Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 10/20/1993 V � MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL OCTOBER 20, 1993 - 6:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Shirley Mims, Chairman Lamont Taylor, Vice Chairman ** Robert Canales * Laurie Cook *** Ralph Hall Lupe Longoria Alma Meinrath Sylvia Perez MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Bertuzzi STAFF PRESENT: Brandol M. Harvey, AIA, AICD, Director of Planning and Development Marcia Cooper, Recording Secretary Michael Gunning, Senior Planner Norbert Hart, Assistant City Attorney Mary Frances Teniente, Special Services Engineer CALL TO ORDER Chairman Mims called the meeting to order at 6 :40 p.m. , and described the procedure to be followed. PUBLIC HEARING NEW ZONINGS South Texas Lighthouse for the Blind: 1093-1 REQUEST; From "A-2" Apartment House District to "I-2" Light Industrial District on Hillside Addition, Block 2, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, located on the north side of Mestina Street, between Cook Street and Crosstown Expressway. Mr. Gunning described the land use and zoning in the surrounding area, and stated that the applicant is requesting a zoning change to develop property with a parking lot to be used in conjunction with the primary use located across Coke Street. The property is currently undeveloped. * Planning Commissioner Cook arrived at 9:25 p.m. ** Planning Commissioner Canales left at 10 :20 p.m. *** Planning Commission Hall left at 10:40 p.m. SCANNED Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 2 Mr. Gunning summarized the Staff report, informing the Commission of applicable Policy Statements, and quoted from the Westside Area Development Plan. The applicant requested an "I-2" Light Industrial District in order to construct a parking lot and possible expansion of the manufacturing use in the future. "B-1" Neighborhood Business District would suffice for a parking lot only. The primary use is a manufacturing facility located to the west across Coke Street between Leopard and Mestina Streets. It is zoned "I-2" Light Industrial along Leopard Street and "I-3" Heavy Industrial District along Mestina Street. These residential uses face the subject property, as well as the manufacturing facility. Staff Analysis addressed the appropriateness of the requested "I-2" District on the subject property and its impact on the existing residential area to the south. Typical "I-2" uses include outside storage, contractor and vehicle impound yards, auto body and paint shops, as well as fabricating, warehousing, and wholesale distribution centers, all of which could involve high-noise levels, visual blight, and heavy truck traffic. These uses would further impact the residential desirability of a neighborhood already disrupted by the expressway and nearby warehousing and auto wrecking uses. The adjacent vacant lots north of the subject property front on Leopard Street and are currently zoned "B-5" Primary Business District. The "B-5" District is a logical extension of the "B-5" to the north and does not include some of the more obtrusive uses permitted in the "I-2" District. The "B-5" District permits the applicant' s proposed parking lot, as well as other uses such as offices, retail, 6,000 square feet of wholesale storage, and some light manufacturing uses. On April 28, 1993, the Zoning Board of Adjustment approved the applicant's request to reduce their side and rear yard setbacks to zero feet, to allow use of the existing parking for expansion of the main building provided the parking requirement is met elsewhere. The parking lot is being relocated to the subject property Mr. Gunning read to the Commission the pros and cons of this application from the Staff Report (copy on file) . Fourteen notices were mailed, one was returned in favor and none in opposition. Staff recommends denial of the "I-2" District, and in lieu thereof recommend approval of "B-5" Primary Business District. V 11.0 Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 3 Ms. Barbara Russell, Executive Director, South Texas Lighthouse for the Blind, appeared and stated that they wanted a change of zoning to "I-2" because that' s what the other piece of their property is zoned. They need more parking, and she was in favor of Staff' s recommendation. Mr. Luis Corona, 2805 David, appeared in opposition, stating that there have been a lot of changes in that area, and his property is being devalued. He noted that trucks travel through the area at high speed, and felt that plans need to be made to improve the area. The public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Hall, seconded by Longoria, that this application for "I-2" Light Industrial District be denied, and in lieu thereof that "B-5" Primary Business District be approved. Motion passed with Canales, Hall, Longoria, Meinrath, Perez, Taylor and Mims voting aye, with Bertuzzi and Cook being absent. Whittle & Associates, P.C. : 1093-2 REQUEST: From °A-1" Apartment House District to "R-1B" One-family Dwelling District on a 6.02 acre tract of land out of Lots 10 and 11, Section 11, Flour Bluff and Encinal Farm and Garden Tracts, located at the terminus of New Bedford Drive, north of Brockhampton Street. Mr. Gunning described the land use and zoning in the surrounding area, and stated that the applicant is requesting a zoning change to develop the property with thirty (30) single- family residences. The property is currently undeveloped. Mr. Gunning summarized the Staff Report, informing the Commission of applicable Policy Statements, and quoted from the Southside Area Development Plan. The applicant is requesting a change of zoning to an "R-1B" One-family Dwelling District in order to develop a 30 lot single- family subdivision. The proposed subdivision would be a continuation of Brighton Village Subdivision. It is located along the north end of Brighton Village and along the west side of the proposed extension of New Bedford Drive. Although the subject property' s current zoning of "A-1" Apartment House District permits single-family residences, the Platting Ordinance requires wider streets and larger water and sewer lines to serve the higher intense apartment uses permitted in \r 'S Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 4 the "A-1" District. Rezoning would allow improvements to match the proposed use. Mr. Gunning read to the Commission the pros and cons of this application from the Staff Report (copy on file) . Thirty two notices were mailed, six were returned in favor and none in opposition. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Patrick McCauley, Urban Engineering, appeared for the applicant and stated that he would answer any questions. Chairman Mims commented that the requested zoning is a logical extension of zoning. No one appeared in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Canales, seconded by Perez, that this application for "R-1B" One-family Dwelling District be forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation that it be approved. Motion passed with Canales, Hall, Longoria, Meinrath, Perez, Taylor and Mime voting aye, with Bertuzzi and Cook being absent. Ms. Kathryn Dunn Gieptner: 1093-3 REQUEST: From "R-1B" One-family Dwelling District to "B-1" Neighborhood Business District on Mount Vernon Subdivision, Block 1, Lot 21, located on the east side of Everhart Road, approximately 70 feet north of Mount Vernon Drive. Mr. Gunning described the land use and zoning in the surrounding area, and stated that the applicant is requesting a change of zoning to sell the property for commercial development. The property is currently occupied by a single-family residence. Mr. Gunning summarized the Staff Report, informing the Commission of applicable Policy Statements. The subject property contains a single-family residence which fronts on Everhart Road, an arterial. The request for a change of zoning to a "B-1" Neighborhood Business District is to permit commercial development. The subject property is located between a "B-1" District to the north and an "AB" Professional Office District with a Special Permit for a water sales use to the south. The owners of property to the south has also requested a change of zoning to a "B-1" District. The potential adverse impact from the requested "B-1" District has been minimized by amendments over the ri Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 5 past three years to make this district more compatible to residential areas. The subject property' s sole access is to Everhart Road, an arterial, with no access to the residential area to the rear. Rezoning the subject lots would leave two (2) "R-1B" One- family Dwelling District developed lots on this block face between McArdle Road and Mount Vernon Drive. Given the amount of traffic along Everhart Road and existing commercial development, City Council has approved Staff's and Planning Commission' s previous recommendations for "B-1" on both sides of Everhart Road, between McArdle Road and South Padre Island Drive. The requested "B-1" District would be a logical extension of the existing "B-1" District to the north. Mr. Gunning read to the Commission the pros and cons of this application from the Staff Report (copy on file) . Nineteen notices were mailed, one was returned in favor and none in opposition. Staff recommends approval. Ms. Kathryn Gieptner, the applicant, appeared and stated that she would answer any questions. Chairman Mims commented that the change of zoning is the logical thing to do, and this is the proper time to do it. No one appeared in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Vice Chairman Taylor asked if there are other residential properties on this block. Mr. Gunning replied that there are two residential properties remaining. Motion by Taylor, seconded by Perez, that this application for "B-1" Neighborhood Business District be forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation that it be approved. Motion passed with Canales, Hall, Longoria, Meinrath, Perez, Taylor and Mims voting aye, with Bertuzzi and Cook being absent. Nose 4.100 Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 6 Warsu, Inc. : 1093-4 REQUEST: From "B-1" Neighborhood Business District and "R-1B" One-family Dwelling District to "B-4" General Business District on Cullen Place, Blocks A and B; and Cullen Place Unit 5, Block C, portion of Lots 7 and 8, located along the east side of Airline Road, between Belmeade Drive and South Alameda Street. Mr. Gunning described the land use and zoning in the surrounding area, and stated that the applicant is requesting a zoning change to allow more flexibility of permitted uses and freestanding signs. The property is currently occupied by a shopping mall. Mr. Gunning summarized the Staff Report, informing the Commission of applicable Policy Statements. A change of zoning from "B-1" Neighborhood Business District to "B-4" General Business District was requested in order to replace the existing freestanding signs for Cullen Mall, and to provide more flexibility in the types of uses allowed. The applicant wants to replace the five (5) existing freestanding signs with updated signage. The owners are also replatting the property to create two (2) additional lots at South Alameda and Airline Drive, and redesigning Cullen Mall's parking area consistent with the new signage. As of this date, three (3) freestanding signs are proposed for Cullen Mall only, but the sign locations, size, and height are undetermined. Additional signage will be permitted for the two new lots, with the corner lot being a future fast food restaurant. The "B-1" Neighborhood Business District permits one (1) freestanding sign not to exceed forty (40) square feet in area and twenty (20) feet in height per premise. The "B-4" District permits one (1) freestanding sign per street frontage not to exceed forty (40) square feet in area and 25 feet in height when located within the twenty (20) foot front yard setback. Freestanding signs located behind the front yard setback are unlimited as far as number, size and height Sign allowances are based on individual lots. The subject property has frontage along two (2) intersecting arterials, South Alameda Street and Airline Road, and a collector, Belmeade Drive. The buildings are oriented towards apartments and full-service stations across South Alameda Street to the north and across Airline Road to the west. The property fronts a church located across Belmeade Drive, to the south, and backs up to existing single-family residences and vacant lots to the east. V V Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 7 The "B-1" Districts to the north and west approximate the size of Cullen Mall but contain a mix of apartment and commercial uses developed on separate premises. Across South Alameda Street to the north, the "B-1" District is one (1) premise developed as apartments wrapping around the Exxon Service station on the corner. Across Airline Road to the west, the "B-1" District contains three (3) premises developed with apartments, a service station, and retail strip center. The apartment site is 4 acres and the strip center approximately 3.2 acres. The full service station, Texaco - (0.7 acres, located at the corner of South Alameda Street and Airline Road) , is nonconforming. The retail site is half the size of the subject property's area, has less depth and is served by one (1) freestanding sign. Cullen Mall has sufficient depth to allow freestanding signs to be set back from the adjacent residential properties and streets to minimize any adverse impact the signs could have on the residences. The applicant has indicated the intent to orient the signs toward Airline Road and South Alameda which would provide a greater distance from the residences. Mr. Gunning read to the Commission the pros and cons of this application from the Staff Report (copy on file) . Twenty one notices were mailed, none were returned in favor and one in opposition, plus one in opposition from outside the 200' notification area. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Bob Wallace, 350 Grant, appeared for the applicant, stating that the Cullen Mall is the largest shopping center zoned "B-1" in the City. He addressed the existing signage, stating that there are five freestanding signs, the largest being 35' high. They plan to tear down all five signs. Mr. Wallace passed out copies of the renovation site plan, and felt that the best solution to their problem is a zoning district that does not exist. He added that the request for "B-4" District in to allow more signs, and to be able to rent space to some uses that are not allowed in the "B-1° District, but are allowed in the "B-4" District. Mr. Wallace stated that he would prefer not to have a bar in the center, but Cullen Mall is the closest shopping center to Texas ARM, and predicted that in five years there will be a different customer base in the mall. They would like to have a restaurant in the mall, but might not be able to find a restaurant to move into the mall. Mr. Wallace noted that if they tear down their existing signs, they will be allowed one 40 square foot sign, which will not be adequate for advertising all their clients. He addressed parking, stating that they will redesign their parking lot to allow a better traffic plan. He mentioned that they have signed a contract with Whataburger, who will build a restaurant on the corner of the v Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 8 parking lot. They wish to have two signs 25' high, SO square feet in size. The purpose of the contract is to prove that Whataburger will not be in competition with McDonald's at this corner Mr. Wallace continued that they would like to have two signs away from the corner of the property, and under "B-1 zoning they are allowed one sign. They plan to advertise 10-15 clients on the sign, which will give the tenants some visibility, and not detract from the neighborhood. Mr. Wallace was of the opinion that their mall is not a regional draw, but rather a community business district. He felt that people don' t go to Cullen Mall to shop, but rather they go to see one of his clients. Mr. Harvey asked for a comparison of the number of signs and the square footage of the existing signs versus the proposed signs. Mr. Wallace indicated that he did not have that information. He added that they would like to have, for the mall tenants, three freestanding signs at this time, and possibly a total of four in the future. If "B-4" is granted, they would deed restrict the signs. Mr. Harvey stated that the subject property has several freestanding signs and special permits for signs. The Zoning Ordinance does not allow a special permit to increase the number or area of signs. Staff thinks that the provision in the Special Permit section of the Zoning Ordinance relates to the number of legal conforming permitted signs on the property. A special permit might be allowable to rearrange the existing signs as long as the total number of signs do not increase in size or number. Staff has not discussed this option with the applicant. If unlimited "B-4" uses such as bar or tavern are desired, then this special permit process would not work. If a special permit process was worked out based on the existing zoning sign allowances, then perhaps the "B- in zoning could be kept and allow a select number of "B-4" uses. Mr. Wallace stated that part of their problem is signage, and part is uses allowed in "B-4" . He assured the Commission that he would not have an automobile showroom or repair shop. Their goal is to have a nice mall that people want to shop in and tenants want to lease space. Mr. Mark Kieschnick, 526 Dickens, appeared in opposition, stating that the main problem they have with "B-4" zoning is that it opens the door to a lot of things. They don' t want to put up with a lot of traffic in their residential area, and they don' t want too many problems with signs. He was of the opinion that if the property is sold, the deed restrictions would be void. Mr. Kieschnick turned in four notices in opposition. He added that V Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 9 they do not want a bar on the subject property, and pointed out that there are a lot of children in the neighborhood. Mr. Rieschnick stated that they were not aware when Exxon was granted "B-4" zoning. Mr. Harvey responded that the zoning was granted in August, 1991, neighbors were notified, and change of zoning signs were posted on the property. Mr. Victor Veit, 509 Dickens, appeared in opposition, stating that he talked with 11 of the 12 people who live on Dickens, and they were all opposed to the rezoning. He was of the opinion that the applicant wants "B-4" zoning for the market value, and added that they were told by the lawyer that they want to sell the mall. Ms. Sue Ann Cameron Cook, 518 Dickens, appeared in opposition, and stated that they are thrilled about the mall being refurbished. She felt that if the possibility of "B-4" becomes a reality, the neighborhood will become dilapidated because the population will move out. She stated that she has no objection to signage or deed restriction, but felt that they need a zoning between "A-1" and "B- 4" . She added that signage is not the only issue; the issue is what kind of tenants the mall will have. She asked the Commission to help them keep their neighborhood a neighborhood. Ms. Katherine Albert, 501 Dickens, appeared in opposition. She stated that most neighbors agree that they are glad that the mall will be remodeled and landscaped, but they do not want the mall' s success to be their demise. She felt that would happen if "B-4" zoning is granted. Ms. Albert was of the opinion that the mall owners have an eye on what would attract the college population, one of which is a bar, which they would oppose. She felt that the only protection they can count on is the denial of "B-4" zoning. Mr. Larry Esquivel, 505 Dickens, appeared in opposition, stating that every one knows where Cullen Mall is located. He felt that if Cullen Mall wants tenants, they should refurbish the mall, and make it decent for tenants to rent. Ms. Anita Zablocki, 713 Belmeade, appeared in opposition, and concurred with previous speakers. She referred to congestion at the Church and school behind Cullen mall, and felt that if "B-4" was granted, and a bar established in the mall, the neighborhood will be distracted by loud music and noise. Mr. Roger Bateman, 401 Cape Cod, appeared in opposition, and stated that he drove from Six Points to Cullen Mall, and found one `r .I Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 10 sign which is higher than that allowed in the "B-i" District. He felt that the businesses are neighborhood businesses, which seem to be doing well. He noted that Cooters has small signs on the wall, and they seem to be doing well. He was opposed because of signage, and did not want Alameda turned into another South Padre Island Drive, and to change the zoning to "B-4" would be inappropriate. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Hall indicated that due to the number of facts brought out, he would abstaining from discussion and voting. Mr. Harvey indicated if the Planning Commission would like, Staff could work with the applicant to see if relocation of signs would meet his program, and Staff could report back to the Commission at the next meeting. Perhaps a list of acceptable "B-4" uses could be established to be presented at the next Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Mims noted that the Commission recommended denial of McDonald' s request for "B-4", and City Council denied the request. Vice Chairman Taylor commented that it would not be logical to recommend denial of a similar request four weeks ago, and then recommend approval of this request. Motion by Perez, seconded by Taylor that this application be tabled for two weeks in order for staff and the applicant to work together on a solution. Commissioner Canales asked if a neighborhood committee should work with the applicant. Chairman Mims felt that the applicant should work with the neighbors. Motion passed with Canales, Longoria, Meinrath, Perez, Taylor and Mims voting aye, Hall abstaining, and Bertuzzi and Cook being absent. Ms. Connie Lane: 1093-5 REQUEST: From "AB" Professional Office District with a Special Permit to "B-1" Neighborhood Business District on Mount Vernon Subdivision, Block 1, Lot 22, located on the northeast corner of Mount Vernon Drive and Everhart Road. Mr. Gunning described the land use and zoning in the surrounding area, and stated that the applicant is requesting a 4101 V Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 11 zoning change to permit the retail sales of office and secretarial supplies as an accessory use to the proposed resume and secretarial service business. The property is currently occupied by a vacant commercial building. Mr. Gunning summarized the Staff Report, informing the Commission of applicable Policy Statements. The applicant is requesting a change of zoning to "B-1" Neighborhood Business District to include retail sales associated with the resume and secretarial business. The subject property contains a recently vacated retail building which fronts on Everhart Road, an arterial, and Mount Vernon Drive, a local street. The subject property has an area of 8,400 square feet and 70 feet of frontage along Everhart Road, and 120 feet of frontage along Mount Vernon Drive. The parking lot is located behind the existing building which has access to Mount Vernon Drive. No access is proposed to Everhart Road. Rezoning the subject property and the adjacent property to the north to a "B-1" District would complete the commercial rezoning on the south half of this block face, between McArdle Road and Mount Vernon Drive. Given the traffic along Everhart Road and existing commercial development, City Council has approved Staff's and Planning Commission' s previous recommendations for "B-1" District on both sides of Everhart Road between McArdle Road and South Padre Island Drive. The potential adverse impact from the requested "B- 1" District has been minimized by amendments over the past 3 years to make this district more compatible with residential areas. The subject property is directly across Mount Vernon Drive from Albertson's parking lot which is zoned a "B-4" General Business District. Mr. Gunning read to the Commission the pros and cons of this application from the Staff report (copy on file) . Seventeen notices were mailed, none were returned in favor and none in opposition. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Roy Lane, 5906 Long Creek, appeared for the applicant, and stated that the subject property is a corner lot with adjacent parking lots. He stated that he would answer any questions. No one appeared in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Perez, seconded by Meinrath that this application for "B-1" Neighborhood Business District be forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation that it be approved. Motion passed with Hall, Longoria, Meinrath, Perez and Taylor voting aye, Canales Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 12 and Mims out of the Council Chambers, and Bertuzzi and Cook being absent. PLATTING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - SUBDIVISION STREET PAVEMENT STANDARD Mr. Harvey reminded the Commission that a status report was given at the last Planning Commission meeting regarding the Subdivision Street Pavement Standard. He continued that Ms. Mary Frances Teniente will present the final recommendations at this meeting, for recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Mary Frances Teniente appeared and handed out to the Commission a revised draft dated October 20, 1993 . The revised draft includes revisions that address some of the refinements where there was complete agreement, and represents a consensus of City Staff and the Paving Committee. Ms. Teniente reviewed the existing Paving Section, and then commented on the points that are being clarified. Some of the topics discussed were cost factors, support under curb and gutter section, and staged implementation of surface course. Ms. Teniente acknowledged the time and input that has been received from all those involved, and stated that their follow-up is to make sure home builders are aware of this amendment. Chairman Mims stated that Staff and the Committee have spent over one year to reach this point. She thanked Commissioner Canales for his input on the Committee. Ms. Teniente addressed the section on Laboratory Testing, stating that the developer will have to pay for the testing, and the City will receive an affidavit from the developer stating that payment has been made for testing fees. Vice Chairman Taylor questioned how will Staff know if the sub-grade has been dug out. Ms. Teniente responded that plans are submitted for review and approval prior to construction, and inspectors will conduct inspection. Motion by Canales, seconded by Hall, that the proposed amendment to the Platting Ordinance, Section V - Required Improvements B. Minimum Standards, be forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation that it be approved as submitted. Motion passed with Canales, Hall, Longoria, Meinrath, Perez, Taylor and Mims voting aye, with Bertuzzi and Cook being absent. 