[00:00:04]
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. WE'LL GET STARTED.
[1. Call Meeting to Order]
IT'S THREE O'CLOCK, AND WE'RE GOING TO CALL THE GALVESTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.TIME FLIES WHEN YOU'RE HAVING FUN.
THANK YOU, DONNA. WE HAVE A QUORUM, AND ARE THERE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST? SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE ON.
[4. Welcome New Member]
HERB, WANT TO TELL US A LITTLE ABOUT YOURSELF?>> AGAIN, MY NAME IS HERB WALPOLE.
MY WIFE AND I BOUGHT PROPERTY IN THE PRESERVE OVER BY STEWART BEACH.
SEVEN YEARS AGO, WE BUILT, STARTING IN JANUARY OF 2020.
FOUR MONTHS LATER, THE COUNTRY SHUT DOWN BECAUSE OF COVID, SO THAT WAS AN EXPERIENCE.
BUT WE'VE BEEN HERE FULL-TIME FOR THE LAST, LET'S SEE, SINCE '22.
I'VE BEEN IN THE BUILDING BUSINESS MY ENTIRE CAREER.
WHETHER IT WAS IN THIS COUNTRY OR IN AFRICA OR IN SOUTH AMERICA, I'VE BUILT IN PRETTY WELL PLACES THAT ARE REMOTE.
SOME OF THOSE NOT SO HELPFUL AND COMPLIMENTARY, BUT NEVERTHELESS, WE GOT WHERE WE NEEDED TO GET.
>> THANK YOU FOR VOLUNTEERING.
>> GLAD TO HAVE YOU. MOVING ON,
[5. Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson]
WE'LL TAKE CARE OF OUR LITTLE HOUSE, LITTLE BUSINESS HERE.WE NEED TO ELECT THE CHAIRPERSON, SO WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE FLOOR FOR NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR.
>> I'LL NOMINATE RUSTY WALLA FOR CHAIR.
>> I'LL ACCEPT THAT NOMINATION.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? SEEING NONE, WE'LL TAKE THE VOTE.
THOSE IN FAVOR OF RUSTY WALLA FOR CHAIR.
THAT'S UNANIMOUS. I APPRECIATE THAT VOTE OF CONFIDENCE.
STAFF, PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU CAN DOUBLE MY PAY SINCE-
NOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THE VICE CHAIR.
I'M GOING TO NOMINATE TOM AS OUR NEW VICE CHAIR.
ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR? SEEING NONE, WE'LL TAKE THE VOTE. THOSE IN FAVOR? TOM, YOU'RE IN. YOU GET TO BRING YOUR NAME AND EVERYTHING, COME SIT RIGHT HERE.
HEY, MAN, THIS GOT YOU A NEW SPOT. THANKS FOR THAT.
IF YOU ARE HERE TODAY TO SPEAK ON A NON-AGENDA ITEM.
IF YOUR ITEM IS ON THE AGENDA, YOU'LL GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK ON THESE.
BUT IF YOU'RE HERE AND YOU'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON A NON-AGENDA ITEM, NOW IS YOUR CHANCE.
ANYBODY WANT TO DO THAT? SEEING NONE, WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR FIRST ITEM OF NEW BUSINESS, 7A CASE 25P-041.
[7.A.1. 25P-041 (Adjacent to 11254 and 11314 Sportsman Road) Request for an Abandonment of approximately 18,134 square feet of street right of way between West Bay and Sportsman Road. Adjacent properties are legally described as Abstract 121 Page 57 West 1/2 of Lot 92 (92-1) Trimble & Lindsey Section 2 and Abstract 121 Hall & Jones Survey Lot 110 (110-3) Trimble & Lindsey Section 2, in the City and County of Galveston, Texas.]
THIS IS ADJACENT 211254 AND 11314 SPORTSMAN ROAD.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR ABANDONMENT OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON'S RIGHT-OF-WAY.
THERE ARE 11 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT TO RETURN TO BOTH OF THOSE IN OPPOSITION.
CITY DEPARTMENT AND OUTSIDE UTILITY COMMENTS.
PUBLIC WORKS NOTES A 20-FOOT-WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WILL BE REQUIRED REGARDLESS OR IF THE ABANDONMENT IS APPROVED, AND OF COURSE, CENTER POINT IS REQUESTING A STREET AND ALLEY CLOSURE, WHICH IS ONE OF THEIR INTERNAL PROCESSES THAT THEY ALWAYS ASK FOR IN THESE SITUATIONS.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE ABANDONMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 18,134 SQUARE FOOT OF STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ABUTTING THEIR PROPERTIES.
THERE'S TWO APPLICANTS ONE ON EITHER SIDE.
IMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY, 50-FOOT WIDTH, ACCESS FROM SPORTSMAN ROAD, AND, OF COURSE, IT TERMINATES TO THE NORTH IN GALVESTON'S WEST BAY.
NOTE THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION IN THE STAFF REPORT.
ALSO NOTE THE ADJACENT ZONINGS.
THE AREAS, ALL ZONED, ARE ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED.
SOME OF IT IS DEVELOPED, A LOT OF IT IS VACANT AND UNDEVELOPED, ESPECIALLY TO THE SOUTH.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE BAN WILL NOT IMPACT THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.
THIS IS A VERY SHORT PIECE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND IT BASICALLY DEAD-ENDS INTO THE WEST BAY.
ONCE AGAIN, THE CITY ENGINEERS REQUESTED A 20-FOOT-WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT BETWEEN SPORTSMAN ROAD AND THE BAY CENTERED ON THE PROPOSED COMMON PROPERTY LINE, IN ADDITION TO CENTER POINT'S INTERNAL REQUESTS THAT THEY MADE.
PLEASE NOTE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMANENT STREET CLOSURES FROM OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 6.302B3 IN THE STAFF REPORT.
PLEASE ALSO NOTE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
[00:05:04]
ADDRESSING OF APPROPRIATE USES OF PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY.CITY COUNCIL HAS A FINAL DECISION REGARDING THIS REQUEST FOR ABANDONMENT.
THEY WILL HEAR THIS REQUEST ON OCTOBER 23RD, 2025. LET'S SEE HERE.
SHOULD THE REQUEST BE APPROVED, THE FILE-SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE AND STANDARD CONDITIONS TWO THROUGH FOUR MAY BE APPROPRIATE. WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS HERE.
HERE WE HAVE A SURVEY OF THE TWO ADJACENT PROPERTIES, WHICH ARE ALSO THE APPLICANTS AND THE PIECE OF RIGHT OF WAY IN QUESTION; THEY'RE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.
THERE, YOU HAVE AN OVERALL VIEW OF WHERE THAT LIES ON SPORTSMAN ROAD. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
HERE WE HAVE A DRAWING SHOWING WHERE THAT PROPOSED DIVISION WOULD BE DIRECTLY DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, WITH EACH APPLICANT GETTING HALF. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
HERE WE HAVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LOOKING NORTH, AND YOU CAN SEE THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES A BIT ON THE SIDES.
THEN WE HAVE THE PHOTO LOOKING SOUTH, WHICH IS UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY FOR QUITE A LONG WAY TO THE SOUTH, AND THIS CONCLUDES THE STAFF'S REPORT.
>> THANK YOU, DANIEL. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES JOHN.
>> I WAS WONDERING IF STAFF HAS ANY INFORMATION ON THE HISTORY OF THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY.
HOW DID IT FIRST GET THERE? WHAT WAS THE INTENT, THE PURPOSE OF IT, SINCE IT GOES INTO A BODY OF WATER?
>> THERE ARE STAFF MEMBERS THAT PROBABLY KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT IT THAN I DO, BEING A RELATIVE LATECOMER, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS A LOT OF THOSE RIGHT-OF-WAYS WERE LAID OUT BY THE COUNTY WAY BACK WHEN AND BEFORE THE CITY WAS ANNEXED TO THESE AREAS.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF THEM AT REGULAR INTERVALS THAT GO NORTH TO SOUTH.
THAT'S JUST HOW THE COUNTY LAID THEM OUT, I THINK.
>> I HAVE ONE JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.
ARE BOTH THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE WEST SIDE AND THE EAST SIDE, ARE THEY BOTH MAKING AN APPLICATION FOR THIS, OR IS IT ONE OF THEM DOING IT AND NOT THE OTHER?
>> NO. THEY ARE BOTH ENJOINING ON THE APPLICATION AND PER STATE LAW THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO CLAIM HALF.
>> THE APPLICANT TO THE EAST IS GETTING HALF, APPLICANT TO THE WEST IS GETTING HALF?
>> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, CORRECT.
>> THAT'S GOOD. IT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE.
>> WHENEVER WE'RE DOING THE NOTIFICATION RESPONSES FOR CITY DEPARTMENTS, WE'RE LOOKING AT FIRE, POLICE, ETC.
