[00:00:03]
LET'S SEE, I'M GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER AT 3:30.
[Call to Order]
THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON WHAT DAY IS THIS? JANUARY THE 5TH.I'M NOW JEFFERSON HILL? I SAID CHAIRPERSON HILL.
OH, CHAIRPERSON HILL, IT'S JEFFERSON IS OUR FAMILY NAME, SO I DON'T MIND THAT AT ALL.
AND COUNCIL MEMBER JOHN LISTOWSKI HAS NOT JOINED US, AND I'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN HE DOES.
[INAUDIBLE] LET ME DO THE STAFF PRESENT.
AVAILABLE ON THE PHONE IS PLANNING MANAGER ADRIEL MONTALVAN, PLANNER DANIEL LUNSFORD, COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGER DUSTIN HENRY, ASSISTING COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGER VIRGINIA GREB, AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY DONNA FAIRWEATHER.
DO WE HAVE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST TODAY? OK, SEEING NONE.
[4. Approval Of The December 8, 2020 Minutes]
DO WE HAVE ANY CHANGES OR CORRECTIONS TO THE DECEMBER 8TH MINUTES? CATHERINE, I HAVE ONE CHANGE ON THAT ON THE MINUTES, JONI STEINHAUS'S LAST NAME IS SPELLED S T E I N H A U S.SEEING NONE OF THOSE MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
I HAD A COMMENT. OH, YES, SIR.
MR. WALLA, COMMISSIONER WALLA.
SO WE HAD THREE ON THE ONE CASE.
WE HAD THREE VOTES THAT ABSTAINED WHERE I WAS RECUSED.
SO DOES MY VOTE REALLY ABSTAIN SINCE I DIDN'T HAVE A VOTE? CATHERINE [INAUDIBLE].
I MEAN, I WAS RECUSED FROM THE MEETING, SO I DIDN'T ABSTAIN.
WE TYPICALLY NOTE A RECUSAL AS BEING AN ABSTENTION BUT I CAN GET WITH DONNA AND MAKE SURE THAT'S THE MOST CORRECT THING.
OK, AND THEN I'D ALSO LIKE THE OTHER TWO ABSTENTIONS.
I'D LIKE THEY HAD MADE COMMENTS FOR THE REASON THAT THEY ABSTAINED.
I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT INCLUDED IN THE RECORD.
CATHERINE, DO YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT? WELL, TYPICALLY, WE WOULD ONLY ADD SOMETHING LIKE THAT IF THE PERSON WHO WAS MAKING THAT VOTE REQUESTED IT.
NO. WELL, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY ABSTAIN, THEY PUT THE COMMISSION IN VIOLATION OF STATE STATUTE.
AND I JUST WANT THE RECORD TO SHOW THAT.
SO CATHERINE WILL GET [INAUDIBLE].
AND IF THAT IS, IN FACT WHAT YOU DID, AND THAT'S FINE AND IN REGARD TO PUTTING IN THE MINUTES A REASON FOR EITHER WAY YOU VOTE, TYPICALLY THE PERSON DOES REQUEST THAT, I'D LIKE THE MINUTES TO REFLECT THE REASONING BEHIND, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
SO IN FUTURE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE COMMENTS TO REFLECT SOMETHING SPECIFICALLY, THEN YOU CAN JUST SAY THAT.
I WILL SAY THESE MEETINGS ARE RECORDED.
AND SO IF ANYONE WANTS TO GO BACK AND REFER TO WHAT WAS BEEN SAID OR VIEW, THEY CAN ALWAYS DO THAT. FAIR ENOUGH.
[5. Meeting Format (Staff)]
CATHERINE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS THE MEETING FORMAT, PLEASE? SURE. JUST REGULAR REMINDERS THAT WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU WATCH THE [INAUDIBLE], THE MEETING IN GALLERY VIEW.THAT ENABLES YOU TO SEE ALL OF YOUR COMMISSIONERS AT THE SAME TIME.
AND IT'S HOW THE MEETING IS SHOWN TO THE PUBLIC.
IT'S BEST TO KEEP THE MICROPHONE MUTED UNLESS YOU'RE SPEAKING TO CUT DOWN ON BACKGROUND NOISE. WE ASK THAT YOU PHYSICALLY GET THE RAISE YOUR HANDS TO GET THE CHAIR'S ATTENTION BEFORE SPEAKING OR MAKING A MOTION.
THE STAFF IS HERE TO PRESENT THEIR CASES BY PHONE.
THE ADVOCATES ARE ALSO PARTICIPATING BY PHONE AND WE WILL BE TAKING THE VOTES BY ROLL CALL. THANK YOU, CATHERINE.
[6. Public Comment]
REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENT, ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED BY 11:00 A.M.[00:05:04]
TODAY WERE SENT TO ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS AT 11:56 TODAY.THEY WERE ALL READ BY THE COMMISSIONERS AND WILL BE INCLUDED WITH THE MINUTES.
ADDITIONALLY, ONE COMMENT THAT WAS ACCIDENTALLY OMITTED BUT RECEIVED BEFORE THE DEADLINE WAS EMAILED OUT AT 1:50 TO ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
AND THOSE COMMENTS, ALL OF THEM WILL BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE RECORD OF TODAY'S MEETINGS. DID WE RECEIVE ANY OTHER LATE PUBLIC COMMENTS, CATHERINE? NO ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED.
OK, THANK YOU. SO THE PUBLIC CAN REST ASSURED THAT ALL COMMENTS HAVE BEEN READ AND GIVEN APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION.
WE'LL BEGIN NOW WITH NEW BUSINESS AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC HEARINGS.
[7.A.1. 20P-043 (25903 Flamingo Drive) Request For A Beachfront Construction Certificate/Dune Protection Permit In Order To Construct A Single-Family Dwelling. The Property Is Legally Described As Lot 15, Block 1, Pointe West Section 1 (2005), A Subdivision In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Cate Black, Architect Property Owner: Peter Timothy O’Heeron & Dorothy Angela O’Heeron]
FIRST WE HAVE CASE 20P-043, PLEASE.THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE SLASH STUDENT PROTECTION PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A LARGE SCALE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, ABOVE GROUND POOL AND HOT TUB. THE ADDRESS IS TWO FIVE NINE ZERO THREE FLAMINGO DRIVE.
THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY IS LOT 15, BLOCK ONE POINT WEST, SECTION ONE, TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE POINT WEST SUBDIVISION.
UNDEVELOPED LOTS ARE LOCATED TO THE NORTH, EAST AND WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, A DUNE SYSTEM AND BEACH AREA ARE LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY.
THIS AREA IS ERODING AT A RATE OF TWO FEET PER YEAR.
PAGES TWO, THREE AND FOUR OF THE STAFF REPORT SUMMARIZE THE APPLICANTS PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST CONFORMS TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON DUNE PROTECTION AND BEACH ACCESS PLAN AND EROSION RESPONSE PLAN.
PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT C FOR THE PROPOSED DRAWINGS.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A LARGE SCALE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A FIBER CREEK FOOTPRINT BENEATH THE HABITABLE STRUCTURE.
PERVIOUS PAVER DRIVEWAY, ABOVE GROUND POOL AND HOT TUB.
PERVIOUS PAVERS ARE PROPOSED BENEATH THE FOLLOWING AREAS, PROJECTING EAVES, SWIMMING POOL, UNCOVERED DECKS AND STAIRS.
THE APPLICANT REVISE THE PAPER DRIVEWAY PLAN IN ORDER TO LEAVE AT LEAST 15 PERCENT OF THE FRONT YARD AS OPEN SLASH UNIMPROVED SPACE.
THE CITY OF GALVESTON EROSION RESPONSE PLAN SECTION FIVE SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN STATES THE FOLLOWING.
FOUR LARGE SCALE CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS SURFACES SHALL BE LIMITED TO 40 PERCENT OF THE AREA LANDWARD OF THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA.
THE DETERMINATION OF THE PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACES, IMPERVIOUS SURFACES ALLOWED MUST INCLUDE THE AREA BENEATH THE HABITABLE STRUCTURE.
WHETHER OR NOT THE AREA OR ANY PORTION OF THE AREA BENEATH THE HABITABLE STRUCTURE REMAINS IN A NATURAL STATE.
THE PROPOSED PLANS MEET THIS REQUIREMENT.
THEY INDICATE 20 PERCENT OF THE AREA LANDWARD OF THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA ARE IMPERVIOUS SURFACES.
THIS PERCENTAGE INCLUDES THE AREA BENEATH THE HABITABLE STRUCTURE.
PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT C PAGE A002A FOR THE IMPERVIOUS AREA PLAN.
STAFF RECOMMENDS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CASE 20P-043.
STAFF REPORT PAGES FOUR THROUGH SIX LISTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ARE NUMBERED, ONE THROUGH TEN AND STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR A BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE SLASH DUNE PROTECTION PERMIT ARE NUMBERED 11 THROUGH 16. AND STAFF HAS PREPARED PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR REVIEW.
OK. ALL RIGHT, SO THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS THE AERIAL MAP AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS HIGHLIGHTED WITH THE YELLOW BORDER, TWO FIVE NINE ZERO THREE FLAMINGO.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR LOT 15, WHICH SHOWS THE LINE OF VEGETATION, THE NORTH DUNE LINE, THE TWENTY FIVE FOOT DUNE SETBACK AND OTHER DELINEATIONS . NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THIS IS THE SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED DWELLING.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS THE IMPERVIOUS AREA PLAN, THE BLUE AREA EQUALS THE HABITABLE AREA ABOVE, BENEATH THE ROOF, LESS OVERHANGS FOR GLO DEFINITION OF HABITABLE STRUCTURE.
AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE LANDSCAPING AREA IS AND THE DRIVEWAY TO MEET THAT 15 PERCENT.
THESE ARE THE ELEVATION PLANS.
[00:10:03]
THE PERSPECTIVES, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.AND PICTURES TAKEN FROM THE LOT BY STAFF FROM THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND WEST.
AND WE HAVE ONE FINAL SLIDE FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION, AND THAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF REPORT. THANK YOU, VIRGI, APPRECIATE IT, COMMISSIONERS, DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF? YES, SIR.
ON THE IMPERVIOUS AREA PLAN, THE 15 PERCENT OPEN UNIMPROVED AREA IS THAT THAT LITTLE SLIVER OF SPACE IS TO THE RIGHT OF THE DRIVEWAY? IT'S THE LITTLE HALF MOON AREA THAT'S ALL WHITE.
I SEE. WHERE IT SAYS LANDSCAPING.
CORRECT. ALL RIGHT, THAT WAS ALL MY QUESTIONS.
THANKS. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OK SEEING NONE, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:41.
IS THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE? YES, THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND THE OWNER.
KATE, YOU CAN START SIX TO UNMUTE.
HELLO, MS. BLACK, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO TELL THE COMMISSION ABOUT THIS APPLICATION? NO, WE WERE HAPPY.
WE SUBMITTED IT A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, AND I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THE DIFFERENT REGULATION FOR IT BEING LARGE SCALE BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE OF IT BEING OVER FIVE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. SO THEN WE MADE SOME CHANGES BASED ON THAT AND ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. OK, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. BLACK? YES, SIR, COMMISSIONER WALLA.
HEY KATE, CONGRATULATIONS ON THE HOUSE ALSO TO THE OWNER, THAT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING ELSE. SO YOU GUYS SHOULD BE EXCITED.
HEY MY QUESTION IS, I'VE ONLY DONE A FEW OF THESE DUNE PERMITS.
HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO? WHEN DID YOU, WHEN DID YOU SUBMIT THAT? I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT TAKES TO DO THAT.
THIS IS MY QUESTION. IT DOESN'T TAKE PARTICULARLY LONG.
THEY HAD A 30 DAY REVIEW PROCESS, I BELIEVE, AT LEAST TO GET BACK TO THE CITY BECAUSE OF THE LARGE SCALE.
