HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 04/28/2010 RECEIVED
MINUTES
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Council Chambers-City Hall JUN 01 2Q10
April28,2010
5:30 P.M. CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE
COMMISSIONERS: STAFF:
Rudy Garza,Chairman Johnny Perales, P.E.,Assistant City Manager,
A.Javier Huerta,Vice-Chairman Engineering and Development Services
James Skrobarczyk Faryce Goode Macon,Assistant Director of
John C.Tamez Development Services/Planning
Johnny R. Martinez Andrew K. Dimas,City Planner
Evon J. Kelly Miguel S. Saldana,AICP, Senior City Planner
Govind Nadkarni Robert Payne,AICP,Senior City Planner
Mark Adame Jay Reining,First Assistant City Attorney
John Taylor Deborah Brown, Assistant City Attorney
Elizabeth Johnson,Recording Secretary
Si usted quiere dirigirse a la comision y su ingl€s es limitado,habra un interprete de espan"ol a ingles en la
junta para ayudarle
I. CALL TO ORDER
A quorum was declared and the meeting was called to order at 537 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—April 14,2010
Chairman Garza stated, "First on the agenda, we will discuss the March 31 minutes at the end of the
agenda"
Faryce Goode Macon, Development Services, stated, "We weren't able to get the March 31" Minutes
together on this packet, so they will be on the May 12°i packet.
No response to Chairman Garza's question on April 14°i minutes.
Motion for approval of the minutes from the April 14, 2010, regular Planning Commission meeting was
made by Commissioner SkrobarczykMartinez and seconded by Commissioner SkrobarczykNadkami.
Motion passed unanimously.
III. PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS
A. PLATS
Miguel Saldana, Development Services,read Continued Plat, item "a"(shown below) into the record and
stated it is not consistant with the adoptive plat of the City of Corpus Christi. Staff recommends denial of
the Plat.
1. Continued Plat
a. 0310010-NP009(10-20000001)
t{ it Bridgepointe Landing, Block 1, Lot 6(Preliminary- 11.515 Acres)
SC/q ;\a Located south of South Padre Island Drive(SH 358)and east of
/"il 4/ v Lexington Road.
Commissioner Scrobarczyk: If we deny this plat outright, what is the timing for them to reapply?
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28,2010
Page 2
Miguel Saldana: There is no timing.
Commissioner Scroharczyk: They don't have to wait a year?
Miguel Saldana: No,sir.
Commissioner Scrobarczyk: Fine.
Chairman Garza: Alright, any additional questions for Mr. Saldana. Is there anybody on this board to
address this particular plat?Alright,at this time we'll open up public hearing on this plat.
Jim Urban: Hi,this is Jim Urban with Urban Engineering and I represent the owner of this property.
Jim Urban: I'm going to start by saying that this plat has been in the works for sometime. It's not
something we've just brought to the city. The Bridge Point Plat has been in the works for probably four
years and been through several preliminary plats and plats on this. As a matter fact, we did a preliminary
plat and did a final plat on some of the property up in the front where some buildings have been built.The
issues with the back of this property have been that the requirements by the city have been such that we
have not been able to market it. We've got a couple of buyers on it and they just.. the requirements for
that property have been so great we have not been able to redeem it. More recently, we got numerous
things removed from that but the remaining item is this drainage ditch. And we've had lots of discussions
with the city on this, in particular,and the letter that Johnny Perales sent to us. We did send a request for
a proportionality that is pursuant to the law and we got a response back that really didn't have anything to
do with that. We got a letter that was submitted to us kind of, outlining the history of this drainage ditch,
and so at this point, we really don't have any finding from the city on this proportionality. But some of
the items that I'd like to outline here are just some of the basis for this ditch.This ditch... this is a current
photograph of the ditch. In Johnny's letter, it talks about this being a natural drainage way. You can see
here, that it is not a national drainage way. A ditch is dug out. As evidence of the width of this drainage
way the city provided several exhibits. It started out with 1951 USNDS, I don't know if you can see that.
Can everybody circle around there? But that right there is what they scale the width of this ditch with. I
couldn't read it so 1 pulled it up. And so if you look at this you can see that this drainage way is shown on
this map and the city is scaled along with this and it is 150 ft-to-100 ft. In the letter they refer to that as
being the top of the bank of this ditch. It's actually just contour lines and its 150 ft wide, and it has never
been that wide.At the time when this ditch was done or when this 1951 exhibit was done you kind of,see
up here that in the cross section, I mean, this ditch or drainage way is in a farmland or a rural area and
over 150 ft-to-200 ft now would be a foot-or-two deep; it's juts an impression in the land and nothing has
happened. Sometimes, in 1951-1968, when somebody came in and dug that out with the county... let's
say that you're somebody else and you dug a ditch out at its current depth,which is like 8 ft-to-11 ft deep.
This ditch which is150 ft wide is a ditch and it is for the most part, 50 ft wide at the top. It shows this,
which are the wetlands map, showing that this is 200 ft wide. These wetlands are,of course,done in 1979
but it basically uses the 1968 USNDS. New information or a different verification is virtually the same
map so I'm not sure what the value of that was. We also were given these floodway maps. And again,
when you're scaling off something that is that small it's pretty hard to tell what it is but we did blow it up.
And this is the map that when it's blown up,that they are going to get in drawings, 150 ft-to-200ft wide,
and we are going to scale it. And the white portion of this is where, in the floodway map, is what they
consider to be the floodway. The area adjacent to it at the start was actually just a building elevation
which, when you look at the map, you'll see that it is the same and allows you to build in that zone. The
drawing was just like, 50 points off lat and in the corner there plats comes in forth. The city
measurements placed on it is like, 150 ft-to-200 ft wide We went out there today and looked at it; it's the
same ditch that that has been there since 1968. It's about 50 ft wide and it goes through my client's
property. So we're talking about this ditch right here because it goes through this guy's property. And the
point I was trying to make, is that this map of the drainage area,this is my client's property right here,this
!1\PILN-DIRISI IARGD\ZONING\PLANNING COMMISSION\MINU'r[S@010\4-28-10 MIND CES.DOC
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28,2010
Page 3
whole piece right there; if you look at this 1,040 acres that is the national planned draining area. We've
calculated the area by looking at what has been developed, 47% of the drainage of the drainage area has
been developed and only, you know, 23%, including my client's property has not been developed. So
already, with 50 ft that has been dug through our property, we're already serving 78% of the property
within this area. And I didn't say earlier, I said now. We're not objecting the national plan; we really,you
know, support the city's mapping plan when things are important and read. The city has a mapped plan
and says they need 150 ft for the development of the ditch plus maintenance, we don't object to that.
What our position is that we're on the end of the drain system that we have to build it and that the amount
of land needed is not proportionate to our use. It serves 1000 acres. These guys up here on the very top
certainly don't have 150 fl to give and we're being asked to give 150 ft. The city, in their letter, indicated
that"We believe,based on all this information we were shown in the scaling that we have 100ft and if we
need 50 ft more,we want you to put a reserve on it and then we'll pay you for it if we ever need it."Well,
there is nothing within the platting ordinance and nothing within the law that supports the use of these
reserves. A reserve basically, says,"You can't use the land and if we even need it we'll come buy it from
you." Well it's a need but it prevents from using it. So our position today is that we are willing to give 50
ft and our plat shows the 50 ft, and we're willing to give that where the existing ditch is, and we're
certainly willing to sell to the city or in lieu of selling, take a reduction in fees. We've got about $125,00
or $150,000 worth of fees we have to pay to get the city, for water and waste water and parks and
everything else,to be able to get that land they need today, if they want to do that. But as David will tell
you,the laws do not support the exaction. And one thing I want to say is,you know,the last letter we got
from the city just, I guess,yesterday, says that the city can't recommend it because it doesn't comply with
their ordinance.Their ordinance has not been updated since the exaction laws went into place. And David
will talk to you a little bit about a brief that had been commissioned in 2006 that tells you need to revise
your ordinances, you need to come into current law with respect to exactions, or you are going to get a
great risk of being sued and losing. So at this point, I guess I'll let David finish up and then if there are
any questions, 1 can answer.
