Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Okay, so I'm going to call the Planning Commission meeting to order for June 10th, 2026. Ms. Martinez, could you please call roll?

Yes, ma'am. Madam Chair Salazar-Garza? Here. Commissioner Munoz?

Here.

Commissioner Miller is absent at the moment. Commissioner Hedrick? Oh, he's absent too. Commissioner Budd is absent. Commissioner Cantu?

Here.

Commissioner Teichelman? Here. Commissioner Esparza?

Here.

And Commissioner Jackson?

Here.

We do have a quorum present to conduct the meeting. Thank you. And will you read us the rules for public comment, please? Citizens will be allowed to attend and make public comments in person at the City Planning Commission meeting. The public is invited to speak on any agenda item and any other item that pertain to the Planning Commission. Comments will be limited to three minutes. If you choose to speak during this period, you will not be allowed to speak again when the specified item is being considered in order of the agenda.

Thank you. And at this time, I'll go ahead and open a public comment and ask anyone if they'd like to come and speak on anything other than tonight's agenda. Yes, sir. Could you please state your name?

My name is Michael Miller. I live in District 2. Chairwoman Salazar-Garza, Vice Chairman Munoz, Commissioners Teichelman, Cantu, Esparza, and Jackson, and everybody that's not here today. It is with both regret and optimism that I share with you that I'm formally submitting my resignation from the Planning Commission effective today, June 10th, 2026. It has been my distinct pleasure to serve on this commission since July of 2019. Through the years, I have served as a commissioner, vice chairman, chairman of this commission, but nothing has given me greater satisfaction than working with a dedicated city staff, both past and present. Yvette, you've been awesome. Jessica, you're great. I miss Ruth, too. I don't even know your name. What is your name? Is it Bria Alexis Whitmire? We've known each other for probably close to 30 years now, and it's been fantastic to work with you. Buck, you're awesome. And I wish Andrew was here. I hope he's on the mend, but Andrew's been a constant through my entire service on the Planning Commission, and I am always impressed with his knowledge of everything going on in this city. I have seen the landscape of Corpus Christi change for the better, and I've been proud to play a small role in the shaping of our community. I have other plans to serve this community, and though I'm not obligated to resign at this point in my journey, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to continue in my capacity as a planning commissioner beyond today. I just wanted to take this brief opportunity to thank everyone, staff, all of you, and the many commissioners that I've had the pleasure of serving with over the past seven years. May God bless you, and God bless the city of Corpus Christi. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Miller. We enjoyed having you. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else who would like to come and speak on the public comment? If not, then I will go ahead and close a public comment and move on to the approval of absences for Chairman Munoz and Commissioner Miller, and Commissioner Teichelman.

I'll make a motion to approve absences. Second.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no. Motion passes. Moving on to the approval of minutes for May 13th, 2026.

I make a motion to approve minutes. Second. I'll second.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no. Motion passes. Moving on to the consent public hearing discussion and possible actions for items A and B. Ms. Bria.

Thank you. So for Section A under Platts, we have Item 2. It's a preliminary plat, Palms at Gullahar, Lot 24, Block 1. Item number 3 is a preliminary for Farias Track, 522.15 acres. Item 4 is a replat for Lexington Village, Lot 6R. Item 5, replat, Brooklyn Addition, Lot 1R, Block 82. less than an acre. Item six is a replat for ocean breeze subdivision of 12 acres. Item seven, replat century subdivision, lot two A block one. Item eight is the final for Oso Ranch unit B, 16.73 acres. Item nine, final flower bluff number two, lots two B and two A block five. Item 10 is the final for Oso Point, 20 acres. Item 11 is the final for Riverstone Trails Phase 1, 24 acres. Item 12 is the final for Carolines Heights, Unit 3. Item 13 is the final for Waldron Road Subdivision, Block 1, Lot 4. Item 14 is the final 400, South Padre, Block 1, Lot 3. Item 15 is the final plat for Ferrius Tracks, Slots 1 and 2, Block 1. This concludes the plats portion. These plots have been reviewed by staff and the Technical Review Committee and found to meet Texas Local Government Code and the UDC, in which case we recommend approval.

Okay.

Would you like me to move to Section B?

I would think so.

