6.A.1. 22BF-107 (22601 Kennedy Dr) Notice Of Mitigation For Disturbance Of Dunes And Vegetation. Property Is Legally Described As Abstract 121 Hall & Jones Survey, Lot 42A, Sea Isle Sec 23 Replat, A Subdivision In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Bruce Fortin, Seahouse Construction Property Owner: Rhonda Porter

[6.A.1. 22BF-107 (22601 Kennedy Dr) Notice Of Mitigation For Disturbance Of Dunes And Vegetation. Property Is Legally Described As Abstract 121 Hall & Jones Survey, Lot 42A, Sea Isle Sec 23 Replat, A Subdivision In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Bruce Fortin, Seahouse Construction Property Owner: Rhonda Porter]

SO STAFF PRESENTATION.

GOOD AFTERNOON, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.

WE'RE GOOD? OKAY.

AGAIN, GOOD AFTERNOON, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

AGAIN, THE CASE IS 22BF-107 22601 KENNEDY DRIVE.

THIS IS A NOTICE OF MITIGATION FOR DISTURBANCE OF DUNES AND VEGETATION.

THE PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS ABSTRACT 121 HOLLAND JONES SURVEY LOT 42A C AISLE SECTION 23 REPLAT A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.

THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE GULF PALMS SUBDIVISION.

SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE LOCATED TO THE EAST AND WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

A BEACH AND DUNE SYSTEM ARE LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS ERODING AT A RATE OF 4 TO 5FT PER YEAR.

STAFF HAS PREPARED PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR VIEWING.

FIRST, WE HAVE A FIRM AND BEG MAP SHOWING AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND DUNE SYSTEM, INCLUDING ITS POSITION RELATIVE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

ON THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE PROPERTY SURVEY SLASH MITIGATION MAP.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE THREE OUTLINED AREAS THAT ARE INTENDED FOR THE RELOCATION AND PLANNING PLANTING OF DISTURBED VEGETATION.

THIS WAS DONE IN COMPLIANCE WITH TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND OUR DUNE PROTECTION AND BEACH ACCESS PLAN.

THE LOCATIONS WERE CHOSEN BASED FROM AERIAL PHOTOS AND THE POTENTIAL MITIGATION NEED.

TWO ARE SEAWARD OF THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE, WHICH COMPLIES WITH OUR DUNE PROTECTION AND BEACH ACCESS PLAN.

THE ONE LANDWARD OF THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE IS INTENDED FOR MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS LANDWARD OF THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE AND TO COMPLY WITH TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.

ON THE FOLLOWING SLIDE WE HAVE THE PROPOSED PROJECT DRAWING AS WELL AS A SUMMARIZED SCOPE OF WORK, AND THEN FINALLY, WE HAVE

[00:05:05]

PHOTOS. THE FIRST ONE LOOKING TO THE NORTH FROM THE VEGETATION LINE.

SECOND ONE LOOKING NORTHEAST.

IN THE THIRD LOOKING SOUTHEAST.

THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT, AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU, HUNTER.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER HILL.

HUNTER, EARLIER TODAY, I SPOKE WITH KYLE ABOUT THE LINE IN THE SUMMARY OF THE MEMO THAT ACCOMPANIES THIS THIS PRESENTATION.

IT'S IN THE DESCRIPTION AREA.

THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH WHERE IT SAYS THE LAST LINE WHERE IT SAYS UNVEGETATED AREAS IN THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA, AND IS THAT SOME OF THESE PLANTINGS ARE NOT IN THE CAPITAL C CRITICAL DUNE AREA AND IS THE DISTINCTION THAT IN THIS SENTENCE THAT'S LOWERCASE CRITICAL DUNE AREA.

I THINK THEY'RE BOTH BEING IN REGARDS TO THE SAME CRITICAL DUNE AREA WORKING INVERSELY.

OKAY. WELL, ISN'T THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA TECHNICALLY BETWEEN THE NORTH, I MEAN, THE NORTH TOE AND THE SOUTH TOE? NO, IT WOULD BE FROM MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE OUT 1000FT COULD BE SEEN AS THAT.

SO I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED.

SO I THOUGHT THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA, BASED ON OUR LITTLE ILLUSTRATION THAT WE ALL USE, THAT THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA IS SEAWARD OF THE NORTH TOE AND SOME OF THESE PLANTINGS ARE INSIDE OUR 25 FOOT LINE , AND SO IN THIS LINE, WE SAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO PLANT EVERYTHING IN UNVEGETATED AREAS IN THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA.

YET WE'VE GOT SOME OF THE PLANTINGS ON THE LANDWARD SIDE.

IT'S JUST A I MEAN, IT'S NOT A HUGE DEAL.

JUST ASK.

YEAH, I'M ASKING THAT ONE PLANTING THAT IS ON THE LANDWARD SIDE OF THAT 25 FOOT LINE.

IT WAS DONE WITH THE INTENTION OF THE MITIGATION BEING THAT.

THE WALKOVER IS NOT JUST SEAWARD OF THAT 25 FOOT LINE, BUT ALSO NORTH OF IT.

SO WE WANTED TO ACCOMPANY ALL MITIGATION FOR THE WHOLE DUNE WALKOVER.

WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO JUST DO MITIGATION FOR THE 25 FOOT SEAWARD OF THAT LINE.

WE WANTED TO ACCOMPANY THE WHOLE WALKOVER.

SO TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ALLOWS US TO DO THAT.

THE LANDWARD SIDE SO WE CAN COVER MITIGATION FOR THE LANDWARD SIDE OF IT.

OKAY. WELL, I THINK THAT I WAS.

INTERPRETING THIS AS CRITICAL DUNE AREA AS BEING BETWEEN THE NORTH TOE AND THE SOUTH TOE.

SO JUST INTERPRETING IT STRICTLY.

THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU.

CERTAINLY, GO AHEAD. I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE GLO LETTER THAT STATES SORRY, PAGE TWO OF THREE.

A DUNE WALKOVER SHALL NOT EXCEED SIX FEET IN WIDTH, AND IT TALKS ABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS.

SO IS THIS A MULTI-POINT--WHY AM I ECHOING HERE? I DON'T KNOW.

A MULTI POINT PUBLIC ACCESS.

NO, IT'S A PROPOSED FOUR FOOT WIDE.

JUST A PRIVATE WALKOVER.

IT'S A PRIVATE WALKOVER. SO HOW DO YOU HOW IS IT DESIGNATED BETWEEN A PUBLIC ACCESS POINT SINCE IT GOES ON TO PUBLIC BEACH? HOW IS IT DESIGNATED AS A PUBLIC WALKOVER? AS A PRIVATE, DESIGNATED AS PRIVATE.

THIS IS THE 25 FOOT MARK RIGHT HERE.

I WOULD SAY JUST ON LOCATION, RIGHT.

IT'S SERVING A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.

SO PUBLIC WALKOVERS, YOU CAN SEE SOME EXAMPLES IN BEACHSIDE VILLAGE WHERE IT DIRECTLY EXITS ONTO THE PUBLIC STREET. SO IT GOES FROM A PUBLIC STREET TO THE TO THE BEACH.

YEAH, YOU ALSO HAVE A FEW OF THOSE WALKWAYS THAT DIRECTLY ABOUT A, A, YOU KNOW, ACCESS RESERVE.

