[00:00:02]
IT IS 3:30 WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL TO ORDER THE CITY OF GALVESTON PLANNING COMMISSION.
[1. Call Meeting To Order]
WE'VE CALLED ROLL BY SIGN-IN AND ATTENDANCE.[2. Attendance]
WE HAVE A QUORUM. NOTED ABSENCES ARE COMMISSIONER EDWARDS AND COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY.CATHERINE, CAN I GET A LIST OF ALL STAFF PRESENT, PLEASE? SURE. WE HAVE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TIETJENS, MYSELF, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER CATHERINE GORMAN PLANNING MANAGER, ADRIEL MONTALVAN, SENIOR PLANNER DANIEL LUNSFORD, COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGER KYLE CLARK, PLANNING TECHNICIAN KARINA ROSALES, AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, DONNA FAIRWEATHER.
VERY GOOD COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS ON ANY OF THE CASES TODAY? HEARING NONE. ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES?
[4. Approval Of Minutes]
HEARING NONE. THE MINUTES WILL BE ADOPTED AS PRESENTED.[5. Public Comment ]
WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND THIS IS PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM OR ON THIS SIDE? I WOULD LIKE TO [OVERLAPPING] PUBLIC COMMENT.JUST WANTED TO FIRST APOLOGIZE TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS INTO THE PELT PLANNING STAFF, AS WELL AS THAT CLARIFY SOME OF MY COMMENTS FROM THE LAST MEETING.
FIRST AND FOREMOST, I HAVE UTMOST RESPECT FOR THE WORK OUR CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOES.
I RECOGNIZE THEIR HARD WORK ON THE CASES THAT COME BEFORE US.
I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE LIMITS OF WHAT THE STAFF CAN SAY AND DO WHEN PRESENTING TO THE COMMISSION.
I ALONG WITH EVERYONE UP HERE OUR CITIZEN VOLUNTEERS WHO ARE DEEPLY MOTIVATED TO MAKE THIS ISLAND LIVABLE AND ENJOYABLE BY AS MANY AS POSSIBLE.
I ACCEPT THIS RESPONSIBILITY TO REPRESENT ALL RESIDENTS.
MOST OF US HERE DO NOT HAVE AN ARCHITECTURE OR DEVELOPMENT OR CONSTRUCTION BACKGROUND.
THE ONLY REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVING OUR RESIDENCY AND THE WILLINGNESS TO SERVE.
PART OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO ASK THOSE HARD QUESTIONS THAT HELP THE PUBLIC, AS WELL AS US UNDERSTAND ALL ASPECTS OF THE CASES PRESENTED.
WHEN I VOTE IT WILL NOT BE BECAUSE I PASSIVELY I'M AGREEING WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND WHILE THEY DO HOLD MERIT, I WILL FORM MY OWN OPINIONS.
IF THAT INVOLVES ASKING QUESTIONS, SOMETIMES SEEMINGLY IRRELEVANT, I WILL HAVE TO DO JUST THAT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT WAS RECEIVED.
VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. WITH THAT,
[6.A.1. 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'LL GO INTO OUR FIRST CASE. STAFF, CATHERINE.IT'S A REQUEST FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE GALVESTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARTICLE 2.
USES AND SUPPLEMENTORS STANDARDS TO MODIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITY FACILITY NEIGHBORHOOD LAND-USE.
AT THE MARCH 7TH, 2023 MEETING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DEFERRED THIS REQUEST TO TODAY'S MEETING IN ORDER FOR STAFF TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE REGARDING SCREENING REQUIREMENTS.
THERE HAD BEEN DISCUSSION THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO SEE SCREENING ON ALL SIDES OF THE PROPERTY.
SO ON THE SCREEN ARE THE PROPOSED LIMITED USE STANDARDS THAT INCLUDES ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IN NUMBER 3 SCREENING.
THE VISUAL SCREENING SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE FRONT AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES.
STAFFING IS CONTINUING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
EXCELLENT. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS? I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION IS I KNOW THIS WAS HERE BEFORE AND I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T ASK.
THE USUAL NOT OCCUPY A SITE OF MORE THAN ONE ACRE SO IF YOU HAVE A SITE THAT THE CITY NEEDS THAT'S LESS THAN AN ACRE, CAN EXPLAIN THAT PROCESS TO ME? THEY NEEDED MORE LAND.
IF IT'S LESS THAN AN ACRE, THEY'D BE ABLE TO USE.
IF THE ENTIRETY OF IT FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITY FACILITY IF IT WAS GREATER THAN ONE ACRE, IT WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED.
WHAT ABOUT THE ACQUISITION OF MORE PROPERTY IF IT'S NEEDED? THEY COULD ACQUIRE MORE PROPERTY AND JOINED PROPERTIES TOGETHER.
OTHER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 03:34 ON CASE 23, ZA-002.
IS ANYBODY ON THIS SIDE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE CASE AND ON THIS SIDE. HEARING NONE.
WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT, PERIOD AND COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION, PLEASE. YES.
I'M MOVE APPROVAL OF 23 ZA-002 FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS,
[00:05:06]
INCLUDING THE CHANGES IN THE MEMO OF MARCH 15, 23.SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PENA. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? CALL FOR A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
ALL PRESENT, VOTED AFFIRMATIVELY.
JUST NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT CITY COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL DECISION ON TEXT AMENDMENTS, AND THIS WILL BE HEARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 27TH.
THANK YOU. NEXT CASE, 23P- 016. I BELIEVE.
[7.A.1. 23P-016 (2, 3, 504, 508, 590, 602, 604, 606, 612, 614, 618, 702, 706, And 710 Lennox Avenue; 425, 511, 519, 521, 603, 609, 617, 619, 701, And 709 59th Street; 828 60th Street; 702 And 724 61st Street; 6000 Broadway Rear; And Adjacent Vacant Parcels) ]
THIS IS VARIOUS ADDRESSES SURROUNDING LENNOX AVENUE.IT'S A REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, 43 NOTICES WERE SENT ZERO RETURNED.
THE REQUEST IS TO INCORPORATE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BASE ZONING DISTRICTS TO RESTRICT CERTAIN LAND USES.
THE SUBJECT AREA INCLUDES THE FORMER MUNICIPAL INCINERATOR SITE LOCATED AT 3 LENNOX AVENUE AND THE PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY.
THE SOILS IN THE VICINITY, PUT THE MAP UP.
THERE ARE TWO PEOPLE ON THE ZOOM, [INAUDIBLE] AND BOB SCHAFFER.
THE SOILS IN THE SUBJECT AREA CONTAINS CERTAIN IDENTIFIED CHEMICALS OF CONCERN AND IS IN THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, IS VIOLENCE TERRY GRANT PROGRAM.
THE CITY OF GALVESTON IS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT IS INITIATING THIS PUD REQUEST IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON AND ASSURE AND PREVENT EXPOSURE TO COCS NOW AND IN THE FUTURE BY RESTRICTING THE LAND USES HERE TO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL.
THE INTENT OF THE PUD IS TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN LAND USES THAT ARE RESIDENTIAL, ELITE RELATED IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT, ALONG WITH USES THEY MAY HAVE A RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT OR USES THAT PROVIDE FOR FARMING ACTIVITIES AND THE SAME IN THE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
SITE DETAILS, THE SUBJECT SITE CONSISTS OF 47 LOTS, GENERALLY LOCATED EAST AND WEST OF LENNOX.
THE CITY OF GALVESTON OWNS THE MAJORITY OF THE LANDS AND THE SUBJECT AREA AS SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT B AND YOUR STAFF REPORT.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED LAND USE REGULATIONS ARE APPROPRIATE DUE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS.
THE BASE ZONE OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROVIDE FOR A NUMBER OF PERMITTED LAWN NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.
PLEASE NOTE THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, STAFF RECOMMENDATION, STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED PUD NOT CONTRARY TO THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE 2011 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MEETS THE ABOVE REFERENCE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.
STAFF RECOMMENDS CASE 23P-016 BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, SPECIFIC CONDITION 1 AND THEN STANDARD CONDITIONS TWO THROUGH FOUR.
THIS REQUEST A PUD THE FINAL DECISION IS BY CITY COUNCIL AND CITY COUNCIL WILL HEAR THIS REQUEST ON APRIL 27TH, 2023.
HERE IS AN AERIAL SHOWING THE SUBJECT AREA.
EVERYTHING WITHIN THAT RED LINE, AND SHADED GREEN, WILL BE RESTRICTED FROM RESIDENTIAL RELATED USES UNDER THE PUD AND WE HAVE JUST SOME PICTURES OF THE GENERAL AREA CONSISTS OF MOSTLY VACANT LOTS ALONG LENNOX AND THEN SOME COMMERCIAL TRACKS, AND THEN HERE ARE SOME OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> VERY GOOD. COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER WALLA. SORRY.
>> SORRY. I LOOKED DOWN THERE.
>> JUST CURIOUS WHY A PUD AND NOT JUST THIS DIDN'T FIT IN A DIFFERENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION, IS THAT THE PURPOSE?
>> WELL, DAN AND TIM HAVE WORKED ON THIS FOR A WHILE AND THEY CAN TALK PROBABLY MORE ABOUT THE BACKGROUND.
THERE WAS SOME THOUGHT GIVEN TO DOING DEED RESTRICTIONS, BUT ULTIMATELY WE THOUGHT PUD WAS THE BEST TOOL.
>> I'M JUST CURIOUS. THANK YOU.
>> COMMISSIONERS, I'LL JUST GIVE A BRIEF LITTLE BACKGROUND AND HOPEFULLY THIS WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS RELATED ON WHAT I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU.
OF COURSE, WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE OLD INCINERATOR PROPERTY THAT WAS ON TAKING DOWN SEVERAL YEARS AGO BUT IN LOOKING AT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND THERE WERE SOME RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE AREA AS WELL, IT WAS TESTED AND OF COURSE, THERE WERE SOME CHEMICALS OF CONCERN THAT WERE FOUND IN SOME OF THE SURROUNDING LOT AREAS.
THE CITY HAS SPENT CONSIDERABLE TIME BUYING SOME OF THOSE PROPERTIES SO THE CITY IS THE OWNER OF SEVERAL OF THOSE RESIDENTIAL HOMES.
[00:10:04]
NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT THE MAJORITY OF THEM.I ALSO SHOULD SAY THAT OUR CONSULTANTS WITH A COMMA ALSO UNDERLINE, THAT'S DOUGLAS DARKER AND BOB SCHAFFER SO YOU MAY HEAR THEM PIPE IN AS WELL [NOISE] BUT THE SPECIFIC ANSWER AS TO WHY WE COULD NOT DO DEED RESTRICTIONS IS BECAUSE WE DON'T OWN ALL THE PROPERTY IN THE AREA AND IN ORDER, OF COURSE, FOR A DEED RESTRICTION, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE OWNERSHIP OF THE AREA AND/OR GET THE OWNERS OF THEIR OWN SPECIFIC PIECES OF PROPERTY TO SIGN ON AND IT WAS JUST A MORE ONEROUS SITUATION AND MANY OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS, I'M SURE, INCLUDING THE RAILROAD AND SOME OTHER FACILITIES IN THERE, DON'T WANT TO GIVE UP THEIR OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY SO THE AREA IN GENERAL IS RESTRICTED TO THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL TYPE OF SCENERY THAT WAS JUST SHOWN IN THE PICTURES ANYWAY AND THE PROPERTIES THAT THE CITY DID ACQUIRE, THE CITY DEMOLISHED SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE A LOT OF VACANT LOTS IN THE AREA.
THE PUD, OF COURSE, MAKES THE IN THE RED OUTLINE THAT YOU SEE IS THE AREAS WHERE THERE WERE SOME CHEMICALS OF CONCERN THAT WERE NOTED.
THE CONSULTANTS CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT.
THE LEVELS ARE DIFFERENT SO IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S ONE STATIC AMOUNT OF CHEMICAL OF CONCERN IN EACH LOT OR IN ALL OF THE LOTS.
THERE'S JUST CERTAIN PARTS THAT YOU MAY SEE, MAYBE IN THE STAFF REPORT WHERE SOME OF THE AREAS WERE NOTED, THERE'S GOING TO BE A REMEDIATION PLAN THAT THE CITY WILL GO INTO AND SO THIS PROJECT IS BY FAR NOT OVER.
HOWEVER, ACOM AS OUR CONSULTANTS, WE'VE WORKED WITH THE TCEQ.
TCEQ REQUIRES EITHER DEED RESTRICTIONS OR A PUD AND SO AGAIN, SINCE WE COULDN'T REALLY DO DEED RESTRICTIONS, THE PUD WAS THE NEXT BEST THING.
THE ONLY OTHER THING ACTUALLY LEFT TO THE CITY TO DO.
THIS DRAFT OF THE ORDINANCE WAS SUBMITTED TO TCEQ.
THEY HAVE SIGNED OFF ON IT AS WELL.
THEY'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL USES AND THAT ALSO TOOK SOME TIME.
WHEN I SAY TOOK SOME TIME, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROJECT SINCE AT LEAST 2019, MAYBE 2018 SO IT'S TAKEN A WHILE TO GET TO THIS POINT AND I'M VERY EXCITED THAT IT'S GOTTEN TO THIS POINT.
TIM DID YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ADDITIONAL?
>> THE ONLY THING I'LL ADD TO THAT IS [NOISE] THE CHEMICALS OF CONCERN.
THERE'S TWO OF THEM OUT THERE THAT ARE IN VARIOUS SPOTS IN WITHIN THIS RED BOUNDARY AREA.
AGAIN, AS DONNA SAID, IT'S NOT IN EVERY TRACT, IT'S IN REALLY ISOLATED SPOTS WITHIN SOME OF THOSE TRACKS.
THE CONCENTRATION OF THE CHEMICAL IS TO THE POINT WHERE IT'S NOT REALLY GOOD FOR RESIDENTIAL USES AND OBVIOUSLY THAT'S WHY THE PUD IS BEFORE YOU BUT IT'S ACCEPTABLE FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL USES.
AS REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTIES OCCUR OVER TIME, OF COURSE, WITH REMEDIATION AND ALL THE PROXIMITY WILL BE JUST FINE FOR THOSE USES.
THEN THE CONSULTANTS MAY ALSO WANT TO ADD ANYTHING ELSE THAT THEY MAY WANT TO ADD.
>> DOUG OR BOB, DID YOU GUYS WANT TO ADD ANYTHING?
>> I'LL JUST JUMP IN REAL QUICK.
THIS IS DOUG ZARKER WITH ACOM TALKING.
I THINK YOU DID EXCELLENT OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT.
I WAS GOING TO ADD THAT THE TWO CHEMICALS OF CONCERN ARE METALS BASED ARSENIC AND WHAT'S CALLED THE PIH.
LIKE TIM WAS SAYING, THERE'S BASICALLY FOR OUR REMEDIATION PLAN, THERE'S HALF A DOZEN I WANT TO SAY 10 BY 10 AREAS THAT HAVE ELEVATED CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE WHAT THE TCEQ CONSIDERS THEIR HEALTH BASED GUIDELINES SO AND THAT'S ABOVE THE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL PCL SO THE REMEDIATION PLAN IS TO GO INTO THESE SIX OR SEVEN AREAS AND EXCAVATE THE SOIL AND DISPOSE OF THE SOIL AND THEN IN TURN,
[00:15:04]
THAT'LL BE THE REMEDIATION.BOB MIGHT WANT TO CHIME IN AS WELL.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD TO THAT, BOB.
>> ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR ME DOUG?
>> OKAY. NO. THANKS. THIS IS BOB SCHAFFER WITH THE E-COMM.
I WOULD JUST ADD TO THAT AS CLARIFICATION THAT THE REMEDIATION PLAN THAT SPOKEN ABOUT IS TO RESTORE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL LAND USE.
IN OTHER WORDS, I BELIEVE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE WITH THE PUD IS TO RESTRICT ANY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES, AND THEN IN ORDER FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THOSE PROPERTIES TO BE SUITABLE FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND THAT'S WHERE THOSE SIX OR SEVEN SPOTS COME INTO PLAY, THAT WILL BE FURTHER REMEDIATED.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THAT'S STILL IN THE CONTEXT OF COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL LAND USE WITH THE PUD, IF PASSED EFFECTIVELY RESTRICTING ANY FUTURE RESIDENTIAL USE.
>> YOU WANT TO FOLLOW UP? COMMISSIONER WALLA?
