asked Staff to send copies of the guidelines for Parks and Open Space to the each Planning Commissioner. Commissioner Sween-McGloin stated that a meeting is scheduled on Thursday, January 18, 2001 at the Holiday Inn Emerald Beach (National Estuary Program Meeting). The program has funding for park and open space projects. She offered to assist Staff with receiving finding from the Program. Commissioner Sween-McGloin stated that she was "appalled" with Staff recommending denial of plans that follow an area development plan after spending time trying to reach a consensus, trying to educate the Council on matters presented to the Planning Commission.. She added it is"nonsense"that a developer could build homes on an area recommended for park and open space and stated that she believed the Oso Parkway would be jeopardized if the area was not developed according the Oso Parkway Plan.. In response to Commissioner Cheek's question regarding zoning amendments addressing the bed and breakfast use, Mr. Gunning answered that the bed and breakfast was not included in the proposed zoning text amendments. However, during the past 12 months, the use has become more of a problem. Mr. Gunning said that he could include the bed and breakfast use as a discussion item. Commissioner Sween-McGloin stated that there is V Planning Commission Minutes January 17,2001 Page 3 a bed and breakfast, Ocean House, located on Ocean Drive that is creating more of a problem in the neighborhood with regard to traffic,parking,etc. Commissioner Salazar asked whether any other Commissioners would like to participate on the Affordable Housing Committee. Commissioner Cheek accepted. The next meeting is scheduled for February 7,2001. The Commission and Staff thanked Commissioner Kelly for his tenor on the Commission and wished him the best of luck on his attempt to obtain a seat on the City Council representing District I. PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS PLATS Continued Plats a. 1200129-NP70 Kocurek Addition.Lot 17A(Final-0.71 Acre) Located west of Weber Road(F.M.43)and north of Saratoga Boulevard(S.H.357) Mr. Power stated that the applicant's engineer is requesting a continuance for an additional two (2)weeks to January 31,2001. Staff recommends approval of the continuance. Chairman Berlanga opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing was closed. In response to Commissioner Sween-McGloin's question regarding the reason for the request to continue the plat, Mr. Power stated that according to a letter submitted by the applicant's engineer there was an emergency that prevented attendance of either the applicant or the engineer. Motion by Sween-McGloin, seconded by Kelly, to continue the plat to January 31, 2001. Motion passed unanimously with Mims being absent. b. 1200136-P61 The Lakes Unit 10(Final—5.928 Acres) Located west of the extension of Lake Micale Drive and north of the extension of Lake Apache Drive,both northwest of the extension of Yorktown Road Mr. Power stated that the applicant's engineer submitted a request to continue the plat for an additional two (2)weeks to discuss right-of-way dedication with Staff. Staff recommends approval of continuance. Chairman Berlanga opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion by Sween-McGloin, seconded by Zamora, to continue the plat for two (2) weeks to the January 31,2001 meeting. Motion passed unanimously with Mims being absent. New Plats a. 1200141-P62 Ha dition.Block D, Lots F-1 &F-2(Final Renlat—6.38 Acres) Located north of Leopard Street between Hart Road and High Ridge Road Planning Commission Minutes January 17,2001 Page 4 Mr. Power stated that the applicant's engineer submitted a request to continue the plat for two(2) weeks to the January 31, 2001 meeting. The owner of the property is adding an additional lot to the replat. Staff recommends approval of the continuance. At the request of Chairman Berlanga, Mr. Power read the other plat (#010103-NP2) which was also requesting a continuance into the record as being: e. 010103-NP2 La Concha(Preliminary— 174.50 Acres) Located between State Highway 361 (Formerly Park Road 53) and the Gulf of Mexico approximately 7 miles south of Port Aransas,Texas Mr. Power stated that the applicant's engineer submitted a request to continue the plat for two(2)weeks to the January 31,2001 meeting. Staff recommends approval of the continuance. Chairman Berlanga opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion by Sween-McGloin, seconded by Kelly, to approve continuance of plats #1200141-P62 (Hart Addition) and #010103-NP2 (La Concha) for two (2) weeks to January 31, 2001. Motion passed unanimously with Mims being absent. b. 1200143-P63 La Cantera Estates Unit 2(Final—12.241 Acres) Located between Flour Bluff Drive and the Cayo Del,Oso south of Graham Road Mr.Power stated that Staff recommends approval as submitted. Chairman Berlanga opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing was closed. In response to Commissioner Sween-McGloin's question regarding the configuration of Lots 4, 5,6,and 7, Mr.Power stated that there is an additional piece property that has been approved on a preliminary plat. He described the area discussed as being between Mission Lake Drive extending south from Cantera Trail and turning in a southwesterly direction into a cul-de-sac that parallels Lots 4 and 5 in Block 3 which would have a call on the North 84°59'49"line. Mr.Power stated that Cantera Trail connects with a street running in a northeasterly/southwesterly direction paralleling the shoreline of the Cayo Del Oso which has lots fronting on the back side of the Oso. He added that there are additional lots on Cantera Trail beginning in Block 2, to the west with Lots 1 through 4 and the entering into the area of the plat presented to the Commission. He informed the Commission that Blocks 1 through 3 have been recorded during the first phase of the development as Unit 1. He continued that there is an outlet on Cantera Trail. Motion by Sween-McGloin,seconded by Amsler,to approve Staff's recommendation for approval. c. 1200145-P64 Shell Road Poultry Acres,Lot 3A.Sandy Ridre Addition Block 2 Lot 4A(Final Reolat—2.574 Acres) Located between Interstate Highway 37 and Up River Road northwest of Violet Road Mr.Power stated that Staff recommends approval as submitted. At the request of Chairman Berlanga, Mr. Power read the following plat into the record for consideration with the above plat. IMO S Planning Commission Minutes • January 17,2001 Page 5 d. 010101-PI Center View Subdivision,Block 1, Lot 2(Final Renlat 0. 