Commissioner Salazar Garza here. Commissioner Miller here. Commissioner Mandel is absent. Uh, Commissioner Munoz here. Commissioner Hedrickk here. Commissioner Bud here. Commissioner Kentu here. Commissioner Tykeleman here. We have a quorum present to conduct the meeting. Thank you, Miss Jessica. Okay, so we're going to move on to um the we're going to convey to the beach dune committee meeting. Um and I guess we have to call roll for that as well right now. Yes. Well, we call roll. So, um Commissioner York absent. Commissioner Salazar Garza here. Commissioner Miller here. Commissioner Mandel absent. Commissioner Minos here. Commissioner Hedrickk here. Commissioner Bud here. Commissioner Kentu here. Commissioner Tyelman here. We have a quorum present to conduct the meeting. Okay. Thank you, Miss Jessica. And will you please read the rules of decorum for uh public comment please? Citizens will be allowed to attend and make public comments in person at the city planning commission meeting/BD June committee meetings. The public is invited to speak on any agenda item and any other items that pertain to the planning commission/Bache Dune committee meeting. 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 a order of the agenda. Okay. Thank you. Uh so right now I'd like to open up the public comment. Uh if anybody would like to come and speak on um the items any items pertaining to the beach dune committee. If anybody would like to come and speak. If not then I'll close the public comment and uh move on to the approval of absences for Commissioner Munoz. Make a motion to approve the absent. I'll second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion passes. Moving on to the approval of minutes for the Beach Student Committee for uh April 30th, 2025. Make a motion that we approve the uh minutes for the April 30th uh 2025 meeting. Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I I. All those opposed? Motion passes. Uh moving on to the consent public hearing discussion and possible action for item A. Good evening, Beach Dune Committee. The application before you, Ellen Bendo Development Services. The application before you is BD8646. This is a large-scale beachfront construction certificate application for dune compensation at approximately 6967 state highway 361. As some of you may recall, in 2023, you approved a large-scale beachfront construction certificate. That's a mouthful. Uh for this area, in 2024, when the contractors began work, they inadvertently impacted dunes and dune vegetation. Uh work had to cease. Since that time, the applicant has diligently worked with the city, the county, and the GLO to put together a mitigation plan to address those impacts. And that's before you today. This plan has been approved by New Aces County because it's seawword of the doom protection line. And it comes before you today because it's seawward of the beachfront construction line. It comes before you because it is seawword of the erosion area line. Technical terms for 200 uh feet uh seawword of the vegetation one. Here is an overview of the project. The highlighted area in green is what they are going to work on as far as uh dune compensation and staff recommends approval. Okay. Thank you. Uh commissioners, do we have any uh questions for staff or any comments? None. Then um I will open up the public hearing um for item A. If anybody would like to come on behalf of item A to speak, please come up. If not, then I'll close a uh public hearing and um entertain a motion or make a motion that we approve uh item number A as presented by staff. Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed. Motion passes. Do we have a director's report for um um no madam vice chair, not this evening. Okay. Any future agenda items? All right. So then I'll adjourn the beach dune committee and um reconvene for back to the planning commission meeting. And um I will just move on now to the public comment. Um open up the public comment. If anybody would like to come and speak on the public comment on anything in general not pertaining to any specific item on tonight's agenda, please come forward. If not, then I'll close the public uh comment and u move on to approval of absences with uh Commissioner Munoz. I move that we approve the uh absence of Commissioner Munoz at the April 30th meeting. I'll second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion passes. Moving on to the approval of minutes um for the uh was it? Yeah, for uh April the 30th, 2025. Um, do I have a motion? Make a motion that we approve the minutes as presented by staff. I'll second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion passes. Moving on to the consent public hearing discussion and possible actions for items four, five, six, seven, and eight. Thank you, madame vice chair. For the record, Andrew Deus, assistant director, development services, reading in tonight's consent agenda, starting with letter B, plats. Item number four, Flower Bluff Heights, block 4, lot 14R. Number five, Heritage Crossing Plan Unit development. Item six, Corpus Christi Holly edition. Staff has reviewed the three plats, determined that they do meet the requirements of the Unified Development Code as well as Texas Local Government Code. Both the TRC and staff recommend approval. Under letter C, plat extension. We have two for tonight. Starting with item seven, Bridges Mill Village unit 3 and number eight, Shannon Estates West unit 13. Staff recommends approval on these two time extensions as well. And with that, if there are any questions, I'd be happy to address them. Okay. You Andrew, do we have any questions for staff on these items? I had a question on number five, the PUD. Why, just from my knowledge, why did this have to be a putt? Is it because there's two lots that are undersized? Correct. So, any deviation from minimum lot sizes short of reszoning two lots, a PUD gives the flexibility for the entire subdivision to either alter rights of way, touch setbacks, open space. It's it's a simpler process to take the PUD route. And was that really the only two things or just those two lots? It it was also the configuration of the street. Gotcha. Uh it was a tad narrower in some areas. It had gone to a 40ft rideway I believe off the top of my head. Okay. But uh there were not major deviations and planning commission and council have approved the sister zoning case. Yep. Okay. Thank you. Not a problem. Um we have any any other questions for staff? If not, then I'll open up the public comment uh the consent public comment for anybody who'd like to come and speak on items number four through eight. If not, then I'll close the public uh consent public hearing and uh entertain a motion or further discussion. I move that we approve items B and C as presented by staff. I have a motion. Second. I have a second. All those in favor? I I. All those opposed? Motion passes. Moving on to public hearing discussion possible