HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 09/15/2021 w 1201 Leopard Street
City of Corpus Christi
td� � Corpus Christi,TX 78401
�I b, 4 cctexas.com
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
Wednesday,September 15,2021 6:30 PM Council Chambers
I. Call to Order, Roll Call
Chairman Baugh called the meeting to order and a quorum was established with
Commissioners Mandel and Salazar-Garza absent.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. Approval of Absences: Commissioner Mandel
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Dibble to approve the absence listed above and
it was seconded by Commissioner York. The motion passed.
IV. Approval of Minutes
1. 21-1273 Regular Meeting Minutes of September 1, 2021
A motion was made by Commissioner Miller to approve the minutes listed above and it
was seconded by Commissioner Schroeder. The motion passed.
V. Consent Public Hearing (Items A& B): Discussion and Possible Action
Chairman Baugh stated that New Zoning item "11" will be pulled from the Consent
Agenda for individual consideration; asked Staff to present the remaining Consent
Agenda, items "2 through 10". Senior City Planner, David Stallworth, read the Consent
Agenda items into the record. New Plat items "2 through 9" satisfy all requirements of the
UDC/State Law and the Technical Review Committee (TRC) recommends approval.
Staff recommends approval for Time Extension item "10".
After Staffs presentation, Chairman Baugh opened the public hearing. With no one
coming forward, the public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner
Schroeder to approve items "2 through 10" as presented by Staff and it was seconded
by Commissioner York. The motion passed.
City of Corpus Christi Page 1 Printed on 913012021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 15,2021
A. Plats
NEW PLATS
2. 21-1224 21PL1046
PORT ARANSAS CLIFFS, BLK 808, LOTS 41R, 42R & 43R (FINAL REPLAT -
0.286 ACRES)
Located north of S. Alameda Street between Texas Avenue and Angel Avenue.
3. 21-1225 21PL1062
FLOUR BLUFF ESTATES NO.2, BLK 11, LOT 4B (FINAL - 0.172 ACRES)
Located south of Jester St and east of Jane Street.
4. 21-1226 21PL1065
RANCHO VISTA SUBDIVISION UNIT 23 (FINAL - 13.81 ACRES)
Located south of Adler Drive between Rancho Vista Boulevard and Cattlemen
Drive.
5. 21-1227 21 PL1067
FLOUR BLUFF ESTATES NO.2 BLK 8 LOTS 14A & 14B (FINAL REPLAT- 0.379
ACRES)
Located south of Webb street and west of Jane Street.
6. 21-1229 21PL1084
RIVER RIDGE UNIT 4A (FINAL - 12.73 ACRES)
Located north of County Road 52 and east of County Road 69.
7. 21-1260 21PL1110
MARTINEZ ADDITION, BLOCK 1, LOT 1 (FINAL - 0.0402 ACRES)
Located south of Comanche Street and west Culberson Street.
8. 21-1266 21PL1064
WILDCAT INDUSTRIAL PARK, BLK 2, LOT 4 (FINAL -4.26 ACRES)
Located north of Roughneck Road and east of Cathead Road.
9. 21-1228 21 PL1080 -CONDITIONAL
JADE HEIGHTS (FINAL -23.39 ACRES)
Located north of Saratoga Boulevard and west of Weber Road.
City of Corpus Christi Page 2 Printed on 913012021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 15,2021
TIME EXTENSION
10. 21-1265 20PL1129 - 1st Request
TULOSO RESERVE UNIT 2 (FINAL - 7.85 ACRES)
Located south of Leopard Street and east of Rand Morgan Road (FM 2292).
B. New Zoning
11. 21-1272 Public Hearing - Rezoning Property at or near 3942 Cimarron Boulevard.
Case No. 0921-01, Richard Jurach, Jerry Jurach, Patricia Hunt and Paula
Carter: Ordinance rezoning property located at or near 3942 Cimarron
Boulevard (located along the east side of Cimarron Boulevard, south of Lipes
Boulevard, and north of Yorktown Boulevard) from the "FR" Farm Rural District to
the "RM-2" Multifamily District.
Andrew Dimas, Development Services Administrator, read New Zoning item "11" into
the record as shown above. The applicant is proposing the construction of a 240-unit
apartment complex. Mr. Dimas went over the history of zoning patterns, available
municipal facilities as well as UDC requirements for the rezoning request. He informed
the Commission that of the 38 public notices mailed, zero notices were returned in favor
and one notice was returned in opposition.
The proposed rezoning is generally consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan
(Plan CC); the proposed rezoning warrants an amendment to the Future Land Use Map.
