[00:00:03]
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
[1. Call Meeting to Order]
WE HAVE SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES THERE, WE'VE WORKED THROUGH THOSE.THANK YOU, IT. WE'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.
WE HAVE A QUORUM, WE'VE ALL SIGNED IN.
ARE THERE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CONTINUE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 22ND REGULAR MEETING.
[4. Approval of Minutes]
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS, COMMENTS, SUBTRACTIONS? NO. THEN WE WILL APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 22ND AS PRESENTED.IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA, THIS IS WHERE YOU'D HAVE A CHANCE TO DO SO.
IF YOUR ITEM'S ON THE AGENDA, YOU'LL GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK THEN.
ANYBODY HERE LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR NEW BUSINESS, 25BF-036.
[6.B.1. 25BF-036 (12716 Bermuda Beach Drive) Request for exemption and approval for Beachfront Construction Certificate and Dune Protection Permit to include proposed construction of a single-family dwelling with a crushed rock driveway apron. Property is legally described as Abstract 121 Hall & Jones Survey, Lot 15, Bermuda Beach Section 5, a subdivision in the City and County of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Anthony Torusoglu Property Owner: Anthony Torusoglu]
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION AND APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
THE ADDRESS IS 12716 BERMUDA BEACH DRIVE.
THE PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS ABSTRACT 121, HALL AND JONES SURVEY, LOT 15, BERMUDA BEACH, SECTION 5, A SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE BERMUDA BEACH SUBDIVISION.
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE LOCATED TO THE NORTHEAST AND WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
A CITY OF GALVESTON STREET AND THE BEACH IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS ERODING AT A RATE OF SIX FEET PER YEAR.
STAFF HAS PREPARED PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR VIEWING.
FIRST, WE HAVE THE FIRM AND BEG MAP SHOWING THE DISTANCE OF THE STRUCTURE FROM THE BEACH AND ITS POSITIONS RELATIVE TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
ON THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE PROPERTY SURVEY, ZOOMED IN ON THE RIGHT TO SHOW THAT THERE IS A LACK OF DUNE COMPLEX AND THE DISTANCE OF 3-6 FEET FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATIONS TO THE PROPERTY.
ON THE FOLLOWING TWO SLIDES, WE HAVE PROPOSED PROJECT DRAWINGS, AS WELL AS SUMMARIZED SCOPE OF WORK.
I'D LIKE TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE LOWER LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THIS SLIDE.
THE RED BOX SHOWS HIGHLIGHTED THAT UNDER THE HOME, THERE'S NOT A PROPOSED SLAB THAT IT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE AN ELEVATED DECK BECAUSE OF THIS LOCATION IN THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA.
NEXT, WE HAVE FOUR PHOTOS OF THE SITE, LOOKING EAST, LOOKING WEST, LOOKING SOUTH, AND LOOKING NORTH FROM BERMUDA BEACH DRIVE.
FINALLY, WE HAVE A SLIDE OUTLINE OF SOME OF THE STEPS TAKEN FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN EXEMPTION FOR THIS PROJECT.
YOU CAN SEE THAT PROJECT IS PRETTY MUCH LOCATED, CAN'T BE MOVED ON THE PROPERTY.
AS I STATED EARLIER THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE USING ANY TYPE OF SLAB OR OTHER MATERIAL UNDER THE HOME, BUILDING AN ELEVATED DECK.
THE ONLY THING ON THE DRIVEWAY WILL BE CROSSING THE RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT FROM OUR ENGINEERING OVER OUR RIGHT OF WAYS THAT THERE WILL BE SOME CRUSHED GRAVEL JUST MOVING FROM BERMUDA BEACH DRIVE ONTO TO THE DRIVEWAY UNDER THE HOME, BUT THE REST OF IT IS JUST GOING TO BE SAND MATERIAL.
LIKE I SAID, THESE ARE JUST HIGHLIGHTING SOME OF THE ACTIONS THAT WE TOOK FOR EXEMPTION TO TRY TO REDUCE THE IMPACTS FOR THIS PROJECT.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU, KYLE. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
KYLE, IN THE GLO LETTER, IT SAYS THE PROPOSED DECK BENEATH THE HABITABLE STRUCTURE MUST NOT BE IMPERVIOUS OR ALTER THE GROUND.
HOW ARE THEY GOING TO BUILD THAT STRUCTURE WITHOUT ALTERING THE GROUND?
>> IT'S GOING TO BE TIED. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I SEE SHAKING HEADS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE IMPERVIOUS IS GOING TO BE WITH SLATS, SO IT'S GOING TO BE PERVIOUS.
>> THEN THE OTHER NOTE THAT STOOD OUT THAT WITH THE GLO SAYS, THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY PLACED CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRIOR TO OBTAINING THE PERMIT, WHICH ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES OF NO LESS THAN $50 AND NO MORE THAN $2,000 PER DAY.
>> WE NOTICED THE PILINGS WERE OUT THERE, SO WE CONTACTED THE HOME OWNER.
HE WASN'T AWARE OF OF THE BEACH FRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATES, SO HE STOPPED WORK AND SO HE WENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
THAT'S JUST A FINE THAT WE CAN DO.
GLO CAN TAKE THOSE FINES AND THEY PUT THOSE IN IF WE HAVE A PROJECT THAT'S UNAUTHORIZED OR SOMEBODY'S DONE SOME WORK.
THEY JUST PUT THAT IN THERE TO LET THE APPLICANT KNOW OR LET US KNOW
[00:05:01]
THAT THEY CAN FINE IF THEY SO CHOOSE TO PLEASE.>> IS THAT A GO PENALTY OR A CITY OF GALVESTON PENALTY?
WE ALSO HAVE SOME UNDER OUR ORDINANCE.
I THINK WE CAN DO UP TO $500 A DAY.
>> ARE WE REQUIRED TO DO IT IF IT'S A GLO PENALTY? I'M JUST WONDERING.
>> JUST MAKING SURE NOBODY'S IN TROUBLE HERE.
>> OUR FIRST COURSE OF ACTION IS TO WORK WITH HIM LIKE WE'RE DOING WITH THIS LAND OWNER TO BRING THEM INTO COMPLIANCE WITH OUR ORDINANCES AND THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND OUR PLAN. YES, MA'AM.
>> [NOISE] KYLE, THE DCA, IS THAT A REQUIREMENT TO DO THE WOOD DECK OR THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS OF THAT?
>> IF THERE'S A DUNE THERE, OUR DUNE CONSERVATION AREA IS 25 FEET FROM THE NORTH OF THE DUNE SEAWARD.
WELL, SINCE THERE'S NOT A DUNE THERE, OUR DUNE CONSERVATION AREA IS 25 FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION TO 200 FEET.
SINCE IT'S IN THE DUNE CONSERVATION, WE STILL HAVE TO DO THE EXEMPTION REQUEST.
THIS IS ONCE AGAIN, HUNTER AND I WORKING WITH HIM TO MINIMIZE AS MUCH OF THE IMPACTS AS WE CAN IN THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA, NOT BUILDING ANY TYPE OF SLAB, NOT PUTTING AT LEAST AS MUCH LAND DISTURBANCE UNDER THE HOME AS POSSIBLE IN THE DCA.
SOME OF THE HOMES ADJACENT TO THIS ONE HAVE TO HAVE THE ELEVATED DECK, SO THAT'S WHAT WE POINTED OUT TO HIM WHEN WE MET WITH HIM ON THE SITE, AND THAT'S WHY HE WENT THAT WAY.
>> [NOISE] ON THE DRAWING THAT SHOWED THAT THEY HAD ZERO IMPERVIOUS COVER, DID YOU CONSIDER WHEN YOU HAVE AN OVERHANG ON A WOOD DECK THAT TO BE IMPERVIOUS OR NOT?
>> IF IT'S ELEVATED AND THERE'S NOT ANYTHING LIKE CONCRETE OR FIBERCRETE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, WE CONSIDER THAT AS PERVIOUS.
>> EVEN THOUGH IT'S GOT THE ROOF OVER IT?
>> YEAH. THEY'LL COME DOWN AND IT'LL GO UNDERNEATH IT.
IF IT'S WHAT'S ON THE GROUND BECAUSE IF IT COMES OFF OF THE ROOF, IT'LL GO UNDER THE HOUSE AND IT CAN GET UNDER THE DECK AND IT CAN GO PERCOLATE DOWN THROUGH UNDER THE HOME, EVEN IF IT COMES OFF OF THE ROOF IF IT COMES OVER THAT.
[NOISE] THAT'S WHAT OUR PLAN SAYS, WE LOOK AT WHAT'S ON THE GROUND.
>> ON THE BERMUDA BEACH DRIVE, THE BOLLARDS, DO THEY REPRESENT THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN THE BEACH AND THE RIGHT OF WAY ON THE STREET?
>> ARE THERE ANY PLANS TO IMPROVE THE STREET CONDITION? BECAUSE I CAME THROUGH THERE AND YOU GOT TO HAVE FOUR WHEELS.
>> YES, SIR. THERE THERE ARE PLANS.
THE CITY SPENDS LAST YEAR, AFTER HURRICANE BETWEEN TROPICAL STORM ALBERTO AND HURRICANE BERYL, ALMOST $250,000 PUTTING LIMESTONE OUT THERE.
THIS IS AN AREA THAT WILL BE BEACH NOURISHMENT OCCURRING THIS YEAR, BUT WE HAVE LOOKED AT PUTTING SOME MORE PERMANENT TYPE OF STRUCTURE THERE, LOOKING AT MAYBE ARTICULATED CONCRETE MASS TO ALLOW PEOPLE GET IN AND OUT BECAUSE THE HOMEOWNERS CAN'T GET IN AND OUT, WE CAN'T GET OUR SERVICE VEHICLES IN AND OUT.
WE'RE WORKING ON THAT, DOING SOME TYPE OF MORE PERMANENT SOLUTION OUT THERE TO ALLOW PEOPLE, NOT ALWAYS CONTINUOUSLY PUTTING LIMESTONE THAT'S GETTING WASHED ONTO THE BEACH.
>> [NOISE] WELL, THAT BRINGS UP MY LAST QUESTION, THE RENOURISHMENT PROGRAM.
THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN STARTING IN SEPTEMBER IN THIS AREA?
>> WHAT DOES THAT PROFILE LOOK LIKE? WHEN IT COMES UP, BECAUSE IT CAN'T GO OVER THE RIGHT OF WAY, SO WHAT ARE WE GOING TO HAVE THERE AT THE BOLLARDS?
>> IT'S GOING TO BE AT ABOUT THE FOUR-FOOT CONTOUR AND THEN IT'S GOING TO BE MOVING OUT INTO THE WATER, SO IT'LL BE BUILDING THE BEACH OUT FARTHER.
>> THEN HOW WILL BERMUDA BEACH DRIVE DRAIN IF IT'S GOT A FOUR-FOOT EMBANKMENT?
>> IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A FOUR FOOT.
YOU COME OFF OF THE WATER UP TO ABOUT THE FOUR-FOOT ELEVATION AND THEN THAT.
THEN YOU HAVE ELEVATION UP A LITTLE HIGHER TO THE STREET, SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE IMPACTING THE DRAINAGE COMING DOWN.
>> BUT RIGHT NOW, THE STREET APPEARS TO BE LOWER THAN THE BEACH ELEVATION.
IF THE BEACH IS RAISED FOUR FEET, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE-
>> IT'S NOT GOING TO BE RAISED FOUR FEET.
IT'S GOING TO START AT THE CONTOUR AND GO OUT INTO THE WATER.
BEACH NOURISHMENT IS BUILDING THE BEACH OUT INTO THE WATER.
IT'S NOT BUILDING THE BEACH UP, IT'S BUILDING IT OUT TO GIVE IT MORE A GRADIENT PROFILE.
>> JUST ONE MORE QUESTION, IT'S PROBABLY FOR TIM.
THAT SECTION OF HOUSES, I THINK THERE'S FOUR EXISTING AND THE ONE PROPOSED.
[00:10:03]
OR IS IT ON A GRINDER?>> I'M NOT SURE OF THAT QUESTION. DO YOU KNOW? I KNOW THE APPLICANT WOULD KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
I'M SURE THEY'VE GONE THROUGH THAT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY DON'T HAVE THEY DON'T HAVE A SEPTIC PROPOSED ON THEIR PLAN.
I JUST WONDER IF IT WAS GRINDER, BUT THERE'S NO GRAVITY IN THERE.
I'M LOOKING AND WE HAVE STAIRS IN THE FRONT, STAIRS IN THE BACK.
STAIRS IN THE FRONT APPEAR TO BE BEYOND THE BUILDING LINE.
IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE STAIRS IN THE BACK, YOU COULD MOVE THE HOUSE BACK AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT FURTHER.
ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? IF IT'S A PLAN OF WE'RE TRYING TO GET IT AS FAR AWAY FROM THE BEACH AS WE CAN, PUTTING THE DECK ON THE BACK IS NOT DOING IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS MORE OF WHEN THEY GO GET THEIR PER MEETING.
I'M SURE THEY GOT TO GET THIS DONE FIRST, BUT ARE WE GIVING THEM PERMISSION TO PUT THEIR STAIRS?
>> WE'VE ADDRESSED THAT. KATHERINE BROUGHT THAT TO OUR ATTENTION.
THEY'RE WORKING ON UPDATING THEIR PLANS.
>> I CAN ANSWER THAT TOO. THANK YOU.
>> IF YOU DON'T MIND, GIVE US JUST A SECOND. WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO IT.
>> KYLE AND HUNTER AND TIM SHARED THAT INFORMATION WITH US, AND OUR ENGINEERS ACTUALLY CORRECTED THAT.
I SUBMITTED THE UPDATED STAIRCASES THAT ARE ACTUALLY BUILT IN WITHIN THE DECK AREA INSTEAD OF IN FRONT OF THE DECK, SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE OF THE 20 FEET FROM THE FRONT.
