HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 10/27/2021 w 1201 Leopard Street
City of Corpus Christi
td� � Corpus Christi,TX 78401
�I b, 4 cctexas.com
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
Wednesday,October 27,2021 5:30 PM Council Chambers
I. Call to Order, Roll Call
Chairman Baugh called the meeting to order and a quorum was established with
Commissioner Mandel absent.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. Approval of Absences: Commissioner Mandel
A motion was made by Commissioner York to approve the absence listed above and it
was seconded by Commissioner Zarghouni. The motion passed.
IV. Approval of Minutes
1. 21-1507 Regular Meeting Minutes of October 13, 2021
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Dibble to approve the minutes listed above and it
was seconded by Commissioner . The motion passed.
V. Briefing
2. 21-1512 Community Enrichment Fund Processes and Proposed Unified Development Code
(UDC)Changes.
Neiman Young, Assistant City Manager, presented item "2" for the record as shown
above and informed the Commission that the point of the Community Enrichment Fund
(CEF) is to develop open space. The City gains open space by two approaches:
Dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu of dedicating land (FILO); pay a Park Development fee
or make park development improvements. The revenue generated by FILO and Park
Development fees is placed into the Community Enrichment Fund.
Next he gave details about the first approach of land dedication versus fee in lieu of land
(FILO). According to the UDC, a developer is required to dedicate 1-acre of land for 100
homes. If the developer is not willing or able to dedicate the land, they have the option to
pay the fee proportional to the amount of land that is required to be dedicated. The fair
market value may not exceed $62,500.00/acre. A developer would be required to
dedicate 1-acre of land or pay s $62,500 fee in lieu of dedicating land.
City of Corpus Christi Page 1 Printed on 111312021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 27,2021
Mr. Young went on to give details about the second approach of Park Development Fees
versus Park Development Improvements (park that is being gifted to the city or an
established park in the City). The park development fee is $200/dwelling unit (ex:
100-units = $20,000). The $62,500 FILO fee plus the $20,000 Park Development Fee
would total $82,500. This total may seem steep but for better context, a budget summary
was provided defining the cost to develop a 1-acre park with basic amenities which totals
approximately $875,000. Our current ordinance only generates $82,500 in revenue thus
leaving us with a deficit of$792,025.
Mr. Young explained that there are current challenges (budget line items)within the CEF.
Fees are assigned to budget line items for each development; this led to the creation of
165 budget lines (difficult to track revenue and expenditures). This has made it notably
challenging to assure expenditures comply with the 5-mile radius, UDC requirement for
FILO. Budget line items are no longer being created. Therefore, new funding is being
assigned to legacy budget lines. Intermingled funding will become increasingly
convoluted as more residential development takes place across the City. The naming
convention for budget line items is not standardized and does not allow for quick
identification. The department does not have a detailed process to
prioritize/communicate CEF investments in the community; the community has expressed
concerns about transparency and stakeholder buy-in.
Next, Mr. Young explained the challenges associated with the UDC's 5-mile restriction
requirement for FILO. To give the restriction context, 5-mile areas were mapped across
the City for the 165 budget line items. It was discovered that one budget line item covers
a very large development area. Only 32 developments (20%) represent 165 budget line
items. This has determined that managing over 165 budget line items is inefficient. With
so much development in our community, the City is littered with these five-mile areas thus
leading to redundancy and overlap. The five-mile restriction is not effectively achieving
the original intent of keeping the development fee revenue in the areas where
development is occurring.
Staff recommends simplifying the five-mile restriction by tracking fees via area
development zones. Use of the Area Development Zones (Southside, Northwest, Airport,
Flour Bluff, Padre Island, Westside, Downtown, London & Midtown) will address overlaps
and ensure that the park fees remain in the region of each development. The use of area
development zones will also allow the reduction of budget line items. Understanding
these challenges with the legacy process, Staff recommends that we update our policies
to include developing an annual CEF budget. This budget can be presented during the
annual operating budget process.
Mr. Young continued the presentation with an analysis on the Park Dedication Ordinance.
