[00:00:02]
>> [BACKGROUND] NOW WE'RE READY.
>> IT'S 3:32. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE CITY OF GALVESTON PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER.
[1. Call Meeting To Order]
ROLE HAS BEEN CALLED BY SIGN-IN.[2. Attendance]
WE HAVE EVERYBODY PRESENT, NO ABSENCES.COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS ON ANY OF THE CASES?
[3. Conflict Of Interest]
>> YES, SIR. I HAVE A CONFLICT ON CASE 23P-014.
MY HUSBAND REPRESENTS THE JONES.
TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, I DECLARE A CONFLICT.
>> ANY OTHER CONFLICTS? WITH NONE, ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN?
[4. Approval Of Minutes]
HEARING NONE, WE'LL ADOPT THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN AND PRESENTED.WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC COMMENT, PERIOD.
THIS IS FOR ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME AND SPEAK FOR 3 MINUTES.
ANYBODY ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM? ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM? HEARING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AT 3:33 AND MOVE INTO NEW BUSINESS.
>> WE'LL GO THROUGH EACH AGENDA ITEM AND THERE'LL BE A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD DURING THOSE.
THANK YOU. NEW BUSINESS. CATHERINE, ARE WE READY?
[6. A. 23BF-011 (21119 W. Sandhill Dr) Notice Of Mitigation For Disturbance Of Dunes And Vegetation. Property Is Legally Described As SANDHILL SHORES ADDN (2000), ABST 121, LOT 3, ACRES 0.399, A Subdivision In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas]
>> YES. THE FIRST ITEM IS HEARING FOR DOING MITIGATION PROJECT AND THAT'LL BE KYLE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. YES, THE FIRST PROJECT HERE IS FOR MITIGATION A WALK OVER ON WEST HILL SAND DRIVE.
PROJECT MEETS ALL OF THE CITIES ORDINANCES AND WAS COORDINATED WITH THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE.
GENERAL LAND OFFICE DID COME BACK, GLO CAME BACK WITH SOME COMMENTS.
ONE OF THE COMMENTS WAS, AS YOU CAN SEE IN YOUR PACKET THAT THE SEAWARDS TERMINUS OF THE WALKOVER WAS 17.5 FEET AND OUR PLAN ONLY ALLOWS 10 FEET.
I CONTACTED THE APPLICANT, THEY DID MAKE CORRECTIONS ON THAT.
I APOLOGIZE IT WASN'T UPDATED IN Y'ALLS PACKETS, BUT THEY DO HAVE CORRECTED PLANS.
THE TERMINUS IS GOING TO BE 10 FEET AND THOSE WILL BE INCLUDED WITH THE ACTION LETTER.
ALSO, THERE WILL BE INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED ON THE MITIGATION.
WE WILL BE NOTIFYING GLO AFTER THE THREE YEARS SUCCESSFUL MITIGATION AND IT'S BEEN MET.
>> LET'S SEE, THIS IS FOR APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ONLY.
THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? KYLE, I HAVE ONE.
IN THE DRAWING PACKET FOR THE DUNE WALK OVER AND GLO STATES THAT THE WIDTH IS TO BE NO MORE NARROW WITHIN 4 FEET.
IT'S NOT CLEARLY DIMENSION ON THE PLAN, HOWEVER, YOU CAN INFER IT FROM THE SCALE DOWN BELOW.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE AWARE THAT THEY WERE MEETING THAT REQUIREMENT OF THE GLO LETTER.
>> YES, SIR. YEAH. WELL, MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S INCLUDED IN THERE, THAT IT CAN'T BE ANY WIDER THAN 4 FEET.
>> THIS TIME WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CASE.
IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR CASE? THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM, AND ON THIS SIDE? HEARING NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS CASE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION.
NO MOTION. SORRY, YEAH, GOT IT.
THANK YOU, CATHERINE AND KYLE. MY APOLOGIES.
[LAUGHTER] PLEASE NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER HILL IS EXCUSING HERSELF. READY?
[7.A.1. 23P-014 (Adjacent To 1228 Harborside) Request For An Abandonment Of Approximately 4,800 Square-Feet Of 13th Street Right-Of-Way. Adjacent Property Is Legally Described As M. B. Menard Survey, Lot 14, Block 732, In The City And County Galveston, Texas. Applicant: J. Marcus Hill, Attorney Adjacent Property Owner: Robert Galveston, Texas. Applicant: J. Marcus Hill, Attorney Adjace]
IT'S A REQUEST FOR ABANDONMENT APPROXIMATELY 4,800 SQUARE FEET OF 13TH STREET, RIGHT-OF-WAY.IT IS ADJACENT TO 1228 HARBORSIDE.
THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS FROM ANY CITY DEPARTMENTS OR PRIVATE UTILITIES.
NUMBER 13 PUBLIC NOTICE IS SENT, THREE RETURN TO THOSE THREE IN FAVOR.
THE SUMMARY, THE APPLICANT AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER ARE REQUESTING AN ABANDONMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 4,800 SQUARE FEET OF THE 13TH STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY NORTH OF HARBORSIDE DRIVE.
STAFF SAY THE ABANDONMENT WILL NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.
[00:05:01]
THE 13TH STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY EXTENDS NORTH FROM HARBORSIDE AND DEAD-ENDS INTO PORT OF GALVESTON FACILITIES.THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS UNIMPROVED AND HAS BEEN FENCED AND USED FOR PARKING SINCE AT LEAST 2007 ACCORDING TO STAFF RESEARCH.
NO OBJECTIONS WERE RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC OR PRIVATE UTILITIES.
HOWEVER, CENTERPOINT TYPICALLY REQUESTS THAT AN ALLEY IN STREET CLOSURE APPLICATION BE SUBMITTED FOR ABANDONMENT REQUESTS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT CONTACT CENTERPOINT ENERGY TO CONFIRM IF THE STREET ALLEY'S CLOSURE APPLICATION WILL BE NECESSARY.
ACCORDING TO CITY RECORDS, THERE ARE NO UTILITIES IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
PLEASE NOTE CRITERIA FOR PERMANENT STREET CLOSURE AND CONFORMANCE IN YOUR STAFF REPORT ALONG WITH INFORMATION ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
CITY COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL DECISION REGARDING REQUESTS FOR ABANDONMENT AND COUNCIL WILL HEAR THIS REQUEST AT THE MARCH 23RD MEETING.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THE REQUESTS TO BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
SPECIFIC CONDITION 1, THE APPLICANT SHALL RE-PLOT THE ABANDONED RIGHT-OF-WAY NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 23RD, 2023 WITHIN ITEMS TWO THROUGH FOUR ARE STANDARD.
WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS. THIS IS A MAP SHOWING THE ABANDONMENT AREA, WHICH IS THAT RED RECTANGLE.
THIS IS THE SURVEY OF THE ABANDONMENT AREA.
YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S FENCED AND BEING USED FOR PARKING.
THAT'S THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST AND THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER WALLA?
>> THERE'S A LOT GOING ON OVER THIS AREA.
DO WE CONTACT THE PORT? DID WE CONTACT ANYBODY FROM THE PORT ON THIS?
>> THE APPLICANT COULD PROBABLY ADDRESS THAT, BUT THE PORT IS AWARE OF THIS REQUEST.
>> SO IF IT'S DEEMED, SORRY, THE ABANDONMENT WILL MAKE IT FOR PUBLIC USE?
>> IT IS CURRENTLY PUBLIC, AND THE ABANDONMENT WILL TURN IT INTO PRIVATE USE, AND THEN IT'LL BE INCORPORATED WITH THE ADJACENT PIECE OF PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE 1228 HARBORSIDE.
IT WOULD BECOME INCORPORATED WITH THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY HERE.
>>YEAH, THEY'LL HAVE TO BUY IT.
>> RIGHT, IT HAS TO BE PURCHASED.
IF IT'S APPROVED BY COUNCIL, THEN WE GET AN APPRAISER.
THEY DO AN APPRAISAL AND IT SETS WHAT THE MARKET VALUE IS AND THEN THE APPLICANT HAS TO PAY THAT.
>> IS THE SAME PERSON ASKING FOR THE ABANDONMENT WHO'S USING IT CURRENTLY?
>> I COULDN'T SAY WHO'S USING IT CURRENTLY, BUT THE PERSON WHO IS REQUESTING THE ABANDONMENT IS THIS ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER HERE.
>> OKAY. I GUESS WHAT I WAS ASKING IS, ARE THEY THE ONES WHO HAVE IT FENCED-OFF?
>> AGAIN, I COULDN'T SAY WHO ACTUALLY DID THAT.
>> THAT'S PROBABLY A GOOD QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WITH THAT, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT?
>> VERY GOOD. PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE.
>> UPHILL IS HERE WITH ROB JONES.
VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN.
>> YES SIR. MY NAME IS MARK HILL ON THE 2116 HOUSE 2116 CHURCH STREET 31.26 LOOKING POINT.
I WAS SIGNING A PAPER HERE IN JUST A MOMENT.
THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU ASKED COMMISSIONER, IF WE LOOK AT THE AERIAL., WE SEE THE BUILDING THAT WAS TO THE EAST.
THAT BUILDING HAS BEEN RAISED.
WE HAVE GOT A CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT FOR PARKING.
THIS IS TO ENABLE AND ENHANCE PARKING IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA FOR THE BIG CRUISE LINERS THAT ARE GOING TO BE COMING IN.
THE LANDOWNER IS A PRIVATE LANDOWNER.
THE LANDOWNER HAS CONTRACTED WITH THE GOVERNMENT, AND THE LANDOWNER HAS BEEN USING THIS SPOT.
THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOW TAKEN BY OUR AGREEMENT, THE ONE THAT LOOKS LIKE 1228.
WITH REGARD TO THE ABANDONMENT, COMMISSIONERS, ABSOLUTELY, THERE WILL BE A STATE CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE APPRAISER THAT WILL VALUE THE 4,000 PLUS SQUARE FEET.
THAT VALUATION WILL THEN BE PAID FOR.
IT'LL BE BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T GIVE ANYTHING AWAY, THAT VALUATION WILL BE PAID FOR.
WE WILL PAY FOR THAT, AND THEN WE'LL CONTINUE AND THEN PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO PARK, AND AGAIN, UNDER OUR LEASE WITH THE GOVERNMENT, THE GOVERNMENT WILL SET IT UP THE WAY THEY WISH TO HAVE IT.
>> ALRIGHT, I DON'T KNOW IF I RAN OUT OF TIME OR IT JUST GOT LOUD [OVERLAPPING].
I DON'T KNOW WHICH IT IS. NO ONE'S GIVING ANYTHING.
AS FAR AS BEAUTIFICATION GOES, THAT WAS A QUESTION THAT CAME UP BEFORE TODAY, AND WE'LL BE FOLLOWING THE BEAUTIFICATION RIGS BECAUSE WE WILL BE WORKING WITH AND THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT ON THAT AND WE'LL CONFORM TO THOSE GUIDELINES.
[00:10:04]
IF WE WEIGH IT OUT TODAY, PUBLIC COST VERSUS PUBLIC BENEFIT, THIS IS GOING TO BE A BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC IN TWO WAYS.ONE, WE'RE GOING TO PAY FOR THE LAND IS NOT BEING USED AT THIS TIME BY THE PUBLIC AND HAS NOWHERE TO GO CANDIDLY IT'S A END.
THEN SECONDLY IS THE MONEY COMES IN.
WELL, WE KNOW WHAT CRUISES ARE BRINGING TO US AND THERE YOU HAVE IT, PLUS YOU GET TO ALL THE TAXES THAT GO WITH IT.
IT'S NOT COMING TO THE GAP TO TAKE IT OFF THE PRIVATE PROPERTY.
IT WILL BE PRIVATE PROPERTY, BUT THEY WILL BE UNDER THE CONTRACT.
I'M READY FOR ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.
>> MR. HILL ARE YOU LIBERTY TO TELL US WHO THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACT IS WITH?
>> THEN MY OTHER QUESTION WOULD BE, IT LOOKS LIKE I ACTUALLY GET ALL OF THAT THERE IS, THE SAME SIZE PIECE ADJACENT TO IT.
I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS WHY YOU ONLY TAKING HALF OF WHAT'S THERE, IS THAT ALL THAT YOU NEEDED?
>> THE REASON IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TOWARDS THE 1228, WE'VE ENTERED INTO OUR CONTRACT AND THAT BUILDING HAS BEEN RAISED TO THE WEST IS OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
>> UNDER THE TEXAS LAW, WHEN ANYTHING IS ABANDONED, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ADJACENT OWNERS OWN IT TO THE MIDDLE OF THE ABANDONMENT, AND COUNSEL CAN ELABORATE ON THAT, BUT THEY OWN IT TO THE MIDDLE ABANDONMENT.
SINCE THE GOVERNMENT HAS IT TO THE WEST OF US, THEN THAT'S WHERE WE WILL MEET IN THE MIDDLE.
>> I UNDERSTAND. IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY, THE HORSE WARMS BOARD OWNS HALF OF IT, YOUR GUYS HAVE SOME ENTITLEMENT TO THE OTHER HALF.
>> BUT YOU GUYS HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE HORSE BOARD THAT YOU ARE ALL GOING TO WORK TOGETHER TO DO SOME PARKING?
>> WE HAVE A CONTRACT AND LEASE. YES, SIR.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. I DON'T THINK YOU ANSWERED.
IS YOUR APPLICANT THE ONE WHO HAS THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY GATED OR FENCED IN.
>> MR. EDWARD THAT IS CORRECT.
WE'VE BEEN USING IT IN CONJUNCTION WITH 1228.
IT'S NOT BEEN USED AS THE STAFF SAID, IT'S NOT BEEN USED ACCORDING TO WHAT WE CAN FIND OUT TOO, SINCE AT LEAST 07, IT'S BEEN BLOCKED AND CLOSED.
>> DO YOU OR DO NOT, YOU'RE APPLICANT IS THE ONE WHO HAS A FENCING OR IS NOT?
>> OKAY, ARE THEY CURRENTLY MAKE AN INCOME OFF THAT PROPERTY?
>> THEY'RE USING IT FOR PARKING, BUT THEY'RE NOT LEASING IT OUT FOR PARKING.
>> IF YOU'RE ASKING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION BETTER THOUGH, WE DO HAVE A LEASE AS FAR AS IT GOES TO 1228 AND OUR AGREEMENT WITH WARS BOARD IS THAT IN FACT IT'S IN OUR LEASE BETWEEN US AND THE WARS BOARD THAT WE WOULD WORK TOGETHER TO GET THAT ABANDONED.
THAT'S NOT MY REAL QUESTION, MY QUESTION IS, ARE YOU CURRENTLY MAKING INCOME ON THE PROPERTY THAT YOU'RE ASKING US TO ABANDON?
>> IT WOULD ONLY BE INDIRECTLY IN AS MUCH AS IF I NEED A PLACE TO PARK MY CAR, I CAN PARK IT THERE WITHOUT PAYING ANYBODY.
>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
>> THAT WOULD BE IT. COMMISSIONERS.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU, MR. HILL.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND I'LL SIGN HERE.
>> CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS ON THIS CASE, IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE ON THIS SIDE? AND ON THE OTHER SIDE? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AT AT 346 AND COME BACK TO VOTE AND CITY COUNCIL HAS FINAL DECISION.
WE'LL COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR ABOUT, CAN I GET A MOTION?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE, CASE 23P_014 AS WRITTEN.
>> SECONDED BY EDWARDS. ANY DISCUSSION? RIGHT. HEARING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
>> ABSOLUTELY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> GO COOK DINNER [LAUGHTER]. GO COOK DINNER [LAUGHTER].
[7.B.1. 23P-004 (12031 Sand Dollar Beach Drive) Request For Beachfront Construction Certificate And Dune Protection Permit To Include Proposed Construction Of A Single- Family Dwelling With Fibercrete Driveway And Fibercrete Footer. Property Is Legally Described As Sand Dollar Beach (2017) Abstract 121, Lot 3, Acres 0.132 Applicant: Doyle Alfrey Property Owner: Randy McGuffey]
>> YOU READY FOR THE NEXT CASE?
>> I'M READY FOR THE NEXT CASE.
[00:15:01]
AND WILL BE PRESENTED BY KYLE.>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME [NOISE] THIS IS A REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, THE CONSTRUCTION OF FIBERCRETE DRIVEWAY AND FOOTERS.
THE ADDRESS IS 12031 SAND DOLLAR BEACH DRIVE.
THE PROPERTY IS LITERALLY DESCRIBED AS SAND DOLLAR BEACH 2017, ABSTRACT 121, LOT 3, ACRES 0.132.
IT'S A BIT OF SUBDIVISION OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.
THIS PROPERTY CONSTRUCTED BEACH AND DUNE SYSTEM IS BEING CONSTRUCTED IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THEIR SUBJECT PROPERTY.
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THAT AREA IS ERODING AT 6-7 FEET PER YEAR.
STAFF HAS PREPARED SOME PHOTOS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR VIEWING.
THE FIRST PHOTO IS THE FARM AND BEG MAPS SHOWING THE PROPER LOCATION.
THE NEXT ONE IS THE TWO SURVEYS.
I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE SURVEYS HERE.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S A DESIGNATED 15 FOOT DECK ZONE.
THE DECK ZONE IS WHAT'S PLOTTED WHEN THE SUBDIVISION WAS PUT IN CONTACT TO THE SURVEY AROUND THAT, SO THAT'S WHAT THAT INCLUDED.
YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE 25 FOOT OFFSET.
THERE'S NO PLANS TO BUILD WITHIN 25 FOOT OFFSET OR THAT DECK ZONE, IT WAS LISTED BECAUSE IT WAS ONLY PLATED SUBDIVISION IS WHY THE SURVEY INCLUDED THAT.
THE NEXT SLIDE. THESE NEXT SIX SLIDES ARE JUST SOME OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STRUCTURE.
THE NEXT PHOTOS ARE PHOTOS OF LOT AND SURROUNDING AREAS.
THE FIRST ONE IS LOOKING FROM THE NORTH, LOOKING SOUTH TOWARD THE CONSTRUCTED DUNE AND HOUSES TO THE WEST.
THE BOTTOM PHOTO IS FROM THE PROPERTY LINE LOOKING NORTH.
THIS IS FROM THE EAST PROPERTY LOOKING WEST.
THEN THE BOTTOM ONE IS FROM THE WEST PROPERTY LINE LOOKING EAST.
THESE ARE PHOTOS OF THE CONSTRUCTED DUNE.
THIS CONCLUDES THE STAFF REPORT AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU, KYLE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> NOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE QUESTIONS, I'M BACK UP HERE.
KYLE, IT LOOKS TO ME JUST FROM EYEBALLING THINGS THAT THE LITTLE WALKWAY Y COMES REAL CLOSE TO THE 25 FOOT OFFSET OR RIGHT THERE IN THE 25 FOOT OFFSET, CORRECT?
>> YES. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WALKWAY WAS INCLUDED IN THIS ONE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS [OVERLAPPING]
>> BUT IT'S THERE. THEN LOOKING AT THE PHOTOS IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS MOWING ON THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY ON THAT SEAWARD OF THAT WALKWAY.
THE GLO VERY DEFINITELY IN THIS APPLICATION SAYS IN THEIR COMMENT LETTER, COMMENT NUMBER 1, PAVING OR ALTERING THE GROUND BETWEEN A LINE OF VEGETATION 25 FEET LANDWARD OF THE NORTH TO THE DUNE IS NOT PROPOSED AND IS PROHIBITED.
IN OTHER WORDS, THERE'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ANY MOWING SEAWARD OF THAT Y.
YET WE SEE THAT THE NEIGHBOR IS MOST DEFINITELY MOWING SEAWARD OF THAT Y.
HAVE WE DONE ANYTHING TO ENSURE THAT THIS APPLICANT IS NOT GOING TO MOW SEAWARD OF THAT Y.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO, THIS AS ANCILLARY TO THIS APPLICATION AND I PROBABLY SHOULDN'T MENTION IT, BUT ANYWAY, WHEN WE'RE OUT THERE, WE MIGHT WANT TO SEE IF ANYONE ELSE IS VIOLATING THAT. BUT ANYWAY.
>> YEAH, WE WILL BE INSPECTING THIS, NOT JUST FOR THIS PROJECT, BUT ALSO FOR THEIR CONSTRUCTED GREEN PERMIT THAT THEY'VE GOT, THE 22BF-070 BECAUSE THEY STILL HAVE SOME COMPLIANCE TO ENSURE THAT THE VEGETATION IS COMING BACK AFTER THE FREEZE AND ITS MEETING THAT.