action item nine to you wanted to do these separate on the Yes ma'am. So the the reason that we have them separate is uh you really can't approve the plat until the waiver is heard. So they're you can have them in one motion to approve both but that's completely depending on how you deliberate and choose direction on the half street waiver. Okay. Well, uh, because it says here to consider it individually. So, I'll open up public comment on individually for each night. That's just fine. No problem at all. Okay. So, uh, yes, I'll open up the public um, hearing discussion. Uh, or anybody who'd like to come and speak on uh, item I'm sorry. U, do any of the commissioners have any discussion on You can do a presentation. Oh, yeah. The presentation. Sorry. That's okay. Here. I didn't want to correct. I knew it would just organically work itself out. No problem. Sorry about that. It was going over and over in my head. All this closing and opening. Okay. Um would let's do the I think we have the Half Street waiver listed first. Item number nine. All right. Good evening, Bria Whitmire, Development Services. So, for the uh There we go. The request is for a half street construction of the north south. It's uh County Road 43 at this at this area. So, if you aren't haven't seen the the master preliminary plat, and to be clear, it is a master preliminary plat. So, we still have to have a prelim and all the finals. Uh but it how it's set up now, uh I think there's six units total. They'll be starting from the the western most edge which is the the road that they want to do the half street construction of. So with the the current area if you recall this a while back was all of Kings Lake. Now the upper portion is Caspian which was approved uh separately a bit ago. So this county road 43 north to south it is an A2. For an A2 it calls for 100 foot ride ofway back to back with 54 uh four through lanes. So the request is being that this development is one side of the of the roadway that they would only build half of it. Uh we had a case of this similarly maybe a month ago. Um and the question is how does the other half get built? the whenever the property on the other side of County Road 43 is built, that developer would build that half of the street. So, this is uh fairly typical along property lines. We wanted to make sure that this um this cross-section got to you because just a little bit more detail about what that would look like in the meantime until the development on the west side of County Road 43 is built. So, you do have a 27 foot backtoback curb. Um, it would have your typical lane width and whatnot and a five- foot sidewalk. This is what the property looks like currently. So, it's obviously an improvement from current conditions. For those that uh haven't looked at this section recently, of course, the half streets um should be prohibited except for when the PC uh may approve. Uh so, we just want to make sure that it still is safe for the development. um and meets all of the fire codes would still be addressed unit to unit to make sure that there's uh access um throughout the um the waiver does need to make sure that it's not detrimental to the public health and whatnot. Uh as said all of the applicable codes and regulations would be met unitto unit. So the factors that are supportive is that uh it is an improvement. It's currently a dirt road. It does meet all of the requirements per the UDC for Half Street and the uh the subdivision needs this street um to develop. factors against the waiver is that it is an A2 a major thoroughare that that should be built out eventually and half streets may cause um emergency vehicles some issues uh mostly at turns and whatnot but again uh fire code uh makes sure that any public improvements we make sure all the radiuses are are checked uh for that for that reason staff recommends approval of the half street construction waiver and stands by for any um questions. Thank you, Bri. Bria. Uh commissioners, do we have any questions for staff? Question. Um if this if this uh subdivision comes online, obviously this is going to be a primary means of access to that subdivision. Correct. 100%. in the area and we don't have there's there's no tools that I know of and Andrew or Bria, y'all can jump in, but for the developer of this property to go ahead and build the entire street section and then recover that whenever an adjoining property owner um plats their subdivision. So there's a couple and Buck will correct me if I'm wrong, but there's a yes, we can't force if it's a you're required by law to do half and then it gets into a rough proportionality argument of do they have to do the entire section. So there's why we have the logic behind only requiring the half and then on top of that planning commission grants uh special dispensation to require the minimum two-way means which is 20 ft. because that this if if the half streetet is granted that's going to be a two-way 27 foot backtoback street section until the other property gets built out. Right. Correct. Or we as a city would have to take on a bond project to widen to widen it. And that 8 foot or that um that 27 foot street section is actually a foot narrower than our typical residential street section. Correct. Luckily, because of its speed, as people drive down arterials, uh we seriously doubt there'll be any on street parking. So, that's one saving grace. The the difference between a residential standard residential street is you'll have folks parked in front of their homes, dropping things off, boats, RVs, you name it. on that. Does it show how that would be striped on that street section? We do not have the striping on the cross-section. No. Is it I mean, how would you typically stripe that condition? It would be no different than kind of a county road that's been improved. There's not a always a center stripe. Okay. Well, that that's kind of my hangup. Like I think it's fair, you know, the Half Street proposal, but I am concerned that if Kings Lake gets built out and development on the west side does not get, you know, I mean, who knows whenever that property is going to get developed. So, what do you do in the interim? So, there's a couple of things that come up. one is uh just as we've discussed with other subdivisions, points of access for fire to have adequate turns and the ability to move traffic fast enough. So when you get to certain density levels, you know, in this case, the difference between this issue and county road 33 is county road 33 dead ends. There is no way to cross a body of water. In this case, there would be traffic routing to up their subdivisions to the south. You have London ranch estates and you have uh the one done by roads that that will have increased density which may generate the need for a wider ride ofway but the timing will be if we see an increase in development usually you will see adjacent properties start to develop around the same