Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 04/08/1992 MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL APRIL 8, 1992 - 6:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Karm, Vice-Chairman Robert Canales Ralph Hall Alma Meinrath • Jake Sanchez Lamont Taylor MEMBERS ABSENT: Shirley Mims, Chairman William Sanderson Ro Wickham STAFF PRESENT: Brandol M. Harvey, AIA, AICP Director of Planning & Development Erma Ramirez, Recording Secretary Michael Gunning, Senior City Planner Robert Payne, AICP, Senior City Planner Ruben Perez,Assistant City Attorney CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairman Karm called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. and explained the procedure to be followed. PUBLIC HEARING Mr.Jeronimo Penaflor: 492-1 REQUEST: From "R-1B" One-family Dwelling District to "B-1" Neighborhood Business District on Lot 1, Block 1, Roseland Place, located on the east corner of Home Road and Prescott Street. 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 snowcone sales store on the premise. The property is currently occupied by his single-family residence and detached garage. Mr. Gunning summarized the Staff Report, stated the applicable Policy Statements, and quoted from the Westside Area Development Plan. The subject property is located at the intersection of an arterial (Home Road) and a local residential street (Prescott Street). This property and the block in which it is located is zoned and developed with single- family residences. The properties on the remaining three(3) corners are zoned a"B-1"District. The requested "B-1" District on the subject property can be distinguished from the "B-1" Districts across Home Road and Prescott Street by its insufficient frontage along an arterial, total lot area, and the solid residential uses surrounding it on the rest of the block. The existing buildings also do not meet the setback requirements for commercial zoning. SCANNED Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1992 Page 2 The Policy Statements state that a property being considered for rezoning from residential to commercial should have at least 100 feet of street frontage and 7,500 square feet in area. Although the subject property has more than 100 feet of street frontage due to its corner location, the policy intent was to locate the 100 foot frontage along an arterial. The subject property has approximately 55 feet of frontage along an arterial. Regarding lot area, the property only has an area of 6,000 square feet or 1,500 square feet less than the recommended minimum area for commercial properties. If the applicant is granted a"B-1" District to convert his detached garage of 300 square feet for a commercial use, snow cone sales, then he will be required to meet the setback and parking requirements. The "B-1" District requires a 10 foot side yard and rear yard setback and a 20 foot front yard setback. The existing garage structure is currently set back 17 feet from Prescott Street and 5 feet from the rear property line, therefore, the existing setbacks are not in compliance with the setback requirements for commercial buildings. The parking requirement for the commercial use will be two (2) additional spaces for a total of four (4) spaces on site. The existing two(2)bedroom residence requires a minimum of two(2) spaces. Although the applicant has indicated there is sufficient area to accommodate four (4) parking spaces between the house and garage, the existing driveway along Prescott Street would most likely need to be widened to commercial driveway standards in order to provide access to the parking area. The requested "B-1" District is inconsistent with the adopted area development plan land use, the city policy guidelines for rezoning residential properties for commercial uses,and would create an incompatible commercial use along with nonconforming setbacks within a developed single-family residential block. The conversion of the garage would not require compliance with the Landscape Ordinance. Staff is of the opinion that a rezoning should not allow this to occur. Mr. Gunning read to the Commission the pros and cons of this application from the Zoning Staff. , Report (copy on file). Staff recommends denial. Nineteen notices were mailed to property owners within a 200' radius of the subject property, of which one was returned in favor plus a notice in favor from the applicant. Mr.Jeronimo Peiiaflor,the applicant,appeared and stated he would like the opportunity for his family to survive economically since it is hard to fmd jobs. He urged the Commission to approve his request. Mr. Gunning explained that Mr. Peiiaflor had difficulty speaking English, therefore,would need help with his translation. With Commissioner Canales translating for the applicant,Mr.Penaflor further explained that he could do a little construction to the side of the garage to comply with the parking needs and may change the use of the house. Everything around his house was zoned"B-1". No one appeared in favor or in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Sanchez questioned why the four residential lots across the street from Hi Balloons were zoned "B-1", although not used commercially. Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1992 Page 3 Mr. Brandol Harvey, Director of Planning and Development, explained that the first two lots are used commercially, and the next two lots, although zoned "B-1", are used residentially along with the remainder of the block. Commissioner Sanchez stated, that since there are several lots zoned"B-1" on Home Road, and since that street was very highly trafficked, he was of the opinion that Staff should consider zoning the whole street 'B-1". Mr. Harvey commented stated that the applicant is trying to do a "little bit" of commercial within a residential block and between two houses, including his own. That would only transition a residential area to commercial little by little, and slowly deteriorate the block particularly the adjacent house. If someone could come up with 2 or 3 lots and rezone commercially with proper curb cuts, access, etc., then commercial would make more sense. The applicant is not proposing to do a lot of damage, but on the other hand, he is not proposing to do a commercial use that warrants rezoning. There is substantial commercial land in the neighborhood available for development. Mr.Harvey felt that there is a large amount of vacant neighborhood business already zoned"B-1",which reduces the need to rezone the subject from residential lot to commercial. Commissioner Sanchez questioned if the applicant had a concession truck,would there be any way to grandfather in a home occupation. Mr.Harvey replied negatively,explaining that retail business does not fall under the definition of home occupation. Commissioner Taylor inquired about the possibility of a Special Permit for that use only. Mr. Harvey stated that Staff had considered the possibility of a Special Permit, but unfortunately the configuration of the lot and location of the buildings,would not meet the setback requirements for a commercial use. Because of that, it would be difficult to mitigate the use. Furthermore, to allow the change of use is desirable only if it enhances the neighborhood as stated in one of the policy statements. Commissioner Canales expressed concern over the safety of the neighborhood children. The commercial use would increase the traffic and add to the existing problem. Commissioner Hall concurred with the Staff's recommendation, and felt that if the applicant went through with his plan, he would spend a lot of money and wind up with something that is very imperfect. The safety of school children crossing the street was considered a real safety concern. He strongly urged the applicant to workout a temporary lease with a vacant business zoned property,which could possibly work out to be a lot less investment and far more effective. Motion by Sanchez,seconded by Taylor,that this application for'B-1" Neighborhood Business District be forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation that it be denied. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Harvey commented that Staff would spend time with the applicant explaining the Commission's recommendation and options. Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1992 Page 4 NEW PLATS Consideration of plats described on attached addendum. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1) Proposed amendment to the Platting Ordinance No. 4168 as amended establishes minimum requirements for street pavement design. The proposed amendment deletes Section V B-1 (a),(b),and (e), adopts an amended Section V-B-1 (a), (b), and (c) and renumbers the remaining subsections Section V B-1 (c), (d),and (0 as (f), (g), and (h) respectively. Mr. Carl Crull, Director of Engineering Services, made the presentation proposing an amendment to the Platting Ordinance that establishes requirements for street pavement design. He stated that the current pavement section provisions of the Platting Ordinance provide for typical minimum cross sections irrespective of traffic loads or roadbed soils. The present requirements place all developments on equal basis for street costs. However,the existing requirements fail to require the investigation of soil conditions,traffic analysis,and incorporation of material properties in the design. The Platting Ordinance requires a minimum street pavement cross section consisting of a 1-1/2 inch asphalt surface with 6 inches of caliche for local streets or 2 inch asphalt surface with 8 inches of caliche for collectors adjacent to commercial or industrial land use, regardless of soil conditions or traffic analysis. The Platting Ordinance allows the use of sand-shell base in sandy soils such as found in Padre Island. Cement stabilized sand is used since sand-shell material is no longer available. By