[00:20:02]
WE'RE GOING TO START LOOKING INTO DOING SOME WORK COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS ON THESE TYPE OF ACTIVITIES TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE AREN'T MOWING AND THINGS LIKE THAT, JUST WITH THE STAFF RIGHT NOW AND GETTING UP TO SPEED.BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WILL BE DOING IN THE FUTURE, IS MAKING SURE THAT THEY ARE COMPLIANT WITH WHATEVER WE ISSUE.
MOVING OUT FROM NOW ON, WE WILL BE SUBMITTING PLANS, THE AUTHORIZED PLANS WITH OUR ACTION LETTERS, WHICH IS NOT BEEN HAPPENING.
SO PEOPLE KNOW, LIKE I SAID, ON THIS PROJECT OR THE WALK OVER PROJECT, THE LAST ONE THAT WE LOOKED AT WENT FROM 17 FEET TO 10 FEET.
WE'RE GOING BACK-AND-FORTH WITH THE CORE WITH THE JELLO WITH THE APPLICANTS, WE'RE JUST GOING TO BE SENDING THE AUTHORIZED PLANS WITH OUR ACTION LETTERS SO THEY KNOW WHAT'S OUT THERE.
WE'RE OUT THERE. ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE CITIES OUT THERE, IF THEY SEE ANYTHING, THEN THEY CAN REPORT IT TO US AND WE CAN SAY, HERE'S WHAT WAS AUTHORIZED FOR YOU TO CONSTRUCT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? KYLE, I'VE GOT ONE FOR YOU.
IN THE GLO LETTER, IT STATES THAT THE CURRENTLY AS DEFINED, SINCE THE DUNE IS NOT COMPLETE, THAT THIS IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY OF GALVESTON EROSION RESPONSE PLAN BECAUSE THE RESTORED DUNE, THE CITY MUST DETERMINE IF THE RESTORED DUNE MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING CONSTRUCTION SETBACKS AND THE LOCATION OF THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE.
HOW ARE YOU GOING ABOUT ESTABLISHING THE SETBACKS? SINCE IN THE STAFF REPORT IT SAID THAT DIDN'T CONSTRUCTION NOT COMPLETE, SO YOU HAVEN'T ESTABLISHED WHERE THE SETBACKS ARE.
>> YES, SIR. WE'RE SAYING THAT IT'S NOT ANCHORED FIRST, BECAUSE OF THE FREEZE AND THE VEGETATION DIE BACK.
LIKE I SAID, WE'RE GOING TO BE INSPECTING THAT 22BF-070, AND IF IT'S NOT, THEN THEY WILL BE KILLED IN THE DUNE THAT WAS AUTHORIZED UNDER THAT PLAN.
>> I GUESS MY QUESTION AND MAYBE IT'S TO STAFF FOR THE LEGAL, IS THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE A PLAN THAT WE CAN'T GO AND ACTUALLY SET WHAT THE SETBACKS ARE BECAUSE THE DUNE IS NOT COMPLETE.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK THE ISSUE REALLY HERE IS THE FACT THAT THE DUNE ISN'T APPROVED FOR FINAL APPROVAL BECAUSE THE PLANTING HASN'T TAKEN IT.
THEY GAVE A THREE-YEAR TIME-FRAME FOR THAT PLANNING TO TAKE.
THE DUNE ITSELF IS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN, IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE.
I THINK WE CAN SET THE SETBACK LINE BASED ON THAT.
THE ONLY CONDITION FOR THE DUNE APPROVAL AS SUCH IS THE PLANTING.
THEY HAVE TO VERIFY THAT AT THREE YEARS IS STILL ADEQUATE.
BUT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE DISCONNECT THAT I SEE BETWEEN YOUR STAFF REPORT AND WHAT THE GLO IS STATING.
>> JUST ONE QUESTION. THE CONTOURS FOR DRAINAGE AWAY FROM THE DUNE LINES, I DON'T SEE THAT IN THE PLANS.
WE USED TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE CONTOURING OF THE PROPOSAL TO ASSURE THAT IT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH DRAINING AWAY FROM THEIR DUNE LINE.
>> THE SURVEY IS SHOWING THE LOWER ELEVATION TOWARD THE FRONT OF THE LIGHT.
THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT I SAID THIS WAS.
>> SO WE DON'T HAVE A CONTOURING AS FAR AS LATERALLY ANY DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN ONE SIDE AND THE NEXT OR IF THERE'S A LOW SPOT OR A HIGH SPOT?
>> NOT THAT I KNOW. THIS WAS PREPARED BEFORE I CAME ON BOARD.
>> COMMISSIONER, THIS DOESN'T HAVE A PAGE NUMBER, BUT IT'S THE FIRST SURVEY THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET.
THAT DOES SHOW ELEVATIONS AS SUCH.
EVEN THOUGH THE GRADING CONTOURS ARE NOT DRAWN ON IT, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S 9.8 IN THE BACK OF THE LOT, IT GETS DOWN TO 9.6, 9.5, 9.2, 9.1.
BY THE TIME IT GETS UP TO THE RIGHT AWAY AT 8.9.
>> VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
[00:25:02]
HEARING NONE, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 23P-004. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT?>> WOULD YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD?
>> IS IT OKAY IF WE BOTH COME UP.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. DARRELL APFFEL WITH ALL COAST CONSTRUCTION, IT'S THE REINE MCGAFFY.
WE WERE ACTUALLY OUT AT THE JOB SITE TODAY AND INSPECTING BEFORE WE CAME OVER HERE, AS I WAS TALKING TO KYLE THE OTHER DAY.
WE DID EXTENSIVE PLANTING ON THE DUNE AND EVERYTHING AND WE DO HAVE PICTURES SHOWING THAT EVEN THOUGH WE HAD THE FREEZE, WE DO HAVE NEW GROWTH COMING BACK INSIDE THE PLANTS THAT WERE PLANTED, SO THERE'S OBVIOUSLY REESTABLISHMENT OF IT.
LIKE LEGAL SAID, THREE YEARS, HARD TO SAY THAT.
I DID NOT SEE IN THE PACKET THAT WAS SUBMITTED, THE ACTUAL PLOT PLAN, THE PROPOSED WHERE THE HOUSE WAS, AND MAYBE IT JUST DIDN'T SHOW UP ON THE SLIDES, BUT WE DO HAVE THE PLACEMENT OF THE DRIVEWAY, THE HOUSE ITSELF, AS WELL AS CONTOUR LINES TO SHOW THE FUTURE OF DRAINAGE AS WE DO ON EVERY HOME.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? HEARING NONE, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH IF YOU ALL WOULD MAKE SURE TO SIGN IN.
[BACKGROUND]. YEAH, RIGHT HERE.
>> ZERO ZERO FOUR. I SHOULD KNOW THAT [BACKGROUND] [LAUGHTER].
>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? ON THE SIDE OF THE ROOM AND ON THIS SIDE.
HEARING NONE WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AT 03:59, COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION.
CAN I GET A MOTION IN THIS CASE, PLEASE?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 23P-014 AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.
>> I'LL SECOND IT. EVEN THOUGH I GAVE MY QUESTIONS, BUT THEY WERE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED. THANK YOU.
>> 23P-004. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING PRESENT.
>> OH, ABSOLUTELY. CATHERINE, NEXT CASE.
[7.B.2. 23P-010 (33 Grand Beach Blvd) Request For Beachfront Construction Certificate And Dune Protection Permit To Include Proposed Construction Of A Single-Family Beachfront Dwelling With Fibercrete Driveway And Fibercrete Footer. Property Is Legally Described As ABST 628 M B MENARD SUR LOT 5A BLK 2 RPLT PRESERVE AT GRAND BEACH Applicant: Jimmy Wisner Property Owner: Goran And Orpha Haag]
>> 23P-010 WILL BE PRESENTED BY KYLE.
>> THIS IS A REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTS WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF FIBER CONCRETE DRIVEWAY AND FOOTER.
THE ADDRESS IS 33 GRAND BEACH BOULEVARD.
THE PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS ABSTRACT 628MB MINARD.
SURVEY LOT 5,8 BLOCK 2 RESERVE AT GRAM BEACH, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.
A BEACH AND DUNE SYSTEM IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY.
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THE AREA IS ACCRETING AVERAGE OF 2-3 FEET PER YEAR AND THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION BEFORE, AS INITIALLY DENIED, AND THEY CAME BACK IN, MADE SOME CHANGES AND MINIMIZE THEIR IMPACTS AND IN THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA.
STAFF HAS PREPARED SOME PHOTOGRAPHS FOR THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE.
FIRST ONE HERE IS JUST THE BG AND FRONT MAP SHOWING THE LOT.
NEXT TO THE TWO SURVEYS, SHOWING THE SURVEY AND THE LAYOUT OF THE STRUCTURE.
THEN THE NEXT SLIDES ARE JUST PHOTOS OF THE STRUCTURE.
THEN THE PHOTOGRAPHS HERE ARE OF THE LOT AND EXISTING SURROUNDING PROPERTY.
[00:30:01]
THE FIRST ONE IS IN THE PROPERTY LAND LOOKING SOUTH.NEXT ONE IS LOOKING EAST, LOOKING WEST, AND THEN FROM THE DUNE LOOKING NORTH.
THAT'S FROM THE BEACH SIDE SHOWING THE DUNES AND THE PROPERTY.
THIS CONCLUDES THE STAFF'S REPORT AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> COMMISSIONERS ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? YES. GO AHEAD, PLEASE.
>> I'M VERY HAPPY TO SEE THAT THIS APPLICANT WAS ABLE TO GET IN COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT WE REQUIRED. THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WITH THAT WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? THEY BROUGHT IT UNDER COMPLIANCE.
I WAS GOING TO THANK THEM VERY MUCH FOR GOING THROUGH THE STEPS AGAIN WITH US.
IS ANYBODY ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE CASE? AND ON THIS SIDE? HEARING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 04:03 AND COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION.
CAN I GET A MOTION ON CASE 22P-010?
>> I MOVE, WE APPROVE 23P-010 AS WRITTEN.
>> DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, I WE'LL CALL FOR A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, APPLICANT FOR COMING INTO COMPLIANCE AND KYLE, FOR THE PRESENTATION.
[7.C.1. 23P-008 (Adjacent To 2102 Mechanic / Avenue C) Request For A License To Use In Order To Retain Construction Fencing. Adjacent Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, Lot 8 And East 28-6 Feet Of Lot 9, Block 621, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Melissa Quijano, Goldman Investments – The Cotton Exchange, LLC. Adjacent Property Owner: Goldman Investments – The Cotton Exchange, LLC. Easement Holder: City Of Galveston]
WILL BE PRESENTED BY DANIEL.>> 23P-008, THIS IS ADJACENT TO 2102 MECHANIC.
THIS IS A LICENSE TO USE REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION FENCING.
THERE WERE 22 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, SIX RETURN, ALL SIX OF THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST.
NO C DEPARTMENTS PRESENTED ANY CONCERNS.
THE APPLICANTS REQUESTING A LICENSE TO USE A C RIGHT AWAY TO RETAIN CONSTRUCTION FENCING ASSOCIATED WITH ONGOING RENOVATIONS OF THE ADJACENT BUILDING, THE COTTON EXCHANGE BUILDING.
TEMPORARY LICENSE TO USE A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY FOR CONSTRUCTION FENCING ASSOCIATED WITH THE RENOVATIONS HAS EXPIRED, BECAUSE NEW ADDITIONAL EXTENSIONS CAN BE ISSUED.
STAFF-LEVEL PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW IS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT.
[NOISE] THE CONSTRUCTION FENCING IN THE RIGHT OF WAY IS INSTALLED ALONG THE 21ST STREET, ROUGHLY PARALLEL PROPERTIES.
EAST PROPERTY LINE ALONG MECHANICS STREET ROUGHLY PARALLEL TO THE PROPERTY SOUTH PROPERTY LINE.
OTHER FENCING ENCROACH IS APPROXIMATELY 22 FEET AND THE RIGHT OF WAY BLOCKING BOTH THE ENTIRETY OF THE SIDEWALK, WHICH OF COURSE IS QUITE WIDE THAT PART AND THE PARALLEL PARKING ADJACENT ON THAT SIDE OF THE STREET.
PLACEMENT IS BASED ON THE SCOPE OF WORK TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT.
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THE CONSTRUCTION FENCING AND SCAFFOLDING REMAIN TO THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, WHICH THEY ANTICIPATE TO BE JUNE 14TH, 2023.
NOTE THAT BECAUSE THIS IS A GALVESTON LANDMARK, OUR LANDMARK COMMISSION MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AT THEIR MARCH 6 MEETING.
STAFF LIKEWISE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE CASE WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE THROUGH FOUR AND STANDARD CONDITIONS FIVE THROUGH 10 IN THE STAFF REPORT AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS.
HERE'S THE BUILDING ITSELF NOW LOOKING NORTH, SHOWING SOME OF THE EXTENTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION FENCING. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
HERE WE HAVE THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AND THAT HEAVY LINE SHOWS THE EXTENTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION FENCING AND THE LICENSE TO USE REQUEST ON THE EAST AND SOUTH FACADES OF THE BUILDING.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE A PHOTO OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING NORTH OF 21ST STREET AND THEN LOOKING EAST ALONG MECHANIC.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST, TO THE WEST, TO THE SOUTH AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> I DO. I HAVE A QUESTION. DANIEL ON HERE IT SAYS PAID PARKING.
[LAUGHTER] IN NORMAL INSTANCES WHEN THIS GOES UP BEFORE AND EXTENSION IS REQUIRED, DOES THE APPLICANT STILL HAVE TO PAY THAT PARKING OR IS IT ONLY AFTER THIS GOES THROUGH THIS PROCESS? UNDER A TEMPORARY LICENSE TO USE, IS THE PARKING SPOT HAVE TO BE PAID FOR?
ANYTIME ON AN LTU REQUIRES THE BLOCKING OFF OR USAGE OF PAID PARKING SPOTS.
[00:35:04]
WHETHER IT'D BE A TEMPORARY LTU THROUGH OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OR THIS MORE LONG TERM SOLUTION, THEY ARE BUILD QUARTERLY FOR THE COST OF THE PARKING SPACES THAT ARE TAKEN UP.MY UNDERSTANDING IS IF THEY COMPLETE THE PROJECT SOONER THAN THAT, THEN THEY WILL SAVE THEMSELVES SOME MONEY, BUT THAT IS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AS WELL.
IT GIVES YOU AN EXACT AMOUNT PER WEEK.
>> OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER HILL.
>> WHEN DID THEY START THIS PROJECT, DANIEL?
I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE, BUT I CANNOT SAY IT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR AWHILE.
>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE ORIGINAL COMPLETION DATE WAS? WHAT'S THE DURATION THAT YOU ALL ADMINISTRATIVELY HANDLED THIS?
>> I BELIEVE IT'S UP TO 120 DAYS AS THE STAFF CUTOFF, 60 DAYS AND I CAN EXTEND FOR 60 DAYS IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
BUT YEAH, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TYPICALLY HANDLES THAT PORTION.
>> THEN IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD PROHIBIT US IN SPECIFIC CONDITIONS TOO FROM PUTTING A SET TERMINATION DATE.
INSTEAD OF SAYING LEAVING IT OPEN ENDED AND SAYING THE LICENSE TO USE SHALL BE VALID ONLY UNTIL COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, WHICH IS ESTIMATED TO BE JUNE 14TH.
RATHER THAN JUST LEAVING IT OPEN ENDED LIKE THAT, COULD WE PUT A SET TERMINATION DATE AND THEN HAVE IT COME BACK TO US AGAIN FOR REVIEW AGAIN? I'M LOOKING AT THAT AND I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN THOSE PICTURES WERE TAKEN.
DOES THAT LOOK LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE FINISHED IN JUNE?
>> I MAY DEFER THAT QUESTION TO ONE OF THE SENIOR STAFF, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT'S POSSIBLE.
BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE PHOTOS THEY, WERE TAKEN WITHIN THE LAST TWO WEEKS. THOSE ARE FRESH PHOTOS.
>> COULD WE PUT AN ABSOLUTE TERMINATION DATE, CATHERINE?
>> YES. THE COMMISSION COULD DO THAT.
>> WHAT TIME FRAME DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE TO GO THROUGH FOR THEIR APPLICATION PROCESS TO COME IN HERE?
>> THEY WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY APPLIED IN TIME TO HAVE A DECISION BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE.
IT'S GENERALLY 30 DAYS FROM THE APPLICATION DATE TILL A MEETING DATE, SO THEY'D HAVE TO TIME THAT CORRECTLY.
>> ANY EXTENSION TO THIS WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION AND NOT BE ADMINISTRATIVE?
>> NO, IT'S NOT ADMINISTRATIVE. IT WOULD COME BACK TO PLANNING.
>> YES. MY QUESTION IS SIMILAR TO COMMISSIONER HILL.
IS THAT, HOW SURE ARE WE ACTUALLY THAT THIS CONTRACTOR OR APPLICANT CAN FINISH THE WORK BY JUNE 14TH? OR SHOULD WE OFFER UP AN ADDITIONAL TIME PERIOD WITH A NOT TO EXCEED?
WE ASKED THE APPLICANT FOR AN EXPECTED COMPLETION DATE.
THE DATE BETWEEN JUNE 14TH HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
>> I'M LOOKING AT HIS HANDWRITTEN NOTES, AND IT SAYS THAT HE WANTS THE REQUEST TO CONTINUE FOR ONE YEAR.
>> YEAH. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WELL, HE WROTE ON ONE OF THESE NOTES DOWN AT THE BOTTOM.
>> HE SAYS HE'S GOING TO LOSE THIS CONTRACT.
>> YEAH. I WASN'T SURE WHEN IF WHEN EXACTLY THAT WAS WRITTEN.
I THINK THAT WE'VE DEFINITELY GOT A QUESTION TO ASK THE APPLICANT WHEN HE COMES UP.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? LET'S GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? THERE WE GO. THE APPLICANT IS NOT PRESENT, SO WE'LL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE ON THE SIDE OF THE ROOM LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE CASE, AND ON THIS SIDE? HEARING NONE. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC [OVERLAPPING].
>> I THINK YOU'RE READING MY NOTES FOR THE NEXT, I WAS SUGGESTED.
>> CAN YOU GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR NAME.
>> I'M SORRY. YOU'RE EXACTLY CORRECT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE THAT.
>> APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION.
>> CAN SOMEBODY STAY UP HERE FOR THE NEXT ONE?
>> WE NEED TO COME BACK AND MAKE A MOTION.
[00:40:03]
THANK YOU FOR THE CORRECTION. YEAH.>> I ALSO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THIS PROJECT IS JUST FOR THE DUMPSTERS IN THE FENCE.
>> NOT FOR THE COMPLETION OF THAT BUILDING.
[OVERLAPPING] I KNOW YOU GUYS KNOW THAT AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
THERE IS A SEPARATE ACTUALLY STATE LAW THAT TALKS ABOUT HOW WE CAN RESTRICT TIMING OF PERMITS AND THEY'RE STILL WITHIN THEIR TWO YEAR WINDOW.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, WE DO WANT TO ADD THE THE CORRECTION.
SHOULD WE DO MAKE A MOTION WITH AN AMENDMENT?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
>> COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR A MOTION.
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CASE 23P-008 WITH A CHANGE TO SPECIFIC CONDITION TO READ, THE LICENSED TO USE SHALL BE VALID UNTIL JUNE 14TH, 2023.
>> WE'VE GOT A MOTION, CAN WE GET A SECOND ON THAT?
>> SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THAT PARTICULAR MOTION TO AMEND, RIGHT?
>> NO, THAT'S THE WHOLE MOTION.
>> THAT'S THE WHOLE MOTION. THERE WE GO.
>> YEAH. ALL THOSE IN DISCUSSION? YEAH.
>> I GOT A QUESTION. YOU'RE TRYING TO LIMIT HIM TO JUNE THE 14TH.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT HE'S ASKED FOR.
CORRECT? BUT REALLY, CAN WE MAKE IT LONGER? BUT IF IT ENDS ON JUNE THE 14TH, AWESOME FOR HIM, SO THAT WE DON'T END UP SEEING THIS AGAIN FOR A YEAR OR HOWEVER LONG WE CAN EXTEND IT.
