Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, so I see 530, and I'm going to call the Planning Commission meeting to order.

Ms. Martinez, could you please call roll? Yes, ma'am. Madam Chair, Salazar-Garza?

Here.

Vice Chairman Munoz is absent. Commissioner Hedrick?

Here.

Commissioner Budd?

Here.

Commissioner Cantu? Here.

Here.

Commissioner Teichelman. Here. Commissioner Esparza. Here. And Commissioner Jackson.

Here.

We do have a quorum present to conduct the meeting. Thank you. And could you read us the rules for public comment, please? Yes, ma'am. Citizens will be allowed to attend and make public comments in person at the City Planning Commission meetings. The public is invited to speak on any agenda item and any other item that pertain to the Planning Commission. Comments are 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. So at this time, I'll go ahead and ask anyone if they'd like to, I'll open up public comment and see if anyone would like to come and speak on anything other than a specific item on tonight's agenda. If not, then I'll go ahead and close the public comment and move on to the approval of absences for Commissioner Teichelman.

I motion that we approve the absences from the last planning commission meeting.

I 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 June 24, 2026.

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

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. Motion approved. Moving on to the consent public hearing discussion and possible actions A and B. And I will ask commissioners if there's an item on here that they would like to pull from items two through seven.

I would like to pull seven, 10, and 11.

Okay, just from two to seven for right now. Okay, that's okay. Seven, you said? Yes, seven. Okay.

And then I just have a question on four.

I guess we can ask that one on the consent. Okay. So I have only item number seven to individually. Okay, Andrew.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the record. Andrew Demas with Development Services reading in tonight's consent agenda. Beginning with item number two under Platts, replat of Rogers subdivision lots 1CA and 1CB block one. Item number three, a replat of Rain Tract, lot 4A block two. Item number four, Saratoga Ridge unit one, which is one large final plat. And then we have item number five, a final plat, lot one, Stripes, Corpus Christi. And then under, of course, all plats have been reviewed by the Technical Review Committee. Staff has determined they are compliant with both the Texas Local Government Code as well as the UDC and recommend approval. Item number six under zoning is zoning case ZN9265, roads development located in District 1, The request is from the RS 6 single family 6 district to the RS 4.5 single family 4.5 district. Staff recommends approval. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to address them. That concludes tonight's consent agenda.

Okay, thank you, Andrew. At this time, Commissioner, do we have any questions for staff on items 2 through 6?

I just had a question on 4. So on page 2 of the plat, That's obviously the lot layout. The other pages, that's just showing drainage easements at this point. That's not showing streets that are going to be developed right now? Correct. On this one, it does show a combination of... I'm just looking at pages like 3, 4, and 5. I've just never seen it put that way on a plat.

Yes, Commissioner. Oh, sorry. Mark Zan's plan or two. Those are drainage easements and access easements that are that are going all the way out to the edges So that they will actually make ditches out of those okay For right now, and then they'll come back replant them and incorporate those ditches into the future Yeah, then watch once future phases get done.

It'll get covered up basically okay and then the other question I have on here is I As of right now, this just has one entrance. Looks like it's over 50 lots. Fire doesn't have any issues with it right now?

Actually, I believe this is the one that... No, that was Unit 2. Yeah, this is over 50 lots, and Fire had no problem with that one entrance now because they know future entrances are coming.

Just Unit 2 and Unit 3 are currently being reviewed by the TRC. So those comments are due back by this coming Tuesday, which means that this plot, of course, won't be recorded until you have the PIs. And the idea would be you would have public improvements constructed for all three units in pretty close order for that very reason of avoiding crossing that threshold.

So you probably won't cross that threshold in the first unit. The other ones will be developed and roads will be in tandem.

Correct.

Yes, sir. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? I have a question on item 6. I was just curious to know, is this something that was recently, I'm going to say, I don't know, about a year or so ago that this particular property was zoned from FR to RS6? Correct. And now it's going from RS6 to RS4.5?

Correct. That's always to provide DESIGN FLEXIBILITY ROADS DEVELOPMENT LIKES TO USE KIND OF CURVILINEAR STREETS SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PIE SHAPED LOTS TO MEET THE STANDARDS OF 4.5 OF COURSE THERE IS A LARGER CITY PROJECT OCCURRING ON THE MOST SOUTHERN PHASE INVOLVING A LARGE PIPELINE FROM THE NEWLY CREATED EASTERN WELL FIELDS SO DRAWING THAT TO OWEN STEPHENS DOES ADJUST THEIR OVERALL SITE DEVELOPMENT SO ALLOWING THEM FLEXIBILITY WITH SMALLER LOTS gives them the ability to adjust for the water line we very much need and still meet the lot count for building reasons.

Okay, because if I remember right, when this was presented, it did have the plat already set. I believe it had all the plat with all the design on it on how many of the lots that they were going to be selling. So this is going to be...

It'll be updated. Correct.

Okay. All right. That's all I had. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, then I'll go ahead and open up a public comment on the consent agenda for items two through six. Anyone would like to speak on these items? If not, then I'll go ahead and close the public comment and entertain a motion.

I'll move that we approve items two, three, four, five, and six as presented by staff. Second.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. Motion approved. Moving on to item seven.

