Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 07/13/1994 • MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL JULY 13, 1994 - 6:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Shirley Mime, Chairman Lamont Taylor, Vice Chairman Michael Bertuzzi Robert Canales + Laurie Cook Ralph Hall Alma Meinrath Sylvia Perez Richard Berne STAFF PRESENT: Michael Gunning, Sr. Planner Marcia Cooper, Recording Secretary Norbert Hart, Assistant City Secretary Miguel Saldafia, AICP, City Planner CALL TO ORDER Chairman Mims called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. , and described the procedure to be followed. PUBLIC HEARING NEW ZONINGS Mr. Robert F. Goliahtlev: 794-1 REQUEST: From "T-1C" Mobile Home Subdivision to "R-1B" One-family Dwelling District on Holliday Harbor, Block 1, Lot 6, located on the west side of Herring Drive, approximately 320 feet north of Yorktown Boulevard Mr. Saldafia described the land use and zoning in the surrounding area, and stated that the applicant is requesting a zoning change to "R-1B" One-family Dwelling District to make the existing single-family residence conforming. Mr. Saldafia summarized the Staff Report, informing the Commission of applicable Policy Statements, and quoted from the Flour Bluff Area Development Plan. The "R-1B" One-family Dwelling District is necessary to legalize the existing single-family residence for a possible future * Commissioner Cook arrived at 6:40 P.M. SCANNED •wd . Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1994 Page 2 sale. The current •T-1C• Mobile Home Subdivision District was placed on the area during the 1983 Flour Bluff Area Rezoning. In November 1987, a building permit was erroneously granted to the applicant for a site-built single-family residence. The "T-1C" District allows only mobile homes. The subject property fronts a cul-de-sac local street that feeds out to an arterial street, Yorktown Boulevard. The property contains 10, 000 square feet which is more than the 6, 000 square feet required by the "R-1B• District. The building has a front yard setback exceeding 30 feet. The •R-1B" District requires 25 feet. The "T-1C• District requires a minimum lot area of 4,500 square feet and a 20 foot front yard setback. The subject property exceeds the minimum of both districts and an •R-1B• District would not adversely impact the area. The Zoning Ordinance requires that •T-1C" District areas have a minimum of eight (8) acres and minimum width of 300 feet. This area exceeds the minimum width of 300 feet but only contains approximately 6 .5 acres. Rezoning the subject property would not make the area nonconforming due to lack of size. Since the area is below the required eight (8) acres, and all of the lots within this subdivision exceed 6, 000 square feet, an "R-1B" District on the property would be appropriate. There is another site-built home adjacent to the subject property to the south. That house was built in 1980, prior to the 1983 rezoning, which makes it a legal nonconforming use. Mr. Saldada read to the Commission the pros and cons of this application from the Staff Report (copy on file) . Twenty five notices were mailed, none were returned in favor or in opposition. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Saldana indicated that Staff received a letter from the School District supporting the request. Mr. Robert Golightley, the applicant, appeared and stated that he desires the rezoning, because he has the property for sale. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Perez, seconded by Bertuzzi, and passed unanimously that this application for "R-1B• One-family Dwelling District be forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation that it be approved. • v 4.11 Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1994 Page 3 Mr. T.C. Isensee: 794-2 REQUEST: From "R-1B" One-family Dwelling District to "R-2" Multiple Dwelling District on Isenses Subdivision, Block 3, Lot 1, located on the west side of Clarkwood South Road, approximately 435 feet south of Agnes Street. Mr. Saldafia described the land use and zoning in the surrounding area, and stated that the applicant is requesting a zoning change to "R-2" Multiple Dwelling District, to convert an existing school building into thirteen (13) apartment units. The property is currently occupied by vacant school buildings and undeveloped land. Mr. Saldafia summarized the Staff Report, informing the Commission of applicable Policy Statements, and quoted from the Port/Airport/Violet Area Development Plan. The applicant purchased the subject property from the Tuloso- Midway Independent School District. It is located between Agnes Street (S.H. 44) and the proposed State Highway 44 By-Pass with direct access on Clarkwood South Road, an arterial. The planned highway includes entrance and exit ramps for Clarkwood