Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 07/14/1993 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL JULY 14, 1993 - 6:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Lamont Taylor, Vice Chairman Michael Bertuzzi Ralph Hall Lupe Longoria Alma Meinrath Sylvia Perez MEMBERS ABSENT: Bobby Canales Laurie Cook Shirley Mims STAFF PRESENT: Brandol M. Harvey, AIA, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Michael Gunning, Senior Planner Lorraine Del Alto, Recording Secretary Robert Payne, AICP, Senior Planner Mic Raasch, AICP, City Planner Tom Utter, Director of Development Services Carl Crull, Director of Engineering Services David Seiler, Director of Traffic Engineering 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 ZONING B. Robert & Erna Mallory: 793-1 REQUEST: From "R-IB" One-family Dwelling District to "B-1" Neighborhood Business District on Lots 18, 19&20, Block 1, Mount Vernon Subdivision, located on the east side of Everhart Road, approximately 135 feet north of Mount Vernon Drive. SCANNED • Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1993 Page 2 Mr. Gunning 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-1" Neighborhood Business District, to convert existing residences into an office, boutique, design studio and water company. Mr. Gunning summarized the Staff report, informing the Commission of applicable Policy Statements. The applicant is requesting a change of zoning to a "B-1" Neighborhood Business District to permit the reuse of the residences for water sales and an insurance office on Lots 19 and 20, and a clothing boutique and design studio on Lot 18. The owner of Lots 19 and 20 also owns Lot 22, zoned "AB" Professional Office District with a Special Permit for water sales, located at the northeast corner of Mt. Vernon Drive and Everhart Road. The owner wishes to relocate the water sales use to Lot 20 to accommodate future expansion. The subject property consists of three (3) lots each containing single- family residences which front on Everhart Road, an arterial. Each lot has an area of 7,560 square feet. Rezoning the subject lots would leave three (3) "R-IB" One-family Dwelling District developed lots on this block face between McArdle Road and Mt. Vernon Drive. Given the traffic along Everhart Road and results of a prior rezoning study along the Everhart Road Corridor, Staff's position has been to recommend a "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 is minimized by the amendments to this district which removed auto-related uses and bar, lounges and taverns, thereby making the district more compatible with the residences to the east. The subject property's sole access is to Everhart Road, an arterial, with no access to the residential area to the rear. Mr. Gunning read to the Commission the pros and cons of this application from the Staff report (Copy on Pile). Twenty-nine notices were mailed, Two (2) were returned in favor and none in opposition within the 200' radius. Ms. Erna Mallory, applicant, appeared before the Commission and stated that the location of the property is in conformity with the zoning. She added that the zoning would also allow her to have a sign for her business. She asked the Commission to consider approving this application. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. There was some discussion concerning the traffic movement and the residential use located within the area. Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1993 Page 3 Motion by Meinrath, seconded by Bertuzzi that this zoning be approved from a "R-1B" One- - family Dwelling District to "B-1" Neighborhood Business District. Motion passed with Perez abstaining, and Canales, Cook and Mims being absent. NEW PLATS Consideration of plats as described on attached addendum. COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Mr. Brandol Harvey informed the Planning Commission that Mr. Tom Utter, Director of Development Services would present a status report and overview of State mandated requirements of the Texas Coastal Management Program. Mr. Tom Utter presented a review of graphics concerning the Texas Coastal Management Program. The Dune Protection and Beach Access Plan and Regulations are a compilation of a large number of city departments, citizens, and various interest groups. He thanked the following people for their assistance in this plan. Commissioner Carol Carter, Nueces County; Chris Lawrence, Nueces County Beach Services; Dr. Jennifer Prouty, Nueces County Coastal Management Committee Chairman; and Pat Suter, Water Shore Advisory Committee. The Dune Protection and Beach Access Plan and Regulations for the City of Corpus Christi is mandated by the General Land Office and must be filed with the General Land Office and the Attorney General's Office by August 16, 1993. In addition, a Master Plan Development has been submitted by a Padre Island property owner. Nueces County has had dune protection for several years. The State has delegated to coastal counties the right to provide dune protection. Over the years, anyone wanting to build on the island east of the park road, and infringing on the dunes, would have to go to the County Dune Protection Committee and obtain a dune permit and would have to mitigate any dune loss. Several issues regarding this plan are 1) Dune Protection; 2) Beach Access; and 3) Master Plan. The primary - purpose is to not destroy any dunes. The dunes are our first line of protection against any hurricanes. Under new State Law cities have been delegated the right to set beach access standards and to issue beachfront construction permits in their city limits and extra territorial jurisdiction. Mr. Utter explained in detail the city limits on the beach. The dune protection line that the County has had over the years has been set back 1,000 feet. The County to date has approved a Coastal Management Plan for the County and that controls dune protection within the city limits and extraterritorial jurisdiction. The City will basically be covering beach access. The dune protection is still the responsibility of the County. The city recommends to go forward and pursue the delegation from the county of dune protection inside its city limits. Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1993 Page 4 Under guidelines, if someone wanted to build behind the seawall, they would have to make sure that the City approved any platting, zoning, beach construction permits, building permits, etc. with the exception of providing "dune protection' within the city limits. The Master Plan Development takes another part of a master plan committee on the coast front. Once a master plan is adopted, you do not have to come and get all types of permits. The County has approved this Master Plan Development and will only affect the dune protection line. If the Planning Commission approves the Master Plan Development it will probably mean that beach front construction permits are not necessary for each individual property owner. Mr. Utter further explained that traffic in front of the seawall will cause the beach to further erode. Parking was eliminated from the seawall years ago. Then, only one way traffic was allowed. Allowing one way traffic and no parking is really an access. He added that a local street, Windward Drive, would be used as public parking for individuals visiting the beach. We feel that it is extremely important to provide access. Pedestrian accessways are proposed in this plan. He explained in detail on some easements and planing located within the beach area. Mr. Utter mentioned that several departments and committees have provided information to complete this plan. Development Services, Planning, Park and Recreation, Traffic Safety Advisory Board, and Water Shore Advisory Committee. The Traffic Safety Advisory Board has specifically examined the seawall area within the plan and has recommended to the Planning Commission to approve this Plan. The Water Shore Advisory Committee has reviewed the Dune Protection, Beach Access and Master Plan Development and has recommended approval of the Plan. Mr. Utter stated that the Dune Protection and Beach Access Plan, Dune Protection and Beach Access Ordinance and the Master Planned Development application are up for approval to the Planning Commission. He emphasized to the Commission that the Plan and Ordinance actions are separate from the Master Plan Development. Commissioner Hall asked where the pedestrian accessways will be placed along the beach. Staff explained in detail certain areas that will provide accessways. Commissioner Taylor asked where the seawall was located in conjunction with the Plan. Mr. Utter explained where the seawall was located on the graphics presented. Commission Taylor asked if this particular ordinance restricts traffic from traveling in front of the seawall area. Mr. Utter replied that the ordinance will not allow traffic, but will allow pedestrian access on the beach area. Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1993 Page 5 Mr. Brandol Harvey informed the Planning Commission that the Master Plan presented is an element of the Comprehensive Plan to address Coastal Management. This Plan sets up policies under General Land Office directives, which are then implemented through the Dune Protection and Beach Access Ordinance, which is in effect, land use regulations for the City of Corpus Christi. This provides an application process for a Master Planned Development. Vice Chairman Taylor opened the public hearing to the audience for comments. Mr. Joe Wilson, 6017 Idlewood, representing "Wave Riders" a group of private citizens, stated before the Commission that he feels that the County should have some final input over development within the dune area. He feels that this plan should have some careful consideration and not be rushed in any way. He added that the seawall beach area is closed to traffic about 10% percent of the time due to seasonal tidal changes. We feel that closing of the beach in front of the seawall and having a Master Plan is a good idea. We are opposed to having 4,200 linear feet of beach from the public without any adequate compensation. We feel that in the future this plan would become a private beach for the property owners located within the seawall area. The only parking being provided is the public streets located within the area. Traffic located in this area would be a safety hazard. Mr. Russ Tracey, 14721 Whitecap, appeared before the Commission asking if the beach was closed are parking stickers going to be required for parking located on Windward Drive. He stated that he is opposed to having parking stickers located within the area when there is limited public parking available. He stated that he is in favor for the beaches staying open. Mr. Tom Utter replied that City Staff is recommending that in order to park on Windward Drive a parking sticker•is required. City Staff states that it is the responsibility of the property owners for the condos and/or hotels to provide parking for their guests. If the beach is going to be closed to vehicular access, we need to provide definitive parking for the people attending the beach. The only parking provided is along the street. If the property owners want their guest to park on the street, they will have to have parking stickers. The people that go to the beach can have access to the beach through the pedestrian walkways and have parking available. State law requires that if a portion of the beach is closed, certain proportionate numbers of off beach parking places should be available for that area. If property owners would like for the beach to be closed, but are against the parking stickers for parking along the street, then they have three options. 