6.A. 22BF-049 (Gulf Palms City Road Easement Adjacent To 17401 Bristow Rear And 16 Mile Road) Notice Of Mitigation For Disturbance Of Dunes And Vegetation. Property Is Legally Described As Gulf Palms Right-Of-Way, Gulf Palms, A Subdivision In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas

[6.A. 22BF-049 (Gulf Palms City Road Easement Adjacent To 17401 Bristow Rear And 16 Mile Road) Notice Of Mitigation For Disturbance Of Dunes And Vegetation. Property Is Legally Described As Gulf Palms Right-Of-Way, Gulf Palms, A Subdivision In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas]

THEY'RE ARE ITEMS THAT THE COMMISSION WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO TAKE ANY ACTION ON THESE ITEMS. FIRST CASE IS 22BF-049.

MR. COLE? ALL RIGHT.

HOWDY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.

THIS IS A NOTICE OF MITIGATION FOR DISTURBANCE OF DUNES AND DUNE VEGETATION.

THE LOCATION OF THE DISTURBANCE IS THE GULF PALMS CITY ROAD EASEMENT ADJACENT TO 17401 BRISTOW REAR AND 16 MILE ROAD.

THE PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS GULF PALMS RIGHT OF WAY, GULF PALMS, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.

A BEACH AND DUNE SYSTEM ARE LOCATED ON AND TO THE NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS ERODING AT A RATE OF 5 TO 6 FEET PER YEAR, AND STAFF HAS PREPARED PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR VIEWING. SO FIRST WE HAVE AN AERIAL IMAGE WHICH SHOWS THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE MITIGATION SITE WITHIN THE PARCEL.

THAT'S THE RED OUTLINED BOX THERE.

AND THEN ON THE NEXT SLIDE, MOSTLY AS A REFERENCE FOR THE COMMISSIONERS AND IN REGARDS TO PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS OF EROSION, HERE'S AN ADDITIONAL AERIAL IMAGE SHOWING THE-- A MORE RECENT AERIAL SHOWING THE EXTENT OF EROSION BETWEEN LATE 2020, WHICH THE PREVIOUS AERIAL WAS FROM ON OUR OFFICIAL MAPS, AND APPROXIMATELY A YEAR LATER, IN SEPTEMBER 2021, PRIOR TO HURRICANE NICHOLAS, THE CURRENT VEGETATION IS ACTUALLY ERODED MORE TO THE BACK OF THE GULF PALMS DRIVE. THIS IS JUST BECAUSE IN A FORMER MEETING WE HAD DISCUSSED THE RATES OF EROSION KIND OF OUT WEST HERE, AND AS I WAS LOOKING AT AERIALS OF THIS SITE, I THOUGHT IT WAS PRETTY DISTINCT TO SEE HERE.

SO JUST FOR THAT.

ON THE NEXT SLIDE, FINALLY WE SEE THE ACTUAL SITE AT WHICH THE DAMAGE DUNES AND VEGETATION OCCURRED AND WHERE THE MITIGATION WILL OCCUR.

THE SAND, APPROXIMATELY 1.5 CUBIC YARDS, WILL BE REPLACED AS IT WAS PRIOR TO THE IMPACTS AND THE VEGETATION WILL BE REPLANTED AND MONITORED TO ENSURE SUCCESS. THE APPLICANT WAS UNAWARE OF THE FUNCTION AND PROTECTED STATUS OF THE DUNES AND IS EAGER TO BEGIN MITIGATION.

[00:05:10]

AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT, AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

SORRY ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU, MR. COLE. I'M SORRY FOR INTERRUPTING YOU.

I APOLOGIZE. COMMISSIONERS, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. COLE? SEEING NONE.

I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:35 PM.

DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON CASE 22P-- 22BF-049? THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM? THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING ON 22BF-049 AT 3:36 PM AND NO ACTION IS REQUIRED OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

NEXT WE WILL HEAR 22P-024.

[6.B. 22P-024 (2328 Strand / Avenue B And 2309 Harborside Drive) Request For A Replat In Order To Decrease The Number Of Lots From Eleven To Three. The Properties Are Legally Described As: M.B. Menard Survey, Lots 4 Through 8 And Adjacent North ½ Of Alley, Block 683; And M.B. Menard Survey, Lots 1 Through 3 And 18 Through 20 And Alley, Block 683, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Gerry Weiser, Ellis Surveying. Property Owner: Joseph Rozier, Mitchell Historic Properties, Inc.]

THIS IS 2328 STRAND AND 2309 HARBORSIDE.

IT'S A REQUEST FOR A REPLAT FROM 11 LOTS TO 3 LOTS.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REPLAT TO DECREASE THE NUMBER OF LOTS FROM 11 TO 3.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES FRONT 24TH STREET AND CURRENTLY CONTAIN A MULTI-STORY BUILDING AND A SURFACE PARKING LOT.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO HARBORSIDE CONTAINS SEVERAL LOW RISE HISTORIC BUILDINGS WITH COMMON WALLS BETWEEN.

A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED BECAUSE MORE THAN FOUR LOTS ARE INVOLVED.

AND SO WE HAVE AN AERIAL SHOWING THE CURRENT LOT CONFIGURATION.

AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH AND WEST.

AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFFS REPORT.

COMMISSIONERS, DOES ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF? VICE CHAIR BROWN? YEAH, I NOTICED THAT LOT THREE-- I THINK? YEAH. 3R TAKES IN HALF OF THAT ALLEY FOR 119 FEET.

IS THAT ALLEY, IT BELONGS TO THE CITY, RIGHT? THAT PORTION OF THE ALLEY HAS BEEN ABANDONED.

SO THERE IS A PORTION OF THE ALLEY THERE THAT'S STILL OPEN, BUT THAT WESTERN PORTION HAS BEEN ABANDONED.

IT'S BEEN ABANDONED.

OKAY. DO THEY HAVE TO PURCHASE THAT PIECE OF ALLEY FROM THE CITY OR ARE THEY JUST-- THEY [INAUDIBLE] INCORPORATE IT IN THEIR PROPERTY? THAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED AT THE TIME OF ABANDONMENT.

OH, IT WOULD. OKAY. SO THAT-- WHENEVER THAT WAS SOMETIME IN THE PAST.

RIGHT. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANKS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 22P-024 AT 3:38 PM.

ANY QUESTIONS? ANY ONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS FROM THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM? ANYONE ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM? WE'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:38 PM.

AND SINCE NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THIS FROM THE COMMISSION, WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT CASE.

WHICH IS CHANGE OF ZONING ON 22P-021 AND LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COMMISSIONER

[7.A.1. 22P-021 (1502, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1510, 1512, 1514, 1515, 1521, 1602, 1606, 1608, 1609, 1611, 1613, 1615, 1616, 1619, 1620, 1621, 1624, 1628, 1701, 6802, 6807, 6808, 6809, 6814, 6815, 6827, 6828 Driftwood Ln; 1501, 1504 Bayou Homes Dr; And 6500, 6510, 6520 Bayou Front Dr) Request For A Change Of Zoning In Order To Designate A Portion Of The Driftwood Neighborhood As A Restricted Residential, Single-Family (R-0) Zoning District. Properties Are Legally Described As East ½ Of Lots 7 And 8 (7-3), West ½ Of Lots 7 & 8 & North-West Part Of Lot 9 (7-2), West ½ Of Lots 24 Thru 26 (24-1), Part Of Lot 96 (96-2), Trimble & Lindsey, Section 1, Lots 3 & Part Of 2 & 4, Sproule Addition, Part Of Lot 96 (96-5), Trimble & Lindsey, Section 1 & Part Of Lot 5 All Of Lot 6, Sproule Addition, Part Of Lot]

EDWARDS HAS LEFT THE PODIUM.

JUST ONE MOMENT. DONNA, DO WE NEED TO DO ANYTHING BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE HAVE EXACTLY A QUORUM UP HERE RIGHT NOW AND ONLY-- WE HAVE JUST FOUR MEMBERS UP HERE? ISN'T IT--. THE APPLICANT IS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IN THIS CASE.

YEAH. SO WE WOULD BE THE ONES MAKING THAT DECISION AND WE'RE COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SINCE YOU ALL KNOW THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN WITH ONLY A QUORUM HERE.

MR. MILBURN, MS. GORMAN, WE WILL MOVE FORWARD THEN.

THANK YOU. 22P-021, MR. MILBURN? OKAY.

CASE 22P-021 IS THE REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING IN ORDER TO DESIGNATE THE AREA AS A RESTRICTED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY R-0 ZONING DISTRICT, AND THIS AREA IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE DRIFTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD.

OF THE PUBLIC NOTICES WE SENT, 113, 22 WERE RETURNED, 18 IN FAVOR, AND 4 OF THOSE WERE IN OPPOSITION.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. THE REQUEST IS TO DESIGNATE THE PROPERTIES SHOWN ON THE ABOVE MAP AS A RESTRICTED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY R-0 ZONING DISTRICT. THE AREA IS COMMONLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL-- IS CURRENTLY ZONED, I'M SORRY, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY R-1.

THE PRIMARY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE R-0 AND R-1 ZONING DISTRICTS IS THE ABILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO LEGALLY USE THEIR PROPERTY AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL

[00:10:10]

DWELLING. SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THE R-0 ZONING DISTRICT.

OK, NOTE IN THE STAFF REPORT THE CRITERIA OUTLINED IN THE LDRS FOR REQUESTING THE CHANGE OF ZONING TO R-0 AND IT REQUIRES 75% OF THE DWELLINGS AND THE PROPOSED ZONING AREA MUST BE SINGLE FAMILY OCCUPIED AND 75% OF THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS SHALL INITIATE THE PETITION TO REQUEST THE R-0.

AND IN THIS CASE, 78% OF THE DWELLINGS WERE OWNER OCCUPIED, AS WELL AS 78% OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS INITIATED THE REQUESTS.

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST PER THE CONFORMANCE OUTLINED IN THE LDRS AND CITY COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL DECISION AUTHORITY AND WILL HEAR THIS REQUEST AT THE MAY 26, 2022 MEETING.

AND WE HAVE A VISUAL ON SCREEN OF THE SUBJECT BOUNDARY FOR THIS REQUEST, AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.

