Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 04/14/1999 it PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES APRIL 14, 1999 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bert Quintanilla,Chairman Ran Guzman,Vice Chairman*** William 1.Kelly Danny Noyola** Sylvia Perez* Elizabeth Chu Richter Richard Sema Brooke Sween-McGloin David Underbrink STAFF PRESENT: Michael N.Gunning,AICP, Acting Director of Planning Lucinda P.Beal,Recording Secretary Robert Payne,AICP,Senior Planner Mic Raasch,AICP,City Planner Harry I Power,City Planner lay Reining,Assistant City Attorney Leo Farias,P.E.,Special Services Engineer David Seiler,City Traffic Engineer CALL TO ORDER Chairman Quintanilla called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. NON PUBLIC REARING AGENDA ITEMS PRESENTATIONS-Discussion on Update of Northwest Area Development Plan including a report on FM 624 Traffic Concerns Chairman Quintanilla stated he asked Staff to place discussion of FM 624 on the agenda to address concerns on alleviating traffic flow in the northwest area. In the opening statement. Mr. Payne stressed that the study was in a preliminary stage. At this point, the floor was given to Mic Raasch to begin the presentation on FM 624 and the northwest area. Mr. Raasch began his presentation by stating that the current vehicle count on FM 624 is approximately 30,000 and the capacity level is approximately 31,000. Mr. Raasch stated there is a vast amount of vacant land in the area that could be developed, which would eventually increase traffic volumes. Mr. Raasch stated that one option proposed by Staff and supported by the Texas Department of Transportation(TXDOT) is to expand the cross-section width from the existing five-lane section to a median divided six-lane section and this expansion would be developed in stages. Mr. Ranch continued that access to adjoining property is a concern of the City because there would be more congestion if access was provided through curb cuts. Staff also needs to review preservation of the capacity of roadway,which provides through traffic in the area. Chairman Quintanilla stated that FM624 was not a City issue, but a TXDOT issue, and they are communicating with City Staff and the northwest community. * Perez arrived at 5:46 p.m. *• Noyola arrived at 6:02 p.m. *•* Guzman left at 8:50 p.m. SCANNED Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1999 't♦/ • Page 3 Chairman Quintanilla continued that after attending meetings held by TXDOT, his concern is that the traffic count in the year 2020 will be 80,000 vehicles traveling on FM 624,which is equivalent to the current traffic count on the Crosstown Expressway. Mr. Seiler commented that the number of vehicles on FM 624 stated by Chairman Quintanilla was a theoretical demand. Mr. Seiler continued that if an interchange was constructed on County Roads 52 and 48,the demand on FM 624 would decrease to 50,000 vehicles per day, which is still beyond the capacity of the roadway section Staff is reviewing to improve. Mr. Seiler stated he believes additional infrastructure and street improvements are necessary in the area. Chairman Quintanilla stated he felt discussions were necessary between Nueces County, State, and City officials regarding the northwest area. Mr.Raasch stated construction of County Road 52 was a second option the City is reviewing. The current Transportation Plan labels County Road 52 as a four-lane collector within a 70-foot right-of-way,and it may not be adequate for the volumes of traffic for the area. Mr. Raasch continued that phase-development could be implemented to relieve traffic on FM 624; however, without a grade separation on U. S. Highway 77, the traffic would not be alleviated. Chairman Quintanilla asked if TXDOT promoted the grade-separation on U. S. Highway 77, and Mr. Raasch answered in the affirmative. Mr. Raasch continued that after a discussion between TXDOT Staff, Mr. Payne, and himself, it was understood that the grade-separation would be a paired interchange with FM 624 because of the short distance between the two. Mr. Raasch stated the third option was to construct a commercial collector on the south side of the Wal-Mart development between FM 624 and County Road 52. Mr. Raasch continued that River East Drive and Wildcat Drive at FM 624 have signalized intersections, and Staff believes that option three would provide an efficient way to allow localized traffic to circulate. . Mr. Raasch stated that, not withstanding the large traffic capacity in the future, the interchange