Okay, commissioners, good evening. So talking about tonight's item number seven, this is case ZN9151. This is a case that had been previously presented about a month ago before the Planning Commission involving a construction yard out on Greenwood. So to do a quick refresher, located at 6201 Greenwood Drive, the request is from the RS6 Single Family 6th District to the CN1 Neighborhood Commercial District with a special permit. So again, refreshing kind of your location. This is on the west side of town, just north of Greenwood and Saratoga. Concerning the surrounding land uses, we have RS6 to the north. To the south, we have a drainage ditch, and across that would be RS4.5. And on the other side of Greenwood, you have a little bit of neighborhood commercial zoning. Of the 60 notices sent out, we received zero in favor and three in opposition, which is just under 1%. And this slide is just to give you an idea of the flood zones that are in the area. As you know, the tributary that connects and goes under the bridge near what we call the Las Callas streets, which is just above the wastewater treatment plant, that floodplain does extend. That is your hatched area. I'm sorry, floodway, and then you have the AE flood zone, which does cross into this property as well as surrounding residences. Now, as mentioned in the previous meeting, the applicant has requested to go with an SP. Staff is recommending denial of that, but I'm going to go through the outline of what the applicant is requesting. So part of his request is to allow not only the storage of commercial vehicles, that is two semis, two tandem trailers, a 2,000-gallon above-ground fuel tank, aggregate storage of materials, and that storage of vehicles would be either indoor or outdoor. The development standards would be per an attached site plan. The buffyards, which would have to be installed especially to the north where it is adjacent to the single-family zones, one freestanding sign would be allowed. Of course, with any property, we have the noise ordinance, which Demonstrates the amount of decibels that can be generated from a property especially if you have any work being done on-site You don't want to cross at any time 65 decibels, and then there's a lower threshold that you can only cross during the daytime hours and As soon as you hit nighttime around 9 10 o'clock that has to drop pretty low significantly not to have you know any type of tools operating we are setting in hours of operation between 7 a.m. And 7 p.m. And then lastly, what we call our catch-all section, and that is even with the approval of an SP, it does not give you any type of carte blanche of building codes, fire codes, and other conditions of the Unified Development Code. But that is, in a nutshell, the request coming from the applicant. Staff is recommending denial. That is also based on some feedback we got from the neighborhood that I believe you heard testimony at the last meeting. I know I wasn't in attendance, but I did go back and watch the recording, and there was some Public comment concerned about the above ground fuel tank as well as outdoor storage, noise, hours of operation, buffering, all those things came up. So we did address those with the applicant, but he is, and I'm sure he'll speak to this, but is opting to still present the request for CN1 with a special permit and the conditions as I've outlined.

Okay. Thank you, Andrew. Commissioners, do we have any questions for staff?

I have a question. Go ahead, Andrew.

You want to go ahead? So these 12, 13, you know, items that you just went over. Yes, sir. Was that something that staff recommended or was that something the applicant was wanting?

Originally, the request was to light industrial. We gave a second recommendation as we started to work with the applicant of neighborhood commercial with a special permit as an updated site plan was presented to us, plus the presentation to the planning commission and getting more feedback from the neighborhood. We felt it was better to go to potentially an RS6 with a special permit with some reduced, more strict conditions. But the applicant has requested to make sure that this request is being presented to what his desire is of a special permit.

So these were the first items that were agreed upon between a first draft staff and the applicant?

It was a negotiation to find common ground for potential special permit conditions in advance of that first presentation to find a commission.

So specifically out of these 13 items, what are you not supporting now?

It would to remove the above ground fuel tank, the aggregate storage and any type of vehicle storage would need to be indoors. And that includes the earth moving vehicles.

So the fuel tank. The aggregate storage. and the vehicle storage.

All vehicles would need to be indoors. Okay. Thank you.

Yes, sir. I remember this case when he brought it up, and I think there was plenty of opposition concerning, particularly, more importantly, I think, in my part, in addition to the fuel, but the after-hours noise, right, after 5 p.m., What was you, there was going to be a, there was going to be a meeting between, um, I guess, between the city and the, and this applicant and what of the items, when we told you guys to go back and let's hash things out, what items were the, what did the applicant was the applicant willing to forego?

Of the, at first it was a discussion about the aggregate materials that seemed to be a little more plausible of removing. As the discussion progressed, it was more of the need for the tank to fuel vehicles on site they did want to keep and have the ability to have those vehicles outside. In the discussion, as I always say, I'm a bad poker player because I show all my cards, is that those outdoor vehicles are not always going to be outside because it's as they're needed. The problem with that is it's very hard for city staff to enforce that. We would have to keep constant observance of the site to determine is the backhoe inside the building is it outside the building so it's better to eliminate the problem and say the vehicles need to be inside and that that was also a point of discussion um and and you had mentioned uh we had talked about 18 wheelers is that what two semis and two tandems so these these these items from folks to get home if they're if they're working at the refinery they're getting home around four o'clock so from four o'clock to seven o'clock these these

these large vehicles can be in operation within that perimeter, right?

The way it was explained to me by the applicant, and again, I'm sure he's going to shed more additional details, is that this is more of trips to leave the site in the morning and then to arrive back in the evening. There would not be a coming and going. It's more of a storage facility. for these vehicles. So there wouldn't be multiple trips coming back and forth in the later hours.

I see. What's the total number of vehicles that would be allowed on that lot?

Well, in this case, what we're recommending would be two semis and two tandem. So that's, that's for traditional off street vehicles. If you have a, like a Bobcat or a smaller earth moving vehicle, those would just need to be stored indoors. Of course, you may not use that vehicle every day. It's, it's as you need. Okay.

All right. Thank you.

Yes, sir.

What about a regen? If the semi gets back and they have to do a regen, it could take an hour, just sit there and idle.

Technically, the city does have idling ordinances that we do not allow that to happen. Of course, it's very much like everything else. It's a cat and mouse game. Police have to actively catch you idling your vehicle for so long. And there has to be evidence collected. That's going to go through municipal court. It's not that we don't have rules on the books like everything else.

It's difficult to enforce Thanks What's the buffer that you're gonna have between the houses and maybe your average vehicle or wherever they park? Do we know like a distance?

It's 20 feet and 20 points So your 20 feet would be the physical distance from the property line into the site where it's a no-man's land and then you have to install points that is typically consisting of landscaping trees an enlarged and enhanced fence, sometimes up to eight feet tall, to provide not only noise attenuation, but also the visual separation and then physical separation of the fence itself.

The fence would be required?

No matter what, it would be 20 feet, and how they obtain the 20 points could be done through an enhanced fence, additional distance, but no matter what, it must be 20 feet minimum.

Are there any regulations for, let's say, just a normal residential lot and you're a dump truck driver that owns the vehicle and you just take it home and just park it in your driveway?