I MAY BE WRONG ON THE NUMBER IN THE BACK, BUT IT'S EITHER SIX OR SEVEN FEET OFF THE BACK FOR THE EASEMENT SPACES, SIR.
IT WILL BE WITHIN THE ALLOTTED SPACE FOR BOTH 20 FEET IN THE FRONT, AND THEN AGAIN SIX OR SEVEN, I CAN'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, IN THE BACK.
>> THAT AMENDED VERSION IS IN THE HANDS OF HUNTER RIGHT NOW, BUT THIS HAPPENED IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, SO WE JUST UPDATED IT.
>> WHERE WE HAD THIS AND WE HAVE NO DUNE, REFRESH MY MEMORY AS TO HOW WE DETERMINE WHERE THE DCA LINE WOULD BE.
>> NO. THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA IS YOUR LINE OF VEGETATION IN 200 FEET.
IT'S 200 FEET FROM YOUR LINE OF VEGETATION.
>> THE LINE OF VEGETATION STARTS IN HIS FRONT YARD, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> ALL OF THIS, EVEN IF WE DON'T HAVE A DUNE, HIS WHOLE HOUSE IS IN THE DCA.
>> THE HOMES BEHIND HIS ARE IN THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA.
WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A DUNE, THAT'S WHAT YOU GO OFF OF YOUR LINE OF VEGETATION IN 200.
>> THERE IS AT LEAST SOME RESEMBLANCE OF A ROAD THERE.
DOES THAT HAVE AN EFFECT ON WHERE OUR DCA LINES OR ANY OF THAT STUFF GOES? BASICALLY, YOU HAVE A ROAD IN THE DCA.
>> AFTER HURRICANE, THAT COULD WIPE OUT HOMES, BUT WE BUILD BEACH ACCESS ROADS INTO THE BEACH AND THINGS LIKE THAT, SO THIS IS A CITY INFRASTRUCTURE.
THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE DOES GIVE US SOME MUNICIPALITIES, SOME LEEWAY ON THESE TYPE OF THINGS.
IF WE WANT TO DO WORK OUT THERE, WE DO AN APPLICATION, WE STILL COORDINATE WITH THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE.
WE ISSUE IT TO OURSELVES AFTER WE COORDINATE WITH THEM.
>> THERE IS A PLANNED BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT FOR THIS AREA.
WHAT'S THE TIMING ON THAT? DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA?
>> IT'S GOING TO START IN OCTOBER.
THEY'LL BE BRINGING POP IN SEPTEMBER AND THEY'LL BE ACTUALLY PUTTING SAND JUST EAST OF HERE, STARTING IN OCTOBER AND WORKING WEST.
>> THERE'S NO DUNE PROJECT PLAN IN THE BEACH NOURISHMENT, IT'S JUST SAND ON THE BEACH.
>> PRETTY MUCH MAKING THE BEACH WIDER, GOING OUT INTO THE WATER.
>> BERMUDA BEACH HAS TRIED TO DO DUNES OUT THERE.
THEY'VE TRIED TO DO CHRISTMAS TREE DUNES AND WITH NO PROFILE OUT THERE,
[00:15:01]
THEY JUST KEEP BEING WASHED AWAY.THEY WERE TALKING TO THEM, SOMETHING THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO IN THE FUTURE ONCE WE GET THAT NOURISHMENT DONE.
THERE ARE PLANS WITHIN THAT POA TO GO ON SOMETHING.
>> TO TRY AND DO SOMETHING. THAT BRINGS THE QUESTION OF IS, WHERE WOULD THE DUNE BE?
>> IT'D BE SOUTH OF THE BOLLARD.
>> IT WOULD BE SOUTH OF THE ROAD.
THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM FOR SOME DUNE COMPLEX THERE ONCE A RENOURISHMENT PROJECT IS DONE.
ONCE THAT WOULD BE DONE, BASICALLY, THE DCA LINE WOULD BE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A QUESTION OR NOT, BUT I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED.
I DON'T KNOW HOW AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE WOULD GET DOWN HERE, ESPECIALLY NOW IN THE SUMMERTIME WHEN IT'S HOT AND IT DOESN'T RAIN, IT'S A PROBLEM.
I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHO TO ASK THIS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A YOU QUESTION OR A TIM QUESTION OR A LEGAL QUESTION, BUT WHEN WE GRANT THESE PERMITS, WE'RE GRANTING THEM THE RIGHT TO DO THAT, BUT THEN THEY HAVE TO GO TO BUILDING AND TO GET A PERMIT TO BUILD THE STRUCTURE THEN.
THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DISCONNECT HERE FOR ME IS WE'RE GRANTING THEM, I GUESS, THE RIGHT TO GO BUILD THE STRUCTURE THERE, BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO GO TO BUILDING AND GET THEIR PERMITS.
HOW IS THAT GOING TO WORK WHEN THERE'S NO ROAD THERE, BASICALLY?
>> BERMUDA BEACH DRIVE IS A LEGACY ROAD.
IT'S PLATTED, BUT AS EVERYBODY KNOWS, IT'S BEEN IMPACTED.
>> REPEATEDLY BY STORM SURGE AND OTHER THINGS, WIND-BLOWN SAND.
IT NOT ONLY IS A ROAD THAT HAS PROBLEMS WITH FOLKS NAVIGATING IT, BUT OUR EMERGENCY VEHICLES LIKELY HAVE DIFFICULTY AS WELL WHEN IT'S DRY.
WHEN IT'S WET, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BETTER.
BUT IN ANY CASE, THIS IS PROBABLY THE ONE ROAD IN OUR JURISDICTION THAT IS IN THE WORST CIRCUMSTANCES.
>> AS WE TRY TO COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS WITH THE GLO ON POSSIBLE OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO PAVEMENT, THOSE HAVE TO BE VETTED AND APPROVED AS WELL, AND AT THIS POINT, THEY'RE NOT, SO THERE IS SOME CONCERN THERE.
>> IF HE SHOWS UP FROM PERMITTING, HE COULD GET A PERMIT FROM US.
BUT WHEN HE GOES TO GO GET HIS BILLING PERMIT.
>> AS LONG AS IT'S ON A PLATTED ROAD, THEN I THINK THE PERMIT WOULD BE ISSUED.
>> I'M ASSUMING THAT ALL THE UTILITIES ARE AT THE REAR OF THE HOMES.
>> IT'S IN THE BACK. ALL OF THEM ARE LINED UP WITH THAT POLE.
>> I THINK YOU'VE ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
>> PUBLIC WORKS MONITORS THESE, WE WORK WITH PUBLIC WORKS.
LIKE I SAID, WE'RE LOOKING AT GETTING MATERIAL PUT OUT THERE NEXT WEEK TO HELP GET PEOPLE TO GO UP AND DOWN BECAUSE OUR GARBAGE TRUCKS CAN'T EVEN TRAVERSE THIS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
IT'S OUR PUBLIC WORKS, WHO IS OUT THERE MAINTAINING THIS, WORKING WITH THEM.
HENRY AND I ANYTIME WE'RE OUT, WE'RE GOING TO CHECK IN ON THIS, AND IF WE SEE AGAIN SOFT, WE'RE LETTING PUBLIC WORKS KNOW AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
>> THAT'S WHERE THIS GETS A LITTLE COMPLICATED FOR ME.
YOU CAN CHECK THE BOX OF, WE'LL LET YOU BUILD IN THE DCA, BUT WE'RE REALLY CREATING A PROBLEM FOR OUR PUBLIC WORKS FOLKS AND EVERYBODY ELSE.
I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT WORKS WITH APPROVING.
>> THERE'S ALREADY HOUSES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IT.
>> ON BOTH SIDES OF IT. THERE'S A FEW.
>> THEY HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM, BUT IT'S, IF I GOT A CUT ON MY ARM, I DON'T WANT TO GO CUT IT ANY DEEPER.
THAT'S WHERE I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE CONNECTION IS HERE BETWEEN THIS PERMIT AND BUILDING PERMITS AND THEN GETTING EVERYTHING THAT THEY NEED TO GET THAT DONE.
I GUESS YOU'VE ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
I'M DONE. ANYBODY ELSE? PLEASE, TOM.
>> SORRY, I'LL TRY TO THIS QUICK.
WHAT'S THE TIMELINE FOR THE BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT? IT STARTS OCTOBER END'S PROJECTED.
>> IT'S JUST THEY HAVE TO HAVE IT DONE BY JANUARY.
[00:20:02]
THEY'D BE QUICK.THEY'RE GOING TO BE WORKING 24 HOURS, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK.
>> WHAT IF, LET'S SAY A HURRICANE COMES IN, IT WASHES OUT A BIG CHUNK OF THAT BEACH.
NOW WE WANT TO LAY A BUNCH OF SAND DOWN THERE, WHICH WE'VE BEEN APPROVED TO DO, BUT THE BEACH THAT WAS IS NO LONGER.
NOW ARE WE JUST REBUILDING THE BEACH BACK TO WHERE IT WAS, AND THEN WE'RE HOPING THAT FEMA WILL HELP US EVENTUALLY OR SOMETHING?
>> YES. ONCE WE DO AN ENGINEERED BEACH, IF WE HAVE ANY DAMAGE TO IT, THEN WE HAVE TO GO OUT THERE AND EVALUATE, WE HAVE TO HAVE SURVEYS, AND WE HAVE TO EVALUATE HOW MUCH MATERIAL GOT MOVED OFF THE BEACH AND IF IT'S WORTH PUTTING IN FOR A FEMA CLAIM.
>> WELL, IF SO LET'S SAY THAT A HURRICANE HITS, THIS BEACH GETS WASHED OUT HALFWAY INTO HIS LOT, AND THEN WE'RE LOOKING AT IT GOING, WELL, YOU'RE IN THE WATER, NOW YOU CAN'T BUILD, BUT WE GAVE HIM A PERMIT.
DOES OUR PERMIT NOW VOID OR HOW DOES THAT WORK?
>> AS FAR AS GIVING HIM AN EXEMPTION FOR THE DCA.
>> IS THE HOUSE BUILT? OR ARE YOU SAYING THE HOUSE [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO. HE'S IN THE MIDDLE OF BUILDING IT, HURRICANE HITS.
WE VOTE TODAY TO SAY, HEY, GO AHEAD, JUST HYPOTHETICAL.
THEN A HURRICANE HITS AND IT'S ALL WASHED OUT, BUT HE'S GOT THIS EXEMPTION.
>> IF GLO AUTHORIZED IT, WE COULD DO AN EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATION, ALLOW HIM TO COME BACK IN AND BUILD UNDER HIS HOME, THEY GOT DAMAGE.
THAT'S WHAT WE DID AFTER BERYL.
WE HAD HOMES OUT ON PIRATES BEACH THAT GOT DAMAGE UNDERNEATH THEM.
GLO ALLOWED US TO DO EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATION PERMITS FOR PEOPLE TO COME BACK IN AND PUT MATERIAL BACK UNDER THEIR HOME IN CASE WE GOT ANOTHER STORM.
NOW, IF THAT HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION HAPPENED, WE COULD LET HIM DO THAT, BUT IF HE WANTED TO BUILD OUT ANY FARTHER FROM HIS HOME, WE'D COME BACK IN AND GO THROUGH THE STANDARD PROCESS WITH THIS.
>> BUT SINCE HE HAS AN ENGINEERED BEACH, HE'S GOING TO GET HIS BEACH BACK?
>> WELL, IF AN ENGINEERED BEACH GETS WASHED OUT, WE REVIEW SURVEYS, AND IF IT'S ENOUGH DAMAGE, ENOUGH MATERIAL LOSS, THEN WE WOULD PUT IN FOR A FEMA CLAIM TO REBUILD IT.
BUT THERE MAY BE A CASE WHERE NOT AS MUCH ENOUGH MATERIAL GOT MOVED OFF SITE.
>> BUT IF ENOUGH SAND WASHES OUT UNDERNEATH HIS HOUSE, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE.
>> ONCE WE START DOING THIS ENGINEERED BEACH, HE'S MORE ON THE WEST END.
>> HE GETS HIS BEACH. IN A SEVERE OR IN A BIG STORM, HIS HOUSE IS GOING TO END UP STAYING OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BEACH, WHICH WE'VE SEEN BEFORE.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT.
>> YES. ONCE WE GET THOSE ENGINEERED BEACHES, WE HAVE MORE REASON TO GO OUT THERE AND REBUILD THE BEACHES.
THERE'S NO ENGINEERED BEACH THERE NOW, AND SO WE DON'T HAVE THE FUNDS TO GO OUT THERE AND REPAIR IT EVERY TIME.
BUT ONCE IT'S ENGINEERED AND WE START TRACKING AND MONITORING IT, THEN WE CAN CLAIM, PUT IN FOR FEMA REQUEST AND GET SOME OF THE REIMBURSEMENT BACK IF WE NEED TO DO THAT.
>> AS OPPOSED IF THAT WAS NOT ENGINEERED.
>> RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT ENGINEERING.
>> IF IT HAPPENED TOMORROW, IT'S PRETTY MUCH A CRAP SHOT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE'S GOING TO GET HIS BEACH BACK.
>> THE ENGINEERED BEACH IS ONLY A POST CONSTRUCTION OF THAT BEACH.
ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS BEFORE THIS IS AT A RISK.
>> I THOUGHT WHEN WE WERE TALKING BEFORE, SAND RE-NOURISHMENT WASN'T CONSIDERED AN ENGINEERED BEACH, AM I CORRECT? HELP ME WITH THAT.
>> WHAT FEMA WANTS IS IF YOU DO ANYTHING OUT THERE, THEY WANT YOU TO TRACK IT.
IF YOU HAVE A STORM EVENT, YOU'RE ABLE TO SAY WHAT YOU LOST.
