I don't That's how The coldest part was going I was in the backyard for I got our office in Houston. I can feels like Another thing I think it's still shut down because It's morning 5:30. This is Okay. So, it's 5:30 and I'll go ahead and call the planning commission meeting to order. Uh, Miss Martinez, could you please call RO? Yes, ma'am. Uh, Madam Chair, Salisar Garza here. Vice Chairman Munoz >> here. >> Commissioner Miller >> here. >> Commissioner Hedrickk >> here. >> Commissioner Bud >> here. >> Commissioner Ku is absent. Commissioner Telman >> here. >> Commissioner Esparza >> here. >> Commissioner Jackson >> here. >> We have a quorum present to conduct the meeting. >> Thank you, ma'am. Uh, also [snorts] read us the rules uh for public comment, please. 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 items 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. Uh at this time I'll go ahead and open up the public comment if anybody would like to come and speak. If not, then I'll go ahead and close the public comment and move on the approval of absences, which we have none uh for last week's I mean last uh meeting. Um and I'll move on now to the approval of of the minutes for January 7th, 2026. >> I move that we approve the minutes from January 7th, 2026. >> 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 item A. Mr. Deus. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. We have a very lengthy consent agenda tonight consisting of two items. Uh starting with item number two, a replat of Porter Ranzis Cliffs lot 65A block 117. And item number three, a replat of El Oso Dormid lots 1R and two block one. Uh staff and the technical review committee have reviewed the plats and determined they are consistent with the unified development code as well as the Texas local government code. Staff recommends approval. That concludes tonight's consent agenda. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to address them. >> Thank you, Andrew. Uh commissioners, do we have any questions for staff on items two and three? Uh if not then I'll go ahead and open up the public comment um the consent public comment for items two and three. If anyone would like to come and speak on items two and three, please come forward. If not, then I'll go ahead and close the consent public hearing and uh entertain a motion. >> Make a motion we approve items two and three presented by staff. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? >> I. All those opposed? Motion passes. Moving on to the uh public hearing discussion, possible actions for item B on uh regarding transportation master plan and a amendments. >> Mr. Deus or um oh for the record we will [snorts] have uh Commissioner Hendrick abstain from this. >> Yes, I believe it is going to pull up the PowerPoint uh for presentation. >> [clears throat] >> Can y'all hear me? >> Mhm. >> Loud and clear. Excellent. Let's see if this works here. Okay. Well, [snorts] good evening, chair um and planning commissioners. My name is Horge Chavez. I'm a traffic engineer with public works um department in traffic. Um before I begin, I'd like to explain that public works is responsible for managing the city's transportation master plan. This plan helps identify future streets and requirements for any rightaway dedications. It is our position to maintain the city's transportation master plan to preserve rightway uh that will handle future traffic demands and preserve public safety. At times we get requests from developers to amend the city's transportation master plan. So as part of that process, public works traffic gets the developer request. We present these requests to planning commission who is responsible to um to make a recommendation to council that either supports or denies these requests. Ultimately, it's city council that makes the ultimate decision. And today I will be presenting two proposed amendments to the city's transportation master plan. As I mentioned, public works received two proposed amendments from developers. Uh the first um developer is the Neck Town Center phase 2 block one [snorts] and the second development is the Meadow Ridge development. Both these developments are in the Cal Island area, District 1. Um they're to the west of I69 and north to County Road 52. I'll provide a map in a moment. Um uh Neck Town Center phase 2 is proposed for commercial use and Meadow Ridge development is proposed for residential use and they're proposing approxim 89 units. and I'll move on to the image to help you identify the location. So, this is a bird's eye view of the situation or the um the two developments I'll be talking about today. This slide provides a bird's eye view of the developments I previously described and the master plan streets within them. We'll be focusing on two locations. It's the Neck Town Center shown in green. That's the Neck development. And the Middle Ridge development shown in red. The dashed green line from I69 to Connie Road 69 are are the planned streets on our streety transportation master plan. Can you'all identify that one? You know, the green line. Perfect. Mhm. >> The plan street is divided into three projects within our roadway master uh transportation plan. It's projects 1A which impacts all of neck the green parcel or the green development and portion and a portion of the Meadow Ridge development which is the red projects 1 A which impacts Me Ridge as well and proceeds um west to um to County Road 69. For reference, I've also included River Ridge development shown [snorts] in blue on this exhibit. I will explain the relevance of this development as part of our staff recommendation to the Metal Ridge request, which is the request for a red. Um, have I lost anyone yet? Okay, perfect. So right now I'm going to focus my first my first focus is going to be the first request which is from Neck and that's going to be on the green and then I'm going to move on to the second request which is for me the red. This is a summary of their requests. Neck um NEMIC as I mentioned is requesting deletion or removal of project 1A which is a C1 collector and a C1 collector um typically requires a rightaway dedication of 60 ft. Meadow Ridge is requesting removal or deletion of both projects 1A and 1 A and again that's also a C1 collector. Um and a C1 collector requires a router weight dedication of 60 ft. Um as I mentioned I'm going to focus on the NEMIC request first. This is just an overall picture of um of these of all the developments in that are going to be affected by these decisions. Um um as I mentioned um yeah so this is just a overall picture of as I mentioned how they're all going to be affected by these two decisions. Sorry. Um the the the Neck Town Center highlighted in green is requesting the removal for project 1A which is the black or green dash line you see there. Um that's what they're requesting. They're requesting the removal of this project of this C1 collector within the confines of their uh of their development. As a reminder, this is a commercial development. Moving on. So, city staff recommends the removal of project 1A within the neck development. Typically, public works traffic or public works recommends maintaining the master plan. However, the roadway master plan is a living document and we are open to changes within proper with proper justification that maintain the intent of the city's master plan and maintain public safety. Public Works is supporting this amendment request because of the because of it the of the commercial development and it has access to I69 to the east and county road 52 to the south. These roads are class um both the interstate and county road 52 are classified as a freeway and arterial um on the road on the city's master plan respectfully. These streets are meant to carry the highest volumes of traffic and this site has proposed access to both these major corridors which is why we're supporting the request. Additionally, the adjacent development to the west are the proposed um metal ridge development and it's not recommended to have commercial traffic of impial neighborhoods which is why again we're recommending the removal of this project this portion of C1 on their parcel or on their development. With me so far? Excellent. [snorts] Now I'm going to move on to the second request. The second request is from Meadow um Meadow Ridge Development. The red highlighted here in red. Their request is to remove two projects. Project 1A and project 1 A. Um as you can see, project 1A is the yellow. Project 1 is the green. um 1A and 1A meet right at the center of this of this development, the Middle Ridge development, which is why they need the removal of two projects, not just one. Um both projects are C1 collectors. Both projects um require a 60 foot ride rightway dedication. Um I'm not sure if you can see clearly, but within the red, uh the developer submitted a site plan to the city that wasn't in compliance with the master plan. um it only shows um connection to Kanye Road 52 and doesn't provide the access or um to east west as per the master plan. So I'm going to provide a little bit of findings um in regards to their request. Unlike our pre unlike the previous request, the NEMIC request for the Middle Ridge request, we're recommending to maintain the master plan streets um that are impacting Middle Ridge uh for the following reasons. Um as you can see there, uh the city has already approved a prior preliminary plat for Riveridge development. And I'm going to go back a couple of slides to show that the blue is the River Ridge development that's already been approved. When that came into play, they showed intent for connectivity, north, south connectivity, east, west by those lines in black, the solid lines in black. So they they they were in compliance with our roadway master plan. The site meets the criteria providing as I mentioned the site meets the criteria for external connectivity from um for more than one master plan street. It also will provide connectivity to the east west middle ridge um east to the middle ridge and west to county road 69. What I'm saying is the blue when when we accepted it and it's it's in it's been um beginning of construction right now their intent was to have connectivity north south and east west. So there so they met the criteria required as per the road master plan and that's already been accepted which is why for the meto ridge um request we're recommending that but I'm going to take one step back further. These are further findings. According to our unified development code, depending on the amount of units, we required a certain amount of external access points. The metal ridge development has approximately 89 units, which requires two points of access as per UDC. That's the first box right there 8.2.1D. According to that um development code, the number of units requires two access points. to the box below that we have box um section 8.2.1.e street street layouts that explains that when developments come into play or when something's being developed it has to match or it has to uh adhere to our roaded master plan. So based off these two um unified um based off these two codes and additionally um we are asking for them to adhere to the roadway master plan. Further um additionally um we have no notes here when um when these come into play we these get sent down to all the operation departments and we they get comments. fire provided a comment regarding access points because they require multiple access points for developments um based on their safety and also reflecting uh and and it um it's backed up by also our UDC believe fire is here if they if you wish to have any questions for them but all this to say all this information is to say that based as I mentioned all this information um our recommendation is as follows We want to essentially