687 Acre) Located between Greenwood Drive and Elgin Street south of Baldwin Boulevard Mr.Power stated that Staff recommends approval as submitted. Chairman Berlanga opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion by Sween-McGloin, seconded by Mims, to approve Staffs recommendation for approval on plats #120015-P64 (Shell Road Poultry Acres/Sandy Ridge Addition) and #010101-PI (Center View Subdivision). Motion passed unanimously. f. 010104-P2 Northwest Crossine Block 1 Lot 1 (Final—21.66 Acres) Located west of Rand Morgan Road south of Leopard Street Commissioner Amsler stated that he needed to abstain from participation on the plat and left the room. Mr.Power stated that Staff recommends approval as submitted. Chairman Berlanga opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sween-McGloin asked why the plat was being configured as illustrated. Mr. Power answered that the developer needed to build the school by Fall 2002, and that the previously approved residential lots would be submitted later. Motion by Sween-McGloin, seconded by Kelly, to approve Staff's recommendation for approval. Motion passed unanimously with Salazar and Mims being out of the room and Amsler abstaining. S. 010105-P3 Victoria Park Unit 5(Final—17.30 Acres) Located north of the most easterly extension of Oso Parkway all south of Wooldridge Road Public hearing was opened. Chuck Urban, 2725 Swantner, stated that he and staff have discussed issues regarding parkland and the overall concept of the plat in relation to Oso Parkway Plan. Mr.Urban continued that he believed that their discussions were the result of the Platting Ordinance amendments regarding park dedication and the City's shortage of funds to participate in street construction for areas around parks and asked for clarification of the park shown on the plat. He continued that the concept to follow the Oso Parkway comprehensive plan was to provide an area to be used as a scenic corridor and open space. There was a discussion regarding cash in-lieu of parkland as required in the Platting Ordinance. Mr.Urban stated that the park would not be a neighborhood park and asked if the developer would need to provide cash in-lieu of for the development. Mr. Power answered in the affirmative. Mr. Urban stated that throughout the Victoria Park development park has been dedicated along Oso Parkway. He stated that there are currently seven(7)acres of dedicated parkland which equates to 140 acres of the entire development. Mr.Urban stated that he believed the park requirements have been met and would like to preserve the area designated on the plat as park by giving the City the additional park as illustrated on the plat. Mr. Urban provided an illustration of the developed subdivisions including the proposed subdivision and parkland. • • Planning Commission Minutes January 17,2001 Page 6 Mr. Gunning stated that at the present time Staff did not have information regarding the amount of parkland that has been dedicated from the Victoria Park subdivision and stated that he did not believe that Mr. Urban would provide inaccurate information. Mr. Power stated that he had not verified the amount of park dedicated,but believes that there is an excess of parkland that has been dedicated. Commissioner Sween-McGloin asked if the street adjacent to the proposed park area has been constructed. Mr. Urban responded by saying that the developer plans to build the street which raises the issue regarding half-street street construction participation. He continued that the City's share of the street construction totals approximately $42,000 and that the developer of the proposed subdivision realizes that the city is short on funds. Oso Parkway is an 80-foot right-of-way: 40-foot collector with 20 feet of right-of-way toward the Oso for the meandering 8-foot hike and bike trail. Mr. Gunning informed the Commission that the Planing Ordinance amendments approved by City Council stated that before construction plans can be approved for any subdivision, the City Council must approve the participation agreement for the City's share of funds and allocate the money. The Finance Director needs to provide a certification of funds and appropriation for the specific street project and then the participation agreement must be approved by City Council. He continued that prior to construction plans being approved,City Council is required to approve the needed funds prior to City participation on specific projects. There are limited funds ($600,000) available that were approved in the 2000 Bond Program. Any future participation for new subdivisions will need to be approved by City Council after the Planning Commission approves the plat but before the Director of Engineering Services approves the construction plans. Commissioner Sween-McGloin expressed concern with the Planning Commission approving plats that cannot be developed as presented due to the lack of funds by the City. Mr. Gunning explained that the Commission has the final authority over approval of the plat and if the plat involves city participation,City Council will need to also approve the participation. He further explained that the Planning Commission is not committing the City to participate in construction costs. The developer has the option to move forward with the project with the understanding that they will bear the burden of the costs. In response to Commissioner Sween-McGloin's concern regarding whether there would be some streets not being completed causing egress problems to occur,Mr. Gunning answered in the negative. Mr. Urban presented the Oso Parkway plan and stated that parkland is one of the most appropriate uses for the areas. The plan stated that the open areas and scenic views were to be preserved for future environmental and passive recreation. He informed the Commission that there are several issues that are being dealt with in the area at this time: four-wheelers and four by four trucks driving in the proposed park area. The developer wants to give the parkland to the City to allow the property to be controlled and to keep the unwanted activity under control. In response to Commissioner Kelly's question regarding the use of the land if it was not dedicated as a park, Mr. Urban stated that residents of the area would use the property as they are currently to hunt, ride four-wheelers,and drive four by four trucks. The property could be given charitably or could be purchased as part of a grant. He continued that the property is not buildable because the elevation is 10 and that there is not a designated floodway in the area of the Oso. If an Army Corp of Engineers' certificate could be obtained,the property could be filled as long as the elevation is above four(4). Mr. Gunning stated that the Park and Recreation Department is recommending receiving cash in-lieu-of park dedication; however, if there is not a park dedication requirement, construction of the Oso Parkway would be the responsibility of the developer. If the property is donated as something other than a park such as open space, supervision, etc. the property would not constitute a park. The language of the ordinance states that if a park abuts a roadway, then the City would participate in construction of half of the roadway after City Council approves the distribution of funds. Vice Chairman Mims stated that when she was on the Planning Commission previously, the area being discussed on Oso Parkway was not designated to be anything but parkland and/or open space. She continued that she has a concern with staff requiring money in-lieu-of and rejecting the parkland as called V V Planning Commission Minutes January 17,2001 Page 7 for in the Oso Parkway plan. Mr. Urban read a portion of the Oso Parkway plan. 