[00:00:01]
>>ALL RIGHT. WE WILL CALL THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER AT 3:33.
[1. Call Meeting To Order]
IT'S A REGULAR MEETING, JULY 20TH AND WE'LL NOW TAKE ATTENDANCE. PATRICK.[2. Attendance]
>>HE'S HERE. HE JUST WAS MUTED.
COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS TODAY? SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE ALONG.
[BACKGROUND] CATHERINE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COVER THE MEETING FORMAT?
[4. Meeting Format (Staff)]
>> WE ARE CONTINUING WITH OUR HYBRID MEETINGS.
SO THAT SOME MEMBERS ARE HERE IN PERSON, SOME MEMBERS ARE HERE VIA ZOOM.
STAFF MEMBERS ARE ALSO A HYBRID OF IN-PERSON AND ON THE ZOOM CALL, AS ARE THE AT-A-GLANCE AND WILL CONTINUE TO TAKE THE [INAUDIBLE] OFF.
>> COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONS, CORRECTIONS,
[5. Approval Of Minutes]
WHATEVER TO THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 22ND MEETING? SEEING NONE, WE'LL ACCEPT THOSE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED.NEXT, WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS SECTION.
SINCE COVID, WE NOW ACCEPT COMMENTS IN WRITING, IN PERSON, AND BY ZOOM.
IF YOU ARE HERE TO COMMENT ON AN AGENDA ITEM, SOMETHING THAT'S ON OUR REGULAR AGENDA, WE WILL TAKE THOSE COMMENTS AT THE TIME THAT WE HEAR THAT AGENDA ORDER.
IS ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON A NON-AGENDA ITEM? ANYONE, PATRICK ON ZOOM. PLEASE SIR.
>> SO ANYONE ON ZOOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE USE THE RAISE YOUR HAND FUNCTION.
>>THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE ALONG THEN AND WE HAD NO COMMENTS, NO PUBLIC COMMENTS IN WRITING.
[7.A. 21P-007b (4235 Las Palmas Blvd)]
COMMISSIONERS, TO OUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. WE HAVE TWO OF THOSE TODAY.AGAIN, THEY ARE JUST PUBLIC HEARINGS, NO VOTE OR ACTION REQUIRED.
WE'LL START WITH 21P-007B PLEASE.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR PROPOSED OFFSITE DUNE VEGETATION MITIGATION DUE TO ADVERSE IMPACTS TO 682 SQUARE FEET OF DUNE VEGETATION, AND TO NOT INCLUDE THE PREVIOUS CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND DRIVEWAY PLAN.
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THE AREA IS ERODING AT A RATE OF 5-6 FEET PER YEAR.
THE APPLICANT BEGAN THE UNPERMITTED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES JULY 25TH, 2019 ON SITE, AND ADVERSELY IMPACTED DUNES AND DUNE VEGETATION WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION FROM THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
THE APPLICANT THEN SUBMITTED A BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE DUNE PROTECTION PERMIT APPLICATION TO COMPENSATE FOR ADVERSE IMPACTS TO 682 SQUARE FEET OF DUNE VEGETATION OFFSITE AND TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH THE FIBERCRETE DRIVEWAY.
THE APPLICANT NOW PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT TO NOT INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTS WITH A FIBERCRETE DRIVEWAY IN THIS APPLICATION.
THE PROPOSED OFFSITE DUNE VEGETATION PLANTING TO COMPENSATE FOR DAMAGE TO 682 SQUARE FEET OF DUNE VEGETATION WILL BE LOCATED SEAWARD OF THE DUNES AND THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT IS NO LONGER OPEN.
THE DUNE VEGETATION RESTORATION TIMELINE IS ATTACHED PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE JULY 20TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WAS SENT TO SEVEN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE INPUT ON THE PROPOSED ACTIVITIES.
NO PUBLIC RESPONSES WERE RECEIVED, AND TWO WERE RETURNED TO THE CITY DUE TO AN UNDELIVERABLE ADDRESS.
STAFF FINDS A REQUEST CONFORMS TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON DUNE PROTECTION WHICH ACCESS PLAN AND EROSION RESPONSE PLAN AND STAFF HAS PREPARED PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
>> SUBJECT PROPERTY IS HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE. NEXT SLIDE.
THIS IS THE SITE PLAN FOR THE COMPENSATION EFFORTS.
[00:05:05]
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.THESE ARE PHOTOS OF WHEN THE ADVERSE IMPACTS WITHOUT A PERMIT OCCURRED.
PHOTOS FROM THE MITIGATION PLAN OF HOW THE SITE WILL BE MITIGATED.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THESE ARE THE FINAL SLIDES.
THAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE ANY IT'S FIRST AS THE APPLICANT IN THE AUDIENCE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO STAND UP AND SAY SOMETHING? PLEASE START BY JUST.
>>YES, AND START BY JUST STATING YOUR NAME AND THEN PLEASE SIGN IN OVER HERE ON THE SHEET.
MY MOTHER PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY IN 1977.
SO WE'VE OWNED IT FOR 44 YEARS.
IT WAS ALWAYS HER INTENTION TO BUILD ON IT, BUT SHE NEVER HAD THE FINANCIAL MEANS TO DO THAT.
IT WASN'T UNTIL 2017 [BACKGROUND], THAT THE TAXING AUTHORITY INCREASED THE PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT FROM $7 TO $20 A SQUARE FOOT IN ONE YEAR AND I FINALLY DECIDED IT'S TIME TO BUILD AND UTILIZE THIS PROPERTY THAT WE'VE HAD.
[NOISE] SO, NOW I'M GOING TO TAKE YOU BACK.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE LINE, IT WAS A CORNER LINE.
MOST PLANNERS CAME AROUND HERE AND CONNECTED IT WITH THIS STAR RIGHT HERE.
[NOISE] SO AFTER HURRICANE IKE, ALL OF THE DUNE STRUCTURE AND THE SAND THAT WAS ALL MOVED TO LANDWARD.
SEVERAL FEET OF SAND AS YOU GUYS REMEMBER ON ROADS.
THEY CAME AND THEY DUMPED SAND ON THAT CONNECTING ROAD AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, THEY DUMPED SAND ON THE LOT.
SO I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS A BIG DEAL IN 2008 OR WHENEVER THAT WAS, I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS A BIG DEAL.
SO NOW IN JULY OF 2019, I'VE DECIDED IT'S TIME TO START BUILDING.
FIRST THING I'M GOING TO DO IS I GOT TO GET THAT SAND OFF MY LOT THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN PUT THERE.
SO HOW I GOT TO COME OUT AND START PUSHING IT.
I HAD NO IDEA THAT THAT WAS ILLEGAL, I THOUGHT IT WAS MY LIFE.
I'VE SINCE LEARNED THE ERROR OF MY WAYS.
>> SO BY THE WAY, YOU PROBABLY REMEMBER ME FROM THE LAST MEETING.
I LEARNED A LOT ABOUT FOOD TRUCKS.
[LAUGHTER]. [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER].
SO I'VE BEEN PREPARING A LOT OF MONEY.
>>I WONDER WHERE YOU WOULD PUT A FOOD TRAILER [INAUDIBLE]
>> I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE 75 FEET THERE MR. HEADSTONE.
BUT ANYWAY, SO I NEED TO CORRECT THE WAY IT WAS STATED.
SO I'M MORE THAN WILLING TO DO THIS.
I HIRED MIKE AND ANDY FROM A&M WETLANDS TO DO ALL THE MITIGATION STUFF FOR ME AND THEY DID AND THEIR ADVICE WAS THE BEST TIME TO PLANT IS NOT DURING HURRICANE SEASON.
SO LAST OCTOBER, NOVEMBER TIME FRAME, I ASKED DUSTIN IF I COULD JUST DO THIS PORTION OF IT.
CAN WE JUST CAN WE HOLD OFF ON THE BUILDING THING BECAUSE WE'RE WORKING.
I'M WORKING SOME OTHER THINGS WITH THAT.
CAN I DO THIS? HE SAID, NO, THEY WON'T ALLOW IT.
OBVIOUSLY, NOT MUCH GOING ON, AND I THOUGHT THIS IS PERFECT TIME TO DO IT IN THE SPRING.
I ASKED HIM AGAIN, NOPE, CAN'T DO IT.
THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, I GET A CALL.
''HEY, HOW WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT SPLITTING THESE UP, BECAUSE IT'S STILL MY INTENT TO BUILD?'' I SAID, ''I'M PERFECTLY FINE WITH THAT.'' THAT'S HOW WE WOUND UP HERE TODAY WITH THIS.
I'M PERFECTLY WILLING TO REPLACE WHATEVER VEGETATION WAS DESTROYED.
IT'S ALL GROWING BACK, BUT IT'S ALL ON MY LOT, AND THE OFFSITE STUFF IS GOING TO BENEFIT THE BEACH AREA BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE SOUTH OF THE EXISTING DUNES THERE TO FILL IN.
[00:10:01]
>> IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WHOLE PLAN, I KNOW MIKE'S ONLINE, HE CAN ANSWER THAT.
>> OKAY. GREAT. THAT'S FINE, COMMISSIONERS.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU WASHED UP YOUR [INAUDIBLE] WHAT ABOUT DURING THE RECENT STORMS WE'VE HAD? WHAT WERE THOSE? LAURA.
>> YEAH, LAST TWO [OVERLAPPING]
>> THERE WERE TWO. DID YOU LOSE ANY [INAUDIBLE]?
IF YOU LOOK AT A BIRD'S EYE VIEW OF THE LINE, THERE WAS STUFF LOST HERE AND FURTHER DOWN HERE TOWARDS PARTS OF [INAUDIBLE] WAS LOST, BUT IT DIDN'T IMPACT.
>> OKAY, SO YOU DIDN'T LOSE ADDITIONAL STUFF? [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO, I WAS KIND OF HOPING IT WOULD JUST MOVE ON WITH SAND, [LAUGHTER] I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU.
I DID. IF MOTHER NATURE TAKES IT, THEN WE CAN TALK.
>> ANYTHING ELSE, COMMISSIONERS?
>> I'LL SEE YOU GUYS AGAIN AT SOME POINT, I HOPE.
BUT I WILL JUST LET YOU KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, AS IT CURRENTLY SITS, 60 PERCENT OF THAT LOT IS ENCUMBERED IN SOME WAY EITHER BY GALVESTON LAND-USE REGULATIONS OR THE GLO.
SO IT REALLY LIMITS WHAT I CAN DO AND HOW I CAN BUILD, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M WORKING ON.
>> THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE [OVERLAPPING] YOU BEING HERE.
>> ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON 21P-007B.
PATRICK, ANYONE ON THE ZOOM CALL?
>> ANYONE ON ZOOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE USE THE RAISE YOUR HAND FUNCTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN? SEEING NONE.
>> THANK YOU. WITH THAT, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 21P-007B AT 4:46 PM, 03:46 PM.
SORRY, WAS WORKING WITH EASTERN STANDARD TIME THERE. WE'LL MOVE ON.
[7.B. 21BF-032 (Easement Between 19307 And 19315 Shores Drive)]
COMMISSIONERS, AGAIN, A PUBLIC HEARING ONLY.>> THIS IS FOR THE EASEMENT BETWEEN 19307 AND 19315 SHORES DRIVE, [NOISE] A REQUEST FOR A MOBILE WOOD MAT FOR PEDESTRIAN BEACH ACCESS, AND A PLAN TO MITIGATE THE VEGETATION THAT WILL BE DISTURBED.
THE APPLICANTS WHO ARE THE DUNES OF WEST BEACH SUBDIVISION HAVE APPLIED FOR A MOBILE WOOD MAT FOR PEDESTRIAN PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS.
CONSTRUCTION OF A PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL RESULT IN DUNE MITIGATION, AND WE'RE HOLDING THE PUBLIC HEARING TODAY.
WE HAVE SENT NOTICES TO THREE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
NO ACTION IS NEEDED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU, MS. GORMAN. [OVERLAPPING].
>> OH, I'M SORRY. WE HAVE PICTURES.
>> PUTTING SOME PICTURES. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
HERE IS THE SURVEY OF THE ACCESS POINT AND A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPOSED MAT.
THIS IS THE LOCATION WHERE THE DUNE VEGETATION WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE NEW PATHWAY, AND THIS IS WHERE THE DUNE MITIGATION WILL BE GOING.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THE APPLICANT IN THE AUDIENCE? WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING? WE HAVE NO COMMENT [NOISE] FROM THE APPLICANT.
COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? THANK YOU.
OH, I'M SORRY. I SHOULD HAVE SAID OPENING A PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:47 PM.
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM 21BF-032? NONE IN THE AUDIENCE. PATRICK, ANY ON ZOOM?
>> ANYONE ON ZOOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE USE THE RAISE YOUR HAND FUNCTION? SEEING NONE.
>> THANK YOU. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 21BF-032 AT 3:47 PM. THANK YOU.
NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO NEW BUSINESS.
[8.A.1. 21P-015 (21227 Gulf Dr.)]
WE'LL START WITH 21P-015.DO WE KNOW WHAT PAGE THAT STARTS ON IN OUR PACKET.
IT'S PRETTY FAR DOWN, ISN'T IT? [BACKGROUND]
>> YEAH, THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE DUNES OF WEST BEACH IS EXTREMELY LENGTHY.
IT'S GOING TO BE VERY FAR DOWN.
[00:15:02]
WE HAVE A PHYSICAL PACKAGE IF ANYONE WANTS IT.>> NO, THANKS. I JUST THOUGHT EVERYBODY TRY TO DO IT THIS WAY THIS TIME, BUT YOU KNOW [OVERLAPPING]
>> I ASK THAT PATRICK WOULD BOOKMARK THESE CASES THE NEXT TIME SO THAT WE CAN JUMP TO THEM.
>> OKAY. WE'RE ON PAGE 262, COMMISSIONERS.
[OVERLAPPING] SMARTY, YOU'RE JUST SHOWING OFF NOW.
[OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER]. YOU'RE JUST SHOWING OFF NOW.
SO WE'LL START WITH 21P-015, STAFF REPORT, PLEASE.
>> THIS IS 21P-015, 211227 GULF DRIVE.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE/DUNE PROTECTION PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A FIBERCRETE FOOTPRINT AND A DRIVEWAY.
THE ADDRESS IS 21227 GULF DRIVE.
THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY IS LOT 17, SEA ISLE, SECTION 22.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE SEA ISLE SUBDIVISION.
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE LOCATED TO THE NORTH, EAST, AND WEST.
THE DUNE SYSTEM AND BEACH AREA ARE LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THE AREA IS ERODING AT A RATE OF THREE [NOISE] TO FOUR FEET PER YEAR.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING IS APPROXIMATELY 43 FEET FROM THE NORTH TOE OF THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA, A 156 FEET FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION, AND PARTIALLY WITHIN THE 200 FEET OF THE LINE OF VEGETATION.
THIS IS LANDWARD OF THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE AND WITHIN THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AREA.
ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES APPEAR TO BE LANDWARD OF DUNES AND DUNE VEGETATION.
THEREFORE, NO MITIGATION ACTIVITIES ARE PROPOSED.
PAGES 2 THROUGH 4 OF THE STAFF REPORT SUMMARIZE THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION.
THEIR REQUEST CONFORMS TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON DUNE PROTECTION AND BEACH ACCESS PLAN AND EROSION RESPONSE PLAN.
PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT C FOR THE PROPOSED DRAWINGS.
THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IS LOCATED AS FAR LANDWARD AS PRACTICABLE CONFORMING TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON EROSION RESPONSE PLAN, SECTION 5 AND CHAPTER 31 OF THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, RULE 15.6B.
STAFF RECOMMENDS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR 21P-015.
STAFF REPORT, PAGES 4 THROUGH 6 LIST THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ARE NUMBERED 1 THROUGH 11, AND STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR A BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE/DUNE PROTECTION PERMIT ARE NUMBER 12 THROUGH 17.
STAFF PREPARED PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR REVIEW.
[NOISE] THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THIS IS AN AERIAL MAP OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE.
SITE PLAN. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
ELEVATION. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
[NOISE] PHOTOS FROM THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST, AND ONE MORE SLIDE.
FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION AND THAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF REPORT.
>> THANK YOU, VERY MUCH, VERGY.
COMMISSIONERS DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
>> [NOISE] I NOTICED THERE WERE SOME ERRORS ON THE SITE PLAN AND ON THE CIVIL PLAN IN REGARD TO THEIR CALCULATIONS OF DISTANCE FROM THE VEGETATIVE LAND AND THE NORTH CRITICAL AREA AND THE NORTH TOE OF THE DUNE THAT MEAN LOW TIDE.
IN FACT, IT CONFUSED THE GLO AND THEIR LETTER THEY SAID CONSISTENT INFORMATION REGARDING THE DISTANCE FROM THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION TO THE NORTH TOE OF THE DUNE IN LINE OF VEGETATION.
THEY WERE CONFUSED AS TO THE DIMENSIONS ALSO.
IT APPEARS THAT ON THAT CIVIL PLAN AND THE SITE PLAN, THEIR DIMENSION LINE IS NOT ON THE BUILDING LINE.
ITS DIMENSION LINE IS PROBABLY ABOUT 10 FEET SOUTH OF THE BUILDING LINE.
BUT THEIR DIMENSIONS MAY BE CORRECT, BUT THEIR DIMENSION LINE IS NOT CORRECT AND THAT MAY BE THE SOURCE OF CONFUSION.
I ASSUME THAT THEIR DIMENSION LINES, IF THEY'RE ALL CORRECT, ARE ACCEPTABLE BUT THEY'RE JUST IN THE WRONG PLACE.
>> THAT'S WHY THERE ARE THREE GLO COMMENT LETTERS.
THAT'S WHY I INCLUDED ALL THREE SO YOU COULD SEE THAT THIS HAS BEEN AN ONGOING PROCESS WITH THE APPLICANT.
WE HAVE BEEN FOR SEVERAL MONTHS WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT TO GET CONSISTENT MEASUREMENTS SINCE THAT WASN'T WHAT WE'VE RECEIVED.
[00:20:03]
THAT'S WHY THERE ARE THREE GLO COMMENT LETTERS STATING THAT FROM THIS STATE AND ALSO FROM THIS CITY.WHAT YOU SEE IN YOUR PACKET IS WHAT WAS FORMALLY ACCEPTED BY CITY AND STATE STAFF, WHICH IS WHAT THE FINAL GLO COMMENT LETTER IS REFERENCING.
WE SENT THEM ALL OF THOSE COMMENTS FROM THAT COMMENT LETTER FOR THEM TO REVISE AND THESE ARE THE REVISIONS.
I HOPE THAT CLARIFIES YOUR QUESTION.
>> I ASSUME THEY HAVE YET ANOTHER CLARIFICATION TO GO BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT THAT WAS SUBMITTED.
>> NO, THESE ARE THEIR FINAL CLARIFICATIONS.
>> THE NEED TO DO A LITTLE WORK IN THEIR OFFICE ON WHOEVER'S DRAFTING.
>> STAFF HAS SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME WITH THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT, MAYBE SIX MONTHS.
>> WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT, WE'RE VERY AWARE OF THE MEASUREMENTS.
THAT'S WHY THIS HAS TAKEN SO LONG BEFORE IT CAME TO YOUR REVIEW.
I HOPE THAT CLARIFIES YOUR QUESTION.
I DON'T SEE A 25 FOOT OFFSET ON EITHER OF THE [OVERLAPPING].
>> THERE'S A 25 OFFSET FROM THE NORTH TO THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA BUT NEXT TIME I WON'T INCLUDE ALL THE COMMENT LETTERS IF THAT'LL HELP WITH SOME OF THAT.
WE WANT TO SEE, I WANT TO SEE BECAUSE ALL IT DID WAS SOLIDIFY MY INTERPRETATION OF THIS, SO THANK YOU.
>> STAFF HAS SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME ON THIS ONE.
>> THANK YOU. VERGY, I THINK, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN HEAR IT OR NOT, EVERYBODY WAS PRETTY MUCH UNANIMOUS IN SAYING YES, WE WANT TO SEE ALL THOSE LETTERS, PLEASE.
THEY ARE HELPFUL. IT'S NOT AT ALL CONFUSING, SO THANK YOU FOR INCLUDING THEM.
ANYTHING ELSE FOR STAFF, COMMISSIONERS? NO. THEN WE'LL MOVE AHEAD AT 03:55 PM.
WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AS THE APPLICANT AND THE AUDIENCE?
>> WAIT, BOTH OF THESE ARE OURS, THE YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT.
>> WHAT WAS THE ULTIMATE DECISION ON THAT BECAUSE.
>> COME FORWARD, AND SIGN IN, AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME.
>> DANNY CHAIRS, COASTAL COTTAGES.
>> WHAT WAS THE ULTIMATE ON THAT BECAUSE COUNTING WHAT WE'VE GOTTEN BACK IS EVERYTHING'S APPROVED EVERYTHING'S RIGHT.
>> THAT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING.
>> THIS IS ON THE 21P-015, AND WE'RE HERE TO DETERMINE IF IT IS APPROVED FROM OUR STANDPOINT, [OVERLAPPING] FROM THE BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION SITE.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY, YOU HEARD SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS ASKING ABOUT THE MEASUREMENTS OR WHATEVER? [OVERLAPPING]
>> I WAS CONFUSED, I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT ULTIMATELY CONCLUSION YOU ALL [OVERLAPPING].
>> THERE WERE SOME DRAFTING ERRORS.
THEN WE SAW THAT WE WERE TRYING TO GET CLARIFIED, [OVERLAPPING] AND I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THE INTENT.
[OVERLAPPING] THAT'S LIKE, I THINK WE [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'LL HAVE SOMETHING HANGING OUT THAT WE DIDN'T TAKE CARE OF. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE [OVERLAPPING] TO SAY ABOUT THE PROJECT.
>> EXCUSE ME. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT. [OVERLAPPING].
>> I MEAN, I'M LOOKING AT THE MEASUREMENTS FROM JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, MAIN LOW TIDE TO MEAN HIGH WATER, MAIN LOW WATER TO MEAN HIGH WATER IS EXACTLY THE SAME MEASUREMENT FROM MEAN HIGH WATER TO THE LINE OF VEGETATION.
I FIND THAT TO BE INCREDIBLE ALMOST TO THE POINT OF DISBELIEF.
[OVERLAPPING] WHO YOU ARE, ARE YOU THE SURVEYOR SIR?
>> NO. [OVERLAPPING] I'M THE BUILDER.
>> YOU'RE THE BUILDER. I THINK THE PROBLEM THAT I'M SEEING MAY BE WITH THE SURVEY BECAUSE [OVERLAPPING]
>> [INAUDIBLE] OR IS IT THAT YOU CAN'T SEE BEHIND, CAN YOU? [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S JUST THE FACT THAT THESE MEASUREMENTS SEEM TO BE SO FAR OFF.
LOOK AT THE 25 FOOT OFFSET TO THE NORTH TOE.
IT'S 31.8 FEET TO THE NORTH TOE LINE TO BUILD A LINE.
[OVERLAPPING] BUT THEN YOU'VE GOT A 25 FOOT OFFSET THAT'S ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THAT.
I'M NOT SEEING HOW ANY OF THIS IS LAID OUT CORRECTLY.
>> YOU KNOW THAT 157.8 REMAIN HIGH WATER TO THE PROPERTY LINE?
>> RIGHT. NO. [OVERLAPPING] IT'S 157.8 FROM MEAN LOW WATER TO MEAN HIGH WATER,
[00:25:02]
AND THEN IT'S 157.8 FROM MEAN HIGH WATER LINE OF VEGETATION. [OVERLAPPING]>> THEN YOU GOT ADDITIONAL SO THAT WHEN YOU ADD IT ALL UP, THERE'S A PRESENTATION THAT IT'S 472 FEET FROM MAIN LOW OF WATER.
>> THERE'S NO WAY. [LAUGHTER] THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
I'M LOOKING AT THIS AND I CAN'T MAKE ANY SENSE OF IT.
IF WE CAN'T MAKE SENSE OF IT, HOW CAN WE?
>> CAN YOU FORMULATE A QUESTION SPECIFICALLY FOR THE APPLICANT.
>> BUILDER? NO. I NEED TO TALK TO THE SURVEYOR.
THE SURVEY, TO ME, IS INCORRECT OR NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED.
I UNDERSTAND WHERE THE GLO HAD A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THIS TOO.
THEY SPECIFICALLY STATED IN A MARCH 26 LETTER AND ALSO IN A JUNE 1 LETTER BEING CONCERNED ABOUT THE MEASUREMENTS.
IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME THAT ANYTHING HAS IMPROVED OVER TIME.
>> IS TRADED BY ENGINEERING HERE? THEY'RE THE ONES WHO DID THE SURVEY.
>> NO, THEY DIDN'T DO THE SURVEY.
>> THIS SAYS, THE PLAN SERVICES WE'RE LOOKING AT IT IS FROM THIS ENGINEERING SERVICE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] HE DID THE ENGINEERING?
>> I THINK THEN WHAT YOU'RE ASKING, COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY, OR SHE STATING A FACT THAT TO HER IT IS ODD THAT BOTH MEASUREMENTS BETWEEN, SORRY, EXCUSE ME FOR GETTING UP, THAT THIS MEASUREMENT, 157.8 IS EXACTLY IDENTICAL TO THIS, AT 157.8.
WHAT ARE THE ODDS OF THAT WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH NATURE? THAT IS ODD TO HER, AND THEN THAT FROM THIS POINT TO THIS POINT, CAROL, WHAT'S [OVERLAPPING] 472 FEET WHICH THEN LOOKS UNUSUAL AFTER LOOKING AT, CAN YOU GO BACK CATHERINE, TO THE OVERVIEW THE AERIAL? THIS [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING HOW THEY GOT THERE.
>> BUT IF YOU ADD THE 124.7 TO 31.8 VEGETATION LINE TO THE PROPERTY LINE, YOU DO GET 156 FEET [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU DO GET THERE, BUT REALLY, WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE PERMISSION TO THE PROPERTY LINE WE CARE ABOUT PERMISSION TO THE BUILDING LINE.
>> THEN LOOK AT THE 25 FOOT OFFSET.
>> THERE'S ANOTHER 20 FEET TO GO.
>> I GUESS WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THERE'S NOT MUCH CONFIDENCE IN THE DIMENSIONS TO THE CRITICAL.
>> WOULD IT BE THE SURVEYOR OR THE ENGINEER?
>> THE ENGINEER JUST TOOK HIS [OVERLAPPING].
IT'D BE BOTH OF THEM REALLY BECAUSE THE ENGINEER'S ABILITY IS GOING BY ALL. [OVERLAPPING]
>> HAVE YOU HAD ANY COMMISSIONERS? [OVERLAPPING]
>> COMMISSIONERS, HAVE YOU DONE ANY VERIFICATION OF ANYTHING THAT THE SURVEYOR DID?
>> OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, WHAT I THINK I'M HEARING IS THAT WE WOULD LIKE FURTHER CLARIFICATION OF THE SURVEYOR'S WORK.
>> IF WE CAN SEE THE SURVEYOR VERSUS THE ENGINEER'S OVERLAY, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE ON THE ENGINEER'S PART.
>> THEN THAT WOULD MEAN A DEFERRAL?
>> COMMISSION NEEDS MORE INFORMATION, YES.
>> IF THE COMMISSION NEEDS WHAT IT FEELS THAT WE NEED MORE INFORMATION.
>> THAT IS SOMETHING THAT DEFINITELY WE COULD LOOK AT IT THAT WAY? WE COULD CONSIDER THAT?
>> TO CLARIFY THESE CRITICAL DIMENSIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR US TO MAKE THE DECISION AT THAT TIME.
>> BECAUSE WHERE THAT HOUSE LINES UP HAS A LOT TO DO WITH THE DECISION WE MAKE AND WHAT'S IN OUR PURVIEW.
WE'LL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN THE COMMISSION MAY ENTERTAIN A MOTION AND VOTE ON A MOTION TO DEFER IT TO ASK FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SAY?
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON 21P-015? THANK YOU, SIR.
>> THEN LET'S REFER TO OUR STATEMENT.
>> WE WILL COME TO THAT ONE IN A MOMENT. THANK YOU.
[00:30:01]
OH, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER WALLA, COUNCIL MEMBER LISTOWSKI, DID EITHER OF YOU ALL HAVE ANYTHING ON THAT ONE?>> ALL RIGHT. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:03 PM, AND I'LL BRING IT BACK FOR A MOTION.
>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT 21P-015 BE DEFERRED UNTIL, WHAT'S OUR NEXT?
>> AUGUST THE 3RD COMMISSION MEETING IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE MEASUREMENT INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THE CASE REPORT.
>> A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI.
IS THERE DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS?
>> I THOUGHT WE LOOKED AT IN A SENSE, IT HAD BEEN SIX MONTHS MARGIN THAT THE GLO AND THE CITY HAD BEEN LOOKING AT THIS REPORT BY THE PERMIT.
>> LET ME PULL UP THE FIRST DAY THAT THEY CAME IN.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT CAME IN AROUND FEBRUARY OR MARCH, YES.
THERE'S BEEN 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, DIFFERENT SUBMITTALS WHERE WE'VE BEEN ASKING FOR CONSISTENT MEASUREMENTS WITH ENGINEERING AND THE SURVEY.
THIS HAS BEEN AN ONGOING REQUEST FROM CITY AND STATE STAFF FOR CONSISTENT MEASUREMENTS.
>> HAVE YOU GUYS JUST DECIDED TO ACCEPT WHAT THEY GAVE OR WHAT?
>> AS WITH PREVIOUS CASES, THIS IS WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH.
WE'VE PREPARED A STAFF REPORT AND WE HAVE GL COMMENT LETTER NOT STATING THAT IT'S INCOMPLETE.
THIS IS WHAT WE PRESENTED TO YOU TODAY FOR YOUR REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION.
>> MAYBE WE SHOULD BE VERY MUCH MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT WE WANT TO FIND.
>> THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THIS QUESTION.
>> MAYBE WE SHOULD SAY WE WANT TO CLARIFY THE DIMENSIONS.
>> JUST A MINUTE. VICE-CHAIR BROWN, ARE YOU OFFERING A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?
>> [LAUGHTER] BUT WHAT WE REALLY WANT TO SEE CLARIFIED ON THE CIVIL DRAWING AND THE SITE PLAN, THAT THEY ARE CONSISTENT BETWEEN THE TWO, WE WANT TO SEE THE DIMENSION LANDWARD FROM THE VEGETATIVE LINE, LANDWARD FROM THE NORTH CRITICAL AREA, LANDWARD FROM THE NORTH TOE DUNE, AND MAIN LOAD TIME TO THE BUILDING LINE, THE SOUTH BUILDING LINE.
>> WE WANT TO SEE THE 25-FOOT OFFSET.
COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY, THAT WAS YOUR MOTION, DO YOU ACCEPT THAT?
>> THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED, COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI?
>> ALL RIGHT. THE MOTION STANDS AS AMENDED.
>> YES, SIR. COMMISSIONER WALLA.
>> I'M SORRY ABOUT IT BUT I DID NOT LOOK AT SOME OF THE DRAWINGS.
BUT MY QUICK QUESTION IS, IS THIS 25 FEET GOING TO STILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE AT THE END OF THE DAY? YOU'RE SAYING THAT ONE OF THOSE IS PROBABLY INCORRECT, BUT LET'S JUST ASSUME THAT IT'S WORST-CASE SCENARIO.
DOES THE HOUSE STILL FIT IN THE DEAL EVEN THOUGH THAT LONG? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU GUYS?
>> RATHER THAN A WHOLE HERE IF IT MATTERS AT THE END OF THE DAY.
>> YEAH, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT, BUT I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO INSIST ON ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS ON EVERY CASE THAT IS PRESENTED TO US.
WHETHER IT'S EYEBALLING IT, NOT EYEBALLING IT.