culdeac the east side of the property and provide access to the west for future or other developments. So we're asking them to adhere to the rideway master plan by keeping projects 1 and a portion of 1 AO that again as I mentioned provides access to county road 69 um and and um adheres to the master plan. County Road 69 or IH69. >> U Conor Road 69. So, >> oh, back. >> Yes. To to Yes, to the west. [clears throat] >> Um this is in summary. This is our recommendations. And as I explained earlier for NEMIC, they're re um they're recommending the limit the removal or deletion of project 1A. We are with that recommendation. And for the Meadow Ridge, we are recommending public works is recommending we maintain this dedication of of rightway and this street. Um but that um that's part that's those are two projects projects 1 and 1A that lead that provides accessibility to County Road 69 and provides um multiple um points of access and also um meets with our roadway master plan and I stand by for any questions. I hope >> got a question >> I hope that wasn't too confusing. back up several slides first. Let me know when to Oh, the slides are not there. Back right there. Okay. Okay. So, the Blue Development River Ridge, whenever a developer is bringing in a plat for approval and you have a um a roadway master plan C1 that you've you know in the what I'm going to call the not bold dash line and you know it's it's indicating that you want um is this I guess east west uh connectivity, right? Mhm. >> But whenever they jog it down, you know, cuz that's probably 300 ft uh to the south of where you know you had intended it to go like what what what kind of flexibility is there? Do they have to request any kind of amendments or anything to move that line? I believe if if the intent is being met and by the intent is connectivity and access I believe um these type of changes are allowed to be made in terms of processing um do we have any further detailed processing requiring that >> what I can say sorry I'm Renee Couture the assistant director for traffic and to answer your question as saying as long as the intent is met so the amendment process is really for if someone's trying to delete or change a classification move it off of their property. But if you're meeting the intent, if you have to shift it within your property, whether it's laterally or, you know, vertically, that's fine. That's not considered an amendment because you're meeting the intent in the plan. >> But if you I mean, >> but in this case, there was CPL easements and so that's why in this particular development, Riveridge, they shifted it further south to be outside of some CPL, I think a AAP easements, right, to maintain the east west connectivity. Yeah, I see your aerial easement and that's why all of these plats have kind of a no man's land on the north side. >> Correct. >> Um, now my next question is is um who owns the property in between River Ridge and Meadow Ridge and what is their intents with that prop intentions with that property? >> I wouldn't know at this point because that development hasn't come our way. >> Right. So, but you see where I'm going with this? The developer at Meadow Ridge is going to build a road to nowhere, right? >> Mhm. >> For a while. Um, now it makes sense if NEC Town Center built their portion of it cuz then you get your two access points, but in the meantime, you know, you don't really you you have nothing there right? >> Understood. >> Um, where is the where is the closest uh fire station? um >> station two of 7 IH69 and 624. >> So when you're responding to a call, um you're going to be coming down 69 on the access road and hanging right down 52 and then entering into the property from there. And your only other path is to go all the way around um back down 624 and then down County Road 69 and then, you know, at some point in the future come back across there. Yeah, I just don't see how this is addressing public safety if that portion at um in the commercial development isn't built out. >> Understood. And what was the justification again for that commercial development to you know suggest to recommend deletion? Um they have access so for that for that commercial development all that all that space has access to both interstate highway 69 and county road 52. So they have a current driveway leading to county 52 and a current driveway leading to highway 69 >> but I mean it's just a a fence at the back. >> Correct. I believe that. >> Right. So it kind of defeats the purpose right? You know, you've got instances in this town where you've got C1's through the middle of Moore Plaza. You got what is that? Blanchmore or >> uh what it um is that Blanchmore? What's that street called? By uh between PetSmart and Barnes & Nobles. >> Blanchmore. >> Um >> you want to talk about the >> Yeah. At one point we did um consider access. I believe that was um >> looked into. >> Yeah. I mean to your point, right? Um it's up to you, right? This is why we're bringing it to y'all. Um the developer presents their request. We provide our staff recommendation and it's up to y'all as planning commissioners to decide whether you support um or oppose the request. Um, we did reach out to Tex DOT as part of this engagement um, determining whether or not they would even approve a street there because there is an off-ramp in vicinity of where we propose the plan. And so depending on how the developer lays out their site, which we don't have that information right now, it may not warrant an installation of a driveway even to provide access. So that's just one point to consider as well. So when you have because you know text dot's very strict about um approaches and and the counts right they only want you to have one. So if that if this you know shopping center or whatever gets built there um I don't know >> this one's a tough one. I'm I'm kind of of the mind that it's it's an all or nothing thing, you know. Um either you have to have that connectivity through the commercial development to make it actually beneficial to public health and safety or you just eliminate them both. I don't think I don't think it does anybody any favors to not do one and do the other. >> And uh you know, one option is that you leave it on just for access, right? And um but you know our concerns too were just the impacts to the residential neighborhoods to the west. >> But even if you were to try to get where uh Neimic Town and then the Meadow Ridge that how are we to know that here in the middle area uh that land owner is even going to do anything in the next year to 10 years? >> Keep in mind that this is a plan, right? And it's built piece by piece. Um there's been, you know, the city invested money through a consultant to do future planning of our network. It doesn't get built all by once, right? As these developers show up, um they're required to adhere to the master plan. Like I said, within reason, we may consider an amendment if it's justifiable. But um this is how most of our network is built. It's not built all at once, but this planning helps set in place something in motion for us to preserve right of way to provide mobility throughout the city. >> Correct. >> So, um if you start removing an absence, you lose that ability in the future to have the network. You know, it may not happen now, but as development um continues to grow, like this area for years hasn't been developed, but now it is, right? So, that's where this master plan comes into play. >> Well, that seems to always happen with the master plan. we go ahead and approve a master plan and then years later as the development continues to start we start making amendments on all of these developments because of the the difference of the property the street and whatever it is that comes up. So I understand that there is a master plan here but I also know that there's been known for us to make amendments on master plans. >> Correct. And like I said, within reason. I mean, we bring it we bring the developers request to y'all and like I said, you you provide that recommendation to council. >> Okay. >> I I would like to with Commissioner Miller looking at this this is this to me is an all ornone thing as well. And you know, it doesn't seem to me that there's if you're not going to be able to provide access if that, you know, heaven forbid there is a an emergency. >> Correct. And those trucks have to come all the way down to 52 and then come up, right? That's one concern. But for us to to take out to take out Neck Town Center, that doesn't seem like a plausible thing. I just don't see I don't see how this thing meets [snorts] I I What is the What was the intent of the master plan to begin with >> into this whole thing? >> Provide access, regulation, and and um connectivity. So the reason why that would that that that's proposed to be taking off is for what reason? >> Our our recommendation for removing project 1A on the neck plat is so that we wouldn't impact the residential um developments um to the west. But that's why we come to you, you know, so that if that's not something viable, then we would you would to either deny or accept their request and then provide that recommendation to city council. to your point um you mentioned that you know from your perspective this is an all or nothing thing we understand. >> Yeah. I just I don't think that anybody is going to be you know like at at more plaza you do have a lot of traffic moving from especially with Everheart torn up right now. you we have a a uptick in in trips on Blanchmore, you know, as people try to access get back over to Staples or um anywhere, you know, throughout that area. >> I don't see anybody other than people living in that neighborhood running over to Academy or Hobby Lobby, you know, using that as because there's no there's no through traffic. >> Understood. >> Right. Yeah. >> Um and and public health and safety is incredibly important to me. And I I'm not a huge fan of one way in, one way out uh neighborhoods because I think it um causes traffic issues, but that's why I live in the Bay Area where everything's on a grid, you know, because you can cut through to all the C1s and the arterials and everything. And you know, it's not one way in, one way out of neighborhoods or one way or two ways in and out. >> [snorts] >> Um, so thank God I don't have to deal with that. But, um, it it just doesn't seem like it it does any good. And it and it's not uncommon, you know, um, for neighborhoods that get developed. And, you know, you always see the the Ballards and the and the big orange triangles where the road ends where it inevitably is going to get connected as development fills in. So, I get that. Um, do we have any other instances of C1s that dead end into a culde-sac anywhere in the city of Corpus Christie? [sighs] >> Um, none that come to mind right now, but um, I do know that there is access to like, you know, behind Blanch Plaza and Best Buy, stuff like that. >> Um, to your point, you know, you can make the recommendation that maybe the dedication wouldn't be something that's viable, but the access must be required or must be kept, >> right? Wait, say that again. >> Um, because here there's the rightway dedication and then that the axis comes along. Maybe the dedication of rightway wouldn't be required and correct me if I'm wrong. Um, but axes would be have to maintain but then that would affect the middle ridge in terms of um where how the design would have to be applied to show access from neck to me. These are two different developers. Yeah, because we don't know what what could happen with that missing um piece of the puzzle there. So, you said you're saying that to your recom um as you mentioned, you know, it's an all or nothing thing. Um if your recommendation is not what we were proposing and in terms of removal of project 