Park dedication requirements have not been updated since 2013; Park Development
fees have not been updated since 2007. The current fee structure does not provide
adequate funding to meet public demand. There have been missed opportunities since
fees can be reviewed and revised by City Council every two years. Mr. Young provided
City of Corpus Christi Page 2 Printed on 111312021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 27,2021
information comparing park dedication ordinances of other Texas cities. Texas cities
write their park dedication ordinances differently. For current level of service, the
population, current park acreage, and persons per household are used to determine the
number for future land dedication. For maintenance, Staff recommends updating the
dedication requirement to ONE ACRE PER 57 dwelling units to maintain current level of
service (current dedication requirement is one acre per 100 dwelling units).
Next, Mr. Young went over the proposed Park Development fee implementation. Staff is
not recommending a change for this fiscal year, but looking at projected long-term
inflation, recommending a fee increase using the Consumer Price Index starting fiscal
year 2023. He provided a chart to show the impact of park amenities with the proposed
fee implementation.
Mr. Young concluded the presentation with a summary of recommendations:
1. Amend UDC to rename the "Community Enrichment Fund" to the "Park Development
Fund", and rename the "Park Development Fee" to the "Park Improvement Fee"
2. Amend the UDC to dissolve the five-mile radius requirement and restrict the use of
Fee in Lieu of Land funding to the City Area Development Zone of the contributing
residential development
3. Amend the UDC to change land dedication requirement from one acre per 100
dwelling units to one acre per 57 dwelling units
4. Increase the Park Development fee to remain in keeping with the Consumer Price
Index
5. Adopt the proposed FY22 Community Enrichment Fund Budget
6.Update budget finance policy to require the City Manager to present a proposed CEF
budget with the Operating Budget and Capital Budget
Remove language allowing for a refund of fees if not spent within seven years
7. Restrict Park Development fees to the Area Development Zone of the contributing
development
8. Assistant City Manager of Park and Recreation shall determine the amount of the FILO
After Staffs presentation, the floor was opened for Commission comments/questions.
With regard to benchmarking, Vice Chairman Dibble would have like to have seen cities
that are more comparable in size to Corpus Christi ; the briefing lacked the City's
contribution to open space with ongoing property tax revenue. Commissioner Schroeder
expressed he is in favor of using area development zones for the CEF and would like to
see the Planning Department's involvement in selecting areas of value. He felt the land
that has been dedicated in the past has not been planned well (random, left over land)
and therefore, there is a lack of amenities with a park that goes unused. He felt that the
City would benefit from linear parks due to how the City grows and the use of flood prone
areas for green space should be considered. Commissioner York would like more
specific analysis on what other cities are doing differently. He mentioned Fort Worth
since their fees are lower than Corpus Christi. No action was taken on this item.
VI. Consent Public Hearing (Items A& B): Discussion and Possible Action
City of Corpus Christi Page 3 Printed on 111312021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 27,2021
Chairman Baugh stated items "8 & 11" will be pulled from the Consent Agenda for
individual consideration and asked Staff to present the remaining Consent Agenda,
items "3 through 7; 9 & 10". Andrew Dimas, Development Services, read the Consent
Agenda items into the record. New Plat items "3 through 7" satisfy all requirements of the
UDC/State Law and the Technical Review Committee (TRC) recommends approval.
Staff also recommends approval for New Zoning items "9 & 10" as stated in Staff's
report.
After Staffs presentation, Chairman Baugh opened the public hearing. The following
individuals addressed the Commission and expressed opposition to item "9". They
expressed concerns for an increase in traffic and safety as the subject property is near a
private school/childrens hospital. They felt that there are plenty of car washes within
driving distance and it is not beneficial at this location. Noise levels were a concern as
well as the chemicals that would be produced by the car wash. A concern was also
mentioned about the capacity of infrastructure (power outages).
Glenn Tiller at 3202 Topeka Street
Mike Schuchs at 3234 Topeka Street
Raul at 3212 Topeka Street
John Barron at 3267 Topeka Street
Samuel Gutierrez at 3233 Topeka Street
With no one else coming forward the public hearing was closed. Discussion commenced
on this item. Staff explained the zoning pattern in the area and adjacent properties; how
noise must be compliant with Section 31-3 of the Corpus Christi Code of Ordinances.
