[00:00:05]
          MINUTES HAVE BEEN READ, HAVE BEEN HEARD AND WILL BE INCLUDED JUST SO EVERYONE IN THE 
          [6. Public Comment]
PUBLIC WILL KNOW. 
          WE RECEIVED MOST OF THE COMMENTS, MORE THAN TWENTY FOUR HOURS. 
          THE COMMISSIONERS DID, MORE THAN TWENTY FOUR HOURS BEFORE THE MEETING. 
          THERE WERE A FEW LAST MINUTE COMMENTS THAT CAME IN WITHIN THE PAST TWENTY FOUR HOURS THAT WE RECEIVED AT NOON TODAY. 
          SO PLEASE, TO ALL THE PUBLIC, REST ASSURED THAT YOUR COMMENTS HAVE BEEN HEARD BY BEING READ BY THE COMMISSIONERS. 
          CATHERINE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT? SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS HAVE COME IN SINCE YOU GOT YOUR REPORT AT NOON AND THOSE WILL BE [INAUDIBLE] BY THE BY THE CASE MANAGER WHEN THEY'RE PRESENTING THEIR CASES. 
          OK, SAY AGAIN, THEY WILL BE READ BY THE CASE MANAGER WHEN THE CASE MANAGER PRESENTS THEIR CASE. I HEAR THAT CORRECTLY. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OK, GREAT. WHOEVER JUST JOINED US FROM THE PHONE NUMBER ENDING IN ZERO THREE ZERO FOUR IS NOT MUTED, CATHERINE PLEASE. 
          DO AND WE HAD NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON AGENDA ITEMS. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OK, GREAT. WE'LL BEGIN WITH CASE 20BF-111. 
          [7A. 20BF-111 (Open Space Reserve 5 And TR 37-1, Sandhill Shores Subdivision) Request For A Beachfront Construction Certificate/Dune Protection Permit In Order To Construct A Pedestrian Pathway For Public Access To The Beach. Property Is Legally Described As Sandhill Shores Addn (2000), ABST 121, OSR 5 (0-5) Acres 0.171 And ABST 121 Page 18, 19 & 22 Hall & Jones Sur TR 37-1 41.982 Acres, A Subdivision Located In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant And Property Owner: Sandhill Shores POA C/O Bob Dolgin]
GREETINGS, EVERYBODY. 
          DUSTIN HENRY HERE, CASE 20BF-111 IS FOR OPEN SPACE RESERVE FIVE AND TRACKS 37-1 OF THE SANDHILL SHORES SUBDIVISION. 
          THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED DEFERRAL OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE MAY 4TH, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING IN ORDER TO SEND ADEQUATE NOTICE TO ADJACENT LANDOWNERS AT LEAST TEN DAYS IN ADVANCE OF A PUBLIC HEARING. 
          THIS IS THE FIRST REQUEST FOR DEFERRAL AND THERE ARE NO COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS REQUEST. OK, THANK YOU, DUSTIN. 
          DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS MATTER? SEEING NO QUESTIONS, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL. 
          COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY. I MAKE A MOTION WE DEFER 20BF-111 UNTIL MAY 5TH. 
          4TH. 4TH, I'M SORRY. 
          WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI, IS THAT CORRECT? OK, GREAT. MAY WE HAVE A VOTE FOR DEFERRAL, PLEASE. 
          COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI. I'M IN FAVOR. 
          VICE CHAIRPERSON BROWN. IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER EDWARDS. 
          IN FAVOR. 
          CHAIRPERSON HILL. FAVOR. 
          COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY. IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER PEÑA. 
          IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER WALLA. 
          ALL IN FAVOR THE MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONERS. 
          WE'RE GOING TO GO SLIGHTLY OUT OF ORDER HERE AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE PLAT 21P-020 
          [8C. 21P-020 (22204 Cantina Drive) Request For A Replat In Order To Divide One Lot Into
Two. Property Is Legally Described As Sea Isle Section 24 Replat (2015), Abstract 121,
Block 1, Lot 5A, Acres 0.23, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant:
Lindsey Polk, Tricon Land Surveying, LLC Property Owners: Steve And Stacy Sapio]
NEXT. OH, ALL RIGHT. 
          21P-020. 
          THIS IS AT 22204 CANTINA. 
          THIS IS A REQUEST FOR REPLAT FROM ONE LOT INTO TWO LOTS. 
          THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REPLAT TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF LOTS FROM ONE TO TWO. 
          ONE LOT WILL REMAIN UNDEVELOPED AT THIS TIME. 
          OTHER CONTAINS THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. 
          THEY WERE TWO SEPARATE LOTS PRIOR TO 2014 AND WERE PLATTED INTO ONE AT THAT TIME. 
          AND THE OWNER WISHES TO RETURN TO THAT PREVIOUS CONFIGURATION. 
          PLEASE NOTE THE ZONING AND LAND USE TABLE IN THE STAFF REPORT, PROPERTY AND PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, EAST, SOUTH AND WEST ARE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. 
          MOST ARE DEVELOPED A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES WITH THOSE TO THE SOUTH ACROSS CANTINA, CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED. 
          [INAUDIBLE] PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND EASEMENT COMMENTS, THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS RAISED ABOUT THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY EXISTING BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES THAT WOULD REVERT, AND IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ASSOCIATED STORM SEWER LINE IS STILL IN PLACE AND STILL OPERATIONAL. 
          SO IT WOULD LITERALLY JUST BE GOING BACK TO A. 
          IT WOULD LITERALLY JUST BE GOING BACK TO THE PREVIOUS CONFIGURATION FOR 2014, THE RESIDUAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT LOT REQUIREMENTS IN THIS AREA, A MINIMUM 50 FOOT WIDE, 100 FOOT LONG IN THE MIDDLE, FIVE THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT. 
          THE REPLAT MEETS [INAUDIBLE] STANDARDS FOR LOTS IN RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING PER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, WHICH MEANS THAT THIS IS A MINISTERIAL REVIEW. 
          [00:05:03]
PLEASE NOTE THE PLAT APPROVAL CRITERIA IN THE STAFF REPORT. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL REQUESTS FOR THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, SPECIFIC CONDITION ONE AND TWO. THE APPLICANT SHALL ACCOMMODATE THE FILING OF THE PLAT BY OCTOBER 22ND, 2021. 
          APPLICATION NOTIFY THE CITY OF GALVESTON OF ANY OBJECTIONS FROM CENTER POINT ENERGY, RESOLVING OBJECTIONS WITH CENTER POINT ENERGY SHOULD THEY ARISE. 
          PLUS STANDARD CONDITIONS THREE AND FOUR. 
          AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS. 
          SO THIS IS A SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND YOU CAN KIND OF SEE ONE SIDE IS DEVELOPING THAT WOULD BE, OF COURSE, ONE LOT AND THEN THE UNDEVELOPED LOT TO THE RIGHT WOULD BE THE SECOND LOT THAT WOULD BE CREATED AND HAD PREVIOUSLY EXISTED. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS JUST A BLEAK VIEW OF THE TWO PROPERTIES IN QUESTION. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS THE EXISTING SURVEY ON THE LEFT AND THE PROPOSED REPLAT SURVEY ON THE RIGHT. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. PROPERTIES TO THE EAST, TO THE SOUTH, TO THE I BELIEVE THAT'S THE WEST AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S SUPPORT. 
          THANK YOU, DANIEL. 
          COMMISSIONERS, DOES ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER PEÑA? YES, I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT IT WAS COMBINED INTO ONE IN 2014. 
          WAS THERE A PARTICULAR REASON WHY BACK THEN TO THAT? STAFF DOES NOT HAVE ANY INFORMATION TO THAT, BUT I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE, MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. 
          THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER VICE CHAIR BROWN. 
          I'M JUST CURIOUS THAT COVERED DECK AND THE BOATLIFT THERE WHAT'S THE DISPOSITION OF THAT? IS GOING, LOOKS LIKE IT'S PART OF IT'S GOING TO BE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE OTHER LOT. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          WE GENERALLY DON'T HAVE SETBACKS PER SAY, PAST THE BULKHEAD, BUT CATHERINE MAY BE ABLE TO ELABORATE AS WELL HOW WE WOULD HANDLE THAT. 
          MS. GORMAN? LOOKING AT THE SURVEY HERE. 
          NO, THE PROPERTY LINE ENDS THERE AT THE SETS AT THE BULKHEAD. 
          AND AS DANIEL STATED, WE DON'T GENERALLY HAVE ANY ZONING RESTRICTIONS THAT GO OUT INTO THAT AREA. SO THE CITY WOULDN'T HAVE ANY REGULATIONS REGARDING THAT. 
          YOU MIGHT ASK THE APPLICANT HOW THEY PLAN TO DEAL WITH IT. 
          SO IT'LL PROBABLY BE AN HOA QUESTION IF ANYTHING. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI? DID I SEE YOUR HAND UP EARLIER? NO, BUT SINCE YOU CALLED ME OUT, I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          ON THE REPLATS, THIS IS ADMINISTRATIVE RIGHT? WE ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE ANY. 
          OK, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHTY, SEEING NONE. 
          WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21P-020 AT 3:43 P.M. 
          AND DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE PHONE? HI THIS IS LINDA [INAUDIBLE] WITH TRICON LAND SURVEY. 
          OK, GREAT. 
          IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY MS. [INAUDIBLE] ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR CASE? AND IF YOU HEARD THE EARLIER QUESTION, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT? I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE PLANS, THE PROPOSED PLAN ARE FOR THE BULKHEAD BEHIND LOT 6, AND I THINK THE PROPERTY OWNERS, STEVE SAPIO SHOULD BE ON THE CALL AS WELL. 
          I DO SEE MR. SAPIO WITH YOU, CATHERINE IS IT STAR SIX TO UNMUTED? THAT'S CORRECT. MR. SAPIO, IF YOU'D LIKE TO HIT STAR SIX. 
          OK I'M HERE. 
          OK, GREAT. THE COMMISSIONERS HAD A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS, WHO HAD A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER PEÑA. 
          UNMUTE THERE,. 
          IN THE REPORT STATED THAT THE THAT THE PLAT WAS COMBINED INTO ONE SOMEWHERE AROUND 2014. 
          DO YOU HAVE ANY HISTORY TO THAT OR WHY THAT WAS DONE? NO, WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD BY NEIGHBORS WAS THAT THE OWNER WAS ATTEMPTING WELL HE DID, HE REPLATTED THE PROPERTY WITH THE INTENTION OF BUILDING ADDITIONAL QUARTERS, CONNECTING TO THE EXISTING HOUSE, AND THAT'S WHY HE WANTED TO MAKE IT ALL ONE PROPERTY. 
          THE IDEA WAS HE WAS GOING TO MOVE THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT FROM THE CENTER, OBVIOUSLY. 
          [00:10:04]
THAT'S WHY HE PUT IT ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE. 
          [INAUDIBLE] HE JUST NEVER DID FOLLOW THROUGH WITH MOVING THE DRAINAGE PIPE AND GETTING PERMITS TO DO THAT AND PLACING THEM IN THE NEWLY CREATED DRAINAGE EASEMENT. 
          NO FURTHER ACTION ON HIS PART WAS TAKEN. 
          OBVIOUSLY, I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY WITH THIS PROBLEM AND, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH THE LOT UNTIL I REPLAT IT. 
          AND I PLAN ON BUILDING A HOUSE ON THE NEIGHBORING LOT. 
          I HEARD THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE DOCK. 
          IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS ISSUE AND HOA, THEY GIVE YOU SOME ADVICE ON IT, BUT IT'S NOT PART OF THE REPLAT. 
          AND NONE OF THOSE IMPROVEMENTS LIVE WITHIN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 
          AND JUST SO THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS I'M GOING TO SEPARATE THEM, THE PORTION THAT IS IN FRONT OF THE VACANT LOT WILL BE MOVED AND CENTERED TO ACCOMMODATE THE HOUSE THAT'S BEING BUILT. 
          SO THOSE TWO, THAT BIG, LONG DOCK WILL BE SEPARATED PRETTY MUCH LIKE THE REST OF THEM ALONG THE CANAL. OK, THANK YOU. 
          DID THAT COVER YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER PEÑA? AND VICE CHAIR BROWN, DID THAT COVER YOUR QUESTION, TOO? YES THANK YOU. 
          OK, THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OK, SEEING NONE AND WE HAD NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:47 AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON CASE 21P-020. 
          COMMISSIONER PEÑA. 
          I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AS WRITTEN. 
          OK, THANK YOU, I SECOND. 
          MAY WE PLEASE CALL THE VOTE, CATHERINE. 
          COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI. I WILL ABSTAIN. 
          VICE CHAIRPERSON BROWN. IN FAVOR . COMMISSIONER EDWARDS. IN FAVOR. CHAIRPERSON HILL. 
          FAVOR. COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY. 
          IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER PEÑA. 
          IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER WALLA. 
          IN FAVOR. [INAUDIBLE] THE MOTION PASSES. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          WE WILL MOVE ON NOW TO CASE 21P-017. 
          ALL RIGHT. 21P-017. 
          WE'LL HAVE A GOOD DEAL OF GROUND TO COVER HERE. 
          THE ADDRESS IS 1101, 1111, 1113 TO 1115 AVENUE M 1/2 AND 1410 12TH STREET AND ADJACENT VACANT LOT. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING FROM URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY. 
          UN-NCD-1 TO COMMERCIAL HEIGHT AND DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE THREE C-HDDZ-3 ZONING DISTRICT. 
          WE TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PUBLIC NOTICES. 
          THERE WERE 30 SENT, 19 OF THOSE WERE RETURNED. 
          FOUR OF THOSE WERE IN FAVOR, 15 WERE OPPOSED. 
          THERE WERE ZERO WITH NO COMMENT. 
          AND THERE WERE, AS COMMISSION I'M SURE HAS SEEN, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM OUTSIDE THE NOTIFICATION AREA. 
          SO TO MOVE ON TO THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CHANGE OF ZONING FROM URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY WERE IN CONSERVATION DISTRICT ONE, WHICH WOULD BE THE SAN JACINTO NCD TO COMMERCIAL HEIGHT DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE THREE. 
          THE APPLICANT'S INTENT IS TO BUILD A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SOME OF THE PROPOSED LAND USES ARE NOT PERMITTED IN URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS ZONING DISTRICT. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE OVERLAY DISTRICT FROM NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT ONE. 
          WHICH IS ONCE AGAIN, SAN JACINTO NCD TO HEIGHT DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE THREE, PLEASE NOTE THE ZONING AND LAND USE OF THE ADJACENT AREA IN THE STAFF REPORT. 
          PLEASE ALSO NOTE THE FIVE INTERPRETATION OF USE CLASSIFICATION. 
          AS CHANGES OF ZONING ARE PERMANENT NATURE REGARDING THE PRESENT PROPOSED LAND USE. 
          PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL MUST CONSIDER ALL POTENTIAL FUTURE LAND USES THAT WILL BE PERMITTED. SHOULD THOSE BE, SHOULD THE CHANGE OF ZONING BE APPROVED. 
          THOSE ARE ATTACHED IN EXHIBIT C FOR COMPARISON BETWEEN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMERCIAL ZONING IN THE STAFF REPORT. 
          HEIGHT DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONES OR OVERLAY DISTRICTS DEFINED AS CHARACTER AREAS WHICH ARE 
          [00:15:04]
DEFINED AS ZONING OVERLAYS IN THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT CODE. 
          EACH OF THESE ZONES HAS A SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE. 
          THESE OVERLAYS ARE INTENDED FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD VIA CONFORMANCE TO SPECIFIC DESIGN STANDARDS SUCH AS, BUT NOT INCLUDED TO LOT COVERAGE, SETBACKS, BUILDING HEIGHT, THE BUILDING MASSING AND WALL ARTICULATION. 
          THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE IN THE SEAWALL EAST ZONE, BUT THEY ALSO LIE PARTIALLY WITHIN A TRANSITION AREA WHICH IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE A LESS INTENSE TRANSITION BETWEEN ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS NORTH OF SEAWALL, WHICH OF COURSE IS A GOOD DEAL OF SEAWALL IN THE COMMERCIAL ZONING THAT ABUTS SEAWALL ALONG MOST OF ITS LENGTH. 
          A SUMMARY OF THOSE BASIC REQUIREMENTS JUST FOR THE COMMISSION'S REVIEW ARE PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AS WELL. ONCE AGAIN, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO THE SEAWALL BOULEVARD. COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR IS ALSO BOUND, HOWEVER, BY A LARGELY RESIDENTIAL URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING DISTRICT ON TWO SIDES OF THE NORTH AND THE WEST WITHIN THE SAN JACINTO NCD. 
          AND OF COURSE, THE INTENT OF URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD IS TO ACCOMMODATE A RANGE AND PATTERN OF RESIDENTIAL USES FOUND IN THE CITY'S OLDEST ESTABLISHED URBAN CORE NEIGHBORHOODS, ALONG WITH SOME LIMITED RESIDENTIAL USES. 
          PLEASE NOTE THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL IN THE STAFF REPORT. 
          STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE CHANGE OF ZONING APPROVAL CRITERIA PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13.601C OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, A PROPOSED USE OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES FULFILLS A NUMBER OF OBJECTIVES LISTED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ACCORDING TO WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED. 
          I'M GOING TO READ THE GENERAL OBJECTIVES AND THEN NOTE THAT THERE ARE GREATER DETAIL PROVIDED [INAUDIBLE] OBJECTIVE HN1 EXPAND THE SUPPLY OF MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING, HN1.2 PROMOTE MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING AND FUTURE MIXED USE DISTRICTS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS, OBJECTIVE HN3 EXPAND HOUSING CHOICES FOR LOW TO MODERATE AND WORKFORCE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS TO STRENGTHEN NEIGHBORHOODS, OBJECTIVE LU2 TO PROMOTE REVITALIZATION ENHANCEMENT AND APPROPRIATE INTENSITY AND MIXED USE OF DOWNTOWN AND AN EXISTING AND POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS IN MIXED USE DISTRICTS. 
          LU2-23 IMPROVE CONDITIONS ALONG [INAUDIBLE] BOULEVARD TO PROMOTE QUALITY DEVELOPMENT SUPPORTS FUNCTION AS AN ATTRACTIVE VISITOR DESTINATION. 
          IN ADDITION, THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THE APPLICANT PROPOSES IS NOT PERMITTED IN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING. THUS THE REQUEST FOR THE CHANGE OF ZONING AND THOSE LAND USES WOULD BE PERMITTED EITHER BY RIGHT OR IN LIMITED USE CAPABILITIES IN COMMERCIAL ZONING. 
          AND OF COURSE, THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING TO REPLACE THE SAN JACINTO NCD WITH [INAUDIBLE] DEVELOPMENT ZONE OVERLAY. 
          THE ASSOCIATED DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SAN JACINTO NCD REALLY ONLY APPLY TO LOW DENSITY IN RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. 
          THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY APPLICATION TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. 
          HOWEVER, THE [INAUDIBLE] STANDARDS ARE REALLY MEANT FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, THUS THAT REQUEST. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDS REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONING FROM URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT ONE UNCD1 ONE TO COMMERCIAL HEIGHT AND DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE 3 C-HDDZ-3 BE APPROVED. WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS. 
          SO THESE ARE THE SUBJECT PARCELS INVOLVED IN THE REZONING REQUEST AND FOR COMMISSION'S MEMORY AND FOR NEW MEMBERS, THERE WAS A PETITION TO ABANDON THE RIGHT OF WAY NOT TOO LONG AGO BETWEEN THOSE TWO SIDES OF THE BLOCK, WHICH WAS APPROVED. 
