Aug 17, 2021 Planning Commission

>> SORRY, I'VE GOT TO GET USED TO THIS MUTE BUTTON AGAIN.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY.

VICE-CHAIR, BROWN.

>> ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED ADDRESSED THAT ISSUE PRETTY SPECIFICALLY WITH A COMMENT AND ALSO WITH SOME PHOTOGRAPHS.

THEY SHOW AND YOU CAN SEE THE REMNANTS OF IT WHEN WE WENT OUT THERE.

AT ONE TIME, THERE WAS A IT LOOKED LIKE SOME CONSTRUCTION ROAD OR SOMETHING, BUT IT WENT RIGHT BETWEEN THE BAY AND THAT WETLAND.

THE REMNANTS OF THAT CONSTRUCTION ROAD ARE STILL THERE, JUST LOOKS LIKE SOME [INAUDIBLE] DIRT AND IT CUTS OFF THAT DITCH FROM THE WETLAND.

THE COMMENT DESCRIBED THAT SITUATION EXACTLY THAT THERE WAS TEMPORARY HALL ROOMS INTERRUPTED, THAT THERE WAS SEASONAL TIDAL INFLUENCE TO THE ECOSYSTEM.

THE ROAD SHOULD BE REMOVED AND [INAUDIBLE] TIDAL INFLUENCE PROTECTION, BUT ALL OF THAT IS NOT ON THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY AS FAR AS I CAN SEE.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BROWN.

COUNCIL MEMBER LISTOWSKI.

>> JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, BOB AND CAROL.

THE PROPERTY OF COURSE TO THE WEST IS OWNED BY ME.

THAT PROPERTY HAS BEEN DELINEATED.

THERE WAS NEVER A TIDAL INFLUENCE ON THAT PROPERTY.

AGAIN, FIT FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, BUT THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST HAS BEEN DELINEATED.

THERE IS UPLANDS ON THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST FROM THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY HEADING WEST.

SO THERE WAS NO TIDAL INFLUX BASED ON THAT DELINEATION FOR THAT PROPERTY.

>> COMMISSIONERS, LET'S REMEMBER THAT WE ARE IN A PERIOD WHERE THE COMMISSIONERS ARE TO BE ASKING QUESTIONS OF STAFF PLEASE.

YES, COMMISSIONER WALLA.

>> I'VE GOT A QUICK QUESTION.

WE'D BE ABLE TO DO A LICENSE TO USE FOR THAT ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER? STAFF QUESTION.

>> SURE. AS AN APPLICANT CAN REQUEST AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER CAN REQUEST A LICENSE TO USE.

WE DON'T TYPICALLY SUPPORT LICENSE TO USE FOR FENCING IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTION FOR STAFF? OKAY. BEING NONE, WE WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS CASE AT 3:40.

THIS CASE BEING 21P-040 AT 3:48 PM.

APPLICANT WITH US TODAY?

>> APPLICANT AARON SMITH IS ON THE CALL, WILL GO AHEAD AND ACTIVATE HIM. HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SPEAK.

>> OKAY. MR. SMITH, ARE YOU THERE?

>> YES.

>> GREAT.

THIS IS YOUR TIME TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.

>> THANKS. SO I PURCHASE THE LOT LOCATED THERE.

AND ENLISTING THROUGH SOME OF THE COMMENTS, THE CHAIN LINK AND FENCING AND ALL THAT HAS BEEN THERE FIRST.

IT WAS THERE WHEN I PURCHASED THE LAND.

THE EASEMENT IS NOT MINE.

OBVIOUSLY, I HAVE MAINTAINED IT MOTIVE AND KEPT IT UP HONORING THE WETLANDS.

WE'VE MOWED THE GRASS AND PICKED UP TRASH ON A DAILY BASIS.

PEOPLE PARK THERE.

ONE OF THE [INAUDIBLE] THAT GOES OUT INTO THE WATER IS ACTUALLY PART OF MY LOT.

THE EASEMENT STOPS INTO THE WETLANDS, AND SO PEOPLE WILL PARK IN THE ROAD, THE DITCH ON THE EASTBED WALK, [INAUDIBLE] END UP ON MY JETTY LEAVING FIRE PIT, NEEDLES, TRASH, [INAUDIBLE] AND SIX GRAND KIDS.

FOR THIS LAST 6-7 YEARS SINCE I'VE ONLY MAINTAINED AND CLEANED IT, I HAVE PLANS FROM AARON AND FRANKLIN FOR OUR RESIDENCE THERE TO TWO-STORY HOME, ABOUT 5,000 SQUARE FEET AND MY PLAN IS TO BUILD A NEW HOME ON AN ISLAND.

I JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE I CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT IF I'M GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE IN CARS OR THAT BEING USED THE WAY IT HAS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T GO.

[00:15:02]

THIS IS SO SMALL, SO NARROW IT'S BEEN ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE I THOUGHT, "WELL, I'M READY TO GO AHEAD AND SPEND TIME, ENERGY, AND MONEY TO PUT A BEAUTIFUL HOME THERE.

BUT THEY USE THAT TO ME WHILE I'M ALL FOR PRESERVING WETLANDS AND WILDLIFE AND ALL THAT ALSO FOR SECURITY OF MY INVESTMENT AND MY FAMILY AND MY GRANDKIDS AND KEEPING OUR PLACE CLEAN AND HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF A PARKING LOT OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE OR A RUNWAY THAT GOES TO NOWHERE.

THERE IS HELD US FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS ON MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT.

DEVELOP AND WE LOVE THE LIFE. THAT'S WHY WE BOUGHT IT.

OUR HOPE IS THAT WE CAN TAKE THAT AND MANICURE AND KEEP IT CLEAN.

IT BECOMES SOMETHING THAT WE NOT ONLY WILL PAY THE CITY FOR OBVIOUSLY, BUT ALSO CREATE A TAX BASE FOR THE CITY AS I DID WHEN I BUILT FILLMORE RV RESORT IN GALVESTON.

THAT HAS GROWN ON MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THE CITY.

WE'D LIKE TO GET DOWN THERE AND LIVE MORE.

>> THANK YOU SIR. WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.

IS THERE ANY OF THE QUESTION THAT YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE COMMISSIONS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS NOW?

>> WELL, NOT JUST THAT.

WE DIDN'T PUT THEM ON THE FENCE UP.

WHAT WE'VE DONE IS MOW AND MAINTAIN THAT PROPERTY AND HAVE SEVERAL YEARS INTO IT AND AGAIN, HAVE FULLY ENGINEERED, IMPROVED PLANS FOR A HOME.

IT'S THE ONLY REAL ROAD LAYER OR ROADBLOCK TO US IS THAT POSSIBILITY OF WHAT'S GOING TO BE NEXT TO OUR HOUSE.

>> OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU.

MR. SMITH. COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY I SEE YOU HAND UP, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. SMITH?

>> YES I DO.

MR. SMITH, IF YOU DON'T GET THIS EASEMENT WILL YOU STILL HAVE ENOUGH ROOM, THE PARCEL THAT YOU OWN OUTRIGHT TO BUILD YOUR DREAM HOME?

>> YES. THERE'S ROOM THERE.

THE CHALLENGE IS BUILDING A HOME AND OBVIOUSLY FLOOD ZONE AND ELEVATION, HAVING A DECK, AND THE POOL AND AM I GOING TO BE LOOKING DOWN ON CARS OR PEOPLE OR WHAT I'VE EXPERIENCED OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS, TRASH, OPEN FIRES AND THAT KIND OF THING.

I TRY TO SHOW YOU [INAUDIBLE], I CAN TURN MY CAMERA BUT I [INAUDIBLE] PROPERTY.

>> BUT THAT WILL FIT ON YOUR PARCEL?

>> YEAH.

COMMISIONERS, ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING FOR MR. SMITH? YES. COMMISSIONER EDWARDS.

>> THANK YOU MR. SMITH.

>> I MADE IT. YES, I AM.

>> MR. SMITH, IS YOUR HALF THE ONE ON THE CUL-DE-SAC THAT'S BUMPING UP TO THE PROPERTY?

>> NO, WE'RE NOT ONLY THE CUL-DE-SAC.

>> OKAY, BUT YOU'RE IN THE HOUSE TO THE RIGHT OF IT?

>> NO, MA'AM I'M SORRY.

>> I HAVE A LOT. I DON'T HAVE A HOME YET.

>> BUT IS YOUR LOT THE LOT THAT IS IN THE CUL-DE-SAC THAT'S BACKED UP TO THIS PROPERTY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?

>> I DON'T FOLLOW. I'M ON THE NORTHSIDE OF THIS PROPERTY.

I'M ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTIES.

I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION.

>> I THINK YOU'VE SWAPPED 648 ON THE MAP.

>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.

THAT'S THE LOT TO THE RIGHT OF THEM.

>> YEAH.

>> THIS LOT, 628.

>> IF YOU'RE FACING THE WATER, THEN ISN'T IT TO MY LEFT?

>> OKAY.

>> YEAH. [LAUGHTER]

ANYTHING ELSE FOR MR. SMITH? ALL RIGHT, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ELSE.

THANK YOU, MR. SMITH.

[OVERLAPPING] EXCUSE ME, SIR, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE?

>> NO, I WAS SAYING THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> GREAT. THANK YOU. SONIA WILL OPEN UP THE HEARING TO ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT.

MS GORMAN, I SEE SOME RAISED HANDS.

DO YOU KNOW WHICH ORDER WE HAPPEN TO BE IN?

>> I THINK PATRICK IS RUNNING THE RAISING OF THE HAND, SO, PATRICK, YOU'LL JUST PICK THE NEXT ONE.

>> SURE. I BELIEVE I SAW MR. KEVIN SOMERS RAISE HIS HAND FIRST, I'LL ALLOW HIM TO TALK.

YOU SHOULD BE UNMUTED AND READY TO GO.

[00:20:01]

>> FIRST ONE IS KEVIN.

>> YOU'RE LIVE, MR. SOMERS.

YOU HAVE A THREE-MINUTE TIME LIMIT NOW.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE TIME AND LETTING ME TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK.

MY PROPERTY IS IN [INAUDIBLE] WEST OF THE PROPERTY AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS OF MR. SMITH REGARDING THE PUBLIC OVER THERE.

BUT MY CONCERN IS BECAUSE OF THE ECOLOGICAL REASON, BEING CONCERNED ABOUT THE WETLAND.