David Connelly: Good day, I'm David Connelly. Do we give our address? Our address is 1930, Glen
Oak, Corpus Christi, 78418. I am a lawyer representing the owner of this property. This is a situation
where it's real confusing because we've got laws that have changed in the country, in the United States,
Texas has adopted that change and the State Legislature has adopted a statute that adopts that change,yet
our Planning Ordinance hasn't been changed. And so the city is saying it doesn't matter what the US and
State Constitution say, it doesn't matter what the Legislature says, it's our Planning Ordinance that we
need to interpret rigidly. So if you don't meet our Planning Ordinance, even it's unconstitutional, then
you can't get your plat approved. I think it's different than that and we disagree with that and think that
we have proposed a plat that you can accept. But to put this in context, first of all, the right to plat your
property and build on it is a Private Property Right; it's not a government benefit. So we start from that
basis and then you say, "Okay, well we know that we allow governments to make conditions on plats."
When you go in to plat your property the city can make conditions to it. Well what is the purpose of
imposing those conditions?One of the purposes and the main purpose is to... the reasoning is, require the
land owner to pay for those things that they are imposing upon the infrastructure of the city so you don't
make other people pay for improving this person's property;that's the reasoning. Okay. Well,what is the
limit to requiring conditions for plating? Well the Constitution in Texas and the US Constitution,the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments, in Texas it's Article-1, Section-17, prohibits the government from taking
private property, placing it in public use and not paying for it; it's called the Takings Amendment. The
Takings Laws say, "Governments, if you want property for a public purpose you call have it but you've
got to pay for it."So the difference here is we have a plat where the city wants us to give property and we
have to, up to a certain point that we are imposing certain additional burdens, impacts on the
infrastructure. But then it's saying, "We want you to go beyond that into the takings arca and we still
want you to give us that, too." And so we have to deal with this line that the city has not given us an
opinion on,as to where it thinks that line is here; all they have done is ask for everything,essentially. So
now what has happened is,over the years,the US Supreme Court has made a couple of decisions,big deal
II:\PLN-DIRNSIIARIiDVONING\PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTI32010W-28-10 MINUTESDOC'
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28,2010
Page 4
decisions in Land Use Law. One, in 1984, Justice Scalia- the Dolan Case,the other one,the Nolan Case-
Justice Rehnquist, in 1994, put together this nexus test that has got two prongs to it; it says, I) if you are
going to have somebody do something with respect to a property on a plat it has got to be related to the
purpose you are going achieve,that's number one.2)And secondly, it has got to be roughly proportionate
to the impact of that particular property in the system. So you've got to do two things;you've got to make
sure there is a relationship between what you are asking for and what you are trying to achieve,and we're
not arguing that that's not met, we think that is met here. The second part is the part we think has been
really abused in this case, and that is rough proportionality. The US Supreme Court said that you've got
to analyze this particular property and it has got to be a meaningful analysis,and you've got to determine
that what you are asking for is roughly proportionate to the impact of that development on the
infrastructure. And it's the city's burden to carry that proof to the Planning Commissions across this
country. Texas, in 2004, in a case called Town of Flower Mound versus Stafford Estates,adopted the two
pronged nexus test from those two cases as the law in Texas; it's the Constitutional Law so it even
overrides legislative statutes, and it, surprisingly enough, overrides City Plating Ordinances. So what the
two pronged test now says in Texas is, you've got to do this nexus relationship, which we are not
complaining about, but you've got to show... the city is supposed to show that it's roughly proportionate;
that a condition you are requiring is roughly proportionate to the impact of this particular property on the
government infrastructure,the citywide infrastructure.
Now that was in 2004. So in 2005,the State Legislature decided,"You know, reading these cases is sure
complicated and we need a more simplified version of this so that cities across the state can start
complying with it," So the State Legislature adopted this statute in the local government code- 212.904,
and it's pretty clear. It says, "If a municipality..." this is a state law, "If a municipality requires, as a
condition of approval,that the developer bear a portion of the costs..." I'm not reading the language that
doesn't apply but, "If a municipality in the city Corpus Christi requires, as a conditions of approval,the
city is requiring the dedication of 100-feet, plus a reserve of 50-feet, which is the same as a dedication,
that the developer bear a portion of the costs by the making of dedications, which they arc. The
developer's portion of the costs may not exceed the amount that is roughly proportionate to the proposed
development, to the impact of that development on the city. And it says that the rough proportionality of
the city must be approved by a professional engineer who holds a license. Now my question to the city-
do we have a rough proportionality analysis?Mr. Perales,do you know?
Johnny Perales: No, that has not been done at this time. Our interpretation of the correspondence up till
now is,that has not been formally requested that that would come out of today's meeting.
David Connelly: Okay, now, I, on the... in my letter, dated March 12th, 2010,to Miguel Saldana, city of
Corpus Christi, I say, "I'm requesting the city provide a rough proportionality determination pursuant to
Texas Local Government Code 212.904." I sent this certified mail and I got a return receipt on it, so I
know it was received. Now then, that was on March the 12th, 2010. And 1 understand... I'm not _. I'm
friends with these guys, I like to think that we are going to be getting along, but we've got to do this in a
way that doesn't break the law. I'm not saying the city is not entitled to take this land that they need to
use to adopt the master plan, but it's not roughly proportionate for our property. It's taking care of
everybody else. So they can pay for it if they are going to take it;that's what the law requires. March 12th,
2010, 1 thought I was formally requesting a rough proportionality determination,although the statute does
not require me to ask for one; it imposes that duty on the city to do it,to carry its burden. Nevertheless, I
did it. Then a month later, April 21", we got a letter from signed by Miguel Saldana, on behalf of Mr.
Perales, that says, `Basically, this was a natural waterway and we have a master plan and so we get all
this stuff'and not a word about rough proportionality. So we're left with standing here, wanting our plat
to be approved because the law in the Constitution and the State Legislature says the city has got to carry
this burden before they can make a condition,and the city is saying,"No,the Plating Ordinance has to be
adopted, has to be satisfied rigidly, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says, and the Planning
Commission can approve it." We think the Planning Commission really has an obligation to approve it if
Ii:\PLN-DIR\SNARED\LONINO\PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES2OIOW'28-10 MINUTES.DOC
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28,2010
Page 5
they think that our plat meets the rough proportionality test. And with respect to the drainage, the Water
Code in Texas, the Texas Water Code says you can't divert water onto someone else's property, that's
what it says. But there is a law that says, in Texas, it's settled law in Texas,that the lower estate has an
obligation to accept natural drainage from the upper lands. Natural drainage from the upper lands have to
be accepted by the lower estate, talking about physically, higher and lower and the water draining down
to the property. The Texas Supreme Court has held and this has been settled law for a long time. I have a
1932 case, and I'm willing... I've got the authority in this book and I'm willing for the city to make a
copy of it if they wish; a 1934 case, a Texas Supreme Court case that says, "The lower estate has no
obligation to accept water from the higher lands if it has been affected by the hands of man." If man has
touched it, if man has developed it, then that obligation to accept the water no longer applies. There is
another case that... a bunch of cases, but I made copies of two cases.One case just to show... you know,
1934 was a long time ago; it's just to show that this case is still a good case and it's the law of the land.
There is another Texas Supreme Court case, but there is a 2008-Tyler Court of Appeals Case, I cite this
case for the same proposition and that case was turned down by the Supreme Court, meaning that the law
is good in that case, in 2009. So it's a good case and it says that "once man's hands have touched the
property" meaning development "then the lower estate no longer has the obligation to accept the water."
The idea is that when someone develops their property they need to run their drainage into a public
system. Instead, they are running it through our private property and the city is helping them do it. And
now, the city is wanting for us to carry the burden of all of these 100 acres of developed property or 77%
of which is developed, and just give it to the city, even though we are entitled, under our law, to be paid
for it.
Chairman Garza: Alright, excuse me. Mr. Connelly, I don't mean to be rude but we've allowed you to
present your case probably a good fifteen minutes now, maybe.
David Connelly: Can I have another couple of minutes to point something out?
