Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. [music] Madam Chair, Salis Argarza here. Uh, Commissioner Miller >> here. >> Commissioner Munoz >> here. >> Commissioner Hedrickk >> here. >> Commissioner Bud >> here. >> Commissioner Cantou >> here. >> And Commissioner Telman is absent. We have a quorum to pre We have a quorum present to conduct the meeting. >> Thank you, ma'am. And could you read us the rules for public comment, please? Yes, >> ma'am. Citizens will be allowed to attend and make public comments in person at the city planning commission meetings. The public is invited to speak on any agenda item and any other items that pertain to the planning commission. Comments are limited to three minutes if you choose to speak during this period. You will not be allowed to speak again when the specified item is being considered in order of the agenda. Thank you. And at this time, I'll go ahead and open up the public comment for anyone that would like to come and speak on anything other than tonight's agenda. Please come forward. If not, then I'll go ahead and close the public comment and move on to the approval of absences for Commissioner Munoz. >> Make a motion that we approve the absence for Commissioner Munoz. >> A second. >> I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? >> I. >> All those opposed? Motion passes. Moving on to the approval of minutes for November 12, 2025. I'll move that we approve the minutes from the previous meeting. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I >> I. >> All those opposed? Motion passes. So on tonight's agenda, we are going to get we're going to go ahead and start um we're going to do first item C, the public hearing discussion and possible action for item number 10 and 11. So we will start that first and then we'll go and start the consent public hearing and discussion for possible actions for A and B. >> Mr. Deus. >> Yes. We're going to begin with item number 10 which is an amendment to the roadway master plan for mobility CC which is an element of the comprehensive plan regarding Amanda Lane. Uh that is directly related to item number 11 which is a master preliminary plat. So uh we'll pull up that presentation. I believe we have some folks from traffic engineering in the audience that'll uh kind of run through that PowerPoint pretty quickly. >> It's not on. There it is. Can you hear me? Excellent. Good evening. Uh good evening, chair and planning commission. My name is Horge Chavez. I'm a traffic engineer with public works department. Today I will be present an item to amend the city's transportation master plan. The amendment requestes to reduce a proposed A2 arterial to a C1 collector within the Riverstone trails development. Do I use this for the park? [clears throat] Thank you. To provide some background, the Riverstone Trails development is located west of FM1 1889 and south of FM1694. We'll get an image right there in a few minutes. Based on the information submitted by the developer's engineer, we understand the following. The development will be developed over three phases. At completion, the development will contain over or approximately 226 units. This information was used to determine peak daily AM and PM trips generated by the development. This traffic data is the justification for the amendment request which I will discuss in the next slide. A little bit more background. This uh this slide provides background on the proposed request and the city requirements um that are found in the infrastructure design manual. public works received a request to amend the proposed extension of Amanda Lane. Amanda is identified as currently is identified as a A2 secondary arterial on the roadway master plan. This would require the developer to dedicate 100 ft of rideway and construct a roadway with a four travel lanes. This type of roadway can accommodate an average of 20,000 to 32,000 vehicles per day. That's an A2 arterial. The developer is requesting to reduce the classification to a C1 collector, which requires a 60-oot rideway dedication and con and construction of a roadway with true travel lanes, two travel lanes. My apologies. [clears throat] Additionally, this would be consistent with the existing section of a mandelane to the right of the of the proposed development. And I'll show you the image right now in a few minutes. The proposed traffic generated would not exceed the average daily trips for a C1 collector. That's additional information. And here we are. This slide demonstrates the following. Um the proposed river riverstone trail development is is highlighted in blue. The three proposed master plan streets impacting this development are as follows. The A2 arterial shown on the as a red dash line in the east west direction on the south portion of the development. At the bottom we have a C1 collector shown as a green dash line in the east west direction right in the center. Does this have a laser? Okay. right in the center close to Lake Athens and also a C1 collector shown as a green um dash line in the north south direction on the west side of the development. It's um going up down it reaches the north road. The developer is constructing all three master plan streets but is requesting a modification to only the A2 arterial which is highlighted in yellow as you can see there. That's the our focus for this amendment. [clears throat] Next slide. This slide illustrates the existing A2R2 request requested for amendment. So as per our current adopted MA roadway master plan, this is what's what needs to be um dedicated. De the developer is required to construct an A2 arterial shown in bold red per the current plan. And again, uh, A2 arterial, that's a 100 foot rideaway with approximately four lanes of travel. This is what they're proposing. This slide illustrates the request amendment to the master plan. The developer is requesting to reduce the roadway classification from an A2 arterial to a C1 collector shown in bold green. And by the way, we're only focusing the section within the development. that bold green part right there. This uh the master plan identifies each street with a parcel as a within a parcel as a project. We are only focusing on the project within the Riverstone Trails development which is pro which is a C1 collector and the roadway master plan class um specifies this project and um as project 1- AI. [snorts] However, for the purpose and discussion of and transparency, we have shown in a tenative alignment black that the the the black dash line to the left of the development that would maintain the east west connectivity between Riverstone Trails development shown in blue and country road and country um county road or country road 73 right Morvc road. Moving on. In summary, the proposed number of units and traffic generated falls within the threshold of a C1 collector. The proposed modification will also maintain the two-lane configuration that currently exists along a mandelane. Staff supports the request and re recommends planning commission the amendment to reduce the classification of the roadway from an A2 arterial to a C1 collector within the proposed limits of the development. Thank you. and I stand by for any questions. >> Thank you. And uh for the record, uh Commissioner Hendrickk is abstaining from this vote. So I just wanted to clarify this. Commissioners, do we have U Andrew, you were going to go over item 11? >> Yes. Uh item 11, if if you'd like to hear them both at the same time. Item 11 is the master preliminary plat for Riverstone Trail, which is roughly 69 acres in size, located on Northwest Boulevard. As Jorge mentioned in his presentation, staff has reviewed it along with the technical review committee and determined that it meets all requirements of the UDC as well as state law and we recommend approval. Of course, there any questions, be happy to address them. >> Thank you. Commissioners, do we have any questions for staff? >> Yes. [clears throat] on could you is there any way we could pull up the uh proposed amendment again the map? >> Sure. There we are. Yeah, the amend amendment slide. There we go. Right there. Okay. I have no issue with uh A2 versus C1. The [clears throat] thing that that I I kind of I'm I'm a little bit concerned about is um we're creating a very similar issue like we've seen on Fred with Fred's Folly where you have a jog, you know, and if we make this amendment and we've got this jog on this property to the south, who owns that property to the south? Uh, we didn't look up that information of the actual property owner since it's >> as a line on the map. It someday when that comes in to be platted, who knows when is when we would address it that time because ownership can change between now and then. >> Yeah. I just, you know, it just reminds me kind of like Fred Folly, Fred's Folly where you had this kind of jog and and so it ends up on the on the um UTP plan, but [clears throat] you know, then it then whenever that property gets developed, then it's like what do you do with that little trapezoid, you know? >> Right. this this approach was kind of the middle ground to respect the design that it's being proposed and still uh facilitate that the roadway master plan will uh ultimately connect to county road 73. Of course, what the UDC does allow is we can still adjust. So, this is never a set in stone design. If at some point in the future it needs to be a hard 90 degree turn or have a little bit more curve depending on what that future design on the adjacent property, we of course can work with the property owner without having to come forward with a formal amendment. >> Yeah. I just um as we as we continue and and and I'm okay with this, but as we continue to um annex and develop more in these areas, especially where you've got these, you know, subdivisions like along Amanda Lane that are, you know, not um built to city standards and um and all the complications that go along with that that we just kind of look at it a little more closely and and try amend the U UTP in a responsible way to where we don't end up with a bunch of these, you know, kind of weird situations that they're they're no problem right now, but you know, 20 years from now whenever or whenever Fred's Folly, whenever the neighborhoods on the other side of the ditch were developed and then that there's no alignment and then you just end up with these issues down the road on, well, does that job go on my property or does it go on your property and how do we address this and make it equitable and everything else. It just seems like um by making these amendments, [sighs] we're creating a little bit of an issue for property owners. You know, whenever that farmer decides to sell his land, you know, there's going to be an issue there down the road. >> Yes, sir. >> So, that's all I had. >> Understood. >> Okay. Any other questions for staff or for the developer? Um if not, then I'll go ahead and open up the public uh consent public hearing for um items 10 and 11. If [clears throat] anybody would like to come and speak on behalf of items 10 and 11, please come forward. State your name and your city for the record sir. >> Moses Magosi, District 5. So only reason I come up here is cuz I was also the chairman of the impact fee committee that looked at these master plans and completely agree with you Mr. Miller. So these UTP amendments are interesting to say the best. If you bring back the map you'll notice that it's always never had the the alignment. So Manda Lane itself never followed the initial UTP. If you look at Lake Athens, that never actually followed the UTP. So eventually, whoever starts the property or starts the the the road and where where it's at, you've got to try to follow that connection. So why they showed an alternate route that maybe ties into the big red line, ultimately that can still go straight and then tie into County Road 70 at some point. So it doesn't need to necessarily have that veer but usually the UTP right now is trying to put it in between two property owners so both people share the cost the expense and really the easement that comes with that type of road. But in this situation, just even going from an A2, that's probably something our committee missed because you have a county road section that's a 20ft county road section. That's always going to be a county road section. An A2 is a 100 foot ride ofway, two lanes with a med, four lanes with a median. And really what they did was still say, "Let's still do a C1 collector in hopes that the neighboring property eventually annexes, but they still have the right not to and still tie in with the county road section, even though they'll might have to follow an alignment, they don't have to follow exactly the road width or the the um the um what is it? The street design. So that that's all I wanted to clarify, but thank you. >> Thank you. Any others would like to come and speak on items 10 or 11? [clears throat] If not, then I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and um entertain a motion. >> I move that we approve items 10 and 11 as