IF YOU COMPARE THAT WETLAND ON THE WEST OF 93RD STREET WITH THAT ON THE EASTSIDE, THERE'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE AND YOU'D JUST HAVE TO GO DOWN THERE AND YOU CAN SEE IT, AND I'VE ALSO PROVIDED PHOTOGRAPHS.

I THINK MY REASON IS JUST THAT THE EASTERN WETLAND GETS A LOT MORE TIDAL FLOW THROUGH THE CULVERT THAT WAS BUILT ON THE OUTSIDE.

BUT THE ONE ON THE WEST DOESN'T GET THE SAME FLOW, PERHAPS THE CULVERT DOWN THERE IS BLOCKED.

SO WE DON'T GET A WHOLE LOT OF TIDAL FLOWING, WHICH WOULD BE ON THE SOUTH END THE WETLAND BY NOW.

I DON'T THINK I WOULD DISAGREE WITH JP IN THAT I BELIEVE THAT BEFORE ANY OF THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE DOWN THERE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A NATURAL SEASONAL TIDAL FLOW INTO THAT AREA AND EXTREMELY HIGH TIDE.

BUT BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE CONSTRUCTION DOWN THERE, THAT IS BEING CHOKED, AND SO THERE IS NO TIDAL FLOW IN THERE DURING THE VERY VERY HIGH TIDE.

MY PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO OPEN UP THAT AREA, THE SUBJECT AREA.

RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINAL GRAY THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION TOOK PLACE ON [INAUDIBLE].

SO THAT ON THE EXTREME HIGH TIDE THE WATER GET INTO TO THE WETLAND THERE.

I THINK THAT IF IT WAS CONSTRUCTED PROPERLY, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE PEOPLE THERE LEAVING NEEDLES AND THINGS LIKE THAT AROUND BUT I THINK THAT WE WOULD SEE THE WETLAND AREA THERE IMPROVE AND WITH A LOT MORE WILDLIFE IN THAT SECTION.

I'M ALMOST AT THREE MINUTES, SO I'LL HAND BACK TO YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SOMERS.

JUST SO YOU WILL KNOW, WE DID ALL RECEIVE YOUR COMMENT AND ALL OF YOUR PHOTOGRAPHS TODAY PRIOR TO THE MEETING.

WE HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THEM SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THEY WILL BE SUGGESTED BY THE COMMISSION.

>> THANK YOU. NEXT. MR. COLLIN, WHO DO WE HAVE UP?

>> I BELIEVE MISS KARLA KLAY IS NEXT.

>> ALL RIGHT. KARLA, I KNOW YOU WERE JUST [INAUDIBLE] A BIT TO TALK TO US ABOUT THIS.

YOU KNOW THE DRILL, YOU'VE GOT THREE MINUTES KARLA.

>> WE SUBMITTED OUR FORMAL COMMENTS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT WE OWN THE WETLAND AREA THAT'S PROTECTED THAT WAS MITIGATION FOR [INAUDIBLE] MAKERS DEVELOPMENT [INAUDIBLE].

THE ROAD THAT HAD BEEN PUT THERE IN THE LAST THREE YEARS THROUGH PHIL AND MOVEMENT BY BUILDING ACTIVITY IN CONDANSELO, INSTEAD OF GOING DOWN THE ROAD, THE AREA WOULD HAVE BEEN TIDALLY INFLUENCED REPEATEDLY PRIOR TO ANY DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THAT WETLAND WAS JUST GOING OFF INTO THE BAY AND IT WAS STILL FOR DEVELOPMENT.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT ANYBODY PUT A CULVERT OR A DITCH IN THERE, HOWEVER IT JUST MEANS THAT IT WAS FILLED, AND THE ACCESS WAS NO LONGER THERE.

I THINK MR. SMITH'S FRUSTRATION AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD FRUSTRATION HAS A LOT MORE TO DO WITH THE WAY WE HANDLE OUR COASTAL ENVIRONMENT AND THE WAY WE MANAGE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO BROADLY ENCOURAGE OUR CITY GETTING A BAY ACCESS POINT AND TO FIND A WAY TO PROPERLY MANAGE THEM AND [INAUDIBLE] THE WAY PEOPLE USE THEM.

I GREW UP IN THE FLORIDA KEYS AND I CAN TELL YOU AN ACCESS POINT LIKE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE VIEWING AREA AT SUNSET FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD, NOBODY WOULD DROP LITTER, NEEDLES, OR ANYTHING.

THEY ARE ANYBODY'S PROPERTY.

THERE WOULD BE SIGNAGE AND PROPER RULES AND STANDARDS FOR BEHAVIOR.

[NOISE] NOBODY IS KEEPING

[00:25:04]

TRACK OF THESE THINKING OF THOSE ISLAND AT [INAUDIBLE] OR THE CITY OR ANYTHING ELSE, IT'S JUST GIVE IT TO NON-PROFITS WITH LITTLE FUNDS TO REALLY TAKE CARE OF IT.

I THINK REALLY THIS ISSUE THAT IS TROUBLING MR. SMITH HAS TO DO WITH THE WAY WE CARE FOR THINGS, AND THAT'S MY PERSONAL STATEMENT.

THAT'S NOT ARTICLE STATEMENT, BUT I DID WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THAT WETLAND WOULD HAVE ALWAYS BEEN TIDILY INFLUENCED AND IT IS BEING HAMPERED IN TWO DIRECTIONS NOW.

ONE BY THE DEVELOPMENT AND TWO BY A COLLAPSED CULVERT THAT THE CITY OWNS THAT GOES UNDER THE STREET.

>>THANK YOU, KARLA.

WE APPRECIATE THAT AS ALWAYS.

>> WE HAVE.

LET'S SEE.

[NOISE] MR. COLLINS, IS IT GOING TO BE CHULA? [NOISE]

>> CORRECT.

>> OKAY. CHULA, ARE YOU THERE?

>> YES, I'M HERE. THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> YES, WE CAN, AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE DID RECEIVE YOUR COMMENTS BEFOREHAND, TOO, SO THANK YOU FOR THOSE, AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

>> OKAY. THE 93RD STREET [INAUDIBLE] GOES ALL THE WAY FROM THE NORTH SHORE TO OFFATTS BAYOU, AND THAT IS ALSO AN EASEMENT NEXT TO MY PROPERTY THAT IS VERY SIMILAR TO MR. SMITH DOWN ON THE OFFATTS BAYOU.

I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY ONE THING THAT DIDN'T FIT.

I CAN'T REMEMBER, I THINK IT WAS COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY WHO REFERRED TO WESTERN LIMITED.

SURVEY LIMITED IS THE EAST ON THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT WAS CONNECTING TO THE [INAUDIBLE] PROPERTY THERE ON THE WEST.

IT'S NOT ON JOHN PAUL'S PROPERTY AS HE SAID.

THE DITCH WE'RE REFERRING TO IS WITHIN THIS PUBLIC EASEMENT.

WHEN MR. SMITH TALKED ABOUT FIRES AND NEEDLES, AND TRASH AND WHATEVER, HE'S REFERRING TO HIS PROPERTY AND HIS [INAUDIBLE] THAT GOES UP, AS SEEN IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT ACCESS THE RIGHT OF WAY.

IT HAS BEEN CHANGED FOR YEARS, PRIVATE PROPERTY SIGNS EVERYWHERE.

YOU CANNOT GET ON THAT PROPERTY UNLESS YOU FEEL LIKE YOU'RE TRESPASSING, SO IF ANYBODY IS GETTING ON HIS CURRENTLY-OWNED PROPERTY AND LAY THEM WITH TRASH, IT'S BECAUSE, I DON'T KNOW, YOU'RE GOING ONTO HIS PROPERTY.

THE [INAUDIBLE] BELONGS TO HIS PROPERTY NOW, NOT THE RIGHT OF WAY, AND I HAVE TO REITERATE THE NO RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

THIS IS THE COMP PLAN.

THIS IS YOUR GUIDING LIGHT, YOUR MANTRA FOR BEING ON THE COMMISSION OR BEING A COUNCILPERSON. THE COMP PLAN.

"NO RIGHTS-OF-WAY THAT PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS TO BODIES OF WATER SHOULD BE ABANDONED." PERIOD. PERIOD. THE AFRICAN PASSIVE PARCEL TO THE EAST IS [INAUDIBLE] HOME FOR SALE FOR $415,000 FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

IT'S ON HAR, H-A-R.

WHEN I KNEW ABOUT THIS CASE COMING, I WAS SURPRISED WHEN I SAW THE DELINEATION AND READ OF HOW THEY WANTED TO SPLIT THIS PIE UP THREE WAYS IN KEEPING THEY'RE RIGHT ABOUT ABANDONMENT, AND JOHN PAUL HAS RELINQUISHED HIS, BUT IT TAKES THEM THE ENTIRE WATERFRONT PROPERTY.

IF IT HAD BEEN WITHIN REASON THAT YOU WENT DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THAT RIGHT OF WAY AND YOU'RE AT THE EASTERN PORTION OF IT, TO MR. SMITH'S PROPERTY, AND YOU LEFT THE DITCH IN QUESTION OPEN AND FOR FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES FOR RECONNECTING THE BAY TO THOSE WETLANDS AFTER WE REMOVE THE DEBRIS THAT HAD FALLEN FROM THE FILL TRUCK.

IT COULD BE A REASONABLE PROPOSITION, BUT I LIVE NEXT TO THIS SITUATION, AT THE VERY SOUTH END OF 93RD.

YOU'VE LOCKED AWAY FISHERMEN THAT FISH IN THERE IN THAT RIGHT OF WAY, THAT PUT AND FLOUNDER AND ALL SORTS OF THINGS.

YOU DID NOT [INAUDIBLE] FISHERMEN HAVE A LOT OF THINGS.

IT'S NOT EVEN THE FISH STUFF FOR THE OCCASIONAL [INAUDIBLE] [NOISE] WELL, THAT'S MY TIME, I SUPPOSE.

[NOISE] IS THAT MY TIME?

>> YES. THAT'S YOUR TIME, CHULA, SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT.

I THINK THE MIC IS CUT, SO SHE CAN'T SAY ANYTHING ELSE.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS CASE? [NOISE]

>> DOES ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE CASE? PLEASE USE THE "RAISE YOUR HAND" FUNCTION.

