Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 05/04/1994 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL MAY 4, 1994 - 6:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Shirley Minis, Chairman Lamont Taylor, Vice Chairman Michael Bertuzzi Bobby Canales * Laurie Cook Ralph Hall Alma Meinrath Richard Serna MEMBERS ABSENT: Sylvia Perez STAFF PRESENT: Brandol M. Harvey, AIA, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Michael Gunning, Senior Planner Lorraine Del Alto, Recording Secretary Robert Payne, AICP, Senior Planner Norbert Hart, Assistant City Attorney CALL TO ORDER Chairman Mims called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m., and described the procedure to be followed. PUBLIC HEARING NEW ZONINGS Doddridee Associates and Joint Venture: 594-1 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 S. Alameda Street and Hopper Drive. Mr. Gunning described the land use and zoning in the surrounding area, and stated that the applicant is requesting a zoning change to extend the adjacent retail center's parking. The property is currently undeveloped land. Mr. Gunning summarized the Staff Report, informing the Commission of applicable Policy Statements. * Bobby Canales left the meeting at 8:30 p.m. SCANNED \. .i Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1994 Page 2 The applicant is requesting a change of zoning to a "B-1" Neighborhood Business District in order to expand the adjacent retail center's parking area onto the subject property. The subject property is located along a major arterial (S. 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 S. 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 parking area. The other residential properties do not have the adjacency existing commercial. A Special Permit could be used to allow the parking area while protecting the residential area. Expansion of the parking area would be more compatible with the surrounding single-family residences if it is accompanied by mitigating measures such as a screening fence between the parking area and the adjacent residence, a wider landscape strip along the Hopper Drive frontage and not allowing motor vehicle access to that street. The recorded plat of the subject property prohibits driveway access to S. Alameda. Mr. Gunning read to the Commission the pros and cons of this application from the Staff Report (copy on file). Sixteen notices were mailed, none returned in favor, and ten were returned in opposition. Eleven notices were returned in opposition from outside the 200' radius, and one petition was turned in with twenty-three signatures in opposition. Staff recommends Denial of the "B-1" District, and in lieu thereof, approval of a Special Permit for a parking lot subject to five conditions. Mr. Leon Loeb, 3845 Ocean Drive, appeared before the Commission stating that a restaurant located within the center is the "Country Cajun". lie stated that customers have a hard time finding parking during the noon hour. He is intending to develop the vacant lot into a landscaped parking lot and agrees with the conditions presented by Staff. Mr. Wendell Keetch, 3125 Seafoam, appeared before the Commission in opposition to the zoning request. I feel that an encroachment, traffic and a business area will create a domino effect within the area if the zoning request were granted. Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1994 Page 3 Ms. Dom Salvide, 505 Hopper Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition to the zoning request. She stated that she expected the subject lot to remain residential when she purchased her home which sides up to the subject lot. She is also concerned about her safety and the crime that may occur pertaining to the parking lot. She asked the Commission to consider denying the request and any special permit. Mr. Mike Rogers, 509 Hopper Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition to the zoning request. He stated that they have had previous problems with the "Country Cajun" restaurant located directly behind their backyard. He stated that employees of the restaurant have had "smoke breaks" and have been picked up by other people in cars. This is disturbing and feels that a parking lot would just increase the problem for the area. Mrs. Cathy Rogers, 509 Hopper Drive, stated that one other problem she has had with the "Country Cajun" restaurant is the grease coming from the restaurant. She sympathized with the parking situation the management is having, but stated that as residents they also have endured several problems as a result from this establishment. She asked the Commission to consider having this residential area remain as it is. Mr. Gene Bouligny, 502 Hopper Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition to the zoning request. He feels that by allowing the zoning to be changed to business, it will create a traffic congestion in the area. He added that majority of the residents on Hopper Drive are elderly