[00:00:02]
>> WE'RE GOING TO CALL IT TO ORDER. GOOD AFTERNOON.
[1. Call Meeting To Order]
WE'LL CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE GALVESTON PLANNING COMMISSION.IT'S 3:30 ON TUESDAY, JUNE 21ST.
I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO EVERYONE FOR ME WEARING THIS MASK, BUT I'M FOLLOWING CDC GUIDELINES.
MY SON, DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, AND THREE YEAR OLD GRANDSON ALL TESTED POSITIVE FOR COVID THIS MORNING AND I WAS AROUND THEM ON SUNDAY.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO REPORT THAT A THREE-YEAR-OLD STILL LIKES A CARDBOARD BOX AS A TOY, BETTER THAN ANYTHING.
SADLY, I WAS IN THAT CARDBOARD BOX WITH HIM.
WE HAVE TAKEN ATTENDANCE BY SIGNING IN AND I'M HAPPY TO REPORT.
[2. Attendance]
WE ARE AT 100 PERCENT ATTENDANCE TODAY.COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST? SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD.
[4. Approval Of Minutes]
ANY CHANGES, CORRECTIONS, ADDITIONS TO THE MINUTES OF JUNE 7TH AS DRAFTED? SEEING NONE, WE'LL ACCEPT THOSE MINUTES AS WRITTEN.WE RECEIVED QUITE A BIT OF PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY.
[5. Public Comment]
ANYTHING THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO US IN WRITING ONLINE WAS DISTRIBUTED TO THE COMMISSIONERS BY EMAIL EARLIER TODAY, AND WE'VE ALL HAD ADEQUATE TIME TO REVIEW THAT.IN ADDITION, WE WILL CALL ON PEOPLE DURING THE MEETING TODAY AS THOSE CASES ARISE AND YOU'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK HERE, EVEN IF YOU SUBMITTED COMMENTS EARLIER.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK NOW ON A NON-AGENDA ITEM, SOMETHING THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO CALL UP ON THE AGENDA TODAY? ANYONE ON THIS SIDE ON A NON-AGENDA ITEM? ANYONE ON THIS SIDE ON A NON-AGENDA ITEM? SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD.
OUR FIRST TWO ITEMS ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS ONLY WHERE WE HAVE NO ACTION REQUIRED.
[6.A.1. 22P-038 (2815 Izamal Court, 2819 Izamal Court, 2823 Izamal Court, 2827 Izamal Court, 2831 Izamal Court, 2903 Contoy Court, 2907 Contoy Court, 2911 Contoy Court, 2915 Contoy Court, 2918 Contoy Court, 2919 Contoy Court, 2922 Contoy Court, 2923 Contoy Court, 2926 Contoy Court, 2927 Contoy Court, And 2930 Contoy Court) Request For A Replat To Decrease The Number Of Lots From Sixteen To Six. The Properties Are Legally Described As: Izamal Court At Campeche Shores (2007) Abstract 121, Lots 56 – 60; Abstract 121 Hall & Jones Sur Lots 7-14 Contoy Court At Campeche Shores (2007); Abstract 121 Hall & Jones Sur Lot 24 Contoy Court At Campeche Shores (2007); And Abstract 121 Hall & Jones Sur Lots 33-34 Contoy Court At Campeche Shores (2007) In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: John R]
FIRST THING IS CASE 22P-038.THIS IS A REPLY OUT AT COMPETE YOU SHORES AND INVOLVES MULTIPLE PARCELS, I BELIEVE 16.
THEY WILL BE COMBINED INTO SIX.
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND REPLY DECREASED NUMBER OF LOTS FROM 16 TO SIX.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE ALL VACANT.
OUR PART OF DEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDES TOWN HOMES AND SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF LOTS INVOLVED, A STATE LAW REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING.
PLEASE NOTE THE ZONING AND LAND USE IN THE STAFF REPORT.
SUBJECT PARCELS ARE UNDEVELOPED SURROUNDINGS, SO DIVISION CONSISTS OF SOME SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED TOWN HOMES ARE SOME SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED.
SUBDIVISION IS BOUND BY SIDNER MINE TO THE EAST, UNDEVELOPED LAND TO THE SOUTH AND REGARDS GOLF COURSE LESS THAN NORTH ACROSS SYDNEY ROAD.
LOTS OF ALL HAVE ACCESS TO EXISTING MUNICIPAL WATER, SANITARY SEWER LINES, AND OF COURSE, EXISTING STREETS.
NO SEA DEPARTMENTS NOTE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED REPLANT.
THE RESIDENTIAL TOWN HOME R2 ZONING DISTRICT LOT REQUIREMENTS IN THE AREA, A MINIMUM OF 20 FOOT WIDE, MINIMUM OF 80 FOOT-LONG, MINIMUM OF 1,600 SQUARE FOOT.
THE REPLY IT SEES MEN ARE STANDARDS FOR LOTS IN THE R2 ZONING DISTRICT.
THE SMALLEST LOT WILL BE A SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN THAT, 22.33 FEET WIDE, ITS NARROWEST POINT OVER 95 FOOT-LONG, OVER 6,300 SQUARE FOOT, AS SHOWN IN THE STAFF REPORT.
PLEASE NOTE THAT PLAT APPROVAL CRITERIA.
PLAT WILL BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.
122 STAND CONDITIONS, 334 IN THE STAFF REPORT AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS.
HERE WE HAVE ON THE LEFT, WE HAVE JUST AN AERIAL GIS VIEW OF THE EXISTING LOTS THAT YOU SEE HIGHLIGHTED THERE.
ON THE RIGHT, WE HAVE A SHOT FROM THE PROPOSED REPLANT SHOWING HOW THOSE 16 LOTS BECOME SIX. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
WE HAVE HERE SOME PHOTOS TO THE NORTH, EAST, SOUTH, AND WEST ON IZAMAL COURT, WHICH IS PART OF THE REPLANT.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WE HAVE PHOTOS NORTH, EAST, SOUTH, AND WEST OF THE CONTOY COURT.
THE SECOND PART OF THE REPLANT AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> THANK YOU, DANIEL. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR DANIEL? YES, SIR. VICE CHAIR BROWN.
>> JUST FOR THE RECORD, IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT SAYS THE SMALLEST LOT WILL BE 22.33 FEET WIDE AND OVERNIGHT FIVE FEET LONG.
THE LOTS ARE MUCH BIGGER THAN THAT.
I THINK THAT PROPOSED LAW, THEY'RE MUCH BIGGER THAN THAT.
>> YEAH, CORRECT. THEY ARE SIGNIFICANTLY LARGE, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN, IS JUST A FORMALITY.
THE WAY WE MEASURE LOT WIDTH IS AT THE FRONT SETBACK AND SO THAT ONE LOT AWAY ON
[00:05:05]
THE NORTH OF IZAMAL COURT ON THAT TURN IS TECHNICALLY NOT MUCH WIDER THAN 20-FOOT THE WAY WE MEASURE THEM, BUT YES, THEY ARE SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER.>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS, WE'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:35 PM.
ANYONE ON THIS SIDE WANT TO SPEAK ON CASE 22P-038? ANYONE ON THIS SIDE? WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
NO ACTION REQUIRED ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO CASE 22P-039.
[6.A.2. 22P-039 (17807 FM-3005) Request For A Replat To Increase The Number Of Lots From One To Two. The Property Is Legally Described As Abstract 121 Page 31 And 32 Hall & Jones Survey Tract 64 1.016 Acres, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Tricon Land Surveying, LLC Property Owners: George E Sims, Jr. And 2. 22P-039 (17807 FM-3005) Request For A Replat To Increase The Number Of Lots From One To Two. The Property Is Legally Described As Abstract 121 Page 31 And 32 Hall & Jones Survey Tract 64 1.016 Acres, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Tricon Land Surveying, LLC Property Owners: George E Sims, Jr. And Timothy McCarty]
IS A REQUESTS TO REPLY ONE LINE INTO TWO LOTS.
THERE WERE 31 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.
NO OBJECTIONS FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS OR PRIVATE UTILITIES IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND REPLY IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF LOTS FROM ONE TO TWO IN A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY R1 DISTRICT.
THE SIDE IS CURRENTLY COMPRISED OF ONE ACRE TRACT LOCATED BETWEEN THE SUBDIVISIONS OF ACAPULCO VILLAGE AND KARANKAWA.
THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS FROM PUBLIC OR PRIVATE UTILITIES ONCE AGAIN.
PLEASE NOTE THE MINIMUM LOT STANDARDS AS ONE OF THE PLAT APPROVAL CRITERIA ON PAGE 2 OF YOUR REPORT, AS WELL AS THE PLAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS.
THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ITSELF.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST.