'Park acquisition to provide access to Cayo Del Oso and Oso Creek should be given the highest priority. Such acquisition may take the form of property directly adjacent to these water areas and/or a private property for placement of pedestrian pass in the water areas." He said the money is not the issue and that the developer would probably develop the road without City participation funds if staff could agree to reimburse the developer in five (5) or ten (10) years. Mr. Urban stated that he preferred to consider the property as a park as opposed to a gift or open space. Dedicating the area as a park would give the City the opportunity to develop and maintain the property accordingly. Mr. Marcos A. Cisneros, Director of Park and Recreation,stated that the Parkland Dedication Ordinance is designed specifically to review what a subdivision developer owes to the new residents of the subdivision. The requirement is to look at providing recreational opportunities in some form or fashion either by funds to purchase land and/or make improvements to existing facilities or land to create the facilities for the betterment of the community. The difference is that there is a distinction between park and open space. The Parkland Dedication Ordinance is designed specifically to approach the aspects of the neighborhood concept of what is in the community. Staff has recently gone forward with a public referendum to rid the city of particular parcels that were of no use to the City insofar as park properties are concerned. The distinction that can be made relative to the Oso would be that in this particular instance if there were a connotation of open space on the development. The requirement would be satisfied. The property being considered is labeled as park and would not meet the requirement. He provided an example of Cenizo Canyon which was the exact type of topography and format. The drainage way was given as a parkland dedication to give relief for the subdivision. The residents of the subdivision requested a neighborhood park in Cenizo Canyon on the property but staff could not foresee developing a park on the dedicated land because of the steep slope. Mr. Cisneros continued that the subject property was a beautiful preserve and reserve,but would not be a neighborhood park. Mr. Cisneros stated that staff supports the need for open space in the city; however, the issue being dealt with in this instance is how will the park dedication requirements be met in this proposed subdivision. If consideration is made for the previous dedication of parkland from previous development,the requirement should exceed what is required when including the proposed subdivision. Mr. Cisneros stated that when addressing parkland dedication, unless the entire platting of the development has been shown then the dedication is for what is being finalized at that particular point. There is a neighborhood park in the subdivision that was suitable for construction. The remaining 2.5 to 3 acres that were given fall into the open space category. Mr. Cisneros questioned the applicability of receiving credit for previous land donations on the basis of the other developments being finalized and credit given at that point. Mr. Cisneros continued that the street requirements relative to the city participation is something that is in place, but solely in the Parkland Dedication Ordinance. Therefore, the requirement is necessary when dealing with a park that meets the requirements of the Parkland Dedication Ordinance. While in the past the City received property that was given for credit for parkland to meet and satisfy the parkland requirements, the City accepted several portions of property that did not meet the guidelines for suitable parkland and is considered open space. The City would not be opposed to receiving the property being discussed,but the property could not be received as credit for parkland dedication because it did not satisfy the requirements and guidelines for the particular type of development. An outdoor recreational pursuit in terms of a park in that vicinity,could not be develop,and it would be considered open space. There is only one option available to the City which is to require that the development that is being proposed provide cash in-lieu-of to satisfy the parkland dedication requirements. The money would be used to improve the neighborhood park that is in existence or any other parcels that are within the 1.5 mile radius as stated in the Platting Ordinance. If the land is dedicated as open space, the City would not participate in street construction. Mr. Cisneros emphasized that there are two different types of city property: parkland and open space,which cannot be developed for regular recreational pursuits. Commissioner Sween-McGloin stated that the Plat Ordinance Review Committee developed a plan addressing open space and parks and promoted funding for the Park and Recreation Department to receive funds for a Master Park and Open Space Plan. During the Plat Ordinance Review Committee meetings,the 4tte tied Planning Commission Minutes January 17,2001 • Page 8 definition of open space and parks was discussed. The Plat Ordinance Review Committee also promoted the concept of linear parks that were hike and bike trails and stated that opportunities need to be taken where they can be found. She continued that she considered Mr. Cisneros' definition of a park "a slap in the face to the PORC (Plat Ordinance Review Committee)" and to the work that was done to get finding for the Park and Open Space Master Plan. Mr. Cisneros apologized to Commissioner Sween-McGloin and stated that the definitions of the park and open space are not his defmitions,but guidelines of the Parkland Dedication Requirements. Commissioner Sween-McGloin stated that it is inappropriate for the Commission to be discussing platting, dedicating parkland, and promoting certain concepts which the developers and engineers are trying to promote and then Staff informs the developer that they need to do the opposite. She added that she would discuss the matter with the Council members. Commissioner Kelly stated that according to Mr. Urban the plan for Oso Parkway illustrates parks along the parkway and asked why a developer should not be able to rely on the information provided in the plans. Mr. Cisneros answered that the distinction between parkway versus parks are not being the same. In response to Commissioner Kelly's question regarding the designation of the area in.the plan,Mr. Gunning stated that the Oso Parkway plan dedicates the area as a linear parkway. It is not unusual for landowners to donate areas that are difficult to develop in order to have the city maintain and keep as open space. He continued that it is in the interest of the city to accept open space donations of land for continuance of the parkland. If the park dedications requirements have been met, the City could not require a cash in-lieu-of parkland. However,the responsibility of construction of the Oso Parkway road as a part of the extension of the road that is already in place would belong to the developer and because the parkland does not abut the opposite side,there would not be any city participation on the street construction. Commissioner Kelly stated that he remembered specific discussions whereby the Plat Ordinance Review Committee reviewed the Austin model which has proven to be a success in helping to attract new business. He added that he believed that the proposed subdivision would be identical to the Austin model discussed and could attract the type of entrepreneurs that would create jobs for everyone. Commissioner Kelly asked what would be the responsibility of the City in maintaining and policing the property if accepted as open space. Mr. Cisneros answered that the City's obligation is to be a good neighbor. Consequently, the responsibility would be the same as Austin is doing with the Austin model. The bond proposal that Austin had was specifically routed in two(2)different areas: I)multi-million dollars for open space preservation; 2) multi-million dollars for park development. Mr. Cisneros stated that in the open space circumstance, typically the intent is to leave everything in its natural state except for the boarder areas as they abut to streets or trails. In response to Commissioner Kelly's question regarding disposition of parkland, Mr.Cisneros stated that once the property has been designated as a park, a public referendum is required. However,the City may dispose of open space without