WE'RE READY FOR YOU. ALL RIGHT.
[1. Call Meeting To Order]
[00:00:04]
IT'S 330, AUGUST 22ND.WE'LL CALL THE GALVESTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.
THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE SIGNED IN BY ROLL CALL.
[3. Conflict Of Interest ]
NONE. NOTED.ANY CHANGES? AMENDMENTS TO THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED FROM OUR AUGUST 8TH MEETING.
[4. Approval Of Minutes]
IF NOT, WE'LL APPROVE THOSE.WE'LL GO TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
THIS IS A CHANCE IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON A NON-AGENDA ITEM, AN ITEM THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
IS ANYBODY HERE FOR THAT? ME? YOU.
IF NO ONE OUT THERE HAS ANYTHING, I GUESS YOU CAN SPEAK YOUR PIECE.
I HAVE THREE MINUTES PREPARED ON A NON-AGENDA ITEM.
WOULD YOU LIKE FOR ME TO STEP DOWN OR MAY I DO IT FROM HERE? ARE YOU SPEAKING AS A PROFESSIONAL OR SPEAKING AS YOURSELF? NO, AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.
THEN YOU NEED TO BE THERE, I THINK.
IS THAT CORRECT? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
ADDRESS SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.
IF THERE'S A CAMERA CLOSE BY THAT WILL HANDLE IT.
I'LL REMIND YOU, MA'AM. I'LL REMIND YOU, MA'AM, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
WE'VE ALL SEEN THE MEME THAT PORTRAYS A BORING MEETING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AN EMAIL.
CONVERSELY, LAST THURSDAY, THE COMMISSION RECEIVED AN EMAIL THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A MEETING.
THIS MEETING, IN FACT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS CLEARLY STATE THAT AN AGENDA ITEM CAN BE ADDED BY WRITTEN REQUEST OF TWO MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. WE ALSO SEE SUCH ITEMS ADDED TO FUTURE MEETING AGENDAS DURING MEETINGS.
I SUBMITTED A WRITTEN AGENDA ITEM LAST WEEK AND IT WAS ADDED PROPERLY.
IT WAS PROPERLY SECONDED BY OUR CHAIR CITY STAFF.
THEN REMOVE THAT ITEM FROM OUR AGENDA.
WE FUNCTION AS THE CITIZENS VOICE IN THE CITY PLANNING PROCESS.
IF THE CITY FELT THEY COULD NOT COMMENT ON THE ITEM AT THIS TIME, THEY SHOULD HAVE STATED THAT IN PUBLIC ON THE RECORD AFTER THE ITEM WAS POSTED. RATHER, THEY ELIMINATED IT ENTIRELY AS IF WISHING IT AWAY.
I BROUGHT THIS BREACH OF PROCEDURE TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S ATTENTION IN TIME TO CORRECT THE POSTING ERROR, AND I NOTIFIED LEGAL CITY STAFF WAS GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO SELF-CORRECT IN CHOOSING NOT TO DO SO.
THEY TOOK WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN PASSED OFF AS A SMALL OVERSIGHT AND CHOSE TO SHINE A MUCH BRIGHTER LIGHT ON THIS BLATANT DISREGARD OF THEIR OWN ADOPTED POLICIES.
OF PARTICULAR NOTE IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DELETED ITEM, SINCE IT IS AN UNPOPULAR TOPIC THAT BENEFITS ONLY A FEW HIGH-END DEVELOPERS, I ASK FOR STAFF TO ADDRESS THE GLOW RESPONSE TO THREE RECENTLY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE DUNE PROTECTION AND BEACH ACCESS PLAN.
THESE ACTIONS BY THE CITY, WHICH TO SOME MIGHT SEEM INSIGNIFICANT, INSIGNIFICANT, DO A GREAT DEAL TO UNDERMINE THE STRIDES TOWARD TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT THAT THE CITY LIKES TO TOUT, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE ITEM AT HAND ADDRESSES THE NUMBER ONE ONLINE ARTICLE IN THE NEWSPAPER FOR THE PAST WEEK. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING THE PUBLIC CARES ABOUT.
EVEN THE MOST SINCERE AND DILIGENT EFFORTS TOWARD BUILDING AN OPEN GOVERNMENT ARE FRAGILE AND CAN EASILY DRIFT ASTRAY. THE APPEARANCE OF A HEAVY-HANDED CITY HALL THAT RUNS ROUGHSHOD AND IGNORES CITIZENS VOICES IS WHAT EVERYONE WANTS FOR.
IT IS NOT WHAT ANYONE WANTS FOR GALVESTON.
IT'S UP TO ALL OF US TO KNOW THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF OUR COMMISSION AND BOARDS AND FOLLOW THEM.
LATER TODAY, I WILL REQUEST TWO AGENDA ITEMS FOR FUTURE.
THANK YOU, MA'AM. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS?
[00:05:10]
IF NOT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR FIRST ITEM.[6.A.1. 23P-057 (24502 Termini-San Luis Pass Road) 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 Tract 10-2 Acres 22.827, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: George Sims Property Owners: George And Ann Sims]
ALL RIGHTY. 203P-057 IS A24502 SAN LUIS PASS ROAD AS REQUEST FOR A MINOR PLAT FROM ONE LOT TO TWO LOTS.THERE ARE 20 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A MINOR PLAT TO INCREASE NUMBER OF LOTS FROM 1 TO 2.
THE EXISTING PARCEL IS UNDEVELOPED AND INCLUDES A LARGE BODY OF WATER OCCUPIES THE NORTHEAST CORNER.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE SURROUNDING AREA IS ZONED.
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS EITHER UNDEVELOPED OR CONTAINS SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS.
THE UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS ZONED RESORT RECREATION.
PLEASE ALSO NOTE THE PLAT APPROVAL CRITERIA IN THE STAFF REPORT.
SO HERE WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTED.
THERE YOU CAN SEE THAT MOST OF THE AREA IS ZONED.
R1 MAY BE A MISUNDERSTOOD MISHEARD THE.
THE CASE NUMBER THAT YOU CALL, BUT I THOUGHT YOU SAID 23P-058.
THIS IS FIVE SEVEN, I BELIEVE.
BUT IF I DID, WE'RE ON CASE 23P-057.
PLEASE LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT.
ALL RIGHT. SO HERE WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE THE PROPOSED REPLAT AND AN OVERLAY OF THE PROPOSED REPLAT APPROXIMATELY OVER THE AERIAL VIEW. JUST FOR CONTEXT.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, DANIEL. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 339.
IS THERE ANYBODY PRESENT WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? IF NOT, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING THE CASE BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A MOTION.
ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO 23P-036.
[7.A.1. 23P-036 (12215 Hershey Beach Drive, Lots 5 & 6, Galveston) Request For Beachfront Construction Certificate And Dune Protection Permit For Two New Single-Family Residences. The Properties Are Legally Described As Abstract 121, Hall & Jones Survey, Lot 5, Hershey Beach; And Abstract 121, Hall & Jones Survey, Lot 6, Hershey Beach; In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Suresh Shah Property Owner: Graniti Vicentia Realty LLC C/O Suresh Shah]
ALL RIGHTY. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.THE ADDRESS IS 12215 HERSHEY BEACH DRIVE, LOT FIVE AND LOT SIX.
THE PROPERTIES ARE LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS ABSTRACT 1 TO 1 HALL AND JONES SURVEY.