0 Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 13 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT Mr. Harvey stated that Planning Commission has been involved in a number of ways to address housing in the community, therefore, it is appropriate that the Planning Commission review and make comments on the Fair Housing Assessment that will be presented by the Community Development Staff. Ms. Fela Leal, Fair Housing Coordinator, appeared and stated that they have been involved in developing a Fair Housing Assessment for the last 12 months. She acknowledged the contribution of all those who have participated in formulating the plan. Ms. Leal informed the Commission that Mr. Mike Reuwsaat has been appointed Director of Community Development. Ms. Leal reviewed the document, and covered three areas: Why an assessment was needed; - The process that was involved; and - The recommendations of the assessment. Ms. Leal informed the Commission of the City' s Housing Policies, and also goals in keeping with these policies as follows: Housing Policies - The City of Corpus Christi adopt a Fair Housing Policy to enhance the City' s fair housing ordinance by minimizing discriminatory actions and fostering an appreciation of other people's world view; - The City of Corpus Christi adopt an affordable housing policy, whereby local government officials make the creation of affordable housing opportunities and neighborhood re-development a priority. Goals (A) Increase compliance of the Federal Fair Housing Act; (B) The City should implement strategies to meet the affordable housing needs of low and moderate income citizens and special population groups as called for in the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ; (C) Develop a forum for community participation that allows citizens an opportunity to better their communities. Community participation can be a method to help people Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 14 develop self-sufficiency and take ownership and responsibility for their lives, neighborhoods and communities; (D) Conduct an assessment of housing and land development regulations to determine if they meet the original purpose they were designed to meet and if the same need remains. Commissioner Hall asked if the Assessment identifies whether or not there will be an adequate supply of habitable housing in the $30, 000 to $40, 000 range, some of which should be new construction, or if this supply does not exist, how can it be accomplished, and what are the impediments. Ms. Leal replied in the negative, adding that the Assessment recommends how a non-profit housing corporation could be established, which would be one means to further the development of affordable housing. Mr. Harvey added that the Fair Housing Assessment and the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy set up goals and objectives which would allow Planning Commission and City Council to do a number of things such as financial subsidy, and addressing government regulations. There are subdivisions in the City which have been subdivided with 25 feet and 35 feet frontage lots which cannot be built on, but it would not take much to change the regulations based on these objectives so that these lots can be utilized. Ms. Leal stated that it will take the City working with developers to find solutions. One way would be to have contractual agreements with developers, who are provided incentives to build affordable housing, and require housing be made available at affordable housing price ranges. Commissioner Hall asked where is the impediment. Mr. Harvey that there has to be some cooperation and coordination from the market side. Commissioner Perez stated that a lot of older houses could be rehabilitated. Ms. Leal added that if the need is clear, proper incentives identified, and there is a mutual benefit, there are a lot of possibilities. Commissioner Perez commented that this type of housing is needed. 11r vi Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 15 Mr. Errol Summerlin, Executive Director, Coastal Bend Legal Services, appeared and stated that to implement the Fair Housing Act, the City has to be involved in education, assistance, and enforcement of the Act. When there are $9,000 people living below poverty level and 16, 000 families making less than $10, 000 per year, there will have to be a lot of creativity, energy and desire to remove the impediments. He requested that the Commission endorse the Fair Housing Assessment. The public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Perez, seconded by Taylor that the Fair Housing Assessment be forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation that it be approved. Motion passed with Canales, Hall, Longoria, Meinrath, Perez, Taylor and Mims voting aye, and Hertuzzi and Cook being absent. NEW PLATS Consideration of plats as described on attached addendum. Commissioner Hall left the meeting. OTHER MATTERS None. City Council Action Mr. Harvey reported the following actions taken by City Council: - 993-1 Jose V. Rivera Revised Special Permit for a grocery store. - 993-2 Sidney H. Smith, III Approved. 993-4 James Brooks VFW Approved - 993-5 McDonald' s Corporation Denied. MATTERS NOT SCHEDULED Mr. Kevin Walker, Corpus Christi Downtown Management District, appeared before the Commission and stated that they have filed an application for implementation of VISION, which is a portion of the V*. .S Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 16 South Central Area Development Plan. He requested a letter of support from the Chairman of the Commission. Commissioner Cook commented that this is a good project, and the Commission should give it its support. Commissioner Perez concurred. Chairman Mims indicated that she will sign a letter of support • * . • • • • * * * • * Mr. Harvey informed the Commission that the Oso Parkway Plan is scheduled before the City Council on October 26, 1993 . The Parks Advisory Board reviewed the plan, and suggested that Oso Parkway continue through Cabaniss Field. This is a good idea for long range planning, and Staff suggested that it be added to Planning Commission' s recommendation. The Planning Commission concurred with the additional segment. Commissioners discussed calls from the public regarding property along Yorktown Boulevard at Everhart Road. Mr. Harvey informed the Commission that he was one of six staff members who attended the meeting regarding this subject. He stated that the residents attending the meeting were informed that the only way this area can be rezoned is by revision of the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, Southside Area Development Plan and Land Use Plan approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, and a rezoning application made based on these changes. The residents indicated that they will submit a petition to the Planning Commission. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Cook, seconded by Meinrath, and passed with Bertuzzi, Canales and Hall being absent, that the minutes of the regular meeting of September 22, 1993 be approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10 :55 p.m. it Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 17 '%/74/1'1!\ n2 Brandol M. HarveMarcia er Director of Planning Recording Secretary Executive Secretary to Planning Commission Is Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 18 NEW PLATS Addendum to minutes of consideration of plats. 1. 099382-P36 Castle River Unit 2, Block 5, Lots 2, 3 & 4 (Final replat - 1.138 acres) Bounded by Castle Ridge Drive on the west and Castle Knoll Drive on the north, south and east Owner - Danny R. & Linda K. Alexander Engineer - Bass & Welsh Mr. Gunning stated that the 20% rule is in effect for this plat, which requires 7 affirmative votes of all members to pass. All conditions have been met, and the plat is ready for Planning Commission approval. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Robert Thorpe, attorney for the applicant, appeared and introduced the applicant, the original developer of the subdivision, and the Architectural Control Committee for Castle River. He stated that he is not aware of any legal impediment to this replatting request. Mr. Nick Welsh, 4309 Peerman, appeared and stated that they have subdivided the lot into three lots, which are larger than many of the lots in the existing subdivision. Because of the shape of the subject property, they ended up with a large yard requirement that goes all the way around. There is a 25' setback on all the street frontages, resulting in more yard, proportionately, than other lots. The present setback on the lot is 20' but they have made it 25' on the three subdivided lots. Mr. Welsh stated that they have complied with all City Planning and Engineering requirements, and also the Platting Ordinance. Mr. Dale Roff, 3901 Castle Ridge, appeared in opposition, stating that he was the spokesman for those in opposition. He informed the Commission that the subject property was represented by Mr. Ewing, various people within HER Development, real estate agents, and people on their behalf, to be a private park for the subdivision. For several people, this was a strong determining factor to purchase lots and move into the subdivision. Mr. Roff continued that the only dedicated park for this subdivision is in the river bottom, often flooded, overgrown, and infested with snakes and mosquitoes. Mr. Roff stated that they were not notified about the pending sale, and it was his understanding that when enough V 141 Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 19 lots were sold and built, the home owners would be asked to participate in the development of the private park. Mr. Roff addressed the proposed lot sizes, stating that they have an average lot size of 16, 500 sq. ft. He was of the opinion that the lots facing the subject property are over 21, 000 square feet, which means that the three lots being created will be over 4,500 square feet smaller than the surrounding lots. Mr. Roff referred to the build back line, stating that the line shown on the present plat is 20' which indicates that the original intent was not to build on this property. The subject plat shows the build back line to be 25' , and pointed out that all the other lots in the subdivision, with the exception of the radius cul-de-sac-lots, have a build back line of 35' . Commissioner Cook arrived at this time. Mr. Roff felt that in order to subdivide the subject property into 3 lots will necessitate densely packed tall structures. He pointed out that all the surrounding lots face this lot. Mr. Roff noted that 20 notices were mailed out; approximately 12 properties face the subject property, and 8 people responded in opposition. Mr. Roff stated that they would be willing to discuss some compromise. They are adamantly opposed to the replat. Commissioner Perez asked who is responsible to build the park. Mr. Roff responded that the land belongs to HER Development. It was represented to the lot owners that the subject property would be a private park. Commissioner Hall asked if there is any basis why this plat should not be approved. Mr. Harvey responded that Staff has not been able to find any legal reason how this plat could be denied. He continued that when the preliminary plat was filed, the Planning Commission and property owners believed that the subject property was fully intended to be a private park, because it was so indicated on the preliminary. However, when the final was approved, it did not indicate the lot as a private park. Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 20 There was a hand-written annotation on the final plat. He addressed Planning Commission, stating that as they address and review plats, they should make sure that the plat shows what it is suppose to show, that it is clear and recorded that way. The subject property was not recorded as a private park, but as a single lot. In reference to the setbacks, the single-family lots were platted at 35' setback. This island was platted with a 20' setback, presumably with the intention of it not being a single-family but being a community center. The proposal is to meet the minimum setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance at 25' . Even though the other lots have setbacks of 35' , the applicant cannot be required to have 35' setbacks. Commissioner Hall stated that this is not the proper forum for the neighbors to bring their problems. He felt that there is a problem, but felt that the property owners may have waited too long to seek the corrective measure. Ms. Phyllis McBride, 3818, Castle Ridge, appeared in opposition, stating that they purchased their lot about 3 years ago. Their real estate agent told them that the subject property would be a park, and it was not for sale. She questioned if they could not purchase the subject property, why can the applicants purchase it, and why are they not going to have a park. Mr. Michael Pusley, 3916 Castle River Drive, appeared representing the Architectural Committee. He stated that their job is to see that the subdivision is fully developed under the guidelines that have been set in the deed restrictions and the City Ordinances. When he purchased his property, he heard rumors about a private park. He called the engineer, and was told that there was no intent for a park. He added that there was no money set aside for a park. Mr. Pusley informed the Commission that they would be happy to work as mediators to resolve the issues and concerns. Mr. Bob Lacey, Jr. , 2931 Castle River Drive, and a representative of the Architectural Committee, appeared and offered to mediate between the applicant and the neighbors. He felt that they could find a common ground. He continued that they were told the subject property would be a park, but they did not receive any guarantees. Mr. Sonny Ewing, Castle River Drive, appeared