[00:00:05] >> WELCOME EVERYBODY TO THE TUESDAY, [1. Call Meeting To Order] AUGUST 3RD, REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IT'S OUR FIRST TIME BACK IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS IN ALMOST 15 MONTHS. WELCOME BACK EVERYBODY. IF YOU ALL CAN HEAR ME OKAY, I'M GOING TO KEEP MY MASK ON. THE OTHER THING IS THAT WE HAVE ONE, TWO, THREE NEW COMMISSIONERS SINCE THE LAST TIME WE WERE IN HERE. YOU PROBABLY WON'T WANT TO DO IT, [NOISE] BUT YOU ALL NEED TO TURN YOUR MICS ON WHEN YOU SPEAK, BECAUSE REMEMBER THIS IS BEING RECORDED. IT'S THIS LITTLE BUTTON IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT-HAND CORNER, JUST THE OFF COMES TO ON. EVERY TIME YOU WANT TO SPEAK, PLEASE JUST PUNCH THAT. WE WILL CONTINUE TO RECOGNIZE EVERYBODY BY RAISING YOUR HANDS, PLEASE. PATRICK, I GUESS SINCE YOU CAN SEE EVERYBODY IN PERSON, [2. Attendance] WE DON'T NEED TO TAKE ATTENDANCE. >> BEFORE WE WENT ON OUR 15 MONTH HIATUS, WE DID NOT TYPICALLY TAKE ATTENDANCE. IT WAS TAKEN ON THE SIGN-IN SHEET. >> OKAY GREAT. >> WE'LL JUST NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT CAROL HOLLOWAY IS PARTICIPATING VIA ZOOM. >> HELLO CAROL. [LAUGHTER] COMMISSIONERS, DOES ANYONE HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST TODAY? SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE ON. MS. GORMAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS ANYTHING ON THE MEETING FORMAT PLEASE? [4. Meeting Format (Staff)] >> WE ARE, AS THE CHAIRPERSON HAS NOTED BACK IN CHAMBERS, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A LONG TIME, SO THAT IS EXCITING MOVE. I WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO KNOW THAT THE SUSPENSION OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT THAT ALLOWS US TO DO HYBRID MEETINGS IS ABOUT TO EXPIRE. WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO HYBRID MEETINGS FOR THE SECOND MEETING IN AUGUST, AND THEN AFTER THAT, IT WILL BE SUSPENDED. WE'LL BE BACK TO ALL IN-PERSON MEETINGS. NOW THAT WE'RE BACK, MOSTLY IN-PERSON WILL BE DOING VOICE [NOISE] VOTE. INSTEAD OF ROLL CALL, THE CHAIRPERSON WILL ASK FOR ALL THOSE IN FAVOR TO RAISE THEIR HAND, ALL THOSE IN OPPOSITION, SAME SIGN, AND WE'LL BE TRACKING THE VOTES THAT WAY. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH RUSTY THAT MEANS YOUR WORLD TRAVELS COME TO AN END. [LAUGHTER]. >>I KNOW IT. >> NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT YOU CAN STILL PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY. IT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE. WE NEED MORE PREPARATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY AFTER SEPTEMBER. WE'LL NEED TO KNOW THAT BEFORE WE POST THE AGENDA AND YOUR LOCATION HAS TO BE POSTED ON THE AGENDA. I THINK THERE ARE SOME OTHER REQUIREMENTS LIKE STILL A MAJORITY OF MEMBERS NEED TO BE PRESENT AND THE CHAIRPERSON, NEEDS TO BE PRESENT OR IN A PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PLACE. >> YES. >> OKAY, GREAT. >> NOT SO MUCH RUSTY [LAUGHTER]. >> IF THERE'S A NEED IN THE FUTURE TO PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY, PLEASE LET MYSELF OR PATRICK KNOW, PROBABLY ABOUT A WEEK IN ADVANCE SO THAT WE CAN PREPARE THE AGENDA. >> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY CHANGES, ADDITIONS, [5. Approval Of Minutes] CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF JULY 20TH? I THINK NONE WILL ACCEPT THOSE MINUTES AS WRITTEN. NEXT ON OUR AGENDA WE HAVE, ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AGENDA ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS OR NON-AGENDA ITEMS? WHERE PUBLIC SPEAKING FOR ANY AGENDA ITEMS WILL BE HELD AT THE TIME THAT WE HEAR THAT AGENDA ITEM. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON A NON-AGENDA ITEM OR AN ITEM WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING? I SEE NONE, WE'LL MOVE ON. ALSO, I'LL MAKE A NOTE THERE THAT WE HAVE THREE WAYS TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY. CONTINUING. ONE IS BY SUBMITTING THE ITEMS IN WRITING BEFOREHAND, AND THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ALL RECEIVED ALL THOSE WRITTEN COMMENTS BY E-MAIL BEFORE NOON TODAY, AND WE'VE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THEM. TWO IS IN-PERSON, AND THREE IS ON ZOOM. >> IF I COULD JUST NOTE, ANYBODY WHO'S PARTICIPATING ON ZOOM, IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT FOR A NON-AGENDA ITEM, IF YOU COULD USE THE RAISE YOUR HAND FUNCTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN? [NOISE] >> I THINK NONE. >> THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR OLD BUSINESS AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC HEARINGS. [7.A. 21P-015 (21227 Gulf Dr.) Request For A Beachfront Construction Certificate/Dune Protection Permit In Order To Construct A Single-Family Dwelling. The Legal Description Of The Property Is Lot 17, Sea Isle, Section 22, A Subdivision In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Coastal Cottages - Dennie Teer Property Owner: Denver Roopchand] WE'LL START WITH 21P-015. PLEASE VIRGIE ARE YOU THERE? >> JUST A SECOND I GET THE VOLUME UP. [00:05:54] >> OKAY, GO AHEAD. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> IT'LL TAKE ME JUST ONE MINUTE TO GET THE POWERPOINT UP. [INAUDIBLE]. >> [LAUGHTER] I'M VERY SLOW TODAY. THE SLIDES ARE ON THE SCREEN. >> [INAUDIBLE] . >> THANK YOU, VERGIE. DOES ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF? I DO, VERGIE, AND THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION THAT'S BETTER ASKED OF THE APPLICANT THAN YOU. THE WASH OUT THAT'S SHOWN ON THE NEW SURVEY, DO YOU KNOW IF THAT'S ACTUALLY A WASHOUT THAT WOULD HAVE TO DO WITH DRAINAGE OF THE PROPERTY OR IS IT A WASHOUT THAT BASICALLY HAS OCCURRED BECAUSE THERE'S A FOOTPATH THAT'S BEEN WORN IN THERE FROM USE? >> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. [INAUDIBLE] >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VERGIE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, COMMISSIONERS? [00:10:02] BEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:38 AND WE'LL ASK THE APPLICANT, IS THE APPLICANT IN THE AUDIENCE? PLEASE COME FORWARD. IF YOU'LL STATE YOUR NAME, HOPEFULLY THERE'S A SIGN-UP SHEET RIGHT THERE, IF YOU'LL SIGN IN AND THEN STATE YOUR NAME. >> I'M CONNIE TEAR. DO WE NEED TO PUT ADDRESS IN HERE TOO? >> YES, PLEASE. IF YOU DON'T MIND. YOU DON'T NEED TO SAY IT THOUGH. [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU, MS. TEAR, AND JUST ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO SAY ABOUT THE PROJECT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS, PLEASE? >> YEAH, JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS. THIS WAS ACTUALLY THE FIRST ONE THAT WE'VE DONE, IN A BEACH FRONT THING. WE'VE HAD SOME OTHERS THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH AND IT'S BEEN FINE. THERE WAS AN ERROR ON THE SURVEY. THE ACTUAL SURVEY HAD DUPLICATED NUMBERS, HUMANS, THEY MAKE MISTAKES SO THEY FIXED ALL OF THAT. I ACTUALLY WAS ON THE PHONE WITH THE ENGINEER, AND FROM WHAT I COULD SEE, WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS HE WAS TAKING THE MEASUREMENTS FROM THOSE VEGETATIVE LINES OR THE MAIN LOW TIDE, ETC., AND PUTTING THAT TO THE BUILDING LINE. I'M GOING TO BE REALLY HONEST. YOU GUYS DEAL WITH THIS EVERY DAY, EVERY WEEK, WHATEVER IT IS, I DON'T, AND SO THERE MAY BE SOMETHING THAT I'M MISSING. I ACTUALLY SAT ON THE PHONE WITH BRANDON, AND HE WALKED ME THROUGH A BUNCH WHICH WAS SUPER HELPFUL. BUT THEY'RE SAYING IT'S INCONSISTENT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS. I CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT THE INCONSISTENCY IS BECAUSE WE WENT THROUGH IT STEP-BY-STEP AND I SAT THERE WITH THEM, SO I'M RATHER CONFUSED ON WHAT THAT PART IS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S BEING INCONSISTENT. IF HE'S MEASURING FROM THAT LINE TO THE BACK OF THE BUILDING, THEN HOW ARE WE INCONSISTENT? THAT'S MY QUESTION. >> YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BOB? >> ONE OF THE CONFUSING THINGS I GUESS IS, THERE'S TWO PLANS AND THEY SHOW THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT IN TWO DIFFERENT WAYS. ONE SHOWS THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT ACCORDING TO THE ORIGINAL 20 FOOT SETBACK, AND ONE SHOWS THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT GOING BEYOND THE 20 FOOT SETBACK, WHICH INDICATES WHAT'S CALLED A VARIANCE TO THE SETBACK, BUT THERE'S NO DIMENSION ON THAT VARIANCE, SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NEW SETBACK IS. APPARENTLY THERE WAS A VARIANCE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO BUILD CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS. >> YEAH, THERE WAS. THE HOMEOWNER ACTUALLY TALKED TO THE HOA. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND THOUGH, WHAT HE ENDED UP DOING BECAUSE PART OF IT WAS WITH THE AC PAD. WHAT THEY ENDED UP DOING WAS THEY ENDED UP REDUCING THAT TO KEEP IT WITHIN THE BUILDING LINE, AND SO THE NEW SURVEY HAS THE AC PAD AND ALL OF IT, IT'S REALLY WITHIN THAT PERIMETER. WE ENDED UP CHANGING THAT AND PUTTING IT BACK WITHIN THE BUILDING LINES. >> THAT'S OKAY, BUT THE THING IS, ALL OF THESE DIMENSIONS, THE LANDWARD FROM VEGETATIVE LINE, THE LANDWARD FROM NORTH CRITICAL AREA, AND ALL OF THOSE DIMENSIONS ARE A STRING OF DIMENSIONS THAT ARE STRONG ALL THE WAY FROM THE VEGETATIVE LINE, ALL THE WAY TO THE PROPERTY LINE. THEN FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, THERE IS THAT 20 FOOT SETBACK THAT GOES FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO YOUR BUILDING LINE. THAT'S HOW WE DETERMINE THAT THE DIMENSIONS OF ALL OF THESE CRITICAL LOCATIONS. BUT SINCE THAT DIMENSION FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE BUILDING LINE HAS NOW CHANGED BECAUSE OF THAT VARIANCE, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS. IT'S NO LONGER 20 FEET, IT'S SOMETHING ELSE, LIKE MAYBE 15 FEET WE DON'T KNOW. >> BECAUSE THE BACK LINE WHERE THE BUILDING LINE, THAT NEVER CHANGED, WE WERE STAYING AT THE 20 FEET RIGHT THERE. >> YOUR ACTUAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS STILL 20 OF THE PROPERTY LINE? >> YES, SIR. >> I SEE, BECAUSE [OVERLAPPING] >> WE NEVER CHANGED THAT. >> OKAY. THAT'S WHERE THIS PLAN IS MISLEADING BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SHOW THAT. >> IS EVERYBODY ABLE TO HEAR ME? >> YEAH. >> I'LL SAY ON A STAFF SIDE, PERHAPS WE COULD HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB OF DELINEATING BETWEEN WHAT WAS YOUR ORIGINAL MISSION THAT YOU ALL HAD PREFERRED AND THE NEW INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED. THIS FIRST SURVEY THAT MS. TEAR PROVIDED, DOES SHOW THE 20-FOOT BACK AS COMMISSIONER BROWN IS BRINGING UP, [00:15:05] AND THAT IS THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THIS LAW. YOU ALSO BROUGHT UP THE MEASUREMENT TO THE LINE, AS YOU MENTIONED, I THINK IN AN EARLIER E-MAIL, COMMISSIONER BROWN, IF THE MEASUREMENTS THAT THEY PROVIDED IN THIS WASH-OUT ADHERE TO THE PROPERTY LINE, WE CAN ASSUME THAT IT'S ACTUALLY ALL 20-FOOT OR CONSERVATIVE THAN WHAT'S BEING REPORTED ON THIS SURVEY. JUST IN THE SAKE OF BEING CLEAR AND CONSISTENT. I APOLOGIZE THAT WE DIDN'T MAKE SURE THAT THE CALL-OUT ITSELF WAS ACCURATE. BUT I WANTED TO STEP EVERYBODY THROUGH WHAT I HAD SEEN IN THIS SURVEY IN TERMS OF IF THE DISTANCES PROVIDED ARE ACCEPTABLE AND THEY ARE ACTUALLY 20 FEET CONSERVATIVE OF REALITY. I STATE THAT SIMPLY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MAKING A CLEAR DECISION ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS APPLICANT, WHO, AS SHE MENTIONED, HAS WORKED