Excellent question. I'm glad somebody brought that up. And that's another one of those. It falls between two codes. So the municipal code says every street has a weight limit. So if I'm crossing over into something like a true commercial vehicle, what we like to say above an F-350, so I'm getting into box trucks, I'm getting into dump trucks, semis, what's illegal is taking them onto a road that does not have the weight class for that vehicle. But technically parking it on your property, on your driveway, is not illegal. So CCPD has to catch you driving it on a street it's not rated for its schedule of street, not necessarily because you have it on your property. But logic says you had to get it to your property somehow, but they didn't catch them in the act of driving it on the street.

I'm just thinking I've driven around plenty of times and seen, you know, 18 wheelers parked at residence. I've seen big dump trucks, work trucks, all kinds of vehicles parked at just. residential neighborhoods. So what's the difference?

I'm sure as you've been tracking this council, the development services will be absorbing parking enforcement. And I have a feeling that's going to be an upcoming training. So as our officers are going to be out, uh, definitely how you spot vehicles that are above a weight limit. Uh, that is a definite violation. Whether we start to figure out is that CCPD or soon to be parking enforcement, uh, part of branch of development services, but yes, that's very good question.

And then I did have one other question. Uh, since the fuel storage was a concern, uh, for a lot of folks, what kind of like city codes or regulations are there for, you know, somebody that has a fuel storage tank, can it just go anywhere? Can anybody fill it up?

Like what's the, so it's going to depend on, and it's hard when it comes to diesel because there is, uh, as, as fire was trying to give me a crash course, it's, there's a difference between flammability and combustibility. So diesel, it's, it's a, A bad story, but when I was a Boy Scout, we would play this joke where you put a can of diesel and throw matches on it, knowing it would never light. It's not as flammable as gasoline, and its burning temperature, its ignition temperature is much higher. That doesn't mean it's safe. So what I'm saying is that fire department follows IFC, which has UL ratings of 2085 tanks, which is the number that it's double-walled. It must have spill prevention procedures, which is you're having either a, metal container around it so in case both walls of the tank rupture it has a spill area so it stays contained it's harder on the portable tanks because if those rusts we know we live in a corrosive environment those are not always maintained but when you have a permanent tank the way that we have the UDC worked out is that if it is an accessory use to an industrial use meaning if I have a car dealership I can apply to have a tank because Fueling of vehicles is my primary use. Similarly, in this scenario, you could try to argue that it's an accessory use, but when the primary use is more construction related, the lines start to get a little gray. Regardless of all of that, fire department still has to sign off on the permitting of above ground fuel tanks, has to meet the UL 2085 rating. must be with the spill prevention procedures, has to meet minimum distances that are set in the IFC away from residential dwellings. There are also other restrictions of how you put bollards around it to secure it from other vehicles striking it. So it's not a simple yes or no. It has to meet a litany of requirements.

So it sounds like a fuel tank's not just going to be dropped somewhere and No measures are taken. It's not that easy. You have to do permitting. You have to pass code. You have to get the fire to pass it, essentially.

So, for instance, fire will sign off on the tank. We as development services sign off on the foundation the tank sits upon. So it has to cross both departments. So there's quite a bit of safety measures in place.

Triple inspections. Okay. Thanks.

Any other questions?

I have a couple so was this applicant Told of any other options that he could possibly take for this property Yes, we did discuss the rs6 with the special permit with those restrictions that I mentioned that we would be enhancing the the conversation ended up Leading to wanting to proceed with the CN just to get feedback from the planning commission if that is still a viable option and Okay, so he did not really Anything that you introduced to him as far as another option for that property was not something he was in well as I mentioned I think the aggregate storage was a Common ground okay that we agreed upon but ultimately when Like everything else when we have a discussion we follow up in writing saying please confirm This is our this is a discussion we had here are the items listed Please confirm that you agree of what we discussed and as the email chain WAS OCCURRING, I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE WITH MY REQUEST FOR CN1SP AS ORIGINALLY PRESENTED.

OKAY. AND ADDING TO COMMISSIONER TEICHELMAN WAS STATING THAT I lost my train of thought. No, it wasn't the noise. Anyway, I'll think about it in a minute. What I was also thinking about was there's been several zoning cases that have been presented that we've approved and presented to city council. And with that, city council, there were several council members that did not approve it for the reason that even if they have one public comment concern, that they want to make sure that that applicant adjusts or somehow works with the people that are concerned. Has this applicant worked with any of the people or talked to any of the people with their concerns?

Not that it was disclosed to myself or any other staff that I'm aware of, if you had independent conversations. I know we did not have a three-way conversation between the neighborhood and the applicant.

Okay. And I know another council member who states, I wouldn't want it in my backyard. So I don't think I'd want it in it.

You know, yes anybody else is very familiar with Every sentiments.

Yeah, so I'm just bringing that up because I know that the last City Council's they have Not approved what we have approved and that concerns me because I want to make sure that we get what needs to be done before it gets presented to City Council, even though we are a recommending board. I like to clarify things for them as well as the people and and working with the applicant.

Yes, every applicant, it's one of the very first things that we say is that every zoning process is very much a public process and it's a living process, meaning what you apply for, what ultimately may or may not be approved may not always be the same thing. As we work through, get input from just the planning commission, council, neighborhoods, that plan can evolve.

Yes, and that's what we like to do. We like to make sure that there's a balance here with the people and with the development of Corpus Christi. Because that is exactly what we're here for, to make sure that there's going to be a balance with development and, of course, taking care of the residents.

Absolutely.

Yes, ma'am. Okay. Any other questions for staff?

I have one more question. This is going until 7 o'clock. Is there ability for us to trim down, and I'm sure I know the answer to this, but I'm just asking for it just so we keep it on record, to us to be able to have the open hours end at 5 o'clock when people would be getting home? Absolutely. Can that be added to that?

That's well within your purview as a recommendation.

The only reason I'm saying that is that I know a number of people, the two things that came up were obviously the tank, but it was also the operating hours. And the operating hours... in this situation if I was backed up to it. And we did, you know, I discussed with some of the other commissioners when we left the meeting the last time, when I discussed this with other commissioners.

Hopefully it was without quorum. Say it again? Hopefully there wasn't a quorum.