BUT I MEAN, IN GENERAL, I'M SURE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REALIZE I WAS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION BEFORE. SO IN GENERAL, WHEN I WOULD SUBMIT THESE OR I WOULD BE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THEM, IT'S VERY QUICK.
I MEAN, I THINK USUALLY WITHIN LIKE SIX WEEKS OF PLANNING SOMETHING OUT, I'M ON A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, IF NOT SOONER.
SO. OK. THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD.
THANK YOU. AND CONGRATULATIONS AGAIN.
THANKS. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MS. BLACK? OK, THANK YOU.
AND WE HAD NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS CASE, SO I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:43 P.M.
AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON CASE 20P-043.
I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT 20P-043 AS WRITTEN.
DO WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THIS CASE? SEEING NO DISCUSSION.
I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY, DID YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION? I JUST WANT TO COMMEND THE APPLICANT FOR SQUEEZING EVERYTHING INTO, I MEAN OUTSIDE THE TWENTY FIVE FOOT LINE.
I JUST IT'S PRETTY PHENOMENAL.
JUST STAYING OUTSIDE THE DUNE PROTECTION.
OR RATHER, SHE COLORED WITHIN THE LINES AS.
SO GREAT. WE'LL CALL THE VOTE NOW.
I'M IN FAVOR. VICE CHAIRPERSON BROWN.
ALL IN FAVOR, THE MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND CONGRATULATIONS, KATE, AND TO YOUR. THANK Y'ALL.
AND TO YOUR CLIENTS VERY, VERY MUCH.
CERTAINLY. NEXT WE'LL CALL CASE 20P-047.
[7.A.2. 20P-047 (26011 Flamingo Drive) Request For A Beachfront Construction Certificate/Dune Protection Permit In Order To Construct A Single-Family Dwelling And Driveway. Property Is Legally Described As Lot 6, Block 1, Pointe West – Section One (2005), A Subdivision In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Justin Talasek Property Owner: J Talasek Homes LLC]
[00:15:05]
GOOD AFTERNOON, FOLKS. THIS IS DUSTIN HENRY SPEAKING.CASE 20P-047 IS TWO ZERO, EXCUSE ME TWO SIX ZERO ONE ONE FLAMINGO DRIVE LOCATED A FEW LOTS TO THE WEST OF THE PREVIOUS CASE YOU CONSIDERED.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE AND A PRODUCTION PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
INFORMATION ABOUT THE LOCATION IS ON PAGE ONE OF YOUR STAFF REPORT.
IT'S A POINT TWO FOUR ACRE LOT.
THE CONSTRUCTION BEING PROPOSED IS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THIS APPLICATION.
BUT THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ARE ALL LANDWARD OF THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE AND DUNE CONSERVATION AREA. DETAILS ABOUT THE PROJECT ARE ON PAGE TWO AND THREE AND FOUR OF YOUR STAFF REPORT. THE APPLICATION MATERIALS HAD NOTED THE [INAUDIBLE] THE PAVING WOULD BE REINFORCED CONCRETE.
I DID SPEAK WITH THE APPLICANT AFTER THE STAFF REPORT WAS PUBLISHED AND THEY CLARIFIED THAT THEY'LL BE PROPOSING TO USE FIBER REINFORCED CONCRETE OR FIBERCRETE IN THOSE AREAS INSTEAD. AND SO THAT'S A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING.
BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THE APPLICANT IS INTENDING TO DO THAT ALREADY.
OTHER THAN THAT, EVERYTHING ELSE APPEARS TO CONFORM TO THE BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOUND IN OUR PLAN AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST WITH CONDITIONS ONE THROUGH TEN SPECIFIC TO THIS CASE AND ELEVEN THROUGH SIXTEEN BEING STANDARD FOR BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.
AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS, OUR PRESENTATION.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AGAIN, LOOKS REAL FAMILIAR TO THE LAST CASE, JUST ABOUT SIX OR SEVEN LOTS TO THE WEST.
SO HERE'S YOUR AERIAL PHOTO WITH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTED.
NEXT SLIDE, AND IT SHOULD BE THE SITE PLAN.
SO THEY INDICATE THE CONSTRUCTION BEING ALL LANDWARD TO THE DUNE PRODUCTION LINE HERE.
AND NEXT SLIDE IS A GROUND FLOOR PLAN, SO IT MIGHT BE HARD TO SEE ON THIS PLAN, BUT THE DRAWING, INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET, SAYS IT'S CONCRETE.
BUT AGAIN, THE APPLICANTS REASSURED US THAT IT'LL BE FIBERCRETE.
AND NEXT SLIDE AND SHOULD BE THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS.
YEAH. THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS, AND THEN THE NEXT SLIDE IS SOME 3D RENDERINGS.
AND THEN AFTER THIS, PHOTOS OF THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND WEST AND THE ONE TAKEN FROM THE BEACH LOOKING TOWARD THE [INAUDIBLE] PROPERTY AND THIS CONCLUDES OUR STAFF REPORT.
COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY. DUSTIN I HAVE A QUESTION, MAYBE THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT, BECAUSE I THERE ARE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PLAN REVIEW SHEETS.
ONE A SHOWS A POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARD THE BEACH, BECAUSE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT'S PROHIBITED BY THE GLO.
YEAH, WE COULD HAVE THE APPLICANT CLARIFY, BUT THAT DOES LOOK LIKE SOME OF THE DRAINAGE IS DIRECTED TOWARDS THE BEACH AND DUNES.
RIGHT, RIGHT. AND THAT'S ALWAYS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE GLO'S APPROVAL.
SO WE NEED TO CLARIFY THAT, I THINK, WITH THE APPLICANT AND ALSO I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION PERHAPS YOU CAN ANSWER.
IT'S PROBABLY AN APPLICANT QUESTION.
IT LOOKS LIKE THIS WITH [INAUDIBLE] GENERATED.
THE SPRINKLERS ARE INSIDE THE TWENTY FIVE FOOT LINE OF THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE ON SHEET TWO [INAUDIBLE] EIGHT TWO.
SO WE SHOULD CLARIFY THAT WITH THE APPLICANT.
YEAH. WE'LL GET CLARIFICATION ON IF THEY'RE PLANNING THOSE SPRINKLERS TO BE IN THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE AREA AS WELL.
YES. THANK YOU. OK, THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONERS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? YES SIR. COMMISSIONER WALLA.
HEY, DUSTIN, I GOT A QUICK QUESTION.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE THIS, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCEDURE OF THIS IS THAT STAFF LOOKS OVER THESE AND YOU LOOK OVER THEM.
YOU'RE OUR COASTAL RESOURCES GUY.
AND THEN THE GLO LOOKS OVER THESE AND THEN THEY'RE SENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR AN
[00:20:01]
APPROVAL. SO MY QUESTION IS, WHERE IS IT THEY'RE BEING SENT TO US? IS THAT GLO REQUIREMENT? IS THAT PART OF THE COMP PLAN? IS IT PART OF THE BEACH ACCESS PLAN? I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY EVERYBODY LOOKS AT THIS WHEN IT COMES TO PLANNING COMMISSION.WELL, SURE. YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
THE REQUIREMENT TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS IN THE CITY'S DUNE PROTECTION AND BEACH ACCESS PLAN.
SO THAT'S LOCALLY DECIDED A REQUIREMENT.
THE STATE'S RULES IN THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.
I BELIEVE THEY ONLY REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING IF AN APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DO ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE ADVERSE EFFECTS TO DUNES OR DUNE VEGETATION AND WOULD RESULT IN THE NEED FOR A MITIGATION PLAN.
FROM MY REVIEW OF THEIR RULES.
THAT'S THE ONLY TIME THEY REQUIRE A COMMISSIONER'S COURT OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS APPROVING AUTHORITY TO REVIEW AND APPROVE PROJECTS.
SOME COMMUNITIES PROJECTS LIKE THIS GO TO CITY COUNCIL.
I THINK BACK IN THE 70S OR 80S, THESE THINGS USED TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL AND THEY'VE SINCE DESIGNATED THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY.
SO AGAIN, IT'S A LOCALLY ADOPTED RULE.
IT LOOKS LIKE THE DECISION WAS MADE AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST WHEN CONSTRUCTION IS BEING PROPOSED WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE AND THEN IT GOES BEFORE THIS COMMISSION. OK, HEY, THANKS.
THANK. OK, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? SEEING NONE, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 20P-047 AT 3:52 P.M.
. IS THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE? JUSTIN, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND PRESS STAR SIX ON YOUR PHONE TO UNMUTE.
YES, JUSTIN TALASEK, I'M PRESIDENT.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO TELL THE COMMISSION ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT BEFORE THEY ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT IT? NOT SPECIFICALLY.
THE DRAINAGE AREAS WERE PRETTY GENERAL FROM OUR ARCHITECTS, SO WE ACTUALLY WON'T BE.
AND I SPOKE TO DUSTIN ABOUT THAT, AS WELL AS THE IRRIGATION AND THE FIBERCRETE.
SO WE ACTUALLY MADE THOSE CHANGES IN JUST SO YOU GUYS KNOW, ALL THE ALL THE PROPERTY IN POINT LEFT IS ACTUALLY PRETTY FLAT BESIDE THE INTERIOR LOTS AND INTERIOR LOTS HAVE SWELLS. BUT ALL THE BEACH FRONT ARE ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, RATHER FLAT, HAVE A FLAT TOPOGRAPHY, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
SO THE REALLY THE DRAINAGE IS GOING TO BE.
YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY GOING TO BE MITIGATED THROUGH THROUGH THE SOD, IN A SENSE.
OK, SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THERE WILL BE NO POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARD THE BEACH? YES, MA'AM. THAT IS THAT IS CORRECT.
AND WHAT YOU'RE ALSO SAYING IS THAT THE QUESTION THAT COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY HAD EARLIER WAS ABOUT BOTH THE POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARD THE BEACH AND ABOUT THE DRAWING WHERE YOU SHOWED SPRINKLER OR IRRIGATION HEADS IN A.2 THAT GO OUT INTO THE DUNE AREA.
AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT THOSE SPRINKLERS, SPRINKLERS WILL NOT ACTUALLY COVER THAT AREA.
THAT IS CORRECT. THE SPRINKLERS WILL ACTUALLY STOP ON THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY.
SIR, YOU OWN THE PROPERTY THAT'S INSIDE THE I MEAN, THE YOUR CLIENT OWNS THE PROPERTY INSIDE THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE.
SO THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SEEING IT HERE.
UNLESS YOU HAVE A MITIGATION PLAN, SO I MEAN, BY ALL ACCOUNTS, I THINK THIS IS JUST AN OVERSIGHT ON THE ARCHITECT'S PART, NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY HAVE TO STAY AWAY FROM THE DUNE PROTECTION AREA.
SO I WOULD LIKE I MEAN, IT WOULD MAKE ME FEEL BETTER IF THE DRAWINGS WERE CORRECTED FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD SO THAT YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE.
YOU KNOW. THAT YOU'RE STAYING AWAY FROM THE DOING PROTECTION AREA.
AND COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY, WE COULD ACCOMPLISH THAT ALSO BY ADDING A SPECIFIC CONDITION THAT COVERS THOSE TWO ITEMS, SINCE WE HAVE THE FIBERCRETE ALREADY COVERED IN A IN A
[00:25:06]
SPECIFIC CONDITION, EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE REPRESENTED THAT THEY'RE GOING TO CORRECT THAT, WE COULD ALSO SIMPLY ADD A SPECIFIC CONDITION FOR THE IRRIGATION AND THE DRAINAGE WITHIN THAT DUNE PROTECTION LINE.COULDN'T WE, WOULDN'T THAT COVER FOR YOU, COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY? SURE. OK. RIGHT.
RIGHT. WE JUST WE JUST NEED TO MAKE IT OBVIOUS, I THINK, TO THE TO WHOEVER LOOKS AT THE PLANS THAT THIS IS NOT CORRECT.
