water >> Okay everyone, I have 5:30 on my clock and I'm going to go ahead and call this meeting to order. Ms. Martinez, could you please call roll? Yes, ma'am. Madam Chair Salazar Garza, here. Vice Chairman Munoz is going to be absent. Commissioner Miller? Here. Commissioner Hedrick? Here. Commissioner Budd? Here. Commissioner Cantu? Here. Commissioner Tykolman? Here. Commissioner Esparza? Here. Commissioner Jackson? Here. We 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 3 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 open up the public comment and ask anyone if they'd like to come and speak on anything other than a specific agenda item. If not, then I'll go ahead and close the public comment and move on to the approval of absences for Chairman Salazar Garza. Make a motion to approve. Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. Motion carried. Moving on to [clears throat] the approval of minutes for April 15th, 2026. Make a motion to approve the minutes. Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. Motion carried. Moving on to the consent public hearing discussion and possible actions A and B. And I'm going to ask, since we've got quite a bit of them, I'm going [clears throat] to ask the commissioners if anyone if they would like to pull any one of these items for uh for just a a special discussion on it. Any one of these from items two through 10? If not, then um I'll have Mr. Andrew take take over. Not a problem, Madam Chair. And and as of course we always take questions at the end if you need me to get into specifics. No problem at all. So, starting with tonight's consent agenda under letter A, plats, item number two, preliminary plat for 100 South Padre, lot three, block one. Item number three, a preliminary plat for Waldron Road subdivision, lots four, block one. Item number four, replat Cabaniss Acres, lots 7AB, 7AC, block eight. Item number five, replat of Flour Bluff Estates, lot 13R and 14R, block D. And item number six, final of Burlett addition annex, lots four through 12. That concludes the plat section of tonight's consent agenda. Staff has reviewed each of the plats along with the technical review committee, found that they do meet the Texas Local Government Code as well as the UDC and recommended approval. Under letter B, for zoning, item number seven, zoning case ZN8600, Paul and Pamela Wandolowski. That is a request from the at the 526 Caribbean Drive from the CN1 neighborhood commercial district to the CN1SP neighborhood commercial district with an SP. The purpose of the SP is for a 100-ft telecommunications tower. Staff recommends approval. Item number eight, case ZN9048, Ruvana Investments LLC, located in district one. The request is at 2601 David Street. The request is from the RS6 single family six district to the RSTF two family district and is for a single duplex. Staff recommends approval as well. Under item nine, case ZN9140, Broadwalk Investments LLC. There is just one small typo that should read OCL instead of district five. It is not yet been annexed. We're at the recommendation stage of the zoning case. Of course, like with all annexation cases, the zoning portion will catch up with the annexation and be heard at the same council date. But technically, it should read OCL to become district five once it's annexed, but it is not quite there yet. So, we didn't want to count it before it's been approved. Nevertheless, that is located at FM Road 2444 and Highway 286, also known as Crosstown. The request is from the FR farm road district upon annexation to the CG2 general commercial district. That is for one of our C stores, which is a very fancy way of saying convenience store. Staff recommends approval. And finally, item number 10, zoning case ZN9183, Diego Vasquez, located in district one. The request is located at 321 Waco Street from the CI intensive commercial district to the CISP intensive commercial district with a special permit. The permit is for a warehouse / very small welding facility. Uh Both Planning Commission and Council have approved a previous one right next door. This gentleman's business has been doing very well. It's expanding into a location that is next door. It was actually the site of a former fourplex that had fallen into extreme blight. And this gentleman has demolished that fourplex and now wants to further grow his business, which is absolutely a good thing. Staff after review has also recommended approval. That concludes tonight's consent agenda. And if there are any questions, I'd be happy to address them. Thank you, Andrew. At this time, commissioners, do you have any questions for staff on items two through 10? Couple questions. On item number seven, um I know it's not in the military compatibility overlay district, correct? Yes, sir. That's correct. >> Um but it's pretty close. Uh did did anybody from the base review this or anything? Not officially. I did have a conversation with Ben Pollock and and there were no red flags that immediately jumped up. But as we get closer to building permit, we do send another round as a just need I know an are you sure button, but yes, we do keep in contact about it. Don't you have to file a form with the FAA for anything >> They will still have to file regardless. >> height? Okay. That's correct. All right. And then on the convenience store, item number nine, can you just refresh me? We don't have water and sewer available at that location yet, right? I believe it will be on septic and water is what it need to be extended to the location as part of the platting process. Correct? >> Okay. All right. Um What are we, you know, what's as part of our long-term planning, you know, as we as commercial begins to pop up as will