All right, good afternoon and welcome to the city of galveston planning commission meeting.
we're going to call the meeting to order. We have a quorum and have taken attendance. Are there any
conflicts of interest? Seeing none. We have the motion to approve the march 3rd
minutes. Are there any comments, additions, or corrections to that? Seeing
none, we'll approve those as presented. We are going to move item... 7a, which is
in our old business, which is the plan unit development. We're gonna move
that to the end of our agenda. And what we're gonna do is we're gonna open up
the public hearings. But what we're gonna do is we're gonna have. We have one, two, three,
four, four items on our public hearings. And
what we're gonna do is we're gonna have staffs gonna open up
all of those, and we're just gonna have one public hearing. So when we start the public hearings,
if you have a comment on any one of those four items, you'd come forward. So take it
away, catherine. Oh, kyle.
kyle, we're ready for the first one. Yes, ma'am. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. If you
don't mind, if you would, please silence your cell phones. And, you know,
I'm available for pictures and autographs afterwards. All
right. Oh, yes. Hold on just a second. Also, if you
are here, or if somebody walks in, we do have seating in the room next door. What is
that, 104? 204. 204. So if somebody comes in and is looking for a spot,
it's like we still have some spots. We have plenty of room for people. All right, kyle.
this is a public hearing for dune mitigation associated with the construction of a new dune walkover.
mitigation is required for unavoidable impacts to the dunes and dune vegetation that
will occur during the new dune walkover construction. The address is 23305 fm 3005. The
property is legally described as abstract. 121 holland jones survey, lot 1, bay
harbor subdivision, harbor, addition no. 3, bay harbor subdivision,
in the city and county of galveston, texas. Vacant property and single-family
residents are located to the east and west of the subject property. Fm 3005 is located north
of the subject property, and a beach and dune system is located to the south
of the subject property. According to the bureau of economic geology, this area is stable. Staff has prepared
photos of the subject property for your viewing. First, we have a farm and beg map showing
the distance of the structure from the dune system and its positions relative
to adjacent properties. On the next slide is the property survey. The next slide is the
site plan showing the proposed dune walkover. On the following two slides, we
have the project plans and mitigation map for the proposed dune walkover.
the next three slides are photos of the proposed project layout and mitigation area.
photos to the north, there's photos of the line of vegetation where the dune
walkover will be ending. The
photo on the right, the black square, is where the mitigation will occur. That concludes the
staff report for this project. Thank you for your time. The next case is
case 26bf-004. This is another
dune mitigation associated with removal of an existing dune walkover and the
construction of a new dune walkover. Mitigation is required for the unavoidable impacts
to the dunes, and dune mitigation will occur during the new dune walkover construction. The address is
24023 fm 3005. The property is
legally described as abstract. 121 hall and jones survey, lot
05, half moon subdivision, replat, in the city and county
of galveston, texas. Bacon properties and single family residence are located
to the east and west of the subject property. Fm 3005 is located north of the subject property, and
the beach and dune system is located to the south of the subject property.
according to the bureau of economic geology, this area is stable. Staff has prepared
photos of the subject property for your viewing. First, we have the firm and bg map
showing the distance of the structure from the dune system and its positions relative
to adjacent properties. On the next slide is the property
survey. The next slide is the property survey, containing
information regarding the project and mitigation. The
next slide is the site plan showing the proposed dune walkover. The next six slides
are photos of the proposed project area and layout. All
right, this concludes staff report and thank you for your time. The next case is
case 26bf-011. This is a public
hearing for erosion response structures at the terminus of three
streets and pirates beach. Concrete canvas will be installed at the beach terminus of the
streets and will be covered by sand. The purpose of installing the concrete canvas is to provide protection
to the streets from erosion due to high tide and storm events.
conducting a public hearing for erosion response structures is a requirement of the texas administrative code, section
26.26. The streets where the proposed concrete canvas will be placed are at the ends of
fiddler crab lane, ghost crab lane, and sand crab lane.
single-family homes are located to the north, east, and west of the subject locations,
and the beach is located to the south of the subject locations. No dunes are present at any
of the subject locations. According to the bureau of economic geology, this area is
eroding at a rate of 5 feet per year. Staff has prepared photos
of the subject property projects for your viewing. First, we have two furman bg
maps showing the distance of the locations from the beach and their position relative
to adjacent properties. On the
next slide is a representative photograph of the concrete canvas that is proposed for the erosion. Response
structure. This material is stuff that you can roll out.
it has like quick creep material in it. You can weight it down and it will harden up.
it's not reinforced or anything like that. A lot of places use it to line channels for stormwater
conveyance and things like that. This is just a representative photo
of what it is.
on the following three slides, we have the project plans and photographs for fidget...
fiddler crab lane. The material
will be put down and then it'll be covered in sand and bottles will be put on top of it,
so it'll be buried under sand. It'll be tied into the existing road to help
any erosion that occurs. Next
slide karina. This is just
photos at the terminus of fiddler crab lane.
on the next three slides, we have project plans and photographs for ghost crab
lane. Finally, we have three
slides of the project plans and photographs for sand crab lane. This concludes staff
report. And thank you for your time. All right.
yes, ma'am. So what we're going to do is if you have any questions on any of these three cases. Yes,
ma'am. So you said that's a concrete thing that gets rolled
up? It has like quick creep type of material in it. When it gets wet, it'll harden up,
but it comes on a roll and you roll it out. And but once it, yeah, I guess
it'll form concrete. Like I said, a lot of places use it to line the channels. It's not
sturdy enough to drive vehicles over or anything like that,
but we're just trying to do, you know, something at some
of the end of these streets that keep getting impacted from high-tide events to try
to kind of reduce impacts to the streets. Glo's okay
with that? That's why we're having this public hearing. So we're going through 2626. All
the requirements, and one of the requirements is the public hearing, so we're having the public hearing
before we submit anything to glo, so we can say this requirement.
under 2626, we had a public hearing and we received five
public comments, zero public comments or whatever. So that's why we're doing this before we
submit anything up so we can address everything that's in 2626. Well, that's, I want
to say. It's exciting if they will allow this, because it seems like it opens a lot
of opportunity for high erosion areas on the way. Yeah, there's more, there's other things that we're
going through before we even send it up there to them to make sure we're addressing everything. Kyle, do
you have any examples currently on the island of this type of,
so this is new ground for us? Yes, sir. Okay. And then we'll be covered by sand. We've got
it covered by sand and bollards. It's just if we have erosion
in these areas from we don't anticipate it to stop a category 5 hurricane.
but if we get a high tide event, that will, have you seen
examples of it used in texas? I mean, we met
with the representative, and he showed us, like I said, some areas where people are using it to line
drainage channels and stuff like that, to convey water and things like that. And like I said, two
or three guys can put the material out, and like I said, you water it,
and it'll burn up. It's not sturdy enough to drive on or anything, but it's hopefully helped protect some
of the city's infrastructure. All right. Yes, please, sean.
26bf004, the description of work mentioned the use
of heavy equipment. Do you permit that now? Well, some
people do, like many excavators and things like that. So we do have
construction corridors, and they have to mitigate for those. So we,
in our mitigation plans, we do have written in there that if they you do the work
and we come back in six months and we see damage that was caused by that, then there's
additional mitigation that they're required to do. Okay. Is that a policy change that's
taken place in the last couple of years? Because five years ago, we were told that we could
not have equipment that had to be dug by hand. All I can do
is answer for me. I don't know what the policy was before I got here,
but there are some of these longer-due walkovers. Putting more sturdy posts in,
you have to have the equipment. Like I said, we put special conditions in there and we identify
construction corridors and we go out there and inspect. To make sure that they haven't
impacted any more than what they were supposed to, and contingency
for mitigation if they did. Okay, thanks. All right, anybody else? All right, then
we'll open the public hearing. If you are here and you'd like to speak on any
of these three items, now is your chance to do so. Anybody like to speak
on these? Going once? Twice? Alright. Sure, come up here,
sign in, tell us your name. You've got three minutes.
okay, kevin mcduff, 4226. Oh,
you don't want me anywhere near you. There we go. 4226
fiddler's crab there. You know, we've taken some hits. I'm all
for putting anything out. Now, the question I have is,
if you can get this approved, can the homeowners also utilize
this product and cover it with sand? So it's a public hearing. We'd love
to answer your questions. Kyle is available to answer those, and I would tell you, call him.
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.
well, that's all I want. That's a good question, and we hope that that's... I'm all for
securing everything because I've had a battle with the glo on just getting my driveway
where I could drive on it. So that's all I wanted to know. Thanks. All right. Thank you,
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
great job. All right. Anybody else? All right. Then we will close the public hearing
on those items. There's no action by commission on those. And we'll move on
to our item 6b, 26p-014. All
right. 26p-014. This is a 24050 fm 3005. This is a
request for a minor plat of one very large parcel into three smaller,
but still quite large parcels. There are 25 public notices sent. There were no city
department objections, private utility objections. So
this is a vacant property. The applicant is proposing to split it into three per
local government code chapter 212.015. This requires a public hearing. For minor plats,
because it does increase the number of lots in a residential zoning district. Please note
the zoning and land use in the staff report and the zoning or
other minimum requirements for new lots in r1 zoning, which is 5,000 square foot
of area, 50 foot width, 100 foot of depth, and all three of these lots greatly exceed those
requirements. There are no objections, once again, from outside utilities or city
departments. Centerpoint energy did make a comment on aerial easement dedication language, which will be passed
on to the applicant for action. Case 26p-014 will be approved
with specific conditions 1 through 2 and standard conditions 3 through 4. Here we
have some photos. We have the proposed replat overlaid on the aerial maps on the left
and a vicinity map showing where it's generally at. On the right, next slide,
please. And here we have the subject property. I believe
that's looking north from 3005. The properties to the east across 3005
to the south. The properties to the west. And this concludes staff's report. All right.
thank you, daniel. Any questions for staff on this one? Seeing none, we'll open the public hearing.
does anybody here like to speak on this item? Seeing
none, we'll close the public hearing. There's no action by commission on this. Again,
the next item is 7a, which is our old business. We're going to move that
to the bottom of the agenda, and we're going to go to 8a26p-013. All right, 26p-013. This is adjacent to
2201 avenue l, 2202 avenue m,
and 2210 avenue m rear. This is a request for an alley abandonment. There were 16 public notices
sent. None of those were returned. There
were some... City department, uh... Comments that were
returned. We will get to those shortly. Uh... The applicant is requesting the
abandonment of approximately two thousand four and twenty eight square foot of right of way. Uh... This is alley,
once again west of twenty second street, roughly aligned with the center of the gulf
breeze apartments, so that would be directly to the east. Uh... And this is associated
with proposed redevelopment of the adjacent tracks, which are all owned by the same owner. Uh...
please note the zoning and land use of the subject. Uh... Well area and adjacent. Staff finds
that the abandonment will not have an adverse impact on transportation,
while it will result in an east-west alley being interrupted. All properties
adjacent to the abandonment and along the remainder of the alley to the west will
still retain alley access and or direct access to main streets. There are
water and sewer lines in the area of the request. Engineering division notes these will require relocation
at the developers expense. And that may require protective easements as well, depending on
what the proposed development looks like. This will be reviewed, of course, during the
platte and permit phases as well. The applicant shall also coordinate
with all outside utilities in order to relocate any of their infrastructure.
center point reviewed the abandonment request and verified that they do require street alley abandonment
application to relocate their infrastructure. And this is included as a condition
of approval for the abandonment. Please note also the area in question
does not meet minimum dimensions for new parcels and commercial zoning. Because
of this, and because the proposed development will cross existing property lines,
a replant will be required after this, if it's approved.
please note the criteria for permanent street closures in the staff report. Staff
finds request generally conforms to the above stated criteria. Closing the east portion
of the alley only adjacent to the applicant's properties will not impact any properties not
involved in the pros of redevelopment, which would be to the west.
and redevelopment will, by necessity, require utility relocations in close coordination with city
departments and outside utilities. Once again, that will be at the applicant's expense.
they will work with engineering to coordinate that when the time comes. City council has the final
decision regarding a request for abandonment, and council will hear this request on
april 23rd, 2026. Staff recommends approval of the request
with specific conditions 1 through 2, which once again
does include the relocation of utilities as needed, plus standard conditions 3
through 7. And we have some photos. So here is the proposed
alley abandonment. And once again, the properties to the north and south are all owned
by the same individual. Who wants to develop that all as one piece. Next slide,
please. Here we have the proposed survey of the alley, showing what that area really
looks like. Next slide, please. And here we have the
property to the north, looking from the proposed abandonment area to the east. Looking
from the edge of the abandonment, back to the east, toward the gulf,
breeze apartments, the property to the south of the abandonment area, and then once again looking west,
along that same tract of alley,
and you can see there on that lower right photo, we've marked the approximately
point at which that abandonment would terminate. And this concludes staff's report. All
right. Thank you, daniel. Any questions for staff? You want
one? Go ahead, please. So, this
is one of those alley abandonments where, you know, we're looking at like half the alley. There are other alleys like that
around town, are there? That have abandoned like half of it or so? I'm sure that there are.
