>> THANK YOU. WE'LL CALL THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER AT 3:31 PM.
[1. Call Meeting to Order]
[00:00:06]
IT'S TUESDAY, JUNE 7TH.WE'VE TAKEN ATTENDANCE BY SIGNING IN.
[2. Attendance]
COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST? SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD.HAS EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES?
[4. Approval Of Minutes]
IF SO, DO YOU HAVE ANY CHANGES, CORRECTIONS? SEEING NONE, WE'LL ACCEPT THOSE MINUTES AS WRITTEN.PUBLIC COMMENT. WE'VE RECEIVED QUITE A BIT OF
[5. Public Comment]
PUBLIC COMMENT PRIOR TO THE MEETING IN WRITING.WE'VE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW ALL OF THAT.
IT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS BY EMAIL PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
ADDITIONALLY, WE WILL BE ACCEPTING PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THE MEETING AS THE AGENDA ITEMS ARE CALLED.
WE ALSO WILL ACCEPT NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT.
DOES ANYONE RIGHT NOW HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM? ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM? THANK YOU. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS WE'LL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.
NO, IT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.
[7.A.1. 22P-007 (Adjacent To 828 Postoffice / Avenue E) Request For A Permanent License To Place Landscape Planter Walls, ADA Ramp/Egress Stair, Light Fixtures, And Parking Garage Foundation In The City Street Right-Of-Way. Adjacent Properties Are Legally Described As Lots 9 – 13, And Part Of Lot 9 And South Half Of Adjacent Alley, Block 488; And The North 95 Feet Of Lot 1 (1-1), South 25 Feet Of Lot 1 (1-2), And Lots 2 Through 7, Block 428, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Adjacent Property Owner: Shriners Hospital For Children Applicant: Kirksey Architecture, C/O Rick De La Cruz Easement Holder: City Of Galveston]
>> 22P-007 IS ADJACENT TO 828 POST OFFICE, ALSO KNOWN AS AVENUE E, REQUEST FOR A PERMANENT LICENSE TO USE TO PLACE LANDSCAPE PLANTER ON WALLS, ADA RAMP, EGRESS STAIR, LIGHT FIXTURES AND PARKING GARAGE FOUNDATION IN THE CITY STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY.
AT THE MAY 17TH, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, THIS REQUEST WAS DEFERRED UNTIL TODAY, JUNE 7TH IN ORDER TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM CITY STAFF PERTAINING TO THE FOLLOWING : CITY ENGINEER TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION PERTAINING TO THE ELIMINATION OF STREET PARKING ON POST OFFICE, AVENUE E. TWO, CITY ENGINEER TO PROVIDE OPINION REGARDING THE IMPACT OF THE GARAGE DRIVEWAY OPENINGS IN RELATION TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY PARKING.
ADDITIONALLY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION REQUESTED FOR THE APPLICANT TO REVISE DRAWINGS TO INCREASE PROPOSED SIDEWALK WIDTH TO SIX FEET AND TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS TO THE SITE LIGHTING ON POST OFFICE, AVENUE E. PLEASE REFER TO THE STAFF REPORT ATTACHED FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS OF THIS REQUEST AND FOR ALL APPROVAL CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY STAFF.
THIS IS THE AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
SUBJECT PROPERTIES, THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST.
THIS IS THE REVISED SITE PLAN, THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> COMMISSIONERS, WHO HAS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? VICE CHAIR BROWN.
>> IN YOUR MEMO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR, YOU ENUMERATED, I THINK THE THREE ITEMS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD ACTUALLY DEFERRED THIS REQUEST TO AT THE LAST MEETING AND BECAUSE WE WERE LOOKING FOR THREE OTHER ADDITIONAL ITEMS BEFORE WE MADE OUR DECISION, AND ONE OF THEM WAS TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION PERTAINING TO THE ELIMINATION OF STREET PARKING IN POST OFFICE, I DIDN'T SEE THAT ANYWHERE IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> WE ACTUALLY HAVE THE CITY ENGINEER PRESENT TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS FOR YOU GUYS TODAY?
>> BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE, THE OTHER ONE WAS PROVIDE AN OPINION REGARDING THE IMPACT OF THE GARAGE DRIVEWAY OPENING IN THE [OVERLAPPING].
>> THE CITY ENGINEER IS ALSO PRESENT TO [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEN THE OTHER ONE WAS, THEY WERE ACTUALLY TWO, WAS TO WIDEN THE SIDEWALKS TO SIX FEET AND IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE PRESENTED, THEY WERE FIVE FEET, I BELIEVE.
>> THE APPLICANT IS READY TO MAKE A PRESENTATION ON THAT AS WELL.
>> THEN ALSO AS WELL AS THE MODIFICATION TO THE SITE LANDING ON POST OFFICE, AVENUE E. WE'LL JUST GET ALL THAT FROM THE APPLICANT.
