like okay. All right, we got 5:30, so go ahead and call the meeting to order. Uh, if we could do roll call, please. Chairman York here. Vice Chairman Salasar Garza here. Uh, Commissioner Miller is absent. Commissioner Mandell here. Commissioner Commissioner Munoz here. Commissioner Hedrickk here. Commissioner Bud here. Commissioner Ku here. Commissioner Titleman here. We have a quorum to conduct the meeting. Awesome. And if you would please read the rules for public comment. Citizens will be allowed to attend and make public comments in person for the city planning commission meetings. The public is invited to speak on any agenda item and any other items 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 agenda. All right, with that, we'll open up the general public comment if anybody would like to come up and make public comment. Seeing none, we will close that and move on to approval of absences for Commissioners Miller and Munoz. I move that we approve the absences of Commissioner Miller and Munoz from the previous meeting. I'll second. Second. Got a motion and a second. All in favor? I. Motion passes. Moving on to the approval of minutes for the June 25th meeting. Commissioner Mandal move that we approve the minutes from June 25th, 2025. I second. All right. Motion and a second. All those in favor? I I. Motion passes. Moving on to consent public hearing items A, B, and C. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Andrew Deus with Development Services, reading in tonight's consent agenda, beginning under letter A for plats. Item number two, final plat for Corpus Christi Holly edition. Item number three, a replat for Lamar Park subdivision. And item number four, preliminary plat M&R Home Solutions LLC subdivision. These three plats have been reviewed by staff and have been determined to meet the requirements of the of the technical review committee, the UDC and Texas Local Government Code. They are recommended for approval under letter B time extension. Item number five, a request for Glenn Oak Park unit 2. And item number six, Aali Estates, which is a replat. These are both the uh first extension request. So staff recommends approval. And then under letter C for zoning item number seven, this is zoning case ZN8634, Saratoga 400 Partners LLC, which is in district 3. This is a request from the RS4.5 single family 4.5 district to the RS4.5 PUD single family district with a planned unit development overlay. Staff recommends approval. If there are any questions for tonight's consent agenda, I'd be happy to address them. All right. Do commissioners have any questions? on items was it two through seven? I have a question on item number seven. Um, so this is going for a pud zoning. Do we have any details as far as uh a plat or any more information as far as what's happening really what was presented I just see kind of a squared off area. Right. So on that is slide number believe it's six shows the approved site plan. Might need to bring it up for the audience. Uh if the AV could put it up please. But u what it shows is a rough layout of the proposed plan unit development. The two deviations that are being requested is to go from 4500 square foot lots, which is what the 4.5 district allows by right, to 4,000 square foot lots and from 45 ft of width to 40 ft in width. So those are the two deviations that are being requested when it comes to this put. So correct me if I'm wrong. Normally when we are granting a put uh zoning exemption, normally to do a put there's generally concessions that developers make whether it be extra uh walking trails, uh parks, something to justify giving a special zoning. I know in the past when we've uh approved zoning for the island and other areas, we usually have extras. Um, is there anything included in this or is this just basically just trying to get more lots? Um, well, that's uh to put it politely, yes, it's airing more on the side of increasing density versus adding what we as staff look for as amenities. So, when it comes to, let's say, island puds that you'll see, you may have uh a shared dock, shared courtyards, barbecues, gazeos, some type of outdoor area, uh pedestrian amenities, and and sometimes marina uses. Uh in fact, it's required in the UDC to note in section 3.5, uh making a case as part of the review criteria for a PUD. Uh the review criteria is our guideline internally and essentially what we have to do is balance how many of the tenants do you meet of this review criteria. While some of them very clearly say yes you do need to provide amenities or somehow prove that your design is unique and therefore warrants a pud uh but at the same time can you demonstrate are you in harmony or character with the surrounding neighborhood. So, it's essentially six things that we have to look at. In some cases, you may only check four of the six and then we as staff have to make a call. Are you justified enough for us to support as a staff uh yes to a pud versus no, you're missing one of the items and therefore we should throw the whole thing out and say denial. Uh that's why we bring a full staff report to the planning commission and try to you kind of give us guidance of uh are we evaluating them in a way that yes we are saying you do check more boxes than not and therefore a putt is is approved if Andrew isn't isn't this you know with the new state law passing that now we can go down to 3,000 I think square feet. I know we don't have that in our UDC yet, but it's coming soon. It'll Is that part of why that the city's not looking at so closely at what do you because basically they should be able to do this without a PUD in the next few months right? By September 1st, that bill will be become well, it's been signed into law and that bill will go live for an action September 1st. So, we have a time frame now between now and then to figure out how are we going to integrate into the UDC. uh the the predominant theory right now is both create a district and a use. So either a lot of properties will have to be downzone to RS what will be called RS3 or we will create a set of conditions and if you're in these other districts you can essentially create an RS3 area that's kind of cart before the horse. So we're in this limbo of creating the language making sure we're in line with state law and then getting it adopted. puds are a little more different because they it's it's asking to deviate from the zoning from from our ordinance as it's written and to then say yes, I can make up enough of a case to justify me deviating because I'm providing X, Y, and Z. So