Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 01/23/2008 ♦ Ile 3a66789_ 2 �, o FEB 2008 MINUTES m CITY£. i _ . REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers-CityOMMIS9x • Wednesday January 23,2008 - . �o-' 5:30 P.M. COMMISSIONERS: STAFF: R.Bryan Stone,Chairman Bob Nix,AICP Assistant City Manager of Rudy Garza,Vice Chairman Development Services Atilano J.Puerta Johnny Perales,PE,Deputy Director of James Skrobarczyk Development Services/Special Services John C.Tamez Faryce Goode-Macon,Interim Assistant Johnny R.Martinez Director of Development Services/Planning Evon J.Kelly Miguel S.Saldafla,AICP,Senior City Planner David Loeb Mic Raasch,AICP,City Planner Shannon Murphy,AICP,City Planner Wes Vardeman,City Planner ABSCENCES: Dan McGinn,Project Manager Gary Smith,Assistant City Attorney Govind Nadkarni Yvette Aguilar,Attorney I Beverly Lang-Priestley,Recording Secretary Si usted quiere dirigirse a la comision y su ingles es limitado,habre un interprete de espaftol a ingles en la junta para ayudarle I. CALL TO ORDER A quorum was declared and the meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 9,2008 HE PLATS 1. Continued Plats Miguel Saldafa read continued plat agenda items"a"(shown below)into the record and stated that item"a"has been submitted for approval and staff recommends approval. a. 1107149-NP100 Rodd Village,Block 4,Lots 1 &8 through 13 (Amending-4.206 Acres) Located east of Dalmation Drive,south of Yorktown Boulevard and west of Rodd Field Road. Public hearing was opened. Nobody came forward in support or opposition. Motion was made by Commissioner Garza for approval of staff recommendation and was seconded by Commissioner Skrobarczyk. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Nadkarni being absent. SCANNED `lI . � • • Planning Commission Minutes January 23,2008 Page 2 Mr.Saldaea read continued plat agenda item"b"(shown below)into the record and stated this item has been submitted for a continuance to the February 6,2008,Planning Commission hearing. b. 1107153-NP103 Island Business Center Unit 1,Block C,Lots IA through 1E (Final Replat-23.421 Acres) Located south of Knickerbocker Street and east of Waldron Road. As a courtesy,Chairman Stone asked if anyone present would like to come forward in favor or opposition. Nobody came forward. Motion for continuance as requested was made by Commissioner Skrobarczyk and was seconded by Commissioner Tamez. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Nadkarni being absent. 2. New Plats Mr.Saldafa read new plat agenda item"a"(shown below)into the record and stated this plat is being submitted for a continuance to the February 20,2008,Planning Commission hearing. a. 0108008-NP005 Blue Residence(Final- 1.937 Acres) Located east of Gultbreeze Boulevard between Neal Street and Hayes Street. As a courtesy,Chairman Stone asked if anyone present would like to come forward in favor or opposition. A member of the audience stated they were present to listen to the proceedings for this item,but did not wish to speak. Motion for a continuance as requested was made by Commissioner Tamez and seconded by Commissioner Martinez. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Nadkarni being absent. Mr. Saldana read new plat agenda items"b,c and d"(shown below)into the record, noting a revision to the acreage on item"b"which should be 8.174 acres. Mr.Salda0a stated the fees for this item will be adjusted to reflect the revised acreage. Mr. Saldafa stated these items have been submitted for approval and staff recommends approval. b. 0108009-NP006 Sheinberg Tract,Lot 1 (Final-8.17 Acres) Located south of Agnes Street(SH 44)between Omaha Drive and Villa Drive. c. 0108009-P004 Morton Tract.Block 1,Lot 2(Final Rental-0.5183 Acre) 1rr V Planning Commission Minutes January 23,2008 Page 3 Located west of Flour Bluff Drive and south of Graham Road. d. 0108010-P005 Overland Meadows Unit 5 (Final-4.481 Acres) Located west of Robby Drive,east of McKinzie Road and south of Pioneer Drive. Public hearing was opened. Nobody came forward in support or opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion for approval was made by Commissioner Skrobarczyk and seconded by Commissioner Martinez. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Nadkami being absent. 3. Time Extensions Mr.Saldala read time extensions agenda items"a through d"(shown below)into the record and stated items"a"and"b"have been submitted for a twelve month time extension and items"c"and"d"have been submitted for a six-month time extension. Staff recommends approval. a. 1006184-NP106 The Grand Reserve Subdivision(Preliminary-71.525 Acres) Located south of Glenoak Drive and east of Flour Bluff Drive. b. 1206221-NP135 The Preserve at Mustang Island(Preliminary- 139.26 Acres) Located between State Highway 361 and the Gulf of Mexico,north of Zahn Road. c. 0507090-NP058 Rhew Industrial Tracts Unit 1 (Final-20.892 Acres) Located west of Rhew Road and south of Leopard Street. d. 0707109-P043 Manhattan Estates Units IA.3A&3B(Final- 14.243 Acres) Located west of Airline Road south of County Road 26A(Slough Road). Public hearing was opened. Nobody came forward in support or opposition. Public hearing was closed. 1r/ Planning Commission Minutes January 23,2008 Page 4 Motion for approval of staff recommendation was made by Vice-Chairman Garza and seconded by Commissioner Tamez. Motioned passed unanimously with Commissioner Nadkarni being absent. IV. ZONING I. Tabled Zoning a. Case No.0108-01 Roberto Cardenas—A change of zoning from a"R-IB"One-Family Dwelling District to a"R-2" Multiple Dwelling District resulting in a change of land use from low density residential to medium density residential Bass Subdivision,Lot E,Block 28,located on Sandra Lane approximately 1,500 feet east of Airline Road. Shannon Murphy stated the applicant has requested that the case be tabled until the February 20,2008,Planning Commission Meeting,in order to revise the request to include a Planned Unit Development. Motion to table the case to the February 20,2008,meeting was made by Commissioner Martinez and seconded by Vice-Chairman Garza. In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk,Ms.Murphy stated that the applicant has submitted a site plan and a few items need to be worked out. Ms.Murphy stated that February 20,2008,should give them adequate time. In response to Commissioner Tamez,Ms.Murphy stated that of the nineteen(19) notices mailed,zero(0)were returned in favor and one(1)was returned in opposition. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Nadkarni being absent. Chairman Stone stated,with agreement from staff,that a time limit of seven minutes would be allowed for staff presentation of zoning cases,and that the commissioners shall hold their questions until staff presentation is complete. At that time,the public hearing will be opened. 