Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 03/18/2020 T Cityof Corpus Christi 1201 Leopard Street 'Q' �ti` Corpus Christi. TX 78401 I. ` cctexas.com Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Wednesday, March 18, 2020 5:30 PM Council Chambers Call to Order, Roll Call Chairman Crull called the meeting to order and a quorum was established with four absences. II. Opening Statement III. PUBLIC COMMENT - AUDIENCE AND PRESENTER SOCIAL DISTANCING AND PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND PUBLIC HEARING INPUT AT PUBLIC MEETINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. To reduce the chance of COVID-19 transmission, public meetings will be held in a manner intended to separate, to the maximum practical extent, audience and presenters from personal contact with members of Community, City Staff, and City Council. Public testimony and public hearing input for Public Comment and all items on the agenda at public meetings of the Planning Commission shall be provided in written format and presented to the City Secretary and/or designee prior to the start of each meeting of the Planning Commission. This testimony and/or public input shall be in accordance with the City Secretary's instructions, which shall be posted on the City Secretary's door and on the City website, and allow for electronic submission. The written public testimony shall be provided to members of Board prior to voting on measures for that meeting. Written testimony shall be limited in accordance with the City Secretary requirements and shall be placed into the record of each meeting. This written testimony shall serve as the required public testimony pursuant to Texas Government Code 551.007 and shall constitute a public hearing for purposes of any public hearing requirement under law. The meeting may be held telephonically or via videoconference. The public may participate remotely by following the instructions of the City Secretary at cctexas.com/departments/city-secretary. IV. Approval of Absences: None. V. Approval of Minutes 1. 20-0387 Regular Meeting Minutes of March 4, 2020 A motion to approve item "1"was made by Vice Chairman Baugh and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Zarghouni.The motion passed. City of Corpus Christi Page 1 Printed on 4/16/2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 18, 2020 VI. Consent Public Hearing: (Items A & B) - Discussion and Possible Action Andrew Dimas, Development Services, read the Consent Agenda items into the record. Plat items "2, 3,4, 5, &6"satisfy all requirements of the UDC and State Law; the Technical Review Committee recommends approval. Staff also recommends approval of Time Extension items "7. 8, 9& 10"and New Zoning item "11"as stated in staff's report. Commissioner Schroeder arrived at 5:33 p.m. After staff's report. Chairman Crull opened the floor for Commissioner comments/questions.Seeing none, Chairman Crull opened the public hearing. Due to social distancing policies put in place by the City for public meetings, public comments were submitted via email. Mr. Dimas reported no comments were received for any consent items. With no submitted comments,the public hearing was closed. Commissioner York recused himself from items "2,4,6, 7, 8& 10". A motion was made by Commissioner York to approve items "3, 5, 9& 11"as presented. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Baugh and the motion passed.A motion was made by Commissioner Dibble to approve items "2,4, 6, 7,8& 10" as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Zarghouni and the motion passed. A. Plats New Plats 2. 20-0389 19PL1134 WESTPOINT CROSSING UNIT 2 (PRELIMINARY - 41.27 ACRES) Located west of South Padre Island Drive (SH 358) and north of West Point Road. 3. 20-0391 20PL1002 PORT ARANSAS CLIFFS. BLK 413. LOT 3 (FINAL - 0.33 ACRE) Located west of Santa Fe Street & north of Rossiter Street. 4. 20-0392 19PL1011 KING'S POINT UNIT 6. BLK 1. LOTS 1C & 1D (FINAL - 4.7 ACRES) Located north of Yorktown Boulevard & west of Loire Boulevard. 5. 20-0396 20PL1009 STARLIGHT ESTATES FUTURE UNITS (PRELIMINARY - 95.63 ACRES) Located south of Yorktown Boulevard and east of Fred's Folley Drive. City of Corpus Christi Page 2 Printed on 4/16/2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 18, 2020 6. 20-0397 19PL1124 FIFTH QUARTER INDUSTRIAL PARK (PRELIMINARY - 22.88 ACRES) Located east of North Padre Island Drive and north of Bates Street. TIME EXTENSIONS 7. 20-0404 18 P L 1124 PADRE HARBOR UNIT 3 (FINAL - 60.9 ACRES) Located south of Hwy 361 and east of South Padre Island Drive (Park Road 22). 8. 20-0405 18PL1123 PADRE HARBOR UNIT 2 (FINAL - 25.24 ACRES) Located south of Hwy 361 and east of South Padre Island Drive (Park Road 22). 9. 20-0406 18 PL 1122 BASS SUBDIVISION. BLK 7. LOTS 2R-1 AND 2R-2 (REPLAT- 0.50 ACRES) Located east of Airline Road and north of Saratoga Boulevard. 10. 20-0407 18PL1076 PARK SPRINGS IHS, BLOCK 1, LOTS 1 THROUGH 3 (FINAL - 3.87 ACRES) Located Hazel Bazemore Road (CR 69) and south of Northwest Boulevard (FM 624). B. New Zoning 11. 20-0393 Public Hearing - Rezoning Property at or near 7814 Slough Road Case No. 0320-02 -Juan Romero: Ordinance rezoning property at or near 7814 Slough Road (located along the north side of Slough Road. east of Rodd Field Road, and west of Amethyst Drive). from the "FR" Farm Rural District to the "RS-6" Single-Family 6 District. VII. Public Hearing: (Items C & D) - Discussion and Possible Action C. New Plat with Variances (Waivers) 12. 20-0390 19PL1135 ROSCHER CROSSING ESTATES (FINAL - 23.18 ACRES) Located west of Flour Bluff Drive & south of Glen Oak Drive. City of Corpus Christi Page 3 Printed on 4/16/2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 18, 2020 13. 20-0398 19PL1135 -WASTEWATER CONSTRUCTION WAIVER & FEE EXEMPTION ROSCHER CROSSING ESTATES (FINAL - 23.18 ACRES) Located west of Flour Bluff Drive & south of Glen Oak Drive. Request for a Waiver of the Wastewater Infrastructure Construction Requirement in Section 8.2.7.A of the Unified Development Code (UDC), and an Exemption from Wastewater Lot/Acreage Fees in Accordance with Section 8.5.2.G of the UDC. 14. 20-0414 19PL1135 - STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ROSCHER CROSSING ESTATES (FINAL - 23.18 ACRES) Located west of Flour Bluff Drive & south of Glen Oak Drive. Request for a Rat Waiver of the Sreet Right-of-Way Dimensional Standards in Section 8.2.1.B and to allow the Rural Street Standards on Table 8.2.1.D of the Unified Development Code. Mr. Dimas stated he would read item "12"after items "13 & 14". Mr. Dimas read item "13" into the record as shown above. He stated a letter was submitted by the engineer outlining reasons for the request. He showed an aerial overview of the subject property. The closest existing wastewater manhole with an 8' depth is approximately 6,000 linear feet east of the property. He reviewed the sections of the UDC relating to wastewater requirements and waiver standards, and the review criteria for approval or approval with conditions. He reviewed the 15-year wastewater service map indicating future wastewater development which showed the subject property is not slated to be adjacent to any wastewater infrastructure in the next 15 years.Staff recommended denial of the wastewater fees exemption based on the principle that the City wants all future developments connected to the wastewater system,while recognizing that the property will likely not be within 1,000 feet of wastewater service in the next 15 years. It was pointed out that the edge of area is in the AICUZ,and according to AICUZ standards there cannot be a density greater than two dwelling units per acre,with half an acre being the requisite size for a septic system. Commissioner Williams arrived at 5:38 p.m.; Commissioner Miller arrived at 5:45p.m. Commissioner Dibble asked why staff recommended denial if there were no plans to extend wastewater service to the area in the next 15 years. Mr. Dimas said City leadership wants all properties in the city to connect to wastewater, which is why staff had to recommend denial, but it is also acknowledged no service is planned for the near future, and high-density is not desirable for that area due to the AICUZ. Mr. Dimas said there are many factors that can change future plans for wastewater service in the area, including the adoption of impact fees, but decisions must be made based on current plans and conditions. Al Raymond, Director of Development Services, added that this project started before the new leadership was in place, and though impact fees may make a difference in the future, it is now the philosophy of the City to touch every corner of the city with wastewater infrastructure and the recommendation for denial was made in the name of consistency across all City of Corpus Christi Page 4 Printed on 4/16/2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 18, 2020 future development.Chairman Crull stated $6.2M quoted by Munoz Engineering to bring wastewater infrastructure to 22 lots would kill the development. Commissioner York reiterated that it was odd that the request met all the criteria but staff still recommended denial, especially considering the cost of installing infrastructure. Commissioner Zarghouni asked about the size of the property; Mr. Dimas answered just over 23 acres. Commissioner Zarghouni asked if it was zoned RE; Mr. Dimas replied a portion was RE and a portion RS-6. Commissioner Zarghouni asked about another property in the area requesting rezoning in the past; Mr. Dimas said it was Four Baba and that most of the community came out against rezoning the entire area to RS-22, which are half-acre lots. Commissioner Zarghouni pointed out that he could see requiring the infrastructure be built if the lots were zoned RS-4.5, because smaller lots would help defray the cost over higher density, but$6.2M for 22 lots is approximately $300K per lot which makes it impractical. Commissioner Schroeder confirmed that the developer wants to take a portion of the lots and rezone them to a higher density than the community wanted,that the developer sold some of the property, and another portion will have larger lots. He asked how many homes were proposed on RS-6 lots. Chairman Crull pointed out there can't be any without sewer service. Commissioner