>> AS PER THE REVISED SITE PLANNING IN YOUR REPORT.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. THE THREE COMMENTS OR THE COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED IN THE PUBLIC REPORT, ARE THOSE FROM LAST TIME PERIOD? [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S NOT ON THIS NEXT AROUND. PERFECT, THANK YOU.
>> ADRIEL, CAN WE HEAR FROM THE CITY ENGINEER NOW?
>> YES, MA'AM. ROBERT. [BACKGROUND]
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M ROBERT WINIECKE, CITY ENGINEER FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING PARKING ALONG POST OFFICE STREET. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE QUESTION IS, ACTUALLY CAN YOU GIVE ME A LITTLE BIT OF A CLARIFICATION ON THAT QUESTION BECAUSE I THINK I UNDERSTAND IT, BUT I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND ONE MORE TIME BEFORE I GIVE YOU A RESPONSE.
>> YES. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ELIMINATION OF
[00:05:05]
THE ON STREET PARKING THERE AND HOW MUCH ON STREET PARKING WAS ELIMINATED THERE AND HOW THAT WAS JUSTIFIED AND IN THE CITY'S DECISION-MAKING IN THAT.>> OVERALL, THAT STRUCTURE IS ROUGHLY SPACE FOR 20 PARALLEL PARKING STALLS THAT WERE EXISTING TODAY.
WITH THE WIDENING OF THE ISLANDS THERE TO NARROW THE ROADWAY, THAT ACTUALLY TAKES AWAY FOUR FOOT FROM EITHER SIDES.
YOU HAD A 37 FOOT ROADWAY, ACTUALLY IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN THAT.
BUT THEY'RE PROPOSING AROUND 24 FOOT, SO THEY'RE ACTUALLY TAKING AWAY 13 FEET FROM FACE CURB TO FACE CURB.
YOU HAVE 24 FOOT LEFTOVER AND THERE'S NO ROOM TO ACCOMMODATE ON STREET PARKING AT THAT POINT BECAUSE YOU'RE TRAFFIC LANES ARE TYPICALLY 12 FOOT WIDE.
YOU CAN PINCH THEM A LITTLE BIT, BUT ONCE YOU GET BELOW 10.5 FEET, PEOPLE JUST FREAK OUT AND DOESN'T WORK WELL.
WE TRY TO STRIVE TO MEET THAT 12 FOOT GOAL.
IF YOU HAVE TWO 12-FOOT LANES THAT FITS WITHIN THE CURB PROFILE AND THERE'S NO ROOM FOR THE PARKING ON THAT STRETCH.
WHAT WE LOOKED AT IS THERE'S AN OFFSET OF THE PARKING ALONG 9TH STREET THERE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROJECT, TO THE NORTH OF POST OFFICE STREET THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE FOR THE PARKING SLOTS THAT WERE TAKEN AWAY.
NOW WE'RE DOWN TO A NET LOSS OF 16.
ON THE SOUTH SIDE, ACROSS DOWN THE STREET THERE IN 9TH STREET, THERE USED TO BE A DRIVEWAY THERE FOR THE OLD HOUSE.
THAT DRIVEWAY GOES AWAY, WHICH MAKES ROOM FOR MORE PARKING STALLS TO OCCUR.
SO IT CAN ACTUALLY FIT FIVE PARKING STALLS ON THAT HALF BLOCK ON THE SOUTH, SO NOW YOU'VE JUST ADDED NINE OF THE 20 THAT YOU LOST.
NOW WE'RE DOWN TO A NET LOSS OF 11.
THEN OVER HERE ON E STREET, THERE IS AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY THAT COMES OUT PRETTY CLOSE TO THE STOP SIGN.
THE PROPOSED PLAN IS ACTUALLY TAKE THAT DRIVEWAY OUT.
WITH THAT, YOU ALSO LOSE THE RED NO PARKING ZONE ON EITHER SIDE SO YOU CAN ACTUALLY GET 2.5 PARKING SPACES SO WE CALL IT TWO PARKING SPACES.
AT THAT POINT WE WERE ABLE TO GO AHEAD AND ACCOMMODATE 13 OF THE 20 THAT ARE ORIGINALLY BEING LOST TO THAT.
ON THE 8TH OR 9TH STREET SIDE, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE MODIFY THAT PARKING TO ACCOMMODATE THIS BY MAKING A TWO-HOUR-PARKING DURING CERTAIN TIME WINDOW LIKE YOU ALREADY HAVE TODAY ON POST OFFICE STREET.
THEN YOU HAVE THE POTENTIAL ON THE WEST SIDE OF 9TH STREET, RIGHT THERE ACROSS FROM THOSE FIVE SPACES ON THE SOUTH OF POST OFFICE TO PROBABLY GET TWO MORE PARKING STALLS, SO WE COULD REALLY SEE JUST A NET LOSS OF FIVE AT THAT POINT.
GRANTED, THEY ARE BUILDING PARKING GARAGE, SO A LOT OF PATIENTS THAT WOULD BE GOING TO THE HOSPITAL, THAT WOULD BE USING ON-STREET PARKING ARE NOW GOING TO BE USING PARKING GARAGE.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE IMPACTS ARE GOING TO BE THAT EXTREME.
