Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes City Council - 03/15/1971 - SpecialMINUTES CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING EXPOSITION HALL March 15, 1971 2:00 P. M. PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Gobe Lozaro, Sr. Commissioners: Dick Bradley, Jr. Eduardo E . de Ases Ken McDaniel W. J. Roberts Ronnie Sizemore City Manager R. Marvin Townsend Assistant City Attorney Bob Coffin City Secretary T. Ray Kring • Mayor Pro Tem Gabe Lozano called the meeting to order and stated the purpose of the Special Meeting was to hold public hearings on six zoning cases and any other business as may properly come before the Council. He noted that a quorum of the Council and the required Charter officers were present, and explained the procedure to be followed. Motion by Bradley, seconded by Roberts and passed, that Commissioner Sizemore be nominated as Acting Mayor Pro -Tem in the expected absence of Mayor Pro Tem Lozano who will participate inhonorary services in a ribbon -cutting ceremony at 3 p.m. elsewhere in the City. Senior City Planner Larry Wenger presented Application #271-16, Saratoga Land Company, for change of zoning on Tract A- from "R -1B" One -family Dwelling District to "R-2" Two-family Dwelling District, being a 44.5 -acre tract of land out of Lots 9 through 13, and 20 through 22, Section 4, Flour Bluff and Encinal Farm and Garden Tracts; and Tract B - from "R -1B" One -family Dwelling District to "A-1" Apartment House District, being an 8.3 - acre portion out of Lot 9, Section 4, Flour Bluff and Encinal Farm and Garden Tracts. He pointed out the existing zoning and land use in the surrounding area, stating that except for the Country Club development and scattered businesses and residential uses along the east side of South Staples Street, the entire area is vacant. He stated that the application was heard by the Planning Commission February 16, 1971, at which time attorney J. W. Gary represented the applicants and introduced the officers of Saratoga Land Company, Mr. John Hawn, Stockholder and Treasurer; Mr. George Hawn, President; Mr. John Keltner, Vice President and General Manager; and Gene Urban, Engineer and Land Planner. Mr. Wenger explained that the present application includes some 53 acres of which 90 to 99 percent has been acquired since the original zoning requests were made. He stated there was considerable • Minutes Special Council Meeting March 15, 1971 Page 2 opposition at the hearing generally r;om those residents within the area bounded by the drainage ditch on the north, by South Staples on the east, Everhart Road on the west, and Saratoga Boulevard on the south, and stated that the total development comprises approximately 474 acres. He stated that prior to the hearing the Staff mailed out nine notices, two received in favor, three in opposition, and one letter received in opposition from the Country Club; that it was the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the request for rezoning on both tracts be denied, and the Staff's opinion that the request should be approved because the proposed townhouse uses are considered a modem form of residential development, and the apartment proposal acts as a buffer between the townhouses and business. Mr. Wenger stated that the 20 percent rule is in effect on both tracts because of the opposition on Tract A. Mr. J. W. Gary, attorney representing the applicants, stated the application of the 20 percent rule in this case is debatable according to Section 30-5 of the Zoning Ordinance which he stated provides that the signatures of those in opposition must be acknowledged to be valid; that he had reviewed the written opposition in this case and this section of the ordinance had not been complied with relative to the 20 percent rule. Mr. George Hawn, President of Saratoga Land Company, reviewed the history of the applicant's land purchases and development of this area, stating it began in the late 1950s, and that in the early 1960s various zoning applications were made on an area of approximately 1,000 acres. He stated that at that time it was their goal to develop an integrated community plan based on feasibility and market studies. He pointed out that since the original concept of the plan, times, modes of living, and needs have changed and people throughout the country have shown a marked tendency to prefer the townhouse or apartment type of living; for this reason some of the original plans have been altered; and that this trend is being put into its proper perspective by this plan. He stated that during the course of their original plans for development of the area, they had constantly referred to the Harland -Bartholomew Report, the Master Plon, and other reports and comprehensive studies made by the City Staff. He presented to the Council copies of various reports of planning studies throughout the country which he stated had been used in the overall plan for this development, and asked that the copies be returned at the close of the hearing. Mr. Hawn stated that following the Commission hearing, Minutes Special Council Meeting March 15, 1971 Page 3 they decided to employ the firm of Cean, Harman, O'Donnell and Henninger Associates, Planning Consultants of Denver, Colorado, to make a study of the situation and make recommendations to the applicant, and indirectly to the Council, to help alleviate some of the problems and to answer some of the questions