Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes City Council - 08/12/1968 - SpecialMINUTES CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING August 12, 1968 2:00 P. M. PRESENT: Mayor Jack Blackmon Mayor Pro Tem Ronnie Sizemore Commissioners: Dick Bradley, Jr. Gabe Lozano, Sr. W. J. Roberts City Manager R. Marvin Townsend Assistant City Attorney Bob Young City Secretary T. Ray Kring Mayor Jack R. Blackmon called the meeting to order and stated the purpose of the meeting was to hold public hearings on three zoning applications, eight proposed Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, and any other business as may properly come before the Council, and explained the procedure to be followed. City'Secretary T. Ray Kring called the roll of those in attendance. Mayor Blackmon announced the public hearing on Application #668-5, Mr. Lewis Cantu, for change of zoning from "R -1B" One -family Dwelling District to "I-2" Light Industrial District, on 3.88 acres out of Lot 5, Section 2, Bohemian Colony Lands. Larry Wenger, Senior City Planner, presented the application, located the property on the zoning and land use map, and pointed out the zoning classifications of the surrounding area; stated that the applicant had appeared before the Commission on June 25, 1968, and stated that he has owned this property for several years during which time he has had numerous requests for rental space for operations such as cabinet maker and electrical contractor, which was the reason for the request; that he plans to lease the existing garage located on the front of his property for an automo- bile repair business and maintain his home on the rear of the lot. Mr. Wenger stated that no one had appeared at the hearing in favor or in opposition to the request; that the Staff reported four letters were mailed, one received in favor and none in opposition; that it was the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the request be denied on the basis that it is in the path of active residential growth, would encroach into a residential area and would lead to more strip -type zoning along Holly Road, and that the Staff concurred in this recommendation. No one appeared in support of or in opposition to the foregoing request. After it being determined that the applicant had been sufficiently notified of the public hearing time and place, motion by Roberts, seconded by Sizemore and passed that the hearing be closed. Minutes Special Council Meeting August 12, 1968 Page 2 Motion by Bradley, seconded by Sizemore and passed that the recommendation of the Planning Commission and Staff be concurred in and that Application #668-5, Mr. Lewis Cantu, for change of zoning from "R -1B" One -family Dwelling District to "1-2" Light Industrial District, on 3.88 acres out of Lot 5, Section 2, Bohemian Colony Lands, be denied. Mayor Blackmon announced the public hearing on Application #668-6, Mr. Tom Scarborough, for change of zoning from "B -1A" Tourist Court District to "B-4" General Business District, on the North 392.84 feet of Tract 4, Wilkey Partition, Larry Wenger located the property on the zoning and land use map and explained the land uses in the surrounding area, stated that at the Commission hearing held June 25, 1968, no one had appeared for or against the application, but that a letter was read by the Staff indicating that general retail business zoning was desired to be used as investment property to be built to suit tenants for uses such as furniture store, appliances, television, restaurants, taverns, etc., and that the reason for this depth was caused by the zoning granted to J. H. Bourcier on adjoining properties to the west now occupied by United Furniture Company. Mr. Wenger reported that five letters were mailed prior to the hearing, one received for and none in opposition; that it was the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the request be approved, and that the Staff concurred in this recommendation. Mr. Wenger explained that the applicant, Mr. Tom Scarborough, lives in Lubbock and would not be present on behalf of the application. No one appeared in opposition to the foregoing request. Motion by Bradley, seconded by Roberts and passed, that the hearing be closed. Motion by Sizemore, seconded by Roberts, that the application be denied on the basis that the applicant did not appear in support of his application, and had not shown specific plans for development of the property. City Secretary Kring reported that he had received a telephone call from Mr. George Gaines of Westem Steel Corporation some two weeks ago, stating that they are awaiting the zoning change so that plans could get under way for the construction of a building. Commissioner Roberts stated he wished to withdraw his second to Mayor Pro Tem Sizemore's motion to deny the request, and the motion died. Minutes Special Council Meeting August 12, 1968 Page 3 Motion by Sizemore, seconded by Lozano and passed, that Application #668-6, Mr. Tom Scarborough, be tabled for further consideration. Mayor Blackmon announced the public hearing on Application #668-8, Mr. Guadalupe C. DeLuna, for change of zoning from "R -1B" One -family Dwelling District to "B-1" Neighborhood Business District, on Lot 25A, Patrick Gardens. Larry Wenger described the location of the property in relation to the surrounding zoning classifications which is predominantly residential; that at the Commission hearing held June 25, 1968, the applicant had appeared and explained that he planned to open a snow cone and soft drink stand on the subject property, and that he planned to use the garage part of the other structure located on the front of the property for the concessions' stand. Mr. Wenger reported that prior to the Commission hearing 27 letters were mailed, two received in opposition and none in favor, and that no one had appeared at the hearing in favor or in opposition; that it was the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the request be