THANK YOU, MR. MILBURN.

COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? VICE CHAIR BROWN. YEAH, WE KEEP GETTING THESE REQUESTS PRETTY REGULARLY NOW, IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND, YOU KNOW, THE STATE OF TEXAS CONTINUES TO CHALLENGE THE LOCAL CONTROL OF THESE KIND OF STRS.

AND I WONDER IF WE KEEP DOING THIS, ARE WE SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR SOME KIND OF CHALLENGE IN THE FUTURE FOR THIS KIND OF THING? BECAUSE THERE HAVE ALREADY BEEN BILLS AT THE STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE, CHALLENGING MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY CONTROL OF THESE KINDS OF THINGS.

AND I'M JUST WONDERING, DO WE NEED TO BE QUESTIONING THESE THINGS OR ARE WE'RE SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR SOMETHING, FOR SOME CHALLENGE OF SOME KIND? I'LL DEFER TO OUR CITY ATTORNEY, IF YOU WILL.

WELL, THIS BOARD IS TASKED WITH--.

THIS BOARD IS TASKED WITH REVIEWING CASES THAT ARE PRESENTED TO THEM AS OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE CURRENTLY OF TODAY, AND SO I WOULD JUST ADVISE THE BOARD TO REVIEW THIS MATTER BASED ON OUR CURRENT RULES AND REGULATIONS AND PROCEED THAT WAY.

IF EVERY BOARD WERE TO LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITY OF SOMETHING CHANGING IN THE FUTURE, THEN THAT WOULD NOT BE UNDER THE PURVIEW OF FOLKS COMING IN TO GET THEIR MATTERS REVIEWED IN A TIMELY FASHION.

OKAY, THANKS. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER WALLA. HEY, DONNA, A FEW QUESTIONS.

DID WE EVER GET A DEFINITION OF WHAT SINGLE FAMILY OWNER OCCUPIED WAS? I KNOW AT ONE TIME THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ON THAT.

DID WE EVER COME UP WITH ANYTHING DEFINITIVE ON WHAT THAT IS? WE DO HAVE A DEFINITION OF SINGLE FAMILY OWNER OCCUPIED.

THIS ONE IS JUST, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, IT'S JUST SINGLE FAMILY OWNER OCCUPIED STRUCTURES.

AGAIN, THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IT'S SOMEBODY'S HOMESTEAD.

IT ALSO DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S NOT, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, PETE, A RENTAL.

SO I THINK IT COULD ACTUALLY BE A RENTAL, BUT--.

[INAUDIBLE] STILL--.

SO I MEAN, IT'S JUST A SINGLE FAMILY OWNER--.

WELL, THIS [INAUDIBLE] OCCUPIED STRUCTURE.

I MEAN--. IT CAN'T BE A RENTAL.

IT CAN'T BE A RENTAL. IT CAN BE A SECOND HOME.

IT CAN BE A SECOND HOME.

THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] I WAS LOOKING FOR.

OKAY. I JUST I REMEMBER WHEN WE HAD ONE OF THESE IN THE PAST THAT CAME UP AND THERE WAS A DEFINITION IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, BUT NOT IN THE PROPERTY CODE.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE DIDN'T REALLY FALL WITHIN WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.

OKAY. SO THEN MY NEXT QUESTION IS THIS WITH OUR QUORUM--.

THAT WAS THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, JUST TO MAKE SURE WHEN WE SAY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.

YES, MA'AM. SO I GOT A VOTING QUESTION.

SO IF WE HAVE TO HAVE A UNANIMOUS VOTE FOR THIS TO PASS, NOW? [INAUDIBLE] THE APPLICANT AND IT'S AN APPLICATION BEFORE YOU, SO YES.

OKAY. SO HERE'S A HYPOTHETICAL.

WHAT IF THERE'S NOT A UNANIMOUS VOTE AND IT THEN GOES TO CITY COUNCIL.

THEY CAN THEN VOTE ON IT AS A BODY, CORRECT? THIS IS-- [INAUDIBLE]. THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL.

SO, YES. SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY HAVE THE FINAL SAY SO ON THAT? OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAD.

IN THIS INSTANCE, WE ARE RECOMMENDING BODY TO CITY COUNCIL.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, FOR STAFF?

[00:15:08]

OK. THANK YOU.

THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 22P-021 AT 3:46 PM.

IS THERE ANYONE ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? [INAUDIBLE]. IS THERE ANYONE ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? THANK YOU. PLEASE COME FORWARD, SIGN IN AND YOU WILL HAVE 3 MINUTES.

CATHERINE, DO YOU HAVE THE CLOCK? WELCOME. [INAUDIBLE] DISTRICT THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR AN R-0 RATING.

I KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN DONE IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE CITY.

WE ARE A SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD.

AT THE MOMENT, WE DON'T HAVE ANY RENTALS THAT I'M AWARE OF IN THE DESIGNATED AREA.

WE DON'T WANT SHORT TERM RENTALS.

I THINK YOU CAN SEE THAT AS ALL OF US, FOR THE MOST PART, HAVE SIGNED OFF ON THIS.

AND I'D REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR SENDING IT TO COUNCIL WITH YOUR APPROVAL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WOULD YOU--. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? [INAUDIBLE] MORE BACK HERE.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

MY NAME IS WALTER MEYER.

I LIVE IN THIS AREA THAT'S BEING QUESTIONED.

I THINK THAT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE SOME INDIVIDUAL HOUSING THERE, AND I THINK THAT SHORT TERM RENTALS WOULD RUIN THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR MANY OF US WHO LIVE IN THIS AREA.

THAT IF YOU HAVE A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE USING PROPERTY THAT'S NOT THEIRS, THEY'RE JUST RENTING IT, THEY SOMETIMES WILL DESTROY A NEIGHBORHOOD.

I BELONG TO A MEN'S GROUP HERE IN TOWN, SO-CALLED COFFEE CLUB, AND I'VE HEARD THESE THINGS DISCUSSED ON MANY OCCASIONS FOR AREAS IN THE EAST END AND THE--. AND I THINK THE CONSENSUS OF THAT GROUP PRETTY MUCH HAS BEEN THAT THESE SHORT TERM RENTALS RUIN NEIGHBORHOODS.

SO THAT'S THE REASON I'M HERE IN TRYING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? YES, MA'AM. PLEASE COME FORWARD.

YOU HAVE 3 MINUTES. [LAUGHTER] I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THAT LONG.

MIC]. I HAVE A PROPERTY ON BAYOU HOMES THAT IS RIGHT, I GUESS, ON THE EDGE--.

OH. HI, I'M REJONE EDWARDS AND I HAVE A PROPERTY ON BAYOU HOMES THAT'S IN THIS AREA AND I'M PRETTY SURE THAT SOME OF MY NEIGHBORS, JUST FOR CLARITY SAKE HERE, I HEARD THEM SAY THAT THERE WASN'T ANY RENTAL UNITS OVER THERE.

AND I'M PRETTY SURE THAT THE NEIGHBORS THAT I HAVE IN MY BAYOU HOMES HOUSE, ARE RENTERS.

SO I'M NOT QUITE SURE THAT THE NUMBERS, THE 78% IS ACCURATE, MAYBE FOR THE DRIFTWOOD PART, BUT FOR THE BAYOU HOMES PART, I'M NOT SURE THAT'S ACCURATE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

THANK YOU.

THAT'S--. WE'RE DONE.

IT'S NOT AN EXCHANGE.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? ALL RIGHT, THEN WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE--? YES, YOU MAY COME FORWARD.

THANK YOU, RUSTY. PLEASE SIGN IN.

YES. I'M SUSAN HORTON.

I OWN ONE PROPERTY ON DRIFTWOOD AND I OWN TWO ON BAYOU HOMES DRIVE.

[00:20:04]

I FILLED OUT FORMS FOR THE ONES ON BAYOU HOMES DRIVE.

I'M NOT SURE THAT THEY REALLY INTERACT [INAUDIBLE] THAT'S AN ISSUE WITH THEM.

SO THAT'S JUST MY COMMENT, BUT FOR MY THREE, I ALL FAVORED THEM.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS CASE? NOW-- SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:51 PM AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON CASE 22P-021.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION ON CASE 22P-021.

I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THIS CASE AS WRITTEN BY STAFF.

IS THERE A SECOND? IS THERE DISCUSSION? YES SIR, MR. WALLA, COMMISSIONER WALLA.

THANK YOU. I DON'T LIKE THESE AT ALL.

I THINK THEY'RE BAD BUSINESS FOR OUR CITY.

I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WANTING TO NOT-- WANTING YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD OVERRUN WITH SHORT TERM RENTALS, BUT I'M FOR THE IDEA.

I'M OPPOSED TO THIS METHOD.

IT'S JUST I'VE SEEN THESE THE LINES ARE, YOU KNOW, IN MY OPINION, AND IT'S JUST MY OPINION ARE GERRYMANDERED.

THEY CAN BE FINAGLED HOWEVER THEY WANT, AND QUITE HONESTLY, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THE BACK SIDE OF THIS, THE HOMES BEHIND THEM CAN STILL BE SHORT TERM RENTALS. IT'S NOT FIXING THE PROBLEM.

SO WE GOT TO FIX THIS.

YOU KNOW, JOHN, I'M NOT TRYING TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT, YOU KNOW, AND WE'RE HAVING A DISCUSSION, AND HOW DO WE--.

I MEAN, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT PLANNING COMMISSION CAN MAKE AN EFFORT TO TRY AND, YOU KNOW, COME UP WITH SOMETHING? AND JUST TO GIVE YOU MY IDEAS AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS TIME TO SHARE THAT, BUT WE NEED A COMPREHENSIVE ORDINANCE OR SOMETHING IN OUR LDRS THAT SAYS WHAT THESE SHORT TERM RENTAL GUYS CAN DO.

AND WE DON'T NEED TO GO BOOT THESE GUYS TO THE CURB.

THEY ADD A LOT OF MONEY TO OUR CITY COFFERS, AND IN SOME OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS, THEY HAVE SPENT SOME MONEY AND THEY'VE DONE AWAY WITH SOME OF THE BLIGHT THAT WAS THERE.

SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE NEED TO GET THE SHORT TERM RENTAL GUYS INVOLVED IN WHATEVER CONVERSATION WE HAVE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'D MOVE THIS BALL FORWARD, BUT I CAN TELL YOU I AM ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO PUTTING R-0 ON THESE DEALS TO CONTROL SHORT TERM RENTALS.

I JUST THINK IT'S A BAD, BAD BUSINESS DECISION.

OKAY. WHILE THIS IS--.

WHILE THIS-- WHILE THIS IS DISCUSSION, IT IS DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM.

IT IS NOT A BROAD DISCUSSION OF R-0 AND HOW TO FIX R-0 AND WHETHER R-0 IS A METHOD THAT SHOULD BE USED GOING FORWARD AND HOW AND WHY AND WHEN IT SHOULD BE USED.

AS DONNA HAS POINTED OUT EARLIER TO VICE-CHAIR BROWN, THAT'S AN ISSUE FOR ANOTHER DAY.

THESE PEOPLE HAVE DONE WHAT THEY WERE TO DO WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THIS METHOD THAT IS AVAILABLE TO THEM.

AND THAT'S THE DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION THAT IS ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW.

SO THAT'S WHAT I THINK WE NEED TO STICK TO FOR NOW.

SO LET'S STICK TO THAT.

COMMISSIONER WALLA, IF AT THE END OF OUR MEETING TODAY, IF YOU WANT TO SUGGEST, WHEN I OPEN IT UP AND SAY DOES ANYONE HAVE A DISCUSSION ITEM THAT THEY WANT TO ADD, I WOULD LOVE FOR YOU TO MENTION THAT YOU WANT TO ADD ANOTHER DISCUSSION OUT OF FOR OUR NEXT MEETING, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ADD THAT.

[00:25:02]

UNDERSTOOD. AND YES--.

BUT YOU ARE--. AND I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY IF YOU WANT TO STAY ON TODAY'S ITEM, PLEASE.

THANK YOU.

IT IS, ABSOLUTELY. YES.

AND I THINK YOU PROBABLY HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT THIS.

I DO. ABSOLUTELY.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THESE REGULATIONS IN PLACE AND THE NEIGHBORS IN THIS AREA HAVE FOLLOWED THOSE REGULATIONS.

THEY'VE GOTTEN OVER 75% OF THE PEOPLE WITHIN THEIR AREA TO BE IN FAVOR OF THIS, AND ANY TIME WHEN YOU HAVE 75% OF THE PEOPLE IN FAVOR OF IT, I'M GOING TO GO WITH THE 75%.

SO IT, YOU KNOW, THAT IS A POLICY WE HAVE RIGHT NOW TO HELP CONTROL THESE SHORT TERM RENTALS.

I THINK IT'S A DECENT POLICY FOR NOW.

THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE IN THE FUTURE, AND COUNCIL IS DEFINITELY WORKING ON THAT.

WE CAN SPEAK ON THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE LATER, BUT FOR NOW, THIS IS THE SOLUTION WE HAVE TO KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOODS INTACT, AND SO I WOULD APPRECIATE YOU ALL PROVEN THIS INCIDENT ON THE COUNCIL WITH AN APPROVAL.

VICE CHAIR BROWN? I WAS LOOKING AT THE THE NOTICES THAT HAD BEEN SENT OUT AND THE RESPONSES THAT HAD BEEN SENT IN, AND AT LEAST TWO OF THE THREE THAT WERE AGAINST IT WERE FROM SOMEBODY OR A COMPANY CALLED DRIFTWOOD MANAGEMENT LLC THAT OWNS TWO PROPERTIES.

I CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT THEY RENT THEM OUT.

I MEAN, I'M NOT SURE AN OWNER WOULD LIVE IN A PLACE CALLED [INAUDIBLE] WOULD BE CALLED DRIFTWOOD MANAGEMENT LLC.

SO THERE ARE SOME RENTALS THERE ON THE DRIFTWOOD SIDE, I ASSUME.

BUT ANYWAY, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE I THINK WE'RE KIND OF BACKED INTO A CORNER, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT.

IT FOLLOWS THE CURRENT ZONING STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER WE LIKE THEM OR NOT.

YOU KNOW, IN ORDER FOR US TO BE-- TO PRACTICE DUE PROCESS, WE HAVE TO, IF IT ALL FITS ALL THE CRITERIA WE HAVE TO DO OUR DUTY.

AND I TOTALLY AGREE WITH RUSTY, AND AT THE END OF THIS THING, WE'LL HAVE A DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU. AND I--.

BOY, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE I'M JUST RIGHT THERE AT SOME OF THOSE TIMES WHEN I JUST HAVE TO SWALLOW A BITTER PILL.

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN LISTOWSKI.

[LAUGHTER] OH, GOSH.

I THINK I HAVE TO TAKE A DRINK OF WATER WITH THAT.

WOW. HMM. GOT TO WASH THAT ONE DOWN, JOHN PAUL.

THIS IS THE MECHANISM IN PLACE, THEY HAVE FOLLOWED EVERYTHING TO THE LETTER, SO WE NEED TO DO WHAT THEY HAVE ASKED US TO DO.

AND I UNDERSTAND WE'VE ALL SAID THE SAME THING.

ABSOLUTELY. I UNDERSTAND, CHAIR, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT ON THAT.

AND I DO KNOW THAT WHEN YOU AGREE WITH ME, THERE'S USUALLY SCOTCH IN THAT BOTTLE.

[LAUGHTER] BUT, YOU KNOW, AND I DO, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THE INPUT BECAUSE THEY HAVE DONE WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.

I WILL TELL YOU IN READING THE COMMENTS, THAT AREA HAS SOME PRETTY PROMINENT BUSINESS LEADERS OVER THERE.

SO I WOULD TAKE THIS TIME TO SAY, HEY, HELP.

YOU GUYS KNOW Y'ALL WOULDN'T GO PUT THIS PATCH ON YOUR BUSINESS.

HELP US. SO IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENT, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONERS? IN THAT CASE, WE'LL CALL THE VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF PASSING--.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION ON 22P-021, RAISE YOUR HAND.

AND THAT'S UNANIMOUS. COMMISSIONER EDWARDS, PLEASE REJOIN US.

AND THAT IS HAPPENING, MR. COLLINS, AT-- OH, I'M GOING TO JUST SAY STRAIGHT UP, 4:00.

359. AND NOW COUNCIL HAS THAT ONE AT THEIR MAY MEETING FOR FINAL APPROVAL. YES, MAY 26TH.

AND NEXT WE'LL CALL 22P-007.

[7.B.1. 22P-007 (Adjacent To 828 Postoffice / Avenue E) Request For A Permanent License To Place Landscape Planter Walls, ADA Ramp/Egress Stair, Light Fixtures, And Parking Garage Foundation In The City Street Right-Of-Way. Adjacent Properties Are Legally Described As Lots 9 - 13, And Part Of Lot 9 And South Half Of Adjacent Alley, Block 488; And The North 95 Feet Of Lot 1 (1 -1), South 25 Feet Of Lot 1 (1 -2), And Lots 2 Through 7, Block 428, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Adjacent Property Owner: Shriners Hospital For Children Applicant: Kirksey Architecture, C/O Rick De La Cruz Easement Holder: City Of Galveston]

THANK YOU, MR. MILBURN.

I KNOW THESE ARE ALWAYS A LOT TO HANDLE WITH ALL THE SIGNATURES.

THANK YOU, SIR. 22P-007 IS ADJACENT TO 828 POSTOFFICE.

IT'S A REQUEST FOR A LICENSE TO USE TO PLACE LANDSCAPE PLANNER WALLS AND SEVERAL OTHER ITEMS IN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY.

[00:30:01]

STAFF IS REQUESTING THE ABOVE REFERENCE REQUESTS BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE MAY 17TH MEETING IN ORDER FOR THE APPLICANT TO REVISE THE LTU NARRATIVE AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS.

AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN DEFERRED SEVERAL TIMES AND ADRIEL HAS RECEIVED THE FINAL PACKAGE FROM SHRINERS, SO IT WILL BE MOVING FORWARD ON THE 17TH.

THANK YOU. AND I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT OR A COMMENT TO MAKE.

I KNOW THAT WHAT YOU JUST SAID THAT IT WILL BE MOVING FORWARD, BUT I DO WONDER, AT WHAT POINT DO WE FINALLY START CHARGING SOMEONE FOR SEEING THIS OVER AND OVER AND OVER? BECAUSE Y'ALL'S STAFF IS VERY LEAN AND YOUR TIME IS VALUABLE.

DO WE EVER CHARGE ANYONE? YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS SAY NO FEES ARE, YOU KNOW, ASSIGNED TO IT OR WHATEVER, BUT--.

WE DON'T HAVE A FEE, A DEFERRAL FEE.

IF THE APPLICANT IS NOT BEING RESPONSIVE, THEN ULTIMATELY THE APPLICATION IS CONSIDERED VOID AND THEN THEY'LL HAVE TO REAPPLY.

SO THAT DOES HAPPEN THAT SOMETHING COMES IN, IT'S INCOMPLETE, THEY'RE NOT RESPONSIVE, AND THEN THE APPLICATION EXPIRES.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO ANY QUESTIONS FOR--? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON 22P-007 COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. NO. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON 22P-007? SEEING NONE, THEN I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL ON 22P-007.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER WALLA.

A SECOND? SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER FINKLEA.

ALL IN FAVOR. SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND.

THANK YOU. THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

SORRY, I DIDN'T ASK FOR DISCUSSION.

I APOLOGIZE IF I SILENCED ANYONE WHO NEEDED TO DISCUSS THAT.

NEXT, MR. COLE, WE'LL HAVE 22P-025, PLEASE, SIR.

[8.A.1. 22P-025 (22427 Kennedy Drive) Request For Beachfront Construction Certificate And Dune Protection Permit To Include Retroactive Approval For Replacement Of A Staircase And Exemption For Construction Activities Wthin The Dune Conservation Area For Repairs To An Elevated Deck. Property Is Legally Described As Lot 36, Sea Isle Section 23, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Jaziel Lozano Property Owner: Tracy Calabrese]

ALL RIGHT.

HOWDY, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, AND THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME.

