[00:00:01]
>> YOU'RE READY? WE'LL GO AHEAD
[1. Call Meeting To Order]
AND CALL THE CITY OF GALVESTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.THE ROLL CALL HAS BEEN DONE BY SIGN-IN.
[2. Attendance]
ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF JOHN PAUL LETOSKY.WE HAVE A QUORUM, AND CATHERINE, CAN I GET A CALL FOR THE LIST OF ALL THE STAFF PRESENT, PLEASE?
>> STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT ARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR TEMPTATIONS, MYSELF, THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, AND THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER.
WE WILL HAVE AN ATTENDANCE PLANNING MANAGER, ADRIEL MONTE YVONNE.
WE HAVE SENIOR PLANNER, DANIEL LUNSFORD.
WE HAVE RUSSELL COLE, ASSISTANT COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGER.
WE HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY, DONC LEWINSKY, AND WE'RE WELCOMING TODAY KARINA ROSELAS, THE NEW PLANNING TECK.
>> FANTASTIC. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS FOR ANY OTHER CASES? HEARING NONE. ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING?
[4. Approval of Minutes]
HEARING NONE. THE MINUTES WILL BE ADOPTED AS PRESENTED, WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.[5. Public Comment ]
THIS IS A GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ANY OF THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AGENDA, OR NON-AGENDA ITEMS, YOU'RE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES.PLEASE NOTE THAT AS EACH STAFF PRESENTATION IS DONE PER CASE, WE WILL HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON THOSE PARTICULAR CASES AS WELL.
IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AGENDA, OR NON-AGENDA ITEMS ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM? OR ON THE SIDE OF THE ROOM? YES, SIR. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
AGAIN, IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK SPECIFICALLY TO A PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM, YOU'RE WELCOME TO PRESENT UNDERNEATH THAT PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM.
IF YOU WOULD PLEASE SIGN IN AND STATE YOUR NAME.
>> THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS DOUGLAS GODINICH, 3401 AVENUE K. I REPRESENT MR. JIMMY SUMMER FIELD, WHO IS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER IN REGARDS TO AGENDA ITEM 7, B1.
WE'RE CURRENTLY OPPOSED TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTED BY MATTHEWS INVESTMENTS SOUTHWEST IN REGARDS TO THE USE OF THE 40 FOOT EASEMENT ACROSS MR. SUMMER FIELDS PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH END.
THIS 40 FOOT EASEMENT EXPANDS ONCE IT GOES INTO MATTHEW SOUTHWEST PROPERTY TO 60 FEET.
THERE'S ADJACENT ROAD AT 105TH STREET THAT RUNS THE COMPLETE LENGTH OF MATTHEW SOUTHWEST PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE A MORE USEFUL AND SAFE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY, COMPLETE EGRESS TO THE ENTIRE PROPERTY RUNNING NORTH AND SOUTH, AND WERE OPPOSED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> I REPRESENT THE DEVELOPER, MATTHEW SOUTHWEST ON THE PROPERTY.
>> AGAIN, THIS IS ON THIS SPECIFIC CASE NUMBER 23P-006?
>> IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN-IN, PLEASE.
>> MY NAME IS DEBBIE SILVA, AND I LIVE IN DEER PARK, TEXAS.
HAVE I KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE HAVE ALSO SERVED THE THREE OWNERS ACROSS THE STREET WITH DOCUMENTATION THAT WE PLAN ON USING THAT EASEMENT.
THAT EASEMENT IS RECORDED AND HAS NEVER BEEN ABANDONED, SO OWNED BY THE CITY OF GALVESTON FROM WHAT WE UNDERSTAND.
I THINK YOU GUYS ALL KNOW THAT TOO.
I KNOW THAT YOU ALSO GOT SOME PUBLIC NOTICE TODAY, AND I HAVE A DRAINAGE REPORT IF ANYONE WANTS TO SEE THAT HOW WE ARE PAIRED TO DO OUR DRAINAGE GOING INTO THE PROPERTY.
GOING IN ON 105TH IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN BECAUSE THERE'S PROPERTY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT.
BUT 105TH IS ALSO, THAT RIGHT AWAY IS COMPLETE WETLANDS ON THAT SIDE, AND IT WAS A DEVICE FROM OUR WETLANDS STEADY NOT TO GO THROUGH THAT WAY.
THAT'S WHY WE WENT THROUGH THE 40 FOOT EASEMENT.
IT WAS BETTER FOR US TO DO IT THAT WAY SO THAT WE DIDN'T DISTURB WETLANDS.
ANY OF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT ANYTHING?
WHEN WE GET TO THE STAFF REPORT FOR THAT, IF WE DO HAVE QUESTIONS, WE'LL KNOW THAT YOU'RE IN THE AUDIENCE.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA OR NON-AGENDA ITEMS? YES.
[00:05:07]
>> MY NAME IS KARL NICHE AND I HAD TWO PROPERTIES AT BADDI, THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT 23PW6.
LAST TIME IT WAS HERE THE PUT I GUESS WAS NOT APPROVED, BUT THE CITY OVERRULED THAT AND APPROVED IT.
I DON'T KNOW THE PROCEDURES, ALL THIS, HOW IT REALLY WORKS, BUT IF YOU-ALL COULD EXPLAIN HOW IT REALLY HELPED ME.
BUT ON THE ORIGINAL EXHIBIT B, THE PLOT PLANS IS 40 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY.
IT NOW SHOWS TO BE A LOW AREA.
ON THE OTHER ONE, THE ORIGINAL ONE SUBMITTED TWO MONTHS AGO, IT WAS WATER.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU-ALL GOT A CORE DESIGNATION OR APPROVAL OF THAT, ANYTHING ON THAT? ANYWAY, I'M JUST CURIOUS.
THE ACCESS FROM ONE, ACCORDING TO THE 2011 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ON SELF THE DEVELOPER TO BRING A BUDDING RODE UP THE CITY STANDARDS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, ELEVATION WITH DRAINAGE.
THEN, THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL LAST TWO MONTHS AGO ON EXHIBIT C, IT WAS STATED THAT NO FILL NO CHANGE TO EXISTING GRADING, NO DRAINAGE IMPACT TO EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERS.
THAT'S MY MAIN CONCERN, IS THE DRAINAGE.
ARE THEY GOING TO BUILD A TWO FOOT WALL, FILL THIS IN? NOW I HAVE A LAKE IN MY BACKYARD, LIKE WHAT THE VA DID OR I CAN'T BE CHICO GET ON 99. WE DON'T KNOW.
I JUST HEAR NOW THAT THERE IS A DRAINAGE PLAN, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THAT, SO WE CAN'T COMMENT, I CAN'T COMMENT.
OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T MIND A INDEPTH DEVELOPMENT.
ARE THEY GOING TO FLOOD ME OUT? THE DRAINAGE OUT THERE IS POURED OUT, AND WHERE DOES THIS THING IS SUPPOSED TO DRAIN TO? IF IT DRAINS BACK DOWN SHARPER, THAT I'LL GO THROUGH PRIVATE PROPERTY.
I DON'T KNOW WHO MAINTAINS THAT, OR THAT THE CITY HAS EVER BEEN BACK THERE TO FIX THAT BECAUSE IT FLOODS.
SHARPER FLOODS, THE WEST SOUTH END OF 103RD FLOODS WERE AN INTERSECTION AT 103RD FLOODS.
I KNOW THAT'S PROBABLY OUT OF YOU ALWAYS ROUND BUT THERE HAS BEEN NO MAINTENANCE DONE ON THAT AT ALL.
ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SOUND THIS IN OR WHAT?
>> TO ADRIEL. WILL ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON AGENDA OR NON-AGENDA ITEMS? AGAIN, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR EACH ONE OF THE INDIVIDUAL CASES AS THEY COME FORWARD.
THANK YOU. PLEASE SIGN IT AND STATE YOUR NAME.
>> MY NAME IS [INAUDIBLE] LEO.
>> HANG ON, ONE SECOND. THERE YOU GO.
>> [INAUDIBLE] LEO, I'M ALSO 103RD STREET.
JUST CONCERNING THE WORD ROAD DEVELOPMENT, IS IT SAME THING AS DRAINAGE.
THERE'S ARTICLE 6.603, I THINK FOR THE DRAINAGE CODE WHICH STATES, IN THE PLAN THAT WILL BE LATER ON THAT WILL BE SUBMITTED.
MY REQUEST IS THAT MAYBE THAT PLANNING CAN BE SUBMITTED FIRST SO WE CAN SEE DRAINAGE BEFORE THE PLANS ARE APPROVED.
THAT'S ALL I GOT. AGAIN, IT'S JUST A DRAINAGE THING IS A BIG THING.
NO OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT THE [INAUDIBLE].
BUT JUST THAT WE'LL HAVE IN THE LOWER PART OF THE ISLAND, AND SO WHAT SOMEBODY DOES ON ONE PROPERTY CAN REALLY AFFECT YOUR DRAINAGE. THAT'S ALL I GOT.
>> DID YOU SIGN IN? [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU LESION.
>> WE'RE NOT ON THAT CASE YET.
>> WE'RE NOT ON THAT CASE YET.
CATHERINE, WOULD YOU NOTE THAT COUNCIL MEMBER.
[BACKGROUND] ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON AGENDA OR NON-AGENDA ITEMS? AGAIN, WE'LL OPEN UP PUBLIC HEARING FOR EACH ONE OF THE CASES AS THEY ARE PRESENTED BY STAFF.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN-IN.
[00:10:04]
>> [INAUDIBLE] I'VE BEEN ASSOCIATED OR LIVING OFF OF 103RD STREET SINCE I WAS IN SIXTH GRADE, I'M 70 IT HAS BEEN QUITE A WHILE.
I JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT RIGHT AWAY THAT HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED, IT HAS NOT BEEN USED IN OVER 30 YEARS.
SEEMS TO ME THEY'VE ABANDONED IT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYBODY ELSE BEFORE WE GET TO THE INDIVIDUAL CASES? WITH THAT, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:44 PM AND WE WILL GO INTO THE INDIVIDUAL CASES FOR STAFF.
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THESE A LITTLE BIT OUT OF ORDER.
I'VE ASKED STAFF TO TAKE CASE 23P-006 AND THEN CASE 23005 OR IS THAT ONE.
>> THIS IS JUST A PUBLIC HEARING, FIVE IS.
>> AND SO WHAT WE HAVE IS TO START WITH 23P-005.
>> AND THEN DO 006 AND THEN 003 AND THEN BACK TO 084.
>> ALL READY? IF WE'RE READY TO START,
[6.A. 23P-005 (12106 Stewart Road) Request for a replat to increase the number of lots from one to two. The property is legally described as Abstract 121 Hall & Jones Survey East Part of Lot 275 (275-1) Trimble & Lindsey Section 2, in the City and County of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Brene Addison, Tricon Land Surveying, LLC. Property Owner: Elizabeth Sensbaugh and Joe Corbet]
I WILL START WITH 23P005.THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A RE-PLAN AT 12106 STEWART ROAD.
THAT'S A REQUEST FOR A REPLY FROM ONE LOT INTO TWO, OTHER IS 26 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING OUR PLAN TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF LOTS FROM ONE TO TWO.
THE LOT IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED.
NO TEXTS A LITTLE GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 212-015 REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING FOR YOUR PLANTS INCREASING LOT DENSITY AND SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING WHICH THIS WILL WOULD DO.
NOTE THE ZONING AND LAND USE OF THE PROPERTY AND ADJACENT AND THE STAFF REPORT.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE AREA IS ZONED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENCES AND MOSTLY UNDEVELOPED, EXCEPT FOR A FEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES TO THE EAST.
SOME OF THE LOTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE SMALLER IN AREA THAN THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES, BUT SOME ARE AT LEAST AS LARGE.
THERE'S A GOOD SPREAD OF DIFFERENT SIZE LOTS IN THAT AREA.
BOTH THE PROPOSED LOTS WILL HAVE ACCESS TO EXISTING MUNICIPAL WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LINES IN THE STEWARD ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
NO SAY DEPARTMENTS OR OUTSIDE UTILITIES PROVIDE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED REPLANT.
RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT LOT REQUIREMENTS IN THIS AREA,150 FOOT WIDE, 100-FOOT LONG.
REMEMBER, A MINIMUM OF 5,000 SQUARE FOOT IN AREA.
ANOTHER REPLANT EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR LOTS IN THE ZONING DISTRICT.
PER ARTICLE III OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, BOTH LOTS WILL BE AT LEAST 100 FOOT WIDE, AT LEAST 179.86 FOOT LONG AND AT LEAST 18,527 SQUARE FOOT IN AREA AS SHOWN IN THE STAFF REPORT.
PLEASE NOTE THE PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA IN THE STAFF REPORT.
THE PLAN WILL BE APPROVED WITH THE SPECIFIC CONDITION ONE AND STANDARD CONDITIONS TWO THROUGH THREE IN THE STAFF REPORT AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS HERE.
SO HERE WE HAVE ON THE LEFT THE EXISTING PROPERTY WHICH IS QUITE LARGE.
AND THEN ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, WE HAVE THE AERIAL SHOWING THE PROPOSED RE-PLOT OVERLAY ON THAT.
IT WOULD BASICALLY BE SPLITTING THE PROPERTY INTO QUOTE-UNQUOTE A FLAG LOT, A REALLY LARGE FLAG LOT IN THE BACK AND A SIGNIFICANTLY SIZED LOT IN THE FRONT AS WELL.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST, PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, PROPERTY TO THE WEST, AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> THANK YOU, DANIEL. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? WOULD YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN?
>> MY NAME'S JOE CORBETT. CAN I BORROW A PEN?
>> SORRY, CATHERINE, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:48.
[LAUGHTER] I'M SORRY, I MISSED YOUR NAME AGAIN.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? WELL, HEARING NONE, WE DID HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT EARLIER,
[00:15:01]
AND SO THAT PUBLIC COMMENT HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO THE RECORD REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR CASE.>> YET, WE DIDN'T GET ANY ON FIVE.
>> HOW'S LOOKING? MY APOLOGIES.
THIS IS ON. THAT WAS ON SIX THIS IS ON FIVE.
SO IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, APPRECIATE YOUR COMING FORWARD AND SIGNING IN. THANK YOU.
>> IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM OR THE SIDE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:49, AND COME BACK FOR A VOTE.
TAKE A DEEP BREATH. WE'RE NOT IN A HURRY.
CATHERINE. NEXT, DANIEL OR ADRIEL.
[7.B.1. 23P-006 (0 Wern Road) Request for a Preliminary Plat. Property is legally described as Lot 376, Section 1, Trimble and Lindsey, in the City and County of Galveston Texas. Applicant: Tricon Land Surveying, LLC]
>> WE ARE MOVING ON TO 006 AND THAT IS ADRIEL'S, CASE ON WORD.
>> OH, IS IT NOT? SORRY [INAUDIBLE].
>> THIS IS CASE 23P-00601 ROAD.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLOT.
WE SENT OUT 20 NOTICES, FIVE OF THOSE RETURNED ALL IN OPPOSITION.
IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AND PRELIMINARY PLOT FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF 20 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND TWO LANDSCAPE RESERVES.
THIS DEVELOPMENT IS ASSOCIATED WITH AN APPROVED PUD OR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTED UNDER ORDINANCE 22-068, PLANNING CASE 22P-070.
THE RELIEF PROVIDED BY THAT PUD WAS TO DEVIATE FROM THE MINIMUM WIDTH IN THE R1 ZONING DISTRICT FROM 50 TO A MINIMUM OF 39 FOR JUST A COUPLE OF LOTS AND TO ALLOW FOR THE PRIVATE ROAD WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS A SITE COMPRISED OF 10 ACRES.
AND THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY TAKES ACCESS FROM A 40-FOOT PRIVATE ROAD ON WARREN ROAD.
PLEASE NOTE THE ZONING AND LAND USE INFORMATION ON PAGE 2 OF YOUR REPORT.
LOT STANDARD COMPONENTS WITH LOT STANDARDS.
PLEASE NOTE ON PAGE 2 THAT THE REQUESTS MEET OR EXCEED THE REQUIREMENTS OR COMPLIANCE TO THE PUD APPROVAL.
NOTE, THE EASTMAN, AND UTILITIES ON PAGE TWO OF YOUR REPORT.
AND STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE REQUEST BE APPROVED WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE AND TWO AND STANDARD CONDITIONS THREE THROUGH SEVEN.
AND NOW WE HAVE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS.
