Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 02/03/1999 ` PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 3, 1999 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Ron Guzman, Vice Chairman Danny Noyola Sylvia Perez Elizabeth Chu Richter Richard Sema Brooke Sween-McGloin David Underbrink COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Bert Quintanilla, Chairman William J. Kelly STAFF PRESENT: Michael N. Gunning, AICP,Acting Director of Planning Lucinda P. Beal, Recording Secretary Robert E. Payne, AICP, Senior Planner Mic Raasch, AICP, City Planner Harry Power, City Planner Miguel Saldana, AICP, City Planner Jay Reining, Assistant City Attorney Leo Farias, Special Services Engineer CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairman Guzman called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. NON PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS PRESENTATION—Draft Northside Plan Update Mr. Payne informed the Commission of changes made to the Draft Northside Plan. He stated the objective was to protect the Dona Park, Academy Heights, and Manchester neighborhoods from industrial encroachment. Management believed that the City's position should reflect protection of the residential neighborhoods by proposing that the buffer area be rezoned to Agricultural/Rural District. Agricultural/Rural District allows one unit per five acres for one single-family use. The buffer would be 1,000 feet around Academy Heights, Manchester Place, and Dona Park, with the exception of the"I-2" Light Industrial uses along Up River Road, and bulk storage tanks on the Coastal property. Mr. Payne addressed the Port Avenue concerns by stating the policy statement had been edited to reflect improvement of vehicular access and appearance along Port Avenue. He SCANNED Planning Commission Mines February 3, 1999 Page 3 continued that Staff included multi-family uses along Interstate Highway 37 as recommended by the Commission. Mr. Payne addressed street closures along Nueces Bay Boulevard by stating that after discussion with Staff, it was decided that there should be a consensus of the Commission that a second access road be provided into the neighborhood. Mr. Gunning stated the plan, presented to the Commission, was Staffs recommendation for the area. Mr. Gunning continued that after discussion with representatives of Koch Refinery, the representatives were not in favor of providing a second access road into the neighborhood. They wanted to prevent refinery traffic from traveling through the neighborhood. Mr. Gunning stated he asked the representatives to provide a time schedule for implementation of their plan objectives to add as an appendix in the Northside plan. Commissioner Underbrink expressed concerns about residential areas located adjacent to industrial areas. Mr. Payne stated there were three districts which could serve as a buffer for the neighborhood: Agricultural/Rural, `B-3" District, or "I-2" District. In response to Commissioner Underbrink, Mr. Payne stated that "B-3" District allows bars, clubs, taverns, etc. Commissioner Underbrink felt that areas adjacent to "1-2" Districts were not safe. He felt the City should eliminate residential uses between industrial uses. Commissioner Underbrink continued that the plan needed to reflect a restriction of development and encroachment within 1,000 feet. Mr. Gunning stated the recommended use for the area was Farm/Rural District which provides a limitation on residential development, and this recommendation was a direct response to feedback received from the community. Mr. Gunning continued that the neighborhoods were sustainable and had a high level of ownership and are fully developed; therefore, the City wanted to protect the neighborhood. Mr. Gunning addressed the issue of contamination by stating that soil contamination had been remediated or purchased by the industry. Mr. Gunning stated Staff proposed landscaping along Port Avenue. However, the City had concerns regarding Port Avenue not being viable and eventually purchased by industry. He continued that a risk could be created for the City, which could result in relocating the residents. In response to Commissioner Underbrink's questions regarding the proposed plan, Mr. Gunning stated the plan was an "ultimate development land use plan." Mr. Gunning stated Commissioner Underbrink's concern regarding liability was a minor concern for the City, and it should be further discussed further with management. Commissioner Underbrink expressed concern regarding a buffer area between residential and industrial uses and asked what was the procedure for completing the task, and Mr. Gunning answered that the City was making efforts to protect the neighborhood. In response to Commissioner Underbrink's question regarding controlling areas and facilities outside city limits, Mr. Payne's response was there were agreements that addressed those issues. The residential areas would be protected from encroachment once the agreements were changed with a policy statement. Mr. Gunning stated there were other options available: Planning Commission Minutes • February 3, 1999 Page 4 annexation, forming partnerships with surrounding industries and enter an agree not to have heavy industrial uses within 1,000 feet of any residential area. Commissioner Underbrink felt that a policy statement needed to be written prohibiting industrial use within a certain distance from any residential area. In response to Commissioner Sween-McGloin's question regarding a future college in the area, Mr. Gunning answered that the church in the area was building a school and was aware of the City's intentions. Commissioner Sween-McGloin felt that a policy statement should be established"that encouraged cooperation among major developers in the area." In response to Commissioner Richter's question regarding access into the neighborhood from Nueces Bay Boulevard, Mr. Payne answered that residents did not want industrial traffic going through the neighborhood. In response to Commissioner Richter's question regarding commercial uses along the Kerr McGee tract, Mr. Gunning answered Staff felt that instead of making current uses non- conforming, Staff could beautify Port Avenue. Mr. Gunning continued that, in the future, the current uses could be converted to less intense uses and the City could rezone the properties. He confirmed the current zoning as "1-2" Light Industrial District and stated Staff planned for areas to transition to less intense uses; however, illustrating the Port Avenue area as a commercial district does not create a"grandfathered use". Commissioner Richter asked Staff to illustrate the Port Avenue area as a commercial district on the maps as a future use. Vice Chairman Guzman informed Staff that it was a consensus from the Commission to illustrate of Port Avenue as a commercial district. Gardendale Discussion Quorum not present. COMMITTEE REPORTS PLAT ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Commissiner Sween-McGloin stated the Committee met with staff members of the Park and Recreation Department to discuss park dedication, guidelines, existing park standards, linear parkways, and using native vegetation in parks. Commissioner Sween-McGloin continued that the Plat Ordinance Review Committee will meet with members of the Park and Recreation Board, along with Staff to discuss changes to the Platting Ordinance. The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, February 18, 1999 at 4:00 p.m. ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE Vice Chairman Guzman asked the Commission to read the draft Cellular Tower Ordinance and submit comments or suggestions to the Planning Department by Wednesday, vid Planning Commission MinuTes February 3, 1999 Page 5 February 17, 1999. The Committee met with representatives from the industry, specialists, and other Planning Commissioners. Commissioners were reminded that the Cellular Tower moratorium will expire on April 20, 1999. EXCUSED ABSENCES Vice Chairman Guzman asked whether Commissioners Perez and Sween-McGloin needed their absences excused. Commissioner Perez asked that her absence be excused due to an illness in the family. Motion by Sween-McGloin, seconded by Richter, to approve the excuse. Motion passed unanimously with Quintanilla and Kelly being absent. FUTURE SCHEDULED MEETING Vice Chairman Guzman asked the Commission to review the schedule of future meetings. OTHER MATTERS City Council Action on Zoning Cases Mr. Reining informed the Commission of action taken by City Council on zoning cases; 1098-4 Wilson Enterprises—Withdrawn 1298-2 Garron Dean— City Council granted'B-1" District on southern portion of the property Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment—Adopted by City Council Amendment to the Preservation Plan—Adopted by City Council APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Noyola, seconded by Guzman, to approve the minutes of January 20, 1999. Motion passed unanimously with Kelly and Quintanilla being absent. PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS PLATS 1. Continued Plats a. 069878-P36 Siracusa Subdivision, Block 1, Lot 2 (Final—5.06 Acres) Located west of Airline Road and north of the extended projection of County Road 26A Mr. Power stated Staff recommended the plat be continued. 111110 Planning Commission Minutes February 3. 1999 Page 6 Vice Chairman Guzman opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion by Perez, seconded by Sema, to continue the plat for two weeks. Motion passed unanimously with Kelly and Quintanilla being absent. b. 1098122-P59 Nueces Gardens No. 2, Lots 38A, 38B & 38C (Final Replat—5.975 Acres) Located between Starlite Lane and Leonard Drive, north of Shady Lane • Mr. Power stated Staff recommended the plat be continued for two weeks. Vice Chairman Guzman opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion by Sween-McGloin, seconded by Noyola, to continue the plat for two weeks. Motion passed unanimously with Kelly and Quintanilla being absent. c. 1298163-NP85 Padre Island No. 1, Block 15, Lot 21 (Final Replat—0.661 Acre) Located west of South Padre Island Drive (P.R. 22)and south of Merida Drive Mr. Power stated Staff recommended the plat be continued for two weeks. Vice Chairman Guzman opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion by Perez, seconded by Sema, to continue the plat for two weeks. Motion passed unanimously with Kelly and Quintanilla being absent. d. 1298160-P78 Kennedy School Tract, Blocks 1, 2, & 3 (Final Replat— 18.743 Acres) Located east of Cliff Maus Drive and north of Rockford Drive Mr. Power stated Staff recommended approval as submitted. Vice Chairman Guzman opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Planning Commission MiniI s February 3, 1999 Page 7 Motion by Sween-McGloin, seconded by Perez, to approve Staff s recommendation. Motion passed with Perez, Richter, Sema, Sween-McGloin, and Guzman voting "Aye"; Noyola and Underbrink abstaining; Kelly and Quintanilla being absent. e. 1298169-P83 West's Laguna Madre Place Block A. Lot 5(Final—0.578 Acre) Located east of Debra Lane, south of Glenoak Drive Mr. Power stated Staff recommended the plat be continued for two weeks. Vice Chairman Guzman opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion by Sema, seconded by Perez, to continue the plat for two weeks. Motion passed unanimously with Kelly and Quintanilla being absent. 2. New Plats Motion by Perez, seconded by Sema, to group the new plats and read into the record. Motion passed unanimously with Kelly and Quintanilla being absent. Mr. Power read the new plats into the record: a. 019903-PI McNorton Subdivision No.1, Block 2, Lot IC (Final Replat—0.142 Acre) Located east of Blanco Road and south of McNorton Road Staff recommended approval as submitted. b. 029905-NP3 Bohemian Colony Lands, Block 14. Lots 47 & 48 (Preliminary—23.132 Acres) Located south of Saratoga Boulevard (S.H. 357) and east of Greenwood Drive Staff recommended the plat be continued for two weeks. c. 029906-NP4 Bohemian Colony Lands, Block 14. Lot 48 (Final—9.2303 Acres) Located south of Saratoga Boulevard(S.H. 357) and east of Greenwood Drive Staff recommended the plat be continued for two weeks. fir Planning Commission Minutes February 3. 1999 Page 8 d. 029908-NP5 Lexington Place, Block S.Lot 3 (Final - 0.327 Acre) Located west of Kostoryz Road, north of Green Street Staff recommended approval as submitted. e. 029909-NP6 Southbridge Unit IV, Block 6. Lot IA (Vacating)(Final Replat— 1.88 Acres) Located southeast of Old Brownsville Road(FM 665) and east Cliff Maus Drive Staff recommended approval as submitted. Vice Chairman Guzman opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion by Sema, seconded by Perez, to approve Staffs recommendation regarding new plats. Motion passed unanimously with Kelly and Quintanilla being absent. 