LOT FIVE HERSHEY BEACH AN ABSTRACT 1 TO 1.
LOT SIX HERSHEY BEACH, A SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE HERSHEY BEACH SUBDIVISION.
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE LOCATED TO THE NORTH, EAST AND WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
A BEACH AND DUNE SYSTEM IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS ERODING AT A RATE OF 6 TO 7FT PER YEAR.
STAFF IS PREPARED PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR VIEWING.
[00:10:08]
FOR LOT SIX. THE FOLLOWING SLIDE SHOWS THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION TO THE NORTH TOE OF THE DUNE WITH A DISTANCE OF 25FT AND A DISTANCE OF 79.5FT FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION. ON THE NEXT SLIDE ARE THE FRONT, LEFT, RIGHT AND REAR SIDE ELEVATIONS OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE FOR LOT SIX.FINALLY, WE HAVE PHOTOS OF THE SITE LOOKING SOUTH.
LOOKING EAST, LOOKING NORTH, AND THEN LOOKING NORTH FROM THE SOUTH OF THE LINE OF VEGETATION.
AT THIS POINT. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF REPORTS.
ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE ONE.
THEY ARE RECEIVED AND THEY ARE BECOME A PART OF THE RECORD.
QUESTION AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A CALL.
PUBLIC ACCESS, PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THE BEACH FROM A BEACHFRONT LOT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOME, IS IT? NO, SIR. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER ANY? YES, MA'AM. SO, I THINK WHAT RUSTY WAS KIND OF ALLUDING TO IS WE GOT A PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS THAT ADDRESSED THE WALKOVER.
AND OBVIOUSLY A WALKOVER IS NOT PART OF THIS APPLICATION.
CORRECT. AND THEN THE OTHER COMMENT THAT I WANT TO MAKE IS JUST TO YOU.
THIS IS THE THIRD TIME THAT I HAVE NOW REVIEWED ANYTHING RELATED TO THIS LOT.
THANK YOU FOR WORKING SO HARD TO GET SOMETHING ONTO THIS LOT THAT FITS WITHIN THE CRITERIA.
HOW MANY THANK YOUS? WAS THAT ENOUGH? THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? YES, SIR.
2200 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300.
FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
AS I'D LIKE TO ECHO COMMISSIONER HILL'S COMMENTS, THIS HAS BEEN A LONG PROCESS, AND WE BELIEVE THAT AS THE STAFF REPORT SHOWS, THE APPLICANT HAS GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND TO GET SOMETHING ON THIS LOT THAT IS OUT OF THE OUT OF THE DUNE PROTECTION AREA FURTHER THAN 25FT FROM THE NORTH COAST. AS COMMISSIONER HILL HAS INDICATED, THIS HAS BEEN BEFORE Y'ALL BEFORE.
THIS IS AN AMENDED APPLICATION THAT WE BELIEVE COMPLIES WITH THE CITY'S BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT RULES AND THAT WE ARE THAT MY CLIENT IS REQUESTING ONE TODAY. HE BUILT FIRST.
THIS IS IN KEEPING, WE BELIEVE, WITH THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THEN AS FAR AS THE DUNE WEAKENING, THERE'S NO INDICATION THAT THERE WILL BE ANY IMPACT TO THE DUNES BECAUSE AS WE'VE SAID AND AS STAFF HAS SAID, THIS IS MORE THAN 25FT FURTHER FROM THE DUNES OUT OF THE CRITICAL DUNE PROTECTION AREA.
AND HE'S HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS ON THE HOME OR ANYTHING.
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER.
IF THERE'S ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK SINCE MR. GUS IS DONE.
I DO HAVE A QUICK QUESTION, AND IT'S REALLY YOUR CLIENT DOESN'T NEED TO ANSWER IT.
[00:15:02]
CAN YOU GIVE ME A RANGE AS TO WHAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT COST? BECAUSE I HAVE NO IDEA.HE DOESN'T HAVE TO TELL ME, BUT I JUST.
OKAY. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT INFORMATION.
ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ANYBODY ELSE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE FROM THE PUBLIC? IF NOT, WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO COMMISSION FOR A MOTION.
COMMISSIONER PENA, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE.
23P-036. ANY DISCUSSION? I'D JUST LIKE TO AMEND THAT.
WE INCLUDE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS IN GLOW CONDITIONS FOR THIS PROPERTY IN OUR MOTION.
IF WE COULD DO THAT RIGHT, MR. PEÑA MADE THE MOTION FOR AS WRITTEN, AND THAT INCLUDES BOTH OF THOSE.
AND AS THE MOTION WAS MADE, THAT IS INCLUDED.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. YOU'RE WELCOME.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? IT'S UNANIMOUS. 23P-036 PASSES.
ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON. 23P-055.
[7.B.1. 23P-055 (13733 And 13751 Stewart Road) Request For A Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District For A Single-Family Residential Development. Property Is Legally Described As The W.O. Ranch Replat (2021), Abstract 121, Tracts A And B, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Michael Gaertner, Sr., Architect Property Owners: Rafiq Wazir Ali, ASSS Capital LLC]
OKAY. THIS IS 13733 AND 13751.STUART ROAD IS A REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
ONE RETURNED THAT ONE IN OPPOSITION.
NO OBJECTION FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS WITH COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
THOSE WERE INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT B.
THE REQUEST IS TO INCORPORATE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY BASED ZONING DISTRICT TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF.
I THINK IT'S GREATER THAN 19 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND A RESERVE.
THE INTENT OF THIS PUD IS TO DEVIATE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH, LOT DEPTH AND FRONT AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR A PRIVATE DRIVE.
AND THREE REDUCE THE PRIVATE DRIVE RIGHT OF WAY FROM 60FT TO 50FT.
THERE ARE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH.
THE TRACKS TO THE EAST AND WEST ARE COMPRISED OF INSTITUTIONAL USES AND OR UNDEVELOPED.
PLEASE NOTE INFORMATION ABOUT TREES AND WETLANDS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, ALONG WITH COMPATIBILITY WITH THE BASE ZONE ABILITY OF THE PROPERTY TO BE USED IN THE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT. DETAILS AND CRITERIA OF APPROVAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE 2011 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MEETS THE ABOVE REFERENCED CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.
FURTHERMORE, THE DEVIATIONS PROPOSED ARE COMPARABLE TO OTHER SUBDIVISIONS RECENTLY APPROVED IN THE VICINITY AND DOES NOT CREATE INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS IN THE AREA.
THIS IS AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE SITE LOCATION AND THEN WE HAVE THE PLAN SUBDIVISION LAYOUT THAT WAS PROVIDED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, ALONG WITH TYPICAL LOTS AND TYPICAL ELEVATIONS.
THAT'S THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST, PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, AND I THINK THAT'S THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, CATHERINE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? QUESTION FIRST.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I BELIEVE I'VE SEEN THAT ABOUT THE TREES.
WE DON'T HAVING A WOODED SITE IS VERY UNUSUAL.
SO YEAH, WE PROBABLY HAVEN'T SEEN IT.
[00:20:03]
IT'S JUST THAT THIS SITE SEEMS TO HAVE MORE OF A POSSIBILITY OF SIGNIFICANT TREES AND SOME OF THE OTHER SITES THAT WE'VE SEEN.I FOUND THAT INTERESTING THAT THAT'S THAT WAS NEW TO ME.