OK, SO MAYBE WE COULD COVER THAT WHEN WE MAKE THE MOTION.
WHEN THAT WOULD BE AMENABLE TO YOU WITH THE PLANS? IS IT JUSTIN? YES, MA'AM.
AND JUST SO JUST SO I UNDERSTAND THE DETAILS, BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY HAVE ANOTHER ONE COMING UP HERE RATHER QUICKLY TWO LOTS DOWN.
SO WHEN YOU SAY THE DUNE PROTECTION, ARE YOU ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT I CANNOT IRRIGATE MY PROPERTY? [INAUDIBLE] YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T, I MEAN, JUSTIN, DUSTIN NEEDS TO SPEAK TO THAT. THANK YOU. OK, DUSTIN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT? SURE, THE DUNE, THE CITY'S DUNE PROTECTION AND BEACH ACCESS PLAN DOES SAY THERE'S TO BE NO PAVING OR ALTERING THE GROUND [INAUDIBLE] TO THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE.
IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY CALL OUT IN GROUND IRRIGATION AS A PROHIBITED ACTIVITY, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S KIND OF THE DIRECTION THE COMMISSION IS GOING.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE STANDARDS SPECIFIC TO IRRIGATION BEING INTERPRETED AS PAVING OR ALTERING THE GROUND [INAUDIBLE] OF THIS AREA, OR [INAUDIBLE] TO THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE, THAT IS. I THINK THE POINT.
DUSTIN MY READING OF THE DUNE PROTECTION PLAN AND THE DUNE PROTECTION ACT IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A MITIGATION PLAN.
IF YOU'RE INSIDE THE TWENTY FIVE FOOT LINE.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO DEVELOP A MITIGATION PLAN AND WE'D HAVE TO SEE ONE, BECAUSE BY ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, THE CONSTRUCTION IS OUTSIDE THE TWENTY FIVE FOOT LINE.
BUT, YOU KNOW, THE ARCHITECTS ARE SHOWING SPRINKLER SYSTEMS THAT ARE INFILTRATING THE DUNE PROTECTION AREA.
SO THAT'S MY POINT IS THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING INSIDE THE TWENTY FIVE FOOT LINE, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A MITIGATION PLAN FOR IT.
RIGHT. IF YOU DON'T DO ANYTHING, THEN YOU DON'T NEED A MITIGATION PLAN.
THAT IS CORRECT, AND WE ACTUALLY DO NOT PLAN AND YOU WERE ACCURATE WITH YOUR RESPONSE ORIGINALLY. THIS IS RATHER A GENERAL DRAWING OF A LANDSCAPE VEGETATION LEGEND.
SO IT IS GENERAL. SO THAT'S AN EASY FIX FOR US.
WE CAN TAKE THE GENERAL CIRCLES OR WHAT HAVE YOU OFF IN THE IN THE BACK JUST TO TAKE THOSE OFF THE LANDSCAPE LEGEND IN A SENSE.
YOU WERE RIGHT WITH YOUR FIRST COMMENT.
IT'S REALLY JUST A IT WAS A GENERAL DRAWING BY THE ARCHITECTS SHOWING WHAT'S REALLY NOT EVEN WATER SPRING IN THE YARD IN A SENSE.
APPLICANT TO MAKE SURE THE SET OF DRAWINGS TURNED IN FOR BUILDING PERMIT MATCH THE COMMISSION'S CONDITIONS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT, COMMISSIONER? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE AND WE HAD NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:59 P.M.
AND ENTERTAINED A MOTION ON [INAUDIBLE] 20P-047.
OK, IF YOU'LL JUST GIVE ME A SECOND.
I'M TRYING TO CRAFT THE MOTION.
I RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 20P-043 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ADDED.
WE ACCEPT 20P-047 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ADDED, THAT THE PLAN REVIEW SHEETS BE CORRECTED IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM FROM WITHIN THE DUNE PROTECTION AREA.
[00:30:04]
AND THAT THE POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARD THE BEACH BE REMEDIED IN SOME WAY.DUSTIN, CAN YOU HELP ME WITH THAT? I MEAN, WE NEED TO ACCEPT THE GLO'S RECOMMENDATIONS THAT DRAINAGE DOES NOT FLOW TOWARD THE BEACH. [INAUDIBLE] THIS IS DONNA FAIRWEATHER, WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO JUST SIMPLY STATE THAT THERE SHALL NOT BE ANY POSITIVE FLOW TO THE BEACH? SURE, YEAH. I MEAN, WE, YOU KNOW WE HAVE IT.
YEAH IT'S SPECIFIC CONDITION, NUMBER 10 IN THE STAFF REPORT OF THE CONDITIONS ARE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
NOTE THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD, IS NOT ALLOWED TO RESULT IN ANY RUNOFF OR DRAINAGE PATTERNS THAT AGGRAVATE EROSION OR CAUSE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO DUNE HYDROLOGY OR ADVERSELY AFFECT THE DUNE COMPLEXES OR DUNE VEGETATION.
SO WE HAVE, AS THE APPLICANT MENTIONED, IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE AMENABLE TO PERMITTING THOSE, THE MODIFYING THE PLANTS TO REFLECT THAT.
AND I THINK JUSTIN, I'M SORRY, BUT THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
SO I THINK THAT THE OUR CHANGES OR OUR ADDITIONS OF SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SINCE EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW THAT THEY'RE GOING TO ADD THE FIBERCRETE AND TAKE AWAY THE CONCRETE, WE STILL HAVE IT IN IS A SPECIFIC CONDITION.
SO I THINK WE JUST ADD A SPECIFIC CONDITION SAYING THAT THEY WILL ELIMINATE ANY POSITIVE FLOW. AND THEN ALSO THAT WE ADD ANOTHER CONDITION ABOUT THE ELIMINATE IRRIGATION WITHIN THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE.
THE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AND THE IRRIGATION.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING, COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY? YES, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.
YOUR DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NO DISCUSSION, LET'S CALL THE VOTE ON CASE 20P-047 PLEASE, COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI.
I'M IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER, VICE CHAIRPERSON BROWN.
IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY.
ALL IN FAVOR, THE MOTION PASSES.
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE APPLICANT AND HAPPY BUILDING.
THANKS FOR BEING SO AMENABLE TO THE CHANGES.
NEXT, WE'LL TAKE UP CASE 20P-046, PLEASE.
[7.B.1. 20P-046 (Alley Adjacent To 1102 Seawall; 1128 Seawall; 1101, 1111, 1113, And 1115 Avenue M ½; And 1410 12th Street )]
ALL RIGHTY. 20P-046.THIS IS THE MID BLOCK ALLEY, RIGHT OF WAY ADJACENT TO 1128 SEAWALL AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH. THIS IS AN ABANDONMENT REQUEST.
THERE WERE FORTY ONE PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.
SIX WERE OPPOSED AND ONE WAS RETURNED WITH NO COMMENT.
THE APPLICANT, ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS REQUESTING ABANDONMENT OF A THREE HUNDRED LINEAR FOOT OF MID BLOCK ALLEY RIGHT OF WAY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTIES.
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE BEING REQUESTED OF SIX THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT, APPROXIMATELY 20 FOOT WIDE AND THREE HUNDRED FEET LONG.
AFTER THE ABANDONMENT IS APPROVED THE SECTION OF RIGHT OF WAY IN QUESTION WILL BE PURCHASED BY THE APPLICANTS, REPLATED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
THE SECTION OF ALLEY IS GENERALLY UNIMPROVED AND UNUSED CURRENTLY.
PLEASE NOTE THE ZONING AND LAND USE NOTES IN THE STAFF REPORT.
STAFF FINDS THE ABANDONMENT WILL NOT IMPACT THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.
THE ADJACENT PARCELS ARE ALL CURRENTLY VACANT.
THUS, THE ALLY IN QUESTION IS NOT USED FOR ANY VEHICLE ACCESS TO THE ADJACENT LOTS.
IN ADDITION IS ADJACENT TO SEAWALL BOULEVARD.
THEREFORE, THERE'S DIRECT ACCESS TO 11TH AND 12TH STREETS NEAR AT HAND.
FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICE COMMENTS CENTERPOINT ENERGY REQUESTS A STREET ALLEY CLOSURE.
APPLICATION BE SUBMITTED WITH ANY RIGHT OF WAY ABANDONMENT REQUEST.
THIS IS PRETTY STANDARD FOR THEM.
IF THERE ARE ANY OBJECTIONS FROM CENTERPOINT, THE APPLICANT WILL NOTIFY THE CITY AND RESOLVE THE OBJECTION WITH CENTERPOINT PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE ABANDONMENT.
PUBLIC WORKS KNOW THAT THERE IS AN EXISTING WATER LINE AND SANITARY SEWER IN THE ALLEY RIGHT OF WAY THAT MUST BE RELOCATED AND HAS A REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT OR THEIR DESIGN PROFESSIONALS COORDINATE THE RELOCATION BEFORE THE ABANDONMENT IS COMPLETED.
[00:35:01]
CITY COUNCIL HAS A FINAL DECISION REGARDING THIS REQUEST.THEY WILL HEAR THAT REQUEST ON THE JANUARY 20, 2021.
STAFF RECOMMENDS REQUEST BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.
NUMBER ONE, THE APPLICANT, SHALL REPLAT THE ABANDONED RIGHT OF WAY NO LATER THAN JULY 28, 2021. THE APPLICANTS SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF GALVESTON OF ANY OBJECTIONS FROM CENTERPOINT ENERGY AND RESOLVE SAID OBJECTIONS.
EMERGENCY ACCESS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AS APPROPRIATE.
ANY EXISTING UTILITIES IN THE RIGHT OF WAY MUST BE LOCATED PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF THE ABANDONMENT AND FILING OF A REPLAT PLUS TENANT CONDITIONS FIVE THROUGH EIGHT.
SO THIS IS THE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY KIND OF LOOKING GENERALLY TO I BELIEVE THE NORTHEAST FROM, YOU KNOW, NEAR SEAWALL.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE IS THE AERIAL MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTY IN THE ALLEY THAT'S PROPOSED TO BE ABANDONED IN A SURVEY FOR REFERENCE.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IT'S, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY AN ENTIRE CITY BLOCK, LOOKING NORTH, LOOKING EAST, LOOKING SOUTH AND LOOKING WEST.
AND THIS INCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
SO I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS, ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT'S SPLIT ZONING, AND I GUESS IF WE GO BACK TO THE AERIAL MAP.
WE CAN SEE THAT THE NORTH WEST, MAYBE IT'S THE BROWN AREA IS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, WHICH IT'S THAT'S AN OVERLAY THAT'S SET UP BY THE LDRS.
AND THEN THE RED PART IS COMMERCIAL.
AND SO I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, DANIEL, SOME OF THE SPECIFICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE IN A LOT OF INSTANCES THAT OVERLAY REQUIRES THE OK OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AS WELL AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR LANDMARK COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION. AND THEN FINALLY, CITY COUNCIL.
WOULD LANDMARK COMMISSION CONSULTATION COME INTO PLAY ON THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY ONLY IF THEY ASK FOR A REZONING? I MEAN, I'M JUST I'M JUST SEEING THIS ALLEYWAY THAT IS RIGHT ON THE EDGE BETWEEN THE OVERLAY OF THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY AND COMMERCIAL.
DOES THAT IMPACT US IN ANY WAY ON THIS PARTICULAR MATTER? AS FAR AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT GOES.
AND, YOU KNOW, CATHERINE, BEING OUR HBO CAN DEFINITELY CLARIFY.
THE SAN JACINTO NCD STANDARDS, DESIGN STANDARDS GENERALLY APPLY TO NEW CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION. THEY DON'T NECESSARILY APPLY A LOT TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, JUST MOSTLY RESIDENTIAL AND LANDMARK COMMISSION DOESN'T GENERALLY HAVE ANY SPECIFIC REVIEW OVER THOSE SORTS OF PROJECTS.
IS THAT ABOUT RIGHT, CATHERINE? THAT IS CORRECT DANIEL.