2. New Zoning a. Case No.0108-03 Veolia Environmental Services-A change of zoning from an "1-2" Light Industrial District to an "1-3" Heavy Industrial District resulting in a change of land use from light industrial to heavy industrial 237.36 square feet out of Roblex Industrial Area,Lot 15,Block 6, located on the east side of Plato Road approximately 1,050 feet north of Bates Road. • V IMF • Planning Commission Minutes January 23,2008 Page 5 Mr.Wes Vardeman,City Planner,presented the above case,stating the applicant is Veolia Environmental Services and the subject property is located on the east side of Flato Road approximately 1,050 feet north of Bates Road. The zoning request is from an"1-2" Light Industrial District to an"1-3"Heavy Industrial District. Via Power Point,Mr. Vardeman displayed various slides of the subject property. Mr.Vardeman stated the"1-2" District is intended primarily for light manufacturing,open storage,warehousing and wholesale distributing. Mr.Vardeman stated that there is a twenty(20)foot front yard setback and no side yard or rear yard setbacks when fire rated materials are utilized in the construction. The"1-3"District provides for industrial operations of all types. Objectionable uses are permitted only after public hearing and review by the Zoning Board of Adjustment to ensure the protection of the public interest and surrounding property owners. Mr.Vardeman stated that of the seven(7)notices mailed,none were returned in favor or in opposition. Staff recommends denial of the"1-3"Heavy Industrial District,and in lieu thereof,approval of an"1-2"Light-Industrial District with a Special Permit for the installation and operation of one(1) 10,000 gallon above ground diesel fuel tank for the fuel storage and onsite fuel filling,subject to a site plan and final approval of the Fire Marshal and Zoning Board of Adjustment. In response to Commissioner Loeb,Ms.Murphy stated that the UDC Base Zoning Focus Group made a revision to allow for fuel tanks in the light industrial districts subject to approval by the Fire Marshal and the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Ms.Murphy stated this revision will result in the fuel tank requests no longer being zoning change requests. In response to Commissioner Loeb,Ms.Faryce Goode-Macon,Interim Assistant Director of Development Services,stated that the conversion of the different districts that exist with the conversion to the new districts will be discussed in the UDC Administrative Focus Group. In response to Commissioner Skrobarcyzk,Mr.Vardeman stated that the future land use map shows the area as light industrial. Public hearing was opened. Nobody came forward in support or in opposition. Public hearing was closed. Motion for approval of staff recommendation was made by Commissioner Martinez and seconded by Commissioner Tamez. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Nadkarni being absent. V. PUBLIC HEARING-ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT Amendment to Article 27B Landscape Requirements—This agenda item incorporates the Unified Development Code Landscape Focus Group recommendations on landscaping. Mr.Mic Bartsch presented the above case via Power Point,and referring to a staff memorandum which summarizes past events,stated that on November 14a staff presented to the Planning Commission a summary of the changes that are being recommended by the V *10 Planning Commission Minutes January 23,2008 Page 6 UDC Landscape Focus Group. Mr.Raasch stated the changes are listed in"Attachment B" provided to the Commissioners. Included in the memo is a list of the major changes to the ordinance. Summarizing the memo,Mr.Raasch stated that on January 9,2008,staff reviewed with the Planning Commission the beneficial importance of landscaping and provided eight beneficial items,which are listed on pages four and five of the Landscape handout. Mr.Raasch stated that at the last Planning Commission meeting,January 9th,staff was requested to review several items in more detail,those items being, 1)increase the public notification area based on ratio of property size—staff is pursuing information and Mr. Raasch stated he would address this later in the meeting;2)the use of root barriers around trees and larger landscaping areas within the outer perimeter of utility easements-Mr. Raasch stated staff is currently working with the Engineering Department and Utilities Department;3)address the issue of landscaping and parking areas behind the front street yard —staff has prepared some draft language to address the issue. Mr.Raasch reviewed staff follow-up to these items in more detail and stated the information is available in the packet the Planning Commission packet. Commissioner Loeb stated the presentation sounded different than what was discussed and that it was his impression that we were not letting pad sites absorb the landscaping requirement for the street yard for the entire thing;we were not talking about including the landscaping within the parking lot Mr.Loeb stated his understanding is that they were trying to prevent was a situation similar to Moore Plaza,where,with all the pad sites,technically the main structure in the back does not have a street yard and therefore, would not have a landscape requirement for it. Commissioner Loeb stated the narration given by Mr.Raasch sounded as if the issue was to bring back landscaping to parking lots,which would require landscaping of parking lots that are on the sides or behind the building,such as employee parking. Mr.Raasch they were looking at larger parking areas such as Moore Plaza's. Mr.Ranch stated that staff is willing to review the language to ensure the intent is clear. In response to Ms.Murphy,Commissioner Loeb described the intent as if there is an out parcel in between a structure and the road,that that structure's front area is its street yard; perhaps worded as,"...platted lots that don't have a street yard because the lot does not border a street,their street yard is that vehicular access area that is closet to that street." Commissioner Huerta stated his understanding was to not target a specific development,and creating method where parking could be landscaped so that parking lots are not just paved lots and the landscaping is distributed more evenly. Commissioner Huerta stated that without this,the landscaping becomes concentrated in the front yard. Commissioner Huerta stated a large employee parking lot behind a business and adjacent to residential areas has an affect on heat generation which has an impact on those adjacent residences. In response to Commissioner Skrobarcyzk,Mr.Raasch stated that the landscape requirements for the front yard area have not been reduced and they were concentrating on the rear vehicular use area behind the building,which is an addition to the landscape requirement. Mr.Raasch stated that in regard to the 20 foot requirement of landscape area for each parking space