that's why I bring up the island because it's it's the most typical PUD that we see. I'm I'm going to provide more condos. It's because I'm in a FEMA zone, so I have to build an elevated area. So I have some factors working against me. So, I'm asking the city, can you kind of work with me on maybe narrowing a driveway or I'm going to add in amenities, so can you work with me on parking requirements? That's kind of the give and take when it comes to puds. What was the justification for this one? The reason given. So, what we listed in our staff report was that it was providing additional housing and density in an area where kind of the rubber meets the road is when we get to the plat stage. So what this put will do is establish you can have smaller lots that are narrower in width. When we get to the full plat that's when we have to discuss uh things like roadway width, sidewalks, your drainage, utility serviceability, all those things. So in this case, the zoning has a very small impact, but setting a standard by a putt. So it's it's kind of have a foot in two worlds right now, right? because they're not asking for any rightaway changes, street, anything other than square footage, minimum minimum square foot and minimum lot width. Right. Correct. And the the only avenue available is a PUD since we do not currently have a district smaller than 4.5. Uh that's that's the rub. That's the kind of the hard part the planning commission will have to make is is there enough justification to say yes to the PUD even though it's just adding density in in all actuality. I have a question. Um, okay. So, you said that being it's a pud, it's smaller. So, usually you compensate something in a pud uh development. What kind of conditions is it that they're trying to I think like uh Justin was speaking on, what kind of conditions are we going to be placing or is there anything planned to be placed for this residents? Because a putt's already small, which means that everything is in packed. Sure. And the whole purpose of us developing homes is for the safety of the people. So, I mean, from the sidewalks to crossways, is there anything of that that's going to be planned for this uh neighborhood? Yeah, they're not they're not proposing to change any of that. So, all that would still be the same. Okay. Well, then I was talked to about something called vision zero. Okay. I never had heard of it and I know that uh back in it was adopted here for the city of Copra Christie I believe in 2022. So can you give me a little bit of what that vision zero is all about? What it is that we because it's not only for residential, it's for commercial properties too. Exactly. You know, could you explain that please? Absolutely. So vision zero we adopted as a city in 2020. It's a it's a nationwide initiative. What vision zero stands for is zero deaths, meaning uh you have safe pedestrian crossways, you have separated bike lanes, you have wider sidewalks, you have uh means of creating a safe environment for all modes of transportation. So it's not so much heavy on cars. You have things like rapid bus, rapid transit lanes, all types of ways of moving people. The goal is to do it in the safest means possible to create a zero death scenario. So when the city adopted vision zero, it said that as we review plans and as we review plots and zoning cases, we would use that as a tool out of our toolbox just like the rest of the comprehensive plan of are you checking those boxes and saying I am creating as a developer a safe environment. Where that comes into play many times is especially when we talk about properties that are developing near schools or they're developing near large hubs like the mall or areas where folks may be moving by means other than just by a motor vehicle by single vehicle trips. So uh just in fact just the other council meeting came up about half streets and I'm sure as this planning commission has talked about half streets. Vision Zero is a big part of that because as you narrow a roadway, while narrow lanes are a good thing, that means you'll slow traffic down, when you have roadside ditches, you have nowhere for children to walk. When especially when it's near a school or potentially an area where a school may be built, that is where vision zero comes into play. Again, we as planners have to find the balance of yes, this develop this plan is providing a safe environment, which is why uh you'll see us many times argue against sidewalk waivers or you'll see us argue against other construction waivers because sidewalks on both sides simply just need to be there for for persons of all ages to move. And that's where vision zero comes into play. So, we adopted it as a city policy. We have enacted it during reasonzoning reviews. Uh, in this case, there's not enough data to to say 100% whether or not sidewalks will be on both sides. It wasn't on the putt application, nor was a deviation asked for. So, it's it's not something to say that this particular plood is not following vision zero principle. It's saying we don't have enough data to make that call yet. But that's where the plat comes in and those right-of-way designations for us to say yes, the sidewalk is now officially on both sides. In other words, if they want to do any deviation, they'd have to ask again, right? If they wanted to change anything. So, right now, this they still have to comply with all the I just don't know all the requirements at vision zero. Uh I don't know the list of the it's a it's a long policy. So, it breaks up into three basic categories. The first is a safe systems approach. How you design the network of moving people has to be safe. Two, it has to be data driven. Meaning we are using data from schools and things that move large amounts of people. Churches, shopping centers, all of those puds. This includes puds as well. Well, it it includes things that generate large amounts of data. One of the biggest things that moves people are schools of all levels. Those are going to have people walking back and forth from their residences to the institution. And the third is how policies are enacted between departments. Meaning, it's not just a call we as planners are making development services. It's not just a call traffic engineering is making or at the end of the day how engineering services is reviewing a cross-section. All of our departments combined have to work together to ensure that policies are being followed at every step. Those are this is something you'll be following up with as it correct continues to it. It's right now it's a policy