IF THE APPLICANT WAS GOING TO SEEK A ZONING CHANGE IN THE FUTURE TO CHANGE THE PROPERTY'S ZONING DESIGNATION ON THE NORTH, TO REMOVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, THEN THE LANDMARK COMMISSION WOULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ABOUT THAT.
OK, SO LAND, JUST SO I'LL UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS AND SO WE CAN HELP EVERYBODY WHO HAS EXPRESSED ANY KIND OF CONCERN IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE WOULD BE BASICALLY A THREE TIERED PROCESS TO ANY TYPE OF REZONING THAT WAS DONE, CATHERINE.
THEY WOULD FIRST GO, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THROUGH LANDMARK, THROUGH PLANNING AND THEN TO CITY COUNCIL.
OK, GREAT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE ANYONE WHO HAS EXPRESSED CONCERN DOES UNDERSTAND THAT AND THAT THAT PROCESS WOULD INVOLVE TWO HUNDRED FOOT NOTICES, CORRECT? CORRECT. OK, THANK YOU.
ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF COMMISSIONERS? YES, I SEE. COMMISSIONER BROWN'S HAND, VICE CHAIR BROWN.
YES. TO FOLLOW UP WITH THAT SAME COMMENT.
WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING TO DO IS A WOULD BE A MIXED USE PROJECT.
YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A CONVENIENCE STORE, RESIDENTIAL, PARKING AND FOOD SERVICE.
SO IT SEEMS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO SOMETHING IN ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE THE ZONING ON THAT SITE, AS YOU WERE ALLUDING TO, CHAIRMAN HILL.
YOU KNOW, AND SO AND GO THROUGH THAT THREE STEP PROCESS.
AND WOULD THAT I ASSUME, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M MISTAKEN ABOUT THIS, BUT WHATEVER ZONING
[00:40:03]
THEY COME UP WITH, IT WAS GONNA ALLOW WOULD ALLOW THAT MIXED USE WOULD HAVE WOULD STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE HIGH INTENSITY DENSITY OVERLAY.SO, YOU KNOW, THE UNLESS I MEAN, THE OVERLAYS ARE GOING TO REMAIN A LEAST [INAUDIBLE] FOR SURE, WOULD REMAIN REGARDLESS.
AND OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, THE BASE ZONING LAND USES BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD DO DIFFER A LITTLE BIT AS FAR AS WHAT IS ALLOWED.
THE APPLICANT HAS NOT AT THIS POINT INDICATED YOU KNOW WHAT OF THEIR SEVERAL OPTIONS.
THEY HAVE INDICATED THEY'RE GOING TO PURSUE.
THEY DO HAVE SOME OPTIONS, THOUGH.
YEAH, I WAS JUST GOING ON THIS EXHIBIT A THING THAT WE GOT, I GUESS THIS AFTERNOON.
THIS WRITTEN NARRATIVE, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION ON THE ALLEY ABANDONMENT.
AND IT DESCRIBED A LOT OF THINGS, A SIX STORY BUILDING THAT INCLUDED ALL OF THOSE THINGS, A CONVENIENCE STORE, RESIDENTIAL UNITS, PARKING AND FOODSERVICE ALL IN THAT LOT.
SO THEY WOULD BASICALLY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL THOSE ZONINGS AND OVERLAYS YOU KNOW AS THEY APPLY.
OK, SO HIGH DENSITY WOULD APPLY TO THE ENTIRE PROJECT, REGARDLESS OF THE ZONING CATEGORY THAT THEY CAME UP WITH TO ACCOMMODATE ALL BUSINESSES? I WOULD APPLY THE [INAUDIBLE] DESIGNATED AREA.
THAT WAS MY QUESTION. OH, I'M SORRY.
ONE MORE ON ATTACHMENT B, WHICH IS A SURVEY THAT YOU WERE SHOWING EARLIER, THERE IS A PARCEL AT THE I GUESS THE FAR SOUTH PART OF THE PLAN NEXT TO THE SEAWALL BOULEVARD THAT SHOWS THE CITY OF GALVESTON RIGHT OF WAY.
THAT WOULD BE AN EXTENSION OF [INAUDIBLE] AVENUE.
THIS IS [INAUDIBLE]. I BELIEVE THAT THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT MAPS, FOR EXAMPLE, SHOW THAT THAT WAS ABANDONED AND TAKEN INTO PRIVATE PROPERTY AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST, AND THE APPLICANTS MAY HAVE SOME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT.
BUT AS FAR AS STAFF CAN TELL, THAT LITTLE BIT OF AVENUE N HAS ACTUALLY BEEN, EVEN THOUGH IT'S PAVED STILL, I BELIEVE THAT THAT RIGHT OF WAY WAS ABANDONED AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST. YEAH, YOUR APPRAISAL MAP DOESN'T SHOW IT BEING THERE, BUT YOUR SURVEY DOES.
SO I'M JUST GUESSING YOUR APPRAISAL MAP IS CORRECT.
AND THAT SURVEY [INAUDIBLE]. SO, BOB, LET'S HOLD THAT LET'S RE-ASK THAT QUESTION WHEN THE APPLICANT IS ON THE LINE, PLEASE SIR.
OK. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT.
THANK YOU. OK, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR DANIEL OR PLANNING STAFF.
IN THE CASE REPORT IT NOTES THAT THE APPLICANT WILL COORDINATE WITH THE CITY WITH REGARD TO THE RIGHT OF WAY RELOCATION.
I MEAN, THE RELOCATIONS OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
WHO PAYS FOR THAT? PAYS FOR THE RELOCATION OF THE CITY WATER AND SEWER? SO, YEAH, I VERIFIED WITH OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WITH ANGELO GRASSO EARLIER TODAY, AND HE INDICATED THAT THAT WILL BE THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE OF.
AND HE DID NOT ANTICIPATE ANY CITY FUNDS BEING USED FOR THAT.
OK, IT DIDN'T STATE THAT SPECIFICALLY, IS THAT A STANDARD CONDITION THEN? WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED A STANDARD CONDITION? THAT I'M NOT SURE ABOUT.
THAT MAY BE A BETTER QUESTION FOR CATHERINE OR DONNA.
I BELIEVE THAT'S HOW PUBLIC WORKS.
THAT'S THEIR, THAT'S THEIR, I GUESS, OPINION ABOUT THIS SO THAT'S THEIR JUDGMENT.
I'D SAY THAT WAS A STANDARD POLICY OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
AND THAT IS CORRECT IS PRIVATE PROPERTY.
AND SO IF IT WERE PUBLIC PROPERTY, THEN WE'D GET THE UTILITIES INVOLVED IN WHAT THEIR RELOCATION STANDARDS ARE, EITHER IN EITHER FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS AND WHATNOT.
BUT THIS WOULD BE THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBILITY.
I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, CAROL.
JUST A SECOND. SO JUST SO I UNDERSTAND, IS THAT NOT SOMETHING THAT WE NORMALLY WRITE IN AS A SPECIFIC CONDITION ABOUT WHO PAYS FOR WHAT, DONNA? YEAH, I HAVE NOT TYPICALLY SEEN THAT WRITTEN IN AS WHO PAYS FOR WHAT.
THERE WILL BE, OF COURSE, AN APPRAISAL AND THERE WILL BE FUNDS OF COURSE, EXPENDED IN THIS CASE. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THIS COMMISSION SHOULD, I GUESS, DELEGATE.
OK, COMMISSIONER I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE, DONNA, BECAUSE THAT WAS IN THE CASE REPORT THAT THE
[00:45:03]
APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FOR PAYING FOR THE APPRAISAL, I SUPPOSE.BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR RELOCATING INFRASTRUCTURE.
THAT'S WHY I HAD THAT QUESTION.
RIGHT. THAT'S TYPICALLY AN ISSUE WITH THE DEPARTMENTS AND THE APPLICANTS.
COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY DID YOU HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? WELL, I MEAN, IT MAY BE PREMATURE AND I REALLY, OH ONE OF THE THINGS WE OR DANIEL DIDN'T SAY THAT THERE WERE SIX OPPOSITIONS.
I KNOW WE HAVE THE COMMENTS, THAT WILL BE PART OF THE RECORD, BUT WERE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I MEAN, THERE WERE SIX OPPOSITIONS.
WOULD YOU TELL US JUST GENERALLY WHAT THOSE WERE, DANIEL? SURE. GENERALLY SPEAKING, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT I'M GOING THROUGH THESE HERE AT THE MOMENT JUST TO REFRESH MY MEMORY.
OF COURSE, SOME WERE DID NOT OFFER A SPECIFIC OPINION OTHER THAN YOU KNOW OPPOSE.
BUT WHAT WAS NOTED SEEMED TO BE MORE OF A WELL ASSOCIATED WITH CONCERNS ABOUT LAND USE AND WHAT COULD BE DEVELOPED THERE.
YEAH MY UNDERSTANDING OF MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO FOR FUELING STATIONS IS THAT THOSE ARE LIMITED USES AND THEY HAVE LIMITED USE STANDARDS FOR BOTH.
AND OF COURSE, THIS IS JUMPING THE GUN.
I UNDERSTAND. BUT I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE POSSIBILITY OF THIS ACTUALLY BECOMING A REALITY AND THIS THERE ARE MANY HURDLES AHEAD OF THE APPLICANT WITH REGARD TO USE THESE USES IN THIS PARTICULAR SPOT.
SO WE'LL TALK TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT THAT.
COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY. COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT OR QUESTION? YES, I HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
IN TERMS OF AN APPLICATION FOR ABANDONMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY.
IS A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION NECESSARY? IS THAT A PART OF THE APPLICATION OR COULD THEY JUST REQUEST AN ABANDONMENT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO MERGE THE PROPERTIES TOGETHER? YEAH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY A REQUIREMENT.
OFTEN THE QUESTION COMES UP, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S A REQUIREMENT ON OUR APPLICATIONS. NO. OK, THANK YOU AND MY QUESTION OR MY COMMENT, ALSO, COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI GOES TOWARD THE SAME THING AND I GUESS IT'S MORE OF A COMMENT, BUT I WOULD LIKE FOR DONNA TO CHIME IN ON THIS.
THAT IF WE CONSIDER THIS PROPOSED PROJECT LETTER THAT WE RECEIVED AS PART OF OUR PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY, IT'S IN MAKING OUR DECISION ON THIS ABANDONMENT, IT'S ALMOST LIKE LOOKING AT AN APPRAISED VALUE OF A PROPERTY AND COMPARING IT TO AN ASKING PRICE VERSUS WHAT SOMEONE HAS ALREADY GOTTEN FOR THE PROPERTY.
SO IT'S NOT REALLY SOMETHING THAT'S TRULY IN PLAY YET.
THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY, IS THAT A VALID POINT, DONNA? IN SITUATIONS SUCH AS THIS? AGAIN, THE FUTURE USES OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT NECESSARILY THE PURVIEW OF THIS BOARD.
IT'S REALLY SIMPLY LOOKING AT THE REQUEST FOR THE ABANDONMENT.
UNDER A NUMBER OF REASONS WHY SOME WOULD WANT TO ABANDON THIS ALLEYWAY, NOT EVEN FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. SO I WOULD JUST KEEP IT SIMPLE AND KEEP TO THE REQUEST THAT'S BEEN ASKED. OK, THANK YOU, DONNA.
AND SO JUST KEEP OUR EYE ON THE BALL AT HAND.
JUST THE MATTER THAT'S STRICTLY BEFORE US.
OK, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 20P-046 AT 4:19 P.M..
IS THE APPLICANT ON THE PHONE? THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE PHONE, SO WHOEVER WANTS TO BE THE LEAD WOULD PRESS STAR SIX AND THEN YOU CAN BE ABLE TO SPEAK.
GOOD AFTERNOON MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS MARY VILLAREAL WITH THE INTERFIELD GROUP.