reflects what is currently in the landscape ordinance for interior landscaping. In clarification,Ms.Murphy stated that the existing language requires landscaping only in the street yard. By striking out"street yard",the landscape requirement is basically applied to the entire lot,affecting only projects that have a building up close to the street,or V11410 • Planning Commission Minutes January 23,2008 Page 7 out parcels in front of another development and the back has a parking area. Currently,all developments require landscaping in the street yard based on where your building is;a street yard is considered to be from the front of the building all the way to the street. Therefore,if the building is moved closer to the street to allow for parking in the back,thereby reducing the size of the street yard,it would be moved to the back. Ms.Murphy stated it will also allow for requiring landscaping for out parcels in front. Vice-Garza stated his concern with the subtle changes each week and stated that last week the discussion was focused on cutting loopholes. For example,assume a big box development with pad sites up front and the pad sites are landscaped to meet the landscaping requirements,which results in the big box development behind the-pad sites side-stepping the landscape requirements. Vice-Chairman Garza stated it was his understanding that the intent of previous discussions was to close the loophole,not increase landscaping requirement. Vice-Chairman Garza stated he is not in favor of increasing the requirement because it will make it more difficult for small developments to meet the requirement. VL PUBLIC HEARING-Amending Article 24 of the City of Corpus Christi Zoning Ordinance regarding Section 24-1 "Height,Area,and Bulk Requirements"and adopting a new Section 24-2"Zero Lot Line Residential Development." Mr.Bob Nix,Assistant City Manager of Development Services,stated the purpose of this ordinance is to correct some issues within zero lot line development. There am problems between coordination of the building code and the zero lot line code that staff is trying to resolve. Mr.Nix stated that in the building code a one line sentence allows the construction of zero lot lines in single-family developments. A special circumstance to zero lot line developments is that one side of the house is actually adjacent to the interior lot line dividing that lot from the lot next door. This can create issues where roof overhangs may be over the adjacent lot,storm water runoff from the roof into the adjacent lot and if the owner of that home needs to fix his roof or paint his house,he has to get permission of the adjacent property owner to do that. Mr.Nix stated this amendment is intended to add some of those provisions into the code. Public hearing was opened. Mr.Fred Braselton,5337 Yorktown,came forward staling that portions of the amendment sound like a PUD to him and he is concerned that we don't have big builders that come in and do 50,80 or 200 units at a time. Mr.Braselton stated he does not feel that this is the place for some of the items to be included. Public hearing was closed. Motion for approval was made by Commissioner Loeb and seconded by Commissioner Kelly. In response to Commissioner Huerta,Mr.Nix stated the amendment to the street yard requirement from 10 feet to 15 feet applies to the urban scale. Mr.Nix stated the 15 feet provides the ability to ensure clear vision down the street and that it is compatible with other styles of development in the area. Commissioner Skrobarczyk questioned what was actually being voted on and Commissioner Tamez stated he is confused on some of the issues,also,and does not feel Planning Commission Minutes January 23,2008 Page 8 confident in voting on it today. Commissioner Tamez stated he'd like to see the item tabled to the February 20,2008,Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Loeb amended his motion to include a 15 foot setback as opposed to the current 10 foot setback. Vice-Chairman Garza stated it is his impression that the city is attempting to clarify the way the city does business in terms of zero lot lines and stated he supports the motion as long as it is clear that the 10 foot setback remains for areas of redevelopment. Motion on the floor passed with Commissioners Tamez and Slcrobarezyk voting in opposition and Commissioner Nadkarni being absent. VII. PUBLIC BEARING-PLATTING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS 1. Amendment to Section XIII;and add new Sections V.A,MITA and XIII.B to provide for development exactions determination,an appeals process; and provide a repealer clause. 2. Amendment to Section V.B to require connection to approved treated water supply,to require looped water lines,and to modify the provisions for reimbursement and developer share of water arterial,grid main and water distribution line construction costs;to provide a repealer clause; provide a penalty clause;provide for publication;and provide an effective date. Mr.Johnny Perales,Deputy Director of Development Services,presented the above item by reviewing past actions. Mr.Perales stated staff previously gave presentations associated with the Platting Ordinance amendments to the City Council,the Planning Commission and the Development Services Advisory Group,as well as several meetings with representatives of the local development community. Mr.Perales stated the primary intent of the proposed amendments,as indicated by City Council Directives, includes methods to limit the Developer Trust Fund reimbursement of water system extensions to only those within the city limits. Another intent is to establish requirements that will control the design and construction of dead-end water line segments within the scopes of improvements falling within the authority of the Platting Ordinance. Mr.Perales stated that some secondary considerations that are associated with these directives include the need to exempt developments outside the city limits from lot or acreage fees. There are also amendments that will require any development within the ETJ to connect to an improved treated water supply. The use of water wells for potable water supply or fire suppression will not be allowed. Language has been added with the intent to clarify Master Plan Amendment requirements and it has also been necessary to go in and define and incorporate rough proportionality requirements. Mr.Perales stated that staff has received a lot of input during the presentations and discussions with the development community and some issues of concern have been identified,such as the loss of acreage fee revenues resulting from the elimination of outside city limit participation. Mr.Perales stated that several scenarios were looked at and based on a typical one-mile grid expansion from currently developed areas,it was estimated that acreage fee revenues for these areas ideally approximately