could provide traffic from the hinterlands. The interchange is proposed for construction when the improvements to U.S. Highway 77 are implemented. Mr.Raasch stressed that the primary purpose of any arterial street is to serve through traffic,and the secondary purpose is to serve adjoining properties. Mr. Raasch reviewed supplemental solutions regarding traffic on FM 624. The first solution would be construction of marginal access streets along FM 624. Mr. Raasch stated there may be a feasibility to provide marginal access streets because of the vacant property to the west of the developed areas. The commercial traffic would be handled by the marginal access streets with limited points of access to FM 624. A second solution would be shared driveways. Mr. Raasch stated shared driveways were successful along Everhart Road where residential properties converted to commercial uses and limited the amount of curb cuts. The last solution would be annexating of areas west of the city limits. Mr. Raasch stated if stripping FM 624 becomes a problem, limitations on land use could be an option. Mr. Payne commented that an overpass is proposed at the intersection of County Road 52 and U.S. Highway 77. In response to Chairman Quintanilla's question regarding TXDOT's plan for a grid separation at the intersection, Mr. Gunning stated it would be funded eventually. Mr. Seiler added that TXDOT's plans for U.S. Highway 77 and the grade-separation does not have to be funded by TXDOT. Mr. Seiler continued that the City could be asked to participate in funding the project and funding or lack of funding could ultimately determine whether the grade-separation of County Road 52 is phased in or implemented in the initial construction. Chairman Quintanilla stated he felt that the Planning Commission should focus on planning of the northwest area. He believed that planning details of the area were the responsibility of the Transportation Advisory Committee. Chairman Quintanilla continued he wanted to discuss expedition options of County Road 52 to alleviate any congestion on FM 624. Mr. Gunning stated that County Road 52 was a viable and necessary collector. In response to Chairman Quintanilla's questions regarding the Transportation Advisory Committee's(TAC)review of the FM 624 issue, Mr. Seiler stated TAC reviewed upgrading of FM 624 to the six-lane section would lead to the Northwest Area Development Plan. Mr. Seiler stated Staff should review the future operation of County Road 52. 'V V Planning Conunission Minutes April 14, 1999 Page 4 In response to Commissioner Underbrink's question regarding left-hand turns onto FM 624, Mr. Gunning stated that TXDOT's presentation identified traffic management devices, such as raised medians to eliminate left-hand turns from the properties. Commission Underbrink suggested creating a 200-300 foot strip on County Road 52 into FM 624, and Mr. Gunning responded to his suggestion by stating the Transportation Plan illustrates County Road 52 as a collector, and if County Road 52 was upgraded, the Transportation Plan will need to be amended. Commissioner Kelly stated the majority of the traffic on FM 624 was created by residents coming into the city because it is the most feasible route to Interstate Highway 37. Commissioner Kelly stated he felt a resolution for this would be to provide an alternative route to Interstate Highway 37. Commissioner Kelly continued that he agreed with Commissioner Underbrink's belief that the City needs to acquire as much right-of-way as possible. Mr. Seiler stated the Highway Department has funding categories that can be used to compete with other Highway Department districts. Improvement funds,which are discretionary funds,are received from the MPO. The City receives $5 million a year, and the MPO makes the final decision regarding all finding. Mr. Seiler continued that the FM 624 project is a high priority project. In response to Commissioner Sween-McGloin's question regarding a drainage plan for the area, Mr.Gunning answered that the City's Master Drainage Plan does not cover the area; but as developers plat properties.a drainage plan is required that will be consistent with adjoining properties. Chairman Quintanilla stated he believed the FM 624 issue is important, and he asked Commissioners to attend the meetings regarding the Northwest area. Staff was asked to include the TXDOT, MPO, County Commissioners and others involved for the Northwest area.meetings to be held by Staff. COMMITTEE REPORTS-Platting Ordinance Review Committee Commissioner Sween-McGloin provided Staff with a 1949 City Beautification document which included a parks plan. A meeting is scheduled for April 22, 1999 at 4:00 p.m.in the Legal Department Conference Room. Zoning Ordinance Review Committee Commissioner Guzman stated the Committee did not meet. A meeting is scheduled for April 19, 1999 at 4:00 p.m. The Committee will meet with the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) to review ZBA concerns. Commissioner Guzman informed the Commission that the second reading of the Cellular Tower Ordinance passed on April 13. 