>> BUT DO WE REALLY WANT TO EXTEND IT FOR THAT, ADDITIONALLY THE TIME? BECAUSE WE ARE SAYING THAT WE'RE TAKING UP A PARKING SPOT, I THINK IS IMPORTANT ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE COMING INTO SUMMER SEASON.
THAT PARKING IS GOING TO BE VALUABLE TO TOURISTS.
SECONDLY, IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET, [LAUGHTER] SO WE WANT THEM TO BE DONE WITH IT.
DANIEL IS THAT CORRECT? WE'RE SENDING HIM A BILL EVERY QUARTER FOR USING THE PARKING SPACES.
>> IT'S NOT JUST THE PARKING, IT'S ALSO IT BLOCKS THE SIDEWALK.
IT'S AN INCONVENIENCE IN DOWNTOWN.
IT BLOCKS THE SIDEWALK AND HE'S ALREADY GONE OVER WHAT HE THOUGHT AND THIS GIVES HIM AN ADDITIONAL, WE'RE IN MARCH THAT GIVES HIM AN EXTRA THREE MONTHS AND THIS IS INTO WHEN HE SAID HE THOUGHT HE NEEDED IT.
>> BUT IF HE COMES BACK AND ASK US AGAIN, WE'RE OBLIGATED TO GRANT THAT REQUEST?
>> I DON'T THINK YOU ARE NECESSARILY OBLIGATED TO.
>> I'M GOOD WITH THAT THEN. THANK YOU.
>> STEPH, WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT LEAD TIMES NEEDED FOR HIM TO REAPPLY IF HE DECIDES TO REAPPLY?
>> WITH THE DEADLINE OF JUNE 14TH, HE'D NEED TO APPLY TO BE HEARD THE FIRST MEETING IN JUNE, SO THAT DEADLINE WOULD BE THE BEGINNING OF MAY.
I'D RATHER GIVE HIM A LITTLE BIT MORE LEEWAY PAST JUNE AT LEAST, A MONTH OR SO PAST JUNE.
THEY'RE GOING TO TRY TO FINISH IT, THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT, BUT CONSTRUCTION PEOPLE KNOW HOW SUPPLIES AND MATERIAL CAN SOMETIMES FALL TO THE WAYSIDE AND OBVIOUSLY THAT HAS OCCURRED TO THIS PROJECT.
>> THAT'S AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION, PROPOSING AMENDMENT.
>> I PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIFIC CONDITION NUMBER 2 THAT IT'D BE CHANGED TO IT'S VALID ONLY UNTIL AUGUST 14, '23.
>> I SECOND THE AMENDMENT OR THE MOTION TO AMENDMENT.
>> WE'VE GOT THE ONE MOTION AND THEN WE'VE GOT THE AMENDMENT.
WE'LL NEED TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT AND THEN ON THE MAIN ONE.
THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IT TO AUGUST 14TH, IS THAT CORRECT? ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THAT AMENDMENT.
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY AND THEN COMING BACK.
>> COULD ALL THE MEMBERS IN OPPOSITION.
>> MEMBERS IN OPPOSITION, COMMISSIONER HILL.
>> I'M SORRY, MR. EDWARDS DID YOU VOTED IN FAVOR. [OVERLAPPING]
>> MOTION TO THAT AMENDMENT MOTION PASSES AND WE'LL COME BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION MADE BY
[00:45:03]
COMMISSIONER HILL FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS AND THEN OF COURSE, THE AMENDMENT.ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ON THAT? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU.
>> AN AMENDMENT WITHIN A MOTION AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.
>> I NEED TO DO PROCESS FLOWCHART ON ALL THIS, [LAUGHTER] CATHERINE?
>> NEXT CASE IS 23P-009 ALSO PRESENTED BY DANIEL.
[7.C.2. 23P-009 (Adjacent To 414 Kempner / 22nd Street) Request For A License To Use In Order To Retain Construction Fencing And Scaffolding. Adjacent Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, Part Of Lots 13, 14 And South 1-6 Feet Of Adjacent Alley (13-3), Block 501, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: John Preston Adjacent Property Owner: Sullivan And Preston Holdings, LLC. Easement Holder: City Of Galveston]
>> THIS IS GOING TO BE A VERY SIMILAR REQUEST, JASON TO 414 KEMPNER.
ANOTHER LICENSE TO USE FOR CONSTRUCTION, FENCING, AND SCAFFOLDING.
THERE WERE 93 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, FIVE RETURN, ALL FIVE OF THOSE ARE IN FAVOR.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A LICENSE.
DO YOU SEE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO ATTAIN CONSTRUCTION, FENCING, AND SCAFFOLDING IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ASSOCIATE WITH ONGOING RENOVATIONS.
TEMPORARY LICENSE TO USE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY HAS EXPIRED BECAUSE NO ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS CAN BE ISSUED AT THE STAFF LEVEL PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW IS REQUIRED TO ADMIT, TO GO FORWARD AS THE PREVIOUS CASE.
THE CONSTRUCTION, FENCING, AND SCAFFOLDING AND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS INSTALLED ALONG 20 SECONDS STREET, ROUGHLY PARALLEL TO THE PROPERTIES WEST PROPERTY LINE, APPROXIMATELY 20 FEET INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, I COULD PAY ON THE SIDEWALK AND ADJACENT PARALLEL STREET PARKING.
AGAIN, VERY SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS REQUEST.
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT THE CONSTRUCTION, FENCING, AND SCAFFOLDING REMAIN LONG ENOUGH FOR THE PROJECT TO BE COMPLETED, ESTIMATES THIS MAY TAKE UP TO MARCH 7, 2024.
ONCE AGAIN, PARKING WOULD BE PAID FOR AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED.
STAFF RECOMMENDS CASE 23P-009 REQUEST FOR A LICENSE TO USE A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.
I WENT THROUGH FOUR AND CENTER CONDITIONS, 5-10.
I DO BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT OR THIS ONE IS IN THE ROOM, BUT WE DO HAVE SOME PHOTOS AS WELL.
HERE WE HAVE THE PROPERTY, AND IT'S NOT A VERY LARGE PROPERTY AND ONCE AGAIN, THE BILLING TAKES UP THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY.
HERE YOU CAN SEE THE AREA OF THE SIDEWALK THAT WOULD BE OCCUPIED AND APPROXIMATELY A COUPLE OF PARKING SPACES AS WELL. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
HERE WE HAVE A PHOTO OF THE PROPERTY AS IT SITS NOW YOU CAN SEE IT AS AN ONGOING CONSTRUCTION.
THEN LOOKING NORTH UP 22ND STREET, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
HERE WE HAVE THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, TO THE EAST, TO THE WEST AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER OPINION.
>> AGAIN, YOU'LL KNOW HOW LONG THIS HAS BEEN UP DANIEL, DO YOU?
>> NO, BUT I'M SURE THAT THE APPLICANT CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
>> YOU ARE. I'LL DO IT DURING DISCUSSION BECAUSE I THINK I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR TIM, HE'S NOT IN THE ROOM.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THERE HE IS. TIM, JUST IN TIME I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
WE'VE NOTICED HERE THAT THE OTHER LTU EXPIRED ON THIS CASE AND THAT THEY'RE COMING TO US FOR ANOTHER LTU, THIS TIME FOR AN EXTENSION OF ONE YEAR.
IN THE PREVIOUS CASE YOU JUST MENTIONED THAT THERE'S SOME BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS THAT SAYS, OKAY, YOU HAVEN'T BUILDING PERMIT FOR TWO YEARS.
DOES THIS EXTENSION FALL WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THAT EXISTING BUILDING PERMIT OR IS THERE ANY TYPE OF ERROR OR OVERLAP OR THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET ANOTHER BUILDING PERMIT WHILE THEY HAVE THIS LTU IN PLACE? THAT'S THE QUESTION.
>> GOOD QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS PARTICULAR ONE, IT'S A TWO-YEAR TIMEFRAME SO WE CAN CERTAINLY CHECK AS TO WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY PERMITTED.
>> I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY RISK OR THAT?
>> THE SHORT ANSWER IS THESE PERMITS, IF ONE EXPIRES WHILE THE OTHER ONE IS STILL ACTIVE, THE BOARD FOR THE PERMIT FOR THE BUILDING AND THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE BEFORE THE BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS.
I BELIEVE THAT'S THE REVIEW BOARD THAT WOULD EITHER EXTEND WHATEVER PERMIT REQUESTS REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION, ETC.
>> GOOD. THERE'S NO RISK WITH APPROVING THIS LTU ASSOCIATED TO THE BUILDING PERMIT POSSIBLY EXPIRING.
>> ALWAYS ON RISK. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I JUST LOOKED IT UP AND IT WAS ISSUED ON DECEMBER 28-22 SO THERE'S PLENTY OF TIME.
>> WONDERFUL. THANK YOU, STEPH.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. DO I RECALL US SAYING THAT THE PERMIT HAD TO BE APPROVED 30 DAYS BEFORE THE OTHER ONE EXPIRED.
[00:50:01]
DID I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY? THAT HONESTLY ALSO THAT THIS ONE IS ALREADY EXPIRED.
>> IN THE LAST CASE, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EXTENDING THE PERMANENT LTU APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION.
IN THAT CASE, IT WOULD NEED TO BE ABOUT 30 DAYS BEFORE.
>> IS THIS ONE ALREADY EXPIRED?
>> THIS ONE IT'S TEMPORARIES ARE ALREADY EXPIRED. YES.
>> WERE THEY SUPPOSED TO GET THE PERMIT BEFORE IT EXPIRED?
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS CASE.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? THERE WE GO.
>> I CAN ANSWER ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS IF YOU LIKE.
BUILDING AS A COMPLETE REDO WE'RE TRYING TO RESTORE IT BACK TO RETAIL AND TO LOFT APARTMENTS UPSTAIRS.
SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES SOMETIMES CAUSE DELAYS.
THAT'S WHY I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED WITH YOUR PREVIOUS APPLICANT.
HE DOES LOOK LIKE HE'S GOT QUITE A BIT OF WORK TO DO BETWEEN NOW AND JUNE.
I BELIEVE OURS WILL BE DONE PRETTY MUCH IN THAT TIMELINE.
JUNE, JULY, HOPEFULLY, BUT ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN.
YOU GET HURRICANE SEASON COMING IN JUNE 1ST.
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT. I'M CHANGED.
I'VE BEEN WAITING EIGHT WEEKS TO GET DOORS SO THAT PLACE AND WINDOWS.
I'M HOPING TO BE DONE EARLY SUMMER.
BUT IT WAS SUGGESTED BY THE STAFF THAT I ASKED FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN I CAN LIMIT BACK TO WHAT I NEED, IF I DON'T NEED THE WHOLE YEAR.
THAT'S THE REASON WHY THAT NOTE WAS PUT IN THERE ON WHAT YOU READ.
BUT I REALLY BELIEVE WHAT WE'VE DONE MUCH SHORTER TIME FRAME.
WE'VE BEEN AT IT FOR SIX, EIGHT MONTHS NOW.
>> I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
>> COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD?
WE'RE DOING A RIGHT CHOICE TWICE OR?
>> YOU'RE GOOD TO GO. [LAUGHTER]
>> WERE YOU AWARE THAT THE PERMIT WAS GOING TO EXPIRE? [OVERLAPPING]
I DIDN'T KNOW THAT MY CONTRACTORS HAVE BEEN PRETTY TIMELY AND KEEP ME POSTED, BUT THAT ONE MUST SLIPPED UNDER THE DOOR.
>> ARE YOU GOING TO DO THE ESTIMATE THING AGAIN? [BACKGROUND].
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? HOLD ON A SECOND.
WE'LL COME TO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT HERE IN JUST A SECOND. GREAT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. PRESTON.
ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? YES, SIR, PLEASE COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN-IN.
WERE NOT ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS DIRECTLY.
THIS IS REALLY THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
BUT PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SAY WHAT YOU WANT.
>> MY NAME IS CARLOS CAMPAIGN.
I'VE BEEN OUT OF TOWN FOR A WHILE, SO I'LL JUST FILL THIS.
SINCE I HAVEN'T BEEN IN TOWN AND I DID NOT SEE THE PRESENTATION AND CAST MY VOTE NOW OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE CASTED BEFORE I COME TO THE HEARING?
>> YOU CAN SUBMIT YOUR COMMENT NOW.
>> THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I NEEDED TO KNOW. [LAUGHTER].
>> YOUR COMMENT IS A COMMENT? YES. GREAT. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? WILL ALLOW HIM TO FINISH, BUT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT, PERIOD AND COME BACK FOR A MOTION, COMMISSIONER HILL.
>> MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF 23 P009 WITH ONE SLIGHT CHANGE TO SPECIFIC CONDITION TO THE LTU, SHALL BE VALID ONLY UNTIL COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT.
BUT NO LATER THAN MARCH 7TH, 2024.
>> EXCELLENT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND DISCUSSION.
>> QUICK COMMENT JUST ABOUT THIS AND ABOUT ALSO THE CASE BEFORE.
I'M EXCITED TO SEE THE FINAL PRODUCT OF THIS ABSOLUTELY, BUT IT DOES IMPACT WALKABILITY OF OUR DOWNTOWN.
I KNOW THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE WE WALKED AT 22ND STREET FOR ART WALK AND FOR OTHER EVENTS.
IT'S, I WOULD SAY DANGEROUS, BUT IT'S JUST IT'S TOUGH.
[00:55:02]
ANY EFFORT YOU CAN DO TO [LAUGHTER] [BACKGROUND] PUT IT IN.I UNDERSTAND. BUT YES, THAT'S JUST WANT TO PUT THAT.
>> IT WILL BE NICE WHEN IT'S DONE.
>> WELL, [NOISE] IN SITUATIONS LIKE THESE, WHAT IS THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE?
>> THAT THEY STOPPED CONSTRUCTION? I THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO MAYBE, AS YOU CAN SAY, PUT THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE AND SAY, WE REALLY NEED TO CLEAN UP OUR STREET, BUT I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE REALLY WANT TO SEE.
JUST A [OVERLAPPING] THEY ARE MOVING.
>> WE'RE GOING TO COPY THAT IF THEY ARE NOT MOVING.
>> WORK IN THE STREET. I'M JUST WANT TO SAY JUST WANT TO SAY WE'RE MOVING FORWARD.
>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. IT'S OKAY.
>> I KNOW WE'RE IN A HURRY TO GET THESE PROJECTS FINISHED, TO OPEN IT UP FOR THE PUBLIC.
BUT ON THE FLIP SIDE OF THIS, THIS DOES PROTECT THE CITIZENS WHO ARE WALKING THROUGH A CONSTRUCTION SITE.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ALLOW THE APPLICANTS TO KEEP THE SIDES AS SAFE FOR THE PUBLIC AS WELL, AND NOT FORCE THEM TO REMOVE THE BARRIERS, KEEPING PUBLIC FROM WALKING THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION SITE WHILE THEY'RE STILL DOING CONSTRUCTION.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. PRESTON.
[NOISE] [BACKGROUND] TWENTY THREE.
>> NEXT WE HAVE 23P011 TO BE PRESENTED BY ADRIAN.
[7.C.3. 23P-011 (Adjacent To 1307 27th Street And 2702 Ursuline/Avenue N) Request For A License To Use For Aerial Encroachment Of 28th Street, For GISD Stadium Press Box. Adjacent Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, Northeast And Southeast Block 15, Galveston Outlots, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Ed Ramirez, PBK Architects, Inc. Adjacent Property Owners: ISD Galveston Easement Holder: City Of Galveston]
>> 23P011 IS ADJACENT TO 1307 27TH STREET AND 2702 AVENUE N. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A PERMANENT LICENSE TO USE A CITY RIGHT AWAY, 52 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, TO ALL OF THOSE RETURNED, BOTH IN FAVOR.
IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO RECONSTRUCT THE EXISTING PRESS BOX ABOVE THE BLEACHERS ADJACENT TO THE 28TH STREET, RIGHT-OF-WAY, EXTENDING AN ADDITIONAL 4 FEET 9 INCHES INTO THE 28TH STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY.
THE STRUCTURE IS DESIGNED AS AN AERIAL ENCROACHMENT SITUATED MORE THAN 37 FEET FROM GRADE.
PLEASE TELL THE APPLICANTS JUSTIFICATION ON PAGE 1 OF YOUR REPORT.
THEY PROPOSE ELEVATOR PRESS BOX WILL PROJECT A TOTAL OF 4 FEET 9 INCHES INTO THE 28TH STREET RIGHT AWAY AS MENTIONED BEFORE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF CASE 23P011 WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE THROUGH FOUR AND STANDARD CONDITIONS FIVE THROUGH 10 LISTED ON PAGE 2 OF YOUR REPORT.
THIS IS AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT SITE BEFORE DEMOLITION OCCURRED.
THIS IS THE DIRECT SHOT OF THE EXISTING PRESS BOX.
HE SHOT LOOKING SOUTH ON 28TH STREET.
THESE ARE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST.
THIS IS THE RENDERING PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT OF THE PROPOSAL.
>> NATHAN, YOU MENTIONED EARLIER THAT IF THERE WAS ANY CONCERNS WITH THE UTILITY DISTRICTS OR ANYTHING, WE WOULD SEE IT IN HERE. WHERE WOULD WE SEE THAT?
>> NO CONCERNS WERE EXPRESSED BY PRIVATE UTILITIES OR CITY DEPARTMENTS.
>> THAT'S ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THE STAFF REPORT UNDER THE PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS.
>> THERE'S NO COMMENTS. [LAUGHTER]
>> COULD SOMEONE DIRECTLY ME TO THE-
>> I'M SORRY. DID I INTERRUPT YOU?
GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER HEADWOODS.
>> I KNOW, [LAUGHTER] I'M SORRY.
COULD SOMEBODY DIRECT ME TO THE SIZE OF THE STREET, THE WIDTH OF THE STREET THERE?
>> BACK TO THAT ONE I MENTIONED IN THE FIRST IMAGE.
>> GO BACK ONE MORE. I'M GOING TO GO ON [BACKGROUND] THAT AVOIDS.
>> IT'S A ONE-WAY STREET, YOU RIGHT THERE.
>> RIGHT SIDE PICTURE SHOWS YOU THE WIDTH OF 28TH STREET LOOKING SOUTH.
>> IS THAT A TWO LANE, ONE LANE PARKING WITH ONE LANE? WELL, HOW DOES THAT WORK?
>> BECAUSE I'VE DRIVEN IN THERE IS REALLY TIGHT BACK THERE.
THAT'S WHY I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THE PRESS BOX GOES ALMOST FIVE FEET INTO THE STREET, HOW MUCH IS LEFT FOR DRIVING?
[01:00:01]
>> DO YOU SEE THE EXISTING SIDEWALK, IT'S NO FURTHER THAN THE EXISTING SIDEWALK THERE.
>> I THOUGHT I SAW A PIPE OR SOMETHING FROM IT.
>> IT PROTRUDES OVER THE SIDEWALK, NOT SO MUCH OVER THE OVER THE [OVERLAPPING].
YES, NOT SO MUCH OVER A STREET.
>> BASICALLY JUST NEAR THE STREETS EDGE.
BUT AGAIN, 37 FEET IN THE AIR.
>> ADREAL, THIS STADIUM HAS BEEN THROUGH MANY ITERATIONS.
IS THIS PRESS BOX IN THIS CURRENT FORM PART OF THE ORIGINAL PLAN, DO YOU KNOW, OR IS IT A REVISION SOMEWHERE ALONG THE WAY?
>> I MEAN, ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANTS JUSTIFICATION AND THAT MIGHT BE A BETTER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
BUT THIS IS A SELECTIVE REMODEL OF THE EXISTING CROSSWALKS AND THE PROPOSED PORTION THAT THEY'RE ADDING THERE, IT WOULD BE USED FOR UTILITY ONLY.
>> AS BEST I COULD SEE, NO WINDOWS OR ANYTHING ACROSS THAT BACKSIDE THAT WOULD HANG OUT.
THE OVERHANG WOULD BE A SOLID WALL OVER THE STREET?
>> DIDN'T YOU SEE ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN THE RENDERING.
AGAIN, THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
>> THANK YOU. ARE THEY HERE? DO YOU KNOW ADREAL?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? LET'S GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THE APPLICANT'S PRESENT, WOULD YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD? THEN STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN, PLEASE.
>> I AM ED RAMIREZ AND WITH PBK SPORTS.