SO THIS IS A REQUEST FOR THE RETROACTIVE APPROVAL FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF A STAIRCASE.

INFORMATION IS ALSO BEING PROVIDED REGARDING MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES TO THE ELEVATED DECK ON SITE AND THE NON PERMISSIBLE REPLACEMENT OF THE PREEXISTING GROUND LEVEL DECK FOR WHICH REMOVAL IS REQUIRED.

THE ADDRESS IS 22427 KENNEDY DRIVE.

THE PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 36, SEA ISLE SECTION 23, A SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.

SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE SEA ISLE SUBDIVISION.

SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE LOCATED TO THE EAST, SOUTH AND WEST AND A DUNE SYSTEM IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THE AREA IS STABLE.

STAFF HAS PREPARED PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR VIEWING.

FIRST, WE HAVE AN AERIAL IMAGE WHICH SHOWS AN OVERVIEW OF THE SITE IN RELATION TO GULF AND KENNEDY DRIVE, FM 3005 TO THE NORTH, AND THE BEACH TO THE SOUTH.

ON THE NEXT SIDE IS THE SAME PHOTO ZOOMED IN TO SHOW THE UNUSUAL SITUATION OF THE DUNE SYSTEM EXISTING WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD BY MEANS OF REMAINING CONNECTED TO THE PRIMARY DUNES TO THE SOUTH.

IT IS WORTH NOTING, HOWEVER, THAT IF DUNES WERE NOT FOUND TO BE PRESENT ON THIS SITE, THE SETBACK RULES IN THIS AREA IN THIS CASE WOULD NOT CHANGE THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS OR THE NEED FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW.

BECAUSE THIS IS BETWEEN THE END OF SEAWALL AND 13 MILE ROAD, THE LINE OF VEGETATION IS 200 FEET FROM THE MAIN LOW TIDE LINE, AND WHEN DUNES ARE NOT PRESENT, THE SETBACK, INSTEAD OF 25 FEET FROM THE NORTH TOE OF THE DUNE, IS 200 FEET FROM LINE OF VEGETATION.

SO IT FALLS APPROXIMATELY IN THE SAME LOCATION AS THIS HERE.

ON THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE SITE SURVEY INDICATING THE DUNES AS DISCUSSED, THAT'S THAT CURVED LINE THERE, AND IT IS REORIENTED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE PREVIOUS PHOTOS.

ON THE NEXT SLIDE, THE PREVIOUS TWO PHOTOS HAVE BEEN OVERLAIN TO HELP SHOW THE LOCATION OF THE DUNES IN RELATION TO THE STAIRS AND THE TOP LEFT THERE, AS WELL AS THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED ELEVATED WOOD DECK, AND THE-- [INAUDIBLE] TRAPEZOID.

ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THE STRUCTURE AS WELL IS THE GROUND LEVEL DECK THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED AS FURTHER CONTEXT.

ON THE NEXT SLIDE IS A PHOTO OF THE ACTUAL STAIRS IN QUESTION NEARLY COMPLETE AND AWAITING A PERMIT TO FINISH CONSTRUCTION.

ON THE NEXT SLIDE, ARE PHOTOS OF THE UPPER DECK.

MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES SUCH AS REPLACING DECK BOARDS, DO NOT REQUIRE A BEACHFRONT PERMIT NOR REVIEW.

[00:35:01]

THIS WAS INITIALLY CATEGORIZED AS A CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY REQUIRING AN EXEMPTION DUE TO BEING LOCATED WITHIN THE DUNE PROTECTION AREA AND DUE TO THE STRINGERS BEING REPLACED IN ADDITION TO THE DECK BOARDS.

HOWEVER, UPON FURTHER REVIEW AND LEGAL CONSULTATION, THE WORK ON THE UPPER DECK WAS AFFIRMED TO BE A MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY.

THIS IS DISCUSSED NOW AS THE DETERMINATION WAS MADE BETWEEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECEIPT OF THE INITIAL SUMMARY AND THE STAFF PACKET.

SO TO AVOID CONFUSION THAT IT WAS INITIALLY REFERRED TO AS REQUIRING AN EXEMPTION, I'M CLARIFYING NOW THAT THIS IS JUST A MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY THAT WAS ALSO DONE ON SITE. SO THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE A VOTE, BUT SHOWING IT FOR CLARITY HERE.

WE CAN DISCUSS THAT IF NECESSARY.

AND THEN ON THE FINAL SLIDE, ALSO FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES, IS THE GROUND LEVEL DECK.

IDENTICAL TO ONE THAT PREVIOUSLY EXISTED IN THIS LOCATION.

IN THE PROCESS OF REPLACING THE DECK BOARDS, WHICH ALSO WOULD HAVE BEEN MAINTENANCE, THE APPLICANTS FOUND THAT THE STRINGERS WERE ROTTEN AND REQUIRED REPLACEMENT.

HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, THAT DID CONSTITUTE A NEAR TOTAL REPLACEMENT OF THE DECK, INCLUDING ALL THE GROUND CONTACT MEMBERS, WHICH RENDERED THE PROJECT NEW CONSTRUCTION IN AN AREA WHERE IT'S NOT PERMITTED WITHOUT EXEMPTION.

SIMULTANEOUSLY, GROUND LEVEL DECKS ARE CONSIDERED BY THE TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE, THE GLO, AS AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, DUE IN PART TO THE INABILITY FOR LIGHT OR BLOWING RAIN TO ALLOW PLANT GROWTH BENEATH THEM, AND THUS AN EXEMPTION COULD NOT BE REQUESTED FOR THIS PORTION OF THE PROJECT, AND THEREFORE THE APPLICANTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO REMOVE IT.

AND THIS CONCLUDES THE STAFF REPORT, AND I THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR MR. COLE? YES, SIR. COMMISSIONER--.

VICE CHAIR BROWN? I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW HOW THE GLO CONSIDERED THIS WOODEN DECK ON THE GROUND FLOOR. IT SOUNDED IN THEIR LETTER LIKE THEY WERE THINKING THIS WAS IMPERMEABLE COVERING.

IMPERMEABLE TO ME MEANS THAT WATER CAN'T PENETRATE IT, BUT OF COURSE, WATER CAN PENETRATE A WOOD BOARD.

BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THAT SOMETHING CAN'T GROW THERE.

IS THAT THEIR CRITERIA? SO A WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT IS IF SOMETHING CAN GROW BUT IMPERMEABLE IN THE SENSE THAT FOR--.

IF YOU THINK OF DOING WALK OVERS, THE REQUIREMENTS ARE THAT THEY HAVE A HALF INCH SPACING BETWEEN THE BOARDS AND THAT THEY ARE ELEVATED A CERTAIN DISTANCE ABOVE THE GROUND AND THAT ALLOWS FOR WATER TO FLOW BETWEEN THEM, AND AS WE'VE DISCUSSED BEFORE, WE'VE ALLOWED CERTAIN DECKS IN THE DUNE PROTECTION AREA BECAUSE WE REQUIRED IT HAD THAT SAME SPACING.

IN CASES LIKE THIS WITH GROUND LEVEL DECKS, THE GLO HAS MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT UNLESS A MUNICIPALITY HAS INCLUDED WITHIN THEIR CODE THAT GROUND LEVEL DECKS HAVE THAT SPACING OF A HALF INCH BETWEEN THE DECK BOARDS, AND UNLESS THERE IS NO THE WORD [INAUDIBLE] BOARD IS COMING TO MIND, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S RIGHT, BUT SOMETHING ACTUALLY IMPERVIOUS BENEATH IT THAT MAY NOT BE CORRECT, BUT LIKE TARP OR LIKE RUBBER OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD STOP WATER FROM FLOWING BENEATH, WHICH I KNOW IS SOMETIMES SEEN IN WHERE THERE'S DOUBLE DECKS SO THAT RAIN DOESN'T FLOW BENEATH THEM.

SOME OF THESE THINGS THAT ARE STANDARD PRACTICE FOR OTHER DECKS, UNLESS IT IS CODIFIED, THAT THAT IS NOT PERMITTED IN THESE GROUND LEVEL DECKS, THE GLO HAS TAKEN THE POSITION OF ASSUMING BLANKET DEFAULT THAT A GROUND LEVEL DECK IS IMPERVIOUS, THAT IT IS SPACED TOO CLOSE TOGETHER, THAT THERE IS POTENTIALLY SOMETHING BENEATH IT, SOME SORT OF SHEET THAT WOULD STOP THE WATER FROM FLOWING BETWEEN IT.

SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, FOR EITHER WATER FLOW PURPOSES OR FOR PLANT GROWTH, IT'S THE SAME IN RESULT THAT THEY DISALLOW THIS BECAUSE THEY CONSIDER IT IMPERVIOUS.

BECAUSE IT'S SITTING RIGHT ON THE GROUND? BECAUSE IT'S SITTING RIGHT ON THE GROUND, AND BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW FOR CERTAIN WHAT THE CONSTRUCTION METHOD WAS IN THIS CASE.

OH. SO THERE COULDN'T BE LIKE A REMEDY FOR IT? SO THEORETICALLY, AN APPLICANT IN A FUTURE CASE COULD SPECIFY THAT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE ANY OF THAT IMPERVIOUS MATERIAL BENEATH IT AND THAT IT WOULD HAVE THAT HALF INCH SPACING.

FROM WHAT I'VE GATHERED BY THE GLO, THAT STILL, UNTIL IT'S CODIFIED BY THE CITY, WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED.

BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE WORKING TOWARDS IN OUR NEXT BEACH UPDATE TO CIRCUMVENT THAT ISSUE, TO ENSURE THAT IT HAS THOSE THINGS ALREADY THAT EVERY INDIVIDUAL CASE DOESN'T HAVE TO TRY TO LIKE CONVINCE THEM THAT THAT'S GOING TO OCCUR AND THEN IT WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM MOVING FORWARD.

SO WE ARE WORKING TO ADDRESS THIS FOR FUTURE INSTANCES, BUT UNFORTUNATELY IN THIS CASE, AN EXEMPTION CAN'T BE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THAT.

