[0:03] All right, good afternoon and welcome to the city of galveston planning commission meeting.

[0:08] we're going to call the meeting to order. We have a quorum and have taken attendance. Are there any

[0:13] conflicts of interest? Seeing none. We have the motion to approve the march 3rd

[0:20] minutes. Are there any comments, additions, or corrections to that? Seeing

[0:24] none, we'll approve those as presented. We are going to move item... 7a, which is

[0:33] in our old business, which is the plan unit development. We're gonna move

[0:37] that to the end of our agenda. And what we're gonna do is we're gonna open up

[0:42] the public hearings. But what we're gonna do is we're gonna have. We have one, two, three,

[0:47] four, four items on our public hearings. And

[0:52] what we're gonna do is we're gonna have staffs gonna open up

[0:56] all of those, and we're just gonna have one public hearing. So when we start the public hearings,

[1:00] if you have a comment on any one of those four items, you'd come forward. So take it

[1:05] away, catherine. Oh, kyle.

[1:10] kyle, we're ready for the first one. Yes, ma'am. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. If you

[1:15] don't mind, if you would, please silence your cell phones. And, you know,

[1:21] I'm available for pictures and autographs afterwards. All

[1:25] right. Oh, yes. Hold on just a second. Also, if you

[1:31] are here, or if somebody walks in, we do have seating in the room next door. What is

[1:37] that, 104? 204. 204. So if somebody comes in and is looking for a spot,

[1:43] it's like we still have some spots. We have plenty of room for people. All right, kyle.

[1:53] this is a public hearing for dune mitigation associated with the construction of a new dune walkover.

[1:58] mitigation is required for unavoidable impacts to the dunes and dune vegetation that

[2:02] will occur during the new dune walkover construction. The address is 23305 fm 3005. The

[2:11] property is legally described as abstract. 121 holland jones survey, lot 1, bay

[2:16] harbor subdivision, harbor, addition no. 3, bay harbor subdivision,

[2:21] in the city and county of galveston, texas. Vacant property and single-family

[2:26] residents are located to the east and west of the subject property. Fm 3005 is located north

[2:31] of the subject property, and a beach and dune system is located to the south

[2:35] of the subject property. According to the bureau of economic geology, this area is stable. Staff has prepared

[2:40] photos of the subject property for your viewing. First, we have a farm and beg map showing

[2:46] the distance of the structure from the dune system and its positions relative

[2:50] to adjacent properties. On the next slide is the property survey. The next slide is the

[2:57] site plan showing the proposed dune walkover. On the following two slides, we

[3:02] have the project plans and mitigation map for the proposed dune walkover.

[3:08] the next three slides are photos of the proposed project layout and mitigation area.

[3:14] photos to the north, there's photos of the line of vegetation where the dune

[3:20] walkover will be ending. The

[3:24] photo on the right, the black square, is where the mitigation will occur. That concludes the

[3:33] staff report for this project. Thank you for your time. The next case is

[3:38] case 26bf-004. This is another

[3:46] dune mitigation associated with removal of an existing dune walkover and the

[3:51] construction of a new dune walkover. Mitigation is required for the unavoidable impacts

[3:55] to the dunes, and dune mitigation will occur during the new dune walkover construction. The address is

[4:00] 24023 fm 3005. The property is

[4:05] legally described as abstract. 121 hall and jones survey, lot

[4:09] 05, half moon subdivision, replat, in the city and county

[4:13] of galveston, texas. Bacon properties and single family residence are located

[4:17] to the east and west of the subject property. Fm 3005 is located north of the subject property, and

[4:22] the beach and dune system is located to the south of the subject property.

[4:26] according to the bureau of economic geology, this area is stable. Staff has prepared

[4:31] photos of the subject property for your viewing. First, we have the firm and bg map

[4:36] showing the distance of the structure from the dune system and its positions relative

[4:41] to adjacent properties. On the next slide is the property

[4:45] survey. The next slide is the property survey, containing

[4:49] information regarding the project and mitigation. The

[4:54] next slide is the site plan showing the proposed dune walkover. The next six slides

[5:00] are photos of the proposed project area and layout. All

[5:17] right, this concludes staff report and thank you for your time. The next case is

[5:23] case 26bf-011. This is a public

[5:27] hearing for erosion response structures at the terminus of three

[5:32] streets and pirates beach. Concrete canvas will be installed at the beach terminus of the

[5:36] streets and will be covered by sand. The purpose of installing the concrete canvas is to provide protection

[5:41] to the streets from erosion due to high tide and storm events.

[5:46] conducting a public hearing for erosion response structures is a requirement of the texas administrative code, section

[5:51] 26.26. The streets where the proposed concrete canvas will be placed are at the ends of

[5:57] fiddler crab lane, ghost crab lane, and sand crab lane.

[6:04] single-family homes are located to the north, east, and west of the subject locations,

[6:08] and the beach is located to the south of the subject locations. No dunes are present at any

[6:12] of the subject locations. According to the bureau of economic geology, this area is

[6:17] eroding at a rate of 5 feet per year. Staff has prepared photos

[6:23] of the subject property projects for your viewing. First, we have two furman bg

[6:28] maps showing the distance of the locations from the beach and their position relative

[6:33] to adjacent properties. On the

[6:39] next slide is a representative photograph of the concrete canvas that is proposed for the erosion. Response

[6:43] structure. This material is stuff that you can roll out.

[6:48] it has like quick creep material in it. You can weight it down and it will harden up.

[6:52] it's not reinforced or anything like that. A lot of places use it to line channels for stormwater

[6:57] conveyance and things like that. This is just a representative photo

[7:03] of what it is.

[7:08] on the following three slides, we have the project plans and photographs for fidget...

[7:13] fiddler crab lane. The material

[7:20] will be put down and then it'll be covered in sand and bottles will be put on top of it,

[7:24] so it'll be buried under sand. It'll be tied into the existing road to help

[7:30] any erosion that occurs. Next

[7:34] slide karina. This is just

[7:40] photos at the terminus of fiddler crab lane.

[7:49] on the next three slides, we have project plans and photographs for ghost crab

[7:54] lane. Finally, we have three

[8:02] slides of the project plans and photographs for sand crab lane. This concludes staff

[8:12] report. And thank you for your time. All right.

[8:16] yes, ma'am. So what we're going to do is if you have any questions on any of these three cases. Yes,

[8:25] ma'am. So you said that's a concrete thing that gets rolled

[8:29] up? It has like quick creep type of material in it. When it gets wet, it'll harden up,

[8:34] but it comes on a roll and you roll it out. And but once it, yeah, I guess

[8:40] it'll form concrete. Like I said, a lot of places use it to line the channels. It's not

[8:45] sturdy enough to drive vehicles over or anything like that,

[8:50] but we're just trying to do, you know, something at some

[8:54] of the end of these streets that keep getting impacted from high-tide events to try

[8:59] to kind of reduce impacts to the streets. Glo's okay

[9:04] with that? That's why we're having this public hearing. So we're going through 2626. All

[9:10] the requirements, and one of the requirements is the public hearing, so we're having the public hearing

[9:14] before we submit anything to glo, so we can say this requirement.

[9:19] under 2626, we had a public hearing and we received five

[9:25] public comments, zero public comments or whatever. So that's why we're doing this before we

[9:29] submit anything up so we can address everything that's in 2626. Well, that's, I want

[9:36] to say. It's exciting if they will allow this, because it seems like it opens a lot

[9:40] of opportunity for high erosion areas on the way. Yeah, there's more, there's other things that we're

[9:46] going through before we even send it up there to them to make sure we're addressing everything. Kyle, do

[9:53] you have any examples currently on the island of this type of,

[9:58] so this is new ground for us? Yes, sir. Okay. And then we'll be covered by sand. We've got

[10:02] it covered by sand and bollards. It's just if we have erosion

[10:08] in these areas from we don't anticipate it to stop a category 5 hurricane.

[10:13] but if we get a high tide event, that will, have you seen

[10:19] examples of it used in texas? I mean, we met

[10:23] with the representative, and he showed us, like I said, some areas where people are using it to line

[10:29] drainage channels and stuff like that, to convey water and things like that. And like I said, two

[10:33] or three guys can put the material out, and like I said, you water it,

[10:38] and it'll burn up. It's not sturdy enough to drive on or anything, but it's hopefully helped protect some

[10:43] of the city's infrastructure. All right. Yes, please, sean.

[10:51] 26bf004, the description of work mentioned the use

[10:56] of heavy equipment. Do you permit that now? Well, some

[11:00] people do, like many excavators and things like that. So we do have

[11:06] construction corridors, and they have to mitigate for those. So we,

[11:11] in our mitigation plans, we do have written in there that if they you do the work

[11:17] and we come back in six months and we see damage that was caused by that, then there's

[11:21] additional mitigation that they're required to do. Okay. Is that a policy change that's

[11:26] taken place in the last couple of years? Because five years ago, we were told that we could

[11:31] not have equipment that had to be dug by hand. All I can do

[11:36] is answer for me. I don't know what the policy was before I got here,

[11:41] but there are some of these longer-due walkovers. Putting more sturdy posts in,

[11:46] you have to have the equipment. Like I said, we put special conditions in there and we identify

[11:51] construction corridors and we go out there and inspect. To make sure that they haven't

[11:57] impacted any more than what they were supposed to, and contingency

[12:02] for mitigation if they did. Okay, thanks. All right, anybody else? All right, then

[12:07] we'll open the public hearing. If you are here and you'd like to speak on any

[12:12] of these three items, now is your chance to do so. Anybody like to speak

[12:16] on these? Going once? Twice? Alright. Sure, come up here,

[12:25] sign in, tell us your name. You've got three minutes.

[12:30] okay, kevin mcduff, 4226. Oh,

[12:36] you don't want me anywhere near you. There we go. 4226

[12:41] fiddler's crab there. You know, we've taken some hits. I'm all

[12:46] for putting anything out. Now, the question I have is,

[12:51] if you can get this approved, can the homeowners also utilize

[12:56] this product and cover it with sand? So it's a public hearing. We'd love

[13:02] to answer your questions. Kyle is available to answer those, and I would tell you, call him.

[13:08] I'm sure he'll take your call, but during the public hearing, he can't. He can't say a word? No, sir. We don't let him talk that much, anyway. Oh, man.

[13:12] well, that's all I want. That's a good question, and we hope that that's... I'm all for

[13:19] securing everything because I've had a battle with the glo on just getting my driveway

[13:26] where I could drive on it. So that's all I wanted to know. Thanks. All right. Thank you,

[13:30] sir. And please give kyle a call. He's available to help you. I'm going to do it. Him and hunter, both. They do a great job. They do a

[13:36] great job. All right. Anybody else? All right. Then we will close the public hearing

[13:42] on those items. There's no action by commission on those. And we'll move on

[13:46] to our item 6b, 26p-014. All

[13:54] right. 26p-014. This is a 24050 fm 3005. This is a

[14:01] request for a minor plat of one very large parcel into three smaller,

[14:07] but still quite large parcels. There are 25 public notices sent. There were no city

[14:12] department objections, private utility objections. So

[14:18] this is a vacant property. The applicant is proposing to split it into three per

[14:23] local government code chapter 212.015. This requires a public hearing. For minor plats,

[14:28] because it does increase the number of lots in a residential zoning district. Please note

[14:33] the zoning and land use in the staff report and the zoning or

[14:39] other minimum requirements for new lots in r1 zoning, which is 5,000 square foot

[14:43] of area, 50 foot width, 100 foot of depth, and all three of these lots greatly exceed those

[14:48] requirements. There are no objections, once again, from outside utilities or city

[14:53] departments. Centerpoint energy did make a comment on aerial easement dedication language, which will be passed

[14:58] on to the applicant for action. Case 26p-014 will be approved

[15:03] with specific conditions 1 through 2 and standard conditions 3 through 4. Here we

[15:09] have some photos. We have the proposed replat overlaid on the aerial maps on the left

[15:15] and a vicinity map showing where it's generally at. On the right, next slide,

[15:20] please. And here we have the subject property. I believe

[15:26] that's looking north from 3005. The properties to the east across 3005

[15:31] to the south. The properties to the west. And this concludes staff's report. All right.

[15:35] thank you, daniel. Any questions for staff on this one? Seeing none, we'll open the public hearing.

[15:40] does anybody here like to speak on this item? Seeing

[15:44] none, we'll close the public hearing. There's no action by commission on this. Again,

[15:50] the next item is 7a, which is our old business. We're going to move that

[15:54] to the bottom of the agenda, and we're going to go to 8a26p-013. All right, 26p-013. This is adjacent to

[16:03] 2201 avenue l, 2202 avenue m,

[16:10] and 2210 avenue m rear. This is a request for an alley abandonment. There were 16 public notices

[16:15] sent. None of those were returned. There

[16:19] were some... City department, uh... Comments that were

[16:23] returned. We will get to those shortly. Uh... The applicant is requesting the

[16:28] abandonment of approximately two thousand four and twenty eight square foot of right of way. Uh... This is alley,

[16:32] once again west of twenty second street, roughly aligned with the center of the gulf

[16:37] breeze apartments, so that would be directly to the east. Uh... And this is associated

[16:41] with proposed redevelopment of the adjacent tracks, which are all owned by the same owner. Uh...

[16:47] please note the zoning and land use of the subject. Uh... Well area and adjacent. Staff finds

[16:52] that the abandonment will not have an adverse impact on transportation,

[16:57] while it will result in an east-west alley being interrupted. All properties

[17:01] adjacent to the abandonment and along the remainder of the alley to the west will

[17:05] still retain alley access and or direct access to main streets. There are

[17:10] water and sewer lines in the area of the request. Engineering division notes these will require relocation

[17:15] at the developers expense. And that may require protective easements as well, depending on

[17:20] what the proposed development looks like. This will be reviewed, of course, during the

[17:25] platte and permit phases as well. The applicant shall also coordinate

[17:29] with all outside utilities in order to relocate any of their infrastructure.

[17:33] center point reviewed the abandonment request and verified that they do require street alley abandonment

[17:38] application to relocate their infrastructure. And this is included as a condition

[17:42] of approval for the abandonment. Please note also the area in question

[17:46] does not meet minimum dimensions for new parcels and commercial zoning. Because

[17:52] of this, and because the proposed development will cross existing property lines,

[17:57] a replant will be required after this, if it's approved.

[18:03] please note the criteria for permanent street closures in the staff report. Staff

[18:09] finds request generally conforms to the above stated criteria. Closing the east portion

[18:13] of the alley only adjacent to the applicant's properties will not impact any properties not

[18:17] involved in the pros of redevelopment, which would be to the west.

[18:21] and redevelopment will, by necessity, require utility relocations in close coordination with city

[18:26] departments and outside utilities. Once again, that will be at the applicant's expense.

[18:31] they will work with engineering to coordinate that when the time comes. City council has the final

[18:36] decision regarding a request for abandonment, and council will hear this request on

[18:40] april 23rd, 2026. Staff recommends approval of the request

[18:45] with specific conditions 1 through 2, which once again

[18:49] does include the relocation of utilities as needed, plus standard conditions 3

[18:55] through 7. And we have some photos. So here is the proposed

[19:01] alley abandonment. And once again, the properties to the north and south are all owned

[19:08] by the same individual. Who wants to develop that all as one piece. Next slide,

[19:13] please. Here we have the proposed survey of the alley, showing what that area really

[19:18] looks like. Next slide, please. And here we have the

[19:23] property to the north, looking from the proposed abandonment area to the east. Looking

[19:28] from the edge of the abandonment, back to the east, toward the gulf,

[19:34] breeze apartments, the property to the south of the abandonment area, and then once again looking west,

[19:40] along that same tract of alley,

[19:44] and you can see there on that lower right photo, we've marked the approximately

[19:49] point at which that abandonment would terminate. And this concludes staff's report. All

[19:55] right. Thank you, daniel. Any questions for staff? You want

[20:02] one? Go ahead, please. So, this

[20:07] is one of those alley abandonments where, you know, we're looking at like half the alley. There are other alleys like that

[20:11] around town, are there? That have abandoned like half of it or so? I'm sure that there are.

[20:17] I could not name you any ones specifically, but I would be amazed if this were the first

[20:23] one of its kind. I'm just thinking about walking around town. I think there are.

[20:27] thank you. Alright. Anthony?

[20:32] do you have any idea how they're going to terminate the... Alley there, on the west end,

[20:37] on the west side of it, because there's a residence there, in the center of the block. And then it goes

[20:41] on to commercial properties to the west. So they're going to have access alley access

[20:46] from 23rd street. Yes. So

[20:50] they're only requesting to abandon kind of the portion of the alley which be

[20:54] on the east side of the block, closest to gulf breeze. And that roughly aligns with the

[20:59] with the applicants properties. That's why it makes that odd sort of a zigzag there. And

[21:04] everything from that point to the west, which I believe would be 23rd street, that will

[21:09] remain open. The the

[21:19] applicants representative is here to answer questions. We did have a pre development and it did indicate that. Yeah,

[21:24] they're going to need a lot of this space. All right,

[21:28] thank you. All right, any other questions for staff? All right,

[21:32] the applicant present, mr. Hill. May I? Certainly. Thank

[21:38] you. Like the tie. Wife picked that out for you? Absolutely. Without a doubt. Commissioner

[21:44] wallach, commissioners, thank y'all for being here today. I'm mark hill, 2116 church

[21:49] street, galveston, texas. I'm here representing the bryan museum, bryan educational

[21:54] institute, as it's known. The bryan is a fantastic addition to galveston, texas. We're so

[22:00] pleased it's here. It has become an owner. Of all the

[22:05] adjacent and it bought from, I found this interesting, most

[22:09] reverend daniel cardinal dinardo in the summer of 74, the only catholic cardinal

[22:14] from the state of texas and the only one that has sat in two conclaves from the

[22:19] united states of america. But we bought it from him in order to expand the

[22:23] educational institute in this particular area. We own it on both sides. We, being the

[22:27] bryan museum, own it on both sides. And I noticed that the information... That

[22:33] came from the city recommends. I've checked it over. I'm in agreement

[22:37] with the commission, the, pardon me, the staff that recommends. And the last thing I'd like

[22:42] to say, and I'll stand ready for questions, is that I'm so glad

[22:47] to have this today. Because our representative from the museum, ms. Rebecca diaz-aristia, ms. Diaz, today

[22:54] is her last day she can come to galveston because she can't drive after tomorrow. She's due april 27th. Congratulations.