denied on the basis that no public necessity is shown for this use, the existing zoning is adequate, it would create "spot" zoning in a well-established residential area, and would tend to break down the residential character of the neighborhood, and that the Staff con- curred in this recommendation. City Manager Townsend asked that the records reflect that a letter of opposition had been received from Mrs. Lawrence L. Silva, President of the Rose Shaw P.T.A., and asked that the zoning change be denied on the basis that it is located next to the school building, and also that a snow cone and snack bar would serve as a hangout for the students. Mrs. DeLuna spoke in behalf of the request, stating that they had applied for a building permit for the proposed operation, and that the Electrical Inspector had pointed out that the land was not properly zoned for this use, and that they would have to pay the $50 commercial rate for utility connections. No one appeared in opposition to the foregoing request. Motion by Roberts, seconded by Bradley and passed, that the hearing on the foregoing application be recessed for two weeks, the 28th day of August, Regular Meeting. Minutes Special Council Meeting August 12, 1968 Page 4 Mayor Blackmon announced the public hearing on proposed Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, and called on Mr. William Anderson, Director of Planning, to present the proposed amendments. Mr. Anderson read the following proposed amended Text Amendment: Amendment 01 - Grouping of Residential Buildings: Section 3-1.16 Court. An open space around which is arranged a single building or a group of related buildings facing thereon. Section 27-3.01.03 - In the event that a lot is to be occupied by a group of two or more—related buildings to be used for residential, institutional, hotel or motel purposes, there may be more than one main building on the lot when such buildings are arranged around a court; provided, however, that said court between buildings shall have a minimum average width of 30 feet for one-story buildings; 40 feet for two-story buildings, and 50 feet for three- story buildings; but in no case may any such building be closer than 15 feet to another building; provided further, that each building shall be directly accessible from a public street or from an obstructed fire lane, at least 20 feet in width, clearly shown and so designated on a site plan. Mr. Anderson explained that this amendment, in two parts, is designed to provide for garden -type apartments, motels and similar developments; that the present ordinance provides that there shall be only one main use building per lot, and that the relief from this requirement provided by the Board of Adjustment is legally doubtful; that the amendment was requested by the Board of Adjustment and the Staff, and was prepared jointly by the Legal, Planning and Inspection Division Staffs. Mr. Anderson explained that the first part of the proposed amendment defines a court, and the second part provides for spacing of buildings to provide for air, light and fire protection. He stated it was the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the words "facing thereon" at the end of the definition of "Court" be delisted in order to provide more flexibility in design of multiple - family housing developments. Mr. Frank Peerman, Mr. S. Mendell, and Dr. M. L. Norvell, appeared and asked for clarification and stated they approved of the proposed amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Anderson presented Amendment 112 to the Text of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: Minutes Special Council Meeting August 12, 1968 Page 5 Amendment #2 - Time Limit on Resubmission of Application for Zoning Classification Change: Section 30-6. Once denied by the City Council, a re -submission of substantially the same application or request for a zoning classification change or Special Use Permit shall not be considered by the Zoningfand Planning Commission or the City Council within six (6) months of such denial except by unanimous consent of each body. Mr. Anderson explained that the foregoing amendment was suggested by the City Council and the Staff to discourage disgruntled individuals from resubmitting applications to harass the Council, Commission and Staff after a decision has been presumably made in the public interest, and should not be subjected to an unnecessary reconsideration unless the facts and circumstances surrounding the case are materially changed. He stated the Planning Commission recommended that this amendment not be approved on the basis that they felt there was very little abuse of the privilege or resubmission of zoning requests and they did not feel it was needed. Mr. Peerman stated he favored the recommendation of the Planning Commission, explaining that this time limit could be a severe hindrance to developers. Mr. Anderson read Amendment #3 relative to Parking regulations for apartment buildings, as follows: Amendment #3 - Parking Regulations for Apartment Buildings: Article 22. Parking Regulations. Amend the table by substituting in the "R-2" line in Column 3 and in the "A-1" line in Column 3 the following: 2 per one -bedroom unit 2-1/2 per two-bedroom unit 3 per three-bedroom unit In Column 3 of the "A-1" line, delete the word "except" and the letters "B-2" and "B-5". In Column 5 of the "A-1" line, delete the notes. Mr. Anderson stated the Staff felt the recent trend and experience with apartment building in the City, the present parking requirements are inadequate; that prudent builders will provide more than the minimum parking requirements, but that some are not interested and only provide what they can get by with, and in some instances, would build without any if the regulations would permit, and since the State Law states that one of the main purposes of zoning is to lessen congestion in the streets, the foregoing amendment was suggested, Mr. Anderson stated the recommendation of the Planning