Okay. Section B zoning item 16 is the zoning case at 2767 Santa Fe. This is an expansion for the purpose of a retail store. Item 17 is at 556 Virginia Avenue. This is a RS-6 bordering CG-2. Item 18 is at 1753 Gullahar Road. This is a fairly large lot, which is an undeveloped lot, and they're shaving off a portion for a multifamily development. Item 19 is 3641 Mueller Street. This is concerning a wireless tower. Item 20 is 5040 Rockford Drive from RS6 to RS6 PUD. It's undeveloped lot going to 33 lots at 4,400 square feet. Item 21 is 6201 Greenwood Drive. This is a RS6 area. They asked to go to a light industrial, but in lieu of, we're proposing CN1 special permit for some storage facility. Item 22 is at 6753 State Highway 361. And this is the one that you may have seen before, Coastal Dunes. We have since met with the applicant, fire and traffic department to work through some concerns and have represented it today. This concludes the consent agenda and stand by for any questions.

Thank you, Bree. Bria. This is a longer agenda than what we're used to having due to the reason that we did not have a meeting on our last previous meeting that we were supposed to have. So with that being said, I am gonna ask the commissioners if they have any questions for staff on any one of these items and if they would like to have one of them be pulled for a separate discussion.

I don't know.

I'd like to make a recommendation we pull item number 21 for further discussion.

Okay. Any others?

I'd also like to be able to pull number 22 for more discussion as well.

Okay. Pull that one. Item number 22 has been pulled out, and we'll just go over the other items on the agenda tonight. And we'll ask the commissioners if they have any questions for items number 2 through 21, I believe. 21. Did you say 21 or 20? 22. 22, okay, you said 21, okay, I'm sorry. Okay, so therefore, right now, we'll just go over items two through 20. Commissioners, do we have any questions for staff on any of these items? No? I have one question. It's probably just a simple question, but I was just curious to know. On item number three, it is a preliminary plat. This is 522, a little over 522 acres, and they want a building permit. Is this for residential development, residential commercial?

So this is for there's multiple phases to it phase one will consist of a couple of buildings But mostly just one set of restrooms. It is a commercial development Nothing adding any density or anything like that.

Oh, okay. I was just saying this because it's not I don't know how many how far it is from the refinery. I know there's a refinery out there. And for me, if there's a refinery and there's residential, well, you know, I need to see how far that.

No residential. No residential.

That's great, okay.

I have a question on item number 20. Can you remind me on the change to a PUD? What happens if the developer doesn't develop the sale? Does that PUD go along? Does that stay with the property if there's an exchange of ownership?

The PUD would stay with the property. The PUD would essentially change ownership. The PUD sticks with the property. All right. I'm kind of curious more to that question.

No, I was just curious if, I mean, I noticed that the lots were reducing from a 50-foot wide to 40-foot wide, and I'm just curious if they decide not to go with that lot. If they sell the lot, will the next owner still have that?

The PUD does require that it stick to this layout, so they wouldn't be able to modify it.

Yes, they wouldn't be able to modify it. And have you guys, I mean, obviously we've seen it before on this commission, but the 40-foot wide lots aren't something that's just out of the ballpark or out of the range of?

Correct. The state is moving that direction for the smaller lots with the market and whatnot. So it's just that our local codes don't allow for it, so we're having to do a PUD to allow for it. Perfect.

So if I may, Commissioner Minos, with any special permit, they have a 12-month limitation, right, if they haven't begun anything. So even if it changes ownership, if there is no work done within that 12-month, it reverts back to the base zoning.

Okay, perfect. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions for staff? If not, then I'll go ahead. Oh, I'm sorry.

I changed my mind.

Sorry, go ahead, go ahead.

This is for item number 16. Something just, if this changes ownership, the way that it's zoned, what could be built there?

This would be going to the CN1 district. No, we do have, I don't know, or Siraja, would y'all like to actually speak to this case? I think it was Siraja's case.

Good afternoon, commissioners, made a turn at Planet 2 and Development Services. So if it did, it's the CN1 zoning district that they want to be in. Currently it's ON, office neighborhood, so it only allows offices. But with the CN1 zoning district, they would have restaurants with a maximum square footage of 5,000 square feet. They would allow offices as well, retail sales and services, which is what this zoning case is requesting, retail sales and services.

So going back to the restaurant, could they have it like a late night bar if it changed ownership? Potentially, yes. Like right up against residential neighborhoods?

Potentially, yes. Just the restaurant, the only thing that UDC states is that the maximum square footage is 5,000.

Got it.

Okay.

Thank you. I still have a question for you. So based upon that density or the 5,000, is there the barrier walls being added to that as well?

For commercial developments like the buffer yard or fencing, correct? Fencing would still be required for a CN1 zone.

What's the height of that?

I believe it's six feet, six feet and six points per hour.

Six feet, is that correct?