requiring a referendum. Mr. Gunning stated that the City would attempt to regulate the use of property,not because the property is parkland,but due to the fact that the property belongs to the City. Mr. Cisneros explained that there are different maintenance standards for parks and open space. A developed park requires more maintenance as opposed to open space. Commissioner Kelly referred to the 3.2 acres of park that is west of the subject property and asked what designation the park had. Mr.Cisneros stated that the 3.2 was dedicated as a park to meet the parkland dedication of the previous developments for the subdivision. He continued that the difference is the ability to develop the property as outlined in the Parkland Dedication Ordinance guidelines for developing parkland Mr. Cisneros stated that the topography of the subject property does not meet the guidelines in the parkland category. Commissioner Kelly asked whether the City could designate wild space with paths for birders as a park. Mr. Cisneros stated that the guidelines refer to floodways or other topographical considerations and state that there must be developable property in the dedicated area. Commissioner Kelly asked whether the City could choose not to participate in street construction and the developer will bear the total cost of street construction adjacent to a park if funds are not available for street participation. Mr. Gunning answered in the affirmative and continued that the City's Legal Department will research whether donation of excess parkland after the park dedication requirements have been met, will require the City to participate in construction of the streets adjacent to the park. it11100 Planning Commission Minutes January 17,2001 Page 9 Commissioner Kelly stated that he believed that the proposed subdivision is a model of the Nat Ordinance Review Committee. He continued that he believes greenbelts are an important aspect of developing the city. He expressed concern with setting a precedent where developers can give the worst available land to meet the park requirement. He believed that the contiguous neighborhood has three (3)parcels of usable parkland which totals 18 acres and does not believe that the neighborhood will be left without a park. He sees the opportunity to create a greenbelt and a different kind of park environment for the residents of the community and the city. Commissioner Kelly asked if the City accepts the park dedication, would there be a precedent set that would allow other developers to donate their worst land to the city. Mr. Cisneros answered that the Parkland Dedication Ordinance addresses donation of parkland that is unsuitable for developing. He added that City staff is endorsing the concept for the Oso Parkway in terms of connectivity and open space; however, the guidelines do not allow accepting the property as open space. Mr. Cisneros stated that, in his estimation, the property could not be accepted as outlined in the guidelines in the Parkland Dedication ordinance. Mr. Gunning informed the Commission that the City and the applicant have the right to appeal a plat approval or denial to the City Council. The appeal needs to be filed within 10 days after Planning Commission action. He explained that Mr. Urban stated that all concerned wanted to implement the Oso Parkway Plan and that the construction of the road would be agreed upon in the future. Mr. Gunning stated that if the property did not meet the guidelines for satisfying a park, the City cannot accept the property as determined by the Park and Recreation Department staff. He stated that the Legal Department needs to review issues regarding street construction. Mr. Cisneros stated that many cities have split the Parkland Dedication Ordinance to include an additional opportunity to accept open space at a different ratio because of the circumstances of desirable versus undesirable. He reiterated that City staff endorses the need for open space and the need for Oso Parkway as a continuance of open space;however, the guidelines do not allow City staff to accept the parkland as presented. Chairman Berlanga concurred with Commissioner Kelly regarding using open space for birding trails and uses for property other than regular neighborhood parks. He added that guidelines are not law. In response to Vice Chairman Mims' question regarding the number of areas along Oso Parkway that are similar to the proposed subdivision,Mr. Cisneros answered that there is approximately one mile of similar property. Commissioner Mims stated that the land is undevelopable with regard to building homes on the area, to which Mr. Cisneros agreed and stated that the designation of an open space is suitable for the property. In response to Vice Chairman Minis' question regarding whether the Mr. Urban wanted to table the plat to allow time to arrive at a consensus between staff and the developer, Mr. Urban stated that he preferred to have the Commission reach a decision and not delay the plat. Mr. Urban responded to statements made by Mr. Cisneros by saying that he did not believe that the proposed development resembles Cenizo Canyon. He continued that there is a five (5) acre park in the neighborhood. There is an elementary school, Ella Barnes Elementary, with a six (6) acre playground. Mr.Urban stated that he believed that he will demonstrate that there is sufficient acreage to satisfy the park requirement. The preliminary plat of the subdivision was approved by the Planning Commission in 1997 and illustrates the park as presented in the proposed subdivision. Mr. Urban reiterated that the donated property needs to be designated as a park and not open space. He stated that he believes that are many opportunities for grants to assist with development of the park. There are many citizens who use the Oso Parkway trail and believes that the park would benefit the neighborhood. He stated that the interpretation of the particular defined park for the neighborhood with improvements had never been discussed prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Urban stated that in his opinion, a legal precedence has been established along Oso Parkway from Everhart Road to Weber Road when it was dedicated as a park. He added that the developer is following the preliminary plat and would like to keep the area open to be Planning Commission Minutes January 17,2001 ' Page 10 enjoyed by the City in the future. Mr. Urban read a policy statement from the Oso Parkway Plan: "Park acquisition that provides access to the Cayo Del Oso and Oso Creek should be given the highest priority. Such acquisitions may take the form of property directly adjacent to the water areas or they provide property for placement of pedestrian pass to the water areas." He stated that he was proposing to develop the property as recommended in the Oso Parkway Plan. Vice Chairman Mims stated that she believed that everyone, City staff and the development community, needs to start"thinking outside of the box." Commissioner Richter asked whether the 3.2 acre park in the neighborhood was developed to which Mr.Cisneros answered in the negative and added that the distinction is made between the categories in terms of the maintenance standards between the neighborhood park and parkway or open space. Mr.Cisneros stated that the continuity of the proposed Oso Parkway linear park may be severed with the development if the City is not the controlling body. He explained that the street meanders because of the canyon in the area. If a trail system is developed, a bridge would need to be erected. Physical as well as visual connectivity