          WE ALSO HAVE A PHOTO OF GENERALLY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOOKING TOWARD THE GULF. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WE HAVE THE FIRST PART OF THE APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE, THE REST WAS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. 
          THAT PART WAS ACTUALLY IN THE APPLICATION, IT WAS OMITTED, SO I HAVE INCLUDED HERE. 
          THE MAJORITY OF THE APPLICANTS NARRATIVE IS IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT YOU'VE SEEN. 
          WE HAVE THE EXISTING SURVEY ON THE LEFT AND WE HAVE A PROPOSED SITE PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANTS ON THE RIGHT. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH AND ONCE AGAIN, PART OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THIS IS ALL UNDEVELOPED LAND, THE PROPERTY OF THE EAST, THAT'S THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST, AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. 
          [00:21:48]
THANK YOU, DANIEL, I APPRECIATE IT. 
          NOW OPEN THE MEETING UP TO QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, AND I'M GOING TO TAKE PRIVILEGE AND GO FIRST. SO, DANIEL, YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR DISCUSSION ABOUT THE JANUARY 5TH APPROVAL OF THE ABANDONMENT OF THE ALLEY BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL. 
          THAT WAS CASE 20P-046. 
          IS THAT SALE DONE? DO YOU KNOW? CATHERINE, I THINK, HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANTS; I BELIEVE IT IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED, BUT I THINK CATHERINE CAN PROBABLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION BETTER. 
          IT IS UNDER WAY. 
          SO WE HAVE COMPLETED THE ABANDONMENT PORTION. 
          THE STEP THAT, NEXT, NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED IS THE APPLICANT ACCEPTS THE ABANDONMENT AMOUNT AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON FROM THERE. 
          OK, THANK YOU. AS IN MANY CASES THAT WE SEE, THE APPLICANT IS A DIFFERENT PERSON IN THIS CASE FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER. 
          DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE APPLICANT'S RELATIONSHIP IS TO THE PROPERTY OWNER? I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT IS REPRESENTING A FAMILY ESTATE, MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS WHO COLLECTIVELY OWN THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. 
          I'M SURE THEY WILL BE ABLE TO FILL IN THE DETAILS AS WELL. 
          OK, BECAUSE IT LOOKED TO ME LIKE THE APPLICANT WAS REPRESENTING THE DEVELOPER OF THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPER OF THIS PROPERTY. 
          DANIEL, THE APPLICATION INCLUDES THESE TENTATIVE PLANS THAT WE JUST MENTIONED IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT. 
          HAVE YOU GOTTEN ANY INDICATION AS TO WHETHER THOSE PLANS ARE GETTING ANY MORE SOLID OR ARE THEY JUST KIND OF AN IDEA? I HAD TALKED A LITTLE BIT WITH, I GUESS THE DESIGN CONSULTANT , INTERFIELD I BELIEVE WAS THE COMPANY'S NAME, MS. VILLAREAL. AND I HAD MENTIONED THAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONCRETE RENDERINGS OR INFORMATION, BUT IT'S NOT STRICTLY NECESSARY. 
          THAT'S THE CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD TO THIS POINT. 
          OK, THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL ZONING, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, COMMERCIAL ZONING HAS LIMITED USE STANDARDS ON AUTO SERVICE AND FUELING, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. THAT IS ONE OF THE PROPOSED LAND USES THE APPLICANT HAS, I GUESS, PRESENTED TO US AND DISCUSSED. 
          IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE A TWO HUNDRED FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN THE FUELING CANOPY FUELING STATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING BOUNDARIES OR LAND USES. 
          SO WHILE, WE TYPICALLY DON'T CONSIDER URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD A STRICTLY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. HOWEVER, THE LAND USES ADJACENT ARE DISTINCTLY RESIDENTIAL. 
          SO THAT BUFFER WOULD BE IN PLAY TO SOME DEGREE, I'M FAIRLY CERTAIN. 
          OK, SO WHAT YOU WERE JUST QUOTING, DANIEL, IS LDR SEC. 
          2.307 FOR AUTO SERVICE AND FUELING LIMITED USE STANDARDS, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          AND THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY, I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE ITEM THREE UNDERNEATH THAT HEADING, BUT THAT'S CORRECT. OK, AND HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THAT PARTICULAR LIMITED USE STANDARD WITH THE APPLICANT? IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, YES. 
          OK, SO. 
          IF THEY BROUGHT JUST EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THEY BROUGHT MORE CONCRETE PLANS FOR A FUELING STATION LIKE THIS TO, SAY, A PREDEVELOPMENT MEETING, AND THERE ARE RESIDENTIAL USES WITHIN TWO HUNDRED FEET OF WHERE THEY'RE PROPOSING FUELING STATIONS. 
          WHAT WOULD YOU ALL DO ON THAT, DANIEL? WHAT WOULD THE CONVERSATION LOOK LIKE WITH THEM? WELL, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD WANT TO SEE, YOU KNOW, SOME SORT OF A SITE PLAN THAT, YOU KNOW, MORE CLEARLY DELINEATES THE AREA THAT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE FOR THOSE FUELING STATIONS. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, AS PART OF THAT, THERE MAY BE WHAT'S CALLED LIMITED USE AFFIDAVIT INVOLVED WHERE, YOU KNOW, BEFORE THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WOULD BE COMPLETED, WE WOULD ASK FOR BASICALLY LEGAL DOCUMENTS SAYING THAT THE OWNER UNDERSTANDS THOSE TERMS AND AGREES TO ABIDE BY THEM, BUT IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT IT CAN'T BE DONE ON SOME PART OF THE PROPERTY, 
          [00:25:05]
STAFF WOULD JUST HAVE TO LOOK CLOSER WHEN MORE DETAIL'S AVAILABLE TO SEE EXACTLY IF THOSE STANDARDS ARE BEING MET. 
          OK, EVEN IF THESE PLANS ARE NOT WHAT THEY DO GOING FORWARD, IF THEY ARE GRANTED THE CHANGE TO A COMMERCIAL ZONING, THAT COMMERCIAL ZONING STAYS WITH THIS PROPERTY, CORRECT? YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          THE HDDZ OVERLAY, OF COURSE, WOULD ALSO APPLY AS APPLICABLE. 
          OK, AND IN THE COMMERCIAL ZONING ALLOWABLE USES INCLUDE MANY THINGS, BUT SOME WITH LIMITED STANDARDS, BUT SOME THAT ARE OUTRIGHT PERMITTED WITHOUT ANY LIMIT TO USE STANDARDS WOULD BE BARS, OUTDOOR MUSIC VENUES, MEDICAL CLINIC, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE, I GUESS, A TWENTY FOUR HOUR EMERGENCY ROOM, A PAWNSHOP OR THE PROVERBIAL BIKER BAR. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THOSE LIMITED LAND USES AND THOSE PERMITTED BY RIGHT ARE IN ATTACHMENT C OF THE STAFF REPORT, OF COURSE. 
          GENERALLY SPEAKING, COMMERCIAL IS A MUCH MORE FLEXIBLE LAND USE THAN ANY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. SO JUST IN SUMMARY, THEN, AM I CORRECT IN SAYING THAT THE APPLICANT WHO IS NOT SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE OWNER, HAS APPLIED FOR A COMMERCIAL ZONING FOR A LOOSELY PLANNED PROJECT THAT'S SPECIFICALLY NOT ALLOWED UNDER THE LDR LIMITED USE STANDARDS, BUT THE COMMERCIAL ZONING WOULD STAY WITH THE PROPERTY ANYWAY, ALLOWING ANYTHING FROM AN OUTDOOR MUSIC VENUE TO A BIKER BAR TO BE PLACED WITHIN TWO HUNDRED FEET OF NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES THAT CONSTITUTE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT THAT MOST OF THESE PEOPLE WILL EVER MAKE IN THEIR LIVES. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? CHAIRMAN, BEFORE DANIEL ANSWERS THAT, I'M GOING TO ASK DANIEL NOT TO ANSWER THAT. 
          IF THAT IS YOUR STATEMENT, THEN THAT IS YOUR STATEMENT. 
          THIS IS A QUESTION PERIOD FOR COMMISSIONERS TO ASK QUESTIONS, NOT TO VERIFY YOUR STATEMENTS, SO TO SPEAK, AND THAT IS A VERY INTERESTING STATEMENT, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S WITHIN DANIEL'S PURVIEW TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER OR TO RESPOND TO, I SHOULD SAY. I'LL LET THAT STAND THEN. 
          COMMISSIONERS, ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF? LOOKS LIKE I'VE GOT COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY, THEN VICE CHAIR BROWN. 
          THANK YOU. I GUESS THIS QUESTION WAS FOR DANIEL. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT WITH THE CHANGE OF ZONING TO COMMERCIAL, THAT WOULD APPLY TO THE AREA THAT'S NOW URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          SO THE COMMERCIAL ZONING THAT EXISTS RIGHT NOW CLOSEST TO SEAWALL CAN PERMIT WHATEVER THE COMMERCIAL ZONING ALLOWS, AND THAT DOESN'T REALLY--SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY REALLY DOESN'T APPLY. 
          I MEAN, REGARDLESS OF THE ZONING, THE INTENDED USE SEEMS TO BE INCOMPATIBLE REGARDLESS OF THE ZONING, BECAUSE OF THIS TWO HUNDRED FOOT SET BACK FROM A GAS PUMP, RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT'S MY, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, IF WE HAVE A TWO HUNDRED FOOT BUFFER REQUIREMENT BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL USE AND A GAS STATION OR A FUELING STATION. 
          HOW IS THAT GOING TO WORK? WOULD THEY HAVE TO COME AND ASK US FOR A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO APPLY THE SPECIFIC USE THAT THEY ARE INTENDING OR [INAUDIBLE] GIVING US AN EXAMPLE? NOT NECESSARILY, THE ANSWER IS A RESOUNDING MAYBE, YOU KNOW, THE LOOKING SPECIFICALLY AT WHAT AREAS WOULD BE OUTSIDE THAT TWO HUNDRED FOOT THAT THEY COULD USE THAT, YOU KNOW, FUELING CANOPY FOR HAS THUS FAR WITH THE VERY PRELIMINARY PLANS WE HAVE OUTSIDE OF STAFF'S ABILITY TO DETERMINE, THERE MAY VERY WELL BE AREAS THAT IS PERMISSIBLE. 
          AND OUTSIDE THE TWO HUNDRED FOOT, OBVIOUSLY, SOME AREAS WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT TOO CLOSE FOR THAT. WELL, I MEASURED THE SIZE OF THE LOTS, THE PARCELS, AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO GET TO THE LITTLE TRIANGLE DOWN HERE BEFORE YOU COULD GET TWO HUNDRED FEET AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL. SO I MEAN, IT IS COMMERCIAL AND THAT'S ABSOLUTELY A LIMITED USE THERE FOR 
          [00:30:04]
COMMERCIAL, WHICH IS ACCEPTABLE, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME UNLESS I'M MISUNDERSTANDING THE APPLICANT, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ENOUGH ROOM, ESPECIALLY IF THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING. RESIDENTIAL INCORPORATED WITH THE GAS STATION, I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING . NOT ONLY IS THERE CIRCUMFERENCE OF RESIDENTIAL, THERE'S OUTLYING RESIDENTIAL OUTSIDE OF THE PARCELS, BUT THE VERY PARCELS THEMSELVES WOULD BE DEVELOPED AS CONDOMINIUMS, SOME OF THEM WOULD BE. SO I'M HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING HOW THIS WOULD FUNCTION. 
          IF I COULD JUST REMIND THE COMMISSION THAT THE REQUEST IS, THE CHANGE OF ZONING REQUEST. 
          THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR PRELIMINARY PLAN WHICH THEY CAN DO FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES. 
          BUT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEFORE YOU IS, IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY TO BE ZONED COMMERCIAL. 
          YES, OK, THANK YOU. AND I BELIEVE VICE CHAIR BROWN WAS NEXT, AND THEN WE HAVE COMMISSIONER EDWARDS. JUST WANT TO CLARIFY SOME THINGS AND THEN I WANT TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS HEIGHT DENSITY ZONING OVERLAY THAT WOULD COME WITH THIS REZONING. 
          SO THIS THE HEIGHT DENSITY ZONING OVERLAY PLACES THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IN SEAWALL E TRANSITION AREA, AND THE TRANSITION AREAS ARE INTENDED TO PROVIDE A LESS INTENSE TRANSITION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS NORTH OF THE SEAWALL, AND I THINK THAT TRANSITION AREA WOULD OCCUR AT THE [INAUDIBLE] SETBACK IN THE WEST SIDE, SINCE THAT'S WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL [INAUDIBLE] ARE. 
          IS THAT RIGHT, STAFF? YES, I MEAN, GENERALLY, THOSE TRANSITION ZONES ALLOW FOR A GRADUAL, I GUESS, STEP UP OF STRUCTURE BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, MOSTLY, YOU KNOW, LOW RISE, SO TO SPEAK, RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES, DUPLEXES, WHAT-HAVE-YOU. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT COULD CONCEIVABLY BE, YOU KNOW, GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE HDDZ AND COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS, YOU KNOW, MULTI--. 
          SO THE APPLICATION OF THAT SINGLE EAST TRANSITION AREA IS REALLY GOING TO IMPACT THE WAY THAT DEVELOPMENT CAN BE BUILT ACCORDING TO THOSE TRANSITION AREAS ON THE NORTH SIDE AND THE WEST SIDE, SINCE THAT'S WHERE THE TRANSITION AREAS WOULD OCCUR. 
          ONE OTHER THING, JUST TO KIND OF SUMMARIZE, I GUESS YOUR JUSTIFICATION, ACCORDING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, [INAUDIBLE] YOURSELF HERE NEXT TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH SAYS THE PROJECT FULFILLS SEVERAL OF THE OBJECTIVES LISTED IN THE 2011 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ESPECIALLY THOSE RELATING TO EXPANDING HOUSING OPTIONS AND PROMOTING COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. THAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE MAIN THING THAT STAFF IS HANGING THEIR HAT ON, SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THIS PROJECT AND HOW THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUPPORTS IT. 
          IS THAT RIGHT? WELL, WE UNDERSTAND THAT PART OF THE PLAN INCLUDES A PLAN FOR SOME MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, AND GENERALLY SPEAKING, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE OF. 
          BUT ONCE AGAIN, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THE DETAILS WE HAVE, IT'S DIFFICULT TO SAY EXACTLY HOW MUCH WILL BE INVOLVED OR WHAT THEIR ESTIMATIONS ARE. 
          I THINK THAT WOULD BE A SPECIFIC QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANTS. 
          OKAY, YEAH, BECAUSE I KIND OF GOT THE IDEA THAT THE HOUSING USE OF THIS PROJECT IS REALLY DRIVING A LOT OF THE JUSTIFICATION OR JUST READING THROUGH EVERYTHING, I REALLY COULDN'T SEE THE OBJECTIVE HN-3 EXPANDING LOW MODERATE HOUSING, DIDN'T LOOK LIKE A LOW-MODERATE HOUSING PROJECT TO ME. 
          I GUESS WE HAVE TO ASK THE APPLICANT ABOUT THAT. 
          BUT ANYWAY, ONTO THE CLARIFICATION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE HEIGHT AND DENSITY ZONING OVERLAY. WE GOT THE TRANSITION AREA. 
          AND THEN I'M LOOKING AT THE DIAGRAM THAT YOU HAD IN YOUR STAFF REPORT OF THE HEIGHT AND DENSITY APPLICATION IT'S GOT A PLAN VIEW AND THEN IT'S GOT A 3D AND I'M READING THESE TOGETHER WITH THE TWO CHARTS THAT YOU ALSO GAVE US IN THE PACKAGE, THE ONE THAT HAS THE REQUIRED YARDS BY CHARACTER AREA, WHICH DEALS WITH THE HEIGHTS AND THE ONES BY THE 
          [00:35:02]
TRANSITION AREA, WHICH IS WHAT WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT. 
          AND THESE ALL DEAL WITH REALLY WHAT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE BUILT ON THAT SITE BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH SETBACKS AND ALSO DEALS WITH HEIGHTS. 
          THIS IS CRITICAL THAT WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT IS. 
          IT'S CRITICAL TO WHAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY BUILD ON THAT SITE. 
          SO I WANT TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          THIS DIAGRAM THAT YOU PUT IN THE SITE IN OUR PACKAGE, IS THIS A KIND OF A SKETCH THAT APPLIES SPECIFICALLY TO THIS PROJECT? I MEAN, IT LOOKS LIKE THE TRIANGULAR LOT AND IT LOOKS LIKE THIS PROJECT. 
          IS THAT RIGHT? ACTUALLY, NO. 
          THAT WAS A CONCEPTUAL ILLUSTRATION PULLED DIRECTLY FROM THE HDDZ STANDARDS THAT, YOU KNOW, COVERS ONE PARTICULAR SITUATION THAT, YOU KNOW, IS MOST APPLICABLE TO THESE TRANSITION ZONES, SHOULD THIS REZONING BE APPROVED AND SHOULD THE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION, STAFF WOULD EXAMINE THEIR PLANS FOR HDDZ CONFORMANCE AT THAT TIME. 
          AND THEY WOULD, OF COURSE, BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MEETING ALL APPLICABLE HGC, YOU KNOW, CONDITIONS AT THAT TIME. 
          OK, I'M LOOKING AT IT RIGHT HERE. 
          WE CAN GO DOWN THE SEAWALL EAST COLUMN ON THE REQUIRED YARDS IN THE [INAUDIBLE] BY CHARACTER AREA AND THEN THE TRANSITION AREAS UNDER THE SEAWALL EAST COLUMN, COULDN'T WE, ON THOSE TWO CHARTS? LET ME GET TO THAT POINT REAL QUICKLY HERE. 
          ONE MOMENT, PLEASE. 
          ALL RIGHTY. SO, YEAH, THAT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT FIRST TABLE. 
          [INAUDIBLE]. 
          YEAH, THIS WAS ALL TAKEN DIRECTLY ONCE AGAIN FROM THE CITY OF GALVESTON, DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR HIGH DENSITY OVERLAY ZONES ON PAGE 70. 
          AND THAT'S WHERE IT REALLY STARTS TO TALK ABOUT THE TRANSITION ZONES AND HOW THOSE DESIGN STANDARDS MAY AFFECT DEVELOPMENT. 
          KEEP IN MIND THAT DOCUMENT IS ALMOST TWO HUNDRED PAGES, OVER 200 PAGES. 
          I REMEMBER IT'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT DOCUMENT. 
          IT'S KIND OF DIFFICULT TO CONDENSE DOWN INTO ONE SNIPPET. 
          SO STAFF JUST PRESENTED WHAT SEEMED TO BE MOST APPLICABLE TO THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL IN THIS PARTICULAR ZONE, THE SEAWALL EAST. 
          BUT, YEAH, ONCE AGAIN, IF/WHEN IT GETS TO THAT POINT, THERE WOULD BE A VERY COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW DONE ON THOSE PLANS. 
          OK, JUST LET ME SUMMARIZE IT REALLY, REALLY BRIEFLY, THOUGH, BECAUSE THERE WAS A WHOLE LOT OF CONCERN FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT THIS PROJECT, AND I GUESS RIGHTLY SO. 
          AND THIS HDDZ DOCUMENT, AS SAID RIGHT IN THE BEGINNING, IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE A LESS INTENSE TRANSITION. 
          AND THIS IS A GOOD ILLUSTRATION OF HOW THAT LESS INTENSE TRANSITION WORKS, THIS DIAGRAM RIGHT HERE, BECAUSE AS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS TRANSITIONS AREA, 1A AND 1B IN THE PLAN LOOK DOWN THERE IN THE 3D LOOK, YOU CAN SEE HOW IT WORKS RIGHT THERE NEXT TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA. IT SETS BACK 20 FEET FIRST FROM THE FIRST SETBACK, IT SAYS GOES BACK 20 FEET, AND THEN YOU'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO GO THIRTY FIVE FEET HIGH. 