ERON SMITH HAS RAISED HIS HAND.

I BELIEVE THAT'S NOT ALLOWED THOUGH.

[00:30:05]

>> CORRECT. MR. SMITH HAS HAD HIS TIME AS THE APPLICANT.

>> MADAM CHAIR?

>> YES?

>> [OVERLAPPING] HI, THIS IS TIM TIETJENS. I WANTED TO CHIME IN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS PROJECT.

[INAUDIBLE] IS FOR DENIAL, AND I THINK THAT'S CLEARLY AS A RESULT OF THE COMP PLAN AS MS. SANCHEZ MENTIONED SAYING, "NO RIGHTS-OF-WAY THAT PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS TO BODIES OF WATER SHOULD BE ABANDONED." THAT'S ON THE PARAGRAPH, THE LAST LINE.

TO SOME DEGREE, I THINK THAT FELT A LITTLE BIT BOXING TO MAKING THIS RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT SAYS THAT, ALTHOUGH I WILL POINT OUT THAT THIS ENTIRE SESSION IS IN THE CONTEXT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OBJECTIVE, T-4, WHICH IS IMPROVING INTERNAL CITY ORGANIZATION, POLICIES, AND PLANNING TO PROVIDE BETTER TRANSPORTATION OPPORTUNITIES.

IT'S REALLY A TRANSPORTATION-RELATED COMPONENT, AND IT DOES MENTION WITHIN THE CITY'S URBAN CORE IF WE'RE CHANGING GRID PATTERN, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

AS READING THAT PARAGRAPH UP ABOVE IT, THIS CLEARLY IS NOT THE CITY'S URBAN CORE.

THIS IS IN [INAUDIBLE] ACTUALLY ONE MAJOR STREET GOING OUT THERE THAT HAS ROADS THAT COME OFF OF IT.

I WILL ALSO ADD THAT IN THE PARAGRAPH ABOVE, IT SAYS, "THE CITY HAS A DUTY TO BALANCE THE DESIRES OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS WITH THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC LAND." IN THAT CASE, THERE SHOULD BE A BALANCE, AND I KNOW THAT THAT STATEMENT IS IN THE COMP PLAN SAYING NO RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHOULD BE ABANDONED THAT PROVIDE ACCESS.

BUT AGAIN, I THINK THAT'S IN CONTEXT OF PERHAPS A LOT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WITHIN THE GRID, AS WELL I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE OTHER ACCESS POINTS IN AND AROUND THIS AREA.

THE 93RD ACCESS POINT CLEARLY IS ONE OF THEM.

PATRICK, DO YOU HAVE A MAP? DID YOU GET THAT MAP? [NOISE] OR ADRIEL, DID YOU GET THAT MAP? ANYHOW. [NOISE]

>> IF WE CAN GET THAT MATTER DEMONSTRATED.

BUT 93RD OBVIOUSLY HAS AN ACCESS POINT THAT DOES GO OUT THE BACK.

91ST DOES AS WELL ON THE BASE SIDE.

ON OFFICE, YOU HAVE, YEAH, THERE YOU GO.

YOU HAVE ONE AT BLOOM DRIVE, WHICH IS A DEAD END.

BUT IF AN IMPROVED ROAD WAY TOO.

YOU MIGHT HAVE ONE AT 91ST THAT ENTERS AND DEAD ENDS BASICALLY AT BALD WATCH.

THEN THE 93RD RIGHT AWAY, ALTHOUGH NOT IMPROVED, IS ADJACENT TO MS. SANCHEZ PROPERTY AND IT EXTENDS OUT THERE AS WELL.

THOSE ARE THE FIVE ACCESS POINTS IN AND AROUND THIS AREA.

THE ONE AT 93RD, I GUESS YOU CAN ARGUE, WOULD BE THE BEST LOCATION FOR AN ACCESS OR SOME KIND OF PUBLIC VIEWING AREA.

ALTHOUGH I WOULD CONTEND THAT ON 91ST, AS YOU GET TO THAT AREA, THERE'S ACTUALLY WHEN YOU GET TO THE END OF 91ST STREET, IT VEERS A LITTLE BIT TO THE EAST GEARS AND PROVIDES CONTINUED ACCESS TO THE BOAT STALLS IN THAT MARINA.

PERHAPS THAT ALSO HAS DIRECT ACCESS TO THE BANK, WHICH WOULD MAKE SENSE FROM THE STANDPOINT OF MR. SMITH'S CONCERNS THAT THE PUBLIC AT-LARGE CONGREGATING IN BETWEEN [INAUDIBLE] HOMES, SO TO SPEAK, VERSUS AT THE END OF MATERIAL COLUMNS WHERE THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE LAND USE IN THE ZONE.

YOU CAN SEE THAT OBVIOUSLY THAT THAT MARINA IS ZONE COMMERCIAL AND THEN THE RESIDENTIAL HOMES EXTEND WESTWARD.

[00:35:01]

IF ACCESS TO THAT AREA IS THE COMPONENT THAT'S DESIRED AND YOU'RE REALLY TRYING TO BALANCE THE INTERESTS OF WHERE THOSE ACCESS POINTS MIGHT BE PLACED, 91ST MAKES BETTER STAMPS.

THEN YOU GO DOWN TO THE OTHER END OF 91ST, THAT'S WHERE THE BOAT LAUNCH RAMP IS FROM OUTSIDE PERSPECTIVE THAT MAY NOT HAVE KNOW AS MUCH ABOUT THE AREA INTO THE MAIN [INAUDIBLE] HAVE THAT ACCESS POINT AT 91ST VERSUS 93RD.

YOU CERTAINLY COULD KEEP ALL OF THEM AS RECOMMENDS AS WELL.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU SHOULDN'T CONSIDER THAT, BUT I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO BE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THIS IS A HARD, FAST RULE.

IT'S STILL IN THE PLAN AND IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS WELL.

MAYBE THE PINE AWESOME TALKS ABOUT BALANCING THE INTERESTS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS AND WHAT THEY MAY BE DEALING WITH AS WAS STATED EARLIER.

I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THERE ARE ALSO NUMEROUS REFERENCES TO IN-HOUSE DEVELOPMENT.

HOW THE CITY FACILITATES THAT AND SHOULD FACILITATE THAT.

OR WHEN PEOPLE ARE BUILDING INTO SITES THAT AREN'T PERHAPS OTHERWISE DEVELOPABLE.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF PROVIDE THAT PERSPECTIVE IN TERMS OF WHERE WE ARE, BUT OUR HANDS WERE A LITTLE BIT TIED WITH MEMBERS OF THAT RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE OF THAT SENTENCING IN THERE.

>> THANK YOU, TIM. COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION NOW?

>> I NEED TO KNOW HOW MR. TIETJENS IS PRESENTING HIMSELF.

IF HE SPEAKING AS PART OF THE, BECAUSE I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR HIM.

BUT IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO ASK IN A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

WE'LL STAND ON TIM'S STATEMENT.

>> I'M REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT.

>> OKAY. I THINK THAT HE IS IN THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT, HE'S IN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE DURING THE STAFF COMMENTARY AT THE VERY START SO THAT YOU COULD HAVE ASKED QUESTIONS THEN.

I THINK WHAT I WILL ALLOW IS AFTER WE ARE DONE?

>>IF I CAN INTERRUPT FOR A SECOND.

AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT, AND AS I WAS ABLE TO INTERPOSE MYSELF INTO COMMENTS AT THE HEARING, BOTH FOR [INAUDIBLE] AND THE DIRECTOR.

THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY AN OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT TYPE OF THING.

THIS IS STAFF INFORMING THE COMMISSION AS WE ARE DIRECTED TO DO IN OUR ROLE.

IF COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY HAS A QUESTION OF THE DIRECTOR, SHE CAN ACCURATELY ASK THOSE QUESTIONS.

>> WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO DO, MAYOR DONNA?

>> ABSOLUTELY. AS QUESTIONS ARISE OF STAFF, PEOPLE SAY THINGS AND THEN THEY NEED TO ADD A QUESTION OF STAFF OR STAFF MAY NEED TO RECEDE OR INTERRUPT AND PROVIDE EITHER PRIORITY OR SOMETHING ELSE. THAT CAN HAPPEN.

>> THEN COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY.

>> I'M GOING TO RESERVE MY TIME UNTIL WE HAVE DISCUSSIONS.

I WANT THIS TO DRAG ON DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

BUT I DO WANT TO COME BACK AND I WOULD APPRECIATE YOU'RE RECOGNIZING ME AT THAT TIME WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY.

COMMISSIONER EDWARD, DID I SEE YOUR HAND UP.

DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. TIETJENS?

>> COMMISSIONER EDWARD, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT TIM WAS THE LAST COMMENT AT THE PUBLIC COMMENT TOPIC.

IF IT'S SOMETHING WHERE WE NEED TO CLOSE OUT THE PUBLIC HEARING SO THAT THE COMMISSIONS CAN ASK STAFF ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, THAT'S FINE.

I DIDN'T THINK THERE WERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT FROM ANY OTHER NON STAFF FOLKS.

>> I DIDN'T SEE THAT WE HAVE OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT.

NOW I'M TOTALLY CONFUSED ON AS TO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME TO DO.

DO YOU WANT ME TO HEAR THE OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN HAVE COMMISSIONER EDWARDS COME BACK TO

[00:40:01]

TIM LATER OR MAY HE ASK HER QUESTION OF MR. TIETJENS NOW?

>> I THINK I JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN YOU ASK FOR ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT, I DIDN'T BELIEVE THERE ARE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND THEN DIRECTOR TIETJENS SAID HE HAD SOMETHING TO ADD.

I'M THINKING THAT'S HOW I WAS WATCHING THE MEETING.

THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT MAY BE COMING IN NOW, BASED OFF OF DIRECTOR TIETJENS IS WHAT I THINK YOU MAY BE SEEING NOW.

BUT PATRICK, YOU MAY EITHER BETTER PERSONALLY SEE IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE IN THE WAITING ROOM OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT PRIOR TO DIRECTOR TIETJEN'S STATEMENT.

IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING? ARE THESE PEOPLE JUST NOW WANT TO COMMENT AGAIN BECAUSE OF WHAT A DIRECTOR SAID OR THESE NEW PEOPLE?

>> THE HANDS THAT I HAVE THAT I SEE ARE UP SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED BEFORE.