WITH STAFF AND HAS GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF GETTING TO THEM. >> THAT HELPS I THINK. I GUESS WE COULD SIMPLY SAY IS THAT ALL OF THESE CRITICAL DIMENSIONS ON THE SITE PLAN AND THE CIVIL PLAN, IF YOU ADD 20 FEET TO THOSE, THEN YOU'VE GOT THE RIGHT NUMBER. >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> OKAY, GOOD. THANK YOU. >> IF I MAY, [INAUDIBLE] >> THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU VERGIE. WHAT [OVERLAPPING] IS CALLED OUT AS 18 FEET, THREE INCHES LANDWARD FROM THE NORTH CRITICAL AREA, WHAT THEY'RE REFERRING TO IS THERE'S AN 18-FOOT, THREE-INCH LINE DISTANCE BETWEEN WHAT IS CALLED OUT AS THE 25-FOOT FROM THE NORTH DUNTOW THROUGH THAT BUILDING LINE THAT THEY REMEMBER. AGAIN, I'M SORRY TO HAVE ALLOWED THE CONFUSION SURROUNDING THAT CALL OUT, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I STEP THE COMMISSIONERS THROUGH IT, SO THAT WE WERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANTS THE BEST WAY. >> COMMISSIONERS, ARE WE ALL CLEAR ON THAT? AS MY MOTHER WOULD SAY, CLEAR AS MUD. >> YEAH. >> [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONERS? I DO HAVE ONE JUST TO CLARIFY ABOUT THE WASHOUT. IS IT A FOOTPATH? IS IT A DRAINAGE ISSUE? I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO IMPEDE DRAINAGE FOR THE SUBDIVISION FOR THE AREA. >> YEAH. I THINK WHAT VERGIE SAID ON THAT WAS EXACTLY RIGHT. [NOISE] I THINK YOU'VE GOT A COMBINATION OF TWO DIFFERENT THINGS GOING ON. WE REALLY HAD NO PLAN ON DOING ANYTHING WITH THAT BECAUSE IT REALLY DOESN'T AFFECT WHERE THE BUILDING IS GOING TO BE. NOW THE HOMEOWNER, IF HE CHOOSES, WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT IT'S VEGETATIVE MATERIAL THAT MATCHES, BUT IT DIDN'T IMPACT ANYTHING WITHIN THE BUILD SO WE REALLY WEREN'T GOING TO INTERFERE WITH THAT. >> THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE COMMISSIONERS, FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON 21P-015? SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:48. THANK YOU. >> LET ME ASK IF ANYBODY WHO'S PARTICIPATING ON ZOOM WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS CASE? SEEING NONE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:48 PM, AND I'LL BRING IT BACK FOR A MOTION. VICE-CHAIR BROWN. >> I MOVE WE APPROVE 21P-015 AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PENA AND COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI. WE HAVE A MOTION. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY. ARE YOU HOLDING YOUR HAND UP FOR A DISCUSSION? [NOISE] >> YES, I AM. >> OKAY. HANG ON JUST ONE SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION. HOLD ON JUST A SECOND, CAROL. [00:20:03] WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF 21P-015 WITH THE CONDITIONS AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. NOW, WE WILL OPEN DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY. >> OKAY, I'M SORRY. ARE PARTS OF THOSE CONDITIONS THE CORRECTIONS TO THE SITE PLAN? [NOISE] >> HANG ON, I DON'T THINK SO. DONNA, DO WE NEED A CORRECTION OF THE SITE PLAN OR IS A VERBAL CORRECTION ON THE RECORD SUFFICIENT? [BACKGROUND] THERE'S A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, I'M ASSUMING FROM YOU, COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? >> YES, I WOULD. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD [INAUDIBLE]. >> THANK YOU. WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS ARE ADDED. IS THERE OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CALL THE VOTE. ACTUALLY, I SUPPOSE WE'LL HAVE THE VOTE. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A SHOW OF HANDS. PATRICK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [NOISE] WE'LL MOVE ON NOW TO CASE 21P-037, [NOISE] PLEASE. [7.B. 21P-037 (10327 San Luis Pass Road / FM 3005) Request For A Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District For A High-Rise Condominium Development In The Resort/Recreation, Height And Density Development Zone, Zone-5 (RES/REC-HDDZ-5) Zoning District. Property Is Legally Described As Diamond Beach Condos (2010), Future Phase 2 (0-2), 2.865 Acres, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Steve Biegel, Place Designers, Inc. Property Owner: DB Project, Ltd.] >> BEFORE WE GET STARTED, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF STATEMENTS. LAST TIME THE COMMISSION HEARD THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT WAS INFORMED THAT THE CASE WILL BE DEFERRED UNTIL TODAY. THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT WAS NOT PRESENT ON THE MEETING. THEY ARE HERE TODAY AND ARE ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE. ALSO, I LIKE TO NOTE THAT THIS IS A PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT REQUEST, IT IS NOT A BEACH RUN REVIEW, NOR A REVIEW OF THE HEIGHT AND DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE. IT IS STRICTLY A PED REQUEST, AND ITEMS NOW LISTED UNDER THIS REQUEST ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ITEMS THAT WILL COMPLY WITH THE CODE, AND STAFF WILL CHECK AND VERIFY THOSE AT THE PERMITTING STAGE. >> THANK YOU ADRIEL. MAY I SAY SOMETHING REAL QUICKLY? BECAUSE WE HAVE PEOPLE HERE AT THE MEETING WHO MAYBE HAVEN'T BEEN TO A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BEFORE, SO MAY I JUST TAKE A SECOND TO EXPLAIN OUR PROCEDURE FOR THIS ITEM, HOW WE'LL HEAR THIS ITEM? >> YES, MA'AM. >> FIRST OF ALL, FOR THOSE OF YOU IN THE AUDIENCE, WE'LL HAVE OUR STAFF REPORT, AND THEN WE WILL ALLOW THE COMMISSIONERS AS YOU JUST SAW IN THE PREVIOUS CASE, TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF. AFTER THAT, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING BEGINNING WITH THE APPLICANT STATEMENT. WE'LL ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT THAT THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE, THEN WE'LL LET OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING SPEAK. THOSE PEOPLE WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES EACH TO SPEAK. WE ASK YOU TO STATE YOUR NAME, WRITE YOUR INFORMATION ON THE PAGE. JUST AS A NOTE, THAT'S NOT AN EXCHANGE WITH THE COMMISSION, IT'S SIMPLY YOU MAKING A STATEMENT. FINALLY THEN, AS YOU SAW IN THE LAST CASE, WE'LL HAVE A MOTION, AND A SECOND, AND A DISCUSSION JUST TO CLARIFY HOW THE PROCEDURE WORKS FOR AN ITEM LIKE THIS. THANK YOU ADRIEL, I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING YOU. [NOISE] >> FANTASTIC. 21P037, 10327, SAYING WE PASS FOR [INAUDIBLE] FM3005. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OR PUD. THERE WERE 123 NOTICES SENT, 11 OF THOSE RETURNED, TWO IN FAVOR AND NINE OPPOSED. PLEASE KNOW THE CITY DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION RESPONSES ON PAGE 1 OF YOUR REPORT. [NOISE] THIS IS A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY [NOISE] TO CONSTRUCT A HIGH-RISE CONDOMINIUM AND ASSOCIATED AMENITIES, AND THE RESORT RECREATION WITH THE HEIGHT AND DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE, ZONE 5, ZONING DISTRICT. HIGH-RISE DEVELOPMENT IS CONSIDERED A CONDOMINIUM LAND USE, AND IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT AND THE RESORT RECREATION AND ZONING DISTRICT. THE REQUESTS FOR POSTERS TO DBA FROM SOME OF THE HDDZ REQUIREMENTS, AND THOSE INCLUDE HEIGHT, NUMBER OF HABITABLE FLOORS, FLOOR AREA RATIO, REQUIRED PERCENTAGE OF THE BILL TO LINE, WALL PLANE ARTICULATION AND COMMUNITY BENEFIT. I'D ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT ALTHOUGH NOT INCLUDED IN THE BODY OF THE REPORT, THE APPLICANT IS ALSO ASKING TO DEVIATE FROM THE 15 PERCENT REQUIREMENT OF THE IMPROVED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE. COMPATIBILITY WITH BASE AND SURROUNDING ZONING LAND USES, STAFF FINDS THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES [00:25:04] DUE TO THE FACT THAT THERE ARE SIMILAR EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE EAST, WEST, AND NORTH OF THE PROPERTY. PLEASE NOTE, THE ABILITY OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE USED ON THEIR CURRENT ZONING, [NOISE] AS WELL AS THE PUD DETAILS ON PAGES 2 THROUGH 5 OF [NOISE] YOUR STAFF REPORT. STAFF RECOMMENDS CASE 21P-037 BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, AND THOSE CONDITIONS ARE LISTED AS SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 1 THROUGH 5, AND STANDARD CONDITIONS 6 THROUGH 8. NOW WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS. THIS IS THE AERIAL MAP OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. [NOISE] THE SUBJECT SITE, SURROUNDING THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, [NOISE] SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST, AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ADRIEL. COMMISSIONERS, BEFORE WE START STAFF QUESTIONS, I WILL JUST REMIND EVERYONE AGAIN, THAT THIS IS A REVIEW OF THE PUD ONLY. [NOISE] WE'RE NOT REVIEWING ANY OTHER VARIANCES, AND WE'RE NOT REVIEWING THE BEACH FRONT CONSTRUCTION ASPECT OF THIS PROJECT AT THIS TIME. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. WHO HAS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> I HAVE A QUESTION. [OVERLAPPING]. >> THANK YOU. CAROL, I'M GOING TO START WITH COMMISSIONER EDWARDS, AND THEN WE'LL COME TO YOU AND THEN BOB AFTER THAT, PLEASE. >> CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE 15 PERCENT REQUIREMENT, THAT EXTRA THAT YOU SAID THEY WANT THAT'S NOT ON THE REPORT? >> [NOISE] IT IS PERTAINING TO THE IMPROVED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE. [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S IN THE A-Z GUIDELINES FOR A MID-RISE DEVELOPMENT. >> THAT'S 15 PERCENT? >> ONE, FIVE, YES. >> YES. IT'S A ONE, FIVE, NOT A FIVE, ZERO. COMMISSIONER EDWARDS, MASKS MUFFLE THINGS [OVERLAPPING] SO I WASN'T SURE [OVERLAPPING] THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> [OVERLAPPING] WHAT WAS HER QUESTION? >> HER QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE 15 PERCENT OPEN PUBLIC SPACE, WHAT THAT WAS AND IT'S OUTSIDE OF THIS APPLICATION. [NOISE] ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER EDWARDS? >> NO. >> COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY. [NOISE] >> THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME ALL RIGHT? >> YES, MA'AM. >> OKAY. IN THIS CASE REPORT, THE DENSITY STANDARD REFERENCE TO ZONE FIVE, REPORTS OF FINISHED HEIGHT OF A MIDRISE BUILDING TO NOT EXCEED 120 FEET AT THE ROOF RIDGE OF SLOPE ROOF. BASED ON OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION IN THE HEIGHT AND DENSITY ARTICLE. HOWEVER, THE DESIGN THAT IS BEING PRESENTED HERE IS FOR A FLAT ROOF. BASED ON THE SAME REFERENCE, THE APPLICABLE FLIGHT RESTRICTION, WOULD BE 110 FEET WITH 20 PERCENT OF THE STRUCTURE HEIGHT WITH THE REMAINING 80 PERCENT HAVING A STRUCTURE OF HEIGHT OF 90 FEET. I SEE THAT IN THE PRESENTATION OF THE CASE, THE REFERENCE TO THE HEIGHT AND DENSITY STANDARD ARE MISREPRESENTED. DO YOU AGREE PLANNING STAFF? >> YEAH, I THINK THE OVERALL HEIGHT FOR THE BASE DISTRICT IS 120, AND AS YOU MENTIONED, COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY, THAT THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS TO THAT ALLOWABLE HEIGHT THAT ALLOWS THEM TO BE AT A 120 MARK THERE PROVIDED THAT IT'S RELATED TO PENN HOUSE BUILDING ELEMENTS. I THINK YOUR INTERPRETATION WOULD BE CORRECT. >> ACTUALLY IS 110, IT'S NOT 120. BUT 120 FOOT REFERENCE, IT'S FOR THE PEAK OF ITS SLOPED ROOF. >> RIGHT. >> ONE-HUNDRED AND TEN FOOT WILL LIMIT IS FOR THE PENT HOUSE FLAT ROOF, 20 PERCENT OF THE FLAT ROOF OF A PENT HOUSE DEVELOPMENT. >> CORRECT. >> I'M NOT SAYING THAT 110 OR THE ACTUAL 90 FEET BEING THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR A FLAT ROOF DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE HDDV5. [00:30:05] THE REASON I'M BRINGING THIS UP, IS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE COMPARED THE PARTS REQUIRED, THE VARIANCE AGAIN, AND IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE WRONG ELEVATION, THE WRONG HEIGHT RESTRICTION, WE DON'T SEE THE MAGNITUDE OF THE DIFFERENCE. MY CONTENTION IS THAT THE OVERALL AS THE APPLICANT HAS STATED IN THE CASE REPORT, THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING IS 147 FEET ABOVE MAIN SEA LEVEL. IF YOU TAKE OUT THE NINE PER AVERAGE GRADE MAIN SEA LEVEL, YOU END UP WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 138 FEET. THAT IS IN EXCESS OF 45 FEET OVER THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION IN THE HDDV5 LIMIT OR A FLAT ROOF DEVELOPMENT. [BACKGROUND] >> SORRY, I CANNOT HEAR YOU WITH HONOR. AM SORRY. I CANNOT HEAR YOU. >> [INAUDIBLE] IT'S ALSO HERE AND SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION ON THAT. >> YEAH. BUT THE APPLICANT IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE IF IT'S THE 90 OR 110. >> BUT, AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED, I THINK COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY'S INTERPRETATION IS CORRECT, SO IN THE MIDRASH DEVELOPMENT, YOU HAVE A BASE HEIGHT THAT'S ALLOWED, WHICH IS 90 FEET. THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS TO THAT, WHERE YOU CAN REACH AN ADDITIONAL 20 PERCENT, WHICH WOULD PUT TWO AT THE 110 MARK, PROVIDED YOU MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH IS, AS I MENTIONED, IS FOR EXCEPTION FOR PENT HOUSE BUILDING ELEMENTS, AND THAT'S FOR A FLAT ROOF. THE REMAINING OF THAT STRUCTURE WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE 80 PERCENT OF THE BUILDING FLOOR PLATE, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY WAS ELUDING TO, WHERE IT COULD BE POTENTIAL TO BE AN EXCESS OF, THE TOTAL PROPOSE IS 147 AND THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IS 110 WITH THE EXCEPTION, SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT A DIFFERENCE OF 37 FEET OR SO. IS THAT MORE OR LESS WHERE YOUR-. >> THANK YOU. THAT'S MY INTERPRETATION. THANK YOU. >> LET ME ASK A QUESTION THEN, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE CAROL, YOU SAID 45 AND NOW WE'RE SAYING 37, SO THE 45 WAS WHAT YOU TOOK INTO ACCOUNT, THE BASE FLAT ELEVATION. >> ABOVE GRAY, EVERYTHING ALL VERTICAL ELEVATION SHOULD BE MEASURED FROM THE MAIN SEA LEVEL. BECAUSE IF YOU ADD THE NINE FOOT AVERAGE GRADE THAT THE APPLICANT PUT IN THEIR FIRST PLAN, IS AN ESTIMATE OF THE TOTAL BUILDING HEIGHT ABOVE GRAY. THAT WOULD BE A 138 FEET. BUT A 138 FEET SHOULD BE COMPARED TO OUR HDDV5 LIMITATION OF 90 FEET ABOVE GRAY. >> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY? >> NO. THANK YOU. I'VE LIKED IT >> THANK YOU. VICE CHAIR BROWN. >> I GUESS ALONG THOSE SAME LINES. I WAS WONDERING IF, SINCE THIS TRACT IS NEXT TO AN RES-RAC ZONE, DOES THAT MAKE IT QUALIFY FOR TRANSITION AREA ONE B? >> NEGATIVE TRANSITION AREA, IT'S ONLY A MANDATORY ANNOTATION TO A RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT AND ITS BUDDING RAS-REC, WHICH IS NOT A RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT, AND A BUDDING COMMERCIAL. >> THOUGH IT'S NOT CONSIDERED A BUDDING RESIDENTIAL ZONE, IS JUST TO THE NORTH OF IT. >> RIGHT. >> ALSO, THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR THE AREA TO [00:35:02] EXCEED THEIR REQUIRED FOR THE FLOOR TO AREA RATIO OF 2.0-3.23, THAT'S ABOUT A 62 PERCENT INCREASE, OR ABOUT 4.7 FLOORS OR ABOUT A 150,000 SQUARE FEET. NOW THAT THE LDR SAY THAT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO USE THE NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AREA AS PART OF THEIR CALCULATION FOR THE AREA RATIO. THAT PARTICULAR AREA IS NOT DELINEATED IN THEIR TOPOGRAPHICAL PLAN. HOWEVER, THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED THE VEGETATION AND EMBANKMENT LINE, WHICH APPEARS TO BE THE VEGETATION LINE OUTLINED IN THE TOPOGRAPHICAL PLAN. THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE WOULD BE 2030 FEET LAND THAT, IF THERE IS A DUNE, THERE TO HAVE A DUNE PROTECTION LINE OR IF THERE'S NOT, AS IS THE CASE WEST OF THE CBO AND MEDICATIONS THEN IT'S 200 FEET FROM THE VEGETATION LINE. IN EITHER CASE, THAT DUNE PROTECTION LINE IS WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE ACREAGE OF THE PROPERTY AS DELINEATED ON THE SURVEY IS 2.865 ACRES, WHICH IS THE SAME NUMBER THAT WAS USED TO CALCULATE THE FLOOR TO AREA RATIO. THAT MEANS THAT THE FLOOR TO AREA RATIO NUMBER WAS USING THE ENTIRE PROPERTY AREA, WHICH INCLUDES THE DIDN'T PROTECTION AREA. BUT WHAT I'M WHAT I'M SAYING IS IT APPEARS THAT THE DUNE PROTECTION AREA WAS USED, AS PART OF THE CALCULATION FOR THE FLOOR TO AREA RATIO BY AN INTERFERENCE AND BURNS, BUT THAT DUNE PROTECTION AREA LIES WITHIN THAT PROPERTY. THAT USE THE ACREAGE. >> ALTHOUGH WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A BEACH FRONT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TODAY, IT IS PERTINENT TO DISCUSS THE DOOM PROTECTION LINE AND THIS TOTAL LAND BECAUSE IT DOES DEAL WITH THE FLOOR TO AREA RATIO. IT'S THE DENOMINATOR OF THAT CALCULATION, SO IT IS RELEVANT TO OUR DISCUSSION TODAY? >> IT'S HOW THAT FLOOR TO AREA RATIO NUMBER WAS ARRIVED AT, AND DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT NUMBER. >> I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU GETTING THAT WITH YOUR LOGIC CARE, COMMISSIONER BROWN. I THINK CERTAINLY, MAYBE THIS QUESTION AND SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS MAY BE MORE SUITABLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO ANSWER. WE AS STAFF AGAIN, THIS IS WE STRICTLY LOOKING AT THE WHAT'S PRESENTED FOR DEVIATION, AND WE DON'T NECESSARILY CONDUCT AN ENTIRE AND EXTENSIVE AC DC REVIEW THAT IS DONE AT THE PERMITTING STAGE. I THINK WHILE YOUR COMMON IT'S VALID THAT MAY BE MORE PERTINENT FOR THE APPLICANTS TO ANSWER. >> I THINK I MISSED THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE 15 PERCENT IMPROVED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE A MINUTE AGO. >> THAT'S ACTUALLY STAFF. I FAIL TO INCLUDE IT AS PART OF THE BODY OF THE REPORT. BUT IF YOU'D LOOK AT ONE OF THE ATTACHMENTS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THEY ARE ALSO REQUESTING TO DEVIATE FROM THAT. >> THAT WAS ONE OF THE VARIANCES THEY WERE ASKING? >> CORRECT. >> ONE MORE THING. THEY WERE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FROM, I THINK, THE WALL PLANE ARTICULATION. >> THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THAT FOR WHAT'S CALLED AN ALTERNATIVE DESIGN WHICH IS FOR CURVED WALLS. I THINK THAT'S THE PROPOSAL HERE. >> RIGHT. BUT IN THE LDR, IF IT SAYS THERE'S NO NEED TO PROVIDE THE REAR VIEW OF THIS PROJECT WHICH IS WHAT WAS PROVIDED. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> NO VIEW OF THE FRONT WAS PROVIDED. SO I THINK WE SIMPLY DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US TO MAKE A DETERMINATION WITHOUT THAT VIEW. >> THAT IS CORRECT. THAT IS UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REAR WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THE FRONT. >> I DON'T THINK WE CAN MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION, I DON'T BELIEVE. >> AGAIN, THAT'LL BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD, AGAIN, VERIFY PERMITTING STAGE. >> RIGHT. OKAY. >> I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR STAFF. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. ADRIEL, I WANT TO KNOW IF THERE WAS ANY REVIEW DONE OF THE MATERIALS BEING USED IN THIS BUILDING? DO YOU KNOW IF THE APPLICANT DID ANY WITH CONSIDERATION GIVEN, YOU KNOW ME, BIRD LADY, WITH REGARD TO THE MIGRATORY BIRDS. >> I THINK THAT THE APPLICANT PROBABLY ANSWER THAT A LITTLE BETTER. I WILL SAY, THE APPLICANT HAS DONE OTHER PROJECTS HERE IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON SO I'M HOPING THAT DUE DILIGENCE WAS DONE ON THIS POINT. [00:40:05] >> OKAY, THANKS. ONE LAST QUESTION FROM ME. I JUST EYEBALLED THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR. DO YOU HAVE THE HEIGHT NUMBER ON THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR FOR US TO USE IN OUR CALCULATION OR WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING WE'D NEED TO ASK THE APPLICANT? >> PRECISELY, I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT CAN ANSWER THAT AS WELL. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT MIGHT HAVE WORKED ON THAT PROJECT AS WELL, SO HE'S VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT CONSTRUCTION. I DO NOT HAVE THAT PRECISE NUMBER. BUT I LIKE TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT THAT BUILDING DID NOT HAVE TO COMPLY TO THE SAME REQUIREMENTS THAT HDDZ IS NOW MANDATING. >> OKAY. ACTUALLY, I DO HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. I APOLOGIZE. PART OF OUR REVIEW FOR ASKING FOR A POD AND APPROVING A POD IS TO LOOK AT A CLEAR COMMUNITY BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT. CAN YOU TELL ME HOW YOU CAME TO THE CLEAR COMMUNITY BENEFIT PART OF THIS, PLEASE, SIR? >> I THINK THAT'S ALSO PART OF THE DEVIATIONS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. AGAIN, FROM WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED, NONE OF THOSE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE HDDZ GUIDELINES ARE DEMONSTRATED IN THE REPORT OR IN THE EXHIBITS. >> TO CLARIFY, YOU SAID NONE OF THOSE ARE POINTED OUT? >> WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE BEACHFRONT REQUIRED PARKING FOR BEACHFRONT ACCESS. >> THANK YOU. SO THAT'S NOT OUTLINED IN OUR REPORT. THANK YOU. YES, COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI? >> I THINK EACH OF THESE IS SITE-SPECIFIC, CORRECT? >> YES, SIR. >> IF WE WERE DOING THE SAME PROJECT ON AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD, SAY MIDTOWN WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND RESIDENTIAL THINGS THAT HEIGHT WOULD MAKE A MAJOR IMPACT ON THE VIEW AND THE SEA, STUFF LIKE THAT. MY QUESTION IS, SINCE IT'S ON THE WEST IN THE ISLAND, AND IN THAT AREA IS NOT PRESENTLY, AND I DON'T KNOW OF ANY FUTURE PLANS BUT WHO KNOWS THAT, FOR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU HAVE THE AIRPORT, YOU HAVE SOME APARTMENT COMPLEXES, YOU HAVE THE RV PARK [INAUDIBLE] AREA, THAT WHOLE AREA. THE REQUEST FOR A LITTLE HIGHER DIMENSIONS PERSONALLY DOESN'T BOTHER ME. I THINK IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT FOR THAT END OF THE ISLAND. YES, ALL THESE RULES ARE HERE FOR A REASON, BUT I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS MAINLY TO THE SITE SPECIFIC TO THAT AREA, THERE MAY BE SOME FLEXIBILITY. >> QUESTION FOR STAFF? [LAUGHTER] >> I WAS TALKING TO HIM. >> OKAY. [LAUGHTER] ALL RIGHT. >> I DON'T KNOW. I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, IS THAT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WITH YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE THING WHY YOU MIGHT LOOK AT IT DIFFERENTLY WITH STAFFING? >> I'D SAY THAT THE PUD REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FOR FLEXIBILITY IN OUR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. OBVIOUSLY, EVERYTHING IS ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, AND THAT IS WHY THIS IS BEING REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TODAY. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BROWN. >> I MISSED ONE OF MY QUESTIONS. SECTION 10.307A OF THE LDR'S HDDZ, IT SAYS, "MAXIMUM FLOOR PLATE AREA FOR FLOOR 6 THROUGH 8 SHOULD BE 15,000 FOR A MIDRISE. ON THE SITE PLAN TABLE IN THE STAFF REPORT, ALL EIGHT OF THE CONDO FLOORS HAVE 23,365 SQUARE FEET, EQUAL TO 32,365 SQUARE FEET EACH, WHICH IS AN EXCESS. IS THAT PART OF A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THESE FLOORS OR IS THAT SOMETHING ELSE? >> AGAIN, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IF IT'S NOT AN ITEM THAT IS NOT REPRESENTED IN THE APPLICATION, WE ASSUME COMPLIANCE WITH AND WE'LL VERIFY THE PERMITTING STAGE. NOW, AGAIN, THAT IS NOT LISTED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION. YOU MAY ASK THE APPLICANT IF THAT'S SOMETHING THEY WILL BE ADHERING TO OR IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDED TO BE INCLUDED. >> HOLD ON JUST ONE SECOND, [INAUDIBLE] . THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S EXACTLY FOR DONNA OR FOR YOU, ADRIEL, OR IF CATHERINE WILL CHIME IN ON THIS. BUT JUST SO I UNDERSTAND YOU ALL'S PROCEDURE, WE HAVE THE PUD THAT WE'RE REVIEWING TODAY THAT [00:45:03] LISTS THESE SPECIFIC THINGS THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR BASICALLY A VARIANCE ON. I HATE TO USE THE WORD VARIANTS BUT THEY'RE ASKING FOR- >> RELIEF. >> -RELIEF FROM. THANK YOU. THEY'RE ASKING FOR RELIEF FROM THESE CERTAIN CONDITIONS. IF A CONDITION IS NOT LISTED AS SOMETHING THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY ASKING FOR RELIEF FROM, THEN WHEN THIS APPLICATION IS REVIEWED IN THE NEXT STEP FORWARD, IF IT IS SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE'RE SEEING AS PART OF THE HDDZ REVIEW. FOR EXAMPLE, THIS THIS ITEM THAT BOB JUST MENTIONED, THEN THAT WOULD BE CAUGHT IN THE NEXT PHASE? >> CORRECT. THAT IS ACTUALLY CLEARLY STATED IN THE REPORT AS WELL AS ONE OF OUR STANDARD CONDITIONS THAT RELIEF THAT IS OBTAINED FROM THIS PUD DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE OR OTHER CODES BY THE CITY OF GALVESTON. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER EDWARDS. >> [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE THE APPLICATION THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED ADDED TO OUR PACKAGE? >> YOU HAVE ALL THE PERTINENT INFORMATION. THE APPLICATION IS MOSTLY BASIC INFORMATION SUCH AS PROPERTY INFORMATION, ADDRESS, PROPERTY OWNERS. THE ACTUAL DESCRIPTION OF WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED, IT'S ALL BEFORE YOU TODAY AS PART OF THE NARRATIVE AND THE PUD PLAN ESTIMATED IN THE VARIOUS EXHIBITS BY THE APPLICANT. >> OKAY. [INAUDIBLE] I THOUGHT THAT [INAUDIBLE] THAT THE CASE, YOU WILL KNOW THAT [INAUDIBLE] >> [INAUDIBLE] >> OKAY. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> NO, THE FLOOR PLAN IS [INAUDIBLE] >> THAT'S CORRECT. YOU'RE CORRECT. WE'RE ALL CHIMING IN HERE AS IF WE WERE STAFF [LAUGHTER]. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER WALLACE? >> QUICK ONE. IF IT CAN'T BE QUICK, ANDREW, GIVE ME SOME PUD 101. I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE RESURRECT AND THEN WE HAVE A LAYER OF HEIGHT AND DENSITY AND NOW WE'RE ADDING A LAYER OF SOMETHING ELSE OR IS WHEN YOU GET THIS PUD. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW, IN ITS SIMPLEST TERMS, HOW IT WORKS IN OUR ZONING. IF YOU GIVE ME A PUD, DOES THAT MEAN I'M NOW EXEMPTED ONLY FROM THOSE ITEMS THAT I'VE REQUESTED? >> IT'S SPECIFIC. IF YOU HAVE REQUESTED AND ARE SEEKING RELIEF FROM VARIOUS ITEMS IN THE LDR OR REQUIREMENTS, THEN THAT'S WHAT WHEN IT COMES TO THE NEXT PHASE, WHICH WOULD BE PERMITTING, ACTUALLY WOULD BE CITY COUNCIL HEARING, BUT THEN PERMITTING, THEN THAT'S WHEN WE WOULD CHECK FOR THOSE THINGS AND ONLY THOSE ITEMS THAT ARE REQUESTED AND IF APPROVED, THOSE ARE THE ONLY ITEMS WE NOTED ON A PLAN [OVERLAPPING]. >> ARE INCLUDED IN THE PUD. >> CORRECT. >> IF YOU FORGET SOMETHING, YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN OR YOU'RE BACK AT YOUR RESURRECT HCTZ ON TOP OF IT. >> THAT IN ITS OWN, NEVER GOES AWAY, THE PROPERTY IS STILL ZONA STORED AWAY WITH THIS OVERLAY OF THE PUD. >> WOULD THIS COME BACK TO US AT SOME POINT. [OVERLAPPING] >> ONLY IF THERE IS A MAJOR CHANGE IN THE REQUEST. THERE ARE MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THE PUD THAT AT A STAFF LEVEL, WE CAN LOOK AT. >> YOU'VE ANSWERED MY QUESTION. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:18 AND WE'LL ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD AND IF YOU'LL JUST SIGN IN AND THEN STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE. >> THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIRPERSON, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF [OVERLAPPING]. >> DID YOU SIGN IN? [00:50:01] >> I AM ABOUT TO SIGN IT. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> [INAUDIBLE] HERE ARE OUR TEAM. YOU KNOW MOST OF THEM. [INAUDIBLE] IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY REPRESENTING SATYA DEVELOPMENT. YOU KNOW, STEVE SHULTZ. MOST OF YOU DO AND YOU KNOW RHONDA. RHONDA GREG HIRSCH. THIS IS OUR DEVELOPMENT TEAM AND WE HAD BEEN WORKING ON THIS NOW SINCE JANUARY WITH STAFF AND WE HAVE FOUND THE STAFF PARTICIPATION TO BE VERY HELPFUL AND VERY PROFESSIONAL. ALONG THE WAY, THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF GIVE-AND-TAKE TO GET WHERE WE ARE TODAY. I'D LIKE TO BEGIN WITH A HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY. AS AN ARCHITECT, I WAS THE ARCHITECT AND LEADING THE DESIGN TEAM FOR DIAMOND BEACH PHASE ONE BACK IN 2006, 2007 AND 2008. WE FINISHED THAT PROJECT IN APRIL OF 2009 AND DURING THAT PROCESS, WE BUILT THE AMENITIES IN PHASE ONE, THE POOLS, EVERYTHING BEHIND THE SEAWALL WAS CARVED OUT AND INTRODUCED AS PHASE ONE. WHAT THAT DID TO US IN THE PHASE TWO PROPERTY, WAS IT CREATED A VERY OBSCURE GEOMETRY FOR THE RESIDUAL PIECE. THAT PIECE IS TRAPEZOIDAL AND IT'S ACTUALLY TWO TRAPEZOIDS THAT ARE MERGED TOGETHER. IT IS NOT A REGULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT HAS PARALLEL BORDERS. IT'S NOT A TRADITIONAL LOT. THIS GEOMETRY IS OBSCURE AND AS A RESULT, WHEN WE ATTEMPT TO COMPLY WITH THE LDRS, WE FIND SERIOUS CONFLICTS. WE HAVE A REQUIREMENT FOR A FAR LANE THAT GOES ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING. IT EATS UP SPACE WITHIN THE OLD GEOMETRY. WHEN WE LOOK AT THE FAR WITH A VERY RESTRICTED FOOTPRINT, WHICH BECAME MORE RESTRICTED BY THE FAR LANE AND BY THE TEXT DOT DITCH ALONG SAN LOUIS PASS ROAD. ALONG WITH THE SETBACKS THAT ARE IN PLAY, WE END UP WITH THE GEOMETRY THAT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR AN ADEQUATE DEVELOPMENT. AS YOU KNOW THE FAR MAKES US COUNT THE PARKING AND IT MAKES US COUNT BALCONY SPACE, AND IT MAKES US DO A DEDUCT. IF WE LOOK AT WHAT THE FAR ALLOWS, WE START DEDUCTING ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS, WE END UP WITH A PIECE OF GROUND THAT'S NOT USABLE FOR A MIDRISE PROJECT. HENCE, OUR REQUESTS FOR RELIEF AND THE ESSENCE OF THE REQUEST IS JUST TWO-FOLD. IT HAS SUBPARTS. WE'RE LOOKING FOR RELIEF ON THE FAR AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR RELIEF ON THE HEIGHT. IF WE'RE CONSTRICTED HORIZONTALLY, IT LEAVES US NO CHOICE BUT TO GO VERTICAL AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. I WOULD PERHAPS REMIND THE COMMISSION BACK IN 2008, PHASE TWO OF THIS PROPERTY, THE PIECE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, HAD A DENSITY OF A 115 UNITS THAT WERE APPROVED AND WE DESIGNED IT THAT WAY. IN FACT THE UTILITIES WERE PUT IN THE GROUND. WE ALREADY HAVE THE STORM WATER IN THE SEWER THAT WAS DESIGNED FOR PHASE TWO. THAT'S NOW 14 YEARS OLD. IT'S ALL THERE. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO HERE, IS HAVE MUCH LESS DENSITY. WE'RE ONLY PROPOSING 64 UNITS, NOT A 115. IN A WAY, THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE MORE DESIRABLE BECAUSE IT IS LESS DENSE. THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION, JUST TO BE CLEAR, TO USE THE AMENITIES IN PHASE ONE. WE'D BEEN IN DISCUSSION WITH THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, IN PHASE ONE. WE HAVE A PRESENTATION COMING UP TO THEM. I THINK THAT'S ON THE 16TH AND WE ARE TRYING TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS. WE ARE PROVIDING PUBLIC PARKING FOR BEACH ACCESS. WE HAVE, I BELIEVE, 14 OR 15 SPACES IN THE PLAN TO ALLOW PUBLIC USE OF THAT PARKING LOT AND ACCESS TO THE BEACH. WE'RE NOT HERE TO TALK ABOUT THOSE DETAILS. THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A PUD. WE'RE LOOKING FOR RELIEF ON HEIGHT AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR RELIEF ON DENSITY. IT BECOMES ITS OWN OVERLAY DISTRICT, SO TO SPEAK. TO ANSWER COMMISSIONER WALLACE QUESTION, [00:55:04] WE'RE TAKING YOUR HEIGHT AND DENSITY OVERLAY AND WE'RE PUTTING OURS IN LIEU THEREOF, BUT WE'RE INTENDING TO COMPLY WITH EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE LDRS. WITH THAT, WE'LL TAKE QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. COMMISSIONER BROWN. >> MR. BIG, DID YOU HEAR EARLIER, THE DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW TO CALCULATE THAT FLOOR TO AREA RATIO? >> YES. >> WHAT WAS ALLOWABLE AND CONSIDERATION OF THAT DENOMINATOR THAT DID NOT INCLUDE THE DEM PROTECTION AREA? >> WE ACTUALLY DID INCLUDE THAT WHOLE SITE 2.86 ACRES. WE USED THE ENTIRE ACREAGE IN OUR REQUEST VARIATION FROM THE FAR. THAT IS CORRECT. WE DID. >> THE LDR, IT SPECIFIES THAT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO USE THAT DIDN'T PROTECTION AREA AS PART OF THE CALCULATION OF FAR. >> PART OF THIS IS WE DON'T HAVE A DUNE, SO OUR DUNE PROTECTION AREA IS A LITTLE LESS DEFINED. THAT'S WHY I USED A CALCULATION THAT WAY. >> YOU WILL NEED TO IDENTIFY THAT AREA AND REVISE YOUR FAR BEFORE YOU'RE ABLE TO FINALIZE THAT CALCULATION NOW ACCORDING TO THE LDRS. >> YES, IF THAT'S A REQUIREMENT, WE WILL DO THAT. >> WHICH IN TURN WOULD MAKE THE FAR NUMBER GO UP BECAUSE YOU'D BE REDUCING DENOMINATOR. >> CORRECT. >> ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU IS THE LDR ALSO REQUIRES THAT WE IN TERMS OF EVALUATING THE WALL PLANE ARTICULATION, WHICH IS ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR PARENTS REQUESTS REQUIRE THAT WE LOOK AT THE STREET SIDE ELEVATION, NOT THE REAR ELEVATION OR A RARE DEPICTION OF THE BUILDING, WHICH IS THAT RENDERING RIGHT THERE. DO YOU ALL HAVE A RENDERING THAT WE COULD SEE? >> I HAVE THE MODEL, DIDN'T BRING IT WITH ME, BUT WE CAN SUBMIT IT TO STAFF. THERE IS A MODEL THAT EXISTS THAT SHOWS THE BUILDING. IT WAS DONE IN RABBITS SO WE CAN SEE ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING. YEAH. >> I THINK THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR US TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SOME KIND OF EVALUATION PROCEEDINGS, HOW THEY HELD THE LDR RECORDERS TO HAVE THAT VIEW RATHER THAN THE REAR VIEW. IN ORDER TO EVALUATE WHETHER OR NOT THIS REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE IS ACTUALLY FEASIBLE OR NOT. DID I HEAR CORRECTLY THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE TO THE 15 PERCENT IMPROVED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE? >> WELL, THERE AGAIN, YES IS THE ANSWER. WE ARE ALREADY RESTRICTED BY PROVIDING THE FIRE LANE AROUND THE BUILDING. THAT'S BASICALLY THE 15 PERCENT. IT'S ALREADY THERE, BUT IT'S FOR FIRE PURPOSES. OUR SITE IS INCREDIBLY RESTRICTED BECAUSE OF THE DUNE PROTECTION AREA, THE FIRE LINE, THE DITCH ALONG SAN LOUIS PASS. YES IS THE ANSWER. >> YOU'RE NOT OFFERING TO PROVIDE ANY KIND OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS IN ORDER TO EARN MORE POINTS FOR AN FAR; IS THAT RIGHT? >> WELL HERE'S THE APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO THAT. WE'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS LONG AND HARD. THE END OF THE SEAWALL, YOU ALL KNOW WHAT IT'S USED FOR. THERE ARE