ARE WE LOOKING AT BEACH PATROL FOR SOMETHING SPECIFIC TO THIS? I KNOW THEY USE THAT FOR ACCESS SOMETIMES.
>> I AM NOT AWARE OF BEACH PATROL USING THAT.
THEY POSSIBLY DO. I'M NOT AWARE OF IT, BUT THEY WEREN'T INCLUDED, NO.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THEN WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? IF YOU DON'T MIND, SIGN IN, STATE YOUR NAME.
TELL US WHAT YOU'VE GOT GOING ON OUT THERE.
>> I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP.
THIS IS GOING TO APPLY TO BOTH CASES TODAY.
SINCE WE ONLY HAVE FOUR COMMISSIONERS HERE, THE VOTE ON THESE CASES REQUIRE A UNANIMOUS VOTE.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT SMYLE FROM STAFF HAD CONTACTED YOU GUYS AND HAD TOLD YOU THAT.
JUST SO THAT YOU ALSO KNOW, AS A BODY, WE MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
THE ULTIMATE DECISION FOR THIS IS AT A CITY COUNCIL LEVEL.
IF, FOR SOME REASON, YOU DID NOT GET A UNANIMOUS VOTE HERE, YOUR CASE WOULD STILL BE HEARD BY CITY COUNCIL.
THIS IS FOR BOTH CASES THAT WE HAVE TODAY.
OUR POSITION IS TO MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
IT'S UP TO THEM TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE YOUR REQUEST.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WILL ALSO ADD THAT IT'S THE APPLICANTS RIGHT IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO DEFER THEIR CASE UNTIL THERE'S A GREATER PARTICIPATION BY THE COMMISSION, IF THEY WOULD LIKE.
THAT'S TRUE. IF, FOR SOME REASON, YOU DECIDED THAT YOU WANTED TO DEFER YOUR CASE, WE WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO THAT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE AWARE THAT YOU HAVE THAT OPTION.
>> SOUNDS GOOD. NOW WE GOT ALL THAT DONE.
[00:10:01]
>> WELL, BASICALLY, I MEAN, YOU GUYS KNOW, WE JUST FILLED OUT THE PAPERWORK WE WANT TO WORK ON.
OH, I'M SORRY. MY NAME IS JOSEPH ANDREWS.
>> WHICH PROPERTY DO YOU WANT, THE ONE ON THE EAST OR THE WEST?
WE'RE PLANNING ON BUILDING A HOUSE AND STUFF OUT THERE.
DURING THE WHOLE PROCESS, WE STARTED LOOKING AT SOME OF THE OPTIONS, AND THE IDEA CAME UP THAT WE WOULD APPLY AND SEE ABOUT THIS OLD EASEMENT.
WE DID SOME RESEARCH WITH ALL THE NEIGHBORS AND EVERYONE WE COULD.
THIS THING IS LIKE OVER 100 YEARS OLD, AND IT'S NEVER BEEN UTILIZED AS FAR AS ANYBODY KNOWS.
THE GUYS WE BOUGHT IT FROM IT'S BEEN IN THEIR FAMILY SINCE 1930.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE MUCH KNOWLEDGE ON IT OTHER THAN IT WAS JUST THERE AND IT'S NEVER BEEN USED FOR ANYTHING.
I APPROACHED OUR NEIGHBORS, JACK, AND ASKED THEM IF THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO WORK WITH US ON AN ABANDONMENT, AND HE SAID, YES, SO WE APPLIED, AND HERE WE ARE.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
>> VERY GOOD. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NONE NOW, BUT IF SOMETHING COMES UP, WE'LL CALL YOU BACK. THANK YOU.
>> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THE STAFF REPORT, JOSEPH [INAUDIBLE].
>> THERE'S TWO APPLICANTS, BASICALLY.
>> IT'S NOTED AS JOSEPH ANDREWS AND CO INVESTMENTS.
>> ANDREWS IS TO THE EAST, ANCO IS TO THE WEST.
>> NO. WE'RE ANCO INVESTMENTS, THAT'S WHERE WE KEEP THE PROPERTY.
>> IT DOESN'T HAVE BOTH THEIR NAMES ON OUR STAFF REPORT.
IT HAS ANCO. HE'S THE REPRESENTATIVE OF ANCO. I GOT YOU.
>> THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS ASSOCIATED WITH ABANDONMENTS.
MR. ANDREWS IS LISTED AS THE APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE.
HE'S REPRESENTING ANCO INVESTMENTS.
THEN WE HAVE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, WHICH LISTS ALL OF THOSE OTHER PEOPLE, AND THEN ANCO INVESTMENTS, AND THEN THE EASEMENT HOLDER. WE'RE FINE.
>> WE HAVE ONE APPLICANT, BUT TWO PROPERTY OWNERS. IS THAT WHAT WE'VE GOT GOING ON?
>> A COUPLE OF PROPERTY OWNERS AND MR. ANDREWS IS DOING THE REPRESENTATION FOR ALL OF THEM.
>> WE GOT THE PAPERWORK DONE THAT THEY ASKED FOR FROM BOTH PARTIES.
>> PERFECT. YOUR ADJACENT NEIGHBOR, IF YOU DON'T MIND, JUST FOR THE RECORD, COME UP, TELL US YOUR NAME, AND TELL US THAT THIS IS A GREAT IDEA.
>> I MEAN, MY NAME IS JACK [INAUDIBLE].
I'VE LIVED HERE ALL MY LIFE, GREW UP HERE.
MY GRANDFATHER BOUGHT THAT PROPERTY IN 1925, SO WE'VE HAD IT IN THE FAMILY FOR 100 YEARS.
>> THAT EASEMENT HAS NEVER BEEN MORE THAN REALLY JUST A DRIVEWAY TO A HANDFUL OF CAMPS.
NOW IT'S JUST A DRIVEWAY, LITERALLY, TO TWO CAMPS, AND THE REST OF THE PEOPLE HAVE THEIR OWN DRIVEWAYS.
ONE THING, YOU DIDN'T MENTION ABOUT THE SOUTH SIDE OF THAT PROPERTY, SO IT'S ALL MARSH.
YOU'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO DEVELOP IT.
>> WHEN JOSEPH BOUGHT THE PROPERTY RECENTLY, HE CAME TO ME ABOUT THE EASEMENT, AND I SAID, WELL, LET'S SEE WHAT WE CAN DO WITH IT.
ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? YES, SIR.
>> I MAY BE ABLE TO FILL IN SOME BLANKS, TOO.
>> IF YOU DON'T MIND, I NEED YOU TO SIGN IN FOR ME.
[00:15:18]
I WAS BORN AND RAISED ON THE WEST END OF GALVESTON ISLAND.
JACK AND I HAVE KNOWN EACH OTHER FOREVER BECAUSE MY FAMILY HAS OWNED PROPERTY ON SPORTSMAN ROAD FOR A LONG TIME, ALSO.
THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXHIBIT THAT LOOKS LIKE THIS ONE, IF YOU NOTICE IT MIGHT HELP IT IF I GET IT RIGHT SIDE UP.
SPORTSMAN ROAD IS A LONG ROAD THAT YOU SEE THE BIG WIDE ROAD.
TO THE NORTH OF THAT IS A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT ROAD THAT HAS RUN ALONG THE EDGE OF THOSE CAMPS FOREVER, BEFORE THE SPORTSMAN ROAD EVEN EXISTED.
WHEN I WAS A KID IN THE '50S, WE USED TO HAVE TO DRIVE THAT ROAD TO GET TO OUR PROPERTY.
IF YOU LOOK AT THIS THE AERIAL HERE, THAT'S AN EXCERPT FROM A MASTER PLAN OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON AT ONE POINT IN TIME.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, I WAS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEN THIS ACTUALLY BECAME AN ITEM.
I'M NOT REALLY OPPOSED TO THE ABANDONMENT OF THE ROAD.
NOW SOMEBODY ASKED THEM ABOUT TO EXIST.
IF YOU LOOK AT THIS ONE, IN BETWEEN ALL OF THESE LITTLE LOTS ARE THE TREMBLE AND LINDSAY LOTS.
THE WEST END OF GALVESTON IS A SURVEY OUT OF THE STATE THAT CREATED THIS WHOLE PIG MAP.
IN BETWEEN EACH ONE OF THESE LOTS IS A 50 FOOT PLATTED BUT UNOPENED ROAD.
TREMBLE AND LINDSAY, THOUGH, NEGLECTED TO HAVE ANY EAST AND WEST ROADS ON THE WEST END.
A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT IS A ROAD THAT IS CREATED BY THE USE OF THE PUBLIC.
THE PRIME EXAMPLE IS STEWART ROAD.