>> I JUST HAVE A QUICK. I KNOW THE DIFFERENT CHEMICALS HAVE A TENDENCY TO MIGRATE IN DIFFERENT WAYS AND I'M NOT AN EXPERT, BUT JUST CURIOUS.
HAS THERE BEEN ANY OFFSITE MIGRATION OF THE CHEMICALS OR IS THIS STUFF PRETTY MUCH HEAVY ENOUGH IT STAYS WHERE IT'S AT?
>> WELL, I'LL INITIALLY SAY THAT THIS IS THE PUD OUTLINE THAT YOU SEE IS JUST WHAT THE CITY HAS DETERMINED THE CHEMICALS OF CONCERN ARE.
THERE ARE PROPERTIES OUTSIDE OF IT.
I BELIEVE WERE ALSO TESTED AND THE CHEMICALS HADN'T REACHED THAT FAR.
I DON'T KNOW IF BOB OR DOUG IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL.
THROUGH THE STATE REGULATORY PROCESS, THE ORIGINAL SITE IN VICINITY WAS ASSESSED SOIL AND GROUNDWATER WAS ASSESSED OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE AREAS THAT REQUIRED SOME FURTHER ACTION OR WHAT THEY CALL, OR WHAT THE TCEQ REFERS TO AS A RESPONSE ACTION.
ONE RESPONSE ACTION THAT WAS COMPLETED WAS IN THE SOURCE AREA AT THE FORMER INCINERATOR ITSELF, WHICH WAS THE TAKING DOWN OF THAT INCINERATOR IN THE CAPPING, THE PAVING OVER OF THAT AREA, WHICH WAS LARGELY DONE TO PREVENT NOT ONLY ACCESS AND EXPOSURE, BUT TO PREVENT FURTHER MIGRATION OF THOSE CHEMICALS OF CONCERN FROM THAT SOURCE AREA.
THEN IN THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OFF THE MAIN SITE THROUGHOUT THAT VICINITY, THE TCEQ APPROVED OF THE ASSESSMENTS THAT WERE DONE AND THE RESPONSE ACTIONS THAT WERE APPROVED TO HAVE TO DO WITH THESE INSTEAD OF A PHYSICAL CONTROL HAD TO DO WITH THIS INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL, WHICH IS IN EFFECT THE PUD PENDING THE I GUESS WHAT WE COULD CALL THE HOTSPOT CLEANUP OF THOSE SIX OR SEVEN LOCATIONS TO RESTORE THOSE BACK TO COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL USE, THEN THE STATE, THEN THE INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL IS THE EFFECT OF CONTROL THERE SO I THINK COMPREHENSIVELY WITH THE SAME VICINITY HAVING BEEN ASSESSED, AND WITH THAT ASSESSMENT PROCESS HAVING BEEN APPROVED BY THE TCEQ AND THE VARIETY OF THE MULTIPLE RESPONSE ACTIONS APPLIED FIRST WITH THE CAP AND COVER OF LOT E AND THEN NOW THESE INSTITUTIONAL SPOT CLEANUP AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS AROUND THE OFFSIDE OR THE AREAS OFF OF LOTTIE THAT COMBINED THAT IS, I GUESS REGULATORALLY VIEWED OR APPROVED AS ADEQUATE FOR PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT GOING FORWARD.
>> RUSTY, WAS THAT ALL YOU HAD?
WAS FINE WITH YOUR OVERVIEW, DONNA.
WHAT'S THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT FOR THE EXCAVATION AND THE DISPOSAL OF THE SOIL TO BE COMPLETED?
[00:20:01]
>> I'M GOING TO LET DOUG OR BOB HANDLE THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO HANDLE THE REMEDIATION PROCESS AS WELL.
>> AECOM IS ALSO DOING THE REGULATORY SIDE OF THE WORK AND THEN ALSO THE DESIGN SIDE.
THROUGH THAT PROCESS, THE DESIGN SIDE, WE'VE ALREADY GOTTEN THROUGH THE 30% APPROVAL PHASE AND THEN WHAT WE CALL THE 90% APPROVAL PHASE AND SO ALL WE NEED TO DO AT THIS POINT IS TO SUBMIT THE FINAL DESIGN.
WE'VE GOTTEN ALL THE COMMENTS BACK FROM ENGINEERING AND THERE WERE VERY FEW COMMENTS.
I HOPE TO GET THAT IN EARLY NEXT MONTH.
THEN THAT STARTS THE PROCESS OF GOING OUT TO BID FOR THE PROJECT.
I GUESS IT HAS TO GO THROUGH CITY COUNCIL FIRST BEFORE THAT HAPPENS, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AS FAR AS THE DESIGN SIDE.
AS FAR AS HOW LONG THE PROJECT IS GOING TO TAKE, WE HAVE A SCHEDULE OF THREE WEEKS FOR THE ACTUAL EXCAVATION AND TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL OF THESE 6, 7 HOTSPOTS.
BUT THEN FROM WHAT I ORIGINALLY HEARD WAS THEN THAT WOULD THEN IT WOULD ALL BE DONE, WHICH MADE ME CONCERNED THAT WE'RE PUTTING A PUD OVERLAY OVER ALL OF THIS AND THEN WE'RE RESTRICTING THE USE OF THE LAND WHICH CONCERNED ME.
BUT THEN WHAT I HEARD WAS, WE WANT A PERMANENT RESTRICTION OVER THE LAND.
THAT'S THE WAY WE WANT TO KEEP IT FOREVER.
WE DON'T EVER WANT ANY OF THIS LAND TO EVER BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE THESE CHEMICALS HAVE BEEN ON THEM EVEN AFTER THEY'RE EXCAVATED, DISPOSED OFF, REMEDIATED.
WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING NOW IS THAT WE DO NOT EVER WANT THIS PUD OVERLAY TO EVER COME OFF OF THIS LAND.
MY INITIAL CONCERN WHEN I WAS REVIEWING THIS WAS HOW DO WE GET THIS PUD OFF OF IT AFTER IT'S REMEDIATED? BUT NOW I'M UNDERSTANDING WE DON'T EVER WANT IT OFF.
>> BECAUSE THE REMEDIATION IS ONLY GOING TO TAKE IT UP TO THE COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LEVEL.
IS NOT GOING TO TAKE IT UP TO A RESIDENTIAL.
>> CORRECT. YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAVE RESIDENTIAL USES ON THAT LAND.
CLEARLY, IF WE WANT TO GO LOWER, WE COULD, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE MORE EXPENSIVE.
>> YOU GOT ME TO THAT, THAT WE'RE JUST GETTING TO THAT COMMERCIAL IN LIGHT INDUSTRIAL STANDARD.
>> THERE WAS ALSO A REQUIREMENT OF TCEQ.
>> WE WANT SOMETHING ON A PERMANENT BASIS FOR THIS AREA.
>> OKAY. YOU GOT ME. THANK YOU.
>> A QUESTION FOR COUNSEL AND TIM.
WE HEARD FROM AECOM THAT THEY ARE WORKING ON DESIGN PLANS THAT 30% OR 50 OR 90%.
I KNOW IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE DISCUSSION FOR THE PUD, BUT I'VE GOT A QUESTION.
IS THAT THERE ARE 15 PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THIS PUD.
I'M ASSUMING THAT ONE EVERYBODY SIGNED OFF ON THE FACT THAT THEY WANT TO PUD IN THIS AREA.
TWO, IF THERE'S WORKING ON SOME DESIGN CONCEPT THAT'S GOING TO BE COMING OUT AS AN RFP THROUGH THE CITY, THERE'S SOME A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, I GUESS THAT HAS BEEN REACHED WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> LET'S CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT BEFORE WE CAN JUMP IN THIS.
FOR THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE SINCE WE DON'T SEE THESE VERY OFTEN AT ALL, ASIDE FROM THE REGULAR NOTICE THAT GOES OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE AREA AND OUTSIDE OF THE AREA, WE DID COMPOSE A SPECIFIC LETTER REGARDING THE REASONINGS BEHIND THIS PUD.
FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANY COMMENTS BACK FROM THOSE OWNERS AND SO THIS, AGAIN, IS SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T THAT COME UP WILLY NILLY.
SEVERAL OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE ALREADY BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE CITY, EITHER IN REGARD TO POSSIBLY SELLING THEIR LAND BECAUSE OF THE REASONS THAT WE ESPOUSE BEFORE, BUT IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SELL THEIR LAND TO THE CITY.
NOTIFYING THEM OF WHAT ISSUES WERE, AS MATTER OF FACT EVERYBODY WAS NOTIFIED INITIALLY OF THE SOIL CONTAMINANTS.
[00:25:01]
EVERYBODY WAS MADE AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE SUBJECT AREA.THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE, I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW THAT WORKS.
MAYBE THE DESIGN PLAN IS AN OVERBROAD OF WHAT ACTUALLY IS GOING TO BE HAPPENING OUT THERE.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT BUILDING BUILDINGS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT I'LL LET YOU.
>> AT SOME POINT IT MAY COME TO THAT AND PERHAPS THE OWNERS OF THOSE PROPERTIES MIGHT BENEFIT FROM AN UP ZONING.
THERE WERE SEVERAL HOMES OUT THERE, ESPECIALLY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE CAPPED LANDFILL.
[NOISE] THAT'S GOT COMMERCIAL VIABILITY AS TO THE ROAD AT FRANCE.
I THINK REALLY THAT'S THE WHOLE INTENT FOR THIS IS TO ALLOW FOR THE PROPER REDEVELOPMENT OF THAT LAND.
IT DOESN'T JUST SIT OUT AS AN EYESORE FOR ETERNITY.
>> SURE. NOW, I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU BOTH.
APPRECIATE IT. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> THE BOUNDARY HERE IS VERY LINEAR AND THERE'S ONE LITTLE CUT OUT THERE OF AN EXISTING HOUSE THAT'S SITTING ON THE 59TH.
I'M ASSUMING THAT THE CONTAMINATION IS INSIDE THAT BOUNDARY OR DOES IT EVER REACH ONE OF THE BOUNDARIES?
THAT PROPERTY IS THE JAME'S PROPERTY WHICH THERE STILL A RESIDENT'S HOUSE STRUCTURE ON THAT PROPERTY.
>> THE CONTAMINATION, THERE'S TWO HOTSPOTS ON THAT PROPERTY THAT EXCEED THE RESIDENTIAL VALUE.
WE'RE GOING TO GO AND CLEAN UP THAT PROPERTY TO THE MORE CONSERVATIVE RESIDENTIAL PCL.
ONE WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT AS COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL THE VALUE MIGHT BE 100 TO CLEAN IT UP.
BUT WITH RESIDENTIAL, YOU HAVE TO CLEAN IT UP TO 10 PARTS PER MILLION.
IT'S CLEANING IT UP TO A RESIDENTIAL HEALTH BASED GUIDELINE.
>> THAT'S WHY THAT THAT PROPERTY CAN STAY OUTSIDE OF THE PUD BECAUSE YOU'RE ACTUALLY DOING MUCH HIGHER LEVEL OF CLEAN UP ON THAT PROPERTY?
>> THE OWNERS DIDN'T WANT TO SELL THE PROPERTY.
THE CITY HAS ACQUIRED ALL THE OTHER PROPERTIES ALONG THAT STRETCH, EXCEPT FOR THE JAME'S PROPERTY.
>> BUT THE CITY IS CLEANING IT UP.
>> THE CITY OWNS THE PROPERTIES ON LENNOX FOR THE PROPERTIES ON 49TH STREET ARE MOSTLY PRIVATELY OWNED.
>> THIS PROPERTY RIGHT HERE IS JAME'S PROPERTY.
>> THE OWNERS EVERY TIME DID NOT WANT TO SELL.
WE HAD TO COME UP WITH WAY TO STILL ALLOW THE POEM TO FUNCTION AS A RESIDENTIAL HOME AND THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS TO REMEDIATE THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY TO A RESIDENTIAL STANDARD.
>> TO A RESIDENTIAL STANDARD. THAT MAKES SENSE.
THEN I'M GUESSING YOU'RE TESTING WHEN YOU ALL ACTUALLY TESTED THIS AREA WENT OUTSIDE OF THIS EXISTING BOUNDARY?
>> I BELIEVE SO, BUT I THINK FROM WHAT I HEARD, WITH THE CAP OR BARBER OR DOUG WAS THERE ANY TESTING ACROSS BECAUSE THERE'S.
>> I THINK THE SIMPLE WAY TO EXPLAIN IT IS THAT THE DATA GUIDED THE BOUNDS OF THE IMPACTS AND THEN THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES WERE DRAWN TO COVER THOSE IMPACTS.
>> THAT MAKES SENSE. THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE JAMES HOUSE THERE AND THAT ANSWERED MY QUESTION, SO THAT'S GOOD.
>> THERE ARE MANY TANKS UP THERE AND SO THAT PROPERTY IS ALREADY BEEN MOLD THROUGH AS WELL WHILE IT'S LITTLE.
>> THIS RESTRICTS I'M TRYING TO GET TO MY LIST HERE.
RESIDENTIAL USES AND THEN COMMERCIAL.
WHERE IS THE WORD I WAS LOOKING FOR? COMMERCIAL USES WITH THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT.
>> WELL, THEY WENT THROUGH THE LAND-USE TABLE AND WE LOOKED AT EVERYTHING THAT'S CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN.
>> LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL IF THOSE ARE THE TWO CATEGORIES THAT OCCUR HERE.
[00:30:02]
RESIDENTIAL DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO BUILD A HOUSE, BUT IT ALLOWS YOU TO DO THESE OTHER USES THAT HAVE A RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT.>> THAT'S WHY WE IDENTIFY THESE COMMERCIALS A LITTLE BIT BROADER.
IT HAS MORE RESIDENTIAL-RELATED USES.
>> BUT LIKE A RETAIL OR SOMETHING TO THAT COULD STILL FALL WITHIN THE USE OF THIS BLOOD?
>> ANYTHING THAT'S IN THE LAND USE TABLE THAT'S CURRENTLY ALLOWED, THAT'S NOT ONE OF THESE USES WILL CONTINUE.
>> NOT ONE OF THESE SPECIFIC USES HERE WITHIN THESE TWO, PUDDLE AND USE CHARTS HERE.
>> ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> THOSE PROPERTIES ALONG 59TH STREET CURRENTLY, ARE THEY ZONED R1?
>> NO, THEY'RE MOSTLY ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.
>> THEY'RE MOSTLY ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.
I'M LOOKING AT THIS GOING OKAY.
YOU GOT APPARENTLY YOU HAD A COUPLE OF PEOPLE THAT SAID WE DON'T WANT TO COME PLAY, JUST COUNT US OUT AND FIX MY STUFF.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF PROPERTIES THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED.
IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THOSE PEOPLE SAID, HEY, WE WANT YOU TO COME CLEAN OUR PROPERTY UP AND BRING US TO THE STANDARD AND THEY DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE PUD.
>> THE ONLY PROPERTY THAT I'M AWARE OF DO NOT WANT TO SELL THEIR PROPERTY TO THE CITY.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY OF CONCERN.
THAT'S WHY THE BOUNDARY IS WHERE THE BOUNDARY IS ACTUALLY, THERE WERE NO OF CONCERN IN THE AREA.
THE PROPERTY DID HAVE CHEMICALS OF CONCERN WAS THE JAMES PROPERTY DID NOT CHOOSE TO SELL THE PROPERTY AND SO [INAUDIBLE].
>> THE CITY OWNS THESE PROPERTIES IN THE DEAL ALONG 59TH STREET?
>> HERE, BUT THEY'RE OKAY WITH-
>> WE'VE HEARD FROM ALL OF THOSE OTHER OWNERS THAT WITH NO OBJECTION.
>> EVERY OWNER HAD CONTACTED I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY OBJECTIVES TO THE PLAN. AGAIN-
>> WE SENT OUT THE ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATION AS TO WHAT WAS OCCURRING, THERE ARE NO HOLES THERE. THE ONLY [OVERLAPPING].
>> THEY'RE VACANT YES. I UNDERSTAND.
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE SOMEBODY HERE THATS-
>> THEY HAVEN'T APPROVED THIS EITHER.
>> THEY JUST BEEN SENT THE NOTICE SO THE SIT IN THIS, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
>> NOTES, BUT THAT'S FOR THE PAD AREA.