and by creating a parking lot, this will not protect them or their property. He asked the Commission to consider denying the zoning request and any special permit. Mr. Marlin Harris, 626 Hopper Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition to the zoning request and stated that if a parking lot is allowed in this area, it will create traffic congestion, since it is near the intersection of Alameda and Doddridge. He asked the Commission to consider denying this case. Mr. Leon Loeb, reappeared and commented that some of the problems some residents stated have been resolved. He added that the parking lot will provide a nice buffer between Alameda and the neighborhood. He asked the Commission to consider approving the zoning request. No one else appeared before the Commission and the public hearing was declared closed. Chairman Mims asked if the proposed entrance on Hopper Drive will be closed. Mr. Brandol Harvey replied that the proposed entrance on Hopper Drive would be closed and the Alameda exit will be used. It is located and aligned with the alley nearest Alameda. There will not be any additional curb cuts. He added that this one entrance should have enough room to service the current parking lot and the proposed parking area. "QS Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1994 Page 4 Commissioner Hall commented that the proposed use of the lot with landscaping would have minimal effect on Hopper Drive and the residents. There was some discussion on turning the proposed parking lot into an "Employee Only" parking area. Motion by Fermi, seconded by Hall that the public hearing be reopened to answer a question concerning a proposed "Employee Only" parking. Motion passed unanimously with Perez being absent. Mr. Keetch, representing the neighborhood, stated that the Doddridge Associates would probably not have sufficient control on having an "Employee Only" parking. The public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Taylor, seconded by Canales that this case be forwarded to City Council with the recommendation that "B-1" District be denied, and in lieu thereof, approval of a Special Permit for a parking lot subject to the following five (5) 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. Motion passed with Canales, Hall, Meinrath and Taylor voting aye; Bertuzzi, Serna and Mims voting nay; Cook abstaining and Perez being absent. Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1994 Page 5 CITGO Corpus Christi Refinerv: 594-2 REQUEST: From "R-1B" One-family Dwelling District to "B-1" Neighborhood Business District on Sunset Place, Block 4, Lots 4 through 8, 11 through 14 and 17, located between Nueces Bay Boulevard and Floral Street, and between Dempsey and Nueces Streets. Mr. Gunning described the land use and zoning in the surrounding area, and stated that the applicant is requesting a zoning change to expand the parking area onto the subject property. The property is currently undeveloped land. Mr. Gunning summarized the Staff Report, informing the Commission of applicable Policy Statements. The applicant is requesting a change of zoning to a "B-1" Neighborhood Business District in order to provide off-street parking. The subject property is bound by local streets (Dempsey, Floral and Nueces Streets) on three (3) sides and an office building on the fourth side. The applicant has control of all but four (4) lots. These lots are currently being used as single-family residences. The proposed parking lot is a continuation of the office and parking area adjacent to the west. Therefore, a "B-1" District which allows neighborhood businesses, as well as, stand alone parking, is not required to expand their off-street parking lot. An "AB" Professional Office District permits the parking expansion and would be a more appropriate zoning district for this area. The "AB" District would be an extension of the "AB" District to the south and west. With four (4) residences remaining in the block, it would also afford them more protection from adverse impacts of "B-1" District nonresidential developments. The requested "B-1" District permits higher intense uses which have direct access to local residential streets. The parking area would be an appropriate use since it will be used by employees, as opposed to a parking area for a retail use. However, the proposed parking area can be permitted in an "AB" District since it is an expansion of parking for an existing office. Approval of the change of zoning to an "AB" District would provide a buffer between the refineries to the west and the residential area to the east. Mr. Gunning read to the Commission to the pros and cons of this application from the Staff report (copy on file). Twenty-one notices were mailed, one was returned in favor and none were returned in opposition. Staff recommends denial of the "B-1" District, and in lieu thereof, approval of an "AB" Professional Office District. Planning Commission Minutes May 4. 1994 Page 6 Mr. Chuck Cazalas, representing CITGO, appeared before the Commission stating that the "AB" Professional Office District would be acceptable. He explained further that over the last couple of years the number of employees has increased. This is the purpose for the expansion of a parking lot and a building. There are currently negotiations for additional property as part of this expansion process. Mr. Govind Nadkarni, representing CITGO, explained to the Commission that the total Master Plan shown is a plan based on after all the land has been acquired. The subject property for the change of zoning is between Dempsey and Nueces Streets. Once the properties have been acquired, that is the point when Dempsey Street will be expanded and created as a boulevard with landscaping. No one else appeared in favor or opposition and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Hall, seconded by Cook that this application for "B-1" Neighborhood Business District be denied, and in lieu thereof, approval of an "AB" Professional Office District. Motion passed unanimously with Perez being absent. Turner Landscaping, Inc.: 594-3 REQUEST: From "R-113" One-family Dwelling District to "B-4" General Business District on Woodlawn Estates, Block 7, South 66 feet of Lot 17 and 33 feet of Lot 18, located on the east side of Woodlawn Drive, approximately 365 feet south of S. Padre Island Drive. Mr. Michael Gunning stated that the applicant is requesting that this case be tabled until the next regularly scheduled meeting of May 18, 1994 to allow the City Attorney time to respond to his request for an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance, which may apply to the property in question. Mr. Brandol Harvey commented that the request for tabling was made by the applicant who has asked the Legal Department as to whether or not this use was allowed as a matter of right. It is at the discretion of the Planning Commission to proceed rather than table. Chairman Mims stated that since the applicant or representative is not present, and the answer has not been relayed to the applicant by the Legal Department, she would entertain a motion to table this application. Mr. Michael Gunning stated that eighteen (18) notices were sent to area property owners within a 200' radius, two (2) were received in favor and eleven (11) were received in opposition. Two (2) petitions were also received, one with seventeen (17) signatures from Woodlawn Street and one with thirteen (13) signatures from Daly Street. fr Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1994 Page 7 Motion by Cook, seconded by Hall that this case be tabled until the next regular meeting of May 18, 1994. Motion passed unanimously with Perez being absent. Commission answered some questions of the public concerning the tabling of this application. City of Cornus Christi: C394-2 REQUEST: Zone property to "1-2" Light Industrial District Mr. Gunning stated that the applicant was the City of Corpus Christi and that the subject property was being considered for annexation. The requested zoning is "I-2" Light Industrial District. The Planning Commission originally voted on this case on March 9, 1994. Based on information provided at that time, the Planning Commission recommended that the "I-2" District be denied and in lieu thereof, recommended approval of a "B-4" General Business District with a Special Permit for three (3) off-premise signs. The number of Special Permit signs was based on the three (3) signs proposed by Revere Advertising for locating in railroad right-of-way within the subject property. The City Council public hearing was held April 19, 1994. Based on new information provided by Staff that was not available to the Planning Commission, the Council referred this case back to the Commission for reconsideration. Since the March 9, 1994, Commission hearing, Staff discovered two important findings regarding billboards. First, in 1973, City Council adopted a resolution expressing their intent to improve and maintain the attractiveness and aesthetics of various entranceways such as Interstate Highway 37 and U.S. Highway 77. Second, the Planning Commission was told that if the subject property were to remain outside the City limits, that only two billboards could be erected. That information was in error. The Planning Department has contacted the Texas Department of Transportation and were informed that no billboards would be permitted on the subject property. The reason being is that this area does not qualify as a commercial or industrial area, and billboards must be located within 800 feet of two adjacent commercial or industrial activities of which the principal part of the activity is within 200 feet of the highway right-of-way and on the same side of the highway and is not predominantly used for residential purposes. The railroad right-of-way does not qualify as a commercial or industrial activity. If the subject property should remain outside the City limits, commercial/industrial activities, including small businesses could locate in this area and the billboards then would be permitted by the State. The City could gain control of this property only if it is annexed as recommended by the Planning Commission. In order to implement adopted policy, we must consider appropriate zoning. Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1994 Page 8 Based on City Council's resolution that was approved in 1973 and the prohibition of signs, Staff recommendad denial of an "I-2" Light Industrial District and in lieu thereof, approval of "B-4" General Business District, with no Special Permit for three (3) off-premise signs as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Hal George, Perales and Pratt Law Firm, appeared and displayed an aerial photograph of the subject property. He stated that Staff directed them in the first place to follow this procedure. His client has had the location planned for signs since before 1986 when the Highway Department began widening and rerouting Highway 37/U.S. 77 interchange. The original site was railroad right-of-way located inside the City limits. My client obtained permits for constri.tf-:n three (3) billboards. They were aware of the Highway Department's reconstruction and widening plans and know that any billboards installed would only have to be removed and relocated at the Highway Department's expense. My client's graciously agreed to hold off on their sign construction at the Highway Department's request until the highway improvements were completed. The City Staff advised my client to apply for the annexation of the railroad right-of-way and "I-2" zoning, which they did. He noted that the application is by the City of Corpus Christi, and it was strange that Staff is now recommending against their application, and what they advised my clients to do. The Planning Commission heard from his client at the last public hearing, and recommended to City Council that the property be annexed, and in lieu of "I-2" Light Industrial District, that "B-4" General Business District be approved with a special permit for three (3) billboards. Mr. George informed the Commission, that instead of placing the application on the City Council agenda, the agenda listed a motion to send back the requests for annexation and zoning to the Planning Commission, because Staff neglected to inform the Commission about the 1973 policy adopted by City Council. Another item which was on the agenda was what the State regulations allow for billboards, and noted that his client has not made an application to the State. He added that this area was annexed into the City in 1962, and with later highway improvements, the railroad right-of-way was moved, changing the signs from inside the City Limits to outside the City Limits. The actual annexation that annexed the area refers to annexing to the east right-of-way of the Missouri Pacific right-of-way. It appeared that the railroad right-of-way would stay in the City. Based upon that his client went to the City and obtained on this property two separate building permits for the erection of three signs. They decided not to build those signs because the highway project was not complete. The permit was reissued in 1992. The City later decided that was an error, because the railroad right-of-way had moved outside the City limits. V V Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1994 Page 9 Mr. George stated that his client leases the property from the railroad for the purpose of placing advertising signs. He was of the opinion that it does not make sense for anything other than to annex the property and zone it for "1-2". His client is willing to accept "B-4" General Business District with a special permit for three (3) billboards. He also noted that the subject property located is right before the turn off for Robstown and the Valley, and seemed inconsistent to him that the City is advertising in San Antonio to visit Corpus Christi, but do not put up signs to say "keep coming" which is what his client wants to do. Mr. George was of the opinion that signs can carry information that help locate things, they generate revenue, and is the highest and best use for the subject property. No one else appeared and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Hall was of the opinion that the tract in question has very limited use, and he could not foresee it being used for any other purpose than for billboards. He also felt that if used for billboards, it would not create an eyesore. He commented that there is a hardship on the applicant's part, being a victim of innocent mistakes. He was in favor of the "I-2" zoning, and limit the number of billboards to three. He asked Mr. Harvey if Staff had found this to be a hardship case. Mr. Harvey stated that Staff does not find that there is a hardship. Basically, the difference between discussion at this meeting and previous discussion were the two findings