Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 05/22/1991 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL MAY 22, 1991 - 6 :30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Shirley Mims, Chairman Lamont Taylor, Vice Chairman * Elizabeth C. Hoelscher Mike Karm Alma Meinrath Jake Sanchez William Sanderson Ro Wickham MEMBERS ABSENT: Ralph Hall STAFF PRESENT: Brandol M. Harvey, AIA, AICP- Director of Planning 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 :30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING NEW ZONINGS . Mr. Kenneth Gunderland: 591-2 REQUEST: From "R-1B" One-family. -Dwelling District with . a "SP" Special Permit to "I-3" Heavy Industrial District on Lots 8, 9 , and 10, Share 3A, Kaler Tract, located on the northeast corner- of Kaler and Rackley Drives . Mr. Gunning described the land use and zoning in - the . surrounding area, -and stated that the applicant is requesting a zoning change to legitimize using this area for parking, storage of trucks, boats and trailers, and sale of used boats . The property is currently occupied by parking, outdoor storage and undeveloped land. - Mr. Gunning summarized the Staff Report, informing the Commission of the applicable_ Policy Statements . Theapplicant is requesting "I-3" Heavy Industrial District to continue parking company trucks, employee vehicles, trailers and * Commissioner Hoelscher arrived at 6 :37 p.m. - SCANNED Planning Commission Meeting May 22, 1991 Page 2 used boats and selling used boats, on a limited basis . A Special Permit was approved in November 1977 for 37 employeeparking spaces. The site plan associated with that"SP" indicated that the front 80 feet from Rackley Drive were to be landscaped. The property does not have any landscaping. Commissioner Hoelscher arrived at this time. The applicant is requesting an "I-3" District consistent with his adjacent property to the north currently used for boat repair, part sales, offices, and a ship chandlery. An unrestricted "I-3" District permits outside storage, auto salvage yards, refinery type uses and other uses incompatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood to the south. Indications are that this area will eventually transition to nonresidential uses, however, since it is the City' s .Policy that residential neighborhoods be protected, the remaining residential uses should be buffered during this transition process . • Allowances could be made to permit the applicant to expand the existing business while protecting the neighborhood. The subject property currently has the right to employee parking. Allowing the parking of boat trailers, boats and company trucks and the sale of used boats, in addition to the employee vehicles, would not increase the impact on thesurrounding residences.. To ensure that the impact is contained, an eight ( 8 ) foot tall standard screening fence should be required. With the screening fence, the proposed uses would be buffered from the surrounding residential uses . To reduce the traffic associated with the proposed uses along Kaler Drive, the subject property should not be permitted access from Kaler Drive. Access should be limited to Rackley Drive and traffic oriented towards Cantwell Drive. Mr. Gunning read to the Commission the pros and cons of this application from the Staff Report (copy on file) . Eight notices were mailed, two were returned in favor and none in opposition.' Staff recommends denial of "I-3" Heavy Industrial District, and in lieu thereof, approve a special permit for parking of employee and company vehicles, .storage of boats and boat trailers, and sale of used boats, subject to an approved site plan, and the following conditions : 1) Uses: The only uses authorized by this Special Permit other than the basic "R-1B" One-family Dwelling District is a parking lot limited to employee vehicles and company trucks, storage of boats and boat trailers, and the sale of used boats . The maintenance or repair of any fj, • • • Planning Commission Meeting . ,,:, May 22, _ 1991 Page 3 • • vehicles, boat or trailer. and the stacking of trailers exceeding the elevation of the fence are .not permitted; 2) Screening: An eight (8) foot tall standard screening fence- shall be installed and. maintained. along the east property line and along the Kaler Drive and Rackley Drive frontages . The fence must be set back- (5) feet from the Kaler-Drive and. Rackley Drive rights-of-way and may not extend into .the obstruction triangle. The gate must be of the same screening material -as the fence; . - 3) Access: Vehicular access is limited to one driveway from Rackley Drive- with a maximum width of thirty ( 30 ) feet or . the width permitted by the Driveway Ordinance, whichever is less . -Vehicular - access from Kaler Drive is not permitted;- - 4 ) Landscaping:- The property must provide landscaping in . • accordance with Article 27B; "Landscape ;Requirements" as if new construction and zoned "I-3" - Heavy Industrial District. • Mr. Kenneth Gunderland, the applicant, appeared and described the layout on the subject property. He indicated that he would accept the special permit as recommended by Staff . Chairman Mims explained the conditions of the special permit. Mr. Gunderland explained that he had an 8'• chain link fence, - that he could fill in with slats, to make it a screening fence. • Mr. Harvey-explained that the primary intention is to require a standard -screening fence, which- can be achieved through a chain link fence with insertion of permanent slats to obstruct the view. In- this case, a chain link. -fence with permanent slats is acceptable. If the Planning Commission feels a wooden screening fence is appropriate, they can require a wooden fence. Mr..