>> THEY KNOW THAT THERE'S A SITUATION HERE THAT REMEDIATION IS-
>> YEAH, BUT WHAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY WITH RUSSIA THAT, THESE PEOPLE THEY'RE NOT NOR DO THEY NEED TO AGREE TO THIS.
>> THIS IS A CITY-INITIATED ZONING CHANGE.
JUST LIKE IN 2015 WHEN THE CITY WENT OUT THERE REZONE THINGS.
>> THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.
>> THEY'VE BEEN NOTIFIED SEVERAL TIMES, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO ACTUALLY AGREE TO WHAT YOU ALL ARE VOTING ON RIGHT NOW.
>> I GET IT NOW. OKAY. PRETTY GOOD INDICATOR FOR THE FACT THAT NOBODY SEEMS TO BE OVERLY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS FROM THE OWNERSHIP STANDPOINT, IS THERE NOT HERE OBJECTING.
[LAUGHTER] NOT ONLY ARE THERE TWO NOTICES THAT WENT OUT RECENTLY, THE STANDARD 200-FOOT NOTICE THAT WE DO WITH PADS, AS WELL AS THE SPECIFIC LETTER THAT WAS GENERATED.
BUT ALL THE PRELIMINARY STEPS OF GENERATING THIS WHOLE BROWNFIELD RELIEF CONCEPT WAS DISCUSSED WITH EACH OF THESE OWNERS.
EARLY ON, YEARS AGO, SO THEY'VE BEEN MADE AWARE OF THIS.
AGAIN, WE'VE NOT HAD REALLY ANY ISSUES WITH ANYBODY OBJECTING TO IT THUS FAR, EXCEPT FOR THE ONE OWNERSHIP THAT WANTED TO REMAIN RESIDENTIAL.
>> PRETTY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THE CITY WAS THE APPLICANT, I GUESS WE'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO THE PUBLIC COMMENT HERE, PERIOD.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE, ON THIS SIDE OR ON THIS SIDE? YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS ARE NOT PRESENT. HAVEN'T COMMENTED.
>> [LAUGHTER] WITH THAT, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD THE SAME TIME 04:04 P.M. COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION FOR THIS CASE? I'LL MAKE ONE.
[00:35:05]
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CASE 23P- 016 AS PRESENTED BY STAFF WITH THE CONDITIONS PRESENT.
>> SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILL.
DISCUSSION. CALL FOR A VOTE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
WHATEVER THAT WORD IS. THAT TOO. THANK YOU.
THANK [NOISE] YOU VERY MUCH TO ALL OF YOU ALL AND TO THE FOLKS FROM AN ECON FOR BEING PRESENT AND FOR ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
>> SORRY WE ASK SO MANY QUESTIONS, JUST SOMETHING WE'VE NEVER SEEN BEFORE AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE.
WHAT DO WE GET YOU ON THE NEXT ROUND?
>> VERY GOOD. CATHERINE OR KYLE,
[7.B.1. 22P-074 (19211 Shores Drive) Request For Beachfront Construction Certificate And Dune Protection Permit To Include Proposed Construction For An Addition To An Existing Single-Family Residence With Fibercrete Under The Habitable Structure Extension. The Applicant Also Proposes To Extend The Existing Deck. Property Is Legally Described As Hall And Jones Survey, Lot 38A, The Dunes Of West Beach Replat, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Ernie Weldon Property Owner: Donna And Wayne Tucker]
IN THIS CASE, I GUESS. 22P-074.>> ALREADY. YOU'RE GOING TO TELL ME OWN.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTS WITH FABRIC RIGHT UNDER THE HABITABLE STRUCTURE, AND ALSO TO EXTEND THE EXISTING DECK.
THE ADDRESS IS 991211 SHORES DRIVE.
THE PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 38A PART RP OF DUNES OF WEST BEACH OR SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE DUNES OF WEST BEAT SUB-DIVISION.
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
A BEACH IN DUNE SYSTEM IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS STABLE.
STAFF HAVE PREPARED PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR VIEWING.
FIRST, WE HAVE A FIRM AND BEG MAP SHOWING THE DISTANCE OF THE STRUCTURE FROM THE DUNE SYSTEM AND ITS POSITIONED RELATIVE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
NEXT SLIDE. NEXT SLIDE IS A PROPERTY SURVEY ZOOMED IN ON THE RIGHT TO SHOW THE NORTH TOE OF THE DUNE AND THE DISTANCE OF 55 FEET, SHOWING THE LINE OF THE NEW EDITION.
NEXT SLIDE, OKAY. ON THE FOLLOWING SLIDE, WE HAD THE PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR CONSTRUCTION PLAN WITH A NEW EDITION AND PROPOSED FIBER, CRETE.
JUST NEXT THREE SLIDES, THE FRONT LEFT, AND RIGHT ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING RESIDENTS, AND PROPOSED ADDITION AND DECK.
NEXT SLIDE. FINALLY, WE HAVE PHOTOS OF THE SOFT FROM THE NORTH, EAST, WEST, AND SOUTH, AND SOUTH OF LINE OF VEGETATION.
THIS INCLUDES STAFF REPORT AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> VERY GOOD. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? JUST ONE COMMENT.
KYLE, I'D LIKE THE SECOND PARAGRAPH WHERE THE APPLICANT TOOK CARE OF THE CONSTRUCTION AS THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA, THE DECK OR THE WALK OVER.
THAT WAS GOOD. I APPRECIATE THE DETAIL ON THAT, SO THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT OR OWNER PRESENT?
>> SUPER. WOULD YOU COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN, PLEASE.
>> HELLO, EVERYBODY. I'M ERNIE WELDON.
I'M THE APPLICANTS WITH THIS THANKS SHELL FOR YOUR SERVICE AND BEING HERE ON YOUR TIME.
HOPEFULLY THE QUESTIONS GO A LITTLE QUICKER THAN THE PREVIOUS ONE.
>> YEAH. ANYTHING IN ADDITION TO WHAT KYLE PRESENTED THAT YOU'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON?
>> NEGATIVE, IT'S PRETTY MUCH CUT AND DRY.
THE GLOS GOT THEIR COMMENT LETTER, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT NOW WE'VE GOT A NEW PROTOCOL WHERE THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ADDITIONAL LETTER TO AND FOLLOW UP TO MAKE SURE NOTHING GOES OUTSIDE OF WHAT'S BEEN PERMITTED.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S AN EXTRA STEP THAT'S BEEN NEEDED FOR AWHILE, I THINK, OUT THERE.
NO, I DON'T REALLY HAVE MUCH MORE I CAN ADD, BUT I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, HOPEFULLY.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THAT WAS EASY. MR. WELDON, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING PRESENT AND FOR HELPING MOVE THOSE FORWARD.
>> THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE.
>> YOU'RE BUILDING WHERE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BUILD.
>> THAT WAS COMMISSIONER HILL SAYING, AND BUILDING WHERE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BUILD.
[00:40:01]
>> YEAH. ABSOLUTELY. WITH THAT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON THE CASE.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE ON THE SIDE OR THE OTHER SIDE? WE'LL CLOSE IT AT 4:10, JUST LIKE WE OPENED IT AND COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION. COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE].
>> I WILL MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CASE 22P-074 AS WRITTEN.
>> SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NO DISCUSSION, WE'LL CALL FOR A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CASE 22P-074? MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
APPRECIATE YOU ALL BEING PRESENT AGAIN.
>> MR. WELDON I WANT TO TELL YOU DON'T GET TOO USED TO THAT.
THAT'S ABOUT THE EASIEST BEACH FRONT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT WE'VE HAD IN AT LEAST SIX MONTHS.
>> CATHERINE, WHY IS THIS ONE NUMBER 22P AS OPPOSED TO BF?
>> BEACH FRONTS TYPICALLY COME WITH P NUMBERS.
SOMETIMES IF THEY'RE DOING A DUNE MITIGATION, YOU MIGHT SEE A BF.
>> BUT BEACH FRONTS ARE TYPICALLY PS.
>> SHUTDOWN ON THAT ONE. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO TRY TO GET ONE ON.
[7.C.1. 23P-015 (Adjacent To 805 12th Street) Request For A License To Use In Order To Construct A Covered Porch And Stairs. Adjacent Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, Part Of Lot 7 (7-1), Block 252, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Joseph And Joan Lowe Adjacent Property Owner: Joseph And Joan Lowe Easement Holder: City Of Galveston]
NEXT CASE, 23P-015.>> THIS IS ADJACENT TO 805 12TH STREET.
BUT THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A LICENSE TO USE FOR COVERED PORCH AND STAIRS AND WE'LL SEE ON THE SCREEN HERE A SIDE SHOT OF THE HOUSE IN QUESTION AND THE AREA THAT'S IN QUESTION.
BY THE WAY, THEY WERE 25 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, NONE OF THOSE RETURNED.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A LICENSE TO USE TO CONSTRUCT A COVERED PORCH OF STAIRS OVER THE EXISTING DOOR THERE.
DUE TO THE PROXIMITY OF THE STRUCTURE TO THE EAST PROPERTY LINE OR PRESENTATION WILL ENCROACH APPROXIMATELY FOUR FOOT INTO THE 12TH STREET, RIGHT-OF-WAY.
PROPOSED COVERED PORCH AND STAIRS WE LOCATED ON THE EAST FACADE IS SHOWN ORIENTED PARALLEL TO THE WALL AND RUNNING PARALLEL TO THE ADJACENT SIDEWALK AS WELL.
TO PROTECT AND PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE EXISTING DOOR, THIS WILL REPLACE AN EXISTING SET OF CONCRETE STAIRS, WHICH ARE NOT HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT.
SURVEY PROVIDED THE APPLICANT IN CASE OF STRUCTURES, ROOF OVERHANG AND EXISTING BAY WINDOW ALREADY ENCROACH SLIGHTLY INTO THE 12TH STREET RIGHT AWAY OVERHEAD.
OF COURSE, LICENSE USE IS REQUIRED TO PLAY SOME MORE OR LESS PRONE ITEMS IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY PRO CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES.
BECAUSE IT'S SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN THE EAST AND HISTORIC DISTRICT LANDMARK COMMISSION, I PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION AT THEIR MARCH 20TH MEETING, THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST.
STAFF LIKEWISE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE THROUGH TWO, AND STANDARD CONDITIONS THREE THROUGH EIGHT, AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS.
HERE WE HAVE ONCE AGAIN THE AREA THAT IT'S NOT VERY BIG, IT'S FOUR FOOT BY EIGHT FOOT ACCORDING TO THE DRAWINGS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
HERE WE SHOW THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE ADDITION THAT WOULD ENCROACH IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT DASHED WHITE LINE IS MORE OR LESS THE PROPERTY LINE IS AS CLOSE AS WE COULD GET IT TO SCALE.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE THE APPLICANTS DRAWLING SHOWING THE OVERALL APPEARANCE AND DIMENSIONS OF THE ADDITION. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
ONCE AGAIN, THE SAME 12TH STREET, RIGHT-OF-WAY NOW LOOKING SOUTH AT THAT SAME PART OF THE HOUSE AND THEN THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, TO THE EAST, AND TO THE SOUTH.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> VERY GOOD. COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
>> DANIEL, I'M TRYING TO READ ON HERE JUST TO SEE WHERE IT IS, BUT NONE OF THIS WILL ENCROACH UPON THE SIDEWALK.
>> NO. AT THE MEETING YESTERDAY IT WAS NOTED BY THE APPLICANT THAT THE ADDITION WILL BE ABOUT 12 INCHES INSIDE OF THE SIDEWALK, SO THERE'LL BE ABOUT A FOOT GAP BETWEEN THE EDGE OF THE SIDEWALK AND THIS CONSTRUCTION.
>> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE] ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> DID I READ THAT IT'S A PERMANENT LICENSE TO USE IN HERE SOMEWHERE? IF THE HOME IS SOLD LATER ON, THEN THE LICENSE USE WOULD GO WITH THE HOME CARE.
>> WITH YOUR QUESTION FOR DANIEL?
>> YEAH, I BELIEVE SO. TYPICALLY LTUS GO WITH THE LAND, WITH THE CONSTRUCTION IN THIS CASE.
>> DANIEL, JUST TO CLARIFY THIS IS JUST OVER THE DOOR, CORRECT?
>> YEAH, CORRECT. IT'S JUST TO PROVIDE
[00:45:02]
A LITTLE BIT BETTER AND SAFER ACCESS TO THAT SIDE DOOR, WHICH IT ALSO WILL PROTECT IT A LITTLE BIT.OF COURSE, IT'S RIGHT THERE ON THE EDGE OF THE HOUSE WITH NO COVERING.
>> THE ONES YOU GUYS SEE, THE LTUS THAT YOU SEE ARE GENERALLY PERMANENT IN NATURE ANYHOW.
THE TEMPORARY ONES ARE THOSE WHERE SOMEBODY'S USING PERHAPS A RIGHT AWAY DURING CONSTRUCTION THEY'VE GOT SOME STAGING OUT THERE OR FENCING, AND WHAT HAVE YOU, AND THOSE THEY GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ON THOSE.
>> YEAH. THEY CAN COME HERE WHEN THEY'VE EXCEEDED THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS TIMEFRAMES, BUT THE ONES THAT YOU GUYS SEE ARE PERMANENT.
>> THIS IS ESSENTIALLY INCREASING THIS HOMEOWNERS PROPERTY LINE. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> NO. THE PROPERTY LINE REMAINS AS IT IS, BUT THERE'S BASICALLY AN ENCROACHMENT ACROSS THAT PROPERTY LINE, SLIGHTLY INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
>> DONNA, WOULD IT BE A REASONABLE EXPLANATION TO SAY IT DOESN'T INCREASE THEIR PROPERTY LINE BUT IT INCREASES THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY THAT THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR BECAUSE IF THEY DAMAGE ANYTHING IN THE CITY'S PROPERTY THEN THEY HAVE TO FIX IT.
THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR BASICALLY MAINTAINING, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT BETTER?
>> YOU HEARD ME UP UNTIL THE CITY'S PROPERTY.
THIS IS PRETTY MUCH ACROSS THE BOARD WITH THE MAJORITY OF MUNICIPALITIES THAT I'M AWARE OF.
THE PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE TO MAINTAIN SIDEWALKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT ANYWAY OF A CITY, AND WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE IN OUR CITY CODE THAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS OF SIDEWALKS CITY RIGHT OF AWAY, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THAT BIT OF LAND, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING IT, AND SO THEY'D BE RESPONSIBLE REGARDLESS.
I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.
>> OH, I GOT YOU. REGARDLESS, THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE.
>> OKAY. I WAS JUST LOOKING AT WHAT WE HAVE, IS THIS A SPECIFIC CONDITION HERE, THE LICENSEE SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO THE RIGHT OF WAY CAUSED BY THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION ITEMS AND SHOULD THE RIGHT OF WAY BE DAMAGED IN ANY WAY, LICENSEE SHALL REPAIR THE AREA, SO IT'S INCREASING WHAT THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR BUT NOT INCREASING THEIR OWNERSHIP OF ANYTHING.
>> IS KEEPING WHAT THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME, HOWEVER, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOW DOING SOME CONSTRUCTION IN IT WHICH MAY BE OUTSIDE OF THE TYPICAL NORM, THE CITY NEEDS TO MAKE SURE THAT IF YOU BREAK UP THAT CONCRETE, YOU GOT TO REPLACE IT.
>> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> I'M SENSITIVE TO THE ADA REQUIREMENTS THAT I'D UNDERSTAND THAT NEED.
>> FOR THE STAIRS. IF THEY DECIDE TO SELL THIS PROPERTY, THAT LICENSE TO USE GOES ALONG WITH THAT PROPERTY FOREVER.
>> YEAH, WE'LL GET TO THAT ONE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? HEARING NONE IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? APPLICANT NOT PRESENT, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS CASE.
IS THERE ANYBODY ON THIS SIDE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE AND ON THIS SIDE? HEARING NONE, WE'VE OPENED AND CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:19 PM.
I'LL COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR; MAY I HAVE A MOTION FOR THIS CASE, PLEASE? COMMISSIONER WALLA.
>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 23P-015 AS PRESENTED.
>> PRETTY GOOD. COMMISSIONER OPINION?
>> OKAY. DISCUSSION. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? NO. ANYBODY ELSE? NO. WITH THAT WE'LL CALL FOR A VOTE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
>> OKAY. FOUR IN FAVOR AND COMMISSIONER ABSTAINS, HER MOTION CARRIES.
