Mar 16, 2021 Planning Commission

OK, WE CAN CONTINUE.

[00:00:01]

OK, WHERE SHOULD I TAKE UP?

[7A. 21P-003 (2121 Ave D/Market) Request For A License To Use To Place An ADA Ramp In The City Of Galveston Right-Of-Way. Adjacent Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, Lots 1 Thru 7, Block 501, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Stephen P. Penlington Adjacent Property Owners: Dualmont LLC, C/O James McClure Easement Holder: City Of Galveston]

I'M SORRY, PETE, SO THAT WE HAVE IT ON THE RECORD AS TO WHAT CASE WE'RE HEARING? OK, THIS IS A CASE 21P-003, AND THIS IS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO TWENTY ONE TWENTY ONE AVENUE D, ALSO KNOWN AS MARKET STREET.

AND THIS IS THE REQUEST FOR A LICENSE TO USE TO PLACE AN ADA RAMP IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON RIGHT OF WAY.

I'M READING FROM THE MEMO AT THE FEBRUARY 2ND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, THE ABOVE REFERENCE REQUEST WAS DEFERRED UNTIL THE FEBRUARY 16TH MEETING WITH THE REQUEST TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DIRECTION FROM STAFF.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DISCUSSION INCLUDED THE NEED FOR MORE TIME TO REVIEW THE REVISED SITE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT ON FEBRUARY THE 2ND AND THE DEMONSTRATION OF THE FEASIBILITY. WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS PROVIDE A TIMELINE TO CLARIFY SOME COMMENTS THAT WERE FURTHER DOWN IN THE MEMO THAT STATES THAT THE BUILDING DIVISION'S COMMENTS, AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT'S DEMONSTRATION OF INFEASIBILITY WERE PENDING AT THE TIME OF THE MEMO. SO DUE TO WINTER STORM URI, WHICH IMPACTED OUR MEETING SCHEDULE.

THE INITIAL HEARING OF THIS CASE WAS FEBRUARY THE 2ND.

OK, AND THEN AT THAT MEETING, THIS CASE WAS DEFERRED TO THE FEBRUARY 16TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. THE FEBRUARY 16TH MEETING WAS CANCELED AS A RESULT OF THE WINTER STORM. SO THE FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WAS SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 2ND, THIS ITEM AND THE OTHER CASES FROM THE PREVIOUS FROM THE FEBRUARY 16 MEETING WERE PLACED ON THE AGENDA AS CONSENT ITEMS IN ORDER FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO TAKE ACTION ON THOSE KINDS OF CASES. THOSE CASES WERE THEN DEFERRED TO THE FEBRUARY 16TH MEETING, WHICH IS TODAY. SO IN THE INTERIM, WE DID RECEIVE PLANNING, BUILDING DIVISIONS, COMMENTS, AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE DEMONSTRATING INFEASIBILITY.

THE APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE DEMONSTRATING INFEASIBILITY WAS DISTRIBUTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BUILDING DIVISION'S COMMENTS WERE UNCHANGED AS THEY ARE WRITTEN IN THE MEMO AND THE CASE AT TWENTY ONE TWENTY ONE AVENUE D WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED PER THE 2012 IBC, WHICH IS THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE.

I CANNOT APPROVE THIS REQUEST.

I WOULD HAVE IT WOULD HAVE TO BE PRESENTED TO THE BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS FOR A POSSIBLE VARIANCE.

IN ADDITION TO THE BUILDING DIVISIONS COMMENTS, STAFF FINDS THAT THE AVAILABILITY OF SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE SITE AND THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED ADA RAMP, AS WELL AS THE SIZE OF THE OPEN-AIR PLAZA, THAT AN ADA RAMP CAN BE CONFIGURED IN A MANNER THAT THE ENTIRETY OF THE STRUCTURE IS INCORPORATED WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINES OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THEREFORE, STAFF MAINTAINS THIS RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL.

HOWEVER, SHOULD THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHOOSE TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST, WE WOULD ASK THAT THIS BE APPROVED WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT I'M LISTED IN THE MEMORANDUM AS WELL AS THOSE THAT WERE LISTED IN THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT.

AND WE DO HAVE SOME PHOTOS FOR THIS CASE.

OK, THIS IS A VIEW OF THE SUBJECT AREA WHERE THE APPLICANT WAS REQUESTING TO INSTALL THE ADA RAMP. HERE'S ANOTHER VIEW FACING NORTH OF THAT AREA TO THE RIGHT.

THIS IS THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN FOR THE REQUEST.

THIS IS A MEASUREMENT THAT WAS TAKEN ON SITE TO SHOW THE AVAILABILITY OF FOOTAGE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY AREA FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE PLANTING AREAS THAT HOLD THE TREES. NEXT SLIDE.

THESE ARE THE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST, NORTH AND SOUTH.

[00:05:03]

AND THIS IS A SURVEY OF THE OVERALL SITE.

AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.

THANK YOU, PETE.

I DO JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT PLANNING COMMISSION WAS PROVIDED WITH THE INFEASIBILITY MEMO YESTERDAY AND THE MEMO, THE REPORT FROM THE APPLICANT IS A LITTLE OVER A PAGE LONG AND EVERYBODY'S HAD TWENTY FOUR HOURS TO DIGEST THAT.

SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC KNEW THAT WE HAD GOTTEN THAT MEMO, EVEN THOUGH IT SAYS IN THE INITIAL REPORT THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN SUBMITTED AND WASN'T AVAILABLE.

THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT IN, PETE, WHAT ABOUT MID TO LATE FEBRUARY? IS THAT CORRECT? UH, YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

I BELIEVE IT WAS LATE FEBRUARY.

OK, THANK YOU.

SO JUST A COUPLE I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND THEN COMMISSIONERS WILL OPEN UP QUESTIONS OF STAFF.

BUT, PETE, THE PURPOSE OF THE ADA RAMP IS TO MAKE ACCESS TO THIS BUILDING EASILY FOR PEOPLE OF ALL DIFFERENT ABILITIES.

RIGHT. THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE ADA.

THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND IT TO BE, YES.

OK, SO TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO, I WAS IN A WHEELCHAIR FOR THREE WEEKS, BUT IT LEAVES A LASTING IMPRESSION.

AND WHAT I FOUND WAS AFTER I HAD MY SURGERY AND I WAS IN THAT WHEELCHAIR, MANEUVERING AROUND WAS REALLY DIFFICULT.

AND WHAT GIVES ME A PROBLEM WITH THAT SIDEWALK IS THERE IS A BENCH, THERE ARE TREES, THERE'S THIS AND THAT. AND SO IT'S KIND OF A LITTLE IT'S VERY SEEMS VERY CONGESTED TO ME.

SO A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

IS THE BENCH THAT WE SAW IN YOUR PICTURES CITY-OWNED? I BELIEVE THOSE BENCHES WERE INSTALLED WITH THE CITY OF GALVESTON'S AUTHORITY.

I'M NOT ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THAT IT WAS THE CITY THAT INSTALLED THOSE BENCHES, BUT THEY WERE APPROVED, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, BY THE CITY.

AND PETE, I ONLY SAW ONE IN THE PICTURE.

I THOUGHT. IS THERE MORE THAN ONE BENCH? WELL, I BELIEVE THERE'S ONLY ONE IN THE SUBJECT RIGHT OF WAY, BUT THERE ARE MORE BENCHES THROUGHOUT THE DOWNTOWN AREA.

RIGHT, RIGHT. BUT, I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT JUST THE SUBJECT AREA.

SO THEN TO MOVE THAT BENCH WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT COULD MAKE HAPPEN IN COOPERATION WITH THE CITY.

IS THAT CORRECT, APPROPRIATE CITY DEPARTMENTS? SURE, I WOULDN'T SEE MOVING THAT BENCH BEING TOO DIFFICULT OF A TASK.

OK, SO THEN THE THREE TREES THAT ARE SHOWN IN YOUR PICTURES, THOSE ARE IN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY ALSO, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. OK, THEY DIDN'T EXACTLY LOOK LIKE THEY WERE THRIVING BEFORE THE FREEZE.

AND IF THEY LOOK LIKE MY YARD AFTER THE FREEZE, THEY'RE PROBABLY NOT DOING REAL WELL NOW . DID YOU GO OVER TO THE SUBJECT? HAVE YOU BEEN OVER TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SINCE THE FREEZE? I HAVE NOT.

NEITHER HAVE I. BUT THAT WAS JUST A LITTLE-SO THOSE COULD ACTUALLY THOSE TREES COULD PROBABLY ACTUALLY BE MOVED, ALSO ELIMINATING THAT CONGESTED FEEL OF THAT AREA.

IS THAT SOMETHING YOU THINK COULD HAPPEN? WELL, SURELY THOSE TREES COULD BE RELOCATED.

I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT COMPLETELY PERMANENT.

RIGHT, AND THEY'RE FAIRLY SMALL.

WHAT, WOULD YOU SAY THE DIAMETER OF THE TREES IS LESS THAN TWO INCHES? OH, I WOULD THINK THEY'RE GREATER THAN TWO INCHES, BUT MAYBE LESS THAN 10.

OK. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, WHO ELSE HAS A QUESTION OF STAFF? COMMISSIONER, VICE CHAIR BROWN AND THEN COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY.

VICE CHAIR BROWN? YEAH, I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS' APPEAL . WILL THEY STILL HAVE TO DO THAT IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVES THIS? WOULD THEY STILL HAVE TO GO TO THE BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTEMENTS? THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WOULD REMAIN AS IT'S PROPOSED TO BE

[00:10:04]

SO EVEN IF WE APPROVE THIS, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THERE? THAT'S CORRECT. OK, UM, I DIDN'T REALIZE THIS UNTIL I WENT OUT THERE TO THE SITE, AND AFTER I ALSO READ THIS ADDENDUM TO THE APPLICATION THAT THE NORTH SIDE RIGHT OF WAY IS ONLY 10 FEET WIDE.

AND SO THEY MUST HAVE GOTTEN A VARIANCE OF SOME KIND TO BUILD THAT CLOSE TO THE STREET.

DO YOU ALL KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT, HOW THAT HAPPENED? I DO NOT HAVE ANY RECORD ON THAT.

YEAH, OK, SO I MEAN, THAT'S WAY TOO TIGHT TO TRY TO EVEN THINK ABOUT BUILDING ANYTHING ON THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING, I THINK; THAT WOULD BE OUT OF THE QUESTION.

BUT THE APPLICANT GOES THROUGH THAT AS AN OPTION, BUT TO ME, THAT'S SHOULDN'T EVEN BE CONSIDERED. AND DO YOU KNOW IF ANYBODY FROM THE CITY MET WITH THE APPLICANT TO DISCUSS ANY OF THESE OPTIONS OR OR THIS FEASIBILITY? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF, PERHAPS THE APPLICANT MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT BETTER.

OK, THANKS. THAT'S ALL FOR NOW.

THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR BROWN.

COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY. THANK YOU.

BOB ASKED THE QUESTION THAT I HAD REGARDING THE BUILDING DIVISION'S COMMENTS.

I DO FEEL THAT IT'S A HOT MESS ON THAT CORNER WITH THE TREES IN THE RIGHT OF WAY AND BUT THE TREES DON'T EXTEND ALL THE WAY DOWN THE BLOCK.

SO IT LOOKS LIKE THE TREE PLANTING WAS SPECIFIC TO THAT BUILDING BECAUSE THE TREES ARE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BUILDING AND THEN THEY STOP.

SO, I MEAN, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE? I MAY HAVE MISSED THAT PART.

WELL, RESPONSIBILITY, AS FAR AS MAINTENANCE, I'M NOT SURE.

GENERALLY, THE MAINTENANCE FOR ANY ITEMS PLACED IN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER.

SO ALTHOUGH THOSE TREES HAVE BEEN OUR PLANTED THERE AND I'M NOT SURE THAT IF THEY WERE PLANTED BY THE ORIGINAL OWNERS OF THE BUILDING.

BY DEFAULT, OUR CITY CODE, THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE IS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. OK, THANK YOU.

RIGHT, THE FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OR INFEASIBILITY ANALYSIS SPOKE TO AN ADA LIFT AND WE HAD NOT HEARD THAT IN THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS CASE.

DO YOU MAINTAIN THAT A LIFT IS INFEASIBLE OR LESS THAN DESIRABLE FOR THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION? WELL, I DO RECALL THE APPLICANT SPEAKING TO A LIFT BEING EXPLORED AS AN OPTION FROM THE FEBRUARY 2ND MEETING.

I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE APPLICANT STATED, BUT MAYBE HE CAN REMIND US HERE SHORTLY.

RIGHT, IN THE FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS, IT SPEAKS TO A LIFT AND HOW IT IS IMPRACTICAL IN THIS PARTICULAR CLIMATE.

SO I JUST WONDERED I COULDN'T REMEMBER THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT IT BEFORE.

THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER PEÑA.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO SEE THE PICTURE OR THE MORE RECENT PICTURE OF THAT WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING AGAIN. OK, THANK YOU.

I'M LOOKING AT IT ON GOOGLE EARTH FROM HERE, TOO, AND IT JUST SEEMS LIKE ON GOOGLE EARTH AND SOMEWHAT WHAT I'M SEEING HERE, THOSE LOOK TO BE OAK TREES.

AND SO JUST IMAGINING THAT THOSE GET ANY BIGGER, YOU CAN SEE WHAT AN OAK TREE DOES TO SIDEWALKS LIKE IN FRONT OF ROSENBERG LIBRARY.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, I KNOW WE'RE GETTING DOWN TO THE GRITTY HERE WITH WITH THAT PARTICULAR SLIVER PART OF SIDEWALK THAT I THINK THAT ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS IS REALLY GOING TO IMPACT PASS-ABILITY OF THAT SIDEWALK.

SO, RAMP OR NOT, THOSE TREES MIGHT MIGHT CAUSE PROBLEMS LATER ON TOO.

[00:15:10]

BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALSO A BENEFIT TO HAVING TREES INSTALLED WITHIN OUR RAVELLI.

I GUESS MY POINT WAS MORE SO THAN ANY ENCROACHMENT UPON THAT SIDEWALK THERE WOULD MAKE IT EVEN MORE OF A HINDRANCE COME FUTURE TO THE PASS-ABILITY OF THAT OF THAT SIDEWALK. SO IF THERE WERE ANY TRADE OFFS AS TO ALLOWING THIS RAMP, IT MIGHT COME AT SOME CONCESSION OF THE OWNER DOING SOMETHING ADDITIONAL WITH THE LANDSCAPING ON THAT BLOCK, REPLACING THE TREES, MOVING THE TREES, DOING SOMETHING TO THAT POINT.

I SEE YOUR POINT.

DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, COMMISSIONER PEÑA? NO, THANK YOU. OK, VICE CHAIR BROWN, YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD? YES. COULD WE PUT THAT PICTURE BACK UP, PLEASE? I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT, THIS IS A GOOD WAY TO ILLUSTRATE WHERE THAT RAMP IS GOING TO BE IF IT'S APPROVED. UM, YOU SEE THAT PARK BENCH DOWN THERE? AND YOU SEE THAT JOINT IN THE PAVING? YEAH, [INAUDIBLE] EVEN WITH THAT FRONT[INAUDIBLE] WELL AND THEN YOU SEE THE STEPS RIGHT THERE. WELL, WERE THOSE STEPS TRAVERTINE WALL, THAT RAMP WOULD COME OUT TO THAT, NOT EVEN AS FAR AS THAT JOINT RIGHT THERE.