SO FOR THE EXAMPLE OF WHAT CATHERINE JUST MENTIONED, THERE'S SEVERAL SPOTS WHERE THEY GO IN BETWEEN TWO LOTS TO GET IN TO THE PUBLIC

[00:10:06]

BEACH. IN THIS CASE, THERE ARE NO OTHER, YOU KNOW, PARCELS OR PROPERTIES.

IT'S THAT SINGLE FAMILY PRIVATE OWNERSHIP THAT GOES DIRECTLY TO THE PUBLIC BEACH.

I GUESS BECAUSE THE GLO MENTIONS THE TEN FOOT SETBACK THAT WOULD MAKE IT PRIVATE OR PUBLIC.

THEY DON'T OWN THAT TEN FEET OF SETBACK.

THAT'S ON THE PUBLIC BEACH, BUT THAT'S WHAT THE GLO ALLOWS FOR A WALK OVER TO GET INTO THE PUBLIC BEACH, AND THEN IT HAS TO BASICALLY STOP THERE.

IT CAN'T GO ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE WATER LINE OR WHAT HAVE YOU.

THAT'S THEIR STANDARD.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THE TEN FOOT STANDARD IS IN OUR PLAN, AND THOSE COMMENTS THAT GLO INCLUSION IN THEIR LETTER, SOMETIMES THEY JUST INCLUDE REITERATE WHAT'S IN OUR PLAN. IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE SAYING YOU HAVE TO A LOT OF TIMES THEY'LL JUST REITERATE, HEY, YOU NEED TO DO THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS AND THIS.

IT'S NOT THAT.

IT'S WE'RE NOT FOLLOWING IT.

THEY JUST REITERATE IT, BUT THAT TEN FOOT IS FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION IS ACTUALLY IN OUR PLAN AND OUR REQUIREMENT.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE, BECAUSE I KNOW.

YEAH. GO AHEAD.

I'M LOOKING AT THE MAP AND I'M JUST CURIOUS, WHAT ARE THESE YELLOW LINES ON THE FIRST MAP ON THE BIG AND FIRM COASTAL MAP LEGEND.

WHAT ARE THEY, THE YELLOW DOTS DOWN THERE? NO, THE LINES. WELL, I GUESS THEY COULD BE DOTS, BUT THEY LOOK LIKE FOUR LINES TO ME.

THEY GO ACROSS THE LOTS AND THEN AGAIN DOWN OVER THE BEACH.

THERE'S TWO OF THEM. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THOSE ARE.

WE PULLED THAT FROM THE BGE.

[INAUDIBLE] YEAH, IT COULD JUST BE THE AERIAL IMAGE OR SOMETHING.

THIS IS A MAP THAT WE JUST PULLED THE INFORMATION FROM.

I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THOSE LINES ARE.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.

SO IN KIND OF BASED ON COMMISSIONER HILL'S COMMENT, ONE, SO WE HAVE OUR YOU KNOW, THE MAJORITY OF THE MITIGATION IS WITHIN THE 25 FROM THE NORTH TOE TO THAT 25FT.

THAT'S KIND OF A NO MAN'S LAND, AND THEN WE HAVE A PORTION OF IT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IN OUR IT'S STILL IN THE CONSERVATION AREA, BUT TECHNICALLY, IF I WERE TO GO BUILD A HOUSE WHERE THEY'VE DONE THIS MITIGATION BECAUSE IT'S THEY CAN GO ALL THE WAY UP TO THE 25 FOOT MARK, WE HAVE AN AREA THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THAT.

HOW DO WE PROTECT THAT? WELL, TECHNICALLY, EVEN THE 25 FOOT, IF WE GET AN EXEMPTION, SOMEBODY COULD BUILD A HOUSE IN THERE.

WE'RE FOLLOWING IN THIS CASE, WE'RE FOLLOWING THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE THAT SAYS YOU SHOULD REPLACE IMPACTS TO DUNES IN THE SAME TYPE OF AREA, SAME TYPE OF STRUCTURE, VEGETATION AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO AS HUNTER WAS SAYING, SOME OF THIS IS OUTSIDE OF THE 25 FOOT.

THIS IS WHAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSES, THIS IS WHAT WE COORDINATED WITH GLO.

SO EVEN LIKE I SAID, EVEN WITHIN THE 25 FOOT.

IF THERE WAS AN EXEMPTION GIVEN TO BUILD A HOUSE IN THERE, THAT COULD BE THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY IMPACTED.

THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT'S BEEN THERE, THAT'S BUILDING THIS.

SO THE LIKELIHOOD THAT SOMEBODY'S GOING TO COME IN BEHIND THEM ON THE LAND, I MEAN, ON THE SEAWARD SIDE AND BUILD A HOUSE IS VERY, VERY SLIM, BUT WHAT WE'RE DOING, WHAT THAT ONE PORTION WAS TO HELP OFFSET, YOU KNOW, TO HELP FOLLOW THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE BY THE IMPACTS FOR THE WALKWAY THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE, LANDWARD OF IT, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. I MEAN, THE LIKELIHOOD OF SOMEBODY DOING THAT IS NOT LIKELY, BUT WE IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE AND WE COULD SEE SOMETHING LIKE THIS AGAIN IS WHY I BRING UP THE QUESTION IS WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, A MITIGATION THAT'S IN AN AREA THAT'S BASICALLY UNPROTECTED.

THEY COULD GO WHERE THEY'VE MITIGATED THIS.

THEY COULD GO BUILD A HOUSE ON TOP OF IT.

SO LET'S JUST SAY IF IT WAS AND I HATE TO IF IT WAS JUST SAY IT'S WETLANDS, IF I MITIGATE WETLANDS AND I GOT TO REPLACE IT, YOU CAN'T GO DIG IT UP OR COVER IT UP, THIS STUFF THAT YOU MITIGATED.

SO I JUST BRING THE QUESTION OF HOW DO WE PROTECT THIS STUFF MOVING FORWARD? WETLAND MITIGATION AND WETLANDS? TOTALLY DIFFERENT WETLAND MITIGATION.

THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS SAYS THAT PROPERTY NEEDS TO BE DEED RESTRICTED.

[00:15:04]

OKAY. FEDERAL REGULATIONS.

DUNE MITIGATION UNDER THE STATE AND UNDER US.

THAT DOES NOT.

OKAY. SO THOSE ARE TWO [INAUDIBLE].

OKAY. SO, YOU KNOW, IF THIS WAS IF THIS HAD SOME OF THAT TYPE OF REQUIREMENT, WE WOULD BE REQUIRING IT, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE JUST DON'T AT THIS TIME.

THE LEVEL OF MITIGATION WITH DUNES IN THE STATE IS NOT REACHED.

I UNDERSTAND, AND WE DON'T SEE A WHOLE LOT OF THIS ANYWAY.

SO I JUST WAS I JUST WAS CURIOUS.

THANK YOU, KYLE. MR. CHAIRMAN, YOUR LEVEL OF PROTECTION, IS THIS BODY APPROVING IT OR NOT APPROVING IT? IF SOMEONE WERE TO COME FORWARD IN THE FUTURE AND BUILD SOMETHING FORWARD OF THAT AREA.

RIGHT.

THAT'S CLEARLY IN AN AREA THAT YOU WOULD HAVE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW.

OKAY, AND THAT'S TRUE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF IS WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:45.

IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? IT. WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? IF NOT, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS IS A NO ACTION.

THERE'S NO ACTION ON THIS ITEM.

SO WE WILL MOVE ON.