The proposed development will not be paired with a service station and will be a
"stand-alone" car wash. Staff clarified the uses allowed in the "CN-1" district; traffic
impacts were discussed. The Existing and Future Land Use maps were also presented;
the Future Land Use map (FLUM) designates this property as a commercial use.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Dibble to approve items "3 through 7; 10" as
presented by Staff and it was seconded by Commissioner Zarghouni. The motion
passed. A motion was made by Vice Chairman Dibble to approve item "9" as presented
by Staff and it was seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez. A roll call vote took place and
the motion did not pass with Commissioners Schroeder, Zarghouni, Miller, York and
Salazar-Garza voting "no". Commissioner Miller made a motion to deny the change of
zoning request and it failed for lack of a second.
At this time, Chairman Baugh reopened the public hearing to give the applicant, Joseph
Earnest at 2208 W. 700 South, Springville, Utah, an opportunity to speak on this item
(applicant had not been aware that the public hearing had closed). He reiterated that the
FLUM designates the subject property as a commercial use but they requested a less
intense district of"CN-1"; felt that this corner lot is a prime location for a car wash. He
said Quick Quack ensures that the size of potential sites are more than adequate in size
to accommodate vehicle stacking/contain traffic. He said they are willing to construct a
City of Corpus Christi Page 4 Printed on 111312021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 27,2021
masonry wall along the east side of the property. He said they want to be good neighbors
and they take meaningful measures to reduce levels of noise from the car wash machines
and adjust lighting during seasonal hours of operation.
Commissioner Schroeder expressed that he is in opposition to the change of zoning and
not the business use itself. He felt this is a sensitive area and it currently has congestion
issues. Further discussion took place regarding vehicle stacking and if the all lanes of the
car wash would remain accessible during the entirety of business hours. Mr. Earnest
assured Commissioners that vehicle stacking should not reach full capacity and will not
flow out onto the street. He said he is a amenable to Special Permit conditions.
Chairman Baugh closed the public hearing once more.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gonzalez to table item "9" to the December 8,
2021 Commission meeting so that Staff can work out Special Permit conditions with the
applicant. The motion was seconded by Commission York and the motion passed.
A. Plats
3. 21-1486 21PL1053
LA VILLA HERMOSA PUD PHASE 1 (FINAL -20.710 ACRES)
Located south of Agnes Street and east of Navigation Boulevard.
4. 21-1487 21PL1127
CABANISS ACRES, BLOCK 8, LOT 7A (FINAL - 1.283 ACRES)
Located east of Crosstown Expressway (HWY 286 Acess Road) and south Holly
Road.
5. 21-1489 21PL1132
KOOLSIDE ADDITION, BLOCK 7, LOT 6R (FINAL REPLAT - 0.1607 ACRES)
Located south of Gollihar Road between Bobalo Drive and Lum Avenue.
6. 21-1490 21PL1134
Laguna Vista Shores, Block 17, Lot 7R (Final Replat - 0.230 Acre)
Located at the intersection of Laguna Shores Road and Clearview Drive.
7. 21-1491 21 PL1137
FARMER'S ROW SUBdivision, BLK 1, LOTS 2AB & 2D THRu 21 (REPLAT -
11.99 ACRES)
Located east of South Staples Street (FM 2444) and north of Yorktown
Boulevard.
B. New Zoning
8. 21-1508 Public Hearing - Rezoning Property at or near 4716 Ocean Drive
Case No. 1021-05, Shekhar Siddappa Raj: Ordinance rezoning property at or
near 4716 Ocean Drive (located along the north side of Ocean Drive, and the
City of Corpus Christi Page 5 Printed on 111312021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 27,2021
north end Airline Road, and along the side of the Corpus Christi Bay) from the
"RS-10" Single-Family 10 District to the "RM-AT" Multifamily AT District.