naturally happen along 286. Um >> [clears throat] >> Like I'm I'm worried about the amount of septic systems that are going to be installed as the city struggles to keep up with the growth. So, I mean, what what's the plan there? Good question. So, as every plat comes in, it goes through review by the technical review committee and that's standard process. That does include both public works and CCW. They have to put eyes on every single one of those plats. If the plats touch a master line or if there's an ability to connect for a future line, that does come up in the conversation. And sometimes, as we have with all projects, if there is a master line running adjacent to the property that's to be platted, they have to install that line. It can't be just enough to have the business succeed and be able to build. They do have to build with that line. So, that would take into consideration if there is a master wastewater line or if the availability to connect under the UDC is what's called uh reasonable accessibility means it has to be within 1,000 ft. Then they would have to come before this board for a waiver, a construction waiver of wastewater in order to proceed and stay on septic. And has TxDOT dedicated any right of way for the city utilities? The only conversation I've been on with TxDOT is along 286 for a water line. And I know wastewater will inevitably have to be installed as well. As well, so that means you have to give up so much easement area for those minimum separation distances. But those conversations have been happening. I know for sure on water. I just, you know, I I get worried about cuz I see that you know, expressway being constructed right now as we speak. And as the feeder roads get developed and everything else, which is where, you know, a lot of these utilities would would live. >> [clears throat] >> You know, yeah, we can dedicate um some space for the city to install it, but you know, once our infrastructure catches up with the growth, you know, are we ripping up a bunch of We would be have to bore. And that's the only option at that case because of the age of the right of way. We do the same inside the city. I believe it's now called the city used to be a five-year rule, now it's seven years that you cannot wet saw, wet cut a street. You must bore under if you have to cross. >> Mhm. Of course, that's far more expensive and that's why those preliminary conversations are having more impact now with TxDOT to not only if we have to install pieces of it and dry line it. So, as it's built, we don't have to bore in after the fact. Yeah, I'd be out there laying pipe right now, but that ship's probably sailed. So. I I know I can't confirm. All I All I know is I know the conversations were happening for sure. I didn't see anything on a CIP about, you know, future wastewater lines or water lines or anything. >> But, I can definitely follow up Yeah. and get you some information of how far along that process went. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Okay. Any other questions for staff? If not, then I'll go ahead and open up the public comment on consent agenda for these items. If anybody would like to come and speak on items 2 through 10, please come forward. Good afternoon. My name is Austin Everett. I'm with the Kerria Ventures. We are the ones that are doing the convenience store at two at Staples and Ross Town. I just wanted to introduce myself. That way you guys can ask any questions specifically about the convenience store. Regarding the septic line or the septic and the sewer line. I think the closest sewer line is roughly 5,000 ft away, which is why at the moment we're planning on septic. We Trust me, we would much rather be on sewer, but, you know, within a reasonable distance, it's a pretty pretty extensive drag to our site at the moment. So, if you guys have any other questions regarding the convenience store, would love to answer those for you guys, but just wanted to introduce myself and make it make it available. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? If not, then I'll go ahead and close the [clears throat] public comment and entertain a motion for items 2 through 10. Make a motion that we approve items 2 through 10 as presented by staff. Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. Motion carries. Moving on to public hearing discussion and possible action item C. Uh that should be a presentation by uh public works regarding the master plan amendment for removing the proposed C1 collector. Yes. And just after that will be its sister item, item number 12, which I'll read into record. Okay. >> [clears throat] >> Uh maybe we should be pulling it up. There we go. Uh good evening again. Um Planning Commission members, my name is Jorge Chavez. I'm with traffic public works and I'm a traffic engineer with public works, I'm sorry. Today's presentation is regarding an amendment to the road transportation plan or transportation master plan. My apologies. >> [clears throat] >> Can we move to the next slide? Thank you. Um >> [clears throat] >> We don't have it on our screen. We have to just look it up here. Where is it? There. Are you on the discussion tab? >> Yes. Oops. >> [laughter] >> If you hear any alarms go off, you went too far. There it goes. I got mine. I think this may be the incorrect >> There. one. Okay. May I see the following slide just to be sure? I I We can stop the clicker. Uh let's see. Yes okay. So, we'll start here. My apologies. Today's item [clears throat] is in is in is regard regarding plat on PL 8881. Layton Manor, block 1, lot 1, lot 3R4. Um currently, the city's transportation master plan has a right-of-way dedication um for C1 collector allocated between Caribbean Drive