[00:40:10]

SO THERE WOULD BE A METHOD OF BUILDING SOMETHING ON THE GROUND THAT WOULD QUALIFY AS PERVIOUS? THAT IS CORRECT. SO SOME KIND OF WOOD DECK THAT ALLOWS AIR AND WATER AND STUFF TO PENETRATE AND NOT BE IMPERVIOUS TO THE GROUND BELOW IT? THAT IS CORRECT.

OKAY. SOUNDS REASONABLE. THANKS.

COMMISSIONER FINKLEA? SO QUESTION ON THIS GROUND LEVEL DECK, THE THE RECOMMENDATION HERE IS THAT THE GROUND LEVEL DECK NEEDS TO BE REMOVED. HOW LONG DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE TO REMOVE IT? I BELIEVE IT WAS PUT IN THE STAFF PACKET EITHER 30 DAYS OR BY THE END OF THE FOLLOWING MONTH.

CAN YOU CONFIRM FOR ME IF THERE'S A TIME LIMIT ON THERE? IT SAYS-- IT SAYS THE APPLICANT SHALL REMOVE THE GROUND LEVEL DECK WITHIN 30 DAYS, AND I HAVE A QUESTION HERE THAT SAYS 30 DAYS OF WHAT? I--. THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

30 DAYS IS NOT EXACTLY CLEAR ENOUGH FOR ME.

APOLOGIES. THAT WAS INTENDED AS RECEIPT OF THE PERMIT, THE BEACHFRONT PERMIT, WHICH WOULD BE ISSUED TOMORROW UPON APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TODAY.

OKAY, SO--. AND THAT CAN BE SPECIFIED, OR IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THAT.

30 DAY--. WITHIN 30 DAYS OF ISSUANCE OF BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT.

THIS FUTURE CODIFICATION THAT YOU REFER TO, WHAT IS THE PROCESS AND HOW LONG IS THAT GOING TO TAKE? HELLO, PLANNING COMMISSION.

I'M GOING TO TAKE THAT QUESTION BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING THAT I'M CURRENTLY IN THE MIDST OF WORKING ON.

UNFORTUNATELY, DUE TO THE FACT THAT OUR ORDINANCE, WHICH CREATED THE CODE OUT OF WHICH WE WORK, BECAUSE THAT WAS INCLUDED AS PART OF A BEACH ACCESS PLAN, IT HAS TO UNDERGO THE SAME PROCESS AS ANY UPDATES TO A BEACH ACCESS PLAN, WHICH ARE MUCH MORE LABORIOUS THAN SIMPLY UPDATING A TRADITIONAL ORDINANCE.

SO WHAT'S GOING TO BE REQUIRED IS THAT IN ONE WHOLE SWOOP I WILL COME FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL, OR PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN CITY COUNCIL, WITH AN UPDATED ORDINANCE.

THAT CHAPTER OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, AS WELL AS THE BEACH ACCESS PLAN, WILL THEN--.

IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL APPROVE OF IT, IT WILL GO TO THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE, THEY WILL THEN PROVIDE OFFICIAL COMMENTS AND WE WILL HAVE TO RESPOND TO THOSE, THEN IT IS POSTED IN THE TEXAS REGISTER FOR 30 DAYS FOR A COMMENT PERIOD OF THE PUBLIC, AT WHICH POINT WE ADDRESS ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT HAVE COME IN, AND THEN IT CAN BE OFFICIALLY CODIFIED AND UPLOADED TO THE STATE.

SO IT'S UNFORTUNATELY A VERY LONG, LABORIOUS PROCESS.

SO, CHAIRMAN, THE PURPOSE OF MY QUESTIONING IS TO DETERMINE IF THERE IS AN INTERIM SOLUTION OR A EXTENSION, A WAY FOR THEM NOT TO HAVE TO RIP OUT THE ENTIRE DECK WHILE WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS OF CODIFICATION, PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE HAVE OTHER TYPES OF ALLOWABLE SURFACES WITHIN THE DUNE PROTECTION AREA, THESE WALKOVER MATS, FOR EXAMPLE.

THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DETERMINE, AND I DON'T KNOW THE EXTENT, OR MAYBE YOU CAN HELP ENLIGHTEN ME ABOUT IF THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT IF THERE'S SOME INTERIM SOLUTIONS THAT MIGHT BE AVAILABLE TO THEM? I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO GET CROSSWAYS WITH THE GLO.

WELL, I DON'T WANT TO GET CROSSWAYS WITH THE GLO.

OH, I KNOW YOU DON'T.

I KNOW YOU DON'T, AND I'M JUST SAYING THAT HAS TO BE WHERE WE KEEP OUR DUCKS IN A ROW.

ALL RIGHT. AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE TO LET OUR OUR COASTAL RESOURCES STAFF GUIDE US.

I WILL RETRACT THAT LAST STATEMENT.

GREAT QUESTIONS, THOUGH. I MEAN, THAT'S THE EXACT TYPE OF QUESTIONING THAT WE PUSH OURSELVES TO DO AS WELL, SO THAT WE CAN ALWAYS MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE SERVING THE COMMUNITY THE BEST POSSIBLE.

BECAUSE IF WE DON'T ASK THOSE QUESTIONS ON THEIR BEHALF, NOBODY ELSE IS GOING TO.

SO WE APPRECIATE HEARING THAT OPINION FROM YOU ALL.

AND I APPRECIATE YOU TRYING TO LOOK OUT FOR OUR HOMEOWNERS, [INAUDIBLE] ARE PROPERTY OWNERS.

AND I KNOW THEY APPRECIATE IT.

YES SIR? SO WHO MAKES THE DETERMINATION WHAT'S MAINTENANCE AND WHAT'S NOT? IS THAT GLO OR IS THAT OUR STAFF THAT DOES THAT?

[00:45:03]

SO THAT IS INTERNAL AND IT'S PRIMARILY THE COASTAL RESOURCES DIVISION, AND THEN THE CHANGE HERE OCCURRED DURING THE STAFF DEVELOPMENT MEETING AND IN CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL AFTER REVIEWING PRECEDENT AND STANDARD PRACTICES.

SO IN THIS CASE, WHAT ALLOWED IT TO SWITCH FROM NEW CONSTRUCTION TO MAINTENANCE WAS THAT THE FOOTPRINT DIDN'T CHANGE AND THAT THE PILINGS DID NOT-- WERE NOT ALTERED.

WHICH PILINGS ARE USUALLY THE INDICATOR THAT WE LOOK AT AS THAT'S ALTERING THE GROUND AND WITHOUT HAVING TO INCREASE THE FOOTPRINT, IT DID NOT AFFECT THE HYDROLOGY OF THE SITE.

SO JUST REPLACING THE BOARDS, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS STRINGERS, WHICH IS KIND OF A GRAY AREA BECAUSE IT WAS JUST REPLACING WHAT WAS ALREADY THERE WITHOUT TOUCHING THE GROUND OR WITHOUT AFFECTING THE HYDROLOGY.

THAT'S WHAT PUT IT IN THE CATEGORY OF MAINTENANCE.

AND I'M THINKING MORE IN LINES OF, NOT NECESSARILY THIS DECK, BUT THE STAIRS.

SO WITH THE STAIRS DID THEY PUT A NEW LANDING IN AND THAT'S WHAT MADE IT NEW CONSTRUCTION? THE STAIRS, IT WAS ACTUALLY REPLACING ALL THE PILINGS AS WELL.

SO IF WE COULD GO TO PREVIOUS PHOTO OF THE STAIRS? AND I SAW THAT. [INAUDIBLE] I'M JUST TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, [INAUDIBLE].

WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS IF YOU OWN A HOUSE ON THE BEACH AND YOU HAVE TO REPLACE YOUR STAIRS, YOU GUYS YOU GOT TO GO THROUGH THIS.

THAT'S CORRECT. IT'S CONSTRUCTION, NOT MAINTENANCE.

AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHERE IS THAT LINE.

SO THE MOST COMMON DIFFERENCE IS JUST IF YOU ARE REPLACING LIKE THE HORIZONTAL BOARDS, THAT'S GOING TO BE MOST COMMONLY MAINTENANCE.

IF YOU HAVE TO REPLACE PILINGS THAT'S MOST COMMONLY NEW CONSTRUCTION.

IF IT TOUCHES THE GROUND, THEN THAT'S GOING TO BE A NEW CONSTRUCTION? MOST OFTEN. IT'S A CASE BY CASE BASIS, BUT THAT'S USUALLY WHAT WE SEE.

AND I WANT TO SAY GREAT QUESTIONS ALL THE WAY AROUND, AND THIS IS HOW WE LEARN.

VERY GOOD. AND THAT'S--.

THIS PHOTO I THINK IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHY PILINGS ARE CONSIDERED A NEW CONSTRUCTION, WHY IT NEEDS TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE DUNES IN THE BACKGROUND THERE IN THE MIDDLE RIGHT OF THE PHOTO, AND THEN I THINK THIS IS 60 SOMETHING FEET AWAY IS THE PILINGS FOR THE STAIRS.

AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE IT'S DIGGING UP THE SAND, AND IF THIS WAS CLOSER--.

IN THIS INSTANCE, IT'S NOT HAVING IMPACTS, IT'S IN A YARD.

BUT IF IT WAS CLOSER OR ADJACENT TO THE DUNES, HAVING THIS [INAUDIBLE] OF DIGGING IT UP, THAT COULD BURY DUNE VEGETATION, THAT COULD AFFECT THE DUNE ITSELF.

SO THAT'S WHY IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE LOOK AT IF IT'S TOUCHING THE GROUND.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES SIR? I JUST WANTED SOME CLARITY ON DAVID'S QUESTION ABOUT THE GLO AND WHY WANT TO UPSET THE GLO.

BUT WHAT WAS THE REASON WHY SO WHEN RUSSELL AND I WERE INITIALLY REVIEWING THIS, THE WAY THAT WE--.

THE QUESTION THAT WE ASK OURSELVES IS, SO WORK HAS ALREADY OCCURRED, COULD WE HAVE PERMITTED THIS WORK HAD THEY COME TO US PRIOR TO DOING IT? AND IN THIS INSTANCE, IT WOULD FALL UNDER THE SITUATION WHERE SOMETHING IS LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING.

SO WHEN THIS WAS BUILT ON THE GROUND LEVEL, WE HAVE TO MAKE THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT WAS PUT IN THERE PROPERLY.