ALL RIGHT. NEXT IS CASE NUMBER 23P-032, A BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION

[7.A.1. 23P-032 (11523 Beachside Dr) Request For A Beachfront Construction/Dune Protection Permit For A New Single-Family Dwelling. Property Is Legally Described As Beachside Village (2004) Abstract 121, Lot 143, Acres 0.378, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: MFR 78 LLC, Mike & Matt Roll Property Owner: MFR 78 LLC, Mike & Matt Roll ]

CERTIFICATE. HUNTER, IS THIS YOU AGAIN? IT IS, MAN. YOU'RE GOING TO BE OLD HAT AT THIS FOR LONG.

SO FOR CASE 23P-032 11523 BEACHSIDE DRIVE.

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH UNREINFORCED FIBERCRETE UNDER THE HABITABLE STRUCTURE AND A PAVER DRIVEWAY.

THE ADDRESS IS 11523 BEACHSIDE.

THE PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS BEACHSIDE VILLAGE 2004.

ABSTRACT 121 LOT 143 ACRES 0.378.

A SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.

THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE BEACHSIDE BEACHSIDE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION.

SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE LOCATED TO THE EAST AND WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

A BEACH AND DUNE SYSTEM ARE LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS ERODING AT A RATE OF 4 TO 5FT PER YEAR.

STAFF HAS 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 POSITION RELATIVE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

ON THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE PROPERTY SURVEY.

THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE PROPERTY SURVEY.

THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS A RED BOX THAT HIGHLIGHTS THE AREA OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION CLOSEST TO THE NORTH TOE OF THE DUNE WITH A DISTANCE OF 25FT. WE WORKED PRETTY CLOSELY WITH THE APPLICANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS WAS OUT OF THE DCA AS FAR AS SIX INCHES OUTSIDE OF THE DCA.

WE'RE HAPPY THAT WE WERE ABLE TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

ON THE FOLLOWING SLIDES, WE HAVE THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS FROM THE NORTHWEST.

SOUTHWEST. SOUTHEAST AND NORTHEAST.

FINALLY, WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS.

ONE SOUTH LOOKING NORTH.

WEST LOOKING EAST.

EAST, LOOKING WEST AND NORTH LOOKING SOUTH, AND THEN THE FINAL ONE IS FROM THE WATER'S EDGE, LOOKING NORTH.

THE LINE OF VEGETATION.

THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT, AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. HUNTER, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER HILL.

SHOCKING, ISN'T IT? IT'S YOUR FAVORITE COMMISSIONER, HUNTER, WHEN IT COMES TO BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION.

I HAVE A QUESTION IN YOUR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

YOU SAY UNREINFORCED FIBERCRETE UNDER THE HABITABLE STRUCTURE.

YET ON SHEET TWO, IT CLEARLY STATES OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

CONCRETE. CONCRETE.

CONCRETE. CONCRETE, CONCRETE.

YES, MA'AM. THAT WAS DONE BECAUSE WE WERE TRYING TO KEEP A PACE FOR THIS PROJECT, AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GLO, WE WERE ABLE TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT AND THE GLO TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT EVEN THOUGH IT SAYS CONCRETE, WE ARE ALL AGREEING UPON FIBERCRETE AND PAVERS FOR THE DRIVEWAY.

SO WE HAVE COMMUNICATIONS WITH BOTH PARTIES THAT WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S GOING TO BE FIBERCRETE, NOT CONCRETE.

[00:20:05]

OKAY, SO IT'S VERY CLEAR TO EVERYONE THERE WILL BE NO CONCRETE UNDER THE HOUSE.

THERE WILL BE ONLY FIBER CREEK AND THERE WILL ONLY BE PAVERS.

YES, MA'AM. IT'S IN THE GLO COMMON LETTER AS WELL.

I UNDERSTAND.

I READ THE GLO COMMENT LETTER AND I READ YOUR SUMMARY, BUT I ALSO HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THIS ON THE RECORD BECAUSE IT'S ALL OVER THE PLANS.

WE ARE GOING TO BE PUTTING THREE SPECIAL CONDITIONS ON THE ACTUAL LETTER ITSELF TO PUT MORE EMPHASIS ON THAT STATING FIBER CREEK WILL BE USED, PAVERS WILL BE USED AND THAT NO CONCRETE WILL BE USED ON THE FENCE FOOTINGS.

OKAY. THANK YOU, AND ALSO THERE'S A THE PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS WILL RUN ITS COURSE IN WHICH THEY'LL COMMENT.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUICK ONE BECAUSE I KNOW THIS CAME UP ON ANOTHER A PRIOR CASE AND WE TALKED ABOUT WHEN THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED, THAT THERE'S LIKE AN ACTION LETTER SENT TO THE APPLICANT.

IS THAT CORRECT? SO, I MEAN, WE'LL GET A CHANCE TO IT'LL BE SPELLED OUT AGAIN AND AGAIN.

HEY, YOU'RE APPROVED.

HERE'S SOME SPECIAL CONDITIONS.

YES, SIR. OKAY.

THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE P 23P-032 AT 3:50 IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? THE APPLICANT IS HERE VIA ZOOM.

MR.[INAUDIBLE], YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.

YES, I'M HERE. I CONTRACTED COVID SUNDAY, SO I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE BEST IF I COULD TELECOMMUTE WITH YOU.

WE APPRECIATE THAT.

SO YOU CAN DESCRIBE YOUR PROJECT TO THE COMMISSIONERS OR YOU CAN JUST SAY YOU'RE HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ON THE CASE? IF NOT, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:52 AND BRING IT BACK TO COMMISSION FOR A MOTION.

MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 23P-032 WITH THE STANDARDS SET FORTH WITH THE GLO AND THE CITY , AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PEÑA AND ANY DISCUSSION.

SEEING NONE. WE'LL TAKE A VOTE.

THOSE ALL IN FAVOR OF 23P-032, AND IT'S UNANIMOUS.

THAT'S AN APPROVAL.

THANK YOU, MR. [INAUDIBLE]. YOU CAN DROP OFF THE CALL NOW IF YOU'D LIKE.

THANK YOU, AND THANKS FOR NOT WADING INTO THE 25 FOOT ZONE.

OH, SURE. WE APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU. THIS IS MY FOURTH BEACH FRONT, SO I'M AWARE OF IT.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. ROUND OF APPLAUSE TO HUNTER.

WOO HOO! FIRST TIME OUT.

GOOD JOB.

THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] I WAS GOING TO SAY TWICE, JEFFREY, I'M TELLING YOU.

YOU WERE EASY ON HIM. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT, TOO.

[CHUCKLING] YOU'LL GET ANOTHER.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. MOVING FORWARD TO LTU, CASE 23P-038 STAFF ALL

[7.B.1. 23P-038 (Adjacent To 2102 Mechanic / Avenue C) Request For A License To Use In Order To Retain Construction Fencing. Adjacent Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, Lot 8 And East 28-6 Feet Of Lot 9, Block 621, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Richard Bustamante III, Werner Construction Adjacent Property Owner: Goldman Investments – The Cotton Exchange, LLC. Easement Holder: City Of Galveston]

RIGHTY. SO THIS IS ONCE AGAIN AN LTU REQUEST.

REALLY IT'S KIND OF A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING LTU THAT WAS GRANTED.

THIS IS ADJACENT TO 2102 MECHANIC, WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS THE COTTON EXCHANGE BUILDING.

THERE WERE 22 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, AND OF THOSE [INAUDIBLE] RETURNED, THE APPLICANT APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A LICENSE TO USE TO RETAIN CONSTRUCTION, FENCING AND THE RIGHT OF WAY ASSOCIATED WITH ONGOING RENOVATIONS.

THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNDER CASE I BELIEVE IT WAS 23P-003.

I BELIEVE, AND THE DATE FOR COMPLETION WAS GIVEN AS AUGUST 14TH, 2023.

NOW THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN EXTENSION.

THE FENCING IS INSTALLED CURRENTLY ALONG 21ST STREET, ROUGHLY PARALLEL TO THE PROPERTY'S EAST PROPERTY LINE AND ALONG MECHANIC ALONG THE SOUTH.

PROPERTY LINE ENCROACHES APPROXIMATELY 22FT INTO THE RIGHT AWAY, WHICH INCLUDES THE VERY WIDE SIDEWALKS THAT ARE TYPICAL OF DOWNTOWN AND THE ADJACENT PARKING.

OF COURSE, THAT MEANS THAT PAID PARKING WILL BE ENCUMBERED AND WILL BE PAID FOR IN THE INTERIM BY THE APPLICANT.

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT HIS OR THE APPLICANT ESTIMATES THE PROJECT WILL BE COMPLETED BY DECEMBER 31ST, 2023 AND IS REQUESTING AN EXTENSION UNTIL THAT

[00:25:07]

TIME. LANDMARK COMMISSION SAW THIS REQUEST EARLIER TODAY AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

STAFF LIKEWISE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF 23P-038 WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE THROUGH FOUR AND STANDARD CONDITIONS FIVE THROUGH TEN. WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS.

SO HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOWING THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION FENCING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED STILL IN PLACE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

HERE WE HAVE THE SITE PLAN SHOWING THE EXTENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION FENCING, WHICH HAS NOT CHANGED.

THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGES FROM THE PREVIOUS REQUEST.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, AND HERE WE HAVE A PHOTO OF THE CONSTRUCTION FENCING ON 21ST STREET, LOOKING NORTH AND ALONG MECHANIC LOOKING WEST.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST.

TO THE WEST AND TO THE SOUTH, AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.

THANK YOU, DANIEL.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER PENA? I KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT HAS A WELL, DOESN'T WANT THIS TO LAST ANY MUCH LONGER THAN ONE DAY.

THEY WANT TO, BUT IS THERE A LIMIT TO HOW OFTEN WE GIVE A EXTENSION TO AN LTU? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.

OKAY [INAUDIBLE] QUESTION.

COMMISSIONER HILL, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? THAT WAS BASICALLY WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THIS, TOO.

I MEAN, I THINK WE'RE ALL FOR PROGRESS, BUT WE'RE SEEING SO MANY OF THESE EXTENSIONS, AND I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK YOU, DANIEL, IF ARE WE HEARING FROM THESE APPLICANTS WHERE WE'RE SEEING DELAYS, IS IT MATERIALS, IS IT LABOR? IS IT ARE WE HEARING ANYTHING ABOUT IT? I MEAN, IT'S KIND OF GETTING TO BE LIKE AN OBSTACLE COURSE WHEN YOU WANT TO WALK SOMEWHERE DOWNTOWN, TWO BLOCKS DOWN, ONE BLOCK OVER ONE BLOCK, BACK DOWN, GO OVER, OVER UNDER, AROUND, YOU KNOW, TO TRY AND GET SOMEWHERE TO GO AROUND.

ALL OF THESE PROJECTS, NOTHING WAS COMMUNICATED TO STAFF IN THIS CASE ON THE REQUEST.

THERE COULD BE A VARIETY OF REASONS.

I WILL NOTE THAT THE APPLICANTS ALWAYS HAVE THE OPTION OF DOING A WHAT WE CALL A SHIELDED, COVERED PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW.

BUT OF COURSE SOMETIMES IT IS IN THEIR, YOU KNOW, THEIR PLANS TO DO IT THIS WAY.

OKAY. SO THEY COULD DO IT ONE OF TWO WAYS, AND THIS IS THE WAY THAT THEY'VE JUST CHOSEN TO DO THIS ONE.

CORRECT. OKAY.

THANK YOU, AND AS STEVEN ASKED, IF IT'S NOT FINISHED BY DECEMBER 31ST, THEY COULD JUST COME BACK AGAIN AND GET IT EXTENDED AGAIN AND EXTEND IT AGAIN.

THERE'S THERE WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING PROHIBITING SAYING WE COULD ONLY DO THIS X NUMBER OF TIMES.

NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.

I WOULD IMAGINE AT SOME POINT IT MAY GET INTO A COMPLIANCE TYPE SITUATION, BUT THAT'S ALL I CAN SPEAK TO.

I WOULD SAY THAT THE COST OF THE PARKING IS EXPENSIVE AND CAN RUN INTO THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, AND SO PEOPLE DO FIND THEY'RE MOTIVATED TO STOP USING THAT PARKING.

YES. SO THEY'RE PAYING $141.75 PER WEEK PER PARKING SPACE.

THEY'RE ENCUMBERING SIX PARKING SPACES IN THIS IN THIS CASE.

[INAUDIBLE] COULD CHANGE. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

YOU KNOW, YOU TALKED ABOUT TRYING TO MANEUVER AROUND.

IS THERE ANY STANDARD FOR THIS FENCING? AND THE REASON I ASK BECAUSE A COWORKER WAS DOWNTOWN AND TOOK A PRETTY GOOD TUMBLE OFF OF ONE OF THE FEET THAT STICK OUT IN THE WALKWAY TRYING TO GET TO THEIR CAR.

SO DOES ANYBODY POLICE HOW THESE THINGS ARE SET UP OR TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A WAY TO GET DOWN THE STREET AND GET TO YOUR CAR? I MEAN, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.

YEAH, THE CITY ENGINEER REVIEWS THE TRAFFIC PLAN, AND THAT INCLUDES THE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY PLANS.

SO THEY ARE REVIEWED.

I WILL SAY THAT TYPICALLY THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT FOLKS ARE SUPPOSED TO CROSS THE STREET.

THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO WALK LATERALLY IN THE TRAFFIC AISLE.

SO THERE SHOULD BE [INAUDIBLE] ONE ON ONE SIDE AWAY, [INAUDIBLE] THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET, RIGHT TO CROSS AND GET DOWN THE OTHER SIDE.

THAT'S RIGHT. COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY, THE MENTION OF A COVERED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OR WALKWAY AND THAT IS AN OPTION FOR THE CONTRACTOR OR FOR THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS AN OPTION AT THEIR DISCRETION.

I JUST NOTED THAT, AS YOU KNOW, JUST FOR THE COMMISSION'S INFORMATION, THAT TYPICALLY IS REVIEWED AT THE STAFF LEVEL, BUT IT IS UP TO THEM

[00:30:01]

ULTIMATELY. OKAY.

SO THERE'S NO PROCESS WHERE WE CAN AFTER X AMOUNT OF MONTHS, WE CAN REQUEST THAT THERE BE A COVERED WALKWAY.

WE REVIEW WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US.

YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT.

TYPICALLY, THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND THIS IS WHAT STAFF WOULD BE OR THIS IS WHAT THE COMMISSION WOULD BE REVIEWING THEIR REQUEST.

OKAY, AND I WILL JUST MAKE A LITTLE SOUND BITE THAT KNOWING THAT THERE MAY BE ANOTHER OPTION DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN THAT WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED, THAT THE VOTE ON WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED SHOULD BE AFFECTED BY ANOTHER POSSIBILITY.

IF I'M SAYING THAT POLITICALLY CORRECT OR NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT.

