[1. Call Meeting to Order ]
[00:00:06]
>> [NOISE] WE'LL CALL THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER AT 3:35 PM.
[2. Attendance ]
WE'VE TAKEN ATTENDANCE BY SIGNING IN.COMMISSIONERS, ANYONE HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST? SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE ON.
[4. Approval of Minutes: April 5, 2022 ]
ANY CHANGES, ADDITIONS, CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF APRIL 5TH? SEEING NONE, WE'LL ACCEPT THOSE MINUTES AS WRITTEN.[5. Public Comment ]
PUBLIC COMMENTS.WE HAVE ACCEPTED PUBLIC COMMENTS.
I HAVE OF THE MEETING IN WRITING, AND THOSE HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSIONERS BY EMAIL.
WE WILL ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE MEETING ON AGENDA AND NON-AGENDA ITEMS, AND AGENDA ITEMS AS THEY COME IN.
DO WE HAVE ANY NON-AGENDA ITEM COMMENTS? DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS?
>> OKAY. WE'LL BRING THAT ONE UP AS IT COMES UP ON THE AGENDA ITEM, WILL BRING ONE UP IN JUST A MOMENT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS THAT HAVE COME UP, CATHERINE, ON ANY NON-AGENDA ITEMS?
>> NO ADDITIONAL COMMENT WAS RECEIVED.
[6.A.1. 22P-021 (1502, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1510, 1512, 1514, 1515, 1521, 1602, 1606, 1608, 1609, 1611, 1613, 1615, 1616, 1619, 1620, 1621, 1624, 1628, 1701, 6802, 6807, 6808, 6809, 6814, 6815, 6827, 6828 Driftwood Ln; 1501, 1504 Bayou Homes Dr; And 6500, 6510, 6520 Bayou Front Dr) Request For A Change Of Zoning In Order To Designate A Portion Of The Driftwood Neighborhood As A Restricted Residential, Single-Family (R-0) Zoning District. Properties Are Legally Described As East ½ Of Lots 7 And 8 (7-3), West ½ Of Lots 7 & 8 & North-West Part Of Lot 9 (7-2), West ½ Of Lots 24 Thru 26 (24-1), Part Of Lot 96 (96-2), Trimble & Lindsey, Section 1, Lots 3 & Part Of 2 & 4, Sproule Addition, Part Of Lot 96 (96-5), Trimble & Lindsey, Section 1 & Part Of Lot 5 All Of Lot 6, Sproule Addition, Part Of Lot]
WE WILL MOVE ALONG TO OUR FIRST ITEM WHICH IS 22P-021.>> THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING IN ORDER TO DESIGNATE A PORTION OF THE DRIFTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD AS A RESTRICTED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY ARE ZEROS ZONING DISTRICT.
THE OFFICE REQUESTING THAT THE ABOVE REFERENCE REQUESTS BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE MAY 3RD, 2022 MEETING IN ORDER TO FULFILL THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS? NO QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 22P-021, AND I BELIEVE WE HAD ONE PERSON HERE ON THIS, AND I WILL ASK A QUESTION ON THIS.
THIS IS GOING TO BE DEFERRED TO WHEN CATHERINE?
THANK YOU. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 22P-021.
ANY ONE WANT TO COME FORWARD? WE CAN'T. IT'S NOT A PUBLIC EXCHANGE.
HEARING NO PUBLIC COMMENT, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 22P-021.
ANY OTHER COMMENT ON THIS BEFORE I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? WE'LL MOVE ON THEN.
>> CAN WE GET EMOTION ON A VOTE.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON 22P-021? COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE].
>> WE POSTPONE 22P-021 UNTIL THE MAY 3RD.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION.
ALL IN FAVOR? ANYONE OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
CATHERINE, YOU SAID THIS WAS A NOTIFICATION ERROR.
[6.B.1. 22ZA-003 Request For A Text Amendment To The Galveston Land Development Regulations, Article 5, Table 5.105, To Modify Signage Allotment Size On Buildings For Uses That Contain Buildings Located A Significant Distance From The Right Of Way Upon Which The Building Fronts Within (HI) Heavy Industrial Or (LI) Light Industrial Zoning Districts. Applicant: City Of Galveston, Development Services Department]
22ZA-003.>>THERE WE GO. GREAT, THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
[INAUDIBLE] HERE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS A TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING OUR SIGN REGULATIONS BEING PROPOSED.