South Road, making it easily accessible. This case was originally heard by the Planning Commission and the City Council in late 1992 . The City Council granted the applicant a Special Permit for thirteen (13) units subject to platting as one lotand approval of an avigation easement. The applicant never initiated the construction of the apartment units, and the Special Permit expired. A primary concern for higher density residential development regards noise and air-accident potential. The Airport Master Plan recommends construction of a parallel main instrument runway southwest of the existing runway. The subject property would be under the flight path of the future runway and susceptible to a potential higher level of aircraft noise. Conversely, residential development could hamper future airport expansions by increasing the number of resident complaints and possible law suites regarding aircraft noise. The Airport Director is opposed to continued residential growth in this area. The applicant has alleviated these concerns by signing an avigation easement to protect the airport from lawsuits stemming from the residents living under the flight paths. The residential development would be limited to thirteen (13) units on the entire 6.13 acre site, which has been replatted as a single lot. Mr. Saldafla read to the Commission the pros and cons of this application from the Staff Report (copy on file) . Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1994 Page 4 Thirteen notices were mailed, none were returned in favor and none in opposition. Staff recommends denial of "R-1" Multiple Dwelling District, and in lieu thereof, approval of a Special Permit for 13 apartment units subject to the following two (2) conditions: 1) USE: The only use authorized by this Special Permit, other than the basic "R-1H" One-family Dwelling District uses is an apartment complex limited to a maximum of thirteen (13) units on 6.13 acres as a single lot. Said thirteen (13) units shall be located exclusively within the school buildings existing on the property on the date of passage of this Ordinance. 2) AVIGATION EASEMENT: The owner shall execute an avigation easement, approved by the City Attorney's Office, appropriate for recording with the County Recorder before a certificate of occupancy is issued. Mr. Saldana indicated that Staff received a letter from the School District recommending approval of the request. Mr. Grady Iseneee, 746 Princess, son of the applicant, appeared and stated will answer any questions. Commissioner Canales stated that the Airport Director is opposed to residential growth in the area, and asked how, by signing the avigation easement, has the applicant alleviated the concern of protecting the airport from any lawsuits from the people who may be living there. Mr. Isensee replied that the avigation easement is drawn up where the residents cannot file a lawsuit. Commissioner Canales asked why should the residents not have the right to file a lawsuit. Mr. Iseneee stated that there is one runway in questions which may or may not be built. He continued that they do not feel that there will be any danger to the residents, and that they are trying to provide affordable housing. Mr. Isensee noted that the Airport Director has signed the avigation easement. Mr. Gunning stated that the avigation easement, when it is filed for record, will provide proper notice to all future property owners of area located within this critical area of the airport, which will be subjected to higher levels of noise and potential accidents. The Airport Director has agreed to the rezoning subject to the recommended conditions of the special permit. With the • Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1994 Page 5 recommended special permit and the avigation easement, he concurred with the proposed development. In answer to a question from Commissioner Canales, Mr. Gunning indicated that future property owners within the area will be aware of the avigation easement, but the applicant will have the obligation to make the tenants in his building aware of the easement. Mr. Gunning added that the density under the current •R-1B" zoning is 7 units per acre, and could be developed with single- family residences. A Special Permit for a 13 unit apartment complex would further restrict the density of residential use to 2 units per acre. Commissioner Cantles stated that the avigation easement signed by the applicant, alleviating the concerns to protect the airport from lawsuits stemming from future residents who may be living close to the area, may take the right from the resident to file suit from a possible disaster. Mr. Hart indicated that if the Commission would like to table this application, he will get more information on the avigation easement. Motion by Canales, seconded by Serna that this application be