          AND THEN 1B AREA YOU CAN BUMP UP AGAIN TO 70 FEET. 
          AND THEN BEYOND THAT, IT GOES UP HIGHER. 
          SO IT STEPS DOWN AT THE AREAS WHERE THE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE, AND THAT'S HOW IT KIND OF MODIFIES ITSELF STEPPING DOWN TOWARDS THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THAT ALSO PUTS A SERIOUS LIMITATION ON WHAT YOU CAN BUILD ON THAT SITE. 
          SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE--THAT WE ALL ARE INVOLVED IN THIS UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENS ON A SITE LIKE THIS THAT THE HDDZ IMPOSES ON IT. 
          AND SO THAT TRANSITIONARY WOULD BE NOT ONLY ON THE NORTH SIDE, IT WOULD ALSO BE ON THE WEST SIDE. AND BY THE TIME YOU GET THROUGH STAIR STEPPING ON THOSE TWO SIDES AND PUTTING GAS PUMPS ON HALF OF THE SITE, WHICH MEANS NO BUILDING THERE, YOU DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT. 
          THAT MAKES IT A VERY DIFFICULT THING TO PUT ALL OF THIS PROGRAM INTO. 
          SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE APPLICANT UNDERSTANDS WHAT HE'S LOOKING AT, AND THAT WE UNDERSTAND. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THIS IS A QUESTIONING OF STAFF AND 
          [00:40:05]
SO, IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE THAT STAFF CAN ANSWER, THIS IS THE TIME TO ASK THEM. 
          SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT I'M HEARING OR REALLY SHOULD BE POSED TO THE APPLICANT. 
          MADAM CHAIRPERSON. THANK YOU, DONNA. 
          SO LET'S TRY AND KEEP IT TO QUESTIONS THAT WE CAN ASK OF STAFF, I DO THINK THAT MOST OF BOB'S QUESTIONS DID HAVE TO DO WITH QUESTIONS TO STAFF TO GET HIS MAKE SURE THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE HDDZ, BUT WE'LL MOVE ON. 
          VICE CHAIR BROWN, DID THAT TAKE CARE OF ALL YOUR QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT? YEAH, I GUESS SO. 
          I GUESS ONE LAST QUESTION I HAD WAS, AND I MAY HAVE ALREADY JUST GOTTEN THIS ANSWERED WAS AND THAT THE APPLICANT PRESENTED, I GUESS THIS DOES NOT ASSUME ANY REAL APPLICATION OF THE HIGH DENSITY ZONING OVERLAY. 
          IS THAT TRUE? DANIEL, CAN YOU ANSWER THAT ONE? SORRY, COULD YOU RESTATE THE QUESTION? THE PLAN THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED, I GUESS THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE OR REFLECT ANY HEIGHT AND DENSITY ZONING APPLICATION, DOES IT? THAT'S A SITE PLAN. 
          SO IT'S A RATHER TWO DIMENSIONAL FLAT DEPICTION. 
          YOU KNOW, THAT'S ABOUT ALL STAFF CAN REALLY SAY ABOUT THAT. 
          THAT MAY BE A QUESTION ONCE AGAIN FOR THE APPLICANT TO ELABORATE ON WHAT THEIR PLANS MAY BE. OK, THANKS, THAT'S ALL I HAVE ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER EDWARDS, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF? I DO. AND FORGIVE ME FOR NOT KNOWING THE ANSWER TO THIS AHEAD OF TIME, BECAUSE MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL KNOW THAT I DON'T. 
          CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME ABOUT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND HOW THAT WORKS? AND WHERE IS IT THAT WE CAN LOOK AT WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE IS FOR THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY? I BELIEVE, AND CATHERINE CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I BELIEVE THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP WAS NOT ACTUALLY EVER COMPLETED. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF WE ACTUALLY HAVE ONE. 
          CATHERINE, IS THAT RIGHT? DANIEL, YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          IT'S NOT BEEN COMPLETED. 
          SO HOW DO WE MAKE A DETERMINATION ON A FUTURE LAND USE MAP IF THERE'S NOT A COMPLETE ONE? THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY A QUESTION I CAN ANSWER. 
          I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE STATUS IS OF THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT. 
          I THINK THE WAY WE HAVE LOOKED AT IT TO THIS POINT IS THAT WE JUST MOSTLY LOOK AT THE PRESENT LAND, USE IT ONCE AGAIN, CATHERINE CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. 
          THAT'S RIGHT, DANIEL, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS IDENTIFIED AS A NEED AND WE'LL BE DOING IN THE NEXT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. 
          OK, SO I GUESS I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHEN I READ NUMBER TWO, UNDER THE NARRATIVE FOR REZONING REQUEST, WHEN I READ THE DESCRIPTION OF HOW TO CHANGE THE ZONING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FIVE POINTS BELOW, NUMBER TWO SAYS THE PRESENT AND PROPOSED ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP PREPARED BY STAFF AND ACCOMPANYING THE STAFF REPORT IN THIS CASE, THEN IT SAYS THE PRESENT PROPOSED IS CONSISTENT WITH FUTURE USE, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? SO, TO ME, IT MAKES IT SEEM LIKE AND MAYBE I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A MAP TO BE LOOKED AT AND THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING A GUIDELINE FOR THAT MAP OR USE FUTURE DOWN THE ROAD. SO, IF THERE'S NOT A MAP AND THERE'S NO WAY TO DETERMINE WHAT THE MAP'S GOING TO BE UNTIL YOU GUYS TAKE IT UP. 
          HOW DO WE EVEN USE THAT AS A PART OF THE EQUATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT? THE ZONING CHANGE SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. 
          I UNDERSTAND TO A DEGREE, WE USE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ASSIGN A SURROGATE TO AT LEAST IDENTIFY THE NEEDS PUT FORTH IN THERE, BUT IT ALSO MAY VERY WELL BE THAT WE NEED TO PERHAPS REEXAMINE AND IN AND CHANGE OUR APPLICATIONS AND THE WORDING THEREOF. 
          THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT. 
          OK, WELL, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PARTICULAR USES WOULD BE, AND I GUESS YOU'RE SAYING IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE USES WOULD BE, IT'S JUST WHETHER OR NOT IT'S 
          [00:45:05]
ALLOWABLE FOR THEM TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO COMMERCIAL AND THEN WHATEVER THAT COULD BE IS WHAT IT COULD BE LATER. RIGHT? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YES, I BELIEVE IT'S LET ME SEE EXACTLY WHAT PART OF THE STAFF REPORT IT IS. 
          YEAH, UNDER INTERPRETATION OF USE, THOSE CHANGES IN ZONING OR MORE OR LESS PERMANENT NATURE. SO THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. 
          WHATEVER IS ALLOWED IN COMMERCIAL WOULD BE ALLOWED WITH THIS CHANGE OF ZONING. 
          AND WHATEVER IS ALLOWED IN COMMERCIAL IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN THE PART THAT IS COMMERCIALLY ZONED. SO THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OK, SO THERE'S NO STRUCTURAL PLAN IN PLACE NOW THAT WOULD SAY THEY HAVE TO DO ONE PARTICULAR THING. IF WE CHANGE THIS, THEN WHATEVER THEY DECIDE LATER, IF IT'S PERMISSIBLE, THEN THEY CAN DO IT. 
          IS THAT UNDERSTAND? IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, I MEAN, SUBJECT ALL, YOU KNOW, APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS, LDR, CITY CODE, THE HDDZ GUIDELINES THAT APPLY, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OK. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER WALLAR? MR. WALLA, YOU'RE MUTED. COMMISSIONER WALLA, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. 
          SORRY, I WAS LOOKING SOMEWHERE ELSE AND COULDN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET BACK TO YOU GUYS. 
          HEY, DANIEL, QUICK QUESTION. 
          LOOK AT THAT HEIGHT, THE DENSITY STANDARDS, THE STUFF THAT'S IN THE STAFF, REPORTS FROM THE NINETY ONE ZONING STANDARDS, ARE THEY THE SAME? DID THEY JUST TRANSFER OVER OR ARE THEY THE SAME AS WHAT'S IN THE CURRENT LDRS, OR ARE THEY DIFFERENT? I BELIEVE THAT PARTS OF THE HDDZ STANDARDS ACTUALLY REFERENCE THE 1991 STANDARDS, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, CERTAIN, I FORGET EXACTLY WHAT DETAILS ARE INVOLVED, ONCE AGAIN, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL MAY BE ABLE TO ELABORATE. 
          BUT, YEAH, THE HDDZ STANDARDS DO REFERENCE THE 1991 STANDARDS, BUT THEY ARE ALSO STILL APPLICABLE TO THE CURRENT LDRS SO BASICALLY THEY JUST MOVED OVER TO THE CURRENT STUFF. 
          YEAH, IT'S A CARRYOVER. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. OK, AND THEN BASICALLY THEY'RE WANTING TO PUT THIS HDZ-3 OVERLAY IS THAT ON TOP OF THE WHOLE COMMERCIAL RESERVE PLAT OR JUST ON THE PART THAT THEY'RE DOING? I'M ASSUMING IT'S OFF OF THE WHOLE THING THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THAT THE HDDZ WOULD, YOU KNOW, GO WITH THE COMMERCIAL BASED ZONING. SO IF THE COMMERCIAL BASED ZONING WERE APPROVED, SO WOULD THE HDDZ I WAS LOOKING UP, LET'S JUST SAY YOU DID AN R-3 OR MF-1 COULD YOU DO THOSE WITH WITH A HDZ ON THEM AS WELL? PER CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND THE LAND USES THERE OF THAT PARTICULAR PART AS FAR AS LAND USE GOES, WOULD GO TO OUR CURRENT ZONING. 
          ALL RIGHT, UM, THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW. 
          THANK YOU. OK, THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE. 
          [8A. 21P-017 (1101, 1111, 1113, And 1115 Avenue M ½, And 1410 12th Street And Adjacent Vacant Lot) Request For A Change Of Zoning From Urban Neighborhood, Neighborhood Conservation District (UN-NCD-1) To Commercial, Height And Density Development Zone 3 (C-HDDZ-3). Properties Are Legally Described As: M. B. Menard Survey, Lot 7; M. B. Menard Survey, Lot 6 And East 1/2 Of Lot 5; M. B. Menard Survey, West 1/2 Of Lot 5 (3005-1); M. B. Menard Survey, East 1/2 Of Lot 4 (3004-2); M. B. Menard Survey, West 1/2 Of Lot 4 (3004-1); And M. B. Menard Survey, Lots 1, 2, And 3; Southeast Block 23; Galveston Outlots; In The City Of County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Mary Villareal, The Interfield Group Property Owner: Robert T. Eramian, Executor Of The Estates Of Reena Candis (Deceased)]
WE WILL MOVE ALONG AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE TWENTY ONE DASH ZERO ONE SEVEN AT FOUR TWENTY FOUR P.M. 
          AND DO WE HAVE APPLICANTS ON THE LINE WITH US? THIS IS ROBERT [INAUDIBLE], I REPRESENT THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY AND ALSO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, AND I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT ALL OF MY CLIENTS ARE CO-APPLICANTS ON THIS. AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE ZONING CHANGE APPROVED REGARDLESS OF THE OTHER STANDARDS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED, BUT I REALLY NEED TO LET VILLAREAL DEAL WITH THOSE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED AND THEN I'D LIKE TO SPEAK LATER ABOUT THE LOGIC OF REZONING. OK, THANK YOU. 
          MS. VILLAREAL, YOU'RE ON THE LINE ALSO. 
          WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT? SURE, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, MA'AM. 
          OK, GREAT. YES, GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          MY NAME IS MARY VILLAREAL WITH THE INTERFIELD GROUP. 
          JUST A QUICK PRESENTATION, IF YOU WILL. 
          ON BEHALF OF OUR CLIENT, WE'D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THIS 
          [00:50:05]
REZONING APPLICATION. 
          THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU AND HAVE A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN IS A PLANNED CONVENIENCE STORE WITH BETWEEN 16 TO 20 MULTIPLE PRODUCT DISPENSERS, PDS THEY CALL THEM FACING [INAUDIBLE] BOULEVARD, A PARKING GARAGE AND APARTMENTS, CONDOMINIUMS IN ABOVE LEVELS. 
          APARTMENT CONDOMINIUMS WILL BE LOCATED ON THE FOURTH AND SIX FLOORS WITH APPROXIMATELY EIGHT THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF UNUSABLE AREA. 
          APPROXIMATELY 20 PERCENT OF THE STORE AREA WILL BE [INAUDIBLE], AND THE REMAINING WILL [INAUDIBLE] RANGE FROM APPROXIMATELY 800 TO 1200 SQUARE FEET AND A POSSIBLY LARGER LUXURY UNIT. THE DEVELOPMENT ALSO PLANS TO PROVIDE AMENITIES LIKE PERHAPS AN OUTDOOR PATIO OR POSSIBLY A POOL. 
          WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE ARE EXISTING WATER AND SANITARY SEWER WAYS THAT WILL NEED TO BE REROUTED AS WELL AS RECONNECTING AT LEAST ONE PROPERTY THAT IS CURRENTLY UTILIZING THE FACILITIES AT THE DEVELOPERS EXPENSE. 
          PLANS WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON'S PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR REVIEWING APPROVAL. WE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS A NEED TO TAKE OUR NEIGHBORS CONCERNS INTO CONSIDERATION AND POLITICALLY, A SENSITIVE DESIGN FOR DEVELOPMENT [INAUDIBLE] ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL HOMES. 
          A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WILL BE SUBMITTED AT PERMITTING. 
          WE ARE AT THE BEGINNING STAGES OF THIS PROJECT AND INTEND TO FINALIZE A SCHEMATIC DESIGN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 
          WE'D LIKE TO MAKE OURSELVES AVAILABLE TO AND WELCOME CONVERSATIONS WITH NEIGHBORS, AND WE'D BE HAPPY TO KEEP THEM IN THE LOOP OF THE DESIGN AS IT PROGRESSES. 
          THE DEVELOPMENT WILL MAINTAIN A HIGH STANDARD OF COMMERCIAL CHARACTER WHILE PROVIDING CONTEMPORARY STYLE WITH THESE SPACES, WHICH WE BELIEVE WILL ATTRACT A BROADER RANGE OF POTENTIAL RESIDENTS AND PATIENTS TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON. 
          WHILE ALLOWING THE HIGHER DENSITY AND OPENING UP AN AREA WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT, WE BELIEVE THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL INCREASE HOUSING SUPPLY IN THE BEAUTIFUL OCEANSIDE BOULEVARD. 
          IN ADDITION, THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL ENHANCE THE BOULEVARD BY [INAUDIBLE] CREATE JOBS AND LIVING SPACES TO BE ENJOYED BY RESIDENTS FOR YEARS TO COME, AS WELL AS AN ASSET TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON. 
          WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING TO FINALIZE THE [INAUDIBLE] FOR THIS TRACT BORDERED BY THE LAND UNDER [INAUDIBLE] OWNERSHIP. 
          THE REZONING APPLICATION BEFORE YOU TODAY IS ONLY THE SECOND STEP OF MANY THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT AND THE APPROVAL [INAUDIBLE] WILL CREATE A MORE PRACTICAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS LOCATION FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON. 
          WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE CITY OF GALVESTON AND COORDINATING CLOSELY WITH STAFF AND ENGINEERING, TO BRING A WONDERFUL DEVELOPMENT TO YOUR COMMUNITY. 
          AND WE'RE HOPING THAT YOU WILL FIND THESE IMPROVEMENTS MEETING YOUR APPROVAL. 
          WE DO HAVE A TEAM ON THE LINE WHO ARE READY TO ASSIST IN ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE IT. 
          I REMEMBER FROM WHEN YOU WERE HERE IN JANUARY, YOU DID SUCH A NICE PRESENTATION, VERY PROFESSIONAL JOB, AND I ALWAYS APPRECIATE THAT. 
          SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          COMMISSIONER, WE CAN NOW ASK QUESTIONS OF OUR APPLICANTS, AND I BELIEVE SEVERAL OF YOU HAD QUESTIONS THAT WERE HELD OVER FROM OUR FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONING. 
          SO WHO HAS QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY, THEN VICE CHAIR BROWN. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          PART OF THE RATIONALE THAT STAFF HAS GIVEN FOR SUGGESTING APPROVAL OF THIS ZONING CHANGE HAS TO DO WITH EXPANDING LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING, WOULD YOU PLEASE ADDRESS HOW YOUR DEVELOPMENT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S AS TENTATIVE AS IT MIGHT BE, ADDRESSES THOSE OBJECTIVES OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? WELL, RIGHT NOW, CURRENTLY WE HAVE THE PLANS ARE, AS I MENTIONED, CONCEPTUAL, AND SO IT'S POSSIBLE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF OUR ARCHITECT COULD ASSIST ME IN RESPONDING TO THAT QUESTION. 
          IS THE ARCHITECT ON THE LINE? 
          [00:55:02]
YES, MY NAME IS MIKE [INAUDIBLE], I'M WITH THE INTERFIELD GROUP. 
          I'M A COLLEAGUE OF MARY VILLAREAL, WHO JUST MADE THE PRESENTATION. 
          WE ARE PROPOSING A RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND IF WE HAVE NOT YET SETTLED ON A ON A PRODUCT MIX, IF YOU WILL, HOWEVER, WE CAN CERTAINLY INSERT THAT OR INCORPORATE THAT AS A COMPONENT OF OUR DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO SATISFY THAT REQUIREMENT. 
          COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY DID THAT SUFFICIENTLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? WELL, I WAS INFORMED EARLIER BY STAFF THAT THESE PLANS ARE TENTATIVE AND CAN CHANGE, SO I ACCEPT THAT, THANK YOU. 
          MY OTHER QUESTION WOULD BE. 
          IT GOES BACK TO THESE TENTATIVE DESIGNS, THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF FUELING STATIONS WITH MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS PART OF OUR LDRS. 
          THE SET BACKS ARE REQUIRED AND THE FACT THAT THE DESIGN THAT WAS SHOWN IN JANUARY HAS NOT CHANGED, IT'S STILL THE SAME DESIGN AS WE'RE SEEING TODAY MAKES ME WONDER IF THE APPLICANT UNDERSTANDS OUR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. 
          SO, YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE SAY THAT? YEAH, WE CERTAINLY DO. 
          AND AS WE PROCEED FORWARD TO DEVELOP THE CONCEPT FURTHER, WE CERTAINLY WILL INCORPORATE THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. 
          WE FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT FOR A PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD, IT HAS TO BE IN TOTAL COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU AND VICE CHAIR BROWN, YOU WERE NEXT. 
          OK, YOU PROBABLY HEARD ME DISCUSSING THAT EARLIER ABOUT THE HEIGHT DENSITY ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY AND HOW THEY'RE MEANT TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF A LARGER SCALE DEVELOPMENT, SUCH AS THE ONE YOU'RE PROPOSING. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THAT IMPACT MIGHT BE ON YOUR DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IN TERMS OF THE MASSING AND THE SCALE THIS WILL HAVE ON YOUR BUILDING? YOU KNOW, I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE WHAT YOU MENTIONED, AND THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THE SETBACKS MAY IN FACT OR WILL, IN FACT, SERIOUSLY IMPACT THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING. 
          AGAIN, WE FULLY ANTICIPATE THAT WE WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE, IN APPRECIATION OF THE FACT THAT WITHOUT FULL COMPLIANCE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO ANYWHERE. 
          YOU KNOW, JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE ALL THE TOOLS IN YOUR TOOLBOX BEFORE YOU GET TOO FAR WITH YOUR BUSINESS PLAN. 
