Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 04/24/1991 • MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL APRIL 24, 1991 - 6:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Lamont Taylor, Vice Chairman Ralph Hall Elizabeth C. Hoelscher Mike Karm Alma Meinrath William Sanderson MEMBERS ABSENT: Shirley Mims, Chairman Jake Sanchez Ro Wickham STAFF PRESENT: Brandol M. Harvey, AIA, AICP, Director of Planning Miguel Saldana, AICP, City Planner Ruben Perez, Assistant City Attorney Lorraine San Miguel, Recording Secretary Carl Crull, Director of Engineering Services Grace McNett, Capital Budget Officer CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairman Lamont Taylor called the meeting to order and described the procedure to be followed. PUBLIC HEARING NEW ZONINGS City of Corpus Christi: C491-2 REQUEST: From "A-2" Apartment House District and "I-2" Light Industrial District to "B-4" General Business District on Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 12A, Block 53; Lots 1, 2,2R and 4, Block 54; Blocks 56, 84, 85,86, 88, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, A-1 and A-2, Brooklyn Addition, located in an area bounded by Avenue F and U.S. Highway 181, Breakwater Avenue and Burleson Street. Mr.Saldana described the land use and zoning in the surrounding arca, and stated that the City Council is requesting a zoning change to establish the appropriate zoning district on the area under consideration consistent with the adopted North Central Arca Development Plan. Mr. Saldana summarized the Staff Report, informing the Commission of applicable Policy Statements, and quoted from the North Central Area Development Plan. • The Planning Department, at the request of the City Council has reviewed the subject area to consider the appropriate zoning. The area under consideration is currently zoned "A-2"Apartment House District and "I-2"Light Industrial District. The plan recommends the"A-2"District area to develop with support commercial uses and the "I-2" District area to develop with highway commercial uses. A support commercial area is to contain a mixture of commercial uses supportive of the Texas State Aquarium and the Village arca. The plan • also designates several streets as either scenic or view corridors and recommends special treatment for each corridor. SCANNED Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 1991 Page 2 Properties along a view corridor should have a 10 foot setback with no buildings, off-street parking, overhead utilities or signs/fences above 4 feet in height. This corridor would also require tall palms 5 feet from the street property line and 50 feet spacing. The scenic corridor could have a 5 foot setback with no buildings, off-street parking, signs/or fences; landscaping; prohibition against new billboards and increased public art display. The Staff has analyzed several alternatives consistent with the adopted North Central Area Development Plan. • Alternative 1: Leave the zoning as it currently exists. The existing development and the lack of new development would lead one to believe that without any specific development plans, any rezoning would be premature. However, the current zoning does not fully promote the types of uses that are appropriate for the area or create the scenic corridors recommended in the City Council adopted Comprehensive Plan. Under this alternative, rezoning actions would occur on a case-by-case review. To the extent possible, rezoning recommendations by the Staff would be based on furthering the objectives of the adopted plan only for the property under consideration. Such a piece-meal approach makes it difficult to implement a comprehensive zoning strategy consistent with the plan. Alternative 2: Rezone the support commercial area to a"B-1"Neighborhood Business District and the highway commercial area to a "B-3" Business District. The "B-1" District permits mixed commercial uses and parking facilities , while at the same time, protects the existing residences in the area. However, the "B-1" District does not permit hotels or motels. This use is an essential use in a support commercial area. The"B-1" District requires a 20 foot building setback. The district also limits the building height to 35 feet, not to exceed 3 stories and limits freestanding signs to 40 square feet in area, 20 feet in height and only one (1) sign per premise. The sign may be located within the front yard setback. The 35' building height is critical under the "B-1" District since the area under consideration is in a flood zone which requires the first occupied floor to be 6-9 feet above the existing ground level. Therefore, the development would be further limited. The permitted signs may be inadequate since some of the properties contain the entire block. The area under consideration is adjacent to an elevated freeway, which reduces the site's visibility and, in turn, needing taller signs. The "B-3" District for the highway commercial area would provide the uses that are auto-related. The "B-3" District permits service stations, auto repair garages, hotels/motels, etc., however, does not permit residential uses. Alternative 3: Rezone the support commercial area to a "B-2" Bayfront Business District and the highway commercial area to a "B-3" Business District. The "B-2" District permits mixed commercial