[00:00:01]
[1. Call Meeting To Order]
WE WILL CALL THE MEETING OF THE CITY OF GAUSSIAN PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER.ROLE HAS BEEN CALLED THE RIGHT END.
[2. Attendance]
WE HAVE AN AGENDA, ONE, ABSENCES IS [INAUDIBLE] WE DO HAVE A QUORUM.ARE THERE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST? COMMISSIONERS ARE REVIEWING THE MINUTES.
[4. Approval Of Minutes]
ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? HEARING NONE, THEY WILL BE ADOPTED AS PRESENTED.NOW, WE'LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
THIS IS FOR BOTH AGENDA OR NON-AGENDA ITEMS. PLEASE NOTE THAT FOR EACH CASE, WE WILL OPEN EACH CASE OF PUBLIC COMMENT.
BUT THIS IS REALLY A LARGER OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYBODY TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEMS OR NON-AGENDA ITEMS. THEN ALSO ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE MEETING HAD BEEN RECEIVED AND REVIEWED BY THE COMMISSIONERS.
FOR THOSE THAT HAVE SUBMITTED [INAUDIBLE]
[7.A.1. 22P-068 (Bernardo De Galvez/Avenue P Between 20th And 21st Streets) Request For An Abandonment Of Approximately 21,000 Square-Feet Of Avenue P Right-Of-Way. Adjacent Properties Are Legally Described As: M. B. Menard Survey (94-0-1), Northwest 94and A Portion Of Northeast And Southwest Block 94, Galveston Outlots, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Darryl Hill Adjacent Property Owner: Seawall Hospitality, LLC Easement Holder: City Of Galveston]
LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO THE FIRST CASE.CASE 22P-068, GO AHEAD STAFF, PLEASE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSION.
THANK YOU. TIM TEIGEN, THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
IT'S A REQUEST FOR AN ABANDONMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 21,000 SQUARE FEET OF AVENUE P, ALSO KNOWN AS BERNARDO DE GALVEZ BETWEEN THE 20TH AND 21ST.
YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THE MAP IMMEDIATELY BEHIND THE GRAND [INAUDIBLE] HOTEL.
THAT'S BEING POSED FOR ABANDONMENT BY MR. DARRYL HILL, WHO IS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF SEAWALL HOSPITALITY, LLC, OWNS BOTH SIDES OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
THIS IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 272 YOU HAVE ENCLOSED IN YOUR PACKET THE APPLICANTS' NARRATIVE, WHICH I'LL LET THEM PRESENT FOR THEMSELVES.
BUT TO JUST TO GO OVER A FEW ISSUES THAT ARE IN OUR TYPICAL PROCESS FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY AMMENDMENTS.
THE IMPACT ON THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.
THIS IS ON THE CITY'S MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
IT'S DEFINED AS A COLLECTOR, WHICH COLLECTORS PROVIDE LESSER MOBILITY AND ARE INTENDED TO CARRY A LOWER VOLUME OF TRAFFIC AT LOWER SPEEDS THAN THE THOROUGHFARES, BUT IT IS ON THE THIRD-FLOOR PLAN.
THE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF A COLLECTOR STREET IS TO INTERCEPT TRAFFIC FROM INTERSECTING LOCAL STREETS.
AS YOU WELL KNOW, THIS IS WITHIN THE CITY'S GRID, WHICH ALLOWS FOR MULTIPLE FORMS OF ACCESS ACROSS THE CITY IN VARIOUS ROUTES.
IT HAPPENS TO BE AN EASTBOUND ONE-WAY COUPLET WITH 0 AND P BEING THE EAST AND WEST OF THAT COUPLET.
IT ENDS IN A FORCED NORTH OR SOUTH EARN MOMENT AT 19 CURRENTLY.
THE END OF THE ROAD GOING FROM 19 TO SEAWALL IS A ONE-WAY WESTBOUND.
IT'S AN INTERESTING LITTLE TRAFFIC INTERSECTION THERE.
BUT WHAT THIS WOULD DO IS FORESHORTENED THAT FORCED NORTH-SOUTH MOVEMENT TO BASICALLY WALK OR SO FURTHER WEST AT 21ST.
IN TERMS OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, THERE IS A SANITARY SEWER LINES ACTIVE WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ABANDONMENT WHERE TO GO FOR.
A UTILITY EASEMENT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO MITIGATE THE CONCERNS OF WORK SCHOOLS.
THE CRITERIA FOR A PERMANENT STREET CLOSURE IT'S CONSIDERED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS WHERE CLOSURES DO NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT TRAFFIC FLOW AND WHERE IT WILL.
BY HIGH-QUALITY DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTES POSITIVELY TO THE OVERALL NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION SYSTEM.
IT'S CONSIDERED WHEN THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA ARE.
[00:05:03]
THERE'S A DEMONSTRATED COMMUNITY BENEFIT.STREET SEGMENT IS NOT PART OF A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
NO BUILDING WOULD BE ERECTED IN THE ORIGINAL RIGHT-OF-WAY.
THEN THE CLOSURE DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACTS PUBLIC SAFETY OR TRAFFIC.
WHEN CLOSING UP THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL SHALL ATTEMPT TO MAINTAIN EXISTING VIEW CORRIDORS AND BREEZEWAYS ALONG THE ORIGINAL RIGHT-OF-WAY, MAINTAIN PEDESTRIAN ACCESS THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT, AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING AND DECORATIVE AREA.
AGAIN, THE APPLICANT, I THINK WE'LL SHOW WHAT THEY INTEND TO DO TO MEET THOSE CRITERIA.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION SERVES AS THE REVIEW BODY FOR THESE REQUESTS.
THE CITY COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY IN THE CITY.
THE CITY HAS A DUTY TO BALANCE THE DESIRES OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS WITH SECTIONS OF THE PUBLIC LANDS.
PUBLIC ACCESS TO BODIES OF WATER IS A CONSIDERATION IN THE ABANDONMENT PROCESS.
THERE ARE NO RIGHTS AWAY IN THIS CASE THAT GO THROUGH A DISCHARGE AT A BODY.
CITY COUNCIL WOULD HEAR THIS REQUEST ON NOVEMBER 17TH OF 2022.
THERE WERE 27 APPLICANTS NOTIFIED WITHIN THE 200 FEET TO RETURN OR FORM; ONE OPPOSE AND ONE HAD NO COMMENT.
THEN THERE WERE FOUR OTHERS THAT WERE OUTSIDE THE 200 FEET WHO ALSO HAD COMMENTS AND I THINK YOU'VE RECEIVED ALL THOSE TODAY, IS THAT CORRECT? PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND FIRE DEPARTMENT ALSO HAD COMMENTS THAT REGISTERED SOME OBJECTIONS.
THAT WAS IN YOUR [INAUDIBLE] OPPORTUNITY.
THAT'S ALL REALLY FOR THE DEPARTMENT REPORT.
I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
START OFF WITH QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION [NOISE]
FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU COULD AT LEAST, DIRECTOR TEACH US.
DESCRIBE FOR US, PLEASE THE ORDER OF THE PROCESS THAT YOU WENT THROUGH WITH THIS DEVELOPER TO COME UP WITH THIS PLAN.
I KNOW USUALLY YOU ALL GO THROUGH PRE-DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS AND THEN OTHER DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS WITH THEM ALONG THE WAY.
CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT HOW THAT WORKED IN THIS INSTANCE?
>> I BELIEVE THERE WAS A PRE-DEVELOPMENT MEETING.
I WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN ATTENDANCE ON THAT ONE.
BUT I KNOW THERE WAS A MEETING WITH MANAGEMENT AND THERE WAS A DISCUSSION OF WHAT ARE THE PUBLIC BENEFITS THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.
THEN I THINK IT WAS A BIT LATER THAT THE APPLICANT PREPARED SOME DOCUMENTATION OF WHAT THOSE BENEFITS WOULD BE, AND PRESENTED THAT THEN TO STAFF, AND AT THAT POINT, WE PUT IT ON THE AGENDA.
IT WAS FAIRLY INFORMAL PROCESS BUT RECESSIVE OBVIOUSLY FOLLOW WITH ANYBODY.
THAT HASN'T HAPPENED FOR ABANDONMENT REQUEST.
THAT'S TO EXPLAIN HOW THEY USE THE [INAUDIBLE]
>> WAS THERE EVER ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT DOING ANY TRAFFIC COUNTS ON EITHER THE STREET THAT'S BEING ABANDONED OR ON ANY OF THE NEARBY STREETS OR THE ALLEYWAY, ANY OF THOSE STREETS?
>> I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WOULD PROBABLY ENDEAVOR INTO.
THE APPLICANT WOULDN'T DO THAT, BUT THE CITY WOULD PROBABLY. WE'VE GOT TRAFFIC.
>> AT WHAT POINT WOULD SOMETHING LIKE THAT BE UNDERTAKEN?
>> I THINK PROBABLY UPON YOUR FINDINGS, YOUR RECOMMENDATION, WE WOULD PREPARE SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN ADVANCE OF THE CITY COUNSELS.
>> THEN WAS THE APPLICANT ADVISED OF THE FIRE MARSHAL AND THE FIRE CHIEF'S OBJECTIONS AND GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THOSE?
>> THEY HAVE THE DEPARTMENT REPORT, SO THEY'VE GOT ADVISED.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY POSE ANY MITIGATING ACTIONS OR NOT.
I THINK CERTAINLY IN THIS CASE THERE WOULD BE A NEED FOR SOME MITIGATING ACTIONS.
[00:10:03]
>> THANK YOU. I'LL HOLD OTHER QUESTIONS [INAUDIBLE]
>> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS. I'M JUST WONDERING.
WE HAVE TO ENTERTAIN EVERY ABANDONMENT REQUEST.
ARE THERE SOME REQUESTS THAT WE LOOK AT AND SAY AHEAD OF TIME, THEY DON'T SERVE THE PUBLIC, AND THEN WE SAY, THEY DON'T COME TO COMMISSION, OR DO WE ALWAYS SEE EVERY ABANDONMENT THAT CITIZEN OR AN ARGONIST?
>> IF AN APPLICANT FILES AN ABANDONMENT REQUEST, WE'RE GOING TO PROCESS WHETHER OR NOT THAT MEETS THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OR NOT IS REALLY UP TO THE APPLICANT AND THE MATERIAL THAT THEY PROVIDE.
IT'S UP TO THEM TO DISCUSS THAT WITH YOU ALL WITH CITY COUNCIL AS THEY GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.
>> HAVING THE TRAFFIC STUDY DONE, IS A TRAFFIC STUDY NORMALLY DONE AFTER IT'S BROUGHT TO A PLANNING COMMISSION? OR IS IT CASE BY CASE?
>> IT'S CASE BY CASE, BUT TYPICALLY WE DON'T GET ABANDONMENT REQUESTS FOR EXISTING, WE ACTIVELY USE RIGHTS-OF-WAY, SO THIS IS PRETTY RARE.
I THINK WE WOULD WANT TO GAUGE WHAT WE'D BE TALKING ABOUT THERE FOR TRAFFIC.
AT CERTAIN TIMES A YEAR I DON'T THINK THERE'S VERY MUCH TRAFFIC THAT'S HAPPENING THERE.
AT OTHER TIMES OF THE YEAR PERHAPS THERE'S MORE, CERTAINLY.
BUT I THINK THAT THIS IS A BIT UNUSUAL AND I THINK A TRAFFIC STUDY OF SOME SORT WOULD BE NECESSARY.
I CERTAINLY THINK A TIMING STUDY FOR THE SIGNALS WERE THIS TO GO THROUGH, WOULD BE NECESSARY AND THAT'D PROBABLY POST-ABANDON.
>> YOU MENTIONED THAT THE CLASSIFICATION OF P IS THE COLLECTOR.
>> THIS IS A FUTURE CIP QUESTION, MUCH LIKE YOU HAD THE 27TH STREET MASTER PLAN WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS WERE DONE THERE, ARE THERE OTHER PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS EITHER ON 21ST OR 19TH THAT ARE SIMILAR IN NATURE? WITH THE BOWL BOUTS [INAUDIBLE]?
>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW THAT I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT RIGHT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
>> WE HAVE AN APPLICATION THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED AND THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED, A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I'M HEARING ARE REALLY FOUR QUESTIONS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND THIS [INAUDIBLE].
THERE WILL BE A TRACK STUDY DONE, THIS IS A RARE INCIDENCE.
WHETHER THERE'S GOING TO BE OTHER DEVELOPMENT GOING ON ON THE 27TH, OR I'M NOT EVEN QUITE AWARE OF THAT POINT IN TIME, THAT REALLY ENDS UP INTERFERING ON WHAT'S BEING BROUGHT FORTH RIGHT NOW.
I JUST WANT TO COMMISSION BACK AROUND ON WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TODAY AND KEEP IN MIND THAT I ALSO MADE RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE PREFERENCE STUDY IS DONE IN TIME [INAUDIBLE].
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.
THE ONLY REASON FOR MY QUESTION IS PURELY FROM AN URBAN PLANNING PERSPECTIVE.
THIS IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT REQUEST AND IT'S AN UNDERSTANDING IMPACT THAT THIS HAS ON ANY OTHER PLANNED ACTIVITIES IN THE AREA.
IT WAS GOOD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND.
>> YEAH, YOU MENTIONED SECTION 63.02 OF THE LDR STATES THAT ONE OF THE CRITERIA, SOME CLOSURE DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE PUBLIC SAFETY OR TRAFFIC, AND WE HAVE STATEMENTS FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL AND THE FIRE CHIEF AND THE CITY ENGINEER FEEL LIKE THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE.
WHAT WOULD BE THE FINAL VERDICT WHO DETERMINES IF IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE [INAUDIBLE]?
>> THE FINAL VERDICT IS GOING TO BE YOUR CITY COUNCIL.
>> BUT ULTIMATELY, AGAIN, AS DONNA MENTIONED.
>> I THINK WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS A PROJECT
[00:15:02]
THAT WOULD NEED SOME MITIGATION OR THESE IMPACTS.FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT THE FIRE MARSHAL HAD WAS HAVING ACCESS TO THE BUILDING ALONG THAT NORTH SIDE.
IT'S REALLY THE ONE SPOT THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CAN GET INTO AND HAVE FULL ACCESS TO THE BUILDING IN A REASONABLY CLOSE PROXIMITY, ALTHOUGH YOU NEVER WANT A FIRE ENGINE TO BE TOO CLOSE.
THAT BEING SAID, I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT, IS WHAT IS THE SUB-BASS THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED UNDERNEATH AND HOW WOULD ACCESS BE PROVIDED IN THE WARD OR SHOULD AN EMERGENCY ARISE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR SAM?
>> MY CONCERN IS, AND MAYBE WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT HERE SHORTLY, BUT IS THE APPLICANT ABLE TO ADDRESS THOSE AND IF THE APPLICANT GOT THE COMMENTS FROM THE CITY DEPARTMENT BACK IN TIME TO ADDRESS THOSE.
BECAUSE IT SEEMS SOMEWHAT PREMATURE TO OKAY, WE'LL JUST MAKE THESE SOME VERBAL RECOMMENDATIONS, OR SOME SUGGESTIONS TO THE APPLICATION IN ASSUMING THAT OUR MARSHALL, FIRE CHIEF, AND CITY ENGINEER'S CONCERNS ARE MET, IS THERE USUALLY A TIMELINE IN THIS PROCESS AS TO HOW QUICKLY THOSE DEPARTMENTS GET BACK TO THE APPLICANT OR SOMETIMES IT JUST ALL DEPENDS?
>> WELL, [NOISE] EXCUSE ME, IT REALLY DOES DEPEND ON THE TYPE OF APPLICATION.
I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SEEN AND READ THROUGH THIS, UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE CONCERNS ARE.
AS TO THAT ONE EXAMPLE, THE FIRE MARSHAL, THAT'S SOMETHING WE PROBABLY OR YOU AS A COMMISSION PROBABLY OUGHT TO ASK THEM.
ARE THEY WILLING TO PREPARE A SUB BASE THAT'S ADEQUATE TO MITIGATE THAT CONCERN SO THAT THE FIRE TRUCKS STILL COULD HAVE ACCESS BACK THERE.
ONE OF THE OTHER COMMENTS WAS FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ABOUT THE TROLLEY LINE WHICH COMES DOWN AND CUTS DOWN 21ST, AND WOULD THAT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE TIMING OF THAT ROUTING? I THINK THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL STUDY PROBABLY WOULD BE WARRANTED AS A RESULT OF THE CHANGE IN MOVEMENT.
THIS WOULD BE A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN MOVEMENT, ALTHOUGH NOT ONE THAT'S INSURMOUNTABLE IN ANY MEASURE IN MY OPINION, BUT IT CERTAINLY WOULD REQUIRE SOME ADJUSTMENT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR SAM? NO. OKAY, THANK YOU. [OVERLAPPING]
>> MR. HILL, I SEE THAT YOU'RE IN THE AUDIENCE.
WE WOULD WELCOME YOU TO COME FORWARD AS THE APPLICANT AND PRESENT AND THEN ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS.
>> I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS GOT A COPY OF THIS? YES? OKAY.
>> SORRY, FOR THE RECORD, WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ASSIGNMENT?
>> YES, THANK YOU. MY NAME IS DARRYL HILL, I'M THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GRAND GALVEZ.