          YES, WE CERTAINLY WILL INCORPORATE THOSE. 
          OK, ALSO, AS YOU HEARD US ALSO DISCUSSING THE JUSTIFICATION THAT THE STAFF OUTLINED AND AS THEY WERE REPORTING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 
          AND IN SUMMARY, THEY SAID THAT EXPANDING HOUSING OPTIONS WAS ONE OF THE BIGGEST REASONS FOR SUPPORTING THIS PROJECT. 
          AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I HEAR IT FROM YOU GUYS THAT YOU INDEED DO INTEND ON USING THIS PROJECT FOR HOUSING GALVESTONIANS AS OPPOSED TO PUTTING FOR THE WEEKEND OR FOR A WEEK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          IS THAT REALLY YOUR INTENTION? I THINK THAT THE INTENTION DEFINITELY INCLUDES THAT COMPONENT. 
          AT THIS POINT, IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO DEFINE CLEARLY WHAT THE PRODUCT MIX IS GOING TO BE. BUT THE INTENTION IS, IN FACT, TO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR GALVESTONIANS. 
          THE REASON I BRING IT UP IS BECAUSE IT WAS COMMON THROUGHOUT THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT SUPPORTS THIS PROJECT IN OUR STAFF REPORT. 
          ONE OTHER THING I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT OF OPPOSITION TO THIS PROJECT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE GOT ON OUR STAFF REPORT, AND A LOT OF TIMES OPPOSITION IS REALLY A RESULT OF NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT'S GOING ON OR NOT HAVING THE INFORMATION. 
          [01:00:06]
HAVE YOU ALL SPOKEN WITH ANYBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DO YOU HAVE ANY PLANS TO SPEAK TO ANYBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND GET THEM UP TO SPEED AND GENERATE SOME KIND OF UNDERSTANDING? MARY. 
          YES, IF POSSIBLE, WE WOULD WELCOME IF WE COULD BE PROVIDED WITH CONTACT INFORMATION, WE CAN CREATE A ZOOM MEETING IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD WORK FOR THE NEIGHBORS. 
          I WOULD BE WILLING TO BE THE POINT OF CONTACT FOR THEM IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THEM, AS I MENTIONED IN MY PRESENTATION WITH ANY DRAWINGS, ELEVATIONS, LISTEN TO ANY CONCERNS THAT THEY HAD, AND THEN TAKE THAT BACK IN TO THE DESIGN TEAM TO WORK WITH THEM AND DO OUR BEST TO ASSIST IN ANY WAY THAT WE CAN. 
          WE WOULD DEFINITELY BE WILLING TO DO THAT. 
          ABSOLUTELY. [INAUDIBLE] ANY OF THE COMMENTS FROM THE STAFF REPORT? BOB, I'M SORRY I DIDN'T HEAR YOUR WHOLE QUESTION. 
          COULD YOU ASK THE-- HAS THE APPLICANT SEEN ANY OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE SAW? THEY PROBABLY HAVE NOT AT THIS POINT. 
          CATHERINE, IS THAT CORRECT? THEY'VE BEEN PROVIDED A SUMMARY OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WAS ALSO PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSIONERS. OK, ALL RIGHT, WELL, THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR RIGHT NOW. 
          THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. WHO ELSE HAS A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANTS? YES, COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI? YES, YOU KNOW, I'M VERY, VERY PRO-BUSINESS AND LOVE TO SEE DEVELOPMENT ON THIS ISLAND, BUT THERE'S SOMETHING JUST A LITTLE UNSETTLING ABOUT THIS PROJECT. 
          AND I THINK MOST OF THAT IS LIKE SOME OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE, AT LEAST I FELT LIKE THEY ADDRESSED, IS THE TENTATIVENESS OF THIS AND NOTHING'S SOLID. 
          I DON'T SEE A COMMITMENT. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW IF, YOU KNOW, THIS IS BASED YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SPEND MONEY UNTIL YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING TO GET THE PERMISSION AND LOAN APPROVAL, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. BUT, YOU KNOW, I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE SOME ALTERNATIVE, YOU KNOW, LIKE IF SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, YOU WANTED TO MAKE A COMMITMENT TO HOUSING AND LONG TERM HOUSING AND SHORT TERM HOUSING AND DO AWAY WITH THE FUELING STATION. 
          BUT, YOU KNOW, MY BIGGEST CONCERN FROM YOU GUYS IS ONCE YOU GET THERE, THE APPROVAL FOR COMMERCIAL, YOU CAN PRETTY MUCH DO WHAT YOU WANT AND ALL THE WORK THAT WE'VE STRUGGLED FOR WITHOUT A COMMITMENT FROM YOU GUYS, YOU KNOW, CAN GO AWAY. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, MS. VILLAREAL, YOU WERE ELOQUENT, BUT, YOU KNOW, MOST OF THE STUFF THAT I HEARD WAS, IF POSSIBLE, WE'RE WILLING TO LISTEN. 
          I NEVER HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT WE'RE WILLING TO MAKE A COMMITMENT TO THAT AREA BECAUSE IT IS MOSTLY RESIDENTIAL AND, YOU KNOW, TO SAY WE WILL DEFINITELY PUT IN X NUMBER OF HOUSES TO FULFILL THAT COMMITMENT. 
          SO I WOULD FEEL A LOT MORE COMFORTABLE WITH A LOT MORE DECISIVENESS AND DECISION ON YOUR PART, WHETHER IT BE FULLY COMMERCIAL OR WHETHER IT BE THIS MIX THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'D LIKE TO RESPOND. 
          THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF MY FEELINGS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          [01:05:21]
WELL, AT THIS POINT, FROM THE TIME I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROJECT, I CAN HONESTLY TELL YOU THAT ALL OF THE PLANS HAVE BEEN ONLY FOR THE MIXED USE AND FOR THE CONDOMINIUMS, THERE HAS, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, BEEN NO OTHER DISCUSSIONS ON ANY OTHER TYPE. 
          THIS IS WHAT OUR CLIENT WANTS. 
          THIS IS THE PROJECT THAT HE WANTS US TO WORK ON, AND SO THE COMMITMENT I CAN GIVE YOU IS THAT THIS IS WHAT WE ARE WORKING ON RIGHT NOW AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE, AS I MENTIONED, THERE ARE NO OTHER PLANS OR ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS OF DOING ANYTHING DIFFERENT. 
          YEAH, WELL, YOU KNOW, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, I HATE TO SAY BOTHERS ME, BUT I'M IN THE RESTAURANT AND SERVICE INDUSTRY. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, IF I LIVED IN AN APARTMENT ABOVE A RESTAURANT OR WAS NEXT DOOR TO IT, I DON'T SEE IN YOUR DRAWINGS BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO SUPPLY THE CONVENIENCE STORE. 
          YOU HAVE TO BRING GASOLINE IN. 
          AND THESE ARE BIG VEHICLES THAT ARE COMING IN DAILY TRASH DUMPSTERS THAT ARE PICKING UP TWO OR THREE TIMES A WEEK AT, YOU KNOW, 5:00 IN THE MORNING. 
          SO THERE'S A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL CONCERNS. 
          IF I LIVED IN THAT AREA, I WOULD HATE TO HAVE 18-WHEELERS LINED UP WAITING TO GET IN AND, YOU KNOW, THE NOISE INVOLVED WITH THAT. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE JUST CERTAIN THINGS THAT COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL, THERE'S A BIG CONFLICT THERE. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT ADDRESS BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE REALITIES FOR THE PEOPLE THAT WILL BE LIVING THERE AND ALSO ARE CURRENTLY LIVING THERE. 
          THAT'S NOISE POLLUTION, YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T EVEN TALKED ABOUT LIGHTING AND STUFF. 
          BUT, YOU KNOW, TO ME, THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES THAT HAVEN'T BEEN ADDRESSED, AND THEN AGAIN, I KNOW YOU'LL ADDRESS THOSE ONCE YOU HAVE APPROVAL BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, DRAWINGS AND ALL THAT, THEY DON'T DO THEM FOR FREE. 
          SO BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A YOU KNOW, WE CAN LOOK AT THE TECHNICAL THINGS LIKE SETBACKS AND STUFF LIKE THAT, WHICH HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED. 
          BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ANOTHER SIDE OF THIS THAT I DON'T THINK, MAYBE Y'ALL HAVEN'T--I DON'T KNOW. THANK YOU. 
          GO AHEAD GOOD EVENING, AGAIN, A COLLEAGUE OF MARY VILLAREAL. 
          AND I WANT TO MENTION TO YOU THAT IN AN URBAN SETTING, THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT SOME POLLUTION, WHETHER IT IS VISUAL OR AURAL, WILL OCCUR. 
          I MEAN, THAT'S JUST THE NATURE OF THE BEAST. 
          WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN URBAN SETTING. 
          THIS IS NOT A LOW BUDGET DEVELOPMENT. 
          THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS QUITE VALUABLE, THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS GOING TO BE I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A MERIT TO THE CITY AND CONSEQUENTLY THE IDEA THAT WE WOULD CASUALLY ALLOW POLLUTION TO OCCUR BECAUSE OF NEGLIGENCE. 
          I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT IS A TERRIBLE CONCERN BECAUSE THE INTENT OF OUR CLIENTS IS TO DEVELOP A VERY WELL CONCEIVED PROJECT AND TO MAINTAIN IT THAT WAY. 
          NOW THAT YOU HAVE DUMPSTER'S AND A FUEL TRUCK ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY, OCCASIONALLY, I THINK THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE AN EXCESSIVE EXERCISE. 
          AND I THINK THAT COULD BE CONTROLLED IN A WAY THAT WOULD BE LEAST DISRUPTIVE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND ALSO, IF I COULD JUST ADD FOR JUST A MOMENT IN THE SITE PLAN THAT WE COULD PROVIDE THE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN, WE HAVE THE [INAUDIBLE] ALONG THE BOULEVARD AND THE [INAUDIBLE] OF THE BUILDING ON THE NORTH PORTION, THOSE DRIVEWAYS ARE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION. 
          BUT SO WE'RE KEEPING WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE MOST OF THE TRAFFIC ALONG THE BOULEVARD. 
          YOU HAVE THE DRIVEWAYS THAT COME IN. 
          THEY WILL BE SERVICED AND [INAUDIBLE] ACCESS TO THE BOULEVARD THAT I WOULD EXPECT. 
          FOR ANY DELIVERIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WE COULD CERTAINLY MANAGE TO KEEP THOSE AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD PORTION. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS? VICE CHAIR BROWN. 
          I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE SOMETHING THAT WAS BOTHERING ME A LITTLE BIT, AS I KNOW MANY TIMES--. I'M SORRY, BOB, JUST A MINUTE. 
          JUST MAKE SURE THAT IT IS A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT AND NOT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE HANDLED IN OUR DISCUSSION. 
          WELL, MAYBE I'LL JUST SAVE THIS FOR THE DISCUSSION. 
          OK, THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT-- MADAM CHAIR. YES? THIS IS ROBERT [INAUDIBLE]. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE ABOUT TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING OR NOT. 
          I WAS A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. 
          I AM. SO GO AHEAD, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. 
          YES, I WOULD. AS I SAID EARLIER, I'M ACTUALLY REPRESENTING THE CURRENT OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY. AND AS A FAMILY, THEY HAVE OWNED THESE PROPERTIES FOR PROBABLY SINCE ABOUT BEFORE 1950. 
          [01:10:03]
THERE WAS A HOTEL ON THE SEAWALL SIDE OF THE PROPERTY SEAWALL SIDE OF THE ALLEY, WHICH IS NOT THE PROPERTY THAT'S UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR ZONING CHANGE. 
          BUT I BRING THAT UP BECAUSE THAT FRONT PORTION IS ZONED COMMERCIAL. 
          THERE WILL BE SOME DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PROPERTY SOONER OR LATER. 
          WHATEVER IS DONE TO DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT A STRIP MALL OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE ON THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY IF A LARGER PROJECT IS NOT PERMITTED TO PROCEED. 
          I WANTED TO MENTION THAT THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ON MY CLIENT'S PART AS FAR AS WHETHER THEY NEEDED TO SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND I DID TRY TO GET SOME COMMENTS TO MR. LUNSFORD, I THINK WE SENT HIM ABOUT 215. 
          MY CLIENTS TOGETHER HAVE 10 TAXED PARCELS, 6 ARE THE PROPERTIES UNDER CONSIDERATION, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE THE 4 PROPERTIES ACROSS THE ALLEY. 
          AND ONE OF THOSE PROPERTIES IS ACTUALLY EQUIVALENT OF ABOUT 5 CITY LOTS. 
          SO, AGAIN, I WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT MY CLIENTS ARE ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS. 
          OBVIOUSLY, I WANTED TO BE SURE THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE SUBMISSION THAT I SENT ALONG. 
          I BELIEVE IT IS IT IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET. 
          AND AGAIN, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE ZONING CHANGED ON THIS PROPERTY. 
          I'M HOPING THE COMMISSION IS NOT LOSING FOCUS HERE. 
          THE QUESTION IS NOT WHAT IS GOING TO BE BUILT ON IT. 
          THE QUESTION IS, SHOULD THE ZONING BE CHANGED? MY SUBMISSION, I THINK, INDICATES THAT OF THE NON-COMMERCIAL ZONING NORTH OF THE SEAWALL, THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS ABSOLUTELY THE CLOSEST TO THE SEAWALL. 
          ACROSS 1TH STREET, THIS PROPERTY IS BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY AVENUE M AND A HALF. 
          ACROSS 11TH STREET, THE COMMERCIAL ZONE, AND GOES ALL THE WAY TO AVENUE M. 
          SO IT WOULD NOT BE INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER COMMERCIAL ZONES, THE DEPTH OF OTHER COMMERCIAL ZONED AREAS ALONG THE SEAWALL. 
          AGAIN, THIS HALF BLOCK, FROM MY OBSERVATION, IS ABSOLUTELY THE CLOSEST TO THE SEAWALL OF ANY PROPERTY THAT IS NOT ZONED COMMERCIAL NORTH OF THE SEAWALL. 
          AND IT'S BEEN VACANT SINCE 2004, THERE WERE HOUSES THERE AT ONE TIME, BUT THEY WERE ALL DEMOLISHED, I BELIEVE, IN THE LATE 90S, AND IT IS THE ONLY TOTALLY VACANT HALF BLOCK THAT IS NOT ZONED COMMERCIAL. 
          IN FACT, I DON'T THINK ANY OF THE COMMERCIAL BLOCKS ARE VACANT, BUT IS THE ONLY HALF BLOCK NORTH OF THE SEAWALL THAT IS NOT ZONED COMMERCIAL THAT IS COMPLETELY VACANT. 
          AND AGAIN, IT HAS BEEN VACANT SINCE AT LEAST 2004 AND I BELIEVE EVEN FURTHER BACK THAN THAT. I'M SUGGESTING THAT THE PROPERTY NEEDS TO BE REZONED AS COMMERCIAL IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE PUT TO SOME SORT OF LOGICAL USE, AND I MENTIONED ALSO IN MY LETTER THAT WHEN I DISCUSSED WITH STAFF WHY THIS VACANT LOT HAD NOT BEEN SWITCHED OVER TO COMMERCIAL EARLIER, I WAS TOLD THAT PROBABLY THE LAST SET OF ZONING MAPS, THE BOUNDARIES IN THAT AREA SIMPLY FOLLOWED THE LAST ITERATION OF THE ZONING MAPS. 
          AND THEREFORE, EVEN THOUGH THE HALF CITY BLOCK IS VACANT, IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE NCD-1, JUST BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE IT WAS EARLIER. 
          SO AGAIN, I BELIEVE IT IS LOGICAL TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY AS COMMERCIAL. 
          AAND I THINK THAT'S THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COMMISSION, NOT WHAT SPECIFIC USE IT IS GOING 
          [01:15:01]
TO BE PUT TO. 
          THE FACT THAT IT'S GOING TO BE PUT TO COMMERCIAL USE, YES, IS RELEVANT TO THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION. BUT I DON'T WANT TO GET CAUGHT IN THE TREES AND LOSE SIGHT OF THE FOREST. 
          THANK YOU, MR. [INAUDIBLE], I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. [INAUDIBLE]? YES, SIR, COMMISSIONER WALLA. 
          ROBERT, THANKS FOR THE COMMENTS. 
          JUST A QUICK QUESTION. 
          I MEAN, THERE ARE SOME MOVING PARTS ON THIS AND I KIND OF GET WHAT YOU GUYS ARE WANTING TO DO. YOU DO HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT YOU'RE ASKING TO CHANGE IT TO A COMMERCIAL USE, AND I'M KIND OF IN JEFF'S CAMP ON THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THE COMMITMENTS ARE AND I GET THAT TOO, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PUT IT TOGETHER. 
          BUT WHAT YOU SAID WAS, IF I WAS THE GUY LIVING ACROSS THE STREET ON M AND A HALF AND YOU GUYS WERE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING A SIX STORY BUILDING ACROSS THE STREET FROM MY HOUSE, I WOULDN'T BE HAPPY. AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE FACING. 
          AND NOT THAT YOU CAN'T OVERCOME IT. 
          SO MY QUESTION IS THIS: YOU THINK YOU GUYS NEED SOME MORE TIME AND WOULD LIKE TO GET A DEFERRAL ON THIS? YOU KNOW, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE I'M NOT INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS. 
          MY POINT IS SIMPLY THAT, THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF OR HALF CITY BLOCK SORT OF BEGS TO BE REZONE AS COMMERCIAL, SO THAT SOMETHING THAT SOMETHING SUBSTANTIAL CAN BE PLACED ON THAT PROPERTY. RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER WALLA. 
          ONCE AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO REASSURE THE PUBLIC THAT WE HAVE SEEN YOUR COMMENTS. 
          WE HAVE DIGESTED YOUR COMMENTS, AND THEY WILL BE PART OF THE PERMANENT RECORD OF THIS MEETING. THEY WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE MINUTES. 
          AGAIN, THIS IS ROBERT [INAUDIBLE] AGAIN. 
          THE PACKET THAT I DOWNLOADED DID NOT HAVE THE SUMMARY OF OF COMMENTS. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHETHER MS. VILLAREAL RECEIVED THEM, BUT I DID NOT. 
          CATHERINE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT? I BELIEVE YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT IT EARLIER. 
          SURE, THE APPLICANT ON THIS CASE IS MARY VILLAREAL, AND DANIEL PROVIDED THE SUMMARY OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE APPLICANT. 
          OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          AND EVERY PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WAS MADE BY THE DEADLINE AT 11:00 A.M. 
          HAS BEEN INCLUDED TO THE COMMISSIONERS. 
          SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          WITH THAT ALL BEING SAID, WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21P-017 AT 4:53 THREE P.M.. 
          AND COMMISSIONERS, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS CASE. 
          COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY. 
          MADAM CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT 21P-017 BE DENIED. 
          DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PEÑA. 
          WE'LL NOW OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONERS. 
          I SEE COUNCIL MEMBER LISTOWSKI'S HAND WENT UP FIRST. 
          AND THAT MAKES ME LET ME JUST MAKE ONE COMMENT, JOHN PAUL, AND THEN IT'LL BE YOUR TURN. 
          CITY COUNCIL, WE ARE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND CITY COUNCIL WILL HAVE THE FINAL SAY. 
          SO COUNCIL MEMBER LISTOWSKI. 
          I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR DONNA ON SOME LEGALITY HERE WITH REZONING. 
          DONNA, I KNOW WITH A REPLAT WE HAVE SOME VERY STRICT STANDARDS TO FOLLOW LEGALLY WHEN TO DENY OR APPROVE REPLATS OR PLATS. 