equal the cost to extend the V Planning Commission Minutes January 23,2008 Page 9 water grid that distance,therefore,breaking even only with tight,progressive development. If there were any skips or gaps in the development,the acreage fees would not pay for the water line extensions. Another issue brought up was the validity of the$200,000 ceiling that has been • included in the language. Based on that,the water arterial and grid main trust activity was reviewed back to the early'80s. Mr.Perales stated that since 1984,approximately 87 reimbursements to different developers has been made. Of those 87,five have exceeded the$200,000 amount. Mr.Perales stated those five projects included the two controversial projects that have been discussed before the Planning Commission before,those being the water main extension to London School and the one to Rose Acres. Mr.Perales stated that if those two projects are exempted,there were only three out of the 87 reimbursements that are considered typical projects that received in excess of the$200,000. Mr.Perales stated that another issued raised was the need to refer to the City's water distribution standards for guidance in defining the dead-end water line limitations. Mr.Perales stated that this was an excellent recommendation and staff has modified the language to take that into account. Mr.Perales stated that concerns were also expressed over the actual methods that will be used to apply the rough proportionality requirements. Staff modified some of the language in an effort to clarify that definition. Another issue raised by the development community was that some of the language in the proposed ordinance amendments is duplicated in the water distribution system standards and that most of the duplicate language was removed from the proposed amendments. Mr.Perales summed up,stating that great effort has been made by staff to make public contact,to review the proposed amendments with the different governing bodies. Mr.Perales stated that agreements have been made on many issues brought forth by the development community,but not all. Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the Platting Ordinance as presented. In response to Commissioner Loeb,Mr.Perales stated that if the development improvements constructed qualify under the proposed amendments,developers are eligible for the reimbursement at the time the request is processed,and provided there are funds available in the trust fund. On the other hand,if the funds are not available at the time the request is processed,then they would basically wait in line until the level of funds in that trust fund get up to the point where reimbursements can be made. Mr.Perales stated that staff is working a separate project,evaluating all four of the developer trust funds and the focus of that effort is to come up with alternate methods of fmancing those trust funds and bringing revenue into those trust funds to ensure their solvency. Some of the amendments included in this ordinance are aimed at controlling expenditures out of the trust funds. Mr.Perales stated that once all the adjustments are in place,including the bi-annual review and evaluation,staff feels more confident in ensuring the solvency of the trust funds. In response to Commissioner Loeb,Mr. Perales stated there are three primary revenue components for the different water utility trust funds: 1)lot and acreage fees;2) V Planning Commission Minutes January 23,2008 Page 10 pro rata fees;3)connection surcharges. Mr.Perales stated the lot and acreage fees are typically paid by the developer;the pro rata fees are split between the developers and the end-users of the properties;and the connection surcharges are typically the responsibility of the end-users of the properties. Mr.Perales stated the lot and acreage fees go 100%into the water arterial trust fund and waste water trunk line trust fund,respectively;the pro rata fees go completely the water distribution main trust fund and waste water collection line trust fund,respectively; the connection surcharge fees are split 75%into the trunk and arterial trust funds and 25% into the distribution and collector line trust funds. In reference to re-plats on interior lots, Mr.Perales stated that once the acreage fees have been paid,they are paid. If an additional lot is created,it is possible that pro rats will be necessary or the service connections or tap connections. Mr.Perales stated that on a re-plat of an existing lot,one would not see doubling of the lot or acreage fees. Mr.Perales further stated that there was a point in time when lot and acreage fees were not collected;therefore,anything originally platted before that time would be subject to the lot and acreage fees upon re-platting,which would go into a developer trust fund that is to be used to pay back infrastructure construction. On some occasions,qualifying improvements could go in with redevelopment. Some of the language in the amendments pertaining to the dead end water line situation allows improvements associated with those situations to also qualify. In response to Commissioner Tamez,Mr.Perales stated that if a development occurs within the city's ETI,under the proposed amendments,they are required to provide service to all lots within that development at their expense,and the developers would not be required to pay lot and acreage fees,because under the proposed amendments,they are not allowed access to reimbursement. Mr.Perales stated that if the city requires a developer to construct a line of greater capacity than necessary to serve that particular development,then under the rough proportionality sections,the city would be obligated to reimburse them for the additional cost. In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk,Mr.Perales stated that these amendments are to the Platting Ordinance,therefore,the requirements are only associated with somebody who needs to plat their property. Mr.Perales stated that if the owner of a piece of land intends on continuing to own and use the property without need to transfer ownership,they will not be required to plat. If they are not required to plat,then these requirements will not affect them. Mr.Perales stated that if a family owns some property and has no need to transfer ownership,then no platting is necessary. Commissioner Skrobarczyk stated that the trust fund was originally created by developers who volunteered to set up the system and put funds in because there were not enough capital funds available at the time to extend water and sewer lines. Commissioner Loeb stated the capital extension of the city is predominantly funded by new construction. Mr.Bob Nix,AICP,Assistant City Manager/Development Services,stated that lot and acreage fees come from the developers,but then there are end-user fees that are also paid by the end-users of the system,i.e.,a connection surcharge and,at times,the