- Harvey addressed landscaping, stating that landscaping 3 ' high around the paving area is required. The major change would be that the applicant would - have- to provide a certain percentage of • street yard in landscaping. Staff is requiring that the fence be set back from the street yard 5' from Rackley and .Kaler Drives, and landscaping be put in--that 5 ' area. Mr. Gunderland indicated that the adjacent .neighbors have no objection to the rezoning. He added that he could understand landscaping in a different neighborhood-, but there are storage Planning Commission Meeting May 22, 1991 Page 4 tanks on three sides of the property, and a jacked-L Rackley Street. No one appeared in opposition, and the public declared closed. Mr. Harvey pointed out that there is a residentiE vicinity. Planning Staff has agreed that the transition into industrial, but some degree of protect given to the residential area while the transition o Motion by Karm, seconded by Sanderson that thi for "I-3 Heavy Industrial District be forwarded Council with the recommendation that it be denied, thereof that a special permit for parking of employe vehicles, storage of boats and boat tr ileoved rs , asit r boats be approved, subject to an app following conditions: 1) Uses : The only uses authorized by this other than the basic "R-1B" One-family Dwe is a parking lot limited to employee vehicl trucks , storage of boats and boat trailers of used boats . The maintenance or z vehicles , boat or trailer and the stackii exceeding the elevation of the fence are 2) Screening: A standard screening fence sha= and maintained along the east property lin( Kaler Drive and Rackley Drive frontages . be of the same screening material as tYT fence must not encroach into the obstruct: the corner of Rackley and Kaler Drives . 3) Access : Vehicular access is limited to on Rackley Drive with a maximum width of thir the width permitted by the Driveway Ordinz is less . Vehicular access from Kaler permitted; Vice Chairman Taylor referred to a previous zon at the gateway of the City where landscaping was re of the opinion that a precedent would be set if land required in this instance. Commission Wickham was not in favor of moving an area that is in transition. Commissioner Sanchez was in favor of the moti Planning Commission Meeting May 22, 1991 Page 5 Commissioner Karm commented that he was in favor of the Landscape Ordinance, but felt that it did .not apply in this particular situation. Motion passed with Hoelscher, Karm, Meinrath, Sanchez, Sanderson, Wickham and Mims voting, aye, Taylor voting nay, and Hall being absent. . Mr. Harvey pointed out that the view in the obstruction triangle cannot be obstructed, and the fence on the corner will have to be moved. - Mrs . Gail Tatum: 591-3 REQUEST: From "R-1B" One-family Dwelling District .to "AB" Professional Office District on Lot 30, Block 7 , Gardendale No. 2, located on the north side of Bonner. Drive, approximately 430' east of Nelson Lane. Mr. Gunning described the land use and zoning in the surrounding area, and stated that the applicant is requesting a zoning change to operate a day care center for 10-12 children at the rear portion of the lot, and maintain the existing residence at the front of the lot. The property is currently occupied by a single-family residence. - Mr. Gunning summarized the Staff Report, informing the Commission of the applicable Policy Statements, and quoted from the Southside Area Development Plan. . Traffic generated by the day care center conflicts with the peak hour traffic from the neighborhood. The associated noise from the day care use is also inconsistent with the surrounding single- family environment, especially since the proposed use is in a mid- block location. "AB" zoning orr approval of a day care center on the subject site establishes a trend for adjoining or nearby residential properties to request non-residential zoning contrary to the Plan's recommended land use. Mr. Gunning read to the Commission the pros and cons of this application from the Staff Report (copy on file) . . Twenty one notices were mailed, three were returnedin favor and none in opposition. Staff recommends denial.. Ms . Gail Tatum, the applicant, appeared and stated that there is an 1800 sq. ft. brick building to the rear of their property, and she would like to use it for a school with emphasis on math and Planning Commission Meeting May 22, 1991 Page 6 science. The school should be for 3-5 year olds . She stated that the adjacent neighbors are in favor and the proposed use would be an asset to the community. Commissioner Hoelscher pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance allows an individual to keep up to six children, as a home occupation. Ms . Tatum stated that the State requires an individual to be licensed if there are four or morechildren, including the individual's children. She was of the opinion that traffic would not be a problem, and noted that parents of the children could drive up to the building, drop the children off, turn around and go back out. No one appeared in opposition,. and the public hearing was