IT REALLY RELATES TO A SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE THAT WE'VE RUN INTO OUT IN THE PORT OF GALVESTON AREA.
BUT IT HAS SOME UNIVERSAL PARAMETERS OR IMPACTS WITH IT.
THE PORT OF GALVESTON ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENT, APPLIED FOR A POD AS A MEANS TO BASICALLY RUN THE SIGN REGULATIONS AND STAFF
[00:05:02]
APPROPRIATELY FELT THAT THAT WAS PROBABLY NOT THE RIGHT WAY TO BRING THIS FORWARD.INSTEAD, THAT WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE PORT, AND WE WENT AHEAD AND WENT THROUGH A TEXT AMENDMENT CIRCUMSTANCE INSTEAD.
BECAUSE IN CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE I'M GOING TO DESCRIBE TO YOU IN THIS CASE, THERE ARE PLACES ON THE ISLAND WHERE BUILDINGS CAN BE SET BACK A ENORMOUS DISTANCE.
IT REALLY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR THE SIGN REGULATIONS AS THEY ARE, AT LEAST IN MY OPINION, TO BE PRESCRIBED IN THOSE SITUATIONS.
IN PARTICULAR, [NOISE] THE ROYAL CARIBBEAN TERMINAL, WHICH AS YOU MAY WELL KNOW, IT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
NOW AT PEER 10, WHICH IS LONGITUDINALLY 12TH STREET EXTENDED.
IF YOU WERE TO EXTEND 12TH STREET, THAT'S ABOUT WHERE IT IS.
I DIDN'T HAVE A GRAPHIC ON THIS, UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT ANY AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY, YOU WILL SEE WHERE THAT BUILDING IS IN RELATION TO OTHER BUILDINGS THAT THE PORT HAS, OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE INDUSTRIAL AREAS, AND YOU WILL SEE HOW FAR BACK IT IS IN COMPARISON TO OTHER INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, AND IT'S IN FACT 1,400 FEET AWAY FROM THE NEAREST RIGHT AWAY.
GIVEN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, AND GIVEN THAT IN MOST NORMAL COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS, YOUR BIG BOX RETAILERS WILL HAVE USUALLY A PARKING LOT THAT'S ANYWHERE BETWEEN THREE AND 500 FEET IN DEPTH FOR THE FOR THE LARGER BIG BOXES.
SMALLER BIG BOXES, ANYWHERE BETWEEN SAY, ONE AND 300 FEET.
THAT 200 FEET SQUARE FOOTAGE OF AREA FOR A WALL SIGN, BECOMES VERY DIFFICULT TO SEE AT THREE TIMES THE DISTANCE OF WHAT'S OTHERWISE TYPICALLY DEVELOPED IN TOWN.
WE THOUGHT IT APPROPRIATE TO BRING FORWARD A TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WOULD ADDRESS THAT.
IT'S BEING PROPOSED ON A SLIDING SCALE SO THAT AT 500 FEET, WHICH IS AGAIN WHERE MOST BIG-BOX RETAILERS ARE IN TERMS OF DISTANCE FROM A RIGHT AWAY, THAT OUR SIGN ORDINANCE APPLIES AS IS.
WHEN YOU START GOING ABOVE 500 FEET, THE WAY THIS PROPOSAL IS WRITTEN, IS THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO INCREASE 20% FOR EVERY 100 FEET OF ADDITIONAL DISTANCE.
WHAT THAT GETS YOU TO IS, IN THIS CASE, AT BASICALLY 1,400 FEET, THEY WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO INCREASE THEIR SIGN BY ABOUT 150 PERCENT BEYOND THE EXISTING SIGN.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT THE MEET OF THIS IS ABOUT.
AT THE SAME TIME, WE WERE ADVISED THAT, THE PORT MAY INTEGRATE INTO THEIR ROOF TREATMENT, SOME FORM OF SIGNAGE, AND WE DON'T ALLOW ROOF SIGNAGE AT ALL AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW.
THEY SAID, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ROADS SIGNAGE THAT WOULD BE A SIGN MOUNTED ON A ROOF, THIS IS ONE THAT WOULD BE INTEGRATED INTO THE ROOFING, THE SHINGLES, THAT THING.