THE OTHER IS AND DID THE APPLICANT SUBMIT EXHIBIT A YES, THAT WORK THERE.
OKAY. I FOUND THAT INSIGHTFUL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE A COUPLE.
SO WE HAVE SOME COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC WORKS.
TALKING REALLY ABOUT REALLY A COUPLE THINGS.
A SOME OF ITS DRAINAGE AND THE INCORPORATION OF DETENTION.
THERE'S ALSO A COMMENT ABOUT SEWERAGE CAPACITY.
SO MY QUESTION IS, IS IF THESE GUYS HAVE TO MAKE IF SEWERAGE ISN'T THERE AND IT COMES LATER, I MEAN, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT 700 DAYS, SO THAT'S 200 TO 2 YEARS.
HOW DOES THAT HOW DOES THAT WORK? WELL, I CAN'T REALLY ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT SEWAGE CAPACITY.
OKAY. BECAUSE THEN MY NEXT ONE WOULD BE THERE'S DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE ANYTHING THERE AND MAYBE THE APPLICANT CAN ANSWER THE QUESTIONS REGARDING DETENTION. SO MY REAL QUESTION IS, IS IF WE IF THEY HAVE TO MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THEIR PLAN, EVEN THOUGH MOST LIKELY IF THEY HAD TO ADD DETENTION, IT WOULD PROBABLY LESSEN THE SIZE OF THE OF THE PROJECT.
AT WHAT POINT WOULD THEY HAVE TO COME BACK BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A WHAT'S CONSIDERED A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE WHERE WE WOULD WE WOULD HAVE TO SEE THAT THE CODE ALLOWS FOR STAFF TO APPROVE SOME MINOR CHANGES AND I'D HAVE TO LOOK THOSE UP.
BUT ADRIEL MONTALVAN MIGHT KNOW THOSE OFF THE TOP OF HIS HEAD.
IT'S TYPICALLY BEEN THINGS PERTAINING TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
I DON'T THINK YOUR MICS ON TYPICALLY GOING TO BE THINGS PERTAINING TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE STRUCTURES ITSELF NOT EXCEEDING 10%, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
AND AGAIN, IF IT'S A MINOR MODIFICATION, THEN THE STAFF HAS THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE ANYTHING THAT'S SUBSTANTIAL IN NATURE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION RATHER.
SO IF THEY WERE IF THEY DID HAVE TO INCORPORATE DETENTION.
THEREFORE, IT WOULD REQUIRE COMING BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR REVIEW.
THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? MAY I DO A FOLLOW UP? YES, MA'AM, PLEASE.
AS WOULD CHANGES TO NUMBER OF LOTS OR LOT SIZES.
ADRIAL. CORRECT. YEAH, BECAUSE.
BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE APPROVING A CONCEPT PLAN, WHICH IS A SITE PLAN.
WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 355.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? PLEASE COME FORWARD.
QUESTIONS FOR YOU. DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? OH, CERTAINLY. NO, GO AHEAD, MICHAEL.
ON ON THIS ONE, YOU SAY UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
IT'S LISTED IN OUR STAFF REPORT ON PAGE FOUR.
THE SMALLER LOT SIZE HAS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE FINAL SALES COST OF THE HOMES.
AND IT IS THE GOAL OF THIS DEVELOPMENT TO CREATE HOUSING FOR MIDDLE INCOME FAMILIES.
COULD YOU AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A REPRESENTATION THAT YOU GUYS MADE IN THE PRESENTATION THAT YOU GAVE FOR THIS STAFF REPORT OR IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT STAFF CAME UP WITH. SO CAME UP WITH THAT.
[00:25:02]
THESE HOUSES FALL OUT? PLEASE. SO, MY DEFINITION OF MIDDLE INCOME FOR GALVESTON IS BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WITH THE GDP AND THE CITIES, GALVESTON, CITY OF GALVESTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. AND WE BETWEEN TALKING TO THEM, I WOULD SAY THAT THE CONSENSUS IS THAT IT'S IN THE $500,000 RANGE.AND SO, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE MIDDLE INCOME TO ME, BUT I GUESS THAT'S WHAT MIDDLE INCOME IS TODAY.
I HEARD AT LEAST ONE COMMISSIONER GULP UP HERE.
AND THE PRICING ON THESE HOUSES FOR MIDDLE INCOME PEOPLE.
YEAH, THAT WOULD BE THE IDEA IS TO TRY TO STAY IN THE RANGE OF RIGHT AROUND $500,000.
OH, THAT'S THE PRICING ON THE HOUSES.
SO WHAT IS MIDDLE INCOME? SO WHAT IS WHAT IS SO SO WHAT IS THE ANNUAL INCOME FOR A MIDDLE INCOME FAMILY? WELL, I DID THAT MATH, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER IT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
OKAY. I CAN DO I CAN TELL YOU AGAIN IF YOU'LL GIVE ME JUST A SECOND.
THERE'S IN THE IN EXHIBIT A HERE.
THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. AND I SAW YOUR DIFFERENT KIND OF GREEN SPACE AREAS IN HERE.
AND THEN I WAS UNCLEAR ON THE THE MOCK UPS.
I SAW THE THE TREES, LIKE ON THE VIEW AT THE ENTRANCE FROM STEWART ROAD AND ALL OF THAT.
WHAT ABOUT ANY ADDITIONAL SCREENING? IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL SCREENING LIKE FROM THE ROAD OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? OR ARE WE JUST KEEPING AS MANY OF THE TREES THAT ARE ON THE SITE AS YOU GUYS CAN RETAINING THE TREES THAT YOU CAN? SO THIS SITE IS SET BACK ON THE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE STEWART ROAD SIDE, THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT RESERVE BETWEEN THE BETWEEN THE ROAD AND WHERE THE HOUSES START.
AND PART OF THAT IS OUR WETLANDS PRESERVATION AREA.
THERE'S ALSO SOME TREES AND THINGS IN THERE.
SO WE'RE GOING TO BE SET BACK A PRETTY GOOD WAYS FROM THE ROAD SHOULD LESSEN THE IMPACT ON THAT END AND PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING ON FM 305 SIDE.
THAT PROPERTY IS NOT OWNED BY BY THIS COMPANY.
IT'S OWNED BY SOMEONE ELSE, BUT IT'S ALMOST ENTIRELY WETLANDS.
SO, THE LIKELIHOOD OF THAT BEING DEVELOPED IN THE FUTURE IS PRETTY SLIM.
SO, Y'ALL ARE CONSIDERING THAT THERE'S JUST MINIMAL IMPACT SITE WISE, LIGHT WISE, EVERYTHING TO THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY IS WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAYING? CORRECT. OKAY.
OBVIOUSLY, YOU SAW THE THE THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT CAME IN TO THAT IS THAT IS NEVER ALLOWED.
I MEAN, NO ONE THROUGH THE CITY DEPARTMENTS WOULD EVER ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN.
SO ONCE WE HAVE TAKEN THIS STEP, ONE OF THE NEXT STEPS THAT WE WILL TAKE IS WHAT'S CALLED A HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY SURVEY, WHICH WILL HELP US DETERMINE WHAT WE NEED TO DO IN TERMS OF DRAINAGE.
WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY'S OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN, WE'RE PRETTY CLOSE TO THE BAY, SO IT MAY BE THAT THERE'S NOT A LOT OF DETENTION REQUIRED DEPENDING ON THE CAPACITY OF THE DITCHES AND THE THINGS THAT ARE THERE ALREADY.
THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? NO, THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHTY. BUT NOT FOR HIM.
I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
WHY DON'T WE TELL YOU WHAT? I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IS THE PARKING REQUIREMENT IS ONE PARKING SPACE PER HOUSE, IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK I READ THAT.
SO ARE YOU PARKED THE YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THESE SO YOU HAVE A 50 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY, A 28 FOOT WIDE ROAD BED.
AND THEN THERE'S LIKE ANOTHER SIX FEET, BUT THEN THERE'S ONLY 15FT.
SO YOU BASICALLY END UP WITH 21FT BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND THE SIDEWALK.
[00:30:01]
SO THAT'S PRETTY TIGHT FOR PARKING.IF YOU WERE TO PUT A DRIVEWAY IN FRONT OF EACH HOUSE, BECAUSE WHEN THE WHEN THE LOTS GET 40FT WIDE AND YOU TRY AND PUT TWO PARKING SPACES IN A IN FRONT OF A HOUSE, IT GETS PRETTY TIGHT ON ON STREET PARKING.
SO MY I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS YEAH, YOU MEET THE MINIMUM OF ONE, BUT YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO, THAT HOUSE IS GOING TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE CAR PARKED AT IT.
CARS ARE SIX FEET, ROUGHLY SIX FEET WIDE.
SO. SO YOU CAN LOAD THEM UNDERNEATH ALMOST.
YEAH. WELL, OF COURSE THEY'LL BE LOADED UNDERNEATH.
OKAY. YEAH. BECAUSE IF YOU LOAD THEM UNDERNEATH, YOU HAVE PLENTY OF ROOM.
I JUST KNOW THAT IT'S THE MINIMUM IS ONE, BUT ONE'S REALLY VERY MINIMAL.
PRETTY WELL GUARANTEE THERE WILL BE MORE THAN ONE.
SO THAT'S SO THAT'S, THAT'S ALL GOOD.
YOU GUYS HAVE AN AC, YOU HAVE AN ARMY CORPS PERMIT.
OBVIOUSLY YOU HAD THOSE WETLANDS DELINEATED.
VERIFIED. THAT'S THAT'S ALL GOOD STUFF.
TOOK YOU A LITTLE WHILE TO DO IT.
15 MONTHS. SO THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS THAT CAME TO US.
I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP THAT YOU GUYS WENT THROUGH, ALL WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS.
THE RESERVES THAT ARE IN THOSE THAT YOU HAVE MARKED AS RESERVES.
ARE THOSE GOING TO BE PLATTED AS WETLAND RESERVES OR OPEN SPACE RESERVES? THEY'RE NOT RESERVES FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
WOULD THAT BE RESERVES FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT? NO, THEY'LL BE EITHER OPEN SPACE OR WETLAND RESERVES.
OKAY. THEN THEN THE LAST WAS THE DETENTION.
AND I AGAIN, THE COMMENT, YOU KNOW, OUR CITY ENGINEER, THOSE GUYS ARE PRETTY RIGOROUS.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO LET YOU GO DRAIN ON THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY, BUT THEY ARE ASKING FOR SOME DRAINAGE EASEMENTS AND THE ODDS WE MAY NEED TO HAVE.
YEAH, SO AND THAT'S WHAT PROMPTED MY QUESTION BEFORE.
SO I WAS JUST BRINGING THAT UP REALLY IS, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU GUYS HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT? AND REALLY BRINGS ME TO THE QUESTION.
I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU'D BE ABLE TO GO PUT THAT DETENTION IN THOSE RESERVES.
CAN'T CAN'T DIG UP ANY CAN'T FILL WETLANDS.
AND AS FAR AS I KNOW, YOU CAN'T DIG THEM UP EITHER.
OKAY, VERY GOOD. THAT'S ALL I HAD.
ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.
AGAIN, IF THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT FOR THIS AREA IS 5000FT², WHY IS THAT THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT? OKAY.
THAT'S THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT FOR ALL THE R1 ZONING DISTRICT.
WHAT IS THE INTENT OF THAT? NOT TO HAVE HIGH DENSITY 3000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS ALL CRAMMED IN TOGETHER? YEAH. LOT SIZE IS A FUNCTION OF DENSITY.
WE'D SEE THAT AS. WE WILL DISCUSS THAT.
I'M SORRY. DID YOU GET YOUR QUESTION ANSWERED? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT.
ANYBODY ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? IF NOT, WE'LL BRING THIS BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A VOTE FOR.
CAN I HAVE JUST A SECOND? CERTAINLY. TO REVIEW SOMETHING BEFORE I MAKE A MOTION, MAYOR, BECAUSE I MIGHT WANT TO AMEND SOMETHING BEFORE WE MAKE THE MOTION.
OR WE CAN ALWAYS HAVE AN AMENDED MOTION, WHICHEVER WAY YOU WANT TO DO IT.
UM. IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO MAKE THE MOTION, THEN I CAN GO BACK AND AMEND IT IF YOU WANT TO.
BUT I WILL HAVE A SPECIFIC CONDITION THAT I WANT TO ADD, I THINK.
SO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER HILL.
I WOULD LIKE FOR THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER OR LET'S DISCUSS, PLEASE, AND LET ME SEE HOW YOU ALL FEEL ABOUT THIS AND THEN MAYBE WE WANT TO CONSIDER AND I MIGHT NEED SOME ADVICE FROM LEGAL ON THIS, PLEASE, MISS FAIRWEATHER
[00:35:09]
FROM STAFF ON THIS.THE RESERVES THAT ARE ON THERE, WE SEE RESERVES DESIGNATED UP THERE ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW.
AND WE HEARD MR. GARDNER SAY THAT THOSE WOULD BE EITHER GREEN SPACE OR WHATEVER, THAT THEY WOULD BE NON BUILDABLE, THAT THEY WOULD NEVER BE DEVELOPED.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE SOMEHOW DESIGNATED AND SPECIFIED AS NOT BUILDABLE OR NOT BEING ABLE TO BE DEVELOPED IN THE FUTURE. CAN WE MAKE SOME KIND OF DESIGNATION ON IN THIS POD TO SPECIFICALLY CALL FOR THAT, THAT THOSE THAT THOSE RESERVES THAT ARE ON THERE WOULD NOT SPECIFICALLY WOULD NOT BE DEVELOPABLE IN THE FUTURE? SO I THINK IT BEING CLASSIFIED AS A RESERVE IS A RESERVE.
I DON'T THINK THIS COMMISSION AND I PROBABLY HAVE TO INVESTIGATE THIS A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, BUT MY MIND IS TELLING ME THAT I DON'T THINK THAT YOU CAN JUST DESIGNATE AN AREA ON SOMEONE'S PRIVATE PROPERTY AS NON BUILDABLE.
IT IS A IT IS A WELL THEN COULD WE SAY THAT WOULD BE WHEN WE PLAT IT IN MIND. SO, SO SO MY MY THOUGHTS ARE THIS AND I'M GOING TO RUN THIS PAST YOU WHEN THE PROPERTY ONCE THEY GET TO THE NEXT STEP AND THEY GET A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD, THE NEXT STEP THAT COMES BACK TO US, ASSUMING THAT IT GOES TO COUNCIL AND IS APPROVED, IS PLATTING.