and stated that the property was originally platted for single-family lots, and there was never an intention for a private park. He noted that they did think about building a private club in 1978, but no one would put up money or buy memberships. He Cr 11110 Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 21 added that the property has been on the market for several years, and the owner has chosen to plat into three lots. He noted that they have mowed the property over the years, and that there is a City park in the subdivision. In answer to questions from Commissioners, Mr. Ewing stated that there are lots in the subdivision larger and smaller than those being proposed; they never hired a real estate agent as an agent of the partnership to represent this property as a park; he never refused to sell the property, and has not solicited any offers. Mr. Norbert Hart, Assistant City Attorney asked Mr. Ewing if the preliminary plat shows that the subject property would be a club house. Mr. Ewing replied in the negative, adding that the preliminary plat showed three lots originally. Mr. Harvey showed Mr. Ewing the preliminary plat approved. Mr. Ewing acknowledged it showed a community center. Mr. Harvey stated that the preliminary plat showed a community center, but when it was filed as a final, it was not shown. Mr. Thorpe stated that he had been in contact with the Planning Department, and there is no record that shows the subject property to be anything other than a lot. He related to the Commission comments he had from the neighbors. Mr. Hart stated that it was represented to the Planning Commission that there was never any intention of having a private club or park on the property but it was so indicated on the preliminary plat. Mr. Hoff stated that they are saying if the only purpose of the hearing is to enable Mr. Alexander to recover his price, then reject it. The lots that surround the subject property are approximately 1/2 acre, and if the subject lot was divided into two lots, establish a 35' building line, and keep the structures to one story, it would be consistent with their side of the subdivision. He added that they have no problems with negotiating a reasonable compromise. Mr. Danny Alexander, the owner of the subject property stated that the City makes money off people buying lots and building houses. He asked if it would be better to have a $1/2 million worth of houses on the lots, or keep it as a wooded area. Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 22 The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Hall stated that this is not the forum to negotiate a settlement. He indicated that he would not vote at this meeting to approve the plat, but would be in favor of tabling. Mr. Harvey informed the Commission that there might be some room for resubmittal and it might be in the applicant' s favor to come back in two weeks. He referred to a statement that was made that some building lines were readjusted to 25' by the Architectural Review Committee. He clarified that the same final plat that indicates that the subject lot is not a park, indicates that all of the other lots have a 35' yard requirement, which cannot be changed by action of the Review Committee. Chairman Mims asked if the plat has met the ordinance, or is there a discrepancy. Mr. Hart responded that the Planning Commission can consider the public interest, and the overall interest of the neighborhood, and table the plat for two weeks for discussion. If the applicant brings it back unchanged, then the Commission is obligated to pass it. Vice Chairman Taylor asked if the applicant wants the plat tabled for two weeks. Mrs. Linda Alexander, the applicant, indicated that they would like a decision at this meeting, if possible. Motion by Perez, seconded by Meinrath, that this plat be approved as submitted. Motion was declared as a failed motion (seven votes required) with Cook, Longoria, Meinrath, Perez, Taylor and Mims voting aye, Canales and Hall voting nay, and Bertuzzi being absent. (It was explained that seven votes to approve were required to over-ride the 20% opposition. ) Motion by Hall, seconded by Canales that this plat be tabled for two weeks. Commissioner Cook asked if it takes three quarters of the Planning Commission present, or three quarters of the entire Planning Commission to approve this plat. Mr. Hart indicated that it takes affirmative votes of three quarters of the entire Planning Commission to pass the plat. Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 23 Mr. Thorpe disagreed with Mr. Hart' s interpretation, and the meeting was recessed at 10 :12 p.m. to make a determination. The meeting reconvened at 10:15 p.m. Mr. Hart indicated that they have determined that through an amendment at the last legislative session, a three-quarters vote of Planning Commissioners present, (not the entire Planning Commission) is necessary to approve this plat, hence the plat is approved (six in favor, two in opposition) . Chairman Mims announced that the plat has been approved. Commissioner Canales left the meeting at this time. 2. 099383-P37 Court of St. James (Correction Plat) (Final Replat - 13.17 acres) Located south and east of Lipes Boulevard, west of South Staples Street (FM 2444) . Owner - Tri-Star Development Engineer - Urban Mr. Gunning stated that there were no conditions remaining on this plat, and Staff recommends approval as submitted. Commissioner Hall asked why was the restriction for driveway cuts on Lipes Boulevard being removed. Mr. Harvey stated that the City issued permits which did not comply with the plat, houses were constructed and driveways placed accessing Lipes, so the City tried to work out an accommodation. The City felt that it would be proper to eliminate the restriction where the property was permitted to build without restrictions, but not remove it on the lots remaining which have not yet been built upon. Commissioner Hall asked if there is anything on the plat that would inform someone that there should not be access to Lipes Boulevard. Mr. Harvey responded that the lots that have that restriction have an asterisk referring the reader to a note restricting access. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. `r J Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 24 Motion by Cook, seconded by Longoria, that this plat be approved. Motion passed with Cook, Hall, Longoria, Meinrath, Perez, Taylor and Mims voting aye, with Bertuzzi and Canales being absent. 3 . 