Com- mission is that parking regulations requirements be amended by substituting in the "R-2" and "A-1" Minutes Special Council Meeting August 12, 1968 Page 6 lines of Column 3 "1-1/2L parking spaces per unit or one bedroom" (whichever is the greatet); the word "except" and the letters "B-2" and "B-5". Mr. Anderson stated the Staff had received several suggestions from developers, and had come up with a suggestion which they feel will be a compromise between the higher income type apartments and the lower, requiring that 1-1/2 parking spaces be provided for one bedroom units, and anything over a one bedroom unit would require two spaces. Mr. Connor, Dr. Norvell, and Mr. Mendell, stated they favored the recommendation of the Staff to require 1-1/2 parking spaces for one bedroom units and anything over that would require two spaces. Mr. Tom Swantner, Swantner Investment Corporation, stated he feels the minimum requirements for parking spaces in the existing ordinance is too low, and in his opinion, the 1-1/2 spaces per unit would be a good minimum, otherwise, they will go back to the Board of Adjustment, He stated that most builders provide all the spaces they need, and those who have more land can provide as many as they want. Mr. Anderson read proposed Amendment #4, relative to Floor -Lot Ratio Requirements, as follows: Amendment #4 - Floor -Lot Ratio Requirements: Article 24, Height, Area and Bulk Requirements. Amend Lines 10, 11, & 12, Column MAXIMUM FLOOR -LOT RATIO, by adding the words "50% land coverage". Sections 10r5.01 & 11-5.01 The 50% land coverage shall apply to one, two and three story buildings. Mr. Anderson explained that the wording of the provision in the present ordinance seems to make it apply only to three-story buildings or more, and that this amendment would clarify the intent of the regulation so as to apply also to one and two-story buildings. He further explained that it would not affect the garden -type building since it only applies to "AT" and "AB" Districts. The Plgnning Commission recommended that it be approved as written. Mr. Anderson read proposed Amendment #5, relative to the definition of home occupation, as follows: Amendment #5 - Definition of Home Occupation: 3-1.36 Home Occupation. Any occupation or activity which is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the premises for dwelling purposes and which is carried on wholly within a main buiding by a member of a family residing on Minutes Special Council Meeting August 12, 1968 Page 7 the premises, in connection with which there is no advertising other than an identification sign of not more than one square foot in area placed flat against the building, and no other display or storage of materials or generation of substantial volumes of vehicular or pedestrian traffic or parking demand or other exterior indication of the home occupation or variation from the residential character of the building; and in connection with which not more than one person outside the family is employed and no equipment used which creates noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odors, heat or glare, any of which are offensive to persons of ordinary sensibility in the neighborhood. When within the above requirements, a home occupation includes the following: (a) Art studio; (b) Dressmaking; (c) Professional office of a doctor, physician, dentist, lawyer, en6ineer, architect, accountant, salesman, real estate agent, insurance agent; (d) Teaching with musical instruction limited to one or two pupils at a time; however, a home occupation shall not be interpreted to include barber shops, beauty parlors, restaurants or the conduct of a business involving retail sales, but is intended to include only those personal services which are subordinate to the use of the premises as a dwelling. Mr. Anderson stated that the present definition does not clearly define the provision; that the Inspection Division, Planning Staff, and the Legal Department hake difficulty interpreting and enforcing the provision; that there have been complaints from citizens in neighborhoods where excesses permitted by the present definition are objectionable, and there have been several court rulings against the City on home occupations. He stated the proposed amendment clearly defines and "tightens up" permitted home occupations, and that the Planning Commission's recommendation is that it be approved as written. Mr. Anderson presented proposed Amendment #6, relative to nonconforming use, as follows: Amendment #6 - Nonconforming Use: Article 26. Section 26-3 Designation of a Nonconforming Use. Delete this Section and Section 26-8 in their entirety and substitute the following: Section 26-3 Termination of Nonconforming Use. Any use of a building or land which was a legal conforming use prior to the date of passage or any amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and which is not thereafter ineonfirnity shall be treated as a permissible nonconforming use after the date of the passage of the amend- ment. In the event the use ceases to exist or is abandoned for a period of one year, the property shall lose its classification as a nonconforming use and shall be deemed in violation of this ordinance or if conditions set forth'. in Section 26-4 shall occur. Mr. Anderson explained that the present section is entirely too complicated, confusing, and ineffective, and is difficult to know when a use becomes nonconforming. He stated the Planning Cammi4ion recommended that the foregoing simple paragraph be substituted in lieu of the long com- plicated one. Minutes Special Council Meeting August 12, 1968 Page 8 Mr. Anderson read proposed Amendment 07, in connection with Time Limit for compliance with the Zoning conditions, as follows: Amendment 07 - Time Limit for Compliance with Zoning Conditions: Add Section 30-7 On applications where a change in the zoning classification of a property s granted by the City Council subject to certain conditions, and if such