THEY WOULD PRESENT US WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT.
RESERVES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE LABELED AS TO WHAT THEIR USE IS.
SO. POSSIBLY TO GET WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.
WE WOULD HAVE THAT INCLUDED IN THE PLATTING PROCESS IN LIEU OF THE PUTT.
SO OKAY. I THINK I'M SEEING A LOT OF SHAKING HEADS, THUMBS UP, YESES, YESES.
THANK YOU. THIS WORKED OUT WELL AND IT WOULD COME AS A PRELIMINARY.
LOOK, JUST LOOK AT YOU, MR. WALLA. TOMORROW'S ANOTHER DAY, JEFFREY.
WITH THAT, EVEN THOUGH YOU, YOU KNOW, DIDN'T.
DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING, YOU GAVE ME THE THUMBS UP.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL THOSE OPPOSED.
SO WE HAVE FOUR IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED MOTION PASSES.
ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO £0.23 DASH.
[7.C.1. 23P-056 (1102 Seawall, 1128 Seawall, 1101 Avenue M ½, 1111 Avenue M ½, 1113 Avenue M ½, 1115 Avenue M ½, 1410 12th Street, And Adjacent Vacant Parcel) Request For A Minor Plat To Decrease The Number Of Lots From Nine To One. Properties Are Legally Described As: M. B. Menard Survey, North Part Of Lot 8, Southeast Block 23, Galveston Outlots; M. B. Menard Survey, Lots 11 Through 14 And Part Of Lots 9 And 10, Southeast Block 23, Galveston Outlots, And North ½ Of Adjacent Avenue N; M. B. Menard Survey, Lot 7, Southeast Block 23, Galveston Outlots; M. B. Menard Survey, Lot 6 And East 1/2 Of Lot 5, Southeast Block 23, Galveston Outlots; M. B. Menard Survey, West 1/2 Of Lot 5 (3005-1), Southeast Block 23, Galveston Outlots; M. B. Menard Survey, East 1/2 Of Lot 4 (3004-2) Southeast Block 23, Galveston Outlots; M. B. Menard Survey, West 1/2 of Lot 4 (3004-1), Southeast Block 23, Galveston Outlots; and M. B. Menard Survey, Lots 1, 2, and 3, Southeast Block 23; Galveston Outlots. Applicant: Keith Guindon, Katie’s Seafood Restaurant, LLC. Property Owner: Katie’s Seafood Restaurant, LLC.]
056. ALL RIGHTY.THIS IS ANOTHER REPLAY AT 1128 SEAWALL AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
I THINK PROBABLY PLANNING COMMISSION IS FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROPERTY.
YOU'VE SEEN SOME OTHER PROPOSALS IN THE PAST.
THIS TIME THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A MINOR PLAT FROM NINE LOTS TO ONE LOT.
THERE ARE 36 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES CONSIST OF NINE EXISTING LOTS, WHICH IS LOCATED WITHIN TWO DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS, EITHER URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMERCIAL HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE. THREE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A MINOR PLAT TO DECREASE THE NUMBER OF LOTS FROM 9 TO 1 IN ORDER TO FACILITATE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
THE REQUEST IS ALSO TO INCORPORATE A PRE A PREVIOUSLY ABANDONED ALLEY RIGHT OF WAY AND A PREVIOUSLY ABANDONED PART OF AVENUE IN THE LOTS ARE ALL CURRENTLY VACANT BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE THAN FOUR LOTS INVOLVED IN THE REQUEST.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE SURROUNDING AREA IS PARTIALLY ZONED URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT ONE AND PARTIALLY COMMERCIAL HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE. THREE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS LIE TO THE NORTH AND TO THE WEST AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LIES TO BOTH THE EAST AND THE WEST.
THERE IS, OF COURSE, NO DEVELOPMENT SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE ALONG THE SEAWALL.
THREE HISTORIC AERIAL IMAGERY IN THE CASE OF PARCEL SEVEN ALL BEEN VACANT SINCE 2016 OR BEFORE.
[00:40:01]
NOTE AGAIN, THE PROPOSED REPLAT INCLUDES TWO RIGHTS OF WAY THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY ABANDONED BY CITY ORDINANCE, ONE INVOLVING AVENUE IN IN 1995 AND THEN THE ALLEY ABANDONED IN 2021. PROPOSED LOT WILL HAVE ACCESS TO EXISTING MUNICIPAL WATER AND SEWER LINES LOCATED IN 11TH STREET 12TH STREET.MID-BLOCK ALLEY RIGHTS OF WAY SANITARY SEWER LINE IS LOCATED IN THE MID-BLOCK ALLEY AS WELL.
PUBLIC WORKS SAYS REQUIRED A 20 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT TO PRESERVE ACCESS TO THAT UTILITY AND OF COURSE, ANY RELOCATION OF THOSE UTILITIES AS NEEDED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO THE DEVELOPER.
AND I WILL NOTE THAT EARLIER TODAY A PLAT WAS PROVIDED TO US THAT INCLUDES THAT REQUEST, THE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT LOT REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY MINIMUM OF 40 FOOT WIDE, MINIMUM 100 FOOT LONG MINIMUM 4000 SQUARE FOOT.
THE MINOR PLAT MEETS OR EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR BOTH THESE ZONING DISTRICTS PROPOSED LOT WILL BE OVER 378FT WIDE AT ITS WIDEST POINT OVER 168 FOOT LONG AT ITS NARROWEST POINT, AND OVER 85,000 SQUARE FOOT IS SHOWN IN THE STAFF REPORT.
PLEASE NOTE THE PLAT APPROVAL CRITERIA IN THE STAFF REPORT AS WELL.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THE REQUEST BE APPROVED WITH A SPECIFIC CONDITION.
ONE. THE APPLICANT SHALL ACCOMMODATE THE FILING OF THE PLAT BY FEBRUARY 22ND, 2024 AND TWO 20 FOOT WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE ABANDONED MID-BLOCK ALLEY TO PRESERVE ACCESS TO UTILITIES PLUS STANDARD CONDITIONS THREE THROUGH FOUR.
SO HERE OF COURSE, WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES.
AND YOU CAN SEE THE MID-BLOCK ALLEY THAT WAS ABANDONED BY CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE IN 2021.
AND THE PORTION OF I BELIEVE THAT'S AVENUE N THAT WAS ABANDONED BY ORDINANCE IN 1995.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE THE EXISTING SURVEY SHOWING THE MULTITUDE OF LOTS INVOLVED AND THE ALLEYS AND RIGHT OF WAYS INVOLVED A PREVIOUSLY ALLEYS AND RIGHT OF WAYS.
AND OF COURSE, THE PROPOSED REPLAT.
AND WE HAVE THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, TO THE EAST, TO THE SOUTH, TO THE WEST.
AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE ONE, DANIEL.
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE ZONING ON THIS WHEN IT BECOMES ONE LOT? THE ZONING REMAINS UNCHANGED.
OF COURSE, ZONING WOULD BE A SEPARATE REQUEST SHOULD THAT EVER BE MADE.
AT THIS POINT, IT'S JUST A REPLAT REQUEST AND UNDERSTOOD.
I MEAN, WHICH. YES, I GUESS FOR FOR STAYING IN MY LANE.