I THINK THIS AREA FROM MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE WAS SAND PUT OUT THERE, BUT IT WAS JUST NEVER CONTINUOUSLY MONITORED.
THEN WHEN THE STORMS COME, IF IT'S NOT MONITORED FOR FOUR OR FIVE YEARS, WE GET HIGH TIDE EVENTS, THINGS LIKE THAT AND THEN WE GET A STORM, YOU CAN'T CALCULATE HOW MUCH SAND HAS BEEN MOVED OR YOU CAN'T COME UP WITH A QUANTITY.
THAT'S WHY ONCE WE'RE DOING THESE PROJECTS, WE'RE GOING TO BE CONTINUOUSLY SURVEYING THEM, HAVE AN ANNUAL SURVEY ON THEM.
FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE PAST ON SOME OF THESE AREAS OUT ON THE WEST END.
THEY DID WORK, BUT THEY DID NOT CONTINUOUSLY MONITOR IT.
WHEN YOU DO AN ENGINEERED BEACH, YOU DO SURVEY, YOU ACTUALLY GO OUT INTO THE WATER BECAUSE THAT SAND WILL MOVE OUT INTO THE WATER AND EQUALIZE OUT.
THERE'S A CERTAIN TYPE OF SURVEY OUT INTO THE WATER TO MONITOR THAT.
THAT'S JUST NEVER BEEN DONE ON THERE.
BUT NOW THAT WE'RE DOING THESE, WE'RE GOING TO ANNUALLY DO SURVEYS.
>> I'M SORRY TO KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE ENGINEERED BEACH,
[00:25:03]
BUT WHAT ABOUT THESE PRIVATELY OWNED LOTS ON THE FRONT THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT LAST MEETING OR MEETING BEFORE CAUSING A PROBLEM, NOT BEING ABLE TO GET RELEASES TO DO THE SAND RE-NOURISHMENT, SO YOU'VE GOT ALL AROUND THAT NOW AND READY WITH IT?>> I SAID, WE'RE NOT GOING RIGHT UP TO THE BOWLERS OR ANYTHING.
WE'RE GOING FAR ENOUGH OUT WHERE IT IS.
SOME OF THE ONES THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT LIKE SOME OF THOSE PRIVATE LOTS, BUILDING DUNES, STUFF LIKE THAT.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE PUTTING THAT BACK ONTO THE HOA.
BUT WE'RE MOVING FARTHER OUT WHERE IT'S MORE STAY SUBMERGED LAND AREAS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> I'M SURE THE HOMEOWNER HAS SEEN THE GLO LETTER.
>> THE VERY LAST, PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT A STRUCTURE THAT MAY NOT ENCROACH ON THE PUBLIC BEACH IF THE STRUCTURE BECOMES LOCATED SEAWARD OF THE LAND OF VEGETATION, BECAUSE OF LOSS OF ELEVATION, THE STRUCTURE MAY BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN PLACE IF IT DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY INTERFERE WITH THE PUBLIC ASSETS TO THE BEACH OR PRESENT A PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY RISK.
STRUCTURES LOCATED SEAWARD OF THE LINE OF VEGETATION AND LANDWARD OF THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE MAY BE ALLOWED TO MAKE CERTAIN REPAIRS.
BUT BASICALLY WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THEY MAY END UP HAVING TO REMOVE THEM, CORRECT?
>> IF THEY DETERMINE IT'S ON A PUBLIC BEACH, AND SO WE'VE HAD SOME THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM AND THEY'VE DECIDED IT'S NOT ON THE PUBLIC BEACH AND THEY'VE DECIDED NOT TO TAKE ANY ACTION.
>> I JUST WANT THE APPLICANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? HEY, THANK YOU, KYLE.
THAT WAS A LOT, SO APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE.
WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS AND THE APPLICANT IS WITH US ONLINE.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO TELL US WHAT YOU GOT GOING ON THERE AND GIVE US YOUR NAME I GUESS YOU HAVE TO SIGN IN.
BUT I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM?
>> I JUST HAD ONE. ACCORDING TO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORDS, YOU ACQUIRED THIS PROPERTY IN DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? IF WE HAVE SOME OTHERS, WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU, SIR.
ANY OTHER COMMENT, ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? THEN WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING THIS BACK TO COMMISSION FOR ACTION.
>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE 25BF-036 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE 25BF-036 WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. ANY DISCUSSION?
>> I WOULD JUST SAY THAT HAVING LIVED IN BERMUDA BEACH FOR 11 YEARS, HAD A HOUSE THAT WAS SEAWARD OF BERMUDA BEACH DRIVE, STILL HAVE THE LOT THERE.
PICK THE HOUSE UP, MOVED IT BACK TO THE CORNER OF PABST AND BERMUDA BEACH AND I WAS ABLE TO GET TWO LOTS.
I PUT ONE LOT IN BETWEEN ME AND MY HOUSE AND THEN I CAME ALONG AND ALMOST TOOK THAT LOT, BUT IT SURVIVED, BUT I DROVE DOWN THERE YESTERDAY, DROVE IT AGAIN TODAY.
IT'S A DIFFICULT SITUATION THAT IN MY MIND, THIS DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE BUT THE APPLICANT ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY.
I THINK HE PROBABLY KNOWS WHAT HE'S GETTING INTO.
BUT IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, I CAN'T VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT.
I DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST IT BUT I CAN'T SUPPORT IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT A GOOD THING.
THERE'S FOUR HOUSES SITTING THERE.
TWO ON EITHER SIDE OF THEM AND TWO MORE, THE BEST THING FOR THE COMMUNITY, I THINK FOR THOSE OWNERS WOULD BE FOR THOSE HOUSES TO GO AWAY.
IN ONE LOT, THE VERY END LOT WAS DEEDED TO THE CITY SOME 10, 12 YEARS AGO BECAUSE THEY REALIZE IT'S AN IMPOSSIBLE SITUATION.
THE LONGER WE CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE THESE APPLICANTS WHO COME IN TO TAKE THESE RISKS AND JUST LET IT FLY AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS, I THINK WE'RE DOING A DISSERVICE, BUT THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.
>> THANK YOU, JOHN. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I'LL JUST WEIGH IN AND SAY THAT I AGREE WITH YOU.
WE HAD A CASE WHERE IT'S LIKE JUST STAY OUT OF THE DCA.
[00:30:03]
THIS GUY IS IN IT.THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
THE ENGINEERED BEACH ADDS A NUANCE TO IT.
IT'S A HORRIBLE DEAL FOR OUR TAXPAYERS.
THEY'VE JUST TOLD US WE SPENT $250,000 ON TRYING TO KEEP THE STREET FIXED OVER THERE AND NOW IT'S LIKE WE HAVE A CUT AND WE'RE JUST MAKING THE CUT DEEPER.
I'M NOT A PROPONENT OF THIS, ESPECIALLY WHEN OUR MESSAGE THE LAST TIME WAS STAY OUT OF THE DCA.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT I'M GOING TO DO, BUT ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WE'LL TAKE THE VOTE. THOSE IN FAVOR? THOSE OPPOSED? THOSE ABSTAIN? WE HAVE TWO ABSTAINS, TWO NOS, AND TWO FOR.
THAT WOULD BE A DENIAL OF THE 25BF-036.
>> LET ME STATE FOR THE RECORD. IT'S NOT TRULY A DENIAL.
IT'S NOT APPROVED DUE TO LACK OF FOUR [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S TRUE BECAUSE WE HAD TWO AND TWO AND TWO ABSTENTIONS. YOU'RE CORRECT.
>> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, WE DIDN'T TAKE ACTION?
>> IT'S NO ACTION DUE TO A LACK OF FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES.
IT ACTS AS A DENIAL, BUT BECAUSE IT'S NOT TECHNICALLY A DENIAL, THEN THE APPLICANT CAN REAPPLY.
>> IT'S NOT A DENIAL. IT'S JUST A NOT PASS.
>> MAYBE LATER DOWN THE ROAD, WHEN ALL THE BEACHES ARE REPAIRED, THE APPLICANT CAN REAPPLY.
>> IF AN APPLICATION IS DENIED, THEN THEY CAN'T REAPPLY WITHIN SIX MONTHS.
IF IT'S NOT APPROVED, THEN THEY CAN REAPPLY AT ANY TIME.
>> WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION ON OUR PREVIOUS DEAL, AND I WOULDN'T MAKE THE COMMENT THAT MOVING THE HOUSE BACK FIVE FEET, IN MY OPINION IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO THE APPLICATION.
IF IT WAS MOVED BACK, YOU KNOW WHAT? THEY'RE WELCOME TO COME BACK. YES.
>> KATHERINE, FOR CLARIFICATION, IF THERE WERE FOUR NO VOTES THEY COULD COME BACK RIGHT AWAY AND REAPPLY?
>> THE MOTION WAS FOR APPROVAL.
THE MOTION DIDN'T PASS SO YES.
THE ONLY TIME THAT THEY HAVE TO WAIT THE SIX MONTHS IS IF THE MOTION IS FOR DENIAL AND THAT MOTION PASSES.
>> MAY I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? AM I ALLOWED TO REAPPLY OR WAIT SIX MONTHS?
>> SIR, WE CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BUT I WOULD TELL YOU THAT IF YOU'LL CONTACT KYLE, HE'LL POINT YOU IN THAT DIRECTION.
>> I'LL GET WITH YOU TOMORROW, SIR.
>> THANK YOU. MOVING ON, 25P-025.
[6.C.2. 25P-025 (2928 Avenue K) Request for designation as a Galveston Landmark. The property is legally described as M.B. Menard Survey, Portion of Lot 14 (14- 2), Block 149, in the City and County of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Harper and Michelle Jones Property Owner: Harper and Michelle Jones]
>> THIS IS 2928 AVENUE K. IT'S A REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION AS A GALVESTON LANDMARK.
THIRTY THREE NOTICES WERE SENT, ONE RETURNED, THAT ONE IN FAVOR.
THIS IS THE JOSEPH AND ELIZABETH TREACCAR HOUSE.
ONE OF THE MOST DISTINCTIVE FEATURES OF THIS TWO STORY SIDE HALL TOWNHOUSE IS, EXCUSE ME, THE DOUBLE GALLERY ON THE MAIN FACADE, TRIMMED WITH QUEEN ANNE SUNBURST BRACKETS.
TREACCAR WAS BORN IN GALVESTON DEPRESSION IMMIGRANTS AND LEARNED THE CARPENTRY TRADE FROM HIS OLDER BROTHER, THEODORE.
BY 1875, TREACCAR WAS EMPLOYED AT THE CARPENTRY SHOP AT THE GALVESTON HOUSTON AND HENDERSON RAILROAD.
THE VERNACULAR STYLE OF THE TREACCAR HOUSE EXHIBITS SKILLED PASSED DOWN TO NEW GENERATIONS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY BROUGHT TO THE UNITED STATES BY EARLY IMMIGRANT CRAFTSMEN.
THIS WAS DISCUSSED AT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION YESTERDAY.
THEY VOTED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS.
CITY COUNCIL HAS A FINAL DECISION REGARDING REQUESTS FOR GALVESTON LANDMARK DESIGNATIONS, AND THAT WILL BE HEARD AT THEIR REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 28TH.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.
WE HAVE A PICTURE ON THE SCREEN.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> THANK YOU, KATHERINE. HELP ME ON HERE. WE JUST HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.
>> PERFECT. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? NO. ANYBODY LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? NO. WE'LL BRING THAT BACK TO COMMISSION FOR ACTION.
>> I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE 25P-025.
>> I'LL SECOND THAT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE 25P-025.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL TAKE THE VOTE.
THOSE IN FAVOR? THAT'S UNANIMOUS.
[6.D.3. 25P-028 (4702 Winnie / Avenue G) Request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District for a “Parking Lot, Commercial Surface Parking Area”. Property is legally described as M.B. Menard Survey (0-0), Blocks 406 & 407 and Adjacent Street, in the City and County of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Michael Gaertner, Sr., Architect Property Owner: Gary Patterson, PMM Holdings, Inc]
NEXT IS 25P-028.>> IT IS A REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
EIGHT NOTICES WERE SENT, ZERO RETURNED.
NO OBJECTIONS FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS WITH COMMENT FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL, NO OBJECTIONS FROM THE PRIVATE UTILITIES.
[00:35:03]
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD OVERLAY DISTRICT TO ESTABLISH A PARKING LOT, COMMERCIAL, SURFACE PARKING AREA, PARKING AND OR MULTI MODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY, AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION LAND USES IN THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING DISTRICT.THE PURPOSE OF THE PUD IS TO ALLOW FOR THOSE LAND USES, WHICH ARE NOT PERMITTED IN THE URBAN ZONING DISTRICT.
NOTE THAT PARKING AND OR MULTI MODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY IS THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FOR AN INDOOR PARKING FACILITY.
ELIMINATION OF THE INTERIOR LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT AND ELIMINATION OF THE RIGHT OF WAY SCREENING REQUIREMENTS ADJACENT TO CHURCH, WINNIE AND 48TH STREETS.
THAT RECOMMENDATION. STUNN FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED PUD REQUEST DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.
THE USES IN THE CHARACTER OF DEVELOPMENT THAT PROPOSED ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE PROPERTIES IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL.
ALTHOUGH CURRENTLY USED FOR INDUSTRIAL USES, THE AREA WAS PURPOSEFULLY ZONED URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD IN 2015, WITH THE GOAL OF TRANSITIONING THE AREA FROM INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL USES.
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING DISTRICT SHOULD REFLECT THE PATTERNS OF GALVESTON'S URBAN CORE NEIGHBORHOODS.
THE ELIMINATION OF THE INTERIOR AND PERIMETER LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS IS CONTRARY TO THE STATED PURPOSES IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
DUE TO NON CONFORMANCE WITH THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE REQUEST BE DENIED.