Six feet and 10 points per hour.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, any other questions? If not, then I'll go ahead and open up the public comment on anyone who would like to come and speak on items two through 20. Please come forward. Okay, I see none, so I'll go ahead and close the public comment and entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve A2 through 15. Can I do that?

uh no no i have to do all of them yes sir uh yeah i'll make a motion to approve items uh is it two it's it's items two items two through twenty through two through twenty a second okay so i have a motion and a second all those in favor say aye aye aye all those opposed say no motion passes Moving on now to items, I'm gonna do them individually, I think, and then we'll vote on that and then we'll move on. Okay, so moving on to item number 21, zoning case. I'm gonna ask Ms. Brie if you could go ahead and give us the PowerPoint on that, could you do that please?

So this is KZN 9151. Where's the, what's that?

Nope, there he comes.

Never listen to a lawyer. So this is in District 3, 6201 Greenwood Drive. This is going from RS6. Single family to the light industrial district is what was applied for. This application was with the purpose to allow for a warehouse with aggregate storage. We're going to get to it to the next slide, but as you're reading through this, know that we're not proposing a light industrial. We've adjusted that, but this was with the intention of the aggregate storage in what is surrounded mostly by a single family. To the south is a pretty large drainage ditch and some commercial to the east there. As you can see, 60 notices were sent out. Only one was opposed. So the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the comp plan and the future land use designation. And that's why staff is in looking at the flood considerations and the area that it is situated in, in lieu of the light industrial to go to a CN1 with a special permit. So this is a neighborhood commercial district which doesn't allow for many of the items in a light industrial that, of course, you wouldn't want right next to residential. So this was an agreement with the applicant, and this is what we are recommending for approval. There are various conditions with that special permit, of course. There's some buffer yard requirements, one free stand. This is a typo on here. The hours of operations that were requested was a 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. We have asked the applicant, and they have agreed to adjust that to 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., and that's what would be in the actual ordinance for that same reason, being so close to residential. The site plan, you can see where some of the drainage concerns that are there, but the structure is closer to the Greenwood Drive side of the property with those open storage bins kind of in the middle of the property with that aggregate storage. And then, of course, with a driveway with a turnaround that is rated for a fire apparatus to be able to get in there in the case of any emergencies. Any questions?

So FIRE has reviewed the initial plans and agreed that the road is suitable?

Yes, it has to. The PowerPoint went away.

Can you go to the slide after the thank you slide? The back of here. We met with FIRE and the applicant and FIRE has agreed to allow the road with the turnaround given the complexity of the floodplain that is at the rear of the property. So it wouldn't allow for the extension of the road through.

Okay. Are there any limitations onto the kind of traffic that is allowed down there? I mean, are we talking about big rigs, 18 wheelers? I mean, they're saying aggregate, so I'm assuming there's gonna be some heavy traffic.

There could be some drop-offs as part of that, right? They're going to have to offload and unload or load and offload materials. That is going to really be part of what's allowed for the drive access, right? It's a narrow lot. It's not a very wide lot. So that's going to kind of limit what kind of traffic can actually go through that gate. And I also just wanted to clarify, I know, Bria, we said one, but as of this afternoon, opposition's at two. Two. Good.

Yes, I was also concerned, like Vice Chair Munoz said, because on here it says that the use would be a warehouse with freight movement. And for me, freight is heavy items, you know, and I just wanted to make sure this was not going to be something that has these real big 18-wheeler trucks coming in. I mean, it is a storage. At least that's what he's wanting to... request however um as he's warding or as it's worded here you know this freight movement i just wonder you know is there anything on the special permit that will limit him uh requesting anything that's going to be bigger than what the this what regular storage units can can bring in

Am I under the impression that this is open air aggregate storage and not like compartmentalized?

Half and half. So the two larger, the orange is actual buildings for storage. And then those four spots, I think they're about 50 by 50. Those are the kind of bin like storage. was it is our understand that we don't know if the applicant has any further information than that.

Good evening commissioners, my name is Juan Perales with Jay Perales Civil Engineering. We're here this evening to represent the owner and the applicant. Address 5866 South Staple Street, Suite 315. The main purpose of this whole project is to really set up a site to support basically a construction yard. It's not intended to be a freight or delivery or supply, a delivery type of business. This is a property that will be used to support a construction company. And so the owner, they do a lot of work here within the city, working on different subdivisions and commercial developments like that. And so they just need a place to park their equipment, to house their employees. And much of the storage that is mentioned is really temporary use. I mean, you may see pieces of water line, fire hydrants, maybe some fiberglass manholes. The aggregate that we're referring to would most likely refer to backfill sand that they use in their daily construction operations. So not really much of what you would see in long-term storage or industrial storage. This is really all intended to be there to support the construction company business.

