Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 09/08/1993 V MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL SEPTEMBER 8, 1993 - 6:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Lamont Taylor, Vice Chairman Michael Bertuzzi Robert Canales Laurie Cook Ralph Hall Lupe Longoria Sylvia Perez ' MEMBERS ABSENT: Shirley Mims, Chairman Alma Meinrath STAFF PRESENT: Brandol M. Harvey, AIA, AICP, Director of Planning and Development Marcia Cooper, Recording Secretary Miguel Saldafia, City Planner CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairman Taylor called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. , and described the procedure to be followed. PUBLIC HEARING NEW ZONINGS Mr. Jose V. Rivera: 993-1 REQUEST: From "R-1C" One-family Dwelling District to "B-1" Neighborhood Business District on Gardendale No.2, Block 7, Southwest 50 feet of Lot 36, located on the east corner of Bonner Drive and Nelson Lane. Mr. Saldafia described the land use and zoning in the surrounding area, and stated that the applicant is requesting a zoning change from "R-1C" One-family Dwelling District to "B-1" Neighborhood Business District to renovate the existing building into a grocery store. The property is currently occupied by a vacant building. Mr. Saldafia summarized the Staff report, informing the Commission of applicable Policy Statements, and read from the Southside Area Development Plan. SCANNED Soo `voi Planning Commission Meeting September S, 1993 Page 2 A grocery store had been operating at this location prior to being annexed. After the bank foreclosed on the property, it remained vacant for over a year, thereby losing its nonconforming status. The applicant purchased the property with the intent of reopening the store. In July 1990, he was granted a change of zoning to an "R-1C" One-family Dwelling District with a Special Permit for a retail grocery store within the existing structure. The requested "B-1" District has been amended to be more compatible with residential uses. However, most areas where the "B-1" District has been permitted are areas along a collector street, backed up to residential areas, or in areas in transition to nonresidential uses. The Planning Commission and City Council have been successful in limiting the nonresidential districts to the perimeter of the Gardendale area. Allowing the "B-1" District at this location could be the catalyst for infiltration of nonresidential districts into the area. Also approval of another Special Permit for the grocery store could lend the "domino effect" . With a Special Permit for the grocery store and a base zoning of "R-1C", the operator would be limited to no more than a one (1) square foot sign. A 1991 zoning ordinance amendment states that a Special Permit cannot grant more signage than what the underlying district permits. Mr. Saldana read to the Commission the pros and cons of this application from the Staff Report (copy on file) . Fourteen notices were mailed, two were returned in favor and none in opposition. Staff recommends denial. Neither the owner or a representative was present. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Hall, seconded by Canales, that this application for "B-1" Neighborhood Business District be forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation that it be denied. Motion passed with Bertuzzi, Canales, Cook, Hall, Longoria, Perez and Taylor voting aye, and Meinrath and Mime being absent. Sidney H. Smith, III: 993-2 REQUEST: From "AB" Professional Office District to "B- 1" Neighborhood Business District on Alameda Park, Block 6, Lots 3 and 4, located on the southwest corner of Avalon and Sam Streets Mr. Saldafia described the land use and zoning in the surrounding area, and stated that the applicant is requesting a 0 IVO Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 1993 Page 3 zoning change from "AB" Professional Office District to "B-1" Neighborhood Business District to continue operating a gift shop on Lot 4, and a future craft shop on Lot 3 . The property is currently occupied by a single-family residence, gift shop, and hair salon. A citation has been issued for retail sales in an "AB" District. Mr. Saldafia summarized the Staff report, informing the Commission of applicable Policy Statements. The applicant wants to continue operating the retail gift shop and open a future craft shop. The subject property is located along Avalon Street, a local street, that feeds out to Everhart Road and South Alameda Street, both arterial streets. The "B-1" District regulations have been amended to be more compatible to residential area than it had previously been. The amendment removed auto repair, auto sales and bars from the permitted uses making the "B-1" District a compatible business district adjacent to residential areas. There is an existing "B-1" District to the north which would be a logical extension onto the subject property. If the "B-1" District is granted, it would continue the "domino effect" onto the adjacent property both east and west. Staff has no objection to this "domino effect" provided that the existing nonresidential district boundary remains and is not extended into the existing residential area. Mr. Saldafia read to the Commission the pros and cons of this application from the Staff Report (copy on file) . Twenty five notices were mailed, two were returned in favor and none in opposition. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Sydney Smith, the applicant, appeared and passed out maps of the area showing surrounding uses. He stated that he had two letters from two neighbors supporting the request, and who have indicated that they also want their property rezoned "B-1" . Vice Chairman Taylor stated that separate applications will have to be made on those properties. In answer to a question from Commissioner Canales, Mr. Smith indicated that if the zoning is not granted, he will still be in violation of the zoning. No one appeared in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Perez, that this application for "B-i" Neighborhood Business District be forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation that it be approved. `P 4.0 Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 1993 Page 4 Commissioner Hall commented that he was not present at a previous Planning Commission meeting when a zoning application in this area was heard, but he would not have supported that change >f zoning, because of the "domino effect" . He was of the opinipn that the immediate neighborhood is an "AB" neighborhood use, and would vote in opposition to this request if the previous application had been denied. Motion seconded by Bertuzzi, and passed with Bertuzzi, Canales, Cook, Hall, Longoria, Perez, and Taylor voting aye, and Meinrath and Mims being absent. Cobb-Lundquist, Realtors: 993-3E REQUEST; For an Exception to the Standard Screening Fence on Gardendale No. 2, Block 4, Lot 16A, located on the south side of Williams Drive, approximately 160 feet west of South Staples Street Mr. Saldana described the land use and zoning in the surrounding area, and stated that the applicant is requesting an Exception to the Standard Screening Fence requirement along the west property line of the subject property. The property is currently occupied by a parking lot. Mr. Saldafia summarized the Staff report, informing the Commission of applicable Policy Statements, and quoted from the Southside Area Development Plan. The applicant is requesting a waiver to the required standard screening fence along the west property line. The applicant states that there is no existing residence on the adjoining lot and that the existing trees provide a natural screen. The adjacent property to the north has been vacant for approximately two (2) years. In September 1985, the adjacent property was granted a Special Permit for a parking lot. The Special Permit did not waive the screening fence requirement. The parking lot was never constructed and the Special Permit expired. Section 27-3 . 01.06 (2) of the Zoning Ordinance permits the City Council to waive or reduce the requirement of a standard screening fence upon a finding of the following: a) There have been no building permits issued upon any lot or lots adjacent to the property of the applicant for construction of any residential structures; and b) No residential structures exist on any lot or lots adjacent to the property of the applicant; and • ir+ 11110 Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 1993 Page 5 c) In the opinion of the City Council, as a matter of fact, the waiver or reduction of screening fence requirement will not adversely affect the uses of adjacent and neighboring property permitted by this ordinance. There are no residential building permits pending or issued for the adjacent property. The waiver of the screening fence requirement could "domino" north and south of the subject property. The existing trees may provide some screening, but if properly maintained and pruned, the trees would provide only screening to the extent they are located along the property line. Staff is of the opinion that the existing trees could not provide the same amount of screening that is intended by a screening fence when a commercial area abuts a residential use. The lot is crucially located as the boundary lot between commercial development and existing residential lots. Because of the nature of the encroaching commercial development and the plan to protect existing residential properties as much as possible, it is very important to provide adequate screening. Mr. Saldafla read to the Commission the pros and cons of this application from the Staff report (copy on file) . Ten notices were mailed, one was returned in favor and none in opposition. Staff recommends denial. Mr. Ralph Cobb, Cobb-Lundquist, 700 Everhart Terrace, and one of the applicants, appeared and passed out pictures of the trees along the west side of the subject property. He was of the opinion that the trees provide a permanent screening, and informed the Commission that within the trees is a wire fence. He felt that they meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for a screening exception, and that it is highly improbable that a house will be built on the adjacent lot to the west. In answer to a question from Commissioner Hall, Mr. Cobb stated that there was a house on the subject lot, which they leased until they found a use for the lot. They built a parking lot and thought the contractor had taken care of all the details, such as the fence, which he had not. Commissioner Canales suggested that a fence would help to protect the vehicles parked on the lot. Mr. Cobb responded that there is a wire fence within the trees, the adjacent lot was cleaned up, and they have not had any problems with vagrancy within the last year. Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 1993 Page 6 Commissioner Canales asked if someone builds on the adjacent west lot, would a fence between both properties be required. Mr. Cobb indicated that if a house was built on the adjacent property, he would build a fence between the properties. Mr. Wayne Lundquist, 5482 Greenbriar, and one of the applicants, appeared and stated that they feel there is a very small chance someone will build a house on the adjacent property. He gave a brief history of the property. Mr. Harvey asked Mr. Lundquist if the trees are located on their property. Mr. Cobb responded that the trees are on their property except for one or two. He added that he had the property surveyed. Mr. Harvey stated that one of Staff' s concerns is that the trees are not under the ownership of the applicant, and could not be guaranteed to be a buffer. Staff also looked into whether the trees, once cleared of weeds and brush, afforded screening equal to a screening fence, and determined that they do not. Mr. Harvey continued that since the adjacent residential lot is vacant, the applicants may be able to enter into a construction deferment agreement and put up cash payment for construction of the fence, if needed. The money will be refunded if the adjacent property is developed with commercial use. This would not require any action by the Planning Commission, but rather is an administrative responsibility. Commissioner Bertuzzi questioned what does the Comprehensive Plan prescribe for this area. Mr. Harvey responded that the Plan calls for residential on Williams, and commercial on Staples. The public hearing was declared closed. Mr. Harvey stated that the City Council has required a screening fence between residential zoned property and commercial zoned property to mitigate visual and noise irritations. He pointed out that this is a critical area in terms of transitional land uses and market pressures. If Williams Drive is to remain residential, it needs protection. It may be that in the future the Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan has to be changed, but presently the Plan calls for residential on Williams Drive, and commercial on Staples Street. Mr. Harvey stated that the trees do not constitute much screening, but it could be that the trees could be retained, and a screening fence provided. 111. Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 1993 Page 7 Commissioner Hall commented that this is a sensitive area, and would be in favor of a deferment. In answer to a question from Vice Chairman Taylor, Mr. Harvey explained that a construction deferment would have to be worked out with the Building Official. If the applicants get a construction deferment, they could then withdraw their application from further consideration. Motion by Canales, seconded by Bertuzzi, that this application for an Exception to the Screening Fence Requirement be forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation that it be denied. Motion failed with Bertuzzi, Canales and Perez voting aye, Cook, Hall, Longoria and Taylor voting nay, and Meinrath and Mims being absent. Motion by Hall, seconded by Cook, that this application be tabled for two weeks to allow the applicant to work with Staff in making a new proposal. Motion passed with Cook, Hall, Longoria and Taylor voting aye, Bertuzzi, Canales and Perez voting nay, and Meinrath and Mims being absent. Commissioner Cook requested a survey of the property to determine the exact location of the trees. James Brooks VFW Post 3837: 993-4 REQUEST; From "R-1B" One-family Dwelling District to "B-4" General Business District on 2 .06 acres of land out of Share No. 11 of the Partition of the Estate of John B. Harney, located on the north side of Leopard Street, approximately 900 feet east of Callicoatte Road Mr. Saldafia described the land use and zoning in the surrounding area, and stated that the applicant is requesting a zoning change from "R-1B" One-family Dwelling District to "B-4" General Business District to construct and operate a nonprofit lodge hall to be available for public rental. The property is currently undeveloped. Mr. Saldafa summarized the Staff Report, informing the Commission of applicable Policy Statements, and quoted from the Northwest Area Development Plan. The applicant is requesting a change of zoning to "B-4" General Business District in order to construct a lodge and hall (VFW Hall) that will be available for rent to the general public. `. .O Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 1993 Page 8 The subject property, a 2 .06 acre site, is located between a major divided arterial, Leopard Street, and an expressway, Interstate 37 . The property' s only access is from Leopard Street. The surrounding area is zoned "R-1B" One-family Dwelling District and remains undeveloped. The probability of residential development is marginal given the site's location between two (2) major transportation corridors, limited access to Leopard Street, and no median cuts on Leopard Street along the site' s frontage. The requested "B-4" District is consistent with the Northwest Area Development Plan' s adopted proposed land use map recommended commercial development. The permitted "B-4" District uses would create minimal noise compared to the existing noise created from Leopard Street and Interstate 37 traffic. Eight notices were mailed, one was received in favor from outside the 200' notification area, and none in opposition. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Michael Striddle, 4218 Western Drive, appeared representing the applicant. He made personal comments, stating that Northwest Corpus Christi has needed such a facility for a long time, and recommended that the Commission approve the request. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Cook, seconded by Perez, that this application for "B-4" General Business District be forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation that it be approved. Motion passed with Bertuzzi, Canales, Cook, Hall, Longoria, Perez, and Taylor voting aye, and Meinrath and Mims being absent. NEW PLATS Consideration of plats as described on attached addendum. OTHER MATTERS Discussion of New Legislation Mr. Harvey stated that at the last Planning Commission meeting, there was discussion on new Legislation. Included in the Planning Commission' s packet is a memo from Mr. Norbert Hart, Assistant City Attorney, with copies of Zoning and Platting Bills passed in the 73rd Regular Session of the Texas Legislature. He referred to a question posed by Chairman Mims, and stated that after research, they could not find a specific bill that related to her question. V V Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 1993 Page 9 Mr. Hart reviewed the Bills, and answered questions from Vice Chairman Taylor. He stated that he would meet with Chairman Mims to resolve any remaining questions. Excused Absence Policy Mr. Harvey stated that based on discussion at the last Planning Commission meeting, he has included a memo on Excused Absences in the Planning Commission' s package. Mr. Harvey stated that he would like to revise his memo, stating that 25% absences per term year is a strong allowance, and absences of more than 25% by any Commissioner poses a problem. He suggested that the Planning Commission not grant excused absences beyond the 25% allowed by the City Code. Commissioner Perez was of the opinion that Council' s existing 25% allowance policy is a good one. She added that when Commissioners are appointed, they should know whether work will interfere with participation on the Commission, so work should not be an excuse. Commissioner Cook concurred that excused absences are not necessary, and felt that 25% absences per term year allowed under the City Code is adequate. Commissioner Hall noted that it is difficult not to give a fellow Commissioner an excused absence, and concurred with a limit of 25% absences per term year. Commissioner Canales concurred with a limit of 25% absences per term year. Motion by Canales, seconded by Cook, that a limit of 25% absences be allowed in a term year, and that absences not be designated excused or unexcused. Motion passed with Bertuzzi, Canales, Cook, Hall, Longoria, Perez, and Taylor voting aye, and Meinrath and Mims being absent. City Council Action Mr. Harvey reported on the following City Council action: 693-4 Cleone Smith Baskin Approved "B-1" with Special Permit for mini-warehouses. `o 'S Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 1993 Page 10 Flour Bluff Area Development Plan The City Council voted to eliminate Policy Statement B-14 which would change the land use plan to show Whiteley Drive "B-1" rather than "B-4" The City Council will take action on the Plan at its next meeting. MATTERS NOT SCHEDULED Commissioner Canales reported on the Street Paving Committee, stating that they discussed costs involved in upgrading the street pavement standards, and the controversy on who will pay the costs. He stated that he has requested an itemized breakdown of costs from Staff. Mr. Harvey stated that the Committee would like to discuss this item with the Planning Commission at the September 23rd meeting, before a public hearing is held before the Planning Commission on October 20, 1993 . Vice Chairman Taylor asked if the new McDonald' s at the corner of Louisiana, Baldwin and Staples is permitted a 40 square foot sign. Mr. Harvey responded that he was not sure what the property is zoned, but he would research it. EXCUSED ABSENCES None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Canales, seconded by Cook, and passed with Meinrath and Mims being absent, that the minutes of the regular meeting of August 25, 1993 be approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Brano1-M.��rvey " V/ Marcia Cooperr Director of Planning Y Recording Secretary Executive Secretary to Planning Commission V � Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 1993 Page 11 NEW PLATS Addendum to minutes of consideration of plats. Mr. Saldana stated that there were no conditions remaining on the following plats, and Staff recommends approval as submitted. Vice Chairman Taylor opened the public hearing on new plats, and no one appeared in favor or in opposition. The public hearing was declared closed. 1. 089377-P33 Lexington Estates, Block 7, Lot 5A (Final Replat - 0 .263 acre) Located east of Kosarek Drive between McArdle Road and South Padre Island Drive (State Highway 358) Owner - Francisco Zepeda, Jr. , & Erlinda Gomez Zepeda Engineer - Urban 2 . 089379-P34 Sugar Ridge Unit 1, Block 1, Lot 24R (Final Replat -0.189 acre) Located between Diamond Ridge Drive and Everhart Road south of Cedar Pass Drive Owner - Ralph E. Clark & Darlene R. Clark Engineer - Shearer, Plog & Associates, Inc. Motion by Canales, seconded by Cook, that the forgoing plats be approved as submitted. Motion passed with Bertuzzi, Canales, Cook, Hall, Longoria, Perez, and Taylor voting aye, and Meinrath and Mims being absent. (H381MC)