EVENTS OUT THERE, SIX OR SEVEN TIMES A YEAR. HARLEY IS OUT THERE IN THE CORVETTE SHOW. WE ARE PROVIDING A FEATURE WITH OUR PODIUM DECK AND OUR WATERFALL FEATURE, THE THREE-STORY WATERFALL, THAT IS, IN MY OPINION, AN AMENITY. EVERYBODY WHO WALKS UP THE BEACH FROM THE SOUTH TO THE SEAWALL IS GOING TO APPRECIATE THAT FEATURE. EVERYBODY WHO ATTENDS AN EVENT ON THE SEAWALL, AT THE END OF THE SEAWALL, WHETHER THEY'RE FISHING OR WHETHER THEY'RE ACTUALLY HAVING A PICNIC, THEY'RE GOING TO APPRECIATE THIS FEATURE, WHICH IS SPECIAL. >> WELL, REFERRING TO AS THE LEAST OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND THEIR EQUIVALENT, FAR CREDIT THAT YOU WOULD GET FOR PROVIDING THEM AND HELPING WITH THE FAR. >> WELL, FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW THE FIRST OBSTACLE IS THE FAR. WE HAVE TO GET THAT NUMBER PIN DOWN. THEN WE HAVE TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO WITHIN THE CONFINES OF HEIGHT AND DENSITY IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THESE OTHER ISSUES. >> WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS TRYING TO MITIGATE THAT AWFULLY HIGH FAR NUMBER AND BRING THEM BY PROVIDING COMMUNITY BENEFITS. [01:00:03] THAT'S THE WAY THE LDR, THE HDDZ INFECTION IN THE LDR DEALS WITH REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIRED FAR. >> WE COULD HAVE DONE THIS DIFFERENTLY IF I CAN GO HERE. STAFF WE TALKED ABOUT THIS. WE COULD REQUEST THAT WE JUST DON'T COUNT THE PARKING AS PART OF THE FAR IN WHICH CASE WE'D BE FINE. [LAUGHTER] WE COULD JUST NOT COUNT THE BALCONIES. WE'RE INTENDING VERY LARGE BALCONIES, 14, 16 FEET OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE. IF WE DON'T COUNT THOSE, IT DOESN'T HURT US AS MUCH. THERE ARE SEVERAL WAYS TO LOOK AT IT. WE CALCULATE THAT WE NEED THE 3.23 TIMES THE GROSS IN ORDER TO DO WHAT WE'RE INTENDING TO DO. >> MR. PAMEE, THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> LET ME JUST GO BACK AND SEE IF I CAN PARAPHRASE WHAT I THINK I JUST HEARD YOU SAY. SOMETIMES I HAVE TO HEAR THINGS TWICE. YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU CAN'T REALLY PIN DOWN YOUR FAR FOR US TODAY. >> THE REQUEST IN FRONT OF YOU IS WHAT WE NEED. THE 3.23 IN OUR ESTIMATION. IF YOU WOULD ALLOW RELIEF FROM COUNTING PARKING AGAINST THAT, THEN WE COULD REDUCE THAT NUMBER. BUT THE BASIC RELIEF IS TO GET TO 3.23 TIMES THE GROSS. >> YOU DON'T THINK YOU CAN GET IT DOWN UNDER 3.2 BECAUSE WE HAVE A SMALLER DENOMINATOR THAN WE THOUGHT WE HAD. THAT SMALLER DENOMINATOR WOULD BASICALLY BE OFFSET BY THE PARKING AND THE OTHER CALCULATIONS? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WE'RE STUCK AT THAT 3.2 AS BEING ABOUT AS LOW AS WE CAN GET IT. >> THAT'S MY ESTIMATION, YES. >> OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. I APPRECIATE. >> THERE'S QUESTIONS FOR THE [INAUDIBLE]. >> ALL RIGHT. QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER BROWN, AGAIN, TEE IT UP. >> I'M SORRY [LAUGHTER]. FICTION 10.308 BE OF THE HDDZ AND THE LDR ALSO SAYS THAT ANY STRUCTURED PARKING, I THINK YOU HAVE TWO FLOORS OF STRUCTURED PARKING, MUST HAVE OTHER ACTIVE USES LOCATED BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND THE RECORD BUILDING SETBACK FOR A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 20 FEET. MUST EXTEND A MINIMUM OF 60 PERCENT OF THE LINEAR FRONTAGE OF THE STRUCTURE ON ANY STREET BASE. HAVE YOU ALL ADDRESSED THAT IN YOUR PROJECT? >> WE'RE IN SCHEMATICS ON THAT SUBJECT. WE HAVE NOT ADDRESSED ON THE LOWER LEVELS EXACTLY WHAT THOSE USES ARE, BUT WE INTEND TO COMPLY. >> OKAY. >> MR. ANTONELLI. >> THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL PROJECT. IT LOOKS REALLY NICE. BUT JUST LOOKING AT IT, IT'S A HUGE PROJECT FOR THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY. I UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGES AND YOUR SOLUTIONS THAT YOU'RE OFFERING. I THINK EVEN IF IT DID MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PAD, YOU'RE GOING TO RUN INTO SOME REAL HARD WALLS AHEAD OF YOU. MY QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU ALL CONSIDERED REDUCING THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT OR DOES THAT JUST MAKE IT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE OR YOU JUST DUG IN AND THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO OR? >> WELL, WE'VE BEEN THROUGH ALL PERMUTATIONS, ALL KINDS OF CALCULATIONS. IF WE DON'T GET THE RELIEF, WE'RE REQUESTING, THE PROJECT IS ONLY 61 PERCENT EFFICIENT. IN OTHER WORDS, BUILDABLE AREA TO SALABLE AREA IS WAY LOW. IT'S NOT FEASIBLE. THAT'S WHY [OVERLAPPING]. >> IT'D HAVE TO BE A COMPLETELY NEW PROJECT. >> YES, AND WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T DO IT. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMETHING ELSE. >> YOU GOT A LOT OF CHALLENGE THAN I ADDED AND THAT'S FOR SURE. GOOD LUCK. >> THANKS. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER WALLA. >> YES. I KNOW WE'VE HAD SOME QUESTIONS THAT, I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE AN ASSUMPTION THAT IS THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING OR LETS JUST SAY THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING, IS IT SIMILAR? >> YES. >> I MEAN, IS IT ALMOST A MIRRORED IMAGE OF THIS? >> YES AND JUST TO CLARIFY, I THINK YOU'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH DIAMOND BEACH PHASE 1. >> CORRECT. >> THAT BUILDING WHEN WE DESIGNED IT IN '07 AND '08, IT'S A SINGLE LOADED CORRIDOR. THE CORRIDOR IS ON THE SAN LOUIS PASS SITE. EVERYTHING ELSE OPENS UP TOWARD THE WATER. THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME IN TERMS OF A SINGLE LOADED CORRIDOR. [01:05:02] IT WILL HAVE WINDOWS AND IT WILL LOOK LARGELY LIKE WHAT YOU'RE SEEING. WE MAY NOT HAVE AS MANY WINDOWS, BUT IT IS A CONDITIONED CORRIDOR SPACE, JUST LIKE DIAMOND BEACH PHASE 1. >> OKAY. THEN BACK TO THIS FAR ISSUE AND THE PARKING AS WELL AS THE BALCONIES, I NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT ALL THE BALCONIES SPACE BEING INCLUDED IN THAT CALCULATION. IT IS YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT IF YOU DID NOT INCLUDE THE PARKING AND THE BALCONIES, THAT YOU WOULD BE MORE IN LINE WITH WHERE WE'RE AT? >> YES. WE'VE DONE THOSE CALCULATIONS. >> I MEAN, IT DOES LOOK BIG, BUT I THINK THIS ISSUE THAT YOU POINTED OUT THAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO HAVE FEWER UNITS THAN WHAT IS NEXT DOOR. I'M JUST GOING TO ASSUME THAT SINCE IT DOES LOOK BIGGER, THERE'S PROBABLY MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THIS BUILDING, DOES THAT JUST MEAN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE BIGGER UNITS THAT ARE WORTH OVER THERE. >> YES, WE ARE INTENDING A VERY HIGH-END PRODUCT HERE. THESE UNITS WILL AVERAGE SOMEWHERE AROUND 2800 SQUARE FEET UP TO MAYBE 3400 SQUARE FEET. THESE ARE LARGER UNITS. >> HOW DOES THAT AFFECT YOUR PARKING? >> IT HELPS US. I MEAN, THE RATIO WE'RE LOOKING AT 2.0 PER UNIT PLUS GUEST PARKING PLUS MAINTENANCE AND PERSONNEL. WE GET CLOSE TO 3.0 PER UNIT. THAT'S A LOT OF PARKING, TIMES 64. >> THERE'S SOME QUESTION. THIS HALLWAY BROUGHT UP THE DEAL ABOUT THE HEIGHT AND HOW THAT'S CALCULATED. I DIDN'T REALLY QUITE FOLLOW THAT. BUT IN LAYMAN'S TERMS, HOW MUCH TALLER IS THIS BUILDING THAN THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR? >> WELL, I'M THE GUY WHO KNOWS. 87 FEET IS WHAT WE WERE NEXT DOOR TO THE MIDPOINT OF THE SLOPED ROOF ON THE PENTHOUSE. THAT WAS A LONG TIME AGO. WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, WE START WITH THE BASE FLAT ELEVATION. THE BASE FLAT ELEVATION, BASED ON DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF TAKES US TO 18 AND A HALF FEET FOR STARTERS, 17 THICK TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PODIUM DECK, I'VE GOT 18 INCHES OF STRUCTURE. I'M AT 18 6. THEN WE GO 120 ON TOP OF THE 18 6 AND THEN WE'RE ASKING FOR EIGHT FEET IN TERMS OF THE VARIANCE FOR AN EXTRA FLOOR. >> FOR THE VARIANCE. BUT AS FAR AS OTHER THAN THE OTHER BUILDING, WHAT'S IT? >> WE'RE GOING TO BE ABOUT 30 FEET. >>ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL I HAD, THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY, DID I SEE YOUR HAND? [LAUGHTER] OH, HE'S PUMPING HIMSELF UP BECAUSE OF THAT. [LAUGHTER]. >> I COULD HAVE SHOWN YOU A HIGH FIVE, CAROL. [LAUGHTER] >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> WE'LL CONTINUE WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THIS CASE WILL START OVER HERE ON THIS SIDE. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? NO. THANK YOU. WHAT ABOUT OVER HERE ON THIS SIDE? MR. SHULTZ? >> I'LL TAKE THIS OFF. MY VOICE IS NOT WHAT IT USED TO BE, YELLED TOO MANY TIMES. [LAUGHTER] >> I KNOW HOW THAT IS. >> KIDS FIRST AND THEN OTHER PEOPLE. CLIENTS SOMETIMES. ADRIEL SAID IT BUT I NEED TO POINT IT OUT TO YOU BECAUSE BOB, YOU HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS ON SPECIFIC ITEMS IN HDDZ. I THINK ADRIEL SAID THIS AND I KNOW STEPHEN SAID IT, THIS REPLACES TO THE EXTENT YOU ASKED FOR RELIEF HDDZ REQUIREMENTS. I SAW SOME QUESTIONS AND PEOPLE ASKED, [01:10:04] IS IT INTO TRANSITION AREA? NO, IT'S NOT. IT'S SHOWN ON THE ZONING MAP IN THERE EASING UP. CAN YOU DO SOME OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS YOU WANTED? TRANSIT STOP? HELL, NO, THERE'S NO BUS. THERE'S NO BUS SERVICE OUT THERE. THERE'S NO SIDEWALKS TO ASK IF YOU'RE GOING TO PUT SOME RETAIL OR SOMETHING ON THE FIRST FLOOR OR 20 FEET OUT FROM THE FIRST FLOOR. WHO'S GOING TO WALK BY IT? THERE'S NO SIDEWALK. YOU WALK ON 3005, YOU'RE DEAD. I LOST A CLASSMATE THAT WAY. WHILE YOU WOULD THINK, WE DON'T NEED TO ASK ABOUT ALL OF THE HDDZ. I DON'T REALLY THINK IT'S APPLICABLE BECAUSE EVEN IN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES, WHICH I'VE READ AT FIVE O'CLOCK THIS MORNING, IT SAYS IT'S SITE-SPECIFIC AND STAFF LOOKS AT IT TO SEE IF YOU'RE MEETING THE SPIRIT OF HDDZ. IF YOU WERE HERE FOR AN HDDZ REVIEW, WE'RE NOT. I APPRECIATE IT. YOU AND I HAVE KNOWN ONE ANOTHER FOR PROBABLY 30, 40 YEARS. YOU'RE AN ARCHITECT, I'M A LAND USE LAWYER AND I'VE BEEN THAT WAY SINCE 1997. STOOD HERE HUNDREDS, IF NOT THOUSANDS OF TIMES. WE'RE LOOKING AT AN APPLICATION THAT HAD BOXES THAT NEEDED TO BE CHECKED. WE CHECKED THOSE. MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE CHECKED SOME MORE I'M HEARING, BUT WE CHECKED THE ONES THAT WERE TRULY ON THE APPLICATION FORM AND WITHIN THE PUD ORDINATES OR CHAPTER, WHICH IS CHAPTER 4 OF THE LPR'S. IT'S REAL SHORT AND IT'S WHAT YOU PROPOSE. THAT'S WHAT IT'S ABOUT. IF THE COUNCIL, AFTER A RECOMMENDATION UP OR DOWN FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION WANTS TO DO IT. THAT'S THE RIGHT OF THE COUNCIL, THEY ARE THIS ZONING AUTHORITY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS NOT. IF THEY WANT TO CONDITION IT, THEY CAN CONDITION IT. IT'S LIKE THE OLD SUP PROCESS THAT WE USED TO HAVE. WE DON'T HAVE THAT ANYMORE. IN FACT, THE GUIDELINES TALK ABOUT 29107. IT'S NOT THERE. WE DON'T HAVE THAT. I JUST WANTED TO BRING THE COMMISSION BACK TO THE POINT, I THINK JEFF MAY HAVE MADE IT BUT IT'S BEEN A WHILE. WE ARE HERE TO LOOK AT A PROJECT THAT IS PROPOSED FOR A PUD OVERLAY AND CERTAIN ITEMS OF RELIEF FROM SOMETHING ELSE. IF COUNCIL WANTS TO DO THAT AND YOU ALL WANT TO RECOMMEND IT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO. IF COUNCIL DOESN'T WANT TO, WHETHER YOU ALL WANT COUNCIL TO DO IT OR NOT, DOESN'T REALLY MATTER. I'VE HAD THAT HAPPEN A NUMBER OF TIMES OVER THE YEARS. THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO GET DONE. I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO THINK THAT'S WATCHING THIS ON TV, ON ZOOM, OR