declared closed. Mr. Harvey stated that Staff looked at the traffic generation, how the lot sits in the neighborhood, and how the, proposed use would fit into the neighborhood. Stafffelt that from a noise and traffic standpoint, permitting a change of zoning would be going beyond levels that would be acceptable in a neighborhood, . particularly since a day care center could operate elsewhere. Commissioner Karm commended the applicant on what she wanted to do, but pointed out that neighbors change fromtime to time, arid there might be opposition to the proposed use in the future. He stated that for that reason, and because the use could operate elsewhere, he would have to vote to deny the request. Motion by Karm, seconded by Sanchez, that this application for "AB" Professional Office District be forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation that it be denied. . Commissioner Wickham stated that he understands. why Staff recommends denial, and he too felt that "AB" zoning on this particular property was not appropriate.. He felt that day care centers will be more prevalent in the City, and there will be more requests for change of zoning for day care centers in residential areas . He questioned if Staff had given any thought to putting day care centers in a separate category. He felt that day care centers should be in neighborhoods . Mr. Harvey responded that compared to normal standards, there has been more acceptance and generosity to allow 6 outside children, plus the family children. The "AB" zoning is, next to residential uses, the most restricted, and least demanding zoning district. One way to solve the problem is to base such uses on Planning Commission Meeting May 22, 1991 Page 7 performance standards, and allow them in the "R-1B" and multi- family districts, rather than in the "AB" District. Commissioner Sanderson stated that he opposed "AB" zoning in the residential area, but the proposed use is essential to today's society, and he- would like to see the applicant allowed to operate the proposed use. Discussion followed on the noise level, whether the proposed use will be a business, and the State's requirements versus the City's requirements . Motion passed with Hoelscher, Karm, Meinrath, Sanchez, Sanderson, Wickham, Taylor and Mims voting aye, Hall being absent. NEW PLATS Consideration of plats as described on attached addendum. TABLED ZONING A. 391-1 Transamerica E. and I . Trading Corp: "A-1" to "AB" Located on the west side of Ocean Drive, approximately 250 feet south of Morgan Avenue It was moved, seconded and passed with Hall'. being absent that this application be removed from the agenda. Mr. Gunning ; stated that the Planning Commission originally considered this application on March 13, 1991, and tabled it until April 10, 1991, at the applicant's request. At the April 10, 1991 hearing, the application was again tabled at theapplicant's request until May 8, 1991 . At the May 8, 1991 hearing, the application was again tabled by the Planning Commission to allow the applicant time to develop a site plan to address several concerns such as parking, landscaping, traffic access, number of uses, elimination of the garage apartments, and screening for adjacent residential uses If the Planning Commission wishes to grant the applicant a. Special Permit, the following conditions may be added to the Special Permit ordinance: 1) USES: The only use authorized by this Special Permit other than those uses permitted in an "A-1" Apartment House District is an office for an import and export business . _ Planning Commission Meeting May 22, 1991 Page 8 2) APARTMENTS: The property is limited to one (1) apartment unit while the property contains an office. 3) FLOOR AREA: The maximum permitted floor area for an office is 1,300 square feet. 4) SCREENING: A six (6 ) foot tall solid standard screening fence shall be provided along the north and south boundary line. The fence shall extend from the alley right-of-way to a point equal to the face of the existing building. 5) ACCESS: Access onto Ocean Drive shall be limited to an exit point only and shall be so marked. 6) LANDSCAPING: The property shall be landscaped in accordance with Article 27B, "Landscape Regulations" , as if new construction. For the purposes of determining the landscaping requirements, the standards shall be as if the property is zoned "AB" Professional Office District. Mr. Jose Olivarez, 4533 Hogan, appeared and stated that after a lot of consultation, the Staff and applicant have agreed on a site pmanents H to o tthe drear out Land tcomply willwithdemolall the garage apa requirements of the special permit. No one appeared in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Karm complimented Staff and the applicant for doing a good job. Motion by Karm, seconded by Wickham, that this application for "AB" Professional Office District be forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation that it be denied, and in lieu thereof that a special permit be granted with the following conditions : 1) USES: The only use authorized by this Special Permit other than those uses permitted in an "A-1" Apartment House District is an office for an import and export business . 2) APARTMENTS: The property is limited to one (1) apartment unit while the property contains an 3) FLOOR AREA: The maximum permitted floor area for an office is 1,300 square feet. Planning Commission Meeting May 22, 1991 Page 9 . 