AND IF THEY WANTED TO CHANGE OUT A BOARD HERE OR THERE, IF THEY WANTED TO REPAIR SOMETHING THAT WAS BROKEN AS LONG AS IT FELL WITHIN THOSE GUIDELINES OF THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT YOU CAN DO TO SOMETHING THAT'S LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING WITHOUT HAVING TO BRING IT UP TO CODE, THEN WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE A PERMIT. HOWEVER, IN THIS INSTANCE, BECAUSE THE ENTIRETY OF THE DECK STRUCTURE WAS COMPLETELY REMOVED AND A BRAND NEW ONE WAS PUT BACK, EVEN THOUGH IT MAINTAINED THE SAME OR A SIMILAR FOOTPRINT, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PERMIT.

NOW, YOUR QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO WHY ISN'T THERE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD DO IN THE INTERIM, IN THIS INSTANCE, THE CHANGE TO THE CODE THAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN IN ORDER TO FACILITATE FUTURE PROJECTS OF THIS TYPE, THAT'S GOING TO BE LUMPED IN WITH ALL OF THE OTHER CHANGES THAT

[00:50:02]

NEED TO OCCUR WITHIN OUR ORDINANCE, WHICH I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE A SHORT PROCESS AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS IN A WEEK OR TWO WEEKS.

IT'S GOING TO BE A PROCESS TO GET TO THAT POINT.

AND I DON'T FEEL THAT IT WOULD BE SETTING A GOOD PRECEDENT TO START ESTABLISHING THAT IF YOU DO SOMETHING THAT MAY BE OK IN THE FUTURE, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO KEEP IT UNTIL IT IS OK.

SO THAT'S WHERE I WOULD LAND ON IT.

AND I'LL ADD TO THAT, THERE ARE INSTANCES OF SOMETHING THAT'S A GRAY AREA THAT UNTIL WE CAN PUT IT IN CODE, WE CAN MAKE A LEGAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CODES THAT CURRENTLY EXIST.

BUT IN THIS CASE, SINCE IT'S THE GLO'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CITY'S CODES, IT WOULD NEED TO BE THE OFFICIAL CITY CODE, AS I UNDERSTAND THAT THE GLO IS REFERENCING BECAUSE THEY'RE BASING IT NOT ON WHAT WE'RE TELLING THEM, BUT WHAT IS CODIFIED AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT RULE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE MUNICIPALITY.

GO AHEAD. BUT THIS GROUND LEVEL DECK WAS EXISTING? THERE WAS A GROUND LEVEL DECK IN THIS AREA.

AND THEY CAN MAINTAIN THEY COULD DO A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF MAINTENANCE IN ORDER TO KEEP IT LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING.

DO THEY NEED A PERMIT TO DO MAINTENANCE? NO. AND XO WE SPECIFY THE AMOUNT THAT THEY CAN WELL--.

SPEAK ON--. GO AHEAD.

SO I THINK WHAT YOU'RE-- WHAT YOU'RE REALLY REFERRING TO IS WHAT'S CALLED THE LEGAL NON-CONFORMING STATUS, AND WHEN A PROJECT PROPERTY, WHEN WHATEVER'S BEEN BUILT, HAS EITHER BEEN DAMAGED OR DESTROYED TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, AND IT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, AND I WANT TO SAY IT'S 60%? [INAUDIBLE] 50%? 50% MORE OF WHAT NEEDS TO BE UPGRADED, REMOVED, REPAIRED, WHATEVER.

THAT WOULD NOW KICK IT OUT OF A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING STATUS TO BASICALLY A NEW CONSTRUCTION TYPE OF STATUS.

AND SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THAT HE COULDN'T OR THE APPLICANT CAN REPLACE A FEW BOARDS.

HE REPLACED MORE THAN 50% OF WHAT WAS THERE AND IT KICKED IT INTO A WHOLE DIFFERENT STATUS.

AND THEN WHAT ALL DO WE ALLOW IN THIS AREA SO IN THIS AREA, ON THE GROUND, YOU ARE GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO HAVE--.

WELL, LET'S DESCRIBE THIS AREA, I GUESS LET'S START THERE.

SO WITHIN THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE WALK OVERS, AS WE'VE SEEN, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE WITHIN 25 FEET OF THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA WALK OVERS.

OUTSIDE OF THAT, YOU'RE GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO HAVE ANYTHING THAT IS MEANT TO BE PUT DOWN AND THEN REMOVED.

SO MOBI-MAT'S, MOBI-DECKING, ANY OF THOSE BEACH SPECIFIC ACCESS PRODUCTS THAT ARE CREATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING PLACED IN A SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENT AND THEN BEING REMOVED EASILY, WHICH DON'T REQUIRE ANY SORT OF PADS OR PILINGS IN ORDER TO INSTALL.

THOSE ARE THINGS THAT COULD BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE 25 FEET OF THE NORTH TOE OF THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA.

OUTSIDE OF THAT, WE DO ALLOW FOR CERTAIN CHANGES TO THE GROUND, BUT THOSE THEMSELVES, AS YOU ALL KNOW, ARE DEPENDENT UPON THEIR LOCATION WITHIN THE ENHANCED CONSTRUCTION AREA.

AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE THINGS LIKE FIBERCRETE VERSUS CONCRETE VERSUS PAVERS IN THOSE ZONES.

SO THAT'S JUST A QUICK--.

WITH THOSE LAST THREE ITEMS, THOSE WOULD BE ALLOWED? NOT IN--. NOT THIS CLOSE TO THE DUNES, I DON'T BELIEVE.

OKAY. IS IT KIND OF--.

IS IT THAT KIND OF THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE, I THINK I KIND OF HEARD EARLIER WAS THAT THAT ZONE NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE MOISTURE AND THE LIGHT IN THE AIR TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THINGS GROW? YEAH.

AND SO IF YOU PUT AN IMPERMEABLE SURFACE ON THERE, WHICH WOULD BE FIBERCRETE BASICALLY, I MEAN, THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN, SO YOU CAN'T PUT THAT THERE.

CORRECT. I MEAN, IT HELPS ME TO UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPLES BEHIND THESE RULES.

[00:55:05]

YEAH. YOU ALL ARE KNOCKING IT OUT OF THE PARK TODAY.

[LAUGHTER] ALL RIGHT. I BELIEVE WE'RE READY TO HEAR FROM OUR APPLICANT WHO'S GOING TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK FOR YOU ALL.

WELCOME. PLEASE SIGN IN.

GOT TO HUNT FOR THAT PEN. AND THE GOOD NEWS IS YOU'RE NOT LIMITED TO 3 MINUTES. JUST TELL US ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ABOUT THE PROJECT.

OKAY. MY NAME IS KAITLYN LOZANO, I'M THE WIFE OF THE CONTRACTOR, SO I'M COMING TO HELP OUT.

SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF THE POINTS.

YEAH, I COULD JUST DO THAT SO MY CALVES AREN'T BURNING LATER.

[LAUGHTER] GET YOUR WORKOUT IN.

YEAH. SO ORIGINALLY THE PROJECT WAS JUST SUPPOSED TO BE REPLACING THOSE TOP DECK BOARDS, THAT'S ALL THEY HAD ASKED, AND SO HE DID THAT UP TOP, AND THEN HE DID THAT ON THE BOTTOM.

UP TOP, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE ABLE TO SEE UNDERNEATH, AND SO THEY COULD HAVE ANTICIPATED, I GUESS IF THEY REALLY LOOKED AT IT, THEY COULD HAVE ANTICIPATED, YOU KNOW, HEY, SOME OF THESE AREN'T IN GREAT CONDITION, WE MIGHT WANT TO REPLACE THEM OUT.

BUT UNDERNEATH BECAUSE IT'S COMPLETELY CLOSED, AND I HAVE A COUPLE BETTER PICTURES ON MY PHONE IF WE NEEDED TO LOOK AT THAT, BUT BECAUSE IT'S ALL COMPLETELY ENCLOSED ON THE BOTTOM, THERE'S NO WAY TO REALLY SEE WHAT THE FRAME WAS LIKE UNDERNEATH IT, FOR THE BOTTOM DECK.

YEAH. SO ONCE THEY DID TAKE ALL OF THE BOARDS OFF THE TOP, THEN THEY NOTICED THAT THEY WERE KIND OF NOT GREAT UNDERNEATH.

AND A COUPLE OF THE PICTURES MY HUSBAND WAS JUST SHOWING ME WAS THAT SOME OF THEM WEREN'T REPLACED, BUT ONE BOARD ON THE INSIDE OF IT LAID DOWN.

HE HAD PICTURES WHERE NOT ALL OF THE BOARDS ON THE TOP WERE.

SO YOU COULD SEE THE BOTTOM FRAME, JUST KIND OF ANOTHER BOARD PUT REINFORCING IT.

SO SOME OF THEM WERE NOT COMPLETELY REPLACED, THEY WERE JUST REINFORCED.

AND THEN HE SAYS THAT ULTIMATELY THEY ENDED UP CHANGING ABOUT 70, 75% OF THE BOARDS UNDERNEATH.

AND I GUESS MAYBE NOT HERE, BUT WITH THE GLO, LIKE AS FAR AS THE CLIENT THAT HE WAS DOING THIS FOR, IT'S AN AIRBNB, SO THEY'VE BEEN SHUT DOWN FOR A LOT OF TIME NOW BECAUSE OF THIS.

BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OPPORTUNITY.

HE SAID HE DID NOT USE ANY KIND OF THOSE LIKE WEED TRAPPER THINGS, NOTHING UNDERNEATH IT THAT WAS IMPERMEABLE TO THE GROUND.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT--.

OR IF THIS IS EVEN THE TIME OR PLACE TO SEE IF IT COULD JUST BE SPACED OUT, THE BOARDS SPACED OUT A HALF AN INCH AND LEFT, OR IF IT STILL HAS TO BE COMPLETELY TAKEN UP.

I DON'T KNOW. NOT HERE.

[LAUGHTER] I THINK THAT THE DISCUSSION THAT WAS ALL HERE IS THAT IT'S-- THERE'S NOT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT RIGHT NOW. OKAY.

OKAY.

THANK YOU. AND [INAUDIBLE] WE'RE SORRY ABOUT THAT, BUT THERE'S--.