THESE APPLICATIONS COME TO US FOR COMMISSION'S APPROVAL.

IS THAT CORRECT? I MEAN, COULD THEY BE DENIED? I WOULD NOT THINK THAT WE WOULD DO THAT, BUT I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION BECAUSE IT IS AN AGENDA ITEM.

WE VOTE ON IT.

SO IT IS SOMETHING THAT'S.

.. SOMEWHAT AT OUR DISCRETION, AND LET ME TELL YOU WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS IS BECAUSE WE HAVE ANOTHER CASE AFTER THIS ONE.

SAME THING, AND YOU KNOW, AND I CAN PROMISE YOU, THE GUYS THAT ARE DOING THIS WORK, THEY THEY WANT TO BE DONE FASTER THAN WE WANT THEM OFF THE PARKING LOT. I CAN PROMISE YOU THAT, AND I DO KNOW THAT IN A LOT OF THESE INSTANCES, THERE ARE SOME MATERIAL ISSUES FOR THEM AS WELL, BUT WHERE WE HAVE THESE PROJECTS THAT LOOK LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO LAST FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME AND I'M TALKING ABOUT A YEAR OR LONGER. WOULD COMMISSION HAVE DISCRETION TO DENY THAT REQUEST AND SO THEIR ONLY OTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO DO A COVERED WALKWAY AND NOT THAT'S NECESSARILY THE BEST OPTION FOR THEM TO BEGIN WITH, BUT I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION, SO I'M GOING TO ANSWER THAT IN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS.

FIRST, IF A SITUATION LIKE THIS IS A DENIAL, I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COMMISSIONERS TO PUT THE REASONS FOR THAT DENIAL ON THE RECORD.

THE REASON BEING IS WHEN YOU LOOK AT A PROJECT THAT'S SO FAR IN TO NOW DENY IT, YOU WOULD REALLY NEED TO HAVE REASONS FOR CAUSE FOR SUCH FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

THE FACT THAT WE ALL KIND OF JUST HEARD ABOUT THE COVERING, I WOULD REALLY HASTEN TO SAY THAT UNLESS YOU PUT SOME SPECIFICITIES ON THE RECORD AS TO A DENIAL, THEN I THINK IT WOULD BE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS JUST FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE, BECAUSE WE JUST HEARD ABOUT A POSSIBILITY FROM THE COVERED WALKWAY SITUATIONS.

THAT'S AN ADMIN, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

THAT'S AN ADMIN PROCESS.

SO BEFORE IT GETS TO THIS BODY, THERE ARE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW THAT CAN HAPPEN, AND I'M PRETTY SURE AND DANIEL CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT THE POSSIBILITIES ARE ALSO DISCUSSED AS TO WHAT COULD HAPPEN FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, THIS OR ANY PARTICULAR PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PROJECT OF SUCH MAGNITUDE, AND SO AGAIN, DANIEL, CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS THAT ARE DISCUSSED AND IT'S THE APPLICANT'S WISHES BASED ON THEIR CONSTRUCTION TIMEFRAME AND CONSTRAINTS TO BRING FORTH WHAT THEY BRING FORTH.

SO UNDERSTOOD, AND I ONLY ASK IT AS REALLY AS A QUESTION AND THERE ARE IN MOST INSTANCES, A COVERED PARKWAY. A WALKWAY CAN CREATE ITS OWN SAFETY ISSUES.

SO I IF I WAS THE CONTRACTOR, I JUST WOULDN'T WANT ANYBODY THERE.

SO I JUST ASKED IT REALLY AS A MORE AS A QUESTION.

SO THANK YOU.

IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, I WOULD ASK THIS BOARD TO BE SPECIFIC AS TO THE REASONS BEHIND.

UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 23P-038.

IT'S 4:04.

IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? IF NOT, IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON THE CASE? IF NOT, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION.

COMMISSIONER HILL.

I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE 23P-038 AS WRITTEN BY STAFF.

SECOND. IT'S COMMISSIONER HILL'S MADE THE MOTION TO APPROVE AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER EDWARDS TO APPROVE 23P-038.

[00:35:07]

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. WE'LL TAKE A VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AND THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

23P-038 IS APPROVED AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO 23P-039.

[7.B.2. 23P-039 (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 ]

ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A VERY SIMILAR REQUEST TO THE PREVIOUS.

THIS IS ADJACENT TO 2302 MECHANIC, WHICH IS, OF COURSE, THE LITTLE, I GUESS, ADDITION TO THE TREMONT HOTEL.

ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING LTU THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY GRANTED.

27 PUBLIC NOTICES WERE SENT, ZERO RETURNED, AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THIS IN THIS CASE TO EXTEND THE PREVIOUS EXTENSION DATE, WHICH WAS SEPTEMBER 30TH TO OCTOBER 30TH.

SO JUST ONE MONTH IN THIS CASE.

ONCE AGAIN, THE REQUEST IS NOT CHANGING IN ANY MATERIAL WAY.

OTHERWISE THE CONSTRUCTION FENCING IS JUST IN THE SOUTHERN RIGHT OF WAY, JUST ADJACENT TO THAT LITTLE PART OF THE ANNEX.

IT ENCOMPASSES THREE PARKING SPOTS WHICH WILL BE PAID, AS NOTED PREVIOUSLY IN THE PREVIOUS CASE.

THE ONLY COMMENT FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS WAS TRANSIT MENTIONED TO ENSURE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION FENCING STAYS WELL AWAY FROM THE STEEL WHEEL TROLLEY TRACKS WHICH ARE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET.

THAT WAS THE ONLY COMMENT FROM DEPARTMENT AND REVIEW.

SO ONCE AGAIN THIS MORNING LANDMARK COMMISSION HEARD THIS REQUEST AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL, AND STAFF LIKEWISE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH STANDARD SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE THROUGH FIVE AND STANDARD CONDITIONS SIX THROUGH 11 AND THE STAFF REPORT, AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS.

SO HERE WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION FENCING IN PLACE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

HERE IS THE APPROXIMATE AREA THAT IS ENCUMBERED AS SHOWN IN THE PREVIOUS PHOTO.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, AND HERE IS THE CONSTRUCTION FENCING LOOKING WEST.

ONCE AGAIN, IT ONLY ENCUMBERS THE SOUTHERN RIGHT OF WAY SOUTH FACING THE STRUCTURE, AND WE ALSO HAVE THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST, TO THE SOUTH, TO THE WEST.

ALSO SHOWING THE TREMONT HOTEL, AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.

THANK YOU, DANIEL. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 23P-039 AT 4:07.

IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? IF NOT, ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE CASE.

THEN WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK FOR A MOTION.

MR. CHAIR, MAY I ASK DANIEL A QUESTION REAL QUICKLY? CERTAINLY. SINCE THE APPLICANT WASN'T HERE.

DANIEL, ARE WE SURE OCTOBER 30TH IS GOING TO DO IT? OR I MEAN, IS THIS ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS I'M WONDERING, SINCE THIS JUST GIVES THEM A 30 DAY EXTENSION, SEEMS LIKE ON THIS ONE, WE GAVE THEM A LITTLE MORE TIME THAN THEY ASKED FOR THE FIRST TIME, AND IT STILL DIDN'T GIVE THEM ENOUGH TIME.

IS THIS I'M WONDERING IF WE SHOULD GIVE THEM A LITTLE MORE ROOM ON THIS ONE? WELL, I MEAN, THEY ASKED FOR THAT PARTICULAR DATE, BUT OF COURSE, THINGS DO HAPPEN.