1999,and the regulations are in place. Commissioner Guzman thanked the Commission and Staff for their input. EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Noyola requested his absence for the March 31, 1999 meeting be excused. Motion by Sween-McGloin,seconded by Perez,to excuse the absence. Motion passed unanimously. FUTURE SCHEDULED MEETINGS Chairman Quintanilla asked the Commission to change the meeting place for the ZORC meeting from the Planning Conference room to the Legal Conference room. OTHER MATTERS City Council Action Cellular Tower Ordinance— Second Reading passed. The effective date should be April 19, 1999. Staff met with Americall,who provided their master antenna map and confidential information. Planning Commission Minutes y April 14, 1999 Page 5 Zoning Cases Scheduled for Future City Council Action April 20, 1999 399-1 Fielder Family Trust#1 April 27, 1999 Mitchel Floyd Robert and Minerva Redo May 18, 1999 Saloma F.J.DePaula South-Vest,Inc. Grover Kenneth Pagans Other Matters Commissioner Sween-McGloin discussed concerns about Area Development Plans and zoning issues. Commissioner Sween-McGloin stated if land is proposed to be developed that is not consistent with the Area Development Plans,the reasons for development should be valid. Commissioner Underbrink stated the Commission rezones residential property to commercial. He believed that purchasing residential property and rezoning to commercial is more affordable for most applicants. However, every case should be reviewed independently. Commissioner Guzman believed the Area Development Plans are "tools" for the Commission to use in making a decision and felt certain areas need to be preserved and other areas need to be considered according to the best interest of the area. Chairman Quintanilla concurred with Commissioner Guzman. Commissioner Sema stated after the process is completed and the City Council concurs with Commission's decision, he believes the decision was a correct decision. SJBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS PLATS New Plats a. 039927-P10 Cano Place(Preliminary—36.01 Acres) Located south of Holly Road and west of Martin Street b. 039928-PII Cano Place Unit 1 (Final—8.619 Acres) Located south of Holly Road and west of Martin Street Mr.Power stated the applicant's engineer requested that both Cano Place plats be continued for two weeks. Chairman Quintanilla opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion by Guzman, seconded by Perez, to approve tabling the Cano Place plats for two weeks. Motion passed unanimously with Kelly being out of the room. • V Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1999 Page 6 c. 039930-P12 King's Crossing Unit I IA(Final—6.639 Acres) Located north of Oso Parkway and east of South Staples Street(FM 2444) Mr.Power stated the unit number was changed to"Unit II"and the acreage was changed to"9.52 acres". Staff recommends approval as submitted. Chairman Quintanilla opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion by Guzman, seconded by Underbrink, to approve the plat as submitted. Motion passed unanimously with Kelly being out of the room. d. 039932-P13 Schumate Acres.Lot 1 &2(Preliminary—25.79 Acres) Located southeast of he present terminus of King Trail both south of South Staples Street(FM 2444) e. 039933-P14 Schumate Acres Lot 1 (Final-5.00 Acres) Located southeast of the present terminus of King Trail both south of South Staples Street(FM 2444) Mr.Power stated Staff recommends approval of both Schumate plats as submitted. Chairman Quintanilla opened the public hearing. John Sendejar, 5426 King Acres, opposed platting the lots. Mr. Sendejar expressed concern regarding development of the property. He gave a brief history of the original development. Units 1 and 2 finalized; however,Units 3 and 4 are proposed and in a preliminary phase. Mr.Sendejar stated the original developer,W.T. Young,sold twenty-two(22)acres,which are adjacent to an Indian burial