and Ramfield Road in Flower Bluff. I'll have a uh a map in a few minutes. Um as per unified development code, a C1 collector has a 60-ft right-of-way dedication and has the following public improvements associated with it. Um typically, it's a curb and gutter section. Uh back of curb to back of curb width is 40 ft. Two through lanes, one lane in each direction with potentially approximately with potentially an approximate 6-ft shoulders, 5-ft sidewalks, and can support 1,000 to 3,000 average daily trips. That's essentially what the plan proposes. >> [snorts] >> This is the map that I was talking about. This is the the um the the project 17T as ID'd by the our road our transportation master plan is in red there. The development is in blue. This is allocated between Caribbean Drive and Ramfield Drive. Both of those are C1 collectors. Uh Flower Bluff Drive is an A1 arterial. Roscher is a C3 collector. Um the developer's request is elimination or deletion of this planned um um C1 collector right-of-way dedication. As I mentioned, the the the request is removal, and their justification is as follows. They they they do specify that both Caribbean Drive and Ramfield Road have a C1 collector and A2 arterial already connecting them. Uh they they mention the fact that this location um is within the air installation capable use zone, uh accident potential zone APZ1 for the Naval Waldron airspace. Therefore, density and potential traffic growth within the area will continue to to be limited. With minimal traffic growth, the addition of another street connection is unnecessary as existing conditions are sufficient. And as I was saying, um our recommendation is removal of this road of this planned planned project 17T. And I have additional information here cuz typically these are some of the information that was asked of us. I believe the closest fire station is fire station 13. It's located approximately 3.6 mi um northeast of the site. Waldron Field North is located east of the site about half a mile, and Yorktown Boulevard Mud Bridge is located approximately 1.5 um miles southwest of the location. Just for more information. But, um thank you, and I stand by for any questions. Do you have any questions? Is there going to be a uh a dedicated access easement to the property in the back? I believe the other property can you can access it from Caribbean Drive, and the and the development they have they want to access it from Ramfield Road if I'm accurate. Well, if you look at your on your slide, >> [clears throat and cough] >> the the dirt or the the lot ends um and we don't have it pulled up, but the lot ends, you know, [clears throat] not It doesn't back up to another road. So, if I if I read the the proposed plat um correctly, it was just basically cutting this long, narrow piece of property into two uh 4 and 1/2 acre properties or something like that. So, is there going to be a an an access easement from uh back to >> up the map again, please? I think that would have to be for the developer to provide. Uh to all the way access all the way to the back. Oh. It's on my screen. It's not up there. Do you guys have it? I just wanted to make sure I don't I don't I don't mind getting rid of this collector, but we've got to make sure that we're platting properties that have access. It's just getting cut into two lots as far as I can tell from the plat. We can talk about that. Two two single family homes. One [clears throat] one on each half. But, I mean, we've we've got a lot of properties in Flower Bluff that are um you know, not not accessible. So, so many of these are going to be in in Not to add too much weeds to the conversation, but most of this is in part of the ACUZ. So, the density is going to be very low. You're not going to have any property over in this case an acre in size. Two, there is no wastewater. So, again, minimum half acre in size to have septic. And then three, you're going to have major access to Caribbean and access to Ramfield only. Uh but because of so low density, you won't have to worry about fire needing multiple points of access. But, does the city have any um rules about, you know, about orphaned properties that are not accessible? When it comes to platting, the state has rules that you cannot have a landlocked lot. So, if some if an application were to come to us and they do not have a legitimate means of accessing a right-of-way, they would not be able to plat. It would never come to the board. Commissioner Miller Elena Buendia, Planning um Development Services. On the plat which will be discussed next, there is an access easement. >> Okay. All right. Well, I'm good. Okay. What is this property currently zoned? This was recently rezoned to RS-15. The reason for that is to allow the narrow access easement with the smaller lot width, but between ACQ's, they could never have a density greater than one unit per acre. >> [clears throat] >> And it looks like this C1 collector already runs to the south of Ramfield Road. Is that correct? If I'm the the this existing C1 collector? No, there there's there's there's there's no road south of the road at this location. Well, there's a neighborhood south of Ramfield Road. Oh, I see I see what you're saying. Yeah. So it So that C1 collector already exists. Is that correct? If it in I'm not entirely sure cuz if it's I don't know if they amended it. It could have been changed to another traffic classification. I think it's a residential road. Cuz on the on the map the UTP, it still shows it as a C1 collector. Understood. And then there's a C1 collector running north of Caribbean Road, too. So is that one going to die as well? Or are is or are we going to stick with having to put that one in also at this