Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning Commission - 11/30/20221201 Leopard Street Corpus Christi, TX 78401 cctexas.com City of Corpus Christi Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 5:30 PM Council ChambersWednesday, November 30, 2022 The Planning Commission shall be responsible to and act as an advisory body to City Council; shall review and make recommendations to City Council regarding the adoption/implementation of a comprehensive plan; regarding all proposals to adopt/amend land development regulations for the purpose of establishing consistency with the comprehensive plan; regarding zoning or requests for zoning changes in a manner to insure consistency with the adopted comprehensive plan; regarding the City's annual capital budget and any capital improvement bond program. The Planning Commission also exercises control (approving body) over platting/subdividing land within the cooperate limits and the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City in a manner to insure the consistency of all plats with the adopted comprehensive plan. Call to Order, Roll CallI. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Zarghouni at 5:30 p.m. A quorum was present. PUBLIC COMMENT: NONEII. Approval of Absences: Commissioner YorkIII. Motion was made by Commissioner Mandel to approve the absences list above and it was seconded by Commissioner Munoz. The motion passed. Approval of MinutesIV. 1.22-2000 Regular Meeting Minutes of November 16, 2022 A motion was made by Vice Chairman Miller to approve the minutes listed above and it was seconded by Commissioner Motaghi. The motion passed Discussion and Possible Action Regarding the Planning Commission & Airport Zoning Commission (AZC) Meeting Calendar for 2023 V. 2.22-2003 Planning Commission and Airport Zoning Commission (AZC) Meeting Calendar for 2023 Nina Nixon-Mendez, Assistant Director discussed the Planning Commission and Airport Zoning Calendar for 2023, the dates with an asterisk have been changed to the Friday before due a holiday falling on Monday, and one meeting has been canceled due to the winter break. A motion was made by Commissioner York to approve “Item 2” as presented by staff and it was seconded by Commissioner Salazar-Garza. The motion Page 1City of Corpus Christi Printed on 12/15/2022 November 30, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes passed. Consent Public Hearing (Items A & B) :Discussion and Possible ActionVI. Chairman Zarghouni requested that item "7" be pulled from Consent to be considered individually. Mark Orozco, Development Services, read the Consent agenda into the record new plat items "3 through 6". The plats satisfy all requirements of the Unified Development Code (UDC)/State Law, and the Technical Review Committee (TRC) staff recommends approval. After Staff’s presentation, Chairman Zarghouni opened the public hearing. With no one coming forward, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Salazar-Garza made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda items “3 through 6” as presented by staff and was seconded by Commissioner Munoz. The motion passed. PlatsA. 3.22-2005 22PL1169 LEXINGTON SUBDIVISION BLOCK 2, LOTS, 39A, 39B, 40A and 40B (FINAL REPLAT - 0.92 ACRES) Located north of Milo Street between Ayers Street and Richter Street. 4.22-2010 22PL1080 - CONDITIONAL ( WASTEWATER Waiver Request to be presented at 12/14 PC) PRELIMINARY PLAT OF RAMFIELD ESTATES (PRELIMINARY - 35.954 ACRES) Located east of Roscher Road and north of Ramfield Road. Plats with a Variance (Waiver) 5.22-1916 22PL1095 MOSTAGHASI ACRES (FINAL PLAT - 30.28 ACRES) Located at 8102 Yorktown Blvd, generally located along the N /S of Yorktown Blvd, between Starry Rd and the Oso Creek 6.22-2012 22PL1095 - SIDEWALK MOSTAGHASI ACRES (FINAL PLAT - 30.28 ACRES) Located at 8102 Yorktown Blvd, generally located along the N /S of Yorktown Blvd, between Starry Rd and the Oso Creek New ZoningB. 7.22-2033 Public Hearing - Rezoning Property at or near 149 Mustang Island Estates Drive Case No. 1122-01 Mustang Island Estates, LP.: Ordinance rezoning Page 2City of Corpus Christi Printed on 12/15/2022 November 30, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes property at or near 149 Mustang Island Estates Drive, located south side of Mustang Island Estates Drive and east of State Highway 361, from the “RM-AT” Multifamily AT District to the “CN-1” Neighborhood Commercial District. Andrew Dimas, Development Services presented item "7" for the record as shown above. Zoning Case No. 1122-01 Mustang Island Estates, LP an Ordinance rezoning property at or near 149 Mustang Island Estates Drive, located south side of Mustang Island Estates Drive and east of State Highway 361, from the “RM-AT” Multifamily AT District to the “CN-1” Neighborhood Commercial District. The current property is vacant as are the surrounding properties and zoned RM-AT, a multi-family district that allows a few commercial uses and across of HWY 361 the property is zoned CR-2 which is primary a commercial district. The purposed use is a retail store. Out of the ten notices sent with a 200-foot notification area and four outside the 200-foot we received zero in opposition and zero in favor. Staff received a few phone calls from property owners outside of the area that did have some comments concerning the use. Staff reviewed the subject property’s background information and the applicant’s purpose for the rezoning request and conducted research into the property’s land development history to include platting, zoning, existing surrounding land uses, and potential code violations. Staff compared the proposed zoning’s consistency with the applicable elements of the comprehensive plan. As a result of the above analysis staff notes the following: The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Map and is consistent with many broader elements of the City of Corpus Christi Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding uses. After evaluation of case materials provided and subsequent staff analysis, staff recommends approval of the change of zoning from the “RM-AT” Multifamily AT District to the “CN-1” Neighborhood Commercial District. After Staff's presentation, the floor was opened for Commissioner questions. After Staff clarified Commissioner questions, the public hearing was opened. Jeff Lineberger (109 Mustang Island Estates) addressed the suitability of this lot for its intended zoning use. He feels that the zoning change is not suitable for this property; it is unsafe and will bring traffic and accidents to this high traveled area. Samira Lineberger (109 Mustang Island Estates) stated the lot is not compatible with the code requirements and they should consider if this property is appropriate for rezoning. She felt that the lot is less than three-fourths of an acre and traffic traveling at a speed of 65 mph with no shoulder trying to enter and exit a retail establishment is going to create a safety hazard. Leslie Keebler (132 Mustang Island Estates) stated that she owns a restaurant located in Port Aransas, and she thought about purchasing Lot 11. She realized it would not be conducive for even an upscale restaurant, due to the traffic and many other issues. Heath Lauseng represents the property owner. His client planned and developed this property in 2003. The planned unit development included this lot and only this lot to be a commercial lot. The lot is buffered by a retention pond, so there is a transition to residential lots. His client went to sell the property and that’s when they discovered that the city had annexed this property after the planned unit development had been completed and they then zoned the property. Prior to that the property had not been zoned at all because it was in the county. Page 3City of Corpus Christi Printed on 12/15/2022 November 30, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes They are here today to ask the Commission to allow this property to be zoned as it was intended to be used. David Cummings (19427 Strauss San Antonio, TX),who is in Real Estate Development for a management company tailored towards retail, bought this lot about 15 years ago. He stated that his is a small community, and people want to build a home and relax and enjoy the coastal environment. He feels that a liquor store at the entrance of this development does not fit this neighborhood. With no one else coming forward, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner York asked staff if they have reviewed the initial zoning of the subject property. Staff answered, if they are a private covenant, restriction wise they do not have the authority to enforce. Vice Chairman Miller asked if Mustang Island Estates was a private road and if the two lots that have the detention ponds are developable lots, or have a permanent drainage easement. Staff answered yes, it is a private road and those are drainage easements which are non-build able lots. Discussion concluded between the Commissioners and staff. A motion was made by Commissioner York to approve “Item 7” as presented by staff and it was seconded by Commissioner Salazar-Garza. The motion passed with Commissioner Mandel opposed. Public Hearing (Items C & D): Discussion and Possible ActionVII. Plat with a Variance (Right-of-Way and Alternative Street Waiver)C. 8.22-1941 22PL1154 - STREETS PRELIMINARY PLAT OF OSO CREEK CORNER PHASE 1 (PRELIMINARY - 103.299 ACRES) Located north of south of Yorktown Boulevard and