[23:02] and she's here with us today. So we'll have somebody else with us when we go to council. I stand ready

[23:07] for questions. Any questions for the applicant? Yes, sir.

[23:14] so, kind of echoing michael's question, you know, how are you all planning on capping that off? Is it just

[23:19] going to be the exterior wall of a building? Are you going to have a fence there, or how is that going to work? I

[23:23] haven't seen it. I would imagine it would be the end of the building, but I have not seen the architectural drawing.

[23:28] yes, ma'am. I think we had

[23:33] lined it up so it would go right to the end. Okay. Thank

[23:37] you. Yes, sir. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you, mr.

[23:42] hill. Thank you, commissioner. Thank you, commissioner. It's good to see you, commissioner

[23:47] wallace. All right. Any other? So we're going to open the public hearing on this. Is there anybody here who would like to speak

[23:52] on this item? Seeing none, we will. Oh, yes, ma'am. I'm

[23:58] sorry. I didn't see you. Sign

[24:05] in for us, please. That's okay.

[24:10] my name is sue stewart. I live at 2214 avenue, m. And myself and the neighbors that are

[24:17] being involved with this, we are very happy that bryan is doing what they're doing. However, we do have some

[24:21] concerns that we'd like to address. To start

[24:27] off with, if you'll look at the map, it'll show my lot right there.

[24:33] where the division is going

[24:37] across the alley, my garage is

[24:41] right there. I would not be able to get out of my garage if they do it like that,

[24:46] but if they go just straight across up there at the top one, then it would

[24:51] not be a problem. I mean, I've lived there for over 25 years. I would like to be able

[24:58] to use my garage. Secondly, we

[25:03] are concerned with that map because we feel, and we have experienced it

[25:09] before, there's going to be a problem with homeless staying

[25:13] in that one little area, that instead of being straight across, it's just turning,

[25:18] and we think that's going to be a very big problem right there, that we would like to stop it

[25:24] before it starts. And thirdly... We were concerned

[25:30] about trash pickup, but I've talked to the city. The city's not even aware

[25:36] of what's going on here as far as what they can do about trash pickup, so there's

[25:40] really nothing we can talk about about that at this point. So that's

[25:45] mainly. Mainly, we'd like to get that go straight across instead

[25:49] of angled the way it is. To make it where we don't have a problem with people trying to

[25:56] stay there and making it their home. And I don't have a problem getting out of my garage. All right. Thank

[26:02] you, ma'am. I understand. So I'm going to, I rarely do this, but I'm going

[26:07] to make a suggestion to you. Mr. Hill's here. I'd suggest

[26:11] you talk to him. You still have this still-goes-to-city council, but I'd be on the bet

[26:17] that those folks would probably maybe can help you out. I can't

[26:21] tell you that they will. I can't speak for them. But the best thing I can tell you is,

[26:26] is when neighbors get along and get things resolved, that's the best way to do it.

[26:30] so that's my suggestion. So I appreciate you coming. All right. Anybody else

[26:35] on this item? All right. Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and we'll bring

[26:40] this back to commission for action. 26p-03

[26:52] with staff recommendation. So we have a motion and a second to approve 26p-013

[26:57] with staff recommendations. Is there any discussion? Seeing

[27:01] none, we'll take the vote. Those in favor? And that's unanimous. All right, moving on. Landmark 26p-012.

[27:15] thank you, mr. Hill. I think I'm next. I think the next one's 26bf008. You give me one

[27:23] more time. What did I do? Did I go the wrong way? You skipped one. Yeah. Oh. There's a

[27:29] beachfront next. I'm trying to get to the end. All right. 26bf-008. I don't want kyle

[27:35] to miss out on any fun here. Yes, sir. Thank you. Good afternoon, planning

[27:39] commissioners. Thank you for your time. This is an after-the-fact request for stair construction on a new

[27:44] single-family residence. The address is 11395 beachside

[27:48] drive. The property is legally described as beachside village. Section 4, 2016,

[27:55] abstract 121, lot 430, acre

[27:59] 0.3488, located in the city and county of galveston, texas. The subject

[28:04] site is located in the beachside subdivision. Single-family dwellings are located to the north, east,

[28:09] and west of the subject property. A beach and dune system are located to the south

[28:14] of the subject property. According to the bureau of economic geology, this area is eroding at a rate of 7 to 8

[28:19] feet per year. Staff has prepared photos of the subject property

[28:24] for your viewing. First, we have a firm and beg map showing the distance of the structure

[28:28] from the dune system and its position relative to adjacent properties. On the

[28:34] next slide is a property survey showing that the proposed

[28:39] stairs are 26.9 from the north toe of the dune.

[28:44] on the following seven slides, we have proposed project drawings, as well as a summarized scope

[28:48] of work. Different views

[28:55] of the stairs on the home.

[29:00] finally, we have four photos of the stairs and one photo

[29:09] from the line of vegetation. This concludes staff report, and thank you for your time.

[29:14] all right. Thank you, kyle. Any questions for staff? I have one. So this

[29:19] is, they wanted to come, this appears, they wanted to add some stairs, kind of

[29:24] after the fact. Well, so yeah, we were out, we've been trying to do more compliance

[29:28] inspections, and so we've noticed. These stairs were not on the original plans,

[29:34] so we informed them, and they, yeah, they wanted to receive

[29:38] after the fact authorization for the stairs. But it's out of the dca? Yes, sir. Okay,

[29:43] perfect. 26, yes, sir. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? All right, seeing

[29:48] none, we'll open the public hearing. Is the applicant present?

[29:54] alright, would anybody like to speak on this item? Then

[29:59] we'll close the public hearing and bring this back to commission for action. And I

[30:04] will make the motion that we approve 26bf-008 as presented

[30:10] by staff. Second. So we have a motion and a second to approve. Is there any

[30:14] discussion? Seeing none, we'll take the vote. Those in favor? And that's unanimous.

[30:21] now it's landmark's turn, 26p-012. This is 1813 24th

[30:29] street. It's a request for designation as a galveston landmark. 25 notices were sent, 0 returned. This is

[30:35] the james and... James walter and agnes may. Zempter house is a rare example

[30:41] of a house that has remained in the same family that built it four generations ago. James

[30:45] walter zempter, a skilled craftsman and contractor, arrived in galveston in 1900

[30:50] to participate in the rebuilding efforts. By 1903, it established a contracting partnership and

[30:55] later founded its own firm, which operated for over four decades. During this time, zempter

[31:00] contributed significantly to the reconstruction and expansion of galveston's built environment, thank you.

[31:05] including the construction of public schools, infrastructure improvements, and commercial and

[31:10] institutional buildings. His work included projects associated with the seawall system, education facilities,

[31:14] and municipal infrastructure essential to the city's recovery and growth. The

[31:20] landmark commission reviewed this request at their meeting yesterday and voted to recommend approval. City

[31:25] council has the final decision regarding requests for a landmark designation,

[31:29] and the request will be heard at the regular meeting of april 23rd. Staff is recommending approval. And we

[31:34] have a picture of the subject property on the screen. That concludes staff's report. All right. Any

[31:40] questions for staff? Seeing none, is the applicant present? Why

[31:46] don't you come tell us a little bit about your project? Sign in. Give us your name. You got

[31:52] a credit card? You can leave that there. Hi. I'm julie

[31:57] baker. I am. I'm a member of silk stocking historic

[32:01] district and galveston county historical commission, and I'm assisting the homeowner in applying for a registered

[32:07] texas historic landmark as well. And I think this is a very worthy project for

[32:12] galveston recognition, and I'm just here to support lynn in her application. This

[32:24] guy was the original storm chaser. Well... I'm lynn eanes

[32:29] and my husband sitting back there because he's petrified to talk. The jim zempter, who

[32:37] is my husband's great-grandfather, came to galveston after the 1900 storm. Because there was work

[32:42] to be found here. And he was looking not only for a job, but a place to settle and

[32:47] to grow a family. And he was a stair maker by trade,

[32:51] so there was a much work to be had. And as he lived

[32:56] here, he started to grow his business, forming a partnership in 1903, which stayed until

[33:02] 1910, which at that point, he formed his own business.

[33:07] and while he was growing his business, he became a prolific builder throughout galveston,

[33:13] which is well documented and what we provided to you, much

[33:17] of it comes from the rosenberg library, but a lot of it came out of our family scrapbooks.

[33:22] because john's family has owned this home for 120 years, and we are the fourth

[33:28] generation to care for it. And the house itself remains largely as it was as it was

[33:34] built, with the exception of a 1928 renovation. Where the

[33:40] upstairs porch was taken in and the front door was moved from the right side

[33:44] to the center of the home. That was done by mr. Zempter. And up until last year,

[33:48] when we did a major renovation inside the house, I could always tell people.

[33:53] that every board and every nail that was put into this home was either put

[33:58] in by my husband's great-grandfather or by my husband. So we have continued to try

[34:04] to be a good steward of this very unique property within one family, and the

[34:09] family has a unique history in and of itself. Not only mr. Zempter, who was building

[34:14] in galveston for over fifty years, he also was very civically minded. He was

[34:19] an odd fellow for 50 years and a rotarian for 50 years and was honored for such. And he built

[34:24] schools, he built low-income housing, he built roads,

[34:28] he built part of the seawall. And his name is on the 61st

[34:34] street commemorative marker honoring those who built the seawall. He helped to build

[34:39] murdoch's bathhouse. He also built many private homes. Much

[34:43] of our neighborhood was built by him. And we try to continue

[34:49] to be a good steward of this and we think that we are a good example

[34:53] for a landmark designation. And we hope that you will look favorably upon our application.

[34:59] and I'm here to answer any questions about our family or the home itself.

[35:07] all right, thank you. All right, any other public comment

[35:13] on this one? Seeing none, we'll bring that back. To commission for action,

[35:19] I make a motion, we approve 26p-012 and I'll second that, so we have a motion and a

[35:24] second to approve 26p-012. Any discussion seeing none,

[35:30] we'll take the vote, those in favor, and that's unanimous. That's an awesome story, man. Thank you

[35:35] so much for sharing that with us. All, right. Plats. Is

[35:44] that where we're at? 26p-015?

[35:52] or did I miss one? No, you're good. Now then we gotta go

[36:01] back. No, that's it. That's 8d. Ready when you are. 26... I think I'm on 8d. 26p-015. Is

[36:06] that correct? Did I miss one? Okay. Catherine says, no. I'm good. Alrighty. So this

[36:12] is a replant at 10415 warren road. There were 21 public

[36:17] notices sent. Let's see here.

[36:23] so, the applicant is requesting a minor plant to subdivide one parcel into three, because not all

[36:28] parcels have frontage on a public street plan. Commission review is required. Lot 3 has frontage

[36:34] on a portion of warren road, which is a private access easement. Subject parcel is

[36:39] located north of shaper road, between warren road and 105th street. It is currently vacant,

[36:43] except for existing residences.

[36:47] according to the proposed replant provided by the applicant, all lots will have direct access to either warren road or

[36:52] 105th street via that access easement. Note the zoning and

[36:58] land use of this property and surrounding. Also note the

[37:04] requirements for new lots in r1 zoning. In this case,

[37:09] this is a strange part of r1, called r1 modified, where the minimum lot requirements are

[37:15] much different than what we normally see. It will only require a 2,500 square foot lot

[37:19] area, and all three lots will greatly exceed that requirement. The smallest

[37:24] proposed parcel is going to be over 10,000 square feet. There

[37:28] are no objections from outside utilities or other city departments. Please note the plat approval criteria

[37:33] in the staff report. Staff recommends request be approved

[37:38] with specific conditions 1 and standard conditions 2 through

[37:42] 6. And we have some photos here. So here we have the proposed replat showing the

[37:49] layout of the proposed three lots. Lot 1 has a house on it. Lot 2 and 3 would vacant. The tract

[37:53] in the lower corner is also

[37:58] involved in this replat, and that has since been purchased by the same owner. So they're

[38:04] all by the same applicant. Next slide, please. And so here we have the survey

[38:09] on the left hand side, showing how things sort of look now. And then compare

[38:14] that on the right, which is once again the proposed replat showing how. Basically, the two

[38:22] lots there, the l shaped lot and the other would then become four lots, one remaining and

[38:28] the other three lots. Then being what is shown here. You

[38:33] can also see how warren road sort of dead ends on either side of these properties, which is

[38:37] odd, but not that odd for galveston. Next slide, please. And then here we have

[38:44] the subject property looking north, the subject property

[38:50] showing the two houses looking south, the properties

[38:54] to the east, the general area to the east, and then the general area to the west. On either side

[38:59] of warren road, where it sort of the property splits it. And this concludes staff's report.

[39:06] all right, any questions? Can you go back

[39:10] to the survey where there's, okay, it says. Because not all parcels have frontage

[39:15] on the public street, planning commission is required to review. So is the way they're cutting it,

[39:20] they're losing part of the street? So if you look on the replant, it's kind

[39:25] of hard to see, but it would be basically the east side of warren road. There are two

[39:31] volumes and pages noted as county of galveston. And staff

[39:36] was not sure if that was dedicated to the city whenever that part

[39:42] of the city was annexed or not. And so the term determination was made that that's a private

[39:46] access easement, not a city right-of-way, so therefore, lot 3 would not have direct

[39:51] access to a right-of-way.

[39:57] that's my question, too. Access to property, but not through a public street? Is

[40:02] that what you're saying? It would be a private access? I believe that is what staff

[40:07] suspects at this point. The surveyor did provide the deed research on those,

[40:12] but it was difficult to tell what the actual, I guess, legal status

[40:20] of those two little hunks were.

[40:24] because the wern road, so wern currently, the way it's done... Today,

[40:30] warren road, its right-of-way, kind of goes to the middle

[40:34] of this track. And so now what's going to happen is you're going to have warren road. That's

[40:40] going to be on the, what would be the, I guess it would be the west side,

[40:45] and then you'd also have warren road that would be on the east side. Is that correct? With no right-of-way, was that right-of-way dedicated and

[40:49] abandoned? We have no evidence

[40:56] that warren road was ever. Established as a right of way.

[41:01] across these properties. Then how are they saying it's

[41:12] private property right now? From what staff has been provided, it appears to be. So

[41:21] how do you get to? So it's going from, yeah, I'm just

[41:33] curious how you get to the parcel. How are they going to have access

[41:37] to the parcel that remains, that doesn't have a structure on it, to the north? Because

[41:43] there's no access to that. I don't think you can do that.

[41:47] so lot one, of course, would have access to warren

[41:53] road and the variable width right away, that's noted there, as would lot two. It also kind

[41:58] of hits. Right now, on lot three, you'll see we're in road

[42:02] and you'll see a little square that's 41 foot by 41 foot, says county of galveston.

[42:07] value 114, page 597. Um, that is believed to be a uh,

[42:13] easement, and therefore lot three would go through the easement to where

[42:18] in row, which is a public right-of-way. So they would not have direct access, but staff

[42:22] believes they would have access. So you, you're,

[42:27] you're. You're under the impression that the track that's labeled county of

[42:33] galveston, that's kind of to the north there, that would be adjacent, that's

[42:38] how they would access that? Correct. That is our understanding at this point.

[42:47] okay. Well, that's a strange one. All right. All right. Any

[42:54] other questions for staff? I will note that our engineering department did... Review this

[42:59] plan as they always do, and we receive no comments or concerns from them. Okay. All right.

[43:05] we'll open this public hearing. Anybody here to speak on this? Is the applicant here?

[43:09] nope. Anybody want to talk about this? Nope. All right. Then we'll close the public

[43:14] hearing. We'll bring it back to commission for action. I

[43:31] move that we approve 26p-015 with staff recommendations. And I'll second it so we can

[43:36] have some discussion. Thank

[43:42] you. All right. So, daniel, this is a strange one. So I'm

[43:47] assuming that what's going on here is none of this, and john, I know you have a lot

[43:51] of expertise in this. So I'm assuming that what the deal is

[43:56] is none of these other tracks have been. Platted prior to,

[44:01] so we're plating what was a one single existing tract. My

[44:08] problem is is there's some unknowns here. Where do we know

[44:12] that belongs? What says it's the county of galveston?

[44:17] okay, if you remember there was a planned unit development that

[44:22] was just north of here. Yes, I remember years ago and there were lots of questions then. About wern road and wern road

[44:27] is very mysterious. But those two sections that are labeled

[44:33] here county of galveston, are access easements. But wern is a

[44:37] dedicated right-of-way and a road in the city, correct?

[44:42] parts of it are, parts of it are, but right here,

[44:47] where we're considering it now, it's not dedicated right-of-way,

[44:52] so that's why you see wern road rights-of-way coming in. On the east and the west,

[44:57] and they kind of disappear into this private property.

[45:03] but the access to lot three is achieved through that access easement.

[45:08] okay. Any other discussion? Who maintains that portion? Is that maintained by the city?

[45:12] it wouldn't be, no. It would be considered just like a driveway,

[45:17] a private access way. And I would just add that the burden

[45:21] falls on the applicant. You know, this is what he wants to plat. Yeah, I see no

[45:26] objection to it. Okay, thanks, john. Any other discussion?

[45:32] all right, then we'll take the vote. Those in favor? And that's unanimous. Thank you, daniel,

[45:38] for the test. All right.

[45:44] moving on to old business 7a. 26p-009.

[46:00] so I'll tell you what I'd like to do here is, let's hear from, because I know you guys are all

[46:05] here. My birthday is not until friday, but I appreciate y'all coming.