Recent rezonings in 2015 have occurred to the north to the "CN-1" district and to the
"RM-2" district in 2018. Most recently to the east, rezonings occurred in 2018 to the
"RM-1" district. Based on recent zoning changes and existing commercial zoning along
Cimarron Boulevard (Al Arterial Street), a trend towards commercial development is
occurring. Based on this analysis, Staff recommends approval of the change of zoning.
After Staff's presentation, Chairman Baugh opened the floor for Commissioner
comments/questions. Vice Chairman Dibble pointed out that the time of the meeting was
incorrect on the public notices. The notices stated 5:30 p.m. and not 6:30 p.m.
Discussion took place regarding public notices and State statute requirements.
Commissioner Zarghouni asked about height restrictions for the "RM-2" district.
Discussion took place regarding UDC requirements for height restrictions when adjacent
to single-family districts. Mr. Dimas presented a site plan to show locations of the two
and three story units. A two story unit will be placed adjacent to the single-family
neighborhood (Cimarron Lake Estates) including separation with a parking lot. Vice
Chairman Dibble raised concern that the design of the site plan could change once the
rezoning is granted. He asked if a condition could be placed restricting the height of the
building that is adjacent to the single-family neighborhood.
City of Corpus Christi Page 3 Printed on 913012021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 15,2021
After Commissioner questions concluded, Chairman Baugh opened the public hearing.
Representing the applicant, John Bell at 13750 Primavera, addressed the Commission
in support of the rezoning case. He confirmed the limitation of the two-story unit (60 feet)
adjacent to the single-family neighborhood. Aside from the parking lot separation, there
is also a ten-foot buffer for landscaping of canopy trees; a wooden, privacy fence will be
built (Cimarron Lake Estates also has an existing fence). He said applicant was
proactive and also mailed notices to surrounding properties regarding the proposed
development. He mentioned there were discussions with Staff regarding a Special
Permit but preliminary drawings have been approved by their client.
The following individuals addressed the Commission and expressed their opposition to
the rezoning case:
James Aleman at 6538 Miranda (President of the Cimarron Lake Estates HOA)
Tony Elizondo at 6506 Miranda Drive
Joaquin Granados at 4006 Rayado Creek Drive
Mr. Aleman expressed the confusion regarding the incorrect time on the public notices
and asked if this item could be tabled as the HOA would like to also meet with the
developer. He said there is not a fair representation present because other residents
were here at 5:30 p.m. to speak on this item but they had to leave. As an example, he
provided pictures to the Commission showing the view from an adjacent apartment
complex (two-story building) and how a person could still have a view into his backyard.
He does not believe the canopy trees will be mature/tall enough to help the situation.
Other concerns consisted mainly of the lack of privacy, diminishing property values due to
the adjacency of an apartment complex/parking lot, overpopulation of schools and the
increase of light/noise pollution and traffic.
With no one else coming forward, the public hearing was closed. A motion was made by
Commissioner Miller to table this item to the September 29, 2021 Planning Commission
meeting, and it was seconded by Vice Chairman Dibble. The motion passed.
VI. Public Hearing (Items C & D): Discussion and Possible Action
C. Plats
Time Extensions
Mr. Dimas read items "12, 13, 14 & 15" into the record as shown below. After Staff's
presentation, Chairman Baugh opened the public hearing. Representing item "12",
Xavier Galvan with Urban Engineering addressed the Commission in support of the
extension. Representing items "13, 14 & 15", Chip Urban with Urban Engineering
addressed the Commission in support of the extensions. With no one else coming
forward, the public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner York to
approve items "12, 13, 14 & 15" as presented and it was seconded by Commissioner
Zarghouni. The motion passed.
City of Corpus Christi Page 4 Printed on 913012021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 15,2021
12. 21-1259 18PL1076 -6th Request
PARK SPRINGS IHS, BLOCK 1, LOTS 1 - 3 (FINAL - 3.87 ACRES)
Located Hazel Bazemore Road (CR 69) and south of Northwest Boulevard (FM
624)
13. 21-1262 18PL1007 -6th Request
PADRE HARBOR UNIT 1 (FINAL - 22.14 ACRES)
Located south of SH 361 and east of South Padre Island Drive (Park Road 22).
14. 21-1263 18PL1123 -5th Request
PADRE HARBOR UNIT 2 (FINAL - 25.24 ACRES)
Located south of Hwy 361 and east of South Padre Island Drive (Park Road 22).
15. 21-1264 18PL1124 -5th Request
PADRE HARBOR UNIT 3 (FINAL - 60.9 ACRES)
Located south of Hwy 361 and east of South Padre Island Drive (Park Road 22).