>> YOU ALL DIDN'T LOOK AT WHO WOULD BE USING THAT PARKING GARAGE EXACTLY, DID YOU?
>> NO. I DID NOT LOOK AT THAT.
>> HOW WOULD YOU ALL MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO CHANGE THAT TO TWO-HOUR PARKING AND THEN WHAT DID YOU SAY YOU WOULD DO OVER HERE TO ADD MORE SPACES OVER ON THIS SIDE OF 9TH STREET?
BASICALLY, THAT'D BE A CHANGE TO THE EXISTING CITY ORDINANCES THAT WE HAVE FOR DESIGNATING THE PARKING ZONES AND WHAT THEY ARE.
WE WOULD HAVE TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE THAT TO COUNCIL, MAKE THE REQUEST THERE AND HAVE IT FORMALLY CHANGED.
>> THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOUR OFFICE WOULD INITIATE?
>> YES. WE'LL WORK WITH LEGAL TO GO AND TAKE CARE OF THAT AND GET IT TO COUNCIL.
>> THEN BOB, WERE YOU GOING TO ASK OR DAVID WERE YOU GOING TO ASK ABOUT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH THAT? [BACKGROUND] DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE ENGINEER ABOUT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS OR IS THAT JUST FOR THAT APPLICANT?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY ENGINEER?
I THINK THE POINT OF IT WAS YOU CAME UP WITH A NET LOSS OF PARKING SPACES?
>> GIVEN DRIVEWAYS ADDED AND DRIVEWAYS REMOVED AND ALL THAT, WHAT WAS A NET LOSS?
>> FIVE, OKAY. THEN THE PROCESS AS YOU GO TO CITY COUNCIL TO REQUESTS THAT CHANGE IN FIGURATION?
>> WE'RE LOSING THE REVENUE FROM FIVE PARKING SPACES.
IS THERE ANY MONETARY CONSIDERATION IN THAT REQUEST?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY REVENUE LOST FOR THESE PARKING SPACES.
IT'S THROUGH OUR PARKING, SO YEAH.
[00:10:07]
>> I THINK ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WE'VE REQUESTED TO LOOK AT, I THINK WAS THE IMPACT OF THE THREE DRIVEWAYS, I GUESS GOING IN AND OUT OF THE PARKING GARAGE THERE ON THE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY. DID YOU ALL LOOK AT THAT?
>> YES, WE DID. SO WE [NOISE] OBVIOUSLY, I DIDN'T NOT LOOK AT THE CIRCULATION INSIDE THE GARAGE ITSELF ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF POST OFFICE STREET.
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, THE WAY THE PLANS ARE SHOWN, BOTH OF THOSE DRIVEWAYS ARE IN AND OUT TRAFFIC, BUT THEY ACCOMMODATED THAT CONDITION ON THE NORTH SIDE GARAGE BY DOING ONE ENTRANCE OFF A POST OFFICE STREET AS AN END AND THEN THE EXIT ON 9TH STREET WAS THE EXIT ONLY.
WE DID NOT DISCUSS THAT PER SAY TO GO AHEAD AND SEE IF THAT WOULD WORK WITH THEIR LAYOUT PLAN BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE'S GOING BE AN ISSUE WITH THAT ACCESS.
I THINK THE BIGGEST THING THAT'S GOING TO COME IS POTENTIAL CONFUSION BY HAVING TWO-WAY TRAFFIC AT BOTH OF THOSE DRIVEWAYS OF PEOPLE THINKING, I CAN MAKE A LEFT OUT OF HERE.
THAT'S GOING TO BE THE BIGGEST CHANGE BUT THE PLANS DO ACCOMMODATE THAT BY HAVING ONE-WAY TRAFFIC SIGNS AND OTHER MITIGATING MEASURES.
>> BECAUSE MOST OF THE TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE BEGINNING OF THE WORKDAY AND THE END OF THE WORKDAY, I GUESS.
>> RIGHT. WELL, POTENTIALLY, I THINK THERE'S VISITORS THAT CAN COME THROUGH OUT ANYTIME OF THE DAY AS WELL.
>> ON POST OFFICE, IT'S STILL ONE-WAY RIGHT?
>> RIGHT NOW, POST OFFICE IS TWO-WAY FOR THAT BLOCK BETWEEN THE 8TH TO 9TH STREET, THE REQUEST IS TO MAKE IT A ONE-WAY HEADED EASTBOUND.
>> OKAY. GOING EAST. LOOKING AT THIS DIAGRAM HERE, YOU ENTER THE PARKING GARAGE COMING FROM THE WEST AND TURNING LEFT INTO THE PARKING GARAGE?
>> YES, IF YOU'RE GOING TO THE ONE ON THE NORTH SIDE, YES.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO WANT ON THE SOUTH, YOU'D BE MAKING A RIGHT.