Chairman Garza: Could you please get to the gist here? We're going to have to make a decision in that we
may decide to table it based on the fact that we... there are certain things that we can just do by law, as a
Planning Commission, in regards to planning ... excuse me, in regarding to plats, we have to either accept
status recommendation that this particular plat meets the Plating Ordinance,which will allow us to proof
it, that it does, and their recommendation has to deny it. Now what we can do, because of the fact that
there's huge differences between what your position is and what the city's position is,and I haven't heard
the full city's position yet, is we could possibly be able to table it so that you guys may be able to meet
somewhere in the middle. I see, like I said,there are plenty of valid points to your argument at this point,
but I don't believe that we are going to get to a point where we can... and it's up to the whole
Commission,as a whole,to prove the plat at this particular juncture.
David Connelly: Okay. Well, let me make a couple of points and be brief here.
Chairman Garza: Alright.
David Connelly: The 50-ft drainage is about 30-ft more than we should give for our particular property,
and it should be on our boundary line if we were trying not to be friendly here,but we're willing to give
more to accommodate. Jim mentioned that. And so we are going above and beyond what we see is our
legal obligation. On the issue of where you are with this and the difficulty here. in 2006, Teny Morgan
was hired as a lawyer. He was hired and in fact,he gave seine testimony in the Flower Mound Case. But
he was hired by the city,as I understand it, and gave the city some recommendations and said,"You have
to change your Ordinance, essentially" and the city didn't do it. And so it's not like this is any surprise,
and this property has been... we've been discussing this with the city for four years, if not more. One of
the statements Terry Morgan makes to the city says that "the codification, typical of recent Texas
legislations" talking about the statute I was talking about, 212.904, "goes beyond constitutional
li\PLN DIIi�SUARED\ZONING'TLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES12010'4-28-10 MINUTES.DOC
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28,2010
Page 6
requirements in imposing an informative duty on municipalities to make a rough proportionality
determination at the time cities impose exactions as conditions of development approval." That would
have been before now. And once the decision is made by the Planning Commission, if it's turned down,
that will be an exaction that caused us to lose this plat. Now what do we do next?The statute provides a
process; it says if we didn't go to the City Council and we present evidence,we are entitled by the law to
present evidence, and I'd be interested to know what evidence the city is going to present on rough
proportionality, because that's the issue before the City Council. We have to do that and the City Council
has thirty days to make a decision. It's not going to be a coliseum issue; we are talking thirty days. And
then within thirty days after that, the owner has to either file suit in a county or district court or give up
their claim. So what you do will set a pretty fast process underway if you deny the plat. 1 would ask that
the Planning Commission adopt the plat and ask the staff to adopt some measures that will comply with
the statute so that it doesn't put you in this jam in the future.Thank you very much.
Chairman Garza: Alright,thank you.Commissioner Tamez,do you have a comment or a question?
Commissioner SkrobarczykTamez: Yes, David, how many acres are we talking about versus the 50-ft and
the 100-ft?
David Connelly: About our property?
Commissioner Tamez:About your property,how much are you giving up?
David Connelly: Across our property?
Commissioner Tamez: Across your property?
David Connelly: Don't know; we Caine in, initially, with 20-ft because that was our engineer's
determination of what was needed for our property, 20-ft. But before this meeting,this hearing, we went
ahead and decided we'd give... and that was along the side or edge of our property; this is sort of,through
the center of our property where it kind of,separates a little piece of property for us, so it's not in the right
location where we would choose, but it's... we analyzed it to give 20-ft. I believe that was our obligation
for our property. But in order to accommodate the city and make sure that the Planning Commission felt
like we were going beyond our minimum requirements for our property we're willing, here,on this plat,
to give 50-ft.
Commissioner Tamez: And the city is requesting 150-ft, is that correct?
David Connelly: Yes. And I need 150-ft because they are having to accommodate for a master plan and
1000 acres of land, 77%of which is developed;we're not faulting them for saying they need the property,
but they want us to give it to them rather than pay for it.
Commissioner Tamer Have you established a price?Did you give a study to this?
David Connelly: No.
Commissioner Tamez: Okay.
David Connelly: No. there has been no discussion from the city that they would be willing to consider.
Now we have been willing to negotiate with the city about, "Okay, well we are going to owe something
like$120,000 ill fees. What about us talking about trading oft?"Well,"We have the planning statute and
I I.\i'LN-DIR\SIIAREDALONINIi'PLANN NO COMMISSION\MINUTLSQ01 M4-2K-10 MINUIIIS.WC
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28,2010
Page 7
you have to give us the land, but what about the constitution, what about the state law, what about rough
proportionality?" Well that just doesn't get responded to.
Commissioner Tamez: Do you have a figure in mind? How much you would trade off?
David Connelly:No,we'd rather not negotiate here at the hearing.
Commissioner Tamez: 1 understand.
David Connelly: But I think the important thing is that we do see the need to try to work with the city and
working that out,but it takes two.
Commissioner Tamer Correct. And that's what I'm trying to establish, is if there is a meeting grounds
that we can come-up with an established price or acreage.
David Connelly: I think the owner says that he is more than willing to be fair in it, you know, I don't
really know if it has been figured out whether the appraised value is more or less than the fees but in the
event that the fees were greater than the appraised value or reasonable for that land, we certainly will be
asking for more than that. I think that, in general, and the owner is here, that if the land was valued more
than the fees, I think the owner would probably be flexible on that.The main is just to recognize the rights
of the owner here. So why I encouraged the owner to grant this is that if we got anything less than 50-ft it
immediately puts him in a situation where we have a plat without using it for a ditch that you're using.
And I will tell you that our general belief is that because... as Johnny mentioned earlier,we keep finding
from the city, when are they ever going to do this proportionality analysis? Our strategy today is to not
table. I mean, we would rather take an approval and seconds to that approval. We'll take a turn down and
we'll deal with it thirty days from now because we've been for years, trying to get it settled but the staff
[indiscernible] [00:33:08] and we're not going to get it settled in thirty days,otherwise we'd really like to
settle it now We've put this Planning Commission hearing off a couple of times to try to give the city
time:felt like it was wasn't productive at this point,so.
Commissioner Tamez: 1 think it's going to be difficult if we don't have some idea of the amount of
money that we are talking about to be able to complete this deal tonight. And I'm not even sure if we
that's even an option at this point. But I'm trying to look at every point.
David Connelly: Well the City Council will need to look at it later and maybe they are the right party to
look at it and make a decision.
Commissioner Tamer Right. The city has the right [indiscernible] [00:33:56] to get that at whatever fair
market value is and, you know, buy it [indiscernible] [00:34:02] so it does have to be taken care of
tonight. We want [indiscernible] [00:34:05] that everybody has to go through on [indiscernible]
[00:34:08]. It does not have to be a part of the [indiscernible] [00:34:13] plat because, you know, right
now, you're going to [indiscernible] [00:34:17] for what's there;this is it. [Indiscernible] [00:34:21]don't
have 150-ft so you are no worse off than you were today;you're actually better off without [indiscernible]
[00:34:30].
Chairman Garza: I'm sorry, I think we've got another question here;Vice Chairman,what ...
Vice-Chairman Huerta: Yeah,Tim. I was going to ask you... I mean, I was just looking at the dimensions
of the property on the west side and south west side. And,you know, I would guess it's probably a little
more than an acre,probably like and acre and a quarter that we're talking about,additional.
H\PLN-DIR\SI IARLD'ZONING'PI.ANN INN COMMISStOMM INDICS\0I O\0-28-I 0 MINUTES DOC'
•
Planning Corn in iss ion Minutes
April 28,2010
Page 8
Jim Urban: 100-ft by ...
Vice-Chairman Huerta : Seems like a solid division.
Jim Urban: 575. Yeah, it's probably 2 acres, total. Yeah, probably. So what I was wondering is... let me
just say, if I get this right,thinking of the master plan,thinking of what the city,you know, needs in order
to address that master plan that, you know, we are trying to eventually get to, and, you know,
understanding that you, at this point, are... you've seen the bigger burden of that final outcome, you
know, when the whole system is put together, you've seen, I mean you've been impacted immediately
because you just happen to be on one of those properties that hasn't been plated, one of those properties
that now falls into the new master plan that we have.
Jim Urban: And actually, it's the current master plan because the new master plan that is being proposed
is still not filed but it, at some point, was going to be 300, it was going to be 200 and now, the city has
said it's 150. So I mean_.
Vice-Chairman 1luerta: But the 150 has been said. I mean, 1 think the 150 has been adopted.