Well, a construction company business, that's pretty broad because there can be small construction, there can be big construction. And if they're going to be using this as a construction site, you know, I've seen construction sites where they do have heavy equipment being unloaded and loaded in. And, I mean, I've just... I just wanted to get a little bit more of an idea, or actually more of the special permit, since that's what we're giving you here.

And as Ms. Whitmire was alluding to, just the physical dimensions of the property are somewhat limiting. It's narrow, it's a straight in, turn around, come straight back out. So just the geometry and the dimensions of the property would limit that. any significant amount or quantity of large equipment.

Okay. Any other questions?

Does your client have any other opportunity with this property other than the storage of construction materials right next to residential?

The property is a unique situation. You do have residential on one side You've got the city's drainage ditch on the other. Over a third of the property is non-buildable because of the floodway. You have one point of access onto Greenwood Drive. And just the narrowness of the property, it makes it very difficult to develop.

And that's why it's been vacant for all these years. I guess the intention of my question is more of, You know, I could understand if this was an office facility for the company and they were going to run their operation. There will be offices there too. Well, there's also going to be aggregate moving with heavy equipment. I mean, no one's going to go out there with buckets and pails. I would imagine to move aggregate and sand. I mean, was there consideration just for office for the company or... I mean, that would more conform with the commercial neighborhood.

In this case, I guess in this case, the thought is it wouldn't be cost effective to just have offices there because then you would have to still have somewhere for the parking of some equipment and leaving materials from one day to the next. Most of the materials are actually delivered to the job sites.

But once we grant the zoning change, then you're free to use it between eight and eight as you see fit. And that's the concern that I have is that we'll have, I used to work shift work. And during the daytime, if I had somebody running a Bobcat in my backyard, you might have some choice words.

And that is a very legitimate concern, Commissioner. There again, this is like intended to be more, yes, it's storage, but it's more incidental materials and leftover materials. Most of the materials, the primary point of delivery for the materials they use day in and day out will be the subdivision sites or the commercial sites where the work is actually taking place. So this is not intended to be their primary material storage area in any way. because 90% of the materials that they work with get delivered straight to the job sites. But I do understand your concern.

Well, even though their intention is to try to deliver only what you're mentioning, the fact of the matter is when we zone, when we allow or approve it to be in this zoning, the light industrial, anybody who does own that property will be able to go ahead and they'll be allowed to do it as light industrial. If we change that zoning into light industrial, then that's exactly what they're going to be able to do on it.

I think staff recognized some of the same issues and that's why light industrial zoning is not on the table. Commissioner, Chairman, and that's why the special permit is being considered in lieu of to put limitations so they can't have carte blanche light industrial use because that wouldn't really be in the best interest of the community.

Right. Okay. So the special premise.

That's one of the questions I wanted to ask, what you're trying to follow up on here is that we got this carte blanche thing going on. What is the limitations, the size of the engine of the, cause we had brought this up, right? It's before commissioner brought it up earlier. It's like you can fit the size of those, the size of those, those, you know, the equipment that is going to be in there. Is there going to be a limitation on the size of the equipment that could be in there?

Well, well, As the special permit is currently proposed, that detail has not been addressed other than anything that goes on within the property has to comply with the city's noise ordinance. And I think that is stated in the permit. So I don't care. I shouldn't say it that way. It doesn't matter whether it's a 10 horsepower or 100 horsepower unit. If the noise that it generates is causing problems, then the noise ordinance kicks in.

When does the noise ordinance kick in? What time?

The noise ordinance is called out on the special permit, and that is actually not a condition of the special permit. It's called out as a notice. It is in the media code, Section 31-3. So the noise ordinance would be in effect no matter what the zoning of the property is.

But what's the time that the ordinance goes in? Is there is no...

That's by Muni code, so it wouldn't be any extra limitation. I believe it is 8 to 8, if I recall.

So if people get home at 5.30, they can run for the next two and a half hours?

For this and anyone else, if someone's idling a diesel in their driveway, that's allowed.

Or a front-end loader?

Correct. It's the general noise ordinance. It's different on this property than it would be anywhere else. However, that's not to say that there couldn't be limitations on the bulk storage, limitations on the equipment sizing. A special permit, there essentially could be whatever limitation could be agreed upon.

I do want to point out the fact that I'm very familiar with this neighborhood, and right down the street, not very far from where they were proposing this, is five or six light industrial lots that are already zoned light industrial. So the fact that they're proposing um a special permit and not light industrial i think that's i think that's a good thing i like that and it's not unique to this neighborhood because there's already light industrial over the place over there it's right there off of saratoga and greenwood and there's there's light industrial all over the place so a little further down towards a little further down towards saratoga but right across the street from the the lot that that this neighbor and this one is a on rs 4.5 right across is an rs6 and there's light industrial mixed in and back to the north also there's the roofing company and the coke and the bottling company and so forth so

It is scattered all up and down.