[46:09] and why don't we do this? Let's hear from the applicant. Let's take

[46:14] a quick break and then we'll hear from everybody else. Is that good with the commission? Okay. All

[46:20] right. Let's roll with that.

[46:24] yes, ma'am. Ready. Okay. So

[46:32] good afternoon, commissioners. Teresa evans with the development services department. Can you hear me?

[46:36] is it good? I might scoot in real quick. Okay. Switch.

[46:40] okay, is that better? Got it?

[46:56] okay. So the case before you, 26p-009, was deferred

[47:02] from the march 3rd, 2026 meeting, with the request

[47:07] to bring it back to this meeting with more information. So, just

[47:12] to revisit the project summary for this project,

[47:17] the subject site consists of 12 lots. They are located

[47:21] at the northwest intersection of bob smith drive and san

[47:26] luis pass road, fm 3005. The

[47:30] total area of the subject site is 351 acres,

[47:35] with development proposed on 170 of the acres. Most

[47:41] of the site is undeveloped, but it does include jamaica

[47:46] beach rv resort. So, if this pud request is approved and

[47:50] moves forward, the rv park will be incorporated into the development. So, the

[47:58] existing site consists of three base zoning districts.

[48:03] there's residential single-family r1,

[48:08] residential townhouse r2. And resort recreation zoning

[48:12] districts. So that that pale yellow on the east side of the

[48:19] of the site outlined in that aqua outline,

[48:23] that is r1. The r2 is the dark yellow and the res rec zoning

[48:29] designation is the the dark green. So the press

[48:37] before you is for a planned unit development overlay district, and that is to

[48:42] establish a mixed-use development. So, public notice,

[48:49] 25 public notices were mailed to all property owners within

[48:54] 200 feet of this site. We did have one returned public

[49:00] comment report. It looks like

[49:05] since this staff report was put together, we received an

[49:11] updated comment sheet that is now in favor of the project.

[49:16] so your staff report notes that it was opposed, but what is

[49:20] being disseminated right now is the updated comment letter that shows it is in favor. We also

[49:28] received additional comment letters in the public comment

[49:32] report that was sent out earlier today. And you should note all the different

[49:40] comments that were submitted for this project. We are still

[49:46] in the process of redacting the personal information from those comment reports,

[49:50] so we have not been able to provide those for this meeting, but you do have a list of

[49:55] everyone that has provided comments. The updated proposal

[50:02] before you, was circulated to all city departments,

[50:07] all the review departments, and they responded with no objection. So, please

[50:13] note, the fire marshal has removed his objection to the initial proposal that was

[50:18] presented at the march 3rd meeting. The proposal was also

[50:22] circulated to private utilities, and they responded

[50:28] with no objection. So, as just

[50:33] noted, the ped request was deferred to this meeting in order

[50:39] to allow the applicant to provide more information regarding building height,

[50:43] drainage, lighting, and environmental concerns.

[50:48] included in the staff report, the applicant has provided a

[50:52] cover letter. This is exhibit b. And the applicant will get

[50:57] into more detail on responses and the specific information that's been provided. But there

[51:02] are some changes that have been made to the original request

[51:07] that was presented. First, the applicant has removed the

[51:11] deviation request from the maximum lighting requirements outlined in article 7

[51:16] of the ldrs. So they are now proposing to comply with the

[51:20] land development regulations, article 7. I will note that we

[51:27] have, there was an oversight in the initial staff report that

[51:34] was published online, but that has been corrected. And the copies before you do

[51:39] include that update. And that is just the table with this pud request, noting

[51:44] that the lighting will be per article 7 of the ldr. I noted

[51:51] that there was a couple changes to the original request. So the first was removing the

[51:55] deviation request for the lighting requirement. Number two is the applicant is

[52:00] proposing to establish three planning areas within the development site.

[52:06] so, planning area one is currently zoned r1,

[52:11] residential single family, and that would be located

[52:15] within 500 feet of bob smith road. And it would comply with

[52:20] the residential single family r1 design standards. That is

[52:27] for planning area 1. For planning area 2, that is located along the frontage

[52:33] of fm 3005, within 650 feet

[52:38] of san luis paso road, they

[52:42] would comply with the commercial zoning standards. Right now, that planning area

[52:48] 2 has three zoning districts. So you have the r1, the r2,

[52:53] and the res rec. And so the proposals for that planning area 2

[52:58] within 600 feet of fn 3005, it would be the zoning, the

[53:03] commercial zoning standards that apply. And then planning

[53:09] area 3 would encompass all the remaining acreage of the 170

[53:14] acres that they are proposing to develop. And that would

[53:19] incorporate the standards in the pud plan that is being

[53:23] presented. So, the pud is a floating zoning district,

[53:30] and the purpose of this pud request is to one,

[53:34] eliminate the minimum lot area, lot width, lot depth, front setback, side setback,

[53:39] and rear setback requirements in the r1, r2, and res rec zoning districts for planning

[53:46] area 3. 2. Increase the maximum

[53:52] height requirement in planning areas 1 and 2 from 50 feet to 70 feet in the

[53:58] r1 and r2 zoning districts for architectural features and

[54:03] mechanical equipment screening. 3. Increase the maximum height

[54:08] requirement in planning area 3 from 50 feet to 120 feet

[54:13] in the r1 and r2 zoning districts. Or to allow the

[54:19] additional land uses in the r1, r2, and res rec

[54:24] zoning districts as described in pud plan. Exhibit e. Five,

[54:31] eliminate the signs requirements in article 5, with the exception of section

[54:36] 5.301 , which prohibits off-premise signs, billboards,

[54:40] and replace with pud exhibit g. Six, eliminate the parking

[54:45] and screening requirements. In articles 3 & 8

[54:50] of the ld.r.s and replaced with pud exhibit f and 7

[54:55] to allow for private streets.

[55:00] so, in your agenda packet on page 6 of the staff report, you'll see the criteria

[55:05] for approvals of this pud and conditions appropriate for the request. If this

[55:10] project moves forward. Specific conditions are 1 through 3. And on page 7,

[55:16] you'll see standard conditions 4 through 9 outlined. And

[55:24] with that, we can, if you're ready, we can turn it over to

[55:28] the applicant and they can provide more detail. Okay. We might have some questions

[55:34] for staff, too. Yes, sir. So, does anybody have any staff

[55:39] questions? Go ahead, tom. All

[55:43] right, thank you. So I understand, I think jamaica beach has a sewage treatment

[55:48] plant out there, but I'm wondering about the city of galveston. Do we have sanitary sewer, that sort of thing

[55:52] out that far? They're proposing to build a treatment plant for the site. So that is

[55:58] something they have been in discussion with public works. Gotcha. And so when public works has no objection,

[56:03] they're considering the capacity issues? Yes. Okay.

[56:08] and then... In the original plan, and then I see in one

[56:12] of the maps here too, they label a sewer treatment facility, but I didn't see anything in

[56:17] the actual proposal that holds them to that. Is that something

[56:21] that we can require, or is it just a permitted use? It's required

[56:27] to the development. They'll need to provide adequate infrastructure. And so... How

[56:31] does that work? Would they have to build it themselves, or would they give the city the money? Would they have to put down some sort of bond

[56:36] in order to make sure that, you know, this gets finished? How would that work? So that's those, there's not any

[56:41] specifications addressing that in the pud plan, so they would comply with city

[56:45] development requirements. Whatever gets it built based on the city's decision. Yes, right now,

[56:50] they have not approached us for any special requests or incentives or anything. So

[56:54] right now it would be built per city regulations. Okay, and then... You know, they discuss,

[57:02] you know, some conservation efforts there, but once again, I don't see anything really

[57:06] holding, you know, say, like a conservation easement, as like, you know, a firm piece

[57:10] of this proposal. Is that something that we can put in there? Is that something that the city has talked

[57:15] to them about? Do we know, you know, how we'll be managing that?

[57:19] the developer is making commitments, but right now, this is, we have this letter, and the development this

[57:25] proposes is only for 170 of the acres. 71 of the 350

[57:30] acre site. So my understanding

[57:34] is they are not, they will not touch the wetlands. The remaining balance

[57:39] of the site is wetlands. And they're hoping to improve that, but they can

[57:44] certainly provide more detail on what their plans are. Okay, but that's aspirational, as opposed to, like,

[57:48] a condition of the pud. Yes, so the city does not have any requirements from wetlands

[57:53] separate than what the u.s. Army corps. Will require and

[57:57] the city defers to. Okay, cool, thank you. All right,

[58:02] any other staff questions? Nope, I got a couple. So I'm

[58:07] trying to get my hands around some of these planning

[58:12] areas that are described here. Maybe I can ask the applicant this. But we're seeing where

[58:18] we're increasing from 50 to 70 in r1 and r2 zoning districts.

[58:24] is that? Because my understanding is, if I'm looking at the map and

[58:28] the way that they're, I'm looking at their exhibit c, which is

[58:33] their internal planning area map, that pretty much all of

[58:38] that parcel that's currently r1 is in their letter. They're

[58:43] stating that they're staying in the 50. And I can ask the applicant that, but it's a

[58:49] little confusing because we have planning area 1 and planning area 2. 50 to 70. So I

[58:55] guess I can ask them that. And then can you elaborate

[59:00] on the, I'll be honest with you, I didn't go read these, some

[59:05] of these other exhibits. And I'm hoping you can answer the question

[59:09] about the billboards. What is, what's the deal there? Are they like. So they will comply with the city's regulation that we

[59:14] don't know. They're saying. Yeah, we're not, they're not going to do. So they're proposing their own

[59:18] sign regulations for their development. Okay. In lieu of what's. In the ler?

[59:23] in the city standards. Okay. So their own variations or deviations, with the exception

[59:29] that they are not going to deviate from the city standard. That we do not allow billboards. Got it. Okay. Can, I know that,

[59:37] so I know that. The lot size, the minimum, I'm sorry,

[59:42] minimum lot size in r1 is 05,000 square feet. Can somebody

[59:47] on staff tell me what, if there's minimum lot sizes established for? R2 and res

[59:55] rec? Yes, I actually have that information in front of me.

[1:00:00] so, for r2 residential zoning districts, your minimum area is 1,600

[1:00:06] square feet. Your minimum width is 20 feet, and your minimum depth is 80

[1:00:11] feet, and that's for townhomes. Okay. And then what was you said res rec? R2.

[1:00:16] you know what the one is? That's r2. For our, for res, did you ask, say res rec?

[1:00:21] yes, ma'am. Okay, let me... Is it four? Okay, I'm good

[1:00:28] with that. You already have that. I think that's right. I just didn't know it was offhand. It's 4,000 square

[1:00:34] feet, yes. Thank you. I think that's all I have for now. I may have some more later. Anybody else? All right. We'll

[1:00:40] get the applicant up here, tell us what he's got going on.

[1:00:45] welcome back. Yeah, you want a

[1:01:02] slide presentation? So I think what I'd like to hear,

[1:01:07] this is just me, I know that you've heard. From our last meeting, we had some comments,

[1:01:12] and it was basically building, height, drainage, lighting, environmental concerns, and it

[1:01:17] looks like you guys heard some of the other stuff and incorporated that too. So if

[1:01:22] you don't mind, if you could just start out for me, just kind

[1:01:28] of letting us know some of the changes that you've put into your... Into your plan.

[1:01:34] would that be okay? Or you got your own spill there? Okay,

[1:01:38] I'll let you do your thing, but that's a question I'm going to have. My name is jeff

[1:01:44] blackard, 401a, drannick parkway, mckinney, texas.

[1:01:51] from all the questions from last time I was here, and from jamaica beach, and from

[1:01:55] letters that I've seen flowing around, I put together a list of things that I think people

[1:02:01] have been talking about. Perfect. Traffic, zoning,

[1:02:06] affordable housing, drainage, exterior lighting, and water,

[1:02:14] wastewater, and the environmental issue.

[1:02:19] the one thing I didn't address is short-term rentals. I'll

[1:02:24] leave that over here. So I put together a few slides. If I

[1:02:30] may, I'll try to do this all in a few minutes. This one or

[1:02:46] this one? Okay, go ahead. I'll

[1:02:59] first start with traffic. We hired dustin quall. He's our

[1:03:04] traffic engineer. Once again, they talk to the state. No

[1:03:09] different information than I gave last time. When 3-005

[1:03:13] becomes busy enough, they'll add additional two

[1:03:18] lanes of traffic. The reason we've engaged this traffic

[1:03:22] engineer is because, at some point in time, soon, soon. In our engineering,

[1:03:27] we'll have to do desal, lanes, etc., and deal with 3005. Go

[1:03:32] ahead. This is the zoning map,

[1:03:40] and I think there's been a lot of confusion, maybe not here, but on the outside

[1:03:44] of the property that we're going to develop. And a lot of

[1:03:49] people believe that the wetlands right there. That we're gonna develop that or

[1:03:54] fill it in along bob smith road towards the end. And we have no intention

[1:03:58] of doing that whatsoever. The property is currently, we could

[1:04:04] pretty much develop just like it is with the current zoning.

[1:04:08] but we would like to be a little bit more creative in the village itself. With

[1:04:13] setbacks and side yards and things like that, including the height, which,

[1:04:20] you know. I was here last time talking about the famous lighthouse. And fine. We'll do 120 feet,

[1:04:26] which is within the zoning itself, and that's why we asked for the additional height. The

[1:04:33] other things along bodd smith road, a 500 foot, I'm gonna call it a buffer

[1:04:38] zone. But there are people that have three-story houses that

[1:04:45] will have elevator shafts that go a little bit taller. For architectural features,

[1:04:50] and that's the additional 10 or 20 feet on existing house, above the 15 feet. And the

[1:05:00] density we can currently develop that with the existing

[1:05:04] density that we have today, in fact, we're probably half as much density as we could

[1:05:09] develop today under the the current zoning.

[1:05:19] this is our traffic consultant. Go ahead. Go ahead. This is an

[1:05:27] interesting map. That's the, and we just went through it, but that's the existing zoning

[1:05:33] that we have today. And once again, I'm just trying to illustrate that the wetlands

[1:05:38] will be left alone. We will not touch the wetlands. In fact, I'll get into it

[1:05:42] in the environmental part of this presentation. Go ahead.

[1:05:52] affordable housing, which I don't like that word either. Our

[1:05:59] company is passionate about affordable housing. In fact, we're working with

[1:06:03] congress right now. Just got through the heritage

[1:06:08] foundation on tax credits to figure out more affordable housing

[1:06:12] in america. So we're right in the middle of it. So we're passionate about it,

[1:06:17] but it's come up over and over in galveston island. And so we

[1:06:22] will put something in our pud. Regarding

[1:06:28] affordable housing, we're open, but I put 15 units, is it 15

[1:06:33] units or 18 units at least, inside. We have

[1:06:38] to find housing for our own employees also. So it's a problem here,

[1:06:44] but we would rather take care of it on our own site. That's

[1:06:51] the fabric act that we're going through congress with. Go ahead. Hydraulics, which is an

[1:06:57] interesting subject. One of the comments in meeting

[1:07:04] with jamaica beach was, you know, we don't want you to raise your elevation

[1:07:09] of your land and flood ours. And currently, jamaica beach, in a lot of cases, is higher

[1:07:14] than us and coming towards us. But we all know that state law

[1:07:18] and galveston ordinance that we're not allowed to. Direct

[1:07:24] our water towards jamaica beach. And so shellmark

[1:07:28] engineering firm, we used in the past in pirates, they're our engineer. And that's the

[1:07:35] best I can do to give a letter saying that I'm not going to flood the streets of jamaica beach. Streetlights was

[1:07:47] brought up by jamaica beach, and it's ironic, I would love for, we'll adopt the city of

[1:07:52] galveston ordinance on dark sky, but we would like for them

[1:07:57] to also pass the ordinance in their city. Because they

[1:08:02] have street lights all the way up and down bob smith road that shine directly into our site,

[1:08:07] next, slide waste water. I

[1:08:20] mean, this wasn't our idea to build a sewer treatment

[1:08:25] plant on our site. This was the city's, they gave us an option to build a lift station and

[1:08:32] pump it to a certain location. But in the best interest of the city, they would love

[1:08:37] for us to build a sewer treatment plant. So we

[1:08:42] volunteered to build it on our site because their big concerns

[1:08:47] are all the septic tanks that are from our property west.

[1:08:53] in theory, we're doing, I won't say a favor,

[1:08:57] but we agreed with them that we would do that on our site and build it

[1:09:02] to a capacity to handle more properties to the west end. Okay, go

[1:09:08] ahead. Environmental. If I may

[1:09:14] spend a few seconds on this because, tom, you

[1:09:18] brought up the environmental issues. Everybody's focused on the environmental. Issues,

[1:09:24] but I'd ask you to judge a man based on his past on galveston

[1:09:28] island. What I have done and what I'm about to tell you,

[1:09:34] I did without. I didn't do it. To get a permit, okay, a lot

[1:09:39] of guys will do a lot of things to get a permit. But when I first come to

[1:09:43] galveston island, the west end property owner association and pirates. And came to me and

[1:09:51] asked me if I would donate $50,000 for engineering to do

[1:09:55] delhide cove. And so I said

[1:10:00] yes, and I donated an employee, greg gitcho, to do delhide

[1:10:05] cove at the end of pirates, at the end of lafitte's cove.

[1:10:09] and we did, and it took two years with

[1:10:14] sherry o'brien with texas fish and wildlife, and we got it approved and built

[1:10:18] with matching funds. It won the nation's highest award. You can go ahead. For the wetlands.

[1:10:25] and it had, go ahead. And it had nothing to do

[1:10:30] with any permit. It was just being a good neighbor down in pirates. And

[1:10:35] through that process, I learned a lot. And I became friends with a guy named bob

[1:10:39] moore, who is one of the top attorneys

[1:10:45] for the environment in the nation. And during that process,

[1:10:50] I learned more and more. And bob would ask me for properties, and I would donate more properties to.