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, PREVIOUSLY.
THIS IS A SELECT PROJECT WITHIN THE STADIUM PROJECT THAT'S ONGOING RIGHT NOW.
WITH THE FIELDS, THE BUILDINGS, EVERYTHING ON SITE, THE BLEACHERS ARE REMAINING IN ITS CURRENT STATE.
THAT'S THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROJECT.
THIS PRESS BOXES LITERALLY COMING UP OUT OF THE GROUND THROUGH THE BLEACHERS AND EXTENDING FORWARD TOWARDS THE FIELD AND THEN BACK ACROSS THE WALKWAY, THE BRICK PAVERS WALKWAY THAT COME ACROSS.
SO IT'S NOT INTEND TO EXTEND BEYOND INTO THE STREET NECESSARILY.
I CAN SEE, IT GIVES ADEQUATE HEIGHT FOR ANY TYPE OF FIRE APPARATUS THAT'S REQUIRED DOWN THAT STREET.
YOU'LL STILL BE ABLE TO MOVE ANY UTILITY TRUCKS AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES DOWN THAT STREET.
IT'S NOT ONE WAY, IT'S TWO WAYS.
>> IT SHOULD BE ONE WAY. BUT I ALMOST RAN INTO THE CITY MARSHALL AS I WAS COMING OUT THERE.
>> I'M GOOD. [LAUGHTER] YOU ALL MAY NOT BE SO LUCKY.
>> THERE WAS ANOTHER QUESTION FROM COMMISSIONER HILL, DO YOU WANT TO RESTATE THAT ARE RELATED TO WINDOWS OR THE BACKSIDE OF THE PRESS WALL?
>> CORRECT. NO WINDOWS ON THE BACKSIDE.
ESSENTIALLY, THIS IS THE REASON FOR EXTENSION BACK OF HOUSE HLA SERVICES TO SUPPORT THE PRESS BOX FUNCTIONS GOING TOWARDS THE FIELD ITSELF.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS AN EXTERIOR PART OF THE RENDERING, BUT WHAT YOU SEE IN THIS IMAGE IS WHAT'S EXTENDING PART OF THAT IS MECHANICAL YARD FOR OUTDOOR CONDENSER UNITS.
THAT WOULD BE A METAL SCREEN THAT VIEWS ANY OF THAT EQUIPMENT FROM VIEW.
WHATEVER THE TOP OF THAT UNIT IS ONCE INSTALLED, WE WILL HAVE A VISUAL BARRIER THAT'S COMING ACROSS THAT.
>> THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO CANTILEVERING OUT OVER THE [OVERLAPPING].
>> IN THE BEGINNING, WE LOOKED AT BRINGING THE COLUMNS DOWN IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, BUT THAT WOULD HAVE OBSTRUCTED YOU'RE FIVE FOOT SIDEWALKS, SO PLANNING SAID NO, THAT'S NOT GOING TO REALLY HELP.
NOW I CAN UNDERSTAND IS THIS IS THE ONLY WAY FOR PUBLIC TO MOVE ALONGSIDE THE BACK OF THE STADIUM.
IN ORDER TO DO THE CONSTRUCTION, STRUCTURAL CAPABILITIES OF CANTILEVERNESS BACK TOWARDS THE FIELD.
THIS ACTUALLY HELPS FROM A STRUCTURAL STANDPOINT AND BALANCING THAT.
>> SEE SO. THERE'S POSSIBILITIES, IT JUST BECOMES MORE COSTLY AND IT'S A PRETTY TIGHT BUDGET.
[01:05:01]
IN MINDFUL OF THE MONEY THAT WE HAVE TO GET THIS THING DONE FOR THE COMINGS FOOTBALL SEASON.>> VERSUS GOING ABOVE WITH THE UNITS.
BECOMES SOMEWHAT OF A MAINTENANCE ISSUE WHEN YOU DO THAT AND [OVERLAPPING] WHEN IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO DO MAINTENANCE THAN IT DOESN'T GET DONE, DIFFERED AND IT BECOMES MORE OF A PROBLEM WITH THE CITY LATER ON OR THE ISD.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> WITH NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WILL GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE ON THE SIDE OF THE ROOM AND LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? YES, SIR. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE COME FORWARD AFTER MR. RAMIREZ IS FINISHED.
>> THANK YOU. HI. PLEASE SIGN IT AND STATE YOUR NAME AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO PRESENT PUBLIC COMMENT.
>> MY NAME IS DAVID O'NEILL, AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OLD CENTRAL CULTURAL CENTER.
WE WILL GIVE THEM ONE TO NOTICES.
FROM THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE, WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT BECAUSE IT NO WAY IN NO WAY IMPEDES THE TRAFFIC NORTH AND SOUTH OF 28 STREET.
AS WAS STATED EARLIER, THOSE POSTS DON'T COME OUT ANY FURTHER THAN THE EXISTING SIDEWALK, WHICH MEANS YOU STILL WILL BE ABLE TO GET BY THERE ANYWAY.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, I LIVE ADJACENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THE RECOMMENDATION WAS ON BEHALF OF THE OLD CENTRAL CULTURAL CENTER, WHICH HAS PROPERTY AT 1304, 27TH STREET AND 26, 27 AVENUE M. WITH THE HEIGHT OF IT IT WITH AN AREA OF VIEW, AS WAS STATED.
IT'S NOT GOING TO IMPEDE ANYTHING, YOU'LL STILL BE ABLE TO GET THERE.
FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY LIVE ON AVENUE M AND A HALF, WITH THAT BEING UP A LITTLE HIGH, IT SHOULD WORK AS A SERVICE DOING THAT EARLY SUNRISE WHERE THE SUN AND THE HEAT, SO THAT WOULD BE A PRIME PROPERTY PLACED TO HAVE A COOL SPOT THERE ALL DURING THE SUMMER.
>> I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON THE CASE? HEARING NONE.
WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:39 AND COME BACK TO THE COMMISSIONERS FOR EMOTION.
CAN I GET EMOTIONAL IN THIS CASE?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 23P TEST 011.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE WILL CALL FOR A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT AND MR. RAMIREZ, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.
>> NEXT CASE IS 23P0-12 TO BE PRESENTED BY ADRIEL.
[7.D.1. 23P-012 (Vacant Tracts Located East Of Ohana, South Of San Luis Pas Road/FM 3005, And West Of 8 Mile Road) Request For A Final Plat To Incorporate 39.79 Acres Of The Subject Tract As Part Of Beachside Village, Section 9, And Extend Starfish And Beachside Drive. Properties Are Legally Described As The Preserve At West Beach, Section 1 (2010), Abstract 121, East 39.79 Acres (0-0-0), In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Kahala Development, LLC C/O Debbie Reinhart Property Owner: Kahala Development, LLC]
>> 23P-012 IT'S FOR A CONTRACT LOCATED EAST OF A HARNESS SOUTH OF ST. LOUIS PASS ROAD AND WEST OF 8 MILE ROAD.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A FINAL PLAT 69 NOTICE A SOURCE SENT.
PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL COMMON RECEIVED WAS PLACED IN YOUR PACKETS.
BACKGROUND ON THIS CASE, THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, WAS DISAPPROVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE SUBJECT TO CHANGES BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IT WAS CASE 22P-055.
IT WAS APPROVED ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2022.
SINCE THEN, THE APPLICANT HAS RESOLVED ALL CONDITIONS OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT.
IN THIS REQUEST, THE APPLICANT IS ASKING TO INCORPORATE THE LAST 39.79 ACRES OF THE SUBJECT TRACT AS PART OF BEACHSIDE VILLAGE SECTION 9 FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO ADD 89 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES TO THE EXISTING 259 RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION.
PLEASE NOTE THE ZONING, LAND USE, AND LOT AND BLOCK CONFIGURATION ON PAGE 2 OF YOUR REPORT, AS WELL AS THE BEACH FROM CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS ON PAGE 3.
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO ESTABLISH TWO BLOCKS THAT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM BLOCK LENGTH OF 700 FT.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE BLOCK LENGTH WAS CONSIDERED AS A SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE DURING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT PROCESS, AND THAT WAS ALSO APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
[01:10:03]
IN THIS CASE, STAFF RECOMMENDS CASE 23P-01 TO BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS LISTED ON PAGE 5 OF YOUR REPORT.I'D LIKE TO MAKE A NOTE THAT LET IT BE KNOWN FOR THE RECORD THAT CORRECTION IS MADE ON THE NUMBERING OF THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 SHOULD ONLY BE ONE CONDITION.
YOU SHOULD HAVE THREE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.
THEN SUBSEQUENTLY STANDARD CONDITIONS WILL ALSO BE REMEMBERED AND THAT WILL BE FOUR THROUGH 13.
THIS IS AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
THIS IS THE FINAL PLAT SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> ADRIEL, WOULD YOU REMIND ME, PLEASE, OF THE REASONS THAT WE DISAPPROVED THIS WITHOUT PREJUDICE ON SEPTEMBER 20TH AND JUST BRIEFLY TELL ME HOW THOSE ITEMS WERE CURED, PLEASE, SIR?
>> YES, MA'AM. THE DISAPPROVE WITHOUT PREJUDICE WAS SUBJECT TO THE PLAT NEEDING TO ADD A NOTE ADVISING THE LOCATION OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA AND THAT HAS BEEN DONE.
IF YOU LOOK AT PLAT NOTE NUMBER 4.
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, ALSO REQUIRE THAT DURING THE FINAL PLAT NOW THE APPLICANT NEEDED TO INCORPORATE ALL THE COMMENTS RECEIVED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL AS WELL AS OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS.
AS YOU RECALL, THE FIRE MARSHAL REQUESTED AN ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINT TO GET INTO THE SUBDIVISION.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLOT, THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING THAT THROUGH 8 MILE ROAD.
ALSO, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS STATED THAT THEY NEEDED TO RECEIVE APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS.
THE APPLICANT HAS DONE THAT THROUGH OUR ENGINEERING DIVISION AS WELL.
LASTLY, THAT THE APPLICANT NEEDED TO PROVIDE A PARKING PLAN FOR THE SUBDIVISION, DELINEATING ALL THE REQUIRED BEACH ACCESS POINTS AND BEACH ACCESS PARKING AND THAT IS AN ONGOING DISCUSSION THAT THE APPLICANT IS HAVING WITH CITY STAFF AND THE GLO AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU. ANOTHER QUESTION, I'M SORRY IT'S GOING TO TAKE ME A MINUTE.
AS I RECALL, MISS WEST WAS HERE THE LAST TIME WITH SPECIFIC CONCERNS ABOUT THE SUNNY BEACH NEIGHBORHOOD AND SPECIFICALLY PARKING AND TRAFFIC.
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW THAT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED AND HOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO TRAVERSE SAFELY DOWN 8 MILE ROAD TO GET FROM PARKING TO THE BEACH SINCE THAT'S PART OF ALL OF THIS.
>> THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S TYPICALLY REVIEWED BY OUR ENGINEERING DIVISION.
I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY OBJECTIONS OR FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE CITY ENGINEER.
OBVIOUSLY, HE WASN'T HERE TODAY TO HAVE A CONVERSATION OR BE BROUGHT ONTO THIS CONVERSATION, BUT I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FROM HIM.
>> THANK YOU. MR. T. JONES, DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT?
>> JUST TO MANAGE SOME EXPECTATIONS HERE.
ACTUALLY, THAT THE BEACH FRONT DISPOSITION IN FRONT OF THAT PROPERTY IS NOT A PART OF THIS PLAT? IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS BEING PROPOSED, BUT IT IS NOT PART OF THIS PLAT.
THE PLAT ITSELF ADDRESSES THE DIVISION OF LAND, THE CREATION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE PREPARATION OF ANY RESERVES, AND THE ALLOWANCE FOR THEM TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PLAT.
THE FACT THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING CLOSURE OF THE BEACH IN FRONT OF THE SUBDIVISION TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC IS A SEPARATE PROCESS THROUGH THE GLO AND THROUGH THE CITY, BUT IT'S NOT A PART OF THE PLAT PROCESS AS SUCH.
[01:15:03]
WHAT YOU'RE REALLY REVIEWING RIGHT NOW IS, DOES THIS SUBDIVISION MEET CODE FOR HOW IT'S SET UP?>> THE CLOSURE RESTRICTING AT VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE BEACH IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH IS CONFUSING.
YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO THINK ABOUT BEACH ACCESS CLOSURE WHEN IT'S LISTED IN MY STAFF REPORT.
I'M GETTING TWO DIFFERENT PIECES OF INFORMATION.
>> I'M NOT TELLING YOU NOT TO THINK ABOUT IT.
IT IS CLEARLY SOMETHING THAT IS PART OF THIS WHOLE PROPOSAL, BUT IT'S NOT A PART OF THE PLAT.
THE PLOT IS DIVISION OF LAND, NOT ACCESS.
THE ACCESS ITSELF IS A COMPONENT THAT HAS TO WORK ITS WAY THROUGH THE GLO AND THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL.
IT'S ADDRESSED IN THE STAFF REPORT BECAUSE WE THOUGHT YOU OUGHT TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE PROPOSAL.
>> DURING MY FIVE YEARS AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER, I USED THE GLO AS MY GUIDING STAR ON WHAT I DO ON BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION.
WHEN YOU GIVE ME A BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION APPLICATION, I LOOK AT THE STAFF REPORT, THEN I LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, AND THEN I GO TO THE GLO COMMENTS.
IN THIS CASE, I DIDN'T HAVE GLO COMMENTS.
YOU'RE TALKING TO ME ABOUT BEACH ACCESS CLOSURE, WHICH AFFECTS EVERY PERSON ON THIS ISLAND AND EVERY PERSON IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
I DID FIND THAT IN DECEMBER OF 2022 THERE IS A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON DUNE PROTECTION AND BEACH ACCESS PLAN LETTER THAT WAS WRITTEN TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON THAT SAYS THAT AFTER INFORMAL SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON, DUNE PROTECTION AND BEACH ACCESS PLAN, THE GLO REVIEWED THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND HAS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO A FORMAL SUBMISSION.
THE FIRST BULLET POINT IN THAT LETTER IS, THE CITY PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX A OF THE CITY'S PLAN TO REMOVE VEHICULAR BEACH ACCESS AT ACCESS POINT 7, SUNNY BEACH SUBDIVISION.
THE CITY IS NOT CURRENTLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN BEACH ACCESS REQUIREMENTS AND ITS EXISTING PLANT AND MUST MEET THE TERMS OF COMPLIANCE AS PROVIDED BEFORE THE GLO IS ABLE TO CONSIDER ANY FURTHER MODIFICATIONS TO VEHICULAR BEACH ACCESS.
WE KNOW THAT THAT CANNOT OCCUR, THAT CLOSURE OF BEACH ACCESS CANNOT OCCUR BASED ON WHAT THE GLO HAS SAID.
IS THERE A PLAN? I DO NEED TO CONSIDER IT.
YOU HAVE JUST SAID IT'S PART OF WHAT I SHOULD CONSIDER.
IS THERE STILL A PLAN TO REMOVE VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE BEACH IN THIS SUBDIVISION?
>> IT'S ADJACENT TO THE SUBDIVISION.
IN THE RESERVE THAT'S THE BEACH.
BUT A COUPLE OF THINGS, SINCE THAT LETTER WAS WRITTEN WE HAVE ACHIEVED THE COMPLIANCE.
IT HAS ACHIEVED THE COMPLIANCE.
THERE WAS AN INFORMAL SUBMITTAL THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE GLO IN REGARD TO THIS WHOLE ACCESS ISSUE IN OCTOBER.
THE LETTER YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS THEIR RESPONSE TO THAT IN DECEMBER.
WE WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THE STEPS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO GET THAT FULFILLED OR ACCOMPLISHED IN A PROCESS THAT IS BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE GLO.
THIS PLAT, HOWEVER, IS A SUBDIVISION OF LAND, AND DESIGNATION OF RESERVES, AND SETTING OUT OF LOTS, AND BASICALLY THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO ACCOMMODATE THE DIVISION OF LAND IN THIS PLOT.
THE PLAT ITSELF DOES NOT ADDRESS BEACH ACCESS.
[01:20:08]
THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE ITEMS. WE WANTED YOU TO BE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS A BEACH ACCESS AMENDMENT PROPOSED.THERE WILL BE A PROCESS FOR THAT IN THE TEXAS REGISTER.
WHEN IT GETS TO THAT POINT IN THE PROCESS AND IT GETS FORMALLY SUBMITTED TO THE GLO IN WHICH THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS.
ANYONE CAN SPEAK ON THE PLAT RIGHT NOW AS WELL.
BUT IT'S NOT A CONDITION OF THIS PLAT.
THIS PLAT COULD BE APPROVED OR IF THIS PLAT IS APPROVED, IT'S IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE, THAT THIS ACCESS COULD GO FORWARD OR NOT GO FORWARD.
THAT'S ALL A PART OF THE PROCESS THAT WE GO THROUGH, THE CITY GOES THROUGH IN ITS BEACH ACCESS PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS.
>> WILL WE RECEIVE THAT LETTER AT SOME POINT, A NOTIFICATION? MAY I RECEIVE A COPY OF THAT LETTER, THE LETTER THAT YOU NOW HAVE THAT WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE BEACH ACCESS PLAN JUST FOR ME, JUST FOR FUN AT SOME POINT.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO GIVING THE ENTIRE COMMISSION THAT.
>> COMMISSIONER WALLAH. [NOISE] THAT BEACH ACCESS PLAN IS A HOT MESS.
YOU'RE TELLING ME TODAY THAT THE CITY IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE BEACH ACCESS PLAN?
>> I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONERS, I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS PARTICULAR CASE MAY HAVE BOUNDARIES THAT PEOPLE WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT, THAT'S NOT REALLY IN THE REQUEST.
I NEED TO FOCUS THE COMMISSIONERS ON THE ACTUAL REQUEST.
THEY'RE OFTENTIMES WHEN STAFF PRESENTS THE CASES BEFORE YOU AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS ADDED, EITHER TO ASSIST IN SOME WAY OR FORM OR MAYBE THERE WAS A QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED, AND SO THEY'VE ADDED THE INFORMATION JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE MORE BOLDER PICTURE ABOUT WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED.
BUT I DO WANT TO FOCUS THE COMMISSIONERS ON THE REQUEST WHICH IS FOR THE PLAT AND BEACH ACCESS.
ALTHOUGH IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO THE COMMISSIONERS AS WELL AS IT IS TO THE CITY, THAT MAY BE A TOPIC FOR ANOTHER CONVERSATIONAL DAY, ANOTHER WORKSHOP MEETING OR SOME OTHER FORUM.
BUT IT'S REALLY NOT A PART OF WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT.
I KNOW THEY'RE CLEARLY A NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE, BUT I JUST WANT THE COMMISSIONERS TO FOCUS ON WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED.
>> UNDERSTOOD. IT'S A PLATING ISSUE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT ANOTHER DAY. THAT'S FAIR ENOUGH.
>> IT ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION THOUGH, COMMISSIONER WALLAH.
THE CONDITION OF THE BEACH ACCESS PLAN IN WHATEVER STATE IT'S IN HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE COMPLIANT.
LET'S GO TO THE PLAT, SO LET'S STICK WITH PLATTING ISSUES.
ADRIAN HAS ALWAYS BEEN MY PLATTING GO-TO GUY.
THIS PROPERTY WAS PREVIOUSLY PLATTED AND SO THIS IS A RE-PLAT. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IT WAS PREVIOUSLY PLATTED AS THE MARKET OWNERSHIP BACK IN THE DAY, YES.
>> I REMEMBER WHEN ALL THAT WAS GOING ON AND THOSE GUYS HAD A PRETTY GRAND VISION OF WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO WITH A VERY LARGE PIECE OF PROPERTY OF WHICH THIS WAS PART OF.
WERE THERE ANY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THAT WERE MADE WITH THE CITY WITH THOSE PRIOR PLATS?
CATHERINE, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU HAVE ANY INSIGHTS TO SHARE ON THAT.
[01:25:05]
>> THERE WAS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPER.
I'M NOT THAT FAMILIAR WITH IT.
TIM MIGHT HAVE MORE INFORMATION.
>> THERE WAS A DEVELOPER AGREEMENT AND IT CONTAINED, I THINK, NINE SECTIONS OF THE PROPERTY IN DIFFERENT VARIOUS GEOGRAPHIES AROUND THE ISLAND.
SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN RELEASED.
THIS IS ONE OF THEM THAT'S BEEN RELEASED.
>> THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WAS OR WHATEVER IT WAS, IT WOULDN'T APPLY TO THIS TRACK.
>> WHEN THAT WAS DONE, THAT PLAT WAS DONE PROBABLY IN '08 OR '09.
IT'S BEEN AWHILE WHEN THEY DID THAT.
I'M GOING TO MAKE AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE PLAT THAT WE'RE SEEING IS USING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS FROM THE ORIGINAL PLAT THAT THEY'RE RE-PLATTING.
IN OTHER WORDS, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THEY GOT THEIR BOUNDARIES, SPECIFICALLY WHERE THE BOUNDARY LINE COMES FROM ON THE BEACH FRONT.
MAYBE IT CAME FROM A DEED THAT THEY HAD, BUT I'M GOING TO MAKE AN ASSUMPTION THAT IT CAME FROM WHEN IT WAS PLATTED BY THE MARKET DEVELOPMENT GUYS.
BASICALLY, WE'RE DOING A RE-PLAT OF THAT PLAT.
WHAT I'M REALLY GETTING AT IS IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME, HOW DO WE KNOW? BECAUSE THAT SOUTHERN BOUNDARY ALONG THE BEACH FRONT IS ADJACENT TO STATE PROPERTY.
I WAS REALLY CURIOUS TO SEE THAT WE DID NOT HAVE AN LSLS SURVEY OR A LICENSED STATE LAND SURVEYOR MARK WHERE THE STATE BOUNDARY IS.
YOU CAN'T GO RE-PLAT SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY.
DO WE KNOW WHERE THE STATE BOUNDARY LINE IS OVER THERE?
>> WE RELY ON THE SURVEYOR'S INFORMATION.
I'M PRETTY CERTAIN THAT THE APPLICANT HAS OBTAINED A SURVEYOR TO DO THIS PLAT.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE SURVEYOR WOULD HAVE TO SIGN OFF ON AND CERTIFY THAT THEY EITHER SET OR FOUND CORNERS ON THE TRACT.
I WOULD REALLY DEFER TO THE APPLICANT ON THAT.
>> I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT THE SURVEYOR, BUT THE WORDS OF RONALD REAGAN, TRUST BUT VERIFY.
THAT LINE IS VERY CLOSE TO WHERE THE MEAN HIGH TIMELINE IS AND WE HAVE NO INFORMATION ON THAT.
THAT WAS A QUESTION THAT I HAD.
THEN THERE ARE SOME RESERVES IN HERE THAT TYPICALLY WHEN I'VE SEEN THESE PLATS, THEY HAVE RESTRICTED RESERVES OR UNRESTRICTED RESERVES.
IF THEY'RE UNRESTRICTED, IT'S PRETTY MUCH THEY'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING LATER WITH IT AT SOME POINT IN TIME, BUT IF THEY'RE RESTRICTED, THEY WOULD HAVE IN THE PLAT NOTES WHAT THEY'RE RESTRICTED TO.
I WAS CURIOUS AS TO WHAT THE RESERVES THAT ARE IN HERE, AND SPECIFICALLY, THE RESERVE THAT'S MARKED AS THE BEACH THAT IS NOT LISTED AS RESTRICTED OR UNRESTRICTED.
THEN I'M ALSO CURIOUS AS TO THAT WOULD BE PUBLIC BEACH AND IN THAT RESERVE, IS THERE AN EASEMENT? BECAUSE THE PIPELINE EASEMENT THAT WE KNOW EXISTS THERE IS NOT ON THE PLAT EITHER.
IT'S LISTED AS A LANDSCAPE RESERVE, NOT AS A PIPELINE EASEMENT.
I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHERE IT GOES, BUT THROUGH WHERE THEY'RE PROPOSING THEIR PARKING LOT FOR THE OFF BEACH PARKING, THAT LANDSCAPE RESERVE ENDS.
I KNOW THAT PIPELINE, IT ACTUALLY GOES OVER THERE ALL THE WAY TO STUART ROAD.
THOSE ARE A FEW THINGS THAT I SEE THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PLAT AS IT'S PRESENTED.
THEN THERE'S ALSO SOME PLAT NOTES THAT ARE MISSING THAT INFORMED PEOPLE THAT IF THEY'RE BUYING A BEACH HOUSE THERE, THAT IT'S WITHIN THIS COASTAL DUNE AREA.
I PICKED THIS UP FROM OUR DUNE PROTECTION STUFF, IT SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE BIT INCOMPLETE TO ME OR HAS SOME THINGS MISSING.
>> THE PLAT NOTE IS THERE'S. IT'S PLAT NUMBER 4.
AS FAR AS THE REST OF THE INFORMATION,
[01:30:02]
AS FAR AS THE EASEMENTS, AS TIM MENTIONED EARLIER, WE RELY ON THE SURVEYORS TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION.THESE ARE REGISTERED FOLKS WITH THE STATE, SO THAT'S THEIR STATE LICENSE ON THE LINE.
>> I UNDERSTAND, BUT WOULDN'T A PIPELINE EASEMENT BE DEPICTED ON A PLAT?
>> IF THE SURVEYOR PICKED IT UP AND THERE'S A DEED RECORD THAT REFLECTED IT, YES.
THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO VERIFY IN THE TITLE REPORT, IS THAT DEED EASEMENT CALLED OUT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] IT'S NOT CALLED AN EASEMENT. IT'S CALLED A LANDSCAPE RESERVE.
>> NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE PREVIOUS PIPELINE EASEMENT.
IF THERE'S A PIPELINE THERE, I WOULD ASSUME THERE'S SOME RECORDED DOCUMENT.
IF THERE'S NOT A RECORDED DOCUMENT, PERHAPS THAT'S THE REASON THAT THE SURVEY DIDN'T PICK IT UP.
I DON'T KNOW. THAT, WE WOULD NEED TO VERIFY.
>> BECAUSE IT'S PRETTY EVIDENT THERE IS A BIG PIECE OF GAS PIPELINE STICKING OUT OF THE GROUND OVER THERE.
>> THESE ARE JUST SOME THINGS I'M SEEING, AND I'M LIKE, HEY.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THE APPLICANT MAY BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT AS WELL.
>> WHERE IS RESERVE E? THIS IS A TEENY LITTLE MATH.
THAT'S WHERE THE PUBLIC PARKING WILL BE FOR THE BEACH ALONG EIGHT MILE ROAD.
>> IT WOULD BE IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF THAT PLAT.
>> COMMISSIONER OPINION DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> ALL THE PARKING SPACES THAT ARE REQUIRED, THE 298 FOR THE LINEAR FOOTAGE?
>> THAT IS WHERE THE PROPOSED PARKING LOT WILL BE YES.
>> A QUESTION FOR TIM PREVIOUS CASES THAT WE'VE SEEN PRESERVE AT GRAND BEACH.
IN PARTICULAR, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, HOW THEY'RE GOING TO DO CONSERVATION AREA WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THOSE BEACHFRONT PROPERTIES SIGNIFICANTLY LIMITS THE AVAILABLE DEVELOPABILITY OF IT.
HOW DO WE GO ABOUT ENSURING THAT BESIDES THE NOTE AND PLAT NOTE FOR THAT SAYS THEY MAY BE WITHIN THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA.
HOW DO WE AVOID PRESERVING GRAND BEACH CONDITION LIKE WE'VE SEEN PREVIOUSLY?
>> I THINK THE APPLICANT HAS DONE WHAT THEY'VE DONE ON THE PREVIOUS SECTIONS OF THIS SUBDIVISION, [NOISE] WHICH IS THEY PLAN AN EXTRA DEEP LOT ALONG THAT PERIMETER.
IT'S PROBABLY DOUBLE THE LENGTH OF THEIR STANDARD LOTS AS TO EXACTLY WHERE ALL THE LEGITIMATE LINES ARE THAT ARE PART OF OUR BEACH CONSTRUCTION PROCESS.
WHICH OF COURSE WILL BE NECESSARY TO IDENTIFY ON EACH PERMIT.
THAT'S REALLY PART OF THAT PROCESS.
BUT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF OF THESE LOTS, I'M SURE THE APPLICANT CAN TELL US WHERE THAT DUNE LINE IS IN RELATION TO THESE LOTS.
HOW MUCH OF THAT THESE LIGHTS IT TAKES UP.
>> THAT'S WHAT THE PREVIOUS PHASES THAT WERE PLATED, ALL THAT DEVELOPMENT AND THOSE HOUSES CAME BEFORE YOU GUYS, IF IT WAS WITHIN THE 75 FEET OF NORTH FLORIDA DUNE SO, YOU'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO SEE THOSE AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? [NOISE] COMMISSIONER WALL?
IF IN THIS BEACH RESERVE THAT THEY HAVE, I'M GOING TO MAKE AN ASSUMPTION THAT THAT IS CONSIDERED PART OF THE PUBLIC BEACH.
IN THE CITIES DO PROTECTION PLAN IT'S ACTUALLY STATED THAT IT'S ASSUMED SUCH.
MY REAL QUESTION IS, WOULD THAT BE A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT? THE FACT THAT IT DOES THAT PLACE HAS BEEN USED FOR BEACH ACCESS FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME.
I'M ASKING THAT BECAUSE I'M WONDERING IF THAT RESERVE NEEDS TO BE IDENTIFIED AS AN EASEMENT, UNRESTRICTED AREA OR RESTRICTED RESERVE THAT IDENTIFIES IT AS AN EASEMENT?
[01:35:09]
>> NOT QUITE SURE THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND PART OF THAT QUESTION.
THE FIRST PART REGARDING A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT THEY'LL BE A CITY'S PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT AT BEST AND IT WOULDN'T BE THE DEVELOPERS PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD?
>> BECAUSE I'M READING HERE AND I'M LOOKING AT THIS IS WHERE IT'S TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC USE AND ACCESS.
IT JUST SAYS THE CITY OF GAUSS AND SHALL PRESUME THAT ANY BEACH FROM THE GULF OF MEXICO WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION IS A PUBLIC BEACH UNLESS THE OWNER OF THE ADJACENT LAND OBTAINS A DECLAMATORY JUDGMENT FINDING OTHERWISE.
MY QUESTION REALLY IS WHEN I'VE SEEN PLATS BEFORE AND THERE'S EASEMENTS, THE EASEMENTS ARE IDENTIFIED ON THE PLATS.
IT'S THE BEACH EASEMENT AND THE PIPELINE EASEMENT THAT I'M PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT.
THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION.
>> IS THAT BECAUSE THEY CAN THEN TURN THE PURPOSE OF THAT RESERVE INTO ANYTHING OR IS BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT FIT INTO A CERTAIN CRITERIA?
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NECESSARILY DEFINE SECTIONS OF THE BEACHES EASEMENTS AS SUCH IN PLATS THAT IS.
WE CLEARLY HAVE SUBDIVIDERS CALLING THEM OUT AS RESERVES AND THEY'VE DONE THAT HERE.
AS WELL I DON'T KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT IS CONTESTING THE FACT THAT IT'S THE PUBLIC BEACH AS THE GLO DEFINES IT ISN'T GOING TO REMAIN PUBLIC.
I THINK THEY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT.
THEY ARE SIMPLY GOING THROUGH A PROCESS, A PARALLEL PROCESS TO THIS THAT ALIGNS THEIR DESIRE TO REMOVE VEHICLES FROM THIS SECTION OF BEACH AND RECONFIGURE HOW THOSE VEHICLES THEN GET TO THE BEACH FOR A PEDESTRIAN BEACH.
>> THE DETERMINATION OF THAT PLAT WOULD THEN HINGE UPON THE RESTRICTED ACCESS OF WHAT IS CURRENTLY AND HISTORICALLY BEEN USED AS BEACHFRONT ACCESS.
>> DISCRIMINATION THAT THE GLO MAKES.
IN TERMS OF THE PLAT, IT'S NOT ANYTHING THAT'S DETERMINED HERE.
THE PLAT SIMPLY DEFINES WHAT TRACKS ARE FOR WHAT PURPOSE.
IF YOU ACTUALLY STATED IT VERY WELL RUSTY THAT SOMETIMES THERE'S RESTRICTED RESERVES, SOMETIMES THEY DON'T HAVE RESTRICTIONS AND THAT'S THE DEVELOPERS' PREROGATIVE.
MAYBE THE APPLICANT CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS THAT, IT DOESN'T REALLY STATE.
TYPICALLY ON THE SIDE IT WILL SAY SO MANY RESERVES AND WHAT THE RESERVES ARE AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE RESTRICTED OR THEY'RE UNRESTRICTED.
IF THEY ARE RESTRICTED, IT'S TYPICALLY IN THE PLAT NOTES WHAT THEIR RESTRICTION IS, SO THAT'S REALLY KIND OF.
>> IT'S NOT MANDATORY THAT WE RESTRICT THE RESERVES TO SOME SPECIFIC PURPOSE WITHIN OUR GUIDELINES.
>> IDENTIFYING AN EASEMENT WOULD BE.
>> AN EASEMENT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT MATTER, YEAH.
BUT AGAIN, I'M NOT AWARE THAT WE'VE DONE SECTIONS OF THE BEACH AND CALL THEM OUT AS EASEMENTS.
>> IS IT TYPICAL FOR A BEACH RESERVE TO BE PLATTED AND PUT UPON PUBLIC LAND?
>> YES. WELL, NO. LET ME TAKE THAT BACK.
IT'S TYPICAL FOR THEM TO BE PLATTED AS RESERVES WHERE THE GLO DEFINES THE PUBLIC PROPERTY AND WHERE AN APPLICANT MIGHT HAVE A DEED THAT CALLS OUT CERTAIN GEOGRAPHY.
THOSE ARE AGAIN, TWO DISTINCT THINGS.
I'M SURE THAT WHEN THEY BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY, THEY HAD A MEETS AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OR SOMETHING SIMILAR TO IT
[01:40:01]
THAT CALLED OUT THE PERIMETER OF THIS X AMOUNT OF ACREAGE TRACT.THE SURVEYOR SHOULD HAVE SURVEYED IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT.
THAT'S WHAT WE RELY ON AS TO WHAT THE DEVELOPER THEN TURNS IN AS THEIR PLAT, WHETHER THERE'S A PUBLIC BEACH EASEMENT OR HOWEVER THE GLO DEFINES IT IS WELL WITHIN I GUESS THEIR RIGHT.
BUT GENERALLY THEY SAY, THE PUBLIC BEACH IS FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION DOWN TO THE WATER IN ESSENCE.
THAT'S IRRESPECTIVE OF THE SURVEY AND THE MEETS AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION THAT THIS APPLICANT PROBABLY OBTAINED WHEN THEY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY.
>> IT'S PART OF THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY, WAS THIS?
>> DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, MR. WALLACE?
I'M STILL STRUGGLING WITH HOW WE CAN PLAT SOMETHING THAT IS ADJACENT TO STATE PROPERTY AND NOT IDENTIFY WHERE THE STATE PROPERTY LINE IS.
I'M ASKING YOU, IS THAT A CONDITION OF A PLAT APPROVAL?
>> THEY'RE RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER, TIM AND I CAN TELL YOU IN MY PAST EXPERIENCE, WHENEVER I HAD PROPERTY THAT WAS ADJACENT TO STATE PROPERTY, I HAD TO HAVE LSLS GO OUT THERE AND GO, THIS IS WHERE THE STATE'S LINE IS, THIS IS WHERE YOUR LINE IS.
>> WE HAVE TO RELY ON WHAT'S THE SURVEY.
HE JUST DIDN'T, IF HE MAY HAVE VERY WELL KNOWN WHERE IT WAS AND IT'S JUST NOT ON THE PLAT.
I MEAN, THAT LINE LOOKS LIKE THE COMMON LINE BETWEEN THIS DEVELOPER'S ACQUISITION.
>> I'LL ASK THE DEVELOPER THIS.
IT MIGHT BE A BETTER QUESTION FOR HIM BUT I HOPE YOU SEE WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS. THANKS.
>> ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL QUESTION FOR STAFF? WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CASE 23P DASH 012, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT?
>> BRUCE REINHARD, 23 ADLER CIRCLE.
>> ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I KNOW THAT WHAT YOU'VE HEARD.
I'M SORRY, DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ON THIS CASE IN PARTICULAR?
>> HOLD ON A SECOND. COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY. YES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> AS FAR AS THE PIPELINE, IT'S ON THE SURVEY.
THIS IS THE PLAT, NOT THE SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY.
THAT'S WHERE YOU WOULD FIND IT.
IT WOULD BE ON THE SURVEY, NOT ON IT.
IT RUNS UNDER THAT LANDSCAPE EASEMENT THROUGH THE CITY'S PROPERTY THERE AND THAT'S WHERE THE PIPELINE IS.
IT'S IN THE FIRST 10 FEET ON THE EASTERN EDGE OF THIS PROPERTY.
IF YOU CALL FOR A SURVEY OF THE MEETS AND BOUNDS, IT'S RIGHT THERE, ALONG WITH THE CITY'S, THE LITTLE PIPE GROUND THAT COMES OUT OF THE GROUND, IT'S ALL THERE.
AS FAR AS THE PROPERTY LINES, I'LL LET MY ATTORNEY SPEAK TO THAT AND ALL OF THAT STUFF.
ALSO THE STATE BOUNDARY LINE, THE HIGH MEAN LOW TIDE IS ON THE SURVEY.
NOTE WE DON'T PUT IT ON THE PLATS WE NEVER HAVE.
>> THAT WAS MY QUESTION WAS, IS HAVING THAT IDENTIFIED A REQUIREMENT OF THE PLAT.
I'M JUST AGAIN, BRUCE, AND I'VE BEEN DOING IT AS LONG.
>> HOLD ON A SECOND, COMMISSIONER WALLACE AND MR. REINHARD.
DO YOU KNOW IF THE LSLS LINE, OR THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE IS SOUTH OF YOUR PLATTED LINE HERE?
>> I DON'T HAVE IT WITH ME, IT'S VERY CLOSE.
>> BUT THE HIGH MEAN WATERLINE OVERCEEDS MY DEEDED PROPERTY.
>> I THINK WHAT WHAT RUS SAYING IS, I MEAN, I HAVE SEEN PLATS, I HAVE ONE IMMERSIVE DIVISION THAT OF COURSE,
[01:45:01]
ON THE BAY WE PLAT TO THE LSLS LINE.I THINK THAT'S WHAT RUS IS ASKING IS, BEACH FRONT MIGHT BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT USUALLY, YOU WOULD SEE THAT LSLS LINE IF IT WAS ON THE PROPERTY, AT LEAST ON THE BAY.
>> THERE AGAIN, ON THE SURVEY, YES.
I DIDN'T BRING IT WITH ME BUT IF YOU HAD THE SURVEY, IT WOULD BE ON THE SURVEY ALONG WITH THE PIPELINE AND EVERYTHING ELSE BECAUSE THE ONE WHO DID THE PLAT IS IN LSLS.
>> I'M SURE HE COULD GO DO THAT IN SHORT ORDER.
>> MAYBE STEVE CAN ANSWER QUESTION 2 BETTER.
>> THEY HAVE A COPY OF THE SURVEY.
>> DEBBIE REINHARD. IT'LL REAL CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG BUT I BELIEVE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU REQUIRED IN OUR APPLICATION IS A COPY OF THE SURVEY.
>> YEAH. WE'RE LOOKING THROUGH THE FILE, DEBBIE AND WE DON'T SEE A CURRENT SURVEY FILED WITH THAT APPLICATION.
>> YOU SHOULD HAVE IT. IT WAS PART OF THE LIST OF THINGS I HAD TO PROVIDE.
MAYBE IT'S WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT.
>> YEAH. IT MIGHT BE WITH THE PRELIMINARY.
>> I DON'T THINK I SENT A SECOND ONE WITH THE FINAL PLAT.
>> WHILE THEY DO THIS, CAN WE TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK? THANK YOU. WE'LL TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK WHILE THEY GET THAT PUT UP. THANK YOU.
>> WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER.
WE'RE CURRENTLY IN THE PUBLIC HEARING PHASE OF THE CASE WITH THE APPLICANT PRESENT.
[LAUGHTER] WE'RE HAVING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES, HANG ON JUST A SECOND, PLEASE.
>> I'M SORRY. YES, TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES BUT BE READY IN A MINUTE.
>> ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OUTSIDE WHERE WE DON'T NEED THE SURVEY THAT WE CAN ASK THE APPLICANT? SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S THE BIGGEST ONE RIGHT NOW.