          AND SO ARE THERE ANY RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE PLACED ON US WHEN IT COMES TO ZONING? AND WHAT RIGHTS DOES A PROPERTY OWNER HAVE WHEN IT COMES TO ZONING STANDARDS THAT ARE PLACED ON THEIR PROPERTY? IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY AND I'M GOING TO ASK CATHERINE, OF COURSE, TO 
          [01:20:02]
HELP HERE, IF THE PROPERTY IS REZONED, THE PROPERTY OWNER, THEY HAVE TO ABIDE BY WHATEVER IS ALLOWED IN THAT ZONE. 
          ZONES MAY HAVE, OF COURSE, PROHIBITIONS. 
          THEY MAY HAVE LIMITATIONS. 
          IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE ZONE. 
          SOME THINGS THAT ARE OUTRIGHT PERMITTED AND SOME THINGS ARE PARTIALLY PERMITTED, SOME THINGS THAT ARE PROHIBITED. 
          SO IN THIS SITUATION, THE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO HAVE A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS; THAT'S CURRENTLY ALLOWED. 
          I HEARD--GO AHEAD. 
          LET ME RESTATE MY QUESTION. 
          I UNDERSTAND THE RIGHTS OF A PROPERTY OWNER WITH EXISTING ZONING, BUT IN A CASE LIKE THIS OR SIMILAR CASE WHERE WE MAY DENY A REQUEST TO REZONE THE PROPERTY, DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANY RIGHTS TO COME BACK AND SAY, HEY, WE DON'T THINK YOU MADE THE RIGHT DECISION? THERE ARE PROPERTIES CONTIGUOUS WITH THIS PROPERTY AROUND THIS PROPERTY THAT ARE ZONED THIS WAY. YOU DENIED IT. 
          THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE-- PROCEDURALLY, WHERE COULD IT GO? WELL, YOU KNOW, THAT IT WOULD GO TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR FINAL DETERMINATION. 
          DEPENDING UPON CITY COUNCIL'S DETERMINATION, AND IF THE APPLICANT IS HAPPY WITH THAT DECISION, THEN THAT'S THE DECISION. 
          IF THE APPLICANT IS NOT HAPPY WITH THAT DECISION, THEN HE CAN APPEAL THAT DECISION. 
          THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN GO TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS OR THE BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. 
          AFTER THE CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION IS MADE IT'D BE APPEALED TO A HIGHER COURT BECAUSE THESE ARE ZONING CASES. 
          CATHERINE, AM I CORRECT ON THAT IN TERMS OF THIS ZONING CASE? ONCE IT GETS TO CITY COUNCIL, THAT'S IT. 
          THAT'S CORRECT, CITY COUNCIL IS THE FINAL DECISION MAKER WITHIN THE CITY STRUCTURE. 
          IF A CASE IS DENIED, THERE IS A WAITING PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS BEFORE A SIMILAR CASE CAN BE REAPPLIED FOR. SO THEY WILL BE ABLE TO REAPPLY AFTER THAT SIX MONTH PERIOD. 
          AND THEN THERE MAY BE OTHER OPTIONS, LIKE MAYBE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD BE EXPLORED. THANK YOU. 
          OK. 
          I THINK I HAVE A PRETTY GOOD GRASP ON THE PROCESS HERE AT THE CITY, BUT I'M REALLY MORE INTERESTED ON THAT WHERE WOULD SOMEBODY TAKE THIS AND WHAT WERE THE REASONS BEHIND TAKING IT TO A HIGHER LEVEL AND ACTUALLY SUING THE CITY FOR NOT REZONING A PROPERTY? I'M NOT SURE THAT CAN BE ANSWERED IN THIS SETTING JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO GIVE THE OTHER SIDE A LEGAL WAY TO GO ABOUT THIS IF WE GET TO A HIGHER COURT. 
          OKAY, AND THE REASON I BRING THIS UP, AS A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, OF COURSE, WE'LL BE HEARING THIS CASE. AND AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, I AM IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION THAT WAS PRESENTED TODAY IN THE FACT THAT I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION WITH WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY THE WAY IT IS. 
          I MEAN, I'M ALL FOR DEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY AND THEN CHANGING THE ZONING, BUT IT'S GOT TO BE SOMETHING THAT IS GOOD FOR THE CITY AND NOT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO THE INFORMATION THAT I'VE SEEN TODAY DOESN'T GIVE ME THAT ASSURANCE. 
          AND SO I'M ON BOARD WITH WHAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW. 
          I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS HERE AND WHERE THIS COULD GO IN THE FUTURE. I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT SINCE THIS IS A DELIBERATIVE BODY THAT THEY REALLY SPELL OUT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE WHY THE MOTION WAS MADE AND WHATEVER WHATEVER VOTE COMES OUT AFTER IT. 
          BUT IT WOULD BE NICE SINCE THIS IS GOING TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL THAT WHATEVER IS REFLECTED TO CITY COUNCIL IS BASED ON THE DECISIONS OF THIS DELIBERATIVE BODY. 
          SO YOU MAY WANT TO AMEND THE MOTION JUST TO PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE DETAIL. 
          THANK YOU, DONNA. 
          DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE, COUNCIL MEMBER? NO, THAT ANSWERED MY QUESTION. 
          THANK YOU. OK, THANK YOU. 
          BEFORE WE MOVE AHEAD, I WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS FOR 
          [01:25:05]
DENIAL OF 21P-017, AND I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY FROM A PERSONAL STANDPOINT, FROM WHY I'M GOING TO CHOOSE TO VOTE THE WAY I AM. 
          I'M LOOKING AT STAFF REPORT PAGE THREE, THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL NUMBER FOUR, THAT THE RANGE IN USES IN THE CHARACTER OF DEVELOPMENT THAT'S ALLOWED BY THE PROPOSED ZONE WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE PROPERTIES IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE PARCEL PROPOSED FOR REZONING. AND I THINK THAT I'M LOOKING AT THAT FROM THE HOUSING ON THE NORTH AND WEST SIDES. AND I DO NOT THINK THAT THIS ZONING CHANGE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THOSE HOUSING USES. 
          I THINK THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN THAT IS SPECIFICALLY DISALLOWED BY THE SETBACK RULES AND THE LIMITED USE STANDARDS IS ANOTHER REASON TO DENY THIS. 
          I'VE SEEN NO PROOF THAT THIS IS GOING TO HELP US FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STANDPOINT BY PROVIDING MORE LOW TO MID INCOME HOUSING. 
          I THINK THERE ARE SIMPLY TOO MANY UNKNOWNS ON THIS PROJECT TO SUBJECT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TO A BROAD SWEEPING COMMERCIAL ZONING STANDARD. 
          BEFORE WE CONTINUE, IS THIS GOING TO BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION, A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, I SHOULD SAY? I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU, DONNA, IF THAT IS APPROPRIATE AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO PUT IN THOSE JUSTIFICATIONS. 
          IT'S APPROPRIATE TO PUT IN AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT IF IT'S ACCEPTED AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, AND THAT WOULD BE BY THE MOTION-MAKER, COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY. 
          AND THAT WOULD BE COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY? YOUR HANDS UP. YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          DONNA, WE HAVEN'T HAD OUR DISCUSSION YET, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE PART OF THE RECORD OF THIS MEETING AND THE MOTION I MADE THE MOTION I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO DISCUSS IT YET. 
          AND I'M NOT SURE THAT FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS ARE REALLY NEEDED BECAUSE ANYONE WHO LOOKS AT THE RECORD OF THIS MEETING WILL KNOW WHAT OUR CONCERNS ARE. 
          NOW, OUR CHAIRPERSON HAS ILLUMINATED MANY OF THE ISSUES THAT I HAVE WITH THIS CASE, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S NECESSARY THAT WE SPECIFICALLY NEED TO MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT GOES ON AND ON AND ON. 
          I THINK THAT THERE ARE TOO MANY ISSUES WITH THIS, AND I'M NOT REALLY OF THE OPINION, NOW, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT WE NEED TO ELABORATE. 
          SO JUST PROCEDURALLY, IT DOESN'T APPEAR AS IF HOLLAWAY IS ACCEPTING A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, AND THAT WAS THE QUESTION. 
          PREVIOUS TO THAT, THERE WAS THE COMMENT MADE THAT. 
          THERE DIDN'T SEEM TO BE ENOUGH INFORMATION PROVIDED TO NECESSARILY TAKE IT TO EVEN CITY COUNCIL BASED ON WHAT WAS PRESENTED, AND MY COMMENT WAS SIMPLY TO REFLECT THAT WE HAVE AN EX-OFFICIO AND HE IS THE PERSON THAT HELPS REPORT THE OPINION OF THE COMMISSIONERS TO CITY COUNCIL. 
          AND IF HE FELT THAT HE WASN'T RECEIVING EITHER SPECIFIC ENOUGH INFORMATION OR INFORMATION THAT IS TRULY REFLECTIVE OF THE WHOLE BODY, THEN IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO MAKE THOSE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS SO THAT HE CAN IMPART THAT INFORMATION TO CITY COUNCIL. 
          SO THAT'S THE REASONING FOR THAT. 
          BUT THERE IS JUST AN ACTIVE MOTION TO DENY AND THAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE TABLE AND THAT HAS BEEN SECONDED. OK, THANK YOU, DONNA. 
          CAROL, BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD ON DISCUSSING THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ANYMORE, PERHAPS IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO GO AHEAD AND GET MORE DISCUSSION AND INPUT FROM THE COMMISSIONERS SO THAT WE CAN HAVE MORE RATIONALE ON THE RECORD IN CASE COUNCIL DOES WANT TO COME BACK AND THEY COULD WATCH THE FULL DISCUSSION OR THEY COULD JUST WATCH THIS PART. 
          SO COMMISSIONERS, WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS? I SEE COMMISSIONER PEÑA AND THEN COMMISSIONER BROWN. 
          THANK YOU. YEAH, IN TAKING THIS CASE AT ITS FACE VALUE OF THAT COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION, 
          [01:30:09]
WHETHER OR NOT THIS PLAN PROPOSED IS THE BEST OR WORST THAT WE'VE EVER HAD, THAT DESIGNATION IS STILL VERY LASTING AND MORE OR LESS PERMANENT UNTIL IT IS CHANGED. 
          SO ASSUMING THAT THIS THAT THIS PLAN THAT WAS GIVEN TO US IS THE BEST THOUGHT OUT PLAN, EVEN IF THEY MOVE FORWARD WITH IT DOESN'T WORK, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE SET WITH YOU WITH SOMETHING THAT WASN'T SPECIFIC AND IT COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          ANOTHER THING THAT JUST REALLY, REALLY CONCERNED ME AND WASN'T VERY WELL RECEIVED IS THE FACT THAT NOBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD REALLY SEEMS OR NOBODY IN THIS PROJECT PLANNING HAS SEEMED TO REACH OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THAT AREA. 
          IN OUR DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT, THEY CERTAINLY SAID THAT THEY WOULD WELCOME ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, BUT THAT'S AN AWFUL REACTIVE APPROACH AND SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WHERE YOU'RE PUTTING UP A SIX STOREY BUILDING, THEY REALLY NEED THE INPUT OF THAT AREA AND OF THEIR NEIGHBORS. 
          TO TRY TO PUSH FORWARD WITH THIS IN THIS MANNER IS SOMEWHAT INSULTING TO THOSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ASIDE FROM THAT, JUST OTHER CONCERNS. 
          EIGHT HUNDRED TO TWELVE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET WITH A SIX STOREY VIEW IS NOT GOING TO BE MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING. 
          I CAN PROMISE YOU THAT. 
          THERE'S JUST TOO MUCH TO THIS. 
          AND I CAN'T IN GOOD FAITH PUSH FORWARD WITH THIS ON MY [INAUDIBLE]. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER PEÑA. 
          COMMISSIONER BROWN, YOU WERE NEXT. 
          I MEAN, VICE CHAIR BROWN. 
          EXCUSE ME, BOB. [LAUGHTER] I JUST WASN'T CONVINCED THAT THE KIND OF COMMITMENT TO THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE STAFF THAT QUALIFIED THIS PROJECT AS ONE THAT SHOULD BE ALLOWED, FOR INSTANCE, ALL OF THE PARTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT THEY SAID THAT WE'RE IN CONFORMANCE WITH. 
          I WASN'T CONVINCED THAT THEY WERE IN CONFORMANCE WITH LIKE THE HOUSING THING, THAT COULDN'T REALLY GET A COMMITMENT THAT WAS GOING TO BE REALLY HOUSING RATHER THAN TERRORIST OVERNIGHT STAYS. AND THE ONE THAT THE CHAIR BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE NUMBER FOR THE RANGE OF USES AND CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT THAT ALLOWED BY THE ZONING WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE PROPERTIES IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY. 
          THAT WAS A NO BRAINER, THAT IT DIDN'T LOOK COMPATIBLE GIVEN THE PROXIMITY OF THE FUELING STATIONS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THERE'S TOO MANY THINGS THAT WERE WRONG ABOUT THE PROJECT AND INCOMPATIBLE WITH WHAT THE STAFF REPORT SAID THAT ACTUALLY QUALIFIES IT FOR A PASSING PROJECT. 
          BUT I THOUGHT ABOUT, WELL, MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE DEFER THIS AND GIVE THEM MORE TIME TO GO BACK AND RETHINK THIS PROJECT AND SEE IF THEY CAN WHIP IT INTO SHAPE. 
          BUT I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S TOO FAR GONE FOR THAT OR NOT. 
          SO ANYWAY, THAT'S THE PROJECT IS KIND OF LOST A BIT OF CONFIDENCE IN MY EYES THAT'S WHAT I HAVE. THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR. 
          DOES ANYONE ELSE WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT FOR THE RECORD, COMMISSIONER EDWARDS? AS I LISTENED TO EVERYONE SPEAK ABOUT THE PROJECT AND I TRIED TO PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO MS. VILLAREAL AND THE ARCHITECT AND ATTORNEY BASTIN TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THE LONG TERM USES WERE OF THIS PROJECT AND ACTUALLY WHO THE BENEFITS OF THAT PROJECT WOULD BE. AND AS I LISTENED LONGER TO IT, I FELT THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE THE WHOLE STORY. 
          IT FELT LIKE THE STORY WAS INCOMPLETE. 
          AND BECAUSE THE STORY'S INCOMPLETE, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE FAIR TO OUR NEIGHBORS, WHICH THEY ARE OUR NEIGHBORS, TO FOSTER ON THEM AN INCOMPLETE PROJECT THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA WHETHER OR NOT THIS WILL GO FORWARD IN ITS CURRENT FORM, BECAUSE IT'S NOT FLESHED OUT COMPLETELY YET. 
          SO I WOULD SAY THAT IF PERHAPS MAYBE I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD EVER BE GOOD WITH A GAS STATION THERE, BUT MAYBE IF THEY CAME BACK AT SOME LATER TIME WITH A MORE FLESHED OUT PLAN OR WITH PUD WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING. 
          IT WOULD BE DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT WE COULD BOTH SIGNIFY. 
          WE WOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE YES OR NO FOR OR AGAINST BECAUSE WE KNEW EXACTLY WHAT WERE VOTING FOR. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. 
          COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY. I SEE YOUR HAND UP. 
          [01:35:02]
YES, THANK YOU. 
          IS IT TIME FOR MY DISCUSSION NOW, THE ONLY I BELIEVE WE HAVE NOT HEARD WE'VE HEARD EARLIER FROM COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI. 
          LET'S SEE. DO WE NEED THAT, COMMISSIONER WALLA IS THERE ANYTHING THAT JEFF, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING, COMMISSIONER? WALLA AND COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI, WE'RE GOING TO GO. 
          ANTONELLI AND THEN WALLA. 
          THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU, [INAUDIBLE]. 
          THERE AGAIN TO I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOME DEVELOPMENT IN THAT LOCATION AND PRETTY MUCH ANYWHERE ON THE ISLAND. BUT AGAIN, TO ME, THEIR PLAN IS TOO VAGUE. 
          IT'S NOT PRESENTED WELL IN TERMS OF NOT SO MUCH THEIR INTENTIONS, BUT JUST, YOU KNOW, A PROJECT THAT IS FEASIBLE FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND AGAIN, TOO JOHN PAUL MADE A POINT THAT IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO HEAR FROM THE COUNCIL PERSON FROM THAT DISTRICT AND GET SOME FEEDBACK, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY, IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, WE ONLY SEND OUT FLIERS TO PEOPLE WITHIN TWO HUNDRED FEET. BUT THIS IS GOING TO TREMENDOUSLY AFFECT, YOU KNOW, THAT ENTIRE AREA BETWEEN THE SEAWALL AND BROADWAY. 
          SO I, TOO, WOULD LIKE TO SEE MUCH MORE INFORMATION AND BE AT THIS PROJECT OR IF THEY BRING A DIFFERENT PROPOSAL. 
          AND THAT'S MY COMMENT. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI. 
          COMMISSIONER WALLA, I JUST WANT TO SAY FIRST THAT I GREW UP MY MAIDEN NAME IS WRIGHT. 
          W R I G H T SO I FEEL YOUR PAIN, MAN. 
          I GET USED TO IT. 
          BUT I HAVE A CATHERINE QUESTION. 
          CATHERINE, IF THIS GETS WELL IF THIS GETS DENIED AND LET'S JUST SAY THEY WANT TO DO A REVAMP AND HAVE A DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE MORE. 
          A DIFFERENT PLAN. 
          IS THERE A TIME CONSTRAINT FOR THEM TO COME ASK FOR ANOTHER ZONING CHANGE REQUEST? LET'S JUST SAY THAT IT'S FOR A DIFFERENT ZEALOUS. 
          LET'S JUST SAY THEY DON'T WANT TO DO IT IN A COMMERCIAL. 
          LET'S JUST SAY THEY WANT TO DO IT AS A R1. 
          I'M JUST PICKING A NUMBER. 
          BUT IS THERE A TIME LIMITATION FOR THEM TO DO THAT? THERE'S A SIX MONTH PERIOD IN WHICH THEY CANNOT REAPPLY WITH THE SAME APPLICATION. 
          BUT IF IT CHANGED TO A DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICT, THE APPLICANT COULD REAPPLY. 
          OK, THANK YOU. SO, YOU KNOW, I'M IN JEFF'S CAMP. 
          I THINK JEFF'S HIT IT RIGHT SQUARE. 
          ON TOP OF  I'M ALL FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT. 
          I JUST THINK THESE GUYS NEED TO HAVE A LITTLE BETTER PLAN. 
          I THINK THEY HAVE WILL HAVE A REAL GOOD IDEA. 
          WHAT THEY NEED TO DO MOVING FORWARD FROM HERE AND ENGAGING THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE A BIG STEP IN THAT PROCESS. 
          BUT GUYS, I'M SPEAKING TO THE APPLICANT. 
          YOU'VE GOT TO REMEMBER, IF THAT GETS CHANGED TO COMMERCIAL AND YOUR PLAN CHANGES. 
          THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM YOU NOW HAVE A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THEM, NOT WHAT YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT. 
          SO I WOULD TELL YOU, BECAUSE THE PLAN WAS JUST NOT COMPLETE. 
          IT WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE. 
          I'M NOT GOING TO BE IN FAVOR OF I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF CAROL'S MOTION TO DENY THAT REQUEST. THANK YOU. 
          OK, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER WALLA. 
          NOW, COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY, YOU HAVE THE MOTION ON THE TABLE, WHICH IS A MOTION FOR DENIAL. IS THERE ANY AMENDMENT TO YOUR MOTION? NO, I DON'T WISH TO AMEND IT. 
          I THINK OUR DISCUSSION HERE HAS BEEN VERY, VERY PRECISE IN OUR OPPOSITION. 
          THERE ARE SO MANY REASONS WHY WE CANNOT I CANNOT SUPPORT THE CASE AS IT'S PRESENTED. 