HOWEVER, SHOULD THE PLANNING COMMISSION FIND THE REQUEST DOES CONFORM TO THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MAY BE APPROPRIATE.
THEN SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 1-4 AND STANDARD CONDITIONS, 5-8 ARE PROVIDED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
CITY COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL DECISION REGARDING THIS PUD REQUEST, AND COUNCIL WILL HEAR THIS REQUEST ON AUGUST 28, 2025, AND WE HAVE SOME PICTURES.
THIS IS AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
IT IS PRIMARILY UNDEVELOPED WITH ONE COMMERCIAL BUILDING. NEXT SLIDE.
THIS IS A PICTURE FROM 46TH STREET LOOKING TOWARDS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
WE HAVE THE EXHIBITS THAT WERE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT OF THE PROPOSAL, WHICH IS BOTH INDOOR AND OUTDOOR PARKING TO SERVE THE CRUISE SHIP INDUSTRY, AND THEN ALSO THE POTENTIAL FOR ELECTRICAL CHARGING.
THEN WE HAVE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH, NORTH AND WEST OR EAST, AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> THANK YOU, KATHERINE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> WELL, I'M CONCERNED WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL OBJECTIONS LISTED IN QUITE A FEW OF THEM RATHER.
I WAS WONDERING IF WE COULD GET A COMMENT FROM OUR RESIDENT FIRE MARSHAL.
>> CHRIS HARRISON, THE FIRE MARSHAL IS IN ATTENDANCE.
I'LL NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT MR. HARRISON DIDN'T HAVE AN OBJECTION, BUT HE DID HAVE COMMENTS.
>> CHRIS HARRISON FIRE MARSHAL.
>> WELL, YOU WANT COMPLIANCE WITH SEVERAL THINGS.
THE MEANS OF EGRESS, IS THAT BECAUSE OF JUST ONE BECAUSE OF WINNIE AND THE CONDITION OF WINNIE RIGHT THERE TO THE SOUTH OF IT, OR WHAT BRINGS YOU TO A MEANS OF EGRESS CONDITION THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE ADDRESSED?
>> THERE WERE SEVERAL MEANS OF EGRESS, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE BUILDINGS THEMSELVES.
WE SPOKE WITH THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL ABOUT PROVIDING DOORS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S PARTICULARLY UNMANNED PROPERTY.
THERE WILL BE PEOPLE WHEN THEY'RE MOVING THEIR CARS AROUND.
THEN FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS, I THINK IS THE ONE YOU'RE MENTIONING, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE TWO WAYS IN AND OUT OF THE FACILITY, AND IT COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH THE DESIGN.
HOWEVER, IT'S ALSO DEPENDENT UPON AN ENGINEERING STUDY AND EITHER THE CITY OR THE APPLICANT PROVIDING RIGHTS OF WAY IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING PLATTED RIGHTS OF WAY THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY IMPROVED TODAY.
>> SECONDLY, YOU MENTIONED HYDRANT LOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION.
IT'S OUTSIDE THE WHAT'S YOUR LIMIT? WAS IT 40?
>> ESSENTIALLY THE SAME COMMENT.
THERE ARE HYDRANTS ALONG THE AVENUE G, WHICH IS PLATTED, BUT I WOULD CALL IT UNIMPROVED CURRENTLY.
THOSE HYDRANTS DON'T SHOW UP ON THE WORKING MAPS UNDER GIS OF PUBLIC WORKS.
THEY ARE PHYSICALLY THERE, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY WORK, AND SO THEY WOULD NEED TO WORK WITH THE CITY AS WELL TO DEVELOP A PLAN TO EITHER MAINTAIN, UPGRADE OR REPLACE THAT LINE AND PROVIDE US ENOUGH DISTRIBUTIONS WHERE WE'D HAVE ENOUGH WATER BASED ON THE FIRE FLOW CALCULATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SOMETHING THE SIZE.
[00:40:01]
>> THANK YOU. TAKE THE REST OFF.
>> ALSO TO NOTE, THE WATER PIECE WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE ANYWAY BECAUSE THE TWO BUILDINGS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED WOULD HAVE TO BE FULLY SPRINKLED SINCE THEY'RE ENCLOSED PARKING GARAGES.
AS KATHERINE SAID, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY DENIAL, THERE'S A LOT OF WORKING MOVING PARTS WITH THIS THAT WILL REQUIRE COORDINATION WITH THE CITY.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. THANKS FOR BEING HERE, CHRIS.
>> KATHERINE, WHAT WAS THE ZONING PRIOR TO 2015?
>> PRIOR TO 2015, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I CAN LOOK THAT INFORMATION UP.
>> I SEE THAT'S WHEN IT WAS CHANGED TO URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD.
ANY IDEA HOW MANY PERMITS HAVE BEEN REQUESTED FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IN THIS AREA SINCE 2050?
OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO ELIMINATE LANDSCAPING, COULD YOU ELABORATE ON WHAT IS NOT COMPATIBLE? IS IT JUST BECAUSE IT'S AN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD ZONE?
>> THEY'RE ASKING FOR THREE LAND USES, NONE OF WHICH ARE ALLOWED IN THE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT.
YOU JUST HAVE STRUGGLED WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE OF THE AREA IS INDUSTRIAL IN CHARACTER.
BUT THE GOAL IS THAT ONE DAY IT WILL TRANSITION TO A DIFFERENT LAND USE?
I DIDN'T LOOK IT UP EITHER, SO BUT I WOULD JUST SAY IT'S EITHER WAS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OR HEAVY INDUSTRIAL FOR DECADES.
>> IT SEEMS LIKELY IT'LL TAKE ME A MINUTE TO FIND THAT, BUT I'LL GET THAT INFORMATION FOR US.
>> THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW. I HAVE OTHERS.
>> I HAD A QUESTION ALONG THE SAME LINES IS, WHAT WAS THE REASONING BEHIND YOU IN BECAUSE THAT WOULD MAKE ITS CURRENT USES NON CONFORMING.
>> IT DOES. ALL OF THE USES THAT ARE THERE ARE NON CONFORMING BECAUSE THEY'RE INDUSTRIAL.
IT WAS A CONVERSATION THAT WAS HAD AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL DURING THE LDR ADOPTION, THAT THE VISION FOR THIS SPECIFIC AREA WAS TO GO AWAY FROM INDUSTRIAL AND TOWARDS SOMETHING THAT WAS MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE THERE?
>> BEFORE WE HAD A BUNCH OF CRUISE BOATS.
>> UNDERSTAND. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES, PLEASE.
>> AS I WAS DRIVING OVER THERE.
IS THERE A CONNECTOR TO HARBOR SIDE DOWN THAT ROAD? IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'VE GOT TO GO ALL THE WAY DOWN TO 35TH TO CONNECT TO HARBOR SIDE.
>> I THINK YOU'D HAVE TO GO TO 37.
NO. THERE'S NO DIRECT CONNECTION THERE.
>> WELL, I'LL TELL YOU WHAT WE'RE DONE WITH WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
APPLICANT PRESENT? HOLD ON. WAIT COME OUT.
>> THAT'S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION.
IF IT IS CRUISE PARKING, HOW WILL THE FOLKS GET IN AND OUT OF THERE? JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY.
>> WELL, THAT'S PROBABLY A GOOD QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. MR. GAERTNER.
>> PLEASE SIGN IN, SIR. STATE YOUR NAME.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MICHAEL GAERTNER.
I'M AN ARCHITECT, AND I'M HERE FOR CASE 25 P028.
I'M THE APPLICANT, THE PROPERTY OWNER, MR. PATTERSON IS HERE WITH US TODAY.
WE'LL MAKE OUR LITTLE PRESENTATION AND THEN BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
I'VE BEEN PRACTICING ARCHITECTURE NOW FOR 48 YEARS.
MY WIFE WANTS TO KNOW WHEN I'M GOING TO START PRACTICING AND GET DOWN TO BUSINESS.
THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR JUST A SECOND.
I'VE GOT TO CO-ORDINATE TWO HANDS HERE.
WE'RE REQUESTING IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
IT'S A TAILORED APPROACH THROUGH THE PUD OVERLAY TO PERMIT USES THAT ARE CONSISTENT WHAT'S ALREADY HAPPENING IN THIS PART OF GALVESTON.
WE ARE NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE'RE ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHARACTER THAT'S THERE ALREADY.
THE REQUEST REFLECTS THE NEED FOR CRUISE SHIP PARKING IN GALVESTON AND IN THIS AREA.
THIS SITE IT'S ABOUT FOUR ACRES, 47TH STREET HAS BEEN ABANDONED.
THE SITE STRETCHES FROM 46, THE ALL THE WAY OVER TO 48TH STREET.
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SITE, THERE IS A WALL THAT WAS PROBABLY THE NORTH WALL OF THE BUILDINGS THAT WERE THERE.
IF IT'S STRUCTURALLY SOUND, WE WOULD PROPOSE TO KEEP THAT WALL.
WE WOULD NEITHER, THE STREET TO THE NORTH OR THE SOUTH IS REALLY IMPROVED OR PASSABLE.
[00:45:09]
WE DON'T SEE ANY PARTICULAR REASON TO PROVIDE RIGHT OF WAY SCREENING ALONG THE STREETS, SINCE THERE IS ESSENTIALLY NO STREET AND NO SIDEWALK.WHY ARE WE BEAUTIFYING IT FOR WHO? WE WOULD DEFINITELY WANT TO DO SOMETHING ON THE SOUTH SIDE WITH SOME STREET TREES IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, BUT PROBABLY ASIDE FROM LEAVING THE WALL ON THE NORTH SIDE, NOTHING ON THAT WALL.
YOU CAN SEE THAT ALMOST EVERYTHING IN THIS AREA IS INDUSTRIAL AND HAS BEEN FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
IN THE LOWER LEFT HAND CORNER, YOU'RE GOING TO NOTICE THE OAKS.
IN THIS ONE, IT'S ON THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER.
THE GALVESTON HOUSING AUTHORITY CONSTRUCTED THE OAKS IN 2005 REPLACING THE FORMER PALM TERRACE PUBLIC HOUSING.
IT'S 28 SINGLE FAMILY AND HOMES IN 10 DUPLEXES, BUT GHA HAS NO IMMEDIATE OR LONG RANGE PLANS TO UNDERTAKE ANY FUTURE PROJECTS IN THIS AREA AT ALL.
THIS LITTLE MAP THAT I MADE IS NOT THE ZONING MAP, IT'S A LAND USE MAP OF THE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
THE SITE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE GREEN ONE.
BLUE IS WHAT IS INDUSTRIAL OR VACANT, RED IS COMMERCIAL AND YELLOW IS RESIDENTIAL.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THE PREDOMINANT LAND USE IN THE AREA IS, [BACKGROUND] DID I NOT GET THERE? SORRY. AGAIN, IT'S THE LEFT AND RIGHT HAND THING.
SORRY ABOUT THAT. THERE YOU GO.
I'M CLICKING ON ONE AND NOT THE OTHER.
ALL OF THE BLUE IS THE INDUSTRIAL OR VACANT AREA, THE COMMERCIAL IS RED.
THAT'S THE OAKS IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER OVER THERE.
THERE HAS BEEN SOME RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CLOSER TO BROADWAY, BUT NOT REALLY IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT.
IT'S ABOUT 375 FEET FROM THE NEAREST RESIDENTIAL USE.
THIS IS A I GUESS MY THOUGHT IS, WE'VE HAD TEN YEARS OF EXPERIMENTATION WITH THIS TO SEE IF THIS CAN BECOME URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IT'S NOT REALLY HAPPENING.
I CERTAINLY AGREE THAT WE HAVE A NEED FOR WORKFORCE AND ATTAINABLE HOUSING IN GALVESTON.
I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THIS AREA AND I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN FOR A LOT OF REASONS, SOME OF WHICH I'LL GET INTO A LITTLE BIT LATER ON.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE NOT DOING, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING, WE'RE ASKING FOR A PUD.
I'M SURE YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM.
WE COULD ASK THAT IT BE REZONED TO SOME INDUSTRIAL USE, BUT THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE SPOT ZONING, WHICH IS NOT REALLY ENCOURAGED.
I'M NOT EVEN SURE WOULD BE CONSIDERED LEGAL IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS.
WE JUST HAVE A LAND USE THAT IT DOESN'T CONFORM TO THE ZONING MAP, AS KATHERINE SAID, IT'S A NON CONFORMING USE.
THE DESIGN OF URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD IS FOR WALKABLE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY, MIXED USE ENVIRONMENTS WITH CORNER STORES AND THAT THING.
IT'S JUST NOT THE REALITY OF THIS AREA.
PROBABLY NOT LIKELY TO HAPPEN.
I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT SOME MORE IN A MINUTE, BUT THERE'S NOT HOUSING STOCK THAT COULD REASONABLY SUPPORT THE VISION OF URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THIS SITE WILL PROBABLY NEVER FIT THAT PROFILE.
I'M GOING TO DIGRESS FOR JUST A MINUTE AND SHOW YOU SOME OF THE SKETCHES THAT WE'VE MADE OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S NOT DISSIMILAR FROM WHAT IS AROUND THE SITE NOW.
HERE IS A LOOK AT WHAT WE WOULD SEE ALONG 46TH STREET FROM THE CORNER OF FOR 46TH NG.
FROM THE CORNER OF F AND 46 STREET.
THERE ARE ON 46 STREET, THERE ARE TWO FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS.
BUT WE ALSO PROPOSE ANOTHER EGRESS FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT USE IN THE FAR SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY TO GET AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF SEPARATION BETWEEN THE TWO ACCESS POINTS.
I DON'T KNOW -. MAYBE I CAN GO BACK.
