HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes City Council - 02/08/1965 - SpecialPRESENT:
Mayor James L. Barnard
Mayor Pro Tem Jim Young
Commissioners:
Jack R. Blackmon
J. R. de Leon
M. P. Maldonado
W. J. Roberts
W. H. Wallace, Jr.
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
February 8, 1965
7:30 p.m.
City Manager Herbert W. Whitney
City Attorney I. M. Singer
Ass't City Att'y Wayland Pilcher
City Secretary T. Ray Kring
Mayor James L. Barnard called the meeting to order.
Commissioner J. R. de Leon gave the Invocation.
City Secretary T. Ray Kring called the roll of those in attendance.
Mayor Barnard explained the purpose of the special meeting to hold a
public hearing on certain proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance, particularly
with respect to the "B-2" Bayfront Business District, and explained the procedure
to be followed.
William Anderson, Director of Planning, read the following proposed
amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordinance;
SECTION 1. That Subsection 16 of Section 14-2 of the Corpus Christi Zoning
Ordinance be amended by striking all of Subsection 16 and in lieu thereof, plac-
ing the following language:
"(16) signs not exceeding 60 square feet in area and used only to advertise
the principal business or activity conducted on the premises. The
permitted 60 square feet of sign area may be divided among several
smaller signs. For each one foot of lot frontage in excess of 100
feet, one additional square foot of sign area shall be permitted; pro-
vided, however, the total sign area shall not exceed 260 square feet.
No signs shall be permitted, regardless of size, which revolve, whirl,
move, flash or make noise. No agency of the City of Corpus Christi
may grant a variance, exception, or take any action which would permit
a sign to be erected in excess of the size provided herein or differ-
ent from the provisions contained herein."
Mr. Anderson explained the present ordinance provides that signs shall
be flat against the wall of the building; may be 60 square feet in area, plus one
square foot of area for each additional one foot of lot frontage in excess of 100
feet; does not contain the words that the size of the sign may be divided among
several signs; nor does it prohibit signs which revolve, whirl, move, flash, or
make noise; whereas, the proposed amendment limits the size of the sign to 260
square feet of area; permits the size of the sign to be divided among several signs;
and prohibits a sign which revolves, whirls, moves, flashes, or makes noise; and
free-standing signs are covered in another section of the proposed amendment.
City of Corpus Christi, Texas
Special Council Meeting
February 8, 1965
Page 2
Mr. Anderson stated that the recommendation of the Zoning & Planning
Commission with respect to this section of the proposed amendment reads exactly the
same, except for the last sentence which reads as follows;
"No agency of the City of Corpus Christi may grant a sign or front yard change ex-
cept in compliance with the requirements of this Article, in the "B-2" Bayfront
Business District and any permit hereafter granted purporting to authorize a sign
larger in size or located within the 20 -foot front yard required area as herein set
forth shall be a violation of this ordinance."
Mr. Anderson pointed out that the recommendation of the Zoning & Planning
Commission added the provision that any permit in the "B-2" Bayfront Business Dis-
trict purporting to grant a larger sign or location within the 20 -foot setback is
a violation of the ordinance.
Mr. Anderson read Section 2 of the proposed amendment to the text of the
Zoning Ordinance, as follows;
SECTION 2. That Section 14-5 of the Corpus Christi Zoning Ordinance be amend-
ed by adding one of the following alternative provisions:
"14-5.1 No building, structure or sign shall be permitted in the front yard
area as set forth in Article 24 of the Corpus Christi Zoning Ordin-
ance. Any building, structure or sign located in the front yard
area on the effective date of this ordinance, if erected by author-
' a' of n permit issued by the City of Corpus Christi and in compli-
with said permit, shall be permitted to remain. If said build-
ias, structures or signs are replaced or structurally altered by
fifty (50) percent or more, then said replacements or altered build-
ings, structures or signs shall comply with the said front yard re-
quirement.
"14-5.1 Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance, no front yard
shall be required in the "B-2" Bayfront Business District.
"14-5.1 No building, structure, or sign shall be permitted in the front yard
area as set forth in Article 24 of the Corpus Christi Zoning Ordin-
ance; provided, however, the Board of Adjustment shall have juris-
diction to grant front yard variances, under the conditions and lim-
itations as set forth in Section 29-5.01 of the Zoning Ordinance,
for the following uses and only for the following uses;
(A) Signs which conform to the regulations set forth in Section 14-2,
Subsection 16 of the Corpus Christi Zoning Ordinance;
(B) Swimming Pools;
(C) Canopies or awnings open on all sides except on the side attached
to a building; and
(D) All-weather off-street parking spaces accessory to a use permit-
ted in the "B-2" Bayfront Business District.