AND IT WOULD COME OUT TOWARDS US, TOWARDS WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT.

AND IT WOULD COME OUT NOT QUITE TO THAT LITTLE BIT, THAT LITTLE RAISED CONCRETE PAD RIGHT THERE. SO THAT WOULD BE THE EXTENT OF THE RAMP RIGHT THERE WHERE HE'S SHOWING HIS ARROW.

JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME IDEA OF WHERE THAT WOULD BE, SO MAYBE WHAT WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT IS REMOVING THAT OAK TREE THAT'S JUST RIGHT ACROSS FROM SOMETHING INSTEAD OF REMOVING ALL OF THEM, MAYBE.

BUT JUST SO EVERYBODY HAS A GOOD IDEA OF EXACTLY WHERE THAT IS BASICALLY GOING TO BE FILLING IN THAT GAP, WHERE THAT SIGN IS, THAT BOX SIGN AND THE STEPS RIGHT THERE IS BASICALLY WHAT IS GOING TO BE DOING.

OK, THANK YOU.

AND WE DO NEED TO KEEP IT TO QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS POINT.

SO LET'S FRAME EVERYTHING WE'RE DOING NOW IN TERMS OF QUESTIONS OF STAFF AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO DISCUSSION AFTER WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE.

COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI, DID I SEE YOUR HAND UP? YES, THANK YOU. AND BOB, THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT.

I WAS GOING TO TRY TO POINT THAT OUT AS WELL.

AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, I KNOW WE HAVE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO FOLLOW, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING IS DENYING PEOPLE ACCESS TO THE BUILDING WITH HANDICAPS.

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF ADA AND, YOU KNOW, I LOVE TREES AND I'M ALL ABOUT GREEN SPACE AND STUFF LIKE THAT. BUT I THINK SACRIFICING A TREE TO ALLOW ACCESSIBILITY AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE OCCASIONS WHERE IF WE HAVE TO GIVE A VARIANCE OR SOMETHING, IT'S MINIMAL. BUT THE IMPACT OF NOT ALLOWING THIS, I THINK, IS AN INJUSTICE TO PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES AND CAN'T ACCESS.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI, AGAIN.

LET'S KEEP IT TO QUESTIONS OF STAFF RIGHT NOW AND WE'LL GET TO HAVE PLENTY OF DISCUSSION AFTER WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE, AFTER WE HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY, YOUR HAND IS UP.

DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION OF STAFF? YES, I DO. PETE, TELL US AGAIN, PLEASE, WHAT THE ENCROACHMENT DISTANCE IS, THE DEPTH OF ENCROACHMENT AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS.

WE HAD A REVISED PLAN FROM WAY BACK WHEN.

WHAT'S THE ENCROACHMENT NOW INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY? OK, BEAR WITH ME, PLEASE.

I READ IT AS ONE FOOT, FIVE INCHES, COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY ON THE PLAN.

I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT; IT'S A REALLY TINY FONT.

AND I'M TRYING TO ZOOM IN REAL TIGHT, BUT I BELIEVE THAT IS THE CASE.

[00:20:04]

IN OUR MEMO, IT DOESN'T STATE IT.

SO I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IT WAS FOR THE RECORD.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OK, SEEING NONE WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 21P-003 AT THREE FIFTY NINE P.M.

AND DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE? YES, THE APPLICANT IS HERE.

STEPHEN, YOU CAN PRESS STAR SIX TO UNMUTE YOUR PHONE.

OK, I'M HERE.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, MR. PENLINGTON IS THERE.

YOU'VE HEARD OUR DISCUSSION.

AND WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD AND ANY STATEMENTS YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE, PLEASE, SIR, TO THE COMMISSION. CERTAINLY IN THE PROCESS OF DOING SOME OF THE PERMITTING ON THIS, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT DID COME UP RECENTLY IS THAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO GET A FIRE LINE INTO THE BUILDING ITSELF.

AND THE PICTURE THAT SHOWED THE BENCH AND THAT PERSPECTIVE FROM THE SOUTH TO THE NORTH, YOU COULD SEE A YELLOW LINE GOING DOWN THE SIDEWALK.

THAT'S WHERE THE FIRE LINE WOULD COME IN AND IT WOULD COME IN WHERE THE STAIRS ARE.

SO ROUGHLY THAT TREE THAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO COME OUT ANYWAY FOR THE CITY, NUMBER ONE, TO PUT A TAP AT THAT LOCATION AND THEN DIRECT IT BACK TOWARDS THE STAIRS AND WE'RE PLANNING TO GO THROUGH THE STAIRS THEMSELVES.

SO WE HAVE TO REMOVE THE STAIRS TO GET THE FIRE LINE IN.

WE LOOK AT OTHER ASPECTS OF WHERE WE COULD GET IT IN, AND OUR FIRE COMPANY, A1 FIRE SAID THIS IS THE BEST SPOT TO GET IT IN.

SO IN THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT, OUR CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE TO REMOVE THOSE STAIRS AND BE ABLE TO EXCAVATE LOW ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO BRING IN THE FIRE LINE INTO THE PARKING GARAGE AREA BELOW WHERE THERE'S A MAINTENANCE ROOM ON THE OPPOSITE SIDES OF THOSE STAIRS, WHICH YOU CAN'T SEE. IT'S A LOW GRADE AND IT'S HIDDEN BEHIND THE WALLS.

SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT ALSO IS THAT WE HAVE TO EXCAVATE AND TEAR THOSE STAIRS APART SO IF WE CAN CONVERT THOSE TO AN ADA RAMP, THAT WOULD TREMENDOUSLY SAVE US A LOT OF MONEY IN THAT ASPECT.

AND THEN THE REVISION OF THE LENGTH.

WHAT I WAS ABLE TO LOOK AT IS WHERE THAT LITTLE WHITE BOX IS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE.

ORIGINALLY, I WAS ABLE WE WERE NOT COMING THAT FAR AND THAT IS A DEAD WIRE BOX.

IT USED TO FEED SOMETHING ELSE.

SO I WAS ABLE TO EXTEND THE--THAT'S CORRECT, THAT BOX THERE--WAS ABLE TO EXTEND THE RAMP FURTHER THIS WAY ON THE PROPERTY LINE AND REDUCE THE ENTRY OF THE RAMP, WHICH BASICALLY MEANS THAT DARK COLORED RISE OF THE PAD THAT'S IN YOUR RIGHT HAND FRONT VIEW, THAT ESSENTIALLY IS WHERE THE RAMP WOULD START.

AND THAT'S NOT SO MUCH AS THE RAMP.

THAT'S A SIX FOOT ENTRANCE THAT HAS TO BE SIX FEET LONG, THREE FEET WIDE.

SO IT WOULD BE LEVEL WITH THE STREET OR SORRY, SIDEWALK, AND THEN IT WOULD EXTEND AFTER THE SIX FEET FROM THERE UP TO WHERE THE WALL IS AND TAKE A RIGHT HAND TURN AND THEN COME BACK TOWARDS THE PAD.

SO, IN REVIEWING OF THIS, I SQUEEZED OUT AS MANY INCHES AS I POSSIBLY COULD.

I ALSO SPOKE WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ABOUT THE FEASIBILITY QUESTION ON THE 2012 IBC CODE. NOW THE PLANS THAT YOU HAVE ARE BASICALLY A DEMONSTRATION PLAN.

WE HAVEN'T DONE THE ENGINEERING ON THIS, THE ENGINEERING SOME MONEY FOR THAT TO DO.

AND IF WE ARE ALLOWED OR APPROVED ON THIS AND I DID SPEAK TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND SAID THESE ARE JUST A DEMONSTRATION TO SEE IF WE CAN DO THIS HERE, BUT ENGINEERING WOULD BE DONE. THEY WOULD MEET THE IBC CODES AND ALL THOSE ASPECTS.

AND I CAN SEE WHERE THE BUILDING [INAUDIBLE] SAID, OK, WELL, YOU HAVE TO PUT IN THAT OPTION ON THIS FINAL PLAN.

AND THEN AND THEN IF IT GETS APPROVED, THEN YOU SEND IN ALL THE REST OF YOUR INFORMATION FOR PERMITTING AND SUCH AS THE ENGINEERING AND SUCH.

AND SO THAT'S BASICALLY WHERE WE'RE AT.

AS FAR AS THE TREES THEMSELVES, THAT SIDEWALK IS REALLY ONLY ABOUT TWO AND A HALF INCHES THICK. AND IF THOSE OAKS DO CONTINUE TO GROW, THEY'LL PROBABLY PUSH UP ON THAT SIDEWALK

[00:25:06]

AND THAT'S ABOUT THE AGE THAT THEY'RE AT.

SO BACK TO THE QUESTION OF WHO PUT THOSE IN AND WHEN I BELIEVE IS BY THE JSC BUILDING AND PRIOR OWNERS OF THE BUILDING AND ABOUT EIGHT OR NINE YEARS AGO THAT THEY WERE INSTALLED.

AND YOU CAN SEE THE ONE PATCH THAT'S MISSING, THAT ONE HAS DIED.

AND ON THE OTHER SIDE IT HAD DIED ALSO.

AND FROM OLDER PICTURES, IT LOOKED LIKE THEY GOT TOO BIG AND CHOKED THEMSELVES OUT ONTO THE GROUND. OK, THANK YOU, MR. PENLINGTON. COMMISSIONERS, DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY? YES, SIR. IN YOUR FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS, YOU DESCRIBED AN ADA LIFT.

WOULD THAT BE LOCATED AT THE SAME LOCATION AS THE RAMP? NO, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE NORTH SIDE.

AND IT WOULD BE ON THE NORTH SIDE, THE OTHER SET OF STEPS THAT ARE ON THE NORTH SIDE, AND THAT'S A POCKET OF ABOUT SEVEN FEET WIDE BY NINE FEET DEEP, AND THE ADA LIFT WOULD FILL THAT SPACE IN THERE.

WE JUST HAVE ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO OPEN THE DOOR WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINE FOR THAT TO WORK. BUT AGAIN, IT WAS ONE OF THOSE ASPECTS OF IS THIS THING GOING TO STAY GOOD? WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY OCCUPANTS ALLOWED FOR THE BUILDING ITSELF.

SO, IF THAT BUILDING IS FULL AND THERE'S AN EMERGENCY THAT ADA LIFT, BASICALLY BECOMES A ONE PERSON AT A TIME EGRESS FOR ANYBODY WITH DISABILITIES OR NEEDING THAT ASSISTANCE.

AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS WE LOOKED AT IS THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE IN THE BUILDING.

AND IF WE LIMIT THAT ACCESS TO JUST THAT, WE'D LIKE TO KEEP IT OPEN THE FLOW IN CASE THERE'S AN EMERGENCY SO THAT MORE PEOPLE CAN EGRESS AT THE SAME TIME IN A SAFE MANNER.

AND THEN WE LOOKED AT THE LONGEVITY OF THE LIFT ITSELF.

AND EVEN THE COMPANIES DON'T PROVIDE MORE THAN ONE YEAR WARRANTY ON PARTS AND SUCH AND TWO YEARS ON THE WHOLE LIFT ITSELF.

SO IF WE GET ANY DOWNTOWN FLOODING AND SALT WATER GETS INTO THAT, OUR SYSTEM IS PRETTY MUCH DYING OUT AND STARTING TO RUST OUT FROM DAY ONE.

YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE LOOKED AT ITSELF AND THE LIFT AVAILABILITY DUE TO COVID KEEPS GETTING PUSHED OUT, PUSHED OUT MONTHS AT A TIME.

AND WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO COMPLETE THIS BUILDING SHORTLY, GET THE ACCESS TO EVERYBODY AND GET PEOPLE IN AND OUT OF THERE.

SO THIS YEAR HAS BEEN TOUGH FOR EVERYBODY, THAT'S JUST ANOTHER ADDED ONE ON TOP OF THE LIST. BUT YEAH AND THAT'S BASICALLY IT.

THANK YOU, THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.

THANK YOU. I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION.

WHEN YOU WERE JUST DESCRIBING THAT, YOU'RE SQUEEZING MORE SPACE OUT OF THE AVAILABLE SPACE ON THE WEST SIDE, WILL THAT CHANGE YOUR NEED FOR THE PUBLIC EASEMENT RIGHT OF WAY? IT ACTUALLY REDUCED IT.

THE SECOND SET OF PLANS I LOOKED AT WAS ME REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF NEED FOR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY FROM SQUARE FOOTAGE.

SO.

SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU'VE REDUCED IT FURTHER THAN THE ONE FOOT FIVE INCHES OR IS THE ONE FOOT FIVE INCH ENCROACHMENT WHERE WE STAND NOW? JUST TO CLARIFY. THAT'S CORRECT.

ONE FOOT FIVE INCHES IS THE ENCROACHMENT THAT WE STAND AT NOW.

BUT AS OPPOSED TO WHERE WE HAD THIRTY FOUR FEET, IT'S REDUCED DOWN TO, I BELIEVE, TWENTY, TWENTY TWO, TWENTY THREE FEET ON LENGTH.

SO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE AMOUNT THAT WE HAVE ON THE RIGHT OF WAY HAS GREATLY BEEN REDUCED. OK, THANK YOU.

VICE CHAIR BROWN. MR. PENLINGTON, THE LAST TIME WE TALKED, WERE TALKING ABOUT THE MOVING THE RAMP IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION THE WAY YOU SHOW IT.

I GUESS, WAS ONLY INSTEAD OF THREE RUNS, HAVING ONLY TWO RUNS ON THE WEST SIDE AND THEN THE REST OF THE RAMP BEING TAKEN UP ON THE PLAZA, AND AT THAT TIME, I THINK THE ARGUMENT WAS THAT, WELL, YOU'D HAVE TO YOU'D HAVE TO GO INTO THE PARKING GARAGE STRUCTURE TO DO

[00:30:02]

BUT NOW I SEE THAT YOU HAVE TWENTY FOUR FOOT RUNS.

AND IF WE GO BACK TO THAT SAME DISCUSSION, IF YOU HAD TWO RUNS INSTEAD OF THREE RUNS ON THE WEST SIDE, THAT WOULD PUT YOU UP AT FOUR FEET HIGH BY THE TIME YOU GET TO THE TRAVERTINE WALL.

AND IF YOU'RE FOUR FEET HIGH, FOUR FEET OFF OF THE SIDEWALK GRADE, THAT SEEMS TO ME LIKE IT WOULD GET YOU UP ABOVE THE PARKING GARAGE PRETTY SUBSTANTIALLY.

IS THAT TRUE? AM I MISSING SOMETHING? THE PARKING GARAGE AND COURTYARD.

I BELIEVE YOU BROUGHT THIS UP BEFORE AS FAR AS RUNNING IT INTO THE COURTYARD, MAKING IT LONGER IN THE COURTYARD AND REDUCING THE RAMPS TO TWO AND KEEPING IT TIGHT TO THE BUILDING WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINE, AS YOU GET TO THE TOP OF THOSE STAIRS THAT LITERALLY THE BULKHEAD OF THE PARKING GARAGE.

SO THE COURTYARD IS THE ROOF OF THE PARKING GARAGE ITSELF.

