[00:00:01]
ALRIGHT, WE'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AT 3:35 ON JANUARY 4TH, 2022.
LET'S SEE, [INAUDIBLE], DO YOU LIKE TO CALL THE ROLL?
[2. Attendance]
SURE WILL. VICE CHAIRPERSON BROWN.I'M HERE. COMMISSIONER EDWARDS.
[INAUDIBLE]. HERE. CHAIRPERSON HILL IS ABSENT.
COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY. MR. HUMPHREY IS HERE.
COUNCILMAN, JOHN PAUL LISTOWSKI.
HERE. [INAUDIBLE] ARE MYSELF, CATHERINE GORMAN, THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, DANIEL LUNSFORD, SENIOR PLANNER, AND DONNA FAIRWEATHER, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE MIGHT BE ONE OTHER STAFF MEMBER SIGNED IN, BUT I DON'T SEE A NAME DISPLAYED.
SO IF THERE IS, PLEASE LET US KNOW YOU'RE HERE.
OK. [INAUDIBLE] HAVE ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON ANYTHING TODAY?
[3. Conflict Of Interest]
OKAY. SEEING, NONE.[4. Meeting Format (Staff)]
CATHERINE, DO YOU WANT TO DESCRIBE OUR MEETING FORMAT? SURE, JUST OUR STANDARD MEETING REMINDERS THAT IT'S BEST TO WATCH THE MEETING IN GALLERY VIEW SO YOU CAN SEE ALL OF YOUR COMMISSIONERS AT THE SAME TIME, AND THAT'S HOW THE MEETING IS SHOWN TO THE PUBLIC.WE ASK THAT YOU KEEP YOURSELF MUTED UNLESS YOU'RE SPEAKING TO CUT DOWN ON BACKGROUND NOISE. WE ALSO ASK THAT YOU PHYSICALLY RAISE YOUR HAND TO GET THE CHAIR'S ATTENTION BEFORE SPEAKING OR MAKING A MOTION.
WE'LL BE TAKING THE VOTES BY ROLL CALL AND FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE ON THE CALL WILL ASK THAT YOU USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN WHEN YOU'RE ASKED IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK.
[5. Approval Of Minutes]
NOW WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7TH.DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY ADDITIONS OR WANT TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES? IF NOT, THEY'LL STAND AS PRESENTED.
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? STAFF, IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE AGENDA OR NON AGENDA ITEMS? THE PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY PACKET WAS SENT TO YOU THIS MORNING.
TWICE, THERE WERE TWO COMMENTS THAT HAD BEEN LEFT OUT OF THE FIRST PACKET.
THERE'S BEEN NO ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT FROM THAT TIME.
YEAH. I'D ASK IF THERE ARE ANYBODY ON THE CALL WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION AT THIS POINT TO USE THE RACE HAND FUNCTION.
OK. YEAH, I THINK WE ALL GOT THOSE COMMENTS BY EMAIL, AND WE'VE ALL TAKEN THOSE INTO CONSIDERATION ON THE AGENDA ITEMS. I DON'T SEE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
[7.A.1. 21P-075 (320 Moody / 21st Street) Request For A Replat In Order To Combine The Number Of Lots From Ten To Two. The Properties Are Legally Described As: M.B. Menard Survey, Lots 4, 5, 6, 9 Through 14 And East 24.10 Ft Of Lot 3 And Adjacent Alley (4-1) Block 560; In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Scott Webb, American National Insurance Company Property Owner: American National Insurance Company]
OK, I GUESS WE'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING NOW, STAFF, LET'S HEAR CASE NUMBER 21P-075.ALRIGHTY. 21P-075, THIS IS AT 320 MOODY.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A REPLAT FROM 11 LOTS TO TWO LOTS.
THERE WERE 26 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, AND OF COURSE, AS THIS IS A QUOTE UNQUOTE MINISTERIAL ACTION, THERE WILL BE NO ACTION TAKEN BY PLANNING COMMISSION ON THIS CASE.
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REPLAT TO DECREASE THE NUMBER OF LOSS FROM 11 TO TWO, THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES NEAREST TO 20TH STREET CURRENTLY CONTAIN A MULTISTORY PARKING STRUCTURE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NEAREST TO 21ST STREET CONTAIN A SURFACE PARKING LOT.
TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING FOR REPLATS, WHICH INVOLVE MORE THAN FOUR LOTS REGARDLESS OF ZONING, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS HEARING TODAY.
PLEASE NOTE THE ZONING AND LAND USE OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND ADJACENT PARCELS IN THE STAFF REPORT. SUBJECT PARCELS ARE PARTIALLY DEVELOPED, INCLUDING EXISTING PARKING STRUCTURE COMPLETED MAY 2021 THAT FRONTS 20TH STREET AND HAS ACCESS TO 20TH STREET, AVENUE C, AVENUE, D. THAT, OF COURSE, WOULD BE THE NEW PARKING GARAGE THAT ANICO BUILT.
THE REMAINDER OF THE PARCELS CONTAIN EXISTING SURFACE PARKING LOT.
THE LOTS CURRENTLY HAVE ACCESS TO EXISTING WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LOCATED ALONG 20TH STREET, 21ST STREET AND MECHANIC STREET, NO CITY DEPARTMENTS OR PRIVATE UTILITIES SUBMITTED ISSUES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED REPLAT.
THE CENTRAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS IN THIS AREA AND MINIMUM 3000 SQUARE FOOT. THERE ARE NO WIDTH OR LENGTH REQUIREMENTS.
THE REPLAT EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR LOTS AND CENTRAL BUSINESS ZONING.
BOTH LOTS AFTER THE REPLAT WILL BE AT LEAST FOURTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FOURTEEN SQUARE FOOT. PLEASE NOTE THE PLAT APPROVAL CRITERIA AND THE STAFF REPORT AS WELL.
THE PLAT WILL BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE, THE APPLICANT SHALL ACCOMMODATE THE FINAL [INAUDIBLE] PLAT BY JUNE 4TH, TWENTY TWENTY TWO AND AS TYPICAL, THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF GALVESTON OF ANY OBJECTIONS FROM CENTERPOINT ENERGY AND RESOLVE ANY OBJECTIONS WITH CENTERPOINT ENERGY PLUS STANDARD CONDITIONS THREE THROUGH FOUR.
AND OF COURSE, WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS UP ON THE SCREEN.
THIS SHOWS THE LOTS TO BE REPLATED.
[00:05:01]
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND THIS SHOWS THE QUOTE UNQUOTE WEST PARCEL, WHICH WOULD CONTAIN THE NEW ANICO PARKING GARAGE AND THE EAST PARCEL, WHICH WOULD CONTAIN JUST THE SURFACE PARKING LOT.AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF ON THIS CASE? OK-- OH, I'M SORRY, STEVEN.
SO THIS IS JUST DIVIDING IT INTO THE TWO PLOTS ARE GOING TO BE THE-- TWO PLATS ARE GOING TO BE THE ONE IN THE YELLOW AND THE ONE THAT'S IN THE GRAY? OH NO, THE GRAY IS THE MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING.
IT'S NOT INVOLVED IN THIS PLAT.
THE AREA IN YELLOW IS JUST OUTLINING THE TOTAL SUBJECT AREA.
AND YOU CAN SEE THOSE-- SEE LITTLE KIND OF LIGHTER COLOR LINES WITH THE LITTLE HOOKS ACROSS THEM. THAT'S BASICALLY SHOWING WHERE THE ACTUAL PARCELS ARE.
THAT'S A APPRAISAL DISTRICT NOTATION SAYING THAT, HEY, THESE ARE INDIVIDUAL PARCELS THAT WERE COMBINED FOR TAX PURPOSES ONLY.
SO BASICALLY, WHERE THE ANICO PARKING GARAGE IS THERE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THAT KIND OF L-SHAPED LOT, THAT WILL BE ONE PARCEL, AND THEN THE SURFACE PARKING LOT JUST SOUTH OF THE MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING WILL BE THE SECOND PARCEL.
AND LIKE I SAID, THE SMALLER OF THOSE TWO WILL BE WELL OVER OUR REQUIREMENT FOR A NEW LOTS IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS ZONE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OK. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS AN APPLICANT HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE PROJECT? [INAUDIBLE] SO IT LOOKS LIKE SCOTT WEBB IS SIGNED IN, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ALLOW YOU TO SPEAK ON OUR END.