time period as density catches up. Can you pull up the uh the plaid again? The plat And in what what stage of development is Caspian right now? They have the final plat for unit one approved. Construction has not started yet. I believe they were waiting for the timeline for the uh some of the other work in the area. And are they building out the full street section? I have not looked at that in a while. I I don't believe so. They're they're required to build a full collector along their northern property boundary to connect to Farm Road 43. I'm sorry, I have a county road 43 as it goes up to FM43. Roads development is going to be to the south and west. And of course, there is always been discussions as other properties around it start to develop. Uh the biggest issue is development is slowing because of wastewater. There's only capacity for that lift station, I believe, 300 homes. So, roads development has pretty much taken the lion share of that since they've filed their final plat. So, Caspian and this development, Kings Lake West, are going to have to wait until wastewater is connected up to the lift station at County Road 33. I thought it was whoever built out 600 houses first. Well, it's whoever gets the final plat first, and that's that has already been reached. So there's been uh multiple meetings and conversations going on, but the CIP project is out for bid for the lift station that covers the entire area. So the capacity of this lift station, we're not really too worried. Houses aren't going to get built tomorrow out there. So we do have capacity for a while to let some of these unit ones start. Um but in the meantime, our CIP projects probably 12 months to 18 months max out of being able to cover all of this. So, we went underneath the Oso Creek and connected to Oso for basically no reason. There's a there's a Yeah, it bought It bought us time to to get to a large scale solution. Okay. Well, that's disappointing. Um, and I would like before I'm ready to rule on this, I'd like to know what was in Caspian's if they got a half street waiver because if they have to build out that whole street section. The agreement we have with Caspian is that once they get to 50% density, they'll have to widen FM4, County Road 43 to accommodate increased traffic. So it's how it's designated is one what they'll ultimately have to build and similarly we look to but what do they build it now? Well right now they haven't developed all this going to be a dirt road. As of today they have not initiated any construction. Their plat is not recorded. It's approved for unit one. They have to go through public improvements just like any other development. So and I can see where may the caspian unit one was before we're requiring PIs with the final plat. So, we only have the final plat for unit one. We don't have the all of the PIs associated with it. It's um that's what makes this whole London area difficult. It does because everybody's got a different set of rules and when it all comes together, that's what I'm concerned about is does it look like a patchwork quilt? Um, you know, I I had a lot of heartburn over um the um you know, the adjacent uh development that um going from an arterial to a collector um just because of I'm trying to figure out and one of the things that was very important to me as part of the London area development plan was that we actually use the area development plan as we continue to put these things together and so that way you don't have everybody always complains about all the septic systems and everything at um various different subdivisions and stuff like that. So I think we need to do a better job of making sure that I guess that we're communicating with the land owners. I mean, I I and it's difficult like I don't I don't even know how to do a better job, but you know, communicating with the land owners and how all these pieces inevitably fit together, I think, is extremely important, or else the Southside's just going to be a mess. To me, it's already a mess. So, but behind the scenes, we we struggle with with the same quandry. It's getting land developers to talk to each other. And we can probably list plenty of hours of meetings that we've spent just getting folks who have properties right next door to each other just to pick up the phone and go in together so they only have to build a street once instead of twice. And like you said, we don't want it to look like a patchwork quilt. Uh the the catch is the UDC doesn't have a term for what we call perimeter roads to force someone to or a developer to build what roads they're called perimeter perimeter roads or perimeter streets. What that means is you cannot push off your collector arterial road to the last phase of the development and get by with a half street. It forces you to build sections of your perimeter road that's touching the edge which is usually the major thoroughare up front either by phase and you can't push those off. It has to be on a regular schedule or you can't just avoid it at all. You have to put it up up front in phase one to allow subdivisions to connect with each other. that that's something we'll be talking about with UDC amendments. Of course, there's always push back because that's upfront capital cost for a rideway you're spending that's not going to produce any houses other than improving traffic flow which holistically improves the construction of houses, but it's it gets it far into the weeds. That that's the the hard part of it. Part of that frustration is well if if this if the first developer to the area builds all of the infrastructure to the full extent then all of the infield developers come in and they can develop for really cheap because they didn't have to do anything. So that's the other portion of all these conversations. How do you make it sure that it's fair that each developer pays something? Um so this is a situation where this is the the first one to the area. M back to commissioner Miller's initial question. If this exception isn't given and you're required to bill out the whole street, there's the adjacent property owner, is there a way for for that money to be recouped by this property owner? Currently, well, we do have fees in lie of construction under special circumstances. The problem is it sits in escrow and it waits until a bond project comes in, which could be 10 years from now. That that's the only problem. It doesn't attach a time frame to it. Give you a perfect example. Slow road. Slow road. We had a few subdivisions where we collected something like $50,000 a fee in l of construction. The problem is it's a drop in the bucket just for design by the time we catch up to us as the city having to go in there. So, it's a combination of yes, absolutely the area development plan says one, but it doesn't tie to codified language in the EDC for us to enforce certain things. That's that's the big trigger that needs to happen for us to require