1A, you would keep it. that would that would provide access to any future development behind NEMIK. Um that would affect them, you know, in that terms which is understood and they would have to >> go follow along with that with those that domino effect of recommendations where now now >> um whatever Middle Ridge has to provide has to show access as well. >> Isn't the property north of Nimik owned by Walmart? I'm not sure. >> Uh I'm I used to live out that way. I'm pretty sure it is. So needless I mean where I'm going with this is there's small likelihood that that would ever be developed for anything other than Walmart's purposes. >> What are you talking about, Mike? >> North of the green shaded area is owned by Walmart >> on the other side of the ditch. >> Yep. And north of Meadow Ridge is owned by Corpus Christie Medical Center. Uh north of River Ridge is another development which is what that north south black line represents. It should be River Ridge Drive. >> Um it's benefits of living out that way for a little while. I used to take 52 quite often. So to your point, most people aren't taking County Road 52 to anywhere other than bypassing 624 if they're going if they live farther out 624 and you don't want to be blocked into Cal Allen traffic. You take County Road 52 all the way to 1889. You make your merry way out out west. >> Or if you're test driving a car >> or if you're test driving a car, >> any of the dealerships. >> Yep. >> Check out the cool suspension on the bumps. >> I just don't I don't see the the viability of putting a collector road where it's located given that, you know, you have commercial development to the east and an unknown ownership intention to the west. Um it, you know, as a former firefighter, as long as the roads are wide enough, I can get my apparatus in and out given an emergency. I the chief might have some other uh ideas behind that, you know, but if we have access, we can get into where we need to go. >> Understood. Any other questions from >> Can can you talk a little bit about the um the River Ridge development and the black line that is in compliance with the project um A1A? It seems it seems a little far away and I'm just concerned if let's just say hypothetically A1 and A1 A um A1 A1 A both happen, you're going to have to do some kind of jogging up and down to to make that road >> potentially. Yes. Um as like Fred's Folly. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Yeah. As I as I mentioned potentially, you may be accurate. Um as I mentioned the if you take a look at the red so um if you can see what they've designed they have two culde-sacs um going east west the potentially that could be moved more to in line with what um Riveridge is already um placed um you know so or there could be jogging but yeah >> I and I guess I guess for for future um you know plans there are you saying there's no deline ation like this one is what 300 ft away from the proposed road. How far can you go without having to >> I do I do know that this this was there was a specific reason behind this and it was the the what it called the >> the aerial easement overhead power lines. >> So that was that that was the reason for this removal u this this um shift of that road. >> Does that road meet the C1 collector status? >> Believe it does. is I believe the rightway dedication for it was 50 ft and I believe the the street that was built is a C1 stat classification if I'm correct. >> Um and also a question about and I saw the the fire chief came up so he probably was going to answer this one but there the requirement is that um houses over 80 have two entrances in and out >> developments over >> development yeah over 80 have two inches in and out. So um this one has one can you go back to the map please? Um, it's okay. It has one. And if we go with staff's recommendation of of getting rid of one AO, um, and doing the portion on Meadow Ridge, there's a a future plan for a second access, but there's going to be years where there will only be one access. And I'm just curious to know if that I mean, will that be in compliance? because I know the two are required, but even if we make them build that road, it's not going to be connected to anything for for some time. >> Correct. But, uh, as we mentioned, it's trying to meet the intent of the master plan, and that's ultimately like why we're here. As to your point, >> yes, these plans exist. Yes, they can be amended. Um, but our what we look what we look for is trying to comply and meet that intent as much as possible, as close as possible. We understand that in some cases developments may happen over years. We understand that. But if if we don't start now trying to meet that intent or trying to meet this plan, um potent that's a potential of never really never really happening. >> There there's also the property that's to the west of River Ridge. Is that still privately owned or is that under predicted development? >> I'm not entirely sure. Um unfortunately in my in my position, I'm only aware of developments that uh like are going through the planning process or the public improvement process. on that preview too. >> I guess where I'm going with this is to accomplish the goals of the C1 collector from east to west from I69 to County Road 69. We only have what looks to be maybe a,000 ft or a couple thousand feet of road in the middle of River Ridge that's already planned developed. Correct. >> Approximately. Yes. >> So we we don't we have one property in the middle of two undeveloped properties that we don't know. to the chairman's point, we don't know if these are going to be developed in a year or 10 years or that person might live there and their kids might live there and their grandkids might live there. Um, and then you also, you know, you have to consider that there is a county road what less than a quarter mile away from your C1 collector. It just I don't know. I'm I'm having a hard time figuring out why we need a second road. the the common and and firefighter can can attest to this and you and you know this Mike, you were a firefighter. I mean, the common uh wisdom is you got to have at least two access points to a neighborhood, >> right? And even though it hadn't been built yet, you know, there there's plenty of instances in this town where we were these things have been granted. I just don't know why we're eliminating the section um on the commercial development because that's where that extra access point would actually be useful. >> Makes more sense. That's your first approach with an apparatus. Yeah. >> From the fire responding station. >> Mhm. would be that commercial access. >> Yeah. But then you also have the text dot variable and there's a lot of different um this one's got a lot of ingredients in the soup. So I guess we'll hear from fire and I'm sure >> let's hear what the fireman has to say. >> Good evening uh commission. My name is uh Tony Pettis. I'm an assistant chief with the fire department. Also serve as a fire marshal. And uh a lot of these I they come across my desk all the time. And I'll premise this with anytime that we can have the secondary access that that that's so vitally important. And and it's not so much the with it uh with one entrance. If that entrance was to get blocked off and of course this is uh worst case scenarios, but like an MV like we have a fire in the neighborhood and then there's an MVA right at the entrance that blocks off the neighborhood. We have to be able to access the rear part of the neighborhood. And that's where that secondary uh access comes because there have been variances in the past where we tried to widen the road and do some different things to try to do that. But anytime we can have a secondary access or entrance point that's going to be beneficial to us. So I'll premise it with that. We have in the past um to answer your question Mike um or your concern like where we have future developments. Rancho Vista is a perfect example where we only had one entrance initially but we knew that there was going to be future developments and connectors along the way. Then we totally understand that it's happening in London as well right now in some neighborhoods to where we say it's at 80 cap. So we'll say hey when you get to this um development at this amount let's keep it at the under and we're within the intent of the code and then after as soon as we start to make those connections then we can continue with your phase and development. So I hope that answers some of it. Um there are some options like on the commercial. I understand that we don't want to have traffic from academy going into the neighborhood. It would affect the neighborhood, you know. Um there's been other accesses where you have the the road, but um a gate with Knox Key, which is we only have access to. We're the only ones that can access that. So you don't have through traffic, but it is a fire access that could get us into the neighborhood if we had to in that worst case emergency scenario. It would never be traveled. Um, it could be maintained by the commercial, but the Knox lock, I mean, it's a pad lock that they put on there. We have a key to it. We can open it and access it. So, I wanted to throw that out there. But, we always support if we can have some secondary access of some sort. Um, we are kind of just right at that threshold of um 80. They were at 89 and this 80, but it still is um outside of that 80 cuz originally was 50 and we upped it to 80 because we see how this happens. We never want these landlock situations where we just cannot access, you know, the rear part of the structure. that's your home on the on that back street. I'm sure that you'd be concerned about it as well. And I'm also open to answer any questions if you do have any. >> Commissioner, any questions? >> I think that, you know, a gate solution that that is one option and that's very reasonable in my opinion and and to your point, it allows access to the rear of the development. Um, you know, I guess that would be, you know, something for conversation. >> Okay. Any other questions? My my question be is if we need to if we wanted to amend it with the gate option, we would need them to be able to come back and and re um and resubmit. Is that would that what require for the plans? >> Possible, but I think I want to hear the uh after their presentation, we'll hear the applicant's um >> presentation. Sure. >> What I would say is you have um you take what's presented in front of you and then you make your recommendation and then we would go with that. So there's no need to bring back the item for this. You would just you could make a modification or whatever your recommendation would be for this. And you know I would add as far as these access points um you have examples like for example you have Sam's and I don't know if anyone's traveled that little connection back to um is it not Corona but to um >> Williams >> Williams in the rear that is actually a city maintained roadway that little strip. recently with Best Buy. With the changes before the rent reversal, the city paid for that connection from Best Buy back to Corona. So, you have these little pieces that are built that may not require full dedication within the full commercial development, but it's a little piece maintained by the city that provides connectivity to one of our master plan streets. So, um that's the other point I'd add. >> Okay. Thank you. Um any other questions for staff? If not, then uh I'll go ahead and open up the consent public hearing on uh item number four. If anybody would like to come and speak. >> Moses Mastagasi, do we have to say our district here like council? No. Okay. >> Can you start the presentation from the beginning just so I can go through it all? I don't know how to do it. Sorry. Somebody Anybody? Anybody? Sorry. >> Oh, from