uses, parking facilities, and residential. This district requires a building, parking and sign setback of 20 feet. The setback protects the scenic corridor and allows for the special treatment as indicated in the North Central Arca Development Plan. Signs in the "B-2" District are limited to the height of the existing building. There is no building height limitation in this district. The drawback of the"B-2"District is that convenience stores and filling stations are not permitted. However, these uses would be permitted in the surrounding area, especially in the highway commercial area. Therefore, a "B-2" District seems to be a district that would comply with the uses in a support commercial area while, at the same time, protects the scenic corridors from visual obstruction and proliferation of signs. Alternative 4: Rezone the support commercial area to a "B-4" General Business District, the highway commercial area to a"B-3" Business District and to rezone the area with a scenic corridor overlay district. The "B-4" District permits mixed commercial uses, parking facilities and residential uses. However,the"B-4"District permits uses that are not compatible with residential uses, i.e., auto repair shops. This district also permits an unlimited number of signs of any size or height if the signs are located behind the 20 foot front yard setback. This district also permits a 40 square foot,25 foot high sign with parking within the front yard setback. The sign and parking could be adjacent to the street right-of-way line. In order to assure an attractive scenic/commercial corridor, an overlay district could be created and placed over the proposed"B-3" and"B-4"Districts. The overlay would allow the uses permitted in the"B-3" and "B-4" Districts,but would require a five(5) foot wide landscape strip adjacent to the scenic corridor right-of-way. Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 1991 Page 3 Other requirements would include a setback of five (5) feet for signs, fences and parking and modify the sign requirements such that the height and the area of the sign would increase as the distance from the scenic corridor right-of-way to the sign is increased. Unless there is some type of overlay or zoning ordinance to implement the Plan's recommendations for scenic and view corridors, the "B-3" and "B-4" Districts would be inappropriate. Conclusion: In lieu of a scenic view corridor overlay designed to beautify the corridors next to "B-3" or"B-4" Districts, the "B-2"District in Alternative 3 is the most appropriate district for the support commercial area. It permits the mixed commercial uses,parking facilities and residential uses,while,at the same time,offers some protection for the scenic corridors. The "B-1" District is inappropriate in that it does not permit hotels or motels and does not protect the corridors. The"B-4" District seems appropriate for the support commercial arca in that it permits mixed commercial uses, parking facilities and residential use. As with the"B-1" District, the "B-4" District does not protect scenic and view corridors. If the City Council adopts a scenic view corridor overlay district, the area under consideration may be reconsidered for the overlay district in combination with a less restrictive business zoning classification. Mr.Saldaiia read to the Commission the pros and cons of this application from the Staff Report (Copy on file). Fifty-two notices were mailed, four (4) were returned in favor, and one (1) in opposition. Staff recommends approval of a "B-2"District for the area bounded by Causeway Boulevard, Burleson Avenue, U.S. Highway 181 and Bridgeport Street and approval of a "B-3" District for the area bounded by Causeway Boulevard, Burleson Avenue, Avenue "F" and Bridgeport Street. Mr.Al Harden,2818 East Surfside Boulevard, appeared and stated that he was in favor of the business zoning change within this area. He felt that the area would probably not have any future residential development and stated this zoning change would be appropriate for the area. Mr.Bill Tagliabue,representing Our Lady Star of the Sea Church, appeared in opposition of the zoning change. The Church objects the zoning change because of the uncertainty of the type of businesses that would be allowed near the church; the possibility of excessive traffic noise that would interfere with church services and the difficulty of controlling the parking within the area, including the church parking lot. Mr. Jack Davis, 3523 Timon, appeared in favor and stated that he was concerned on how this zoning change would effect other property owners within this Corpus Christi Beach area. Mr. Harvey replied that according to the Comprehensive Plan,this zoning request,which is specifically addressing the support commercial area,has little relationship to any other zoning request that may be presented at a later date. Property owners requests concerning properties on the opposite side of Highway 181 will not be helped or harmed by this application. The public hearing was declared closed Mr. Harvey informed the Commission that the Staff is currently working on draft legislation for the scenic and view corridor overlays. The Staff is trying to make the draft compatible to the Comprehensive Plan as well as base zoning classifications. The draft should come to the Commission within four to six weeks. Motion by Karm, seconded by Sanderson, that this application for approval of a "B-2" District for the area bounded by Causeway Boulevard, Burleson Avenue, U.S. Highway 181 and Bridgeport Street. Approval of a"B-3" District for the area bounded by Causeway Boulevard, Burleson Avenue, Avenue"F' and Bridgeport Street be forwarded to the City Council. Motion passed with Hall, Hoelscher, Karm, Meinrath, Sanderson and Taylor voting aye, Sanchez, Wickham and Mims being absent. Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 1991 Page 4 Enclave Council of Co-Owners: 491-3CS REQUEST: For a Conditional Sign Permit on Lot 11A, Block 6,Gardendale No. 1,located on the west side of South Staples Street and north side of Cain Drive. Mr. Saldana described the land use and zoning in the surrounding area, and stated that the applicant is requesting a conditional sign permit. The property is currently occupied by an office complex. Mr. Saldana summarized the Staff Report, informing the Commission of applicable Policy Statements, and quoted from the Southside Area Development Plan. The applicant is requesting a conditional sign permit in order to install an additional freestanding sign. The property is presently zoned "B-1"Neighborhood Business District which permits one (1), freestanding sign per premise not to exceed a sign area of 40 square feet or a height of 20 feet. The applicant proposes to install an additional freestanding sign with an area of 39.7 square feet and a height of 6.17 feet. The proposed sign would be a reader board type indicating the names of tenants. It would be located approximately 200 feet from South Staples Street and approximately 150 feet from Cain Drive. Under the recently approved Conditional Sign Permit for Business Districts, the Planning Commission is authorized to approve sign increases if they determine that such sign increases are commensurate with the property's street frontage, area, and distance from the public right-of-way. By Ordinance, sign increases are limited to a maximum of 50 percent of the matter-of-right sign area and height and a maximum of 100 percent on the number of signs. The property has a matter-of-right sign area of 40 square feet. The property has 190 feet of frontage along South Staples Street and 328 feet along Cain Drive and a lot area of 2.84 acres (123,710 square feet). The Planning Commission may only approve a total sign area increase not to exceed 60 square feet for the premise and one (1) additional freestanding sign. The applicant proposes to remodel the existing freestanding identification sign located on Staples Street and increase its sign area from 26 square feet to 36 square feet. The additional freestanding sign may not exceed a sign area of 24 square feet. The proposed sign area of 39.7 square feet exceeds the area permitted by the Conditional Sign Permit Ordinance. With the exception of the proposed sign area,Staff is of the opinion that the requested freestanding sign is commensurate with the property frontage,total lot area and distance from the public right-of-way. The Ordinance also states that as a condition of approval for conditional sign permits, all signs on the premise must be conforming with the zoning district. The subject property currently has an illegal freestanding sign located within the South Staples Street front yard setback, approximately 90 feet south of the existing freestanding identification sign. Before any permits are issued for a new sign, the existing illegal sign will have to be removed. Mr.Saldana read to the Commission the pros and cons of this application from the Staff Report (Copy on file). Thirty-one notices were mailed,none were returned in favor or opposition. Staff recommends approval of a conditional sign permit for one(1) addition freestanding sign in accordance with an approved site plan, the total freestanding sign area not to exceed 60 square feet subject to the following conditions: 1) Submission of a revised sign elevation plan of the proposed freestanding sign; and 2) Removal of the existing illegal freestanding sign within 30 days of the date of the conditional sign permit approval or permit shall become null and void. Mr. Ralph Bennett, 6262 Weber Road, representing the applicant, appeared in favor and stated that the applicant has one sign for the three acre medical building and they felt that one sign is not enough. The applicant felt that the medical building needed one more 40 square foot sign. Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 1991 Page 5 Mr.Bob Steele, developer of The Enclave, appeared in favor of the conditional sign permit and asked the Commission to consider this request. Mr. Ralph Bennett,reappeared and stated that the"For Sale"sign in the interior of the complex should not be considered a permanent sign, since it is there temporarily. Mr. Joe Sisto, 5506 Cain, appeared in favor of the conditional sign permit. No one appeared in opposition and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Sanderson asked what the exact wording was in the ordinance concerning the amount of signage allowed for this application. He also asked why the"For Sale"sign was considered illegal by the City Staff. Mr.Ruben Perez read the exact wording to Commissioner Sanderson concerning the height and number of signs allowed for this