No, there was not a quorum at all. No. but uh one of the items that we had talked about was um you know that area um that area was not as did not have as many residents when those other piece those other pieces to the puzzle were put in there those commercials pieces so this is something that's come up is that we're having to evolve this process based upon the density level of living that's in that particular area so If I was a person that moved in after the fact, I would say, well, there's no more of this kind of bit. They know what they're buying into when they first get into that. They don't think that something like this is going to come in. So the question that I would say is, is that working with the people, right, working with the folks that live in the area, are we able to adjust the hours and then make it so where we can keep the operational hours down to a minimum when people are working, so.

Absolutely. That is well within your purview as making a recommendation to reduce the hours. All right. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions? If not, then I'll go ahead and open up the public comment for the consent agenda, item number seven. If anybody would like to come and speak on item seven, please come forward. Yeah. Yeah, I'd ask that the... Right. Got it.

Yes, ma'am. Terry Falwell. Came last time to address this issue. Several of us are heavily against this heaviness in our backyard, as you say. I mean, when we moved in there over 10 years ago, it was quite peaceful. That's what we wanted. Now you're moving a major industry into our area without even asking us. Like you said in the statement, they did not contact us and ask our opinions. or anything like that. And why that specific property do they want that specific property? You know, is it the value of it or is it, what is it? But, like again, yes, if you move the fuel tank inside of a facility, it still has a potential of catching fire. Okay, and you got a one way in, one way out. So if a fire truck can get in there, what are we to do as residents? And when we pay $100,000 for our houses, and a potential fire like this. Also, your equipment, big rigs and stuff like they said, they had to go for maintenance. Oil can leak on the ground when they're changing the oil, a hose bust, whatever. A lot of potential for pollutants in the area. So I would heavily, heavily suggest that you move this to a new location and reject the thing altogether. And again, You heard this last time, so I won't reiterate. But health issues and stuff like that. I stay at home all day. I'm retired. Okay? And do I have to hear all this noise all day long? You know, when I'm at home trying to enjoy myself? Other people down there, people who are retired or can't work, they stay there to get children there all day. Some people may work nights. So take that into consideration. Okay, ma'am?

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any others like to come and speak?

Amalia Luna. My question again, as last time, are human lives not that important that we have to build profit before people is just not something we want. I've lived there over 10 years and never expected, wanted, or would imagine that they're going to build something like that in our backyard, so to speak. It's just not acceptable as a citizen and our neighbors as well. They don't need it. We have a school not even a mile away. Children will be affected. Human lives are going to be affected if something were to happen. We're not saying catastrophically that's going to happen, but we don't know the future. And I'm sure there's more places in Corpus Christi that can be used other than that specific neighborhood or our easement or whichever part they're trying to build on. I would like to say whomever is trying to build this facility, won't they think about their homes? Are their homes affected by it? No. But ours would be. Our children, my grandchildren, and the children that are in the school that are not even a mile away. There's a park, Los Encinos Park is right there. There's apartments that are right across the street from that area. And again, you know, Profit over people is just my opinion, and I don't feel that we're going to gain anything out of it at all. It's just going to bring everything down, in my opinion. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others like to come and speak? Go ahead.

Good evening, Commissioners. Juan Perales, Jay Perales, Civil Engineering, 5866 South Staple Street. So in preparation for this evening's meeting, we've been going over some of the concerns and issues that have been brought up with the owner of the property. And some of the items that he's willing to concede this evening is starting with some of the more high-profile issues Excuse me is the fuel tank We he's willing to Eliminate the fuel tank from the proposed project, so we'll be taking that off in addition as Mr.. Dimas mentioned the aggregate storage is also coming out of the project the focus of the projects can be a little more toward a industrial park setting more warehouses and office offices and which is the primary intent of using the property some of the other things that are being proposed this evening there was discussion regarding the buffer between the proposed use and the and the residential properties next door so The plans that we presented include a minimum 20-foot buffer zone. In addition to that 20-foot buffer zone, we're proposing to construct an eight-foot height engineered masonry wall, privacy wall, which will go in front of the 20-foot buffer. After the 20-foot buffer, there's also a 30-foot access road. So the actual separation of most activity will be 50 feet from the property line as well as having the eight foot privacy wall. What are some of the other issues? So those are some of the items that additional concessions that we've been discussed and are proposing this evening. Some of the additional discussion is regarding the equipment. As an active construction company operation. They have job sites in various locations within the city. The job sites are actually the primary location or home of this equipment day in and day out. Now, for different reasons, equipment may be brought into the office or to the yard to store temporarily between jobs or possibly for maintenance and things like that. But the intent of equipment storage on site is not to be the parking lot for all of the equipment that they use day in and day out. Most of their equipment stays on job sites day in and day out. But there will be some that is parked on site intermittently as operations need. Some of the equipment is rather large, so it's not really feasible to park it all indoors. Now, the buildings that are being constructed are warehouse-type facilities or are proposed to be constructed, I should say. So they will be able to do park or have the ability to park some vehicles inside, but to park any equipment on site, indoors is just, it's not really practical. It's like having a driveway and not being able to use it to park your car in the evening. There were some other comments on the proposed use of the property. It's not an easy property to use. It's narrow. It's long. There is a large electrical transmission line that runs along the edge, and then we have the drainage ditch that is also next to it. So the possibilities and options for having some productive use of the property are limited, and it's challenging in that regard. So I just want to take a few minutes of your time this evening and come up and kind of go over some of the latest

options and changes as far as a proposed use Present those to you this evening So can you repeat again what the changes would be that the applicant wants to try to do now from what is stated on here?

No fuel tank No aggregate storage There will be an eight-foot manufactured masonry privacy wall along the property line and Those are the primary changes as far as the discussions and the limitations and the requirements for the proposed rezoning.

What about the hours that Commissioner Teichelman was saying, something about the 5 o'clock, because you have it from 7 to 7, I believe?

So, to be honest, we did not discuss that. The owner is here this evening. If we want to take that discussion in a little further, a little deeper. But to be honest of he and I did not discuss that item specifically before the meeting this evening, but In the interest of trying to work cooperatively, I mean he is here this evening if we want to continue that discussion Any questions

You mentioned like a 50-foot buffer you were talking about.