perimeter streets to be built up front. Was there a TIA that was done for this neighborhood? And if so, what did it say? Yes, there was. The details of it, I couldn't script you off my my memory, but there was a TIA. It was reviewed by public works. Uh there was no um mitigation. There's no issue with with the A2. There was on the on the south line if I don't know if you can still see the map on your screens along the southern border, the east west road. They looked at that a bit and I believe they were doing a UTP amendment on that portion of road that stretch but nothing with the north to south. I just don't understand if it's over 500 homes really. The only access to this property is County Road 22, which is a really bad county road. It's It's not in good shape. Building this section doesn't do anything. If they had to build this section all the way to uh FM43, that would be understandable because that would open this up. But, you know, really the only access to this neighborhood is County Road 22. And I don't see how that was even allowed on a TIA. Um, it's not that's why they need to that's why CR43 needs to be built all the way. This is the This is the waiver to propose a half street construction, but something has to be built. Yeah. Because really you would need to have a connection all the way to FM43, correct? Um, really to alleviate it because there is another road in the very back to Oso Parkway, but that's going to be years away before they get to it has to be built for. So, I mean that and that's another question. We'll talk about that on the next on the plat. But I don't even see how fire would allow this because in reality, county roads 22 is the only access whether you have a half street or a full street on uh 43 or not. The bottleneck's right there on County Road 22. It's this would construct enough of 43 for fire access, but you still have to go down County Road 22 regardless. Regardless. So if that's blocked off, if there's a emergency and there's a car on fire that's blocking it, there's literally no other way to get to this neighborhood. 22. You'll have to pro provide multiple points of access as density increases. So I think coming from getting to just getting just to get to the neighborhood, the only way to access it is county road 22. So even if you have 43 running north and south, you still have to get on the county road 22 because 43 goes nowhere. Even if you build this section, whether it's a half street or a full street, there's nowhere for them to go. They still have to get on to 22. So, I don't see how that allows that's still only one point of access. So, that's, you know, the issue is where do you start? Because you can't have this land owner build on this land owner's property until they could get easements. They could get, you know, easements from other property owners and we have the dedication. It will be built. It's just we can't do it all at one time. But it Caspian will have to build their portion just like this. Well, then they'll build their portion, but it still won't connect to FM43. So, it's going to be the it's still going to only be on County Road 22. So, it's the same issue again. Puppies. Yeah. Agreed. You know, and it just reminds me of there was a half street that was allowed on Leip and Bronx kind of behind the Veterans High School area and that was allowed for a development, a half street. It was done. It was horrible. was falling apart because you know one side has curve the other side doesn't have anything. So eventually it is going to fail. It's a fact. There's nothing to stop it because there's no curve there. Um it will have curve on both. This has curb gutter esplanade. But will it right now? Yes. With the half street. That's the cross-section. It has curb and gutter. It's locked in. So there it won't be that type of failure going on. So 43 this one on their section of 43 will be a split a split highway. I mean a split road. No. So the the dark portion, the dark lines is what would be built. So up to that center line. So they would have some grassy part for that median. They would have that 27 ft back to back cuz that that's it says 27, but you you have you have a bit of space there. You have 9 ft gap. Then you have a 5ft sidewalk. So it's it's still plenty of ride of way to do any modifications if needed. if for some reason the other side didn't develop at all, we have we have space there. Um, but everything does need have to meet fire codes. So, say for for unit one, which we don't have. Again, this is master preliminary. So, we still have the preliminary plat's going to review all of that for access. They still have to meet all of those requirements, right? But if we approve a a preliminary plat, preliminary master plat, whatever the language is, it's just already kind of setting it up and just causing more issues in the future when you could already take care of those issues from the beginning. Kind of to echo what Commissioner Miller was saying is, you know, it is a patchwork out there and you know, unfortunately, it's you know, if it's not done right, you kind of have one shot at doing it and you know, you want to require certain things because it is for the betterment of the area. you know, I understand it is um you know, more expensive for the first one out there, but the first one out there, they cover, you know, bringing sewer to the area a lot of times. They cover bringing water to the area a lot of times. So, they you know, have to uh bring a major road to the area. So, they do, you know, shoulder a lot of that cost upfront because they are the first one and then other people do benefit, but that's happens with everything, not just roads. So, right, which goes back to that that original question again, right? You know, and that's reasons why properties are different pricing. You know, when they have services or when they don't. You know, whenever an area is further away and it's undeveloped, then you know, you are able to purchase it at a lower price because you don't have that. And then as stuff comes in and services come in, the property values go up. And that's just part of it. And that's, you know, an understanding when you're buying any piece of property. So, yeah. Well, I just think it's it's it's concerning for me personally because it's like we're building so many of these new developments and there we're coming up over 500 more new lots besides the ones that are already out there and we don't even have the proper kind of structure for the streets for the people to be able to get in and out. the roads are already so bad in uh many areas of Corpus that still need to be worked on and here we're going to develop something that you know I just feel um it's um it's not I mean I I I see it but I'm just like I I just think there's some things that we need to maybe work on that could make it a little bit um better for us to be able to have better development you So, I don't know. That's just my comment. I I feel like I still don't have a a clear answer on Caspian, right? Are they building a half street? Are they Are they building the full street section? I know you said it's all hinges on when they reach a certain density, but correct. When they get there, what are they building? They they will be required to just build a portion. So unit one only touches that northern property boundary. So they'll have to provide a means of access. They have not moved long far enough to come down all the way of County Road 43. So they they don't they haven't touched it yet. But is it the same street section as this with two lanes and a center? The same street section and they're and they're building out both lanes. At this point, they have not asked for a waiver to do a half street, but the code only requires that they build half. This would be this section would be setting the stage. So once this would So why why are we if the code calls for them only having to build half, why are we even granting a waiver? Because the it has to deal with the the construction itself and the dedication. And there's the way the UDC words it requires a waiver to get through the process. The the alternative if they had to build the full width of the road, they can't build on somebody else's property. They would have to dedicate more of their own property to build the full width of the street on on their property. Then the across the street, they won't have to dedicate any additional rideway. The full width would have already been built. So they would have to dedicate enough for this full 100 foot rideway. But if they're first, that's just part of the deal. I mean that would that's just something that they have to undertake. If they're the first people out there, then they have to provide access. And most of these roads, they're along a property line to that point to to fairly break it up between two owners. So that's why our transportation plan most all of the the major roads they're along a property line for this purpose that nobody has to dedicate their entire lot you know and everybody else around them gets to use it. So that's the setup of of why it's like this and I'd be interested in seeing what they propose on their crosssection. But if this cross-section is proposed, they would continue it with this same layout. The ride ofway is locked, but as far as the construction plans, when we get them, we would look to make sure that it lines up. It's not like this would be approved with curb and then the next section would be open ditches. We would make sure that it all ties together by the plans, but we're in in this situation, if they're to build a full width street, we would need them to redo their plat and dedicate more right away. I just feel it sets a bad precedent for the area because if we approve this, then Caspian's going to be in here tomorrow asking for the same waiver. If there's, you know, more uh things being built to the north of that, they're going to ask for it. They're gonna have forward and it's absolutely which is typical going backwards as well. That's why this is is there. Yeah, it's been the typical way. Okay. What's another alternative that they could possibly do? I mean that could uh if if they have to build the full width road, they would have to dedicate the full ride of way. Well, that's what the easement Okay. Well, um, any other questions for staff, commissioners? If not, then I'll go ahead and open up the public hearing for item number nine. Anyone like to come and speak on item nine? If not, then I'll close um public hearing for item nine and uh entertain a motion or more discussion on item nine. Commissioners, anybody got a quarter? I'm I'm I'm conflicted because obviously public safety is one of the key components that we have to weigh whenever we're um making decisions on matters like this. But I don't think it's fair that adjacent property owners get the benefit of that street being built. But then I also think about how fragmented the London area is and how, you know, before whenever cities could cast a net and annex additional area, it gave the planners a lot more um ability to plan versus having development uh dictate, you know, how this goes, right? And so somebody finds a piece of dirt that's cheap that is far away from any connecting uh infrastructure and they grab that up and then they build a subdivision and we end up with what we have, right? Um so it's it's very hard for me to I don't this one's tough for me. So I'm literally probably going to it's one of the best arguments I've heard for impact fees. Well, and I think another another challenge we've had with this area is is um the city is trying to get infra get wastewater infrastructure out there to prevent the uh the u excalation of septic tanks. And so the longer it takes for us to get the our CIP project out there, the more potential there is for more septic and and then you know um the longer it goes, the more saturate the septic tanks. It's just a a But you're not doing any septic on RS4.5 developments. No, no, but that's what I'm saying is is if if it doesn't get developed as RS4 five and then they come back and just do the the big estate, right, septic and we we it it's it's conundrum for sure, which means it contributes less to the tax base and we end up having to foot more of the bill to extend infrastructure. So the you it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. I would say right now if if if the Half Street isn't approved, their development will more than likely not happen anytime soon. So, it will definitely you can either have zero access or some access, which parallels the same situation that Caspian would have. So, if this doesn't uh if this isn't built either way, then Caspian would not connect to anything whether they build a half street or a full street either if this doesn't build. So it it does have to be incremental to some degree or else nothing would connect. I I I have a question. So since we tackled this a couple weeks ago um with the other with that other unit that we were talking about, right? Right. Well, it was a little different because half street. This is a half street. We're talking about back then we were talking about an arterial versus a collector. Oh. And I don't think that that arterial section was I'm glad commissioner you brought that up. So the again the way the UDC is worded when there's no access we're in this debate right now when there's an existing rightway of at least two lanes of access the developer doesn't have to construct they have to dedicate but they do not have to construct any additional street. So uh either situation which unfortunately are sins of the past because 11 years ago when the UDC was adopted it it was four years of amendment. So you had many hands in creating that document. So of course won't use the word loopholes but some creative language was put in there to always give yourself an out