HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes City Council - 10/21/1981 - SpecialMINUTES
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 21, 1981
4:20 P.M.
PRESENT:
Mayor Luther Jones
Mayor Pro Tem Betty Turner
Council Members:
Jack K. Dumphy
Bob Gulley
Herbert Hawkins, Jr.
Dr. Charles W. Kennedy
Cliff Zarsky
Acting City Manager Ernest Briones
City Attorney J. Bruce Aycock
City Secretary Bill G. Read
Mayor Luther Jones called the meeting to order in the Council Chamber
and stated that the purpose of the Special Meeting was to conduct hearings on
three zoning applications.
City Secretary Bill G. Read verified that a quorum of the Council and
required Charter Officers were present to conduct a legally constituted meeting.
Acting City Manager Ernest Briones announced the public hearing on
Application No. 981-8, Mr. Robert Huegele, for a change of zoning from "R -1B"
One -family Dwelling District to "B-1" Neighborhood Business District on Lot 13,
Rolling Acres Subdivision, located on the south side of Leopard Street,
approximately 250' west of Rountree Circle.
Mr. Briones stated that in response to the notices of the public hearing,
one in favor and five in opposition had been returned. He stated that the
Planning Commission recommends denial and in lieu thereof, that "AB" zoning be
approved and the Staff recommends denial of "AB" zoning and "B-1" zoning.
He then called on Chief Planner Larry Wenger to summarize the case.
Mr. Wenger located the area on the zoning and land use map, described
the land use in the surrounding area, showed slides of the area, and stated
that the applicant had requested the change in zoning to conform with the
original deed restrictions of this subdivision for retail uses.
Mayor Jones invited the applicant to speak.
MICROfillED
S'.P 191984
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
October 21, 1981
Page 2
Mr. Robert Huegele, son of the owner of the property, informed the
Council that they had applied for rezoning because at the time his father
purchased the property it was zoned for business, but' when the land was
annexed, the zoning was changed to "R -1B". He pointed out that Leopard
Street is just not a residential street and if "AB" zoning can be approved, he
will develop the land because he is of the opinion that it cannot be sold for
residential use.
Council Member Zarsky noted that Mr. Huegele had indicated that the
property was zoned for business prior to annexation and questioned how it
could have any zoning since it was not even in the City at that time.
Mr. Huegele stated that the property was deed restricted to business
property but admitted that his deed did not specifically indicate that.
Mr. Briones pointed out that in most cases when property is annexed
to
the City, the zoning is established to be "R -1B" unless the Council has
prezoned the area that is to be annexed, and in this case, they had not.
Council Member Zarsky commented that the City was going to have a great
deal of difficulty if Padre Isles Development is annexed because a great deal of
that property was sold for apartments and businesses and if that property is
annexed, it will be annexed as "R -1B" property.
Mr. Briones explained that as a subsequent process, the Staff will
recommend the continuation of the existing zoning for the land use in that area.
He also pointed out that the actual ordinance of annexation will be on three
readings and the zoning can be considered at that time. He informed the
Council that the Staff has already prepared some preliminary studies of the use
of Padre Isles Development.
Council Member Zarsky questioned Mr. Huegele as to why he had
requested "B-1" zoning and Mr. Huegele replied that he would prefer "B-1"
zoning but since the Planning Commission recommended "AB" zoning he would
accept that.
Council Member Zarsky pointed out that the Council just recently approved
"AB" zoning across the street and asked why the Staff recommends denial on
this property.
tes
4a1 Council Meeting
ch.cober 21, 1981
Page 3
Chief Planner Wenger explained that this particular tract is surrounded by
"R -1B" use whereas the case that Mr. Zarsky mentioned was in a transition
area. He painted out that this lot on Leopard is very large and would make a
beautiful tract for a residence.