>> THEN YOU EXIT ON THE TOP PARKING GARAGE ON 9TH STREET?
>> THEN ON THE ONE ON POST OFFICE STREET, YOU EXIT ON THE ONE NEAREST 9TH?
>> YOU CAN EXIT ON EITHER OF THE TWO DRIVEWAYS RIGHT NOW, THEY DIDN'T SPECIFY ONE AS AN ENTRANCE AND ONE AS EXIT ONLY, SO RIGHT NOW THEY'RE BOTH FULL ACCESS, BUT YOU WOULD GO TO THE RIGHT ON EITHER OF THOSE DRIVEWAYS.
>> THAT I SAID FOR THE APPLICANT, NEVER MIND.
I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANKS.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS?
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
>> COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME?
AT THIS POINT, I WILL OPEN AT 3:44 PM.
I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 22 P-007.
WILL THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD, PLEASE? WELCOME BACK.
>> NICE TO BE HERE. SURE THING.
OKAY. WE DID PUT TOGETHER A SMALL PRESENTATION JUST TO GO OVER THE COMMENTS THAT WERE ADDRESSED AT OUR LAST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FROM THE COMMISSIONERS AND ALSO COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
SO [OVERLAPPING] WE'LL GO THROUGH THAT.
NO PROBLEM. LET ME OPEN THIS UP.
A LITTLE BIT OF A LAG HERE. LET'S SEE.
THERE WE GO. JUST TO ORIENT EVERYONE HERE, SO THE TWO BLOCKS THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY DEVELOPING OUR BLOCK 48 AND 428 TO THE SOUTH.
THAT'S THE EXISTING SHRINER'S HOSPITAL.
NOW, AS FAR AS THE SITE PLAN IS CONCERNED, WE DO HAVE A TWO-STOREY HOUSING BUILDING ON BLOCK 488, WE HAVE THE MULTI-STOREY GARAGE SPANNING 488 TO 428, SPANNING ACROSS POST OFFICE AND THAT WAS HANDLED VIA AND LTU.
WE'RE ALSO PLANNING TO RECONFIGURE POST OFFICE AGAIN TURNING THAT INTO A ONE-WAY STREET, HEADING EAST AND REMOVING ON STREET PARKING.
SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE ADDRESSED AT LAST MEETING WERE BASICALLY THE WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, WHAT IS IT? SOME OF THE COMMENTS WERE, WHAT DO THE PLANTER BOXES LOOK LIKE? WHAT ARE THESE WALLS LOOK LIKE? ALSO DO WE NEED TO TREAT LIGHTING ON POST OFFICE? ALSO SIDEWALKS CONSIDERATIONS, AND ALSO ON STREET PARKING ITSELF.
NOW, WITH REGARDS TO THE PLANTER BOXES, EVERYTHING IN GREEN HERE SERVES AS A BUFFER ALONG THE SIDEWALKS OF WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS A FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK AND ABOUT SEVEN FEET OF GREEN SPACE, SERVING AS A SAFETY BUFFER FROM THE STREET.
WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE HERE IS THIS.
ALONG ALL OF THESE STREETS HERE, ALONG 8TH STREET ALONG POST OFFICE, BORDERING THE PERIMETER OF OUR SITE.
WE HAVE THE STORMWATER MITIGATION THAT WILL SERVE AS A BUFFER ALSO WILL SERVE AS A MEANS OF SLOWING DOWN ANY RAINWATER SHEET FLOW INTO THE INLET.
FIRST, IT SERVES AS LANDSCAPING AND SERVES AS A STREET BEAUTIFICATION, BUT ALSO AS A STORMWATER MITIGATION AS WELL.
THIS IS A VIEW OF 8TH STREET FROM OUR RENDERING.
WE ALSO HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PLANNER WALLS.
[00:15:02]
YOU NOTICE HERE WE WANTED TO SOFTEN THAT EDGE FROM THE FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK UP TO THE BUILDING.WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS THIS BIARMED LANDSCAPE FEATURE HERE, WHICH REQUIRES A PLANNER WALL.
BASICALLY WHAT YOU'LL SEE ON THE STREET ON THE SIDEWALK, ARE THESE SMALL RETAINING WALLS TO HELP EMBRACE THESE LANDSCAPE BERMS. AGAIN, WE HAD THE LANDSCAPE BERMS PLANNER WALL.
YOU'VE GOT THE FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK.
THEN WE HAVE THESE SOILS THAT ARE BORDERING THE PERIMETER OF THE ROADWAY.
ANOTHER COMMENT THAT CAME UP WITH STREET LIGHTING ALONG POST OFFICE.
I BELIEVE THIS COMMISSIONER BROWN, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU DIDN'T SEE ANY STREET LIGHTING ALONG POST OFFICE, AND YOU WERE CORRECT.
ALL WE HAD PREVIOUSLY WERE THESE SMALL PATHWAY, WHICH JUST DIDN'T LIGHT POST OFFICE STREET.
WHAT WE DID, WE ADDED A TOTAL OF SIX MULTIZONE STREET LIGHTS.