application. Mr. Harvey replied that the ordinance states the maximum sign area and the number of signs allowed. The applicant may divide the area on freestanding signs as they desire. He also stated that the ordinance allows a maximum of 40 square feet, but does not require the applicant to have a 40 square feet sign. He added that the Building Inspections Department has looked at the temporary "For Sale" sign and stated that the sign has names of tenants on it. According to Building Inspections Department it is considered a commercial sign. If the sign is temporary,'then there should not be a problem in removing it within thirty (30) days. Commissioner Hoelscher asked if the size of the sign has any relation to the size or location of the lot. Mr. Harvey replied that there are some ideas taken into consideration as to what appropriate signage is allowed. The City Council has adopted an ordinance that states if a business is located in a low-intensity commercial neighborhood area,then they are restricted in the amount of signage allowed within this residential arca. If a business is located within a general highway commercial area, then the business is allowed more signage and unlimited signage outside the setback area. Mr. Harvey added that Planning and City Staff will be pursuing a revision to sign regulations within the next year. Commissioner Hall stated this is a complex issue and felt that the Commission and Staff has done their best in attempting to solve these issues. He also stated that maybe in the revision of the sign regulations, certain issues may be addressed in a positive way. There was some discussion on sign regulations and the process of the revisions concerning this issue. Motion by Karm, seconded by Hall, that this application for a conditional sign permit for one (1) addition freestanding sign in accordance with an approved site plan, the total freestanding sign area not to exceed 60 square feet subject to the following conditions: 1) Submission of a revised sign elevation plan of the proposed freestanding sign; and 2) Removal of the existing illegal freestanding sign within 30 days of the date of the conditional sign permit approval or permit shall become null and void. Motion passed with Hall, Karm, Meinrath, Sanderson, and Taylor voting aye, Hoelscher voting nay and Sanchez, Wickham and Mims being absent. NEW PLATS Consideration of plats as described on attached addendum. Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 1991 Page 6 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Ms. Grace McNett, Capital Budget Officer, presented a summary of the recommended Capital Improvement Program for 1991-1996. She explained that for several months, the Staff has been working at developing recommendations for the 1991-1996 Capital Improvement Plan. This process involves a needs assessment at the departmental level and review, prioritization, and preparation of a final recommendation by the City Manager's Capital Improvement Committee. Efforts in developing next year's program have been concentrated on the completion of the 1986 Bond Program and implementation of new projects in the Water and Wastewater systems. The 1986 Bond Program is currently into the fifth year and have yet to issue $28 million of the$105,000,000 authorized. Although the CIP process identified a great many worthwhile projects, we arc able to authorize only a few of them each year. Many of us experience the same frustration derived from the inability to implement new projects, some of them vitally needed. The annual process allows us to establish priorities and to implement a number of these proposed projects such as the Corona-Williams Extension which was brought into the five year plan with no funding authorization. Last year, we were able to allocate$650,000 to get the project started. Additionally funds were authorized for improvements to the City's landfills in order to address the increasing demands in the area of solid waste management. Ms. McNett stated that next year they will continue to be challenged by serious Financial issues. To support the general obligation bonds issued to date,we have raised wastewater rates by 10% and property taxes by only 1.5 cents in contrast to the 3.4 cents upon which we based our financing strategy. She stated that they have implemented other measures, such as requiring revenue producing operations to pay for their debt service from operating revenues. The recent combination of the utilities is another way of generating opportunities for the City to continue a strong capital improvement plan that will ensure the welfare of the community as well as our success in a global economy. Although we are not in a point where we can identify operational needs and resources available for capital improvements, we know that a tax increase would certainly help accelerate the completion of the 1986 Bond Program. Recommendations for FY 1991-1992 propose the sale of$12.6 million in general obligation bonds for 1986 projects. While this amount represents an aggressive goal that endeavors to complete the 1986 program in the next two years, we will not be able to commit resources until the needs of the FY 1991-1992 operating budget are determined late in the Spring. Similarly, in the utilities area, operating needs must be evaluated before we can allocate revenues