point? What we do we do it on um base by base um Plot plot by plot. Yeah. >> Cuz ultimately, I mean, if you kill the middle, the the person to the north is going to have a good argument to kill their road as well. Right. And and there as much as I know there's a there's a method to the madness and logically what you're saying, Commissioner, is makes perfect sense. Uh but because it's plot by plot, when that person comes into the north, we will hopefully have an administrative reason and they won't even have to come before the board to say let's go ahead and and either wave it or say because there was a removal to the south and we can move the plat forward. But the problem is we can never project the timing of when that party will come in. May not be for 20 years. Right. And then I've never heard of ACQ's being used as a reason to remove a road. I think it's a good reason. I've heard of it to deny, you know, zoning and certain uses, but I've never heard of a road you know, ACQ's saying hey So there there are two things in the planning world that that when involve people, it's either density of housing or transportation. And it's a chicken and egg argument. Either you build the road to drop people in or there's so much housing you have to now build a road to move all of that traffic. It's always one of the other. When it comes to ACQ's, the only way to limit density is either eliminate roads, which means density drops, or in this case you have things like wastewater issues, other compounding factors that will too drop density. So it's [clears throat] it's a good thing to keep density low by removing a collector street. It doesn't encourage development. That was one of my things and I'd like to make a a suggestion to staff that anytime that you invoke the A word, the ACQ's word, include a slide that shows the overlay. Got it. So that way everybody has a good idea because I I kind of had to reference back to the ACQ's map and look at this area holistically because I was kind of where Justin's at, you know, why are we talking about ACQ's, but it does make sense because this C1 collector would allow for more dense development in this area, but since it's never going to be particularly dense, um then I'm okay with it. And ultimately, really, it's just this top little corner that the property that the road runs through anyway because the uh east side of this road or this road's to the east of the property and then up here it's to the west of the property. So it's really just because it's crossing. Okay. Well, I mean, just for clarification, they would all they would have to dedicate at least a half road if they kept it. And that's another thing that's another item that we also have issues with where we don't want developers building half roads because then to Andrew's point, the other one by the time the other developer comes around to build the other half of the road is Who's way? Because this body seems to support half roads very very strongly. Cuz I've seen staff recommend half roads quite a bit lately. Only half the time. >> [laughter] >> 50% of the time all the time. Just [clears throat] curious, what is the distance between Roscher and Flower Bluff? I believe it's a little bit under a mile. Um I'm not entirely sure of the uh of the accuracy in that, but um It's it's about there. Yeah. And are there any plans for are there any spots for any other roads? Uh I believe this is the only portion of between Roscher and Flower Bluff that the plan had a master plan road project at this location. I believe this is the only one. There was nothing in between this one we're deciding on today and between the two other roads. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Or for um They're not the ones who are going to present item 12, are they? Uh no, I'll I'll be reading in item 12 into the record. So since it's together, isn't it? Uh well, so essentially the way in in the platting process, the amendment has to be approved first in order for the plat as written because if it's denied, then the plat is tabled until that C1 is shown on the plat. So that that's why they're Okay. So we'll just do items We'll do item 11 and then we'll go to 12. Correct. Okay. Got you. Okay. So any other questions for staff on items 11, Commissioners? If not, then um I'll open up the public comment for item 11. Anyone would like to come and speak on this item? Come forward. If not, then I'll close the public comment and entertain a motion. Make a motion we approve item number 11. Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. Motion passes. Now moving on to item 12. Uh uh Buck was just whispering in my ear a good point. So for item 12, it would technically be a conditional approval recommendation since the roadway master plan amendment has to be approved by council for it to be uh complete formal formally approved. So uh item 12 is a replat of Layton Manor. Again, it's creating two lots, lot 3R and 4 4R of block one, 9.78 acres. Staff would be recommending conditional approval pending the formal approval by council of the roadway master plan amendment. If there are questions, be happy to address them. So this can go ahead and be passed like this even though it's not written the same way in the condition. We don't have it under the condition right now. Correct. Which means that as the plat's presented today, it would be conditionally recommended for approval once council formally, hopefully knock on knock on wood, approves it, we can then record the plat. Got you. Uh I don't I don't need you to do the whole dog and pony show, but if we could just bring up the slide and show me the the access um easement. Oh sure. And are the two houses already existing? Yes. There there are