THIS IS AN AERIAL IMAGERY ZONING MAP OF THE SUBJECT SITE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THIS IS THE ENTRANCE LEADING TO THE SITE.
AND NEXT WE HAVE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE EAST, SOUTH, AND WEST.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
ADRIEL, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR THE WAY YOU CHANGED A COUPLE OF THINGS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT ON THIS PRELIMINARY PLOT.
I REALLY APPRECIATE THE WAY THAT YOU ADDED SOME THINGS ABOUT RECEIVING APPROVAL FROM THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS.
I THINK IT CLARIFIED A LOT THAT HAS NOT BEEN CLARIFIED BEFORE IN SOME OF THESE APPROVALS OR MAYBE I JUST HAVEN'T NOTICED IT BEFORE BECAUSE I THINK THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS AMONG THE COMMISSIONERS AND PERHAPS MAYBE AMONG THE PUBLIC TOO ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO BE APPROVED AND WHEN IT'S GOING TO BE APPROVED.
ESPECIALLY WHAT I HEARD EARLIER IN THIS HEARING WAS ABOUT DRAINAGE AND HOW THAT WAS GOING TO BE APPROVED.
AND MAYBE YOU COULD EXPLAIN SINCE WE ARE ALL HERE TODAY FOR A PRELIMINARY PLOT APPROVAL, ABOUT HOW THAT PRELIMINARY PLOT APPROVAL WORKS VERSUS A FINAL PLOT APPROVAL AND WHAT THAT PROCESS IS SO THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO HAVE TAKEN THEIR TIME TO BE HERE TODAY AND ADDRESS THIS BODY WILL KNOW THAT WE HAVE HEARD WHAT THEY'RE SAYING.
[00:20:03]
ALL OF US HAVE HEARD WHAT THEY'RE SAYING AND HOW WE ARE ADDRESSING THEIR CONCERNS, PLEASE, SIR?>> YES, MA'AM. PRIMARILY, THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLOT PRIMARILY.
IT'S AN INTENSIVE FILE, BASICALLY.
THIS IS THE DEVELOPER'S INTENT LETTING US KNOW WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
AND WE OBVIOUSLY REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURTS.
AFTER THE PRELIMINARY PLOT PROCESS THEN IT COMES BACK TO US, NOT THE COMMISSION, BUT AT A STAFF LEVEL FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS, REVIEW, DRAINAGE, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THAT IS REVIEWED BY ALL DEPARTMENTS INCLUDING THE CITY ENGINEER, WHICH HAS PURVIEW OVER DRAINAGE.
THEN AFTER THAT, OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT NEED TO HAPPEN, INSPECTIONS AND THINGS IN THAT MANNER.
AND THEN HOPEFULLY AT THE END AFTER EVERYTHING IS CORRECT AND IT PASSES ALL INSPECTION THAT COMES BACK TO A FINAL PLOT PROCESS.
>> OKAY. SO IF THERE ARE EASEMENT ISSUES WHICH WERE ADDRESSED, THEN THOSE WILL BE ADDRESSED THROUGH LEGAL IN DUE COURSE.
>> THEY'LL BE ADDRESSED THROUGH STAFF DURING THE REVIEW OF THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS.
>> OKAY. THESE DRAINAGE ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP BY SEVERAL PEOPLE IN THE EARLIER PUBLIC COMMENT AND MAYBE BROUGHT UP AGAIN BY OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT YET HAD THEIR THREE MINUTES, BUT THEY WILL BE ADDRESSED, AS YOU SAID, BY CITY ENGINEER'S AND THEY WILL BE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED THEIR CONCERNS. CORRECT.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. I APPRECIATE IT.
>> AND THEN ADRIEL IT'S THEN ONLY AFTER IT'S GONE THROUGH THE FULL CONSTRUCTION DRAWING REVIEW PROCESS AT THE CITY THAT IT COMES BACK FOR A FINAL PLAT APPROVAL WITH ALL APPROPRIATE EASEMENTS, ETC.
>> CORRECT. THIS IS A PRIVATE ROAD.
TYPICALLY, PUBLIC ROADS GO THROUGH A MAINTENANCE BOND PROCESS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE AND THEN COME BACK TO A FINAL PLAT.
BUT IN THIS CASE IT'S A PRIVATE ROAD, SO AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THEY COULD COME BACK TO A FINAL PLAT PROCESS, BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT MONTHS DOWN THE ROAD.
THIS IS THE FORUM IN WHICH THE PUBLIC GETS AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT EITHER, A, THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, B, ANY DRAINAGE OR FLOODING ISSUES, ETC.
BUT THEN AFTER THIS PERIOD OF PROCESS, IT ALL COMES BACK TO THE STAFF-LEVEL FOR DURING THE DESIGN OF THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS THAT ALL THESE ISSUES ARE LOOKED AT AND ADDRESSED.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WILL ALSO ADD TO THAT THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE FINAL PLAT PROCEDURE AS WELL.
>> YES. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> YOU MAKE THE COMMENT THAT WHEN IT COMES BACK FOR FINAL.
BUT IF THEIR FINAL PLAT IS EXACTLY LIKE THEIR PRELIMINARY PLAT, IT GETS APPROVED, IS THAT RIGHT? IF THERE ARE NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES, I MEAN YOU CAN ADD AN EASEMENT TO IT.
BUT WHEN THEY GET TO FINAL PLAT, I GUESS THE QUESTION I'M ASKING IS IF THERE ARE TO BE ANY CHANGES WILL THEY NEED TO BE DONE AT PRELIMINARY IN LIEU OF FINAL, BECAUSE IF THIS, WELL I'M NOT HOLDING IT.
THEIR PRELIMINARY PLAT, IF IT'S APPROVED, WHEN THEY SUBMIT THEIR FINAL PLAT FOR APPROVAL AND THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO IT, ARE WE OBLIGATED TO APPROVE THAT PLAT?
>> WELL, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT REALLY OCCURS WITH THAT CONSTRUCTION DRAWING PROCESS.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE MINIMUM WIDTH OF A PUBLIC ROAD OR PRIVATE ROAD IN THIS CASE, IS 28 FEET FOR NEWLY PLATED ROAD.
WITHIN THAT 40 FOOT RIGHT AWAY AND THEN THE GREATER WIDER RIGHT AWAY THAT'S IN THE ACTUAL PLAT, THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENCES IN THOSE TWO GEOGRAPHIES REALLY, AND SO IF FOR EXAMPLE THE CITY ENGINEER HAS A COMMENT OR A CONCERN ABOUT HOW THAT 28 FOOT WOULD BE SITUATED IN A 40 FOOT SECTION IN THE REGULAR SECTION IT'S PROBABLY NOT MUCH OF A PROBLEM, BUT IN 40 FOOT IT WILL BE SOMEWHAT TIGHT.
AND THOSE ARE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE CHANGED IN THIS PLAT.
IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE FINAL WILL BE EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE PRELIMINARY.
SO IF THERE IS A NEED TO CHANGE BASED UPON WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWING REVIEW PROCESS, INCLUDING THE DRAINAGE AND ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE REVIEWED IN THAT IN THAT PROCESS, THEN IT CAN BE INCORPORATED INTO THE FINAL PLAT.
[00:25:01]
>> SO IF THEY SUBMIT THEIR FINAL PLAT, IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION SEES THAT THEY DON'T LIKE THEY CAN REQUEST IT OR DENY THAT?
>> IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH CODE FOR EXAMPLE, YES.
>> [OVERLAPPING] HAVE TO BE A CODE REQUIREMENT, BUT GENERALLY COMPLIES WITH ARTICLE 6 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
THEN THE COMMISSION MUST APPROVE IT.
>> LET ME TELL YOU WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS.
IS THAT WE'D DONE A COUPLE OF THESE PLATS AND THOSE PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN IN VERY CLOSE TO ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS.
NOBODY UP HERE IS EITHER AND SO MY QUESTION IS CAN WE ADD PRELIMINARY AT A MINIMUM REQUESTS THAT THEY PROVIDE US WITH A WETLANDS DELINEATION FOR THOSE PROPERTIES BECAUSE I KNOW ON THE PARTS THAT WE'VE SEEN WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANY OF THOSE, AND I DON T THINK THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS, BEING GOOD STEWARDS, WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
I GUESS MY REAL QUESTION IS, IF WE WANT TO ADD THAT PRELIMINARY WOULD BE THE TIME TO SAY, HEY, AS A REQUIREMENT OF YOUR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL, WE WANT TO SEE A WETLAND DELINEATION AND I WOULD LEAVE IT UP TO THE CITY ENGINEER IF THE CITY ENGINEER THINKS IT WARRANTS A VERIFICATION BY THE COURT, I THINK HE MAKES THE CALL.
I THINK ALL THAT STUFF, AND I CAN TELL YOU MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IS AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT FOLKS HAD ASKED ABOUT THE DRAINAGE.
THOSE GUYS THEY'RE PRETTY GOOD AT THEIR JOB.
THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE IT DRAINS THE RIGHT WAY TO THE BEST OF THEIR EFFORT.
MY QUESTION MORE SPECIFICALLY IS ABOUT THE WETLANDS STUFF. I KNOW THAT CAME UP.
I WASN'T AT THE ONE MEETING WHERE IT CAME UP AND IT WAS PRETTY HEATED TOPIC, BUT I THINK AT A MINIMUM, WOULDN'T WE ASK FOR THAT PRELIMINARY IN LIEU OF THAT FINAL?
>> THE ABILITY OF A DEVELOPER TO DEVELOP PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WOULD REQUIRE IF THERE'S A WETLAND IS REALLY BUYING BETWEEN THOSE TWO PARTIES.
THE CITY DOES GET INVOLVED TO THE EXTENT THAT IF THERE'S A WETLAND THAT'S BEEN DELINEATED, THAT WE WOULD REQUIRE THAT DELINEATION BE PROVIDED.
THE LANDOWNER WILL LIKELY PROVIDE THAT FAIRLY EARLY IN THE PROCESS BECAUSE IT'S JUST WISE TO DO AS A DEVELOPER SO THAT YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GETTING INTO BEFORE YOU EXPAND ALL THE SIGNIFICANT SUMS OF MONEY TO CREATE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND A FINAL PLAT.
IT'S WISE FOR A DEVELOPER TO DO THAT.
WE WOULD SUGGEST DEVELOPER DO THAT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN REQUIRE A DEVELOPER DO THAT, HOWEVER, AT SUCH TIME. GO AHEAD, DAN.
>> I WOULD SUGGEST WE COULD NOT ADD A REQUIREMENT THAT IS NOT PRESENTLY IN THE CODE OF THE LDR IS BECAUSE IF WE DO THAT, WE'RE MAKING STUFF UP AS WE GO ALONG, AND THAT DOES NOT LIE WITH WHAT WE CALL DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
WE TELL DEVELOPERS WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO, WE GIVE THEM NOTICE OF WHAT THEY DO.
I DON T THINK IT'S REALLY FAIR TO PULL THE RUG OUT FROM UNDER THEM AND THROW IN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AT THIS STAGE.
>> NOT TO CONFUSE THE POINT, BUT FOR A RE-PLOT OR TO PLOT A PIECE OF PROPERTY, WETLANDS SHOULD NOT MATTER ONE BIT.
IF YOU THIS WHOLE TRACK WAS WETLANDS, YOU COULD REPLAT IT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU COULD PLAT IT. THAT'S CORRECT.
>> I MEAN, YOU'RE JUST SUBDIVIDING PROPERTY.
I THINK YOU'RE ASKING GOOD QUESTIONS ABOUT WANTING TO SEE A WETLANDS DELINEATION.
>> AND VERIFICATION. BUT THAT'S ON THE DEVELOPER, AND THE CITY OF GALVESTON IS NOT GOING TO REGULATE THE WETLANDS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE WETLANDS. AND WE SHOULDN'T BE. I AGREE WITH THAT.
>> NOR IS IT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S EXPERTISE RELATED TO WETLANDS AS WELL.
>> BUT IT IS OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CERTAINLY HAS AN EXPERTISE TO SEE WHERE IT IS AND IF IT WOULD IMPACT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT.
>> THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I ASKED.
LOOK, I DON'T WANT TO MUDDY THESE.
I JUST SIMPLY ASKED THE QUESTION, IF WE WERE GOING TO DO THAT, WOULD PRELIMINARY BE THE TIME TO DO IT? YOUR RESPONSE IS, WE SHOULDN'T DO IT. PERIOD.
[00:30:03]
>> TYPICALLY, ALL DECISIONS ARE SORTED OUT DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS REVIEW PROCESS, AND THAT IS AT A STAFF LEVEL.
>> THESE GUYS ARE FIXED AND SPEND SOME REAL MONEY.[OVERLAPPING] TO GET TO THE NEXT LEVEL, SO I UNDERSTAND THAT TOO.
>> I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU ASK THAT QUESTION OF THE DEVELOPER, DO THEY INTEND TO GET A WETLAND? [OVERLAPPING] IF SO, IT WOULD BE PRUDENT FOR THEM TO DO THAT SO THAT THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GETTING INTO BEFORE THEY GETTING INTO IT.
BUT GAIN, WE CAN'T REQUIRE IT.
>> THAT ANSWERED MY QUESTION. THANK YOU.
>> DAN, DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
>> I CAN'T RESIST THE OPPORTUNITY [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T WANT TO CREATE OR MUDDY THE ISSUE, BUT WETLANDS ISSUES ARE PER SAY MUDDY.
>> NOW THAT'S GOOD. [LAUGHTER]
>> I WOULD PAY DOWN THE [INAUDIBLE].
>> ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> REVIEWING THE LAND DOCUMENT, SECTION 6-102 OR.102, PART D IT SAYS ENSURE THAT THE BLOCK AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF A NEW SUBDIVISION IS CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS WHERE APPLICABLE.
WOULD THIS BE A TIME IN PLACE TO ADDRESS THE PATTERNS OF THE PLATS?
>> THAT WAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN THERE PUD APPROVAL PROCESS.
THIS IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PUD PROCESS.
THAT'S WHAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, WHICH I THINK IS STILL VERY RELEVANT AND MAYBE SUBJECT FOR ANOTHER WORKSHOP DISCUSSION.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE? WITH THAT WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 23P-006 AT 4:05 PM.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE? EXCELLENT. WOULD YOU JUST COME AGAIN? I KNOW YOU'VE ALREADY PRESENTED, BUT JUST BE PRESENT TO HELP ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ANSWERING MR. WALLACE'S QUESTION. YES, SIR.
WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR WETLANDS DELINEATION.
WE'RE IN PROBABLY A MILLION DOLLARS INTO THIS PROJECT RIGHT NOW.
WE DEVELOPED IN HOUSTON WHERE THEY HAVE VERY STRINGENT DRAINAGE CODES AS WELL.
WE'RE FULLY AWARE OF WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.
WE HAVE A DRAINAGE PLAN IN PLACE, PRETTY MUCH THAT NORM HOFFMAN ARE CIVIL ENGINEER, HAS SPOKEN WITH THE CITY ENGINEER, SHOWED HIM WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DOING, AS WELL AS THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
OUR WETLANDS DELINEATION PEOPLE HAVE HAD MEETINGS WITH THEM AS WELL.
EVERYBODY IS PRETTY MUCH ON TRACK.
THE ONLY THING THAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IS BE ABLE TO HAVE ACCESS TO OUR PROPERTY WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH A PROPERTY OWNER ON ONE A THIRD.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT BEYOND THAT?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE AWARE THAT THE TWO HOME OWNERS THAT ARE HERE HAD BLOCKED OFF WHARTON ROAD WITH BARRICADES.
>> BUT NOW THAT NOW THEY'VE GONE AND PUT BARBED WIRE ACROSS OUR ENTRANCE TO OUR PROPERTY. I'LL SEND YOU THE PHOTOS.
>> I'D ASK YOU THAT YOU'D TAKE THAT UP WITH STAFF, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> NO OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION.
>> SORRY. I NOTICED THERE'S A EASEMENT ON, IT LOOKS LIKE THE WORD THERE WAS A ROAD FURTHER, WHAT IS THAT 105TH STREET? JUST CURIOUS IF YOU GUYS LOOKED AT THAT.
>> YEAH. THERE'S THERE'S TWO REASONS.
NUMBER 1, THE WETLANDS THAT RUNS THROUGH THAT PORTION IS A LOT MORE.
WE WERE ADVISED BY OUR WETLANDS STUDY PEOPLE THAT IT'S FAR BETTER WITH NOT AS MUCH IMPACT TO THE WETLANDS TO GO THROUGH THE 40 FOOT EASEMENT BECAUSE WE HAD DRAWN PLANS BOTH WAYS.