IT IS A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT ROAD BECAUSE EVERYBODY THAT OWNED PROPERTY ON THE WEST END HAD TO GET TO TOWN OR BACK TO THEIR LAND, AND SO THEY JUST DROVE ACROSS EVERYBODY'S PROPERTY AND CREATED STEWART ROAD. PARDON ME.
> YES, SIR. IN ANY EVENT, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T KNOW I HAD A TABLE.
I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE EMBANKMENT, AS LONG AS I GET SOME ASSURANCE FROM THE LANDOWNER HERE THAT WANTS TO CLOSE.
THAT ROAD THAT I'LL BE ABLE TO HAVE ACCESS TO GET TO MY PROPERTY.
>> YOU HAVE A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT.
I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS.
WE CAN'T ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU, BUT THANK YOU FOR THE HISTORY LESSON.
MAKE SENSE WHY THAT'S THERE NOW.
ANY ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE.
WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING THIS BACK TO COMMISSION FOR ACTION.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 25P-041.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? YES, PLEASE.
>> I GUESS, THAT WAS AN INTERESTING HISTORY LESSON.
I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS AROUND THE ACCESS, BUT THE OTHER PIECE OF IT IS,
[00:20:01]
THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF ACCESS TO THAT WEST BAY AREA, AND IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE BAY ITSELF, THERE'S QUITE A BIT BLOCKING.IF SOMEBODY WERE TO GO IN IT OFF IT'S BY YOU AND TRY TO MAKE THEIR WAY DOWN TO SPORTSMAN'S ROAD, THERE'S SOME ACCESS FURTHER DOWN THE ISLAND TO THE WEST, BUT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, ACCIDENTS AND PUBLIC SAFETY, SECONDS CAN MATTER.
I HAVE SOME CONCERNS AROUND THAT STUFF.
I THINK SPORTSMAN'S ROAD IS UNIQUE IN THAT YOU'VE GOT THIS BAY ACCESS, WHICH IS NOT REALLY FOUND IN A LOT OF PLACES.
>> ANYBODY ELSE? SEEING NONE WE'LL TAKE THE VOTE. THOSE IN FAVOR? THOSE OPPOSED. THAT'S 341 AGAINST, WHAT WOULD THAT BE?
>> THE MOTION FAILS DUE TO LACK OF FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES.
>> MOVING ON. HE WITH JUST A SECOND HERE, 7B CASE 25P-035.
[7.B.2. 25P-035 (3203 Cove View Blvd) Request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District for “RV Park” land use. The property is legally described as Abstract 121 Hall & Jones Survey, Part of Tract 8 (8-1) Campeche Cove Phase 2 Subdivision, in the City and County of Galveston, Texas.]
>> THIS IS AT 3203 COVE VIEW BOULEVARD, AND THIS IS A PLAN U DEVELOPMENT REQUEST.
THERE WERE 14 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.
ONE RETURN, THAT ONE WAS OPPOSED.
THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS.
I WILL COVER THOSE HERE IN A BIT.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A PLAN U DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT TO ESTABLISH AN RV PARK USE IN A MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT.
PURPOSE IS TO DEVELOP A 127-SPACE RESORT RECREATION RV PARK, COMPLIANT WITH ALL THE RULES, REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PER THE APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE, WHICH IS, OF COURSE, ALSO INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
SITE CONSISTS OF 15.92-ACRE LOT LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COVE VIEW BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 200 FOOT SOUTH OF STEWART ROAD.
IT'S CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED WITH DIRECT ACCESS TO COVE VIEW BOULEVARD AND THE WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LINES THAT EXIST IN COVE VIEW BOULEVARD.
SUBJECT ZONE IS ONCE AGAIN, MULTI-FAMILY, HIGH-DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE, ZONE 5.
PROPERTIES TO THE EAST AND SOUTH ARE ALSO MULTI-FAMILY HDDZ5.
THESE BOTH CONTAIN EXISTING MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS, PROPERTIES, AND NORTH ARE ZONE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY FIVE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES.
IN THE PROPERTY OF THE WEST IS ZONE RESORT RECREATION, HDD5, HYTH, AND DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE 5, AND OF COURSE, THERE IS AN EXISTING RV PARK IN THAT LOCATION.
OF COURSE, THE SUBJECT SITE CONSISTS OF THE BASE MULTI-FAMILY ZONING AND THE HYTH AND DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE OVERLAY, WHICH CO-REGULATES ALL LAND USES, OR THE BASE ZONE REGULATES LAND USES, WHILE THE HG Z REGULATES DESIGN AND PLACEMENT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE PROPERTY OF THE WEST.
HOWEVER, THE LAND USES IN ALL DIRECTIONS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT AND LESS COMPATIBLE.
THE SUBJECT SITE ONCE AGAIN IS A BASE ZONING OF MULTIFAMILY.
THE RV LAND USE WOULD TYPICALLY BE PROHIBITED IN MULTIFAMILY ZONING.
THUS, THE REQUESTS FOR THE PUD.
PLEASE NOTE THE PUD DETAILS AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUMMARY IN THE STAFF REPORT AND IN THE APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE.
THE FOLLOWING SUMMARIZES COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY CITY DEPARTMENTS.
FIRE MARSHAL NOTED THAT IF THIS IS APPROVED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PHASE, THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE REVIEWED FOR ALL FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS AS APPLICABLE.
PUBLIC WORKS IS REQUESTING A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.
THEY HAVE NOTED THAT SIDEWALKS WILL BE REQUIRED ALONG A COVE VIEW.
THEY HAVE RECOMMENDED THAT ONE OF THE ENTRANCES BE SHIFTED A BIT TO ALIGN WITH EXISTING ACCESSES ACROSS COVE VIEW, AND THEY HAVE NOTED THAT ONSITE DETENTION WILL BE REQUIRED TO SOME DEGREE.
I SAY SOME DEGREE BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOTED THAT CAMPECHE LAKE WAS ESTABLISHED TO PROVIDE REGIONAL DETENTION, BUT IT WAS ONLY DESIGNED FOR A TWO YEAR FLOOD EVENT.
WE CURRENTLY REQUIRE 25 YEAR FLOOD EVENT, BUT PUBLIC WORKS HAS ALSO KNOW THAT THEY WOULD BASICALLY CREDIT THE APPLICANT OF THE DIFFERENCE.
PLEASE NOTE THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL FOR PUDS IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
[00:25:05]
PROPOSED ZONING IS AN OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT.THE PROPOSED ZONING IS AN OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH OF COURSE, DOES NOT CHANGE THE BASE ZONING, WHICH STILL INCLUDES SIGNIFICANT RESTRICTIONS ON LAND USES PER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
WHILE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE LAND USE TO THE WEST, AGAIN, IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL USES AND ALL OTHER DIRECTIONS.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED, THAT AN ENHANCED SETBACK IS ESTABLISHED ALONG THE NORTH AND SOUTH PROPERTY LINES TO PROTECT THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND POSSIBLE FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH FROM ANY NOISE LIGHT, ETC.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS RELATIVELY LOW IMPACT, CONSISTING OF A SINGLE MODESTLY SIZED OFFICE BUILDING, AND OF COURSE THE FLAT WORK AND UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH AN RV PARK.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, COMPARED TO MUCH MORE INTENSIVE PROJECTS IS RELATIVELY EASY TO REMOVE SHOULD A FUTURE DEVELOPER DESIRE TO GO A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.
ONCE AGAIN, THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT CHANGE THE BASE ON AND CAN BE REMOVED OR REVOKED AS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT NECESSITATES.
FINALLY, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONFORM TO ALL LIMITED USES TYPICALLY APPLICABLE TO THE RV PARK LAND USE.
EXCEPT AS NECESSARY, FOR EXAMPLE, THE OFFICE WOULD HAVE PUBLIC SHOWERS AND RESTROOMS FOR GUESTS.
THAT IS NORMALLY PROHIBITED TO BE PROHIBITED FROM BEING WITHIN 300 FOOT OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
THAT WOULD BE ONE EXCEPTION OR DEVIATION THEY WOULD BE ASKING FOR.
OTHERWISE, THEY ARE PROPOSING TO MEET ALL THE OTHER LIMITED USE STANDARDS FOR AN RV PARK.
SHOULD PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINE THE PROPOSED PUD CONFORMS TO 13.601C OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE THROUGH TWO AND CENTER CONDITIONS THREE THROUGH EIGHT MAY BE APPROPRIATE.
WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS. HERE WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND VICINITY MAP ON THE RIGHT.
ON THE LEFT, WE HAVE THE APPLICANT'S EXHIBIT OF WHAT THAT RV PARK WOULD LOOK LIKE AND HOW IT WOULD BE LAID OUT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
ONCE AGAIN, HERE WE HAVE THE SAME GRAPHIC, BUT OVERLAID WITH EXISTING AERIAL IMAGERY.