I could not name you any ones specifically, but I would be amazed if this were the first
one of its kind. I'm just thinking about walking around town. I think there are.
thank you. Alright. Anthony?
do you have any idea how they're going to terminate the... Alley there, on the west end,
on the west side of it, because there's a residence there, in the center of the block. And then it goes
on to commercial properties to the west. So they're going to have access alley access
from 23rd street. Yes. So
they're only requesting to abandon kind of the portion of the alley which be
on the east side of the block, closest to gulf breeze. And that roughly aligns with the
with the applicants properties. That's why it makes that odd sort of a zigzag there. And
everything from that point to the west, which I believe would be 23rd street, that will
remain open. The the
applicants representative is here to answer questions. We did have a pre development and it did indicate that. Yeah,
they're going to need a lot of this space. All right,
thank you. All right, any other questions for staff? All right,
the applicant present, mr. Hill. May I? Certainly. Thank
you. Like the tie. Wife picked that out for you? Absolutely. Without a doubt. Commissioner
wallach, commissioners, thank y'all for being here today. I'm mark hill, 2116 church
street, galveston, texas. I'm here representing the bryan museum, bryan educational
institute, as it's known. The bryan is a fantastic addition to galveston, texas. We're so
pleased it's here. It has become an owner. Of all the
adjacent and it bought from, I found this interesting, most
reverend daniel cardinal dinardo in the summer of 74, the only catholic cardinal
from the state of texas and the only one that has sat in two conclaves from the
united states of america. But we bought it from him in order to expand the
educational institute in this particular area. We own it on both sides. We, being the
bryan museum, own it on both sides. And I noticed that the information... That
came from the city recommends. I've checked it over. I'm in agreement
with the commission, the, pardon me, the staff that recommends. And the last thing I'd like
to say, and I'll stand ready for questions, is that I'm so glad
to have this today. Because our representative from the museum, ms. Rebecca diaz-aristia, ms. Diaz, today
is her last day she can come to galveston because she can't drive after tomorrow. She's due april 27th. Congratulations.
and she's here with us today. So we'll have somebody else with us when we go to council. I stand ready
for questions. Any questions for the applicant? Yes, sir.
so, kind of echoing michael's question, you know, how are you all planning on capping that off? Is it just
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
haven't seen it. I would imagine it would be the end of the building, but I have not seen the architectural drawing.
yes, ma'am. I think we had
lined it up so it would go right to the end. Okay. Thank
you. Yes, sir. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you, mr.
hill. Thank you, commissioner. Thank you, commissioner. It's good to see you, commissioner
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
on this item? Seeing none, we will. Oh, yes, ma'am. I'm
sorry. I didn't see you. Sign
in for us, please. That's okay.
my name is sue stewart. I live at 2214 avenue, m. And myself and the neighbors that are
being involved with this, we are very happy that bryan is doing what they're doing. However, we do have some
concerns that we'd like to address. To start
off with, if you'll look at the map, it'll show my lot right there.
where the division is going
across the alley, my garage is
right there. I would not be able to get out of my garage if they do it like that,
but if they go just straight across up there at the top one, then it would
not be a problem. I mean, I've lived there for over 25 years. I would like to be able
to use my garage. Secondly, we
are concerned with that map because we feel, and we have experienced it
before, there's going to be a problem with homeless staying
in that one little area, that instead of being straight across, it's just turning,
and we think that's going to be a very big problem right there, that we would like to stop it
before it starts. And thirdly... We were concerned
about trash pickup, but I've talked to the city. The city's not even aware
of what's going on here as far as what they can do about trash pickup, so there's
really nothing we can talk about about that at this point. So that's
mainly. Mainly, we'd like to get that go straight across instead
of angled the way it is. To make it where we don't have a problem with people trying to
stay there and making it their home. And I don't have a problem getting out of my garage. All right. Thank
you, ma'am. I understand. So I'm going to, I rarely do this, but I'm going
to make a suggestion to you. Mr. Hill's here. I'd suggest
you talk to him. You still have this still-goes-to-city council, but I'd be on the bet
that those folks would probably maybe can help you out. I can't
tell you that they will. I can't speak for them. But the best thing I can tell you is,
is when neighbors get along and get things resolved, that's the best way to do it.
so that's my suggestion. So I appreciate you coming. All right. Anybody else
on this item? All right. Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and we'll bring
this back to commission for action. 26p-03
with staff recommendation. So we have a motion and a second to approve 26p-013
with staff recommendations. Is there any discussion? Seeing
none, we'll take the vote. Those in favor? And that's unanimous. All right, moving on. Landmark 26p-012.
thank you, mr. Hill. I think I'm next. I think the next one's 26bf008. You give me one
more time. What did I do? Did I go the wrong way? You skipped one. Yeah. Oh. There's a
beachfront next. I'm trying to get to the end. All right. 26bf-008. I don't want kyle
to miss out on any fun here. Yes, sir. Thank you. Good afternoon, planning
commissioners. Thank you for your time. This is an after-the-fact request for stair construction on a new
single-family residence. The address is 11395 beachside
drive. The property is legally described as beachside village. Section 4, 2016,
abstract 121, lot 430, acre
0.3488, located in the city and county of galveston, texas. The subject
site is located in the beachside subdivision. Single-family dwellings are located to the north, east,
and west of the subject property. A beach and dune system are located to the south
of the subject property. According to the bureau of economic geology, this area is eroding at a rate of 7 to 8
feet per year. Staff has prepared photos of the subject property
for your viewing. First, we have a firm and beg map showing the distance of the structure
from the dune system and its position relative to adjacent properties. On the
next slide is a property survey showing that the proposed
stairs are 26.9 from the north toe of the dune.
on the following seven slides, we have proposed project drawings, as well as a summarized scope
of work. Different views
of the stairs on the home.
finally, we have four photos of the stairs and one photo
from the line of vegetation. This concludes staff report, and thank you for your time.
all right. Thank you, kyle. Any questions for staff? I have one. So this
is, they wanted to come, this appears, they wanted to add some stairs, kind of
after the fact. Well, so yeah, we were out, we've been trying to do more compliance
inspections, and so we've noticed. These stairs were not on the original plans,
so we informed them, and they, yeah, they wanted to receive
after the fact authorization for the stairs. But it's out of the dca? Yes, sir. Okay,
perfect. 26, yes, sir. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? All right, seeing
none, we'll open the public hearing. Is the applicant present?
alright, would anybody like to speak on this item? Then
we'll close the public hearing and bring this back to commission for action. And I
will make the motion that we approve 26bf-008 as presented
by staff. Second. So we have a motion and a second to approve. Is there any
discussion? Seeing none, we'll take the vote. Those in favor? And that's unanimous.
now it's landmark's turn, 26p-012. This is 1813 24th
street. It's a request for designation as a galveston landmark. 25 notices were sent, 0 returned. This is
the james and... James walter and agnes may. Zempter house is a rare example
of a house that has remained in the same family that built it four generations ago. James
walter zempter, a skilled craftsman and contractor, arrived in galveston in 1900
to participate in the rebuilding efforts. By 1903, it established a contracting partnership and
later founded its own firm, which operated for over four decades. During this time, zempter
contributed significantly to the reconstruction and expansion of galveston's built environment, thank you.
including the construction of public schools, infrastructure improvements, and commercial and
institutional buildings. His work included projects associated with the seawall system, education facilities,
and municipal infrastructure essential to the city's recovery and growth. The
landmark commission reviewed this request at their meeting yesterday and voted to recommend approval. City
council has the final decision regarding requests for a landmark designation,
and the request will be heard at the regular meeting of april 23rd. Staff is recommending approval. And we
have a picture of the subject property on the screen. That concludes staff's report. All right. Any
questions for staff? Seeing none, is the applicant present? Why
don't you come tell us a little bit about your project? Sign in. Give us your name. You got
a credit card? You can leave that there. Hi. I'm julie
baker. I am. I'm a member of silk stocking historic
district and galveston county historical commission, and I'm assisting the homeowner in applying for a registered
texas historic landmark as well. And I think this is a very worthy project for
galveston recognition, and I'm just here to support lynn in her application. This
guy was the original storm chaser. Well... I'm lynn eanes
and my husband sitting back there because he's petrified to talk. The jim zempter, who
is my husband's great-grandfather, came to galveston after the 1900 storm. Because there was work
to be found here. And he was looking not only for a job, but a place to settle and
to grow a family. And he was a stair maker by trade,
so there was a much work to be had. And as he lived
here, he started to grow his business, forming a partnership in 1903, which stayed until
1910, which at that point, he formed his own business.
and while he was growing his business, he became a prolific builder throughout galveston,
which is well documented and what we provided to you, much
of it comes from the rosenberg library, but a lot of it came out of our family scrapbooks.
because john's family has owned this home for 120 years, and we are the fourth
generation to care for it. And the house itself remains largely as it was as it was
built, with the exception of a 1928 renovation. Where the
upstairs porch was taken in and the front door was moved from the right side
to the center of the home. That was done by mr. Zempter. And up until last year,
when we did a major renovation inside the house, I could always tell people.
that every board and every nail that was put into this home was either put
in by my husband's great-grandfather or by my husband. So we have continued to try
to be a good steward of this very unique property within one family, and the
family has a unique history in and of itself. Not only mr. Zempter, who was building
in galveston for over fifty years, he also was very civically minded. He was
an odd fellow for 50 years and a rotarian for 50 years and was honored for such. And he built
schools, he built low-income housing, he built roads,
he built part of the seawall. And his name is on the 61st
street commemorative marker honoring those who built the seawall. He helped to build
murdoch's bathhouse. He also built many private homes. Much
of our neighborhood was built by him. And we try to continue
to be a good steward of this and we think that we are a good example
for a landmark designation. And we hope that you will look favorably upon our application.
and I'm here to answer any questions about our family or the home itself.
all right, thank you. All right, any other public comment
on this one? Seeing none, we'll bring that back. To commission for action,
I make a motion, we approve 26p-012 and I'll second that, so we have a motion and a
second to approve 26p-012. Any discussion seeing none,
we'll take the vote, those in favor, and that's unanimous. That's an awesome story, man. Thank you
so much for sharing that with us. All, right. Plats. Is
that where we're at? 26p-015?
or did I miss one? No, you're good. Now then we gotta go
back. No, that's it. That's 8d. Ready when you are. 26... I think I'm on 8d. 26p-015. Is
that correct? Did I miss one? Okay. Catherine says, no. I'm good. Alrighty. So this
is a replant at 10415 warren road. There were 21 public
notices sent. Let's see here.
so, the applicant is requesting a minor plant to subdivide one parcel into three, because not all
parcels have frontage on a public street plan. Commission review is required. Lot 3 has frontage
on a portion of warren road, which is a private access easement. Subject parcel is
located north of shaper road, between warren road and 105th street. It is currently vacant,
except for existing residences.
according to the proposed replant provided by the applicant, all lots will have direct access to either warren road or
105th street via that access easement. Note the zoning and
land use of this property and surrounding. Also note the
requirements for new lots in r1 zoning. In this case,
this is a strange part of r1, called r1 modified, where the minimum lot requirements are
much different than what we normally see. It will only require a 2,500 square foot lot
area, and all three lots will greatly exceed that requirement. The smallest
proposed parcel is going to be over 10,000 square feet. There
are no objections from outside utilities or other city departments. Please note the plat approval criteria
in the staff report. Staff recommends request be approved
with specific conditions 1 and standard conditions 2 through
6. And we have some photos here. So here we have the proposed replat showing the
layout of the proposed three lots. Lot 1 has a house on it. Lot 2 and 3 would vacant. The tract
in the lower corner is also
involved in this replat, and that has since been purchased by the same owner. So they're
all by the same applicant. Next slide, please. And so here we have the survey
on the left hand side, showing how things sort of look now. And then compare
that on the right, which is once again the proposed replat showing how. Basically, the two
lots there, the l shaped lot and the other would then become four lots, one remaining and
the other three lots. Then being what is shown here. You
can also see how warren road sort of dead ends on either side of these properties, which is
odd, but not that odd for galveston. Next slide, please. And then here we have
the subject property looking north, the subject property
showing the two houses looking south, the properties
to the east, the general area to the east, and then the general area to the west. On either side
of warren road, where it sort of the property splits it. And this concludes staff's report.
all right, any questions? Can you go back
to the survey where there's, okay, it says. Because not all parcels have frontage
on the public street, planning commission is required to review. So is the way they're cutting it,
they're losing part of the street? So if you look on the replant, it's kind
of hard to see, but it would be basically the east side of warren road. There are two
volumes and pages noted as county of galveston. And staff
was not sure if that was dedicated to the city whenever that part
of the city was annexed or not. And so the term determination was made that that's a private
access easement, not a city right-of-way, so therefore, lot 3 would not have direct
access to a right-of-way.
that's my question, too. Access to property, but not through a public street? Is
that what you're saying? It would be a private access? I believe that is what staff
suspects at this point. The surveyor did provide the deed research on those,
but it was difficult to tell what the actual, I guess, legal status
of those two little hunks were.
because the wern road, so wern currently, the way it's done... Today,
warren road, its right-of-way, kind of goes to the middle
of this track. And so now what's going to happen is you're going to have warren road. That's
going to be on the, what would be the, I guess it would be the west side,
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
abandoned? We have no evidence
that warren road was ever. Established as a right of way.
across these properties. Then how are they saying it's
private property right now? From what staff has been provided, it appears to be. So
how do you get to? So it's going from, yeah, I'm just
curious how you get to the parcel. How are they going to have access
to the parcel that remains, that doesn't have a structure on it, to the north? Because
there's no access to that. I don't think you can do that.
so lot one, of course, would have access to warren
road and the variable width right away, that's noted there, as would lot two. It also kind
of hits. Right now, on lot three, you'll see we're in road
and you'll see a little square that's 41 foot by 41 foot, says county of galveston.
value 114, page 597. Um, that is believed to be a uh,
easement, and therefore lot three would go through the easement to where
in row, which is a public right-of-way. So they would not have direct access, but staff
believes they would have access. So you, you're,
you're. You're under the impression that the track that's labeled county of
galveston, that's kind of to the north there, that would be adjacent, that's
how they would access that? Correct. That is our understanding at this point.
okay. Well, that's a strange one. All right. All right. Any
other questions for staff? I will note that our engineering department did... Review this
plan as they always do, and we receive no comments or concerns from them. Okay. All right.