the very beginning. >> I want to just go through every slide. >> I don't know how to >> There it is. >> Okay, >> there it is. >> All right. Perfect. Okay. So, we have two situations happening here. As a land developer, what I do is I look at well, I'll start off with I'm Moses Magosi, MPM development. I was also the chair of the impact fee committee, which pushed forward the master plan that you're looking at now. So, our committee actually looked at I think it was 160 to eight of these C1 collector the grid lines throughout the city to see what needs to be changed, what doesn't need to be changed based on future land use plans. uh modified plans, developed areas, and somehow we missed this one, but um I'll go [snorts] through it and kind of explain. So, a C1 collector by UDC regulation is a road that's a 60-foot ride ofway with a 40ft backtoback street. So, the neighborhood to the west does not have a C1 collector going east west. And just like George said, that's what makes a C1 collector. So the master plan has not been followed by the development to the west. It has a east west street because it has two northwest or north south streets that it has to connect to. You asked a question on uh who owns the property right here. The same land owner who owns the property right here. This is why this road connects because he wants to build a larger development. Now, they submitted their master plat which got approved in 2020. It took them six years to develop just the 60 lots that they did up to this road right here. And there are no houses that are being built there currently. This develop this piece of property was bought by the same land owner 7 years ago and they also own all the stuff on this side. This piece of property here is owned by an old lady who's never going to move. I know. And then this piece of property here which passes the C1 collector because for whatever reason it dies right here. It doesn't actually connect into a future street that is about right here in an older neighborhood is also the same land owner as this one. This one and further south. So that's why they left this road here. So I want to make sure we talk about two different things. One question I do have for legal is that this body has already approved. >> God bless. >> He can continue. >> This is not counsel. Please don't give me stress. [laughter] Um >> Miss Cababayto. >> Yeah. >> Please have a seat. >> Yeah. Sorry. Leave the leave the cops out, please. Um so this area right here has a preliminary plat that was approved by this body. a master plat that was approved by this body, a final plat that was approved by this body without a C1 collector deletion. So these people who have already invested in their construction plans, development, have a 380 agreement, bought all these different properties to do a huge development, and they saw no need for a road to ruin their development, especially a road that's on the what 15% at the very top of their property. Now, they could have came and done what Blanch Moore did and say, "Hey, we're going to put the road right here because that's where we think it's best, right? But they chose not to have it because they have driveway accesses." They don't want to have a road to go through. What I would like to know from the legal standpoint is does a master plat or a preliminary plat already approved by this body supersede a UTP amendment? Can y'all answer that or no? I can address the commission if they have any questions. >> Okay. Well, I'll let y'all ask that question. So, so right now there is an approved plat and as a land developer, what did I do? I saw this road, what I call a road to nowhere in an easement at the very top of my property, which if you go to this one here, you'll notice it's on the outside of what we developed. and I saw that road there and I told myself,"Well, that doesn't make sense because this is already approved and I don't see a road and this road can't actually happen unless you want to ruin this whole development because there's a drainage easement right here. So, the whole gate idea can't happen because there can't be roadway that goes through here. Just so everybody's aware and this road here doesn't follow the master plat. You can call it an east west road, but generally with a UTP amendment or an alignment change, you still have to submit something. They submitted a plat, it got approved, which means this road does no longer exist on their plat as well. This C1 collector, you can't say he shifted it down. If he shifted it down, then there shouldn't be any houses fronting this road because that's what a C1 collector is. C1 collector is going to be lipes where it's it takes an x amount of traffic through. Our committee also upped the trip count on a C1 collector. So if you come to the original slide, you'll see the trip count for my development is 66 and 89. A C1 collector holds 4 to 8,000 trips a day. So there is no need for a C1 collector to go through this property. So that's the that's when we're talking about connectivity, right? And I love entrances. I love different points of access. But unfortunately, this storage unit did not want to sell me this property. I bought this property nine months ago. Found a buyer for it. Developed it, platted it, submitted all my construction plans as I always always do. I looked to my left, I looked to my right, and I told myself, I'm going to ask for an 87 lot community. It's not 89. These two pieces of properties in the front are actually easements for the same power lines that are in the back are also in the front. So what a C1 collector is supposed to do is give connectivity for Northwest Crossing and County Road 52. And this C1 collector for it to be a true C1 collector should go all the way to 1889. But it dies at 69. If you look at like Leipes, Leip starts at Airline, it goes through Simron, it goes through Staples, it goes through Everheart. That's what these type of roads are supposed to do. Take traffic off of a Yorktown or Saratoga by dumping it on a lights. They go the same direction, right? And I'm I'm only going through all this because, you know, I had to live this for five and a half years on my committee. Um, so ultimately asking for they asked for a C1 collector to be removed, which I believe is removed because you've already determined that on their plat or their plat is void, which means their development is technically void, which means their 380 agreement, I would assume, is void because they can't go and do this development, right? >> Ju just for point of information, the plat is not void. Well, I'm I'm saying it could be void if y'all determine that a UTP change if today this >> the final plat has not been recorded. So, >> it's not recorded. >> So, you can't void something that has not been recorded. >> Okay? So, you can't do this final plat. You can't develop it. I'm going to ask this body, if you want me to put in a C1 collector, then this C1 collector needs to start right here and have a true intent and go all the way to this point. obviously in the future, but you can't sit here and justify and say, "Well, this is his C1 collector and he's a commercial guy and you know, we can give him uh a difference." Because these same people came to buy this property from me. And I told them, "No, they wanted to make it commercial." I said, "No, I want to do my own residential neighborhood here. That's what I bought it for." And I denied selling it to them because they wanted to expand, I guess, on their project right here. Now again, I tried to buy this here. So when I started this development, I actually reached out to the fire department um knowing that the lot size and the conformity of how the property fell, we fell at 87 lots, which is seven over the amount. What we've done in the short term and the long term is put a double entrance in the front of the plat, which is a 44 foot wide road with a median in between. So that worst case scenario because I've heard this, you know, for the 20 years I've developed here is when you're over an x amount of lots, you have to have have multiple points. So we always do larger developments and have multiple points. In this case, we're doing this one thing in one phase. And I can't be stuck at either 50 or 80. I have to have be able to get permits for all my lots at one time. So what I've recommended is do exactly what's in London town on the east and west side of Pirate Lane. Exactly what's done at uh Manhattan Crossing, which is over 110 lots, which will never have any future access, is put a double entrance here. So, god forbid somebody gets in a car accident here and this house is burning that the fire department is not slowed down. Public safety is very important to me, but I can't imagine that a fire truck is going to come here, potentially turn into a shopping center, right? and let let's just go worst case scenario, go we're going to go into the shopping center, then try to find the key to open up the padlock to get to this house when they could have just came down here, turned here, turned in the neighborhood and got to this house. If fire department is saying that tomorrow having an entrance way here is important, I can respect that 100%. But it doesn't solve my problem of my 87 lots today. And that's why we did the double entrance. Now, just for context though, this still cannot be considered a C1 collector. We need to classify things correctly. You can't justify and say that the neighborhood next door qualifies just because they have an east west street. You can't even justify on the master plan for a C1 collector because they just gave you the trip count and the trip counts aren't anywhere near 4 to 8,000 trips a day which is what justifies as a C1 collector. One other option that I have and depending on where this body wants to move forward on is that I just turn this into a gated community because that is an option. There are plenty of gated communities. Buckingham Estates, the one on um >> Bentry, >> Bentry, the one on Saratoga, um even London Town right now, gated community, double access points. Um we could put a gate here and make this an 87 lot community. If this C1 collector is not followed by the the the east property and the west property, you can't keep it on the master plan as a C1 collector. It it technically should not even be considered a C1 collector from here to here on the master plan because they already have an approved plat that shows this is a 50-ft ride ofway with homes on top of it. So, we didn't expect to be here. We didn't expect to be pushed out two months. We've actually sold all these lots. We have a buyer who's going to build 87 houses in 18 months, put $35 million worth of homes on the ground. Um, they're a really good builder and they want to have their own private neighborhood. We don't know who's building in this neighborhood, what quality, what style, what type of homes. We don't know if and when they'll do this development considering they just took six years to do 50 lots. They have another 50 lots here and this is about the same size as mine. Um, you'll probably have about 87 to 90 lots in here. You're with that math, you're about 15 years away just for this little section. in the fact that the entrances uh according to the fire department, we've always liked to have an a oneway in and a one way out. Uh the entrance that you are planning on developing is in compliance with the fire department. >> It will I'm not going to speak for the fire chief, but I believe based on past history, gated communities, it should follow the intent of the fire code. Again, if there was a a a true fire and safety issue, I would be looking at different things. If this road, let's just say this property was developed and this road existed, I would have drawn to that. If this road was touching my property and already