YOU WON'T SEE IT ANYWHERE AT ALL FROM THE GROUND.
ANYHOW, THAT ALSO HAS ALSO BEEN OFFERED IN CONSIDERATION AS WELL.
WHERE ROAD SIGNS ARE NOT VIEWABLE, IS IT REALLY A PROBLEM? AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER COMMUNITIES WHICH WE SURVEYED, WHICH I SURVEYED, THAT HAVE NO ISSUE AT ALL WITH SIGNS ON TOP OF ROOFS THAT YOU CAN'T SEE THEM FROM THE GROUND.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE TOYOTA CENTER IN DOWNTOWN HOUSTON HAS A SIGN THAT IS AN ACRE AND A HALF IN SIZE.
AGAIN, BUT THERE'S NO GROUND LEVEL OBSERVATION.
MY THOUGHT WAS, WHAT DOES IT HURT IF THEY DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT,
[00:10:02]
THAT'S NOT INTEGRATED INTO A ROOF SIGN THAT COMES OFF OF THE ROOF.IF IT'S HORIZONTALLY INTEGRATED, THAT WAS ALSO PUT IN FOR CONSIDERATION.
BEYOND THAT, I'LL JUST QUICKLY STEP YOU THROUGH THE LANGUAGE.
YOU WILL SEE THAT IN SECTION 5.107, THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT'S PROPOSED, AND THIS IS ONLY APPLICABLE TO THE HEAVY AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONES, BECAUSE WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY COMMERCIAL ZONES THAT ARE ANYWHERE NEAR THE DEPTH THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
HOWEVER, THAT COULD IN THE FUTURE BE CONSIDERED IF SOME COMMERCIAL SITE AGGREGATES IN SUCH A MANNER.
BUT BASICALLY A BUILDING THAT'S LOCATED GREATER THAN 500 FEET TO THE NEAREST RIGHT AWAY MAY INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOTMENT OF THEIR, JUST THEY'RE FLAT WALL CANOPY SIGN, SO IN THAT CATEGORY GOING ACROSS THE PAGE ONLY BY 20 PERCENT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL DISTANCE OF SAID RIGHT AWAY.
THE LANGUAGE FOR THE ROOF SIGN ITSELF IS ALSO BEING AMENDED TO SAY THAT THE DEFINITION WAS ANY SIGN ERECTED UPON A ROOF OR ROOF MONNET STRUCTURE THAT IS VISIBLE FROM GRADE LEVEL.
I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE ON THIS.
OKAY. BOB YOU WANT TO GO FIRST? THE ROOF SIGNS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, A REALLY BLACK SUPER GRAPHICS THAT ARE ON THE SURFACE OF THE ROOFING MATERIAL? YES, SIR.
WHAT WE'RE SAYING THERE IS WE'RE SIMPLY NOT GOING TO REGULATE THAT, THAT'S NOT EVEN GOING TO BE ANYTHING.
CORRECT. IF IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S VIEWABLE FROM THE GRADE-LEVEL? YEAH.
WE WOULDN'T CONSIDER THAT A SIGN.
OKAY. THE LANGUAGE HERE THAT WE'RE DOING IS REFINING THE DEFINITION OF WHAT A ROOF SIGN IS? CORRECT.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S MOUNTED ON A ROOF BUT IT'S VISIBLE FROM GRADE LEVEL? THAT'S CORRECT.
OKAY. YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT ON THE SURFACE OF A ROOF IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE GROUND, THAT'S NOT EVEN GOING TO BE REGULATED.
I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT THE SIGNERS THAT DOES EXIST RIGHT NOW IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREA.
EXAMPLES LIKE HARBOR HOUSE AND WILLIE CHEESE AND THOSE PLACES ARE IN THAT SAME ZONING AREA THAT I GUESS CONFORM TO THE PRE-EXISTING SIGNAGE RULE.
I GUESS THEY WERE LIKE THREE OR 400 FEET FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
THOSE SIGNS WERE PUT IN THERE ACCORDING TO OUR EXISTING SIGNAGE.
YEAH. EVEN IN THIS PROPOSED REVISION, THEY WOULDN'T BE AFFECTED BECAUSE THEY'RE LESS THAN 500 FEET.