SCOTT WEBB WITH AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT OF REAL ESTATE.
I THINK THE EXPLANATION YOU HEARD EARLIER WAS SPOT ON.
WE'RE JUST LOOKING TO COMBINE THE LOTS AS WE HAVE CONSTRUCTED THE PARKING GARAGE ON THE MAJORITY OF IT.
WE'D LIKE TO [INAUDIBLE] OUT THAT SMALLER LOT NEXT TO THE MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING ON THE EAST SIDE ON 21ST STREET IN ORDER JUST FOR FUTURE PLANNING, FOR FUTURE USE AND TO HAVE IT SEPARATED FOR BETTER ABILITY TO USE IT FOR SOMETHING ELSE, WHETHER IT'S PARKING OR WHAT HAVE YOU. WE DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT.
AND THANKS, SCOTT. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? [INAUDIBLE]. OK, GOOD, THEN WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
LET ME SEE IF THERE IS ANYBODY ELSE ON THE CALL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS CASE. ALRIGHT.
SO PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION.
SEEING, NONE. OK, THANKS, CATHERINE.
[INAUDIBLE] CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSIONERS FOR DISCUSSION OR A MOTION.
NO ACTION'S NEEDED. IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING.
THAT'S RIGHT. SORRY, NO ACTION.
THEN IN THAT CASE, I GUESS WE'RE DONE WITH THIS ONE.
[8.A.1. 21P-072 (Alley Adjacent To 1102 Seawall; 1128 Seawall; 1101, 1111, 1113, And 1115 Avenue M ½; And 1410 12th Street ) Request for an Abandonment of approximately 6,000 square-feet of mid-block alley. Adjacent properties are legally described as: M. B. Menard Survey, North Part of Lot 8, Southeast Block 23, Galveston Outlots; M. B. Menard Survey, Lots 11 through 14 and Part of Lots 9 and 10, Southeast Block 23, Galveston Outlots, and North ½ of Adjacent Avenue N; M. B. Menard Survey, Lot 7, Southeast Block 23, Galveston Outlots; M. B. Menard Survey, Lot 6 and East 1/2 of Lot 5, Southeast Block 23, Galveston Outlots; M. B. Menard Survey, West 1/2 of Lot 5 (3005-1), Southeast Block 23, Galveston Outlots; M. B. Menard Survey, East 1/2 of Lot 4 (3004-2), Southeast Block 23, Galveston Outlots; M. B. Menard Survey, West 1/2 of Lot 4 (3004-1), Southeast Block 23, Galveston Outlots; and M. B. Menard Survey, Lots 1, 2, and 3, Southeast Block 23; Galveston Outlots.]
THANK YOU. NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE CASE 21P-072.ALRIGHTY. 21P-072, THIS IS THE MID BLOCK ALLEY RIGHT OF WAY, ADJACENT TO 1128 SEAWALL AND ADJOINING PROPERTIES.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR AN ABANDONMENT.
THERE WERE FORTY ONE PUBLIC NOTICES SENT FIVE OF RETURNED ALL FIVE OF THOSE IN FAVOR.
THE APPLICANT ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ARE REQUESTING AN ABANDONMENT OF THE THREE HUNDRED LINEAR FOOT OF MID BLOCK ALLEY RIGHT OF WAY ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTIES.
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE BEING REQUESTED IS SIX THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT.
AND APPROXIMATELY TWENTY FIVE-- TWENTY FEET WIDE, I'M SORRY, IN 300 FOOT LONG, IT'S THE STANDARD ALLEY.
IF THE ABANDONMENT IS APPROVED, 6000 SQUARE FOOT SECTION OF RIGHT OF WAY WILL BE PURCHASED BY THE APPLICANTS, REPLANNED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
THIS SECTION OF ALLEY IS GENERALLY UNIMPROVED AND UNUSED.
IN 2020 REQUESTS TO ABANDON THE ALLEY, AS SHOWN IN THIS STAFF REPORT WAS SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AS PLANNING COMMISSIONER CASE 20P-046.
AT THAT TIME, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE ABANDONMENT TO CITY COUNCIL . CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE REQUEST, HOWEVER, THE PREVIOUS APPLICANTS DEVELOPMENT PLANS CHANGED AND THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL WAS REVOKED BY CITY COUNCIL.
SO, THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SEEING THIS AGAIN, EVEN THOUGH YOU PROBABLY-- WILL LOOK FAMILIAR TO SOME OF YOU. [INAUDIBLE] THE ABANDONMENT WILL NOT AFFECT-- IMPACT THE TRANSPORTATION
[00:10:06]
SYSTEM ADJACENT PARCELS ARE CURRENTLY VACANT.UNLESS THE ALLEY QUESTION IS NOT USED IN ANY DEGREE FOR PEDESTRIANS OR MOTOR VEHICLES.
IN ADDITION, THE PROXIMITY TO SEAWALL BOULEVARD PROVIDES DIRECT ACCESS TO 11TH STREET AND 12TH STREET.
AND THE ALLEYS NOT REALLY INVOLVED IN THOSE TRAFFIC PATTERNS AT ALL.
CENTERPOINT ENERGY REQUESTS A STREET ALLEY CLOSURE APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED WITH ANY RIGHT OF WAY ABANDONMENT REQUESTS.
IF THERE ARE ANY OBJECTIONS FROM CENTERPOINT ENERGY, THE APPLICANT WILL NOTIFY THE CITY AND RESOLVE THE OBJECTION WITH CENTERPOINT ENERGY PRIOR TO COMPLETING THE ABANDONMENT.
PUBLIC WORKS NOTED THERE'S AN EXISTING WATER LINE AND SANITARY SEWER LINE IN THE ALLEY RIGHT OF WAY THAT MUST BE RELOCATED AND HAS REQUESTED THE APPLICANT AND OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS INVOLVED COORDINATE THE RELOCATION BEFORE THE ABANDONMENT IS COMPLETED.
OF COURSE, THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL.
THEY WILL HAVE THE FINAL DECISION REGARDING THIS REQUEST AND THEY WILL HEAR THE REQUEST ON THE JANUARY 27TH, TWENTY TWENTY TWO MEETING.
STAFF RECOMMENDS REQUESTS BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
SPECIFIC CONDITION ONE, THE APPLICANT SHALL REPLAT THE ABANDONED RIGHT OF WAY NO LATER THAN JULY 27, 2022.
THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF GALVESTON VIA INTERJECTIONS FROM CENTERPOINT AND RESOLVING OBJECTIONS WITH CENTERPOINT.
EMERGENCY ACCESS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND THAT WOULD BE REVIEWED, YOU KNOW, UNDER FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PLANS ACCORDINGLY.
THE APPLICANT OR APPLICANT'S AGENT SHALL LOCATE ANY EXISTING UTILITIES IN THE RIGHT OF WAY PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF THE ABANDONMENT AND FILING OF A REPLAT, AND SAID UTILITIES SHALL BE RELOCATED ACCORDINGLY, PLUS STANDARD CONDITIONS FIVE THROUGH EIGHT.
SO THIS IS THE, WE HAVE KIND OF A BLEAK AERIAL SHOWING.
THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, AND IT IS THE TRIANGULAR BIT, THEY'RE CLOSEST TO SEAWALL AND PLUS THE LARGER PARCEL TO THE NORTH.
NOTE THE STREET THAT GOES THROUGH THE PARCEL, ACTUALLY, IT'S THERE, BUT THAT PART WAS ACTUALLY ABANDONED LONG AGO.
PER THE DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED.
SO REALLY JUST LOOKING AT THE MID BLOCK ALLEY AT THIS POINT TO BE ABANDONED.
I MEAN, YOU CAN SEE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE THAT THE SURVEY SHOWING WHERE THAT ALLEY REALLY IS, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT IT WOULD MOSTLY LINE UP TO WHERE THE LITTLE EXISTING BIT OF A DRIVEWAY IS STILL LOCATED THERE ON THE CORNER FACING SEAWALL.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS LOOKING NORTHEAST, LOOKING NORTHWEST, LOOKING EAST AND LOOKING WEST, AND IT KIND OF ENCOMPASSES THE WHOLE PARCEL AND THE ALLEY IS PRETTY MUCH RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE LARGER PART.
AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
ON YOUR CONDITION NUMBER FOUR SAYS THE APPLICANT OR APPLICANT'S AGENT SHALL LOCATE ANY EXISTING UTILITIES IN THE RIGHT OF WAY PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF THE ABANDONMENT AND FILING OF A REPLAT, AND SAID UTILITIES SHALL BE RELOCATED ACCORDINGLY.
AND THEN CONSISTENT WITH THAT SAID, THE APPLICANT SHALL REPLAT THE ABANDONED RIGHT OF WAY NO LATER THAN JULY 27, TWENTY TWENTY TWO.
IS THAT ENOUGH TIME TO GET THESE UTILITIES RELOCATED? WE KNOW THEY'RE THERE. I MEAN, HAS THE APPLICANT AGREED TO DO THAT IN SEVEN MONTHS? THAT IS STANDARD LANGUAGE FOR A REPLATS.
IF THE APPLICANT MAY NEED MORE TIME TO DO THAT, THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK THAT YOU COULD DISCUSS AND RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL.
OK, WE'LL JUST ASK THE APPLICANT THAT, I GUESS.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS? YES SIR, JOHN. YOU'RE MUTED.
SORRY. I REALIZED THAT I COULDN'T FIND A MUTE BUTTON.
TERRIBLE. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS BECAUSE IT'S CURRENTLY CITY PROPERTY WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COST OF RELOCATING THE PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL AND WHATEVER UTILITIES THERE ARE THERE? IF THEY PURCHASE IT AFTER THE FACT OR BEFORE? PREVIOUSLY, IN THE PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION CASE, THAT QUESTION WAS WAS ALSO ASKED, OBVIOUSLY, AND IT'S A REASONABLE QUESTION, AND THE INDICATION FROM PUBLIC WORKS WAS THAT THE APPLICANT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE RELOCATION COSTS.
THE CITY WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT AS MY UNDERSTANDING.
OK. [INAUDIBLE] QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES, RUSTY. ALRIGHT, SORRY ABOUT THAT.
HEY, DANIEL. WE HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE, AND I THOUGHT-- SO THIS WENT TO COUNCIL AND IT
[00:15:04]
GOT-- DID IT GET REVOKED? I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S.WHAT'S HAPPENED WITH THIS? RIGHT. SO I'M SURE THE APPLICANT CAN, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE MORE DETAIL BUT BASICALLY IT DID MAKE IT TO COUNCIL.
COUNCIL DID APPROVE THE ABANDONMENT, HOWEVER, A SALE OF THE PROPERTY DID NOT PROCEED AS ANTICIPATED. AND SO THE APPLICATION WAS WITHDRAWN AND REVOKED AFTER COUNCIL HAD APPROVED IT. OK, I UNDERSTAND.
THANK YOU. SOMEBODY ELSE HAVE THEIR HAND UP.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS, FOR STAFF? [INAUDIBLE], WHOOPS.
WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE NUMBER 21P-072, AND IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT AND WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? [INAUDIBLE]. OH, YES.
HERE WE GO. APPLICANT'S HERE AND ALSO REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNERS.
JOHN CADENHEAD WE'LL ACTIVATE YOU AND LET YOU ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, SO YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNMUTE YOURSELF AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
THANK YOU. MY NAME IS JOHN CADENHEAD.
I'M AN ARCHITECT WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT AND WE THINK THE STAFF'S REPORT IS ACCURATE, SO I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY MORE COMMENTS.
WHAT ARE WHAT ARE THE APPLICANTS PLANS FOR THE PROPERTY? WE HAVE A DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WE'RE COMING UP WITH, AND WE WILL BE PRESENTING IT, I THINK, IN A FUTURE COMMISSION MEETING.
BUT IT'S A MIXED USE FACILITY, MOSTLY RESIDENTIAL AND SOME COMMERCIAL.
OK, THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I DO.
MR. CADENHEAD, I WAS ASKING STAFF A MINUTE AGO ABOUT SINCE, WE KNOW YOU'RE HAVE TO RELOCATE UTILITIES THERE AND THE STAFF REQUIREMENT IS INDICATED, YOU HAVE TO DO IT, I THINK BY JULY.
HAVE YOU LOOKED INTO THAT AND IS THAT ENOUGH TIME TO DO THAT? PROBABLY NOT, IT'S PROBABLY ENOUGH TIME TO REPLAT.
PRIOR TO DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY, WE WILL HAVE TO RELOCATE THE UTILITIES.
SO I MEAN, THAT'S A PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ANYWAYS.
SO IF WE HAD TO ASK FOR AN EXTENSION FOR THE REROUTING THAN WE WOULD CERTAINLY DO THAT, BUT WE DO FULLY INTEND TO REROUTE IT.
RIGHT. IT'S ACTUALLY A NECESSITY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.
YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. SO THAT PARTICULAR REQUIREMENT THERE IS STILL UP FOR SOME NEGOTIATION BECAUSE YOU CAN'T MEET THAT JULY DATE, I DON'T THINK.
CORRECT. WHEN WE SAW THIS BEFORE, THERE WAS A MIXED USE [INAUDIBLE] AND JUST AS YOU INDICATED, IT HAD SOME RESIDENTIAL ABOVE AND I BELIEVE A PRETTY [INAUDIBLE] GAS STATION BELOW OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, ARE YOU GOING TO BE DOING THAT SAME PLAN OR YOU'VE GOT A DIFFERENT PLAN? NO, SIR.
NO, SIR. THAT IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT APPLICANT WITH A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN. AND WE WON'T HAVE ANY OF THOSE TYPES OF USES.
IT WILL ONLY BE RESIDENTIAL, AND THEN ABOUT EIGHTEEN THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL IS PLANNED FOR THE PROPERTY WITH THE REMAINDER OF BEING RESIDENTIAL.
THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OK.
BASTIEN, HE'S THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE OWNERS, AND HE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAKERS]. OK, SURE.
I WILL ALLOW YOU TO SPEAK ON OUR END, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNMUTE AND ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. ALRIGHT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
I REPRESENT-- I'M AN ATTORNEY HERE IN GALVESTON.
I REPRESENT THE OWNERS OF [INAUDIBLE] REPRESENTING THE OWNERS FOR ABOUT, OH, LET'S SAY, EIGHT YEARS NOW.
AT LEAST SOME OF THE OWNERS AND THE ABANDONMENT OF THE ALLEY HAS SORT OF BEEN ESSENTIAL TO ANY OF THE DEVELOPMENT IDEAS THAT HAVE BEEN TOSSED AROUND WITH REGARD TO THE PROPERTY ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ALLEY.
SO, WE ARE CERTAINLY IN FAVOR OF THE ABANDONMENT TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION THAT CAME UP
[00:20:01]
BEFORE ABOUT THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPER'S PLANS.YES, IT INCLUDED GASOLINE PUMPS.
THERE WAS OPPOSITION WHEN THAT PLAN CAME BEFORE WE-- I'M SORRY.
A REZONING ISSUE CAME UP WITH REGARD TO THE TRACK ON THE NORTH OF THE ALLEY, AND COMMISSION DID NOT APPROVE THAT, AND I CERTAINLY AGREE THAT ONE OF THE ELEMENTS IN THE COMMISSION'S DECISION WAS THE-- WERE THE GASOLINE PUMPS AND THIS PRESENT DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL, FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH OF THEIR PROPOSAL YOU HAVE SEEN, BUT THEY ARE WORKING WITH CITY STAFF TO A [INAUDIBLE] DEVELOPMENT ON THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.
AND AS MR. CADENHEAD SAID, IT IS GOING TO BE ALMOST ENTIRELY RESIDENTIAL.
AND FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN, I BELIEVE THAT THE NEIGHBORS ON ALL SIDES OF THIS PROPERTY WILL BE VERY PLEASED TO SEE THIS PROPERTY DEVELOPED THE WAY THAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSES.
OK. THANK YOU MR. BASTIEN. WHO ELSE DID WE HAVE, CATHERINE, ANYBODY ELSE? THAT IS THE APPLICANT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER REPRESENTATIVE.
IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
THEN YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
OK, YOU'VE BEEN UNMUTED AND YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
HI, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS CHRISTINA HUNT AND I LIVE CLOSE TO THAT PROPERTY.
WE JUST HAVE CONCERNS ON THIS ACTION AND WHETHER OR NOT IT WILL IMPACT THEIR APPROVAL TO GET THIS ZONED COMMERCIAL.
SINCE IT IS A VERY RESIDENTIAL AREA ON MOST OF THE SIDES OTHER THAN THE SEAWALL AND THE CONVENIENCE STORE THAT'S ALREADY LOCATED THERE.
SO THAT'S OUR ONLY CONCERN IS APPROVING THIS AND WHETHER OR NOT IT'LL ENHANCE THEIR CHANCES OF GETTING IT ZONED COMMERCIAL.
OK, THANK YOU MS. HUNT. [INAUDIBLE] KATHERINE? [INAUDIBLE]. I SEE NO MORE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
WHO ELSE DO WE HAVE? THAT'S IT.
OH, THAT'S IT. OK. [INAUDIBLE].
NOBODY [INAUDIBLE] TO COMMENT ON THIS.
WE'LL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION OR A MOTION. YES, STEVEN. [INAUDIBLE] LIKE A MOTION-- TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CASE 21P-072, ABANDONMENT.
IS THERE ARE SECOND TO THAT MOTION? [INAUDIBLE] FINKLEA HAS SECONDED THE MOTION TO APPROVE CASE 21P-072.
IS THERE DISCUSSION? YES. YES, I THINK JOHN HAD HIS HAND UP AND THEN RUSTY.
YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR DONNA, I GUESS.
ON THIS ABANDONMENT PROCESS, ARE WE RESTRICTED OR DO WE HAVE ANY, I MEAN-- WE CAN BASICALLY KIND OF DO WHAT WE WANT WITH THIS CASE? WE COULD DENY IT, WE COULD APPROVE IT.
I MEAN, THERE'S NO REAL RESTRICTIONS THAT WE HAVE SET BY STATUTE OR LAW OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IS THAT CORRECT? I GUESS I'M UNCLEAR AS TO WHAT YOU MEAN AS NO RESTRICTIONS.
WELL, YOU KNOW, LIKE ZONING, LIKE REPLATS, YOU KNOW, OUR HANDS ARE KIND OF TIED.
I MEAN, IF THE CITY DOESN'T WANT TO ABANDON THIS PROPERTY, WE CAN JUST SAY, NO, WE DON'T WANT TO ABANDON IT AND MOVE DOWN THE ROAD.
IS THAT CORRECT? SINCE THIS BODY CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL, ULTIMATELY THE DECISION LIES WITH CITY COUNCIL. UNDERSTANDABLE.
THEY COULD SAY NO, THEY COULD SAY YES.
NOTHING RESTRICTS THEM FROM GOING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ON THIS.
CORRECT. THAT'S, FROM WHAT I'M READING, CORRECT? OK. AND I SAY THAT, I MEAN, I WANT TO SEE THIS PROPERTY DEVELOPED.
IT'S BEEN SITTING THERE FOR YEARS.
YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S A PRIME PIECE OF REAL ESTATE ON THE SEAWALL.
WHAT I DON'T WANT TO SEE IS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND WE SEE SOMETHING WE DON'T LIKE IN THE PUD AND WE'VE ALREADY ABANDONED THE PROPERTY, AND THEN-- BECAUSE ONCE WE ABANDON IT, IT'S NO LONGER OURS.
AND SO I'LL BE LOOKING WHEN IT COMES TO COUNCIL ON THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TO SEE
[00:25:04]
MORE ABOUT THE PUD AND SEE WHAT THEIR PLANS ARE FOR THE PROPERTY TO MAKE MY FINAL DECISION ON WHETHER TO APPROVE OR DENY THE ABANDONMENT.SO I JUST, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THAT'S MORE FOR MY INPUT AND JUST TRYING TO GET SOME INPUT FROM YOU DONNA ON WHAT OUR REQUIREMENTS ARE.
HEY, DANIEL. WHAT IS THE-- WHAT'S THE ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY? THE ZONING IS CLOSEST BASICALLY MORE OR LESS, YOU KNOW, SOUTH OF THAT ALLEY IS COMMERCIAL IN NORTH OF THAT ALLEY, BASICALLY THE NORTH HALF OF THAT, THAT BLOCK IS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD. OK.
STEVEN. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT, AND I, DONNA CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I KNOW THIS WAS A VERY HOT TOPIC WHEN IT CAME UP A WHILE BACK, AND ESPECIALLY ON THE ABANDONMENT PROCESS WE WERE-- YOU INSTRUCTED US TO SPECIFICALLY ONLY LOOK AT THE ABANDONMENT, NOT AT ANY TYPE OF ZONING CHANGE OR ANYTHING TO THAT JUST YET.
I TAKE IT THAT THAT'S STILL SOMEWHAT THE CASE.
OK. AND [INAUDIBLE] WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED TO YOU TODAY.
YES. AND TO THAT POINT TO A LITTLE BIT MORE I, AGAIN, I AGREE WITH JOHN PAUL THAT I THINK THAT THIS IS A VERY LUCRATIVE PIECE OF LAND THAT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE DEVELOPED INTO SOMETHING THAT COMPLEMENTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE AREA AND THE GALVESTON CULTURE.
BUT-- DOES ALSO TAKES INTO ACCOUNT SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAD PREVIOUSLY, WITH NOISE AND TRUCKS COMING IN AND OUT AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO, I AM CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC TO SEE THIS ADVANCE AND EXCITED TO SEE THAT.
AND I GOT A COMMENT ALSO THE-- I THINK IT'S-- I AGREE WITH EVERYBODY, IT'S A PRIME PIECE OF SEAWALL PROPERTY.
IT LOOKS LIKE THIS DEVELOPER IS GOING TO HAVE TO ASK FOR A ZONING CHANGE ALONG WITH HIS PUD LIKE THEY DID LAST TIME, I THINK.
ALSO, JUST LOOKING AT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, IT'S GOING TO BE TOUGH TO DEVELOP UNLESS THEY INCLUDE THAT BLOCK TO THE NORTH, SIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S ODDLY SHAPED.
AND IT'S NOT VERY MUCH REAL ESTATE FOR A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, SO IT'S-- KIND OF INCLINED TO THINK THAT IT NEEDS THAT NORTH PIECE OF PROPERTY IN ORDER TO BE ATTRACTIVE AS A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
SOMEBODY ELSE HAD-- YES, REJONE.
WHAT-- GO AHEAD? IT WON'T WORK.
WELL, I GUESS I'LL ECHO WHAT JOHN PAUL SAID.
I WISH THERE WAS A WAY THAT WE COULD-- A DEVELOPER COULD BRING THE PLANS FIRST BEFORE WE HAD TO AGREE TO ABANDON A PIECE OF PROPERTY.
I THINK BECAUSE WE ALWAYS LEAVE OURSELVES OPEN TO THE SAME THING [INAUDIBLE] LAST TIME WAS SO CONTENTIOUS THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PERSON IS GOING TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY.
AND THEN IT TURNS AROUND THAT ONCE WE DO THIS, IT'S KIND OF DONE ALREADY, YOU KNOW? AND THEN WE TURN AROUND AFTER THAT AND THEY NEED TO GET A NEW ZONING OR THE PUD HAS STUFF IN IT THAT WE DON'T LIKE.
AND ULTIMATELY, WE DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO SAY NO, I MEAN, WE CAN.
BUT YOU KNOW, CITY COUNCIL ULTIMATELY HAS TO SAY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
I JUST FEEL LIKE THIS PROCESS IS BACKWARDS.
WE SHOULD REALLY KNOW WHAT THE PROPERTY IS BEING USED FOR BEFORE WE HAVE TO ABANDON IT.
WELL, WE, YOU KNOW, WE ALSO AGAIN, WE'RE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS.
WE'RE NOT THE FINAL WORD ON THIS, BUT WE ALSO-- WE'LL SEE THIS PUD WHEN IT COMES UP, AND WE CAN EITHER RECOMMEND IT OR NOT RECOMMEND IT.
SO WE STILL CAN TURN DOWN A SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PROPERTY AT THE RECOMMENDATION. YES, JOHN.
AND I DON'T WANT TO SLOW DOWN THIS PROCESS, BUT I DO-- I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED WITH WHAT'S GOING TO GO ON THERE, OF COURSE, AND COUNCIL IS GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THIS VERY CLOSELY. I KNOW COUNCILMAN SCHUSTER.
YOU KNOW, HE'S GOING TO BE ON TOP OF THIS ISSUE AND DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THE DISTRICT WHEN IT COMES TO COUNCIL. SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO HOLD UP THE PROCESS HERE, BUT I DO
[00:30:03]
WANT TO LET THE APPLICANT KNOW THAT WHEN IT DOES GET TO COUNCIL, I THINK WE ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR MORE INFORMATION, AND HOPEFULLY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROCESS OR THE TIMELINE IS WITH BRINGING A PUD TO THE COMMISSION.BUT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO WANT TO SEE SOMETHING BEFORE IT GETS APPROVED BY COUNCIL.
STAFF IS THAT IS THAT TYPICALLY WHAT YOU WOULD DO IN THESE CASES IS-- BECAUSE, I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COUNCIL GETTING A LITTLE DIFFERENT INFORMATION FROM US.
MEAN, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE MORE TOO, BUT WE JUST DON'T HAVE IT.
[INAUDIBLE] REQUEST IS SEPARATE FROM WHATEVER DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL IS GOING TO COME IN THE FUTURE, SO THEY'RE NOT TIED TOGETHER.
REALLY, THE QUESTION THAT YOU'RE ASKING YOURSELVES TODAY IS, IS THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY APPROPRIATE TO BE ABANDONED [INAUDIBLE] REQUESTS IN THE PAST THAT DIDN'T HAVE ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT PLANS WITH THEM.
YEAH. WELL, THEY WAY I'M LOOKING AT IT RIGHT NOW IS THAT, THAT ALLEY [INAUDIBLE] IT'S NOT PAVED. IT'S NOT USED AS AN ALLEY.
IT HASN'T BEEN USED AS AN ALLEY AND THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE COMMERCIAL PART THAT ZONING IS NOT REALLY BIG ENOUGH TO DEVELOP.
YOU REALLY NEED THAT NORTH PART, WHICH IS THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE PART OF IT.
IN ADDITION TO IT, TO MAKE IT ATTRACTIVE ENOUGH TO DEVELOP COMMERCIALLY FOR WHOEVER AND WHATEVER, IT'S GOING TO BE USED FOR-- DEVELOPED AS.
SO, I THINK IT NEEDS TO HAVE THAT ALLEY ABANDONED IN ORDER FOR IT TO HAVE ENOUGH PROPERTY TO DEVELOP COMMERCIALLY ON THAT SITE ON THE SEAWALL.
THAT'S MY THOUGHT ON IT. AND BOB, I WOULD AGREE 100 PERCENT WITH YOU.
I MEAN, I THINK YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT.
AND THAT'S WHY I WAS SAYING, YOU KNOW, I WOULD BE FINE FOR THIS TO BE APPROVED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL TO MOVE ON TO COUNCIL SO THEY COULD GO DOWN THE PATH OF SELLING AND DEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY.
I JUST WANT TO KIND OF-- THIS IS MY FIRST TIME SEEING THIS AND TALKING TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT IT AND JUST WANT TO LET THE APPLICANT KNOW THAT, I THINK AT A COUNCIL LEVEL, WE ARE GOING TO ASK FOR SOME MORE INFORMATION.
AND THAT'S PERFECTLY [INAUDIBLE].
I THINK THAT'S FINE. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD PROCESS FOR WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? ARE WE READY? IF I MAY, I JUST WANT TO BRING UP ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS A REMINDER THAT THE QUESTION WAS OF THE JULY DEADLINE FOR REPLATING WAS SUFFICIENT ENOUGH AND DID THE COMMISSION WANT TO, YOU KNOW, CONSIDER THAT IN THEIR FINAL MOTION? OH YEAH, THAT'S GOOD. THANKS, DANIEL.
FORGOT ABOUT THAT. WELL, MAYBE WE SHOULD AMEND STEVEN'S-- I THINK STEVEN MADE THE MOTION RIGHT? OK.
MAYBE WE SHOULD AMEND THAT MOTION AND TO CONSIDER [INAUDIBLE] CONDITION WAS THE NUMBER-- YEAH, CONDITION NUMBER FOUR REGARDING THE TIMETABLE RELOCATING EXISTING UTILITIES TO BE NEGOTIATED BY STAFF.
WOULD THAT WORK, DANIEL? IF I MAY, IF THE BOARD WANTS TO ADD THAT TO THE PREVIOUS MOTION THAN THE BOARD, SOMEBODY CAN MAKE THAT MOTION TO ADD THAT.
IT'S NOT NECESSARILY UP TO DANIEL TO SAY YAY OR NAY.
THE BOARD WANTS TO ADD THAT THEY CAN MAKE THAT MOTION TO ADD IT.
I MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE-- I'M NOT SURE IF YOU'D MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION THAT'S BEFORE US.
A SEPARATE MOTION? WELL, WE HAD A LOT OF TRAINING ON FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS AND YOUR PREVIOUS CHAIRWOMAN WHO'S NOT PRESENT TODAY.
SHE'D BE LIKE, THAT'S NOT WHAT IT IS.
SO IT'S JUST ADDING ANOTHER AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION.
ADDING YEAH, SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE AMEND THE EXISTING MOTION ON THE FLOOR --COMMISSIONER PEÑA'S MOTION AND REVISIT REQUIREMENT NUMBER FOUR? YEAH, I FOLLOW YOU.
OK, COMMISSIONER PEÑA? YEAH, I'M READY TO VOTE. OK, SOUNDS GOOD.
STAFF, YOU READY TO CALL THE ROLL FOR A VOTE?
[00:35:05]
WELL, NOW I'M NOT CLEAR ON WHAT'S TAKING PLACE, SO WE'RE-- THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR NOW IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.SO THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE WAY THAT NUMBER FOUR IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN.
I'M SORRY, I THINK NUMBER ONE IS ACTUALLY THE ONE THAT DEALS WITH THE DATE.
YEAH. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, DANIEL.
I WAS ACTUALLY SPEAKING TO COMMISSIONER PEÑA TO SEE IF HE WOULD WANT TO REVISIT SPECIFIC EDITION NUMBER ONE AND MAYBE LEAVE THAT OFF OF HIS MOTION.
SO-- IF YOU CAN MAKE THAT A MOTION COMMISSIONER PEÑA.
YES, COMMISSIONER PEÑA, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT MOTION.
YES, OK. SO I WILL REMAKE MY MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CASE 21P-072 WITH THE REVISIONS THAT WE REMOVE REQUIREMENT NUMBER ONE? I LOST MY-- YES, THAT SPECIFIC CONDITION NUMBER ONE.
THAT'S SPECIFIC CONDITION NUMBER ONE.
OK. SORRY, I LOST MY STAFF IT'S BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE THAT APPLICANTS DON'T ALWAYS [INAUDIBLE] FOLLOW UP, ESPECIALLY AFTER THE ABANDONMENT PROCESS AND INTO THE REPLAT PROCESS.
SO MAYBE SIX MONTHS IS PROBABLY TOO SHORT, BUT MAYBE A YEAR WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE.
NO, I THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING, CATHERINE, IS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO REVISIT THAT SPECIFIC CONDITION NUMBER ONE IN A SEPARATE MOTION AFTER THIS ONE.
[INAUDIBLE], OK, THEN YES, THEN I WANT TO VOTE, I WANT TO MAKE THE MOTION ON EVERYTHING, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SPECIFIC CONDITION NUMBER ONE.
READY FOR A VOTE? READY FOR A VOTE.
[INAUDIBLE] IN FAVOR. [INAUDIBLE] IN FAVOR.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
I CAN MAKE A MOTION THAT WE AMEND OR THAT WE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT ON CASE 21P-072, IF I'M CORRECT, THAT STAFF ALLOWED THE APPLICANT UNTIL DECEMBER 31ST, 2022 TO RECORD A FINAL PLAT.
ANYBODY ELSE SECOND? [INAUDIBLE] PEÑA SECOND THAT MOTION.
I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T THINK IT REQUIRES THAT LONG TO DO THAT.
I THINK IT'S TOO LONG. AND NOT ONLY DO I BELIEVE THAT, I WONDER HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE BEFORE THEY PURCHASE THE PROPERTY? I THINK THAT'S MORE-- GIVES US A BETTER ANSWER OF HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE ON THE REPLAT. SO HOW LONG DO THEY HAVE AFTER THAT, IF COUNCIL DECIDES TO PASS IT TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY? [INAUDIBLE] SOME TIME, SO WHAT WE DO AFTER THE APPROVAL IS WE CONTACT AN APPRAISER TO APPRAISE THE PROPERTY THAT CAN BE QUITE LENGTHY, ESPECIALLY THESE DAYS, CAN BE UP TO SIX WEEKS OR LONGER.
THAT AMOUNT IS THEN APPROVED BY BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY MANAGER.
BOTH PARTIES HAVE THE ABILITY TO REQUEST A SECOND APPRAISAL IF THEY DISAGREE WITH THE AMOUNT. IF THEY AGREE ON THE AMOUNT, THEN WE PRODUCE THE DEED.
BUT IT'S GENERALLY SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER THE APPROVAL THAT THE DEED IS PRODUCED.
OK, THEN I CHANGED MY MIND [LAUGHTER] BECAUSE THAT WAS MY ORIGINAL THOUGHT.
SO HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO, YOU KNOW, IF COUNCIL APPROVES IT TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY? SO I THINK WE SHOULD SAY-- JUST-- OK, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO WORD THIS PROPERLY, BUT MAYBE EIGHT MONTHS OR SEVEN MONTHS AFTER THEY COMPLETE THE SALE, THEN THEY HAVE TO BE FINISHED WITH THE REPLAT.
BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PHRASE THAT CORRECTLY.
I THINK WE'RE GIVING THEM ABOUT SIX MONTHS AFTER IF THEY GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.
I THINK THAT DECEMBER 31ST PROBABLY WOULD GIVE THEM ABOUT SIX MONTHS TO GET THEIR STUFF MOVED, IS MY BEST ESTIMATE.
[00:40:02]
AND ALSO, IT'S IN THESE DAYS, IT'S KIND OF UNPREDICTABLE GIVEN SUPPLY CHAIN AND LABOR SHORTAGES ABOUT WHEN YOU WOULD [INAUDIBLE].ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? YEAH, I DO HAVE ONE COMMENT.
JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION IS THAT THE REPLAT, AND THIS IS DIRECTED TO STAFF, THE REPLAT CAN'T OCCUR UNTIL THE WATER LINE AND SANITARY LINE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY ARE RELOCATED. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. YEAH.
OK, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? STAFF, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CALL THE ROLL? [INAUDIBLE] BROWN.
IN FAVOR. [INAUDIBLE] IN FAVOR. [INAUDIBLE] IN FAVOR.
[INAUDIBLE] HUMPHREY. IN FAVOR.
[8.B.1. 21P-068 (1717 Ball / Avenue H) Request For Designation As A Galveston Landmark. Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, Lot 3, Block 257, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant And Property Owners: Stephanie Lang]
OK, LET'S MOVE ON TO 21P-068.IT'S A REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION AS A GALVESTON LANDMARK, THE TWENTY SEVEN NOTICES WERE SENT FOUR RETURN, THOSE FOUR IN FAVOR.
ANALYSIS, THE RICHARD AND CATHERINE COON HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1894.
MR. COON WAS THE OWNER OF 66 RESTAURANT AND OVER 66 CLUBS, LOCATED AT 2312 MARKET.
COON'S OWNERSHIP OF THE HOUSE WAS SHORT AND BY 1896 THE FAMILY HAD RELOCATED TO HITCHCOCK AND BY 1900 TO AUSTIN.
THIS IS MY FAVORITE PART. NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS OF MR. COON REFERENCE MULTIPLE ARRESTS FOR GAMBLING AND HAVING GAMBLING TABLES BOTH IN AUSTIN AND IN GALVESTON.
BUT THEN HE LATER BECAME AN ESTABLISHED MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY IN DALHART, TEXAS, AND A GREAT BENEFACTOR.
OTHER REVIEWS, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION HEARD THE REQUEST AT THE JANUARY 3RD MEETING AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
CITY COUNCIL IS THE FINAL DECISION REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR A LANDMARK DESIGNATION.
THE REQUEST WILL BE HEARD AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 27TH.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH THE STANDARD CONDITION FOR GALVESTON LANDMARK DESIGNATIONS, AND WE HAVE SOME PICTURES.
OK, THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AND THEN WE HAVE THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST.
AND TO THE WEST, AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
SORRY. [INAUDIBLE] HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NONE, OK. ONE QUESTION.
GUYS, ONE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS REFERENCED THE FENCE.
NOW, IS THAT NOT IN THE GHF GUIDELINES OR THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION GUIDELINES ABOUT THE FENCE SIZE AND DESCRIPTIONS? YES, I DIDN'T SEE ANY ISSUES WITH THE FENCE.
IT'S ALL WITHIN THE STANDARDS.
OK. OK, ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 21P-068.
STAFF IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT.
APPLICANT WAS NOT ABLE TO JOIN US TODAY.
I ASKED IF THERE ARE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO LIKE TO SPEAK IF THEY COULD USE THE RAISE HAND FUNCTION. SEEING, NONE.
[INAUDIBLE] THERE'S NOBODY ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC OR THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK [INAUDIBLE] HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION.
ANYBODY LIKE MAKE A MOTION ON THIS CASE? YES, DAVID. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 21P-068 AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.
STAFF, WOULD YOU LIKE [INAUDIBLE] THE ROLL? [INAUDIBLE] BROWN. IN FAVOR.
[INAUDIBLE] IN FAVOR. [INAUDIBLE] IN FAVOR.
[INAUDIBLE]. IN FAVOR. [INAUDIBLE] ALRIGHT.
[8.C.1. 21P-071 (Adjacent To 1015 - 1021 21st Street) Request For A License To Use To Construct Front Balconies And Porches In The City Of Galveston Right-Of-Way. Adjacent Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, Galveston Replat, Lots 8 And 9 (A.K.A. Lots 2A, 2B, 3A, And 3B), Block 130, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Johnathan Callery Adjacent Property Owners: Al Hoda Enterprises, LLC Easement Holder: City Of Galveston]
LAST BUT NOT LEAST 21P-071.[00:45:02]
ADJACENT TO 1015 TO [INAUDIBLE] 10TH STREET, IT'S A REQUEST FOR A PERMANENT LICENSE TO USE. THIRTY FOUR NOTICES WERE SENT.ZERO RETURNED. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURES WITH PORCHES AND BALCONIES ABOVE THAT ENCROACH THE 10TH STREET RIGHT OF WAY.
ADJACENT TO 1015 TO 1021 TENTH STREET.
THE PROPOSED BALCONIES AND PORCHES MEASURE FIVE FEET IN WIDTH, WITH ADDITIONAL 12 INCHES FOR THE ROOF OVERHANG.
THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST WAS LISTED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF CASE 21P-071 BASED ON THE SITE PLAN INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT B, STAFF FINDS THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT SPACE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY TO AVOID THE USE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THAT ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION METHODS EXIST, WHICH COULD ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED PORCHES WITH BALCONIES ABOVE ENTIRELY WITHIN PRIVATE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, SHOULD THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE FOR APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST, STAFF HAS PROVIDED SOME COMMENTS.
PROPOSAL WITH THE FORTUNE BALCONY SHOWN OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINES.
ANOTHER DRAWING THIS IS THE PROPERTY LINE INDICATED HERE.
THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT ON 10TH STREET LOOKING SOUTH.
TO THE EAST. AND TO THE WEST AND [INAUDIBLE].
I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
IS THERE ANY SPECIFIC HARDSHIP OR SPECIFIC EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS OUTSIDE OF THE APPLICANT'S CONTROL THAT WOULD WARRANT UTILIZING THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY FOR THEIR PROJECT? WE WERE NOT PROVIDED ANY.
OK, AND THEN WHEN YOU SAY THAT THERE'S SUFFICIENT SPACE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY TO AVOID THE USE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING IN MIND THAT YOU'VE DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT? SOME KIND OF DESIGN THAT WOULD, DESIGN OPTION, I GUESS [INAUDIBLE] WOULD PLACE THE PROJECT WITHIN THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES OF THE APPLICANT? THE BUILDING, OF COURSE, COULD ALWAYS BE MADE SMALLER.
AND THEN THERE IS 10 FEET AND EIGHT INCHES SHOWN AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S NOT BEING USED WITH BUILDING.
THERE'S 10 FEET AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S NOT BEING USED? IT LOOKED LIKE THE DRAWING IS THEY HAVE A NINE FOOT DRIVEWAY THAT GOES RIGHT UP-- NO.
NINE FOOT DRIVEWAY THAT GOES WITHIN ONE FOOT OF THE PROPERTY [INAUDIBLE] THAT RIGHT? [INAUDIBLE] IS SHOWN AS BEING SET 10 FEET, EIGHT INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.
COULD YOU SHOW ME THAT ON YOUR STAFF REPORT DRAWING? I'M NOT SEEING IT.
RIGHT. SO YOU'RE-- [INAUDIBLE] LOCATED HERE.
RIGHT? YES, THERE'S ROOM THAT COULD BE USED TO MOVE THE BUILDING BACK, AND OF COURSE, THE BUILDING COULD ALWAYS BE MADE SMALLER.
OK, SO YOU'RE SAYING THEY COULD JUST ELIMINATE THAT DRIVEWAY AS ONE OPTION? [INAUDIBLE]. OK. ALRIGHT.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES, REJONE. I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
IS THE ADJACENT BUILDING IN THE RIGHT OF WAY? [INAUDIBLE] NO.
OK. THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION.
I'M SORRY, I GOT-- OH, LET'S SEE, DAVID.
YES, YOU GOT A QUESTION. THIS IS A QUESTION TO STAFF.
WHAT ARE THE REQUIRED SETBACKS, BUILDING SETBACKS FOR THE PROPERTY LINE, FOR THE FRONT, REAR AND SIDES FOR THIS? PROPERTIES LOCATED IN AN OVERLAY ZONE CALLED THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT REGULATES NEW CONSTRUCTION AND THE SETBACKS ARE SET BY THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, SO IT'S NOT A SET NUMBER.
IT VARIES WITH EACH PROPERTY SPECIFICALLY.
SO YOU LOOK AT THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ON THAT BLOCK FACE AND YOU USE THEN THE AVERAGE.
SO LOOKING JUST AT THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH THAT WAS BUILT UNDER THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT STANDARDS, SO I WOULD SAY IT'S PROBABLY AT THE PROPERTY LINE OR A
[00:50:04]
FEW FEET OFF FOR THE FRONT.THE REAR IS AND THE SIDE ARE SET BY THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD PORTION OF THE ZONING, AND THOSE SETBACKS ARE ZERO.
YOU SAY THE SIX FEET TOTAL THAT THEY'RE OVER THE PROPERTY LINE INCLUDES ONE FOOT OF OVERHANG OF THE ROOF, WHICH WOULD BE THREE STORIES UP AND FIVE FEET OF ACTUAL BUILDING ON THE GROUND. IS THAT ONE FOOT OF OVERHANG [INAUDIBLE] IS THAT ALLOWED AS AN AERIAL INTRUSION OVER THE PROPERTY LINE? OR WOULD THAT BE OK IF WE TOOK FIVE FEET OF THAT BUILDING BACK? NO, NO PORTION OF THE BUILDING IS ALLOWED TO CROSS THE PROPERTY LINE WITHOUT A LICENSE TO USE, SO IT WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED.
OK. ANY OTHER QUESTION FOR STAFF? OK. WELL THEN, I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND STAFF IS THE APPLICANT HERE? [INAUDIBLE] NOT, BUT IT LOOKS-- MICHAEL GAERTNER SIGNED IN.
IT LOOKS LIKE HE MAY BE THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT.
SO, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ALLOW HIM-- ALRIGHT. MR. GAERTNER, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
GOOD AFTERNOON. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YEP. GREAT.
I'M HERE WITH JONATHAN CALLERY AND DR.
AHMED AHMED, THE APPLICANT AND THE OWNER, AND THEY SEND THEIR GREETINGS TO YOU.
AND MR. AHMED WANTED ME TO LET YOU KNOW THAT HE RECEIVED FIVE LETTERS REQUESTING HIS COMMENTS.
HE DIDN'T RETURN THEM, BUT IF HE HAD, THEY WOULD ALL BE FAVORABLE.
I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE RATIONALE BEHIND THIS REQUEST AND WHAT WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO. WE BELIEVE IN THE LONG RUN THAT THIS IS GOOD FOR THE CITY.
IT'S GOOD FOR THE, BY SAYING THAT I MEAN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S GOOD FOR THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER AND IT'S GOOD FOR THE OWNER WHO'S PROPOSING TO DO THE DEVELOPMENT.
SO I'M JUST GOING TO START OUT WITH A FEW THINGS.
FIRST OF ALL, WE CERTAINLY HAVE PLENTY OF ROOM IN [INAUDIBLE] FOOT RIGHT OF WAY FOR A FIVE FOOT ENCROACHMENT.
ALL OF THE ORIGINALLY PLATED EAST WEST STREETS IN GALVESTON, ARE 70 FEET WIDE, ONLY THE NORTH SOUTH STREETS ARE GENERALLY 80 FEET WIDE.
AND OF COURSE, IN TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENTS, THE CITY ALLOWS FOR RIGHT OF WAYS THAT ARE MORE NARROW.
SECOND THING I WANT TO MENTION IS THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REFERENCES WALKABILITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD THREE TIMES IN SECTION HM26-LU3, AND LU3.5, WHICH IS A REPEAT OF HN-2.6.
BUT BASICALLY, IT SAYS THAT THE CITY SHOULD SUPPORT NEIGHBORHOOD BASED AMENITIES SUCH AS WALKABLE LOCAL STREETS, AND THAT WALKABLE STREETS PROVIDE HIGH LEVELS OF LIVABILITY.
SO I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WALKABILITY AND WHAT WALKABILITY IMPLIES, AND IN SO DOING, I'M GOING TO REFERENCE, WHAT I THINK IS A PRETTY GOOD BOOK WRITTEN BY JEFF SPECK CALLED WALKABLE CITY.
AND HE TALKS A LOT ABOUT EXISTING CITIES AND AS WELL AS NEW DEVELOPMENT AND HOW WE CAN MAKE CITIES MORE WALKABLE.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HE POINTS OUT IS, IT'S PRETTY WELL BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE OPTIMUM RATIO OF HEIGHT TO WIDTH IS APPROXIMATELY ONE TO ONE.
AND IF YOU MOVE FARTHER AND FARTHER AWAY FROM THAT RATIO, YOU MAKE PLACES LESS WALKABLE.
AND HE MENTIONS AN ANALOGY, HE SAYS, YOU KNOW, THINK ABOUT IF YOU'RE AT A DINNER TABLE AND THERE'S FAIRLY NARROW TABLES THAT IT'S MUCH MORE FESTIVE BECAUSE EVERYONE CAN TALK IN SEVERAL DIRECTIONS ACROSS THE TABLE AT ONCE.
AND HE ALSO MENTIONED SOME OF THE SPACES THAT ARE QUITE NARROW, BUT ARE SOME OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL PUBLIC SPACES IN THE COUNTRY, SUCH AS YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THE RIVER WALK IN SAN ANTONIO, OR GHIRARDELLI SQUARE IN SAN FRANCISCO.
AND SO IT'S-- THE POINT IS THAT SMALLER IS BETTER IN TERMS OF ENHANCING WALKABILITY.
SO ONE OF THE KEY THINGS THAT HE SAYS IN THE BOOK IS THAT WE WANT TO SHAPE THE SPACES TO
[00:55:03]
MAKE HIM WALKABLE AND WE WANT TO MAKE FRIENDLY SPACES.AND OF COURSE, HAVING PORCHES ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE WITH THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOMEONE COULD BE SITTING ON THE PORCH AND YOU COULD ACTUALLY SAY HELLO TO SOMEONE WHO'S WALKING BY ON THE STREET.
PRETTY GOOD THING TO HOPE FOR.
THE FOURTH THING I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THAT THIS IS A TRANSITION BETWEEN BROADWAY AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND SO BY MAKING THIS BLOCK BETWEEN BROADWAY AND THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WELL, WALKABLE, IT ENHANCES BOTH BROADWAY AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THAT BRINGS UP THE POINT THAT ON SEAWALL AND BROADWAY, THE CITY ACTUALLY MANDATES BRINGING BUILDINGS AS CLOSE TO THE SIDEWALK AS POSSIBLE.
IN BOTH CASES WE'RE GENERALLY REQUIRED TO BRING THE BUILDING UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE, AT LEAST PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING.
AND OF COURSE, YOU'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE STRAND, AND I'M JUST GOING TO POINT OUT ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THE STRAND IS SO SUCCESSFUL AS A WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD IS BECAUSE OF THE HEIGHT TO WIDTH RATIO THAT WE HAVE THERE WITH THE 70 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY AND BUILDINGS THAT ARE OFTEN 65 OR 70 FEET TALL.