AND SO IF WE BROKE THROUGH THE BULKHEAD, WE WOULD LITERALLY HAVE TO BUILD AN ENTIRE WALL AND BLOCK OFF THE PARKING LOT BELOW.

YOU WOULD BE FOUR FEET HIGH.

MAYBE WE COULD LOOK AT THAT PICTURE AGAIN, THE ONE WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT.

YEAH, I HAVE TO GO SEVENTY SEVEN INCHES TO MEET THE HEIGHT OF THAT TRAVERTINE WALL FROM THE SIDEWALK TO THE BOTTOM OF THE TRAVERTINE WALL WHERE THAT BREAK IS IN THE TRAVERTINE.

YEAH, THAT SEVENTY SEVEN INCHES THAT'S THE ELEVATION FROM THE SIDEWALK TO THE COURTYARD ITSELF. AND THAT'S THE TOP OF THE CEILING OF THE PARKING GARAGE.

SO 10 INCHES BELOW THAT IS THE BOTTOM IS THE CEILING OF THE PARKING GARAGE.

OK, YOU HAVE TO GO OVER SIX FEET HIGH TO GET ABOVE THE STRUCTURE OF THE PARKING GARAGE.

THAT'S CORRECT, TO LAND RIGHT AT THE LEVEL OF THE PARKING GARAGE CEILING TO THE TOP OF IT.

OK. ALL RIGHT, WELL THAT ANSWERS THAT QUESTION.

OK, VICE CHAIR BROWN, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO, I THINK THAT WAS IT.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. PENLINGTON, I'D LIKE TO KNOW YOUR GENERAL THOUGHTS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE MENTIONED THAT ONE OF THE TREES HAS ALREADY DIED, BASICALLY BEEN, YOU KNOW, LOCKED IN BY THIS SMALL AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT THEY HAVE.

WHAT WOULD THE FEELING BE ABOUT RELOCATING THOSE REMAINING TREES, AT LEAST THE TWO THAT REMAIN TO THE SOUTH RIGHT THERE WHERE THE RAMP WOULD BE.

THOSE TREES THEMSELVES, WE COULDN'T RELOCATE THEM BECAUSE TO EXCAVATE THEM, WE'D HAVE TO PULL UP THE WHOLE SIDEWALK AROUND THEM TO GET THE ROOF WALLS OUT.

I THINK RELOCATING THEM IS POSSIBLE WITH A DIFFERENT TREE, INSTALLING NEW OAKS MAYBE CLOSER TO THE SIDEWALK ITSELF, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THERE'S FOUR FOOT SIX, THOSE SQUARES THAT YOU SEE IN THE SIDEWALK.

I BELIEVE THEY'RE FOUR FEET WIDE SQUARES, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY.

AND YEAH, THAT SQUARE WHERE YOU SEE THE [INAUDIBLE], THAT'S FOUR FEET.

SO TO TAKE THOSE OUT, WE WOULD BASICALLY HAVE TO JUST REMOVE THE TREE ITSELF AND THEN PUT IT IN A DIFFERENT TREE, IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION.

WHAT I'M ASKING BASICALLY IS HOW WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT REMOVING THE TREES COMPLETELY AND JUST MAKING THAT SIDEWALK THERE? I THINK THAT'S DOABLE.

OK, AND IF YOU WERE GOING TO FROM AN ESTHETIC STANDPOINT AND A CONTINUITY IN THE BUILDING, WOULD YOU REMOVE ALL THE TREES ON THAT SIDE OR WOULD YOU LEAVE THE TWO NORTHERNMOST TREES? WELL, WE BUILT A WATERFALL IN THE FRONT FOR THE MAIN FOCUS FROM THE NORTH SIDE LOOKING BACK AND IF WE REMOVE THE TREES, THAT WILL PROBABLY HELP US A LOT WITH HAVING TO PULL OUT LEAVES FROM THE WATERFALL ITSELF.

SO, I MEAN, WE'LL DO EITHER WAY.

I BELIEVE THE TREES THEMSELVES CAN COME OUT.

THEY DO LOOK NICE, YOU KNOW, ONCE THEY'RE FULLY LEAVED UP AND SUCH, BUT AT THE SAME TIME TO GIVE MORE ACCESS TO THE SIDEWALK, I THINK THAT'S A DOABLE THING BECAUSE THE SIDEWALK ITSELF ON THAT SIDE, AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S WIDE.

BUT THE OTHER SIDE, ONCE YOU PASS IN THOSE TREES, YOU'RE LIMITED TO A FOUR FOOT SPACE, ONCE YOU'RE ON THE INSIDE OF THE TREES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE EDGE OF THE TREE BOXES

[00:35:01]

AND THEN IT WOULD ALSO BALANCE THAT WITH THE WEST SIDE GIVING THE SAME, IF NOT MORE, ON THE WEST SIDE FOR WIDTH.

OK, SO WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH THE NORTH SIDE.

THE COMMISSION IS NOT DEALING WITH THE NORTH SIDE AT ALL.

SO THAT WOULD STRICTLY BE A JUDGMENT CALL FOR YOU IN THE SCOPE OF YOUR PROJECT.

WE'RE JUST DEALING WITH THIS WEST SIDE, BUT THANK YOU.

I THINK IF WE OPEN IT UP, WE TAKE THEM OUT.

THAT'LL OPEN THAT UP BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT MORE TRAFFIC GOING FROM THE STRAND TO POST OFFICE BECAUSE OF ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON DOWNTOWN AND HAVING THAT.

OPEN SIDEWALK ACTUALLY HELPS A GREAT DEAL.

OK, GREAT, THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONERS, ANYTHING ELSE FOR MR. PENLINGTON? OK, THANK YOU, SIR, I APPRECIATE IT.

AND WE HAD NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ON THIS CASE AND NO ONE ON THE LINE WITH ANY COMMENTS. SO I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT FOUR FIFTEEN P.M.

AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON CASE 21P-003.

COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS LICENSE TO USE 21P-003 WITH CONDITIONS ADDED TO THOSE THAT STAFF HAS ALREADY ENUMERATED AND THOSE CONDITIONS WOULD BE THAT THE PUBLIC ACCESS WOULD BE OPENED WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING TREES ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND THAT THE PARK BENCH BE RELOCATED.

AND WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING ELSE TO THAT AMENDMENT? OH, AND THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EFFECTING THAT CHANGE.

OK, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY.

COMMISSIONER BROWN, DID YOU WANT TO SECOND THAT? YEAH, I'LL SECOND. BUT I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REPAIR THE SIDEWALK WHERE THE TREES ARE REMOVED.

I AGREE AND I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY JUST GAVE A THUMBS UP TO ACCEPTING THAT FRIENDLY, FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO HER AMENDMENT.

SO WHAT WE HAVE THEN, JUST FOR THE RECORD, WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD READ, THE APPLICANT WILL COORDINATE WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY DEPARTMENTS TO RELOCATE THE BENCH AND FIVE TREES OFF THE PREMISES AND REPAIR THE SIDEWALK AFTER THE TREE REMOVAL.

ALL EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THESE MOVES SHALL BE BORNE BY THE APPLICANT.

DO I HAVE THAT CORRECT? OK, GREAT. DO WE HAVE DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS? ANYONE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY? I THINK THIS IS WORKABLE BECAUSE IF WE ALLOW THE APPLICANT THIS EXTRA FOOT AND ALMOST ONE FOOT FIVE INCHES INTO THE PUBLIC DRIVEWAY, THEN THEY ALSO MAKE THAT ENTIRE SPACE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, MUCH MORE ACCESSIBLE.

I MEAN IT TO ME, THE TREES ARE LITERALLY IN THE WAY OF ACCESS ON THAT SIDEWALK.

AND I'M NOT I MEAN, WE HAD A CASE THIS ISN'T REALLY SPECIFIC TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE, BUT NOT TOO LONG AGO, WE LOOKED AT A CASE WHERE A BUILDING OWNER HAD GONE AHEAD AND RELOCATED VEGETATION AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC EASEMENT.

WE WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THAT, BUT THEY WERE OPENING UP THE SPACE ON THE SIDEWALK FOR OTHER USES. AND THIS SORT OF LIKE MAKES SENSE TO ME TO DO IT THE SAME WAY.

OK, THANK YOU.

DID I SEE ANOTHER HAND? ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENT? OK, IF NOT, WE'LL CALL THE VOTE ON THIS CASE.

CALL] ALL IN FAVOR; THE MOTION PASSES.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYBODY, AND THANK YOU TO OUR APPLICANT.

THIS ONE TOOK A LOT ON EVERYBODY'S PART TO GET IT DONE.

[00:40:03]

THANK YOU. 21P-010.

[7B. 21P-010 (West Isle - Approximately 100.79 Acres Adjacent To Pointe West Subdivision) Request To Amend Ordinance 19-056 Regarding A Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District (19P-038). Property Is Legally Described As 100.79 Acres Of Land Out Of Abstract 121 Hall & Jones Survey Tr 1-7 Acres 219.885, A Subdivision In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Jones And Carter, Lindsay Reyes Property Owner: CRVI HPW TRS, Inc.]

UH, CASE 21P-010 IS, UM, A LOCATION REFERRED TO AS THE WEST ISLE SUBDIVISION THAT'S BEING PROPOSED FOR CONSTRUCTION.

UH, THE REQUEST IS TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE 19-056 REGARDING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT. FOR SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS CASE, YOU CAN SEE ON PAGE ONE OF YOUR STAFF REPORT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED FOR APPROVAL, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION WITH A PRIVATE STREET HERE.

THAT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR OCTOBER 17, 2019 MEETING.

AND WE NOTED ON PAGE TWO OF THE STAFF REPORT SOME OTHER BACKGROUND ABOUT LAND USE APPROVALS THAT HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN APPROVED ASSOCIATED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS A REQUEST TO AMEND THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS SUBDIVISION.

UM, THE AMENDMENT IS BEING REQUESTED TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE FOR THIS PROJECT.

THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE.

THE APPLICANT STATED IT IN THE NARRATIVE WHICH IS ATTACHED TO YOUR STAFF REPORT AS ATTACHMENT B, THAT THIS WAS DUE TO THE PROJECT MEETING UNANTICIPATED DELAYS DURING COORDINATION AND APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS' APPROVAL PROCESS.

UM, LEADING UP TO THE TIME WHEN CONSTRUCTION WAS PLANNED TO BEGIN, STAFF HAD CONTACTED THE APPLICANT TO LEARN OF THE PROJECT WAS ON SCHEDULE.

THE APPLICANT HAD RESPONDED THAT THE PROJECT HAD MET THESE UNANTICIPATED DELAYS AND REQUESTED TO AMEND PUD OVERLAY DISTRICT IN ORDER TO INCORPORATE THIS REVISED DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE. AT THIS TIME, NO OTHER CHANGES HAVE BEEN PROPOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

WE'VE MADE A COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE, WHICH IS ON PAGE TWO OF YOUR STAFF REPORT . THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVING A PUD ARE IN PAGE TWO AND PAGE THREE OF YOUR STAFF REPORT.

AND REGARDING THIS CASE, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED THE ONLY CHANGE BEING THE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CASE 21P-010 WITH CONDITIONS ONE THROUGH FIVE IN YOUR STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC TO THIS CASE AND SIX THROUGH NINE BEING A STANDARD FOR A PUD, AND WE SHOULD HAVE SOME PHOTOS.

SO THIS YELLOW OUTLINE APPROXIMATES WHERE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WILL BE LOCATED IN RELATION TO THE POINT WEST SUBDIVISION AND ADJACENT SAN LUIS PASS BEACH ACCESS POINT.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN SHOWING 32 LOTS, THE PRIVATE STREET.

NEXT SLIDE, I BELIEVE, JUST SHOW SOME TYPICAL LOT SIZES, TYPICAL HOME ELEVATION.

AGAIN, THESE DETAILS HAVE NOT CHANGED SINCE THE PRIOR SUBMISSION.

NEXT SLIDE. SHOULD JUST BE A TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF THE STREET, BEACH AND DUNE AREA, HIGHWAY. NEXT SLIDE.

JUST SOME MORE DETAILS ABOUT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND ITS RELATION TO THE NEIGHBORING PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS AND THE SUBDIVISION, AND I THINK THE NEXT SLIDE IS OUR LAST--PHOTOS, SORRY. THIS SHOWS SOME MORE DETAILS ABOUT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND GATE AND FENCING AND SIGNAGE. AND THIS IS THE AGAIN, WHAT YOU SAW IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, THE PROPOSED NEW DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE, WHICH LOOKS TO BE SHOWING ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION FOR THE SUBDIVISION INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF THIS YEAR.

AND THIS CONCLUDES OUR STAFF REPORT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DUSTIN.

DID I MISS THE PUBLIC COMMENT? WE SENT PUBLIC NOTICES OUT ON THIS? YES, I BELIEVE 12 WERE SENT AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSES.

OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

COMMISSIONERS, JUST TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI HAS TO LEAVE AT FOUR FORTY FIVE TODAY.

SO THAT GIVES US ABOUT 20 MINUTES UNTIL WE MOVE INTO A MEETING THAT HAS JUST BARELY A QUORUM. SO THAT WILL CHANGE THE DYNAMIC OF OUR MEETING.

[00:45:01]

OK, SO DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES, COMMISSIONER BROWN, THEN COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY? YEAH, I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PLAN ON SECTION D, DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. NUMBER THREE: PAVING.

PAVING ALL THE DRIVEWAYS MUST BE CONCRETE OR PAVERS.

WOULD THAT BE AT VARIANCE WITH, I MEAN, SOME OF THESE INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS WE GET SAY IT'S GOT TO BE FIBERCRETE.

ARE WE SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR SOME CONFLICT? I WOULDN'T THINK SO.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UM, THE LOT CONFIGURATION, THE NORTH SHORE, THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA, I BELIEVE IT'S STILL PRETTY FAR SEAWARD OF WHERE HOUSES WE BE BUILT ON THESE LOTS, ASSUMING THEY'RE BUILDING THEM UP CLOSER TO THE STREET LIKE THEY'RE SHOWING IN THESE SECTION DRAWINGS. SO BUT EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE BEACH [INAUDIBLE] CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE REVIEW PROCESS WILL CONFIRM, UM, THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND PAVING STANDARDS AT THAT TIME AS EACH HOUSE COMES FORWARD TO BE BUILT.

SO YOU THINK THEY'LL BE FAR ENOUGH AWAY FROM THE DUNE STRUCTURES THAT THEY WON'T NEED TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT FOR FIBERCRETE CORRECT. IN MOST CASES, THE FIBERCRETE REQUIREMENT IS FOR PAVING WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE LINE OF VEGETATION. AND THESE LOTS, AT LEAST ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION ON THE SITE PLAN AT THE TIME, WERE SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET, EIGHT OR NINE HUNDRED FEET OR SO FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION. ANOTHER QUESTION IN THAT SAME DOCUMENT ON E ON OPEN SPACE.

BEACH ACCESS, IT SAYS EACH INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER CAN PUT THEIR OWN DUDE WALKOVER.