developed over here, I would have built to that. But I spent the last nine months, putting this plat together, PI plans, and going through the process of finding a buyer. Sold it prematurely, I guess, in a sense, because I didn't assume that this would be a problem considering I study my east and west and also understand the fire code very well. And told myself, this shouldn't be a big deal. It meets every other requirement. Actually, as of today, the BI the PI plans are 100% approved besides this UTP amendment. Um, we were hoping to have the plat here today. So, you could approve the UTP as one item and the plat is another item. The plat will be coming February 4th. And once we have the plat out of um the city, we'll probably start March 1st. We'll have homes on the ground probably starting in October. This development will be finished. these de this builder wants to do these 87 lots in about 18 months. So, they're going to come in, do their job, and move to the next development. But again, if I had access here, I would have done it. >> Okay? >> If if this existed, I would have done it. But to say that this is a C1 collector or the intent was met here is completely inaccurate. To say that, you know, that there's an option here, I don't see the option here. I don't think the shopping center owners or really anybody I mean just imagine if you lived in a community and you just had a big old gated, you know, fence there and it's not a gated community. Well, I rather have a road that just leads out. >> I mean, that's just my I don't think I don't want it to look bad because it just has one gate to lead to somewhere where one individual or one entity has a key for it. That doesn't make any sense to me. Okay. So, I I don't like that option. Um I would like to leave this the way it is because we're ready to move forward today. Um but again, we did our homework. We studied the left. We studied the right. I assumed that this road actually was deleted and it was just still on the master plan that we updated exactly two years ago uh this month. But this neighborhood was approved in 2020. This neighborhood was approved in 20 or just three months ago in October. Okay. >> So, this body approved that. So, any questions you have for me, please ask. >> Commissioners, any questions? The applicant. Okay. If not, then um ask anyone else if they'd like to come and speak on this. >> The just to answer your question, the two the the two gates would not meet because of the rule of remoteness. um the gates have to be the two entrances have to be um away from each other. So um that would be a variance that we have done in the past the other examples that he's provided and that's when you have a landlock situation there's no other options then we would consider that and that's what he he's speaking about. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Any others to speak on this? >> Madam Chair, if I could just add one more correction. So, River Ridge, which is the blue box to the west, has only final the front half of the subdivision. The portion containing the C1 collector, the final plat has not been submitted, has not been to this body, and is most definitely not recorded. So, that conversation has yet to be had. >> Okay. >> Well, what about NEMIC? >> NEMIC is approved by planning commission. It is not recorded. It is still going through the public improvement process. And it is not uncommon that changes happen to plat during PIs. We've done it for London Town. We've done it for Rancho Vista. We've done it for King's Landing. Uh where changes do occur in between the approval by planning commission and ultimately recordation because as we go through PI's engineering things come up >> and what would happen if Tex wouldn't grant them another approach? That is a a question that if NEM decides to build, which I highly doubt that will occur because that is where the detention ponds will be located. There is a large 75 ft a easement that that connection probably will never happen. Uh but the question would be the connectivity of this residential subdivision to its partners to the west. Now, that could be done at a residential street level, not necessarily at a collector level. But again I'm looking at it through the perspective as a planner and under the opice of the UDC versus transportation standards >> question did so Nimic we we had this this was a this road this C1 was put in on a master plan but Nimic is putting retention ponds where the C1 collector is supposed to be >> correct >> how can they do that >> if That's what we're asking. >> Every commercial development is because of its out the pre and post calculations of runoff have to put may mitigate uh what they can dump on text dot roads which is zero. Text dot says you cannot discharge anything. So you have to come up with a mitigation that typically is surface detention ponds. So, >> so, so do they still are they still required to be able to if we deny the request, are they still going to be required? They're going to put them on top of the retention ponds. >> They would have to either go underground and have holding systems. They would have to alter their design and relocate where the detention ponds are located. Now that is aside from the a easement which typically a only allows you to perpendicularly cross an easement not be parallel and under. >> Now they do want room for maintenance of course which impacts even the drainage design for for meto ridge that you cannot put the detention ponds within the same a easement. So these factors are still being worked out and discussions before we bring the plat to you. I think we found solutions, but that is why the plat and the UTP or I keep saying UTP roadway master plan amendment are being heard simultaneously tonight. >> Okay, any other questions? >> Oh, um >> yeah, I I just wanted to clarify something else. Um going back, I don't know if we could uh put the images back on the screen, the exhibit. So just to clarify and I know it was just mentioned that this does not meet uh keep in mind that we're talking about different timelines as well right we had as Andrew said an urban transportation plan that was in existence for probably 50 60 years right that showed the these alignments that you see um on the screen now for this particular development when they came through yes they were trying to meet the intent of the plan um keep in mind that public works when we started this presentation uh George noted that now this is under the administration of public works. So what happened or what you know happened before us those are things that are beyond our control right and things that we're trying to course correct moving forward um how the master plan is handled right um what amendments are made so at the time of this master plan approval for Riveridge there was a shift it got approved right that was not beyond our control but at that time it got approved right with a 50-foot rightway but the UDC as George referenced right when you're talking about a street layout it was it's It's a planned street, not necessarily a master plan street, but it meets the intent of the master plan by providing that east west connectivity. We do have examples that's been approved before where we have a 60oot rightway tying into a 50-foot. Um, we could find numerous examples, right, of things that don't necessarily coincide with what the code has today and what's been approved. But now that this is under our administration, part of our job is to try to course correct. Like I said, we went to the plan. As Moses said, it was a two-year process that went through public comment, public review. Um, as he noted, there was a north south collector here that got removed as part of that process. You know, that was beyond our control through public comment. There was a north south collector. Um, that would have probably impacted the property in red and green. Um, but that got removed from the master plan through that process. Right. What stayed on is this East West collection collector that we're talking about. Even if you're going to try to do this course correct, it's going to it's it's going to put a burden on all these that have already been uh planned out. >> You know, the neemic has already been set and done. So all these changes that the that you're going to try to make upon them, it's just and >> it's this isn't changing. They're asking us to change this because >> they screwed up and didn't. But even if they change that, there's this plan here will have to be changed according to this change. >> I know. But what I don't think is fair is that y'all are putting it on one developer and not the other, right? Like and and the idea of a culde-sac C1 collector is absurd to me. Like why why are we doing that, you know? >> No. And and and and that's fair. And like I said, it's y'all's decision. >> This this definitely should have come before this body for a UTP amendment prior to uh the approval of the Nimic Plat. I mean, it's simple as that. >> Correct. And as as George noted, we're only involved in the process when we get the plat as part of a submitt to the city. And at that time, we review the plat to see conformance with the master plan. And at that time, we make the comment that either your plat conforms or doesn't conform to the master plan and you have to go through the process of going to plan. Commissioner, I'd also note that the the the Nimik was a preliminary, so there's still time. >> Yes, there's still time. And then with regards to the trips, right, being a C1 collector, as as Moses noted, right, the number of trips, um those are just the peak hour trips. So that's just for one hour. You multiply that times 24 hours in a day, you know, even if it doesn't meet the 66, right? Because that's a peak trip that it would be generated in one hour. You reduce that, you multiply that times 24, you get a bigger number, probably close to 1500 or more in a day. But then you add all those other developments that would have access to that street. You get closer to that threshold that he talks about to two, maybe greater than 8,000. Remember, these streets, you have your local streets, it takes internal traffic. These collector streets collect from all these minor residential neighborhoods and then they're they're built to capacity to sustain all the traffic from that. Those collectors lead to higher classifications of streets. So we can't just look at one development and say my my development only generates x amount of traffic. We have to look at it in totality, right? And that collector road would provide that access. We do have requirements that we'd like to see in planning about the spacing between collectors and arterials. That's why this road was here. You know, um I [clears throat] do agree like I said if if y'all fe find that it's more feasible to create the whole connection, that is that is your decision, right? um whether or not you want to look at it as a whole or support the recommendations that we brought forth today. >> So the NEMIC hasn't been fully approved, correct? Okay. So do we kill that whole deal because there is a planned retention pond right there to put in a C1 collector and then you know possibly they don't build um for a theoretical road that you know right now. >> No, they just have to move stuff around. >> They'd have to move stuff around, right? >> And maybe not build what they intended to build. Well, I don't I don't know the answer to that, but I mean the whole thing that that I get heartburn about [clears throat] is just because, you know, >> I think I don't know it just I don't know whether it seems like favoritism or what, but there's been multiple instances of this and um you know, I just want to make sure that we're doing our best to treat everybody equally. >> I agree. uh from the development community, you