LASTLY, WE HAVE THE PROPOSED REPLOT. THAT CONCLUDES OUR REPORT.
COMMISSIONER, HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 22P-039 AT 3:37 PM.
ANYONE ON THIS SIDE WANT TO SPEAK? ANYONE ON THIS SIDE? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND NO ACTION IS REQUIRED OF PLANNING COMMISSION ON THIS ONE.
WE'LL MOVE ON. I DO WANT TO SAY THAT WE RECEIVED TWO PUBLIC COMMENTS BY EMAIL ON THIS AND THOSE WERE NOTED AND RECEIVED.
WE'LL MOVE ON NOW TO CASE 22P-031.
[7.A.1. 22P-031 (13724 Stewart Road) Request For A Change Of Zoning From Residential, Single-Family (R-1) To Resort/Recreation (RES/REC) Zoning District. Property Is Legally Described As Part Of Lot 33 (33-4), Section 3, Trimble And Linsey, In The City And County Of Galveston Texas. Applicant: Charles F. Fenoglio Property Owners: West Isle Presbyterian Church Of Galveston]
I KNOW THAT THAT'S THE ONE THAT HAS GENERATED QUITE A BIT OF INTERESTS AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVEN'T BEEN HERE BEFORE OR WHO HAVE NOT BEEN TO PLANNING COMMISSION IN A WHILE, JUST TO LET YOU KNOW HOW THIS WORKS.THIS WAS DIFFERED FROM JUNE 7TH.
SOME OF THIS WE'VE HEARD BEFORE.
JUST SO YOU'LL KNOW, PLANNING COMMISSION IS ONLY A RECOMMENDING BODY ON THIS MATTER.
THE FINAL DECISION BELONGS TO CITY COUNCIL AND IT WILL BE ON CITY COUNCIL'S AGENDA IN JULY AT THE EARLIEST.
HOW THIS WILL WORK IS MUCH THE SAME AS YOU'VE SEEN IN THIS LAST CASES.
WE'LL HAVE A STAFF REPORT AND THEN COMMISSIONERS WILL ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF AS WE HAVE.
THEN WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THE APPLICANT WILL COME FORWARD AND WE'LL ASK ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE AND THEN THE PUBLIC WILL BE ABLE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK FOR THREE MINUTES.
THEN WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION, HAVE ANY DISCUSSION THAT WE NEED TO HAVE, AND THEN WE'LL TAKE A VOTE.
THAT JUST LET YOU ALL KNOW HOW THIS WILL WORK.
EVERYBODY GETS TO HAVE THEIR SAY.
JUST A LITTLE CLARIFICATION UPFRONT SO EVERYBODY WILL KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
WE'LL HAVE OUR STAFF REPORT NOW, PLEASE, SIR.
>> 22P-031 IT'S A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY, OR WANTS TO RESERVE RECREATION ZONING DISTRICT.
AS YOU MENTIONED, THE JUNE 7TH, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, THIS REQUEST WAS DEFERRED UNTIL TODAY TO ALLOW PLANNING COMMISSION MORE TIME TO ASSESS THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE CHANGE OF ZONING ON AN ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES, AS WELL AS TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC INPUT FROM THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
AGAIN, IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM R1 TO RESURRECT.
THERE IS NO PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE CURRENT PLACE OF PUBLIC ASSEMBLY OR CHURCH LAND USE.
THE APPLICANTS INTENT IS TO INSTALL LARGER DETACH SIGNED, AND CURRENTLY PRESCRIBED FOR CHURCHES AND THE R1 ZONING DISTRICT.
THERE ARE NO PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PRESENT LAND USE AS MENTIONED.
THE USE WILL REMAIN AS A CHURCH.
[00:10:03]
THEREFORE, THIS DOES NOT AFFECT COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING USES AS CURRENTLY EXIST.KNOW THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL ON PAGE 2 OF YOUR STAFF REPORT.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS CHANGE OF ZONING REQUEST AND BE APPROVED, AND NOW WE HAVE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS.
THIS IS THE ZONING MAP AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ITSELF.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST.
THIS IS ANOTHER AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITH THE 200 FOOT BUFFER OF THE NOTIFICATION AREA AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CITY. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
NOW, COMMISSIONERS WILL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS OF STAFF.
I HAVE ONE, BUT I'LL HOLD MINE.
WHO HAS A QUESTION FOR STAFF? VICE CHAIR BROWN.
>> IS THE CHURCH RIGHT NOW A PART OF THE ZONING CATEGORY? WHAT'S ALLOWED INTO ZONING CATEGORY?
>> A CHURCH IS CURRENTLY NOT ALLOWED IN THE R1 DISTRICT.
HOWEVER, THE LDRS HAVE AN EXEMPTION TO CONTINUE THE CHURCH OPERATION IN THE R1 DISTRICT PROVIDED THEY WERE THERE PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE LDR IN 2015.
>> IF THEY WERE SOMEHOW DESTROYED BY HURRICANE, WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO BUILD BACK A CHURCH?
>> IS IT ALLOWED ALSO IN THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE?
I WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE LAND USE TABLE TO CONFIRM THAT, BUT I WOULD SAY YES.
>> CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO CHANGE THE ZONING, IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S NOT ALLOWED, AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S THE CASE, I GUESS.
WHAT WOULD IT BE CALLED, ASSEMBLY?
WHICH WOULD BE COMMERCIAL LAND USE, I GUESS?
>> IT'S A PLACE OF PUBLIC ASSEMBLY IS PERMITTED USE IN THE RES-REC ZONING DISTRICT.
>> THANKS. THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.
BUT IN EITHER USE, IT WOULD BE ALLOWED.
>> WELL, ONE IS ALLOWED AS AN OUTRIGHT FOR ME TO USE AND THE OTHER ONE WAS AN EXEMPTION WHICH MAKES IT A CONFORMING USE IN THE R1.
>> YES, SIR COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY.
>> QUESTION. [NOISE] THE 200 FOOT AREA ADJACENT, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PEOPLE THAT OWN THE PROPERTY 200 FOOT ADJACENT?
>> THANK YOU. YES, COMMISSIONER PENA.
>> THE PROPOSED CHANGES WOULD JUST TAKE PLACE INSIDE OF THAT [NOISE] HIGHLIGHTED BOX, CORRECT?
>> INSIDE OF THE BLUE RECTANGLE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> BLUE RECTANGLE. WE SAID IF A HURRICANE WERE TO CAUSE SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE, THEY'D BE ABLE TO REBUILD.
WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER BUSINESSES IN THAT R1 CATEGORY TO IT, LIKE BEHIND IT.
FOR INSTANCE, THE STORAGE UNIT BEHIND THERE.
IF A HURRICANE WERE TO COME AND LEVEL THAT, WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO BUILD SIMILAR BACK ONTO THAT LAND OR WOULD IT BE RESTRICTED?
>> THEY WOULD BE RESTRICTED UNDER THE NON-CONFORMITY SECTION OF THE LDR, WHICH IS SECTION 11.300.
THAT ALLOWS FOR CERTAIN RECONSTRUCTION OF PROPERTY UPON NATURAL DISASTERS.
TYPICALLY, IT DEALS WITH 50 PERCENT OF SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT AND IT RELATES TO THAT.
>> HOWEVER, THE CHURCH WOULD BE DIFFERENT?
>> THE CHURCH WILL BE DIFFERENT BECAUSE THERE'S CURRENTLY AN EXEMPTION THAT ALLOWS THEM TO BE A CONFORMING USE.
THE USES TO THE NORTH THAT YOU SEE, THE STORAGE FACILITY TO BE EXACT.
THAT'S CURRENTLY A NON-CONFORMING USE AND THERE ARE NO EXEMPTIONS FOR IT.
>> WE'LL TREAT IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY.
>> YES, COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY.
IF THE CHURCH WAS WISHING TO EXPAND AND BUILD OUT, GROW OUT WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES AS PRESCRIBED, ARE THEY CAPABLE OF DOING THAT WITH THE CURRENT R1?
>> IF THEY WISH TO EXPAND THE STRUCTURE? YES, PROVIDED THEY CONFORM TO THE R1 SETBACK STANDARDS.
>> THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WE RECEIVED.
ALONG WITH ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT, THERE WAS JUST A LONG LIST OF NAMES.
CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT JUST THAT LONG LIST OF NAMES? WHAT WAS THAT?
[00:15:03]
>> THE PUBLIC COMMENT I RECEIVED WAS, AGAIN, OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION AREA FROM THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE MAJORITY, THE BULK OF THE COMMENTS CENTERED AROUND BEING OPPOSED TO THE CHANGE OF ZONING.