Can you explain a little bit more about that? The site plan as submitted, so as far as creating a separation between the proposed use and the residential property adjacent to it, we would start with the 8-foot wall. After the 8-foot wall, we have the 20-foot buffer zone, which will meet the requirements as stipulated in the zoning code for a buffer zone. So we have the width and then the points that are required. So an additional separation after the 20-foot buffer zone is the 30-foot access drive. So before you get to anything that's actually or any of the use of the property, now we're 50 feet away from the property line. By the time you do the wall, the buffer zone, and the access drive. That's intended to separate the activity as much as possible from the neighbors Is that and that's between I should say the fence and The property actually where y'all actually want to use it I add is there a map or anything that we could see on this so I can be there was a site plan I think in this packet now that is the original site plan and

Yes, but essentially what it would equate to is a 50-foot building setback. So you would have a 20-foot buffer yard adding 30 feet before a building starts. So that still gives room for the applicant to have his access driveway, but it equates to a 50-foot setback, which is different from a buffer. You're stacking them. I don't believe that site plan is in the, but I do have a printout that I can bring up on the overhead.

Here's the more recent one, Andrew, if you would like.

That way the microphone picks me up you'll have your 20-foot buffer then an access drive So your building isn't really starting until you hit a 50-foot mark But that access drive vehicles could drive on it corrector that is correct yes, correct I

Is there any way to invert that layout to where the access road is on the southern portion of the property, therefore increasing the amount of buffer and placing a building in between driving vehicles and these residential homes?

It's a catch-22. So if a question is about noise and any small maintenance is done on vehicles, you're going to have the building closer to the residences rather than using your driveway, which has less use, and have the buildings further away. That's the balance you're trying to weigh.

I'm just weighing the difference between vehicle traffic versus actual maintenance activity because maintenance activity is going to be periodic as needed as opposed to daily movement. Exactly. So is that an option? I mean, geographically speaking, layout, would that work? Or is that not feasible because of the way the terrain is?

I mean, technically, it could be done either way. It's just the original thought process was that the buildings were potentially the greater noise generator. But there's always more than one way to look at a situation.

Just trying to think outside the box a little bit.

The only thing I would notice is your turnaround is going to be on the ditch side. I don't know the soil conditions where now you may have to shore up the ditch if more weight pavement is placed closer. It's like untangling a sweater. You pull on one thread and you might solve one problem and inadvertently create three.

As far as improving the soil conditions to support the pavement, that's just a technical issue.

Well, that's interesting you say the pavement because of the fact that we're going to be having all these trucks coming in and driving around the area, which is not only the residential, but I think someone said it was close to a school and across an apartment complex, I think.

Those are actually a little further down Greenwood, ma'am.

Well, these trucks are going to be coming from the construction site or something like what you were saying?

Their primary access would be through Greenwood Drive.

And that is a...

It's an arterial street, ma'am.

Yeah. Okay.

I just get concerned because, you know... That's an excellent point, but in this case, the main street for access is Greenwood Drive. It's an arterial.

Right, but it's only one way in and one way out, so they'll be coming in and out of Greenwood. I didn't get to go by the property, so I can't really picture it.

I think Coca-Cola down the street and then some other businesses further down. There's a roofing warehouse down the street. There's a mix of uses up and down Greenwood in this part of town. But the street, Arteria Street pavement is designed for heavier traffic.

Okay. Any other questions?

So this property is, it's a pretty unique property in that it's deep but it's not a very wide property. Can you just elaborate on would it be possible to do other uses out of this property it seems difficult to even do it as a RS6 neighborhood just with how wide it is.

Yes. Short answer is yes. So some of the complicating factors as far as residential use include the floodway, that cross-tetch area to the northwest of the property, it's in the floodway, so you can build nothing in there. So once you eliminate that, into the property from development, now you have to try and get traffic in and out. And then by the time you consider the drainage way and to the southwest and then along that property line you also have the electrical transmission main and just mixing residential use and electrical transmission facilities is not It's just not one of the best strategies that we've seen. So by the time you take all of that into account, it's not really feasible for a single-family residential development. It would probably sit there. It's been sitting there vacant for many, many years. It probably would continue to do so. And I think something was mentioned on one of the previous items. Once you get above a certain number of lots, And just in general, you want to try and have two means of access to the property for emergency services. In this case, you would have only one. In this case, we have one owner. In residential use, you would have a number of them.

How many people do you anticipate being on this site at any given time? You think it will always have 30 people? Will it always have two people? Do you have any idea?

That's a good question.

Thank you.

Vic Nazari, 5502 Kane Drive. I'm hearing the neighbors' concern. Their concerns are noise. Their concern is traffic. What we're proposing will actually help lower that compared to the existing zoning, which is RS6. On the RS6, you could do nine acres. On nine acres, you could do about 50 lots, two cars per house, 100 traffic daily, hourly, versus here, it's gonna be for my personal yard. We have four trucks. You'll have three employees in there at the most, all the time. Trucks will come in empty. and leave empty. We're willing to install a noise-reducing fence, which I've sent the details to the city, that studies have been done. It's a noise-reducing fence. It's a vinyl fence. It's not a concrete masonry fence. It's a vinyl fence. And to the concern of the gentleman who's worried about the noise, if you have a residential neighbor five feet away from your fence, Barbecuing turning up the music versus a commercial building. That's 50 feet away from you. Which one will produce more noise To the other concern a fire hazard You're away 70 feet on one side 150 feet on the other side. What if the house burns down? We got to play all scenarios here, correct? We either do residential on a very skinny track, congested area, or we do something like this, which gives it more space to everybody. Which one's safer? Which one has less traffic? This one will have way less traffic than any residential area. And again, we're going, we're trying to be good neighbors. We're willing to do everything that they have concerns about dust, remove aggregate from the entire site plan. We don't want that, right? Diesel tank is an issue. We're willing to give that away. So we can't park everything indoor. It's just not possible. Will we try for our own safety? Yes, we will. But at the same time, we don't want to commit to something that we might not be able to achieve.