pro rata fee. Mr.Nix stated that there is participation by the end-user who purchases those houses, the rate payer,resulting in two sources of revenue into the fund,not just the land developers. Mr.Nix stated this represents a different community of people that needs to be at the table for discussion,but seldom are. �► N Planning Commission Minutes January 23,2008 Page II In response to Commissioner Loeb,Mr.Perales stated that when the trust fund balance ran very low in 2003,money was transferred from the CIP to the trust fund. Mr.Nix stated that the fund does not pay for the expansion of plant capacity; everybody pays for that,which is a major cost. Mr.Nix stated that in an impact fee structure that the Council has been discussing,that cost would be included in the impact fees for new development. Mr.Nix further stated that new development is not paying for itself as far as the system is concerned,because it is not paying for the full cost of some of the lift station expansions,or plant capacity expansions. Mr.Nix stated that the proportionality of the cost of new development and the amount of participation by the city isn't clear,because if there are line expansions further back that have to happen and we fail to identify them in an amendment to the Master Plan as a project is approved,we'll end up having to fund them somehow. Mr.Nix stated there are several issues that am somewhat hidden;but the plan issue is just dealing with what is on the table right now and is fairly straight forward in that these sources of funds have been identified,the development community did come together to get this started. Mr.Nix stated the trust funds are entrusted to the City Council for this purpose including funds that are contributed by rate payers who are not developers. In response to Commissioner Huerta,Mr.Perales stated that a developer is defined based on the definition of developer included in the Platting Ordinance and reimbursements from the trust fund accounts are based on when all criteria is met and the date the project is approved. Mr.Nix stated that if someone is assessed lot and acreage fees,they are entitled to be reimbursed,whoever they are. In response to Commissioner Tame;Mr.Perales stated that the process for a typical subdivision project consists of the developer coming in and platting the property and they are responsible for construction of all the infrastructure,save for a few instances, primarily master drainage channel,where the drainage channel is greater than a 25 foot bottom width where the city is obligated to participate in bridge structures and some of the channel construction. Mr.Nix stated that the city does not pay for the entire external infrastructure when there are current codes to service the development. The city does not pay for certain lift station capacity expansions,or the additional capacity on the exterior road system that services the project when the service level is dropped by the project because we don't require traffic impact analyses,and we don't have a system for requiring those improvement to service a project. Mr.Nix stated there are many things the developers don't pay. Mr.Nix stated there was a situation in the past when storm water improvements were not made by the developer down stream from the project and the project flooded because outfall fed into the storm water system at a rate greater than the storm water system could affect. Mr.Nix stated there are a number of things the set of regulations do not assess that are expenses that are imposed on the public by development project and the assessment of these fees in no way pays the full cost of any development project. Mr.Nix stated the public does pay for those impacts. As an example,Mr.Nix stated that if the city decided to pave a street through an assessment,the property owner will be assessed one-half the cost of the pavement for the front feet of the property that directly benefits from the paving and the person across the street will pay the other half on the front of their property. However,if the developer is V V Planning Commission Minutes January 23,2008 Page 12 responsible for all of the lots and he is putting in a street,then all the assessments go to the developer. Mr.Nix further stated that when a project is being built,itis necessary to build the infrastructure that is necessary to support that project. The public expense comes in if the city requires one to oversize something for future capacity that isn't directly related to the project,which is where the proportionate share roles come into effect. Commissioner Tamez stated that population growth is what necessitates the increase in infrastructure,that the developers are responding to growth. Mr.Nix stated that the distribution of those demands is a function of the geographic distribution of the population,and that if the city has areas that are appropriate for infill development that can accommodate that population,and the developers go there,the city does not have to make any capacity improvements;if they go somewhere else,then we do. In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk,Mr.Nix stated that the issue is not that development is too costly,but that it is very complex. Mr.Nix stated it is his opinion that the debate has been too simple and that the debate itself has not clarified to the public what the issues are. For this particular ordinance,Mr.Nix stated it is how we grow and how we subsidize growth,and is the city subsidizing in such that makes sense to the community. Mr.Nix stated these are significant policy decisions that have to be made by City Council. Mr.Nix stated that he believes the city is growing too slow and that is a problem. The community would be healthier if the city was growing between two and three percent per year instead of one percent per year. The cost issue and policy issue of how we do that is a big community debate and we want to lend clarity to that debate and facts that people can use and process in making a community wide decision. Public hearing was opened. Larry Urban,Urban Engineering,2725 Swanter,came forward stating that community development is part of his practice. Mr.Urban stated that these ordinances were generated as a result of the lack of new infrastructure construction for sanitary sewer, water and drainage in the 1970s and 1980s. Mr.Urban stated the developers were feeling the constraints as they neared the edge of developable property and could not get sanitary sewer,water or drainage. Mr.Urban stated the developers and engineers got together to form a plan. Mr.Urban stated his brother was involved,as well as Ray Peterson and several other people. The group set up a trust fund and as they developed acreage they would contribute to the fund. Ultimately,it was decided there would he four funds: small water and big water lines;small sewer line and big sewer lines. The decision was made as to how much should be paid for acreage fees,pro rata fees and surcharge fees. Mr.Urban stated it was determined that the acreage fees would be paid by the developer,and a ratio of four lots to the acre was set. If there were more lots per acre,the developer paid a lot fee;if less,then he'd pay an acreage fee and these fees went into the sanitary sewer trunk line trust fund. Mr.Urban stated that the pro rata fee,essentially a tap fee,was set up to be paid into the fund if you had an existing line in front of your property in order to offset the cost. There was a surcharge fee which was simply a fee set on top that. Mr. Urban stated that 75% went into the bunk line trust fund and 25%went into the small line trust fund. Mr.Urban stated that at the time they did not know what relative proportions should go where, therefore,they decided all lot fees would...trunk lines are much more expensive than small 1160 Planning Commission Minutes January 23,2008 Page 13 lines,and the ratio was set. Mr.Urban stated it was the desire of the group to not let one of the trust funds get over funded while another fund goes broke. It was decided after holding a public hearing,that the fees can be adjusted and/or they can transfer money from one trust fund to the other. Mr.Urban stated that since that time, 1982,although mandated to do so,the City has not reviewed the funds nor have the funds been adjusted. However,the City has felt free to transfer funds back and forth between the trust funds. Mr.Urban stated that since 1982 these funds have been the source to build new infrastructure and to pay for increasing the size of lines if the need arises. With that being said,Mr.Urban stated it should be clear that this ordinance is a bit different than other portions of the City's Platting Ordinance and many other ordinances. Mr.Urban stated there is a certain feeling of ownership on the part of the developers because they came forward,created the funds,and used the funds very successfully over a long period of time. Mr.Urban stated that in 2002,it became apparent that funds were not available from the sanitary sewer trunk line trust fund,so adjustments were made,opening up the fund for use with major projects,such as the trunk line all the way out Airline Drive. Mr. Urban stated the entire area, 1,500 or 1,600 acres,had water and drainage,but no sewer,so it could not be platted and developed. It cost about$7.2 million dollars with$5.6 million being covered from the trust fund. Over time the fund became low,and Mr.Urban stated the ordinance as written says that if the fund gets low you can't pay out funds that you don't have and developers have to wait until the funds come back in. The funds did not go down to zero. The sanitary sewer trunk line trust fund became very low;the water line trust funds have always been well funded because the bi-annual reviews were never made to adjust that. Mr.Urban stated that on April 12,2005,city staff stated that the funds were headed to zero balances;therefore,staff was going to freeze the funds...but not really. The plan was to freeze the sanitary sewer trunk line trust fund for six months,but leave the collector line trust fund open. The objective was that during those six months,staff would come forward with a plan to ensure the funds stay solvent. Mr.Urban stated his dismay with the plan at that time,because it created a situation where one group of people,the developers, put the money into the trust fund and then the homebuilders put it into the collector line trust fund. Mr.Urban stated the money for each trust fund comes from different sources and a different category of people. Mr.Urban stated this practice was taking money from one group and giving it to another and dispersing it,while a different fund is frozen and projects can't go forward. Mr.Urban stated that not until January 17,2007,almost two years later,were the trust funds opened. Mr.Urban stated that a lot of hardship was created by those actions because projects were begun but could not go forward and meet the requirements for sanitary sewer. Without any discussion with developers,Mr.Urban stated the City took$3.5 million out of the capital improvement program and put it in. The ordinance states that interest will be paid at the rate of a"AA"municipal bond. Mr.Urban stated that if the$3.5 million was a loan,nobody agreed to it or to being responsible for the interest. Mr.Urban stated that during this time,the balance kept growing,so he told the City to take the funds out and put them back in the capital improvements program. Mr.Urban stated he believes the trust funds work and the$3.5 million is not needed and he does not view it as a loan kit rI Planning Commission Minutes January 23,2008 Page 14 since nobody applied for a loan or approved one. Mr.Urban stated his request tonight is for the City to take the funds out. Mr.Urban reiterated the developers'pride and feeling of ownership of the trust funds and feels that situation is different from other ordinances and codes. Mr.Urban questioned whether the ordinance authorizes the City had the authority to freeze the funds and stated there was no reason or purpose to do. Mr.Urban stated that in November 2007,the members of the development community had a meeting with Mr.Robert Nix,Mr.Johnny Perales,Skip Noe and Mayor Garrett and relayed their concerns with the interpretation of the ordinance and requested they all sit down and review the ordinances paragraph by paragraph and come up with a memorandum of understanding. Mr.Urban stated that before conducting an overhaul of the ordinance,an understanding of what the ordinance says,which has worked for 26 years, should be reached. Mr.Urban requested the city meet with the developers and people who created the ordinance and work with it everyday,some of who are present. In response to Commissioner Tamez,Mr.Urban stated the effects of the city limiting assistance to development outside the city limit within the ED is a method to ensure no development out there. Mr.Urban stated he does not believe that will slow down development across the creek because the City has deemed it appropriate to put in a major 16"water line down Weber Road from Chapman Ranch to London School which opens up all that line to development. Since there is not sewer they will be acreage developments with septic tanks. Further down,between Weber and Staples,the CIP for 2008 included $17.1 million to build a transfer sanitary sewer lift system and force mains. When it goes in,the land will be developed. Mr.Urban stated these actions have already taken place so it is going to happen. Excluding them from reimbursement from the trust fund will not have any impact on development. In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk,Mr.Urban stated that he developed three maps of the city and colored in on one map the areas served by water,on another map the areas served