[BACKGROUND] I'VE HEARD A LOT OF COMMENTS SINCE WE PURCHASED THE HOTEL.
MOSTLY IT WAS CODE-BASED, SMALL HOTEL, THOSE CONCERNS WERE USUALLY SMASHED ACROSS [INAUDIBLE].
BUT I CAN HONESTLY SAY WITH ALL CONVICTION THAT WE HAVE DONE A WONDERFUL JOB [INAUDIBLE] IN AND OUT FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO GRACE US WITH THEIR PRESENCE HAS BEEN PHENOMENAL.
TAKING A HOTEL WHICH IS AN ICON OF THIS AREA AND OF TEXAS, WE HAVE REALLY REVISITED IN SUCH A WAY, WE'VE DONE A GREAT JOB OF RENOVATING HER TO A LEVEL WHERE I THINK EVERYBODY IN THIS CITY IS VERY PROUD OF.
THAT'S OUR OBJECTIVE, IS TO CONTINUE THAT PROCESS, WE WANT TO EXPAND [INAUDIBLE] WITHIN THE HOTEL AND ULTIMATELY WITHIN THE CITY, WE WANT TO MAKE THE GRAND GALVEZ EVEN MORE ICONIC THAN SHE IS TODAY.
[00:20:01]
AS WE RECALL, IS ONE OF THOSE ICONIC MOMENTS WE'VE ALL HAD.MANY PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM BEFORE I WAS EVEN BORN, FAMILY MEMBERS, AND NEIGHBORHOODS, FRIENDS AND FAMILIES HAVE GROWN IN THAT HOTEL, MARRIED IN THOSE HOTELS, ANNIVERSARIES IN THOSE HOTELS, CHRISTENINGS IN THE HOTEL, HIGH SCHOOL PROM DANCES IN THE HOTEL, SO I BELIEVE EVERYBODY KNOWS ABOUT, IN THIS ROOM AT LEAST, [INAUDIBLE] SO LET'S GET DOWN TO BUSINESS.
SAFETY, THAT'S ONE OF OUR BIGGEST CONCERNS OF THIS AREA.
SPEEDING, A CONSTANT PROBLEM IN THAT AREA, THAT ONE ROAD THERE IS PLAYED QUITE FRANKLY ON SPEED.
EVERYBODY WHO LIVES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, INCLUDING MYSELF, RESIDES IN THAT AREA, SPEED IS A HUGE PROBLEM. WE HAVE CONTINUED- WE SAW PEOPLE GOING THE WRONG WAY, THAT ONE SECTION OF THE ROAD.
EVEN TODAY, I WATCHED TWO PEOPLE GO THE WRONG WAY BECAUSE THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS READ GREEN WHEN YOU'RE GOING FROM WEST TO EAST.
PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE WHEN THEY COME OFF OF 20 AND 21 COME AROUND THAT CORNER, THEY JUST ZAP RIGHT DOWN THERE.
CONSTANTLY, WE HAD TO STOP THE TOURIST OR A PERSON WHO IS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE ENVIRONMENT TO STOP.
ME PERSONALLY, I'VE AVOIDED ACCIDENTS FROM HAPPENING WHERE PEOPLE JUST DON'T REALIZE, ESPECIALLY AT NIGHT.
THEN MY VALET AND MY STAFF, I HAVE TWO STAFF MEMBERS, [INAUDIBLE] STRUCK MY HAND, BUMPED INTO ALL THE STANDARD BREAKS BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST CROSSING TO GO AGAINST VEHICLES, THE ADJACENT PARKING AREA, [INAUDIBLE].
BUT THE ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO MAKE THAT AREA GREEN SPACE.
THERE'S NOT ENOUGH OF THAT ON THE ISLAND CLEARLY, I THINK ANYBODY AND EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM WOULD LOOK AT THAT AS A POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE, TO MAKE THAT A PUBLIC GREEN SPACE.
WE HAVE PUT SEVERAL DESIGNS TOGETHER AND THEY'RE ALL VERY FLUID, WE FULLY UNDERSTAND.
WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THE SAFETY CONCERNS OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE FIRE CHIEF.
THAT AREA WILL STILL BE CONCRETE UNDERNEATH.
THAT ROADWAY WILL STILL BE CONCRETE.
ABSOLUTELY, FIRE CONTROL DIRECTIONS SYSTEMS THAT ARE IN THE HOTEL AND IN THAT AREA, FULLY ACCESSIBLE, EITHER WAY YOU COME IN.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURES WE GAVE YOU, THERE ARE SOME BOLLARDS RIGHT THERE AS YOU CAN SEE.
BUT THOSE ARE COLLAPSIBLE, COMPLETELY COLLAPSIBLE.
SO SHOULD THERE BE A NEED FOR A FIRE TRUCK OF ANY DESCRIPTION OR EMS OF ANY DESCRIPTION, OR THERE WILL BE POLICE OR ANYONE OF THAT NATURE, THEY NEED TO GET THROUGH THERE, THEY CAN GET THROUGH THERE; THEY ARE DESIGNED TO COLLAPSE.
ULTIMATELY FOR SAFETY. WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF IMPEDING ANYBODY WHEN IT COMES TO EMS, FIRE OR POLICE IN ANY WAY SHOULD THEY PERFORM.
THE VENUE IS BEING SET UP AS A PUBLIC SPACE WITH GREEN.
THERE WILL BE PARK BENCHES, WALKWAYS, AND THAT WILL ACTUALLY BE TURF WITH A CONCRETE AT ONE SECTION.
SO IT IS ACTUALLY ROAD, NO DIFFERENT THAN AN AMERICAN FOOTBALL PITCH.
THAT KIND OF SCENARIO, BUT IT'LL BE A GREEN SPACE.
WE'RE GOING TO PUT GARDENS IN THERE, BENCHES AS I SAID, A FOUNTAIN AS WELL.
I THINK MOST OF YOU HAVE SEEN THE FOUNTAIN ON THE FRONT, THE GRAND GALVEZ, WE'LL DO SOMETHING VERY SMALL AND SIMILAR IN THE BACK, JUST TO BEAUTIFY THAT AREA.
THE POINT IS WE WANT TO BRING THE NEIGHBORHOOD TOGETHER, IN THAT SENSE, AND HAVE EVERYBODY FEEL WELCOME WHEN COMING TO THAT AREA VERSUS BEING FEARFUL QUITE HONESTLY, TO EVEN CROSS THE ROAD AT TIMES.
I, FOR ONE, AM ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE.
THOSE WHO WANT TO TURN IT INTO SOMEWHAT OF A PICNIC AREA TOO.
[INAUDIBLE] THAT IS A PART OF THAT.
LIKE I SAID, THAT AREA WILL BE HARD SURFACE, THE BOLLARDS WILL BE BREAKAWAY, AND IT WILL BE TURF.
FOR THE DELIVERY CONCERN TOO, I'VE HEARD SOME PEOPLE SAY, "WELL, HOW DO WE GET SUPPLIES TO THE HOTEL?" THE WHOLE PROCESS WAS TAKING THE REMAINING PART OF THAT ROAD, AND HAVING NO MULTI-DIRECTIONAL [INAUDIBLE] MEAN BY THAT, SO THEY CAN COME DOWN THAT WAY, SO DELIVERIES WILL NOT BE INCURRED OR [INAUDIBLE] BEYOND THAT 21 GOING UP TO THAT AREA, THAT MAIN IN AND OUT [INAUDIBLE] QUITE EASILY.
OBVIOUSLY, SEWER EASEMENT WOULD BE AN ISSUE.
WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY COMPLY TO ALL THESE [INAUDIBLE] CITY WERE PUT IN PLACE.
THAT'S A GIVEN. [INAUDIBLE] ANYWAY.
BENEFITS OVERALL, I THINK IS TO THE COMMUNITY [INAUDIBLE].
THE HOTEL WILL HAVE A BEAUTIFUL AREA.
DON'T GET ME WRONG. THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT.
DO I THINK THAT YOU'LL BE WELCOMED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE? YES. ARE THERE GOING TO BE PEOPLE WHO WILL CONTEST? THEY SHOULD BE. I LIKE THAT.
IT SHOULD BE A CONTEST IN SOME WAY.
[00:25:01]
BUT ULTIMATELY AS A GROUP, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD ACHIEVE TOGETHER, TO PROVIDE A BEAUTIFUL ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL CONCERNED IN EVERY DIRECTION.>> THANK YOU, TIM. I APPRECIATE THE INVESTMENT, THAT THE COMPANY HAS MADE IN THE HOTEL.
IT IS A SPECTACULAR VENUE, HAVING FREQUENTED IT FOR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
I APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENTATION AND POSSIBLE DISCUSSION.
WE'LL OPEN UP TO THE COMMISSION.
ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER EVANS.
>> MR. HILL, I JUST WANT TO SAY THE HOTEL IS GREAT TO ME, I LOVE THE COLOR. [LAUGHTER]
>> WHICH ONE? WE HAVE 35 TO START WITH, AND WE WENT DOWN TO ONE OVER.
>> YEAH, I MAYBE THE ONLY ONE, BUT I LOVED IT AND I LOVE THE SUNDAY BUFFET TOO. I'LL SAY THAT.
>> LET ME JUST ASK HIM QUESTIONS.
I GUESS ONE OF MY FIRST QUESTION IS, DID YOU GUYS THINK OF ANY OTHER WAY THAT YOU COULD MAKE THE SAFETY FOR THE GUEST WITHOUT TAKING THE EASEMENT OR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OR THE ROAD?
>> WE DID. WE LOOKED AT CERTAIN SCENARIOS.
OBVIOUSLY, WE LOOKED AT LAND OPPOSITE.
WE HAVE THE VALET PARKING OVER THERE WHERE GUESTS CROSS THE STREET.
THAT'S AN ULTIMATE CONCERN, AND THAT REALLY IS A CONCERN.
THE AREA WHICH HAS A LITTLE WHITE CONTAINERS ON IT, WE WERE LOOKING IF WE COULD MAYBE DO A BRIDGE OVER THAT.
DO WE PUT A BRIDGE OVER THERE? WOULD WE BE ABLE TO DO THAT? WOULD PEOPLE BE ABLE TO GO IN AND OUT? I DON'T KNOW IF WE'LL GET THAT APPROVED FIRST AND FOREMOST.
COST EFFECTIVE WISE, WOULD IT ACTUALLY WORK OR DO THAT? THEN, IF WE COULD GET THEM OVER TO THERE, WE'D HAVE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING AS WELL.
WE'D BE BUILDING PARKING GARAGE THERE OR SOME DESCRIPTION.
IT'S THAT SOMETHING WE COULD ATTEND VERSUS JUST EXTEND THE PARKING OUT NOW [INAUDIBLE] IN ONE, OUT THE OTHER, WHICH WOULD ACTUALLY CONTROL THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC.
BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SURE.
YES, WE LOOKED AT OTHER OPTIONS, THE BRIDGE WAS THE ONLY THING THAT WE THOUGHT OR COME UP THAT ACTUALLY WORK.
>> THAT'S WHAT I HAD ON MY NOTE TOO ABOUT AN OVERHEAD BRIDGE.
I GUESS THAT WOULD ALLEVIATE SOME OF YOUR SAFETY CONCERNS.
I GUESS IT'S NOT THAT DIFFERENT THAN ASKING FOR AN ABANDONMENT.
YOU DON'T KNOW YOU'RE GONNA GET THIS EITHER.
>> I GUESS YOU COULD DO EITHER OR, OR BOTH JUST TO SEE WHICH ONE WILL WORK IN THE END.
>> WELL, I THINK THE BRIDGE ONE WOULD BE MORE BEAUTIFUL FOR THE CITY, QUITE HONESTLY.
WE SAW A CONCRETE BRIDGE UP THERE.
SURE. IF WE PUT UP A PARK, WE THOUGHT THAT WE INVITE THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD TO COME TO.
THAT SPEAKS TO ME. I CAN PUT A BRIDGE OVER THAT WOULD BE SOLELY FOR MY GUESTS.
YES, IF YOU WOULD APPROVE IT, OF COURSE, BUT ULTIMATELY AT END THE DAY, THAT DOESN'T REALLY DO ANY FAVORS TO ANYBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT REALLY DOESN'T, AND IT COULD END UP IN AN EYESORE, QUITE FRANKLY.
I WOULD PREFER TO SOME OF THAT WAS WELCOMED BY ALL AND WAS A GREEN SPACE.
>> I HAD ANOTHER CONCERN ABOUT ONCE THE ABANDONMENT OCCUR AND THE PROPERTY BECAME PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE GALVEZ.
MY CONCERN WAS, WOULD IT ACTUALLY BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC? WOULD IT ACTUALLY BE A PUBLIC SPACE?
>> YES, IT WILL BE NO DIFFERENT FROM THE LOBBY OTHER THAN IT WILL BE OUTSIDE.
>> HERE'S MY QUESTION TO THAT.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT WE HAVE TONS OF GUESTS DOING BIKE RALLY, DOING ALL THESE FESTIVALS.
WE HAVE A SWELLING POPULATION DURING THE WEEKENDS AND DURING THE WEEK WE HAVE A SMALL GROUP FUNCTION.
HOW WILL YOU HANDLE THAT SWELLING POPULATION WHEN IT COMES TO HAVING GUESTS INTERMINGLE WITH, YOU HAVE PRIVATE CITIZENS THAT WANT TO COME ONTO THE PROPERTY.
THEY WANT A PICNIC OR THEY WANT TO BRING THEIR DOG, JUST ALL KINDS OF STUFF.
HOW WILL THE GALVEZ HANDLE THAT?
>> SAME AS WE DO NOW, IT'S NO DIFFERENT.
I HAVE SOMEONE WHO'S NOT STAYING WITH ME WHO COMES IN FOR SUNDAY BRUNCH AND WELCOMED.
IT'S ULTIMATELY EVERYBODY'S DAY.
NO ONE'S IMPEDED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM BY COMING TO THE HOTEL 24/7.
THEY'RE WELCOME TO COME IN, QUITE FRANKLY, AND THAT'S THE SAME.
IT WOULD BE A LOBBY, BUT OUTSIDE.
THEY'RE WELCOME TO COME IN, THEY'RE WELCOME TO USE IT.
IN FACT, WE WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT.
I THINK THE UNITY THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE.
>> WOULD I BE WELCOME TO HAVE A PICNIC ON THE FRONT LAWN OF THE GALVEZ RIGHT NOW?
>> ON THE FRONT LAWN? IF YOU BOOK IT, ABSOLUTELY. I'D BE HAPPY TO [OVERLAPPING] FOR YOU TOO.
>> OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING TO. IT BELONGS TO THE GALVEZ ALL RIGHT.
>> THE BACK WOULDN'T BE A VENUE OR EVENT, IT WOULD BE A PUBLIC SPACE.
>> THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, WOULD STILL CONTINUE TO BE PRIVATE PROPERTY.
WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO BOOK THAT, BUT THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE ABANDONMENT WOULD OCCUR WOULD BE NON-PRIVATE PROPERTY.
IT WOULD STILL BE PRIVATE PROPERTY, BUT IT WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
>> YES, IT WOULD BE BASICALLY AN OUTSIDE LOBBY.
[00:30:04]
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY ONE THING, I THINK THAT I UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE THING ABOUT THE ONE-WAY, I RIDE THAT ONE WAY ALL THE TIME AND THEN IN THE SUMMERTIME, THAT'S MY WAY OF GETTING OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD WHEN THE SEAWALL IS SO CROWDED AND I NEED TO BE ABLE TO MOVE REAL FAST.
I THINK THAT [INAUDIBLE] PAINTING LIKE THE BLACK LIVES MATTER THING, MAYBE ONE WAY DOWN THAT STREET THAT YOU CAN SEE FROM ANY DIRECTION, ANYTIME.
>> TODAY ALONE, I HAD THREE PEOPLE [INAUDIBLE] DURING THE DAY [INAUDIBLE].
>> WELL, I ALSO AGREE WITH EVERYBODY ABOUT HOW BEAUTIFUL GALVEZ HAS BECOME.
COUPLE OF QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE INCIDENTS THAT YOU'VE HAD.
ONE, DID YOU GET A POLICE REPORT OR DID YOU ALL SUBMIT A POLICE REPORT FOR THE INJURIES?
>> NO, THEY WERE INTERNAL, WE JUST DID [INAUDIBLE].
>> OKAY. WAS THIS PART ARC, PART OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION AND OUTLAY OF THE GALVEZ OR IS THIS SOMETHING NEW?
>> WE HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT AT THE TIME WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE [INAUDIBLE].
>> YES, BUT THE ORIGINAL BUILDING OF THE GALVEZ, THERE WAS NOT A PARK. [OVERLAPPING] YEAH.
>> IN 1911? [INAUDIBLE] IT DOES SEEM A LITTLE WEIRD THAT THE LAND ACROSS FROM IT ISN'T OURS IS ALL I CAN SAY, BUT I [INAUDIBLE].
>> FINALLY, DID YOU EVER APPROACH THE CITY ABOUT PUTTING SPEED BUMPS OR ADDITIONAL SIGNS IN FOR THE ONE WAY?
>> HAVE I SPOKEN TO THE MAYOR ABOUT THAT PERSONALLY? YES, I HAVE.