Speaking in opposition to the request was Mr. Stanley Brown, 10051
Leopard, who stated at one time he considered purchasing this piece of
property and it was zoned for residential use then, yet Mr. Huegele stated that
he purchased it from the developer but he actually purchased it from someone
else. He stated that the subject property was never designed for business use
and presented pictures of his residence which is a lovely home on a large tract
of land. He explained to the Council that he had made a lot of improvements
on the property on which his home is located, planting trees and shrubs in the
area. He explained that they made all of these improvements with the
understanding that the property in this area would remain zoned "R -1B". He
expressed the opinion that business intrusion into a residential neighborhood is
unfair if it is done just to make someone a lot 'of money. He pointed out that
there is no shortage of business property in this City.
Also speaking in opposition to this request was Mrs. Robert Brennam who
stated that her property is directly behind the subject property; it has a
beautiful home on it; her deed indicated that only residences would be located
there; and she urged the Council not to approve a change of zoning for this
tract of land.
An unidentified gentleman in the audience stated that the restriction on
the property was one house to the acre and stated that the subject property
has the same deed restriction.
Mrs. Stanley Brown Then spoke in opposition and pointed out the property
to the west of them which was recently replatLed for "R -1B", with a street
down the middle, which will be developed with sixteen residences.
Mr. Wenger commented that the plat referred to which has a street down
the center has not been approved.
Mr. Huegele spoke again and stated that he did not mean to indicate that
he purchased the property from the developer but contended that property on
Leopard Street cannot be sold for residential development.
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
October 21, 1981
Page 4
Council Member Zarsky suggested to Mr. Huegele that if he constructed a
cul-de-sac, he could use the property for development of approximately six
residences.
No one else spoke in regard to this zoning application.
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Turner that the hearing be closed;
the motion was seconded by Council Member Zarsky; and passed unanimously.
Council Member Gulley pointed out that this entire side of Leopard Street
is developed with residences on very large lots and he felt that it should
remain that way.
A motion was made by Council Member Gulley that Application No. 981-8 be
denied; seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Turner; and passed unanimously.
Acting City Manager Briones announced the public hearing on Application
No. 981-13, J -R Builders, Inc. and E. H. Moore Homes, Inc. , for a change of
zoning from "R-2" Multiple Dwelling District and "R -1B" One -family Dwelling
District to "B-1" Neighborhood Business District, on Lot 11, Block 5,
Breckenridge Subdivision Unit 2 and Lots 36, 37, 38, and 39, Block 1,
Breckenridge Subdivision Unit 1, located on the northwest corner of Cedar Pass
Drive and Everhart Road.
Mr. Briones stated that both the Planning Commission and the Planning
Staff recommend denial and that in response to the notices of the public
hearing, one in favor, and in opposition seven within the 200' area of
notification, and twelve additional outside the area had been returned.
Chief Planner Wenger located the area on the zoning and land use map,
described the land use in the surrounding area, showed slides of the area, and
stated that the owners plan the construction of a neighborhood business center.
Council Member Dumphy inquired if the zoning was ever "B-1" on this
property and Mr. Wenger replied that at the time it was annexed, it was
prezoned "R-2" and was never zoned "B-1".
Mayor Jones called on the applicant to speak.
Mr. Jim Ewing, representing Mr. Moore and himself, informed the Council
thal. this property was purchased and discussions were held with Staff members
in regard to the appropriate zoning prior to annexation and the 'B-1" zoning
was originally recommended by the City Staff for this tract but later, they
.es
cal Council Meeting
October 21, 1981
Page 5
changed their minds and recommended that the "R-2" and "R -1B" zoning be
retained.
Chief Planner Wenger explained that at the time discussions were
conducted before, it was on a very preliminary basis only; this is a very large
tract; and stated that the reason the Staff changed the recommendation for the
zoning of this tract was because they felt that "R-2" zoning would be
preferable to the "B-1" zoning since there is adequate business zoning to the
north.