or decide how much debt can be issued for projects. Therefore, you will note that we have not identified a funding source for FY 1991-1992 and beyond. Ms. McNett presented recommended projects under the categories of Airport, Drainage, Park and Recreation, Public Facilities, Public Health and Safety, Streets, Wastewater and Water. Each category is outlined in the following order: a. Five Year Recommended Funding Schedule that indicates funds requested in each year from FY 1991-1992 to FY 1995-1996. Some projects show anticipated requests beyond 1996. b. Projects descriptions and estimates for improvements shown in the five year plan. c. Future projects (long term) that would most likely be funded through a new bond program. Project titles followed by (1986) or (1987) indicate a project authorized under the 1986 or 1987 bond programs. Only two projects, the Lindale/Greenwood Senior Centers Expansion and Library Books were included in the 1987 program. Requests for FY 1991-1992 indicate whether funds are intended for design (D) or construction (C). Ms. McNett added that a great deal of thought and evaluation have been devoted to developing a program that meets the needs of the community within available resources. This process cannot be complete without the public's input. Therefore,we respectfully submit the 1991.-1996 Recommended Capital Improvement for public review and welcome the Commission's comments. Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 1991 Page 7 Ms. McNett reported that this was a brief summary of the projects being presented. She opened the floor to the Commission to answer any questions. Mr. Dale Pittman, appeared and presented pictures to the Commission concerning the park. He stated that his neighborhood was issued $56,000 for park improvement in the 1986 Bond Program. He is requesting that some of this money be used for a park improvement and to close the drainage ditch within this area. The first priority is closing the drainage ditch. He stated that this ditch is dangerous for children in the neighborhood and it also has an effect on property values. He stated they would prefer both requests if possible. Mr. Frank Swayne, appeared and stated he felt the drainage ditch within this area should be closed for the reason that it is always clogging up. He stated that the City has worked on this ditch several times. He felt that it would serve a better purpose for the neighborhood if the ditch were closed and perhaps that area could be made into a parking lot for the park. Vice Chairman Taylor asked Mr. Carl Crull how may the Commission present the issue of closing the drainage ditch a high priority. Mr. Crull replied that the Commission would have to take a vote. He stated that the Commission could make a recommendation to the Park and Recreation Department to re-prioritize the parks that are needing improvement. He added that the drainage ditch was not part of the 1986 Bond Program, but is on the list of recommendations for future projects. The Commission may make a recommendation to use funds from other sources such as minor storm funds may be used for this project. The estimated cost to inclose the ditch is about $150,000. Ms. McNett stated that the Commission may also add the remaining$56,000 for Academy Park to be included in the Park Department's recommendation for the development of unimproved park land. There was some discussion concerning the monies available to the drainage ditch and Academy Park improvement, what recommendations can be made, and the urgency of this project. Mr.Carlos Tamayo,5849 Mason,appeared before the Commission and stated that many properties are being damaged by the drainage ditch within this area. He asked the Commission to consider recommending the drainage ditch as high priority for this certain section of the Capital Improvement Program. The Planning Commission discussed the order of the priorities set in the Capital Improvement Program. Motion by Karm, seconded by Sanderson, to recommend the drainage ditch at Academy Subdivision be placed as high priority. Motion passed with Hall, Hoelscher, Karm,Meinrath, Sanderson and Taylor voting aye, and Sanchez, Wickham and Mims being absent. Motion by Hoelscher, seconded by Meinrath, that Academy Park be added to the Park Department Program for 1991-1992. Motion passed with Hoelscher, Meinrath,Sanderson and Taylor voting aye, Karm and Hall voting nay, and Sanchez, Wickham and Mims being absent. The Planning Commission further discussed the amounts and action to be taken for some of the projects and plants outlined in the Capital Improvement Program. They also discussed the outcome of Holly Road project presented in the Capital Improvement Program for 1986. Motion by Sanderson, seconded by Hall, that action on the recommended 1991-1996 Capital Improvement Program be tabled until May 8, 1991. Motion passed with Hall, Hoelscher, Karm, Meinrath, Sanderson and Taylor voting aye, and Sanchez, Wickham and Mims being absent. Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 1991 Page 8 OTHER MATTERS Mr. Harvey reported on City Council action taken on the following zoning cases: Case 391-2, Frost National Bank, Special Permit was approved by City Council as recommended by Planning Commission and Staff;Case 391-3,Kiko's Restaurant,Special Permit was approved by City Council as recommended by Planning Commission and Staff. MATTERS NOT SCHEDULED Commissioners asked when the Planning Commission Workshop was scheduled. Mr. Harvey replied that the Workshop is scheduled for June 8, 1991 as agreed by the Planning Commission. EXCUSED ABSENCES Vice Chairman Lamont Taylor was excused for the absence on the meeting of April 10, 1991. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Hall, seconded by Sanderson, that the minutes of the special meeting of February 6, 1991 and regular meeting of April 10, 1991 be approved as written. Motion passed with Hall, Hoelscher, Karm, Meinrath, Sanderson and Taylor voting aye, and Sanchez, Wickham and Mims being absent. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. , / / 7 .i�. Li(1/(//;44- C���(l Lit.( 6 C_ -� B nd 1 ra o M. Harvey Lorraine San/Miguel Director of Planning Recording Secretary Executive Secretary to Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 1991 Page 9 NEW PLATS Addendum to minutes of consideration of plats. 1. 039118-P11 ARBOR TERRACE (PRELIMINARY - 14.77 ACRES) Located between Roscher Road and the Cayo Del Oso, north of Caribbean Drive. Owner - Dyke Henderson Engineer - RDC Shearer, Inc. Mr. Saldana stated that this plat is ready for approval as submitted. Staff recommends that this plat be approved as submitted. Mr. Dyke Henderson, 3113 Coral Reef, appeared in favor of the plat and asked the Commission to consider the request as submitted. No one appeared in opposition of the plat and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Karm, seconded by Sanderson, that this plat be approved as submitted. Motion passed with Hall, Hoelscher, Karm, Meinrath, Sanderson and Taylor voting aye, and Sanchez, Wickham and Mims being absent. 2. 039119-P12 GREENFIELDS BY THE BAY UNIT 3 (FINAL - 11.68 ACRES) Located south of Quebec and east of West Mount Drive Owner - Greg Voisin, Trustee Engineer - Urban Engineering Mr. Saldana stated that this plat is ready for approval as submitted. Staff recommends that this plat be approved as submitted. No one appeared in favor or opposition of the plat and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion by Karm, seconded by Meinrath, that this plat be approved as submitted. Motion passed with Hoelscher, Karm, Meinrath and Taylor voting aye, Hall and Sanderson abstaining, and Sanchez, Wickham and Mims being absent. 3. 049120-N P8 COUNTRY CREEK O.C.L. (FINAL - 40.00 ACRES) Located southwest of Oso Creek approximately 1/2 mile north of FM 2444 (South Staples Street) Owner - Country Creek Partners Engineer - Urban Engineering Mr. Saldana stated that this plat is ready for approval as submitted. Staff recommends that this plat be approved as submitted. Motion by Hall,seconded by Karm, that this plat be approved as submitted. Motion passed with Hall, Hoelscher, Karm, Mcinrath, Sanderson and Taylor voting aye, and Sanchez, Wickham and Mims being absent. • Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 1991 Page 10 Mr.Larry Urban, appeared and stated that the Commission and.Staff did a satisfactory.job on this plat. He also praised the Staff and Commission on the amount of time and consideration taken into this plat. 4. 049121-NP9 MARKS TRACT, BLOCK 1, LOT 3C (FINAL REPLAT - 7.264 ACRES) Located between South Padre Island Drive (State Highway 358) and Corona Drive east of Flynn Parkway. Owner - General American Life Insurance Company Engineer - Maverick Engineering Mr. Saldana stated that this plat is ready for approval as submitted. Staff recommends that this plat be approved as submitted. Motion by Hall,seconded by Karm, that this plat be approved as submitted. Motion passed with Hall, Hoelscher, Karm, Meinrath,Sanderson and Taylor voting aye, and Sanchez, Wickham and Mims being absent. TABLED PLATS 1. 039116-N P6 ISLAND BUSINESS CENTER UNIT 1 (REPLAT - 41.401 ACRES) Located east of Waldron Road and south of South Padre Island Drive (State Highway 358) Owner - Ameri Trust Texas N.A. Engineer - David A. Pyle Mr. Saldana stated that this plat was tabled at the last meeting at the request of the City Engineer to allow time to consult with the property owner regarding the Platting Ordinance requirements. The property owner and Engineering Department have discussed and met the requirements. Staff recommends approval as submitted. Motion by Hall, seconded by Karm,that this plat be approved as submitted. Motion passed with Hall, Hoelscher, Karm, Meinrath, Sanderson and Taylor voting aye, and Sanchez, Wickham and Mims being absent. 2. 039117-NP7 SHANNON MIDDLE SCHOOL TRACT, BLOCK 1, LOT 1 (FINAL - 17.60 ACRES) Located east of Airline Road, between South Padre Island Drive (State Highway 358) and Williams Drive. Owner - Corpus Christi Independent School District Engineer - Urban Engineering Mr. Saldana stated that this plat was tabled at the last meeting at the request of Urban Engineering, to allow time for the School District Officials to meet with City Staff. They discussed the requirements of additional right-of-way along Williams Drive. A letter was received from Urban Engineering requesting that this plat be tabled for an additional two weeks. Motion by Hall,seconded by Karm, that this plat be tabled for an additional two weeks. Motion passed with Hall,Hoelscher,Karm,Meinrath,Sanderson and Taylor voting aye,and Sanchez,Wickham and Mims being absent.