Plats with a Variance (Waiver)
16. 21-1223 21PL1030
COUNTRY ACRES SUBDIVISION, LOTS 4A& 4B (REPLAT - 2.34 ACRES)
Located east of FM 1889 and north of CR 48.
17. 21-1231 21 PL1030 -WASTEWATER
COUNTRY ACRES SUBDIVISION, LOTS 4A& 4B (REPLAT - 2.34 ACRES)
Located east of FM 1889 and north of CR 48.
Mr. Dimas presented items "16 & 17" for the record as shown above. The owner of the
subject property proposes to develop a single-family home on each 1.12-acre lot. He
gave an overview of Master Plan improvements, showing the proposed path to connect
to the existing system. The property could connect to the nearest accessibility point by
installing a 15" PVC line along the frontage of Lots 4A & 4B (CR 48)with a manhole on
the east frontage.
Staff requested cost estimates of the construction of infrastructure along the frontage of
the property. The applicant submitted a cost estimate of 271,264.00. The applicant
proposes a septic systems for the lots, per UDC wastewater waiver standard, Section
8.2.7.B.1.a: "Reasonably accessible" means master plan facilities currently exist in the
designated service area, and such facilities can be extended to serve the subdivision;
collection lines of adequate capacity to service the proposed development are within
1,000 feet of the subdivision and can be extended. The proposed Country Acres
subdivision is not"Reasonably accessible" to a public wastewater facility. The connection
ends at the accessibility point, which is the Lift Station listed at 2.84 miles from the
property on CR 52. This lift station is part of a system that eventually connects to the
City of Corpus Christi Page 5 Printed on 913012021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 15,2021
Allison Wastewater Treatment Plant on Leopard Street.
Mr. Dimas briefly went over platting requirements to construct wastewater lines/facilities
per UDC Sections 3.30.1.A, 8.1.4 and 8.2.7; Section 3.8.3.D of the UDC lists the factors
to be considered in whether to grant a waiver from a platting requirement. Staff
recommends approval of the request for waiver of wastewater infrastructure construction
per Section 8.2.7.A, and disapproval of an exemption from the Wastewater Lot/Acreage
fees per Section 8.5.2.G of the UDC. After Staffs presentation, Chairman Baugh opened
the public hearing. With no one coming forward, the public hearing was closed. A motion
was made by Commissioner Schroeder to approve Staffs recommendation and it was
seconded by Commissioner Zarghouni. The motion passed with Commissioner York
abstaining.
18. 21-1275 21PL1116
HEMINGWAY TOWNHOMES UNIT 1 (FINAL - 8.90 ACRES)
Located east of Greenwood Drive and north of Holly Road.
19. 21-1276 21 PL1116 -SIDEWALK
HEMINGWAY TOWNHOMES UNIT 1 (FINAL - 8.90 ACRES)
Located east of Greenwood Drive and north of Holly Road.
Mr. Stallworth presented items "18 & 19" for the record as shown above and described
the waivers being requested:
Waiver No. 1 (to waive sidewalk requirements for internal private streets, per§§8.1.4,
8.2.2.A and Table 8.2.1.8 of the UDC;
Waiver No. 2 (to allow the installation of single-loaded sidewalk along the south side of
proposed Gellhorn Drive instead of sidewalk along both sides, as required under§
§8.1.4, 8.2.2.A and Table 8.2.1.0 of the UDC).
Mr. Stallworth displayed an aerial map of the subject property. To the north is a
60-foot-wide public access easement 9Silverberry Drive); public, street right-of-way will
be overlaid on this access easement, and it will inevitably be renamed Gellhorn Drive.
Silverberry Drive is not classified on the Urban Transportation Plan but serves as a
functional minor (equivalent C-1) collector.
The final plat proposes a private internal, residential street grid, and an ultimate yield of
48 single-family townhome lots and 11 non-residential lots. Mr. Stallworth presented
Table 8.2.1.13, Plat Requirements for Local Street Standards, along with the proposed
cross-sections (28-foot-wide pavement and no sidewalks); Table 8.2.1.C, Plat
Requirements for Collector Streets, along with the proposed cross-sections
(reconstruction of new Gellhorn Drive with 40-foot-wide pavement and sidewalk on the
south side of the street). He proceeded to outline the factors in support and against the
waivers.
Factors in Support of Waiver#1 - The applicant states that they do not believe sidewalk
should be required because:
City of Corpus Christi Page 6 Printed on 913012021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 15,2021
1. The granting of the waiver is not detrimental to the public health, safety or general
welfare, nor is it injurious to other property in the area, or to the city in administering the
UDC. The applicant asserts that the proposed development will be a gated townhome
community with an internal residential private street grid similar to that found in the Sandy
Creek development.
