>> PERFECT. WE'RE READY, START. [Landmark Commission on August 16, 2021.] [00:00:04] >> I CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. IT'S FOUR O'CLOCK. WELCOME EVERYONE TO THE RECORD MEETING OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION HERE ON AUGUST 16TH, 2021. LET'S BEGIN WITH THE ATTENDANCE. [NOISE] >> COMMISSIONER CLICK. >> PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN. >> PRESENT. >> CHAIRPERSON HUDDLESTON. >> PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER LANG. >> PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER MCLEAN. >> PRESENT. >> VICE CHAIRPERSON PATTERSON. >> PRESENT. [LAUGHTER] >> COMMISSIONER SWANSON. >> PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER BOYD HAS NOTIFIED ME HE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE IT. >> I'M HERE. >> AWESOME. I DIDN'T SEE YOU. SORRY ABOUT THAT. COUNCILMAN COLLINS. >> I'LL JUST NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT ALL OF THE REGULAR MEMBERS ARE IN ATTENDANCE, AND SO THE ALTERNATE WILL NOT BE VOTING TODAY. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. [OVERLAPPING] COUNCILWOMAN, I'M LOOKING AT THE SCREEN, EVERYBODY IS FROZEN BUT ME. >> WHEN I LOOK AT MY SCREEN, EVERYBODY'S MOVING AROUND SO YOU MIGHT TRY TO TOGGLE BETWEEN YOUR SPEAKER VIEW AND YOUR GALLERY VIEW, THAT MIGHT HELP. >> AND IF YOU DON'T MIND COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU'RE HAVING TECHNICAL ISSUES, YOU MAY WANT TO PUT THAT IN THE CHAT, ONCE WE START HEARING CASES. >> DOES ANYBODY HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS TODAY? [NOISE] NO? [INAUDIBLE], DO YOU HAVE A CONFLICT? ALL RIGHT THEN. IS THERE BY ANY CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING ON AUGUST 2ND? THE CHANGES, CORRECTIONS, ADDITIONS. NO? SEEING NONE, SO THEY WILL BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. MEETING FORMAT. >> [OVERLAPPING] I'M SORRY. KATHY MAY BE SAYING THE SAME THING I'M SAYING. PATRICK CAN YOU NOTE THAT COUNCILMAN COLLINS HAS APPEARED. >> WILL DO. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. THE MEETING FORMAT, OUR TYPICAL REMINDERS WHEN WE'RE IN VIRTUAL MEETING, THAT IT'S BEST TO WATCH THE MEETING ON GALLERY VIEW. THAT'S HOW WE SHOW THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC AND IT ENABLES YOU TO SEE ALL OF YOUR COMMISSIONERS AT THE SAME TIME. WE ASK THAT YOU MUTE UNLESS YOU'RE SPEAKING AND PLEASE GET THE CHAIR'S ATTENTION BEFORE SPEAKING OR MAKING A MOTION. WE'LL BE TAKING THE VOTES FOR ROLL CALL. >> FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE ATTENDING THE MEETING TODAY, VIRTUALLY, WHEN YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, WE ASK THAT YOU USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN AND THEN YOUR MICROPHONE WILL BE UNMUTED AND YOU'LL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. THAT'S ALL. >> ALL RIGHT. >> THE PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY. >> NO PUBLIC COMMENT WAS RECEIVED. >> ALL RIGHT. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON THEN TO NEW BUSINESS AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC HEARING. FIRST CASE IS 21LC-050. >> 21LC-050. THIS IS AT 1301 MARKET STREET, AND THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS SOMETHING I DON'T THINK LANDMARKS SEES A WHOLE LOT OF. THERE WERE 22 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, NONE OF THOSE ARE RETURNED. FILTRATE PROPERTY WAS BUILT CIRCUIT 1960S, LIQUID KNOWS THE LEWIS RAMY HOUSE. HOUSE FEATURES TWO STORIES, ABOVE AND ENCLOSED, IMPROVED ABOVE-GROUND CELLAR. THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO INCLUDE SPACE FOR A SMALL PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. BECAUSE OF SUCH A PROPERTIES IS IN THE EASTERN, HISTORIC DISTRICT LANDMARK COMMISSION HAS REQUESTED TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION. THE REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE LAND USE WILL INCLUDE OFFICE, WHICH IS NOT NORMALLY PERMITTED IN R3 ZONING, AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE ALLOWANCES BEYOND WHAT IS TYPICALLY ALLOWED IN R3 ZONING AS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WAS BUILT CIRCA 1960 FOR LEWIS [INAUDIBLE] A BUSINESS OWNER, OWNED BY THAT FAMILY UNTIL 1988. THEN IT WAS OWNED BY FELIX SMITH FOUNDATION FROM THEN UNTIL [00:05:02] 2004 WHEN IT PASSED BACK INTO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP. HOUSE IS KNOWN AS AN ITALIAN RENAISSANCE INSPIRED STYLE DESIGNED BY AN ANTON [INAUDIBLE] FROM THE NEW YORK ARCHITECTURE FIRM, [INAUDIBLE] LEWIS, AND WICCAN HOFER, COINED THE AFRICA, THE ABOVE GROUND BASED WITH RESTRICTIONS, THE CLOSE, AND THE HABITABLE SPACE AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 2052 SQUARE FOOT OF AREA. FOUR HUNDRED WHICH IS USED FOR MECHANICAL AND STORAGE, AND THEY WOULD LEAVE THE REMAINDER TO SERVICE OFFICE SPACE FOR THE APPLICANT OF THE FOUR EMPLOYEES OR STAFF MEMBERS. FURTHER DETAILS ARE PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT UNDER THE PV DETAILS AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE DEVELOPMENT IS DULY COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE PROPOSED LAND USE IS RELATIVELY LOW INTENSITY, DOES NOT GENERATE ANY APPRECIABLE TRAFFIC OR PARTIAL REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY ARE TO PROVIDE BY THE APPLICANT ONLY REQUEST ONE ADDITIONAL VARIANTS AND THEN THE FORM OF A MODEST INCREASE IN SITE SIGNAGE. OF COURSE, FIND DESIGN WILL STILL GO FORM TO THE DESIGN STUDENTS FOR STORED PROPERTIES AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, IT WOULD BE REVIEWED UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT. AT THIS TIME, THE APPLICANT IS NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGES TO THE SITE OR STRUCTURE WHICH REQUIRE A LANDMARK COMMISSION REVIEW OTHERWISE. THE LAND USE OFFICE WAS RUMORED TO LAND USE IN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT. THE PUD WOULD BASICALLY DEVIATE FROM THAT AND ALLOW THAT. IT'S A LIMITED FORM ALONG WITH THE ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE. PLEASE NOTE THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL ALSO IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST REALLY CONFORMS TO THE CRITERIA FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON. PLANED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IS DESIGNED TO BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A DESIGNATED BASED ZONING DISTRICT. IN THE CASE OF THIS PUD, THE PROPOSED ADDITIONAL LAND USE OFFICE THAT IS LIMITED ITS SCOPE, IS EXPECTED TO HAVE MINIMAL IF ANY, IMPACT IN THE RESIDUAL USE OF CARE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE'RE NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES PROPOSED TO THE STRUCTURAL PROPERTY AND EXISTING OFF STREET PARKING NEEDS OR EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH THE PROPOSED OFFICE LAND USE AND THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED LAND USE, WHICH WOULD ALSO REMAIN. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO KEEP THE UPPER STORIES AS THEIR RESIDENCE AND USE THE BOTTOM FLOOR PARTIALLY AS OFFICE SPACE IS BASICALLY WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. PLANNING COMMISSION WILL HEAR REQUESTS IF THERE ARE ON THE 17TH MEETING. COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL DECISION REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR PLENTY OF DEVELOPMENT AND THAT REQUEST WILL BE HEARD AT THEIR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23RD, 2021. DUE TO THE FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IS LIKELY TO HAVE MINIMAL, IF ANY, IMPACT ON THE RESIDENTIAL CARE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF CASE 21LC-050 WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE THROUGH FIVE, AND STANDARD CONDITIONS SIX THROUGH EIGHT. THEN WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND THE VICINITY MAP. THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE'S THE EXISTING SURVEY WHICH SHOWS THE EXISTING VARIOUS BUILDINGS. YOU SEE THAT THE PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY ON THREE LOTS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE WE'RE SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED TWO FOOT BY TWO FOOT SIGN THAT THE APPLICANT WISHES TO INCLUDE THE PUD AND WHERE THE EXISTING OFF STREET PARKING IS LOCATED THAT WOULD SATISFY THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WE HAD A PROPERTY OF THE NORTH, TO THE EAST, AND TO THE SOUTH, AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? [INAUDIBLE] >> CATHERINE IN PLANNING, MY QUESTION IS, IN THIS PUD, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THEY REQUESTED TODAY BUT WHAT COULD HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE, IF SOMEONE WANT TO DO SOMETHING ELSE WITH IT. MAYBE IT'S AN EXTERNAL AND HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO OFFICES IN THERE, OFFICES CAN BE A BIG TERM. IS THERE A WAY TO ATTACH A PUD TO JUST A BUSINESS AND NOT THE PROPERTY? OR IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE CAN MAKE IT CONTINGENT UPON COUNCIL REVIEW IF IT WERE TO EVER CHANGE IN ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION OF THIS PUD? >> WELL, PUDS ARE SPECIFIC TO THE PROJECT BEING PROPOSED. IT CAN'T BE LIMITED TO PROPERTY OWNER, THIS ISN'T TYPE OF AN APPROVAL THAT RUNS WITH THE LAND. IF THE PROPERTY CHANGES HANDS AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, IT COULD CONTINUED TO BE USED AS AN OFFICE. IF THEY'D HAVE TO MEET ALL THE STANDARDS THAT I WAS PROPOSING TO ATTACH TO THE PUD IT WOULD HAVE TO ALSO ABIDE BY THE PUD'S PLAN. [00:10:03] >> CAN WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL THAT OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT COUNCIL WILL NEED TO REVIEW WHAT BUSINESS GOES INTO THAT PUD? BECAUSE SOMETIMES SOMEONE MAY WANT TO OPEN SOME CLINIC THERE OR TREATMENT FACILITY THAT COULD BE DISRUPTIVE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT IT JUST BEING AN OPEN ATTACHMENT TO THAT PROPERTY, THIS PUD IS ATTACHED TO THAT PROPERTY AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY, AND THE WORD OFFICES IS VAGUE. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE PUT IN PROTECTIVE LEVERAGE IN THERE. WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TODAY DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A BIG DEAL TO ME, IT'S PERFECTLY REASONABLE. THAT'S NOT WHAT MY CONCERN IS, MY CONCERN IS WHAT HAPPENED 10 OR 15 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD WHERE IT CHANGES HAND, IF SOMEONE SEIZES THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE PUD TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT WITH IT. >> [OVERLAPPING] GO AHEAD, CATHERINE. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT THAT WOULD BE OUT TO STAFF TO REVIEW AT THAT TIME, IF THERE WAS A PROPOSED CHANGE. WE WOULD LOOK AT WHAT THE BUSINESS PLAN WAS AND COMPARE IT AGAINST THOSE APPROVED IN THE PUD AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY ALIGN. SOMETHING LIKE A DOCTOR'S OFFICE IS A DIFFERENT LAND USE. THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO USE IT AS A CLINIC OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THE FUTURE. >> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY. EVEN THOUGH IT SEEMS THAT IT'S AN OPEN CRITERIA AS AN OFFICE USE, IT STILL COMES WITH BOUNDARY, I SHOULD SAY, SOME DEFINING CRITERIA. I'M SORRY, CHAIRMAN. >> I'M SORRY. IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 4 OF THE DESCRIPTION IN DETAIL, PLAN USE DEVELOPMENTS CAN BE REVOKED AND ON OCCASION HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST. THAT CAN HAPPEN IN THIS CASE ALSO. THE CITY DOES HAVE [NOISE] OPTION TO REVOKE OR CHANGE THE PROPOSAL HERE. DOUG. >> CHAIRMAN. IS THERE A DESCRIPTION OF THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT THE OFFICES ARE GOING TO MAINTAIN? >> I THINK THERE IS. >> I THINK THERE IS, AND THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I THINK WOULD BE CRITICAL IS IF THEY TRIED TO BRANCH AND EXPAND ON THE AMOUNT OF SPACE IN THAT HOUSE AND THEN IT ULTIMATELY BECOMES A BUSINESS AS OPPOSED TO A RESIDENCE. THAT WOULD BE MY CONCERN, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S ALREADY SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE, BUT SQUARE FOOTAGE ISSUE WOULD BE ONE THING WE'D LIKE TO TRY AND HOLD IT AT THAT, WITH THEIR REQUEST. >> A SQUARE FOOTAGE LISTED TO BID 1,652 SQUARE FEET. THAT'S WHAT IT IS. CONNIE. >> I GUESS YOU BROUGHT UP ANOTHER PUD ONLY 4,000 SQUARE FEET AT THAT ADDRESS? OR IS IT A GENERAL USE PUD THAT SOMEONE COULD COME, BE IT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BEFORE CITY, BUT IT'S NOT LIMITED TO JUST A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, IS THAT RIGHT? THEY CAME TO CLAIM THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THIS PUD EVER, WOULD THAT COME IN BEFORE REVIEW? >> THAT'S RIGHT. IT'S LIMITED TO WHAT IS DESCRIBED IN THE PUD PLAN, SO THEY WOULD BE LIMITED TO THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE AND ANY INCREASE WOULD REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE STAFF THROUGH THEIR APPROVAL PROCESS, BY THE TWO BOARDS AND CITY COUNCIL. >> OKAY. >> IF I MAY ADD, THAT CURRENT COHORT IS STANDARD CONDITION NUMBER 7, WHERE WE TALK ABOUT WHAT SETS OFF THAT RE-REVIEW IS IT LIMITS THE ABILITY TO GET EXCRETE FROM THE ORIGINAL SCOPE. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTION? [OVERLAPPING] >> COMMISSIONER LANG HAS HER HAND UP. >> I'M SORRY. WHO? >> COMMISSIONER LANG HAS HER HAND UP AND ALSO COUNCIL MEMBER COLLINS. >> I'M SORRY. STEPHANIE, I'M SORRY. >> NO PROBLEM. STAFF, HAVE THEY SUBMITTED ANY TOOLS OR DRAWINGS FOR WHAT THE SIGNAGE IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE? >> [INAUDIBLE] HOWEVER, THEY HAVE STATED A MAXIMUM LIMIT OF TWO-FOOT BY TWO-FOOT, AND THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE WOULD STILL HAVE TO MEET OUR DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES. THEY WOULD MEET THE SAME LIMITATIONS. OF COURSE, IT WAS STILL HAVE TO ABIDE BY OUR ARTICLE 5, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR SIGNAGE, OTHERWISE. >> CONNIE? >> I JUST HAD A CURIOSITY, IS THE PROPERTY LANDMARK? >> IT IS NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. [OVERLAPPING] [00:15:06] >> [INAUDIBLE] COLLINS HAS HIS HAND UP. >> DONNA, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. BUT WHEN THIS GOES TO COUNCIL, COUNCIL HAS TO PUT ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE PUD, AM I RIGHT? >> THEY CAN. >> CONNIE, I THINK YOUR QUESTION HAS BEEN ADDRESSED THAT IT CAN'T GET TOO FAR AWAY FROM THE USE THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED TODAY. >> STEPHANIE. >> ONE MORE QUESTION ABOUT THE SIGNAGE. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE REGULATIONS ABOUT THAT. BRIEFLY, WHAT WOULD THOSE BE? I CERTAINLY WOULD WANT TO SEE SOMETHING THAT IS IN KEEPING WITH THE FRONT ELEVATION OF THAT HOUSE AND THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE. IT LOOKS LIKE THEY ALREADY HAVE A [INAUDIBLE] OF SOME KIND ON THE RIGHT-HAND COLUMN, WOULD BE LOVELY IF THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT MATCHED OR WAS VERY CONGRUENT IN STYLE TO WHAT IS ALREADY THERE VERSUS ALLOWED BRIGHTLY COLORED WHATEVER. TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SIGN REGULATIONS. >> GENERALLY SPEAKING, THEY DON'T ALLOW ANY FLUORESCENT OR METALLIC COLORS AND THEY'RE GENERALLY LIMITED TO I THINK A COLOR PELLET OF FOUR PRIMARY COLORS I BELIEVE, THAT'S HOW THE STANDARDS APPLY. THEY WOULD BASICALLY BE UNDER THE SAME STANDARDS THAT ARE TYPICAL STRAND MECHANIC DISTRICT SIGNAGE, YOU SEE HANGING UNDER SOME OF THE CANOPIES. CATHERINE, IS THAT ABOUT RIGHT? >> YEAH, THAT'S ABOUT RIGHT, AND THEN THEY ARE ALSO LIMITED IN THE MATERIALS ALLOWED WITH THE METAL OR WOOD. >> THANK YOU. >> ANYBODY ELSE? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, CASE 21LC-050, AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. >> I SEE THAT DAVID WATSON IS SIGNED IN TO THE MEETING. YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, DAVID. >> HI, THIS IS DAVID WATSON. IT'S A FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD REQUEST [NOISE] IN THE FACT THAT THE CONCERN OF THE 1,600 SQUARE FEET, THAT'S ALL THAT'S AVAILABLE ON THE FIRST FLOOR. WE'VE LIMITED THE PUD TO THAT 1,600 SQUARE FEET. WE ARE ALSO LIMITED BY THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE EVEN IF WE TRIED TO EXPAND BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO MEET PARKING REQUIREMENT AND THAT WOULD ALSO COME INTO PLAY IF SOMEBODY IN THE FUTURE WANTED TO CHANGE USES. PARKING WOULD ALSO BE A DRIVING FACTOR. BUT IF THERE'S NO INTENTION OF ADDING TO THE SPACE, IF JUST THE SMALL LAW PRACTICE. THE OWNER IS SEAN HODGE. HE AND HIS FAMILY LIVE ON THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR CURRENTLY. THE FIRST FLOOR RIGHT NOW IS BASICALLY A BILLIARD PARLOR AND THE ELEVATOR AND AIR CONDITIONING AND BOILER ROOM EQUIPMENT. THEY WOULD TAKE THE BILLIARD PARLOR AREA AND CONVERT THAT INTO AN OFFICE AREA. THE SIGNAGE, THE GOAL WOULD BE TO BE IN KEEPING WITH THE EXISTING SIGN THAT'S THE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, AND TO APPEAR TO BE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO A BRONZE PLAQUE. IT MIGHT HAVE BE A CAST BRONZE OR A CAST ALUMINUM, BUT IT WOULD STILL HAVE THAT SAME GENERAL AESTHETIC. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS THAT I CAN ANSWER FOR YOU ALL? >> I THINK WE HAVE IT COVERED, DAVID. >> OKAY. >> THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? >> IF THERE'S ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC ON THE CALL WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE CASE, YOU HAVE TO USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION. SEEING NONE. >> SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC-050, AND THEN BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. CONNIE? >> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CASE 21LC-050 TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL. >> I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. I'M SORRY. I'LL LET SARAH SECOND IN. I DIDN'T SEE YOUR HAND. [OVERLAPPING] ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE MOTION. [NOISE] >> COMMISSIONER CLICK? >> IN FAVOR. >> COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN? >> IN FAVOR. >> COMMISSIONER HUDDLESTON? [00:20:02] >> IN FAVOR. >> COMMISSIONER LANG? >> IN FAVOR. >> COMMISSIONER MCLEAN? >> IN FAVOR. SORRY. >> COMMISSIONER PATTERSON? >> IN FAVOR. >> COMMISSIONER WOOD? >> IN FAVOR. >> ALL IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSES. >> NEXT CASE IS 21LC-052. >> 21LC -052, THIS IS ADJACENT TO 2427 MARKET, AND THIS IS A LICENSE TO USE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUEST. THERE WERE 18 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, NONE OF THOSE RETURNED. THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS FROM STATE DEPARTMENTS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A LICENSE TO USE OR TO MODIFY THE PLACEMENT OF A SEA TURTLE STATUE IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON SIDEWALK. THE APPLICANT RECEIVED APPROVAL FOR THE STATUE FROM PLANNING COMMISSION OR CASE 23-042 AND A RECOMMENDATION FOR LANDMARK COMMISSION, OF CASE 20LC IS 076 NOW THE APPLICANT WISHES TO ADD A DECORATIVE AND PROTECTIVE PLANTER AROUND THE STATUE. THE TOTAL SKETCH IS NOT ACTUALLY CHANGING LOCATION, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO PUT A MORE PERMANENT PLANTER AROUND IS THE REQUEST. THE EXISTING STATUE WAS PLACED IN THE RIGHT WAY, JASON'S THE SPONSOR'S BUSINESS, APPROXIMATELY 12 INCHES FROM THE CURB, THIS ALLOWED APPROXIMATELY 10-FOOT OF CLEARANCE BETWEEN THE STATUE AND THE BUILDING, A TURTLE STATUE 48 INCHES HIGH 16 INCHES WIDE WITH THE FLIPPERS EXTENDED AND THE PROPOSED BASE IS 12 INCHES TALL FROM GRADE AND APPROXIMATELY SIX-FOOT ACROSS AND THE OCTAGON SHAPE AND IT'LL BE CONSTRUCTED FROM PAINTED WOOD AND ANCHOR TO THE SIDEWALK WITH EMBEDDED REBAR PINS AND THE SIX-FOOT-WIDE PLANTER WILL BE CENTERED ON THE TURTLE STATUE, WHICH HAS OVERALL WIDTH OF 62 INCHES AT MOST. THAT MEANS THE PLANNER WILL BE AT LEAST FIVE INCHES WIDER THAN THE STATUTE IF AT ANY GIVEN POINT IN MANY PLACES QUITE A BIT WIDER. DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION PROVIDING THE STAFF REPORT UNDER ATTACHMENT A. THE ADJACENT RIGHT AWAY IS JUST WESTLEY SPONSORS RESTAURANT ON THE EAST SIDE OF 25TH STREET BETWEEN MARKET AND POST OFFICE. IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING FLOWER BED WHERE THE STATUE IS CURRENTLY PLACED, THERE IS A NEW CANOPY ERECTED RECENTLY, AND THEN THE COLUMNS ARE ADJACENT, THE STATUE IS SHOWN IN THE STAFF REPORT. OF COURSE, LICENSED TO USE AS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PLACING THE LANDS OF THEM, THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEMPERATURE 25, THIS BECAUSE ORDINANCES AS ADJACENT PROPERTIES OF GALVESTON LANDMARK A RECOMMENDATION IS REQUESTED FROM LANDMARK COMMISSION. PLANNING COMMISSION HAS THE FINAL DECISION THEY WILL HEAR THIS REQUEST AT THE AUGUST 17TH, 2021 MEETING. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST WITH THE CONDITIONS 1 THROUGH 3 AND STANDARD CONDITIONS 4 THROUGH 9 AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOOKING EAST ACROSS THE PART OF ROSENBERG AND YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING TURTLE STATUE AND THE LITTLE TEMPORARY PLANT THAT THEY HAVE TO PROTECT IT NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE? THE PLANTER, WHERE THE TURTLE IS AT, AND WHERE THE ADDITIONAL PLANTER WOULD BE LOCATED. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE'S THE APPLICANTS' PHOTOS OF THE CLOSE-UP MATERNAL STATUE AND THEN SOME DRAWINGS OF HOW WE WOULD LOOK IN PROFILE AND PLAN AND A PICTURE OF THE PREFABRICATED PLANTER FOR REFERENCE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE'S A PHOTO OF THE RIGHT OF WAY LOOKING NORTH ALONG THE BUILDING FRONT OF THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, AND THE PROPERTY ACROSS ROSENBERG TO THE WEST, AND THIS INCLUDES STATS REPORTS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? I WILL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21LC-052 ASKING IF THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE. >> I THINK THE APPLICANT HAS SIGNED IN. YOU'VE BEEN UNMUTED YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> WE SURE CAN. >> FIRST, I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR TAKING THE TIME TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS PROJECT. YOU KNOW THE MAIN CHALLENGE HAS BEEN WITH THE TURTLE IS THAT IT'S JUST THE RIGHT HEIGHT TO ENCOURAGE KIDS AND SOME ARE NOT TOO SMART ADULTS THE CLIMB UP RIGHT ON IT, AND WE'VE HAD TO SPEND MONEY TO REPAIR IT. ONCE IN MAY AND SOME OF YOU KNOW, PROBABLY SOME OF THE CIRCLES ABOUT TOWN PEOPLE HAVE BUILT CAGES AROUND THEM, WHICH AREN'T VERY APPEALING TO THE EYE AT ALL AND WE HAD [00:25:02] AN ARTIST HELP DESIGN THE FLOWER BED. THE WORSE MISTAKE BE THE MATERIAL IS GOING TO BE USED TO FORM THAT YOU SEE ON YOUR LAYOUT BEAR IS JUST THE FORM WHERE WE POINT CONCRETE GAP AT ANCHORED, BUT IT'LL BE A PERMANENT CONCRETE FLOWER BED AROUND THE TURTLE WITH IT RAISING IN THE MIDDLE. SIMILARLY, THERE'S BEEN ONE DONE IN FRONT OF A COUPLE OF A PLACE THAT THEY'VE DONE SOME PERMANENT PRODUCT CREATE ONE PACO'S AND RUDY'S HAS ONE WHERE THEY HIT A FALL ONE. ALSO IN FRONT OF THE QUICK TRACK STUDIOS, THEY'VE PUT IT IN A CONCRETE FLOWER BED WHICH IS ALREADY THERE. WE REALLY APPRECIATE I THINK THIS WILL HELP ENHANCE THE AREA AND WE'VE CONTRACTED WITH A LITTLE IRON-STEEL COMPANY THAT WILL KEEP UP THE FLOWERS IN THERE BECAUSE IT'LL BE PERMANENT AND REALLY IT WILL HELP PROTECT THE TURTLE ITSELF, PEOPLE CLIMBING ALL OVER IT. TAKING PICTURES OF IT FEELS REALLY EASY TO WANT TO DO THAT. I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER. I'VE BEEN THERE TRYING TO TAKE CARE OF THE FLOWERS BY ITSELF, BUT KEEP IT LOOK A LITTLE APPROPRIATE AROUND THAT PLACE. ANY QUESTIONS TO ANYBODY? >> ANY QUESTIONS. >> NOT A QUESTION, JUST THE COMMENT. THEY PUT THIS TURTLE [OVERLAPPING]. >> OH, [LAUGHTER] I THOUGHT WE ADDED THAT. >> WENT THROUGH THE INITIATION TO GET A TURTLE AND PUT IT THERE, SUPER CUTE, LOVE THE TURTLE. THAT ONE SEEKS, DO YOU MIND IF THE RESTAURANT THAT'S JUST DUPLICATE. >> WHAT ELSE ON A CONDITION HAVE A COMMENT OR QUESTION FOR THE OUTCOME. I THINK NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON PAGE 21LC-052 AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. I WILL MAKE A MOTION THEN, DO YOU ALL APPROVE CASE 21LC-052, WILL STAMP RECOMMENDATIONS WITH CONDITION. OKAY, SARAH, YOU SECONDED IT. >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION? [NOISE] DOUG. >> THIS REALLY DOESN'T RELATE TO THIS TURTLE, BUT IT DOES RELATE TO THE PREPONDEROUS WITH TURTLES THAT ARE AROUND THE ISLAND, AND WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT THERE IS A REAL STRUCTURAL WEAKNESS IN THE TURTLES AND I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE LONGEVITY IF THEY'RE BEING ABLE TO BE MAINTAINED AND I'M CONCERNED THAT WITHIN A FEW YEARS YOU JUST START LOOKING REALLY BAD AND THE OWNERS ARE GOING TO BE HAPPY TO FIND THE PAIR OF THEM, AND ATTACH THEM AND I WOULD REALLY LIKE SORT OF PULLED OFF DOING ANY MORE TURTLE REPLACEMENTS AND UNTIL, WE'RE CONVINCED THAT THERE'S ARE STRUCTURAL REPAIRS TO THE TURTLE CASTING ITSELF, BECAUSE IT'S SO EASY FOR THE FLIPPERS TO GET BROKEN OFF. THEY WERE NOT WELL REINFORCE AND I JUST DON'T WANT TO SEE THESE THINGS GETTING BROKEN UP AND I KNOW THEY WILL SO IT'S JUST A COMMENT ABOUT THE TURTLES IN GENERAL. >> SARAH. >> BRIAN, I HAVE A TURTLE, AND DOUG, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THIS IS ACTUALLY, A NEW VERSION. THEY'RE MADE DIFFERENTLY. MY TURTLE IS ONE OF THE FIRST ONES, IT'S A LOT TALLER, ITS FLIPPERS WERE A LOT WEAKER, THERE WERE SOME ISSUES. BUT AT THIS, AND I WATCHED PEOPLE CLIMB ON MY TURTLE CONSTANTLY AND IT DID BREAK MY HEART, BUT THIS LANDSCAPING THING AROUND, WELL, I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA AND WHEN WE TURN OVER WE HAD TO SIGN A CONTRACT BUT AGREEMENTS THAT SAID WE WOULD KEEP UP WITH OUR MONEY-BACK AND SO I THINK MOST OF THE OWNERS WILL BE REALLY RESPONSIBLE ABOUT IT. MINE'S BEEN UP FOR TWO YEARS I THINK AND NOTHING IS BROKEN ON IT WE HAVE HAD TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF HARD WORK ON THE FIBERGLASS BUT I THINK, FOR THE MOST PART, MOST PEOPLE ARE REALLY INTO THE WHOLE THE REASON THAT WE HAVE THEM, [INAUDIBLE] WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE COMPANY, ANOTHER COMPANY, THAT ORGANIZATION, BUT WE'RE ALL BEHIND IT A LOT AND I THINK THAT WE ALL WANT THEM TO LOOK AS BEST AS THEY CAN FOR AS LONG AS I CAN. >> OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A COMMENT? I'M SEEING, NONE. I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE MOTION. [NOISE] COMMISSIONER CLICK. >> IN FAVOR. >> COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN. >> IN FAVOR. >> COMMISSIONER HUDDLESTON. >> IN FAVOR. >> COMMISSIONER LANG. [00:30:02] >> IN FAVOR. >> COMMISSIONER MCLEAN. >> IN FAVOR. >> COMMISSIONER PATTERSON. >> IN FAVOR. >> COMMISSIONER BOY. >> IN FAVOR. >> ALL IN FAVOR, THE MOTION PASSES. >> RIGHT. THE NEXT CASE IS ONLY 21P8-003. >> THIS IS AN ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION BY THE LANDMARK COMMISSION REGARDING THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES NOMINATION FOR PARKLAND APARTMENTS LOCATED AT 3916 WINNIE. THE CITY OF GALVESTON HAS RECEIVED NOTIFICATION THAT A NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION FOR THE PARKLAND APARTMENT DEPARTMENT COMPLEX WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE STATE BOARD OF REVIEW ON SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2021. THE DRAFT NOMINATION WAS INCLUDED AS ATTACHMENT B. AS A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION IS REQUIRED TO REVIEW ALL NOMINATIONS TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES AND FOR THEIR OPINION TO THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION, NATIONAL REGISTER PROGRAM OFFICE, AND CLT PROGRAM. THE DRAFT RESOLUTION WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET AS ATTACHMENT A. AS I HAVE THIS REVIEWED IN NOMINATION AND HAVE NO COMMENTS AND WE HAVE PHOTOS. THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE STATUS OF THE COMPLEX. WHEN IT WAS BUILT, IT WAS KNOWN AS PARKLAND, ALSO BEEN KNOWN BY A COUPLE OF OTHER NAMES THROUGHOUT ITS LIFE AND IT'S CURRENTLY CALLED SAND PIPER COVE. THAT CONCLUDE STAFF'S REPORT. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? I THINK WE ARE BACK. >> MS. LANG HAS HER HAND UP. >> SORRY, STEPHANIE. YES. >> SORRY, DOUG. STAFF, DO WE KNOW OF ANY SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL EVENTS [BACKGROUND] THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE THERE, OR PEOPLE THAT ARE KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN BORN THERE, LIVE THERE, ANYTHING LIKE THAT THAT WOULD ACTUALLY CAUSE THIS TO BE CONSIDERED A NATIONAL REGISTER LANDMARK? >> WELL, I'M POINTING TO WHAT'S BEEN INCLUDED IN THE NOMINATION, TO MY RECOLLECTION, DOESN'T LIST ANY NOTABLE PERSONS OR EVENTS. >> IF I MAY SAY, THE CONCLUSION IS THAT IT'S NOMINATED IN THE AREA OF POLITICS, GOVERNMENT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL SIGNIFICANT. THAT'S HOW THEY'RE LABELING. IT'S REASONING FOR FOR DOING THIS. THAT'S MY ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. DOUG? >> DOUG, YOU'RE MUTED. >> YOU'RE MUTE. >> COMMISSIONER MCLEAN. >> I'M WONDERING IF THERE ISN'T AN ULTERIOR MOTIVES TO PREVENT THE STRUCTURE FROM BEING DEMOLISHED IN THE FUTURE. WOULDN'T THAT LANDMARK DESIGNATION DO THAT? PROVIDE THAT? >> THIS IS A NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION. A NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING DOESN'T COME WITH ANY PROTECTIONS. IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY DEMOLITION PROTECTIONS, AND IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY DESIGN REVIEW. IT'S ONLY AT THE LOCAL LEVEL THAT YOU GET THOSE RIGHTS OF PROTECTION. IF THE APPLICANTS ARE SEEKING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER TAX PROGRAM, THEN THE WORK DONE UNDER THE PROGRAM WOULD BE REVIEWED BY THE TEXAS HISTORIC COMMISSION AND THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. BUT OTHERWISE, IF THEY'RE JUST LISTING IT TO HONOR IT, THEN THERE'S NO PROTECTIONS THAT COME WITH IT. >> I THINK CATHERINE'S QUOTE ON THERE, THAT IT'S MAINLY FOR A TAX CREDIT TYPE SITUATION, IS WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THE RENOVATION OF THE FACILITY. >> THERE IS A RENOVATION PLAN? >> YEAH. IT HAS A NEW OWNER. >> EXCUSE ME. IS THERE CURRENTLY A NEW OWNER OR IS THIS FROM A PROSPECTED BUYER? >> I DON'T KNOW THAT INFORMATION. WE CAN LOOK UP AND SEE WHO THE CURRENT OWNER IS. >> I WOULD ALSO QUESTION WHETHER ENGAGEMENT FOR TAX PURPOSES IS REALLY THE COMMISSION'S PURVIEW HERE. [00:35:03] A COUPLE OF PEOPLE ASK ME WHAT HISTORICAL OR ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE DOES THIS BUILDING HAVE? >> I WILL JUST REMIND THE COMMISSION THAT YOU'RE JUST REVIEWING THIS FOR A COMMENT TO THE STATE BOARD OF REVIEW THAT IT'S A NATIONAL REGISTERED NOMINATION, IT'S NOT ANYTHING AT THE CITY OF GALVESTON LEVEL. YOU'RE JUST MAKING A RECOMMENDATION. >> I WILL SAY I WENT THROUGH THE WHOLE SUBMISSION HERE AND IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'VE PUT A LOT OF FOCUS ON THE POLITICS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOW-COST HOUSING IN THE INVOLVEMENT IN THE KIMPNER FAMILY AND THAT ASPECT OF GETTING LOW-INCOME HOUSING CONSTRUCTED IN GALVESTON IN THE TIME PERIOD OF THE LATE 1960S, EARLY 1970S. THAT'S HOW THEY'RE APPROACHING THIS. I AGREE WITH MOST OF IT ALL. I DON'T SEE MUCH OF A HISTORIC VALUE. [LAUGHTER] BUT THAT IS TODAY, MAYBE ANOTHER 50 YEARS, [LAUGHTER] IT'LL CONSIDERED IT TO BE MORE HISTORIC. I DON'T KNOW. ANY OTHER COMMENT? IF NOT, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE LANDMARK COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION 21-001. [BACKGROUND] IS THAT A SECOND? >> COMMISSIONER, JUST SO YOU KNOW, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION RESOLUTION 21-001, I'M NOT QUITE SURE, CATHERINE, IF THAT IS GOING TO BE THE SPECIFIC NUMBER OF THIS RESOLUTION. >> [OVERLAPPING] YEAH, IT IS. >> IT IS? >> THAT WHAT IT SAID. >> I GOT IT. IT'S NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH CITY COUNCIL. [OVERLAPPING] I GOT IT. THANK YOU, AND I APOLOGIZE. >> JOANNE? >> I'LL SECOND IF YOU'D LIKE. >> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION NOW, CONNIE? >> I IN GOOD CONSCIENCE CANNOT SUPPORT THIS. THIS IS NOT WHAT I SEE IS DEFINED AS A RECOMMENDATION THAT SHOULD GO FORWARD TO THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION OR THE NATIONAL HISTORICAL COMMISSION. I'M NOT SEEING IT AS A MID-CENTURY MODERN AS THEY SUGGESTED. I'M NOT SEEING THERE'S ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT. I JUST DON'T THINK IT REALLY APPLIES. I UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'RE WANTING IT. IF YOU'RE ASKING US TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION BASED ON WHETHER OR NOT THIS BUILDING ARCHITECTURALLY OR HISTORICALLY IS SIGNIFICANT TO GALVESTON, I'M NOT SEEING IT. I JUST CAN'T SUPPORT THIS. >> ANY OTHER COMMENT? SEEING NONE, I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE MOTION. >> COMMISSIONER CLICK? >> IN FAVOR. >> COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN? >> IN FAVOR. >> CHAIRPERSON HUDDLESTON? >> IN FAVOR. >> COMMISSIONER LANG. >> OPPOSED. >> COMMISSIONER MCLEAN? >> OPPOSED. >> VICE CHAIRPERSON PATTERSON? >> OPPOSED. >> COMMISSIONER WOOD? >> OPPOSED. >> WE HAVE THREE VOTES IN FAVOR, FOUR VOTES OPPOSED. THE MOTION DOES NOT PASS. >> WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO OUR DISCUSSION ITEM. [NOISE] FIRST OF WHICH IS DISCUSSING THE CONSENT AGENDA POLICY. I'M HOPING WE'VE HAD CONSENT AGENDA IS BROUGHT TO US BEFORE DIFFERENT TIMES WILL NOT [INAUDIBLE] PRETTY RARE. [NOISE] I KNOW ON OCCASION IT OCCURRED IF WE HAD A LARGE DOCKET [00:40:09] OF CASES JUST TO SAVE TIME IF A FEW OF THEM WERE [INAUDIBLE] CONSIDERED, I THINK I'D JUST HAVE TO BE OBVIOUS THAT APPROVAL. THEY WOULD GROUP THEM TOGETHER. THAT SEEMS TO BE THE WAY THOSE HAD BEEN HANDLED IN THE PAST. DAVID? DAVID KANG? >> YEAH. LET ME BE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT A CONSENT AGENDA IS BECAUSE THE DIVISION IN RECENT MEMORY IS NOT USED TO CONSENT AGENDA. WE USE THIS QUITE EXTENSIVELY TO, AS YOU SAY, GROUP TOGETHER THINGS THAT HAVE NO STAFF OPPOSITION. THEY MAY BE MINISTERIAL AND MAY BE LOW COST, THEY MAY BE SIMPLE MAINTENANCE THINGS SOMETIMES ARE CONSIDERED GENERAL RUN TO 25, 30 ISLANDS. IN THIS CASE, I THINK THAT THE NOTION IS THAT IT WOULD BE THINGS THAT STAFF APPROVES, THAT NO INDIVIDUAL HAS ANY ANY CONCERN ABOUT AT. WHAT IS ALWAYS TRUE WITH CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS, ANY COMMISSIONER CAN REQUEST THAT AN ITEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA BE PULLED OUT OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AND DISCUSSED AND VOTED ON SEPARATELY, AND THEN THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS BE ADOPTED. WE DO THAT VERY FREQUENTLY AT COUNCIL. ONE OR TWO PEOPLE OR ONE OR TWO ITEMS WILL BE PULLED OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA, THEN WE'LL ADOPT THE BODY OF THEM IN A SINGLE BOAT AND THEN DISCUSS THE OTHER ONES SEPARATELY. THE POINT IS YOU CAN ALWAYS PULL SOMETHING OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA IF YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IT OR WANT TO DISCUSS IT. [INAUDIBLE] YOU'RE CORRECT THAT IT WOULD GREATLY FACILITATE SOMETIMES MOVING THROUGH A NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT STAFF HAS NOTHING BUT STANDARD CONDITIONS AND NONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS. >> TINY? >> YEAH, JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THERE. I GUESS WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS, DOES THE COMMISSION AGREE THAT WE SHOULD ASK STAFF TO PROCEED IN [NOISE] AS A NORMAL FORMAT? LAST COMMITTEE MEETING, WE WERE VIOLENTLY AGREEING ON [INAUDIBLE] A LITTLE HISTORY, THIS IS 15TH MEETING OF THE YEAR. WE'VE HAD 14 REGULAR MEETINGS, 12 OF