IF WE CAN'T SET A PRECEDENT HERE OF NOT HAVING ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS ON A SURVEY AND DRAWINGS BECAUSE THEN THE NEXT THING, SOMEBODY'S FIVE FEET OFF, AND AS YOU RECALL, WE HAVE DENIED BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION PERMITS OVER FIVE FEET WHEN IT EXTENDS THE WRONG WAY.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN ACCEPT AN INCONSISTENT, I WON'T SAY INACCURATE, AN INCONSISTENT MEASUREMENT.
>> CERTAINLY, AND IT WAS A VALID QUESTION.
ALL RIGHT. NO FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT, THEN WE'LL CALL THE VOTE.
PLEASE SIR, IN THE MOTION, AS YOU RECALL, IS TO DEFER THE CASE TO AUGUST 3RD WITH CERTAIN PARAMETERS TO CLARIFY MEASUREMENTS AS STATED.
>> ALL IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSES.
>> THANK YOU. WE'LL SEE THIS AGAIN ON AUGUST THE 3RD THEN.
[8.A.2. 21P-016 (23305 San Luis Pass Rd.)]
[00:35:02]
>> CASE 21P-016, 23305, SAN LUIS PASS ROAD.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATES SLASH DUNE PROTECTION PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING.
PUT THE FIBER PRE FOOTPRINT IN DRIVEWAY, THE ADDRESS, 23305 SAN LOUIS PASS ROAD.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS LOT 1, BAY HARBOR, EDITION NUMBER 3.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT BAY HARBOR SUBDIVISION.
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE LOCATED TO THE NORTH, EAST, AND WEST.
A DUNE SYSTEM AND BEACH AREA ARE LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THE AREA IS ERODING AT A RATE OF 3-4 FEET PER YEAR.
FOR BOTH CONSTRUCTION OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING IS APPROXIMATELY 27 FEET FROM THE NORTH TOE, THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA, 163 FEET FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION, AND THIS IS LANDWARD OF THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE AND WITHIN THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AREA.
ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES APPEAR TO BE LANDWARD OF DUNES AND DUNE VEGETATION.
THEREFORE, NO MITIGATION ACTIVITIES ARE PROPOSED.
PAGES 2 THROUGH 4 OF THE STAFF REPORT SUMMARIZE THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION.
THE REQUEST CONFORMS TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON'S DUNE PROTECTION AND BEACH ACCESS PLAN AND EROSION RESPONSE PLAN.
PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT C FOR THE PROPOSED DRAWINGS.
THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IS LOCATED AS FAR LAND WHERE IT IS PRACTICABLE CONFORMING TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON EROSION RESPONSE PLAN, SECTION 5 IN CHAPTER 31 OF THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, WELL, 15.6D.
STAFF RECOMMENDS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CASE 21P-016, STAFF REPORT PAGES 4 THROUGH 5 LISTS THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ARE NUMBERED ONE THROUGH 12 AND STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR A BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATES SLASH DUNE PROTECTION PERMIT ARE NUMBER 13 THROUGH 18, AND STAFF HAS PREPARED PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR REVIEW.
THIS IS AN AERIAL MAP WITH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE.
THIS IS A SURVEY OF THE LOT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THESE ARE THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS.
PHOTOS FROM THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST, THE LOT.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS THE FINAL SLIDE TAKEN FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION.
THAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF REPORT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VIRGIE.
COMMISSIONERS, DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR VIRGIE? GOSH, YOU'RE ESCAPING ON THIS ONE, VIRGIE.
GIVE CAROL A MINUTE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT THIS UP IN THE PREVIOUS CASE, BUT VIRGIE, THIS IS JUST A POINT.
THE UPTON-JONES ACT WAS RESCINDED IN 1994.
I DON'T THINK THAT THE GLO NEEDS TO COMMENT ON AN ACT THAT'S NO LONGER VALID.
WOULD YOU PLEASE ASK THE GLO TO REFERENCE THE TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCES CODE 61.025, WHICH IS THE DISCLOSURE TO PURCHASERS OF PROPERTY IN ERODING AREAS INSTEAD?
>> CAN YOU SEND THAT IN AN EMAIL, PLEASE, SO WE CAN FOR THAT TO THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES? THANK YOU.
>> [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING]. SEND IT TO THE LAND COMMISSIONER.
I'M SURE HE'LL BE PLEASED. [LAUGHTER]
>> ANYTHING ELSE FOR STAFF? SEEING NOTHING, THEN WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS CASE AT 4:12 PM AND YOU'RE UP AGAIN, PLEASE, SIR.
MR. TIER, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING THIS APPLICATION AND THIS PROPERTY?
>> COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
[00:40:06]
WOW, YOU'RE GETTING OFF EASY TOO.>> EASIER THIS TIME. [LAUGHTER]
>> EASIER THIS TIME. YES, SIR.
>> HAD TO COME UP HERE FOR NOTHING.
>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON CASE 21P-016? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:13 PM AND I'LL BRING IT BACK FOR A MOTION ON THIS ONE.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO PASS 21P-032, THAT'S WRITTEN BY.
[LAUGHTER] I'M LOOKING AT THE NEXT ONE.
>> I'LL ACCEPT AND I'LL SECOND IT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE, THEN WE'LL CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE, SIR.
>> ALL IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSES.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT.
NEXT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO CASE 21P-032.
[8.B.1. 21P-032 (3125 Avenue O)]
>> 21P-032, THIS IS THE 3125 AVENUE O.
THIS IS REQUEST FOR A GALVESTON LANDMARK.
TWENTY SIX PUBLIC NOTICES WERE SENT, TWO WERE RETURNED, BOTH OF THOSE IN FAVOR.
THE HOUSE AT 3125 AVENUE O WAS BUILT IN 1914 AS A TENANT HOUSE FOR JOHN AND CORGI SWEENEY WHO LIVED NEXT DOOR, 3127 AVENUE O. JOHN SAMUEL SWEENEY WAS A REAL ESTATE INVESTOR ORIGINALLY FROM TENNESSEE, BUT HAVE BEEN A GALVESTON RESIDENT SINCE AT LEAST 1880S.
HE ALSO WORKED AS A MASTER MECHANIC BEFORE OPENING A WHOLESALE COMMISSION HOUSE, WHICH IS CALLED PERRY & SWEENEY WITH THE PARTNER CHARLES PERRY.
LATER, HE PARTNERED WITH ROBERT XAMP TO FORM XAMP & SWEENEY REAL ESTATE AND LAND AGENTS.
IN 1922, SWEENEY SOLD THE HOUSE TO JAMES E. HAYDEN, WHO WAS THE CAPTAIN OF THE FIRE BOAT CHARLES CLARKE AND BEFORE THAT CAPTAIN OF [INAUDIBLE].
HAYDEN LIVED AT 3125 AVENUE O WITH HIS WIFE CATHERINE UNTIL THEIR DEATHS.
REMAINED IN THE FAMILY UNTIL 1983.
THE FIRST RESIDENTS AS TENANTS OF THE PROPERTY WERE FRANCIS BOYD AND HIS FAMILY AND CECIL WHEELER AND HIS FAMILY, BOTH WORKED FOR THE GULF, COLORADO AND SANTA FE RAILROAD.
BOYD SERVED AS THE CLERK TO THE GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT AND WHEELER WAS MANAGER FOR THE TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT.
HOUSE RETAINS MOST OF ITS ORIGINAL APPEARANCE AS A NATIONAL FOLK STYLE ARCHITECTURE.
ITS HISTORY IS A TENANT RENTAL HOUSE AND ITS OWNERSHIP BY GALVESTON HAS EVOLVED THE CITY'S POST 1900 STORE RECONSTRUCTION AND MARITIME TRADES PARALLEL THE OVERALL STORY OF GALVESTON'S HISTORY OF PRESERVING THE HOUSE AS A LANDMARK OR SECURE ITS PLACE IN THE CITY'S HISTORY.
LANDMARK COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AT THEIR JULY 19TH, 2021 MEETING.
CITY COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL DETERMINATION.
THEY WILL HEAR THE CASE ON THEIR AUGUST 26TH, 2021 MEETING.
STAFF ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY MAP SHOWING THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. PROPERTIES TO THE EAST, SOUTH, AND WEST.
[NOISE] THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DANIEL.
I LOVED READING ABOUT ALL OF THESE.
[NOISE] I THINK IT'S JUST LIKE A LITTLE MINI NOVEL.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, COMMISSIONERS?
>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION. THE LAST TIME WE DID THIS, WE GOT INTERIOR PHOTOS.
WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE EXTERIOR.
I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE APPROVING IT, BUT IT'D BE NICE TO SEE WHAT THE INTERIOR LOOK LIKE AS WELL FOR A LANDMARK BUILDING.
>> I DON'T RECALL THAT WE GET INTERIOR PHOTOS.
>> THAT WAS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT.
[OVERLAPPING] BECAUSE THIS IS JUST AN EXTERIOR APPROVAL, I DON'T THINK WE CAN GET AN ANSWER.
>> THE APPLICANT SHOULD CHOOSE TO DO A FEATURE CASE, PROVIDE US SOME INTERIOR PHOTOS.
WE'RE HAPPY TO PROVIDE THOSE, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY REQUIRED. IT'S UP TO THEM.
>> THE LANDMARK IS JUST EXTERIOR NOT INTERIOR? [OVERLAPPING]
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I'M SORRY, DANIEL.
>> ASSOCIATED WITH THIS LANDMARK APPLICATION IF IT PASSES, THEN THEY'LL BE ELIGIBLE FOR FINANCIAL ACCESS?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. I'M SORRY. WE USUALLY MENTION THAT AND I OVERLOOKED THAT.
[00:45:02]
THEY WILL BE, YES.>> WE HAVE SOME YES SOME NO ON THIS [OVERLAPPING] ON THE AGENDA TODAY.
>> [INAUDIBLE] HASN'T VOTED ON THIS YET.
>> NO, [OVERLAPPING] HE SAID UNANIMOUS YESTERDAY.
I MISSED THAT PART. VICE CHAIR?
>> THANK YOU, DANIEL. IS THE APPLICANT IN THE AUDIENCE? IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU ALL WOULD LIKE TO SAY? IF THERE IS, JUST COME ON UP AND SIGN IN.
WE'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM ME. IT'S YOUR DAY.
>> MAYBE YOU DON'T WANT ME TO SAY.
[LAUGHTER] REALLY, THE ONLY THING THAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IS THAT THE HOUSE WAS ON THE HOME TOUR THIS YEAR AND THERE WERE TONS OF PICTURES.
>> WE JUST LIKE TO SEE ALL THESE PRETTY HOUSES.
I REALLY I'M VERY PROUD OF IT.
WE'VE GONE ALL IN IN GALVESTON.
WE'VE WORKED REALLY HARD ON IT.
WE DID AN ADDITION THAT WE TRIED VERY HARD TO KEEP THE INTEGRITY OF THE ORIGINAL HOME, AND I THINK WE DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB.
>> WELL, ALL OF US WHO LIVE IN GALVESTON APPRECIATE THAT.
THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE THAT.
>> COMMISSIONER WALLA RAISED HIS HAND.
>> OH, COMMISSIONER WALLA, [OVERLAPPING] DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?
>> I'LL JUST READ IT. WE'RE CRAZY, BUT THANKFULLY THEY ARE.
[OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] WE HAVE SEVERAL THAT ARE ON HERE AND IT'S JUST A TRULY BLESSING TO OUR CITY THAT WE GOT FOLKS THAT WILL GO OUT AND BRING THESE OLD STRUCTURES BACK TO LIFE.
>> THANK YOU. EVEN THOUGH HE GAVE YOU A LITTLE POP BEFORE YOU EVEN GOT STARTED WITH IT.
>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON 21P-032? SEEING NONE. COMMISSIONERS, I'LL BRING IT BACK FOR A MOTION. COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY?
>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT 21P-032 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BROWN.
WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE VOTE. PLEASE, SIR.
>> ALL IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSES.
>> CONGRATULATIONS. [APPLAUSE]
>> NEXT, WE'LL HEAR 21P-034, PLEASE.
[8.B.2. 21P-034 (510 15th Street)]
IT'S ALSO A REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION OF THIS HOUSE TO A LANDMARK.
THIS WILL BE THE FRANCIS RICHARD LUBBOCK HOUSE, CONSTRUCTED IN 1876.
MR. LUBBOCK WAS THE NINTH GOVERNOR OF TEXAS AND WAS IN OFFICE DURING THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.
HE WAS THE BROTHER OF THOMAS SALTUS PLOTTED FOR HOME-BASED CITY AND COUNTY OF ONE IN TEXAS ARE NAMED.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE EAST END OF [INAUDIBLE] DISTRICT.
IT'S NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR PROPERTIES FOR THE GALVESTON LANDMARKS.
THE LANDMARK COMMISSION APPROVED THIS REQUEST YESTERDAY AND UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMEND AN APPROVAL.
CITY COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL DECISION REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR A LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND IT WILL BE HEARD AT THEIR AUGUST 26TH MEETING.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH OUR STANDARD CONDITION.
WE HAVE PICTURES. OOPS, I'M SORRY. IT'S ALL BACK IN THERE.
OKAY. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THEN WE HAVE THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, TO THE SOUTH, AND TO THE WEST.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
THANK YOU AND CATHERINE, I MAY HAVE JUST MISSED IT, BUT PUBLIC NOTICES? PUBLIC NOTICES. I'M SORRY, 25 CENTS TO YOUR REGION.
APPRECIATED. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, COMMISSIONERS? I'M JUST WONDERING, THERE'S NO INCENTIVES FOR BECOMING A LANDMARK, IF YOU'RE ALREADY IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
BECOMING A LANDMARK DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE ANY OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON A HOUSE THAT'S ALREADY IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
I WAS WONDERING WHAT ARE THE INCENTIVES FOR BECOMING A LANDMARK IF YOU'RE IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT? YOU'RE RIGHT THAT THERE ARE NO CHANGES AND YOU DON'T GET THE INCENTIVE BECAUSE YOU'RE ALREADY PROTECTED.
YOU'RE NOT GIVING UP ANY RIGHTS TO DECISION MAKE HOW HOW THEY EXCHANGE YOUR PROPERTY.
PEOPLE DO IT FOR A WAY TO HONOR THEIR HOUSE.
IT PUTS IT ONTO THE LIST OF GALVESTON LANDMARKS, YOU GET A LITTLE BIT OF PUBLICITY, WE PUT IT INTO THE LANDMARK MAPS THAT DANIEL MADE A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, AND THEN IT COMES WITH A PLAQUE AND LOTS OF PEOPLE LIKE TO HAVE THE PLAQUE.
AFTER ALL, BOB, WHY ARE YOU DOING ALL THIS FUN STUFF? AREN'T YOU GOING TO GET A PLAQUE? [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] AT THE END OF YOUR SIX YEARS YOU MIGHT GET A PLAQUE IF YOU BEHAVE WELL.
[00:50:01]
YOU MEAN THEY ARE GOING TO LET ME TAKE THIS HOME? [LAUGHTER].OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. THANK YOU.
WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING THEN AT 4:23 PM, IS THE APPLICANT IN THE AUDIENCE? THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE ON ZOOM.
HI. VINCE AND I ARE HERE AVAILABLE VIA ZOOM IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
FIRST OFF, THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING OUR CASE.
REGARDING THE QUESTION OF INTERIOR PHOTOS, OUR HOME HAPPENS TO BE A HISTORIC AIRBNB.
IF YOU GO GOOGLE 1876, GOVERNOR [INAUDIBLE], YOU CAN SEE A WHOLE LOT OF INTERIOR PICTURES.
GREAT. THANK YOU. THE SNOOP SISTERS LOVE TO SEE THEM.
[LAUGHTER] I'D LOVE YOU TO HAVE A LOOK.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SAY ABOUT THE HOUSE? NO. OTHER THAN WE'VE DONE OUR VERY BEST TO HONOR THE HOME OR WE'RE PROUD TO BE THE CURRENT CARETAKERS OF THIS HOME, AND WE APPRECIATE YOU'RE CONSIDERING AT HELPING US PRESERVE IT.
ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE OR ON ZOOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON 21P-034.
PATRICK? ANYBODY RAISING THEIR HAND? [OVERLAPPING] OKAY. THANK YOU.
THEN, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:24 PM, AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. COMMISSIONER PENIA? I'LL MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT 21P-C034.
ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
SECOND FROM VICE-CHAIR, BROWN.
ANY DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NO DISCUSSION, WE'LL CALL THE VOTE. PLEASE, SIR.
COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI? IN FAVOR.
VICE CHAIRPERSON, BROWN? IN FAVOR.
COMMISSIONER EDWARDS? IN FAVOR.
CHAIRPERSON HILL? IN FAVOR? COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY? IN FAVOR.
ALL IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSES.
BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE, I WILL JUST SAY, I'M AN ADOPTIVE PARENT, AND WHEN YOU GO TO COURT TO FINALIZE YOUR ADOPTION, IT'S THE HAPPIEST DAY IN THE COURT.
THAT'S HOW I FEEL WHEN WE'RE DOING LANDMARKS.
[LAUGHTER] IT'S THE HAPPIEST DAY OF PLANNING COMMISSION.
[8.B.3. 21P-036 (1610 Winnie / Avenue G)]
ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE ANOTHER LANDMARK REQUEST.THERE ARE 13 COURT NOTICES SENT, TWO OF THOSE RETURNED, BOTH OF THOSE IN FAVOR.
THE HOUSE AT 1610, WINNIE WAS BUILT IN 1906, FOR STEPHEN FRANCIS ZHUKOVICH.
HE WAS NATIVE GALVESTONIAN AND THE OLDEST OF NINE CHILDREN BORN TO AUSTRALIAN IMMIGRANTS, HE MARRIED WINIFRED JULIA TAYLOR IN 1902.
TAYLOR HAD A SON AND A DAUGHTER.
THE ORIGINAL INSURANCE RECORD DESCRIBES THE HOUSE AS A TWO STORY FRAME BUILDING WITH A METAL ROOF CONTAINING FIVE ROOMS, THREE HALLS, ONE BATHROOM, SIX CLOSETS, A PANTRY, AND THREE PORCHES.
A HOUSE WAS ALSO WIRED WITH ELECTRICITY AT THAT TIME.
FURTHER ALTERATIONS, WORK NUMBER OF ROOMS FROM FIVE TO SEVEN, REDUCED THE NUMBER OF HALLS FROM THREE TO TWO.
THE HOUSE WAS NOTED AS BEING FURTHER IMPROVED IN 1911, THOUGH THESE CHANGES ARE NOT DESCRIBED.
IT'S HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY SURVEY DESCRIBES A HOUSE AS A MASS PLAN FOR VICTORIAN.
AS WITH THE OWNERS OF MANY HISTORIC GALVESTON HOMES, NC LANDMARKS, STEPHEN FRANCIS ZHUKOVICH WAS A NOTEWORTHY GALVESTON BUSINESS OWNER.
THE 1890S C DIRECTORY LISTS HIM AS A CLERK FOR THE LONE STAR LINE, WHICH IS A STEAMSHIP COMPANY.
BY 1913, HE HAS OWN BUSINESS, ZHUKOVICH AND STEAMSHIP COMPANY, WHICH RAN SHIFTS BETWEEN GALVESTON AND FRANCE, ENGLAND, AND SPAIN.
THE COMPANY'S SUCCESS, THEIR OFFICES OF THE COTTON EXCHANGE BUILDING OCCUPY THE ENTIRE FOURTH FLOOR.
IN ADDITION TO HIS BUSINESS INTERESTS, ZHUKOVICH WAS ACTIVE IN CIVIC AFFAIRS AND CHARITY.
HE WAS THE DIRECTOR OF THE GILLS AND THE COTTON EXCHANGE BOARD AND THE BOARD OF TRADE, AS WELL AS THE STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, CHAIRMAN OF BUILDING COMMITTEE.
ALSO A MEMBER OF SEVERAL CIVIC GROUPS, INCLUDING THE DEEP WATER COMMITTEE OF BENEVOLENT PROTECTIVE ORDER OF LPS, ROTARY CLUB, AND THE CONCATENATED ORDER OF HOO-HOOS, WHICH IS A REAL ORGANIZATION, [LAUGHTER] I PROMISE YOU.
LOOK HIM UP, THERE'S 12 ROUNDS OF VERY INTERESTING ORGANIZATIONS.
SAY THEIR NAME AGAIN? THE CONCATENATED ORDER OF HOO-HOOS.
[LAUGHTER] I'M SO MAKING UP SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
YES. [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING] THE STEPHEN ZHUKOVICH'S HOUSE ATTAINS MUCH OF IT'S ORIGINAL FORTH-STORY STYLE IT HAS UNDERGONE A LOT OF CHANGES AND IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH IT'S HISTORY, IT REMAINS ESTABLISHING CONTRIBUTING PART OF THE EASTERN HISTORIC DISTRICT PRESERVING THE HOUSE WILL SECURE ITS PLACE AND SEE IT'S HISTORY, AS A PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE EASTERN HISTORIC DISTRICT, IT ISN'T ELIGIBLE FOR A FINANCIALLY SENTENCE FOR A START OF PROPERTIES FOR NEW LANDMARKS COMMISSION RECOMMENDED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL AT THEIR JULY, 19TH MEETING.
THE COUNCIL HAD THEIR FINAL DECISION AT THEIR AUGUST 26TH, 2021 MEETING.
[00:55:02]
STAFF ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS.[NOISE] HERE'S OUR SUBJECT PROPERTY AND LETS SENTIMENT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE HAVE THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST, SOUTH, AND WEST.
[NOISE] THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
THANK YOU, DANIEL. DID YOU MENTION NOTICES? YES. THERE WERE THREE SENT, TWO RETURNED, BOTH THOSE IN FAVOR.
THIS IS LISTED ON MY AGENDA THAT I PRINTED AS 21P-036 AND ON THE STAFF REPORT, IT'S 042.
WHAT'S THE CORRECT NUMBER ON IT? [NOISE] IT'S 21P-036, 042 IS A LAND MARK COMMISSION.
I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING [INAUDIBLE] AT WORK.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I CALLED THE CORRECT CASE AND THAT WE HAVE IT RECORDED AS THE RIGHT CASE.
OKAY. PERFECT. ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR DANIEL? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IS THE APPLICANT IN THE AUDIENCE OR ON THE LINE? NO? NO APPLICANT AVAILABLE. OKAY. THANK YOU.
THEN I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:29.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON CASE 21P-036? SEEING NONE.
WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:29 PM AND BRING IT BACK FOR A MOTION.
GUEST VICE CHAIR, BROWN? I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE 21P-036. YES.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NO DISCUSSION, WE'LL CALL THE VOTE. PLEASE, SIR.
COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI? IN FAVOR.
VICE CHAIRPERSON, BROWN? IN FAVOR.
COMMISSIONER EDWARDS? IN FAVOR. [NOISE] CHAIRPERSON HILL? IN FAVOR.
COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY? IN FAVOR.
ALL IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSES.
THANK YOU. AGAIN, I REALLY ENJOY SEEING THESE AND READING ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK THAT YOU DO ON THIS. THANK YOU.
NEXT WE'LL MOVE ON TO 21P-033, WHICH IS AN LTU.
[8.C.1. 21P-033 (59 Island Passage)]
WHO'S GOT THIS ONE, CATHERINE? THOSE ARE BIG NUMBERS. YOU DID ALL THE LTUS.HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
PETE, YOU MIGHT TRY PRESSING "START" IF YOU'RE ALE TO SPEAK.
>> I THINK THAT SHOULD HAVE WORKED.
>> [OVERLAPPING] YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU [OVERLAPPING] LOUD AND CLEAR.
>> OKAY. CASE 21P-033 IS ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY ADDRESS, 59 ISLAND PASSAGE, AND THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A LICENSE TO USE.
THE PUBLIC NOTICES WE SENT ARE FOUR AND FOUR WERE RETURNED, AND THOSE FOUR WERE IN FAVOR.
WE HAVE NO OBJECTION FROM ANY CITY DEPARTMENTS.
THE INDEFINITE SUMMARY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A PERMANENT LICENSE TO USE THE RIGHT OF WAY, TO ALLOW THE ENTRY STAIRS AND WALL, TO REMAIN IN ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION WITHIN THE EVIA SUBDIVISION.
PLEASE NOTE THAT, THE EVIA SUBDIVISION ALLOWS FOR A MORE LENIENT SET BACK, OF ZERO FEET TO THE PARKING LINE AND THE FRONT YARD.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS, THE EVIA SUBDIVISION DOES HAVE A PATTERN OF HAVING ITEMS SUCH AS STAIRS, PIONEERS, AND NEW WALLS BEING BUILT EITHER WROTE TWO OR UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE OR WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY AND STAFF RECOMMEND CASE 21P-033 BE APPROVED WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
HERE IS THE PHOTO OF THE SUBJECT SITE, HERE'S ANOTHER VIEW OF THE WALL AND STAIRS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, ANOTHER VIEW LOOKING NORTH, AND HERE WE HAVE JUST SOME ADDITIONAL PHOTOS, JUST TO SHOW THE CONDITIONS AND WHAT'S COMMONLY FOUND WITHIN THE EVIA SUBDIVISION.
YOU CAN SEE SEVERAL WALLS AND THE STAIRS THAT ARE PLACED EITHER REALLY CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND SOME CASES WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AGAIN, MORE PHOTOS OF THE CURRENT CONDITION.
ONE MORE. CATHERINE, I'M NOT SURE IF WE HAVE ANOTHER.
THAT'S ALL, THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> THANK YOU, PETE. I APPRECIATE IT.
PETE, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE SEEN ANY OF THESE EVIA LTUS RECENTLY,
[01:00:06]
SINCE COMMISSIONER WALLA AND EDWARDS, AND PINIA HAVE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO HOW MANY OF THESE WE SEE AND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE SEEN THESE OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND THAT THEY'VE TRADITIONALLY BEEN APPROVED, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT PETE?>> WELL, I DON'T HAVE ANY STATISTICS HERE LAID OUT IN FRONT OF ME.
IT'LL TAKE ME SOME TIME TO GATHER THAT INFORMATION.
THEN I'D LIKE TO REMIND THE COMMISSIONER TO SPEND SOME TIME THAT I PERSONALLY WAS AWAY FROM THE PILOT COMMISSION, SO I LIKE TO DEFER TO CATHERINE.
JUST ASK CATHERINE IF SHE CAN SPEAK TO WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN RECENT HISTORY OR PRIOR TO THE CURRENT PLANNING COMMISSION.
>> HOW TO USE THE [INAUDIBLE].
[LAUGHTER] I AGREE WITH WHAT CHERRY STATED, IT IS A VERY COMMON REQUEST.
I DON'T HAVE NUMBERS IN FRONT OF ME EITHER, BUT IT'S PROBABLY TWO OR THREE HERE THAT THAT WE SEE IN THE EVIA, AND AS PETE SHOWED IN THE SLIDESHOW, IT'S A VERY COMMON PATTERN TO HAVE SOME MINOR ENCROACHMENTS OF THE RIGHT OF WAY WITH STAIRS, ESPECIALLY UNDERNEATH LANDSCAPED WALLS IN EVIA.
>> IT'S BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE SUBDIVISION BASICALLY WAS PLATTED AND THEN THE FACT THAT, THEY STARTED DOING IT TO HAVE THE CONSISTENT LINE DOWN THE STREETS.
>> IN EVIA, YOU HAVE TO GET TO A CERTAIN HEIGHT IN ORDER TO BE ABOVE THE FLOOD OVER.
THEN, YOU'RE LOCKED OR SETUP, LIKE THEY SAID, TO ZERO LOT LINE. THERE'S NO SETBACK.
SO YOU BUILD A HOUSE RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY LINE, YOU HAVE A CERTAIN ELEVATION, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT THERE.
[LAUGHTER] YOU GOT TO GET DOWN TO THE GRAY.
THAT REQUIRES A CERTAIN NUMBER OF STEPS AND BY THE TIME YOU GET DOWN THERE WITH ALL THOSE STEPS, YOU'RE OVER THE PROPERTY LINE.
THAT'S COMMON THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE SUBDIVISION.
>> EVERY SINGLE HOUSE THAT GETS BUILT, IS GOING TO HAVE A LICENSE TO USE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BECAUSE IT TAKES SO MANY STEPS TO GET DOWN TO THE GRAY.
BY THE TIME YOU GET ALL THOSE STEPS IN THERE, YOU'RE OVER THE PROPERTY LINE.
EVERY HOUSE THAT GETS BUILT IS GOING TO HAVE TO GET A LICENSE TO USE.
BUT MY QUESTION IS, HOW WIDE IS THAT SIDEWALK NOW? I GUESS, IT'S ABOUT THREE FEET WIDE OR SO.
IT'S FROM WHATEVER IT WAS INTENDED TO BE.
>> IN CERTAIN CASES, MORE THAN THAT, MORE THAN FOUR.
IT'S DEFINITELY A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT IT'S WALKABLE, PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED, BUT IT MEETS MINIMUM OF FOUR, IN SOME CASES.
>> I GUESS, IT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO BE WHAT? SIX OR SOMETHING? I DON'T KNOW.
>> NO, I THINK THIS IS WHAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO BE.
>> WHAT'S THEIR SETBACK [OVERLAPPING] WHY ARE THEY GO OVER THEM.
>> MAN, IF THEY WERE INTENDED TO BUILD TO THE PROPERTY LINE, THEN THAT WOULD HAVE MADE THE SIDEWALK A COUPLE OF FEET BIGGER.
>> NO. I DIDN'T SEE THE PARKING LOT, THE SIDEWALKS WERE INTENDED TO BE ONLY THAT WIDE.
>> EVERYBODY'S BUILDING A COUPLE OF FEET OUTSIDE ROAD, RIGHT?
>> OVER THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, YES.
>> THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND HENCE, THAT SIDEWALK WOULD HAVE BEEN WIDER, OTHERWISE?
>> NOT NECESSARILY. THIS WAS THE DESIGN OF THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD, SO IT WILL DO IS INTENDED TO BE THIS WAY.
>> THE STREETS ARE VERY NARROW TOO.
>> YEAH, NOW WHAT I'M SAYING IS, IF THEY WOULD HAVE NEVER NEEDED A LTU, IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO GO OVER THE PROPERTY LINE AND INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
>> IF THEY HADN'T NEEDED TO DO THAT, THEY WOULD HAVE BUILD INSIDE THE PROPERTY LINE.
IF THEY HAD BUILT INSIDE THE PROPERTY LINE, THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WOULD HAVE BEEN WIDER.
>> IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN JUST [OVERLAPPING] A STRIP OF GRASS.
>> YEAH, COULD HAVE BEEN A STRIP OF GRASS.
>> BUT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS STILL IT'S WIDTH AS SUPPOSED TO BE, IT'S JUST THAT THE UTILITY LINES AND ALL ARE BASICALLY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT WALL.
>> THAT'S WHERE IT'S REALLY CAUSED THE OTHER PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS UTILIZED.
>> TYPICALLY, YOU WOULDN'T BUILD ON A RIGHT-OF-AWAY UNLESS YOU'RE [OVERLAPPING].
>> IF THERE WAS ANY UTILITY WORK THEN THEY WOULD ACTUALLY DID DUG UP AT THE OWNERS [OVERLAPPING] EXPENSE?
>> WHICH IS WHY IT'S A SPECIFIC CONDITIONER.
>> YEAH. ALL RIGHT. YES, COMMISSIONER HALLWAY, I JUST WANTED TO ASK MR. TIJENS ABOUT ANOTHER ISSUE.
AT ONE POINT IN TIME, WE HAD CONSIDERED A BLANKET LTU AND THAT WAS RECONSIDERED.
IT WAS SUGGESTED TO US THAT WE'D NOT DO A BLANKET LTU FOR EVIA.
>> CAN YOU REMIND ME WHAT THAT REASONING WAS?
>> I THINK THAT THE ISSUE BECAME THAT SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES ON THE CORNERS, ESPECIALLY WHERE YOU DO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL ROOM, IT'S NOT NECESSARY.
IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN LITERALLY REQUIRED EVERYWHERE.
IT'S VIRTUALLY REQUIRED EVERYWHERE, ESPECIALLY ON THOSE WHERE THE PROPERTIES ARE FOR FRONTING, BUT NOT NECESSARILY ON THE SIDES OR ON SOME OF THESE CORNERS WHERE THEY DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM.