ground. During discussions with residents, Mr. Schumate, the new owner, stated he planned to build horse arenas and bring cattle onto the property. Mr. Sendejar continued that the residents do not want the existing roadways to change, and a private roadway has been changed to allow Mr.Schumate access to his property. Mr. Sendejar stated the residents of King Acres want the current development to be consistent with the Master Plan. The residents' concern is that Mr. Schumate's proposed development will not be consistent with existing development in the area. Mr. Sendejar stated another concern is that the land purchased by Mr. Schumate encroaches on the proposed site for development of a park. Mr. Sendejar stated there are deed restrictions that prohibit the type of use proposed for his property. Mr. Sendejar stated Mr. Schumate's driveway ends at the exit portion of Unit 2;therefore,he is utilizing one of the main entrances of the subdivision to gain access to his property. Mr. Sendejar requested that the plats be tabled to allow residents of King Estates an opportunity to voice their concerns. Don Rehmet, engineer representing Mr. Schumate, stated the property was purchased from W. T. Young. When Mr.Schumate attempted to start construction of the residence and barn,Mr.Schumate was instructed to plat the property before any construction could begin. Mr. Rehmet stated Mr. Schumate's lot would extend to the existing roadway. Mr. Young proposed to Mr. Schumate, of the fee simple panhandle, that the successors to the land would continue according to the Master Plan. The panhandle would revert to Mr.Young and the public right-of-way would extend to Mr. Schumate's lot. Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1999 \/ ' ' Page 7 Mr.Rehmet stated the deed restrictions will be the same as or better than the deed restrictions that presently exist in King Estates. Mr.Rehmet stated Mr. Schumate plans to spend$750,000 on his home and barn,and the fencing that was placed on the property was placed as a direction to Mr. Schumate from Mr. Young. The fence was erected to provide protection to the land. Mr. Rehmet continued there was not an intention to subvert the preliminary plat,which has expired. In response to Commissioner Sween-McGloin's question regarding the extension to King Trail, Mr.Rehmet responded that the proposed"panhandle" section cuts through other lots, and the extension of King Trail comes into a 90-degree intersection going east and west. Mr.Rehmet continued that Mr.Young proposes to continue the Master Plan with Mr. Schumate's panhandle section reverting to W. T. Young, which would provide Mr. Schumate access from the public roadway that extends east. The roadway may be modified to juncture into Oso Parkway slightly west of Mr. Schumate's property,allowing access to the 22 acres owned by Mr.Schumate. The extension is a portion of Mr. Schumate's lot where the entrance will be built,and the home will be on the five-acre section. In response to Chairman Quintanilla's question regarding expiration of the preliminary plats,Mr. Reining responded that on the preliminary plat, a large portion of Mr. Sschumate's property was to be donated to the City for parkland. Mr. Reining stated the deed restrictions are not filed until the fmal plats are filed, and Staff has not reviewed the deed restriction. Tom Schumate,owner of Schumate Acres,stated that Mr.Young stipulated in the contract provided to him that when the road at the entrance of his property is completed,the road would become part of his property, fee simple. In response to Chairman Quintanilla's question regarding future plans for the property, Mr. Schumate replied he was planning to build a 4,800 square-foot home and will have invested$750,000 to $1 million when the development was completed. Mr. Schumate continued he met with the organization controlling the Indian burial ground,and the organization was not in opposition to his plans. In response to Commissioner Underbrink's question regarding transfer of ownership of property, Mr.Reining stated the City ordinance states that any transfer of property, not zoned for agricultural use, must be planed. Commissioner Underbrink expressed a concern regarding alignment of the future Oso Parkway. Commissioner Underbrink asked how would moving the Oso Parkway affect the preliminary plat, and Mr.Gunning answered that moving the Oso Parkway would be a minor revision to the Transportation plan. Mr.Gunning continued that the Oso Parkway alignment was based on wetlands' determination