versus a code. Now, as the UDC is amended, we could say all PUDs must meet vision zero, and that's a code requirement versus we use it currently to evaluate a zoning request and then make recommendations. You're saying it's more of a guideline right now, right? So, if take section 3.5.4 and add number seven, it says must meet all vision zero principles. That is how you would codify it. Now, it just gets concerning because now eventually, I know we're going to have to narrow down the lots as well to 3,000 square foot a lot. I think eventually as we have more accessory dwelling units, as you have an aging population, those are all things that push the goals of Vision Zero because more people are honestly going to be walking places and you have kind of a history coming full circle. You're seeing more businesses moving to the edges of neighborhoods, especially even doctor's offices. You're not seeing uh these physicians towers near hospitals. You're seeing wellmeds popping up on the corner and folks are walking to them. That is where vision zero really comes into play. Yes. And I agree because I think the whole purpose of development is to for the safety of the people whether it's commercial and residential. Absolutely. And this put is 32.8 acres. How large is this whole neighborhood? Oh, it is 255 acres in total. So, how many homes are we anticipating in the whole neighborhood? uh on that slide that we had previously looked at on the screen um you're seeing essentially the bottom half on the top half uh which is above the dash line that was a special permit approved a couple years back it's in the safety sub zone for Corpus Christie International Airport uh what you're seeing that is shaded is roughly the bottom uh I would say just over a third bordering on half of what can be built on this bottom phase below below the dotted line uh that may or may not have a future putt across but that is uh so like a thousand plus homes I imagine in in total I mean 250 and just 32 acres right so we have a count here on the lower right hand side that's talking about uh 256 dwelling units uh for this particular unit so I would say you would double that if they chose to follow the same path on the right side of the screen now the special permit that's above ove the dotted line does have very specific requirements that that have to meet density because of that safety sub zone. So that has more access to Oso Creek drainage areas that cannot be used for construction. So that's going to be clustered more on the right corner eventually. Um I would say it's probably closer to a thousand homes than not, but fortunately we have the developer here in the audience and I'm sure he can give more information on those specific details. Was there a TIA done for this neighborhood or for this section? That's one of my favorite topics to talk about when it comes to speaking of vision zero. So, when it comes to TAS, because we have such a high threshold set at 500 AM and PM PM trips. So, not even average daily trips, but AM or PM peak hour trips. It sets a bar that almost maybe Slitterbond can meet that bar or maybe a Super Walmart can meet that bar. the amount of traffic. When it comes to residential homes, it never generates enough traffic to meet that. Part of the UDC rewrite is going to try to create categories where maybe at only 200 average daily trips instead of PM that you have to generate a basic TIA, not the Cadillac $20,000 version, but can you give me a $500 version that says, "Yes, I may need a right turn lane. Yes, I may need a del lane. Yes, I may need a a signal control light." Again, I'm not asking for the Taj Mahal of TIA. I just need something basic to say that the engineer of record is taking it into account and understands you are generating some significant traffic. So, some measures are going to be there's a lot of overhaul that needs to be done there. I That's just wild that a thousand home neighborhood is not going to require a TIA. That's But right now, they don't they're kind of pointless anyway. So there's a lot of because the way the UDC is written, they don't work well because these developers spend a bunch of money on them and then the traffic engineering will just say, "Yeah, we see your TIA, but we know better and then we want you to do this instead." So there really needs to be a a really good overhaul of the UDC that outlines what you do and how you proceed with the information when you get it so that people aren't wasting money on these TIAs and then, you know, traffic engineering just tells them what to do anyway. So there's a lot that needs to be done. It's not it's not very well written. Some of the data you get on some of these TIAs just isn't even really helpful when you're in an undeveloped area of town because it'll say go analyze intersections within a half mile of here and there's nothing there because you're on the outskirts of town like the London, you know, there was nothing really there at the time to analyze. So yeah, but usually they'll take into consideration what's going to come. I mean only if it's in the UDC and it says you have to do that. That's why I say we need there's a lot that needs to be written in on exactly how they you know what they look at and what kind of recommendations are made and how those recommendations are implemented. But that's hopefully something that will get done at this next round of UDC. That's uh it's a long list of a honeydew list. That's one of the big ones though that we were trying to get to before things kind of got put aside a while back, but that was one of the the main ones I know I'm sure you hoped would have gotten done back then. But with with the state statutes now coming on board, it gives the opportunity to open the book and I want to keep that momentum going. That's that's the the hard part is it's reading code. It's reading I key instructions. It is not the most fun thing to do in the world. And you have to go line by line and then anticipate that one shall turns to May and it creates a ripple effect. That's the hard part of editing any code. But it it's important. It's a it's a tedious but that is one of the big items I know needs to be addressed. But commissioners have any other questions on these? And I had one as well. Um on the net on the net change of that if this was approved, what's going to be the net change from what was originally for the amount from a density standpoint if we if we if we approve it, what's going to be the net increase of was that on that table? Well, it was it was on the change, right? But what was on the original one? Right. So you would have it would probably more than likely a 20% difference if to go from 4500 to 4,000 or I should say vice versa from I don't think it's so 400 lots uh we're working with I can run some quick numbers but B is that something y'all have when when we open public com is that a number y'all know the difference between RS4 and a half and what you're proposing? 