Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 06/17/1992 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL JUNE 17, 1992 - 6 :30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Shirley Mims, Chairman Mike Karm, Vice Chairman Ralph Hall Alma Meinrath Lamont Taylor MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Canales Jake Sanchez William Sanderson Ro Wickham STAFF PRESENT: Brandol M. Harvey, AIA, AICP Director of Planning & Development Marcia Cooper, Recording Secretary Michael Gunning, Senior Planner Ruben Perez, Assistant City Attorney CALL TO ORDER Chairman Mims called the meeting to order at 6 :35 p.m. , and: described the procedure to be followed. PUBLIC HEARING NEW ZONINGS Messrs . Jack O'Hara and Joseph Afram: 692-5 REQUEST: From "AB" Professional Office District to "B- 1" Neighborhood Business District on Lot 1, Block 34, Windsor Park Unit 4, located on the south corner of Everhart Road and Janssen 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 operate a restaurant out of the existing- structure. The property is currently occupied by a vacant office:.__ Mr. Gunning summarized the Staff Report, informing the Commission of applicable Policy Statements. The applicant plans to open a restaurant within the existing,. structure. The structure was previouslyused as an insurance. office. SCANNED Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 1992 Page 2 The subject lot contains 8,400 square feet and has frontage along a major arterial, Everhart Road, and a local street, Janssen Drive. Shared driveway access from Everhart Road with the adjacent: lot, also owned by the applicant, is planned to minimize the number_ of driveways . One of the City's adopted policy statements indicate_ that the number of driveways on arterials should be reduced. Since the proposed use is to occupy an existing structure;.,. compliance with the landscape regulations is not required unless:: the parking area is increased by ten ( 10) parking spaces and is more than 10% of the existing parking in the street yard. The parking ratio for a restaurant is one ( 1) parking space for each 100 square feet of floor area. The existing 1,013 square foot:: building requires a minimum of ten ( 10) parking spaces for a restaurant. Currently, the site has 10 parking spaces . The requested "B-1" District is appropriate given its direct. access to an arterial. Adverse impacts to the single-family residential area adjacent to the east have been lessened with the 1990 "B-1" amendments eliminating auto and auto-related uses. The height permitted in the requested "B-1" District, is the same as permitted in the existing "AB" Professional Office District which: is three 3 stories . Therefore, the impact of the adjacent_ residential area from the potential height would not change. Mr. Gunning read to the Commission the pros and cons of this . application from the Staff Report (copy on file) . Nineteen notices were mailed, none were returned in favor and:. two in opposition. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Joe Garcia, 645 McCall, representing the applicants, stated that their intent is to turn the building into a restaurant. He submitted a site plan showing that the required parking will be available after the building in the rear is torn down. He also noted that two other parking spaces could be established in the.. front yard. He addressed the shared driveway issue, noting that,-. the site plan shows a new 18' driveway for egress only. Traffic-: Engineering has approved this driveway cut, which allows the- property to stand on its own if the owners desire to sell, they:- -- property. Even though landscaping is not required, the owners have. indicated that they will provide some landscaping. Mr. Garcia continued that two restaurant businesses were under consideration - a Mexican food restaurant which would operate.. between7:30 a.m. - 9 :00 p.m. , and a sandwich/hamburger shop which would operate from 10:00 a.m.- 9:00 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 1992 Page 3 Chairman Mims asked Mr. Garcia how will they enforce the one-- way ne -way driveway from Everhart. Mr.. Garcia responded that they will use signs, and whatever: else is necessary to make sure traffic exit on Janssen Street. Commissioner Hall asked if Staff's recommendation was based on shared access . Mr. Harvey responded that one of Staff 's concerns is to minimize driveway cuts . The applicant wants an 18' one-way driveway so that the property can stand alone. Staff is concerned with the number of driveways and routing of traffic. If they share a driveway with the adjacentproperty, customers could exit on Everhart using the other driveway, otherwise they will have to exit on Janssen Street. Vice Chairman Karm felt that this is a problem, noting that exiting traffic onto Janssen Street will be facing houses . Mr. Garcia responded that they could function with a shared driveway, eliminating the need for the 18' driveway. Also if the property is sold it would be based on a shared driveway. Commissioner Hall suggested tabling the application and let the applicants bring back to the Commission a more specific plan, for the Commission to consider a special permit. Vice Chairman Karm stated that the only problem he had with.. the request concerned the driveways, adding that he prefers a . shared driveway on Everhart, and no driveway on Janssen. Mr. Ernest Ramey, 4646 Lamont appeared in opposition, stating that traffic congestion has not been addressed. He noted that traffic is a problem on Everhart, and getting worse. He felt that a professional office would be more appropriate at this location, . and questioned what other businesses could operate from the building if the restaurants failed. He implored the Commission to consider the traffic congestion in the area. Mr. Jeremy Smith, 4814 Janssen, appeared in opposition,... statingthathe was concerned . with property values on adjoining_.._ properties . He was also concerned about traffic, pointing out that there is an existing traffic problem, and one more driveway would . very likely result in more wrecks . He questioned what would prevent other adjacent property owners from doing the same thing, resulting in a domino effect, and more parking on Janssen Street. Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 1992 Page 4 Ms . Mildred Tees, 4818 Janssen, appeared in opposition, and_ . expressed concern about debris from the proposed restaurant, and also was of the opinion that traffic would be horrendous . Mr. Neil Simmons, who built the original residence, appeared.. .. and stated that the intent was not to use the subject property for.::. commercial. He was of the opinion that an office usewould be a better use. Ms. Margaret Souby, 4814 Janssen appeared in opposition, and concurred with previous speakers regarding traffic. She questioned.. what guarantee there would be that the restaurant would remain, and other uses would not go in. She added that office use would not- generate as much traffic, and the hours would be 8, a.m. - 5 p.m:.. Mr. Jack O'Hara, 4334 Ocean Drive, and one of the principals- of the proposed project appeared and stated that they acquired two. properties next to each other. The other building is proposed for_. office use. He stated that accidents and cleanliness would be taken into consideration, and the neighbors concerns are also their= concerns. . Mr. Joseph Afram, 3833 Capri, also a principal of the proposed. project appeared and stated that there is nothing that they can do:. with the existing traffic on Everhart, and on Janssen. He was of:.. the opinion that 5-10 more cars on Janssen wouldnot be a problem, and pointed out that anyuse located on the subject property would generate traffic. Mr. Joe Garcia appeared again, and stated thathe understands:: the concerns of the neighborhood, but the owners want to make the: best use of the property. He pointed out some uses that could:: . locate on the property under the existing zoning such as a clinic, child care center, all of whichwould require parking. The, owners are not trying to create a problem, but to enhance the property. Ms. Teesappearedagain, stating that if the , restaurant is ' established, there willbe parking on Janssen Street down to her_-. home. She strongly objected to the rezoning. Vice Chairman Karm .stated that he had a problem with the 18' driveway. He suggested that the applicant close the Janssen Street.. driveway, share the driveway on Everhart, and screen the area along.., Janssen Drive. - Mr. Garcia responded that closing the Janssen Street driveway would present a circulation problem, and they do not want to stack traffic on Everhart Road. He added that the restaurant will- be- successful if people can get in and out with minimal problems. / Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 1992 Page 5 Chairman Mims asked Mr. Garcia if they would consider a special permit. Mr. Garcia responded in the affirmative, if that was the only-:; way they could make the restaurant viable. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Meinrath asked if it would be necessary to have an outlet on Janssen Street for emergency situations. Mr. Harvey responded thatit would not be required as long as, there is ingress and egress on Everhart. He added that it would-be::. beneficial for emergency access. Commissioner Hall was of the opinion that this area is note. suited for any zoning other than "AB" at this time. He stated that he would consider a special permit if the site plan is compatible. . Mr. Perez pointed out that even though access on Janssen could;:;:. be prohibited, parking on that street could not be stopped. Mr. Harvey suggested a one-way entrance driveway on Janssen,, which would pose less of a problem.. He pointed out that parking!- required for the proposed use would have to be located on the:-° subject property, and parking could not be shared with the adjacent... : . ' property. Mr. Garcia, indicated that the applicant is willing to meet::: with the Planning and Traffic Engineering Staff to work out some of: the problems . He noted that they want to be goodneighbors, and:.: they would be willing to accept a special permit if the Commission felt that "B-1" is not appropriate. Motion by Taylor, seconded by Hall, that this application be tabled, and that the applicant work with Staff to address the needs- of a special permit, and return to the Commission at the next:: . regular. meeting. Motion passed with Hall, Meinrath, Taylor, Karma and Mims voting aye, and. Canales, Sanchez, Sanderson and Wickham: _ being absent. Mr. Eric E. Eisenhauer: 692-6 REQUEST: From "R-1B" One-family Dwelling District to = " - : "AB" Professional Office District on Lot 2, Block 3, Castle Park Unit 1, located on the south side of Castle Park Drive,, approximately 150 feet west of Waldron Road. Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 1992 Page 6 Mr. Gunning described the land use and zoning in the surrounding area, and stated that the applicant is requesting: a...> change of zoning in order to construct a 2,800 square foot building:.. for a baton twirling, gymnastics and dance school. Theproperty is . currently undeveloped. Mr. Gunning summarized the Staff report, informing the Commission of applicable Policy Statements, and quoted from: the:.. Flour Bluff Plan. The applicant plans to operate a school of gymnastics, dance:. and baton twirling. The subject lot contains 22,214 square feet: It is bordered by single-family residences along the rear and west side, and a convenience store along the east side. Across Castle Park Drive from the subject propertyis an existing apartment complex and retail center, with frontage on Waldron Road: and Castle Park Drive, a local street. The adjacent convenience store and the strip retail center across the street would have more of an adverse impact on the subject property if developed with. single-family residences, than allowable "AB" uses. Approval of the requested "AB" District is the least intense.. non-residential district and would serve as a buffer between the - low-density residential and the more intense business district_ to . the north. Development in the "AB" District would require; construction and maintenance of a standard screening fence between:.:. the subject property and the single-family residences and: compliance with the landscape ordinance. The City's policy statements indicate that property converting from residential zoning to commercial uses should have a minimum-. area of 7,500. square feet and a minimum street frontage of 100. feet. The subject property has an area of 22, 214 square feet and a street frontage of 150 feet. 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: one in opposition, Staff recommends approval. Mr. Eric Eisenhauer, the applicant, appeared and stated that_. his wife will run the business . She has been involved with the:,: school and local business association. The requesteduse will: require 14 parking spaces . He pointed out that this location::is::: close to the school, which will enable students to walk to dance classesfrom the school. f - Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 1992 Page 7 No one appeared in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Taylor, seconded by Meinrath, that this application for "AB" Professional Office District be forwarded to the City_ Council with the recommendation that it be approved. Motion passed with Hall, Meinrath, Taylor, Karm and Mims voting aye, and Canales, Sanchez, Sanderson and Wickham being absent. City of Corpus Christi: C592-4 REQUEST: From "R-1B" One-family Dwelling District and "R-1C" One-family Dwelling District to "I-1" Light Industrial District, located on the southwest corner of N.A.S. Railroad and Airport Drainage Channel. Mr. Gunning informed the Commission that a public hearing was. held at their regular meeting of May 20, 1992, but due to incomplete notification, one property owner was not notified, hence