of saving some dollars when you develop. Uh and that's why we have things like slow road and why we like impact fees because when you have something come in and create such a heavy demand and a burden on the system that would force them to contribute to expanding that system. It's like showing up to be an extra person at a dinner and coming empty-handed. Are we seeing this? Are we have we seen this at this much in the past in past developments? Yes. Is it a commonality? So it's sprawl. So sprawl creates this issue. Have there been a has there ever been a situation where it's been this this half build request has been rejected? Not that I can think of in recent history. It does concern me about stopping the development. You know, that that is that's you know, we don't want that. I mean, that's that's to me that's a big that's a big piece. Well, ultimately, would you rather have a I'm not going to call it a bad development, but a bad decision and, you know, pay for it later or get it right from the beginning? And I feel like a lot of times in the past we've taken shortcuts and patchworked it together and uh now we're paying for it. I mean just like on on uh Leip uh yeah Leipes that I was just talking about uh right near Vets that's having to be a bond package now. So they're actually having to spend bond money, taxpayer money. It's probably not even 10 years old to rebuild that whole section because they allowed a half street to be built and then the other half portion to be built regardless of how it is. Now we're having to redo it. So is that is that a single situation? Has there been other I'm the new guy. So is that my question would be is has this situation come before the committee the the the commission at another time and then and the same thing has happened just what we just talked about here. Is there another negative piece to it or has have the other pieces that have been requested move forward without a problem? Anytime you you're never going to be able to hide the seam. You're always going to whenever you stitch things together, even rights of way, you will always see the seam. But that's as development happens, that's the cost of it. So there's not a it's not always a pretty process. But when we see expansion happening with development in the driver's seat, that's how we adjust. We adapt to it. And we have to come up with facilitating and creative solutions to allow development. We're development services, not stop development services. So we have to find ways. So is in this situation we were just talking about this situation what what what is what is something that can be put in place to make sure that that pro that particular problem doesn't happen again and I think it was addressed earlier right we had asked about that all right we approved this thing but with the following items making them just build the full street or the only perimeter streets language which we we've never had in the UDC uh other cities have taken it on to say you must build so much of your larger thoroughfare at phase one of your development. So it it has to be extended. So we we we would just have to reject this and then we would have to reject this this petition to us and then they would have to come back and the UDC would have to come back. We'd have to come back and at at some point yes, but I I believe the developer that's where I just not the developer. I'm sorry. The engineer is is here in the audience. I know we closed public comment, but Oh, we'll open it up again if you'd like to hear from him. Yes, I would love to hear him what he's got to say. I'll open up the public comment. Hello, Bo Weissart. Babe Dawson Engineers. I'm the consultant on this project. So, just to give some background on the UDC and what we're doing here is the UDC requires that when you're platting on a portion of the UTP, which on the west side of this development is an A2, you dedicate half the rideway and you can do a half street waiver request. Now, the half street since it's not a typical road section has to be a waiver request approved by plan commission. Now what we're requesting is half of an A2. Now instead of doing something larger you know destroying you know a quarter to half of that pavement and then going back and building a median and then the other side that is what you know we don't want. We don't want less efficiency in what we propose. So, what's proposed right now is the two-lane section that will be in the future full buildout of the A2, which will meet fire code. Um, and it will allow for the development on the other side that will dedicate their half of the rideway in the future to build out that second two lanes. The pavement section that'll be underneath this section of roadway is not going to be your typical, you know, residential pavement section. This is going to be an arterial pavement section. Okay? So, it's going to be a thinner road, but it's going to have the full depth of structure. Okay? So, it's not going to be a weak road section. And then whenever the developer on the other side of the property in the future builds out, which may come sooner than later with this new development coming in in this area, they'll build out the full section and you'll have a full arterial road section in this area. We did do a TIA on this project and that study county road 22 and then the C1 that goes into the development. Secondary access will be required in as this project gets built out. But we're here for the master preliminary plat. So we're not here building anything or platting any individual lots. This is the first step on this development, but we are aware of the secondary access and that will be honored as this development goes on with fire code and it'll be administered with the PI plans. So the PI plans will have to meet fire code. We understand that this development will meet fire code. Now the secondary access is going to go all the way to Weber, right? When when? Well, it'll have to happen before we build out the full subdivision if we want the lots to get that secondary access because it's a lot like a it's a density thing. There's this trigger. But the Hop Street waiver right now is only for the border of our development because that's because that's the waiver that we need. That's what we're entitled to build according to UDC. But I know there's a lot of questions like the secondary access and the um you know are we building a small road section. What we're building is half of an arterial road so have the strength for the future and we are cognizant of the secondary access. So, I hope that kind of helps, you know, some of y'all's concern and um basically what we're doing is what's in the UDC and what's been done in the past. And it's kind of a question of rough proportionality. You know, we're only half the side of the UTP. And so, we're going to build half of what our development would bring to it. So that for the future the other half of the road