know, because it's not council, it's not planning commission, it's not any of our in any of our preview to pick winners and losers. And so I just want to make sure that that we are when we're having these pre-development meetings with everybody. I mean, this wasn't talked about in pre-development. I mean, that's a very highprofile project. It's all over the news. So this wasn't talked about in their pre-development discussions that yeah, you need a C1 collector right here. So pre-development meetings are going to cover probably eight different departments simultaneously and and all types of things are being thrown at the design group. Uh usually we're dealing with multiple consultants. Not all the time do architects, engineers, the consultant, the owner all talking to each other in the same language. And that's not to throw blame on anyone. Every project that's high-profile tends to get lost in a in a mire and part of development services responsibility is to facilitate and be kind of the guide to get you through the process. It sounds horrible when it comes out like that, but the idea is to be that trail guide. Now, when plats go out as part of that process to the technical review committee, again, we're getting lists of 80 comments sometimes on a particular project. It's not to say we're human, we missed it. But I think in this case, it may have been confused with another portion or said you're going to find other means of moving traffic within the site and it was a box that's checked. Now, this went through a master prelim, a prelim, and now a final on an expedited path. And like everything else in this world, when you rush because we're trying to meet 380 agreements, we're trying to meet other deadlines for council, things get again lost in that mix. I have a feeling that's exactly what happened in this scenario. Now with bigger projects and projects of the similar size, we have now instituted more precautions, greater communication between the technical groups, the other departments to where Corpus Christie water, public works, traffic, all of us are now speaking the same language at the same time. Not only the meetings, but as the plat is going through, we're having follow-up meetings to say, let's just make sure something doesn't fall off the radar inadvertently. uh because this is one of the reactions that can happen. Now, uh as Renee mentioned in the past, when you do have amendments to the roadway master plan, it it's not always, as you so eloquently said, all or nothing. You can make adjustments to the type of road that can be installed. Uh whether you want to shrink the rideway and make it just a standard 50-ft rideway. Uh we've done that with half streets when they border on other developments and you're having to split the difference between two subdivisions. one is way ahead of the ball game and we got to wait for the other one to catch up. So, there are other tools in the toolbox that I think we can come to a compromise that serves the access point to get west without laboring and and putting a burden of a full 60oot rideway that dead ends into a culde-sac. >> Okay, >> any other questions? >> Uh, okay, Moses, I'll go ahead and allow this one time. So, and I appreciate what Andrew said, but at the end of the day, we have an appro just like Neimic. We have a plat we've invested. We've gone through the process. Now, Neim has an approved [clears throat] plat already today. I understand that they say changes can happen, but ch we have never changed a preliminary plat or a final plat once it's been approved. In my 21, I have not changed one lot dimension or or added a road network or added a street in any shape or form in any development. >> I just rewatched Pinocchio. I'm not saying anything, but there's been uh a certain King's Landing development that doubled in lot counts. Again, not >> No, you're you're we didn't change the road network. We've added lots or subtracted lots based on the market. All but we have not changed the road network. things are dynamic based on working conditions. >> There's a big difference here. So I I really need this body to understand that there are two different things that there's a UTP amendment that's not being followed to the east with an approved plat maybe not constructed maybe not recorded and already and even though he mentioned it's not a final plat you've already approved the prelim a prelim is just the larger version of a final because they break it up into phases. I only have I don't have a prelim because I'm doing it all in one phase. That's why we brought we're going to bring you one final plat. We we need to either gate this community, which we still get the two points of access off of County Road 52, because we're not going to be able to shift our road down to align with what somebody else has in a plan that according to him is or according to me or him is approved by prelimin but not approved by finals. So, if I shift my street down or I leave my street where it is, does he have to come back and realign to me or do I technically have to align to him because he has an approved prelim? >> It's Fred's folly all over again. >> Yes. >> So, it'll be his problem on the connecting piece of property later down the road. >> No, it's my problem today because he hasn't a prelim that's approved. >> Maybe it's maybe going to be the middle guy's problem because he might have to put a street like this. Yeah, that's >> from me to him and do a curve in his piece of property instead of it being a straight line. >> And this is not to air again process is ever moving, ever evolving. The UDC is much like the constitution. It's it leaves room for amendment for a reason. It's not perfect. Technically, every plot has to go through a prelim and a final. In this scenario, because of its size, we compromised and said, let's go ahead and go straight to final since it's one phase. Typically, it would have to go through a prelim and we would have re had this exact discussion at that stage. So, jumping to final was already a hair premature, [clears throat] but nevertheless, we it stand by the decision uh to go forward straight to final. when that final comes in for River Ridge down the road, if it's not aligning perfectly and why we allow that what I like to use Texas terms, a football field up ways or down moving a road, that is at a time an adjustment can happen. It is not typical and I I'll concede that to Moses. It is not typical, but I have uh seen that happen where we have to make adjustments. So the two points like Fred's folly, the two points where it kind of weirdly curves, we have to find a way to make the two meet without having these sharp 90° turns. Uh I can say in the last year I I had a plat between in a final plat. I won't say the developer that rhymes Brazleton, but it uh it changed its roadway network and luckily they were residential streets. They weren't UTP streets or roadway master plan streets. They weren't collectors, but there was a reworking and we had to find a way to make sure all the roads connected back to Rome. So, it's not an impossibility. It's just part of the business. Market conditions change, lot size fluctuate. Part of our our job at development services is to find that path without having to come back to planning commission every time and drag out the process because a lot of these are simple fixes as put an exit here, move a line there, make the ditch a little wider, make the ditch a little narrower. They're not uh rocket science decisions. >> So let's say we recommended no change to the UTP right now >> and the developer decided to gate that community. Then what happens? >> So gated communities will that's a good question. So gated communities will the HOA will be responsible for maintaining all of the streets including drainage. And that's another question that comes up on this one because once you open the door to the HOA you have to cover everything. So that that's why we we as development services try to find that middle ground of saying okay maybe you don't need a 60 foot rideway. Riveridge already agreed to a 50. Let's do a 50 here. One in end's a culde-sac. You're already going to have a culde-sac on one side and leave an exit out to the to the west and we're done. Everybody's relatively happy. Um um but you don't so he doesn't have to provide connectivity to it if he puts a a gate around it, a fence around it and says this is a private community, >> right? And we've had to do that on the edges of the city limits. I know it's happening on the edge of King's Landing where it connects on the outside. Uh now where the benefit of the urban transport or the roadway master plan I'm sorry I'm going to have to get a dollar for every time I say UTP but the benefit of the roadway master plan is also prevents on the outside of the city limits people from cutting you off with a gate. So there was a discussion about connecting outside uh to another collector back then. It's not a perfect science. So, we we take it case by case and we try to find a means that makes both developers happy and to where uh we've encountered it. You've heard that subdivision that's on uh 1889 Amanda Lane >> where they're cutting through our development. You'll hear that phrase, they're cutting through my development. Well, it's it's a public road, maybe a county road. You can't cut people off. But again, we had a conversation with a few of the commissioners. We found a path to where everybody benefits by connectivity and you find that compromise. Uh, I would say planning is more becoming more psychology than it's ever roadway master planning. It's just trying to find people to see the common ground and the common interest by having just that little bit of connectivity but without having to build a boulevard that connects both subdivisions. Would it be possible? Is it possible for us to or make a recommendation to since Moses has the recommendation to be able to make it a private uh gated community for us to just eliminate the 60oot easement alto together? >> You can what's on the board as traffic mentioned is >> [clears throat] >> uh you can say close everything, close half, make adjustments. All of those are at your disposal. Again, is what I said earlier, this isn't this is an all ornone thing. As Moses said earlier, he's exactly right. If you're not going to if you're not going to hold Neck to, you know, following through on something like this, then what's the sense in making those other those other developers on the hook for having to put that in? It's either going to happen, right, and we're going to run it all the way through or we just take it all the way off and say that's it. It's and and I'm probably speaking well out of turn, so I'm sure I'll get uh email tomorrow, but the the question would be, do you need a full 60oot ride of way on the north side of the subdivision? As a planner, I would say 50 ft's going to solve you're going to get your turn radius for your fire apparatus. The stats that we see today, 85% of fire calls are medical related, not you just don't know which vehicle is going to respond. In every preliminary meeting I've sat in, that is the number one question. It's not what the call is, it's which vehicle will respond. So you're going to have every EMS, which every firefighter can get the fire chief. Chief, could you I have a question. So because this is what uh when when Andrew brought this thing up. So tell me tell me about when we're going to go through and we're talking about this 60 foot and we cap it down to a 50 or we remove the 60 remove it all together. Okay. Is that does that affect your response time and being able to get being able to get for in Can we bring this back up the what we had said earlier? Can we bring it the map >> of it? Do we know how to do that? >> Sure. >> Of the the map of all all