>> ABOUT THE SPEEDING ISSUE? YES, I SPOKE TO HIM ABOUT THAT AND I SPOKE TO THE [INAUDIBLE] TO ONE OF THE POLICE OFFICER WHO PRESENTED ABOUT THE SPEED ISSUE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] ABOUT OPEN PARK GATHERING.
IS THAT PARKING ON THIS GREEN SPACE THAT YOU'RE SHOWING?
>> NO, THAT IS NOT PART OF THE GREEN SPACE I'M SHOWING.
THERE ARE CARS THERE JUST TO SHOW WHAT THE VOLUME WOULD BE IF IT WAS TO BE.
THE PARKING WOULD BE BEHIND THE OLEANDERS TO THE LEFT.
THEY JUST DREW FERRARI'S ON THE DESIGN TO MAKE IT LOOK PRETTY, I GUESS.
>> JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT WASN'T GOING TO BE USED FOR PARKING.
>> I AGREE, AND THE GALVEZ IS LOOKING GREAT.
WE DID HAVE A FERRARI EVENT THE OTHER WEEK.
>> MR. HILL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
[INAUDIBLE] THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HAVE A GOOD DAY, EVERYBODY.
THIS TIME WE'RE GOING TO OPEN IT UP FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE [INAUDIBLE] DASH 064.
IS THERE ANYBODY ON THE SIDE OF THE ROOM THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME.
YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO PRESENT TO THE COMMISSION AND ALSO SIGN IN, PLEASE.
>> WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF COMMENTS THAT THE COMMISSIONERS ARE HARD TO HEAR AND THE APPLICANT ALSO JUST BE SURE TO TALK DIRECTLY INTO YOUR MICROPHONE.
MY NAME IS CLAY ROGERS AND MY HUSBAND FRED AND I LIVE AT 2102 AVENUE P, WHICH IS CADDY CORNER TO THE SPA CORNER TO GALVEZ WE SPEND PROBABLY AN EMBARRASSINGLY AMOUNT OF HOURS ON OUR FRONT PORCH.
I HAVE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF A LOT OF ACTIVITY THAT GOES DOWN P IN 21ST STREET.
I WANTED TO SPEAK TO TWO ISSUES GOING TO KEEP THIS IN THREE MINUTES, BUT ONE IS SAFETY.
FIRST OF ALL, WHAT WE HAVE OBSERVED FROM OUR FRONT PORCH IS SPEEDING NOT ONLY IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE BEFORE YOU GET TO 21ST, BUT THEN THEY WILL GUN IT AND THERE HAS BEEN DRAGGED RACES BEHIND THE GALVEZ SIDE-BY-SIDE, OFTEN.
LOTS AND LOTS OF WRONG TURNS ON THE P WHERE THEY TURN OFF OF 21ST ON TO P GOING THE WRONG WAY.
IN FACT, COMING DOWN 19TH JUST THE OTHER DAY I SAW WHERE THEY TURNED THE 19TH AND WHAT ALL THE WAY DOWN BEHIND THE GALVEZ GOING THE WRONG WAY.
DIDN'T REALIZE THEY'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY UNTIL THEY GOT TO THE LIGHT STREET.
[00:35:01]
WE HAVE WITNESSED MULTIPLE T-BONE ACCIDENTS, WE HAVE WITNESSED HEAD-ON COLLISIONS.WE HAVE WRITTEN AS WELL CALLED LIP AND SPIN WHERE THEY HIT THE BACK OF THE CAR AND IT SPINS AROUND.
I'VE SEEN PEDESTRIANS HAVING TO JUMP OUT OF THE WAY OF SPEEDING CARS GOING DOWN P. PERSONALLY, A FEW YEARS AGO DURING SPRING BREAK AND COUCHED AS CITIZENS THOROUGHFARE FOR THE CITIZENS WILL BE TOURISTIC BOUND.
DURING SPRING BREAK, 11:00 AT NIGHT, THE HOUSE STARTED SHAKING AND A YOUNG KID HAD TAKEN HIS JEEP AND WAS GOING FAST ENOUGH HE HIT TWO CARS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STREET ON P, WENT AIRBORNE AND RIGHT INTO THE FRONT OF MY HOUSE.
IT IS A VERY DANGEROUS AREA P AND BESIDES THE ACCIDENTS, I WANT TO SPEAK TO WHAT WE DO KNOW ABOUT SOME OF THE PROOF THAT IT WOULD BE A SAFER PLACE AND AS YOU KNOW, THE GALVEZ TOOK A TEMPORARY EASEMENT WHERE THEY CLOSED DOWN THAT STREET FOR A PERIOD OF TIME DURING THE RENOVATION.
AT THAT POINT, YOU COULD NOT GO DOWN P THROUGH UP TO 19 PASS 21ST STREET.
DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME I SAW NO SPEEDING, NO ACCIDENT.
IT WOULD JUST COMPLETELY AGREE AND I ALSO WANT TO ADDRESS ALONG THAT LINE THE CONCERN ABOUT THE TROLLEY WHILE TROLLEY TURNED RIGHT THERE WHEN IT'S RUNNING AND THE TROLLEY HAS NEVER BACKED UP TRAFFIC.
THE ONLY TIME THE TROLLEY HAS EVER BACKED UP TRAFFIC HAS BEEN WHEN PEOPLE PARK ON 21ST STREET IN BLOCK ALIGN.
BUT AS FAR AS HAVING TWO DEAD END, THERE'S NEVER BEEN ANY BACKUP BEHIND THE TRUNK.
>> THAT'S THE THREE-MINUTE RULE.
>> SORRY, THANK YOU. I'M TRYING I'M TRYING TO BE A RULE FOLLOWER, I PROMISE. YES, MA'AM, PLEASE.
[LAUGHTER] THE STATS THEN THE NEXT PERSON? NO, LET'S GO AHEAD AND SIGN IN STATE YOUR NAME AND AGAIN [INAUDIBLE].
>> I LIVE AT 2023 0.5 AND WE AGREE THAT'S A TERRIBLE INTERSECTION AT P AND THE GALVEZ.
IS AWFUL. I PERSONALLY TRIAGE ACCIDENTS OUT THERE ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR.
I'M OUT THERE STOPPING BLEEDING.
I DON'T LIKE DOING THAT, BUT I ALSO SPEND AN EMBARRASSINGLY LARGE AMOUNT OF TIME ON MY BACK PORCH.
WHEN THEY DID SHUT IT DOWN FOR THE TEMPORARY EASEMENT, TRAFFIC DIDN'T GET BETTER.
IT MOVED INTO OUR ALLEY AND THEN DOWN 0.5.
IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT WE HAVE HERE REALLY IS A TRAFFIC PROBLEM.
THEY CAME SCREAMING DOWN THE ALLEY AT HIGH SPEEDS, THERE ARE NO SPEED BUMPS IT'S NOT EVEN PAVED.
DELIVERY TRUCKS, BIG 18-WHEELERS CAN CLEAR THE TREE CANOPY ON OUR STREET.
THE HIGHER THAN 15 FEET THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO KEEP THE VAT AND THEY'VE TRIED AND COME DOWN IN THESE TREES HAD BEEN THERE FOR 120 YEARS AND I'D HATE TO SEE THEM DESTROYED OR DAMAGED.
THERE IS A DANGER TO PETS, CHILDREN, AND TOURIST, IF YOU JUST MOVE THE PROBLEM A BLOCK UP AND THAT'S REALLY ALL THAT'S HAPPENING HERE.
WE APPRECIATE THE IDEA OF GREEN SPACE AND WE LIKE WHAT YOU'VE DONE WITH THE GALVEZ.
THE LIGHTING, I CAN SEE STARS THANK YOU. IT'S MUCH BETTER.
YOU'RE NOT AT NIGHT, IT'S NOT NEARLY AS BRIGHT AND I CAN SEA STARS IT LOOKS FALL IN IT I LOVE IT.
BUT I DON'T WANT MY NINE YEAR OLD TO GET RUN OVER OR MY DOGS IF THEY GET OUT THE BACK GATE AND THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC DURING THAT TEMPORARY SHUTDOWN WAS EXCESSIVE.
IF YOU WANT TO PAVE IT AND PUT UP SOME HONKING HUGE SPEED BUMPS, I'M DOWN WITH THAT, WHATEVER IT TAKES, BUT I DON'T WANT TO SEE MY SON OR MY DOGS GET RUN OVER OR ANYBODY ELSE'S ON THE STREET.
I ALSO DON'T WANT TO COME AND DOWN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS BECAUSE LONE STAR, YOU DO SHUT OFF P AND ALL 500,000 MOTORCYCLES CIRCLE MY HOUSE FOR FOUR DAYS, DOWN 0.5 AND THE SEAWALL FOR FOUR DAYS.
[00:40:03]
PLEASE DON'T MAKE THAT PERMANENT I'M.A VOICE ACTOR, I HAVE A RECORDING STUDIO IN THAT HOUSE AND I CAN'T LIVE LIKE THIS SO PLEASE DON'T JUST MOVE IT UP, FIX THE TRAFFIC PROBLEM.
SIDE NOTE, AND THEN I'LL GET OUT OF YOUR HAIR. I'M WATCHING MY CLOCK.
ONE WAY TO FIX THE TIME CLOCK, HEY SWEETIE, WE'RE GOING TO HUG IN A MINUTE [NOISE].
ONE WAY THAT WOULD HELP WITH THE TRAFFIC PROBLEM RIGHT THERE AT THAT CORNER IS IF YOU COULD GET THE SPEED OF LIGHT, THE STOPLIGHT TO NOT SHOW ON THE FACING WEST DIRECTION.
IT LOOKS LIKE YOU CAN TURN DOWN THAT STREET, I'VE BEEN ANNOYED BY THIS FOR 15 YEARS.
YOU HAVE GIVEN THEM A LIGHT THAT SAYS YOU ARE FREE TO GO RIGHT THERE THAT'S HALF-YEAR PROBLEM.
IF YOU COULD FIX THAT, AND I KNOW IT'S NOT PLANNING'S PROBLEM BUT TELL SOMEBODY PLEASE TO FIX THAT AND THAT MIGHT HELP EVERY ONE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AGAIN, ANYBODY ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM? I'M SORRY WE GOT ONE RIGHT BEHIND YOU.
HOLD ON. HI PLEASE SIGN IT AND STATE YOUR NAME.
>> MY NAME IS CATHERINE BURGLAR, 1922 AVENUE P. I LIVE ON THE OTHER SIDE.
I LOVE WHAT HE'S DONE WITH THE GALVEZ AND I'M VERY HAPPY WITH IT AS EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM AS APPARENTLY AND I AM OKAY WITH THIS WHOLE SPACE.
THERE WERE SOME ISSUES LIKE EVERYONE ELSE WAS TALKING ABOUT WHEN THEY SHUT DOWN THE PORTION FOR THE TEMPORARY PORTION.
MAIN ISSUE FOR ME, I LIVE RIGHT NEXT TO 20TH.
THE TRUCKS WOULD HAVE TO DRIVE LIKE SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT DOWN AND-A-HALF, COME AROUND ON 20TH TO GET INTO THE SPOT.
IF YOU LOOK, YOU'LL SEE THEY HAVE EMPLOYEE PARKING PLOT.
THAT ENTRANCE IS RIGHT THERE AND THEY WOULDN'T WANT TO BLOCK THAT.
THEY WOULDN'T HAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO REALLY PARK THE TRUCKS SO THEY WOULD BLOCK MY DRIVEWAY, MY NEIGHBOR'S DRIVEWAY, THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING SPACE ACROSS THE STREET TO BE ABLE TO DO THEIR DELIVERIES, AND IT WAS A BIG ISSUE.
I THINK THAT THEY NEED TO FIX THAT BY MOVING THE ENTRANCE DOWN TO THE END OF P OR ONTO 19TH STREET.
I ALSO THINK THAT INSTEAD OF MAKING IT A TWO-WAY LIKE HE WAS TALKING ABOUT, I THINK A ONE-WAY GOING THE OTHER DIRECTION ON 19TH IN P WOULD BE A GREAT SERVICE.
18TH AND P, IT ALREADY GOES WEST.
IF WE MAKE THAT THE ONE WAY, IT'LL DO THREE THINGS.
IT WILL HELP THE DELIVERY TRUCKS BECAUSE THEY CAN JUST PULL IN FROM 19TH VERY EASILY.
THE KITCHEN WILL HAVE AN EASIER SPACE FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES TO PULL UP.
WHAT WAS THE OTHER THING? I DON'T LIKE TALKING.
[LAUGHTER] I THINK THAT ALSO IT WOULD BE A CONTINUATION FROM 18TH, WHICH IS PART OF THE BIG PROBLEM EVERYONE'S TALKING ABOUT GOING THE WRONG WAY.
YOU START ON 18TH AND P GOING WEST ON A ONE WAY, AND THEN AT 19TH, IT CHANGES, GOES THE OTHER DIRECTION, DOESN'T WORK. IF YOU HAVE IT.
AS A CONTINUATION, PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE ON.
IT'LL END RIGHT THERE AT THE PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY AND I THINK THAT THAT WOULD HELP A LOT FOR THAT CONFUSION.
I THINK IF IT BECOMES A TWO-WAY, WE'LL STILL HAVE PEOPLE DRIVING NOT KNOWING WHAT TO DO.
I THINK THE DELIVERY TRUCKS WILL STILL BLOCK THE ROAD.
YOU'LL HAVE TO GO AROUND TO BE ABLE TO GET AROUND THEM.
YOU'LL HAVE TO GO OUT OF YOUR LANE.
I THINK THAT IF THAT BECOMES A ONE-WAY GOING WEST, CONTINUATION FROM 18TH TO THAT PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A BETTER SOLUTION.
BUT I DO LOVE IT. I LIKE THE IDEA.
>> HEY, MY NAME IS JAY REYNOLDS.
I'M LISA'S HUSBAND AND ALSO 2023 AVENUE AND A HALF.
IT IS HARD TO ARGUE WITH SAFETY.
YOU CAN ALWAYS WIN AN ARGUMENT WHEN YOU CLAIM SAFETY.
BUT IT FEELS IF THIS IS REALLY ONLY ABOUT SAFETY, SHUT THE WHOLE STREET DOWN IS NOT REALLY BE THE EASIEST SOLUTION.
[00:45:05]
I'VE WALKED THAT BLOCK SEVERAL TIMES.THERE'S NOT I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S EVEN A NO RIGHT-HAND TURN COMING OUT OF THE GALVEZ PARKING LOT.
EVEN A SIGN LIKE THAT COULD HELP THE GUEST WHO AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH THAT STREET, NOT TURN TO THE RIGHT.
AS FAR AS GREEN SPACE, THEY HAVE A HUGE FIELD THERE AND I'VE USED THAT SPACE FOR YEARS WITH MY SON PLAYING CATCH LIKE BASEBALL AND I APPRECIATE THE GALVEZ AND BEFORE YOU ALL THE MITCHELL'S NOT KICKING US OUT OF THAT SPACE AND ALLOWING US TO USE IT.
I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT USE THAT SPACE, MOSTLY FOR DOGS.
YOU GOT TO WATCH WHERE YOU STEP OVER THERE.
BUT TO ME THERE ARE SOME OTHER SOLUTIONS THAN SHUTTING THAT DOWN.
I WANT TO REITERATE THAT THE SPEEDING ISSUE JUST MOVED UP A BLOCK.
THEY WOULD COME TEARING AROUND 21ST.
THEY WOULD COME TEARING AROUND ON THE CORNER ON 0.5.
I DON'T LIKE THEY WERE MAD ABOUT HALF AND TO BE DETOURED.
ESPECIALLY, THEY ARE REALLY HALL DOWN THE ALLEY.
THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
I WILL SAY IT LOOKS BEAUTIFUL, THE PLAN LOOKS BEAUTIFUL AND IF IT DOES GO THROUGH, I'LL PROBABLY USE IT.
I'M RIGHT THERE, SO I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.
>> ANYONE ELSE ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM?
I'M ALEX GONZALEZ. I'M THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE GRAND GALVEZ.
OF COURSE, I'M FOR THIS BECAUSE I THINK ONE OF THE MAIN ISSUES WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HEAD AT SOME OF THE COMMENTS WAS, CAN THEY GET A FIRE TRUCK THROUGH THERE? YES, THEY CAN. IF YOU LOOKED AT THE FERRARI'S OR WHATEVER CARS THEY WERE, THAT'S AN INDICATION THAT IT IS A HARD SURFACE.
IT'S JUST LIKE A FOOTBALL FIELD AS DARRELL WANTED TO EARLIER.
IT'S A HARD SURFACE COLLAPSIBLE BALLARDS AND THEY CAN GO STRAIGHT THROUGH THIS CONCRETE UNDERNEATH AND JUST TURF, SIMPLE. THANK YOU.
>> MY NAME IS JENNIFER RANSOM AND I ACTUALLY AM A NEW RESIDENT IN THE [BACKGROUND].
WE JUST MOVED ON [BACKGROUND] LAST WEEK.
>> WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> THANK YOU AND I LOVE IT HERE.
I SHOULD ALSO MENTION THAT I'M DARRELL'S PARTNER.
I AM EVER SO SLIGHTLY BIASED TO THE PROJECT.
HOWEVER, I'VE JUST MOVED HERE FROM AUSTIN, TEXAS AND WE'VE DONE A LOT OF GREAT THINGS IN THAT PARTICULAR CITY.