I BELIEVE THAT THE COMMISSION HAS THE ABILITY TO GIVE THEM MORE TIME THAN WHAT STAFF HAD REQUESTED, WHAT THEY HAD REQUESTED, IF YOU SEE THAT, YOU KNOW.

SO THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON 23P-039 THAT WE I MOVE FOR APPROVAL AS WRITTEN BY STAFF, WITH ONE EXCEPTION THAT WE GRANT APPROVAL THROUGH NOVEMBER 30TH, 2023.

ALL RIGHT, AND THERE'S A MOTION.

I NEED A SECOND. I'LL SECOND.

AND A SECOND. SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS WRITTEN WITH THE EXCEPTION TO EXTEND FROM TO CHANGE, THE EXTENSION DATE FROM OCTOBER 30TH 1ST TO NOVEMBER 30TH.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE A VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, AND THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

SO THAT'S 23P-039 IS PASSED.

SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO 23P-042.

[7.C.1.23P-042 (10525 San Luis Pass Road / FM 3005) Request To Amend Ordinance 21-044 Regarding A Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District. Property Is Legally Described As The Trimble And Lindsey Survey, Section 1, 2.86 Acres Of Lots 382 And 401, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Steve Biegel, Place Designers, Inc. Property Owner: DB Project, Ltd. ]

THIS IS 10525 SAN LUIS PASS ROAD FM 305.

IT'S A REQUEST TO AMEND ORDINANCE 21-044 REGARDING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY.

DISTRICT AND PUBLIC NOTICES SENT WERE 124 TWO RETURNED.

THOSE WERE BOTH IN OPPOSITION.

THERE WAS ONE RETURN THAT WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT THIS AFTERNOON.

THIS MORNING, AND THEN THIS ONE WAS RETURNED RIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING.

[00:40:03]

SO I'LL CIRCULATE THAT ONE.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO AMEND A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PUD, WHICH WAS ORDINANCE 19-067.

I THINK THAT IS AN ERROR.

IT SHOULD BE THE 21-044.

TO CONSTRUCT A HIGH RISE CONDOMINIUM AND ASSOCIATED AMENITIES IN THE RESORT [INAUDIBLE] HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT.

THE EXISTING POD REQUIRED THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION NO LATER THAN AUGUST 26TH, 2023.

THE APPLICANT IS NOT ABLE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXISTING APPROVED PUD.

THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A NEW DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE, EXTENDING THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION DEADLINE FROM AUGUST 26TH, 2023 TO DECEMBER 31ST, 2024, AND PROCEEDING WITH PERMITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TIMELINE PER REVISED DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE, WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT B.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A THREE YEAR EXTENSION TO COMPLETE THE ENTIRE PROJECT FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE.

THE REQUESTED EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION DEADLINE IS DECEMBER 31ST, 2027.

PLEASE NOTE THE ANALYSIS AND CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.

DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE ONLY CHANGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED HIGH RISE CONDOMINIUM AND ASSOCIATED AMENITIES IS THE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE CASE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.

ONE THROUGH SEVEN ARE SPECIFIC TO THIS CASE AND THEN EIGHT THROUGH 12 ARE STANDARD, AND WE HAVE SOME PICTURES.

THIS IS AN AERIAL SHOWING THE SUBJECT LOCATION AND THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY , AND THEN WE HAVE THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND WEST, AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, CATHERINE.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE A COUPLE.

SO WE'VE SEEN SOME PUD EXTENSIONS IN THE PAST.

IS THERE A STANDARD PUD EXTENSION TIME FRAME THAT WE TYPICALLY DO? IT'S TYPICALLY LIKE AN LTU EXTENSION.

THE APPLICANT PROVIDES US THE TIMELINE THAT THEY THINK IS SUFFICIENT.

OKAY, AND THEN COUNCIL HAS APPROVAL ON THIS.

SO IT GOES TO THAT STEP AGAIN.

SO WE'RE GIVING THEM AN EXTENSION OF THEIR TIME BASICALLY TO GO GET THEIR PERMITS.

I NOTICED THAT THEY PUT THEIR CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE ON THERE, BUT REALLY THAT'S KIND OF NOT IN OUR PURVIEW BECAUSE ONCE THEY WOULD GET THEIR PERMITS, THEIR PERMIT, THEIR CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE IS THEIR CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE.

SO EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE MENTIONED IT, IT'S NOT REALLY OUR DEAL IS TO GIVE THEM THE EXTENSION SO THEY CAN GET THEIR PERMITTING CORRECT.

IT'S ACTUALLY BOTH. SO IF YOU LOOK AT SPECIFIC CONDITION NUMBER SEVEN, IT'S A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE PROJECT SHALL BE ISSUED NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 31ST, 2024, AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT SHALL BE COMPLETED NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 31ST, 2027.

OKAY. SO THERE'S A SPECIFIC CONDITION FOR THEM TO BE FINISHED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN A CERTAIN TIMEFRAME.

OKAY. THERE'S SOME MENTION OF A BEACH RESTORATION IN THERE IN THEIR NARRATIVE THAT WAS TAKING THEM SOME EXTRA TIME.

ANY [INAUDIBLE] CONSTRUCTION PERMIT.

YES. I WAS JUST KIND OF WONDERING IF THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT'S KIND OF BEEN IN PROCESS OR I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ANY I GUESS WE CAN I SEE THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE SO WE CAN ASK THOSE GUYS THOSE QUESTIONS.

THAT'S ALL I HAD.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM STAFF? YES, MA'AM.

MY MIND IS FOGGY AND I MAY NOT REMEMBER WHEN WE FIRST SAW THIS CASE, BUT I REMEMBER AS I WAS READING THROUGH THIS AND LOOKING AT IT, THERE WERE SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE UTILITIES AND GOING THROUGH THAT SETBACK AND HOW WAS THAT? DO WE ADDRESS THAT IN THE CONSTRUCTION PERMITTING PART OR IS THAT WE GAVE THEM A WE GAVE THEM A DEFERRAL FROM THAT OR HOW DID THAT WORK? I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT EXACTLY.

I DON'T RECALL THAT.

ON THE SETBACK THEY GOT A DEFERRAL FOR NO SETBACKS.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE RIGHT UP ON THE ROAD, THE CONSTRUCTION, BUT SOMEWHERE THERE, THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PUBLIC UTILITIES.

I THINK I READ THERE WAS PUBLIC UTILITIES ALSO RUNNING ALONG THAT LINE ALONG THE SETBACK.

WELL, THE APPLICANT'S SHAKING [INAUDIBLE]. SO MAYBE I'LL JUST ASK WAIT AND ASK THE APPLICANT.

SO I'LL ASK. I'LL WAIT.

I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT BECAUSE HE'S SHAKING HIS HEADL LIKE, YES.

SO HE KNOWS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

OKAY. I'LL HOLD IT TILL HE COMES UP.

ALL RIGHTY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:15.

IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT?

[00:45:04]

IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN FOR THE RECORD.

GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON.

STEVEN [INAUDIBLE], ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT.

THANK YOU FOR HEARING US TODAY.

CERTAINLY I'M REPRESENTING SACHSE DEVELOPMENT AND THE [INAUDIBLE] PROJECT.

AS STATED, WE RECEIVED THE PUD APPROVAL FROM THE CITY COUNCIL ON AUGUST THE 25TH OR SIXTH OF 21, AND IT GAVE US TWO YEARS TO GET A PERMIT.