that was provided to Staff by the engineer. Mr.Power stated the desire for Oso Parkway was to intersect it with the King Ranch boundary line as near to the archeological sites as possible. Mr. Schumate stated he met with the archeological organization,and the organization opposed the site of the Oso Parkway. In response to Commissioner Sween-McGloin's question regarding knowledge of the Master Plan for King Estates, Mr. Schumate stated the Master Plan, which is a preliminary plat, and in his opinion, will not develop as planned. Mr. Schumate continued that when he purchased the property,he was unaware of the adjacent archeological site and wetlands on the property. Chairman Quintanilla closed the public hearing. Commissioner Underbrink expressed concern with the access. He continued that dedicating the road as illustrated on the preliminary plat was an alternative acceptable to the City. Mr. Power answered in the affirmative. Mr. Reining stated that the access was not an easement, it is a requirement for fee simple access, which is part of Lots 1 and 2. Mr. Power stated the access would serve as a private driveway to Mr.Schumate's property. `i► Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1999 Page 8 Commissioner Serna asked Staff for then opinion regarding whether or not the plat was approvable, and Mr. Reining stated that if changes were made to the preliminary plat after the preliminary plat was approved, Mr. Young should have discussed these changes with Staff. Commissioner Serna asked how many notices were mailed to property owners, and Mr. Power answered three notices were mailed to property owners. In response to Commissioner Sween-McGloin's question regarding fines to property owners who sell land that is not platted,Mr. Reining stated the fine was S 100 per day for every day that the property owner is in violation. Mr Reining continued that the prosecutors do not initiate charges; Code Enforcement, Complaining Department, or others refer the case to the Legal Department. Mr. Gunning stated he and Mr.Reining would be sending Mr. Young a letter advising him that subdivision of the property without platting is illegal. In response to Commissioner Sween-McGloin's statement regarding issuance of a letter in lieu of legal action, Mr. Gunning stated he would prepare correspondence to the Legal Department requesting legal action against Mr.Young. Motion by Quintanilla,seconded by Perez,to table the Schumate Acre plats for two weeks. Motion passed with Guzman, Kelly, Noyola, Perez, Quintanilla, Richter, Sema, and Sween-McGloin voting "Aye" and Underbrink voting"Nay". Chairman Quintanilla asked Staff to discuss with the Legal Department amending the Platting Ordinance fines of$100 a day and provide a letter to the Commission and City Council. Mr.Reining stated the Legal Department would refer the case to Municipal Court for prosecution; however,the process could take years before there is a final determination. Time Extensions a. 049843-P19 Callicoatte Estates Unit 4(Final—7.32 Acres) Located south of the intersection of Yellow Oak Avenue and Lott Avenue,both south of Heame Road and east of Callicoate Road Mr.Power stated Staff recommends approval of the six-month time extension. Chairman Quintanilla opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing was closed. In response to Commissioner Underbrink's question regarding the time extension, Mr. Power stated the extension would be the second extension request for the plat due to fmancial reasons. Motion by Perez, seconded by Guzman, to approve Staffs recommendation. Motion passed with Kelly, Noyola, Perez, Richter, Sema, Sween-McGloin, Guzman, and Quintanilla voting "Aye" and Underbrink voting"Nay". b. 099788-P57 Fl• Bluff.: .i mal Farm •: - ITrac. - ion 9 Lo . •B Final R- • —19.79 - Located south of Glenoak Street and west of Flour Bluff Drive Mr.Power stated Staff recommends approval of the six-month time extension. Chairman Quintanilla opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes *ad April 14, 1999 Page 9 In response to Commissioner Sween-McGloin's questions regarding the time extension, Mr. Power stated the extension would be the third request for the plat. Mr. Power gave a history of the plat stating the applicants were in partnership; however, the partnership has dissolved. The applicants were having difficulties accumulating fees to finalize the plat. Motion by Guzman, seconded by Quintanilla, to approve Staff's recommendation. Motion passed with Kelly, Noyola, Richter, Serna, Sween-McGloin, Guzman