1) Parking along street with parking stickers; 2) Dedicate property; or 3) Monies somehow would be obtained to buy parking for that area. • Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1993 Page 6 Mr. David Coggins, 13914 Prima Vera, representing the Padre Island Business Association, - stated before the Commission that he is in support of the Plan. He stated that tourism is very important within this area of Corpus Christi. The fact remains that the single most popular attraction is the Gulf beaches. He stated that extra places for rooms should be provided for tourists to visit this area. He added that the City should stop investors from developing on the beach and removing traffic from the area. He commented on a survey which was done from his business that asked local business on Padre Island about their tourists visits and whether they enjoyed their stay. He stated that 77% of respondents did not enjoy the traffic on the beach, and 47% did not enjoy the cleanliness of the beach. He asked the Commission to consider approving the Plan including redirection of parking along the seawall. Mr. Cliff Schlaback, 122 Whiteley, representing the United States Surfing Federation and Texas Gulf Surfing Association, appeared before the Commission stating his opposition to closing any section of the beach. We feel that this would become a safety hazard. He stated that if any portion of the beach were closed, condominium owners along the Texas Coast would probably end up doing the same procedures. He asked the Commission to consider denying this portion of the plan. Mr. Steve Ellis, 345 Pasadena, appeared before the Commission and stated that the Plan proposes parking along Windward Drive with a pedestrian access of approximately 1,000 feet from the roadway to the beach. He stated that this would be a safety hazard within the area. At the time, there is an area on top of the seawall is open and being used by the public. He feels that any plan to close a portion of public beach should be carefully researched for any issues by the Texas Open Beaches Act. He feels that in attempt to restrict traffic along the beach or on top of the seawall would probably end up in litigation to establish a prescriptive easement or an easement by long standing use across the private property on top of the seawall. He feels that the Commission should recommend to the City that public parking should be provided with access to the beach, and should be further investigated. Mr. Clayton Hoover,250 Mitchell, representing Caroline Altide and other mineral owners within the area. He asked how this area could possibly be developed for oil and gas should the need ever arise. His clients are interested on whether there will be some reasonable accommodations made with respect to their rights so that there are some places that oil and gas wells can be drilled if needed. The Ordinance appears to provide some exemption for oil and gas activities as far as dune protection permit is concerned, but not for beachfront construction permit. He stated that the Master Plan Development does not provide or show any drilling locations that would be provided for oil and gas exploration, but if it is shown in the future, would this be shown in designated areas so that citizens can be aware of the existence. He asked the Commission to consider not adopting the Master Plan Development until some sites are shown on the plan for oil and gas drilling for the future. Mr. Brandol Harvey replied that under state directives, oil and gas exploration is exempt from dune protection, but not exempt from the beach access plan and that the regulations proposed and Master Planned Development application neither increase nor decrease the local regulations and performance standards regarding drill sites. Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1993 Page 7 Mr. William Fennell, Seahorse Condominium at Windward Drive, Westinghouse Corporation, - appeared before the Commission stating this project is an economic matter for the City of Corpus Christi and Nueces County. He stated that the primary reason for tourists to come to this area is the local beaches. He added that if parking was required on top of the seawall, it would greatly reduce the value of the property. Mr. James Gill, 302 Catalina, appeared before the Commission stating that there is a safety issue that should be dealt with. He feels that the property owners should donate some property to accommodate any changes proposed in this plan for the future. Mr. Tom Reeves, 618 Del Mar Boulevard, Manager of Holiday Inn - Island, appeared before the Commission stating that this plan is a safety issue. He stated that the hotel is in favor of stopping traffic on the beach, but would not like for the beach to be private. He stated that a portion of the Holiday Inn property is used as access to the beach. Some access provided at the moment are now being used numerous times by beach goers. He added that 1,000 feet would be pushing the limit for access to the beach. Parking stickers should not be required for parking along the public streets, unless a parking lot will be provided within the plan for the future. Dr. Jennifer Prouty, Chairman of the