Council Member Zarsky commented that the corners of main thoroughfares
are usually zoned for business and pointed out that from this tract it is a chile
to Everhart and possibly even further to Yorktown and for this reason, he
agrees that "B-1" zoning would be in conformity with the usual practice of the
City at such intersections.
Mr. Wenger agreed that although Everhart is a major street, the other
street, Cedar Pass, is a collector street.
Speaking in opposition to this change of zoning was Mr. Mike McLain, 4814
Fern Forrest, who reviewed the history of this land stating that it was
anticipated that this property would be zoned "R -1A", but after interest rates
became so high, the land had to be subdivided to reduce the size of the lots.
Mr. McLain informed the Council that at the time this was considered by the
Planning Commission, thirty residents appeared to express the opinion that they
preferred that this land be zoned "R -1B". He noted that during the Council
public hearing, the Council approved a compromise zoning of "R-2" for this
property. He expressed opposition to having a business at this location and
stated that they do not want. Everhart to become congested in this area. He
pointed out that there is no, need for the business, zoning because there is
already ample business zoning in that area. He stated that he resides outside
the 2.00' notification area.
Also expressing opposition to this change of zoning was Mrs. Edna
McMorrow, 7001 Edgebrook, who stated that there are a large number of
children in the area who will be attracted to the business planned and this will
present a danger to them.
Mrs. Mike McClesky, 4814 Fern Forrest, expressed opposition to the
change of zoning stating that they had purchased a house recently in the area
wish the understanding that it would be all residential.
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
October 21, 1981
Page 6
Mr. William McCord, 7045 Edgebrook, also spoke in opposition to the
change of zoning request. He stated that this is of special interest to him,
particularly the remarks that the intersection of Cedar Pass Drive and Leopard
should be business zoned. He pointed out that this is not a through street and
there is a neighborhood park in the area. He expressed the opinion that
business is not the only possibility for development of this tract and stated that
the change of zoning as requested would benefit no one except the developer.
Mr. John Gottling, who lives outside the area of notification, expressed
opposition to the change of zoning in their neighborhood and urged that this
request be denied.
Mr. L. M. Hall, 7049 Edgebrook, stated that he does live in the area of
notification and pointed out that there is ample business zoning in the area and
urged that this request be denied.
No one else spoke in regard to this application.
A motion was made by Council Member Kennedy that the hearing be closed,
seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Turner, and passed unanimously.
A motion was made by Council Member Zarsky that the requested zoning of
"B-1" on Application No. 981-13 be approved except for the portion of the
property that. faces on the residential street that is zoned "R -]B" and it should
remain "R -1B".
Mr. Zarsky's motion died for lack of a second.
A motion was made by Council Member Kennedy that Application No. 981-13
he denied, seconded by Council Member Hawkins.
Council Member Dumphy stated that he was in sympathy with the people
who had residences in the area but he has a problem with residents feeling that
neighborhood business zoning will bring in undesirable people. He stated that
he cions not object to the "B -l" zoning that exists in his own neighborhood and
in Dict, it, oflers a convenience for him. He pointed out that Everhart. IS d
business street. and suggested that more study be made so that when people
purchase lots, they know that there will be business in the area. He
expressed the opinion that a mistake was made when the City Staff recommended
the kind of zoning that should exist here. Mr. Dumphy also stated that he felt
that iL was unfortunate that Mr. Ewing and Mr. Moore were told by Staff
members that this would probably be business zoned.
r s
E i Council Meeting
Octoner 21, 1981
Page 7
The motion to deny the zoning passed by the following vote: Jones,
Turner, Gulley; Hawkins and Kennedy voting, "Aye"; Dumphy and Zarsky
voting, "no".
Acting City Manager Briones announced the public hearing on Application
No. 981.-14E, Gill Landscape, for an exception to the standard screening fence
requirement along the east property line of Lots I and J, Block 29, Bass
Subdivision, located on the southeast corner of Sandra Lane and Airline Road.