contrast, street improvement projects included in the City's Capital Improvement Program are designed utilizing a pavement design procedure which recognizes variations in traffic loadings, soil conditions and other relevant factors. This procedure provides guidelines to follow to ensure an adequate'long lasting pavement. Pavement structures are layered systems designed to distribute concentrated traffic loads to the subgrade. The performance of a pavement structure is directly proportional to the physical properties and conditions of the roadbed soils. Nueces County soils are characterized by construction difficulties associated with compaction of cohesionless. sands and wet, highly plastic clays. Sands are most difficult to place and compact because they do not contain enough fine material for binding. Soils with plastic clay impede internal drainage, have low stability when wet and are characterized with a high shrink/swell potential. The general public incurs the consequences of inadequate street pavement design, either in spending too muchto maintain it at a minimal conditional level, or by the street deteriorating beyond the point where it serves its purpose safely. The result of the current pavement requirements are readily apparent to varying degrees in subdivisions completed in the past 5-10 years. The proposed amendment establishes requirements for pavement design, but does not dictate procedures; it identifies required elements of the design process while providing for equivalent alternate pavement sections. The selection of an equivalent alternate section is a function of the availability of material and comparative costs. We anticipate submitting this proposal at the next scheduled meeting for your recommendation for adoption. Presentation before City Council is tentatively scheduled for May 5, 1992. Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1992 Page 5 Commissioner Hall questioned who,other than the developers,would possibly oppose the amendment. Mr.Crull responded that,if adopted, any new subdivisions would be required to meet the new criteria. The higher cost would be passed on to the builder, who, in turn, would pass on the cost to the lot buyer. Commissioners Karm and Canales both concurred that some of the new subdivision streets and sidewalks are already experiencing some difficulties within one year. After a brief discussion over the deterioration of city streets and the excessive work load of inspectors, it was the consensus of the Commission to hold a public hearing in order to have input from various organizations and builders. Mr. Harvey stated that April 22, 1992 would be a good date since there were no zoning cases to be heard at that time. Motion by Commissioner Canales, seconded by Karm, that the Platting Ordinance amendment be scheduled for Planning Commission hearing on April 22, 1992. Motion passed with Karm, Canales, Hall, Meinrath, Sanchez and Taylor voting aye, and Mims, Sanderson, and Wickham being absent. The meeting recessed at 7:40 p.m. and reconvened at 7:50 p.m. 2) Port/Airport/Violet Area Development Plan and action to set a public hearing date. Mr. Harvey introduced Mr. Bob Payne, Senior City Planner, to make the presentation for the Port/Airport/Violet Area Development Plan. Mr. Payne made a brief summary explaining that the Comprehensive Plan is a product of various plan titles such as Policy Statements, Area Development Plans, Capital Improvement Programs, and Master Utility Plans. The comprehensive planning process is a means whereby citizens and community leaders guide community development. The Comprehensive Plan, by definition, is general, long range, and broad in scope. To help formulate the Comprehensive Plan, City Council divided the city and its environs into 13 Area Development Plan study areas. Mr. Payne continued stating that the Port/Airport/Violet Development Plan Area is bounded on the north by the Nueces River, on the east by North Padre Island Drive, Old Brownsville Road and F.M. 763; the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and F.M.43 from the southern boundary;and the western boundary follows County Roads 36 and 38, State Highway 44, F.M. 24, McNorton Road (extended), F.M.2292, I-37, and Carbon Plant Road. Mr. Payne presented the various future expansion plans for the Airport, and the possible acquisition of land to protect the Airport. Commissioner Karm inquired about the funding source for the acquisition of land around the Airport and also the plans for expansion. Mr. Harvey stated that one of the main sources of funding would be the Federal Aviation Administration monies plus some monies generated from the Passenger Facility Fee which could generate about $1 million dollars a year. Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1992 Page 6 Mr.Payne depicted on various maps the proposed Transportation Plan,the Loop Concept,and policies relating to pipeline hazards. Commissioner Hall questioned if the Plan would protect the port industry encroaching into the residential area. Mr.Payne stated in the affirmative, and pointed to I.H.37 as having no residential area although there were a couple of areas where there are land use compatibility problems, such as the Buddy Lawrence area. Mr. Harvey explained that the City had no zoning control over areas located outside the City limits. The only tool the City has to prevent residential development in industrial areas was the platting process. If someone were to take a 20-acre tract outside the City limits and tried to replat it for single-family, the Planning Commissioncould deny the request if it would be contrary to the Plan. Mr.Payne added that unfortunately,all that land was already platted,but because there is a school and is already established as a residential area, Staff thought to leave it residential. Mr. Harvey commented that Mr. Payne's comment was to property inside the City, not outside. Although this is a Plan that looks at 20 years,it is also a Plan that is based on all the characteristics as they exist today. Even though the neighborhoods look pretty stable now, they might start to deteriorate and succumb to the pressure of the industries. If the area changes over the next 5 years,the Plan may need to be changed. That is why we have committed to reevaluate the plans at least every 5 years. Mr. Payne stated that Staff is preparing to hold a public hearing on April 22, 1992. OTHER MATTERS Mr. Harvey stated the following City Council actions: Case No. 392-1 Mt. Zion Baptist Church, Inc.: Approved as recommended by Staff and Planning Commission. Case No. 392-2 Nueces County Jail Annex: Denied "B-4", and in lieu thereof, approved a Special Permit for a county jail subject to two conditions. Comprehensive Plan Preservation Plan: Approved after three readings, with the deletion of Policy Statement A-7, relating to a tax abatement program. MATTERS NOT SCHEDULED None. EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Hall's absence was excused from the March 25, 1992 meeting due to illness. Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1992 Page 7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved, seconded, and passed that the minutes of the regular meeting of March 25, 1992 be approved as submitted. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. / // .JA..44,vini (//"-/)-yd_ Srandol M. Harvey Erma Ramirez Director of Planning Recording Secretary Executive Secretary to Planning Commission (E:MINUTES.PC) Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1992 Page 8 NEW PLATS 039216-P8 LADY LEX SUBDIVISION (FINAL REPLAT - 11.78 ACRES) Extending from North Shoreline Boulevard easterly and southerly into Corpus Christi Bay north of the breakwater on the north side of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel. Owner - The City of Corpus Christi Engineer - Urban Engineering Mr.Gunningstated that there are no conditions remaining on this plat,and Staff recommends approval as submitted. No one appeared in favor or in opposition. The public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Canales,seconded by Sanchez,that this plat be approved as submitted. Motion passed with Karm, Canales, Hall, Meinrath, Sanchez, and Taylor voting aye, and Mims, Sanderson, and Wickham being absent. 039219-P9 WILLOWOOD UNIT V-A, BLOCK 10, LOTS 8A & 8B (FINAL REPLAT - 0.500 ACRE) Located northeast of Willowood Creek Drive west of Violet Road. Owner -James R. Cameron Engineer - Bass & Welsh 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. The public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Hall, seconded by Canales, that this plat be approved as submitted. Motion passed with Karm, Canales, Hall, Meinrath, Sanchez, and Taylor voting aye, and Mims, Sanderson, and Wickham being absent. 029221-NP11 SHERWOOD PARK UNIT 3, LOT C (FINAL REPLAT - 0.52 ACRE) Located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Weber Road and Gollihar Road. Owner - Gandy-Robertson, Inc. Engineer - Urban Engineering Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1992 Page 9 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. The public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Canales,seconded by Meinrath,that this plat be approved as submitted. Motion passed with Karm, Canales, Hall, Meinrath, Sanchez, and Taylor voting aye, and Minis, Sanderson, and Wickham being absent. TIME EXTENSION A. 099148-P26 SOUTHMORELAND ADDITION, BLOCK 11, LOT 6A (FINAL REPLAT - 0.07 ACRES) Located north of Norton Street and east of Ayers Street. Mr.Gunning stated that the owner of this plat is requesting a six-month time extension in order to meet the conditions that remain on the plat. Staff recommends approval. Motion by Sanchez,seconded by Hall,that a six-month time extension be granted on this plat. Motion passed with Karm,Canales,Hall,Meinrath,Sanchez,and Taylor voting aye,and Mims,Sanderson and Wickham being absent. (E:MINUTES.PC)