To the noise ordinance, the special permit is actually more restrictive than the city's noise ordinance. The city's noise ordinance is from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m., so this is more stringent, so we're actually requiring that they reduce that time allowed.

I think that's the time. What we have to look for is for the community. Most folks get home at, if they're working industrial, then they're going to get off at 4. So starting at 4.30, that goes in. But do we happen to have a map to show us where these other pieces are? Are we backed up? Is this particular... is this particular lot backed up to a a these other ones that you're talking about commissioner uh backed up to a residential area as well some of them are yeah some but some of them are all of them to the north side there's an rs6 that's that's surrounded by one two three four light industrial uh uses um that rs4 is right across the street from light industrial or 4.5 sorry so

The other light industrials are surrounded by RS6 on the backside of the properties. They were zoned back in 1980, so they've been in existence for quite some time.

That was going to be my question. Yeah.

When it was zoned. And to the commissioners, I understand the concerns about machinery. So if the request is for us to have that detail in that ordinance, that is something that we could look at working out with the applicant and the owner to add any of those additional restraints in the special permit. That's the intent of the special permit is we can custom create those.

Does a special permit allow us to be able to restrict the size of the engine that's going to be in there?

I don't see why not. Okay, so the answer is yes, but with a caveat. The enforcement of that ordinance would be somewhat difficult because how is a code enforcement officer going to know if it's a 50 horsepower? I mean, it'd have to be extreme differences. I don't know if it's 500, 550, just by looking at it.

Are these other light industrials that are down there, are they restricted? Are they the same special permit that they're requesting for here?

They are not. They were light industrial. They've been in light industrial since 1980s and they're less restrictive, so they're allowed to do a lot more heavy intensive uses on those.

Okay. Does this designation allow for fuel storage on site? That is identified on the site plan.

There is a call out for 1,000 gallons. The way it was shown on the site plan is one 2,000 gallon tank.

2,000 gallon above ground fuel tank. Is that going to have any kind of secondary containment mandated for that? It'll have to meet all the fire code requirements. My concern is that there's a, you know, it's obviously part of the property is not usable due to a floodplain. So if we have a significant event and then we have a fuel excursion, then we have a pollution event tied to the property. 2,000 gallons is not just a drop. I mean, that's quite a bit of fuel.

No, secondary containment, yes, sir. That's a very reasonable and prudent thing to address.

I don't know who this question is for, but aren't they doing some work on that canal? Can you talk to us about that?

Yes, so we are doing some work. We have been doing some work on that since Hurricane Harvey. It's still ongoing. That is to make a large regional detention in the back area behind Las Colonias. That is now city property. And then it would be widening. That's the Columbia Drainage Ditch. It changes name, Airport Columbia Drainage Ditch. The second part of that is to do some upsizing of culverts under 358 that will actually allow better flow of the area and Molina down to this retention pond and of course protect Las Colonias from future flooding events because the water would go into the retention pot and slowly release into La Jolla.

And that project is underway? It is underway. And is the intention or is one result, if I understand correctly, once that job is completely finished, will that whole section of town be taken out of the floodplain?

So we will redo the flood maps for that project. We can't submit that until the project is complete, of course. We don't know exactly what that will look like today because data is ever-changing and the 100 and 500-year events are ever-changing. But it will drastically reduce that. So yes, the future and i know where your question is kind of going could that flood blade be reduced and the answer is yes i just don't know what that looks like today okay um commissioners do we have any more questions for the developer or for staff

Okay, then I did not open up public comment for item number, what was it, 21? So therefore I will open up the public comment and ask anyone if they'd like to come and speak on item number 21.

Uh, I think it was Terry Falwell and I live right there behind the there on Greenwood on a day's end. And I, my questions are, how does it affect us tax wise, uh, property value? And now he's saying that there's going to be fuel on the property. What other housing materials will be on the property? Uh, what would be the, what would be the noise level? I'm retired. I'm there all day. So what is the noise level going to be like for me? We have several people who are not, are disabled just like me, and they have issues. So what is their protection? And another thing is there's a lot of wildlife in that area right there. There's a lot of birds and stuff like that. There's wild pigs. There's wolves and stuff like that. Wolves, foxes, or whatever. But that's my general concern. I want to know. exactly what's on that thing. And 8 to 8 is still a long time because people sleep in if they had night jobs or whatever. So in a residential area, why can't they move somewhere else? And I didn't get to turn in my stub or thing, but I object to it. And that's all I have. I was wondering if y'all can give me feedback on that.