Jim Urban: Well that's the current adopted master plan. The proposed master plan, I think, has not been
said. I mean, it's still out there being done and I don't know what it's going to be, it's still varying. But,
you know, I think the city has concluded that 150-ft is appropriate and large enough for what they need,
and I'm assuming they've talked to the consultant who is working on it. I mean, we've got 50-ft there
today and 78% of the areas is actually developed, so you wouldn't think it would be twice as big or three
times as big but the levels of protection you all have adopted are greater than that so there is more water,
presumably, in doing a better jobs so...
Vice-Chairman Huerta: What we haven't been hit,you know, by a hurricane in over,you know,what is it
now,thirty years?Well,we are going to forty; we are going forty years,you know,sincerely, so.
Jim Urban: We are not in any way suggesting that we've looked at what the city's needs are; that's what
the master plan is there for. The city has requested 150-ft in their plating step plats, we are not disputing
that; we are only disputing that it's a taking to make us give all that, that's our only complain. We are
not...
Vice-Chairman Huerta: But if the city was willing to pay you, if the city was willing to pay, you know,
for that additional portion in [indiscernible] [00:37:51] fees or whatever,would be acceptable with that?
Jim Urban: Oh,absolutely; I mean,that's what we have been asking for.
Jim Urban: Well, I think [00:38:12] has made that decision. Yeah, I mean, we talked about that. So I
mean, I don't really know what the value of the land is and I hesitate to say that,you know, that the land
is worth $120,000 or $120,00, whatever the fees are, because I really haven't looked at the area and
haven't looked at the appraisals, but as I said earlier, I think the owner has indicated that, certainly, he
would be willing to do that and I think that probably, if a reasonable appraisable is done and it was
$80,000-worth of land or $60,000 land, the city could certainly condemn for it and wouldn't have to...
you know, you have the right to get it at what current value it is.
Vice-Chairman I luerta: Well, I mean, I guess I'm just thinking of the master plan. I'm just thinking that if
some deal can be worked out now, then that portion of the land can be set aside even though you just
leave the creek the way it is, leave it the way it is, continue, you know, it being used the way it is, but
leave... you know, somehow, set aside that property so that you don't develop it, you know, and it's
H:\PLN-DIR\SI!ARM IZONING SPLANNING('OMMLSSION\MINUFFS2010\4'28'10 MINH FITS.IA)C
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28,2010
Page 9
there, and in the future they'll come in,you know,whenever that ditch gets done, whenever, but the city
has to pay upfront,you know, because you are not going to he able to use it. Well,l think that the flip side
if we don't set it aside now and you do develop it,then later on they are going to pay you,you know,the
owner,they will have to pay them,you know,for improvements and everything else,you can...
Jim Urban: Well, I would have to talk with the owner, because we talked about this, but my experience
with reserves are that they are just non-ending and so they are like an [indiscernible] [00:39:36] that goes
on; there is no compelling reason to do it. And if you're a developer, you're basically going to do your
deal and you are gone and you don't own land and then you've lost that value of the land. I'm sure that
we could probably work something out that if it was a reserve for... I mean, a typical final plat lasts for
six months and then you have to file it. I mean, I'm sure we could work out a contract for purchase within
a reasonable rate and if you buy the land either outright or reduction in fees, before we have to file a plat,
I don't think the owner would have any problem. The problem is going to be if he has to come up with
$130,000 to pay the fees and you don't come up with the purchase for thirty years, because until there is a
problem nobody is going to go dig that.Nobody suggested that city or us,we're going to dig the ditch;we
just have to avoid using the land and there is no end to it.
Chairman Garza: Excuse me,just a second. I think Johnny has got a comment to make. Go ahead, Mr.
Perales.
Johnny Perales: Well, just... Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that the city or staff provide a
response; it may answer a lot of the questions that are coming up and save a little time this evening, if
that's okay with the Commission?
Chairman Garza: Actually, that was one of the things that I was going to suggest because I just can't see
us hammering it out in this meeting and there are other issues to cover and there are a lot of other people
who are here for some other business and I just don't think it's fair to them. [Indiscernible] [00:40:59] is
that I came on the Commission and probably two or three months later, [indiscernible] [00:41:04] to
workshop up in Dallas and they talked about that"Flower Mound" and the possibility of taking land and
how some of these issues [indiscernible] (00:41:16] in the courts if the cities did not take proactive action
in order to be able to take in... there are certain things in their Plating Ordinance or look for ways to he
able to resolve issues such as this. I think that's an area where maybe we have failed in our Development
Services side because again, this is an issue that could wind up in court in a real quick fashion which is
going to cost the city and cost the development time and...
Johnny Perales: And we agreed; we acknowledge that this is a very serious issue. And when they are
raised by developers we do consider them seriously. As Mr. Urban and Mr. Connelly have mentioned,
there has been interest in activity or attempted activity on this property for many years.There have been a
couple of approved preliminary plats,one in the '96 era,that 1 think,showed about 20-ft of ride-away and
about 100-f1 of drainage easement that was an approved preliminary plat. More recently, there was
another preliminary plat that showed proposed dedications as high as 90-11 off ride-away for the future
Williams Drive Extension and up to 180-ft of drainage easement. Now we realize that is... 90-ft of ride-
away and I80-t... excuse Ine, 75-ft of ride-away and 180-ft of drainage easement is a disproportionate
demand on that property. However, our approach to this was going back and looking, as best as possible,
with the historical documents that we have, and looking at the thousand-some acres that Mr. Urban had
on the screen. And what was there when nothing was developed on that 1000 acres when it was virgin
land,there was still a natural drainage way or channel going through that property. We looked at different
documents to try and make our best assessment of what that was. And as Mr. Urban went through the
majority of those documents, we came up with the 100-ft. Now that can be discussed or argued, that
dimension, but that was one of the basis of our determination.Now as property develops within that 1000
acres, any increase in the property required to manage that storm water, yes, that would be the city's
responsibility,and we acknowledge that. So the basis of the 100-ft dedication is our best determination of
H:\PI.N-DIR\SHARED'ZONINGIPLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\20 10\4.28.10 MINUTES.DOC
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28,2010
Page 10
what the natural drainage way was through that property, before one acre of the 1000-plus acres
contributing storm water runoff to that point was touched or developed; that was what was there. Now I
do have to concede that the reservation could be faulting the extra 50-ft. However, the requirement for
that reservation is based on the fact that the city is currently negotiating a design contract with a
consultant engineer to do the Phase-Il of Williams Drive improvements, which is part of the Bond 2008
Street Improvements. That street project will also include any improvements necessary to the drainage
outfall, which is this ditch that we are discussing tonight. The final requirements, as far as any property
takings, any easements takings for what I'll consider the final drainage improvements to that area will be
determined through this designed contract and included in proposed construction plans for the project.
And we did make note to that effect, in the letter,that... and the purpose of the reservation was to let the
property owner or developer know that in the very near future,the termination of the final easement needs
for this drainage facility will be determined,and anything above and beyond the 100-ft would be acquired
through the city's normal property acquisition procedures and policies which would include a fair market
value assessment and negotiations for the value of the additional easement. But I'd like to jump to some
of the other questions that have come up. And as far as the fees,trading the fees for additional easement,
staff really can... I mean, we acknowledge the spirit of cooperation in trying to work out an amicable
agreement to both parties. However,we don't feel that the ordinance... I mean,those fees are waste water
and water lot in acreage fees. Those are supposed to go into specific funds for specific uses. Any
reimbursement of property values impacted by the city's needs,we feel, need to be addressed through the
normal procedures for staffs in fair market value in negotiation of costs to be assessed for those property
rights. And as tempting as it may be,even if we were talking 1110th of an acre out of a 1000-acre tract,we
don't want to let that influence the process. Now it is very tempting to consider that, "Well, this is only
1/10th or 1%of their property" but we really want to make sure that we follow the proper procedures,no
matter how small the impact. So we acknowledge that proportionality is an issue. Our determination is
based on the... the 100-ft easement requirement is based on the natural drainage way without any impact
to any of the property by any development; that's what was there, that is what is designated in the
[indiscernible] [00:48:09] floodplain maps as a floodway; not a floodplain or flood area but a floodway
where the storm water for the designed storm will flow. And that's where the channelized flow will occur.