[00:50:05]
THANK YOU. MOVING ON.[7.C.2. 23P-017 (Adjacent To 2302 Mechanic / Avenue C). Request For A License To Use In Order To Place Construction Fencing And Scaffolding In The Public Right-Of-Way. Adjacent Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, Part Of Lots 8 And 9 (8-2), Block 623, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Taylor Barham, HAF Hospitality Tremont Realty, LLC. Adjacent Property Owner: HAF Hospitality Tremont Realty, LLC. Easement Holder: City Of Galveston]
>> THIS IS GOING TO BE MORE THE TYPICAL LTU THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEES.
IT DOES INVOLVE SOME CONSTRUCTION ITEMS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
THIS IS ADJACENT TO 2302 MECHANIC, WHICH IS A PORTION OF THE TRAUMAN HOTEL.
THERE WERE 27 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.
FIVE OF THOSE RETURN, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A LICENSE TO USERS SEE IT RIGHT AWAY TO IT'S RETAIN CONSTRUCTION FENCE AGAINST SCAFFOLDING IN THE RIGHT OF WAY ASSOCIATED WITH SOME ADDITIONS AND RENOVATIONS.
TEMPORARY LICENSE TO USE A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY HAS EXPIRED DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR BECAUSE NO ADDITIONAL EXTENSIONS CAN BE ISSUED.
STAFF LEVEL PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW IS REQUIRED TO PERMIT THESE ITEMS TO REMAIN.
THERE WERE A COUPLE OF VERY SIMILAR CASES AT YOUR LAST MEETING, YOU MIGHT RECALL.
CONSTRUCTION, I WAS ON A RAILWAY ALONG MECHANIC STREET AVENUE C ROUGHLY PARALLEL TO THE PROPERTY SOUTH PROPERTY LINE AND EXTENDING FROM AN EXISTING ENTRY DOOR AT THE CORNER WESTWARD, APPROXIMATELY 70 FEET, FENCE ENCROACHES APPROXIMATELY 22 FEET INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY WHICH PRETTY MUCH ENCOMPASSES BOTH THE VERY WIDE SIDEWALKS THERE IN THE ADJACENT PARALLEL PARKING.
PLACEMENT IS BASED ON THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT'S ONGOING.
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THE CONSTRUCTION FENCING AND SCAFFOLDING REMAIN LOW ENOUGH FOR THE PROJECT TO BE COMPLETED WHICH THEY ESTIMATE TO BE BY JUNE 17TH OF 2023.
ONCE AGAIN, LICENSED USERS REQUIRED IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE TEMPORARY LTU USE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TYPICALLY ISSUES CAN BE EXTENDED AND SO IT COMES TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR AN EXTENSION.
THIS IS ALSO IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT AND STRAND MECHANIC AND LANDMARK COMMISSION ALSO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION FOR THEIR MARCH 20TH MEETING, AND AGAIN, THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
STAFF LIKEWISE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, ONE THROUGH FIVE AND STANDARD CONDITIONS OF SIX THROUGH 11, AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS.
HERE WE HAVE A PHOTO OF THE ITEMS OF THE FENCING AND THE SCAFFOLDING TO GET UP TO THE ROOF THAT ARE IN PLACE ALREADY OR UNDER THE PREVIOUS CELL TO USE.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE AN OVERHEAD VIEW SHOWING THE APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION FENCING THAT PROTECTS THE SCAFFOLDING AND OTHER AREAS.
AS YOU CAN SEE, IT GOES FROM THE FACADE OF THE BUILDING PRETTY MUCH TO THE PARALLEL PARKING AND NO FURTHER. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
HERE WE HAVE A PHOTO OF MECHANIC STREET LOOKING WEST SHOWING THAT SAME AREA THAT'S INTO THE CONSTRUCTION FENCING; THE PROPERTY IS TO THE EAST, TO THE SOUTH, AND TO THE WEST, AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> COMMISSION'S QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I'VE GOT ONE COMMENT.
FIRST OFF, GOOD JOB ON NOTING THE NO LATER THAN DATE ON SPECIFIC CONDITION NUMBER 2.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR NOW PUTTING DEADLINES ON THIS.
QUESTION, WAS UNCLEAR WITH THE SCAFFOLDING IN PLACE WILL THE SIDEWALK BE BLOCKED IN THAT AREA AND NO PEDESTRIAN ACCESS?
>> IT APPEARS SO, AND TYPICALLY IF UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, PLANNING STAFF CAN ACTUALLY APPROVE THESE SORTS OF LTU, WHERE THEY HAVE TO INCLUDE A COVERED PEDESTRIAN PATH IF THEY DO NOT, AS IN THIS CASE AND MANY OTHER CASES, THEN THAT COMES TO PLANNING COMMISSION, SO YEAH THE WHOLE AREA WILL BE BLOCKED.
>> THE WHOLE AREA WOULD BE BLOCKED.
>> IT'S BLOCKED OUT INTO THE STREET.
THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR THE PARKING.
>> WELL, I KNOW BUT TO DANIEL'S POINT, HE SAID THAT THEY COULD PROVIDE A COVERED PEDESTRIAN PATH, BUT IT SURE DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THAT'S GOING TO BE FEASIBLE IN THIS CASE.
THANK YOU, TIM. IT'S NOT FEASIBLE AT THIS TIME AND SO THE RECOMMENDATION IS THIS CLOSE OFF THE SIDEWALK DURING THE LTU.
>> GOODNESS. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YEAH, GO AHEAD.
>> IS THIS REQUEST TO GRANT THEM AN LTU UNTIL JUNE 17TH? IS THAT THE REQUEST?
>> YEAH. CONDITION 2 SAYS THE LTU THAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW SHOULD WE BE VALID ONLY UNTIL COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT NO LATER THAN JUNE 17TH 2023 WHICH WAS THE DATE THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED TO US.
>> WHEN WE DID THIS THE LAST TIME,
[00:55:03]
DANIEL AND WE PUT A COMPLETION DATE ON THERE.WE GAVE THEM A LITTLE BREATHING ROOM.
BUT IS THE APPLICANT HERE TODAY?
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. THEN I'LL ASK THIS OTHER QUESTION WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT DURING DISCUSSION.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> HOW MANY PARKING SPACES ARE THEY TAKING UP THERE?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THE APPLICANT IS NOT PRESENT SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CASE AT 4:25 PM.
IS THERE ANYBODY ON THIS SIDE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK OR THE OTHER SIDE? HEARING NONE WE CLOSE IT AT THE SAME TIME.
WE'LL COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR EMOTION MAY HAVE EMOTIONAL IN THIS CASE. COMMISSIONER OPINION.
>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE 23P-017 AS WRITTEN.
>> MOTION IN A SECOND. DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER HILL.
>> AS I SAID, WHEN WE DID THIS LAST TIME, I THINK THAT WE GAVE THE APPLICANT A LITTLE BREATHING ROOM WITH THEIR COMPLETION DATE.
HERE, I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A LARGE PROJECT BECAUSE I'M PRETTY SURE WHAT THEY'RE WORKING ON IS THE ROOFTOP BAR.
I'M WONDERING IF THIS APPLICANT SHOULD BE, AND UNFORTUNATELY, THEY'RE NOT HERE TO REPRESENT THEIR INTERESTS.
IF WE SHOULD AFFORD THE SAME COURTESY TO THIS APPLICANT BECAUSE AGAIN, THEY'RE ON SUCH A SHORT TIME FRAME, IT WOULD PUT THEM ALMOST NEEDING TO COME BACK IMMEDIATELY OR TO PUT THEMSELVES IN THE POT OF REAPPLYING VIRTUALLY IMMEDIATELY.
SHOULD WE GIVE OURSELVES A LITTLE LEEWAY ON THIS ONE, COMMISSIONERS, AND PUT THIS AT END OF AUGUST DEADLINE?
>> I'LL GIVE YOU MY TWO SENSE ON THIS ONE.
THIS IS A ONGOING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT BY A PRETTY SOPHISTICATED CONTRACTOR AND I'D TEND TO TRUST HIS SCHEDULE.
HOPEFULLY, THE OTHER THING IS IS THAT WE'RE GETTING INTO SUMMER HERE.
I DON'T WANT TO KEEP THAT SIDEWALK CLOSE ANY LONGER THAN WE HAVE TO.
NOT TO SAY THAT WE WOULDN'T AFFORD THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE THAT, BUT YEAH. KEEP GOING.
>> CAN WE GIVE THEM TILL THE END OF JUNE THAT WAY THEY'RE OPENED BY THE 4TH OF JULY? YES, SIR. COMMISSIONER WALLA I YIELD.
>> FIRST OF ALL, THESE GUYS HAVE A $2,000 A MONTH MOTIVATOR TO GET DONE BECAUSE THEY ARE PAYING FOR THOSE PARKING SPACES.
THEY CAN COME BACK AND ASK FOR AN EXTENSION AGAIN IF THEY RUN OUT OF TIME.
I HAVE NO REASON TO THINK THAT THEY WON'T BE DONE WITHIN THE TIME FRAME, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO EXTEND THE COURTESY TO EXTEND IT.
AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION TO EXTEND THE LTU UNTIL SEPTEMBER THE 30TH.
THAT'S SIX MONTHS, BUT AS SOON AS THEY'RE DONE, THEY'RE GOING TO COME TELL US THEY'RE DONE.
SO JUST OFFERING THAT OUT THERE.
>> ONE ITEM WAS WE HAD JUNE 30TH AND WE'RE OFFERING UP SEPTEMBER 1ST.
>> MY PREMISE OF THAT IS IF THEY SHOW UP HERE ON JUNE THE 30TH AND THEY NEED MORE TIME ARE WE NOT GOING TO GIVE THEM THE MORE TIME? IT'S AMENDMENT THAT'S OFFERED AS AN EMOTION.
IF IT LACKS, BUT FROM A SECOND [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR AN AMENDMENT.
>> OKAY. I'M GOING TO SECOND THAT MOTION SO THAT WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION.
>> CAN WE ALL WRITE THAT DOWN? I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER WALLA, [LAUGHTER] MAKE A MENTAL NOTE ON THE RECORD, [LAUGHTER] THAT WE GET TO HAVE FUN UP HERE.
WE WOULD GIVE IT TO THEM IF THEY CAME BACK AND ASK FOR IT BETWEEN JUNE 30TH AND SEPTEMBER 30TH.
I AGREE TWO THINGS WITH THE OTHER POINT, THEY'VE GOT A BIG MOTIVATOR.
THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR THOSE PARKING PLACES, AND THEY ALSO WANT TO GET THAT BAR OPEN.
THAT'S AN EVEN BIGGER MOTIVATOR, RUSTY.
I THINK WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND GIVE THEM THAT EXTENSION.
[01:00:02]
I WOULD NOT HAVE GONE FOR A DATE THAT FAR OUT, BUT LET'S GO AHEAD AND PUT THAT DATE IN THERE.THAT'S THE DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDED MOTION.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
HOW LONG IS THIS PROJECT PERMITTED FOR, JUST SEPTEMBER 30TH TAKE IT BEYOND THE LIMIT OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT?
I DON'T KNOW WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY PERMITTED, WE'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE RECORD FOR THAT.
BUT TYPICALLY, THEIR PERMITS ARE GOOD FOR TWO YEARS.
>> MAYBE THE BETTER TO SAY THE PROJECT THAT NECESSITATES THE SCAFFOLDING AND WHEN THE SCAFFOLDING IS NO LONGER REQUIRED, MAYBE WE CAN PHRASE IT AROUND THAT TYPE OF PROJECT.
THE PROJECT THAT REQUIRES THE SCAFFOLDING AND WHEN THE SCAFFOLDING IS NO LONGER REQUIRED AND THEN.
>> BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT'S APPLYING TO.
IT'S APPLYING TO THAT PARTICULAR PORTION OF THE YEAH.
>> I UNDERSTOOD. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION TO EXTEND THIS TO SEPTEMBER 30TH? WELL, I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE SPECIFIC CONDITION FOR ITEM 2 TO NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2023. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION CARRIES AND SO NOW WE'LL COME BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CASE 23P-017.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? CAN I GET A MOTION FOR CASE 23P-017? OH, WE'VE ALREADY HAD IT THAT WE'RE IN DISCUSSION.
I'LL GO FOR A CALL FOR A VOTE ON THAT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
HEY, LOOK AT ME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH STAFF, APPRECIATE THAT, FOR HUMORING US.
[7.C.3. 23P-018 (3827 Avenue L) Request For A License To Use To Place An ADA Ramp In The City Of Galveston Right-Of-Way. Adjacent Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, Portion Of Lot 1 (1-1), Block 38, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Michael Cordray Adjacent Property Owners: Cordray Hospitality, LLC Easement Holder: City Of Galveston]
THIS IS ADJACENT TO 27 AVENUE L. IT'S A REQUEST FOR A LICENSE TO USE FOR AN ADA RAMP.THIRTY NOTICES WERE SENT TO RETURN TO THIS TWO IN FAVOR, NO OBJECTION FROM ANY CITY DEPARTMENTS OR PRIVATE UTILITIES.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING FOR A PRIVATE PERMANENT LICENSE TO USE THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY IN ORDER TO PLACE AN ADA RAMP ON THE AVENUE L SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT ADDRESS.
THE BUILDING HOUSES, THE COMMERCIAL SPACE AND THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO GAIN CONFORMANCE WITH ADA ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.
THE PORTION OF THE PROPOSED ADA RAMP THAT IS SUBJECT TO THIS LTU REQUEST WILL EXTEND FIVE FEET INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY AND RUNS APPROXIMATELY 23 LINEAR FEET ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
THE BUILDING IS A HISTORIC CORNER STORES STRUCTURE WHICH IS CONSTRUCTED OUT OF THE PROPERTY LINE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE REQUESTS BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
ITEMS 1 THROUGH 4 ARE SPECIFIC TO THIS CASE AND ITEMS 5 THROUGH 10 ARE STANDARD.
WE HAVE SOME PICTURES. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
IT WAS BEFORE YOU ALL A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO FOR A GALVESTON LANDMARK DESIGNATION.
THIS IS A RENDERING OF THE RAMP.
THE SURVEY AND THE SITE PLAN SHOWING THAT A PORTION OF IT WILL BE IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
WHEN YOU GET TO THIS LANDING, IT TURNS AND THEN IT CROSSES THAT INTO PRIVATE PROPERTY.
THIS PORTION HERE IS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THIS PORTION IS ON THE SIDEWALK RIGHT-OF-WAY.
THEN I HAVE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. CATHERINE, CAN YOU GO OVER THAT AGAIN? I WAS HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE LIMITS OF THE LTU WERE.
>> THE PROPERTY LINE RUNS GENERALLY ALONG THE FRONT FACE OF THE BUILDING.
THE RAMP WILL START ON THE SIDEWALK AND THEN AT THIS LANDING TURNS AND AT THIS POINT CROSSES INTO PRIVATE PROPERTY.
THE LTU IS GOING TO BE FOR THIS PORTION HERE.
>> THE EXISTING STAIRS JUST TO YOUR LEFT, THAT'S ALREADY EXISTING AND AS PART OF AN EXISTING LTU?
>> IT LIKELY IS. I CAN LOOK INTO THAT.
TYPICALLY, WHEN WE SEE THINGS LIKE THIS THAT ARE IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, LIKE THE CANOPY IN THE STAIRS AND THERE ISN'T AN LTU ON FILE, THEN WE'LL ASK FOR ONE.
THESE ITEMS CAN BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED.
>> THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY NEXT QUESTION.
WE COULD GO AHEAD AND PROVE THIS LTU.
YOU ALL CAN DOUBLE-CHECK AND SEE.
>> WE'LL DOUBLE-CHECK AND MAKE SURE.
>> IF YOU NEEDED TO ADD THOSE TO THE LTU.
THAT CAN BE DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY.
>> EXCELLENT. GREAT. YOU JUST ANSWERED ALL MY QUESTIONS.
>> QUESTIONS COMMISSIONER WALLA?
>> JUST A QUICK ONE. WHAT'S CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY?
>> IT'S A RESTAURANT, IT'S AN ICE CREAM SHOP BY THE [OVERLAPPING]
[01:05:03]
>> HEY, ALL RIGHT. GOOD. THANK YOU.
[LAUGHTER] I'M JUST LEARNING THE NON-CONFORMING. YOU ALL TAUGHT ME THAT.