[00:50:07]
JUST TO THE LEFT OF THE BUILDING ON THE RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S A PARKING AISLE THAT GOES OUT INTO AVENUE G, AND THEN AVENUE G WOULD BE CONNECTED ALL THE WAY BACK OVER TO 46TH STREET, PROVIDING TWO SEPARATED MEANS OF FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS EGRESS.PART OF THE BACKSTORY HERE IS THAT I DON'T THINK THAT THE ADOPTION OF URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THIS AREA MADE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE IN 2015, AND I THINK IT MAKES EVEN LESS SENSE NOW.
THE PROJECT, WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS CRUISE SHIP PARKING.
IT'S RESPECTFUL OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE URBAN FABRIC AROUND IT.
IT INCLUDES SOME FAIRLY INNOVATIVE FEATURES SUCH AS ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING.
WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE THE HISTORIC WALL THAT'S THERE, IF POSSIBLE, AND WE WOULD PROVIDE LANDSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS ABOVE THOSE THAT ARE REQUIRED ALONG 46TH STREET WHERE PEOPLE MIGHT ACTUALLY BE.
YOU ASKED ABOUT HOW YOU WOULD ACCESS THE SITE.
BASICALLY, YOU CAN PEEL OFF OF ARBOR SIDE DRIVE BEFORE YOU GET TO THE 51ST STREET VIADUCT AND APPROACH THE PROJECT FROM THE NORTH.
IT'S ALSO EASILY ACCESSIBLE FROM BROADWAY.
WE KNOW THAT THE TRAFFIC THAT WOULD BE GENERATED BY THIS WOULD BE ABOUT 20% OF THE CAPACITY OF THE STREETS THAT ARE THERE NOW, AND THOSE STREETS ARE UNDER UTILIZED.
CURRENTLY, THE SITE IS COMPLETELY IMPERVIOUS AND EVERYTHING GOES OVER TO 48TH STREET.
OUR CIVIL ENGINEER IS GOING TO WORK WITH THE CITY OF GALVESTON TO MAKE SURE THAT THE STORMWATER COMPLIES AND IF THEY REQUIRE AN H&H STUDY, WE WOULD DO THAT TO ENSURE THAT WE DO HAVE ADEQUATE DRAINAGE ON THE SITE.
WE'VE ALREADY HEARD ABOUT THIS.
I UNDERSTAND THE STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, I THINK, BUT IT RESTS ON THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGNATION AND ASSUMES THAT THIS AREA IS.
>> WELL, WE KNOW IT ISN'T OR WILL BECOME RESIDENTIAL, AND IT JUST DOESN'T MATCH THE LAND USE HISTORY OR THE CURRENT REALITY.
THE PUD WOULD ALLOW THE CITY TO MAINTAIN ITS LONG-RANGE PLANNING GOALS WITHOUT PRETENDING THAT THIS AREA IS GOING TO TRANSFORM INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK I TALKED ABOUT LANDSCAPING.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS IN ARTICLE 9 ABOUT LANDSCAPING IS THAT IT REDUCES THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT, SO DO THE CANOPIES.
UNFORTUNATELY, IF WE WANT TO PROVIDE COVERED PARKING, LANDSCAPING OF THE PARKING AREA IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH COVERED PARKING BECAUSE THE TREES CAN'T GROW THROUGH THE COVERS, BUT WE DO REDUCE THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT.
WE WOULD BE MORE THAN WILLING TO PLANT STREET TREES IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THE APPEARANCE OF THE SITE.
THE PEOPLE WHO COME TO PARK THEIR CARS FOR CRUISE SHIPS ARE NOT REALLY THAT INTERESTED IN HOW ATTRACTIVE THE PARKING LOT IS.
KATHERINE, DID YOU GET MY EMAIL THIS AFTERNOON ABOUT PASSING OUT THIS SHEET? IS THAT OKAY? I'M GOING TO GIVE THESE TO RINA.
I'D LIKE TO PASS THESE OUT TO THE STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION, AND ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO'D LIKE TO HAVE ONE.
BUT I'D LIKE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL, WHICH YOU'LL FIND ON PAGE 43 IN YOUR PACKET.
I THINK THAT THE PROJECT MEETS THE CRITERIA.
I DO A LOT OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT WORK FOR DIFFERENT CLIENTS OF MINE, AND I'VE RUN THE NUMBERS ON THIS TO DEVELOP ANY ATTAINABLE OR WORKFORCE HOUSING IN THE AREAS IN THIS AREA ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE,
[00:55:04]
WHICH WOULD BE ONE AND TWO-FAMILY HOUSING.THE PROJECT WOULD LOSE ABOUT $80,000 A YEAR.
BETWEEN CONSTRUCTION COSTS, WHICH AT THIS POINT OR ANYBODY'S GUESS, BUT BASED ON THE BEST INFORMATION THAT WE HAD BEFORE TARIFFS, INSURANCE, AND LAND COSTS, PROPERTY TAXES, THOSE ARE ALL RISING AND NOT FALLING.
IT'S BASICALLY NOT FEASIBLE TO DEVELOP ATTAINABLE OR WORKFORCE HOUSING HERE.
BY THAT, I MEAN HOUSES IN THE 1500-2000 SQUARE FOOT RANGE THAT WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $175 PER SQUARE FOOT AND EITHER RENTED OR SOLD.
DEVELOPED AS CRUISE SHIP PARKING, THE CITY RECEIVES A DEDICATED $1.15 PER DAY UNDER SECTION 19135 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE.
THAT REVENUE ALONE THAT GOES TO THE CITY FOR THE USE IN PROVIDING PUBLIC SERVICES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TOURISM-RELATED ITEMS WOULD BE OVER $140,000 A YEAR NET TO THE CITY.
MAYBE YOU GUYS HAVE GOTTEN A COPY OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
IF YOU'VE SEEN ONE, YOU CAN JUDGE WHETHER THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
ALL I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT THIS USE IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT'S AROUND THE SITE.
THERE ARE NO PLANS THAT THE CITY HAS, FROM ANYTHING I CAN FIND IN THEIR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, TO PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO THIS SITE.
THE CITY DOES NOT PLAN TO IMPROVE STREETS, WATER, SEWER, SIDEWALKS, ANY OF THAT.
THEY'VE MADE IT CLEAR THAT IF THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED, THE OWNER IS GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPROVEMENTS, AND OUR PROPOSAL TAKES THAT INTO ACCOUNT.
COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES.
EVERYTHING AROUND THIS PROPERTY IS INDUSTRIAL OR VACANT.
THERE IS NO RISK OF LAND USE CONFLICTS.
WE'RE 375 FEET FROM THE NEAREST PROPERTY LINE OF A RESIDENTIAL USE.
WE'RE NOT DROPPING PARKING INTO A RESIDENTIAL AREA OR CHANGING THE CHARACTER OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
FINALLY, IN 2015, NO ONE COULD HAVE EVER PREDICTED CRUISE SHIPS WOULD BE WHAT THEY ARE TODAY.
IT'S ONE OF THE FASTEST-GROWING INDUSTRIES IN GALVESTON.
IT'S A GREAT ECONOMIC DRIVER FOR THE COMMUNITY, AND IT DOES NOT HAVE AS SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR RESIDENTS AS SOME OTHER USES COULD HAVE.
BY ALLOWING THIS PUD OVERLAY, WE DON'T CHANGE THE ZONING OF THE WHOLE AREA, BUT WE DO MAKE A STEP TOWARDS ALLOWING PARKING TO BE DEVELOPED ON WHAT IS CURRENTLY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.
I THINK THAT THE PUD ALIGNS WITH THE CITY'S GOALS.
I THINK IT'S A STRAIGHTFORWARD, WELL-SUPPORTED PROPOSAL.
IT MEETS A NEED WITHOUT PLACING A BURDEN ON THE CITY.
IT REFLECTS HOW GALVESTON IS ACTUALLY EVOLVING, DRIVEN BY THE CRUISE SHIP TOURISM, AND IT PROVIDES A CLEAR PATH FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO HELP MEET THAT DEMAND.
THAT'S THE END OF MY PRESENTATION, AND I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS.
IS THE OWNER ALSO THE OPERATOR OF THIS PROPERTY?
>> HOW MANY SPACES DO WE HAVE FOR THIS?
>> SHORT ANSWER. YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MANY SPACES YOU'RE GOING TO GET UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY DRAW IT AND LAY IT OUT.
>> LESS THAN 500, MORE THAN 450.
IF YOU DON'T MIND, COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN.
I'M ASKING YOU THIS BECAUSE I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS IDEA.
I LOVE THE IDEA THAT PARKING IS NOT GOING ON HARBORSIDE.
HOW MANY MORE PARKING SPACES DO YOU THINK OUR CITY'S GOING TO NEED FOR CRUISE PARKING, IN YOUR OPINION?
>> WELL, OUR CUSTOMERS THAT WE DEAL WITH RIGHT NOW, WE PARK IN EXCESS OF 400-500 RIGHT NOW ON HARBORSIDE.
[01:00:12]
NUMBER 1, THEY ALL WANT INDOOR PARKING.THEY'RE WILLING TO PAY $300 PER CRUISE FOR INDOOR PARKING.
RIGHT NOW, WE'RE GETTING ANYWHERE FROM, SAY 180-220 FOR A FIVE-DAY CRUISE OR SOMETIMES A SEVEN-DAY CRUISE.
THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. WE GET THAT.
WE OFFERED COVERED, WE OFFERED UNCOVERED, AND WE ALSO OFFERED PARK AND WALK.
WE HAVE A LOT RIGHT ON HARBORSIDE IN 29TH STREET.
THAT'S THE FIRST THING THEY ASKED FOR, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO GET COVERED? WE CAME UP WITH THIS IDEA, AND WE HAD THIS PROPERTY FOR A GOOD WHILE.
I HAD THOUGHT ORIGINALLY THAT IT WAS TOO FAR FROM HARBORSIDE BECAUSE EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE CLOSE, IT'S SMOOTH, MOVE.
HOWEVER, THEY WOULD PREFER BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION THAT YOU HAVE ESPECIALLY AT THE SHIPS LATE OR YOU'VE GOT OTHER ISSUES THAT OCCURRED DURING A CRUISE UNLOADING AND LOADING, THEY PREFER TO BE AWAY.
THAT'S WHY WE CAME UP WITH THIS PLAN TO PUT THAT AWAY AND THEN USE OUR BUSES, AND IT WOULD PROVIDE LESS TRAFFIC DOWNTOWN AND ALL AROUND THERE BECAUSE OUR BUSES HOLD ANYWHERE FROM AROUND 15 PEOPLE PER BUS.
THE PORT HAS DIFFERENT FEES THEY CHARGE YOU.
IF YOU GO OVER 15 BUS, THEN IT'S [INAUDIBLE] SO WE TRY TO MAINTAIN FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, SO WE HAVE OUR BUSES FOR 15.
WE HAVE 12 BUSES THAT WE CAN KEEP EVERYBODY MOVING.
YOU CAN EVEN ASK THE PORT ABOUT GALVESTON LIGHTHOUSE PARKING.
WE CONSTANTLY GET OURS, AND WE DON'T HAVE LINES WAITING, AND THAT'S WHY EVERYBODY WANTS TO PARK WITH US.
WE PAY $25,000 A MONTH EXCESS TO PORT FEES, AND THEN WE PAY IN EXCESS OF $10,000 A MONTH TO THE CITY.
THIS WILL GENERATE THE SAME AMOUNT OF REVENUE GOING FOR PORT FEES AND TO THE CITY BECAUSE WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET MORE FOR DOLLAR FOR PARKING THE VEHICLES.
WHAT WE HAD, WE'VE ALREADY MAPPED IT OUT, WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN BROADWAY BECAUSE WE ARE TO USE BROADWAY.
A LOT OF TIMES, YOU CAN'T USE HARBORSIDE TO GET INTO THE TERMINALS BECAUSE THEY'RE BACKED UP, THE TRAFFIC IS BACKED UP.
WE GO DOWN 29TH STREET TO HIT HARBORSIDE AND THEN GO STRAIGHT IN THROUGH THERE.
THAT'S THE WAY A LOT OF TIMES WE HAVE TO USE.
THAT DEPENDS ON A LOT OF VARIABLES; PEOPLE UNLOADING, LOADING, AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, A LOT OF TIMES YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER, BUT YOU WANT MORE PARKING LOTS AWAY FROM ALL THIS CONGESTION.
I WAS EVEN THINKING ABOUT PUTTING A PARKING GARAGE.
I HAVE A PROPERTY RIGHT NEXT TO THE RAILROAD MUSEUM.
THEY HAVE ONE, AND I HAVE THAT PARKING.
I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT DOING SOMETHING WITH THAT.
BUT I THINK IT'S IT'S MORE FEASIBLE AND
[01:05:03]
ECONOMICAL TO PUT THIS DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THAT AREA WOULD IMPROVE THAT AREA, IT WOULD IMPROVE THE TAX BASE OF THAT AREA.IT WOULD HELP GENERATE CITY REVENUE AND THEN PORT REVENUE AS WELL.
THEN OUR CUSTOMER SAID THEY WOULD PARK AT THAT LOCATION.
>> THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT WITH US.
IS THIS GOING TO BE A PHASED PROJECT, OR YOU'RE DOING THE WHOLE THING AT ONE TIME?
>> [OVERLAPPING] THE SITE ALREADY DRAINS.
THERE'S GOING TO BE NO INCREASE IN RUNOFF FROM THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE.
WE WILL WORK WITH THE CITY TO TAKE A BROADER PICTURE OF THE DRAINAGE AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ALL GOING TO WORK.
>> [OVERLAPPING] YOU'RE GOING TO BE GOOD THERE BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE MOSTLY IMPERVIOUS COVER.
>> [OVERLAPPING] IT'S ALL IMPERVIOUS.
SOME OF IT, THE WEEDS ARE GROWING IN THROUGH THE MUD THAT HURRICANE IKE LEFT BEHIND.