We're not allowed to answer any of the questions. That is going to be something that you can handle with development services. They'll be more than happy to answer all your questions and concerns.

Okay, can I turn this in still?

Sure. Anyone else who'd like to come and speak on item number 21?

I also live in that area.

Can you state your name, please, for the record?

My name is Molly Luna, and I live right on Days End Drive. And as well, I have concerns, as the gentleman mentioned, about noise level, fuel, heavy equipment, large trucks coming in and out. And it's not that big of a space. And we have children. Disabled people live there. We stay home all day long because disabled people don't go too far or go away for too many days. But we as a community in that neighborhood, we don't want that type of business coming through there because, I mean, it's just way too much. The drainage is right there. And as I mentioned, it's way too small of an area. And that's going to be a lot of traffic going in and out. I mean, by looking at it, but I mean, we don't know exactly their day to day movement was going to be or how much more they're going to put in or not put in. But there's going to be a lot of kids in and out in that area. school buses and stuff like that, we have to deal with that noise. But if it's going to be light industrial, that sounds like more traffic, more equipment, more things to deal with as a neighborhood. I mean, we're a brand-new neighborhood. That doesn't mean we want light industrial to also be in our area because, I mean, we just purchased that. And you said something about asking someone else about specific questions about taxes and whatever else.

That would be development services. You can go there and all the concerns and questions that you have, they'll be able to answer those questions. We're not allowed to answer your questions.

Right. Okay. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Anyone else like to come?

Hello. Um, my name is Andrea Luna and I'm a parent, uh, with a small child that all teenager. And I do have a niece that is going to be attending school. My concern would be with that fuel, the mention of fuel. Uh, what if it, something happens and it blows up? That's very close to a city park. That's very close. I mean, Los Encinos is right, not even a mile away. So, and then my house is backed up right behind the ditch, which is right behind that area that they're looking to do. Uh, I'm disabled. I don't go many places. I'm home most days. All that traffic and all that moving through that back area, it would just be a lot of noise pollution, a lot of moving of the house, because they're moving ground. So my concern, too, would be how it shifts our house from them moving everything on the ground, If that happens, then who's going to pay for that to get stabilized if it shifts and there's a bunch of cracks? Does that fall on us as our homeowners because they decided to move heavy equipment through there, sand and rocks and whatnot? Those are my concerns with having a light industrial or even with a special permit. that they're looking at putting all this stuff and then the fuel main concern would be with that if it explodes or something like that happening with all these kids in this area with the residents. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else like to come and speak on item 21?

Mayor, may I recommend if we, hearing some of this and the concerns, this has been fantastic. I've been writing as fast as people are talking. Can we table this and maybe try to come up with a better list that's more restrictive?

I think that's a good suggestion.

Regroup?

Because we do honor all the concerns of the residents, and this is something that is a pretty narrow piece of land. and being the fact that we are going to do it, even if it's light industrial with a special permit, I think it'd be the best thing for us to try to do. So I need a motion. Oh, wait, I need to close public comment. I need to close public comment. I will close public comment and entertain a motion.

My biggest concern is, as mentioned, is the fuel storage, the proximity to residents. So because of that, I would make a motion that we table this until the next meeting. Second. Second.

I have a motion and a second to table item number 21. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no.

motion passes and just for the record the next the next city the next planning commission meeting is going to be june 24th at 5 30 p.m yes okay so we'll have this information for you sir i believe in june 24th does that give you enough time to to work on what you need to between now and then i believe johnny it did okay for the advertisement so when do you think we will have this uh to be

July?

July 8th. He's looking up the calendar.

Let's see.

I have that calendar with me.

Chairwoman, it's July 8th would be the next available. July 8th?

Okay.

Is that enough time? Okay, then I amend my motion the same to table this until the July 8th meeting. Second. Second.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor to table this for July 8th meeting say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to item number 22. Commissioners, do we have any questions for staff? And could you please do that again, put the PowerPoint on for item 22?

This was my, yeah, I wanted this one pulled. If you could go back over this a little bit. I saw a high number of questions. of letters against, and I'd like to know a little bit of background on this.

So, Commissioners, before Bria goes through the presentation, can I add that this one was slated for City Council. We pulled the item for Council because there was uncertainty for the right-of-way that was supposed to be removed, so we pulled it, and then once we coordinated internally and with executive leadership and decided where we're moving that road, The six months had expired, so we couldn't take it forward to Council. So we had to bring it back to y'all for consideration and start the process over again. And yes, the opposition was at 94 before we were going to Council. And I think that we have done a lot of discussions with a lot of the residents on what has been changed since then and what we've agreed to and the roadway that will be removed.