Well, it would be the safety for your company, but also for the residential. And this is one of the concerns that they brought up was for safety, as well as the others that you did answer on their concerns. So their children, and as a mother, okay, I get it. Because your kids are going to run around, your kids are going to want to play. They go play outside, especially in the summertime or after school. So here's an industry, or I think it should be something to do with light industry, but that's just my opinion. You have something that's going to be commercialized in a residential area where these people have already been living there for a long time. They're used to that. So here's something else that's going to come in. You know, kids will be kids. They're going to run out there and they're going to want to play. And your company, I know I come from companies, a construction company, and you've got to do your business, and you've got to work, and you've got to get everything in line with what needs to be done for the next day. And that means loading up the equipment, getting everything set up and ready for first thing in the morning, the guys get out, you know? And then at the end of the day, they come back and deliver or put up everything they need to. So that, to me, is...

is what i think about to making sure that the safety is in both sides absolutely i agree with you a hundred percent but at the same time those kids playing the chances of them getting injured with more traffic going through a residential or higher i believe because there's more traffic that's just what it comes down to it's all statistics so if you have a hundred cars going versus just Limited of 20 cars going which are the odds of somebody getting injured is the way I look at it a hundred cars or 20 cars That's the way I see it and again this will be a gated area So it's not like you're gonna have traffic going in and out 24-7 The total of cars that will be going in and out will be less than 20 daily in reality. This is mainly just to store some of the trench boxes, safety plates. That's what it's all going to be. Leftover material that we need to temporarily store until we can move it to the next job site. We're trying to make sure everybody is...

safe that's of course priority number one we would never do anything that's not safe that's okay thank you any other questions okay so if not then um we can either go with further discussion or entertain a motion do you think do you think that it would be prudent for us to be able to say to send this thing back again and let's yes

There are so many things that we have we have put out there thus far All right, we've talked about we've talked about the removal of the tanks, you know I would like to be able to see that in some kind of an official document I'd like to be able for us to be able to look at this thing back over I would also like to be able to see With with With what was brought up earlier about the road being moved on the other side, what would that entail? I think there are too many things that are left up, and I would rather not vote on something that we still have questions on regarding this.

If I may, on flipping it, it's not going to work. Because of the transmission line that we have and we're going to get closer to the neighbors versus staying away from the neighbors.

The orientation of your bay doors would be facing away from your neighbors at that point, which I mean, sound would. potentially travel easier out those bay doors Unless that that whole facility was be air-conditioned like climate control, which I would doubt I mean just financially wouldn't really make sense and for the use doesn't make sense But the orientation of those bay doors being facing away from your neighbors to the north would Theoretically channels more of that sound away from their back doors I'll agree to disagree because of the fact that I

The main noise you'll have would be maybe the 18-wheelers going in and out. We're not going to have heavy use like typical industrial. It's not. It's mainly for storage purposes and just to work on minor things indoor. That's about it. We're not having jackhammers running, air compressors running 24-7.

So is your main concern the overhead transmission line? Is that a height requirement issue? Like are these transmission lines too low for the age?

No, not at all It's it's nothing. It's you've won. You've got a 50-foot easement or a 30-foot easement That we and that we don't want to get close to transmission lines. That's the main reason but the noise that they're worried about If you think about it, we're installing a 8-foot vinyl noise reducing fence it's no different than your neighbor in the back behind you and

I'm just trying to add a building in between that in addition to your fence.

Sure, no, I understand.

You're already spending the money on the building.

Correct. No, if it was that easy, we'll look at it, of course. But I can already – we'll look at it, but I don't think it's going to – and I don't want to promise anything that we won't commit. That's not who I am.

That's not who – I guess the big thing that I'm talking about is – I mean, I can see both sides of the fence, and we're trying to work with you. And I know all the commissioners up here are asking the right questions. The thing that I'm saying as a voting person on this thing is I want to see all the options. I want to see all the options. You've laid out and you've had plenty of concessions that have already been given, right? I think that's awesome. But I want to see if the noise can be reduced and we can have something that would show – that there is a reduction. If it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter, right? We talked earlier about confining the time of operation. Is that an option?

Typically, 90% of the times, the trucks will be parked by 5. Some days, like today, they're working late. Again, I don't want to promise anything that later, hey, you said 5. Today, it's 6 o'clock. What happened? 90% of the time, All pits, all commercials close at 4. All the sand pits, all the aggregate places, they close at 4. So by the time they fill up, come back, it's 4.30. They're already parked for the next day. There are exceptions, like today, out of this is the first time that it's happened. The geyser might be still working. So there will be exceptions. 90% of the time, they'll be parked by 5 o'clock. But like... Yeah, that's basically 90 95 percent of the times they'll be done by 5 o'clock.

Well, the concerns are more like Something that we want to see probably present it to us in From staff approval, hopefully, you know and this is something that we take it a little bit more comfortable and accepting and approving of but with these concerns that we have and questions that we're having, it just doesn't feel like we're comfortable with proceeding, at least I'm not, at this time. I'm wanting to work with you wanting to help you but at the same time I want to help the residents feel comfortable and safe. That is their property, that is their home and if they're concerned then it's something that we need to take that into consideration. And I think right now I don't know what the commissioners want to do as far as trying to I guess we may want to have to I don't know we can table it again or Until they can you can come back with something a little bit more that we feel more comfortable in and to helping you approve this You know If we can do that Yeah, I have the same concern as Commissioner Teichelman I appreciate these concessions.

I wish it would have been done before that came to us again and

But we did, with all due respect, we did send a revised site plan showing the noise-reducing fence.

No, I'm talking about the other items, which were the storage of the fuel and the other two, three items that you're conceding now, but you weren't conceding before. So I agree 100% that saying that you're going to do this is great, but unless it's in writing, I can't approve anything.

No problem.

Sounds like we're all in agreement that we should table it, have more discussions with staff, hopefully can come back in two weeks at the next meeting.

I'm getting a signal, no, it'll be the one after that. So that's like everything else we do try to find.