Mr. Dimas presented item "8" for the record as shown above. The applicant previously
proposed a single-family home on the vacant lot (permit issued/construction never
began). Due to the development of the condominiums (Alexa Apartments) adjacent to the
property, the owner is seeking additional development options for the sale of the land but
there are currently no development plans. For better understanding, Staff provided an
example of a potential apartment development on the 0.72-acre property with a maximum
density of 43 units which would require 95 parking spaces. This example demonstrated
that apartments will not fit on this small site to additionally include landscaping, buffer
yards/setback and height requirements. Staff felt that a townhome or duplex development
would be a better transition. Also, at one point, the applicant discussed selling the
property to the adjacent property owners of the Alexa Apartments.
Mr. Dimas presented an aerial map of the subject property along with the Future Land
Use map (FLUM). Mr. Dimas went over the history of zoning patterns in the area and
adjacent development (UDC requirements - setbacks/buffer yards, etc.), along with
available municipal facilities. The subject property is located at a major intersection
(Ocean Drive and Airline Road). Adjacent properties consist of similar intensity of zoning
and are proposed to have high density residential uses. He informed the Commission
that of the 8 public notices mailed, three notices were returned in opposition and zero
were returned in favor. Staff recommends approval of the change of zoning from the
"RS-10" Single-Family 10 District to the "RM-AT" Multifamily AT District.
After Staffs presentation, the floor was opened for Commissioner comments/questions.
Discussion took place regarding driveway standards (ingress/egress) since the location
is a high traffic area. After discussion concluded, the public hearing was opened. The
owner, Shekhar Raj, addressed the Commission in support of his request. He said they
have no intentions to build apartments as the lot size it too small but at this time are not
certain what they will end up developing. He did not sell his property to the owners of the
Alexa Apartments because they offered less than the market value. He said he faces
challenges with the property as it is difficult to sell a "high-end" piece of property near an
apartment complex that he is still paying property taxes on.The adjacency to the
apartment complex will devalue his property. He also mentioned that since his land is
vacant, the second phase of the adjacent apartment complex will only have a 30-foot
buffer between the properties.
The following individuals addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed
rezoning request. Majority of the comments stated that everything east of Airline Road
should remain as single-family development. They said the property was not intended for
apartment development and everything west of Airline Road is meant for the "RM-AT"
district. They also cited traffic and safety concerns for pedestrians (joggers) and cyclists.
Gene Guernsey at 340 Grant Place
Burt & Linda Strong at 4843 Ocean Drive
City of Corpus Christi Page 6 Printed on 111312021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 27,2021
Albert Kessler at 4811 Ocean Drive.
Moe Motaghi at 2921 Ocean Drvie
Marty Davis at 4829 Ocean
Robert Oshman at 4728 Ocean Drive
With no one else coming forward, the public hearing was closed. Further discussion took
place and Commissioner Schroeder pointed out that current construction for the Alexa
Apartments already creates a dilemma for single-family lots that are even further down
the road (six lots or more). Views from this apartment complex will be able to peer into
many backyards. He said suggested the applicant and adjacent neighbors should work
together to find a balanced solution. A motion was made by Commissioner Miller to table
this item to the December 8, 2021 Commission meeting and Commissioner Schroeder
seconded. The motion passed.
9. 21-1509 Public Hearing - Rezoning Property at or near 3302 South Alameda
Street
Case No. 1021-04, Doc Five: Ordinance rezoning property at or near 3302
South Alameda Street (located at the northeast corner of the intersection of
South Alameda Street and Texan Trail) from the "ON" Neighborhood Office
District to the "CN-1" Neighborhood Commercial District.
10. 21-1510 Public Hearing - Rezoning Property at or near 3202 Interstate 69
Case No. 1021-06, Walker Holdings and Development, LLC.: Ordinance
rezoning property at or near 3202 Interstate 69 (located along the east side of
Interstate 69, south of County Road 52, and north of the City Limits) from the
"RS-6" Single-Family 6 District to the "RS-4.5" Single-Family 4.5 District.