three there. >> That one there >> being able to come down 69. So we we're you're going to take out number two fire station two. Is that what's going to >> Yes. >> Okay. So it comes down 69 hangs right on 52. Okay. If we if we eliminate the the 60 foot all all together. Okay. The how does that affect your your department and being able to respond to a fire? >> So, let me let me preface it with the we're trying to meet in the intent code. So, um, as far as how it affects, um, whether if I it's a little faster if I went through the C1, um, AO because it's shorter. U, but it's more so in the event of like a blocked exit entrance. That's what we're we're worst case scenario is what we're looking. That's where that second egress comes in, that second access. So, it I mean, it's not really going to affect on on response time. time. I mean, it's just minimal because it's just the distance between those two. Um, but it would be if it was blocked is where that's where this is a worst case scenario uh where we have to get to the back side of the neighborhood, >> but but the split entrance with the median in between kind of addresses that concern. >> Uh, not for remoteness because it uh it's one half of the uh Okay. Yeah. the diagonal of the the project. You take one half of that and this sorry, it's ICS fire code. It's just the way that they do it. But you take one half that distance and that's how far apart those um accesses have to be. And so by doing at a at a split gate, you're you're you're not you're not meeting that remoteness. You're just identifying an entrance and an exit, but you you don't have the the the separation. And that's and we run into this quite a bit actually. And so it's we're really trying to, you know, uh make sure that we do have that secondary egress and access. And uh this is one of those projects that's just kind of like a the the when when we Moses and I first talked about it was like a landlocked situation is what he was describing. And and this is another thing too for future and it's going to come to your commission because we never as far as uh variances for the fire code. I'll just go down this road very quickly. I never want to make a situation where now these landlocked projects are um uh what what would be the word that they're that They're they're they're looking for those that I know that I can get this variance. I'm going to uh they're appealing for developers to like let me find the one that I I have no other options. So fire is going to approve this because they have to. We want this is like a you know this the the wider two entrances is like a last case scenario. We have no other options. Um and that's why you know we had initially had confronted traffic and and like what what else can we do? what else can we and that's where we started uh coming up with well there is some the master plan that had this this um accessibility and that's what we were trying to to help out with. >> I have a question on the uh highway or the interstate 69. Where's the offramp? Where does that come out at? >> That's a good question. >> Where that [clears throat] dash line ends? >> So it's where? >> Oh yes, the the mouse right >> right here. So, if it exits right there, you could make a righthand turn on that road going across. >> They they text has strict standards to their um driveway axis. So, it would the driveway Where's the mouse? >> They'll put the sticks up so that way you can't >> So, the hard make a hard ride in there. They >> Well, is what I'm asking is if a firetruck was coming down and exited there, would they have enough time to make a turn? >> Coming on the access road. >> The access road. >> Gotcha. So, they would still have to come down to 52. >> Yeah. >> No. No. No. No. Oh, no. They >> they they would be coming on the access road that that is coming off of 77. And so you always see like whenever you're exiting an off-ramp and they've got those vertical sticks to keep you from, >> you know, like at the mall from making a hard ride into Dillards or whatever, >> they have those sticks there and that's what would occur there. But their trucks making a response would be coming on the access road. They wouldn't be exiting off the highway. the the response distance from station two to this development is probably a mile and a half >> if if that it's maybe a mile. I mean, I I grew up out there. I'm very familiar with that area. Uh the distance between 624 and County Road 52 >> is maybe half a mile. >> It's very close. >> Very close. >> Yeah. But I'm I'm definitely of the mind that if you have a one entrance in, one entrance out neighborhood, it needs to be a gated community. Um, [clears throat] you know, because you you just got to you got to have two ways out. >> Um, if I could add two things. one Andrew um if it were to be gated community right um like we presented earlier um the subdivision the plot has to conform to the master plan so for it to be approved for gated community right you would have to remove the alignment from the master plan right um because there's no way you could approve it because that plat wouldn't be conforming to the master plan >> unless >> but if if they can't I mean it's shown in that aerial easement Mhm. >> And I mean, if they can't build something that could never be built anyway, I mean, does it really need to be removed? >> Tech Technically, the Rene is correct. The the letter of the UDC says that all private streets must meet the same roadway master plan and all aspects of the comp plan and the IDM. So, you're still saddled with the responsibility even though logically and common sense, we know it will never connect as a private street. So this exercise of removing it still would have to play out. Uh that's why I thought good compromise would be shrink the ride away to 50 ft. That way whether you go private or not, the option is there. >> But but this whole thing goes with but neim is going to have to be held accountable. Those guys are going to have to step up and put it in. >> No. And and we we understand that. And the other thing I would point out, right, and I know it's it's it's been stated about the white access point, right? And there's some questions we get asked about what are direct impacts and those are some of the answers we can't provide um because it's based on the development and those are things that as you you know on a microscopic level when the development occurs you see what the true impacts are and um one good example is right now if you drive down Yorktown and you see the number of developments that are one way in one way out of Yorktown um and during construction we're forced to do traffic planning to minimize impacts because there's only one way in and one way out and so when you have developments when that happens right like we said we think of worst case when we think of public safety if there's no access to that road you're stuck right it's why when the city built slot road and reconstructed slot road they had to build amitrine that connected to Brook Road because all those subdivisions had no other access other than back to Rodfield >> can you talk my memory real quick on which developments on Yorktown have a one way in one one way out there church. There's one directly to the east of Bradfield. Can't remember the name of it. >> Morland Morland subdivision. The several of them are are we just own by developer Jackie Holmes. So there there's three sections that all came through reszonings kind of back to back to back all within about 18 months. >> What's across street? >> Uh that is just north of Fred's Volley. So where Fred's volley tees into Rodfield and goes north, you have three subdivisions side by side that have kind of a similar loop pattern to them and never cross master channel 31. That is why Fred Folly went all the way to the council level to say we have to find a way to give another another opportunity for folks to go north because otherwise they're stuck between the Mudbridge and Broadfield and until Oso Parkway ever goes north they do not have another opportunity to turn north and avoid that Rodfield intersection. And and that's when the UDC plays a part in this. It's all about connectivity and opportunities for connectivity. It's it doesn't really get into the level of the street other than in article 8 it says collectors have to be this wide arts have to be X wide so many lanes. What we try to do as planners is to say we just want opportunities for connectivity. We're not going to always mandate that it's it's got to be this. Can you do thisoulevard? >> And those challenges are faced like what we're seeing on Yorktown when we get the complaints um when now you have to funnel traffic to one street because that's the only way in and out and you have residents calling about the impacts on their street. So, um it's just something to consider. Yes, you know, being wide it may solve the problem as far as getting entry into the subdivision, but it doesn't um really address the mobility and circulation and providing other points. And like I said, if you drive down Yorktown, you'll see a great example. And had it not been for the extension of Rodfield south of Yorktown, um all of Rancho Vista and all of subdivisions would be in the same predicament right now of having to build and widen Yorktown with no other points of access other than Yorktown. So, um just a point of consideration, but like we stated before, um at the end of the day, y'all have the authority and right in that sense to look at the recommendations, make your own recommendation to council. Um either way, uh whether or not you support it or not, right? Um it's probably it's going to city council, right, for final approval. But, um we'll stand by for any other questions or comments. Y'all, >> I just I just have a question. I mean, is it is it serious that is it true that you cannot build a road in the A easement? All of my experience with both a and every pipeline that has anything, it's always about they will allow you to cross an easement perpendicular. I have an easement here. I can always cross it perpendicularly. I cannot run a road on top of the easement parallel or I have to give so much separation away from that easement because if it jeopardizes the integrity of what is either above or below surface level. So I I have yet to see. We went through that on a subdivision. I think it was like Western Street near the just on the other side of 69 where all the car dealerships are, there are a spaghetti of pipelines and every time you cross a pipeline, we had to dedicate easements 20 ft wide that would be maintained by the pipeline instead of city public works streets department. So you have these little gaps that kind of appear everywhere of where does city maintain a patch pothole or where is it on top of the easement and that easement holder has to come in and patch it. So that's how I became very familiar with it is you can always cross an easement. You cannot run parallel because you don't know what you could potentially be damaging. >> Yeah. I just think it's silly. Um, and I think I think you could bone that end, put the put the road in that easement and have minimal impact to the development. You know, if you had that road on the back side of the fence of those houses on the back, then you would only lose, you know, lot and a half or something through the middle. I'm thinking about um C view and um over by South Shores. Yes. >> C view and uh >> Alabina >> area. >> What is it that that uh on on the backside where it went to Montlair, you know, was kind of like a like a bone dog bone type deal. >> I don't know. >> Okay. >> Well, it's getting late. I'm going to leave you one last comment. Okay. >> Again, we would appreciate this body. Um look at this in totality. Again, the the property to the right does not have a C1 collector