SHE'S NEVER COMMENTED BEFORE.

>> OKAY. THEN I WOULD SAY IF COMMISSIONER EDWARDS WANT TO HOLD OFF ON THAT OR SHE CAN ASK DIRECTOR TIETJENS THE QUESTION, THAT'S FINE.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BOTH ARE NOT RESPONDING THAT HAVE ALREADY RESPONDED BASED OFF OF DIRECTOR TIETJEN'S STATEMENT.

>> CORRECT. I UNDERSTAND THAT.

COMMISSIONER EDWARDS, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. TIETJENS? IF YOU DO, YOU MAY ASK IT NOW.

>> I'M NOT SURE MY QUESTION IS FOR DIRECTOR TIETJENS, BUT I JUST REALIZED THAT I NEED TO HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND IT JUST OCCURRED TO ME.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I SAID IT OUT LOUD.

>> OKAY. [OVERLAPPING] IS IT RELATED TO THE CASE?

>> IT'S NOT REALLY A CONFLICT.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE I WAS BUT I JUST HAVE AN UPPER TIGHTNESS AS WELL.

I DIDN'T GET THE LETTER, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE BEFORE WE START GOING THERE I PUT THAT OUT THERE.

>> DONNA, IS IT A DISCLOSURE OR IS IT A TRUE CONFLICT?

>> AT THIS POINT, I'M THINKING IT'S JUST A DISCLOSURE, BUT IF IT'S REALLY UP TO THE COMMISSIONER IF SHE FEELS THAT SHE HAD A CONFLICT [OVERLAPPING].

>> I DON'T THINK IT'S A CONFLICT.

I JUST WANT TO DISCLOSE THAT I DON'T THINK IT'S A CONFLICT.

I DON'T LIVE CLOSE ENOUGH FOR THAT TO REALLY BE AFFECTING ME OUTSIDE OF [INAUDIBLE] AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS ON THE RECORD.

I BELIEVE WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT THIS IS THE DISCLOSURE TO THE COMMISSION THAT YOU LIVE CLOSE BY, THAT YOU HAVE NO FINANCIAL INTEREST OR FINANCIAL GAIN AS TO WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. NOT A CONFLICT, JUST A DISCLOSURE.

THANK YOU FOR DISCLOSING THAT.

NOW WE'LL GO WITH MR. COLLINS.

LET'S GO WITH OUR FINAL HAND THAT I SEE RAISED PLEASE.

[NOISE] KAREN, ARE YOU THERE?

>> YES, I'M HERE.

>> OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU.

THANKS FOR BEING WITH US TODAY.

YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES, PLEASE.

>> HI. ADJACENT TO DO AARON SMITH PROPERTY, AND DEFINITELY ON 93RD STREET, WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A DRAINAGE ISSUE, SO I WANTED TO AGREE WITH MR. KEVIN SUMMERS, THAT THAT IS A GREAT WAY TO OPEN UP AND FEED THE WETLANDS AS WELL AS HELP WITH OUR STREET DRAINAGE ON 93RD STREET.

LOOKING AT THE MAP THAT MR. TIETJEN'S PUT UP, 91ST STREET WHERE IT GOES INTO THE BAY, VERY HIGH.

IT DOESN'T SEEM IN MY OPINION TO OFFER ANY DRAINAGE OPTIONS TO THE BAY.

I TOOK PICTURES YESTERDAY, IF ANYONE HASN'T BEEN OVER THERE, I CAN SEND PICTURES.

VERY DANGEROUS STREET ON THE EAST SIDE OF 91ST STREET ON THAT END GOING TOWARD THE BAY.

YOU REALLY DON'T WANT THE PUBLIC USING THAT THE WAY THAT IT IS BEING MAINTAINED.

THE EAST SIDE OF THE STREET, IS FALLING INTO THE MARINA AND THE WATER, IT'S CRUMBLING.

[00:45:03]

IT'S A VERY DANGEROUS SPOT AND IT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED INTO AT SOME POINT.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US, THANKS FOR MAKING THE EFFORT TO BE HERE.

I'M NOT SEEING ANY OTHER HANDS UP.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AS FAR AS THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21P-040? MR. SMITH, I SEE YOUR HAND UP BUT BEAR WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS HAD HIS ALLOTTED TIME AND WE WILL NOT GO BACK TO HIM.

AM I CORRECT IN THAT?

>> IT'S QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT.

YOU CAN ALWAYS ASK THAT QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT.

>> OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. COLLIN, DO YOU SEE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, ANY OTHER HANDS UP?

>> SEEING NONE.

>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21P-040 AT 04:21 PM AND WE'LL BRING IT BACK FOR A VOTE.

COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION BEFORE WE VOTE.

[LAUGHTER]

>> I'M SORRY. YES, LET'S HAVE THAT MOTION.

>> I MAKE THE MOTION THAT 21P-040 FOLLOW COMMENDATION AND BE DENIED.

>> OKAY. DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER EDWARD.

DO YOU NEED A VOICE ON THAT OR DOES A HAND DO ON THAT, MR. COLLIN?

>> A HAND SUFFICES.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, DISCUSSION NOW.

WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THIS CASE, COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY.

>> COMMENTS RIGHT NOW ARE GOING TO BE DIRECTED TO MR. TIETJEN'S COMMENT.

I DON'T SEE WHEN HE WAS POINTING OUT THE EASEMENTS NEXT TO PRIVATELY OWNED PARCEL.

I DON'T SEE MUCH OF A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THIS SITUATION AND WHAT WE FEEL WITH EACH ACCESS POINT IN REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT ON THE WEST END OR ANY PLACE ON THE BEACHFRONT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT'S NOT A STATE REQUIREMENT THAT WE PROVIDE EASEMENTS NOTE TO THE BAY IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BUT I DON'T SEE ANY DIFFERENCE WHEN WE ASKED WESTENDERS TO PROVIDE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE EASEMENTS NEXT TO THEIR PROPERTY AS OPPOSED TO THIS.

TO ME, IT'S THE SAME THING AND I AM VERY CONCERNED THAT WE'RE WE TO GIVE AWAY OR RECOMMEND THAT THIS PARCEL BE GIVEN TO A PRIVATE ENTITY THAT WE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO RE-ESTABLISH WHATEVER ECOLOGICAL VALUE THIS AREA PROVIDED TO THE INTERIOR WETLANDS OF [INAUDIBLE] POINTS.

I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT ALSO, THAT ECOLOGICAL TOURISM OR ECO-TOURISM, ESPECIALLY BIRD WATCHING, IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN AS A COMMUNITY PROMOTE AND IT PROVIDES GREAT ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO OUR COMMUNITY.

IT IS AN ECONOMIC ENTERPRISE THAT HAS A REALLY HIGH RETURN ON INVESTMENT.

THIS INTERIOR AREA WITHIN [INAUDIBLE] POINT, IS A MAJOR DRAW DURING FEATHER FEST IN OTHER MIGRATORY TIMES DURING THE BIRD MIGRATION.

PEOPLE COME OUT THERE WITH THEIR HIGH-END CAMERAS AND THEIR HIGH-END SCOPES, IN THEIR HIGH-END CARS AND THEY'RE WATCHING THIS PHENOMENAL WETLAND THAT IS SO ACCESSIBLE.

SO I REALLY AM CONCERNED THAT IF WE GAVE THIS AREA OVER TO A PRIVATE INVESTMENT OR PRIVATE ENTERPRISE OR PROPERTY OWNER, WE WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO RECLAIM THE ECOLOGICAL VALUE THAT THIS INTERIOR WETLANDS PROVIDES NOW, AND IT'S DEGRADING.

YOU CAN TELL IT'S DEGRADING, AND THE ONLY WAY I CAN SEE THAT WE PROTECT IT RIGHT NOW, IS TO KEEP IT IN THE PUBLIC TRUST. THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. JUST TO CLARIFY ONE THING THOUGH ON SOMETHING YOU SAID, AND VICE-CHAIR BROWN, I'LL GET RIGHT TO YOU.

[00:50:04]

YOU USED THE TERM GIVEN TWICE, THEN I KNOW YOU MEAN GIVEN BY HANDED OVER.

BUT IT WOULD BE SOLD FOR AN APPRAISED VALUE, IT IS NOT GIVEN WITH NO VALUE.

THE PERSON WHO IS APPLYING FOR THIS ABANDONMENT, WOULD PAY THE CITY AN APPRAISED VALUE AND IT WOULD GO THROUGH ALL THE REGULARLY CHAINS.

>> RIGHT. BUT I FEEL CONCERNED THAT THE APPRAISED VALUE DOES NOT REFLECT THE ECOLOGICAL VALUES THAT IT MIGHT POSSES OR IT COULD BE REOPENED AND REESTABLISHED AS A TITLE INTERCHANGE.

>> I UNDERSTAND.

>> BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT IN MY STATEMENT.

IT WOULD BE A FAILED TRANSACTION.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. VICE-CHAIR BROWN.

>> I WANTED TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE AMENDMENT ALSO, PRIMARILY WITH THE GUIDANCE OF T4.2 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WE'RE IT SAYS, "NO RIGHTS OF WAY THAT PROVIDES PUBLIC ACCESS TO BODIES OF WATER SHOULD BE ABANDONED." I THINK BEING SURROUNDED BY WATER, WE HAVE PRECIOUS FEW PUBLIC ACCESS POINTS, ESPECIALLY IN RELATION TO THE MAP THAT MR. TIETJEN SHOWED US, THERE'S ONLY TWO ON THE BAYSIDE OVER HERE.

TO ADDRESS THE OWNERS' CONCERNS OF THE JUNK AND STAFF THAT ACCUMULATES OVER THERE IN THAT T4.2 SECTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RIGHT AT THE TOP IT SAYS, "THE CITY IS THE STEWARD OF OUR PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY." I THINK A WHOLE LOT MORE WORK COULD BE DONE TO IMPROVE THIS BAY ACCESS MANAGEMENT AT THIS POINT.

IN TERMS OF PICKING UP THE TRASH AND MAKE IT MORE ACCESSIBLE, TAKING AWAY THE NO TRESPASSING SIGN AND MAYBE PROVIDING A FENCE BETWEEN THEM RIGHT OF WAY AND THE PROPERTY OWNER THERE AND IMPROVING THE DRAINAGE OF IT TO MAKE IT ACTUALLY FUNCTION TO HELP SUPPORT THE WETLANDS BEHIND IT LIKE IT USED TO DO IN THE PAST ACCORDING TO SOME OF THE ACCOUNTS WE'VE HEARD HERE.