AND THAT WOULD I GUESS EVENTUALLY WHEN THIS IS BUILT, THAT WOULD RESULT IN 32 DUNE WALKOVERS. I KNOW SOME OF OUR GENERAL LAND OFFICE COMMENTS BEFORE, THEY'VE SUGGESTED THAT WE MINIMIZE DUNE WALKOVER BY YOU KNOW, MAKING THEM COMMON BETWEEN LOTS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. UM.

IS THAT SOMETHING WE NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT SINCE I GUESS THE GLO HAS SHOWN SOME CONCERN IN THE PAST? UM, IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING TO CONSIDER FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, THE CITY'S DUNE PROTECTION AND BEACH ACCESS PLAN, THE ONLY REQUIREMENT THAT'S IN OUR LOCAL ADOPTED PLAN TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF WALKOVERS IS ONE PER RESIDENTIAL LOT.

SO THIS WOULD MEET THE STANDARDS AS THEY'RE CURRENTLY WRITTEN.

UM, WE HAVEN'T HAD POLICY INTRODUCED OR PASSED AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD, UM, FURTHER RESTRICT DUNE WALKOVER CONSTRUCTION BEYOND THAT.

SO THERE'S NOTHING IN THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OR IN THE PUD STANDARDS, UM, THAT I THINK WE COULD APPLY TO LIMIT THE USE OF PRIVATE WALKOVERS TO NO MORE NO LESS THAN ONE PER RESIDENTIAL LOT, UNFORTUNATELY, WITHIN.

WELL, THAT WAS MY QUESTION. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR BROWN.

MR. HOLLOWAY, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YES. DUSTIN, CAN YOU SHOW US WHERE THE PUBLIC ACCESS IS FOR THIS SUBDIVISION? PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE BEACH.

UM, SURE.

SO, UM, I BELIEVE IF CATHERINE CAN PULL UP THE AREA PHOTO, UM, THE FIRST SLIDE OF THIS POWERPOINT. THERE ARE TWO DESIGNATED PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS POINTS ON EITHER SIDE OF WHERE THE SUBDIVISION WHERE YOU DEVELOPED AT THE END OF SALT PRAIRIE DRIVE THERE TO THE EAST, THERE'S A PARKING LOT AND THEN A WALK OVER THAT EXTENDS TO THE LINE OF VEGETATION.

AND THEN TO THE WEST IS A DRIVE ON BEACH AREA COMMONLY CALLED SAN LUIS PASS WHERE YOU CAN DRIVE UNDERNEATH THE COUNTY BRIDGE ONTO THE BEACH, EITHER PARALLELING THE BRIDGE OR YOU CAN CUT THROUGH THERE WHERE YOU SEE THAT LARGE CUT THROUGH TO THE BEACH.

AND THEN THIS SUBDIVISION THEY'RE PROPOSING, UM, LET'S SEE, IT'S BETWEEN LOTS 13 AND 14.

THEY'RE PROPOSING A COMMON BEACH ACCESS WALK OVER TO BE BUILT, I GUESS, AS A SUBDIVISION AMENITY. OK.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THIS WOULD BE FOR PRIVATE ACCESS.

OH, IT'LL BE FOR PRIVATE.

OK, WELL, ARE VEHICLES ALLOWED ON THIS PART OF THE BEACH.

YES, THEY ARE. THEY ARE A LOT OF THE WEST BEACH UP UNTIL RIGHT AROUND WITHOUT DUNE WALKOVER BEGINS TO THE EAST.

AND WE'VE MADE IT PRETTY CLEAR IN THE STAFF REPORT AND TALKING TO THE APPLICANT BEFORE THAT THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING TO CHANGE BEACH ACCESS OR PROPOSING TO RESTRICT VEHICLE ACCESS

[00:50:03]

THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH OK, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I CAN'T SEE COMMISSIONER PEÑA OR COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI, SO YES, COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI, NOW I CAN SEE YOU. OK, THANKS.

I NOTICE THAT THERE'S ONLY ONE EGRESS POINT TO THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION.

IS THAT GOING TO BE OK WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT? UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION AND WE'LL GET CLARIFICATION FROM THE APPLICANT.

I KNOW THE LAST TIME THIS DEVELOPMENT HAD CAME THROUGH OR ACTUALLY THE FIRST TIME IT CAME THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DID REQUIRE AN EMERGENCY POINT OF EGRESS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE SUBDIVISION.

SO I DON'T BELIEVE THOSE PLANS HAVE CHANGED.

IT MAY HAVE JUST BEEN LEFT OFF OF THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN, BUT I KNOW THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WILL STILL REQUIRE THAT SECOND POINT OF EGRESS; THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

SO WE'LL ASK THE APPLICANT THAT, COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI WHEN THEY GET ON THE PHONE.

ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKEY DOKE, SEEING NONE WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 21P-010 AT 4:30 PM AND IS THE APPLICANT ON THE PHONE? I BELIEVE SO.

HELLO. I SEE THAT THEY'RE LOGGED IN, CATHERINE.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, NOW WE CAN HEAR YOU.

OK, SO YOU'VE HEARD OUR DISCUSSION.

IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD, QUESTIONS YOU'D LIKE TO ANSWER, COMMENTS YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE, PLEASE? SURE.

SO IN REGARDS TO THE SINGLE POINT OF ACCESS.

ON THE SUBDIVISION PLAT THAT WE SUBMITTED PREVIOUSLY, WE DID PROVIDE A TWENTY EIGHT FOOT ACCESS EASEMENT THAT KIND OF PARALLELS THE [INAUDIBLE] SITE ON THE NORTH EAST SIDE AND TIES INTO THE EXISTING STREET.

WE HAVEN'T LABELED SEASHORE DRIVE, BUT I THINK IT CHANGES STREET NAMES ONCE IT GOES KIND OF EAST-WEST AND THEN IT TIES INTO OUR PRIVATE STREET.

SO IT WILL BE FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY.

AND THAT WAS IN COORDINATION WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

AND, ASIDE FROM THAT, THE ONLY THING THAT'S CHANGED IN THIS PD FROM THE LAST SUBMITTAL FOR APPROVAL IS THE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE.

IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I'M HERE TO ANSWER THEM.

OK, GREAT. COMMISSIONERS, I SEE COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY HAS A QUESTION.

YES, MA'AM, COMMISSIONER.

YES. DO YOU FORESEE ANY OTHER DELAYS IN YOUR SCHEDULE AND WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM WITH THE CORPS, OTHER THAN THE PERMITTING PROCESS? YEAH, SO FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, IT'S JUST KIND OF A CRAPSHOOT WHEN YOU DEAL WITH THE CORPS AND OBVIOUSLY COVID DIDN'T HELP ANYTHING WITH THAT BUT THEIR APPROVAL, I THINK, RELEASES US TO ALL OF OUR CO-ORDINATIONS NOW ARE WITH THE CITY.

SO WE DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY OTHER DELAYS.

OK, GREAT. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I DON'T SEE ANY, SO THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US, MS. REYES, I APPRECIATE IT.

AND COMMISSIONER. SO WITH THAT, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:33 AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON CASE 21P-010.

COMMISSIONER PEÑA. YOU'RE MUTED MR. PEÑA. I APOLOGIZE.

I MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 21P-010 WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONDITIONS THAT ARE BEING ASKED OF STAFF.

OK, GREAT.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OK, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI.

ANY DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONERS'? SEEING NO DISCUSSION WE'LL TAKE A VOTE, PLEASE.

[00:55:05]

THANK YOU. SO NEXT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO 21P-011.

[7C. 21P-011 (7228 Jones Road, 7224 Jones Road, 2315 72nd Street, And Adjacent Parcel) Request For A Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District To Construct A New Multi-Family Residential Development. Properties Are Legally Described As Abstract 121 Page 78, Lots 7-12, Block 4, Magnolia Park Subdivision; And Abstract 121 Page 78 Part Of Lot 122 (122-8), Trimble And Lindsey Section 1; In The City And County Of Galveston Texas. Applicant: Michael Gaertner, AIA Property Owner: Ricky Morales]

THIS IS 7228 JONES ROAD, 7224 JONES ROAD.

2315 72ND STREET AN ADJACENT PARCEL IN BETWEEN THE MASON MALL [INAUDIBLE] PIECE.

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.

THERE WERE THIRTY SIX PUBLIC NOTICES SENT IN TOTAL AS OF THIS MOMENT, FIVE RETURNED, ALL FIVE OF THOSE OPPOSED.

THIS REQUEST IS TO ESTABLISH A PUD OVERLAY DISTRICT IN A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY OR R1 BASED ZONING TO ALLOW A NEW TWO STOREY APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT OVER COVERED PARKING.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS APPROXIMATELY 40 DWELLING UNITS IN A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH DOES INCLUDE A NUMBER OF EXISTING MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS AS WELL THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED GRANDFATHERED.

THE REQUEST DEVIATES FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AS FOLLOWS.

THE LAND USE WILL BE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS NOT NORMALLY PERMITTED IN R1 ZONING, AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE ALLOWANCES BEYOND WHAT IS TYPICALLY ALLOWED IN R1 ZONING DISTRICT, AS IS LISTED BELOW.

PLEASE NOTE THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING ADDITIONAL DEVIATION FROM THE REQUIREMENT FRONT SETBACK, AS DISCUSSED UNDER CONFORMANCE SECTION OF THE STAFF REPORT.

THE SUBJECT SITE IS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN R-1 ZONING THERE INCLUDES SEVERAL EXISTING LEGALLY NONCONFORMING MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURES AS SHOWN IN THE APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE.

IN ADDITION, THERE IS EXISTING MULTIFAMILY LAND USE AND MULTIFAMILY ZONING, APPROXIMATELY 2000 FEET TO THE WEST ALONG JONES ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 1100 FEET TO THE NORTH ALONG [INAUDIBLE] LANE.

NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH IS EXCLUSIVELY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

THE SITE ITSELF IS COMPOSED OF SEVERAL INDIVIDUAL PARCELS OF THE SAME OWNER, WHICH WILL REQUIRE A REPLAT TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, IF THIS REQUEST IS APPROVED.

ALTOGETHER LOTS TOTAL ABOUT FORTY THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY EIGHT SQUARE FEET, SOME OF THE PARCELS ARE VACANT.

THE TWO WHOLE SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES WHICH WILL BE DEMOLISHED TO FACILITATE THE PUD IF APPROVED. THE DEVELOPMENT IS GENERALLY COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES DUE TO THE FACT THERE ARE SIMILAR EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN POINT TWO MILES, THE NORTHEAST AND WEST. THE NARRATIVE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONFORMANCE WITH SOME STANDARDS THAT TYPICALLY APPLY TO MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES AND OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS AS A WAY TO MITIGATE ANY POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS.

THEY INCLUDE ATTACHMENT A.

OF COURSE, THE PUD DISTRICT IS A SPECIAL OVERLAY ZONE ALLOWS FLEXIBILITY AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT ARE APPROVED FOR SPECIFIC USES ON SPECIFIC SITES, I.E.

DEVIATIONS FROM THE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS MUST BE INCORPORATED INTO A PUD PLAN AND AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING.

SO THIS WILL GO TO COUNCIL FOR A FINAL APPROVAL.

THE LAND USE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS A PROHIBITED LAND USE.

RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY R-1 [INAUDIBLE] NORMALLY.

THE REQUEST IS TO DEVIATE FROM THE TABLE TWO POINT TWO ZERO ONE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY CONSTRUCTION AND AGAIN WITH ASSOCIATED ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE. SO YOU NOTE THE PUD DETAILS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS ON OUR STAFF REPORT.

I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THESE KIND OF QUICKLY FOR [INAUDIBLE] BENEFIT.

PURPOSE IS TO DEVELOP A THREE STORY, 35 TO 40 FOOT TALL APARTMENT COMPLEX OF APPROXIMATELY 40 UNITS. LET'S SEE, ALLOW [INAUDIBLE] TO DEVIATE FROM TYPICAL LAND USE RESTRICTIONS WE'VE NOTED. HE'S ALSO REQUESTING ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE.

THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ADOPT CERTAIN LIMITED USE STANDARDS ARE TYPICALLY APPLIED MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, SUCH AS DECORATIVE FENCING ALONG JONES ROAD.

EXISTING SIDEWALKS ALONG JONES ROAD WILL BE RETAINED AND REUSED FOR [INAUDIBLE] CONNECTIVITY, LANDSCAPING WILL BE PROVIDED.

HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT KNOWS EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL LINES MAY RESTRICT WHERE STREET TREES CAN BE LOCATED.

COMMUNITY GARDEN BIKE RACKS AND TRANSIT STOP ARE PROPOSED AS WELL.

THESE ARE NOT REQUIRED BY CITY STANDARDS [INAUDIBLE] PROVIDE AS AMENITIES.

BUILDING HEIGHT IS PROPOSED TO BE APPROXIMATELY 35 TO 40 FEET DEPENDING ON IF THE MEZZANINE LEVEL IS INCLUDED.

REGARDLESS, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO BE 50 FOOT ABOVE [INAUDIBLE] ELEVATIONS PER OUR LDR.

THE SETBACKS WILL MEET OR EXCEED THOSE TYPICALLY REQUIRED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN R-1 ZONING, WHICH WOULD BE A 20 FOOT FRONT SETBACK THREE FOOT SIDE SETBACK, 10 FOOT REAR SETBACK. THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING A 20 FOOT FRONT, SIDE, 10 FOOT AND REAR, 10 TO 14 FOOT, BUT ONCE AGAIN, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO NOTE RECOMMEND A ADDITIONAL DEVIATION THAT MAY BE

[01:00:06]

AGAIN, THIS IS A THIRTY FIVE TO FORTY FOOT TALL, 40 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX, APPROXIMATELY WITH PARKING UNDERNEATH A STRUCTURE, LANDSCAPING, COMMUNITY GARDEN ETC.

AS NOTED. SIXTY TWO PARKING SPACES ARE PROPOSING [INAUDIBLE] STRUCTURE.

THIS EXCEEDS THE TYPICAL OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS SLIGHTLY.

SO IT WOULD MEET OR EXCEED OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIFAMILY? AND, OF COURSE, ONCE AGAIN, PEDESTRIAN GATES FOR RESIDENTS WOULD CONNECT DIRECTLY TO THE EXISTING SIDEWALKS ALONG JONES ROAD.

DEVELOPMENT WILL UTILIZE EXISTING STREETS FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS.

ONE ENTRY AT SEVENTY SECOND STREET, ANOTHER ONE SEVENTY THIRD AND A SINGLE TWO LANE PARKING LOT ACCESS WOULD RUN BETWEEN THE TWO BLOCKS WITH PARKING FOR RESIDENTS ON EITHER SIDE. THE APPLICANT CONTINUES TO FOLLOW LANDSCAPE AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS TYPICALLY APPLICABLE.

FOR SIGNAGE TWO FLAT WALL SIGNS ARE PROPOSE AT EITHER END OF THE BUILDING, ALONG WITH ANCILLARY SIGNAGE SUCH AS ADDRESS, NAMEPLATE.

PROPOSED SIGNS REQUESTED AS PART OF THE PUD PLAN [INAUDIBLE] SOME BACK CHANNEL LETTERS CONTAINING THE BUILDING NAME AND ADDRESS AND MEASURING APPROXIMATELY 20 SQUARE FEET.