this public hearing. Mr. Gunning reviewed the action that was taken at the last public hearing. The subject property contains 214 acres and is bounded on the. north by the proposed extension of Holly Road and railroad tracks. On its east boundary, is a local residential street, the Airport_ drainageway (80 feet r.o.w. ) and a 150 foot CP&L easement for- a::: high power transmission line. The southern boundary is a large proposed drainage facility (250-500 feet r.o.w. ) and the west boundary is a proposed arterial connecting Saratoga Boulevard and South Padre Island Drive. The subject area is zoned for low density residential, "R-1B" and "R-1C" , and the predominant land use is farming. A large CP&L tract developed with a substation located in the northeast corner at the juncture of Holly Road and the Airport Drainageway contains 14.1 acres and could be a minor deterrence to residential developmentwhen considered in conjunction with the drainageway and.: transmission line. Immediately across Holly Road from the CP&L substation and outside the subject area is the Nueces County Road Department property of 7 . 3 acres used for vehicle and equipment: storage. Two property owners of large tracts within the subject area recently discussed with Staff their concerns about rezoning, One owner of 124 acres indicated that he has consistently marketed this property for industrial development. During City Council's public Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 1992 Page 8 hearing on the Westside Area Development Plan (WSADP) , he requested . that the recommended residential land use be changed to light industrialbecause of the property's access to the railroad and the:.. Holly Road extension. The 124 acres are located between the. proposed drainageway to the south and Holly Road and railroad- tracks to the north. The CP&L substationabuts his property to the:.. northeast. Extending south from the substation along the east side. of the 124 acres is a 150 foot easement and high power transmission- line. These factors lead City Council to adopt industrial land:.. uses in the plan and specifically call for rezoning from residential to "I-2" . This property owner informed Staff that he is of the same opinion now. . The second owner of a 64 acre tract in the subject area, and 17 acres adjacent located between the existing drainageway and.. proposed arterial northwest of the subject property submitted written opposition to the rezonings . Although he stated that.. residential development in Area A and B (south of the railroad tracks) is unrealistic, additional time was needed to study other,. rezoning options. The WSADP land use designation and subsequent Staff rezoning___;. recommendations for. "I-2" Light Industrial District on Area B.2,.. (subject property) ; "B-3" Business District on Tract 1, Area A-, and "R-2" Multiple Dwelling District on Tracts 2, Area A, (adjacent-- to the northwest side of the subject property) provided a logicalLL. transitioninintensity of land uses south of the railroad and:- extending westerly from the Airport Drainageway to Old Brownsville.:. Road. The light industrial planned for Area B.2 is buffered fromv:. existing and planned residential areas by green space (CP&L.. easement) drainage right-of-way, and roadways. However, this does not necessarily mean other zoning scenarios might not be just as reasonable, provided the zoning for the entire area isunified as opposed to fragmented, as it currently exists. There is a possibility of unintentionally creating an isolated.; "I-2" District in Area A. If the City Council agrees with the:_ Planning Commission that the light industrial planned for Area B.2 be amended to low-density residential, thereby leaving, it zoned "RI-- 1B" R.1B" and "R-1C" , then an "I-2" in Area A would be bounded by "R-1B" zoning on all four sides . If the "R-2" and "B-3" on . Area A is approved, then. the- Planning Commission's recommendation to deny "I-2" on Area B.2, and - amend the Plan's land use designation to low-density residential.:_. would meet the fundamental planning principle of transitioning from:.' low to moderate to heavy intensity. uses. If "I-2" is approved. by Council, then industrial and single-family uses would abut each..... other. Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 1992 Page 9 If the "R-2" and "B-3" in Area A is denied, and an "I-2" in Area B.2 is approved, then there will remain a 21 acre strip of "R 1B" in Area A bounded by light industrial zoning on the east, west and north sides . Should this scenario occur, Staff would recommend.' following-up with rezoning of this "R-1B" strip to "I-2" or- possibly "B-3" since it would have frontage along the proposed. arterial. - Staff recommends that Area B. 2 be rezoned to "I-2" Light- Industrial District. Regarding Area A, Staff continues to recommend that Tract 1 be rezoned to "B-3" Business District. and.. Tract 2 be rezoned "R-2" Multiple Dwelling District with one modification. The strip of land between the existing drainageway- and proposedarterial within Tract 2 should be rezoned to "B-3." as: a separate future zoning action. The "B-3" would provide a more suitable buffer to the recommended "R-2" to the east and at the same time allow development of "B-3" uses consistent with the proposed "B-3" recommended for Tract 1 . . Forty notices were mailed, three were returned in favor, plus::._ one in favor from the subject property, and three in opposition, plus two in opposition from the subject property. Commissioner Hall asked if the arterial shown bisecting. the... tract through Padre Island Drive to the extension of Saratoga is. set in the Plan. Mr. Gunning responded that the proposed arterial is shown on-: the adopted Transportation Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Harveyadded that the question remains as to how many lanes the arterial will have. Mr. Bill Brown, 5734 Ocean Drive, appeared representing__. Peterson Properties Ltd. He quoted from the Southside Area, Development Plan and the Westside Area Development Plan, comparing both documents as to how growth will be facilitated. He was of the opinion that this rezoning is a test to see if property should be plucked from any Area Development Plans for rezoning, without-- allowing the owner to compete with their neighbors . He felt that the Staff is trying to reach 20 years into the future to implement zoning now, and asked the Commission to give the property owners-a.._ chance at developing their property. He questioned why all of a_: sudden the City was initiating rezoning in one Area Development'-`. Plan, and referenced the WSADP policy for rezoning. Mr. Brown was- of, the opinion that industry cannot absorb all the areas being zoned industrial. Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 1992 Page 10 Mr. N.O. Simmons, 1400 Ocean Drive, appeared and concurred with the previous speaker. He stated that he has over 100 homes in : Los Colonias for an investment of well over $2 million. He- developed a street on his property, and was told that when the: propertyon the other side of the proposed drainage facility was developed, there would be a boulevard with easements down the - center. He was of the opinion that the area is being secon& guessed as to how it is going to be developed. He was opposed to-,, the rezoning, and recommended that the Commission deny it. Mr. Chip Bonner, President of Petroquip appeared in: opposition, stating that in his opinion his landwill be farmed during his lifetime. He informed the Commission that he-- was,:. present only to protect his investment, and he was not sure what-. the proper use of the land is. He added that no one will know_;. until there are proposed uses, infrastructure is established, and- Holly Road is extended. Mr. Bonner continued that he purchasedthe land in 1984, and he has had one inquiry for residential use-.. Other inquiries have been for industrial use. He noted that there. are over 1500' of railroad frontage on his property, and he would rather zone his property with high zoning, and downzone later if it: so warrants. He questioned the purpose of rezoning the subject_. . property now, and informed the Commission if- they are going: to:: adopt zoning he would support "I-2" on his tract of land. Mr. Harvey explained that the rezoning is a recommendation of the City Council. He continued explaining, that since the City Charter. was amended . in 1977, it was the directive to do_-_ a-. Comprehensive Plan upon which to base Capital- Improvement Programs., planning and zoning. It is a requirement.'of State Law to do zoning--- based on a plan. The purpose of doing a Comprehensive Plan is- to be pro-active, and deviations are necessary from time to time. The Comprehensive Plan should be studied to see if deviation is: necessary, and if it is, how is it justified. Mr. Harvey explained that Staff originally recommended.' residential land use on the subject property, but at Mr. Bonner:.' request, City Council adopted industrial use, and requested Staf£_ to initiate a zoning changealong with the other areas identified:;" to be rezoned. He informed the Commission that the primary issue.