ALSO, THE PERSON THAT OWNS LOT 387, THAT PROPERTY IS STILL FOR SALE.
WE WOULD BE PUTTING IT AT OUR EXPENSE, WHICH WOULD BE A COUPLE OF MILLION DOLLARS, IF NOT MORE, FOR THAT LOT.
NOW, IF THEY WERE WILLING TO COME IN ON THAT OR IF THE CITY OF GALVESTON WAS WILLING TO COME IN ON THAT AT SOME POINT, MAYBE THAT'S A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION.
BUT RIGHT NOW, IT IS BETTER FOR US TO GO THROUGH THAT 40-FOOT EASMENT ACCORDING TO THE CORE AND ACCORDING TO OUR WETLANDS PEOPLE.
>> I APPRECIATE YOU'RE LOOKING AT THOSE OPTIONS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THINGS OBVIOUS, BUT.
>> MR. MCDANIEL THERE WHO BUILT THE HOUSES ON THE END,
[00:35:04]
HE FILLED IN THE WETLANDS THERE.THAT'S ONE REASON THAT THERE'S DRAINAGE ISSUES THERE.
THEN YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER 17 HOMES THAT WERE BUILT ON 103RD.
THERE'S A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT GOING ON, BUT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE EVERYTHING IS COMING TO US. THAT IS OUR ISSUE.
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT THE DRAINAGE? WE'RE GOING TO DO OUR PART.
>> GREAT. RUSTY, ANYTHING ELSE?
>> COMMISSIONER, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. QUESTION FOR STAFF. GO AHEAD.
>> I WENT TO SLEEP, COULDN'T EVEN FORGET TO TURN THE MIC BACK ON AGAIN.
>> CAN YOU PULL THE MIC DOWN, PLEASE.
>> MY BAD. TURNED UP TO. TELL ME ABOUT THE EASEMENT ISSUE.
I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. I KEEP HEARING THIS WHOLE THING WITH THE EASEMENT.
I KNOW THAT AS LONG AS THE CITY HASN'T ABANDONED, THE EASEMENT EASEMENT IS STILL THERE.
WHAT IS THE ISSUE BETWEEN THE PARTIES RELATED TO THE EASEMENT?
>> I CAN TAKE A CRACK AT THAT.
>> EASEMENT IS NOT PART OF THE APPLICATION.
>> IT'S AN EXISTING EASEMENT. ONE THAT'S BEEN RECORDED FOR SEVERAL YEARS, GRANTED BY THE THEN OWNERSHIP OF THOSE PROPERTIES TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THIS PROPERTY THAT'S BEING PLOTTED.
IT WAS DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC SO IT'S NOT JUST A SIMPLE PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT, IT'S A PUBLIC EASEMENT.
AGAIN, IT'S BEEN ON RECORD FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.
WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S GOOD FOR THE PARTIES THAT ARE AGGRIEVED BY THIS IS REALLY NOT SO MUCH THE ISSUE.
THE ISSUE IS, WAS IT IN FACT, PROPERLY DEDICATED AS A PUBLIC EASEMENT? WE FOUND THAT IT IS.
THE EXTENT OF USE OF THAT EASEMENT FOR A PUBLIC ROAD CAN CERTAINLY OCCUR.
BUT WE'RE STILL GOING TO REQUIRE THAT THE CONDITIONS THAT WE WOULD OTHERWISE REQUIRE OF THE DEVELOPMENT BE CARRIED OVER TO THIS OFFSITE PORTION OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT.
AS WAS MENTIONED, IT'S A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT OFFSITE TO GET TO THIS PROPERTY.
I'M SURE THAT'S GOING TO CARRY OVER TO LOT PRICES, ETC, OF THE EVENTUAL HOMES THAT WOULD GO THERE.
>> THANK YOU. I UNDERSTAND IT WASN'T REALLY MADE IN THE SENSE THAT FOR THIS PARTICULAR RE-PLAN.
BUT SINCE IT CAME UP SO MANY TIMES, I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC LISTENING.
IT'LL BE GOOD FOR US TO ADDRESS IT. THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING? WITH THAT, WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 23P-006 AT 4:11 PM.
AGAIN, I'LL OFFER UP ANYBODY THE OPPORTUNITY WHO IS NOT ALREADY SPOKEN ON THIS CASE TO COME FORWARD AND PRESENT AND TO SPEAK ON THIS.
IS THERE ANYBODY ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM THAT HAS NOT SPOKEN ON THIS CASE? ANYBODY ON THIS SIDE? WITH THAT, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD OFFER OR REQUEST THAT YOU ACTUALLY GIVE EVERYBODY AN OPPORTUNITY EVEN IF THEY ALREADY HAVE.
AGAIN, I ASK YOU TO PLEASE SIGN IN, IF YET OR AT LEAST STATE YOUR NAME.
>> DOUGLAS GODINICH, 3401 AVENUE K GALVESTON.
AGAIN, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION TO STAFF AND TO THE BOARD MEMBERS INQUIRY, OUR CONCERN IS THE ACCESS.
THERE WAS A 1956 DEED WHICH GRANTED THE ACCESS ON THE SOUTH CORNER.
THE WARREN ROAD, THE 50-FOOT WARREN ROAD THAT COMES ACROSS THE CITY'S PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER WAS DEDICATED BY THE CITY AGES AGO.
THE 1956 DEED WAS DATED BY THE MR. SUMMERFIELD'S FATHER, TO THE COUNTY.
THE COUNTY NEVER DEVELOPED THE ROAD.
THE CITY INCORPORATED THE AREA AND APPROXIMATELY 19.
>> ARE YOU SAYING THEY ABANDONED THE ROAD?
>> SORRY. I'M SAYING THE COUNTING EVERY UTILIZED THE ROAD AND THE COUNTY PROPERTY WHICH ALL OF THIS WAS WAS ABSORBED BY THE CITY IN 1986.
THE CITY NEVER DEVELOPED THE ROAD, IT WAS NEVER USED.
BUT THE BIG CONCERN IS IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR STAFF REPORT, THEY'RE SHOWING WARREN ROAD RUNNING ALL THE WAY FROM 103RD STREET TO 105TH STREET.
[00:40:04]
WARREN ROAD IS NOT A PLATTED ROAD.IT WAS A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY ON MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY.
A BIG CONCERN IS USING A 40-FOOT ROAD FOR A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING TO HAVE MULTIPLE HOUSES WHEN THE COUNTY AT THE SAME TIME PLATTED 103RD STREET, ALSO PLATTED 105TH STREET, WHICH RUNS ALL THE WAY NORTH AND SOUTH ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY.
THE ISSUE THAT MY CLIENT IS HAVING WITH THIS ENTIRE SITUATION IS THAT THE OVERBEARING ON HIS PROPERTY, THE DRAINAGE ONTO HIS PROPERTY, AND IF THE CITY OR THE DEVELOPER ATTEMPTS TO UTILIZE A 40-FOOT ROAD INTO A 60 FOOT STREET, THE DAMAGE TO HIS PROPERTY.
THAT'S WHERE THIS WHOLE THING IS GOING. THANK YOU.
WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT.
HEARING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:14 P.M. AND WE'LL COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION.
CAN I GET A MOTION, PLEASE? COMMISSIONER HILL.
>> I'LL MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF 23P006 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
>> COMMISSIONER WALLA. DISCUSSION? YES.
>> YES. I WOULD LIKE FOR STAFF OR LEGAL PLEASE TO COMMENT AS TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S REQUIREMENT FOR APPROVALS OF A PLAT UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 212 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, AND SO THAT THE PUBLIC WILL UNDERSTAND WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE ON US UP HERE FOR APPROVAL OF THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT.
>> IT ESSENTIALLY TALKS ABOUT IF THE PLAT GENERALLY CONFORMS TO THE STANDARDS THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MUST APPROVE IT.
>> WE DO NOT HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO REJECT THIS APPLICANT'S REQUEST TODAY. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> NOT IF IT GENERALLY CONFORMS TO THE STANDARDS.
>> NO, GO AHEAD. YOU CAN FINISH YOUR THOUGHT.
>> IN THE OPINION OF STAFF TODAY, THIS APPLICATION DOES CONFORM OR YOU WOULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT IT FORTH TO US TODAY, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> CONFORMS AND IT CONFORMS WITH THE PUD APPROVAL TWO MONTHS AGO, WHICH WAS TO ESTABLISH THIS DEVELOPMENT.
>> THAT'S THE OPINION OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT AS WELL, CORRECT?
>> I THINK A FAILURE TO APPROVE IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO AN ATTACK AS BEING ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND SO I BELIEVE I KNOW WHAT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS BODY IS.
>> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
>> DIRECTOR TIETJENS, I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
WE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC ABOUT 103RD AND 105TH STREET BEING PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.
BUT THAT WARREN ROAD, IS THAT PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OR IS IT IN AN EASEMENT? IS IT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY? CAN YOU DESCRIBE WARREN FOR ME?
>> 103RD AND 105TH ARE BYPRODUCTS, SO TO SPEAK, OF THE TRIMBLE AND LINDSAY SURVEY, WHICH WAS DONE IN THE 1800S, FILED WITH THE GOO ACTUALLY AND IT "DIVIDED A GOOD PORTION OF CENTRAL GALVESTON UP INTO 10 ACRE LOTS BASICALLY OR TRACKS." [NOISE] IT WAS NOT DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE AT THE TIME IT WAS DONE THERE WAS A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
BUT NONETHELESS, THEY, BY SAYING THEY I MEAN 103RD, 105TH, 99TH, 93RD, 91ST, THERE ARE SEVERAL RIGHTS OF WAYS THAT ARE IN THE CITY THAT WE TOOK OVER UPON ANNEXATION THAT WERE PART OF THIS TRIMBLE AND LINDSAY PLAT.
THEY COULD BE UTILIZED AS PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY BY A DEVELOPER SHOULD THEY WANT OR DESIRE TO DO SO.
WARREN ROAD ITSELF WAS NOT PART OF THE TRIMBLE AND LINDSAY SURVEY.
[00:45:05]
I THINK THAT WAS DONE AT SOME SUBSEQUENT TIME AND I DON'T RECALL THE SPECIFICS ABOUT WHEN AND HOW THAT WAS DONE, BUT I UNDERSTAND IT'S IN THE CITY'S INVENTORY.WE HAVE SIGNED IT. WE HAVE MAINTAINED IT AS A ROADWAY, SO IT'S BASICALLY BY PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHTS, AT LEAST IN THE CITY'S INVENTORY.
>> THANK YOU. MORE DISCUSSION.
>> WHILE YOU'RE ON THAT, TIM. JUST SO I'M CLEAR, THE WARREN ROAD AND THE 40 FOOT WIDE PIECE THAT GO INTO THIS TRACK ARE A RECORDED RIGHT AWAY OR AN EASEMENT.
>> I BELIEVE THERE'S TWO EASEMENTS THAT ARE SEPARATE INSTRUMENTS, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IT'S CORRECT. BOTH FROM 1956 THE 40 FOOT ROAD LEADING TO THE SITE AND THE SMALLER PORTION WITHIN ONE ROAD ITSELF.
>> THOSE ARE RECORDED EASEMENTS?
>> YOU SAID IT IS JUST THE PORTION OF WARREN ROAD THAT IS SHOWN HERE ON THIS PLAT IN OUR INVENTORY? JUST THE PORTION OF WARREN ROAD THAT SHOWS AS A RIGHT-OF-WAY.
RIGHT THERE, WE HAVE A 50 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY COMING FROM 103RD HALFWAY TO 105TH?
>> BUT OF COURSE WARREN ROAD COMES ALL THE WAY TO BLOOM.
>> I'M NOT AWARE THAT THAT'S BEEN PUBLICLY DEDICATED.
>> THIS PORTION FROM HERE, MOVING WEST OVER TO?
>> BLOOM. I'M SORRY. EXCUSE ME [OVERLAPPING]
>> DO YOU THINK ONLY THE PORTION THAT IS IN THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT THERE IS CITY-OWNED?
>> WELL, I CAN'T NECESSARILY SAY THAT EITHER BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT PAST EXPERIENCE THE CITY HAS UTILIZED THERE IN TERMS OF ITS MAINTENANCE AND OR UPKEEP OR SIGNAGE OR REGULATORY ISSUES THAT DEAL WITH THE ROAD.
>> HOW WOULD WE FIND THAT OUT?
>> IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE 40 FOOT ROAD [INAUDIBLE] ARE BOTH IN THE SAME VOLUME AND PAGE NUMBER SO THEY ARE PART OF THE DEDICATED EASEMENT FROM WARREN.
>> MY QUESTION THOUGH IS WARREN GOES FROM 103RD TO 105TH? [OVERLAPPING]
>> LET ME CLARIFY COUNSEL KAUSKI.
BASICALLY FROM THE 40 FOOT PORTION, THAT IS WITHIN WARREN ROAD, MOVING EAST TOWARDS 103RD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GALVESTON COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICTS RECORDS, IT APPEARS TO BE PUBLIC.
NOW, MOVING WEST, IT APPEARS TO BE PRIVATE.
>> HERE WE GO. THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR.
>> AGAIN, NOT ENTIRELY SURE OF THOSE RECORDS.
I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE ON THE ACCURACY OF THAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT IT APPEARS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECORDS.
>> CAN WE FIND OUT IF THE CITY HAS MAINTAINED THAT ROAD IN THE PAST?
>> I THINK WE CAN CERTAINLY INQUIRE ABOUT THAT. YES, SIR.
IT SEEMS AS IF WE CAN'T DEFINITIVELY ANSWER THIS QUESTION AND SO MY QUESTION IS THAT IF WE HAVE A PLAT THAT GENERALLY MEETS THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES, OR THERE IS AN EXISTING EASEMENT AND WE'RE CONNECTED INTO THAT EXISTING 40 FOOT EASEMENT THAT CONNECTS INTO A PUBLIC ROAD OR CONNECTS INTO A PRIVATE ROAD AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT THERE ARE ISSUES IF YOU'RE TRYING TO CONNECT INTO A PRIVATE ROAD AS OPPOSED TO A PUBLIC ROAD AND SO DO WE HAVE A CLEAR DEFINITION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'RE DOING THIS ALL IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IS MY QUESTION.
>> I HEARD THAT. MR. CHAIRMAN, THE PUBLIC ROAD HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED TO THE EAST AND THAT'S [OVERLAPPING].
[00:50:03]
>> IT CONNECTS TO THE EASEMENT THAT'S RECORDED FROM 1956.
>> THANK YOU. [OVERLAPPING] NEXT TO THE EASEMENT.
>> FROM THE PORTION TO THE WEST, THAT'S THE PORTION THAT'S UNKNOWN ABOUT ITS VIABILITY AS A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ROAD.
>> WHICH IS OUTSIDE OF THE 40 FOOT EASEMENT THAT'S SHOWN [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S NOT BEING USED FOR ACCESS FOR THIS SUBDIVISION OR, THEY'RE RELYING ON THE ACCESS GOING TO THE EAST.
>> FOR ACCESS TO THE SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS PUBLIC.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? NO, THAT'S OKAY.
>> I KNOW [LAUGHTER] I UNDERSTAND. IS THERE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC BEFORE WE CALL A VOTE?
>> I JUST HAVE A COMMENT AND IT IS THAT, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WOULD BE AN ISSUE IF THAT 40 FOOT EASEMENT AND THAT WARREN ROAD WERE NOT PUBLIC, YOU CAN'T PLAT A SUBDIVISION WITHOUT ACCESS.
I KNOW THAT FOR A FACT, BUT THEY HAVE DONE THAT.
NOW, SOME OF THE INTRICACIES OF IT.
I THINK WE HAVE A STAFF THAT'S WELL-QUALIFIED TO GO FIGURE ALL THAT OUT AND WE'LL SEE IT AT THE FINAL PLAT.
BUT MY COMMENT IS HOLDING THESE GUYS UP ISN'T GOING TO HELP ANYBODY.
>> UNDERSTOOD. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WITH THAT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES [NOISE].
[7.A.2. 23P-003 (35B Grand Beach Blvd) Request for Beachfront Construction Certificate and Dune Protection Permit to include proposed construction of a single-family dwelling with paver driveway and fibercrete footer. Property is legally described as The Preserve at Grand Beach Replat (2021) Abstract 628, Block 2, Lot 6B Acres 0.1527 Applicant: Gilbert Markarian Property Owner: Gilbert Markarian]
CATHERINE, I THINK.>> THE CASE IS GOING TO BE 23P003, AND THAT'S RUSSELL'S.