ALONG THE WAY, WE'VE ENCOUNTERED A COUPLE OF OBSTACLES, INCLUDING THE BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT, WHICH HAD TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE WE COULD PROCEED. THE DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT.

WE NOW HAVE A PERMIT FOR THE DUNE RESTORATION AND WE ARE ABLE TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION ON THE DUNE.

WE HAVE RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM TXDOT ON THE SECONDARY ENTRANCE OFF SAN LUIS PASS ROAD.

SO ALL OF THESE THINGS WERE PRECEDENT TO FILING A SITE PLAN AND THEN FILING OUR CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS.

SO THESE DELAYS HAVE PUSHED US BACK IN THE SCHEDULE.

WHAT WE'RE FACED WITH NOW IS THE DEADLINE IS TOO TIGHT.

WE ARE 50% THROUGH CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS.

THE DEVELOPER HAS SPENT ABOUT $3 MILLION ON ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING FOR WHAT IS A $100 MILLION PROJECT.

SO WE NEED TO HAVE THE PERMIT DEADLINE EXTENDED, AND BEAR IN MIND THAT WE CAN CONTROL WHEN WE APPLY FOR THE PERMIT BASED ON WHEN OUR DRAWINGS ARE COMPLETE, BUT WE CAN'T CONTROL WHEN WE RECEIVE THE PERMIT.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY AND IT GOES THROUGH A SERIES OF REVIEWS.

SO WE WANTED SUFFICIENT TIME TO GET OUR PERMIT SUBMITTED WITH THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION.

WE BELIEVE WE WILL BE ABLE TO SUBMIT SOMETIME IN OCTOBER OF THIS YEAR.

WE BELIEVE THAT CONSTRUCTION PENDING PERMIT CAN START SOMETIME IN APRIL OF NEXT YEAR, BUT WE WANT TO BUY SUFFICIENT TIME.

WE MUST COMPLETE THE DUNE FIRST BEFORE WE CAN PUT A SHOVEL IN THE GROUND ON OUR PROJECT.

TO THE POINT OF UTILITIES.

YES, THERE ARE UTILITIES WHICH RUN ALONG THE EASEMENT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SITE.

BOTH SEWER AND WATER AND THE ELECTRICITY.

CENTERPOINT COMES INTO OUR SITE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER THAT IS SHARED WITH DIAMOND BEACH.

PHASE ONE.

SO THE ELECTRIC POWER FOR DIAMOND BEACH PHASE ONE COMES INTO THE CORNER OF OUR SITE.

CENTERPOINT HAS GIVEN US PERMISSION TO BUILD A PLATFORM WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE PLANNING TO DO AND WHAT THE DRAWINGS REPRESENT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I HAVE ONE. SO, YOU KNOW, AND I JUST READ IT IN YOUR NARRATIVE ABOUT THE RENOURISHMENT.

SO YOU HAVE A RENOURISHMENT PLAN AND THEN YOU HAVE A RESTORATION PLAN.

SO THERE'S A LOT GOING ON THERE.

CAN YOU GIVE US A LITTLE INFORMATION ON THE NOURISHMENT PROJECT HAS BEEN ONGOING UP AND DOWN THE BEACH FOR SOME TIME.

IT'S COMPLETE.

THE VEGETATION HAS BEEN RESTORED, THE NOURISHMENT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED.

HOWEVER, WE DID NOT HAVE A DUNE, A FORMAL DEFINITION OF A DUNE ON OUR PARCEL EVER.

IT'S AT THE END OF THE SEAWALL.

IT WAS SUBJECT TO EROSION OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

THROUGH IKE AND HARVEY AND OTHERS, THE DEVELOPER DECIDED TO CONTRIBUTE THE DUNE AND PARTICIPATE IN THE DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT.

SO WE ARE VOLUNTARILY PUTTING UP THE MONEY TO BUILD THE DUNE ALONG OUR 240FT OF FRONTAGE ON THE WATER, BUT IT HAS TO BE DONE ACCORDING TO THE GLO AND THE CORPS, IT HAS TO BE DONE BEFORE WE CAN PUT A SHOVEL IN THE GROUND, AND UNDERSTOOD.

I MEAN, IT'S JUST ONE OF THE STEPS, ONE OF MANY STEPS, AND YOU KNOW, I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THAT'S A, THAT'S A LOT OF DRAWINGS RIGHT THERE.

IT IS. IT TAKES A LOT OF TIME AND A LOT OF MONEY.

SO I'M SURE YOU GUYS WOULD RATHER BE STARTING CONSTRUCTION THAN ASKING FOR AN EXTENSION.

WELL, AND I REALLY DO HOPE THAT MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE VISITED THE SALES CENTER DOWN AT ROUGHLY 50TH AND SEAWALL BOULEVARD, DOWN WHERE THE TORTUGAS KITCHEN IS IN THAT LITTLE ENCLAVE JUST EAST OF SAN LUIS AND JUST EAST OF THE HOLIDAY INN. THE SALES CENTER IS THERE.

THERE'S A MILLION AND A HALF DOLLARS IN THE SALES CENTER, INCLUDING A MODEL OF THE BUILDING, WHICH WAS NO SMALL INVESTMENT EITHER.

WE'RE SERIOUS ABOUT THE PROJECT, OBVIOUSLY.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[00:50:01]

THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE OR WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE CASE. IF NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:20 AND BRING IT BACK TO COMMISSION FOR A VOTE.

I WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE CASE 23P-042 AS PRESENTED BY STAFF WITH THE.

CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED.

SOUNDS GOOD. I'LL SECOND IT.

GOT A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PEÑA.

ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER HILL? I JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I DO REMEMBER THIS CASE AND OUR SPECIFICS I REMEMBER ABOUT THIS CASE.

THIS IS THE ONE WHERE WE WERE MOST DEFINITELY TOLD THAT WE WERE IRRELEVANT, AND I SUPPOSE WE ARE IRRELEVANT IN THIS CASE BECAUSE WE ARE RECOMMENDING BODY TO COUNCIL, AND SO THIS IS A CASE WHERE I CAN VOTE MY CONSCIENCE, AND I KNOW THAT COUNCIL IS VERY COMMITTED TO THIS PROJECT AND COUNCIL IS GOING TO APPROVE EXTENDING THIS POD.

SO WHAT HOW I VOTE TODAY IS ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT.

SO I AM GOING TO VOTE MY CONSCIENCE TODAY AND I'M GOING TO VOTE HOW I FEEL I NEED TO PROTECT THE BEACH OF THE WEST END AND THIS IS THE POINT THAT IS MOST HIGHLY ERODING ON THIS ISLAND, AND NO MATTER HOW MUCH DUNE ANYONE PUTS UP RIGHT HERE, IT IS THE MOST ERODING BEACH ON THIS ISLAND, AND TO PUT ANY STRUCTURE UP RIGHT HERE IS FOLLY.

COMMISSIONER HILL.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE IRRELEVANT.

I DO REMEMBER I DO REMEMBER THIS CASE, AND I DO REMEMBER THERE WAS A COMMENT THAT WAS MADE.

I THINK IT I KNOW MR. SCHULTZ WELL, AND I REMEMBER WHEN HE SAID IT.

I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT COMMENT I CANNOT SPEAK FOR HIM, BUT THAT COMMENT WAS MADE TONGUE IN CHEEK.

SO WE ARE NOT IRRELEVANT.

OUR OPINION. YOU KNOW WHAT? WE WORK AT THE PLEASURE OF CITY COUNCIL.

WE'RE NOT ELECTED.

WE'RE VOLUNTEERS.