would be broken. In response to Commissioner Richter's question regarding whether the City may accept portions of the property for a hike and bike trail or open space,Mr. Cisneros stated that if the requirement for parkland dedication has been made, there would be no value on piecemilling. If the City were to consider accepting the land,the best alternative would be to accept the entire property for open space. Commission Richter stated that she would prefer to accept the property and dedicate a portion for a park. In response,Mr. Cisneros stated that the high ground which is most developable would be necessary for the trail. Mr. Gunning said that with regard to the Oso Parkway it was recognized that developers would like to dedicate the undevelopable portions of their land that would be adjacent to the parkway as a credit towards their park dedication. The language of the Oso Parkway policy statements was to require that the city build and implement the Oso Parkway system. It is also mentioned in one of the policy statements in the adopted Oso Parkway Plan that unbuildable tracts, including but not limited to wetlands, dunes, and archeological tracts, may be given to the public. However such offerings may not be used to satisfy the park dedication requirements of the Platting Ordinance. Staff is not communicating that the property cannot be used as parkland or open space;however, under the adopted policy the dedication cannot be used as credit towards meeting the park dedication requirements. Mr.Urban clarified that the developer did not need to dedicate the property as a park; the property is being given to the City, and the developer will pay for street construction. Mr. Gunning reiterated that it had not been verified whether the development has exceeded the parkland dedication as required in the Parkland Dedication Ordinance. Commissioner Sween-McGloin stated that she believed that the area is similar to and slopes less than Cole Park, parts of Blucher Park, and parts of other Oso Parkway areas. She continued that she preferred to approve the plat and did not foresee any reason for delaying approval. There is precedence for parkway dedication along the area. John Wallace, 12 Camden, stated that he was not connected to the development; however, if he were, he would to be advising the property owner to pull the plat and move Oso Parkway to develop lots facing Oso Parkway. He stated that he understood that the area along Oso Parkway would be developed as park as listed on the preliminary plat. If the property cannot be dedicated as park allocation,the developer will use the property to gain profit. Public hearing was closed. Motion by Sween-McGloin, seconded by Mims, to approve the plat as submitted. Motion passed unanimously with Amsler abstaining. it V Planning Commission Minutes January 17,2001 Page II h. 010110-NPS Amending Nat of the Lakes Unit 9B(Final Renlat—3.97 Acres) Located northwest of Lake Superior Drive north of the westward extension of Yorktown Boulevard Mr.Power stated that Staff recommends approval as submitted. The developer submitted an amending plat to correct dimensional errors on the previously recorded plat. The development has been constructed. Chairman Berlanga opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion by Sween-McGloin, seconded by Salazar, to approve Staffs recommendation for approval. Motion passed unanimously with Mims being out of the room. Time Extension a. 069959-P23 Saratova Center,Block 1.Lots 3 4,&((Final— 13 12 Acres) Located east of South Staples Street(FM 2444)and south of Saratoga Boulevard(EH.357) Mr.Power stated that Staff recommends a six-month time extension. Chairman Berlanga opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sween-McGloin asked for an explanation of the developer's letter requesting a time extension. Motion by Sween-McGloin, seconded by Kelly, to approve a six-month time extension. Motion passed unanimously. Mr.Power read Time Extensions b and c into the record as follows: b. 010003-NP1 Villa Verde Subdivision(Preliminary—34.53 Acres) Located east of Navigation Boulevard and north of Bear Lane c. 010004-NP2 Villa Verde Subdivision(Final-7 995 Acres) Located east of Navigation Boulevard and north of Bear Lane Mr.Power stated that Staff recommends approval of a six-month time extension on Plats#010003-NP 1 and #010004-NP2. Chairman Berlanga opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion by Kelly, seconded by Cheek, to approve a six-month time extension on Plats #010003-NP1 and #010004-NP2. Motion passed unanimously with Sween-McGloin being out of the room. twat Planning Commission Minutes January 17,2001 Page 12 ZONING CASES Continued Zoning Cases Bailey Capital Limited: 1200-03 REQUEST: "0-2" District Bayfront Business District to "B-5" District Primary Business District on South Water Beach Addition, Block 5, east Y of Lots 1 and 2, and located on the southwest corner of Broadway Court and South Shoreline Boulevard Mr. Saldafia presented a slide illustration of the subject property and the surrounding area. He informed the Commission that at the previous Planning Commission meeting, the Commission directed staff to meet with the applicants to develop language for a Special Permit that would be agreeable to the City and the applicant. He presented the Special Permit conditions as follows: 1) Allowed Uses: The only use authorized by this Special Permit other than those uses permitted by right in a"B-2"Bayfront Business District,is a retail automobile sale use. This use does not include the wholesale of automobiles. 2) Landscavine: A minimum of three(3)palm trees of the sabal or washingtonia species with a minimum trunk height of ten(10)feet must be planted along South Shoreline Boulevard. All landscape material must be installed within 180 days from the date of this ordinance. All plant material must be kept in a healthy and growing condition at all times. 3) Access: Access onto Shoreline Boulevard shall be limited to the one existing drive approach. 4) Streakers: Outside paging,speakers,telephone bells,or similar devises are prohibited. 5) Sins: Individual car signs are limited to a size not to exceed II inches by 17 inches. For the purposes of this ordinance, the individual car signs are those signs advertising the year, make, model, and/or the price of the automobile. 6) Time Limit: This Special Permit shall be deemed to expire within two (2) years from the date of this ordinance. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained before operating the automobile sales use and the Certificate must have an expiration date as stated above. Mr. Saldana stated that the site plan presented by the applicant would need to be produced to scale; however,the site plan will be corrected prior to being presented to City Council. Chairman Berlanga opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing was closed. In response to Commissioner Sween-McGloin's question regarding Staffs recommendation, Mr. Saldada stated that Staff recommends denial of the rezoning request. He added that the sign located near the building previously discussed by the Commission will be allowed to remain. Mr. Saldana responded to Commissioner Sween-McGloin's concerns regarding enforcement of the time limitation after two (2) years by saying that the applicant's representative and Staff discussed the time limitation. The applicant is planning to develop a site along South Padre Island Drive near the Cayo Del Oso for the car lot. The Ocean Drive location would be a temporary location for their used car lot. Mr. Gunning stated that Staff will need to