they'll bring their section their proportionality right so um I guess that's kind of the does that kind of help I I I still struggle with this just because I think about the the um wastewater line underneath the Oso right Mhm. The commissioner Hendrick's question of when is important to me because, you know, we went underneath there. That was a huge expense. And the subdivision ended up getting cut in half. The subdivision is still not even started construction on either side. And currently in the CIP, we're going to be running wastewater over there. So, we just threw away that money. It's done. Um, so that irritates me to no end, but I'm also a fair person. And I do believe whenever my neighbor says, "Michael, your fence is falling down. Will you split the fence with me?" I've split the fence with my neighbor. Is there Does this waiver have to be submitted at this time? No, I think typically they are submitted with the just the the final plot, right? Because I I it's all these kind of because we deal with this a lot in development. Um whether it's approving, you know, zoning prior to annexation or everything, everything kind of goes out of the out of order. And I feel like I get backed a lot. Mhm. So I would be amanable to this concession if I had a crystal ball and could understand better when these things are actually going to get built because we get developers in here all the time saying that we're shovel ready, we're ready to go, you know, and and then it's just a string of of plat extensions. So, what's a potential resolution there? I guess we would have to deny everything. Well, do we know do we know what's coming into the the the lot? I think we brought it up earlier. The the the plat that's next to what we're talking about. Do we know what is there been any kind of permitting been done on this to the North Caspian? No. there it's it's gone through approval just like Commissioner Miller said you you end up with a string of plat extensions. So unit one was approved by planning commission they have not yet submitted their public improvement plan. So we have we don't have a we haven't even the the factory that makes the crystal balls much less the crystal ball to see what will happen and when. Yeah. Yeah. No assurance or even a timeline. Well I can add a little bit more information to that as well. We did uh the discussion with um the engineer for Caspian. Part of the deal with their design being delayed is because of the CIP project. So CCW knew that that project was coming through. They've been trying to align up all of the easements. CCW has been working very closely with Caspian and Kings Lake West to try to make sure that all of the utilities are lined up that works with everybody that everybody's design works with each other because it's not just one set of engineers. The CIP project has a a different company. Then you got Kings Lake West E Caspian. There's been a lot of coordination. This has it's not that we haven't talked to Caspian. We I hear I get that phone call at least once a week. What's the status? What's the status? Has it gone out for bid? They are eager to get going, but we can't do their design until we had the CIP. So, we just got the final set of plans on the CIP when they went out to bid May 6th. I believe it was a Friday. um they just that's that's why the delay with Caspian if if that helps. So both of these are very dependent upon each other and on the CIP. It's a it's a big mess. Once one goes they're all going to fall in line. How do we make all the adjacent property owners responsible for each other? Mhm. I think the the biggest key is to get a CIP project going of this size that doesn't go without interest from the development of the area that they're not going to dedicate CIP funds to go develop this if put all this infrastructure in if there's no interest in the area. We know this is a hot area. It's going to get built out. We know this. Why else would we invest that much? But you don't know any kind of time frames. There's no guarantees that any of the properties besides this in Caspian get developed anytime soon. To the west there's there's no guarantee to the north heading towards FM4 corner to here. So we have Mirabella County it's not touching this right it's across the intersection caddy corner through that intersection is Marbella and then this corner. So we have it's it's getting closed in right but again there's to the west there's no plans for development on that. There's no plans to the development to the north of Caspian. So, going back even to the to the fire argument, you said it's going to get developed by who? Is that something that that this developer is going to build out offsite or? So, so plat have an expiration date. All right. And the plat gets expired if you know action's not taken. So, that's kind of what kicks in the push to get these developers to build. Now they're waiting on um the lift station improvements with the CIP project and that's why we're coming to you now because it's out to bid. The CIP project is to expand that lift station for the whole area. Right now that lift station is at capacity. Okay. So that's why we didn't come to you a year ago because it was already the Greenwood lift station. The the one um that's actually on the Kings Lake West property. It's this is the one that went under the O. Yeah, but it's not at capacity. It can it can pick up 600 home sites, whoever builds them quick enough. That capacity has been reserved by roads development project and some Mhm. Um by the final plat, right? Right. So, so since the lift station expansion is about to be online, the then that's why we're teeing up this kind of development. Expiration dates are what's going to push this developer along. Um, and then fire code and PI plan review is what's going to enforce secondary access. Now, it's a question on when is the secondary access going to come? Well, I'll tell you, we won't be extended over the threshold before then because we can't, right? That'd be against code. So, that's kind of what we have kind of pushing us along is expiration dates to get things built. Once things are platted, you have to start construction within so many days or else your plaque gets expired. Stuff like that. Um, I'll tell you though that when that lift station does come online, opens up that area, I mean, we already have us and Caspian to the north with, you know, plats already in front of you. So, that's already kind of a promise that development's coming. And I'm sure that with this list station opening up, more development is going to come. We already know roads is there and and they're doing a large master plan as well. So development is coming to that area and that's why you see it all kind of centered around this lift station. So that's why we're here today is as a master preliminary plant to set us up a little more on the capacity thing. So I know you I think you're still thinking about the the