>> IF YOU HAVEN'T HAD THEIR ICE CREAM YET, YOU SHOULD TRY THEM OUT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT?
>> WE HAD A NO FROM THE APPLICANT THAT THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO JOIN US TODAY.
>> VERY GOOD. WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR THIS CASE AT 4:35.
ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE ON THIS SIDE AND ON THE OTHER SIDE.
HEARING NONE CLOSED AT THE SAME TIME 4:35 PM, I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION.
CAN I GET A MOTION, COMMISSIONERS? I'LL MAKE ONE.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE EXCEPT 23P-018 AS PRESENTED BY STAFF WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
COMMISSIONER PENA SECONDED DISCUSSION.
HEARING NO DISCUSSION WE'LL CALL FOR A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
I'M JUST STEP OUT FOR A SECOND, BUT YOU CAN PLEASE CONTINUE ON.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I'LL TAKE IT. I'LL JUMP IN THE SEAT.
LET'S CONTINUE WITH CASE 23P-013, PLEASE.
THIS IS IN ST. LOUIS PASS IN SEABIRD DRIVE.
>> LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS.
>> LET'S TRY IT. NOPE. STILL NOT THERE. THERE WE GO.
YEAH. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER AT 04:40 P.M, [LAUGHTER] 23P-013.
[7.D.1. 23P-013 (0 San Luis Pass Road / FM 3005) Request For A Preliminary Plat. Properties Are Legally Described As Part Of Lot 1 (1-3), Lots 2 And 3 Of Seabird Acres, In The City And County Of Galveston Texas. Applicant: Matthew Sigmon, Texas Land Maps Property Owner: Coastal Cottage Homes, LLC And ARM2 Enterprises, LLC]
THIS IS SET THERE IN THIS SECTION OF SEABIRD DRIVE AND FM 3005.
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST, 28 NOTICE IS SENT.
IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF 48 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, A LANDSCAPE RESERVE, AND A COMMERCIAL RESERVE FOR GENERAL PURPOSE STORE AND OFFICE USES.
I LIKE TO NOTE THAT THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS OR IS ASSOCIATED RATHER WITH THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT GRANTED UNDER ORDINANCE 22-069, PLANNING CASE 22P-067.
AS SUCH, THERE WERE DEVIATIONS GRANTED IN THAT PUD AND THOSE ARE LISTED ON PAGE 2 OF YOUR REPORT.
CONFORMANCE WITH LATERAL REQUIREMENTS, ALL LOTS WILL CONFORM TO THE LARGE DEVIATIONS APPROVED UNDER THE PUD PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED.
THROUGH CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PUD, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE REQUEST BE APPROVED WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 1 AND 2 LISTED ON PAGE 3 OF YOUR REPORT AND STANDARD CONDITIONS 3-7.
THIS IS AN AERIAL ZONING MAP OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
THESE ARE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST.
THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT. I CONCLUDE THAT REPORT.
>> COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I'LL GO AHEAD WITH ONE.
FIRE MARSHAL NOTED THAT THE FIRE CODE REQUIRES THAT A ONE OR TWO STORY DEVELOPMENT WHERE THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS EXCEEDS 30 SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH TWO SEPARATE AND APPROVED FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS.
THIS IS AN EXCEPTION THAT ALLOWS ONE ACCESS ROAD IF ALL DWELLING UNITS ARE PROVIDED WITH AN AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM.
WE CLEARLY SEE THAT THERE'S ONLY ONE ACCESS ROAD FOR THIS.
BUT THERE WAS NO DEVIATION IN THE PUD GIVEN FOR NOT MEETING FIRE CODE, SO MY QUESTION IS IS THAT EVEN THOUGH NOT STATED AS A SPECIFIC CONDITION, THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL FIRE CODE AS SPECIFIED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL.
THAT'S THE QUESTION FOR STAFF.
>> YES, SIR. THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT WITH THE FIRE MARSHALL AND THE SECONDARY EXIT AND GATE WILL BE PLACED ON SEABIRD DRIVE.
OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER WALLA?
>> IN READING THIS AND THE PUD,
[01:10:03]
SO THE PLAT HAS 42 LOTS, THE PUD APPLICATION SAYS 40 AND THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SAYS 48.WHEN I READ THE REPORT, I'M ASSUMING THAT IT'S 42, BUT IT SAYS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, APPLICANT IS REQUESTING COMPRISED OF 48 RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
IF YOU READ THE PUD, WHAT SAYS 48 RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF LANDSCAPE RESERVE IN A COMMERCIAL RESERVE FOR A GENERAL PURPOSE STORE AND OFFICE, AND THEN THE 42, ALL I KNOW IS I WAS READING SOME OF THAT, I JUST NOTICED THERE WERE SOME DISCREPANCIES.
I GUESS WHAT IS THE PUD ORDINATES? IS IT 48, 40, OR 42?
>> WHERE ARE YOU SEEING THOSE NUMBERS, COMMISSIONER WALLA?
>> I'M LOOKING ON YOUR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IN THE FIRST SENTENCE, IT SAYS 48 RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THEN WHEN I COUNT THE LOTS ON THE PLAT, THERE'S 42.
THEN I WAS LOOKING AT THE PUD APPLICATION OR THE PUD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IT SAID 40.
>> WE CAN CERTAINLY CROSS-REFERENCE THAT WITH THE PUD.
I DON'T HAVE THEM BEFORE ME RIGHT NOW, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY CROSS-REFERENCE THAT.
>> YEAH, THAT'S REALLY INTERESTING BECAUSE ON, SORRY COMMISSIONER WALLA, BECAUSE ON THE PLAN, THE NUMBER IT SAYS IS 43 LOTS AND FOUR RESERVES.
BUT IF YOU COUNT THE LOTS, YOU COUNT UP 40, I THINK.
>> FOR THE PUD APPLICATION, THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SAYS 40.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE PUD ORDINANCE SAYS IF IT'S 40 OR 42 AND THEN THIS SET 48.
I JUST WANT A LITTLE CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
WELL, FROM 40-48 IT'S A BIG NUMBER.
>> WHERE ARE YOU READING THE PUD APPLICATION THAT WAS NOT PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKET? WHERE ARE YOU READING THAT FROM?
>> NO, I JUST LOOKED IT UP FROM WHEN WE DID THE PUD, THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FROM THE PUD.
>> I WAS LOOKING UP THE PUD INFORMATION AND YES, SO IT LOOKS LIKE THERE WAS MAYBE AN ERROR IN THE STAFF REPORT.
THE PUD PLAN ITSELF SHOWS THE 42.
>> IT DOES SHOW 42. OUR PUD ORDINATES IS FOR 42?
>> OKAY. COOL. WE'RE GOOD THERE.
[LAUGHTER] THEN HADRIAN HAD ANOTHER OR WHOEVER HAD A QUESTION ABOUT OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS.
IS THERE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS ON SUBDIVISIONS?
>> THE ARTICLE 6 TALKS ABOUT OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS.
>> BECAUSE WHEN I LOOK AT IT AND I LOOK IN THE, IT TALKS ABOUT IT, IT DOESN'T GIVE A REAL DEFINITION OF THAT.
IT SAYS THAT THERE'S OPEN SPACE, BUT IT SAYS IT REFERS TO BACK TO ZONING AND THEN TO OUR MASTER OPEN SPACE, PARK, SOMETHING PLAN, AND I'M JUST CURIOUS, HOW DO WE COME UP WITH OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS ON SUBDIVISIONS? I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> WELL, LIKE I SAID, IT PROVIDES A TABLE OF CATEGORIES OF OPEN SPACE YOU CAN PROVIDE.
IS THERE ANY SPECIFIC INFORMATION YOU'RE LOOKING FOR?
>> WE HAVE EIGHT ACRES AND IN THE BACK, WE HAVE ABOUT 4/10 OF AN ACRE.
WELL, I'M SORRY, ABOUT HALF AN ACRE AND THEN A LITTLE BIT IN THE FRONT.
THIS GUY HAS ABOUT A HALF AN ACRE OF OPEN SPACE.
MY QUESTION REALLY IS, IS WHAT'S THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT FOR A SUBDIVISION FOR 42 LOTS AND EIGHT ACRES?
>> OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT IS THAT IT BE PROVIDED IN ONE OF THE CATEGORIES LISTED IN THE LAND DEVELOPER REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 6.
>> IT SAYS IS TO BE PROVIDED, BUT IN WHAT QUANTITY?
[01:15:02]
>> IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR A SPECIFIC QUANTITY, THE LDR DOES NOT STATE A SPECIFIC QUANTITY.
>> LOOKED AT AND THEN YOU COMPUTE.
I MEAN, SOMEBODY CAN LOOK AT ARTICLE 6.
>> THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THE ARTICLE 6 WAS NOT STATED SPECIFIC SIZE, IF THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE ASKING COMMISSIONER WALLA.
>> I'M JUST ASKING HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHAT IT IS? IT SAYS IT'S REQUIRED, IT SAYS THAT YOU CAN DO X, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW YOU GET TO A NUMBER.
>> TYPICALLY THERE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE PARKS MASTER PLAN, BUT IT'S AGAIN, THEY'RE ALL RECOMMENDATIONS.
IT'S NOT A SPECIFIC NUMBER IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.
>> OKAY. SO IT'S A SPECIFIC CALCULATION OR RATIO REQUIREMENT FOR OPEN SPACE VERSUS DEVELOPABLE PROPERTY?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT?
>> YEAH. WOULD YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD AND SIGN-IN AND STATE YOUR NAME?
>> MY NAME IS DANNY TIER AND I ALSO WANT TO TELL YOU ALL THINGS BECAUSE I KNOW YOU ALL SPEND A LOT OF TIME DOING ALL THIS ON ART.
ART PAID VERY WELL FOR THE MOST PART.
[LAUGHTER] [BACKGROUND] FROM 0-0. [LAUGHTER]
>> ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS THAT YOU WISH TO OFFER?
>> NO, SIR. I'D HEARD SOMEBODY MIGHT HAVE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT DRAINAGE AND THERE'S A DITCH THAT GOES DOWN THE WEST SIDE, AND WHENEVER WE GET TO DEVELOPMENT PART WE'RE GOING TO CLEAN ALL THAT AS A SIGNIFICANT DITCH AND THEN IT RUNS OUT TO THE BAY ACROSS THE NORTH SIDE.
>> COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER WALLA?
>> IS THAT THE DITCH THAT RUNS ALONG THE ROAD OVER THERE?
>> YES, SIR. CONSIDERABLE. YOU CAN'T TELL BECAUSE THE CAT TAILS ARE SO HIGH IN IT.
>> OKAY. THAT'S YOUR DRAINAGE PLAN IS TO GO THAT WAY?
>> WELL, ALONG WITH THE REGULAR DRAINAGE FROM THE PROPERTY.
YOU KNOW EVERYTHING HAS TO DRAIN TOWARDS THE BAY.
>> RIGHT. BECAUSE I WAS CURIOUS HOW YOU WERE GOING TO DRAIN THAT.
IS THAT A CITY EASEMENT GOING THROUGH THERE?
>> YOU OWN THAT ROAD ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE BAY?
>> NO, ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK CORNER OF THE BAY WE DO.
ON THE WEST SIDE OF THAT PROPERTY, THE BAY COMES UP RIGHT ALMOST TOUCHING THE BACKSIDE OF THAT.
>> I'VE DRIVEN BACK THERE AND YOU GO AS TO YOUR PLACE.
>> IF YOU'RE ON SEABIRD ROBIN, NOT ON THE WEST SIDE.
>> YEAH. IF YOU GO DOWN SEABIRD, BECAUSE THEN YOU GO BACK THERE AND IT'S WOODED, IT'S A BIRDING THING.
>> WHAT'S BODY DIRECTLY BEHIND US?
>> RIGHT. THAT DITCH WOULD GO THROUGH THEIR PROPERTY THEN? BECAUSE [OVERLAPPING] PROPERTY PASSED YOU.
>> WELL, IT DOES, BUT IT'S NOT AS DEEP BACK THERE.
IT TURNS AND GOES RIGHT BEHIND OUR PROPERTY.
YOU CAN SEE WHEN THE WATER GETS ONE TO TIDES UP, IT COMES TO THAT BACK CORNER.
>> IT GOES IN THAT 40-FOOT STRIP IN THE BACK?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> GREAT. SUPER. THANK YOU FOR BEING PRESENT AND FOR ANSWERING QUESTIONS.
>> FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD AS A PRELIMINARY PLAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE ON THIS SIDE OR THIS SIDE? WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AT 4:52 P.M. AND COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUIRE A MOTION.
CAN I GET A MOTION IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, 23P-013? COMMISSIONER HILL.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 23P-013 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> COMMISSIONER PENA SECOND. DISCUSSION?
[01:20:01]
>> I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT.
ADRIEL, THANK YOU FOR THE LESSON YOU GAVE US AT WORKSHOP RECENTLY.
IT HELPED ME STAY, HELP ME COLOR IN THE LINES WHEN I WAS REVIEWING THIS.
>> EXCELLENT. YEAH AND ADRIEL, THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION ON THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE TO COMMISSIONER PENA IS OVER HERE SURFING THROUGH THE LDRS RIGHT NOW.
[LAUGHTER] ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? WE'LL CALL FOR A VOTE.
[OVERLAPPING] SORRY, GO AHEAD.
>> I'M LOOKING AT THIS AND LOOK AND I GET IT WE GOT TO STAY IN OUR LANE 100 PERCENT.
THEN MAYBE I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED AND MAYBE THIS IS MORE OF A STAFF QUESTION, BUT IS THERE THREE PARCELS HERE TO THERE'S THE STUFF ON THE FRONT, THE ONE IN THE MIDDLE, AND THE ONE IN THE BACK, IS THAT WHAT MAKES THE ENTIRE TRACK?
>> OKAY. WHEN YOU WERE HERE FOR YOUR PAD, YOU SAID THAT ALL THE WETLANDS WERE JUST IN THE VERY BACK.
>> RIGHT. IF YOU'RE GOING TO OPEN UP.
>> COMING BACK FOR QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT.
>> SORRY, I SHOULDN'T. I WON'T ASK HIM ANY MORE QUESTIONS.
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON MOTION OR THE CASE?
>> YES. WHAT I WAS GETTING TO IS THAT IN HIS PRIOR STATEMENTS IS SAYING THAT THE WETLANDS ARE LIMITED TO THE BACK BECAUSE THAT STRIP IN THE BACK IS 55 FEET WIDE AT ITS WIDEST POINT.
I NORMALLY GET IN TROUBLE FOR THIS.
>> I NEED SOME DIRECTION HERE.
I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO TELL ME, BUT WE'RE AT PRELIMINARY PLAT AND I DO THINK THAT THE COMMISSION HAS SOME DISCRETION AND SO FAR AS CONDITIONS THAT IT COULD PUT ON AN APPROVAL FOR THEIR PLAT.
NOT SAYING THEY WOULD DENY IT, BUT A CONDITION THAT YOU COULD PUT ON ITS APPROVAL.
THIS MAY BE INFORMATION THAT THE APPLICANT MAY ALREADY HAVE.
BUT I WOULD AT THE VERY LEAST LIKE TO SEE THESE APPLICANTS PROVIDE A WETLANDS DELINEATION THAT'S A PART OF THEIR APPLICATION PROCESS.
I GUESS I'M ASKING YOU DONNA BECAUSE I'M LOOKING RIGHT AT YOU.
THE LAST TIME THIS CAME UP THE APPLICANT HAD THAT INFORMATION.
I WILL TELL YOU IF YOU LOOK AT OUR EXCAVATION GUIDELINES, IT'S THE SAME THING.
IF YOU WANT TO GO DIG A HOLE ON YOUR PROPERTY AND THERE'S SUSPECT WETLANDS THERE, YOU GOT TO GO GET A DETERMINATION NOT TO SAY THAT HE HAS TO DO THAT, BUT I'D LIKE TO PUT A CONDITION ON HIS PRELIMINARY APPROVAL THAT IT INCLUDE THAT HE PROVIDE OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WITH A WETLANDS DELINEATION.
>> WELL, I DIDN'T MEAN TO BE FLIP, I'M JUST SAYING THAT THERE'S A MOTION AND THIS I SECOND, SO IT'S THE DISCUSSION AMONGST THE GROUP.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, THEN YOU NEED TO OPEN IT BACK UP.
I ALSO THINK NELSON WAS THUS HE HAD HIS HAND RAISED AS WELL.
