Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 11/20/1991 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL NOVEMBER 20, 1991 - 6 : 30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Shirley Mims, Chairman Mike Karm, Vice Chairman Ralph Hall Jake Sanchez Lamont Taylor MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Hoelscher Alma Meinrath William Sanderson Ro Wickham STAFF PRESENT: Brandol M. Harvey, AIA, AICP Director of Planning and Development Marcia Cooper, Recording Secretary Michael Gunning, Senior Planner Faryce Goode-Macon, City Planner CALL TO ORDER Chairman Mims called the meeting to order and described the procedure to be followed. PUBLIC HEARING NEW PLATS Consideration of plats as described on attached addendum. TABLED DISCUSSION ITEM Mr. Harvey explained to the Commission what the Preservation Plan is, and how it fits into the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the Staff has spent the last year creating a draft Preservation Plan with the Landmark Commission, to address the objectives and establish the intent of a Preservation Plan that the City Council can review, adopt, and give Staff the direction to go ahead with proposed legislation to implement plan recommendations for the Planning Commission and City Council adoption. He introduced Ms . Faryce Goode-Macon, City Liaison to the Landmark Commission, to make the presentation. Ms . Goode-Macon explained that the subject Preservation Plan is proposed by Staff and has been reviewed and accepted by the Landmark Commission, which reviews historic resources . The Plan addresses the following 5 major areas : SCANNED Planning Commission Meeting November 20, 1991 Page 2 1 ) Surveying all potential historic resources in Corpus Christi, which the Landmark Commission is currently accomplishing with the assistance of a consultant; 2) Establishing policies in which a new "HC" zoning district could be developed. This revised district would provide various types of controls for resources; 3) A local tax exemption program could be considered for properties willing to restore and designate historic elements . Properties would receive a ten year tax freeze rate if such property underwent restoration. The property would be annually reviewed by the Building Division to evaluate the percentage of the restoration. After the ten year period, the normal tax rate for the property would begin; 4 ) Currently, the "HC" Zoning Ordinance allows for a 240 day stay of demolition regardless if property threatens the health, safety and welfare of the property. The proposed policy would suggest limiting the time to 120 days, and allows demolition regardless of timeline if public safety is at jeopardy; 5 ) Properties surveyed as potential landmarks could be protected by a 30 day stay of demolition even though they are not actually designated "HC" . This provision would allow the Landmark Commission to consult with the property owner in an attempt to save the structure by means of finding funding to restore, or a buyer for the property who could restore it. Staff and the Landmark Commission concur with all the proposed policies except for a concern as to how grounds of private structure may be regulated. Staff does not want parking to be regulated unless it is understood that the number of parking spaces cannot be altered by the Landmark Commission, but the location of the parking lot may be relocated. Other than that clarification, Staff and the Landmark Commission concur with all other points of the Plan. Ms . Goode-Macon added that at the Landmark Commission meeting held earlier in the day, the Landmark Commission concurred that Planning Commission Meeting November 20, 1991 Page 3 they did not desire to regulate parking reduction, but would like to address relocation of parking. In answer to a question from Commissioner Taylor, Ms . Peggy Clark, President of the Landmark Commission, affirmed that the Commission did not want to regulate parking, but rather would like to have the option to relocate parking. In answer to a question from Commissioner Hall, Mr. Harvey replied that the Landmark Commission could pursue rezoning of property, but would require the property owner's participation to put it into effect. Preservation has some public purposes, and many times through the process, property owners are convinced to pursue preservation of their structure, that they might not otherwise do. Commissioner Hall referred to other historical preserved districts in Texas, and asked what would happen in an instance where a neighborhood qualifies for designation, but some property owners do not want to participate. Mr. Harvey responded that State regulations would have to be followed as to what constitutes the rezoning area. Staff is trying to aggregate districts to pursue the Comprehensive Plan objectives . Chairman Mims referred to Page 14 of the proposed Plan, and asked for an explanation of the following criteria: "K) Valued as an aspect of community sentiment or public pride; " . Mr. Harvey responded that it is a subjective criteria, and gave the Water Gardens as an example. Commissioners concurred that this item should be placed on the Planning Commission's agenda for December 4, 1991 for public hearing. OTHER MATTERS A. Mr. Harvey reported City Council action on the following zoning applications: 1091-4 Zelda B. Clary - Special Permit with conditions . Commissioner Hall was of the opinion that the hearing at City Council on this particular zoning application abused the process . He stated that Ms . Clary gave a different presentation to the City Council than Planning Commission Meeting November 20, 1991 Page 4 she gave to the Planning Commission, and felt that the City Council got a distorted picture of the application. He