32. I can run some quick numbers. 6.4 4500. Less than he said 10 about 17. So that would be around 240 lots. 244 245 lots if you were to stay at 4500 rather than 256. You're talking 10 15 lots. It's not a a massive difference. No, it's not. Okay. And that was the one question is on the the density piece on it. What kind of stress we would put by approving this? What kind of stress it would put on the utilities? That's that would be the big concern. Andrew, I know historically we have um we've always considered, you know, physical concessions, physical amenities as a concession. Um what are staff's thoughts or how do they consider like the economic impact, affordability impact, could that also be seen as an amenity? That's a hard one because affordability even the term is moving away and it's now called attainability. right? What is affordable to other than the actual definition of affordable housing is this moving scale of based on market conditions, what is attainable, what are banks willing to lend for and folks can move into those homes. Um, that's why I'm a huge fan of infill development because I know exactly the neighborhood it's going into. They have established utility networks and they may be able to squeeze in a few more accessory dwelling units. It's it's easier to measure what the cost would be. When it comes to green field development, there's not really a that I can think of a measure where we're going to say, you know, you have to stay under a certain amount. So, for instance, our reimbursement programs that that are done through community development, they have to stay under $180,000. It is as a requirement. That rule doesn't really exist when it comes to puds. You can argue I'm building more homes, therefore I'm improving availability of housing, but I'm improving availability, not necessarily attainability. the the cost is not necessarily going to change, right? For what it's worth, I mean, the way I look at it, because they don't really have, you know, normal pud, you think, which we rarely do one, let's say the normal pud, right? The ones we've seen over my tenure here is they're almost always to make it smaller, right? It's not like Cinnamon Shore, hey, we're a big unique development. That's a that's what a PUD's supposed to be. that to me, I'm not bothered by this because they're really they're just asking for increased density and I'm assuming it's market driven, right? But to me, if if the economy is driving the market so much that the state legislature changed something that this falls within, then I I don't have a problem with it. But that's just my thought process on it. Um because to me, if this was two, three, four, five months down the road, however long it takes for us to update the city, to update the the UDC to match the legislature, then this wouldn't even be a putt. It would just be regular zoning. I don't know if that helps with your question but any other questions? Yeah, got a couple of questions. One, so the changing to a pud, all that we're doing is reducing the lot size. Is there anything else that's that's changing? It is lot size and lot width. So instead of a 4500 square foot lot, they're 4,000 and instead of 45 feet wide, they are 40 feet wide. Okay. And to vice chair Garza is concerned as far as the U vision zero principle, if they wanted to make any of those changes, is that something that they would have to come back and ask at that point? That's an excellent question. And so part part of the vision zero review would be at the time of preliminary and final plat. We would need to look at the cross-sections of those rights of way to ensure that there's enough width and sidewalks are being provided on both sides since that's standard of what you see in predominantly residential neighborhoods. Yeah. You'd have a like item, the plat waiver, you'd have a plat waiver. If they wanted to do smaller, anything that is normal, if they wanted to change that, they'd have to do a separate waiver and it would come here. you know how deep these lots are that are on the plat right now because I know a big issue that we run into and I know city council's expressed it also is just uh having room to park your car in front of your home I imagine these streets are you know they're if they follow the the traditional local streets they'll be 28 ft wide pavement sections uh we do require that garage doors have to be set a minimum of 20 ft off of the property property line to fit, you know, all of our F-150s and uh F250s with hitches and all sorts of things to prevent them from overhanging the sidewalk. That is something that's going to be a very serious discussion with these 3,000 foot lots of we're thinking F150 will F-150 F250 will fit in front of this house with a driveway. That's going to be the the deal is you're going to have these kind of L-shaped houses where part of the house is going to go down to a 15t set. The only way to make it work is part of the house. They're not asking for a different setback here. No 20. No, but that's something we could always consider because the width being 40 and your driveway is going to be 18 feet and then you're going to have a truck that tries to park in front of the house. Is that going to be enough room? You know, you have a truck on both sides, a 28t street, enough room to fit through? It's going to be tough. Parking enforcement is going to make a little more. That's the same argument. But I guess this it that argument is not doesn't apply to this pud. It applies to everything cuz it's the same. Well, it does cuz it's less it's less width. No, no, it's Well, if it's 40 foot 40t width, the width of the driveway, not the depth of it. I'm talking about in front of the house. So, if you have a you have a house and you have the driveway that's 18t wide and you're trying to park a car in front on the street and it's only a 40 foot wide lot, is that going to be enough room to park a truck in front of the house, right? You know, obviously a wider lot, you have more room to give you a glimpse in how we're talking about the statute. I mean 30 foot would be impossible. 