3. Time Extensions a. 029826-NP16 Saratoga Weber Plaza. Block 8,Lot 1 (Final— 8.54 Acres) Located west of Weber Road (FM 43) south of the extension of Acushnet Drive, both south of Saratoga Boulevard Mr. Power stated Staff recommended approval of the six-month time extension as submitted. Vice Chairman Guzman opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion by Underbrink, seconded by Perez, to approve Staffs recommendation. Motion passed unanimously with Kelly and Quintanilla being absent. Planning Commission Mines February 3, 1999 Page 9 ZONING CASES New Zoning Cases Gardner L. Grant, Trustee: 299-1 REQUEST: "R-1B" One-family Dwelling District to "B-1" Neighborhood Business District on Travis Addition Unit 3, Lot Q1, which is located on the southeast corner of Dalraida Street and Carroll Lane. Mr. Saldana read the zoning report into the record: Planning Staff Analysis: • General Characteristics and Background: The applicant requested a change of zoning to a `B-1" Neighborhood Business District in order to sell the property for a commercial use. In 1968, the subject property was granted a Special Permit to operate a drive-in grocery (convenience store) without on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages. Approximately 2 years ago the store was closed and lost its Special Permit. The subject property is located at the intersection of a collector, Carroll Lane, and a local street, Dalraida Street, and is bound by single-family residences on the south and east and west across Carroll Lane and apartments across Dalraida Street to the north. The subject property had been operating as a convenience store approximately 30 years before being closed. In 1968, the "B-1" District permitted bars and taverns as a matter of right. A Special Permit was approved to allow the convenience store use only. In September 1984, the ordinance was amended to exclude bars from the `B-1" District. In May 1990, auto repair facilities, including service stations with service bays, were also excluded from the `B-1" District. With these uses removed and a convenience store having operated in this area for a number of years, approval of the requested "B-1" District would not adversely impact the surrounding area. • Conformity to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Compatibility: Overall, the Comprehensive Plan Elements can be supportive of the requested 'B-1" District. The Southeast Area Development Plan's future land use map recommends that the area develop with single-family residential. However, with the past operation of the convenience store, a"B-I" District can be supported by the Plan. • Potential Housing Density: An "R-1B" District permits 1 unit per 6,000 square foot lot or 2 units on the subject property if the property were subdivided into 2 lots. A `B-1" District permits a density of 36.30 units per acre or 12 units. With apartments existing across Dalraida Street, this increase in density would not adversely impact the area. • Height/Bulk/Setbacks/Etc.: An "R-1B" District requires a front yard setback of 25 feet and a side and rear yard setback of 5 feet each. The `B-1" District requires a front yard Planning Commission Mins February 3. 1999 Page 10 setback of 20 feet and no side or rear yard setback unless adjacent to a residential district. Along that adjacency, a setback of 10 feet is required. The existing building on the subject property has a 10-foot setback along the south property line and a 20-foot setback along the east property line. Structures in these districts are limited to a height of 35 feet, not to exceed 3 stories. • Signage: In an "R-1B" District, signs are limited to I square foot and flat against the building's wall. The `B-1" District permits unlimited wall signs and allows 1 freestanding sign not to exceed 40 square feet in sign area and 20 feet in height. • Traffic: The convenience store would generate approximately 78 vehicle trip ends which would use a road, Carroll Lane, that is designed to carry moderate volumes of traffic. However, the bulk of the customers would be from the surrounding area which would walk to the to the store,thereby reducing the traffic. • Parking/Screening: A convenience store is required to provide at least 1 parking space for every 200 square feet of gross floor area. The existing 2,500 square foot building would be required to provide at least 13 parking spaces. There are at least 13 parking spaces on the subject property. Commercial development adjacent to a residential district requires a 6-foot screening fence along that adjacency. A screening fence would be required along the south and east property lines. • Costs to City: All infrastructure required by the subject property is currently in place and there will be not costs to the City. • Platting: The subject property is currently a platted lot and further replatting is not required. Pros: (Ideas in support of the request.) a) The existing building has been designed and used as a commercial establishment. b) The subject property has direct access to a collector. c) With the amendments to the `B-1" District since the Special Permit was issued in 1968, a "B-I" District would be appropriate. Cons: (Ideas in support of maintaining the current zoning.) a) There is no commercial zoning within ''A mile of the subject property. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Planning Commission MANIC February 3. 1999 Page 11 Eighteen (18) notices were mailed to property owners within a 200-foot radius of the subject property, of which none (0) were returned in favor, two (2) in opposition, and one (1) in favor from the applicant. Vice Chairman Guzman opened the public hearing. Amanda Sherard, 4222 Carroll Lane. addressed the Commission in opposition to the zoning request. Ms. Sherard stated the subject property served as a gang hangout, robberies occurred on the property,trash was strewn on the property, attracted people to park and play loud radios playing, and it had a public telephone which was used by neighbors at all times when the business operated as a convenience store. In response to Commissioner Perez's question regarding Ms. Sherard's complaints, Ms. Sherard answered that these activites occurred while the business was opened and closed. In response to Commissioner Perez, Ms. Sherard requested that a screening fence be placed by the new business. In response to Commissioner Perez' question regarding the reason for a request of zoning change, Mr. Gunning answered that the owners requested a rezoning in order to sell the property. Mr. Gunning reminded the Commission that the property receivied a Special Permit to allow the convenience store use and when the business closed the Special Permit was voided. In response to Commissioner Perez' question regarding requirement of a screening fence, Mr. Gunning stated he would forward the request to the Code Enforcement Division to see if a screening fence was a condition in 1968. Mr. Gunning continued that if the screening fence was required, the property owner would be in violation for not providing it. Commissioner Perez stated if the property was sold, the problems could be remedied. Ms. Sherard stated she had a monitoring system on her property due to environmental problems. Mr. Gunning answered there could be possible remediation. Under the law, the property cannot be occupied until remediation was completed. The