two houses. I believe this is the one that has two houses existing there. There's a property I might be switching it with another one that has also a very similar scenario. Ah, there it is. I didn't see it. So here, the easement is going to be on the left-hand side in the lower corner. I missed the old screen where I could draw on it. But you'll see a 29 uh foot shared access utility easement lower left-hand side dotted the dash line. Is there anything stopping them from putting a road to Caribbean if they chose to? The the north property? Uh that what they don't own the property to the north. So essentially, if you remember that wider picture from the roadway master plan, there's still another half that goes up to Caribbean. I can't read it on my little screen. So that that property doesn't border doesn't touch Caribbean. Doesn't touch Caribbean. >> Got you. Okay. It's dead in the middle of the two. >> And and the reason for the easement is I there's a body of water that they're trying to skirt around so it doesn't split uh maintenance requirements between the two properties. Uh we did have several discussions of should it be better to have a formally dedicated panhandle in which then it kicks in the lot requirement that requires so much of a width. The UDC does say you can measure at the setback line. So while it appears to be landlocked, it there is a formally recorded access easement. So it could never be fenced off. They can never prevent a rear property owner from accessing the property. >> There's a show on HBO called Neighbors. I've heard of it. >> [laughter] >> But now, there is there are several instances of this in that area cuz I know of a property on Ramfield that has a similar access easement and it's kind of quirky, funky, but you know, that that whole area is going to have to live in the olden days for a while cuz of requirements. I would say I'm not personally the biggest fan of the of a certain method, but like many things, what's what I'm a fan of and what's legal are sometimes two different things. Mhm. But it is allowed, it is legal. Uh again, I understand because of the body of water to try to find a good middle ground approach to make it work. Or Andrew >> question >> Yes, sir. On that, if we have it on this e- the for the uh for the south, we have the easement on the for the south and for that north property, is that easement going to continue when when they decide to want to pull it when when they decide to want to >> No, they would not have to continue north as uh so they hit the middle of the block, so to speak. Uh so there was no continuation going further up to Caribbean. Uh you can imagine if this were to double on the other side, you would have another lot and another lot before you hit Caribbean. So it doesn't have to continue all the way through. This is purely to give the rear property access and meet state requirements. >> Yes. Okay, got it. Okay. Any other questions? >> [clears throat] >> If not, then I'll go ahead and open up the public comment for item 12. If anybody would like to come and speak on item 12. If not, then I'll close the public [clears throat] comment for item 12 and entertain a motion. Make a motion to pass item 12. Conditionally approve, please. Just for the record. Thank you. >> 12, sorry. Not to be nitpicky. Second. I conditionally third it. >> [laughter] >> I have a motion, a second, and a third it. And uh all those in favor say I. >> I. All those opposed say no. Motion passes. Moving on to director's report. Uh no formal report for tonight. Uh Commissioner Hendrick, just want to say I didn't forget about your flowcharts, I'm still working on them. Uh I recently attended I just in fact flew back in this afternoon from the national planning conference. Uh the good news and the bad news is we share the exact same issues across the country uh with platting and zoning issues. I had some very good conversations, some good ideas coming across how we can simplify process. And many times other cities took ideas from how we do things. So just wanted to share that with the commission to say uh when you think sometimes all hope is lost and we're spinning in circles, we're we're not alone. And more than likely we we do have some plenty of areas in which Corpus Christi is ahead of many many cities in the United States how we do things. In their conference, did they come up with any excellent ideas on all the problems that we have here? I not not for uh water other than uh conserve, but [laughter] Anyway. That was a a big topic of conversation. But very much uh for instance, how we have the ability to have administrative decisions on uh things other cities never had what we call the 10% rule. Meaning, if you're a little over the line, you're short a few parking spaces, you might have accidentally encroached into an easement, they force every single one of those to go to a board of adjustment. Which is very time-consuming and very costly. We give folks what I like to call the the Corpus wiggle room. We give them a little bit of space that if you're over the line, that's okay. We're not going to uh sick the dogs on anyone. We're going to find a way to make it work. Uh facilitation is was a strange word being uh that I was throwing around that some other cities had never heard of of well, what do you mean you find a middle ground? So like I said, we we do have the right attitude and we really have been doing things on a in a progressive way when again, sometimes it feels like we're not, but we are making progress. So just wanted to share that. Okay. Thank you, Andrew. Any other future agenda items? Uh not yet, but uh hopefully soon. >> Coming, huh? It's coming. Uh okay, the meeting adjourned. It was just because