AND THERE'S A PROCESS FOR ALL OF THIS, BUT I AM CURIOUS WHERE WE'VE TAKEN MULTIPLE LOTS WITH DIFFERENT ZONING RESTRICTIONS AND WE'RE CHANGING THEM.
SO I'M GOING TO MAKE AN ASSUMPTION AND I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF I'M CORRECT THAT THE STUFF IN THE FRONT WOULD STILL BE COMMERCIAL AND THE STUFF IN THE BACK WOULD STILL BE UN YEAH, CORRECT. SO, YOU KNOW, THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED WOULD BE RESPECTIVE OF THOSE PARTICULAR ZONING.
SO THEY WOULD STILL BE KIND OF THEY'RE SEPARATE THINGS REGARDLESS OF WHERE PROPERTY LINES ARE.
RIGHT. AND THEY COULD ALWAYS COME AND ASK FOR A REZONING OR A PUD.
SO, I MEAN, THAT'S SOME OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO THEM.
OKAY. THAT'S THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I HAD.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
ALL RIGHT. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? YES, SIR. YOU'D LIKE TO COME UP AND TELL US? I MEAN, YOU. HOW SHRIMPIN.
PERFECT. RED SNAPPER AND GROUPER.
A LITTLE BIT. I STARTED OUT THAT WHEN I WAS A YOUNG MAN.
AND WE HAVE A RESTAURANT DOWN THERE IN PIER 19, I'M SURE YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH.
WE WANT TO BE UP ON THE SEAWALL AND WE DON'T WANT TO PISS ANYBODY OFF IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'VE BEEN HERE A LONG TIME AND IT'S ONE THING YOU DON'T WANT TO DO IN GALVESTON.
SO WE'RE MOVING SLOWLY AND CAUTIOUSLY.
AND I KNOW A LOT OF THE NEIGHBORS AND THEY'RE VERY HAPPY WE'RE GOING TO DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY BECAUSE I DON'T THINK I'LL DO ANYTHING TO OBSTRUCT ANYBODY'S VIEW OR USE OR I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO INTERFERE WITH ANYBODY'S HAPPINESS.
SO HOPEFULLY YOU'LL PASS ME ON TO THE NEXT STEP OF REZONING.
I'M TOLD I NEED TO REZONE TO MAKE A PARKING LOT THERE, SO THAT'LL BE PART OF THE NEXT STEP.
THIS IS MY FIRST TIME DOING SOMETHING BIG, SO IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LONG TIME.
AND YOU KNOW, I WILL TELL YOU, I THINK WE DIDN'T THIS ONE HAVE A CONVENIENCE STORE OR SOMETHING?
[00:45:04]
YEAH. OH, YEAH. SO, YOU KNOW, YOUR YOUR COMMENTS.YEAH. SO I WOULD TELL YOU YOUR, YOUR, YOU KNOW WHAT? IF YOUR NEIGHBORS, YOUR NEIGHBORS JUST WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU AND I THINK YOU KNOW THAT.
SO I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.
AND I'LL JUST I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT.
BUT YES, MA'AM, CAN YOU SAY THIS NAME FOR THE RECORD? YEAH. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
MY NAME IS KEITH GLENNON, BUT EVERYBODY CALLS ME BUDDY.
OH, WELL, I CAME UNPREPARED FOR THAT.
THERE YOU GO. RIGHT THERE. IT MAKES YOU FEEL ANY BETTER.
OH, HERE YOU GO. OH, THERE IS ONE RIGHT HERE.
THANK YOU, THOUGH. THANK YOU, BUDDY.
APPRECIATE YOU COMING DOWN TO SEE US.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? YES, SIR. YOU ALREADY KNOW WHO I AM.
I'M MICHAEL GERTNER, ARCHITECT.
AND OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE SO IN FAVOR OF LOCAL BUSINESSES GROWING AND EXPANDING.
AND MY CLIENT, AL WALLACE, OWNS SOME PROPERTY DOWN THE STREET.
WE'RE JUST SO THRILLED FOR KATIE SEAFOOD AND AND ARE HAPPY SO HAPPY ABOUT THEIR SUCCESS AND AND WISH THEM THE VERY BEST AND HOPE THAT YOU WILL VOTE TO APPROVE THIS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? YES, SIR. PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN.
AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ANY VIEW OR ANY YOU KNOW, I GOT THE LETTER IN THE MAIL.
MY NEIGHBORS GOT THE LETTER IN THE MAIL.
I SPOKE WITH THEM. AND AS FAR AS I KNOW, NOBODY HAS ANY NEGATIVE THING TO SAY.
SO WITH THAT SAID, I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
I HAVE OWNED THE 10TH STREET FOR TEN YEARS.
I'VE ONLY CAME UP HERE ONE TIME TO SPEAK AND ONE TWO TIMES I'M GOING TO SAY THAT PRIETO BEACH.
I'M GOING TO LEAVE THAT ONE OUT.
BUT NOW PLEASURE PIER SYNONYMOUS WITH THE NAME GALVESTON.
THE JOBS, THE COMMUNITY EVERYTHING'S GREAT.
ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 420 AND BRING IT BACK TO COMMISSION FOR MOTION.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE £0.23 056 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE? YES, MA'AM. I WANT TO SAY HOW MUCH I APPRECIATE A LOCAL BUSINESS COMING FORWARD AND BEING UPFRONT ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE DOING IN THIS ON THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL.
AND I THINK THAT PART OF THE PROBLEM THAT WE'VE HAD ON THIS PARCEL BEFORE IS MAYBE SOMEBODY'S NOT BEING QUITE AS FORTHRIGHT. SO AND I AND I KNOW THAT YOU WILL BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND TALK WITH THE PEOPLE AROUND YOU AS YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH PLANS.
ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? IF NOT, LET'S TAKE A VOTE.
SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO TO 20 3P-058.
[7.C.2. 23P-058 (2514 105th Street / Broome Road) Request For Replat To Increase The Number Of Lots From One To Five. The Property Is Legally Described As The Hall And Jones Survey, Lots 2 And 3 (2-1), Martinez Estates (2005) And Adjacent Private Road, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Jennifer Grant, High Tide Land Surveying, LLC Property Owner: David M. Martinez]
MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU.[00:50:02]
IT'S A BIG THING.20 3-2058 IS 2514 105TH STREET, ALSO KNOWN AS BROOME ROAD.
THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS FROM PRIVATE UTILITIES OR CITY DEPARTMENTS.
HOWEVER, YOU DID RECEIVE A MEMO BEFORE THE MEETING WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THE CURRENT CONDITIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT OF THE APPROVAL CONDITIONS OF THIS REPORT, AND WE WILL GET TO THOSE AS WE CONTINUE ON WITH THIS SUMMARY OF THE REPORT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REPLAT IN THIS CASE TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF LOTS FROM ONE LOT TO FIVE AND A PORTION.
IT ALSO INVOLVES A PORTION OF ONE ROAD IN A SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL OR ONE ZONING DISTRICT.
AS NOTED IN THE R ONE ADDENDUM NOTE TEN.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS A 1.13 ACRE TRACT.
THE GENERAL VICINITY IS COMPRISED OF MOSTLY RESIDENTIAL USES AND A NEW SMALL SCALE SUBDIVISION THAT WAS RECENTLY APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION WILL BE DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH ON ONE ROAD. PLEASE NOTE THE PLOT APPROVAL CRITERIA ON PAGE TWO OF YOUR REPORT AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN AMENDED AS INCLUDED IN YOUR MEMO.