[LAUGHTER] BUT IT WAS ALL IMPERVIOUS.
>> THAT'S ALL I HAVE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> A COUPLE OF QUICK ONES. WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR SECURITY?
>> [NOISE] WE CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW HAVE ON-SITE SECURITY AT OUR PARKING LOTS, WHERE WE HAVE A 24-HOUR SECURITY AT THE PARKING LOTS.
[NOISE] WE DO THAT FOR THE CUSTOMER AS WELL AS FOR OURSELF.
THEN THEY THINK SOMEBODY'S TAMPERED, THEY FORGET THAT THEY LEFT THE CAR UNLOCKED WHEN THEY LEFT, AND THEY PANIC, GOES SOMEBODY.
WE LET THEM LOOK AT THE VIDEO.
HERE, WE CAN MAKE YOU A COPY OF THE VIDEO, YOU CAN WATCH YOUR CAR THE WHOLE TIME, AND WE'LL GO BACK AND SEE THAT NOBODY GOT IN THERE AND TAMPERED.
THERE'S BEEN INSTANCES WHERE CUSTOMERS HAVE COME AND SAY, LOOK, I THINK SOMEBODY GOT INTO MY CAR, AND WE SAY, WELL, WE CAN MAKE YOU A VIDEO IF YOU WANT TO WATCH IT 24 HOURS A DAY, WE HAVE IT.
>> I KNOW YOUR TRAFFIC HAS ITS PEAK PERIODS THAT ARE TIED TO THE CRUISE LINES, BUT IS IT 24/7 ACCESS?
>> BUT THE CRUISE SHIPS, AS YOU KNOW, THEY STAGGER WHEN YOU'RE DEPARTING AND WHEN YOU'RE ARRIVING.
EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY BE THE POSSIBILITY OF PEOPLE COMING AND GOING 24 HOURS A DAY, REALLY, IT'S TIED TO WHEN THEY EMBARK AND DISEMBARK FROM THE CRUISE SHIPS.
>> UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. YES, TOM.
>> YOU SAID YOU HAVE A DOZEN BUSES.
HOW MANY BUS TRIPS IS THAT PER DAY FROM THIS LOT, DO YOU THINK?
>> FROM THESE LOTS, WE MAKE ABOUT 50-60.
IT DEPENDS ON HOW MANY PASSENGERS WE GET.
YOU GOT DIFFERENT PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING IN AT DIFFERENT TIMES.
SOME FAMILIES OR TEN PEOPLE COME AT A TIME, AND SOME OR TWO.
WE TRY TO FILL UP THE BUSES BECAUSE THEY CHARGES PER TRIP, $25 A TRIP.
WE TRY TO HAVE THE BUS FILLED AND TO MAKE THAT DEAL.
SAME WAY COMING OUT ON DEBARKING.
IT'S EASIER TO GET THEM TO LOAD UP WHEN THEY'RE COMING HOME.
[LAUGHTER] THEY WANT TO GET ON, THEY DON'T CARE HOW MANY HE'S ON THERE, BUT THEY WANT TO GET ON QUICK AND GET OUT.
>> THEN THE STREET, I THINK IT'S WINNIE THAT COMES OUT OF THE PROPERTY AND HEADS TOWARD THE PORT, RUNS PARALLEL TO HARBORSIDE.
I ASSUME THAT'S THE ROUTE YOUR BUSES WOULD TAKE.
>> WE WOULD COME OUT ON WINNIE ON BROADWAY.
OR WE COULD GO STRAIGHT AND HIT ABOUT FOUR BLOCKS, THEN YOU CAN TAKE LEFT.
>> WELL, IT'S ABOUT 10 BLOCKS, ACTUALLY.
YOU MENTIONED IN THE NARRATIVE THAT YOU'LL BE WORKING WITH THE CITY IN ORDER TO MAKE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.
[01:10:02]
WHEN YOU SAY WORKING WITH THE CITY, IS THAT THE CITY PAYING FOR NEW ROADS?>> [OVERLAPPING] FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, LIKE PUTTING NEW STUFF TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE FIRE STUFF THAT WOULD BE OUR COST, THAT WE WOULD MAKE SURE?
>> THE ROADS OVER THERE ARE IN PRETTY ROUGH SHAPE. I CAN ONLY IMAGINE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I WORK RIGHT OVER THERE. ACTUALLY, THEY'RE ALL IN PRETTY ROUGH SHAPE.
THAT'S A WHOLE ANOTHER ISSUE THAT I COULD BRING UP.
BUT IF WE'VE GOT ALL THESE CARS COMING IN AND OUT, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT Y'ALL WILL BE HELPING TO IMPROVE THE ROADS, OR IS IT JUST WE'VE GOT SOME ADJACENT PROPERTY, AND SO WE'LL PUT IN SOME TREES, AND THEN MAYBE DONATE A FEW TREES FOR DOWN THE ROAD.
>> WE WOULD DO SOME ROAD WORK AS WELL.
BECAUSE IT HAS TO WORK FOR EVERYBODY.
YOU DON'T WANT TO PUT A DEVELOPMENT OVER THERE THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE ROAD YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO GET TO IT.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY PROJECTED DOLLAR FIGURE THAT ALL WOULD BE LOOKING AT?
>> NOT AT THIS TIME, BUT WE CAN GET THOSE.
>> THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DIG DOWN AND SEE WHAT'S UNDER THE VEGETATION ON WYNNE STREET.
THERE'S A ROAD THERE [LAUGHTER] BUT I'VE DRIVEN IT, AND IT'S LIKE, I CAN'T FIND ANY PAVING, BUT JUST THE WAY IT USUALLY WORKS WITH THE CITY IS WE WORK TOGETHER WITH THE CITY TO DETERMINE WHAT'S REQUIRED.
THE CITY IS PROBABLY GOING TO DO THE WORK, AND THE OWNER IS GOING TO PROBABLY PAY FOR IT.
THAT WOULD BE THE TYPICAL ARRANGEMENT.
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DOESN'T LIKE US MESSING WITH THEIR PUBLIC WORKS SO MUCH.
JUST SECONDS. DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT?
>> YES, MR. CHAIRMAN. I JUST WANT TO REALLY CLARIFY THIS ISSUE A LITTLE FURTHER BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING TO ASK THAT AS WELL.
ARE WE SAYING, MR. GAERTNER, THAT THIS WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED AS A PUBLIC STREET ACCEPTABLE PUBLIC STREET?
>> WELL, FIRST, WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
BUT YES, WYNNE IS A PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY.
>> I KNOW IT'S A PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY, BUT IT'S A VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT STREET.
IN FACT, 46TH IS REALLY, REALLY ROUGH AS WELL.
>> YES. THEY WOULD REMAIN PUBLIC STREETS.
>> YOU WOULD DEVELOP WYNNE AS A PUBLIC STREET AND POSSIBLY ACCEPT SOME ARRANGEMENT TO WORK ON 46 AS WELL IN SOME MANNER?
>> WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHERE THE PATHS OF TRAFFIC ARE GOING TO GO AND WORK TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE ARE ACCEPTABLE, BECAUSE SOME OF THE STREETS, AS YOU KNOW, OVER IN THAT AREA ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.
>> I'M SORRY, STAN. GO AHEAD, PLEASE.
>> WELL, JUST EVERYBODY'S TALKING ABOUT THE ROUTE AND THE TRAFFIC, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I'LL SEE AS A CONCERN.
YOU'RE PROPOSING THAT PEOPLE WOULD GET HERE VIA BROADWAY, UP 46 AND EXIT THE SAME DIRECTION IF THEY ARE WESTBOUND OR INTERSTATE BOUND?
>> ON THE INTERSTATE, THEY COME IN ON BROADWAY, AND THEN THEY HIT WYNNE STREET, 46, RIGHT INTO THE PARKING LOT.
WE WOULD COME BACK OUT AND HIT BROADWAY, GO DOWN BROADWAY, OR IF FOR SOME REASON, TRAFFIC, BECAUSE WE'RE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR THE QUICKEST.
>> WE COULD WE COULD TAKE A COME OUT ON 46 STREET AND GO RIGHT AND HIT THE LOOP OVER TO GET ON HARBORSIDE.
AT THE LIGHT, GO UP TWO BLOCKS OR WHATEVER IN 51ST STREET AND HIT HARBORSIDE AND COME BACK DOWN HARBORSIDE.
THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS GO DOWN THOSE BUMPY ROADS.
I GUESS YOU COULD THEN HIT HARBORSIDE THE OTHER WAY OR BROADWAY, JUST WHICHEVER.
>> YOU'RE ALSO PROPOSING USING, LIKE 29TH?
>> THAT'S WHERE OUR OTHER PARKING LOTS ARE AT ON 29TH AND THAT'S WHAT WE DO RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF HARBORSIDE, A LOT OF TIMES THEY JUST BACKED UP.
YOU GOT TO EITHER GO TO BROADWAY AND COME BACK AND GO
[01:15:02]
STRAIGHT INTO THE PORT ON THE STREET THAT GOES STRAIGHT INTO THE PORT, OR YOU GOT TO GO DOWN A POST OFFICE OR SOMETHING.ONE OF THOSE STREETS TO HIT THE MAIN ROAD THAT GOES STRAIGHT.
UNLESS YOU GO TO A DIFFERENT TERMINAL, FURTHER DOWN THE NEW TERMINALS.
>> YOU GOT SOMETIMES IT'S BETTER TO USE BROADWAY IF HARBORSIDE IS BACKED UP. YOU GOT TO GO.
>> WE HAVE TWO NEW TERMINALS PLANNED.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. THE TRAFFIC PATTERN IS GOING TO CHANGE AS THE NEW TERMINALS COME ONLINE.
>> THAT NEW TERMINAL THAT THEY'RE PUTTING IS RIGHT DIRECTLY ON 29TH STREET WHERE THE [INAUDIBLE] THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THREE STORY WE'RE PUTTING THIS TO STAY AWAY FROM.
>> WELL, THE HARBORSIDE SEEMS TO BE THE MOST POPULAR WAY TO GET THERE FROM PEOPLE FROM OUT OF TOWN.
YOU CAN SEE WHY BECAUSE OF THE EXIT OFF THE CAUSEWAY AND EVERYTHING.
IN REFERENCE, MR. GAERTNER, REFERENCE TO THE LOT AND WYNNE, AS WE HAVE ALL OBVIOUSLY DRIVEN IN THAT UNIMPROVED AREA.
LOTS OF NICE SIZED MUD PUDDLES.
WHEN YOU LOOK INTO GOING INTO PAVEMENT, WHICH I'M ASSUMING YOU WANT TO PAVE IT, YOU DON'T WANT TO JUST USE GRAVEL OR ANYTHING.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME RUNOFF THERE THAT MAYBE NEEDS TO BE ANTICIPATED.
I'M SURE YOU PROBABLY ANTICIPATED A RUNOFF FROM A NEW ASPHALT LAYING DOWN OR NEW CONCRETE.
>> I'M GOING TO BE HONEST, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CITIES WHATEVER THEY HAVE FOR THEIR CURRENT STORMWATER DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN.
LIKE I SAID, IT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT WE MAY HAVE TO DO AN H&H STUDY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS HAPPENING AND WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, BUT WE'LL DEFINITELY WORK WITH THE CITIES, PUBLIC WORKS, AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T CREATE ANY DRAINAGE PROBLEMS FOR ANYBODY THAT MAY BE DOWNSTREAM FROM US.
>> I WANT TO ADDRESS THE REQUEST, AS I UNDERSTAND IT IS TO ELIMINATE THE PERIMETER LANDSCAPING?
>> NO, THE REQUEST IS TO ELIMINATE THE RIGHT OF WAY LANDSCAPING ON THE NORTH SIDE BECAUSE WE WANT TO PRESERVE THAT HISTORIC WALL THAT'S THERE.
PUTTING IN THE OTHER SIDES SO ON THE SOUTH SIDE, THERE IS NOT VERY MUCH AND THAT'S NOT A WELL TRAVELED STREET SO WE WOULD PROPOSE TO ELIMINATE THE RIGHT OF WAY SCREENING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE SITE, BUT WE WOULD ALSO PROPOSE TO ADD STREET TREES INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY IN THAT AREA.
>> YEAH, G 46 STREET WOULD COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS FOR RIGHT OF WAY SCREENING.
>> THE REASON I'M BRINGING THIS UP, FIRST OF, I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA, AND IT'S MUCH NEEDED OUT THERE.
IT'S A BLEAK AREA BUT YOUR PRESENTATION, MR. GAERTNER, FOR POSSIBLE FUTURE INVESTMENT BY OTHER DEVELOPERS AND INVESTORS, THAT WAS LIKE A BLEAK PICTURE LIKE NOBODY'S GOING TO WANT TO DO ANYTHING OUT HERE BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY A WASTELAND.
THAT'S JUST HOW I HEARD IT. I DON'T KNOW HOW ANYBODY ELSE HEARD IT.
THERE ARE THINGS HAPPENING OUT THERE.
THERE ARE NEW HOMES BEING CONSTRUCTED AS CLOSE AS 41ST AND 42ND AND WYNNE.
THERE ARE THINGS HAPPENING OUT THERE.
IT'S NOT HAPPENING FAST, BUT THERE ARE THINGS HAPPENING OUT THERE.
MY ONLY ISSUE IS THAT THE REQUEST TO NOT GO AROUND THE WHOLE PROPERTY WITH SOME LANDSCAPING BECAUSE I THINK THIS KIND OF PROJECT CAN SPUR INTEREST IN ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THAT AREA.
THERE'S A LOT OF LAND OUT THERE AND THAT'S JUST MY TWO CENTS.
I THINK AND WE COULD SAY THIS WHEN THE MOTION IS MADE, BUT BUT THESE HAND REQUESTS THEY GET MADE, AND THE APPLICANTS SEEM TO THINK THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET WHATEVER THEY EXPECT.