[00:50:01]
ON BEHALF OF OUR CLIENT, WE'D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THE REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THIS ALLEY ABANDONMENT APPLICATION.AS DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS PLANNED CONVENIENCE STORE WITH APPROXIMATELY 20 MPDS FACING SEAWALL BOULEVARD, A PARKING GARAGE AND APARTMENT CONDOMINIUMS IN THE ABOVE LEVEL. APARTMENT CONDOMINIUMS WILL BE LOCATED ON THE FOURTH AND SIXTH FLOOR WITH APPROXIMATELY 18 THOUSAND SQUARE FEET UNUSABLE AREA.
APPROXIMATELY 20 PERCENT OF THE FLOOR AREA WILL BE FOR CIRCULATION, AND REMAINING AREA WILL CONSIST OF UNITS.
UNITS WILL RANGE FROM APPROXIMATELY EIGHT HUNDRED TO TWELVE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET AND POSSIBLY LARGER FOR SOME LUXURY UNITS.
THE [INAUDIBLE] SORRY, ALSO PLANS TO PROVIDE AMENITIES LIKE PERHAPS AN OUTDOOR PATIO AND POSSIBLY A POOL.
WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE ARE EXISTING WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LINES THAT WILL NEED TO BE ROUTED AS WELL AS RECONNECTING THAT I BELIEVE THEY DIG ONE PROPERTY THAT IS CURRENTLY UTILIZING THESE FACILITIES.
PLANS WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS A NEED TO TAKE CONCERNS OR NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS AS A CONSIDERATION WHEN DESIGNING THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IN THEIR AREA.
WE ARE IN THE BEGINNING STAGES OF THIS PROJECT.
WE PLAN TO FINALIZE A SCHEMATIC DESIGN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
WE WOULD WELCOME CONVERSATIONS WITH NEIGHBORS AND WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO COORDINATE A ZOOM MEETING TO DISCUSS SCHEMATIC DESIGN OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
DEVELOPMENT WILL MAINTAIN A HIGH STANDARD OF COMMERCIAL CHARACTER WHILE PROVIDING CONTEMPORARY STYLE LIVING SPACES, WHICH WE BELIEVE WILL ATTRACT A BROADER RANGE OF POTENTIAL RESIDENTS AND PATRONS TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
WE ALSO BELIEVE THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL ENHANCE THE BOULEVARD BY THE OCEAN SEA, CREATE JOBS AND LIVING SPACES TO BE ENJOYED BY RESIDENTS FOR YEARS TO COME, AS WELL AS BEING AN ASSET TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A CHALLENGE AND WE ARE GOING TO WORK CLOSELY WITH THAT IN REGARD TO ZONING, ANY APPROVALS THAT ARE NEEDED THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
WE DO HOPE THAT THESE IMPROVEMENTS WILL MEET WITH YOUR APPROVAL.
WE DO HAVE THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER ARE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
AND AGAIN, THANK YOU SO MUCH AND HAPPY NEW YEAR TO EVERYONE.
THANK YOU FOR A WELL-PREPARED AND CONCISE STATEMENT.
I DON'T BELIEVE WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK FOR THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE ARCHITECT OR ENGINEERS AT THIS TIME BECAUSE I THINK THAT THEIR INVOLVEMENT FALLS OUTSIDE OF THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMISSION AT THIS TIME.
BUT THANK YOU FOR HAVING THEM THERE AND HAVING THEM AVAILABLE.
COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. VILLAREAL? VICE CHAIR BROWN.
YES, THAT WAS A VERY WELL PREPARED STATEMENT AND A VERY INFORMATIVE THANK YOU FOR THAT.
AND I HAVE YOU SEEN THE COMMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED FROM THE PUBLIC TO THE COMMISSION? NO, SIR, I HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH THOSE, BUT I WOULD BE HAPPY TO RECEIVE THEM, TO REVIEW THEM AND AGAIN, I WOULD ALSO BE HAPPY TO HAVE ANY CONVERSATION AND SET UP ANY TIME FRAME THAT WE CAN DISCUSS THE CONCERNS WITH NEIGHBORS IN ORDER TO SEE HOW WE CAN INCORPORATE THEIR CONCERNS INTO THE PROJECT.
I KNOW THIS [INAUDIBLE] OF DEVELOPMENT IS THAT VERY IMPORTANT.
I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD IDEA.
I THINK THAT WOULD GO A LONG WAY FOR YOU AND YOUR PROJECT.
ANOTHER ONE OTHER THING I THINK IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE VERY IMPORTANT IS FOR YOU AND YOUR ARCHITECTS TO BECOME VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE HIGH DENSITY ORDINANCE EARLY ON SO YOU DON'T RUN INTO TROUBLE IN THAT LATER ON.
SOME OTHERS HAVE PROJECTS IN THAT AREA.
THANKS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ON THAT.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER WALLA.
HEY, JEFFREY, I THINK YOU HEADED US HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, A VERY WELL PREPARED PRESENTATION, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO STICK WITH WHAT THE REQUEST IS, AND THAT'S THE ABANDONMENT OF THE ALLEY.
SO YOU WERE HEADED THAT WAY, AT LEAST I THINK YOU WERE.
I DON'T SPEAK FOR YOU, BUT I'D SURE LIKE TO SEE US STAY ON TRACK WITH WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US. SO THAT'S MY [INAUDIBLE].
I AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER WALLA, THAT WE DO HAVE TO KEEP OUR EYE ON THE BALL.
AND I THINK THAT THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT AND THAT THERE ARE DEFINITELY CONSIDERATIONS
[00:55:02]
TO BE MADE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.BUT THAT'S AT A DIFFERENT LAYER OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
EXACTLY. I DO HAVE ONE OTHER REQUEST.
WHEN WE I'D LIKE TO I KNOW IN THE PROTOCOL HAS BEEN THAT WE CLOSE THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND HAVE DISCUSSION.
I DO KNOW THAT IN THE PAST, WHEN WE WOULD BE IN AN OPEN MEETING FORMAT, THAT THE APPLICANTS WERE ENGAGED IN THE DISCUSSIONS.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S POSSIBLE FOR US TO HAVE OUR DISCUSSION DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT OR DURING THIS PUBLIC HEARING PERIOD.
BUT IT WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION AND WE CAN ASK THEM SOME QUESTIONS WHILE WE'RE DOING THAT.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A PROTOCOL PROBLEM.
IT'S A ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDERS QUESTION.
AND WE CAN JUST WE CAN ENGAGE IN DISCUSSION AMONG OURSELVES AS COMMISSION ONLY AFTER THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, WHICH IS WHY WE DO IT THAT WAY.
AND IT'S AFTER WE HAVE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THERE'S A SPECIFIC SET WAY THAT WE HAVE TO DO IT FOR ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDERS.
IF THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT QUESTION, A MATTER THAT WOULD SWAY A VOTE, FOR INSTANCE, THAT REQUIRES IN FURTHER INPUT FROM THE APPLICANT, WE CAN THEN HAVE A MOTION TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SO I GET IT.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY.
EXCUSE ME, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
IN YOUR OPENING, IN YOUR STATEMENT, YOU SAID THAT THERE YOUR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL CONSIST OF A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH 20 MPDS.
AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT AN MPD IS, PLEASE? THAT WAS A QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT, MS. VILLAREAL.
DISPENSER, MULTI-PURPOSE THAT IS [INAUDIBLE]. THAT'S EXACTLY OK.
THAT WOULD BE FOR THE RECORD, BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN STATED.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE APPLICANT READ INTO THE RECORD.
SO THAT'S LIKE A FUELING STATION.
I MEAN, A FUELING PUMP OR SOMETHING.
THAT IS CORRECT. THAT IS CORRECT.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU.
I JUST WANT TO TRY TO STAY ON TASK AGAIN.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ABANDONMENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS BY THE COMMISSION? COULD I JUST ASK FOR THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER TO STATE HIS NAME FOR THE RECORD? MIKE [INAUDIBLE].
THANK YOU. I'M WITH THE INTERFIELD GROUP.
OK, CATHERINE, DO YOU NEED HIM TO SPELL HIS LAST NAME? WE HAVE IT ON RECORD.
[INAUDIBLE] ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS.
NO SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS AND HAVING ALREADY ADDRESSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND INCLUDING IT IN THE RECORD, GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT4:28 P.M.
YES? AND I AND BEFORE YOU CLOSE THE MEETING, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A VERY BRIEF COMMENT.
CERTAINLY. OK, I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AWARE THAT I DO REPRESENT AND MR. [INAUDIBLE], WHO IS ALSO ON THE LINE, WE REPRESENT ALL OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS ALLEY.
THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN, BY AND LARGE, VACANT FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.
AND THE ABANDONMENT OF THIS ALLEY WILL PERMIT THIS PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED IN A FASHION THAT WE BELIEVE WILL BENEFIT THE CITY.
BUT I WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THAT IT HAS BEEN VACANT FOR QUITE A WHILE AND ABANDONMENT OF THE ALLEY IS MORE OR LESS ESSENTIAL TO ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.
ARE THERE ANY OTHERS ON THE APPLICANT SIDE WHO WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? ALL RIGHT, WE WILL OFFICIALLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:30 P.M., AND
[01:00:04]
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON CASE 20P-046.COMMISSIONER BROWN, VICE CHAIR BROWN.
I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS 20P WHATEVER IT IS [INAUDIBLE].
I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND FOR THE RECORD, THE USE ON THIS PROPOSED USE FOR THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY MOTION. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER WALLA.
THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF 20P-046.
COMMISSIONERS, ANYONE HAVE A DISCUSSION OR COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT.
I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT I AGREE WITH VICE CHAIR BROWN IN MY VOTE WILL BE STRICTLY ON THE ABANDONMENT OF THE THE ALLEYWAY AND THAT IT IS NOT AN INDICATION OF HOW MY VOTES WILL GO IN THE FUTURE.
I WILL LISTEN TO ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PLANS WITH AN OPEN MIND AND WILL MOVE FORWARD FROM THERE ON DEVELOPMENT AND WILL ALSO LISTEN ACTIVELY TO THE PUBLIC AND THE SURROUNDING PUBLIC AND WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS ARE ON THIS AFTER THIS VOTE.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE DISCUSSION OR COMMENT? SEEING NONE, CATHERINE, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE VOTE ON THIS? COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI. I'M IN FAVOR.
ALL IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSES.
THANK YOU. AND I'D LIKE TO AGAIN THANK THE APPLICANT, PARTICULARLY MS. VILLAREAL, FOR A VERY CONCISE AND COMPREHENSIVE STATEMENT AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS APPLICATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[7.C.1. 20P-044 (Adjacent To 613 15th Street) Request For A Permanent License To Use For A Structure That Encroaches A City Alley And A Portion Of 15th Street Right-Of-Way. Adjacent Property Is Legally Described As Lots 8 And 9 (8-4), AKA Lot 4 And North 4 Feet Of Lot 3, Block 375, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Adjacent Property Owner: Save 1900 Realty, LLC Applicant: Michael Cordray Easement Holder: City Of Galveston]
NEXT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO CASE 20P-044.THIS IS ADJACENT TO 613 15TH STREET.
IT'S A REQUEST FOR A LICENSE TO USE.
THERE WERE 36 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT AND NONE WERE RETURNED.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A PERMIT LICENSE TO USE TO RETAIN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IN ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION, WHICH ENCROACHES A CITY ALLEY IN A STREET RIGHT OF WAY.
THE EXISTING TWO STORY PORCH AND CRUTCHES TWO POINT TWO FEET INTO THE 15TH STREET BROADWAY AND THE NORTH FAÇADE OF THE STRUCTURE [INAUDIBLE] ONE POINT FIVE FEET INTO THE ALLEY. THE GALVESTON LANDMARK COMMISSION REVIEWED THIS CASE YESTERDAY, AND IT WAS A UNANIMOUS VOTE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST, AND STAFF ALSO RECOMMENDS THAT CASE 20P-044 BE APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS LISTED IN YOUR REPORT AS ONE AND TWO AND THE STANDARD CONDITIONS LISTED AS THREE THROUGH EIGHT.