Did we talk about this?

You did. You approved it.

Five times.

We missed the six months by like a week and a half and couldn't get a council date so we had to start the process.

Of the 156 notices, we received seven in opposition and that was as of this afternoon. For the slides, you still want to go through all the slides, correct?

Yes, and those you said, seven in opposition?

Seven in opposition.

Were their comments or their concerns basically...

It was very similar to some of the discussions before. However, we have worked through some of them on the new layout.

Okay, so you've addressed some of their concerns.

Yes, so a couple of them mentioned about the water supply, essentially that we shouldn't be doing any development until we have water supply. Some mentioned about the increase in density next to the, it's from the property to the north, so increased density in the area generally. For their privacy and security there was concern for that natural wetlands area there I think there was an understanding that was going to be filled in this is So there was some comment about worry concern that that was going to be filled in rather than preserved and Then there is the customary style with these smaller homes. It's not the style. That's currently kind of in the area Those were the main points that were in those opposition letters. I

All right. So let's just go through the PowerPoint so that we can...

Okay. So this is going from the RMAT to the RMAT PUD. So as we know that the... Sorry, let me get back to my note page here. So the subject property is 34.12 acres. It is platted, but it would need to be replatted, and of course the putt included. To the north is... Well, depending on your north, since the property is at an angle, it's a bit off, but there is development to the north and south of it. Of course, we have the highway to the... I guess if you want to call that the north... of that one, the PowerPoint does still show that four notices, but it is up to seven that, oh, it did get updated, awesome. So this is the seven that were in opposition, mostly where the Xs are. So the layout is what was discussed primarily since the last time we talked. The second entrance that is at the lower left-hand corner plan view is a Knox box gate for emergency access only. This was communicated with TxDOT as well to assure there's not two intersections that close together along that busy roadway, which was a concern mentioned before. As you can see here, the wetlands area is having to be avoided just from the process that it takes to construct in that area is why the applicant is trying to work around it. So you can see it's a looped area. The fire department has approved this arrangement as they can get in and out of the subdivision. So with that, we do recommend approval in these changes that we've made, fire traffic. We have met with all that had something to say and have everything updated to be considered for approval. Okay.

One slide.

One slide. So it is now, because of a few of those changes, it is 131 units before it was 134. There's a slight difference. Okay, any questions?

What were the changes that were made?

You said you added the gate. Yes. So essentially adding that additional access. So they had to move the lots around a bit. Um, So I'm curious what the previous conversations were, but that added access. So by fire code, the two entrances need to be, it's kind of a little recipe, right? Half the diagonal distance has to be how far apart the access points are. That's where they were constrained on this property because to build a road through those wetlands, just like the opposition letters are stating, would be building in those wetlands that we need to protect. And so the only way to really access this property is pushing those two access points closer together than the fire code. That was when we had to have those special meetings with the fire department and got chief involved and kind of went through everything. Another item that it won't be in the ordinance, but something that will be in their HOA is every residential home is going to be sprinkled. So that also took care of a lot of the fire department's concerns about getting to this rather remote area. That's something that a bit above and beyond recognizing that while it isn't, in line with the existing style, it is a lot of lots and they'll all be sprinkled to help protect that.

What else? So and to add to Bria's that the major changes of course were for fire, right? We need to make sure that we have proper access. So you'll see a separated entrance is the main entrance. And then that emergency only entrance for fire and PD to use. And then, of course, we were removing the beach access road that we're agreeing that doesn't need to be constructed. And there was some thought process of potentially doing like a half road down there. And none of it really made sense because of the jurisdictional wetlands. It was almost it's hard to develop in a jurisdictional wetlands and to preserve the nature of the area. it was easier for us to work with the applicant to redo some of the lot layouts to get that secondary access that the fire department's needing.

Okay.

Any other questions? No.

No? Then I will go ahead and open up the public comment for item number 22. If anybody would like to come and speak, please come forward.