Any thing above that, we feel, needs to be acquired by the city through its normal process. Now can we
discuss the 100-ft dimension? Yes. I mean, this was, I'll admit, somewhat of a coarse determination of
that number,but it was based on looking at different sources of information that go back, prior to much of
that area being developed. And that would give us the best field or best representation as possible, as to
what was there prior to any development, whatsoever, in the area. So I do have to concede that the
reservation is not something that is authorized within the ordinance and it will be something that we will
be willing to retract. Ilowever, we do need to make the property owner aware that very definite actions
are underway, which will result in the final detailed design and determination of actual requirements
necessary for the future storm water improvements right in that area. And based on the master plans, we
expect that to be in the vicinity of an additional 50-ft,above and beyond the 100-ft.
Chairman Garza: What is the timeframe for your engineering study and the...
Johnny Perales: We are just negotiating the design contract fees at this point and time, so you're probably
looking at approximately 12-to-18 months to bit,and double that for actual construction.
Chairman Garza: Commissioner SkrobarczykSkrobarczyk.
Johnny Perales: 30 months for actual construction and improvements.
Commissioner SkrobarezykScrobarczyk: It appears to me that our real sticking point here is this
proportionality issue that... is this something that the city... I mean, you said you guys have been
working on implementing this proportionality issue or do you not see this as something we have to
implement?
It\PLN-DIR\SHARED'ZONING\PIANN INC COMMISSION\MINIITES4010\4.28.10 MINI TILS.DOC
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28,2010
Page I I
Johnny Perales: Well...
Commissioner Skrobarczyk: And let me just ask you a couple more questions and maybe that will help...
Johnny Perales:There has been some draft language which was put together but I do have to say it has not
been incorporated.There has been some draft language pertaining to rough proportionality put together;it
is in draft form, it has not been brought forth for adoption.
Commissioner Skrobarczyk: So sitting in the position we're in, and then City Council after us, are we
faced with a... I mean, we are going to be faced with this time-and-time again from now on out. If the
proportionality issue is the way we have 10 go, if that's what the laws have been written, we're going to
be facing this over-and-over again. And if we, in our position, don't respond properly to the laws, I
suspect we put ourselves at risk.
Johnny Perales: Oh, absolutely. And considering the proportionality requirements is the main reason that
we have gone 255- ft of requirements down to 100-ft. You know, we've stopped at the 100-ft because we
feel that was the existing condition.
Commissioner Skrobarezyk: But we have been working on this particular for four years. And now we are
being told another two years or so before we get the ditch dug. I mean, and we probably don't need 10
have the ditch dug to go forward with the development plat.
Johnny Perales: Well,correct...
Commissioner: I don't know, I mean...
Johnny Perales: And to respond, if our review of historical documents had come up with 50-ft, we would
have been done discussing this issue some time ago this evening. But based on our review of the
historical documents, our opinion is that it's closer to 100-ft. Now, can that be discussed further?
Possibly;that is possible.
Commissioner Skrobarczyk: And I thought the land owners are... somebody has said that they were
already willing to maybe go 150-ft. I believe the public hearing is still open, is that right?
Chairman Garza: It's still open,yes.
Johnny Perales: Can I just summarize? Because, I know, this is very complicate and I hate to take your
time and everybody else's here,but,you know,to summarize where we are, I think that the staff came up
and said. "Alright, we think it's a 100-ft. We don't need more than 100-ft right now, so there is no taking,
so there is no requirement for proportionality. In fact, you know, you've got [indiscernible] [00:53:06]
dedicational on risks." Those are all exactions that should be done under the law and should happen on
every plat but they didn't, and I think that's a failure that is going to cause a problem for the city time-
and-time again. But we are really debating this 50-ft that is between the existing 50-ft we're willing to
give and the 50-ft that's the reserve that now is going to he dropped; it's that 50-ft. And what Johnny is
saying is that our interpretation, the staff's interpretation, is that it's 100-ft wide, the natural drainage.
And I just want to summarize that when we went through it,that it's our measurement of it that... and this
is the floodway map I received from the city. And the city, you know, has this, and I don't know if you
can see it,but there is the mark, marked into that, right there. And,of course,they did mark it the"widest
place" and there, it says "it varies from I 50-ft-to-200-ft but we're going to take 100-ft." When I measure
i1, it's 54-ft-to-78-ft. The question I'd ask the staff is, "Do we really believe that it used to be a 150-ft
wide and somebody came and filled in the dark of night and now its 50-ft?" We're not saying we want to
I\PLN-DIReSI IAIt[DO.ONING\PLANNINO COMMISSIOMMINUTES201 O4-28-10 MINUTES.DOC
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28,2010
Page 12
fill it, we're saying we're going to give it,whatever it is. I don't think somebody snuck up and filled 100-
ft of drainage ditch at all. I mean, we're saying,"Whatever the ditch is,we think it's around 50-ft, as we
measured it,we'll give it to you. But all the extra stuff that you want,we feel like it's an exaction."That's
all we are saying. The debate tonight has to be with the way your staff measured the width on a map
that's,you know,that big. And when it gets down to it, I've just got to believe that the drainage ditch that
is there is the drainage ditch that has been there since it was dug in 1960. Hey, I mean,your staff, in their
comments, say "The current channel width has been minimize through your client's property,
approximately 50-ft." They admit that when it got channelized from this natural swale, I mean,just the
depression in the land... I mean, back to my comment. I mean, it wasn't a ditch.You know, it was just a
low spot in a farm field. When we dug the ditch from being I8-inches or 2-ft below, over 300-ft to 11-ft
deep in 50-ft, it channelized that. And it channelized that into 50-ft. And all this drainage that is going on
today for 77% of the property that's in the drainage basin is working through that; there is no reason
therefore, we'll willing to give it.
Commissioner SkrobarczykSkrobarczyk: Well the way I look at it, you've been working with these
people for some time and they still don't meet your platting requirements, your ordinances; that's what
we were told,why we had to turn it down. And our only option, I suspect,is that we either turn it down or
pass it. But I don't know if we can pass it if it doesn't meet your platting requirements,your ordinances.
Johnny Perales: The requirements of the plat were a 100-ft drainage easement dedication that is based on
what we've discussed and various sections of the plat which relate to drainage ways, notwithstanding the
over-ridding consideration of proportionality. There has been discussion on this property for several
months, very active discussion that has resulted in amendments to the transportation master plan and
relocation of William's Drive and elimination of the issue regarding the William's Drive ride-away.
We've taken a hard look at the drainage dedication and what was originally, a hard and fast, "You will
dedicate a 150-ft" or at one point, it was up to 180-ft, is based on our most recent and best determination,
100-ft.
Commissioner Skrobarczyk: Well, 1 don't think we can negotiate all these tenns tonight. 1 don't think
we're going to he able to do that. And I don't know what our move needs to be other than... I mean, I
don't know if we could table it. I mean, it has been a long time you guys are having all these issues with
Williams Drives and everything, I understand that;what do we need to do,and what do they need to do to
move forward?
Johnny Perales: Well, what the applicant told us... Mr. Urban told us was that they wanted ns to either
accept it or deny it,and then let them fight it out at the City Council level.
Commissioner Skrobarczyk: Can we accept a plat that doesn't meet the ordinances? I think we've been
told numerous times that we can't.
Johnny Perales: 1 thought that it was subjective...
David Connelly: Excuse me, this is David Connelly. I think, you have an obligation to accept a plat that
meets the law. And it's not just the Platting Ordinance. It's, if someone comes in with a lawful plat
application then it's the obligation of the Planning Commission to accept it. If the city is applying a
Platting Ordinance in an unlawful manner, not accepting their unlawful manner of making conditions is
okay. And right now, we have a constitutional...
David Connelly: I'd like to ask the attorneys representing the city, 1 have talked about this drainage issue,
about the lower estate not having to accept developed water from above, and yet, the city still says that"If
we find that that was 100-ft nature drainage area 100 years ago then we call take, without paying them,
N;APLN-DIR\SI IAR FOAZON I NGAM ANNINO COMM ISSION\M(N urnsca]OA4'20-I O MIN J l'l S DOf
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28,2010
Page 13
that 100-ft even though the land up above has been developed." My reading of this case is that's not so,
yet, that's what the city is saying. So I'm asking the city's attorneys to give me legal authority on that
principle of being able to establish by natural drainage years ago, to develop that property and say, "We
can get it for free." In light of Bunch versus Texas,which is 49,South West 2",421...