and Quintanilla voting "Aye" and Perez and Underbrink voting"Nay". Commissioner Perez stated, for the record, her opposition was because the plat has been before the Planning Commission for the fourth time. ZONING CASES New Zoning Cases Tierra Development Enterprises:499-1 REQUEST: "B-3"Business District to "I-2" Light Industrial District on Brett Addition, Block 1, Lot 1 and is located on the southeast corner of South Padre Island and Flour Bluff Drives Mr.Payne read the zoning report into the record: Planning Staff Analysis: • General Characteristics and Background: The applicant has requested an "1-2" Light Industrial District to develop the subject property with an outside amusement facility. This facility would contain go-carts,bumper boats and a miniature golf course. The subject property contains 10.45 acres that have direct access to an expressway, South Padre Island Drive and an arterial, Flour Bluff Drive. There is no residential development adjacent to the subject property. The nearest residences are 200 feet to the east located in an "R-1B" One- family Dwelling District and to the south located in a"B-3"Business District. Noise generated by the proposed amusement park could adversely impact the residences. These residences to the east are buffered by an existing mini-storage facility that would act as a noise bather. The single-family residence to the south is a nonconforming use that will eventually move. The east portion of the subject property is under the Department of Navy's designated Accident Potential Zone 1 (APZ-I),and the west portion is under Accident Potential Zone 2 (APZ-2). Under an APZ-I, the Navy discourages residential development and development with the concentration of large groups of people. Whereas,under an APZ-2,residential development exceeding two(2) units per acre was discouraged. The proposed outside amusement facility would have moderate-sized groups of people, unlike a hotel or motel use as currently permitted in the "B-3" District. The requested "I-2" District would permit the outside amusement facility and prohibit hotel and motel development. An "1-2" District is considered to be compatible with the Department of the Navy's recommendation for development under an APZ-1 and APZ-2 because permanent or temporary housing would not be permitted and the amusement park would have a lower concentration of people. Therefore,an"1-2"District would be appropriate in this area. • Conformity to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Compatibility: The Comprehensive Plan can support an "1-2" District based on its frontage along an expressway and an arterial and with its lack of residential adjacency. However, the Southeast Area Development Plan recommends the area to develop with general commercial uses and no residential. The current"B-3"District is consistent with the Plan.The requested"1-2" District is also consistent with the Southeast Area Development Plan because the Plan also recommends compliance with the Department of Navy's Air Installation Compatibility Use Zone(AICUZ). • Potential Housing Density: The"B-3"and"1-2"Districts do not permit residential development. • Height/Bulk/Setback/Etc.: The"B-3"and"I-2"Districts require a front yard setback of twenty(20)feet and no side or rear yard setback unless adjacent to residential zoning. Along that residential zoning, a setback of ten V ri Planning Commission Minutes April 14,1999 Page 10 (10) feet is required. However, the recorded plat indicates a setback of 25 feet from South Padre Island Drive and Flour Bluff Drive. Development of the subject property would require a 10-foot setback along the south and east property lines. Both districts permit unlimited building height. • Signage: Wall and freestanding signs in the 'B-3" and "1-2" Districts are unlimited as to size, height and number,if the signs are located behind the front yard setback. If the freestanding sign is located within the front yard setback, it is limited to one(1) freestanding sign per street frontage with an area not to exceed forty(40) square feet and a height of 25 feet. The"1-2"District also permits off-premise signs(billboards). • Traffic: If the subject property were to fully develop with a retail center, it could potentially generate 3,753 daily vehicle trip ends (assuming 92,270 square feet of gross floor area and 40.67 vehicle trip ends per 1,000 square feet). The proposed outside amusement facility would generate 792 daily vehicle trip ends. This amount of traffic would adversely impact the adjacent expressway