we'll open this public hearing. Anybody here to speak on this? Is the applicant here?
nope. Anybody want to talk about this? Nope. All right. Then we'll close the public
hearing. We'll bring it back to commission for action. I
move that we approve 26p-015 with staff recommendations. And I'll second it so we can
have some discussion. Thank
you. All right. So, daniel, this is a strange one. So I'm
assuming that what's going on here is none of this, and john, I know you have a lot
of expertise in this. So I'm assuming that what the deal is
is none of these other tracks have been. Platted prior to,
so we're plating what was a one single existing tract. My
problem is is there's some unknowns here. Where do we know
that belongs? What says it's the county of galveston?
okay, if you remember there was a planned unit development that
was just north of here. Yes, I remember years ago and there were lots of questions then. About wern road and wern road
is very mysterious. But those two sections that are labeled
here county of galveston, are access easements. But wern is a
dedicated right-of-way and a road in the city, correct?
parts of it are, parts of it are, but right here,
where we're considering it now, it's not dedicated right-of-way,
so that's why you see wern road rights-of-way coming in. On the east and the west,
and they kind of disappear into this private property.
but the access to lot three is achieved through that access easement.
okay. Any other discussion? Who maintains that portion? Is that maintained by the city?
it wouldn't be, no. It would be considered just like a driveway,
a private access way. And I would just add that the burden
falls on the applicant. You know, this is what he wants to plat. Yeah, I see no
objection to it. Okay, thanks, john. Any other discussion?
all right, then we'll take the vote. Those in favor? And that's unanimous. Thank you, daniel,
for the test. All right.
moving on to old business 7a. 26p-009.
so I'll tell you what I'd like to do here is, let's hear from, because I know you guys are all
here. My birthday is not until friday, but I appreciate y'all coming.
and why don't we do this? Let's hear from the applicant. Let's take
a quick break and then we'll hear from everybody else. Is that good with the commission? Okay. All
right. Let's roll with that.
yes, ma'am. Ready. Okay. So
good afternoon, commissioners. Teresa evans with the development services department. Can you hear me?
is it good? I might scoot in real quick. Okay. Switch.
okay, is that better? Got it?
okay. So the case before you, 26p-009, was deferred
from the march 3rd, 2026 meeting, with the request
to bring it back to this meeting with more information. So, just
to revisit the project summary for this project,
the subject site consists of 12 lots. They are located
at the northwest intersection of bob smith drive and san
luis pass road, fm 3005. The
total area of the subject site is 351 acres,
with development proposed on 170 of the acres. Most
of the site is undeveloped, but it does include jamaica
beach rv resort. So, if this pud request is approved and
moves forward, the rv park will be incorporated into the development. So, the
existing site consists of three base zoning districts.
there's residential single-family r1,
residential townhouse r2. And resort recreation zoning
districts. So that that pale yellow on the east side of the
of the site outlined in that aqua outline,
that is r1. The r2 is the dark yellow and the res rec zoning
designation is the the dark green. So the press
before you is for a planned unit development overlay district, and that is to
establish a mixed-use development. So, public notice,
25 public notices were mailed to all property owners within
200 feet of this site. We did have one returned public
comment report. It looks like
since this staff report was put together, we received an
updated comment sheet that is now in favor of the project.
so your staff report notes that it was opposed, but what is
being disseminated right now is the updated comment letter that shows it is in favor. We also
received additional comment letters in the public comment
report that was sent out earlier today. And you should note all the different
comments that were submitted for this project. We are still
in the process of redacting the personal information from those comment reports,
so we have not been able to provide those for this meeting, but you do have a list of
everyone that has provided comments. The updated proposal
before you, was circulated to all city departments,
all the review departments, and they responded with no objection. So, please
note, the fire marshal has removed his objection to the initial proposal that was
presented at the march 3rd meeting. The proposal was also
circulated to private utilities, and they responded
with no objection. So, as just
noted, the ped request was deferred to this meeting in order
to allow the applicant to provide more information regarding building height,
drainage, lighting, and environmental concerns.
included in the staff report, the applicant has provided a
cover letter. This is exhibit b. And the applicant will get
into more detail on responses and the specific information that's been provided. But there
are some changes that have been made to the original request
that was presented. First, the applicant has removed the
deviation request from the maximum lighting requirements outlined in article 7
of the ldrs. So they are now proposing to comply with the
land development regulations, article 7. I will note that we
have, there was an oversight in the initial staff report that
was published online, but that has been corrected. And the copies before you do
include that update. And that is just the table with this pud request, noting
that the lighting will be per article 7 of the ldr. I noted
that there was a couple changes to the original request. So the first was removing the
deviation request for the lighting requirement. Number two is the applicant is
proposing to establish three planning areas within the development site.
so, planning area one is currently zoned r1,
residential single family, and that would be located
within 500 feet of bob smith road. And it would comply with
the residential single family r1 design standards. That is
for planning area 1. For planning area 2, that is located along the frontage
of fm 3005, within 650 feet
of san luis paso road, they
would comply with the commercial zoning standards. Right now, that planning area
2 has three zoning districts. So you have the r1, the r2,
and the res rec. And so the proposals for that planning area 2
within 600 feet of fn 3005, it would be the zoning, the
commercial zoning standards that apply. And then planning
area 3 would encompass all the remaining acreage of the 170
acres that they are proposing to develop. And that would
incorporate the standards in the pud plan that is being
presented. So, the pud is a floating zoning district,
and the purpose of this pud request is to one,
eliminate the minimum lot area, lot width, lot depth, front setback, side setback,
and rear setback requirements in the r1, r2, and res rec zoning districts for planning
area 3. 2. Increase the maximum
height requirement in planning areas 1 and 2 from 50 feet to 70 feet in the
r1 and r2 zoning districts for architectural features and
mechanical equipment screening. 3. Increase the maximum height
requirement in planning area 3 from 50 feet to 120 feet
in the r1 and r2 zoning districts. Or to allow the
additional land uses in the r1, r2, and res rec
zoning districts as described in pud plan. Exhibit e. Five,
eliminate the signs requirements in article 5, with the exception of section
5.301 , which prohibits off-premise signs, billboards,
and replace with pud exhibit g. Six, eliminate the parking
and screening requirements. In articles 3 & 8
of the ld.r.s and replaced with pud exhibit f and 7
to allow for private streets.
so, in your agenda packet on page 6 of the staff report, you'll see the criteria
for approvals of this pud and conditions appropriate for the request. If this
project moves forward. Specific conditions are 1 through 3. And on page 7,
you'll see standard conditions 4 through 9 outlined. And
with that, we can, if you're ready, we can turn it over to
the applicant and they can provide more detail. Okay. We might have some questions
for staff, too. Yes, sir. So, does anybody have any staff
questions? Go ahead, tom. All
right, thank you. So I understand, I think jamaica beach has a sewage treatment
plant out there, but I'm wondering about the city of galveston. Do we have sanitary sewer, that sort of thing
out that far? They're proposing to build a treatment plant for the site. So that is
something they have been in discussion with public works. Gotcha. And so when public works has no objection,
they're considering the capacity issues? Yes. Okay.
and then... In the original plan, and then I see in one
of the maps here too, they label a sewer treatment facility, but I didn't see anything in
the actual proposal that holds them to that. Is that something
that we can require, or is it just a permitted use? It's required
to the development. They'll need to provide adequate infrastructure. And so... How
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
in order to make sure that, you know, this gets finished? How would that work? So that's those, there's not any
specifications addressing that in the pud plan, so they would comply with city
development requirements. Whatever gets it built based on the city's decision. Yes, right now,
they have not approached us for any special requests or incentives or anything. So
right now it would be built per city regulations. Okay, and then... You know, they discuss,
you know, some conservation efforts there, but once again, I don't see anything really
holding, you know, say, like a conservation easement, as like, you know, a firm piece
of this proposal. Is that something that we can put in there? Is that something that the city has talked
to them about? Do we know, you know, how we'll be managing that?
the developer is making commitments, but right now, this is, we have this letter, and the development this
proposes is only for 170 of the acres. 71 of the 350
acre site. So my understanding
is they are not, they will not touch the wetlands. The remaining balance
of the site is wetlands. And they're hoping to improve that, but they can
certainly provide more detail on what their plans are. Okay, but that's aspirational, as opposed to, like,
a condition of the pud. Yes, so the city does not have any requirements from wetlands
separate than what the u.s. Army corps. Will require and
the city defers to. Okay, cool, thank you. All right,
any other staff questions? Nope, I got a couple. So I'm
trying to get my hands around some of these planning
areas that are described here. Maybe I can ask the applicant this. But we're seeing where
we're increasing from 50 to 70 in r1 and r2 zoning districts.
is that? Because my understanding is, if I'm looking at the map and
the way that they're, I'm looking at their exhibit c, which is
their internal planning area map, that pretty much all of
that parcel that's currently r1 is in their letter. They're
stating that they're staying in the 50. And I can ask the applicant that, but it's a
little confusing because we have planning area 1 and planning area 2. 50 to 70. So I
guess I can ask them that. And then can you elaborate
on the, I'll be honest with you, I didn't go read these, some
of these other exhibits. And I'm hoping you can answer the question
about the billboards. What is, what's the deal there? Are they like. So they will comply with the city's regulation that we
don't know. They're saying. Yeah, we're not, they're not going to do. So they're proposing their own
sign regulations for their development. Okay. In lieu of what's. In the ler?
in the city standards. Okay. So their own variations or deviations, with the exception
that they are not going to deviate from the city standard. That we do not allow billboards. Got it. Okay. Can, I know that,
so I know that. The lot size, the minimum, I'm sorry,
minimum lot size in r1 is 05,000 square feet. Can somebody
on staff tell me what, if there's minimum lot sizes established for? R2 and res
rec? Yes, I actually have that information in front of me.
so, for r2 residential zoning districts, your minimum area is 1,600
square feet. Your minimum width is 20 feet, and your minimum depth is 80
feet, and that's for townhomes. Okay. And then what was you said res rec? R2.
you know what the one is? That's r2. For our, for res, did you ask, say res rec?
yes, ma'am. Okay, let me... Is it four? Okay, I'm good
with that. You already have that. I think that's right. I just didn't know it was offhand. It's 4,000 square
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
get the applicant up here, tell us what he's got going on.
welcome back. Yeah, you want a
slide presentation? So I think what I'd like to hear,
this is just me, I know that you've heard. From our last meeting, we had some comments,
and it was basically building, height, drainage, lighting, environmental concerns, and it
looks like you guys heard some of the other stuff and incorporated that too. So if
you don't mind, if you could just start out for me, just kind
of letting us know some of the changes that you've put into your... Into your plan.
would that be okay? Or you got your own spill there? Okay,
I'll let you do your thing, but that's a question I'm going to have. My name is jeff
blackard, 401a, drannick parkway, mckinney, texas.
from all the questions from last time I was here, and from jamaica beach, and from
letters that I've seen flowing around, I put together a list of things that I think people
have been talking about. Perfect. Traffic, zoning,
affordable housing, drainage, exterior lighting, and water,
wastewater, and the environmental issue.
the one thing I didn't address is short-term rentals. I'll
leave that over here. So I put together a few slides. If I
may, I'll try to do this all in a few minutes. This one or
this one? Okay, go ahead. I'll
first start with traffic. We hired dustin quall. He's our
traffic engineer. Once again, they talk to the state. No
different information than I gave last time. When 3-005
becomes busy enough, they'll add additional two
lanes of traffic. The reason we've engaged this traffic
engineer is because, at some point in time, soon, soon. In our engineering,
we'll have to do desal, lanes, etc., and deal with 3005. Go
ahead. This is the zoning map,
and I think there's been a lot of confusion, maybe not here, but on the outside
of the property that we're going to develop. And a lot of
people believe that the wetlands right there. That we're gonna develop that or
fill it in along bob smith road towards the end. And we have no intention
of doing that whatsoever. The property is currently, we could
pretty much develop just like it is with the current zoning.
but we would like to be a little bit more creative in the village itself. With
setbacks and side yards and things like that, including the height, which,
you know. I was here last time talking about the famous lighthouse. And fine. We'll do 120 feet,
which is within the zoning itself, and that's why we asked for the additional height. The
other things along bodd smith road, a 500 foot, I'm gonna call it a buffer
zone. But there are people that have three-story houses that
will have elevator shafts that go a little bit taller. For architectural features,
and that's the additional 10 or 20 feet on existing house, above the 15 feet. And the
density we can currently develop that with the existing
density that we have today, in fact, we're probably half as much density as we could
develop today under the the current zoning.
this is our traffic consultant. Go ahead. Go ahead. This is an
interesting map. That's the, and we just went through it, but that's the existing zoning
that we have today. And once again, I'm just trying to illustrate that the wetlands
will be left alone. We will not touch the wetlands. In fact, I'll get into it
in the environmental part of this presentation. Go ahead.
affordable housing, which I don't like that word either. Our
company is passionate about affordable housing. In fact, we're working with
congress right now. Just got through the heritage
foundation on tax credits to figure out more affordable housing
in america. So we're right in the middle of it. So we're passionate about it,
but it's come up over and over in galveston island. And so we
will put something in our pud. Regarding
affordable housing, we're open, but I put 15 units, is it 15
units or 18 units at least, inside. We have
to find housing for our own employees also. So it's a problem here,
but we would rather take care of it on our own site. That's
the fabric act that we're going through congress with. Go ahead. Hydraulics, which is an
interesting subject. One of the comments in meeting
with jamaica beach was, you know, we don't want you to raise your elevation
of your land and flood ours. And currently, jamaica beach, in a lot of cases, is higher
than us and coming towards us. But we all know that state law
and galveston ordinance that we're not allowed to. Direct
our water towards jamaica beach. And so shellmark
engineering firm, we used in the past in pirates, they're our engineer. And that's the
best I can do to give a letter saying that I'm not going to flood the streets of jamaica beach. Streetlights was
brought up by jamaica beach, and it's ironic, I would love for, we'll adopt the city of
galveston ordinance on dark sky, but we would like for them
to also pass the ordinance in their city. Because they
have street lights all the way up and down bob smith road that shine directly into our site,
next, slide waste water. I
mean, this wasn't our idea to build a sewer treatment
plant on our site. This was the city's, they gave us an option to build a lift station and
pump it to a certain location. But in the best interest of the city, they would love
for us to build a sewer treatment plant. So we
volunteered to build it on our site because their big concerns
are all the septic tanks that are from our property west.