A LOT OF THE FOLKS MENTIONED NOT BEING OPPOSED TO THE CHURCH, BUT MOSTLY THE CHANGE OF ZONING AND HOW IT WOULD AFFECT THEIR FUTURE LAND USES THAT COULD POTENTIALLY HAPPEN IN THAT PROPERTY IF IT WERE TO BE SOLD BY THE CHURCH.
>> BUT THERE WERE A LOT OF LETTERS, THERE WERE A LOT OF EMAILS, AND THEN THERE WAS A LETTER FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION THAT WAS FROM THE BOARD OF THE PPOA.
THEN AFTER THE LETTER FROM THE PPOA, THE PIRATES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION.
THEN THERE WAS JUST A LONG LIST OF NAMES, NOT 1,800 NAMES, BUT JUST A LIST OF NAMES.
>> THE NAMES OF THE SUBDIVISION, THE FOLKS IN THE SUBDIVISION. YES.
>> IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT 1,800 NAMES.
IT'S JUST LIKE SOMEBODY GIVE ME A BALLPARK.
>> I WANT TO SAY IS MORE CLOSELY ALIGNED WITH AROUND 400 OR SO, IT'S THE TOTAL NUMBER?
>> YES. SEVERAL HUNDRED MAYBE MAYBE 150, 200 NAMES.
DO YOU KNOW WHERE THOSE CAME FROM OR WHAT THOSE NAMES REPRESENT?
>> THOSE WERE PROVIDED TO US BY THE PPOA, AND THEY SAY IT IS PETITION SIGNERS.
>> PETITION SIGNERS, IN SUPPORT OF A RESOLUTION FROM THE PPOA IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST.
>> IT IS PETITION SIGNERS IN SUPPORT OF A RESOLUTION BY THE PPOA AND THE RESOLUTION WAS IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST.
>> THEN, DOES IT GIVE A COUNT ON HOW MANY THERE ARE THERE?
>> I THINK IT'S 179, IF I'M READING THAT CORRECTLY.
>> THANK YOU. WE WERE PRETTY CLOSE ON 200, EYEBALL IN IT.
THANK YOU. I JUST DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THOSE NAMES REPRESENTED. THANK YOU.
IT WAS JUST A LIST OF NAMES AND I DIDN'T SEE A COVER OVER THAT.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE MOVE ON? YES, SIR. COMMISSIONER WALLA.
>> WAS THERE A SIGNED PETITION SUBMITTED? I DIDN'T SEE THAT, OR THEY JUST SUBMITTED IT, IT'S A LIST.
BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS DONE THROUGH A PETITION WEBSITE WHERE THOSE PEOPLE WENT TO THE WEBSITE AND SIGNED UP FOR IT.
IF THE CHURCH WANTED TO BUILD A NEW PARKING LOT, WOULD THEY BE PERMITTED TO DO THAT?
>> PROVIDED THEY WILL BE RESTRICTED TO THE LAND USES ALLOWABLE UNDER THE R1 USES.
TYPICALLY, A COMMERCIAL TYPE PARKING LOT WHEN NOT BE ALLOWABLE, BUT IF IT'S SOMETHING ASSOCIATED WITH THE CHURCH, INCIDENTAL TOOL PROVIDED IT AS ALLOWABLE IN THE R1, THEN THERE WILL BE ALLOWED TO HAVE IT.
BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT PARKING LOT INCIDENTAL TOOL WOULD BE SOMETHING ALLOWABLE UNDER THE R1 DISTRICT.
>> IF THEY WANTED TO ADD A SUNDAY SCHOOL BUILDING TO THEIR PROPERTY, WILL THEY BE PERMITTED TO DO THAT?
>> PROBABLY NOT. IF THE R1 DISTRICT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR A CHILDCARE FACILITY OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES, THEN THEY WILL BE LIMITED TO WHATEVER THE R1 ALLOWS FOR.
>> HELP ME OUT A LITTLE BIT. I'M HAVING A HARD TIME GETTING MY HANDS AROUND.
IT'S NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE OF THE ZONING.
BUT THEY HAVE AN EXEMPTION THAT ALLOWS THEM TO OPERATE THEIR CHURCH?
>> BUT IT HAS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH JUST THE SETBACKS.
>> JUST THE R1 DR1 ZONING DISTRICT IN GENERAL, WHETHER IT'D BE A LOT STANDARDS FOR SETBACK PURPOSES OR WHETHER IT'D BE USES FOR EXPANSION OF THE OTHER CHURCH.
>> THAT'S WHAT MAKES THE EXPANSION A LITTLE QUESTIONABLE BECAUSE THAT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED IN R1.
>> AS WOULD A SURFACE PARKING LOT WOULD PROBABLY NOT BE PERMITTED IN R1.
>> I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU.
[00:20:01]
>> ARE THOSE ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS? IN THAT CASE, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 03:50PM AND WILL THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME FORWARD.
THANK YOU, PLEASE, SIR, JUST SIGN IN AND STATE YOUR NAME.
>> I'M SORRY. I AM A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH AS WELL.
PARDON ME. THANK YOU FOR HAVING US HERE TODAY.
I'M TRYING TO WRITE AND TALK AT THE SAME TIME.
WE'VE GOT ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD FOR YOU, SIR.
>> FIRST AND FOREMOST, I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR ALLOWING US TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS WHICH STARTED OUT WAS JUST WANTING A NEW SIGN AND OBVIOUSLY IT'S MORPHED INTO SOMETHING WE DIDN'T EXPECT.
I WANTED TO COMMEND ARIEL FOR DOING A GREAT JOB WORKING WITH US.
ONCE AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE PROCESS, WE WERE ABLE TO FIND OUT SOME STUFF THAT WE WEREN'T AWARE OF.
ONE IS THE QUESTION ON WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO EXPAND OUR BUILDING BECAUSE OUR CONGREGATION IS GROWING.
I DON'T KNOW WHY ALL OF A SUDDEN CONCERN THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE THERE BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN THERE AS LONG IF NOT LONGER THAN THE SUBDIVISIONS HAVE.
THAT ONE CAUGHT ME OFF GUARD WHEN THAT CAME UP AS A QUESTION.
WE DO APPRECIATE YOU ALL LOOKING INTO THIS AND WE HOPE THAT YOU'LL KEEP AN OPEN MIND.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE POSITION THAT YOU'RE IN, IT'S NOT AN EASY POSITION.
IT'S NOT ALL FUN AND GAMES AND YET MAKE TOUGH DECISIONS AND SOMETIMES MAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS AREN'T ALWAYS THE MOST POPULAR DECISIONS.
DO WANT TO THANK YOU AND COMMEND YOU FOR THE WORK THAT YOU DO.
>> THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
COMMISSIONERS, DID YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE APPLICANT? DO YOU MIND COMING BACK UP, PLEASE SIR? [BACKGROUND] THANK YOU.
>> THERE WAS ONE OTHER THING THAT I DIDN'T MENTION. THANK YOU.
>> MR. WALLA MENTIONED THE PARKING LOT.
MR. EDWARD NOTED IN THE LAST MEETING, THE PARKING LOT IS ACTUALLY ON THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR STEWART ROAD.
IF THEY DECIDE TO EXPAND STEWART ROAD, WE'VE LOST OUR PARKING LOT.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE SOMEPLACE TO PUT A PARKING LOT.
CURRENTLY UNDER THE R1, AS HE JUST BROUGHT OUT, WON'T BE ABLE TO PUT THE PARKING LOT NEXT TO THE BUILDING OR ANYWHERE CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE LIMITATIONS OF THE R1 DISTRICT.
I'M SORRY, THERE WERE QUESTIONS?
>> I'D A QUICK ONE. THIS CHANGE ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE IN 2015?
>> WERE YOU THERE? HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH? [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE'VE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH FOR, I GUESS ABOUT FIVE YEARS NOW.
>> BECAUSE MY QUESTION IS, DID YOU GUYS EVER GET ANY NOTICE THAT YOUR ZONING WAS GOING TO CHANGE?
>> YES, SIR. OR IF YOU KNOW OF ANYBODY WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE THAT WOULD HAVE?+ [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M NOT SURE. QUITE HONESTLY, I CAN'T.
>> THAT'S FAIR ANSWER. I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF YOU'D BEEN THERE LONG ENOUGH AND RECEIVED ONE. THAT'S ALL I HAD. THANK YOU.
>> ANYTHING ELSE, COMMISSIONERS, FOR THE APPLICANT? NO, SIR. THANK YOU.
WE'LL CONTINUE WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING THEN.
ANYONE ON THIS SIDE CARE TO SPEAK? COUNCIL MEMBER ROBB.
I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE REZONING SO THAT THEY CAN PUT UP THEIR PROPER SIGN.
I ALSO WANT TO MAKE YOU AWARE THAT I WAS AT THE INITIAL PLANNING MEETING WITH THE CHURCH AND I WAS THE ONE THAT SUGGESTED THEY DO THE REZONING BECAUSE THEY WERE ZONED IN THE BLANKING ZONING.
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WHEN IT'S A BLANKING ZONING, YOU DON'T HAVE TO NOTIFY ANYONE IN THAT AREA.
ACTUALLY, SO MANY BUSINESSES LIKE SEVEN SEAS GROCERIES DIDN'T FIND OUT TILL SOMEONE MADE THEM AWARE THAT THEY WERE REZONED BY ACCIDENT.
I WAS THE ONE THAT SUGGESTED BECAUSE IT'S ONLY
[00:25:03]
UNDER THAT ZONING THAT THEY COULD DO THE SIGN AT THAT SIZE AND AT THE COST THAT THEY HAD DONE A FUNDRAISER TO BE ABLE TO DO IT.THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT RUMORS, THINGS FLYING AROUND.
THEIR PARKING LOT, AGAIN AS THEY SAID, IS PART OF A 355 EASEMENT THAT IS ACTUALLY OWNED BY THE COUNTY.
BECAUSE IF YOU REMEMBER, THAT WHOLE AREA USED TO BE UNINCORPORATED GALVESTON COUNTY.
PIRATES COVE WAS ALL UNINCORPORATED COUNTY.
THE UTILITY ACTUALLY SITS ACROSS THE STREET.
IT ISN'T SOMETHING THAT KEITH BRAVE MADE A POINT OF TALKING ABOUT.
THAT WOULD MEAN THIS WEEK AS WELL AS CALLED ME AGAIN TO REITERATE.
IT IS NOT SOMETHING WHERE THEY CAN PUT THE SIGN IN THE PARKING LOT.
ITS A WONDERFUL PASTOR, A WONDERFUL CONGREGATION, THEY HAVE BEEN THERE MUCH LONGER THAN LAFITTE'S COVE, PIRATE'S COVE.
I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION.
I WILL SAY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE RECEIVED IT, BUT AS A COUNCIL PERSON, I'VE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF EMAILS FROM PEOPLE SAYING THEY WERE IN SUPPORT OF THE CHURCH.
I ASK YOU THAT YOU APPROVE THIS CHANGE AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER, AND I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE.
I KNOW YOU HAVE A LOT GOING ON.
>> I JUST WANT MY TAX PROTEST THOUGH.
>> [APPLAUSE] THAT IS SOMETHING YOU DO NOT HEAR VERY OFTEN. [OVERLAPPING].
>> IF YOU GO YOURSELF YOU'LL ALWAYS WIN.
ANYONE ELSE ON THIS SIDE WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER? ANYONE ON THIS SIDE?
>> MY NAME IS HELEN BULLWINKLE.
I AM A MEMBER OF THE PIRATES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION BOARD.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF OTHER MEMBERS.
I JUST WANT TO TELL YOU THAT THIS ORIGINAL REQUEST INVOLVED A SIGN AND THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION BOARD APPROACHED A MR. GRAY AT THE POWER COMPANY AND HE AGREED THAT THEY CAN MOVE THEIR SIGN AND HAVE THE SIGN THEY WANT.
WHAT MR. LITTLE IS REQUESTING IS THAT WE POSTPONE IT SO THAT THE CHURCH CAN NEGOTIATE WITH THIS MAN WHO HAS ALREADY GIVEN THE APPROVAL TO MOVE IT AND ENLARGE IT OR TO REJECT THE PROPOSAL. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT. NO, WE CAN'T.
NO BACK-AND-FORTH AT THIS POINT.
THANK YOU. NEXT. WHO ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER? ANYONE ELSE? NO ONE ELSE? FEEL LIKE I'M PULLING TEETH.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I AM CHRIS BAUER.
I WILL WRITE MY NAME FIRST AND THEN SPEAK.
>> I LIKE THE WAY YOU'RE THINKING.
>> I AM THE PASTOR AT WESTHOPE PRESBYTERIAN.
I'VE BEEN THERE FOR A YEAR-AND-A-HALF.
ALL I'D REALLY LIKE TO SAY IS AS YOU MENTIONED, I APPRECIATED YOUR READING THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH THAT YOU MENTIONED THE LAST MEETING.
I READ IT AS WELL SINCE I WASN'T HERE DURING THAT TIME.
BUT IT IS A LONG HISTORY AND HAS A LOT OF BUSINESSES, NON-PROFITS HAVE EXPERIENCED IN THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS.
THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES, BUT WE HAVE EXPERIENCED GROWTH LAST YEAR FOR A SMALL CHURCH, WE HAD 11 FOLKS JOIN.
[00:30:02]
WE ALREADY HAVE HAD AROUND HALF THAT NUMBER JOIN US THIS YEAR.OUR TOTAL MEMBERSHIP IS AROUND 45.
I HAVE THAT NUMBER OF PEOPLE JOINED IN ONE YEAR AND THEN ABOUT HALF THAT NUMBER JOIN IN HALF OF THE FOLLOWING YEAR, I THINK IS A PRETTY GOOD SIGN.
WE HAVE FAR-REACHING VISIONARY GOALS FOR WHAT WE HOPE AND SEEK TO DO.
NOT JUST FOR OURSELVES, BUT OUR HEARTBEAT REALLY IS FOR THE COMMUNITY, FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON AND WERE PLACED ON THE WEST END.
BUT ABOUT A THIRD OF OUR CONGREGATION ACTUALLY LIVES ON THIS SIDE OF THE ISLAND, INCLUDING MYSELF AND MY FAMILY.
WE HAVE A HEART FOR GALVESTON.
I THINK IN OUR MINDS, THAT'S OUR PRIMARY GOAL.
WE WOULD LIKE A NEWER SIGN AND UPDATED SIGN.
THE ONE THAT WE HAVE IS HONESTLY FALLING APART.
A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO I WALKED BY AND THERE WAS A PIECE HANGING OFF.
BUT AS PEOPLE HAVE MENTIONED ALREADY, THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT EITHER THE LOCATION OR THE HEIGHT.
THERE'S A CONCERN AND I APPRECIATE WHAT WAS JUST MENTIONED ABOUT PLACING IT ELSEWHERE.
BUT THERE'S ALSO CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT MIGHT BE CHANGED IN THE FUTURE.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT'S NOT A POSSIBILITY, BUT IT'S NOT OUR PROPERTY.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THAT PROPERTY, AND THERE IS GREATER CERTAINTY OF IT BEING ON OUR PROPERTY.
I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU, AS DAVID SAID, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
I KNOW YOU TAKE THESE THINGS SERIOUSLY AND YOU'RE NOT JUST BIDING YOUR TIME, BUT YOU'RE REALLY CONSIDERING EVERYBODY'S INTERESTS HERE, AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.
THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME?
>> THANK YOU. AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
ANYONE ELSE OVER HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER? PLEASE, SIR, COME UP.
>> I AM THE APPLICANT [LAUGHTER].
I DIDN'T REALIZE WHAT I WAS GETTING INTO.
[LAUGHTER] ABSURDITY, THAT VERY POLITICAL.
>> I JUST WANT TO PASS OR MINIMIZE A LITTLE BIT OUR NORMAL ATTENDANCE THIS POINT 5 AND IT'S TREASURER.
I KNOW THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE ABOUT 140 PEOPLE THAT ARE REGISTERED MEMBERS.
DURING EASTER, WE HAD OVER 250 PEOPLE [INAUDIBLE].
HOW MANY KIDS DID WE HAVE? WHEN PEOPLE COME TO VISIT THE WEST END, GALVESTON HAS NO OTHER CHURCH PAST US, [INAUDIBLE] BEACH HAS A CHURCH THAT GOES WITH IT.
THERE'S NO OTHER CHURCH ON THE WEST.
THE PEOPLE WHO STAY IN THE RV PARK, THE RED HOUSES, THEY COME TO WEST END, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT [INAUDIBLE].
>> THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. ANYONE ELSE? GOING ONCE, ANYONE ELSE ON EITHER SIDE? LIKE CHURCH? ALL ARE WELCOME. THANK YOU.
IN THAT CASE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:04 PM.
COMMISSIONERS, I'LL BRING IT BACK FOR A MOTION.
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 22P- OF 31 AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.
>> I HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND AND WE WILL NOW HAVE DISCUSSION.
I HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND FOR APPROVAL, I SHOULD SAY.
WHO WOULD LIKE TO START THE DISCUSSION? I'LL START THE DISCUSSION THEN.
AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO START THE DISCUSSION BY SAYING
[00:35:04]
SPECIFICALLY TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH AND [NOISE] TO PASTOR BOWERS.I HAVE READ ALL OF THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE COME IN, AND I HAVE NOT SEEN ONE SINGLE COMMENT THAT HAS SAID ONE SINGLE NEGATIVE THING ABOUT THE CHURCH.
THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THIS.
NO ONE IS OPPOSED TO THE CHURCH, AND NO ONE IS OPPOSED TO THE CHURCH HAVING A LARGER SIGN.
THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE WHO WERE OPPOSED TO THE CHANGE IN THE ZONING.
WE GOT THREE WHO WERE NOT OPPOSED TO THE CHANGE IN ZONING.
BUT I DO WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT IT'S JUST THAT PEOPLE ARE OPPOSED TO THE NUCLEAR OPTION, IF YOU WILL, OF THE CHANGE IN ZONING.
I THINK PEOPLE LOOK AT IT AS MAYBE WE'VE ALL HAD THAT NEIGHBOR WHERE YOU HAVE THE GREAT NEIGHBOR AND THEN THEY LOOK AT YOU ALL, IS THAT YOU HAVE THAT NEIGHBOR WHO LIVES NEXT TO YOU WHO MOWS THEIR GRASS AND TAKES GREAT CARE OF THEIR YARD AND DOESN'T LEAVE THEIR DOG OUT TO BARK.
THEY ARE JUST THE IDEAL NEIGHBOR.
BUT THEN THEY, HEAVEN FORBID, SOMETHING TERRIBLE HAPPENS AND THEIR COMPANY TRANSFERS THEM AND THEY HAVE TO SELL THEIR HOUSE AND THEY MOVE AWAY.
THEN THAT NEIGHBOR MOVES IN AND THAT NEIGHBOR LEAVES THEIR DOG OUT ALL NIGHT AND IT BARKS AND THEY DON'T MOW THE GRASS AND THEN THAT'S WHO THEY'RE LEFT WITH.
I THINK THAT EVERYBODY'S WORRIED THAT THAT NEIGHBOR WILL MOVE IN.
THAT SCENARIO IS WHAT PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT.
FROM AN ACTUAL CASE STANDPOINT AND THE BASIS THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE OUR DECISION ON, WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS OUR CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.
THAT IS ON PAGE 2 OF OUR CASE REPORT AND OUR CRITERIA NUMBER 1, THE PROPOSED ZONING IS PREFERABLE TO THE EXISTING ZONING.
I PERSONALLY CANNOT REACH THAT CRITERIA.
THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING IS PREFERABLE.
PERHAPS IT MIGHT BE EQUAL TO, BUT I CANNOT REACH THE POINT THAT IT'S PREFERABLE.
I THINK WHAT WE'RE COMING TO IS THAT IT'S JUST CONVENIENT.
I THINK THE CITY HAS A VERY GENEROUS SIGN CRITERIA AS IS.
I THINK THAT THAT IS EXEMPLIFIED BY THE FACT THAT OUR ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS ONLY ALLOWED TO GIVE A FIVE PERCENT EXEMPTION OR INCREASE IN WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO GIVE NORMALLY TO WHAT THE CITY HAS IN THEIR SIGNAGE ALLOWANCES.
I THINK, AND THE FACT THAT THE CHURCH IS ALLOWED AS IS TO FALL UNDER URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS SIGNAGE STANDARDS, AT WHICH WE JUST ALLOWED THEM TO DO.
A CHANGE IN ZONING TO RES-REC IS A PERMANENT CHANGE IN ZONING.
IF SOMETHING HAPPENS AND THE CHURCH IS NO LONGER THERE, THAT CHANGE OF ZONING STAYS WITH THE PROPERTY.
I LIVE RIGHT THERE, AND I HAVE TO CONTINUE TO LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS MY COMMUNITY, AND I'M GOING TO LISTEN TO THE HUNDREDS OF MY NEIGHBORS WHO RODE IN.
I'M SORRY, BUT I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY?
>> WELL, I APPRECIATE [NOISE] YOUR CONCERN FOR YOUR IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS AND EVERYTHING, AND ALSO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING THAT'S JUST ADDRESSING ONE PARTICULAR ISSUE THAT THEY HAVE AT THE PRESENT.
THE THING THAT I'M CONCERNED WITH OR NOT [NOISE] CONCERNED BUT I SEE THAT WE NEED TO BE CONSISTENT IN, THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION RULE WE IMPLEMENTED NOT TOO RECENTLY ON AN AREA THAT WAS CLOSE TO
[00:40:05]
ME OVER ON 81ST STREET AND STEWART ROAD WHEN THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR A MULTIPURPOSE APARTMENT COMPLEX OR NOTIFICATION.I WAS NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE ANY COMMENT AND NOR CAN I BECAUSE OF COURSE, IT'S NOT NEAR ME.
I DIDN'T CARE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T SAY I HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS.
BUT THERE WERE PEOPLE ON 75TH AND 77TH STREET THAT CAME IN VOICED THEIR OPINIONS.
WELL, THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO JUST AS WELL AS PEOPLE IN THE PROPERTY ASSOCIATION DO.
BUT THE POINT OF FACT IS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ARE RESIDENTIAL I'M SORRY, A RES-REC.
THE PROPERTY BEHIND IS RESIDENTIAL, BUT IT'S NOT USED IN CONFORMITY WITH WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE.
IN THE EVENT THAT THE CHURCH DOES FIND ITS DEMISE.
BY PLACING IT UNDER RESIDENTIAL OR KEEPING IT UNDER RESIDENTIAL VERSUS BEING WHAT RES-REC IS ADJACENT TO IT, PUTS THAT PROPERTY AT A DISADVANTAGE.
NOW THEY'RE LIMITING THE WHAT IT COULD BE SOLD FOR.
THE PURPOSES IT COULD BE SOLD FOR.
ALBEIT I DO NOT THINK THAT THE CHURCH IS GOING ANYWHERE IN THE NEXT 100 YEARS OR 50 YEARS.
I DO THINK IT'S BE WHO'S ONE TO LOOK AT ALL THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.
NOT ONLY JUST NUMBER 1, BUT ALL THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL AND RECONSIDER ALONG THOSE LINES. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. OTHER COMMENTS? VICE-CHAIR, BROWN.
I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL TO MAKE A DECISION.
I HAD A HARD TIME LAST TIME MAKING ANY OF THAT WORK.
ESPECIALLY NUMBER 4 WHERE IT SAYS THE RANGE OF USES IN THE CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ALLOWED BY THEIR PRO ZONING WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH PROPERTIES IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY.
WHEN YOU HAVE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY SAYING THEY DON'T WANT THIS FOR THE REASONS THAT WE'VE ALREADY GONE THROUGH, WHICH IS FOR THE POTENTIAL OF WHAT DEVELOPMENT MIGHT BE THERE IF WE DO CHANGE THIS TO RES-REC.
IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS NO, IT WOULD NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE PROPERTIES IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY ACCORDING TO THE COMMENTS THAT WE GOT.
THEN ANOTHER ONE IN NUMBER 5, THAT THE PACE OF DEVELOPMENT AND OR THE AMOUNT OF VACANT LAND CURRENTLY ZONED FOR COMPARABLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY SUGGESTS A NEED FOR THE PROPOSED REZONING IN ORDER TO ENSURE AN APPROPRIATE INVENTORY OF LAND TO MAINTAIN A COMPETITIVE LAND MARKET.
WELL, THE NEED THAT WE'RE SOLVING HERE IS THE NEED FOR A BIGGER SIGN.
WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH COMPETITIVE LAND MARKET.
I JUST REALLY COULDN'T FIND IT IN HERE ANYWHERE WHERE THERE WAS A NEED FOR THIS REZONING ACCORDING TO OUR CRITERIA.
THE NEED THAT WE'RE SOLVING IS FOR A LARGER SIGN.
THAT'S REALLY ALL IT CAME DOWN TO.
NOWHERE IN THIS CRITERIA COULD HAVE MATCHED THOSE THINGS UP.
I WAS REALLY HAVING A HARD TIME BASED ON THAT CRITERIA.
I HAVE HEARD OF SOMETHING TODAY THAT LOOKED INTO THE FUTURE A LITTLE FURTHER AND MATCHED UP SOME OF THIS CRITERIA HERE, THAT IS THE PARKING.
THE PARKING SEEMS TO BE AN UNUSUAL SITUATION HERE.
FIRST OF ALL, NOWHERE COULD I FIND HOW A CHURCH, A PLACE OF ASSEMBLY IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE, CAN ACCOMMODATE PARKING OF ANY KIND.
CAN STAFF TELL ME THAT, HOW DO YOU ACCOMMODATE PARKING IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE FOR A CHURCH?
>> YOU'D BE MORE SPECIFIC ON THAT.
>> SAY THERE'S A CHURCH IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
HOW ARE PEOPLE THAT GO TO THAT CHURCH SUPPOSED TO PARK IF YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BUILD A PARKING LOT.