which arose at that hearing. He introduced Mr. Trafton Bean, Vice President of the Consulting Firm referred to. Mr. Bean pointed out that they had nothing to sell other than their professional reputation; that they had read the reports and were fully aware of the fact that the economics have changed since the plan had originated; pointed out that some of the reports had been written several years ago but were still advanced enough to know that townhouse and apartment units should be and could be integrated with single family areas; and that after having reviewed the background and the surrounding area, it was his opinion that there are many justifications for the subject zoning request. He outlined various reasons why this particular proposal is logical, stated the developer had done a competent job of developing the area, and that he was impressed with the quality of the homes, the street system, the park and open space areas, walkways and alignment of buildings. He described in detail the proposed development from a diagram on a colored map, and named various objectives which the developer had in mind such as changes in living habits; retention of area for future adjoining park; allowance for safe pedestrian access to the park and other areas; use of landscaping to separate the land use where possible; consideration for expansion of the golf course and related facilities; possibility of another golf course being located south of Saratoga; inside orientation; design of plans feasible for private construction; and awareness of the impact on the surrounding territory. From the standpoint of overcrowding the schools, he pointed out that records disclose that the population density of school children in townhouses and apartments is one-half to two-thirds that of single-family dwellings; that buyers are looking for something new in the way of housing; that townhouses are gaining momentum; and that the old subdivision type houses are on their way out. He stated they have prepared a study whereby these objectives can be obtained. Mayor Pro Tem Lozano departed the meeting at this time and relinquished the Chair to Commissioner Ronnie Sizemore. • Minutes Special Council Meeting March 15, 1971 Page 4 Mr. Gary spoke on behalf o the Saratoga Land Company and filed with the Council a set of plans for the proposed development. He stated that at the time of the initial planning of the Country Club Estates in 1964, the contract entered into by the applicants and the Country Club was for the mutual benefit of both parties, and at that time it was envisioned that the entire area would be developed into a residential subdivision, but stated there is a difference in vision and facts. He pointed out that in 1964 the developer did not own the Saratoga Stables area, nor the tract along the drainage ditch known as the Logan Tract; that these tracts have since been purchased; stated that in 1964 when the application was filed for "I-2" zoning on the Stables area, the Saratoga Land Company opposed the request, but that a Special Permit was granted for a rodeo and stables club, and that Saratoga Land Company then purchased the property to be a part of their overall development. Mr. Gary pointed out on the slide projector the areas platted and owned by the Saratoga Land Company and the areas platted and incorporated into the overall plan of long-range development. He stated that the question is whether or not the entire area is to be developed according to the Master Plan or whether or not the Master Plan can be revised. He pointed out instances where the Master Pian had been revised by cutting a road across the gold course on the east side to connect the center of the golf course with another street, stating that the point he is making is that the Master Plan can be changed so long as it relates to the view of those who want it changed. Mr. Gary further pointed out that the City had in recent months reduced apartment density requirements after recognizing the current trend. Mr. Gary stated it is the intention of the Saratoga Land Company to develop a first class subdivision and to maintain the quality of the area; that quality is the "key note" rather than a particular type of neighborhood, that a particular style of living habits does not change the objectives or the quality of the neighborhood, and stated that there is no demand for high quality townhouses unless they are located in a high quality neighborhood. Mr. Gary denied the allegation that the zoning request is an economic question and not one that calls for good zoning. He pointed out that the Saratoga Land Company has vast investments in the development and would stand to lose more than anyone if the area is downgraded and property values destroyed, and certainly would not present a plan that would be detrimental to their own • • Minutes Special Council Meeting March 15, 1971 Page 5 interests. He pointed out that if the Fairway Apartments northeast of Everhart and Saratoga were a mistake, it was a mistake within the framework of the zoning ordinance and that the mistake was not the people who bought it but a mistake in density. Mr. Gary stated that in order to get the matter resolved they have agreed to reduce the application for "R-2" zoning on Tract A as per their letter dated March 15, 1971, and in accordance with the plat and field notes submitted showing the area proposed, to be reduced and would go on record that if the application for "R-2" zoning is approved on the remaining portion, they will, by deed restrictions, restrict the zoned area to a density of not more than eight units per acre. He stated that the total amount of the application for townhouses had been 44.5 acres and the proposal is to reduce the area to 35.7 acres, and that the area proposed to be reduced would remain "R -1B". Mr. Charles Porter, attorney, spoke in opposition on behalf of the Corpus Christi Country Club. He stated he was supported by a delegation from the Country Club and property owners in the area and asked that they be allowed to show their opposition by a show of hands. Approximately 90% of an audience of some 150 persons stood indicating their opposition. Mr. Porter pointed out that the proponents' expert witness had disagreed with them and stated he hoped Mr. Bean's opinion was more reliable than what Saratoga Land Company was depending on when they initiated the proposed plan. He stated it was his opinion that there is no way to build a first class subdivision surrounding a golf course with townhouses; that the people who had built $75,000 to $100,000 homes that now surround the golf course had invested their money in reliance of representations of the Saratoga Land Company and that it was never stated to the Board of Trustees of the Country Club that the area was ever going to be burdened with townhouses or apartments except in those specific places pointed out at the beginning. He stated there is no question as to the position of the members of the Country Club; they are unequivocably opposed to the proposal and insist on the area being maintained as a first class residential subdivision. Mr. Porter pointed out that the Saratoga Land Company had disclosed in its application presented today that they have considerable other land in this area which could be used for the proposed development where there would be no complaint; stated he did not disagree with the • Minutes Special Council Meeting March 15, 1971 Page 6 reasoning that townhouses are needej, but that they should not be built next to a golf course or an expensive Country Club which was built for the sole purpose of playing golf and not for flying kites, playing football or baseball; stated that restrictions prohibit the Country Club from fencing the golf course off, is extremely dangerous, and that there is no way to keep children off other than not to provide places for them to live; stated that to build townhouses adjacent to a country club is adverse to the vary purpose for which it was built; and that the applicants have noright to take advantage of the open spaces of the golf course. He stoted the area is developed exactly as it was envisioned to be developed eight years ago; stated that this area is the only area where people who have the money to pay can build first class expensive homes; that if the application is granted this area will be destroyed and there will be no place in Corpus Christi to accommodate people who can afford $100,000 homes. Mr. Porter stated the deed restrictions are a matter of record; that relative to the statement that signatures of opponents should be acknowledged in order to be valid, the State Statute does not call for acknowledgements and that the local ordinance cannot be in conflict with the State Statute. Mr. Porter stated that among other reasons the Corpus Christi Country Club members are opposed to the request are: trespassing onto the golf course and the danger of being hit by golf balls which can be fatal; overcrowding of schools, parks and streets; and the understanding of the members that this area would be a first class residential subdivision. He stated his figures did not agree with the opponents' that there will not be as many children in townhouses as in single family dwelling; that based on 14 units per acre of townhousedevelopment there could be approximately 32 children per acre as compared to a figure of four single family units per acre which would be only 15 children. He stated It was his opinion that the request is based solely on economics and not good zoning, and that the plans had been changed from the original plan only to benefit the developer because they did not want to wait for the single family development. Mr. Porter stated a petition had been signed by 190 members of the Country Club who are opposed to the request, which petition was presented at the Planning Commission hearing, also a resolution signed by the Board of Directors of the Country Club opposing the proposal. • Minutes Special Council Meeting March 15, 1971 Page 7 He urged the Council to consider w ether or not there is a public need and if the public demands this type of development; pointed out that there are requirements of the zoning ordinance which must be met before a zoning change is granted, and quoted from the Zoning Ordinance that "the zoning regulations and districts as herein established have been made in accordance with a Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals and the general welfare of the City...," and before the zoning change could be granted, these requirements should be met. Mr. Edwin Prichard, Jr., attorney, appeared representing the landowners in the area and presented a petition signed by 147 separate families who own property in Country Club Estates and property owners surrounding the subject area living generally within the Everhart, South Staples, the Drainage Ditch across Everhart, and