in theory, we're doing, I won't say a favor,
but we agreed with them that we would do that on our site and build it
to a capacity to handle more properties to the west end. Okay, go
ahead. Environmental. If I may
spend a few seconds on this because, tom, you
brought up the environmental issues. Everybody's focused on the environmental. Issues,
but I'd ask you to judge a man based on his past on galveston
island. What I have done and what I'm about to tell you,
I did without. I didn't do it. To get a permit, okay, a lot
of guys will do a lot of things to get a permit. But when I first come to
galveston island, the west end property owner association and pirates. And came to me and
asked me if I would donate $50,000 for engineering to do
delhide cove. And so I said
yes, and I donated an employee, greg gitcho, to do delhide
cove at the end of pirates, at the end of lafitte's cove.
and we did, and it took two years with
sherry o'brien with texas fish and wildlife, and we got it approved and built
with matching funds. It won the nation's highest award. You can go ahead. For the wetlands.
and it had, go ahead. And it had nothing to do
with any permit. It was just being a good neighbor down in pirates. And
through that process, I learned a lot. And I became friends with a guy named bob
moore, who is one of the top attorneys
for the environment in the nation. And during that process,
I learned more and more. And bob would ask me for properties, and I would donate more properties to.
sanctuary properties on galveston island, which today
those properties would be worth millions and millions of dollars. Go ahead. Started a
very close relationship with sherry o'brien and all her projects. Going all the way
down the coast and building wetlands all the way down the coast. And we continue
to participate in any project they want to do. Go ahead. These are
tracks that I donated. Go ahead. One
of the big mysteries, and maybe it was like, when I owned stewart mansion,
everybody wanted to go inside of stewart mansion, the big mystery on the west end. But the famous hole on the
west end, and how that took place, was sherry. O'brien said.
there's no fresh water on the west end for bird sanctuary. Or we're losing it. So I said,
how about if I create some a
little pond there, and it was at first a very small pond.
and then the beach erosion
because of all the beach erosion. They came to me and asked me if I would donate some sand,
so I donated some sand. And then lowe's or home depot said
they wanted to buy some sand. We sold just a little bit of sand to them. But we weren't
doing this freshwater lake for the purpose
of selling material. And then more beach erosion and more
beach erosion. And sand socks needed beach quality sand. And
before you know it, I had given away
over a million cubic yards of beach quality sand. That's about $50 million worth of
beach quality sand that we had given away here. And that's how that lake took place, because
sherry o'brien wanted fresh water on the west end. Go
ahead. When we were, when we developed down here,
that's christmas tree point, we tried to be very responsible. We had
a lady that worked for us, named rhonda gregg, very much
an environmentalist, now currently works for the corps of engineers. And this is a very smart way to develop.
you can see the coastline, I mean the wetlands right there.
and what we did is we took uplands and created where their
boat docks were. And didn't touch the wetlands and create a barrier reef and more wetlands
for that project. Go ahead.
that did take a permit, but. But most people would just went out and built boat docks. This
is another example. This is lafitte's cove, or lafitte's
point, which I took uplands and built their boat storage and
left all the wetlands. And protected the wetlands
out there. Go ahead. So that
leads us to discovery sands. And as you can see, in 1954,
jamaica beach was a big wetland. It was 350 acres, 170
acres of wetlands. And right next to it, to the north
in that picture, is discovery sands. And through time,
in the early 2000s, once again, texas fish and wildlife created
the habitats again. And if you
look at 2026, it's hard to see, but 90% of the work is
now gone because the habitat is
either being washed away or
erosion around the edges. And so... Because the sand sock should have been a little bit
taller. And so, go ahead to the next slide,
which leads me to discovery sands. I'm trying,
and have been in the last, you know, 30 days, trying to figure
out how I can adopt. Jubilee 01, that's called jubilee 1, that's called jubilee 2, and
that's called jay cove.
somebody needs to take care of these wetlands and maintain them. Now, they were beautiful
when they were built, but they're going away. All of them are going away. And I'm
disappointed. Because, back to your question about conservation easement,
on bob moore island that I donated to bob moore, I put it
in a conservation easement with galveston bay foundation. And these
properties, when people adopt these properties, have to maintain them. Especially
down here in this environment, with the island sinking. So go
ahead. So all I'm saying is I
think I'd maybe put $60 million
worth of sand and dollars out of my pocket.
with not the intent of any permit. In galveston,
down there at pirates. I care as much about those wetlands as anybody
in this room, especially if it's going to be on the backside
of the development. And this isn't a vacation spot in my mind. This is a small
village that has beautiful wetlands. And when I designed this from the beginning,
I thought of the neighbors. If I lived on bob smith road, okay, and I know they're not
in the city, and I lived from the bird sanctuary down, and I was looking out, I
wouldn't want anybody blocking my view of those beautiful wetlands.
so that design that you see of this development is respecting those people all the way down
bob smith road. And I don't think people understand. They think we're going to build
out there along bob smith road down there. Go ahead. So the
one thing I hear, don't build anything. Okay. Well, my partner spent over
$20 million already buying tracts of land there. So
something's going to get built. Maybe not by me. Okay. But something will
get built there and I want to be creative
with the village, the no setback or the setbacks and side yards. That allows me
to build a village to something that I would be proud of. That I would want to come
down here and do. That's why we're even here for pud. Most developers would just take what
they have. But I want to, I want to make it really special
in the village itself. Thank you. All right. Any questions
for the applicant? Go ahead,
stan. Yes, sir. Concerning the sewage treatment plant, your
site proposal is exactly where for that treatment plant? I saw
a red dot. It didn't really give me a real good specific...
farthest west property that we own. Okay. On 3005. I didn't
pick that location. The conversation is with the city
because it would be easy for them to get access farther west on the island. And we will
screen it because all of our houses are around the sewer treatment plant. No
different when I owned mud 29 in lafitte's point. I wish I
had screened it better, but I did screen it. And I know
there's lost leaders on the houses that go around it, the ones that we own. Okay.
so, but you're stating right now that your intent and goal is to build a treatment plant
there exclusively for the use of discovery sands? Not
exclusive. We allowed enough land to do the rest of the
west end that they told us, the area. Thank you. I also added more in case one day
jamaica beach. Decides to join the city,
which we won't own it at the time. But I added enough capacity,
meaning enough land, to grow the sewer treatment plant. Thank you. All right for
for staff. I'm just trying to get some clarification
on the exhibit submitted by mr. Blackard that says the
building heights for planning areas one and two will be
capped with the language over here in the report on page six, says
to increase them. So I just want to make sure we're on the same page and I'm reading the
same thing. Is the request now to cap them at 50? Because the staff report says something different. Or am I reading it
wrong? Right, no, the existing requirement is 50 feet, and so the request is
for an additional 20 feet for mechanical and architectural features,
is my understanding. Is that it? 10 feet for architectural, 20 feet
for mechanical. For both the planning area and one... The only thing in mechanical would
be if they had an elevator that went that high. But it would have to be architecturally,
or architecturally like a spear or something. Okay, I'm just trying to make sure that the language I'm
reading in the staff report corresponds with the exhibit that was submitted, and make sure I'm
reading it right. So it's 50 plus whatever you need
for any mechanical. Up to 20 feet. Up to 20 feet. That's my understanding. Or mechanical.
but architecturally, you can go up with a sphere a little bit higher than 50 feet.
okay. And then just curious, because these drawings have not
been updated. Is that correct?
this is updated. I'm just curious, are you playing the
commercial section facing fm 3005? Right now,
in your drawing, you've got water. I'm just curious how that was going to look. Is this going to be
like you can just drive up from the road into the commercial section? Yeah, well, if it's commercial,
then we'll put commercial against the road. Otherwise, we want to keep that as a canal
through. But you're asking for commercial in that section. Yes, because we have a... If it's commercial
or it is going to be commercial. Well, we hope to be commercial. Right now,
we have conversations with emergency clinic, and they would want to be up
on 3005. So if that does, then we'll move the canal
around that. So the plan is
to do a canal across the... Front of the property? Yes. But if you were
to have commercial, let's just say your clinic, just, for example,
the canal would be behind that or in front of it? It would be
behind it and then back on the front. Because you're
asking for the overlay to be commercial in that front section. Correct. In case we want
to do something like that. I would prefer everything to be internal,
but if I could bring e-care to that part of the island, I would be totally supportive and
be open to that. Okay. All
right. Yeah, a couple items. When the word eliminate is used, that's a pretty broad
brush, and I think that what it communicates is it says that there is no governance. And
then maybe another word needs to be put in there, because you really aren't eliminating
anything. You're modifying the requirements of the standards that are there.
but when you use eliminate, again, it just says there's no governance. At least that's what it says
to me. And maybe you just want to use a little bit different word. And then also
on the sanitary, there's been a lot
of discussion about what it's going to end up servicing. And,
again, it may just be better that you end up defining. To what capacity you're talking
about actually doing that, rather than just saying we're going to to what capacity? And
then people can be a little more comfortable with actually what it is that you intend.
that's all. Eliminate. You can blame him. Yeah, well, it just
that's, that's a strong word and what you're doing. The project has so many,
it has so many variables in it, which is really, really good. But it eliminates, or
at least it creates, that something's going to be painted with a broad brush unnecessarily. The report
might be a little bit vague in that language, pd. Language. It talks
about we still have to maintain fire separation. Sure. So building codes. That was just an fyi, because the
word is pretty broad. That's all. Kevin dingman. Yeah, I got
a couple, just a couple questions. So the first one, what are you planning on doing
with all the material you dig out of the lagoon? The lagoon
is on our site. Okay, just as fill? Just as fill, yeah. And
then the other one is, so if we were to add specific conditions
about conservation easements for the land that you've identified, and then also the wastewater treatment,
would that be all right with you? Depending
on the language, because... The first time, I kind of feel burned. I put a conservation
easement and donated an island, and I want to make sure it's maintained.
and so I'm not ready to give a conservation easement to any one group today. So,
however, that language is.
okay. And I understand how important that is. And in the next week or two
before we go to council, I will. Drill down on that. Okay. Try
to give some language because that would give a lot of people assurance. If you lived on bob smith road and
you're looking out, what guarantee by giving this pud, do I get that? So, yes,
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
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
of work with them to make sure that those things are done to your standards. So, thank
you. All right. Anybody else? I
got a couple. So affordable housing. I'd prefer to call it workforce housing.
okay. We can call it whatever we want. So give me, you're telling me your deal
says 15 units, as in 15 houses of the, how many are you doing? 700?
15 units for people to live in. So how many, how many dwelling units would that
be? 15. 15 buildings
with x number of units in them? 15 living units. I'm
still a little sorry, jeff, but I'm I don't get that. So is it so you're doing 700 lots,
right? So are you providing in your affordable housing plan?
are you providing? Of the 700, are we now down to 685
because you have 15? We also have multi-family condos
in there too, and that's where we build the affordable. Okay, and those and those would
be, because what I here's a struggle. And I just so look,
jeff, some of this to me, and I'm calling you jeff. I
hope you don't mind, but there's just some
of the details in this and I'm gonna give you some kudos. I
mean, you listened obviously at our last meeting because you made some changes.
but I'm like, okay, where are the specifics on a couple of these items?
the conservation deal, you've answered my question there. It's like, you've acknowledged,
hey, look, you know what? I got to figure out how I want to do this. I do
know that if you get galveston bay foundation or artist boat, or any
of those folks, you got to give them the land. And then you give them the money and they hope
to do what you want them to do. So I'm going to be really interested to see how you come up
with a plan for that. I don't think that it's all bad,
because everybody who would be living in your community certainly has a vested interest
in those wetlands. So that'll
be a good one. You're a smart guy. I know you'll figure that
out. The workforce housing, it's like, man, if you're building 700 and you're telling me you're giving
me 15 units that are going to be for workforce, that bone's been... Chewed on,
pretty good. There's no meat there for me. Same thing with the sanitary capacity. So
we're talking about, and I know that some of these are moving targets
for you, but we're talking about capacity versus the area to build that. I doubt very
seriously that you're going to go put in the capacity for 1500 units when you only need
it for seven. But more specifically,
you're going to provide an area where that your capacity can be
expanded. You're not paying for that. You're going to pay for the capacity that goes
for your development, but there'll be enough area there.
let's just say your development requires a two acre footprint, just to pick a number. And
you're saying, hey, you know what, if ours requires a two acre footprint, we're willing
to make the site four acres so that we could double the size of the plant. Would that be a
fair statement? Are you talking about building the capacity?
no, not building it up front because they come in units. And we've hired a company
to design, and the first unit is enough
for 700 lots. Right. So you're talking about making sure that the area
for this, where you're doing this is large enough to be expanded.
but you're not going to go put in double the capacity at your plant, okay? Just want
to be clear on that. And the second tranche will be for the west end. Right. We
want capacity down there. It only makes sense from our standpoint
to get the mud for all the capacity. That's
how all this started with jamaica beach. I went to them and said, hey, I'll run a line
to you if you ever want it. Where they could have your problem, have problems,
and you can always tap into our. So how would you handle the discharge permits?