THERE'S NOT A LOT OF DELIBERATION.
THE LAST ONE FOR THE PARKING LOT AT 19:02 HARBORSIDE, THE CITY COUNCIL WAS SO UNSERIOUS IN THEIR DELIBERATION.
IT WAS JUST LIKE, I WAS LIKE BLOWN AWAY BY THAT.
[01:20:03]
ANYWAY, THAT'S A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION.MY WHOLE THING IS THE LANDSCAPING.
I REALLY THINK IT NEEDS TO BE LANDSCAPED.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE IN THE FUTURE, BUT YOU ARE PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO TAKE A LOOK, SAY, LOOK WHAT'S HAPPENING OUT HERE.
THIS GUY'S WILLING TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY ON A VERY NICE PROJECT.
IF IT'S ALL COVERED LIKE THAT, INTERIOR OR EXTERIOR, THAT'S A NICE PROJECT.
SOMEONE'S GOING TO TAKE NOTICE.
I WOULD JUST SUGGEST THAT YOU TRY TO DO AS MUCH AS YOU CAN TO CONFORM WITH THE EXISTING LDRS.
WE HAVE THE LDRS FOR A REASON.
A LOT OF TIME AN EFFORT HAS GONE INTO THESE LDRS FOR THE ENTIRE ISLAND.
I THINK JUST TO NOT DISREGARD THAT SECTION OF TOWN AS A WASTELAND.
AGAIN, THAT'S HOW I HEARD IT. I EAT OVER THE NOPALITO ALL THE TIME, SO I KNOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD VERY, VERY WELL.
JUST AROUND FENCING, IS IT GOING TO BE A CHAIN LINK FENCE AROUND THE THREE SIDE?
>> BROUGHT IRON FENCE AROUND THE THREE SIDES.
>> THE IDEA IS TO DO WHAT WE CALL A GREEN FENCE, SO THAT WOULD BE A BOUGHT IRON FENCE WHERE WE TRAIN IVY TO GROW UP ON THE FENCE AND MAKE A GREEN WALL.
ON THE NORTH SIDE, THE IDEA IS TO PRESERVE AS A HISTORIC ARTIFACT, THE EXISTING WALL.
WE THINK THAT THAT IS NICE TO HAVE AS AN INDICATOR OF WHAT THIS AREA USED TO BE.
THAT WAS REALLY KATHERINE'S SUGGESTION BECAUSE WE HADN'T REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT KEEPING THAT WALL, BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT.
AS FAR AS LANDSCAPING, RIGHT OF WAY SCREENING TAKES 7'' AND WE COULD PROVIDE RIGHT OF WAY SCREENING ON AVENUE G. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE MEANINGFUL TO PROVIDE IT ON 48TH STREET BECAUSE THAT'S ESSENTIALLY A DRAINAGE DITCH.
>> I THINK AVENUE G WOULD BE SUFFICIENT.
IT'S JUST BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A REALLY NICE PROJECT, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE A DISSERVICE IF YOU DIDN'T MAKE IT LOOK LIKE WHAT YOU WANTED TO BE.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO IMPROVE AVENUE G ANYWAY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
>> WELL, YOU ALL CAN ADD THAT TO YOUR MOTION IF IT COMES TO THAT.
>> LET'S SEE. WHAT ELSE DID I HAVE AROUND HERE? NOW, I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA.
I LIKE THAT YOU'VE GOT OUTDOOR COVERED PARKING.
IT'S A BIG PARCEL WITH ALMOST FOUR ACRES.
>> THAT'S A BIG PARCEL. GOOD. THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> I THINK WE'RE GOOD. IF SOMETHING COMES UP.
WE'LL CALL YOU GUYS BACK UP HERE.
THANK YOU, SIR. APPRECIATE ALL YOUR COMMENTS.
ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? IF NOT, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING THIS BACK TO COMMISSION FOR ACTION.
>> LET ME JUST ANSWER COMMISSIONER RIOS QUESTION, THE PROPERTY BEFORE THE LDR WAS DONE BLIGHT INDUSTRIAL.
>> I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE 25 P-028 WITH SAF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE PROVISION THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDES LANDSCAPING ALONG AVENUE G, AND I'M NOT REALLY SURE HOW TO WORD THIS I MIGHT NEED A LITTLE BIT OF HELP, BUT THEY'RE TELLING US THEY'RE GOING TO HELP US WITH THE STREETS OVER THERE.
I'D LIKE TO HAVE SOMETHING IN HERE BECAUSE WE'RE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL, AND YOU GUYS ARE TELLING US THAT, HEY, YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE AN IMPROVEMENT TO AVENUE G, AND YOU WOULD ALSO PROVIDE SOME MONIES TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO 46TH STREET, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> COVERED IN SPECIFIC CONDITION 2.
ACTUALLY, WE CAN UPDATE SPECIFIC CONDITION 2.
IT'S REFERENCING AN ALLEY, AND THAT'S NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE, BUT THE PAVING AND ANY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ROADWAY SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER.
>> WE WE'RE COVERED ON THE STREETS.
HE WOULD PAY FOR THAT BECAUSE THAT'D BE ON HIS PROPERTY.
I'LL TELL YOU WHAT. I'LL TELL YOU WHAT I'M GOING TO DO.
WHY DON'T WE DO THIS? I'M GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
WE'LL HAVE A DISCUSSION AND THEN WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL DO AN AMENDMENT TO THAT TO COVER THE ITEMS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
I'M GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> NOT THE CONDITION ABOUT THAT.
>> WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK, DISCUSS IT, AND WE'LL ADD THAT AS AN AMENDMENT.
>> WE'LL HAVE THE DISCUSSION. WHO WANTS TO BE FIRST?
>> THE PROPER TERM IS RIGHT OF WAY LANDSCAPING, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? FOR THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE ONLY ON AVENUE G.
>> ON AVENUE G. RIGHT AWAY LANDSCAPING AND AVENUE G. THAT'S GOING TO ALREADY.
[01:25:03]
THEY'RE ALREADY DOING THAT.>> THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE STAFF INCLUDED WITH THE 10 FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK AND ALL OF THAT.
>> FAR MUCH WE TALKED ABOUT NOT SURE IF THE HYDRANTS AND THINGS ARE WE IN WORKING ORDER OVER THERE.
>> THOSE WOULD BE A CONDITION OF THEIR PERMIT.
HE WOULDN'T APPROVE THEIR THEIR BUILDING PERMIT UNTIL THEY DO THAT.
IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> THE COST OF THAT IS THE DEVELOPER.
>> JUST TO BE CLEAR ON THE RIGHT OF WAY FROM 46TH AND WYNNE TO 48TH AND WYNNE.
IT'S AN UNIMPROVED RIGHT OF WAY THAT ACTS AS A DRAINAGE DITCH.
WHEN WE SAY THE PAVING OF THE ALLEY AND ANY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ROADWAY, THAT'S BASED ON OUR DETERMINE LIKE THE CITY'S DETERMINATION.
THEY CAN'T SAY, I GUESS WE DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE ANY.
>> YEAH, THAT'S THE CITY'S DETERMINATION.
>> ANYBODY ELSE? BASICALLY, WE'VE GOT THE STREETS COVERED IN THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, IS THAT CORRECT, KATHERINE? REALLY, WE'RE JUST ADDING THE RIGHT AWAY LANDSCAPING ALONG AVENUE G FROM 46-48.
I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MUCH I REALLY LIKE SEEING PARKING, NOT ON HARBORSIDE.
I THINK THIS IS THE BEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD IN THE PARKING DEPARTMENT.
WHAT CAN WE DO, AND PERHAPS THIS IS JUST SOMETHING WE SEND UP THE CHAIN WITH OUR RECOMMENDATION? I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE DRAINAGE.
HE'S TELLING US HE'S GOT IMPERVIOUS COVER, BUT WHEN HE GETS OVER TO PUBLIC WORKS, AND I DON'T WANT THESE GUYS TO GET OVER TO PUBLIC WORKS AND A DRAINAGE KILLS THEIR PLAN.
I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE ANY INCENTIVES WE CAN GIVE THESE GUYS TO ENCOURAGE.
HE'S ALREADY TOLD US HE OWNS THE LAND NEXT TO THE RAILROAD MUSEUM.
WELL, I DON'T WANT TO SEE A PARKING GARAGE THERE.
LET'S ENCOURAGE THESE GUYS TO GO DO STUFF WHERE THEY'RE DOING THIS NOW.
AS PLANNING COMMISSION, WHAT CAN WE DO OTHER THAN JUST SENDING IT UP THE FOOD CHAIN TO THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER? WHAT DO WE DO TO PROMOTE THAT?
>> THE PARKING LAND USE, IS IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S AT THE CURRENT TIME IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USES THERE.
ZONING, OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW, IS SOMETHING THAT'S PROSPECTIVE, IT LOOKS FORWARD, AND IT SHOULD BE BASED ON A FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE ACTIVELY AT THE MOMENT.
IT'S GOING TO BE UPDATED IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE.
THE DRAINAGE ISSUE REALLY BOILS DOWN TO IT'S SOMEWHAT DISCRETIONARY IN OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
>> WHEN YOU HAVE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, IS THIS DEVELOPER GOING TO REALLY CREATE ANY ADDITIONAL RUNOFF? IN THIS CASE, I THINK WHAT OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WILL DO IS, THEY'LL ANALYZE THE DEPTH AND HOW SOLID THAT BASE IS.
IF IT IN FACT IS ACTING MORE LIKE CONCRETE, I'M GOING TO GO ON A RIM AND SAY, YES, THEY'LL GIVE THEM CREDIT FOR THAT.
I CAN'T CLAIM THAT MYSELF, BUT I THINK THEY WILL GIVE THEM AT LEAST SOME DEGREE OF CREDIT FOR THAT.
I WOULD BACK OFF THE WORD INCENTIVE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THE CITY IS GOING TO PROVIDE AN INCENTIVE AS SUCH, BUT IT WOULD BE SOME FORM OF REGULATORY RELIEF, WHICH I GUESS YOU MAY CALL AN INCENTIVE.
BUT REALLY I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE WITH PUBLIC WORKS AND THE DEVELOPER TO REALLY GET DOWN TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER HERE.
IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PUBLIC ROAD, WE HAVE PUBLIC ROAD STANDARDS.
IS PUBLIC WORKS OKAY WITH AN OVERLAY
[01:30:03]
OR ARE THEY EXPECTING A COMPLETE REBUILD? I DON'T KNOW.THESE ARE JUST THINGS THAT WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO GET WITH THAT DEPARTMENT ON AND HAVE A MEETING WITH THE DEVELOPER TO TALK THEM THROUGH.
THAT'S REALLY AS FAR AS I CAN GO AT THE MOMENT.
BUT CLEARLY, NEW DEVELOPMENTS INFRASTRUCTURE IS SUPPLIED BY THE DEVELOPER.
REDEVELOPMENTS INFRASTRUCTURE TYPICALLY IS SUPPLIED AT LEAST SOME DEGREE BY THE DEVELOPER.
THE BASIS FOR WHICH I'M RECOMMENDING THE CLARIFICATION RIGHT OF WAY IS THAT THIS IS A REDEVELOPMENT AREA THAT OBVIOUSLY NEEDS RIGHTS OF WAY IMPROVED, AND THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD BE SEEKING HERE.
>> IT'S A PART. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE OFFERING US IN EXCHANGE FOR US GRANTING THEIR REQUESTS.
WE ALL KNOW WE'VE SEEN SOME PROJECTS THAT DRAINAGE HAS REALLY MIXED THEM.
IF ALL OF A SUDDEN, A THIRD OF HIS PROPERTY GOES AWAY FOR DRAINAGE, HE'S PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME MAKING THE MATH WORK TO PAY FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS.
>> WE'VE BEEN ADDRESSING THAT QUITE A BIT.
WE'VE REALLY BACKED OFF THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
WE BROUGHT THAT TO COUNCIL OVER THE LAST THREE MONTHS AGO, WHICH CREATED A MAJOR CHANGE ON THOSE REQUIREMENTS FOR DRAINAGE AND RUNOFF.
I'M NOT SURE IF I CAN GET THAT TO ALL, IT WAS A VERY BIG DEAL OF WHAT REQUIREMENTS WE BACKED OFF OF ON THAT.
>> IF HAD A PRE DEVELOPMENT MEETING HERE AND DRAINAGE WASN'T AN ISSUE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. GO AHEAD, TOM, PLEASE.
>> SOME THOUGHTS. I REJECT THE IDEA THAT THERE'S NO RESIDENTIAL ANYTHING OVER THERE.
THEN WHEN YOU CONSIDER WHERE THESE CARS AND BUSES ARE GOING TO BE GOING, THAT'S A VERY RESIDENTIAL AREA AS YOU GET EAST OF THAT INTERSECTION.
THEN YOU CONSIDER, JUST FROM A TRAFFIC EQUATION, PEOPLE ARE TURNING LEFT ON BROADWAY. THERE'S NO LIGHT THERE.
THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC THAT GETS ANYTIME I TRY TO GO DOWNTOWN ON A SUNDAY, AND FOLKS ARE TRYING TO TURN LEFT, THEY'RE ALL HAVING TROUBLE AT BROADWAY JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T RUN INTO THAT LEFT TURN THERE, BUT THEN, YOU GET PEOPLE STACKED UP.
IT'S A BIG ISSUE. THEN FURTHER, WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE LDRS IN 2015, I THINK THAT WE SAID, IT'S PRESCRIPTIVE.
YOU TRY TO LOOK FORWARD AND SAY WHAT COULD THIS BE? THEN 10 YEARS LATER THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER AND GO, WELL, LOOK, IT DIDN'T WORK, IT'S BEEN 10 YEARS.