BASICALLY ONE HALF OF IT WILL BE SERVING THE STREET, THE OTHER HALF WILL BE SERVING THE SIDEWALK AREA.
IT WILL LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THIS, IT'S NOT AS TALL OF COURSE, BUT BASICALLY THIS IS WHAT THE FIXTURE WILL LOOK LIKE IN GENERAL, SERVING BOTH THE STREET AND THE SIDEWALKS.
WE ALSO DID A PHOTOMETRIC STUDY BASED ON THESE NEW FIXTURES AND YOU CAN TELL POST OFFICE WILL BE A VERY WELL LIT AT NIGHT USING THOSE MULTIZONE LIGHT FIXTURES.
WITH REGARDS TO THE SITE SIDEWALKS, WE HAD A LONG CONVERSATION WITH SHRINERS AND I THINK THE CONCLUSION WE CAME TO WAS, WE FELT THAT WE SHOULD KEEP THE FIVE FOOT SIDEWALKS, REASON BEING IS THAT THEY MEET THE CITY OF GALVESTON ZONING STANDARDS.
ALSO, THEY DO MEET ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS, SO THERE'S ENOUGH ROOM THERE FOR TWO WHEELCHAIRS, A WHEELCHAIR AND A PERSON AND A PASSING LANE AS WELL.
FIVE FOOT SIDEWALKS ARE TYPICALLY THE STANDARD IN MOST CITIES.
ALSO, WE DID MATCH THE EXISTING SIDEWALKS THERE.
I THINK THAT WAS THE GOAL ALL ALONG.
SHRINERS WANTED US TO MATCH THE SIDEWALK WIDTHS THAT THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY AND THAT'S WHAT ACTUALLY MADE IT ON THE PLANS.
NOW, WITH REGARDS TO STREET PARKING AND ON STREET PARKING BUILDING ON MR. WINTON KEYS DISCUSSION.
ALONG WITH WE ARE AT I THINK A FIVE PARKING SPOT DEFICIT.
BUT ALSO WHAT WE WANTED TO BRING TO LIGHT IS THAT, WE DID PURCHASE AND DEMO THE OLD BAPTIST STUDENTS CENTER AND THE RESTAURANT BUILDING.
IN THAT INFORMATION, THE BAPTIST STUDENT BUILDING WAS 2900 SQUARE FEET, WHICH LED TO A 10 SPACE REDUCTION BASED ON THE COMMERCIAL PARKING STANDARDS FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
ALSO, THE RESTAURANT BUILDING, THE 10,500 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, WHICH LED TO A 35 SPACE REDUCTION.
THE FACT THAT WE GOT RID OF THESE, NOT GET RIDDING, BUT WE PURCHASED A BUILDING, DEMOED THE BUILDING.
THERE'S NO MORE NEED FOR PARKING AND THESE TWO BUILDINGS.
ULTIMATELY WE'RE AT MAYBE 35 PARKING.
ANYHOW, WE'RE IN THE GREEN IN THAT AREA.
SURPLUS, SORRY. WE'RE THROUGH WITH THAT ONE.
ALSO SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH HAD THERE WAS QUESTIONS, THERE WAS WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
ALSO PROXIMITY OF THE GARAGE TO THE EXISTING HOUSES AND SITE LIGHTING AND ANY POSSIBLE SPILLOVER INTO THE HOMES.
WE ADDRESSED THIS A COUPLE OF WAYS.
WITH REGARDS TO WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, IF YOU NOTICE THAT PALE BLUE LINE AT THE BOTTOM THERE, THAT REPRESENTS THE PROPERTY LINE.
YOU CAN SEE ALL THE PLANTINGS, THE BUILDING, ANY HARD SCAPE, ANY LANDSCAPE, THAT'S ALL WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINE.
NO WORK IS BEING DONE IN THE ALLEYWAY OR IMPEDING ON THE ALLEYWAY AT ALL.
WITH REGARDS TO PROXIMITY, WE DID PUT TOGETHER A SHADOW STUDY BECAUSE I KNOW ONE OF THE MEMBERS HERE, I DON'T BELIEVE SHE'S HERE, BUT SHE WAS WORRIED ABOUT SHADOWS FROM THE GARAGE ONTO HER HOME.
WE WENT AHEAD AND MODELED THE BUILDING HERE.
THIS SHOULD PLAY, I GUESS IT DIDN'T MAKE ITS WAY THERE.
BUT BASICALLY THESE ARE GOING TO BE TWO SMALL VIDEOS SHOWING HOW THE SUN INTERACTS WITH THE BUILDING AND THE NEIGHBORS.
SINCE THEY AREN'T OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH, THE SUN TYPICALLY DURING THE SUMMERTIME, STARTS IN THE EAST TO THE WEST, BUT IT ALWAYS STAYS UP HIGH.
THERE'S NEVER REALLY ANY SHADOW ON THE HOMES.