are you gonna handle just barge permits for just your site? I would assume that you would
know you'll go ask for it for the whole thing, okay, and look,
these are just some specifics. And I'm that's what I see is missing, and and some
of this, the minimum lot size. That one,
you know, jeff, I've seen the
stuff you've done in the past. It's admirable.
the problem is, we all know what you did 20 years ago. The way the world
turns today is we want to know what you're going to do for us today. So, the
minimum lot size, just not having one,
I don't know why we would want to do that. Because I'm
standing here talking to you today, the mud... Gets put
in and I don't know who's going to be down there down the road. So if I just
give you carte blanche on minimum lot sizes,
I could be dealing with somebody else further down the road. So I just would
like to see some specifics in that. Yes, sir, please. Is there a minimum lot size
in your plan? See, are all going to comply
with ldr because one of the one
of your deals deviations is to eliminate the lot size
requirement. So that's just in your zone 3, which is kind of in your, it is
in your core. Okay, all right,
that helps me, that, that helps, but I hope you can kind of see what I'm looking
at this. My my quandary is what happens if we're dealing
with somebody else further down the road. And we have no lot size restrictions. And even
in r1, it's 1600. What the dimensions are, that's
in y'all's world. But I really think that needs to be considered. And then my
last question is this. When we do these, you know,
puds are very unique for galveston. And I can tell you,
we've seen them where they've had a whole lot of deviations, much more than this. But
at the end of the day, it's a little bit of tit for tat. So it's like, okay,
you're asking the city and its taxpayers and residents
to give you something. My question is, what are you giving us? Are you
asking me? I'm asking you, yeah. What are you giving me? If I give you everything you
want, what are you giving me?
because it is a puds request, very unique. How do I approach
when I do projects later in my life? I tell you what I need
to do, and I do that. I don't play the famous zoning game
where I say I want 10,000 units and get here and negotiate. I
just don't do that. Right. I mean, otherwise, I'd have laid out a plan, and I can show you
plans that are laid out along boss smith road, and then the homeowners come, and they feel
like they win. That project is what I do. And so I'm not
negotiating anything because this is what I do. If you don't want what I do. Well, jeff, a
putt is a negotiation. You're here asking us for something. Correct. And in return,
I'm asking you, what are you giving me? Because this is a negotiation,
don't, don't, I, I, I, I, I
could tell you no when the negotiation's over. No, I, I,
I don't know what to give you. This is what it takes for me to build what, what you see,
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,
ma'am. I'm sorry. I just want to, donna, for the record,
I just want to step in a little bit and say that. Puds are distinctive requests
and we look at them individually. I want
to be clear with the commissioners that we don't typically ask a pud applicant,
what do you do for me? That's correct. What has been presented, as I've heard it,
provides the applicant's narrative in terms of a sanitary sewage site,
providing a conservation area,
housing, et cetera. I mean, all these things the applicant
could say I'm providing to the city. And that's fair. And I just want to tone it down
a little bit that this is not supposed to be a what do you do for me?
so I can give you this pud. That's not the way. The
commissioners are to review these cases. But donna, I didn't take... And I
understand what you're saying, but I just want to make sure
that we're consistent in how we review cases and the verbiage
that we use. I understand.
okay. But puds are very unique in that they are a rare example
where... If you came
in and you just follow the ldr, you know what, jeff, you get to go do your thing. So here
you are, you want a deviation.
I'll answer your question. So, okay. I've already negotiated against myself
by not putting any lots down. Bob smith road. If I'd have
done that first and then you'd have negotiated that away. I'll figure out some sort of deed
restriction that nothing can get built on the wetlands. I've got
to figure out how to do the conservation easement. It's a
little bit more complicated. I did the last one myself, so I know how it works. The
units that we have here, typically you want to negotiate
with units. I need more units for the amount of... Amenities
that this project have, I actually need more units,
because this is heavy on the amenity side.
wastewater is fair. I mean, we're going to give enough land that you can expand to,
I forgot what it is, less than 03,000 home sites, which would take care of the
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
area will it take to do? You're at three acres right now?
okay, so would it be fair to say that for you to do just your piece of it,
it would be an acre and a half? Would that be a fair assessment? Okay, okay. All
right. And look, mr. Blackard, I'm not trying to.
brow beats you. I'm just, it is,
it's a very unique situation for the city where we get to go ask for something. We
don't always get to do that. And that's why I asked the question. And, you know,
there's a combination of things that do make up part of, you
know, your tit for tat. So I appreciate your patience and answer my question. So that's
all I have. One last thing about zero setbacks and all of that. I said, in the last
20 years, I showed you what I did here 20 years ago, but in the last 20 years, I've built projects
doing those zero setbacks and zero side yards. You can go see, or we can send you videos
on how it functions. I've seen them. They're impressive. I
mean, kudos to you. Yes, please. So when, you know, let's say we get to the point
you'll build the sewer treatment plant, who owns that? They're giving
that to the city? We'll own it. The city will. Maintain or take it when it's time to take,
just like I did with mud 29. Okay. Thank you all, right?
any other questions? Yes, please stand. Well, appreciate you giving us the insight
on all that. One of the things that you kind of touched on a little earlier
at the beginning of your presentation, you said you kind of come back to that later, and I think we
may have forgotten about it. I almost did, except I wrote it down. Short-term rentals and what
your what your thoughts on short-term rentals in your... Jed can answer that.
we have plenty of restrictions. I mean,
we can show you copies of them. And we're in a first-lane position,
so most problems with short-term rental is that they don't have an enforcement arm, meaning they're not first-lane
position. So those will go in place day one. Okay. I think
that's good for people to know. Thank you. Alright. Anybody else? All right, mr.
blackard, thank you. If we have some more questions,
we'll come back to you. Let's take a quick break. Is everybody good with that?
like, five minutes, and then we'll come back, and then we'll get to hear
from everybody. All right. Can
I have your attention, please? Can I have your...
don't make me do this. That's
my favorite thing to do. All right. So now we're going
to get to hear from everybody. What we're going to do is we're going to start on this side
of the room. We're going to start... Yes, ma'am. Please, please do. For staff
over there. The whispering ladies over there. I have a question for you. The majority
of this property is resrec right now zoned, correct? What
are the restrictions under resrec? Like, what can somebody
build in that area? What are the restrictions? It's a long
list. As far as like setbacks
in like the size of it? How does that compare
with what this applicant wants to do? Okay, sorry
about that. Mike issues, your question is,
what are the lot standards? And how does that compare with what this applicant is asking
to do with the new zoning? Under the current ldrs for
resrec, which is the majority of this property,
what could... Someone who purchased it do with that property? So the lot
standards are it's a minimum of 4,000 square feet, with a 40 foot wide lot and 50 foot
of depth. So those are minimum standards. Setbacks is a zero
front setback, a side setback of three feet, and a rear setback of 10 feet.
now we would need to go to land use table. Which is in a different section
of the code, but there's a, you know, a table of a long table of uses. And
you just look at the use and look if it's allowed, if it's, you know, if it's a permitted
use or limited use. In res rec and look and look for that, but there are, I mean, it's
res rec is is designed to allow for multiple uses. So
there there is a lot. They. It's not that they couldn't do what they're proposing
with the current zoning, it's just the layout. It's where they would do it because
you have multiple zoning districts with different standards or the law. So that
is my understanding of why they're trying to get it under a pud so they can achieve the desired layout.
alright, anybody else? Then we're going to open the public hearing. So
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
we'll move over to this side. So come forward, sign in, state your name. You get three
minutes, and your time starts now.
better, write, faster. I'm kidding. Oh, I
should state for the record that commissioner humphreys had to leave, so he's not going
to be here for our final vote, but we still have a quorum. So we're good there. All right.
yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. Good evening,
almost commissioners. My name is shereen quintero, and I am a
retired educator who chose jamaica beach as my forever
home two years ago. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. I'd like to
briefly reference a case that came before this commission on september the 16th, 2025.
it was item 25p as in paul
031. This is a request for a planned unit development to allow a single home
on the beach to host small, private, invitation-only
events, such as weddings and gatherings. That request was
ultimately denied, largely due to concerns about its potential impact
on nearby homes, specifically traffic, noise, lighting. And
overall compatibility with the surrounding area. What stood out in that
discussion was the care and seriousness given to protecting the character of the neighborhood and the
quality of life for nearby residents. That level
of thoughtfulness matters, and it's something we truly, truly appreciate from y'all.
today, we are asking that same level of consideration. Be applied to the proposed
discovery sands development. This is a much larger project
with significantly greater potential impacts, not only in terms of traffic, lighting,
and noise, but also increased tourism activity, broader land use flexibility,
and long-term effects on the surrounding community and the environment. Our intent is not
to oppose development. We understand growth as part
of the future of galveston. However, we do believe that
consistency in how projects are evaluated is critical. If concerns about neighborhood
impact were important in the case of a single home hosting limited events, then we
respectfully ask that those same concerns be carefully and thoroughly evaluated,
if not more so, for a development
of this scale. We simply ask that the same standards, the same level of scrutiny,
and the same commitment to protecting existing residents be applied here. Thank you
for your time and for your continued dedication to thoughtful planning
for the future of galveston. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. All right. Next. Good
afternoon, commission. I am melissa joseph. I live in the city of jamaica beach
and I proudly serve as a city council member. I'm here today, not just as a representative
of jamaica beach, but as a voice for a neighboring community. That will directly bear the
impact of what you decide here today regarding the discovery
sands development. Let me be very clear. This is not just another development proposal.
this is a request to dismantle the very zoning protections
actions. That are meant to safeguard coastal communities, ours included. And once you
open that door, you will not be able to close it. Our vision in jamaica beach is simple and
intentional. Together, we envision our community as a
safe coastal paradise, where, with sandy feet, we live, work, play, and find peace. What is
being proposed next to us threatens every part of that. What this dallas
developer is proposing is not a neighborhood. This is not modest growth. This is
high-intensity lagoon attraction wrapped in a long list of exceptions,
exceptions that override the rules everyone else is expected to follow. Let's call this what
it is. They want to eliminate lot-sized limits and setbacks
so that they can pack more into less space. They want to
build higher than what's allowed, changing the very character of the west end skyline. They
want to cut parking in half without answering the most basic question, where are all those cars going
to be? And where are they going to go? Not to mention the traffic,
particularly when there are hurricanes and evacuations. They want to remove buffers
between residential and commercial uses, placing homes next to bars,
retail, and entertainment. That is not thoughtful planning. That is a free-for-all. And then there's
the most alarming piece of all. They want to count wetlands as part of their development density. I
know mr. Blackard, to me, today he keeps changing his presentation and he keeps
taking a different stand on wetlands, particularly when he first presented this to our jamaica beach city
council and to this last meeting that he held for you all. Wetlands are not
vacant land. They are not optional. They are natural infrastructure that protects
all of us from flooding and storm surge. When you compromise wetlands,
you are not just impacting this site, you are increasing risk for surrounding communities.
like mine, you are shifting that risk onto existing homeowners who had no seat at
the table when this was designed, and for what? So, one developer can maximize profit
by rewriting your rules, because that's what this is. This is not
about compatibility, it's about exceptions, massive, sweeping exceptions. And here's
the reality. If you approve this, you are setting a precedent.
not just for the city of galveston, but for the island where jamaica beach is on. Every developer
who comes after this point to the, will, will it,
I'm sorry. Every developer who comes after will point to this moment and ask for the same treatment.
sorry. Thank you. Man. Hold on,
I'm checking for my wallet.
yeah, hello. Hello. I'm
heather owens, a homeowner in jamaica beach. I've had family
on this island since the 60s, and although my address is in
jamaica beach, I am a proud galvestonian. We value our
wetlands, wildlife, and have a strong sense
of community, things that this proposal puts at risk. But I'm here to address specifically what blackerton company is asking
of you, the blatant disregard for the city's land use regulations. Despite its
marketing language, this proposal dismantles established developmental standards in favor of broad,
unconstrained entitlements. It replaces clear zoning protections with vague
flexibility that benefits the developer while shifting risk onto the community. To clarify, I am not
against progress in galveston, but I am against irresponsible development
by companies who come to the island and think that regulations don't apply to them. Most concerning is the
elimination of dimensional standards. Removing these lot sizes and setbacks is reckless. It
invites overbuilding at this developer's discretion, rather than codified protection. The proposed height
allowances are equally troubling. This claimed 50-foot limit that he states in his
cover letter becomes meaningless when submitted, with requests to increase to
10 to 20 feet higher. That is, in essence, 70 feet, and yet it
says building height is now capped at 50 feet. In r1 and r2 zones. The parking
plan is speculative. Reducing parking by up to 50% relies on unrealistic expectations.
equally problematic is removing screening requirements. Without buffers,
land use conflicts between residential and commercial are inevitable. The regulations require buffering
between incompatible uses for a reason. This proposal justifies sweeping changes
using this vague european village concept, while expanding permitted use is far
beyond the scope of the the current zoning. 77 separate uses are proposed
in this article 2 the uses 77
uses are proposed. And when comparing these 77 uses that they're proposing
to the ldr table 2.201. Only six of them are permitted out
of 77 out of 77 uses. Only nine are permitted
in an r2 zone that is 60 and 54 uses that are flat
out prohibited, according to the land development
regulations. Can you actually recommend a development that ignores so many established
protections the city has put in place? You'll be writing a blank check to a developer that
island residents, their homes, and their livelihoods will end up paying. Together, these
deviations are not minor adjustments. They represent a complete rewriting of the rules. The pudf has
decided to try proven standards for speculative promises. Without sufficient safeguards,
enforceability, or accountability. Approving this pud sets a dangerous precedent
for future developments. And for all these reasons, I strongly encourage you not to recommend... Thank you.
hello, I'm marcy kurtz-hoffman. I'm a lot less organized than the ladies.