WHERE DO YOU WANT TO GO, CHAIRMAN?
>> WE'RE DISCUSSING AMONGST THE GROUP?
>> RUSTY WITH A PLAT WHEN YOU'RE RE-PLANNING LAND, WHY DO YOU WANT TO KNOW IF THERE ARE WETLANDS ON THERE?
>> JOHN, I KNEW YOU WERE GOING TO ASK ME THAT QUESTION.
MY REASON IS THAT THIS CITY IS PROVIDING A SERVICE, BE IT FIRE, POLICE, WATER, SEWER, THEY'RE PROVIDING SERVICES TO THAT PROPERTY.
I CAN SEE AND I HAVE SEEN IT HAPPEN WHERE WE END UP WITH THESE AND I'M NOT SAYING THIS GUY'S DOING IT AND LOOK, I'M 110 PERCENT IF HE GETS TO DIVIDE HIS PROPERTY LIKE HE WANTS.
[01:25:02]
I KNOW HE GETS TO DO THAT, BUT WE'RE PROVIDING THIS.WHAT HAPPENS IF WE END UP WITH THESE LOTS THAT DON'T GET ELEVATED THEIR WETLANDS WERE OBLIGATED TO SOME DEGREE TO PROVIDE THEM WITH CITY SERVICES.
>> THAT WOULD BE WATER AND SEWER.
>> AT HIS COSTS SO HE HAS TO GO PUT THEM IN.
>> BEFORE YOU GET TO THAT POINT, A PLAT ONLY DIVIDES LAND.
IF THERE ARE WETLANDS OUT THERE, HE DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO OUT THERE AND DO ANYTHING ELSE WITH THE LAND UNTIL HE GETS A PERMIT TO DO THAT.
THE PLAT ONLY SUBDIVIDES THE LAND, SO IF HE WANT TO REPLAT SOME WETLANDS, HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DO THAT.
>> HE DOES. I AGREE. I'M GETTING MY HANDS.
>> I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU COULD WANT SOME TYPE OF WETLAND DELINEATION TO ISSUE AN EXCAVATION PERMIT, BECAUSE YOU ARE ISSUING A PERMIT TO GO OUT THERE AND DO EXCAVATION AND ACTUALLY DISTURB THE LAND.
BUT, REPLATING A PIECE OF PROPERTY DOES NOT DISTURB THE LAND ONE BIT, IT IS ONLY A MINISTERIAL PROCESS THAT IS FILED IN THE COURTHOUSE SO YOU CAN SUB-DIVIDE AND SELL LAND.
>> THE KEY THERE IS THE PERMANENT ISSUANCE.
WHAT YOU REFERENCED EARLIER, THE EXCAVATION PERMIT IS A PERMANENT PROCESS.
WHEN YOU BEGAN ALTERING THE LAND, THAT'S WHEN THE COURT JURISDICTION COMES IN TO WETLAND ISSUES.
AS JOHN MENTIONED, THE PLAT IS SIMPLY YOU ARE PUTTING LINES ON PAPER LEGALLY DIVIDING.
BUT UNTIL YOU GET OUT THERE AND START DOING WORK ON THE PROPERTY WITH A PERMIT ON EACH OF THOSE PROPERTIES, YOU'RE NOT MANDATED TO DO ANYTHING WITH THE WETLANDS AT ALL.
>> COMMISSIONER WALLA, WE HAVE THIS AS OUR LAST AGENDA ITEM THAT I'VE PUT ON HERE FOR JUST THIS SPECIFIC TOPIC.
NOT NECESSARILY ADDRESSING WETLANDS, BUT ALSO ADDRESSING THE PLATING PROCESS AND ABOUT WHAT ARE THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF INFORMATION THAT WERE PRESENTED, AND WHERE WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE ADDITIONAL INPUT OR QUESTIONS OR REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
BECAUSE IT JUST DOESN'T APPLY TO YOUR QUESTION OF WETLANDS, IT APPLIED TO THE CASE THAT WE HEARD TWO WEEKS AGO, WHERE THEY WERE REPLATING BEACHFRONT PROPERTY THAT WAS KNOWN TO BE WITHIN THE DUNE PROTECTION AREA.
SIMILAR CASE, AGAIN, THERE ARE LINES ON PAPER AS WE HEARD, HOWEVER, THEY'RE ENCUMBRANCES THAT ARE KNOWN IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA, SO YOU'VE GOT TO KNOWN ENCUMBRANCE AND THE APPLICANT IN THE FUTURE, OR THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS THE ABILITY TO MITIGATE THAT IF THEY WANT TO SUBJECT TO APPROVAL.
WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT AT THE END.
I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW WE GET PAST HERE.
>> JOHN, AND I THOUGHT I CAN'T TALK TO THE APPLICANT.
ANY DEVELOPER, I WOULD TELL YOU WHAT? I WOULD TYPICALLY BE THE LAST GUY IN LINE TO SAY, WE NEED MORE FROM THESE PEOPLE TO MAKE DIVIDING THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY ANYMORE BURDEN THAN WHAT THEIR RIGHTS ENTITLE THEM TO.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET MY HANDS AROUND.
IT GOES TO THE NEXT PROCESS AND I WILL SAY THIS, THOSE GUYS OVER THAT ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, THEY'RE A TOUGH NUT TO CRACK, SO I DON'T DOUBT THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ON TOP OF THIS BUT IT'S JUST I DON'T KNOW.
>> I THINK YOU SHOULD GET ALL THE INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED.
MY ONLY QUESTION HERE IS, WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH THAT INFORMATION? BECAUSE IF YOU HAD INFORMATION THAT SAID THERE WERE WETLANDS ON THERE, WOULD THAT CHANGE YOUR OPINION OR YOUR VOTE TO REPLAT PROPERTY?
>> I WOULD ONLY ASK FOR IT IN REGARD THE INFORMATION, AND I WOULD BE WILLING TO BET THEY PROBABLY HAVE IT.
BUT, IT'S PROVIDED WITH NOT TO ME BUT TO OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
WHEN THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THEIR PERMITTING PROCESS, IF THEY SEE SOMETHING THAT SUSPECT, THEY CAN EITHER GO TIMEOUT, YOU HAVE A PROBLEM, AND IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THE WAY YOU'RE GOING, YOU NEED TO GO DO ANOTHER STEP.
MOST DEVELOPERS I WOULD THINK WOULD PROBABLY GO THE AVOIDANCE APPROACH.
>> CAN WE GO AHEAD? [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S OKAY. LET'S GO BACK TO AT THE END OF
[01:30:02]
THE MEETING WHERE WE HAVE THIS OPEN ITEM FOR DISCUSSION.LET'S TAKE THAT UNDER ADVISEMENT IF THAT'S OKAY. I BELIEVE YOU ARE OKAY WITH THAT TOO.
>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
WE HAVE A SECOND, CORRECT? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS PARTICULAR PRELIMINARY PLAT? HEARING NONE, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING.
I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION.
IF YOU WANT TO HANG AROUND TO THE END OF THE MEETING, IT MIGHT BE INFORMATIVE TOO.
>> LET ME TELL YOU WE DO HAVE DELINEATION.
WE SUBMITTED IT. NOT ONLY THAT, WE'RE DONATING THE WETLANDS TO THE AUDUBON AFTER WEEK.
>> I REMEMBER YOU SAYING THAT.
>> IT WOULD HURT ME MORE BECAUSE I GO OUT THERE AND FIND OUT THAT THERE'S WETLANDS ALL OVER [INAUDIBLE], I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BAIL ON IT.
THANKS, COMMISSIONER WARREN. APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU. LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT CASE, 23P-019.
[7.D.2. 23P-019 (14535 Cade Lane) Request For A Replat To Increase The Number Of Lots From One To Eighteen. The Property Is Legally Described As Redfish Drive Fish Camp Condos Unrecorded (S-6079), In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Douglas Bramwell, Quiddity Engineering Property Owner: WB Galveston, LCC]
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR REPLAT FROM 1-18 LOTS, 60 PUBLIC NOTICES WERE SENT.
SOME BACKGROUND IN THIS CASE IN JULY 9TH, 2014, THE SUBJECT SITE WAS GRANTED A VARIANCE BY THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, ALLOWING A REDUCTION TO THE REQUIRE LOT AREA, WIDTH, DEPTH, AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
THOSE DEVIATIONS ARE LISTED ON PAGE 1 OF YOUR REPORT.
IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANTS REQUEST A REPLATING ORDER TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF LOTS FROM 1-18 IN R1 ZONING DISTRICT.
THE SUBJECT SITE WILL COMPLY TO THE LAST STANDARD FOR ESTABLISHING THE VARIANCE THAT WAS GRANTED BY THE ZBA IN 2014.
IN THIS CASE, STAFF RECOMMENDS CASE 23P-019 BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ARE LISTED IN A REPORT, THERE IS ONLY ONE, STANDARD CONDITIONS, TWO AND THREE, NOW WE HAVE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS.
THIS IS AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
THIS IS A SUBJECT SITE ITSELF.
THE PROPERTY IS TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST, AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED REPLAT THAT CONCLUDES OUR REPORT.
>> WE'RE GOOD. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT.
>> SORRY, I MISSED THAT PART. I WASN'T LISTENING.
I APOLOGIZE. COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER HILL.
>> ADRIEL, I FOUND THIS VERY INTERESTING.
THERE'S NO EXPLORATION TO ZBA VARIANCES, CORRECT? I'M GUESSING FROM READING THIS.
>> USUALLY RUNS WITH THE LAND.
>> THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; WAS THIS BEFORE THE LDRS?
>> I FIND THAT ALSO VERY INTERESTING.
I LEARNED SOMETHING FROM THIS.
YOU CAN TEACH SOMEONE MY AGE SOMETHING.
I ALSO NOTICED A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FORMAT TO OUR PLAT APPROVAL CRITERIA.
IS THIS SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO SEE GOING FORWARD?
>> TALK ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATION
>> YES MA'AM. THIS IS SOME GOOD NEWS.
WHILE THE CITY SLEEPS, ADRIEL WAS HARD AT WORK.
[LAUGHTER] TRACKING DOWN STATE STATUTES AND SOME REVISIONS, HE FOUND A REVISION THAT DOES ALLOW AN APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOW.
PRIOR TO THAT, IT HADN'T BEEN THAT WAY.
IT WAS DISAPPROVAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS WE HAD PREVIOUSLY SPOKE OF.
BUT, THERE'S ACTUALLY SOME LEGISLATION THAT'S PENDING RIGHT NOW THAT STILL TALKS ABOUT JUST APPROVING OR DISAPPROVING A PLAT.
IT'S IN COMMITTEE AND IT MAY BE ADJUSTED.
BUT RIGHT NOW, WHAT'S ON THE BOOKS IS YOU CAN APPROVE, CONDITIONALLY APPROVE, OR DISAPPROVE.
YOU COULD DISAPPROVE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SUBJECT TO CORRECTIONS IF YOU WANTED, BUT THERE'S NO NEED TO DO THAT ANYMORE.
WHAT'S BEING SUGGESTED HERE IN ADRIEL'S REPORT IS GOOD NEWS FOR THE DEVELOPERS, BECAUSE THEY DON'T GET THAT REVERSE CONTEXT THAT THEY'D BEEN USED TO HEARING ALL ACROSS THE STATE, FRANKLY.
[01:35:06]
>> WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE IS THAT WE APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS NOT DISAPPROVE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION NOT JUST A STRAIGHT APPROVAL? YOUR EXPLANATION FOR THAT IS IN OUR PLAT APPROVAL CRITERIA, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WE SAW AS OUR I GUESS WAS IT UNDER PLAT APPROVAL CRITERIA IN THE PRIOR STAFF REPORT? IT WAS JUST UNDER THE HEADING PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE PRIOR STAFF REPORT IS WHAT I'M SEEING.
WE COULD SEE IT THEORETICALLY EITHER WAY, GOING FORWARD, RIGHT ADRIEL? DEPENDING ON WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS, JUST STRAIGHT APPROVAL OR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS?
I JUST WISHED THE GALVESTON COUNTY DAILY NEWS WOULD TAKE NOTE OF THAT SINCE EVERYBODY'S BEEN GETTING FRIED LATELY, SO OVER THAT, SO NICE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? GO AHEAD. YES, PLEASE.
>> I'M GOING TO RESERVE THAT COMMENT.
>> IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? APPLICANT IS NOT PRESENT.
WITH THAT, WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 23P-019.
ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? YES. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE IN WAITING.
IF YOU WOULD PLEASE SIGN IN AND THEN STATE YOUR NAME AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT.
>> MY NAME IS SELENA WILLIAMS LOGAN.
>> CORRECT. WE RECEIVED YOUR LETTER LATE, BUT WE HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT, SO THANK YOU.
>> YES. EVERYBODY RECEIVED A COPY.
>> I OWNED THE FIRST HOME THAT WAS BUILT THERE.
I DID A LOT OF RESEARCH BEFORE I BOUGHT THAT HOME.
WHEN I ORIGINALLY RESEARCH, I TALKED TO MR. TIM HERE AND THERE WAS NO PLAT OF FISH CAMP DURING THAT TIME.
THEN WHEN I PURCHASED THERE WAS A MINOR PLAT OF FISH CAMP AT MY PURCHASE.
THE DEVELOPER IS WANTING TO PUT IT IN SO MANY DIFFERENT PROPOSED LOTS AND HOMES THERE BUT THERE'S ALSO A PID ASSOCIATED WITH MY TITLE WORK AND A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATED WITH MY TITLE WORK.
IT'S CALLED RED FISH CONDOMINIUMS DECLARATION AND UNDER THAT DECLARATION, THERE ARE STILL PROVISION.
THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO IGNORE THAT, THAT IS A RECORD.
THAT IS STILL A RECORD, IT MAY NOT BE FUNCTIONAL, BUT IT'S A RECORD AND IT'S A PART OF MY TITLE WORK.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, WHAT IS PROPOSED HERE THERE WILL BE THREE HOMES THAT WILL NOT BE PROPOSED TO COMPARE IT TO THE PIT FOR FISH CAMP, THERE'S 23 HOMES FOR PIT FOR FISH CAMP AND I BELIEVE UNDER YOUR CITY PLANNING DEVELOPMENT 2015, I LOOKED IT UP DO YOU GO BACK AND MAKE SURE THAT THE COVENANTS ARE MET WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT RE-PLATTING? BECAUSE THAT WOULD AFFECT MY PID.
ALSO WHAT THEY HAVE HERE WILL AFFECT GREEN SPACE AS FAR AS WHAT I CONSIDER GREEN SPACE AND MY RIGHTS TO GREEN SPACE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING AND FOR PRESENTING THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, IT'S DULY NOTED AND WE'LL TAKE IT UNDER ADVISEMENT AS WE MOVE FORWARD IN-
>> A COUPLE OF MINUTES. I'M SURE WE CAN DO IT. ABSOLUTELY.
>> ONE LAST COMMENT IS THAT SAID, THE DEVELOPER HAS REMOVED THE SIGNAGE.
THE SUBDIVISION IS BAYSIDE OF WATERMAN'S, IF I NEED EMERGENCY CONTACT, IF I NEED CITY SERVICES, THEY HAVE NO WAY OF IDENTIFYING THE SUBDIVISION.
I HAVE CONTACTED THEM MANY TIMES, I REACHED OUT EVEN TO CITY ABOUT THIS ISSUE.
I HAD A SITUATION, I CALLED THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THEY CAN HARDLY LOCATE MY HOME.
I'M ASKING THAT DEVELOPERS ALSO PUT THAT BAYSIDE AT WATERMAN'S SIGNAGE PACK.
>> THANK YOU. INTERESTING. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO 5:13 PM. YES.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, A WE GOING TO ASK IT DURING
[01:40:01]
THIS PUBLIC HEARING PART OR DO WE WANT TO ASK IT DURING DISCUSSION?>> CAN WE ASK IT DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING COUNCIL? IS THAT OKAY?
>> WE'LL LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND COME BACK FOR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
>> COUNCIL, THIS WHOLE DEVELOPMENT WAS COVERED UNDER AN INCREDIBLY COMPLICATED BUNCH OF DOCUMENTS, VOLUMES AND VOLUMES OF DOCUMENTS.