THE TWO NEW CONDITIONS ADDED ARE CONDITIONS ARE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS TWO AND THREE.
SO WITH THIS APPROVAL, WE'LL INCLUDE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS LISTED IN YOUR MEMO ONE THROUGH THREE AND STANDARD CONDITIONS TWO THROUGH I'M SORRY, WILL BE FOUR AND FIVE NOW.
AND NOW WE HAVE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS.
THIS IS AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
LOOKING AT THE VICINITY TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND WEST.
AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER HILL ADRIEL, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.
OTHER WERN ROAD SUBDIVISION WE'VE SEEN RECENTLY.
DOES IT CORRECT? COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF THAT? CORRECT. THANK YOU.
GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
IS THIS PARCEL PREVIOUSLY PLATTED? YES, IT WAS. OKAY.
UM, IS THERE CITY SEWER HERE? I BELIEVE SO.
ROBERT DID NOT INDICATE ANY ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT, SO.
ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT, THEN WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 425.
COMMISSIONER PENA. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE 20 3-058 AS WRITTEN.
SO THAT THAT'S THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE TO APPROVE 20 3P-058 AS PRESENTED.
CAN WE CLARIFY THAT? IT'S INCLUDING THE CONDITIONS STATED IN THE.
THANK YOU. SO WHY DON'T YOU JUST START? TELL YOU WHAT? YOU NEED TO WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION.
I WILL WITHDRAW MY MOTION AND THEN MAKE ANOTHER ONE.
AND I WILL NOW MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE.
20 3P-058 WITH THE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CITY ADDED ADDED TO US OR GIVEN TO US ON THIS MEMORANDUM HERE.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE 20 3P-058 WITH CITY RECOMMENDATIONS, INCLUDING THOSE PRESENTED IN THE MEMORANDUM DATED AUGUST THE 22ND.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. WE'LL TAKE A VOTE.
[00:55:02]
SO MOVING ON, WE'RE GOING TO 20 3P-059.[7.C.3. 23P-059 (17207 San Luis Pass Road / FM 3005) Request For Replat To Increase The Number Of Lots From One To Three. The Property Is Legally Described As Sandy Shores (2003), Abstract 121, Lot 1, Acres 2.310, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Jason Barringer, South Texas Surveying Property Owner: Rockstar Properties, LLC]
THIS IS LOCATED AT 17207 SAINT LOUIS PASS ROAD.THE SUBJECT SITE IS A 2.31 ACRE TRACT AND AN R1 ZONING DISTRICT.
PLEASE NOTE THE PLAT APPROVAL CRITERIA ON PAGE TWO OF YOUR STAFF REPORT AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REPLAT REQUEST WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. THERE IS ONLY ONE SPECIFIC CONDITION AND STANDARD CONDITIONS TWO THROUGH THREE OF YOUR STAFF REPORT PAGES TWO AND THREE.
AND NOW WE HAVE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS.
THIS IS AN AERIAL MAP ZONING MAP OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
UH, THIS IS A SUBJECT PROPERTY.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, WE'LL OPEN THE.
YES, MA'AM. ADRIEL, AS YOU STATED, ALL OF THESE LOTS ARE EXCEED THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT SIZE FOR AN R ONE, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. AND WE RECEIVED ONE COMMENT THAT WAS IN OPPOSITION TO THAT INTO THIS IN.
THAT ONE ONE LETTER THAT WAS OPPOSED TO THIS CASE.
AND THEIR POINT OF OPPOSITION WAS THAT THE THE SUBDIVISION AROUND IT OR THE HOUSES AROUND IT, IT WASN'T IN KEEPING WITH THOSE.
YES. AND TO TAKE IT EVEN A STEP FURTHER, THE LOTS ARE, YOU KNOW, HAVE A BIG ENOUGH SQUARE FOOTAGE TO ACCOMMODATE SEPTIC BECAUSE THEY DO NOT THEY ARE NOT SERVED BY SEWER CITY SEWER OUT THERE.
WE READ IT AND WE CONSIDERED IT.
ALL RIGHT. YES, GO AHEAD, STAN.
CONCERNING THE REMAINING AREA OF THE LOT TO THE NORTH, I ASSUME THAT GIVEN WHERE THE DUNE LOCATION IS, I COULDN'T REALLY READ IT ON THE.
ON THE STAFF REPORT THAT, WELL, THERE IS SUFFICIENT AREA FOR A SIMILAR SIZED HOUSE.
YEAH. NORTH OF THE LINE PROTECTION LINE.
WELL YEAH, IT'S LET'S SEE HERE LET ME LOOK AT THE SURVEY.
WELL YEAH, WELL IT'S A, I MEAN IT'S A IT'S A 549 FOOT DEEP LOT, SO IT'S PLENTY OF ROOM THERE.
GOOD QUESTION, THOUGH. ALL RIGHT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 430.
ANYBODY WISH TO COMMENT? SEEING NO ONE'S PRESENT, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A VOTE.
FOR A MOTION. I'LL PICK ONE IN A MINUTE.
YES, MA'AM. I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE.
£0.23 059 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
SECOND MOTION'S BEEN MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE.
ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. WE'LL TAKE A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? IT'S UNANIMOUS. £0.23 DASH, 059 PASSES.
MOVING ON TO THE DISCUSSION ITEMS.
[8.A. Planning Commission Vacancy And Reappointments (Staff)]
PLANNING COMMISSION VACANCY AND REAPPOINTMENTS.CATHERINE, IS THAT YOU? YES. THE CHAIRPERSON ASKED THAT WE LOOK INTO VACANCIES AND REAPPOINTMENTS.
SO SADLY COMMISSIONER HILL IS TERM LIMITED.
[01:00:04]
SHE DOESN'T SEEM THAT SAD ABOUT IT, BUT WOO HOO! OH, WE'RE GOING TO MISS YOU.SO THAT WILL BE A VACANT POSITION UP FOR APPOINTMENT.
SO WE WILL HAVE AT LEAST TWO NEW MEMBERS COMING IN THE FALL.
I HAVE AN INTERVIEW, SO THAT'LL BE FUN.
WHEN ARE THEY OR THE PUBLIC? WHEN ARE WHEN ARE APPLICATIONS DUE AND WHEN WILL INTERVIEWS BE? AND WILL WILL COUNCIL BE INTERVIEWING AND WHEN? WHEN IS YOUR INTERVIEW? SO I WAS I SENT MINE.
I WAS SENT NOTICE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE HAVING INTERVIEWS PROBABLY MID SEPTEMBER.
I WOULD MAKE NOTE THAT I'M SURPRISED THAT I'VE BEEN HERE THREE YEARS AND I'M ASKING FOR THREE MORE.
AND WE DO HAVE SOME VACANCIES.
WE ALL BRING SOMETHING DIFFERENT TO THE COMMISSION.
ONE THING I HAVE LEARNED IS THAT WE DON'T ALL HAVE TO AGREE, BUT WE DO ALL HAVE TO GET ALONG.
AND IF YOU'RE OUT THERE AND YOU'RE CONSIDERING PUTTING YOUR NAME IN THE HAT, WE'D LOVE TO HAVE YOU.