prior to me, it's been a long month since
the last time we were here. I wanted to kind of just drive home my main point in a brief sentence. I'm
not sure if you guys have ever thought about it this way, but you know the population of the west end total? I think
it's around 10,000 total. So this development is going
to bring about 5,000 people into an area smaller than jamaica beach. So we've already
discussed all the nitpicky reasons as to why that's not going
to work out for us on the west end, but having that be your
neighbor when you move there, and it's a pasture on one side in the state park is very
concerning. It's never been addressed what's going to happen to the rv park. I
guess it just gets dissolved. I'm not sure if they're okay with that. I guess not. They haven't spoken yet,
but that's concerning. If we want to do tit for tat. Our street lights,
the picture that you were shown today, that was a daylight picture that was shown. I think two of those lights work on
bob smith, so it's not infiltrated with street lights.
in your criteria number four for your approval, the range
of uses and the character of the development that is allowed by the proposed zone will be compatible with the properties
in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for rezoning. It doesn't work.
that does not match the character of the west end of this island. We are. On the west end, you see
european villages, you don't, you see beach houses, because we are a beach, we're
on an island. Um, and I understand the dilemma and you guys are put in. And some comments that were made
from the last time were that, um, you know, you have
to have specific reasons for refusing this, um, but in the way that it felt as what
you were saying is like, a developer can come in and develop this, however they want
in the regulations that it is. And it could be a lot worse. Feels like you're trying
to change opinions of people and use that as a way to say it could be worse.
that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about what's in front
of you today. And also saying that, you know,
we're only using 170 acres of it. I think you've all seen the aerial views of that. That land
is water. That land is so much water all the time that no matter what happens there,
it's going to have to be changed significantly. So I don't know if
environmental impact assessments will be done with this, where it goes
from here, but I do hope that you take your role very heavily and don't just pass it on. So
that you don't have the responsibility of dealing with the thousands of people that are opposed.
to this. So thank you for your time and listening to everyone. I know it's a lot. Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate
you coming out. All right. Next up, don't be scared. Good
evening, commissioners. My name is jacob hupp with the galveston bay foundation. I
want to highlight a key inconsistency that I think requires further consideration and clarification. We've heard
that this site could support approximately 2,100 units, by right, but
at the same time, the applicant is requesting significant exemptions, eliminating lot size and
setback requirements, and modifying density standards to build 790 units. That raises
an important question. If 02,100 units are truly
achievable, why are these fundamental exemptions necessary for a much smaller project?
at a minimum, this suggests that the 2,100 unit figure may be more theoretical than practical and
may not reflect the real constraints of the site. Before relying
on that number as a baseline, I urge the commission to ask for clearer evidence
to gain a clearer understanding of what can actually be built. In reality, given the site's
physical and regulatory limitations, and consider why the applicant requires
exemptions to build 790 units. If the applicant can develop the 790 unit project
without the pud, as stated, then that's how they should
proceed. The galveston bay foundation remains concerned about impacts to wetlands,
inevitable non-point source runoff, impacts to storm resilience
on the island, and the need for protection of the significant public restoration investments made nearby and
within the proposed site. Thank you. Thank you. Thank
you. All right, next. Next row
back. Yes, sir. Good afternoon
or good evening. My name is alan. I'm a part-time resident
of jamaica beach and I appreciate all the good points
that were made today. I'm here to speak on behalf of the
ecosystem and its inhabitants. When you're an outdoorsman, a
fisherman, a lover of nature, all wildlife, everything wild,
you have more of a tendency to look around
at the ecosystem. And everything that it involves, the birds, the gators, the
snakes, the ghost wolves. I've
got picture after picture of all the animals that I've seen in these marshes and I
from set from april through september. I live
in those marshes. Exactly where the footprint of this property is going
to be. I know every inch of those shorelines, I know what is underwater there.
there's oyster reefs, there's seagrasses that taxpayer
dollars were put in to build these little barrier islands and to do grass restoration
for the wildlife. To be out there and see this and appreciate what it has
to offer, I see migratory birds coming
in, I see the birds nesting on these islands. And now we're
talking about bringing in this waterways. These waterways, the one where this
little peninsula sticks out, I don't see that. There's enough width there
to even put houses on without building up the property. And
right off the shores, the north and south shores of that peninsula alone,
the seagrasses are there. Galveston bay system has struggled
to put seagrasses back into place. And here we are, we're going to set that back now, because
the boat traffic is going to increase out there. I've already seen a few jet skis
back in there. I very seldom, up to now, in all the years
that I've been fishing those marshes for the last 13 years, we've owned that place
for a long time, but for all the years that I've fished out there,
I very seldom see a boat. It's undisturbed, the wildlife has run
of the land. And it just concerns me with what's going to happen. They're going
to have, I'm showing boat docks, they're going to have to have proposed areas and dredge
waterways for these boats to get out
into the big open water bays. And it just concerns me
for the future of the wildlife and all its inhabitants in the back as well. So I
appreciate your time. All right. Could have included a
fishing report. Alright, next person. There's no fish
in there. Alright. Hi, I'm
emily evans and I live in jamaica beach, and I'm a little bit less nervous than I was
last time speaking. I just want to give you all a little bit of
perspective if you haven't thought about it. Had this project been funded with any federal dollars, an
environmental impact statement would have had to been done. And that's through the epa,
u.s. Fish and wildlife, and two other agencies. They're not
requesting federal funds, but they are requesting city taxpayers. And even as a jamaica beach resident,
I pay taxes to the city of galveston as well. Had it been,
sorry, another federal point is in 2023, family from idaho,
sackett versus the epa. They
sued the epa over their clean
water act, section 404, which prohibited them from filling or dredging a riparian wetland,
which is by a river. That supreme court case set a precedence. For all
of our wetlands, all of our marshlands, and our coastal wetlands have a
completely different function than old riverine wetlands.
creating posters, I'll be putting them all around town. What I really
think this island in general needs is more education about the functions
of our wetlands. Like I said last time, we don't have pumps on the
west end. Our homes, I'm on a dry lot, so luckily I don't get all
of the beach and bayfront water coming up into my property. But if we put 120 feet
of development sitting on these wetlands, just... The
submersion of the land alone will invite the saltwater in from either side. That's my
point on the wetlands. I hope that you consider it. Think
about if the city of galveston could determine what's best
for our island. Not galveston county economic development partnerships, but what's best
for this island is to protect wetlands that we have. There are free mitigation. It's not
concrete canvases. It's not. Pump stations, they're free.
we need to protect them as much as possible. And remember that the u.s. Army corps of engineers, their hands are
tied. If you do a quick search, what happened to texas wetlands after 2023, sackett versus the
epa, it brings a long stream of items. And one of them is down in cameron county. For
spacex, for rapid development of projects that some feel need
to be eliminated. Regulations based on the needs
of the town and of the land, but I think we need
to keep our wetlands. Thank you all right, you did a great,
great job there. Emily. All right. Next. Good evening.
thank you, commissioner, for the opportunity for us to visit with you a little bit. My name
is richard white. I'm a resident of jamaica beach. I'm
on the east side of jamaica beach, which is nice because I get to look out over the state
park every morning and every evening and during the day. I agree
with a lot of the comments that are made here, but my major comment is that this project
really lacks a lot of specificity. I think from
the first meeting that was held here that I attended, that there have been some more
specifics put in, but to me, there's still a lot of gaps
in that specificity. The only other issue, and I imagine that
this commission is not really involved in that, is really the
permitting involved. I've not
heard anything about any of that activity that mr. Blackard's organization has
been involved with for this project. We've seen
that from other projects, and I can understand, I think I
understand why things are not more specific, and that is
that, mr. Blackard is a bit of an artist. And he likes to
have some artistic interpretation of properties that he builds.
and I appreciate that, but still... Terms
of setting a precedent, that's
something I think that commissioners should consider
greatly if you're approving something without a great deal
of specificity. So thank you for your time, appreciate that, thank you sir, appreciate your
comments. I brought my own pen.
we'll let you take it then. My
name is jim haywood. I've been a resident of jamaica beach for the last 10 years, and I
understand that there will be development in various parts of the island. I just have a
simple statement that I hope you take into consideration as this moves forward. It's a
simple statement that I learned from an educator that I had a
long time ago. The further you deviate from the way that things naturally occur, the
more dire the consequences will be. That's my statement. Thank
you. Hi, my name is deborah
haywood, wife of that man. He and I moved to jamaica beach
from ohio about ten and a half years ago. He doesn't remember. We chose
the west end because of the character of the island. So what I have to say is really more
from the heart than, you know, technicalities. I don't really
think there's any reason to repeat all the issues that we feel there are
with this development. And for the life of me, I don't understand. Why the
commission would approve this proposal and all the multiple variances for such an
environment environmentally sensitive area? While it's true
that, you know, that will probably ultimately be
developed over there. I hope that when that happens, that it would be consistent
with the character of the west end and the reasons why we chose to live on the west end. Kind of, lastly... I'd
like to invite mr. Blackard to meet any of us
around a half an hour before sunset on bob smith
road, with a cocktail and a golf cart ride. To see the sunsets and the beauty
of that piece of land there, and to see one of the things that he is asking us
to give up. Thanks so much. Thank you. All right,
next row. Anybody on the next row? Don't be
bashful. Alright, anybody else on this side? Here we go.
hello. I had a lot of stuff prepared, but... It
got all butchered up, so here we go. I'm ad-libbing.
anyway, the developer made some changes that should be acknowledged. They added a
couple of requirements resembling r1 in one of the new planning areas,
removed the maximum lighting deviation overall, and engaged drainage, environmental, and traffic consultants.
but issues remain. One concern that's been mentioned is that
the puds... Still includes a 77 list 77 item list of a
allowed land usage. Why are they still included? Does this
mean those uses could wind up in any area at some point? For example,
we would never want a recycling center, athletic state stadium
or an auto service station located directly across from homes along bob smith and
jamaica beach. Um, and just ad
libbing again, something that was brought up. I recently read
two noaa studies on the jumball cove restorations that were done, the berms and the
little sand islands and the cord grass that was planted. And I fish out there as well.
uh, they have, and that was a 2023 study. They have not decreased 90 percent. Um, you,
they're not perfect, the study stated. The berms have sunk, but the cordgrass
and the marsh has grown. So, you know, it's great
to keep them going, but they're not 90% gone. On the wetlands, some areas
within the current footprint do appear to overlap wetlands, according to the u.s. Fish and
wildlife wetland mapper. The mapper is not jurisdictional, however, and is meant...
for a general overview. But we know an official delineation
will be done, and when it's done, how and when will the
public be able to see the results? Along with the revised layout, to ensure the wetlands are being
avoided and preserved, also involved will be plans in permitting
for dredging the bay. More broadly, what is the intended vision for this? Is it a tourist
destination with water park and hotels? Is it a quaint european village where everyone
knows each other? Is it a shopping center? Is it a gated
residential neighborhood? Right now, it appears to be all of the above. There
are just too many unknowns, loose ends, and unanswered questions, even
at this early stage, especially given the project's unusual nature, its large scale, and
the significant impact it will have on the surrounding area.
thank you. Thank you, sir.
there's no fish in that marsh. Y'all stay out of there. All right, next.
hi, my name's greg. I mean,
what's the anticipated construction?getting in and
out of jamaica beach these days, especially in the summer, people come
in and try to get in. The beach
right now, up and down the jamaica area, is already so crowded you can barely get on
at all. In fact, if you can't go down,
you can't get on. Beach down for traffic, but too many people,
they're already there. You add another 5,000 people in that small area, it's gonna
make it exceptionally x factor worse. The thing about the 120
foot exemption for,
I think a lighthouse to look pretty, we already got a water tower, we can look at that. They need
to know where they're going. And, you know, they say, you know, it could be worse, but it
also could be a lot better. So that's all I have to say.
thank you. All right. Thank
you. All right. Anybody else on this side? All right. We're going to come over here to the front. Anybody
on the front row? Yes, sir. O's
galveston island for our family. It is myself,
my wife, and our four children. A lot
of our neighbors are here. Our favorite librarian that we visit in, rosenberg spoke
earlier. One of the things, like a couple
of the previous gentlemen, I think a lot of the good points have been made, and I appreciate y'all's time
in asking some very specific and pointed questions. I do appreciate mr. Blackard's
updates to the project. But I think a lot
of what is done here is all about stewardship. Planning and
zoning has to do with stewardship. Stewardship to make sure the right projects go forward,
the right resources get used, that the people that you serve,
the island that you serve, the community that we are, is sustainable and grows
in the right way. And so when you look at this,
when you see some of the, when you hear some of the euphemisms,
when you see some of the vagueness, promises are nice, commitments
in writing are better, right?
when we look at this, when we hear it, it is just not
passing the sniff test in many ways. Development is
development, and like many have said, we know it's coming. Had this
been there in this manner that it's being asked to be, unfortunately, I know that we
wouldn't have invested our family and our lives into
galveston, at least not in this portion, right? We would have gone further
down and further down and hopefully found that. And again, that's not to say we avoid growth. It's
just, does it pass the stewardship
of our land and the test there, right? We have some very
unique, unique species. We have some very special things that
go on and seeing the sunrises, it is a horizon thing. And I
think that's why we're a little less crazy than the city dwellers is because we can see
a thing much bigger than ourselves, whether we look one
direction or another. And so all I'm asking is, as y'all,
review this. And as you come to your own personal decisions on it, that you think at it
from a stewardship angle. And I do appreciate all y'all's time and mr. Blackard's and everyone
else who spoke. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. Well stated. All right. Next row
back. Yes, ma'am. Come
on down. My name is margie st. John, and I'm here
to oppose the development based off of galveston county's, I
think it's 1987, ordinance and support for the west end.
having over or at a thousand residents capacity due
to a lot of different things here.