[1:10:55] sanctuary properties on galveston island, which today

[1:11:00] those properties would be worth millions and millions of dollars. Go ahead. Started a

[1:11:08] very close relationship with sherry o'brien and all her projects. Going all the way

[1:11:12] down the coast and building wetlands all the way down the coast. And we continue

[1:11:17] to participate in any project they want to do. Go ahead. These are

[1:11:25] tracks that I donated. Go ahead. One

[1:11:29] of the big mysteries, and maybe it was like, when I owned stewart mansion,

[1:11:34] everybody wanted to go inside of stewart mansion, the big mystery on the west end. But the famous hole on the

[1:11:40] west end, and how that took place, was sherry. O'brien said.

[1:11:45] there's no fresh water on the west end for bird sanctuary. Or we're losing it. So I said,

[1:11:49] how about if I create some a

[1:11:54] little pond there, and it was at first a very small pond.

[1:11:58] and then the beach erosion

[1:12:02] because of all the beach erosion. They came to me and asked me if I would donate some sand,

[1:12:07] so I donated some sand. And then lowe's or home depot said

[1:12:12] they wanted to buy some sand. We sold just a little bit of sand to them. But we weren't

[1:12:16] doing this freshwater lake for the purpose

[1:12:21] of selling material. And then more beach erosion and more

[1:12:26] beach erosion. And sand socks needed beach quality sand. And

[1:12:31] before you know it, I had given away

[1:12:35] over a million cubic yards of beach quality sand. That's about $50 million worth of

[1:12:40] beach quality sand that we had given away here. And that's how that lake took place, because

[1:12:46] sherry o'brien wanted fresh water on the west end. Go

[1:12:52] ahead. When we were, when we developed down here,

[1:12:56] that's christmas tree point, we tried to be very responsible. We had

[1:13:01] a lady that worked for us, named rhonda gregg, very much

[1:13:06] an environmentalist, now currently works for the corps of engineers. And this is a very smart way to develop.

[1:13:12] you can see the coastline, I mean the wetlands right there.

[1:13:17] and what we did is we took uplands and created where their

[1:13:21] boat docks were. And didn't touch the wetlands and create a barrier reef and more wetlands

[1:13:26] for that project. Go ahead.

[1:13:33] that did take a permit, but. But most people would just went out and built boat docks. This

[1:13:40] is another example. This is lafitte's cove, or lafitte's

[1:13:45] point, which I took uplands and built their boat storage and

[1:13:51] left all the wetlands. And protected the wetlands

[1:13:55] out there. Go ahead. So that

[1:14:01] leads us to discovery sands. And as you can see, in 1954,

[1:14:08] jamaica beach was a big wetland. It was 350 acres, 170

[1:14:13] acres of wetlands. And right next to it, to the north

[1:14:17] in that picture, is discovery sands. And through time,

[1:14:22] in the early 2000s, once again, texas fish and wildlife created

[1:14:26] the habitats again. And if you

[1:14:31] look at 2026, it's hard to see, but 90% of the work is

[1:14:35] now gone because the habitat is

[1:14:40] either being washed away or

[1:14:46] erosion around the edges. And so... Because the sand sock should have been a little bit

[1:14:52] taller. And so, go ahead to the next slide,

[1:14:57] which leads me to discovery sands. I'm trying,

[1:15:02] and have been in the last, you know, 30 days, trying to figure

[1:15:07] out how I can adopt. Jubilee 01, that's called jubilee 1, that's called jubilee 2, and

[1:15:11] that's called jay cove.

[1:15:16] somebody needs to take care of these wetlands and maintain them. Now, they were beautiful

[1:15:21] when they were built, but they're going away. All of them are going away. And I'm

[1:15:26] disappointed. Because, back to your question about conservation easement,

[1:15:30] on bob moore island that I donated to bob moore, I put it

[1:15:35] in a conservation easement with galveston bay foundation. And these

[1:15:41] properties, when people adopt these properties, have to maintain them. Especially

[1:15:46] down here in this environment, with the island sinking. So go

[1:15:52] ahead. So all I'm saying is I

[1:15:57] think I'd maybe put $60 million

[1:16:02] worth of sand and dollars out of my pocket.

[1:16:06] with not the intent of any permit. In galveston,

[1:16:11] down there at pirates. I care as much about those wetlands as anybody

[1:16:17] in this room, especially if it's going to be on the backside

[1:16:21] of the development. And this isn't a vacation spot in my mind. This is a small

[1:16:28] village that has beautiful wetlands. And when I designed this from the beginning,

[1:16:33] I thought of the neighbors. If I lived on bob smith road, okay, and I know they're not

[1:16:39] in the city, and I lived from the bird sanctuary down, and I was looking out, I

[1:16:45] wouldn't want anybody blocking my view of those beautiful wetlands.

[1:16:50] so that design that you see of this development is respecting those people all the way down

[1:16:55] bob smith road. And I don't think people understand. They think we're going to build

[1:17:00] out there along bob smith road down there. Go ahead. So the

[1:17:10] one thing I hear, don't build anything. Okay. Well, my partner spent over

[1:17:17] $20 million already buying tracts of land there. So

[1:17:21] something's going to get built. Maybe not by me. Okay. But something will

[1:17:26] get built there and I want to be creative

[1:17:30] with the village, the no setback or the setbacks and side yards. That allows me

[1:17:36] to build a village to something that I would be proud of. That I would want to come

[1:17:41] down here and do. That's why we're even here for pud. Most developers would just take what

[1:17:46] they have. But I want to, I want to make it really special

[1:17:50] in the village itself. Thank you. All right. Any questions

[1:17:59] for the applicant? Go ahead,

[1:18:03] stan. Yes, sir. Concerning the sewage treatment plant, your

[1:18:09] site proposal is exactly where for that treatment plant? I saw

[1:18:14] a red dot. It didn't really give me a real good specific...

[1:18:18] farthest west property that we own. Okay. On 3005. I didn't

[1:18:26] pick that location. The conversation is with the city

[1:18:30] because it would be easy for them to get access farther west on the island. And we will

[1:18:36] screen it because all of our houses are around the sewer treatment plant. No

[1:18:41] different when I owned mud 29 in lafitte's point. I wish I

[1:18:47] had screened it better, but I did screen it. And I know

[1:18:51] there's lost leaders on the houses that go around it, the ones that we own. Okay.

[1:18:58] so, but you're stating right now that your intent and goal is to build a treatment plant

[1:19:03] there exclusively for the use of discovery sands? Not

[1:19:09] exclusive. We allowed enough land to do the rest of the

[1:19:13] west end that they told us, the area. Thank you. I also added more in case one day

[1:19:19] jamaica beach. Decides to join the city,

[1:19:25] which we won't own it at the time. But I added enough capacity,

[1:19:29] meaning enough land, to grow the sewer treatment plant. Thank you. All right for

[1:19:36] for staff. I'm just trying to get some clarification

[1:19:40] on the exhibit submitted by mr. Blackard that says the

[1:19:46] building heights for planning areas one and two will be

[1:19:50] capped with the language over here in the report on page six, says

[1:19:55] to increase them. So I just want to make sure we're on the same page and I'm reading the

[1:20:00] same thing. Is the request now to cap them at 50? Because the staff report says something different. Or am I reading it

[1:20:05] wrong? Right, no, the existing requirement is 50 feet, and so the request is

[1:20:10] for an additional 20 feet for mechanical and architectural features,

[1:20:16] is my understanding. Is that it? 10 feet for architectural, 20 feet

[1:20:22] for mechanical. For both the planning area and one... The only thing in mechanical would

[1:20:27] be if they had an elevator that went that high. But it would have to be architecturally,

[1:20:31] or architecturally like a spear or something. Okay, I'm just trying to make sure that the language I'm

[1:20:36] reading in the staff report corresponds with the exhibit that was submitted, and make sure I'm

[1:20:41] reading it right. So it's 50 plus whatever you need

[1:20:46] for any mechanical. Up to 20 feet. Up to 20 feet. That's my understanding. Or mechanical.

[1:20:51] but architecturally, you can go up with a sphere a little bit higher than 50 feet.

[1:20:55] okay. And then just curious, because these drawings have not

[1:20:59] been updated. Is that correct?

[1:21:05] this is updated. I'm just curious, are you playing the

[1:21:13] commercial section facing fm 3005? Right now,

[1:21:18] in your drawing, you've got water. I'm just curious how that was going to look. Is this going to be

[1:21:22] like you can just drive up from the road into the commercial section? Yeah, well, if it's commercial,

[1:21:28] then we'll put commercial against the road. Otherwise, we want to keep that as a canal

[1:21:34] through. But you're asking for commercial in that section. Yes, because we have a... If it's commercial

[1:21:39] or it is going to be commercial. Well, we hope to be commercial. Right now,

[1:21:44] we have conversations with emergency clinic, and they would want to be up

[1:21:49] on 3005. So if that does, then we'll move the canal

[1:21:53] around that. So the plan is

[1:21:58] to do a canal across the... Front of the property? Yes. But if you were

[1:22:04] to have commercial, let's just say your clinic, just, for example,

[1:22:09] the canal would be behind that or in front of it? It would be

[1:22:14] behind it and then back on the front. Because you're

[1:22:19] asking for the overlay to be commercial in that front section. Correct. In case we want

[1:22:24] to do something like that. I would prefer everything to be internal,

[1:22:28] but if I could bring e-care to that part of the island, I would be totally supportive and

[1:22:33] be open to that. Okay. All

[1:22:40] right. Yeah, a couple items. When the word eliminate is used, that's a pretty broad

[1:22:49] brush, and I think that what it communicates is it says that there is no governance. And

[1:22:54] then maybe another word needs to be put in there, because you really aren't eliminating

[1:22:59] anything. You're modifying the requirements of the standards that are there.

[1:23:03] but when you use eliminate, again, it just says there's no governance. At least that's what it says

[1:23:07] to me. And maybe you just want to use a little bit different word. And then also

[1:23:12] on the sanitary, there's been a lot

[1:23:16] of discussion about what it's going to end up servicing. And,

[1:23:21] again, it may just be better that you end up defining. To what capacity you're talking

[1:23:25] about actually doing that, rather than just saying we're going to to what capacity? And

[1:23:30] then people can be a little more comfortable with actually what it is that you intend.

[1:23:35] that's all. Eliminate. You can blame him. Yeah, well, it just

[1:23:41] that's, that's a strong word and what you're doing. The project has so many,

[1:23:45] it has so many variables in it, which is really, really good. But it eliminates, or

[1:23:50] at least it creates, that something's going to be painted with a broad brush unnecessarily. The report

[1:23:57] might be a little bit vague in that language, pd. Language. It talks

[1:24:01] about we still have to maintain fire separation. Sure. So building codes. That was just an fyi, because the

[1:24:06] word is pretty broad. That's all. Kevin dingman. Yeah, I got

[1:24:18] a couple, just a couple questions. So the first one, what are you planning on doing

[1:24:22] with all the material you dig out of the lagoon? The lagoon

[1:24:28] is on our site. Okay, just as fill? Just as fill, yeah. And

[1:24:33] then the other one is, so if we were to add specific conditions

[1:24:37] about conservation easements for the land that you've identified, and then also the wastewater treatment,

[1:24:42] would that be all right with you? Depending

[1:24:46] on the language, because... The first time, I kind of feel burned. I put a conservation

[1:24:51] easement and donated an island, and I want to make sure it's maintained.

[1:24:56] and so I'm not ready to give a conservation easement to any one group today. So,

[1:25:00] however, that language is.

[1:25:06] okay. And I understand how important that is. And in the next week or two

[1:25:11] before we go to council, I will. Drill down on that. Okay. Try

[1:25:16] to give some language because that would give a lot of people assurance. If you lived on bob smith road and

[1:25:21] you're looking out, what guarantee by giving this pud, do I get that? So, yes,

[1:25:26] I agree. Right, yeah, and I think that's a big piece of it. And then, you know, maybe something you consider is finding one

[1:25:31] of the local nonprofits. And, you know, you're obviously a very generous philanthropist. Maybe you can make a donation to that effect and kind

[1:25:36] of work with them to make sure that those things are done to your standards. So, thank

[1:25:40] you. All right. Anybody else? I

[1:25:46] got a couple. So affordable housing. I'd prefer to call it workforce housing.

[1:25:53] okay. We can call it whatever we want. So give me, you're telling me your deal

[1:25:58] says 15 units, as in 15 houses of the, how many are you doing? 700?

[1:26:05] 15 units for people to live in. So how many, how many dwelling units would that

[1:26:09] be? 15. 15 buildings

[1:26:14] with x number of units in them? 15 living units. I'm

[1:26:23] still a little sorry, jeff, but I'm I don't get that. So is it so you're doing 700 lots,

[1:26:28] right? So are you providing in your affordable housing plan?

[1:26:34] are you providing? Of the 700, are we now down to 685

[1:26:39] because you have 15? We also have multi-family condos

[1:26:44] in there too, and that's where we build the affordable. Okay, and those and those would

[1:26:49] be, because what I here's a struggle. And I just so look,

[1:26:54] jeff, some of this to me, and I'm calling you jeff. I

[1:26:58] hope you don't mind, but there's just some

[1:27:04] of the details in this and I'm gonna give you some kudos. I

[1:27:08] mean, you listened obviously at our last meeting because you made some changes.

[1:27:13] but I'm like, okay, where are the specifics on a couple of these items?

[1:27:17] the conservation deal, you've answered my question there. It's like, you've acknowledged,

[1:27:21] hey, look, you know what? I got to figure out how I want to do this. I do

[1:27:26] know that if you get galveston bay foundation or artist boat, or any

[1:27:31] of those folks, you got to give them the land. And then you give them the money and they hope

[1:27:35] to do what you want them to do. So I'm going to be really interested to see how you come up

[1:27:40] with a plan for that. I don't think that it's all bad,

[1:27:44] because everybody who would be living in your community certainly has a vested interest

[1:27:50] in those wetlands. So that'll

[1:27:54] be a good one. You're a smart guy. I know you'll figure that

[1:27:58] out. The workforce housing, it's like, man, if you're building 700 and you're telling me you're giving

[1:28:04] me 15 units that are going to be for workforce, that bone's been... Chewed on,

[1:28:11] pretty good. There's no meat there for me. Same thing with the sanitary capacity. So

[1:28:17] we're talking about, and I know that some of these are moving targets

[1:28:21] for you, but we're talking about capacity versus the area to build that. I doubt very

[1:28:28] seriously that you're going to go put in the capacity for 1500 units when you only need

[1:28:34] it for seven. But more specifically,

[1:28:38] you're going to provide an area where that your capacity can be

[1:28:46] expanded. You're not paying for that. You're going to pay for the capacity that goes

[1:28:51] for your development, but there'll be enough area there.

[1:28:56] let's just say your development requires a two acre footprint, just to pick a number. And

[1:29:02] you're saying, hey, you know what, if ours requires a two acre footprint, we're willing

[1:29:07] to make the site four acres so that we could double the size of the plant. Would that be a

[1:29:12] fair statement? Are you talking about building the capacity?

[1:29:18] no, not building it up front because they come in units. And we've hired a company

[1:29:23] to design, and the first unit is enough

[1:29:28] for 700 lots. Right. So you're talking about making sure that the area

[1:29:34] for this, where you're doing this is large enough to be expanded.

[1:29:39] but you're not going to go put in double the capacity at your plant, okay? Just want

[1:29:44] to be clear on that. And the second tranche will be for the west end. Right. We

[1:29:49] want capacity down there. It only makes sense from our standpoint

[1:29:54] to get the mud for all the capacity. That's

[1:29:59] how all this started with jamaica beach. I went to them and said, hey, I'll run a line

[1:30:04] to you if you ever want it. Where they could have your problem, have problems,

[1:30:09] and you can always tap into our. So how would you handle the discharge permits?

[1:30:13] are you gonna handle just barge permits for just your site? I would assume that you would

[1:30:17] know you'll go ask for it for the whole thing, okay, and look,

[1:30:22] these are just some specifics. And I'm that's what I see is missing, and and some

[1:30:26] of this, the minimum lot size. That one,

[1:30:32] you know, jeff, I've seen the

[1:30:37] stuff you've done in the past. It's admirable.

[1:30:42] the problem is, we all know what you did 20 years ago. The way the world

[1:30:47] turns today is we want to know what you're going to do for us today. So, the

[1:30:53] minimum lot size, just not having one,

[1:30:57] I don't know why we would want to do that. Because I'm

[1:31:02] standing here talking to you today, the mud... Gets put

[1:31:06] in and I don't know who's going to be down there down the road. So if I just

[1:31:11] give you carte blanche on minimum lot sizes,

[1:31:18] I could be dealing with somebody else further down the road. So I just would

[1:31:23] like to see some specifics in that. Yes, sir, please. Is there a minimum lot size

[1:31:29] in your plan? See, are all going to comply

[1:31:33] with ldr because one of the one

[1:31:39] of your deals deviations is to eliminate the lot size

[1:31:44] requirement. So that's just in your zone 3, which is kind of in your, it is

[1:31:50] in your core. Okay, all right,

[1:31:59] that helps me, that, that helps, but I hope you can kind of see what I'm looking

[1:32:03] at this. My my quandary is what happens if we're dealing

[1:32:08] with somebody else further down the road. And we have no lot size restrictions. And even

[1:32:14] in r1, it's 1600. What the dimensions are, that's

[1:32:19] in y'all's world. But I really think that needs to be considered. And then my

[1:32:26] last question is this. When we do these, you know,

[1:32:31] puds are very unique for galveston. And I can tell you,

[1:32:36] we've seen them where they've had a whole lot of deviations, much more than this. But

[1:32:42] at the end of the day, it's a little bit of tit for tat. So it's like, okay,

[1:32:46] you're asking the city and its taxpayers and residents

[1:32:52] to give you something. My question is, what are you giving us? Are you

[1:33:00] asking me? I'm asking you, yeah. What are you giving me? If I give you everything you

[1:33:05] want, what are you giving me?