So commissioners, if I may, I bet Wallace and our director, it's because of the posting requirements we spoke about last time. So we'll have to push it to the eight five PC.

Okay. Yeah, that way I think we can have everything in front of us again. I mean, I do appreciate the concessions that the applicant made. I think, you know, I do respect the homeowners. They do have rights, obviously. But, you know, the gentleman is a property owner as well, and he does have rights to do things with his property as well. So hopefully staff can come to an agreement that we can support.

So we make a motion to table for the following. meeting, right?

Correct. I'll make a motion to table item number seven to the August 5th. Correct. Commission second.

Okay, I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. Motion passes. Moving on to public hearing discussion and possible action item C. So at this time, we're gonna go individually with, well, we're gonna do items eight and nine, and then we're gonna do items 10 and 11. So they'll be separate, together but separate. So Mr. Demas.

Pull that up. Okay. So there are two waivers on tonight's agenda for item number eight. It is a waiver for street construction involving the Clarkwood track subdivision, which is item number nine. Hopefully this clicker is, there we go. What you have on the screen is the proposed plot. And that is at the intersection with Mazda drive, which is the, uh, street in question. And of course, the UDC, whenever you're adjacent to a street, the automatic requirement is that you have to construct the infrastructure that that you touch by by plot. So that is the trigger, which brings the case today of requesting the waiver. What we look at are the applicable favors for consideration, both in favor and against granting a potential waiver for uh in this case it's a street granting the waiver will not be detriment to public health safety general welfare the conditions that create the waiver what is not typical to other properties it doesn't render the land unfeasible and of course it has to not be in conflict with the comp plan so here's a quick site plan to show the location of the site 701 mazda it is the combining of two lots to create a corner lot with access to alpine which is what exists today to enter and exit this subdivision. The property itself is just to the north and west of Corpus Christi International Airport and to the east of Clarkwood. Staff is recommending approval as shown on the previous slide. This is a dedicated street, but if you're familiar with the area, It's kind of like way out Weber with an industrial park. There are a lot of dedicated streets that were never built since it was plotted prior to 1995 is that is the magic year in which the state decided whenever you plot property, you now have to build all infrastructure before you could simply dedicate and never have to build. We learned that many a time with what we call the paper streets and flower bluff. So it is a very similar scenario rather than having a person who is combining two lots into one would actually reduce density. The catch is we are supporting the waiver from street construction. And with that, if there are any questions, we're available to address them.

Thank you, Andrew. Commissioner, do we have any questions for staff?

Have other waivers like this been granted in the area?

If you recall, I know I wasn't here the last one, but one of the examples on the plot training is a street called Picture Court. which we had, I would say it's about a handful of years ago, similar scenario where three lots were being combined into one picture court while dedicated has never existed. That street was ultimately abandoned. And this is a similar process that may happen in the future. Ultimately abandoned Mazda altogether and have half go to each property owner. What you have to investigate is you're not landlocking any lots.

So that's a, what was the zoning to get on this?

These are all zone light industrial, if I recall off the top of my head. Yes, thank you. Light industrial.

Any other questions? Okay. If not, then I'll go ahead and open up the public comment for items eight and nine. If anybody would like to come and speak on items eight and nine, please come forward. If not, then I'll go ahead and close the public comment and entertain a motion or further discussion.

Make a motion to approve items 8 and 9 as per city. Second.

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

Aye.

All those opposed say no. Motion approved. Moving on to items 10 and 11.

All right. So we'll have the presentation for the, in this case, it's a wastewater requested waiver for Platt 9299 Laguna Oaks Estates. This property is located in Flower Bluff, so I must have said the name too many times. So we have Flower Bluff pop up. The request is at the corner of Flower Bluff Drive and Graham Road. If you recall, this was a zoning case a few years back for an RV park that I remember was heavily attended, to put it nicely. But in this case, the property would be subdivided into residential lots. It did retain its underlying residential zoning. The property in question, however, is just on the edge of the 1,000-foot, what the UDC calls reasonable accessibility. You don't have to memorize that term, but it's what we call the 1,000-foot rule, meaning if you're within around about 1,000 feet from wastewater access, you must connect. According to our report, this is at exactly 1,023 feet. That's the most available connection with the appropriate depth to make wastewater work. So similarly to the previous waiver, we look at the factors that are both for and against granting a potential waiver. I'm pulling up the map here so you can get kind of your bearings of where it's located. So the closest connection is 966 linear feet away, but the depth is only 5.8 feet, which requires slope. That is all the technical engineering stuff, and I promise I won't have to have Bria come up and correct me, but essentially the shallower the manhole is, the more difficult it is to make wastewater work. In order to hit a depth of 20 feet, that connection is now a hair over 1,000 at 1,023 feet. The cost to get to that connection was just over $200,000. With that, staff has taken all these into consideration, the factors. We are recommending denial. However, we are open to questions and anything you may wish to discuss. I know the applicant is here. Our engineering firm is here, present, to also address questions you may have.

Thank you, Andrew.

I would like to know why why why were you why did you guys want to deny it? Why are you recommending to deny it?

So the difference between wastewater and streets just as a philosophy is wastewater is going to serve multiple Lots. It's it's an opportunity to open development This is one of the few areas a flower bluff that is not in the a coos so it's an opportunity for other folks to be able to attach to that line and It is also, we don't want to have folks in the city limits on septic. The goal is ultimately to have them on the grid. The areas that we do have on septic is simply because it's either too expensive to maintain or we simply can't reach them. That's the south half of Flower Bluff around Waldron Field. That would increase density, which is an area that ACUS does not recommend. So as a philosophy in general, we want to have folks on the grid. We want to have them connect. And because they are within range, it will cost them to connect, but they are technically within range at 966 feet.