[01:05:03]
>> THIS IS ONGOING, AS THE BOTTOM LINE TO OUR OUR NEW FRIENDS ON THE COMMISSION AND SOMETHING THAT WE SEE, GOSH, I HATE TO SAY AS A MATTER, OF COURSE, BUT IT ALMOST IS A MATTER OF COURSE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. SEEING NONE, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:38 PM.
IS THE APPLICANT IN THE AUDIENCE?
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME FORWARD, PLEASE, SIR?
>> IF YOU WOULD PLEASE JUST SIGN IN, PLEASE, SIR.
>> IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO THE COMMISSION ABOUT HOW HAPPY YOU'LL BE TO BE NEW RB? [LAUGHTER]
>> I'M HAPPY TO BE HERE. [LAUGHTER] I ENJOY THE THING ABOUT FOOD COSTS, [LAUGHTER] IF I COME OUT MORE AND GET SOME CHOCOLATE I'LL NEVER LEAVE HERE.
[LAUGHTER] NO, I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS SUCH A THING.
WHEN YOU PURCHASE A LOT OUT THERE, THEY LEAVE THIS PART OUT.
[LAUGHTER] WHEN YOU GET A BUILDING PERMIT, THEY LEAVE THIS PART OUT.
WHEN YOU GET A FINAL SURVEY, WHICH EVERYBODY REQUIRES, YOU FIND OUT THAT IT IS REQUIRED.
THERE YOU GO. THAT'S MY STORY.
>> ALL RIGHTY. THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? WELL, NO, SIR.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? WE'RE GLAD TO SEE YOU HERE AND WE WERE THRILLED THAT YOU ENJOY THE FOOD TRUCK.
>> THANK YOU. GREAT TACOS ACROSS THE STREET.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER PEOPLE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON 21P-033? ANYONE ONLINE, USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION, PLEASE.
ALL RIGHTY. OH, YES, COUNCIL MEMBER, LISTOWSKI.
>> I'D LIKE TO SAY ONE THING ABOUT THIS.
I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH GRANTING THIS VARIANCE, BUT WE ALWAYS SEE THESE VARIANCES AFTER THE FACT.
I THINK, IT'S ALMOST DANGEROUS THAT WE HAVE SET THIS PRECEDENT BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE EXPECTING YOU GET A VARIANCE ON THESE HOUSES, NVIDIA.
THERE NEEDS TO BE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT MECHANISM WE CAN PUT IN PLACE TO GIVE SOME WARNING UPFRONT, MAYBE AT THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE OF CONSTRUCTION TO LET PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THIS.
I MEAN, I HATE TO SEE THIS COME TO PLANNING COMMISSION ASKING FOR AN LTU FOR SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T LIKE OR MAYBE NOT APPROPRIATE.
WE HAVE GONE DOWN THIS PATH AND A VIA TO JUST GRANT THESE VARIANCES OR THESE LTUS.
WE MIGHT GET ONE THAT WE DON'T LIKE, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ISSUES IF WE DENY IT, AND THEY CAN COME BACK UP AND WRITE IT.
I THINK WE PROBABLY NEED TO BE KIND OF CAUTIOUS WITH THIS.
JUST SAYING THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE GRANTING THESE LTUS FOR THIS SUBDIVISION.
EVEN THOUGH SOME ARE VERY APPROPRIATE, WE MIGHT GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE MIGHT SEE SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T KNOW LIKE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT CAN BE PUT IN PLACE TO SAFEGUARD US FROM THAT SITUATION.
BUT I THINK THERE'S NO OTHER TOWN WHERE WE SAY THIS SAYING WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE GRANTING THESE THINGS EVERY HOUSE NEEDS IT.
WE DON'T DO THAT IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
YOU DO NOT BUILD IN THE CITY RIGHT AWAY.
BUT YOU KNOW HERE, IT'S ALMOST EXPECTED.
WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL WITH THIS.
>> I JUST WANTED TO SAY COUNCILMEN THAT ACTUALLY WE DO IN THE PERMIT CONDITION THE PERMIT ON OBTAINING AN LTU.
IT'S NOT REALLY ANYTHING THAT AN OWNER PROBABLY IS MUCH AWARE OF, THEIR BUILDER IS AND THOSE CONDITIONS ARE IN THOSE PERMITS.
>> IS THERE A LESSON TO BE LEARNED ABOUT HOW WE GOT HERE? I MEAN, HOW DID WE GET HERE?
>> YEAH. [LAUGHTER] WELL, [OVERLAPPING] I THINK PART OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT ORDINATES SORT OF ALLOWS THIS THING AND IT ENCOURAGES IT.
AS YOU SAID, IT'S A PHYSICAL MATTER OF GETTING TO AN ELEVATION IN A CERTAIN LIMITED HORIZONTAL DISTANCE.
I THINK [LAUGHTER] THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOODS THEMSELVES AREN'T ALWAYS NECESSARILY NEEDING TO BE ELEVATED AS HIGH AS THESE ARE.
YOU MIGHT HAVE A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DOESN'T
[01:10:04]
NECESSARILY NEED THAT MUCH ELEVATION WHEREIN WE WOULDN'T HAVE SUCH A PROBLEM.BUT IN THIS CASE, IT'S CONTINUING ON AND THIS IS HOW WE'VE CHOSEN TO HANDLE IT.
>> I DON'T GUESS THEY HAVE THAT. I MEAN, BUT WHAT I WOULD THINK IS IF YOU KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO BE AT A CERTAIN ELEVATION, YOU WOULD SIMPLY HAVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ANTICIPATE THAT MANY STEPS DOWN.
>> TO ME IT SEEMS LIKE IT WAS A PLANNING PROBLEM.
>> WELL, IT'S INCLUDED IN THE REGULATIONS THAT YOU HAVE THEM PUSH THIS FAR FORWARD BUT THE DIFFERENCE IN BEACH HOUSE, THEY'RE ELEVATED STRUCTURES.
>> RIGHT. WELL, THESE ARE TOO THEY'RE JUST NOT ELEVATED AS HIGH.
>> RIGHT. THEY'RE NOT ON [OVERLAPPING] STILTS.
>> THEY'RE NOT ON PIERS, THEY'RE ON A SLAB BUT THEY'RE STILL ELEVATED AND SO OTHER THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AN ACCOUNTING FOR HOW HIGH THEY'RE ELEVATED AND HOW MANY STEPS YOU NEED [OVERLAPPING] AND THAT DISTANCE.
THE STEPS YOU NEED TO HAVE THAT ELEVATION.
>> BUT IT'S A GOOD POINT THOUGH, IT'S SOMETHING WE CERTAINLY SHOULD CONTEMPLATE GOING FORWARD IF WE EVER AMEND THAT ORDINANCE.
>> RIGHT, SO WE DON'T GET IN A SITUATION AGAIN WHERE WE'RE ACTING LIKE WE HAVE TO CORRECT SOMETHING [NOISE] AND WE DO.
I MEAN, THERE'S NO WAY AROUND IT.
>> OUR TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD, IS THAT THE ZERO LOT LINE THROUGHOUT THE CITY OR IS THAT?
>> [OVERLAPPING] NO. NO NO. IT'S A SPECIFIC.
>> THAT'S JUST THE SPECIFIC? OKAY.
>> YEAH. IT'S SPECIFIC TO THE FORM OF DEVELOPMENT AND IT SORT OF RECOGNIZED A HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY AND STREET ORIENTED, ALONG WITH GOOD PARTS OF GALVESTON.
WHO AREN'T SORT OF A RE-CREATION OF A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD THEY'RE THE ORIGINAL TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
[LAUGHTER] OUR INTEGRATION IS [LAUGHTER] TO RECOGNIZE THAT ORGANIC FORM AND TRY TO REPLICATE IT ON IN A NEW WAY, AND THAT'S WHAT THE ORDINANCE IS INTENDED TO DO.
BUT YEAH, THERE'S SPOTS WE COULD PROBABLY TWEAK AND WE PROBABLY OUGHT TO CONSIDER THEM.
>> WHEN THEY BUILD THESE HOUSES RIGHT AWAY, DO THEY RED TAG THEM?
>> NO. IT'S ISSUED WITH THE PERMITS ARE ISSUED WITH.
>> THE THINK THAT THEY HELP YOU GET IT.
>> WELL, THEY'LL NOT BE AVAILABLE TO YOU AFTER UNTIL IT'S BUILT.
WE DON'T COME BACK TO AVAIL IT TO YOU TIL IT'S BUILT.
I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW WHY WE DON'T.
>> YEAH, THEY DON'T GET A RED TAG.
IT'S NOT A VIOLATION OF THE BUILDING CODE.
IT'S A VIOLATION OF THE LAND FULFILLMENT IT'S BREAKING OF THE OLD CITY CODE ACTUALLY.
WHAT WE DO IS WE DON'T ISSUE A COMPETENT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
RIGHT NOW THIS PROPERTY HAS A TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WHICH IS RENEWED EVERY 30 DAYS.
AFTER THIS PROCESS IS COMPLETE WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO THE PERMANENT.
>> THAT MIGHT BE A MIDDLE WAY TO HANDLE THIS.
IF YOU ARE EXPECTING TO NEED AN LTU, YOU SHOULD GET IT AT THE TIME OF THE BUILDING PERMIT, NOT AFTER THE FACT.
IT IS EASY TO CALCULATE ELEVATIONS AND PLAN OUT YOUR STAIRS ACCORDINGLY TO KNOW WHERE YOUR STAIRS ARE GOING TO LAND ON THE SIDEWALK.
[LAUGHTER] THIS SHOULD GO ON AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS, NOT AT THE END OF THE PROCESS AFTER THE FACT. [LAUGHTER]
>> I THINK WE CAN. [LAUGHTER] I THINK THAT WAS A GOOD SUGGESTION. ABSOLUTELY.
>> JUST TO MAKE A NOTE ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC CASE, THE STAIRS THAT WERE PERMITTED UNDER THE BUILDING PERMIT WERE LOCATED WITHIN PROPERTY LINES AND THEY CHANGED A LITTLE BIT DURING CONSTRUCTION, SO WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT UNTIL THE STRIPPING OF OCCUPANCY STAGE.
WE DON'T NORMALLY CHECK FOR THIS DURING THE BUILDING PERMIT.
>> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
I MEAN, PEOPLE ARE EXPECTING TO GET THESE LTUS AND SO THEY'RE JUST MAKING THESE CHANGES IN THE FIELD WITHOUT APPROVAL.
THEN THEY'RE ASKING FOR AFTER THE FACT, LICENSE TO USE BECAUSE WE GRANT THEM.
THEY'RE JUST EXPECTING US TO GRANT THEM.
AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THIS.
I MEAN, THIS IS FINE. IT FITS WITHIN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT IF THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN, WE NEED TO JUST BLANKET GIVING THEM TO THEM, OR DO SOMETHING TO STOP THIS.
>> I DON'T AT ALL DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THAT COUNCIL MEMBER, I DO THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN GENERAL POINT WITHIN A SPECIFIC CASE AND OUR HOMEOWNER WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE.
I'M GOING TO ALLOW THAT SINCE WE'RE STILL IN OUR PUBLIC COMMENT, SINCE WE'VE BEEN THROWING AROUND ON THIS AS TALKING IN GENERALITIES AS OPPOSED TO JUST YOUR PROPERTY. IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE?
>> YEAH. I'M A LONGTIME HOME BUILDER IN GALVESTON TO MOSTLY DOWN FAR WEST IN.
SO WHEN WE WOULD GET A PERMIT TO BUILD ON THE PLAN ITSELF, THEY WOULD PUT NOTATIONS, EVERYBODY PART ONE.
EVERY INSPECTOR, EVERY DEPARTMENT, FROM THE FIRE MARSHALL YOU GOT IT.
THEY WOULD TELL YOU WHAT YOU HAD TO DO.
HAD I KNOWN THAT WE NEEDED THIS,
[01:15:01]
WE COULD'VE DONE ADDITIONAL DRAWINGS, WHATEVER.THIS PARTICULAR HOME IS IN THE 500 A YEAR PLAN SO THE GROUND ELEVATION IS QUITE HIGH.
I THINK THE ELEVATIONS TYPICALLY SHOWN IT TO BE 15 FEET.
YOU COULD DO SOME ADDITIONAL WORK.
WE COULD HAVE DONE ADDITIONAL [NOISE] WORK, BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER TO KNOW THAT WE NEEDED THESE.
IT SHOULD HAVE SAVED EVERYBODY A LOT OF TIME BUT AS I SAID, WE DIDN'T GET ANY OF THOSE.
WE DIDN'T GET ANY NOTIFICATIONS OF ANY KIND HERE'S THE BUILDING PERMIT.
>> I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU DO WITH THE COUNCILMAN SAID.
UP FRONT, TELL THESE FOLKS WHAT THEY NEED TO DO AND THEY'LL DO IT.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. I APPRECIATE IT.
THANKS, JOHN PAUL. CAN WE WORK ON SOMETHING ON THAT? [NOISE] OKAY. THANK YOU.
WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNLESS THERE'S ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING.
AT 4;49 PM, BRING IT BACK FOR A MOTION.
>> YES. COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY?
>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT 21 P033 BE ACCEPTED AS WRITTEN.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NO DISCUSSION, WE'LL CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE, SIR, ON 21 P- 033.
>> ALL IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSES.
>> THANK YOU. NOW, WE'LL MOVE ON TO 21 P-035.
[8.C.2. 21P-035 (2002 Postoffice/Avenue E)]
ARE YOU STILL WITH US PETE?>> ALL RIGHTY. WE'RE READY, SIR.
>> OKAY. PAGE 21 P-035, IS ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY ADDRESS ZERO, I'M SORRY, 2002 POST-OFFICE ALSO KNOWN AS AVENUE.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A LICENSE TO USE IN ORDER TO RETAIN A PLACEMENT OF A FIRE ESCAPE.
WE SENT 16, THREE WERE RETURNED, ONE WAS IN FAVOR, AND TWO HAD NO COMMENT.
WE HAVE NO OBJECTION FROM ANY CITY DEPARTMENT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A PERMANENT LICENSE TO USE THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY FOR A FIRE ESCAPE.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FIRE ESCAPE IS IN PLACE.
THE APPLICANT RECENTLY APPLIED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE FIRE ESCAPE.
AT THAT TIME, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE FIRE ESCAPE DOES NOT HAVE A LICENSE TO USE THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY.
NOTE THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FIRE ESCAPE, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE TO USE REQUESTS FOR THE FIRE ESCAPE TO BE PLACED IN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND WE HAVE PHOTOS.
THE SUBJECT SITE, AND THIS IS THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION OF THE FIRE ESCAPE THAT'S BEING REQUESTED IN THIS LTU REQUEST.
>> THANK YOU, PETE. I APPRECIATE IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE DOING THESE GOING FORWARD, BUT IF THERE'S ANY WAY TO INCLUDE THOSE PICTURES IN OUR PACKET AHEAD OF TIME, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
COMMISSIONER, HOLLAWAY, YOUR QUESTION [OVERLAPPING].
>> MY QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE TO INCLUDE PHOTOGRAPHS.
>> OKAY. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES, SIR. COMMISSIONER, BROWN.
>> THIS FIRE ESCAPE HAS BEEN HERE FOREVER, RIGHT?
>> [OVERLAPPING] AND THAT'S WHEN WE REALIZED IT DIDN'T HAVE NOT TAKEN.
>> CAN WE SEE THE PICTURES, AGAIN?
>> WE LOVE PICTURES. [LAUGHTER]
>> TALKING ABOUT THE YELLOW ONE, RIGHT?
>> IT REALLY IS VERY TYPICAL OF A LOT OF GALVESTON ALLEYS.
IT'S IN THE SPACE WHERE THE DUMPSTER IS, SPACE WHERE [INAUDIBLE] POSTS ARE, WHERE THE ELECTRIC METERS IT'S IN THAT ZONE WHERE UTILITY IS GOING TO LIVE IN THESE TYPICAL GALVESTON ALLEYS.
>> ALL RIGHT. IT TOOK ME A WHILE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT WAS.