THEN JUST HOLD ON A SECOND, PLEASE. THANK YOU. [NOISE]
[NOISE] WE WENT TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FILE AND WE GOT A COPY OF THE SURVEY.
WHAT WE DID WAS ZOOMED IN TO A COUPLE OF PLACES THE COMMISSION HAD BEEN INTERESTED IN.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE THAT BUT IT DOES NOTE THE PIPELINE EASEMENT AND NOTES IT HERE.
I SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT SLIDESHOW.
[01:50:09]
THERE'S THE SURVEY.HERE IT IS A LITTLE BIT ZOOMED IN AND IT'S NOTING THAT AMCO 10-FOOT PIPELINE EASEMENT HERE.
IT IS NOTED ON THE SURVEY, THE 10 FEET ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT.
WE ALSO ZOOMED INTO THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE.
WE DIDN'T SEE ANY OTHER NOTATIONS BESIDES THE LOCATIONS OF THE PINS ON THE CORNERS.
>> IT'S NOTED ON THE SURVEY BUT IT'S NOT ON THE PLAT AS SUBMITTED, CORRECT? [OVERLAPPING]
>> YES, IT IS NOTED [OVERLAPPING] ON THE SURVEY.
>> THIS COULD BE A DARN QUESTION, BUT MY EXPERIENCE IS IS THAT THE PLAT BECOMES THE SURVEY, AND I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A CASE IN POINT.
HE GETS HIS PLAT FILED, HE SELLS ONE OF THESE LOTS AND IT SAYS LANDSCAPE EASEMENT, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, HEY, I GOT A PIPELINE EASEMENT IN MY BACKYARD, DIDN'T EVEN KNOW I WAS GETTING ONE.
I THINK THAT'S WHY THAT'S PUT ON THERE.
IT IS THE PLAT BECOMES THE PRIMARY OR PRINCIPAL DOCUMENT IN ANY TRANSACTION THAT WOULD HAPPEN ON THIS PROPERTY ONCE YOU GET IT FILED.
THOSE EASEMENTS NEED TO BE IDENTIFIED.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S ASKING TOO MUCH.
>> [OVERLAPPING] IT WOULD SHOW UP WHEN THE TITLE COMPANY DID A TITLE SEARCH, THE PIPELINE WOULD SHOW UP.
>> BUT IT SHOULD BE ON THE PLAT.
I'M JUST SAYING HEY IT'S NOT ON THERE.
>> COMMISSIONER WALL, I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION FOR COUNSEL, IF THAT IS A REQUIREMENT AND IF IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT, IT'S NOT SHOWN ON THE PLAT.
MY QUESTION IS, [OVERLAPPING] IS A KNOWN EASEMENT REQUIRED TO BE IDENTIFIED ON A FINAL PLAT?
>> I WOULD SAY, YEAH, TYPICALLY A KNOWN EASEMENT WOULD BE ON THERE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. REINHARDT.
WE'LL CONTINUE ON THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS CASE.
IS THERE ANYBODY ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? ABSOLUTELY. PLEASE COME FORWARD, SIGN IN, STATE YOUR NAME, AND AFTER YOU SIGN IN, YOU'LL BE AFFORDED THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
>> MY NAME IS LARRY WILLIAMS. I LIVE IN BEACHSIDE VILLAGE AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE REINHARDT'S WANT TO PUT 89 PARKING SPACES AT 3005, WHICH IS THE FURTHEST DISTANCE FROM THE BEACH THAT THEY CAN GET.
I TOOK PICTURES OF SUNNY BEACH LAST SUNDAY.
THERE WERE 200 CARS ON THAT BEACH.
THEY RIGHT NOW PUT TWO-BY-FOUR SIGNS ALONG EIGHT MILE ROAD TO TELL PEOPLE THEY CAN'T PARK ON EIGHT MILE ROAD.
THAT'S THE EXTENT OF THE SIGNAGE ABOUT PARKING ON EIGHT MILE ROAD.
WELL, ONCE YOU HAVE 200 CARS THAT ARE GOING TO TRY TO PARK IN THIS 89-SPACE PARKING LOT, THEY'RE GOING TO BE PARKING DOWN THE ROAD, THEY'RE GOING TO BE COMING INTO THE SUBDIVISION TO PARK, AND THERE'S NO POLICE PROTECTION TO COME DOWN AND ENFORCE THIS PARKING, IT'S JUST GOING TO CREATE THIS DISASTER.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE PARKING WOULDN'T BE CLOSE TO THE BEACH WHERE PEOPLE ARE NOT WALKING TWO OR 300 YARDS DOWN EIGHT MILE ROAD TO GET TO THE BEACH.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CANNOT LOOK AT THE OVERALL WELL, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THE PARKING OFF THE BEACH AND NOT HAVE IT BE PART OF THE WHOLE SOLUTION OR THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF HOW ARE PEOPLE GOING TO,
[01:55:04]
IN REALITY, GET FROM THE PARKING LOT TO THE BEACH AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A COMPLETE DISASTER. THANK YOU.>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENT.
ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS SIDE? WE'LL GO OVER TO THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM.
ANYBODY WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM? YES, SIR. PLEASE SIGN IN AND STATE.
I USED TO BE A PARTNER FOR 39 YEARS WITH THE [INAUDIBLE] BUT NOW I'M JUST A COUNCIL.
I HAVE DONE BEACHFRONT WORK SINCE 1991 WHEN THE OPEN BEACHES ACT WAS AMENDED TO CREATE SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
I THINK MR. HUMPHREY, YOU ASKED SOMETHING ABOUT EASEMENT ON THAT BEACH.
THE DEFINITION OF A PUBLIC BEACH IS WHAT THE STATE OWNS, THE WET BEACH AND SUCH AREA ABOVE THAT LANDWARD THAT THE PUBLIC HAS OBTAINED RIGHTS THROUGH THE EASEMENT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THROUGH GIFT, DEDICATION, IMPLIED DEDICATION, OR PROOF OF A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT.
THE DEFINITION, WE DON'T LOOK AT IT ANYMORE, WE JUST SAY THE PUBLIC BEACH.
BUT THAT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY WHICH HAS AN ANNOUNCED EASEMENT ON IT THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROVED.
THERE'S A CASE CALLED SEAWAY WHERE THE STATE IN 1964 ACTUALLY PROVED THAT THE PUBLIC HAD AN EASEMENT.
SO DON'T BE CONFUSED, THAT LAND'S PRIVATE.
IT'S PRIVATE UP TO WHERE THE LSLS SURVEYOR WHO PREPARED THE SURVEY AND PREPARED THE PLAT SAYS IT IS, AND THAT'S BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE GLO BECAUSE I REPRESENTED MARQUETTE AND I WAS HERE FOR 14-AND-A-HALF HOURS TO GET THEIR PLATS APPROVED IN ONE MEETING.
YOU OUGHT TO BE GLAD YOU'RE NOT GOING THROUGH THAT.
>> WE ALL SAT THERE FOR A LONG TIME.
I GOT TO GO BACK TO WHAT TIM SAID.
PLATS ARE LINES ON A PIECE OF PAPER.
AS FAR AS EASEMENTS, AND I REPRESENT RUSTY IN CERTAIN MATTERS, ARE CONCERNED, YOU, THE CURRENT LANDOWNER, PLATTING/REPLATTING THE PROPERTY ARE DEDICATING CERTAIN THINGS TO THE UTILITIES AND THE PUBLIC ON THERE.
YOU CAN'T GET AWAY WITH WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.
SOMEBODY ELSE DID THAT AND THEY DID IT BACK BEFORE THE MARQUETTE PLAT EVEN.
MARQUETTE, MY RECOLLECTION OF IT, ITS PLAT LOOKS THE SAME DOWN WHERE YOU'RE SEEING BEACH RESERVE.
THE OTHER THING I WANT TO SAY IS TIM HAD IT RIGHT, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BEACH ACCESS AND EVERYTHING, THAT IS THE CITY AND THE GLO.
IT IS NOT PART OF THE PLANNING PROCESS.
THE DEVELOPER IS WILLING TO DEDICATE SOME PROPERTY TO HAVE BEACH ACCESS PARKING, WHICH EITHER HAS TO BE ON THE BEACH OR SOMEWHERE WHERE THEY CAN GET TO THE BEACH WITHIN A QUARTER MILE WHERE THEY WANT TO DO.
THERE IS INDEED A LOT OF PARKING ALREADY IN THE OTHER SECTIONS.
WE'VE ALREADY TALKED TO THE GLO ABOUT THAT.
IF YOU DO IT THAT WAY, YEAH, IT'LL WORK.
I JUST WANT TO BRING YOU BACK IN CLOSING TO A PLAT IS LINES ON THE PAPER.
[02:00:08]
IT'S NOT A BEACH ACCESS PLAN PROMULGATED BY A MUNICIPALITY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN BEACHES ACT AS IT EXISTS TODAY.IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM THOUGH.
>> YOU'RE OF COUNCIL FOR THE OWNER?
>> I'LL PUT MY ADDRESS OVER HERE.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF COUNCIL? MR. SCHULTZ, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> IS THERE ANYBODY ON THE SIDE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK?
>> HI, MARIE ROB, FOR 101 RUM BAY.
I BELIEVE THE INITIAL MARQUETTE PROPERTY HAD A LOT MORE DENSITY.
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I THINK ONE OF THE GOOD THINGS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF THE PURCHASES THAT THE REINHARDT'S HAVE MADE IS THAT THERE IS A LOT LESS DENSITY, AND THAT IS A VERY GOOD THING.
I'M ALSO GOING TO COMMENT, SINCE I'VE SAT IN BEACH ACCESS PLAN, EVEN THOUGH THIS ISN'T ABOUT ACCESS PLANS.
IT IS REALLY THE CITY'S GOAL TO GET ALL CARS OFF THE BEACH AND PROVIDE OFF BEACH PARKING.
CARS ARE NOT GOOD FOR TURTLES, THEY'RE NOT GOOD FOR BIRDS, THEY'RE NOT GOOD FOR PEOPLE.
IT IS THE CITY'S GOAL TO ACHIEVE NOT HAVING ANY DRIVING ON THE BEACH, BUT TO PROVIDE AMPLE PARKING AS THE REINHARDT'S PLAN DOES, WHICH HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO THE GLO AS WELL IT IS PART OF OUR PRELIMINARY ACCESS PLAN AT THE CITY.
AS FAR AS THE LETTER THAT MISS.
HILL OR MRS. HILL COMMENTED ON THE NON-COMPLIANCE HAD TO DO WITH SIGNAGE AND THERE WAS NEW SIGNAGE THAT WAS REQUIRED AS WELL AS THERE WERE SIGNS THAT WERE STOLEN.
WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE AND HAVE COME UP WITH A PLAN TO WORK ON STOLEN SIGNS WHICH HAPPENED ON A REGULAR BASIS FOR SOME MUD REASON.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COMMENT? YES SIR, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
>> MY NAME IS JEFF SIGN SIMON, I LIVE IN TIKI ISLAND.
I'M A FIFTH GENERATION GALLSTONIAN, AND CHARTER MEMBER OF THE SURFRIDER FOUNDATION IS GALVESTON CHAPTER.
WE ADVOCATE FOR OPEN CLEAN BEACHES, AND OCEANS.
THANK YOU FOR SERVING OUR COMMUNITY.
I'VE NEVER BEEN TO A PLANNING MEETING, I'VE SURE PICKED A GOOD ONE TO START.
[LAUGHTER] KUDOS FOR YOUR DILIGENCE AND ADHERING TO THE STRICT GLO GUIDELINES FOR DUNES AND LINES OF VEGETATION.
SHAME ON YOU ALL FOR INCLUDING THAT SUNNY BEACH PARKING LOT AND THE GREEN LINES THAT YOU MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC FOR YOUR MEETING TODAY.
NOW YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS, AND NOT PART OF THE DEED OR THE PLAT SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS YOU'VE BASICALLY WASTED OUR TIME.
MRS. HILL WAS ALSO APPARENTLY CONFUSED.
NOW I HAVE SET THROUGH STUFF THAT DOESN'T APPLY, YOU CAN LISTEN TO ME AND DO THE SAME.
ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT THOSE FRONT ROW HOUSES ARE STILL GOING TO BE OKAY WITH THE EXISTING SUNNY BEACH PARKING LOT THERE IF THAT PART OF THE PUZZLE IS DENIED? YOU ALL ARE PUTTING THE SQUEEZE ON PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS ON THE WEST END.
SUNNY BEACH IS A MUCH BELOVED SECTION OF BEACH FOR A LONG TIME NOW THAT ALLOWS FOLKS TO BASICALLY TAILGATE AS SOMETHING YOU CAN'T DO AT THE POCKET PARKS.
BOTH FOREIGNS OF THE ISLAND HAVE ISSUES WITH LOOSE SANDS SO PEOPLE GET STUCK, AND AVOID GOING THERE.
IT'S WHERE I GO TO SURF FISH DURING THE DOG DAYS OF SUMMER, IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE YOUR EQUIPMENT NEARBY.
THE VERY WEST IT HAS NO AMENITIES, SUNNY BEACHES CLOSER TO RETAILERS, CATERING TO BEACH GOERS.
[02:05:01]
I REALIZED SOME THAT VISITS SUNNY BEACH PARK TOO CLOSE OR EVEN ON TOP OF DUNES, BUT THAT COULD BE CORRECTED WITH BALLOTS.IF THE NEW PART OF THE SUBDIVISION GOES IN, EVEN WITH THE PARKING LOT MOVED NORTH IS PROPOSED, IT'S WAY SMALLER EIGHT MILE ROAD WOULD BE A JOKE.
THE TWO POCKET PARK BEACHES ON EITHER SIDE WILL BECOME EVEN MORE CONGESTED, AND HOW ABOUT THOSE NEIGHBORS NEXT DOOR IN SUNNY BEACH ON SWARTZ STREET RIGHT AWAY AND BEARD DRIVE, ARE THEY ON BOARD WITH THIS? THE CITY WILL BE APPARENTLY IN VIOLATION OF THE PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING.
THAT'S BEEN A PROBLEM TO THE CITY FOR A HUGE PROBLEM WITH OUR NINE MILLION TOURISTS THAT'S WHY THEY CREATED THE BEACH AND DO AN AD HOC COMMITTEE.
THIS JUST EXASPERATES THE PROBLEM AND MAKES THE BEACH ACCESS SQUEEZE TIGHTER.
HE MAY BE ALSO JEOPARDIZING THE FEASIBILITY TO DO SAND NOURISHMENT SEAWEED CLEAN UP.
SURELY, THE PUBLIC SUNNY BEACH PARKING LOT WAS THERE WHEN DEVELOPERS PURCHASED THE LAND, AND NOW THEY WANT TO HAVE THEIR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO.
I'M NOT AGAINST ALL DEVELOPMENT.
DON'T GET ME WRONG. THE REINHARDT'S HAVE DONE GOOD THINGS OUT THERE, INCLUDING CREATING A TAX BASE.
BUT GALVESTON IS APPROACHING A BIT OF A CROSSROADS, AND GOING FORWARD, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FEW QUICK OBSERVATIONS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER.
TRAFFIC IS STARTING TO GRIDLOCK FREQUENTLY, ESPECIALLY AT OUR GATEWAY, 61ST STREET.
FIRST, YOU SIT THROUGH SEVERAL LIGHTS AT THE FEEDER ROAD [INAUDIBLE]
>> I APOLOGIZED TO INTERRUPT, BUT YOUR THREE MINUTES ARE UP.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE CASE? HI?SORRY TURN YOUR MIC ON AND HOPEFULLY. LET'S TRY IT AGAIN.
I WANTED TO CONGRATULATE THE REINHARDT'S ON BEACH SIDE VILLAGE, IS A BEAUTIFUL SUBDIVISION, IT'S A VERY HANDSOME SUBDIVISION.
HOWEVER, I'M INTERESTED IN PRESERVING WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A FABULOUS PUBLIC PARK.
IT IS MUCH LOVED AND VERY BELOVED OF A PARK.
IT IS FULL. IF YOU'VE NOT BEEN OUT THERE, YOU SHOULD GO SEE.
IT IS JUST FULL OF JOY AND LIFE.
FOR YEARS NOW IT'S BEEN HEAVILY VISITED.
I GO THERE MYSELF TWO OR THREE TIMES A WEEK.
IT'S MY BEACH, AND SO I'VE NEVER BEEN THERE WHERE I'M THE ONLY PERSON THERE.
WHETHER IT'S THE DATA WINTER OR THE HEIGHT OF A STORM, THERE ARE PEOPLE THERE AT THAT BEACH.
MOTHER'S DAY SUNDAY IN 2019, THERE WERE 239 CARS ON THE BEACH.
FEBRUARY 25TH 109, FEBRUARY 26TH 130, AND JUST AS HE SAID, SATURDAY 175 AND ON SUNDAY 200 CARS.
NOW IT'S JUST AT ONE PERIOD OF TIME, IT'S NOT PEOPLE COMING AND GOING.
IF WE CONSIDER THE HISTORICAL USES OF THIS BEACH WHICH IS WHAT THE GLO CONSIDERS WHEN THEY DETERMINE THE SIZE OF PARKING LOTS, AND HOW TO USE IT.
WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE HISTORICAL USE OF THE SPEECH, THE PARKING LOT IS WOEFULLY UNDER COUNTED AND INADEQUATE.
THE RESERVE THAT SET ASIDE FOR THE PARKING LOT FOR THIS EXTINCTION OF BEACH SIDE VILLAGE.
THE OTHER CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS HOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET FROM THE PARKING LOT TO THE BEACH.
I DIDN'T SEE ANYWHERE IN THAT PLOT WHERE THERE WAS A SIDEWALK, OR EVEN TO BE ABLE TO WALK DOWN THE STREETS WITHIN THE PLAT TO GET FROM THE PARKING LOT ONTO THE BEACH WHICH MEANS TO ME THAT THEY'RE PLANNING ON EIGHT MILE ROAD BEING THE WALKWAY TO THE BEACH FROM THE PARKING LOT.
I'M THINKING ABOUT THIS FAMILY THAT COMES HERE, THEY DON'T HAVE A GRANDMA TO DROP OFF DOWN THERE WITH THEIR STUFF.
THEY UNLOAD THEIR CAR, THEY GOT THEIR STROLLER, THEIR WAGON WITH ALL THEIR STUFF IN IT, AND THEY'RE TODDLERS AND THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE OFF WALKING DOWN EIGHT MILE ROAD IN ORDER TO GET TO SUNNY BEACH TO WALK DOWN THERE AND SET UP.
TO ME, THIS PUTS THE LIABILITY FOR THESE PEOPLE FROM THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUBDIVISION WHICH IS WHAT THE GLO SAYS,
[02:10:03]
IT HAS TO BE ONTO THE CITY TO EITHER MAINTAIN THE SAFETY ELONGATE MILE ROAD OR TO BUILD NEW INFRASTRUCTURE OF A SIDEWALK THERE.>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK IN PUBLIC HEARING? IF NOT, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:48.
>> WILL IT BE POSSIBLE TO SPEAK SPECIFICALLY TO WHAT SHE JUST SAID OR THAT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE PLATFORM?
>> THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK AGAIN AT THE END OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> YEAH. IF YOU'RE PART OF THE APPLICANT.
VERY GOOD. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE GO AHEAD AND SIGN IN AND STATE YOUR NAME.
>> IS THE MIC ON? IT'S FIRST TIME DOING THIS, SO PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE GREAT.
SO AS IT'S BEEN SAID BEFORE BY OTHERS, THE PARKING RELOCATION STRATEGY IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE WORKING ON WITH THE CITY AND THE GLO, THAT COMMUNICATION IS ONGOING.
THERE ARE TWO THINGS THAT THE GLO STATE LAW REQUIRES WHEN IT COMES TO DETERMINING THE SIZE OF A PARKING LOT, IF YOU'RE GOING TO RELOCATE PARKING FROM THE BEACH.
THAT IS THERE'S EVERY 15 FEET OF LINEAR BEACH THAT IS RELOCATED TO A PARKING LOT EQUALS ONE CAR.
THAT'S HOW THAT NUMBER WAS FOUND UPON.
THAT'S NOT JUST US TRYING TO PICK A SMALL PARKING LOT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
BEYOND THAT, IT HAS TO BE WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE OF THE BEACH AND IN FACT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, ON THE FAR WEST END OF THE ISLAND, THERE'S EVEN PARKING LOTS TO THE BEACH THAT ARE NORTH OF 3005.