Country Club Estates, but not including the area represented by SPIKE, which he stated represents in excess of $6 million in properly values. He stated he agreed with Mr. Porter that the 20 percent rule is in effect because of the Country Club's opposition and concurred in all of the objections voiced by Mr. Porter. He stated that the property owners he represents have held numerous meetings and that they have overwhelmingly and unanimously rejected the subject proposal as being opposite to what was originally proposed to be developed for this area. He stated their objections were based on: increased density, traffic congestion, overloading of utilities, type of buildings, crowding of recreational facilities and crowding of schools. He stated they felt the facts had been misrepresented by the developer, and that they were objecting to not only what they are proposing to do but to what could be built within the ordinaice if the zoning is granted, and that the Council must base its decision on this assumption. He stated it is his opinion that the applicants were only trying to sell the townhouse concept to protect there investment alreody made and that it is purely economic. He further stated that the residents of Country Club Estates are not attempting to controVarea but stressed that it has been represented as a single family development and they want to keep it that way. Mrs. Larry Prichard, 425 Chase, spoke in opposition, stating that their property is oriented to the golf course but not within the 200 -foot notification zone but that the proposed townhouse complex on Tract A would be in full view of their home; stated that when they. • Minutes Special Council Meeting March 15, 1971 Page 8 bought the Tots in 1968, they were shown a map indicating single-family dwellings around the school site in the area; were told the horse stables would be removed within two years, but that others had been told that the stables would be there for at least five years. She stated facts had been misrepresented and misleading; that the applicants had stated that they were committed to develop the remaining lots around the golf course with the same density and the same restrictions and the same quality homes. She further stated the market will not accommodate the number of townhouses planned for Tract A; and that the applicants have other available properties on which to build townhouses. Others appearing and speaking in opposition were: Dr. Mel Eliades, 5110 Greenbriar; Mrs. Lowell Camp; Mr. Richard Stone, 422 Haroldson; and Tom Bains, Cascade Street. Mr. Gary, speaking in rebuttal, stated that Mr. Porter and Mr. Prichard's comments with regard to specific cases had related to amendments to the zoning ordinance where there had been a comprenensive zoning study and do not relate where there has been overall grant of "R -1B", stating if that were true there would never be anything but "R -1B" as it all comes automatically as "R -1B". He stated he agreed that the land owners have made large invest- ments when they purchased their homes, but pointed out that the Saratoga Land Company had also made a large investment. Mr. Bean stated the plan is not a devious or diabolical scheme and pointed out that (1) some of the comments had been lawyers opinions; (2) that we are living in changing con- ditions; and (3) a first class residential area can be maintained with townhouses included, and the design as represented will be of first quality. Speaking in rebuttal, Mr. Porter questioned the logic of the applicants' statement that the location was ideal for townhouses because of the proximity of the golf course and ability to utilize the open spaces. He stated the area which the applicants reduced from the application moved the townhouses back, and therefore do not need the golf course; that if the townhouses are acceptable in this area, they they would be just as acceptable in one of the other areas available to the developer. Commissioner Sizemore stated that the Legal Department had ruled that the 20 percent rule was in effect because of the opposition registered on Tract A. • Minutes Special Council Meeting March 15, 1971 Page 9 Motion by Bradley, seconder, by Roberts and passed, that the hearing be closed. Motion by McDaniel, seconded by Bradley and passed, that the foregoing zoning request be tabled for further consideration. Mayor Pro Tem Lozano resumed his position as presiding officer and announced the public hearing on Application 0271-15, Ted M. Anderson, for change of zoning on: Tract I - from "R -1B" One -family Dwelling District to "8-4" General Business District, on approximately 31.8 acres out of Lots 3 & 4, Oso Farm Tracts; and Tract II - from "R -1B" One -family Dwelling District to "A-1" Apartment House District, on approximately 20 acres out of Lots 3 & 4, Oso Farm Tracts. Mr. Wenger pointed out the existing zoning and land use in the area stating that general business, apartments and townhouses are proposed. He stated .that the request was heard by the Planning Commission February 16, 1971, at which time Attorney Ted Anderson, representing the Modessett Foundation, presented and explained the proposed development. Mr. Wenger stated there was opposition at the hearing, including.a representative of SPIKE, generally on the basis that the additional apartments would create extra density which would overcrowd schools, create more traffic, and lower property values. Mr. Wenger stated that prior