>> WELL, IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BUILD A PARKING LOT.
THEY CAN HAVE PARKING FOR THE CHURCH, BUT ANY TYPE OF COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT ACTIVITY WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED.
>> OH, I'M JUST LOOKING RIGHT HERE UNDER THE ZONING CATEGORIES THAT YOU ALL SENT WITH THE STAFF REPORT, PARKING LOT STRUCTURE OR A LOT INCIDENTAL DOMAIN USE IS NOT ALLOWED.
>> NOT A PAVED SURFACE FOR PARKING.
>> THAT USE PARKING STRUCTURE OR LOT INCIDENTAL TO MAIN USE WOULD BE IF THAT PARKING WAS LOCATED ON ANOTHER LOT. BUT SERVING THE CHURCH.
>> OH, SO THEY COULD JUST BUILD A LOT NEXT TO THE CHURCH?
>> YEAH. PAVED SURFACE, IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE STRUCTURE, YES.
I WAS CONFUSED ON THAT, SO THAT'S OKAY.
IF SOMEHOW STEWART ROAD WAS EXPANDED AND IT ATE UP HALF OF THEIR PARKING LOT THAT THEY COULD STILL REBUILD THE PARKING LOT THERE SOMEWHERE INCIDENTAL TO THE CHURCH USE.
>> WITHIN THAT CHURCH LOT, CORRECT.
[00:45:01]
>> OKAY ALL RIGHT. WELL, THAT WAS ONE OF MY CONCERNS THAT I HADN'T HAD EARLIER.
BUT STILL, UNLESS STAFF CAN SOMEHOW MATCH UP THIS REASONING FOR ME THAT I'M NOT GETTING.
I'M JUST NOT GETTING THE CONNECTION BETWEEN REZONING AND A SIGN AS BEING THE DRIVER ACCORDING TO OUR CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL. THAT TIM CAN.
>> I WAS IN THAT INITIAL MEETING AS WELL, THE PLANNING MEETING WHERE THE CHURCH LEADERSHIP CAME AND ASKED US ABOUT THIS.
OBVIOUSLY THEIR PRIMARY CONCERN WAS THE SIGN.
THERE WERE A NUMBER OF OPTIONS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN PURSUED.
HOWEVER, GIVEN THAT BUILDING CHANGES MIGHT HAPPEN AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, I PERSONALLY THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS THE BEST WAY TO GO FOR THEM BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED FOR THE CHANGES THAT THEY MIGHT PERCEIVE IN THEIR FUTURE AS OPPOSED TO JUST EXCLUSIVELY A SIGN.
I KNOW THE SIGN IS THE KICKOFF EVENTS, SO TO SPEAK FOR THEM COMING TO VISIT US.
BUT IN STATS VIEW, WE THOUGHT THAT THIS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THEIR ENTIRE USE IN THE FUTURE.
GIVEN THAT THERE IS AN EXEMPTION ON IT FOR CHURCH USES IN OUR ONE STILL DOESN'T ALLEVIATE SOME OF THOSE PROBLEMS. THIS WOULD BE A SOLUTION THAT WOULD SERVE MULTIPLE PURPOSES FOR THEM.
IT'S DEBATABLE AS TO IF THAT'S THE BEST SOLUTION OR NOT.
BUT IT SEEMED, AT LEAST IN STATS FOR YOU TO BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE DECISION.
>> REMEMBER THE LAST MEETING I RECALL THE CHANGE IN THE RES-REC WOULD GIVE THE PIECE OF PROPERTY 50 MORE USES TO WHOEVER OWNS THAT PROPERTY LATER THAT THEY DON'T HAVE RIGHT NOW, THAT THEY DON'T REALLY NEED RIGHT NOW OF BEING A CHURCH, LIKE A BAR AND RESTAURANTS AND OTHER.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. BUT WE ALSO WEIGHED WHAT WE WERE HEARING FROM THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE CHURCH AND WHAT THEIR INTENT WAS GOING FORWARD.
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT THAT IF SOME DEVASTATING EVENT WERE TO HAPPEN AND THE CHURCH WERE TO DECIDE TO NOT REBUILD OR TO GO AWAY OR TO OTHERWISE VACATE THIS PROPERTY FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
BUT IN OUR VIEW, I THINK THAT RISK IS FAIRLY LOW.
THE CHURCH MEMBERSHIP TOLD US THEY INTEND TO STAY THERE.
THEY INTEND TO KEEP DOING WHAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING ALL ALONG.
FOR THAT REASON, IT SEEMED APPROPRIATE TO ME.
>> ONE OTHER THING I GUESS I DON'T REALLY VERY WELL UNDERSTAND THIS.
ONE OF THE COMMENTS TALKED ABOUT HAVING CENTER POINT TO OFFER THEIR RIGHT-OF-WAY OUT THERE, I GUESS IT'S CLOSER TO THE STREET SOMEWHERE AS A SOLUTION OR THE PLACE TO PUT THEIR SIGN.
>> YEAH, I'M NOT SURE, I HAVEN'T BEEN A PART OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE HL&P STAFF AS SUCH.
WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE THERE'S A RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT DOESN'T ALLOW CERTAIN THINGS TO NORMALLY ORDINARILY BE PLACED IN IT AND THERE ARE IMPROVEMENTS IN IT.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT HL&P EASEMENT IS.
IT'S ONLY ON THE SOUTH SIDE, I'M TOLD.
>> IN ANY CASE, IF MR. GRAY HAD SAID THAT HE DOESN'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THE SIGN OR WHAT HAVE YOU AND CHANGING IT TO WHAT THE CHURCH WANTS, THAT'S ONLY PART OF THE EQUATION.
IT STILL HAS TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY CODE, WHICH SAYS VERY SPECIFICALLY, IT HAS TO BE, THERE'S THAT LIMITATION THAT DOES NOT GET THE CHURCH TO WHERE THEY WANT TO BE IN TERMS OF THE SIGNAGE SIZE, EXCUSE ME.
>> I'M GOING TO CHANNEL MY INNER DONOR FAIR WEATHER RIGHT HERE AND SAY THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MATTER BEFORE US.
>> IT REALLY DOESN'T. IT'S ESSENTIALLY, I THINK SOMETHING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AND I THINK IT DESERVES A RESPONSE, BUT IT'S NOT PART OF THE CONSIDERATION.
IT'S AN ALTERNATIVE THAT THE CHURCH HAS APPROACHED US AND CHOSEN NOT TO PURSUE THAT ALTERNATIVE,
[00:50:01]
AND INSTEAD CHOSE THIS ALTERNATIVE.>> ALL RIGHT. I'M DONE. THANKS.
>> JUST TO RECAP ON YOURS COMMIT VICE CHAIR BROWN, YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOUR OPPOSITION IS BASED ON CRITERIA 1,4 AND 5, CORRECT? COMMISSIONER PENA.
>> STRUGGLED WITH THIS ONE A LOT OVER THE SIGN ISSUE VERSUS THE ZONING CHANGE AND EVERYTHING AND I DROVE OUT THERE QUITE A BIT AND WENT AROUND, AND IT'S A DEVELOPMENT VERSUS RESIDENTIAL, A GIVE-AND-TAKE THAT I SEE.
I THINK A LOT OF THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE WEST END AS DEVELOPMENT CONTINUES.
THE WEST END IS OUR GALVESTON FINAL FRONTIER IN THE TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT.
THAT BEING SAID, CHANGING THEM TO A RES-REC ZONING WOULD GIVE THEM THE ABILITY TO DO MORE WITH THEIR EXISTING PROPERTY, WITH BUILDING A SUNDAY SCHOOL STRUCTURE, EXPANDING WITHIN THAT.
THEY'VE BEEN AT THAT LOCATION FOR 50 YEARS.
THEY ESSENTIALLY ARE THE COMMUNITY.
WHY NOT ALLOW THEM TO BE EVEN MORE PART OF THE COMMUNITY, AND AS A HOMEOWNER OR AS SOMEBODY WHO LIVES OUT THERE, WHAT OTHER BETTER NEIGHBOR WOULD YOU WANT THAN A CHURCH TO OCCUPY THAT.
IN ALL THE TOSS AND BACK-AND-FORTH OF WHICH WAY TO GO, IN GIVING THEM THE ABILITY TO GROW AND GIVING THEM THAT ALLOWANCE TO THAT RES-REC, GIVING THEM THE ABILITY TO HAVE THAT SIGN, IT ONLY MAKES THEM MORE PERMANENT IN THAT LOCATION AND ALLOWS THEM THAT ABILITY TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS TO EVERYBODY IN THAT COMMUNITY AND TO GALVESTON AS WELL.