lift station capacity how it's secured it. We were counting it by the final plat. So, Marbella has six final plats that account for about 340 something lots and then unit one of Caspian took up the last of it. So, with those final plats, everything is accounted for with the capacity of the existing lift station that's not in use. So, no other final plat until this new CIP lift station gets put in place. So that's holding up the rest of Caspian, Kings Lake West, everything because this lift station is already guaranteed for those final plats. Yeah. But the new what I heard y'all say is that the new lift station is going to service the whole area. Correct. That's so you won't need to use that. Correct. That pipe. Correct. That's that's what we've been waiting for is this CIP project that just went out for bid. I think it's still it's has to be out for 30 days, right? So, a couple weeks. Okay. Well, but if we if we deny this, then we're actually denying the preliminary as well because the preliminary plat shows a half street. You can vote on them separately since they're separate items, right? But how would that one exist without if this first one didn't happen? So the master prelim has it has more detail on it than it actually is necessary. Correct. Ma master prelims only have to have zoning density and a rough layout of roadway network. It does not have to get into the the crosssections. So those can be removed and it's not recorded condition right and and you can approve with conditions that those items meet current UDC standard and are not impacted by any waiver. But the the applicant can come back and reapply for the waiver during public improvement fa during the prior to public improvement documents or um it' be another fee. But as once there's action taken on this one, they just have to repay the fee. There's a prohibition. I have it once. We haven't had one. So that's not Yeah, I'm not aware of a a prohibition on a on a second application. stopped him. And and to re reiterate why the Half Street section is proposed is uh to limit uh deconstruction of the roadway proposed. Okay. So, it's in the UDC that developers don't have to build A2s. Those are large roads. Um any additional pavement that we add would be destroyed. and um have to be reconstructed into a median if you know this half street waiver wasn't requested. So this is about efficiency, right? And then if the city were to expand that road on their own through through a bond project, which I think is kind of unlikely because I feel like this area is in the largest growth area of the of the uh Corpus Christie, then that would be an extra cost. So, so this is also an efficiency thing for the future development. Otherwise, you're going to be deconstructing a large portion of roadway just to build another roadway. So, we're going to provide the curb and gutter on both sides so that the neighboring property can just put in their their um two lane side, wash their hands. no deconstructing, no um no issues with traffic control in the future. Um it's kind of self- sustained in as in this option as this half street. But if everybody worked together, they could save each other curb or if it was just done right from the beginning, nothing would have to be deconstructed if it was just built to the UDC standards from the beginning. Does the UDC standard allow half road? I I think I heard somebody say that right today. does allow a half road in this situation. So UDC UDC states if an existing road is there a developer does not have to further construct the responsibility of dedication falls to the adjacent developer. Uh the question now is the cost of construction of the half. So that's that's the rub. It it sounds like you've taken the precautions and and this plan is totally different than what happened on Life Street because that's not what that's not what happened. So because of that, I I feel more comfortable. Thank you for providing the explanation. No problem. And fire and solid way services have reviewed this and they're cool. Yes, that's a condition of of the plot itself. And and again, keep in mind this is the master preliminary plat. Fire, solid waste, every operating department will get another bite at the apple at at various preliminaries and every final. Right. The the cross-section that you're seeing is just that snippet. We still have full public improvement plans to to receive and those do get approved by streets traffic public works, fire code is all is all reviewed. Well, I think all this additional information that you're, you know, sharing with us here, it really does help me understand it a little bit deeper and I really like the way you were explaining exactly what you, you know, you're planning on trying to do. So, um, thank you. Ready for a motion or more discussion? Anybody commissioners? I'll make a motion that we approve the waiver as presented by staff. Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I I. All those opposed? No. Um motion passes. Okay. Okay. So now moving on to um oh public hearing and discussion possible action for uh item 10. Yes. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. This is item 10, Kings Lake West Master Preliminary Plat. Staff recommends approval along with the technical review committee as it meets unified development code standards and the Texas Local Government Code. Okay, put it up. Let's look at it. We answered most of the questions already. Commissioners, are you ready for questions? Uh, yes. Commissioners, do you have any questions? I have a question about it. Um there was some uh detention area in this neighborhood. Is this going to be an HOA neighborhood or who's ultimately going to be responsible for that? Um HOA. Okay. So there will be an HOA for Yes. common areas and detention. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, then I'll go ahead and open up the uh public hearing and discussion for uh item 10 if we have anybody that'd like to come and speak on behalf of item 10. If not, then I'll close the uh public hearing and um entertain further discussion or a motion. Make a motion that we approve the master preliminary plat as presented by staff. A second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Nay. But I'm not happy about it. Okay. Please note that Commissioner Miller is not happy about it. We'll make sure that's in the minutes. That development really got under my skin years ago. Okay. So, um, moving on to director's report. Only item for tonight. I wanted to take some moment to introduce Jessica Martinez, our new recording secretary and agenda coordinator. Have somebody welcome welcome aboard. She uh graciously accepted the role which after this meeting she might be rethinking that decision. It's okay. Uh but uh welcome aboard. Welcome. Welcome Jessica. Okay. So and don't worry I'm always this way. Yeah. Since high school. Okay. So any future agenda items from anyone? If not then meeting is adjourned.