Mr. Briones informed the Council that the Planning Commission recommends
approval and the Planning Staff recommends denial since there is a procedure
within the zoning ordinance whereby a property owner may enter into a
contract and defer building the fence by depositing money equivalent to the
cost of building the fence into a trust fund which accrues interest and if the
property adjacent to the nursery is developed for residential purpose, then that
money will be used to construct the fence. He stated that in response to the
notices of the public hearing, two in favor and one in opposition had been
returned.
Chief Planner Wenger located the area on the zoning and land use map,
described the land use in the surrounding area, showed slides of the area and
pointed out that there is heavy brush planted along the barbed wire fence
which is adjacent to the property on the east side. He explained that the Staff
recommends that construction of the fence be delayed until the use has been
established for the property adjacent to the subject property. He explained the
City's procedure for having money placed in an account for future building of a
fence.
Mayor Jones called on the applicant to speak.
Mr. James Gill, 5l8 Braniff, stated that he preferred not to invest so
much money into an account for the construction of this fence at this time since
he is just getting his landscape business started. He stated that a gentleman
in the neighborhood had indicated to him how glad he was that the nursery had
been established there. He explained that the screening fence is to be located
on he southeast side of the property, which is very harmful for plants and
they need a dense windbreak. He stated that he plans to plant oleander
bushes as a screening devise and assured the Council that he will remain at
This location.
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
October 21, 1981
Page 8
Mayor Jones assured Mr. Gill that he believed him but noted that once the
requirement for a screening fence is waived, there is no way that the City can
require that it be constructed at a later date.
Council Member Hawkins inquired if Mr. Gill could be given a special
permit in this case and Mr. Wenger replied that he could not.
Mayor Jones then inquired if there is any way that the money placed in
deposit could b,e refunded to Mr. Gill after he has planted the oleander, bushes
and Mr. Briones explained that it could not according to the existing ordinance.
Mr. Briones also explained that if the Council waives the fence
requirements, they will be in the process of waiving the standard screening
fence requirement forever and an oleander hedge does not satisfy the need for
the screening fence.
Council Member Zarsky reminded the Council that at the time this
ordinance was created, rights and duties were established -- rights of the
adjoining property owners and duties of the purchaser of the property. He
stated that he did not feel that he could vote to waive the screening fence
requirement but would recommend that the Council waive for one year the
requirement to place I unds in the account until it is ascertained what the
property adjacent to it will be zoned.
Mr. Wenger pointed out that the zoning ordinance would have to be
amended to do this.
Council Member Zarsky inquired if this zoning case could be tabled for one
year.
City Secretary Read informed the Council that they could delay action on
the case for six months
Mr. Gill noted Ihat if he planted the oleander hedge at this time, in
approximately two months it would be about six feel high.
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Turner to close the hearing,
seconded by Council Member Dumphy, and passed unaimously.
A motion was made by Council Member Gulley to grant the exception to the
standard screening fence requirement; the motion was seconded by Council
Member Hawkins.
•
. ..l s
S ,l Council Meeting
October 21, 1981
Page 9
Mayor Tones stated that. he would agree to delay action for six months but
could not agree to waive the screening fence requirement, and Council Member
7,drsky indicated that he agreed with Mayor Jones because he feels that the
ordinance should be complied with. He expressed the opinion that delaying
action for six months would resolve the problem.
Council Member Hawkins expressed the opinion that this is a unique case
where a waiver would be appropriate, and Council Member Gulley pointed out
that fence requirements have been waived before.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner pointed out that if the oleander hedge does survive
then the waiver should be granted, but she felt that the six months delay
should be considered until the shrubbery has been planted.
Council Member Gulley then withdrew his motion to grant the exception to
the standard screening fence requirement.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Turner to delay for action for six months on this
application; seconded by Council Member Kennedy; and passed unanimously.
There being no further business to come before the Council, on motion by
Mayor Pro Tem Turner, seconded by Council Member Dumphy, and passed
unanimously, the Special Council Meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m., October
21, 1981.