BUT I THINK THE CITY HAS DONE A LOT MORE TO DO IN ITS RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING ITS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS.

SO I WOULD BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, VICE-CHAIR BROWN.

COMMISSIONERS, IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS MATTER BEFORE WE TAKE THE VOTE? SEEING NO OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MATTER, I'LL CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE. MR. COLLIN?

>> COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI?

>> SORRY JUST A MINUTE, PATRICK.

I'M SORRY I'M GOING TO INTERRUPT YOU.

A REMINDER COMMISSIONERS THAT THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE FOLLOW THE PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL.

SO AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE IS FOR DENIAL.

AS WE ALWAYS DO, JUST TO KEEP THAT STRAIGHT OUR HEAD WHEN WE HAVE ONE THAT'S A LITTLE BIT AWKWARD.

EXCUSE ME, BUT PATRICK, PLEASE GO AHEAD.

>> COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI?

>> I'M IN FAVOR.

>> VICE-CHAIRPERSON BROWN?

>> COMMISSIONER EDWARDS?

>> CHAIRPERSON HILL?

>> COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY?

>> COMMISSIONER PERNA.

>> COMMISSIONER WALLA.

>> ALL IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSES.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONERS.

I WILL NOW MOVE ON TO CASE 21P-042.

[7B. LICENSE TO USE 21P-042 (Adjacent To 2427 Market / Avenue D) Request For A License To Use In Order To Install A Planter In The City Of Galveston Sidewalk Right-Of-Way. Adjacent Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, Lot 1, Block 504, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Paul Mijares Adjacent Property Owner: Joseph Spencer, Market Street Management, LLC Easement Holder: City Of Galveston]

>> ALL RIGHT. 21P-042, THIS ADJACENT TO 2427 MARKET STREET.

THIS IS A LICENSE-TO-USE REQUEST.

THERE WERE 18 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, NONE OF THOSE WERE RETURNED.

THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS FROM STATE DEPARTMENTS.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A LICENSE-TO-USE IN ORDER TO MODIFY THE PLACEMENT OF A SEA TURTLE STATUE IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON SIDEWALK BRIGHTER POINT.

THE APPLICANT RECEIVED APPROVAL FOR THE STATUE FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONER, CASE 20P-042 AND RECOMMENDATION FROM LANDMARK COMMISSION OR CASE 20LZ-076.

SO THIS IS AN EXISTING TURTLE, THE APPLICANT NOW WISHES TO ADD A DECORATIVE AND PROTECTIVE PLANTER AROUND THE TURTLE.

THE EXISTING TURTLE STATUE WAS PLACED IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO THE SPONSOR'S BUSINESS, APPROXIMATELY 12 INCHES FROM THE CURB AND PROVIDE APPROXIMATELY 10 FOOT OF CLEARANCE BETWEEN THE STATUE AND THE ADJACENT BUILDING IN THE OTHER DIRECTION.

[00:55:03]

THE TURTLE STATUE IS 40 INCHES HIGH AND 62 INCHES WIDE AT ITS WIDEST POINT.

POST BASE IS TWELVE INCHES TALL FOR GRADE AND SIX FOOT ACROSS.

IT WILL BE A CONCRETE BASE ANCHORED TO A SIDEWALK WITH A BENT REBAR CASE.

THE SIX FOOT WIDE OCTAGONAL PLANTER WILL BE CENTERED ON THE TURTLE STATUE WHICH HAS THE OVERALL WIDTH OF 62 INCHES.

THAT MEANS THE PLANTER WILL BE AT LEAST FIVE INCHES WIDER THAN THE STATUE AT ANY GIVEN POINT.

MORE THAN THAT, DEPENDING ON THE SHAPE OF THE TURTLE.

DETAILS OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

THE ADJACENT RIGHT-OF-WAY IS JUST WEST OF THE SPONSOR'S RESTAURANTS ON THE EAST SIDE 25TH STREET BETWEEN MARKET AND POST OFFICE.

ADDITION TO EXISTING FLOWER BED WHERE THE STATUE IS CURRENTLY PLACED AND WHERE THE PLANTER WILL BE PLACED.

THERE ARE 10 [INAUDIBLE] ADJACENT TO THE STATUE AS ALSO SHOWN IN THE STAFF REPORT.

THE ADJACENT PROPERTY IS THE GALVESTON LANDMARK.

THOSE LANDMARKS, THE COMMISSION PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION IN THEIR AUGUST 16TH MEETING.

THEY RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL IS WELL WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 1-3 IN THE STAFF REPORT, PLUS STANDARD CONDITION 4-9.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS.

I THINK WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO TOO DEEP A LITTLE BIT MORE.

SORRY ABOUT THAT, EVERYONE. STAFF'S FAULT, MY FAULT. THERE WE GO.

HERE'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

YOU SEE WHERE THE EXISTING TURTLE STATUE IS CURRENTLY LOCATED.

THAT'S ITS CURRENT LOCATION WITH THE CANOPY THAT IS THERE NOW. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THIS IS THE SITE PLAN SHOWING WHERE THE TURTLE SITS IN RELATION TO THE GENERAL AREA. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

WE HAVE A PHOTO OF THE EXISTING TURTLE CLOSE-UP VIEW.

WE HAVE THE FICTION DRAWING OF THE BASE SHOWING THE REBAR PINS REINFORCEMENT.

WE HAVE A PLAN VIEW OF THAT PLANTER.

THEN THE FINAL PHOTO IS THE WOOD FORM THAT THE CONCRETE WILL BE POURED INTO AROUND THE TURTLE STATUE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THEN WE HAVE A PHOTO OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PROPERTY TO THE NORTH AND TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE WEST.

THIS CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT.

>> THANK YOU, DANIEL. I APPRECIATE IT.

I'M SO CONFUSED ON THIS ONE.

I'M GOING TO ASK THE QUESTION FIRST, CAROL, JUST GIVE ME A MINUTE.

[LAUGHTER] ON THIS ONE, DANIEL, ARE YOU TELLING ME NOW THAT ALL THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS THE TURTLES GOING TO STAY IN THE SAME PLANE? WE'RE JUST GOING TO ADD THIS DECORATIVE PLANTER AROUND IT.

OR IS THE WHOLE TURTLE MOVING OVER AS INDICATED BY THE ARROWS AND THE FOOT MARKERS AND ALL THAT ON OUR LITTLE SHEET?

>>YEAH. WE CAN GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE IF WE NEED TO.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO.

BUT FAST UNDERSTANDING IS THIS BASE IS JUST GOING TO PROTECT THE TURTLE WHERE IT SITS.

CURRENTLY IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY PROTECTION OR REALLY PEDIMENT OF PEOPLE INTERACTING WITH IT INAPPROPRIATELY.

I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT WILL SPEAK MORE ABOUT THAT.

BASICALLY, THE TURTLE STAYS WHERE IT'S AT, WE'RE JUST GOING TO ADD A BIGGER, BETTER BASE.

I APPRECIATE THAT, MR. HOLLOWAY.

>> DANIEL, CAN YOU PULL UP NOT ONLY FOR THE PHOTOGRAPH, PLEASE, OF THE TURTLE FROM THE ELEVATION.

I WENT BY AND LOOKED AT THAT TOO, AND FROM WHAT I CAN SEE RIGHT NOW IS THE TURTLE IS IN DIRECT LINE WITH THE DOORWAY, SO IT WILL HAVE TO BE MOVED.

IT'S GOING TO BE MOVED FURTHER SOUTH.

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> DO YOU SEE HOW THE TURTLE IS IN DIRECT LINE WITH THE DOORWAY RIGHT THERE? IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE MOVED WHERE THOSE TABLES ARE OR THE CHAIRS.

DO YOU SEE THE CHAIRS IN THAT ELEVATION?

>> YES, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT.

THAT WE'RE SEEING THE LITTLE DOTTED LINE ON THE MAP IS SHOWING THE ELEVATED RAMP UP TO THE DOOR AND THEN THE TURTLE IS SITTING RIGHT THERE.

[01:00:08]

MAYBE THAT'S A QUESTION THAT WE SHOULD HOLD FOR THE APPLICANT, COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY.

>> I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE IT.

I THINK THIS EXHIBIT A SHOWS THAT THEY WILL BE MOVING IT.

WE CAN VERIFY IT, OF COURSE, WITH THE ADVOCATE, BUT I THINK THEY HAVE TO MOVE IT JUST BECAUSE OF THE SPACE REQUIREMENTS.

>> I DON'T THINK THAT'S THEIR DOOR.

I THINK THEIR DOOR IS FARTHER DOWN.

>> THERE'S THREE DOORS.

>> THEY HAD TWO DOORS. I KNOW I ALWAYS GO THROUGH THIS BLACK DOOR.

>> GOING TO THE MIDDLE DOOR.

[LAUGHTER]

>> AT LEAST NOT CLOSING ONE OF THEM.

>> OKAY. WE'LL ASK THE APPLICANT ABOUT THAT WHEN THE APPLICANT COMES ON THE LINE.

COMMISSIONERS, ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE STAFF? OKAY. SEEING NONE, WE'LL OPEN TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:36 PM AND BRING THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE WITH US?

>> HE IS. MR. MUJARES, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TALK.

>> THERE WE GO, I JUST UNMUTED MYSELF.

I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME.

VERY INFORMATIVE. THIS IS THROUGH THE LAST ITEM OF THE FIRST ITEM ON THERE.

LET'S DISCUSS ABOUT OUR WETLANDS AND EVERYTHING.

AS YOU KNOW, BACK IN 2019, THE CITY APPROVED THE PLACEMENT OF THIS TURTLE AS ONE OF THE TURTLES ABOUT TOWN PROJECT, AND WE PLACED IT IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR, IN THAT PRESENT LOCATION WHERE YOU SEE IT NOW.

BUT THERE'S BEEN A CHALLENGE; THE CURRENT HEIGHT, IT ENCOURAGES YOUNG KIDS AND SOMETIMES NOT VERY WELL THINKING ADULTS TO CLIMB UP ON IT, TO TAKE PICTURES, MAYBE AFTER THEY'VE HAD TOO MANY DRINKS OVER AT THE LOCAL BAR.