tabled to obtain more information on the avigation easement. Motion failed with Bertuzzi, Cook, Hall, Meinrath, Perez, and Mims voting nay, Canales, Serna and Taylor voting aye. In answer to a question from Chairman Mims regarding carports, Mr. Isensee replied that they do not intend to have covered carports. No one appeared in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Cook asked for a clarification regarding density, and Mr. Gunning explained that the applicant can develop his property under the existing zoning with 7 units per acre. The Special Permit would limit the applicant to 13 apartment units in the existing building (2 units per acre) . Mr. Gunning also added that if the property is developed under the existing "R-1B" zoning, the owner of the property would not have to sign an avigation easement. Commissioner Canales again asked a question regarding the rights of the apartment residents in the event of a disaster. .. 'S • Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1994 Page 6 Mr. Hart responded that the general rule of liability is that if there is an airplane disaster, the airline can be sued. The avigation easement states that the residents cannot complain about the noise, and they cannot shut down the runway. Mr. Gunning stated that the Airport Director saw this as an opportunity to reduce density. Motion by Cook, seconded by Bertuzzi, that this application for "R-2" Multiple Dwelling District be forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation that it be denied, and in lieu thereof that Staff's recommendation for a Special Permit, with two conditions, be approved. Motion passed with Bertuzzi, Cook, Hall, Meinrath, Perez, Taylor and Mims voting aye, and Canales and Serna voting nay. Doddridae Associates Joint Venture: 794-3 REQUEST: From "R-1B° One-family Dwelling District to "B-1" Neighborhood Business District on Hopper Addition, Block 2, Lot 12, located on the southwest corner of South Alameda Street and Hopper Drive. Commissioner Cook stated she would abstain from participation on this zoning application. Mr. Saldafia described the land use and zoning in the surrounding area, and stated that the applicant is requesting a zoning change to "B-1" Neighborhood Business District to extend the adjacent retail center's parking. The property is currently undeveloped. Mr. Saldafia summarized the Staff Report, informing the Commission of applicable Policy Statements. The applicant needs a "B-1" Neighborhood Business District to expand the adjacent retail center' s parking area onto the subject property. The subject property is located along a major arterial (South Alameda Street) and a local residential street (Hopper Drive) . It is adjacent to a single-family residence to the south and backs up to an office/retail center. The subject property has remained undeveloped although it was platted as part of a residential subdivision in May, 1955. Approval of a "B-1" District could domino onto the other properties that side on South Alameda Street. Approval of a Special Permit for parking on the subject property tieing it to the existing adjacent commercial uses would less likely have a domino effect because it would be a part of the adjacent commercial V Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1994 Page 7 parking area. The other properties do not have the adjacency to other commercial. A Special Permit could be used to allow the parking area while providing some protection to the residential area by requiring additional landscaping, prohibiting access to Hopper Drive and along the north part of South Alameda Street, and requiring that any parking lot lighting be directed away from the residences. In May 1994, this request was denied. Both the initial "B-1" zoning and a Planning Commission/Staff recommended Special Permit were considered and denied by the City Council, thus establishing policy for this type of use at this location. The 20% opposition rule was in effect, which required seven (7) City Council votes as per state law. The applicant has decided to again attempt to rezone the property. Although typically found in most cities' regulations, there is no restriction or waiting time required by the Zoning Ordinance regulating resubmission of identical zoning applications. City Council's recent denial of the requested 0B-1" or a Special Permit sets policy of how the subject lot should be developed. There have been no changes in neighborhood conditions or application since the May 1994 public hearing. Mr. Saldafia read to the Commission the pros and cons of this application from the Staff Report (copy on file) . Fourteen notices were mailed, none were returned in favor and nine in opposition, plus 15 in opposition outside the 200' notification area. Staff recommends denial. Mr. Leon Loeb, 3840 Ocean Drive, appeared for the applicant, and