to the hearing the Staff mailed out 24 notices, four received in favor and eleven in opposition; that it was the recommendation of the Planning Commission that "B-4" General Business District be granted on Tract I, and that the request for "A-1" Apartment House District on Tract II, be denied, and that it was the Staff's opinion that the request should be denied for the following reasons: (1) Encroachment into a one -family zoning district which will have a deteriorating effect on the adjacent residential area to the south; (2) there is sufficient business zoning to the east and west of this area fronting on Padre Island Drive to take care of not only the needs of the surrounding neighborhood, but other areas as well; (3) the area fronting along Padre Island Drive between Weber Road and Everhart will have limited access when the Freeway is built, therefore, this particular tract will not be a good business location; and that the Staff further feels the area along Padre Island Drive would not be an area conducive to single-family homes, therefore, it is recommended that Tract I be • Minutes Special Council Meeting March 15, 1971 Page 10 zoned "A-1"Apartment House District and that Tract II remain as it is presently zoned. He stated that the opposition registered as shown on the map would invoke the 20 percent rule. Mr. Ted Anderson, attorney and the applicant, explained the proposal pointing out on the map the plan for accessability, traffic flow, and utilities for this property and also for the surrounding properties; stated that the apartments would be rented or under individual ownership; would be either condominium or cooperative units; and would be priced between $15,000 and $18,000. He stated the apartments would provide a buffer for the Stonegate area; that they were attempting to orient the two ten -acre tracts which are a part of Tract Il, and that these tracts are under option to be purchased by Alodex Corporation of Memphis, Tennessee. He explained that the plans are preliminary and that they cannot draw final plans until they have been assured that the zoning request will be granted. Attorney Tom McDowell, resident of Carroll Woods, but speaking as a member of the organization SPIKE, stated the points made by attorneys Charles Porter and Edwin Prichard is opposition to the foregoing request of Saratoga Land Company, could be applicable to this request relative to reasons for opposition in regard to increased density, overcrowding of schools, traffic congestion, and general undesirability of multiple housing units adjoining established one -family residential areas. He stated he did not object to the business zoning but did object to the apartment zoning request. He stated they do not object to the concept of townhouses but only to their location. He pointed out another 14 -acre tract of land located behind the K -Mart which he 'stated is already zoned for general business and which would be available and suitable for the proposed apartments. He suggested that the Planning Commission records be amended to add "require that the owner file a deed restriction" restricting property from being used for multiple family purposes, and which could be a condition to the zoning if granted, and in good faith suggested this as an alternative to at least givei the residential neighborhood assurance that they will not be burdened with increased density, overcrowded schools, parks and streets. He also suggested that the street be carried through the southeast line of the property to be zoned for general business and projecting onto Everhart, or as a second alternative, leave it a deadend; and also that deed restrictions be applied to the north 30 acres. • Mi nutes Special Council Meeting March 15, 1971 Page 11 It was pointed out that dee.! restrictions cannot be required as a condition of zoning, but only as is agreed to by the proponents. Mr. James W. Larson, 4325 Hermosa, owner of Lot 8, Block 14, Carroll Woods #4 and a member of SPIKE, stated that it appears that this area has become very popular for location of apartments, and expressed strong opposition to the request to construct 600 additional apartmentunits in an area already overcrowded. Mr. Larry Bunting of Mortgage Investment Incorporation, 3202 Reid Drive, stated he had no objection to the apartments but felt they should be limited to somewhat Tess than proposed. Mr. Tommy Thompson spoke in opposition stating he has a $35,000 house under construction in this area; that if the zoning request is granted the applicant could construct a maximum of 14 units per acre and would be located at the rear of his property; and that he felt this would detract and decrease the value of his home and the subdivision. He stated he would not oppose a Special Permit if the number of apartments could be limited to ten units per acre. He stated he understood from a statement made at the Planning Commission that an appeal was being made for lower income prospects; that the units would contain from 800 to 900 feet of floor space at a price range of from $14 to $15 thousand per unit, and that was the reason he was opposed. Mr. Anderson pointed out that one of the benefits of "R-2" zoning which permits townhouse development is that a person can create his own atmosphere in a self-contained orea which is highly desirable. He further pointed out that the area in question is between a "hodge podge" of uses on one side and business zoning on the