elaborated on the hearing at City Council, pointing out comments made by Councilmember Slavik, and felt that she became an adversary of the Staff . He felt that the applicant stood before the Planning Commission and City Council and made statements that were not true, and the City Council was highly influenced by them. Mr. Harvey felt that City Council members realize that a grain of salt has to be taken with a lot of things that are said in public hearings. Apparently, some Council members are contacted before they have access to Planning Commission and Staff 's recommendation. He was of the opinion that there was no breach of ethics, or violation of the process, but there may have been some discussion that did not do justice to the public hearing process . Commissioner Taylor questioned if Council members read the minutes of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Sanchez felt that there was a breach of rules and order. He was of the opinion that applicants have the right to contact Council members before the public hearing, and pointed out that Council Members have a different role from Planning Commissioners . He felt there was no impropriety. Commissioner Hall felt that there had been an improper use of the process, and that the process was abused. 1091-5 Enrique M. Vasquez, Jr. - As recommended by Planning Commission 1091-6 H.C. Kaffie - Approved 1091-7 Yolanda Reyes - Denied the request. The property will remain "B- 1" , which will allow her to have moderate food sales and sell liquor. B. Motion by Hall, seconded by Karm, that the January 1, 1992 Planning Commission meeting be canceled. Motion passed with Hall, Sanchez, Taylor, Karm and Mims voting aye, Hoelscher, Meinrath, Sanderson and Wickham being absent. C. Mr. Harvey reviewed the fundamental issues regarding non- conforming regulations, and stated how non-conforming uses are created. He pointed out that once a non-conforming use goes to a conforming use, it cannot revert to the non-conforming Planning Commission Meeting November 20, 1991 Page 5 use. If the property is vacated and no other use is established, then a period of one year has to pass before the grandfather status is lost. Mr. Harvey continued that Staff is pursuing text amendments that are used in other cities that states if the public wants a non-conforming use to terminate, then the public can petition the City Council to terminate the use. The use will be evaluated, and City Council can approve an amortization schedule for phasing out the business . Commissioner Taylor asked who will be the public. Mr. Harvey responded that some as yet undetermined number of citizens will make up the petitioners . In most cases, the petition has to indicate how the public is harmed. Mr. Harvey stated that Staff is studying to see if some objectives to the Comprehensive Plan would be pursued by this new tool. If Staff can work out a draft that is legally correct, there will be a discussion and public hearing at Planning Commission, and then a public hearing at City Council. Commissioner Sanchez felt that there are two different issues : 1 ) the ability to protect the public through the zoning process; and 2) the City Charter allows 5 people to start a petition on any adopted ordinance. Commissioner Sanchez felt that that part of the Charter needs to be changed. Commissioner Taylor commented that they might be tied together, but Mr. Harvey disagreed. Mr, Harvey stated that the petition process for amortization of non-conforming uses would be to accelerate the rate of the property coming into compliance. Commissioner Hall was of the opinion that 90% of non- conforming cases might fit the characteristic of nuisance. Planning Commission Meeting November 20, 1991 Page 6 MATTERS NOT SCHEDULED Vice Chairman Karm suggested that each Planning Commission meeting start with the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Harvey informed the Commission that it would take a motion to change the Rules and Procedures of the Planning Commission, and to place it on the next Planning Commission agenda for action. Motion by Karm, seconded by Hall, that an item be placed on the next Planning Commission agenda for action that the Rules and Procedures of the Planning Commission be change to reflect that each Planning Commission meeting start with the Pledge of Allegiance. Motion passed with Hall, Sanchez, Karm and Mims voting aye, Taylor voting nay, and Hoelscher, Meinrath, Sanderson and Wickham being absent. EXCUSED ABSENCE Motion by Taylor, seconded by Karm that Commissioner Hoelscher be excused from this meeting. Motion passed with Hall, Sanchez, Taylor, Karm and Mims voting aye, and Hoelscher, Meinrath, Sanderson and Wickham being absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Hall, seconded by Taylor, that the minutes of the regular meeting of November 6, 1991 be approved. Motion passed with Hall, Sanchez, Taylor, Karm and Mims voting aye, Hoelscher, Meinrath, Sanderson and Wickham being absent. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7 .42 P.M. • ,///1/3: la-14-664 Bragdol M. H ry y Marcia Cooper ' Director of Planning and D elopment Recording Secretary Executive Secretary to Pla ing Commission f . Planning Commission Meeting November 20, 1991 Page 7 NEW PLATS Addendum to minutes of consideration of plats . 1 . 109156-P30 Molina Subdivision No. 2, Block 10, Lots 22A & 22B (Final Replat - 0 .46 acre) Located west of Barrera Drive and north of West Point Road Owner - Juan Gamboa & Irene Cabrera Engineer - RDC Shearer, Inc. 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 Taylor,., that this plat be approved as submitted. Motion passed with Hall, Sanchez, Taylor, Karm and Mims voting aye, Hoelscher, Meinrath, Sanderson and Wickham being absent. (E155MC)