BUT ANYWAY, BECAUSE OF THOSE PROBLEMS THAT HAVE OCCURRED, SOME OF THE TURTLES AROUND TOWN HAVE CREATED CAGES AROUND THEM AND THEY'RE NOT VERY AESTHETIC TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THE LITTLE TURTLES ARE IN JAIL, SO I, AN ARTIST, DESIGNED THIS SO THAT WE WOULD NOT UNBOLT IT, POUR THE CONCRETE, PUT HER IN A CONCRETE FLOWER BED, AND RESET THE TURTLE IN THE CENTER RAISED UP, APPROXIMATELY 12 INCHES FROM GRAY.

ORIGINALLY IN THE CURRENT LOCATION THAT WE'VE DRAWN THERE, THERE WAS A FLOWER BED THERE.

WHEN THE PROPERTY OWNER PUT UP, THEY FILLED IN ALL THOSE PLACES, SO THERE COULD BE PLACES FOR MORE SEATING AND FEEDING FOR THEY'RE RESTAURANT, ETC.

WHEN WE DREW UP THIS SITE PLAN, WE MOVED IT OVER A LITTLE BIT, SO THERE WOULD BE CLEARANCE TO THAT DOORWAY.

WE CAN EASILY KEEP IT EXACTLY WHERE IT'S SITTING NOW, AND JUST PUT THE BASE THERE, WHATEVER THE CITY THINKS, BUT REALLY, IT WOULD HELP TO BE ABLE TO PUT THE FLOWER BED IN, RAISE THE TURTLE UP, BE MORE AESTHETIC FOR THE STREET, FOR THE FLOWERS GROWING AROUND IT, AND PROBABLY KEEP PEOPLE FROM CLIMBING OVER IT.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? WE CAN KEEP IT RIGHT WHERE IT IS OR MOVE IT OVER.

WHEN I DREW IT UP, I THOUGHT IT'D BE MORE OF A VEIL FOR PEOPLE TO GO IN AND OUT THOSE DOORS AND NOT BLOCK ANY ACCESS.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE EXPLANATION.

I THINK WE WERE JUST LOOKING FOR CLARIFICATION ON THAT.

WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE HAND-DRAWN MAP THEN WE SEE 2.5 FOOT OF DELINEATION.

IS THAT HOW FAR SOUTH YOU WOULD BE MOVING THE TURTLE TO BE?

>> YEAH. FROM WHERE IT IS NOW SO YOU CAN HAVE CLEAR ACCESS.

IF SOMEBODY PARKED ANOTHER CAR AND WALKED STRAIGHT INTO THE RESTAURANT THROUGH THOSE DOORWAYS, THEY'RE NOT BLOCKED AT ALL.

WE THOUGHT THAT WE MAKE IT MORE AVAILABLE FOR YOUR APPROVAL, BUT WE CAN KEEP IT EXACTLY WHERE IT'S AT ALSO.

[OVERLAPPING] THE IDEA IS JUST TO GET THE FLOWER BED AROUND IT AND RAISE IT UP.

>> I THINK WE WERE JUST LOOKING FOR CLARIFICATION AS TO WHERE YOU WERE MOVING IT, HOW FAR OUT.

I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK FOR OTHER COMMISSIONERS, BUT THAT WAS ALL WE WERE LOOKING FOR, IT WAS JUST CLARIFICATION.

COMMISSIONER WALLA, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> YES, I DO. THANK YOU. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE IT? HERE'S HOW I LOOK AT THESE TURTLES.

YOU GUYS ARE SUPPORTING THE ARTS, I THINK IT'S A GREAT THING.

YOU OWN THE BUSINESS.

THERE HAS TO BE SOME CONSIDERATION, BUT WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE IT MOVED?

[01:05:05]

>> IDEALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT RIGHT WHERE IT IS BECAUSE IT WILL ALLOW TO HAVE A FEW MORE TABLES TO PUT OUT THERE, LIKE YOU SEE IN THE PICTURE.

BUT WE JUST WEREN'T SURE WHAT YOU WOULD WANT.

WE WANT TO DO WHAT THE CITY IS PLANNING ON IT, OR CITY COMMISSION ALL THAT DOES.

WE'D LIKE TO KEEP IT RIGHT THERE BUT PULL IT OUT, PUT IN THE NEW CONCRETE FLOWER GARDEN AREA, SET IT BACK ON TOP OF IT, IT WOULD BE BETTER JUST FOR THE RESTAURANT WOULD REALLY LIKE IT SO THEY HAVE ROOM FOR A LITTLE ADDITIONAL OUTDOOR SEATING WHICH IS IN THE FALL AND SPRING IS VERY DESIRABLE FOR OUR VISITORS COMING TO CITY.

>> COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. SEEING THAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. MIJARES, I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH, APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE.

ANY OTHER PEOPLE ONLINE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE, JUST PLEASE USE THE RAISE YOUR HAND FUNCTION.

MR. COLLINS, DO WE SEE ANYONE?

>> SEEING NONE.

>> THANK YOU. THEN WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:41 ON CASE 21P-042.

WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION.

COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY.

>> I NEED TO A QUESTION TO STAFF BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION, IS THAT APPROPRIATE? [OVERLAPPING] OR DO WE DO IT AFTER? I CAN'T REMEMBER.

>> DONNA, DO YOU WANT TO DIRECT US ON THAT BECAUSE I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, TOO?

>> YOU CAN ALWAYS ASK STAFF A QUESTION.

>> ALL RIGHT, THEN GO AHEAD CAROL.

>> OKAY. THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, I GUESS THE CASE, IS WRITTEN, IT PRESENTS THE IDEA THAT THE TURTLE WILL BE MOVED.

DOES STAFF HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE TURTLE IN ITS NEW FIVE DIAMETER TO BE PLACED IN FRONT OF THAT DOORWAY LIKE IT IS NOW?

>> OUR REQUIREMENTS FOR LTUS TYPICALLY ARE ONLY THAT A MINIMUM OF FIVE-FOOT CLEARANCE BE PROVIDED BETWEEN THE ITEMS IN QUESTION AND THE ADJACENT BUILDING.

>> OKAY. WHEN I LOOK AT THIS DIAGRAM, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S 10.5 FEET FROM THE WALL TO THE TURTLE?

>> THAT IS WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED ON THE SITE PLAN, YEAH.

IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS MORE THAN FIVE-FOOT CLEARANCE WHERE IT SITS NOW.

>> OKAY. IF WE ALLOW WHERE IT IS NOW, HOW WOULD WE DO THAT?

>> I BELIEVE THAT IS PART OF THE CURRENT MOTION.

I DON'T BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED TO MOVE THE TURTLE.

I THINK HE'S INDICATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT WHERE IT IS.

I BELIEVE THAT WOULD JUST BE A APPROVAL OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S CHANGING.

>> WELL, I'M LOOKING AT EXHIBIT A AND IT SHOWS THAT IT'S CHANGING, SO THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING.

IF WE MADE A MOTION, SHOULD WE SAY THAT EXHIBIT A SHOULD BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE LOCATION OF THE TURTLE?

>> YEAH, IF WHOEVER MAKES THE MOTION BELIEVES THAT THE RECOMMENDATION NEEDS TO BE CHANGED TO REFLECT THE APPLICANT'S WISHES, THEN YEAH, YOU COULD MAKE REFERENCE TO THAT ACCORDINGLY.

>> THANK YOU, DANIEL. IN THAT CASE, I'M HOPING, NEVER MIND.

I'M NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING.

YES, COMMISSIONER WALLA?

>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

>> YES, SIR.

>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE, I DON'T HAVE THE CASE NUMBER IN FRONT OF ME, SORRY, BUT THAT WE APPROVE THIS CASE AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.

[OVERLAPPING] WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE DRAWING IN EXHIBIT A BE MODIFIED TO SHOW THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE TURTLE.

>> AS IT STANDS NOW.

>> THAT'S GREAT. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER WALLA AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI.

DO WE HAVE DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONERS? [NOISE] BEING NO DISCUSSION, LETS CALL THE VOTE. MR. COLLINS?

>> COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI?

[01:10:02]

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> VICE-CHAIRPERSON BROWN?

>> COMMISSIONER EDWARDS?

>> CHAIRPERSON HILL?

>> COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY?

>> COMMISSIONER PENA.

>> COMMISSIONER WALLA?

>> ALL IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSES.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO CASE 21 P-041 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.

[7C. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 21P-041 (1301 Market / Avenue D) Request For A Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District To Permit “Office” Land Use. Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey Lots 5-7, Block 493; In The City And County Of Galveston Texas. Applicant: David Watson, Architect Property Owner: S&N Historic Property, Shaun Hodge]

>> THIS IS AT 1301 MARKET.

THIS IS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REQUEST.

THERE WERE 22 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT AND NONE OF THOSE WERE RETURNED.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS GOT A LITTLE BIT OF A SHORT BACKGROUND.

IT WAS BUILT IN 1916 AND IS LOCALLY KNOWN AS THE LOUIS RUNGE HOUSE.

IT IS IN THE EASTERN HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THEREFORE LANDMARK COMMISSION HAS PROVIDED RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION.

AS THIS IS A PUD HOPEFULLY OF COURSE THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE THE FINAL DECISION AND THEY WILL SEE THAT CASE I BELIEVE THE SEPTEMBER 23RD MEETING.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO INCLUDE SPACE FOR A SMALL PROFESSIONAL OFFICE.

THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING WAS OWNED BY THE SEALY AND SMITH FOUNDATION FROM 1980 UNTIL 2004 WHEN IT PASSED BACK TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.

IT WAS BUILT IN 1960 FOR A LOCAL BUSINESSMAN NAMED LOUIS RUNGE.

THE HOUSE RESEMBLES AN ITALIAN RENAISSANCE-INSPIRED STYLE.

ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THE ABOVE-GROUND BASEMENT OF THE STRUCTURE WAS ENCLOSED AND IMPROVED AS HABITABLE SPACE AT SOME TIME IN THE PAST, WE'RE NOT SURE WHEN.

IT CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATE 2,052 SQUARE FOOT OF AREA.

ABOUT 400 SQUARE FOOT OF THAT IS USED FOR MECHANICAL AND STORAGE PURPOSES LEAVING THE REMAINDER ABOUT 1,652 SQUARE FOOT AS OFFICE SPACE FOR THE APPLICANT AND UP TO FOUR EMPLOYEES, WHICH IS REALLY THE FOCUS OF THIS PUD.