ADRIEL DID A REALLY GOOD JOB, AS I SAID AFTER WE DID OUR LAST CASE IN COVERING WHAT WE SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT LOOK AT, WHERE THINGS FALL AND FALL OUT, WHAT WE SHOULD AND SHOULDN'T LOOK AT IN LOOKING AT PLATS AND WHAT OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS LOOKOUT IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
THIS WAS A PID, I THINK, WASN'T IT? WHEN WOULD WHAT OUR HOMEOWNER HAS BROUGHT UP THIS WHOLE PID ISSUE AT WHAT POINT IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS WOULD ISSUES FOR THE PID COME UP THAT IT WOULDN'T CREATE THE PROBLEMS THAT IT MIGHT CREATE? WHEN WOULD THAT COME UP?
>> TYPICALLY, ANYTHING PERTAINING TO THE RESTRICTIONS OR COVENANTS THE CITY DOES NOT GET INVOLVED.
FURTHERMORE, WHEN IT COMES TO PLATTING, TYPICALLY PLANNING COMMISSION PROBABLY DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO EITHER DENY OR RESTRICT SOME APPROVAL DUE TO A CONFLICT WITH THE RESTRICTIONS.
>> BUT THE PID HAD TO DO WITH PUBLIC REIMBURSEMENT, DIDN'T IT? PUBLIC WITH PRIVATE REIMBURSEMENT OF A DEVELOPER'S INFRASTRUCTURE.
THAT WOULDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH?
>> THAT WOULD TYPICALLY EQUATE TO OBVIOUSLY THE DIVISION OF MONEY.
I THINK TIM MAY HAVE A GREATER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THAT PID MIGHT HAVE LOOKED LIKE TO AN EXTENT, I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT HAS BEEN THROUGH SEVERAL CHANGES.
>> I LIVE IN THAT AREA, SO I KNOW.
>> MS. LOGAN'S PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY PART OF THE ORIGINAL BAYSIDE OF WATERMAN'S.
THERE WAS A ATTEMPTED AND SUCCESSFUL FILING OF A CONDO REGIME DOCUMENT BY THE DEVELOPER FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS BLOCK, IT NEVER WENT THROUGH THE CITY.
[NOISE] AS THEY WERE CONTEMPLATING HOW TO BUILD OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT CONDO REGIME, THEY MET WITH ADRIEL AND I AND OTHER STAFF MEMBERS AND WE BASICALLY TOLD THEM THAT THEY COULDN'T DO IT.
IT WASN'T APPROVED, SUBDIVISION AND THERE WERE DEED RESTRICTIONS FILED WHICH EVIDENTLY HAVEN'T BEEN RETRACTED YET IF IT'S STILL COMING UP ON HER TITLE WORK.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE SUBDIVIDERS SHOULD CERTAINLY DO.
THEY COULD HAVE REALLY HANDLED THIS IN ONE OR TWO WAYS, THEY COULD HAVE VACATED THE PREVIOUS PLAT THAT TALKED ABOUT THE CONDO REGIME, OR THEY COULD HAVE REPLATED IT THIS WAY.
THEY DECIDED TO RE-PLAT IT AND I THINK IT'S PRETTY WELL IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT THE ORIGINAL PLAT BEFORE THE CONDO REGIME PORTION OF IT WAS FILED CONSISTED OF.
I THINK IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PERCEIVED THERE, BUT THERE WAS A PID THAT WAS GRANTED RIGHT OR WRONG, IT WAS DONE.
THE CITY'S ONLY ROLE IN THAT IS BASICALLY A PASS THROUGH IN THAT THERE'S A REPORT THAT'S ANNUALLY DONE, AND THAT REPORT DOCUMENTS HOW MUCH IS COMING INTO THE PID AND HOW MUCH IS GOING OUT, BUT THE CITY DOESN'T OPERATE IT, IT'S OPERATED AS I UNDERSTAND IT BY THE DEVELOPER,
[01:45:05]
AND WE SIMPLY GET THAT REPORT ONCE A YEAR.THAT'S REALLY THE EXTENT OF OUR INVOLVEMENT IN IT.
[NOISE] I'M NOT A REALLY GREAT SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON THIS I JUST RECOGNIZE WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING WITH IT SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, AND THAT'S IT, IT'S VERY LIMITED IN SCOPE.
AS TO THE VALIDITY OF WHAT'S BEFORE YOU NOW, IT'S ESSENTIALLY GOING BACK TO WHAT THE ORIGINAL PLAT HAD SHOWN IN THAT AREA IN BAYSIDE AT WATERMAN'S.
IS THAT CORRECT, ADRIEL, IS THAT ABOUT RIGHT?
>> YEAH. AS I MENTIONED BEFORE AND TO ADD TO THAT, THIS PARTICULAR RESERVE HAS GONE THROUGH MANY CHANGES.
AROUND MARCH 2016, A FINAL PLAT WAS APPROVED FOR THE RESERVED.
MARCH 19TH, 2016, RESERVE M WAS RECONFIGURED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE CONDO REGIME THAT TIM JUST TALKED ABOUT ALLOWED FOR, WHICH WAS APPROXIMATELY 24 LOTS OR SO.
THAT SAME YEAR LATER IN SEPTEMBER RESERVE M WAS REPLATED AS PART OF MY MINOR PLOT AS WHAT YOU SEE ON THOSE TOP THREE LOTS THAT ARE 145, 51, 145, 39, I'M LOSING MY VISION HERE I'M SORRY, 35.
THOSE WERE PART OF THE MINOR PLAT AND MS. LOGAN'S PROPERTY WAS ONE OF THOSE.
THAT IS THE LATEST AND I GUESS THE VALID PLAT OF RECORD AS OF NOW.
ALL THOSE CHANGES HAPPENED BETWEEN MARCH AND SEPTEMBER OF 2016.
>> JUST TO CLARIFY SOME HISTORY HERE.
>> WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION OF THIS TRACK?
>> USE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SEE HERE.
I BELIEVE IT'S ACTUALLY PRETTY CLOSE, IF NOT THE SAME, FROM MY RECOLLECTION OF LOOKING AT THAT PLOT.
>> THEN TELL ME I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE TERM CONDO REGIME, TELL ME WHAT THAT IS.
>> A CONDO REGIME IS SOMETHING THAT A LANDOWNER CAN FILE WHEN THEY NOT GIVING UP LAND.
THEY'RE DIVVYING UP A SERIES OF BUILDINGS.
THEN IT'S UNDER ONE OWNERSHIP THAT'S CREATED WITH AN HOA AND GENERALLY OWNS TYPICALLY ALL THE STRUCTURES AND YOU SELL THE REAL ESTATE OF THE BUILDING FROM THE PAINT INWARD. THE STRUCTURES.
>> OH, ALL THAT CONFIGURATION.
>> GUIDANCE FOR THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXAS LOOK AGO MY CODE THAT THEY HAVE TO ABIDE BY.
>> YEAH, EXACTLY. AT THAT TIME WHEN THE CONDO REGIME WAS PLACED ON THE PROPERTY, IN WHICH CONFIGURATION? ONE TRACK OF LAND.
>> IT WAS THIS WHAT YOU SEE HERE BUT WITH A PRETTY MUCH AN ADDITIONAL THREE LOTS.
>> WITHIN AN ADDITIONAL THREE LAWS.
>> THE LAND WAS ACTUALLY SUBDIVIDED AS IT CURRENTLY IS SHOWN HERE.
>> AGAIN, MARCH 8, 2016, FINAL PLAT WAS APPROVED, WHICH PRETTY MUCH SHOWED THIS CONFIGURATION.
MAY 19TH OF THE SAME YEAR, RESERVE THEM WAS RECONFIGURED THROUGH THAT CONDOM REGIME, WHICH NOW SHOWED 24 LOTS.
>> WHICH IS UNUSUAL FOR A CONDO REGIME BECAUSE YOU DON'T TYPICALLY DIVIDE LAND IN A CONDO REGIME.
IT'S ONE CHUNK OF LAND THAT IS OWNED BY ASSOCIATION AS A WHOLE.
>> THAT PROCESS DOESN'T GO THROUGH PLANNING OR DID IT?
>> IT DID NOT THAT WAS DIRECTLY FILED WITH THE COUNTY.
>> THAT SAME YEAR, FROM MAY TO SEPTEMBER, THEY CAME BACK AND DID A MINOR PLAN TO ELIMINATE
[01:50:05]
THE "CONDO REGIME" THAT WAS FILED WITH THE COUNTY AND REVERT TO THE ONLY THREE LOTS.YOU SEE ON THE TOP THERE ON KATE LANE, WHICH INCLUDED THE SLOGANS, PROPERTY AND RESERVE AMAZ JUST ONE HOLE RESERVE.
>> WHICH IF THEY WERE GOING TO DO A CONDO REGIME, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO DO IT.
BUT THEY NEEDED THE THREE PARCEL OWNERS TO BASICALLY APPROVE THE CONSOLIDATED.
>> NOT TOTALLY CLEAR ON THAT BUT.
>> NO, IT BRINGS UP MORE QUESTIONS BECAUSE IF IT'S NO LONGER SUBJECT TO A CONDO REGIME, THEN IT APPEARS BY WAY OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, THAT THE INTENT IS TO GO AND SELL THESE OFFERS INDIVIDUAL PARCELS BUT IT'S SUBJECT TO A VARIANCE THAT WAS GRANTED BACK IN 2014 THAT ALLOWED THE LOT AREAS TO BE 20 TO 28, 37, OR WHATEVER THE SPECIFICATIONS.
THAT ZBA STILL APPLIES EVEN THOUGH THE CONDO RESTRICTION HAS BEEN REMOVED. IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT?
>> YEAH. ZBA STILL APPLIES BECAUSE IT RUNS WITH THE LAND? YES.
>> BUT WE DON'T KNOW THAT THE CONDO REGIME DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN REMOVED.
>> IT'S STILL SHOWING UP ON HER TITLE REPORT.
>> GOT IT. THE ASSUMPTION IS IF IT'S STILL SHOWING UP ON THE TITLE REPORT AND IT'S STILL IN PLACE.
>> THAT'LL COME OUT IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS OR THAT WON'T COME OUT.
>> WELL, THAT'S THE PART THAT IS TIM MENTIONED THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE DEVELOPER HANDLES THAT THE CITY DOES NOT GET INVOLVED IN THOSE RESTRICTIONS ARE COVENANTS.
>> WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO DISCUSS THIS WITH THE DEVELOPER TO LET THEM KNOW THAT THEY'VE GOT TO BASICALLY REMOVE THAT CONDO REGIME.
>> LATELY. THEY NEED TO FILE SOMETHING THAT KILLS IT IN ESSENCE.
>> I DON'T SEE HOW YOU WOULD RE-PLOT LAND WITH A CONDO REGIME. DYLAN PLACE.
>> AS FAR AS MS. LOGAN BEING HERE NOT THAT BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY, WE CANNOT ADDRESS MS. LOGAN DIRECTLY FROM UP HERE TODAY.
BUT MS. LOGAN PIN CAN BE ADDRESSED LATER BY STAFF AFTER THE MEETING IS OVER.
BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT STAFF CAN MAYBE A DRESS WITH MS. LOGAN THEN AND HELP HER AND YOU-ALL CAN DISCUSS HOW YOU ALL CAN HELP WORK THIS OUT OR FACILITATE A DISCUSSION MAYBE WITH THE DEVELOPER?
>> YEAH, FOR SURE. I THINK FOR THE PURPOSES OF VALIDITY OF THAT CONDO REGIME, AGAIN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN SPECULATE ON.
IT MOST CERTAINLY AFTER THE MULTIPLIER WAS FILED, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE END OF THAT.
THAT NOW OBVIOUSLY, IF THIS IS MOVED FORWARD AND APPROVED, THIS SHOULD BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE.
>> FROM A STANDPOINT OF US APPROVING THIS PLAT TODAY.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM SITTING HERE RIGHT NOW THAT CONDO REGIMES AND CONDO DOCUMENTS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW I VIEW A PLAT.
>> CORRECT. BECAUSE IN THIS CASE YOUR OPTIONS ARE THE ROOT PLANT MUST ONE REPLANT MUST CONFORM TO TODAY'S REGULATIONS.
TWO REPLANT MUST CONFORM TO VARIANCE GRANTED.
IT'S WHAT HAS DECIDED AS THE PATH OF THE APPLICANT HAS CITED. GO ON.
>> I'M SAYING THAT. WE CAN'T EXCHANGE.
>> BUT IT HAD BEEN SAYING THAT IT MEETS ALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS.
THE COVENANT ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONDO REGIME IS THAT AN APPLICABLE REGULATION THAT'S PERTINENT TO THE RE-PLAT?
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT APICAL REGULATIONS OF THE CITY.
>> PAPERWORK DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE HLA?
>> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS IS THAT IT COVENANT ON THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD LIMIT OR RESTRICT THE ABILITY TO REPLANT LAND? [INAUDIBLE]
THERE'S NO RESTRICTION FOR ANYONE TO SUB-DIVIDE LAND.
[01:55:03]
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.PROVIDED ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF LOT AREA AND OTHER SUBDIVISION OF LAND IS MET.
>> MS. LOGAN, I APOLOGIZE, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE AN ONGOING CONVERSATION WITH YOU OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS UNTIL THIS IS CLOSED.
YOU'RE WELCOME TO HANG AROUND AND DISCUSS AFTER WE'VE RULED ON CONSIDERED A MOTION ON THE CASE AND HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH STAFF IF YOU WISH.
[OVERLAPPING] STEALING PUBLIC HEARING.
>> I WOULD STILL IN PUBLIC HEARING.
I GUESS I COULD REQUEST HER TO COME BACK UP.
IT'S NOT FOR ONGOING EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE TWO.
I UNDERSTAND. WE'RE STILL IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT, PERIOD.
>> I'M ASSUMING THE REGIME IS WHOLLY OWNED BY THE APPLICANT?
[OVERLAPPING] BUT THEY'RE NOT WITHIN THE CONDO REGIME.
>> THEY CUT THEM OUT WITH A MINOR FLAT.
>> I'VE GOT A QUESTION ABOUT THE ZBA VARIANCE.
I UNDERSTAND THE ZBA VARIANCES RUN WITH THE PROPERTY AND THAT NEVER GOES AWAY.
I MEAN, IF THE ZBA GRANTED A VARIANCE BECAUSE OF A SPECIFIC REASON AND IF THAT REASON WASN'T MET, IT WOULD STILL BE THERE FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER TO USE.
AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE, YOU BRING A VARIANCE TO THE ZBA, YOU STATE YOUR CASE TO THEM.
THEY GRANT THE VARIANCE BASED ON THE CASE STATED AND THEN YOU DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
THAT'S YOUR RIGHT TO DO AND THOSE REQUIREMENTS STILL RUN WITH THE LAND, THEY NEVER COME OFF.
NO WAY FOR OUR ZBA VARIANTS TO BE REMOVED.
THROUGH THE ACTION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S REQUIREMENTS AS MUCH AS IT IS ALLOWANCES.
THEY'RE GETTING AN ALLOWANCE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE CURRENTLY ENCODE OR DIDN'T HAVE AT THE TIME ENCODE.
WHETHER THEY CHOOSE TO UTILIZE THAT ALLOWANCE, DEPENDS ON IF THEY ARE ABLE TO PROCEED FORWARD OR NOT.
IN THIS CASE, THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO PROCEED FORWARD BECAUSE THE CONDO REGIME DOCUMENTS WEREN'T ABLE TO BE IMPLEMENTED PROPERLY, AT LEAST.
>> WELL, BUT IF I UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY OF THAT PROPERTY, THEY WENT TO ZBA, THEY GOT THE VARIANCE FOR A SMALLER LOT.
SIZE REQUIREMENTS WITH [OVERLAPPING]
>> SEBASTIAN AND I LIKE TO ADD TO THAT.
I MEAN, IT WAS BEYOND THIS RESERVE.
IT WAS FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE SITES.
>> THEN THEY ACTUALLY WENT AHEAD AND PLOTTED THE PROPERTY WITH THAT VARIANCE
>> THEN THEY RE-PLOT THE PROPERTY, MAKING THE PROPERTY BIGGER AGAIN, WHICH DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE VARIANCES, THEY DIDN'T NEED THE VARIANCE AT THAT TIME TO RE-PLOT THE PROPERTY.
THEN NOW THEY'RE GOING BACK TO THOSE SMALLER LOSS.
>> WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU'LL SEE OUT THERE, THE SMALLER LOTS.
>> I DON'T HAVE PROBLEM WITH THAT. A LOT SIZES REALLY FINE WITH ME.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET UNDERSTAND THE ZBA VARIANTS AND IT RUNNING WITH THE LAND.
>> THIS MAY BE A GOOD WAY AND [INAUDIBLE] YOU MIGHT CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT MAYBE A GOOD WAY TO LOOK AT IT AS SOMEWHAT OF A VESTING RIGHTS ISSUE.
THEY'VE NOW ACQUIRED THEIR REST OF RIGHTS TO CONTINUE WITH OUR PROJECT AS PROPOSED ORIGINALLY.
>> BUT THOSE PROPOSALS MOSTLY DID LOT SIZE DUE TO LOT SIZE. THAT'D BE CORRECT?
>> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? I COULDN'T.
>> I SAID THAT WAS PRIMARILY A VARIANCE TO LOT SIZE.
>> LOT SIZE AND SETBACKS, YES.
>> WAS THERE ANY OTHER PART OF, I'M ASSUMING THAT WOULD BE, WAS THERE A MASTER PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH THAT? WE DID HERE, GREEN SPACE.
DO YOU KNOW IF THERE WAS ANY GREEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS IN THE ZBA VARIANTS, BECAUSE I WOULD ASSUME YOU'D HAVE TO PROVIDE THE SAME GREEN SPACE.
[02:00:01]
>> HI, WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A NEW APPROVAL.
WE DON'T DO ANYMORE CALLED A GENERAL LAND-USE PLAN AND GLUP.
>> THOSE, OF COURSE YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS.
THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE OVERALL SITE PLAN APPROVAL?
>> THEY WOULD HAVE HAD ONE OF THOSE.
>> THEY WOULD HAVE HAD ONE OF THOSE, YES.
>> THEY WOULD HAVE HAD A GLUP AND THEN THEY WENT TO ZBA TO GET A CHANGE IN LOT SIZE.
>> YES. THE GLUP WASN'T A TOOL THAT COULD VARY FROM THE LOT SIZE.
IT'S NOT LIKE A PUD. IT WAS JUST A SIGHT.
[OVERLAPPING] THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO GO TO ZBA PRIOR TO GETTING THEIR GLUP.
>> IT'S A VERY CONFUSING DEVELOPMENT.
>> THIS ONE HAS GONE THROUGH MANY CHANGES AS I MENTIONED BEFORE.
>>BUT I WOULD THINK, SO THEY HAD GLUP WITH A ZBA ON TOP OF IT.
>> SO THE GLUP STUFF WOULD STILL BE IN PLAY AND A PIT TO MIX.
BUT I MEAN, THE PITS, I DON'T KNOW HOW THE PIT COMES TO PLAY WITH THE [INAUDIBLE].
>> THAT'S DIVISION OF MONEY, THAT'S ASSESSMENTS.
>> THE GLUP WOULD STILL BE UNDERLINED.
IF THERE WERE A GREEN SPACE ISSUE AND MY MEMORY SERVES ME RIGHT.
THERE WAS A CALCULATION FOR GREEN SPACE AND THE GLUP DAYS.
IF HE'S DOING A RE-PLOT AS GLUP, DOESN'T GO AWAY.
SORRY, I'M REALLY DIGGING INTO THIS.
>> BUT THE PLAN HERE IS SIMILAR, IF NOT THE SAME, THEN THE ORIGINAL ONE THAT WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
>> BUT IS IT A RE-PLOT OR IS IT A PLOT? IF IT'S PART OF A RE-PLOT, THEN IS IT A RE-PLOT OF THE LARGER HOLE, WHICH THE GLUP WOULD'VE HAD OVERALL GREEN SPACE REQUIREMENT, WHICH PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN AT THE STUART MANSION.
THIS, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS AS YOU ARE ONTO SOMETHING, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SMALLER PIECE.
THIS WOULD HAVE CARVED OUT THE SMALLER PIECE AND WOULD HAVE ELIMINATED THE GREEN SPACE, WHICH IS OVER WAY ACROSS THE WAY AT THE STUART MANSION, WHICH IS WHAT YOU WERE GETTING AT.
>> I THINK THEY ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
THERE WOULD STILL BE AN UNDERLYING GLUP WITH THIS, BECAUSE IT IS A RE-PLOT.
BUT IF THE CONFIGURATION IS THE SAME, THERE'S STILL THAT SAME AREA OF GREEN SPACE THERE.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY'RE SHORT ON GREEN SPACE [OVERLAPPING]
>> BUT THE GREEN SPACE, I'M SORRY.
>> GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER, [INAUDIBLE].
>> BUT THE GREEN SPACE WOULDN'T BE DEDICATED IN ANY WAY TO THIS PLOT IN ANY WAY.
WHICH MEANS THAT THIS PLOT, WHICH IS THE ZBA EXCEPTION, WOULD BE CONTINGENT ON THE GLUP, WHICH ALSO HAD A GREEN SPACE REQUIREMENT.
JUST HANG WITH ME JUST A SECOND.
THEN THIS PLOT COULD BE STAND ALONE, WITH NO GREEN SPACE.
THAT SEEMS LIKE IT DOESN'T HOLD WATER BECAUSE THEN THE OTHER GREEN SPACE COULD THEORETICALLY GO AWAY OR GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.
>> I AGREE THAT THEY COULD HAVE TRIED TO DO THAT.
BUT WHAT THEY'VE ENDED UP DOING IS THEY WENT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL, WHICH DOES HAVE THE GREEN SPACE.
PRESUMABLY AS PART OF THE WHOLE CALCULATION FOR THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION.
>> I PULLED UP THE GLUP AND THAT TRACT WAS LISTED AS A COMMERCIAL RESERVE.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY. THANK YOU, CATHERINE.
I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT REGARDLESS OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR GREEN SPACE AT THE TIME OR OPEN SPACE, THIS RESERVE WAS NOT RESTRICTED TO ANY TYPE OF USERS.
IT WAS STILL OPEN, SO THEY COULD STILL COME BACK AND RE-PLOT THE RESERVE.
NOW IF IT WAS SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED, THEN WE WILL HAVE THAT ISSUE. YES.
>> ACTUALLY IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE GETTING MORE GREEN SPACE THAN YOU MIGHT'VE OTHERWISE IN THIS SUBDIVISION WITH THIS CONFIGURATION.
>> PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS STILL OPEN, COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS.
[02:05:02]
>> WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OF 5:38 PM.
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION.
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT WE APPROVE 23 P-019 AS PRESENTED.
>> I'LL SECOND IT FOR DISCUSSION.
>> DISCUSSION AGAIN, COMMISSIONERS.
HEARING NONE. LET'S SEE. WE STILL GOT EVERYBODY HERE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION HAS PRESENTED.
>> GIVE ME JUST A SECOND [LAUGHTER]
>> WE'LL PAUSE THE VOTE FOR A MOMENT, PLEASE.
>> YES. WE'LL WITHDRAWAL THE VOTE, AND OPEN IT BACK UP FOR DISCUSSION.
>> THIS IS AGAIN, ONE OF THOSE WE HAVE TO STAY IN OUR LANE.
DO WE LIKE IT? NO. BUT IT IS EXTREMELY COMPLEX.
I THOUGHT IT MAKES SOME OF MY STUFF LOOK LIKE [LAUGHTER] A PICNIC BUT IT IS A VERY COMPLEX CASE.
BUT I WILL SAY THIS PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE A RIGHT TO SUB-DIVIDE THEIR PROPERTY EVEN IF WE DON'T LIKE THE WAY THAT IT'S BEING DONE.
I'M NOT SAYING I LIKE IT BUT I'D LIKE TO ADD THAT, I THINK PART OF THIS IS THAT WHILE WE MAY NOT LIKE IT AND WE DO HAVE TO STAY IN OUR LANE IS THAT WE TRUST IN THE CAPABILITIES OF OUR VERY COMPETENT STAFF AT THE CITY TO HELP GUIDE THE DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE PROCESS, CHECKING THE COVENANTS THAT ARE IN PLACE, MAKING SURE THAT IT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF LOCAL CODE AND OTHER ENCUMBRANCES AND ENTITLEMENTS.
WITH THAT, ADRIEL I APPRECIATE ALL THE DETAIL AND BACKGROUND ON THIS, CATHERINE AS WELL, COUNSEL.
I'M GOING TO COME BACK FOR A VOTE.
NO COMMENT ONE LAST TIME. DON'T LEAVE YOU.
>> I WANTED DISCUSSION TO OPEN SO THAT I COULD SAY SOMETHING [LAUGHTER]
>> I WANTED TO SAY THAT AGAIN IT IS ONE OF THOSE CASES WHERE STAFF HAS DONE A LOT OF WORK.
I THINK THAT BASED ON ALL OF THE DISCUSSION, IT HAS SHOWN WHAT AN INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT CASE IT IS.
IT IS VERY DISTASTEFUL TO HAVE TO VOTE FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS WHERE IT IS NOT PALATABLE TO PEOPLE WHO ARE CLOSE BY.
I'VE PUT A LOT OF HARD-EARNED MONEY INTO THIS.
WE HAVE UNFORTUNATELY, NO CHOICE BUT TO VOTE FOR IT LEGALLY BECAUSE IT IS OUR JOB TO VOTE FOR IT AND TO TRUST IN THE SYSTEM THAT OTHER MEANS AVAILABLE TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WILL AVAIL THEMSELVES TO WORK OUT THEIR ISSUES, MEANING DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
COVENANTS AND DEED RESTRICTIONS ON THEIR PROPERTY, WHICH ARE NOT IN THE CITY'S PURVIEW.
I'M GOING TO STAY IN MY LANE, RUSTY AS MUCH AS I DON'T LIKE IT, IT IS.
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WALLA, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CHAIRMAN, FRANKLY, AND I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE CASE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, 1, 2, 3 IN FAVOR FOR IN FAVOR [NOISE]
IS THAT CORRECT, COMMISSIONER?
[02:10:02]
>> I KNOW MS. LOGAN, WILL HAVE A NICE DISCUSSION WITH STAFF.
>> MS. LOGAN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND FOR BEING PATIENT WITH US AND HEARING US OUT.
BUT YEAH, I'M SURE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME GOOD CONVERSATION AFTERWARDS.
WITH THAT, I KNOW WE'VE GOT SOME ADDITIONAL ITEMS ON THE END OF THIS AGENDA. IT IS LATE.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COMMISSION IF YOU WOULD ALLOW ME TO DEFER THOSE TWO LAST ITEMS TO NEXT COMMISSION MEETING.
>> I MAY JUST WANT TO DO THE ONE-STEP [INAUDIBLE]
>> LET ME PULL THAT SCREEN BACK UP.
>> WE JUST WANTED THE COMMISSION TO BE AWARE THAT WHENEVER YOU'RE DECLARING A CONFLICT,
[8.A. Conflict Of Interest Procedures (Staff)]
THERE IS A FORM THAT NEEDS TO BE FILLED OUT AND IT'S AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.HERE'S THE CITY'S WEBSITE, GALVESTONTX.GOV.
IT'S IN THE CITY SECRETARY SECTION, WHICH IS UNDER GOVERNMENT.
YOU MIGHT BE TEMPTED TO GO TO DEPARTMENTS BUT CITY SECRETARY IS UNDER GOVERNMENT.
VERY LAST ITEM IS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
CLICK THERE AND INFORMATION ABOUT CONFLICTS WILL COME UP.
WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IS THIS FORM HERE.
IT'S FORM FOR CITY OFFICIALS AFFIDAVIT OF ABSTENTION FROM VOTING.
HE'LL PUT JUST YOUR NAME HERE, WHAT THE CASE IS GOES HERE.
THE REASON FOR YOUR CONFLICT OR YOUR ABSTENTION GOES HERE.
TECHNICALLY, A CONFLICT IS ONLY WHEN YOU HAVE A FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION WHICH IS VERY RARE BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE 10% OF YOUR YEARLY INCOME.
MOST OF THE TIME IF YOU'RE DOING A CONFLICT, IT'S BECAUSE OF AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.
THAT'S WHEN IT'S YOUR COUSIN, YOUR NEIGHBOR, YOUR BEST FRIEND, YOUR HUSBAND.
YOU WOULD CLICK OFF, CHECK OFF THIS LAST ONE AND THEN PUT WHAT THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IS AND THEN SIGN IT AND HAVE IT NOTARIZED.
KARINA WILL BE BECOMING A NOTARY.
SO WHEN SHE IS, YOU COULD JUST BRING IT TO THE MEETING AND SHE'LL SIGN IT.
IN THE MEANTIME, THE CITY SECRETARY HAS A NOTARY, SO YOU CAN JUST STOP BY A BEFORE THE MEETING HAVE HER NOTARIZED AND BRING IT TO CLASS.
>> THIS NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE MEETING OR AT LEAST [OVERLAPPING]
>> IF YOU KNOW THAT YOU HAVE THE CONFLICT THEN YEAH.
IN ADVANCE AND IF NOT, THEN WE CAN TAKE CARE OF IT.
IF I HAVE A CONFLICT OF IMPROPRIETY, IT'S NOT FINANCIAL.
SHOULD I STATE THAT? BUT LET'S JUST SAY I HAVE ONE THAT'S MORE OF THAT BUT I WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION AND I ABSTAIN.
WOULD THAT BE INAPPROPRIATE? WELL, AN ABSTENTION IS REALLY A NO.
MY QUESTION IS, IF YOU HAD A CONFLICT AND IT WAS NOT FINANCIAL, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSION?
>> IF YOU HAVE DECLARED A CONFLICT WITH THE CASE FOR WHATEVER REASON WHETHER IT'S FINANCIAL OR BECAUSE OF SENSE OF IMPROPRIETY, THEN YOU CAN'T PARTICIPATE.
>> ANSWERED MY QUESTION. THANK YOU.
>> THAT'S IT. WE JUST WANT THE COMMISSION TO BE AWARE OF THAT.
[8.B. Plat Application Requirements (Finklea)]
>> LET'S MOVE THE LAST ITEM TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MAYBE.
>> CAN JUST GO OVER WHAT YOU WANT TO DISCUSS AT THE NEXT MEETING ON THAT PLAN APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.
>> I'M FINE WITH THAT TOO BUT IF YOU ALL KNOW, I NEED TO LEAVE.
>> NO, HE'S GOT A CONFLICT. I'VE GOT A CONFLICT.
>> NOT THAT KIND OF CONFLICT [LAUGHTER]
>> COUNCILMAN, WHAT I WANTED TO DO WAS DISCUSS WHAT ARE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PLANT? HERE FROM STAFF ABOUT WHAT ARE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR EITHER A PLOT OR RE-PLOT, BECAUSE WE HEARD FROM OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE JUST LINES ON PAPER.
HOWEVER, WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS THAT GO INTO THE DEVELOP ABILITY OF A PROPERTY.
TO THE POINT THE COMMISSIONER WALLA APPOINTED TO OPINION YOURSELF, ME, ON PREVIOUS CASES.
WHEN THERE ARE KNOWN ENCUMBRANCES, IS IT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW TO RAISE AWARENESS OF SET ENCUMBRANCES AND REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SO THAT FUTURE PROPERTY OWNERS, WHEN THAT PARCEL WAS SOLD OFF, THEY'RE AWARE OF THOSE ENCUMBRANCES.
NOW, THAT IS A PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION.
BUT I DO WANT TO HEAR WHAT ARE THE BASE REQUIREMENTS AND THEN WHAT ARE WE ALLOWED TO OPINE ON OR ASK ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR? MY MAJOR CONCERN WAS RELATED TO THE LAST CASE WHERE WE HAD A PROPERTIES THAT WERE BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION WHERE WE KNEW THAT THEY WERE ENCUMBERED BY THE DEANS AND DEANS WERE GOING TO BE THERE.
THEY'RE NOT SHOWING ON THE RE-PLOT.
THERE'S A LITTLE COMMENT THAT SAYS, BY THE WAY, THEY MIGHT BE IMPACTED.
[02:15:03]
ONE LITTLE SENTENCE ON 48 PROPERTIES OR HOWEVER, WHATEVER MANY FRONTS.WHAT RESPONSIBILITY DO WE HAVE TO THE PUBLIC TO HELP GUARD ALONGSIDE THE HELP WITH STAFF, THE FUTURE DEVELOPABILITY OF THOSE AREAS.
THAT WAS REALLY DISCUSSION ON IT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL TAKE THAT UP ON THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING.
OUR MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.
>> NEXT TIME THE TIMEOUT.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.