presented. >> I'll second. >> I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? >> I. >> All those opposed? Motion passes. Moving on to consent public hearing and possible uh action for items A and B. and we are going to go through items two through nine with the uh exception of number seven. We're going to pull that item. So at this time I'd like to uh Andrew if you could speak on items two. >> Yes. Back to the regular schedule. All items minus number seven. So we will get through this consent fairly quickly. Beginning with item two under plats preliminary plat at Lakes Northwest unit three. Item number three, a replat of Brooklyn Edition. Item number four, a replat of La Palomera Mall. Item number five, replat of HF Noly Subdivision. Item number six, replat of Don Patricio. Uh, lot 46. Staff has reviewed the following listed plats and determined with a technical review committee that they meet the requirements of the UDC as well as Texas Local Government Code. Staff recommends approval. Under letter B items eight, which is case ZN8987, Clinton Katherryn Tucker under District 4. This is a request from the FR Farm Rule District to the RS15 single family 15 district. Staff recommends approval. Item number nine, zoning case ZN 9032 ZBK LLC, uh, which is currently outside the city limits but is going through the annexation process located in district 5. The request is from the FR farm rural district to the RS22 single family 22 district. Staff also recommends approval. That concludes tonight's consent agenda. If there are any questions on any of the items read in, I'd be happy to address them. >> Thank you, Andrew. Commissioners, do we have any questions for staff? >> Just making sure we consulted with uh Ben Pollock on item number eight. >> Yes. The request uh I know it's a little funny seeing RS15. The reason for that is these are extremely deep and narrow lots. So in order for to meet the UDC requirement of a 50- foot lot with the largest zoning classification we could go to is RS15. The acreage would allow halfacre even larger. They are under the five magic 5acre number to meet FR but they are too narrow to be RS22 or one of the larger uh lot configurations. So we had to go with RS15. We did clear it with Ben Pollock and we explained that the uh rules under the military overlay will prevent further subdivision of nothing greater than one unit per acre. So even if by some chance one day somebody tried to subdivide it, the MCOD will not let them do it. >> Okay. So all I need to know is make sure you talk to Ben and everything was cool. [clears throat] >> Okay. Um any other questions for staff? If not, then I'll go ahead and open up the consent public hearing uh for items two through nine with the exception of seven. If anyone would like to come and speak on these items, please come forward. If not, then I'll go ahead and close the consent public hearing and entertain. Oh, somebody I'm sorry. >> Yes, I'd like to speak. >> Okay. >> Yes, you may. >> It's actually on item eight. >> Okay. >> [clears throat] >> Please state your name and city where uh you live in. >> Uh I live in Corpus Christie. My name is Nicole Russell. I live in the Ram uh in the Ramfield Road area, not on Ramfield Road, but in the Golden Oak subdivision. Um I'm here to speak in strong opposition to this zoning change. Um I saw that uh in the backup plan for the county or I'm sorry for the city uh the city had recommended this zoning change and had claimed that it's comparable with the count the excuse me I'm nervous the character of the surrounding land. That is absolutely not true. All of the surrounding land is either residential estate land or also farmland. This is all areas that are on septic system and septic tanks right now. It also uh the packet claims that it conforms with the present use and zoning. That's not true. Currently uh this is residential rural area. Uh putting high density houses up to three per acre would completely change the character of our neighborhood. Um also that it won't have a negative impact on our neighborhood. We already have very significant drainage issues in our neighborhood. Ramfield Road specifically is a narrow road that uh has farm equipment that regularly travels on it. Uh school buses. It's one of those roads that you have to almost uh come to the side to let another car pass. Having this much incre this uh level of increase in traffic will be detrimental to all of the people who live in this area. Um this is a lower density neighborhood. It's always been a lower density neighborhood. People bought properties in this area because they wanted this kind of character for the neighborhood that they're living in. Um, and I'm not against all growth, but I want responsible growth. This is going from rural farmland and residential estates to high density in a place where the roads are already not adequate. There's already not adequate drainage there. Everybody there is already on septic systems. Um, and this completely changes the area. Additionally, this is in a a zone that's an accident potential zone one for the base. And um, I don't believe that this is a safe area to have more highdensity housing in. Um, this precedent would create a slippery slope. Approving this zoning [clears throat] doesn't just uh affect one track. We're going to have neighbors up and down Ramfield potentially looking at um at changing the zoning which would greatly impact our neighborhood. Um and so for those reasons I ask that you um you oppose this zoning change. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else would like to come and speak on u any one of these items? If not, then I'll go ahead and u close the consent public hearing and um entertain a motion or further questions for staff. >> I have a question on the number eight. Uh how large is that track total for this owner? >> Good question. So, while I'm looking that up, the the purpose of the replat is to split the large and it's literally 4.98 acres in size. So it is a non-conforming to be FR you have to be five acres. So it is a hair under in total. Splitting that in half would roughly give you two and some change on one side and two and some change on the other. There are two existing homes in which will remain. So no additional homes are going to be built. This is to facilitate small additions to those homes. And the rule today says if you have two non-conforming homes, you can't expand them per the UDC if they're non-conforming. This is to give the homeowner a path to make those improvements to their home. I don't think one house is considered high density, but that is the only type of improvement that's going to occur. They will remain on septic as they're above halfacre in size on each, which is compliant with state law. But they they're roughly 2.4 7 acres each. And um for APZ1, for the zone that it's in, what would that allow? >> That would at best on a good day would only allow you one unit per acre. And then you would have to subdivide, which means you have to bring in water. You have to bring in wastewater because you might get into that uh small lot territory. Third, you would have to build a pretty long driveway. Yeah. >> At that can withstand 70,000 pounds of imposed load from a firet truck to go all the way to the back of the lot. So, to add one house, you're tacking on hundreds of thousands of dollars. >> And uh the uh commenter mentioned residential estate zoning. Can you expand on what that is, what size lots that is? >> Residential estate is exactly what the APZ mandates and that's one unit per acre. >> Okay. So what that is zoned already is >> it can never go smaller than one unit an acre because of the military overlay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions for staff? >> All right. Entertain a motion for items two through nine with the exception of seven. Make a motion that we approve items two through nine with the exception of item number seven as presented by staff. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second. [clears throat] All those in favor? >> I. >> All those opposed? >> Motion passes. Moving on to uh zoning item number seven. >> Alrighty. Let's see. >> Can we recess for dinner? Okay, so for tonight's main event, we have item number seven, everyone's favorite. This is zoning case ZN8725, officially Coastal Dunes LLC, located at 67 53 State Highway 361. The request is from the RMAT multif family district to the RMAT multif family with a PUD which stands for plan unit development. So here's a general location map to give you an idea of where the property is located. Again on 361 Mustang Island which is district 4. It is within the Padre Mustang Island area development plan. Up to the north you have a high-rise condo complex, Sanp Piper, and to the south you have a collection of single family condos and single family homes. Of the 157 notices that were sent out, we received zero in favor and 91 opposed, which roughly calculates to uh just under 28%. And as you can see, what we broke down on the map is, uh, where it got interesting in the discussion with the appraisal district is how do you assign values to essentially postage stamp lots. So, uh, we were able to visit with them over the past, uh, month and, uh, essentially assign either a decimal value or roughly 1% of the total land value for each one of those lots. So, that's why you see these ratios and fractions on the screen. That's to say, uh, for instance, Sandpiper received 105 notices. We received 71 in return. So, it gives you an idea of how many folks responded. Now, these are some refresher slides from the past meeting. I know it's been a little while since our last meeting, and that's to go over what the request is. So, the request is for a combination of 99 single family homes, 32 townhouse lots, and that includes six common areas. That is where you'll have uh your amenities like barbecue pits, tennis courts, doing walkovers, all that good stuff happens within those common areas. The request when it comes to a pud, while all of these are allowed in the current zoning district, where you have deviations and that is where I have standards set in the unified development code and I wish to deviate is where the pud really comes into play. So what you see on the right hand side of the screen and what's broken down in your packet is to show where the developer is requesting those specific deviations. So for instance in the townhouse section where normally we would have 2600 ft lots they're requesting to go down to 1700 or where they have a minimum lot width of 26 ft they are requesting 22 feet. Those the only two deviation when it comes to town houses when it comes to single family homes. Those that you see highlighted in orange are the deviations versus the ones that remain in gray which they did not request a deviation from what the UDC currently requires. Now analysis and recommendation. Uh as you're aware the UDC establishes both for plan unit developments and any zoning case a review criteria in which we determine whether or not a zoning case fits. should it even be worthy of being asked? Uh, in that case, the main things that we compare to is the city's comprehensive plan as a whole, the area development plan, which in this case is for Mustang and Padre Island, and any type of other utility maps or if we see past zoning trends that are impactful. We have compared to future land use, area development plan, comprehensive plan, they check each one of those boxes. They are consistent with the adopted plans by the city. Uh that being said, being a plan unit development, we run it through an additional review process through the technical review committee. The difference of a PUD, and I'm sure I'm just preaching the choir, but the difference from the PUD between any other zoning case is that it is the only time in which a zoning case and a plat are married together. Meaning the master site plan that is approved with your PLU PUD must be exactly the same when you file your plat. It cannot deviate. Any deviations essentially forces you to restart the process all over again. So the plot that you will someday see in the future is going to mirror the approved master site plan that is filed with the PUD. So that being said, why I'm saying that is the technical review committee, which reviews every plat, as I read in earlier into the record, went ahead and did a review of the PUD, not only to call out any potential issues, but to let the developer know that you have to solve platting issues, things like storm water quality management plans, which is the questions about drainage. uh consistency with your urban transportation plan, roadway master plan, any roads that have to be uh constructed is mentioned now. That way we're addressing those concerns today rather than waiting until it gets to the plat phase. So, that being said, the questions that we've received numerous phone calls, emails, uh, concerned citizens asking about the roadway, regardless of if this zoning case is passed or fails, that beach access road is required per the urban transportation plan, the