implement a system to track the Special Permit on the property and of the expiration date to remind the applicant 60 to 90 days prior to the expiration date of their Special Permit. Chairman Berlanga stated that the City Council considers Ocean Drive a scenic corridor that needs to be protected. He added that he did not believe that a used car business was a conforming use nor did it protect the scenic corridor. S Planning Commission Minutes January 17,2001 Page 13 Commissioner Sween-McGloin stated that she has seen the business in its operation during the past few weeks and could not support the Special Permit. She added that she did not believe that a used car lot was an appropriate use along Ocean Drive and expressed concern with the time limitation and enforcement of the time limit. Commissioner Cheek stated that due to the fact that the use will be a temporary use and the area and surrounding area being vacant at this time, he would support the Special Permit. Commissioners Richter and Salazar concurred. Commissioner Amsler stated that there will be buyers for vacant property on Ocean Drive when the city begins to grow again and the used car lot use will cease to exist. He continued that he would support the Special Permit. Motion by Sween-McGloin, seconded by Kelly, to deny the rezoning request. Motion failed (4-5) with Kelly, Sween-McGtoin, Zamora, and Berlanga voting"Aye"and Amsler,Cheek,Richter, Salazar,and Mims voting "Nay". The Commission amended Special Permit Condition#2 Landscaping from 180 days of implementation to 90 days. Motion by Cheek,seconded by Salazar,to approve a Special Permit with six(6)conditions. Motion passed (5-4) with Amsler, Cheek, Richter, Salazar, and Minis voting "Aye" and Kelly, Sween-McGloin, Zamora, and Berlanga voting"Nay". Minority Vote: Commissioner Sween-McGloin stated that she believed that the used car lot was not an appropriate use in a"B-2"District scenic corridor and expressed concern with being able to enforce the two(2)year time restriction. New Zoning Cases Valero Refining Company—Texas: 0101-01 REQUEST: "R-113" One-family Dwelling District to "I-2" Light Industrial District on property described as Mobile Estates, Block 1, Lot 63 and located on the east side of Idlewild Place, approximately 370 feet north of Skyline Drive Mr. Saldana presented a slide illustration of the subject property and the surrounding area. The subject property is part of a "R-113" District area containing 442.08 acres. This area is partially developed with a manufactured home subdivision,but mostly with single-family residences that are located southeast from the subject property. West of the subject property, there are 235.50 acres of land that is zoned a"B-4"District with a portion developed with hotels,office and some area remains undeveloped. Mr. Salda0a stated that the applicant requested a change of zoning from an "R-1B" District to an "I-2" District for a trailer to house equipment for an air monitoring system. It is the applicant's intent to monitor the air and house the equipment in a 208 square foot trailer. The proposed trailer will be a typical equipment trailer. The air monitoring system will monitor hydrogen sulfide(H1S)and sulphur dioxide(302)for two(2)years or longer if it is deemed necessary. This monitoring station is a result from complaints in the area. The Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission will review the data obtained on an as-needed basis. The subject property is located in an area that is residentially zoned and developed with manufactured homes. Access to the subject property is off of Idlewild Place, a local residential street that is accessed through other local residential streets. An"1-2"District on the surrounding property would be detrimental to the surrounding area due to the uses permitted in the district. these uses include heavy equipment repair, the blending of insecticides, fungicides and disinfectants, machine shop, contractors' storage yard and other similar uses. The proposed use will not impact the area since the improvements are similar to the adjacent improvements and traffic generated from the use will be minimal, one employee every other day on the average. The air monitoring system • pf 4,01 Planning Commission Minutes January 17,2001 ' Page 14 could be accommodated through a Special Permit to ensure that the improvements would not detract from the area. It would be difficult to limit the hours of operation because the monitoring is continuous and an employee should be able to access the property if the need would arise. Staff recommends denial of the requested "1-2" District, and in lieu thereof, approval of a Special Permit for an air monitoring station subject to the following conditions: 1) Use: The only use authorized by this Special Permit other than those uses permitted by right in an"R-lB"One-family Dwelling District is an air monitoring station. 2) Landscaoine: The air monitoring station's wailer must contain a skirt around its base and a lattice screen at the front end of the trailer with shmbs. The landscaping material must be installed within 180 days from the date of this ordinance. All landscaping material must be kept in a healthy and growing condition at all times. 3) Screening. A standard screening fence with a height of not less than six (6) feet must be installed and maintained along the north, south, and east property lines. Within ten feet of the Idelwild Place right-of-way,the required screening fence must have a hieght of three(3)feet. The area between 10 and 15 feet from the Idlewild Place right-of-way, may be used to transition the screening fence from six(6) feet to three(3) feet. The screening fence must be installed before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Anti-personnel/razor wire and barbed wire are prohibited. 4) Time Limit. This Special Permit shall be deemed to have expired within one year of the date of this ordinance unless the property is being sued as outlined in Condition #1, which includes obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy,and is in compliance with all other conditions. There were 28 notices mailed to property owners within a 200-foot radius of the subject property of which none were returned in favor, nine (9)were returned in opposition,and eight(8) from outside the 200-foot radius in opposition. Chairman Berlanga opened the public hearing. John Kiggans, representing Valero, stated that the air monitoring unit would not be in place for more than two(2)years unless a problem is discovered. Then the air monitoring station would remain in place for an extended period of time. In response to Chairman Berlanga's question regarding who would decide whether the air monitoring unit would need to remain in place,Mr.Kiggans answered TNRCC in conjunction with Valero Refinery. Mr. Kiggans stated that there would not be any heavy equipment brought into the neighborhood except when the trailer is being brought into the neighborhood and taken away from the neighborhood. He explained that Valero wishes to conduct air monitoring to address concerns expressed by the residents in the neighborhood. Mr. Kiggans continued that he believes there is not a problem with the air quality;however, if there is a problem,Valero would like to remedy the problem. The air monitoring equipment will not be noisy or unsightly. He stated that he did not understand why the neighborhood would be in opposition to air monitoring in the neighborhood. In response to Commissioner Kelly's question regarding whether Valero's Community Advisory Group would be allowed to review the air monitoring data