- is ssue -is buffering. When the land use plan was strategized, there_ was_ a ' mixture of single-family and industrial. The Plan recommends transition interms of layering of . zoning._ If' the area stays_ residential, that would be conservative, but it is also unlikely, that the entire area would become industrial. Staff would prefer_. to. see the entire area stay "R-1B" , and consider future requests:, thereby minimizing abutting of "I-2" to single-family with no buffering. Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 1992 Page 11 Mr. Brown objected to what Mr. Harvey said, pointing out that. the Plan does not say that the subject property has to be rezoned. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Hall stated that he reviewed the minutes of the previous public hearing held on this application, and felt that the. wisdom of the Planning Commission came through very clear. The recommendation was to deny the request, which passed unanimously, with an additional recommendation to the City Council to amend the Westside Area Development Plan to keep the area low density residential. He was of the opinion that that was a. good. recommendation, and hoped that the Commission would pursue the same. recommendation. Commissioner Taylor stated that he had not changedhis position from the last public hearing, and felt that the plan should be amended to make sure that there is "R-1B" or R-2" for the area. Commissioner Meinrath concurred with statements from the other. Commissioners . Motion by Hall, seconded by Taylor, that this recommendation, for "I-2" Light Industrial District be forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation that it be denied, and further recommend that the Westside Area Development Plan be amended to be consistent with the original Planning Commission recommendation and: maintain this area as low density residential. Motion passed with Hall, Meinrath, Taylor, Karm and Mims voting aye, and Canales, Sanchez, Sanderson and Wickham being absent. NEW PLATS Consideration of plats as described on attached addendum. OTHER MATTERS Mr. Harvey reported City Council action on the following zoning application: Application 592-1 - CMS, A Texas Partnership . Approved as recommended by Staff and Planning Commission. MATTERS NOT SCHEDULED Chairman Mims informed the Commission that she had received a. letter from the City Secretary that Commissioners Hall, Canales and. Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 1992 Page 12 Taylor are eligible for reappointment to. the Commission. Commissioners Hall and Taylor expressed a desire to be appointed. Chairman Mims will contact Commissioner Canales to find out if he wants to be reappointed to the Commission. * *. * * * * * * * * * * Mr. Harvey informed the Commission that Staff has not received any plat or zoning applications forthe next regular scheduled meeting of July 1, 1992 . He gave them the option ofcancelingthe. meeting, or holding a work session. Motion by Hall, seconded be Meinrath and passed with Canales, Sanchez, Sanderson and Wickham beingabsent, that the regular meeting of July 1, 1992 be canceled. EXCUSED ABSENCE Motion by Hall, seconded by Taylor, and passed with Canales, Sanchez, Sanderson and Wickham being absent, and Meinrath abstaining, that Commissioner Meinrath be excused from the regular meeting of June 3, 1992 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES No action was taken on approving the minutes of, June 3, 1992 . because there werenotsufficient members present at this meeting who were present at the June 3, 1992 meeting. Action will be taken at the next regular meeting of July 15, 1992. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9 :50 p.m. 440, A/J andol M. Harvey "" Marcia Cooper ' • Director of Planning Recording Secretary Executive Secretary to Planning Commission . Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 1992 Page 13 NEW PLATS Addendum to minutes of consideration of plats . 1. 059235-P14 Fallin's Riverside Subdivision, Block 17, Lots 2 and 3 (Final replat - 1 . 25 acres) Located east of Callicoate Road (F.M. 1694) and north of Hearn Road Owner - Ricardo Mireles, Jr. , and Brenda F. Mireles Engineer - Voss and Voss Mr. Gunning stated that there are 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 Karm, seconded by Hall, and passed with: Canales, Sanchez, Sanderson and Wickham being absent, that this plat be approved as submitted. 2. 059236-P15 The Lakes Unit 5, (Preliminary - 143 . 43 acres ) Located north of Oso Creek immediately west of the developed, portion of The Lake Units 2 and 4 Owner - Diamond L. Investments, Inc. Engineer - Urban Engineering Mr. Gunning stated that there are 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 Hall, and passed with. Canales, Sanchez, Sanderson and Wickham being absent, that . __ _, this plat be approved as submitted. 