>> OTHER COMMENTS? I KNEW YOU'D WEIGH [OVERLAPPING] IN COMMISSIONER WALLA.
>> I WILL TELL YOU SEVERAL COMMISSIONERS HAVE BROUGHT UP SOME VERY VALID POINTS AND LOOK, IF YOU LIVE IN THAT AREA, I CAN UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN OF, HEY, THIS IS GOING TO BE RES-REC AND WHO KNOWS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN? YOU GOT TO REMEMBER, IT IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO WHAT IS PROBABLY, I'M JUST TAKING A WILD GUESS THAT'S GOT TO BE 5-10 ACRES OF RES-REC IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST.
THEN YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH, AND THEN IN THAT SOUTHWEST CORNER, IS MULTIFAMILY, SO YOU GOT A HODGEPODGE OF ZONING THERE.
TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I LOVE STEVEN'S COMMENT AS HELPING THESE GUYS BECAUSE THEY DO HAVE A ZONING PROBLEM, THEY DON'T HAVE A SIGN PROBLEM.
IT ALLOWS THEM TO GROW THE CHURCH IF GOD WILLING, THAT'S GREAT STUFF TO HEAR.
IT WILL ANCHOR THEM THERE AND IT FIXES A LOT OF PROBLEMS FOR THEM AND IT'S GOT TO GIVE THEM SOME COMFORT, I WOULD THINK THAT, HEY, MY BIGGEST FEAR IF I WERE YOU GUYS IS IF WE HAD SOME CATASTROPHE, WHAT HAPPENS? I MEAN, I KNOW YOU'RE TELLING ME WE GOT THAT COVERED.
I'VE BEEN DOWN THAT ROAD A COUPLE OF TIMES AND THAT USUALLY WORKS, BUT IT'S UNNERVING.
I LIKE YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THAT.
ALSO, IF FOR SOME REASON THEY DO LEAVE, WHAT WOULD BE UNUSUAL IS YOU WOULD HAVE, BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE A NON-CONFORMING, REALLY A COMMERCIAL USE AND STORAGE SURROUNDING THAT, THIS IS A MATTER OF OPINION, BUT THEY WOULD BE FINANCIALLY DISADVANTAGED IN BEING STUCK WITH A R1 PIECE OF PROPERTY IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS HODGEPODGE OF ZONING.
I'D HOPE THAT WE COULD APPROVE THEIR REQUEST. THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS, COMMISSIONERS? IF THERE ARE NONE, THEN LET'S CALL THE VOTE.
THE MOTION BEFORE US IS FOR APPROVAL [NOISE] OF CASE 22 P-031.
ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND.
[00:55:02]
ALL OPPOSED, THAT'S TWO.>> JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE FINAL DECISION AUTHORITY IS THE CITY COUNCIL AND THEY WILL HEAR THIS REQUEST ON JULY 28TH.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS.
[8.A. Discussion Of Planning Commission Awards (Staff)]
MS. BORMAN, WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT OUR PLANNING COMMISSION AWARDS.>> [INAUDIBLE] ON TOPIC, I'M JUST GOING TO PULL UP THE PRESENTATION.
PLANNING COMMISSION AWARDS, WE OFFER THE BENEFIT OF THE NEW COMMISSIONERS.
WE START WORKING ON THESE IN THE SUMMER TIME.
WE SPEND THE SUMMER BRAINSTORMING AND THEN ALSO OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC NOMINATIONS.
AT THE END OF THE SUMMER, WE FINALIZE THE AWARDS IN SEPTEMBER, AND THEN THEY'RE PRESENTED BY THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR AT CITY COUNCIL IN OCTOBER.
THIS IS THE FOURTH YEAR THAT WE'VE DONE IT.
IT WAS REALLY THE BRAINCHILD OF FORMER COMMISSIONER, BRUCE REINHARDT.
I DON'T KNOW. MY BRAIN JUST STOPPED FOR A MINUTE.
BRUCE REINHARDT, HE WAS SEARCHING FOR A WAY TO RECOGNIZE GOOD PROJECTS IN THE CITY.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION AWARDS ARE TO DO JUST THAT, TO RECOGNIZE GOOD PROJECTS THAT PEOPLE CAN LEARN FROM AND EMULATE AND LEARN LESSONS FROM COMING FORWARD.
WHAT I HAVE HERE TODAY IS JUST THAT WE'RE JUST OPENING UP FOR OUR DISCUSSION TODAY.
[NOISE] IT'S JUST THE BROAD TOPIC OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AWARDS, WHAT ARE THEY, AND THEN WE CAN RUN THROUGH WHAT WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS.
WHAT WE TYPICALLY DO IS SAVE THE NOMINATIONS FROM PREVIOUS YEARS.
THEY'RE ELIGIBLE FOR FIVE YEARS AFTER THEY'VE BEEN COMPLETED.
IF SOMETHING DOESN'T WIN ONE YEAR, WE KEEP IT ON THE LIST, AND MAYBE IT WILL WIN IN THE NEXT YEAR.
>> YES, IT COULD. THEN STEPH KEEPS A RUNNING LIST OF PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR THAT WE THINK ARE INTERESTING AND SO WE BRING A SET OF NOMINATIONS OF OUR OWN.
THEN IF YOU ALL HAVE ANY IDEAS, WE WILL JOT THEM DOWN, AND THEN IF YOU THINK OF ANYTHING YOU CAN JUST EMAIL ME, AND WE WILL GET IT ON THE LIST.
THESE ARE THE SLATE OF PREVIOUSLY NOMINATED, INCLUDES THE GALVESTON ART CENTER.
THE ART CENTER UNDERWENT A BIG RENOVATION ENDING IN 2018, SO THIS IS THE LAST YEAR THAT THE ART CENTER IS GOING TO BE ELIGIBLE.
WE HAVE THE GALVESTON ISLAND STATE PARK-THE LOST BIRD PROJECT.
LOST BIRD PROJECT IS AN ART PROJECT THAT COMMEMORATES THE LOCATION OF THE LAST SIGHTING OF EXTINCT BIRDS.
THIS IS THE STATE PARK AND IT'S THE ESKIMO CURLEW, WAS LAST SEEN IN GALVESTON, I THINK, IN THE '60S.
THIS IS A BUILDING ON THE STRAND, HAS BEEN RECENTLY PURCHASED AND REDONE BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.
IT WAS IN TERRIBLE CONDITION AND A LOT OF STRUCTURAL DETERIORATION OF THE CAST IRON ON THE FRONT.
THE CAST IRON'S ALL BEEN REDONE AND THE OWNER HIMSELF, EVEN THOUGH HE'S A PROFESSOR AT A&M, GOT REALLY INTO IT AND TAUGHT HIMSELF HOW TO DO THE CASTINGS HIMSELF.
THIS WAS NOMINATED LAST BY A PLANNING COMMISSIONER, I THINK, MS. EDWARDS.
IT'S A RENOVATION OF A BUILDING IN THE 2,500 BLOCK OF MARKET.
ALSO FROM A COMMISSIONER, A RENOVATION OF A CHURCH ON BROADWAY, INCLUDING A NEW PAINT SCHEME AND MURALS.
THIS WAS NOMINATED BY STEPH, CITY HALL PLAZA RIGHT BEHIND US.
REPLACED THE CITY HALL ANNEX WHEN IT WAS TORN DOWN, AND INCLUDES GREEN SPACE AND A SCULPTURE BY LOCAL ARTIST DOUG MCLEAN.
BABE'S BEACH RENOURISHMENT, THIS WAS NOMINATED LAST YEAR AND IT WAS UNDERWAY AND SO NOW IT IS COMPLETED, AND THAT IS JUST RECOGNIZING THE PARK BOARD'S WORK FOR RENOURISHING THE BEACHES ON THE SEAWALL.
BEACHTOWN AND BEACHSIDE VILLAGE, THEY WERE NOMINATED LAST YEAR BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THEIR BEST PRACTICES IN BEACH MAINTENANCE.
THIS WAS ONE I THINK THAT JEFFREY HILL SUGGESTED, RECOGNIZING SAVING 1900, THE CORE DRIVES FOR THEIR EFFORTS IN PROMOTING HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN GENERAL AND THEN ALSO HISTORIC BUILDINGS HERE IN GALVESTON.
[01:00:04]
THIS IS A HOUSE IN THE EAST END HISTORIC DISTRICT.IT'S BEEN REDONE AND ONE OF THE FUN THINGS ABOUT THIS IS THAT THEY'VE REBUILT [INAUDIBLE] WHAT'S THE HISTORIC FEATURE OF HOUSES? IT'S THE FIRST THING TO GO IN A HURRICANE, [LAUGHTER] AND IT'S A BIG COMMITMENT TO BUILD IT BACK, SO IT'S AN UNUSUAL COMMITMENT BY THE PROPERTY OWNER TO TAKE THAT STEP.