THIS IS AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS IS THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND WEST.
THIS IS THE SURVEY WHICH YOU SHOULD HAVE AS PART OF YOUR ATTACHMENTS, AND IT CLEARLY SHOWS THE ENCROACHMENT ON THE ALLEY, RIGHT OF WAY AND AS WELL AS THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. THANK YOU, ADRIEL.
IF WE WERE THERE IN PERSON, YOU KNOW, I'D BE GIVING YOU A LOT OF GRIEF ABOUT HAVING TO APPEAR BEFORE US AND ANSWER ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS.
I KNOW YOU WILL. [LAUGHTER] ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHTY. OH, YES, SIR.
COMMISSIONER WALLA. SO MY QUESTION IS THIS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ENCROACHMENTS HAPPEN, THEY'RE NOT UNCOMMON, AND I'M JUST I'M NEVER I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHY.
I MEAN, SO YOU HAVE AN ENCROACHMENT, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS THIS OR ARE THEY BEING REQUIRED TO GET LTU OR IS THIS A REQUEST THAT'S COME DIRECTLY FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER? AND MAYBE IT'S A PROPERTY OWNER QUESTION, BUT I'M JUST I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS AS TO WHY
[01:05:07]
THEY'RE DOING THIS. GREAT QUESTION.SO TYPICALLY, ENCROACHMENTS THAT ARE 12 INCHES OR LESS TYPICALLY ARE HANDLED BY STAFF AT ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL. THESE ARE NOW THESE ARE SOME THINGS THAT COME UP AS YOU ARE IN THE PROCESS OF PURCHASING A HOME AND YOU OBTAIN A SURVEY AND THEN YOU FIND OUT THAT YOUR PROPERTY ENCROACHES. SO THEREFORE, NOW YOU'RE TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION BECAUSE OFTENTIMES LENDERS WILL HAVE ISSUES WITH THAT.
THAT'S WHAT I'VE SEEN FROM MY EXPERIENCE.
I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S THE CASE IN THIS SITUATION, BUT I'VE SEEN THAT IN THE PAST TO BE THE CASE. OK, ANY FOLLOW UP ON THAT COMMISSIONER WALLA OR THAT GOOD? NO MA'AM THANK YOU THAT ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
THANK YOU ADRIEL. ALL RIGHT, GREAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OK, SEEING NONE.
DO WE HAVE, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 20P-044 AT 4:36. AND IS THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE? THE APPLICANT IS NOT ON THE LINE.
WE HAD NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS OR ANY PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WE HAD IS ATTACHED TO THE RECORD IN THE SAME MANNER AS OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS WE'VE RECEIVED.
SO I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:36 AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON CASE 20P-044.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 20P-044 HAVING BEEN, YOU KNOW WHAT, WHAT A HUNDRED AND EIGHT YEARS.
THAT WAY I THINK IT'S OK TO GIVE THEM THEIR, YOU KNOW, CORRECTION.
OK. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PENA.
SOMETIMES I FEEL LIKE I'M AT AN AUCTION.
OK, THERE WE GO. SO THE PADDLES ARE UP.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
COMMISSIONERS, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MATTER? SEEING NONE, CATHERINE, I BELIEVE WE'RE READY TO VOTE.
COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI. I'M IN FAVOR.
VICE CHAIRPERSON JEFFERSON BROWN.
ALL IN FAVOR, THE MOTION PASSES.
NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR DISCUSSION ITEMS. AND CATHERINE, LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THIS.
[8.A. Discussion Of Accessory Dwelling Units And Definition Of “Subordinate” In The Land Development Regulations (Listowski/Hill)]
THE DISCUSSION OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND DEFINITION OF SUBORDINATE IN THE LDRS WAS A MATTER THAT COUNCIL MEMBER LISTOWSKI PUT ON OUR AGENDA, AND HE'S NOT HERE TODAY.SHOULD WE DEFER THAT DISCUSSION UNTIL THE TIME THAT HE'S HERE? IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION.
WE'RE READY TO DISCUSS IT TODAY IF YOU'D LIKE TO BE INTRODUCED TO THE TOPIC [INAUDIBLE] FOR MR. LISTOWSKI TO BE PRESENT.
LET'S JUST GO AHEAD AND GET OUR INTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUE.
AND THEN IF COUNCIL MEMBER LISTOWSKI WANTS TO PUT IT ON THE NEXT AGENDA, WE CAN PUT IT BACK ON. AND THEN THAT WAY HE CAN RAISE HIS POINTS OR LET US KNOW WHAT COUNSEL IS THINKING OR IF HE IF HE WANTS TO TASK US WITH SOMETHING SPECIFIC ON IT.
BUT IF Y'ALL ARE READY, LET'S GET AN OVERVIEW, PLEASE.
SO THANK YOU CATHERINE. SO THIS BASICALLY HAS COME ABOUT FROM SOME DESIGN PROFESSIONALS HERE IN TOWN AND THERE HAVE RAISED SEVERAL GOOD POINTS, I'D SAY, BASED ON THE FACT THAT CURRENTLY OUR REGULATIONS ALLOW FOR A ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT TO BE TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON A SITE THAT ALREADY HAS A PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
BUT THE PROBLEM WITH THAT COMES IN WHEN THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT HAS TO BE SUBORDINATE TO THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE THAT'S ALREADY ON SITE.
THROUGH THE LDR REVISIONS PROCESS.
WE ADDED A DEFINITION FOR SUBORDINATE.
THERE WERE SOME POSSIBLE ISSUES INTERPRETING THAT.
IT WAS REALLY OPEN FOR INTERPRETATION AND IT WAS A TOPIC OF DEBATE AND SOME FOLKS FELT
[01:10:07]
THAT IT COULD BE INTERPRETED IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS.SO WE ADDED A DEFINITION FOR SUBORDINATE THAT CLEARLY STATES THAT THE [INAUDIBLE] ONE SECOND AND GET TO MY LDR.
DEFINITION FOR SUBORDINATE CLEARLY STATES THAT THE STRUCTURE IN THIS CASE, THE ADU, THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, HAS TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN THE PRINCIPAL USE OR STRUCTURE ON THE SAME LOT AND IT'S INCLUDED BUT NOT LIMITED TO FLOOR AREA, BUILDING HEIGHT, ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF THE USE, THE NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS, VISITORS, ET CETERA.
THE ONE KEY COMPONENT, THERE'S HEIGHT, AND THAT SEEMS TO BE THE ISSUE WHEN IT COMES TO AD USE. GIVEN THE FACT THAT A LOT OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES ON SITES THROUGHOUT TOWN PROBABLY DO NOT MEET CURRENT FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS AND ARE GOING TO BE PROBABLY ON THE GROUND OFTENTIMES.
SO THEREFORE, ADUS ARE NOW HAVING TO COMPLY WITH CURRENT FLOOD REGULATIONS, WHICH REQUIRE THEM TO BE ELEVATED TO A CERTAIN LEVEL.
THEREFORE, THEY ARE UNABLE TO MEET THE THRESHOLD OF BEING LESS THAN IN HEIGHT TO THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. SO IT'S BECOMING AN ISSUE WHEN SOME FOLKS ARE WANTING TO BUILD AN ADU ON THEIR LOT AND THEIR PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
IT'S TYPICALLY A LITTLE BIT SMALLER IN HEIGHT THAN THEY THE REQUIRED HEIGHT HAS TO BE NOW IN ACCORDANCE WITH TO MEET BFE LEVELS.
SO THAT'S SORT OF THAT'S SORT OF YOU KNOW, THAT SORT OF SUMS UP THE ISSUE.
I WILL SAY THAT IT DOES NOT HAPPEN VERY OFTEN.
IT HAS COME UP IN THE PAST A FEW TIMES.
BUT WE TYPICALLY DURING THE PERMITTING PHASE, IT HAS NOT HAPPENED VERY FREQUENTLY.
SO, ADRIEL, WOULD THE PROPOSAL BE TO THE LDR TO AMEND THE LDR DEFINITION OF SUBORDINATE? IS THAT WHAT WE THINK WE MIGHT WANT TO DISCUSS AT SOME POINT? POSSIBLY. YEAH. I MEAN, THERE ARE SEVERAL WAYS TO DO IT, OBVIOUSLY, BUT THAT THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THOSE. YES. AMENDING THE TEXT CHANGE TO THE LDR.
SO IT WOULD AND WOULD THAT ALSO REQUIRE COUNCIL APPROVAL OR WAS IT WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD JUST DO AS A COMMISSION? NOW THAT GOES THAT'S A TWO STEP PROCESS.
GOES TO YOU GUYS AND THEN CITY COUNCIL, THE FINAL [INAUDIBLE] TEXT CHANGES.
OK, AND WE COULD ACTUALLY WE COULD MAKE THAT DEFINITION.
WE COULD ADD SOMETHING ABOUT BFE IN THERE OR WE COULD JUST AMEND IT, HOWEVER.
TO AMEND IT COMPLETELY. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
OK, BUT YOU'RE FINDING THAT THIS IS MAINLY A QUESTION WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH BFE QUESTIONS AND NOT THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY WANTS TO BUILD A GREAT BIG SOMETHING THAT'S TWO AND A HALF TIMES THE SIZE OF THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE OR THE PRIMARY, THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING. I WANT TO USE THE CORRECT TERM, NOT WANTING TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT'S TWICE AS BIG AS THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING, TWICE AS TALL, DOUBLE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TRYING TO ELEVATE IT TO BE WITHIN THE FLOOD REGULATIONS? WELL, I MEAN, IT COULD BE THAT COULD ALSO BE THE CASE.
I MEAN, SOMEONE MAY ALSO WANT TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT'S, YOU KNOW, A LOT SIGNIFICANTLY TALLER THAN THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.
BUT OFTENTIME FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN.
SO THEY ARE THEY ARE THEY ARE TRYING TO MEET BFE AND THEREFORE IT BECOMES AN ISSUE BECAUSE THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE IS LOW TO THE GROUND.
DOES ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION FOR ADRIEL? VICE CHAIR BROWN. YEAH, I'M JUST WANT TO TRY TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
NOW, IN THE CASE JUST PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED BY CHAIRMAN HILL, WHERE SOME OF THESE CASES ARE JUST BECAUSE THE SECONDARY BUILDING WAS JUST REALLY BIG.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT WITH THIS RULE, I THINK.
BUT IN THE CASE WHERE THE BUILDING IS TALLER BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO MEET THE BFE, IS THAT BECAUSE THE PRIMARY BUILDING, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY LOWER, IS THAT BECAUSE IT'S AN OLDER BUILDING THAT WAS BUILT BEFORE BFE REQUIREMENTS? IS THAT BECAUSE IT'S A BUILDING THAT MAY BE HISTORIC OR SOMETHING, OR WAS BUILT IN THE
[01:15:03]
19TH CENTURY OR SOMETIME BEFORE BFE REQUIREMENTS AND THEIR SECONDARY BUILDING IS NOW BEING HAVING TO MEET THE BFE REQUIREMENTS.AND SO THEREFORE IT HAS TO BE TALLER.
IS THAT IS THAT WHAT'S GOING ON? RIGHT. CORRECT. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING.
MOST OF THOSE STRUCTURES WERE BUILT PRIOR TO THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
SO THEREFORE, NOW SOMEONE THAT'S WANTING TO AND CERTAINLY WITHIN THEIR RIGHT TO BUILD AN ADU, MOST OF OUR ZONING DISTRICTS ALLOW FOR AT LEAST ONE ADU.
SOME DISTRICTS ALLOW FOR TWO AND SOME THERE IS NO MAXIMUM.
SO NOW THOSE FOLKS ARE WANTING TO BUILD AN ADU.
THEY'RE LIMITED TO THE FACT THAT THEIR PRINCIPAL BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED YEARS AGO AND THEY WERE NOT UNDER THE SAME CODES AND WERE NOT UNDER THE SAME REQUIREMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH BFE. SO NOW THEY ARE KIND OF STUCK IN A HARD PLACE NEEDING TO MAKE THOSE NECESSARY ACCOMMODATIONS AND THEY'RE UNABLE TO MEET THE BFE.