IT WAS A DEVELOPER DECISION WHERE WE PUT IT, BUT IT CERTAINLY MEETS EVERY STATE GUIDELINE THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO US.
I DON'T KNOW IF JACKIE IS STILL HERE. SHE IS.
THERE ARE PLANS THAT SHOW EXACTLY HOW THE PEOPLE WILL GET FROM THAT AREA TO THE BEACH.
THAT INCLUDES SIDEWALKS, THAT INCLUDES PARALLEL PARKING ON OUR PROPERTY, NOT IN THE CITY RIGHT AWAY SOUTH OF THE CUTOUT THAT YOU CAN SEE THERE.
IT INCLUDES A TURNAROUND ON THE BEACH SO THAT SPORTSMEN THAT DROP OFF, THERE'S OUR SPORTSMEN, WHO WANT TO DROP-OFF KAYAKS AND STUFF WILL CERTAINLY BE ABLE TO RIGHT NEAR THE WATERS LINE AND THEN THERE IS ALSO ON BEACH PARKING.
A SMALL AMOUNT WILL STILL REMAIN FOR HANDICAPS.
ALTHOUGH ODDLY ENOUGH, THAT'S NOT A PART OF THE STATE RULES, BUT WE THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
THE TOTAL NUMBER WHEN YOU COMBINE THE FACT THAT THERE WILL LIKELY BE SOME AS THERE ALREADY IS IN BEACH SIDE VILLAGE, BECAUSE BEACH SIDE VILLAGE IS A BEACH ACCESS POINT.
WE DO EXPECT THAT THAT NUMBER IN AGGREGATE WILL BE HIGH.
WHEN PEOPLE SAY THERE'S 2 TO 300 TO 400 CARS OUT ON SUNNY BEACH, IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THE BEACH WHEN THAT HAPPENS.
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT WHEN THERE'S 40 CARS, BUT WHEN THERE'S 200 PLUS AND I RODE MY BIKE THROUGH IT THIS PAST SUNDAY, THE SAME DAY JACKIE WAS OUT THERE.
THOSE ARE PEOPLE PARKING UP TO AND ONTO THE DUNES AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE PARK'S BOARD HAS NOT PUT OUT THE PORTA POTTIS YET SO THAT INCLUDED RELENTLESS PEOPLE CLIMBING THE DUNES TO USE THE RESTROOM ON OUR PROPERTY AND BEYOND THAT AS THE WORD, I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHO SAID IT, BUT THIS ISN'T FAMILIES NECESSARILY ALL ENJOYING A NICE DAY AT THE BEACH.
THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT DRIVE IN FROM OFF ISLAND.
NOT ALL OF THEM, CERTAINLY, BUT A GOOD NUMBER OF THEM, COOLERS ARE IN THE BACK OF THE TRUCK.
THEY DROP THE TAILGATE AND THE ONLY THING THAT I HAVEN'T HEARD SAID HERE FOR MANY OF THEM, EITHER IN SUPPORT OF US OR IN SUPPORT OF KEEPING IT IS HOW BAD THE TRASH IS.
BECAUSE WHEN THE WINDS COME AND WE HAVE PREDOMINANTLY AN ONSHORE BREEZE, IT ENDS UP IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S BECAUSE AND I DON'T KNOW WHO TO LAY THAT BLAME AT BEYOND THE BEACH GOERS.
THERE ARE BLUE TRASH CANS OUT THERE THAT I BELIEVE THE PARK'S BOARD DOES, BUT THEY SIMPLY DON'T KEEP UP.
SO MY HOPE IS THAT PEOPLE WILL STILL COME TO USE THE BEACH AND THERE WILL BE FOR PEOPLE LIKE JACKIE OR PEOPLE THAT USE THE BEACH IN THE NON-PEAK SEASON.
THERE'LL BE PARKING ALONG EIGHT MILE ON OUR PROPERTY, BUT PROBABLY IS A PART OF THAT RELOCATION PLAN.
[02:15:04]
I JUST WANTED TO GIVE THE OTHER SIDE OF THINGS BECAUSE ALTHOUGH THAT PLAN IS ACTIVE AND BEING WORKED BETWEEN THE CITY, THE STATE, AND US AND UNFORTUNATELY NOT WITH THIS BOARD.BUT I JUST WANTED EVERYONE TO KNOW THAT WE HAVE THOSE DOCUMENTS, WE HAVE THOSE PLANS THAT SHOW ALL OF THAT, THAT'S ALL BEING WORKED ON.
IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S THIS BIG THING THAT WE'RE AVOIDING.
IT'S JUST THIS ISN'T THE SPOT FOR IT, I SUPPOSE.
THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR THE TIME BEING. THANK YOU GUYS.
>> APPRECIATE IT. ANY QUESTIONS.
>> MY NAME IS AUSTIN AND, WELL, I GET ALL MY MAIL AT THIS ADDRESS, BUT I LIVE JUST A COUPLE OF BLOCKS AWAY FROM HERE.
>> AUSTIN, FOR YOUR FIRST TIME YOU DID A GREAT JOB.
>> [LAUGHTER] HE WAS VERY ELOQUENT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU. NO, KNOW THERE ARE NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING ONE LAST TIME.
ANYBODY WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON THE CASE THAT HASN'T SPOKEN ALREADY.
WITH THAT, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:54 PM AND WE'LL COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A MOTION, I MOVE THAT WE DENY THE REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT FOR CASE NUMBER 23P-012.
>> I'LL SECOND TO GET DISCUSSION OPEN.
>> DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER WALLOCK, CAN I ASK WHAT THE BASIS FOR DENIAL IS?
>> MY BASIS FOR DENIAL IS AN INCOMPLETE PLAT THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE EASEMENTS INDICATED ON IT, NOR DOES IT HAVE THE RESERVES SPECIFIED AS RESTRICTED OR UNRESTRICTED.
THERE WAS, AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS, IT WAS JUST AS AN ILL-CONCEIVED PLAT WITH NO UNDERSTANDING OR CONSIDERATION FOR THE AREA AND FOR VERY SHORT-SIGHTED.
BUT I WAS SOMEWHAT PLEASED WITH AUSTIN REINHARDT'S LAST BIT THERE OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO ADDRESS A LOT OF THAT.
HOWEVER, THAT'S NOWHERE ON HERE.
THERE'S NO SIDEWALKS ON THERE.
THERE'S NOTHING ON THERE AND, AND I THOUGHT IT WAS A GREAT IDEAS AND SUGGESTIONS OF WHAT THEY ARE WORKING ON, BUT IT'S NOT IN THERE.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR COUNCIL.
COUNCIL, WE HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED OVER AND OVER ABOUT THESE PLATS AND THAT THE COMMISSION MUST APPROVE A PLAT IF IT CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE MUNICIPALITY AND TO THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE EXTINCTION OF THE MUNICIPALITY AND IF THE APPROVAL OF THE PLAT AND RE-PLAT IS EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICATION MEETS CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS.
I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE ACTION THAT IS BEING PROPOSED HERE.
IS THIS PROPOSED MOTION, ARE WE WITHIN OUR SCOPE AS A COMMISSION TO DO THIS? ARE WE OUTSIDE OF OUR SCOPE?
>> THERE'S A COUPLE OF WAYS I CAN ANSWER THAT.
ONE IS PROCEDURALLY A MOTION THAT'S BEEN SECONDED IS A MOTION THAT CAN BE VOTED.
THAT'S PROCEDURALLY. HOWEVER, WE DID HAVE A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE REQUIREMENTS OF A PLAT AND IN THIS CASE, A FINAL PLAT AND I HAD USED A WORD ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND SO IT IS UP TO THIS BOARD TO DETERMINE IF THE REASONING BEHIND THE MOTION HAS A BASIS AND IF THAT BASIS IS GERMANE TO WHAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED.
SO I WOULD QUERY THE PLANNING STAFF BECAUSE I'VE HEARD PLANNING STAFF STATE THAT WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED MEETS
[02:20:04]
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY FOR A PLAT.SO I'M GOING TO DIRECT THIS TO MR. [INAUDIBLE] FOR HIS THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER PROCEDURALLY, SURE, BUT THIS COMMISSION NEEDS TO BE EXTREMELY.
>> CONTINUING ON THAT THOUGHT EARLIER I'D ASK THE QUESTION, IF A KNOWN EASEMENT SHOULD BE SHOWN ON A FINAL PLAT, YOUR ANSWER WAS YES.
>> WELL, [NOISE] THAT I JUST CAME OUT THE ROOM.
>> MOST EASEMENTS THAT I'M AWARE OF, WE TALKED ABOUT UTILITY EASEMENTS.
THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT I AM AWARE OF, WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT PLATS.
I KNOW THAT THINGS THAT ARE DEDICATED ON THE PLATS, ETC.
GENERALLY, AGAIN, IF THE PLAT MEETS THE DEPARTMENT'S REQUIREMENTS, I'M GOING TO GIVE IT OVER TO THE DEPARTMENT.
IF THE DEPARTMENT SAYS THAT IT'S DEFICIENT, THEN I WOULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
STAFF FOUND THAT IT MET THE CONDITIONS OF THE PLAT REQUIREMENTS IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE REQUIRE.
HAVING AN EXISTING PIPELINE EASEMENT.
WHILE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE NECESSARILY REQUIRED TO DENOTE ON THE PLAT, I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO DENOTE IT ON THE PLAT.
I THINK MR. MOLDOVAN MAINTAINS ITS APPROVABLE AS IS.
I THINK THE EASEMENT OUGHT TO BE SHOWN.
I DO NOT THINK THAT MANY BEACH EASEMENT OUGHT TO BE SHOWN BECAUSE THAT'S IN MY OPINION, NOT AN EASEMENT.
IT'S GLO REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT SO FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE MOTION, I GUESS I'D NEED TO HEAR MORE ABOUT WHY IT'S AN OUTRIGHT DENIAL RATHER THAN A DISAPPROVAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE SUBJECT TO A RELATIVELY MINOR CORRECTION BEING MADE.
>> THAT'S THE ALTERNATE. MR. WALLAH WOULD BE TO DO A DISAPPROVAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE SUBJECT TO THE REVISIONS OR THE ISSUES THAT YOU'D FOUND IN THE PLAT?
>> IS ACTUALLY A NUMBER OF [LAUGHTER] OPTIONS.
>> YOU CAN TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK FOR THE VOTES AND THE MOTION, AND THEN IF THAT ONE DOESN'T PASS, THERE HAVE TO BE OTHER MOTIONS MADE, THE MOTION CAN BE WITHDRAWN AND THEN THE MOTION IS MADE.
>> IT'S YOUR BOARD, COMMISSIONER.
>> WITHIN EMOTIONS. [OVERLAPPING] WE COULD.
>> WELL, I THINK THE QUESTION IS, I THINK WE'RE IN DISCUSSION NOW IN THE DISCUSSION PART AND BASICALLY, THE COMMISSION IS ASKING STAFF AT THIS POINT, IS IT POSSIBLE TO DO A DEFERRAL ON THIS CASE SO THAT THEY CAN ADD THESE THINGS THAT WE WANT AND BRING IT BACK FOR US TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 2,12, STATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DEFER TO PLAT.
YOU EITHER HAVE TO APPROVE OR DENY.
>> THERE IS TIME CONSTRAINTS. THANK YOU.
>> SO BUT AGAIN, THE OTHER OPTION WOULD BE DISAPPROVAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
>> THAT'S AN OPTION, CERTAINLY.
>> IF THE THINGS ARE CORRECTED OR ADDED THEN STAFF.
>> THE WAY THAT WORKS AND I THINK I'VE EXPLAINED THIS TO YOU-ALL BEFORE, BUT THE WAY A DISAPPROVAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE SUBJECT TO CORRECTION IS BEING MADE WORKS IS THAT THE DEVELOPER SIMPLY PUT THAT LAST ITEM THAT'S NECESSARY ON THE PLAT, GETS IT BACK TO US.
WE CONFIRM THAT IT'S IN THE PROPER STATE APPROVABLE.
[02:25:03]
WE'D BE HAPPY TO SEND OUT A NOTICE TO YOU-ALL OF THAT EFFECT SO YOU'RE MADE AWARE OF IT.BUT TIME IS PART OF THE ISSUE HERE, AND THAT'S WHY THE STATE IS SO TIGHT ON THEIR TIMELINES.
>> THAT IS THE REASON THAT I MOVED FOR A DENIAL.
I DO KNOW THAT THERE'S A TIME CONSTRAINT.
I'VE TOLD YOU WHAT MY REASONING IS FOR DENYING THE PLAT.
I DON'T THINK THAT THOSE ARE UNREASONABLE.
I DID NOT MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT THE BEACH EASEMENT.
>> HOW DOES THE PLAT NOT MEET THE SUBDIVISION?
>> IT DOES NOT IDENTIFY THE PIPELINE EASEMENT, CORRECT?
>> THAT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT WITH ARTICLE 6 OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
>> THAT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT? [OVERLAPPING] LISTING THOSE.
>> I SPECIFICALLY STATED IN ARTICLE 6 OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
>> THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE THAT?
>> IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VERBIAGE THAT YOU SEE IN PAGE 5, YOU'VE GOT REPORTED STATES THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S MOST APPROVE APPLIED FOR GENERALLY CONFORMS TO THE PLAN OF THE MUNICIPALITY.
IN THIS CASE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
>> WHAT ABOUT WHERE THESE RESERVES ARE NOT INDICATE WHERE THEY'RE RESTRICTED OR UNRESTRICTED.
>> THEY'RE STATING THAT THE RESERVES ARE OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING, WHICH IS TOTALLY WITHIN THE RIGHTS TO DO.
>> YOU'RE OF THE OPINION THAT AS IT'S SUBMITTED, IT MEETS THE GENERAL REQUIREMENT?
>> WELL, I BELIEVE SO BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE RECORD AN INSTRUMENT FOR THE PIPELINE EASTMAN DOES NOT GO AWAY WITH THIS PLAT.
THE RECORDED IMAGE INSTRUMENT REMAINS IN PLACE.
HOWEVER, THAT MIGHT BE A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION IF YOU WANTED TO INTERPRET THAT THE PLAT DOES NOT MEET THE REGULATIONS.
>> WHAT IS THE DENIED WITHOUT PRECEDENT? I MEAN, DISAPPROVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IS THAT WHAT IS THAT THE TERMINOLOGY THAT YOU USED.
>> DISPROVE WITHOUT PREJUDICE SUBJECT TO CORRECTION IS BEING MADE AND THAT YOU WANT TO SPECIFY A CORRECTION IF YOU SO I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M GOING TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION.
>> VERY GOOD. MOTION WITHDRAWN.
>> DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT. MOTION WITHDRAWN.
CAN WE GET ANOTHER MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION? I CAN'T DEFER. YEAH, I KNOW.
GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER PENA, NO.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO GET DISCUSSION GOING.
I'M MOVED FOR DISAPPROVAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE, NOTING THAT WE STILL NEED THE PLAT TO REFLECT THE PIPELINE EASEMENT, WHAT ELSE?
>> DESCRIPTION OF RESERVES, SIDEWALKS AS DESCRIBED BY DEVELOPER THAT THEY'VE DESIGNATED ALONG EIGHT MILE, AND TURNAROUNDS AS ON EIGHT MILE AS DESCRIBED BY DEVELOPER.
THAT'S THE MOTION. I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND FOR DISCUSSION.
QUESTION. HOW DO I DO THIS? COMMISSIONERS, OPEN UP FOR DISCUSSION.
>> JEFFERY, YOUR MOTION HAS SOME EIGHT-MILE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, BUT I DON'T THINK WE CAN CONDITION ON PLAT AND THAT'S ON PUBLIC PROPERTY SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD INCLUDE THAT IN THEIR MOTION.
WELL, HE SAID THAT THE SIDEWALK ON EIGHT MILES WAS DESIGNATED ON HIS PLAT.
>> I THINK HE'S TALKING ABOUT POSSIBLY IMPROVING EIGHT MILES THE DEVELOPER MAY IMPROVE EIGHT MILES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.
>> NO. IT'S ACTUALLY IF YOU LOOK AT THAT PLAT, THERE IS A, I BELIEVE IT'S A FIFTH [OVERLAPPING].
[02:30:02]
>> THEY DO, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET AROUND THE CITY ON PROPERTY AND SO.
>> THEY'RE PLANNING TO GET AN EASEMENT FROM US TO DO THAT.
THE CORRIDOR IS DEFINED ON THE PLAT.
YOU DON'T PUT SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS ON A PLAT. YOU SIMPLY.
>> YOU STATE IT AS ACCESSES [OVERLAPPING].
>> COULD WE GET JEFFERY'S COMMENTS INCLUDED IN THERE SOMEHOW OR WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT?
>> I THINK I AGREE WITH YOUR PERSPECTIVE THAT EIGHT-MILE'S ALREADY THERE.
IT WAS DEDICATED IN A PREVIOUS INSTRUMENT OR WHAT HAVE YOU AND IT'S OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF THIS PLAT.
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS THE THINGS THAT ARE IN THE PLAT WHICH IS THAT THE ACCESS EASEMENT OF GOING FROM THE PARKING LOT DOWN TO THE BEACH AND CALLING OUT THE RESERVES? AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S NECESSARY, BUT IF THE DEVELOPER IS WILLING TO DO IT AND YOU'RE MAKING THAT.
>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. WELL, I GUESS THERE'S NO [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DISAPPROVE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WITH INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS OR ADDITIONS ON THE PLAT.
ONE BEING DESCRIPTION OF THE OIL RESERVES FOR INTENDED USE AND THEN TWO, WHAT WAS THE INCLUSION OF ANY UTILITY EASEMENTS.
THAT WILL INCLUDE PIPELINE SO THERE'S MOTION. CAN I GET A SECOND?
>> SECOND BY HUMPHREY, DISCUSSION.
>> I STILL FEEL THAT'S NOT QUITE ADDRESSING THE.
IT'S NOT HITTING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM OF THAT THIS JUST DOESN'T QUITE FIT.
>> I DON'T NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH YOU, BUT WE'VE HEARD FROM STAFF THAT IT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE FINAL PLAT.
>> MY QUESTION IS TO THE STAFF CONCERNING THAT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, MR. MOLDOVAN, IS THAT A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT, OR IS THAT THE ONLY REQUIREMENT?
>> THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY IS TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS IF THE DEVELOPER IN THIS CASE WANTS TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND THE REQUIREMENTS, THAT IS TOTALLY THEIR CHOICE.
THE CITIES ESTABLISHED TO ENFORCE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.
>> OBVIOUSLY, PEOPLE ON THIS PANEL ARE WANTING TO SEE SOMETHING ABOVE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT, TRUE?
I'M LOOKING AT COMMISSIONERS, AND IS THAT NOT TRUE? WE WANT TO SEE SOMETHING ABOUT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YES, I'D AGREE WITH THAT BASED UPON ADRIAN'S COMMENTS.
>> TO SATISFACTORILY MOVE THINGS FORWARD, IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE THAT PARTICULAR EYE.
>> THAT'S A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION. [LAUGHTER].
>> I TOOK TIME AND LISTEN TO EVERYTHING JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD CLEARLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND FROM OUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSION, THEY ACTUALLY DO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.
I WANT TO SAY THAT A LOUD. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE LETTER OF THE LAW THAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET, BUT WE ARE GETTING CONFLICTING STATEMENTS.
I'M NOT TRYING TO OUT YOU HERE, BUT DONNA SAYING ONE THING AND THEN WE'RE GETTING SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM TIM.
HE'S SAYING THE SAME AS DONNA, BUT THEN WE'RE GETTING SOMETHING DIFFERENT OVER HERE, WHICH IS THAT THIS IS A REQUIREMENT. WHAT ARE WE HERE TO DO? I SAID WE'RE HERE ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION.
I DON'T THINK IT SHOULDN'T TAKE STEPHEN VERY LONG TO HANDLE THE EASEMENT PIECE.
LET'S GO WITH THAT. WE'RE TALKING TOO LONG ON THIS.
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? YES, COMMISSIONER HILL.
>> WE HAVE NO REAL CHOICE ON THIS ONE BECAUSE WE ARE BOUND AS A COMMISSION TO DO ONE THING SO I HAVE REALLY ONLY ONE CHOICE ON THIS AND PLEASE NOTE THAT FOR PURPOSES OF ESTABLISHING VOTING QUORUM FOR THIS MOTION AND FOR THIS CASE SPECIFICALLY, I'VE LEFT THE DEUS AND I'M NO LONGER PART OF THIS MEETING.