"14-5.1 No building, structure or sign shall be permitted in the front yard
area as set forth in Article 24 of the Corpus Christi Zoning Ordin-
ance. Every building, structure or sign within said front yard on
the effective date of this ordinance shall be removed, altered or
City of Corpus Christi, Texas
Special Council Meeting
February 8, 1965
Page 3
replaced after said building, structure or sign has existed for a
period of time long enough for the owner, in the usual course of
business, to amortize his investment in said building, structure
or sign. It is hereby determined that any building, structure or
sign located within the front yard in the "B-2" District shall have
an amortization period of five (5) years from the effective date of
this ordinance and all such buildings, structures or signs shall be
removed from said front yard within that time; provided, however,
that the owner of any building, structure or sign which is required
to be removed or altered pursuant to the provisions of this ordin-
ance may make an application in writing to the City Council for an
extension of said amortization period. Said written application
shall be filed with the City Secretary more than thirty (30) days
before the date set in this section for the removal or alteration
of said building, structure or sign. The City Council shall hold
a public hearing on said application after giving notice to the
public as provided in Section 30-4 of the Corpus Christi Zoning
Ordinance. The only question to be determined at said public hear-
ing is the question of a reasonable amortization period. At the
conclusion of said hearing the City Council shall determine a reason-
able amortization period for said building, structure or sign and
shall set the date on which said building, structure or sign shall
be removed or altered to conform to the provisions of this ordinance.
Mr. Anderson explained that the present ordinance provides for a 20 -foot
setback area; does not provide for swimming pools or canopies in the 20 -foot area;
a general clause permits a front porch or free standing sign of 30 square feet in
the front yard; and buildings and uses are made non -conforming, but not structures,
and a sign is a structure; whereas the proposed Alternate No. 1, in effect, makes
existing signs a non -conforming use, and existing buildings, structures and signs
permanent non -conforming uses; Alternate No. 2 removes any front yard requirement
in the "B-2" Bayfront Business District; Alternate No. 3 would authorize the Board
of Adjustment to grant sign variations within the 20 -foot front yard; and Alternate
No. 4 provides for the eventual removal of every building, structure, or sign from
the 20 -foot setback area.
Mr. Anderson stated the Zoning & Planning Commission's recommendation is
for the adoption of Alternate No. 1 with a few changes in wording, and for the
adoption of a new provision which is not permitted in the present ordinance, as
follows:
SECTION 2. That Section 14-5 of the Corpus Christi Zoning Ordinance be amend-
ed by adding thereto additional subsections as set forth below:
14-5.1 No building, structure or sign shall be permitted in the front yard
area except in compliance with the required front yard as set forth
in Article 24 of the Corpus Christi Zoning Ordinance. Any building,
structure or sign located in the front yard area on the effective
date of this ordinance, not in keeping with Article 24, if erected
by the authority of a permit issued by the City of Corpus Christi and
City of Corpus Christi, Texas
Special Council Meeting
February 8, 1965
Page 4
in compliance with said permit shall be permitted to remain except
as provided in the next sentence. If said building, sign or struc-
ture is replaced or structurally altered by fifty (50) percent or
more, then said replacements or altered buildings, structures, or
signs shall comply with the said front yard requirement.
14-5.2 Notwithstanding any other provision of the Zoning Ordinance, the front
yard requirements in the "B-2" Bayfront Business District shall not
apply to swimming pools and/or canopies open on all sides except on
the side attached to a building; provided, further, that the total
area of all such swimming pools and canopies shall not exceed twenty-
five (25) percent of the required front yard area.
Mr. Anderson read Section 3 of the proposed amendment to the text of the
Zoning Ordinance, as follows:
SECTION 3. That Section 14-5 of the Corpus Christi Zoning Ordinance be amend-
ed by adding thereto an additional subsection as set forth below:
14-5.2 Notwithstanding any other provision of the Corpus Christi Zoning Ordin-
ance, no sign in the "B-2" District shall exceed twenty-six (26) feet
in height or the height of a main use building located on the same
lot, whichever height is greater.
Mr. Anderson explained that Section 16 of the advertized amendment does
not provide for, or distinguish between a free-standing sign or a sign flat against
the wall, but requires all signs to be behind the 20 -foot line regardless of whether
flat against the wall or free-standing; that the recommendation limits the height of
the free-standing sign, and prohibits signs on the roof of a building, as follows:
14-5.3 Notwithstanding any other provision of the Corpus Christi Zoning
Ordinance, free-standing signs shall not exceed twenty-six (26) feet
in height. Signs attached flat against the wall of a building shall
not extend above the eave line of said building. No sign shall be
mounted on the roof of any building.