[00:20:02]
THEIR HOMES ACTUALLY CAST SHADOW ON US.THEY SHOULDN'T BE WORRIED ABOUT ANY LARGE SHADOWS BEING CAST ONTO THEIR HOMES AT ANYTIME OF THE DAY IT BE AT SUMMER OR WINTER.
THE ONLY TIME IT GETS CLOSE TO THEIR HOMES, BUT IT'S MOSTLY IN THE ALLEYWAY, 12:00 PM.
AGAIN, ALLEYWAY AND HOMES ARE FULLY LIT.
AT 6:00 PM, AGAIN NO SHADOWS BEING CAST ON THE HOMES.
WITH REGARDS TO SIDE LIGHTING.
WE DID HAVE QUITE A BIT OF SIDELIGHT IN BACK THERE AND IT WAS CAUSING SPILLED OVER ONTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES.
WHAT WE DID, WE KEPT THE TREE ACCENT LIGHTS JUST TO PROVIDE SOME SECURITY IN THE BACK, REMOVED ALL OF THE TALL SITE LIGHTING.
WHAT YOU SEE HERE YOU CAN TELL THERE'S A BIT OF BLEED ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT NOTHING EVER GETS INTO THE ALLEY OR INTO THEIR HOME.
THERE SHOULD BE NO ISSUE WITH ANY LIGHT POLLUTION INSIDE OF THEIR HOMES OR ONTO THE ALLEYWAY.
ALL WE'RE DOING IS BASICALLY CREATING A NICE EDGE ALONG THE PARKING GARAGE AND ONTO THIS OPEN FIELD HERE.
THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IN THE PM.
AGAIN, WE SORT OF LIGHTING THE BORDER ACCENTING THE TREES, BUT NO SPILL OVER ONTO THE HOMES, WHICH IS ON THE LEFT SIDE HERE, IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE.
THEN THIS IS THE VIEW FROM THE STREET AGAIN, SAME THING.
RE-LIGHTING UP THAT BORDER, NO SPILLOVER INTO THE HOMES ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE.
AGAIN, THAT REQUIRED US TO REMOVE ALL THOSE STREET LIGHTS.
IT WAS A GREAT RECOMMENDATION.
THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION. ANY QUESTIONS? I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM, MR. BROWN.
>> LOOKING AT YOUR LIGHTING RENDERING, YOU'VE GOT WHAT? ABOUT A FOUR-STORY GARAGE THERE, IS THAT WHAT THAT IS?
>> THAT GARAGE IS AN OPEN GARAGE, RIGHT?
>> EXCEPT AT THE GROUND LEVEL, IS IT CLOSED? IS THE GARAGE CLOSED AT THE GROUND LEVEL OR SOMETHING?
>> YES. DURING OPERATING HOURS IT'LL BE OPEN, WITH KEY ACCESS CARDS, AND AT NIGHT IT WILL BE COMPLETELY CLOSED DOWN.
>> WHAT I'M GETTING AROUND TO IS, IF THE GARAGE IS AN OPEN GARAGE, THAT MEANS THERE'S NO SIDES ON IT.
IT'S OPEN SO YOU HAVE PROPER VENTILATION FOR PARKING GARAGE.
>> IT'S CONSIDERED AN OPEN-AIR GARAGE.
BASICALLY, ALL THE VOIDS BETWEEN THE CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE MEMBERS WILL BE FILLED IN WITH A STAINLESS STEEL SCREEN, BUT IT ALLOWS PLENTY OF VENTILATION.
>> WHAT I'M GETTING AROUND TO IS IT'S AN OPEN GARAGE, AND IT'D BE LIT FROM INSIDE 24/7?
>> BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANY SPILLED LIGHT.
WHAT I'M WONDERING IS, WHAT KIND OF SPILL LIGHT ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE IMPACTING THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FROM YOUR OPEN GARAGE?
>> WE SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY, BUT WE CAN GENERATE BORDER METRICS TO SHOW THAT.
>> I'M JUST WONDERING, SORRY, I DIDN'T SEE ANY MODELED ON YOUR LIGHTING MODEL.
>> I SAW THE TREES LOOK ALL NICE AND EVERYTHING, BUT THAT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE THE ONLY LIGHT COMING FROM THE PARKING GARAGE ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> THE LIGHT COMING FROM THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH LEVELS.
THE ONLY LIGHT AT THE FOURTH LEVELS ARE BENEATH CANOPIES, THAT WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE.
LIGHTS AT THE INTERIOR OF THE GARAGE AT TWO AND THREE, THE BEAMS ARE 36 FEET DEEP, SO WE'LL BE CASTING LIGHT DIRECTLY ONTO THE DRIVING SURFACE.
>> ANYTHING ON THE FIRST FLOOR?
>> ANYTHING COMING THROUGH THE PARKING GARAGE?
>> [OVERLAPPING] THERE SHOULDN'T BE, SIR.
>> NOW, IF WE CAN RUN PHOTO METRICS AND EMAIL THEM TO YOU THAT WAY.