          IT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 
          I SEE NO NO CHANCE, GIVEN THE ECONOMICS OF THE SITUATION, UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE VALUE OF THAT LAND REALLY IS. 
          IT MAKES NO ECONOMIC SENSE TO PUT LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING ON THAT LAND. 
          THE BEST, HIGHEST AND BEST USE WOULD BE FOR A PUB, I THINK, BECAUSE IF YOU COULD SHOW US WHAT YOU ACTUALLY HAVE IN MIND AND THAT WE COULD BE VERY SPECIFIC IN OUR CONSIDERATION OF A CHANGE IN USE, THEN I THINK WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET ON BOARD. 
          THIS DOES NOT DENY THE FACT THAT HALF OF THAT PROPERTY IS COMMERCIAL ALREADY. 
          SO IF THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD A BIKER BAR, WE'RE GOING TO BUILD A BIKER BAR, BUT THAT'S NOT THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE AND THAT'S THE ECONOMICS NEEDS TO BE FLESHED OUT SO THAT 
          [01:40:05]
THEY CAN LOOK REALISTICALLY AT WHAT'S GOING TO GIVE THEM THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT. 
          AND WE DON'T SEE THAT HERE BECAUSE THE USES AS SUGGESTED BY THE APPLICANT. ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH OUR OWN LDRS. 
          SO AT THIS POINT, I DO NOT WISH UNLESS YOU ALL CAN CONVINCE ME DIFFERENTLY, THAT WE SHOULD ELABORATE ON THE DENIAL, I THINK THE RECORD WILL SHOW OUR MULTIPLE ISSUES AND THE FACT THAT OUR RESIDENTS, OUR OWN NEIGHBORS HAVE COME OUT WITH SUCH STRONG OPPOSITION TELLS ME SOMETHING AND GENERALLY. 
          WHAT IF WE HAD A LIVE IN-PERSON MEETING SO THE ROOM WOULD BE FULL AND THERE WOULD BE PEOPLE TALKING FOR HOURS ABOUT HOW THEY OPPOSED THIS AND WE DON'T HEAR THAT IN THE ZOOM MEETING. WE HAVE TO TELL THE PUBLIC, YES, WE READ YOUR 87 PAGES OF OPPOSITION. 
          I MEAN, BUT THAT ISN'T. 
          YOU KNOW YOU DON'T SEE IT ON RECORD, YOU DON'T SEE THE RECORDING, YOU'LL SEE IT IN THE MINUTES, BUT SOMEHOW IT KIND OF LOSES ITS CONTEXT. 
          SO MY BASIC CONCERN IS THAT THE LOCAL RESIDENTS DON'T. 
          ARE NOT ON BOARD WITH THIS, AND THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT MADE BY THE APPLICANT TO ENCOURAGE ANY KIND OF COOPERATION WITH THE LOCAL RESIDENTS. 
          I'M SORRY TO BE GOING ON LIKE THIS, BUT THAT IN A NUTSHELL IS IS WHY I OPPOSE THIS. 
          I WILL VOTE AGAINST IT. 
          AND I WOULD I UNDERSTAND THAT'S VERY VALUABLE LAND, BUT THIS IS NOT THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE. THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY. 
          AND I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID. 
          AND I ALSO ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT, AS WE HAVE SAID, COUNCIL WILL HAVE THE FINAL DECISION ON THIS. I BELIEVE WE HAVE AS A BODY PROVIDED PLENTY OF RATIONALE TO OUR EX OFFICIO TO TAKE TO COUNCIL. 
          COUNCIL, OF COURSE, CAN WATCH THIS MEETING AND SEE WHAT WE ALL HAD TO SAY. 
          I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT, AS COMMISSIONER EDWARDS AND COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY SAID, TO CERTAINLY LOOK AT THE USE OF A PUB IN THIS SITUATION. 
          SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE FOR DENIAL IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONERS'? SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE FOR DENIAL OF TWENTY ONE P DASH ZERO ONE SEVEN. 
          AS A REMINDER, AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE WILL BE TO DENY,TO DENY THIS APPLICATION. 
          YOU WILL GIVE AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE. 
          ALL RIGHT. SO, CATHERINE, MAY WE CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE, MA'AM? COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI, I'M IN FAVOR, VICE CHAIRPERSON BROWN. 
          IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER EDWARDS IN FAVOR. 
          CHAIRPERSON HILL. 
          IN FAVOR, COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY IN FAVOR, COMMISSIONER PENA IN FAVOR. 
          COMMISSIONER WOLLA. 
          IN FAVOR, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL PASSES. 
          AND FOR THE RECORD, THE CASE WILL BE HEARD AT THE MAY TWENTY SEVEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR A FINAL DECISION. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND FOR ANY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE LISTENING, JUST A REPETITION OF THAT MAY TWENTY SEVEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING. 
          SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          [8B. 21P-018 (3324 Avenue O) Request For A License To Use Agreement To Construct A Stair In The City Of Galveston Alley Right-Of-Way. Property Is Legally Described As Lot 13, Southeast Block 37, Galveston Outlots, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Michael Gaertner, AIA Adjacent Property Owners: William Weiss Easement Holder: City Of Galveston]
NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO 21P-018  PLEASE. 
          YES, [INAUDIBLE] CAN YOU SPEAK UP, PLEASE. 
          YOU HEAR ME? YOU'RE STILL PRETTY, PRETTY WEAK THERE, COULD YOU? IS IT BETTER NOW? YES, SIR. 
          THANK YOU. 21P-018 ADJACENT TO 3324 AVENUE O. 
          THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A LICENSE TO USE AGREEMENT WITH 20 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT. 
          FIVE OF THOSE RETURNED, THREE IN OPPOSITION AND TWO, NO COMMENT. 
          AND I BELIEVE YOU HAVE THAT WAS PROVIDED TO YOU EARLIER TODAY. 
          [01:45:01]
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A PERMANENT LICENSE TO USE THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY TO CONSTRUCT A STAIR AND LANDING WITH A ROOF EXTENSION ABOVE THE LANDING AT THE TOP OF THE STAIRS IN ALLEY THE RIGHT OF WAY ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY 3324 AVENUE O. 
          THE PROPOSED LANDING WITH ROOF EXTENSION ABOVE WILL BE LESS THAN TWENTY THREE FEET LONG WITH A TOTAL WIDTH OF FOUR FEET. 
          PLEASE NOTE THE LICENSE TO USE CRITERIA ON PAGE TWO OF YOUR STAFF REPORT STAFF RECOMMENDS TWENTY ONE P DASH ZERO ONE EIGHT BE APPROVED WITH THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE AND TWO LISTED ON YOUR STAFF REPORT AND STANDARD CONDITIONS, THREE TO EIGHT. 
          AND NOW WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS. 
          THIS IS AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT SITE LOOKS LIKE CATHERINE. 
          THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AS WELL AS THE SUBJECT, ALI, RIGHT AWAY. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND WEST AND LESS LIKE CATHOLICS, THIS IS ANOTHER SHOT OF THE SUBJECT, ALI, THAT CONCLUDES THAT SUPPORTING. 
          THANK YOU, ADRIAN, I APPRECIATE THAT COMMISSIONERS, WHO HAS A QUESTION FOR STAFF ISD COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY. YES, MA'AM. 
          THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION THAT'S BASED I GUESS IT'S FOR DONNA THAT'S BASED ON THE CONCERNS THAT WERE EXPRESSED BY THE NEIGHBORS, AT LEAST ONE NEIGHBOR IN PARTICULAR, WHO HAVE APPARENTLY INCORPORATED A PORTION OF THE ALLEYWAY. 
          ONTO HIS PROPERTY AND USES THE ALLEY FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS. 
          OK, NOW. 
          IN TWENTY EIGHTEEN, THERE WAS SOME ENFORCEMENT ACTION ON THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY TO OPEN UP THE ALLEY. AND TO RETURN THE ALLEY TO ITS PUBLIC USE, WHICH WOULD BE LIKE MAINTENANCE, I SUPPOSE, AND UTILITIES, BECAUSE THE ACCESS. 
          BUT THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. 
          TO THE WEST. 
          TO THE WEST NEIGHBOR, THAT NEIGHBOR STILL HAS A FENCE, A FENCED IN YARD THAT INCORPORATES THAT ALLEY. AND MY QUESTION TO DONNA IS. 
          DOES THE NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST OF THE APPLICANT HAVE A STANDING OR A CLAIM TO USE THE USE OF THAT ALLEY FOR HIS EGRESS AND INGRESS? WHAT WHAT IS HIS LEGAL STANDING? CAN YOU I HOPE I'M I'M I HOPE I'M EXPRESSING MYSELF CORRECTLY. 
          I BELIEVE YOU ARE, AND THIS IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THOSE CASES WHERE I'M GOING TO ADVISE THE COMMISSIONERS TO BE VERY PARTICULAR IN THE REVIEW OF WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED BEFORE YOU TO SPEAK ON THE COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBOR. 
          WHAT I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DISCERN AND STAFF AND I WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS, THERE IS NO LEGAL DOCUMENTATION OF AN ABANDONMENT OR ANY OTHER AUTHORITATIVE GIVING AWAY OF A CITY RIGHT OF WAY THAT WE CAN FIND FROM THE CITY TO THAT ADJOINING NEIGHBOR AND THE OTHER NEIGHBOR. I REALLY DON'T WANT TO GET TOO MUCH INTO THAT JUST BECAUSE. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS IS GOING TO PLAY OUT. 
          I THINK SOME RESEARCH STILL NEEDS TO BE DONE ON ON THAT PART OF IT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THE I'S DOTTED AND THE T'S ARE CROSSED. 
          BUT CURRENTLY THAT WE COULD NOT FIND ANY DOCUMENTATION THAT GAVE THE ADJOINING NEIGHBORS A PORTION OF THAT CITY RIGHT AWAY TO ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS. 
          A PORTION OF THAT CITY RIGHT AWAY IS THE LIE TO YOU. 
          [01:50:07]
OK, THANK YOU. MY QUESTION NOW IS FOR APRIL. 
          THERE WAS SOME MENTION MADE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE SEEN ELEVATION DRAWINGS WITH OUR CASE REPORT THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE APPLICANT BY THE APPLICANT FOR THEIR ELEVATION DRAWINGS THAT WE COULD SEE. NO, KNOW THAT THE WHAT'S WHAT WAS PROVIDED WITH THE WITH THE STAFF REPORT, IT'S ALL THAT WE RECEIVED OK AND MY OTHER OK, SO THAT. 
          I GUESS YOU'VE ALREADY ANSWERED MY NEXT QUESTION, WHICH WOULD BE A QUESTION OF INVISIBILITY ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY. 
          WE KNOW WE'VE HAD THESE SITUATIONS BEFORE WHERE WE'VE ASKED AN APPLICANT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO USE THEIR OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR IN LIEU OF IN LIEU OF A LICENSE TO USE. 
          AND SO MY QUESTION TO YOU WOULD BE, DID THE APPLICANT DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY CANNOT USE THEIR OWN PROPERTY, THE PRIVATE PROPERTY, FOR INSTEAD OF A LICENSE TO USE, THE APPLICANT IS ON THE LINE AND HE CAN YOU CAN ADDRESS THAT AS WELL. 
          I WILL SAY THAT THE SPACE IN BETWEEN THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AS CURRENTLY CONFIGURED IS LIMITED. 
          AND THERE ARE ZONING RESTRICTIONS IN TERMS OF DISTANCE THAT IS REQUIRED FROM AN ACCESSORY USE TO A PRIMARY USE, AS WELL AS INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL THAT COME INTO PLAY. 
          BUT AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS ON THE LINE. 
          HE CAN ADDRESS THAT QUESTION AS WELL. 
          OK, WELL, CAN I ASK YOU JUST ONE MORE QUESTION? NOW, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE AERIAL VIEW, THERE APPEARS TO BE SPACE TO THE WEST OF THE GARAGE THAT COULD POSSIBLY MANAGE A LANDING AND A STAIR STAIRWELL IF THAT IT DID. 
          YOU LOOK AT THAT? WHAT WERE THERE ANY MEASUREMENTS MADE OF THAT AREA? I AM LOOKING AT IT NOW, ALLOW ME TO GET THERE, OK? IT'S TO THE WEST, SO IT WOULD BE LIKE RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          YEAH, I MEAN, IT LOOKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, ASIDE FROM THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE THERE, THERE'S BEEN OTHER ADDITIONS TO THAT PROPERTY AS WELL. 
          AND THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENT WILL ALSO BE CALCULATED, THE DISTANCES REQUIRED FROM AN ACCESSORY TO OUR PRIMARY PRIMARY STRUCTURE. 
          IT'S CALCULATED ALSO TO ADDITIONS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. 
          SO I GUESS I'M NOT SEEING THAT THE THAT THE SPACE THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO. 
          THERE IS THERE IS SOME SPACE, THERE IS SOME SPACE, BUT I, FROM WHAT I SEE, IS LIMITED. 
          OK, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTION FOR STAFF, VICE CHAIR BROWN AND THEN COMMISSIONER, WOULD YOU MIND PUTTING UP THAT LAST PHOTOGRAPH WHICH YOU SHOWED EARLIER? KATHLEEN, DO YOU MIND? MET UP. THANK YOU. 
          THERE IT IS. SO THAT'S A GOOD ONE THERE. 
          IT SHOWS THE GARAGE DOOR THERE. 
          IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE THE STAIR THAT THERE'S LIKE A RIGHT IN FRONT OF THAT GARAGE DOOR. 
          AND IF THEY'RE PROPOSING TO PUT AN ADDITION ON TOP OF THAT GARAGE, WHICH I GUESS THEY ARE, THAT'S BEEN A SENSE THAT THEY'RE GOING UP THERE. 
          IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE RIGHT THERE WHERE THE UTILITY LINE IS. 
          AND I'M JUST WONDERING HOW THEY'RE GOING TO DO ALL OF THAT. 
          HOW ARE YOU GOING TO USE THAT GARAGE DOOR IF THE STAIRS THERE? AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS IF THERE IS A SPARE THERE. 
          IF YOU PARK YOUR CAR TO GET TO THAT THEORY, YOU'RE GOING TO BE PARKED RIGHT IN THE ALLEY AND ALL OF THAT IS GOING TO PRECLUDE WHOEVER USES THAT GATE BACK THERE FROM GETTING THERE AND THE CAR IS GOING TO BE PARKED RIGHT IN THE ALLEY. 
          IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE ANYTHING REALLY WORKED OUT ON THIS YET. 
          DO YOU HAVE ANY ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS AS FAR AS THE UTILIZING THE GARAGE DOOR? IT'S KIND OF UNFAIR THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR FOR THE ARCHITECT, THE APPLICANT WHO'S ON THE LINE. I HAVE NOT SEE I HAVE NOT SEEN PLANS ON HOW IT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, DESIGNED. HOWEVER, I WILL SAY THAT THEY ALSO HAVE ACCESS FROM ABNEY. 
          THEY ALSO DO HAVE A DRIVEWAY FROM HAPPENING AS WELL. 
          OH, OK. 
          [01:55:02]
SO RIGHT NOW I UNDERSTAND AS FAR AS UTILITIES WOULD NOT RECEIVE BACK RECEIVE ANY OBJECTION FROM, YOU KNOW, UTILITIES, PRIVATE OR PUBLIC. AND THERE IS A PROCESS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS TO GO THROUGH WITH WHAT STANDPOINT AS WELL. I BELIEVE THEY ARE CURRENTLY UNDERGOING THATTHAT PROCESS THAT MAYBE THEY HAVEN'T SUBMITTED ANY DRONES TO THE. 
          OK, THAT'S ALL I HAD THINKING. 
          THANK YOU, BUDGETEER BROWN, NOW, COMMISSIONER EDWARDS. 
          I WAS TAKING A LOOK AT THE DRAWINGS AND THEN I JUST REALIZED WHEN VICE CHAIRMAN BROWN SAID ABOUT THE UTILITY LINES, I'VE EXPERIENCED THAT BEFORE, SO THAT'S A NONSTARTER. 
          IT CAN GET UGLY THERE. 
          BUT I ALSO WHEN WHEN THEY WHEN THEY ASK FOR THE LICENSE TO USE AND I SEE THE DRAWINGS THERE IS ALSO THAT WHERE THEY COULD PUT A FIREWALL IN THERE THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO PUT THE FENCE OVER THE WALL, TO PUT THE STAIRS IN THERE ON BOTH SIDES. 
          SO THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO PUT IN AN ALLEYWAY OR IS THAT SOMETHING YOU EVEN TALK ABOUT? YEAH, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS THAT IS DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT AND THE OUR BUILDING DIVISION IN TERMS OF FIRE RATING REQUIREMENTS. 
          THAT IS TYPICALLY SEEN, YOU KNOW, AT THE PERMITTING LEVEL, HOWEVER. 
          BUT, YOU KNOW, AT THIS POINT, JUST BASED ON THIS MODEL, OUR BUILDING DIVISION DID NOT PROVIDE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS AT THIS TIME. 
          OK. AND THEN MY NEXT QUESTION IS, WHEN I LOOK AT THE I GUESS IT'S A FIVE SURVEY DRAWING AND THEY SHOW IT LIKE THE ALLEYWAY OR THE PART OF THIS SECOND PERSON'S HOUSE, THAT THIS BUILDING BELONGS TO THEM. 
          ARE THEY JUST DRAWN BY THE STRUCTURE AS THEY SEE IT OR THE FENCE AS THEY SEE IT? OR DOES THIS ACTUALLY BELONG TO THE NEIGHBOR? I KNOW YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T SEE A PLACE WHERE I SAID THEY BOUGHT IT, BUT IN GALVESTON, YOU GOT A LOT THAT LIVES ARE EXTREMELY YOU FROM ONE HOUSE ANOTHER. 
          THE LOT ARE REALLY COULD BE DIFFERENT. 
          SO THAT'S WHY I'M WONDERING ABOUT THE DRAWINGS HERE SHOWS THAT, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENTLY SHURAS OR LEGAL COUNCIL. 
          SO LEGAL COUNCIL HAS STATED WE ARE CONDUCTING ADDITIONAL RESEARCH INTO THAT RIGHT NOW. 
          I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT ANY OF US CAN PRECISELY ANSWER THAT QUESTION TODAY. 
          OK, WHAT DO WE LOOK AT THE GIANT MAP TO SEE WHAT IT LOOK LIKE ON THE MAP? YEAH, THE GIANT MAP SHOWS EXACTLY WHAT THE SURVEY SHOWS. 
          OK, SO THAT'S IT. 
          THAT'S DRAWN BY THE CITY. 
          RIGHT. THAT IS OBTAINED FROM THE COUNTY. 
          THAT HAS INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE COUNTY. 
          SO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT, THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT THINKS THAT THE NEIGHBOR OWNS THE PROPERTY, WILL SPEAK FOR THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT. 
          I'M JUST SAYING IT SHOWS I'M NOT TRYING TO SPEAK FOR THEM. 
          I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT DREW, THAT THOSE THAT ARE JUST MAP SHOWS THE LINES AND THE LINES ARE DRAWN BY THE COUNTY AND THEY DON'T I WOULD THINK THAT THEY WOULD THEY WOULD THINK THEY OWN IT. 
          THAT WOULD JUST BE MY THOUGHT. 
          AND THAT I'M SURE THAT'S PART OF THE ISSUES THAT IT APPEARS THAT SOMEONE CLEARLY PUT A FENCE ON THERE. WE JUST DON'T KNOW UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY THEY PUT A FENCE THERE. 
          AND SO IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE DETERMINED WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAD THE AUTHORITY TO CONSENT TO THAT 10 FEET OR NOT. 