AND ANY PERSON WHO IS INTERESTED CAN MAKE AN APPLICATION THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CATHERINE.
NO SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS? NO, THERE ARE NO SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS.
SOME BOARDS DO CARRY A CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS, LIKE THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, BUT NOT COUNCIL.
I MEAN, NOT PLANNING COMMISSION.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS? COMMISSIONER HILL? I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE TWO AGENDA ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS, PLEASE.
ONE, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT ALL COMMISSIONERS AND THIS ONE I THINK PROBABLY I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU ALL TO CONSIDER, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S PROPER FOR ME TO ASK FOR AN AGENDA ITEM THAT WILL COME UP AFTER I LEAVE THE COMMISSION.
DONNA BUT I WOULD ASK THEN PERHAPS THE CHAIRMAN TO CONSIDER THIS, THAT AFTER THE NEW COMMISSIONERS ARE APPOINTED, THAT YOU HAVE ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS GO THROUGH THE BYLAWS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. CATHERINE I GOT THIS WHEN I WENT.
WHEN ARE YOU GIVING US HOMEWORK? YES, AFTER YOU'RE LEAVING? YES, I AM.
THAT YOU ALL GO THAT YOU ALL GET THE BYLAWS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, READ THEM AND LEARN THEM.
AND THEN SECONDLY, THAT WE ADD AN AGENDA ITEM FOR REVIEWING THE GLOW RESPONSE TO THE THREE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE DUNE PROTECTION AND BEACH ACCESS PLAN.
WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO ASK DIRECTOR A QUICK QUESTION? AND IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT WE DID RECEIVE YOUR LETTER THAT YOU GUYS GOT FROM THE GLOW, AND IT APPEARS YOU GUYS HAVE SOME WORK TO DO.
AS YOU KNOW, WE'VE MADE SOME CHANGES THAT NOW PLANNING COMMISSION IS IN THE PROCESS AND I'D REALLY JUST LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THAT PROCESS WORKS.
IT'S LIKE, HEY, PLANNING COMMISSIONS NOW IN THE LOOP.
SO MY QUESTION IS, I UNDERSTAND WHERE COMMISSIONER HILL IS COMING FROM AND ADDING THAT AS A DISCUSSION ITEM.
I JUST WANT SOMETHING TO DISCUSS.
BUT BEFORE WE EVEN START THAT, I JUST KIND OF LIKE TO HAVE AN IDEA.
DIV, WHAT'S THE PROTOCOL? WHAT'S THE PECKING ORDER IN THAT? SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO AT A DISCUSSION THAT YOU GUYS CAN GIVE IT TO US BRIEFLY.
NOW I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU GUYS WANT TO HANDLE THAT, SO THAT'S MY QUESTION.
IT'S NOT A POSTED ITEM, SO I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO IT NOW.
WOULD YOU HAVE SOMETHING FOR US TO DISCUSS AT OUR NEXT MEETING?
[01:05:01]
DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT YET.IS OUR NEXT MEETING OR OUR NEXT MEETING IS SEPTEMBER THE 19TH.
SEPTEMBER? THERE'S NO MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 5TH.
CATHERINE, DID. DID WE CANCEL THAT MEETING? YEAH, IT'S ON THE SCHEDULE.
OKAY. OKAY, SO, COMMISSIONER HILL, JUST.
I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS, SO.
OR HAVE SOME IDEA WHAT THE DISCUSSION IS INSTEAD OF US HAVING JUST A ROUNDABOUT.
SO THAT'S WHAT BRINGS ME TO THE QUESTION OF IF YOU WANT TO ADD IT TO THE AGENDA, GO AHEAD, STAN, HELP ME.
WELL, I WAS THINKING MORE MORE ALONG THE LINES OF A WORKSHOP SO THAT WE COULD KIND OF LOOK AT THIS, EXAMINE IT, EXAMINE THESE LETTERS A LITTLE BIT CLOSER AND SEE HOW THE INTERACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS WITH THE RESPONSE FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
AND SO WHAT MY SUGGESTION IS, IS STAFF HAS HEARD THE REQUEST AND THEY'LL BE ABLE TO PRESENT WHATEVER THEY CAN PRESENT AT THE NEXT UPCOMING MEETING.
A WORKSHOP IS NOT APPROPRIATE.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION HASN'T BEEN GIVEN ANY DIRECTION FROM CITY COUNCIL YET TO WORK ON WHATEVER HAS BEEN SUGGESTED IN THE LETTER.
AND I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO SPECIFICS BECAUSE IT'S REALLY NOT A POSTED ITEM, BUT I DO BELIEVE STAFF HAS HEARD THAT YOU GUYS ARE INTERESTED AND AS MUCH INFORMATION THAT CAN BE PRESENTED TO PLANNING COMMISSION AS THEY WORK THROUGH IT, I THINK THEY'RE AMENABLE TO EITHER UPDATING IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING OR JUST SAYING MAYBE IN OCTOBER OR WHENEVER A FUTURE TIME IS, THEY'RE AVAILABLE TO TO TO GIVE MORE INFORMATION ON THE TOPIC.
AND OF COURSE, CITY COUNCIL, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY WOULD BE APPRIZED OF STEPS GOING FORWARD.
AND YOU DO HAVE AN EX OFFICIO TO ASSIST YOU IN THAT AS WELL.
I'LL BE EXPECTING A CALL WITH ME AFTER THE MEETING AND WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT IT.
I SAW YOU EX-OFFICIO, SO I JUST HAD TO THROW YOU IN THERE.
I JUST WILL GO BACK TO THE LAST TOPIC THAT THE CITY SECRETARY SENT ME AN EMAIL THAT SAYS THAT PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATIONS ARE DUE AUGUST 31ST AND THEN THE INTERVIEWS WILL BE HELD SEPTEMBER 14TH AND APPOINTMENTS MADE ON SEPTEMBER 21ST.
GOT IT. I DON'T THINK YOU GOT AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION OR YOU'RE WANTING TO ADD A DISCUSSION ITEM.
BUT ARE YOU YOU'RE YOU'RE REQUESTING THE ADDITION OF A DISCUSSION ITEM TO THE NEXT AGENDA, IS THAT CORRECT? RIGHT. AND THEN AND IT REQUIRES YOU CAN SAY WHATEVER THEY CAN SAY OR NOT SAY, BUT IT DOES REQUIRE A SECOND FROM ANOTHER COMMISSIONER IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA. IS THAT CORRECT? BUT WE ALREADY HAVE THAT.
NO, I MEAN, IT WILL BE ON THE AGENDA.
AND THEN THEY CAN SAY WHATEVER THEY CAN SAY.
IS THAT WHERE WE ARE? I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THAT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE. SO AS WE DISCUSS THIS IN SOME DETAIL, GUYS.
YEAH. NO, SO I'M THERE'S A REQUEST TO ADD A DISCUSSION ITEM TO THE AGENDA.
HAS THAT BEEN WILL THAT BE ADDED TO OUR NEXT AGENDA? AS WITH. REQUEST FOR AGENDA ITEMS IN THE PAST.
AND I THINK THAT'S ALL THAT WE CAN SAY AT THIS POINT IN TIME, AND THAT'S FAIR.
I MEAN, SOMETIMES THOSE ITEMS ARE NOT ADDED TO CERTAIN AGENDAS BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF THE AGENDA.
ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT, WE'LL ADJOURN THE MEETING.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.