TYPICALLY, SIGNAGE IN R-1 ZONING IS RESTRICTED TO ONE NAMEPLATE NOT TO EXCEED TWO SQUARE FEET. [INAUDIBLE] LIGHTING [INAUDIBLE] WILL BE REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL. STAFF WILL ENSURE THE LIGHTING MEETS REQUIREMENTS IN ARTICLE SEVEN OUTDOOR LIGHTING DURING THE PERMIT REVIEW.

PROJECT WILL BE COMPLETED IN A SINGLE PHASE AFTER PERMITTING.

THE APPLICANT ESTIMATED SIX MONTHS TO REPLANT THE PARCELS INTO ONE PROPERTY, 18 MONTHS FOR CONSTRUCTION, FOR A TOTAL DEVELOPMENT TIME OF TWO YEARS OR TWENTY FOUR MONTHS.

THIS WILL BE COMPLETING A SINGLE PHASE.

FINALLY, THE AREA [INAUDIBLE] CONTAINS ONCE AGAIN SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOUSING WITH A NUMBER OF MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN 1100 FEET TO THE NORTH, EAST AND WEST, AND THOSE ARE SHOWN IN THE APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE APPROXIMATELY WHERE THOSE ARE AT.

PLEASE NOTE THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL FOR A PUD IN THE STAFF REPORT.

STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST GENERALLY CONFORMS TO THE CRITERIA FOR PUD IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON. THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL SERVE TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN GALVESTON, WHICH IS A NOTED PRIORITY LISTED IN THE 2011 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

BY ADDING APPROXIMATELY 40 DWELLING UNITS TO THE CITY'S HOUSING STOCK.

NOTE THAT THE PUDS CAN BE REVOKED AND THIS HAS HAPPENED ON OCCASION IN THE PAST.

THIS PROVIDES A WAY FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON TO REVERT TO A BASE R-1 ZONING IN THE FUTURE SHOULD THE PROPOSED PROJECT CHANGE OR FAIL TO OCCUR.

STAFF HAS CONCERNS ABOUT THE PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURE IN REGARDS TO ADJACENT RESIDENCES TO THE NORTH.

WHILE THE APPLICANT IS CONFORMING TO THE REQUIRED FRONT SET BACKS FOR R-1 ZONING, PROVIDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, STAFF RECOMMENDS A DEVIATION FROM THAT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE MORE OF A BUFFER BETWEEN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS TO THE NORTH.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT A 10 FOOT FRONT BUILD TO LINE BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE 20 FOOT FRONT SET BACK REQUIRED ALONG JONES DRIVE AND THAT THE ADDITIONAL 10 FOOT OF SPACE BE PROVIDED AS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND THE ADJACENT PARCELS TO THE NORTH TO GIVE THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS A BIT MORE PRIVACY AND A BUFFER.

STAFF IS ALSO RECOMMENDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SITE BE COMPLETED NO LATER THAN TWENTY FOUR MONTHS BEFORE THEY HAVE APPROVAL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE 20-008.

STAFF RECOMMENDS CASE 21P-011 BE APPROVED WITH THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE THROUGH SIX AND STANDARD CONDITIONS SEVEN, EIGHT AND NINE.

AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS.

SO THIS IS THE SURVEY SHOWING THE TOTAL PARCELS TO BE PROVIDED, WE HAVE A SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SORRY, MY COMPUTER'S ACTING A LITTLE FUNNY.

WE'LL TRY AGAIN. OK, THERE YOU GO, DANIEL.

OH, THANK YOU. AND SO THIS IS JUST A ROUGH KIND OF GRAPHIC PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING KIND OF THE [INAUDIBLE] AND ORIENTATION OF THE STRUCTURE.

AND THIS IS, I BELIEVE, A VERY CONCEPTUAL DRAWING, BUT I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT CAN TALK MORE ABOUT THAT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO THIS SHOWS THE SUBJECT SITE, THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA, AND WE HAVE LISTED ALL THE EXISTING MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURES IN THE GENERAL VICINITY, YOU'LL SEE A TOTAL OF ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR OR FIVE, BASICALLY SIX OF THOSE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO THE EAST SIDE OF THAT PROPERTY, BASICALLY, THE MIDDLE OF THAT PROPERTY, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OF THE WEST.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND WE HAVE A VIEW OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD NORTH ALONG 73RD STREET.

[01:05:04]

I'M PRETTY SURE I KNOW WHY YOU WERE ON VACATION LAST WEEK SO YOU COULD SAVE UP AND REALLY SPEED READ THROUGH THAT STAFF REPORT FOR US.

I APPRECIATE IT. I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH.

DID WE HAVE ON THOSE FIVE PUBLIC NOTICES THAT WERE RECEIVED, DID THEY HAVE ANY COMMENT ON THEM? TWO DID NOT, THREE EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT MORE MULTIFAMILY IN THAT AREA.

OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

COMMISSIONERS, WHO HAS A QUESTION FOR MR. LUNSFORD? BOB, I KNOW YOUR HAND WAS UP FIRST, BUT I'M GOING TO GO WITH COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI BECAUSE HE'S ABOUT TO LEAVE.

SO, COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI.

OK, THANK YOU. I THINK ONE OF MY CONCERNS WAS AND I DIDN'T HEAR IT ADDRESSED, BUT MAYBE IT WAS WOULD BE THE LIGHTING POLLUTION FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM.

MAYBE ON THAT BACKSIDE, WHICH WOULD BE THE NORTH SIDE, I GUESS, ARE THEY TAKING ANY EFFORTS TO REDUCE THE LIGHT OVERFLOW OR BLEED OVER TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS? THE APPLICANT HAS EXPRESSED A WILLINGNESS TO ABIDE BY OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ARTICLE SEVEN, THAT INCLUDES, YOU KNOW, VERY LITTLE ALLOWABLE OVER BLEED FOR FOR LIGHT IN GENERAL. AND DURING THE PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS, STAFF WILL REVIEW A PHOTOMETRIC LIGHTING PLAN WILL BE REQUIRED TO ENSURE THAT IS ADDRESSED.

OK, THANK YOU.

AND I APOLOGIZE, I HAVE ANOTHER COMMITMENT.

SEE YOU ALL NEXT TIME.

THANK YOU. SEE YOU, JEFF.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER BROWN.

YES, IT LOOKS LIKE FROM THE SURVEY THAT THE ALLEY ONLY GOES HALFWAY THROUGH THE BLOCK, IS THAT RIGHT? THAT THIS PROJECT DOESN'T INCLUDE EXTENDING THAT ALLEY ALL THE WAY THROUGH.

IT'S JUST GOING TO REMAIN HALFWAY.

THAT'S CORRECT. I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE'S ANY PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THAT ALLEY ORIENTATION WHATSOEVER. OK.

AND JUST TO CLARIFY, YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO HAVE A 20 FOOT SETBACK ON THE NORTH SIDE AND A 10 FOOT SETBACK ON JONES DRIVE SIDE.

IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT.

WE RECOMMENDED A BUILD-TO LINE, MEANING THAT THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WOULD BE LOCATED WITH NO DEGREE OF VARIANCE ON THAT 10 FOOT FRONT, YOU KNOW, FRONTING JONES DRIVE TO GIVE A LITTLE EXTRA BUFFER TO THOSE FOLKS TO THE NORTH.

I GET THAT RIGHT.

AND SINCE THEY'RE GOING TO BE PARKING [INAUDIBLE] UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING, DOES OUR ORDINANCE REQUIRE THAT THEY LANDSCAPE ON THAT NORTH SIDE, EVEN IF THEY'RE UNDER A BUILDING. I'M NOT IMMEDIATELY CERTAIN IF THEY DO.

I'M SORRY, CATHERINE, GO AHEAD. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT LANDSCAPING IS ONLY REQUIRED TO BUFFER PARKING WHEN IT'S VISIBLE FROM A RIGHT OF WAY.

SO IF IT'S UNDERNEATH A BUILDING, THEN, NO, WE WOULDN'T REQUIRE ANY LANDSCAPING.

OK. AND THEN I'VE GOT ANOTHER QUESTION.

CAN YOU ELABORATE ANY ON WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO THE UTILITIES UPGRADE? I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT IF IT'S A BIG DEAL OR NOT A BIG DEAL.

WE RECEIVED A COMMENT FROM [INAUDIBLE] IN OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AS PART OF A STAFF REVIEW. HE INDICATED THAT, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT ARE PROPOSED, THE ACCESS TO THOSE UTILITIES MAY NEED TO BE UPGRADED TO MEET THE ADDITIONAL DENSITY.

SO I THINK THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE KNOW EXACTLY RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT STAFF WOULD DEFINITELY LOOK AT DURING THE PERMIT PROCESS AND ACT ACCORDINGLY IF UPGRADES WERE REQUIRED. OK, I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW.

THANKS. THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR BROWN.

OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER PEÑA. COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY.

YES, COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY.

THIS MAY BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT DANIEL, I'M JUST GOING TO BOUNCE IT OFF OF YOU.

IF YOU MOVE THE STEP BACK CLOSER TO JONES DRIVE, DOES THAT AFFECT THE LANDSCAPING IN THE COMMUNITY GARDEN?

[01:10:02]

HOWEVER, THERE'S ALREADY KIND OF A POWER LINE THERE, A FAIRLY GOOD SIZED OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL IS ALONG THAT LINE ANYWAY.

SO I THINK EITHER WAY, THAT MAY BE SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE TO DEFINITELY LOOK AT CLOSER AS FAR AS WHAT STREET TREES COULD BE PUT THERE.

BUT, YEAH, DEFINITELY POSE THAT QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT TOO.

OK, THANK YOU. AND ONE MORE QUESTION OF STAFF, EVEN THOUGH WE WOULD NOT REQUIRE LANDSCAPING, COULD WE MAKE THAT A CONDITION FOR THE NORTH SIDE OF THIS PUD? [INAUDIBLE] YES.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, DONNA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS WHAT OPTIONS WE HAVE FOR OUR APPLICANT NOW THAT WE ARE DOWN TO SIMPLY, A QUORUM.

AND THANK YOU, CHAIRPERSON.

WE TYPICALLY DO THIS WHEN THERE IS A SITUATION OF NEEDING A UNANIMOUS AFFIRMATIVE VOTE FOR A MOTION TO PASS.

WE DID START OUT WITH MR. ANTONELLI BEING PRESIDENT, BUT SINCE HE HAS LEFT THE MEETING, WE'RE NOW AT FOUR FOR AN AFFIRMATIVE MOTION TO GO FORWARD, THERE WOULD NEED TO BE A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF ALL FOUR COMMISSIONERS. OH, I'M SORRY, AND THE OTHER PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE UNANIMOUS NESS OF THE SITUATION, WE TYPICALLY DO INVITE THE APPLICANT TO ASK IF THIS MATTER CAN BE DEFERRED TO ANOTHER MEETING.

AND SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO POSE THAT OPTION TO THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS MEETING BE SCHEDULED TO ANOTHER COMMISSION DATE, YOU CAN DO SO.

AND AT WHAT POINT WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO ASK THE APPLICANTS THAT QUESTION, DONNA, AS WE BEGAN THE PUBLIC HEARING, OR NORMALLY WOULD WE ASK IT AS WE START HEARING THE CASE? WE'VE GOT TWO DIFFERENT SITUATIONS HERE, PERHAPS.

RIGHT, RIGHT. RIGHT.

DEFINITELY BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING, DEFINITELY BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I THINK MOST OFTENTIMES THE STAFF WILL READ THE STAFF REPORT AND THEN WE'LL QUERY THE APPLICANT WHETHER OR NOT AFTER WE'VE GIVEN THIS INSTRUCTION, NEEDING THE UNANIMOUS VOTE, WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO PROCEED OR NOT.

OK, AND THE REASON WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS DIFFERENTLY THIS TIME IS BECAUSE WE DID GET INTO THIS UNANIMOUS SITUATION AFTER WERE ALREADY HEARING THE CASE.

YES. COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI HAD TO LEAVE IN THE MIDDLE.

SO THANK YOU, DONNA.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

SO CAN WE MEET THE APPLICANT, PLEASE? MICHAEL, ARE YOU THERE? I THINK SO. YAY, YOU ARE HERE, SO I ASSUME THAT YOU JUST HEARD ALL OF THAT FUN DISCUSSION.

SO THE QUESTION IS TO YOU NOW WE ARE DOWN TO SIMPLY A QUORUM.

IT WILL REQUIRE THE FOUR OF US TO VOTE UNANIMOUSLY TO MOVE THIS ALONG TO COUNCIL, TO RECOMMEND IT TO COUNCIL.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO DEFER THIS TO OUR NEXT MEETING OR DO YOU WANT US TO MOVE FORWARD AND GO AHEAD AND HEAR THIS AND ACCEPT THE VOTE OF THE FOUR OF US? IF WE DEFER IT TO THE NEXT MEETING WOULD DANIEL PRESENT THE STAFF REPORT AGAIN.

YES, HE WOULD.

HE MIGHT NOT DO IT QUITE AS QUICKLY AS HE DID THIS TIME BECAUSE HE'S ALL FRESH FROM HIS VACATION. BUT, YES, MICHAEL, IT WOULD BE AS IF WE STARTED OVER FROM SCRATCH, AS IF WE HAD NEVER HEARD IT BEFORE.

I DON'T KNOW, IT'S QUITE A TEMPTATION TO SEE IF HE CAN MATCH THAT PERFORMANCE OR NOT, I'M HERE WITH THE OWNER, MR. MORALES, AND WE'VE DECIDED THAT WE'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND PROCEED.

SORRY, DANIEL. OK, THANK YOU.

SO, I KNOW THAT YOU'RE A PRO AND YOU BOTH UNDERSTAND, THAT IT'LL TAKE ALL FOUR OF US VOTING YES TO MOVE FORWARD.

[01:15:02]

SO YOU'VE HEARD THE QUESTIONS ASKED, AND WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO ANSWER ANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS AND WHAT COMMENTS DO Y'ALL HAVE ABOUT THE PROJECT? WELL, SO OUR VIDEO IS RUNNING REALLY FAR BEHIND WHAT THE AUDIO IS.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE SEEING WHATEVER YOU DID FIVE MINUTES AGO.

WE'RE SEEING IT NOW. SO BUT I AM GOING TO ASK CATHERINE IF SHE WOULD GO AHEAD AND PUT UP THE INTRODUCTORY SLIDE FOR OUR PRESENTATION.

AND I WILL ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

BUT I'D LIKE TO START OFF BY INTRODUCING MR. MORALES TO YOU ALL AND LET HIM TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HIMSELF.

SO DO WE HAVE SLIDE ONE UP? YES, I HAVE THE SLIDE WITH MR. MORALES' PICTURE ON IT.

PERFECT. MR. MORALES, WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND SAY HELLO.

WELL, HELLO, EVERYBODY.

MY NAME IS RICKY MORALES.

I WAS BORN HERE ON GALVESTON ISLAND, LIVED HERE MY WHOLE LIFE, WENT TO COLLEGE HERE, OWNED MULTIPLE BUSINESSES HERE, ONE OF BEING CUSTOM CAR AUDIO BACK IN THE 90S.

I'VE ACQUIRED THIS LAND OVER A 10 YEAR PERIOD.

I'VE HAD IT IN MY MIND THAT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD LOCATION FOR A APARTMENT COMPLEX.