property could not be reverted to a residential use due to soil contamination. Mr. Gunning stated Staff had a concern for allowing the building to be vacant because of illegal activities vacant buildings sometimes attract. John Bell, attorney, represented the applicant, 1100 Mercantile Tower, appeared in favor of the zoning request. Mr. Bell stated the property operated as a convenience store for 30 years. The structure was a business, and the value, in its present state, was zero. Mr. Bell continued that a vacant building was a liability to the property owner, as well as to the neighborhood. In response to Commissioner Perez' question regarding elimination of the public telephone, Mr. Bell answered that the lease agreement terminated with closing of the previous business, and he would remove the public telephone. Mr. Bell continued that a screening fence was required in a "B-1" District and it still would be required if the zoning request was approved. Mr. Bell stated there are various uses allowed in a "B-1" District which would be compatible with the neighborhood. 110 Planning Commission Minutes February 3. 1999 Page 12 Wayne Lundquist, 700 Everhart, stated he believed the business would not develop into another convenience store because of the closing of Circle K and the lack of traffic in the area. Mr. Lundquist stated there were business uses that could take advantage of the structure. In response to Commissioner Sema's question regarding the reason for a request of zoning, Mr. Bell answered the request will enable the applicant to sell or lease the property. Commissioner Serna stated he would favor the zoning request if the applicant had a buyer for the property with a specific use. Commissioner Sema expressed concerns regarding approval of a "B-I" District due to various uses which could be developed on the property. In response to Commissioner Sema's questions regarding the applicant's ability to sell the property if it was zoned "AB" District, Mr. Bell answered the applicant would appreciate a `B-1" District-to enable the property to be sold, but he would accept any zoning. Mr. Gunning stated the "AB" District would not allow retail sales. Mr. Gunning stated Staffs purpose was to improve the area by allowing a business to open that would be compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Perez verified that Mr. Bell would remove the public telephone and provide a screening fence. Mr. Bell stated he would remove the public phone and if the zoning were approved, a screening fence would be required. Commissioner Perez stated use of the building had been commercial since 1968, and she did not foresee any use other than commercial. Commissioner Perez continued she was in favor of a "B-I" District zoning, and felt the rezoning would alleviate the problems addressed by Ms. Sherard. In response to Commissioner Ricther's question regarding uses in an "AB" District, Mr. Gunning stated a "B-I" District use was not restricted with regards to hours of operation. Commissioner Richter stated felt the area was primarily single-family residential and a 24-hour operation would not be compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Richter went on to say she preferred an "AB" District zoning which would allow neighborhood businesses to operate. In response to Commissioner Sween-McGloin's question regarding screening fence requirements in an "AB" District, Mr. Gunning answered that a screening fence was required in an "AB" District and further stated that the hours of operation were not restricted. In response to Mr. Gunning's statement regarding hours of operation in an "AB" District, Commissioner Serna stated professional offices were not usually open after midnight. Vice Chairman Guzman closed the public hearing. In response to Commissioner Underbrink's question regarding restrictions of `B-1" District, Mr. Saldana answered that since 1968, changes to the zoning ordinance made a `B-1" District more compatible with single-family residential areas. Mr. Saldana continued that in 1990, auto-related uses were no longer permitted in a`B-1"District. Motion by Underbrink, seconded by Perez, to approve Staff's recommendation. Motion passed with Guzman, Noyola, Perez, and Underbrink voting "Aye"; Richter, Sema, and Sween-McGloin voting"Nay"; and Kelly and Quintanilla being absent. Planning Commission Mines February 3, 1999 Page 13 Commissioner Underbrink asked Mr. Gunning to communicate the minority vote to City Council. Mr. Gunning clarified the opposition as being the "AB" District was more compatible and allows uses more consistent with the neighborhood than a `B-1" District. Commissioner Serna asked Mr. Gunning to include that the Special Permit issued in 1968 expired. Commissioner Sween-McGloin felt there were uses allowed in an "AB" District in which the applicant could lease the property. Mr. Gunning asked Mr. Bell to provide a summary regarding the remediation process for City Council, and Mr. Bell agreed. In response to Commissioner Sween-McGloin's question regarding remediation, Mr. Bell answered that the area was currently undergoing remediation. Richland Enterprises, Ltd.: 299-2 REQUEST: "R-IB" One-family Dwelling District to "1-2" Light Industrial District on Brezina Farm Tracts, Block 2, Lot 1, which is located on the southeast corner of Bratton and Brezina Roads. Mr. Saldana read the Zoning Report into the record: Planning Staff Analysis: • General Characteristics and Background: The applicant has requested a change of zoning from an "R-1B" One-family Dwelling District to an "1-2" Light Industrial District in order to market the property to potential buyers looking for industrial sites. The subject property is bound by industrial zoning to the north and a commercial development to the south. To the east and west is farmland. The subject property has direct access to two (2) collectors, Bratton and Brezina roads, which do not traverse a residential area. Bratton Road has industrial development on its north side and farmland on the south. Brezina Road, a dead-end street,has a mini-storage/boat barn facility on its east side and farmland along both sides. With the NAS Cabaniss Air Field to the west, the area is subjected to over-flights from Navy training flight operations. The subject property's northwest corner is under an Accident Potential Zone 2, (APZ-2). Under an APZ-2, the Department of the Navy discourages residential development that exceeds 1 unit per acre. Approval of the "1-2" District would be an extension of the "1-2" District adjacent to the north and would not aversely impact the surrounding area. • • Conformity to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Compatibility: Overall, the Comprehensive Plan Elements can be supportive of the requested "1-2" District. The Southside Area Development Plan's future land use map recommends all of this area to develop with light industrial uses. This request for an "1-2" District is consistent with the Plan's recommended land use. • Potential Housing Density: The "R-1B" District permits a density of 7.26 units per acre or 32 units on the subject property. In an "1-2" District, permanent or temporary housing is not permitted except for a caretaker's quarters, which is consistent with the Navy's recommendation for properties under an APZ-2. 