other, and that in his opinion $15 to $17 thousand dollar homes would be a credit to the neighborhood. Mr. McDowell stated that this is the third time this property has been under consideration for a change of zoning for construction of apartments and townhouses, and that there has been no change in the conditions of the area existing then and now. Mr. Anderson stated the requested had been for "A-1" on Tract II, but that they would accept "R-2". • Minutes Special Council Meeting March 15, 1971 Page 12 Mr. McDowell stated he would have to consult those whom he represents as to whether or not "R-2" would be acceptable, but stated that after three times, they felt some compromise in some areas might be necessary. Motion by Bradley, seconded by Roberts and passed, that the hearing be closed. Motion by Bradley, seconded by Roberts and passed, that the foregoing matter be tabled for further consideration. - Commissioner McDaniel departed the meeting at this time. Mayor Pro Tem Lozano announced the public hearing on Application 0271-10, H. W. Riner, for change of zoning from "R -1B" One -family Dwelling District to "A-1" Apartment House District, on the east 1/2 of north 1/2 of Lot 15, and the west 1/2 of north 1/2 of Lot 14, J..N.. Laughlin Subdivision. Larry Wenger pointed out the existing zoning and land uses in the surrounding area, stating that the entire area is developed with single-family residences, and that a single- family residence is located on the rear of the subject property. He stated that the request was heard by the Planning Commission February 16, 1971, at which time the applicant appeared and explained that he would like to construct four two-story apartment buildings on the property. He stated there was considerable opposition expressed at the hearing generally on the basis that apartments located in the middle of a residential area would be a detriment; stated that prior to the hearing the Staff mailed seventeen notices, two received in favor and five in opposition and one in opposition outside the 200 -foot notification zone; that it was the recommendation of both the Planning Commission and the Staff that the request be denied. City Manager Townsend reported that one letter in favor had been received since the hearing from Mr. and Mrs. W. I. Smith and eight letters received from area residents in opposition. He stated there is some question as to whether or not the 20 percent rule k in effect which should be resolved by the Legal Department depending on whether or not the boundary is one street or two streets. • Minutes Special Council Meeting March 15, 1971 Page 13 Mr. Raymond P. Dow, 34:;7 Browner Parkway, spoke in opposition, stating the request would constitute spot zoning, and if the applicant were granted "A-1" zoning he would be allowed 10 to 11 units under that classification. Mr. Jim Campbell, 3413 Browner Parkway, spoke in opposition stating he lives at the residence adjoining the subject property, and would not want to live next door to apartments; that the proposed apartments would devalue the property values in the area; and that they had purchased their homes with the understanding that they would remain residential. Mr. Campbell stated he was also speaking in opposition at the request of the property owner an the other side of the subject property. Motion by Bradley, seconded by Roberts and passed, that the hearing be closed. Motion by Bradley, seconded by Roberts and passed, that the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Staff be concurred in and that Application #271-10, Mr. H. W. Riner, for change of zoning from "R -1B" One -family Dwelling District to "A-1" Apartment House District on the east 1/2 of the north 1/2 of Lot 15, and the west 1/2 of the north 1/2 of Lot 14, J. N. Laughlin Subdivision, located in the 3400 Block of Browner Parkway, be denied. Mayor Pro Tem Lozano announced the public hearing on Application 0271-3, Oliver W. Beasley, for change of zoning from "F -R" Farm -Rural District to "B-4" General Business District, on a 12.25 -acre tract of land out of the Pearl Magee Tract. Larry Wenger pointed out the existing zoning classifications in the surrounding area, stating there is an existing building on the property which was built by the applicant, but that he was ordered to cease the auto garage operation by the City Inspection Division until the property was rezoned for business. He stated the request was heard by the Planning Commission February 2, 1971, at which time one person appeared in opposition on the basis that it would lower the value of his property. He stated that the applicant presented photographs of his existing building and of the birds he raises, and indicated that only the south half of the property is fenced with a cyclone fence. Mr. Wenger stated that prior to the hearing the Staff mailed out four notices, one received in;favor and one in opposition; that it was the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the request be denied, and that it was the Staff's recommendation that the request be approved. • • Minutes Special Council Meeting March 15, 1971 Page 14 Mr. Oliver Beasley, appI ant appeared and stated he felt that on February 2, when his application was first heard that the Commission approved of it, but that on February 16, following an extremely long meeting he felt the Commission was exhausted and that their decision to deny the request was perhaps not a fair decision. Mr. Beasley