THOSE MEETINGS WERE WITH CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS WITH STAFF APPROVAL. I TIME AND I'VE WENT BACK TO AND LISTEN AT SEVERAL CASES ON TIMING, HOW LONG IT TAKES STAFF TO DO THIS PRESENTATION, HOW LONG IT TAKES YOU TO GET THROUGH IT. I THINK IT TAKES ABOUT 6.5 TO 10 MINUTES. FOR ONE, THAT'S NOT A BIG DEAL, BUT INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT IN 10 OF THE LAST 12 MEETINGS, WE HAD MORE THAN 3 THAT WAS CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. IN THAT CASE, WE WOULD HAVE ROLLED OFF 30 MINUTES BY JUST PUTTING HIM ON TO A CONSENT AGENDA. AGAIN, THEY CAN ALWAYS BE TAKEN BACK OFF, BUT THIS IS SAYING, "HEY, THIS REQUEST NEEDS THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. IT'S BEEN PROVED BY STAFF AND STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT IT GO FORWARD AND THAT I THINK WOULD HELP A LOT, PARTICULARLY IF WE'RE TRYING TO MAXIMIZE YOUR TIME TO THE BEST USE. THESE ARE AGAIN 6.5 TO 10 MINUTES FOR CASES WERE NO QUESTIONS ARE ASKED, WHERE THERE'S NO CONVERSATION AFTER THE SECOND MOTION. THEY JUST ARE GOING STRAIGHT THROUGH BUT IT STILL TAKES TIME FOR STAFF AND THEN DISCUSSION AND THEN THE APPLICANT TO COME UP AND TALK. YOU KNOW HOW IT GOES. SIX-AND-A-HALF TO 10 THAT PER CASE. WE HAD DURING MEETING OF THE LAST 12 AT 4 CASES LIKE THIS. THAT'S 40 MINUTES. SOMETIMES WE'VE ONLY HAD ONE, SO FAR THIS YEAR, THEY WENT TO THE CONSENT AGENDA AND THAT WAS FEBRUARY 15TH. THAT WAS THE LAST TIME WE HAD A GROUPING OF CASES THAT WENT TO A CONSENT AGENDA ITEM, BUT I'VE STILL GOT ANOTHER 11 MONTHS HERE OF 2 OR MORE CASES. WE'RE SAYING THAT, "HEY, CAN WE JUST GO AHEAD AGREE OR AT LEAST TRY TO ROLL THESE CASES TOGETHER ON A CONSENT AGENDA, ANYTIME IT'S MORE THAN TWO OR MORE?" [INAUDIBLE] HELP THE JUST A LITTLE BIT. >> WHAT I WOULD SAY IS, THIS IS STAFF'S DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO LABEL SOMETHING AS THE CONSENT ITEM, IS THAT CORRECT? >> WELL, IT'S LIMITED TO A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS THAT MEETS [00:45:05] THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A [INAUDIBLE] OF THAT REQUEST [OVERLAPPING] DENIAL, IT WOULDN'T GO ON. >> WHAT I'M SAYING IS, STAFF MAKES A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO GROUP SOME THINGS INTO A CONSENT AGENDA? >> YES. IS THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, FRED, THAT THIS WOULD BE UP TO STAFF TO PUT THINGS TO GROUPINGS ON A CONSENT AGENDA THAT THE COMMISSION THEN COULD TAKE PART OR ADOPT AS A [INAUDIBLE] >> OKAY. >> YEAH. AGAIN, WE HAVE 12 OF THE LAST 14 MEETINGS WE'VE HAD HAVE HAD TWO OR MORE THESE CASES ON THEM. LAST MEETING, WE HAD FOUR CASES. WE'VE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS THEN HERE WE HAD 3 AND 4 CASES PER MEETING, AGAIN, 10 MINUTES PER CASE. WHEN WE WOULD LIKE TO BE UP BY FIVE O'CLOCK, WE WOULD LIKE TO [INAUDIBLE] MORE CASES WE CAN GET US DONE IN AN HOUR BECAUSE NONE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING IS REALLY ROCKET SCIENCE. THIS IS, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 20 MINUTES, THAT'S ONE QUARTER OF OUR MEETING TIME. LET'S FIND OUT. IF WE'RE TRYING TO GET DONE BY FIVE O'CLOCK. IT'S JUST A SUGGESTION. [INAUDIBLE] BUT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IF EVERYONE IS AGREEING [INAUDIBLE] GO AHEAD AND GROUP ALL OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESSES, WHAT SHOULD THEY HAVE AGREED AND A RECOMMENDING APPROVAL THAT THEY'D JUST BE [INAUDIBLE] PUT INTO CONSENT AGENDAS BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T WANT, YOU CAN ALWAYS PULL IT OFF. ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS CAN PULL ONE OFF. [NOISE] >> I LOVE THE IDEA. WHAT DO WE DO TO GET IT ADOPTED? DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON IT? DO WE JUST NEED TO AGREE THAT THIS IS WHAT WE'D LIKE TO PROCEED FORWARD WITH? >> [OVERLAPPING] IT IS ONE OF THE AGENDAS FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTION. >> YEAH. [LAUGHTER] >> YEAH, WE COULD MAKE A MOTION THAT CLARIFIES WHAT POLICY IS AND STAFF WILL IMPLEMENT IT. >> AGAIN, LAST MEETING THAT WE HAD, WE HAD FOUR CASES. WE STARTED AT FOUR, WE'RE DONE ABOUT FIVE. WE HAVE A COUPLE DISCUSSION MINUTES AND THE MEETING'S UP. CLEARLY 30, 35 MINUTES WAS APPROVING CASES THAT WILL VIOLENTLY AGREED ON. THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION. THERE WAS NO QUESTION. THOSE ARE THE DAYS WE'D LIKE TO THINK, "GEE, WOULDN'T THAT BE SO MUCH EASIER IF WE JUST PASS THEM ON [INAUDIBLE]? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> I LIKE BEING AWARE OF IT AND HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO AT LEAST HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ON SOME OF THESE THINGS, OR MAYBE SOMETHING THAT COMES UP. AT LEAST IF IT COMES IN FRONT OF US IN THAT WAY, WE'D HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT. I THINK I PREFER TO KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS. >> DOUG, CAN I COMMENT? >> SURE. >> YOU WOULD STILL BE PRESENTED WITH THE FULL PACKET. ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU'D RATHER SEE A DISCUSSION ON EACH ONE BECAUSE SOMETHING MAY COME UP IN THAT DISCUSSION OF THE CASE THAT CHANGES YOUR MIND? >> THERE ARE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE IN THE PAST BROUGHT SOME ISSUES UP THAT MAY NOT COME UP IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY, THAT'S ALL. WE DON'T HAVE THAT MANY OF THEM, WE DON'T GET BOMBARDED WITH THEM LIKE CITY COUNCIL DOES. IF IT'S TAKING AN EXTRA 15 MINUTES, I'VE ALREADY BLOCKED OUT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THIS ANYWAY, SO I'M NOT DISTURBED IF IT'S 15 MINUTES LONGER THAN THAT, IF WE KEEP THE DISCUSSION TO A MINIMUM. >> DOUG, WOULD IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF YOU KNOW AT THE BEGINNING OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING? WE COULD ASK THAT SPECIFIC CASE BE PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA, THEN WE CAN CONSENT THE REST AND THEN TALK ABOUT THAT ONE SEPARATELY BECAUSE YOU CAN DO THAT. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT, I HEARD THAT. THAT'S JUST EXPRESSING MY FEELINGS ABOUT IT. THAT'S THE WAY I FEEL. >> WOULD THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE KNOWING THAT [OVERLAPPING] SEE THIS WAY, AND IF I FIND A CASE I WANT MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION, I'LL ASK TO HAVE IT PULLED. >> AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO HEAR THE CONVERSATION RATHER THAN JUST HAVE THAT HAPPEN AHEAD OF TIME. >> CURRENTLY, THE STAFF HAS THE OPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVELY MOVING SOMETHING IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS ABOUT ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT PHASE OR WHATEVER, AND THINGS THAT COME TO US OR THINGS THAT COULD HAVE A QUESTION SO THERE'S THAT. >> THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES, ARE THEY ABLE TO INVOLVE THEMSELVES IN A CONSENT AGREEMENT, HARD DISCUSSION? BECAUSE IF WE ELIMINATE THAT, [00:50:02] THEN THEY WOULD NOT HAVE THE OPTION OF INPUT POSSIBLY. I DON'T KNOW. IT'S JUST A QUESTION. >> THERE WILL STILL BE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR FOLKS TO MAKE COMMENTS, EITHER ON AN AGENDA ITEM OR OFF AN AGENDA ITEM