400 Planning Commission Minutes February 3. 1999 Page 14 • Height/Bulk/Setbacks/Etc.: An "R-1B" District requires a front yard setback of 25 feet and a side and rear yard setback of 5 feet each. Structures in this district are limited to a height of 35 feet, not to exceed 3 stories. The"I-2" District requires a front yard setback of 20 feet and no side or rear yard setback, unless adjacent to a residential district. Along the residential adjacency, a setback of 10 feet is required. The subject property will be required to set back at least 10 feet from its south and east property lines. There is no height limitation in the 1-2"District. • Signage: In an`R-lB" District, 1 sign permitted not to exceed 1 square foot and attached flat against the wall. The "I-2" District permits unlimited wall signs and unlimited freestanding signs if located behind the front yard setback. This district also permits off- premise signs (billboards). • Traffic: The proposed industrial development is projected to generate 229 vehicles per day. This traffic would access a collector street, Bratton Road, which is currently carrying approximately 1,110 vehicles per day. This increase in traffic would not adversely impact the street system. • Parking/Screening: Industrial development is required to provide at least one parking space for each 2 employees on the maximum shift plus additional parking for the trucks. This parking requirement must be satisfied when development of the property occurs. A standard screening fence with a height of 6 feet is required when a commercial or industrial use locates next to a residential district. Development of the property will required a screening fence along its south and east property lines. • Costs to City: The subject property has water available along Bratton and Brezina Roads and wastewater line along Bratton Road. Bratton and Brezina Road are not improved to their ultimate width. Improvement of these roads may require the City to make the improvements. • Platting: The subject property contains 1 platted lot and further replatting is not required. Pros: (Ideas in support of the request.) a) The requested "1-2" District is consistent with the Southside Area Development Plan's recommended land use. b) The requested "I-2" District would be an expansion of the adjacent "I-2" District to the north. c) The prohibition of residential development is consistent with the APZ-2 recommendations. Planning Commission MiNits Yu/ February 3, 1999 Page 15 Cons: (Ideas in support of maintaining the current zoning.) None. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Fifteen (15) notices were mailed to property owners within a 200-foot radius of which one(1) was returned in favor and none in opposition. Vice Chairman Guzman opened the public hearing. Luciana Evans, the applicant, 3605 Bratton, stated she agreed with Staffs recommendation. Vice Chairman Guzman closed the public hearing. Motion by Sween-McGloin, seconded by Perez, to approve Staff's recommendation. Motion passed unanimously with Kelly and Quintanilla being absent. Onac Developers,Inc.: 299-3 REQUEST: "A-1" Apartment House District and "B-4" General Business District to "R-1C" One-family Dwelling District on Bohemian Colony Lands, Section 7, being 8.61 acres out of the northwest portion of 36.01 acres out of Lot 8, which is located on the south side of Holly Road, approximately 110 feet east of Palo Verde Street. Mr. Saldana read the Zoning Report into the record: Planning Staff Analysis: • General Characteristics and Background: The applicant has requested a change of zoning from an "A-1" Apartment House District and a"B-4" General Business District to an "R- IC" One-family Dwelling District in order to develop the area with single-family residences. The proposed single-family development would be an extension of the La Joya Estates single-family uses adjacent to the west. Access to the subject property would be from the adjacent streets, El Monte and Modesto Streets. • Conformity to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Compatibility: Overall the Comprehensive Plan Elements are supportive of the proposed "R-IC" District. The Westside Area Development Plan future land use map indicates medium-density residential land use for this property. A "R-IC" District is consistent with the residential designation. • Potential Housing Density: An "A-1" District permits a density of 21.78 units per acre or 61 units on 2.81 acres of the subject property. The "B-4" District permits a density of mir Planning Commission Minutes • February 3, 1999 Page 16 36.30 units per acre or 210 units on 5.8 acres of the subject property. An "R-1C" District permits a density of 9.68 units per acre or 83 units on the subject property. • Height/Bulk/Setbacks/Etc.: Development in an "R-1C" District requires a front yard setback of 20 feet, side and rear yard setbacks of 5 feet each, and a height limitation of 26 feet, not to exceed 2 stories. The "A-1"and "B-4" Districts require a front yard setback of 20 feet. In an "A-1" District, a side and rear yard setback of 5 feet each for single-family or duplex uses or 10 feet each for the first floor plus an additional 5 feet for each additional floor for multiple-family uses. This district limits the height to 45 feet, not to exceed 3 stories. The B-4" District has no side or rear yard setbacks or height limitations. However, if nonresidential development is adjacent to residential zoning, a setback of 10 feet from that residential zoning is required. • Signage: An "R-1C" District permits one wall sign, not to exceed one square foot. Freestanding signs are not permitted except for schools and churches. The "B-4" District permits unlimited wall signs. In this district, freestanding signs within the 20-foot front yard setback are limited to one sign per street frontage with each sign not to exceed an area of 40 square feet or a height of 25 feet. However, freestanding signs located behind the 20-foot front yard setback are unlimited as to size, height, or number. As an "A-1 District, the subject property would be permitted one wall sign not to exceed 30 square feet. • Traffic: Development of the subject property with single-family