Mr. Anderson read the following proposed amendment:
SECTION 4. That Article 29 of the Corpus Christi Zoning Ordinance be amended
by adding a new Section to said Article, numbered Section 29-8, to read as follows:
Section 29-8 Notwithstanding any other provision of the Corpus Christi Zoning
Ordinance, the Board of Adjustment shall have no authority or juris-
diction to vary or change the provisions of the Corpus Christi Zoning
Ordinance relating to the size or type of any sign or other advertising
structure within the "B-2" Bayfront Business District.
Mr. Anderson explained that in effect this has already been enacted in an
ordinance recently adopted which not only applies to the "B-2" District, but to all
districts in the City.
Mr. Anderson explained that Section 5 of the proposed amendment was a pro-
vision for a definition of sign area, and is the same as in the present ordinance,
except for an addition to deal with double-faced signs; that in determining the sign
City of Corpus Christi, Texas
Special Council Meeting
February 8, 1965
Page 5
area of a double-faced sign, only one face of the sign shall be counted if faces
are parallel and not more than thirty-six inches apart; and that the proposed
amendment advertised as Section 5 and Section 3 of the recommendation of the
Zoning & Planning Commission read the same, as follows:
SECTION 3. That Article 3 of the Corpus Christi Zoning Ordinance be amended
by striking all of Section 3-1.56 and, in lieu thereof, placing the following
language:
3-1.56 Sign Area. That area within a line including the outer extremities
of all letters, figures, characters and delineations or within a
line including the outer extremities of the framework or background
of the sign, whichever line includes the greater area. The support
for the sign background, whether it be columns, a pylon or a build-
ing or part thereof, shall not be included in the sign area. In de-
termining the sign area of a double-faced sign, only one face of
said sign shall be counted if said sign faces are parallel and not
more than thirty-six (36) inches apart.
In answer to a question from Commissioner de Leon, Mr. Anderson pointed
out that this recommendation from the Zoning & Planning Commission varies quite a
bit with respect to size and location of signs from the previous recommendation,
in that there was a formula proposed in the previous recommendation with a maxi-
mum sign size of 200 square feet, proposed a free-standing sign of 200 square feet,
and behind the 20 -foot line, and proposed roof signs; whereas the maximum size in
this recommendation is 260 square feet, and he recommends that no sign be permit-
ted on the roof of any building.
Farrell D. Smith asked if the omission of reference to property devoted
to parking from the area in which no building, structure, or sign is permitted was
an oversight or deliberate; and Tom Marshall, Chairman of the Zoning & Planning
Commission, replied it was their intention that it be left under the existing or-
dinance which prohibits it.
The following spoke and were recorded as being against any change in the
present ordinance, and for retention and strict enforcement of the existing ordin-
ance, particularly with respect to the sign regulations and the 20 -foot setback
area of the "B-2" Bayfront Business District:
Mrs. D. C. Brown, Jr., 1521 Lea Lane;
Wayland C. McNutt, 1005 Driftwood Place;
Frank Hankins, felt a five-year amortization period for clearing the
20 -foot setback area was equitable;
Mrs. Frances Tarlton Farenthold;
Mrs. Janet Harte;
H. Durward Thompson, representing Nueces County Nurserymen's Association,
would also like to see the paving in the 20 -foot setback area removed and landscaped;
City of Corpus Christi, Texas
Special Council Meeting
February 8, 1965
Page 6
Mrs. Conrad Hydrick;
Mrs. Fran Clopton;
Peter Foss, was against all signs and felt the City should investigate
the manner in which Nice, France, had solved a similar problem with great economic
success;
John J. Collin;
Mrs. W. A. Hugg;
Robert G. Henderson;
Mrs. F. D. Hankins;
Mrs. D. C. Bernwanger, representing the Park & Recreation Board, stated
the Board's recommendation made in November of 1964 in respect to these matters
had not changed;
Mrs. Albert T. Slavik;
Mrs. Robert L. Evans, 517 Dolphin;
Jim Bright, architect, added that other communities are being exhorted
to pass just such an ordinance as we have to fight wanton destruction of their
communities; that businessmen need to be protected from themselves; and the only
reason motels are built on Shoreline is because of the natural beauty of our bay-
front;
Mrs. Barbara Martin;
Mrs. Virginia Hartsel, felt any liberalization would be presenting the
repair bill to the next generation;
Harold Carr;
Mrs. C. A. Gregg;
Albert T. Slavik, 412 Palmetto Drive;
Col. Brice J. Martin;
Mrs. Dwain Harris;
Mrs. Eugene Coffey;
Mrs. James J. Noe;
Mrs. William Gill;
Mrs. Wm. Liles;
Paul H. Artus, 310 Canterbury;
D. C. Brown, Jr., 1521 Leo;
Mrs. James C. Scott, also presented petitions of approximately 850 sig-
natures for the enforcement of the present sign regulations on Shoreline;
Mrs. Dale Owen;
George Clower;
W. E. Owen.
The following spoke and were recorded in favor of changes in the Zoning
Ordinance as recommended by the Zoning & Planning Commission;
Fred Quaile, speaking on behalf of Mr. Joe Barshop, with exception that
he felt the 20 -foot paved area of Ramada Inn used for parking, and the sign should
be allowed to remain since they had been constructed in good faith;
Ben,F. McDonald, attorney representing Ramada Inn and Greater Corpus
Enterprises, felt the recommended amendment was reasonable, would settle and coon.
promise the issue before the City, and allow the tourist industry to grow;
Farrell D. Smith, attorney representing Andy's Cove, felt the no park-
ing in the 20 -foot area for this particular property was unfair because the only
access other than through an alley, is on Shoreline and Laguna; itahas.been in
existence for approximately fifteen years without complaint; and none of the other
properties up and down this business strip have the minimum four -foot hedge or
screening required by the ordinance, which includes the City Hall, County Tax
Office, Chamber of Commerce, and the Health Department building;
Firman Jackson, Corpus Christi Area Convention & Tourist Association,
felt the present ordinance was unduly restrictive, and that larger signs should
be permitted;
Buddy Salvo, President of Corpus Christi Chapter of Restaurant Associ-
ation;
Bob Spann, attorney, felt the third alternative giving the Board of Ad-
justment the power to grant front yard variances would give proper control;
City of Corpus Christi, Texas
Special Council Meeting
February 8, 1965
Page 7
Carl E. Fields;
Houston Abel, felt there was something wrong with the ordinance when
a businessman could not get a permit with confidence that he would not be in
violation.
Ralph Bennett, as Executive Board Member of the Coastal Bend Chapter of
AIA, stated that no concensus of the Chapter had been taken in this matter; that
individual members could speak for themselves; and that he personally had no
opinion.
W. T. Neyland did not speak for or against the amendment, but felt it
was not going to damage the City to allow those who had made their improvements
in good faith to continue to use them.
Everyone present and desiring to be heard having been given an oppor-
tunity to do so, Mayor Barnard thanked everyone for taking the time to inform the
Council on their views; commented that he was sure everyone was sincere in having
the best interests of the City at heart; and that there is a difference in feel-
ings in the matter. He stated that the decision is now up to the City Council;
that the matter deserves considerable discussion on the part of the Council, but
also an early decision; that the decision made by the Council will be the one
they feel is best for the City of Corpus Christi.
Motion by Blackmon, seconded by Roberts and passed that the public
hearing be closed.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the special
meeting was adjourned.
LATER -OFFICE COMMUNICATI( _
Dept Public Works
To T. Ray Krina. City Secretary
From Jack M. Graham, Dirprtor of Public Works
Subject Minntea 0
Date
10 February 1965
Your attention is invited to the following corrections to the subject minutes:
1. In the Manager's Reports, Page 2, Item d -- the wording should be corrected to
read as follows beginning in the 4th line: "whereby the City will participate in
the storm sewer cost from Holly Road to Tiger Lane not to exceed $1,000, and will
construct an outfall drainage channel from Holly Road to an existing channel in
Cabaniss Field, thence to the Oso Creek by 31 December 1965; and the developers
will . . . ."
2. In the Manager's Reports, Page 4, Item k -- the wording should be corrected to
read as follows beginning in the 2nd line: "for the cost of constructing an off-
site sanitary sewer extension to serve the Country Club Estates Subdivision . . .
3. In the Manager's Reports, Page 4, Item n -- in the 3rd line the words "over-
size and overdepth sewer line" should be changed to read "off-site sanitary sewer
main extension."
4. Page 9, Ordinance No. 7485 -- in the 4th line the words "OVERSIZE AND/OR OVER -
DEPTH SEWER LINE" should be changed to read "AN OFF-SITE SANITARY SEWER MAIN EX-
TENSION."
5. Page 10, Ordinance 7492 -- in the 4th line the words " OVERSIZE AND/OR OVER -
DEPTH SEWER MAIN" should be changed to read "AN OFF-SITE SANITARY SEWER MAIN EX-
TENSION."
ACK M. GRAHAM
irector of Public Works
JMG:vr