between Starry Road and Oso Creek. Bria Whitmire, Development Services Engineer presented item "8" for the record as shown above. Oso Creek Corner Phase 1 waiver request is for Alternative C-1 Street Sections for Oso Parkway and Osito Way narrowing lanes and adjusting center turn lane for Oso Parkway section between Yorktown and Los Chicos Drive and changing the approved raised median with left turn opening for a basic center turn lane from Los Chicos Drive to Mapache Pass. Los Chicos Drive and Mapache Pass themselves remain as approved on plat. The second request is to Reduce the 80’ ROW for Oso Parkway to a 60’ ROW. It should be noted that on November 2, 2022, the Planning Commission approved a waiver request to not construct one-way cycle tracks on either side. This did not change the required 80’ ROW, however, and was to include 5’ sidewalk on one side and 8’ on the other. STAFF ANALYSIS and FINDINGS: UDC 3.30.1.A: requires installation of improvements, or financial guarantee, during platting UDC Section 3.8.3.C.2 states that the preliminary plat is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Utility Master Plans and any other adopted plans as they relate to: Page 4City of Corpus Christi Printed on 12/15/2022 November 30, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a. The City’s future streets, sidewalks, alleys, public open space and other public improvements; and b. The extension of the city limits or the extension, improvement or widening of its roads, taking into account access to and extension of water, storm water and wastewater mains and the instrumentalities of public utilities. UDC Section 8.1.3.A states that all infrastructure and public improvements shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plans and applicable area development and master plans. UDC Section 8.1.4: In the absence of any provision to the contrary, the developer shall provide the following improvements, as approved in the construction plans, in conformity with the standards, specifications and requirements of this Unified Development Code, the Design Standards, utility master plans and any state or federal requirements. Improvements eligible for participation shall be in compliance with Section 8.4: (Ordinance 029765, 03/19/2013). The UDC also states, under Section 8.2.2.B.1, that a waiver may be granted, in accordance with the waiver procedure in Section 3.8.3.D: The waiver may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied after consideration of the following factors: 1. The granting of the waiver shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this Unified Development Code; 2. The conditions that create the need for the waiver shall not generally apply to other property in the vicinity. 3. Application of a provision of this Unified Development Code will render subdivision of land unfeasible; or 4. The granting of the waiver would not substantially conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this Unified Development Code. Factors in Support of the waiver request 1. Per the developer, there would be less open greenspace for the City to maintain. 2. Allow for more design flexibility for the developer. Factors Against the waiver request 1. UDC Section 3.8.3.C.2 states that the preliminary plat is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Utility Master Plans and any other adopted plans. This includes the Oso Parkway Plan. 2. The Oso Parkway Plan, adopted in 1993 and amended in 1995 and 1997, calls for 80’ of ROW. Other than being a variance of the UDC Table 8.2.1C, it would also be Page 5City of Corpus Christi Printed on 12/15/2022 November 30, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes inconsistent with the Adopted Oso Parkway Plan. 3. Open greenspace provides a buffer for pedestrians and helps with storm mitigation and community beautification. 4. This is a new development, with no constraints to allow the 80’ ROW. 5. The rest of Oso Parkway all 80’ ROW, to include Rancho Vista, Starlight Estates, and Azali Estates. 6. 80’ROW is necessary to provide for adopted staff recommended cross sections that include center turn lane or raised median and right turn lane. 7. 80’ ROW will be necessary in the future, should additional roadway expansion be required with buildout of the area, including commercial shopping center, schools, and housing. 