2. The granting of the waiver would not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan
or the purpose of the UDC.
3. The conditions that create the need for the waiver shall not generally apply to other
property in the vicinity.
Factors weighing against the waiver and in support of requiring sidewalk (Waiver#1):
1. The applicant did not indicate during the preliminary plat process that the residential
components of the overall development would consist of gated communities.
2. The arguments provided largely consist of recitation of criteria with little to no clear
justification or compelling reasoning that would sway staff to support the request. It is
unclear what the bases for the waiver are, and it would be inappropriate to surmise the
applicant's intentions or rationale.
3. Approval of the waiver might not be in the best interests of the general public. Although
the applicant indicates that gated access will be utilized, there are no guarantees that the
type of gate mechanism employed (24-hour manned versus electronic self-activation)will
ensure the level of access control necessary to preserve and maintain a safe internal
pedestrian environment.
4. As an augment to finding number three (3), there are no indications that on-street
parking will be prohibited along internal private streets. The presence of parked vehicles
along both sides of the roadway will force pedestrians to walk within a travel lane, which
is not optimal under any circumstances.
5. The applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that the use of alternative pedestrian
facilities, such as multi-purpose trails, pedestrian paths utilizing alternative surfacing or
pedestrian easements through private property are either unreasonable or impossible for
this development.
6. The conditions driving this waiver request could also be applied to other properties in
the area that develop as gated communities. Gated communities are not unique; rather,
they are creatures of marketing or developmental preference, and as such, may develop
anywhere.
7. There are no readily identifiable site peculiarities, unusual circumstances or harsh
topographical issues that would render this project untenable if a 6-foot-wide internal
sidewalk was built along at least one side of an internal private street.
8. Disapproval of the waiver will not diminish access to a diverse supply of quality
housing, reduce the capacity for investment in neighborhood quality of life and
discourage community identity and placemaking, all of which are housing related issues
cited in the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. The applicant cannot satisfactorily
prove that housing goals and objectives such as affordability, life suitability and housing
condition will be undermined if the waiver is disapproved.
City of Corpus Christi Page 7 Printed on 913012021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 15,2021
Factors in Support of Waiver#2 - Upon further review, staff concludes that a sidewalk is
unnecessary along the north side of proposed Gellhorn Drive because:
1. The granting of the waiver is not detrimental to the public health, safety or general
welfare, nor is it injurious to other property in the area, or to the city in administering the
UDC. Along the north side of Gellhorn between Greenwood and the Wal-Mart property,
there are no destination points that would warrant a sidewalk. Additionally, the placement
of new sidewalk along the south side of Gellhorn appears logical as it will best serve
residential pedestrian traffic emanating from the new townhome development.
2. The conditions driving this waiver request appear to be unique to this segment of
proposed Gellhorn Drive. Along the road's north side is a TX-DOT field office and
equipment yard, as well as numerous existing utility easements, overhead utilities and
mature tree canopy that serves as a visual screen that should be preserved. In light of
these observations, installation of a sidewalk along this segment would appear to be
problematic at best and of little to no public benefit.
3. Although the application of sidewalk requirements along the north side of Gellhorn
Drive will not render the new development unfeasible or impossible, its installation may
appear to offer little to no public benefit, thereby putting its actual need into question.
4. The granting of the waiver would not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan
and the purposes of the UDC, especially as the UDC does allow for alternative
single-loaded sidewalk options in some circumstances.
Factors weighing against the waiver and in support of requiring sidewalk (Waiver#2):
1. Given its location between the new residential development and an active commercial
node, proposed Gellhorn Road will function as a C-1 Collector street. UDC Table
8.2.1.0 requires sidewalk along this type of roadway.
2. None of the exceptional conditions for a sidewalk waiver that are listed in UDC 8.2.2.0
exist in this case.
Section 3.30.1 and 8.1.4 of the UDC require construction of sidewalk as part of the
platting process. The UDC also states, under§8.2.2.8.1, that a waiver may be granted,
in accordance with the procedures outlined in §3.8.3.D. The waiver request does not
qualify as an administrative exception, as allowed under§8.2.2.C. Weighing the factors,
Staff recommends disapproval of waiver number one and approval of waiver number two.
After Staffs presentation, Chairman Baugh opened the public hearing. Developer for the
project, Roberto Santos Williams at 7418 Lake Linvingston Drive, addressed the
Commission. He pointed out that over the past years there have been several other
townhome developments that do not have sidewalks or cul-da-sacs (Shady Creek,
Tuscany & Barclay Cove). He said he is requesting the waiver for adaptability to deliver a
high quality/affordable product with amenities. Representing the developer, Murf Hudson
with Urban Engineering addressed the Commission and stressed that this is a private,
gated community with no public access; the streets will be privately maintained. The
City of Corpus Christi Page 8 Printed on 913012021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 15,2021
developer is trying to create a unique community with an HOA at an affordable price
point.