conditions are not complied with within six months of the date of the decision of the Council, the application shall be automatically denied unless an extension for good and sufficient reasons be granted by the Council before the expiration of the six -month's time limit. All pending applications which were acted upon prior to the date of the passage of this ordinance shall be com- plied with in 90 days. Mr, Anderson explained that this amendment is necessary to clear the books of a number of zoning amendments awaiting fulfillment of conditions imposed to make the zoning change in the public interest; that if conditions imposed are not complied with in a reasonable length of time (one year) the property probably did not warrant a change in classification. He stated that this is not provided for in the present ordinance and has been adopted mostly on administrative basis and does not apply uniformly and equally to all. He stated that after consulting with Assistant City Attorney Tom McDowell, the Staff felt this policy should be discontinued, pending cases disposed of as rapidly as possible, and that no zoning changes be granted subject to conditions subsequent to passage of the ordinance. He further stated the recommendation of the Planning Commission was that the foregoing proposed amendment not be approved, and that conditional zoning be eliminated entirely. Vice - Mr. John Keltner, President of Saratoga Land Company, stated he was in complete agree- ment with the recommendation of Mr. Anderson and the Planning Commission that conditional zoning, particularly relative to the filing of plats, be eliminated entirely. He described the problems which arise in long-range planning of Targe developments when the zoning is granted subject to conditions, that it is costly and burdensome to engineers, Staff and Coundil, and he felt zoning should be separated from platting. Mr.'Frisco Roberts and Dr, Norvell expressed agreement with Mr. Anderson's and Mr. Kelt- ner's suggestions, but proposed a time limit of 12 months. Mr. Mendell, Mr. Peerman, Mr. Swantner, and Larry Urban, all agreed that zoning and platting should be dealt with separately, and that there should be no time limit placed on conditions. Minutes Special Council Meeting August 12, 1968 Page 9 Mr. Swantner pointed out that large apartment developments cannot be built in six months or even a year, and that the fence is the last to be constructed. Mr. W. H, Stahl, appeared and stated that it had been his observation that conditions are forgotten after the zoning has been granted; that he knew of instances where sufficient parking was not provided for when the zoning was granted; that he did not favor raising the filing fee; and that he felt the 20 percent rule should be clarified. Mr. Bill Nichols of Padre Island Investment Corporation stated his company has long range plans, and that it would be humanly impossible to comply with certain conditions if a time limit were attached to it. He stated that he also feels zoning and platting should be considered separately. Mr. Anderson presented proposed Amendment #8, in connection with filing fees, as fgjlows: Amendment #8 - Filing Fees: Amend Section 33-3.01 as follows: Section 33-3.01 All persons, firms, or corporations, appealing to the Board of Adjustment, necessitating the sending of notices and publications of notices in the newspaper shall be required to pay in advance $40 for expenses relative thereto. Amend Section 33-3.02 as follows: Section 33-3.02 All persons, firms or corporations applying for Special Use Permits under t e provisions of Article 25 of this Ordinance or applying for an amend- ment to the Zoning Ordinance for a change in the Classification of the district or a portion thereof, necessitating the sending of notices and publication of notices in the newspaper shall be required to pay in advance $80; provided, however, if the applicant withdraws his application before it is forwarded to the City Council, $40 of said $80 will be refunded to the applicant; provided, however, that an application for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance initdated by the City Council, the Zoning. and Planning Commission, any City Staff member (acting in his capacity as a City Staff member) or any other Board or Agency of the City of Corpus Christi shall be without fee. Mr, Anderson stated that fees to process zoning amendment applications and Board of Adjustment appeals provided for in the existing ordinance are entirely inadequate due to the increase in cost for processing requests; and that the suggested increases are in accord with actual costs and those of other cities. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the amendment be approved as written. Mr, Peerman stated he felt $80 seemed excessive, but that he did agree that the taxpayers should not have to subsidize zoning applications. Mr. Frisco Roberts stated he feels the higher fee may work a hardship on those of limited means. Minutes Special Council Meeting August 12, 1968 Page 10 Mr. Jack Pedigo commended the Council and Staff for the serious consideration of the foregoing matters and other problems of the City, but stated he feels the higher fee seems too high unless it is not applicable to special Council Permits or individual home owners. Mr. Swantnerasked why a new Section 13 of Article 25, Section 25-4, Special Uses, could not be added to the Zoning Ordinance under which all apartment projects could be constructed as a Special Use Permit which would include all of the necessary requirements, rather than having the requirements under "A-1" and "A-2" zoning classifications, and would not necessarily have to go before the Council . Those in the audience having been given an opportunity to be heard, Mayor Blackmon stated all proposed amendments will be given consideration, and any decision made by the Council will be what it feels is in the best interest of the City. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned.