[00:00:02]
>> GREAT. WE'LL CALL TO ORDER THIS MEETING OF
[1. Call Meeting To Order ]
THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR SEPTEMBER 21ST AT 3:31 PM.IF YOU WOULD PLEASE TAKE ATTENDANCE, MR. COLLINS.
[2. Attendance ]
>> COMMISSIONER EDWARD HAS INDICATED SHE'LL BE ABSENT TODAY. CHAIRPERSON HILL.
>> PATRICK, DO YOU WANT TO INDICATE STAFF THAT'S PRESENT?
>> YES. HERE WE HAVE CATHERINE GORMAN, MYSELF, PATRICK COLLINS.
>> THEN ALSO ON THE CALL ARE BRANDON HILL, DONNA FAIRWEATHER, [INAUDIBLE] AND PETE MELBOURNE.
BRIEFLY, COUNCILMEMBER LISTWOSKI I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY SOMETHING BEFORE WE GET STARTED TODAY.
WELL, IT'S NEVER MY GOAL TO MAKE WHAT COULD TAKE FIVE MINUTES DRAG INTO TWO HOURS.
I BELIEVE THIS COMMISSION DOES EXACTLY WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO, A THOROUGH AND COMPLETE JOB, AND THAT IT TAKES HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES.
IF YOU HAVE AGAIN, HAVE TROUBLE FOLLOWING OUR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OR ARE UNSURE HOW YOU MIGHT EXPLAIN OUR DECISION AT COUNCIL IF ASK, PLEASE REQUEST CLARIFICATION AT THE TIME WE RENDER OUR DECISION.
I THINK TO BELITTLE THE HARD WORK OF THIS COMMISSION AND ITS SEVEN VOLUNTEER MEMBERS, AS YOU AND COUNCILMEMBER ROB DID ON THURSDAY WAS DEMEANING AND UNBECOMING OF ANYONE HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE.
WHILE YOUR FRIEND COUNCILMEMBER ROB DEEMED YOU WORTHY OF SAINTHOOD FOR PUTTING UP WITH PLANNING COMMISSION.
I HOPE YOU WON'T BE OFFENDED IF I DON'T CALL YOU A ST. JOHN PAUL, AND JUST STICK WITH COUNCILMEMBER LISTWOSKI FOR NOW.
NOW, MOVING ON TO ITEM 3, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
[3. Conflict Of Interest ]
I HAVE A CONFLICT ON CASE 21P-049 AS I AM A RESIDENT OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.ARE THERE ANY OTHER CONFLICTS? SEEING NONE. WE'LL MOVE ON.
[4. Meeting Format (Staff) ]
CATHERINE, MEETING FORMAT.>> ABOUT STANDARD REMINDERS ABOUT THE MEETING FORMAT.
WE SUGGEST THAT YOU WATCH THE MEETING IN GALLERY VIEW AS IT ENABLES YOU TO SEE ALL OF YOUR COMMISSIONERS AT THE SAME TIME, AND IT'S HOW WE BROADCAST THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC.
WE ASK THAT YOU MUTE UNLESS YOU'RE SPEAKING IN ORDER TO CUT DOWN ON BACKGROUND NOISE.
WE ALSO ASK THAT YOU RAISE YOUR HAND PHYSICALLY TO GET THE CHAIR'S OF ATTENTION BEFORE SPEAKING OR MAKING A MOTION.
WE'LL BE TAKING THE VOTES BY ROLL-CALL.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING.
ANYONE WHO WISHES TO MAKE A COMMENT WILL ASK AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME THAT YOU USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN, AND THAT WILL ENABLE YOU TO SPEAK AND ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, AND TYPICALLY YOU'RE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK ON THE AGENDA ITEM.
[5. Recognition Of Outgoing Commissioners ]
WE GO TO ITEM 5, THE RECOGNITION OF OUTGOING COMMISSIONERS.SADLY, TODAY IS THE LAST MEETING FOR TWO OF OUR COMMISSIONERS.
PERSONALLY, I WILL MISS BOTH OF THEM VERY MUCH.
I'VE ENJOYED GETTING TO KNOW THEM, TO WORK WITH THEM, AND I CONSIDER BOTH OF THEM FRIENDS AFTER HAVING SERVED WITH THEM.
THESE TWO HELP EXEMPLIFY THAT AS A COLLECTIVE, WE ARE MADE STRONGER AND BETTER BY OUR DIFFERENT APPROACHES.
WE DON'T NEED TO AGREE ALL OF THE TIME TO STILL MAKE GOOD DECISIONS FOR THE CITY.
PATRICK HAS HAND-DELIVERED LOVELY AWARDS TO BOTH OF THEM TODAY.
YOU'LL WORK OUT YOUR BICEPS AND HOLD THEM UP.
JEFF, DO YOU HAVE YOURS THERE? CAROL, I KNOW HAS HERS THERE.
I'M GOING TO SAY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT BOTH OF YOU ALL.
THOUGH I'M GOING TO TRY TO EMBARRASS YOU.
OH LOOK, THERE'S JEFF'S. THERE YOU GO.
FIRST, JEFF ANTONELLI HAS BEEN A COMMISSIONER FOR ONE FULL TERM.
FOR ME PERSONALLY, JEFF HAS A KNACK FOR ADDING A MUCH NEEDED DOSE OF LEVITY AT JUST THE RIGHT TIME, AND HAS THE UNIQUE ABILITY TO HELP US KEEP THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE.
HIS CALM LEVEL HEAD AND SMALL BUSINESSMAN VIEWPOINT HAD BEEN VALUABLE TO THE COMMISSION IN MANY INSTANCES.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING? YES, NO? HELLO, JEFF.
[00:05:01]
JEFF FROZE AT JUST THE RIGHT MOMENT.>> I'M SORRY. YOU'RE JUST LOCKED UP.
>> I CAN HEAR YOU. AM I FROZEN?
>> IS JEFF FROZEN? WHO'S FROZEN? JEFF IS FROZEN.
YOU'RE VERY COMPLIMENTARY, AND IT'S BEEN MY HONOR BEING UPON AND GETTING TO KNOW ALL OF YOU.
WORKING WITH STAFF HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MOST EDUCATIONAL AND WONDERFUL EXPERIENCE THAT I'VE HAD OVER THE YEARS.
I'M GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH CAROL.
SECOND, CAROL HOLLOWAY HAS SERVED TWO FULL TERMS ON THE COMMISSION.
CAROL IS DETAIL-ORIENTED, SERVED HUNDREDS OF HOURS ON THE BEACH AD HOC COMMITTEE AND HAS GREAT KNOWLEDGE OF ALL THINGS TO YELLOW AND ARMY CORPS.
SHE WOULD WITHOUT A DOUBT EARN THE AWARD FOR BEING THE MOST PREPARED FOR COMMISSION EVERY SESSION AND SETS THE HIGH MARKS FOR EXPECTATIONS FROM HERE FORWARD.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS?
>> MADAM CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO WAIT UNTIL THE END OF OUR MEETING TODAY TO MAKE MY FINAL FAREWELL.
>> OF COURSE, WE'LL LET YOU DO THAT THEN.
>> THIS PAST THURSDAY, CITY COUNCIL REAPPOINTED STEPHEN PENA TO HIS SEAT WHERE HE WAS SERVING AN UNEXPIRED TERM.
IN THE TWO OPEN SEATS, THEY APPOINTED DAVID THINKLEA AND STAN HUMPHREY.
THEY WILL TAKE THE PLACES ON COMMISSION AT THE FIRST MEETING IN OCTOBER.
TODAY, WE INVITED THEM TO LISTEN IN ON OUR MEETING TO GET FAMILIAR WITH OUR PROCEDURES.
MUTED TODAY, FULL PARTICIPANTS.
NEXT TIME, WELCOME DAVID AND STAN.
I KNOW THAT STAN IS WITH US AND DAVID IS NOT.
JEFF IS BACK. JEFF, DID YOU WANT TO FINISH YOUR MARKS? YOU SAID YOU REALLY LIKED WORKING WITH STAFF AND THEN WE LOST YOU.
>> OKAY. YES. I JUST WANTED TO SAY WHAT AN HONOR IT'S BEEN WORKING WITH ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
ONE OF THE AMAZING THINGS THAT I'VE LEARNED IS THAT EACH COMMISSIONER HAS SUCH A DIFFERENT INSIGHT AND EXPERTISE, AND I'VE LEARNED SO MUCH.
EVEN THOUGH I MIGHT HAVE DISAGREED AT TIMES, IT'S BEEN SUCH A LEARNING THING AND I THANK EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU FOR EDUCATING ME AND WORKING WITH ME OVER THE YEARS.
WHAT I WAS SAYING ABOUT STAFF IS THE WORK THAT THEY DO IS INCREDIBLE.
I THINK NO CITIZEN ON THE ISLAND HAS ANY IDEA OF HOW UNDERSTAFFED AND WHAT AN AMAZING JOB THEY DO.
IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE WORKING WITH YOU ALL. THANK YOU.
>> THANKS, JEFF. I REALLY THINK THAT THAT IS A GREAT POINT.
SO I [APPLAUSE] APPRECIATE YOU ACKNOWLEDGING THEM.
THAT WAS REALLY GREAT. THANK YOU.
[6. Approval Of Minutes A. August 17, 2021 ]
WE'LL MOVE ON TO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.ARE THERE ANY CHANGES, ADDITIONS, CORRECTIONS TO THE AUGUST 17TH MINUTES? SEEING NONE, WE'LL ACCEPT THOSE AS WRITTEN.
WE ACCEPTED PUBLIC COMMENT IN WRITING.
EVERYTHING THAT WAS RECEIVED BY 11:00 AM WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSIONERS IN WRITING.
WE ALSO WERE ACCEPTING PUBLIC COMMENT BY ZOOM TODAY.
WHEN YOU REACH THE CASE THAT YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FEATURE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON A CASE OR A NON-AGENDA ITEM.
NOW, CATHERINE, THEY MAY USE THE RAISE HAND FEATURE. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON A NON-AGENDA ITEM, YOU CAN USE THE RAISE HAND FEATURE. SEEING NONE.
>> WE'LL MOVE ON. WE'LL START WITH K21P-044.
[8.A.1. 21P-044 (4138 Courageous Lane) Request For A Beachfront Construction Certificate/Dune Protection Permit In Order To Construct A Single-Family Dwelling And Driveway. The Property Is Legally Described As Abstract 121 Hall & Jones Survey, Lot 72, Block 1, Playa San Luis Subdivision, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: John Lightfoot Property Owner: Steve And DeeAnna Brown Joint Trust ]
>> GOOD AFTERNOON PLANNING COMMISSION. CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> THIS IS BRANDON HILL, THE COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGER HERE TO PRESENT CASE 21 P-000444138 COURAGEOUS LANE.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE SLASH DUNE PROTECTION PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND A CONCRETE DRIVEWAY.
[00:10:04]
THE ADDRESS IS 4138, COURAGEOUS LANE.THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS ABSTRACT 121, HALL AND JEN SURVEY LOT 72, BLOCK ONE.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN PLAYA SAN LUIS, A SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE LOCATED TO THE WEST AND EAST.
A DUNE SYSTEM AND BEACH AREA ARE LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN BEACH ACCESS LIES DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE EAST.
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS STABLE.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A CONCRETE FOOTPRINT BENEATH A HABITABLE STRUCTURE AND CONCRETE DRIVEWAY IS APPROXIMATELY 31 FEET FROM THE NORTH TOLL OF THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA, AND 397 FEET FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION.
THIS IS LANDWARD OF THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE AND WITHIN THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AREA.
ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES APPEAR TO BE LANDWARD OF THE DUNES AND DUNE VEGETATION.
THEREFORE, IF NO MITIGATION ACTIVITIES ARE PROPOSED, PAGES 2 THROUGH 4 OF THE STAFF REPORT SUMMARIZE THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION.
THE REQUEST CONFORMS THAT THE CITY OF GALVESTON DUNE PROTECTION OF BEACH ACCESS PLAN AND EROSION RESPONSE PLAN.
PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT C FOR THE PROPOSED DRAWINGS.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH CONCRETE FOOTPRINT BENEATH THE HABITABLE STRUCTURE AND A CONCRETE DRIVEWAY.
THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IS LOCATED AS FAR LANDWARD AS PRACTICABLE, CONFORMING TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON EROSION RESPONSE PLANS SECTION 5 IN CHAPTER 31 OF THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, RULE 15.6 B.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUEST CONFORMS TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON DUNE'S PROTECTION AND BEACH ACCESS PLAN AND EROSION RESPONSE PLAN.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING.
THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IS LOCATED AS FAR LANDWARD AS PRACTICABLE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL FOR THE CASE 21P-044 STAFF REPORT PAGES 4 THROUGH 6 LISTS THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ARE NUMBERED ONE THROUGH TO 12, AND STANDARD CONDITIONS FROM THE BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATES SLASH DUNE PROTECTION PERMANENT ARE NUMBERED 13 THROUGH 19.
STAFF PREPARED SOME PHOTOS AND SLIDES OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR REVIEW.
THIS FIRST SLIDE SHOWS THE GENERAL DRAWING OF THE HOME. NEXT SLIDE.
HERE WE SEE THE PROPERTY WHEN VIEWED TOWARDS THE SOUTH FROM COURAGEOUS LANE. NEXT SLIDE.
HERE IS THE PROPERTY LINE FACING SOUTH.
NEXT SLIDE; HERE IS FACING EAST FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
NEXT SLIDE. HERE IS FACING WEST FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
NEXT SLIDE. HERE IS FACING NORTH FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS FACING NORTH FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION.
NEXT SLIDE. HERE ARE SOME OF THE PROVIDED IN-SITE PLANS TO AID IN THE DISCUSSION TODAY.
THIS CONCLUDES THE STAFF REPORT.
COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY?
>> I'VE ALREADY HAD COMMUNICATION WITH BRANDON ABOUT THIS, BUT JUST AS AN ASIDE, MAYBE YOU WILL WANT TO OFFER THIS AS PART OF OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT THE SPECIFIC EDITION NUMBER 10 REFERENCES A LAW THAT HAS BEEN REPEALED FOR 27 YEARS.
I'M JUST THINKING THAT IT'S IRRELEVANT TO OUR CASE TODAY AND THAT AT THE PROPER TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND A DIFFERENT REFERENCE FOR THAT PARTICULAR CONDITION.
>> CAROL, IT'S THAT JUST THE SECOND LINE OF THAT SPECIAL CONDITION, [OVERLAPPING] OR THE EEG PORTION?
THE ACTING JOBS ACT HAS BEEN REPEALED SINCE 1994.
>> THE WORDING CHANGE THAT YOU WOULD PROPOSE WOULD BE THE WORDING THAT WOULD HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING IN THE EEG PORTION, RIGHT?
COMMISSIONERS AND BRANDON, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS CONCERNS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY'S COMMENTS ON THAT?
>> NO, MA'AM. AS YOU MENTIONED, CAROL IS EAGLE-EYED AND ALWAYS PREPARED AND I WILL MISS HER VALUABLE INSIGHT,
[00:15:04]
SO I APPRECIATE HER CATCHING THEM AND MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 21P-044 AT 3:46 P.M. IS THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE? MS. GORMAN?
>> YES. IT LOOKS LIKE MR. LIGHTFORD IS HERE.
I WILL ALLOW YOU TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
>> HELLO, MR. LIGHTFORD, WELCOME.
>> THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY?
THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO JUST ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ABOUT ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT AND TAKE IT AWAY.
>> WELL, I WOULD FIRST SAY GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS, CITY COUNCILMEN, AND CITY STAFF.
I WOULD LIKE TO ESPECIALLY THANK THE CITY STAFF FOR BEING SO HELPFUL IN GETTING ME THROUGH THIS APPLICATION PROCESS FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME [LAUGHTER].
I AM THE APPLICANT, I AM ALSO THE CONTRACTOR, AND I AM ALSO THE PRESIDENT OF THE HOA IN PLAYA SAN LUIS, WHICH MEANS THAT ALL EYES WILL BE ON ME THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THIS PROJECT.
THE BEST NEWS IS THAT THIS WILL BE A VERY CLOSELY SUPERVISED PROJECT BECAUSE I LIVE JUST SEVEN HOUSES DOWN FROM THE PROJECT SITE SO I WILL BE LIVING ON THE PROJECT SITE MOST OF THE TIME.
ASIDE FROM THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE COMMISSIONERS MAY HAVE.
COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. [INAUDIBLE], LOOK AT YOU JUST GETTING LUCKY IN YOUR FIRST TIME OUT [LAUGHTER] I WOULDN'T LET IT GO TO YOUR HEAD, BUT THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
CATHERINE, DO WE HAVE ANY ONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE?
>> IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS CASE, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION. SEEING NONE.
>> SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21P-044 AT 3:49 PM AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION.
>>I MAKE A MOTION THAT 21P044 BE APPROVED WITH THE CHANGE IN SPECIFIC CONDITION NUMBER 10, IN THE [INAUDIBLE] TO READ EG, AND THEN REFERENCE THE TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CODE 61.025, RATHER TO SUPPLANT THE PROOF OF UPTON JONES COVERAGE IN THE NFIP.
>> THANK YOU. BRANDON HILL IS ON BOARD WITH THAT.
SO DO I HAVE A SECOND THEN FOR THAT? WE HAVE SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI.
HAVING A MOTION AND SECOND, IS THERE A DISCUSSION ON THIS CASE? SEEING NONE, LET'S CALL THE QUESTION, PLEASE, MR. COLLINS.
>> ON FAVOR, THE MOTION PASSES.
NOW, LET'S MOVE ON TO CASE 21P-045.
[8.A.2. 21P-045 (25607 Snowy Egret Dr.) Request For A Beachfront Construction Certificate/Dune Protection Permit In Order To Construct A Single-Family Dwelling And Driveway. The Legal Description Of The Property Is POINTE WEST SEC 1 (2005), ABST 121, BLOCK 1, LOT 36, ACRES 0.183 Applicant: Corbin Broesche Property Owner: Lance And Kendle Dardis ]
>> IT'S ME AGAIN, PLANNING COMMISSION. THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
CASE 21P-045, WHICH IS A REQUEST FOR A BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE, DOING PROTECTION PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND CONCRETE DRIVEWAY.
THE ADDRESS IS 25-607 SNOWY EGRET.
THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY IS POINTE WEST, SECTION 1, ABSTRACT 121, BLOCK 1, LOT 36.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE POINTE WEST SECTION ONE SUBDIVISION.
[00:20:01]
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE LOCATED TO THE NORTH, EAST, AND WEST.A DUNE SYSTEM AND BEACH ARE LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS STABLE.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A CONCRETE FOOTPRINT BENEATH THE HABITABLE STRUCTURE AND CONCRETE DRIVEWAY IS APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET FROM THE NORTH TOW OF THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA AND 500 FEET FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION.
THIS IS LANDWARD OF THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE AND WITHIN THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AREA.
ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES APPEAR TO BE LANDWARD OF THE DUNES AND DUNE VEGETATION.
THEREFORE, NO MITIGATION ACTIVITIES ARE PROPOSED.
PAGES 2 THROUGH 4 OF THE STAFF REPORT SUMMARIZE THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST CONFORMS TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON'S DUNE PROTECTION AND BEACH ACCESS PLAN AND EROSION RESPONSE PLAN.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A CONCRETE FOOTPRINT BENEATH A HABITABLE STRUCTURE AND A CONCRETE DRIVEWAY.
THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IS LOCATED AS FAR LANDWARD AS IS PRACTICABLE, CONFORMING TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON EROSION RESPONSE PLAN, SECTION 5 AND CHAPTER 31 OF THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, RULE 15.6P.
STAFF RECOMMENDS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CASE 21P045.
STAFF REPORT, PAGES 4 THROUGH 6 LISTS THE CONDITIONS OF THE APPROVAL.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ARE NUMBERED 1 THROUGH 12 AND STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR A BEACH FRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE AND DUNE PROTECTION PERMIT ARE NUMBERED 13 THROUGH 19.
STAFF PREPARED A FEW SLIDES AND PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR REVIEW.
HERE YOU WILL SEE THE OVERVIEW DRAWING OF THE PROPERTY, NEXT SLIDE, THIS IS FACING SOUTH FROM SNOWY EGRET DRIVE, NEXT SLIDE, FACING SOUTH FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, NEXT SLIDE, FACING EAST FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, NEXT SLIDE, FACING WEST FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, NEXT SLIDE, FACING NORTH FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, FACING NORTH FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION, NEXT SLIDE, AND HERE IS A GENERAL SITE PLAN TO AID IN THE DISCUSSION.
THIS CONCLUDES THE STAFF REPORT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. HILL.
COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY?
>> THE SAME ISSUE WITH A SPECIFIC CONDITION NUMBER 10, SO WE'LL JUST HAVE TO MAKE THAT MOTION AT THE END OF THE DISCUSSION.
COMMISSIONERS, ANYTHING ELSE? SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, I'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:54 PM.
IS THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE, CATHERINE?
>> YEAH. THE APPLICANT'S HERE. HERE THEY ARE.
THEY'VE USED THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION.
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
>> HELLO, CORBY. ARE YOU THERE?
THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
TELL THEM ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ABOUT THE PROPERTY AND WITH [OVERLAPPING]
>> WITH THERE BEING HOUSES DIRECTLY ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A PRETTY CUT AND DRIED DEAL, BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ASK ME.
>> COMMISSIONERS, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BRUSHER? [INAUDIBLE] CORBY, SO YOU'RE GETTING OFF EASY TODAY.
>> WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU FOLLOW THE RULES, I GUESS.
>> THAT'S IT. [LAUGHTER] I LIKE THAT VERY MUCH WHEN YOU DO AT ALL BY THE BOOK.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, AND THANKS FOR DOING A GOOD JOB AND WORKING WITH STAFF. [OVERLAPPING].
>> MISS GORMAN, ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON 21P-045?
>> ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION. SEEING NONE.
>> ALL RIGHT. IN THAT CASE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21P-045 AT 3:55 P.M. AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION, COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY.
>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT 21P-045 BE ACCEPTED AS WRITTEN WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SPECIFIC CONDITION NUMBER 10, IN WHICH THE REFERENCE TO THE UPTON JONES ADD IS REMOVED IN THE PARENTHESES AND REPLACED WITH A REFERENCE TO THE TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CODE 61.025.
>> THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.
[00:25:04]
DO WE HAVE DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONERS? HOLY COW.>> I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT SOME RELAY QUESTIONS IN THE STAFFING, A PACKET THAT THEY SEND US.
I DON'T THINK WE REALLY NEED ALL OF THE DETAILS THAT YOU SEE IN A TYPICAL SET OF DRAWINGS IF THE ARCHITECT GOES TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION AND PERMITTING.
IN MY SUBSET ANYWAY, WE HAD FRAMING PLANS AND FOUNDATION PLANS AND INTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND ALL KINDS OF DETAILS AND EVERYTHING.
WE DON'T REALLY NEED ALL THAT.
I THINK WE JUST DID A SURVEY AND SO I'VE PLANNED A GROUND PLAN AND TOP UP PLAN AND EXTERIOR ELEVATION IS ALL WE'RE GOING TO NEED.
>> BRANDON, I DO THINK THAT THAT'S A GOOD POINT THAT BOB MAKES GOING FORWARD.
I THINK IT IS LESS THAN FOR EVERYBODY TO UPLOAD, DOWNLOAD, AND HAVE ON THE POWERPOINT THAT THOSE MIGHT NOT BE NECESSARILY A BIG PART OF OUR DECISION-MAKING.
>> AS I RECALL, WE BROACHED THE SUBJECT BEFORE, DONNA MAY HAVE SOME COMMENT ON THAT AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHY.
[OVERLAPPING] HAVING DEFAULTED TO INCLUDING EVERYTHING THAT WAS SUBMITTED FROM THE APPLICANT.
BUT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE.
I THINK WE WERE EVEN THREATENED WITH THIS LAWSUIT FOR GIVING AWAY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION AT ONE TIME.
>> I DID NOTICE THAT THESE PLANS ARE ALL MARKED COPYRIGHT.
BUT DONNA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT?
>> I HAD TO REFRESH MY MEMORY.
I THINK THE ISSUE MAY BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THOUGH WHAT INFORMATION IS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION.
I THINK THE COMMENT IS THAT THERE IS SO MUCH INFORMATION THAT'S BEING PROVIDED AT LEAST IN THESE LAST TWO INSTANCES.
BUT I WILL DOUBLE-CHECK TO SEE AND LET CATHERINE'S MEMORY, GO BACK AND REVIEW.
BUT THE ISSUE WAS WITH THE COPYRIGHT IN THOSE ITEMS. I REMEMBER THE PERSONS INVOLVED.
>> I WILL SAY THAT IN 21P-044 THOSE WERE ALL STAMPED COPYRIGHTED, AND IN THIS ONE 21P-045 THESE PLANS ARE NOT STAMPED COPYRIGHTED, AND SO WE DO HAVE A DIFFERENT ISSUE ON THIS.
>> IF THERE'S A STAMP OF A PROFESSIONAL ON DRAWING, IT'S AUTOMATICALLY PROPRIETARY AND COPYRIGHT.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO SAY COPYWRITE.
IF THERE'S AN ENGINEER'S STAMP OR AN ARCHITECT STAMP ON IT.
IF I WAS AN APPLICANT, I DON'T THINK I WOULD WANT SOMEBODY STAYING IN A HOME BEDROOM FLOOR PLANS OR ANY OF THAT STUFF THAT IS IRRELEVANT TO OUR DECISION MAKING IN THE FIRST PLACE.
ALL THIS OTHER STUFF IS REALLY NOT RELEVANT TO OUR DECISION MAKING EITHER.
FRAMING PLANS AND DETAILS AND INTERIOR ELEVATIONS IS IT'S JUST NOT NECESSARY.
IN MOST CASES, THE PLANS REALLY AREN'T THAT FAR DEVELOPED WHEN THEY COME TO US AND THEY DON'T NEED TO BE.
>> I THINK THAT CAN BE A TOPIC THAT I CAN COME BACK WITH TO THE COMMISSION AS NECESSARY.
IT'S A LITTLE OFF TOPIC OF WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW.
>> YEAH. IT JUST HAPPEN IN BOTH OF THESE CASES SO I THOUGHT IT'S THE TIME TO BRING THEM UP.
>>I DEFER TO THE ARCHITECT ON THAT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? LET ME GET BACK TO WHERE WE ARE ON THIS.
>> DONNA THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU AS WELL.
WOULD I BE ABLE TO JUST PROVIDE A QUICK ADDITION TO THAT CONVERSATION OR SHOULD I HOLD OUT FOR AN OFFLINE DISCUSSION?
>> I THINK IF IT'S A PART OF PRESENTING THE CASE, BUT IF IT'S REALLY ABOUT THE DOCUMENTATION THAT'S BEING PROVIDED WE CAN PROBABLY HOLD THAT, EITHER TOWARDS THE END OF THE MEETING.
I MEAN, YOU SAID QUICK, I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SAY.
>> THE VERY QUICK COMMENT THAT I HAD WAS THESE ARE THE FIRST TWO STAFF REPORTS THAT I'VE CUT MY TEETH ON.
I ATTEMPTED TO REPLICATE WHAT I HAD SEEN DONE IN PREVIOUS ONES, BUT I ACTUALLY DID HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH CATHERINE GORMAN ABOUT TRYING TO STREAMLINE WHAT IT IS THAT YOU WILL HAVE TO REVIEW.
SO IT'S ALREADY SOMETHING THAT I'VE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND PLAN ON DOING MOVING FORWARD.
SO THANK YOU FOR THE RECOMMENDATION DEFINITELY NOTED.
>> OKAY. GREAT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONERS? ALL RIGHT.
WITH THAT, WE WILL CALL OUR VOTE ON 21P-045.
[00:30:06]
>> ALL IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSES.
WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO CASE 21P-048.
[8.B.1. 21P-048 (Various Addresses – Area Commonly Known As Denver Court) Request For A Change Of Zoning In Order To Designate The Denver Court Neighborhood As A Restricted Residential, Single-Family (R-0) Zoning District. Properties Are Legally Described As Please See Information In The Staff Report. Applicant: Development Services Department ]
>> YES, SIR YOU'RE WITH US PETE? [BACKGROUND]
>> OKAY. CASE 21P-08 IS THE REQUEST FOR CHANGE AND ZONING IN ORDER TO DESIGNATE THE AREA SHOWN IN THE MAP AS A RESTRICTED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, R0 ZONING DISTRICT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST.
THE PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT.
[NOISE] EXCUSE ME. WE SAID 446, 90 WHERE RETURNED, 87 WERE IN FAVOR AND THREE WERE OPPOSED.
WE HAD NO OBJECTION FROM THE CITY DEPARTMENTS AND THEN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, THE AREA IS CURRENTLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY, WHICH IS R1.
THE PRIMARY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE R0 AND R1 ZONING DISTRICTS IS THE ABILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO LEGALLY USE THEIR HOMES AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL DWELLING.
SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THE R0 ZONING DISTRICT.
A SINGLE PARCEL ADDRESSED, 5115 AVENUE T, CURRENTLY HAS A HISTORIC OVERLAY DESIGNATION WHICH WILL BE RETAINED SHOULD THIS REQUEST BE APPROVED.
NOTE THE CRITERIA TO ESTABLISH THE R0 ZONING DISTRICT, THERE'RE SIX CRITERIA LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
LIKE TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FIRST TWO, WHICH STATES THAT 75 PERCENT OF THE DWELLINGS AND THE PROPOSED ZONING AREA MUST BE SINGLE-FAMILY, OWNER-OCCUPIED STRUCTURES AND 75 PERCENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS SHALL INITIATE A PETITION TO REZONE TO R0.
FOR THIS REQUEST, THERE WAS AT LEAST 78 PERCENT OF THE DWELLINGS THAT ARE OWNER-OCCUPIED, AND THE PETITION WAS INITIATED BY 76 PERCENT OF THE PROFIT ELEMENT.
CONFORMANCE. BASED ON THIS PROPOSAL, MEETING THE CRITERIA OUTLINED IN THE LDR STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST.
CITY COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL DECISION AUTHORITY, AND WE'LL HEAR THIS REQUEST AT THE OCTOBER 28, 2021 MEETING AND WE HAVE SOME SLIDES.
THE FIRST SLIDE IS AN OUTLINE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OF THIS REQUEST, WHICH IS A PORTION OF THE DENVER COURT NEIGHBORHOOD.
[NOISE] THE NEXT SLIDE I BELIEVE IS ZONING MAP AND THAT CONCLUDES THEIR SUPPORT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. MELBOURNE.
COMMISSIONERS, DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? VICE-CHAIR BROWN?
>> YEAH. IS THERE ANY LIMIT ON WHO CAN APPLY THROUGH THIS, IS THERE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF HOUSES OR A CERTAIN SIZE AREA? CAN TWO OR THREE HOUSES DO THIS OR DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE 20 HOUSES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?
>> I BELIEVE THE CRITERIA, GIVE ME A SECOND AND I CAN GET TO IT.
>> THE CRITERIA DOESN'T ADDRESS A MINIMUM SIZE.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED AS A POSSIBLE CONCERN AND WE HAVE ON OUR LIST OF LDR AMENDMENTS FOR THE FUTURE.
>> HOW MANY OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS OR GROUPS OF HOUSES OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM HAVE CHANGED THEIR ZONING LIKE THIS ALREADY?
>> ADLER CIRCLE AND GOLF CREST AND FAIRVIEW.
>> [INAUDIBLE] AND COLONY PARK WERE ESTABLISHED DURING THE LDR PROCESS IN 2015.
SO ADLER CIRCLE AND GOLF CREST AND FAIRVIEW ARE THE TWO THAT WENT THROUGH THE PETITION PROCESS.
[00:35:02]
GOLF CREST, FAIRVIEW, [INAUDIBLE] AND COLONY PARK?>> YEAH, AND IT COULD BE JUST PORTIONS OF THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS OR WHATEVER THEY ARE IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS.
WHAT'S THE REASONING BEHIND THE CRITERIA THAT SAYS; DANGEROUS AND DILAPIDATED STRUCTURES AS DEFINED IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE MUST NOT BE PRESENT WITHIN THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY OF THE R0 DISTRICT?
>> I'M AFRAID I CAN'T ADDRESS THE REASONS FOR THAT.
I DON'T RECALL DURING THE APPROVAL PROCESS.
>> OKAY. WITH THE R0, THERE'S REALLY NO NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT SERVICES REALLY ALLOWED IN THAT ZONING, IS THAT RIGHT? LIKE A CORNER STORE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> CATHERINE, IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, AND IT WAS INCLUDED AS AN ATTACHMENT OF THE STAFF REPORT AND IT SHOWS A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE R0 AND R1 ZONING DISTRICT.
>> I'M SORRY, PETE. I JUST WANTED TO WHEN YOU FINISH TO ANSWER COMMISSIONER BROWN'S QUESTION REGARDING THE DANGEROUS AND DILAPIDATED STRUCTURES.