AND I HAD IT IN MIND THAT, YOU KNOW, I'D BUILD SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ATTRACTIVE AND THAT PEOPLE WOULD WANT TO LIVE AT, BUT THE HOUSING PROBLEM, SHORTAGES WE HAVE DOWN HERE, I FIGURE WHAT BETTER TIME THAN NOW TO BUILD.

SO HOPEFULLY I CAN GET THIS PROJECT PASSED AND ON ITS WAY TO BUILDING SOMETHING THAT WOULD BENEFIT BOTH ME AND THE CITY OF GALVESTON AND THE RESIDENTS OF GALVESTON.

CATHERINE, WOULD YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE? YOU GUYS HAVE ALL SEEN ME BEFORE MICHAEL GAERTNER AND I'M AN ARCHITECT, I'VE BEEN HERE IN GALVESTON SINCE 1980 AND IT'S REALLY EXCITING TO WORK WITH MR. MORALES ON THIS PROJECT.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THOUGHT WAS REALLY INTERESTING ABOUT THIS PROJECT IS MOST CLIENTS, WHEN THEY COME IN, THEY SAY, HEY, I WANT TO DO A PROJECT.

THEY'RE AFTER TOP DOLLAR? HOW CAN WE MAKE IT SO WE CAN CHARGE MORE RENT AND WHAT CAN WE DO SO WE CAN GET MORE RENT? AND MR. MORALES' APPROACH HAS BEEN VERY DIFFERENT IN THAT HE WANTS TO KEEP THESE UNITS SO THAT THEY WOULD APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING HERE IN GALVESTON.

THESE ARE NOT DESIGNED TO BE EXPENSIVE UNITS.

THEY'RE NOT DESIGNED TO BE AIRBNB(S).

AND THESE THEY'RE DESIGNED TO HOUSE WORKING FAMILIES HERE IN GALVESTON.

CATHERINE, COULD WE GO ON, PLEASE? SO THE IDEA IS THAT MOST THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE IN GALVESTON WOULD BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT.

WE WOULD PUT SOME FILL ON THE SITE BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY LOW LYING SITE.

SO DON'T WE WANT PEOPLE PARKING IN THE SWAMP.

SO WE WILL BE PUTTING SOME FILL UNDERNEATH THE LIVING AREAS OF THE BUILDING WILL BE ELEVATED UP ABOVE THE PARKING.

AND SINCE WE DON'T HAVE OUTDOOR PARKING WITH OUTDOOR PARKING LOT LIGHTING, WE WON'T HAVE A LOT OF SITE LIGHTING THAT'S UP IN THE AIR, BE LIKELY TO TRESPASS ONTO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE THAT THE APARTMENT, WOULD PURCHASE INTERNET SERVICES AT A DISCOUNT AND BE ABLE TO INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF THE RENT, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT MUCH MORE AFFORDABLE FOR TENANTS TO HAVE.

SO INSTEAD OF PAYING THIRTY FIVE OR EIGHTY FIVE DOLLARS TO COMCAST OR AT&T OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, INTERNET WOULD BE FREE AS A PART OF THE RENT.

AND WE THINK BY DOING IT AS A COMMUNITY SERVICE, INSTEAD OF EACH INDIVIDUAL GETTING THEIR OWN INTERNET, WE CAN DELIVER WITHOUT EVEN HAVING TO INCREASE THE RENT; IT'LL STILL BE AT OR BELOW MARKET. A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT CAME UP DURING STAFF REPORT AND QUESTIONS, ONE THING I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIFAMILY WHEN IT ABUTS A RESIDENTIAL AREA IS THAT THERE BE A BRICK WALL.

[01:20:04]

THE ONLY ONE SIDE THAT WOULD NOT HAVE A BRICK WALL WOULD BE ALONG JONES DRIVE.

SO WHATEVER LANDSCAPING WOULD BE INSTALLED WOULD BE BETWEEN THE MASONRY WALL AND THE BUILDING. SO PROBABLY NOT A GREAT BENEFIT TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.

WITH RESPECT TO MOVING CLOSER TO JONES DRIVE, MR. MORALES AND I HAVE DISCUSSED THAT AND WE'RE VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF MOVING CLOSER TO JONES DRIVE, AND WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WILL AFFECT THE COMMUNITY GARDEN OR ANY OF THE AMENITIES.

THE LOT IS A LITTLE BIT IRREGULAR.

AND SO IT ACTUALLY IS WE THINK IT'S A BIG BENEFIT BOTH TO THE NEIGHBORS AS WELL AS TO THE PROJECT TO BE CLOSER TO JONES DRIVE.

WE DID MEET WITH THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND DANIEL CHRISTODOSS TO TALK ABOUT UTILITY AVAILABILITY BEFORE WE BEGAN THE PROJECT.

THE SITE IS SERVED BY A TWENTY FOUR INCH STORM DRAIN, EIGHT INCH WATER AND 18 INCH SEWER LINE. SO I THINK IT'S MOST LIKELY THAT THERE WILL BE NO IMPACT ON THE UTILITIES THAT ARE AVAILABLE AT THE SITE.

IF WE COULD HAVE THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND EVEN MORE RECENTLY, VISION GALVESTON GO TO GREAT LENGTHS TO TALK ABOUT INCREASING HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR A DIVERSE POPULATION.

AND THAT IS WHAT THIS PROJECT IS REALLY ALL ABOUT.

SO IN TERMS OF OUR HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD GOALS, THIS IS ONE OF THE TOP GOALS.

NEXT, PLEASE, CATHERINE.

AND. SO IN UNDER THE HEADING OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POINTS OUT IS THAT THE LACK OF MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING IS AN IMPEDIMENT TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN GALVESTON.

NEXT SLIDE. AND AGAIN.

STRESSING THE IMPORTANCE OF HOUSING SUPPLY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND POINTING OUT THAT THERE ARE NOT A LOT OF PLACES BEHIND THE SEA WALL WHERE INFILL HOUSING CAN BE ESTABLISHED.

SO HERE SPECIFICALLY SUGGESTS NEW WORKFORCE AND MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING IN THE FORM OF INFILL WITHIN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND REDEVELOPMENT OF UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTY, WHICH I THINK IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING.

SO, AGAIN, HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD OBJECTIVES.

THREE OF THE TOPICS UNDER THAT CATEGORY TALK ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING TO US.

NEXT SLIDE, AND WE SHOULD BE TO THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS.

IT'S UP, MIKE. ARE WE THERE? YES, WE ARE. OK, THANKS.

SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THE SITE IS PRETTY WELL SURROUNDED BY APARTMENT PROJECTS.

THERE IS SOME THERE IS SOME RESIDENTIAL IN THERE.

THERE IS THE QUITE AWAY A LITTLE BIT TO THE NORTH OF THAT IS THE DEVELOPMENT THAT DAVID FRANKLIN STARTED OVER IN THERE WHERE HE'S RAISED THE SITE.

YOU CAN SEE IT KIND OF THE CURVY STREETS BACK THERE.

AND HE'S DOING RELATIVELY HIGH DENSITY, SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS.

BUT YOU CAN SEE THAT WE ARE IN AN AREA WHERE THERE'S LOTS OF MULTIFAMILY.

SO AND I ASSUME EVERYBODY'S FAMILIAR WITH THIS STRETCH OF THE STREET.

SO THIS TAKES A [INAUDIBLE] OFF OF STEWART ROAD AND GOES OVER PAST THE ENTRANCE TO MOODY GARDENS, WHICH IS JUST THE OTHER SIDE OF THE OF THE WATER THERE.

AND SO REALLY, JOHN'S DRIVE IS A VERY SHORT STREET BEFORE IT TURNS INTO 81ST STREET AND HEADS UP TO THE SEAWALL.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO BASICALLY, WE HAVE THREE DEVIATIONS FROM THE TWENTY FIFTEEN LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, AND THAT IS THAT WE'RE CHANGING TO MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE LAND

[01:25:01]

WE NEED SOMETHING THAT'S BIG ENOUGH TO BE VISIBLE.

AND SO WE SIZED IT EXACTLY ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES.

SO IT WOULD JUST BE VISIBLE NO MORE THAN WHAT WE NEED TO BE VISIBLE FOR PEOPLE PASSING BY ON JONES DRIVE. AND OF COURSE, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, WE'RE VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF MOVING THE BUILDING LINE IN THE REAR FURTHER AWAY FROM THE OTHER PROPERTY.

AND THEN THE LAST SLIDE, PLEASE, CATHERINE.

SO THE PLAN ALL ALONG WAS TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE COMPONENTS OF R-1 AND MF, THE BASE ZONING REQUIREMENTS.

WE INITIALLY STARTED OUT REQUESTING A CHANGE IN ZONING, BUT WHAT WERE TOLD BY STAFF WAS THAT IF WE CHANGED THE ZONING, THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT WOULD BE ONE HUNDRED FEET, AND WE BELIEVE STAFF BELIEVED THAT WAS JUST NOT ACCEPTABLE.

YOU KNOW, SOMETHING UNFORESEEN HAPPENED AND THIS PROJECT DIDN'T GO FORWARD AND SOMEBODY ELSE PICKED IT UP. YOU DON'T WANT A 100 FOOT TALL BUILDING THERE.

SO WE WITHDREW OUR APPLICATION FOR THE CHANGE OF ZONING AND WENT WITH THE PUD SO THAT WE COULD RESTRICT THE HEIGHT UNDER THE DEED TO LESS THAN 50 FEET, WHICH IS THE SAME AS THE R-1 REQUIREMENT.

AND OF COURSE, WE'RE WILLING TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION AND BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MORALES. THANK YOU, MR. GAERTNER. SO, COMMISSIONERS WHO HAS QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, COMMISSIONER PEÑA, AND THEN COMMISSIONER BROWN.

THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION.

MY CONCERN, AND IT WAS FIRST BROUGHT UP BY COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI BEFORE HE LEFT, WAS TRYING TO MITIGATE THAT LIGHT POLLUTION TO THE NEIGHBORS BEHIND IT.

IS THERE SOME SORT OF A I CAN'T TELL FROM ANY OF THE DESIGN OR ANYTHING, BUT IF THERE'S FLOOD LIGHT, SPOTLIGHTS, ANYTHING, THAT IS GOING TO POTENTIALLY BE A PROBLEM TO NEIGHBORS.

NO, THERE WILL BE SO WE CALL THAT LIGHT TRESPASS, WHEN LIGHT FROM YOUR PROPERTY GOES ON TO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY AND THE SAME AS WHAT I SAID BEFORE, THERE WOULD BE ZERO LIGHT TRESPASS FROM THIS PROPERTY TO THE ADJOINING PROPERTY TO THE NORTH.

SINCE THE PARKING IS ALL UNDERNEATH THE STRUCTURE, THERE'S NO REASON TO HAVE BIG PARKING LOT LIGHTS UP ON POLES WHERE THE LIGHT CAN SHINE OVER FROM OUR LOT INTO ANOTHER LOT.

SO THE SHORT ANSWER IS ZERO LIGHT FROM THIS PROPERTY GOING ON TO THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES. THANK YOU.

OK, THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER BROWN.

HELLO, MIKE, THAT'S A GOOD PRESENTATION.

YOU ANSWERED MOST OF MY QUESTIONS, DIDN'T LEAVE ME MUCH TO TALK ABOUT.

ON THE PARKING DOWN THERE, I GUESS YOUR BRICK WALL WILL BE FIVE FEET HIGH, AND THEN THE REST OF YOUR BUILDING IS, I GUESS, TOTAL OF ABOUT 40 FEET HIGH AND THEN YOU HAVE THE ROOF AFTER THAT, WOULD YOU ALL BE AMENABLE TO PUTTING SOME KIND OF LANDSCAPING BUMPER BACK THERE JUST TO MITIGATE THE MASS OF THAT BIG WALL BETWEEN YOUR PROJECT AND THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? WELL, MOVING THE BUILDING FURTHER AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE GIVES US GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO MORE IN TERMS OF LANDSCAPING BACK THERE.

SO, YES, WE WILL PROBABLY DO A LOT MORE IN TERMS OF LANDSCAPING.

WE JUST BECAME AWARE OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ABOUT MOVING IT FORWARD WHEN WE RECEIVE THE STAFF REPORT LAST FRIDAY.

SO WE REALLY HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO BRAINSTORM ABOUT THAT.

BUT, YEAH, WE'D BE WILLING TO DO SOME PRETTY EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPING.

[01:30:01]

ONE OF THE BIG ISSUES WITH MULTIFAMILY IS THE BUILDINGS ARE OUTSIDE OF WHAT THEY CALL THE FALL ZONE OF THINGS LIKE TREES AND TELEPHONE POLES AND TOWERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO WE'D HAVE TO BE PRETTY CAUTIOUS ABOUT THE SPECIES OF THE TREES AND WHAT THEIR MATURE HEIGHTS MIGHT BE, BUT IT COULD REALLY BE A NICE BRIDGE FOR THE GAP BETWEEN THE WALL THEN TO HAVE SOME FOLIAGE PEEKING UP OVER THE WALL TO SOFTEN THE VIEW OF THE BUILDING BEYOND.

SO WE THINK THERE'S REALLY A GREAT OPPORTUNITY THERE.

YEAH, THAT WOULD BE NICE.

WHEN YOU DID YOUR SIGN ANALYSIS WHERE ON THE BUILDING WERE YOU CONTEMPLATING PUTTING THE SIGNS? SO THE LOCATION FOR THE SIGNS WOULD ACTUALLY BE THE BRICK WALL WILL HAVE TO COME ALONG THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND EXTEND OUT TOWARDS JONES DRIVE.

SO WE'D LIKE TO DO THE AND IT'LL BE CHANNEL FORM SIGNED.

SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE LIKE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A 20 SQUARE FOOT SIGN.

IT'S JUST GOING TO BE THE CHANNEL LETTERS OVER THE BRICK WALL WITH THE APARTMENT NAME AND ADDRESS. AND THEY WOULD BE ON THE WALL BASICALLY JUST ABOVE STREET LEVEL, SORT OF LIKE MONUMENT SIGNS, BUT ATTACHED TO THE WALL.

OK, I SEE. ALL RIGHT.

THAT'S ALL I HAD. THANKS. THANK YOU, BOB.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING? MR. GAERTNER, I'M WONDERING ABOUT THE FIVE FOOT WALL.

HOW DID WE COME UP WITH FIVE FEET AND COULDN'T WE MAYBE IT SEEMS LIKE ON THE NORTH SIDE WE MIGHT HAVE A SHOT AT DOING A SIX FOOT SIGN BACK THERE, ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU'VE GOT A ROLLING GATE ON BOTH SIDES.

RIGHT. I'M NOT SURE--THAT WAS PLANNING COMMISSION THAT SAID FIVE FEET.

I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE LDRS TO SEE WHAT THE WALL HEIGHT IS REQUIRED TO BE.

IT SEEMS TO ME IT MAY HAVE BEEN TALLER, BUT WE WOULD CERTAINLY BE AGREEABLE TO DOING A TALLER WALL. IF YOU WERE JUST BUILDING THIS IN A VACUUM, WHICH ESSENTIALLY YOU ARE, SINCE IT'S A PUD, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO BY EVERYTHING IN THE LDRS AND WE WILL GO BACK AND ASK STAFF ABOUT WHAT WE NORMALLY DO IN THE LDRS.