residences could generate approximately 830 vehicle trip ends. The development of the subject property under its current zoning could generate approximately 2,478 vehicle trip ends; 2,083 trip ends from the "B-4" District and 395 trip ends from the "A-1" District. The 830 vehicle trip ends would be a 67% reduction in potential traffic from the subject property. • Parking/Screening: The Zoning Ordinance requires 2 parking spaces for each unit containing 2 bedrooms or more. Proof of compliance with the parking regulations will required before a building permit is issued. If the subject property were developed with a business use, a standard screening fence would be required along the north and east property lines. If the subject property develops with residential uses, a standard screening fence is not required. • Costs to City: Extension of El Monte and Modesto Streets and the water and sewer lines will be the responsibility of the developer as part of the Platting Ordinance requirements. There are no anticipated costs to the City. • Platting: A subdivision plat will be required when the subject property is subdivided into its individual lots. Planning Commission Mins V/ February 3. 1999 Page 17 Pros: (Ideas in support of the request.) a) The proposed "R-IC" District would be an expansion of the "R-1C" District adjacent to the south. b) Approval of the `R-1C" District would eliminate the potential conflicts between the existing residential and potential commercial uses. Cons: (Ideas in support of maintaining the current zoning.) None. • Staff Recommendation: Approval. Thirty-three (33) notices were mailed to property owners within a 200-foot radius of the subject property of which one (1) was returned in favor and one (1) in opposition. Vice Chairman Guzman opened the public hearing. Victor Medina representing the applicant, 2434 Saky, stated he agreed with Staffs recommendation. Vice Chairman Guzman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Underbrink stated the owner of the helicopter shop across the street informed the Commission of the noise produced by his shop; therefore, Commissioner Underbrink felt that a residential district should not be developed in the area. Commissioner Sena stated La Joya Subdivision probably developed due to demand in the area. He felt the development was a continuation of the residential property in the area. Motion by Perez, seconded by Sema, to approve Staffs recommendation. Motion passed with Guzman, Noyola, Perez, Richter, Sema, and Sween-McGloin voting "Aye"; Underbrink voting"Nay"; and Kelly and Quintanilla being absent. C. W. S. Communities Trust: 299-4 REQUEST: "1-2" Light Industrial District to "T-1B" Manufactured Home Park District on Bohemian Colony Lands, Section 8, Lot 8, which is located on the east side of Ayers Street, approximately 530 feet south of Holly Road. Mr. Saidana read the Zoning Report into the record: Planning Staff Analysis: Planning Commission Mins February 3, 1999 Page 18 • General Characteristics and Background: The applicant has requested a change of zoning from an "1-2" Light Industrial District to a "T-1B" Manufactured Home Park District in order to develop the existing farmland with a manufactured home park. A manufactured home park allows manufactured homes on leased spaces that are not individually owned. The subject property is a 46.4-acre tract of farmland bound by industrial/commercial uses to the north, a drainage easement on the south and east, and a major arterial, Ayers Street, on the west. Ayers Street is the subject property's only access. Therefore, traffic from the proposed manufactured home park will not traverse any residential area. The proposed development and "T-IB" District will be an expansion of the adjacent "T-1B" District and manufactured home park to the south. • Conformity to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Compatibility: Overall, the Comprehensive Plan Elements can be supportive of the requested "T-IB" District. The Southside Area Development Plan's future land use map recommends the area to develop with light industrial uses. Even though the requested "T-IB" District is not consistent with the Plan's map, the proposed development would be an expansion of an existing development and supported by other elements of the Southside Area Development Plan. • Potential Housing Density: The existing "1-2" District does not permit temporary or permanent housing or lodging. A "T-1B" District permits 12 manufactured homes per acre or 556 homes on the subject property. This increase in density is comparable to the adjacent manufactured home park to the south. • Height/Bulk/Setbacks/Etc.: An "1-2" District requires a front yard setback of not less than 20 feet and no side or rear yard setbacks, unless adjacent to residential zoning. Since the subject property does not abut any residential zoning, side or rear yard setbacks are not required. The proposed "T-1 B" District does not require any setbacks, but it does require a separation between manufactured home sites; 10-foot end-to-end clearance between manufactured units, 20-foot side-to-side clearance, 10-foot clearance between unit and carport or porch, and 5-foot clearance from access drive. Although there is no required open space in the "T-1B" District, it is subject to compliance with the park dedication requirements per the Platting Ordinance which is 5% of the land area or cash in lieu of dedication equal to 5%of the land's appraised value. • Signage: The "I-2" District permits unlimited wall and freestanding signs when located behind the front yard setback. If a freestanding sign is located in the front yard setback, it is limited to 1 sign per street frontage not to exceed 40 square feet in area and 25 feet in height. An "I-2" District also permits off-premise signs (billboards). In a "T-1 B" District, signage is limited to one (1) wall sign not to exceed 15 square feet. • Traffic: The traffic to be generated by the proposed manufacture home park is projected to reach 2,700 vehicle trip ends per day. The only access from the subject property is to Ayers Street, a major arterial. Therefore, the increase in traffic would not adversely impact the area. Planning Commission Mini tees February 3, 1999 Page 19 • Parking/Screening: Manufactured home parks are required to provide parking at a rate of 1.5 parking spaces for each unit. Development of the property will require compliance with the parking requirement as part of the permitting process. The manufactured home park would be required to provide screening from the public road and from adjacent properties • Costs to City: The subject property has water and wastewater services available. Improvement of Ayers Street to its ultimate pavement width may be done by the State with possibly some City participation. • Platting: A plat of the property will be required before building permits are issued. Pros: (Ideas in support of the request.) a) The requested "T-1B" District and use would be an expansion of the district and use adjacent to the south. b) Access from the subject property is to a major arterial, Ayers Street, with no access to a local street. Cons: (Ideas in support of maintaining the current zoning.) a) The existing "I-2" District is more consistent with the adopted Southside Area Development Plan. b) Approval of a "T-IB" District will allow the placement of manufactured homes adjacent to existing industrial uses. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Twenty-five (25) notices were mailed to property owners within a 200-foot radius of the subject property of which one (1)was returned in favor, and two (2) were returned in opposition. Vice Chairman Guzman opened the public hearing. Chuck Urban, representing the applicant, 2725 Swantner, introduced representatives of CWS Communities Trust and Realtor. Commissioner Sween-McGloin expressed concern regarding "egress and access with respect to the street system" and asked if the Planning Commission would be presented with a plat of the property. Mr. Gunning answered the property owner would be required to plat the property before building permits are issued and stated the residents would be using new entrances. Planning Commission Minutes • February 3. 1999 Page 20 Roger Walker, 10401 Oxford Road, Longmont, Colorado, stated the CWS Communities Trust was expanding the current community. Mr. Walker stated he could not provide definite access points; however, the goal was to provide as few access points as possible for security purposes. Commissioner Sween-McGloin expressed concerns regarding traffic and safety issues in the future. Vice Chairman Guzman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Underbrink expressed concerns regarding property along Holly Road which had a Special Permit in an "1-2" District. Mr. Saldafia stated the Special Permit was issued for a wrecking yard to provide storage, and informed the Commission that manufactured home parks were required to provide a screening fence. Commissioner Underbrink expressed concerns regarding residential areas abutting "1-2" Districts and asked the applicant to provide a buffer between existing "I-2"Districts and the manufactured home park. Motion by Underbrink, seconded by Perez, to approve Staffs recommendation. Motion passed unanimously with Kelly and Quintanilla being absent. Ted M. Anderson: 299-5E REQUEST: "T-1B" Manufactured Home Park District to Exception to the Standard Screening Fence Requirement on property which is 25.71 acres out of Gregorio Farias Grant, Abstract 592, and located on the east side of U. S. Highway 77, south of County Road 52. Mr. Saldafia read the Zoning Report into the record: Planning Staff Analysis: The subject property contains 25.71 acres with 300 feet along U. S. Highway 77, an expressway. In March 1998, this property was granted a "T-1B" Manufactured Home Park District by the City Council. A "T-1B" District is required to be screened from all sides. The applicant is requesting an exception to the screening fence along the majority of the property lines. Property lines not being requested to be waived are those property lines parallel to U. S. Highway 77 and setback 450 feet from the right-of-way line. The applicant proposes to construct a 6-foot tall masonry wall as sound attenuating wall. Along the property line fronting the highway's right-of- way line and lines extending east, the applicant requests a wavier of the screening fence. This area, measuring 300 feet wide by 450 feet deep, contains the entrance road to the manufactured home park. The applicant proposes landscaping this entrance. The fence proposed for the remainder of the property lines is a split rail fence (ranch style fence) with oleanders planted every 15 feet on center and oak trees every 100 feet on center. According to the applicant, the split rail fence will provide decoration and the oleanders will provide some screening. The Zoning Ordinance does not require any special findings in order to waive or reduce the screening fence requirement for a manufactured home park. � Planning Commission Min1utes February 3, 1999 Page 21 The subject property is bound by farmland to the north and south. To the north, the property is zoned a "T-IB" District and a "8-4" General Business District. Between these two districts, a collector road is proposed to connect U. S. Highway 77 on the west to Starlite Lane on the east. The "T-1B" District between the subject property and the proposed collector is not part of this development and will be subjected to the same requirements as the proposed development. Further to the north, northeast, there is a wide drainage ditch and power lines separating this area from the single-family area north, northeast of the ditch. To the south and east, the area is zoned an "F-R" Farm-Rural District and is being used a farmland. This farmland extends approximately 2,300 feet south which is the City limit line and is bordered by a church, a manufactured home park and more farmland. With the limited development occurring in the area and with the high probability of the area to south develop with a travel trailer park, Staff has no objection to the waiver of the screening fence on the area within 450 feet of U. S. Highway 77. The screening fence along the remainder of the property lines is recommended to be reduced to require the split rail fence with oleanders every 10 feet, instead of every 15 feet, and oak trees every 100 feet as indicated on the site plan. Pros: (Ideas in support of the request.) a) There are no proposed or existing single-family residential development in proximity to the manufactured home park. Cons: (Ideas in support of maintaining the current zoning.) a) The adopted Northwest Area Development Plan recommends the property adjacent to the south to develop with single-family residential. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the screening fence waiver for the property lines within 450 feet of the U. S. Highway 77 east right-of-way line and denial of the screening fence waiver for the north, east and south property lines, and lieu thereof, approval of a reduction in the screening subject to a site plan and the following conditions: 1. The oleanders must be located at 10 feet on center and oak trees located at 100 feet on center. If a conflict occurs between the placement of an oleander and oak tree, the tree shall be placed. 2. All landscaping material must be maintained and kept in a healthy and growing condition at all times. Seven (7) notices were mailed to property owners within a 200-foot radius of subject property of which none were returned in favor or opposition. Planning Commission Minutes V February 3. 1999 Page 22 Vice Chairman Guzman opened the public hearing. Ted Anderson, 519 Everhart, stated the development would be an "up-scale manufactured housing lease community" and he was requesting the waiver to build a screening fence, which would be of a higher caliber, than the traditional screening fence. Commissioner Perez stated she was in favor of Mr. Anderson's efforts. In response to Commissioner Underbrink's question regarding placement along the north end of the property, Mr. Anderson answered that the property would be developed in three phases and 250 feet would be reserved for future development. In response to Commissioner Underbrink's question regarding future extension of County Road 52 to the east, Mr. Gunning answered there would be an extension of County Road 52, and an extension of Starlite Lane, which would be along the drainage right-of-way and would tie into County Road 52. Mr. Gunning continued that the when the preliminary plat was previously approved by the Commission, the plat included property on the north and the extension to Starlite Lane. Mr. Gunning stated if the property on the north end was developed, Mr. Anderson would be required to construct and build the extension of Starlite Lane. In response to Commissioner Underbrink's question regarding developing a road along a drainage ditch, Mr. Gunning answered that plans were approved for the road to be developed along the drainage easement. Vice Chairman Guzman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Underbrink expressed concerns regarding future development in the area and whether or not the residential area would be screened appropriately. Commissioner Underbrink suggested that Mr. Anderson extend the main screening fence 100 feet around the corner. In response to Mr. Gunning's question regarding the type of screening fence proposed along U.S. Highway 77, Mr. Anderson responded that the fence would have"masonry posts with a decorative wood fence," which exceed the requirements. Mr. Gunning stated Staff added a third condition to require the applicant to install an irrigation system. In response to Vice Chairman Guzman's question regarding Staff's recommendation of requiring caliper and gallon size of the oleanders and oak trees, Mr. Gunning answered caliper and gallon size would be specified. Mr. Gunning informed the Commission that the applicant was exceeding the screening fence requirement along the frontage, an illustration was not required on the site plan. Under the ordinance, Staff could not require the applicant to build a masonry fence. Vice Chairman Guzman stated he preferred that the applicant illustrate the caliper of oak trees and gallon size of oleanders on the site plan as a requirement. Mr. Gunning stated he would incorporate the requirement of the minimum caliper of oak trees and minimum gallon size of Planning Commission Mins February 3. 1999 Page 23 oleanders with the conditions for the fence exception and illustration on the site plan. Mr. Saldana stated a site plan was a condition of Staffs recommendation. In response to Commissioner Underbrink's question regarding Zoning Ordinance requirements, Mr. Gunning answered the Zoning Ordinance requires a "manufactured home park" be screened from public streets, highways, and adjacent property by a standard screening fence. Mr. Gunning continued that the requirement can be modified or waived by City Council action after a hearing and recommendation of the Planning Commission, in accordance with provisions of Article 30 Section 33-3.02". Commissioner Underbrink felt that the oleanders would screen as well as a screening fence; although; he preferred a screening fence be required along 100 feet on each side. Commissioner Sween-McGloin asked the reasoning why the information was not provided on the site plan as indicated by the applicant. Mr. Saldana stated the site plan indicated the applicant's proposal. However, Mr. Gunning stated the applicant could decide to build a standard screening fence, and he would not be in violation unless the Commission required, as a condition, a masonry fence be built. Mr. Anderson stated he preferred to withdraw the application and build a standard screening fence. In response to Commissioner Perez' question regarding the reason for withdrawing, Mr. Anderson answered that he did not agree with the objections and comments presented by the Commission. Commissioner Perez agreed with Mr. Anderson regarding developing an up-scale community. Commissioner Noyola asked Mr. Anderson to reconsider. Mr. Anderson stated he would prefer not to specify the size of oak trees and focus on Staff s recommendation. Mr. Gunning stated, for the record, Staffs recommendation was "approval of the screening fence waiver for the property lines within 450 feet of the U. S. Highway 77 east right-of-way line, and denial of the screening fence waiver for the north, east and south property lines, and lieu thereof, approval of a reduction in the screening subject to a site plan and the following conditions: 1)the oleanders must be located at 10 feet on center and oak trees located at 100 feet on center. If a conflict occurs between the placement of an oleander and oak tree, the tree shall be placed; 2) all landscaping material must be maintained and kept in a healthy and growing condition at all times". Mr. Gunning informed Mr. Anderson, for the record, that if the Commission reduced the fence requirement and in lieu thereof, grant a lesser requirement, the Commission could require the applicant to plant trees or shrubbery. He continued that if the site plan illustrated certain sized trees, the Commission could require that the illustrated sized tree be planted. Commissioner Serna stated he concurred with Commissioners Perez and Noyola's opinions. Commissioner Underbrink stated he did not believe Staffs recommendation did not address the requirement of a screening fence along U.S. Highway 77. Mr. Reining stated Council approves the site plan, the site plan could include recommendations by the Commission. 1/10 IVO Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 1999 Page 24 Motion by Noyola, seconded by Perez, to approve Staffs recommendation. Motion passed unanimously with Kelly and Quintanilla being absent. Serna left at 8:37 a.m. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Perez, seconded by Noyola, to adjourn. Motion passed unanimously with Kelly and Quintanilla being absent. Meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m. /7 � a ��?& Michael N. Gunning, AICP Lu inda P. Beal Acting Director of Planning Recording Secretary