11. 21-1511 Public Hearing - Rezoning Property at or near 7349 State Highway 361
Case No. 1021-07, WH&CM Holdings, LLC: Ordinance for a Special Permit
Time Extension of 24 months for a property at or near 7349 State Highway 361
(located along the east side of State Highway 361, south of West Palm Beach
Road, and west of the Gulf of Mexico).
Mr. Dimas presented item "11" for the record as shown above. The applicant is
requesting a special permit time extension of 24 months to allow for the development of a
luxury RV resort community (maximum capacity of 160 RV stalls). Expiration date for this
special permit is March 8, 2022 (approved last year). He presented an aerial view of the
subject property. Mr. Dimas went over the history of zoning patterns in the area and
adjacent development (UDC requirements - setbacks/buffer yards, etc.). He informed the
Commission that of the 67 public notices mailed, 34 notices were returned in opposition
and zero were returned in favor. Staff recommends approval of the 24-month time
extension of the Special Permit with the following conditions remain the same (adopted
ordinance#032370):
1. Uses: The only uses authorized by this Special Permit other than uses permitted by
right in the base zoning district is a "Recreational Vehicle Park" as defined by the Unified
Development Code (UDC). The Recreational Vehicle Park shall adhere to the standards
City of Corpus Christi Page 7 Printed on 111312021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 27,2021
of Section 6.1.2 of the UDC except as explicitly listed below.
2. Density: The maximum site density shall be 8 recreational vehicle sites ("Recreational
Vehicle Sites") per acre (160 total).
3. Recreational Vehicle (RV) Site Limitations: Only one recreational vehicle should be
permitted per RV Site. All pads within RV Sites must be paved with concrete or concrete
tile pavers and be at least 15 feet in width. All RV Sites must be at least 30 feet wide.
4. Lighting: All security lighting shall be shielded with full cutoff fixtures to avoid intrusion
into the neighboring properties, and any freestanding lights shall be at least 50 feet from
any property line abutting a neighboring property.
5. Stacking: A minimum of six off-street vehicle stacking spaces shall be provided
between the public right-of-way and any front gate or intersection in order to allow
stacking of approximately two to three RV's to avoid congestion on State Highway 361.
6. Screening: A 7-foot solid screening fence shall be installed along the northern and
southern property lines.
7. Other Requirements: The Special Permit conditions listed herein do not preclude
compliance with other applicable UDC, Building, and Fire Code Requirements.
8. Time Limit: In accordance with the UDC, this Special Permit shall be deemed to have
expired within twelve (12) 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, the public hearing was opened. Steven Giovannini,
representing Carl & Sherry Badalich at 102 West Palm Beach, addressed the
Commission to express their opposition to the request and the RV resort as they do not
have much information on the development plan.
Representing the new owners of the subject property, Alex Harris (developer), addressed
the Commission in support of the request. he informed the Commission that the previous
purchasers failed to close on the property. He said he has spoken to the Mr. Badalich,
the owners have as well, and Mr. Badalich had no questions at the time nor expressed
any concern. He stated the Special Permit conditions are acceptable and request no
changes. He mentioned that additional time is also needed as there are delays in
delivery times for construction supplies. He added that this development will be
"high-end" facility.
Gene Guernsey at 340 Grant Place addressed the Commission in support of this item
and stated there is high demand for development such as this. He added that this site is
perfect for this type of development and is a good business venture.
With no one else coming forward, the public hearing was closed. Discussion
commenced on this item and Commissioner Zarghouni expressed concern for the length
of time for the extension request; felt that it would set a precedent. He understand that
delays due to Covid exist but thinks the developer should have a more definitive plan
scheduled. Commissioner Schroeder expressed that the intent of this request is not to
reconsider the appropriate purpose of the Special Permit but to ensure the applicant is
City of Corpus Christi Page 8 Printed on 111312021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 27,2021
not delaying the process. He felt that Staff has confirmed that the project is in progress. A
motion was made by Commissioner York to approve item "11" as presented by Staff and
it was seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez. The motion passed with Commissioner
Zarghouni opposed.
VII. Public Hearing (Item C & D): Discussion and Possible Action
C. Plat with a Variance (Waiver)
12. 21-1488 21PL1130
CEDAR GROVE BLOCK 3, LOT 5R (REPLAT- 3.335 ACRES)
Located north of Holly Road and west of Greenwood Drive.