8. Use of the proposed street section in other school areas have proven to be ineffective and dangerous. Staff recommendation from multiple departments (Planning, Development Services Land Development, and Public Works Traffic Engineering) recommend disapproval of the waiver request for Alternative C-1 Street Sections with reduced ROW for Oso Parkway at Oso Creek Corner Phase I. Renee Couture Public Works Interim Assistant Director, presented a drone video of existing schools showing the afternoon traffic, one with the availability of parking on street with no center turn lane and the other without on street parking but with a center turn lane. After Staff's presentation, the floor was opened for Commissioner comments/questions. Discussion continued on traffic mitigation measures to be put in place to keep the school children safe. After Commissioner questions concluded, the public hearing was opened. The applicant, Moses Mostaghasi (MPM Homes and MPM Development 8017 Bar Le Doc), addressed the Commission. He stated about a year and half ago, he meet with the Planning Department, and about six months ago they meet with Traffic Engineering who took over the Urban Transportation Plan. They met with all departments, and one city employee requested them to submit a preliminary plat and a master plat to Planning Commission with his recommendation of a cross section which included a median, which does not exist in any cross section that the city has for Oso parkway. No other Oso parkway is designed that way. They went ahead and designed it that way because they were asked to do so, but with that same stipulation Development Service and Public Works required them to get a TIA, which they did. They spent over fifty thousand dollars and it took around three months. When the TIA was completed, they requested a meeting with the departments to review it and go over any questions and concerns, they never received a call back from any one is Public Works to go over comments. They received an email from Development Services with two questions, so they are today to answer those questions. Their TIA states the information about size streets that are needed, and it takes into consideration the traffic that is illustrated here, and consideration of Oso parkway being connected to Cimmaron. Discussion continued with the applicant and the Commissioners. Peyton Arrons, the Transportation Engineer who produced the TIA spoke. He stated the City requested a northbound right turn lane to store vehicles waiting for student pickup, and they are providing three thousand feet for stacking onsite on the Page 6City of Corpus Christi Printed on 12/15/2022 November 30, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes elementary school property. Therefor the right turn lane is not necessary and a three-lane section adjacent to the school is sufficient. Discussion concluded and the public hearing was closed. The floor was opened for discussion with staff. Commissioner York asked staff that the developer did a TIA, did staff conduct a TIA of their own, or how did staff arrive at their recommendation. Renee Couture answered the UDC has a certain requirement based on the threshold, so once the current standard hits 500 or more trips then a TIA is required. This is the fourth TIA that CCISD has done. In this case, the work on this school started ahead pf platting they asked the applicant to provide a TIA when they looked at the layout if the school site and the driveways could be altered. Discussion continued with staff and the Commissioners on not having data for the middle school and the layout and not having enough information. Commissioner Munoz asked staff if they are requiring a developer to present a TIA. He asked if staff was saying that the engineers are wrong. He feels that is subjective, they are licensed professional engineer service, so he is having a hard trying to understand this situation. Al Raymond, Development Services addressed Commissioner Munoz’s question. Plans are submitted to Public Works and Development Services every day and those plans have an engineer seal on them, but then they are reviewed, and they are compared, and the plans should meet code. Sometimes they attempt to meet code, but other times they do not. There is more to the process of analyzing. Commissioner Salazar-Garza said she appreciated the hard work that everyone has done on this project, but there is no room for expansion when the middle school is to be develop, if they were to do the 60-foot right-of-way. Discussion concluded between staff and the Commissioners and Chairman Zarghouni called for motion. A motion was made by Commissioner Mandel to deny the waiver as presented by staff and was seconded by Commissioner Salazar-Garza and a roll call vote took place. The motion passed with Commissioner York and Commissioner Munoz voting as opposed. New ZoningD. 