>> HOWDY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
>> HOLD ON JUST A SECOND. THOSE IN THE PUBLIC IF YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS, PLEASE TAKE IT OUT IN THE HALL. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
I KNOW YOU'RE ANXIOUS TO GET TO ME [LAUGHTER] THIS IS A REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AND CONSTRUCTION OF A FIBER CREATE DRIVEWAY AND FOOTER.
THE ADDRESS IS 35B GRAND BEACH BOULEVARD.
THE PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE PRESERVE OF GRAND BEACH REPLOT 2021 ABSTRACT 628 BLOCK 2, 6B, ACRES, 1.1527 SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE PRESERVE OF GRAND BEACH SUBDIVISION, A BEACH AND DOING SYSTEM, WE'RE LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS ACCRETING AT A RATE OF 2-3 FEET PER YEAR.
STAFF HAS PREPARED PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR VIEWING.
FIRST, WE HAVE THE FIRM AND BEG MAP SHOWING HOW THE PROPERTY IS MAJORITY COVERED IN JUNE SYSTEM AND IT'S POSITIONED RELATIVE TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
NOTABLY THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST WHICH IS IN LINE WITH THE PROPOSED PROPERTY HERE.
ON THE NEXT SLIDE ARE TWO PROPERTY SURVEYS.
THE LEFT VERSION SHOWING THE LANDWARD EXTENT OF THE 25 FOOT OFFSET INTO THE LOT.
THE LINE THAT IS ABOUT THREE-QUARTERS OF THE WAY AFLOAT, AND ON THE RIGHT IS THE ORIGINAL POSITION OF THE PROPERTY AS PROPOSED, WITH THE NORTH OF THE DUNE BEING CROSSED OVER APPROXIMATELY TWO FEET BY THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED DECK.
[00:55:03]
WE HAVE THE CURRENT PROPOSED STRUCTURE WHICH WAS UPDATED JANUARY 25TH, WHICH FOLLOWING FEEDBACK FROM THE CITY IN GLO, THE APPLICANTS ALTERED THE DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURE TO REMOVE THE ENTIRETY OF THE STRUCTURE FROM THE CRITICAL JUNE AREA.THIS HAS MET THE GLO'S FIRST CONDITIONS REGARDING MINIMIZING THE IMPACTS TO THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA, SO WE'RE VERY PLEASED WITH THIS.
THIS IS RESULTING IN OUR RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS PROPERTY WITH CONDITIONS.
ADDITIONAL COMMENT BY THE GLO, RECOMMENDED MOVING THE SEAWARD PERIMETER FENCE 5-10 FEET FROM THE NORTH TOW OF THE DUNE.
THIS HAS BEEN INCLUDED AS ONE OF THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS AS THIS WOULD PUT IT PAST THE FENCE LANDWARD OF ONE OR TWO ROWS PILINGS.
THIS WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANTS AND THEY SAID IT WOULD BE PRACTICABLE TO MOVE THAT FENCE 5-8 FEET LAND OR FROM THE NORTH TOW OF DUNE.
IT WOULD BE EASIER WITH ZOOMED IN, BUT ESSENTIALLY BECAUSE THE FIRST ROW OF PILINGS FROM THE NORTH TOW OF THE DUNE IS THREE FEET AWAY FROM THE DUNE, AND THEN THE SECOND ROW IS EIGHT FEET AWAY.
THE GLO'S RECOMMENDATION WAS MOVING THE PERIMETER FENCE 5-10 FEET AWAY, SO THE QUESTION WAS, WHERE WOULD IT BE REASONABLE TO HAVE THE EXTERNAL THE PERIMETER FENCE IN RELATION TO THE PILINGS, AND THE APPLICANTS HAVE SAID THAT IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO HAVE IT 5-8 FEET AWAY, THAT COULD BE HAVING 1-2 ROWS PILINGS OUTSIDE OF THEIR PERIMETER FENCE, BUT NOT MORE THAN THAT BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE HOUSE STARTS AND MAINTENANCE COULD BE AN ISSUE THERE.
BUT ALL OF THIS TO SAY ONE OF THE CONDITIONS THAT IS IN THE STAFFS PACKET HAS BEEN CONFIRMED AS PRACTICABLE BY THE APPLICANTS.
THE NEXT SLIDE HERE SHOWS THE FRONT AND REAR ELEVATIONS OF THE HOUSE.
THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS THE RIGHT ELEVATION, WHICH ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE HERE YOU CAN SEE THE PILINGS BEING MENTIONED THAT ONE TO TWO OF THESE WOULD BE SEPARATED FROM THE HOUSE.
PROBABLY THE FIRST ONE HERE WITH THE SECOND BEING ABIDED BY THE PERIMETER FENCE, WHICH WOULD MEET THE OTHER COMMENT REQUIREMENT BY THE GLO AND THUS THIS STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITION.
ADDITIONALLY, THE ENCLOSURES HERE ARE NOT WITHIN THE 25 FOOT OFFSET, AND THEREFORE MEETING THESE REQUIREMENTS, THE FIBER GROUP PAVING PROPOSED IS ALSO NOT SEAWARD OF THE 25 FOOT OFFSET WITHIN THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA.
THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS THE LEFT ELEVATION.
FOLLOWING THIS IS THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE, THE I THINK SECOND AND THIRD FLOORS HERE, THE MAIN UPPER FLOOR, WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE DECKS THAT HAVE BEEN PULLED BACK, MOVING THE HOUSE LANDWARD TO MEET THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
THE FOLLOWING SLIDE, WE HAVE THE PILING LAYOUT, WHICH HAS BEEN MOVED BACK AWAY FROM THE TOE OF THE DUNE, AND FINALLY, WE HAVE PHOTOS FROM THE NORTH VIEW, THE EAST, CLOCKWISE THE WEST AND THE SOUTH, AND FINALLY FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION AND THE NORTH VIEW OF THE DUNE LOOKING LANDWARD.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU, RUSSELL. ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION? WHY IS A PERIMETER FENCE BEING RECOMMENDED BY ANYONE OR THEY JUST WANT TO PUT A FENCE AROUND THEIR PROPERTY SO THEY'RE HAVING TO PUT SOME OF THEIR PILINGS OUTSIDE OF THE FENCE.
>> THANK YOU. I REALIZED THAT WAS NOT THE MOST ELOQUENTLY DELIVERED.
A PERIMETER FENCE WAS INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION AS PART OF THE WORK BEING DONE.
CAN WE GO BACK TO THE FIRM BEG MAP? HERE YOU CAN JUST SEE ON THE HOUSE TO THE LEFT AND ON THE RIGHT, A STANDARD IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS A PERIMETER FENCES SURROUNDING THE LOTS, AND SO SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANTS WERE REQUESTING IN THE PROPOSAL WAS A PERIMETER FENCE.
WHAT I'M REFERRING TO IS THE MOST SEAWARD PORTION OF IT, WHICH IN THIS PHOTO WOULD BE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LOT.
[01:00:03]
PERIMETER FENCES ARE ACTUALLY AT THE TOE OF THE DUNES THERE.EXACTLY. PERIMETER FENCES ARE USUALLY NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF BEACH PERMITS UNLESS IT IS POTENTIALLY IMPACTING THE DUNES AND DUNE SYSTEM, AND HERE IT WOULD BE THE ACT OF DIGGING THE POSTS FOR THE DUNE.
THIS FENCE WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE TOE OF THE DUNES, AND THE ACTION OF DIGGING THE POSTS FOR THE FENCE IS ESSENTIALLY THE MECHANICS OF WHAT WOULD POSSIBLY HAVE IMPACTS.
TO AVOID THIS, THE GLO RECOMMENDED HAVING THE FENCE BE 5-10 FEET AWAY FROM THE TOE OF THE DUNE AND THAT COULD HAVE BEEN IN A LESS COMPACT LOT, A CONDITION THAT WE LEFT IT AS 5-10 FEET AWAY.
BUT BY ONE OF OUR ASTUTE COMMISSIONERS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS SO CLOSE TO THE DUNES, THE FENCE BEING MOVED FOR THE LANDWARD WOULD ACTUALLY MAKE THE PILINGS BE SEAWARD OF THE FENCE, WHICH IS NOT A BAD THING, OR IT'S JUST UNUSUAL THAT YOU HAVE YOUR LOT FENCE GO UNDERNEATH YOUR HOUSE.
THAT'S THE ASPECT THAT BECAUSE THAT'S UNUSUAL, IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE GLO'S REQUIREMENTS, WE HAD TO GO THAT ROUTE, BUT ALSO BECAUSE THAT'S VERY ODD, WE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT IT WITH THE APPLICANT'S FIRST, AND I'LL LET THEM SPEAK TO THIS, BUT THEY'VE SUGGESTED THAT THAT MAY BE A POSSIBILITY.
>> IT DID NOT SURPRISE OUR CHAIR THAT I HAD QUESTIONS.
I AM SURE IT SURPRISES NO ONE.
JUST TO CLARIFY TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD EVERYTHING.
THE GLO SAID TO MOVE IT FURTHER LANDWARD AND THEN OUR REPORT SAYS IT IS AS FAR LANDWARD AS IT CAN BE OR THE GLO SAID, MOVE IT FURTHER LANDWARD OR MINIMIZE THE DECK BUT THEN THEY SUBSEQUENTLY REMOVE THE DECK.
THAT'S WHY WE WERE ABLE TO CHECK OFF ON YOUR LITTLE BOX THAT IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE MOVED ANY FURTHER LANDWARD.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. WHEN YOU SAY REMOVE THE DECK, YOU'RE REFERRING TO THEY REMOVED THE DECK FROM THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA?
>> THE ENTIRE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE WAS MOVED TWO FEET FURTHER LANDWARD.
ORIGINALLY THE STRUCTURE HAD THE DECK CANTILEVERED TWO FEET OVER THE DUNES WHICH WOULD HAVE A MINIMAL IMPACT.
THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO A CASE THAT WAS HEARD IN NOVEMBER THAT IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST OF THIS LOT WHERE THAT WAS ALSO PROPOSED THAT WAS NOT APPROVED BECAUSE OF SIMILAR CONCERNS.
THIS WAS ACTUALLY ADDRESSED AS A CONCERN BY THE GLO.
THIS CASE HAS NOT BEEN HEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION BEFORE.
BECAUSE THE GLO, AS ONE OF THEIR COMMENTS SAID, THE FOOTPRINT NEEDED TO BE MINIMIZED OR THE PROPERTY NEEDS TO BE MOVED FURTHER LANDWARD TO AVOID ADVERSELY IMPACTING DUNES AND DUNE VEGETATION, THE APPLICANT MUST RELOCATE POST HABITABLE STRUCTURE FURTHER LANDWARD OR MINIMIZE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE CANTILEVER DECK.
THE FOOTPRINT OF THE DECK WAS MINIMIZED, THEREFORE, THIS CONDITION WAS MET.
THAT'S WHY SOMEWHAT UNUSUAL IN THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFF PACKET, WE INCLUDED THE ORIGINAL PLANS AND IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE UPDATED PLANS FOR EVERY PAGE THAT WAS RECEIVED TO SHOW FIRST WHAT THE GLO HAD RECEIVED AND THEN THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE BY THE APPLICANTS TO ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS.
IN SHORT, TO ANSWER COMMISSIONER HILL'S QUESTION, YES.
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED VERY THOROUGHLY BY THE APPLICANT.
>> THANK YOU. NOW, ON THAT SPECIFIC CONDITION 6 THAT YOU POINTED OUT ABOUT THE PERIMETER FENCE AND YOU SAID IN THAT SPECIFIC CONDITION, AT LEAST 5-10 FEET.
YOU SAID THAT YOU HAD SPOKEN TO THE APPLICANTS SUBSEQUENT TO THIS STAFF REPORT AND THEY SAID THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO GO TO 8-10 FEET.
MY QUESTION IS, SHOULD WE PERHAPS THEN SAY INSTEAD CONSIDER WORDING IT TO
[01:05:02]
INCLUDE NOT JUST THE NUMBER OF FEET BUT PERHAPS THE PILINGS AND TO SAY THE ROWS OF PILINGS, SAY FIRST ROW OR FIRST AND SECOND ROW OF PILINGS SO THAT WE JUST GET A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC ON THAT.>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE REASONABLE AND TO CLARIFY, I MAY HAVE MISSPOKEN.
IT WOULD BE PRACTICABLE TO HAVE 5-8 FEET.
>> FIVE TO EIGHT. EVERYBODY IS ON BOARD WITH 5-8.
>> RIGHT. THAT I BELIEVE WOULD BE THE FIRST ROW OF PILINGS.
CATHERINE, CAN WE GO TO THE SIDE PROFILE OF THE HOUSE? THAT WAS BECAUSE MORE THAN EIGHT FEET WOULD BE UNDER THE HOUSE AND IT LOOKS LIKE PASSING THE SECOND ROW WOULD BE UNDER THE HOUSE.
I THINK ENCOMPASSING THE FIRST ROW WOULD ADDRESS THAT.
>> THEN IF THE FENCE JUST WENT IN THAT 5-8 FOOT RANGE AND WENT WITH THAT FIRST ROW OF PILINGS, THEN WHERE DOES THAT PUT US IN THE 25-FOOT PROTECTED AREA?
>> THAT'S THE DISTANCE FROM THE NORTH TOUR OF THE DUNE.
THAT IS 5-8 FEET FROM THE NORTH TOUR OF THE DUNE.
>> IF I MAY BRIEFLY AND THEN I'LL SPEAK INTO THE MIC.
THE NORTH OF THE DUNE IS APPROXIMATELY HERE AT THE EDGE OF THE DECK SO FIVE FEET IS GOING TO BE IN THIS AREA, EIGHT FEET IS GOING TO BE APPROXIMATELY AT THIS PILING.
DEPENDS WHO PROBABLY STOPPED JUST BEFORE THE FIRST PILLING.
AGAIN, I THINK THE APPLICANTS MAY BE INTERESTED IN SPEAKING ON IT JUST TO REPEAT FOR OUR VIRTUAL AUDIENCE, I WAS SAYING THAT THE NORTH OF THE DUNE WAS APPROXIMATELY AT THE EDGE OF THE DECK, FIVE FEET WOULD BE BETWEEN THE FIRST TWO ROWS OF PILINGS AND EIGHT FEET WOULD PROBABLY BE APPROXIMATELY AT THE SECOND PILING.
ON SPECIFIC CONDITION 5, WE SAY WHERE APPLICABLE, THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH FEMA.
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ARE WITH THE FEMA-APPROVED LOCAL ORDINANCE.
EXPLAIN THAT TO ME BECAUSE I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT ADEQUATELY PROTECTING EVERYTHING DURING CONSTRUCTION.
I'M JUST A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT PROTECTING OUR VEGETATION DURING CONSTRUCTION IN THIS AREA.
>> THAT SOUNDS LIKE TWO SEPARATE QUESTIONS.
FIRST REGARDING FEMA, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS ADDRESSED DURING BUILDING THAT THERE'S THE NATIONAL FEMA CODES AND THEN THE CITY HAS ADOPTED FEMA ORDINANCES THAT FOR EXAMPLE, HOUSES, THE BASE FLOOD.
WE HAVE TO BUILD TO A CERTAIN HEIGHT ABOVE BASE FLOOD THAT'S APPROXIMATELY TWO FEET AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ACTUALLY INCLUDE WITHIN BEACHFRONT THAT COMMENT AS STANDARD BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S REGULARLY ADDRESSED DURING THE BUILDING PROCESS.
REGARDING THE REQUIREMENT OF PROTECTING VEGETATION, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED IN THE FORM OF REQUIRING THE ORANGE PLASTIC FENCING OR SOME FORM OF PROTECTIVE FENCING ADJACENT TO THE DUNES AS THIS IS GOING TO BE BUILDING IN A TIGHT AREA.
THAT MAY HAVE BEEN SOMETHING THAT WAS ADDRESSED BY THE A&M WETLANDS REPORT IN THEIR TIMELINE.
THOUGH I HAVE SEEN SEVERAL RECENTLY, SO I MAY BE GETTING CONFUSED BUT THAT MAY ALSO BE EITHER A CONDITION THAT COULD BE ADDED OR A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANTS OF HOW [OVERLAPPING]
>> HOW ABOUT IF WHILE SOMEBODY ELSE ASKS QUESTIONS, I GO BACK THROUGH THE GLO LETTER AND SEE IF THAT'S COVERED IN OUR GENERAL BLANKET GLO STATEMENT? BECAUSE IN GOING BETWEEN OUR TWO BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DAY, I MIGHT'VE GOTTEN CROSSED UP ON THAT ONE, RUSSELL.
