Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 04/20/1994 V Q MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL APRIL 20, 1994 - 6:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Lamont Taylor, Vice Chairman Michael Bertuzzi Bobby Canales * Laurie Cook * Ralph Hall Alma Meinrath Sylvia Perez Richard Serna MEMBERS ABSENT: Shirley Minis, Chairman STAFF PRESENT: Brandol M. Harvey, MA, MCP, 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 Vice Chairman Taylor called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., and described the procedure to be followed. PUBLIC HEARING 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 there were no neighborhood groups or any citizens present to comment on the Southeast Area Development Plan. He commented that in a previous meeting with Spohn Hospital Management, Staff learned they had other suggestions, including an expansion program to be discussed further with Staff. A tentative meeting has been scheduled for May 5, 1994. No one appeared before the Commission with additional comments on the Southeast Area Development Plan. The public hearing was declared closed. * Laurie Cook arrived at 6:38 p.m. * Bobby Canales arrived at 6:40 p.m. SCANNED t.i Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1994 Page 2 GATEWAY PARK PROJECT Mr. Brandol Harvey commented that the Comprehensive Plan Policy Statements calls for "developing the seawall as a people-oriented area..." and to "develop and implement a plan to provide the Corpus Christi Marina and Shoreline Boulevard with greater amenities and people-use areas. More specifically in the South Central Area Development Plan, Policy Statement B.7 calls for narrowing of the medians on Interstate Highway 37 to create more people-oriented public parks. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the park plans be finalized and the City submit it for federal, state, local and private funds to support the project. Mr. Gordon Landreth, representing Downtown Management District, appeared before the Commission with a presentation on the Gateway Project. For over a year the Corpus Christi Downtown Management District (DMD) has pursued a concept for improvements to sections of Interstate 37 and Shoreline Drive. Believing that I-37 is the City's gateway and Shoreline Drive is its front porch, the DMD has sought a plan to beautify and enhance its image to the community and its visitors. The proposal was taken before numerous civic boards and committees for a broader feedback after the concept was developed and carried to various City departments for input. The proposal has been examined by representatives for arts, parks, transportation, festivals and engineering. Mr. Landreth gave a slide presentation to the Planning Commission and stated that today the terminus of I-37, between the Harbor Bridge approach and Shoreline Drive, is a collection of three municipal parking lots separating its north and south lanes. These lots are rarely used. Until recently, no landscaping existed, lawn maintenance often fell behind the medians' growth, and multiple graphics/signage sprang up along the highway. Shoreline Drive's traffic lanes are separated by grassy islands. Palm trees of past years are gone, and no shrubbery exists. Pedestrians on the seawall can see the parking lots and the medians, but neither area is perceived as "useable" for the community's benefit. The Gateway Project proposes to relocate I-37's northbound lanes immediately adjacent to its southbound lanes and that Water Street be closed between I-37 and Belden Street. As a result, a park area is created, turning a former "no-man's-land" into a pedestrian area paralleling the interstate and bordering the central business district. Shoreline Drive, from Power Street to Peoples Street is proposed to be realigned as well. In effect, the islands are simply shifted against the seawall's walk while the northbound lanes are moved adjacent to the opposite lanes, much like Ocean Drive as it winds its way south. Thus, the barrier islands of Shoreline are transformed into user friendly landscaped play areas, totally accessible to those visitors to the bayfront. ih r aril Planning Commission Minutes April20, 1994 Page 3 Engineering studies have developed the following points for further explanation: 1) The 1-37 work creates over 6 acres of City park area, with numerous focal points to accommodate art forms throughout its site. 2) For special events, it is proposed that the Chaparral Street crossing could be cordoned off and converted to pedestrian traffic nightly. 3) The Shoreline Drive realignment generates 4 acres of parkway along the bayfront. This landscaped area is to be constructed over the existing traffic lanes in a manner similar to the construction of an office building's rooftop garden. Minimum demolition is required. Because the seawall's structural support extends under sections of Shoreline Drive, no threat to its structural integrity is contemplated. 4) Curb tum-outs will be included along Shoreline Drive for bus stops and limited visitor parking. Surveys have shown that there is far less parking along the seawall in this area of Shoreline Drive as is found between Peoples Street and McGee Beach. 5) Cost for the proposed development is estimated at five millions dollars, roughly split between the I-37 and Shoreline Drive work. This includes complete design, construction, landscaping, irrigation and expanded lighting of the parkway. 