stated that a frontage road to Interstate Highway 037 had been planned by the Highway Department on the front portion of his property but had not been developed. He explained that the Bird sanctuary would be located behind the dwelling in a tropical garden setting, and that he plans to build their home on the north half of the property and fence R with a ranch -type fence. He explained that he buys and repairs automobiles as a hobby and sells them, and that this is why he needs the existing metal building. Mr. Beasley stated that the person mentioned in the Commission minutes was not the person who objected, and stated that he had a letter of endorsement from Mr. and Mrs. Walker from Three Rivers who are the only other neighbors out there. Mr. Beasley stated that he would accept "B-4" zoning on the front half of the property facing on UpRiver Road, but he was advised that the zoning on the remaining half fronting on I.H. 37 would have to be changed to "R -1B" for the location of his home. City Manager Townsend explained that the line dividing the property would be drawk. from the center of the east and west boundaries, but that the exact number of feet would have to be worked out specifically by the Staff. Mrs. Charlotte Avera, stated she was not opposed to the request and approved of the proposed and existing operation since it is operated in a clean and orderly manner and is an asset to the neighborhood. Motion by Bradley, seconded by Sizemore and passed, that the hearing be closed. Motion by Sizemore, seconded by Roberts and passed, that the foregoing application be tabled until all members of the Council were present since approval would require five affirmative votes of the Council. • Minutes Special Council Meeting March 15, 1971 Page 15 Mayor Pro Tem Lozano announced the public hearing on Application #271-11, Julian Puente, for change of zoning from "R -1B" One -family Dwelling District to "B-4" General Business District on Lot 15, Block 3, Molina Subdivision No. 1, which application was heard by the Planning Commission February 16, 1971, and was forwarded to the Council with the recommendation that it be approved. Mrs. Viola Hutchinson, 4145 Angela: Street, appeared and presented a petition containing 30 signatures of "Concerning Taxpayers and Property Owners" of Ange)a Street and -adjoining streets, in protest of Application #271-11, Julian Puente, for "B-41" zoning on property located in the 4200 Block of Angela Street stating it would be a detriment to the homeowners. (The foregoing petition was filed prior to calling of the case and Mrs. Hutchinson departed.) Mr. George Prowse, attorney representing the applicant, appeared and requested that this application be either recessed or reset for a later date in view of the petition con- taining 30 signatures of "Concerned Taxpayers and Property Owners" in opposition. He stated he had not had an opportunity to examine the petition; that the 20 percent rule may be in effect, and that he has reason to believe some of the names on the petition live several blocks away. Motion by Bradley, seconded by Roberts and passed, that the foregoing Application #271-11, be recessed until June 2, 1971, at the request of the applicant's attorney. Mayor Pro Tem Lozano announced the public hearing on Application #271-13, E. A. Wilson, for change of zoning from "R -1B" One -family Dwelling District to "B-4" General Business District on Lots 18 through 21, and Lots 43 through 46, Block 12, Flour Bluff Park. Larry Wenger located the property on the zoning and land use map stating that boat storage facilities are proposed. He stated that the request was heard by the Planning Commission February 16, 1971; that there had been no opposition at the hearing; and prior to the hearing the Staff mailed out 17 notices, two received in favor and none in opposition; that it was the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the request be approved as requested, and that it was the Staff's opinion that it be denied. • Minutes Special Council Meeting March 15, 1971 Page 16 The applicant, Mr. E. A. Wilson, appeared on behalf of the request, and stated that Mr. Wenger failed to mention that he is the owner of all the property fronting on Padre Island Drive and abutting on the subject property, and stated that he is attempting to consolidate the two areas into a large enough tract to be useable and warrant an invest- ment. He explained that it would be primarily for boat storage purposes which would only be an extension of what presently exists. No one appeared in opposition to the foregoing application. Motion by Sizemore, seconded by Roberts and passed, that the hearing be closed. Motion by Sizemore, that the recommendation of the Planning Commission be con- curred in and the request be granted. The motion died for lack of a second. Motion by Bradley, seconded by Roberts and passed, Bradley, Roberts and Lozano voting "Aye" that Application 64271-13, E. A. Wilson, for change of zoning from "R -1B" One -family Dwelling District to "B-4" General Business District on Lots 18 through 21, and Lots 43 through 46, Block 12, Flour Bluff Park, located between the 1000 Block of Weaver and McDonald Streets, be denied, but in lieu thereof a Special Permit be granted for boat storage facilities, and that an ordinance be brought forward effectuating the Special Permit subject to an approved site plan. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned.