[1. Call Meeting To Order ]
[00:00:02]
[2. Attendance ]
WE'VE TAKEN ROLL BY SIGNING IN ONLY ABSENCE IS COMMISSIONER STEVEN PEÑA.[3. Conflict Of Interest ]
COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ON ANY OF THE CASES? COMMISSIONER HILL.STOCKHOLDERS HOLD RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES THAT SOCIAL MEMBERS DO NOT.
AS SUCH TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY I DECLARE A CONFLICT ON CASE 23P-028.
VERY GOOD, ONE CONFLICT NOTED.
ANY OTHER CONFLICTS COMMISSIONERS? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE.
[4. Approval Of Minutes ]
ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS FOR THE MINUTES? NO CORRECTIONS OF THE MINUTES.THEY'LL BE ADOPTED AS PRESENTED.
IS THERE ANY. WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ANY NON AGENDA ITEMS TO ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC.
ANYBODY WISH TO COME FORWARD? [INAUDIBLE] EXCEPT FOR THE DISCUSSION ITEM AT THE VERY END.
ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO COMMENT ON NON AGENDA ITEMS? ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OR THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND START INTO NEW BUSINESS, CATHERINE.
[6.A. 23BF-018 (11945, 11947, 11949 FM 3005; Riviera I, Riviera II, West Beach Grand Condominium, Galveston) Notice Of Shoreline Protection Project. Property Is Legally Described As ABST 121 Page 60 Lot 1 Blk 1; Riviera I: ABST 121 Page 60 TR A Riviera Sub Riviera Condo Phase I; Riviera II: ABST 121 Page 60 TR C Riviera Sub Addn #1 Riviera Condo Phase 2, A Subdivision In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Riviera I, Riviera II, West Beach Grand C/O Kim Van Camp Property Owner: Joint Beach Committee ]
OKAY. WE'RE HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR 23BF-018, WILL BE PRESENTED BY KYLE CLARK.ALL RIGHT, KYLE. UM, GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
UH, THIS PROJECT IS ON HERE FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
THIS IS A PROJECT WHERE THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT 440FT OF GEOTUBE IN FRONT OF SOME EXISTING MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE ON THE WEST END.
WE COORDINATED THIS PROJECT THROUGH OUR PROCESS WITH THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE.
ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT THEY SUBMITTED BACK TO US WAS THAT THEY REQUESTED THAT THIS PROJECT BE PUT OUT FOR PUBLIC HEARING OR COMMENTS EITHER THROUGH THE PAPER TEXAS REGISTER.
SO THAT'S WHY IT'S ON THE AGENDA TODAY FOR, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC COMMENTS.
IF WE RECEIVE ANYTHING, ANY COMMENTS, THEY MAY BE INCORPORATED INTO OUR INTO OUR ACTION LETTER.
UM, IF WE RECEIVE ANYTHING, JUST TO LET THE COMMISSION KNOW THERE WILL BE SOME ADDED CONDITIONS TO THE ACTION ITEM COORDINATED WITH THE, WITH THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE ABOUT BEACH ACCESS.
SO THIS PROJECT IS WHEN THIS PROJECT IS CONSTRUCTED.
IF THERE'S ANY IMPACT TO BEACH ACCESS, THE PROJECT MAY NEED TO BE RECONFIGURED OR REMOVED TO ENSURE BEACH ACCESS IN FRONT OF THESE STRUCTURES.
THIS IS ALSO AN AREA WHERE THERE ARE SOME LARGE DUNE RESTORATION PROJECTS BEING DESIGNED.
SO THIS STRUCTURE WILL BE, YOU KNOW, EVACUATED DURING THE DURING THAT DESIGN PROCESS.
AND IF THERE'S ANY IMPACT TO THE LARGE OVERALL DUNE RESTORATION PROJECTS, ONCE AGAIN, THIS PROJECT MAY BE HAVE TO BE RECONFIGURED OR REMOVED TO ACCOMMODATE THAT AS PROJECTS GOING ON BETWEEN THE CITY GLO, THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE WHY WE HAVE THAT ON HERE TODAY.
SO JUST FOR Y'ALL'S INFORMATION, WE HAVE SOME POWERPOINTS.
UM, THESE THREE MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE AREAS, THE RIVIERA ONE, TWO AND WEST GRAND HAVE RECEIVED SUBSTANTIAL EROSION IN FRONT OF THEM.
THE SO THIS IS THE BG AND FARM MAP JUST SHOWING JUST SHOWING SOME OF THE EROSION.
THIS IS JUST A PLAN VIEW OF THE PROPOSED GEOTUBE.
AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S PROPOSED IMMEDIATELY UP AGAINST THE UP AGAINST THE STRUCTURES.
LIKE I SAID, THERE WILL BE CONDITIONS ON THERE FOR BEACH ACCESS.
[00:05:03]
ALL THAT'S BEEN COORDINATED WITH THE WITH THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE.NOW THIS IS A CROSS SECTION OF THE OF THE GEOTUBE.
ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE, YOU CAN SEE THE BUILDING.
SO THERE IS SOME DUNE TYPE WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THIS COMING OUT 15FT FROM THE FROM THE BUILDING.
AND IT WILL BE, YOU KNOW, HAVE PLANTINGS ON TOP OF IT.
THIS IS THE WESTERN THAT WAS THE WESTERN MOST BUILDING.
THIS IS THE MIDDLE BUILDING. YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S ERODING.
THERE'S NOTHING REALLY UNDER UP TO THE UP TO THE STRUCTURE.
THE GEOTUBE WILL BE PLACED IN FRONT OF THAT THAT DECK THERE.
SO THAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF REPORT.
THANK YOU, KYLE. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER WALLA. SO THERE'S A CURRENT.
YOU GUYS ARE CURRENTLY WORKING ON A DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT IN THIS AREA? YES, SIR. YES, SIR. OKAY, SO THESE GUYS COULD.
FORESEE SOME RELIEF FOR THEIR PROBLEM.
YEAH. YEAH, MAYBE NOT NEAR-TERM, BUT SOMETHING YOU GUYS ARE WORKING ON.
SO ACTUALLY, THEY MAY ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THAT INTO THAT THE THE DESIGN OF THE LARGER BEACH RESTORATION PROJECT. THAT'D BE GOOD.
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHERE? BECAUSE I KNOW I SAW IN THE GLO COMMENTS THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE ARMY CORPS CONTACTING THEM AND WHERE WOULD ARMY CORPS COME INTO EFFECT IN THIS PROJECT? SO. SO THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REGULATORY PROGRAM, ANYTHING WATER SIDE OF THE MEAN HIGH TIDE THEY ISSUED THE PERMIT FOR.
SO THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A LETTER TO THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
THIS IS ABOVE THE MEAN HIGH TIDE BASED OFF OF THEIR SURVEYS.
SO THEY HAVE THEY HAVE ACTUALLY ISSUED OR THEY HAVE ACTUALLY SUBMITTED A WHAT THEY CALL A NO PERMIT REQUIRED BECAUSE IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE COURT'S JURISDICTION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO ADDRESS THAT GLO COMMENT, THE CORPS HAS BEEN ON SITE AND EVALUATED IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICANT'S RECEIVED ANY FOLLOW UP, BUT I'M TALKING TO THEM.
LAST WEEK THE CORPS HAD VISITED THE SITE TO EVALUATE THE NO PERMIT REQUIRED LETTER.
GO AHEAD. DO WE HAVE RECORD OF WHEN THEY INITIALLY REQUESTED THE DUNE TO DO THIS PROJECT? I BELIEVE THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON THIS THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON A LOT LONGER THAN LONGER THAN YOU'VE BEEN HERE.
SO I'VE BEEN I'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR TWO MONTHS.
AND SO THERE'S BEEN SOME OTHER DESIGNS.
I THINK THEY'VE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE GLO AND THEN IT FINALLY JUST GOT TO A POINT THAT WE, THEY CAME TO US WITH THIS AND WE COORDINATED WITH GLO AND, AND SAID THIS IS WHAT, WHAT WE NEED BECAUSE THOSE OTHER PROJECTS THAT WERE IN THE PROCESS OF MAY NOT OCCUR FOR ANOTHER YEAR OR TWO.
BUT GIVEN THE PROXIMITY OF THE THE MEAN HIGH TIDE IN THE AREA AND THE COORDINATION WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, DO YOU FEEL THAT THAT THAT CONDITION HAS BEEN MET OR WILL BE MET AS A PART OF THIS? YEAH, WE'LL BE, YOU KNOW, CLOSELY MONITORING THIS.
THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE COMING DOWN.
THAT WILL BE ANOTHER CONDITION PLACED IN THE ACTION LETTER THAT THEY NOTIFY US 30 DAYS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION SO WE CAN CONDUCT JOINT INSPECTIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION WITH THE GLO.
GOOD. I APPRECIATE Y'ALL ADDING THAT INTO THE ACTION LETTER.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? HEARING NONE. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? YES, HE IS. OKAY.
[00:10:01]
WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME FORWARD IN CASE THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS FOR.YES, ABSOLUTELY. AND THEN PLEASE SIGN IN AS WELL.
I WILL DO THAT. MY NAME IS KIM VAN CAMP.
I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE THE MIDDLE BUILDING, THE RIVIERA TO CONDOMINIUMS COUNCIL OF CO-OWNERS.
THERE'S A RECORD ON FILE OF THAT WITH THE COUNTY CLERK THAT OBLIGATES US TO ACT AS ONE.
WITH REGARD TO THIS PROJECT, WE'VE BEEN MEETING BI WEEKLY FOR GOING ON SIX MONTHS TO BE SURE THERE'S A LOT OF CLARITY AND VISIBILITY TO WHAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT, WHAT WE'RE DOING, WHAT WE'RE NOT DOING.
AND BASICALLY, KYLE IS THE THE KEY CONTACT FOR THAT.
WE'VE WORKED OUR WAY FOR ALMOST A YEAR THROUGH A NUMBER OF SHORE PROTECTION STRUCTURES THAT WE HAVE RULED OUT SELECTING THE ONE THAT IS THE LEAST PERMANENT, LITERALLY A VERY SMALL GEOTUBE PLACED IMMEDIATELY AGAINST THE BUILDING THAT WE CAN EVALUATE FOR PERFORMANCE AND IMPACT ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, WHICH WE'VE COMMITTED TO DO IN WRITING AND WE'VE COMMITTED IN WRITING THAT SHOULD THAT THING NEED TO BE REFORMED OR EVEN FLAT OUT REMOVED.
WE HAVE IN WRITING STATED THAT THAT WE WOULD DO THAT.
OKAY. THE SHORT PROTECTION STRUCTURE IS THERE BASICALLY TO PROTECT THE PILINGS OF MOTHER NATURE.
IF IT GETS REALLY WICKED AND TAKES IT OUT, SO BE IT.
OKAY. SO THAT'S REALLY THAT LOOKING AT MY NOTES HERE.
SO WE'VE COMMITTED TO AN ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE EFFECTIVENESS, LOOKING AT THE IMPACT ON OUR BEACH, TO BEACH, ACCESS TO OUR NEIGHBORS BEACHES, TO MARINE LIFE. I THINK THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL IN THERE.
KYLE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT WE'RE WILLING TO TAKE THAT BABY OUT AND WE'RE SPENDING THE LEAST AMOUNT OF MONEY ON IT JUST TO ALLOW US TO NOT BE EXCESSIVE IN TERMS OF TRYING TO CONSTRUCT SOMETHING GRANDIOSE.
I WANT TO BASICALLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND THANK THE CITY STAFF FOR WORKING WITH US.
WE WERE IN A BAD PLACE MAYBE SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE MONTHS AGO WHERE THERE WAS A LOT OF SUSPICION, LIKE WE'RE HOLDING OUR CARDS AND YOU'RE HOLDING YOURS, AND NOW IT'S A BI WEEKLY GET TOGETHER.
AND I FEEL REALLY GOOD ABOUT THE RAPPORT AND I JUST WANT TO COMPLIMENT THE CITY AND THE CITY STAFF.
THEY'VE THEY'RE GREAT TO WORK WITH AND EVERY TUESDAY WE MEET AND WE TALK.
SO WE'RE GOING TO LISTEN TO SEE IF ANYBODY HAS ANY, ANY CONCERNS.
OUR TIMING BASICALLY IS TO PUT THIS SMALL GEOTUBE AND COVER IT WITH SAND WITHIN THE NEXT 60 DAYS AND TO WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THAT, I'M SORRY, START WITHIN 60 DAYS AND COMPLETE WITHIN 30 DAYS AND THEN TAKE A SNAPSHOT OF IT WITH A BEACH SURVEY AND HAVE THAT SERVE AS THE BENCH LINE THAT WE WOULD REVIEW AGAINST ANNUALLY.
I'M NOT SURE REALLY MUCH MORE.
I NEED TO SAY THAT'S KIND OF THE GIST OF IT.
I'M OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO. OKAY.
AND SO THE MAINTENANCE HAS TO HAPPEN AS WELL.
SO THAT WAS MY ONLY CONCERN AND YOU ADDRESSED IT.
JUST A QUESTION ABOUT YOUR PROCESS.
HAVE YOU HEARD BACK FROM THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER REGARDING THE PERMIT? NO. OKAY. NO.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING PRESENT AND GIVING US THE OVERVIEW AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS.
YOU'RE WELCOME TO BE SEATED AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
APPRECIATE IT. AND FOR CITY STAFF THEY'VE REALLY BEEN [INAUDIBLE] TO WORK WITH.
VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE ON THIS SIDE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE CASE? YES. HELLO, MARIE ROBB, 4101 [INAUDIBLE].
[00:15:08]
AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS CASE.I HOPE THIS IS THE FIRST OF MANY GEOTUBE PROJECTS THAT WILL GO IN THE ISLAND BECAUSE GEOTUBES HAVE PROVEN TO BE EFFECTIVE. IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT EVERYBODY LOOKS AT THE ONES THAT WERE IN PIRATE'S BEACH THAT, IN MY OPINION, WERE PUT IN INCORRECTLY.
THEY WERE FILLED TOO LARGE BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE TWO VERY SUCCESSFUL GEOTUBES THAT EXIST ON THE ISLAND, ONE IN FRONT OF BEACHSIDE VILLAGE AND THE OTHER IS IN FRONT OF THE SECOND FURTHER WEST HOLIDAY INN TIMESHARE.
AND THAT WOULD BE A GREAT EXAMPLE IF YOU EVER WANT TO LOOK AT HOW SUCCESSFUL THEY CAN BE BECAUSE THE SUBDIVISION TO THE EAST OF THAT KAHALA HAS A BEAUTIFUL DOUBLE DUNE THAT THEY PUT IN VEGETATED.
AND WHEN WE HAD BETA DELTA, LAURA OR LAURA BETA DELTA, AS WELL AS NICKLAUS, THE KAHALA LOST ALL THEIR DUNE AND WE DIDN'T EVEN GET A DIRECT HIT VERSUS THE HOLIDAY INN JUST HAVE BEAUTIFUL VEGETATED FORTIFIED DUNES THAT HAVE THAT GEOTUBE IN THE CORE.
BUT I HAVE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, WE THE CITY HAS WORKED VERY HARD ON THIS TO COME UP WITH SOME SOLUTION BECAUSE NOBODY WANTS TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED IN MIAMI, HAPPEN HERE.
AND THAT'S WHY IT IS OF SUCH KEY IMPORTANCE THAT WE DO DO SOMETHING TO PROTECT THESE BUILDINGS.
I ALSO BELIEVE THAT WE ARE PUTTING IN AN EMERGENCY KEPPRA APPLICATION FOR A SAND NOURISHMENT IN FRONT OF THE GEOTUBES. WE WE HAVE CURRENTLY WHICH IS A KEPPRA IDC 4B SALES TAX.
I LOST MY TRACK ON THAT SALES JOB, BUT WE HAVE A CURRENTLY HAVE A DESIGN AND ENGINEERING PROJECT BEING DONE FROM 8 MILE ROAD TO 13 MILE ROAD WHERE WE WILL ALSO BE PUTTING IN A KEPPRA APPLICATION TO BE DOING A LARGE SAND NOURISHMENT IN THAT AREA.
SO THERE ARE A LOT OF POSITIVE THINGS GOING ON.
I DON'T THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY VOTED ON TODAY [INAUDIBLE].
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE, ON THIS SIDE? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:48 P.M.
AND THANK YOU, KYLE AND CATHERINE NEXT.
[7.A.1. 23P-028 (Adjacent To 14228 Stewart Road) Request For A License To Use To Install Landscaping And Irrigation In The City Right-Of-Way Adjacent To The Galveston Country Club. Adjacent Property Is Legally Described As Hall And Jones Survey, Lots 49, 56, 61, 66, 71, 76, And 81; Part Of Lots 50, 55, 62, 65, 72, 75, 82, 85, 86, 91, 92, And Adjacent Right-Of-Way; In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Harry D. Maxwell Jr. Adjacent Property Owners: Galveston Country Club, Inc Easement Holder: City Of Galveston ]
SO, YES. PLEASE NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER HILL RECUSED HERSELF.PAGES ARE STUCK. HAPPENS TO ME EVERY DAY.
OKAY. WE HAVE 23P-028 IS ADJACENT TO 14228.
STEWART ROAD, WILL BE PRESENTED BY ADRIEL MONTALVAN.
23P-028 IT'S ADJACENT TO 1428 STEWART ROAD [INAUDIBLE].
THERE WERE 143 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF CASE 23P-028, WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS LISTED AS ONE THROUGH SIX ON PAGE TWO OF YOUR REPORT AND STANDARD CONDITIONS LISTED AS SEVEN THROUGH TWELVE ON PAGE TWO AND THREE OF YOUR REPORT.
AND NOW WE HAVE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS.
WHAT YOU'RE SEEING ON THE SCREEN IS AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT RIGHT OF WAY.
[00:20:03]
THESE ARE PLANTINGS THAT ARE EXISTING ALREADY IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, AND THESE ARE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND WEST.THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
GREAT. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE A QUESTION. OH, I NOTICED THAT WHEN I LOOKED AT THE AERIAL PHOTOS.
THERE'S A DRAINAGE THAT RUNS ALL ALONG WHERE THESE PROPOSED BERMS. WILL THEY WILL THEY AFFECT THAT DRAINAGE THAT RUNS ALONG STEWART ROAD? THERE'S LIKE A DITCH THAT RUNS.
SO I GUESS THESE BERMS WILL BE IN FRONT BETWEEN THE ROAD AND THE CORRECT.
IF YOU SEE THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED IN THE REPORT, IT SHOWS IT TO BE IN FRONT.
YES. SO THERE WON'T BE ANY IMPACT TO THE DRAINAGE, CORRECT? EXCELLENT. COMMISSIONER WALLA.
SO ADRIEL DO YOU KNOW HOW WIDE THE THE RIGHT OF WAY IS THERE? INCLUDING ROAD OR JUST THE WHERE THE ROAD IS? AND I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH OF IT'S ON THAT SIDE OF THE ROAD, BECAUSE REMEMBER, WE DID A CHURCH FURTHER BACK AND I REMEMBER THEY HAD A LOT OF THE RIGHT OF WAY WAS IN THEIR PARKING LOT.
IS THIS A SIMILAR SITUATION HERE? WELL, WHAT YOU SEE THERE, THE BLUE LINE IS IS APPROXIMATELY THE THE THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO THE IT'S ABOUT IT'S ABOUT 45FT OR SO TO THE TO THE ROAD OR SO.
OKAY. SO IT'S PRETTY WIDE THERE.
YES. THEN WHEN WE DO LTUS, GIVE ME A LITTLE BIT OF LTU 101.
I KNOW WE HAVE TEMPORARY LTUS TYPICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION, SO THIS LTU WOULD BE SOMEWHAT PERMANENT IN NATURE, BUT IT'S REALLY NOT.
WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? SO LET'S JUST SAY THE CITY SAID, HEY, WE'RE GOING.
THEY WOULD STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.
IS THAT IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. YEAH. AND THIS IS THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
ACTUALLY. THIS IS TYPICALLY PLANTING OF TREES AND PALMS DO NOT REQUIRE AN LTU, DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE NATURE OF THIS REQUEST, THE PLANNING DIVISION DECIDED TO BRING IT FORWARD.
YEAH. JUST GOT MY QUESTION ANSWERED TOO.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND ADDRESS.
PLEASE SIGN IN AS WELL, AND THEN WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS.
CAN YOU CHECK HIS MIC, PLEASE? OH, YEAH. THANK YOU.
OKAY. THE DITCH IS THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THE TELEPHONE LINES ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE.
BASICALLY THE NORTH SIDE OF THE DITCH.
SO THERE'S NOTHING BETWEEN THE DITCH AND THE ROAD EXCEPT 45FT OF GRASS.
AND WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS MOVE SIX FEET SOUTH OF THE DITCH, BUILD SOME BERMS, PLANT SOME PALM TREES, IRRIGATE SO THEY WON'T DIE LIKE THE ONES ON THE AT THE END OF THE SEAWALL AND AND JUST BEAUTIFY THE PROPERTY.
AND I APPRECIATE DANIEL AT THE CITY.
HE HELPED ME GET THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
WE DIDN'T KNOW WE HAD TO GET LTU AND BUT WE'RE HERE TO TO GET YOUR PERMISSION AND ASK YOUR APPROVAL.
OKAY ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? EASY ENOUGH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE, ON THIS SIDE? WASN'T PLANNING TO. BUT SINCE I'M HERE YOU'VE ALREADY SIGNED IN, SO.
BUT PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN.
AND I TOO AM A MEMBER OF THE COUNTRY CLUB.
BUT I'M A SOCIAL MEMBER, SO I HAVE NO SAY ON ANYTHING EXCEPT FOR I DID GET A REQUEST ON SALAD DRESSING, BUT I AM HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF IT.
I THINK THE BEAUTIFICATION OF THAT ROAD WOULD JUST BE A GREAT ADDITION.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ON THIS SIDE WISH TO SPEAK? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE.
WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:54 P.M.
AND COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION.
CAN I GET A MOTION? COMMISSIONER LANTZ.
I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 23P-028 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ONE THROUGH TWELVE.
VERY WELL. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? MOTION PASSES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. MAXWELL, FOR BEING PRESENT.
AND YOU CAN NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER HILL IS COMING BACK.
[7.B.1.23P-027 (7228 Jones Road, 7224 Jones Road, 2315 72nd Street, And Adjacent Parcel) Request For A Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District To Construct A New Multi-Family Residential Development. Properties Are Legally Described As Abstract 121 Page 78, Lots 7-12, Block 4, Magnolia Park Subdivision; And Abstract 121 Page 78 Part Of Lot 122 (122-8), Trimble And Lindsey Section 1; In The City And County Of Galveston Texas. Applicant: Surinder Aulakh, Cobalt Engineering Property Owner: Ricky Morales ]
[00:25:08]
ALL RIGHT. NEXT CASE, PLEASE.NEXT CASE IS 23P-027 WILL BE PRESENTED BY DANIEL LUNSFORD.
THESE ARE ALL CONTIGUOUS SIDE BY SIDE BY SIDE, OWNED BY THE SAME INDIVIDUAL.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND THERE WERE 36 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.
THREE RETURNED, TWO OPPOSED, ONE WITH NO COMMENT.
SO THE REQUEST IS TO ESTABLISH A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT IN A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY BASED ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW NEW TWO STORY APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD BE OVER COVERED PARKING TO BE CONSTRUCTED.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS APPROXIMATELY ACTUALLY 34 DWELLING UNITS, I BELIEVE, IN A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH INCLUDES A NUMBER OF EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE EXISTING AS WELL IN THE GENERAL VICINITY.
THE REQUESTED DEVIATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS.
LAND USE WOULD BE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS NORMALLY PROHIBITED IN R-1 ZONING.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE ALLOWANCES BEYOND WHAT IS TYPICALLY ALLOWED IN R-1 ZONING, WHICH IS USUALLY QUITE RESTRICTIVE, AND THE APPLICANT REQUESTS TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK TO TEN FOOT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE MORE BUFFER FROM THE ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS TO THE NORTH, WHICH WOULD BE BEHIND THE SUBJECT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. NOTE THAT THIS PD REQUEST WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL UNDER PLANNING CASE NUMBER 21P-011 ORDINANCE 2 1-013. HOWEVER, AS CONSTRUCTION HAS NOT COMMENCED AND AS THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL REQUIRED, COMPLETION DATE NO LATER THAN APRIL 22ND, 2023, THE APPLICANT IS RESUBMITTING THE REQUEST, IT IS IDENTICAL TO THE PUD PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED, EXCEPT INSTEAD OF 40 DWELLING DWELLING UNITS, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 34. THE SUBJECT SIZE WITHIN THE ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN R-1 ZONING.
ONCE AGAIN, THE SITE ITSELF IS COMPOSED OF SEVERAL INDIVIDUAL PARCELS AND THE SAME OWNER, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A REPLAT OF COURSE, TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT UNDER A SEPARATE, SEPARATE CONVEYANCE, OF COURSE.
CURRENTLY ALL THE PARCELS ARE VACANT, SO DEVELOPMENT IS GENERALLY GENERALLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES DUE TO THE FACT THAT THERE ARE SIMILARLY EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN 0.2 MILES TO THE NORTH, EAST, AND WEST.
THESE STANDARDS INCLUDE LOCATION OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN REGARDS TO ADJACENT LOWER DENSITY LAND USES AS APPLICABLE REQUIRED FENCING AND LANDSCAPING, SIDEWALK AND STREET TREE REQUIREMENTS. THESE WOULD NORMALLY BE REQUIRED FOR A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT AS A LIMITED USE STANDARD, AND THE APPLICANT IS BASICALLY VOLUNTEERING TO TAKE THOSE INTO ACCOUNT AS WELL AS PART OF THE PUD.
ANY DEVIATIONS FROM THE STANDARDS WOULD REQUIRE A COURSE OF AMENDED PUD AND A NEW PROCESS.
NOTE THAT THERE WERE PUBLIC THERE WERE CITY DEPARTMENT COMMENTS, PUBLIC WORKS NOTES.
THAT'S TYPICALLY SOMETHING THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD PAY FOR.
AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, OF COURSE, IS REQUESTING A CLICK TO ENTER SYSTEM.
PLEASE NOTE THE PUD PLAN DETAILS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
PLEASE ALSO NOTE THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.
I'M SORRY, BY ADDING APPROXIMATELY 34 DWELLING UNITS TO THE CITY'S HOUSING STOCK.
NOTE THAT, OF COURSE PUDS CAN BE REVOKED IN ALL OCCASIONS IN THE PAST HAVE BEEN FOR VARIOUS REASONS.
[00:30:04]
AND SO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE CASE WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE THROUGH SEVEN AND STANDARD CONDITIONS EIGHT THROUGH TEN.SO WE HAVE ON THE TOP HERE THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED.
AT THE BOTTOM LEFT, WE HAVE A PHOTO OF THE SITE TAKEN APPROXIMATELY FROM THE CORNER OF JONES ROAD, AND I BELIEVE IT'S 73RD STREET, LOOKING GENERALLY NORTHEAST. AND THEN IN THE LOWER RIGHT, WE HAVE AN OVERALL VIEW OF THE FOUR PARCELS AND THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
HERE AGAIN, WE HAVE ON THE UPPER LEFT, WE HAVE A AERIAL VIEW WITH THE EXACT SAME SITE PLAN KIND OF SUPERIMPOSED OVER THE AERIAL TO GET A BETTER VIEW OF HOW THINGS WOULD WOULD LAY CONTEXTUALLY.
AND WE HAVE A PROPOSED ELEVATION DRAWING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED AS WELL AT THE BOTTOM.
AND WE HAVE A PHOTO LOOKING NORTH ACROSS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY 72ND STREET LOOKING EAST. THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH AND LOOKING WEST TOWARD MORE DOWN TOWARD JONES DRIVE.
AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
THANK YOU, DANIEL. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER HILL. DANIEL, I REMEMBER THAT WE WORKED THIS ONE PRETTY HARD TWO YEARS AGO.
BUT WHEN WE CAME, WHEN IT CAME TO COMMISSION AND FORGIVE ME IF I DON'T REMEMBER EVERY SINGLE DETAIL ABOUT HOW HARD WE WORKED IT, BUT I'M HOPING THAT COLLECTIVELY WE CAN COME BACK TO THAT.
AND THAT'S YOU TOO, JOHN PAUL HOPEFULLY WE CAN COME BACK TO THAT.
BUT I KNOW THAT WE WORKED REAL HARD TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTS OF THE AREA AND COME UP WITH THE BEST SOLUTIONS THAT WE COULD WHILE WORKING WITHIN THE PARAMETERS THAT WE HAD OF SO MANY MULTI FAMILIES WITHIN A CLOSE DISTANCE.
AND WE CAME UP WITH THE PHOTOMETRIC LIGHT PLAN.
DID WE SET ANY MORE SPECIFIC GUIDELINES IN OUR SUGGESTIONS THAT THEN ULTIMATELY WENT TO COUNCIL BEYOND THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS THAT ARE LISTED IN THE PUD THAT SAY PHOTOMETRIC LIGHT PLAN WILL BE REQUIRED AT THE TIME THE PERMIT IS SUBMITTED? HAD WE SUGGESTED ANYTHING BEYOND THAT OR JUST SIMPLY THAT, DO YOU RECALL? I HAVE THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE RIGHT HERE.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL WENT FURTHER THAN THAT.
ONE THING I DO RECALL BEING SUGGESTED, WHICH DID MAKE IT INTO THIS NEW PROPOSAL WAS CHANGING THE NORMALLY NORMAL TWENTY FOOT FRONT SETBACK FROM JONES TO TEN FOOT AND MAKING THE TEN FOOT REAR SETBACK 20 FOOT TO GIVE A LITTLE BUFFER.
AND THEN THE OTHER THING THAT I SEEM TO REMEMBER WAS SOMETHING ABOUT ADDING MORE SPECIFICS TO THE SCREENING AND THE LANDSCAPING IN THE BACK TO GIVE MORE PROTECTION TO THE RESIDENTS FROM ANY VISUAL BLIGHT AND TO GIVE THEM MORE LANDSCAPING ALONG THE BACK THERE.
AND I SEEMED TO RECALL THAT WE HAD PUT SOME MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR HEIGHT ON THAT LANDSCAPING SCREENING, AND I DIDN'T SEE ANY OF THAT MAKE IT INTO HERE.
AND I JUST WONDERED IF MAYBE I WAS REMEMBERING A WRONG CASE IN THIS.
IF I WAS, YOU KNOW, YES, IT HAPPENS IF IF I WAS MIXING UP MY CASES AGAIN.
JOHN, DO YOU REMEMBER? THERE WAS A THERE WAS A SPECIFIC CONDITION IN THE ORDINANCE THAT CAME FROM PLANNING COMMISSION THAT THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE BE SCREENED WITH THE FOLLOWING A MASONRY WALL OF AT LEAST SEVEN FEET HIGH FROM GRADE AND LANDSCAPING, CONSISTING OF AT LEAST ONE TREE EVERY TWENTY FT.
THE TREE IS TO BE AT LEAST TEN FEET IN HEIGHT AT PLANTING AND PROVIDE AN EVERGREEN CANOPY.
OKAY. SO IS THAT AND WOULD THAT BE AND WOULD THAT BE INCORPORATED INTO THIS ONE AS WELL CATHERINE, BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE THAT AS A SPECIFIC CONDITION? THE COMMISSION CAN ADD IT AS ANOTHER AS A SPECIFIC CONDITION LIKE YOU DID LAST TIME.
OKAY. I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO DO THAT AGAIN.
[00:35:06]
THE PROTECTIONS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT FOR THE RESIDENTS.AND THAT WAS DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT WE DID LAST TIME.
SO CAN WE KEEP THAT HANDY, PLEASE, MS. GORMAN? THANK YOU, MA'AM.
OKAY. HEARING NONE, WE WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 23P-027.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? OH, I'M SORRY.
I'M SORRY. I WAS TRYING TO MAKE SURE THE QUESTION I ASKED WAS I WASN'T READING IT WRONG.
ALL RIGHT. HOLD ON JUST A SECOND, GUYS.
I'M SORRY. JUST GIVE ME A SECOND.
SO IS IT 34 OR 35 YOU'RE PUTTING IN? I BELIEVE IT'S 34.
THAT MAY BE A TYPO, BUT THAT MAY BE A QUESTION BEST TO CONFIRM WITH THE APPLICANT.
GOOD. THANK YOU FOR CATCHING THAT.
IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND SIGN IN AND STATE YOUR NAME.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO YOU GOT THAT CLARIFIED.
ANY STATEMENTS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS? SURE. ONE OF THE COMMENTS WE'VE RECEIVED FROM THE SOCIAL OUTPUT WAS THAT I JUST WANT TO CLEAR THE AIR.
IT'S NOT SECTION EIGHT HOUSING.
OKAY. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AND WE UNDERSTAND.
SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, HE'S GOING TO DO IT RIGHT.
AND IT IS HIGHER END HOMES THAT OR HIGHER END APARTMENTS THAT WE'RE GOING AFTER.
RIGHT. AND THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS THE CITY'S REGULATIONS THAT THEY'RE SETTING FORTH.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER WALLA.
ANY IDEA ON A CONSTRUCTION TIME FRAME? DEFINITELY BEFORE TWO YEARS.
GOOD ANSWER. I THINK THAT'S IN SPEAKING REALISTICALLY.
ONE OF THE MAJOR CONSTRAINTS IS MATERIAL ACQUISITION.
AND IT SHOULD EVERYTHING BE APPROVED.
WE'RE GETTING A GAME PLAN TOGETHER TO GET THAT DIALED IN MORE ACCURATELY.
OKAY. THANK YOU. GOOD. YES, COMMISSIONER EDWARDS.
SO I'M CHECKING. I WAS READING THROUGH IT AND I NOTICED YOU'RE GOING TO JUST DO TWO BEDROOMS, RIGHT? THESE ARE ALL TWO BEDROOM UNITS? MAXIMUM TWO BEDROOM. YES.
MAXIMUM TWO BEDROOMS. SO YOU CAN HAVE ONE BEDROOMS AS WELL.
UH, AT THIS POINT, WE'RE ONLY GOING TWO.
BUT IF THINGS SHIFT, WE CAN GO DOWN TO ONE.
SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SECTION EIGHT, JUST TO SAY OUT LOUD.
I MEAN, EVERYBODY HAS TO HAVE SOMEPLACE TO LIVE, RIGHT? BUT IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE DOING LOW COST OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN GALVESTON, HOW ARE YOU TELLING PEOPLE THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO. ARE YOU SAYING OUT HERE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ACCEPT SECTION EIGHT? OR ARE YOU JUST SAYING THAT THIS PROPERTY IS FOR NON SECTION EIGHT PEOPLE? IS THAT KIND OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HERE? BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR BECAUSE PEOPLE ALWAYS THINK SECTION EIGHT IS SUCH A BAD THING.
BUT, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES IT'S SOMETIMES IT'S NOT.
YOU KNOW, THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT HAVE TO LIVE.
SO, YOU KNOW, NOT EVERYBODY CAN AFFORD TO LIVE ON THE ISLAND.
TO DIRECTLY ANSWER THAT IT WILL BE PRIVATELY FUNDED.
I KNOW THAT IN THOSE APARTMENTS, ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE ONE AND TWO BEDROOMS. SO FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, WE ARE NOT GOING SECTION EIGHT AND WE WILL NOT ACCEPT THAT AT THIS TIME.
AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS OPPOSED THAT IN A PRETTY HARSH MANNER.
SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIT IN TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WE CAN.
I'M NOT REALLY TRYING TO LOCK YOU IN.
VERY GOOD. NO OTHER QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING PRESENT.
WE'LL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS CASE.
IS THERE ANYONE ON THIS SIDE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AND ON THIS SIDE? YES, SIR. PLEASE.
PLEASE COME FORWARD AND SIGN IN.
STATE YOUR NAME AND WE'LL GIVE YOU THREE MINUTES.
UNLESS YOU ARE ACTUALLY THE OWNER.
THERE YOU GO. CAN WE CONTINUE ON WITH THE QUESTIONS TO THE OWNER AS WELL? OKAY, GOOD. YES. MY NAME IS RICKY MORALES.
I'M A BOI OF GALVESTON, I LIVE AT 2414 BALUCH DRIVE HERE IN GALVESTON.
[00:40:02]
I'VE BEEN BUYING AND REHABBING PROPERTY PRETTY MUCH MY WHOLE LIFE SINCE I WAS 18 YEARS OLD.I'VE GOTTEN PRETTY GOOD AT IT AND I'M GOOD AT TAKING CARE OF MY TENANTS.
I'M GOOD AT SCREENING THEM, KEEPING EVERYBODY HAPPY.
PRETTY MUCH THIS PROPERTY ONE AT A TIME.
SO EVENTUALLY I GOT ENOUGH PROPERTY TO, YOU KNOW, TO BUILD THIS PROJECT.
AS SURRENDER STATED IT WAS IT WAS A DREAM OF MINE.
I HAVE SIX KIDS AND I'M CONSTRUCTING THIS PROPERTY FOR THE LONG HAUL.
IT'S GOING TO BE BUILT ROCK SOLID.
I WANT MY KIDS TO CONTINUE WHERE I LEAVE OFF SOMEDAY AND IT'LL BE WELL MANAGED.
I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A PLUS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK THEY'LL REALLY LIKE, YOU KNOW, OUR CONCEPT ONCE WE GET IN AND GET GOING WITH EVERYTHING.
I THINK IT'S BETTER THAN ANYTHING ELSE THAT CAN BE CONSTRUCTED THERE.
I MEAN, IF YOU TOOK THE PROPERTY AND LEFT IT AS A AS SINGLE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND YOU DO LIKE WHAT MOST PEOPLE ARE DOING ARE TAKING A SINGLE LOT AND RE PLATTING IT INTO FOUR AND THEN YOU GOT FOUR HOMES TIMES SIX LOTS.
THAT'S TWENTY FOUR INDIVIDUAL HOMES THERE WITH, YOU KNOW, THREE BEDROOM, TWO BATHS.
YOU'LL GET A WHOLE BUNCH MORE TRAFFIC THERE THAN YOU WOULD WITH A MULTIFAMILY COMPLEX RIGHT THERE.
VERY GOOD. AND THAT'S ABOUT IT.
ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD, MR. MORALES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALL RIGHT. ONE ONE LAST TIME BEFORE WE CLOSE OUT THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CASE AT 4:12 P.M.
AND COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION.
CAN I GET A MOTION ON THIS CASE, PLEASE? COMMISSIONER HILL, I'D LIKE TO MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF CASE 23 P-027 AS WRITTEN BY STAFF WITH THE ADDITION OF ONE ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC CONDITION TO READ, THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE SHALL BE SCREENED WITH THE FOLLOWING; A A MASONRY WALL AT LEAST SEVEN FEET HIGH FROM GRADE AND B LANDSCAPING CONSISTING OF AT LEAST ONE TREE EVERY TWENTY FT.
C THE TREES ARE TO BE AT LEAST TEN FEET IN HEIGHT AT PLANTING AND PROVIDE AN EVERGREEN CANOPY.
VERY GOOD. WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY.
DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER HILL, IS THAT STRAIGHT OUT OF THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD.
SORRY. YES. COMMISSIONER WALLA.
IS THAT CORRECT? SO, YOU KNOW, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE IT DONE, BUT I'M SURE THE OWNER WOULD TOO.
AND THE OWNER DEVELOPER, I THINK DID A GREAT JOB OF TRYING TO APPEASE HIS NEIGHBORS.
SO I'D BE I WOULD VOTE FOR IT.
GREAT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, WE'LL CALL FOR A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CASE 23P-027 WITH THE AMENDMENT.
MOTION'S APPROVED. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR BEING PRESENT AND CONGRATULATIONS.
OH, AND SORRY COUNCIL DOES HAVE FINAL SAY IN THE PD MATTER, SO THANK YOU.
[7.C.1. 23P-029 (3903 Second Street) Request For A Minor Plat To Increase The Number Of Lots From One To Two. The Property Is Legally Described As Abstract 121 Hall & Jones Survey North 1/2 Of Lot 46 (46-2) Bay Harbor Unrecorded Subdivision, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Jennifer Grant, High Tide Land Surveying Property Owner: AGN, LLC. ]
NEXT CASE IS 23P-029 AND WILL BE PRESENTED BY DANIEL LUNSFORD.ALL RIGHTY. SO THIS IS GOING TO BE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A REPLAT 3903 2ND STREET.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A MINOR PLAT FROM 1 LOT INTO 2.
THERE WERE 22 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.
[00:45:03]
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A MINOR PLAT TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF LOTS FROM 1 TO 2.NOTE THE ZONING AND LAND USE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THE ADJACENT AREA AND THE STAFF REPORT.
VERY, VERY MUCH DESCRIBES THE AREA.
ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE HAS BEEN LOCATED AND WILL NOT ENCROACH ACROSS PROPOSED COMMON PROPERTY LINE. NO COMMENTS OR CONCERNS WERE NOTED FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS OR OUTSIDE UTILITIES.
THE PROPOSED LOTS WOULD BOTH BE 100 FOOT WIDE, 100 FOOT LONG AT 10,000 SQUARE FOOT THERE BY MEETING OR EXCEEDING THOSE MINIMUM STANDARDS. PLEASE NOTE THE PLAT APPROVAL CRITERIA IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SO THE PLAT WILL BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC CONDITIONS NUMBER ONE AND STANDARD CONDITIONS TWO THROUGH THREE IN THE STAFF REPORT AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE THE PROPOSED REPLAT SHOWING THE TWO THE CURRENT 100 BY 200 FOOT LOT BECOMING TWO 100 BY 100 FOOT LOTS. ONE HAVING THE EXISTING HOUSE AND ASSOCIATED UTILITIES AND THE SECOND LOT TO THE EAST BEING VACANT AND UNIMPROVED AT THIS TIME.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND WE HAVE THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, TO THE EAST, TO THE SOUTH, TO THE WEST.
AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
THANK YOU, DANIEL. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER WALLA. SO, DANIEL, THIS THIS AREA HAS SEPTIC, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. THEY ARE MUNICIPAL WATER, BUT THERE IS NO MUNICIPAL SEWER AT THIS TIME.
SO HELP ME OUT HERE A LITTLE BIT ON MINOR PLATS BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING WITH MINOR PLATS IS THAT ALL THOSE FACILITIES WOULD NEED TO BE THERE, THERE WOULD BE NOTHING ELSE WOULD NEED TO BE DONE BY THE MUNICIPALITY FOR THEM TO HAVE UTILITIES, INCLUDING SEWER. AM I OFF BASE ON THAT? IF I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
THE PLAT ONLY INVOLVES THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND DOES NOT ADDRESS ANYTHING ELSE.
THIS IS A LARGELY BY STATE LAW.
BUT OF COURSE, ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD HAPPEN WOULD HAVE TO CONFORM TO ALL STANDARDS.
OKAY, SO SO HERE'S MY CONCERN IS THAT LOTS 20,000FT² AND THE CITY DOES NOT ISSUE SEPTIC PERMITS.
SO THE COUNTY DOES AND I'M PRETTY CERTAIN THAT THE COUNTY REQUIREMENTS FOR A SEPTIC SYSTEM ARE MORE THAN 10,000FT. SO WHEN YOU GO CUT THIS LOT IN HALF, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A LOT BIG ENOUGH TO COMPLY WITH THE COUNTY STANDARD FOR A SEPTIC SYSTEM.
AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION WOULD REMAIN.
IT MAY BE RIGHT UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT I MY EXPERIENCE WITH PUTTING IN SEPTIC SYSTEMS IS YOU DON'T GET TO GO PUT YOUR SEPTIC SYSTEM RIGHT NEXT TO THE PROPERTY LINE. SO DID WE CONTACT ANYBODY AT THE COUNTY TO FIND OUT IF THERE'S A REQUIREMENT THERE? PLANNING STAFF ONCE AGAIN, THESE SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE NOT NECESSARILY IN OUR PURVIEW DURING A REPLAT.
WE ALWAYS EXCUSE ME, WE ALWAYS PUT THE APPLICANT IN CONTACT WITH GCHD AND ADVISE THEM TO VERIFY THAT THAT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE THEIR PLANS IF THEY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD OR NOT.
THIS HAS BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE AND AS OF YESTERDAY WHEN I SPOKE TO THE APPLICANTS, THEY INTENDED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH WITH THE REPLAT HAVING CONTACTED GCHD. SO I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHAT OTHER YOU KNOW, THINGS MAY BE AFOOT, BUT REGARDLESS, THERE'S NOTHING THAT WOULD HOLD UP THIS PLAT, IN MY OPINION.
[00:50:01]
IN THIS INSTANCE, IF IT WAS A MINOR PLAT OR A ANY, EVEN IF IT'S A REPLAT, NONE OF THIS PROPERTY IN THIS VERY LITTLE OF IT IN THIS SUBDIVISION HAS BEEN PLATTED.IT'S OLD. SO IT'S ALL DONE METES AND BOUNDS.
SO WHEN WE PLAT I UNDERSTANDING IS, IS THAT WHEN WE ISSUE A PLAT, ESPECIALLY A MINOR PLAT, THAT THOSE WE'RE SAYING THAT YOU HAVE PUBLIC ACCESS AND THAT THERE'S NOTHING ELSE THAT THE MUNICIPALITY WOULD NEED TO DO IN ORDER TO PROVIDE YOU WITH CITY SERVICES? AM I OFF BASE ON THAT? BECAUSE WE'RE FIXING TO LET WE'RE FIXING TO GIVE THESE GUYS A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT.
AND I CAN TELL YOU THE COUNTY, IF I WAS DOING THIS IN THE COUNTY, THE COUNTY WOULDN'T ALLOW IT BECAUSE THEIR MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS HALF AN ACRE, YOU KNOW, 27,000FT².
SO WHAT'S FIXING TO HAPPEN OVER THERE IS, IS WE'RE GOING TO LET THIS GUY DO IT AND THERE'S GOING TO BE A LONG LIST OF PEOPLE OR A LINE OF PEOPLE SHOWING UP TO GO SPLIT THEIR 20,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS IN HALF.
AND THEY'RE ALL GOING TO PUT IN SEPTIC SYSTEMS. AND THEIR PITCH AT THE COUNTY IS GOING TO BE WELL, THE CITY GAVE ME MY LOT.
YOU KNOW, I WANT TO I WANT TO PUT MY SEPTIC SYSTEM IN.
SO YOU SEE YOU SEE THE QUANDARY I'M DEALING WITH.
I DO. SO I'LL SAY THAT I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT REGULATION REGARDING A REPLAT AND HAVING TO HAVE ALL MUNICIPAL SERVICES AVAILABLE THERE.
SO I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT.
BUT REGARDLESS, I DON'T BELIEVE THE COUNTY AND THE CITY.
I'M SORRY. I'M COUGHING [INAUDIBLE].
I DON'T BELIEVE THE COUNTY AND THE CITY WORK THAT WAY.
THE COUNTY IS NOT GOING TO SAY BECAUSE THE CITY HAS ALLOWED YOU TO DO THIS.
WE'RE NOW GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO DO THAT.
I THINK THAT'S MOST APPROPRIATE.
BUT THE CITY IS ABLE TO PROVIDE THIS REPLAT OR THIS MINOR PLAT WITHIN THE REGULATIONS OF THE CITY.
WHATEVER THE APPLICANT HAS TO DO TO SATISFY THE COUNTY.
IF I FROM WHAT I RECALL BACK IN THE DAY.
OKAY. SO JUST TO ASK EVEN FURTHER AS WE MOVE INTO THIS.
I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND IT'S LINES ON PAPER.
WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION A THOUSAND TIMES.
BUT IF CAN WE PUT CONDITIONS ON A PLAT APPROVAL? COULD WE PUT A CONDITION ON A PLAT APPROVAL THAT SAYS WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE YOUR PLAT AND ONE OF THE CONDITIONS IS, IS THAT YOU HAVE TO GET AN APPROVAL FROM THE COUNTY, OR SHOW US SOMETHING FROM THE COUNTY THAT SAYS THAT WE CAN DO THIS.
SO YOU CAN PUT CONDITIONS ON A PLAT WITHIN REASON.
I DON'T BELIEVE YOU CAN PUT THAT TYPE OF CONDITION ON A PLAT BECAUSE YOU'RE NOW BASICALLY ALLOWING THE COUNTY TO DICTATE WHAT THE CITY CAN DO.
BUT THE APPLICANT HAS TO BEAR SOME RESPONSIBILITY IN WHAT HE CAN OR CANNOT DO ON HIS PROPERTY.
THE CITY HAS TO STAY WITHIN THEIR PURVIEW, WITHIN THEIR SCOPE, AND THE APPLICANT HAS TO TAKE IT TO THE COUNTY SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE THEIR REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR PURVIEW AND THEIR SCOPE.
AND I'M NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH THE SEPTIC LAWS.
BUT SINCE I'M NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH THOSE SEPTIC LAWS FROM THE COUNTY AND EVEN FROM THE CITY, UNLESS PLANNING CAN HELP ME OUT WITH THAT . I'M JUST GOING TO SAY, AND HERE'S WHAT I AND HERE'S WHAT BRINGS US UP IS, IS I'VE OWNED SOME PROPERTY IN THAT COMMUNITY.
AND AT ONE TIME I TRIED TO BUY A LOT AND SPLIT IN HALF AND IT WAS A NO GO.
I THINK YOU COULD TAKE 3 AND MAKE 2, BUT YOU COULD NOT TAKE 1 AND MAKE 2.
[00:55:05]
AND IT HAS TO DO WITH THERE'S NO CITY SANITARY THERE.IT MEETS THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
YOU KIND OF HAVE TO APPROVE IT, BUT WE'RE APPROVING IT KNOWING THAT THE GUY CAN'T GO GET A SEPTIC PERMIT, BECAUSE I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THE COUNTY THE COUNTY IS NOT GOING TO GIVE HIM A PERMIT FOR A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.
BUT I SAY WHEN THE APPLICANT COMES UP HERE, YOU HAVE TO OKAY, WELL, WE'LL ASK HIM.
I'M PRETTY CERTAIN I'M CORRECT ABOUT THAT.
SO YOU UNDERSTAND MY PICKLE IN THIS? ABSOLUTELY. I WANT TO HELP THE GUY.
BUT I ALSO SEE THERE'S THERE'S A PROBLEM HERE, SO I'LL LET OTHER FOLKS ASK QUESTIONS.
SO WE HAVE LET THEM KNOW THAT THIS COULD BE AN ISSUE.
GREAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS CASE AT 4:26.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? AND THE THE APPLICANT IS NOT PRESENT.
ANYBODY WISH TO COMMENT ON THIS CASE? HI, MARIE ROBB, 4101 [INAUDIBLE].
AND I KNOW DANIEL, YOU SAID YOU SENT OUT A LOT OF NOTICES AND YOU DIDN'T SAY WHAT YOUR RESPONSE WAS, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THE RESPONSE I'VE BEEN GETTING BY PHONE CALLS IS THAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE VERY OPPOSED TO THIS.
COMMISSIONER WALLA, YOU ARE SPOT ON.
IF YOU HAVE TO HAVE OVER A HALF AN ACRE TO PUT IN SEPTIC TANK.
WHILE WE WERE SITTING HERE SINCE IN THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL HE SAYS HE HAS FOUND THE THE THE SEWAGE LINE OR WHATEVER.
HE SAYS THAT HE IMPLIES THAT THERE'S AN ABILITY TO CONNECT TO SEWER AND I TEXTED PUBLIC WORKS WHILE I WAS SITTING THERE AND THEY DO NOT ALLOW HE IS SO FAR AWAY FROM ANY SEWER LINE AND THEY HAVE I GUESS THERE WAS ONE DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS ON 3005 WHERE THEY WERE ABLE TO PUT THEIR OWN PRIVATE SEWER SYSTEM IN, BUT THERE IS NO PUBLIC SEWER NEAR THIS.
AND AGAIN, AS COMMISSIONER WALLA SAID, HIS SEPTIC TANK, HAVING HAD PROPERTY IN BERMUDA BEACH THAT USED TO HAVE SEPTIC SITS IN THE EMPTY LOT.
SO WE'RE NOW AND I KNOW YOU DON'T IT COMES UNDER THE IT'S MEETS THE 500 OR 5,000 FOOT RULE BUT YOU KNOW WHAT KIND OF CAN OF WORMS WE'RE OPENING HERE? I MEAN I HOPE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DEFERRED WHERE YOU CAN ASK MORE QUESTIONS BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE EVERYBODY ON SPORTSMAN ROAD.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE EVERYBODY WHO OWNS A LOT THAT CAN'T DO IT NOW, THAT HAS BEEN DENIED IN THE PAST COME FORWARD AND THEY CAN'T BUILD ON IT BECAUSE YOU DO NEED A HALF AN ACRE TO PUT IN SEPTIC.
AND ALTHOUGH I'M ALWAYS TRYING TO GET PUBLIC SEWER IN BAY HARBOR, IT AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN ANYTIME SOON, LET ME ASSURE YOU.
SO I REALLY QUESTION HOW THIS EVEN GOT THIS FAR WHEN WE'RE BASICALLY I MEAN, IT KIND OF RENDERS BOTH SIDES OF THE PROPERTY UNUSABLE.
SO I'M HERE TO OPPOSE THIS, EVEN THOUGH I KNOW IT ISN'T A VOTE TYPE THING AND IT'S FUTILE.
BUT I GOT I RECEIVED AT LEAST TEN CALLS OPPOSED TO THIS, SO I WISH THERE WAS SOMETHING WE COULD DO IF NOT EVEN DELAY IT TO MORE CAN BE LOOKED AT BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO CONNECT TO ANY TYPE OF THANK YOU. COUNCIL QUESTION REGARDING THIS.