6) Funding for the work is expected to be found from numerous sources, such as the Texas Department of Highways, State Parks Department, Downtown Management District, Municipal Arts Council, National Endowment for the Arts and private investment. It is intended that the work be funded for full and complete execution of the work as a whole. Mr. Landreth stated that the Gateway Project is being introduced to the Planning Commission in order to ask for their support and endorsement of this concept. Commissioner Sema asked if the Old Courthouse would be involved in this plan. Mr. Landreth replied that the Old Courthouse is not involved and is not sure of any plans for that project. Commissioner Meinrath asked what type of brick was being proposed along some of the streets in the plan. Mr. Landreth replied that the brick being presented in the design is an "interlocking paver". Commissioner Meinrath asked if the brick pavers would interrupt the flow of the stormwater system. Chuck Urban, Urban Engineering, replied that the brick pavers would not change the problem, but improvements will be set on top of the concrete paving, meanwhile the drainage system currently in place will remain in its location. The water will still go into the bay as it does now, the only improvement will be a mesh screen that will prohibit dirt and debris from moving into the bay. %I. 'S Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1994 Page 4 Commissioner Perez asked when the goal was set for construction and who would be maintaining this park area. Mr. I andreth replied that the first step is to secure grants for funding which should take about 12-18 months, then 18-24 months for construction. He added that because this area would become a city park, maintenance would most likely be the responsibility of the City. Since the Downtown Management District is involved, there is potential that they would be responsible for this maintenance, but at this time a decision has not be made on this option. Mr. Brandol Harvey commented that part of the reason to discuss some of the final designs on this park with the State is that it is mostly State right-of-way now. The State may wish to retain that right-of-way rather than tinning the responsibility over to the City. It may not become completely City owned or may remain partially State owned. Commissioner Sema inquired if any public restrooms will be allowed in this design plan. Mr. Landreth replied that at this time restrooms have not been budgeted into the design plan, but they may become an issue or a requirement before the project is over. If the City feels that it is a necessity, then restrooms may be designed into the plan. There was some discussion on the water falls placed in the figures design plan presented to the Planning Commission. Ms. Dorothy Spann, 502 Del Mar, appeared before the Commission stating that she approves of the Gateway Project. She commented that her concern is for the stormwater system located in the area and if it could be maintained. She added that a public restroom should be located in the area and would also have to be maintained. No one else appeared in favor or opposition and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Bertuzzi commented that comments from the public have been very positive and stated that this is a good plan and recommends that it be approved. Motion by Cook, seconded by Bertuzzi that this be forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation that plans be finalized for the project and that the City submit these plans for federal, state, local and private funds to support the project, which the concept/design for the park is called for in the South Central Area Development Plan. Motion passed unanimously with Minis being absent. Planning Commission Minutes April20, 1994 Page 5 OTHER MATTERS Mr. Harvey reported on the following City Council action: Case No. C394-1: City of Corpus Christi-Approved as submitted by Planning Commission Case No. C394-2: City of Corpus Christi - Council sent this back to Planning Commission with additional information and allowing for additional comments to City Council as appropriate. Case No. 394-3: Lexington Joint Venture - Approved as recommended by Planning Commission. Case No. 394-4: Camden Property Trust - Passed on 1st reading. At the Applicant's request this is being considered under two readings so that the applicant may conclude business during these readings. CITY COUNCIL REFERRALS TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS (1) Amendments to Chapter 3 Advertising; Article II, Billboards, Signboards, and Bulletin Boards; Division 2, Highway Beautification Ordinance Mr. Brandol Harvey stated that these items were referred to the Planning Commission for comments. The City Council was desirous of reviewing the City's Billboard's Regulations in comparison to the State Regulation. The City Council asked staff to prepare amendments to bring the City billboard controls in conformity with the standards used by the State outside the City limits. Under the Highway Beautification Program the State Transportation Department permits off-premise signs along the highways in unincorporated areas and in incorporated areas not authorized by Texas Department of Transportation to grant permits. The