>> BEHIND THE [OVERLAPPING] YEAH.
>> IN THE UPPER HOUSE [OVERLAPPING]
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, COMMISSIONERS? ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NONE, IS THE APPLICANT IN THE AUDIENCE? IS THE APPLICANT ON THE PHONE?
>> THE APPLICANT'S ON THE PHONE,
[01:20:02]
PLEASE USE THE "RAISE YOUR HAND" FUNCTION.>> I DON'T SEE ANYBODY WHOSE NAME MATCHES.
THEN WE'LL GO FORWARD WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING 4:53 P.M. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE OR ON THE PHONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT CASE 21P DASH 035? ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:53 P.M. AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> I'LL MOVE THAT WE APPROVE CASE 21P DASH 035 AS DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR, BROWN.
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER, EDWARDS.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NO DISCUSSION.
WE WILL MOVE FORWARD TO TAKE A VOTE. PLEASE, SIR.
>> ALL IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSES.
NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO CASE 21 P DASH 038.
[8.C.3. 21P-038 (1813 24th Street)]
PLEASE, MR. MELBOURNE.>> OKAY. CASE 21P DASH 038 IN ADJACENT TO PROPERLY ADDRESSED 1813 24TH STREET.
THIS, AGAIN, IS A REQUEST FOR A LICENSE TO USE THE RIGHT OF WAY.
THIS IS FOR A STORAGE CONTAINER.
WE SENT 25 PUBLIC NOTICES AND WE RECEIVED 0.
WE HAVE NO OBJECTION FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS.
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A PERMANENT LICENSE TO USE THE RIGHT OF WAY IN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE USE OF A STORAGE CONTAINER FOR AN ONGOING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.
THE SUBJECT STORAGE CONTAINER HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN APPROVED THROUGH THE CITY'S TEMPORARY LICENSE TO USE PROCESS THAT HAS NOW EXPIRED.
NOTE THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CONTAINER WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT.
ALSO, NOTE THAT BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN GALVESTON STORE DISTRICT, THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION DID REVIEW THIS REQUEST AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
THEY HEARD THIS REQUEST AT YESTERDAY'S LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS LICENSE TO USE REQUESTS WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED AT THE STAFF REPORT.
I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO CONDITION NUMBER 2, WHICH IS GENERALLY STATES THAT THIS WOULD BE AN APPROVAL FOR APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR AND IT WOULD EXPIRE ON JULY 31ST, 2022, IF IT'S TO BE PERMITTED.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF, WELL, WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS.
[NOISE] THE TWO PHOTOS IN THE SLIDES SHOW BOTH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION OF THE STORAGE CONTAINER.
NEXT SLIDE. HERE IS A VIEW FACING SOUTH TOWARDS THE GALVESTON SEA ROAD, AND ANOTHER VIEW FACING THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION TO THE NORTH.
THERE'S ALSO A PHOTO THAT SHOWS IT, IT'S HERE IN THE FAR BACKGROUND, SOME OF THE CURRENT CONSTRUCTION THAT'S BEEN TAKING PLACE ON THE PROPERTY.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I SEE COMMISSIONER, HOLLAWAY, HAS A QUESTION.
>> PETE, HOW LONG IS THE TEMPORARY LICENSE TO USE DURATION?
>> NO, NO, NO. THEY HAD A TEMPORARY LICENSE TO USE THAT EXPIRED.
WHAT WAS THE LENGTH AT THAT TIME?
>> I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE [INAUDIBLE], IF YOU WOULD ADD UP TO SIX MONTHS APPROVALS AND YOU CAN RE-APPLY.
I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE CASE. CATHERINE, CAN YOU-
>> RIGHT. [OVERLAPPING] I THINK IT'S THROUGH 60 DAYS AND THEN YOU CAN DO ONE RENEWAL FOR A TOTAL OF A 120.
I WAS GOING TO ASK, CAN WE LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS, AGAIN?
>> THE CONSTRUCTION, I DROVE BY THERE BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS.
THE CONSTRUCTION IS ON-GOING TO THAT STRUCTURE THAT'S IN THE BACK OF THE PHOTO ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT.
THE CONSTRUCTION IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE HOUSE AND WHERE THE CONTAINER IS LOCATED.
>> CORRECT. WHAT THE APPLICANT SHARED WITH US AT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION IS THAT, THE WORK IS BEING DONE ON THE GARAGE WHICH ALSO INCLUDES THE STORAGE SPACE.
[01:25:02]
THE ITEMS THAT WERE INSIDE OF THAT STORAGE AREA ARE WHAT'S NOW BEING HOUSED IN THE STORAGE CONTAINER, LAWN EQUIPMENT AND THINGS LIKE THAT.>> THE STORAGE DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CONSTRUCTION ITSELF.
>> NO. IT'S JUST A TEMPORARY STORAGE FOR THEIR BELONGINGS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I THINK THERE WAS A PERMANENT STORAGE BOARD THERE.
>> OKAY. PETE, I HAVE A QUESTION THEN.
I MEAN, AND THE APPLICANT MIGHT BE HERE AND I CAN ASK THEM AND THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION BETTER ADDRESSED BY THEM.
BUT IT WOULD SEEM THAT IN DETERMINING IF WE'RE GOING TO GIVE SOMEONE AN LTU FOR A YEAR, THAT WE WOULD ASK QUESTIONS LIKE, WHY CAN'T YOU PUT THIS IN STORAGE AT THE MINI STORAGE WAREHOUSE? WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PUBLIC STREET? WAS THAT ADDRESSED? [OVERLAPPING]
>> THOSE QUESTIONS CAME UP AT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION.
>> PETE, IF I CAN JUST INTERJECT FOR A LITTLE BIT.
BUT COMMISSIONERS, I THINK WE NEED TO FOCUS ON WHAT THE REQUEST IS FROM THE APPLICANT, AND NOT NECESSARILY A QUESTION WHERE HE OR SHE COULD PUT OTHER THINGS.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE IF THE STATEMENT ABOUT STUFF THAT WAS IN THE GARAGE OR CONTAINED IN THE GARAGE ARE THE ONLY ITEMS IN THIS STORAGE CONTAINER.
BUT AGAIN, I THINK WE JUST NEED TO FOCUS ON THE APPLICATION.
I WAS AT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION YESTERDAY, AND THE APPLICANT WAS, NOT TO SPEAK FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT CLEARLY WITH THE PANDEMIC AND ALL OF THOSE SITUATIONS THAT CAME UP, THEIR TIMELINE WAS EXTENDED.
BUT THE APPLICANT EXPRESSED VERY STRONGLY THAT SHE WAS NOT [LAUGHTER] TRYING TO HAVE THE STORAGE CONTAINER FOR A YEAR OR ELSE SHE WOULD GO CRAZY.
EVEN THOUGH THE APPLICATION IS UP TO A YEAR, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICANT'S HERE? [OVERLAPPING] I DON'T SEE HER.
SHE EXPRESSED NO INTENTION TO KEEP THIS STORAGE CONTAINER IN THAT AREA ANY LONGER THAN ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.
BUT AGAIN, TO ASK PETE WHETHER OR NOT HE INQUIRED IF THERE ARE OTHER PLACES THAT SHE COULD STORE HER OTHER STUFF, I DON'T THINK THAT WAS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION TO ASK OF STAFF.
>> WELL, I DO THINK IT IS RELEVANT, DONNA, BECAUSE I THINK IF WE'RE LOOKING AT FEASIBILITY, OR IS IT A REASONABLE REQUEST? IS IT REASONABLE? THE REASONABLENESS, WE HAVE DENIED L TO USE WHEN WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT SOMEONE HAS ADEQUATE ROOM ON THEIR LOT OR IN THEIR YARD FOR SOMETHING.
I THINK IT'S GOOD TO SEE IF THEY HAVE EXPLORED THIS.
>> I HAD A SIMILAR EXPERIENCE AFTER I HAD TO GET A STORAGE CONTAINER BECAUSE WE WERE MOVING A HOUSE TO EXPAND OUR PARKING LOT, THEN I CAME, AND I WAS STUCK FOR OVER A YEAR BEFORE ANYTHING COULD BE DONE TO GET TO MY JOB, WHICH WAS CONSIDERED A SMALL JOB.
SO I CAN UNDERSTAND RUNNING INTO THE CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS. BUT, IF I WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PERSON AND YOU ASK ME WHAT AM I STORING IN THERE? I WOULD SAY IT NOT YOUR BUSINESS.
>> I DON'T WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE STORING.
I DON'T CARE WHAT THEY'RE STORING [OVERLAPPING]
>> I WANT TO KNOW. I WOULD WANT TO KNOW.
IS IT MY TURN YET? [LAUGHTER].
>> IF I CAN JUST BE MORE PLAIN.
[LAUGHTER] IF THE APPLICANT WERE HERE AND CHOSE TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT SHE STORING AND WHATNOT, THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR STAFF TO ASK THE APPLICANT.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT POINT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY JUST GET AN APPLICATION FOR THIS CONTAINER.
IN THIS SITUATION IS, THEY'RE DOING CONSTRUCTION ON THE GARAGE AND SHE DID MENTION YESTERDAY THAT THEY HAVE HOUSEHOLD THINGS IN THERE, THAT IT'S A BOTHER FOR THEM TO GET TO BECAUSE THEY STILL HAVE TO KEEP IT IN THERE.
I JUST WANTED TO PUT A TIMEOUT ON WHAT IS REALLY STAFF'S ROLE WHEN PEOPLE YOU ARE PUTTING AN APPLICATION IN.
>> MY CONCERN IS IF THERE IS CONSTRUCTION, SOMETHING THAT IS GERMANE TO THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, SUCH AS STORING POWER TOOLS OR SOMETHING A CONTRACTOR WOULD USE.
>> YEAH, WHATEVER. I MEAN THOSE THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO THE CONSTRUCTION, IS DIFFERENT IN MY OPINION THAN USING THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY FOR STORAGE OF COMMONLY OWNED MATERIALS THAT DO NOT PERTAIN TO THE CONSTRUCTION ITSELF.
[01:30:05]
NOW, I CAN SEE PUTTING SOMETHING IN THERE THAT'S NEEDED TO AID IN CONSTRUCTION.BUT IF YOU'RE JUST PUTTING SOMETHING OUT THERE, WHY CAN'T I DO THE SAME THING? WE ALL WENT THROUGH THAT EXPERIENCE WITH IKE, I THINK IKE WAS A GREAT LEVELER. [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER]
>> IT ALL GAVE US A LOT OF PATIENCE, TAUGHT US PATIENCE.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I'M CONCERNED THAT SHOULD WE NOT BE CHARGING RENT FOR THAT, BECAUSE IT'S A TRADE OFF, RIGHT? IT'S A TRADE OFF BETWEEN USING YOUR E-SMART OR YOUR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AS OPPOSED TO PAYING RENT TO STORE THIS UNIT SOMEPLACE ELSE.
WHO'S BEARING THE COST OF THAT? THE CITY IS.
THE CITY IS NOT GETTING ANYTHING FOR THE TRADE OFF.
WE'RE NOT CHARGING THE APPLICANT FOR THE USE OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
WE CHARGED HER FIVE BUCKS, THEN IT MIGHT BE OKAY.
BUT IT'S A TRADE OFF AND THINK ABOUT IT IN ECONOMIC TERMS. SO THAT'S THAT'S MY CONCERN.
I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THE APPLICATION LOOKS LIKE AND WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING IT FOR, IF THERE IS A SECTION ON THERE, "WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO USE IT FOR? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO STORE INSIDE OF IT?" PETE, MAY BE YOU CAN SAY, IS THAT ON THE APPLICATION? DID SHE EXPRESS WHAT HE OR SHE WAS GOING TO STORE IN THERE? IF YOU CAN ANSWER THAT, THAT'S FINE.
BUT AGAIN, I DON'T THINK MY INITIAL GETTING UP HERE IS TO SAY, IT'S NOT STAFF'S. [OVERLAPPING]
>> OR WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO PUT IN THERE, AND YOU CAN PUT THIS IN THERE AND NOT THAT IN THERE.
>> I UNDERSTAND [NOISE] THAT POINT, AND THANK YOU DONNA.
BUT NOT WHAT'S IN THERE IS NECESSARILY RELEVANT TO ME IN MY DECISION MAKING, BUT TO KNOW THAT SOMEONE LOOKED AT OTHER OPTIONS FOR WHERE THAT COULD BE, AND IS THERE ANOTHER PLACE ON THAT PROPERTY THAT THAT COULD HAVE GONE.
THAT IS DEFINITELY RELEVANT IN MY DECISION MAKING.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN PUT STORAGE CONTAINERS ON PROPERTIES.
PETE, IN THE APPLICATION, IS THERE A QUESTION THERE AS TO WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO USE THE CONTAINER FOR, AND IF SO? [OVERLAPPING]
>> YES. THE CLOSEST THAT WE HAVE IN THE APPLICATION TO ANSWERING THAT IS THE APPLICANT PROVIDES A DETAILED NARRATIVE FOR THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST, AND I CAN READ THAT TO THE COMMISSION.
>> THANK YOU PETE. I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU.
>> OKAY. IT SAYS, "LICENSE TO USE PERMANENT STORAGE CONTAINER PLACEMENT OUTSIDE OF HOME DUE TO GARAGE RENOVATION PROJECT IN REAR.
EXPECT PROJECT TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN SIX MONTHS.
CURRENTLY HAVE TEMPORARY PERMIT, BUT DUE TO PROJECT CHANGES AND DELAYS IN MATERIALS DELIVERY, MORE TIME IS NEEDED TO COMPLETE PROJECT.
PROJECT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY LANDMARK AND PLANNING, AND IS PROPERLY PERMITTED.
STORAGE CONTAINER WILL BE REMOVED AT COMPLETION OF PROJECT, WHICH IS EXPECTED TO BE NO MORE THAN SIX MONTHS.
WE HAVE A DOUBLE LOT AND STORAGE UNIT IS PLACED IN THE STREET, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TWO LOTS." THAT CONCLUDES THE NARRATIVE.[BACKGROUND]
>> CAN I JUST ADD THAT THERE ARE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS REQUEST, FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE TEMPORARY LICENSE TO USE, AND APPLICATION FEES FOR A PERMANENT LICENSE TO USE.
>> THANK YOU, CATHERINE. THANK YOU.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WHAT WOULD PREVENT US FROM GIVING THEM ANOTHER TEMPORARY LTU? BECAUSE, I THINK THAT THE WORD PERMANENT AND STORAGE AND FEE IS JUST A BAD COMBO.
IT'S JUST SETTING A HORRIBLE PRECEDENT.
WHAT PREVENTS US FROM GIVING HER ANOTHER TEMPORARY LTU IF SHE HAS TO MOVE HER CONTAINER 20 FEET OR EVEN UP TO WHATEVER.
WHAT KEEPS US FROM DOING THAT?
>> IT'S A COURT REQUIREMENT THAT THE TEMPORARY LICENSE TO USE CAN ONLY BE ISSUED FOR A SET PERIOD OF TIME.
THEN WHAT WE DO, THIS IS A STANDARD THING, IS THAT AFTER YOU'VE EXHAUSTED YOUR TEMPORARY TIME LIMITS THEN WE DO A PERMANENT LICENSE TO USE WITH AN EXPIRATION.
[01:35:01]
BUT WE DO BUILD IN AN EXPIRATION SO THAT IT'S NOT FOREVER. [OVERLAPPING]>> IF THE TERM IS PERMANENT THEN [OVERLAPPING]
>> WELL, WHAT WE DO PUT AS JUST A STANDARD AMOUNT OF TIME IS ONE YEAR.
IF THE COMMISSION FEELS THAT THAT'S TOO MUCH TIME, THEN YOU CAN ALWAYS CHANGE THAT.
>> I THINK IT'S A HORRIBLE PRECEDENCE.
I UNDERSTAND THE CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT I WOULD BE FORWARD IF WE CHANGED THE AMOUNT OF TIME TO SIX MONTHS.
>> THANK YOU. WE'LL TAKE THIS UP UNDER DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW.
WE'RE STILL UNDER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> I WAS LISTENING TO WHAT DONNA SAID ABOUT NOT ASKING WHAT THEY'RE STORING IN THERE.