40 foot would be still tough. We'll have to divide up how the house is separated. So we had a I think it was on Bison Drive there was one where we set the set back at 15 ft to allow the house to get closer, but the garage door had to remain at 20. So it's a way of splitting up parts of the house. The only way to make it work to fit vehicles is either the house won't have a garage at all and you're going to push it all the way to the back and have no backyard and just have the whole front yard as driveway or you'll have to create this kind of L-shaped house where your dining room and living room is going to be jutting out and then the garage door will be set further back. So, you'll kind of have this kind of No, but I I get what you're saying. That's a discussion that'll have to be had when we look at allowing or creating these new, you know, the UDC committee. I mean, when they even the 45 because you're going to you're going to lose that on street parking space. It's going to get tighter with fire already trying to they're already trying to say you can only park on one side of the road on a 28. So things are going to get harder. It we have to go to wider streets. There's not a We're running out of options. Wider streets or you'd have to have a further set back. Correct. To allow more driveway parking basically. Exactly. Okay. All right. Any other questions? then we can open up uh public comment. Okay, with that then we'll go ahead and open up public comment for items 2 through 7. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, nice to see you all today. Barbon, developer Saratoga 400 partners to answer some of the questions I heard today. Uh just to let you know this is one small section of a 200 you heard that 255 acre site. This site has because of this pud being included in this site, it has over 39 acres of green space, open space in the back, including a 2acre community center right up front and a another 5 acre park just off to the back. Right. So, with this increased density, we were able to add all that in. Second qu another question I heard is the uh front setback. It's exactly as as the commissioner as the chairman pointed out. This is RS4.5 except for the lot width. So it's a 20ft front yard setback has sidewalks has a road just like it across. If you can and and if you and I'm sorry that we didn't provide you the full picture because this is only the bottom left corner. If you'll look, you see how the road on the bottom road there on unit one lines up with the road on the other side goes all the way across. That means it's the same road width, which is the standard typical neighborhood road. Means it's the same lot depth, which is 110 ft. So y'all would be approving with this PUD because it is the only mechanism allowed besides a plat waiver a 4400 square ft lot instead of a 45. And to to your point, Mr. Chairman, in a few months it's a moot point because 3,000 foot lots will be allowed. Now the rest of the world for a long time has been parking cars in front of 3,000 foot lots. Th this is we'll just have to do things a little different in Corpus than we do it today. So, just wanted you to I hope I'd answered all your questions. Same front yard setback, same lot depth. Uh we have built this product before. It sits in Rancho Vista, a 30 foot wide house on a 40 foot wide lot. Sold them very quickly. Uh it's a very this will be a new uh this this part of town, by the way. Oh, the TIA. This is on Saratoga Boulevard. This is in 78415, west side of Corpus. It is on Saratoga Boulevard near Old Brownsville Road. Traffic is really not a problem yet. One day maybe, but there might be one car every five minutes going down Saratoga right in this area. So, I I'm I stand ready to for any questions, any technical questions. Uh, of course Bo is here from Pape Dawson. Be happy to answer anything else we could. Thank you. Uh, commissioners, any questions for the applicant? I do. Okay. So, you said up here at the very front on that map. Could you put it back on? Right there at the very front. You said there was a uh park recreation. Where whereabouts is is we I couldn't see because it's so small. Yeah, it it's not shown here. That's to the north of the page. Yeah. If if if just to the So you see unit one, the gradeoff area on the bottom left, unit one. To the right of it, you'll see there's a a kind of a area that's surrounded by roads. RS4.5, that's the community center. Yes. Right here. Okay. Yeah. So all the K, you know, the goal, the point is all the kids will be able to take the How many acres is that? Oh, it's uh two two and a half and two and a half acres. Two and a half. And that would be a park and recreational center, you said? Yes ma'am. Oh, okay. Okay. And then in the back, you It's kind of you, it's actually off this map. There's another one uh mirroring this one at the back. And then beyond that, there's another 5 acres or playing field. And beyond that, there's another 30 acres of natural of natural area. Yes. Yes. On the master preliminary plat about 1,000 houses in 255 acres. I think that's around 2.5 houses per acre. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Anybody? Bart, I was joking before our meeting that uh of all the commissioners, Moses is the one I've seen in here who's the only non-commissioner the most. And you're probably number two. So, appreciate y'all coming to my last meeting. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we will miss you, my friend. Thank you for your service. Anybody else? Anything? Okay, let us know. Anybody else for public comment? I figured I'd uh answer a few questions, not nec necessarily related to this project, but I don't envy what y'all do. At the end of the day, you made a very good valid point. Something that as a land developer and somebody who also is the chairman of that UDC committee that you've sat on, uh, Ed Cantou has sat on, TAS, whether they're required or not, ultimately become subjective. You have the director of public works back here. That group required me to do a TIA for a thousand lot community in the London area off a state highway, right? Where obviously you have a lot of traffic and it's designed for it. So, TAS are designed to actually study to the left and right of your neighborhood. It's always got a guideline and standard for it. every developer, every community that brings in an x amount of traffic, whether there's traffic on Saratoga today or tomorrow, there's a thousand homes there, there should be a TIA done. It it it should be very fair and very clear. You also made a very good point that sometimes this department doesn't read the TAS and doesn't look at