requested that the Planning Commission reapprove the Special Permit which the Planning Staff originally recommended, and forward this application to the City Council. Mr. Loeb felt that there was misrepresentation made at the City Council public hearing. He clarified that Mr. Cartwright, who represented one of the adjoining property owners, presented a letter from George Moff, the Chief Appraiser, Nueces County Appraisal District, stating Mr. Mol£' s opinion that a parking lot adjacent to the property would decrease property value. This letter was obtained without Mr. Moff having the opportunity to see what the conditions of the special permit would be. After Mr. Woolf was shown those, he recanted that opinion and stated that he it was his opinion that if there was no additional traffic on Hopper Drive, and if the subject property was developed in accordance with the Special Permit, there would be no effect on the adjoining property values. Mr. Leob was of the opinion that maybe they had not done an adequate job of pleading their case to the neighbors, and \so 4150 Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1994 Page 8 communicating with them in attempting to address their concerns on this matter, and they wanted another opportunity to do that. Prior to this hearing, they sent letters to everyone who either returned a notice or a petition, or was within the notice area, inviting them to express their concerns to them. Unfortunately, they have had only one response. He added that they wanted to take this application back to the City Council with the correction of Mr. Mof£' s opinion on property value. He reminded the Commission of the conditions that were recommended by the Planning Commission with the Special Permit. Mr. David Coover, 3826 Denver, appeared representing the applicant. He stated that the subject property is not a desirable location to build a house, because it abuts South Alameda Street, and is close to a busy intersection. He felt that a parking lot would be the least offensive of uses that could be located on the subject property. He noted that the property has been vacant for 40 years, since the subdivision was developed, and it was time to make a change that is positive to everyone. Mr. Wendell Reetch, 3125 Seafoam, appeared in opposition, and introduced neighbors from Hopper Addition. He addressed the applicant' s invitation to comment, and stated that they do not want - a parking lot on the subject property, so there was no reason to respond. He noted that nothing has changed since the last hearing, and felt that the property should be developed as zoned. He informed the Commission that residences abut South Alameda Street from Six Points to Ennis Joslin Road, so the property could be developed with a one-family dwelling. He pointed out that a lot of traffic use Hopper Drive to avoid the Doddridge/Alameda intersection, and predicted that if a parking lot is developed on the subject tract, traffic would increase on Hopper Drive. Mr. Reetch expressed concern that they are not sure the parking lot will be used only by employees, and felt that the public would use it day and night. He concluded that it was his opinion that parking is not that critical for Doddridge Plaza. Chairman Mime pointed out that there would be no ingress or egress from Hopper Drive. Ms. Dora Salvide, 505 Hopper Drive, appeared in opposition, and stated that the proposed parking lot will be located close to her bedroom window, and there is no guarantee that the parking lot will not be used at night. She stated that there is gang graffiti on her fence, and questioned what will happen if there is a parking lot with easy access to that parking lot. She expressed concern about decreased property value, and explained that she has offered v u Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1994 Page 9 to purchase the subject property. Ms. Salvide stated that she would welcome employees parking on Hopper Drive. Ms. Kathy Rogers, 509 Hopper, appeared in opposition, and stated that their thoughts on having a parking lot on Hopper Street have not changed since the last public hearing. She cited additional traffic and decreased property value if the parking lot is developed, and it will have a detrimental effect on those living in the area. She asked that the request be denied, and further, that an ordinance be formulated restricting the number of times the identical application can be submitted for consideration. Mr. Todd Brendaen, 514 Hopper Drive, appeared in opposition stating that he has found no precedent for building a parking lot in a residential neighborhood. He suggested that the existing parking lot for Doddridge Plaza be redesigned. Mr. Eugene Bouligny, 309 Santa Monica, appeared in opposition. He stated that the buyer of the property knew the zoning and deed restrictions before purchasing the property; that the neighborhood is a viable one; and questioned if the Commissioners would want a parking lot next to their residence. Ma. Ellison Crider, 521 Brawaer, appeared and stated that their neighborhood was misrepresented at the City Council meeting as a neighborhood in transition. She familiarized the Commission with the neighborhood, and asked that the Commission do not pave their piece of paradise and allow a parking lot. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Hall commented on the previous public hearing at the Planning Commission and City Council levels, and pointed out that Deed Restrictions are not an issue of zoning or Special Permit. Commissioner Bertuzzi pointed out that the choices are that Doddridge Plaza could build a parking garage on their existing parking lot, or they could be granted a Special Permit for a parking lot on the subject property. Commissioner Perez stated that she was against the parking lot. Motion by Serna, seconded by Perez, that this application for "B-1" Neighborhood Business District be forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation that it be denied. Motion fails with Canales, Perez and Serna voting aye, Bertuzzi, Hall, Meinrath, Taylor and Mims voting nay, and Cook abstaining. Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1994 Page 10 Motion by Hall, seconded by Bertuzzi, that this application for "B-1" Neighborhood Business District be forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation that it be denied, and in lieu thereof grant a Special Permit for a parking lot, subject to the following conditions: 1) USE: The only use authorized by this Special Permit other than the basic "R-1B° One-family Dwelling District uses is a parking lot for motor vehicles. Overnight parking and parking of large commercial trucks (18- wheelers) are prohibited. 2) ACCESS: Vehicle ingress and egress to Hopper Drive is prohibited. 3) SCREENING: A six (6) foot tall standard screening fence must be installed and maintained along the southwest property line to the Hopper Drive right-of-way line. The standard screening fence must be tapered down to a height not to exceed three (3) feet for that part of the fence within 10 feet of the sidewalk. 4) LANDSCAPING: Landscaping must comply with the "R-1B° District standards stated in Article 27B, Landscape Requirements. As part of the requirements, the property must contain a landscape strip along the Hopper Drive right-of-way with a minimum width of ten (10) feet. 5) LIGHTING: All lighting on the property must be directional lighting and must be directed away from surrounding residential properties. Commissioner Hall amended his motion to include restriction of access from Alameda Street and Hopper Drive. Commissioner Meinrath seconded the amendment. In answer to a question from Chairman Mims, Mr. Saldada stated that fence maintenance and directional lighting are standard requirements. Commissioner Hall further amended his motion to include parking lot be identified as "Employee Parking Only° . In answer to questions from Commissioner Perez, Mr. Gunning stated that it is difficult to monitor an employee only parking lot, but it can be done. He added that when many conditions are added to a Special Permit, then a straight zoning should be considered. • V V Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1994 Page 11 Mr. Loeb stated that the proposed parking lot will be the least convenient parking site, and felt that only employees will park on it. Mr. Gunning pointed out that the City cannot imposed towing away of vehicles from private property, but Staff can enforce a Special Permit. Vice Chairman Taylor directed his comments to the audience, and stated that if a parking lot is allowed, the neighbors can register their complaints with the City, and make sure the parking lot is used the way the Planning Commission envisioned it to be used. Amendment to the motion was seconded by Meinrath. Motion passed with Bertuzzi, Hall, Meinrath, Taylor and Mims voting aye, Canales, Perez and Serna voting nay, and Cook abstaining. Calvary First Baptist Church: 794-4 REQUEST: From "R-1B" One-family Dwelling District to "B-1" Neighborhood Business District on Dunbar Addition, Block C, Lot 24, located on the northwest corner of Sabinas and Easley Streets. Mr. Saldafia described the land use and zoning in the surrounding area, and stated that the applicant is requesting a zoning change to "B-l" Neighborhood Business District to use the subject lot for additional church parking. The subject lot is directly across Easley Street from the church. The property is currently undeveloped. Mr. Saldafia summarized the Staff Report, informing the Commission of applicable Policy Statements, and quoted from the Westside Area Development Plan. The area is predominately developed with single-family residences. The proposed parking lot is also located at the intersection of two (2) local residential streets, Easley and Sabinas Streets, two (2) blocks west of Greenwood Drive, a major arterial. Traffic from the proposed parking lot would be minimal and concentrated on a particular day, Sunday. Traffic from a "B-1° District commercial establishment would be more substantial which could adversely impact the residential area, especially if the commercial use were open late. Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1994 Page 12 Approval of a "B-1" District on the subject property would add more non-residential zoning into a residential area that already has a number of scattered non-residential zoned lc s. These "B-1" District lots are either undeveloped, contain vacant building., or are underutilized. The proposed parking area is seen as an extension of the church use permitted in the current "R-1B" One- family Dwelling District, and would be allowed if it was contiguous to the church property. Since it is separated by a street, it is considered off-site parking which requires a "B-1" District. Special Permits for parking have been previously granted in other areas of the City. This property once had a Special Permit for parking and according to the applicant, continuously use for parking since 1974. Conditions in the neighborhood have not changed significantly to indicate that a church parking lot would be inappropriate. On the contrary, the regulations are such that they would afford more protection to the residential area. The development of this lot as a "B-1" zoned use requires a six (6) foot tall screening fence along the interior lot lines and compliance with the landscape ordinance. A Special Permit should continue the screening fence requirement. A Special Permit for the church parking lot would not adversely impact the residential area. Mr. Saldafa read to the Commission the pros and cons of this application from the Staff Report (copy on file) . Thirty one notices were mailed, none were received in favor and one in opposition, plus one in favor from outside the 200' notification area. Staff recommends denial of the "B-1" District, and in lieu thereof, approval of a Special Permit for a church parking lot subject to the following conditions: 1) USE: The only use authorized by this Special Permit other than the basic "R-1B" One-family Dwelling District uses is a parking lot for motor vehicles. The parking lot is limited to the church located at the southeast intersection of Easley and Carver Streets. Overnight parking and parking of large commercial trucks (18- wheelers) are prohibited. 2) SCREENING: A six (6) foot tall standard screening fence must be installed and maintained along the north and west property lines. The standard screening fence must be tapered down to a height not to exceed three (3) feet for that part of the fence within ten (10) feet of the sidewalk. The fence must be installed before the property may be used as a parking lot. 3) LANDSCAPING: Landscaping must comply with the "R-1B" District standards stated in Article 27B, Landscape Requirement. As part of the requirements, the property • Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1994 Page 13 must contain a landscape strip along the Sabina. Street right-of-way with a minimum width of ten (10) feet. The landscaping must be installed before the property may be used as a parking lot. 4) LIGHTING: All lighting on the property must be directional lighting and must be directed away from surrounding residential properties. Mr. Gunning indicated that the applicant appeared before the Board of Adjustment and obtained a variance for reduction of parking. The existing church will be demolished, and a new church erected, creating a greater need for parking across the street. Rev. C.S. Richardson, 4361 Aaron Drive, appeared for the applicant, and stated that the church wants to use the subject property as a parking lot, and that the old church will be demolished. Chairman Mime asked Rev. Richardson if he understood the Staff' s recommendation for a Special Permit, and if he felt it necessary to have lighting on the parking lot. Rev. Richardson replied that he understood Staff's - recommendation, and that he did not feel it necessary to have lighting on the subject lot, because there will be street lights in the area, and from the outside of the church. Mr. Saldafa clarified the condition for lighting, stating that the condition states that if there is outside lighting, it should be directional. Vice Chairman Taylor clarified that the subject property should not be used for parking until the conditions of the Special Permit are met. No one appeared in opposition. Rev. Richardson introduced members of the congregation who were in favor of the zoning request. The