[01:00:05]
I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT.AGAIN, YOU'RE GOING TO ASK ME WHAT ADDITIONAL WHAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WE COULD ASK FOR.
BUT THIS SEEMS TO BE A DILEMMA, THAT IT APPEARS TO BE A DILEMMA.
PUBLIC HEARING. IT'S JUST A PUBLIC HEARING.
JUST A PUBLIC HEARING. ALL RIGHT.
SO WE'RE APPROVING THIS ADMINISTRATIVELY? NO, NO, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO. NO, BUT STAFF IS.
AND I WOULD GO BACK AND SAY THAT.
I QUESTION THIS PROPERTY'S ABILITY TO DO A MINOR PLAT.
I DON'T THINK IT CHECKS ALL THE BOXES.
I THOUGHT IT WAS UP FOR A VOTE, BUT NO.
OKAY. WELL, I'VE GOT TO SAY, MY PIECE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THANK YOU. WITH THAT ANY OTHER COMMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE.
WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:31 P.M..
[7.C.2. 23P-030 (1514 31st Street) Request For A Minor Plat To Increase The Number Of Lots From One To Two. The Property Is Legally Described As The M.B. Menard Survey, Part Of Northwest 39, Galveston Outlots, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Matthew Sigmon Property Owner: O Knows Investments, LLC C/O Okwha Birtle ]
THIS CASE IS 23P-030.AND WE PRESENTED BY ADRIEL MONTALVAN.
YEAH, THIS IS 23P-030 1514 31ST STREET.
IT'S A REQUEST FOR A MINOR PLAT FROM 1 LOT TO 2 LOTS.
I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS FROM PUBLIC OR PRIVATE UTILITIES AND THAT THE MINOR PLAT EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM MINIMUM LOT STANDARDS FOR LOTS IN THE R-1 ZONING DESIGNATION. NOTE THE PLAT APPROVAL CRITERIA ON PAGE TWO OF YOUR REPORT, AND THIS MINOR PLAT WILL BE APPROVED WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. WELL, THERE'S ACTUALLY ONLY ONE SPECIFIC CONDITION LISTED ON PAGE TWO AND STANDARD CONDITIONS TWO AND THREE.
THIS IS AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
AND HERE ARE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND WEST.
AND HERE'S THE PROPOSED MINOR PLAT THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YEAH, I LOVE THIS ONE. THIS ONE LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH A REALLY NICE LITTLE SHOTGUN HOUSE.
AND WITH THE BUILDING, SETBACKS ARE, WHAT, FIVE FEET EACH SIDE? YEAH, FIVE FEET FOR, UH, FIRE RATED CONSTRUCTION IS REQUIRED WITHIN FIVE FEET.
YES. SO THEY COULD TECHNICALLY BE CLOSER THAN FIVE FEET TO THE COMMON LOT LINE.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO ADHERE TO THE FIRE RATED MATERIALS THAT ARE REQUIRED.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS CASE AT 4:34 P.M..
ANYBODY? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? MM.
ANYWAY, LET'S SEE IF WE GOT ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME, STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN, PLEASE.
I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO JUST PUT YOU THROUGH THE RINGER HERE.
CAN YOU CHECK HIS MIC, PLEASE? I'M LOUD. SO, YEAH, I REPRESENT TEXAS LAND MAPS AND THE CLIENT.
SO, YEAH, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, I CAN TRY TO ANSWER THEM.
ALL RIGHT, GREAT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THAT'S WHAT I LIKE TO HEAR, THERE YOU GO.
APPRECIATE YOU SIGNING IT AND I APPRECIATE YOU BEING PRESENT AS WELL.
ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO COMMENT ON THE CASE? ALL RIGHT.
[01:05:10]
GALVESTON. ALL RIGHT.SO WITH THAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CASE.
AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR REGULAR AGENDA, EXCEPT FOR THE OPEN DISCUSSION ITEM AT THE END.
[8.A. Development Review Process (Finklea) ]
IS THAT CORRECT, CATHERINE? YES.SO WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS AT THE LAST MEETING.
[INAUDIBLE] GOING TO LOOK OVER THE RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SUBMIT ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE NOW? WE HAVE JUST LOOKING AT THE NEXT MEETING DATE.
THERE ARE NO CASES SUBMITTED FOR THE MAY 2ND MEETING, SO WE COULD DEVOTE THAT ENTIRE MEETING TIME TO JUST A DISCUSSION OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
GETTING QUESTIONS ANSWERED FOR YOU ALL.
YEAH. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY SUBMITTED ANY QUESTIONS.
MY DANCE CARD GOT FULL AND SO I DID NOT WAS NOT ABLE TO DEVOTE THE TIME THAT I WANTED TO TO THIS.
UNLESS THERE'S ANY OBJECTIONS, I'D LIKE TO DEFER THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING.
FOR EXAMPLE, MAYBE WE SHOULD CHECK UTILITY AVAILABILITY ON [INAUDIBLE].
I DON'T KNOW, WHATEVER WE YOU KNOW, SO LET'S RESEARCH THAT AND LET'S BRING THOSE QUESTIONS.
GIVE US THE PARAMETERS AGAIN OVERALL ON WHAT WHAT ALL WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
AND THEN JUST ASKING WHAT THE COMMISSION'S COMFORT IS, DO YOU WANT TO BE HERE OR WOULD YOU RATHER BE IN THE WORKSHOP ROOM? I THINK WORKSHOP OKAY. YEAH. IF WE DON'T.
YEAH. PARTICULARLY IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY CASES.
OKAY. SO WE'LL PUT THAT INTO [INAUDIBLE].
IF WE DO END UP HAVING A CASE, JUST LET US KNOW.
WE'RE PAST THE DEADLINE, SO WE WON'T.
SURE YOU DON'T WANT TO DEFER IT TO THE NEXT ONE? OH, HOLD ON. THE NEXT MEETING AFTER THE 2ND IS THE 16TH.
WE HAVE A DEADLINE FOR THAT TODAY.
WE'VE RECEIVED I KNOW AT LEAST A HANDFUL OF CASES.
A HANDFUL. I'M LOOKING AT WHAT A HANDFUL IS, RIGHT? HOLD ON.
WELL, IF WE HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE [INAUDIBLE].
SO FAR SUBMITTED, WE HAVE THREE CASES AND WE MIGHT BE GETTING A FOURTH.
AND WE'VE JUST HEARD THAT COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY IS NOT GOING TO BE THERE ON THE 2ND THE HERE. SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND PUT THAT AS A DISCUSSION ITEM ON THE 16TH [INAUDIBLE] AND THEN WE'LL HOLD OUR REGULAR MEETING ON THE 16TH.
OKAY. I WILL NOT BE PRESENT MAY 2ND.
WAIT, WAIT. WE GOT SOME MORE QUESTIONS.
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE MIGHT FORGET TO DO THAT BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, PLEASE.
YEAH, YOU CAN SUBMIT ONE ON MAY 2ND.
AND JUST AS A REMINDER THAT NOBODY NEEDS TO SHOW UP.
YEAH, YOU DON'T NEED TO SHOW UP, BUT GET US YOUR QUESTIONS, PLEASE, MA'AM.
THANK YOU. OKAY. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, WE'LL CANCEL THE 2ND.
ON THE 16TH DO YOU WANT THE WORKSHOP TO BE IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING? YES. OKAY. SO WE'LL DO A WORKSHOP AT 2 TO 2 AND THEN REGULAR MEETING AT 3:30, 2:30.
LET'S TAKE AN HOUR. AND IF WE NEED TO CONTINUE ON.
IT IS A LONG DAY. SO LET'S JUST DO 2:30.
OKAY. SO 2:30 ON THE 16TH WORKSHOP.
ANYTHING ELSE, COMMISSIONERS? WE ARE ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. PERFECT.
ALL RIGHT.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.