WE'RE PUSHING ALMOST 200 YEARS IN THIS CITY.
I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT LONG SITE WHEN WE LOOK AT THESE THINGS.
I DON'T SEE A PARKING GARAGE OR I GUESS JUST REALLY JUST A PARKING LOT, NOT EVEN A GARAGE.
THERE'S NO DENSITY TO IT AS REALLY A HUGE BENEFIT TO THAT AREA OR REALLY THE COMMUNITY AT ALL.
THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT THERE OVER THERE.
IT'D BE GREAT IF YOU'LL COULD PUT SOME STREETS TOGETHER THAT'D BE WONDERFUL, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT FULLY PUTS BACK WHAT A BUNCH OF PARKING SPACES TAKES.
I THINK WHEN WE LOOK AT WHERE DO WE WANT PARKING LOTS AND VERSUS WHERE DO WE WANT HOUSING OR EVEN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES, WE'RE LOOKING BETWEEN PEOPLE AND CARS.
I JUST DON'T REALLY VALUE CARS THAT MUCH.
>> I AGREE, AND I LOOK AT THIS AS THE PLUSES, IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE 500 PARKING SPACES, I WOULD MUCH PREFER TO HAVE THEM HERE AS ALTERNATIVELY THEM IN A PARKING GARAGE NEXT TO A MUSEUM IN WHAT IS OUR HISTORIC DOWNTOWN DISTRICT.
THERE IS NO PERFECT SPOT, BUT I DON'T WANT IT ON HARBOR SIDE.
THAT'S FOR ME. THAT'S TURNED INTO A GIANT FRICKING PARKING LOT OVER THERE, AND IT'S GOING TO CONTINUE AS LONG AS THERE'S LAND THERE.
IF WE DON'T, THAT'S GOING TO BE HIS NEXT PLAN IS PUT A GARAGE OVER THERE WHERE ALL PEOPLE ARE.
>> I'D RATHER HAVE 500 CARS ON A BLOCK OF THAT SIZE AS OPPOSED TO TAKING.
>> IT'S JUST A LAND USE ISSUE.
WE LOOK AT THE LIMITED AMOUNT OF LAND IN THIS TOWN AND IT'S JUST GETTING SMALLER AND SMALLER.
WE HAVE TO START CONSIDERING WHAT DO WE WANT TO SEE ON A FOUR ACRE PIECE OF LAND? IS IT GOING TO TAKE US FIVE MORE YEARS BEFORE SOMEBODY COMES ALONG AND WANTS TO BUY YOUR PROPERTY AND MAKE AN INVESTMENT OF THAT SORT?
[01:35:02]
MAYBE SO, BUT I KNOW THAT THEY WON'T DO IT IF THERE'S A PARKING LOT THERE.THOSE ARE JUST MY THOUGHTS. I APPRECIATE IT.
>> I APPRECIATE THOSE, TOM. I REALLY DO.
ANYBODY ELSE? I'M GOING TO MAKE AN ATTEMPT AT AMENDING OUR MOTION.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE RIGHT OF WAY LANDSCAPING ALONG AVENUE G FROM 46-48 STREET.
THAT'S A MOTION AND IT NEEDS A SECOND.
[BACKGROUND] WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO AMEND ADDING RIGHT AWAY LANDSCAPING TO AVENUE G FROM 46-48.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? WE'LL VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT. THE OPPOSED.
I CAN'T COUNT. THAT'S FIVE FOR, ONE AGAINST.
NOW WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THE AMENDED MOTION.
>> BE QUIT. I WANT TO ECHO WHAT TOM IS SAYING BECAUSE IT'S VERY RARE THAT WE SEE THE STAFF RECOMMEND NON-APPROVAL OF AN AGENDA ITEM.
VERY RARE. IF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN DID TRY TO LOOK FORWARD FROM 2015 AND TRANSITION THIS AREA TO AN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S UNCOMFORTABLE TO MAKE THIS.
EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A GREAT PROJECT, IT'S A REALLY GREAT PROJECT.
I ECHO WHAT HE SAYS. THAT'S ALL.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT. GO AHEAD.
>> NO. I WANT TO SAY, I AGREE WITH YOU AND COMMISSIONER SINGLETON, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF POTENTIAL OUT THERE IN THAT AREA.
WHO KNOWS WHAT THE REASONS WERE BACK IN 2015 FOR GOING FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IT HASN'T HAPPENED.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE, I THINK IS GOING TO BE THE TRAFFIC FLOW.
BECAUSE YOU COULD GO DOWN CHURCH STREET AND GET YOURSELF TO 37TH DOWN TO HARBOR SIDE.
BUT WHEN YOU DO THAT, YOU DO PASS A BIG APARTMENT COMPLEX, YOU PASS RIGHT UNI CENTER, WHERE'S CHILDREN'S PROGRAMS GOING ON ALL THE TIME, AND THEN YOU DO HIT THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
THAT'S GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE. I ALSO THINK IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY TO LOOK AT, WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO TO MAKE THIS EASIER TO ACCESS DIFFERENT PARTS OF TOWN OR THAT PART OF TOWN? BECAUSE THERE'S A LITTLE BACK ROAD I TAKE ALL THE WAY DOWN POST OFFICE TO GET OVER TO THE JUSTICE CENTER.
NOT TOO MANY PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THAT, BUT IT'S A CUTE LITTLE RAGGEDY ROAD THAT WILL GET YOU OUT THERE.
IT'S A TOUGH ONE, BUT I THINK THE BIG DRAWBACK IS THAT WHEN THEY DID MAKE THE ZONING CHANGE THAT PUTS THIS LIMIT ON IT.
I WILL SAY JUST MR. GAERTNER'S POINT EARLY IN HIS PRESENTATION, BUT THE SPOT ZONING, WE'VE ALREADY DONE THAT.
WE DID THAT WITH ROSENBERG SCHOOL.
WE DID THAT TWO MEETINGS AGO WITH HARBOR VIEW NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE DID IT WITH ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD WHAT A YEAR AGO, AROUND R1 TO R0, SO WE DO IT.
WE DO SPOT ZONING, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES IT'S A THING.
>> I DON'T WANT TO TAKE UP TOO MUCH MORE TIME, BUT YOU ALSO PASS A SCHOOL.
THEN YOU ALSO PASSED THE LAST CRUISE PARKING LOT IN THE AREA, WHICH IS AT ABOUT 35TH STREET, I BELIEVE IT IS THE OLD FALSTAFF BREWERY.
WE'RE PRETTY FAR REMOVED FROM ANY OTHER CRUISE PARKING.
>> ANYBODY ELSE? THEN WE'LL TAKE THE VOTE.
THOSE IN FAVOR? THOSE WHO OPPOSED? IT'S FIVE IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED SO THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL IS APPROVED.
MOVING FORWARD. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT, SIR. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. YOU GUYS DON'T GET PAID NEARLY ENOUGH.
>> [LAUGHTER] NOW, THIS IS GOING TO BE HEARD BY CITY COUNCIL, CORRECT?
>> YES. IT GOES TO COUNCIL THE END OF AUGUST 28TH.
>> THANK YOU. LAST BUT NOT LEAST 25ZA-005.
[6.E.4. 25ZA-005 Request for a text amendment to the Galveston Land Development Regulations, Article 2, Uses and Supplemental Standards for the Vending Kiosk/ATM land use (LDR 2.373). Applicant: Alecs Young, Galveston Fund 1, LLC]
>> THIS IS A TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ARTICLE II, USES AND SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS FOR VENDING KIOSKS AND ATMS. TO GIVE SOME BACKGROUND IN JANUARY 2025, THE APPLICANT'S AGENT SUBMITTED PLANS TO ADD A FREESTANDING ICE VENDING MACHINE KIOSK AND ASSOCIATE EQUIPMENT TO A PROPERTY ON SEAWALL.
THE PERMIT WAS DENIED DUE TO NONCOMPLIANCE WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 2.373 A2.
WHICH LIMITS OVERALL HEIGHT OF THE LAND USE, WHICH BEING A VENDING MACHINE, KIOSK TO 10 FOOT ABOVE GRADE, INCLUDING EQUIPMENT.
THE APPLICANT APPEALED THAT DETERMINATION BY
[01:40:02]
STAFF TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN MARCH.BUT STAFF'S INTERPRETATION WAS AFFIRMED AT THEIR MAY 7TH, 2025 MEETING.
THE APPLICANT IS NOW REQUESTING A CHANGE TO THOSE LIMITED USE STANDARDS FOR THE VENDING KIOSK/ATM LAND USE TO ALLOW AS A MAXIMUM OF 16 FOOT ABOVE GRADE, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE EQUIPMENT PER STAFF'S DETERMINATION THE ZBA AFFIRMED.
THAT IS THE ONLY CHANGE THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING, ALL THE OTHER LIMITED USES THEY HAVE NOT PROPOSED A CHANGE WITH.
WE'LL JUST ALLOW A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA HEIGHT.
PLEASE NOTE THE CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
ALSO NOTE THAT CITY COUNCIL HAVE THE FINAL DECISION ON THIS AS WELL AT THE AUGUST 28TH, 2025 MEETING.
A STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT.
ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT SUBMITTAL, THE REQUEST IS BASED ON THE STANDARD DIMENSIONS OF ICE AND WATER PACKAGE UNITS, WHICH ARE TYPICALLY PREFABRICATED, DO NOT DEVIATE FROM THEIR SIZES TOO MUCH.
THE LIMITED SELECTION TO A FEW SMALL LOW CAPACITY UNITS DOES NOT ADEQUATELY SERVE PUBLIC NEEDS.
IN ADDITION, ONCE AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ONLY A CHANGE TO THE OVERALL HEIGHT AND NO OTHER CHANGES TO LIMITED USES, WHICH DOES PRESERVE THE INTENT OF THE STANDARDS TO PREVENT ANY UNDUE NUISANCE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
WE HAVE JUST A VERY BRIEF SLIDE HERE, JUST SHOWING WHAT THE VENDING KIOSK LIMITED USE STANDARDS ARE, AND OF COURSE, WE HAVE THE STRIKE THROUGH OF 10 FOOT AND THEN THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO 16 FOOT, AND THERE'S NO OTHER CHANGE BEING PROPOSED.
>> THANK YOU, DANIEL. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES, SIR.
>> THIS IS NOT THE FIRST ONE OF THESE KIOSKS IN GALVESTON.
WHY IS IT THAT THIS APPLICANT WAS CALLED OUT WHEN THERE'S SEVERAL OTHERS LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE CITY?
>> IT'S HARD TO SAY, AND THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY PROPOSE THAT SAME QUESTION TO US.
OUR ANSWER IS ALWAYS WITHOUT HAVING A LIST OF THESE THINGS AND REALLY DELVING INTO HOW LONG HAVE THEY BEEN THERE? ARE THEY LEGALLY NONCONFORMING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, IT'S VERY HARD TO SAY.
BUT THIS WOULD PROBABLY ENCOMPASS SOME OF THOSE.
>> THEY'RE ALL THE SAME BRAND.
THEY'RE SAME MANUFACTURER KIOSK.
I THINK THE BIGGEST QUESTION WAS THE FACT THAT THE HEIGHT REGULATION IN QUESTION, WHETHER OR NOT IT INCLUDED THE OPERATING EQUIPMENT THAT WAS ON TOP?
>> CORRECT. THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL POINT OF CONTENTION.
>> WHAT'S THE LOCATION OF THIS? IT IS TO THE WEST OF THE NEW RESTAURANT?
>> IT WOULD BE JUST, IT'S THE PROPERTY THAT'S JUST RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE WALMART.
>> BUT IT'S ON THE TOP OF THE SEAWALL?
>> IT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SEAWALL, BOULEVARD.
[OVERLAPPING] IN THE PROPERTY WHERE PIT STOP USED TO BE.
>> IN THAT PARKING LOT. WHERE?
>> WHEN THIS WAS WRITTEN, THE 10 FOOT HEIGHT THING, IS THAT FROM THE 2015 OR WAS THAT FROM PRIOR AND JUST MOVED ON IN?
>> THEN I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WAS BEFORE MY TIME HERE AT THE CITY [LAUGHTER]
>> BEFORE YOU WERE BORN [INAUDIBLE]
>> ALL OF THE LIMITED STANDARDS DATE FROM 2015 BEFORE THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE LIMITED STANDARDS AS A CONCEPT.
>> WE PUT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? YOU WANT TO COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HAS A QUESTION FOR YOU OR NOT.
>> [BACKGROUND] GOOD EVENING, I'M MAX YOUNG.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> IS THIS WHAT THE MACHINE LOOKS LIKE? IS THIS THE DIMENSIONS THAT ARE LISTED HERE?
>> YES, SIR. THOSE ARE THE STANDARD SIZE.
YOU'LL SEE THOSE. THERE'S A SMALLER ONE.
THERE'S WINDMILL AND THERE'S TWICE THE ICE AND THEY'RE ALL ABOVE 10 FEET.
BUT 282361ST STREET, YOU HAVE 14525 AVENUE, I BELIEVE, RIGHT IN FRONT OF GOODWILL.
THERE'S ONE IN THE PARKING LOT THERE AS WELL.
BOULEVARD HAS THE EXACT MACHINE AS WELL AND THEN CRYSTAL BEACH AS WELL.
THEY'RE PRETTY COMMON ALONG THE BEACH.
[01:45:01]
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU, SIR. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHERS? CALL YOU BACK UP HERE.
ANYBODY ELSE I CAN MAKE A COMMENT OR A COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING? SEEING NONE. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING THIS BACK TO COMMISSION FOR ACTION.
>> I MAKE A MOTION. WE APPROVE 25ZA-005.
>> SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE 25ZA-005 WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL TAKE THE VOTE. THOSE IN FAVOR.
GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR BUSINESS, SIR.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS, THEN WE, IF NOT, WILL BE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.