of the City Council's policy regarding preservation of open space, aesthetics, attractiveness at the entrances, and the discovery that there were not two billboards the State would permit to begin with, which was Staff's understanding previously. Discussion followed on how City Council policies can be enforced through annexation and rezoning. Commissioner Cook clarified how many billboards would be allowed in the "I-2" District, and pointed out that no one would ever be allowed to put up more than three billboards if the new ordinance is passed. Commissioner Hall asked if when the process started in 1992, could the applicant have erected three billboards. Mr. Harvey responded in the affirmative stating that they would have then been removed for the highway construction. He did not know if they would have stayed up two weeks, two months, or whatever. Commissioner Cook stated that despite the fact that she does not like billboards, she would support "I-2" over "B-4". ‘. .S Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1994 Page 10 Motion by Hall, seconded by Meinrath that this application for "I-2" Light Industrial District be forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation that it be denied, and in lieu thereof that "B- 4" General Business District with a Special Permit for three outdoor advertising signs be approved. Motion failed with Hall and Meinrath voting aye; Bertuzzi, Canales, Cook, Sema, Taylor and Mims voting nay; and Perez being absent. Motion by Bertuzzi, seconded by Cook that this application for "I-2" Light Industrial District be forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation that it be approved. Motion passed with Bertuzzi, Cook, Hall, Meinrath and Serra voting aye; Canales, Taylor and Mims voting nay; and Perez being absent. NEW PLATS Consideration of plats as described on attached addendum. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT SOUTHEAST AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN Mr. Bob Payne stated to the Commission that comments are still being received from various neighborhood associations. He addeu that a meeting has taken place with the Spohn Area Residents Association which included Traffic Engineering Staff. Traffic Engineering is preparing a detailed traffic study of the area on Elizabeth Street. We have also received some comments and suggestions from the Pharaoh Valley Neighborhood Association. Mr. Bob Eisenberg, representing Pharaoh Valley Neighborhood Association, presented to the Commission a copy of some preliminary suggestions from the association. He stated that the association appreciated the Commission and Staff on contacting neighborhood associations that would be involved in the area development plan. He thanked the Commission on giving them the opportunity to provide input for the plan. He commented that they are in support of the area development plan, but would like for their preliminary recommendations to be considered for the plan. Several of the concerns expressed include: • Request to redesignate commercial land use east of Ennis Joslin and north at McArdle to low/medium density single-family land use; and • Redesignate Ennis Ioslin from a proposed 120' wide 6 lane arterial to an 80' wide 4 lane arterial similar to Ocean Drive. Commissioner Cook thanked Mr. Eisenberg for taking the time to study the draft plan and present the Pharaoh Valley Neighborhood Association's comments. 1110 Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1994 Page 11 Ms. Gilma Guerra, representing Spohn Area Residents Association, appeared before the Commission on behalf of Catalina Martinez, chairman of the association, and Amanda Martinez. She described some additional comments concerning the Southeast Area Development Plan. She indicated that the Spohn Area Residents Association feels that the land use plan should indicate more residential usage rather than professional office uses in their neighborhood. Commissioner Cook mentioned to Ms. Guerra that the Commission has a copy of the statement made at the previous meeting from the Spohn Area Association which also addresses the B.3 Policy. She stated that she has raised some concern relating to this Policy and the Commission has made the observation and has asked Staff to make changes regarding this statement. Ms. Gloria Perez, 1317 Seventh Street, appeared stating that the Spohn Area Residents Association has worked very hard to create a good environment within the neighborhood. She added that they do not want any businesses in the area and have established a park for the area. We hope that the Commission will consider any recommendations to the plan to keep this area single-family dwellings. No one else appeared and the public hearing was declared closed. Chairman Mims asked when the Staff will be presenting a final plan to the Commission. Mr. Bob Payne responded that a memo will be presented which will address all concerns from the public in about two more