[1:33:09] because it is a puds request, very unique. How do I approach

[1:33:13] when I do projects later in my life? I tell you what I need

[1:33:18] to do, and I do that. I don't play the famous zoning game

[1:33:24] where I say I want 10,000 units and get here and negotiate. I

[1:33:28] just don't do that. Right. I mean, otherwise, I'd have laid out a plan, and I can show you

[1:33:33] plans that are laid out along boss smith road, and then the homeowners come, and they feel

[1:33:38] like they win. That project is what I do. And so I'm not

[1:33:48] negotiating anything because this is what I do. If you don't want what I do. Well, jeff, a

[1:33:54] putt is a negotiation. You're here asking us for something. Correct. And in return,

[1:33:59] I'm asking you, what are you giving me? Because this is a negotiation,

[1:34:05] don't, don't, I, I, I, I, I

[1:34:09] could tell you no when the negotiation's over. No, I, I,

[1:34:16] I don't know what to give you. This is what it takes for me to build what, what you see,

[1:34:21] the pretty picture. Okay. That's what it takes for me to do. All right. And that's a, that's a fair answer. Yes,

[1:34:26] ma'am. I'm sorry. I just want to, donna, for the record,

[1:34:30] I just want to step in a little bit and say that. Puds are distinctive requests

[1:34:38] and we look at them individually. I want

[1:34:44] to be clear with the commissioners that we don't typically ask a pud applicant,

[1:34:49] what do you do for me? That's correct. What has been presented, as I've heard it,

[1:34:58] provides the applicant's narrative in terms of a sanitary sewage site,

[1:35:06] providing a conservation area,

[1:35:12] housing, et cetera. I mean, all these things the applicant

[1:35:16] could say I'm providing to the city. And that's fair. And I just want to tone it down

[1:35:25] a little bit that this is not supposed to be a what do you do for me?

[1:35:29] so I can give you this pud. That's not the way. The

[1:35:33] commissioners are to review these cases. But donna, I didn't take... And I

[1:35:37] understand what you're saying, but I just want to make sure

[1:35:42] that we're consistent in how we review cases and the verbiage

[1:35:46] that we use. I understand.

[1:35:51] okay. But puds are very unique in that they are a rare example

[1:35:58] where... If you came

[1:36:03] in and you just follow the ldr, you know what, jeff, you get to go do your thing. So here

[1:36:08] you are, you want a deviation.

[1:36:13] I'll answer your question. So, okay. I've already negotiated against myself

[1:36:20] by not putting any lots down. Bob smith road. If I'd have

[1:36:25] done that first and then you'd have negotiated that away. I'll figure out some sort of deed

[1:36:30] restriction that nothing can get built on the wetlands. I've got

[1:36:35] to figure out how to do the conservation easement. It's a

[1:36:40] little bit more complicated. I did the last one myself, so I know how it works. The

[1:36:47] units that we have here, typically you want to negotiate

[1:36:52] with units. I need more units for the amount of... Amenities

[1:36:58] that this project have, I actually need more units,

[1:37:02] because this is heavy on the amenity side.

[1:37:07] wastewater is fair. I mean, we're going to give enough land that you can expand to,

[1:37:17] I forgot what it is, less than 03,000 home sites, which would take care of the

[1:37:21] west end and if jamaica beach ever came inside. How much area do you think it's going to take to do that? How much

[1:37:26] area will it take to do? You're at three acres right now?

[1:37:36] okay, so would it be fair to say that for you to do just your piece of it,

[1:37:40] it would be an acre and a half? Would that be a fair assessment? Okay, okay. All

[1:37:48] right. And look, mr. Blackard, I'm not trying to.

[1:37:53] brow beats you. I'm just, it is,

[1:37:57] it's a very unique situation for the city where we get to go ask for something. We

[1:38:01] don't always get to do that. And that's why I asked the question. And, you know,

[1:38:08] there's a combination of things that do make up part of, you

[1:38:13] know, your tit for tat. So I appreciate your patience and answer my question. So that's

[1:38:18] all I have. One last thing about zero setbacks and all of that. I said, in the last

[1:38:23] 20 years, I showed you what I did here 20 years ago, but in the last 20 years, I've built projects

[1:38:28] doing those zero setbacks and zero side yards. You can go see, or we can send you videos

[1:38:33] on how it functions. I've seen them. They're impressive. I

[1:38:37] mean, kudos to you. Yes, please. So when, you know, let's say we get to the point

[1:38:43] you'll build the sewer treatment plant, who owns that? They're giving

[1:38:48] that to the city? We'll own it. The city will. Maintain or take it when it's time to take,

[1:38:54] just like I did with mud 29. Okay. Thank you all, right?

[1:39:00] any other questions? Yes, please stand. Well, appreciate you giving us the insight

[1:39:05] on all that. One of the things that you kind of touched on a little earlier

[1:39:10] at the beginning of your presentation, you said you kind of come back to that later, and I think we

[1:39:14] may have forgotten about it. I almost did, except I wrote it down. Short-term rentals and what

[1:39:19] your what your thoughts on short-term rentals in your... Jed can answer that.

[1:39:23] we have plenty of restrictions. I mean,

[1:39:29] we can show you copies of them. And we're in a first-lane position,

[1:39:34] so most problems with short-term rental is that they don't have an enforcement arm, meaning they're not first-lane

[1:39:40] position. So those will go in place day one. Okay. I think

[1:39:46] that's good for people to know. Thank you. Alright. Anybody else? All right, mr.

[1:39:51] blackard, thank you. If we have some more questions,

[1:39:55] we'll come back to you. Let's take a quick break. Is everybody good with that?

[1:40:01] like, five minutes, and then we'll come back, and then we'll get to hear

[1:40:05] from everybody. All right. Can

[1:40:13] I have your attention, please? Can I have your...

[1:40:17] don't make me do this. That's

[1:40:22] my favorite thing to do. All right. So now we're going

[1:40:27] to get to hear from everybody. What we're going to do is we're going to start on this side

[1:40:32] of the room. We're going to start... Yes, ma'am. Please, please do. For staff

[1:40:38] over there. The whispering ladies over there. I have a question for you. The majority

[1:40:42] of this property is resrec right now zoned, correct? What

[1:40:46] are the restrictions under resrec? Like, what can somebody

[1:40:51] build in that area? What are the restrictions? It's a long

[1:40:58] list. As far as like setbacks

[1:41:06] in like the size of it? How does that compare

[1:41:11] with what this applicant wants to do? Okay, sorry

[1:41:17] about that. Mike issues, your question is,

[1:41:22] what are the lot standards? And how does that compare with what this applicant is asking

[1:41:26] to do with the new zoning? Under the current ldrs for

[1:41:31] resrec, which is the majority of this property,

[1:41:35] what could... Someone who purchased it do with that property? So the lot

[1:41:43] standards are it's a minimum of 4,000 square feet, with a 40 foot wide lot and 50 foot

[1:41:50] of depth. So those are minimum standards. Setbacks is a zero

[1:41:57] front setback, a side setback of three feet, and a rear setback of 10 feet.

[1:42:04] now we would need to go to land use table. Which is in a different section

[1:42:09] of the code, but there's a, you know, a table of a long table of uses. And

[1:42:14] you just look at the use and look if it's allowed, if it's, you know, if it's a permitted

[1:42:20] use or limited use. In res rec and look and look for that, but there are, I mean, it's

[1:42:24] res rec is is designed to allow for multiple uses. So

[1:42:32] there there is a lot. They. It's not that they couldn't do what they're proposing

[1:42:37] with the current zoning, it's just the layout. It's where they would do it because

[1:42:41] you have multiple zoning districts with different standards or the law. So that

[1:42:46] is my understanding of why they're trying to get it under a pud so they can achieve the desired layout.

[1:42:57] alright, anybody else? Then we're going to open the public hearing. So

[1:43:02] what we're going to do is we're going to start on this side at the front and we're going to move to the back. And then

[1:43:07] we'll move over to this side. So come forward, sign in, state your name. You get three

[1:43:12] minutes, and your time starts now.

[1:43:17] better, write, faster. I'm kidding. Oh, I

[1:43:25] should state for the record that commissioner humphreys had to leave, so he's not going

[1:43:31] to be here for our final vote, but we still have a quorum. So we're good there. All right.

[1:43:36] yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. Good evening,

[1:43:40] almost commissioners. My name is shereen quintero, and I am a

[1:43:44] retired educator who chose jamaica beach as my forever

[1:43:48] home two years ago. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. I'd like to

[1:43:55] briefly reference a case that came before this commission on september the 16th, 2025.

[1:44:00] it was item 25p as in paul

[1:44:06] 031. This is a request for a planned unit development to allow a single home

[1:44:11] on the beach to host small, private, invitation-only

[1:44:16] events, such as weddings and gatherings. That request was

[1:44:21] ultimately denied, largely due to concerns about its potential impact

[1:44:26] on nearby homes, specifically traffic, noise, lighting. And

[1:44:31] overall compatibility with the surrounding area. What stood out in that

[1:44:37] discussion was the care and seriousness given to protecting the character of the neighborhood and the

[1:44:42] quality of life for nearby residents. That level

[1:44:47] of thoughtfulness matters, and it's something we truly, truly appreciate from y'all.

[1:44:54] today, we are asking that same level of consideration. Be applied to the proposed

[1:44:59] discovery sands development. This is a much larger project

[1:45:05] with significantly greater potential impacts, not only in terms of traffic, lighting,

[1:45:10] and noise, but also increased tourism activity, broader land use flexibility,

[1:45:16] and long-term effects on the surrounding community and the environment. Our intent is not

[1:45:22] to oppose development. We understand growth as part

[1:45:29] of the future of galveston. However, we do believe that

[1:45:34] consistency in how projects are evaluated is critical. If concerns about neighborhood

[1:45:39] impact were important in the case of a single home hosting limited events, then we

[1:45:45] respectfully ask that those same concerns be carefully and thoroughly evaluated,

[1:45:50] if not more so, for a development

[1:45:54] of this scale. We simply ask that the same standards, the same level of scrutiny,

[1:45:59] and the same commitment to protecting existing residents be applied here. Thank you

[1:46:04] for your time and for your continued dedication to thoughtful planning

[1:46:10] for the future of galveston. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. All right. Next. Good

[1:46:35] afternoon, commission. I am melissa joseph. I live in the city of jamaica beach

[1:46:40] and I proudly serve as a city council member. I'm here today, not just as a representative

[1:46:44] of jamaica beach, but as a voice for a neighboring community. That will directly bear the

[1:46:49] impact of what you decide here today regarding the discovery

[1:46:53] sands development. Let me be very clear. This is not just another development proposal.

[1:46:58] this is a request to dismantle the very zoning protections

[1:47:03] actions. That are meant to safeguard coastal communities, ours included. And once you

[1:47:07] open that door, you will not be able to close it. Our vision in jamaica beach is simple and

[1:47:11] intentional. Together, we envision our community as a

[1:47:16] safe coastal paradise, where, with sandy feet, we live, work, play, and find peace. What is

[1:47:21] being proposed next to us threatens every part of that. What this dallas

[1:47:25] developer is proposing is not a neighborhood. This is not modest growth. This is

[1:47:34] high-intensity lagoon attraction wrapped in a long list of exceptions,

[1:47:38] exceptions that override the rules everyone else is expected to follow. Let's call this what

[1:47:43] it is. They want to eliminate lot-sized limits and setbacks

[1:47:48] so that they can pack more into less space. They want to

[1:47:52] build higher than what's allowed, changing the very character of the west end skyline. They

[1:47:58] want to cut parking in half without answering the most basic question, where are all those cars going

[1:48:03] to be? And where are they going to go? Not to mention the traffic,

[1:48:07] particularly when there are hurricanes and evacuations. They want to remove buffers

[1:48:13] between residential and commercial uses, placing homes next to bars,

[1:48:17] retail, and entertainment. That is not thoughtful planning. That is a free-for-all. And then there's

[1:48:23] the most alarming piece of all. They want to count wetlands as part of their development density. I

[1:48:27] know mr. Blackard, to me, today he keeps changing his presentation and he keeps

[1:48:33] taking a different stand on wetlands, particularly when he first presented this to our jamaica beach city

[1:48:38] council and to this last meeting that he held for you all. Wetlands are not

[1:48:42] vacant land. They are not optional. They are natural infrastructure that protects

[1:48:47] all of us from flooding and storm surge. When you compromise wetlands,

[1:48:52] you are not just impacting this site, you are increasing risk for surrounding communities.

[1:48:57] like mine, you are shifting that risk onto existing homeowners who had no seat at

[1:49:02] the table when this was designed, and for what? So, one developer can maximize profit

[1:49:08] by rewriting your rules, because that's what this is. This is not

[1:49:12] about compatibility, it's about exceptions, massive, sweeping exceptions. And here's

[1:49:18] the reality. If you approve this, you are setting a precedent.

[1:49:22] not just for the city of galveston, but for the island where jamaica beach is on. Every developer

[1:49:28] who comes after this point to the, will, will it,

[1:49:32] I'm sorry. Every developer who comes after will point to this moment and ask for the same treatment.

[1:49:38] sorry. Thank you. Man. Hold on,

[1:49:55] I'm checking for my wallet.

[1:49:59] yeah, hello. Hello. I'm

[1:50:14] heather owens, a homeowner in jamaica beach. I've had family

[1:50:19] on this island since the 60s, and although my address is in

[1:50:23] jamaica beach, I am a proud galvestonian. We value our

[1:50:27] wetlands, wildlife, and have a strong sense

[1:50:32] of community, things that this proposal puts at risk. But I'm here to address specifically what blackerton company is asking

[1:50:36] of you, the blatant disregard for the city's land use regulations. Despite its

[1:50:43] marketing language, this proposal dismantles established developmental standards in favor of broad,

[1:50:48] unconstrained entitlements. It replaces clear zoning protections with vague

[1:50:54] flexibility that benefits the developer while shifting risk onto the community. To clarify, I am not

[1:51:00] against progress in galveston, but I am against irresponsible development

[1:51:05] by companies who come to the island and think that regulations don't apply to them. Most concerning is the

[1:51:09] elimination of dimensional standards. Removing these lot sizes and setbacks is reckless. It

[1:51:15] invites overbuilding at this developer's discretion, rather than codified protection. The proposed height

[1:51:21] allowances are equally troubling. This claimed 50-foot limit that he states in his

[1:51:25] cover letter becomes meaningless when submitted, with requests to increase to

[1:51:30] 10 to 20 feet higher. That is, in essence, 70 feet, and yet it

[1:51:35] says building height is now capped at 50 feet. In r1 and r2 zones. The parking

[1:51:41] plan is speculative. Reducing parking by up to 50% relies on unrealistic expectations.

[1:51:46] equally problematic is removing screening requirements. Without buffers,

[1:51:51] land use conflicts between residential and commercial are inevitable. The regulations require buffering

[1:51:56] between incompatible uses for a reason. This proposal justifies sweeping changes

[1:52:01] using this vague european village concept, while expanding permitted use is far

[1:52:06] beyond the scope of the the current zoning. 77 separate uses are proposed

[1:52:11] in this article 2 the uses 77

[1:52:15] uses are proposed. And when comparing these 77 uses that they're proposing

[1:52:23] to the ldr table 2.201. Only six of them are permitted out

[1:52:28] of 77 out of 77 uses. Only nine are permitted

[1:52:32] in an r2 zone that is 60 and 54 uses that are flat

[1:52:38] out prohibited, according to the land development

[1:52:42] regulations. Can you actually recommend a development that ignores so many established

[1:52:47] protections the city has put in place? You'll be writing a blank check to a developer that

[1:52:51] island residents, their homes, and their livelihoods will end up paying. Together, these

[1:52:56] deviations are not minor adjustments. They represent a complete rewriting of the rules. The pudf has

[1:53:01] decided to try proven standards for speculative promises. Without sufficient safeguards,

[1:53:06] enforceability, or accountability. Approving this pud sets a dangerous precedent

[1:53:11] for future developments. And for all these reasons, I strongly encourage you not to recommend... Thank you.

[1:53:41] hello, I'm marcy kurtz-hoffman. I'm a lot less organized than the ladies.

[1:53:46] prior to me, it's been a long month since

[1:53:50] the last time we were here. I wanted to kind of just drive home my main point in a brief sentence. I'm

[1:53:56] not sure if you guys have ever thought about it this way, but you know the population of the west end total? I think

[1:54:01] it's around 10,000 total. So this development is going

[1:54:06] to bring about 5,000 people into an area smaller than jamaica beach. So we've already

[1:54:11] discussed all the nitpicky reasons as to why that's not going

[1:54:16] to work out for us on the west end, but having that be your

[1:54:21] neighbor when you move there, and it's a pasture on one side in the state park is very

[1:54:27] concerning. It's never been addressed what's going to happen to the rv park. I

[1:54:31] guess it just gets dissolved. I'm not sure if they're okay with that. I guess not. They haven't spoken yet,

[1:54:36] but that's concerning. If we want to do tit for tat. Our street lights,

[1:54:40] the picture that you were shown today, that was a daylight picture that was shown. I think two of those lights work on

[1:54:45] bob smith, so it's not infiltrated with street lights.

[1:54:50] in your criteria number four for your approval, the range

[1:54:54] of uses and the character of the development that is allowed by the proposed zone will be compatible with the properties

[1:54:59] in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for rezoning. It doesn't work.

[1:55:05] that does not match the character of the west end of this island. We are. On the west end, you see

[1:55:11] european villages, you don't, you see beach houses, because we are a beach, we're

[1:55:15] on an island. Um, and I understand the dilemma and you guys are put in. And some comments that were made

[1:55:20] from the last time were that, um, you know, you have

[1:55:25] to have specific reasons for refusing this, um, but in the way that it felt as what

[1:55:30] you were saying is like, a developer can come in and develop this, however they want

[1:55:35] in the regulations that it is. And it could be a lot worse. Feels like you're trying

[1:55:39] to change opinions of people and use that as a way to say it could be worse.