I DO THINK THAT THAT'S PROBABLY NOT A GOOD SUGGESTION.
I THINK WE SHOULD ASK BECAUSE IF YOU STORE PAINT, OR ANY FLAMMABLE, OR ANY COMBUSTIBLE ITEMS IN THERE, THAT COULD BE AN ISSUE.
IF THERE ARE PAINT CANS, OR THERE ARE OTHER GAS CANS IN THE STORAGE, WE DO NEED TO KNOW THAT AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE SAY YOU CANNOT PUT THAT KIND OF STUFF IN THE STORAGE AND ESPECIALLY WITH THE HEAT RIGHT NOW.
>> THAT'S A GOOD POINT. THANK YOU.
QUESTION FOR STAFF. COMMISSIONER PENA.
>> ARE THERE VERY MANY, OR IS THIS LIKE THE FIRST THAT'S GONE OVER THIS 60-DAY TEMPORARY?
>> IT HAPPENS FROM TIME TO TIME.
THE LAST ONE WE DID WAS THE RENOVATION OF THE FROST BANK BUILDING, WHERE THEY KNEW UP FRONT THAT THEY WERE GOING TO GREATLY EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF TIME ALLOWABLE UNDER THE TEMPORARY AND THEY WENT STRAIGHT TO A PERMANENT WITH THAT TIME FRAME.
>> I WONDER IF YOU START MESSING WITH THE LENGTH OF TIME OF THIS PERMANENT LICENSE TO USE, THEN YOU WOULD GET INVOLVED IN HAVING TO ADJUST THE AMOUNT OF FEES TO MATCH THE ADJUSTED AMOUNT OF TIME. IT COULD BE A CAN OF WORMS.
>> WELL, IT'S JUST A FLAT APPLICATION FEE.
NO MATTER THE PERIOD OF TIME IT'S THE SAME FEE.
>> A HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS.
>> BUT I WOULD SAY THAT IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE CONSISTENT, THEN YOU NEED TO BE CONSISTENT.
TO START CHANGING THE TIME ON EACH APPLICANT, THAT'S NOT CONSISTENCY.
THEN IT GETS INTO THIS ARBITRARY CAPRICIOUSNESS OF WHEN PEOPLE PRESENT CASES TO YOU.
>> SO MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE MORE THAN ONE AMOUNT OF TIME.
MAYBE THERE SHOULD BE A THREE MONTH, SIX MONTH, NINE MONTH, AND ONE YEAR.
>> THERE WAS. SHE STARTED WITH JUST A TEMPORARY FOR SIX MONTHS.
>> SO WHAT MADE THEM GIVE HER A YEAR?
>> IF WE'RE THROUGH WITH QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS POINT, WE CAN COME BACK TO DISCUSSION AFTER THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE.
>> HANG ON. I GOT TO DO PUBLIC HEARING NEXT.
[LAUGHTER] WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:11 P.M FOR CASE 21P-038.
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON THAT CASE? ANYONE ON THE PHONE TO SPEAK ON 21P-038? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:11 AND NOW COMING [INAUDIBLE]
>> [LAUGHTER] I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 21P-038.
>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> THE ONLY DISCUSSION I HAVE IS WITH THE PANDEMIC, MATERIALS ARE JUST UNBELIEVABLY DIFFICULT TO GET AND SETBACK.
MY DAUGHTER IS BUILDING A HOUSE AND IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE COMPLETED AT THE FIRST OF JUNE AND THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION CAN'T GET MATERIALS.
I DON'T THINK IT'S AN UNUSUAL REQUEST DURING THESE CIRCUMSTANCES TO ASK FOR AN EXTENSION TO COMPLETE A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.
>> I DON'T NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THAT.
I JUST WISH THE APPLICANT WAS HERE TO LET US KNOW THAT THEY CONSIDERED OTHER ALTERNATIVES.
THAT THEY CONSIDERED RENTING A STORAGE UNIT RATHER THAN USING PUBLIC PROPERTY, THAT THEY CONSIDERED PUTTING IT IN WHATEVER THAT LITTLE SPOT WAS WHERE THE TRAILER WAS, AND GO HOUSE THE TRAILER AT A [INAUDIBLE] STORAGE PLACE.
I JUST WISH WE KNEW THAT THEY CONSIDERED THE ALTERNATIVES.
THEY'RE CURRENTLY, I GUESS, OPERATING WITHOUT AN LTU, SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE CAN JUST SAY DEFER IT, AND GET THEM TO COME IN NEXT TIME.
THAT WOULD BE MY WISH, IS THAT WE COULD HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
[01:40:03]
>> IT JUST SETS A PRECEDENCE OF SOMEBODY WANTING TO STORE SOMETHING OUT IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE.
THIS ONE, MAYBE THE APPLICANT IS HOPING THAT IT'S A MONTH OR TWO MONTHS AND NOT THE FULL YEAR.
BUT SOMEBODY'S GOING TO TAKE THE WHOLE YEAR. [LAUGHTER]
>> THE NEXT APPLICANT THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO LOOK FOR A STORAGE UNIT ON THE STREET IS GOING TO TAKE A YEAR AND WE'VE GOT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH HOW WE APPROVE THESE.
IF WE'RE APPROVING IT FOR A YEAR, GIVING THEM THAT YEAR TIME FRAME, THEN THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOMEBODY WHOSE INTENTIONS ARE ONE MONTH, OR SOMEBODY WHOSE INTENTIONS ARE ONE YEAR.
I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR HER SAY WE CONSIDERED ALL THE FINANCIAL OPTIONS AND A MINI STORAGE WOULD COST ME $600 A MONTH AND I NEED THREE THINGS OUT OF THERE TWICE A MONTH TO VACUUM.
SO I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM.
>> I THINK THEY STARTED THIS WITH GOOD INTENTIONS AND THEY WENT AND GOT [INAUDIBLE] TEMPORARY, AND THEY GOT THE THING SET UP, AND LIKE YOU WERE SAYING THAT THE PANDEMIC THREW EVERYTHING OUT [NOISE] LIKE IT DID A LOT OF PEOPLE AND THEY'RE STILL TRYING TO GET THEIR PROJECT DONE.
I THINK WHAT WE HEARD WAS THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE A YEAR, BUT THIS PATH SEEMS TO BE ONE THAT HAS SOME PRECEDENT FOR AND THEY WANT TO GO AHEAD AND GET IT DONE, AND IT DOESN'T SEEM REASONABLE TO MAKE A MOVE OUT OF THIS THING AND GO GET A STORAGE ROOM SOMEWHERE ELSE JUST BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC.
THEY'RE JUST GOING TO LEAVE IT WHERE IT IS AND JUST KEEP GOING DOWN THIS PATH AND GET OUT OF THERE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, NOT A YEAR.
>> BUT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S REALLY A DECENT THING TO DO TO MAKE THEM MOVE OUT OF THIS THING AND GO GET A STOREROOM SOMEWHERE ELSE.
I TRUST THEM TO GET OUT OF THIS THING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND GET THIS CONSTRUCTION OVER WITH.
I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S A DECENT THING TO DO TO MAKE THEM MOVE OUT OF THIS THING AND GO GET A STOREROOM SOMEWHERE ELSE.
>> I JUST WISH THEY WERE HERE. YES.
>> WE SENT OUT 30 NOTICES, I THINK, I READ. WAS IT 30?
>> TWENTY FIVE, AND WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY BACK, RIGHT?
>> OKAY. SO THEIR NEIGHBORS ARE OKAY.
[LAUGHTER] I WOULD SAY IF YOUR NEIGHBOR IS OKAY WITH THAT, THAT IT'S SITTING OUT THERE FOR THE NEXT YEAR.
I CAN FALL ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS ONE, I REALLY DON'T CARE FOR THE STORAGE UNIT TO BE OUT THERE.
BUT IF YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE OKAY WITH YOU PUTTING IT OUT THERE, I'M ASSUMING YOU'VE GONE TO EACH ONE OF YOUR NEIGHBORS AND SAID, "HEY, LOOK, I REALLY DON'T WANT IT HERE, BUT I DON'T REALLY HAVE A CHOICE," AND THEY'VE AGREED.
I THINK THAT WE SHOULD GIVE THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO LET THEM HAVE THE STORAGE UNIT THERE.
I THINK THAT, THEIR NEIGHBORS, THEY LOOK LIKE THEY LIVE IN A REALLY NICE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WANT THAT BLIGHT ON THEIR STREET FOR VERY LONG.
I'M HOPING THAT THEY WILL WORK REALLY HARD TO GET IT OUT FASTER.
>> GOOD POINT. COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY.
>> I DROVE THIS AREA LAST NIGHT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS.
>> WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ALLEY.
THE CONSTRUCTION IS REALLY GOING ON IN THE ALLEY FAR TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
I DROVE THE ALLEY AND I'M LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO PUT THIS THING.
I SAID, LET'S FIND A PLACE TO PUT IT.
THEY HAVE A REALLY NICE GARDEN IN THE FRONT SO YOU DON'T WANT TO DISTURB THE GARDEN, THE LANDSCAPE IS BEAUTIFUL, AND IT JUST LOOKED LIKE NOTHING WAS HAPPENING.
NOW WHEN I HEAR THAT WE HAVE A SHORTAGE OF MATERIALS, SHORTAGE OF LABOR, THE PANDEMIC HAS SLOWED EVERYTHING TO A PRACTICAL STOP.
NOW I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THAT PROPERTY LOOKED THE WAY IT DID.
BECAUSE IT LOOKED AS THOUGH SOMEONE HAD STARTED SOMETHING AND THEN JUST STOPPED, AND 24TH STREET, WHICH IS WHERE THE CONTAINER IS SITTING, IS A VERY WIDE STREET.
THERE'S NOT A LOT OF TRAFFIC THERE.
MOST OF THE TRAFFIC IS ON 25TH, ON 23RD.
IT'S A VERY WIDE STREET, SO I'M NOT SEEING THAT IT'S IMPEDING TRAFFIC.
IT'S AN EYESORE BUT THEN, LIKE YOU SAID, IF THE NEIGHBORS DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT IT THEN WHY SHOULD WE? I WAS TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF WHY THIS CONTAINER WAS SO FAR FROM THE CONSTRUCTION SITE BECAUSE THAT'S A VERY DEEP LOT.
BUT NOW I CAN UNDERSTAND BECAUSE IT'S NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THE CONSTRUCTION, IT'S JUST THE STORAGE OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS FOR THAT MATTER.
>> OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NO MORE DISCUSSION LET'S CALL THE VOTE. PLEASE, SIR.
[01:45:02]
>> WE HAVE FOUR VOTES IN FAVOR, THREE OPPOSED. THE MOTION PASSES.
[8.D.1. 21P-037 (10327 San Luis Pass Road / FM 3005)]
[OVERLAPPING].>> REQUEST FOR PLANNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF GALVESTON DISTRICT FOR A HIGH LIFE CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT IN THE RESORT RECREATION HIGH INTENSITY ZONING ZONE, ZONE 5 ZONING DISTRICT.
STAFF'S REQUESTING THIS CASE BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON AUGUST 3RD IN ORDER TO RECTIFY A NOTIFICATION ERROR.
YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A MEMORANDUM ATTACHED TO [INAUDIBLE].
WE DID GET THE MEMO ABOUT THE NOTIFICATION ERROR.
COMMISSIONERS, SINCE THIS WAS NOTICED UP AS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS CASE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS CASE, AND THEN WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO DEFER.
BUT ANYONE WHO HAS APPEARED TODAY TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE, WILL CERTAINLY BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE.
IS THE APPLICANT IN THE AUDIENCE OR ON THE PHONE? OKAY. NO. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON 21P-037? NO. ANYONE ON THE PHONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON 21037? ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 05:20 PM. I'M SORRY.
NO. NO. OKAY. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 05:20 PM AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION, COMMISSIONER PENA.
>> DO WE HAVE A SECOND OR DO WE HAVE TO SAVE IT UNTIL AUGUST 3RD.
>> UNTIL AUGUST 3RD. YEAH, THAT'S OUR NEXT MEETING.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> I JUST WANT TO RECOMMEND THAT THE COMMISSION HAVE A LOOK AT THE HEIGHTENED DENSITY ZONE DESIGN GUIDELINES AS A REFERENCE WHILE PREPARING FOR THIS NEXT TIME.
IT'S REFERENCED IN OUR HEIGHTENED DENSITY ZONING STANDARDS IN THE LDRS.
BUT IF DESIGN GUIDELINES AND IT GOES HAND IN HAND WITH THE ZONE WITH THE LDRS AND IT'S REALLY GOOD TO HAVE A LOOK AT THAT.
THERE'S A LOT OF WORK WENT INTO THAT BACK IN, IS2009 THE LATEST VERSION?
>> IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, COULD YOU SEND A LINK TO EVERYBODY?
>> IT WOULD HELP FIND IT. IT'S VERY HARD TO TRY AND DIG THAT ON WEBSITE.
BUT IT REALLY GIVES YOU A LOT OF INFORMATION AS TO THE INTENT AND ALL OF THE THINKING THAT WENT BEHIND THE LDRS.
THAT'S SECTION 10 MERGED OVER WITH THREE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND LDR.
BECAUSE IT'S A VERY COMPLEX TOPIC AND WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK IT UP BEFORE WE MAKE DECISIONS NEXT TIME.
I WOULD JUST WELL, I'LL MAKE MY POINT NEXT TIME WHEN WE HAVE IT UP THAT THIS HEARING, NEXT TIME ON THIS WILL BE JUST ABOUT THE PUD.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO DISCUSS THE BEACH FRONT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, ANYTHING LIKE THAT, IT IS ABOUT THE APPROVAL OF A PUD.
LET'S ALSO KEEP OUR EYE ON THE BALL ON THAT.
YEAH. LASER FOCUS. LASER FOCUS.
OKAY. SO, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
>> PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN AND CLOSED, BUT IF YOU'LL COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN, I'LL REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:22 PM.
>> MAYBE YOU CAN RESTATE THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE A NUMBER OF FOLKS HERE THAT ARE HERE FOR THIS CASE.
>> WE SAID IT MORE OF THERE TOO.
>> MAYBE THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND.
>> HANG ON. DID YOU ALL UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THAT WAS YOUR TIME TO COMMENT.
>>OKAY. I'LL REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:22.
>> MY NAME IS HELLEN K AND MY QUESTION IS, IF THIS IS DEFERRED, WILL ANOTHER NOTICE FOR PUBLIC HEARING BE SENT OUT?
>> WE'LL LET CATHERINE HANDLE THAT BUT YES, THE MAIN REASON FOR THE MOTION TO DEFER IS
[01:50:03]
BECAUSE WE WEREN'T SURE ABOUT ALL OF THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS HAVING BEEN PROPERLY MET.EVERYONE WILL GET ANOTHER NOTICE AND WE HOPE THAT YOU ALL WILL COME BACK ON AUGUST 3RD.
>> YES. BUT IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK NOW, YOU MAY.
>> NO? THEY'RE KEEPING THEIR PUTTER DRIVE FOR ALL THIS THIRD.
>> WE ALL GOT TO REST [LAUGHTER]
>> IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK, COME FORWARD AND YOU'LL JUST NEED TO SIGN HERE.
I GO WITH HER.VMY QUESTION IS GOING TO SEEM LIKE A STRANGE ONE AND I'M NOT SURE IF IT HAS A RIGHT ANSWER.
BUT WHEN WE BOUGHT A DIAMOND BEACH IN THE CURRENT PHASE 1, THE BUILDING THAT EXISTS, WE DISCOVERED VERY QUICKLY THAT WE WERE VERY SHORT OF PARKING.
IT TURNS OUT THAT THE BUILDER WAS GIVEN A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT 26 FEWER PARKING PLACES AND CITY REQUIREMENTS OF 1.5 PARKING SPACES PER CONDO.