to make a beach, I'm going to put galveston, since I have that
on my driver's license. Let's see here, if you can, bear with me. I want
to focus on... Three critical issues, the evacuation, the flooding, and the infrastructure.
first, the evacuation. The west end depends almost entirely on highway 3005
feeding into I-45. That road is currently one lane
in each direction. That means every resident, every visitor, every new development funnels
into a single constraint path during emergencies. As population increases,
evacuation time doesn't increase gradually. It increases... Dramatically.
that creates a real risk to human life. Second, flooding. Development
on wetlands, whether you call it wetlands or land itself, that is actually a natural
drainage for our system. We are already seeing flood zones
expand, and adding more density will only make that worse, not just for new homes, but
for existing homes. Third, infrastructure. Water, sewer,
roads, emergency response systems on the west end were not
designed for a large scale of expansion. The city's own historical planning documents
recognize these limitations decades ago. So the question is
not whether development is good, it's whether the location can safely support it. Right
now, the answer is no. I respectfully ask the council
to delay approval until evacuation, infrastructure, and flood risk
are fully addressed. Thank you for your time and your consideration. Thank you. All
right. Next up. Anybody else
on this side? Can't do two
things at once, so let me get this filled out. My name's tom harrigan. I live
in jamaica beach. I'm sure you expected that. I've gone
from being amused by the old codgers that live in jamaica beach
to being an old codger. So, I do think the development is
happening, and I don't think
you guys are bad guys. You know, it's a beautiful piece of land. However, it is a
treasure. Every bit of marsh that we have remaining in the galveston bay system is
a real treasure that we need to preserve. I think if you
look at sunset cove, there's great fishing out in front of that. The developments
happened up on 3005. That seems to be the model that I think
I'd be happiest with. I went
out there today. We had a
fairly high tide, and it's wet. Almost all the
way to the microwave tower. And anything you can do to protect that treasure that we
have here on galveston island, I think is important.
the specificity can come in these zoning exceptions, and I think you guys need
to look at it really hard. I hear that 70 feet in front
of the people that live on bob smith. Now, I know it's from the bird sanctuary
forward, there won't be any building out there. But from the bird sanctuary back
to 3005, that's going to block a lot of views of a pretty sunset. And
personally, I had a zoning variance happen in my neighborhood. And the
irony's not lost on me that jamaica beach tore up a lot more marsh than you're planning
on doing. I got that. But they got a zoning variance for their... Lot size,
and what they wiggled in was how high they could build, and somebody's got their house built into my sunset. So I do
think this is a negotiation, as you mentioned earlier. I think
there's some room to work towards specificity and
to get that treasure that we have protected. Thanks
for what you're doing. Thanks for your time. All right. Thank you, sir. By the way,
I resemble that remark. Next. Anybody else on this side? All
right, jeffrey, been hiding back there. Why didn't you just sit in the front? We're not
giving you any extra time. Just so, you know, we might even deduct. Jeffrey
used to sit in this chair and I sat down there. My name is
jeffrey hill. I live on lafitte's point in galveston, in one of mr. Blackard's previous developments. I served
six years on planning commission with some of you,
and two years as its chair, as mr. Walla mentioned. While I'd love
to give an impassioned speech about why you should vote no on this pud, as commissioners,
you must lean on facts and the ldrs rather than emotion and personal feelings. So let's
focus on the facts. That there is no staff recommendation, either for or
against this case. This is an anomaly. During my tenure
on the commission, I came to appreciate the professionalism with which city staff treats
applicants. They go the extra mile to ensure an applicant
knows exactly what is needed for a thorough application.
this one is absolutely lacking when compared to the many pud applications that I have
reviewed over the years. I think the commissioners might want
to see these additional items before they consider making a recommendation for approval.
first, more complete and detailed map outlines,
including preliminary street layouts, housing, amenity and commercial area
layout, signage placement and mock-ups, and specific parking
plans throughout. The applicant describes a european village concept. How is this village
laid out within the zones? Trust us, you'll like it. Doesn't replace detailed plans
for a 170 acre behemoth that encroaches on the quaint
community where I spent my childhood summers. Next, where
exactly is the 120 foot max height variance plan
to be used within zone three? As it stands now, zone three is
a very large area and all of it would be allowed
to be covered by 120 foot structures. 120 feet is three
times the height of the mardi gras arch, over in front
of the tremont house. Without a specific design plan
designated, you are potentially allowing a huge area to be covered by giant,
tall structures under the guise
of a little quaint lighthouse. So, more importantly,
let's focus on criteria for approval number one. Is the proposed zoning preferable
to the existing zoning? Absolutely not. As it stands
today, in its currently thinly conceived and not quite
congealed format, this applicant has not demonstrated
that his plan is better than
the current zoning or that it is needed by the city of.
thank you ma'am, all right,
anybody else? That's it,
all right. So why don't we do this? Do you guys want to hear from our applicant while we
still have the public hearing open? Have any questions for him? Anybody, anybody?
mr. Blacker, would you like to make any quick comments? I'm going to give you that
opportunity. I think my only comment is regarding the wetlands,
I think I illustrated tens of millions of dollars
of donation in wetlands. I care more about
those wetlands and have shown it
for years and years and years, since 1999, sometimes I almost
think people don't understand that everything they're saying I agree
with regarding the wetlands. It always comes back to the wetlands. The last
gentleman that came up was talking about that. He fishes there, he understands. That's
how I designed it to protect the wetlands. I know I probably
should have came back with a plan, showing, filling and doing all these different things. But I didn't. I
respected exactly if I lived on bob smith road in jamaica
beach, what I want to look at. Like, the lady invited me
to go have cocktails with her on the end of bob smith road. I agree. I've been down there.
that's exactly what I'm trying to preserve. So I don't
understand the wetlands thing. I hope this gets approved. And
I hope we build it, and I hope everybody that's in this room is out there helping us plant grass. Thank
you. Thank you, sir. All right, we're going to bring this back
to commission for action, and I'm going to make a motion that we approve,
I don't have the planning case in front of me, 26p-009. With
the following recommendations, that the applicant establish a
conservation area for the wetlands, that the applicant establish minimum
workforce housing, that there be a minimum workforce housing requirement. Okay, I'm going to
make a recommendation that we require an adequate area
for sewer plant expansion, an estimated five acres, and
consider a minimum lot size. So that's the motion. Motion
to approve with those recommendations.
yes, ma'am. Excuse me, could I clarify that it's also the recommendations that were
provided in the staff report? Oh, and yes, so we would include those recommendations
and those requirements that are in the staff report. That's correct. All right. That's the
motion. A second. So here's what I'd like to do. So we have
a motion and a second so we can discuss this. So now we ask
away, please. Well, I think we
need to, I think the applicant needs to establish. He's asking
for no minimum on lot sizes. To approve this motion,
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.
and keep in mind, I'm just throwing four of them
out there. Ideally, what we do is we're going to have a discussion. If we
want to add some, we're going to... We'll amend the motion and we'll discuss
those and amend. So that's kind of how, that's the direction I'd like
to go. I don't have a problem putting a minimum size on it. You've got to remember,
my view on this is, is I'm giving counsel or our elected
officials some lateral movement and just establish a minimum
size, you know. Establish a minimum workforce housing. I
mean, I don't know what the number is. Let them pick it, but they need
to establish something. He's offered 15. It's the magic number. Honestly, I don't know,
but there needs to be something. If you'd like to nail that
down a little bit, I'd have no problem entertaining an amendment to the motion that
would be a little more specific. With any of those.
so that's the direction I'm going with this. Can I ask
staff a question? Just a second. Let me go to him. It's
my understanding that there's different areas or different requests for zoning. I think
the minimum lot size was specified in some
of those zones. Catherine, could you relay what area
that... The applicant discussed that was a less than, I'm
sorry, remind me, it was actually in their zone. Actually, there
was a what I read it was zone one and to use our ones setbacks.
but I didn't see it in anywhere else in the proposal. I guess if that
would, so that we can understand what you're recommending if you you want
something a little more specific? Well, you could place
that on the area. That was a little bit under question. Okay. Let me think
about how we're going to do that. Because it's really in zone three. Their zone,
which is the r1 area, basically, they're sticking
with what is there. They're asking for a height variance, but I think lot size, they're
saying, hey, we'll go with the ldr lot size. I think that was
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
understand what they're trying to do, but I am a little
concerned that just giving them carte blanche on a lot size,
having no lot size requirement, I think council needs to... Well, no, that would... That
would help be able to relay and communicate exactly what you were looking for. Okay, so you
want it a little more specific in that zone three. Sorry,
teresa, this is what was confusing to me when I was asking about the language there, because in the planning
commission recommendation... Under specific conditions 1a, it says,
eliminate the minimum lot area, but if I understood the applicant correctly, r1 was going to adhere
to the r1 lot sizes. Yes, so
what we could add is for the specific conditions a1a
on page 6, we could include
some additional language in planning area 3. But do I understand that correctly? Is
the applicant proposing to adhere to r1 in their... Zone 1. Yes, zone 1 is there,
so planning area 1. They're proposing the r1 single-family
design standards. This language needs to match that. Yes, so that, okay,
so what we what we've outlined, okay, so I think we're you're looking
for additional language in the pud plan that's been proposed off the staff report. That
outlines or designates the planning area 1, planning area
2. The area 1 that faces bob smith, that whatever it was
400 deep or whatever the face is, is going to adhere to r1 lot size standards.
yes. And so planning area 2, which is the frontage, is, yes,
they're asking for the commercial design standards.
which is no minimum lot area requirement, but there's
minimum width and lot depth. I think for what I'm looking
at right now is the r1, that whatever he's calling
zone 1 that faces bob smith, we really need to codify that,
that it says. This section, what you're calling zone 1, is going to adhere
to the r1 base. Minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. Is
that what I understood the applicant to say, he was going, he's proposing? I'm sorry,
repeat your question. That is what the applicant is proposing? In zone one
to follow r1 base? Yes. Can we put, can we just really make
that clear? Okay. Because I think that's a big bone of contention is the whole,
the whole look of anything that's facing bob smith road. Okay.
in the center of the property, I'm like... I'm not going to see that from 3005. I don't
think it's a 120-foot tower I would see. But that section there, I
think, really needs some attention, that zone 1 facing bob smith road. Okay. The
language needs to be really clear. Yes, and
maybe I'm missing it in the pud plan. In the staff report, it was.
it's in the staff report. I think, oh, you know what? Okay, so it
is the second to last page of the pud plan, section 2.30, internal planning areas.
okay. And that is where it outlines planning area one,
planning area two, and planning area three.
that's under the staff report, not an exhibit. It is exhibit, let me see. So we have a... It
is the discovery, it is exhibit c. No, no,
that's not exhibit c. We have a lot of stuff here. It is in the pud plan,
but I'm trying to establish what... Okay. It is in the pud plan. It's
in the pud plan, but it follows the letters. But the language is complete. But the language is, yes,
I agree. The language is complete. Yeah, so I think there's, so I think part of the confusion is there's a staff
report and we had exhibit a and exhibit b. Exhibit a was legal description. Exhibit b was the
applicant's response or their submittal, and then
with an exhibit b of the staff report, then they had exhibits. So I
think that might be a little bit confusing, but it's part of the applicant's submittal,
which is exhibit b of the staff report. So it follows the letters and I do
not have a page number to give you. But if you look at and I apologize article 2
development standards, this is the first page.
actually, there might be a cover. It's actually, yes,
okay, and then you look at the very last page of the pud plan that that is where
section 2.30 internal planning areas. Does everybody see that?
okay, I don't have a page number for that. They're on page number, okay. So do you
see where the letters are, the environmental letter? I see
some of them, yeah. Okay, so there's exhibit c, waters of the u.s. Permitting procedures, and there's a
letter from integrated environmental solutions. And
then the very next thing after that, after that environmental letter,
you have the discovery sands planned unit development plan. Okay. So let me ask you
this, anthony. And we're going to try to pull it up, that section. What if we,
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
what do you think about this? When we get to that point,
we'll speak. Specify that r1 zoning be applied to their
zone 1 development area. With the exception
of their request for their, they want to add 10 feet
for mechanical. That's what they're asking for. The 20 feet for mechanical, 10
for mechanical. 10, yeah. But, I mean, a total of 20 feet. I just want to make sure
that I'm just clear, because it's confusing. Yes, sir. I agree. I understand. So
we can, if you'd like, we can address that. Okay. Would that be good? Yeah.
okay. All right. Any other discussion? You're
down there thinking. Yes. So I'm talking
about zone where I'm liking, I'm talking about zone three, and that was where your
question came. So they're asking for no minimum lot size in that zone. That's my
understanding. Would that be a
yes? Okay. That's correct. Yep. So that's where I'm
saying. I think we need to establish when this, my recommendation would be that
council needs to consider and establish a minimum lot size. I don't know what that magic number is. You could make it,
if you want, the r2 zoning is 01,600 square feet. So I don't
know what the magic number is. I'm sure that,
you know. I think if you put 04,000, which is included in the r2, that's going
to restrict those guys really from doing what they want to do. But yes, yes, sir. Hold
on. Yeah, they don't let you come. You need to open up the
public hearing if you're going to hear from the applicant. And it would just be the
applicant, not the other members of the audience. Right. And I just want to clarify,
are we going by each? Item
of your motion are we doing a remember my most? My motion had
four recommendations, right? So we're actually working on my the very first one. Well,
I'm sorry, the minimum lot size was was actually my fourth
recommendation. So we're trying to sort through that and we
will make an amendment when we get that figured out. Does that work for you? I just want to
make sure because I have an issue with the work forest housing motion component,
tell me about it. Well, we need to figure out if you want
to talk about that now. Or if you're going to hear from let's get,
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,
all right. So does that answer your question? You want
to hear from him? Okay, then we'll open the public hearing, we're going to reopen the public hearing
to hear from the applicant. You're up, sir. If they were
to scroll in the staff report back to our concept, layout,
site plan. Oh, I don't know. I mean,
we've got the first page. The
overall of that. What's that one? That's fine, right there. So on the far west side,
there's that strip that goes up. On the west, there are lots in that area.