AS TO WHERE THAT SIGN IS LOCATED.
OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER EXAMPLES OR SOMETHING THAT'S LIKE 1400 FEET BACK? NOT MUCH NOW, THIS IS AN UNUSUALLY DISTANT BUILDING.
[LAUGHTER] ALL OF IT? YEAH. I MEAN, THAT'S A QUARTER MILE.
THERE'S CERTAINLY NO RETAILERS THAT WOULD WANT TO DO THAT [LAUGHTER].
FROM A COMMERCIAL STANDPOINT, YOU MIGHT GET SOME INDUSTRIAL FABRICATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT WOULD BE THAT FAR BACK AND PERHAPS IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.
THEY WOULD WANT TO HAVE THE PUBLIC AWARE OF WHERE THEY ARE BUT IT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE WITH THAT CIRCUMSTANCE VERSUS A, [BACKGROUND] EXCUSE ME [LAUGHTER].
EVERY BIT OF THE CLIENTELE OF A CRUISE TERMINAL HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO GO FROM THAT ROAD TO THE TERMINAL FACILITY AND THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS TO EITHER DO AN ADVANCE AND KNOW IN ADVANCE BUT WE GET MANY PEOPLE [BACKGROUND] OF COURSE, FROM OUT-OF-STATE THAT USE OUR TERMINALS HERE THAT HAVE PERHAPS NEVER EVEN CRUZ BEFORE.
IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE, I GUESS PERTINENT IN THIS INSTANCE AS WELL.
I GET THAT. I WAS JUST LOOKING AT SECTION 5.105 UNDER THE SIGNAGE LDRS, THERE'S LIMITED USE STANDARDS AND IT SAYS ANY INCREASE IN SCIENCE AREA ABOVE 5 PERCENT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A LEGISLATIVE ACT.
[00:15:05]
I'M JUST WONDERING WHY WE JUST DIDN'T DO THAT INSTEAD? WHY WE DIDN'T WHAT? WHY WE DIDN'T JUST USE THAT LANGUAGE THERE THAT SAYS ANY INCREASE ABOVE THE ABOVE 5 PERCENT OF THE STANDARDS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A LEGISLATIVE ACT.IN OTHER WORDS, IT GIVES YOU SOME METHOD TO MAKE THE SIGN ANY SIZE YOU WANT, I GUESS.
IN TERMS OF THIS CRITERIA? YEAH.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE NOT A BAD IDEA TO DO JUST IN CASE SOMEBODY HAD SOMETHING THAT SOMEHOW WAS OUTSIDE OF THE REALM OF THIS.
I'M JUST WONDERING IF THIS LANGUAGE WOULD HAVE ALLOWED YOU TO DO THE SAME THING RATHER THAN CHANGING THE LDR.
I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE THAT OUT.
NO. I MEAN, IT'S SPECIFICALLY, IT'S BEEN INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT'S IT'S EITHER 5 PERCENT THAT YOU CAN GO TO THE ZBOA4 OR NOT ALLOWED AT ALL.
WELL, IT SAYS ANY INCREASE ABOVE 5 PERCENT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A LEGISLATIVE ACT AND SIGN VARIANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED WHEN THERE IS A HARDSHIP RELATED TO THE CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY.
WOULDN'T A LEGISLATIVE ACT BE, COUNCIL COULD JUST GRANT IT.
I MEAN, YOU COULD JUST GO AND COUNCIL COULD, AS A LEGISLATIVE ACT, LET THEM HAVE WHATEVER SIZE SIGN THEY WANTED.
ALTHOUGH I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN INTERPRETED.
NO. THAT'S A SEPARATE SENTENCE.
IS RELATED TO THE CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY, CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY BEING THERE'S 1400 FEET FROM THE RIGHT OF THE BUILDING.
YEAH. THAT'S IN SECTION 5.105.
THAT SECTION OF THE CODE IS GETTING PARAMETERS TO WHAT THE ZBA CAN DO AND SO ITS SETTINGS ZPA'S POWER AT 5 PERCENT AND NOTING THAT ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT WOULD BE A LEGISLATIVE ACT.
THAT HAS NEVER FOUND THERE TO BE A PATH TOWARDS TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THIS LEGISLATIVE ACT BESIDES A PID OR A TEXT AMENDMENT.