WHAT WOULD YOUR IDEAL WALL BE HERE, MR. GAERTNER? WELL, YOU ARE BUTTING UP AGAINST RESIDENTIAL, SO YOU DON'T WANT IT TO LOOK LIKE THE BIG SOUND BARRIER WALLS THAT YOU SEE ON THE SIDE OF THE FREEWAY, WE DON'T WANT IT TO BE SO TALL THAT IT'S OPPRESSIVE.

SO IDEALLY, I WOULD SAY PROBABLY ABOUT SIX OR SEVEN FEET.

OK, THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? YES, BOB, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE? YEAH, MIKE, YOU STILL HAVE TO VENTILATE THE PARKING GARAGE, TOO, YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE WALL SO HIGH THAT YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO MECHANICAL VENTILATION, RIGHT? WELL, THE WALL WILL BE SO FAR AWAY WHERE WE HAVE TO VENTILATE WHEN THE GARAGE IS MORE THAN 50 PERCENT ENCLOSED AND MY SUSPICION IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE VENTILATING REGARDLESS. OK.

WELL, I WOULD GUESS THAT THE HEIGHT WOULD ALSO BE SUBJECT TO WHAT'S GOING TO BE SECURE BACK THERE, YOU KNOW, ANYBODY CAN JUMP OVER.

THAT'S NOT GREAT AND IF IT'S SO HIGH THAT IT LOOKS LIKE THE HIGHWAY BARRIERS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT'S NOT GREAT EITHER.

THEY'RE SWEET SPOT IN THERE SOMEWHERE.

OK, THANK YOU.

ANYTHING ELSE? AND NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS CASE, CORRECT, MS. GORMAN? THAT'S CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:13 AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON CASE 21P-011.

COMMISSIONER BROWN.

MOVE TO APPROVE THIS CASE, WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND ALSO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY BE LANDSCAPED.

YOU WANT TO BE ANY MORE SPECIFIC ON THAT LANDSCAPING, VICE CHAIR? WELL, MAYBE THE STAFF WILL MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW THAT COULD BE DONE WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT. OK, THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PEÑA.

AND NOW WE'LL OPEN THE FLOOR TO DISCUSSION.

I'D LIKE TO START THE DISCUSSION.

I'D LIKE TO OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO YOUR MOTION, COMMISSIONER BROWN, THAT WE

[01:35:07]

OK, SO AGAIN, HERE'S WHERE I'D LIKE SOME INPUT FROM STAFF, BOTH ON THE LANDSCAPING ON THE WALL HEIGHT. BUT WE'LL GET TO THAT OFFERING THE FULL FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

CAN WE BRING STAFF IN HERE TO DISCUSS THOSE TWO THINGS? I CAN DISCUSS THAT, IF YOU'D LIKE.

I'M SORRY, TIM? YEAH, CAN YOU HEAR ME OK? THIS IS TIM. YEAH, YOU'RE A LITTLE BIT SOFT.

OH, IS THAT RIGHT? OH, I'M SORRY.

IS THAT ANY BETTER? YES, THAT'S BETTER.

THANK YOU, SIR. OK, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

AS THIS PROJECT IS WITHIN BASICALLY SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU MADE THOSE MOTIONS.

AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, I THINK THE WALL CRITERIA PROBABLY OUGHT TO BE IDEALLY SOMEWHERE BETWEEN SIX AND SEVEN FEET, AS WAS MENTIONED.

I THINK YOU GO ABOVE THAT, YOU DO GET START GETTING INTO A POINT OF HAVING THAT MONOLITHIC, OVERWHELMING SORT OF FACTOR.

BUT SEVEN FEET STILL REALLY DISALLOWS SOMEBODY FROM MUCH OPPORTUNITY TO CLIMB OR GET UP IT AND SCALE IT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

YET STILL DOES A GOOD DEGREE OF BLOCKING BOTH NOISE AND POTENTIAL, JUST DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY LIFESTYLES AND MULTI-FAMILY LIFESTYLES.

AND I APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, COMMITTING TO A MASONRY TYPE WALL OR A BRICK WALL. I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY ATTRACTIVE.

AS TO LANDSCAPING, I THINK IT'S NOT SO MUCH [INAUDIBLE] AS IT IS THE THINGS THAT GET UP ABOVE THAT SEVEN FOOT OR THEREABOUT [INAUDIBLE] THE TREE CANOPY, IN MY OPINION, IS GOING TO BE VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THOSE FOLKS IN THE BACK ARE GOING TO SAY, YOU MIGHT HAVE NOTICED THROUGH THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS, THERE ARE SWIMMING POOLS BACK THERE ON TWO OF THE ADJACENT LINES THAT BACK UP TO THIS.

AND I CAN IMAGINE THOSE PEOPLE THINKING, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY THAT GETS UP 30 FEET IN THE AIR, WE HAVE A VIEW OF THEM IN THEIR POOL.

SO WITH THAT SAID, I THINK IT SHOULD BE A RATHER STOUT DEGREE OF TREES BEING PLACED IN THE BACK, PROBABLY NO LESS THAN ONE EVERY 20 FEET.

AND YOU COULD STAGGER THEM. AS TO WHAT VARIETY, THERE ARE MANY VARIETIES, I WOULD THINK THAT YOU'D PROBABLY WANT SOMETHING, AN EVERGREEN CANOPY OF SOME SORT. I'M NOT NECESSARILY SUGGESTING PINES, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD DO LIVE OAKS, YOU COULD DO MANY VARIETIES.

BUT I WOULDN'T DO YOU DO A DECIDUOUS TREE THAT LOSES ITS LEAVES IN THE WINTER.

AND I'M OPEN TO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR SUGGESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

SO I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT.

IF WE'RE SAYING ONE TREE EVERY 20 FEET, DO WE ALSO WANT TO PUT A CAVEAT IN THERE, A CONDITION IN THERE ABOUT HOW HIGH THE TREE IS, HOW TALL THE TREE IS AT INITIAL PLANT.

I WOULD, I THINK THAT WOULD BE WISE.

AND WHAT WOULD YOUR SUGGESTION BE ON THAT.

I WOULD SAY PROBABLY SOMEWHERE AROUND 50.

[COUGHING] EXCUSE ME, I TOLD YOU ALL, I'D EITHER COUGH OR SNEEZE.

OK, SO I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS THEN FOR THIS THIS AMENDMENT, IF YOU'RE AMENABLE TO IT, SINCE YOU MADE THE MOTION, IS THAT WE WOULD ADD ANOTHER CONDITION SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE THE MASONRY WALL WOULD BE A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET, A MAXIMUM OF SEVEN FEET.

AND THAT WE WOULD PUT ANOTHER REQUIREMENT IN THERE, A LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT FOR A SUBSTANTIAL TREE CANOPY WITH ONE TREE PLANTED EVERY 20 FEET, MINIMUM OF 10 FEET TALL AT PLANTING, AND THAT THESE WOULD PROVIDE AN EVERGREEN CANOPY.

DID I GET ALL OF THAT IN THERE OR DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT OR NOT, BOB?

[01:40:02]

COMMISSIONERS. DOES ANYONE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT? JUST SAYING SEVEN FEET OUTRIGHT.

OK, THEN THE OTHER QUESTION IS MIKE BROUGHT UP POWER LINES INFLUENCING THE LANDSCAPING BACK IN THERE, THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD POINT.

I'M NOT SURE I'M LOOKING AT GOOGLE EARTH AND I REALLY CAN'T TELL.

A LOT OF ALLEYS DO HAVE POWER LINES AND I CAN'T TELL WHAT'S IN THAT ONE.

AND IT MAY HAVE SOME INFLUENCE OVER THE TYPE OF TREE AND THE PLACEMENT OF THE TREE.

I BELIEVE THE POWER LINES WERE UP FRONT WERE THEY? OKAY. WELL, IF THAT'S TRUE, THEN I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT SPECIFICATION.

ALL RIGHT. AND COMMISSIONER PEÑA, YOU SECONDED THE MOTION.

DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THAT WITH YOUR SECOND HOLDING? OK, OTHER DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS? YES, COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY? I WAS GOING TO ASK JOHN PAUL WHAT HE THOUGHT OF IT.

IT'S IN HIS DISTRICT, BUT HE WALKED AWAY.

CAN WE CALL HIM BACK? JOHN PAUL, COME BACK! I'D REALLY LIKE TO KNOW--.

HERE HE IS. YEAH, AND MY QUESTION TO JOHN PAUL IS ABOUT WHAT HE THINKS OF THIS IDEA, BECAUSE IT'S IN HIS DISTRICT.

WHAT IS YOUR OPINION, JOHN PAUL? GENERAL IDEA OF THE APARTMENT COMPLEX? RIGHT, RIGHT, THE PUD.

I THINK THAT HOUSING IS A BIG ITEM HERE THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL IS LOOKING AT ON AN ISLAND WIDE LEVEL.

AND I THINK THIS PROJECT PROBABLY FITS THAT BILL.

SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, A GENERAL PERSON ON THE ISLAND WITH THE AVERAGE JOB CAN AFFORD TO LIVE IN. AND SO FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN SO FAR, I LIKE THE PROJECT.

I REALLY WISH WE HAD A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ON THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING ITSELF.

I KNOW WE HAVE A LITTLE RENDERING, BUT SOME ELEVATIONS WOULD PROBABLY HELP MAYBE AT A COUNCIL LEVEL. IF YOU THINK, MIKE, IF YOU THINK WE COULD GET SOMETHING DEVELOPED BY THE TIME THIS COMES TO COUNCIL.

BUT OVERALL, I THINK IT'S A GOOD PROJECT.

I DON'T REALLY SEE ANY PITFALLS FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD SO FAR TODAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCIL MEMBER, AND HOPEFULLY THEY'LL BE ABLE TO DO THAT BEFORE THE APRIL 22ND COUNCIL MEETING, BE ABLE TO GET YOU ALL A LITTLE SOMETHING ELSE.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? YES. COMMISSIONER PEÑA.

JUST WANTED TO THANK THE DEVELOPER AND THE APPLICANT FOR REALLY PUTTING A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO HOW THIS CAN FIT FOR MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING.

I THINK THE IDEAS ABOUT INTERNET AND TV ACCESS AND A LOT OF THE DESIGNS TO IT, THE THOUGHT WAS THERE.

I WISH THAT WE HAD MORE DEVELOPERS THAT REALLY HAD THIS MINDSET AND THIS HEART WITHIN OUR ISLANDS, BECAUSE AS AS COUNCILMAN LISTOWSKI STATED, AND AS WE ALL KNOW, HOUSING IS A MAJOR ISSUE HERE ON THE ISLAND.

YOU KNOW, IT'S MULTI-FAMILY, YOU KNOW, THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT'S NOT THE GREATEST IN SOME PEOPLE'S EYES, THAT THEY WOULD PREFER SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING THERE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE REALLY STRUGGLING ON THE ISLAND WITH HOUSING FOR WORKING CLASS PEOPLE THAT IS SAFE, AFFORDABLE AND A GOOD VALUE FOR A LIVING WAGE.

SO THANK YOU TO THE APPLICANT AND TO MR. GAERTNER AND TO MR. MORALES. THANK YOU.

OK, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, WE WILL MOVE FORWARD.

OH, COUNCIL MEMBER HOLLAWAY, YES.

I JUST, WOULD YOU PLEASE REFRESH MY MEMORY ABOUT THE MOTION? WHAT ARE WE ALL CONSIDERING? OK, WE ARE ACCEPTING THE PUD WITH ALL OF THE CONDITIONS, BOTH SPECIFIC AND STANDARD AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, AS WELL AS AN ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC CONDITION FOR THE MASONRY WALL TO

[01:45:01]

AND THAT WE HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL TREE CANOPY ON THE NORTH SIDE MADE UP OF EVERGREENS THAT ARE AT INITIAL PLANNING OR AT LEAST 10 FEET TALL WITH ONE TREE EVERY 20 FEET.

I THINK I GOT IT ALL IN ON THAT.

OK, ALL RIGHT, GREAT.

THEN I'D LIKE TO CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE, CATHERINE.

ALL IN FAVOR; THE MOTION PASSES.

NICE GAMBLE, MR. GAERTNER. ALL RIGHT, NOW WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH CASE

[8A. 20P-012 (1825 23rd Street / Tremont) Request For A Change Of Zoning From Commercial, Neighborhood Conservation District, One (C-NCD-1) To Urban Neighborhood, Neighborhood Conservation District, One (UN-NCD-1) Zoning District. Property Is Legally Described As Lots 8 – 11, Southeast Block 67, Galveston Outlots, In The City And County Of Galveston Texas. Applicant: Al Fichera Property Owner: Tremont Professional Building]

AND I'D LIKE TO BRING THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE PRIOR TO US ASKING QUESTIONS OF STAFF, PLEASE. 21P-012, IT'S 1825 23RD STREET OFF OF TREMONT.

SO REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING FROM COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT ONE TO URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT ONE ZONING DISTRICT.

30 PUBLIC NOTICE SENT ONLY ONE RETURNED IN OPPOSITION.

THE APPLICANTS REQUESTING A CHANGE OF ZONING FROM COMMERCIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT ONE TO URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE SAME OVERLAY OF NCD OR NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT ONE ZONING DISTRICT.

THE INTENT IS TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND THE SUBJECT LOTS AND REPLAT THE EXISTING LOT AND CONSTRUCT SIX OR SEVEN SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS SUCH AS THE NCD PLAN AND LDR.

NOTE, THE INTERPRETATION OF USE CLASSIFICATION ON PAGE TWO OF YOUR REPORT, COMPATIBILITY WITH [INAUDIBLE] LAND USE AND ZONING, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FORMS PART OF THE TWENTY THIRD STREET CORRIDOR, COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR IT IS ALSO ZONED OR SURROUNDED BY URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING WITH THE SAN JACINTO NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT.

THE INTENT FOR THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING DISTRICT IS TO ACCOMMODATE A RANGE AND PATTERN OF RESIDENTIAL USES FOUND IN THE CITY'S OLDEST ESTABLISHED URBAN CORE NEIGHBORHOODS TOGETHER WITH LIMITED NONRESIDENTIAL USES, STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED USE OF SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING.

PLEASE NOTE THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL ON PAGES TWO AND THREE OF YOUR STAFF REPORT, UH, AND CONFORMANCE STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHANGE IN ZONING APPROVAL CRITERIA AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13.601C OF THE LDR.

THE PROPOSED USE OF SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMELESS WILL MEET HOUSING NEEDS THAT MAINTAIN A COMPETITIVE LAND MARKET AND PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

SAN JACINTO NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT STANDARDS WILL ENSURE THAT THE NEW CONSTRUCTION IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CHANGE OF ZONING BE APPROVED.

NOW WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS.

THIS IS A ZONING MAP OF, UM, THE SUBJECT LOT AND GENERAL VICINITY.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THESE ARE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND WEST. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ADRIEL.

A DRILL NOW, DONNA, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M DOING THIS CORRECTLY NOW WOULD WOULD BE WHEN WE WOULD BRING IN THE APPLICANT TO MAKE SURE THAT HE WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH US DOING A FULL HEARING ON THIS CASE TODAY WHEN THERE ARE JUST FOUR OF US HERE.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

OK, GREAT. THEN IF WE COULD BRING THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE AND THEN IF HE WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD, WE'LL MEET HIM AGAIN WHILE WE DO QUESTIONS OF STAFF, PLEASE.