or arterial street. • Parking/Screening: An amusement place is required to provide one parking space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area. The proposed development is planned to contain a total of 8,000 square feet of floor area that would require a minimum of 80 parking spaces. Proof of compliance with the parking requirements will be required during the permitting phase. • Costs to City: There is an existing 10-inch water available along South Padre Island Drive and Flour Bluff Drive. An 8-inch sewer line is available at the southeast corner of the lot. Flour Bluff Drive is not improved to its ultimate right-of-way or pavement width. Improvement of Flour Bluff Drive is shown in the Capital Improvement Program(CIP)as a high priority,but no funding has been allocated. • Platting: The subject property contains a platted lot and further replatting is not required. Pros: (Ideas in support of the request.) 1. The subject property has direct access to an expressway, South Padre Island Drive,and to an arterial,Flour Bluff Drive. 2. There is no adjacency to any residential development. 3. The requested "I-2" District is consistent with the Department of the Navy's AICUZ map and the Flour Bluff Area Development Plan's policies. Cons: (Ideas in support of maintaining the current zoning.) • The requested"I-2"District is not consistent with the Flour Bluff Area Development Plan's recommended land use. Staff Recommendation: Approval. There were seven(7) notices mailed to property owners within a 200-foot radius of the subject property. One(1)was received in opposition. Chairman Quintanilla opened the public hearing. Eloy Salazar, owner of the property, 8206 Campodolcino, appeared in favor of the rezoning request. Mr.Salazar stated the proposed buyer wanted to build an amusement park. Planning Commission Minutes � ‘00 April 14. 1999 • Page 11 Wayne Lundquist, realtor representing the applicant, 5042 Greenbrier, stated the perspective buyer owns several miniature golf and bumper boat parks. Mr. Lundquist stated the applicant attempted to rezone a piece of property along S. Padre Island Drive and was not successful. The applicant purchased the land on S. Padre Island Drive prior to the rezoning hearing. Mr. Lundquist continued that the applicant and Mr. Salazar would trade properties to allow for the amusement golf course if the rezoning request is granted. Chairman Quintanilla closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sween-McGloin expressed concern about the"1-2"District being available on the pmpelty if the business did not develop. Mr. Payne stated the location was on major arterials and there are several uses available in an"I-2"District. Mr. Gunning stated that after discussions with Staff,the"1-2"District was favored for the area. Commissioner Richter expressed concern about the rezoning factor. Mr. Gunning stated the former Magic Isles business probably operated under a Special Permit because the current base zoning was 'B-3" District. Commissioner Richter felt that Special Permits could be a determination if the Commission felt that the "B-3" District was consistent with the Area Development Plan. Commissioner Richter continued that the "B-3"District allows enclosed amusement facilities, and the "1-2" District was necessary to allow for an outside amusement facility,and Mr.Gunning affumed Commissioner Richter's statement. Chairman Quintanilla reopened the public hearing. Wayne Lundquist, 5042 Greenbrier, stated he did not agree with a Special Permit. In response to Commissioner Sema's question regarding acceptance of a Special Permit,Mr. Lundquist continued that the lending institution would not finance a business based on a Special Permit. Commissioner Underbrink felt the area was appropriate for"1-2"District and provided a sufficient buffer. Motion by Underbrink, seconded by Noyola, to approve Staffs recommendation. Motion passed with Kelly, Noyola, Perez, Sema, Underbrink, Guzman, and Quintanilla voting "Aye"; Richter and Sween-McGloin voting"Nay". Commissioner Richter stated her opposition was not to the use; her opposition was to the "1-2" District. Commissioner Sween-McGloin concurred. '" Guzman left at 8:50 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Perez,seconded by Sween-McGloin,to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed unanimously with Guzman being absent. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. C LCL_. Beal teic J f l !X Michaela N.G ing,AICP Luc' da P. B Acting Director of Planning Recording Secretary