Chairman Garza: Mr.Connelly.
David Connelly: And let me just put this in the record if I'm not...
Chairman: You are not in a courtroom,Mr.Connelly,at this point.
Debra Walter Brown: No.
Chairman Garza: You're trying my patience a little bit.
David Connelly: I would like get this in the record. In 2008, WL-4757016, this is going to keep us from
making the deal and I think it's important that the city go look and let's see where we are on this issue.
Debra Walter Brown: Mr. Connelly, I am the representative for legal this evening. My name is Debra
Walter Brown. Unfortunately, I have only been with the city for approximately a year and I was not a
party to your prior dealings with the city in this respect. I think you may remember that I was invited to
one of the meetings that you all had...
David Connelly: I remember meeting you,yeah.
Debra Walter Brown: And Jay Ryning was the primary attorney on this matter because he has been
involved with this. And from what I understand, he is the one who drafted the Rough Proportionality
Ordinance that has not yet been brought before Council. Unfortunately, I didn't know anything about
what the city was going to put forward this evening, until late this afternoon, so I do not have a response
to your question at this time. I don't know if I'm going to be assigned this project as the primary attorney
or if Jay will remain the primary attorney. He, unfortunately, is not able to be here this evening. I would
he more than happy to do the research for you; 1 don't necessarily know that my finding is going to be the
same as the findings in the past, so that kind of, makes it difficult for me right now. But 1 know that you
want a decision this evening, I understand why you want a decision, but if'I have a little time to work
through all the issues and try to answer all of your questions I would be happy to do so.
David Connelly: Alright, Miss Brown. I would be happy to give you the benefit of what I have.
Commissioner SkrobarczykTamez: Hey, excuse me. Can we take a minute and talk about possibly
accepting a table?
Chairman Garza: Well, yeah. I'd sure like to entertain that. At this time, if you will, I'll let some of the
Commissioners to make comments but I am going to dose the public hearing unless some of the
comments by Commissioners require a response by the applicant. Commissioner
Skrobarczyk[indiscernible] [01:02:21].
Vice-Chairman Huerta: I was going to ask Johnny, if we cannot produce a dimension-to-scale drawing of
that section, you know, back in 1960 or whenever it was, the only other instrument that we have is
existing conditions in the width of the existing drainage. I mean, for us to scale that sketch and to come
up... I mean, however instrument that they are using and however instrument that we are using, I mean,
we are trained that our drawings are never to be scaled. If it doesn't have a dimension then it doesn't
HtPLN-DIR\SI IAREDILON ING9PLANN ING COM M ISS ION\M I NI r]Es12010\4-29-10 MINI ITIS.DOC
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28,2010
Page 14
mean anything; it's just got to have dimension. If it doesn't have a dimension then it's whatever is build
or whatever is on site,the"as built"condition. So in this case, I would think that,you know,you're going
to find statue that's going to take you to say "is what is there" has been modified, has been altered. The
original area was altered at some point for whatever reason. If we can't produce the information necessary
to say that was altered and it was dedicated, the 100-ft, then, you know, if we can't produce that, if we
can't find it then we're going to have to come back and say,"This is what's there. This is what they have
right now." Because, I mean, I know I would challenge that; 1 mean, why do you scale that? So I would
he really cautious with that in just trying to find the right instrument.
Johnny Perales: No, correct. No, we acknowledge that but we looked at various sources of information,
which included aerial photographs on a scale, granted a very large scale, but actual aerial photographs
dating back 40 or 50 years, and trying to look at the surface features at that time. And that correlated
fairly well with some of the other information that we had available, and that was the basis of 100-ft.
However, if the legal discussion takes us in the direction that you're talking about, I mean, we're good
with that. I mean, that 100-ft dimension is what we've determine to this point, based on policies,
procedures and direction to this point. There is definitely opportunity for an updated legal direction or
information or opinion,and we would consider that in moving forward.
Chairman Garza: Commissioner Huerta.
Commissioner Huerta: If we were to pass this plat,where would that put the development?They still have
to resolve the drainage issues one way or the other, is that correct?
Johnny Perales: Well, if the plat, as submitted, is approved, it includes a 50-ft wide drainage casement.
The impact would be when the city does come in, in some months timeframe,and we come back with the
detailed engineering analysis and design, and the detailed determination of actual easement requirements,
the amount of easement that we acquire is going to be more in the order of 100-ft, instead of 50-ft. I
mean, in a nutshell,that would be the impact.
Vice-Chairman Huerta:Okay,thank you.
Chairman Garza: Commissioner Taylor.
Commissioner Taylor: Well, first of all, I would like to apologize to the developer and to the owner for
this thing talking four years. This is just, in my opinion, totally unacceptable. And I'd like to see, from
this point on, Development Services taking a little more active role in trying to get these things resolved. 1
know you all have done that in the past but four years is just... I mean, you talked about normal process:
this is not normal process. Time is money. Did these developers and... you know, this Commission has
got to be progressive enough to help support developers and tax payers of Corpus Christi? So I think I'd
like to see you come in and make an assumption,you know,eighteen months is just not acceptable either.
You know,you're going to need to come back and say, "If a 100-k could possibly work then let's look at
that scenario and move on" and then come back to this Commission with some ideas and some concepts
based on 100-ft. 1f 100-ft isn't going to work or 50-k isn't going to work we need to know that, and lets
come back with some scenarios, some ideas, and give us some concrete information, I think. And Mr.
Chairman,the only thing we can do tonight is probably table this. We just don't have any information.
Chairman Garza: 1 agree with you, Commissioner Taylor. 1 don't know if that's going to be acceptable to
the applicants or not. 1 mean,you talked... you had a discussion... Mr. Burton.
Jim Urban: I will tell you that we did talk about it and my recommendation would be to not and gel it...
because in that thirty day timeframe, we get an answer alter a long time to get that answer. And the spirit
I r\PLN-DINISI IARED\]ONING\PLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTCS12010\4-25'10 MINUTES.DOC
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28,2010
Page 15
of continuing to work on it... we would be willing to table it until the next meeting, with the assumption
that we get these documents and if we come hack to you and we still have the same situation where we
need more time to look at it, I mean, we've been... it has been four years but we did stuff and we've been
working pretty actively on it for the last six months. And, you know, we got the letter on the
recommendation late last week so we haven't gotten much time to come back.Two weeks is enough time
to figure out how wide it is and,you know, I would submit to you that if you go out there and measure it,
it's however wide it has been forever and we are not trying to give you less than that. And that's really
what ought to be given.
Chairman Garza:Two weeks is what I was thinking,too,Jim.
Jim Urban: Yeah, we agree to that.
Chairman Garza:Okay,at this time... thank you, Mr. Urban.
Jim Urban:Thank you.
Chairman Garza: At this time, I'm going to close the public hearing and...
Debra Walter Brown: If I may, just as a point of clarification for myself, I would assume that you
wouldn't be expecting every legal answer to be answered within those two weeks? Because if we are to
answer,you know,all the rough proportionality questions,etcetera, I don't believe that that could be done
in two weeks.
Chairman Garza: Well the thing is the Commission, right now, is going to make a decision; they are
going to make a best case on how we can move forward. And my only opinion is that Ijust don't want to
toss a hot potato to City Council.
Debra Walter Brown: I understand that, I completely agree.
Chairman Garza:Okay, so in order for us to do our job we need to do what we can in order to resolve any
issues that can be resolved at our particular level and then pass the recommendation to the City Council at
that point. Are there any other comments by the Commission before I make a long drawn out statement?
Commissioner Skrobarczyk?
Commissioner Skrobarczyk: So am I hearing that a two-week tabling with... well, let me ask you another
question. If we pass this even two weeks from now, subject to say, 100-ft if that's what it sums up to, it's
going to take some time for legal and everybody else to work out all the details... the details of this
development through the whole process of permitting and everything, is all that going to be worked out
normally, when they do a plat we don't have all those details worked out. Is that true or not?
Debra Walter Brown: Thai's correct. I'll let Johnny...
Johnny Perales: I'm sorry;could you please repeat the last comment?
Commissioner Skrobarczyk: Do all these legal details need to be worked out before we approve this plat?
Debra Walter Brown: When you say`legal details"do you mean...