This is Bria Whitmire, excuse me, Development Services. I wanted to add an addition to the zoning and kind of the setup. part is also these new systems are aerobic and they require a few thousand square feet of the lots. So these lots do have enough acreage for a septic tank, but it is going to take up a large portion where you're going to have some spray fields. Anybody that has kids or are visiting family in the backyard, spray fields aren't exactly something that we want people to have in their backyards. It's not safe for people to be in. unless you have it cordoned off somewhere where people can't get to it. Septic tanks are allowed if you have more than a half acre, but they're still not something that's something we want around. If there's a way to connect, we need people to connect. This is also tied to in storm events. This is in the Flower Bluff area. If the septic tanks fail or get overrun in some way, this is going directly into our bays, and this is tied to our water quality. Susceptive tanks is is for multiple reasons not something that we want in addition to the the planning side of the world There's also wetlands in this area so on three of the lots in those wetlands they would need a letter from the Corps to To deal with that and they would have to arrange their the houses such that The spray fields would need to be outside of those wetlands So there's a lot of constraints even without the health department approving septic tanks on these lots. With that cost of the $228,000, there is nine to 10 lots, one being commercial. So some of the previous waivers that have been submitted, that cost was more than the project was worth. In this situation, the cost of running sewer line is not a substantial amount compared to the cost of the project. Those are a couple of the other items.

If I can add one more thing. Bria mentioned the wetlands. So the health department requires a 50-foot setback from your spray field from the jurisdictional wetlands. So it makes it trickier to develop those lots in particular. And there's two other smaller wetlands that are just pockets. So you would have to work with the court and get those removed if possible. If not, you'd have to develop around them. So it's going to make it difficult to do with a septic.

Okay. Any other questions? Well, I mean, I like the fact that, you know, well, here's the thing. I mean, if we're going to go 1,000 feet and then we start go ahead and telling everybody, oh, because yours is 999.9 or something, you know, right under the 1,000. If we start continuing accepting those, then that means that where's the line that we have to draw? You know, so this 1,000 feet, for me, is set in stone. And it should be set in stone because this is what the UDC requires. I just don't think even if it's the what was it 94 96 You know, I just I just like the fact that What staff looked at and what y'all are making your decisions on with this so No, I agree.

I agree. Also. I mean, I I think the less septic systems we can have in the city the better and You know, unfortunately, the sins of the past that we talk about in Flower Bluff, you have a lot of areas that have bad drainage and are on septic. And, you know, the more we can improve that and prevent any future issues, the better. So I do not support, you know, granting this waiver.

Okay. Any other questions for staff? If not, then I'll go ahead and open up the public comment on items 10 and 11. If anybody would like to come and speak.

Good evening. I'm Murray Bass with Bass and Wells Engineering, the engineers and surveyors on the project. It was our understanding that the waiver request was only for the lot that's zoned commercially. on Flower Bluff Drive. And we would have no issue with the placing of the wastewater if we could defer it until development. But there's no problem there. We could either put in a lift station on site and pump it to the nearest wastewater facility, or if the worst case scenario, extend it underground and hope we could get something from the utility trust fund that someday But the other lots, the nine lots, there are nine lots that are zoned rural, no, not rural, residential estates. And wastewater is not required for that. And by the definition in the UDC, I won't burden you with the whole definition, but the last sentence, the lots are a minimum of one acre in area and are not intended to be served by city water, wastewater, or stormwater services. And the soil conditions in Flower Bluff are good for septic systems. But if we could defer the commercial lot service until development, there would be no problem at all.

Thank you. Thank you. Any others come and speak? If not, then I'll go ahead and close the public comment and entertain a motion or further discussions for items 10 and 11.

Andrew, I have a question. Would that change your denial?

The question about the zoning? For just, okay. No, the, the, the idea behind, uh, connectivity is, is just pre excellently articulated is that, uh, it's septic to, you know, not to get into the nastiness of it, but it, you know, it's, it's not something you want to be walking through is the spray field. Uh, it's dangerous. It's a biohazard. Uh, we all know the things that are in the news about parasites and all kinds of things. Well, that originates with human waste. So that's what you're spraying onto your grass. We get another storm event. All of that sheet flows right into the wetlands. So even if hypothetically the board commission was to say yes, that doesn't inherently mean that the state will say yes or that the health department will say yes to the permit. Third, we've had instances in which commission has said yes to septic. Lo and behold, the builder comes in sometimes two, three years later to build on it and ends up building a house that is too big for the spray field to support. Or a homeowner buys a house, comes in, wants to put in a pool, wants to put in a shed, wants to build something for their RV, cannot because that increase in restroom fixtures ups the spray field size. State says no. So a lot of these things can prevent it. Just as the previous case, can we prevent things before they happen? This is exactly the opportunity to say, We understand the expense, we understand the cost, but it's for safety first. It is getting you onto the grid, which is what we want to have all folks on the grid. Even those that are on rural properties, the availability is there, therefore you must connect.

Okay. Any other questions for staff? And then entertain a motion or another discussion?

I'll make a motion that we approve staff's denial of the waiver.

I'll second.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. Motion passes. I guess now that we're on past 10, we'll talk about 11? Or is that because I thought that was going to be something that if

So 11 would be a conditional approval of the plot showing that on the public improvement plans. They'll have to connect to wastewater So the plot can still live it just has to be connected correct the the public improvement plans What is what will have to be updated?

Okay Well Then I guess because I opened up public comment on 10 and 11 and So I'll open up again on 11. If anybody would like to come and speak on 11, they can come forward. If not, then I'll go ahead and close it and move on to a motion.

So then I'll motion that we conditionally approve item 11. 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 director's report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple items. One is the Development Services Technical Advisory Group will be meeting on July the 16th. We are finishing up our first round of draft UDC text amendments to present to them to have discussion. We've had an internal meeting with city staff. Of course, I will share a copy of what those proposed amendments are once DSTag has an option or a chance to look at them, and that way we're continuing this dialogue and conversation. It's nothing you'll have to vote on It's more of a briefing and a presentation. Other than that, we'll go ahead and also continue the training series. So as we had one about Platts, I'm sure you would be interested in one about public improvements or about zoning cases.

Oh, yes.

That would be great. Especially special permits. That sounds like that's a fun one.

That would be really good. I'm out of here by the end of this one. That would be great.

So it sounds like special permits is getting the vote, and we'll make that the next one.

Okay, any future agenda items? If not, then we are adjourned.