THEN THE APPLICANTS SUBMITTAL OF WHAT THE OFFICE WOULD LOOK LIKE.
THEY'RE ONLY PROPOSING A FAIRLY MODEST OFFICE BUILDING, AND OF COURSE, A SUMMARY OF THE PUD PLAN. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
HERE WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND LOOKING NORTH BEYOND TO THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, LOOKING WEST, PROPERTIES TO THE EAST, PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH, AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE I KNOW WHERE TO BEGIN.
AND WE HAVE SOME LIMITED USE STANDARDS FOR RV PARKS.
DO YOU GUYS CAN WE DIG INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT? WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS WHEN WE HAVE THOSE LIMITED USE STANDARDS, I THINK THERE'S SOME SETBACKS BETWEEN DIFFERENT ZONES, PARTICULARLY THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
AND THEN I THINK THERE'S SOME SCREENING IN THERE.
I THINK THERE'S SOME STUFF REGARDING INTERIOR ROAD WIDTHS, THE OVERFLOW PARKING.
I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF IF YOU HAVE CAN ANSWER SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS REGARDING LIMITED BECAUSE.
>> DANIEL, I THINK, INCLUDED SOME OF THAT INFORMATION IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
>> REGARDING THOSE LIMITED USE STANDARDS? WAS IT NOT? MAYBE I JUST DIDN'T READ IT GET ENOUGH.
BECAUSE THIS THERE'S I'M LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN AND I SEE LIKE ONE, DOESN'T LIKE THERE'S ANY LANDSCAPING THAT'S ALONG THE THE HECK IS THAT.
ISN'T LIKE THERE'S ANY LANDSCAPING ALONG COVE VIEW BOULEVARD.
>> IF THOSE LOTS, IT SAYS IN THE NARRATIVE THAT THE LOTS ARE 20 FEET WIDE, IF THOSE LOTS ARE 20 FEET WIDE, FROM THE BACK OF THE RV SITE TO THOSE HOUSES THAT WOULD BE I GUESS TO THE NORTH OF THE TRACK.
THAT CAN'T BE FIVE FEET AT THE MOST.
I DON'T SEE ANY OF THAT STUFF ON HERE.
[00:30:01]
BUT I GUESS MY POINT IS I'M TRYING TO GET AT.IF HE WAS DOING THIS IN THAT AREA THAT WAS APPROVED.
YOU CAN DO RV PARKS IN COMMERCIAL ZONES, CORRECT?
>> RIGHT. IT'S COMMERCIAL AND RESREC.
BUT YOU HAVE A WHOLE LAUNDRY LIST OF LIMITED USE STANDARDS THAT YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH WITHIN THOSE ZONES.
I'M LOOKING AT THIS GOING, HE'S COMING TO US WITH A PLAN, BUT THIS PLAN DOESN'T APPLY TO HARDLY ANY OF THOSE LIMITED USE STANDARDS.
>> THOSE LIMITED USE STANDARDS DON'T APPLY BECAUSE THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IS NOT ZONED FOR AN RV PARK.
>> IF IT WAS, HE WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE LIMITED USE STANDARDS IN ORDER TO PUT AN RV PARK.
>> WHAT STAFF HAS DONE IS IN THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS NUMBER TWO, THAT ALL LIMITED USE STANDARDS FOR RV PARKS SHALL APPLY WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT RV PADS MAINTAIN A 20 FOOT SETBACK.
>> THIS COMPLIES WITH ALL THE LIMITED USE STANDARDS?
>> IT MAY NOT NOW, BUT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT IT BE DESIGNED TO APPLY TO FOLLOW THE LIMITED USE STANDARDS WITH TWO EXCEPTIONS FROM STANDARD A 1 AND A 10.
>> WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE SITE PLAN THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE LIMITED USE STANDARDS?
>> STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THAT IT DOES.
>> I GUESS THAT'S AN APPLICANT QUESTION.
REALLY, PUBLIC WORKS IS THE GUY WHO'S SAYING, HEY, I NEED SOME STUFF THEN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS SAYING THEY'LL HAVE THEIR COMMENTS AT PERMITTING.
IS THAT WHAT THEY'RE DOING? BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW THEY'RE GOING TO GET THEIR FIRE TRUCKS DOWN THE LANES IN HERE.
>> I'D SAY THE FIRE MARSHAL HAS INDICATED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION AND THAT THE FIRE CODE REVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED DURING PERMITTING.
TYPICALLY, IF THE FIRE MARSHAL HAS A CONCERN THAT HE SEES THAT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE CONSISTENCY WITH THE FIRE CODE, HE WOULD MENTION IT NOW.
IT'S ON SIX ACRES, 120 SOMETHING SITES IS A LOT, A WHOLE LOT.
THIS IS EXTREMELY DENSE AND JUST SO YOU GUYS KNOW, FOR THE RECORD, I'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
I USED TO OWN WHAT WAS AT ONE TIME, THE LARGEST RV PARK ON THE ISLAND.
I HAD TO DO ALL THIS I'M FAMILIAR WITH THIS.
I'M NOT IN THE RV PARK BUSINESS NOW.
I'VE GOT NO AFFILIATION WITH THE GUYS WHO OWN IT.
BUT I'M LIKE, THIS IS GOING TO BE VERY DENSE.
I'M JUST ASKING MORE SO ABOUT THESE TRAFFIC IMPACTS.
WE DON'T HAVE THOSE YET I'M ASKING ALL THESE QUESTIONS BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT SOMETHING AND NEED TO MAKE A DECISION BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE.
MY REAL QUESTION FOR STAFF IS, IF THE APPLICANT DOESN'T GET THEIR APPROVAL, CAN THEY COME BACK? WHAT'S THE DEAL ON THEM COMING BACK WITH ALL THE BOXES CHECKED ON THIS STUFF? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU? BECAUSE I'M LIKE, WHERE'S THE TRAFFIC IMPACT? WE KNOW HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE IT.
HE'S GOING TO HAVE A BIG DRAINAGE PROBLEM BECAUSE HE'S GOT TO PUT DETENTION IN THIS SOMEWHERE.
I CAN TELL YOU WE HAVEN'T GOT TO THE DISCUSSION YET AND I'M JUST TRYING TO GET STAFF TO HELP ME GET THROUGH THIS.
>> WELL, THE PUD IS THE FIRST IN A SERIES OF PERMITS.
THERE ARE PERMITS AND REQUIREMENTS THAT COME AFTER A PUD APPROVAL.
IF IT IS RECEIVED, THE ONLY THING A PUD CAN DO IS PROVIDE DEVIATIONS FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
IT CAN'T WAIVE A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, IT CAN'T WAIVE ANY DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS, ALL OF THAT STILL HAS TO BE MET.
>> TYPICALLY, THAT'S DONE AT BUILDING PERMIT.
>> THANK YOU. ONE LAST QUESTION.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT FLOOD ZONE THIS IS IN? IS THIS IN A AE?
>> NO. I CAN LOOK IT UP QUICKLY.
>> THAT'S ALL I HAD FOR STAFF.
ANYBODY ELSE? THEN WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS APPLICANT PRESENT?
>> AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE APPLICANT WAS ADVISED EARLIER AT
[00:35:02]
THE MEETING OF THEIR NEED TO BE MORE UNANIMOUS BONING.BUT IT IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION.
>> YES. DID YOU UNDERSTAND ALL THAT, SIR?
>> FOR THE APPLICANT? NO. YOU CAN STAND THERE AS LONG AS YOU WANT.
>> I APPRECIATE IT. MY NAME IS MATT DILICK, ON THE PRESIDENT OF COMMERCE EQUITIES.
I'M A RESIDENT OF GALVESON COUNTY SINCE 1971.
I DEVELOPED PROPERTIES HERE IN THE EARLY 80S UNDER GEORGE P MITCHELL.
THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN OWNED SINCE 2006.
IT DOES NOT MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE FOR MULTI FAMILY, THE MARKET CONDITIONS, THE RENT CONDITIONS WILL NOT JUSTIFY AND RATIONALIZE IT.
THE PROPERTY TAXES ARE ABOUT $600 A MONTH.
WITH A NEW DEVELOPMENT, IT TRIPLICATES.
THE RV COMMUNITY RESORT FOR THE PUD REQUEST IS TO HAVE APPROVAL.
WE UNDERSTAND THOROUGHLY ABOUT ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITTING.
I HAVE A RECOGNIZED LARGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, COMMERCE EQUITIES.
OUR PROJECTS ARE ALWAYS CONSIDERED VERY HIGHLY RATED.
PROJECT OF THE YEAR AT HOUSTON, TEXAS, BY THE BEND, MARYS CREEK ESTATES AND FRIENDSWOOD TEXAS.
MY PARTNER WAS A FAMOUS [INAUDIBLE].