3 . 059237-P16 Seabreeze Estates (Preliminary - 7 acres) Located west of Flour Bluff Drive and north of Glen Oak Drive Owner - R.F. Hughes, Inc. Engineer - Urban Engineering Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 1992 Page 14 Mr. Gunning stated that there are 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, and passed with Canales, Sanchez, Sanderson and Wickham being absent, that this plat be approved as submitted. 4 . 059238-NP22 Seabreeze Estates, Block 1, Lot 1 (Final - 1 acre) Located west of Flour Bluff Drive and north of Glen Oak Drive Owner - R.F. Hughes, Inc Engineer - Urban Engineering Mr. Gunning stated that there are no conditions remaining on this plat, and 'Staff 'recommends approval as submitted. No one appeared in favoror in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Karm, seconded by Taylor, and passed with Canales, Sanchez, Sanderson and Wickham being absent, that this plat be approved as submitted. 5 . 069241-NP24 River Ridge Estates (Preliminary 59 . 850 acres) Located south of F.M. 624 between Hazel Bazemore Road (County Road 69) and River East Drive Owner - Center Court Development Corporation' Engineer - RDC Shearer, Inc. Mr. Gunning stated that there are no conditions remaining on this plat, and Staff recommends approval. _ . Staff also recommends that the applicant follow-up with a rezoning application to single-family to protect future residents from commercial encroachments prior to replatting. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Meinrath, seconded by Taylor, and passed with Canales, Sanchez, Sanderson and Wickham being absent, that this plat be approved as submitted. Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 1992 Page 15 6 . 069242-NP25 River Ridge Estates, Block 8, Lots 1A-12A (Final replat -- 4. 074 acres) Located south of Riverway Drive between River Run Road and.-. Riverside Boulevard Owner - Centre Court Development Corporation Engineer - RDC Shearer, Inc. Mr. Gunning stated that there are no conditions remaining . on this plat, but Staff recommends tabling pending: interpretation from the Legal Department as to whether this plat can be approved prior to being rezoned for single-family use consistent with the replat. No one appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Karm, seconded by Taylor, and passed with Canales, Sanchez, Sanderson and Wickham being absent, that this plat be tabled. 7 . 069243-NP26 Saratoga Staples Plaza, Block 2, Lot 2 , (Final - 2 . 08 acres) Located north of Spohn Drive and east of South Staples Street (F.M. 2444 ) Owner - Shell Land Management Company, Inc. Engineer - Urban Engineering Mr. Gunning stated that there are 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 Karm, and passed with: Canales, Sanchez, Sanderson and Wickham being absent, that.. this plat be approved as submitted. 8 . 069244-NP27 Sturm Tract, Lots E-1 and E-2 (Final replat - 2. 189 acres) Located south of Leopard Street and east of Westchester Drive Owner - Bob Litchfield and Mac Armstrong Engineer - Maverick Mr. Gunning stated that there are no conditions remaining on this plat, and Staff recommends approval as submitted. Planning Commission Meeting June 17, 1992 Page. 16 No one appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Meinrath, seconded by Hall, and passed with. Canales, Sanchez,. Sanderson and .Wickham being absent, that this plat be approved as submitted. TABLED PLATS A. 059229-NP19 Deer Creek Subdivision, O.C.L. (Preliminary - 374 .44 acres) Located south of South Staples Street (F.M. 2444) and east of Oso Creek This plat was initially tabled by the Planning Commission at the applicant's request on May 20, 1992 for two weeks, and again on June 3, 1992. Mr. Gunning stated that Staff recommends that this item remain on the table. He was of the opinion that the applicant may withdraw the plat. B. 059239-NP23 Wooldridge Creek Unit 6, Block 8, Lot 5A (Final replat - 5.75 acres) Bounded by Airline Road on the east, Cimarron Boulevard on the southeast, and Misty Meadow Road on the southwest. Mr. . Gunning stated that the Planning Commission tabled this plat at the last meeting at the owner's request, and needs to be removed from the table so that Planning Commission can take action. Motion by Karm, seconded by Taylor. and passed with. Canales, Sanchez, Sanderson and Wickham being absent, that . this plat be removed from the table. Mr. Gunning stated that this plat is ready for approval, . as submitted. Motion by Taylor, seconded by Hall that this plat be approved as submitted. Motion passed with Canales, Sanchez, Sanderson and Wickham being absent. . (E254MC)