SO IS THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE? YES. THIS IS AL FICHERA SPEAKING.

THANK YOU. HI, AL.

MR. FICHERA, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I KNOW YOU'RE NO STRANGER TO THIS COMING TO PLANNING COMMISSION EITHER, BUT RIGHT NOW WE ARE AT JUST A BASE QUORUM, WHICH IS FOR PEOPLE AND FOR THIS PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD, FOR THIS RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE FORWARD AND MOVE ON TO COUNCIL, IT WOULD MEAN THAT ALL FOUR OF US WOULD HAVE TO VOTE FOR YOUR

[01:50:05]

OK, THANK YOU, MR. FICHERA. WE'LL CERTAINLY DO THAT.

I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU THE OPTION SIR.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, SO NOW WE'LL PUT THE APPLICANT ON MUTE.

THANK YOU. AND COMMISSIONERS, WHO HAS A QUESTION FOR STAFF? I'LL GO FIRST.

SO, ADRIEL, MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, WHY DO WE WANT TO DO THIS DOWN ZONING IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE? WHAT'S THE RATIONALE? I THINK THE READING ATTACHMENT B PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AND HIS NARRATIVE, HE EXPLAINED THAT THE INTENT IS TO BUILD SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED HOMES, WHICH IS , BY RIGHT, CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN THE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

HOWEVER, IN DOING SO, IT WILL REQUIRE A LARGER LOT AREA IN TERMS OF SQUARE FOOTAGE.

NOW, BY CHANGING THE ZONING TO A UN CATEGORY, IT BASICALLY REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF LOT AREA THAT'S REQUIRED FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF A 40 BY 100 TO BASICALLY JUST TWENTY FIVE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET.

I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

IT DID. SORRY, I JUST HAD A SLIP OF THE TOUCHPAD ON THE COMPUTER JUST A SECOND.

SO IT'S BASICALLY TO BUILD MORE DENSELY THAN THE APPLICANT COULD WERE IT SIMPLY DONE UNDER THE COMMERCIAL UMBRELLA? THAT WOULD BE AN ADEQUATE STATEMENT, YES.

OK, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

WHO ELSE HAS A QUESTION? COMMISSIONER VICE CHAIR BROWN.

IF I WAS READING THE SURVEY CORRECTLY, THE LOT IS ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY ONE POINT THREE FIVE BY ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FEET.

IS THAT RIGHT? YES, COMMISSIONER BROWN.

LET ME PULL UP THE SURVEY AND I WILL PROVIDE AN ANSWER.

ONE SECOND, PLEASE. AND THEN WHILE WE'RE DOING THAT, I ALSO UNDERSTAND FROM THE APPLICATION THAT HE WANTS TO USE THE ALLEY AS THE SERVICE CORRIDORS, WHICH MEANS THAT THE HOUSES WOULD FACE AVENUE B, I THINK, RATHER THAN TWENTY THIRD STREET WHEN THEY'RE ALL BUILT. AND IF ALL THAT'S TRUE AND HE WANTS TO BUILD SIX TO SEVEN HOUSES.

AND IF YOU BUILD SIX HOUSES, LET'S SAY, THEN EACH LOT WOULD BE ABOUT TWENTY EIGHT AND A HALF FEET WIDE.

PRETTY NARROW, FAR NARROWER THAN ANY OF THE HOUSES WE SAW IN ANY OF THE PICTURES SURROUNDING [INAUDIBLE]. DO I HAVE ALL OF THAT CORRECT? WELL, I MEAN, WITHOUT SEEING ANY CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS, I CAN'T TELL YOU THE EXACT DIMENSIONS OF THE PROPERTIES.

I'M JUST DOING MATH.

RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT. BUT I MEAN, IT'S AGAIN, IT'S THE APPLICANT MAY CHOOSE TO DO SIX, SEVEN, I MEAN, WHO KNOWS? WELL, I'M QUOTING WHAT WAS IN THE APPLICATION.

THEY SAID IT MUST HAVE BEEN SIX TO SEVEN HOUSES, AND JUST USED SIX AS A NUMBER.

SO APPROXIMATELY AND AGAIN, THIS IS ALL IF I MAY REMIND THE COMMISSION, WE OBVIOUSLY CAN GET INTO THE SPECIFICS OF THE INTENT OF THE APPLICANT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND THAT WILL ALSO BE REVIEWED DOING THE PERMITTING PROCESS, OBVIOUSLY.

BUT THIS IS THIS IS STRICTLY A CHANGE OF ZONING THAT'S BEFORE YOU.

AND YES, THE OVERALL WIDTH OF THE PARCEL, IT'S ROUGHLY A HUNDRED AND SEVENTY ONE OR SO, ACCORDING TO THE SURVEY. RIGHT, I'M TRYING TO GET A HANDLE ON HERE ON IF WE'RE TO MAKE A JUDGMENT, TRYING TO GET A HANDLE ON HERE, [INAUDIBLE] TRYING TO FIGURE OUT AND IF IT'S APPROPRIATE OR NOT. SOUNDS LIKE WHAT HE WANTS TO DO IS PUT VERY, VERY NARROW, SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED HOUSES, NOT AN APARTMENT OR NOT A TOWNHOUSE, BUT SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED HOUSES ON THE SIXTH FLOOR OR SO ON A PARCEL THAT'S ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY ONE FEET WIDE.

AND SO IT'D BE VERY NARROW SOMEHOW, SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF I'M THINKING ABOUT THIS CORRECTLY. AND YOU ARE I MEAN, JUST I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, MATH DOESN'T LIE AND THOSE

[01:55:02]

AND I THINK, BOB, THAT YOU CAN CERTAINLY ASK THAT OF THE APPLICANT AND HE CAN DESCRIBE MORE FULLY WHAT HE HAS PLANNED SINCE, YOU KNOW, IT'S SPECULATION ON ADRIEL'S PART.

HE'S GOING FROM THE SAME SHORT LETTER THAT YOU HAVE.

AND SO I THINK WE NEED TO ASK THE APPLICANT A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE DETAIL ON THAT.

SO WE'RE ALL STARTING FROM THE SAME PLACE.

YES, SIR. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OK, SEEING NONE, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 21P-012.

AND IS THAT CORRECT? IS IT 20P AND NOT 21P? YES, IT IS 21P.

THAT'S A MISTAKE.

MY APOLOGIES.

OK, 21P-012.

WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT FIVE THIRTY FIVE.

AND MR. FICHERA, YOU HAVE HEARD OUR DISCUSSION AND SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN POSED. SIR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE QUESTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE, SIR? MR. FICHERA, ARE YOU THERE? YES, I AM. OK, SO IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY ABOUT THIS PROJECT AND THEN I'M HOPING YOU HEARD COMMISSIONER BROWN'S QUESTIONS AND YOU CAN ADDRESS THOSE, PLEASE.

YES. YOU KNOW, FIRST OF ALL, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN BUILDING IN GALVESTON ISLAND FICHERA BUILDERS FOR FORTY SIX YEARS.

I GREW UP ON THE EAST END.

AND, YOU KNOW, THIS BUILDING THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING, IT'S BEEN VACANT FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

I MEAN, IT HAS SOME STORAGE, BUT IT'S NOT OPERABLE.

AND THE BUILDING, IN MY OPINION, EXCEEDED ITS LIFE.

IT DOESN'T MEET ADA STANDARDS, ETC AND THE CONDITIONS.

AND THERE IS A NEED FOR MORE HOUSING IN GALVESTON, ESPECIALLY IN MIDTOWN AND THAT'S MY REASONING BEHIND IT, TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE AND BUILD HOUSING ON A SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY AND ALL THE GARAGES WOULD BE IN THE BACK, WHERE A CAR COULD COME IN AND PULL INTO THEIR TWO CAR GARAGES AND THE STRUCTURES WOULD BE ON SLAB IT WOULD BE TWO STOREY.

VERY TO BEAT ALL THE NEIGHBORHOOD REQUIREMENTS THE REZONING WAS FOR BEING A COMMERCIAL, THE LOT SIZES WOULD BE BIGGER.

UNDER URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, THE LOTS CAN BE SMALLER.

WE WOULD NOT BUILD TO THE MINIMUM.

I BELIEVE THE MINIMUM IS TWENTY FIVE HUNDRED IF WE BUILT SIX HOUSES, THE LOTS WOULD BE AT LEAST TWENTY EIGHT HUNDRED.

IF WE BUILT SEVEN, IT WOULD BE TWENTY FOUR HUNDRED AND SOME CHANGE, BUT YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT THE ISLAND THE STANDARD LOT IS FORTY TWO FOOT TEN INCHES, A FULL LOT.

BUT THERE ARE NUMEROUS HALF LOTS WHICH ARE REALLY, REALLY TWENTY, TWENTY TWO OR TWENTY ONE. IT'S NOT A PROBLEM TO MAKE IT WORK, BUT THEY WOULD BE SINGLE FAMILY AND THEY WOULD ALL FACE AVENUE P, THERE WOULD BE NO DRIVES ON AVENUE P.

ALL THE PARKING WOULD COME IN THROUGH THE ALLEY AND PARK INTO THE GARAGE AND THEY WOULD ALL HAVE GARAGES BEHIND THEM AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE HEIGHT WOULD MEET THE NEIGHBORHOOD REQUIREMENTS.

THE LOOK WOULD BE COMPATIBLE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ON THE LOT SIZES.

IF WE CAN GET THE ZONING CHANGE, IT WOULD EXCEED THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT ON EITHER SIX OR SEVEN AND YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WOULD BE DEFINITELY AN IMPROVEMENT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE BUILDING NOBODY'S BEEN OCCUPYING.

IF YOU DROVE BY, THERE'S PEOPLE SLEEPING UNDER THE OVERHANG AND IN ITS DAY, IT WAS A NICE BUILDING, BUT I THINK THIS WOULD DEFINITELY ALLOW MORE HOUSING FOR THE ISLAND IN MIDTOWN, WHICH I THINK IS REALLY NICE BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A LOT OF MIDTOWN SITES AVAILABLE AND I

[02:00:01]

BUT IF I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTION, I'M HERE.

THANK YOU, SIR, COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY.

YES, SIR, MR. FICHERA, WHAT IS THE GROUND ELEVATION THERE? YOUR BFE IS 11.

YEAH, WE WOULD ONLY HAVE TO HAVE ABOUT A PROBABLY A 16 INCH ELEVATION CHANGE.

WILL BE DOING THEM ON SLAB.

SO, YEAH, YOU'LL BUILDING ABOVE THE BFE, WHICH IS A LAB.

OH, YES, ABSOLUTELY.

YOU CAN ACCOMMODATE THAT WITH A SLAB? YES, MA'AM. YES, WE CAN.

WE ALREADY HAVE OUR [INAUDIBLE].

IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. THANK YOU.

OK, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.

COMMISSIONER BROWN, DID YOU GET ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED IN THAT IN THAT NARRATIVE OR DID YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR MR. FICHERA? NO, I THINK I DID; HE ANSWER TO ALL OF THEM I HAD.

I THINK THEY'RE ALL GOING TO [INAUDIBLE] THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE [INAUDIBLE].

THE LOT SIZE IS GOING TO BE SOMEWHERE IN THE 20S, SOMEWHERE 20 SOME ODD FEET WIDE, 24 PLUS TO 28 OR 28, YES, SIR.

AND YOU SAY YOU'RE GOING TO TRY TO MATCH THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE EXISTING IN THE AREA? YES, SIR, SIMILAR TO, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE BEEN BY 39TH STREET, WHERE GALVESTON COLLEGE BUILT SOME NEW HOUSING OVER THERE FOR THE STUDENTS.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE ABLE TO VISUALLY SEE THAT PROJECT? YEAH. YEAH, MATTER OF FACT, THE SAME ARCHITECT WOULD BE DOING THIS PROJECT AND, YOU KNOW, TWO STORIES, WITH PORCHES ON BOTH LEVELS FACING SOME DIFFERENT ROOFLINES TO FIT THE ARCHITECTURE? YOU KNOW, I GREW UP ON 16TH AND [INAUDIBLE].

I GREW UP [INAUDIBLE] DISTRICT.

I DID THE SAMUEL MAY WILLIAMS HOUSE, THE MOODY MANSION, THE MOODY CAR MUSEUM, SO I'M VERY FAMILIAR WHAT WOULD LOOK GOOD THERE.

WE'LL USE HARDIE BOARD.

IF WE USE SOME BRICK, IT'LL BE THE OLD HISTORICAL BRICK RECYCLED.

AND YOU KNOW, PUT SOME DIVISION IN THE WINDOW.

WE WANT IT TO FIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD VERY WELL BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO.

THERE ARE SOME TREES IN THE FRONT NOW THAT ARE ON THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY, THEY'LL BE TRIMMED, NOT REMOVED.

THEY'RE PERFECTLY FINE.

THE SIDEWALKS AND ALL THE CURBS ARE REALLY BAD.

THEY'LL BE ALL REPLACED WHERE ALL THE ADA RAMPING WOULD GO IN AND, YOU KNOW, BUT EVERY EVERY UNIT WOULD HAVE A UPPER AND LOWER PORCH, SO YOU COULD SIT OUTSIDE AND SOME OF THE UNITS UNTIL SOME MORE CONSTRUCTION IS DONE, I KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD A HOTEL DOWN THE STREET. YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET A GLIMPSE FROM THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE BEACH, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE IT VERY NICE AND FRANK.

BUT WE WANT IT TO FIT THE ARCHITECTURE.

AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE ZONING CHANGE, BUT WE'LL SUBMIT ALL THAT AND WE'LL HAVE DRAWINGS PRIOR TO GOING TO COUNCIL FOR THEIR REVIEW OF THE ELEVATIONS, AS WELL [INAUDIBLE] PLAT, YOU KNOW, AS BEFORE IT WOULD GO TO COUNCIL IF YOU APPROVED.

GREAT THANK YOU. OK, THANK YOU, SIR.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? I DON'T SEE ANY.

THANK YOU, MR. FICHERA.

WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE TODAY.

THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH. YOU'RE QUITE WELCOME.

SO COMMISSIONERS CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT FIVE FORTY THREE AND I'LL ENTERTAIN EMOTIONAL CASE 21P-012.

COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY.

I MOVE TO ACCEPT 21P-012 AS WRITTEN.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS.

WE'RE ALL DISCUSSED OUT, WOO-HOO! [LAUGHTER] OK, SO WE'D LIKE TO CALL THE VOTE ON THIS, PLEASE, CATHERINE.

[02:05:10]

I'D LIKE TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL DECISION REGARDING THIS REQUEST AND THEY WILL HEAR THIS REQUEST ON THEIR MEETING ON APRIL 22ND.

THANK YOU, ADRIEL. APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.

I APPRECIATE IT. THIS MEETING WENT A LITTLE LONGER THAN I THOUGHT IT WOULD WITH JUST HAVING FOUR ITEMS. BUT THEY WERE THEY WERE ALL INTERESTING AND A LITTLE BIT CHALLENGING.

SO SEEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? WE WILL STAND ADJOURNED.

SEE Y'ALL.

THANK YOU ALL.

[INAUDIBLE] EVERYONE ON THE STAFF.

STAY HEALTHY.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.