and an approved plat. The property to the left does not have a C1 collector. Intents. Their intent was that East West Collector was never to connect to my property. The intent was to connect to their own property. We're asking for basically a seven lot variance. I built over 4,000 lots in this community. I always put access points. access points, wherever you can connect to. I'm connecting. I put in Lady Claudia phase one of King's Landing and I waited six years for that other developer to tie in. And that was because of the school complaining. He finally put in the rest of Lady Claudia. We did it day one. Right. If we have the opportunity to do it, we will do it. this development to the east of me to make me change my plat or the west of me to change my plat and to justify C1. Even if you reduce it to a 50- foot ride ofway, that pink that pink uh culde-sac is a 50-ft ride ofway. We're just asking not to connect to the neighborhood next door. This road, these homeowners aren't going to go from this neighborhood to that neighborhood to the following neighborhood to one day get to 69. Everybody's coming to 52. That's the route these people are taking. It's the same way as Rancho Vista. Everybody's going to Yorktown. They might be going on Rodfield after they get on Yorktown, but this is the everybody has to either go north or south. I mean, yes, obviously east west is the same thing as north or south, but they're going up and down out of their neighborhoods to arterials. If you're not going to leave the C1 collector in totality, there's no reason for this to be here. and my my committee should have eliminated that even on the basis of what public works says if you can't be under an a easement. Why did my my own committee leave it there? We should have gotten guidance from the city department saying that this road doesn't work here guys. We need to adjust this down and nobody did that. And she's exactly right. There was a road that was supposed to go north south and it was actually I didn't own the property at the time and I remember arguing with Renee going well why are we gonna leave this road here it can't go into the hospital right behind it because the hospital never built that road right so when you get these commercial projects that come change the land use buy up and gobble up a bunch of land this is what happens you're not going to go back to NEIC and tell them to change their plat that you're not going to go change a 380 agree you're not going to tell academy not start developing today and And I would appreciate the one last thing I'm going to ask is that somebody from this body please ask the city attorney if a preliminary or a plat that's approved not recorded but approved. That's what the developer has to follow. The city cannot come back and say we want a street here today. That was on the platting stage. So you're not going to go tell that develop that that massive developer to come in and put in a road. He's not going to do it. He's not going to chop up his property. And what would you put on that side of the road, you know, in a hundred feet? Like you you would have to move the road just like Blanch Moore and divide this side of Moore Plaza with that side of More Plaza. I mean, you can't put it in a narrow strip. So again, I didn't expect this to be so complicated. I respect what the fire department is asking for, but we are asking for a seven and we've given them the solution that's given throughout the city when these situations happen. Now, if I go upon it to gate this community because my buyer wants that, which they might, that should be on me. That shouldn't be on y'all. 87 lots, one way in and out, a nice private community is what we're looking for here. If I owned all this property and this was all me, I would have made this probably four or five entrances in and out onto County Road 52 and all of the neighborhoods would have intersected. We did that at Starlight. We did that at King's Landing. We've done that at Haven. We've done that at Royal Creek. That's all we do is we connect roads with other roads to wherever they can lead to. But in this situation, we designed it this way. And just like Nimik, we don't want to be disturbed because we already have a buyer. We already have a plan and we want to break ground. So, I would ask that and I I need to know this as a person too in this community is if I get a plat approved accidentally or whatever and then tomorrow the city comes back and goes, "Hey, well, you know, there's a C1 collector here or an A3 collector. We want you to change it." Do I really have to change it? And I would ask somebody here, please ask that question. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? I'm just mad that he's got to come up here and and defend himself over something that should have been brought to this body by the adjacent developer >> and they're not here. >> So, >> well, >> I know what I want to do. >> Okay. All right. So, you know what you want to do, then I guess >> I have one more question. Uh in regards to text, did anybody reach out or anything? Uh are we in regards to the neck part on the C1? >> You can't put in the road text. >> We did reach out to text dot public works reached out to text dot for um just some comments and without any um there's no site plan provided, right? It's just a plat. So the only guidance they can give is that when they come to them with an appropriate site plan at that point they would be able to tell them whether or not you know their access would be meet or not meet their access guide their access management guidelines but right now it's so such at a high level they can't give an an official approval. they don't uh we don't work that way in a sense right we have to have what the plan is and so for the time being right that was another you know why it you know it would stay on the plan but it's up to the developer to go engage text dot and then uh with the site plan and if they wanted access right at that point text would tell them what would be approved or not but we did engage text to and that was the challenging part because we don't have information at this level right now um to go either But with that consideration and some of the challenges, it's why one option was like I said removal. We considered at least keeping some access. But for us, it was important to maintain some east west connectivity. And yes, ideally we would not want a culde-sac, you know, a collector. Um but at least, you know, at minimum, we'd be maintaining some mobility east west. Um, it's not up on the screen, but through that Riveridge development, you would have access between County Road 52 to the south and 624 to the north, you would have that ability for those neighborhoods, whether or not they wanted to go to 69 or go to 624, that would still be maintained, you know, and you would not have to rely, it doesn't matter how many access points you tie into one road, at the end of the day, you're still tied into that one road, right? And there is not connectivity for those neighborhoods to a major street. And like I said, the impacts are not something that, you know, we can identify and provide for you. Unfortunately, you know, at the time of these applications, but the impacts are seen after construction um when the developers have gone away and the residents are living there. And that lack of circulation is a comment that we receive on how to relieve access, especially when the city has to come in and maintain these streets. and we're forced to come up with creative ways and designs to maintain that access to those neighborhoods. And like I said, a great example right now ongoing is Yorktown where if you drive that street and corridor and had it not been for the extension of Rodfield, um those neighborhoods all to the south, um they would have been landlocked in and out of what you know the limited access to the construction. So, um, just something to consider, but it's it's like I said, I I understand there wasn't, uh, an idea of favorites, but looking at some of the challenges that the commercial development did present, um, understanding the challenges of what's been approved. Um, and understanding too that, you know, we are we inherited a process. So, some of these changes that were made, they predated public works administering the process. So, >> you did conditional approvals. Well, you you can >> like if I said if I said we can we conditionally approve uh Moses's full deletion of his section pending resolution to >> the the neighboring neighborhood coming and singing for their supper. >> So if the the neck portion is removed and it's again going back to your argument about all >> this wasn't part of your request was it Moses to remove the whole thing for on behalf of Nek? He did. Somebody needs to ask the city attorney that question. >> Can I ask city attorney that question? But >> I' already stated it. It It's not an approved plat. It's a approved preliminary plat. So, there's still time to The final plat still hasn't been approved by the the board. And the plat hasn't been recorded. >> PL got approved in October by this body. It's not recorded because is not up and vertical. >> But to to address your your question, Commissioner, there's two types of access permits that come into play. One would be for the public right ofway that section AO would consist of, which the the conversations I've had with executive leadership was that it's too close to the off-ramp, that it's it's not ideal. The second access permit that comes in is as the site development and public improvements come in for how the driveways for academy and that shopping center is to be laid out. That is a separate permit they have rightway uh access permit they have to go to text.4. So there's there's two different scenarios at play. >> Uh my personal belief is I it's highly doubtful they'll want to say yes to a public rideway that close to the off-ramp. Uh otherwise we're in that same delineator situation. The sticks by the >> That's what we did for Vick's apartments over there on >> right >> uh whatever road. >> It's much easier to manage for the driveway to access a shopping center rather than a full public rideway. So the idea of removing section AO neck is a no-brainer to me. It's an easy removal. Uh and to your point, it is kind of an all or nothing situation. If you remove it for one, you might as well remove it for both. what uh we were talking about in development services was just trying to find a path for connectivity. If if that's not a feasible option, we we stand by your recommendation. Uh but it it was just in all fairness to explore all options available and let you as a committee come to a well-rounded decision. >> Okay. All right. Well, let's move forward here and I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and uh entertain a motion. Our discussion >> [laughter] >> Okay. Sorry. >> I'll move, but I don't know what I'm going to say. Um, I think that like Andrew said, Nimic is not a viable option. That road is more than likely not going to get built because of textile and because of the connectivity. That's the only way to get connectivity to Moses's property. So because of that, because Neck Road C1 A or AO, whichever one it is, cannot be built, I'm going to recommend that that get deleted, but also that the other two get deleted as well. That's my motion. >> I would I'm going to second that for sure. >> Okay. So I have a motion and a second. [clears throat] All those in favor? >> I >> I. >> All those opposed? >> No. >> Motion passes. I tried to back. >> Oh, let's get this thing. >> Okay. >> Uh, moving on to uh director's report. >> Uh, no report tonight. >> No future agenda. >> None for future agenda. >> We are adjourned. >> Thank you. >> No, there's not. >> And here's the deal. You know the the fire the fire