SO IT CREATES THAT INTIMATE SPACE THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
SO IN CONCLUSION, I'M GOING TO SAY THAT IT'S GOOD FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE IT PROMOTES WALKABILITY.
IT'S GOOD FOR THE NEIGHBORS TO OUR WEST BECAUSE WE TAKE THIS TALL BUILDING AND WE MOVE IT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AWAY FROM THEM, PROVIDING MORE OF A GAP BETWEEN THEIR HOUSE AND THIS, WHICH IS BASICALLY A THREE STORY STRUCTURE.
AND IT'S GOOD FOR THE OWNER BECAUSE WE'RE ABLE TO HAVE A SECOND DRIVEWAY OUT OF THERE.
WE'RE ABLE TO FULFILL THE PROGRAM THAT WE HAVE FOR THE BUILDING AND HAVE ADEQUATE SPACE.
OUR GOAL, THEIR GOAL ULTIMATELY, AFTER BUILDING THE FIRST TOWNHOME PROJECT THAT THEY DID.
THEIR GOAL IS TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE, MEANING CLOSE TO UTMB HOUSING FOR FACULTY, STAFF, RESIDENTS AND PEOPLE LIKE THAT, THAT MAY BE AT THE UNIVERSITY. AND THIS ALLOWS US TO DEVELOP A TOTAL OF SIX UNITS IN EACH BUILDING.
2 TWO-BEDROOMS AND FOUR ONE-BEDROOM UNITS ACROSS TWO BUILDINGS.
SO IT DOES ADD SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE HOUSING STOCK.
SO, YES, WE DO HAVE 10 FEET AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
YES, WE DO WANT TO USE THAT AS A DRIVEWAY, BUT WE THINK EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, JUST THE IDEA OF RESPECTING THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN EITHER ONE OF THOSE. AND WITH THAT, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU ALL MAY HAVE FOR ME, OR IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR DR.
AHMED OR MR. CALLERY, THEY'RE BOTH HERE WITH ME.
YES, RUSTY. HEY, MICHAEL, MY QUESTION IS, IF I UNDERSTAND, THESE GUYS ALSO BUILT THE BUILDING, THAT LOOKS VERY SIMILAR TO IT.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. THAT'S CORRECT.
OK, SO-- BUT THAT BUILDING IT DOESN'T HAVE THIS ENCROACHMENT, CORRECT? NO, SIR. THAT BUILDING WAS BUILT-- IN THE BEGINNING, THEY THOUGHT THAT THE MARKET WAS GOING TO BE MORE FOR TOWNHOMES FOR SALE.
AND AFTER COMPLETING THAT BUILDING AND HAVING IT THERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME WITHOUT ANY BUYERS, THEY REALIZED THAT THE MARKET IS MUCH BETTER FOR RENTAL UNITS.
SO THERE WAS A COURSE CORRECTION TO MOVE TOWARDS RENTAL INSTEAD OF UNITS FOR SALE.
AND AS TOWNHOMES FOR SALE, THAT BUILDING IS JUST BECAUSE OF ITS PROGRAM, IS A MUCH SMALLER BUILDING. SO IT HAS A MUCH SMALLER FOOTPRINT OVERALL THAN THIS ONE.
THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] HAVE SOME QUESTIONS? MIKE, I HAVE A QUESTION.
DID YOU DISCUSS WITH A PLANNING STAFF ANY SOLUTIONS TO GETTING IT BACK BEHIND THE
[01:00:05]
PROPERTY LINE? WELL, AS I SAID, WE, YOU KNOW, I DID TALK WITH ADRIEL ABOUT THIS, AND WE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN MOVE THE BUILDING BACK.I JUST-- I WOULD HATE TO DO THAT BECAUSE OF THE NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST.
AND SO-- BUT IT CERTAINLY IS A POSSIBILITY.
THIS IS NOT A, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS, THIS IS NOT A DEAL KILLER FOR THE PROJECT.
IT'S GOING TO PROCEED REGARDLESS.
WE JUST THINK THAT IT IS A MUCH BETTER PROJECT ON A 70 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY INSTEAD OF THE 80 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY, AND THAT IT'S A MUCH BETTER PROJECT IF IT STAYS A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST.
YEAH, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A GREAT PROJECT FOR THAT LOCATION.
IT'S GOING TO REALLY BRING THE NEIGHBORHOOD UP RIGHT THERE A LOT.
[INAUDIBLE] PROJECT. BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S PROBABLY A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS YOU CAN [INAUDIBLE] GET IT WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINE WITHOUT COMPROMISING, YOU KNOW, THE QUALITY OF THE PROJECT, I'M SURE.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OK, I GUESS SINCE NOBODY ELSE HAS ANY-- IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK, CATHERINE, THERE? OK, IF THERE'S NOBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, THEN WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
FOR A MOTION. ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
RUSTY. I'M GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR 21P-071. WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY 21P-071.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? SECOND. STAND HUMPHREY WILL SECOND THAT MOTION.
STAFF WOULD YOU LIKE TO CALL THE ROLL? CAN WE HAVE A LITTLE -- HEY, BOB? YES. I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT.
YES SIR. YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS A GREAT THING.
YOU KNOW MY DECISION-- I'D JUST LIKE TO LET THEM KNOW THAT MY DECISION IS IF WE CAN KEEP THESE, YOU KNOW, IN THE BOX, WE REALLY NEED TO.
YOU KNOW, IF THERE WAS A CONDITION THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY COULDN'T DO THEIR PROJECT AND THIS WAS REQUIRED.
I MEAN, I'D BE IN THEIR CAMP ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.
SO I DON'T LIKE DENYING THEIR REQUEST.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO LET THEM KNOW THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY CAN MAKE IT WORK WITHOUT IT.
SO THAT WAS THE REASON I MADE THE MOTION I DID.
YES, DAVID. [INAUDIBLE] QUESTION BACK TO STAFF, CATHERINE, CAN YOU CONFIRM AGAIN WHAT THE BUILDING SET BACK IS ON THE BACK PROPERTY LINE ON AVENUE K? [INAUDIBLE] IT'S ZERO FEET.
I BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, LOOK, EVEN IF IT DID AFFECT THE PROGRAM AND IT CHANGED IT A LITTLE BIT. THAT FIRST OFF, I LOVE THE IDEA OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING BEING BROUGHT NEAR THE UTMB, AND I THINK THIS ADDRESSES IT.
SIX UNITS PER STRUCTURE, I THINK IS GOOD IF YOU CAN GET IT, BUT I WILL GO WITH THE RECOMMENDATION [INAUDIBLE] THE VOTE TO DENY BECAUSE I THINK WE DO NEED TO PROTECT THE RIGHT OF WAY AS CURRENTLY DEFINED BY THE CITY.
I WANT TO ECHO AGAIN, RUSTY'S COMMENT THAT THIS IS A GREAT PROJECT FOR THIS AREA, I'M GLAD WE'RE DOING IT, BUT THERE'S NO REASON TO CAN'T STAY IN THE BOX LIKE RUSTY SAYS.
I THINK THERE'S PLENTY OF WAYS OF DOING IT.
IT'S SIX FEET AND I THINK IT CAN BE DONE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE THE VOTE? YEAH, ONE LAST COMMENT, BOB.
YEAH. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT THERE'S NO SETBACK FOR THE BACK BUILDING LINE ON AVENUE K, AND I KNOW THAT PART OF THIS PLAN WILL BE JUST PUSH IT BACK TOWARDS THAT OTHER NEIGHBOR. I FIND IT. IT WOULD BE INTERESTING WHEN THIS GETS REVISED AND BROUGHT FORWARD, BUT [INAUDIBLE] PROBABLY NEED TO SPEND SOME MORE TIME, MAYBE WITH THE CITY AND UNDERSTANDING THE PREMISE BEHIND ALLOWING A STRUCTURE TO BE BUILT ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE PROPERTY LINE. THAT'S JUST ME LEARNING THINGS.
[01:05:01]
OK, STAFF-- ANY OTHER COMMENT BEFORE WE CALL THE VOTE? STAFF WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.[INAUDIBLE]. IN FAVOR. [INAUDIBLE] IN FAVOR.
IN FAVOR. [INAUDIBLE] ALRIGHT, I THINK WE'VE REACHED THE END OF OUR AGENDA, AND I'M GOING TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR THE WORK TODAY, AND WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT TIME.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.