THERE WAS AN IMPLICATION THAT THAT WOULD ALL BE TAKEN CARE OF IN THE SECOND PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH NEVER HAPPENED BECAUSE THE CONTRACTOR WENT BANKRUPT, THE BANK TOOK IT OVER AND NOW THAT PROPERTY IS BEING BUILT UP AS THIS NEW DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION, DIFFERENT PROPERTY AND WHETHER THE TWO PROPERTIES GO TOGETHER AND WHETHER IN FACT THE PARKING WE THOUGHT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE TAKEN CARE OF IN THE SECOND PHASE WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF AND WHETHER THE DEVELOPER HAS RESPONSIBILITY.
WE HAD NOT YET BEEN ABLE TO FIND IN OUR RECORDS, EVIDENCE THAT THAT AGREEMENT WAS MADE OR WHAT HAPPENED AND I'VE HEARD, AND I HAVE NO IDEA IF THIS IS TRUE, THAT THERE WAS A FLOOD IN RECORDS OR SOMETHING THAT THOSE RECORDS MAY STILL EXIST IN VERY WET BOXES BUT HAVEN'T BEEN PUT ON COMPUTER FORM.
I HAVE NO IDEA. I'M ASKING THE QUESTION, CAN YOU HELP US IN OUR DUE DILIGENCE IN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE CAN ASK FOR AS THE PHASE 1 OF THAT PROPERTY IN TERMS OF WHEN EXPECTATIONS MIGHT BE FOR WHAT WE CAN ASK OF THE DEVELOPER IN OUR MEETING ON AUGUST 3RD.
>> ON AUGUST 3RD, OUR MEETING WILL BASICALLY JUST BE TO DEAL WITH WHETHER OR NOT WE GRANT TO THE NEW DEVELOPER A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, A PUD.
THAT ESSENTIALLY IS AN OVERLAY ON THE ZONING USE OF THE LAND AS IT STANDS NOW.
WHAT WE'LL BE TAKING UP IS WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN BUILD A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN THEY NORMALLY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BUILD AND IF THEY CAN PUT MORE, I HATE TO SAY MORE DENSE, BUT CAN THEY PUT MORE FLOORS PER AREA, OR FLOOR AREA PER, FAR, FLOOR AREA RATIO, WHETHER THEY CAN BE MORE DENSE ON THAT.
OUR PURVIEW WILL NOT BE TO LOOK INTO WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO ALLOW MORE PARKING.
CURRENTLY, THE PARKING ON THE PLAN, ACCORDING TO OUR RECORDS HERE, SAYS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE 1.5 TO TWO SPACES PER THE NEW UNIT.
IT DOESN'T ADDRESS THAT AT ALL AND AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, THAT WOULDN'T REALLY BE IN OUR PURVIEW; WOULD IT, CATHERINE?
>> I DON'T THINK SO, BUT STAFF CAN CERTAINLY DO SOME RESEARCH AND SEE IF WE CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU.
>> WE'RE NOT TRYING TO ARGUE AGAINST THE COMPLEX OF THE POINT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
>> IT'S MORE A QUESTION OF WHAT WAS PERMITTED AND WHAT WERE THE AGREEMENTS WITH THE AREA PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS OF THAT TIME REGARDING TO NEW PROPERTY AND DOES THAT CARRY THROUGH GIVEN THERE WAS A BANKRUPTCY OR NOT.
BUT IF YOU'RE NOT THE RIGHT PEOPLE TO ASK, I UNDERSTAND THAT IF YOU CAN TELL US WHERE TO GO.
>> NO, I THINK THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT PERSON RIGHT HERE AS FAR AS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S STAFF.
>> YES. STAFF CAN HELP YOU WITH THAT.
>> THIS IS CATHERINE GORMAN AND THE PERSON WHO'S HANDLING THIS CASE IS, IT'S LISTED ONLINE BUT IT'S ADRIEL MONTALVAN.
HE'S ALSO VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS.
>> OKAY. WE'LL CLOSE THE REOPENED PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:28 PM UNLESS THERE'S SOMEBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK.
NO? OKAY. SO WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
[01:55:01]
WE HAVE A SECOND FOR DEFERRAL.WE'VE COMPLETED OUR DISCUSSION.
NOW, WE'LL CALL THE QUESTION, PLEASE, SIR.
>> ALL IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSES.
>>THANK YOU. WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING ALL OF YOU ALL ON AUGUST THE 3RD. THANK YOU.
>> NOW, WE HAVE DISCUSSION ITEM 9 A.
[9.A. Update On The Status Of: 20P-046 (Alley Adjacent To 1102 Seawall; 1128 Seawall; 1101, 1111, 1113, And 1115 Avenue M ½; And 1410 12th Street)]
>> WELL, I JUST WANTED TO GIVE THE COMMISSION AN UPDATE ON THIS ABANDONMENT REQUEST.
>> IT WAS HEARD BY THE COMMISSION, LATE LAST YEAR OR EARLIER THIS YEAR AND WAS APPROVED FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF THIS ALLEY THAT RUNS THROUGH AN UNDEVELOPED CLOTH CLOSE TO THE CITY WALL.
IT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, WE WERE GOING THROUGH PROCESS, WE GOT TO THE POINT OF THE APPRAISAL.
AT THAT POINT, THE APPLICANT AND THE OWNER DECIDED THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PURSUE IT ANY LONGER.
WE'RE BRINGING IT BACK TO COUNCIL IN ORDER TO OFFICIALLY REVOKE IT SO THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REQUEST.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ALL WERE AWARE OF THAT IN CASE YOU SAW IT ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA, [INAUDIBLE].
THE APPLICANT AND THE OWNERS AREN'T INTERESTED IN BUYING IT ANYMORE, SO WE'LL REVOKE THE ABANDONMENT APPROVAL AND IT WILL REMAIN AUTHENTICALLY.
>> MUCH BETTER FOR [LAUGHTER].
>>ANYTHING ELSE, COMMISSIONERS? ANY OTHER MATTERS?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER LISTOWSKI, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD BEFORE WE ADJOURN OUR MEETING?
>> YEAH. JUST ONE THING ABOUT THE WORKSHOP TODAY.
YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT WHERE WE GO FROM HERE ON THE CONCESSION ORNAMENTS? I'M THINKING THAT STAFF WOULD BRING SOMETHING BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON A REVISED ORDINANCE ON SOME THINGS THAT WE DISCUSSED.
THEN WE MOVE ON TO COUNCIL FROM THERE IS THAT WHAT THAT IS SO UNDERSTANDING.
>> YOU ASK STAFF AND NOW I'M GOING TO CHIME IN LIKE I'M STAFF.
BUT WHAT I WAS ENVISIONING, [NOISE] WAS THAT WE WOULD GET SOME DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL BEFORE WE JUST LAY DOWN A BUNCH OF TIME ON THIS.
BUT COME ON, KIM, YOU WERE THE ONE WHO WAS ADDRESSED. [LAUGHTER]
>> I GUESS SO, STAFF IS GOOD EITHER WAY.
ORIGINALLY, WE HAD A DIRECTIVE FROM COUNCIL THAT SAID TAKE IT TO PLANNING COMMISSION, THAT'S LOOKING AT IT, SEEING WHAT IT CONSISTS OF, WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
START HOLDING HEARINGS, THOSE THINGS WHICH WE'RE STARTING INTO.
I AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN THAT THEY PROBABLY OUGHT TO GO HERE FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL.
THAT'S MY PERSONAL FEELING IN THE DIRECTION THAT I UNDERSTOOD FROM COUNCIL AT THAT TIME.
>> OKAY, BECAUSE JOHN PAUL I'M SEEING THIS AS A COMPLETE BIG OVERHAUL WITH DEFINITIONS, TERMINOLOGY, FEE STRUCTURE.
DIDN'T YOU HEAR ALL OF THAT TODAY AND HAVE IT.
WE BASICALLY HEARD THAT SAME THING FROM DANIEL FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE STANDPOINT THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS TO BE ADDRESSED IN HERE.
I'M GOING TO SAY A REALLY BAD WORD HERE, I DON'T WANT US TO GO THE WAY OF GET READY FOR IT, THE GOLF CARTS.
[LAUGHTER] IF SOMETHING'S GOING TO COME OUT OF THIS [LAUGHTER] COMMISSION, I WANT IT TO BE SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY THOUGHT OUT AND THAT WE'VE RUN THROUGH A LOT OF CHANNELS BEFORE WE BRING IT TO COUNCIL.
IT'S A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT OF TIME SO IF YOU'RE CONFIDENT AND IT'S NOT JUST OUR TIME, IT'S A LOT OF STAFF TIME.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE SAYING, "YEAH, COUNCIL WANTS TO SEE THIS."
>> ABSOLUTELY, I MEAN, THAT IS DEFINITELY THE DIRECTION OF THE COUNCIL FOR MY UNDERSTANDING.
THAT'S WHY WE SEND IT BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND I THINK THAT THE STAFF IS WHO WRITES THESE ORDINANCES AND THEN IT GETS WORKED THROUGH THE COMMITTEES AND THEN ON THE COUNCIL AND THAT GETS FINALLY FOR [INAUDIBLE] OR SETBACK.
I WOULD DEFINITELY LIKE TO SEE STAFF REALLY WORK ON THIS ORDINANCE.
I AGREE WITH YOU I THINK IT IS A MAJOR OVERHAUL.
[02:00:02]
I HOPE [INAUDIBLE] ALSO AS A GOLF CART [LAUGHTER] BUT I SEE IT THE SAME WAY.I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A LOT OF ADJUSTMENTS IN THERE AND BASICALLY, A NEW ORDINANCE BROUGHT FORWARD TO ADDRESS ALL OF THE CONCERNS THAT WERE HEARD TODAY.
[OVERLAPPING] I DON'T WANT IT TO GET PUT ON THE BACK-BURNER, BUT I KNOW THIS MIGHT NOT BE THE MOST PRESSING ISSUE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
WHAT TIMELINE DO YOU THINK WE COULD SEE THIS BACK IN FRONT OF PLANNING COMMISSION THEN?
>> MY THOUGHT ON THIS IS THAT WE WOULD TAKE A SHOT GIVEN WHAT WE'VE HEARD BEFORE FROM SOME OF THE COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN SPECIFICALLY TODAY AND WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THIS CLIENTELE, IN PARTICULAR.
THAT WE WOULD TAKE A SHOT AT A DRAFT ORDINATES, BRING IT BACK IF IT NEEDS TO BE TWEAKED, IF WE HAVEN'T THOUGHT OF SOMETHING, IF THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED WE CAN ADD IT IN AS YOU GUYS SEE FIT.
THEN, ONCE YOU GUYS ARE COMFORTABLE WITH WHERE IT IS, TAKE IT TO COUNCIL, IF COUNCIL SAYS, "ALL RIGHT, WE SEE IT AND WE THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED X, Y, OR Z." THEN WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK AND LOOK AT IT AGAIN.
>> WHAT WOULD THE TIME PERIOD BE?
>> OH, I'M SORRY. THE QUESTION, YEAH, I THINK PROBABLY A GOOD MONTH OR SO FOR US TO DRAFT SOMETHING. [NOISE].
>> EITHER THE END, LAST MEETING IN AUGUST OR PERHAPS POTENTIALLY THE FIRST MEETING IN SEPTEMBER.
I THINK WE CAN HAVE SOMETHING IN DRAFT FORMAT.
>> THEN WE'D WORKSHOP IT AGAIN? JOHN PAUL, WOULD WE HAVE SOMETHING THERE I KNOW CAROL WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING.
THERE HAS BEEN A BIG CHANGE ON COUNCIL MAKEUP SINCE COUNCIL PUNTED THIS DOWN TO US AND THAT GIVES YOU NO CONCERN?
>> I DON'T THINK SO. I'M HAPPY TO HAVE SPENT FIVE OR 10 MINUTES AT A WORKSHOP AT ONE OF OUR COUNCIL MEETINGS AND SAYING, "HEY THIS IS THE DIRECTION WE'RE GOING", AND GET THE COUNCIL'S FEELING ON IT.
BUT I REALLY THINK THAT IT'S AN ORDINANCE THAT PROBABLY WE STILL WANT TO REVISE AND UPDATE AND SO I FEEL PRETTY CONFIDENT GOING FORWARD WITH IT.
BUT AGAIN, I'M HAPPY TO SPEND FIVE OR 10 MINUTES ON A WORKSHOP ON THE COUNCIL LEVEL AND SAY, "HEY, THIS IS THE DIRECTION WE'RE GOING AND YOU SURE WANT TO PURSUE THIS."
>> MAYBE THOSE TWO THINGS CAN HAPPEN AT THE SAME TIME IF JOHN PAUL IS CONFIDENT THAT THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
MAYBE Y'ALL COULD GET STARTED ON IT, BUT YOU COULD JUST RUN THAT TRAP TO LET THEM KNOW IT'S IN PROCESS.
I PERSONALLY THINK THAT WOULD BE GREAT IF YOU DON'T MIND.
>> ABSOLUTELY, I CAN GET IT ON, OF COURSE, THIS THURSDAY'S MEETING BUT I'M HAPPY TO JUST GIVE THEM A PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE AT OUR NEXT MEETING, DURING WORKSHOP AND GET SOME DIRECTION.
>> PERFECT, THANK YOU. NOW, COMMISSIONER HOLLAWAY, AND YOU'VE WAITED SO PATIENTLY.
>> I KNOW, [LAUGHTER] I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK IF HOW DO YOU WANT OUR INPUT, I HEARD A LOT TODAY.
I HAVE A LOT OF COMMENTS, I HAVE SUGGESTIONS I'VE ALREADY BEEN READING THE ORDINANCE AND MAKING TRACK CHANGES.
>> DO YOU WANT US TO INDIVIDUALLY SUBMIT THOSE TO YOU OR COULD WE WORKSHOP THIS ONE MORE TIME BEFORE WE SET YOU GUYS LOOSE ON SOMETHING.
>> I THINK THAT MIGHT BE PRODUCTIVE.
>> WE CERTAINLY COULD. YEAH, WE CERTAINLY COULD WORKSHOP IT SO THAT YOU CAN CONVEY IT TO US BASED ON PROBABLY ON WHAT YOU HEARD TODAY. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE WERE JUST BASICALLY LET THEM TALK.
>> JUST HOLDING OUR COMMENTS SO WE COULD HEAR THEM. [OVERLAPPING] [NOISE]
>> THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE MEETING TODAY.
>> SOME PEOPLE DID NOT HOLD THEIR COMMENT FOR SURE. [LAUGHTER]
>> I DID TOO, BUT ANYWAY I'M JUST ASKING.
>> TO THAT POINT IF I CAN JUST ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE, IF YOU WANT TO SEND YOUR INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS IN BECAUSE I FIND THAT WHEN YOU SEND THOSE INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS IN, STAFF OR WHOEVER CAN ACTUALLY CONCISE IT AND SAY, "THESE ARE SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE HAD AND IT MAKES THE WORKSHOP EVEN FLOW BETTER."
>> I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE'VE GOT A FIVE-PAGE LIST.
>> ABOUT THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE, WE'VE GOT IT ON RECORD.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE LACKING FOR WHAT CONCERNS WERE, BUT HOW YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE TO APPLY THOSE CONCERNS IS REALLY WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU TO DRAFT SOMETHING.
[02:05:04]
>> THAT SHOULD BE SENT TO DANIEL?
>> [OVERLAPPING] I GUESS GIVEN THAT ADDED STEP INTO THIS, WHICH I THINK IS A GOOD ONE.
WE MIGHT HAVE TO REVISE OUR SCHEDULE.
WE MOVE IT TO MAYBE LATER SEPTEMBER OR SO.
>> LET'S ALL SHOOT TO HAVE COMMENTS TO DANIEL IN A WEEK, 8-10 DAYS.
WHATEVER COMMENTS YOU HAVE, THINGS, JUST BULLET POINTS THAT YOU FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT.
THEN WE'LL WORKSHOP IT AGAIN, PROBABLY THIS END OF AUGUST.
>> THE END OF AUGUST WE'LL WORKSHOP IT AGAIN AND THEN MAYBE WE'LL GET PUSHED TO THE END OF SEPTEMBER.
>> SO THAT WHAT THEY'D DONE END UP LIKE DUN, DUN, DUN. [LAUGHTER]
>> ANYTHING ELSE? ANYONE? ALL RIGHT, NOTHING ELSE AND WE'LL ADJOURN OUR MEETING AT 5:39.
[NOISE]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.