With no one else coming forward, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner
Schroeder brought up the possibility that the City could eventually take over maintenance
of public infrastructure if an HOA ceases to exist, as it has happened in the past. A
motion was made by Commission Miller to approve Staff's recommendation and it was
seconded by Commissioner Schroeder. A roll call vote took place and the motion did not
pass with Chairman Baugh, Vice Chairman Dibble, Commissioner York and
Commissioner Gonzalez voting "no".
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Dibble to approve both waiver requests and it
was seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez. A roll call vote took place and the motion
passed with Commissioners Schroeder, Zarghouni and Miller voting "no".
D. New Zoning
20. 21-1271 Public Hearing - Rezoning Property at or near 2210 Mary Street.
Case No. 0921-02, Ed Rachal Foundation: Ordinance rezoning properties
located at or near 2210 Mary Street (located surrounding the former Lamar
Elementary School and fronting upon multiple streets including Mary Street,
South 19th Street, 20th Street, 21st Street, and Morris Street) from the "RS-6"
Single-Family 6 District, "RM-3" Multifamily District, and the "CN-1"
Neighborhood Commercial District to the "Cl" Intensive Commercial District.
Mr. Dimas read New Zoning item "20" into the record as shown above. The applicant is
proposing that the existing residential lots will be converted into a parking lot with
approximately 286 parking spaces. These parking spaces will benefit the City Call
Center, Department Offices, and the Corpus Christi Police Department. He presented a
site plan showing the location of each parking lot site; informed the Commission that of
the 129 public notices mailed, 17 notices were returned in favor (by the applicant) and
zero notices were returned in opposition.
The proposed rezoning is generally consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan
(Plan CC); the proposed rezoning warrants an amendment to the Future Land Use Map.
However, the "Cl" Intensive Commercial District opens the possibility of more intense
commercial uses. A special permit should be considered. Based on this analysis, Staff
recommends denial of the change of zoning from the "RS-6" district to the "Cl" district
and, in lieu thereof, approval of the "RS-6/SP" Single-Family 6 District with a Special
Permit subject to the following conditions:
1. Uses: The only uses authorized by this Special Permit other than uses permitted in the
base zoning district is an accessory parking use for a government facility.
2. Landscaping: The Properties are exempt from Section 7.3.3 of the Unified
Development Code (UDC).
3. Vehicular Screening: The Properties shall follow the standards set in Section 7.3.11 of
City of Corpus Christi Page 9 Printed on 913012021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 15,2021
the Unified Development Code (UDC).
4. Buffer Yard: The following buffer yard standards shall apply to the Properties: When
adjacent to the "RM-3" Multifamily District or "CN-1" Neighborhood Commercial District,
the requirement shall be 5-feet of buffer yard with a 7-foot screening fence. When
adjacent to the "RS-6" Single-Family 6 District, the requirement shall be 10-feet of buffer
yard with a 7-foot screening fence.
5. Lighting: All lighting must adhere to the standards set in the Unified Development
Code (UDC).
6. Other Requirements: The conditions listed herein do not preclude compliance with
other applicable UDC and Building and Fire Code Requirements.
7. Time Limit: In accordance with the UDC, this Special Permit shall be deemed to have
expired within 24 months of this ordinance unless a complete building permit application
has been submitted, and the Special Permit shall expire if the allowed use is
discontinued for more than six consecutive months.
After Staffs presentation, Chairman Baugh opened the public hearing. Rebecca Reyna
at 2314 Morris Street addressed the Commission. She said her family received public
notices sent by the City as they own two lots within the notification area. She stated she is
confused as to what the development/special permit involves as she received alarming
information when she contacted the applicant. Staff assisted with answering her
questions for clarification.
Representing the applicant, Murf Hudson with Urban Engineering, addressed the
Commission and gave information regarding fence installation for the parking lots. With
no one else coming forward, the public hearing was closed. A motion was made by
Commissioner Gonzalez to approve Staff's recommendation and it was seconded by
Commissioner York. The motion passed.
VII. Director's Report: None.
VIII. Future Agenda Items
Mr. Dimas informed the Commission on an upcoming workshop/training schedule that
will be provided to them.
IX. Adjournment
There being no further business, Chairman Baugh adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
City of Corpus Christi Page 10 Printed on 913012021