public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Perez, seconded by Taylor that this application for "B-1° Neighborhood Business District be forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation that it be denied, and in lieu thereof that Staff's recommendation be approved. Motion passed with Bertuzzi, Cook, Hall, Meinrath, Perez, Sena, Taylor and Mims voting aye, with Canales out of the Council Chambers. ti. d Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1994 Page 14 Snavov Lube Center and Truck Rental: 794-5 REQUEST: From "B-1" Neighborhood Business District to °B-4" General Business District on Carroll Lane Park Unit 2, Block 8, Lots 2 and 3, located on the west side of South Staples Street, approximately 145 feet south of Carroll Lane. Mr. Saldafia described the land use and zoning in the surrounding area, and stated that the applicant is requesting a zoning change to "B-4" General Business District to reopen the oil change facility and also to operate a car detailing and truck rental business. The property is currently occupied by a vacant oil change and car wash facility. Mr. Saldafa summarized the Staff Report, informing the Commission of applicable Policy Statements. The applicant needs "8-4" zoning to reopen an oil change business. The Pit Stop Wash & Lube business had been in operation as a "B-1" permitted use since 1987 . In February 1990, the "B-1" Neighborhood Business District was amended to delete auto service uses, making the oil and lube use nonconforming. When the oil - change business closed and did not reopen within (1) year, it lost its nonconforming status. The applicant requires a more intense zoning classification, a "B-3" District or "8-4" District, in order to reopen the oil change business. The applicant also intends to operate a car detailing and truck rental business. The subject property is located along a major arterial, South Staples Street. Its only access is to the arterial and an alley to the back. Bordering the property is a convenience store to the north, and a fast food stand, Angelo' s Pizza, to the south. With the property oriented and accessing a major arterial and being bordered by other high traffic generators, the proposed uses would have minimal adverse impact on the surrounding area. The requested "B-4° District has the potential of adversely impacting the existing residences to the rear. This impact is in the form of the allowable uses, i.e. bars, auto dealerships, hotels and signs. The first three (3) uses mentioned may have their impacts reduced by the physical separation of the properties due to the existing alley. These impacts may be further reduced by the requirement for a six (6) foot tall screening fence along the rear of the subject property. This use would also be oriented toward South Staples Street and away from the residences. The allowable freestanding signs dramatically increase from one (1) , 40 square foot, 20 foot tall sign per premise in the "8-1" District to unlimited number, size, and height signs when located behind the • V Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1994 Page 15 twenty (20) foot front property line in a "B-3" or "B-4" District. With the depth of the subject property and the orientation of the property away from the residences, the adverse impacts could be minimal. With the potential of the adjacent properties to the north and south also requesting a more intense district, Staff is concerned about the possibility of some type of incompatible residential/business mixed development occurring. In order to reduce this possibility, a "8-3" Business District would be more appropriate. The "13-3" District is similar to the "8-4" District, and would allow the applicant' s proposed uses while prohibiting residential development. Mr. Salda5a read to the Commission the pros and cons of this application from the Staff Report (copy on file) . Sixteen notices were mailed, none were returned in favor and one in opposition. Staff recommends denial of "13-4" General Business District, and in lieu thereof, approval of "8-3" Business District. Mr. Orio Garcia, 2627 Chapel View, appeared for the applicant. He stated that they purchased the property as an oil change facility in 1982, but the business has been closed for over two years. Be stated that if "8-3" will allow the proposed use, it will be acceptable. Mr. Garcia addressed a notice returned in opposition, and noted that he does not intend to close the alley. Commissioner Serna asked if the truck rental business will require fueling of the trucks on site. Mr. Garcia responded in the negative. No one appeared in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Canales, seconded by Cook, that this recommendation for "H-4" General Business District be forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation that it be denied, and in lieu thereof that "B-3" Business District be approved. Motion passed with Bertuzzi, Canales, Cook, Hall, Meinrath, Perez, Berne and Taylor voting aye, with Mime out of the Council Chambers. NEW PLATS Consideration of plats as described on attached addendum. OTHER MATTERS 1 Mr. Gunning informed the Commission of the following City Council action: Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1994 Page 16 C394-2 City of Corpus Christi This zoning application will be heard by City Council on July 19, 1994. 