THERE IS A CHARM HERE THAT DOESN'T REALLY EXIST IN A WHOLE LOT OF PLACES IN TEXAS.
I WILL SAY ONE THING THAT AUSTIN HAS DONE THAT'S GREAT IS OUR GREEN SPACES IN OUR PARKS ARE SO BEAUTIFUL AND THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, IT'S A PLACE THAT THEY CAN COME TOGETHER.
I'M ALWAYS WALKING MY DOG BEHIND THE HOTEL AND EVEN TODAY, HE HAD TO YELL AT ME BECAUSE I ALMOST DROVE RIGHT INTO YOUR HOUSE BECAUSE I HAD TO TURN AROUND SO QUICKLY BECAUSE EVEN I WENT THE WRONG WAY TODAY IN HIS CAR.
[LAUGHTER] I JUST THINK, WHAT A BEAUTIFUL SPACE THEY'RE TRYING TO CREATE FOR THE COMMUNITY.
IT WAS JUST MY TWO THOUGHTS AS A BRAND NEW RESIDENT.
ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU. TWO MORE ON THIS SIDE.
[BACKGROUND] IN THE BACK PLEASE, THEN MRS. [BACKGROUND] WE'LL GET TO YOU.
>> 1928 AVENUE P. I LIVE AS CLOSE TO THE GALVEZ AS YOU CAN GET.
>> CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE?
WE'VE LIVED THERE SINCE 2010, WE ALSO REPRESENT MY BROTHER'S FAMILY.
WE OWN THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR WE OWN THE HOUSE NEXT TO IT AND THE ONE NEXT TO IT, SIX HOUSES WE'VE THEM IN OUR FAMILY.
I FIRST SAW IT I DIDN'T REALLY KNOW, JUST WANTED TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT LIKE A PRETTY GOOD IDEA TO ME.
I THINK IT WOULD IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD,
[00:50:03]
I HEARD HIM SPEAK ABOUT THE TRAFFIC SITUATION AND MY WIFE WHO SMOKES TOO MUCH, SITS ON THE BALCONY, FRONT ROW SEAT IN THAT TRAFFIC JUST LIKE YOU SAID, 21ST STREET THEY JUST TAKE OFF LIKE A DRAG RACE ALL THE TIME.WE SEE PEOPLE COMING OUT OF THE GALVEZ IN CARS, ALL DIFFERENT TRAFFIC PROBLEMS ALL THE TIME, I THINK IMPROVES THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
LET'S SAY GIVE MORE ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR THE GALVEZ AND THE PEOPLE WHO STAY THERE.
THE BIGGEST PROBLEM FOR US IS PARKING WHERE WE LIVE, IN AVENUE P RIGHT THERE, IF YOU DON'T HAVE WE HAVE A GARAGE WE PARK IN THE GARAGE, CAN'T PARK IN THE DRIVEWAY BECAUSE IT BLOCKS THE SIDE WALKS, SO WE HAVE PARKING ISSUES.
THERE'S ALWAYS PEOPLE, NONE RESIDENTS WHO PARK IN THE AREAS, SO THAT'S SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO SEE ADDRESSED, BUT IF GALVEZ ADDS ADDITIONAL PARKING WE WON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT ISSUE.
PEOPLE GOING WRONG WAY DOWN A ONE-WAY STREET, THAT'S EVERY DAY.
EVERY TIME I PULL OUT TO LEAVE THE HOUSE, I HAVE TO LOOK FOR THAT, PULL UP TO IT, I THINK IT'D BE A GOOD IDEA.
THAT'S MY BROTHER ON 19TH STREET, THE FIRST HOUSE, ACROSS THE STREET 1860, THEY DEAL WITH THE SAME TRAFFIC. APPRECIATE IT.
>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE ON THIS SIDE? YES. THAT'S YOU, MS. DONNA DEASE.
>> HOW IS THAT DAVID, CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> I'M DONNA DEASE. I LIVE AT 1501 MOODY AVENUE OR 21ST STREET.
I REALLY LIKE THE CONCEPT OF THE ADDITIONAL GREEN SPACE.
I THINK THE POINT JUST MADE ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL PARKING WHICH WOULD TAKE PRESSURE OFF STREETS, IS AN EXCELLENT ONE.
I DO APPRECIATE THE COMMENT THAT LISA I THINK MADE, THAT WHEN YOU MOVE A PROBLEM ONE PLACE SOMETIMES IT DOES PUSH IT SOMEWHERE ELSE.
BUT I WOULD HATE FOR THAT TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS MORE OF A GREATER GALVESTON ISSUE THAN JUST A QUESTION OF THIS ONE STREET WILL PUSH A PROBLEM OVER TO THIS PLACE.
IF SOMETHING'S DONE THERE, IT'LL PUSH IT SOMEWHERE ELSE, I THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS OVERALL OUR TRAFFIC SITUATION AND OUR SPEEDING AND ALCOHOL AND ALL OF THAT.
I WOULDN'T WANT THAT TO MAKE THIS IMPOSSIBLE, ALTHOUGH I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP THAT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND TRY TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES.
I THINK IT WOULD BE LOVELY, I WALK AND I DRIVE AND I DID NOTICE HOW MUCH BETTER IT WAS, AT LEAST FOR ME WHEN IT WAS CLOSED AND IT WOULD BE LOVELY TO HAVE MORE GREEN SPACE.
I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
>> THANK YOU. NOW ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM.
>> MY NAME IS JODIE CHENG, I LIVE AT 2005 AVENUE O 1/2, I ALSO HAVE LETTERS HERE THAT YOU CAN GIVE COPIES TO SOME TWO OF THE OTHER NEIGHBORS.
TWENTY-SEVEN NOTICES WERE SUPPOSEDLY SENT OUT HOWEVER, ONLY TWO PEOPLE ON OUR STREETS RECEIVED ONE.
IF I WOULD'VE KNOWN FOR MY NEIGHBOR LISA OR OTHER NEIGHBOR DAVE, THERE WERE THE ONLY TWO ON AVENUE O 1/2 BETWEEN 20TH AND 21ST THAT RECEIVED THESE NOTICES.
I'M OPPOSED TO IT WHEN THEY CLOSE DOWN THAT AREA OF THAT STREET THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT CAME DOWN, O 1/2, IT BECAME UNSAFE, FOR THE FULL-TIME RESIDENTS, WHICH ARE ONLY FOUR, WHILE THE REST OF OUR STREET, THERE'S SEVEN WEEKLY VACATION RENTALS, IT BECAME UNSAFE FOR THE RESIDENTS AND VISITORS ON OUR STREET, THE PEOPLE THAT RIDE BIKES 24 HOURS A DAY BECAUSE THIS IS A BIKING ISLAND.
THE GOLF CARTS, THE SPEEDS, THE TRAFFIC AND TAKING TRAFFIC FROM P, WHICH IS A ONE-WAY ONTO THE ISLAND.
THE RESIDENTS HERE TAKE P TO COME HOME AND O TO GO OFF.
TO TAKE THAT AWAY AND MOVE IT INTO A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THEY'RE SMALL CHILDREN AT PLAY AND TOURISTS THAT ARE VISITING,
[00:55:04]
THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT THE HOTEL GALVEZ, THIS IS ABOUT THE COMMUNITY AROUND THEM.THERE ARE WHEN YOU SPOKE THAT YOU THINK THAT THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY WOULD BE IN AGREEMENTS, YOU'VE NEVER SPOKEN TO ME, I'VE NEVER SEEN YOU ON MY STREET.
I'VE SPOKEN TO EVERYBODY ON MY STREET, NOBODY IS FOR THIS, TAKING THEIR PROBLEM AND MAKING IT OURS, WE DON'T WANT A COMMERCIAL PROBLEM ON OUR RESIDENTIAL STREET.
WE ALREADY HAVE VACATION RENTALS AND BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE THAT VISIT, AND WE LOVE THAT, THAT'S WHERE WE WANT TO KEEP IT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE ON THIS SIDE? THAT WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:25.
I'M SORRY, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES, IT CAN'T BE, IT'S NOT AN EXCHANGE.
MY APOLOGIES. YES, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
>> [INAUDIBLE] 21ST STREET AND I RECENTLY SUBMITTED A DOCUMENT YESTERDAY, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE RECEIVED THAT.
>> YES, WE DID RECEIVE IT AND REVIEWED IT.
>> MY CONCERN IS I LIVE AT 1805 21ST STREET, I SIT OUTSIDE A LOT OF TIME WHEN I'M OFF.
WHEN THEY HAD THE STREETS CLOSED DOWN, I WOULD SEE SPECIFICALLY THE VALET PARKING, PARK THESE CARS GOING DOWN THE STREET VERY FAST.
I WOULD CALL THE GALVEZ HOTEL, AND I WOULD BE TOLD THAT IT'S NOT THEIR ENTITY THAT THE VALET PARKING DOES NOT BELONG TO THEM, I WOULD L GET PUSHED OFF TO SOME MANAGER FOR THE VALET PARKING, AND I WOULD SEE IT HAPPENS SEVERAL TIMES.
ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE NOW IS ALL THE CONTAINERS ACROSS THE STREET, IN THE MORNING THERE'S A LOT OF TRANSIENT PEOPLE THAT GO THERE SO YOU CAN SEE THEM AT NIGHT TIME GO THERE AND LEAVING IN THE MORNING TIME, SO THAT'S NOT REALLY SAFE EITHER.
THE REST OF MY CONCERNS ARE ON THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED, THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [BACKGROUND] YES.
>> MY APOLOGIES THAT I MISSPOKE.
I'M LEARNING THIS BY THE WAY. THIS FIRST TIME IN THE CHAIR.
>> DO I HAVE THREE MINUTES OR THREE SECONDS OR WHAT DO I HAVE?
LEGAL COUNSEL SAYS YOU CAN GO.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU. THE POINT ABOUT [INAUDIBLE] WAS THAT IT PUSHED TO O? YES, TO SOME DEGREE I'M SURE IT WAS. I CAN'T SAY IT WASN'T.
BUT IF THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED AND THE TRAFFIC WILL COME DOWN 19 AND IF IT WAS A ONE-WAY GOING TOWARDS 20, THAT WOULD MITIGATE THAT PROBLEM IMMEDIATELY AND TAKE IT OFF O.
I THINK WHERE PEOPLE WERE COMING UP P AT 21, GET IN THERE AND TAKING A LEFT OR RIGHT, DEPENDING IF THEY'RE GOING TO [INAUDIBLE] THEY WANT TO GO DOWNTOWN.
THEN IF THEY WANT A SHORTCUT, THEY WOULD GO THROUGH O.
THOSE WOULD BE PEOPLE, I'LL BE QUITE CANDID, POSSIBLY MY EMPLOYEES BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T GET TO WORK THAT WAY IN THAT SENSE.
IF THEY GET TO WORK GOING THROUGH 19 AND GOING BACK IN THAT SOLVES THAT.
DELIVERIES WOULD GO THAT WAY AS WELL.
THAT WOULD TAKE THE ENTIRE PRESSURE OFF O IN A HALF COMPLETELY. THAT'S MY COMMENT.
>> EXCELLENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> ONE LAST CALL ON THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYONE ON THIS SIDE? I'M SORRY, I'M NOT ALLOWED TO ANSWER.
ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING THIS TIME FOR REAL AT 4:30.
TO THE COMMISSION, CAN I GET A MOTION FROM THE COMMISSIONERS?
>> I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 22P-016.
[01:00:01]
>> CAN I GET A SECOND? [LAUGHTER] NOW I'M IN A LITTLE BIT OF A PICKLE.
COUNCIL I HAVE A MOTION BUT NO SECOND.
>> IF THAT MOTION FAILS FOR A LACK OF SECOND YOU CAN ENTERTAIN ANOTHER MOTION.
>> ANYBODY LIKE TO ENTERTAIN ANOTHER MOTION? COMMISSIONER HILL.
>> I MOVE FOR DISAPPROVAL OF 22P-016.
>> IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY, WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE].
>> FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT AS TO THE COMMENTS ABOUT PARKING BEING ADDED AND THE PLAN THAT WE WERE PROVIDED, THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR [INAUDIBLE] PARKING.
THE STREET CLOSURE IS [INAUDIBLE].
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE APPLICANT FOR THEIR INVESTMENT IN GALVESTON.
THE HOTEL IS FABULOUS, IT'S BEAUTIFUL EVERYTHING ABOUT IT.
BUT IN MY FIVE YEARS ON PLANNING COMMISSION, WE HAVE DEALT WITH A NUMBER OF ABANDONMENTS.
MOST ARE UNUSED PIECES OF PROPERTY WITH WEEDS AND OVERGROWTH.
YOU HAVE RAISED OBJECTIONS FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS.
AS A REMINDER TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS LIKE CHANGES IN THE ZONING AND ABANDONMENT OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY IS FOREVER.
THIS IS AN ISSUE OF PUBLIC SAFETY AS FAR AS [INAUDIBLE] DEALING ON THIS ISSUE AND WELFARE AS WELL AS THE OVERALL PUBLIC BENEFIT AND LEAVE ME WITH NO CHOICE BUT TO VOTE AGAINST [INAUDIBLE].
EVEN THOUGH I'M SURE GREEN SPACE WOULD BE LOVELY [INAUDIBLE].
THE PLUSES IN THIS CONDITION IN NO WAY OUTWEIGH THE POTENTIAL HAZARDS THAT EXIST FOR THE SAFETY OF THOSE [INAUDIBLE].
I DO THINK THAT PERHAPS [INAUDIBLE] GALVEZ CAN WORK WITH THE CITY ON AN ALTERNATE PLAN TO SLOW TRAFFIC.
OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE HEARD THERE TREMENDOUS ISSUES IN THIS AREA.
ESPECIALLY FROM JUST WHAT WE HEARD HERE TODAY.
WE NEED TO SAFEGUARD THEIR EMPLOYEES AND THEIR GUESTS BETTER.
WE NEED TO ALSO SAFEGUARD OUR CITIZENS IN THIS AREA.
I THINK THAT OVERALL, THE CITY OF GALVESTON NEEDS TO DO A TRAFFIC STUDY IN THIS AREA.
BUT I THINK THAT A STREET CLOSURE AND AN ABANDONMENT OF CITY PROPERTY IS LIKE TAKING A DRINK OF WATER WITH A FIRE HOSE IN THIS INSTANCE AND IT IS JUST TOO DRASTIC [INAUDIBLE] AND THAT'S WHY WE'LL BE [INAUDIBLE].
>> I'LL GO AHEAD AND BE THE VOICE OF DISSENT HERE.
[LAUGHTER] I SOMEWHAT SEE IT AS THE OPPOSITE.
YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S PERMANENT BUT ALSO THIS IS SAFETY CONCERNS TO THE GUESTS, YES, BUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL.
THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT WHERE ONE WAYS TRANSITION INTO TWO WAYS AND VICE VERSA.
[INAUDIBLE] CHURCH, WHERE IT SOMEWHAT TRANSITIONS AND I SEE A LOT OF THAT WRONG-WAY DRIVING THERE AS WELL.
YES, THERE IS AN OVERARCHING ENEMY HERE AND THAT'S DRIVERS WHO DON'T PAY ATTENTION.
HOWEVER, I SEE THIS AS A PROJECT THAT'S ADDED BEAUTY TO THE GALVEZ, TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HELP TO SOLVE A PROBLEM ALBEIT WITH A WATER HOSE AT [INAUDIBLE].
I LIKE WHAT THE GALVEZ HAS DONE AND I LIKE THIS IDEA SO I WILL VOTE NO FOR APPROVAL OR WHICHEVER ONE.
[01:05:08]
>> I TRY TO COME INTO THE MEETINGS WITHOUT A PRECONCEIVED NOTION.
I TRY TO HEAR EVERYTHING CLEARLY AND LISTEN TO WHAT EVERYONE HAS TO SAY BEFORE MAKING A DECISION.
I HAD SOME CONCERNS, OF COURSE, AHEAD OF TIME BUT THEN AFTER I LISTENED TO YOU, I THOUGHT, OH WOW, THAT'S AN INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE.
I THOUGHT ABOUT IT MORE AND I'LL LISTEN TO OTHER PEOPLE.
BUT I HAVE TO AGREE WITH JEFFREY.
MY OVERALL CONCERN IS THAT WE ARE MAKING A DECISION TO ABANDON CITY PROPERTY.
THAT'S ALWAYS A BIG DEAL TO US AND TO ME.
WHENEVER SOMEONE ASKS US TO ABANDON CITY PROPERTY, JEFFREY IS CORRECT.
IT USUALLY IS SOME WEEDED LOT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THE LAST TIME WE HAD SUCH A MAJOR ABANDONMENT WAS OVER ON [INAUDIBLE] THE HOSPITAL AND THAT WAS VERY HARD FOUGHT.
WE REALLY FOUGHT LONG AND HARD ABOUT THAT.
I THINK THAT IF THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENT WAYS TO GO ABOUT DOING THIS, PERHAPS WE CAN BRING IT BACK AGAIN IN A DIFFERENT MANNER OR WITH A DIFFERENT SETUP.
BUT I BELIEVE THE GREEN SPACE IS BEAUTIFUL.
I MEAN, WHAT YOU'VE DONE LOOKS BEAUTIFUL.
I JUST HAVE TO SAY YES TO THAT ABANDONED CITY PROPERTY IS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO TAKE VERY SERIOUS.
>> WELL, THE REASON I WAS PRIMARILY CONCERNED WAS WHEN YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION BY THE FIRE MARSHAL, I THINK THAT RAISES THE HAIR ON THE BACK OF MY HEAD BEING VERY MUCH CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY AND STUFF.
I'M SURE THAT MITIGATING OF THE [INAUDIBLE] AND EVERYTHING WOULD PROBABLY WORK.
BUT THEN WHEN YOU START ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF TRAFFIC FLOW, ESPECIALLY OF THE RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA AND OTHER WORKERS AND EMPLOYEES IN THAT AREA THAT USE THAT AVENUE, THAT ADDS MORE WEIGHT TO IT.
ALMOST. NOT AS MUCH BUT ALMOST AS MUCH AS WHAT THE FIRE MARSHALS SAYS.
AGAIN, I THINK WE ALL AGREE, IT'S GREAT IDEA.
BUT I JUST WISH THERE WERE SOME OTHER WAY TO HELP WITH TRAFFIC PROBLEM.
MAYBE THE POLICE NEED TO BE THERE A LITTLE BIT MORE.
MAYBE THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME SPEED BUMPS OR LIGHTS.
I THINK THERE'S STUFF THE CITY CAN DO TO MITIGATE THIS AND LET'S GO WITH THAT AND NOT ABANDON A WHOLE SECTION.
>> I AGREE WITH ALL THE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE.
I THINK IT'S A WONDERFUL ADDITION, A GREEN SPACE WOULD BE.
HOWEVER, THE COMPLICATIONS THAT GO ALONG WITH THIS PLAN FOR THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE BEEN VOICED AND FROM THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED NEED TO BE ADDRESSED FIRST.
ONCE THOSE ARE ADDRESSED, THEN THIS MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED BUT UNTIL THOSE ARE ADDRESSED WITH THE TRAFFIC ISSUES, TAKING THAT TRAFFIC AND PUTTING IT IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS [INAUDIBLE].
AS AN ENGINEER AND AN URBAN PLANNER, PART OF ME SAYS, I LOVE THE IDEA OF GREEN SPACE.
BUT THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER IN ME SAYS TO KEEP THE [INAUDIBLE] PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IS PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GRAND GALVEZ CERTAINLY WARRANTS ADDITIONAL DESIGNATION AND CONSIDERATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS, PARTICULARLY SAFETY IN THE AREA.
BUT TO ABANDON AND TO SELL BACK THAT PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THEN CREATE SUCH A LARGE CONTIGUOUS PIECE OF PROPERTY IN PERPETUITY FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT I THINK IS NOT A JUDICIOUS ISSUE.
I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE.
I'LL JUST FINISH WITH THAT DISCUSSION LIST.
COUNCIL MEMBER, WANT TO SAY ANYTHING? [BACKGROUND] WITH THAT, WE'LL CALL FOR A VOTE.
THIS VOTE IS FOR OPPOSITION TO CASE NUMBER 22PE-061, CORRECT? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF OPPOSITION, RISE YOUR HAND. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? NOTE THAT [INAUDIBLE] MOTION CARRIES FROM THE OPPOSITION OF 22PE-061.
LIKE TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT CITY COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL DECISION REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR AN ABANDONMENT, AND THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HEAR THIS CASE [INAUDIBLE] SURE.
>> LIKE THE CHAIRMAN SAID THAT COUNCIL WILL HEAR THIS.
I THINK THIS IS THE FIRST STEP IN THIS PROCESS AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE PUBLIC
[01:10:03]
REALLY GETS TO HEAR FROM EVERYBODY IN AN OPEN SESSION LIKE THIS.I THINK AS THE APPLICANT, YOU DEFINITELY HAVE A TALL ORDER TO ANSWER SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS, ADDRESS SOME OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND STAFF COMMENTS WHEN YOU COME TO COUNCIL.
PERSONALLY, I SEE IT BOTH WAYS RIGHT NOW AND I HAVEN'T MADE A DECISION ON WHETHER IT'S GOOD OR BAD.
THERE POSSIBLY COULD BE SOME OTHER OPTIONS.
I DEFINITELY AGREE THAT I NEVER LIKE TO GIVE UP IN PERPETUITY A STREET THAT'S IN OUR GRID SYSTEM.
MAYBE THERE'S SOME OTHER OPTIONS BESIDES THE ABANDONMENT PROCESS THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT.
BUT DEFINITELY, IT'S GOOD TO HAVE THIS OPEN MEETING, HEAR EVERYBODY'S COMMENTS OUT IN THE OPEN AND THEN BE ABLE TO TRY TO COME BACK AND ANSWER A LOT OF THOSE QUESTIONS AND TRY TO FIND SOME COMMON GROUND.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. WITH THAT, THANK YOU ALL FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS CASE AND THANK YOU, MR. HILL FOR BEING PRESENT AND FOR PRESENTING AS WELL.
I WILL NOW TAKE UP CASE 22P-062, 4233 PIRATES DRIVE.
>> THIS CASE HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN AND NO ACTION IS NEEDED BY THE COMMISSION.
>> VERY GOOD. NEXT. CASE 22P-066.
[7.C.1. 22P-066 (3727 Bernardo De Galvez / Avenue P) Request For Designation As A Galveston Landmark. Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, Lot 1, Northeast Block 85, Galveston Outlots, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant And Property Owner: Beverly Denver Bennett]
>> THIS IS 3727 AVENUE P. IT'S A REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION AS A GALVESTON LANDMARK.
TWENTY EIGHT NOTICES WERE SENT, ZERO RETURNED.
APPLICANT IS REQUESTING DESIGNATION OF THE ABOVE, ADDRESS IS GALVESTON LANDMARK.
[INAUDIBLE] HOUSE IS CRAFTSMAN STYLE BUNGALOW BUILT IN 1922, AT A TIME WHEN CRAFTSMAN STYLE HOMES WERE QUITE POPULAR.
THAT HOUSE WAS BUILT BY LOCAL BUILDER, CHARLES SPRINGS [INAUDIBLE] WERE ALSO BUSINESS OWNERS.
HISTORIC RECORDS INDICATE THAT THE HOUSE WAS TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN 60 DAYS AT A COST OF 1,112 [INAUDIBLE] THE PROPERTY IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR NEW GALVESTON'S LANDMARKS.
OTHER REVIEWS, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION FOR THIS REQUESTED A MEETING YESTERDAY, VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
CITY COUNCIL HAS A FINAL DECISION REGARDING THE REQUESTS FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND THEN WE'LL HEAR THIS [INAUDIBLE] MEETING.
WE HAVE SOME PICTURES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS FEATURED ON THIS YEAR'S [INAUDIBLE] TOUR AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, EAST AND WEST THAT INCLUDES [INAUDIBLE]
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? HEARING NONE, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:44.
IS THERE ANYBODY ON THE SIDE OF THE ROOM WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? I'M SORRY.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? NO? APPLICANT IS NOT PRESENT.
NOBODY WISHES TO SPEAK ON THE CASE.
WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THE SAME TIME.
THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS. LET'S SEE HERE.
IS THERE A MOTION? ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? IT'S UNANIMOUS.
[7.D.1. 22P-069 (Adjacent To 2420 Mechanic / Avenue C) Request For A License To Use In Order To Install A Turtle Statue In The City Of Galveston Sidewalk Right-Of-Way. Adjacent Property Is Legally Described As Abstract 628 Ships Mechanic Row Building Condos (2005), Unit 2420, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Amy Owens, Turtles About Town Adjacent Property Owner: Douglas Van Kay Easement Holder: City Of Galveston]
THE TURTLE. [LAUGHTER] 22P-069.>> THIS IS ADJACENT TO 2420 MECHANIC GETS A RECOMMENDATION FOR A LICENSE [INAUDIBLE] REQUEST FOR A LICENSE TO USE.
NINETY FIVE NOTICES WERE SENT.
THERE WERE SEVERAL CONDOS IN THE VICINITY, THAT'S WHY THAT'S SO HIGH.
SEVEN RETURNED AND SEVEN IN FAVOR.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A LICENSE TO USE AND ORDER TO PLACE A SEA TURTLE STATUE IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY.
STATUE IS SPONSORED BY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS [INAUDIBLE] BUSINESS IRELAND [INAUDIBLE] LANDMARK COMMISSION REVIEWED THIS YESTERDAY.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE STRAND MECHANIC HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THEY VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RENTING AN APPROVAL.
PLANNING COMMISSION HAS THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON LICENSE TO USE REQUEST.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITION.
THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE TURTLE STATUE.
THE SITE PLAN SHOWING ITS LOCATION, LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING, FACE, SURROUNDING PROPERTIES [INAUDIBLE]
[01:15:09]
>> EXCELLENT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER PLEASE.
>> IT'S UP AGAINST THE BUILDING, NOT THE STREET.
>> YOU CAN SEE THERE'S THE RAMP IS ALONG THE STREET EDGE.
IT'S GOING TO BE CLOSE TO THE BUILDING BETWEEN THE DOOR AND THE GARAGE DOOR.
>> WE WILL DEFINITELY UPDATE THAT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:46.
>> I'M GUESSING YOU'RE THE APPLICANT?
>> WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN-IN, PLEASE?
>> YES SIR. I'VE ALREADY SIGNED IN. MY NAME IS AMY OWENS AND I'M ONE OF THE FOUNDERS OF TURTLES ABOUT TOWN.
WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH YOU GUYS FOR QUITE A FEW YEARS ALL THROUGH COVID.
WE NOW HAVE, I BELIEVE, 63 TURTLES THROUGHOUT THE ISLANDS.
WE'VE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME IN WITH THEIR CHILDREN.
WE'VE HAD SOME HICCUPS ALONG THE WAY, BUT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO REMEDY THOSE AND THIS WILL JUST BE ANOTHER ONE IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, BUT NOT ON THE STRAND WHICH I KNOW HAS BEEN SOMETHING WE'VE BEEN TOLD NOT TO DO.
WE'RE KEEPING THEM DOWNTOWN BUT NOT PUTTING THEM ON STRAND WHERE WE HAVE SUPER HIGH VOLUME.
I KNOW THAT MELODY, WHO OWNS ISLAND SAW AIRPLANES TO PUT SOME BORDER AROUND IT SIMILAR TO IT, ETC, OR SIMILAR TO THE COWS THAT ARE GOING IN RIGHT THERE ON 20.
HAVE YOU GUYS SEEN THE COWS? WE HAVE SOMETHING ALONG THAT NATURE WITH ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE ON TOP OF THE SIGNAGE THAT WE ALREADY HAVE ON THE TURTLE FOR THEM NOT TO CLIMB ON THE TURTLE.
BUT I THINK THAT SHE'S DONE A BEAUTIFUL JOB.
SHE HAS A BIG BACKDROP ON THE WALL.
I THINK IT'LL BE REALLY PRETTY THAT TURTLE IS BEING DONE BY CAVALLIN STRAUSS, WHO IS A LOCAL KNOWN ARTIST FROM ALTEPY ISLAND.
>> THANK YOU. ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> SEEING THAT MURAL? IS THERE AN HOA?
>> THERE IS, AND I DO KNOW THAT MELODY HAS HAD A FEW ISSUES WITH THE HOA OR SOMETHING WAS GOING ON THERE.
SHE HAD TO GET APPROVAL FROM THE HOA WHICH ULTIMATELY IT WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY.
I KNOW THAT THERE WAS PEOPLE THAT WERE AGAINST IT.
I'M NOT REALLY SURE ABOUT WHO INSTRUCTED THAT.
I JUST KNOW THERE WAS APPROVAL TO MELODY OF THAT.
>> THE PURPOSE BEING FOR THAT IS THAT I KNOW THAT THAT MURAL WAS A VERY HUGE DEAL AND WE DO NOT INSERT HOA.
>> TO CLARIFY WE DID NOT ENFORCE.
IT'S WHATEVER THE CITY DECIDES.
WE TRY NOT TO CONVENE WHEN [INAUDIBLE].
>> CORRECT. IT'S NOT ONE AND THE SAME.
>> BUT I DO KNOW THAT ULTIMATELY SHE HAD A LETTER FROM THE HOA BOARD APPROVING THE MURAL AND IT WAS ALL LAID TO REST AFTER THAT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING ANYWAY [INAUDIBLE].
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU MAY BE SEATED.
IS THERE ANYBODY ON THE SIDE OF THE ROOM THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? HEARING NONE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 04:49 P.M. CAN WE GET A MOTION?
>> MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 22P060.
>> SECOND. WE'VE GOT OUR FIRST BY LANDS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH I APPRECIATE
[7.E.1. 22P-065 (2018 60th Street) Request For A Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District To Permit “Office” Land Use. Property Is Legally Described As Lot 8R, Of Two West, In The City And County Of Galveston Texas. Applicant: Charles H. Addison Property Owner: Tricon Enterprises, Inc.]
IT.[01:20:03]
IT'S REQUEST FOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.
THERE WERE 21 NOTICES SENT, FIVE OF THOSE RETURNED, FOUR IN FAVOR, ONE NO COMMENT.
THIS IS A REQUEST TO INCORPORATE THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY R1 BASE ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR AN OFFICE LAND-USE.
>> CAN YOU BACK AWAY FROM THE MIC A LITTLE BIT?
>> THE INTENT OF THIS P THE REQUEST IS TO DEVIATE FROM TABLE 2.201 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, WHICH PROHIBITS OFFICE LAND USE IN THE R1 ZONING DISTRICT.
SUBJECT SIDE IS A 10,800 SQUARE FEET LOT WITH DIRECT ACCESS FROM 60TH STREET.
THE LOT IS LOCATED SOUTH OF THE HERTZ LANE AND EAST OF 61ST STREET COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED OFFICE USAGE GENERALLY COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES, WITH STRUCTURE DESIGN SIMILARLY TO A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE, AND MEETS ALL OF THE R1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE OFFICE USE IS NOW FURTHER INTENSIFY THE COMMERCIAL USES CURRENTLY IN OPERATION DIRECTLY TO THE WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON 61ST STREET.
PLEASE NOTE THE PUD DETAILS AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PAGE 2 AND PAGE 3 OF YOUR REPORT, AS WELL AS THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.
IN THIS CASE, STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS A COMPATIBLE INFILL DEVELOPMENT, NOT CONTRARY TO THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MEETS ALL OF THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL REFERENCED ABOVE IN YOUR REPORT.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF COMPLIMENTS OF CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD AND WILL NOT BE OUT OF SCALE, NOR CREATE INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND USE HIS NAME IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
THAT WAS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CASE 22P-065, WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS LISTED AS ONE THROUGH FIVE AND STANDARD CONDITIONS SIX THROUGH EIGHT.
NOW, THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE AREA OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THIS IS THE SURVEY PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, AS WELL AS THE SITE PLAN ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SCREEN.
THESE ARE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> WE'RE GOOD. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> ADRIAN WHAT'S THE NATURE [INAUDIBLE].
>> THEN MY ONLY QUESTION IS IN THE NARRATIVE WE SAY WORSE PARKING SPACES AND ON THE PLAN, WE CHOSE FIVE PARKING SPACES.
IT JUST NEEDS TO BE CONSISTENT.
IS IT THE FIVE THAT IT SHOWS ON THE PLANS?
>> WELL, I WOULD GO BY THE NARRATIVE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
THERE MIGHT BE A DISCREPANCY THAT COULD BE A BETTER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT IN EACH CASE, IT'S REALLY NO DIFFERENT THAN A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE HAVING FOUR OR FIVE PARKING SPACES?
>> YEAH. I JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE IT CONSISTENT BEFORE PRESENTING, THAT WAS MY ONLY POINT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES.
>> ON THIS DRAWING, DOES THIS BACKUP TO A MOBILE HOME PARK?
>> THAT'S NOT A RESIDENTIAL AREA.
>> IT'S RESIDENTIAL ZONING, BUT IT IS A NON-CONFORMING COMMERCIAL USE AND RV PARK USE IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:54.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? WELCOME. PLEASE COME FORWARD. STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN-IN.
WE HAVE WORKED THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS.
[BACKGROUND] ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLE?
>> WELL, THAT'S THE SHORTEST PRESENTATION EVER.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING PRESENT.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON THE CASE? HEARING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:50.
[01:25:03]
CAN WE GET A MOTION?>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 22P-065.
>> SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
DISCUSSION, ANY DISCUSSION? WELL, SINCE THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, I'LL CALL FOR, SO THE UNANIMOUS MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU AGAIN.
>> THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO KNOW FOR THE RECORD THAT CITY COUNCIL HAS TO FIND A DECISION REGARDING THIS PD REQUEST, AND THE COUNTY COUNCIL WILL HEAR THIS REQUEST ON NOVEMBER 17TH.
[7.E.2. 22P-070 (0 Wern Road) Request For A Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District To Construct A New Single-Family Residential Development. Property Is Legally Described As Lot 376, Section 1, Trimble And Lindsey, In The City And County Of Galveston Texas. Applicant: Brax Easterwood, AIA Property Owner: Matthews Investments SW, Inc.]