ANYWAY, WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT EXPERIENCE.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS AND THOUGHTS.
THE OBJECTIVE I'VE BEEN ADVISED IS THAT THIS IS FOR A PUD.
[NOISE] IS THAT ME? SORRY. TOO MANY PHONES OUT HERE.
>> TAKE YOUR TIME. I JUST WANT TO HEAR YOUR STORY. YOU'RE GOOD.
>> ANYWAY, WITH THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF, IF YOU LOOK ALONG THE LINE THERE, THERE IS THE FENCE.
I WAS ACTUALLY A RECIPIENT OF THE ARBITRARY AWARD, WHICH IS VERY RARE FOR SAVING HUNDREDS OF TREES ON MEMORIAL DRIVE.
AGAIN, THE OBJECTIVE HERE IS FOR THE PUD ACCEPTANCE TO TAKE IT TO THE NEXT OTHER STEPS, WHICH OF COURSE WOULD BE A TRAFFIC STUDY, WOULD HAVE THE SETBACKS ESTABLISHED, WOULD HAVE THE LANDSCAPING PLAN FINISHED, ALL THE NECESSITIES.
WHEN I SAT DOWN WITH MR. LUNSFORD AND MR. TITANS, THE OBJECTIVE AGAIN IS TO KEEP IT IN THE OVERLAY OF THE MULTI FAMILY.
SOME PERIOD OF TIME, HOPEFULLY WITHIN TWO DECADES.
THE MULTIFAMILY MARKET WITH THE RENTS COULD DOVETAIL OUT AND WORK, BUT FOR PRESENTLY RIGHT NOW, THEY DON'T.
THIS IS WHY WE'RE PROCEEDING WITH THE RV RESORT. THANK YOU.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> YOUR COMPANY COMMERCE [INAUDIBLE] PROPERTIES.
>> NOT AFFILIATED WITH CORVE TOWN HOMES LAND ACQUISITION.
>> WE ARE THE OWNER. THAT'S JUST A SINGLE PURPOSE ENTITY THAT WE FORMED FOR EACH PROPERTY.
>> YOU PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, YOU SAID IN 2006?
>> CAN YOU SHARE WHAT YOU THINK YOUR TOTAL INVESTMENT WILL BE IN THIS PROJECT?
>> INCLUDING LAND OR EXCLUDING LAND.
THE TOTAL INVESTMENT WILL BE CLOSE TO ABOUT 4.5 MILLION.
>> IS THIS THEORETICALLY CONCEPTUAL OR IS THIS LIKE WHAT IT IS YOU'RE LOOKING FOR FROM A RENDERING STANDPOINT WITH THE ROADS BEING 14 FEET, CONCERN ABOUT FIRE TRUCK, THINGS OF THAT NATURE?
>> WELL, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WILL ADVISE YOU THAT THEY DO NOT ENTER THE PROPERTY RARELY.
THEY [INAUDIBLE] THE HOSES ON OUR BACK.
THAT'S GENERALLY WHAT YOU'LL FIND OUT.
THE DEPTH OF THE PROPERTY IS 5.6 PLUS ACRES.
THE INTERIOR ROAD, IF YOU KNOW THE DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE, AND THE DIRECTIONAL ROADS, CIRCULATE IN ONE WAY DIRECTION.
THE SPACING IS FROM OTHER SPACES AROUND THE CITY, THE GALVESTON THAT WE ANALYZED.
THAT'S HOW WE CREATED THE CONCEPT, WHICH WE'D LIKE TO GO TO APPROVAL OF PLANS ONCE WE KNOW WE HAVE A PUD APPROVAL.
[00:40:01]
DURING THE PROCESS OF THE PLANS, THINGS GET CORRECTED, THEY GET TIGHTENED UP.WE MEET WITH EVERY SINGLE DEPARTMENT.
I'VE BEEN IN 32 DIFFERENT STATES, SO WE UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS, AND WE KNOW THAT WE WILL NOT BE APPROVED UNTIL WE GO THROUGH THE PUD MEETING.
>> ONE THING ALSO, IF I CAN ADD, IS THAT WHEN WE WERE GOING TO DEVELOP APARTMENTS, THAT'S A HIGH CONCRETE SURFACE.
IN THIS SITUATION, THERE IS A VERY LOW AND IT HAS IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE RATIOS BECAUSE THE BULK OF THE PADS ARE THE GRASS CRETE, WHICH I THINK YOU MIGHT BE FAMILIAR WITH UNLIKE A CONCRETE PAD.
GRANTED, THE ROADS ARE CONCRETE, BUT THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE RATIO IS SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE THAT MINIMIZES SHEDDING OF WATER AND DRAINAGE OF WATER ONTO THE CAMPECHE COVE LAKE.
>> WAS YOUR COMPANY INVOLVED IN ANY OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS ON [INAUDIBLE] DEPARTMENTS OR THE CONDOS OR?
>> THE MARQUETTE COMPANY, WHICH IS OUT OF CHICAGO, DARREN SCHILLINGER.
I KNOW HIM VERY WELL. DAVID MERCER ACROSS THE STREET FROM CALIFORNIA.
I KNOW VERY WELL, COINCIDENTALLY.
IT HAPPENS RARELY, BUT BOTH GENTLEMEN, I HAD A PROJECT IN HOUSTON CALLED BY THE BEND, PROJECT OF THE YEAR.
THEY BOTH APPROACHED ME TO TRY TO PURCHASE IT.
THEN WHEN THEY KNOW IT ON THIS LAND DOWN HERE IS LIKE TWO DIFFERENT BOOKENDS.
I'VE HAD EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM.
THEY BOTH HAVE A VERY NEGATIVE CASH POSITION BECAUSE THEY CAN'T MEET THE RENTS THAT THEY NEED TO ACHIEVE.
THAT'S WHY THEY JUST BASICALLY STAY STABLE.
>> ANYBODY ELSE? THANK YOU, SIR.
>> WE HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SO NOW, WE'LL HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC.
>> HELLO, [INAUDIBLE] MARIE BROB 4101 RUMBA, AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF THIS PROJECT.
I THINK IT'S INAPPROPRIATE USE FOR THE LAND WHERE IT IS.
I THINK IT WOULD BE IDEAL FOR MULTI FAMILY.
WE ARE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING.
IF YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING JUST TO HOLD OVER, I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN IDEAL USE.
I THINK WITH WHAT THEY SUBMITTED IN THIS PACKET, YOU HAVE A LOT OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE UP THERE AS WELL AS PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED.
THERE HAS TO BE AT LEAST A 300 FOOT SETBACK FROM A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT IS NOT IN THE PLACE.
I THINK IT'S AN INAPPROPRIATE USE OF A PUD.
NEVER IN MY EIGHT YEARS OF WELL, ACTUALLY, NEVER IN MY 20 YEARS OF COMING TO PLANNING MEETINGS, HAVE I EVER HEARD FIREMEN CARRY THE HOSE OVER THEIR SHOULDER TO THE PROPERTY.
WE ALWAYS HAVE TO HAVE PROPER ROAD ACCESS FOR BOTH AMBULANCES AND FIRE TRUCKS, AND IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO DO THAT.
BUT I HAVE HAD SO MANY COMPLAINTS FILED WITH ME FROM THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, CAMPECHE, SPORTSMEN, ALL THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE OFF START ROAD.
I HIGHLY OPPOSE THIS AS A CITIZEN AND I GUESS THAT'S ENOUGH TO SAID, EXCEPT FOR RUSTY AND I HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE [LAUGHTER] FOR SURE.
I DO THINK. [OVERLAPPING] I WAS MEAN TO HIM. WHAT DO YOU SAY? I'M THE PERSON YOU HATE TO LOVE.
BUT ANYWAY, I'M OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU.
>> WE OWN THE PROPERTY AT THE [OVERLAPPING]
>> TELL US YOUR NAME AND MAKE SURE SIGN IN.
>> MY NAME IS EILEEN VOGEL, AND THIS IS MY DAUGHTER, KAREN GREENAN.
WE OWN THE PROPERTY AT 3107 CO-VIEW.
[00:45:02]
MY OBJECTION IS TO THIS THAT MY PROPERTY FACES THEIR PROPERTY LINE IS COMING RIGHT UP AGAINST THE BACK OF MY PROPERTY LINE.THE PROBLEM IS THAT IF THEY PUT UP THIS RV PARK AND EVEN MY NEIGHBORS, THEY HAVE BRIGHT LIGHTS.
ALL NIGHT LONG, THESE LIGHTS ARE GOING TO BE SHINING INTO MY HOME.
I SPENT $699,000 TO PURCHASE THAT HOUSE A YEAR AGO.
I HAVE SO FAR PUT IN $110,000.
I'LL PROBABLY TAKE ME ABOUT 150,000 TO FINISH THE HOME.