ANYWHERE ELSE THAT WE'RE HERE FOR A FULL HDDZ REVIEW BECAUSE WE'RE NOT. IF YOU WANT TO ASK ME SOME QUESTIONS AFTER THAT, I'LL BE HAPPY. I LOOKED AT VARIOUS SECTIONS THAT YOU SAID AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THEM AND YOU LOOK AT WHERE THIS IS AT, AND YOU LOOK AT THERE ARE ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE GUIDELINES, THEN YOU CAN SEE THEY HAVE A SIDEWALK ON THIS SIDE OF THE BUILDING, SIDEWALK ON THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING, AND SURE IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE SOME USE IN THERE RATHER THAN JUST 20 FEET OF BARE SPACE ON THE STREETSCAPE. TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN MEET LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS, ALL OF THOSE, WE'RE GOING TO DO IT. ONE THING THAT'S NOT MENTIONED IN HERE, THERE IS A PATH FROM THE PUBLIC PARKING SPACES, PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS PARKING SPACES THAT'S PROPOSED THAT WILL ASSIST BASE ONE. RIGHT NOW IT'S DIRT. THE ONLY OTHER PATH THEY HAVE, I WALKED DOWN IT, [01:15:02] IT'S FROM, AS STEPHEN WAS SAYING, THE END OF THE SEAWALL PARKING AREA. THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE CITIES BEACH ACCESS PLAN. THAT'S THE ACCESS POINT AND THERE'S A DIRT PATH THAT WASHES OUT. YOU ERE ASKING ABOUT WASHOUT, THAT ONE REALLY WASHES OUT. I WAS ASKED TO GO OUT THERE AND LOOK AT IT THE LAST TIME SOMEONE PROPOSED THIS BECAUSE THEY WERE PROPOSING A HOTEL, WHICH IS NOT NEARLY AS NICE AS THIS, AND THEY COULDN'T PUT EVERYTHING ON IT. THE PROPERTY SAT FALLOW FOR 14 YEARS AND SOMEBODY'S COME UP WITH A PROJECT. WE'RE HOPING BY USE OF A PUD THAT WE CAN PROPOSE SOMETHING THAT CITY COUNCIL, HOPEFULLY YOU ALL, BUT CITY COUNCIL DEFINITELY WILL APPROVE. THAT'S WHAT IT IS. >> THANK YOU. MR. SHULTZ. >> CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? >> YES, BECAUSE MR. SHULTZ IS CONSIDERED PART OF THE APPLICANT'S TEAM, SO YES. >> A QUESTION FOR YOU, STEVE. WOULD YOU MIND SHARING WITH US WHAT HIS CONSTRUCTION BUDGET IS ON THIS? >> HE'S HERE. WOULD YOU MIND SHARING THAT? >> FIFTY MILLION. >> FIFTY MILLION? >> YES SIR. >> SOUNDS LIKE A COMMUNITY BENEFIT TO ME. >> WELL. >> THANK YOU. >> THE TAX BASE WOULD BE A COMMUNITY BENEFIT. >> THANK YOU. OH, RHONDA. OKAY. COME ON DOWN. >> THESE GUYS DRAGGED ME OUT OF LAND USE RETIREMENT. [LAUGHTER] [BACKGROUND] >> FIRST OF ALL, THE NEW COUNCIL AS THEY CAME ON BOARD THIS LAST TIME, DURING COUNCIL SEASON, THERE WAS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT DEVELOPMENT ON THE ISLAND. A LOT OF IT WAS FOCUSED ON HOTELIERS AND WHAT WE WERE DOING ON THE ISLAND WITH HOTELS AND WHAT THEY WANTED TO CHANGE, THAT THEY WERE TIRED OF THE BOXES AND THAT THERE NEEDED TO BE AMENITIES AND THEY WANTED A HIGHER END PRODUCT. THAT'S WHAT WE HEARD FROM EVERYONE RUNNING FOR COUNSEL AND FOR MANY THAT WERE COMING TO INTERVIEW FOR POSITIONS ON BOARDS THAT WE SERVE ON. THERE HASN'T BEEN A NEW CONDOMINIUM PROJECT THIS FAR INTO DEVELOPMENT OR PROPOSED SINCE 2007. THERE HASN'T BEEN ANYTHING PROPOSED LIKE THIS DEVELOPMENT SINCE PALISADE POEMS WAS CREATED. THE PURPOSE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS FOR A HIGH-END PRODUCT THAT WE DON'T HAVE ON THE WEST END OF THE ISLAND. THERE ISN'T GOING TO BE ANYTHING LIKE IT. WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE GULF OF MEXICO, MORE AND MORE YOU WATCH HGTV. EVERYONE WANTS OUTDOOR LIVING SPACES AND WHEN WE ARE PROPOSING AN AMENITY ON A LIVING PRODUCT THAT YOU CAN'T GET OUTSIDE AND USE, WHY ARE WE SELLING OURSELVES SHORT HERE TO THE FACT THAT A BALCONY WOULD BE A NEGATIVE FOR A PRODUCT THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SELL? WHAT CONDOMINIUMS DO WE HAVE THAT ARE 23-3,000 SQUARE FEET. THIS IS A DIFFERENT PRODUCT, BUT I'M NOT ON THE ARCHITECT BENCH. THAT'S NOT REALLY WHAT I WAS HERE TO TALK ABOUT. BUT JUST TO OUTLINE SOME OF THOSE THINGS FOR YOU, WE WERE PRESENTED WITH SOME QUESTIONS LATE THIS AFTERNOON BEFORE WE CAME. I HAD A CHANCE, AND I THINK SOME OF THEM WERE FROM MR. BROWN TO TAKE A LOOK AT AND AGAIN, IS WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT THAT'S GOING TO FALL UNDER MY PURVIEW EVENTUALLY. I DID WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE DUNE PROTECTION AREAS IN THIS LOT IN PARTICULAR, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN PULL UP GOOGLE EARTH AERIAL ADRIEL, BUT IT'D BE REAL HANDY. THIS LOT IS NOT A TYPICAL BEACH LOT. IT IS NOT A SLOPING TEMPLATE BEACH FRONT EDGE LOT. A PORTION OF ITS IRREGULAR SHAPE IS BEHIND THE SEAWALL ACTUALLY. THEN THE OTHER PORTION TO THE EAST IS AN ESCARPMENT. IT'S NOT BEACH FRONTAGE, IT'S UP ONE. IT'S AT AN ELEVATION THAT'S BEEN ERODED OVER TIME. HISTORICALLY SINCE HURRICANE IKE, IT TOOK SOME OF ITS LARGEST HITS AND IT'S AN ENGINEERED BEACH BECAUSE OF THE PART BOARDS VENTURES FOR DYLAN ERA PARK. [01:20:03] IT GETS THE ADVANTAGE ON THE ACTUAL BEACH PORTION OF THE TRACK. YOU CAN'T SEE FROM THE IMAGE, BUT IF WE WERE ON STREET VIEW, YOU COULD STAND ON THE EDGE OF THE SAND AND LOOK UP TO SEE THE TOP ELEVATION OF THAT LOT. WE'RE NOT ON A SLOPING FRONTAGE ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. YOU'RE STANDING ON UPLAND WITHIN A ESCARPMENT. IN THE SURVEY THAT IS IN THE PACKET, IT DOESN'T DESCRIBE A DUNE LINE BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ONE. IT'S AN UPWIND. THERE'S NEVER BEEN A DUNE IN THE ACTUAL LINEAR FRONTAGE THAT'S MOST SOUTHERLY FACING AT THIS POINT. THERE'S NOT A DUNE THAT'S UPLAND. THAT ISN'T IN PLAY IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. IT DOES BENEFIT FROM THE NOURISHMENT PROJECTS, AND THERE WILL BE A NOURISHMENT PROJECT THIS YEAR. IT'S ALREADY IN DESIGN PHASE AND THE SAND SOURCE IN MY OTHER HAT THAT I WEAR, MY COASTAL HAT, THAT SAND SOURCE IS BEING IDENTIFIED AS WE SPEAK AND BID DOCUMENTS ARE BEING PREPARED. THERE WILL BE A NOURISHMENT PROJECT THERE, BUT IT DOESN'T AFFECT THIS TRACT. THEY ARE NOT A PART OF THE BEACH PROJECT THAT IS IN FRONT OF THEIR PROPERTY. THERE'S AN EASEMENT WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS THAT ALLOWS THAT PROJECT TO TRANSPIRE, BUT THE TEMPLATE ISN'T GOING TO WEDGE UP TO THE TOP OF THIS TRACK. WHEN WE'RE TALKING DUNE HERE, THIS IS A DIFFERENT ANIMAL ON THIS PARTICULAR TRACK. THAT WAS QUESTION NUMBER 3 THAT CAME. QUESTION NUMBER 4 ASKED ABOUT THE EROSION RATE IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA. WE KNOW THIS IS A [INAUDIBLE] AT THE END OF THE ISLAND. WE TALK ABOUT IT, ABOUT ELEVATING THE ROAD, GETTING PEOPLE OFF THE WEST INTO THE ISLAND, ALL VERY IMPORTANT. THE CITY OF GALVESTON HAS ADOPTED THROUGH ORDINANCE. WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT SHORE-LINE CHANGE RATES, THEY LIKE TO GO BACK TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY AND PER CODE. WE ARE LOOKING AT A HISTORICAL SHORE-LINE CHANGE, NOT VIEWED AS IN FEET OR FEET PER YEAR BUT WE LOOK AT LINEAR REGRESSION RATES. TODAY BEFORE I CAME IN, I DID HAVE TIME TO GO TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY AND PULL UP ON THEIR WEBSITE, THIS PARTICULAR SITE. IT INDICATES THAT IT IS AN ENGINEERED BEACH. THE FRONTAGE THAT'S IN FRONT OF THIS TRACT IS CONSIDERED ENGINEERED, WHICH MEANS IT'S IN A REPETITIVE PROGRAM MONITORED BY EITHER THE CITY AND OR THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE FOR EROSION. IT RECEIVES NOURISHMENT AND IS ELIGIBLE FOR NOURISHMENT AFTER STORMS THROUGH FEMA AND ITS LAST NOURISHMENT WAS IN 2015, 113 SOME ODD 1,000 CUBIC YARDS OF SAND REPLACED. THE NEXT PROJECT IS ABOUT 118,000 CUBIC YARDS. IN THAT PROJECT IN 2015, A DUNE WAS PLACED SEAWARD OF THIS PROJECTS PROPERTY LINE WITH A TEMPLATE GOING OUT INTO THE GULF OF MEXICO, APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET, THAT NATURALIZES OVER TIME. AGAIN, WHEN WE'RE TALKING BEACH FRONTAGE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOUTH OF THE ACTUAL ESCARPMENT OF THIS TRACT. PER THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THEIR LINEAR REGRESSION RATE FOR THIS TRACT IS AT MINUS 1.67 FEET. I HAVE THIS FOR YOU-ALL. YOU-ALL CAN KEEP IT. JUST SOMETHING FOR YOU-ALL TO TAKE A LOOK AT. BUT THIS TRACT HAS THE BENEFIT WITHOUT IT HAVING OWNERSHIP ON THAT PARTICULAR STRETCH OF HAVING NOURISHMENT THAT'S REOCCURRING. IN ADDITION TO THE BEACH NOURISHMENT FOR THIS TRACK, THE PART BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON IS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, GALVESTON DISTRICT, AND THEY'RE PLANNING A BREAK WATER SYSTEM IMMEDIATELY SOUTH THAT THIS TRACT IN THE GULF OF MEXICO. AGAIN, IT'S IN PED, PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING DESIGN AT THIS POINT. IT'S A STRUCTURE THAT'S TO COUNTERACT THE EROSION THAT HAPPENS BECAUSE OF THE CORNER OF THE SEAWALL. THAT EDGE OF THE SEAWALL CAUSES THE ESCARPMENT AND THE EROSION THAT YOU SEE. SO THAT PROJECT IS IN PRELIMINARY DESIGN AS WE SPEAK. THE LAST PERMIT FOR NOURISHMENT THAT WAS DONE, I CALL IT THE EAST OR THE WEST NOURISHMENT PERMIT. THE EAST PERMIT FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON BOARD OF TRUSTEES GOES THROUGH THIS AREA. [01:25:06] IT ALSO INCLUDED WHAT WE CALL A SAND MOTOR, SOME CALL IT A SAND BLOB, BUT THERE'S ALSO INLINE IF THERE WEREN'T FUNDS OR THE AVAILABILITY TO PUT THE SAND ON THE BEACH FACE ITSELF. A VERY LARGE AMOUNT OF SAND TO FLOW NATURALLY ONTO THE BEACH AND THEN CARRIED TO THE WEST INTO THE ISLANDS. THERE WERE THREE DIFFERENT PROCESSES OR PROJECTS THAT ARE IN PROCESS FOR THIS CORNER OF THE END OF THE SEAWALL, WHICH IS ADJACENT TO WHERE THIS PROJECT WILL BE THAT ARE ALL OF BENEFIT FOR THAT AREA. EROSION IS DEFINITELY BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BUT IT IS NOT THIS PROPERTY OWNERS, IT'S NOT THEIR FUNDS, NOR IS IT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THOSE PROJECTS TO HIT THE GROUND BUT THEY ALL ARE IN THE WORKS AND SHOULD BE A VERY GOOD ADDITION TO THAT END OF THE SEAWALL, THANK YOU-ALL. >> THANK YOU, RHONDA. [NOISE] ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? >> ONLINE. >> YES. ASK ONLINE. >> FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THE ZOOM CALL, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS CASE, IF YOU COULD USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION AT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN. >> THANK YOU, CATHERINE. THANKS FOR KEEPING ME IN LINE ON THAT. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:56 PM, AND I WILL NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION, COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY. >> THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] >> THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. WE'LL MOVE ALONG WITH OUR DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONERS. WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? COMMISSIONER BROWN, VICE-CHAIR. >> I AGREE WITH THE SCALE OF THE PROJECT ON THIS SMALL SITE. I THINK THE ARCHITECT STARTED UP THE DISCUSSION WITH THE THINGS THAT MITIGATED OR DROVE THE DESIGN OF THE SHAPE OF THE SITE AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE POWER LINE, AND SOME OF THESE OTHER THINGS THAT REALLY DROVE THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING, I GUESS, AND THE EXTRAORDINARY FLORIDA AREA RATIO REQUEST BY THE MOUSE TO REALLY OVER FOUR FLOORS, ALMOST FIVE FLOORS AND A 153,000 FEET, WHICH I THINK IS A LITTLE MORE THAN WHAT THE LDR AND ANTICIPATED IN TERMS OF VARIANCES. SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WERE REQUESTED IN TERMS OF THE ARTICULATION OF THE BUILDING ITSELF, THE LDR OF COURSE, WERE ASKED TO STEP THE BUILDING BACK AS IT GOES HIGHER, AND WE WOULD DESIGN THE BUILDINGS SUCH THAT IT HAS SOME ARTICULATION AND THEN THE WAY IT'S DESIGNED RIGHT NOW, IT'S MOSTLY A LARGE SLAB WITHOUT REALLY MUCH ARTICULATION AT ALL THAT I CAN SEE FROM THE RENDERING. THEN THE APPLICANT IS ALSO ASKING TO FORGO THE 15 PERCENT AND PROVE PUBLIC SPACE BECAUSE THERE'S SIMPLY NO ROOM ON THE SITE FOR IT. EVERYTHING IS JUST POINTING TO THE IDEA THAT THIS WHOLE PROJECT IS JUST TOO BIG FOR THE SITE. I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULDN'T IMPROVE THE ECONOMY AND BUILD THINGS WHEREVER WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY. BUT WHAT THIS PROJECT IS JUST TOO BIG, I THINK THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO GET MORE PROPERTY OR TO MAKE A SMALLER BUILDING ON THE SITE. ALSO THE WAY IT'S DESIGNED. I DON'T THINK IT CONFORMS WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE LDR IS OR THE HDDZ IN TERMS OF IT'S CITING WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE WAY IT'S CITED ON THE BUILDING. THE HDDZ GOES TO A LOT OF TROUBLE TO TALK ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULDN'T BLOCK THE VIEWS OR THE BREEZE FROM OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE AREA LIKE THE APARTMENT RIGHT BEHIND THIS. SUDDENLY THEY HAVE NO VIEWS OF THE GULF OR NO BREEZE COMING OFF THE GULF AND WHATEVER IS GOING TO BE BUILT ACROSS THE STREET WILL HAVE THE SAME RESULT. [01:30:01] BUT IN ANY CASE, I THINK THE PROJECT IS JUST TOO BIG FOR THIS SITE BASED ON EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE SEEN HERE AND IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO GET WORSE WHENEVER WE CONSIDER A RESIDUE AND PROTECTION AREA IS AND THE FAR IS JUST EXACERBATED. THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO SAY. >> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR BROWN. ANY OTHER COMMENT, COMMISSIONERS? >> COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY HAS A COMMENT. >> OH YES, COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY. THANK YOU. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY. I APPRECIATE THAT. WELL, I'LL LET JOHN PAUL GO FIRST BEFORE MINE, GO AHEAD. >> I'M EXCITED TO SEE PROJECTS LIKE THIS COME BACK DOWN IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE GALVESTON HAS SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS. I THINK THAT THERE ARE DEFINITELY ISSUES TO WORK OUT IN THIS CASE. BUT DEFINITELY, AGAIN, I'M EXCITED TO SEE IT AND TALK ABOUT IT MORE IN FRONT OF COUNCIL AND SEE IF WE CAN WORK SOMETHING OUT, REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS HERE TODAY. >> THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I WANTED TO LIKE THIS. I AM A WEST INDIAN. I WANTED TO BE FOR SOMETHING BEING BUILT OUT THERE. IT'S JUST WAY TOO OUT OF SCALE WITH THE FAR BEING A 162 PERCENT OF WHAT WE WOULD NORMALLY ALLOW, WITH THE HIGH BEING A 150 PERCENT OF WHAT WE WOULD NORMALLY ALLOW. IT'S JUST IN MY OPINION, WAY TOO MUCH PROJECT TO BE SUPPORTED ON THAT PIECE OF LAND. I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY THAT IT SETS A REALLY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR US ON FUTURE ENFORCEMENT OR COMPLIANCE WITH THE HDDZ. AS MR. SHULTZ HAS REMINDED US, WE'RE TOTALLY IRRELEVANT AND COUNSEL CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO, BUT I WANT TO BE ON RECORD AS SAYING THAT I WANTED TO LIKE THIS. I JUST CANNOT GET BEYOND THE OVERWHELMING MAGNITUDE OF THIS STRUCTURE TO THE AMOUNT OF LAND IT'S BUILT ON. I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT, BUT I JUST CAN'T. ANYONE ELSE? >> ONE WORD. >> YES, COMMISSIONER BROWN. >> I THINK STEVE HAD A GOOD POINT IN SOME OF THESE MINOR THINGS MAY NOT APPLY HERE. LIKE, I DON'T KNOW, A BIKE RACK OR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. IF THERE'S NOTHING THERE THAT'S GOING TO COME OUT THERE. HOWEVER, THE OVERRIDING THING IS THE SCALE OF IT, LIKE WE'VE BEEN SAYING. BUT THE OTHER THING IS, I DON'T WANT TO PROVIDE THE EXPECTATION THAT IF WE APPROVE THIS PROJECT THAT ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE GOING TO BE WORKED OUT IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS BECAUSE THEY AREN'T. WE NEED TO CONTROL EXPECTATIONS HERE. I DON'T WANT TO SET THIS PROJECT UP WITH THAT EXPECTATION THAT ALL OF THIS IS GOING TO GET TAKEN CARE OF AND EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE BEEN COMPLAINING ABOUT IS GOING TO GET TAKEN CARE OF BECAUSE IT'S NOT. [01:35:05] THIS IS WHY WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IT NOW BECAUSE I HAVE NO EXPECTATION THAT SUDDENLY A 153,000 SQUARE FEET IS GOING TO SIMPLY GO AWAY OR THE 406 THROUGH EIGHT WILL BECOME 15,000 SQUARE FOOT FLOORS, THEY WON'T. I JUST DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. I DON'T WANT TO SET THAT EXPECTATION UP BY SAYING THIS IS ALL GOING TO BE FINE LATER BECAUSE IT'S NOT. THIS IS WHY WE SPEND THIS AMOUNT OF OUR TIME ANALYZING THESE THINGS AND DISCUSSING THEM, IS TO TRY TO ESTABLISH EXPECTATIONS FOR HOW WE LOOK AT THESE LDR IS AND THIS HDDZ, SO THEY MEAN SOMETHING WHEN WE SIT UP HERE AND TALK ABOUT THIS IS WHY WE TALK ABOUT THEM. THIS IS WHY WE SPEND THE TIME DOING THIS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT WE'RE DOING UP HERE, AND WHILE WE'RE THINKING THIS THING THROUGH SO CAREFULLY. >> THAT IT'S NOT AN ARBITRARY DECISION. [LAUGHTER] >> EXACTLY. >> ANYONE ELSE WHO HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY? >> YES, I'D LIKE TO JUMP INTO BOB'S POINT. I FELT ADMONISHED BY MR. SHULTZ'S REMARKS ABOUT WHAT WE DO UP HERE AND HOW WHAT WE DO DOESN'T MATTER. WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TO THIS. WE'LL READ THESE CASES AND ANALYZE THEM, AND WE ARE DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE TO SAY THAT WE ARE A RECOMMENDING BODY. BUT THAT COMMENT STRIKES A NERVE. I WANTED TO LIKE THIS PROJECT AS WELL. I LIKED THE PROJECT. I WANT SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO HAPPEN. I'D LIKE TO SEE IT. IT'S BIG AND THEN I JUST GOT A SOUR TASTE. THAT'S MY PIECE. >> THANK YOU COMMISSIONER PENIEL. ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONER WALLACE. >> WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT THE FAR AND I THOUGHT THAT IT'S INTERESTING THAT PARKING AND BALCONIES ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATIONS FOR THAT. THOSE BALCONIES, THEY'RE OUTDOOR LIVING SPACES BUT THE APPLICANT HAS TOLD US IF YOU DIDN'T INCLUDE THOSE AS FAR AS COME BACK INTO LINE AND YOU GUYS KEEP TALKING ABOUT HOW BIG IT IS. I MEAN, IT IS BIGGER, IT'S 30 FEET TALLER THAN THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR. IT'S NOT A 150 PERCENT, 150 PERCENT WOULD BE 100 PLUS FEET TALLER. IT IS LARGER THAN THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR. [NOISE] ALSO ON THE DEAL ABOUT WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. I MEAN, I THINK YOU CAN LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN. IT'S A FAIR ASSESSMENT TO SAY THAT IT'S GOT THE CURVATURE AND IT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT THEY HAVE SENT US. THEN [NOISE] I'M SURE THESE GUYS CAN COME UP WITH ANOTHER PLAN TO PUT SOMETHING ELSE ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE $50 MILLION. I DON'T KNOW HOW ANYBODY CAN LOOK AT THAT AND GO THAT ADDING $50 MILLION TO OUR TAX BASE IS NOT A COMMUNITY BENEFIT. IN MY OPINION, THAT'S JUST ABSURD. YOU TALKED ABOUT BLOCKING THE VIEW OF THE APARTMENTS. IF YOU BUILT AT THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR, THE APARTMENT GUYS THERE VIEW IS GOING TO GET BLOCKED. IF THEY WERE PRESENTING THIS THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR, IT'D PROBABLY GET APPROVED. I THINK THAT [NOISE] THE PLACE YOU'VE GOT TO REMEMBER TOO, THIS GUY IS DOING 64 UNITS IN LIEU OF A 100 AND SOMETHING NEXT DOOR. THAT'S A BIG DEAL. I MEAN, GRANTED THEY'RE BIGGER, THE FOOTPRINT IS MUCH BIGGER BUT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE NEAR AS MANY PEOPLE THERE. I GET IT BOB, THE FAR IS IMPORTANT. I GET THAT. BUT I THINK THERE'S A LOT MORE TO THIS THAN JUST GO IN THE FAR IS OUT OF WHACK SO THE PROJECT IS OUT OF WHACK. I DON'T SEE THAT. ALSO QUESTION, [LAUGHTER] I DON'T LIKE IT. I SEE THIS ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION WHERE WE HAVE THE HEIGHTENED DENSITY ZONING AND IT'S JUST LAID OUT THERE AS OPPOSED TO BE A ONE SIZE FITS ALL. WE GOT TO REMEMBER GUYS, THIS IS WAY OUT WEST. IT'S NOT LIKE BUILDING SOMETHING HIGH AT 25TH STREET OR ON THE EASTERN WHERE THERE'S OTHER STRUCTURES [01:40:02] OR EVEN MORE IMPORTANT WHERE THERE'S OTHER RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. IT'S NEXT DOOR, THERE'S NO ADJACENT. THE ADJACENT USES WORK FOR THIS DEAL. THANK YOU FOR COMING. I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THE PROJECT HERE AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN HELP YOU OUT. MAYBE IT WON'T BE EXACTLY WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE BUT I LIKE IT. I THINK YOU GUYS TRIED TO TAKE THE LEMON AND MAKE SOME LEMONADES. YOU'VE GOT SOME TOUGH STUFF TO WORK WITH THERE. THANKS FOR BRINGING THE PROJECT TO US BUT I WOULD SAY I'D BE IN SUPPORT OF IT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. YES. >> I'VE BEEN WITHIN THE CITY FOR A LONG TIME AND I WAS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION MANY YEARS AGO WHEN GALVESTON WAS BOOMING AND WE HAD ALL KINDS OF DEVELOPMENT GOING ON. THERE WERE PROS AND CONS TO IT. I HAVE SEEN DEVELOPMENTS NOT GET APPROVED AND SOMETHING THAT IS NOT AS BENEFICIAL TO THE COMMUNITY, NOT AS WELL AFTER DEVELOPED ON THOSE PROPERTIES AND THAT'S HOW I SEE THIS PROPERTY. I'M MUCH MORE WILLING TO WORK WITH PEOPLE THESE DAYS BECAUSE I SEE THE POSSIBILITY OF THINGS THAT GALVESTON DOESN'T NEED, DOESN'T WANT COMING TO PROPERTY LIKE THIS. I THINK THIS PROPERTY COULD EASILY BE DEVELOPED INTO A HOTEL SITE THAT PROBABLY MAKES A LOT OF MONEY AND IS ANOTHER LOWER IN HOTEL THAT GALVESTON DOESN'T NEED. THAT'S WHY I'M MUCH MORE WILLING TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS, WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER AND TAKE THIS TO THE NEXT STEP AT LEAST TO SEE IF SOMETHING CAN BE DONE THAT BENEFITS GALVESTON. I HATE TO SEE THINGS BROUGHT UP LIKE VIEW CORRIDORS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT HAS NO VALUE IN THIS WHATSOEVER BECAUSE THAT 100 STORY BUILDING THAT'S WITHIN THE GUIDELINES IS GOING TO BLOCK SOMEBODY'S VIEW JUST AS MUCH AS 130 STORY BUILDING. AGAIN, I'M EXCITED ABOUT THE PROJECT. IT MIGHT NOT TURN OUT TO BE EXACTLY WHAT IS PRESENTED TO US TODAY BUT DEFINITELY WANT TO TAKE THE NEXT STEP HERE AND KEEP GOING DOWN THIS ROAD. >> THANK YOU. AS YOU SAID, VIEWS ARE NOT PROTECTED. THAT'S JUST THE LAW IN TEXAS. VIEWS ARE NOT PROTECTED. THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND DOES NOT HAVE BEARING ON MY DECISION AT ALL. COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY, DID I SEE YOUR HAND UP? >> YES, I WANT TO [INAUDIBLE] >> CORRECT. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> OKAY. THANK YOU. [OVERLAPPING] EXCUSE ME, I'M GOING TO SAY SOMETHING. >> WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT? I'M GOING TO SAY SOMETHING TOO. >> I'M THE CHAIR AND I'LL SPEAK FIRST. THANK YOU. >> OKAY, PLEASE. >> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT CALCULATING THE FLOOR TO AREA RATIO IN THE LDR, SECTION 10.301, IT DOES ACTUALLY IT STATES SPECIFICALLY THAT PORCHES AND OTHER STRUCTURES THAT ARE ROOFED BUT NOT ENCLOSED ON MORE THAN TWO SIDES SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE FLOOR TO AREA RATIO. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WALLOCK. >> YES MA'AM. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT MY REFERENCE TO ONE SIZE FITS ALL. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE. THIS IS LIKE ONE OF FIVE, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT ONE OF SIX. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THAT'S GOING TO FIT EVERY PROJECT THAT WE HAVE. I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME LEEWAY WHEN WE SEE THIS KIND OF STUFF. [01:45:01] THAT'S MY COMMENT. THANK YOU CHAIR FOR POINTING THAT OUT. >> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THAT RUSTY, I JUST THINK IT IS SO FAR OUT OF WHACK ON THIS ONE, IT IS SO FAR OFF THAT IT BEGS THE QUESTION. WITHOUT ANY FURTHER ADO, WE WILL CLOSE THE DISCUSSION AND WE'LL HAVE THE VOTE AS A REMINDER COMMISSION NURSE, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS FOR RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON HAYS 21P-037 AS WRITTEN. YES, AS WRITTEN. WE'LL MOVE FORWARD THEN. YOU'VE GOT THE MISSION ALL THE WAY. THANK YOU. THAT IS AGAIN, A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL AND MAY BE TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. [LAUGHTER] THE LAST FOOTBALL PLAYER SELECTED IN THE NFL DRAFT IS NAMED MR. IRRELEVANT FOR THE YEAR. I ACTUALLY KNEW PERSONALLY ONE OF THE MR. IRRELEVANT. WE'LL MOVE ON NOW TO CASE 21ZA-002. [8.A. 21ZA-002 Request For A Text Amendment To The Galveston Land Development Regulations, Article 14, Definitions, To Modify “Subordinate” Definition. Applicant: City Of Galveston, Development Services Department] >> 21ZA002, REQUEST FOR A TAX AMENDMENT TO THE GALVESTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 14, DEFINITIONS TO MODIFY THE SUBORDINATE DEFINITION. AGAIN, STAFF IS REQUESTING TO MODIFY THE SUBORDINATE DEFINITION AS CURRENTLY DEFINED. THE SUBORDINATE DEFINITION, AND MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE HIGH COMPONENT OF THE DEFINITION HAS BECOME AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT STRUCTURES SUCH AS GARAGE APARTMENTS. YOU WILL FIND THE DEFINITIONS OF BOTH SUBORDINATE AND ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON PAGE 1 OF YOUR REPORT. FOR THIS REASON, STAFF IS PROPOSING TO ELIMINATE THE HEIGHT ELEMENT OF THE SUBORDINATE DEFINITION. PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT A FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGE. ALSO, NOTE THE CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS ON PAGE 2 AND 3 OF YOUR REPORT. THE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST AS SUBMITTED. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ADRIEL. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, PLEASE SIR, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE QUESTIONS FROM THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS FOR YOU. IF WE DO NOT PUT ANY KIND OF HEIGHT LIMITATION ON THIS, IN MOST NEIGHBORHOODS, WHAT WOULD THE LDR HEIGHT LIMIT BE? >> EACH ZONING CATEGORY HAD AN ALLOWABLE HEIGHT. THAT IS USUALLY MEASURED FROM BFE, BASE FLOOD ELEVATION. JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA, TYPICALLY AROUND TOWN IN THE URBAN CORE, PARTICULARLY YOU'RE LOOKING AT 50 FEET FROM [INAUDIBLE] BASE FLOOD. >> YES. FIFTY FEET, A LITTLE BIT HIGH IN SOME AREAS. WHAT WOULD YOU THINK OF ADDING A LIMIT TO THIS? MAYBE WE SAY, MY ORIGINAL THOUGHT WAS TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I THINK THAT'S TOO SUBJECTIVE. MAYBE LIMITING IT TO ONE STORY OVER PARKING? >> I MEAN, SURE. THIS IS WHY WE'RE REVIEWING THIS. THE COMMISSION CAN CHOOSE TO ADD OR MODIFY WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. [INAUDIBLE] TO ALSO FOR YOU GUYS TO CONSIDER SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT YOU ARE ASKING US TO MODIFY IN TERMS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THOSE ITEMS. [01:50:01] FROM A STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, I THINK HAVING A MORE PRECISE DEFINITIVE APPROACHES TO WHAT IS ALLOWABLE MAYBE SLIGHTLY BETTER FROM AN IMPLEMENTATION STANDPOINT. >> DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE SOMETHING IN THERE? I'M NOT QUITE UNDERSTANDING, ADRIEL. I'M FRIED. [OVERLAPPING] >> I THINK THAT YOU CAN CONDITION IT OR MODIFY IT AS YOU SEE FIT, BUT I THINK STAFF FEELS COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED. >> OKAY. YOU FEEL LIKE IT GIVES YOU ENOUGH STRUCTURE THAT IF SOMEONE CAME IN AND PROPOSED SOMETHING THAT WAS 50 FEET HIGH, YOU COULD SAY NO? >> ALSO, I LIKE TO KNOW THAT IN SOME PARTS OF TOWN, YOU ALREADY HAVE OVERLAYS, WHICH ALSO RESTRICT HOW TALL YOU CAN BE. FOR INSTANCE, ON THE EAST END, YOU HAVE THE HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT'S GOING TO LIMIT THE ABILITY OF SOMEONE TO GO ACCESSIBLY HIGHER THAN THEIR NEIGHBORS. SAME GOES FOR THE SAN JAC NEIGHBORHOOD UNDER THE NCD STANDARDS, THERE'S LIMITATIONS TO THAT AS WELL. I THINK WE'RE PRETTY MUCH COVERED AND THEN THE MAJORITY OF THIS PORTION OF TOWN, THE URBAN CORE. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, JOHN PAUL? >> WELL, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A STATEMENT. I'M MORE OR LESS BECAUSE I'M THE ONE WHO BROUGHT THIS UP. I CAN DO THAT WHENEVER IF YOU WANT TO ASK MORE QUESTIONS. [OVERLAPPING] >> DO YOU MIND DOING IT DURING DISCUSSION? BECAUSE I KNOW THIS IS YOUR AREA WHERE YOU'RE INTERESTED IN. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT STAFF FELT LIKE THEY WERE COVERED ON THIS TO BE ABLE TO ACT APPROPRIATELY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? VICE-CHAIR BROWN. >> MY QUESTION WAS REMIND ME, WHAT'S THE DRIVING WITH THIS? >> WE HAD A WORKSHOP ON THIS A WHILE BACK AND THE DRIVING FACTOR IN THIS IS AGAIN, THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. OFTENTIMES, WHAT WE SEE IS YOU HAVE SITES THAT HAVE A ONE-STORY STRUCTURE, PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND THEN THEY ARE UNABLE TO CONSTRUCT AN ADU, AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT BECAUSE OF THESE HIGH LIMITATIONS AND ALSO MEETING FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS WHICH PUTS THEM AT A DISADVANTAGE. >> AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE MAY BE BUILT AT GREATER [INAUDIBLE] BELGRADE AND THEN THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE HAS TO BE ABOVE BFE AND IT MAY WIND UP BEING LARGER OR TALLER THAN THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE? >> CORRECT. >> EXACTLY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY, THANK YOU AND THANK YOU, STEPHEN. >> ADRIEL, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME HEARING. BUT I UNDERSTAND YOU JUST SAY THAT BY CHANGING THE SUBORDINATE DEFINITION, YOU FEEL AS THOUGH [INAUDIBLE] YOU HAVE ENOUGH OTHER REGULATION TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OR THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS OUR CHAIRMAN HAD POINTED OUT. >> I THINK THAT'S FAIR STATEMENT. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE DESCRIPTIONS ON ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOR WHAT THEIR HEIGHT COULD BE? >> WELL, RIGHT NOW, WHAT IS DRIVING THIS IS WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT. THEIR HEIGHT, IT'S LIMITED TO THE HEIGHT OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON THAT LOT. >> RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE OF THE BFE AND ALL OF THESE GRANDFATHERS' HOUSES, OUR HISTORICAL SITUATION HERE BEING COMPLIANT WITH FEMA, WE NEED TO ALLOW A HIGHER HEIGHT ON THOSE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, DO YOU HAVE WITHIN THE LDRS RIGHT NOW ENOUGH REGULATION TO KEEP US FROM GOING CRAZY? >> THAT WOULD BE A HARD NO. [LAUGHTER] I'M SORRY. WITH REGARD TO BUILDING HEIGHTS, ADRIEL. >> I THINK AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, I THINK KEY AREAS OF THE CITY ARE COVERED BY THE DIFFERENT OVERLAYS SUCH AS THE SAN JAC, AND OBVIOUSLY THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE, COMMISSIONERS? WE'LL MOVE TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:24. [01:55:01] THERE IS NO ONE HERE, IN-PERSON AUDIENCE. IS THERE ANYONE ONLINE, CATHERINE? >> IF THERE'S ANYBODY ON THE ZOOM CALL WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT, PLEASE INDICATE BY USING THE RAISE YOUR HAND FUNCTION. SEEING NONE. >> WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:24, AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 21ZA-02. I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF 21ZA-002 AS WRITTEN. I'VE GOT A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONERS? YES, SIR. >> I THINK WE NEED TO APPROVE THIS BECAUSE WE DON'T NEED TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL LAYER OF BUREAUCRACY BEFORE THEY HIT THE MYRIAD OF CHALLENGES THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE AFTER THIS PROCESS. I THINK THIS IS A GOOD MOVE. I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING BECAUSE AS YOU STATED IN YOUR LAST COMMENT AND AS WE SAW TODAY, EACH PROJECT'S GOING TO HAVE ITS OWN HEIGHT AND DENSITY THINGS. AS BOB POINTED OUT, THE SUBSIDENCE AND STUFF SO IT JUST MAKES SENSE. >> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER LISTOWSKI. >> I'M ALWAYS [INAUDIBLE]. THAT'S THE WAY IT'S GOING. [LAUGHTER] >> GOSH, JOHN PAUL'S BEHIND IT. WAIT, LET ME BACK UP. ANYTHING? SO NOTHING ELSE TO ADD AT THIS POINT? >> NO, I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO REALLY WORRY ABOUT ON CHANGING CHARACTERS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AFTER [INAUDIBLE] WE'VE SEEN NEIGHBORHOODS DEFINITELY CHANGE BY NEW HOUSES BEING CONSTRUCTED, OLD HOUSES BEING TORN DOWN, NEW HOUSES BEING CONSTRUCTED, MEETING BFE. IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT CHARACTER IS STILL INTACT, I THINK WE HAVE OVERLAY ZONES THAT PROTECT THOSE AREAS AND I'M NOT REALLY WORRIED ABOUT CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOODS BY ELIMINATING THIS VERBIAGE. >> OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. IF THAT'S IT, THEN WE'LL CALL THE QUESTION, PLEASE. [OVERLAPPING]. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BEFORE WE ADJOURN COMMISSIONERS, I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT I HEARD FROM DANIEL WHO SAID THAT HE'S ONLY [Additional Item] RECEIVED TWO SETS OF COMMISSIONER'S NOTES FROM THE CONCESSIONS WORKSHOP, SO IF YOU HAVE NOTES OR COMMENTS FROM THE CONCESSIONS WORKSHOP LAST TIME, IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE SUBMIT THOSE TO DANIEL SO WE CAN INCORPORATE THOSE INTO OUR NEXT FOOD TRUCK CONCESSIONS DISCUSSION. ANYTHING ELSE, COMMISSIONERS? ANYONE ELSE HAVE A DISCUSSION ITEM? YES, COMMISSIONER EDWARDS. >> I WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS THE OTHER DAY, AND THE REASON IT'S BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION WAS THAT THE MAIL IN GALVESTON IS REALLY SLOW RIGHT NOW. IT'S EXTRAORDINARILY SLOW. I'M WONDERING IF THE NOTICES THAT WE ACTUALLY SENT OUT ARE GETTING TO PEOPLE. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER WAY THAT WE CAN NOTICE PEOPLE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THE MAIL IS SUFFICIENT FOR NOTICE BECAUSE I SENT A CHECK TO SOMEBODY ON THE ISLAND AND THEY RECEIVED IT ALMOST A MONTH LATER. I KNOW THAT THE MAIL IS HAVING A PROBLEM. I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD CONSIDER. >> WE'LL PUT THAT ON THE DISCUSSION ITEM FOR THE NEXT MEETING. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CATHERINE. I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER EDWARDS. ANYTHING ELSE? ANYONE? SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS, WE WILL ADJOURN. THANK YOU ALL. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.