Good evening everybody. My name is Shannon Dyer and, um, due to short notice and a lot of our homeowners don't live here full time. We just have four tonight instead of our 20 or whatever we had last time. But I feel that we are speaking on the behalf of the majority of everybody. Um, and I also want to address the hundred and whatever mail outs. There is a huge condo next to us and since the road is no longer an issue, they, that was kind of more their concern as far as the oppositions that have been brought back in. Um, and then also just wanted to, man, I can't ask questions, but I just wondered if anybody has actually physically gone out and looked at this property or have seen the aerial view. Um, it's just really unfathomable to me that you could put this many homes on that piece of property. I mean, I know it's 30 something acres, but due to the wetlands and the dunes protection, I just, I don't know. It just, it really, I mean, I just can't see it. Um, it's definitely going to negatively impact our community. We are right on the south border of it. Um, It was established in the early 80s as a condo association. But that being said, we're actually all standalone homes. There's 26 of us on the property line on this next to this property. There's 13 of us and there will be over double behind us now. Our lots are at least 60 foot width. We have lots of room around our homes, in front of our homes and back of our homes. So does the neighborhood next to us, the one further down. So this is just a total different neighborhood than what's already been out in our area. We feel it's gonna decrease our property values. It's gonna take away our privacy. It's really gonna limit the rentability. I've had several homeowners tell me that their renting is already 50% down due to the oversaturation of the STR market. And I feel that building another huge neighborhood is just going to make that even worse. I'm also concerned with the wetlands and the ponds. It is home to thousands of ducks this spring. I couldn't even see the water. There were so many ducks out there. And putting 130 plus homes out there, they're not going to come there anymore with cars and kids running around. And I just feel like if we just keep taking away this nature of this beautiful island, who's going to want to come visit anymore? Especially the people that come in the fall, in the winter, in the spring. That's what they come for, birding. the nature and it just keeps getting developed over and it just really makes me sad. So I hope you vote no and also water, big concern.

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? No? No one else?

My name is Elaine Clemens, and I live in Lost Colony Villas up against the building to be done. And I had a concern about the wetlands also. And on this current platting that we see, I can't tell where. the wetland really is. Is it that whole thing? What I see is that's supposed to be some area for recreation and things for the new development. And I am concerned about the fact that the density, I know according to the development, they had a lot more room for more houses, I don't know where, and that they have pulled back, but with them being so close and changing the size of the backyards to five feet, that's gonna put them right on us in our lot line. And what about the water that will come off of those? Because they will be built up higher than ours because ours was built in the 80s. And the zoning conditions and building conditions are different now. So I'm concerned about where all the water is going to go. And I feel like also, just like my predecessor said, that the... using the surrounding areas that Seagull and Sandpiper were used to say, oh, well, the density is the same as the surrounding. But that's not really a picture of the place because one is 11 stories, the other's 12, 105 units in each one of them, and that would no longer be allowed there on the ocean to build like that. So to say that, They, we are like the rest of them. No, we are not. And I also was wondering if since the road got taken away, could some of the housing be moved over to that side to kind of lower some of the density on the other side? the south side, moving some of it to the north side. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else like to come and speak? If not, then I'll go ahead and close the public comment on item number 22 and entertain a motion or further discussion.

I remember this from the last time that we looked at it, and I appreciate the changes. I appreciate you talking with the fire and making sure that the neighborhood is safe. I think the majority, from what I'm seeing, the majority of the wetlands will be preserved, and I think taking that road out was a good move as well. With that, I'm in support of it, and I will make a motion to approve if nobody else has any comments.

I have a motion. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no.

No.

Motion passes. Please note that we are a recommending board. This deal has to be approved to move forward through the city council. And therefore, you will be able to get or gather more of your people that are in opposition and present it to them. Okay? Okay. Thank you. Director's report.

Thank you. I do actually have a couple of things I would like to talk to you all about tonight. So starting next meeting, and Mina did great jumping in today, we would like to get the planners up front and talking more. So we would like to present more cases. Of course, tonight we had a pretty full agenda from catching up. But moving forward, we would like to potentially pull more cases to actually present on. Not only to dive a little bit more, we really appreciate the feedback that we get from this group. So we can take notes, make some adjustments before we go to city council and work through some of the stuff that we just didn't think about or see. So we'd really like to present more and have the actual planners that work the cases that really know those details. So I would like to see if we could pull more of those. Also, DSTag, there have been some meetings, of course, with Andrew being out. There's been a cancellation. We still need to meet with our internal departments. But we do have the UDC updates and the DSTag team that we will be bringing some more updates about. If there's anything in the UDC, I believe the email has gone out. I'm not sure if there's any been direct communication. Any recommended UDC updates, please let us know. We're starting to mark things up and collect all of those ideas.

Are some of these UDCs, they're going to be... We're starting with Chapter 8.

Okay. So that would be helpful just to get some input on. And I believe once we do have a markup, we'll bring that and go over it. But anything that you all have ahead of developing that markup to present, please let us know.

Yes. Okay. No more future agenda items? If not, we are adjourned.