City of Corpus Christi has accepted the responsibility to administer the permitting for billboards inside the corporate area of the City. This program was established in 1973 and at the time, the regulations adopted by the City were the same as what was used by the State. Since then, the State has updated their standards, while the City has not. This has resulted in different standards for billboards placed outside the City. Outside the City, billboard spacing must be 1,500 or more feet apart while inside the City, spacing must be 500 or more feet apart. The City allows 1,200 square feet per billboard, while the State has a limitation of 670 square feet, not including temporary cut-outs. The maximum area permitted by the State, including cut- outs, cannot exceed 807 square feet. In addition to the City's higher sign spacing frequency, we also allow almost twice as much square footage. The State has an annual permitting process and the City has a one time permit process. To bring us into conformity with the State, we would copy their permitting procedure exactly. The State's initial permitting fee $96 with an annual renewal permit of $40. Planning Commission Minutes April20, 1994 Page 6 The State has additional requirements where they allow billboards with reference to public parks, playgrounds, and scenic areas. The City would match this criteria exactly. The State also requires that where billboards are allowed, they must occur where industrial or business uses are located. Mr. Harvey added that the Planning Commission was misinformed when it was told that the proposed annexation property could have 2 billboards based on the State Permit process. That information is incorrect. If the property is not commercially or industrially developed, the State would not issue a permit, therefore no billboards would be allowed today by the State. The package the Planning Commission received is a rewrite of the relevant section of the City Code which is not in the Zoning Ordinance. It does not relate to on-premise signs, which would still be controlled by the Zoning Ordinance. All of these standards are used by the State. In addition to the City Code, billboards located inside City Limits would have to have the correct zoning as well as meeting design standards. In 1973, the City Council passed a Resolution specifically calling for preserving and improving the attractiveness to the entrance ways of the City. It specifically said that Planning Commission should be aware of these desires as they conducted business. Mr. Harvey apologized to the Commission for not informing them on this policy when the zoning and annexation case was presented, Staff was not aware of the policy and did not provide the information to the Commission. This is one reason the City Council referred the zoning and annexation case back to the Commission so that they may incorporate this information in their reconsideration. In the Policy Statements, adopted in 1987 as part of the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council mentions the concern about aesthetics and suggest rigorous enforcement of sign regulations. Revision to the billboard regulations inside the City would promote the attractiveness and aesthetics along the highways by providing more appropriate standards to enforce. Commissioner Hall asked if the options they were faced with were 1) Not to recommend the annexation and if not annexed, it would remain outside the City Limits, and the State would not permit billboards at that location; and 2)If annexation and a billboard permitting zoning is recommended, then this would be in line with the 1973 adopted policy. Mr. Harvey commented that if the subject property stays outside the City Limits then a permit could not be obtained today. If an industrial or business use is developed outside the City within 800' of the proposed billboard location, then a permit may be obtained from the State. He added that the primary reason for City Council to return this case to the Planning Commission was to give them another opportunity to make additional comments on the annexation and zoning case, based on the new information provided. Commissioner Taylor commented that because we are now informed of this policy we would have to examine how it would impact this particular case presented to us. Planning Commission Minutes April20, 1994 Page 7 Mr. Harvey commented that the billboard issue would have to be discussed on a City-wide input basis in terms of these regulations. The City Council initiated this concern regarding billboards prior to them being made aware of the existing Council Policy protecting City entry ways. There was a lengthy discussion concerning the 1973 Policy, concerns of billboards located along the highways, and what recommendations should go to City Council with respect to this ordinance. The public hearing was opened to the public by the Chairman Taylor. Mr. Hal George, representing Revere National Corporation, appeared stating that this particular ordinance would affect the economic health for a large industry in the advertising business, including his client. He stated that he feels this matter should not be approached by the Planning Commission, but referred back to the City Council. He asked the Commission to consider recommending a postponement of this ordinance to City Council, in order to allow some