INCLUDING CONSENT ITEMS. >> FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I HEAR THE TWO THINGS FROM THE DISCUSSION ACTION ITEMS, ITEM A AND ITEM B, THE CONSENT AGENDA, AS WELL AS THE MEETING START TIME CHANGE. LIKE I SAID, LAST TIME WE WERE TOGETHER, I WOULD PREFER NOT TO CHANGE THE MEETING START TIME JUST TO ACCOMMODATE GETTING SECURITY OUT OF THE BUILDING BY FIVE. I DO AGREE WITH CONNIE THAT IF THERE ARE PARTICULAR THINGS ON THE AGENDA THAT ARE OTHERWISE A SIMPLE YES OR NO, VERY EASY, LET'S GO THROUGH WITH IT AND STAFF HAS ALREADY RECOMMENDED WITH APPROVAL, WE'VE ALL BEEN GIVEN THE MEETING MINUTES AHEAD OF TIME. WE HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO REVIEW THEM AND THEN DECIDE WHETHER WHEN THE MEETING BEGINS WE WANT TO PULL THEM OUT FOR EXTRA DISCUSSION OR NOT, WE CAN DO THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE PROCEED FORWARD WITH THE CONSENT AGENDA POLICY AND TRY IT OUT, ESPECIALLY BEFORE WE AGREE TO MOVE THE MEETING TO 3:30. I'M NOT SAYING THAT NECESSARILY FOR A SELFISH REASON. YES, IT DOES BENEFIT ME BUT I'M NOT GOING TO BE ON THE COMMISSION FOREVER AND NEITHER ARE ANY OF YOU. I THINK IT'S A DISSERVICE TO HOLD THE TIME EVEN FURTHER INTO THE WORKDAY, BECAUSE THERE ARE PROBABLY A TON OF PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO WOULD BE GREAT AT THIS, BUT WHO MAY OTHERWISE LOOK AT THE START TIME OF THE MEETING EVEN AT FOUR O'CLOCK AS A PROBLEM, BUT 3:30, EVEN MORE SO. YOU'RE GOING TO WANT MORE, NOT NECESSARILY YOUNG, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO WANT MORE PROFESSIONALS ON THESE COMMISSIONS AS IN PARTICULAR. IF ALL YOU'RE DOING IS MIDDLE-OF-THE-DAY STUFF, IT'S VERY HARD TO GET THAT ACCOMPLISHED. >> COMMISSIONER LANG, I HATE TO CUT YOU OFF AND HOPEFULLY I DIDN'T, BUT THAT IS OFFICIALLY THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA. I DO HAVE SOME COMMENTS FOR THAT NEXT ITEM. MAYBE IF WE CAN FINISH OFF WITH YOUR MOTION AND SEE IF THERE'S A SECOND TO THAT, WE CAN JUST KEEP IT TO THE ITEM A. >> HAVE I MADE A SUFFICIENT MOTION FOR ITEM A? >> I BELIEVE YOU STARTED WITH YOU. [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] >> THE IDEA OF A CONSENT AGENDA POLICY. >> YEAH. IF THAT IS YOUR MOTION REGARDING THAT, THEN CHAIRMAN, [OVERLAPPING] >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I SECOND. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? JOANNE. >> I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER LANG SAYING IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AGE. [LAUGHTER]. >> IT REALLY DOESN'T. >> I THINK STAFF HAS A PRETTY GOOD IDEA OF WHAT WE, AS COMMISSIONERS, ARE GOING TO WANT TO HEAR ABOUT AND I DON'T THINK THIS PARTICULAR MOTION SAYS THAT WE WANT EVERYTHING LUMPED TOGETHER. IF THERE ARE SOME OBVIOUS CASES THAT'S JUST REALLY ROUTINE, WE CAN STILL PULL THEM UP. BUT I AGREE THAT IF WE HAVE FIVE OR SIX CASES, AND THERE'S TWO OR THREE THAT THEY KNOW WE'RE JUST GOING TO SAY, "THAT'S A BEAUTIFUL HOUSE TO JOG" AND ALL THAT, WE CAN JUST GROUP THAT. SO I'M FOR IT. >> RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? [INAUDIBLE] THE MOTION. >> COMMISSIONER CLICK. >> IN FAVOR, AYE. >> COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN. >> IN FAVOR. >> CHAIRPERSON HUDDLESTON. >> IN FAVOR. >> COMMISSIONER LANG. >> COMMISSIONER MCLEAN. >> IN FAVOR. >> VICE-CHAIR PATTERSON. >> IN FAVOR. >> COMMISSIONER WOOD. >> IN FAVOR. >> ALL IN FAVOR, THE MOTION PASSES. >> NEXT ITEM ON THE DISCUSSION IS THE CHANGE OF MEETINGS, START TIME TO 3:30. >> THANK YOU CHAIRMAN, IF I CAN START THIS OFF A LITTLE BIT. I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH STEPH, AND I SPOKE EARLIER WITH COUNCILMAN COLLINS. AFTER THE MEETING, IT CONCERNED ME A LITTLE BIT THAT CHANGING THE START TIME WAS NOT UNANIMOUS. ARE YOU OKAY ON THAT? AS I THOUGHT ABOUT IT, I CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WHEN FOLKS LIKE YOURSELF VOLUNTEER FOR THESE BOARDS, [00:55:08] THEY LOOK AT THE TIME COMMITMENT. THEY LOOK AT THE TIME THAT THEY START. THEY LOOK AT THE TIME THAT THEY NEED, THE DAYS THAT THEY NEED. FOR MANY FOLKS, JOINING A COMMISSION IS BASED ON THAT TYPE OF CRITERIA. KNOWING THAT THESE COMMISSIONS TYPICALLY HAVE APPOINTED MEMBERSHIP AROUND THE SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER AREA, IF THIS COMMISSION WANTED TO CHANGE THE START TIME, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO CHANGE THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF LET'S SAY A COMMISSION TWO-YEAR TIMEFRAME OR ONE-YEAR TIMEFRAME, SO THAT THOSE FOLKS THAT HAVE VOLUNTEERED AND GRACIOUSLY HAVE GIVEN THEIR TIME ARE NOT SUDDENLY IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. RUDE TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO SWITCH THINGS UP. IT MAY SEEM AS IF A HALF HOUR IS NOT A LOT OF TIME, BUT I ASSURE YOU FOR MANY OF US, A HALF HOUR IS A GREAT DEAL OF TIME, ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE TO TRAVEL. I THINK PART OF THE IMPETUS WAS TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE SECURITY ISSUE HERE IN THE BUILDING. CLEARLY, WE DON'T HAVE THAT ISSUE NECESSARILY HERE TODAY EVEN THOUGH THE BUILDING WAS OPEN FOR ANY WALK-INS, THAT WE'RE ABLE TO COME. BUT I THINK KNOWING THAT IN ABOUT A MONTH OR SO, IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSIONER REALLY WANTS TO CHANGE THE TIME ON THEN THEY CAN DO SO, SO THAT ANY FOLKS THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE ON THE BOARD WILL HAVE THE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THEY'RE COMMITTING TO. I THINK THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO SAY ON THAT. COUNCILMAN COLLINS, I KNOW I SAW YOUR HAND UP ON THAT. >> I'M THE ONE WHO BROUGHT THIS FORWARD, AND I'M CERTAINLY NOT MARRIED TO THIS NOTION. I FIND THE ARGUMENT, THE WORKING PEOPLE, SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT HAVE THOSE TIME CONSTRAINTS SO MUCH. I SOMETIMES FAIL TO BE SYMPATHETIC TO HOW MUCH TIME THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE REAL-LIFE JOBS DEVOTE TO VOLUNTEERING FOR THE CITY, AND I WOULD NOT WANT TO DO ANYTHING THAT LIMITED OR RESTRICTED THAT. [INAUDIBLE] A SUGGESTION. IT'S NOT THAT BIG A DEAL. IF FOUR O'CLOCK IS MORE CONVENIENT FOR THE COMMISSION THEN LET'S JUST LEAVE IT AS IS. >> JOANNE. >> JUST TO ADD ONTO THAT, IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS GOING TO BE OUR LAST FOR A WHILE NOW. [INAUDIBLE] THIS TO WAIT UNTIL SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER. YOU CAN CONSIDER WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING OUT THERE. BUT I ALSO AGREE THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE LIKE OUR TEACHER WHO IS ON THERE, WHO JUST RACED TO GET HERE AND COULDN'T SOMETIMES. THOSE FOLKS ARE PEOPLE WHO WORK SHIFTS TO THE HOSPITAL ARE MORE ABLE TO COME AT FOUR THAN 3:30. WE CAN [INAUDIBLE] AND SEE HOW IT'S WORKING OUT FOR US. >> ANYBODY ELSE? >> I WILL ADD ONE THING, MY BUSINESS CLOSES DOWN, ALL MY MEN CLOSE DOWN AT 6:30 AND SO [INAUDIBLE] EVERYBODY'S COMING IN AND OUT OF MY OFFICE. IT'S A PERSONAL LITTLE BIT OF AN INCONVENIENCE, BUT I CAN LIVE WITH IT EITHER WAY. I DON'T WANT TO MAKE STEPS, STAY ANY LONGER. I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT STAFF HAVING TO STAY UP, STAY LATE, THAN ANYTHING ELSE BUT I'M GOOD EITHER