meetings. Commissioner Serna commended the Spohn Area Residents Association for confronting the bar that was located in the neighborhood, creating a headstart program and a park, and having a voter's registration drive. He suggested that the association continue doing a good job. Chairman Minis commented that a public hearing will continue at the next regular meeting of May 18, 1994. OTHER MATTERS Mr. Harvey commented that the City Council approved the Community Development Block Grant pretty much as the Planning Commission recommended. Slat Vol Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1994 Page 12 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Hall corrected the minutes of April 20 to reflect his statement on delaying action on the sign ordinance to allow the industries' input. Mr. Harvey referred to a corrected minutes handout and stated that some word changes were made based on a review by Ms. Amanda Martinez of the minutes mailed out. Instead of treating them as if they were only typographical errors, we wanted to make sure Planning Commission was aware that it was different than what the Commission had seen. Commissioner Bertuzzi corrected the minutes of April 20 to reflect that his vote was no to the motion to reopen the public hearing for the Southeast Area Development Plan. Motion by Cook, seconded by Taylor that the minutes of the regular meeting of April 20, 1994, as corrected, be approved. Motion passed unanimously with Canales and Perez being absent. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. B�^"-"ool/''t GI A,• .UD I D JceJ C.t.x/tom' Alto Director of Planning randol M. Harvey, AIA, AICP111 Recording Secretary Executive Secretary to Planning Commission 410Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1994 Page 13 NEW PLATS Addendum to minutes of consideration of plats. Mr. Gunning stated that there were no conditions remaining on the following plats. Staff recommends approval as submitted. 1) 049446-P18 CRESTMONT UNIT 3. BLOCK 11. LOT 19 (FINAL - 0.640 ACRE) Located east of Kostoryz Road between Crestridge Drive and Crestwater Drive. Owner - Oliver Nicholas Engineer - Jamie Jo Pyle 2) 049447-P19 LA REINA ADDITION. BLOCK 1. LOT 12A (FINAL REPLAT - 0.126 ACRE) Located south of Baldwin Boulevard and west of Sabinas Street. Owner - Alfredo Garcia Engineer - Horacio Oliveira 5) 049451-NP33 BRANDYWINE UNIT II. BLOCK 2. LOTS 17A & 18A (FINAL REPLAT - 0.323 ACRE) Located west of Grande Isle Circle and northeast of Mansfield Drive. Owner - J & H Builders, Inc. & Enrique Luna Hurtado, Jr. Engineer - Urban 6) 049453-NP34 MOORE PLAZA. BLOCK 1. LOTS 12. 13 & 14 (FINAL REPLAT - 23.745 ACRES) Located south of South Padre Island Drive (State Highway 358) and west of Blanche D. Moore Drive. Owner - The Estate of Blanche D. Moore, deceased, dba M.E.A. Joint Venture Engineer - Urban Motion by Taylor, seconded by Bertuzzi that the above plats be approved as submitted. Motion passed unanimously with Canales and Perez absent. Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1994 Page 14 Mr. Gunoing stated that the applicant is requesting that the following plats be tabled until the next regular meeting of May 18, 1994, to allow the Engineer additional time to coordinate with City Staff and property incorporate Staff's comments. 3) 049449-NP31 BEAR CREEK EAST (PRELIMINARY - 183.00 ACRES) Located between Cimmaron Boulevard and Bill Witt Park, south of Yorktown Boulevard. a Owner - Tucker Investments, Inc. Engineer- Shearer, Plog & Associates, Inc. 4) 049450-NP32 BEAR CREEK EAST UNIT I (FINAL - 28.62 ACRES) Located between Cimarron Boulevard and Bill Witt Park, south of Yorktown Boulevard. Owner - Tucker Investments, Inc. Engineer - Shearer, Plog & Associates, Inc. Motion by Cook, seconded by Hall that the above plats be tabled until the next regular meeting of May 18, 1994. Motion passed unanimously with Canales and Perez absent. TABLED PLATS Mr. Gunning stated that the following plats have been requested by the owner to remain tabled until the next regular scheduled meeting of May 18, 1994. The owner is currently preparing an alternative to the City's proposal for sewer extension. A. 029412-PS PERRY'S ESTATES. BLOCK 1. LOTS 26-32 (PRELIMINARY - 3.860 ACRES) Located east of Dove Lane and south of Graham Road. 029413-P9 PERRY'S ESTATES. BLOCK 1. LOTS 26 & 27 (FINAL - 1.001 ACRES) Located east of Dove Lane and south of Graham Road. fis Planning Commission Minutes May 4, 1994 Page 15 TIME EXTENSION A. 109396-P44 HART ADDITION. BLOCK F. LOT 1 (FINAL - 2.061 ACRES) Located north of Leopard Street and east of Callicoatte Road. Owner - James Brooks, V.F.W. Post 3837 Engineer - Govind & Associates Mr. Gunning stated that the owner's engineer is requesting a six-month time extension in order to complete the necessary improvements. Motion by Hall, seconded by Taylor that this plat have a six-month time extension. Motion passed unanimously with Canales and Perez absent. LDA(H:MIN504.94)