OKAY. CASE 22P-070.>> 22P-070,01 ROAD, THIS IS ANOTHER REQUEST FOR A PD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.
THERE ARE 29 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, THREE OF THOSE RETURNED, ALL THREE IN OPPOSITION.
THIS REQUEST IS TO INCORPORATE THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY R1 BASE ZONING DISTRICT TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
PRICE OF 20 DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS IN NATURE PRESERVE THE INTENT OF THIS PD REQUEST IS TO DEVIATE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AND THE R1 ZONING DISTRICT.
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIRED IS 50 FT, PROPOSING LOTS RANGING IN WIDTH FROM 39 FT TO 75.8.
ALSO TO ALLOW FOR A PRIVATE STREET, PLEASE NOTE THE RESPONSE FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL STATES I CALL THE SUBS TO REMAIN UNOBSTRUCTED FOR USE AS TURNAROUNDS AND NOT FOR PARKING.
SUBJECT SIDE AS A 10 ACRE TRACTOR JOINING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE EAST.
PROPERTY CURRENTLY TAKES ACCESS FROM A 40-FOOT PRIVATE ROAD AND ONE ROAD.
THAT FINDS ITS PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS GENERALLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES.
THE FACT THAT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, THE EAST, AND SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
IN ADDITION, THERE'S AN EXISTING PATTERN OF SMALLER LOTS AND GENERAL AREA WITHIN THE VIA SUBDIVISION.
PLEASE NOTE THE PD DETAILS AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PAGES 2 AND 3 OF THE REPORT, AS WELL AS THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.
IN THIS CASE, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CASE 22P-070, STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
STAFF ALSO FINDS THE DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE OUT OF SCALE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND DOES NOT CREATE LAND-USE CONFLICTS OR INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS IN THE AREA.
ADDITIONALLY, MORE THAN 53 PERCENT OF THE SITE WILL REMAIN UNDEVELOPED, WHICH CONTRIBUTES TO PROTECTING SENSITIVE, VERY UNIQUE NATURAL RESOURCES IN THE WEST END OF THE ISLAND.
AGAIN, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CASE 22P-070 WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS LISTED AS ONE THROUGH SIX AND THE CONDITIONS SEVEN THROUGH NINE, AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS.
THIS IS AN ARIEL ZONING MAP OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THIS IS THE ROAD THAT TAKES YOU TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON WARREN ROAD.
THIS IS A SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APCAN, SHOWING THE 20 RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH A STANDARD SIZE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, THESE ARE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE WEST, SOUTH, AND EAST.
>> ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. HILL?
>> ADRIEL. IN THIS PROCESS, WHAT OTHER STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN SO FAR OR WHAT OTHER NEXT STEPS WOULD BE TAKEN TO INVOLVE USING THE CORE OF ENGINEERS?
>> TYPICALLY, THE CORE OF ENGINEERS IS SOMETHING THAT'S ADDRESSED DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS, AND IT'S TYPICALLY NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD SEE IN THIS PART OF THE PROCESS.
>> AT THIS POINT, IT'S BASICALLY JUST SEEING IF THEY CAN GET THE PLOT APPROVED AND THEN THEY WOULD SEE IF THEY CAN GET THE PERMITTING DONE AS FAR AS GETTING IT THROUGH THE CORE AND ALL OF THAT?
>> CORRECT. AS WELL AS THE CITIES.
>> WHAT I DIDN'T SEE ON THIS MAP ANYWHERE I SEE ON THIS IS AFTER THE EXISTING SITE PLAN.
I SEE ALL THESE LOVELY LITTLE LINES AND ALL THE REST OF THE LINES, WATER, WHATEVER.
BUT I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT REALLY SHOWS WETLANDS PER SE OR DELINEATED OR NON DELINEATED WETLANDS.
[01:30:05]
DO WE HAVE A MAP THAT SHOWS WHAT THE TRUE WETLANDS ARE ON THIS PROPERTY? DID YOU RECEIVE ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN THIS PLANNING PROCESS?>> WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET IS ALL THAT WE RECEIVED, WE DO NOT HAVE A MAP, AGAIN, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S TYPICALLY ADMINISTERED BY THE ORB ENGINEERS.
>> THEN MY LAST QUESTION FOR YOU AND I CAN ASK RACKS ALL OF THIS.
THEN MY LAST QUESTION I GUESS OR MAYBE, I'M MISSING IT.
DID HE RECEIVE ANYTHING ON HYDROLOGY OR WATERFLOW, DRAINAGE, I GUESS IS WHAT I'M ASKING YOU NOT HYDROLOGY, NECESSARILY.
WATER DRAINAGE, WE RECEIVED ONE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WAS FROM SOMEONE WHO LIVES ON JEFFERSON AND SHE WAS WORRIED THAT SOME OF THIS WITH DIRECT WATERFLOW.
>> AS YOU WELL KNOW, THIS IS, THIS IS JUST THE FIRST STEP IN A SERIES OF STEPS TO GET THIS DEVELOPMENT GOING, SO AS PART OF THAT PROCESS, UNTIL IT'S OBVIOUSLY REPLANTING THE PROPERTY INTO THOSE DIFFERENT LOTS, AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE ENGINEERING DIVISION WE'LL REVIEW IN MORE DETAILS AND THEN GET BACK TO THE APPLICANT WITH ANY COMMENTS THEY MIGHT HAVE TO ADDRESS RANGES CONCERNS.
>> NONE OF THAT YET, IT'S ALL PREMATURE.
>> THE LOT SIZE IS GOING DOWN TO 39 FT, AND THE ONLY OTHER APPLICABLE DEVIATION WE HAVE, LOT SIZES OCCURS IN OR VIA THIS PARTICULAR SIDE OF THE ISLAND.
>> BUT WE RECENTLY THAT THIS COMMISSION HAS RECENTLY APPROVED SIMILAR P THESE FOR REDUCTION IN LARGE LOT SIZES.
RENA DRIVES AN EXAMPLE OF ONE, AS WELL AS THE LEAF COMMISSIONER WALLACE PROJECT AS WELL, MIGHT HAVE INVOLVED SOME REDUCTION IN THE LEVEL OFF OF FM3005.
>> SECONDLY, SO THE ONLY ACCESS IS GOING TO BE THROUGH WARREN ROAD?
>> AS FAR AS I'M SEEING IN THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, YES.
>> THAT'S THE ACCESS, AND HOW MANY HOUSES WAS IT AGAIN?
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. I'M SORRY.
>> IF I MIGHT RESPOND ON THAT LOT SIZE ISSUE, IF YOU CAN SEE IN C1O, MOST OF THOSE LOTS SIZES, THE LOT SIZES THEMSELVES WELL EXCEED OUR MINIMUMS. IT'S THE DISTANCE OF THE WIDTH, AND THAT DISTANCE HAPPENS TO BE MEASURED AT THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE.
THERE REALLY ISN'T AN ISSUE WITH LOT SIZE, YOUR AVERAGE LOT SIZE IN HERE IS PROBABLY ABOUT OVER 6,000 FT.
BUT AS YOU CAN SEE AROUND THE COLDEST SACK IS MEASURED AT THAT BUILDING SETBACK LINE.
TECHNICALLY THEY COULD ESTABLISH A FURTHER SETBACK LINE AND NOT EVEN HAVE THAT ISSUE, THAT'S ONE OPTION HERE.
BUT SINCE THEY'VE OPTED TO KEEP BUILDING A SETBACK LINE WHERE THEY TYPICALLY ARE, IT WOULD RENDER THIS NECESSARY.
>> NO MORE QUESTIONS. IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES TO GET APPROVED, AND THEN AFTER THAT, YOU GO THROUGH ALL THE PROPER PROCEDURES?
>> THE ONLY FACTOR THAT THEY'RE NOT MEETING IS THE WIDTH?
>> WHY ALSO DO YOU HAVE IN HERE, WHY DO YOU MENTION THE PRIVATE ROAD?
>> THAT'S A REQUIREMENT OF ARTICLE 6 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WHICH STATES THAT IN ORDER TO DO A PRIVATE ROAD IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON, YOU HAVE TO OBTAIN A PD.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? HEARING NONE WE'LL THEN OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:05.
MR. EASTWOOD ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT,
[01:35:02]
PLEASE SIGN AND STATE YOUR NAME.>> I'M BRAX EASTWOOD, 123, 25TH STREET.
THANK YOU TO THE STAFF FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION AND APPRECIATE ALL YOUR WORK, ADRIEL.
THANK YOU TO THE COMMISSION FOR ENTERTAINING THIS REQUEST.
IT IS 2020 HOUSES NEAR WEST END, I WOULD SAY.
THE APPLICANTS ARE SPECULATIVE BUILDERS IN THE REGION AND THEY ARE GOING TO BE PUTTING THESE HOUSES ON THE MARKET FOR SALE.
THEY WILL HAVE DEED RESTRICTIONS ON THEM THAT WILL LIMIT THE USE AND WILL NOT ALLOW SHORT TERM RENTALS.
BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, THE PRIMARY OR REALLY THE REASON FOR THE PUD REQUEST IS JUST WITH LOTS AND REALLY THEY'RE PIE-SHAPED A LOT.
IF YOU TOOK THE MEAN YOU WOULD PROBABLY WOULDN'T NEED THIS AT ALL TO BE HONEST, EXCEPT FOR THE PRIVATE ROAD AS WELL.
THE WIDTH OF THE ROAD IS WITHIN WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE SUBDIVISION REGS AND THE WARREN ROAD ACCESS TOO IT ACTUALLY IS MORE NARROW THAN THE ROAD ONCE YOU GET INTO THE SUBDIVISION SUBURB.
WARREN ROAD IS 40 FOOT WIDE AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE 60 RIGHT AWAY INSIDE THE SUBDIVISION.
WE'VE GOT NO PROBLEM WITH THE FIRE MARSHALL'S COMMENT ABOUT PARKING.
WE CAN EITHER PUT UP SIGNAGE OR PAINT THE CURB.
ONE OR THE OTHER, WHATEVER HE WOULD LIKE AS TO DO THERE.
THIS AREA IS SOMEWHAT RURAL BUT IT DOES HAVE A SUBURBAN CONTEXT AROUND IT AS WELL.
IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S BEEN QUITE A LOT OF INTEREST IN AIRWAY ROAD OUT THERE AND THOSE LITTLE SUBDIVISIONS THAT ARE EXISTING OUT THERE.
I THINK THAT THE AREA AROUND THE AIRPORT WAS IDENTIFIED AS POTENTIAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OR WORKFORCE HOUSING.
THIS PRODUCT TYPE WILL BE A MIX.
IT WILL BE A RANGE OF SIZE HOUSES SO WE HAVE THREE AND FOUR BEDROOM HOUSES, SOMETHING THAT RANGE DIFFERENT SIZES.
SOME ARE ONE STORY, SOME ARE TWO.
BUT THEY'RE TYPICAL OF WEST END DEVELOPMENT, ALL ELEVATED OBVIOUSLY WITH PARKING UNDERNEATH AND ALL THAT.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> THANK YOU, I DON'T FEEL THAT VIBE BUT.
I AM REALLY TROUBLED BY THESE HOUSES BEING LOCKED DOWN IN THE MIDDLE OF WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE WETLANDS DELINEATED, NOT DELINEATED.
I DON'T HAVE A MAP, I DON'T KNOW.
THIS MAKES ME SUPER UNCOMFORTABLE.
YOU KNOW ME, IT'S JUST NOT AT ALL MY DEAL.
>> WE GOT A LETTER FROM GALVESTON BAY FOUNDATION THEY ARE IN OPPOSITION OF IT, WE GOT THAT TODAY.
IT'S TELLING US THEY DON'T LIKE IT.
>> THE DELINEATION HAS BEEN STARTED, THE PROCESS WITH THE COURT HAS BEEN STARTED.
I DON'T HAVE IT WITH ME BUT I DO HAVE A MAP THAT SHOWS WHERE THE WETLANDS ARE, AND ESSENTIALLY, THEY'RE BEING AVOIDED, ITS THE BEST WAY I CAN PUT IT.
>> BUT TO ME THAT'S LIKE SAYING, I'M GOING TO LET MY SIX-YEAR-OLD PLAY RIGHT HERE.
THERE'S AN ANT BED RIGHT HERE AND I'M GOING TO TELL THEM NOT TO STEP IN IT.
WELL, WE ALL KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO STEP IN IT.
IT'S TOO MANY PEOPLE, [NOISE] TOO CLOSE.
IS THERE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD PUT IN AND STAFF, I'M [NOISE] LOOKING TO YOU ALL HERE TO HELP ME? IS THERE SOMETHING WE COULD PUT IN AS A SPECIFIC CONDITION THAT COULD HELP US TALK ABOUT?
[01:40:05]
YOU SAY, SOME MORE WETLANDS OR SOMETHING THAT COULD HELP US HERE? WE'RE WIDE-OPEN HERE AND WE'RE VERY EXPOSED.JUST FROM MY PERSONAL OPINION NOT FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, MY PERSONAL VIEW.
>> I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY CERTAINLY MAKE A MOTION ON [INAUDIBLE] OF A WETLAND DELINEATION.
IF THAT'S IN PROCESS, THAT'S WHAT'S USED TO GO TO THE CORE AND THEY SIMPLY VERIFY IT.
IF IT'S REPUTABLE ENGINEERING COMPANY OR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY THAT'S DOING THE DELINEATION IT'S LIKELY GOING TO BE PROVED BY THE CORE.
YOU CAN PUT THAT CONDITION IN THERE AND THEN WE PROCESS SEMI PLATTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT.
>> AT WHAT POINT THEN, TIM, WOULD THAT COME INTO PLAY? WOULD THAT HAVE TO BE RECEIVED PRIOR TO IT GOING TO COUNCIL OR WOULD IT BE PRIOR TO THE PLATTING?
>> TRADITIONALLY WITH OUR PROCEDURES IT'S A PLATTING CIRCUMSTANCES COORDINATED.
>> THEY WOULD GO AHEAD AND GET THEIR POD.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT COULD GO INTO THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF THE POD.
>> WELL, I GUESS IT DEPENDS ON WHICH YOU WANT THE MOTION.
>> WE CAN GIVE YOU THOSE DRAWINGS BEFORE THE COUNCIL MEETING.
>> ONE QUESTION, SORRY TO STAFF, NOT TO APPLICANT ON THIS TOPIC OF WETLANDS DELINEATION, ETC.
KNOWING THAT THE ENTIRE ISLANDS OF THE FLOODPLAIN THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THIS, WE TALK ABOUT WETLANDS AND WE ALSO TALK ABOUT WETLANDS MITIGATION.
IN SOME CASES, IF YOU'RE TRYING TO DEVELOP IN A WETLAND, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO MITIGATE IN CIRCUMSTANCES OUTSIDE THAT.
BACK TO DIRECTOR HUGHES, IS THERE A WAY FOR US TO STIPULATE THAT NO WETLANDS MITIGATION SHOULD BE REQUIRED AS A PART OF THAT. I DON'T KNOW, BRAX.
>> I'M NOT SURE. ARE YOU NOT IMPACTING BUT YOU'RE NOT IMPACTING THE WETLANDS? YOU'RE STAYING OUTSIDE OF IT.
>> IT'S EXTREMELY SMALL BUT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO GET THROUGH THERE TO ACCESS THE PROPERTY.
>> BUT IT DOES NOT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE HAVE MUCH BETTER DOCUMENTATION.
>> I'LL MAKE SURE TO GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AFTER THE APPLICANT.
>> THAT VERY [INAUDIBLE] I'M SORRY.
THIS IS NO DIFFERENT ANY OTHER PERMITTING PROCESS IN WHICH THERE'S WETLANDS INVOLVED, IT GOES THROUGH OUR REGULAR PERMITTING PROCESS, WHICH WOULD THEN AT A STAFF-LEVEL, WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY MAKE SURE THAT IT IS ENFORCEABLE.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT? HEARING NONE. MR. EASTWOOD, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> WE'LL CONTINUE ON THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.
IS ANYBODY WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? PLEASE COME FORWARD. STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN, PLEASE.
>> HC SONNY BROWN. [INAUDIBLE]
[01:45:04]
SIR, I'M SORRY.I APPRECIATE THE CONTEXT, BUT I'M GOING TO NEED YOU TO GO BACK TO THE MIC.
>> NO, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HEAR.
>> I GOT THE INVITATION, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THEIR ROAD WAS GOING, TO THE WETLANDS TO JOIN THAT PROPERTY [INAUDIBLE] AROUND IT.
>> SURE. CAN YOU PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MIC?
>> [INAUDIBLE] WETLANDS TO THE PROPERTY.
I'D HAVE A LOT MORE TRAFFIC ON MY ROAD, [LAUGHTER] BUT I'M NOT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT.
THE OTHER THING THAT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH, THERE'S ONLY ONE OUTLET INTO THIS WHOLE COMPLEX.
YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER SUBDIVISIONS BEING DONE ON 105TH NOW, I THINK IS 18 OR 20 HOMES.
IF SOMETHING HAPPENS BETWEEN SHARPER DRIVE AND STEWART ROAD, THE ONLY WAY IN OR OUT, EVERYBODY TO THE NORTH, UNLESS YOU'VE GOT A BOAT, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET OUT OF THERE, [LAUGHTER] BUT I'VE LIVED THERE A LONG TIME AND I KNOW ALL THE INS AND OUTS AS FAR AS TRAFFIC.