York pointed out the lots would have to be a half-acre or more. Commissioner Schroeder asked what the smallest proposed lot was; Mr. Dimas said some lots are RS-6 and some are RE-the RS-6 sets the minimum standard, but for a septic system they need a half-acre, so would have the effect of RS-22 zoning without having to rezone.Commissioner Schroeder asked how many half-acre lots were planned; Mr. Dimas informed him 13 to 14. Commissioner Schroeder asked if there was any data on how the septic systems will affect Oso Bay, because only a rural lot separates the development from the bay, and whether this development might impact the bay more than previous developments in the area. Mr. Dimas explained the Health Department is very sensitive to septic system runoff into detention ponds and natural bodies of water. He mentioned a recent zoning case where the Health Department had concerns about spray fields draining into a drainage easement that leads to a detention pond, so he assumes they will have more of an interest in these properties because they are next to Oso Bay, but that any heavy storm event will cause flow from the spray fields into the Oso. Vice Chairmans Baugh questioned staff's recommendation for denial when the Commission has approved waivers for projects closer to sewer infrastructure than the current project. Mr. Dimas reiterated the City's desire that all properties be connected to the wastewater system. Commissioner Williams reminded the Commission that they approved a wastewater waiver for properties directly adjacent to Oso Bay, over her objections about the effect of hurricanes. She asked if they made that previous development connect to sewer,would the current development have access to that infrastructure. Commissioner York asked where the previous property appeared in the 15-year service map. Mr. Dimas brought up the map. Commissioner Williams asked which lift station the previous development was closest to, and Chairman Crull pointed out that there is no wastewater infrastructure in Flour Bluff. Commissioner York pointed out that it doesn't make sense to make the developer install the sewer at the cost stated, but it would make sense for the City to extend the infrastructure, but it is unlikely that the area will ever be served because there are already so many single-family homes on large lots with septic systems and there's no incentive to connect to City sewer. Commissioner York asked if any established developments in the area have wastewater hookup agreements; Mr. Dimas said they do not. Commissioner York stated he is in favor of granting the City of Corpus Christi Page 5 Printed on 4/16/2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 18, 2020 waiver, but he doesn't like the precedent it sets, which implies land in that area is undevelopable. Chairman Crull asked if the Commission did not grant the waiver, would existing subdivisions be able to connect to that infrastructure; Mr. Dimas said without a connection agreement,the City can't force existing subdivisions to connect to sewer.There being no further discussion from the Commission, Chairman Crull opened Public Comment. Mr. Dimas pointed out the letter from the engineering firm and said Thomas Tiffin from Munoz Engineering sent an email that afternoon, offering to be available for any questions the Commissioner have via speakerphone. Another email came from the owner and developer of the property, Ms. Azali, in favor of the waiver and the streets exemption.She states it is difficult to defray the costs of installing wastewater infrastructure over so few homes.Commissioner Zarghouni asked if it was 22 lots all together, including half-acre and acre lots; Chairman Crull said it was 14 half-acre lots and 8 acre lots. Chairman Crull confirmed with Mr. Dimas that there was no further public comment.As there was none, the public hearing was closed. As a point of order, Mr. Dimas pointed out that the item is for a waiver of wastewater construction as well as a lot/acreage fee waiver.Commissioner York asked if it was understood the development would connect to wastewater if it was installed, or should that be stated in the motion. Mr. Dimas said it should be in the motion so it's part of the record. A motion was made by Chairman Crull to approve item "13"for only the construction waiver-not the fees-and the understanding that the developer enter a wastewater connection agreement for all lots in the development. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Williams. Commissioner York asked what fees were being waived; it was clarified they were the lot/acreage fees for wastewater.Commissioner York asked Chairman Crull why he wants to grant a waiver for construction, but not the fee; Chairman Crull replied to increase the trust fund and for future wastewater development. It was pointed out that if wastewater infrastructure isn't built in 10 years,the developer receives a refund. Commissioner Dibble asked if it was possible to make separate motions the construction from the fees. Chairman Crull withdrew his motion. Chairman Crull made a new motion to approve item "13"for only the construction waiver with a connection agreement. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Dibble and the motion passed. A motion was made by Chairman Crull to deny the lot/acreage fee exemption in item "13".The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and the motion passed with Commissioner Dibble as the sole vote against. Mr. Dimas read item "14" into the record as shown above. Mr. Dimas showed photos of the property's location. He reviewed a cross-section of the proposed street, moving away from traditional 50' ROW with a 28' back-to-back with sidewalks to a 60' ROW per the rural street standards with side bar ditches without a sidewalk. Factors supporting the sidewalk waiver are the fact that the streets do not appear on the UTP or the ADA master plan, it is not on an RTA route or a walkable path to schools or churches and would not be a detriment to health,safety or welfare. The factors against the waiver are that the property is zoned RS-6 and on a corner, so it could be the beginning of a sidewalk network in the area. However, for sidewalks to be built in the area it would require surrounding properties to replat in order to trigger the requirement,which is unlikely to happen. Staff recommends approval of the City of Corpus Christi Page 6 Printed on 4/16/2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 18, 2020 request. Chairman Crull pointed out that the owner's letter states the subdivision will be a gated community. Mr. Dimas said for it to be a gated community the roads would need to be private. It was determined the roads inside the subdivision are private. Commissioner York requested to ask a question related to the plat(item "12"); he said he noticed two areas that violate the UDC: lot 16 and 15,due to different zoning, have a drastic change in yard setbacks from 50'to 25', which is not permitted by the UDC; from lot 16 all the way around would have to maintain a 50'yard setback and asked if it was brought up at TRC.Chairman Crull said it happens between lots 5 and 6 as well.Commissioner York said this issue is currently before the UDC committee,and that most cities will allow a 45°angle to transition from the larger to the smaller setback,although it's not permitted in Corpus Christi yet. It's been an issue with lots that front a street, but at the end the lots side the street and front the main street. The side yard on that street must be the larger setback,which is the front yard setback of those fronting the street. Developers have always had to add the extra space to the side yards in that situation. Chairman Crull brought the meeting back to item "14"and asked if the streets are private, Mr. Dimas confirmed. He asked if private streets were permitted without a PUD,and Mr. Dimas said as long as they are built to an acceptable standard in the event the City must take over maintenance. The Chairman asked if the developer's plans show the streets will be built to an acceptable standard and Mr. Dimas confirmed they do. Mr. Crull said he thinks a motion to approve should include a statement that the streets be constructed to City standards.Commissioner York asked for clarification as to whether the item was a sidewalk waiver or related to street construction; Mr. Dimas replied it is a street ROW waiver that includes sidewalks. He also asked about the drainage plan, pointing out that in the past people put in their own driveways without a culvert standard. In other cities, developments like that have a standard driveway/culvert design and asked if that was discussed with this developer. Mr. Dimas said he doesn't recall a driveway plan for the development because it is a private road and the City can't intervene until it becomes a nuisance and causes flooding issues. Commissioner York asked if it was possible to modify a motion to approve to include wording that required a driveway plan with culverts the right size for the drainage needs in the area. Mr. Dimas said it may be added as a condition to the waiver. Commissioner Dibble asked if that is something that would need to be reviewed and approved in the permitting process. Mr. Dimas confirmed, like a PUD,when they submit their driveway permit the plan needs to meet the condition. Commissioner York said the issue seems to be that some people skip the permitting process and put in their driveways however they want,sometimes without a culvert; he wants to compel the developer to install standard driveways. Commissioner Williams said because this isn't a PUD-and a PUD stays a PUD forever-so the City never takes them over. Mr. Dimas pointed out that the City had to take over Village on the Green. She asked if streets are constructed poorly,whether the City will have to take over maintenance. Mr. Dimas said the City will take over if they have to, but the plat doesn't have to be accepted if the design doesn't meet City standards, and the Commission can put in a condition that the streets be inspected to insure they are constructed to City standards. Commissioner Williams pointed out that the alleys failed in Buckingham and cost the homeowners $8,000 each to put in concrete, and she wants in ensure that won't happen with these streets. Chairman Crull said in the past if a City of Corpus Christi Page 7 Printed on 4/16/2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 18, 2020 neighborhood wanted the City to take over the maintenance of their streets, they first had to bring them up to City standards. Commissioner York said the UDC requires private streets be built to City standards, and that the Commission wants to reiterate that as a condition of approval. Chairman Crull asked if the City inspects private streets; Mr. Dimas said the Commission should stipulate the streets be inspected. Seeing no further discussion, Chairman Crull opened Public Comment. Mr. Dimas said there was nothing to add beyond the letters from the engineer and owner/developer. Commissioner Williams asked if this was the subdivision that the public complained caused flooding. It was pointed out those properties fronted Glen Oak Drive, and the property under discussion enters and exits entirely on Roscher Road.There being no more comments, Chairman Crull closed Public Comment. A motion was made by Chairman Crull to approve item "14"on the condition that the street construction is to City standards and that driveways have the appropriate drainage structure to prevent upstream flooding. Commissioner Zarghouni seconded. Mr. Dimas asked if they want to include the condition that the construction be inspected. Chairman Crull modified his motion to include the street either be inspected, or the engineer of record provide a certification. Commissioner Zarghouni seconded and the motion passed. Andrew Dimas read item "12" into the record as listed above. He addressed Commissioner York's question about the setbacks and noted there were no plat comments related to the setbacks. Commissioner York said the City of Conroe's code would allow a 45°angle to transition between adjacent properties with different yard requirements. He asked if it was possible to allow for such a transition as a condition of approval. He said it is an issue being addressed DSTAG and he questioned why the setback would need to be maintained per code with no transition and the only concern staff raised was the view corridor. He feels that the view corridor isn't a good enough reason to maintain the yard requirements, so long as they don't interfere with the view triangles at intersections, and the 45°angle rule allowed in other cities would help to transition the view corridor in this case. Chairman Crull asked if the Commission could make a motion to approve on the condition that the plat go back to the TRC to review the year requirements. Mr. Dimas said he didn't think that was possible,that the Commission can't send it back to the TRC,that it could only be an approval in that case. Mr. Dimas pointed out that interpretation of the code when the plat was originally reviewed is different than the current interpretation. Now each zoning district allows its front yard setbacks,and code amendments made recently were to address back-to-back properties and side corners, not transitions between properties with different front yard setbacks; the 45°angle rule would make sense, but since it isn't a rule, he can't recommend denial of the plat. Commissioner Schroeder asked if because the lots are adjacent and not a side yard that the rule doesn't apply to this case. Mr. Dimas said the rule was to reduce the side yard to 10',and it was transitioned to apply to abutting lots on a corner, where one lot was perpendicular the setbacks could be averaged to address visibility issues, but does not address two abutting front yards. Commissioner Schroeder asked if the TRC made an error, and Mr. Dimas said there isn't a line in the code addressing adjoining front yards. Commissioner York said he understands the interpretation of the "back-to-back" rule has changed and can't be used to deny the plat. City of Corpus Christi Page 8 Printed on 4/16/2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 18, 2020 After discussion, Chairman Crull opened Public Hearing for item "12". Seeing none, he closed Public Hearing. A motion was made by Vice Chairman Baugh to approve item "12"as presented.Commissioner York seconded and the motion passed. D. Presentation 15. 20-0388 Resolution amending the City Council Policies to add a Public Improvement District Policy Mr. McGinn read item "15" into the record as shown above. He stated that Keren Costanzo was the project manager for this item and other individuals were slated to be part of the presentation, including an attorney from San Antonio they had been working with. He stated that due to current events, Dan McGinn and Buck Brice were the only presenters. He stated that this item was a consideration for a new City policy related to PIDs, or Public Improvement Districts. He stated that PIDs are an economic development tool that permits the financing of qualified improvements within a definable area of the City or ETJ. The costs of the capital improvements are paid for entirely by the property owners within that district and they directly receive the benefits of those capital improvements. Mr. McGinn proceeded to provide the commissioners with a timeline of the project. Mr. McGinn reviewed the background of the presentation to provide the commissioners with introductory knowledge including how this item is authorized by Ch. 372 of the Texas Local Government Code as well as the processes regarding how PIDs are created and reviewed. He said that, in its entirety. the PID process usually takes about 9-12 months. He then presented information regarding which of the top 10 cities in Texas use PIDs and how many have PID policies. He stated that PIDs do not require a PID policy to be in place. He presented PID policy components of various Texas cities and showed the comparisons between them as well as general policy knowledge. He presented the PID policy components for the City of Corpus Christi and explained why these components were decided upon. Chairman Crull questioned the value/lien ratio. He asked if an individual could receive$333,000 in loans or bondage if he had raw land that was worth $1,000,000. Mr. McGinn replied that it would be based on units and not the whole tract. Commissioner Dibble asked whether it would be based on the proposed value or the assumed value. Chairman Crull stated he was under the impression that the assessments would be a part of the tax bill and questioned if anyone had talked to Kevin Kieschnick about adding the costs to the tax bill. Mr. McGinn said that he would certainly be on the list of admin fees. The PID would have to pay something to the taxing entity for them to process it. Commissioner Williams questioned whether each subdivision would need to apply for a PID or if PID applications can be grouped together. Mr. McGinn stated that PID applications can certainly be grouped together, although he was unsure if they would need to be contiguous. Chairman Crull explained how some developers have used PIDs already. Commissioner Williams questioned if a PID could be used for sewer systems. Mr. McGinn explained that they certainly could, however, he would like to see additional things added to it in such situations. Chairman Crull, Commissioner Williams and Mr. McGinn discussed the possibilities of what PIDs could be used for. Chairman Crull asked whether these would allow for operation and maintenance costs. Mr. Brice stated that he would have to look over the PID policy again to be City of Corpus Christi Page 9 Printed on 4/16/2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 18, 2020 sure. Commissioner Schroeder asked if the PID policies used in Dallas were primarily used for improving the services and if they limited it to areas that were already developed as a method to make them favorable for redevelopment. He asked if that was also the plan for Corpus Christi. Mr. McGinn explained that it is,specifically for the London area. He explained that after investigating the PID further, Dallas seemed to be using it most effectively for redevelopment. He said that this PID policy could be a fantastic tool to use throughout all of Corpus Christi.Commissioner York asked if the PID policy has gained more popularity since its introduction where it received negative feedback from developers. Mr. McGinn explained that this policy hasn't been seen much outside of its use in large-scale projects and that having this policy will be a welcome procedure to have in place to avoid setbacks and confusion. Mr. Brice explained that utility maintenance is not an authorized use in the policy. Chairman Crull suggested that utility maintenance possibly be a part of HOA fees. Commissioner Schroeder stated concerns over whether using the PID policy for subdivisions could justify the costs. Chairman Crull suggested that the Six Points area would be a good location to use the PID policy. Commissioner Schroeder stated that it would be fairly unlikely that it could be used for single-family areas. Commissioner York agreed with Commissioner Schroeder and stated that Dallas used it very well, however, his concerns were that this PID policy was started for the London area which is all single-family. Chairman Crull stated that Mr. McGinn's approach was to have this policy in place for whenever it may be needed, not necessarily for just the London area. Chairman Crull and the commissioners discussed the intricacies of the PID policy's purpose, uses and parameters. Chairman Crull stated that this policy is more for developers and that it's up to developers to decide whether to use this policy or conventional financing. He questioned that if impact fees take the place of trust fund fees whether following this policy would make them subject to impact fees. Mr. McGinn stated that it's something to investigate, but he didn't think there could be two assessments like that. Mr. Brice explained that it is possible to have both the PID fees and impact fees. Mr. McGinn stated that staff recommends approval of this policy. Vice Chairman Baugh made a motion to approve item "15"as presented. Commissioner Schroeder seconded and the motion passed. VIII. Director's Report None. IX. Items to be Scheduled None. X. Adjournment There being no other business to discuss,Chairman Crull adjourned the meeting at 7:04 p.m. City of Corpus Christi Page 10 Printed on 4/16/2020