SO I'M GOING TO TELL YOU, I'D LIKE TO THINK THAT OUR DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE HERE MATTER OR ARE THEY ALWAYS THE RIGHT ONES OR ARE THEY ALWAYS THE ONES THAT CITY COUNCIL GO WITH? ABSOLUTELY NOT, BUT WE'RE JUST A SOUNDING BOARD FOR THEM.

SO I CAN APPRECIATE YOUR SENTIMENT, BUT.

I WOULD DISAGREE THAT WE'RE IRRELEVANT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, SIR? YES, COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY.

WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CONCERNS ME IS, IS THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING.

IT APPEARS IT WILL BE HIGHER THAN THE ADJACENT CONDOMINIUMS. IS THAT CORRECT? WE'VE GOT IT HERE.

INCREASE HEIGHT TO 138FT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE, AND I'M NOT REALLY SURE.

CAN WE ASK THE APPLICANT A QUESTION? YEAH, THAT'S PROBABLY A BETTER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

I DON'T KNOW OFFHAND.

DO WE NEED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR HIM TO SPEAK OR.

OKAY. WELL, NO, NO, NOT A PROBLEM.

I THINK IT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

SO WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING BACK UP AT 4:25, AND SO THE QUESTION IS, IS THE BUILDING TALLER THAN THE DIAMOND, I'M ASSUMING THE DIAMOND BEACH.

IS THAT RIGHT? AM I ON HERE? YES, COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY.

YES, AND IN THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL OF THE PUD, BACK IN AUGUST OF '21, WE WERE GRANTED APPROVAL TO GO TO A TOTAL HEIGHT OF 147FT, WHICH IS ROUGHLY TWO STORIES ABOVE DIAMOND BEACH PHASE ONE.

I WAS THE ORIGINAL ARCHITECT ON DIAMOND BEACH, PHASE ONE.

SO WE WENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND GOT THE PUD APPROVED FOR THAT PROJECT BACK IN 2006.

SO THE GOVERNING FACTOR BACK THEN AND TODAY IS THE AIRPORT APPROACH AND STAYING WITHIN THE FAA LIMITATIONS. SO WE STUDIED THAT, AND PART OF THE JUSTIFICATION FOR GOING HIGHER WAS THE STRANGE SHAPE OF OUR SITE.

WE'RE LIMITED IN OUR FAR WE HAVE A VERY SMALL FOOTPRINT COMPARED TO THE BUILDABLE AREA OF THE SITE.

[00:55:07]

IT FORCES US TO GO VERTICAL AND WE STAYED WITHIN THE 149 FOOT CEILING ESTABLISHED BY THE FAA.

SO THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL PUD.

THAT WAS MY PRIMARY CONCERN.

YES. YES.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? [INAUDIBLE]. CERTAINLY.

WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING HEIGHT, THERE WAS SOMEBODY THAT HAD SAID A COMMENT TO ME ABOUT Y'ALL WANTING TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL FLOOR THAT Y'ALL MIGHT BE COMING BACK TO US FOR THAT.

IS THAT TRUE, NOT TRUE? THAT IS MISINFORMATION.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT POSSIBLY REMOVING A FLOOR, AND THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE STORMWATER DETENTION ISSUE.

RIGHT NOW, THE PLAN IS TO DETAIN STORMWATER IN PORTIONS OF THE GARAGE AREA THAT IS BELOW GRADE AND IN UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE BUILDING.

THAT'S VERY EXPENSIVE AND REQUIRES EXCAVATING ABOUT FIVE FEET OF EXISTING TERRITORY VERTICALLY.

IT MAY COME TO PASS THAT WE TUCK THE STORMWATER, ALL OF IT UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING, WHICH MEANS CREATING AN INTERSTITIAL SPACE BENEATH THE LOWER LEVEL PARKING WHICH PUSHES OUR PARKING VERTICAL, COMPRESSES OUR PARKING, AND OBVIOUSLY WE CAN'T GO BEYOND THE 147, SO WE MAY LOSE A FLOOR WITH IT'S ALL IN PROGRESS, AND SO YOU'RE NOT REQUESTING ANY TYPE OF REVISION IN YOUR PUD FOR THE HEIGHT.

THE HEIGHT IS THE SAME AS IT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL PUD.

THIS IS STRICTLY A REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME.

YEAH. OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU, AND WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING, AND WE CURRENTLY HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE CASE AS PRESENTED BY STAFF? SEEING NONE. WE'LL TAKE A VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL THOSE OPPOSED.

SO THAT'S FOUR AGAINST, 2-4, SO THAT WOULD BE A FAIL.

ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON.

I'LL JUST NOTE FOR THE RECORD, THAT CITY COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL DECISION REGARDING PUD REQUESTS AND WILL BE HEARD AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 27TH.

ALL RIGHT. CASE 23ZA-03 TEXT AMENDMENT.

[7.D.1. 23ZA-003 Request For A Text Amendment To The Galveston Land Development Regulations, Article 12, Administrative Bodies To Modify The Powers Of The Planning Commission. Applicant: Development Services Department ]

WHO'S THAT? IT'S TIM.

AFTERNOON, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.

THANK YOU. THIS IS A TEXT AMENDMENT ONE THAT'S DESIGNED, IN FACT, TO INCREASE YOUR RELEVANCE.

APPRECIATE IT. SO, AS YOU WELL KNOW, THE HE ELDERS HAVE A SECTION IN IT IN SECTION 12 THAT DEFINES WHAT THE ROLES OF THE VARIOUS BODIES ARE THAT INTERACT AND INTERFACE WITH THE ELDERS, YOU BEING ONE OF THEM, AND IN PARTICULAR IN TWO ASPECTS, THERE'S A REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION COMPONENT IN SECTION 12.

THERE'S ALSO A BASICALLY AN ACTION FINDING SPOT AS WELL THAT YOU ARE GIVEN DIRECT AUTHORITY TO PERMIT SOMETHING, IN REGARDS TO THE BEACH ACCESS PLAN AND DUNE PRESERVATION PLAN.

YOU ARE ALREADY OBVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE PERMITS FOR, FOR WITHIN THE BEACH FRONT CONSTRUCTION AREA AND IN OTHER CASES REGARDING THAT PLAN, THERE IS NOTHING IN REGARD TO REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION IN RELATION TO THE PLAN HOWEVER, AND SO COUNCIL ASKED AND HAD A WORKSHOP TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE AT THE LAST MEETING HERE IN MAY , AND SO WE HAD THAT GENERAL DISCUSSION.

THEY ASKED THAT WE MOVE FORWARD TO BRING SOMETHING BACK TO COUNCIL GRANTING YOU THAT AUTHORITY.

SO IT'S BEING PROPOSED IN YOUR PACKET AS YOU CAN SEE AND BASICALLY THE WORDING IS YOU WOULD HAVE THE PLANNING SHALL REVIEW AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS

[01:00:09]

TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF APPLICATIONS A THROUGH H OR I GUESS ACTUALLY F AND THEN G IS ADDED WHICH READS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 29 PLANNING BEACH ACCESS DUNE PROTECTION BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL AND OR THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE.

SO OBVIOUSLY IN CASES WHERE WE HAVE A CITY COUNCIL ACTION IN REGARD TO THE PLAN OR A GLO ACTION IN REGARD TO THE PLAN, YOU ARE IN, THIS AMENDMENT BEING ASKED TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION.

SO THIS WILL GO BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL IN TWO DAYS FOR ANOTHER WORKSHOP.