EVERYBODY UP HERE IS VERY SORRY ABOUT THAT.

WE WERE HOPING, I THINK, THAT'S ESPECIALLY WHAT YOU WERE HEARING DOWN HERE, IS THAT THEY WANTED FOR THERE TO BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT TO HAPPEN, THAT WE WANTED THAT, BUT THERE'S JUST NOT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT.

OKAY. WELL, DID ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONERS? DO YOU MIND COMING BACK UP, PLEASE? COMMISSIONER WALLA? SO YOU GUYS ARE THE CONTRACTOR, NOT THE HOMEOWNER, IS THAT CORRECT? HE'S THE CONTRACTOR, YES. OKAY. SO DID YOU GUYS GET A CITY PERMIT WHEN YOU DID THAT? SO.

WE HATE--.

AND HE'S THE CONTRACTOR.

YEAH. YEAH.

SO WE'D LOVE TO HELP YOU GUYS, AND BUT I WOULD TELL YOU, AND IT LOOKS LIKE YOUR HUSBAND DID A GREAT JOB.

BUT THE LESSON IS.

YEAH, ESPECIALLY ON THESE BEACHFRONT HOUSES, AND HE NEEDS TO MAKE SURE HE TELLS ALL HIS FRIENDS.

YOU COME DOWN HERE AND YOU START MESSING ON THE BEACH FRONT, YEAH. I WANTED TO-- WE'VE--. THESE BIGGER PROJECTS WERE SOMETHING KIND OF NEW, AND SO MAINLY WE'VE WORKED JUST IN TOWN AND SO I'VE LEARNED A LOT IN WORKING WITH RUSSELL ABOUT A LOT ABOUT THAT.

SO I'M LIKE, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO DO ANY MORE WORK OUT THERE BECAUSE THIS IS WAY TOO MUCH.

[LAUGHTER] WELL, I WOULDN'T DISCOURAGE YOU FROM DOING THE WORK OUT THERE, BECAUSE WE NEED FOLKS THAT UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON OUT THERE TO DO THE WORK.

[01:00:03]

SO WHEN SOMEBODY CALLS HIM, THE NEXT TIME HE CAN SAY, HEY, YOU GOT TO GO DO THIS, THIS, THIS AND THIS, AND IT'LL BE GOOD BUSINESS FOR HIM.

SO I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT--.

[LAUGHTER] YEAH, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT.

WE'VE HAD ANOTHER-- SOMEONE CONTACT US ABOUT DOING SOME OTHER STUFF ON THERE, AND WITH ALL OF THIS I SAID, NO, CALL SOMEONE ELSE.

WE'RE NOT--. I'M NOT GOING THROUGH THIS AGAIN, SO.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. THANK YOU. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING THEN ON CASE 22P-025 AT 4:31 PM.

ANYONE ON THIS SIDE WANT TO SPEAK? ANYONE ON THIS SIDE? WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:31 AND I WILL MAKE A MOTION ON THIS CASE FOR APPROVAL AS WRITTEN WITH ONE MINOR CHANGE ON CONDITION FOUR TO READ, THE APPLICANT SHALL REMOVE THE GROUND LEVEL DECK WITHIN 30 DAYS OF ISSUANCE OF THE BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND FROM VICE CHAIR BROWN.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? YES, COMMISSIONER EDWARDS? SO ARE WE--.

IT'S OFF. DO OVER HERE.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM.

WE'RE GOING TO--. SO, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM--.

OH, I'M SO OFF TODAY.

[LAUGHTER] I'M SO OFF.

I'M SORRY, Y'ALL. FORGIVE ME.

I'M, LIKE, WAY OFF.

YEAH, I WAS. MY WHOLE MIND WAS LIKE, SET ON THE DECK.

I WAS JUST LIKE, OKAY, WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? WELL, IT WOULD BE IF WE GIVE IT TO THEM.

YEAH, WELL. [LAUGHTER] WAS THAT A BRAIN FART OR WHAT? OKAY, SO THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

THERE IT GOES. OKAY.

ANYTHING ELSE? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. IN THAT CASE, WE'LL CALL THE QUESTION.

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF 22P-025, SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND.

THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

CONGRATULATIONS. NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO 22P-027.

[8.A.2. 22P-027 (11363 Beachside Drive) Request For Beachfront Construction Certificate And Dune Protection Permit To Include Proposed Construction Of A Single-Family Dwelling Wth A Fibercrete Driveway And Footer. Property Is Legally Described As Lot 635 Beachside Village, Section 6, 0.26 Acres, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Kevin Peterson Property Owner: Debbie Walcott]

AGAIN, MR. COLE--.

IT'S THE RUSSELL COLE SHOW.

[LAUGHTER] THERE WAS GOING TO BE ANOTHER CASE TODAY, BUT GLO--.

OH, MY GOODNESS GRACIOUS.

WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO GIVE YOU A THROAT LOZENGE.

[LAUGHTER] HOWDY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, AND THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME.

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A FIBERCRETE DRIVEWAY AND FOOTER.

THE ADDRESS IS 11363 BEACHSIDE DRIVE.

THE PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 635 BEACHSIDE VILLAGE SECTION 6, 2022, ABSTRACT 121, A SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.

THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE BEACHSIDE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION.

A BEACH AND DUNE SYSTEM ARE LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS ERODING AT A RATE OF 8 TO 9 FEET PER YEAR.

STAFF HAS PREPARED PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR VIEWING.

FIRST, WE HAVE A FIRM MAP SHOWING THE EROSION RATES AND THE OFFICIAL LOCATION OF THE SITE.

ON THE NEXT SLIDE IS MORE RECENT AERIAL IMAGE OF THE LOTS.

TRY TO DO SOME COLOR CORRECTION, IT WAS PRETTY DARK, BUT YOU HAVE THE GENERAL IDEA THERE.

ON THE NEXT SLIDE ARE SIDE PROFILES OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE AS WELL AS ON THE NEXT SLIDE.

ON THE FOLLOWING SLIDE, WE HAVE PROPOSED PROJECT OVERLAID ON THE SURVEY AND THIS IS ZOOMED IN ON THE NEXT SLIDE.

SO HERE IS THE PLAN ORIENTED WITH THE BEACH AND DUNES TO THE RIGHT.

THE SOLID RED MARKS-- SOLID RED LINE MARKS, THE SEAWARD EXTENT OF WHICH ONLY FIBERCRETE IS PERMITTED.

SO THAT'S WHAT'S CALLED THE ENHANCED CONSTRUCTION ZONE.

AS WE'VE DISCUSSED EARLIER TODAY, TO THE LEFT OF THAT REINFORCED FIBERCRETE WOULD BE ALLOWED, TO THE RIGHT--.

SORRY, REINFORCED CONCRETE TO THE LEFT, FIBERCRETE ONLY TO THE RIGHT.

THE APPLICANT HAS ONLY PROPOSED FIBERCRETE, HOWEVER, IN THIS PROJECT.

THE RED CIRCLE INDICATES WHERE THE STAIR LANDING WHERE FIBERCRETE WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED IN ADDITION TO THE DRIVEWAY, BUT WHICH WILL BE

[01:05:08]

REPLACED WITH BRICK PAVERS ON THE PLANS PER THE REQUIREMENT THAT IMPERVIOUS SURFACES NOT EXIST OUTSIDE THE DRIVEWAY OR THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HABITABLE STRUCTURE.

SO A DISCUSSION WE'VE RECENTLY HAD WITH THE GLO IS WHETHER LANDINGS LIKE THIS OR SIDEWALKS COUNT AS PART OF THE DRIVEWAY AND FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACES THAT CAN BE LEFT OUTSIDE THE HOME, AND THE CONCLUSION WAS BASICALLY, UNLESS A CAR CAN DRIVE ON IT, IT DOES NOT. SO THIS IS BEING REPLACED WITH PERMEABLE PAVERS INSTEAD OF FIBERCRETE HERE.

PER THE REQUIREMENT THAT A STRUCTURE BE LOCATED AS FAR LANDWARD AS PRACTICABLE, THE GLO STAFF AND THE APPLICANTS HAVE DISCUSSED THE PRACTICABILITY OF MOVING THE HOUSE ATOP A PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY AND THE IMPACTS THAT THIS WOULD HAVE ON THE APPLICANT'S INTENDED USE OF THE DRIVEWAY, WHICH IS FOR LARGE VEHICLES AND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AS WELL AS PERSONAL STORAGE.

THE STRUCTURE WAS INITIALLY PROPOSED, AS YOU SEE HERE, 25 FEET FROM THE NORTH TOE OF THE DUNE, AND THE APPLICANT HAS ACCEPTED A PROPOSED COMPROMISE BY STAFF OF MOVING THE STRUCTURE AN ADDITIONAL SIX FEET LANDWARD, WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE DISTANCE TO 32 FEET FROM THE NORTH TOE OF THE DUNE.

A STAFF RENDERING OF THIS, ALONG WITH THE REMOVED STAIRCASE LANDING, IS SEEN ON THE NEXT SLIDE HERE.

YOU SEE HOW IT MOVES A LITTLE CLOSER HERE, AS SEEN IN THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL.

THIS WOULD REMOVE ANY IMPERVIOUS MATERIAL WITHIN THAT SIX FOOT AREA ON THE SEAWARD SIDE OF THIS.

THIS IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES, BUT GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED SO THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO GO BACK TO THEIR ARCHITECT, GET ANOTHER DRAWING IF THE COMMISSIONERS WANTED SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

AND ON THE NEXT TWO SLIDES HERE AND FOLLOWING ARE ACTUAL PHOTOS OF THE SITE.

AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S FINAL REPORT, AND I THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME.

[INAUDIBLE] QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, MR. COLE. I THINK YOU DID NOT GET THE MEMO THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO GO ON SITE VISITS ON PRETTY DAYS.

NOT ON FOGGY DAYS.

WE WERE GOING FOR THE NORTHEAST GLOOMY [LAUGHTER].

WE ONLY HAVE BEAUTIFUL DAYS HERE IN GALVESTON, TEXAS.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF--.

OK. DO--? I DIDN'T SEE A FENCE ON THE SITE MAP.