roadway master plan that was adopted by council a number of months ago, in fact almost a year ago. Now, even if the developer chose to keep the zoning as it is today and not do a plan unit development, when they come into Plat, they will still be required to build the beach access road. That is despite town houses, high-rise, low-rise, it doesn't matter. That roadway is required. Just wanted to make sure that was clear to the commission in case there's questions about, well, if we deny the PUD, does that mean the road goes away? or if we approve the PUD, does that mean that we get to manipulate the road? That roadway exists unless the developer comes back and asks again because mind you, literally one year ago tonight, Pine Commission voted to keep the beach access road on the map. Unless Pine Commission entertained a future amendment in which the developer can come back and ask, "Hey, I'd like to bring it up again and take this road off the map officially." planning commission would have another opportunity to make that determination of whether or not again to keep that roadway on the map. But I wanted to say that there are two separate issues. They both come into play at zoning and platting. But regardless, whomever develops this property, even if the owner sold and it went to another developer, that roadway is still required per the plan today >> as it is zoned right now. as it is zoned today. If I want to build one single family home, I have to plat the property. And when I plat the property, I have to build the road. >> Okay. [clears throat] >> All right. Great. >> But that being said, uh again, as I mentioned, staff goes through the rubric of within the UDC of how we validate whether or not a zoning case meets the various metrics established by code. It does, we recommend approval of the reszoning. >> Okay. >> And if there are any questions, I'm sure there'll be questions, but happy to address them. >> Yes. Any questions, commissioners? >> I have questions. >> The uh 22 foot lot width. >> Yes, sir. >> Is that for the town homes or any of the other ones? Let's see. Let's bring up the zoomedin version because I know it's it's hard to read that text. So, I want to make [clears throat] sure. Well, I had it up a little bit ago, but uh let's bring up the pud. And we will go down to that specific table. >> Actually, it's better in the site plan. >> Okay. So, you mentioned 22 foot lot. Those are just for the townhouse lots, but that that um if if this put is approved as presented, do does that 22 foot lot width um rule over any other any of the single family home lots? No, they are separately indicated areas. Let me pull up that color. >> Well, I I know it's the way they've got it drawn in this preliminary plat, but would they be allowed to build single family homes on 22 foot wide lots? >> No. Well, technically every townhouse is permitted as a single family home. So, it's it's not a clear-cut yes or no. You wouldn't build a traditional single family home on a townhouse lot because you're going to have shared walls among. So you couldn't have individual separately constructed single family homes. You will have a shared building with multiple units with pie slices essentially. >> Right. But I'm I'm concerned about uh typically we have a uh a driveway depth and you know we've seen some of these puds before where it's been dictated that the uh face of the garage door be recessed below the the structure to be able to accommodate a minimum of 20 ft. Um, and you know, I drive the F350 that's 22 ft long, which is longer than the driveway and longer than and just as as wide as the as the width of the um the lot, right? >> And and that's an excellent question. So, the UDC requires that I provide two parking spaces per unit. So either I have to make the building wider to accommodate parking under the structure which will count the parking under the building and the one driveway space >> or to accommodate I'll have to push the building back a little more >> now >> in order to go up. Now most of these stilted developments they're going to take advantage of the storage underneath and create a garage space. So you will have the ability can't account for every bumper, but I would say the majority are going to be able to fit in that space since you're counting both under the building and the driveway, which still has to be 20 ft regardless. >> But can you still fulfill the require the landscape requirements if you have 100% driveway? >> So you still have minimum open space requirements of 30% even in the townhouse district. You were still required to plant the one tree. The question about 50% impervious coverage has come up. So we have provided alternate accommodations such as pavers, permeable surfaces, separations where you can use brick with khichi in order to allow water to drain. Uh aside from that, we've had to roll back certain landscape requirements because of drought restrictions. So those are not currently [clears throat] in play for both commercial and residential development and haven't been in play for now a couple of years due to drought restriction. I just don't know how you're going to squeeze all that in there because if you're going to have two 9 foot parking spaces, right, that's 18 feet minimum. And then you that leaves you with two feet on either side to be able to shove in a tree and um some grass and you know, I I just I I get I've seen the the permeable pavers and how you can plant grass in those and and things like that, but it just seems incredibly tight. Do we have any other puds with 22 foot wide town home lots? >> Sure. Several. There's several on White Cap, Granada, and Running Light, which have had the same narrow lots in the city. We've had several on Shelby, which is right near Delmar East campus, uh, which was a redevelopment project. And most recently, we've had plats come in uh taking advantage of the new 3000 foot lot, but those will be on 18th and Morris in the the heart of the west side to redevelop on top of an old school site. So that this type of new style of tinier homes is becoming more popular because it is more attainable to the public. >> Yeah. And I and I get that. I have concerns about it though in a um in a uh something that's presumably going to be short-term rentals uh because you know you very rarely have two cars >> and I'm glad you're touching on that. So several of the things that as I mentioned it went to the technical review committee comments are already coming in from fire about do we paint certain curbs red to make sure that no one's parking on the street is the street going to be wide enough if >> there's going to be no curb >> exactly [laughter] these questions are already being asked. So regardless if the planning commission and council approves the zoning, they are still bound to follow fire code, points of access, depth, sidewalk coverage, all of those things still come into play. Unless you're specifically calling out a deviation, the UDC still applies. So a PUD, while it sounds like a get out of zoning jail free card, all it says is if you don't call out exactly what you want to deviate from, and in this case, only two items in townous, everything else still applies. It does not give you cart blanch. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> Any other questions? >> And And Andrew, you >> I'm sorry. >> Go ahead, Commissioner. >> You kind of already addressed it, but uh these this chart that we're looking at with the PUD standards um that Mr. Miller was uh referencing. >> So, those are pretty much put into law. So, like it's very specific, you know, which lot and block this applies to. So, they they have to follow this. It's bound by the master site plan. The UDC establishes within article 3 only five things you can deviate from once you have a putt approved. One is you can slightly, and we're talking inches, move a property line to accommodate things like staircases or you can only reduce the number of lots that you're building. You cannot increase. So it it gives you it I would say pud puts more hamstrings on you of what you can do than what base zoning does which gives you far more width and birth. So puds puds are not easy. They have far more restrictions and like you just said once [clears throat] you have this type of site plan approved you were married to it and it's very extremely hard to deviate without having to come back to this very body and to council all over again to even make small amendments. >> Thank you. >> Yes sir. Any other questions? >> Uh, yes, Andrew. Um, I don't have a concern with the pud. I I do have a concern with the beach access road, uh, for flooding purposes. As an insurance agent for 40 years, specializing in property and casualty insurance, that's really an issue when it comes to flood insurance. Uh, because you not only put these homeowners at risk, you put the adjacent property owners at risk as well. So, are you telling me that we cannot make a motion today to approve the PUD with the speculation or the requirement that the beach access road not be granted? >> Excellent question. So, uh just earlier in tonight's agenda items 10 and 11 to approve the plat which was item number 11, you had to approve number 10, which was the amendment to the roadway master plan. Similarly, you would have to have a future item number 10, a future amendment to the roadway master plan to eliminate or alter the beach access road requirement that's that's on the map today. So, regardless if zoning is approved, disapproved, put happens, put does not happen, the roadway master plan requires that beach access road. So, even if I build one single family home tomorrow and I plat the property, I'm still required to build that road. Now I can say the developer has tried to initiate at least with staff a conver start the conversation of coming back to planning commission and asking for that future amendment to remove the road. They are encountering some difficulties with uh the army corps of engineers with the general land office for the very things that you're bringing up. It has not been officially filed. So I I can't go into too much detail because right now it's just an ongoing conversation. But I can say that the developer has initi their engineer of record has initiated that conversation. >> Okay. And from what I remember when this originally came to us, it came to us without that road. Correct. >> Correct. >> And it was us, this body that almost imposed that he put that road there. >> There was a request for an amendment roughly almost a year ago tonight. Uh in fact, it might be exactly to the day and the planning commission voted to keep it. Now uh the conversation that I had with the developer is just like zoning cases you may ask for zoning one year get denied new information comes about you find out that um next door was going to be dedicated to a park so there will never be interaction with a nextdoor property similarly you can bring new information back to the commission and say we did xyz studies we've done environmental impact analysis and it simply doesn't work will you hear this case again and these are the xyz reasons why we think you should reconsider and that is perfectly within their rights to ask and is perfectly within your rights to look at it again. >> My only fear is that as a developer having to wait another year. I mean that puts everything on hold whether it's this project or any other project. So >> So they won't have to wait. So zoning a denial in zoning will sit them out officially for a year. an approval of zoning that request to remove the beach access road can happen at any time. So we could have it in January, February by the time this case reaches council or if the developer says, "Hey, I'd like a little more time before we get to council to address the roadway issue." And that's perfectly within their purview to do. >> Okay. And just a reminder that regardless of what our decision is, it still goes to council for a final decision. That's not to say that your recommendation isn't extremely important, but yes, it is a recommendation that is forwarded to city council for final decision. >> Thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> Just one question. If the uh developer doesn't decide to develop the property and it gets approved, the reasoning gets approved, does it go back to the original zoning? >> It is only valid. So, let's say between now and council, property is sold, case just dissolves. If it's post council and it's approved, if the putt is not initiated within six months or by a plat by some other means getting infrastructure built, the plat the putt dissolves. >> Okay, any other questions? [clears throat] >> Can we ask question? >> Yes, I'm coming there. Okay, so um >> thank you. >> Thank you, Andrew. Uh at this time, I'll go ahead and open up the public comment uh for item number seven. Anyone who would like to come and speak, please state your name and city you live in. And please do uh remember that we as a board are not to answer any questions that you might ask. That is for development services to uh address for you. >> All right. >> Good evening. Thanks for hearing us tonight. My name is Melissa Hackmaster. I'm a member of Lost Colony Villas. We are the neighborhood to the south of this property we're talking about tonight. We're here to voice our opposition to the current resoning pud being proposed. We'll address the four key issues that Mr. Deus has let us know that the re review body considers in determining whether it approve or deny this zoning amendment. We'll also outline the current proposal negatively affects Lost Colony Villas directly and also Mustang Island as a whole. So, first of all, the first item, the zoning map amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan. I've read that full comprehensive plan. Environmental concerns are the number one important issue for community members island. They list a vision of beautiful and safe beaches and views is important to preserve. They also stressed the importance of maintaining a safe and family-friendly environment, the blending of residential and resort communities, and the concern regarding traffic flow that we're talking about. This raises our concern of the density of this proposal. While overall the density of the property may not be considered high, the cluster density along the b the border between our two neighborhoods allows for twice the density of lost colony villas. The higher density of the proposed community leads to more people, more traffic on our beaches, less safety due to the higher volume, a loss of open spaces and views, and a lack of blending between our communities. This is not in compliance with many key issues in the comprehensive plan. And we oppose the amendment. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening. My name is Jay Dyer and I'm a property owner and permanent resident uh in Lost Colony Villas. And I'd like to address the recommendation under your consideration that this amendment is compatible with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and to the character of the surrounding area. To begin with, I suggest to you that uh that at least this statement or recommendation is misleading to the committee and at most it's outright deception. Many of us have chosen to live on the Corpus Christi side of Mustang Island for very specific reasons. The more residential environment versus packed in rentals, the larger lots, the expansive views and open spaces, the ponds and marshlands that bring wildlife to this end of the island for refuge, the calmer beaches with less traffic, to name a few. This proposed resort style community is not in line with these fundamentals and there's certainly not an adequate plan to blend our community with the highdensity wall of homes proposed to be as close as 5 ft from our northern border. We have 13 units and one pool area along this border which averages about 60 foot 60 foot per lot compared to the 28 units which is more than double our density that will border us on this proposal. 35 foot for single homes and 22 foot for town homes. To reiterate, we have 65 foot lots and they're proposing 35 and 22 foot lots. This is high density and it absolutely does not conform to the character of what is currently the surrounding area. Nor does it conform, as Melissa mentioned, to the Padra Island Mustang area development plan. So I mentioned this is more than twice the density and it's quite a significant disparity from what our community already um how it stands. The standard lot size of 50 foot for single family and 26T for town homes should be maintained. Our neighbor to the south beach view like to point out the name again beach view has 70 foot lots along our southern border which does align with the character of the surrounding area. Also, there is no noted proposal to provide for a buffer zone or transition space between these very different neighborhoods. The required five-foot backyards will certainly not adequately provide for this. Lost Colony Villas provides at least 17 ft buffers to the corner of our closest unit as we're angled towards the water and the rest provide 22ft buffers between the borderline of our property. We're not aware of another such community as this one being proposed on the Corpus Christi side of Mustang Island. And we oppose this amendment as it clearly does not conform to the character of the surrounding area. It does not provide an adequate buffer zone between the residential and resort style communities and it is clearly not in in agreement with your current Padre Mustang Island area development plan, your stated vision of how development should take place on our island. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else like to come and speak? My name is Dan Tollison. I'm a resident of u the subdivision that we're talking about today, Lost Colony Villas, which was established over 40 years ago, and many of us has own we've owned homes there for several years. We have observed the beauty of this property to the north of us and appreciate and truly um think it's special. The wetlands and marshlands provide a respite for various types of water foul, spoon bills, heron, great egrets, sandill cranes, Canadian geese, red tail, red shouldered hawks, in addition to deer, coyotes, etc. Annually, thousands of redhead ducks frequent the the wet land in the fall and in the winter. While we do understand the right of the owner to develop this land and we do wish them well, but we are very much concerned about the environmental the environmental impact that this development will have. Especially as Port Aranis has allowed development of these types, it is even more important for these waterfell sanctuaries to be preserved on end of the island in order for these species to have a place to feed, rest, reproduce, and be safe. The more units placed on this property, the higher the density of people and increased likelihood that these animals will no longer feel that they're in a safe environment. Also, the ponds in the marsh land are designated as waters wetlands of the United States, which means they are important to the environment to protect and improve water quality for the surrounding area. If the lands to be disturbed as little as possible for in development, we'll surely need to take this into consideration and obtain the required permits if any changes are made. We oppose this amendment as the property is not suitable for the pud development. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else? >> Hi, I'm Cindy Constanzo and I'm an owner of uh number 24 in Lost Colony Villas. I disagree with the statement in the amendment that says the zoning map amendment does not have a negative impact upon the surrounding neighborhood. This amendment will surely negatively impact our neighborhood. The current proposal of highdensity homes along our northern border border will make a huge change to our current environment. Property values will be affected negatively due to the following items listed below. Desiraability of our neighborhood will go down, reducing our property values and making our homes more difficult to sell if the need arises. Who would want to be next to a wall of homes directly off of our decks which are largely extensions to the living areas of our homes? Our Mustang Island outdoor living is a way of life. And now instead of looking at beautiful dunes and wildlife, we will be met with a almost solid obstructing wall of homes with only 10 feet between homes, 5T backyards, and homes packed onto 35 foot lots. Lost Colony Villas will not be a desirable area to purchase in. Privacy will be hugely impacted. The short buffer between our neighborhoods ensure we will be looking directly into the windows of our neighbors and they will be looking at us. The high density of homes will mean the more neighbors we have and the increased lack of privacy. Our once relaxing environment will now be reduced to that of living in a fishbowl. Draining is a concern. We do have significant rainfalls on Mustang Island and we already experienced significant pooling of waters on our property. Beach View had to implement a costly drainage system during the development of their community as lost colony villas were being flooded due to the new homes built. The effect of the envir surrounding environment is again a concern for reasons previously discussed. The loss of the wildlife and beauty of the land will have a huge impact. This resort community will increase the population of the beach in front of lost colony villas. The larger re resort will add increase to beach traffic which infects safety, enjoyment and again desiraability of our community. Our beach is prone to high tides and shallow beaches and the increased numbers will be harder to accommodate. There are times when our beach literally disappears. The addition of the beach road access is very concerning. Our dunes are already fragile due to the short nature of them between Sandpiper and our sister neighborhood, Lost Colony Council. They are prone to erosion and LLC has already had to take extreme measures to maintain the dunes during recent storms. It makes no sense to cut into the short areas of dunes when there are other options on the island that are not so fragile and would not jeopardize people's homes. Also, directing cars of beachgoers onto our already hightraited, often shallow beach is not necessary and would lead to new problems. We have beach access road 2 already close to us to our south and there is a new beach road that is being put in not far to our northern side. These reasons outline why we're opposing this amendment. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> I'm Ted Constanzo. I'm the LCV board president for our HOA and we are on the southern border of the development. And I want to start by thanking the board for rescheduling and reszoning this council meeting to review. I know you previously approved but granting us an opportunity to uh present our our views and opposition to this resoning. Please let me be clear. Uh we are not opposed to development of the property to our north and we're not opposed to the developer uh Coastal Dunes by themselves. Uh what we're opposed to is the current form of this development and the negative impact that it would make if this resoning standards are approved and the success of this excuse me approved and these these this resoning is implemented. We all would like to be good neighbors and support the growth of this area and the success of Coastal Dunes and their plans to develop that property, but we want it done in a responsible way. We consider it irresponsible to put in 22 foot and I share Mr. Miller and I share Mr. Hendrick's uh concerns regarding packing these homes in right along our north fence line as they have with 22 and and and 30 foot uh lots uh just not responsible. This will allow for 10T apart as well as 5 foot deep. And know this that that it's going to in turn we've got 13 units. They're going to put 28 units along that fence line as it is proposed. We've got 17t to 22 foot they're going to having five foot. you know, all those offset that aspect. It it's not conformed to our standards that we have currently in place. Nor does it make for good neighbors. The increase in the number of houses means an increase in beach population. Our beaches are narrow enough as it is with a crease in the population and we already have as it is, you know, we moved out there because we want to get away from Porter Ranzas. We want open beaches. This will take that all away. and a fear of the impact of this highdensity belt would totally disrupt the fragile environment and ecosystem that has been presented and the beauty of that property will be destroyed. And finally, we all oppose the road which Mr. Kantu had mentioned. I think um I think it is wise to remove that road for all the reasons that he stated, but it's true. It's going to not just destroy that fragile uh dune that protects us, but it's going to allow for flood waters and and uh and storm surge. We oppose this because we are fearful that proving this resoning will forever change for the worse our beaches, communities, and the way of life that we have enjoyed for 40 years. Thank you for taking into consideration our concerns, and we'd appreciate it if you would vote no for this resoning. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Anyone else? I had some photos in a video. Good evening. My name is Dana Summers. My husband, Bill, and I have owned home number 33 in the Lost Colony Villa subdivision for seven years. My husband and I are opposed to granting the PUD variance for a number of reasons, many of which have been well detailed by the our neighbors this evening. Tonight, I will speak with regard to the wetlands on the property which serve as a sanctuary for an abundant and varied number of water foul that we have had the pleasure of observing over the years. As the photos and video show, the ponds are currently teeming with ducks. The part that can't be seen from the photos are the thousands, yes I said thousands of ducks that are tucked into the vegetation around the pond. I have spot counted these ducks for years. They go in large group and feed in the bay before sunrise. Then around sunrise, you can hear the duck hunters start shooting and these clever ducks hightail it back in mass to the safety and peace of our ponds. I have also personally observed Canadian geese using our ponds in a similar fashion. I have observed an abundant variety of birds using these wetlands in or along the banks of the ponds. I've seen white-tailed kites and blue buntings, both of which I believe are quite rare. I have contacted Dr. David Newstead regarding this property development. He is the director of the coastal bird program with the newasis coastal bend bays and estuaries initiative. He is familiar with this property and to me that this wetland area does indeed serve as a waterfell sanctuary. In addition, he explained water foul need a place of respit daily in order to maintain body condition and to be fit enough to survive in high enough quantities and condition to return to breeding grounds next spring. This is the broodtock of next year's waterfell season. Dr. New said most Dr. Newstead said, "Most waterfell hunters know this. If the pud variance is granted, then extra homes and development will be placed on this environment, environmentally rich and significant yet fragile land. Frankly, I'm astounded that the planning and zoning committee are considering granting this pud, which will result in more development on this property and lessening the current restrictions to do so. If anything, I would think they would be protecting this valuable wild ride wildlife resource by placing more restrictions on this developer, not less. This retired elementary school teacher is reminded of the parable from the children's tale, Jack and the Beanstalk. Don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. This island property is a very special place and home to a great deal of natural beauty. Adding a density of homes to this property could indeed inacc increase tax revenues for the city and perhaps profits for the developers. But at what cost? From all walks of life, the reason these homes are we must be good stewards of this gift. >> Thank you. >> My name is William Summers and I'm going to follow my wife like every good husband ought to do. Um I'm going to be very very brief. Uh the proposed plan that we have seen that the developer is asking for is going to increase the density of rooftops infrastructure and change the sheet water flow of that property to the adjacent properties uh which is ours and the uh uh two high-rise condominiums. The Texas Water Code is very very clear that when one someone changes the sheet flow of water by concentrating or directing it in any way, shape or form, they become strictly liable for any damage caused to any adjacent land owners. And I, as an attorney, deal with this on a daily basis and I will be suing the owner if in fact there is a dramatic change for the sheet flow that affects our properties. Thank you. Anyone else like to come and speak? >> Hi. Thank you all for listening to us tonight. My name is Shannon Dyer. Um I think y'all were given these couple of printout photos. Um, I'm a permanent resident of Lost Colony Villas and um, first I wanted to say that I'm in 100% agreement with what all my neighbors have said tonight. Um, I wanted to walk you through these photos because I thought it might give you a better idea of our property versus the little, you know, map we've been looking at. Um, the aerial map is a small portion of Mustang Island. The red dotted line is the city limits between Portoanzis and Corpus Christi. Um, as you can see on the Porteranzis end of the um of the island, the developments are bigger, smaller lots, more dense. And the end with um Corpus Christi, smaller developments and much larger lots. and all of the condos on this end, condos and home developments um have all been developed in a way that all homes and condos are situated for everybody to enjoy all their natural surroundings. The photo is probably a few years old and on the insert of um one of the very densely um developments there are tons more homes in there. Now, this is not even a fraction what is actually in there. Now, the diamond straight um the diamond shaped structure is La Mrage Condominiums and um this other photo is La Mirage with now their big wall of homes behind them. Um they now have a lack of privacy and the views that these condo owners once enjoyed are is now gone. And I'd like to for you to ask yourselves if these condos rent as well as they used to. Do you think their resale values are as um have been infected? This property suffers on the account of the way the neighboring property was developed. Back to the first photo, the other insert highlighted area is the area that we are talking about tonight. the um the community. This is Lost Colony Villas and this is the um San Piper condominiums. The um if the [sighs] Sorry, I lost my place. If the zoning change is approved, we expect that the same highdensity neighborhood will be put in this small property in between, which you can see a lot of it is the ponds and the wetlands. We affect um we assume that this will negatively affect our neighbors ne affect our neighborhood and limit our privacy and our natural surroundings and will will affect our rental and sellable values. It does not comply with the current Mustang Island development plan and so I hope you oppose this change. I appreciate your time. Thank you. >> Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman and commissioners. Um, my name is uh Chuck Crawford. Um, I'm a resident full-time in Porter Ranis. I'm here representing District 4 today. Um, I'm the president of CCMS LLC. were the management agent for both the Sam Piper and and the Seagull condominiums. Been managing those places 30 one over 30 years, one over 14 years. I'm speaking on behalf of the hundred of owners who live with the daily realities of the dune systems, storm impacts, and coastal access. We're here today to respectfully request that the proposed beach access road shown on the coastal dunes pud not be approved in its current location. as it sounds like there's going to be another process down the road that'll have to take place to have that happen. But just would like to read this to you guys if I can. I want to begin by acknowledging what is clearly stated in the zoning staff report under the road master plan. It identifies that reported proposed public access road service area 18 PA public access as proposed. This designation is why the developer has has been required to show the road on the plat even though the developer themselves has concerns about it. However, while there may appear to be a future conceptual alignment in the road master plan, it is a physical placement as drawn on the PUD creates a direct and significant impact of the two longestablished coastal resorts immediately east of the state highway 361. The road as aligned in the PUD master plan would run immediately between the proposed development and the Sandpiper directly adjacent to our dune fields, walkovers, parking areas, and residential structures for our community. This creates major safety concerns, increased traffic, pedestrian conflict, and emergency access complications, environmental risk. The corridor uh crosses sensitive dunes, erosion setback areas, wetlands, and documented coastal flood zones. long-term maintenance burdens. The city would inherit a roadway located in one of the most dynamic and vulnerable dune systems on Mustang Island. And also just to highlight that one important about tonight's agenda, the item of 251913, the commission had amended the roadway master plan to remove the plan of material for the Amanda Lane because it's no longer appropriate in its map location. This demonstrates two things. The roadway master plan can and should be amended when circumstances warrant. And two, you have the authority to determine whether a proposed road alignment is compatible with existing development and natural systems. In the case of this proposed beach access road, we respectfully submit that the alignment shown in the putt is not compatible with the sandpiper seagull or the dune and wetland system in the area. We fully support responsible develop on Mustang Island. We recognize the city's interest in maintaining public access, but we ask the commission to take the approach that we've taken or we took with a mandelane, evaluate whether the proposed road at this location is appropriate. Our request is simple. Please consider removing the beach access road alignment from the putt approval and recommend the city to evaluate locations state highway 361 better support safety and environmental protection. Thank you for your time and service to the city. Thank you all. Sorry. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. Hi, I'm Casey Patterson in District 4, Seagull, Sandpiper Condominiums. Uh, I'm here regarding zoning case ZN87 8725. Although this item is presented as a zoning change, the materials including the conceptual plan and staff report clearly include a vehicular beach access road through the active dune system. Because this road is embedded in the pud layout and shown in the master transportation plan, I understand this commission at some point does have the authority to remove it and I respectfully ask that you do so. Uh my comments reflect not only my own concerns but those of many property owners who have submitted their written opposition. You listed a number of them before. Um citing same environmental safety and policy inconsistencies that I hope to outline. Um while the staff report provided states that the proposal is consistent with plan CC, both the stat the plan itself and the and an independent environmental assessment prepared by the S SWCA environmental consultants shown that it is not. SWCA is a nationally recognized environmental firm whose work is relied upon by state and federal agencies. Their findings carry professional credibility and I'm happy to share this report with anybody that asks for it. This report was ordered and obtained by neighboring communities. Um, first the uh requirement for the inclusion of the road uh in this proposal directly conflicts with plan CC's natural systems policies. Plan CC states that natural barrier beach environments are to be protected and support continued enforcement and regulations that protect barrier beaches. Um, also plan CC instructs decision makers to promote implementation of regulations that protect barrier beaches and dunes and to lessen the erosional impact of tidal surges. The proposed road requires [clears throat] removing roughly one acre of active dunes and creating man-made breach in the storm sur barrier and weakening protection for adjacent properties. Thank you for calling that out earlier. Uh SWCA confirms that this dune removal would create a hole in the natural barrier, reduce erosion protection, increase storm surge risk, and negatively impact the habitat for federally protected species. A project that increases erosional and storm surge vulnerability cannot be considered consistent with plan CC's uh mandate to protect the dunes. Second, plan CC requires protecting wildlife and habitat networks. SWCA report documents that there's moderate sea turtle nesting potential, low to moderate east black rail occurrence, and critical habitat for piping clover and rufa red knot. Disturbing these areas, depending on various factors, could constitute a prohibited take under federal law. Again, this is inconsistent with plan CC's natural systems element. Third, plan CC supports beach access, but not when it comes to the expensive dune systems and not where an existing access points already serve that area. An existing beach access road to exist 2 miles to the south and already approved beach access road is scheduled to be constructed 7/10en of a mile to the north. A new vehicular breach is not uh is unnecessary given the clear conflicts between the dune breach uh and environmental protection mandates in plan CC. uh this requirement to protect the dunes from erosional and storm surge impacts. And given SWCA's independent findings, I respectfully ask that the planning commission find a way to remove the proposed beach access road from the master plan. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> Good evening, commissioners. Thank you [clears throat] for taking the time for listening to us. My name is Dennis Carbach and I'm the owner of unit 409 at the Sandpiper and I'm here to voice my opposition to the Coastal Dunes LLC Putt has submitted. Many of the issues have been voiced already and I totally agree with them. My major concern is is Beach Access Road 1D that abuts the Sandpiper property and is fewer than 75 ft from our building [sighs] and it's a 12-story building as you know that was built in 1985. Cutting this access road through the dunes creates environmental and safety concerns for our building. As you know, the sand dunes are a significant barrier between the ocean and our building and cut and and a cutthrough compromises that barrier and flooding of our building is a greater risk during tropical storms or hurricanes. As already stated, the city of Corpus Christi has approved a beach access road at mile marker 71 and now we're asking for another one at mile marker 77, which is on this property that you're considering right now. It seemed to me that there may not be a need to have another beach access road in the city of Corpus Christi, 610 of a mile from the last one. Therefore, I humbly ask that the planning commission consider revisiting the beach access road at marker 77 since there's already one at 77. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, sir. Anyone else? >> [clears throat] >> Uh, I'm Mitch Bowl. I own unit 1108 at the Sandpiper and I drove down from Fort Worth yesterday to learn, but it's a much bigger concern than I originally realized. And I just want to second everything that all these people have said. The density, the impact on the wildlife is the my main concern. the wetlands there. If we have a road right there where when we have high tides, the beat the the tides come right up to the the dunes. >> If we have any kind of a storm surge, it's going to destroy the wetlands up there. So, I have a major concern with that. That's really all I got to say. Thank you. >> Thank you. Good evening. I'm Mike Mansudo. Uh I'm an owner in unit 1209 of the Sandpiper and um I didn't want to read from a script so I could speak more slowly. Um number one, this is the first of these I've ever attended and it is so professional. I congratulate you all um to your intent, your interest. It I'm not going to come as a spectator again, but I am really impressed with what you've done. Um I'd like to distill it down that we're talking about somebody wants to make money. I can't believe that we're servicing our community by allowing a builder to get variance. there's already an established PUD that says the land owner can develop it in a way consistent with the PUD and the developer knows that. So when this desire to alter that comes up, it's just about making money at the cost of what you've heard tonight. So, I support a no vote and I just wanted to thank you for hearing me out. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> Good evening. Uh my name is Rob Watson. I'm the director of camps and conferences for the Episcopal Dascese of West Texas. We own and operate Mustang Island Conference Center which is just south of uh the proposed uh uh um development and we are we also own one of the properties in the Los Lost Colony subdivision and I'm here to speak in opposition to the change in the zoning. Uh at our conference center we operate family camp during the entire summer months. We invite families from all over the state, all over the country to come and learn about what a wonderful um prestigious uh pristine land and environment so that they can know that they are loved and cher cherished members of a community and loved by God. We uh use this environment uh in it pristine nature uh pristine condition so that people can know and love what it means to take care and respect uh the land around them and the people that they are interact with. This uh change in zoning creates a mass density as all of our neighbors have pointed out that brings um more and more people uh into this environment that is unsafe and uh overcrowded and it le loses all of the benefits that everyone has already described about uh in [clears throat] uh in this condition. So, uh, I speak in opposition. Just as, uh, some of the Commissioner Milner and the, uh, the, um, staff [clears throat] person pointed out earlier, a, uh, density of this con this nature of these, uh, small tiny homes is completely consistent with a development or a redevelopment on the island. But Mustang Island itself is only 18 miles long. It's a beach environment that uh we want to celebrate and appreciate for all the wonderful things that it has. The more that we develop it, the more the people that we bring, the more unsafe and uh um less pristine that happens. The road with all the new traffic, we we all of our programming takes place on the beach. Uh we send people out uh all day long to have surf lessons, to have scavenger hunts, do all these wonderful kind of things on the beach and that we constantly fight the traffic that goes up and down the road. A new road, a new road that's just 7/10 uh from a new road that's going in is going to absolutely change that traffic pattern and make it more dangerous to cross the road consistently. our families and their children already have to take incredible concern just from getting from our property onto the beach where they can enjoy it. So for all those reasons, I please ask you to reconsider and uh we speak in opposition. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Go. My name is Ron Wolf. in the Beach View estate subdivision between the Episcopal Retreat and Lost Colony. Um, I have a problem with the road like everybody else. I [clears throat] have also have a problem with the way the thing is laid out and the density. Um, I understand there's a master plan for the island that basically has an access road easement every mile. So eventually there could be 20 access roads on Mustang Island. Um, I don't think we need another one right there. Uh, just a year ago, the city and the county approved putting one as they said at mile marker 77, which is 7 miles or 6 milesi north of where this one would be. Port A just opened a brand new one or about to open it about two and a half, three miles north of that. So, I understand we need more roads for more EMS access, but we've already got two brand new ones. I don't see why another one6 miles from from this other one that's already been approved uh is needed. >> I understand [clears throat] it's because that easement's there. When they come to you and say we want to develop this, you say, "Well, there's a road easement here. You have to do it." My understanding is the development de developer doesn't want to do it. None of the neighbors want to do it. I just heard that you have a way to take that away. I would ask that you um please do that. Um, I also don't understand looking at this thing when you have a established lost colony neighborhood here on the south and the sandpiper up against the dunes with a whole bunch of vacant area up front. Why would you lay out a development like this cramming all of the condos right up against the property line of these existing homeowners that are there when you could just flip it and put all the density on the north property where nothing is at. Um, so that to me doesn't make sense. If it has to do with wetlands and moving ponds, I know that can be worked around because they just bulldozed the entire parcel between me and the Episcopal retreat, 15 acres and filled in seven wetlands and then got punished and had to build a dune. But those wetlands are gone now just south of us. Uh, which I'm not happy about. I'm also concerned with this statement that apparently if you approve this zoning, this plat is married to this zoning and can never change. I thought I heard that and that concerns me because I feel that when this goes to council or further steps that they're going to look at that and say, "Put the density on the other side. Take the road away. We don't need it. We're just building a new one uh 6 milesi north." What happens if they change it? If you approve it and it's tied to this, can the council uh change it? So, that's a Can I ask that question? What happens if the city council comes back and says to change this? >> At this time, we're just in public comment to address. >> But you said I could ask questions to them >> at at their time. >> Oh, okay. >> At your time with his time. You know, you can always you're more than welcome to come. What? >> Okay. Okay. >> Well, I would like to know >> I'm concerned about that if you take this action today, that plat is cast in stone and can't be changed. Uh even if the city council wants to do something different. So, I'd like to know the answer to that. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Hello. Um, my name is Anne Hagglestein and I have uh two condos at the Sandpiper and the road that they are desiring to put in. There's several things that that I don't think are being addressed and that has to do with the highway 361 and the traffic. when there several years ago we were at the Sandfest. There were 300,000 people that went to the Sandfest over that 3 or 4 day period. Traffic was constant. You can't get on and off of 361 when they have events that are as large as that. And we would just wait since we didn't have to leave. We would just wait until the traffic died down so we could get out of the Sandpiper. the if that road is to go in and it'll go in next to the sandpiper, it will take away our beaches. Lost Colony will lose theirs. We'll use our lose ours because the width of the beach is so narrow. Now, uh we were talking earlier before the meeting and they put up a a um a plat of the land and there is uh when the tents are set up, the canopies on the uh in front of the sandpiper and the seagull, there's 19 ft between that and the bridge that takes us over the sand dunes. And you know, that's not two lanes of traffic. And so we have all of these children that come to stay in these condos, you know, to have a good time and they have to contend just with walking across where that traffic goes through that goes through too fast already because the speed limit is not patrolled at all. And so if that road was there, they would go out this way. They would take away Lost Colonies Beach access. They would take away Sandpiper and Seagull's access because of all the traffic that would be on here. We already have too much traffic and so I hope you'll take this into consideration that you know it takes away from our beach. I appreciate your time. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> I'm [clears throat] Connie Baines. I own unit 403 at Sandpiper and I just completely agree with everything and when I first came here my main objection was the road and what it would do with the water surge and coming in but after listening to everything else that's been said. I am very concerned. I'm not opposed to somebody building there. I understand that. But boy at what loss. So anyway, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Please vote against this. I'm opposed to it. [clears throat] >> Good evening. My name is Rick Marorrow. I'm an owner at the Seagull Condominiums, which are just north of Sandpiper. Uh I'm a geologist and I've studied beaches um from New Jersey down to Florida and the Gulf Coast for 42 years. Um what protects the area behind the beach is the dune. the the beachfront dune is the most important protection. Um in and the re what it protects us from is co is major storms. Um and you know just in in 1970 Celia had an 8 foot 7.9 foot uh surge at on Mustang Island. Uh Harvey brought a 12oot surge at the Aranzis um wet um wildlife refuge. When we poke holes in the in the [clears throat] when we poke a hole in the dune, what we do is we increase more and more um ability for that for that water to come through and destroy everything behind there because it won't be a gentle flood from the back bay. It'll be a big rush of water coming through. Even a road that's that's coming over the top of the dune will have areas on each side that will wash away instantaneously in a major storm. I agree here from Lost Colony for their reasons to want it. But the road whether what was said was if one house gets built that road will get built which will put a major another gap and as Mr. Ku said from an insurance perspective they realize that that's what they've got to pay and it's going to make it unlivable there. It'll also destroy the wetlands if if it comes through besides the traffic that's be associated with that road in terms of disturbing the wildlife. I just ask um in on behalf of people at the seagull that we that you vote against the road and this this zoning change. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Anyone else like to come and speak? Good evening. I'm Cheryl Wallik, owner at Sandpiper, keep our beaches thriving. Dunes are one of the most recognizable features of the Gulf Coast. The sight of these sandy mounds and their plethora of native [clears throat and snorts] grasses and wildlife instantly evoke a sense of place and a feeling of peace. The dunes are a link to a natural paradise. Aside from their beauty and significance to the observer, sand dunes are also critical to the ecology. The dunes provide natural infrastructure to protect the island from geohhazards including extreme title changes, erosion, and storm surge. Dunes are proh are protected under local and state laws and violations may result in fines and penalties under the dune protection act. I found this on the Porter Ranzis Chamber of Commerce website and we've heard reasons to not approve this development and this roadway because of erosion, uh, insurance concerns, property valuation, and loss of wildlife habitat. Why would a chamber of commerce who is responsible for development and bringing in tourism dollars or business dollars be wanting to protect the dunes? As more and more of our nation is getting paved over, our Gulf Coast at Mustang Island is one of the few natural places we have left and ecoourism is becoming such a huge thing. Uh you guys know the importance of um the economic dollar with sports fishermen. Uh Porteranzis was proudly named the first bird city in the nation. All of these are important to our development, our economic dollars that are coming in. I implore y'all, please reconsider your roadway master plan and reconsider this uh development, this investor purchased on the gamble that this would be reszoned. I purchased with zoning in place that these wetlands and surrounding properties are protected and zoned this other way. If we build over like Galveastston or Miami, if we have neighbors that are less than a truck length away from us, why would people want to come here just to be sitting five feet from our neighboring what short-term rentals, permanent residents? Why wouldn't we just go to Miami or Galveston? We need to keep our character here in the in the Coastal Bend. Keep us unique. keep us a reason for people to visit. Please reconsider your um previous decisions. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any others? >> Do we have the developer here? Maybe >> [clears throat] >> Good evening, Jeff Hutzer with Coastal Dunes. I am developer. Um, we again appreciate your time. I won't rehash the history. I know everybody's familiar faces from a year ago and six months ago and um previous conversations. Um I guess first and foremost we are against that access road. Uh we spent quite a bit of money. Our presentation last time had the similar concerns that uh the group behind me has brought forth today. Um you know but like uh Commissioner Kantu said it's you know another year you know we presented this year ago. We tked our engineers six months prior to that to, you know, put a plan together, you know, get the UTP amended, our roadway master plan um changed uh we were shot down conventionally, 7 nothing at that meeting um for the same reasons that uh um you know are presented tonight. Um you know, our goal is to you know, move forward with the PUD, move forward with, you know, what we're required to do. And if that's what it is, it is what it is. we don't want it. Um it does go through the wetlands that we've already studied. People I know SWCA has done similar studies. We have perennial environmental has done a you know pretty extensive study on the wetlands. We did get the cors jurisdictional determination you know several months back. Um and we do have wetlands. We are honoring it. We we didn't oppose the jurisdictional determination in any way. I'm not coaching on it. We're actually saving more than what's required. you know, because there's certain areas that are outside that JD that uh we can't access. So, it's just, you know, to us that was uh um you know, key in not trying to put something on every inch. Um we do have the 300 foot vegetation line, so we've got uh a lot of land that we purchase that uh you know, we're protecting that we're not touching, you know, but the area that we can develop, you know, we're putting a mix of properties on there, you know, ranging from 30. I mean 22 feet had to be asked because they're wedge-shaped lots in the corners of culde-sacs. So it's still a 30- foot lot, but the frontage is 22 feet. So some of the the 22 ft lots are probably, you know, probably some of the larger smaller lots that we have. Um I want to say on that that plan that's the green lots, it's lots nine or 10 and maybe one of the ones up in the culde-sac lot too that back up to the pond. I mean, that lot is probably seven or eight thousand square feet. Even though it's a technically a 30- foot lot and it can be 1,700, it's good sized. Um, speaking of some of the comments that we had before, we can't flip the land because the whole north side is that wetland. It is the area that we got the jurisdictional determination on. It would be nice to flip the higher density to the vacant side or the high-rise condo side, but but we can't. you know that we have a tight area to get from 361 to the for the you can kind of look as a panhandle. We got the panhandle to get behind the pond and then you know the bulk of Oklahoma to Okay, see y'all later >> um to get to that back area. So we do have a confined area that we have lots that back up to the lost colony side as well as you know the area that we had to you know set back from the you know wetlands the pond. Um we view that as a huge asset to the site. It's one of the reasons we purchased it. One of the reasons that we you know looked at it because we you know we feel there's only a certain set of people that want one of our 17 beachfront lots. that's a different demographic, a different set of uh you know check writing ability than someone that can purchase you know the other three size lot. So we do have a lot of interest uh early on of people that want to you know be closer to the pond to you know the water foul the water you know the sunset side instead of you know the beach side. Um, so, >> okay, >> I can answer any questions you might have, uh, or any, uh, I would, you know, propose that we approve this tonight at the zoning, you know, because I, Andrew, I don't know what the exact is, but it's currently zoned without the pud, you know, without having to, you know, come resone it, you know, anywhere 20 to 30 lots per acre, which is that correct on that? I think you mentioned something if you want one of the zoning. We don't have any desire to put five or 600 units on here. >> Uh, correct. So, under if single family homes were to be built, that would be at a maximum density of 18 units per acre, which would equal 614 maximum dwelling units. >> So, that's not something that we want to be close. >> Put is proposing 131, which is 21% of the maximum allowance. I think all said and done, just because we're probably going to wind up honoring the JD, those lots that kind of swing around the north side of the pond, we most likely can't get to, you know, we'd have to, you know, encroach or go back to the uh the core and ask for permission to get a little bit of land. So, it's probably going to be 127, 126 all said and done. Um the P um we won't be able to get to some of those on that north side, those last four lots. um that are on that north side. I don't know if you got that sketched back up, but um you know that's the pud has the 131, but we'll be few less than that. >> Yeah. >> I have one question. >> Yeah. >> Is is the installation of the U access road dictating any of your request for this putt? >> No. our density wouldn't change other than the financial obligation to get it built and it that was our impetus in getting rid of it was it's not needed. We don't want it. We don't want to drive more people to the beach. And at the same time, we also don't I think Mako, you know, the bids on Mako's piece on that whatever 21B was it anywhere from 1.7 to $3.5 million. So, you know, that's certainly not something that we want to absorb. Um, and that's certain, you know, some of those conversations we're having with the city on if we don't need it but have to build it, are y'all going to contribute to it? So, we've got some of those questions. That's some of the early planning meeting that we were trying to get with the city, but I think, you know, we've got that meeting not set up yet, but fees have been paid and we're just waiting on a slot to get to to fill in there. So, getting back to your question, our land plan doesn't change. We clean it up a little bit. You know, have one less entry to build, one less, you know, gate. We are going to be a gated community. one less operational gate that has to be uh constructed, you know, for our in and out. But, you know, fire department, we're underneath the threshold for their requirement because we are gated because we have a wider entry off 361. We are we only need one coming and one going and that satisfies that. Uh because we're less than the 149, 150 somewhere, whatever threshold was. We're well below that. So, we don't need it. We don't want it. But in order to move forward, you know, kind of sequentially so I can task my engineer with, you know, getting things moving and getting to the next planning to the next council, you know, I would love to have the pud, you know, approved tonight in its current form and then have those discussions. Uh because like you said, it's a year, but you know, we may get to the council and they say, you know, no, we spent quite a bit of money with Pave Dawson to do this study that says we need an access every mile that whole island. Uh I don't know those answer those questions. I don't think you all or us can speak for the council at this time of what their decision is going to be, but to have, you know, to approve the zoning, you know, and move forward with possibly getting rid of it. Um and then either coming back to you with the you know that >> well approving the zoning would also be something that everybody here is coming in that with their concerns which was the you know the the vehicle beach access the um damage to the dunes where that'll that's a natural protector from flooding or water surge and I think the people coming in here speaking on these concerns is something that I think we need to with the developer needs to take into consideration and see what it is that we can try to work out. >> We have for a year and we have been told we have to build it. That's and like Andrew said, if we come in with one lot or, you know, 131 lots, we have to build it. You know, we've we've tried to remove it, but you know, if there's some asurances on, you know, getting an engineer to move forward, if we do remove it, it doesn't change, you know, the conceptual layout. It doesn't change the, you know, the blue, the red, the green, the yellows of what we do. It just removes that access road on the north side, you know, all the way through the beach. We kind of clean. >> Is that is that something certain that you will take into consideration is removing that access road? >> We don't want it. I would >> You don't want it? >> I would love to have y'all by Fiat scratch through it tonight and [snorts] put me on the January 6 council and let's let's let's get going. Um, but I don't, like I said, we've asked [snorts] for a meeting, been asking for it for a while, and I don't know if the it's staff has just been kind of waiting for this evening just to feel all the questions, you know, from A to Z and be able to speak intelligently for it or >> or if it's just a, you know, >> getting [snorts] it on their schedule. I don't know. >> All right. >> But I would love for that to go away. But I also, you know, would love to, you know, keep inching forward with the development process, you know, during this time as well. >> All right. [clears throat] Well, any other questions? >> I had a question. So, the pond that is showing that is in place right now that will remain. >> We're not touching it. >> You're not touching. >> We're not touching. >> So, that was, you know, a big concern that a lot of people >> the jurisdictional termination has just a small, it's, you know, from our pond, it says it touches the the Corpus Christie Bay. I'm not going to argue with the army. Um, but you know, our pond extends to the Sandpiper Seagull property, extends on down and keeps going down the bar ditches and the frontage of those properties all the way. Somehow it's they're determined it got to the base. So, our wetlands determination, you know, I think we have like two or three thousand square feet that we can touch. So we've picked a few areas of you know really our entry we've got a couple thousand square feet where we can touch without you know we have to demonstrate the army that hey we're going to take credit for this 1,200 square feet here >> you know but the [snorts] four or five acre pond we're not touching. >> Okay. And then on your uh your plat map here uh this area that's in front of the uh orange I'll call it that you said is just going to be untouched as well. That looks like that's your your dune area. >> That's the three Yeah, the 300 foot vegetation. Okay. Dune line. Yeah, we're not touching that. Uh so, no, we're those are the larger lots. >> So, like I said, what if you've got that in front of you y'all the sketch the colored sketch with the various colors on it. You know, if that beach access road does go away, just that horseshoe shape on the north side just gets extended closer to the property line and we flip those teal lots to blue lots and that's it. We swip switch switch those four for the dark blue floor and [snorts] you know nothing goes away but those four purple magenta if you're an engineer um they're on the north side of that lot those in all likelihood will go away that's our amenity area is going to be at that northeast corner of the pond that's shown in white >> and if everything does move forward and this passes through council you're ready to go you want to get started you want to you know move forward with the project okay >> yes >> thank Any other questions? The developer have not. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Appreciate your time. >> Okay. So, um if anybody else would like to come and speak on this item that has not already spoken, you can still come up. If not, then I'll go ahead and close the uh consent public hearing and um entertain a motion or further discussion. the road cannot be removed or can it be removed or what are our options if even >> so >> do we have any I should say >> it would not be on tonight's agenda to have a roadway master plan amendment just as I mentioned our item number 10 on tonight's agenda was a very much similar amendment the developer can get with traffic engineering uh and with us of course facilitating as development services to have that brought back to the planning commission uh which sounds like according to the developer they desire to do so and have it heard before the command before the commission again to potentially remove it all the road off the roadway master plan. Um I have some comments. >> Go right ahead. >> So I I took I took some notes and I had to use the restroom so I missed a couple things but um there's there's you know certain uh aspects that kind of group right. Uh you've got I had about seven um people talk about the the nature component of it and not impeding the the um migratory birds. I had uh about 10 with uh that had comments about how this is not um in line with the character of the of the adjacent properties. And I had another probably 12 or so um about the beach access road had comment about drainage um tides beach property values buffer but but basically those three were the biggest ones right and um I'll take the tomatoes but I was the one that kind of spearheaded the um arguments in favor of keeping that access road and the reason why I had arguments in favor of keeping that access road is we have uh a unique situation on the Texas Gulf Coast where we have the Texas Open Beaches Act where uh as proud Texans we protect our rights to access um our beaches, right? It's not like Florida where the property owners own their beachfront and control the traffic that that's in front of their beachfront. Um, we also have a unique situation on the Gulf Coast to where everything south of the um of the Corpus Christi channel between there and Mustang Island is developable property, but we have Mustang Island State Park that's never going to be developed. And then we have another uh small area of beach to the south of that. And then you have the Padre Island National Seashore, which is 60 mi of beach that's never going to be developed. and access to the public beaches for people that cannot afford to own uh property that's waterfront is something that's very important to the citizens of Corpus Christi and having that access is very important and I've heard I heard a few comments uh about traffic and one thing that I'll point out traffic-wise and the reason why I was in favor of keeping that access the requirement to build that access road is we have on weekends where we have, you know, Memorial Day or, you know, you pick it, uh, or anytime during the whole CO pandemic, pretty much every day of the week, you have bottlenecks at our access roads because there's too few of them. >> [clears throat] >> And whenever all the traffic from the beach, you know, going to the beach is not, you know, too critical, but it's at sundown when everybody comes out and the and the traffic backs up on those access roads. And then you get into situations on Highway 361 where it's very difficult to get back onto 361 safely and and get your way because everybody's been drinking and everything else. Um but having those um you know as part of our urban transportation plan it's been laid out for how many years? Um Andrew, I think we discussed it a year ago. >> UTP has been around since 85 and then the roadway master plan was adopted about 18 months ago or less. >> And those beach access roads are laid out at in one mile intervals. >> Right. The the problem with beach access roads is that they never had a design criteria. So, it's it's easy to say, does that mean pedestrian access? Does that mean vehicular access? Does that mean golf carts only? It was never narrowed down in the original urban transportation plan nor the roadway master plan. So, yes, it's at onem intervals, but the planning process was was that to mean for cars every one mile interval or have some of them people, you know, folks pedestrians only. That's what wasn't ironed out. nor did it have an engineer design criteria established of how to build the road. >> Right? So all that said, you know, I wish that there was a a trigger on UTP amendments that would require notification, right? So that way everybody could have come and provided input on the access road, right? But I'm going to probably break decorum in a few rules, but I want to see a show of hands. If the access road went away, how many would be okay with the putt as it's presented? So one two three >> about half. >> More than half. >> That makes it even more difficult. [laughter] So, um I don't know. I guess I'll flip a coin. >> I'm kidding. >> Okay. >> So, Andrew, if if this um putt is is approved tonight, it is it has to be approved with the access road. There's no mechanism to remove that tonight. >> Right. So, between now and council, so I think one thing to to bring clear is that within article 3 of the UDC, we have a series of rules of how what is the ministerial process of resoning? what how do you actually amend the zoning map? Part of those steps are having a public hearing with planning commission getting a recommendation between tonight and six months from tonight. It must hit city council. So if regardless if you approve or deny tonight, it's going to go to council at some point. In that six-month process, normally we do it as quickly as we can because folks want to get building, they want to move on their property. uh we can have an amendment to the roadway master plan between now and council which would update what would be presented to council as far as a final design with the roadway removed. U again like I said regardless of reasonzoning happening that roadway as of tonight is required. If that were to change then the proposed pud would have to be adapted and amended to remove that roadway [clears throat] off of it. Can we approve with the with the stipulation that that does come back to us before it goes to council? >> That's difficult to do because you would be hanging your decision on a future decision. >> Mhm. >> And whether or not how that plays out uh is actually before you. It's it would be your decision as the planning commission. >> So what's what guarantees do we have that if it is approved today that we will see that back in front of us? I I would say and there's not a guarantee there and there's no guarantees in life, but the developers extremely adamant about removing it. If I would fully suspect if I were to trade places with them and I see an opportunity to have that removed and I'm sort of hearing feelers from the planning commission members that that might be palatable, I'm probably going to be try to get on the first agenda to have it heard again so I can update my master plan before I bring it to city council. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. Um, couple comments. I just want to thank everyone for coming out. It's always good to see a show as as big as this one. Um, seeing the citizens care as much as you do. And thank you for coming out and and presenting your thoughts to us. Um, my thoughts um on this particular case are um like Commissioner Miller said, it's it's already zoned a certain way. So whether we approve or deny today, if we deny it, it's still zoned to where they can go and build, you know, 600 houses on it. So us approving or yeah us approving this pud in my opinion it it takes care of the wildlife issue. The the the ponds are staying the big buffer zone between the beach and the houses are staying. So that that's a positive. Um I know that 22 um foot lots are not ideal. Um but they are kind of shifted to 365 through 361. Um, so in in my opinion, it's it's not the best, but it is good. Um, so, um, I don't think it's it's um something that I'm going to go against, but I just want to thank you guys again for for coming out. >> Yeah, >> Andrew, can I get a just a clarification? >> Yes, sir. >> So, if we were to approve this today, the developer can't go out and start building anything until it goes to city council. Correct. for the zoning correct second half. So, as I mentioned, platting and zoning are two sides of the same coin. The plat would still have to be recorded through Noasis County before you can turn over one shovel's worth of dirt. Not to mention, there are beachr construction certificates, dune protection permits. There is a litany of items that have to be crossed off the list before you try to put one asphalt's worth of roadway in, >> right? And then it'd be up to city council to decide we want to take care of this and not require the excess road. >> It is planning commission's decision first to do an amendment to the roadway master plan. So a separate item has to come before this board, make a determination on whether or not you wish to keep that roadway on there. As of tonight, because it's on the map, it has to remain on the plan. If that were to change between now and that ultimate six-month mark, then the master site plan with this PUD would have to be altered to remove that roadway off of it before it gets to council. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So, do we have any other questions for staff? >> Just one more uh quick comment uh to echo what our other commissioner said. I really appreciate everybody coming out uh and being involved. Uh regardless of which way this goes, I would encourage everybody uh to advocate for Highway 361 to get expanded. That's something that is in the long-term plan of uh Tex DOT. Uh you know, would be a great thing for it to get moved up. I think it's on like the 20-year plan. Uh but for it get uh be built sooner would really help everybody out. Um you know, traffic is is a mess out there sometimes. and uh you know, please reach out to to text dod and your uh you know, state and local representatives. That would really help out. >> Yes. And I'd like to say I think all of us up here appreciate all the energy that you have to bring up to us on all of your concerns. We all are here to help make our city a better development. And it we need your help and your input, your comments to be able to help us make the right decision. And we also have to keep in mind the developer that we are there to help the developer as well to continue developing Corpus Christi, you know, for the betterment of our citizens. So, I just want to thank everybody here to make, you know, letting you know that we appreciate you all coming over here with all this energy that you have to stand strong for where you live and wanting to keep it in the best for your living. So, I just want to say that. And at this time, I'll go ahead and ask for um entertain a motion. >> I'm me. [laughter] >> I'll be the bad guy. I move that we approve as presented. >> I'll second. >> I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? >> I >> I. >> All those opposed? >> I. >> Motion passes. Okay. So, u and please keep in mind we are a [clears throat] recommending board. This is not a settled thing here. It still has to go to the city council for the definite approval. >> For the record, that was a nay for me. I I said I but mad madam chair if I could just add one quick thing. So we as staff are still available if you have questions, comments, we will still be taking in your opposition letters. If you wish to go ahead and email them to us, you want to stop by the office, get pick up the phone, give us a call, we will still walk through every one of these questions you may have. So this is uh still a road to go to get to city council. And as I mentioned, this is not the only step the developer has. They still have to get through the platting process and then beachfront construction certificates which involve the general land office. So this is not a one and done. Please keep in contact with us if you have questions. [snorts] >> Yes, ma'am. We'd happy to include that with our >> Yes, please. >> All right. Well, uh at this time we do >> I'll be available after the meeting if >> you'll be available after the meeting for any questions. Right now we have a motion and a second and we approved. It's been approved. That's right. It was approved. So, um, moving on to, uh, director's report. >> Uh, my only director's report is I hope, uh, everyone has a merry Christmas, happy holidays, happy new year, and we'll see you in January. >> All right. No other further business, and we are adjourned.