SO THEREFORE THEIR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ENDS UP BEING SMALLER BECAUSE NOW THEY HAVE TO RAISE UP THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT TO IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEMA REGULATIONS.
YEAH, WELL MAYBE, IF THAT'S, IF THAT'S WHAT THE PROBLEM IS.
MAYBE THE SOLUTION CAN BE TAILORED A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.
CAROL, GIVE ME JUST ONE SECOND.
SO, ADRIEL, IS THIS ALSO SOMETHING THAT IF WE WANTED TO OR WOULD WE HAVE? CAN WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ASK TO SEE THOSE THAT MIGHT BE OUTSIDE OF CERTAIN PARAMETERS ? TO ACTUALLY SEE THOSE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS? WELL, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I FEEL THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT STAFF ON A PERSONAL MY PERSONAL TAKE AS A STAFF COULD COULD REVIEW THESE.
AND, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY WHEN IT COMES TO HEIGHT, WE WANT TO BE CAREFUL OF WHAT WE DO, OBVIOUSLY. BUT I FEEL THAT THIS COULD BE HANDLED BY STAFF.
COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY, DID YOU HAVE A.
I'M SORRY, AND THIS IS DONNA FAIRWEATHER AND IF I MAY INTERJECT.
IF WE'RE TALKING CHANGES TO THE LDRS VIA TEXT AMENDMENT, IT'S TYPICALLY WE PUT IN THE LANGUAGE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN WORKSHOPPED SO THAT AT LEAST WE CAN HAVE LANGUAGE THAT THE COMMISSION IS COMFORTABLE WITH.
AS ADRIEL MENTIONED, THERE ARE MANY PROPERTIES, ESPECIALLY DUE TO THEIR HISTORIC NATURE, THAT ARE LOW TO THE GROUND.
AND WITH THOSE HISTORIC PROPERTIES, THERE ISN'T A REQUIREMENT FOR THEM TO BE RAISED AS WELL. THEY CAN ACTUALLY KEEP THE THEY CAN KEEP THEMSELVES LOW TO THE GROUND.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO BE COGNIZANT OF THE FACT THAT FOR MANY OF THESE PROPERTIES, THEY DON'T WANT TO TO RAISE THEMSELVES, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE MORE PROTECTIVE FLOOD WISE DUE TO THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF.
BUT WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT SOME LANGUAGE SHOULD BE DEVELOPED, MAYBE SOME MULTIPLE DIFFERENT VERSIONS, AND WE CAN BRING THAT BACK TO THE COMMISSION TO SEE WHAT REALLY WORKS FOR THE COMMISSION IN THIS IN THIS MATTER.
AND I'M SORRY IF I INTERRUPTED COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY.
NO, JUST TO YOUR POINT, DONNA, THOUGH, I THINK THAT AFTER WE GET SOME DIRECTION ON WHERE COUNCIL MEMBER LISTOWSKI WANTED TO GO WITH THIS, WE CAN DETERMINE IF WE BRING IT UP AS A DISCUSSION ITEM AGAIN OR IF WE CAN GO STRAIGHT TO WORKSHOPPING IT TO GET THAT LANGUAGE IN PLACE. ABSOLUTELY.
OK, COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT ON THIS? YES, THANK YOU. SO JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT BUILDING HEIGHT.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SQUARE FOOTAGE.
I WAS LOOKING AT THE LIMITED STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.
AND THERE IS A LIMIT TO A LIMITATION ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF AN ADU.
SO AS LONG AS I THINK I THINK THE POINT IS WELL TAKEN THAT IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITHIN NFIP, WE SHOULD ALLOW SOME SORT OF.
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO ALLOW A BUILDING HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR NFIP.
WE CANNOT BE IN NON CONFORMANCE WITHIN NFIP BECAUSE THAT JEOPARDIZES OUR OWN ABILITY TO BUY INSURANCE FOR THE COMMUNITY.
SO WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING WITH THIS.
[01:20:04]
AND I'M NOT SURE THAT.ANYTHING ELSE NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A SUBORDINATE USE OTHER THAN BUILDING HEIGHT. [INAUDIBLE] EVERYTHING ELSE I MEAN, IT SOUNDS IT SOUNDS LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE IS OK.
EXCEPT FOR THE BUILDING HEIGHT.
THAT IS CORRECT, COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY, AND THAT IS THAT IS TYPICALLY WHAT WE SEE HERE DURING THE PERMITTING PHASE OR DURING WHEN WE'RE ANSWERING QUESTIONS TO THE PUBLIC.
THAT IS TYPICALLY THE ONE CRITERIA THAT THEY'RE UNABLE TO MEET, WHICH IS THE TOTAL HEIGHT. I DIDN'T YOU KNOW WHAT, I'M SORRY ADRIEL I LOOKED THROUGH THE LDRS, I DIDN'T SEE WHERE THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION WAS STATED ANYWHERE.
IT'S WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF SUBORDINATE.
AND I HAD JUST PULLED SECTION TWO POINT THREE ZERO THREE AND DIDN'T SEE THE ACTUAL DEFINITION OF SUBORDINATE EITHER.
I HAD JUST PULLED THE LDR ON THAT.
COMMISSIONERS, DID ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING FOR ADRIEL? YES, COMMISSIONER BROWN.
SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY WE'RE AT, WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKING THE STAFF TO JUST COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF LANGUAGE TO REDEFINE THE WORD SUBORDINATE IN THE LDR AND REDEFINE SPECIFICALLY WHAT BUILDING WHAT WE MEAN BY BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN THAT DEFINITION AND MODIFY IT TO MAYBE MAKE AN EXCEPTION FOR STRUCTURES, PRIMARY STRUCTURES THAT WERE BUILT PRIOR TO A BFE REQUIREMENT, OR PRIOR TO NFIP TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS FOR THOSE PRIMARY BUILDINGS. IS THAT? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE HEARING? THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING, THAT THE TWO WOULD BE TIED TOGETHER.
BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE FOR STAFF TO DO AT THIS POINT IS TO COME UP WITH THAT WORDING, BUT TO ALSO CHECK WITH I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF COUNCIL MEMBER LISTOWSKI IS HERE TO MAKE COMMENT ON THAT.
BUT SINCE HE'S THE ONE WHO PUT THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA AND ENSURE THAT WE COVERED EVERYTHING THAT HE WANTS TO COVER.
SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT ORDER OF, YOU KNOW, THE WAY THAT WE WANT TO APPROACH OUR ACTION ON THIS. DO WE HAVE IT AS A DISCUSSION ITEM AGAIN? SORRY, DO WE WANT TO ACCEPT IT AS A DISCUSSION ITEM AGAIN? DO WE WANT TO GO? DO WE WANT TO HAVE A WORKSHOP ON IT? EITHER WAY, IF WE DO DISCUSSION ITEM AGAIN AND THEN GO TO AN ACTION ITEM OR IF WE HAVE WORKSHOP AND THEN WE'D HAVE TO WAIT IT'D TAKE US TWO MEETINGS TO TAKE ACTION ON IT.
WHAT WOULD YOU RECOMMEND, DONNA? WELL, IT'S ALWAYS BENEFICIAL TO GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM YOUR EX OFFICIO, WHICH IS COUNCIL MEMBER LISTOWSKI, SO I THINK STAFF WILL REACH OUT TO COUNCILMAN.
AGAIN, THESE MEETINGS ARE RECORDED SO HE CAN CLEARLY REVIEW THE MEETINGS AND HOPEFULLY BE ABLE TO GIVE SOME FEEDBACK TO STAFF ON WHICH WAY HE WOULD LIKE THINGS TO GO IN REGARD TO WHAT HIS ISSUES ARE REGARDING, I GUESS, THE CONFLICT WITH THE BFE REQUIREMENTS AND THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
SO AT THIS POINT, I WOULD JUST DEFER, NOT DEFER THE DISCUSSION ITEM, JUST, YOU KNOW, WE'LL REACH OUT TO COUNCILMAN LISTOWSKI, IF HE'S OUR EX OFFICIO, I BELIEVE HE'S STILL GOING TO BE OUR EX OFFICIO AND YOU KNOW JUST GET A LITTLE BIT MORE DIRECTION FROM HIM AND HAVE HIM REVIEW THE HEARING TAPES TODAY.
OK, GREAT. COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY.
AS I'M LOOKING AT THE DEFINITION OF SUBORDINATE, I THINK IT MIGHT JUST BE AS SIMPLE AS AN EXEMPTION. YOU KNOW OFFERING AN EXEMPTION TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT FOR AREAS OR PROPERTIES THAT HAVE HISTORIC HOMES, BECAUSE IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHAT FEMA SAYS ABOUT HISTORIC HOMES AND THEIR EXEMPTIONS FROM NFIP BASE ELEVATIONS.
YOU CAN JUST FOLLOW WITH THAT.
SOME KIND OF LANGUAGE THAT WE JUST GRANT, NOT AN EXEMPTION TO NFIP REQUIREMENTS, BUT AN EXEMPTION TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT TO SUBORDINATE STRUCTURES.
SO IT MAY JUST BE THAT SIMPLE, BUT I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO HAVE ANOTHER REVIEW OF THIS WITH MR. LISTOWSKI IN ATTENDANCE AND ALSO JUST TO HAVE MAYBE SOME LANGUAGE THAT WE COULD LOOK AT AT THE TIME.
[01:25:02]
IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED.SO I THINK I THINK STAFF HAS HEARD AND WE'LL BE WORKING ON THAT ISSUE SO THAT WE WON'T BE BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL AFTER A DISCUSSION WITH COUNCILMAN LISTOWSKI.
OK, GREAT. WE'LL SEE THIS AGAIN.
IF WE'RE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING WHAT'S BEING BUILT IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS, WE NEED TO COORDINATE WHATEVER WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING WITH THE GUIDE FOR CONSTRUCTION IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS. IF I MAY ADD SOMETHING, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO LOOK, YOU KNOW, LOOK ALSO IN ITS ENTIRETY, NOT JUST WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
I MEAN, THIS ALSO HAPPENS WITHIN OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS IN TOWN.
SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP THAT IN MIND.
AND YOUR INPUT THERE WILL BE WELCOMED AND INVALUABLE SINCE YOU'RE THE ONE WHO SEES THESE AS THEY COME THROUGH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
SO YOU KNOW THAT INPUT WE DEFINITELY NEED.
SO KEEP US ON TRACK ON THAT, PLEASE, SIR.
ABSOLUTELY. OK, ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS? YES, SIR. MR. [INAUDIBLE] EUGENE, COMMISSIONER COOK.
YOU KNOW I HAVE TO LISTEN TO EVERYBODY INPUT.
SO I THINK IT'D BE A GOOD IDEA IF WE SET UP A WORKSHOP ON THIS ISSUE AND HAM IT OUT THERE AND AFTERWARDS COME UP WITH ACTION ITEM WITH THE CONGRESSMAN.
YEAH I THINK THAT SOUNDS GOOD, IT DOES SOUND LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF INPUT THAT THAT WE NEED TO GET ON THIS AND WORKSHOP.
WE CAN ALL DO A LITTLE BIT OF GIVE AND TAKE A LITTLE MORE EASILY.
ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL MOVE ON NOW TO ITEM EIGHT B UPDATE ON THE CONCESSION REGULATIONS.
[8.B. Update On Concession Regulations (Hill)]
YES, SO JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE UPDATE AND A LITTLE BACKGROUND INFORMATION I THINK WE MAY HAVE AND MY MEMORY FAILS ME.I THINK WE HAVE A COUPLE OF NEW COMMISSIONERS WHO MAYBE WERE NOT ON WHENEVER WE FIRST VISIT TO THIS. SO JUST GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
BACK IN 2014, THERE WAS AN AD HOC COMMITTEE TO CREATE SOME KIND OF COHESIVE, USEFUL REGULATIONS FOR FOOD TRUCKS, WHAT WE CALL CONCESSIONS.
AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT WENT THROUGH MULTIPLE ITERATIONS.
THERE WAS, LIKE I SAID, AN AD HOC I BELIEVE THAT COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI WAS ON THAT COMMITTEE, AMONG OTHER PEOPLE.
BUT ANYWAY, IT'S BEEN FIVE YEARS.
IT'S BEEN FIVE YEARS. AND THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ABOUT AN INTEREST IN REVISITING THOSE AND JUST KIND OF SEEING WHAT WORKS, WHAT DOESN'T, WHAT COULD BE TWEAKED IN GENERAL.
THAT DIRECTIVE ORIGINALLY CAME FROM FORMER COUNCILMAN HARDCASTLE.
BUT I BELIEVE THAT COUNCILMAN LISTOWSKI WAS ALSO INTERESTED AND I BELIEVE THE COUNCILMAN COLLINS HAS ALSO EXPRESSED INTEREST.
SINCE THEN, WE HAVEN'T DONE A LOT JUST PENDING THE COUNCIL AND COUNCIL ELECTIONS AND RUNOFFS AND PENDING THOSE RESULTS.
SO AT THIS POINT, THAT'S ABOUT ALL THAT STAFF HAS TO REPORT.
I BELIEVE I WAS WORKING WITH KAREN WHITE BEFORE SHE LEFT ABOUT GETTING SOME INFORMATION THAT WAS REQUESTED TO COMMISSION.
I THINK SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE IT.
IF NOT, WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT YOU GET THAT INFORMATION.
THAT WAS JUST A REQUEST FOR THE NOTES AND SOME OF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE ABLE TO FIND FROM THE PREVIOUS AD HOC COMMITTEE TO KIND OF PROVIDE SOME INSIGHT.
THANK YOU, DANIEL, AND I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER WALLA AND COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER PENA, DID NOT HEAR THOSE INITIAL CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD WHEN WE WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT THE BEHEST OF COUNCIL MEMBER HARDCASTLE.
SO IF YOU CAN MAKE SURE THAT THE TWO OF THEM GET THE MATERIALS THAT WE GOT THAT DAY, PLEASE. AND THEN I KNOW YOU SAID THAT COUNCIL MEMBER LISTOWSKI AND COUNCIL MEMBER COLLINS ARE STILL VERY MUCH INTERESTED IN THIS.
I WOULD APPRECIATE GETTING SOME DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL AS TO WHERE THEY WANT US TO GO WITH THIS. YOU KNOW, WHO STILL HAS INTEREST IN IT? IF THEY STILL WANT US TO EXPLORE IT? SO THERE AGAIN, I WOULD APPRECIATE STAFF REACHING OUT.
LET'S LET OUR EX OFFICIO HANDLE THAT AND SEE IF WE CAN GET SOME DIRECTION ON WHAT COUNSEL
[01:30:02]
WOULD LIKE FOR US TO DO ON THIS.IS THAT OK, DANIEL? CAN YOU CAN YOU DO THAT FOR US, PLEASE, SIR? ABSOLUTELY. I'LL MAKE NOTE TO TAKE CARE OF THAT.
COMMISSIONERS DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? VICE CHAIR BROWN.
DID WE EVER GET ANY THING IN WRITING AND IN TERMS OF DIRECTION OR [INAUDIBLE].
YEAH, I DON'T I DON'T BELIEVE WE DID.
ONCE AGAIN, THE ELECTIONS AND THE RUNOFF, I THINK KIND OF PUSH THAT BACK.
I DID CONTACT I PROBABLY DID HAVE A BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH COUNCILMAN COLLINS AND HE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN REVISITING THAT WHEN IT'S POSSIBLE.
BUT, YEAH, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE'RE NOT SURE WHAT THE NEW COUNCIL REALLY WOULD LIKE US TO DO. SO WE DO NEED TO REACH OUT TO COUNCIL AND KIND OF GET SOME DIRECTION.
JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I DIDN'T MISS SOMETHING.
OK, THANKS, DANIEL, I APPRECIATE IT.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE THIS ITEM? OK, NEXT, WE HAVE ITEM EIGHT C AND I REQUESTED THIS DISCUSSION ITEM BE ADDED TO OUR
[8.C. Update On The Status Of 13P-098, General Land Use Plan For 23700 San Luis Pass Road (Hill)]
AGENDA BECAUSE THERE WAS RENEWED PUBLIC INTEREST IN THIS SPECIFIC GENERAL LAND USE PLAN.WHEN A REPLATCAME BEFORE THE COMMISSION AT OUR LAST MEETING.
TODAY, WE HAVE A BRIEF AND GENERAL UPDATE ON GLUP 13-09 FROM CITY LEGAL COUNSEL.
I ASKED THE COMMISSIONERS TO PLEASE MINIMIZE SPECULATION AS TO FUTURE USES OF THE LAND AND FOCUS ON HOW THE PROPERTY IS USED TODAY.
AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE, MR. RUSTY WALLA, WHO IS AN OWNER OF THIS, WHO IS THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY, ALSO SERVES AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER AND IS WITH US TODAY.
FINALLY, AS A RESULT OF THIS PUBLICLY POSTED AGENDA ITEM, SEVERAL COMPLAINTS WERE RECEIVED THAT GLUP 13P-098 CONDITIONS ARE BEING VIOLATED.
AS WITH ANY SUCH REPORTED ITEMS, THOSE MATTERS WILL BE REFERRED TO THE CITY MARSHAL'S OFFICE FOR INVESTIGATION AND ARE NOT REALLY PART OF OUR DISCUSSION TODAY.
SO, DONNA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE IT AWAY, PLEASE MA'AM? YOU DID A WONDERFUL JOB.
CHAIRPERSON. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE, AS STATED BEFORE, REGARDING THE REPLAT OF THIS GENERAL LAND USE PLAN.
SOME OF THE COMMENTS ADDRESSED WHETHER OR NOT THE G THE GLOVE, THE GLOVE WAS VACATED OR EXTINGUISHED DUE TO A REPLAT.
AND SO MY COMMENTS ARE GOING TO BE SIMPLE.
A REPLAT DOES NOT VACATE A GENERAL LAND USE PLAN, A REPLAT IS SIMPLY A DIVISION OF A PARCEL OF LAND.
AND THE GLUP DID NOT IN THIS SITUATION, DID NOT DID NOT ALLOW FOR THE DIVISION OF LAND TO NOT OCCUR.
SO THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS SITUATION.
THE GLUP ALLOWS FOR ON USES ON THE LAND THAT RUN WITH THE LAND.
THEY ARE STILL IN EFFECT, EVEN WITH THE REPLAT, BECAUSE AGAIN, A REPLAT IS JUST ANOTHER WAY OF DIVIDING THE PARCEL OF LAND THAT'S THERE.
IT IS NOT DECREASING THE LAND OUTSIDE OF THE REPLAT.
IT'S NOT BUILDING ONTO THE EDGES, SO TO SPEAK.
IT'S SIMPLY DIVIDING WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.
LET'S SEE. AND WITH THAT SAID, THE GLUP REQUIREMENTS AND THE RESTRICTIONS AND THE ALLOWANCES STILL RUN WITH THE PROPERTY EVEN THROUGH THE REPLAT.
THE COMPLAINTS THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED HAVE COME TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CITY, AND JUST AS WITH ANY OF THE COMPLAINTS THAT COME TO THE ATTENTION OF CITY, THEY WILL BE INVESTIGATED BY THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT, WHETHER IT'S THE MARSHAL'S DEPARTMENT OR ENGINEERING OR PUBLIC WORKS OR WHATEVER DEPARTMENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR TO ADDRESS ANY PARTICULAR COMPLAINT. IT WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE DEPARTMENT.
THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THE SITUATION IS THAT THE GLUP WAS GRANTED BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE 2015 LDRS, AND I THINK THAT IS WHAT HAS CAUSED SOME ANGST
[01:35:06]
IN THIS SITUATION.BUT THERE ARE VESTED INTERESTS IN THE GLUP THAT ARE NOT EXTINGUISHED JUST DUE TO THE REPLAT. THE SPECULATIVE ISSUES THAT I READ THROUGH IN SOME OF THE COMMENTS, AGAIN, THEY ARE SPECULATIVE.
THERE AREN'T ANY PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FORTH FOR ANY DEPARTMENT TO REVIEW AT THIS POINT IN TIME. AND IF PLANS ARE BROUGHT FORTH REGARDING AND THESE ARE JUST EXAMPLES, CHANGES OF ZONING OR DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES OUTSIDE OF THE GLUP.
AGAIN, THOSE ALL WILL BE REVIEWED.
AS WITH ANY OTHER CASE, THEY WILL BE REVIEWED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY MEET THE CODE AS IT WAS IN PLACE EITHER AT THE TIME THE GLUP WAS GRANTED AND OR DEPENDING UPON WHAT IS BEING REQUESTED, CURRENT CODES.
AND SO THERE'S JUST BEEN A LOT OF ANGST OVER THIS ISSUE.
IT'S A SIMPLE MATTER OF AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IT'S A REPLAT OF THIS PARCEL OF LAND, AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT.
I THINK THAT WILL BE REASSURING TO SOME OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WHO HAVE BROUGHT SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS FORWARD AND THAT AND THAT WE NEED TO STAY AWAY FROM SPECULATION AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
AND AS THINGS MOVE FORWARD, YOU KNOW, IF SOMETHING HAPPENS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE INVOLVED AS IS NECESSARY, AS IS REQUIRED AND PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL OCCUR AS REQUIRED. SO COMMISSIONERS.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENT ON THIS ITEM OR QUESTIONS? VICE CHAIR BROWN.
IF I HEARD CORRECTLY, ANY SUBSEQUENT PLAN WILL BE REVIEWED IN TERMS OF THE GLUP FROM 2014 OR WHATEVER IT WAS.
THE GLUP ALLOWS FOR CERTAIN USES.
IF A PLAN IS BROUGHT FORTH THAT IS OUTSIDE OF WHAT'S ALLOWED IN THE GLUP, THEN THAT WOULD NEED TO BE REVIEWED.
AGAIN, NO PLANS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FORTH.
SO WE'RE JUST REALLY TALKING GENERALLY.
WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF SOMETHING IS PRESENTED THAT REQUIRES REVIEW.
AND GENERALLY RIGHT NOW, COMMISSIONER BROWN IS TO LET THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY LEGAL AND THAT A REPLAT DOES NOT TRIGGER ANY REVIEW, A REPLAT IN AND OF ITSELF SOLELY A REPLAT, DID NOT TRIGGERED ANY KIND OF REVIEW.
NO, THAT'S THE MESSAGE HERE RIGHT.
YEAH, THAT'S THE MESSAGE HERE.
OK, SO DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY, I JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR TAKING THIS ON AND CLARIFYING.
WE DON'T SEE IT VERY OFTEN IN OUR WORK.
AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THIS WAS MADE KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC AS WELL.
I MEAN, WE CAN BE ON THIS COMMISSION FOR A WHILE AND SEE THESE MAYBE ONCE YOU KNOW ONCE IN OUR IN OUR TERMS. SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT.
DONNA, CLARIFIED THAT FOR US AND ALSO CLARIFIED IT FOR THE COMMUNITY.
YES, I AGREE WITH YOU, CAROL, IT'S MY FOURTH YEAR ON THE COMMISSION AND I'VE NEVER SEEN A GLUP. SO IT'S GOOD TO BE EDUCATED.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? OK, SEEING NONE.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS, CATHERINE? NO OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS. I'LL JUST REMIND THE COMMISSION THAT WE TAKE A BREAK IN JANUARY FOR MLK DAY.
SO OUR NEXT MEETING IS FEBRUARY 2ND.
AND SEEING NO OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS OR COMMENTS.
I'LL SEE YOU ALL ON FEBRUARY 5TH.
AND THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
HAPPY NEW YEAR, ALL. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.