I'LL GO BACK THROUGH THAT ONE AND ON THE A&M WHILE EVERYBODY ELSE ADDRESSES THERE.
>> GREAT. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> FIRST, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE APPLICANTS HAVE BEEN RATHER HARD WORKING ON THIS WITH YOU.
THAT'S GOOD. THE OTHER IS THIS AREA OF THE BEACH IS ACCRETING, CORRECT?
>> DO WE HAVE THE RATE AT WHICH IT'S [OVERLAPPING].
[01:10:02]
>> YES. THAT'S THE 1-2 FEET PER YEAR AND I NOTICED AS I WAS PRESENTING THIS THAT WAS ACTUALLY CUT OFF FROM THESE A&MS.
>> BUT IT NORMALLY SHOULD BE ON THIS MAP.
>> ACCRETING AT 1-2 FEET PER YEAR?
>> FOR A LONG TIME WE GOT OUR LITTLE 25-FOOT AREA FROM THE NORTH TO LANDWARD, WHICH IS OUR CRITICAL DUNE AREA.
>> WE HAVE MADE EFFORTS TO NOT DO ANYTHING IN THIS.
WE'RE STARTING TO SEE MORE, AND MORE OF THESE WHERE THERE ARE [BACKGROUND] REQUESTS FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THIS AREA.
WHAT'S CHANGED? I CAN SEE THIS ONE'S MIGHT BE A LITTLE EXCEPTION BECAUSE IT'S AN ACCRETING BEACH, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT'S CHANGED SO THAT WE'RE NOW SEEING MORE OF THESE.
I REMEMBER A DEAL NOT BEING PASSED BECAUSE THERE WERE SPRINKLERS IN THE 25 FEET.
I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY WE'RE MOVING THIS.
>> THERE'S SEVERAL TRENDS TO POTENTIALLY SPEAK OF THERE.
IN AREAS THAT HAVE OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS HAD THE DUNES BE DESTROYED BY STORMS, WITH SEVERAL STORMS CYCLES THAT WE'VE HAD IN 2019 WITH LAURA, BETA, AND DELTA, AND THEN IN 2020 WITH NICHOLAS, WHERE THE DUNES RECOVER.
DUE TO COASTAL SQUEEZE, THEY START TO RECOVER MORE LANDWARD, AND LOTS THAT PREVIOUSLY MAY HAVE BEEN OUTSIDE OF THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA OR DUNE CONSERVATION AREA ARE NOW THE SAME LOT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN HELD FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
NOW AS IT'S WORKING TO BE DEVELOPED MAY FIND ITSELF ON THE BEACH OR IN AN AREA THAT THERE IS NO ROOM TO BUILD EXCEPT WITH AN EXEMPTION REQUEST.
POTENTIAL AREAS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN POSSIBLY LESS RESILIENT TO BUILD IN PREVIOUSLY, NOW, AND THIS IS ECONOMICS.
BUT AS HOUSING IS MORE VALUABLE, MAYBE MORE MOTIVATED TO BUILD ON THESE LOTS.
I THINK THERE'S ALWAYS A TREND OF NOSTALGIA THAT IT WAS BETTER IN THE PAST.
BUT ALSO THERE IS A LONG-TERM QUESTION THAT THE CITY FACES IN REGARDS TO WHAT IS OUR RESILIENCE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN ERODING AREAS? THIS IS SOMEWHAT BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS PERMIT BUT I WAS RECENTLY ON A NASA RESILIENCE INTERVIEW ASKING ABOUT WHAT PLANS, TECHNIQUES, AND MEASURES THE CITY HAS IN PLACE IN REGARDS TO SEA LEVEL RISE, AND RESILIENCE FOR THIS CONCERN MOVING FORWARD, AND THE CITY IS LACKING IN SOME OF THESE DEPARTMENTS.
IN REGARDS TO HOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION MOVES FORWARD WITH DETERMINING WHAT EXEMPTIONS ARE GRANTED IS A LARGER QUESTION, I THINK, THAN I AM ABLE TO ANSWER AT THIS TIME.
BUT IT CERTAINLY IS AN ASPECT OF RESILIENCE PLANNING THAT THE CITY MAY BE INTERESTED IN EXPLORING MOVING FORWARD.
>> THAT WAS PROBABLY UNFAIR FOR ME. I ASKED YOU THAT QUESTION.
I GUESS WHAT I WAS REALLY GETTING AT IS, WE'RE JUST SEEING MORE OF THESE, AND IN MY MIND'S EYE, I'VE ALWAYS HEARD A 25 FEET WAS, DON'T GO THERE.
EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE AT 25 FEET.
I'M JUST SAYING WE'RE SEEING MORE, AND MORE OF THESE.
IS THIS WITHIN OUR BEACH DEVELOPMENT PLAN? WHERE DID THE 25 FEET COME FROM? MAYBE I NEED TO SIMPLIFY MY QUESTION, AND GO WHERE DID THAT COME FROM?
>> YOU WERE GOING THE EXACT SAME DIRECTION THAT I ACTUALLY TALKED TO STAFF ABOUT EARLIER TODAY BECAUSE BOTH THESE LAST CASES ARE VERY MUCH, AND SIMILAR IN NATURE.
COMMISSIONER WALLER, I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING UP THE SUBJECT PUBLICLY IN THIS FORUM TO STAFF, AND I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE A WORKSHOP ON THIS AFTER THE ONE IN MARCH,
[01:15:02]
AND WE'LL GET THAT ON THE SCHEDULE.>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WITH THAT, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? WOULD YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD AND SIGN IN, AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD?
>> CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONER, GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL AGAIN.
YOU WERE ASKING, I THINK A REALLY POWERFUL QUESTION ABOUT THE 25 NORTH TOWER OF THE DUNE.
MAYBE I'M DIPPING INTO SOMETHING I SHOULDN'T.
BUT THE THING IS, IS THAT IT ISN'T ACCRETING BEACH IN THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WE FIND OURSELVES IN A REALLY TIGHT SITUATION.
THIS HOME, IT'S THE SKINNIEST LOT, AND IT'S THE SHORTEST LOT.
WE CAN'T EVEN BUILD A HOME THAT THE HOA WAY WOULD ACTUALLY APPROVE IN THE SIZE THAT WE HAVE.
WE'RE ASKING YOU ALL IF WE COULD PLEASE BUILD A HOME.
WE HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE GLO, AND WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU'VE GIVEN, WE'VE LITERALLY MOVED THE HOUSE UP A COUPLE OF FEET.
WE'RE WILLING TO MOVE THE FENCE, AND DO WHAT WE NEED TO.
WE'VE ALSO TAKEN STEPS TO BE SURE THAT WE TREAT THE DUNES VERY CAREFULLY.
FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE PORCH, WE'VE MADE SURE THAT THERE'S SPACE IN-BETWEEN ALL OF IT SO THAT THE WATER CAN DRAIN THROUGH TO THE DUNE, AND BECAUSE OF THE HEIGHT OF THE HOME, THE SUN WILL ACTUALLY SHINE ON THE DUNES.
AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE'S NO COMPLICATION IN REGARD TO THE DUNES THEMSELVES.
>> MS. MARYANN CARRION, AND I'D LIKE TO TELL YOU THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE TIME, AND CARE THAT YOU'VE TAKEN IN LISTENING TO THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS, AND WORKING WITH THE STAFF, AND COMING BACK HERE.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT YOU'RE THE UNFORTUNATE VICTIM OF VERY POOR PLANNING THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN APPROVED, AND I WANT TO SAY THAT PUBLICLY.
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY EGREGIOUS THAT WE SHOULD BE FORCED TO TAKE A FORCED EXEMPTION IN ORDER FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP YOUR LOT.
I'VE COMPLAINED ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT BEFORE, BUT I DO APPRECIATE ALL THE EFFORTS THAT YOU'VE DONE.
WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO GO FORWARD, AND WANT TO APPROVE IT BECAUSE I WANT TO SEE THAT AREA DEVELOPED EVEN THOUGH GIVEN THE CONDITIONS THAT IT'S IN.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> I CAN'T HELP MYSELF [LAUGHTER].
YOU DO KNOW THAT THE GLO DOESN'T WANT YOU TO MOW THE GRASS HALFWAY UNDERNEATH YOUR HOUSE.
HAVE YOU SEEN THAT EXEMPTION ON THERE? I FEEL FOR YOUR ISSUE THERE.
THESE ARE HARD. THAT'S WHAT IT'S [OVERLAPPING].
>> GREAT IDEA. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'LL GO AHEAD, AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 23 P-003.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A VOTE.
>> I'LL MOVE THAT WE APPROVE 23 P-003 WITH THE CONDITIONS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GLO, AND BY STAFF.
>> I WILL SECOND THAT. DISCUSSION.
>> YES. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO SPECIFIC CONDITION 6 THAT WE INSERT AT THE END OF THE FINAL SENTENCE, WHICH I WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO READ, THE PERIMETER FENCE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT LEAST FIVE TO 10 FEET LANDWARD OF THE NORTH TOWER OF THE DUNE BETWEEN THE FIRST AND SECOND ROW OF PILINGS.
I WOULD LIKE TO INSERT THE WORDING BETWEEN THE FIRST AND SECOND ROW OF PILINGS.
MR. CHAIR, I BELIEVE THAT ADDITIONAL WORDING NEEDS TO BE TAKEN IN A SEPARATE VOTE.
THE MOTION DOES NOT BELONG TO [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION. I'LL SECOND IT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION, AND A SECOND ON THE AMENDMENT.
>> NOW WE NEED A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT.
>> I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND GET A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FOR ALL IN FAVOR, ANY OPPOSED, PASSES.
[01:20:02]
NOW WE'LL COME BACK TO THE MAJOR TOPIC THE VOTE FOR APPROVAL OF CASE 23 P-003 WITH THE AMENDMENT AS APPROVED.ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? THEN I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
ANY OPPOSED? PASSES? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME, AND YOUR EFFORTS, AND I WISH YOU ALL THE VERY BEST DURING CONSTRUCTION.
>> [OVERLAPPING] [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER]
>> RUSSELL, THERE WAS A BULLET ON THE GLO LETTER.
THERE WAS A BULLET, THE SECOND BULLET ON THE GLO LETTER IT WAS ABOUT DURING PROTECTION ACT, AND CONSTRUCTION. JUST SO YOU'LL KNOW.
>> I'M SORRY. YES. THAT'S THE NEXT ONE.
>> I SAW BY INCORPORATING THAT, THERE WAS SOMETHING IN THERE ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION.
>> MAY I INVITE THE COMMISSIONERS IF THEY NEED A DRINK?
>> MAY WE TAKE A RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES?
[7.A.1. 22P-084 (12215 Hershey Beach and Adjacent Vacant Parcel) Request for Beachfront Construction Certificate and Dune Protection Permit to include proposed construction for two single-family dwellings with paver driveways and fibercrete footers. The properties are legally described as Abstract 121, Hall & Jones Survey, Lot 5, Hershey Beach; and Abstract 121, Hall & Jones Survey, Lot 6, Hershey Beach; in the City and County of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Sam Shah Property Owner: Graniti Vicentia Realty LLC and Suresh Shah]
>> COMMISSIONERS WERE GOING TO GO AHEAD, AND COME BACK TO THE NEXT CASE.
RUSSELL, I THINK IT'S YOU AGAIN.
>> FOR THE RECORD THAT WE HAVE THE APPLICANT STAND CALL WHO IS JOINING US BY ZOOM.
>> GREAT. HOWDY AND WELCOME BACK PLANNING COMMISSIONERS. HOWDY?
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED TIME.
THIS IS AN EXEMPTION REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON ADJACENT LOTS, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A FIBERCRETE DRIVEWAY AND PARTIAL FOOTER FOR EACH.
THE ADDRESS IS 12215 HERSHEY BEACH DRIVE.
THE PROPERTIES ARE LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS ABSTRACT 121, HALL AND JONES SURVEY, LOT 5, HERSHEY BEACH.
ABSTRACT 121 HALL AND JONES SURVEY LOT 6, HERSHEY BEACH, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE HERSHEY BEACH SUBDIVISION.
SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ARE LOCATED TO THE EAST AND WEST, AND A BEACH IN 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 6-7 FEET PER YEAR.
CITY ORDINANCE 11-056 ESTABLISHED THE DEFINITION OF RESTORING DUNES AS FOLLOWS.
FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING CONSTRUCTION SETBACKS, AND THE LOCATION OF THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE, A RESTORE DUNE SHALL BE DEFINED AS HAVING MORE THAN 50 PERCENT VEGETATIVE COVER.
A 3-1 SLOPE, AND AN AVERAGE HEIGHT OF 75 PERCENT OF THE ISLANDS MEAN BASE FLOOD ELEVATION AS MEASURED FROM SEA LEVEL.
A NATURALLY ESTABLISH CONNECTION TO THE DUNE CONTOUR, AND ELEVATION OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, AND SHALL NOT EXTEND FURTHER SEAWARD THAN 4.1 FEET ELEVATION FROM MEAN SEA LEVEL.
FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES, THIS RESULTS IN A DUNE THAT IS 10 FEET TALL AND 50 FEET WIDE.
THIS TEMPLATE SET FORTH BY THE CITY WAS FOLLOWED BY THE APPLICANT STARTING IN SPRING 2021 UNDER THE BEACHFRONT PERMIT NUMBER 21BF-070, AS THERE WERE NO DUNES SEAWARD OF THEIR LOTS.
AT THAT TIME, THE CONSTRUCTION SETBACKS WERE 200 FEET FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION, WHICH AS THE LINE OF VEGETATION WAS ABSENT, WAS 200 FEET FROM THE MEAN LOW TIDE LINE, SO THAT WAS APPROXIMATELY IN HERSHEY BEACH DRIVE.
FOLLOWING THE CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION OF THEIR DUNES IN JANUARY, FOLLOWING THE FINAL SURVEY, THE CONSTRUCTION SETBACKS HAVE BEEN RESET AND THE APPLICANT IS NOW REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION.
I HAVE SOME BACKGROUND INFO FOR THIS CASE AND WHY THE DUNES APPEAR AS THEY DO IN THE PHOTOS AND STAFF PACKET YOU RECEIVED.
CITY STAFF HAS PREPARED PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR VIEWING.
FIRST, WE HAVE THE FIRM AND BEG MAPS SHOWING THE OVERVIEW OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THE DISTANCE OF THE PROPERTIES FROM THE BEACH SYSTEM, AND THEIR POSITIONS RELATIVE TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
PLEASE NOTE THE HOUSES SPECIFICALLY TO THE EAST.
ON THE NEXT SLIDE, WE HAVE THE SURVEY CONDUCTED IN JANUARY 3RD.
THE FINAL SURVEY, AS MENTIONED, SHOWING THE NORTH TOE THE DUNE AND THE 25 FOOT OFFSET,
[01:25:04]
WHICH SHOWS A LIMITED AMOUNT OF SPACE LANDWARD OF THE 25 FOOT OFFSET ON THIS LOT, WHICH IS WHY THE APPLICANTS ARE QUESTING THE EXEMPTION FOR CONSTRUCTION AS THEIRS, IN THEIR OPINION, NOT PRACTICAL AMOUNT OF SPACE TO BUILD OUTSIDE THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA.NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS IS THAT SAME SURVEY ZOOMED IN, AND YOU CAN SEE THIS IS A SIMPLIFIED VERSION OF THE DUNE LINE, SO IT'S THE STRAIGHT LINES, BUT APPROXIMATELY THE BUILDABLE AREA IS ABOUT 15-20 FEET HERE.
OUTSIDE OF THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA.
THIS IS THE SURVEY CONDUCTED JUNE OF LAST YEAR FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE PLACEMENT OF THE SAND, WHICH SHOWED THAT AT THAT TIME, THE DUNE PRIOR TO ITS PLANTING WAS APPROXIMATELY 55-60 FEET WIDE, AND AROUND THAT TIME THEY ALSO WERE SURVEYED TO SHOW THAT IT WAS ABOUT 10 FEET TALL.
THIS SHOWS WHERE THE DUNE WAS AS IT WAS PLACED AROUND THIS PERIOD.