FURTHER DETAILS ARE PROVIDED IN ATTACHMENT VIA THE STAFF REPORT AND THE PUD PLAN SUMMARY IN THE STAFF REPORT.

THE DEVELOPMENT IS GENERALLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE PROPOSED LAND USE IS RELATIVELY LOW INTENSITY, AND DOES NOT GENERATE ANY APPRECIABLE TRAFFIC OR PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

THE NARRATIVE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT ONLY REQUESTS ONE ADDITIONAL VARIANCE, IN ADDITION TO THE LAND USE, AND THAT WILL BE IN THE FORM OF A MODEST INCREASE OF SITE SIGNAGE.

SIGN DESIGN WOULD STILL CONFORM TO CHAPTER 4 OF THE DESIGN STANDARD FOR RESTORED PROPERTIES IN ARTICLE 5 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

AT THIS TIME, THE APPLICANT IS NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGES TO THE SITE OR STRUCTURE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL REVIEW.

THE LAND-USE OFFICE IS A COMPLETE LAND-USE AND RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY R-3 ZONING.

THE PUD REQUEST IS TO DEVIATE FROM TABLE 2.201, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FOR THIS OFFICE LAND USE IN THE FORM OF APPROXIMATELY 1652 SQUARE FOOT OF EXISTING ENCLOSED SPACE IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE, WHICH IS THE UPPER STORIES OF THE HOUSE.

IN ADDITION AS SIGNAGE IN R3 ZONING IS RATHER RESTRICTIVE, THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR AN INCREASE IN SITE SIGNAGE.

ONCE AGAIN, PLEASE NOTE THE PUD HAS DETAILS IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF PUDS AS WELL.

STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST DULY CONFORMS TO THE CRITERIA FOR PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENTS FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON.

PUD IS THE OVERLAY ZONE DESIGNED TO BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A DESIGNATED BASE ZONING DISTRICT.

IN THE CASE OF THIS PUD, THE PROPOSED ADDITIONAL LAND USE OF "OFFICE" AND ITS LIMITED SCOPE IS EXPECTED HAVE MINIMAL IF ANY IMPACT ON THE RESIDENTIAL USE AND CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES PROPOSED TO THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE OF THE PROPERTY AND EXISTING OFF-STREET PARKING ON THE LOT AND THIS IS A LARGE LOT, I THINK IT'S BASICALLY THREE CITY LOTS, MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH PROPOSED "OFFICE" LAND USE AND EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED LAND USE.

OF COURSE, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS CAN BE REVOKED IF THEY DO NOT PERFORM AS INTENDED OR IF THEY ARE NOT FOLLOWED THROUGH CORRECTLY.

OF COURSE, ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO THE PUD PLAN WOULD REQUIRE A SEPARATE REVIEW FROM ALL COMMISSIONS.

ONCE AGAIN THE LANDMARK COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST AT THEIR AUGUST 16TH REGULAR MEETING, THAT CITY COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL DECISION REGARDING THE PUD AND THEIR REQUEST WILL BE HEARD AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23RD, 2021.

DUE TO THE FINDING, THE PROPOSED PUD IS LIKELY TO HAVE MINIMAL, IF ANY, IMPACT ON THE RESIDENTS OR CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD,

[01:15:01]

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH STANDARD-SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, I'M SORRY, ONE THROUGH FIVE AND STANDARD CONDITIONS OF SIX THROUGH EIGHT.

WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS.

THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND A [INAUDIBLE] AT THE VERY EDGE OF THE EASTERN HISTORIC DISTRICT.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. NOW, WE HAVE AN EXISTING SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS TALLIED OVERALL MAIN HOUSE, YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE GARAGE AND PARKING OF THE STRUCTURES THAT ARE EXISTING OFF THE STREET, A LITTLE PROVIDED PARKING AS NEEDED.

HERE YOU HAVE ONCE AGAIN, THE PHOTO SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED TWO-FOOT BY TWO-FOOT SIGN WHICH WILL BE PART OF THE PUD PLAN DEVIATION, AND THEN WHERE THE EXISTING OFF-STREET PARKING IS ALONG THE ALLEY.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WE HAVE THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, THE PROPERTY OF THE EAST, THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH AND THIS CONCLUDES THE STATUS REPORT.

>> THANK YOU, DANIEL. I APPRECIATE IT.

I'M GOING TO START BY ASKING YOU A QUESTION AND I DON'T WANT TO OFFEND THE APPLICANT AT ALL.

BUT WHEN WE DO THESE THINGS, WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT, NOT JUST BUSINESS OWNER, BUT WHAT HAPPENS IN THE FUTURE.

YOU MADE A COMMENT ABOUT ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE USE REQUIRE THAT THE PUD BE REVIEWED BY EVERYONE.

LET'S JUST SAY THAT THE NEXT OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY DECIDED, THAT THE LAW FIRM NEEDED TO TAKE UP TWO FLOORS OF THIS BUILDING TO MAKE IT MAKE SENSE FOR THEM.

IF THAT HAPPENS THEN WOULD THAT BE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE THAT WOULD TRIGGER A REVIEW?

>> ABSOLUTELY. THAT WAS A QUESTION THAT LANDMARK COMMISSION ASKED AS WELL.

THE PUD, OF COURSE, ARE EXTREMELY SPECIFIC.

THEY HAVE A LOT OF POTENTIAL FLEXIBILITY, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE A LOT OF POTENTIAL SPECIFICITY.

SO IF THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A TOTAL OF 1652 SQUARE FOOT OF OFFICE AREA, ANY DEVIATION FROM THAT BY A FUTURE OWNER WILL REQUIRE A NEW REVIEW AND A NEW APPLICATION.

IF THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION AND THE STANDARD CONDITION [INAUDIBLE] REALLY ENCAPSULATES THAT IN A NUT A SHELL IF YOU WOULD CARE TO UP TO LOOK AT THAT.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION ON THAT.

THEN THE OTHER PART DOES THE [INAUDIBLE] AND COMMISSIONER EDWARD, YOU'LL BE SECOND RIGHT, AFTER I ASK THIS QUESTION, YOU'LL BE NEXT.

WE CANNOT MAKE A PUD ATTACH SPECIFICALLY TO AN OWNER OR TO A SPECIFIC LAW FIRM.

YOU CAN'T JUST SAY IT'S THE LAW FIRM.

WE HAVE TO USE THIS PROFESSIONAL FIRM USE. [OVERLAPPING] GO AHEAD.

>> IF I'M HEARING YOU CORRECTLY, THE PUD IS WITH THE PROPERTY, IS ONES WITH PROPERTY, IT ISN'T ONE WITH [INAUDIBLE] THAT ANYBODY CAN OWN IT, IS ONE WITH THE PROPERTY.

>> DONNA, WE CAN'T JUST SPECIFY THAT IT'S A LAW FIRM, IT WOULD BE ANY KIND OF PROFESSIONAL USE, WHATEVER FALLS WITHIN THAT OFFICE DESIGNATION.

>> WHATEVER FALLS WITHIN WHAT? I'M SORRY?

>> WHATEVER THE DESIGNATION AS AN OFFICE.

IS THAT WHAT IT LOOK, DR. DANIEL?

>> THAT'S CORRECT AND I'M GOING TO PULL THE DEFINITION OF OFFICE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION FOR COMMISSIONS REVIEW HERE JUST ONE SECOND.

>> NOW, FAIRLY WHEN WE DO ORDINANCES SUCH AS THIS, WE PUT IN THE WHEREAS LITTLE BIT PREAMBLE TO THAT PARTICULAR APPLICANT WHO'S WISHING TO USE IT AS A LAW OFFICE, BUT THAT WILL BE IN THERE.

BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THE LAND USE OF OFFICE IS GOING TO DRIVE ANY OTHER TYPE OF USE UNDER THIS PUD THAT IT'S GRANTED.

>> I DO HAVE A DEFINITION OF OFFICE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IF YOU WOULD CARE TO HEAR IT.

>> SURE.

>> OKAY. OFFICE MEANS USES IN WHICH PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS INFORMATION PROCESSING OR FINANCIAL SERVICES ARE PROVIDED.

THE TERM INCLUDES THE [INAUDIBLE] ACCOUNTING, AUDITING AND BOOKKEEPING, ADMINISTRATION OF BUSINESSES, ADVERTISING, GRAPHIC DESIGN, ARCHITECTURE, ENGINEERING, URBAN PLANNING AND SURVEYING SERVICES, ATTORNEYS AND COURT REPORTERS, BANK, MORTGAGE COMPANIES, FINANCIAL SERVICES, CALL CENTERS, COMPUTER PROGRAMMING, COUNSELING SERVICES,

[01:20:01]

DATA PROCESSING, WORK PROCESSING, DETECTIVE AGENCIES, GOVERNMENT OFFICES, INSURANCE, INTERIOR DESIGN, REAL ESTATE SALES AND LEASING, RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE MANUFACTURING, RETAIL CATALOG, INTERNET, TELEPHONE WORK PROCESSING, BUT NOT WAREHOUSING, TRAVEL AGENCIES IN VIRTUAL OFFICE SERVICES.

THAT'S A DIRECT READING FROM OUR LDR FOR WHAT THE OFFICE LAND USE ENTAILS.

>> WELL, THANKS, I REALLY ASKED FOR IT ON THAT, DIDN'T I, DANIEL? COMMISSIONER EDWARDS.

>> MY QUESTION IS IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY ALREADY HAD OFFICE THERE PREVIOUS.

SO IF THEY HAVE ONE THERE PREVIOUS, WHY WOULD THEY HAVE TO GO OUT FOR PUD IF THERE WAS ALREADY [INAUDIBLE] THERE? [OVERLAPPING] [INAUDIBLE]

>> I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NOT AN OFFICE SPACE AT THIS POINT, BUT THE LOWER FLOOR HAS BEEN IMPROVED TO ADHERE LIVING SPACE, A LOT OF TIMES THESE HIGH RATE HOUSES MAY HAVE A, WHAT WE CALL, ABOVE GROUND BASEMENT IS THE UNIMPROVED.

IN THIS CASE, THAT WAS JUST A PATH AT SOME POINT AND WE'RE NOT SURE WHEN.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IS CURRENTLY AN ENCLOSED AREA BUT I BELIEVE THAT I WOULD LEAVE THAT FOR THE APPLICANT TO DESCRIBE.