          CLEARLY, NONE OF US ARE NOT AWARE OF SITUATIONS WHERE PEOPLE HAVE ENCROACHED WITHOUT GETTING THE AUTHORITY TO ENCROACH. 
          AND SO THAT MAY BE A SITUATION HERE. 
          BUT WE DO NEED TO, AGAIN, LOOK INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE TO SEE IF WE CAN FIND ANY DOCUMENTATION ON THE CITY'S PART THAT THIS WAS, IN FACT, AN ABANDONED RIGHT AWAY. 
          SO FAR, WE HAVE COME UP WITH NO DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THAT ANY PART OF THIS RIGHT AWAY HAS BEEN ABANDONED. JOHN, NO, NO SOUND, OK? I GUESS MY MY QUESTION IS WITH THE WAY THE CITY'S LINES HAVE BEEN DRAWN AND I MYSELF HAVE RUN INTO THIS WITH THE LINES BEING KIND OF OVER ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S LOT AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. HOW WOULD YOU EVER FIND OUT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER WITH THE WAY THE CITY DREW THE LINES? I'M JUST CURIOUS. 
          WELL, I THINK I THINK IN TERMS OF, AGAIN, WE OBTAIN OUR INFORMATION, OUR DATA FROM THE COUNTY, BUT IN TERMS OF IF YOU'RE STRICTLY LOOKING AT THIS INFORMATION, IT IS FAIR TO NOTE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THOSE SLIDES ON DISPLAY, THEY COULD BE MISLEADING. 
          [02:00:05]
THEY'RE THEY'RE THEY'RE THEY'RE USUALLY THEY'RE USUALLY OFF ARE A FEW FEET HERE AND THERE SO THAT, YOU KNOW, UNLESS YOU GET A SURVEY FROM A LICENSED SURVEYOR, THAT IS THE ONLY ACCURATE MANNER TO DEPICT PROPERTY LINES. 
          AND I THINK IN THIS SITUATION, IT'S IT NEEDS TO BE NOTED THAT THIS IS A CITY RIGHT OF WAY AND THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE YOUR NEIGHBOR ON PRIVATE PROPERTY BEING A LITTLE BIT OR SERVICE OFF HERE OR THERE. 
          BUT THERE ARE RULES IN PLACE FOR AN ABANDONMENT OF THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY. 
          AND WE'VE LOOKED AT THOSE RULES AND THOSE HISTORIC WAYS THAT ABANDONMENT HAVE OCCURRED WITHIN THE CITY. AND AGAIN, WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANY DOCUMENTATION OF AN ABANDONMENT OF THIS SORT OCCURRING IN ANY OF THE TYPICAL USUAL WAYS THAT A CITY WOULD ABANDON A PART OF THEIR CITY RIGHT AWAY. 
          OK, I'M SORRY, WHERE TO PUT YOU THAT SECOND TRUSTEE AFTER JEFF? HIS HAND WAS UP. WE STARTED THIS. 
          SO YOU JUST CATCHING A BAD BREAK TODAY. 
          GOT TO BE FAST AROUND HERE. 
          SO, COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI. 
          YES. AND THIS MIGHT BE FOR CATHERINE. 
          I RECALL RECEIVING AN EMAIL WITH SOME ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE CITY WORKERS WHEN THEY BEFORE THAT, ALI, WAS DONE IN THE REMAKE AND THEN SOME THREE DIMENSIONAL OVERLAYS THAT WERE SHOWING THAT IT WAS BLOCKING THE EGRESS OF THE NEIGHBOR. 
          DID ANYBODY ELSE SEE THAT? AND IF SO, I HAVE MISPLACED THAT. 
          THAT EMAIL BELIEVE THAT WAS INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. 
          IT WAS IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          IT WAS INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. 
          SO FINE, YOU'RE THE BIG GAME AT EIGHTY SEVEN BAOJUN. 
          OK, THANKS. AT THE VERY END OF THAT COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI. 
          I'VE GOT THAT ONE. THANK YOU. OK, COMMISSIONER WALLABADAH, I JUST A QUICK QUESTION. 
          I DON'T WANT TO KEEP BEATING THIS HORSE TO THE GROUND. 
          DONNA, WHEN THE CITY ABANDONS YOU RIGHT AWAY. 
          IS THERE A D? SO THERE WOULD BE A DEED RECORD IF THEY DID THAT IN MOST CASES, IS THAT CORRECT? TYPICALLY, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THAT THE PROPERTY IS REPLANTED WITH AN ABANDONMENT. IF THE CITY ABANDONED THE PORTION OR OF A RIGHT OF WAY, IT WOULD BE AN ABANDONMENT TO BOTH SIDES OF THE IN THIS CASE IS I BELIEVE THAT 20 FOOT OUT OF 10 FOOT WILL GO TO ONE SIDE AND THEN THE TURN WILL GO TO THE ADJACENT ON A CROSS. 
          SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT HERE. 
          WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANY DOCUMENTATION OF THAT HERE. 
          THEN IT WOULD BE UP TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT HAVE RECEIVED THAT ABANDONMENT. 
          ONCE THEY'VE IF THERE WAS A COST TO IT, IF THEY HAD TO PAY ANYTHING TOWARDS IT, THEN THEY WOULD RECORD THE DIPLOMAT SO THAT IT WOULD BE ALL INCLUSIVE IN THEIR PROPERTY LINES. 
          THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN. 
          OK, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FACING? NONE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21 P DASH ZERO ONE EIGHT AT FIVE THIRTY NINE P.M. 
          AND I SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS ON THE LINE. 
          MR. GARDNER. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONER. 
          I AM ON THE LINE. 
          I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS AND THEN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT I CAN FOR YOU. 
          I'M UNAWARE. 
          FIRST, I'M UNAWARE OF ANY PREVIOUS ENFORCEMENT ACTION ON THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY. THE CLIENT, THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY NOW HAVE ONLY OWNED IT FOR A FEW YEARS. 
          SO I SUSPECT THAT IT PROBABLY HAD TO DO WITH THE PREVIOUS OWNER. 
          I AM NOT AWARE OF THE LEGAL SITUATION WITH RESPECT TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. 
          LOOKING AT THE MAPS AND THE SURVEY, IT APPEARS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS LIKE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN PROPERTY HAS BEEN HAS BEEN ABANDONED, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF ONE KIND OR ANOTHER AS TO WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS ABANDONED OR NOT TO THE PREVIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AT SOME PREVIOUS TIME. 
          THIS IS AN OUTLET OUTWARD OUTWARDS IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE 
          [02:05:01]
REGULAR BLOCKS IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON. 
          IT WAS THE SAME AS THOSE FOUR CITY BLOCKS. 
          AND WHEN SOMEONE PURCHASED A WHAT? IN MANY INSTANCES, THEY SUBDIVIDED IT THE SAME AS THE REGULAR WATER TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON WERE SUBDIVIDED, BUT IN SOME CASES THEY DIDN'T. 
          AND THIS COULD POSSIBLY BE ONE OF THOSE INSTANCES IN WHICH CASE IT'S GOING TO BE TAKE SOME RESEARCH TO DO THE DEED RECORDS AT THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE TO PROBABLY FIGURE THAT OUT. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT, WELL, COULD YOU PUT THE STAIRS IN SOME OTHER LOCATION? THE SEWERS CAN'T BE PLACED ON THE SOUTH SIDE BECAUSE IT WOULD ENCROACH ON THE SIX FOOT REQUIRED SEPARATION. 
          THAT'S IN ALL THE YEARS BETWEEN THE PRIMARY AND THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. 
          AND THE STAIRS CAN'T BE PLACED ON THE EAST OR WEST BECAUSE OF THE FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE THAT'S REQUIRED BY THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CODE. 
          WE CANNOT BE PLACED AT ALL ON THE. 
          EAST SIDE SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE'S INSUFFICIENT SPACE TO CONSTRUCT A STATE OF THE REQUIRED REPORT ON THE WEST SIDE, IT'S CONCEIVABLE THAT THERE COULD BE SOME POSSIBLE WAY TO BUILD A STIR OVER THERE BY BUILDING SOME KIND OF FIRE OR SEPARATION WALL BETWEEN THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. BUT IT WOULD BE SO EXPENSIVE THAT IT WOULD JUST BE COST PROHIBITIVE. 
          AND SO THE PROJECT WOULD LIKELY BE ABANDONED. 
          WE APPROACHED THE PLANNING STAFF ABOUT THIS PROPERTY AND CONSIDERED REQUESTING THAT ABANDONMENT, AND THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE THOUGHT ABOUT IN THE FUTURE. BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE OWNERS ARE CONTEMPLATING AT THIS AT THIS MOMENT. THEY'D SIMPLY LIKE TO BE ABLE TO PLACE UPSTAIRS. 
          THAT WOULD BE ABOUT THREE AND A HALF FOOT WIDE IN THE IN THE ALLEY. 
          AND THAT LEAVES STILL 16 AND A HALF FEET OF THE ALLEY CLEAR, WHICH IS PLENTY OF ROOM FOR THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO HAVE ACCESS TO AND FROM THE ALLEY TO THEIR GATE IF THEY NEED TO GET ACCESS INTO THAT AREA AND. 
          S.. I'M NOT PRIVY. 
          I DIDN'T SEE ANY OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THOSE SENT TO ME, SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO ANY OF THOSE COMMENTS. WE HAVE SPOKEN WITH THE UTILITIES, PEOPLE AND CENTER POINT, UNFORTUNATELY, IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU SAW. 
          YOU WERE NOT ABLE TO SEE THAT THERE IS A TWO STORY STRUCTURE IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST OF THIS PROPERTY. THAT'S RIGHT UP ON THE ALLEY. 
          AND THAT SEEMS TO BE SUFFICIENT CLEARANCE BETWEEN THE POINT WIRES AND THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE TO MEET SIMILAR POINTS REQUIREMENTS AT THIS LOCATION AS WELL. 
          SO THOSE ARE ALL THE COMMENTS THAT I HAVE A DECLINE TO ANSWER. 
          ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE FOR ME? COMMISSIONERS, VICE CHAIR BROWN. 
          DID YOU CONSIDER THE STAIRS INSIDE? THIRTY SIX MEN, THIRTY SIX FOOT BUILDING, SIX FOOT LONG. 
          YEAH, THAT REALLY THE OWNERS HAVE A PARTICULAR USE THAT THEY WANT TO USE THE GARAGE FLOOR AND THEY THEY DIDN'T WANT THE STAIRS COMING DOWN WITHIN THAT USE. 
          SO APPARENTLY THE, THE OWNERS, ONE OF THE OWNERS HAS A HAS A HOBBY THAT THEY PLAN TO PURSUE IN THE GARAGE. 
          AND I WAS I WAS NOTICING WHERE THERE IS THAT STARE, I GUESS THEY'RE GOING TO PULL THEIR CAR UP TO AND JUST PARK THEIR CAR THERE. 
          NO, THEY THEY REALLY ARE NOT PLANNING ON PARKING IN THE ALLEY. 
          THEY HAVE RATHER A LONG DRIVEWAY WITH PLENTY OF ROOM FOR PARKING. 
          AND MOST OF THE PEOPLE AROUND THEM, YOU KNOW, DR. 
          KRUMHOLTZ OFFICE IS RIGHT NEXT DOOR. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, PEOPLE COMMONLY PARKED ON THE STREET IN THAT PART OF AVENUE. 
          OH. SO THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT PLANNING ON USING THE ALLEY FOR PARKING. 
          I WAS JUST WONDERING HOW THAT STAIR GETS USED. 
          IS IT JUST, I GUESS, GARLAND FROM THE UPSTAIRS DOWN TO THE ALLEY AND THEN WALKING WHEREVER YOU WANT TO GO AND GET TO THE BOTTOM. 
          YEAH. WALK. YEAH. WALKING THROUGH. 
          YEAH. SO THEY COME DOWN AND GO THROUGH THE GATE TO COME INTO THE BACKYARD AND COME OVER 
          [02:10:01]
TO THE DRIVEWAY. THAT'S HOW THEY WANT TO USE IT. 
          AND THEN WOULD YOU WOULD YOU ABANDON THAT GARAGE DOOR THAT'S IN THE ALLEY. 
          WELL, THEY WOULDN'T. THEY PROBABLY WOULD NOT FRAME OVER IT, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY PLANS TO USE IT. LIKE I SAID, THAT THE GARAGE IS FOR ONE OF THE FOLKS TO USE FOR A HOLIDAY. 
          OH, OK. SO YOU DON'T ACTUALLY BUILD CARS INTO THAT GARAGE DOOR FROM THE ALLEY? NO, THEY DON'T. OK. 
          OK, COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU DON'T MIND, THERE IS A GARAGE DOOR ON THE SOUTH SIDE THAT THEY CAN USE AS WELL. 
          OK. ALL RIGHT. 
          THAT'S ALL AHEAD. THANKS. 
          COMMISSIONERS'. YES, COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY. 
          YES, SIR, I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          COULD YOU PROVIDE US WITH ELEVATION DRAWINGS SO THAT WE COULD GET SOME BETTER PERSPECTIVE ON THIS? BECAUSE WE DON'T HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC DIRECTLY, VOCALLY. 
          I'M CONCERNED THAT. 
          THIS ACTION MIGHT BOX THAT APPLICANT IN REGARDLESS OF HIS RIGHT TO USE THE ALLEY OR NOT, HE'S USING IT AND IT SEEMS AS THOUGH HIS CONCERN IS THAT. 
          IT'S GOING TO GIVE THEM SOMETHING ELSE TO HIT AND WE DON'T WANT IT TO HIT YOUR. 
          YOU'RE LANDING OR THAT ARE THE STRUCTURE, THE STAIRWELL, THE STAIRWAY. 
          SO. FOR THE SAKE OF OF ALL OF US HERE, PIDGEY, PROVIDE US WITH ELEVATION DRAWINGS. 
          I CAN, HOWEVER, AND THE ELEVATION IS A IS A VIEW LOOKING, IT'S ALSO GRAPHIC PROJECTION OF WHAT THE STAIRS WOULD LOOK LIKE FROM THE FRONT. 
          SO IT GIVES YOU NO INDICATION OF HOW FAR THE STAIRS WOULD PROTRUDE INTO THE ALLEY. 
          THE MEASURE OF HOW FAR THE STAIRS PROTRUDE INTO THE ALLEY AND IN PLAIN VIEW. 
          SO AN ELEVATION WOULD NOT INDICATE THE AMOUNT OF ALLEY THAT'S OBSTRUCTED. 
          AS I INDICATED BEFORE, IT'S 20 FOOT ALLEY. 
          THE STAIRS THEMSELVES PROJEC THREE AND A HALF FEET. 
          THAT LEAVES 16 AND SEE THE VALLEY. 
          AND I THINK YOU COULD SEE FROM AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THE TRANSMISSION LINES THAT GO THROUGH THAT ALLEY ARE ON POWER POLES. 
          SO HE'S GOING TO IF HE WANTS TO TAKE OUT THE STAIRS, HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO RUN OVER THE POWER POLE FIRST. I WOULD NOT BE THE PERSON TO BE BACKING DOWN THAT ALLEY, THAT'S FOR SURE. THANK YOU. 
          OK, VICE CHAIR BROWN, YOU CAN SEE HOW MUCH THAT STAIR PROTRUDES IN THE ALLEY. 
          THE BEST VIEW THAT IS ON THE SURVEY POSTER IS SHOWN IN THE SURVEY. 
          YES. YES, I SEE THAT NOW. 
          YEAH, THAT LITTLE GATE IS JUST TO THE LEFT OF THE STAIRS. 
          SO YOU CAN HAVE PROBABLY THE BEST VIEW OF IT THAT WE HAVE. 
          RIGHT, BUT WE GOT A COMMENT FROM THE NEIGHBOR AND HE HAD PROJECTED IT WAS LIKE CHIEF COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI WAS SAYING HE THOUGHT HE WAS LOOKING FOR THAT SORT OF PROTECTION. 
          YEAH, YEAH. HE TOOK A PHOTOGRAPH LOOKING RIGHT AT THE GATE WHERE HIS CAR WAS PARKED. 
          AND YOU CAN SEE YOU CAN SEE THE GARAGE, THE BACK OF THE GARAGE IN FRONT OF IT. 
          AND THEN HE PHOTOSHOPPED IT OVER WITH A BLOCK OF YELLOW SHOWING HOW FAR IT WAS THERE, IN HIS ESTIMATION, WOULD PROJECT INTO THE ALLEY. 
          RIGHT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE APPLICANT DO THAT AS WELL, BECAUSE I'M HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING. 
          I MEAN, I SEE THIS, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW I WOULD MANEUVER AROUND IT IF I WERE. 
          BACKING UP A CAR, I'D JUST LIKE TO HAVE SOME ASSURANCE IT MAY BE A DRILL. 
          WE'LL GO BACK AND ASK STAFF ABOUT THIS. 
          BUT, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH ROOM DO YOU NEED TO KNOW FOR A VEHICLE? SO I'LL HAVE TO LOOK. 
          WAS THAT A QUESTION? NO, I'M SORRY. 
          I'M TALKING ABOUT. I'M SORRY. 
          I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY. CAN WE STOP? YES, YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, HOW MUCH ROOM DO YOU NEED TO BACK UP A CAR? CLOSE TO ABOUT MAYBE SIX FEET WIDE, PLUS MAYBE A LITTLE BIT THROUGH THE MIRRORS. 
          AND SO THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER HAS. 
          BY WHATEVER MEANS 10 FEET OF THE ALLEY, THE CARS, SIX, FOUR CARS ABOUT SIX FEET WIDE. 
          SO REALLY THERE SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT MANEUVERING ROOM TO GET INTO THAT, TO GET INTO THAT 
          [02:15:06]
GATE. ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER WALLA. 
          HEY, MICHAEL, QUICK QUESTION. 
          SO THIS THIS STARE IS FOR IS GOING TO BE THE PRIMARY ACCESS TO THE GARAGE APARTMENT. 
          IT'S NOT GOOD. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          THAT IS CORRECT. IT'S NOT REQUIRED FOR SOME BAR ACCESS OR WHATEVER IT IS. 
          IT'S JUST THEIR PRIMARY. 
          IT'S NOT A SECOND STAIRWAY. 
          IT'S THE MAIN ONE. 
          QUICK. THANK YOU. 
          YES, SIR. YES, MA'AM. 
          COMMISSIONER EDWARDS, SO THE IF THEY PARK IN THE DRIVEWAY, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WALK OUT OF THE BACK GATE AND UP THE STAIRS TO GET TO THE TOP UNIT. 
          THAT IS CORRECT. AND WHAT I WAS HEARING ON THAT, COMMISSIONER EDWARDS, IS THAT IT IS NOT PLANNED AS A RENTAL UNIT OR GARAGE APARTMENT, IT IS PLANNED AS A HOBBY ROOM FOR THE OWNER. WELL, THAT'S THE DOWNSTAIRS THE UPSTAIRS IS PLANNED, THE UPSTAIRS IS IS PLANNED AS AN APARTMENT AND SPECIFICALLY FOR ONE OF THE ONE OF THE PARENTS. 
          SORRY, I MISUNDERSTOOD. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, COMMISSIONERS'? AS STATED, WE RECEIVED PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS, WE HAVE ALL STUDIED IT. 
          A LOT, AND IT WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE RECORD AND THE MINUTES OF THIS MEETING AT THAT, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE TWENTY ONE, DASH ZERO ONE EIGHT FIVE FIFTY TWO PM. 
          DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS CASE? COMMISSIONER WALLA WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DENIED THE REQUEST. 
          DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. NOW OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. 
          OK, I SEE COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY, COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI, THEN VICE CHAIR BROWN, COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY, I AM I AGREE WITH THE COMMISSIONER WALWA. 
          I DON'T SEE THAT. 