>> WE WILL REQUIRE A PHOTOMETRIC SURVEY AT THE PERMITTING PHASE WE'LL CHECK FOR THAT.
>> I SAW ON YOUR DRAWINGS THAT WERE PART OF THE PACKAGE.
IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'VE CORRECTED IT THOUGH ON THE TYPE SE LIGHTING THE LIGHT POLES?
>> ON THE DRAWINGS THAT WERE SUBMITTED, YOU HAD THEM ALL THE WAY DOWN POST OFFICE ON BOTH SIDES.
>> BUT WHICH MEANT THAT THEY WERE ALSO UNDER THE ELEVATED PARKING.
IT'LL BE AGAIN, WE WILL BE USING THOSE TWO ZONE LIGHT SO AS WE GET UNDERNEATH THE GARAGE THEY'LL BE A LOT SHORTER.
TEN FOOT FIXTURES LIGHTING THE STREET, AND THEN A SMALLER FIXTURE LIGHTING THE SIDEWALK.
BUT WE'LL STILL HAVE DECORATIVE TEXTURES UNDERNEATH AS WELL.
>> WELL, I WAS WONDERING BECAUSE WHEN TALKED AT THE LAST MEETING, I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT JUST HAVING THE LIGHT POLES EAST OF THE OVERHEAD SLAB, PARKING SLAB EAST ON POST OFFICE, NOT UNDERNEATH THE OVERHEAD SLAB.
>> BECAUSE YOU HAD SURFACE MOUNTED FIXTURES UNDERNEATH THE SLAB, AND THERE WAS NO NEED FOR POLES UNDER THOUGH.
>>WE RAN PHOTO METRICS BASED ON YOUR COMMENTS, AND THOSE LARGER DISK LIGHTS DIDN'T ILLUMINATE THE DRIVING SURFACE AS MUCH AS THE NDP ENGINEER WANTED.
[00:25:01]
WE ADDED THOSE LIGHTS IN ADDITION TO THE DECORATIVE RING.>> YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE DECORATIVE SURFACE MOUNTED FIXTURES ON THE UNDERSIDE OF THE SLAB?
>> PLUS THE LIGHTS ON A POLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE SHORTER SO THEY CAN GET THEM UNDERNEATH THERE?
>> IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER LIGHT POLES FURTHER EAST THE NORMAL SIZE?
LET ME SEE IF I GOT EVERYTHING.
I THINK THAT'S ALL I GOT FOR NOW. THANKS.
>> STAN HOLD ON, WE'RE GOING TO DO STEPHEN THEN DAVID, THEN STAN.
>> OKAY IT WAS DAVID'S STAN THEN.
>> THIS IS IN REGARDS TO THE LICENSED USE FOR THE DRIVEWAYS THAT ARE SLOPING DOWN INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY.
>> I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT I'M GOING TO ASK THE QUESTION ANYWAY.
IS THE ENTIRETY OF THAT SLOPING DRIVEWAY WHICH RANGES FROM BETWEEN FOUR FEET SEVENS AND A HALF INCHES TO FIVE FEET AND SEVEN AND A HALF INCHES DEPENDING UPON THE DRIVEWAY.
IS THAT SLOPE ALL CONTAINED WITHIN THE PLANTER WALL AREA AND DOESN'T IMPACT THE SIDEWALK?
>> IN REFERENCE TO THE GARAGE, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT LIGHTING.
WHAT ABOUT AUTOMOBILE LIGHTING? IS THE CONCRETE HIGH ENOUGH TO PREVENT AUTOMOBILE LIGHTING FROM CASCADING DOWN INTO THE RESIDENTS?
>> AS A COURT REQUIREMENT, THE GARAGE REQUIRES A 36 INCH IMPACT RAIL, SO WE'LL HAVE A LARGE 36 INCH CONCRETE BARRIER AT THE PERIMETER.
THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY SPILL OVER INTO THE PUBLIC, NO.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YES, SIR, COUNCILMAN
>> CAN YOU GO BACK TO YOUR ONE OF YOUR RENDERINGS?
THAT ONE THERE. WHY IN THIS RENDERING HERE DOES IT LOOK LIKE THERE'S SO MUCH ROOM ON THAT STREET? YOU'VE GOT THOSE TWO CARS FURTHER BACK, THAT IT ALMOST LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE PARKED AND TWO CARS CAN COME BETWEEN THEM.
>> FOR THIS RENDERING, WELL, FIRST IT'S THE FIELD OF VIEW.
>> IT'S NEVER GOOD TO GO OFF A RENDERING [OVERLAPPING].
I MEAN, THAT STREET MAKES IT LOOK VERY WIDE.
THAT RENDERING MAKES IT LOOK VERY WIDE.
>> IT ACTUALLY DOES, BUT [LAUGHTER] I CAN ASSURE YOU IT'S THE EXACT SAME VIEW GOING THROUGH HERE.
BASICALLY, IT WAS USING A WIDE ANGLE VIEW, EVERYTHING LOOKS LARGER THAN LIFE AND THOSE TYPE OF VIEWS.