WHAT IS THAT LEGISLATIVE ACT ANYWAY? THAT MEANS CHANGING THE CODE.
CHANGING THE CODE? THAT'S WHAT STOPS INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THAT MEANS IS.
WELL, OKAY. IS THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING? YES.
THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON I'M BRINGING IT FORWARD IN THIS MANNER.
BUT EXCELLENT POINT. I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING DOWN THE PATH OF IF YOU WANTED 5 PERCENT MORE THAN WHAT THIS WOULD ALLOW, SHOULD WE PUT THAT IN THERE? IT'S YOUR CALL. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE NECESSARY GIVEN WHAT IT DOES.
NO, IT'S MORE OF AN INCREMENTS.
OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU.
WOULD THIS HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE FACE SEEN ACROSS THE CHANNEL FROM MY PELICAN ISLAND SIGN? WELL, AS YOU SEE THE FLAT WALL SIGN CANOPY, YOU'RE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF FOUR SIGNS IN THAT SECOND COLUMN, THOSE HAVE TO BE FRONTING WHATEVER ROAD YOU MIGHT BE FRONTING.
OKAY. SO THE FACE [OVERLAPPING] WOULD NOT BE? I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
ALL RIGHT. DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? JUST A COMMENT.
THANKS FOR NOT MAKING THIS UP PID.
MY HATS OFF TO YOU GUYS FOR DOING THAT.
THAT CAME FROM STAFF AND I 100 PERCENT AGREE WITH THEM.
THANKS FOR THAT. I'D ALSO COMMENT 1400 FEET, THE SIZE OF THAT SIGN WOULD BE ABOUT 1500 SQUARE FEET, THAT'S ABOUT THE SIZE OF THIS WALL.
I THOUGHT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IT AS WELL WITHIN REASON.
BUT THANKS FOR NOT DOING THE PID.
>> WERE THERE ANY AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION GUIDELINES OR ANYTHING COMPARABLE INDUSTRY STANDARDS THAT WERE USED IN COMING UP WITH THE 20 PERCENT INCREASE PER 100 FEET OF DISTANCE?
>> ACTUALLY NO, THAT WAS SOMETHING I JUST PUT TOGETHER MYSELF.
>> YEAH. LITERALLY. [LAUGHTER] PARDON ME.
>> I WASN'T BACKING INTO ANYTHING.
BUT WHAT IT BASICALLY DID IS WHAT THAT SIGN WOULD APPEAR TO BE AT 500 FEET OF DISTANCE AND WHAT THAT SIGN WOULD APPEAR TO BE AT 1,400 FEET OF DISTANCE OR ANY IN-BETWEEN POINT.
IT'S PROPORTIONAL TO THE DISTANCE.
[00:20:04]
IT WAS REALLY A MATHEMATICAL EQUATION MORE THAN ANYTHING.>> GET TO THE SIZE OF THE SIGN THEY WANTED.
>> THE SIZE OF THE SIGN THAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR WHAT OUR CODE SAYS NOW AT A 400-FOOT DISTANCE.
I WAS GOING THROUGH ALL THE LANGUAGE WITH THESE ROOF SIGNS.
>> HELP ME GET TO THE KNOTS AND THE SHELLS AND THE WHATEVER.
IN THE SECOND LINE ON THE SECOND PAGE OF THE STAFF REPORT, SIGNS DESIGNED NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE GROUND DO NOT NEGATIVELY CONTRIBUTE TO SIGN CLUTTER.
SIGNS DESIGNED NOT TO BE VISIBLE FROM THE GROUND LEVEL DO NOT NEGATIVELY CONTRIBUTE TO SIGN CLUTTER.
SHOULD THAT BE SIGNS DESIGNED TO NOT BE?
>> YES. SIGNS DESIGNED TO NOT BE VISIBLE FROM [OVERLAPPING]
>> THERE'S A CLERICAL ERROR THERE.
>> THEN ON EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, NUMBER 2, TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF A ROOF SIGN AT SECTION 5.201 TO CLASSIFY ROOF SIGNS AS THOSE VISIBLE FROM THE GRADE LEVEL.
SHOULD IT BE AS THOSE ERECTED UPON A ROOF OR ROOF-MOUNTED STRUCTURE VISIBLE FROM THE GRADE LEVEL? I'M CONFUSED ON THAT, TIM.