Commissioner Skrobarczyk: Well,the ones you were saying couldn't be done in two weeks.
I I API N-I)]RVSHARF[VONINGAPLANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\2011M-2a-10 MINIITES.IOC
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28,2010
Page 16
Debra Walter Brown: Okay, I'm not... but then you were saying, like, all the specifics regarding the
actual building;that's different than what I'm talking about, all of the case law and... I'm sorry; I'm not
trying to upset you.
Commissioner Skrobarczyk: Do we have a possibility tonight to pass this thing with the 100-ft...?
Debra Walter Brown:That would have to be...
Commissioner Skrobarczyk: If the owner would... do we need to table this for 10-or-15 minutes to let the
applicants and the staff discuss this?
Debra Walter Brown: 1 can't answer that question;that would have to be Johnny's.
Commissioner Skrobarczyk: Are we at that point or do we just need to table it for two weeks? But you're
telling me"We can't get legal done in two weeks"so we're back to 18 months.
Debra Walter Brown: No, I think we are talking about two different things. What staff handles for
Development Services is very different than what I handle in the legal department for Development
Services. So anything that deals directly with the plat... most plats, legal never gets involved, and we just
obviously,have one big major legal issue on this. So all the things that are on the plat that don't deal with
this particular issue will be handled by Development Services. For me, to answer all of Mr. Connelly's
legal questions regarding this... I can get a lot of the questions answered but I just don't know that we can
get an ordinance done, you know, all of the things that Mr. Connelly brought up. I agree, an ordinance
definitely needs to be done but...
Chairman Garza: We're not going to rely on us getting an ordinance or a correction made to the plat
owners before we take action on this particular plat.
Debra Walter Brown: Right.
Johnny Perales: I think the primary legal question that will impact our direction on this item is the case
law that Mr. Connelly referenced earlier. And if Development Services is given the opinion from legal
that we do or do not have the legal authority or right to require the 100-ft and that it has to do with the
downstream... it has more to do with the downstream accommodation of runoff from other properties,
that particular case law...
Debra Walter Brown: I can answer that question two weeks.
Chairman Garza: Okay.
Commissioner Skrobarczyk: Because part of the solution might be the fact that the ditch that is there now,
that's 8-ft-to-1 1-ft deep may be carrying water more than the 80-ft or I00-ft or 200-ft swale was carrying
at 2-ft deep. And so,you know, it may already be carrying more water than it was historically but maybe
nobody's done those calculations. So maybe in two weeks somebody could do that and we can come in
here and make a decision.
Debra Walter Brown: I can't do math but we'll get the right people.
Chairman Garza: Alright, Commissioner Taylor,another comment?
Commissioner Taylor: No,that is okay.
H:\PLN-DIR\SHARDD'ZON INGTI ANNINO COMMISSION\MINU EM2010\428-IO MINUTES.DOC
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28,2010
Page 17
Chairman Garza: Alright,Commissioner kSkrobarczyk.
Commissioner Skrobarczyk: Motion to table to May 12th meeting.
Commissioner Taylor: Seconded that motion.
Chairman Garza:Alright,all in favor say"Aye".
All Commissioners: Aye.
Chairman Garza: Anybody opposed? Alright, motion carried unanimously with Commissioner Nadkarni
abstaining from the vote.
Chairman Garza: Okay, next Plat;New Plats.
Miguel Saldana, Development Services, read New Plat,item"a"and"d"(shown below) into the record.
These plats have been submitted consistent with the Platting Ordinance and staff recommends approval.
Public hearing was opened. No one came forward in favor or opposition. Public hearing was closed.
Motion to approve New Plat, items "a" and "d", was made by Commissioner Tamez and seconded by
Commissioner Skrobarczyk. Motion passed unanimously.
Miguel Saldana, Development Services, read New Plat, items "b", "c", and "e" (shown below) into the
record. These items are requesting to be continued to the next meeting on May 12th.
Motion to approve to table to May 12'h meeting was made by Commissioner Taylor and seconded by
Commissioner kNadkarni. Motion passed unanimously.
2. New Plats
a. 0410017-P004 (10-22000004)
Palmros Tract, Block I, Lot IA(Final-2.204 Acres)
Located west of Flour Bluff Drive and north of Glenoak Drive.
b. 0410018-P005 (10-22000005)
The Preserve at Mustang Island,Block I, Lot 1A, Block 14, Lot IA&
Block 19, Lots IA-4(Final Replat-9.81 Acres)
Located north of Zahn Road and east of State Highway 361.
c. 0410019-NP012 (10-21000005)
Bridgepointe Landing, Block I,Lot 6(Final - 11.515 Acres)
Located south of South Padre Island Drive(SH 358)and east of
Lexington Road.
d. 0410020-NP013 (10-21000006)
Lake View Acres, Block 2, Lots 19A, 19B& 19C(Final Replat-2.793
Acres_
Located east of Rodd Field Road and south of Holly Road.
I.\PI.N-DIR\SI IARED\ZONING\PLANNING COMMISSION\MINU I I32OIOI4 28-10 MINUTE%.DOC
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28,2010
Page 18
e. 0410021-NPO I4(10-21000007)
Marks Tract, Block 2,Lots 5BR&5ER(Final Replat-3.892 Acres)
Located west of South Padre Island Drive(SH 358)and north of
Everhart Road.
Miguel Saldana, Development Services,stated item 3, Variance Request& Deferment Agreement shown
below had a street error showing on(1)and(2)on the Agenda and needs to be corrected. Staff is
requesting to table to the next meeting on May 12ih.
3. Variance Request&Deferment Agreement
a. 1109066-P018(09-22000017)
L& F Subdivision Lot 1 (32.41 Acres)
Located on State Highway 44,west of Bockholt Road and east of
Clarkwood Road
(I) Variance request from Section IV.A.12—Half-Street.
(2) Deferment Agreement for Williams Drive.
Motion to approve to table to May 12th meeting was made by Commissioner Nadkarni and seconded by
Commissioner Taylor. Motion passed unanimously.
B. ZONING
1. New Zoning
a. Case No. 0410-03: Champion Technologies, Inc. - A change of zoning
from an "1-2" Light Industrial District to an "1-3" Heavy Industrial
District _
1.826 acre property out of STARCREST PLACE 2, Block 5, Lots 18, 19,
& 20, generally located at the northeast corner of the intersection of
Santa Elena Street and Centaurus Drive, at 350 Centaurus Dr.
Andrew Dimas, Development Services, presented the above stated case via Apple Keynote. Mr. Dimas
stated the applicant was Champion Technologies, Inc. The applicant is requesting to rezone from an
"1-2" Light industrial District to an "1-3" Heavy Industrial District. The idea is to permit of a non-
conforming use, specifically, installation and operation of two above ground fuel tanks, blending vessels
and storage containers pertaining to oil field specialty chemicals.
Mr. Dimas, Development Services, presented all the slides of the site maps that include: the Aerial,
Zoning, Existing Land Use,and Future Land Use.
Mr. Dimas, Development Services, stated, " The "1-2" Light Industrial District provides for light
manufacturing, fabricating, warehousing, and wholesale distributing. this district does not permit the
storage of chemicals currently being stored onsite. The "1-3" Heavy Industrial District permits industrial
operations of all types, provided that potentially hazardous industries and uses are reviewed and approved
through the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
II:APLN-DIRySI IAR1=.DAZONINGAPLANNING COMMISSION\MINIITES21110v1-28-10 MINUTES.DOC
Planning Commission M in ales
April 28,2010
Page 19
Department Comments:
• Fire Department(Fire Marshall):
• Application reviewed
• Each chemical classified and catalogued
• Collaboration between Fire and Applicant
• Fire raises no objections to Special Permit
Staff Recommendations:
• Denial of the "1-3" Heavy Industrial District in lieu of approval of the "1-2" Light Industrial
District with a Special Permit for one(I) UL I42 above ground fuel storage tank not to exceed
1,000 gallons, one (I) UL2085 above ground fuel storage tank not to exceed 2,000 gallons and
the use.of above ground storage tanks, above ground blending vessels and storage containers for
oilfield specialty chemicals.