13. 21-1492 21 PL1130 -SIDEWALK
CEDAR GROVE BLOCK 3, LOT 5R (REPLAT- 3.335 ACRES)
Located north of Holly Road and west of Greenwood Drive.
Mr. Dimas presented items "12 & 13" for the record as shown above. For location
purposes, he presented an aerial map of the subject property. This is a replat of two
platted lots into one lot (vacant). With the land zoned IH (Heavy Industrial), the applicant
states that the purpose of the plat is to develop the property for an Industrial development.
He proceeded to outline the factors in support and against the waiver.
The applicant states that they do not believe the sidewalk should be required because:
1. The owner intends to construct a new building on the property and install a sidewalk as
a public improvement as part of the construction project for the building.
2. The waiver to the public improvement would allow for the sidewalk to be constructed
after the major portion of the construction has been completed.
3. FMP Masonry, Inc. would be agreeable to the completion of the sidewalk construction
as a condition of the Certificate of Occupancy for the new construction project.
Factors weighing against the waiver and in support of requiring sidewalk:
1. Holly Road is categorized as an A2 Secondary Arterial street in the Urban
Transportation Plan (UTP). UDC Table 8.2.1.0 requires sidewalk along Arterials.
2. The area is zoned IH (Heavy Industrial). Sidewalk is required in industrial subdivisions
along streets that are in the UTP as arterials or collectors, and also along
"through-streets" that either are connecting to existing streets or to proposed arterials or
collectors, per UDC 8.2.2.A.1.a.i and ii.
3. None of the exceptional conditions for a sidewalk waiver that are listed in UDC 8.2.2.0
exist in this case.
4. There is an established sidewalk connection along Holly Road at the nearby
intersection with Greenwood Drive.
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
City of Corpus Christi Page 9 Printed on 111312021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 27,2021
accordance with the procedures outlined in §3.8.3.D. None of the enumerated conditions
in UDC 3.8.3.D for a sidewalk waiver exist on this subject property. Further UDC Section
8.2.2.0 allows for Administrative Exemptions for sidewalk construction for residential lots
that meet certain provisions. The subject lot is zoned Industrial and does not qualify for
an Exemption. Staff recommends denial of the waiver from the sidewalk construction
requirement. Planning Commission may choose to follow or decline Staff's
recommendation, and Planning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or
deny the waiver request. After Staff's presentation, Chairman Baugh opened the public
hearing. With no one coming forward, the public hearing was closed. A motion was made
by Commissioner York to approve item "12" but deny the waiver request for item "13".
The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Dibble and the motion passed.
D. Unified Development Code Text Amendments (State Mandates)
14. 21-1451 Ordinance adopting text amendments to the Unified Development Code (UDC)
to remove the Planning Commission from historic designation review process
and to identify grounds for undue hardship the Board of Adjustment may
consider for a variance.
As a refresher, Mr. Dimas briefly went over the same presentation which was given at the
last Commission meeting on October 13, 2021 along with some Board of Adjustment
scenarios to further explain the proposed amendment. Staff recommends approval of the
proposed text amendments to the UDC. After Staff's presentation, the public hearing was
opened. With no one coming forward, the public hearing was closed. A motion was made
by Commissioner York to approve item "14" as presented by Staff and it was seconded
by Commissioner Zarghouni. The motion passed.
VIII. Planning Commission Training Series
15. 21-1453 Platting 101
Due to time constraints, Chairman Baugh decided to postpone this item for a later
Commission meeting.
IX. Director's Report
Nina Nixon-Mendez, Assistant Director, informed the Commission that the next
Development Task Force meeting will be on November 19, 2021 and will be held at the
Kleberg Bank Community Room at 5350 S. Staples Street at 9:00 a.m.
X. Future Agenda Items: None.
XI. Adjournment of Planning Commission Meeting
There being no further business to discuss, Chairman Baugh adjourned the meeting at
8:15 p.m.
City of Corpus Christi Page 10 Printed on 111312021