I PURCHASED THE HOUSE TO HAVE SOME NICE LIFE ON THE ISLAND AND AT THE BEACH FOR A WHILE BEFORE I EXPIRE TO PUT IT NICELY.
YES, I OPPOSE THE FACT THAT THEY WANT TO PUT UP THIS RV PART.
FIRST OF ALL, THE WEST END IS GROWING.
THE WEST END HAS A BEAUTIFUL NEW AREA THIS IS CALLED IVA.
THERE'S NO REASON THAT THEY CAN'T TAKE AND BUILD SOMETHING LIKE THAT RIGHT THERE BECAUSE THEY OBVIOUSLY HAVE THAT BEAUTIFUL POND ACROSS THE WAY.
THIS WILL EVEN GIVE THE TOWNSHIP MORE INCOME AS FAR AS PROPERTY TAXES GO, RATHER THAN TO PUT IN AN RV PARK, WHICH IS GOSH ONLY KNOWS IS GOING TO BE VERY NICE OR WIND UP BEING VERY TRASHY.
I'M WORRIED ABOUT WHO IS GOING TO MOVE IN THERE.
THERE IS NO TELLING THAT SOMEBODY ISN'T GOING TO FIND OUT I LIVE BY MYSELF, TRY TO GET INTO MY HOUSE WHATEVER.
I'M NERVOUS, SO YES, AM I BABBLING A LITTLE BIT.
I'LL LET MY DAUGHTER TALK BECAUSE SHE'S MORE INTELLIGENT THAN I AM.
>> YOU'LL NEED TO YOU'LL NEED TO SIGN IN, STATE YOUR NAME, AND YOU GET YOUR THREE MINUTES.
WE REPRESENT 3107, CO VIEW BOULEVARD.
AS MY MOTHER SAID, SHE JUST PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY, BUT IF I COULD SHOW YOU A PICTURE, CAN I BRING IT UP AND SHOW YOU SOMETHING? THANK YOU.
>> CLEARLY GO THE PROPERTY WHERE THEY WANT TO PUT THE PARK IS DIRECTLY BEHIND.
YOU'LL BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY LOOK INTO HER DINING ROOM AND SEE HER WALKING BACK AND FORTH, WHICH CONCERNS ME AGAIN, BECAUSE SHE'S 83-YEARS-OLD.
SECOND OF ALL, I DON'T KNOW WHICH GENTLEMAN, BUT ONE OF THESE GENTLEMEN CAME TO MY MOTHER'S HOUSE AND BLATANTLY LIED TO HER TO GET HER TO SIGN A PAPER.
MY MOTHER HAS MACULAR DEGENERATION.
THEY TOLD HER THAT THEY WERE GETTING NEIGHBORS TO SIGN OFF ON THE RV PARK.
SHE ASKED THREE TIMES, IS IT THE PARK THAT'S ALREADY BUILT? BECAUSE I LIVE I LIVE IN CLUB ON THE AISLE, AND I WATCHED THEM BUILD THAT OTHER RV PARK, WHICH IMPEDES MY VIEW AS WELL, BUT I DON'T OWN THE PROPERTY.
IF IT'S AN APARTMENT I CAN MOVE.
THEY TOLD HER THEY WANTED HER TO SIGN OFF ON THAT PROPERTY.
SHE ASKED TO CLARIFY THREE TIMES AND THEY LIED TO HER.
SHE SIGNED A PAPER WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO READ IT.
I SENT THIS GENTLEMAN A LETTER STATING HOW DISSATISFIED I WAS WITH THAT AND HOW SNEAKY THAT WAS.
I NEVER HEARD A WORD BACK FROM THEM.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY OTHER THAN I DON'T KNOW THEY PAINTED THAT WHOLE ROAD.
SHE CAN'T EVEN HAVE COMPANY PARKED THERE.
[00:50:03]
IF IT'S A DANGER FOR PEOPLE TO PARK THERE, WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO PUT THE ENTRANCE? IT HAS TO GO NEXT TO WHERE HER HOUSE IS.THAT'S THE ONLY FEASIBLE PART OF THE ROAD TO PUT AN ENTRANCE AND THAT'LL HAVE TO RUN ALONG THE SIDE OF HER HOUSE BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE IT BENDS ALL THE WAY AROUND.
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. [BACKGROUND] YOU'RE WELCOME.
ANYBODY ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? YES, SIR. COME TELL TIM, GIVE US YOUR STORY.
NOBODY HAS APPROACHED THIS LADY EVER.
>> WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET INTO HEARSAY HERE.
>> THAT'S OKAY. SHE DIDN'T SAID THIS.
>> YOU HAVEN'T GIVEN US A LETTER.
WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT, SO YOU DON'T NEED TO EXPLAIN ANY OF THAT. IT DOESN'T MATTER.
>> THE LETTER IS ATTACHED TO THE PUD. THEIR APPROVAL.
>> THEIR APPROVAL IS ATTACHED TO THE PUD?
>> YEAH, THAT'S APPROVAL HE LIED [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT WAS ONLY DONE BY US MAIL.
THE OTHER DECISION THAT COULD BE MADE IF IT WAS MADE IS THAT WHEN YOU BUILD A 4-6 STORY APARTMENT, IT ACTUALLY OVERSHADOWS EVERYONE'S HOUSE, INCLUDING THE BALCONIES WITH PEOPLE'S LAUNDRY AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND TOWELS HUNG OVER.
WE SENT THEM ALSO A ALL THE ELEVATION OF THE PRIOR APARTMENT COMMUNITY THAT WE DESIGNED, AND EVERYBODY WAS OPPOSED TO THAT.
THAT'S WHY WE SWITCHED GEARS TO APPEASE THE DECISIONS TO MAKE IT WORK WITH AN RV COMMUNITY.
I'LL JUST MAKE SURE FOR THE RECORD, THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE PUD REQUEST. THANK YOU, SIR.
>> ANYBODY ELSE? WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING THIS BACK TO COMMISSION FOR ACTION.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DENY 25P-035.
>> WHEN I READ THE STAFFS REPORT AND LOOKED AT THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL, THE FIRST ITEM LISTED SAYS THE PROPOSED ZONING IS PREFERABLE TO THE EXISTING ZONING IN TERMS OF ITS LIKELIHOOD OF ADVANCING THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES, THE CITY GALVESTON 2011 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE 2011 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE VERY FIRST ELEMENT LISTED IS HOUSING.
IT'S TALKING ABOUT WORKFORCE HOUSING, MAKING IT MORE AVAILABLE.
BUILDING THE INVENTORY AND WE'RE TAKING A PRIME PROPERTY THAT IS ALREADY ZONED MULTIFAMILY TOWN HOME IN A VERY NICE AREA, YOU DRIVE COV.
THAT'S ONE OF THE NICER AREAS IN GALVESTON IN MY OPINION, THE WAY THAT IT WAS PLANNED AND DEVELOPED.
YOU'RE TAKING THAT OUT OF THE MARKET PLACE.
WHERE ARE WE GOING TO FIND PROPERTY? IF WE ALLOW EXISTING MULTIFAMILY SITES TO BE CONVERTED THROUGH A PUD TO SOMETHING THAT IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE, WE'RE SHOOTING OURSELVES IN THE FOOT.
>> ANYBODY ELSE? I APPRECIATE YOU POINT THAT OUT, JOHN, BECAUSE THERE ARE SO FEW PLACES ZONED MULTI FAMILY IN THIS TOWN AND I THINK WE COULD MAYBE DO WITH A FEW MORE, BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WE SHOULD PROBABLY TRY TO PRESERVE WHAT WE'VE GOT WITH THE HOPE THAT PEOPLE CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THESE PROJECTS WORK.
>> AS I MENTIONED, AND I'M JUST GOING TO GIVE YOU GUYS AN EXAMPLE.
WE HAD A 200 SITE RV PARK ON 38 ACRES.
THAT GIVES YOU SOME IDEA OF HOW DENSE THIS IS.
THAT'S THE DEVELOPER'S BUSINESS, BUT I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IT'S DENSE.
I ALSO LOOK AT THIS AND THOUGH GRANTED, WHEN WE'VE SEEN PUDS IN THE PAST, THOSE PEOPLE HAVE TELL YOU WHAT, WE JUST HEARD A PUD AT OUR LAST MEETING, A VERY BIG ONE.
BUT THOSE GUYS CAME WITH THEIR TRAFFIC IMPACTS.
THEY CAME WITH ANSWERS TO THE DRAINAGE.
THIS GUY IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO PUT DETENTION IN HERE SOMEWHERE
[00:55:03]
AND IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK WITHOUT ONSITE DETENTION.THE ENGINEER IS TELLING US THIS.
I ALSO LOOK AT THIS AS IT'S NOT COMPLETE.