I. Uses: All uses allowed in the "1-2" Light Industrial district plus one (I) ULI 42 above ground
fuel storage tank not to exceed 1,000 gallons,one(I) UL2085 above ground fuel storage tank not
to exceed 2,000 gallons and the use above ground storage tanks, above ground blending vessels
and storage containers for oilfield specialty chemicals
2. Fire Department Approval: The above ground fuel tanks and above ground storage tanks, above
ground blending vessels and storage containers for oilfield specialty chemicals shall meet all Fire
Department Requirements.
3. Zoning Board of Adjustment Approval: The above ground fuel tanks and above ground storage
tanks, above ground blending vessels and storage containers for oilfield specialty chemicals will
not be allowed without zoning Board of Adjustment approval.
4. Time Limit: Such Special Permit shall be deemed to have expired within one year of the date of
the property is being used as outlined in Condition 41 and in compliance with all other conditions.
Public hearing was opened by Chairman Garza.
Matthew Trevino came forward and stated his name and stated he is the District QHSSE rep for this
Champion Technologies. Also,stated his address at 350 Sintora Street.
Matthew Trevino: They are mostly water soluble products,yes,sir.
In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk's question, Matthew Trevino stated, perimeter of our
faCocility is contained by a 6-inch high barrier completely around and itin the preparation of a
hurricane, we do have a Hurricane Preparedness Plan that we do follow and usually, they are pretty big
tanks. Even, it is been suggested a Category-5; we fill the tanks up all the way. In the big storage vessels
those are pretty water based chemicals. They're what we'd call industrial soap and they are mostly
water soluble products.
Commissioner Skrobarczyk, state, "In other words, because it looks a neighborhood not too far from
here, and, you know, if we were going to put something near our neighborhood that cold be extremely
catastrophic in nature and that might be part of our decision in not doing that.
Public hearing was closed.
HOPLN DIIt\SHAREDZONING\PLANNING COMMISSION\MINu n:s20t0W-28-10 MINI)]FS.DOC
•
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28,2010
Page 20
Motion to deny was made by Commissioner Nadkarni and second by Commissioner Martinez of the
"1-3" Heavy Industrial District in lieu of approval of the "I-2" Light Industrial District with a Special
Permit for one (1) UL142 above ground fuel storage tank not to exceed 1,000 gallons, one (I)
UL2085 above ground fuel storage tank not to exceed 2,000 gallons and the use of above ground
storage tanks,above ground blending vessels and storage containers for oilfield specialty chemicals.
I. Uses: All uses allowed in the "hr Light Industrial district plus one (1) UL142 above ground
fuel storage tank not to exceed 1,000 gallons,one(I)UL2085 above ground fuel storage tank not
to exceed 2,000 gallons and the use above ground storage tanks, above ground blending vessels
and storage containers for oilfield specialty chemicals
2. Fire Department Approval: The above ground fuel tanks and above ground storage tanks, above
ground blending vessels and storage containers for oilfield specialty chemicals shall meet all Fire
Department Requirements.
3. Zoning Board of Adjustment Approval: The above ground fuel tanks and above ground storage
tanks, above ground blending vessels and storage containers for oilfield specialty chemicals will
not be allowed without zoning Board of Adjustment approval.
4. Time Limit: Such Special Permit shall be deemed to have expired within one year of the date of
this ordinance, unless the property is being used as outlined in Condition #1 and in
compliance with all other conditions.
Motion passed unanimously.
b. Case No. 0410-04: Yorktown Oso Joint Venture - "F-R" Farm Rural
District and 'R-IC" One Family Dwelling District to the `R-IC" One
Family Dwelling District
5.347 acres out of FLOUR BLUFF AND ENCINAL FARM AND
GARDEN TRACTS, Section 25, Lots 17, 18,31,and 32, and RANCHO
VISTA UNIT 3, Block 12, Lot 8, and a portion of Rodd Field Road and
Cattlemen Drive, generally located south of Brown Drive, west of Ft.
Griffen Drive, approximately 1,300 feet southwest of Yorktown
Boulevard on the southeast side of Rodd Field Road.
Andrew Dimas, Development Services, presented the above stated case via Apple Keynote. Mr. Dimas
stated the applicant is Yorktown Oso Joint Venture. The applicant is requesting a change in zoning to
extend the neighboring "R-IC" District to provide contiguity for surrounding lots and to allow for the
construction of twenty-eight(28)single-family residence.
Mr. Dimas, Development Services, showed and explained all the slides of the site maps that include: the
Aerial,Zoning, Existing Land Use,and Future Land Use.
The F-R"Farm Rural Light District allows areas inside the city to be used for agricultural purposes and to
assist in the control of scattered commercial and industrial uses of the land. The "F-R" district does not
require any setbacks or limits on height of structures,but does require all single family uses to be located
on lots with a minimum of 5 acres in size.
The"R-IC"One-Family Dwelling District allows for single-family residential development together with
such public buildings, schools, churches, public recreational facilities and accessory uses, as may be
necessary or are normally compatible with residential surroundings. Residential density is a maximum of
9.68 units per acre. The "R-IC" One-Family District requires a minimum lot area of 4,500 square feet,
with a 20-foot front yard setback and 5-foot side and rear yard setbacks.
H:PLN-DIR\SHARED\ZONING\NANNING COMMISSION\MINUTES\2010\438-I1 MINUTES DOC
•
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28,2010
Page 21
Staff recommends approval of the change of zoning request to the"R-IC"One Family Dwelling District.
Commissioner Skrobarczyk: Your future land use map is showing...and I guess this was prior to maybe,
the development of that but that existing parts of the subdivision are still low density residential area;
that whole area was expected to be low density residential,which is,what, I-acre and up?
Andrew Dimas: No,it going to be residential.
Commissioner Skrobarczyk: Because it does say"low density residential"
Andrew Dimas: Which means single family.
Commissioner Skrobarczyk: 1 acre or larger. My comment was going to be that that whole area is
probably going to be more R-1C rather than I-acre or bigger and I just wanted to make sure we weren't
going to have this battle over-and-over again,just trying to do that...yeah,okay.Thanks.
Public hearing was opened by Charman Garza.
Chip Urban came forward stated his name and address at 2725 Swantner. Mr. Urban stated, "I'm here
representing the developer, which is Yorktown OSO Joint Venture. I think Andrew did a good job on
covering it,so if you have any questions I will be happy to answer them for you."
No questions were asked by Commissioners. Public hearing was closed.
Motion to approve the "R-IC" One Family Dwelling District was made by Commissioner Tamez and
seconded by Commissioner Nadkarni. Motion passed unanimously.
Faryce Goode-Macon, Development Services, stated, "There were not absences for the last meeting on
April 14,2010.
Faryce Goode-Macon, Development Services, stated to follow the agenda for the next future Planning
Commission Meetings and City Council Action Meetings. Also,it is very important that you remember
that you have your Financial Ethics Report into the City Secretary's Office no later than this Friday, at
4:45; if not, your place as a Planning Commissioner will no longer exist, and we don't want that to
happen. .
IV. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
A. ABSENCES—There were no absences to report from the April 14,2010 regular
Planning Commission meeting.
B. FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED MEETINGS
• May 12,2010
• May 26,2010
I I W I.N-DIR\SI(ARED\ZONING\VLANN ING COMMISSION\M INI arti17OI n14.28.10 PAINI ITHS DGC
Planning Commission Minutes
April 28,2010
Page 22
C. CITY COUNCIL ACTION
• May 11,2010
Case No. 0310-05 John Carlisle
• May 18,2010
1. Case No. 0410-01 Mitchell Vicha and Courtney Urban Vicha
2. Case No.0410-02 Raju Bhagat
Faryce Goode-Macon, Development Services, stated to follow the agenda for the next future Planning
Commission Meetings and City Council Action Meetings. Also,it is very important that you remember
that you have your Financial Ethics Report into the City Secretary's Office no later than this Friday, at
4:45; if not, your place as a Planning Commissioner will no longer exist, and we don't want that to
happen.
D. PUBLIC COMMENTS
E. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON NEXT AGENDA
V. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Commissioner Nadkarni and seconded by Commissioner
Taylor. Motion passed unanimously at 7:15 PM.
Faryce Goode-Macon Elizabeth n
Assistant Director of Development Recording Secretary
Services/Planning
I VPLN-UIR\SI IAREDIZONINGAPLANNING COMMISSION'.MINIiTES\2OI O4-28.1e MINUTES IF)C