WAY. >> I'M SAYING THAT I WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF PRESERVATION COMMISSION TRAINING OPPORTUNITY. >> I SENT THE COMMISSION AN EMAIL MAYBE LAST WEEK ABOUT THIS TRAINING OPPORTUNITY AND I JUST WANTED TO BRING IT UP AGAIN, MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IS AWARE OF IT. IT'S A VIRTUAL TRAINING THAT'S BEING HOSTED BY THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF PRESERVATION COMMISSION. IT'S TWO HALF DAYS, TWO MORNINGS, AUGUST 26TH AND 27TH, I THINK. LET ME DOUBLE-CHECK THAT. YES, AUGUST 26TH AND 27TH. IT'S GOING TO BE COVERING LEGAL BASIC STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN REVIEW, ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL, PRESERVATION PLANNING, INTEL DESIGN, AND PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. THE FEE FOR THESE TWO HALF-DAY TRAINING IS ONLY $25. [01:00:01] IF ANYBODY IS INTERESTED, JUST SEND ME AN EMAIL AND WE'LL SEE IF THE CITY IS ABLE TO COVER THAT. >> WHERE'S THE MEETING BEING HELD, IS THIS VIRTUAL OR? >> IT'S VIRTUAL, YES. IT'S BEING HOSTED BY THE CITY OF MANSFIELD, I THINK, THROUGH THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PRESERVATION COMMISSIONS. IT WILL BE TWO MORNINGS OF ZOOM MEETINGS. [NOISE] >> WHERE? [LAUGHTER] >> SOMEWHERE IN TEXAS. WHO KNOWS. TEXAS, DALLAS MAYBE. MANSFIELD IS SOUTH OF FORT [INAUDIBLE]. >> CATHERINE, I'M SORRY. DID WE SET A DATE OR MAYBE I JUST MISSED IT? >> YES, IT'S AUGUST 26TH AND 27TH. >> THANK YOU. >> WE NOTIFY YOU IF WE'RE INTERESTED, CATHERINE? >> YEAH. JUST SEND ME AN EMAIL IF YOU'RE INTERESTED AND WE'LL GET YOU REGISTERED. >> THANKS. >> ALL RIGHT. NEXT ONE. NEXT AND LAST. FOR THE SCOTTISH RIGHTS CATHEDRAL TOUR. >> YEAH. I'LL JUST PUT THIS ON AS ANOTHER REMINDER. PINEWOOD HAS KINDLY OFFERED TO TAKE THE LANDMARK COMMISSION THROUGH THE SCOTTISH RIGHT CATHEDRAL. THE DATE ON THAT IS AUGUST 30TH. THAT'S GOING TO BE AT 4 PM AND WE'LL MEET THERE. >> ARE SPOUSES WELCOME? >> YOU-ALL CAN BRING WHOEVER YOU WANT. [LAUGHTER] >> DO THEY HAVE ANY RESTRICTIONS REGARDING MASKS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? OR DO YOU WHAT IT'LL COST YOU? [OVERLAPPING] >> WE'RE ACTUALLY MEETING UNMASKED. IT'S VOLUNTARY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> MY HUSBAND WILL BE THRILLED BECAUSE HE'S ALREADY SAID CALL SOMEBODY AND ASK IF I CAN GO. >> [LAUGHTER] I'M HAPPY TO SHOW ANYBODY THE BUILDING. IT TAKES A LOT OF WORK TO MAINTAIN IT. MY WIFE CALLS IT MISTRESS BECAUSE I'M NOT HOME AND AT WORK I'M THERE. I'M HAPPY TO SHOW ANYBODY, YOU-ALL CAN BRING WHOEVER YOU LIKE. >> WELL, AT LEAST [INAUDIBLE] YOU HAVE TO TAKE OUT TO DINNER. >> I'M SORRY. >> I SAID AT LEAST IT'S A MYSTERY SHE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE OUT TO DINNER. >> THAT'S TRUE. [LAUGHTER] >> PROBABLY MORE EXPENSIVE, THOUGH. [LAUGHTER]. >> I DON'T HAVE TO KEEP IT SECRETIVE. SAME TIME, 4:00 O'CLOCK AUGUST 30TH. >> OKAY. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, CLYDE. >> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FOR DISCUSSION ON FROM THE NEXT MEETING? >> YES. >> I'M GETTING VERY CONCERNED AND THIS MAY BE MORE PLANNING THAN LANDMARK, BUT IT DOES HAVE TO DO WITH OUR DISTRICT. WE'RE HAVING AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF HISTORIC HOMES BEING PURCHASED AND TURNED INTO VACATION RENTALS. JUST ON MY ONE BLOCK, THERE'S TWO HOUSES. I'M REALLY CONCERNED IT'S CHANGING THE FABRIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I THINK IT'S HAPPENING SO QUICKLY THAT NOBODY'S REALLY PAYING ATTENTION, BUT THEY'RE EVERYWHERE. I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO WORK WITH YOUR DISTRICT BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE LIKE MOTELS. WHEN THE PEOPLE COME INTO THE HOUSES IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT ARE SO CLOSE TOGETHER. BUT IF YOU HAVE A RENTAL PROPERTY NEXT DOOR, YOU'VE GOT A FAMILY COMING DOWN ARE A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE NOISE ORDINANCES, AND WE'RE GOING TO BE FIGHTING THIS FOR THE FUTURE. I THINK THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO TRY AND CATCH THIS BEFORE IT GETS OUT OF HAND, WHICH IS HAPPENING VERY QUICKLY. >> SURE. WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA. SORRY, GETTING WEIRD FEEDBACK. JUST A REMINDER THAT THE FIRST MEETING IN SEPTEMBER IS CANCELED DUE TO THE LABOR DAY HOLIDAY, AND [OVERLAPPING] THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE THE SEPTEMBER 20TH. >> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ABOUT 10 MORE BY THEN, I'M AFRAID. [LAUGHTER]. >> CONNIE, YOU HAD SOMETHING? >> I'M SO GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP BECAUSE I'M NOTICING THE SAME THING ON OUR BLOCK AND I ALMOST FEEL LIKE THE REALITY IS THE PEOPLE THAT OWN THESE SHORT-TERM RENTALS OWN SOME OF THE PRETTIEST PROPERTIES IN TOWN. THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM. THE PROBLEM IS THE PEOPLE THAT THEY SOMETIMES RENT TO IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE FOR FOUR PEOPLE THEN SUDDENLY THERE'S 12 IN THERE AND THERE'S CARS ALL OVER THE PLACE AND THERE'S TRASH ALL OVER THE PLACE, AND THEN THERE'S NOBODY THERE FOR SHORT PERIODS OF TIME. YOU'RE RIGHT, IT BECOMES VERY DISRUPTIVE TO A COMMUNITY WHEN IT IS BEING FRACTURE LIKE THAT. I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP. [01:05:01] >> [OVERLAPPING] I'M SORRY, LET ME INTERRUPT. THIS ISN'T ON THE AGENDA, SO WE REALLY CAN'T DISCUSS IT. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> BUT I DON'T WANT TO WAIT ON THIS. I HOPE THAT CITY COUNCIL WILL TAKE THIS UP VERY QUICKLY BECAUSE IT'S CHANGING THINGS AND THE PROPERTY ARE BEING PURCHASED BECAUSE THEY SEE THE INCOME POTENTIAL. THEY'RE DRAWING THE RATES ON THE HOUSES, THEY REALLY INCREASING THE [INAUDIBLE] OF THESE HOUSES AND IT CONCERNS ME AND I HOPE CITY COUNCIL WILL DEAL WITH THIS. >> WELL, AGAIN, FOR US TO DISCUSS IT IT WILL NEED TO BE ON ON AN AGENDA. YOU DO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE IN COUNCILOR MCCALLAN'S AND HE IS HEARING AND SEEING ALL. >> OKAY DAVID, YOU HEARD HER. >> [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. SEEING THAT'S IT, I'LL CALL FOR A MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> I MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> [LAUGHTER] WE'VE GOT JOAN, AND WE'VE GOT DOUG AND CONNIE. >> WE'RE ALL THERE. >> OUR NEXT MEETING IS WHEN? >> SEPTEMBER 20TH. >> THIS IS FRED [INAUDIBLE]? >> NO, THAT'LL BE FROM LAST MEETING. >> I WON'T BE THERE. >> THAT'S RIGHT, FRED'S OUT OF TOWN. I FORGOT ABOUT THAT. >> YEAH. WELL, THIS IS MY LAST MEETING. [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] >> FRED, WHEN YOU'RE BACK IN TOWN WE'LL HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM ON TO DO AN OFFICIAL RECOGNITION OF YOUR SERVICE. >> OKAY. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS CONCERNED. I KNOW YOU HAD MENTIONED IN YOUR EMAIL, CATHERINE, THAT WE WOULD DO IT ON THE 20TH, BUT I ALSO THOUGHT I SAW ON FRED'S EMAIL THAT HE WOULDN'T GOING TO BE HERE. >> [OVERLAPPING] THANKS FOR POINTING THAT OUT. >> YOU-ALL HAVE A GOOD LABOR DAY. [OVERLAPPING] SEE YOU NEXT MONDAY. >> STAY HEALTHY EVERYBODY. >> WE'RE HEALTHY ALREADY. THANK YOU. >> BYE. >> BYE. >> BYE. [LAUGHTER] * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.