694-2 Harry Williams This application was heard at the City Council meeting on July 12, 1994, and required 5 affirmative votes. Several members of the City Council had left the Council Chambers, and there were not enough votes to approve the application. This zoning case will be rescheduled on the City Council's Agenda on July 19, 1994. 694-3 Gabe Lozano Approved. 694-4 Sunrise Clocke Shoppe, Inc. Approved a Special Permit for a clock shop subject to several conditions. MATTERS NOT SCHEDULED None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Perez, seconded by Canales, and passed unanimously that the minutes of June 29, 1994 be approved. Commissioner Cook requested that Chairman Mime tell the Commission some of the duties of the Chairperson. Chairman Mims informed the Commission of what she does as Chairman. Mr. Carl Crull, Director, Engineering Services addressed Chairman Mime, and expressed appreciation for her years of service on the Planning Commission. He stated that it was a pleasure working with her, and she has done an excellent job as a Planning Commissioner. Chairman Mime acknowledged his comments. . V Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1994 Page 17 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. (d! Bran o M. Hdddry-y, AIA, AICP Marcia Cooper Director of Planning and Development Recording Secretary Executive Secretary to Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1994 Page 18 NEW PLATS Addendum to minutes of consideration of plats. Chairman Mims informed the Commission that the following plat has been withdrawn: 069476-P33 Port Aransas Cliffs, Block 216, Lots 65 & 66 (Final Replat - 0.287 acre) Located southeast of the intersection of Ropes Street with San Antonio Avenue Owner - J. Robert Cone & Janey Davey Cone Engineer - Urban Mr. Gunning stated that there were no conditions remaining on the following plats, and Staff recommends approval as submitted: 1. 069472-P29 Bickham Addition, Block 1, Lots lA & 1B (Final - 1.37 acre) Located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Hearn Road with Callicoatte Road (FM 1694) Owner - Melvin S. Trice Engineer - Gunter 2 . 069473-P30 Directors Addition No. 1, Block 215, Lot 65 (Final replat - 0 .255 acre) Located southeast of the intersection of Cordula Street with San Antonio Avenue Owner - Gary Robert Boone & Nancy Ruth Boone Engineer - Shearer, Plog & Associates, Inc. 3 . 069474-P31 Flour Heights, Block 1, Lot 23 (Final - 0.75 acre) Located southeast of Flour Bluff Drive, north of Purdue Road Owner - Gary Robert Boone & Nancy Ruth Boone Engineer - Shearer, Plog & Associates 4 . 069475-P32 Mahan Acres, Block 1, Lots 1C & 1D (Final reolat - 0 .322 acre) Located southwest of the intersection of Mahan Drive with Hakel Drive Owner - Victor Medina, Jr. Engineer - Bass & Welsh • V Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1994 Page 19 5. 079478-NP46 Ave Coover Subdivision, Lot 7-I (Final rennet - 0.17 acre) Located northwest of Rostoryz Road, south of Horne Road Owner - Jean Hess Engineer - Shearer, Plog & Associates, Inc. 6. 079479-NP47 Wood River Unit 11 (Preliminary - 56 + acres) Located between the existing developed Wood River Units 8 & 9 and the Nueces River Owner - Woodriver Partners Engineer - Urban No one appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Canales, seconded by Cook, and passed unanimously that the above plats be approved as submitted. TABLED PLAT A. 069470-P27 Ring' s Crossing Future Units (Preliminary - 250 acres) Located south of the intersection of South Staples Street (FM 2444) with Yorktown Boulevard Owner - TRT Development Engineer - Urban Motion by Cook, seconded by Canales and passed unanimously that this plat be removed from the table. Mr. Gunning stated that the above plat was tabled to make a decision of alignment of the collector system. No conditions are remaining on this plat, and Staff recommends approval. Mr. Gunning stated that the plat is for a large subdivision, with one-family development as well as commercial, multiple family, and possibly a school being proposed. Mr. Chuck Urban, Urban Engineering, appeared and answered clarifying questions from the Commission. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1994 Page 20 Motion by Cook, seconded by Perez, and passed unanimously, that the plat be approved. (H497MC)