[1:55:45] that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about what's in front

[1:55:50] of you today. And also saying that, you know,

[1:55:55] we're only using 170 acres of it. I think you've all seen the aerial views of that. That land

[1:56:00] is water. That land is so much water all the time that no matter what happens there,

[1:56:05] it's going to have to be changed significantly. So I don't know if

[1:56:09] environmental impact assessments will be done with this, where it goes

[1:56:14] from here, but I do hope that you take your role very heavily and don't just pass it on. So

[1:56:18] that you don't have the responsibility of dealing with the thousands of people that are opposed.

[1:56:23] to this. So thank you for your time and listening to everyone. I know it's a lot. Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate

[1:56:30] you coming out. All right. Next up, don't be scared. Good

[1:56:53] evening, commissioners. My name is jacob hupp with the galveston bay foundation. I

[1:56:58] want to highlight a key inconsistency that I think requires further consideration and clarification. We've heard

[1:57:04] that this site could support approximately 2,100 units, by right, but

[1:57:08] at the same time, the applicant is requesting significant exemptions, eliminating lot size and

[1:57:12] setback requirements, and modifying density standards to build 790 units. That raises

[1:57:16] an important question. If 02,100 units are truly

[1:57:21] achievable, why are these fundamental exemptions necessary for a much smaller project?

[1:57:28] at a minimum, this suggests that the 2,100 unit figure may be more theoretical than practical and

[1:57:32] may not reflect the real constraints of the site. Before relying

[1:57:37] on that number as a baseline, I urge the commission to ask for clearer evidence

[1:57:41] to gain a clearer understanding of what can actually be built. In reality, given the site's

[1:57:45] physical and regulatory limitations, and consider why the applicant requires

[1:57:50] exemptions to build 790 units. If the applicant can develop the 790 unit project

[1:57:55] without the pud, as stated, then that's how they should

[1:57:59] proceed. The galveston bay foundation remains concerned about impacts to wetlands,

[1:58:03] inevitable non-point source runoff, impacts to storm resilience

[1:58:08] on the island, and the need for protection of the significant public restoration investments made nearby and

[1:58:13] within the proposed site. Thank you. Thank you. Thank

[1:58:21] you. All right, next. Next row

[1:58:25] back. Yes, sir. Good afternoon

[1:58:45] or good evening. My name is alan. I'm a part-time resident

[1:58:50] of jamaica beach and I appreciate all the good points

[1:58:54] that were made today. I'm here to speak on behalf of the

[1:59:00] ecosystem and its inhabitants. When you're an outdoorsman, a

[1:59:06] fisherman, a lover of nature, all wildlife, everything wild,

[1:59:11] you have more of a tendency to look around

[1:59:16] at the ecosystem. And everything that it involves, the birds, the gators, the

[1:59:22] snakes, the ghost wolves. I've

[1:59:26] got picture after picture of all the animals that I've seen in these marshes and I

[1:59:31] from set from april through september. I live

[1:59:38] in those marshes. Exactly where the footprint of this property is going

[1:59:42] to be. I know every inch of those shorelines, I know what is underwater there.

[1:59:48] there's oyster reefs, there's seagrasses that taxpayer

[1:59:53] dollars were put in to build these little barrier islands and to do grass restoration

[1:59:58] for the wildlife. To be out there and see this and appreciate what it has

[2:00:05] to offer, I see migratory birds coming

[2:00:10] in, I see the birds nesting on these islands. And now we're

[2:00:14] talking about bringing in this waterways. These waterways, the one where this

[2:00:20] little peninsula sticks out, I don't see that. There's enough width there

[2:00:25] to even put houses on without building up the property. And

[2:00:29] right off the shores, the north and south shores of that peninsula alone,

[2:00:34] the seagrasses are there. Galveston bay system has struggled

[2:00:39] to put seagrasses back into place. And here we are, we're going to set that back now, because

[2:00:44] the boat traffic is going to increase out there. I've already seen a few jet skis

[2:00:49] back in there. I very seldom, up to now, in all the years

[2:00:53] that I've been fishing those marshes for the last 13 years, we've owned that place

[2:00:58] for a long time, but for all the years that I've fished out there,

[2:01:03] I very seldom see a boat. It's undisturbed, the wildlife has run

[2:01:07] of the land. And it just concerns me with what's going to happen. They're going

[2:01:12] to have, I'm showing boat docks, they're going to have to have proposed areas and dredge

[2:01:16] waterways for these boats to get out

[2:01:21] into the big open water bays. And it just concerns me

[2:01:25] for the future of the wildlife and all its inhabitants in the back as well. So I

[2:01:30] appreciate your time. All right. Could have included a

[2:01:36] fishing report. Alright, next person. There's no fish

[2:01:40] in there. Alright. Hi, I'm

[2:01:56] emily evans and I live in jamaica beach, and I'm a little bit less nervous than I was

[2:02:00] last time speaking. I just want to give you all a little bit of

[2:02:05] perspective if you haven't thought about it. Had this project been funded with any federal dollars, an

[2:02:11] environmental impact statement would have had to been done. And that's through the epa,

[2:02:16] u.s. Fish and wildlife, and two other agencies. They're not

[2:02:21] requesting federal funds, but they are requesting city taxpayers. And even as a jamaica beach resident,

[2:02:26] I pay taxes to the city of galveston as well. Had it been,

[2:02:35] sorry, another federal point is in 2023, family from idaho,

[2:02:43] sackett versus the epa. They

[2:02:47] sued the epa over their clean

[2:02:51] water act, section 404, which prohibited them from filling or dredging a riparian wetland,

[2:02:56] which is by a river. That supreme court case set a precedence. For all

[2:03:01] of our wetlands, all of our marshlands, and our coastal wetlands have a

[2:03:05] completely different function than old riverine wetlands.

[2:03:10] creating posters, I'll be putting them all around town. What I really

[2:03:15] think this island in general needs is more education about the functions

[2:03:19] of our wetlands. Like I said last time, we don't have pumps on the

[2:03:24] west end. Our homes, I'm on a dry lot, so luckily I don't get all

[2:03:28] of the beach and bayfront water coming up into my property. But if we put 120 feet

[2:03:34] of development sitting on these wetlands, just... The

[2:03:38] submersion of the land alone will invite the saltwater in from either side. That's my

[2:03:44] point on the wetlands. I hope that you consider it. Think

[2:03:49] about if the city of galveston could determine what's best

[2:03:54] for our island. Not galveston county economic development partnerships, but what's best

[2:04:00] for this island is to protect wetlands that we have. There are free mitigation. It's not

[2:04:06] concrete canvases. It's not. Pump stations, they're free.

[2:04:12] we need to protect them as much as possible. And remember that the u.s. Army corps of engineers, their hands are

[2:04:18] tied. If you do a quick search, what happened to texas wetlands after 2023, sackett versus the

[2:04:24] epa, it brings a long stream of items. And one of them is down in cameron county. For

[2:04:29] spacex, for rapid development of projects that some feel need

[2:04:35] to be eliminated. Regulations based on the needs

[2:04:40] of the town and of the land, but I think we need

[2:04:45] to keep our wetlands. Thank you all right, you did a great,

[2:04:50] great job there. Emily. All right. Next. Good evening.

[2:05:09] thank you, commissioner, for the opportunity for us to visit with you a little bit. My name

[2:05:14] is richard white. I'm a resident of jamaica beach. I'm

[2:05:19] on the east side of jamaica beach, which is nice because I get to look out over the state

[2:05:23] park every morning and every evening and during the day. I agree

[2:05:31] with a lot of the comments that are made here, but my major comment is that this project

[2:05:37] really lacks a lot of specificity. I think from

[2:05:41] the first meeting that was held here that I attended, that there have been some more

[2:05:47] specifics put in, but to me, there's still a lot of gaps

[2:05:52] in that specificity. The only other issue, and I imagine that

[2:05:58] this commission is not really involved in that, is really the

[2:06:03] permitting involved. I've not

[2:06:07] heard anything about any of that activity that mr. Blackard's organization has

[2:06:17] been involved with for this project. We've seen

[2:06:21] that from other projects, and I can understand, I think I

[2:06:25] understand why things are not more specific, and that is

[2:06:32] that, mr. Blackard is a bit of an artist. And he likes to

[2:06:37] have some artistic interpretation of properties that he builds.

[2:06:43] and I appreciate that, but still... Terms

[2:06:49] of setting a precedent, that's

[2:06:54] something I think that commissioners should consider

[2:06:59] greatly if you're approving something without a great deal

[2:07:04] of specificity. So thank you for your time, appreciate that, thank you sir, appreciate your

[2:07:10] comments. I brought my own pen.

[2:07:21] we'll let you take it then. My

[2:07:27] name is jim haywood. I've been a resident of jamaica beach for the last 10 years, and I

[2:07:33] understand that there will be development in various parts of the island. I just have a

[2:07:39] simple statement that I hope you take into consideration as this moves forward. It's a

[2:07:45] simple statement that I learned from an educator that I had a

[2:07:50] long time ago. The further you deviate from the way that things naturally occur, the

[2:07:55] more dire the consequences will be. That's my statement. Thank

[2:08:00] you. Hi, my name is deborah

[2:08:26] haywood, wife of that man. He and I moved to jamaica beach

[2:08:33] from ohio about ten and a half years ago. He doesn't remember. We chose

[2:08:38] the west end because of the character of the island. So what I have to say is really more

[2:08:42] from the heart than, you know, technicalities. I don't really

[2:08:47] think there's any reason to repeat all the issues that we feel there are

[2:08:52] with this development. And for the life of me, I don't understand. Why the

[2:08:56] commission would approve this proposal and all the multiple variances for such an

[2:09:02] environment environmentally sensitive area? While it's true

[2:09:06] that, you know, that will probably ultimately be

[2:09:11] developed over there. I hope that when that happens, that it would be consistent

[2:09:18] with the character of the west end and the reasons why we chose to live on the west end. Kind of, lastly... I'd

[2:09:24] like to invite mr. Blackard to meet any of us

[2:09:29] around a half an hour before sunset on bob smith

[2:09:36] road, with a cocktail and a golf cart ride. To see the sunsets and the beauty

[2:09:40] of that piece of land there, and to see one of the things that he is asking us

[2:09:45] to give up. Thanks so much. Thank you. All right,

[2:09:52] next row. Anybody on the next row? Don't be

[2:09:56] bashful. Alright, anybody else on this side? Here we go.

[2:10:20] hello. I had a lot of stuff prepared, but... It

[2:10:25] got all butchered up, so here we go. I'm ad-libbing.

[2:10:29] anyway, the developer made some changes that should be acknowledged. They added a

[2:10:35] couple of requirements resembling r1 in one of the new planning areas,

[2:10:39] removed the maximum lighting deviation overall, and engaged drainage, environmental, and traffic consultants.

[2:10:47] but issues remain. One concern that's been mentioned is that

[2:10:52] the puds... Still includes a 77 list 77 item list of a

[2:10:58] allowed land usage. Why are they still included? Does this

[2:11:03] mean those uses could wind up in any area at some point? For example,

[2:11:08] we would never want a recycling center, athletic state stadium

[2:11:12] or an auto service station located directly across from homes along bob smith and

[2:11:18] jamaica beach. Um, and just ad

[2:11:23] libbing again, something that was brought up. I recently read

[2:11:27] two noaa studies on the jumball cove restorations that were done, the berms and the

[2:11:34] little sand islands and the cord grass that was planted. And I fish out there as well.

[2:11:39] uh, they have, and that was a 2023 study. They have not decreased 90 percent. Um, you,

[2:11:48] they're not perfect, the study stated. The berms have sunk, but the cordgrass

[2:11:53] and the marsh has grown. So, you know, it's great

[2:11:59] to keep them going, but they're not 90% gone. On the wetlands, some areas

[2:12:04] within the current footprint do appear to overlap wetlands, according to the u.s. Fish and

[2:12:10] wildlife wetland mapper. The mapper is not jurisdictional, however, and is meant...

[2:12:16] for a general overview. But we know an official delineation

[2:12:21] will be done, and when it's done, how and when will the

[2:12:25] public be able to see the results? Along with the revised layout, to ensure the wetlands are being

[2:12:30] avoided and preserved, also involved will be plans in permitting

[2:12:35] for dredging the bay. More broadly, what is the intended vision for this? Is it a tourist

[2:12:40] destination with water park and hotels? Is it a quaint european village where everyone

[2:12:45] knows each other? Is it a shopping center? Is it a gated

[2:12:49] residential neighborhood? Right now, it appears to be all of the above. There

[2:12:56] are just too many unknowns, loose ends, and unanswered questions, even

[2:13:00] at this early stage, especially given the project's unusual nature, its large scale, and

[2:13:05] the significant impact it will have on the surrounding area.

[2:13:09] thank you. Thank you, sir.

[2:13:15] there's no fish in that marsh. Y'all stay out of there. All right, next.

[2:13:20] hi, my name's greg. I mean,

[2:13:32] what's the anticipated construction?getting in and

[2:13:42] out of jamaica beach these days, especially in the summer, people come

[2:13:47] in and try to get in. The beach

[2:13:59] right now, up and down the jamaica area, is already so crowded you can barely get on

[2:14:05] at all. In fact, if you can't go down,

[2:14:12] you can't get on. Beach down for traffic, but too many people,

[2:14:16] they're already there. You add another 5,000 people in that small area, it's gonna

[2:14:21] make it exceptionally x factor worse. The thing about the 120

[2:14:28] foot exemption for,

[2:14:32] I think a lighthouse to look pretty, we already got a water tower, we can look at that. They need

[2:14:37] to know where they're going. And, you know, they say, you know, it could be worse, but it

[2:14:44] also could be a lot better. So that's all I have to say.

[2:14:49] thank you. All right. Thank

[2:14:55] you. All right. Anybody else on this side? All right. We're going to come over here to the front. Anybody

[2:14:59] on the front row? Yes, sir. O's

[2:15:18] galveston island for our family. It is myself,

[2:15:22] my wife, and our four children. A lot

[2:15:29] of our neighbors are here. Our favorite librarian that we visit in, rosenberg spoke

[2:15:36] earlier. One of the things, like a couple

[2:15:40] of the previous gentlemen, I think a lot of the good points have been made, and I appreciate y'all's time

[2:15:45] in asking some very specific and pointed questions. I do appreciate mr. Blackard's

[2:15:50] updates to the project. But I think a lot

[2:15:56] of what is done here is all about stewardship. Planning and

[2:16:02] zoning has to do with stewardship. Stewardship to make sure the right projects go forward,

[2:16:06] the right resources get used, that the people that you serve,

[2:16:10] the island that you serve, the community that we are, is sustainable and grows

[2:16:17] in the right way. And so when you look at this,

[2:16:22] when you see some of the, when you hear some of the euphemisms,

[2:16:26] when you see some of the vagueness, promises are nice, commitments

[2:16:32] in writing are better, right?

[2:16:37] when we look at this, when we hear it, it is just not

[2:16:43] passing the sniff test in many ways. Development is

[2:16:47] development, and like many have said, we know it's coming. Had this

[2:16:52] been there in this manner that it's being asked to be, unfortunately, I know that we

[2:16:57] wouldn't have invested our family and our lives into

[2:17:02] galveston, at least not in this portion, right? We would have gone further

[2:17:06] down and further down and hopefully found that. And again, that's not to say we avoid growth. It's

[2:17:11] just, does it pass the stewardship

[2:17:15] of our land and the test there, right? We have some very

[2:17:20] unique, unique species. We have some very special things that

[2:17:25] go on and seeing the sunrises, it is a horizon thing. And I

[2:17:29] think that's why we're a little less crazy than the city dwellers is because we can see

[2:17:35] a thing much bigger than ourselves, whether we look one

[2:17:39] direction or another. And so all I'm asking is, as y'all,

[2:17:43] review this. And as you come to your own personal decisions on it, that you think at it

[2:17:48] from a stewardship angle. And I do appreciate all y'all's time and mr. Blackard's and everyone

[2:17:53] else who spoke. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. Well stated. All right. Next row

[2:17:59] back. Yes, ma'am. Come

[2:18:04] on down. My name is margie st. John, and I'm here

[2:18:08] to oppose the development based off of galveston county's, I

[2:18:15] think it's 1987, ordinance and support for the west end.

[2:18:20] having over or at a thousand residents capacity due

[2:18:27] to a lot of different things here.

[2:18:32] to make a beach, I'm going to put galveston, since I have that

[2:18:37] on my driver's license. Let's see here, if you can, bear with me. I want

[2:18:41] to focus on... Three critical issues, the evacuation, the flooding, and the infrastructure.

[2:18:47] first, the evacuation. The west end depends almost entirely on highway 3005

[2:18:51] feeding into I-45. That road is currently one lane

[2:18:56] in each direction. That means every resident, every visitor, every new development funnels

[2:19:01] into a single constraint path during emergencies. As population increases,

[2:19:06] evacuation time doesn't increase gradually. It increases... Dramatically.