>> BUT MY QUESTION IS THAT, IF IT'S A GOOD THING BUSINESS THERE CURRENTLY IF YOU'LL HAVE TO HAVE A PUD.

>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE IS NOT A CURRENT BUSINESS THERE AT THE TIME.

IT IS RESIDENTIAL ALL THREE FLOORS TO THIS POINT.

>> THE REASON WHY I ASK THE QUESTION BECAUSE I READ WHERE IT SAYS THEY WANTED TO MAKE THE SIGN BIGGER.

WHY WOULD THEY HAVE A SIGN IF THERE WAS NOT A BUSINESS THERE CURRENTLY?

>> WELL, THERE'S NO SIGN EITHER.

IN R3 ZONING, ALLOWANCES ARE EXTREMELY RESTRICTIVE.

ACTUALLY, A TWO-BY-TWO NAMEPLATE BUT THE REQUEST IS PART OF THE PUD, A TWO-BY-TWO IS STILL TWICE WHAT THEY WOULD NORMALLY BE ALLOWED.

THAT IS PART OF THEIR REQUEST, IS TO DEVIATE MORE A LITTLE BIT OF ADDITIONAL NAMEPLATE SIGNAGE.

THERE IS NO SIGNAGE EITHER AT THIS POINT TOO.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER EDWARDS.

THANK YOU, DANIEL. COMMISSIONER WALLA.

>> THANK YOU. DID YOU ALL MAKING THIS TO A HOME-BASED BUSINESS? I'LL TELL YOU WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS.

I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA TO ALLOW THESE PUDS TO HAVE THESE HISTORICAL HOMES.

I DON'T THINK IT'S ALL BAD THING.

HOWEVER, IF WE DO IT AT OFFICE AND WE HAVEN'T TALKED TO THE APPLICANT YET, BUT IF WE DO THIS OFFICE, IN THEORY, HE COULD GO LEASE OUT THE OFFICE SPACE AND YOU CAN ALSO GO RENT OUT THE RESIDENCE, WHICH I THINK IS A BAD IDEA.

AS OPPOSED TO, IF THE REQUEST WAS FOR A HOME-BASED BUSINESS, HE'S REQUIRED TO LIVE THERE.

IF THOSE OPTIONS WOULD COME AND GO AWAY IN, IF I WAS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD I WOULD WANT SOMEBODY TO LEASE THAT OFFICE SPACE, AND I MEAN HISTORICAL HOMES.

MY QUESTION TO STAFF IS, CAN YOU GIVE US A QUICK RUNDOWN ON THE HOME-BASED BUSINESS [BACKGROUND] VERSUS OFFICE?

>> SORRY ABOUT THAT. THE DEFINITION OF HOME-BASED BUSINESS OR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SPECIFICALLY LIMITS A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO TWO.

IF THE APPLICANT INDICATED THAT HE HAS A STAFF OF FOUR PEOPLE.

THE HOME-BASED BUSINESS WOULD NOT ACTUALLY WORK BECAUSE OF THAT DISTINCTION.

OF COURSE, HOME-BASED OCCUPATION AS WELL, DOES NOT ALLOW ANY ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES.

THOSE TWO LAND USES USING, EVEN THOUGH THEY SEEM REASONABLE, BY DEFINITION, WOULD NOT FIT.

THAT LEADS US TO OFFICE.

TO ADDRESS YOUR OTHER QUESTIONS, WE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE AN OBJECTION, I DON'T BELIEVE AND CATHERINE CAN CERTAINLY CORRECT ME OR ADRIEL, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE APPLYING WOULD HAVE ANY SPECIFIC OBJECTION TO LEASING AS LONG AS THAT LAND USE WAS COVERED IN THE OFFICE DEFINITION.

AS FAR AS THE LEASING OR RENTING THE RESIDENTIAL AREA, THERE'S NOTHING THAT PROVEN THAT IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, REGARDLESS OF THE OTHER LAND USES.

YOU CAN DO AIRBNBS IN THE R3 ZONING DISTRICTS, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTIONS.

>> BUT YOU COULD ADD A PUD.

IF IT WAS HOME-BASED BUSINESS, YOU COULD HAVE A PUD THAT WOULD INCLUDE ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES. DID YOU KNOW THAT?

[01:25:01]

>> I SUPPOSE YOU COULD REQUEST THAT, I BELIEVE WOULD BE A PUD PROCESS, REGARDLESS.

CATHERINE, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT?

>> I AGREE WITH THAT.

>> DANIEL, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT.

>> OKAY.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY?

>> THE ONLY KEY THING THAT PROBABLY WE'D COVER, IF I READ IT CORRECTLY IS THE SIGNAGES AND THE LARGER WALL SIGN, NAMEPLATE.

THERE WERE SOME MENTIONED MADE IN THE DESCRIPTION OR MAYBE IT WAS BY THE APPLICANT, I DON'T RECALL, THAT ADDITIONAL PARKING WOULD BE ALLOWED.

PARKING IN FRONT OF THIS BUILDING WERE NOT RESTRICTED TO RESIDENTIAL.

THAT'S NOT COVERED BY PUD, RIGHT?

>> THE REQUIRED PARKING, WHICH WOULD BE TWO SPACES FOR THE OFFICE AND ONE SPACE FOR THE RESIDENTS, IS ALREADY EXISTING ONSITE.

ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS A THREE CITY LOT, BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY LARGE PIECE OF PROPERTY, SO THEY ALREADY HAVE AN EXISTING PARK COURT ON ALLEY, WHICH ACCOMMODATES ABOUT FIVE CARS, PLUS A GARAGE AND A DRIVEWAY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, THAT PROBABLY ACCOMMODATE ANOTHER FOUR CARS.

THE APPLICANT IS INDICATING THEY HAVE BASICALLY NINE PARKING SPACES OFF STREET ON THE ALLEY AND WE ONLY REQUIRE THREE BY OUR REGULATIONS.

THEY ACTUALLY SEE WHAT WE REQUIRE FOR THIS PARKING.

THEY SHOULD NEED ANY ADDITIONAL THE ONSTREET PARKING.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. SORRY.

UNMUTE BUTTON. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, WE WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:02 PM.

I SEE THAT MR. WATSON IS HERE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT.

YOU'VE BEEN VERY PATIENT, MR. WATSON, AND YOU'RE UP.

>> THIS IS DAVID WATSON, I'M REPRESENTING SEAN HODGE'S FAMILY WHO OWN THE HOUSE.

THEY PURCHASED IT NOT TOO LONG AGO AND SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP; WHAT WAS THE HOUSE USED FOR PRIOR? THIS WAS ACTUALLY THE UTP PRESIDENT'S HOME FOR QUITE A FEW YEARS UP UNTIL THE PRESIDENT MOVED UP ON DOMINIQUE AND THE FELIX FOUNDATION TOOK OVER.

THAT'S WHY THE GROUND FLOOR WAS RENOVATED.

IT MOST RECENTLY HAS BEEN USED AS A BILLIARDS ROOM, AND THEN THE ACCESS TO THE ELEVATOR THAT TAKES YOU UP TO THE UPPER FLOORS IS ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF THIS THING.

WHAT THE OWNER IS REQUESTING WE DO, IS WE TAKE THE 1600 SQUARE FEET OF FINISHED OUT FLOOR SPACE AND WE CONVERT IT INTO OFFICE SPACE FOR HIS STAFF.

THE SIGN PLAQUE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WOULD FIT ON THE LEFT-HAND PILASTER OF THAT ENTRY GATE PORTICO.

IT'S GOING TO BE PROBABLY A LITTLE LESS THAN TWO FEET BY TWO FEET, AND THE LANDMARK COMMISSION ASKED THAT WE MAKE IT SIMILAR TO THE PLAQUE THAT'S EXISTING ON THE RIGHT-HAND COLUMN.

IT WOULD HAVE AN APPEARANCE, SOMETHING TO LOOK LIKE A CAST BRONZE PLAQUE, IS WHAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT.

THE PARKING ISSUE, WE DO HAVE ENOUGH PARKING AS IT STANDS ON SITE.

THE ONLY COMMENT THAT I HAD MADE WHEN WE WERE WRITING THE PLAQUE IS THAT IF THERE WERE SOME ISSUES WITH PARKING, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE THREE CITY LOTS THAT WE BRAG ON TOO, THAT IF WE COULD HAVE ADDITIONAL CITY USE, THAT THE CITY WOULD RELINQUISH THOSE FROM BEING RESTRICTED TO RESIDENT-PARKING-ONLY PASSES, THAT WE COULD INCREASE THE AVAILABLE PARKING.

BUT WE DO NOT NEED IT, IT WAS JUST A STATEMENT OFFERING THAT AS AN OPTION, IF YOU FELT LIKE WE NEEDED ADDITIONAL PARKING.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? I'D LIKE TO START WITH COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY, YOUR HAND WAS UP FIRST, ABOUT QUESTIONS FOR MR. WATSON?

>> THANK YOU. MR. WATSON, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE SIGN? IS IT A LOCATIONAL MARKER?

[01:30:05]

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE SIGN?

>> THE SIGN WOULD BE STRICTLY TO SAY, HODGE LAW FIRM.

THAT'S ALL IT WOULD DO, WOULD INDICATE THAT THIS IS THE ENTRANCE TO THE LAW FIRM.

>> IT'S NOT FOR ADVERTISING OR ANY OTHER FUNCTION?

>> NO.

>> THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAD.

>> MR. WALLA.

>> THANK YOU. IS MR. HODGE GOING TO LIVE THERE? DO YOU KNOW IF HE'S GOING TO LIVE THERE?

>> HE AND HIS WIFE AND KID ALREADY LIVE THERE.

>> OKAY. COOL.

>> DO YOU KNOW IF IT'S HIM PLUS FOUR EMPLOYEES, OR JUST FOUR PEOPLE TOTAL?

>> IT'S HIM PLUS FOUR EMPLOYEES.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT, THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. THANK YOU.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> THANK YOU COMMISSIONER, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER EDWARDS.

>> DOES HE CURRENTLY HAVE A BUSINESS IN THAT LOCATION?

>> NO, THERE IS NO BUSINESS IN THE LOCATION.

HIS EXISTING LAW OFFICES ARE DOWN ON THE STRAND.