>> I PROBABLY COULD HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT CLEAR IN THAT LANGUAGE.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, BUT THIS ISN'T PART OF THE CODE.
THIS WAS REALLY JUST MEANT TO SUMMARIZE WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THIS REQUEST.
>> I'M THINKING ABOUT MOVING FORWARD WITH SENDING THIS TO COUNSEL.
ANY SIGN ERECTED UPON A ROOF OR ROOF-MOUNTED STRUCTURE THAT IS VISIBLE FROM GRADE LEVEL.
>> THAT IS DEFINED AS A ROOF SIGN.
IF IT'S NOT VISIBLE, WHAT WE'RE SAYING BASICALLY IS THAT IT WOULD NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF A ROOF SIGN AND THEREFORE WOULDN'T BE REGULATED.
>> WE ARE GOING TO THEN ALLOW ROOF SIGNS.
THAT WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF A ROOF SIGN TO CLASSIFY ROOF SIGNS AS THOSE VISIBLE FROM THE GRADE LEVEL.
WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW ROOF SIGNS.
>> NO, ROOF SIGNS ARE NOT ALLOWED.
>> ROOF SIGNS ARE STILL NOT ALLOWED.
>> THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED. BUT WHAT THIS DOES IS IT DEFINES ROOF SIGN, IN SUCH A WAY THAT THAT WHICH IS INTEGRATED INTO THE ACTUAL ROOFING MATERIAL HORIZONTALLY ON THE ROOF ARE NOT CONSIDERED ROOF SIGNS, AND THEREFORE WOULDN'T HAVE THE REVIEW PROCESSES AND EVERYTHING ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.
IT'S JUST A ROOF THAT HAPPENS TO HAVE A UNIQUE DESIGN IN ITS LIMIT.
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S PAINTED, IT'S INCORPORATED INTO THE AISLES OR WHATEVER THEY PUT THEM ON THERE RIGHT?
>> CORRECT. SOMEBODY COULD PAINT A ROOF SIGN AND IN THIS CASE, IT STILL WOULDN'T APPLY AS A ROOF SIGN.
>> THAT IS ONLY IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT?
>> THAT'S UNDER THE DEFINITION OF ROOF SIGNS EVERYWHERE.
>> IF IN MY HOUSE I WANT TO PAINT ON MY ROOF THAT YOU CAN'T SEE FROM THE GROUND, ON MY FLAT ROOF IF I WANT TO PAINT PARK HERE.
IT'S BEING FACETIOUS. YOU COULD.
>> THAT'S WHAT IT'S INTENDED TO BE WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, IS FOR YOU TO DETERMINE.
>> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR MR. TIGIANS? ANYTHING ELSE?
>> JUST A REAL QUICK CLARIFICATION.
IF I DID THE MATH ON A STRUCTURE THAT WAS 1,400 FEET OR
[00:25:01]
1,500 FEET AWAY FROM A PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY AND RUSTY'S COMMENT WAS ROUGHLY IT'S GOING TO BE TWO-AND-A-HALF TIMES GREATER THAN 500 SQUARE FEET OR 1,500 SQUARE FEET IN AVAILABLE AREA.JUST LOOKING AT A PARTICULAR COMPANY'S LOGO AND DOING A ROUGH ESTIMATE ABOUT WHAT THE MAXIMUM SIGN SIZE CAN BE CALCULATED, IT ROUGHLY WOULD BE 37 AND A 1/2 BY 40 FEET SQUARE.
>> IT'S A BIG SIGN, BUT IT'S SAFE DISTANCE AND IT'S PROPORTIONAL.
THAT IS THE LINE OF THINKING BEHIND IT.
>> I JUST WANTED A QUICK GUT CHECK.
>> THEY IN PARTICULAR HAVEN'T APPLIED FOR ONE THAT LARGE.
>> FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY SQUARE FEET?
>> THAT IS THEIR TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT THEY'RE ALLOWED FOR ALL OF THEIR SIGNAGE. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S FOR THE WALLS SIGN. [OVERLAPPING].
>> BUT IN THIS CASE, THEY'RE NOT ELECTING TO DO ANYTHING BUT A WALL SIGN AS I'VE BEEN TOLD.