[2:19:14] that creates a real risk to human life. Second, flooding. Development

[2:19:20] on wetlands, whether you call it wetlands or land itself, that is actually a natural

[2:19:25] drainage for our system. We are already seeing flood zones

[2:19:31] expand, and adding more density will only make that worse, not just for new homes, but

[2:19:36] for existing homes. Third, infrastructure. Water, sewer,

[2:19:41] roads, emergency response systems on the west end were not

[2:19:45] designed for a large scale of expansion. The city's own historical planning documents

[2:19:50] recognize these limitations decades ago. So the question is

[2:19:55] not whether development is good, it's whether the location can safely support it. Right

[2:19:59] now, the answer is no. I respectfully ask the council

[2:20:07] to delay approval until evacuation, infrastructure, and flood risk

[2:20:12] are fully addressed. Thank you for your time and your consideration. Thank you. All

[2:20:19] right. Next up. Anybody else

[2:20:24] on this side? Can't do two

[2:20:41] things at once, so let me get this filled out. My name's tom harrigan. I live

[2:20:45] in jamaica beach. I'm sure you expected that. I've gone

[2:20:50] from being amused by the old codgers that live in jamaica beach

[2:20:54] to being an old codger. So, I do think the development is

[2:20:58] happening, and I don't think

[2:21:03] you guys are bad guys. You know, it's a beautiful piece of land. However, it is a

[2:21:09] treasure. Every bit of marsh that we have remaining in the galveston bay system is

[2:21:14] a real treasure that we need to preserve. I think if you

[2:21:18] look at sunset cove, there's great fishing out in front of that. The developments

[2:21:23] happened up on 3005. That seems to be the model that I think

[2:21:27] I'd be happiest with. I went

[2:21:32] out there today. We had a

[2:21:36] fairly high tide, and it's wet. Almost all the

[2:21:41] way to the microwave tower. And anything you can do to protect that treasure that we

[2:21:45] have here on galveston island, I think is important.

[2:21:50] the specificity can come in these zoning exceptions, and I think you guys need

[2:21:59] to look at it really hard. I hear that 70 feet in front

[2:22:05] of the people that live on bob smith. Now, I know it's from the bird sanctuary

[2:22:09] forward, there won't be any building out there. But from the bird sanctuary back

[2:22:14] to 3005, that's going to block a lot of views of a pretty sunset. And

[2:22:18] personally, I had a zoning variance happen in my neighborhood. And the

[2:22:23] irony's not lost on me that jamaica beach tore up a lot more marsh than you're planning

[2:22:28] on doing. I got that. But they got a zoning variance for their... Lot size,

[2:22:35] and what they wiggled in was how high they could build, and somebody's got their house built into my sunset. So I do

[2:22:42] think this is a negotiation, as you mentioned earlier. I think

[2:22:46] there's some room to work towards specificity and

[2:22:51] to get that treasure that we have protected. Thanks

[2:22:55] for what you're doing. Thanks for your time. All right. Thank you, sir. By the way,

[2:23:00] I resemble that remark. Next. Anybody else on this side? All

[2:23:09] right, jeffrey, been hiding back there. Why didn't you just sit in the front? We're not

[2:23:14] giving you any extra time. Just so, you know, we might even deduct. Jeffrey

[2:23:26] used to sit in this chair and I sat down there. My name is

[2:23:34] jeffrey hill. I live on lafitte's point in galveston, in one of mr. Blackard's previous developments. I served

[2:23:40] six years on planning commission with some of you,

[2:23:44] and two years as its chair, as mr. Walla mentioned. While I'd love

[2:23:48] to give an impassioned speech about why you should vote no on this pud, as commissioners,

[2:23:53] you must lean on facts and the ldrs rather than emotion and personal feelings. So let's

[2:23:59] focus on the facts. That there is no staff recommendation, either for or

[2:24:04] against this case. This is an anomaly. During my tenure

[2:24:08] on the commission, I came to appreciate the professionalism with which city staff treats

[2:24:12] applicants. They go the extra mile to ensure an applicant

[2:24:16] knows exactly what is needed for a thorough application.

[2:24:21] this one is absolutely lacking when compared to the many pud applications that I have

[2:24:28] reviewed over the years. I think the commissioners might want

[2:24:32] to see these additional items before they consider making a recommendation for approval.

[2:24:37] first, more complete and detailed map outlines,

[2:24:41] including preliminary street layouts, housing, amenity and commercial area

[2:24:46] layout, signage placement and mock-ups, and specific parking

[2:24:51] plans throughout. The applicant describes a european village concept. How is this village

[2:24:57] laid out within the zones? Trust us, you'll like it. Doesn't replace detailed plans

[2:25:02] for a 170 acre behemoth that encroaches on the quaint

[2:25:07] community where I spent my childhood summers. Next, where

[2:25:11] exactly is the 120 foot max height variance plan

[2:25:16] to be used within zone three? As it stands now, zone three is

[2:25:22] a very large area and all of it would be allowed

[2:25:26] to be covered by 120 foot structures. 120 feet is three

[2:25:31] times the height of the mardi gras arch, over in front

[2:25:37] of the tremont house. Without a specific design plan

[2:25:41] designated, you are potentially allowing a huge area to be covered by giant,

[2:25:49] tall structures under the guise

[2:25:53] of a little quaint lighthouse. So, more importantly,

[2:25:58] let's focus on criteria for approval number one. Is the proposed zoning preferable

[2:26:04] to the existing zoning? Absolutely not. As it stands

[2:26:12] today, in its currently thinly conceived and not quite

[2:26:17] congealed format, this applicant has not demonstrated

[2:26:23] that his plan is better than

[2:26:27] the current zoning or that it is needed by the city of.

[2:26:35] thank you ma'am, all right,

[2:26:40] anybody else? That's it,

[2:26:45] all right. So why don't we do this? Do you guys want to hear from our applicant while we

[2:26:50] still have the public hearing open? Have any questions for him? Anybody, anybody?

[2:26:58] mr. Blacker, would you like to make any quick comments? I'm going to give you that

[2:27:07] opportunity. I think my only comment is regarding the wetlands,

[2:27:12] I think I illustrated tens of millions of dollars

[2:27:16] of donation in wetlands. I care more about

[2:27:20] those wetlands and have shown it

[2:27:24] for years and years and years, since 1999, sometimes I almost

[2:27:29] think people don't understand that everything they're saying I agree

[2:27:34] with regarding the wetlands. It always comes back to the wetlands. The last

[2:27:39] gentleman that came up was talking about that. He fishes there, he understands. That's

[2:27:44] how I designed it to protect the wetlands. I know I probably

[2:27:48] should have came back with a plan, showing, filling and doing all these different things. But I didn't. I

[2:27:54] respected exactly if I lived on bob smith road in jamaica

[2:27:59] beach, what I want to look at. Like, the lady invited me

[2:28:05] to go have cocktails with her on the end of bob smith road. I agree. I've been down there.

[2:28:11] that's exactly what I'm trying to preserve. So I don't

[2:28:16] understand the wetlands thing. I hope this gets approved. And

[2:28:21] I hope we build it, and I hope everybody that's in this room is out there helping us plant grass. Thank

[2:28:28] you. Thank you, sir. All right, we're going to bring this back

[2:28:32] to commission for action, and I'm going to make a motion that we approve,

[2:28:37] I don't have the planning case in front of me, 26p-009. With

[2:28:41] the following recommendations, that the applicant establish a

[2:28:46] conservation area for the wetlands, that the applicant establish minimum

[2:28:51] workforce housing, that there be a minimum workforce housing requirement. Okay, I'm going to

[2:28:59] make a recommendation that we require an adequate area

[2:29:03] for sewer plant expansion, an estimated five acres, and

[2:29:08] consider a minimum lot size. So that's the motion. Motion

[2:29:15] to approve with those recommendations.

[2:29:22] yes, ma'am. Excuse me, could I clarify that it's also the recommendations that were

[2:29:26] provided in the staff report? Oh, and yes, so we would include those recommendations

[2:29:31] and those requirements that are in the staff report. That's correct. All right. That's the

[2:29:37] motion. A second. So here's what I'd like to do. So we have

[2:29:41] a motion and a second so we can discuss this. So now we ask

[2:29:46] away, please. Well, I think we

[2:29:52] need to, I think the applicant needs to establish. He's asking

[2:29:57] for no minimum on lot sizes. To approve this motion,

[2:30:07] what if the minimum lot size is 10 by 10? I mean, what do you, me. Okay. And so let me tell you what I tried to do here.

[2:30:12] and keep in mind, I'm just throwing four of them

[2:30:17] out there. Ideally, what we do is we're going to have a discussion. If we

[2:30:22] want to add some, we're going to... We'll amend the motion and we'll discuss

[2:30:27] those and amend. So that's kind of how, that's the direction I'd like

[2:30:32] to go. I don't have a problem putting a minimum size on it. You've got to remember,

[2:30:37] my view on this is, is I'm giving counsel or our elected

[2:30:43] officials some lateral movement and just establish a minimum

[2:30:50] size, you know. Establish a minimum workforce housing. I

[2:30:55] mean, I don't know what the number is. Let them pick it, but they need

[2:31:01] to establish something. He's offered 15. It's the magic number. Honestly, I don't know,

[2:31:07] but there needs to be something. If you'd like to nail that

[2:31:13] down a little bit, I'd have no problem entertaining an amendment to the motion that

[2:31:18] would be a little more specific. With any of those.

[2:31:23] so that's the direction I'm going with this. Can I ask

[2:31:28] staff a question? Just a second. Let me go to him. It's

[2:31:33] my understanding that there's different areas or different requests for zoning. I think

[2:31:40] the minimum lot size was specified in some

[2:31:44] of those zones. Catherine, could you relay what area

[2:31:50] that... The applicant discussed that was a less than, I'm

[2:31:58] sorry, remind me, it was actually in their zone. Actually, there

[2:32:02] was a what I read it was zone one and to use our ones setbacks.

[2:32:06] but I didn't see it in anywhere else in the proposal. I guess if that

[2:32:11] would, so that we can understand what you're recommending if you you want

[2:32:18] something a little more specific? Well, you could place

[2:32:22] that on the area. That was a little bit under question. Okay. Let me think

[2:32:27] about how we're going to do that. Because it's really in zone three. Their zone,

[2:32:31] which is the r1 area, basically, they're sticking

[2:32:36] with what is there. They're asking for a height variance, but I think lot size, they're

[2:32:41] saying, hey, we'll go with the ldr lot size. I think that was

[2:32:48] the area of the zone 3, and that's what I was trying to understand. Zone 3 is kind of what their core is, and I

[2:32:52] understand what they're trying to do, but I am a little

[2:32:56] concerned that just giving them carte blanche on a lot size,

[2:33:03] having no lot size requirement, I think council needs to... Well, no, that would... That

[2:33:08] would help be able to relay and communicate exactly what you were looking for. Okay, so you

[2:33:14] want it a little more specific in that zone three. Sorry,

[2:33:20] teresa, this is what was confusing to me when I was asking about the language there, because in the planning

[2:33:25] commission recommendation... Under specific conditions 1a, it says,

[2:33:30] eliminate the minimum lot area, but if I understood the applicant correctly, r1 was going to adhere

[2:33:37] to the r1 lot sizes. Yes, so

[2:33:41] what we could add is for the specific conditions a1a

[2:33:45] on page 6, we could include

[2:33:50] some additional language in planning area 3. But do I understand that correctly? Is

[2:33:55] the applicant proposing to adhere to r1 in their... Zone 1. Yes, zone 1 is there,

[2:34:03] so planning area 1. They're proposing the r1 single-family

[2:34:07] design standards. This language needs to match that. Yes, so that, okay,

[2:34:16] so what we what we've outlined, okay, so I think we're you're looking

[2:34:20] for additional language in the pud plan that's been proposed off the staff report. That

[2:34:25] outlines or designates the planning area 1, planning area

[2:34:30] 2. The area 1 that faces bob smith, that whatever it was

[2:34:34] 400 deep or whatever the face is, is going to adhere to r1 lot size standards.

[2:34:41] yes. And so planning area 2, which is the frontage, is, yes,

[2:34:47] they're asking for the commercial design standards.

[2:34:53] which is no minimum lot area requirement, but there's

[2:34:58] minimum width and lot depth. I think for what I'm looking

[2:35:03] at right now is the r1, that whatever he's calling

[2:35:07] zone 1 that faces bob smith, we really need to codify that,

[2:35:11] that it says. This section, what you're calling zone 1, is going to adhere

[2:35:16] to the r1 base. Minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. Is

[2:35:21] that what I understood the applicant to say, he was going, he's proposing? I'm sorry,

[2:35:26] repeat your question. That is what the applicant is proposing? In zone one

[2:35:32] to follow r1 base? Yes. Can we put, can we just really make

[2:35:36] that clear? Okay. Because I think that's a big bone of contention is the whole,

[2:35:42] the whole look of anything that's facing bob smith road. Okay.

[2:35:48] in the center of the property, I'm like... I'm not going to see that from 3005. I don't

[2:35:52] think it's a 120-foot tower I would see. But that section there, I

[2:35:56] think, really needs some attention, that zone 1 facing bob smith road. Okay. The

[2:36:01] language needs to be really clear. Yes, and

[2:36:06] maybe I'm missing it in the pud plan. In the staff report, it was.

[2:36:11] it's in the staff report. I think, oh, you know what? Okay, so it

[2:36:15] is the second to last page of the pud plan, section 2.30, internal planning areas.

[2:36:20] okay. And that is where it outlines planning area one,

[2:36:26] planning area two, and planning area three.

[2:36:34] that's under the staff report, not an exhibit. It is exhibit, let me see. So we have a... It

[2:36:44] is the discovery, it is exhibit c. No, no,

[2:36:49] that's not exhibit c. We have a lot of stuff here. It is in the pud plan,

[2:36:54] but I'm trying to establish what... Okay. It is in the pud plan. It's

[2:36:58] in the pud plan, but it follows the letters. But the language is complete. But the language is, yes,

[2:37:03] I agree. The language is complete. Yeah, so I think there's, so I think part of the confusion is there's a staff

[2:37:07] report and we had exhibit a and exhibit b. Exhibit a was legal description. Exhibit b was the

[2:37:15] applicant's response or their submittal, and then

[2:37:19] with an exhibit b of the staff report, then they had exhibits. So I

[2:37:23] think that might be a little bit confusing, but it's part of the applicant's submittal,

[2:37:29] which is exhibit b of the staff report. So it follows the letters and I do

[2:37:35] not have a page number to give you. But if you look at and I apologize article 2

[2:37:43] development standards, this is the first page.

[2:37:47] actually, there might be a cover. It's actually, yes,

[2:37:52] okay, and then you look at the very last page of the pud plan that that is where

[2:38:03] section 2.30 internal planning areas. Does everybody see that?

[2:38:13] okay, I don't have a page number for that. They're on page number, okay. So do you

[2:38:18] see where the letters are, the environmental letter? I see

[2:38:23] some of them, yeah. Okay, so there's exhibit c, waters of the u.s. Permitting procedures, and there's a

[2:38:28] letter from integrated environmental solutions. And

[2:38:34] then the very next thing after that, after that environmental letter,

[2:38:39] you have the discovery sands planned unit development plan. Okay. So let me ask you

[2:38:46] this, anthony. And we're going to try to pull it up, that section. What if we,

[2:38:52] because I think we're going to have to go back, and I'm sure we're going to go back and have an amendment. So

[2:38:57] what do you think about this? When we get to that point,

[2:39:02] we'll speak. Specify that r1 zoning be applied to their

[2:39:08] zone 1 development area. With the exception

[2:39:13] of their request for their, they want to add 10 feet

[2:39:17] for mechanical. That's what they're asking for. The 20 feet for mechanical, 10

[2:39:22] for mechanical. 10, yeah. But, I mean, a total of 20 feet. I just want to make sure

[2:39:27] that I'm just clear, because it's confusing. Yes, sir. I agree. I understand. So

[2:39:32] we can, if you'd like, we can address that. Okay. Would that be good? Yeah.

[2:39:37] okay. All right. Any other discussion? You're

[2:39:43] down there thinking. Yes. So I'm talking

[2:39:48] about zone where I'm liking, I'm talking about zone three, and that was where your

[2:39:53] question came. So they're asking for no minimum lot size in that zone. That's my

[2:39:57] understanding. Would that be a

[2:40:04] yes? Okay. That's correct. Yep. So that's where I'm

[2:40:10] saying. I think we need to establish when this, my recommendation would be that

[2:40:14] council needs to consider and establish a minimum lot size. I don't know what that magic number is. You could make it,

[2:40:19] if you want, the r2 zoning is 01,600 square feet. So I don't

[2:40:24] know what the magic number is. I'm sure that,

[2:40:28] you know. I think if you put 04,000, which is included in the r2, that's going

[2:40:33] to restrict those guys really from doing what they want to do. But yes, yes, sir. Hold

[2:40:38] on. Yeah, they don't let you come. You need to open up the

[2:40:44] public hearing if you're going to hear from the applicant. And it would just be the

[2:40:48] applicant, not the other members of the audience. Right. And I just want to clarify,

[2:40:54] are we going by each? Item

[2:40:58] of your motion are we doing a remember my most? My motion had

[2:41:02] four recommendations, right? So we're actually working on my the very first one. Well,

[2:41:10] I'm sorry, the minimum lot size was was actually my fourth

[2:41:15] recommendation. So we're trying to sort through that and we

[2:41:19] will make an amendment when we get that figured out. Does that work for you? I just want to

[2:41:24] make sure because I have an issue with the work forest housing motion component,

[2:41:30] tell me about it. Well, we need to figure out if you want

[2:41:35] to talk about that now. Or if you're going to hear from let's get,

[2:41:39] let's let me come back to you, I'll circle back to you on that one. Okay, all right, I'm good with that,

[2:41:45] all right. So does that answer your question? You want

[2:41:50] to hear from him? Okay, then we'll open the public hearing, we're going to reopen the public hearing

[2:41:54] to hear from the applicant. You're up, sir. If they were

[2:41:59] to scroll in the staff report back to our concept, layout,

[2:42:06] site plan. Oh, I don't know. I mean,

[2:42:13] we've got the first page. The

[2:42:20] overall of that. What's that one? That's fine, right there. So on the far west side,

[2:42:25] there's that strip that goes up. On the west, there are lots in that area.