it and that department makes their own subjective choices. We have a very clear ITIA that this group roughly four months ago approved and approved a UTP amendment, but other things can happen in this city to convince people to go against that. That's why the UDC needs to be changed. There's that's why there has to be clarity. That's why there has to be a standard for everybody to follow so that somebody doesn't just wake up at 11:00 at night and send an email out and affect other people's lives. And I I'll make that very clear because Andrew runs that department. As far as it comes to the UDC, there's got to be a lot of changes that are coming. So, as far as putts, whether you approve a PUD today, it's not going to be a point tomorrow because of state law, but until the UDC is updated to identify what those 3,000 ft lots are, we will have traffic issues. We will have driveway issues. We can't send out more code enforcement officers to look for the things that as a land developer we should be doing, right? Whether that's sidewalks, not 40 foot rideofway roads, 50-foot ride-of-way roads where you have a true 28 foot backtoback street. That should be the bare minimum of this community in every community in every subdivision. And there's plenty of subdivisions today that have 40 foot rideways that have plenty of sidewalks only on one side. They have the opportunity to do better. They chose not to. that's in the UDC today. That's got to be fixed. And I'm going to take charge in that and fixing that because right now you might be approving a putt, which is fine, but tomorrow you're going to have to approve a 3,000t lot, but we can set policy and standards to make sure that the community gets what it's supposed to get. I'm going leave it right there. Appreciate the comments. Anybody else? All right, seeing none, then we will close the public hearing. Uh, entertain further discussion or a motion on items two through 7. Commissioner Mandel, I move that we approve items 2 through 7 as presented by staff. I'll second it. All right, we got a motion and second to approve. Uh, all those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? All right, motion passes. Moving on to uh item eight, the plat plat waiver. With the previous one, we didn't go through the full presentation. Did you want me to just bring up the map or go through the presentation? Um, can you do the presentation? Just a quick presentation probably be good. And if you can end on that water map, that would be nice. Got it. Because I have a quick question. Okay. Okay, for the record, Bria Whitmire, development services engineer. This request is for uh Is it not showing up there yet? Let her get up that. Is it showing on y'all's computers? Yep, we got it now. All right. For for Yorktown, um this is a plat waiver to not construct some water line and a fire hydrant that would otherwise be required. Here's the preliminary plat. It's a pretty deep lot. The purpose of the plat is for a cell tower. Um, so can you answer real quick? Go back to that last one. Uh, are they I know it's a preliminary, but are they just platting the piece in the corner? Is that going to be a separate lot for the cell tower or are they platting the whole lot? I would like to say, isn't there a second part coming? And I asked the question because if we're going to wave the water requirement for the cell tower, but they're only in the corner and then they're going to plat the whole lot, then we've lost our chance to ever get water there. Craig, there was a if anything is built on the larger part of the lot, there would be a full review going forward. This is just that front right portion that we're So, are they leaving the rest unplatted? But we we wouldn't lose anything. And the reason why is so let's say you you go through your prelim and your final you for argument sake grant the waiver. If a single family home or any other use is ever built on that site to meet fire requirements and water serviceability they'll have to still come back for a public improvement. So this is just saying for the means of the plat. They do not have to install set public improvement. If they ever come back for construction obviously they'll need I get that. I'm just asking are they platting the whole lot or just that piece dashed out up there? The preliminary plat is the whole lot. The dashed piece in the corner is the final for the tower. Okay. So, they are planning to do a separate lot. Eventually, a a final would come back for the larger lot. But right now, I can't read that, but what's the what's the acreage on the remainder? Is it over five? 4.88. So, they would have to plat it. Mhm. Okay. If y'all were following that, sorry. The the the remainder is too small to leave unplatted. So when they come back and final plat that separate lot, they're going to have to it's going to have to plat both. So this whole thing will get platted all at once. And fire code for any structures would come into effect. Okay. And I sorry, I didn't mean to get off this much in your first slide, but since we're here, I might as well ask my my question is I I I'm fine with the fire hydrant thing because we just did I happened my company happened to do the project next door on the left side here, the west side. And so I know there's a hydrant in the northwest corner of this property and it's only can't see it here, but I looked at it earlier. It's like 247 feet or something. So they don't need another hydrant till they get to 300. So they're fine there. But right, other than the hydrant requirement, what's the requirement um for parallel water lines? In other words, if this was not a cell tower, would they be required to build that 8 in water line across their frontage or would they not because it's on the other side of the street? because of the size of Yorktown, we need parallel lines. Absolutely. And it to be continued along. Um and so the continuity of services is is certainly at play here. But the biggest thing is they're not utilizing any water waste water. So it would be extending a dead end that wouldn't be used anytime soon. So it's more of a risk to our infrastructure than than an assist. But it wouldn't. As this area builds out, there needs to be a line continued down the south side of downtown with regular fire hydrant spacing. Seems like opposite arguments. Normally when we come to this, we're saying if we if we grant them the waiver, then when the the person to the right of this plats, well, now they don't have the water line to connect to. And so what I'm getting at is we know that a hydrant