>> THAT TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED, IS THAT AN AGGREGATE OF ALL VISIBLE WALL SIGNS?
THAT'S WALL SIGNS, BUT IT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE PROJECTING SIGNS OR THE OTHER TWO CATEGORIES THAT ARE THERE.
>> IT WOULD BE EVERYTHING UNDER THIS CATEGORY.
>> I FORGOT WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY. I HAD A SENIOR MOMENT.
>> COUNCILMAN LISTOWSKI, YOU HAD SOMETHING?
THAT'S WHAT WE WERE DOING THE REVIEW. YES, SIR.
>> I SUPPOSE WE COULD CLARIFY THAT FURTHER.
>> NON-COMPOUNDED. WOULD YOU LIKE TO PUT THE WORD NOT COMPOUNDED IN IT?
>> I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST THE BEAN COUNTER WORKING ON THAT.
OF COURSE, I WAS SITTING THERE DOING A LITTLE CALCULATING.
YEAH, DEFINITELY. [LAUGHTER] [NOISE]
>> IT'S NON-COMPOUNDED AND IT'S PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA TO STATE THAT.
>> ANYTHING ELSE COMMISSIONERS? IF NOT, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:03.
ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? NONE. I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:03.
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 22ZA-003. COMMISSIONERS.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION, MA'AM CHAIR.
>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 22ZA-003, AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> DOES THAT NEED TO HAVE THAT COMPOUNDING LANGUAGE PUT IN THERE?
>> I WOULD PROPOSE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO SAY THAT 20 PERCENT FOR EACH 100 FEET OF ADDITIONAL DISTANCE IS NOT COMPOUNDED 20 PERCENT.
>> WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND WE HAVE A SHORT MEETING, HOW DO FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS WORK? BECAUSE I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED [LAUGHTER] BECAUSE I'M BEING TOLD THERE IS NOT FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS AND I'M WILLING TO CHANGE IT.
I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT WORKS.
>> AFTER THE LAST MEETING I WENT BACK AND CHECKED AGAIN, RUSTY, AND WE DID IT BY ACCLAMATION LAST TIME.
WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS IN ONE OF OUR MEETINGS WHEN WE WERE ON ZOOM.
WE CAN DO A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR IT OR WE CAN DO IT
[00:30:04]
BY IT'S NOT ACCLAMATION, IT'S UNANIMOUS CONSENT.WE CAN DO IT BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION.
BUT ONCE WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, THEN IT'S NO LONGER YOUR MOTION.
MANY TIMES PEOPLE SAY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AND IT'S MEANT MORE AS THE SPIRIT IN WHICH IT'S OFFERED, AS OPPOSED TO A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WHICH IS A TRUE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
IT'S PROBABLY EASIEST IF WE JUST GO AHEAD AND DO IT AS A MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> HE WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND?
>> LET'S JUST DO IT THAT WAY TO KEEP IT SIMPLE.
LET'S JUST DO A MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> I'M JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S COME UP A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT TIMES.
>> YEAH. WE COULD DO IT BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT AND JUST DO IT WITHOUT OBJECTION.
BUT GOING FORWARD, LET'S JUST TAKE THEM AS A MOTION AND A SECOND JUST SO THAT WE'RE CONSISTENT.
FIRST, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE.
LET'S TAKE YOUR MOTION TO ADD THE NON-COMPOUNDING AS A MOTION AND A SECOND.
IS THERE A DISCUSSION ON THE NON-COMPOUNDING MOTION? WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION, WE'RE VOTING ON ADDING NON-COMPOUNDING.
NOW, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MAIN MOTION? NO DISCUSSION.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MAIN MOTION.
OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
>> RECOMMENDATION GOES ON TO COUNCIL WHERE IT WILL BE VOTED ON?
MS. GORMAN, WE HAVE ONE DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEM; IS THAT CORRECT?
[7.A. Virtual Attendance at Commission Meetings (Staff) ]
>> IT IS VIRTUAL ATTENDANCE AT COMMISSION MEETINGS.
I SENT OUT A REMINDER ON WHAT THE PROCEDURE IS NOW THAT WE'VE RETURNED TO IN-PERSON MEETINGS.
IT'S STILL POSSIBLE TO DO A VIRTUAL MEETING, IT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLICATED.
THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT NEED TO BE MET, SUCH AS PHYSICAL QUORUM HAS TO BE PRESENT.
AT LEAST FOUR PEOPLE HAVE TO BE IN THE ROOM.
THE POSTED AGENDA HAS TO INCLUDE THE LOCATION OF EACH REMOTE PARTICIPANT AND THAT LOCATION HAS TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC DURING THE MEETING.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE AT YOUR HOUSE, WE HAVE TO POST YOUR ADDRESS.
IF SOMEONE KNOCKS ON THE DOOR, YOU HAVE TO LET THEM IN, [LAUGHTER] AS UNLIKELY AS THAT IS TO EVER HAPPEN.
>> THE NEXT MEETING IS AT JEFFREY'S HOUSE [LAUGHTER].
>> NO. I BELIEVE THAT MS. GORMAN SAID IT'S PREFERABLE FOR THE CHAIR TO BE IN THE SEAT HERE, SO NOT AT MY HOUSE, RUSTY.
>> THEN A COUPLE OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE, A TWO-WAY AUDIO AND VIDEO CONNECTION.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO USE ZOOM FOR THAT.
WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH HOW THAT WORKS.
WHEN SPEAKING, EACH PARTICIPANT'S FACE HAS TO BE VISIBLE, SO YOUR CAMERA HAS TO BE ON AND YOUR VOICE AUDIBLE TO THE PARTICIPANT AND THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
THEN IT'S NOT REQUIRED, BUT IT'S BEST THAT THE PRESIDING OFFICER BE IN PERSON.
IF OUR CHAIR AND OUR VICE-CHAIR BOTH HAD TO BE VIRTUAL, THEN WE WOULD ASK FOR THE SENIOR MEMBER WHO IS MR. WALLA TO RUN THE MEETING IN THE ROOM.
THEN WE HAVE TO PUT ALL THIS INFORMATION ON THE AGENDA, SO WE NEED TO KNOW BEFOREHAND.
WE HAVE TO PUBLISH AGENDAS 72 HOURS BEFORE.
WE ALWAYS STRIVE TO DO IT BEFORE THAT.
OUR GOAL IS ALWAYS WEDNESDAY BEFORE THE MEETINGS.
WE WOULD ASK THAT IF ANYONE'S WANTING TO PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY, LET US KNOW A WEEK BEFORE THE MEETING.
THEN WE PUT THIS ON IN CASE YOU HAD ANY QUESTIONS.
>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE EX- OFFICIAL DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ON YOUR POSTING, CORRECT?
>> I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T THINK THEY DO.
NOT THAT I'M NOT GOING TO BE HERE, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY DO.
I THINK WE DISCUSSED THAT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU'RE JUST ICING ON THE CAKE.
>> A NON-VOTING MEMBER DOESN'T HAVE TO BE POSTED.
>> YOU'RE JUST ICING ON YOUR CAKE.
ANOTHER LOCATION CAN BE PRIVATE PROPERTY, BUT HAS TO BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.
>> YES, IT HAS TO BE ACCESSIBLE.
>> BUT YOU COULD ALSO SAY GO TO A LIBRARY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
[00:35:02]
>> MY MOM IS SICK AND I'M UNDECIDED IF I'M GOING TO DO A VIRTUAL MEETING BECAUSE I'M IN THE HOSPITAL WITH MY MOM.
THAT'S A PUBLIC PLACE, BUT IT MIGHT NOT BE IN GALVESTON.
DOES THAT MEAN THE PERSON COULDN'T COME TO THE HOSPITAL WHERE MY MOM IS? HOW DOES THAT WORK?
>> IT JUST HAS TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND THE LOCATION POSTED.
THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT IT BE HERE IN GALVESTON.
>> YOU WOULD JUST HAVE TO KNOW THE WEDNESDAY PRIOR.
YOU JUST HAVE TO KNOW WELL IN ADVANCE.
>> WE DON'T HAVE AS MUCH FLEXIBILITY WITH THIS AS WE DID BEFORE.
>> ANYTHING ELSE? IF NOT, WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 4:10.
THIS IS BECOMING A HABIT, SHORTER MEETINGS. THANK YOU-ALL.
>> [INAUDIBLE] THE MEDICAL. [NOISE]
>> THAT'S EXCITING. [NOISE] [LAUGHTER]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.