          WE HAVE SEEN IMPEACHABILITY YET TO CONTAIN THIS WITHIN THE GARAGE APARTMENT ITSELF. 
          I'M IN THE GARAGE, THE FIRST FLOOR. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE SAME KIND OF TREATMENT WE'VE ASKED OTHER APPLICANTS FOR, WHICH WAS TO LAY OUT ALL THE OPTIONS AND TELL US WHY THEY WON'T WORK. 
          SO IN THAT RESPECT, I MEAN, I WOULD. 
          I WOULD ACCEPT A DEFERRAL AT THIS AT THIS POINT, BUT. 
          RIGHT NOW, I DON'T SEE THAT. 
          I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT THEY NEED THE. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY. 
          I BELIEVE I SAID COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI NEXT, YEAH, THAT MY CONCERN IS THE NEIGHBOR WITH THE LOCK THE GATE AND STUFF. 
          AND IF YOU LOOK AT THAT SURVEY, WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY THE DISTANCE THERE. 
          IF WE COULD HAVE MORE INFORMATION IS NEEDED IN THIS THING. 
          SO IS THAT GUYS GOING TO BE ABLE TO CLEAR AND NOT INTERFERE WITH YOUR ACCESS TO THE TO THE STAIRS AND STUFF? AND I, TOO, WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF AN ALTERNATIVE, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT BE THE FIRST CHOICE OF OF THE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. 
          VICE CHAIR BROWN, YEAH, I HATE TO SET THE PRESIDENT PRECEDENT FOR DOING THIS. 
          I'M NOT SAYING THE INFLEXIBILITY. 
          I THINK IF THEY REALLY WANT TO DO THIS, THEY CAN SIMPLY PUT THE STARE INSIDE AND GIVE UP A LITTLE BIT OF SPACE ON THE GROUND FLOOR THERE. 
          AND THEN BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT IS, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S SETTING ITSELF UP OR SOONER OR LATER THEY'RE GOING TO RUN INTO THE STAIRWELL WITH THAT CAR TRYING TO GET PARKING THERE. 
          AND I THINK IT'S JUST NOT COMPELLING ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE BEARINGS IN THE ALLEY RIGHT THERE WITHOUT WITHOUT LOOKING AT OPTIONS WORTH. 
          THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY FROM MY STANDPOINT. 
          I AGREE ABOUT THE DEMONSTRATION OF INVISIBILITY AND SETTING A PRECEDENT GOING FORWARD 
          [02:20:02]
ABOUT GRANTING A LICENSE TO USE JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY DOESN'T WANT TO GIVE UP SPACE INSIDE THEIR HOUSE. 
          AND I THINK IF WE START OPENING OUR DOOR TO THAT, THEN HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE WE GOING TO GRANT USE TO JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT THE STAIRWAY WHERE THEY WANT IT? I DON'T WANT THIS HERE. 
          SO LET'S PUT IT HERE INSTEAD. 
          MAY I JUST THROW SOMETHING ELSE OUT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES, NOT OFFERING A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, AS IT WERE HERE, BUT JUST ASKING THE COMMISSION, IS THIS ANYTHING THAT WE CAN SOLVE THROUGH A DEFERRAL? COULD WE COULD WE DO A DEFERRAL ON THIS OR JUST SEE ABOUT THE SEEING THE ACTUAL ELEVATION OR OF GETTING A BETTER 3-D IMAGE OF WHAT THIS WOULD LOOK LIKE FROM THE BACK OR TO SEE A DEMONSTRATION OF. YES, COMMISSIONER WOLLAR. 
          SO HERE'S MY THOUGHTS ON THIS. 
          I MEAN, HE'S WANTING TO BUILD IT, BUT HIS STAIRS ON WHAT IS NOW CITY PROPERTY OR APPEARS TO BE I THINK THE APPROACH FORM IS IS APPLIED FOR AN ABANDONMENT. 
          I MEAN, IF IT'S NEXT DOOR, THAT'S GOING TO BE IS THIS APPROACH THAT HE BUILDS STAIRS ON HIS OWN PROPERTY. I'M KIND OF WITH BOB AND JEFF AND THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO BE SETTING THE PRESIDENT HERE. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT A DEFERRAL DOES, BUT I CAN SEE THAT WOULDN'T REALLY ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING. IT WOULD OR WOULD NOT WOULD NOT JUST TOSSING IT OUT THERE TO STAY HEALTHY, DISCUSSION AS ANYONE ELSE, HAVE A COMMENT. 
          AND IN OUR DISCUSSION, ALL RIGHTY, WE WILL CLOSE OUR DISCUSSION PORTION OF TODAY'S ACTIVITIES AND WE WILL CALL THE VOTE OUR VOTE, WE HAVE ON THE TABLE A MOTION TO DENY. 
          TWENTY ONE ZERO ONE EIGHT. 
          SO, AGAIN, I WILL REMIND YOU THAT AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE WILL YIELD A DENIAL. 
          OK, CATHERINE, PLEASE, MA'AM. 
          MR. ANTONELLI, I'M IN FAVOR OF JEFFERSON BROWN, IN FAVOR OF EDWARDS, IN FAVOR OF PERSONAL FAVOR. COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY IN FAVOR. 
          IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF KARBALA IN FAVOR, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION FOR GENERAL PRACTICE. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          I'M STARTING TO THINK WE'RE A CRANKY GROUP TODAY. 
          MAYBE WE ALL DIDN'T EAT OUR WHEATIES TODAY. 
          NO, THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION THAT THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE GIVEN TO THESE ITEMS. I KNOW WE'VE BEEN IN A MARATHON MEETING, BUT I HAVE TWO SHORT ITEMS, DISCUSSION ITEMS THAT I HAVE ASKED CATHERINE TO PRESENT TO US BECAUSE THE COMMISSION HAS SOME IMPORTANT BUSINESS THAT LIES AHEAD FOR US THAT WILL TAKE A SIGNIFICANT COULD TAKE A SIGNIFICANT TIME COMMITMENT. 
          AND SO I WANTED TO GET CATHERINE TO LET US KNOW WHERE WE STAND ON THOSE ITEMS. AND SHE HAS ONE FURTHER DISCUSSION ITEM. 
          I DON'T THINK THIS WILL TAKE LONG. 
          COMMISSIONERS' SO YOU'RE UP MS. 
          [9A. Update On Revisions To The Beach Access And Erosion Response Plans (Hill)]
BOREMAN ARE. 
          SO WE'LL JUST START BY THAT ANNOUNCEMENT, WHICH IS THAT DUSTIN HENRY, WHO IS THE COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGER, HAS ACCEPTED ANOTHER POSITION NOT IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON. 
          SO HE'LL BE MOVING ON TO YOU WERE HAPPY FOR HIM. 
          OF COURSE, WE ALWAYS TRY TO BE SUPPORTIVE WHEN THESE THINGS HAPPEN, BUT OF COURSE I FEEL SORRY FOR OURSELVES. ARE YOU GOING TO THE GALVESTON HISTORICAL FOUNDATION TO WORK ON DUSTIN? WELL, HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS ONE OF HIS EARLY INTERESTS, AND SO HE'S MOVED AWAY FROM IT, DOING COASTAL STUFF THAT WE'RE HAPPY TO BE ABLE TO USE THE BATHROOM. 
          BEST WISHES, BEST WISHES, BEST. 
          LET'S LET THE RECORD STATE THAT COMMISSIONER WOLLAR IS CONTINUING IN THE CRANKY PANTS MODE. BUT WE WISH YOU WELL, DUSTIN. 
          AND SO CONGRATULATIONS. 
          THANK YOU, CATHERINE. AND NOW FOR THE BUSINESS SAVVY BUSINESS. 
          WELL, WITH THAT NEWS THAT PUTS THE UPDATE ON THE REVISIONS OF THE TRACK, THIS INTEGRATION RESPONSE PLAN A LITTLE BIT TENTATIVE, IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WERE GOING TO SCHEDULE FOR OUR WORK PLAN FOR THE REMAINDER OF TWENTY, TWENTY ONE. 
          BUT WITH THIS CHANGE IN, THERE MAY BE SOME RESTRUCTURING. 
          WE WOULD HAVE TO RECONSIDER THAT. 
          [02:25:04]
OK, SO WHAT AM I HEARING CORRECTLY, JUST TO SAY THAT'S PROBABLY SHIFTING TO A TWENTY TWENTY TWO ITEM, CATHERINE? THAT SEEMS REASONABLE. OK, MAY I ASK ANOTHER PURELY SELFISH QUESTION? WE HAD TO ASK FOR AN ORIENTATION FOR THE COMMITTEE, THE NEW COMMISSIONERS ESPECIALLY, BUT FOR ALL OF US TO GET UP TO DATE ON THE BEACH FRONT CONSTRUCTION ITEMS, OR ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT DONE BEFORE DUSTIN LEAVES? I'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT PERSON'S FINAL DATE IS, BUT IT IS CERTAINLY POSSIBLE IF WE SCHEDULED IT FOR THE MAY 4TH MEETING OF THE WORK SESSION BEFOREHAND, THEN THAT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE. AND THEN, OF COURSE, VERGÈS IS THE ASSISTANT COASTAL MANAGER OF COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGER AND SHE IS PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF HOLDING THAT. 
          OK, THANK YOU. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. 
          AND THEN DID I LET YOU FINISH EVERYTHING ON BEACH ACCESS AND EROSION RESPONSE? I WOULD SAY THAT'S WHERE IT STANDS NOW, THAT WE DON'T HAVE CONCRETE PLANS TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT IT IS IN OUR WORK PLAN AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISIONS. 
          I HAVE TO DEFER TO HIM ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 
          YEAH, I CAN HEAR THAT. 
          AND REAL QUICK, BEFORE I JUMP INTO THAT, WE ARE HOSTING DESTINES POSITION, SO WE ARE HOPING TO REASONABLY QUICKLY GET SOMEBODY HIRED HIM. 
          SO I'M NOT GOING TO SAY IT'S COMPLETELY OFF THE TABLE THAT WE CAN'T START INTO IMPLEMENTATION OF SOME OF THE BEACH, BEACH AND BEACH ACCESS AND DUNE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS AND PROVISIONS THAT WERE SUGGESTED BY THE COMMITTEE. 
          WE JUST WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE STAFF ON BOARD TO DO THAT, WHICH HOPEFULLY WILL COME SOONER THAN LATER TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 
          WE'VE BEEN KIND OF TAKING A SHOT AT THAT IN THE BUDGET FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS. 
          AND WERE HIT IN LAST YEAR'S BUDGET WITH WHAT WAS ANTICIPATED TO BE A BAD YEAR WITH COVID AND SALES TAX WOULD BE DOWN. 
          IT DIDN'T GET QUITE AS BAD AS WE ALL THOUGHT IT PERHAPS WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR WHEN WE WHEN WERE GOING THROUGH THIS. 
          WE HAVE THAT LAWSUIT FOR MORE THAN 13 MILLION DOLLARS OF OUT THAT VERY MUCH AFFECTED EVERYONE'S BUDGET LINES. 
          BUT I THINK THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT THIS YEAR THINGS ARE PERHAPS LOOKING A LITTLE BETTER, MAYBE CONSIDERABLY BETTER. 
          WE'LL HAVE TO SEE. BUT AS TO AS TO US PUTTING A REQUEST INTO THE BUDGET, WE FULLY INTEND TO DO THAT AND UTILIZE THE GALVESTON VISION GALVESTON WORK THAT WAS DONE TO INFORM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 
          AS WE MOVE FORWARD, THE TIMELINE IS GOING TO BE PROBABLY KICKING OFF SOMETIME AFTER OCTOBER. AND WE HAVE WE ACTUALLY GENERATED A YEAR OR TWO TO BEGIN PROCUREMENT OF THE SUB CONSULTANTS THAT WE MIGHT USE. 
          AND SO WE'LL BE KIND OF BRINGING THAT BACK UP AND TWEAKING IT AS NECESSARY. 
          SO I THINK IF YOU WOULD COMMIT TO THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OR SO OF TWENTY TWO, I THINK THAT'S ONE WE'LL BE LIKELY GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS. 
          ALL RIGHT, SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT CAROL HOLLAWAY IS IN THE CLEAR SINCE HER TERM ENDS IN OCTOBER OF TWENTY ONE, AND THE REST OF US WILL NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE IF WE'RE IF WE'RE LOOKING AT OUR PLANNING FOR NEXT YEAR, THAT WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE A GOOD BIT OF WORK TO DO IN THE FIRST HALF OF TWENTY TWENTY TWO ON EITHER ONE OR BOTH OF THE ITEMS ON BOTH OF THESE REVISIONS. 
          IS IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. OK, SO FRIENDS HAVE YOUR PARTY TIME THIS YEAR, BECAUSE TWENTY TWENTY TWO IS GOING TO BE. NOSE TO THE GRINDSTONE. 
          ALL RIGHT, ANYTHING ELSE, TIM KATHARYN, THAT WE NEED TO KNOW ON THAT? 
          [02:30:03]
I'VE GOT A QUESTION. 
          OH, SORRY. I APOLOGIZE, JOHN PAUL. 
          NO, NO. I JUST I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING. 
          AFTER IT WAS DONE AND WERE DONE WITH THOSE TWO ITEMS FROM THE. 
          I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO ME, BUT I WANT TO WELCOME REGINA TO THE COMMISSION. 
          I THINK SHE'S GOING TO DO A GREAT JOB. 
          WE HAD WE HAD SOME GREAT DISCUSSION TODAY. 
          AND I WANT TO SAY TO ALL THE COMMISSIONERS, I THINK I DID A GREAT JOB TODAY DENYING CASES. 
          IS IT THE EASIEST THING TO DO? BUT I THINK WE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION ON TWO OF THOSE CASES TODAY, EVEN THOUGH THEY WENT A LITTLE LONG. BUT I THINK Y'ALL MADE THE RIGHT DECISIONS ON THOSE CASES AND KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. AND WE'RE GLAD THAT ALL YOUR VOLUNTEER TIME AND SERVICE TO THE CITY. 
          SO THANK YOU. ABSOLUTELY. 
          AND COUNCIL MEMBER IT IS REJON. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU. 
          AND THAT IS COMING FROM A WOMAN WHOSE NAME IS JEFFREY. 
          SO I'M KIND OF PARTICULAR ABOUT THESE NINE THINGS. 
          CARROLL ISD. 
          YES. I JUST WANTED TO ASK JOHN PAUL IF HE FEELS COMFORTABLE RELATING THE DISCUSSION TODAY ABOUT THE TWO CASES TO CITY COUNCIL. 
          WELL, THE LTE USE STOPS WITH US. 
          OK, WHAT ABOUT THE CHANGE IN ZONING? YEAH, I THINK I HAVE. 
          I HAD A LITTLE DISCUSSION WITH WILLIAM COUNCIL MEMBER PERSON IN THAT DISTRICT AND TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT. AND SO I'VE ALREADY TALKED A LITTLE BIT TO SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS ABOUT IT. AND I THINK THE DISCUSSION HERE GAVE ME A LOT OF INFORMATION TO GO BACK TO COUNCIL WITH. I I HAVE A FEELING THAT UNLESS SOME OTHER INFORMATION IS PRESENTED TO US AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL THAT, YOU KNOW, YARL'S RECOMMENDATION IS PROBABLY GOING TO MOVE FORWARD. THAT'S JUST MY FEELING. 
          SO I THINK I YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH YOU ALL ON COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          JUST A SECOND, DONNA. 
          ARE WE ARE WE OK ON THE AGENDA AND HAVING THIS DISCUSSION? DONNA. DONNA, THERE IT DONNA IS HERE. 
          I WAS PRESSING THE VIDEO BESIDE THE MUTE, I THINK STOP LAUGHING. 
          I THINK HAVING A BRIEF FOLLOW UP OF WHAT WERE HAVING TODAY AND THIS COULD BE CONSIDERED MAYBE A FUTURE ITEM TO ADDRESS, I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHEN THIS WILL BE PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL. I THINK IT'S THE TWENTY SEVENTH OF MAY. 
          CATHERINE, THIS LIST MAY BE CONSIDERED ONE OF THOSE. 
          IF THE COMMISSIONERS WANT TO PUT ON THE FUTURE AGENDA TO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE APPEAR TO SPEAK BEFORE COUNCIL. 
          IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK ALL THIS DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE HAVING RIGHT NOW CAN BE KIND OF WRAPPED UP IN. 
          BUT HONESTLY, I THINK COUNCILPERSON, THE STOTSKY HAS HEARD ENOUGH. 
          THE TAPES ARE HERE AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT ANYONE CAN GO BACK AND LISTEN TO AND SEE AND REVIEW FOR THEMSELVES. 
          I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE COMMISSIONERS FOR THEIR THOUGHTFUL HANDLING OF THE CASE. 
          I KNOW THAT AT TIMES IT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO HEAR ME SAY YOU GOT TO KIND OF STAY IN THIS LANE OR KEEP THESE BLINDERS ON FOR PARTICULAR SITUATIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. 
          BUT MY JOB LITERALLY IS JUST TO KEEP THE PROCEDURAL ISSUES IN CHECK SO THAT NOBODY GETS SUED A WORD, AND ALSO TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY'S DOING THEIR DUTY, TAKING THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE DOING THEIR BEST FOR THE CITY. 
          SO I DO APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK AND ALL THE COMMENTS THAT WERE SAID TODAY AND ANYBODY CAN GO AND REVIEW THE TAPE. 
          SO THERE YOU GO. 
          THANK YOU. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER MS. DYLESKI. 
          I APOLOGIZE. AND JUST AS DONNA HAS MADE ME HYPERSENSITIVE ABOUT SOME AGENDA ITEMS AND I JUST HAVE MY DOG. 
          SO IF YOU FEEL THAT YOU WOULD LIKE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE COMMISSIONER, YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THIS AT OUR NEXT MEETING. 
          PLEASE ASK FOR AN AGENDA ITEM AND WE'LL DISCUSS IT FURTHER. 
          IS THAT GOOD? I MEAN, I THINK I THINK WE'RE GOOD, I MEAN, I THINK I HAVE DIRECTION FROM 
          [02:35:03]
PLANNING AND OF COURSE, COMMISSIONERS ARE ALWAYS WELCOME TO ADDRESS COUNCIL. 
          AND SO BUT I THINK I GOT THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE DIRECTION HERE ON THIS CASE. 
          AND JUST FOR THE NEW COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONS CAN ADDRESS CITY COUNCIL IN THEIR OWN CAPACITY AS THEMSELVES, NOT AS A COMMISSIONER, UNLESS THE COMMISSION HAS AUTHORIZED THEM TO ADDRESS CITY COUNCIL IN THAT MANNER. 
          SO LET'S JUST KEEP IT CLEAR AND. 
          OK, RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE, COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY? I DIDN'T HEAR WHAT DONNA SAID. 
          WOULD SHE SAY THAT AGAIN, PLEASE? SHE SAID YOU SAID YOU'RE ALWAYS WELCOME TO ADDRESS COUNCIL, BUT YOU ADDRESS COUNCIL AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, NOT AS A MEMBER OF PLANNING COMMISSION. 
          YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN DO THAT, JEFFREY. 
          YES. OR IF SOMEONE ELSE IS DESIGNATED RIGHT. 
          RIGHT IN MY STATE, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE WAY TO HANDLE THAT. 
          ALL RIGHT. WE'VE JUST BLOWN OUT OUR AVERAGE OF ONE HOUR AND 15, BUT WE'VE TAKEN IT UP A NOTCH. I THANK EVERYBODY FOR YOUR ATTENTION, TIME, PATIENCE AND THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION, CATHERINE. ANYTHING ELSE? WHERE WE'RE READY. 
          OK. ALL RIGHT, WE'RE ADJOURNED. 
          SEE YA, EVERYBODY. THANK YOU ALL.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.