THIS IS THE COASTAL COMMUNITY CHURCH.
IT IS THE OLD BUICK DEALERSHIP ON 23RD STREET.
THIS BUILDING WAS BLIGHTED AND HAD A LOT OF PROBLEMS THAT IMPACTED THE NEIGHBORS NEGATIVELY AND IT'S BEEN REDONE.
IT'S AN ADAPTIVE REUSE BUILDING.
IT'S NOT PURELY HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
THEY SAVED SOME HISTORIC FEATURES LIKE THE BUICK SIGN AND THAT WING WALL, BUT IT REALLY SHOWS WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH A DERELICT BUILDING AND NOT TEAR IT DOWN, YOU CAN REUSE IT.
IT'S A RENOVATION IN THE EAST END HISTORIC DISTRICT.
IT HAS GONE THROUGH EXTENSIVE RENOVATIONS AND REPLACEMENT OF MISSING HISTORIC FEATURES AND BUILT A NEW GARAGE APARTMENT.
IT WAS RECENTLY FEATURED IS REALLY THE POSTER OF THE GHF HOMES TOUR.
CROCKETT PARK, THIS IS A PROJECT OF THE CITIES TO BUILD NEW BALLPARKS.
53RD S. THIS IS THE LAST YEAR IT'S ELIGIBLE, SO STEPH HAS PUT IT ONTO THE LIST.
THE EVIA SUGAR CUBES, I JUST THINK THIS IS TO MAKE SURE WE PUT LAST YEAR ELIGIBLE FOR THAT ON THAT.
HELP ME BRING THAT ONE UP, CATHERINE, PLEASE.
>> WHEN WAS IT? LAST YEAR IT WAS ELIGIBLE.
>> YEAH. I THINK IT WAS BRAND NEW, BUT IT'S [NOISE] FIVE YEARS NOW.
>> [LAUGHTER] [NOISE] FIRST YEAR NOMINATED, LAST YEAR ELIGIBLE.
>> THIS IS THE EVIA SUGAR CUBES.
THESE LITTLE BUILDINGS THAT ARE BACK BEHIND THE SUGAR BEAN AND NOW WHAT'S THE BUFFALO GRILLE.
THEY ACT AS LIKE POP-UPS SO YOU CAN HAVE YOUR SMALL BUSINESS THERE.
IT'S ALWAYS SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
ACTS AS AN INCUBATOR WHERE AS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A BRICK-AND-MORTAR YET YOU CAN TEST OUT YOUR IDEAS.
YOU DON'T SEE HOW YOUR MERCHANDISE SELLS BEFORE YOU TAKE THAT PLUNGE.
I THINK THAT'S AN INTERESTING CONCEPT THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN BEFORE.
GALVESTON ISLAND BREWERY, THAT WAS A BIG ADDITION TO THE BREWERY.
I THINK THEY HAD 1,000 SQUARE FEET AND NOW THEY'RE AT 4,000 SQUARE FEET AND IT TRIPLED THEIR PRODUCTION.
ITS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A SUCCESSFUL LOCAL BUSINESS. THEN THE TROLLEYS.
[BACKGROUND] [LAUGHTER] THE TROLLEYS ARE BACK AND I THINK THAT'S FUN, SO I PUT THE TROLLEYS IN.
[BACKGROUND] THAT'S WHAT WE'VE GOT SO FAR AS THE SLATE.
ANYTHING THAT COMES TO YOUR MIND IF YOU'RE DRIVING AROUND, YOU SEE SOMETHING, JUST LET ME KNOW. YES, BOB.
>> I GOT ONE. IT'S RIGHT DOWN THE STREET FROM 1118 SEALY.
THIS IS AMY ADAM'S HOUSE AND HER FAMILY OWNS THE TENNESSEE TITANS.
THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON THAT HOUSE FOR PROBABLY THREE YEARS AT LEAST.
FINALLY, I THINK I'VE SEEN SOMETHING PARKED OUT THERE BESIDES THE CONTRACTOR'S TRUCK.
I THINK THEY'RE JUST ABOUT DONE.
JUST DRIVE BY AND HAVE A LOOK AT IT.
>> OKAY. WE WILL GET THAT ON THE LIST.
>> I HAVE ONE ALSO. SHE'S ACTUALLY AMY ADAM STRUNK.
>> SORRY, REJONE. I APOLOGIZE.
>> I THINK I REMEMBER [INAUDIBLE] 19TH SEALY ON THE CORNER.
IF YOU REMEMBER SEEING IT, THERE WAS LIKE THREE HOUSES THAT WERE THERE.
THEY WERE REALLY IN BAD CONDITION, TERRIBLE CONDITION.
THEY JUST [OVERLAPPING] IS BEAUTIFUL. THEY DID A GREAT JOB THERE AND THEY WERE JUST GORGEOUS.
IT'S [INAUDIBLE] HOUSE SO IT'S ON THE CORNER OF [INAUDIBLE]
>> IT'S ACROSS THE STREET FROM MUSICS HOUSE.
>> YEAH. THEY DID A GREAT JOB WITH THOSE.
TWO OF THEM THERE. [INAUDIBLE] IS DONE.
>> I'VE GOT ONE. THE OLD JSC FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, NOW MARMO.
>> THEY'RE HAVING A GRAND OPENING HERE PRETTY QUICKLY IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS, NEXT WEEK OR SO.
>> IS THAT A STATE HOUSE REALLY?
>> NO. IT'S A SHARED WORK ENVIRONMENTS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] LIKE A WEWORK.
>> I THINK THEY'RE OPENING A CAFE THERE.
>> YEAH. THEY'VE GOT A CAFE THERE AND YOU CAN RENT TEMPORARY OFFICE SPACE OR CONFERENCE ROOMS FOR SPECIFIC EVENTS.
[01:05:05]
>> SHIELDING IS NICE TOO IF THEY [OVERLAPPING]
>> CATHERINE, I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR YOU.
AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DESCRIPTION HERE, IT SAYS, NO PROJECTS THAT HAVE HAD DIRECT PROFESSIONAL FINANCIAL OWNERSHIP AND SIGNED BLAH, BLAH OF ANY CURRENT MEMBER.
DOES THAT INCLUDE DONATIONS TO NON-PROFITS?
>> YOU DON'T WANT TO [LAUGHTER]
>> NOMINATE ONE OF YOUR OWN PRODUCTS.
>> I KNOW. I GOT IT. I'M JUST CHECKING.
>> I MAY HAVE A CONFLICT HERE.
1309 TREMONT, THAT WAS MY DAD'S CHEVROLET DEALERSHIP FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS.
>> OH, WAS IT? [LAUGHTER] THAT'S NOT A CONFLICT.
>> THAT WAS BACK IN THE OLD DAYS.
>> THAT'S GREAT. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT.
>> DO YOU HAVE A PICTURE OF YOU AT THE DEALERSHIP?.
>> OKAY. I CAN'T VOTE ON THAT ONE.
[LAUGHTER] THAT WAS RIGHT AFTER IT WAS PENNINGTON VIEW. HE BOUGHT IT FROM PENNINGTON.
>> IT WAS A CHEVROLET DEALERSHIP.
>> I'M SURPRISED YOU DIDN'T CHOOSE OFF THE BUICK AND PUT A [LAUGHTER] CHEVROLET.
>> HE MOVED FROM A DEALERSHIP THAT WAS ON MECHANIC STREET THAT'S NOW A PARKING LOT.
>> WE WILL SEE THESE AGAIN IN JULY.
>> RIGHT. WE'LL PUT IT ON AS A DISCUSSION ITEM JUST TO CHECK IN, JUST TO REMIND YOU ALL OF THIS SLATE AND LET YOU ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO ADD TO IT, AND THEN IT WE'LL OPEN PUBLIC NOMINATIONS IN AUGUST, AND SO ALL OF AUGUST WE'LL HAVE NOMINATIONS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND THEN CLOSE THOSE AND VOTE IN SEPTEMBER.
>> PERFECT. ANY OTHERS YOU ALL THAT YOU WANT TO ASK CATHERINE TO PUT ON NOW? KEEP EYES OPEN.
I WOULD SAY EARS OPEN BUT NOT SO MUCH.
EYES OPEN AS YOU DRIVE AROUND IN THE NEXT MONTH EVERYBODY.
>> ANYTIME YOU SEE SOMETHING, JUST SHOOT ME A QUICK EMAIL AND WE'LL GET IT ON THE LIST.
IT'S JUST MUCH AS THE REDEVELOPING, REPURPOSING.
>> WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
>> YES, SIR. ANYTHING ELSE, CATHERINE?
>> OKAY. THANK YOU ALL AND WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 4:36.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.