RIGHT. SO IN DISCUSSIONS, LATER DISCUSSIONS TODAY WITH THE APPLICANTS, THEY ARE INTENDING TO PLACE A PERIMETER FENCE ON THIS. THEY DO NOT WANT ANY CONCRETE [INAUDIBLE] THIS.

SO ONE THING THAT COULD BE PUT IN THE APPLICATION IS THAT A SPECIAL CONDITION, NO CONCRETE IS PERMITTED AROUND FENCE POSTS.

IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE.

SO WOULD WE ADD THAT THEN, MR. COLE, AS--? DO WE USUALLY ADD THAT? I DON'T THINK WE'VE ADDED THAT.

HAVE WE ADDED--? HAVE WE USUALLY CARRIED THAT AS A--? SO IT'S ALREADY A REQUIREMENT, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO INCLUDE THAT THERE BECAUSE CONCRETE LIKE WITH THE LANDING HERE IS NOT ALLOWED OUTSIDE THE FOOTPRINT. IT'S IMPLIED, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE CALLED OUT IF SO DESIRED.

THEN, DONNA, WE DON'T NEED IT IF IT'S IN THE ORDINANCE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? AND SINCE IT'S NOT SHOWN ON THE PLANS ANYWHERE, THEN IT'S NOT A CHANGE FROM THE PLANS? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] YES SIR? QUESTION AND A COMMENT. NO CONCRETE AROUND FENCE POSTS IN THAT AREA? AND IT'S JUST THAT'S NEW TO ME.

I'M JUST-- [INAUDIBLE]. IT'S LIKE GOING TO SCHOOL TODAY.

OH, SEE, YOU'RE LEARNING. OKAY.

IT'S IN THE--. YEAH.

I'M GOING TO JUMP UP REAL QUICK ONCE MORE ON THIS ONE.

THIS IS ACTUALLY ANOTHER INSTANCE WHERE OUR CODES ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.

SO UNDER THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE UP TO 5% OF YOUR STRUCTURES FOOTPRINT WORTH OF IMPERVIOUS MATERIAL OUTSIDE OF YOUR STRUCTURES FOOTPRINT.

[01:10:05]

I KNOW THAT WAS EASY TO FOLLOW.

SO, FIVE--. SO LET'S SAY THAT YOU HAVE A 100,000 SQUARE FOOT.

THAT'S SILLY. LET'S SAY THAT YOU HAVE--.

I WAS TRYING TO THINK EASY MATH.

1000. SAY YOU HAVE A 1000 SQUARE FOOT FOOTPRINT, YOU'RE GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO HAVE 50 BECAUSE THAT'S 5% OF 1000, RIGHT? DOING MY MATH RIGHT? YOU'RE GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO HAVE 50 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OUTSIDE OF THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOME, ACCORDING TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.

IN OUR ORDINANCES, HOWEVER, IT CLEARLY STATES THAT THERE IS TO BE NO IMPERVIOUS STRUCTURE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DRIVEWAYS OUTSIDE OF THE FOOTPRINT OF A HABITABLE SPACE.

I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO OPEN WITHIN MY SLEW OF ORDINANCE CHANGES THAT I'LL BE PROPOSING, I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO CONSIDER ALIGNING OURSELVES WITH THE STATE ORDINANCE IN THIS INSTANCE, BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT THERE ARE MANY INSTANCES SUCH AS HAVING TO GO TO THE APPLICANT AND SAY THAT THE LANDING WHERE HIS STAIRS ARE ARE GOING TO NEED TO BE SWITCHED OVER FROM CONCRETE TO PAVERS.

I THINK THAT THAT--. BEING ABLE TO ELIMINATE INSTANCES OF INCONVENIENCE FOR THE APPLICANT LIKE THAT TO ME IS WORTHWHILE, ESPECIALLY WHEN I CAN TELL YOU ANECDOTALLY THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD THE GLO TELL US IN OTHER INSTANCES, NOT NECESSARILY THIS ONE, BUT IN OTHER INSTANCES THEY'VE SAID THAT YOU COULD LEAVE IT AS CONCRETE AS LONG AS YOU WIDENED IT ENOUGH THAT YOU COULD PUT A CAR THERE.

SO IT'S NOT ABOUT A LACK OF IMPERVIOUSNESS.

IT'S ABOUT THE LETTER OF THE LAW, UNFORTUNATELY.

AND IN THIS INSTANCE, THAT LETTER IS STARTING TO BECOME MORE OF A TRIPPING HAZARD THAN IT OUGHT TO.

SORRY I ASKED THE QUESTION. I'M SORRY I HAD TO ANSWER [LAUGHTER].

MY HAT'S OFF TO YOU GUYS FOR GETTING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND GET THEM TO MOVE IT BACK A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE THAT CERTAINLY MAKES OUR JOB EASIER.

SO MY HAT'S OFF TO YOU GUYS AND TO THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR DOING THAT.

SO GOOD JOB ON THAT ONE.

THANKS. ALL RIGHT.

GREAT. ANY OTHER--? YES SIR, VICE CHAIR BROWN? YES. THANK YOU, RUSSELL, FOR ADJUSTING THAT DRAWING WITHOUT HAVING TO MAKE THE ARCHITECT DO THAT.

IT WAS A SIMPLE THING, BUT IT'S A GOOD ILLUSTRATION FOR US TO BE ABLE TO SEE.

I WAS ASKING MYSELF, HOW ARE THEY GOING TO DO THAT? THEY'RE JUST GOING TO MAKE THE DRIVEWAY SHORTER? [INAUDIBLE] WHAT THEY DID. AND SO ALL ON THAT SIDE PLAN, EVERYTHING THAT SAYS CONCRETE IS REALLY NOW FIBERCRETE? HOWEVER, ON THE PACKET, WE HAD THOSE--.

IN A WALL SECTION, THEY HAD ON THAT SET OF PLANS, THESE PIERS WERE IN A CONCRETE FOUNDATION.

I ASSUME, SINCE THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO USE CONCRETE, THAT THAT WON'T BE THE CASE ANYMORE? I WOULD ASSUME SO, BUT I'LL DEFER THAT TO THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT.

YEAH. OKAY. I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANKS. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, COMMISSIONERS? NONE? THANK YOU, THEN, MR. COLE. NICELY DONE.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME FORWARD, SIR? WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT NOW.

IF YOU'D SIGN IN, PLEASE, FOR US.

SADLY, WE DON'T HAVE AN AWARD TO GIVE YOU FOR BEING THE LAST ONE STANDING.

THE LAST ONE HERE WITH US TODAY, BUT WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE FOR US.

PATIENCE IS A VIRTURE. THERE YOU GO.

I AGREE WITH THAT.

[INAUDIBLE] I'M ON BEHALF OF MY DAUGHTER IN LAW, DEBBIE WALCOTT AND MY SON, WHO VERY, VERY CONSCIENTIOUS BUILDER.

AND TELL US YOUR NAME, PLEASE.

ROBERT JEFFERSON. JEFFERSON? YES. NICE TO AND WE ARE WILLING TO CONCEDE WHAT, YOU KNOW, [INAUDIBLE] PROPERTIES THAT WE-- THAT WAS DISCUSSED EARLIER AND FURTHER MOVE ALONG AND RESPECTING ALL THE, YOU KNOW, THE VALUES OF THE DUNES AND THE PROJECT ITSELF.

OKAY. GREAT, SIR.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. JEFFERSON? WOW.

I GUESS THAT'S YOUR REWARD RIGHT THERE.

NO QUESTION. SEE, THAT'S--.

THAT'S-- [LAUGHTER]. RIGHT THERE.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR COOPERATION, AND THANK YOU, SIR.

AND THANK YOU FOR FOR BEING HERE.

NO QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, CORRECT? AS A FORMALITY NOW, I WILL--.

THANK YOU, SIR. YOU MAY BE SEATED.

AS A FORMALITY NOW, AT 4:45, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

[01:15:03]

ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING NONE. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:45 AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 22P-027.

VICE CHAIR BROWN? I MOVE THAT I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE 22P-027 AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER EDWARDS.

ANY DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONERS? NO DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND.

AND THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

IT'S APPROVED. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

WE APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU, MR. COLE. NICELY DONE.

WE ALWAYS LIKE HAVING YOU HERE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. HILL. AND NOW MS.

[8.B.1. 22P-023 (2300 Mechanic/Avenue D) Request For A License To Use To Place A Construction Dumpster. Adjacent Property Is Legally Described As M. B. Menard Survey, Lots 11 Through 14 And Part Of Lots 9 And 10, Block 623, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Eduardo Trevino Adjacent Property Owner: HAF Hospitality Tremont Realty LLC Easement Holder: City Of Galveston]

GORMAN, 22P-023 AND YOU GOT SOME PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ONE, TOO, DIDN'T YOU? THIS IS ADJACENT TO 2300 MECHANIC.

IT'S A REQUEST FOR A LICENSE TO USE FOR A CONSTRUCTION DUMPSTER.

68 NOTICES WERE SENT, THREE RETURNED IN FAVOR.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A PERMANENT LICENSE TO USE THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY IN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE PLACEMENT OF A CONSTRUCTION DUMPSTER FOR AN ONGOING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT AT THE TREMONT HOUSE. THE SUBJECT CONSTRUCTION DUMPSTER HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN APPROVED THROUGH THE CITY'S TEMPORARY LICENSE TO USE PERMIT PROCESS, WHICH HAS SINCE EXPIRED.

THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED A NEED FOR THE DUMPSTER UNTIL DECEMBER 1ST, 2022.

THERE'S A CORRECTION IN THE PAID PARKING SECTION.

THE AMOUNT FOR THE COST OF THE FOUR PARKING SPACES IS $567 A WEEK, AND THAT PARKING FEE WILL BE PAID BY THE APPLICANT AND PAID QUARTERLY. OTHER REVIEWS.

THE LANDMARK COMMISSION REVIEWED YESTERDAY AND IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 1-4 AND STANDARD CONDITIONS, 5-10.

AND HERE IS THE DUMPSTER IN QUESTION.

IT'S ON 24TH STREET BETWEEN STRAND AND MECHANIC.

AND THIS IS ANOTHER PICTURE LOOKING NORTH.