by sewer and the third one drainage and laid them on top of each other. In so doing, 1,500 acres of prime land was identified;and there are other similar areas. Mr.Fred Braselton,5337 Yorktown,Corpus Christi,Texas,came forward stating he supports the points made by Larry Urban. Mr.Braselton stated he attended the meeting with the city leaders mentioned by Mr.Urban and expected to sit down and work on clarifications. Mr.Braselton stated that did not happen and they have not had the opportunity to meet again. Mr.Braselton stated it is his opinion that this is not the time to move forward until the details are worked out and stated he and others are not comfortable making these changes to the developers'trust fund. Mr.Bill Brown came forward in agreement with Messrs.Urban and Braselton. Mr. Brown stated he and others present do not view themselves as developers,but they are land owners for many years. Mr.Brown stated the trust funds have worked for many years and are there for future development. Mr.Murph Hudson,Urban Engineering,came forward stating that there is nothing in the proposed ordinance amendment that staff could not have done with the Water Department standards as they exist today. Mr.Hudson stated that the ordinance does not change anything other than put enforcement of rules which can be enforced today with the 11111. N Planning Commission Minutes January 23,2008 Page 15 standards they have and put them into ordinance form,thereby,taking what should be staff level decisions and putting them in the hands of City Council. Mr.Don Oaker,307 Troy Drive,Corpus Christi,Texas,came forward stating that there is one more community group that needs to be involved in dialog and that is the farmers and ranchers who have the land. Mr.Oaker stated they should be included in Master Plans and long range plans,as well as Southside water transmission lines that come through the middle of their farms. Mr.Oaker added that this land has been in his family for over 100 years. Commissioner Tamez stated the two things he warns against is limiting development to the point of affecting affordable housing and he feels the city must meet their obligation to the ETJ. Public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Loeb for approval of staff recommendation. Motion failed. Motion to table was made by Commissioner Skrobarczyk and seconded by Commissioner Huerta. Commissioner Loeb questioned the reasoning behind tabling the item and Commissioner Skrobarczyk stated that staff and developers need to meet to ensure what they are working with and to give the stakeholders an opportunity for input Commissioner Loeb summarized the changes as lowering the total reimbursement amount,and removing the ability of developers in the ETJ from participating in the trust fund. In response to Chairman Stone,Mr.Perales stated that meetings have been scheduled and the attendance at the meetings was limited to Development Services staff and Urban Engineering staff,with a small amount of involvement from one of the other consultants. Vice-Chaimtan Garza stated many issues have been raised tonight and he believes the many questions raised warrant some debate before changing the ordinance,and stated he favors tabling the item. Gary Smith,Legal Counsel,stated that if the Planning Commission tables the item, the City Attorney's Office will advise the City Manager and his staff that a vote to table by this Commission will be reported to City Council as a recommendation of no recommendation and the proposed ordinances will proceed to City Council for decision, leaving it up to them whether to go forward. Mr. Smith stated the item has been to Planning Commission twice and staff has a Council that has requested to see this ordinance and it will go forward to them. Commissioner Huerta stated the trust fund was created by developers for developers for development and it is Commissioner Muerte opinion that the developers need to feel good about this ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes January 23,2008 Page 16 Commissioner Skrobarczyk stated in the three years of his service on the Commission,there have been issues in the ETJ,and it has been a problem every time. Commissioner Skrobarczyk stated he feels like he does not have information to know what to vote or not to vote. Commissioner Skrobarczyk stated that if tabling an item twice sends it directly to City Council,there will be plenty of discussion on future items the first time around. Commissioner Skrobarczyk stated he feels as if somebody is pushing to get all the UDC items done,to get this Platting Ordinance done,to get other things done right now. Commissioner Skrobarczyk stated he is on the Base Zoning Committee and they are making changes that will change everybody's life in this city. Commissioner Skrobarczyk stated that he is concerned that churches will no longer be able to distribute food or clothes or have a parochial school. Commissioner Skrobarczyk stated he does not know where the pressure is coming from or where all this is headed but there is a lot at stake. Motion was made by Commissioner Skrobarczyk to table the item and was seconded by Commissioner Huerta. Chairman Stone stated he has great respect for the developers and land owners present tonight and he does not believe they are just trying to stall,but that they have legitimate concerns. Chairman Stone further stated that hearing Mr.Paredes state that this is just one part of a bigger deal and the rest is still being worked on,it causes great concern. Chairman Stone stated he is hesitant to vote on one part and would rather see the whole picture. Chairman Stone stated that by tabling the item,it will show City Council that the Planning Commission has concerns. Roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Commissioner Loeb voting in opposition and Commissioner Nadkarni being absent. VIII. PUBLIC HEARING-REVISION OF HALF-STREET DEFERMENT AGREEMENT: RANCHO VISTA UNIT 3 Mr.Chip Baish,Engineer and Project Manager,presented the above item,stating that on September 19,2007,the Planning Commission approved this agreement and since that time staff has found reason to revise the agreement. In review,Rancho Vista Unit 3 is located south of Yorktown Road and east of Rodd Field Road. The plat was approved by the Planning Commission on June 14,2006, and is a 12.9 acre tract that is zoned"A-1B". Mr.Baish described a half-street deferment agreement as when staff identifies a future mad which will be built in the future and the developer dedicates half the right of way and half the cost of building that road. Subsequently,when the developer on the other side of the road plats,he dedicates half the right of way and also pays half the cost. The funds are kept in the infrastructure fund held by the City,only to be used to build that particular section of road. Mr.Baish stated that the developer,Mr.Fred Braselton,submitted