[2:42:34] yeah, like a little finger that goes up in there. Exactly. We would be willing to establish

[2:42:38] zone 4 to put minimum lot sizes within that strip,

[2:42:43] and we'll determine based on those measurements what that strip size is. That way, we

[2:42:47] still maintain our flexibility within the actual core we're

[2:42:51] looking for. But that gives you your minimum lot size when we're doing actual single-family lots. So I'm going to tell you the same

[2:42:56] thing I told mr. Black. I am not a fan of giving you guys carte

[2:43:00] blanche on a minimum lot size. That's just my. I only have one voice

[2:43:06] and one vote, and that's the whole purpose of me adding this. If you guys

[2:43:11] want to come up with some secret sauce between now and then,

[2:43:15] you guys do your thing. And that's really, to be honest with you, that's the whole purpose

[2:43:20] of this discussion is you get to listen what our concerns are. You get 30 days to go,

[2:43:25] hey, you guys have done an excellent job of listening to us the last time, probably

[2:43:30] to your detriment, to be very honest with you. But you guys have done an excellent job with that. I'm just,

[2:43:36] if that's what you want. You need to go preach that

[2:43:40] to these guys. So I'm trying to do what my job is, or

[2:43:45] at least what I interpret my job to be. So I'm just not a fan

[2:43:50] of giving you guys carte blanche on lot size in the

[2:43:55] core. I just think it's a bad idea, and that's my opinion.

[2:43:59] you guys can go sell that to the city council and see what they say,

[2:44:04] but that's just my opinion on it. Did you have a question

[2:44:09] for him on the lot size deal? I didn't answer, but there's zone three giving up the... Okay.

[2:44:15] yeah. All right. Did I? Yeah. Yeah, because you want... You're asking for... We're

[2:44:28] going to take a portion of our zone three and pull it out and put minimum lot sizes within that western edge. Will

[2:44:35] that be... No, it's kind of this little finger. Right

[2:44:41] now, there's yellow on the right-hand side. We would put yellow on the left-hand side as well.

[2:44:48] this is in the very back of the... Let me explain. It

[2:44:54] would be better if I explain. If we build a 1,000-square-foot little bundle of cottage in the

[2:44:59] middle and we have hoa property all the way around it, that's

[2:45:03] what we're saying is zero. You could say 1,000 square feet,

[2:45:07] because no unit would be smaller than 1,000 square feet. But those are in the village.

[2:45:12] in any village, you have little bitty buildings that go around there. And

[2:45:17] in this case, we have private streets and then we have hoa property around each one of them. That's why he's saying

[2:45:23] minimum. Now, you can say 01,000 square feet, which is fine. That's as small

[2:45:28] as it will get. That's the intent of when you see the

[2:45:32] pretty picture or whatever, the rendering. You see those little structures in there?

[2:45:37] that's what we're trying to accomplish. Okay. All right.

[2:45:43] any other discussion? No, I just want to make a comment.

[2:45:48] this is where that word eliminate didn't really need to apply. The more you can

[2:45:53] clarify, it eliminates the anticipation or the anxiety

[2:45:58] about what really is intended. That's all. You just got to be specific. And that's not

[2:46:04] something that's a big hurdle to get over. It just needs to be communicated. You

[2:46:09] probably already know. It just isn't communicated. And now he knows he needs

[2:46:13] to go communicate. Agreed. Next step. All right. Yes, sir.

[2:46:17] so I, my,

[2:46:23] we'll close the public hearing.

[2:46:27] so my item number four is I was just. My recommendation is that

[2:46:34] council consider a minimum lot size. I'm not putting a lot

[2:46:39] size on it. I'm just saying they need to figure that out. I

[2:46:43] think that's something that's, I don't want to put one on there because I don't know what

[2:46:47] it is. I'm talking about so what we're going to have to do,

[2:46:52] so this is good. So we're going to go back, and we'll make an amendment to the motion, because my

[2:46:57] motion just said minimum lot size, kind of across the board. So I will

[2:47:02] make, when we get ready to do the amendment, I would recommend that the amendment

[2:47:07] look something along the lines of amend it. So that the lots

[2:47:13] in their zone one are the equivalent of r1,

[2:47:18] with the exception of the heightened requirements that they're looking for. But the lot size be five,

[2:47:24] matter of fact, I'll just call them out. They're 5,000 square feet. So we'll just say that the lots

[2:47:28] in that zone one will be 5,000 square feet and that they need

[2:47:32] to establish some minimum on zone three. Does that work

[2:47:38] for you? Yes. Okay. All right.

[2:47:42] ms. Fairweather, talk to me about workforce housing.

[2:47:47] well, is it on? Yeah. Yeah, we can't require the applicant

[2:47:52] to... I should say, you can't order the applicant

[2:47:57] to have workforce housing. That's the simple matter of the fact. Even if he's

[2:48:01] already offered it? But he's offered it. But if you're going to make a motion demanding it,

[2:48:06] you can't do that. But I think what I've heard a couple of

[2:48:12] times is that they are willing to offer it, and that would be a part of the development plans if

[2:48:18] city council decides to go forward with this development. But you can't put that in a motion. So that's

[2:48:22] something that city council would need to? How do we do that? I think, once again, if the applicant offers it,

[2:48:27] then the applicant would say, yeah, we would like to do it. Well, it's not in his plan. I'm

[2:48:32] sorry? I don't see it written anywhere in any of this stuff. He's told us that. That would have to come later. That would have

[2:48:37] to come later. But I guess what I'm saying is. You're recommending to city

[2:48:41] council, who has the ultimate decision, whether or not they're going

[2:48:45] to allow it or not. The applicant still has to present what he wants

[2:48:50] to present to that body. This body cannot make a motion

[2:48:56] saying we want a minimum number of workforce housing in your development. I'm not,

[2:49:02] I'm, I'm, oh, okay. Can I put a number in there instead of

[2:49:06] saying a minimum? I could say. You can't put a number in there at all. Nothing. I

[2:49:10] mean, I think if you are concerned about the workforce element

[2:49:15] in there, I think you can word it such that the applicant has

[2:49:24] suggested 15 units, I think that's what he said, and we would agree

[2:49:29] with that or more, something like that. But you can't make the motion. Okay. I can't make the motion

[2:49:33] establish a minimum. But I can make it to where the

[2:49:38] recommendation is that, yeah,

[2:49:44] accepting the offer, accept the applicant's offer

[2:49:49] to provide a minimum, not just

[2:49:53] to provide workforce housing. Okay. Which he's already agreed

[2:49:58] to. Yes. Okay. I love these.

[2:50:04] all right. Next. Next. Anybody else? Any other questions that

[2:50:10] I'm going to make? You got anything, bo? What were the other two? Yeah. Are we helping

[2:50:15] you? I think that's my question. No, none of this. I think it's important that you,

[2:50:24] since there's a motion on the table, seconded,

[2:50:28] that you amend. Yes, we'll do that. And, I mean, that's, the

[2:50:33] r3 was the one that I needed the most. Clarification on, and we've done that. Okay, all

[2:50:38] right, what's that? Can you just read out the other two?

[2:50:42] yeah, so I'm gonna read them out again, I'll tell you what, let's, I'm gonna read them out. And then I'm gonna tell you how I'm

[2:50:47] gonna amend it. And then you guys tell me what you want to do. I'll have to make a motion to amend it and we'll have

[2:50:52] to discuss that. So one is, we're going to establish a conservation,

[2:50:58] the applicant will establish a conservation area, that's the

[2:51:02] other thing. I'm sorry. Can I not do that? Yes. You're

[2:51:06] killing me. You just need to word it that way. How do I make a recommendation? Do I

[2:51:11] just recommend, do I make a recommendation that a conservation area be

[2:51:15] established? Yes, actually. There you go. Okay. Just word it that way. Recommendation

[2:51:20] to accept the offer of a conservation area being offered. As you said it,

[2:51:24] recommendation that a conservation area be established. Why couldn't I

[2:51:30] make a recommendation that workforce housing be established? You can. You can. Okay. Okay, I just need to word

[2:51:36] it differently so that I'm not creating a burden for... You can't define it. I got it. I

[2:51:43] think I got it. And I'm sorry?

[2:51:48] you're killing me. But it's just the way you're wording it. And I'm sorry, was part of your motion also involving the

[2:51:54] treatment plant? Yes. So currently, as I understand it,

[2:51:59] that's also an offer because they don't have to do it.

[2:52:03] so... And they're... Same way.

[2:52:10] it's the same way. I mean, these are things that, from what I'm hearing, the applicant has offered,

[2:52:14] but they're not a requirement. Because you don't need to have a treatment plant in that area, if you understand

[2:52:19] what I'm saying. So I'm just going to change this

[2:52:25] to where we're going to... Our recommendation is that the

[2:52:30] council consider a conservation area, that the council consider...

[2:52:35] workforce housing, that they consider additional area

[2:52:42] for expansion for the sewer plant, and that they should consider a minimum

[2:52:48] lot size. As proposed by the applicant. Well, he's not proposing a minimum lot

[2:52:53] size in this section three. On the other three. Proposed

[2:52:59] by the applicant. That's one way just to get those three items. The

[2:53:03] lot size issue, I still think you all need to drink. Drill down

[2:53:07] on a little bit. You think we need to send something specific and let them change it? So what

[2:53:12] they propose, as I understand it, already come with the zone one, and I guess

[2:53:19] the zone two doesn't stay the same. They already come with their built-in. If we're talking about the zone three,

[2:53:24] and from what I'm hearing from the applicant, they're going to be a minimum

[2:53:28] of 1,000 square feet. Well, he just said that like two minutes ago. And you

[2:53:33] heard it. So if you want to put that in your motion, then... We can do that. I mean,

[2:53:48] if you're gonna recommend something to council, and again, this is just my thoughts

[2:53:52] on it. Council really wants to know the specificity of what planning, so you want some more specific.

[2:53:57] so establish a conservation area that includes no, I mean,

[2:54:02] I think the conservation area, I think the treatment plant,

[2:54:06] the workforce housing.

[2:54:13] workforce housing. I think those come with its own specificity that city council

[2:54:17] can drill down on. But this body really helps the council

[2:54:22] determine, okay, what square footage are we talking

[2:54:26] for this type of development? What lot size does this

[2:54:30] planning commission think would fit for the city, as well as

[2:54:34] for the development? Okay. And I think it would be difficult for city council. To come up

[2:54:40] with a number. And they can change the number if they want to do it. So we could, instead of just considering minimum lot

[2:54:46] size for this zone 3, we can say require a minimum lot size

[2:54:52] of 1,000 square feet in zone 3. You can. Is everybody good

[2:54:57] with that? Suggestion. You good with that down there? Sure.

[2:55:02] sure. Yes. Yeah, I don't

[2:55:07] disagree with you. So when, you know, council considers this, you know, say we send

[2:55:13] these recommendations as is, you know, they, or as your recommendation, you know,

[2:55:17] to consider workforce housing, to consider the sewage treatment plant, to consider the, you know,

[2:55:22] the other aspect. And so, is council allowed to say, hey,

[2:55:27] if you want this pud, you got to do x, y, z? They have more

[2:55:34] latitude, I guess, to order. Okay. Based on what is being presented, and

[2:55:39] especially if the applicant comes in and says, this is what we're going to do. Okay. So we're going

[2:55:44] to take you at your word. It's on the record. And so we're going to put it now in an order, an ordinance,

[2:55:49] saying, this is what you've agreed to do. It's going to be part of the permit, whatever. And

[2:55:55] you also have your ex-officer here who also repeat. You know, what planning commissions.

[2:56:02] exactly. He'll be able to go. He gets the job. We'll all be there. And I know. So let's

[2:56:06] say, just hypothetically speaking, right, so mr. Blackard has said 15 units.

[2:56:12] now let's say that he shows up to council later this month and says 15 units. Could council

[2:56:18] say, well, we don't like that. We want to see 70? I would probably tell council

[2:56:23] that that's probably not something that they should do. Okay. Gotcha. Thank you. No, do it with other developments. So

[2:56:29] back on the minimum lot size

[2:56:33] to codify this. The r2 base already exists. Minimum lot

[2:56:38] size of 1,600 square feet. Yep. So I think it would be

[2:56:42] easier just to put something that already exists in the language for zone 3.

[2:56:48] okay. So we'll use r1 and zone 01, and we'll use... No, no,

[2:56:55] no. We're done. Zone 3, r2 base. We're going

[2:57:03] to do r1 and zone 1. We're going to do c. We're going

[2:57:11] to recommend r2 and zone 3. R2 and zone, and then r2's lot

[2:57:15] sizes in zone 3. Good with that? Donna? I mean,

[2:57:20] that's a suggestion. It's already in the pud proposal,

[2:57:28] the commercial zoning design criteria, for we're gonna leave

[2:57:33] that one alone. The one in for zone one is, it says,

[2:57:39] one thing in one spot and something else in another. Where is that

[2:57:44] discrepancy? So we can clarify that now or correct it.

[2:57:50] they're writing whatever it was for. I think that's what you're

[2:57:58] trying to say. You'll get the

[2:58:03] gist. It's semantics now. If we already know what the lot sizes

[2:58:09] are in the zone 1 area, we'll just say the zone 1 lot

[2:58:14] size as it currently is. I mean, we don't, and we'll just correct the...

[2:58:18] well, I don't, I don't, I guess I need to know where the discrepancy is. So, as I read it... Planning area 1, all land within 500 feet of the

[2:58:24] bob smith road right-of-way measured from the nearest edge of that right-of-way. 1, b1,

[2:58:29] applicable standards, development within planning area 1 shall comply

[2:58:34] with the minimum lot area, lot width, lot depth, setback,

[2:58:38] building height and parking standards of the r1

[2:58:42] single-family residential district as set forth in division 3.300 of the l.dr,

[2:58:48] together with notes 1 through 10 applicable to that district and exceptions

[2:58:55] to the height. So yes, so okay, that. Well, okay, so.

[2:58:59] exceptions would be. Landscaping within planning area 1 shall be governed by section 2.17 of this pud plan, signage shall

[2:59:05] be governed by section 2.10 and exhibit g. So that's where they're inserting their own

[2:59:10] standards. Building height exceptions in section 2.06c

[2:59:15] through e shall apply within planning area 1. And so that's when we go to... This is the

[2:59:23] applicants. This is the pled plan. So I can go back to those

[2:59:27] sections and see if that's where the discrepancy is. I

[2:59:31] just want to make sure because... Yeah, it does outline that

[2:59:36] in the pud plan and in the staff report, but if

[2:59:41] there's another area that we need to look at within this document, we can certainly hunt for it.

[2:59:46] unless you already know where it is. So then the area we want to correct then, so it says. Within planning area three,

[2:59:51] the pud establishes no lot, size, width, or depth minimums. Yep. And

[2:59:55] we're going to recommend that they use r2 lot size standards.

[3:00:04] is that good, donna? You're pointing the finger

[3:00:09] over there. What are you doing? Yes. That's what I want. So r2

[3:00:15] standard, so it's not 1,000 square feet. It's the minimum. It's 1,600. 1,600, yeah. So

[3:00:21] we're going to start there and let council figure out what they want to do. And these guys can go pitch their

[3:00:26] story to city council and see what they want to do. Is everybody good with that?

[3:00:31] yeah. Okay. Sorry, guys. All

[3:00:35] right. So I'm going to make a motion that we amend the motion

[3:00:42] in regards to the recommendations so that they state such. Recommend a

[3:00:49] conservation area be established. Is that good?

[3:00:54] donna? Okay. Recommend that

[3:01:04] they accept the applicant's offer of 15 workforce housing

[3:01:09] units. Is that good? Okay.

[3:01:15] recommend that the sewer plant

[3:01:23] area be of adequate size

[3:01:28] for expansion. You okay with that? Nope. The easement

[3:01:36] to be where the sewer treatment plan is to be located, I think, is what you're getting at.

[3:01:40] what is that? The easement. It's not the way that it's worded, that you've worded it. It could

[3:01:45] be the structure. But if you just say five acres

[3:01:51] to allow for future expansion. Okay. Are you good with that, donna? Is that,

[3:01:57] because I don't know the amount of acreage. Well, we kind of got to that. He said that,

[3:02:02] you know, his track's going to be, he said that. Double it would be three acres. So it's

[3:02:07] really four and a half, technically. I just rounded it up. So we're going to recommend

[3:02:12] that the sewer plant area be no

[3:02:19] less than five acres. You good with that? Okay. We're going to

[3:02:24] recommend that the minimum lot size for zone three be the same

[3:02:32] as the requirements for lot size and for for zone

[3:02:40] r2 of the ldr. You good with that is everybody happy?

[3:02:47] so that's an amendment, I need a second, I'll second. Okay, any discussion seeing

[3:02:51] none? So the motion's amended,

[3:02:56] and so now we have the motion to our other motion is still

[3:03:02] on the table for approval, and it's been seconded. Is

[3:03:06] there any further discussion on that? This would be the motion as amended. Everybody

[3:03:15] good with that? Are we all good? Good, donna? All right.

[3:03:20] let's take the vote. Those in favor? Those opposed? So

[3:03:26] that's, I can't count that fast, but we have one opposed,

[3:03:31] but so the motion passes. Good luck, mr. Blackard. I appreciate your time. And hey,

[3:03:36] our neighbors over in jamaica beach, we really appreciate you coming out more than you think. So

[3:03:43] that was dirty work that was done. Hate you had to see that, but it's not over

[3:03:48] till it's over. All right. So one last thing. What? Hey, I'm

[3:03:55] just trying to pass the ball. So I do have,

[3:04:00] before we adjourn, I have one last announcement. I'm going to be retiring,

[3:04:06] be resigning my position on planning. My last meeting

[3:04:11] will be our next meeting. So,

[3:04:19] you know, there's some others, you know, we got, I can give you a laundry list

[3:04:23] of reasons. I just think it's a good time. We got the comp plan

[3:04:28] is coming down. You guys are going to need somebody that's going

[3:04:33] to be here to see that through. Plus, I'm going to be a grandfather for the second time

[3:04:37] in a couple weeks. So it's been almost six years. You guys have been great. You'll do great

[3:04:42] without me. But anyways, I just wanted to let you know that my next meeting will be my

[3:04:48] next meeting. Aw. Aw. All right. Any other business?

[3:04:53] we're adjourned.

Apr 07, 2026 Planning Commission

Agenda

Transcript