was and a water line was built across Yorktown and now exists on their side of Yorktown in their northwest corner. So the normal procedure here would be when they plat they're now required to build that water line across their frontage. So their neighbor can then ex tie in and extend it without having to cross Yorktown again. Correct. And continue that parallel water line. And as you had mentioned the rest of the lot that 4.88 88 when they go to plat it would kick in. So this right but that's what I'm not that's why I asked the platting question because this will always be platted together. So I know it's that's what was confusing me because it's it says for a cell tower but it's going to be a two lot plat. So it's not just a cell tower that plats. They have to plat both at once. Two finals separate separately. So you're saying if it's a if they do a preliminary in two phases, they're allowed to leave the second phase unplatted even though it's just one lot. They can come back with a separate final plat. They do not have to final all on the same plat. Isn't that kind of using a preliminary plat to get around the state law of not leaving a remainder under five acres? That's not really what preliminary plat are for. Right. Well, preliminary plat's to establish phasing to establish your right. But they're basically saying we have two lots. We don't ever want to plat the the second one till who we're going to do our preliminary plat and then just never do phase two. It's kind of what they could do. They potentially could, but I think the discussion would be between the the landowner to say when you submit your second final would have to be before we record the initial final, which we still have the authority to do that. And in which the other part that flagged this situation is you can't get a building permit out without the being platted. So they had to plat that portion to get the electrical permits needed for the cell tower. So they had to do something in order to get the cell tower done. Can you pull the map back up? Sorry. If you want to finish I I know I looked at this a lot so it's already in my head. if you want to finish your presentation for everybody else's school like slides five through seven, but it's all right. The other I may or may not be like rushing it a little bit because I feel bad cuz all my kids are in the back being loud waiting to take a picture on my last meeting. That's fine. If you haven't noticed, they've had to leave like three times already. Have y'all see that? I tried to call out the sizes of the water lines in the area to to help see the uh the infrastructure. There is a 42 inch uh transmission main running alongside the southside Yorktown which is also why we don't want to do um a lot of hodge podge projects. We want we need to be very careful around that 42 in um this area it's not in the presentation but there's likely a CI bond project way in the future 5 10 years that's going to include this area. So this this is going to be have a a second line along the south side of Yorktown from the extension that uh that you're very well aware of right next door. So this 6 in uh is now coming under Yorktown thanks to York and is coming to that property line with a hydrant right at the corner. Um so it it can be safely flushed. it's going to be used. Extending that water line across this lot without it being used would be more of a hazard than a than anything. Um until we find out what kind of use is going on on this property. Uh there's 12 in, there's 8 in. Farther down Yorktown, there's 6 in coming down. So there's there's plenty of connectivity in the area to do similar to what the neighbor did here because we're going to have to go across Yorktown again at some point for for um circulation. So you're saying basically if we grant them the waiver to not build it, it's just going to come down to the CIP project in the future. Correct. And I know you said far off, but I'm pretty sure didn't we just in the it's the bond or what the not bond, but the I was thinking what we just recommended approval and then council subsequently approved the design for this section. So it's already in motion. Mhm. The design. So it's a little less far off. It's it's sooner than and that would be a continuous construction rather than a piece here and a piece there. and it might match up different, which is a good thing because that 42 in is you want to, right? Stay the same distance away from it. Yes, we we don't want too many contractors digging around that 42 in. Okay. Um, does that give commissioners enough information? Do y'all have questions? I have a question. If you could pull the map back up. Sure. So the little pink dot, just so we're clear, that's where the existing fire hydrant is to the east of this property. No, it's to the west. It's in the northwest, it's literally on the property line on the north on the northwest corner right now. Right at their property line. So there's already an existing there will Yeah. Right where her house is. Okay. Just constructed like a month ago. Which way where they they're trying to run the line? So it would affect which property owner? The one on the the east. Right. So the one on the west already has the line running through their property. And then this is basically saying that if this property owner does not construct this line ever, then the person to the east of him would need to construct it if they want to develop. Correct. So ultimately they would have to take on the burden of the water line as opposed to the current property or wait for the CIP project or cross Yorktown again just like the neighbor crossing Yorktown should not even be an option considering they're redoing it right for that first project it was understandable because it was the first one but you don't want to cross Yorktown you know at every property that's why I was saying why are we for what it's worth my feelings I I would prefer for them to build it But the CIP coming in the future makes me feel a little better if we grant the waiver. But the CIP means tax dollars, right? Right. Well, it's also very sim to to that same point about the neighbors. So, if if I go back to the slide where the cell tower is going to be, they they would need to run water across the plat. That's not their plat. So, that burden is is on them right now, but they're the property owner, so it's their property. They're only this top right corner. So they're they have to extend across, right? But I get what you're saying. It's the same. They're working together to get this done. So that could be