SINCE A VIA HAS BEEN BUILT, WE HAVE A PROBLEM ON SHARPER DRIVE NOW BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY A TWO LANE ROAD, THERE'S NO PARKING FOR THOSE HOUSES.
WHEN THEY HAVE THE GARAGES, IF THERE'S NO PARKING OVER ON THE EAST SIDE EITHER, SO PEOPLE WOULD PARK IN THEIR DRIVEWAY AND THEIR VISITORS, THEY PARK IN THE STREET.
THEN IT BECOMES A ONE-WAY STREET.
IF THEY COULD DO SOMETHING WITH THE TRAFFIC, IT'D BE GREAT.
I DON'T MIND THEM OPENING A ROAD, BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE IDEA OF WHAT THEY WERE PLANNING BECAUSE I HAD NO IDEA.
THEY'D BEEN OUT AND SURVEYED AND CUTTING THROUGH THE CEDARS AND STUFF, BUT NO ONE HAD GIVEN ME ANY INFORMATION ABOUT IT, SO IT'S THE REASON I CAME TONIGHT TO TALK TO YOU GUYS, AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TELL YOU THIS, BUT IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO HELP YOU ANYWAY [INAUDIBLE]
ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK? YES, SIR.
PLEASE COME FORWARD. SIGN IN, TELL US YOUR NAME, AND THEN A REMINDER, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO PRESENT.
>> CHURCH STREET, AND MY PROPERTY [INAUDIBLE] I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF CONCERNS.
WARREN ROAD [INAUDIBLE] RIGHT OF WAY, I WENT OUT THERE TODAY AND PUT A TAPE ON THE ASPHALT 16, 18 FEET WIDE [INAUDIBLE] THE ENTRANCE TO THE PARK TO THEIR PROPERTY, THEY'RE GOING TO PLAN THIS ROAD, THEY'RE GOING TO SHOW WATER LIKE YOU-ALL TALKED ABOUT.
AGAIN, I GUESS SOME MEDIATION [INAUDIBLE].
THEY BUILD THAT AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PROPERTY? EAST OF IT, PUSHING ALL THAT WATER BACK INTO THE PROPERTY.
WARREN ROAD, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS PUT IN ROUGHLY BY THE CITY.
I HAVE PROPERTY NEXT TO MINE, MY GRANDFATHER'S PROBABLY.
I'VE BEEN THERE SINCE I WAS A KID, SO 60 YEARS I'VE BEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THAT LOOKS LIKE A SCARP IN THE ROAD.
I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S BIG ENOUGH FOR TWO WAY TRAFFIC.
GOVERNMENT ALWAYS TALKS ABOUT THERE WILL BE, IN ONE OF THE DRAWINGS, NO FILL TO BE ADDED AND NO DISTURBANCE TO THE GRAY.
I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CAN DO A DEVELOPMENT [INAUDIBLE] OR RAISING IT AND BUILDING IT UP.
I WOULDN'T PUT THE HOUSE UP THERE WITHOUT BUILDING IT UP.
DRAINAGE, I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY PLAN ON DRAINAGE. THAT'S ALL IT SAYS.
IT'S GOING TO BE DRAWING AS-BUILT.
[INAUDIBLE], 40 YEARS, 45 YEARS.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT AS-BUILT DRAWINGS, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN PRETTY WELL-PLANNED.
[01:50:03]
MY MAIN PROBLEM IS DRAINAGE.IF THAT ROAD'S BUILT, IS IT GOING TO DRAIN BACK INTO MY PROPERTY? DO THEY PLAN ON PUTTING OPEN DITCHES [INAUDIBLE] 103RD STREET FLOODS RIGHT THERE AT WARREN INTERSECTION,103RD [INAUDIBLE] SHARPER 103RD.
I'D TALK TO THE CITY ENGINEER [INAUDIBLE].
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
HAVING NO OTHER PEOPLE TO SPEAK, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 05:21 AND COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION. IS THERE A MOTION TO DISMISS? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. DO I GET A SECOND?
>> I'M MAKING A COMMITMENT FOR A DISCUSSION.
I WANT TO SAY THAT A LOT OF POINTS ARE OF CONCERN.
YOU-ALL KNOW MY HUGE CONCERN IS [INAUDIBLE] WE DON'T HAVE MAPS THAT SHOW WHERE THE ROADS ACTUALLY ARE.
I THINK THESE TWO GENTLEMEN HAVE BROUGHT US [INAUDIBLE].
THE POINT ABOUT INNER SUBDIVISION BEING BUILT WITH NO FILL AND NOT BRINGING IN [INAUDIBLE] IS AN EXCELLENT POINT [INAUDIBLE] WARREN IS NOT 50 FEET WIDE [INAUDIBLE].
WE ALL KNOW ABOUT THE FLOODING IN THE AREA [INAUDIBLE] JUST FLOODS IN GENERAL.
I THINK WE HAVE JUST NOT A WHOLE LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THIS [INAUDIBLE] ROAD THAT IS REPRESENTED AS 50 FEET WIDE WHEN IT'S NOT [INAUDIBLE] FEET WIDE.
>> IT IS DISCUSSION, SO AS ADRIEL STATED, AS PART OF THE PROCESS THIS IS THE FIRST STEP.
THE OTHER DOCUMENTS EITHER WETLANDS DELINEATION, OR JURISDICTION DETERMINATION, OR THE ENGINEERS IS PART OF THE REGULAR PERMITTING PROCESS [INAUDIBLE] THE OTHER THING ABOUT THE WIDTH OF ONE ROAD, IT SHOWS 50-FOOT FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY, NOT 50-FOOT FOOT WIDE ROAD.
WE HEARD FROM FOLKS THAT SAID IT'S ACTUALLY 16 FEET WORTH OF ASPHALT, BUT IT'S A 50-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY.
>> NOT AT SPEED. STANDARD ROADWAY WIDTH IS 12 FEET, IT CAN BE 11 FEET.
LINE WIDTH CAN BE. TYPICAL LINE WIDTH IS 12 FEET, IT CAN BE 11 FEET.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO SAY?
>> THOSE WERE VERY VALID POINTS, 50-FOOT RIGHTS-OF-WAY, 60-FOOT RIGHTS-OF-WAY ARE TYPICAL IN THE BALLPARK OF A NEW PLAN.
BUT THERE ARE CERTAINLY SUBDIVISIONS OUT THERE WITH 40-FOOT RIGHTS-OF-WAY THAT
[01:55:01]
HAVE STILL AN ADEQUATE DERIVABLE SECTION OF ROADWAY WITHIN IT.I WILL ADMIT THAT 18 FEET IS PRETTY NARROW BUT THAT'S LIKELY BEEN THAT WAY AS THE GENTLEMAN MENTIONED FOR MANY DECADES PROBABLY BEFORE THE CITY ANNEX DID.
WHEN IT WAS BUILT TO WHATEVER STANDARDS THE COUNTY ALLOWED AT THE TIME WHICH IS PROBABLY NOT VERY MANY STANDARDS.
TO SOME DEGREE THE CITY IS LEFT WITH ROADS LIKE THAT AS THEY ARE AND THERE'S A DETERMINATION ABOUT IS IT ADEQUATE TO ADD 20 MORE HOMES ON IT OR NOT.
I GUESS THAT'S PART OF THE DISCUSSION BUT THE ROADWAY WIDTH HAVING A 50-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY IS NOT AT ALL UNCOMMON.
HAVING A SMALLER PAVEMENT SECTION IS PROBABLY LESS COMMON BUT STILL AS YOU MENTIONED ADEQUATE TO MOVE SIDE TO SIDE. THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE EASY.
>> I THINK ONE OF THE DISCUSSION POINTS, I BROUGHT THIS UP PREVIOUSLY ABOUT LOT SIZES AND DENSITY AND NOT ON THE WEST END.
I THINK AT SOME POINT WE'RE GOING TO RUN INTO A CASE OF CONTINUED APPROVAL OF THESE SUBDIVISIONS OF 8,10,12, 20 AT A TIME WHERE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ADJACENT ROADS OR INFRASTRUCTURE ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO SUPPORT SUCH A DEVELOPMENT.
I DO NOT KNOW HOW THIS COMMISSION ADDRESSES THAT.
I'M NOT THE ONE TO SAY THAT YOU GOT TO GO WIDEN ONE ROAD, BUT I'LL LEAVE THAT UP TO THE PROFESSIONALS.
BUT I THINK THAT OVER TIME WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO SEE THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE WEST END AND WE WILL GET TO A POINT WHERE ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT IN THE SHORT-TERM IS GOING TO BE NEEDED.
>> I WANT TO PIGGYBACK ON THAT [NOISE] AND JUST SAY THAT MY CONCERN IS DURING EVACUATION PERIOD, [NOISE] HOW WILL A SMALLER ROAD BE IMPACTED? I KNOW WE CAN DO THAT CONTRABAND WHICH IS WHERE EVERYBODY GOES ONE [LAUGHTER] WAY OR SOMETHING.
BUT I HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT WHOLE THING WITH THE ROADS.
THAT DOES SEEM TO BE THE MOST CONCERNING PART ABOUT THAT.
HOW WILL PEOPLE EVACUATE WHEN THE TIME COMES? WILL WE CONTINUE TO ADD MORE AND MORE SMALL SUBDIVISIONS OUT THERE?
>> TWO ISSUES THAT I HAVE THAT REALLY BOTHER ME OVER THE DENSITY IN THE LAND USE, YOU DID SAY CONTRABAND, WE KNEW WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT.
>> THE RANGE USE, I'M LOOKING AT NUMBER 4 IN THE PUC 13601C, SECTION NUMBER 4 THERE, ARRANGED USES CHARACTER OF DEVELOPMENT, YADA, WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH PROPERTIES IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE PARCEL POST FOR REZONING AND THE PARCEL COMPLEX OF TWO COLDER SACS TO ME IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT WHICH IS SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS ON LARGE LOTS.
THE ROAD DEFINITELY BOTHERS ME.
THERE WILL BE AN INCREASE IN TRAFFIC, WE DON T KNOW HOW MUCH OR WHEN.
BUT IF YOU ADD THAT MANY CARS ON THAT ROAD THAT ALREADY HAS PROPERTY ON IT, AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE FLOODING ISSUE WITH SHARPER.
THOSE ARE MY TWO ISSUES I HAVE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU ALL REALLY FEEL ABOUT THAT BUT I THINK IT'S SOMETHING YOU OUGHT TO BE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION.
I THINK WE HAD SOME CITIZENS SPEAK BEFORE WHEN THIS CAME UP PRIOR AND THEY TALKED ABOUT HOW THEY ARE IN A MORE RURAL COMMUNITY AND THEY WANTED TO STAY THAT WAY.
I THINK WE'D BE JUST CONTRA TO THAT NOT CONTRABAND.
>> OR CONTRA FLOW WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE CURRENT LAYOUT OF THEIR PROPERTIES.
>> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS TO DONNA.
HEY, CAN WE MAKE A MOTION THAT SAYS WE DISAPPROVE IT WITH THEM COMING BACK TO BRING THE WETLAND STUDY? CAN WE DO THAT? THAT WILL BE A DEFERRAL?
>> [NOISE] THERE IS AN ACT OF MOTION ON THIS TABLE TO TAKE CARE OF THAT [INAUDIBLE] IT LAYS OUT AND THEN YOU PICK
[02:00:04]
ANOTHER ONE BUT FOR THEM TO BRING BACK INFORMATION [INAUDIBLE]>> OBJECT TO RECEIVE MEANS IS WE'RE READY TO DO THAT DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
>>DONNA, I'VE GOT A CURRENT MOTION TO APPROVE ONE-SECOND DISCUSSION.
DO WE FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THAT AND THEN IF SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENS WE CAN GO BACK TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION?
>> ALL RIGHT SO WE GO AHEAD AND FINISH UP THIS MOTION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CASE 22P-070 AS PRESENTED BY STAN? ALL THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES.
>> [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] THE MOTION FAILED TO APPROVE.
GREAT. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?
>> OKAY. WOULD SOMEBODY LIKE TO MAKE A NEW MOTION ON THIS [INAUDIBLE]
>> I DON'T WANT TO [INAUDIBLE]
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, THAT MOTION FAILED WE'RE STARTING WITH A CLEAN SLATE, AM I CORRECT?
>> I'D LIKE TO DEFER 22P-070 UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING DATE.
>> WILL YOU HAVE IT THEN, BARACK? UNTIL NOVEMBER 8TH SUBJECT TO RECEIPT OF THE FULL WETLANDS REPORT WETLANDS.
WILL YOU HAVE IT THEN, BARACK?
>> [OVERLAPPING] EXCUSE ME. SUBJECT TO ADDITION OF WETLANDS DELINEATION REPORT TO THE STAFF REPORT.
MOTION IS FOR DEFERRAL OF 22P-070 TO THE NEXT MEETING, SUBJECT TO RECEIPT OF WETLANDS DELINEATION REPORT FROM THE APPLICANT.
>> DO I HAVE A SECOND? [LAUGHTER] NOW COMMISSIONER LANCE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? DISCUSSION. [BACKGROUND]
>> USUALLY I UPLOAD EVERYTHING A WEEK PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO ATTEND THE CENTER.
ORDINANCE HAS TO BE PRODUCED BY THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, SO THERE'S SOME WORK THAT TAKES PLACE AFTER AN APPROVAL BY PLANNING COMMISSION OR WHICHEVER DIRECTION THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECIDES TO VOTE.
>> I'D LIKE TO TRY TO KEEP THAT ON OUR AGENDA FOR THE 17TH EVEN IF COUNCIL GETS THAT PACKET LATE.
THERE'S NO REAL REASON TO DELAY THAT IF IT COMES TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE SEVENTH, IT'S SEVENTH?
[02:05:02]
>> PLANNING COMMISSION THE EIGHTH, WHICH MEANS?
>> IT DOES NOT. IT GIVES US JUST A FEW HOURS.
>> WELL, IF WE DON'T GET THAT PACKET WITHIN THOSE TWO DAYS I THINK COUNCIL [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT COMES BACK ON THE EIGHTH AND WE HAVE TO HAVE AN ORDINANCE WRITTEN BY THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND ALL THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE BY NOON ON THE NINTH.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S ENOUGH TIME.
>> THAT IS, I GUESS, PROCEDURE.
>> BUT AS LONG AS WE HAVE THAT ON THE AGENDA, I'M SURE WE COULD GIVE YOU ALL SOME EXTRA TIME TO GET THAT ORDINANCE WRITTEN AND GET IT TO US FOR THAT MEETING.
>> I'LL BE WORKING WITH STAFF ALWAYS ON THIS TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION NEEDS TO [INAUDIBLE]
>> IF SOMETHING COMES UP ON OUR EIGHTH MEETING AND YOU CAN'T MAKE THAT HAPPEN, THEN YOU CAN LET US KNOW.
BUT I'D LIKE TO TRY TO KEEP THAT TIME SCHEDULE AS IT IS TODAY.
THEN MY QUESTION FOR THE DEFERRAL, PLANNING COMMISSION IS ASKING FOR A WETLAND DELINEATION OF THE PROPERTY.
>> THEY'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING, RIGHT NOW [INAUDIBLE]
>> IT'S STRICTLY FOR DEFERRAL, THERE'S NO REASON FOR THE DEFERRAL.
[OVERLAPPING] BUT THAT WAS PART OF OUR MOTION.
>> [INAUDIBLE] STUFF LIKES TO HAVE THE REASON FOR DEFERRAL.
>> YEAH. THERE'S NO REASON FOR A DEFERRAL. WE DON'T NEED TO DEFER.
>> WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT WE KNOW.
>> [LAUGHTER] NO. YOU NEED TO GIVE US A REASON.
>> WHAT KIND OF INFORMATION ARE YOU LOOKING FOR WITHIN THAT DELINEATION?
>> I THINK I WANT TO SEE EXACTLY WHERE THE WETLANDS ARE.
I WANT TO SEE IF THEY'VE PROPOSED A DEVELOPMENT.
THEY'VE PROPOSED IT AND WHAT THEY SAY ARE NOT WELL OFF.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S EXACTLY THE CASE AND THEY'RE THINKING THAT THEY HAVE TO USE SOME MITIGATION AND I WANTED TO SEE IF THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO MITIGATION.
NOW, THAT'S NOT PART OF THAT, BUT I WANT TO SEE WHAT EXACTLY [INAUDIBLE] WE CAN SET WHATEVER KIND OF SPECIFIC CONDITIONS THAT WE WANT TO.
WE CAN SET WHATEVER KIND OF SPECIFIC CONDITIONS WE WANT TO.
>> ABSOLUTELY, YOU HAVE A LOT OF LEEWAY WITH THE PUD, THAT'S WHY IT'S A GREAT TOOL.
MY QUESTION IS, WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT WETLANDS AND WHETHER THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT YOUR DECISION TO RE-PLOT A PIECE OF PROPERTY, IT BECOMES VERY SUBJECTIVE.
BECAUSE I CAN DEFINITELY GO AND RE-PLOT A PROPERTY WITH WETLANDS ON THEM ALL DAY LONG.
WHAT INFORMATION DO YOU REALLY GLEAMING FROM A DELINEATION? IF YOU WANT TO GO AND RE-PLOT THIS SUBDIVISION AND THERE WAS A LOT THAT HAD WAS COMPLETELY FULL OF WETLANDS, YOU COULD DO THAT. THAT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL.
THERE'S NOTHING SAYING THAT HE CAN'T DO THAT.
HE CAN'T GO OUT THERE AND FILL IT AND BUILD A HOUSE ON IT WITHOUT SOME ADDITIONAL APPROVAL.
BUT YOU CAN RE-PLOT A PROPERTY WITH WETLANDS ON IT, NO PROBLEM, NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
HE'S GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS BECAUSE HE WANTS TO STAY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY AND THE CORE AND ALL THESE ENTITIES THAT HAVE OVERSIGHT ON THIS.
BUT HOLDING UP A PROCESS BECAUSE OF A WETLAND DELINEATION, IN MY OPINION, IS REALLY NOT THE PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
YOU DON'T HAVE AUTHORITY ON WETLANDS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR EXPERTISE IS ON WETLANDS.
EVEN IF YOU DID HAVE EXPERTISE ON IT,
[02:10:02]
YOU COULD STILL RE-PLOT A PIECE OF PROPERTY, WHETHER THERE'S WETLANDS ON IT OR NOT.I DON'T MIND DELAYING IT, YOU ALL HAVE ASKED FOR THIS, SO THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE WITH ME.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE BEING PRODUCTIVE HERE WHEN WE DELAY THINGS LIKE THIS.
>> WELL, COUNCILMAN IF THAT'S YOUR FEELING, THEN WHY DIDN'T YOU BRING THAT UP DURING DISCUSSION?
>> HAVE WE NOT VOTED ON DEFERRAL?
>> WE HAVEN'T VOTED ON DEFERRAL? WELL, IF WE'RE IN DISCUSSION, THEN WE CAN PULL THE WHOLE MOTION ON DEFERRAL.
>> WE CAN LET THE MOTION STAND ON DENIAL.
>> OKAY. IF WE HAD A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL I'LL JUST [OVERLAPPING]
>> AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS HERE.
I'M JUST ASKING QUESTIONS LIKE THIS TO SEE WHAT INFORMATION YOU'RE TRYING TO GAIN FROM HAVING THE DELINEATION.
THAT HE MIGHT GIVE US A DELINEATION AND IT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE VERIFIED.
HE COULD GIVE US A DELINEATION AND YOU STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE VERIFICATION PROCESS.
BY ASKING FOR THIS INFORMATION, I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET, SO YOU DON'T ASK FOR SOMETHING AND YOU WANT MORE.
>> IT'S STRICTLY FOR MY KNOWLEDGE, AND WHAT I'M COMFORTABLE WITH OUT THERE.
I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH PLOPPING A SUBDIVISION DOWN IN THE MIDDLE OF A BUNCH OF WETLANDS WITH NO PLAN, WITH SIMPLY NOT KNOWING EXACTLY WHERE THEY ARE.
IT JUST GOES AGAINST THE GRAIN FOR ME.
IF THAT'S YOUR ADVICE AS EX OFFICIO, THAT IT DOES NOT ACCOMPLISH THAT PURPOSE, AND I'M SEEING FROM OUR STAFF THAT THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S WITHIN OUR PURVIEW, THEN LET'S PULL THAT MOTION FOR DEFERRAL.
>> I'M NOT TELLING YOU TO DO THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
IF WE STAY ON TRACK HERE, I HAVE NO PROBLEM, IT'S NOT MY DECISION, IT'S YOUR DECISION.
BUT I'M JUST WEIGHING IN ON THE CASE.
>> LET'S TAKE IT OFF THE TABLE AND SEE IF THERE'S ANOTHER MOTION.
>> I DIDN'T HEAR TODAY YOU ALL.
THERE'S A MOTION TO JUST DISAPPROVE THE CASE.
NO, WHAT DID YOU SAY? OH, I'M SORRY.
IS IT TURNED ON NOW? AFTER EFFECT.
>> I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE DENY, CASE NUMBER 22P-070.
>> I DON'T WANT TO BE CONTRARY, BUT I WILL.
I TOO AGREE WITH YOU GUYS ABOUT SEEING WETLANDS.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO.
BUT AFTER HAVING LISTENED TO YOU, I HAVE TO SAY IT MADE ME RETHINK WHAT I WAS THINKING.
IF OUR GOAL IS TO FACILITATE DEVELOPERS OR OUR CITIZENS IN THE PLANNING.
I HAVE TO AGREE THAT I DON'T THINK WE'RE SERVING A PURPOSE BECAUSE I THINK THAT HE COULD GIVE US ANYTHING.
HONESTLY, I'M NOT SAYING HE WOULD, BUT I GUESS ULTIMATELY, IF IT'S NOT APPROVED BY ANYBODY, IT COULD GIVE US ANYTHING.
ARE WE REALLY STALLING THE PROCESS HERE? THAT'S JUST MY QUESTION.
[02:15:03]
>> I GET THE STALLING OF THE PROCESS BECAUSE WE NEVER WANT TO BE THE ONE TO HOLD BACK ON IT.
BUT I THINK ALSO, WE HAVE A DUTY TO COMPLETELY FINISH UP BEFORE THEY GO TO CITY COUNCIL AS WELL.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT COUNCIL STACY IS SAYING ABOUT WHAT WE COULD DO WITH THE INFORMATION.
BUT YEAH, I MEAN, THE INFORMATION WILL BE BROUGHT FORWARD TO LIGHT, AND THAT WILL BE JUST KNOWING THAT INFORMATION.
>> I SAID ON YOUR MIND, I SUGGEST A COURSE OF ACTION, PLEASE.
I WOULD SUGGEST JUST TAKING IT FOR WHAT IT IS TO DO THAT IS TO MOVE THE PROCESS ALONG.
I WOULD SUGGEST AN APPROVAL SUBJECT TO RECEIPT OF THE WETLANDS DELINEATION THAT WE COULD PROVIDE TO YOU AT THE NEXT MEETING.
IN THAT WAY IT WOULDN'T HOLD UP THE PROCESS OF THE DEVELOPER AND YOU WOULD SEE WHAT HE'S GOING TO BE SUBMITTING.
IF IN, FACT SUBMITS ANYTHING, OR I THINK HE PROBABLY WILL HAVE TO BECAUSE THERE'S SOMETHING UP THERE IN THE FRONT.
BUT YOU'VE HEARD HIS INTENTION WAS TO AVOID THE WETLANDS.
HE'S LITERALLY TRYING TO AVOID THE WETLAND IN THE BACK.
THERE MAY BE SOMETHING HE NEEDS TO DO UPFRONT.
WHETHER THAT'S BUILDING A BRIDGE WITH AVOIDANCE OR WHETHER IT'S TO DO SOME KIND OF DRAINAGE MECHANISM THAT OR WILL NEED TO GET INVOLVED IN.
THE DELINEATION IS REALLY, AT THIS POINT, THAT HOW YOU CAN ASK IF A DEVELOPER IS THERE THIS EARLY IN THE PROCESS AND HAVING THE DELINEATION, I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'D WANT TO SEE THAT.
IT MAKES SENSE. IT'S A LOGICAL THING.
BUT AS ADRIAN MENTIONED, IT REALLY ISN'T PART OF THIS PROCESS UNLESS YOU MAKE IT A PART OF THE PROCESS, AND YOU'RE NOT HERE, YOU WANT TO MAKE IT A PART OF THE PROCESS.
THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST THE ACTION BE BASED ON MOVING IT FORWARD AND STILL GETTING THE WETLAND DELINEATION THAT YOU WANT TO SEE AND WE WILL PROVIDE IT TO YOU IN THE PACKET FOR THE NEXT MEETING. IN FACT, WE RECEIVED.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER, I UNDERSTAND THE POINT ABOUT WHAT IS THIS INFORMATION IS GOING TO DO BECAUSE WETLAND DELINEATION IS NOT AN OFFICIAL DETERMINATION BUTTON FOR VISIONARIES. I UNDERSTAND THAT.
THAT'S A LONG WAY DOWN LINE FROM WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD AND PUT YOUR POINT.
COMMISSIONER HILL, THERE IS AN INTERNAL PROCESS WITHIN THE CITY FOR THE REVIEW AND PROTECTION OF OUR WETLANDS THAT COMES AFTER THIS PODD PROCESS.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR DESIRE TO SEE THE WETLAND DELINEATION.
I WILL JUST TELL YOU THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET IT AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT.
WHEN THE DIRECTOR WAS SPEAKING TO US WANTING US AS A RECOMMENDING BODY, AND WANTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS PART OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PODD, I THINK YOU'RE SPEAKING TO THE POINT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BEYOND WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED IN THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT.
THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS, DO WE TRY TO APPLY THAT TO THIS JUST BY ASKING FOR THE WETLAND DETERMINATION, AND DO WE MAKE THAT A REQUIREMENT OF ALL FUTURE PODD APPLICATIONS? DID I MAKE THAT CLEAR?
>> YEAH. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
I APPRECIATE WHAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER SAID.
I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU SAID, WHAT TIM JUST OFFERED, AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO GET BEYOND THAT AND MOVE ON TO WHAT OUR OTHER CONCERNS WERE AS WELL ON THIS PODD, AND IT WASN'T JUST THE WETLANDS.
IT WAS ACCESS, IT WAS DRAINAGE, AND IT WAS FILLING TO GRADE.
[02:20:01]
THERE WERE MANY CONCERNS THAT MANY THINGS THAT GAVE US PAUSE.IT WASN'T JUST THE USUAL, WE NEED TO DO A PODD BECAUSE WE NEED HIGHER DENSITY THAN WE NORMALLY SEE.
IT WASN'T SIMPLY THE WETLANDS ISSUE.
THERE WAS A COMBINATION OF ISSUES IN THIS INSTANCE.
THANK YOU, AND I APPRECIATE THE EDUCATION THAT I HAVE RECEIVED FROM ALL SIDES.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER, AND JEFFREY, YOU BREAK UP SOME GOOD POINTS THERE.
I MEAN, THERE ARE DEFINITELY SOME THINGS THAT CONCERN ME WITH THIS PODD.
THE WETLAND DELINEATION IS NOT REALLY ONE OF THEM, BUT YOU BRING UP SOME GREAT POINTS THEREOF OTHER CONCERNS.
WE DEFINITELY NEED TO LOOK INTO THOSE THINGS.
>>THE QUESTION IS THAT, WHEN DO WE LOOK INTO THOSE THINGS? ARE THEY GOING TO BE LOOKED INTO DURING THE NORMAL PERMITTING PROCESS WITHIN THE CITY, OR THEY TRY TO BE ADDRESSED RIGHT NOW WITHIN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PODD?
>> THAT COULD BE THE CASE. I MEAN, JUST THE ROADWAY IS A CONCERN OF MINE.
I MEAN, 16-FOOT WIDE ROADWAY, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A 50-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE 16TH FOOT ROADWAY IS A CONCERN AND SO THERE MIGHT NEED TO BE SOME THINGS.
I MEAN, THOSE ARE PROBABLY SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT I WOULD REALLY FOCUS ON MORE THAN THE WETLAND DELINEATION.
BUT I'LL LEAVE THAT UP TO YOU.
>> THERE'S AN ACTIVE MOTION ON THE TABLE TO DENY CASE 22P-070 HAS BEEN SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILL.
IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION?
>> BUT HE MADE A STATEMENT ABOUT THE WETLANDS.
HE'S MADE A STATEMENT CONCERNING THE ROAD.
BOTH OF THOSE ARE SOME CONCERNS OF MINE.
I'M LOOKING AT THE SATELLITE MAP OF OUR WONDERFUL LITTLE ISLAND AREA HERE AND IN EVERY SUBDIVISION, EVERY PODD WE'VE ALREADY DONE OR THAT'S BEEN DONE, THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL RESIDENCES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH OR ADJACENT TO THAT HAVE A DIFFERENT LOOK, I.E THESE INDIVIDUAL PLOTS 130, DO NOT LOOK ANYTHING LIKE WHAT IS GOING TO BE CREATED BY THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.
TO ME THAT FALLS OUTSIDE OF WHAT I THINK WOULD BE APPROPRIATE THERE.
I THINK APPROPRIATE WOULD BE TRACKS, JUST LIKE THEY'VE GOT HERE WITH INDIVIDUAL HOUSE IS GOING DOWN IN THE SAME DIRECTION, AND LOOKING THE SAME TO ME THAT WOULD BE FIT IN WITH WHAT IS THERE ALREADY.
I JUST DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF GOING COUNTER TO WHAT IS OUT IN THAT AREA.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT MANY RURAL AREAS LEFT, AND THAT'S SEMI RURAL TO ME.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE HUGE SUBDIVISIONS COMING UP.
I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DEALING WITH THESE HUGE SUBDIVISIONS LATER ON, BUT I HOPEFULLY THEY'LL BE OUT THERE A LITTLE BIT AWAY FROM THESE SCATTERED HOUSES THAT ARE OUT IN THIS AREA, [INAUDIBLE] SO THAT'S IT.
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY, APPLICATION 22P-070.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF DENYING THE APPLICATION, RAISE YOUR HAND. ALL THOSE OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES TO DENY CASE 22P-070.
NOW WE HAVE FINISHED OUT THAT CASE, CORRECT? IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THIS COMMISSION.
>> FOR THE RECORD, GOING BACK TO 22P-065, I'D LIKE TO STATE THAT CITY COUNCIL IS THE FINAL DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY IN THIS REQUEST, AND THEN WE'LL HEAR THIS REQUEST ON NOVEMBER 17TH.
>> THANK YOU, ADRIEL. I APPRECIATE THAT.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
>> I'M SORRY. I KNOW IT'S LATE, BUT DONNA ON THIS CASE AND THEN ALSO ON THE ONE THAT HAD TO DO WITH THE GALVEZ, A COUPLE OF THINGS WE'RE BROUGHT UP THAT WE GET TOLD THAT WE ASK QUESTIONS THAT ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE CASE PER SAY, BUT THINGS THAT WE ASK MAY BE RELEVANT TO OUR INDIVIDUAL THOUGHT PROCESSES.
[02:25:06]
THERE'S A REAL FINE LINE THERE BETWEEN THINGS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT SEEM RELEVANT TO SOME PEOPLE IN REGARD TO A CASE, AND WHAT MAY BE RELEVANT TO US INDIVIDUALLY IN MAKING OUR DECISIONS.WHAT MAY BE RELEVANT TO DAVID, LIKE ASKING ABOUT 27TH STREET IN MAKING HIS DECISION ABOUT 21ST STREET, MAYBE WHAT MAKES HIS LITTLE PLANNER BRAIN TICK, AND THEN ME ASKING ABOUT SOMETHING ON THIS ONE, MAYBE WHAT MAKES MY WEIRDO BRAIN TICK.
I KNOW YOU GIVE US A LOT OF LEEWAY, BUT SOMETIMES THESE QUESTIONS CAN BE HELPING US.
THEY MAY SEEM OUTSIDE OF OUR PURVIEW, BUT THEY'RE WHAT HELP US MAKE OUR DECISIONS.
>> ABSOLUTELY, AND I'LL SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS.
EVERYONE THAT SITS AT THE DAY OF THIS YEAR IS APPRECIATED DEFINITELY BY MYSELF AND MY STAFF [INAUDIBLE] CHOSEN BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENCES AND PERSPECTIVES THAT YOU BRING TO TABLE AND THEN YOU APPROVED IT WITH THIS COMMISSION.
THIS COMMISSION SEES THE TYPES OF REASONS THAT REALLY SHAPE THE CITY IN RESPECT.
NO ONE TAKES YOUR QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, I DON'T DISRESPECT THAT ALREADY.
[INAUDIBLE] MY CONCERNS SOMETIMES ARE IS THAT OFF TRACK.
MY INTERVENING IS JUST REALLY TO FOCUS ON BRINGING BACK INTO RANGE [INAUDIBLE] DISRESPECTFUL AND IT'S ALWAYS TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT LOSING NECESSARILY THE PICTURE [INAUDIBLE].WHEN YOU COME TO THE TABLE WITH DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES, UNDERSTANDING THAT YOUR PERSPECTIVE IS INDIVIDUAL PERSPECTIVE [INAUDIBLE]
>> I'LL ADD A LITTLE BIT TO THAT, AND IT'S REALLY A MATTER OF TIMING.
IT REALLY IS NOT TO SAY THAT STAFF ISN'T INVOLVED OR INVESTING IN WETLANDS ISSUES.
WE ARE WITH YOU WHEN IT CAN BE APPLIED GERMANE TO THE PROCESS.
WHEN SOMETHING IS MANDATED VERSUS SOMETHING IS REQUESTED, THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, AND ABSOLUTELY RESPECT YOUR NOTION TO GET THAT INFORMATION UPFRONT.
I THINK ALL OF US HAVE HEARD OF PLANNERS.
WE WANT TO PLAN WHAT'S HAPPENING OR BE INVOLVED IN THE PLANNING, WHAT'S HAPPENING, AND THAT MEANS TO TRY TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
THAT'S IDEAL. BUT IT'S NOT AT ALL A MEASURE OF ANY [INAUDIBLE] IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIME.
[02:30:01]
>> ANY OTHER BUSINESS? WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE ARE ADJOURNED SIX O'CLOCK.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.