ON THE NEXT SLIDE, WE HAVE A PHOTO OF THE AREA IN MARCH OF 2021 BEFORE ANY OF THE WORK WAS DONE SHOWING HOW THERE WERE NO DUNES ON THE LOT, AND WHY THERE WAS A NEED FOR THIS CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, AND HOW THERE WAS NO PROTECTION FOR THE LOSS PRIOR TO THIS.
ON THE FOLLOWING SLIDE, WE HAVE MATERIALS THAT WERE SUBMITTED AT THAT TIME, ROUGHLY SHOWING THE PLACEMENT OF THE DUNES.
THIS WAS EXPANDED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OVER THE PERIOD OF THE PAST FEW YEARS.
BUT IT SHOWS HOW IT HAS GROWN IN THIS PROJECT FOR THE GOAL OF CONSTRUCTING THESE HOUSES, AND HOW FROM THE INITIAL GOAL, THE HOUSES HAVE SHRANK TO MOVE OUT OF THE AREA OF THE DUNE EVENTUALLY.
STARTING WITH LOT 5, WHICH IS I BELIEVE THE ONE TO THE LEFT HERE, WE HAVE PHOTOS OF THE RENDERINGS OF THE HOUSE.
FIRST, THE FRONT PROFILE OF THIS STRUCTURE.
THE TWO STRUCTURES ARE VERY SIMILAR, BUT WE WANTED TO PRESENT THE IMAGES FOR THEM SEPARATELY.
FRONT HERE, AND THEN NEXT, THE REAR ELEVATION PROFILE.
HERE, I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE ONE OF THE CONDITIONS IN THE GLS COMMON LETTER STATED THAT NO ENCLOSURES WERE PERMITTED WITHIN THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA.
THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THE LEFT HALF OF THE GROUND FLOOR HERE HAS NO LOUVERED WALLS OR ENCLOSURES, BECAUSE THAT'S APPROXIMATELY WHERE THE 25 FOOT OFFSET IS, IS BETWEEN THE SECOND AND THIRD PILINGS.
THAT'S WHERE THEY'VE STOPPED THE ENCLOSURES, AND THE ENCLOSURES ARE PERMITTED BETWEEN WHERE THEY'RE PROCURED HERE. NEXT, PLEASE.
OPPOSITE SIDE STAIRWELL GOING DOWN. NEXT, PLEASE.
THIS IS THE TOP VIEW THAT SHOWS APPROXIMATELY THE 25 FOOT OFFSET BISECTING THAT SECOND AND THIRD ROW OF PILINGS.
THE ENCLOSURES ARE THE DARKER LINES FURTHER TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE FROM THAT INCLUDING THE STAIRWELL, AND AN ENCLOSURE IN THAT AREA WHERE IT IS PERMITTED.
NEXT, PLEASE. THAT IS HIGHLIGHTED HERE FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY OF THE RED LINE IS WHERE THE 25 FOOT OFFSET FROM THE NORTH TOE THE DUNE IS.
UNDERNEATH THE HOUSE. THIS IS THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE ITSELF.
PLEASE NOTE THAT AS THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED, THE SURFACE OF THE GROUND FLOOR UNDER THE HOUSE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FOYER, THE DARKER ENCLOSED AREA, AND THE ELEVATOR, AND STORAGE WILL ALL BE UNIMPROVED EXCEPT FOR THAT AREA THERE.
NEXT, PLEASE. WE HAVE ONE OF THE FLOORS OF THE HOUSE AS THEY'RE IDENTICAL GOING UP.
I JUST INCLUDED ONE, BUT THE DECK ON THE FRONT AND THE BACK.
THEN, WE HAVE THE SECOND HOUSE.
THIS IS FOR LOT 6, THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
A SMALL DECK ON THE FRONT. NEXT, PLEASE.
SAME VIEW OF THE FRONT, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO SCROLL THROUGH TO THE REAR.
[01:30:01]
NEXT. SIDES, SAME WHERE THERE'S NO ENCLOSURES BENEATH, DECKS ON THE BACK. CONTINUE PLEASE.THE SAME OFFSET, 25 FOOT WITH NO ENCLOSURES WITHIN THAT AREA AND SOME OF THE PILINGS THAT HAVE TO BE WITHIN THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA IN ORDER TO HAVE THE HOUSE OF THIS SIZE.
AGAIN, ONE MORE OF THE HOUSE FOOTPRINTS ON THE NEXT SLIDE HERE.
WE HAVE NUMBER OF THESE AND THIS SHOWS APPROXIMATELY WHAT THE DUNE LOOKS LIKE AT THIS TIME.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF THEM, SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO SCROLL THROUGH, BUT THIS IS THE 10 FOOT TALL, 50 FEET WIDE.
YOU CAN SEE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES FROM THE LOT, LOOKING TOWARDS THE DUNES, WITH THE HOUSES IN THE DISTANCE.
ONE THAT I'LL STOP AT RIGHT HERE SHOWS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE PROPERTIES AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES THAT DON'T HAVE ANY PROTECTION.
SO THE DIFFERENCE IN A PROTECTED LAW AND ONE THAT DOESN'T.
ONE THING THAT I INVITE THE COMMISSIONERS TO CONSIDER IS WHILE THIS IS A SIGNIFICANTLY ERODING AREA AND LOTS THAT ARE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE BEACH.
THE WORK THAT THE APPLICANT HAS DONE OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS IS FOLLOWING VERY CLOSELY THE RECOMMENDATIONS WITHIN THE CITY'S CODE TO THE HOW-TO GUIDE OF HOW TO BUILD IF YOU'RE LOT IS AN AREA WHERE YOU OTHERWISE CAN'T BUILD WHAT TO DO IF YOU DON'T HAVE DUNES AND IF YOU CAN'T BUILD IN THAT AREA.
WHILE THE QUESTION OF THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE, SPECIFICALLY THE SIZE IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF BEACH FRONT CONSIDERATION.
THE QUESTIONS OF IF THIS DUNE IS PROTECTIVE ENOUGH FOR CONSTRUCTION IN THIS AREA IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION IN REGARDS TO THE FACT THAT THIS IS BOTH MUCH LARGER THAN THE MAJORITY OF THE DUNES FOUND ON THE ISLAND AND THAT IT IS THE TOP TIER OF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CITY SAYING THIS IS WHAT WILL PROTECT YOUR HOUSE AND THIS IS WHAT NOT WHAT WE WILL PROTECT, BUT THIS IS WHAT WILL QUALIFY YOU FOR CONSTRUCTION.
THIS SPECIFIC CASE HAS BEEN A MODEL FOR OTHERS THAT HAVE BEEN IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS AND ARE IN THE PROCESS OF CONDUCTING SIMILAR PROJECTS.
I INVITE THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO CONSIDER IF THIS IS NOT SUFFICIENT, POTENTIALLY PROVIDING INPUT AS TO WHAT NEXT STEPS SHOULD BE TAKEN. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU MR. COLE I LIKE THE SUMMARY AT THE END THERE.
I APPRECIATE THAT. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. YES.
>> I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
ON ONE OF THE SURVEYS, IT SHOWS THE NORTH TOE OF THE DUNE AS OF APRIL 18, 2022, AND THEN IT HAS RIGHT BELOW AT NORTH TOE OF THE DUNE APRIL 18, 2020.
SO THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT LINES.
IS THAT AFTER THE WORK WAS DONE BY THE APPLICANT?
IT DOESN'T HAVE A NUMBER ON IT.
>> I'M THINKING MORE THAN LIKELY THAT'S A TYPO THAT IT COULD BE THE SOUTH TOE, THE DUNE THAT'S MISLABELED.
>> THAT'S WHAT I SAW. RUSSELL, YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT?
>> HAVING TO NORTH TOE OF DUNE ON THERE IS LIKELY A TYPO.
I THINK THAT YES, THAT ONE SPECIFICALLY THAT WAS REFERRING TO SOUTH TOE OF THE DUNE.
YES, THE SURVEY THAT WAS DATED ON JUNE 2ND WITH THE EXHIBIT ONLY, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO?
>> SO HAVING TO NORTH TOE BECAUSE IT'S POINTING TO THE TOP AND THE BOTTOM ONE, I BELIEVE THE REAR ONE WAS REFERRING TO THE SOUTH TOE OF THE DUNE.
ON THE SUBJECT OF SURVEYS THE SURVEY THAT WAS I BELIEVE IT'S THE PREVIOUS PAGE AND THE STAFF PACKET WITH A RED DRAWING THAT IS LABELED AS NORTH TOE OF THE DUNE.
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WILL SURVEYORS DO THEIR BEST TO IDENTIFY THE FEATURES OUT IN THE FIELD.
IN THIS INSTANCE, THE SMALL HILLS OF SAND THAT WERE OUT THERE DID NOT QUALIFY AS A DUNE.
[01:35:06]
THAT'S ONE THAT WE HAVE TO CONSULT WITH THE GLO AND CONFIRM OR DENY IF WHAT THE SURVEYORS HAVE IDENTIFIED IS ACCURATE TO OUR TERMINOLOGY.THAT SPECIFICALLY WAS A TYPO, BUT ALSO SOMETIMES IT'S NOT ACTUALLY REFLECTING THE REALITY OF WHAT WE CONSIDER A DUNE.
>> I WAS JUST WONDERING IF IT WAS ANY OF THE WORK BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED THAT THE APPLICANT IT DIDN'T WORK ON THE PROPERTY TO.
>> THAT ONE THE NORTHERN NORTH TOE THE DUNE IN THAT SURVEY WAS WHAT THE APPLICANT HAD DONE AND THEN THE BOTTOM NORTH TOE WAS ACTUALLY THE SOUTH TOE THAN JUST THE TYPE, I BELIEVE.
THE REQUESTS FOR BEACH FRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE AND DUNE PROTECTION PER MINUTE THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THAT WE APPROVE.
THEY'D BEEN GIVEN COPIES OF THE YELLOW LETTER AND UNDERSTAND SPECIFICALLY IN THAT LAST SECTION ANY PART OF THE STRUCTURE THAT COMES TO BE LOCATED SO YOU ARE TO THE LAND OF THE MEAN HIGH TIDE, IT BECOMES UNAUTHORIZED STRUCTURE ON STATE-OWNED LAND EVERY PAIRS ARE PROHIBITED AND THE STATE MAY TAKE ACTION TO REMOVE THE STRUCTURE.
THEY HAVE COPIES OF THIS AND UNDERSTAND THAT, CORRECT?
THAT IS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION.
WE WORK TOWARDS TRANSPARENCY AND COMMUNICATION WITH APPLICANTS THAT CONSTRUCTION IN ERODING AREAS OR MAY NOT BE THE MOST RESILIENT OPTION.
PART OF THAT PROCESS IS THAT WE ENSURE THE APPLICANTS RECEIVE A COPY OF THE GLO LETTER AS PART OF ALL PERMITS.
I SEE THAT ON THE 25-FOOT BUILDING SETBACK, TRYING TO FIND THE PICTURE OF IT, THAT THE STRUCTURE IS LOCATED 25 FEET FROM THE ROAD.
WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT ON WHY THAT 25 FOOT, 24.9 IN THIS ONE HERE? IS THERE A?
>> YES, THERE'S A 25% CASTING MOLDING LINE.
THIS AREA THAT THEY BUILT AS FAR LAND OR DOES THEY COULD WITHIN THEIR BUILDING LINES.
>> WITHIN THEIR BILLING LINES. OKAY THANK YOU.
>> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER HILL.
>> OKEY-DOKEY. THE EROSION RATE PER THE GLO AS YOU SAID, IS 6-7 FEET THE MAP SAYS IT'S CLOSE TO 7 FEET.
WHAT'S THE APPROXIMATE DISTANCE FROM THE NORTH TOE OF THE ENHANCED BERM TO THE FIRST ROW OF PILINGS THAT SUPPORTS THAT DECK?
>> ON LAW AT FIVE, IT IS 5.29 FEET, AND ON LOT 6, IT'S 7.21 FEET.
>> FROM THE NORTH TOE OF THE DUNE.
THE DUNE ITSELF IS ABOUT 50 FEET WIDE.
A MORE RELEVANT NUMBER HERE MAY BE THE DISTANCE FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION, WHICH FOR LOT 5 IS 60 FEET AND LOT 6, WELL, BOTH THE LOTS, IT'S ABOUT 61.5 FEET.
ON LOT 5, THE DEPTH OF THE DECK IS ABOUT EIGHT FEET.
IS IT THEN AGAIN, ABOUT EIGHT FEET BETWEEN THE FIRST AND THE SECOND ROW OF PILINGS? I WAS HAVING A HARD TIME WITH DISTANCES ON THAT ONE.
MAYBE I WAS LOOKING AT CONSTRUCTION DRAWING SITE.
MAYBE AT EIGHT. NO, THAT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ON A3. [OVERLAPPING]
>> SEEMS TO SAY THAT THE DECK PILINGS ARE ABOUT 10 FEET APART.
>> ABOUT 10 FEET APART. THANK YOU.
THEN ON THAT SAME SET OF PLANS, A3 IT'S TELLING ME THAT, HANG ON.
[01:40:03]
AND THAT WOULD BE ON A3 OF THE PLANS FOR THE FIRST HOUSE.>> IT'S TELLING ME THAT THERE ARE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 PILINGS THAT ARE SEAWARD OF THE 25 FOOT OFFSET LINE. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT APPEARS TO BE CORRECT.
>> THEN ALSO THE DECKING ON THE FIRST FLOOR IS ALLOWED ON A3 BECAUSE IT'S LANDWARD OF THE 25 FOOT OFFSET LINE.
THAT'S CORRECT. WE SEE THE DECKING AROUND THE STORAGE AREA AND AROUND THAT ELEVATOR AREAS.
IT'S OKAY BECAUSE IT'S LANDWARD, RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. THE ENCLOSURES AROUND THE FOYER, THE ELEVATOR, THE STORAGE UNDER STAIRS, AND THE LOUVERED WALLS ARE PERMITTED IN THAT AREA.
LANDWARD OF THE 25 FOOT OFFSET.
FIBER CRETE WOULD ALSO BE ALLOWED.
THEY'VE ONLY PROPOSED FIBER CRETE FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN FOR THE DRIVEWAY, THE FIBER CRETE SLAB AND DECKING, AS MENTIONED IN THE ENCLOSURE OF THE FOYER AND THE STORAGE AREA, THOUGH THEY COULD HAVE ALSO HAD IT UNDER THE LANDLORD OF THE 25 FOOT OFFSET.
>> THANK YOU. ON THE 25 FOOT BUILD LINE OFFSET FROM THE STREET LINE, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WAS IT EVER PROPOSED OR DID ANYBODY EVER EXPLORED BY MENTION WHATEVER GETTING ANY KIND OF VARIANTS FROM THE ZBA ABOUT AND TRYING TO MOVE THAT FURTHER LANDWARD?
>> THAT WAS NOT PROPOSED THAT'S I BELIEVE OUTSIDE MY PURVIEW.
THAT GLO WORDING THAT COMMISSIONER LANCE MENTIONED ON PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE GLO LETTER, BOTTOM OF PAGE 3 EXTENDING INTO THE TOP OF PAGE 4, SEEM TO BE NEW/UNUSUAL TO ME IN MY ALMOST SIX YEARS ON THIS COMMISSION.
>> THIS IS SO A WORDING THAT I DON'T BELIEVE I HAVE SEEN RECENTLY IF BEFORE.
THE GLO, IT DOES OFTEN UPDATE THEIR COMMENT LETTERS TO BE AS EFFECTIVE AND RELEVANT AS POSSIBLE.
THIS AS A NOTE ON GLO COMMENT LETTERS, THEY ARE ALWAYS JUST STATING THE RULES THAT ARE ALWAYS IN EFFECT TO TRY TO MAKE THEM AS RELEVANT FOR APPLICANTS THAT DON'T HAVE TIME TO READ THE ENTIRETY OF THE TEXT STRING OF CODE.
BUT IT IS, I THINK, A COMMENTARY ON THE EROSION RATE AND THE LOCATION OF THIS STRUCTURE THAT IT'S SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT HERE.
>> YOU POINTED OUT A PHOTOGRAPH.
MS. GARMON, IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS, PLEASE OF THE ENHANCED BERM, THE ONE WHERE THE YELLOW HOUSES IN IT AND YOU FOCUSED IN ON IT WAS A SIDE VIEW LOOKING AT IT FROM THE NEIGHBORS SIDE.
>> OH I AM SORRY WRONG SCREEN.