IT'S LIKE, HEY, THAT'S HOW I SEE SOME OF THIS AS WELL.
THEN ANOTHER BIGGIE IS THAT THERE ARE SOME PRETTY STRINGENT LIMITED USE STANDARDS IF THIS PROPERTY WERE CORRECTLY ZONED, THERE IS A LAUNDRY LIST OF ITEMS THAT THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH.
LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN AS IT'S PRESENTED, IT DOESN'T EVEN COME CLOSE.
I LOOK AT IT IS BOTH INCOMPLETE AND IT'S VERY DENSE.
THEN MY LAST DEAL IS, IT'S SIX ACRES.
I THINK WE NEED TO BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL OF SETTING A PRECEDENT FOR HAVING PEOPLE COME AND GO, YOU KNOW WHAT, I'M GOING TO GO PUT A RV PARK ON MY SMALL INFILL TRACK FOR THE TIME BEING FOR WHATEVER REASON.
I'M ALSO VERY CONCERNED ABOUT STING A PRECEDENT FOR ALLOWING PEOPLE TO USE THE PUD PROCESS.
I MEAN, IT'S PART OF THE PROCESS, BUT USING THAT TO USE SMALLER INFILL SITES TO COME IN AND PUT SMALL DENSE RV PARKS BECAUSE THIS PARK MOST LIKELY IS GOING TO BE FULL OF PERMANENT RESIDENTS.
IT WON'T HAVE SOME VISITORS AS A RESORT IS, BUT WHERE IT'S LOCATED, AND THERE'S A BIG ONE RIGHT NEXT TO HIM.
ANYBODY ELSE WE'LL TAKE THE BOAT.
THOSE IN FAVOR OF DENIAL AND THAT'S UNANIMOUS.
MOVING ON. OH, JOINT MEETINGS.
[8.A Discussion of joint meetings with City Council beginning January 2026 (Staff)]
WHAT DO WE GOT GOING ON THERE?>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
>> BECAUSE CITY COUNCIL HAS REQUESTED JOINT MEETINGS AND ARE LOOKING AT DATES WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL AS TWO OTHER BOARDS OF THE CITY.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, AND I WANTED TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS ON HOW THIS BOARD FEELS ABOUT MEETING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL.
I WANT TO SAY TWO OR POSSIBLY THREE TIMES IS WHAT I RECALL OF THE AGENDA, THE DRAFT AGENDA FOR THESE JOINT MEETINGS.
AS I RECALL IT, THEY WOULD BE, OF COURSE, DATE-TIME MEETINGS.
I BELIEVE THE TIME FRAMES WOULD BE TWO HOURS FOR EACH SPECIFIC BOARD.
I ACTUALLY THINK IT'S THREE BOARDS ON ONE SPECIFIC DAY.
MAYBE 9:00-11:00, 11:00-1:00, 01:00-3:00, THAT TYPE OF THING.
>> IT'S IN A WORKSHOP SETTING, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IT WOULD BE DURING A WORKSHOP SETTING.
BUT I WANT TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS ON FIRST OF ALL, JOINT MEETINGS IN GENERAL WITH THE CITY COUNCIL AND HOW THIS BOARD ENVISIONS THAT OR WOULD LIKE TO ENVISION THAT IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY WANT TO DO, OUR EX OFFICIO IS NOT HERE TODAY.
I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE GOT SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE EX OFFICIO, WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE A LIAISON FROM THIS BOARD TO CITY COUNCIL.
I'M JUST GOING TO OPEN IT UP AND JUST WANT TO HEAR WHAT YOU THOUGHTS ARE.
>> HERE'S ONE, I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE HIS INPUT.
>> ON THAT. WE DID HAVE ONE INSTANCE WHERE WE WERE WORKING ON SOMETHING, AND WE DID GO MEET WITH I THINK IT WAS ON THE BROADWAY PLAN.
WE WENT AND MET IN A WORKSHOP SETTING WITH CITY COUNCIL.
I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY CONSTRUCTIVE.
I DON'T THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO DO QUARTERLY.
BUT IF WE WENT AND DID IT ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR, JUST SO WE CAN HAVE SOME INTERACTION BACK FROM THEM.
IT IS NICE TO HEAR FROM THEM DIRECTLY.
HEY, THESE ARE OUR THOUGHTS AND CONCERNS, AND WE GET TO SHARE THAT.
[01:00:02]
FLIP-SIDE IS, I KNOW THAT THOSE COUNCIL MEMBERS THEY'RE VOLUNTEERS.AS MUCH AS I'D LIKE TO SAY, I'D LIKE TO GO SIT IN A WORKSHOP WITH THOSE GUYS.
I THINK IT'S UP TO THEM TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, AND WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS BEFORE.
REALLY AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS AT THEIR DISCRETION.
I THINK WE SPENT SOME TIME, I THINK IN A WORKSHOP, COMING UP WITH A LAUNDRY LIST OF ITEMS THAT WE WOULD DISCUSS WITH THEM.
IF IT'S SOMETHING THEY WANT TO DO, I THINK IT'S GOOD TO HEAR FROM THE BOSS.
BUT I KNOW ALSO THEIR AGENDA IS FULL, AND I DON'T WANT TO ADD TO IT.
I'LL LEAVE THE REST UP TO YOU GUYS.
>> YEAH, I MORE OR LESS AGREE WITH THAT.
I THINK IF WE COULD TALK TO THEM ONCE A YEAR, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE USEFUL.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF POLICY THINGS THAT I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AT THE WORKSHOP THAT I THINK IT'S WORTH ADDRESSING THE A JOINT DISCUSSION, BUT I THINK THAT COMES DOWN TO WHAT'S THEIR WORKLOAD LIKE AND WHAT'S Y'ALL'S WORKLOAD IS LIKE.
>> YES. I WOULD JUST FOLLOW UP WITH THAT AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT IS SPENT.
I MEAN, WE'VE HAD SOME LIGHT AGENDAS RECENTLY AND HERB IS LUCKY THAT HE GETS HIS FEET WET ON A FAIRLY LIGHT ONE.
BUT I CAN RECALL AGENDAS THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST WHERE I SPENT DAYS IN PREPARATION.
IT CAN BE VERY TIME-CONSUMING.
IF YOU REALLY GET INTO THE DETAILS OF SOME OF THESE CASES, IT TAKES A LOT OF TIME TO RESEARCH AND UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON.
I KNOW THE CITY COUNCIL IS BUSY.
I MEAN, I LOOK AT THEIR AGENDAS AND THE LENGTH OF THEIR MEETINGS, AND IT'S MIND-BOGGLING THAT THEY DO THAT.
I DON'T WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT, AND I DON'T WANT THAT TO BECOME, YOU KNOW, THIS COMMISSION'S BURDEN.
I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF JUST A ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR MEETING.
>> I MEAN, IT IS AT THEIR DISCRETION, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.
>> IT IS. I GUESS MY THOUGHTS ARE HOW WOULD THE MEETINGS WORK? THEY CAN'T DISCUSS SPECIFIC CASES BECAUSE EACH COMMISSIONER HERE HAS THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT THOUGHT ON A CASE.
IS IT JUST A RECAP OF WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BEEN DOING, OR IS IT TO HEAR CITY COUNCIL'S DIRECTION?
>> I THINK IT'D BE GOOD ON SOME POLICY.
IF YOU WANTED TO JUST PICK ONE, LET'S PICK PUDS.
WE TALKED ABOUT THAT WHEN WE WENT INTO THAT WORKSHOP AND HAD THE PROBLEM AT THAT TIME WAS WE HAD A PUD IN FRONT OF US, SO WE COULDN'T DISCUSS IT.
BUT IT WOULD BE NICE TO GET SOME OF THEIR INPUT OF, IS THERE SOMETHING WE CAN DO TO MAKE THIS MAYBE IT WORKS? IT'S NEVER GOING TO BE PERFECT.
I WILL PROMISE YOU, WE HAD A PROCESS BEFORE THIS THAT WAS A WHOLE LOT WORSE.
IT IS AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THAT.
BUT IF I WAS GOING TO SHOW UP, THAT WOULD BE MY FIRST.
IF I HAD TO JUST PICK ONE OUT OF THIN AIR, THAT'S ONE I WOULD PICK.
I JUST GET SOME COMMENTS FROM THEM.
WE CAN'T DISCUSS A SPECIFIC CASE, BUT WE'VE HAD THEM TO WHERE THEY'RE HUGE AND HAVE LOTS OF DEVIATION.
THEN WE'VE HAD THEM, THEY'RE ALMOST SMALL, SO IT'S LIKE, SHOULD THEY BE BIGGER? BUT WE ALSO GOT TO HAVE THEM.
THEY'RE A TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT.
THERE'S REALLY NO OTHER WAY TO GO, YOU GIVE ME SOME DIRECTION HERE?