yeah, like a little finger that goes up in there. Exactly. We would be willing to establish
zone 4 to put minimum lot sizes within that strip,
and we'll determine based on those measurements what that strip size is. That way, we
still maintain our flexibility within the actual core we're
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
thing I told mr. Black. I am not a fan of giving you guys carte
blanche on a minimum lot size. That's just my. I only have one voice
and one vote, and that's the whole purpose of me adding this. If you guys
want to come up with some secret sauce between now and then,
you guys do your thing. And that's really, to be honest with you, that's the whole purpose
of this discussion is you get to listen what our concerns are. You get 30 days to go,
hey, you guys have done an excellent job of listening to us the last time, probably
to your detriment, to be very honest with you. But you guys have done an excellent job with that. I'm just,
if that's what you want. You need to go preach that
to these guys. So I'm trying to do what my job is, or
at least what I interpret my job to be. So I'm just not a fan
of giving you guys carte blanche on lot size in the
core. I just think it's a bad idea, and that's my opinion.
you guys can go sell that to the city council and see what they say,
but that's just my opinion on it. Did you have a question
for him on the lot size deal? I didn't answer, but there's zone three giving up the... Okay.
yeah. All right. Did I? Yeah. Yeah, because you want... You're asking for... We're
going to take a portion of our zone three and pull it out and put minimum lot sizes within that western edge. Will
that be... No, it's kind of this little finger. Right
now, there's yellow on the right-hand side. We would put yellow on the left-hand side as well.
this is in the very back of the... Let me explain. It
would be better if I explain. If we build a 1,000-square-foot little bundle of cottage in the
middle and we have hoa property all the way around it, that's
what we're saying is zero. You could say 1,000 square feet,
because no unit would be smaller than 1,000 square feet. But those are in the village.
in any village, you have little bitty buildings that go around there. And
in this case, we have private streets and then we have hoa property around each one of them. That's why he's saying
minimum. Now, you can say 01,000 square feet, which is fine. That's as small
as it will get. That's the intent of when you see the
pretty picture or whatever, the rendering. You see those little structures in there?
that's what we're trying to accomplish. Okay. All right.
any other discussion? No, I just want to make a comment.
this is where that word eliminate didn't really need to apply. The more you can
clarify, it eliminates the anticipation or the anxiety
about what really is intended. That's all. You just got to be specific. And that's not
something that's a big hurdle to get over. It just needs to be communicated. You
probably already know. It just isn't communicated. And now he knows he needs
to go communicate. Agreed. Next step. All right. Yes, sir.
so I, my,
we'll close the public hearing.
so my item number four is I was just. My recommendation is that
council consider a minimum lot size. I'm not putting a lot
size on it. I'm just saying they need to figure that out. I
think that's something that's, I don't want to put one on there because I don't know what
it is. I'm talking about so what we're going to have to do,
so this is good. So we're going to go back, and we'll make an amendment to the motion, because my
motion just said minimum lot size, kind of across the board. So I will
make, when we get ready to do the amendment, I would recommend that the amendment
look something along the lines of amend it. So that the lots
in their zone one are the equivalent of r1,
with the exception of the heightened requirements that they're looking for. But the lot size be five,
matter of fact, I'll just call them out. They're 5,000 square feet. So we'll just say that the lots
in that zone one will be 5,000 square feet and that they need
to establish some minimum on zone three. Does that work
for you? Yes. Okay. All right.
ms. Fairweather, talk to me about workforce housing.
well, is it on? Yeah. Yeah, we can't require the applicant
to... I should say, you can't order the applicant
to have workforce housing. That's the simple matter of the fact. Even if he's
already offered it? But he's offered it. But if you're going to make a motion demanding it,
you can't do that. But I think what I've heard a couple of
times is that they are willing to offer it, and that would be a part of the development plans if
city council decides to go forward with this development. But you can't put that in a motion. So that's
something that city council would need to? How do we do that? I think, once again, if the applicant offers it,
then the applicant would say, yeah, we would like to do it. Well, it's not in his plan. I'm
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
to come later. But I guess what I'm saying is. You're recommending to city
council, who has the ultimate decision, whether or not they're going
to allow it or not. The applicant still has to present what he wants
to present to that body. This body cannot make a motion
saying we want a minimum number of workforce housing in your development. I'm not,
I'm, I'm, oh, okay. Can I put a number in there instead of
saying a minimum? I could say. You can't put a number in there at all. Nothing. I
mean, I think if you are concerned about the workforce element
in there, I think you can word it such that the applicant has
suggested 15 units, I think that's what he said, and we would agree
with that or more, something like that. But you can't make the motion. Okay. I can't make the motion
establish a minimum. But I can make it to where the
recommendation is that, yeah,
accepting the offer, accept the applicant's offer
to provide a minimum, not just
to provide workforce housing. Okay. Which he's already agreed
to. Yes. Okay. I love these.
all right. Next. Next. Anybody else? Any other questions that
I'm going to make? You got anything, bo? What were the other two? Yeah. Are we helping
you? I think that's my question. No, none of this. I think it's important that you,
since there's a motion on the table, seconded,
that you amend. Yes, we'll do that. And, I mean, that's, the
r3 was the one that I needed the most. Clarification on, and we've done that. Okay, all
right, what's that? Can you just read out the other two?
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
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
to discuss that. So one is, we're going to establish a conservation,
the applicant will establish a conservation area, that's the
other thing. I'm sorry. Can I not do that? Yes. You're
killing me. You just need to word it that way. How do I make a recommendation? Do I
just recommend, do I make a recommendation that a conservation area be
established? Yes, actually. There you go. Okay. Just word it that way. Recommendation
to accept the offer of a conservation area being offered. As you said it,
recommendation that a conservation area be established. Why couldn't I
make a recommendation that workforce housing be established? You can. You can. Okay. Okay, I just need to word
it differently so that I'm not creating a burden for... You can't define it. I got it. I
think I got it. And I'm sorry?
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
treatment plant? Yes. So currently, as I understand it,
that's also an offer because they don't have to do it.
so... And they're... Same way.
it's the same way. I mean, these are things that, from what I'm hearing, the applicant has offered,
but they're not a requirement. Because you don't need to have a treatment plant in that area, if you understand
what I'm saying. So I'm just going to change this
to where we're going to... Our recommendation is that the
council consider a conservation area, that the council consider...
workforce housing, that they consider additional area
for expansion for the sewer plant, and that they should consider a minimum
lot size. As proposed by the applicant. Well, he's not proposing a minimum lot
size in this section three. On the other three. Proposed
by the applicant. That's one way just to get those three items. The
lot size issue, I still think you all need to drink. Drill down
on a little bit. You think we need to send something specific and let them change it? So what
they propose, as I understand it, already come with the zone one, and I guess
the zone two doesn't stay the same. They already come with their built-in. If we're talking about the zone three,
and from what I'm hearing from the applicant, they're going to be a minimum
of 1,000 square feet. Well, he just said that like two minutes ago. And you
heard it. So if you want to put that in your motion, then... We can do that. I mean,
if you're gonna recommend something to council, and again, this is just my thoughts
on it. Council really wants to know the specificity of what planning, so you want some more specific.
so establish a conservation area that includes no, I mean,
I think the conservation area, I think the treatment plant,
the workforce housing.
workforce housing. I think those come with its own specificity that city council
can drill down on. But this body really helps the council
determine, okay, what square footage are we talking
for this type of development? What lot size does this
planning commission think would fit for the city, as well as
for the development? Okay. And I think it would be difficult for city council. To come up
with a number. And they can change the number if they want to do it. So we could, instead of just considering minimum lot
size for this zone 3, we can say require a minimum lot size
of 1,000 square feet in zone 3. You can. Is everybody good
with that? Suggestion. You good with that down there? Sure.
sure. Yes. Yeah, I don't
disagree with you. So when, you know, council considers this, you know, say we send
these recommendations as is, you know, they, or as your recommendation, you know,
to consider workforce housing, to consider the sewage treatment plant, to consider the, you know,
the other aspect. And so, is council allowed to say, hey,
if you want this pud, you got to do x, y, z? They have more
latitude, I guess, to order. Okay. Based on what is being presented, and
especially if the applicant comes in and says, this is what we're going to do. Okay. So we're going
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,
saying, this is what you've agreed to do. It's going to be part of the permit, whatever. And
you also have your ex-officer here who also repeat. You know, what planning commissions.
exactly. He'll be able to go. He gets the job. We'll all be there. And I know. So let's
say, just hypothetically speaking, right, so mr. Blackard has said 15 units.
now let's say that he shows up to council later this month and says 15 units. Could council
say, well, we don't like that. We want to see 70? I would probably tell council
that that's probably not something that they should do. Okay. Gotcha. Thank you. No, do it with other developments. So
back on the minimum lot size
to codify this. The r2 base already exists. Minimum lot
size of 1,600 square feet. Yep. So I think it would be
easier just to put something that already exists in the language for zone 3.
okay. So we'll use r1 and zone 01, and we'll use... No, no,
no. We're done. Zone 3, r2 base. We're going
to do r1 and zone 1. We're going to do c. We're going
to recommend r2 and zone 3. R2 and zone, and then r2's lot
sizes in zone 3. Good with that? Donna? I mean,
that's a suggestion. It's already in the pud proposal,
the commercial zoning design criteria, for we're gonna leave
that one alone. The one in for zone one is, it says,
one thing in one spot and something else in another. Where is that
discrepancy? So we can clarify that now or correct it.
they're writing whatever it was for. I think that's what you're
trying to say. You'll get the
gist. It's semantics now. If we already know what the lot sizes
are in the zone 1 area, we'll just say the zone 1 lot
size as it currently is. I mean, we don't, and we'll just correct the...
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
bob smith road right-of-way measured from the nearest edge of that right-of-way. 1, b1,
applicable standards, development within planning area 1 shall comply
with the minimum lot area, lot width, lot depth, setback,
building height and parking standards of the r1
single-family residential district as set forth in division 3.300 of the l.dr,
together with notes 1 through 10 applicable to that district and exceptions
to the height. So yes, so okay, that. Well, okay, so.
exceptions would be. Landscaping within planning area 1 shall be governed by section 2.17 of this pud plan, signage shall
be governed by section 2.10 and exhibit g. So that's where they're inserting their own
standards. Building height exceptions in section 2.06c
through e shall apply within planning area 1. And so that's when we go to... This is the
applicants. This is the pled plan. So I can go back to those
sections and see if that's where the discrepancy is. I
just want to make sure because... Yeah, it does outline that
in the pud plan and in the staff report, but if
there's another area that we need to look at within this document, we can certainly hunt for it.
unless you already know where it is. So then the area we want to correct then, so it says. Within planning area three,
the pud establishes no lot, size, width, or depth minimums. Yep. And
we're going to recommend that they use r2 lot size standards.
is that good, donna? You're pointing the finger
over there. What are you doing? Yes. That's what I want. So r2
standard, so it's not 1,000 square feet. It's the minimum. It's 1,600. 1,600, yeah. So
we're going to start there and let council figure out what they want to do. And these guys can go pitch their
story to city council and see what they want to do. Is everybody good with that?
yeah. Okay. Sorry, guys. All
right. So I'm going to make a motion that we amend the motion
in regards to the recommendations so that they state such. Recommend a
conservation area be established. Is that good?
donna? Okay. Recommend that
they accept the applicant's offer of 15 workforce housing
units. Is that good? Okay.
recommend that the sewer plant
area be of adequate size
for expansion. You okay with that? Nope. The easement
to be where the sewer treatment plan is to be located, I think, is what you're getting at.
what is that? The easement. It's not the way that it's worded, that you've worded it. It could
be the structure. But if you just say five acres
to allow for future expansion. Okay. Are you good with that, donna? Is that,
because I don't know the amount of acreage. Well, we kind of got to that. He said that,
you know, his track's going to be, he said that. Double it would be three acres. So it's
really four and a half, technically. I just rounded it up. So we're going to recommend
that the sewer plant area be no
less than five acres. You good with that? Okay. We're going to
recommend that the minimum lot size for zone three be the same
as the requirements for lot size and for for zone
r2 of the ldr. You good with that is everybody happy?
so that's an amendment, I need a second, I'll second. Okay, any discussion seeing
none? So the motion's amended,
and so now we have the motion to our other motion is still
on the table for approval, and it's been seconded. Is
there any further discussion on that? This would be the motion as amended. Everybody
good with that? Are we all good? Good, donna? All right.
let's take the vote. Those in favor? Those opposed? So
that's, I can't count that fast, but we have one opposed,
but so the motion passes. Good luck, mr. Blackard. I appreciate your time. And hey,
our neighbors over in jamaica beach, we really appreciate you coming out more than you think. So
that was dirty work that was done. Hate you had to see that, but it's not over
till it's over. All right. So one last thing. What? Hey, I'm
just trying to pass the ball. So I do have,
before we adjourn, I have one last announcement. I'm going to be retiring,
be resigning my position on planning. My last meeting
will be our next meeting. So,
you know, there's some others, you know, we got, I can give you a laundry list
of reasons. I just think it's a good time. We got the comp plan
is coming down. You guys are going to need somebody that's going
to be here to see that through. Plus, I'm going to be a grandfather for the second time
in a couple weeks. So it's been almost six years. You guys have been great. You'll do great
without me. But anyways, I just wanted to let you know that my next meeting will be my
next meeting. Aw. Aw. All right. Any other business?
we're adjourned.