>> [LAUGHTER] DID YOU OBSERVE ANYTHING THAT GAVE YOU PAUSE FROM YOUR EDUCATED I RUSTLE THAT A STRONG STORM SURGE COULD COME IN? I GET CONCERNED ANYTIME I SEE A STRUCTURE LIKE THAT THAT IS NOT CONTINUOUS, THAT A STRONG STORM SURGE COULD COME IN BEHIND THAT AND JUST COMPLETELY PULL IT IN.
I'M A WEST-ENDER I SEE THIS HAPPEN ALL THE TIME WITH PEOPLE WHO THINK, I'M JUST GOING TO BUILD SOMETHING UP IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE AND THEN IT'S GONE.
>> CHALLENGE THAT ANY BEACHFRONT HOMEOWNER FACES IS THAT THEY ARE LIMITED IN THEIR PROTECTION BY WHAT A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY LOOKS LIKE.
WATER ALWAYS FINDS THE WEAKEST POINT.
[01:45:03]
MANY REGARDS WITHOUT CONTINUOUS PROTECTION UP AND DOWN THE ISLAND.THIS IS THE SAME WAY THAT WE LOOK AT ANY BREACH IN THE DUNES VIA PATHWAYS OR ROADS.
WATER WILL TRY TO MAKE ITS WAY THROUGH AND THE EVENT OF A STORM SURGE, ADJACENT PROPERTIES HERE AND NOT SO MUCH A BREACH AS THIS IS A LOAN SECTION OF WALL.
DIRECT HITS FROM A STORM WAVES WILL BE WELL BUFFERED.
BUT WITH WHERE WALL ENDS, WATER CAN GET AROUND IT.
THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES WILL BE WELL-PROTECTED INITIALLY BUT WATER MAY CIRCUMNAVIGATE IT COMING THROUGH.
WOULD YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS ANGLE AND BOTTOM-LEFT SPECIFICALLY, STRONGEST STORM SURGE MAY CUT UP THROUGH THERE.
NOW WITH THE SIZE AND STRENGTH OF THE DUNES THAT ARE BUILT HERE, I THINK IT WILL TAKE SOME TIME BEFORE THE DUNE SOME SELVES ARE WORN TOWN, BUT THERE'S LESS PROTECTION FOR ANY STRUCTURES BUILT IMMEDIATELY LANDWARD OF THEM BECAUSE OF THAT BREAK.
NOW OF COURSE, ANY STRUCTURES BUILT LANDWARD OF THIS ARE GOING TO BE MUCH MORE WELL PROTECTED THAN THE UNFORTUNATE YELLOW HOUSE HERE.
THAT HAS NO PROTECTION AT ALL.
BUT THAT IS ALWAYS A WEAKNESS.
>> THANK YOU. [NOISE] FINALLY, DID YOU EXPLORE WITH THE HOMEOWNER OR BUILDER APPLICANT, I SHOULD SAY, REMOVING THE SEAWARD EIGHT-FOOT DECK AS IT IS NOT A HABITABLE STRUCTURE AND IT'S PURELY FOR LEISURE AND ENJOYMENT?
>> WE DID NOT EXPLORE THAT OPTION.
>> JEFFREY JUST REAL QUICK TO ASK, WERE YOU ASKING ABOUT THE FRONT SETBACK?
>> I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY A SUBDIVISION REGULATION NOT A CITY. [INAUDIBLE]
>> THE CITY SETBACK FOR THAT PROPERTY WOULD BE 20 FEET.
IT IS A BUILDING LINE SET TYPICALLY BY THE DEVELOPER THAT IN THIS CASE IS 25 FEET.
>> THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO IN FRONT OF THEIR HOA AND AMEND THE PLAN.
>> IT'S NOT A ZBA SITUATION. THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> WHAT WOULD HAVE KEPT HIM FROM JUST MOVING HIS DUNE 20 FEET CLOSER TO THE BEACH?
>> THERE ARE DETAILED REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LOCATIONS THAT DUNES OR OTHER STRUCTURES CAN BE BUILT WITHIN THE GILO AND I BELIEVE ALSO THE CITY'S REGULATIONS.
DUNES AND SAND FENCES CAN ONLY BE CONSTRUCTED UP TO 20 FEET SEAWARD OF THE LINE OF VEGETATION.
THIS DUNE WAS ACTUALLY BUILT AS FAR AS SEAWARD AS IT COULD BE, WHICH WAS 20 FEET SEAWARD OF THE LINE OF VEGETATION, WHICH BEING 50 FEET WIDE, WAS THEN 30 FEET LANDWARD.
THEY DID TRY TO BUILD IT AS FAR LAND AS THEY COULD.
BUT THE REASON FOR THAT REGULATION IS FIRST, WITHOUT GOING TOO FAR OFF TRACK, THAT THE LINE OF VEGETATION IT'S USUALLY AS FAR AS SEAWARD AS PLANTS CAN GROW BECAUSE OF HIGH WAVES.
IF YOU TRY TO PUT SOMETHING TOO FAR A SEAWARD, IT'S NATURE SAYING THIS IS WHERE WAVES ARE GOING TO COME DESTROY THINGS.
ANY FARTHER SEAWARD IS A WASTE OF TIME.
THEN ALSO IF YOU ENCROACH TOO FAR SEAWARD, YOU RISK ENCROACHING ON THE PUBLIC BEACH AND BLOCKING PUBLIC ACCESS.
>> FROM THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WE GOT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU.
IS THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE ALLOWABLE IN THIS AREA? BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS WE GOT WERE REGARDING THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURES.
>> AS I READ THOSE COMMENTS, I THINK THEY HAD TO DEAL WITH THE HEIGHT IN RELATION TO RISK TO FLOODING TYPE ISSUES.
NO, THERE'S NO RISK TO ANYBODY BECAUSE OF
[01:50:03]
THE HEIGHT OF THIS THAT WOULD CREATE A FLOODING ISSUE FOR ANYBODY ELSE.THE ONLY THING THAT REALLY APPLIES IS THE CITY'S REGULATIONS, WHICH THEY ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH AND THE HOA REGULATIONS.
BUT AS TO FLOODING CONCERNS, THERE'S REALLY NOT A FLOODING CONCERN BECAUSE OF THAT.
>> I DIDN'T ASK MY QUESTION RIGHT.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE THREE HABITABLE LEVELS ABOVE THE GROUND LEVEL.
SO THEY CAN HAVE THREE HABITABLE LEVELS ABOVE THE GROUND LEVEL? THAT'S ALL.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. IN ANY CASE, THERE'S STILL BUILDING TO 18" ABOVE THE BFE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION.
>> ANY POTENTIAL HEIGHT CONCERNS ABOVE THAT, IF THEY WEREN'T IN COMPLIANCE WOULD BE DEALT WITH WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT STAGE.
>> I THINK I DON'T KNOW IF I READ THIS SOMEWHERE OR IN REGARDS TO THINKING THAT CREATING BEACH WOULD HAVE SOME EFFECT ON BEACH ACCESS.
I SAW SOMETHING SOMEWHERE, I DON'T KNOW WHERE I READ IT AT. THIS PACKET WAS PRETTY.
>> MAY HAVE BEEN THE GLO'S COMMENT.
THAT AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 3 AND THE TOP OF PAGE 4, TYPICALLY, YOU MAY BE THINKING OF IF THE STRUCTURE BECOMES LOCATED SEABOARD OF THE LINE OF VEGETATION BECAUSE OF LOSS OF ELEVATION, IT MAY BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN PLACE IF IT DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY INTERFERE WITH THE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THAT BEACH OR PRESENT IN PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY RISK.
IF A STRUCTURE ENDS UP ON A BEACH DUE TO EROSION, IT'S ESSENTIALLY ALLOWED TO STAY THERE PER THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.
THE STATE'S RULES, UNLESS IT BECOMES A SAFETY ISSUE OR UNLESS IT BLOCKS THE PUBLIC'S ACCESS TO THE BEACH.
IF SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE DUE TO EROSION, THE HOUSE ITSELF STARTS FALLING APART ONTO THE BEACH AND BECOMES A SAFETY ISSUE OR IF THERE WERE WALLS OR SOMETHING.
IF THERE WERE ENCLOSURES THAT WERE BLOCKING THE PUBLIC'S ACCESS TO CROSS FREELY ON THE BEACH, THEN THE STATE MAY TAKE ACTION TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES.
>> I GUESS IN THAT SAME LETTER, THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT BALES OF HAY, KEEPING THEM COVERED.
HOW DO WE MONITOR THAT? THAT SEEMS TO BE VERY ONEROUS ON THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO DO.
HOW DOES THE CITY CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN OR TO MONITOR? MAKING SURE THE HAY IS COVERED BY SAND, NOW THE HAY BECOMES LOOSE AND STARTS [INAUDIBLE] GROWING EVERYWHERE, HOW DOES THAT GET MANAGED?
>> THOSE ARE ALL REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE PUT ONTO THE APPLICANT.
THIS IS IN HERE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF FINISHING UP THE DUNE PERMIT, THE ORIGINAL BEACH FRONT PERMIT THAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER.
THIS IS SOMETHING WE USUALLY DEAL WITH ON A STAFF LEVEL BY IN TERMS OF THIS ONE, IT MAY HAVE BEEN WITHIN THE ACTUAL STAFF COMMENTS, BUT ESSENTIALLY IT WILL SAY SOMETHING LIKE THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO KEEP THE DUNE COVERED AT ALL TIME.
IT'S AN ACTION THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO DO.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION CONDITION NUMBER 9 AND THE HAY BALE SHALL REMAIN COVERED WITH SAND AT ALL TIMES SHOULD PORTIONS OF THE HAY BALES BECOME EXPOSED, ADDITIONAL BEACH QUALITY SAND SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE SITE AND THE BALE SHALL BE RECOVERED, AT WHICH TIME THE CITY AND GILO SHALL BE NOTIFIED THAT PLACEMENT OCCURRED.
WE REQUIRE THEM TO KEEP UP WITH THAT.
THEN AS THE COASTAL RESOURCES DIVISION AND OUR PARTNERS AT THE PARK PORT, IF THEY EVER SEE ISSUES COME UP WITH THAT.
WE WILL NOTIFY THE HOMEOWNERS, "HEY, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE HAS BEEN AN ISSUE WITH YOU NEED TO RECOVER THIS OR YOUR HAY BALE IS ROLLING DOWN THE BEACH." NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT WE CAN WORK WITH THEM TO ENSURE THEY ARE KEEPING UP WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEIR PERMIT.
IF NOT, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE MAINTAINING THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES.
>> MR. COLE, I HAD SOMEBODY I THINK I'M GOING TO RESERVE THEM FOR BECAUSE I THINK WE CAN COVER THEM WITH THE APPLICANT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
[01:55:01]
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US.
CAN YOU RESTATE YOUR NAME UP? I THANK YOU SAID YOUR NAME WAS STAN, THE APPLICANT.
>> HI, STAN. THIS CHAIRMAN, FRANKLY.
I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND PATIENCE BUT I THINK WE'VE FINALLY GOT AROUND TO YOU.
I APPRECIATE YOU BEING PRESENT AND I THINK WE'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
IF IT'S OKAY, I'LL GO AHEAD AND START.
ONE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED WAS FROM THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER OF THE PROPERTY.
HE STATES THAT THERE IS AN HOA AND AN ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINE COMMITTEE PRESENT.
WAS THIS PROPERTY REQUIRED AT THIS STAGE TO GO THROUGH AN HOA APPROVAL PROCESS?
>> NOT THAT YOU ARE MADE AWARE OF.
ON THE PUBLIC RECORD, THE DEVELOPER VOICES HIS OBJECTION TO THE PLANS, BUT NOT IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE OF THE HOA JUST AS AN INDIVIDUAL.
THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD REGARDING THE PLANS ON THE TITLE BLOCK, YOU STATED THAT IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE YOU HAVE A SLAB DESIGNATED FOR THE PROPERTY AND IT'S 2,700 SQ FT ON ONE PLAN, 2,800 SQ FT ON ANOTHER.
I THINK THAT IS PROBABLY NOT AN APPROPRIATE LABEL BECAUSE WE'RE NOT CONSTRUCTING A SLAB.
I THINK THAT'S MEANT TO JUST CONVEY SQUARE FOOTAGE UNDERNEATH THE PILINGS.
I WANTED TO JUST MAKE EVERYBODY CLEAR ON THAT THAT IT'S NOT THAT.
THE ONE THING I DID WANT TO ASK IS WHAT IS THE CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OF THE GARAGE DOOR? I'VE GOT A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION TO THAT.
>> JUST BE A STANDARD ALUMINUM BASE GARAGE DOOR.
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I AM PUTTING IN DETAIL TO THAT.
>> ON ONE SIDE OF THAT GARAGE DOOR, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A FIBER CONCRETE, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT GARAGE DOOR, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE NATIVE VEGETATION. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> INTERESTING CONDITION THAT I HOPE IS MAINTAINED AND DOESN'T RUST AWAY QUICKLY. THAT WAS THE OTHER THING.
ONE OF THE OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED WAS ABOUT ACCESS.
I ASKED THE QUESTION TO MR. COLE EARLIER IF DUNE WALK OVERS WHERE REQUIRED.
HE RESPONDED SAYING THE DUNE WALK OVERS, WERE NOT REQUIRED.
DO YOU HAVE ANY INTENT IN THE FUTURE TO APPLY FOR A DUNE WALK OVER OR ARE YOU JUST GOING TO SEEK ACCESS THROUGH OTHER LEGAL MEANS TO THE BEACH?
I HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO THE OWNER ABOUT THAT SPECIFICALLY, SO I DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION TO GIVE YOU REGARDING THAT.
THAT'S WHAT I'VE GOT AT THIS MOMENT.
WE'LL OFFER UP OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
>> THE QUESTION WAS, DOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE A WALK OVER? I THINK MR. COLE REPLIED. NO, THEY DO NOT.
>> HOW DO HOMEOWNERS IN THAT AREA ACCESS THE BEACH?
>> THE RESIDENTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MAY BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT FROM THE BGN FIRM MAP THAT I'M LOOKING AT, THERE IS A CITY ACCESS EASEMENT ON THE WESTERN MOST END OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.. THEN THERE'S ALSO WHAT APPEARS TO BE A POTENTIAL CONNECTION TO THE BEACH ACCESS POINT IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST AS WELL.
>. IF I CAN INTERJECT, EACH LINE DOES HAVE A FIVE FOOT.
HE'S MUCH GIVING A 10 FOOT TOTAL, FIVE ON EACH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINES, WHICH THEY DESIGNATE ON THE SURVEY TO DO AN ACCESS EASEMENT.
BUT AGAIN, NO MENTIONED FROM MR. SHAW REGARDING ANYTHING FORMAL REGARDING WITH REGARD TO THAT.
>> IN REGARDS TO PARKING, HOW MANY VEHICLES DO YOU PLAN TO PROVIDE ACCESS FOR PARKING?
>> AT THIS TIME, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, ONLY FOUR.
AGAIN, THE DETAILS REGARDING THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED ME. I UNDERSTAND.
MR. CHARLES GOT A PRETTY EXTENDED FAMILIES AND HENCE THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION REGARDING THAT.
>> ANOTHER QUESTION. I NOTICED THAT IT REQUIRES A FAR SYSTEM.
>> WHY ARE THESE TWO HOUSES NEED A POWER SYSTEM?
>> ANYTHING OVER TWO STOREYS THAT GOES OVER 350 TOTAL SQUARE FOOT WHEN YOU INCLUDE LIVING SPACE AND ANY DECK ON THE OUTSIDE,
[02:00:01]
REQUIRES A SPRINKLER SYSTEM.ANYTHING THREE FEET OVER THE PILINGS OR FOUR FOOT TOTAL STOREYS, BUT THREE STOREYS ABOVE THE PILINGS IS A REQUIREMENT.
IF YOU GO LARGER THAN 350 FEET AND THE INTERIOR SPACE, THE LIVING SPACE ISN'T DESIGNATED ANY A BEDROOM, THEN YOU'RE REQUIRED TO DO A SPRINKLER SYSTEM.
I'D LOVE FOR THAT TO BE CHANGED IF IT HASN'T CHANGED.
>> IT'S BEEN CHANGED. BUT IT HASN'T BEEN CHANGED TO WAIT FROM THIS STANDARD.
>> ACTUALLY, THAT CODE WAS VERY RECENTLY REVISED, BUT THAT STANDARD STILL EXISTS IN IT.
>> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? HEARING NONE WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT 5:40 PM.
ALL THOSE THAT WISH TO SPEAK ARE WELCOMED.