produced, Mr. Kiggans answered in the affirmative. He continued that the residents also could be involved in reviewing the data. He stated that there is a lawsuit pending between the residents in the neighborhood and Valero which restricts plaintiffs in the lawsuit being eligible to participate in the Community Advisory Group. Commissioner Kelly stated that he understood that a monitor needed to be placed where the data would be meaningful to the complaining residents. He continued that he believed that Valero would receive cooperation from the neighborhood if the neighborhood is informed of what procedures are taking place in their area and encouraged communication between Valero and the residents. Commissioner Sween-McGloin asked what is contained in the unit. Mr. Kiggans responded that the unit houses calibration gases which contains small concentrations of chemicals being monitored. He informed the �M V Planning Commission Minutes January 17,2001 Page 15 Commission that the unit poses no greater danger than filling a car with gasoline. He presented photographs of the unit proposed to be placed in the neighborhood. In response to Commissioner Cheek's question regarding a range of area that could be an acceptable location to conduct the air monitoring, Mr. Kiggans answered that Valero reviewed possible site for monitoring several years prior but did not find suitable property to be able to conduct the monitoring. The subject property was acquired two (2) years prior for an air monitoring station. There have been numerous complaints from the neighborhood,Valero wishes to address neighborhood concerns. The air quality monitoring could be conducted at a different location. The monitor proposed to be located in the neighborhood monitoring sulphur dioxide and hydrogen sulphide. Mr. Kiggans stated that Valero conducted air monitoring for hydrogen sulphide for one(1)year on the Berry Contracting property located between Valero Refinery and the neighborhood. Commissioner Cheek stated that if he were a citizen of the neighborhood for the proposed air monitoring system,he would be disagreeable unless there was a concern for the air quality. He asked whether the unsightly unit could be placed in another location and be able to achieve the same results. Mr.Kiggans answered in the negative,stating that this was the best site. In response to Vice Chairman Mims' question regarding whether Valero would be agreeable to a Special Permit for the property,Mr. Kiggans answered in the affirmative. In response to Chairman Berlanga's question regarding whether the air monitoring could be conducted from another location,Mr.Kiggans answered that the subject property is the best location for the monitoring. Many complaints have been received from this neighborhood. Mr. Gunning asked whether data collected would be available to TNRCC and the citizens of the neighborhood on a non-restrictive basis, to which Mr.Kiggans answered in the affirmative. Mr.Gunning stated that Staff prefers to accommodate the request but require that the air monitoring unit blend with the neighborhood. He referred to the Special Permit conditions requiring skirting around the trailer and screening of the front of the trailer. Albert Williams, 937 Idlewild Place, stated that he resides across the street from the subject property for the proposed air monitoring trailer. He has lived in the neighborhood for 30 years and for the past 18 years he stated that he believes that Valero has not been fair to the residents. Mr. Williams stated that he believed that rezoning the property would affect his property. He continued that TNRCC monitored the air seven (7) years prior and, according to Mr. Williams,declared that the air was not suitable for humans. He added that he was not opposed to an air monitoring system to test the air in the neighborhood,but requested that Valero place the air monitoring trailer in another location near the motels in the area. Mr. Williams stated that Mr. Kiggans was not being honest when he stated that Valero purchased the subject property for the air monitoring trailer. He suggested that Bill Green, a former resident of the neighborhood,was bought out by Valero in order to cease discussions regarding air quality. Commissioner Kelly asked whether all the residents in attendance were involved in the lawsuit against Valero, to which Mr. Williams responded in the negative. Commissioner Kelly then asked whether Valero had approached the residents to create a neighborhood group or liaison for an exchange of communication or ideas. Mr.Williams stated that Valero met with the neighborhood approximately 12 to 13 years prior. The residents agreed to allow Valero representatives to take soil samples from the properties and asked Valero to share the results with the neighborhood. Valero agreed;however, when the residents asked for the results of the soil samples, they were told that the results were listed as confidential information. Mr. Williams suggested that the same situation would occur with the results from the air monitoring system. 0. H. Marsh, 918 Idlewild, stated that he protests to Valero placing an air monitoring system in the neighborhood. Mr. Marsh stated that Valero paid$75,000 for the subject property. He stated that the neighborhood is clean and does not want Valero encroaching into the neighborhood. Richard Hughes,6070 Airstream,stated that he is not within the 200-foot radius of the subject property,but does reside in Mobile Estates. Mr. Hughes stated that Valero wants to place the air monitoring system across the street from Berry Contracting which is not sensible to him. He asked who would be checking the accuracy of the air monitor. He added that he was not a participant in the lawsuit and continued that Valero pays fines because it is Planning Commission Minutes January 17,2001 Page 16 cheaper than solving the problem. Mr. Hughes stated that there is a gas pipeline near his property and approximately 2,000 square feet of vacant land in the area where the air monitoring system could be placed. The monitor could record air quality for the entire subdivision. James Ramble, 929 Idlewild, stated that he lives across from the subject property. Mr. Ramold expressed concern with not being able to sell his property with an air monitoring trailer in the neighborhood. George Johnson stated that he owned several lots in Mobile Estates. Mr. Johnson said that he did not have a problem with refineries in the area, but does not agree with rezoning the subject property. He added that he believes there should be a monitor in the area, as long as it blends with the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson said that most of the residents would like to remain in the area unlike Oak Park residents. Margarite Marsh, 918 Idlewild, stated that the notices received were not opened because they were mistaken for junk mail. Ms. Marsh said that many residents threw their notices in the trash. She also said that the notice sign on the property was not placed in the right-of-way as required. Sandra Grum,5921 Skyline Drive,stated that she opposes the rezoning request. Ms. Orum stated that she has resided in Mobile Estates for 25 years and has dealt with Valero for many years. She continued that Valero needs to maintain communication with the neighborhood. There is vacant land near the subdivision that could be used for the air monitoring system. In response to Commissioner Zamora's question regarding whether the neighborhood would consider supporting a Special Permit for the subject property, Ms. Orum answered that she would not object as long as the zoning was