4 ) SCREENING: A six (6 ) foot tall solid standard screening fence shall be provided along the north and south boundary line. The fence shall extend from the alley right-of-way to a point equalto the face of the existing building. 5) ACCESS: Access onto Ocean Drive shallbe limited to an exitpoint only and shall be so marked. 6 ) LANDSCAPING: The property shall be landscaped in accordance with Article 27B, "Landscape Regulations" , as if new construction. For the purposes of determining the landscaping requirements, the standards shall be as if the property is zoned ."AB" Professional Office District. Motion passed with Hoelscher, Karm, Meinrath, Sanchez, Sanderson, Wickham, Taylor and Mims voting aye, with Hall being absent. DISCUSSION ITEM. Mr. Harvey stated that the City Council requested Staff and Boards and Commission to review what types of street lights, etc. might be used along Shoreline Boulevard. Mr. Harvey explained the types of lighting that has been used on Shoreline Boulevard. The City Council has asked Staff to meet with Boards and Commission to reconsider if there should be lighting consistency along Shoreline, or not. The South Central Area Development Plan calls for consistency in street lights, signs; etc. along Shoreline Boulevard. Engineering Department is proposing to call a meeting of Boards and Commission on June 18, 1981, and they are requesting a quorum of each Board. Mr. Harvey asked the Commission whether they canmeet on June 18 at 4 - 6 : 30 P.M. and 6 : 30 - 9 : 00 p.m. , and if a quorum of the Planning Commissioners is not possible, that the Commission nominate a representative. Commissioners concurred that they can meet at 6 : 30 p.m. , and there- will be a quorum of the Planning Commission. Mr. Harvey indicated that he will convey this information to Traffic Engineering. OTHER MATTERS A. Mr. Harvey reported on City Council action on the following zoning application: Planning Commission Meeting May 22, 1991 Page 10 Case No. C491-2 City of Corpus Christi - City Council approved Planning Commission and Staff recommendation. The South Central Area Development Plan was adopted by the City Council with two amendments . MATTERS NOT SCHEDULED Chairman Mims reported to the Commission on her meeting with the City Council on April 10, 1991, and the City Council indicated that they will meet with the Planning Commission to discuss items of concern. Mr. Harvey reminded Commissioners that the Planning Commission Retreat will be held on- June 8, 1991 . between 9 :00 a.m. and 4 :00 p.m. , in the Staff Conference Room, 1st Floor. Chairman Mims encouraged all members to attend. EXCUSED ABSENCES None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Mims stated that Commissioner Hall indicated that he voted in opposition to the motion made on Zoning Application 391-1 Transamerica E. and I . Trading Corp. (Page 8) . Motion by Hoelscher, seconded by Sanchez, that the minutes of the regular meeting of May 8, 1991 be approved with one correction. Motion passed with Hoelscher, Karm, Meinrath, Sanchez, Wickham, Taylor and Mims voting aye, Sanderson abstaining, and Hall being absent. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8: 25 P.M. 71/1/11-4/ d4; /2 Brandol M. Harve Marcia Cooper Director of Plan ing Recording Secretary Executive Secretary to Planning. Commission Q. • Planning Commission Meeting May 22, 1991 Page 11 NEW PLATS Addendum to minutes of consideration of plats 1 . 049123-P14 6600 South Staples pPreliminarY - 20 . 00 acres) Located ' east of South Staples Street (FM 2444) south of. Saratoga Boulevard (State Highway 357 ) Owner - Southwest Bank, F.S .B. Engineer - Associated Engineers and Surveyors Mr. Gunning stated that there are no conditions remaining on this plat, and Staff recommends approval as submitted. Mr. Dennis Lang, 4704 Everhart, appeared representing the owner of this plat, and stated that they propose to break the 20 acres into four lots . The main purpose of replatting is to do a final plat on a portion of the property. No one appeared in opposition, and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Karm, seconded by Sanderson, that this plat be approved as submitted. Motion passed with Hoelscher, Karm, Meinrath, Sanchez, Sanderson, Wickham, Taylor and Mims voting aye, with Hall being absent. 2 . 059124-NP10 Goldston Addition, Block 1, Lot 6 , O.C.L. (Final - 1 . 50 acres) Located north of Interstate Highway 37 and east of Goldston Road (County Road 51-A1) Owner - Goldston Corporation Engineer - Goldston 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 Sanchez, that this plat be approved as_ submitted. Motion passed with Hoelscher, Karm, Meinrath, Sanchez, Sanderson, Wickham, Taylor and Mims voting aye, with Hall being absent. - t . . ^s Planning Commission Meeting May 22, 1991 Page 12 TIME EXTENSION A. 109044-NP24 Barraza Subdivision, Block 1, Lot 1, O.C.L. (Final - 0 . 99 acre) Located east of McKenzie Road, approximately one mile north of State Highway 44 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. Mr. Thomas Barraza appeared .on behalf of his parents, and requested that the Commission approve the six-month time extension.. Motion by Taylor, seconded by Sanchez, that a six-month time extension be granted on this plat. Motion passed with Hoelscher, Karm, Meinrath, Sanchez, -Sanderson, Wickham, Taylor and Mims voting aye, with Hall being absent. (E:89MC) . 1