AGAIN, YOU CAN COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME, SIGN-IN, AND THERE IS A THREE-MINUTE LIMIT.
ANYBODY WISH TO COME FORWARD? THANK YOU.
>> HI. MY NAME IS ESTHER FORBUS.
I LIVE AT 12218 HERSHEY BEACH DRIVE.
WE'VE OWNED THIS HOME FOR 10 YEARS AND IN AUGUST OF 2022, WE MOVED HERE PERMANENTLY.
HERSHEY BEACHES AND NEIGHBORHOOD WITH 15 LOTS AND AS OF TODAY, THERE ARE THREE LOTS LEFT TO BUILD ON.
THE OWNERS OF THESE LOTS HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BUILD ON THEM, BUT THEY NEED TO BUILD A HOUSE THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND RESPECTFUL OF THEIR NEIGHBORS.
THE PROPOSED HOUSES FOR LOTS 5 AND 6 QUITE SIMPLY ARE NOT.
THE EXISTING HOUSES ON HERSHEY BEACH ARE 45 FEET TALL.
THE PROPOSED HOUSES WILL BE 64 FEET, 20 FEET TALLER THAN ANY OTHER HOUSE ON THE STREET.
THIS IS A FRONT ROW HOUSE AND THERE'S NO NEED TO MAKE IT SO TALL.
THE HOA IS IN THE SURROUNDING SUBDIVISIONS HAVE A BUILD LIMIT OF 45 FEET, AND THAT IS A GOOD GUIDELINE WE SHOULD FOLLOW.
THE AVERAGE SQUARE FOOT OF THE EXISTING HOMES IS 3,042 SQUARE FEET.
THIS INCLUDES A VERY LARGE HOUSE AT THE END OF THE STREET THAT HAS A MUCH BIGGER LOT.
WHEN YOU REMOVE THAT HOUSE, THE AVERAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE DROPS TO 2,451.
BUILDING A 5,600 SQUARE FOOT HOMES IS LITERALLY TWICE AS BIG AS 10 OF THE 11 HOMES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IS NOT REASONABLE ON OUR STREET AND IT WILL RUIN THE OVERALL FEEL AND LOOK OF HERSHEY BEACH.
NEARLY HALF THE HOME, SIX OF THE 11 OF THE STREET ARE SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
ADDING TWO MORE HUGE RENTALS WILL OVERWHELM OUR ONE NARROW STREET.
WE ALREADY HAVE ISSUES WITH GUESTS AT THE CURRENT RENTALS PARKING ON THE STREET, BLOCKING ACCESS TO ANYONE ELSE TRYING TO GET DOWN THE STREET, INCLUDING EMERGENCY VEHICLES.
THE DRIVEWAYS OF THESE HOUSES ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO HOLD CARS OF THE PEOPLE THAT STAYING THERE.
AN AVERAGE PARKING SPOT IS 10 FEET WIDE AND 18 FEET LONG.
THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAYS ARE 12.5 FEET WIDE AND 25 FEET LONG UTMOST TWO CARS OF H DRIVEWAY FOR PARKING SPOTS FOR EACH HOUSE.
THAT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO HOLD AT LEAST 16-20 PEOPLE.
THEY WOULD NEED 8-10 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES.
TO FURTHER LIMIT OFF STREET PARKING FOR THESE HOUSES, AS WE'VE MENTIONED, IS THE 25 FOOT OFFSET FROM THE GLO WHICH MEANS THERE'S NO CONCRETE UNDER THE HOUSE, NO PARKING THERE.
WHERE ARE THE GUESTS GOING TO GET TO THE BEACH.
I DON'T SEE ANY BEACH WALK OVER PLANNED OR PATHS TO THE BEACH.
IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE THAT THESE HOMEOWNERS TO ASSUME IT'S OKAY FOR THEIR GUESTS TO TRESPASS ACROSS NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES TO GET TO THE BEACH.
I HAVE TO SAY ONE OTHER THING I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS WHY LOT 5 AND 6 ARE BEING CONSIDERED TOGETHER WHEN THEY HAVE DIFFERENT OWNERS.
WHY LOT 6 IS SIMPLY ADJACENT PROPERTY, BUT MAYBE THAT'S JUST A WORKING THING.
IN CONCLUSION, WE HOPE YOU CAREFULLY CONSIDER ALL THE CONCERNS BROUGHT UP BY THE RESIDENTS OF HERSHEY BEACH.
I HAVE PERSONALLY BEEN IN CONTACT WITH 90% OF THE HOMEOWNERS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE HOA.
NO ONE THINKS BUILDING WHAT IS BASICALLY A SMALL HOTEL IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS A GOOD IDEA.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU NOT TO APPROVE THESE PLANS FOR THESE LOTS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
>> HELLO. MY NAME IS JEFF LAW, I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER 12234 HERSHEY BEACH.
MY FATHER WAS ACTUALLY ALSO THE DEVELOPER OF HERSHEY BEACH AND HE ASKED ME TO COME AND TO BECOME HIS MAP ALSO, BUT WE BOTH WANTED TO EXPRESS OUR DISAPPROVAL OF THE PLANS AS THEIR STAND.
THE MAIN POINTS, DISAPPROVAL THAT WE'D LIKE TO
[02:05:02]
BRING UP HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE AND THE PARKING PROVIDED FOR THE STRUCTURE.MY HOUSE WAS THE LAST ONE BUILT ON THE STREET I'VE BUILT IN 2020.
MY HOUSE IS APPROXIMATELY RIGHT AROUND 45 FEET TALL, INCLUDING PILINGS THAT'S NEW HOUSES WOULD BASICALLY BE AS ADVICED BUILD ANOTHER ONE OF MY HOUSE IS ON TOP OF MY EXISTING HOUSE WITHOUT THE PILINGS.
I WANTED TO ADDRESS ONE COMMENT OF THE BUILDING LINE, WHETHER THEY REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO MUTE FROM 25-20 FEET.
FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THESE PROPERTIES ARE GOING TO BE BUILT FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND RATHER THAN PERSONAL USE.
I KNOW THAT PROPERTY THAT SIZE IS GOING TO BRING IN FIVE OR SIX FAMILIES SOMETIME, MOVE IN THAT PROPERTY EVEN CLOSER TO THE STREET WOULD REDUCE PARKING BY THAT MUCH MORE.
THERE'S ALREADY MAYBE PARKING FOR A COUPLE OF CARS WHICH MEANS THAT ANYTIME THAT A LARGE FAMILY COMES AND RENTS THE HOUSE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE PARKING ON THE STREET ARE STRAIGHT AS AN ARROW.
IT'S ALREADY DIFFICULT FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES TO NAVIGATE TO THE END OF THE STREET AND TURN AROUND AND COME BACK.
I BELIEVE THAT PARKING ON THE STREET, WHICH IS GOING TO HAPPEN CONSTANTLY WITH THIS SHORT-TERM RENTAL CAN BECOME A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE.
ANOTHER ISSUE I WANTED TO BRING UP THE ONE ON THE BOARD MEMBERS BROUGHT UP WAS THE BUILDING OF THE DUNE.
THEY DID BUILD A SIZABLE DUNE, WHICH BASICALLY FROM THE PICTURES THAT WE SAW IS GOING TO FUNNEL WATER UNDERNEATH THE HOUSES THAT ARE NEXT DOOR TO IT.
OTHER PEOPLE ON OUR STREET HAD BUILT DUNES NOT TO THIS SIZE, BUT HAD BUILT DUNES AND WE'VE SEEN THOSE DUNES WIPED OUT OVERNIGHT WHEN A STORM COMES THROUGH.
I WOULD QUESTION THE WISDOM OF ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT ON A HOUSE THAT'S IN THE ACTIVE DUNE AREA IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THEY WERE LOSING SEVEN OR EIGHT FEET IS WHAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER.
I'M ASKING YOU GUYS TO DISAPPROVE THE PERMANENT BASED ON THE ISSUES THAT I BROUGHT UP.
ONE OTHER ISSUE YOU MENTIONED BEFORE WAS THAT MY DAD HAD ISSUED A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THIS AS A JUST PERSONALLY, I BELIEVE HIS RESPONSE WAS ON HOA LETTER HEAD AND INDICATED THAT HE WAS A DIRECTOR.
I THINK HE WAS SPEAKING ON HIS BEHALF AS A ORIGINAL FORMER OF THE HOA.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT.
ANY OTHER PEOPLE PRESENT WAS TO SPEAK? I'M SORRY, DID YOU SIGN IN? THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE YOU'RE CATCHING THEM. ANYBODY ELSE? RIGHT WITH THAT, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT AT 5:47 PM AND COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION.
CAN I GET A MOTION IN THIS CASE? EVERYBODY IS EAGER TO JUMP IN.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE DENY CASE 22P-084.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND DISCUSSION.
>> IT'S JUST COMPLETELY OUT OF SCOPE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE'S JUST TOO MUCH GOING ON. I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE IT IS.
I MEAN, THE THE PYLON 12 PILINGS INTO THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA, A BEACH THAT'S DECRYPTING AT SUCH A HEAVY RATE.
THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE, THE CONTINUITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ALL OF THOSE.
I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT I READ AND CONSIDERED ALL OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
I READ AND CONSIDERED THE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE VIEWS, THE NEIGHBORHOODS STANDARDS, THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS VERSUS NOT.
I WANT TO SAY THAT I READ THOSE, BUT I'M NOT ALLOWED TO CONSIDER THOSE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE LDR.
AS A COMMISSIONER, I AM SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER WHAT IS PART OF THE LDRS AND THAT'S WHAT I MAKE MY DECISION ON.
WE HAVE A HUGE RESPONSIBILITY AS COMMISSIONERS UP HERE WHEN REVIEWING ANY EXEMPTIONS.
[02:10:04]
THAT'S WHAT I'M BASING MY DECISION ON OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO REVIEW AND EXEMPTION.THIS LOT AND THIS PROPOSED HOME PLAN ARE NOT A MATCH FOR WHAT IS GOING ON IN THIS AREA IN THIS DUNE AREA, GIVEN THE EROSION RATE, IN MY OPINION, I AM NOT FOR GRANTING AN EXEMPTION.
I OPPOSE THIS, SO I WILL BE VOTING FOR DENIAL.
BUT IT IS NOT BASED ON SOLELY YOUR HOMEOWNER CONCERNS.
IT'S BASED ON MY CONCERN FOR THE DUNES, THE DUNES STRUCTURE AND WHAT WE AS COMMISSIONERS ARE BASING OUR DECISIONS ON TO GRANT EXEMPTIONS AND OUR RESPONSIBILITY IN FOLLOWING THE LDR.
IF THE HOMEOWNER OR THE APPLICANT CHOOSES TO REVISE OR RESUBMIT, THAT'S ON THEM, THAT'S THEIR JOB.
IT'S NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO FIX THIS OR COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS FOR THEM.
I SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT AS IT IS MADE AND SECONDED.
>> THE QUESTION AND CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS THAT THE HOMEOWNER OR THE APPLICANT SPENT VALUABLE RESOURCES BUILDING THESE DUNES BEFORE GETTING THE ANSWER FROM US.
I FEEL THAT SHOULD HAVE COME FIRST BEFORE SPENDING THE MONEY ON DOING THIS.
BECAUSE I THINK ONCE WE START LOOKING AT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, TAKING UP THAT MUCH.
THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE ENOUGH HOUSE TO BUILD [LAUGHTER].
YOU THINK ABOUT THE AREA AND WHAT WE REALLY ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO HERE, AND WHAT WE WANT FOR OUR CITY AND WHAT WE WANT FOR OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE DUNES ARE.
WE REALLY HAD TO LOOK REALLY HARD AND JUST THINK IN THE FUTURE BEFORE DOING ANY SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL INVESTMENT IN A DUNES, IT SURELY SHOULD COME BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION FIRST.
>> I THINK WE FIND OURSELVES AT A REAL JUNCTURE HERE RELATED TO PROPERTY OWNERS RIGHTS, DEVELOPMENT, AND THE PROTECTION OF OUR NATURAL RESOURCES.
THIS PROJECT HAS OVER 30 PERCENT OF ITS PILINGS LOCATED WITHIN THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA.
THE PREVIOUS ONE DID TO THIS ONE.
HOWEVER, WE'RE SEEING EROSION AT A RATE OF 7-8 FEET A YEAR.
THEY PROVIDED WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE MODEL OF DUNE RESTORATION.
IN ANTICIPATION OF BEING ABLE TO BUILD ON THEIR PROPERTY, THEY'VE GONE THROUGH THE EFFORTS WITH THE CITY TO MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LDR.
WE'RE NOT HERE TO JUDGE THE SIZE OR HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE THAT'S UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE HOA OF WHICH THE APPLICANT SAID HE WAS NOT AWARE OF AN HOA PROCESS FOR GRANTING APPROVAL.
WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE LDR, THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE, IT CAN BE APPROVED, THE DEFINITION OF PRACTICALITY OR PRACTICE, WHATEVER THAT WORD IS.
>> PRACTICABLE. A 1,900 SQUARE FOOT FLOOR PLATE COULD BE SEEN AS NOT NECESSARILY PRACTICAL.
THEN THREE STORIES OVER 1800S SQUARE FOOT FOR PRICE COULD ALSO BE SEEN AS FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING.
ONE COULD ARGUE IS PRACTICAL FOR SOMEBODY.
BUT YET AGAIN, IT'S NOT OUR ROLE TO JUDGE THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF THE LDR.
I FIND THAT THIS CASE IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE PREVIOUS AND THE FACT GIVEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS THAT ARE AFFECTING THE AREA, IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE FIND OURSELVES WITH A DUNE THAT'S BEEN GONE THROUGH AND THEY'VE SPENT THE EXPENSE TO BUILD IT.
HERE WE ARE WRESTLING WITH THE LAND USE.
WE HAVE A HOMEOWNER THAT IS WANTING TO BUILD SOMETHING WHICH PUBLIC COMMENT LEANS TOWARDS SAYING THAT THEY WANT TO HAVE AN STR, BUT WE HAVE NO INTENT, NOR IS IT OUR PURVIEW AGAIN TO JUDGE THAT, HOWEVER, THAT COMES BEFORE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS THAT MAYBE WE AS A PLANNING COMMISSION OR WE AS A CITY SHOULD ADDRESS RELATED TO SDRS AND THEIR IMPACT ON PARKING IN ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS.
WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ALL THAT UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR MY VOTE,
[02:15:04]
BUT I'LL TELL YOU HOW I'M GOING TO LATER.THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO DISAPPROVE CASE.
CAN YOU TELL ME THE CASE AGAIN?
>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION TO DISAPPROVE CASE 22P-084.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF DISAPPROVAL OF THIS CASE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
ALL THOSE OPPOSING AND ONE OR TWO ABSTENTIONS.
THE MOTION IS TO DISAPPROVE CASE 22P-084.
YES. CATHERINE IS THAT THE END [INAUDIBLE].
>> THERE'S NO FURTHER BUSINESS.
I WILL JUST REMIND THE COMMISSION THAT WE'VE MOVED THE MEETING TIME FOR THE NEXT MEETING, WHICH FALLS ON MARDI GRAS ITSELF.
TRADITIONALLY, WHEN THAT HAPPENS, WE MOVE THE MEETING FROM THE AFTERNOON TO THE MORNING SO THAT WE CAN ALL BE FREE IN THE AFTERNOON TO DO OUR PREPARATIONS.
YEAH. WE'LL START AT NINE O'CLOCK
>> IT IS ALSO EVIDENT THAT AT LEAST SOMEBODY HAS ALREADY STARTED [LAUGHTER] WITH HIS ATTIRE.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.
ALSO, JUST ONE LAST COMMENT IS THAT I RELEASED.
I FELT I WOULD ASK THAT WE PUT TOGETHER A WORKSHOP ON THE DISCUSSION RELATED TO WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER ABOUT CONSTRUCTION IN THE DUNE PROTECTION AREA.
>> I HAVE MADE A NOTE FOR A BEACH FRONT CONSTRUCTION WORKSHOP IN APRIL.
ON MARCH 7TH, WE'RE DOING A WORKSHOP JUST ON THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS SPECIFIC TO THAT, JUST SEND ME AN EMAIL AND MAKE SURE IT GETS ADDRESSED AT THAT MEETING.
>> GREAT. ANY OTHER BUSINESS? COMMISSIONERS? WITH THAT, WE STAND ADJOURNED 5:56. THANK YOU.
>> A LOT OF HARD WORK. I APPRECIATE IT. I'M SORRY.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.