not changed. She also requested that the Special Permit not allow Valero to purchase additional lots and forcing the residents to move from the neighborhood. Mr. Gunning explained the 20% rule for zoning cases to the residents of the neighborhood by saying that when 20%or more of land area within a 200-foot radius of the subject property are opposed to a rezoning request,a ' majority(7 of 9 members) vote of the City Council is required to approve the rezoning request. The 20% rule, based on notices returned to date on the subject property,would be in effect for this case when it is presented to City Council. Commissioner Salazar stated that after hearing public testimony from the applicant and the residents, he expressed concern with the appearance of the air monitoring system and placing it in a residential area. He recommended and asked Valero to consider housing the air monitoring system in a mobile home which would be more appealing to the neighborhood. Commissioner Sween-McGloin concurred. Mr. Kiggans responded to Commissioners Salazar and Sween-McGloin's suggestion by stating that he would need to research cost to use a mobile home to house the air monitoring system. He added that Valero hires contractors to conduct the air monitoring in neighborhoods. Mr.Kiggans added that Valero did not consider placing the air monitoring system in any other location because Valero owns the subject property and needed to conduct monitoring in the neighborhood. He stated that Valero could inquire about placing the monitoring station near the hotel in the area. In response to Commissioner Cheek's question regarding whether the data being collected in the neighborhood will be used in the lawsuit,Mr.Kiggans answered in the affirmative. In response to Chairman Berlanga's question regarding whether Valero has shared information collected at • the Berry Contracting site with the neighborhood, Mr. Kiggans answered in the affirmative. Copies of the reports were submitted to Bill Green,a former resident of Mobile Estates,on a monthly basis. In response to Commissioner Zamora's question regarding the monitoring of air quality on a temporary basis as opposed to a continual basis of one (1) to two (2) years, Mr. Kiggans stated that the best monitoring piogram is a continuous long-term program. In response to Commissioner Richter's question regarding knowledge of TNRCC conducting air monitoring in the neighborhood, Mr. Kiggans answered that he was aware of one (1)previous occasion which did w V Planning Commission Minutes January 17,2001 Page 17 not result in problems with air quality in the neighborhood. He explained that TNRCC has a mobile monitor resembling a van or travel trailer. Commissioner Salazar asked whether Valero would consider meeting with the residents of the neighborhood to present alternative housing for air monitoring systems such as a mobile home. Mr. Kiggans answered in the affirmative. Public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sween-McGloin stated that she believes that Valero had not researched alternate locations or alternate operations that could be utilized to achieve the same goal. She continued that she believes that there are multiple avenues available to gather information needed without impacting the neighborhood. In response to Commissioner Kelly's question regarding whether the subject property could be rezoned within 12 months if the request is denied, Mr. Gunning stated that any action taken by the Commission,pass or fail, would require a 12 month waiting period prior for any rezoning requests to be initiated on the subject property. He continued that the applicant could meet with the residents prior to the City Council hearing and recommended that Mr. Kiggans do just that to discuss Valero's intent. Commissioner Salazar suggested that the property owners meet with Valero to try to reach a compromise and favored continuing the zoning case. Commissioner Richter concurred by stating that there could be information that would be beneficial to the neighborhood. In response to Commissioner Kelly's question regarding zoning of several other TNRCC air monitoring sites,Mr.Gunning stated that the State of Texas is not subject to city zoning laws. The State has a policy to comply with city zoning regulations; however, if there is a need to set up a monitoring system that is in the public interest, TNRCC is allowed to conduct the air monitoring. Motion by Sween-McGloin, seconded by Kelly, to deny the rezoning request and the proposed Special Permit. Motion passed (6-3) with Amsler, Cheek, Kelly, Sween-McGloin, Zamora and Mims voting "Aye" and Richter,Salazar,and Berlanga voting"Nay". Minority Vote: Commissioner Salazar stated that he did not support the motion due to the fact that he preferred to continue the zoning case to allow the applicant an opportunity to meet with the neighborhood to try to reach a compromise regarding the housing unit for the air monitoring system. Commissioner Richter concurred and added that there could be information regarding an quality that would be beneficial to the residents of the neighborhood. Shaw's Development Joint Venture: 0101-02 REQUEST: "R-113" One-Family Dwelling District to "R-1C" One-family Dwelling district on 57.294 acres out of Lots 1, 2,3,6, 7,8,9, 10,and 11 of the Artemeus Roberts Subdivision, located on the west side of Rand Morgan Road,approximately 1,400 feet south of Leopard Street Mr.Salda0a presented a slide illustration of the subject property. The subject property is part of an"R-1 B" District that contains 3,070 acres of which the southwest portion remains predominantly undeveloped,the northwest portion is developed with single-family residences and the east portion is a mixture of single-family, manufactured homes, and undeveloped land. East of the subject property, there are 76.35 acres of undeveloped land zoned an "F-R". South of the subject property, there are 1.31 acres of land zoned a "B-1" District and 1.30 acres of land zoned a "B-3" District. The "B-1" District contains a single-family residence and an auto sales lot in the "B-3" District. There are 142.62 acres of"B-4"District land located north of the subject property that contains restaurants, offices, retail stores and undeveloped land. Northeast of the subject property, there are 3.83 acres of land zoned an "l-2"District and used for outside storage. er ,i Planning Commission Minutes January 17,2001 Page 18 Mr. Saldana stated that the applicant has requested a change of zoning form an "R-1B" One-family Dwelling District to an "R-1C" One-family Dwelling District in order to develop the subject property with 322 smaller single-family lots with a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet. The existing"R-1B"District would require a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. The proposed residential subdivision is planned to contain 367 single-family lots of which 322 lots will contain 5,500 square feet and the remaining 45 lots will contain 6,000 square feet. The smaller lot sizes enables the developer to construct more affordable housing. Mr. Saldana stated that Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request. Chairman Berlanga opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion by Sween-McGloin, seconded by Zamora, to approve the rezoning request. Motion passed with Amsler abstaining. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Minis, seconded by Sween-McGloin, to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:57 p.m. • /'�0jo1271 444.415 1 t. 6 • 11 � 1 Michael N.Gunning,MCP Lucinda P.Beal Director of Planning Recording Secretary