Nueces County Coastal Management Committee, appeared before the Commission. Dr. Prouty stated that comments provided are clearly presented by herself and not the Committee. As a member of the Coastal Management Committee, problems that have arisen concerning the seawall have frequently been discussed by the committee. The seawall is a tremendous asset, and with proper development it could increase the tax base of that area considerably. The General Land Office has defined that one parking space per every fifteen linear feet of beach, if the beach were to be closed, would be considered proper access and the spacing of access points every half mile. She proposed that for large scale developments, land be dedicated for public parking in a ratio as suggested by the General Land Office, one parking space per fifteen linear feet of beach. What might be developed, is that for every 500 feet or more, that defines what large developments are, in a single development. The developer would be required to dedicate one parking space per every fifteen linear feet, which works out to be 33 1/3 parking spaces, if 500 linear feet of beach were developed; Sixty-seven parking spaces dedicated to the public to develop 1,000 linear feet of beachfront property. She suggested that in the same manner public parks are developed, they ask the developers to dedicate land. Existing developments would not be asked to dedicate or purchase land that they do not own, it would only be for large scale developments as that area become developed that they would dedicate land. Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1993 Page 8 Ms. Elizabeth Walker, 13969 Das Marinas, President of Padre Island Property Owners Association, appeared before the Commission stating that their board has voted to grant two easements to the City of Corpus Christi contingent on traffic being rerouted for the safety of the citizens and to provide alternate access. She presented a document to David Seiler, Traffic Engineer, stating this granting. She stated that street side parking is inadequate, but for now it is adequate. Any parking provided now is already extra spacing. She feels that the Staff has presented the Commission with an excellent start for the plan. Ms. Pat Suter, 1002 Chamberlain, Water Shore Advisory Committee and Nueces County Coastal Management Committee, appeared before the Commission stating that the County adopted the Master Plan Development with the proviso that in five years they could review the allocation of the dune protection line at the base of the seawall, and whatever development is taking place at the time. She felt that the Planning Commission should also put some type of time limit to review this Master Plan Development at a later date, because population, development may increase or a storm or hurricane may damage the area, anything may happen. She commented that as Chairman of a local Sierra Club, she is stating that they are opposed to closing the beach in front of the seawall to vehicular traffic, until adequate provisions are made for the public use of a public beach. She added that as a result of the seawall being placed on the beach, the beach has eroded over 4,000 linear feet. The Sierra Club feels that parking on Windward Drive is not adequate. The Club feels some kind of off street parking adjacent to the seawall needs to be provided before the plan can be supported in its entirety. Mr. Chris Grim, 301 Williamson, appeared before the Commission and stating that the Plan presented is very well written, but is also very troubling. He felt that the Commission should modify the plan to prevent the creation of a private beach or reject the plan. The Master Plan Development is not balanced as it takes away real or practical public access to a stretch of beach. He stated that the City stated that the stretch of beach is closed to all vehicular traffic due to beach erosion. He stated that the Constable's Office told him that this stretch of beach was closed by that office less than ten percent of the year. He added that over ninety percent of the year this beach is open to car traffic. The Plan actually improves public beach access over what is currently available. This Beach Access Plan provides the general public beach access only with a major stipulation that parking is located on a city street and travel 500 to 1,000 feet down one of the public sidewalks. The parking provisions has - oversights that when Windward Drive is fully developed, dozens of parking spots will be lost to entrance and exit driveways. Increased traffic will also create a safety hazard during holidays, spring break, etc. He explained a variety of pockets parks and what existed within this type of park. He asked the Commission to consider modifying the plan. No one else appeared before the Commission, and the hearing was declared closed. Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1993 Page 9 Mr. Brandol Harvey commented that the Comprehensive Plan does not diminish in any way - public beach or public access. It increases public access. The City is calling for an addition to public access transforming some, what is now private property to public access. The Plan would be enhancing public access. The restriction of vehicular movement on the beach is not closing the beach, it is adding restrictions. For public safety purposes, as recommended by the Transportation Advisory Committee, restricting vehicular movement to eliminate the conflict between vehicular and public pedestrian use of the beach, is considered a traffic safety issue, not a private versus public issue. The General Land Office states that when vehicular movement on the beach is restricted, then their standard is to provide off-beach parking at the rate of one parking space of fifteen linear foot of beach that is being closed whether there was beach parking to start with or not. This plan provides for the one parking space per fifteen linear feet plus more. The pedestrian easements being called for exceeds the General Land Office requirements of being at least one pedestrian way every half mile. Mr. Harvey stated that Dr. Jennifer Prouty's recommendation is already listed within the plan, but the distinction is that the City can get park dedication when a property is platted. The area behind the seawall is already planed and the park dedication requirements have been met. In the future, when property is platted, park dedication requirements will be in effect in order to get public purpose land area which may be used for parking, restrooms, or any number of items that will be served for a public purpose. Commissioner Taylor asked if individuals will have access to these public parking areas behind the seawall. Mr. Harvey replied that parking will be designated as part of this program when vehicular movement is restricted on the beach per the Plan. Mr. Tom Utter commented that Dr. Jennifer Prouty's recommendation would not take place within this Plan. He further commented that the problem is in terms of acquiring private property. The City acquires private property in the dedication process of platting. He informed the Commission that city staff would still recommend pedestrian easements to the seawall. The pedestrian easements located there at the time, are not public pedestrian easements. The city does not condone anyone parking at " or on the seawall, because it is private property. He mentioned that a prescriptive easement would not work in that particular case. Mr. Norbert Hart replied that the 4,200 feet that exist in this particular area there is no public easement between Windward Drive and the seawall. Only through some property owners, people can cross over to the beach. Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1993 Page 10 Mr. Tom Utter commented that the city is trying to get adequate access. In some cases, the - access may appear to be too much to some citizens. It is not an absolute requirement of General Land Office on off beach parking that a sticker is required, but it has to be available. The entire process is fairly new to the City, General Land Office, and Attorney General Office because there has never been any plans like this before. This plan will probably even be changed once it is submitted. He added that from a good planning standpoint well pad located in the general area of the seawall is incompatible. State law does exempt well pad location and oil and gas activity from the dune protection, but in this particular location it is incompatible. In general, the city would attempt, through it's own ordinances to limit well pad locations in the immediate vicinity of the seawall. At the moment, the city is not willing to present a recommendation, because of the lack of information on the subject. Commissioner Bertuzzi asked on the distance required to locate platforms for well pads. Mr. Tom Utter replied that the city has an ordinance that applies in the bay which requires a one mile distance from the shore. There was further discussion on the location of well pads and the rate of erosion of the beach. Commissioner Hall commented that there is some lack of understanding by the public concerning this plan. The State is proposing that the beaches should be protected through this plan. The public may not be aware of the severe restrictions placed on private property owners who have beach fronting on the Gulf of Mexico, but it is significant. Commissioner Longoria asked Mr. Tom Utter to summarize the choices that the Commission had to choose from. Mr. Tom Utter stated to the Planning Commission whatever is approved, the plan still has to be reviewed by the General Land Office along with advise and consent from the Attorney General's Office. The following choices may be acted on: 1) The Plan and Master Plan Development may be approved - Which includes closing the beach and providing pedestrian walkways; 2) The Plan may be approved without eliminating traffic along the seawall; or 3) The Plan may be rejected and Staff could be required to somehow acquire land from private property owners to provide additional parking. Finally, the Commission could recommend that the Plan be adopted as submitted with the proviso that the City seek parking between Windward Drive and the seawall. Whatever is chosen, the Commission has to provide a plan and it has to be submitted by August 16, 1993. The plan does not require for vehicular traffic to be closed, and if vehicular traffic is not closed, pedestrian walkways are also not required. City staff feels that the traffic should be closed, but the real issue is what is adequate access. The General Land Office states one parking for every fifteen feet. Commissioner Perez asked if city staff had tried to acquire additional land. Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1993 Page 11 Mr. Utter replied that if the land behind the seawall was not platted and owned by one person, - the city would require that as the property is platted, there would be some land platted for park. And that land would be used for parking. Unfortunately, all of the land behind the seawall is already platted, and there are no requirements under city codes and ordinances that anyone provide additional land for public purposes behind the seawall. In terms of whether or not the private property owners would dedicate land, the problem with the other easement, is that the city is wanting it dedicated, and private property owners are indicating that the city could buy the property. Commissioner Taylor asked if the 4,200 feet would be denying public access to the beach with also providing 280 public parking spaces along a public street. Mr. Brandol Harvey replied that the restriction of vehicular movement is reducing the convenience of accessibility. He stated that this is maintaining the public easement and is not reducing the area of the public easement and more importantly providing that the public area is managed properly for public safety. Commissioner Hall asked if the City has Police power to exercise for the benefit of the safety to close or open this certain area as needed. Mr. Norbert Hart replied that the City does have the power to close and open this certain area. Dr. Jennifer Prouty reappeared before the Commission stating that the Master Plan Development process is designated by the Texas General Land Office - Beach/Dune Rules, February 1992. Within the Master Plan Development proposal there can be conditions set, which would be negotiated between the developer and entity. She stated that the Commission can set whatever conditions they chose to which can be negotiated uniquely between the city and the applicants without having to rely on any sort of platting or dedication of park land ordinances. She suggested that a dedication of fifteen linear feet of land lost to development and one public parking space provided be a condition that may be set for the Master Plan Development approval. Mr. Norbert Hart commented that the Master Plan Development process is not unlike the planing - process the Commission is familiar with. If the development meets all of the requirements by State law and the Texas Administrative Code, the plan has to be passed. Mr. Harvey commented that the restriction of vehicular movement is not a function of the Master Plan Development application. It is an action that the City is proposing. Commissioner Perez asked if this plan can be reviewed within the next five years. Mr. Harvey replied that since this is an element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Corpus Christi by our City Charter, it has to be reviewed at least every five years. Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1993 Page 12 Motion by Hall, seconded by Meinrath that the Dune Protection and Beach Access Plan be approved as submitted. Motion passed with Taylor voting nay, and Canales, Cook and Mims being absent. Motion by Hall, seconded by Perez that the Dune Protection and Beach Access Ordinance be approved as submitted. Motion passed unanimously with Canales, Cook and Mims being absent. Motion by Hall, seconded by Perez that the Master Plan Development application be approved as submitted. Motion passed unanimously with Canales, Cook and Mims being absent. PLATTING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Mr. Brandol Harvey informed the Planning Commission that Carl Crull, Director of Engineering Services would present the details involved for the proposed Platting Ordinance Amendment. Mr. Carl Crull stated that the Platting Ordinance requires that at least 75% of all required public improvements be completed, as certified by the City Engineer, before the final plat can be recorded. The proposed amendment would give the City Engineer authority to accept other appropriate financial guarantees in lieu of completing the required improvement(s). He added that this procedure benefits the City in that, under certain circumstances, it is not in anyone's best interest to install a portion of a public improvement, whether they be water, sewer, drainage, street, or bikeway/pedestrian facilities, that cannot be immediately utilized until the system is completed at a later date. Under other circumstances, primarily in commercial developments, it is beneficial that the installation of the public improvements be done concurrently with the construction of the building or facility. This cannot occur under the present provision. Mr. Crull added that the amendment to the Platting Ordinance with assistance from Legal Department, states that an alternative to the 75% completion be included. The alternate would require the developer to post a cash bond or other negotiable security with the City. This would enable the City to defer the construction of improvements for a period of time not exceed five years. The Planning Commission would determine if there was reasonable cause to delay the 75% completion requirements and set the time frame for the delay. City Staff, in turn would develop the terms of the agreement between the subdivider and the City; determine the amount of the security needed ; and monitor the progress and time frames of any deferred construction. Commissioner Taylor asked if an individual could by pass any of the requirements presented. Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1993 Page 13 Mr. Crull replied that the amendment requires an individual place cash or a negotiable security - with the City in the amount 100% of the City Engineer's estimated cost of construction for improvements. This in essence is buying time while allowing the developer to have a plat recorded. Currently, regulations require the developer to complete at least 75% of public improvements before a plat can be filed for record and a building permit issued. If this provision were in place, the owners of a property could have posted security for 110% of the cost for the public improvements; filed the plat for record; transferred ownership; and received building permits. Mr. Brandol Harvey stated that when the owner/developer presents 110% security, the 10% is a penalty. It's to the advantage of the developer to spend 100% if done by the developer themselves. There is also a public protection condition listed in the amendment, which even the Planning Commission cannot override. This condition states that each lot that is fmaled for recordation and possibly sold, must have operable water and sanitary sewer, even if there are no streets or sidewalks. Commissioner Meinrath asked if additional staff will have to be hired to monitor the activity regarding this platting ordinance amendment. Mr. Crull replied that it will probably not be necessary to hire additional staff for this process. Mr. Harvey commented that the Planning Commission will have the authority not to approve this waiver if they feel that it is being abused. Commissioner Hall asked when will the monies that are required be released to the developer. Mr. Crull replied that funds will be released back to the developer once the public improvements are complete and accepted by the city. There was some discussion on the type of surety bonds or funds accepted for the process being required. In response to Commissioner Longoria's question regarding parks, Mr. Crull replied that this - process only relates to public improvements. The park requirements are that the developer must either provide 5% of development as parkland or cash in lieu thereof, which is based on the appraised value of the property. This determination is made by the Director of the Park and Recreation Department. Mr. Norbert Hart commented that this particular amendment to the Platting Ordinance does not reduce any of the required right-of-way dedications, public utility easements, or park dedication. This merely defers for a certain period of time other than water and sewer improvements. There was some discussion of the time frame required for the deferment of construction. Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1993 Page 14 Motion by Meinrath, seconded by Bertuzzi that this Platting Ordinance amendment be - recommended for approval as submitted. Motion passed with Canales, Cook and Mims being absent. TABLED ZONING 693-4 Cleone Smith Baskin: "R-1B" to "B-4" Located on the east side of Villa Drive, approximately 30 feet south of Leopard Street. This case was tabled for two (2) weeks to allow the applicant time to work with Staff on developing a site plan for the proposed mini-storage use. The Commission indicated that in lieu of the requested "B-4" District, a "B-1" District with a Special Permit would be considered at the next regular meeting. Staff has met with the applicant's agent and discussed the site plan and related requirements. To date, a site plan has not been submitted. The applicant's agent has requested that this case be continued as tabled to allow more time to consult with the owner and prepare a site plan. Staff recommends tabling for two weeks. FLOUR BLUFF AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN Mr. Brandol Harvey informed the Commission that a final draft of the Flour Bluff Area Development Plan is presented as recommended. He stated that a corrected map was presented to the Commission for attachment to the Plan. Motion by Perez, seconded by Hall that the Flour Bluff Area Development Plan be approved as submitted. Motion passed unanimously with Canales, Cook and Minis being absent. Mr. Harvey commended Staff and Planning Commission for the time and patience spent on this particular plan. There was some discussion on a letter that would be presented to the City Council along with the Flour Bluff Plan. OTHER MATTERS Mr. Harvey reported that Lupe Longoria, Sylvia Perez, and Laurie Cook were reappointed to the Planning Commission and thanked them for their willingness to serve. Mr. Harvey reported on the following City Council action: Case No. 693-3: Winter Maintenance and Landscaping was approved as recommended. Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1993 Page 15 MATTERS NOT SCHEDULED None ABSENCES Laurie Cook was excused for the meeting of July 14, 1993. Shirley Mims and Robert Canales were unexcused for the meeting of July 14, 1993. Motion by Hall, seconded by Perez that Laurie Cook be excused for the meeting of July 14, 1993. Motion passed unanimously with Canales, Cook and Mims being absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES No minutes were presented for approval. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. �. tiV110;i11)4t abeBrandol M. Harvey, AI , AICP ine Del Alto Director of Planning Recording Secretary Executive Secretary to Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1993 Page 16 NEW PLATS Addendum to minutes of consideration of plats. 1) 069362-P24 LA REINA ADDITION. BLOCK 1, LOT IA (FINAL REPLAT - 0.109 ACRE) Located east of Carver Drive and north of Sonora Street. Owner - Armando F. Ortiz Engineer - Oliveira Mr. Gunning stated that the applicant's engineer asked that the plat be tabled for an additional two weeks. Staff recommends tabling. Motion by Hall, seconded by Perez that this plat be tabled until the next regular meeting of July 28, 1993. Motion passed with Canales, Cook and Mims being absent. 2) 069363-P25 VICTORIA PARK UNIT 2 (FINAL - 4.62 ACRES) Located south of Quebec Drive and west of Toronto Drive. Owner - So-San Corporation 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. Commissioner Hall mentioned his abstaining from this plat. Motion by Bertuzzi, seconded by Longoria that his plat be approved. Motion passed with Hall abstaining, and Canales, Cook and Mims being absent. LDA(H:MIN714.93)