agencies time to examine the ordinance which would have an affect on their business. Mr. Gerald Haddox, 3938 Surfside - V.P. Coastal Outdoor Advertising, he commented to the Commission that there are limited areas to where outdoor advertising is allowed. He asked the Commission to give the public the opportunity to have a say in the decision of the ordinance. No one else appeared before the Commission and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Cook asked how many readings was this ordinance going to be heard and would it affect any existing outdoor advertising. Mr. Hart replied that this ordinance is scheduled for two readings before the City Council, and added that the ordinance design limitations will only affect signage erected subsequent to the adoption of the ordinance by the City Council. Mr. Harvey commented that perhaps that is the reason the City Council thought it might be of interest to Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is responsible for considering and representing the public interest and preparing for the future. The City is consistently expanding. There will continue to be opportunities for more advertising and the proposed amendments would not close any business currently active in advertising. There was further discussion on having affected businesses and other public perspectives appear before the City Council to state their position on the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Hall and Commissioner Perez stated that they need to be more informed about this ordinance. ver Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1994 Page 8 Mr. Harvey commented that when the City changes part of its City Code, they do not refer everything to Planning Commission. When the annexation and rezoning issue approached the City Council, additional information came to light that the Planning Commission did not have and they thought it would a good idea for Planning Commission to be given a chance to pass on advice to the City Council. The Billboard regulations are not required to come to Planning Commission as are zoning and annexation questions. The Planning Commission is not the deciding factor on this ordinance, but is being allowed to extend advice to the City Council. He added that this ordinance is expected to appear before the City Council on Tuesday, April 26. There was further discussion on a public hearing at the City Council level concerning the ordinance issue. Motion by Canales, seconded by Cook that the amendments to Chapter 3 Advertising; Article II, Billboards, Signboards and Bulletin Boards; Division 2, Highway Beautification Ordinance be approved as submitted. Motion passed with Bertuzzi, Canales, Cook, Meinrath, and Taylor voting aye; and Hall, Perez and Sena voting nay; and Mims being absent. (2) Annexations of 7.65 acre tract Mr. Brandol Harvey stated that City Council referred this item back to Planning Commission for additional comments. At City Council there was some discussion as to how annexation and zoning were interrelated. If the property is annexed it would give City Council regulatory controls for future decisions. If the property is not annexed, the City will have no controls as to what happens. Staff feels that the policies of the Comprehensive Plan should be followed, which states that annexation should be pursued around the periphery of the City to control growth and also to implement adopted policies of the City. Commissioner Hall asked who were the property owners for this annexation case. Mr. Harvey replied that the owners of the properties are the City of Corpus Christi, the Texas Department of Transportation and the Union Pacific Railroad; Revere, the billboard company, is leasing the property from the railroad company. Motion by Cook, seconded by Perez, that annexing a 7.65 acre tract be forward to City Council with it being approved as submitted. Motion passed unanimously with Mims being absent. V J Planning Commission Minutes April20, 1994 Page 9 (3) C394-2 City of Corpus Christi Mr. Brandol Harvey stated that City Council has referred this item back to Planning Commission to provide additional comments on the zoning of the property. There has been some question raised as to whether this case had appropriate public posting of the agenda. Even though the official zoning application identification number and applicant were stated, the description of the property was not stated. He added this was not a public hearing item and did not require similar public notice. Mr. Norbert Hart replied that the City Attorney's Office is of the opinion that there was insufficient public notice under the open meetings act to conduct any discussion of this item. Mr. Harvey stated the zoning case will be scheduled for the next Planning Commission meeting and notification will be delivered including mailings as if this were a new zoning application. MATTERS NOT SCHEDULED Motion by Canales, seconded by Meinrath that the public hearing for the Southeast Area Development Plan be reopened. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Taylor reopened the public hearing for the Southeast Area Development Plan. Ms. Amanda Martinez, 1309 Sixth Street, appeared before the Commission to read a statement from the Spohn Residence Association concerning the Southeast Area Development Plan. She stated that they support the plan principle objective "A" to stabilize and conserve residential neighborhoods, however they believe the plan does not adequately provide protection or sensitivity to some residential neighborhoods. Primarily those modest income neighborhoods in the Spohn Hospital area, and those affected by the Plan "B.3" Policy Statement. There is a significant residential neighborhood west and northwest of the immediate hospital area, which is made up of modest, but well maintained single- family homes and some two to four unit apartment houses. This area is residential in nature, despite the "AB" zoning, which did not exist when the neighborhoods were established. This area remains firmly residential in use and character. Some residents have lived in the area for over 30 years, and have found it to be affordable and pleasant. We wish to protect the nature of this area and those affected by Policy "B.3" by not allowing or encouraging "checkerboard" development of buildings which do not conform with the homes. We want to maintain Elizabeth Street as low volume in traffic, we want to prohibit special respite zoning variances. We would like to explore the possibility of zoning solutions which would at least modify the size and purpose of currently allowable buildings in these residential areas. We are in disagreement with the statement in "B.3" that office uses may be placed next to single-family homes without diverse affect, such as traffic, noise, parking lots, dumpsters and devaluation of residence. yeed Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1994 Page 10 In recent years, the Spohn area has demonstrated its vitality as a residential area. Residences have actively participated in the neighborhood association to make improvements in the area and the meet the needs of its varied residential population. Activities have included the establishment of a Headstart Program on Seventh Street, the creation of a children's park between Booty and Elizabeth Streets, and participation in voter registration drives. It has won the removal of a nuisance bar through the Texas Alcoholic Beverages Commission and has worked with the City to maintain Elizabeth Street as low trafficking use and to develop an improved Community Block Grant Street Assessment Plan. We hope the City will support a policy that serves those who have made their home in the area, not just those who may someday wish to construct a building not consistent with the historical residential use. Thank you very much. No one else appeared before the Commission and the public hearing was declared closed. Mr. Brandol Harvey commented that the City Council will conduct a public hearing on the Community Development Block Program on May 3, 1994. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Cook corrected the minutes of April 6, 1994 to reflect her motion to recommend that $129,125 be spent on ADA compliance on the items that staff recommended. Motion by Canales, seconded by Cook, that the minutes of the special meeting of March 30, 1994, and the regular meeting of April 6, 1994, as corrected, be approved. Motion passed unanimously with Mims being absent. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. ✓��ZBrandol M. Harvey, AIA, AICPIgiArdileninia-A1- 116(4) Del Alto Director of Planning Recording Secretary Executive Secretary to Planning Commission „+t Planning Commission Minutes April20, 1994 Page 11 • NEW PLATS Addendum to minutes of consideration of plats. 1) 049444-P17 REFLECTIONS UNIT 4 (FINAL - 13.84 ACRES) Located north of Oso Parkway, west of Everhart Road. Owner - Shell Development Joint Venture Engineer - Urban Mr. Gunning stated that there were no conditions remaining on this plat. Staff recommends approval as submitted. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Perez, seconded by Hall that this plat be approved as submitted. Motion passed with Bertuzzi, Hall, Meinrath, Perez, Serna and Taylor voting aye; and Canales, Cook and Mims being absent. 2) 049445-NP29 COUNTRY CREEK UNIT 3 - O.C.L. (FINAL - 79.09 ACRES) Located east of County Road 41 north of FM 2444 (South Staples Street) Owner - Country Creek Partners Engineer - Urban Mr. Gunning stated that there were no conditions remaining on this plat. Staff recommends approval as submitted. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Meinrath, seconded by Perez that this plat be approved as submitted. Motion passed with Bertuzzi, Hall, Meinrath, Perez, Serna and Taylor voting aye; and Canales, Cook and Mims being absent. Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1994 Page 12 3) 049448-NP30 LEXINGTON PLAZA ANNEX "A", BLOCK 2. LOT 11 (FINAL - 2.112 ACRES) Located south of South Padre Island Drive (State Highway 358) and east of Cosner Drive. Owner - Charles Houlihan Engineer - Naismith Mr. Gunning stated that there were no conditions remaining on this plat. Staff recommends approval as submitted. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Perez, seconded by Serna that this plat be approved as submitted. Motion passed with Bertuzzi, Hall, Meinrath, Perez, Serna and Taylor voting aye; and Canales, Cook and Mims being absent. TABLED PLATS Mr. Brandol Harvey stated that the following plats have been requested by the owner to remain tabled until the next regular scheduled meeting of May 4, 1994. A. 029412-P8 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. LDA(H:MIN420.94)