099384-P38 Feriae Grant Subdivision, Block 3, Lots 7 & 8 (Final - 2.824 acres) Located west of Loma Alta Road south of Leopard Street Owner - Walter E.E. & Gayle V. Heinz Engineer - Jamie Jo Pyle Mr. Gunning stated that the following condition needs to be added to the plat: (1) Provide a 275' horizontal radius to the centerline on Loma Alta Street. Ms. Mary Francis Teniente stated that Loma Alta Street takes a sharp curve, and the added requirement will correct this. This condition was discussed at the Staff Plats Meeting, but was not added to the requirements. She added that the applicant is not aware of the requirement. Mr. Gunning recommended that the plat be tabled to advise the applicant of the additional requirement. Motion by Perez, seconded by Hall, that this plat be tabled for six weeks. Motion passed with Cook, Hall, Longoria, Meinrath, Perez, Taylor and Mime voting aye, with Bertuzzi and Canales being absent. 4 . 109385-P39 Barclay Grove (Preliminary - 94.08 acres) Located between South Staples Street (FM 2444) and Brockhampton Street at their intersection with Lipes Boulevard Owner - Saratoga Joint Venture Engineer - Urban Mr. Gunning stated that the following conditions remain on this plat to be met: 1) The Park and Recreation Department recommends the park be relocated away from the collector street adjacent to the east property line along the drainage channel, and be reduced in size to one acre with the remainder of the 5% requirement being cash in lieu of land; V � Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 25 2) Correct the 70' right-of-way typical street section shown. Staff recommends approval, with the concurrence of the applicant to the requirements stated by Staff. The owner's engineer concurred with the requirements listed. The public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Taylor, seconded by Perez, that this plat be approved as recommended by Staff. Motion passed with Cook, Hall, Longoria, Meinrath, Perez, Taylor and Mims voting aye, with Bertuzzi and Canales being absent. 5. 109386-NP47 Brighton Village Unit 6 (Final - 6.02 acres) Located northwest of New Bedford Drive, northeast of Stratford Drive Owner - Trio Exploration, Inc. Engineer - Urban Mr. Gunning stated that there were no conditions remaining on this plat, and Staff recommends approval as submitted. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Longoria, seconded by Cook, that this plat be approved. Motion passed with Cook, Hall, Longoria, Meinrath, Perez, Taylor and Mims voting aye, with Bertuzzi and Canales being absent. 6. 109387-P40 Cullen Place, Block A-1, B-1 & B-2 (Final replat - 7 .356 acres) Located east of Airline Road and bounded by Alameda Street on the north and Belmeade Street on the south. Owner - WARSU, Inc. Engineer - Goldston Mr. Gunning stated that the engineer has requested that this plat be tabled for two weeks in order to rework the lot configuration. Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 26 Motion by Hall, seconded by Taylor, that this plat be tabled for two weeks. Motion passed with Cook, Hall, Longoria, Meinrath, Perez, Taylor and Mims voting aye, with Bertuzzi and Canales being absent. 7 . 109389-NP48 Lantana Industrial Area, Block 1, Lots 14 & 15 (Preliminary - 10 .98 acres) Located between McBride Lane and Hereford Road, north of Agnes Street Owner - Industrial Piping Specialists, Inc. Engineer - Naismith Mr. Gunning stated that there were no conditions remaining on this plat, and Staff recommends approval as submitted. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Taylor, seconded by Meinrath, that this plat be approved. Motion passed with Cook, Hall, Longoria, Meinrath, Perez, Taylor and Mims voting aye, with Bertuzzi and Canales being absent. 8 . 109390-NP49 Lantana Industrial Area, Block 1, Lot 14 (Final - 3 .44 acres) Located west of McBride Lane and north of Agnes Street Owner - Industrial Piping Specialists, Inc. Engineer - Naismith Mr. Gunning stated that there were no conditions remaining on this plat, and Staff recommends approval as submitted. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Longoria, seconded by Cook, that this plat be approved. Motion passed with Cook, Hall, Longoria, Meinrath, Perez, Taylor and Mims voting aye, with Bertuzzi and Canales being absent. 410 tral Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 27 9. 109391-P42 Reflections Subdivision Unit 1B, Block 1, Lot 11R (Final replat - 0 .197 acre) Located between Kerville Drive and Yorktown Boulevard, east of Everhart Road Owner - Al Hogan Builders, Inc. Engineer - Urban Mr. Gunning stated that there were no conditions remaining on this plat, and 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 Longoria, that this plat be approved. Motion passed with Cook, Hall, Longoria, Meinrath, Perez, Taylor and Mims voting aye, with Bertuzzi and Canales being absent. 10. 109394-NP51 Harney Partition, Block 13, Lots 2, 3, & 4 (Preliminary - 11.316 acres) Located between Up River Road and the Nueces River, east of Callicoatte Road Owner - Robert C. Andrew, Jr. & Yvette A. Whitner Engineer - Naismith Mr. Gunning stated that there were no conditions remaining on this plat, and Staff recommends approval as submitted. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Taylor, seconded by Cook, that this plat be approved. Motion passed with Cook, Hall, Longoria, Meinrath, Perez, Taylor and Mims voting aye, with Bertuzzi and Canales being absent. 11. 109395-NP52 Harney Partition, Block 13, Lot 2 (Final - 0 .985 acre) Located north of Up River Road and east of Callicoatte Road Owner - Robert C. Andrews, Jr. & Yvette A. Whitner Engineer - Naismith 'S Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 28 Mr. Gunning stated that there were no conditions remaining on this plat, and Staff recommends approval as submitted. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Taylor, seconded by Perez, that this plat be approved. Motion passed with Cook, Hall, Longoria, Meinrath, Perez, Taylor and Mims voting aye, with Bertuzzi and Canales being absent. 12 . 109398-NP53 Navarro Place, Block 1, Lot 1, (Final - 1.884 acres) Located east of 19th Street between Musett Street and Laredo Street Owner - The Housing Authority of the City of Corpus Christi Engineer - Goldston Mr. Gunning stated that there were no conditions remaining on this plat, and Staff recommends approval as submitted. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Cook, seconded by Longoria, that this plat be approved. Motion passed with Cook, Hall, Longoria, Meinrath, Perez, Taylor and Mims voting aye, with Bertuzzi and Canales being absent. 13 . 109399-NP54 Park Plaza Annex, Lots 28 through 2J (Final Replat - 3 .399 acres) Located between South Staples Street and McArdle Road approximately 1, 000 feet northwest of their intersection Owner - Roy Smith & W.M. Bevly Engineer - Bass & Welsh Mr. Gunning stated that there were no conditions remaining on this plat, and Staff recommends approval as submitted. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Cook, seconded by Perez, that this plat be approved. Motion passed with Cook, Hall, Longoria, Meinrath, ii Planning Commission Meeting October 20, 1993 Page 29 Perez, Taylor and Mims voting aye, with Bertuzzi and Canales being absent. (H396MC)