>> I'M NOT ABSTAING. I'M NOT PART OF THIS QUORUM.
>> YOU'RE NOT PART OF THE QUORUM.
WELL, GOOD NEWS IS WE STILL HAVE A QUORUM.
LISA, ANYBODY ELSE CARE TO LEAVE THE QUORUM?
>> NO, BUT I'M GOING TO JUMP IN THOUGH IS BECAUSE THERE'S THIS WE HAVE TO DO THIS,
[02:35:06]
WE HAVE TO KNOW BY I DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING UP HERE, BUT SHOW UP.IF I WANT TO VOTE AGAINST IT, I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST IT.
I WAS PUT UP HERE TO TAKE A HOLISTIC LOOK AT ALL OF THIS.
NOT JUST TO LOOK HERE AND SAY, WELL, I CHECK ALL THE BOXES.
I THINK THERE WAS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT LAST WEEK TO SEE RUSSELL COME UP HERE AND SAY, HEY, MY GUYS, I NEED MAYOR CULPA HERE.
I BROUGHT YOU A LOT OF CRAPPY STUFF AND IF WE PUT OUR STAMP ON IT.
I THINK THAT'S SUCH A DISSERVICE TO THE ENTIRE ISLAND TO SIT HERE AND THINK THAT THE CITY WHO WE LOOK TO IS BRINGING US CRAP AND PUTTING THEIR STAMP OF APPROVAL ON IT.
I THINK IT JUST GOES AGAINST ALL OF MY SENSE OF NORMALCY OF WHAT THE CITY SHOULD BE WORKING ON FOR ITS CITIZENS AS A WHOLE, NOT JUST THOSE WHO ARE CHOOSING TO DO THESE DEVELOPMENTS.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU GUYS ARE IN MID MOTION, BUT THERE ARE TIMES WHERE I JUST HAVE TO STEP IN AND I NEED TO LET THIS COMMISSION NOW AND IT'S REALLY NOT ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
YOU GUYS CAN DELIBERATE AND TALK FOR AS LONG AS YOU WANT, YOUR VOLUNTEERS.
THE STAFF, WE APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE TO THE CITY.
THIS IS A CITY BOARD AND I UNDERSTAND THAT FOLKS COME HERE WITH THEIR OWN PERCEPTIONS ON THE MATTER, BUT CASES ARE PRESENTED TO YOU FOR A REASON AND IT'S THE DUE DILIGENCE THAT WE EXPECT.
THERE'S DEFINITELY BEEN DUE DILIGENCE TODAY.
NO DISRESPECT ON THAT FOREFRONT.
BUT WHEN PEOPLE MAKE COMMENTS REGARDING STAFF'S PRESENTATION OF CASES, I PERSONALLY HAVE TO STEP IN BECAUSE I KNOW HOW HARD THE STAFF PERSONS WORK.
VERY HARD. THEY DON'T PRESENT CRAP TO THIS COMMISSION.
YOU CAN DISAGREE ALL YOU WANT OR AGREE ALL YOU WANT WITH WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY HAVE A DUTY TO THE CITY AND YOU HAVE A DUTY TO THE CITY.
I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE IT PLAIN WHETHER THIS IS DENIED, MORE THAN LIKELY, THE CITY IS GOING TO BE AT THE FOREFRONT OF EITHER A SUIT OR THE STATE'S GOING TO SAY IT'S APPROVED ANYWAY, BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY STATED THROUGHOUT THE RECORD THAT IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY FOR A PLAN.
CLEARLY, IF YOU WANT TO SAY NO, THAT'S FINE.
BUT UNDERSTAND THAT WHATEVER HAPPENS TODAY, THERE'S GOING TO BE A PROCESS.
WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE GOING DOWN THE ROAD FOR THE FINAL PLOT AND ALL THAT ENTAILS.
OR THE APPLICANTS ARE GOING TO MAKE THEIR OWN MOVES, THEIR LAWYERS IN THE BUILDING.
YOU DON'T ALWAYS AGREE WITH WHAT'S BEING BROUGHT, BUT YOU HAVE A DUTY, YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY.
TO SAY THAT YOU ARE DOING YOUR DUTY TO THE CITY, I THINK IN THIS CASE, NO OFFENSE COMMISSION OPINION IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE.
I THINK THAT OUR FEELINGS ON A TYPE OF SITUATION IS WHAT'S DRIVING THAT.
I THINK THERE'S EMOTION WITH WHAT'S BEING BROUGHT WITH THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND SO I WOULD JUST SAY, TAKE A STEP BACK FROM THE EMOTION OF IT ALL.
LOOK AT THE PICTURE, LOOK AT CASE AS IT'S BEEN PRESENTED AND THEN MAKE A DECISION.
THE STAFF WORKS TOO HARD FOR THAT TYPE OF VERBIAGE [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M GOING TO STEP IN THERE TOO AND ECHO DONNA.
STAFF HAS WORKED LONG AND HARD TO ESTABLISH ITS RULES.
I'VE BEEN ON THIS COMMISSION PROBABLY LONGER THAN ANYBODY AND LONGER THAN ANYBODY UP HERE, I KNOW.
THERE WERE TIMES IN GALVESTON, WHERE DEVELOPERS WOULD COME TO THIS COMMISSION, THEY WOULD GET DENIED BECAUSE THEY FOLLOW THE RULES.
WE HAVE SENT EVEN MADE THOSE RULES STRONGER, STAFF HAS PUT A TON OF WORK IN THEIR LDRS TO TRY TO MAKE IT AS CLEAR AS
[02:40:03]
POSSIBLE SO PEOPLE CAN FOLLOW THOSE RULES AND WE DON'T HAVE THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE FACED WITH RIGHT NOW.THIS DEVELOPER HAS GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS, FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES.
HE'S COME TO US, RUSTY, BRING SOME GOOD POINTS.
I THINK THEY ARE EASILY RESOLVABLE AND WE NEED TO MOVE THIS FORWARD.
THE THINGS THAT YOU SAID, I MEAN, YOU ARE PUTTING THE CITY IN MORE JEOPARDY BY SOME OF THOSE STATEMENTS AND DENYING THIS CASE, THEN MOVING IT FORWARD.
THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING UP HERE.
IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SOMETHING, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE BEACH FRONT PARKING SIDE OF THIS, WHICH IS NOT PART OF THIS CASE, ASK THOSE QUESTIONS, GET YOUR ANSWERS.
BUT REMEMBER, YOU ARE HERE TO ADDRESS THE PLAT NOT THIS PARKING ISSUE, NOT THE SIDEWALK ISSUE, ACCESSIBILITY TO THE BEACH.
THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS. IT'S ABOUT A PLAT. PLEASE THINK ABOUT THAT.
>> CURRENT MOTION ON THE TABLE IS A DISAPPROVAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR AN INCLUSION OF TWO CORRECTIONS.
ONE IS THE DESCRIPTION OF ALL RESERVES.
THEN TWO IS THE INCLUSION OF ALL KNOWN UTILITY EASEMENTS.
GOT IT. THAT'S THEN WE HAVE A SECOND [BACKGROUND].
>> IF THAT IS CORRECTED THEN IT AUTOMATICALLY GETS APPROVED?
>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. IT AUTOMATICALLY BE.
>> IT AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES APPROVED, ONCE THE CORRECTIONS ARE MADE.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER WALL?
>> JUST A COMMENT. DONNA, YOU'RE 100 PERCENT RIGHT.
I WILL SAY THAT THESE DECISIONS WERE VOLUNTEERS. THIS IS HARD.
WHAT MAKES IT EVEN MORE DIFFICULT IS THERE'S REALLY TWO PIECES OF THIS PUZZLE.
IT'S NOT THE DEVELOPER'S FAULT, THAT THERE'S TWO PIECES.
I LOOKED TO HIM FOR HIS EXPERTISE IN ANSWERING THIS STUFF.
THAT WAS THE PREMISE FROM MY ACTIONS.
STEPHEN SAID SHIELDS SAYS IT'S LINES ON PAPER.
I DO WISH THAT WE COULD TALK MORE ABOUT THE OTHER PIECE OF THE PUZZLE BECAUSE THAT'S THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S MAKING IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT FOR EVERYBODY, BUT THAT'S FOR ANOTHER DAY.
MAYBE YOU CAN HELP US HOW TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT BECOMES PART OF OUR DISCUSSION ANOTHER DAY.
I WITHDREW MY MOTION BASED UPON WHAT I WAS TOLD BY STAFF. DO I LIKE IT? NO. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? IT'S A ROUND PEG GOING IN A ROUND HOLE.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT.
>> CAN I SECOND TO THE MOTION.
>> COMMISSIONER PENA, SECOND IT.
>> MISSED IT. COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY.
WHY SHOULD YOU JUST KEEPS ME IN LINE.
THANK YOU. ANY COLD OF THE QUESTION.
THERE WE GO. COLD QUESTION FOR A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF DISAPPROVAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE WITH THE CONDITIONS AS STATED PREVIOUSLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, MOTION PASSES WITH THE QUORUM PRESENT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. THE APPLICANTS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME, AUSTIN.
[BACKGROUND] WE STILL GOT [OVERLAPPING] TWO MORE.
>> NO. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE BACKGROUND.
>> VERY GOOD. STILL GOT A QUORUM.
IS NON VOTING. NO, WE STILL HAVE THE QUORUM.
>> I GOT TO LOSE THREE MORE PEOPLE.
[7.E.1. 23ZA-001 Request For A Text Amendment To The Galveston Land Development Regulations, Article 3, Urban Neighborhood (UN) Addendum To Modify The List Of “Corner Stores – Permitted Structures” In Kempner Park. Property Is Legally Described As The M B Menard Survey, North Half Of Lot 1 And Part Of Lot 2 (2-1), Northwest Block 89, Galveston Outlots, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: A. T. Davila Property Owners: A. T. Davila And Chase Davila]
THIS IS A TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST.IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING IN TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE GALVESTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS,
[02:45:02]
ARTICLE 3, URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD ADDENDUM TO MODIFY THE LIST OF CORNER STORES, PERMANENT STRUCTURES, AND KEMPNER PARK TO ADD THE STRUCTURE ADDRESS 1902, 31ST STREET, ALSO KNOWN AS DIBELLA'S, TO THE LIST OF PERMANENT STRUCTURES IN THE KEMPNER PARK NEIGHBORHOOD.STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS CONSTRUCTED AND USED FOR COMMERCIAL USES SINCE 1899, AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> EXCELLENT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS?
>> WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF DOING THIS IF IT'S ALREADY ZONED THIS WAY?
>> THE CITY HAS DELINEATED CERTAIN GEOGRAPHIC AREAS TO ONLY ALLOW COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY IN CORNER STORES THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY LISTED AND THIS HAPPENS TO BE ONE THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED.
THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST.
>> THAT REALLY DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING.
>> WELL, CURRENTLY BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THE LIST, IT CAN'T BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL USES.
THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THAT IT'D BE PUT IN THE LIST SO THAT IT CAN BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL.
[BACKGROUND] DIBELLA'S WAS PROBABLY GRANDFATHERED.
>> THAT'S WHY WE DON'T SAY GRANDFATHERED. WE SAY-
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? VERY GOOD.
WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 06:24.
WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND COME BACK FOR A MOTION.
>> COMMISSIONER EDWARDS, AND A SECOND.
>> COMMISSIONER LANTZ. SHE BEAT YOU.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? MOTION PASSES.
[7.E.2. 23ZA-002 Request For A Text Amendment To The Galveston Land Development Regulations, Article 2, Uses And Supplemental Standards To Modify Requirements For The “Public Utility Facility, Neighborhood” Land Use. Applicant: Development Services Department]
>> WE HAVE 23ZA-002, IT'S ALSO A TEXT AMENDMENT.
IN THIS CASE, IT HAS TO DO WITH PUBLIC UTILITY FACILITY NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS A LAND USE THAT ALLOWS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE.
THE CITY IS EMBARKING ON A SERIES OF PUMP STATIONS.
ONE OF THEM IS LOCATED ON SOUTH SHORE DRIVE.
IN MEETING WITH THE DEVELOPERS, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT PUBLIC UTILITY FACILITY NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN SOME OF THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT IT'D BE ALLOWED IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS WITH THE LIMITED STANDARDS THAT ARE LISTED FOR YOU IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
PLEASE NOTE THE CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS.
CITY COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL DECISION, MAKING AUTHORITY ON THIS REQUEST AND IT WILL BE REVIEWED AT THEIR MEETING OF APRIL 27TH.
STAFF FINDS IT APPROPRIATE TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ZONING DISTRICTS IN WHICH THE PUBLIC UTILITY FACILITY NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE IS ALLOWED.
THE PROPOSED LIMITED USE STANDARDS WILL HELP MITIGATE ANY NEGATIVE EFFECTS FROM THE FACILITY AND WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> VERY GOOD. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> THE PROPOSAL IS TO PUT PUMP STATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS?
>> THEY MAY BE LOCATED IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
>> BUT YOU WOULD HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ZONE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY USE AND THEY COULD PUT A PUMP STATION RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT.
>> THEY WOULD PUT A PUMP STATION IN THE MIDDLE OF IT.
IN ORDER TO IMPROVE FLOODING CONDITIONS, PUMP STATION HAS TO BE LOCATED WHERE YOU NEED TO EXPEL THE WATER.
>> ACTUALLY YOU CAN ALREADY DO THAT IN PUBLIC PROPERTY AND RIGHTS AWAY AND THINGS LIKE THAT ALREADY.
IN THIS PARTICULAR SENSE, THERE'S A LOT THAT CITY PURCHASED TO DO THIS ON.
THAT'S THE ONLY REAL DIFFERENCE.
>> CATHERINE, WHY IS A3 SCREENING ONLY ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE? I WASN'T LOOKING AT A2 BELOW WHERE IT SAYS WHEN THE SITE IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL USE, THERE SHALL BE VISUAL SCREENING ON ALL COMMON SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES.
WHY ON THIS ONE ONLY ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE?
>> REALLY FOR EASE OF MAINTENANCE THAT IN ORDER TO SCREEN ON THE SIDES, YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS IT SOMEHOW.
IT SEEMED MORE FEASIBLE TO JUST DO IT ON THE FRONT.
BUT IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT COMMISSION IS INTERESTED IN CHANGING, THAT'S AT YOUR DISCRETION.
>> I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK ABOUT IT.
PUMP STATION, PUBLIC UTILITY FACILITIES, IF THIS WERE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WOULD YOU WANT IT SCREENED ON EVERY SIDE OR ONE SIDE OR ONLY ON THE FRONT SIDE? IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE IS A BIG OLD STINKY WASTEWATER TREATMENT.
[02:50:05]
I DON'T KNOW WHO IT IS. IS THAT A STINKY SEWER PLANT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD? WHAT DO YOU CALL THAT?>> I THINK THAT'S A SEWER LIFT STATION.
>> YEAH. IT'S BIG OLD STINKY WHATEVER.
WELL, I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE ON THE SIDE OF THAT AND NOT HAVE SCREENING NOT AROUND IT, ALL THE WAY AROUND IT.
COULD THEY POTENTIALLY PUT PUBLIC UTILITY FACILITY NEIGHBORHOOD? THEY COULD PUT WHATEVER THAT WOULD BE UNDER ONE ACRE IN THE MIDDLE OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
I WOULD THINK I WOULD WANT IT SCREENED ON EVERY SIDE AND NOT JUST THE FRONT SIDE.
WELL, TELL ME WHAT I'M LOOKING AT WRONG HERE, YOU ALL.
>> IT'S COMPLETELY UP TO THE COMMISSION.
IF YOU THINK THAT'S MORE APPROPRIATE AND HELPS TO MITIGATE THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF THAT FACILITY, THEN YOU CAN MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION.
THE USE SHALL BE SCREENED FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES WITH SOLID EIGHT-FOOT FENCE, SO THAT COVERS ALL BORDERS.
>> I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE POINT ON NUMBER 3.
>> THAT'S A LANDSCAPING STRUCTURE.
>> WE'RE PROPOSING THAT THE AREA BE SCREENED WITH FENCING AND THEN LANDSCAPING JUST ALONG THE FRONT.
>> THERE WE GO. YOU HAVE FENCING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE ENTIRE PUMP STATION OR SECURE IT, AND THEN YOU'RE PROVIDING LANDSCAPING ON THE STREET SIDE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> A LANDSCAPING STRIP AT LEAST FOUR FEET IN WIDTH THAT PROVIDES YEAR-ROUND VISUAL BARRIER, BUT THERE'S NO DESIGNATION AS TO HEIGHT, AND IT'S ONLY ON THE FRONT.
>> CORRECT, THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
>> I KNOW WE'RE ALL TIRED AND WE'RE IN A HURRY, BUT I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT IF THEY PLOPPED THIS DOWN IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WHAT WOULD YOU WANT? THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE DO NEED TO THINK ABOUT. SORRY.
>> I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THERE'S NO RUSH ON THIS, THAT IT'S NOT SCHEDULED TO GO TO COUNSEL UNTIL APRIL 27TH SO IF THE COMMISSION ISN'T READY TO MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT, IT COULD BE DEFERRED TO THE NEXT MEETING.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE IT.
>> YOU STILL HAVE TO HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING.
[OVERLAPPING] EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NO PUBLIC, YOU STILL HAVE TO TECHNICALLY DO IT.
>> WE'RE STILL IN THE QUESTION FOR STAFF.
>> WE'RE NOT IN A HURRY ON THIS ONE.
>> I CAN TAKE SOME MORE TIME. THAT'S FINE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES.
>> I THROW OUT ONE CONSIDERATION.
>> OFTENTIMES THESE UTILITY SYSTEMS ARE NEAR WATER BODIES, IT'S INHERENT.
>> ARE NEAR WATER BODIES, ON BODIES OF WATER OR ADJACENT TO WATER BODIES.
IS YOUR THOUGHT TO SCREEN THAT SIDE AS WELL?
>> PERHAPS THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD NEED TO THINK ABOUT AND WRITE IN THAT IF IT IS A LAND ADJACENT, ALL LAND ADJACENT SIDES NEED TO BE SCREENED.
>> WHY DON'T WE JUST MAKE IT TO WHERE IT'S ADJACENT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY? IF IT'S NEXT DOOR TO YOUR NEIGHBOR, THEY NEED TO SCREEN.
>> WOULD IT BE PRIVATE PROPERTY? THEN MAYBE WE DON'T NEED TO DEFER IF SOMEONE HAS A MOTION THAT THEY WANT.
>> WE'LL GET BACK TO THAT BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE DISCUSSION ONCE THE MOTION'S MADE AS WELL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENT.
WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 06:32.
NOBODY IS LEFT HERE IN THE BUILDING EXCEPT FOR STAFF AND THE COMMISSIONERS AND WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS.
COMMISSIONER LANTZ, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> YEAH, I LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 23ZA-002 WITH THE ONE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3, WHERE THE SIZE IS LOCATED WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
VISUAL SCREENING SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE PROPERTY LINES ADJACENT TO [OVERLAPPING] PRIVATE PROPERTY.
>> HOLD ON. YES, WE HAVE A SECOND.
>> YES. [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO, I CAN'T. THAT IS ADJACENT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY SO WHERE IT'S ADJACENT TO A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, [OVERLAPPING] IT NEEDS TO INCLUDE A FRONT NEXT TO RIGHT-OF-WAY.
[02:55:02]
>> AND/OR WHAT IS ADJACENT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY.
>> I AMEND MY MOTION TO DEFER. [LAUGHTER]
WE'RE TRYING TO WORK OUT THE LANGUAGE, I KNOW.
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DEFER CASE 23ZA-002 SO THAT WE CAN CONFER WITH STAFF ON PROPER LANGUAGE. CAN I GET A SECOND?
>> I GOT A SECOND FROM HUMPHREY.
>> I'LL JUST CONFIRM THAT THAT DEFERRAL DATE IS TO MARCH 21ST AND STAFF WILL HAVE SOME EXAMPLE LANGUAGE.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION? CALL FOR A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF DEFERRAL? THAT MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
CATHERINE, IS THAT IT FOR THE NIGHT?
>> THAT IS EVERYTHING ON THE AGENDA.
>> I CAN TALK.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.