part of their deal. And it would be in a normal situation. I just don't like the idea of having to pass the burden along to the next property owner or to the taxpayers. Whenever somebody wants to, you know, plat or develop a property, they should do what everybody else is required to do. Shouldn't give them special circumstances just because they asked for it. I do like the I do like the fact that if it's done with the CIP, it'll all be done together because proximity to that 42inch transmission main that's old is is well there's no guarantee because what if that property owner to the east develops before the CIP is done, right? And builds something across street. Well, what I want to ask at the pace that the city of Corpus does things. Do we have the ability to do a you know kind of cash in lie of for this or is that not an option yet because the mechanism doesn't exist? that had not been brought up previously but doesn't exist. My whole tenure y never got passed. We're gonna name it. I think I've asked that hundred times. So again, another fitting last meeting. Got to ask. And again, the cell tower is not using any water or waste water. So this would be if they were to construct it, it would be a dead end which would sit there until anything. But see, that's okay cuz you can do a dry dead end. We've done that. Dead end. and they just install the valve closed and it sits there with nothing in it until they're ready to use it. It but well any other questions? Yeah. Okay. Um well um see if there's anything else in here. Appreciate the presentation. We're going to go ahead and open up public hearing for item number eight. Anybody would like to make comment. Yes, sir. Please state your name and address for the record. Yeah, it's uh Ralph Weine Garden, Falcon Foster, 1428 Trailside Court Northwest, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49504. Uh just here for the applicant. Just want to let you know I'm here and available for any questions. Thanks. All right. Do you have any questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. With that, we will Well, anybody else? All right. going to go ahead and close public comment and entertain further discussion or a motion. I'm kind of on the fence. The the CIP makes me feel a little better, but I don't like pushing the can down the road. If there was cash in L of I'd feel a lot better about it. Well, another issue is I think that I mean you're saying that the other develop the other people that own the other part of the land, we don't know when they're going to develop and we don't know uh when they do that they're entitled to put a fire hydrant and how long will that be? Right. And that's kind of I mean that's how this always is. When you develop a property, you're responsible to extend the utilities across your property so that the neighbors can use them in the future. And so if we grant the waiver, we're taking that away and the only way they get it back is to pay for their neighbors water that they didn't put in because we granted the waiver or they wait for the CIP project to happen. I know. I guess I'm just thinking of this. This is all land. You don't need a building to for fire to develop out in South Texas, you know. So I mean I've seen a lot of grass fires in areas. So the fire trucks have to make sure that they're holding in a lot enough water to put that fire out. So if we don't they don't have access to a fire hydrant, you know, I mean, I don't know. That's for what it's worth, the hydrant that just got put in is within 300 ft. It's about 230 ft from where the corner of this cell tower. So okay, they will probably be right on the edge of being within compliance, close enough to a hydrant. It's more about the platting requirement of extending public water across your property so that the neighbor can then pick it up and extend it in the future. Mhm. Because if they apply for a building permit and they don't meet fire coverage, then they would still have to add a higher a fire hydrant. And I did check that a cell tower does require fire protection. Mhm. So if we don't grab the waiver, grant the waiver, they connect to the line that you just installed the fire hydrant to the west of the property and run it across your property and just cap it for the future. If we don't grant the waiver, that's I mean that's probably what they would do. Yeah. I mean that would be staff's call if it gets put in dry, you know, if you install so there's no water. But wouldn't you not the end of it? Deny the waiver. Then they're required to build 250 ft basically of water line and stop at the northeast end of their property so then the neighbor can pick it up in the future and then the CIP project would still happen but it would be shortened by the amount. Correct. Right. And the idea then they would just pick up there and build the rest of it. I'll make a motion to deny the uh plat waiver request. I'll second it. Okay. We've got a motion and a second to deny uh the plat waiver. Um so I'm going to ask that all those in favor say I. And an I is a vote for denial. So all those in favor of denial say I. I. I. Are there any opposed to denial? Okay. The motion to deny passes. Moving on to director's report. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, recognizing that this is I don't know if I should congratulate you or condolences that this is your last meeting, but congratulations. Uh the the our mayor Plet Warhardo has issued a letter and a certificate of appreciation for your service as the chair and a member of the planning commission and the airport zoning commission. Can't forget that our four meetings a year but to recognize you for your service and a nice rosewood plaque. So you can look upon this and remember and have nightmares and of long public hearings and hard decisions of that time you come in not expecting anything crazy this year. You're like whoa. But it's a it's a small token of appreciation. We we do appreciate your hard work and your contributions. We hope you stay on committees like the UDC one where I can definitely use your uh judgment skills and knowledge. Definitely just keep me on the email list be there. Okay. I don't want you to go far. I got to keep you uh got to keep you close. But nevertheless, we want to issue this. I'm sure after the meeting take photos here in the central well, but uh wanted to say thank you. Thank you. Been a pleasure serving with y'all. All right. Well, there any future agenda items and I guess we are journed. Kids, if y'all want to come up, you can. Now, you want to get a group pick.