>> YEAH, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT I AGREE WITH WHERE YOU ALL ARE HEADING.
IT DOESN'T MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE WITHOUT A SPECIFIC SET OF AGENDA TOPICS TO DISCUSS WITH COUNSEL JUST TO HAVE A MEETING, JUST BE HAVING A MEETING.
BUT I KNOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE OF COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT HAVE VOICED SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE EXISTING PUD PROCESS.
THERE'S PROBABLY A WAY TO MAYBE REPAIR THAT OR AMEND IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT MAYBE GOALS ON BOTH SIDES WOULD BE ACHIEVED,
[01:05:02]
AND WE CAN DISCUSS THAT FURTHER, IF YOU'D LIKE, MORE THAN JUST HAVING A PUD PROCESS THAT ALLOWS ANYBODY TO REALLY APPLY FOR ANYTHING TO HAVE IT MORE BASED UPON A MITIGATION OF THEIR REQUESTS.MORE AS A BASIS OF APPROVAL, VERSUS JUST THEY CAN APPLY FOR ANYTHING AND THEN LEAVING YOU GUYS TO RENDER A DECISION BASED UPON SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE WILDLY OUT OF BOUNDS.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE EITHER.
THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE HANDLED AS A FUNCTION OF CONCERN OR TOPIC OF CONCERN.
THAT WE HAD THE ITEM OF ALLEY ACCESS, AND THERE WAS SOME BACK AND FORTH ABOUT IT BEING A PORTION OF CODE WHERE THERE'S SEEMINGLY TWO SECTIONS OF CODE THAT SORT OF OPPOSE EACH OTHER.
I THINK THOSE THINGS ARE THINGS THAT POTENTIALLY STAFF MIGHT BE ABLE TO BRING BACK TO YOU, AND YOU COULD PROPOSE SOMETHING FROM THAT, OR WE DON'T GENERALLY DO THOSE THINGS UNLESS WE GET SOME DIRECTION EITHER FROM YOU OR FROM COUNSEL.
BUT I THINK A TOPIC-BASED DISCUSSION WOULD BE THE REAL WAY TO INTERACT WITH COUNSEL IN THAT LEVEL.
>> I THINK WE NEED SOME INPUT FROM COUNCIL BECAUSE WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO GO DO, I'M SURE STAFF DOESN'T WANT TO GO, SPEND THE TIME AND EFFORT, AND WE SPEND THE TIME AND EFFORT.
CITY COUNCIL GOES, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE HAD IN MIND.
I DON'T REALLY HAVE AN ANSWER FOR YOUR QUESTION, BUT IT WOULDN'T BE BAD, BUT IT'S WHERE DO YOU START?
>> I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS DEFINITELY GOING OFF OF IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE JOINT MEETINGS, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS A TOPIC OF SOME SPECIFICITY.
>> THE BOARD HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN [OVERLAPPING] TALKING ABOUT AND SO.
>> WE HAVE A 2011 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND WE HAVE A 2015 LDR.
ARE THOSE BEING LOOKED AT TO BE REVISED OR UPDATED, OR WHAT'S NEW.
>> YES. TWO SEPARATE THINGS, BUT ONE'S REGULATORY AND ONE'S PLAN-RELATED.
BUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS WE ACTUALLY HAVE A CONTRACT WITH A PROVIDER TO DO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE.
WE'RE WAITING FOR SOME FUNDING RIGHT NOW FROM THE GLO, AND THERE'S AN RI PROCESS.
THEY'VE BEEN ASKING QUESTIONS OF US, AND WE'VE BEEN RESPONDING, AND THEY ASK, THE NEXT SET OF QUESTIONS.
THEN IN TERMS OF THE LDRS, WE GENERALLY KEEP A RUNNING LIST OF CONCERNS THAT ARE VOICED TO US OR AREAS IN WHICH WE SEE THERE'S PERHAPS SOME ACTION NECESSARY OR SOMETHING THAT WE COULD DO TO HELP FIX A SITUATION OR TO GET IT TO THE NEXT LEVEL, SO TO SPEAK.
WE DID THAT WE DID QUITE AN EXTENSIVE ONE OF THOSE IN 2018, JUST THREE YEARS AFTER THE 2015 REGULATIONS.
THOSE THINGS ARE ONGOING, AND I KNOW WE HAVE A LIST OF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE CROPPED UP SINCE THEN.
>> ORGANICALLY TO THIS PROCESS.
>> ORGANICALLY, AND THEY'RE NOT ALL AS ONE COMPONENT AS A COMPONENT OF ANOTHER.
THEY'RE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT.
ALTHOUGH YOU CAN CERTAINLY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS IN A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS FOR WHAT TO DO IN AN LDR, THAT'S NOT IN THE SCOPE OF THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE.
WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO TRY TO DO THAT.
>> I DON'T WANT TO GET ON THE TOPIC OF A SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN THE LDR BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT THE AGENDA ITEM CALLS FOR.
IT'S REALLY JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW BEST TO CONDUCT A JOINT MEETING.
IS IT SOMETHING WHERE I CAN POSE TO CITY COUNCIL? THEY'RE AMENABLE TO HAVING A JOINT MEETING, BUT THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE TOPICS ARE GOING TO BE.
[01:10:02]
THEY HAVE SUGGESTIONS OF TOPICS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE COUNSEL'S FEEDBACK ON.BUT COUNSEL, DO YOU HAVE ANY TOPICS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE THEIR FEEDBACK ON? MAYBE THAT'S THE FIRST STEP, AND THEN GET THE LIST TOGETHER AND OF COURSE, PROVIDE THE DATES TO YOU, THE POTENTIAL DATES, AND THEN SEE HOW IT GOES.
THESE WOULD BE DAYTIME MEETINGS.
BUT AGAIN, COMING PREPARED IS THE BEST WAY TO COME IN MY MIND.
I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF YOU GUYS ARE LIKE WE HAVE AN EX OFFICIAL, SO WE WANT TO GO THROUGH THAT OR NO, WE WOULD LOVE TO SPEAK TO COUNSEL AND GET SOME DIRECT FEEDBACK.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT IS OKAY WITH THE GROUP.
>> I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR EVERYBODY, BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT, AND WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF ITEMS THAT WE DISCUSSED.
THE PUD WAS ONE, AND ALSO THE INFILL STUFF WAS ANOTHER ONE, AND IT WOULD BE NICE TO GET THEIR COMMENT ON THAT BEFORE WE START DOING.
WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM DOING THE HEAVY LIFTING, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO BE LIFTING BRICKS FOR FUN. NOBODY DOES.
>> NEXT YEAR'S CITY COUNCIL DATES.
WE'RE TALKING [OVERLAPPING] ANYTHING LIKE THAT?
>> YES, MA'AM. MY ONE EXPERIENCE WITH DOING THAT I THOUGHT WAS VERY CONSTRUCTIVE.
I'D HAVE NO REASON TO THINK THAT IT WOULD BE OTHERWISE.
IS THAT GOOD TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?
>> YEAH. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON IT? BUT YEAH.
>> NO. I BET WE COULD LOOK BACK AND PROBABLY FIND SOME.
I THINK WE WORKSHOPPED THAT AT ONE TIME.
WE SPENT SOME TIME ON COMING UP WITH A LAUNDRY LIST OF ITEMS THAT WE WANTED TO DISCUSS.
TO BE HONEST, WE COULD PROBABLY JUST PICK THAT ONE AND START THERE INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DO MORE THAN ONE.
IF YOU WERE GOING TO ASK HIM THE QUESTIONS LIKE, HEY, DO YOU WANT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH PLANNING ABOUT WHERE YOU SEE PUDS GOING, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A GOOD WAY TO START.
WE COULD SPEND A LONG TIME JUST TALKING ABOUT JUST THAT ONE SUBJECT.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS? THERE WILL BE ADJOURNED. YES, MA'AM.
>> TWO ANNOUNCEMENTS. ONE, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AWARDS HAVE BEEN MOVED FROM THE OCTOBER CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO THE NOVEMBER CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
GET THAT ON YOUR CALENDAR, RUSTY, AND TOM THE DUTIES OF THE VICE CHAIRS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE AWARDS.
>> SUBMIT MILEAGE ON THAT ONE [LAUGHTER].
>> SO THAT'S GOING TO BE NOVEMBER 11.
COUNCIL'S MEETING EARLY IN NOVEMBER BECAUSE OF THE HOLIDAY.
>> THEN OUR SECOND ANNOUNCEMENT IS CONGRATULATIONS TO DONNA FAIRWEATHER FOR HER APPOINTMENT AS THE INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY.
>> WOW. I FEEL JUST HONORED THAT YOU'RE IN OUR PRESENCE NOW.
>> WHAT I SAY REALLY GOES [LAUGHTER].
>> THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.