MIGHT THAT BE IN THERE? THEY HAVE TO ASK YOUR COMMENT.
THE TABLE SHOWS A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE R0 AND R1 ZONING DISTRICTS.
OUTSIDE OF THE SINGLE FAMILY I MEAN, I'M SORRY.
THERE IS THE LAND USE OF HOME-BASED OCCUPATION IT CHANGES FROM A PERMANENTED TO A LIMITED USE.
THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD EXCEPT FOR THAT REASONING BEHIND THE DANGEROUS AND DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE.
>> I WOULD THINK THAT THE REASONING BEHIND IT, AND WE'LL DEFINITELY GO AND SEARCH OUT MEMORY BANKS IN IT.
IS THAT DANGEROUS AND DILAPIDATED STRUCTURES TYPICALLY CANNOT BE OCCUPIED AND SO I'M SURE THAT WOULD GO TOWARDS THE [INAUDIBLE] OF PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE ABLE TO EITHER SIGN ON OR SIGN-OFF.
I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS.
>> SO EVEN IF YOU HAD 75 PERCENT OF THE DWELLINGS IN THE PROPOSED ZONING AREA, IT MUST BE SINGLE FAMILY OWNER OCCUPIED STRUCTURES? THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BE THAT 25 PERCENT THAT WASN'T OCCUPIED, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO COUNT THAT.
IF YOU HAD DANGEROUS AND DILAPIDATED CONSTRUCTION FOR THAT 25 PERCENT, YOU WOULD NOT QUALIFY.
>> YEAH. THEN IN THE CRITERIA IT SAYS THAT PROPOSED DISTRICT, AT LEAST 86 PERCENT OF THE DWELLINGS HAVE TO BE OWNER-OCCUPIED?
>> NO, SIR. FOR BOTH OF THOSE PERCENTAGES TO INITIATE THE PETITION, THERE HAS TO BE 75 PERCENT.
>> UNDER PROPOSED DISTRICT, WHAT DOES THAT APPLY TO THEN?
>> THE PROPOSED DISTRICT IS WHAT YOU'RE GETTING IN THIS APPLICATION.
THE LDR CRITERIA IN THE PROPOSED DISTRICT IS THIS APPLICATION.
>> OKAY. SO THAT JUST HAPPENS TO BE HOW THESE HOUSES FALL OUT.
>> RIGHT. THE DISTRICT WOULD BE THE AREA THAT'S WITHIN THE BOUNDARY THAT'S SHOWN ON THE MAP OF THE FIRST PAGE OF THE STAFF REPORT.
>> THAT'S JUST DESCRIBING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSES IN THIS BOUNDARY AS THEY EXIST RIGHT NOW.
>> IT WILL DO THE SAME THING I THINK THAT IF CHURCH STREAM BETWEEN 14 AND 17 STREAM DECIDES TO LIMIT THAT TO A NEIGHBORHOOD AREA AND THEY GET THE PARTICIPANTS THERE AND ESTABLISH THE BOUNDARIES THAT BECOMES WHERE WE TAKE OUR PERCENTAGES FROM.
>> YEAH. OKAY. I GOT IT, THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES, SIR. COMMISSIONER WOLLO?
>> I HAVE A COUPLE. HOW IS OWNER-OCCUPIED DEFINED? THEN HOW DID YOU GUYS DETERMINE THAT THOSE STRUCTURES WERE ACTUALLY OWNER-OCCUPIED? DOES PEOPLE ON THOSE BASIS ACTUALLY LIVE THERE?
[00:40:02]
WE USE THE INFORMATION FROM THE GALVESTON COUNTY'S CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT.WHEN THE ADDRESSES FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER MATCHES THE MAILING ADDRESS THEN WE DETERMINE THAT THAT PROPERTY IS OWNER-OCCUPIED.
>> WE ALSO LOOK FOR PROPERTIES THAT HAVE A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION.
>> OWNER-OCCUPIED MEANS THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY YOUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> SO THOSE PEOPLE WOULD EITHER HAVE A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION NOT THE UNNECESSARY WHEN THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE IT OR THEY COULD BE REGISTERED BOTH.
SO OF THE PETITIONERS, YOU GUYS DID CONFIRM THAT 75 PERCENT OF THOSE GUYS ACTUALLY DO LIVE IN THEIR HOUSE, SOMETHING THAT'S THEIR PRIMARY RESIDENCE.
>> YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT. BASED ON THE TOOLS THAT ARE AT OUR DISPOSAL, YES WE DETERMINE IT.
THE NUMBERS IN THE STAFF REPORT OF 78 PERCENT.
>> [INAUDIBLE]. ARE WE SURE WE WANT TO COMMIT TO THAT PRIMARY RESIDENCE COMMENT?
>> YEAH. I THINK THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF OWNER-OCCUPIED AND THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS.
I DON'T KNOW. THAT MIGHT BE A DONNA QUESTION.
>> RIGHT NOW WE'RE GOING WITH OWNER OCCUPIED AND SO I WOULD STICK WITH THAT.
DEFINITIONALLY, THERE'S SOMETHING DIFFERENT REGARDING A PRIMARY RESIDENCE AS OPPOSED TO OWNER-OCCUPIED.
BUT AS PETE JUST RELATED, THE STAFF THEY REVIEW THE MATERIALS THAT ARE SUBMITTED TO THEM BASED ON THE TOOLS THAT THEY HAVE.
THIS IS THE APPLICATION THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED, AND IT'S BEEN REVIEWED BY STAFF.
>> DONNA, YOU MAY WANT TO CHECK THE PROPERTY CODE ON THAT BECAUSE I THINK OWNER-OCCUPIED MEANS THAT IT'S YOUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE, IF IT'S OWNER-OCCUPIED.
>> LET ME JUST SAY THIS FROM THE GET GO.
I LIVE IN A COMMUNITY THAT DOES NOT HAVE SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
I TOTALLY GET WHAT THESE FOLKS ARE DEALING WITH.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING DOWN THE WRONG PATH ON THIS.
ACCOMPLISHING WHAT THEY WANT WITH THIS TYPE OF PROCEDURE.
THAT'S THE REASONING FOR MY QUESTIONS.
I TOTALLY GET WHAT THESE FOLKS ARE DEALING WITH.
MY NEXT QUESTION IS, WHO DETERMINES WHAT THE BOUNDARY IS? LET'S JUST SAY FOR EXAMPLE, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS IS THAT IF ME AND THREE OF MY NEIGHBORS DON'T LIKE MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR HAVING A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, THE FOUR OF US CAN DRAW A BOUNDARY AROUND OUR HOUSE AND THE THREE OF US, IF THERE ARE OWNER OCCUPIED BUILDINGS, WE COULD CHANGE THE ZONING TO R0, OR CHANGE IT TO ANYTHING QUITE FRANK I GUESS.
WELL, IT CAN'T CHANGE TO ANYTHING BUT IT COULD BE CHANGED.
WHAT'S THE PROTOCOL ON DETERMINING WHAT THE BOUNDARY IS? THEN MY OTHER CONCERN IS, IS THAT WHERE WE HAVE THIS BOUNDARY LINE, AND IT'S ONLY 76 PERCENT AND YOU NEED 75, WHY DIDN'T THE BOUNDARY GO ANOTHER BLOCK OVER AND IT SKEWS THEIR STUFF? MAYBE THIS IS MORE DISCUSSION ITEMS, BUT I GUESS MY STAFF QUESTION IS, WHAT'S THE PROTOCOL IN DETERMINING WHAT THE BOUNDARY IS?
>> MAYBE COMMISSIONER WALLA IS RIGHT, THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THIS AS A DISCUSSION ITEM LATER ON AND TALK ABOUT THIS MORE AND THE CRITERIA FOR THIS.
AS CATHERINE STATED LETTER THAT SHE STATED EARLIER THAT WE HAVE SOME ISSUES ON WHY CERTAIN THINGS ARE INCLUDED, LIKE THE DANGEROUS AND DILAPIDATED STRUCTURES AND OTHER THINGS, SO DISCUSSIONS FOR THE LDRS REVISIONS GOING FORWARD.
THEY ARE THE CRITERIA THAT THESE PEOPLE APPLY IT UNDER AND WE ARE DISCUSSING THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION NOW.
THESE PEOPLE WERE TOLD TO PROVIDE A BOUNDARY CERTAIN AND THEY PROVIDED THAT IN FILLING OUT THIS APPLICATION, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID AND THEY DID IT CORRECTLY.
[00:45:03]
DONNA, AM I SPEAKING INCORRECTLY THERE?CATHERINE ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE ISSUE THAT COMMISSIONER WALLA HAS JUST RAISED, IS SOMETHING THAT STAFF WILL BE LOOKING AT WHEN THEY'RE REVIEWING THE LDRS.
>> DID THESE PEOPLE DO THEIR APPLICATION CORRECTLY?
>> SHOULD WE BE RAISING THESE QUESTIONS WHILE WE'RE DISCUSSING THEIR APPLICATION?
>> NO, I THINK YOU'RE ACTUALLY CORRECT THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE SET FOR A DISCUSSION ITEM.
I BELIEVE STAFF WILL BE WORKING ON IT ANYWAY WHEN THEY COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR ANY REVISIONS TO THE LDRS IN THE FUTURE.
>> COMMISSIONER WALLA, TOTALLY HAPPY TO DISCUSS ALL OF IT.
JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD DISCUSS IT IN TERMS OF THIS APPLICATION WHEN THESE PEOPLE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN ASKED OF THEM IN THIS INSTANCE.
>> YEAH. I'M ASKING THESE QUESTIONS SO I CAN MAKE A DECISION.
YOU GUYS ARE ASKING ME TO MAKE A DECISION.
I'M ASKING A STAFF QUESTION, BUT THAT'S FINE.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT ALL THIS DURING DISCUSSION.
IF THIS REZONING IS APPROVED AND SOMEBODY HAS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL WITHIN THIS BLOCK, WOULD I BE CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT THOSE FOLKS THAT HAD AN ESTABLISHED SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTY, WOULD BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE THAT AS A NON-CONFORMING USE?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. EXISTING SHORT-TERM RENTALS WOULD BECOME LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING WHICH WE GENERALLY CALL [INAUDIBLE].
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT PERFECTLY.
I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T READ THROUGH ALL OF THOSE, BUT IF SOMEONE WERE TO JUST HAVE LIKE RENT HOUSE, IF THEY WERE RELEASING IT TO SOMEBODY ON A LONGER TERM RENTAL GOING FROM R1-R0 HAS NO EFFECT ON THAT, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW. THANK YOU.
>> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ON CASE 21P-048 AT 4:19 PM.
>> STAFF ACCESS THE APPLICANT FOR OUR ZONING CASES?
>> OKAY. THANK YOU, CATHERINE.
I GUESS [LAUGHTER] WE'VE HEARD FROM STAFF [LAUGHTER].
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I GUESS WE'VE HANDLED THAT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER PEOPLE ON THE LINE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT, CATHERINE ON THE CASE 21P-048?
>> I SEE SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY RAISED THEIR HANDS.
IF EVERYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK COULD USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION AND WE'LL UNMUTE YOU.
I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME FOLKS ON THE LINE MAY HAVE MORE THAN ONE SPEAKER, BUT EVERYBODY WILL GET THEIR THREE MINUTES.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START WITH LEE DEFORK.
NOW YOU'VE BEEN UNMUTED AND YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
YOU COULD JUST START BY STATING YOUR NAME. MR. DE FORK?
>> THANK YOU. FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR TURNING UP [INAUDIBLE], THIS SUBJECT IS VERY CLOSE TO ME.
I'LL BE ONE TO TELL YOU THAT I AM DOING REAL ESTATE [INAUDIBLE] REAL ESTATE AGENTS.
WHEN WE DO A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WELL OVER 20 MILLION OF SALES PER YEAR FOR GALVESTON AND DOMAIN.
LASTLY, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR ACTUALLY PROPOSING SOME QUESTIONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE IN MY LIST.
HERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS THAT I HAD FROM YOU GUYS AND I WOULD LOVE FOR YOU, PLEASE CONSIDER THE IMPORTANT POINTS BEFORE MAKING ANY DECISION ON OCTOBER 28.
WITH THE PROPOSED MAP, WHY DID YOU DECIDE TO STOP AT THIS RED LINE? WHY NOT GO FURTHER? WHY IS IT OKAY FOR THEE BUT NOT ME?
[00:50:04]
IF I'M ON THE RED LINE, WHICH I FEEL I AM ACTUALLY ON THE RED LINE AND THE HOUSES DIRECTLY BEHIND ME OR NOT, THAT DOES NOT CHANGE ANY FUNCTION TO WHAT'S GOING ON.WITH THE PROPOSED MAP, WE REALLY WANTED YOU TO KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER OF VACATION RENTALS [INAUDIBLE] COMPARED TO THE FULL-TIME HOME.
WELL, AS A REAL ESTATE AGENT, I HAVE LOOKED AT AIRBNB VRBO.
I FIND LESS THAN A DOZEN TOTAL ROOMS IN THIS ENTIRE RED LINE CIRCUMFERENCE, WHICH TELLS ME THIS IS AN ISOLATED PAINT, THAT IS NOW BECOMING A LARGER [INAUDIBLE] TO RESTRICT OTHER PROPERTY OWNER WHO LIKES TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO NOW OR IN THE FUTURE.
I WOULD HOPE THAT BEFORE WE MAKE ANY DECISIONS LIKE THIS, YOU [INAUDIBLE].
I AM OPPOSED TO THIS LIKE I WOULD TO SEND MY LETTER IN A PHONE, SO THAT I COULD SPEAK [INAUDIBLE] SIGN OWN STATEMENT.
IN THE RED LINE MAPPING, HOW MANY ACTUAL COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY, POLICE, GALVESTON, ET CETERA, OR PLANNING IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION? I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW IF THE CITY OF GALVESTON HAS HAD FILED COMPLAINTS.
WHERE ARE THOSE FILED COMPLAINTS? WHICH PROPERTY IS IT? WHAT WAS THE ISSUE COMPARED TO ONLY ISOLATING IT AND NOW BROADENING IT OUT FOR THIS ENTIRE RED LINE DISTRICT? I LOOK AT THIS AS A PARKING ISSUE.
THE CITY OF GALVESTON PARKING MANAGEMENT, THE PARKING LOT BOARDS THAT LIVED UP IN THE SAME AREA, PUTTING TICKETS ON PEOPLE'S PROPERTY ON THEIR PARKED CARS AND THEY LIVE THERE PERMANENTLY.
WHY HAVEN'T THEY CHECKED TO SEE IF THAT LICENSE PLATE IS AN OWNER-OCCUPIED HOME?
>> THE THREE-MINUTE MAXIMUM IS UP.
>> WHAT'S THAT? IN THE MAPPING [INAUDIBLE].
>> EXCUSE ME, SIR. YOUR THREE MINUTES IS UP, SIR. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. MS. GORMAN WHO'S NEXT.
>> MR. DE FORK, WAS THERE SOMEBODY ELSE ON THE LINE THAT YOU WANTED TO SPEAK?
>> YES, THERE IS MARTIN QUAID WHO IS NOT ABLE TO LOGIN TO THE ZOOM VERY WELL WHEN WE GOT HERE.
HE WAS SITTING HERE BESIDE ME.
>> OKAY. HE CAN CERTAINLY ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, YOUR AUDIO IS A LITTLE BIT MUTED, COMES IN AND OUT.
SOMETIMES IT'S CLEARER THAN OTHERS.
IF YOU COULD SPEAK MORE CLEARLY INTO THE PHONE.
>> I'M JUST DOWNSTAIRS ON THE FIRST FLOOR.
[INAUDIBLE] THERE ARE TWO ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE RED LINE WITH MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
[INAUDIBLE] I'M GOING TO READ SOMETHING HERE [INAUDIBLE].
>> VERY HARD TO UNDERSTAND. I'M SORRY.
>> CATHERINE, IT IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND.
I THINK MAYBE HE'S PUTTING HIS HEAD DOWN AND SPEAKING.
CAN WE START MAYBE 10 SECONDS BEFORE? BECAUSE I CAN EVEN SEE THE COMMISSIONER IS TRYING TO HEAR.
WE REALLY WOULD LOVE TO HEAR THIS COMMENT, SIR.
IS THERE ANY WAY THAT YOU CAN EITHER JUST PUT THE PHONE IN A SPECIFIC POSITION, JUST LEAVE IT THERE? MAYBE YOU CAN DO A LITTLE TESTING 1, 2, 3 AND WE CAN KNOW WHEN IT'S CLEAR AND YOU JUST LEAVE IT IN THAT POSITION.
WE REALLY WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOUR ENTIRE COMMENT.
>> THAT'S GOOD, AT LEAST FROM MY POINT.
[00:55:03]
>> OKAY. MY NAME IS MARTIN QUAID.
I'M AT 4428 [INAUDIBLE] PLATES, I HAVE MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON MY PROPERTY.
THE RED LINE COMES RIGHT AT THE BACKSIDE OF MY PROPERTY.
I AM OPPOSED TO THIS BECAUSE I WANTED TO READ ONE OF MY BUILDINGS INTO AN AIRBNB.
ALSO, WITH EVERYTHING ELSE GOING ON, I'M SITTING HERE, I RUN MY BUSINESS OUT OF MY HOME AS WELL.
WITHIN THIS MAP, THERE ARE SEVERAL [INAUDIBLE] AND MORE THAN STUFF THAT PEOPLE ARE DRIVING UP AND DOWN OUR ROADS IN THAT AREA.
[INAUDIBLE] STAYING IN THESE HORRIBLE LITTLE MOTELS THAT ARE BUILT HERE ON THE ISLAND.
WHY PENALIZE A RESIDENT THAT MAY WANT THE ABILITY TO RENT THEIR HOME OUT OF THEIR PAYCHEQUE? ARE YOU ALL AGAINST PROPERTY OWNERSHIP? WHAT DO YOU TELL THE BUYER THAT BOUGHT THE HOUSE FOR A REASON? NOW [INAUDIBLE] WHAT DO YOU TELL THE BUYER [INAUDIBLE] OF THIS POTENTIAL? HAVE YOU ALL FORGOTTEN [INAUDIBLE] OWNERS? [INAUDIBLE] HELLO?
[LAUGHTER] DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER PEOPLE THERE WITH YOU ALL WHO WANTED TO SPEAK?
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU BOTH.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. MS. GORMAN.
>> THE NEXT PERSON WITH THEIR HAND UP IS [INAUDIBLE].
YOU'VE BEEN UNMUTED AND SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO MAY BE IN ATTENDANCE TODAY.
MY NAME IS PAT MASCON AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR TAKING TIME TO CONSIDER OUR PETITION TO RESUME THE DENVER COURT NEIGHBORHOOD.
I DO NEED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THERE WAS A SMALL GROUP OF US THAT WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS THAT WERE MOVING INTO THE AREA.
THEY MAY NOT BE THAT MANY AT THIS TIME BUT WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TOMORROW IN A YEAR? THAT IS WHAT OUR CONCERN WAS.
WE CONTACTED OUR COUNCILMAN JOHN PAUL.
HE PUT US IN CONTACT WITH THE GALVESTON PLANNING AND I WANT TO THANK THE GALVESTON PLANNING GROUP FOR WORKING WITH US AND GETTING US THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
WE FOLLOWED EVERYTHING THAT WE WERE TOLD TO DO IN MAKING THIS APPLICATION.
WE DO REALIZE THAT THIS MAY BE AN ISSUE FOR SOME BUT FOR A LOT OF US AND YOU'LL SEE AT THE NUMBER OF PETITIONS THAT WERE FOUND, THERE IS A CONCERN.
THE MAP THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WAS WE ASKED FOR DENVER COURT AND THE MAP THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US AND THE MAP THAT WE USE TO CONSIDER WHO WE NEEDED TO GET PETITION SIGNED FROM WAS BASED ON THAT MAP THAT WAS GIVEN TO US THAT WAS IDENTIFIED AS DENVER COURT.
NOW, THIS STARTED OFF AS TRULY A GRANT ROUTE EFFORT.
THERE WERE FOUR OF US THAT STARTED, WE DID NOT KNOW HOW IT WAS GOING TO WORK OUT BUT WE WERE UTTERLY SURPRISED.
THERE WAS A GROUP OF US THAT GREW BECAUSE AS WE WENT TO NEIGHBORS, THEY WERE CONCERNED WITH THINGS THAT WERE GOING ON ALSO.
IN FACT, I HAVE SEVEN PEOPLE HERE WITH ME TODAY THAT WERE PART OF THAT GROUP AND THAT EFFORT.
I THINK THE OVERWHELMING SUPPORT CAN BE SEEN BY THE 251 PETITIONS THAT WE'VE GOT SIGNED OUT OF THE 320 OWNERS.
[01:00:04]
I THINK, YES, WHEN WE SAW THAT THERE WAS 12 SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THE AREA, WE REALIZED THAT THIS ISN'T IMPACTING EVERYONE AT THIS POINT BUT THOSE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE NEXT DOOR OR IN VICINITY TO THOSE AREAS ARE HAVING ISSUES.THOSE ISSUES CAN BE ANYTHING FROM LOUD MUSIC TO PARTIES TO PARKING TO GUNSHOTS TO CAR RACING DOWN THE STREETS.
THESE ARE CONCERNS FOR US BECAUSE WE ARE HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE SENIOR CITIZENS WHO ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO US THAT WE LOOK AT A WAY THAT WE COULD TAKE CARE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE TAKE PRIDE IN.
[NOISE] WE ARE NOT AGAINST SHORT-TERM RENTALS, THAT IS NOT OUR PURPOSE.
WE UNDERSTAND THEY ARE PART OF THE TOURISM SEGMENT OF THE ECONOMY THAT GALVESTON HAS BUT THERE HAS TO BE OR NEEDS TO BE A BALANCE BETWEEN THE HOMEOWNERS WHO ACTUALLY LIVE ON THE ISLAND AND THOSE WHO VISIT THE ISLAND.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR THREE MINUTES.
DID YOU HAVE SOMEONE ELSE WHO WAS THERE WITH YOU WHO WANTED TO SPEAK?
>> [INAUDIBLE] I LIVE AT 4727 [INAUDIBLE]. CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> OKAY. GREAT. I'D LIKE TO START OUT BY SAYING THAT AS A GROUP, I DON'T THINK WE'RE ANTI-SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
WE HAVE SO [INAUDIBLE] TRUE NEIGHBORHOODS ON THIS ISLAND.
YOU GUYS GOING TO WALK THE WALK ABOUT THEY NEED MIDDLE-CLASS FAMILIES, THEY NEED TO ATTRACT FROM THE MAINLAND.
YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO DO THAT IF YOU CAN'T PROTECT SOME OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS.
I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT WE'VE GOT 250 IF I'M NOT WRONG AND 251 OUT OF 320.
IT'S NOT LIKE THOSE OTHER 70 PEOPLE VOTED NO.
MOST OF THOSE OTHER 70 PEOPLE WERE JUST NEVER HOME WHEN WE WENT THERE.
THIS IS NOT A BALLOT VOTE WHERE IT'S A YES OR A NO, IT'S A WHO SHOWED UP AND ACTUALLY SIGNED.
I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO CALL OUT AS WELL.
I HAVE A [INAUDIBLE] IN MY BACKYARD, SOUNDS SUPER FUN.
I ALSO HAVE TWO [INAUDIBLE] WAS GOING TO BE RENTING THE HOME FOR A PERIOD OF TIME LIKE LET'S SAY THEY WERE COMING IN FOR SIX MONTHS.
THEY WOULD GET A BACKGROUND CHECK, WOULDN'T THEY? WELL, WHO'S IN MY BACKYARD ALL THE TIME? I DON'T THINK THEY [INAUDIBLE] EVERY WEEK THEY'RE THERE.
ONE NIGHT AT A TIME, TWO NIGHTS AT A TIME.
IT'S $167 FOR 10 PEOPLE THAT STAY IN THAT HOUSE [INAUDIBLE] AS THE SINGLE BIGGEST INVESTMENT.
I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT I UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE TAKE IT AND WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER ABOUT THE PROPERTY RIGHTS.
BUT NUMBER 1, I HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS TOO.
NUMBER 2, I ALSO BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION AND THE ABILITY TO ASSEMBLE AND WE HAVE ASSEMBLED A SMALL GROUP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT FOR OUR AREA.
ANYONE THERE WHO WAS GOING TO SPEAK IN YOUR GROUP.
>> [INAUDIBLE] MONICA [INAUDIBLE] AND I AM A POI AND I'VE LIVED IN DENVER COURT SINCE 1983.
WE ARE TRYING TO PRESERVE THE GALVESTON THAT WE ALL KNOW AND LOVE.
WE HAVE TO KEEP GALVESTON COMMUNITY A TOWN WHERE PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE, TO GO TO CHURCH, TO SHOP DAILY, NOT JUST ONE NIGHT OR WEEK. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN YOUR GROUP THERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK?
>> PROBABLY JUST TO CLEAR THE AIR.
PEOPLE ALREADY SAID THEY WERE [OVERLAPPING].
>> EXCUSE ME. I JUST NEED YOU [OVERLAPPING]
>> [OVERLAPPING] IN DENVER COURT AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WE ARE NOT AN HOA.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO START AN HOA.
WE'RE NOT ADVOCATING FOR THAT.
WE ARE JUST A GROUP OF HOMEOWNERS CONCERNED WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND KEEPING IT THE WAY IT IS.
IT'S QUIET, IT'S PEACEFUL AND WE WOULD JUST LIKE TO KEEP IT THAT WAY.
>> THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. ANYONE ELSE? IF THERE IS ANYONE ELSE THERE, PLEASE START BY STATING YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.
>> I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE IT. THANK YOU.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND YOU BEING INVOLVED IN THIS.
[01:05:03]
MISS GORMAN, ANYONE ELSE ON THE LINE?>> ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN. THERE'S NONE.
SO, COMMISSIONERS, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21P-048 AT 4:36 PM AND I'LL BRING IT BACK FOR A MOTION.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI, DID YOU HAVE A MOTION?
>> SURE. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR 21P-048 TO BE ACCEPTED WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> THEN WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY.
COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION?
>> COMMISSIONER WALLA, DID YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION, SIR?
>> YES, MA'AM. I LOVE THE COMMENT FROM THOSE FOLKS.
THEY'RE PRO DENVER COURT AND I GET THAT.
I LOVED IT. THAT'S WHAT MAKES A COMMUNITY.
I LIVE HERE, THEY LIVE HERE AND I GET THAT.
I DO, HOWEVER, HAVE ISSUE WITH THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE TAKING TO GET THEM TO WHERE THEY WANT TO BE.
I THINK IT'S GOT SOME ISSUES AND THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE THAT I SEE IS THAT IF I AM NOT MISTAKEN, OWNER-OCCUPIED MEANS THAT IT HAS TO BE YOUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE 75 PERCENT OF THOSE PEOPLE.
HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE GONE OUT AND SENT NOTICES AND THE NOTICES COME BACK AND THEY ARE SENT TO THE WRONG PERSON.
I JUST THINK THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH REMEMBER, THIS IS A PERMANENT ZONING CHANGE WE'RE ASKING FOR.
IF WE COULD GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON WHAT ACTUALLY OWNER-OCCUPIED IS AND IF YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU SAID, "HEY, THEY FOLLOWED THE RULES AND THEY DID WHAT THEY WERE TOLD TO DO." BUT OWNER-OCCUPIED AS OWNER-OCCUPIED.
THAT'S THE ONLY COMMENT I HAVE.
THERE'S NOT AN EASY FIX FOR THIS.
IT'S GOING TO BE A TOUGH DECISION.
I'M JUST VOICING MY ONE OPINION, MY SINGLE VOICE ON COMMISSION THAT SAYS, "HEY, WE WANT TO HELP YOU." I JUST THINK WE REALLY NEED TO SERIOUSLY THINK ABOUT THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH TO HELP THESE FOLKS OUT.
I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION BUT FOR ONLY THAT REASON THAT I DON'T LIKE THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE WE'RE TAKING. THANK YOU.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER, HOLLOWAY.
>> I'M JUST GOING TO SPEAK TO A GENERIC DEFINITION TO OWNER-OCCUPIED THAT IS BY THE CENSUS BUREAU.
WHEN WE GET OUR DECENNIAL CENSUS EVERY 10 YEARS, OF COURSE, THEY ASK YOU WHERE YOU LIVE OR DO YOU OWN YOUR HOME AND THAT'S THE OWNER-OCCUPIED.
IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU LIVE THERE ALL THE TIME.
I'M NOT ELTON JOHN BUT SOME PEOPLE ARE AND IT'S ALWAYS NOBODY ELSE IS LIVING IN THAT HOUSE, THAT'S AN OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSE AS OPPOSED TO RENTER OCCUPIED.
I THINK THOSE ARE THE DISTINCTIONS THAT PERHAPS STAFF MIGHT LIKE TO EXPOUND UPON OR FURTHER DELINEATE IN THEIR DISCUSSION.
BUT THE FUNDAMENTAL DEFINITION OF AN OWNER-OCCUPIED STRUCTURE MEANS YOU OWN IT, YOU LIVE IN IT SOMETIMES, YOU MAY NOT LIVE IN IT FULL TIME BUT NOBODY ELSE IS LIVING THERE.
>> WE REALLY NEED TO GO LOOK AT THE TEXAS PROPERTY BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE DEFINITION THEIR OWNER-OCCUPIED REQUIRES TO BE YOUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE.
I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT STATUTE IN THE CODE BUT I CAN PROBABLY LOOK IT UP WHILE WE LISTEN TO THE REST OF THE DISCUSSION.
>> [OVERLAPPING] TO CAROL'S POINT IS IT CAN BE OWNER-OCCUPIED.
BUT IF YOU ONLY OCCUPY THAT HOME 15 DAYS OUT OF THE YEAR, IT'S STILL OWNER-OCCUPIED.
[01:10:01]
YOU MAY HAVE THE HOUSE IN SAN MIGUEL, YOU MIGHT HAVE ONE IN SAN ANTONIO AND STUFF.I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT RUSTY BUT IT'S ALSO THE SAME POINT THAT THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE MULTIPLE HOUSES AND WANT TO MAKE REVENUE FROM THOSE PURCHASES.
BUT WHEN YOU DO YOUR RESEARCH, YOU HAVE TO FIND AREAS THAT ARE RECEPTIVE TO THAT.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S A CONCERN, NOT ONLY HERE, BUT IN NEW ORLEANS AND MANY OTHER TOWNS, IS THE TRAIN TOWARDS AIRBNB AND STUFF WHICH I TOO THINK ARE WONDERFUL INVESTMENTS AND I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THEM HERE.
BUT BY THE SAME TOKEN, IF THE MAJORITY OF A NEIGHBORHOOD ACTIVELY GOES OUT AND KNOCKS ON DOORS AND THEY'LL RUN INTO PEOPLE I GUESS THAT IT WAS THE SAME THING AT THE [INAUDIBLE] AND GOLF CHRIS THING.
YOU MIGHT MOVE INTO AN HOA NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THEY'VE ALREADY DONE ALL THEIR WORK BEFOREHAND.
BUT WHEN SITUATIONS CHANGE, PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIVE IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
THIS GEMBA CORD GROUP HAS DECIDED THAT THEY WOULD PREFER TO HAVE EITHER LONG-TERM RENTALS OR OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSES.
I THINK, RUSTY, I DON'T WANT TO BE RUDE OR ANYTHING, BUT I THINK TRYING TO OVER-REGULATE BY DEFINITION THIS STUFF, THAT'S WHERE THE LEGAL SYSTEM GETS CORRUPTED IN MY OPINION.
IF IT'S DEFINED BY THE STATE AS YOU SAID, I CAN ACCEPT THAT.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU LIVE THERE 365 DAYS OUT OF THE YEAR.
I'M SORRY IF I'M TALKING TOO FAR BECAUSE I KNOW AND I HOPE THAT THIS WILL BE A DISCUSSION ITEM.
I WOULD'VE LOVED TO HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FUTURE ON THIS.
THAT'S WHY I'M PROBABLY TALKING A LITTLE LONGER.
>> OH. NO. JEFF, I APPRECIATE IT. COMMISSIONER PENA.
>> I SOMEWHAT AGREE WITH THIS DISCUSSION AND WITH, ESPECIALLY COMMISSIONER WALLA THAT SOME BETTER FORMALITY NEEDS TO BE PUT TO THIS.
BECAUSE I THINK THAT THIS IS GOING TO BECOME MORE AND MORE COMMON HERE IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IS THIS R-ZERO DESIGNATION HAS MORE NEIGHBORHOODS, WHATEVER THAT TERM IS.
DENVER COURT IS LOOSELY DEFINED, WHERE IS THAT LINE DRAWN IF SILK STOCKINGS DISTRICT OR ANOTHER DISTRICT WITHIN THE EAST AND WANTS TO DRAW THAT LINE? WHERE DID THOSE LINES COME IN? WHO IS THE ARBITRATOR OF THOSE LINES, ETC THIS ISN'T FOR US HERE TO DECIDE FORTUNATELY, BUT A LOT OF GREAT POINTS WERE MADE WHERE THIS IS A VERY REAL CONCERN FOR OUR CITY.
MIDDLE-INCOME HOUSING IS BEING TURNED INTO THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS.
IF WE ARE TO HAVE ANY CHANCE OF MOVING BACK A MIDDLE-INCOME FAMILIES, WE NEED TO PRESERVE THESE NEIGHBORHOODS AND PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS.
I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THOSE STEPS.
>> COMMISSIONER, VICE-CHAIR BROWN.
>> YEAH. I AGREE WITH WHAT STEVEN IS SAYING THERE.
THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT'S NOT GOING TO GO AWAY AND IT'S GOING TO KEEP CHIPPING AWAY.
I THINK NEIGHBORHOODS ALL ACROSS THE ISLAND AND DILUTE THE FEEL OF EACH INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AS I SEE IT.
RIGHT NOW, THE ONLY TOOL AT THE NEIGHBORS' DISPOSAL IS WHAT WE'RE SEEING TODAY.
I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF WORK THAT SHOULD BE DONE MAYBE GOING ON RIGHT NOW.
I DON'T KNOW BUT, THERE'S SOME WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE TOOLS.
THIS SHOULDN'T BE THE ONLY TOOL THAT NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE TO PRESERVE THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.
THERE SHOULD BE SOME WORK OUTSIDE OF THIS MEETING AND OTHER PLACES TO DEVELOP SOME OTHER TOOLS TO DO THIS.
I HOPE WE'LL GET AROUND TO DOING THAT AT SOME POINT TO MAKE SOME TOOLS THAT WORK BETTER FOR EVERYBODY, NOT WHOLESALE ZONING AND MAYBE SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHOLESALE REZONING TO HELP DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM SO IT'S A LITTLE MORE EQUITABLE TO EVERYBODY. THANKS.
[01:15:02]
>> THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION ON A STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE THAT, THE STAFF, THEY'RE NOT PRESENTING CASES TO HELP NEIGHBORS OUT OR TO HELP PEOPLE OUT.
THEY'RE PRESENTING CASES THAT MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA OR DON'T MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA, AND THAT IS WHAT THEY'RE BRINGING TO THE COMMISSION.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, I THINK A STATEMENT I HEARD THEY WANT TO HELP THE NEIGHBORHOOD OUT.
THAT'S REALLY NOT THE BANE OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
IT'S TO REVIEW THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN GIVEN.
IT'S TO THOUGHTFULLY LISTEN TO THE COMMENTS AND COMES AT A VERBALLY SETTING IN THE COMMENTS SAID HAD BEEN SENT IN TO PUT FOR A FAIR THE MOTIONS AND THE VOTE ON THAT BASED ON WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO THEM.
THERE WAS A PROCESS IN THIS CASE AND THAT IS WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED.
>> COMMISSIONERS, IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON CASE 21P-048.
>> I JUST WANT TO COMMEND THE GROUP WHO GOT 250 PETITIONS SIGNED.
THAT SPEAKS VERY LOUDLY TO ME ABOUT THE INTENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE INTERESTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY PETITIONS IS NO SMALL FEET.
I APPLAUD THEM FOR THEIR TENACITY AND THEIR PERSEVERANCE.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE CALL THE QUESTION? THANK YOU.
DAN AND MR. COLLINS, LET'S CALL THE QUESTION, PLEASE SIR.
>> ACTUALLY, YES, WE HAD A MOTION, A SECOND.
>> WE HAVE FIVE VOTES IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED THE MOTION PASSES.
>> [BACKGROUND] THANK YOU, BEFORE YOU CUT ME OFF CATHERINE AND SEND ME INTO THE ESA.
CAN WE PLEASE PUT THIS INTO [NOISE] THE HOPPER TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ITEM ON THESE REZONING ISSUES RELATED TO THESE ITEMS THAT WE'VE BROUGHT FORWARD?
>> [BACKGROUND] THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO [OVERLAPPING]
>> CATHERINE, WE GOT THERE. THANK YOU.
>> YES. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK JOHN PAUL IF HE MIGHT CONSIDER PUTTING TOGETHER AN AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THIS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE VERY VERY RELEVANT TO THE PEOPLE OF GALVESTON, AND JUST AS AN ASIDE OF DISTRICT 5 ISSUE THAT I THINK IS VERY, BECAUSE IF YOU NOTICE QUITE A FEW OF THE R0S ARE IN YOUR DISTRICT, SO I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE VERY VERY HELPFUL TO PUT TOGETHER AN AD HOC COMMITTEE LOOKING INTO THIS ISSUE.
BECAUSE LIKE OTHER CITIES IN NEW ORLEANS AND SAN ANTONIO AND OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE HAD BIG ISSUES WITH THIS, I THINK IT MERITS AD-HOC COMMITTEE. THANK YOU.
>> OKAY. HANDING IT OVER TO YOU COUNCIL MEMBER LISTALSKI.
>> I'LL JUST SAY THAT FOUR OF THESE R0 HAS BEEN ON MY DISTRICT.
MY DISTRICT IS ACTUALLY PRETTY EASY BECAUSE WE HAD SOME WELL-ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS.
I THINK SOME OF THE OTHER DISTRICTS ARE THE HARD ONES TO DO THIS WITH.
THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE DEFINITELY NEED TO LOOK AT.
RUSTY'S GOT SOME GOOD POINTS TOO.
I THINK WE PROBABLY NEED TO LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE A LITTLE BIT AND SEE IF WE NEED TO MAKE SOME TWEAKS IN THERE JUST TO MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE, JUST IMPROVE ON IN A BIT.
WE'LL DEFINITELY TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
>> THANK YOU. OKAY. HANDING IT OVER TO YOU, VICE-CHAIR BROWN.
[01:20:03]
[8.B.2. 21P-049 (3102, 3110, 3114, 3118, 3122, 3126, 3130, 3206, 3210, 3214, 3218, 3222, 3228, 3231, And 3235 Lafittes Pt, 13502, 13506, 13510, 13514, 13518, And 13522 Moyenne Pl, 3202, 3206, 3210, 3214, 3218, 3222, 3226, And 3230 Eckert Ct) Request For A Change Of Zoning In Order To Designate Pirates Cove, The Harbor Neighborhood As A Restricted Residential, Single-Family (R-0) Zoning District. Properties Are Legally Described As Hall And Jones Survey, Lots 1 – 30, Lots 21A – 29A, Reserve B1 & B2, Section 8, Pirates Cove Subdivision, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Development Services Department ]
WE'RE READY TO ADDRESS CASE NUMBER 21P-049 AND STAMFORD PLEASE READ THAT REPORT.>> CASE 21P-09 IS THE REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONING IN ORDER TO DESIGNATE THE AREA AS A RESTRICTED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY R0 ZONING DISTRICT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST.
WE SENT 60, SIX WERE RETURNED AND THOSE SIX WERE IN FAVOR.
BUT WE HAD NO OBJECTION FROM ANY CITY DEPARTMENTS.
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, THE AREA IS CURRENTLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY, R1.
THE PRIMARY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE R0 AND R1 ZONING DISTRICTS IS THE ABILITY OF PROPERTY OWNERS TO LEGALLY USE THEIR HOMES AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL DWELLING.
SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THE R0 ZONING DISTRICT.
NOTE THE CRITERIA TO ESTABLISH THE R0 ZONING DISTRICT LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
[BACKGROUND] NOTE THE SIX CRITERIA LISTED WERE FOCUSED ON THE FIRST TWO.
IN THIS CASE, 86 PERCENT OF THE DWELLINGS ARE OWNER OCCUPIED.
THIS PETITION WAS INITIATED BY 82 PERCENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
BASED ON THIS PROPOSAL, MEETING THE CRITERIA OUTLINED IN THE LDR STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
NOTE, CITY COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL DECISION AUTHORITY AND WE'LL HEAR THIS REQUEST AT THE OCTOBER 28TH, 2021 MEETING AND WE HAVE SLIDES.
[BACKGROUND] THE FIRST SLIDE WILL SHOW THE BOUNDARY OF THE SUBJECT AREA REQUESTING THE R0 ZONING.
THE NEXT SLIDE WILL BE THE CURRENT ZONING SITUATION WITH THAT SUBJECT AREA AND THAT CONCLUDES THAT REPORT.
>> OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? BECAUSE WE BEAT THIS ONE ALREADY.
WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 21P-049 AT 4:54 AM.
>> IF THERE ARE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC [NOISE] EXCUSE ME, THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION.
YOU'VE BEEN UNMUTED AND SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
>> WE HAVE THREE MINUTES. IS THAT RIGHT CATHERINE?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. MR. FLUKE, YOU'LL HAVE TO UNMUTE ON YOUR END IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
>> [BACKGROUND] THERE YOU GO. I REPRESENT THE APPLICANTS AND I WANT TO THANK EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE CITY AND PAINFULLY AWARE OF HOW MUCH MONEY YOU MAKE FOR THIS SERVICE.
PAINFULLY AWARE FOR THE HOURS SPENT.
ANYWAY, MY NAME IS MARTY FLUKE.
I LIVE AT 3214 ECKERT COURT, GALVESTON TEXAS.
NOAH, THE RED LINE YOU SAW IS PLANTED AS SECTION 8 PIRATES CO AND WE HAVE AN HOA THAT'S KNOWN AS THE HARBOR AT LAFEEDS CO. WE'RE CURRENTLY ASKING FOR AN R1-R0 DESIGNATION.
AS WE'RE ALL AWARE THERE'S BEEN A PROLIFERATION OF CORPORATE SHORT-TERM WINS THAT WE'LL CALL PARTY HOUSES BY MY BEACH BOX AND BEACH BOX RENTALS.
THEY'RE PROLIFERATING ON THE WEST END.
RIGHT NOW THERE ARE 106 ON AIRBNB AND 49 ON VRBO THAT RENT FOR OVER 20 PERSONS.
THEY'RE RUNNING FOR UP TO $1,460 A NIGHT, WHICH MAKES AN ATTRACTIVE PARTY HOUSE RENTAL FOR AN EXPENSIVE HOUSE.
WE LIVE IN A FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S A WELL-DEFINED AREA PLANTED.
WE HAVE AN HOA IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR THE R0 DESIGNATION TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE FAMILY ATMOSPHERE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'M ASKING EACH OF YOU TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS ZONING REQUEST.
WITH THAT, I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
YOU PROBABLY DON'T WANT TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS, BUT ANYWAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANKS, MARTY. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT?
[01:25:07]
>> IF ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION.
>> IF THERE NO MORE OTHER COMMENTS, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:00 PM AND ENTERTAIN THE MOTION. STEVE?
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 21P-049 AS WRITTEN.
>> JEFF SECONDS THAT. ANY DISCUSSION?
>> THERE WAS A TIME JEFF, I THINK HE WENT OFF OF IT.
JEFF, AD HOC COMMITTEE, GREAT IDEA THAT IF WE'RE LEAVING THE COMMISSION, YOU CAN LEAD THE AD HOC COMMITTEE.
[LAUGHTER] THIS IS A PROBLEM AND I'M VERY MUCH AWARE OF THAT.
AGAIN, I JUST DON'T LIKE THE TOOLS WE'RE USING.
IF THERE'S A BUNCH OF PEOPLE AT THAT HOUSE, WE HAVE A CITY MARSHAL'S OFFICE THAT USED TO HAVE TWO DESK, BUT NOW, THEY OCCUPY A WHOLE BUILDING.
WE'VE GOT SOME RESOURCES FOR SOME OF THESE PEOPLE.
THE ISSUE WITH THIS ONE IS THE OTHER ONE, THERE WERE SOME ROS IN THE GENERAL AREA.
THIS ONE THERE'S NO RO ZONING.
NOW MY QUESTION IS, AND MAYBE THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE START QUESTION, AT WHAT POINT DOES THIS BECOMES SPOT ZONING? I DO NOT LIKE WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
GUYS I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST IT.
I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE A PROBLEM.
I JUST DON'T LIKE THE WAY WE'RE DOING IT.
THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU.
>> I HEAR YOU BELIEVE ME ROSTI AND THAT'S WHY SOME WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE.
BUT I THINK RIGHT NOW, I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY CASES WHEN I FIRST JOINED THE COMMISSION THAT YOU WOULD HAVE PEOPLE COMING IN JUST AND REPLANT SOME STUFF LIKE THAT WITH REALLY THE SAME COMPLAINT, BUT FOR A DIFFERENT REASON.
BUT EVERY ONE OF THESE PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAD THIS WELL, WHEN WE BOUGHT THIS WE THOUGHT IT WAS THIS.
THAT'S A BIG CONCERN BECAUSE PEOPLE THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE A VIEW OR THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE THIS OR THAT IF YOU WANTED THIS AND YOU LIVE ON THE EAST END OF THE ISLAND, OR THIS IS BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
WELL, THIS IS THE ONLY TOOL THAT I SEE TODAY THAT GIVES NEIGHBORHOODS AND RESIDENTS A WAY TO SAY THIS IS WHAT WE WANT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE.
THEY'RE WORKING WITHIN THE PARAMETERS.
I AGREE THE PERIMETERS NEED WORK, BUT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT MORE OF THIS.
THESE PEOPLE ARE DOING THEIR DUE DILIGENCE TO HAVE THE LIFESTYLE THAT THEY WANT ON THIS ISLAND AND BE A FULL-TIME RESIDENT OR A WEEKEND HOUSE FOR A FAMILY IN HOUSTON, THAT'S ALL GOOD.
I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS THAT PEOPLE ARE REACTING TO THAT IS THE FEAR OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS BECOMING ALL AIRBNBS.
WHICH IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHOOSES TO BE THAT, GREAT, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT.
BUT I THINK WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND, LIKE DONNA POINTED OUT, WE HAVE TO TAKE WHAT'S PRESENTED TO US AND IF THEY FOLLOWED THE RULES AND VOTE ON IT THAT WAY.
I THINK THERE'S OTHER WAYS THAT WE CAN APPROACH THIS.
I LIKE THE TERM YOU USED, SPOT ZONING, BECAUSE IT COULD BE SPOT ZONING, BUT AS A COMMUNITY, IT'S ALLOWED.
IF ONE LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED TO ALL DECIDE TO BE HEAVY INDUSTRY, I DON'T THINK THEY COULD, BUT THEY CAN ALL SWITCH TO COMMERCIAL, SO ANYWAY, THANK YOU.
>> IF I CAN JUST CLARIFY COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI.
>> YOU DID NOT CONSIDER SPOT ZONING.
>> I KNOW, BUT I UNDERSTAND HOW BAD THAT CAN COME UP. THANK YOU DONNA.
>> [LAUGHTER] ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE VOTE?
[01:30:05]
>> WELL, LET'S NOW TAKE A ROLL CALL AND VOTE.
>> WE HAVE FOUR VOTES IN FAVOR ONE OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU. I GUESS NOW WE GET OUR CHAIR BACK.
>> HELLO. NOW WE'LL HEAR CASE 21P-051 PLEASE.
[8.C.1. 21P-051 (0 Marina Drive) Request For A Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District To Construct A New Single-Family Residential Development. Property Is Legally Described As Hall And Jones Survey, Portion Of Abandoned Right-Of-Way Marina Boulevard, South Potion Of Res B; Pirates Beach Section 1 (0-5), And Portion Of Lots 67, 70, And 77; Trimble And Lindsey Section 3; In The City And County Of Galveston Texas. Applicant: Matthew Sigmon Property Owner: ARM2 Enterprises LLC ]
>> THIS IS ZERO MARINA BOULEVARD.
THERE WERE SEVEN PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.
IT'S ON THE FIRE MARSHALL'S COMMENT ON PAGE 1 OF THE REPORT.
THE REQUEST IS TO ESTABLISH A PLANNING A DEVELOPMENT OVER LAKE DISTRICT IN A RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY R1 BASED ZONING DISTRICT TO CONSTRUCTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THE INTENT OF THE PUD IS TO DEVIATE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT IN THE R1, DEVIATE FROM THE FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT IN THE R1 ZONING DISTRICT, ALLOW FOR A PRIVATE STREET, REDUCTION OF THE WIDTH FOR A PRIVATE STREET, AS WELL AS A DEVIATION FROM ARTICLE 6, WHICH REQUIRES A DEAD END STREET TO PROVIDE A TURNAROUND, AND THAT IS PENDING A POSSIBLE CURB CUT OR ENTRANCE FROM FM3005.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS WITHIN AN ADJACENT TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY R1 ZONING.
THE SIZE COMPRISE OF 3.14 ACRES LOCATED AT NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF FM3005 AND MARINA BOULEVARD.
STAFF FINDS THIS DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES TO THE FACT THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS OF SIMILAR CHARACTER.
NOTE THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT THE SINGLE-FAMILY IS A PERMANENT LAND USE IN THE RESIDENTIAL R1 ZONING DISTRICT.
NOTE THE PUD PLAN DETAILS ON PAGES 2 AND 3 OF YOUR STAFF REPORT AND ALSO NOTE THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL ON PAGE 4.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MEETS THE ABOVE REFERENCE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.
THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT BE OUT OF SCALE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, AND IT REINFORCES THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.
ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SUPPORTS A CONTINUOUS NEED TO FURTHER HOUSING OPTIONS ON THE ISLAND.
FURTHERMORE, THE DEVIATIONS PROPOSALS ARE COMPARABLE TO OTHER SUBDIVISIONS IN THE WEST END AND IT'S NOT CREATING CONSISTENCY WITH THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS IN THE AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDS CASE 21P- 051 BE APPROVED WITH THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS LISTED AS ONE THROUGH FOUR ON YOUR REPORT IN STANDARD CONDITIONS FIVE THROUGH SEVEN.
THEN WE HAVE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS.
THIS IS AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT SITE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY VIEW FROM MARINA BOULEVARD AS WELL AS FM3005.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, NORTH TO SOUTH EAST, AND WEST AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT.
COMMISSIONERS, DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? VICE CHAIR BROWN.
>> WHAT IS THE APPENDIX D THAT'S REFERRED TO IN THE FIRST PAGE OF THE STAFF REPORT UNDER THE FIRE MARSHALL RESPONSE?
>> THAT WOULD BE THE FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR DEAD END STREETS IN A SUBDIVISION.
>> ARE THEY SAYING THAT IF THERE IS NO DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO THREE DOWN BELOW FIVE THAT THEY REQUIRE A TURNAROUND AT THAT DEAD END ROAD, RIGHT?
>> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE FIRE MARSHALL'S COMMENTS. YES, SIR.
[01:35:01]
>> WHAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR IS A VARIANCE FROM THAT TURNAROUND IF THERE IS NO ROAD ACCESS INTO THREE LEVEL BOD OF THE DEAD END?
>> HOW IS THE FIRE DEPARTMENT GOING TO SQUARE THAT AND WHAT DO THEY THINK ABOUT THAT VARIANCE?
>> THAT IS THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ADDRESS WITH THE FIRE MARSHALL.
>> [NOISE] THEY ARE NOT TOO CLEAR ON THAT. I'LL CONTINUE.
>> WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS SOMETIMES WE AS DIFFERENT DIVISIONS WITHIN THE CITY HAVE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS.
SOMETIMES THEY ALIGN, SOMETIMES THEY MAY NOT ALIGN WITH EACH OTHER.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE A REALLY GOOD IDEA.
I CAN'T IMAGINE A FIRE TRUCK GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE END OF A 28 WIDE ROAD AND NOT BEING ABLE TO GET OUT OF THERE.
>> THEY HAVE DIFFERENT OPTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT CODE.
THEY COULD DO A CALL TO SITE, THEY COULD DO A Y.
>> SOMETHING THAT PROVIDES SOMETHING AT THE END OF THE ROAD OTHER THAN A DEAD END?
I HAVE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS HERE.
THE 28P I THINK THAT'S MEANT TO BE OUTSIDE BASIC CURVE, RIGHT?
TYPICALLY, THE COAST STATES IS TYPICALLY FOR LOCAL ROADS.
YOU WOULD TYPICALLY ASK FOR 60 FEET IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 6 OF THE REGULATION, BUT THAT ALSO INCLUDES THE SIDEWALK AND THE ADDITION OF RIGHT AWAY SPACE, PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE.
THIS IS JUST STRICTLY RELATIVE 28 FEET.
>> THAT MEANS YOU GOT SPACE FOR A COUPLE OF CARS AND MAYBE PARKING ON ONE SIDE ANYWAY.
>> THEN THE DESIGN PLAN THAT THEY GAVE US SHOWS THAT THERE'S WATER ON THAT SIDE BUT THEY'RE ACTUALLY BUILDING IN THE WATER.
>> I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS ON THE LINE AS WELL VICE CHAIR BROWN.
>> THAT SHOULD BE AN APPLICANT QUESTION?
>> THEN ALSO ON THAT SAME SITE PLAN, THEY'RE SHOWING ALL OF THESE HOUSES.
I GUESS THEIR HOUSES OR FOOTPRINTS ARE ALL LITTLE 900 SQUARE FOOTPRINTS OF 30 BY 30.
I'M JUST NOT SURE WHAT THAT'S ABOUT, BUT IN SOME CASES, THAT'S ABOUT ALL YOU CAN GET ON A 3000 SQUARE FOOT LOT.
I'M SURE THAT'S NOT INDICATING THAT'S ALL THEY INTEND TO BUILD ON THAT SIDE.
I GUESS THAT'S ANOTHER APPLICANT QUESTION?
>> OKAY. JUST TO CLARIFY, THEIR 10 FOOT SETBACK, THEY WANT THAT ALONG 3005 AND ON THEIR INTERIOR PRIVATE ROAD, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YES, SIR. THAT IS WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED.
>> ARE 10 FOOT SETBACKS COMMON ALONG SUBDIVISIONS ON 3005?
I WILL SAY THAT, JUST FOR REFERENCE, TYPICALLY IN THE R1 DISTRICT, THE CURRENT STANDARD CALLS FOR 20 AND IN THIS CASE, IT'S ASKING FOR THAT TO BE REDUCED TO 10.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE OTHER SUBDIVISIONS IN THE WEST END THAT ARE LESS THAN THE 20, THEY MAY BE ZONED A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY, HOWEVER, THAT IS NOT UNCOMMON.
>> THAT'S ALL I HAVE, THANK YOU.
>> ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES, COMMISSIONER WYLA?
>> HEY ADRIEL. BECAUSE THESE ARE GOING TO BE PLATTED LOTS AND THIS IS SOME 3RD 101 SO KEEP IN MIND IT'S REAL ROBUST FOR THESE PUDS BUT AT LEAST NOT YET, I'M GETTING THERE.
THIS PUD WOULD ACTUALLY BE A PLATTED SUBDIVISION. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YEAH. THIS IS ACTUALLY STEP 1, THEY FIRST NEED TO OBTAIN APPROVAL TO SEE IF THE DEVIATION WOULD EVEN BE GRANTED BY YOU GUYS.
THEN OF COURSE IT WOULD BE YOUR TRADITIONAL PLATTING PROCESS, PRELIMINARY PLAT, FINAL PLAT, AND SO ON, SO FORTH.
>> OKAY SO THEN BASICALLY, THESE PUD APPROVALS AND I'M THINKING IN TERMS OF IF I'M PLATTING A SUBDIVISION, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO COMPLY WITH THE SUBDIVISION REGS BUT I'VE GOT THESE APPROVALS THROUGH THE PUD, IS THE PUD GOING TO [OVERLAPPING] BE THE DETERMINING FACTOR IN THAT?
[01:40:03]
>> YES SIR. YOU WOULD PLAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUD ORDINANCE.
>> ALL RIGHT. THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTIONS.
I DON'T KNOW THIS BUT I'M ASSUMING IT'S PRIVATE UTILITIES SINCE THERE'S NO UES IN THERE AND THOSE ARE ALL PUD STUFF SO WHEN THEY DO THEIR PLAT IT'S ALL PUD RELATED, NOT SUBDIVISION RELATED.
>> RIGHT, THAT'S CORRECT. ALL OF THAT WOULD BE, AGAIN, DOING THE TRADITIONAL PLATTING PROCESS THAT IS FOR REVIEW BY THE CITY DEPARTMENT YES.
>> UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU, ADRIEL.
>> JUST TO CLARIFY, SINCE RUSTI BROUGHT IT UP THE UTILITIES ARE PRIVATE UTILITIES?
>> THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION ON FOR US TO REVIEW.
WE'RE STILL NOT CLEAR ON THAT.
THAT IS SOMETHING AGAIN, THAT WE WOULD TYPICALLY REVIEW DURING THE PLATTING PROCESS.
>> COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NONE, WE WILL NOW GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARING OR WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 21P-051 AND 5:13 PM.
IS THE APPLICANT WITH US TODAY?
>> THE APPLICANT IS SIGNED ON.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND UNMUTE YOU AND YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
>> HELLO, MY NAME IS MATTHEW SIGMOND.
I'M THE APPLICANT FOR THIS PUD APPLICATION.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US AND WELCOME AND NOW'S YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO TELL US ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE AND IF YOU'VE BEEN LISTENING TO OUR DISCUSSION, IF YOU'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN ANY OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO GO AHEAD AND THEN WE'LL ASK YOU REMAINING QUESTIONS, PLEASE, SIR.
>> SURE. FIRST OF ALL, REGARDING THE TURNAROUND AT THE END OF THE PRIVATE STREET AS IT'S SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN THERE, THAT IS OBVIOUSLY A PRELIMINARY DRAWING.
WE HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK OUT WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL WITH WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE AS FAR AS IF WE HAD A HAMMER HEAD, [NOISE] WHAT THE LENGTH REQUIREMENTS OF THAT WOULD BE OR IF WE WERE ALLOWED TO HAVE AN ENTRANCE ON A 3005 WHAT EXACTLY THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
BOTH OF THOSE THINGS ARE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO.
WE DO NOT WANT TO HAVE IT JUST DEAD END INTO NOTHING LIKE IT'S SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING.
WE HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY, WHICH WILL HAPPEN IN THE PLATTING PROCESS, TO DISCUSS WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE TO BEST SERVE THE CITY AND THE FIRE MARSHAL AND OUR RESIDENTS INSIDE THE SUBDIVISION.
I DID WANT TO POINT OUT THAT ABOUT 1/3 OF THE LOTS ARE ABOVE 5000 SQUARE FOOT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE ACCESS TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WAS PROVIDED TO GO ALONG WITH THIS APPLICATION BUT YOU'LL SEE THERE THAT ALMOST ALL OF THE LOTS ARE ALMOST 5000 OR VERY CLOSE TO 5000.
THERE'S ONLY A COUPLE OF EXCEPTIONS ACTUALLY.
IN REFERENCE TO THE SIZE REQUIREMENT, THERE'S ONLY A VERY SMALL DEVIATION BEING REQUESTED AND IT'S MOSTLY ABOUT THE LOT.
ON THE SITE PLAN IS LOT NUMBER 18, I BELIEVE RIGHT NEXT TO THAT RESERVE.
THAT IS THE MAJOR CULPRIT IN WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR A SIZE RESTRICTION, A LESSER SQUARE FOOTAGE.
THEN ABOUT THE 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE, YOU'LL ALSO SEE THAT ALL OF THE LOTS ALONG THE NORTHERN PART OF THE SUBDIVISION OR NORTH OF THE PRIVATE ROAD, THEY WOULD ABSOLUTELY ACCOMMODATE A 10 FOOT BUILDING OR A 20-FOOT BUILDING LINE AS R1 WOULD CALL FOR.
AGAIN, IS THAT SAME LOT NUMBER 18 WOULD BE THE ONE THAT WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME ACCOMMODATING A 20-FOOT BUILDING LINE AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'VE ASKED FOR THE REDUCTION.
AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE LAYOUT THAT I GUESS,
[01:45:02]
20 OF THE 22 LOTS, ARE WHAT COULD BE ACCOMMODATED BY 30-FOOT BUILDING LINE.AM I MISSING ANY THING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE STAFF PORTION?
>> I BELIEVE THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE LOTS LOOKING LIKE THEY WERE IN THE WATER?
>> [LAUGHTER] YES. OKAY, LET ME TALK ABOUT THAT.
I DON'T HAVE ANY GOOD PHOTOGRAPHY HERE TO SHOW BUT AT ONE POINT THIS EXISTING POND WAS LARGER THAN IT IS NOW.
WE'VE GOTTEN PERMISSION BY ENGINEERING TO DECREASE THE SIZE OF THE POND AND THEN YOU WILL SEE THAT SOME OF THE LOTS ALONG THE NORTH OF THE PRIVATE ROAD DO LOOK TO BE IN THE WATER.
WHAT THAT IS, THERE IS A DECK THAT GOES INTO THE WATER AND THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY ON PEERS.
THAT'S A DESIGN THAT WE'RE PROUD OF ON THIS DEVELOPMENT.
IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO SAY BEFORE WE ALLOW THE COMMISSIONERS TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS, PLEASE SIR?
>> [NOISE] THE ONLY OTHER THING IS REGARDING THE LOTS THAT GO OUT TO THE WATER LIKE THAT, THAT WOULD BE A PLACE TO HAVE A BOAT DOCKER, A JET SKI DOCK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IT'S A NEAT FEATURE THAT WE'RE EXCITED TO TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT RESIDENTS OUT HERE.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. IF IT'S ALL RIGHT WITH YOU, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL ON SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS TO ASK QUESTIONS.
>> YES. THANK YOU. SIR, THESE ARE NOT VERY LARGE STRUCTURES, SO WHAT IS YOUR PRICE POINT HERE? WHAT ARE YOU THINKING IN TERMS OF REAL ESTATE VALUES?
>> LET ME BE CLEAR, THAT I AM THE APPLICANT THAT IS PREPARING TO PUT APPLICATION AND WILL BE HELPING WITH THE RE-PLANNING, AND I AM NOT THE DEVELOPER THAT WILL BE BUILDING THE HOMES.
I DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT PRICE POINT HE'S LOOKING AT.
THAT ACTUALLY HAS NOT COME UP.
I BELIEVE THAT THE DEVELOPER MAY BE HERE ON THIS CALL, BUT I'M NOT 100 PERCENT SURE ABOUT THAT.
>> I'M JUST CURIOUS. THANK YOU.
THE OTHER QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET A COURT PERMIT, BUT THAT'S NOT FOR US TO DECIDE.
>> THAT'S TRUE. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S IN THE WORKS.
>> THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY COMMENT TO SEE WHERE THAT WAS, CAROL.
THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION.
>> ALONG THOSE HOUSES THAT WOULD APPEAR TO BE IN THE WATER, ARE YOU PLANNING ON FILLING, OR BULKHEADING, OR DREDGING ANY OF THAT WATER'S EDGE TO ACHIEVE THIS?
>> THAT WOULD BE BULKHEADING ALL ALONG THAT NORTH SHORE?
>> IT SAYS IN YOUR NOTES, HOUSE FOOTPRINTS TO BE 30 BY 30 WITH 10 FOOT PORCH, AND THEN THEY'RE ALL DRAWN.
THEY LOOK LIKE THEY'RE DRAWN TO SCALE TO MATCH THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL THE SAME SIZE, LITTLE BOXES.
IS THAT REPRESENTATIONAL OR IS THAT WHAT YOU REALLY PLAN TO DO?
>> THAT'S WHAT THE DEVELOPER HAS INDICATED HE PLANS TO DO.
>> THESE ARE ALL GOING TO BE BUILT ON A SPECULATIVE NATURE TO THAT SPECIFICATION I GUESS?
IN FACT, I BELIEVE I'VE HEARD THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE IDENTICAL, BUT THAT THEY WOULD BE VERY SIMILAR SIZE.
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THIS WOULD BE MORE OF A REPRESENTATION OF A FOOTPRINT AND NOT AN ACTUAL ARCHITECTURALLY COMPLETED DESIGN FOOTPRINT.
>> I GUESS WHAT WE CAN TAKE AWAY IS THAT THEY'LL ALL BE VERY SMALL STRUCTURES.
[01:50:02]
>> THEY'LL BE A SMALL STRUCTURE. THAT'S TRUE.
WHICH WOULD ACCOMMODATE THE THE AMOUNT OF BUILDABLE SPACE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? YES, COMMISSIONER WALLER AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBER LISTOWSKI, PLEASE, SIR.
>> HEY, MATTHEW. I GOT A FEW QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
YOU HAVE A RESERVE A AS THE LANDSCAPE BARRIER. HOW BIG IS THAT?
>> WE DON'T HAVE THE DIMENSION THERE, DO WE? LET'S SEE. I CAN BALLPARK IT HERE FOR YOU.
>> SO LIKE A TENTH OF AN ACRE?
>> YEAH. YOU KNOW WHAT? I'D PUT IT MORE AT FIVE.
I THINK 120 WAS A LITTLE SHORT.
I BET IT'S MORE LIKE 150 BY 72, SO I PUT IT UP [OVERLAPPING] MORE LIKE 550 TO 100.
>> HOW WIDER ARE ALL THOSE LOTS? WHAT'S THE FRONT FOOT OF THOSE? ARE THEY ALL THE SAME?
>> I'VE GOT A GENERAL PLAN THAT HAS THAT EXACTLY.
I'M SURPRISED THAT IT'S NOT PART OF YOUR PRESENTATION HERE, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
LOTS NUMBER 1 AND 22 ARE OBVIOUSLY MUCH LARGER TO ACCOMMODATE THE 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE.
BUT THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE WAS APPROXIMATELY 33, 34.
NOT LOT SIZE, THE AVERAGE FRONTAGE.
>> THRITY THREE TO 34, I BELIEVE. HOLD ON.
>> IF WE'VE GOT A 33 FOOT WIDE BUILDING, I DON'T THINK THAT WORKS.
>> I'M SORRY. IT'S ACTUALLY NOT SHOWING ME WHERE I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW I COULD DO THIS MATH, BUT THAT'S NOT A GOOD WAY TO DO IT BECAUSE A COUPLE OF THE LOTS ARE DIFFERENT.
>> FOR A SECOND, MR. TIER, WHO I THINK IT'S THE DEVELOPER HAS ASKED TO BE UNMUTED TO HELP ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS.
>> OH, EXCELLENT. THAT WOULD BE SUPER HELPFUL.
>> MR. TIER, YOU'VE HAVE BEEN UNMUTED.
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
>> OKAY. WHICH QUESTION WOULD YOU ALL LIKE ANSWERED FIRST?
>> ON AVERAGE, HOW MANY FRONT FEET ARE ON THOSE LOTS?
>> I THINK EVERY ONE OF THEM IS CLOSER TO 50, IF NOT 50.
>> OKAY. THEN UTILITIES. WHAT'S [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'VE ALREADY GOT WITH DANIEL CRYSTALDOS AND THE PUBLIC WORKS ON THE SEWER.
THE WATERS ARE ALREADY THERE, RUNS DOWN WW5 AND ELECTRICITY IS OBVIOUSLY ELECTRICITY.
>> BUT WHEN THE UTILITIES COME INTO THE DEVELOPMENT, ARE THEY GOING TO BE PRIVATE? SO I UNDERSTAND THAT UTILITIES AT THE STREET THAT WHEN IT COMES INTO THE DEVELOPMENT OR LIKE YOU SHOW US, SANITARY IN THERE?
>> IS THAT GOING TO HAVE A UE THAT GOES WITH IT AND THAT'S A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT OR IS THAT GOING TO REMAIN PRIVATE?
>> THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE A PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION WITH THIS DEAL?
>> WE HAVEN'T DECIDED THAT YET, BUT I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE MANDATORY YES SIR, AT LEAST TO SOME EXTENT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YET.
>> I THINK THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE. THANK YOU.
>> THANKS, DANNY. YOU SAVED MY BUTT THERE.
>> VICE-CHAIR BROWN, LET ME AT LET COUNCIL MEMBER LISTOWSKI ASK HIS QUESTIONS FIRST.
I TOLD HIM HE WOULD BE NEXT, PLEASE, SIR. COUNCIL MEMBER.
>> I JUST HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION ON THE UTILITIES.
YOU SAID THEY'RE GOING TO BE PRIVATE UTILITIES ON THE PROPERTY.
SO THE CITY WON'T HAVE WATER METERS OUT THERE FOR INDIVIDUAL HOUSES?
[01:55:03]
>> NO THE CITY WILL HAVE THE WATER METERS.
AGAIN, THE WATER SUPPLY RUNS RIGHT DOWN THROUGH FIVE.
>> I THINK THAT WATER METER IS GOING TO ACTUALLY HAVE TO BE IN THE UTILITIES.
SO TO SAY THEY CAN ACCEPT [OVERLAPPING].
>> IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WE WILL OBLIGE.
WE JUST NEED TO SIT DOWN WITH [INAUDIBLE] AND FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED TO DO.
>> BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF EASEMENT AREA ALONG THAT BACKSIDE WHERE THE DITCHES AND WHAT RUNS UP AGAINST 355.
>> DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH TO PUT IT AN EASEMENT IN THE PRIVATE DRIVE?
>> I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW MUCH WE'LL NEED, BUT I BELIEVE WE DO.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I'VE ALREADY TALKED TO THEM ABOUT IT, SO WE ALL FIGURED IT WELL ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT THIS PLAN WAS GOING TO WORK.
WE HAVEN'T GOT THE EXACT PARAMETERS ON IT.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP BEFORE OR AT THE SAME TIME AS COMMISSIONER WALLER.
>> WELL, ONE OTHER THING, SO YOU YOU'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY DEVIATIONS IN THE SIDE SETBACKS SO I BELIEVE IN R1 THAT'S THREE FEET.
ARE YOU LOOKING TO TRY TO USE THAT THREE-FOOT SIDE SETBACKS ON EACH LOT OR ARE YOU DON'T NEED A DEVIATION IN THE SIDE SETBACK. IS THAT RIGHT?
>> I BELIEVE THEY'RE GOING TO BE MINIMUM FIVE ON EACH SIDE.
>> THANK YOU, VICE-CHAIR BROWN.
>> I MAY BE GETTING INTO DEFINITIONS OR SOMETHING BUT LOOKING AT THIS SITE PLAN, THESE LOTS, ROUGHLY 14 THROUGH 7 THEY'RE ALL APPEAR TO BE SOMEWHERE AROUND 5000 SQUARE FEET, BUT HALF OF THOSE LOTS ARE WATER.
THE LAND PART OF THAT LOT IS REALLY, I GUESS, MORE LIKE 2,500 SQUARE FEET. IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YES. AGAIN, 10 FOOT OF IT, THE DECK WILL EXTEND PAST TO ACCOMMODATE THAT FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE.
>> NOT ALL OF THE DECKS ARE GOING TO EXTEND TO THE WATER.
A LOT OF THEM WILL JUST EXTEND UP TO THE EDGE.
BUT THE ONES WHERE THE HOUSES ARE ON A SMALLER PIECE OF LAND, WILL BUMP THEM BACK AS FAR AS WE CAN AND GIVE THEM THAT WATERFRONT JUST ADDING A DIFFERENT ASPECT TO IT.
WE'RE PRIMARILY GOING FOR MORE OF A RETIREMENT AGE COMMUNITY, YOU FIGURE, IT'S GOING TO BE OLDER PEOPLE AND LITTLE DOGS, THEY'RE ARE NOT GOING TO NEED A LOT.
SOMEBODY HAD ASKED EARLIER ABOUT PRICE POINT.
I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE BETWEEN 450 AND 650 ON THE AVERAGE.
WE'RE GOING TO DEVELOP AND BUILD.
>> WAS I CORRECT IN THE ASSUMPTION, WHAT I WAS SAYING IN THE NOTES ON THAT PLAN THAT THESE HOUSES ARE ALL AROUND 900 FEET?
>> THAT'S WHAT WE PUT BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO BE SPEC HOUSES AND ALL THE HOUSES WE'VE BUILT SO FAR, WE HAVE AN 1,800 SQUARE FOOT PLAN THAT HAS JUST BEEN BY FAR THE MOST POPULAR.
THAT'S A TWO-STORY [INAUDIBLE] TWICE.
>> THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE THE BIGGER SIZE, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE SOME THAT ARE BETWEEN NINE AND 12 MINIMUM 15, 18 AROUND THAT GENERAL VICINITY.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. ANYTHING ELSE? WERE COMMISSIONER WALLA AND I THE ONLY ONES TO GET A CHUCKLE OUT OF THE OLD PEOPLE AND SMALL DOGS? [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING] NO PUN INTENDED AT ALL.
[LAUGHTER] THE BAD THING IS MY DOG LOOKS LIKE ME.
>> ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING? WHERE ARE THE APPLICANTS? THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US.
I APPRECIATE IT. MS. GORMAN, DID WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE ON THE LINE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS CASE?
>> IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION.
>> THANK YOU. THEN WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 21 [NOISE] P-051 AT 5:31 PM.
I'LL BRING IT BACK FOR A MOTION.
DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS CASE? COMMISSIONER WALLA.
>> I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 21 P-051 AS PRESENTED.
[02:00:01]
I HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER ANTONELLI.COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY?
>> I WAS REALLY HOPING THAT WE WOULD BE EXPANDING OUR MIDDLE-INCOME HOUSING [LAUGHTER] HERE.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, NOT FOR THAT KIND OF PRICE.
ANYWAY, THAT'S ALL I HAD TO SAY.
>> ANYTHING ELSE, COMMISSIONERS? ANY MORE DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CALL THE QUESTION.
>> ALL IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSES.
>> MADAM CHAIR, IF I MAY, I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT THIS PD REQUEST WILL BE HEARD BY COUNCIL.
THEY DO HAVE THE FINAL DECISION REGARDING THIS REQUEST, AND YOU'LL HEAR IT ON THE 28TH OF NEXT MONTH.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, [INAUDIBLE] I ALWAYS APPRECIATE YOU COMING BACK AND STATING THAT.
I THINK IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO STATE THAT FOR THE RECORD. THANK YOU.
[9.A. 2021 Planning Commission Awards (Staff) ]
NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS. WE'LL START WITH ITEM A, THE 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION AWARDS, AND WE HAVE OUR SLATE OF AWARDS THAT WE CAME UP WITH.THESE ARE THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE AWARDS THAT WE CAME UP WITH STEERING OUR WORKSHOP.
LET'S SEE. CATHERINE, WHY DON'T YOU READ THROUGH SINCE YOU'RE SO MUCH BETTER AT THIS THAN I AM, PLEASE?
>> SURE. IN THE CATEGORY OF BEAUTIFICATION, WE HAVE THE JUNETEENTH MURAL AT 2217 STRAND.
DEVELOPMENT IS THE ABE AND ANNIE SIEBEL STUDENT RESIDENCES, WHICH IS STUDENT HOUSING AT GALVESTON COLLEGE.
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL, WE HAVE THE TURTLES ABOUT TOWN PROJECT, FROM THE TURTLE ISLAND RESTORATION NETWORK.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION, THE NOMINATION THERE IS THE EXTERIOR RESTORATION OF ST. MARY'S CATHEDRAL BASILICA AT 2011 CHURCH.
FOR PARTICIPATION, WE HAVE THE SEAWALL INTERPRETIVE TRAIL, THE BEAUTIFICATION OF 70 GALVESTON SEAWALL BENCHES.
PRIVATE INVESTMENT IS THE ANICO PARKING GARAGE AND SKYBRIDGE AT 302 20TH STREET.
PUBLIC INVESTMENT IS FIRE STATION NUMBER 1 LOCATED AT 823 26TH STREET.
REDEVELOPMENT IS THE OLD FIRE STATION STAR STATE COMPANY NUMBER 3 AT 2828 MARKET, AND THEN AT THE SUGGESTION OF CHAIRPERSON HILL, WE'VE INCLUDED AN INSPIRATION AWARD FOR 1019 53RD STREET SALTWATERSOUL BUILDING, WHICH WAS THE INSPIRATION FOR BRUCE REINHART, FORMER CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, TO COME UP WITH THE IDEA OF HAVING THE PLANNING COMMISSION AWARDS IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND THAT'S A NICE WAY TO HONOR THAT BUILDING.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CATHERINE.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT THIS SLIGHT AS OUR AWARD WINNERS FOR THE 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION AWARDS.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HOLLOWAY.
IS THERE DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NO DISCUSSION, ALL DISCUSSED OUT ON THESE AWARDS, ARE WE KIDS? [LAUGHTER] SEEING NO DISCUSSION, WE'LL CALL THE VOTE.
>> I AM ENTHUSIASTICALLY IN FAVOR.
>> ALL IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSES.
CATHERINE, WILL WE TRY TO GET THESE? WILL WE HAVE THE AWARDS? DO YOU THINK THAT WE WILL ASK COUNCIL IF THEY WILL BE ABLE TO FIT THESE ON THEIR OCTOBER AGENDA OR WILL IT BE NOVEMBER?
OCTOBER IS PLANNING MONTH, THE CELEBRATION FROM THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION.
THAT'S WHY WE PICKED OCTOBER SO WE'LL GET WITH THE CITY SECRETARY AND THE MAYOR FOR A PRESENTATION PERIOD.
>> OKAY, I REALLY DO THINK WE SHOULD TRY AND GET BRUCE REINHART BACK TO DO THAT LAST AWARD, PLEASE.
[02:05:01]
>> ABSOLUTELY. I THINK THAT'D BE A LOT OF FUN.
[9.B. Discussion Of Accessory Structures Including Boat Houses And Piers (Hill) ]
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEM B, DISCUSSION OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, INCLUDING BOTH HOUSES AND PEERS.THIS IS GOING TO BE TWOFOLD BECAUSE I HAD ASKED FOR IT TO BE ON THE AGENDA PRIOR TO THURSDAY'S COUNCIL MEETING.
JOHN PAUL, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU, PLEASE SERVE COUNCIL MEMBER, TO LEAD THE DISCUSSION ON WHAT YOU-ALL WANT AND WHAT YOU-ALL DISCUSSED ON THURSDAY.
BUT FIRST I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT I HAD IN MIND WHEN I ASKED FOR IT TO BE ON THE AGENDA INITIALLY.
WE DO NOT SEPARATELY DISCUSS BOTH HOUSES AND PEERS ANYWHERE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
WE DON'T MENTION THEM, WE DON'T DEFINE THEM, WE DON'T TALK ABOUT THEM, AND FOR AN ISLAND COMMUNITY OR A COMMUNITY THAT HAS THESE AND PLENTY OF THEM, WE SHOULD PROBABLY DISCUSS THEM, WE SHOULD PROBABLY MENTION THEM.
WE'VE ALWAYS JUST LUMPED THEM IN WITH ACCESSORY [NOISE] STRUCTURES.
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS MEANS A STRUCTURE THAT IS SUBORDINATE TO A PRINCIPAL BUILDING.
CATHERINE, DO YOU THINK IT'S REASONABLE THAT YOU ALL COULD STUDY THIS AND SEE WHAT OTHER SIMILAR COMMUNITIES DO, OTHER SIMILAR WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES DO, AND HOW THEY HANDLE THESE, AND THEN WE COULD SEE ABOUT PULLING THOSE OUT? THEN DEPENDENT ON HOW COUNCIL MEMBER LISTOWSKI INSTRUCTS US, WE COULD POTENTIALLY DO WHAT HE WANTS US TO DO UNDERNEATH THAT SAME HEADING.
>> I THINK THAT SOUNDS REASONABLE THAT STAFF COULD CERTAINLY LOOK INTO WHAT OTHER COMMUNITIES DO, AND IT DOES SEEM ALSO REASONABLE TO HAVE A SECTION SPECIFIC TO BOTH HOUSES AND PEERS.
>> GREAT. THAT'S PART ONE, WHICH IS WHAT I WAS HOPING WE COULD ACCOMPLISH.
NOW TOSSING IT OVER TO YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER.
>> THIS WAS DISCUSSED A LITTLE BIT AT COUNCIL, AND I WANTED TO GET SOME DIRECTION FROM THEM.
I THINK JUST FOLLOWING ALONG WITH WHAT [NOISE] JEFFREY HAD TO SAY THERE, THAT'S THE DIRECTION I FEEL COUNCIL WANTS TO GO IS THAT WE WOULD SEPARATE OUT BOTH HOUSES AND PEERS AND CREATE SOME CRITERIA FOR THEM OUTSIDE OF THIS ACCESSORY DWELLING STRUCTURE.
WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF PLACES ON THE ISLAND WHERE THIS SITUATION EXISTS.
I DON'T KNOW IF CATHERINE WAS ABLE TO FIND OUT IF THAT WAS ALLOWED OR IF THOSE STRUCTURES FLOATED UNDER THE RADAR A LITTLE BIT WHEN THEY WERE BUILT, BUT THERE ARE AREAS THAT DO EXIST LIKE THIS.
SORRY, JEFF. I THINK STAFF HAS RAISED WHAT PEERS OF BOTH HOUSES THAT.
>> MY INTERNET CONNECTION IS TERRIBLE.
>> LET ME FINISH THAT REAL QUICK.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE I LEFT OFF THERE, BUT THERE ARE SOME ISSUES THAT I THINK STAFF HAS RAISED WITH TRESPASSING, NOT HAVING FACILITIES ON THE PROPERTIES, SUPPORT BOATHOUSE, SOME PIERS.
I THINK WE CAN GET AROUND SOME OF THOSE THINGS BY PUTTING SOME REGULATIONS IN PLACE BUT I THINK THAT'S DIRECTION THAT COUNSEL TALKED ABOUT GOING.
>> TO CLARIFY IN LISTENING TO WHAT COUNCIL WANTED, DO YOU THINK COUNCIL WANTS TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO PUT A BOATHOUSE, A PIER, A DOCK ON A LOT THAT DOES NOT HAVE A MAIN STRUCTURE?
>> YES. THERE WERE A COUPLE PEOPLE THAT TALKED.
DAVID COLLINS WAS PROBABLY ONE OF THE ONES THAT WAS MOST VOCAL ABOUT THIS AND I THINK, NOT TRYING TO QUOTE DAVID, BUT HE WAS SAYING THAT WE LIVE ON AN ISLAND.
PEOPLE LOVE THE WATER, THEY BUY WATERFRONT PROPERTY TO USE IT.
A PIER AND A BOATHOUSE SEEMS LOGICAL TO HAVE WITHOUT A STRUCTURE ON THAT PROPERTY, SO THEY CAN UTILIZE THE WATERFRONT PROPERTY THAT THEY OWN.
EVERYBODY SEEMED TO AGREE WHETHER THEY WERE NODDING OR SAYING YES ON THAT ISSUE.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE SEEN AS FAVORABLE WITH COUNCIL IF IT WAS BROUGHT
[02:10:05]
BACK TO THEM IN A REGULATION OR [INAUDIBLE].>> OKAY. WAS THERE ANY KIND OF REQUIREMENT OR WERE THEY ASKING FOR IT TO BE FENCED? WHAT WERE YOU HEARING ON THAT?
>> THAT'S WHERE I WOULD LISTEN TO STAFF A LITTLE BIT ON SOME OF THE CRITERIA THAT IT WOULD TAKE THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE ON ALLOWING A PIER OR A BOATHOUSE TO BE BUILT ON A PROPERTY WITHOUT A PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
I THINK GATED, FENCED AREA, DEFINITELY GOT BROUGHT UP.
THE MAIN THING IS KEEPING PEOPLE OFF THAT PROPERTY, PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES, NEIGHBORS CONCERNED WITH PEOPLE TRASHING THE AREA AND SOMEONE NOT BEING THERE TO ADDRESS THAT.
WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO ALLEVIATE THESE PROBLEMS, I THINK IT'S BENEFICIAL.
BUT AGAIN, I THINK THOSE ARE ALL ISSUES THAT CAN BE WORKED IN A GOOD SET OF REQUIREMENTS OR CRITERIA TO ALLOW THAT.
>> DO YOU SEE THIS AS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD WORKSHOP? STAFF HAVE A WHILE TO CHURN IT UP AND THEN WE'LL WORKSHOP IT?
I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT.
OF COURSE, ACTUALLY GROUP IS WHO BROUGHT THIS TO THE FOREFRONT HERE AND I'VE TALKED TO HER A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT.
SHE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE RIGHT THING DONE HERE.
SHE'S NOT IN A HUGE RUSH BUT I DON'T WANT TO DRAG THIS ON FOR MEETING AFTER MEETING, SO I'M FINE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE STAFF TO BRING US BACK SOMETHING, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE IT WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE MEETINGS AT LEAST AND IF WE CAN REVIEW THAT IN A WORKSHOP AND THEN IF EVERYTHING LOOKS GOOD, BRING IT BACK TO THE NEXT MEETING FOR A VOTE ON.
>> SURE AND I APPRECIATE IT THAT SHE WANTS TO SEE SOMETHING DONE, BUT ALSO I'M FAIRLY SNAKE BIT BY THE WHOLE WATCH OUT, I'M GOING TO SAY A BAD WORD GOLF CARTS SITUATION.
I'M A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE LEADS, JUST MAKE SURE WE THINK IT THROUGH SIDE.
>> SHE IS, AND THAT'S WHY I SAID, SHE'S NOT LOOKING TO RUSH THIS.
SHE'D NOT GOING TO GO OUT THERE AND THEY'RE DOING A PIA TOMORROW.
SHE WAS WILLING TO HAVE THIS TEXT AMENDMENT WHERE SHE WOULD BUILD A HOUSE OUT THERE ON THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET AND THEN BUILD UP HER.
AGAIN, THAT'S A TIME A PROCESS TO DO THAT AND IT'S NOT A RUSH THING HERE.
BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE OPEN UP TO WORKS LIKE A GOLF CART.
IT IS A PRIVATE PROPERTY ISSUES.
IT'S INDIVIDUALS PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THIS IS NOT A BUSINESS OUT THERE THAT IS TRYING TO RID GOLF CARTS AND BRINGING 1,000 OF THEM TO MEET COMMUNITY.
WE ONLY HAVE SO MANY OF THESE WATERFRONT LOTS THAT DON'T HAVE HOUSES ON THEM THAT POSSIBLY WANT A PIER AND A BOATHOUSE OUT THERE.
I DON'T WANT TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE I THINK IT IS A VERY FOCUSED ISSUE OUT THERE, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BECAUSE WE ARE WATERFRONT COMMUNITY AND I THINK IT DESERVES A LITTLE BIT OF OUR TIME.
I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT COMPLEX OF AN ISSUE TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.
>> SURE. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY OF THESE LOTS THERE ARE? ANYBODY KNOW HOW MANY WATERFRONT LOTS THERE ARE THAT ARE EMPTY?
>> [INAUDIBLE] HAND, BUT THAT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING WE COULD DETERMINE FOR THE NEXT DISCUSSION.
>> THAT'S GREAT. SINCE WE'RE ALL RIGHT HERE TOGETHER, ANY IDEA? WHEN COULD JOEL, WHAT'S A TIME ESTIMATE ON THIS?
>> I THINK THE NEXT MEETING IS TOO SOON BUT WE COULD CERTAINLY BE READY FOR THE SECOND MEETING IN OCTOBER, WHICH IS OCTOBER 19TH.
>> OKAY, GOOD. COMMISSIONERS, LET'S PLAN ON A WORKSHOP ON THE 19TH PLEASE, OCTOBER 19TH WORKSHOP TO TALK ABOUT THIS AND DIDN'T WE HAVE ANOTHER WORKSHOP ITEM FOR THAT DAY TWO? YES, WE DID HAVE ANOTHER ITEM THAT I ASKED FOR ON THAT DAY TWO.
WORKSHOP ON ACCESSORY PIERS, WHATEVER, PIERS BOTH HOUSES.
GREAT. ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD ON THAT COUNCIL MEMBER?
>> I THINK THE STAFF WILL BRING US BACK, EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT TO SEE.
I FEEL THAT THIS AGAIN WILL TAKE A WHOLE LOT OF EFFORT OR TIME ON THE COMMISSION'S PART.
AGAIN, I THINK IT'S RELATIVELY A SIMPLE ISSUE,
[02:15:01]
BUT WE'LL SEE WHAT WE SEE HERE IN THE WORKSHOP.>> OKAY, GREAT. CAROL, COMMISSIONER WALLA, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING?
>> YES, BEFORE CAROL GETS GOING.
>> YEAH, SO [LAUGHTER] SINCE WE'RE ALL HERE AND THIS ZONING CHANGE DEAL, I CAN SEE THIS SNOWBALLING.
MY QUESTION IS, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL SAYS, WE'RE GOING TO AD HOC COMMITTEE? IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN WORKSHOP? WE ARE GOING TO GET A LOT OF THESE AND RIGHTFULLY SO.
>> IF YOU'RE GETTING THE QUESTION, I GUESS, HOW DO WE GET THE BALL ROLLING SO THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS AND WE'RE WORKING ON A SOLUTION TO WHAT I THINK, AGAIN IT'S MY OPINION, JUST ONE OPINION OF A PROBLEM WE HAVE WITH THE LDR AND ALLOWING THOSE CHANGES?
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET A LOT OF THEM.
WE'VE GONE A LONG TIME WITHOUT HAVING ONE BECAUSE IT TAKES A LOT TO GET THEM DONE AND WE JUST HAPPEN TO HAVE TWO OF THEM HERE AT THE SAME TIME.
BUT I'M GOING TO DEFER TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER ON THAT TO ASK IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD WORKSHOP OR IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU SHOULD TAKE TO COUNCIL AND ASK THEM IF THEY THINK THAT THEY WANT TO FORM AN AD HOC OR A COUNCIL THAT I BELIEVE AND DONNA CAN CORRECT ME ON THIS, COUNCIL IS THE ONLY ONE WITH THE POWER TO FORM AN AD HOC.
>> YES. COMMISSIONS CAN, YES. THAT'S THE SHORT ANSWER.
I WILL SAY THAT SINCE THOSE CASES ARE GOING TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL ON THE 28TH.
>> SINCE THOSE CASES ARE GOING TO CITY COUNCIL ON THE 28TH, THAT IS GOING TO BE AN AWESOME OPPORTUNITY I THINK FOR THE EX-OFFICIO TO AND FOR WHOEVER'S LISTENING TO GET THOSE COMMON STEP WE'VE ALREADY STATED OUT HERE TO GET THAT DONNA TO CITY COUNCIL.
WE'VE USED THIS PHRASE BEFORE BUT GET THE TEMPERATURE OF COUNCIL AND SEE WHERE THE DIRECTION IS AND THAT WOULD BE AN AWESOME OPPORTUNITY TO SAY CITY COUNCIL, WHERE DO YOU WANT STAFF TO GO ON THOSE?
>> HOW DO YOU WANT TO HANDLE IT? THE COUNCIL MEMBER.
>> I GUESS I NEED A LITTLE MORE FEEDBACK ON EXACTLY WHAT ISSUES YOU ALL HAVE WITH THE CURRENT REGULATIONS.
THE ONLY THING I REALLY SEE HERE IS THE WORDING OF PROPERTY.
I'M NOT SURE WHY THAT IS STATED LIKE THAT.
IN MY OPINION, IT SHOULD BE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHETHER IT'S OCCUPIED OR NOT, BUT IT'S A RESIDENTIAL PIECE OF PROPERTY IN R1 OR WHATEVER ZONING CATEGORIES IT'S IN.
IT SHOULD BE UP FOR THEIR OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO BE THE ONE THAT NEEDS TO SIGN OFF ON A RE-ZONING.
I'M NOT SURE WHY WE ACTUALLY HAVE THAT OWNER OCCUPIED TERMINOLOGY PHRASE IN THERE AND MAYBE STAFF OR LEGAL COULD ADDRESS THAT.
>> AGAIN, I KNOW WE'RE AT THE END OF THE MEETING, BUT I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IF WE WANT TO GET DIRECTION OF HOW WE'RE FEELING OR WHAT SOME OF THE CONFUSION IS OR CLARIFICATIONS NEEDED, THEN MAYBE STEPH HERE CAN PRESENT SOMETHING TO FIND A COMMISSION AT THE FOLLOWING MEETING I GUESS?
>> I'VE MADE A NOTE TO PUT ON THE R0 ZONING AS A DISCUSSION ITEM AT THE NEXT MEETING.
>> THAT WAY WE CAN NARROW DOWN WHERE YOU WANT THINGS TO GO.
>> OKAY. GREAT [OVERLAPPING]. I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD.
>> I THINK I WOULD NEED THAT INFORMATION TO BRING TO COUNCIL BECAUSE I'M A LITTLE UNSURE EXACTLY WHAT WE ALL WANT TO CHANGE WITHIN THE CURRENT REGULATIONS [OVERLAPPING] [INAUDIBLE] THAT NEED TO BE DISCUSSED A LITTLE BIT LONGER.
>> YEAH, AND DONNA, MAYBE AT THAT MEETING IF YOU WOULD BRING WHAT THE DEFINITION OF OWNER OCCUPIED IS, PLEASE, IN THIS SITUATION.
I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT, PLEASE, MA'AM.
>> THANK YOU. VICE-CHAIR BROWN.
>> JUST ONE THING TO GET TO JOHN PAUL'S COMMENT, AND ALSO TO [INAUDIBLE] I THINK THIS WHOLE CHANGE IN ZONING IS RARELY A BLUNT INSTRUMENT,
[02:20:06]
A TYPE OF A TOOL TO GET TO WHERE WE WANT TO BE.IT'S THE ONLY TOOL WE GOT, AND IT'S REALLY NOT A VERY GOOD TOOL.
IT DOESN'T REALLY WORK FOR A LOT OF PLACES AROUND THE ISLAND THAT ARE HAVING A MUCH LARGER PROBLEM WITH THIS.
I'LL SAY IN PARTICULAR THE EAST END.
THE EAST END CAN'T REALLY USE A TOOL LIKE THIS BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MEET A LOT OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS.
THERE ARE OTHER WAYS OF DOING THIS.
FOR INSTANCE, I BELIEVE A BED AND BREAKFAST HAS NO RESTRICTION ON THE FREQUENCY OR THE NUMBER OF THESE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE ON A BLOCK-BASE.
YOU COULD DO SOMETHING SIMILAR WITH THESE SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
BECAUSE I KNOW A LOT OF CASES WHERE THERE'S THREE OR FOUR SHORT TERM RENTALS WITHIN A 100 FEET OF A HOUSE, MINE FOR INSTANCE.
YOU START GETTING THAT FREQUENCY AND SUDDENLY YOU'VE LOST YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD OR MAYBE YOU DON'T HAVE NEIGHBORS ANYMORE.
THAT'S ONE WAY THAT YOU COULD INFLUENCE THE PROBLEMS THAT THESE THINGS ARE CREATING.
THAT IS FREQUENCY OF THEM IN A NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> IF I CAN JUST INTERRUPT THE COMMISSIONERS, I UNDERSTAND THIS IS THE HOT TOPIC RIGHT NOW, BUT IT IS OFF AGENDA. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M JUST PLANTING THAT SEED IN JOHN PAUL'S EAR SO HE UNDERSTANDS WHERE THIS COULD GO.
>> I'M GOING TO HOLD MY COMMENTS UNTIL IT IS AN AGENDA ITEM AT THE NEXT MEETING, OKAY?
>> OKAY. THAT'S ALL, I'LL STOP.
NOW IT'S TIME FOR THE FAREWELL.
[LAUGHTER] CAROL, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO SAY?
>> YES, I'D LIKE TO READ SOMETHING THAT I HAD PREPARED AND IT'S DIRECTED PRIMARILY TO THE NEW AND RETURNING COMMISSIONERS, YOU ALL.
PLEASE KNOW THAT THE JOB THAT YOU HAVE BEEN CHOSEN FOR AND THE ONE IN WHICH YOU SERVE IS NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART.
YOU'LL RECEIVE LITTLE RESPECTS AND EVEN LESS MONEY.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BEEN AND CONTINUES TO BE HARANGUED BY PERSONS WHO ARE TRYING TO DISCREDIT IT'S CONTRIBUTION TO OUR PARTICIPATORY FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
HOWEVER, IF YOU DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS BASED ON EVIDENCE AND OBSERVATION, YOUR DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WILL STAND ON THEIR OWN MERIT REGARDLESS OF THE DETRACTORS.
I ENCOURAGE YOU TO LISTEN TO YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS AND ACT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY.
IT HAS BEEN A PRIVILEGE, THIS IS WHERE IT GETS BAD.
IT HAS BEEN A PRIVILEGE AND AN HONOR TO SERVE MY HOMETOWN ON PLANNING COMMISSION.
I EXTEND MY SINCERE GRATITUDE TO THE PLANNING STAFF FOR THEIR HELP AND PATIENCE OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS.
IN THE PROCESS OF GIVING MY TIME AND ENERGY TO THIS COMMISSION, I HAVE RECEIVED FAR MORE THAN I HAVE GIVEN.
I HAVE LEARNED ABOUT COASTAL PROCESSES AND LAND DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL COMMUNITY THAT IS MY HOME.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THAT KNOWLEDGE WITH ME TODAY.
THAT IS THE BEST GIFT I COULD EVER RECEIVE.
THANK YOU, AND THANKS FOR THE PLAQUE.
>> [APPLAUSE] I'LL MISS BOTH OF YOU SO MUCH, YOU JUST HAVE NO IDEA.
I WON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WHEN I SIGN ON NEXT TIME AND I WON'T SEE YOUR FACES.
IT'LL TAKE ME A WHILE TO GET USED TO IT.
BUT I APPRECIATE IT, AND THANK YOU ALL BOTH FOR BEING SO DILIGENT.
THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] SORRY, COUNCIL MEMBER [INAUDIBLE]
>> GET THE LAST WORD. I WANT TO THANK BOTH CAROL AND JEFF FOR SERVING ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I THINK ALL OF YOU ALL AS A BOARD DO A GREAT JOB.
I MIGHT NOT ALWAYS AGREE WITH YOU ALL, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE AND DEFINITELY RESPECT ALL OF YOU ALL NO MATTER WHAT THE DECISION IS.
THANK YOU, CAROL. HOPEFULLY, WE CAN FIND YOU ANOTHER PLACE TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY.
>> ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, WE ARE ADJOURNED.
>> THANKS EVERYBODY.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.