9.22-2032 Public Hearing - Rezoning Property at or near 10902 Interstate 37 Case No. 1022-07 Arriba Development: Ordinance rezoning property at or near 10902 Interstate Highway 37, located along the north side of Interstate 37, west of Sessions Road from the “RS-6” Single-Family 6 District to the “RM-1” and “RM-2” Multifamily Districts. Andrew Dimas, Development Services presented item "9" for the record as shown above. Zoning Case No. 1022-07 Arriba Development rezoning the property at or near 10902 Interstate Highway 37, located along the north side of Interstate 37, west of Sessions Road from the “RS-6” Single-Family 6 District to the “RM-1” and “RM-2” Multifamily Districts. Arriba Development has returned with an amendment zoning request for the whole fourteen acres the pervious case was originally ten acres. Mr. Dimas presented the land use map showing the existing zoning RS-6 Single Family 6 District and adjacent single family to the east and west and to the south would be IH-37. Out of the 39 notices mail out within a 200-foot notification area and 1 outside the Page 7City of Corpus Christi Printed on 12/15/2022 November 30, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 200-foot notification area, staff received 21 percent in opposition and zero in favor. One of the original concerns on the first presentation was the proximity of Sessions Road as the mid-point between the entrance and exit ramp. The existing road conditions are the same as discussed at the last meeting of the improvement of Sessions Road. Staff Analysis: “While the comprehensive plan is consulted when making decisions about rezoning. It does not justify the denial of a plat or the development of land.” (Plan CC). Staff reviewed the subject property’s background information and the applicant’s purpose for the rezoning request and conducted research into the property’s land development history to include platting, zoning, existing surrounding land uses, and potential code violations. Staff compared the proposed zoning’s consistency with the applicable elements of the comprehensive plan. As a result of the above analysis staff notes the following: The Future Land Use Map recommends low-density residential which is at or below 3 du/ac. The proposed rezoning to “RM-1” and “RM-2” Multifamily Districts is a high-density residential use. o For Tract 1 (5.773 acres), the “RM-1” would allow for 13+ dwelling units per acre which is approximately 127 units. For Tract 2 (4.397 acres) “RM-2” would allow for 13+ dwelling units per acre which is approximately 132 units. Sessions Road is classified as a C1 Minor Residential Collector. C1 Collector Streets consist of a 60’ ROW, 40’ of pavement, and 2 lanes. Currently, Sessions Road only consists of 44’ of ROW, 20’ of pavement, and 2 lanes. The subject property is adjacent to residential uses on two sides. There is insufficient road infrastructure to support the traffic generated by the proposed development. The proposed development will generate an approximately 2,800 additional average daily trips to the existing 1,500 trips generated by the existing neighborhood. The maximum capacity of a C1 Collector Street is 3,000 average daily trips (ADT). The existing neighborhood and the proposed property at maximum buildout will create 4,300 ADT and therefore Sessions Road will be at over 140% capacity. The site is not appropriate due to the incompatibility of surrounding uses. After evaluation of case materials provided and subsequent staff analysis including land development, surrounding uses and zoning, transportation and circulation, utilities, Comprehensive Plan consistency, and considering public input, staff recommends denial of the change of zoning in lieu of a Special Permit. Staff Recommendation is denial of the requested change of zoning in lieu thereof, Approval of the “RS-6/SP” Single-Family 6 District with a Special Permit and subject to the following conditions. 1. Use: The only use allowed on the subject property other than uses permitted in the base zoning districts is a multifamily apartment complex with a density not to exceed 280 Page 8City of Corpus Christi Printed on 12/15/2022 November 30, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dwelling units over the entire 14 acres owned by the applicant creating a density of 20 units per acre. 2. Buffer Yard: A 10-foot-wide buffer yard and 10-buffer yard points shall be required along the property boundaries adjacent to single-family residential zoning districts or residential use. 3. Building Height: No multifamily or nonresidential structure shall be located nearer any property line adjacent to a single-family use or two-family use than a horizontal distance twice the vertical height of the structure. The height shall be measured from the existing ground level to the plate. 