a check for $45,079.94,as his cash deposit in lieu of construction of the half street for Road Field Road. After approval by Planning Commission on September 19,2007,it was discovered that Mr.Braselton had written a letter addressing his concerns about the fairness of the amount. Mr.Baish stated that the letter was misplaced and staff did not receive it. On October 5,2007,staff agreed to seek Planning Commission approval to reduce the cash deposit by an amount equal to the value of the additional right of way dedicated by the Planning Commission Minutes January 23,2008 Page 17 developer. The value of the additional right of way is$13,205 and the revised cash deposit required of the developer is$31,865.94. Mr.Baish stated the Commissioners are required to make the finding that there is reasonable cause to reduce the.cash deposit from the developer by the amount equal to the additional right of way dedicated by the developer. Public hearing was opened. Mr.Braselton came forward stating he was here to answer any questions. Public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kelly that there exists reasonable cause to reduce the cash deposit from the developer by an amount equal to the value of the additional right of way dedicated by the developer and was seconded by Commissioner Martinez. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Nadkarni being absent. IX. PUBLIC HEARING-DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: THE PRESERVE AT MUSTANG ISLAND Dan McGinn,Project Manager,presented the above case,stating the subdivision name has changed to Tortuga Dunes. The project is a mixed use residential,with a PUD approved last year by the Planning Commission. The project is located on the north side of Packery Channel on North Padre Island. Mr.McGinn stated the development agreement will address three major points, 1) plat recordation procedure;2)temporary water connects,and 3)the exterior design and maintenance of the Zahn Road Lift Station. Mr.McGinn stated the City's Platting Ordinance prohibits the issuance of building permits prior to the construction of water and wastewater facilities to service each lot within the development. This delay in putting water and waste water lines in will significantly delay the process of vertical improvements. The developer proposes to construct the required infrastructure while he is building a limited number of permanent improvements on identified lots within the subdivision. Mr.McGinn stated the permits for the improvements will be issued upon the developer posting 110%of the deferred infrastructure and all fees must be paid and in place before the recording will take place. At that point,the city will issue limited certificates of occupancy for the proposed structures of a temporary sales office. When the infrastructure is in place and is accepted and approved by the city a more comprehensive certificate of occupancy will be issued. Temporary water connects will be made available to the sales trailer. Lastly,the Zahn Road Lift Station design and maintenance will be after construction is taken over by the city for the city's maintenance. The exterior design of the wall will be done by the developer similar to the entrance to the subdivision. Through this agreement the city is granting permission to the developer to care for area with an irrigation system and future maintenance,which will eventually be handed over to a homeowners association that will be created. Planning Commission Minutes January 23,2008 Page 18 In response to Chairman Stone,Mr.Smith stated that the he and staff have gone through several versions and he feels comfortable with it. Public hearing was opened. In response to Commissioner Skrobarczyk,Mr.McGinn stated a Beach Construction Certificate has been issued for the project. Public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Vice-Chairman Gana for approval of staff recommendation and was seconded by Commissioner Loeb. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Nadkarni being absent. X. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. FUTURE SCHEDULED MEETINGS February 6,2008 February 20,2008 March 5,2008 2. CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN ON REZONING CASES January 8,2008 Case No.1107-02-Jimmy Williams: A change of zoning from a "R-IB" One-Family Dwelling District to an "1-2" Light Industrial District resulting in a change of land use from residential to light industrial,4.047 acres of land out of the west 21.6 acres and out of Lot 1 of the W.O. Womack Fenn lots, located at the intersection of Saratoga Boulevard and Old BrownsvilleRoad. ("1-2"District approved) Case No. 1107-03— Kent Austin: A change of zoning from an"AT" Apartment-Tourist District to a "BD" Corpus Christi Beach Design District resulting in a change of land use from multifamily to tourist, Brooklyn Lots 7, 8 and portion of alley and street, Block 66, located on Timon Boulevard, approximately 145 feet north of Gulfspray Avenue. ("AT"District with a Special Permit approved) January 15,2008 Case No.1207-03,U Store C.C.IV,LLC:A change of zoning from a "B-4" General Business District to an "1-2" Lightdustri l Di rcict, ct, 3.117 acres out of Bohemian Colony Lands, Lot 5, Section approximately 170 feet north of Holly Road and approximately 275 feet east of Kostoryz Road. (13-4" District with a Special Permit approved.) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TURNER INDUSTRIES GROUP PROJECT (Approved) V Planning Commission Minutes January 23,2008 Page 19 January 22,2008 Exemption for London School Tracts, Lot 2 of the wastewater acreage fees, subject to a Sanitary Sewer Connection Agreement to include payment of the wastewater acreage fees if wastewater services become available within fifteen (15)years of the plat being recorded. February 12,2008 a. Case No.0108-02 Ronald A.Voss-A change of zoning from a"F-R Farm- Rural District to an"1-2"Light Industrial District resulting in a change of land use from agricultural to light industrial 14.899 acres(Tract 1)and 2.000 acres(Tract 2)both out of Bohemian Colony Lands,Lot 7,Section 14,located on Greenwood Drive approximately 1,275 feet south of Saratoga Boulevard. b. Case No.1207-01 Scott Electric Co.,Inc: A change of zoning from a "R-IB" One Family Dwelling District to an "1-2" Light Industrial District resulting in a change of land use from residential to light industrial, Shoreline Park Addition, Lots 9 through 11, Block 8, located on Dempsey Street, approximately 100 feet west of North Port Avenue. 3. OTHER MATTERS XL ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made at 9:55 by Commissioner Loeb and seconded by Commissioner Huerta. Motion passed unanimously. Faryce G de-Macon Beverly Lalt-Priest1.,4 Interim Assistant Director of Recording ecretary Development Services/Planning H:\PLN-DIR\SHARED\W ORD\PLANN ING COMMIS SIONUIIN UTES\2008\CORRECT MINU IES.DOC