4. Sessions Road: The applicant or subsequent owner will be responsible for the completion of Sessions Road to the “C1” Collector Street standard of 60 feet of right-of-way and a 40- foot pavement section. The reconstruction of Sessions Road to City standards of a rural street section and will include the following: paving of the street section, storm water management, and the dedicating of land. Completion and acceptance by the City of Sessions Road are required prior to the issuance of any building permits. 5. Interstate 37: The applicant or subsequent owner will be responsible for the coordination with the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) of traffic delineators along the outside lane of the Interstate 37 access road to prevent access to/from Sessions Road to Interstate 37 on/off the access road. 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 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 staff’s presentation the floor was opened for Commissioner comments/questions. Vice Chairman Miller told staff he is still confused from the last meeting because Session Road currently has a forty-foot right-of-way, and the addition dedication is to get it to the sixty-foot right-of-way to meet the C-1 collector street standard. Is it going to come from the applicant is property? Staff answered yes that is correct. After discussion concluded, the public hearing was opened. Murray Hudson, representing the developer (2525 Swantner Ave), addressed the Commissioners. He said TxDot will not allow a driveway from this property on to the frontage road, so all the traffic from this development will be discharging to Sessions Road and then the frontage road or some other route. Under existing zoning if they were to develop the property as the existing zoning allows apartments and single family residential, the average daily traffic count would exceed the C-1 collector allowable. The applicant has asked the City to consider a special permit so that they can restrict the development to a size that will maintain the average daily traffic count to a level will not exceed what the C-1 collector will allow. In addition, the applicant has also agreed to reconstruct Sessions Road, which is in bad condition, at the applicants own expensive to improve traffic flow. Daryl Keech (1834 Julianna), Tara Millet (3929 Mots), Daniel Falcon (3737 Sessions Page 9City of Corpus Christi Printed on 12/15/2022 November 30, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Road Lot 2), Fredda Martin (10829 Silverton Drive), George Martin (10829 Silverton Drive), Judy Blackwell (10834 Grand Teton), and Autumn Wilson(3929 Mots) all spoke in opposition of the subject property. They are against the apartments being built. Sarah Munoz (3806 Castle Ridge) stated she is not opposed to development; she is just concerned with the TxDot component and how this will impact the traffic. Abraham Cameron (10809 Ashley Drive) spoke on his concern with safety for the children and then traffic. Additional concerns expressed by the opposition were drainage, a school bus stopping along Sessions Road, no sidewalks, and the road was hilly and had dips. Nader Kahemi (San Antonio, TX) stated that he understands the road is not safe, and they want to fix the road by changing the zoning. Vic Nazari (MVR Construction) is the applicant for the project. He stated they are going to improve Sessions Road, whether it’s an apartment complex, housing, or a hotel, to make sure to address all the public’s concerns to make it better for everyone. The public hearing was closed, and discussion continued with questions for staff. A motion was made by Commissioner York to approve “Item 9” as presented by staff and was seconded by Commissioner Salazar-Garza and a roll call vote took place. The motion passed with Chairman Zarghouni and Vice Chairman Miller voting as opposed. Director's ReportVIII. Nina Nixon-Mendez, Assistant Director introduced Bria Whitmire Engineer V for Development Services. She informed the Commissioners about the Unified Development Code Update There will be an open house Tuesday December 13, from 2:00pm-4:00pm with the presentation at 2:30 pm and the Lindale Senior Center and then again from 6:00pm-8:00pm, presentation at 6:30 pm at the Ethel Eyerly Senior Center. On December 14, from 9:00am-11:00am,they will be having Coffee with the Consultants at Development Services Building, and the from 2:00pm-4:00pm at City Hall on the 6th Floor. The briefing will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting at 5:30pm. For those who instead would like to view the presentation via social media, the meeting will be live streamed on the City’s social media accounts on Facebook and YouTube. Moderators will be at hand to answer your questions during this presentation. Future Agenda Items : NONEIX. AdjournmentX. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m Page 10City of Corpus Christi Printed on 12/15/2022