>> SO NEXT QUESTION IS, WHY DID YOU-ALL PLAN FOR THIS SLOPED EMBANKMENT FROM THE BUILDING INSTEAD OF ANOTHER TYPE? WHY DO YOU HAVE THAT SLOPE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, I GUESS TO THE SIDEWALK WILL BE SLOPED, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. YES. SO WHAT WE WANTED TO PREVENT WAS THIS STARK CONDITION WHERE IF YOU'RE WALKING DOWN THE SIDEWALK, YOU'RE NOT SEEING A CONCRETE SLAB AS YOU WALK ALONG IT BECAUSE AGAIN, THE FINISHED FLOOR ON THAT BUILDING IS RAISED ABOUT FIVE FEET ABOVE THE ROADWAY.
DO YOU WANT TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL TEN FEET OF BRICK ALL THE WAY BELOW GRADE OR DO WE WANT A LANDSCAPE FEATURE TO HIDE THAT CONCRETE SLAB? SO WE WENT THE ROUTE OF SOFTENING THE SIDEWALK AREA, MAKING IT A NICE PROMENADE THROUGH THE SIDEWALKS ALONG THE STREET, ALONG THE BUILDING, AND WE THOUGHT USING LANDSCAPE WILL HELP WITH THAT.
>> HOW WIDE IS THAT AREA THERE FROM THE BUILDING TO THE SIDEWALK?
>> IT DIFFERS, I BELIEVE, ALONG THIS EDGE HERE, ALONG A STREET.
SORRY, THIS MOUSE IS A BIT SLOW HERE.
>> ALONG POST OFFICE COULD BE SEVEN FEET.
>> SO YOU GET SEVEN FEET AND THEN FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK.
>> SEVEN FOOT BUFFER, ON OR ABOUT.
AND ALSO WE HAD TO PLAY WITH THE ANGLE OF REPOSE.
SO A LOT OF SHRUBS AND GRASS WON'T GROW ON A BERM THAT'S TOO STEEP.
SO THAT'S WHY WE CAME UP WITH THAT DIMENSION THERE.
>> IT'S HARD TO TELL BECAUSE NOTHING HAS BEEN MENTIONED ON YOUR SITE PLAN.
IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S QUITE A BIT MORE FROM THE FROM THE ACTUAL BUILDING TO THE SIDEWALK THAN THERE IS FROM THE SIDEWALK TO THE CURB.
>> BUT YOU THINK IT'S SEVEN FEET, FIVE FEET, AND THEN SEVEN FEET?
>> I KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER HERE IS SEVEN FEET, THE SIDEWALK IS FIVE FEET.
I BELIEVE THE AREA ALONG A STREET IS SEVEN FEET.
BEAR WITH ME. LET ME LOOK AT THIS PLAN REAL QUICK.
>> OH, YOU DO HAVE IT MENTIONED HERE.
[00:30:01]
>> THANK YOU, PEDRO. THE GOAL THERE WAS SO WE HAD TO ESTABLISH A STANDARD SLOPE, AND IT CAN'T BE TOO STEEP OR SHRUBS AND GRASSES CAN'T GROW.
SO WE DEVELOPED THAT SLOPE WITH A STANDARD, AND AS IT GOES AROUND THE BUILDING, AGAIN, SAFE TO SAY THAT SLOPE LEADS TO A SEVEN FOOT EXTENSION OF LANDSCAPE.
AS YOU TURN THROUGH THE BUILDING, WE COULD HAVE KEPT IT AT SEVEN FEET THE WHOLE WAY AROUND, MAYBE GROWN THE SIDEWALK, BUT THEN WE DON'T HAVE EQUAL-SIZED SIDEWALKS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PERIMETER OF THE BUILDING, AND THAT MAKES ANY SENSE.
>> YEAH. I MEAN, JUST ON ONE SIDE OF THE BUILDING, ON THE 8TH STREET SIDE, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE.
>> AND THE 9TH STREET I THINK, SAME CONDITION.
>> YOU GOT ABOUT FOUR FEET OF THAT SLOPE UNTIL IT HITS THE SIDEWALK AND THEN ON THE POST OFFICE SIDE YOU'VE GOT ABOUT 10 FEET.
>> THEN, LAST QUESTION FOR YOU.
SO YOU'VE GOT THIS POTENTIAL FUTURE EXPANSION AREA, NOTHING WILL BE GOING ON THERE AND ON THAT SIDE OF THE STREET, YOU DON'T HAVE A SLOPE OR ANYTHING ON THAT SIDE.
>> YOU'VE GOT 16'4" FOOT DIMENSION HERE, BUT THEN THAT'S TO THE EDGE OF THIS.
WELL, THEN YOU GOT ANOTHER FIVE OR SEVEN FEET TO THE CURB?
>> YEAH, AT THE GARAGE, SOUTH THE POST OFFICE, WE BASICALLY HAVE LANDSCAPE ON GRADE, AT THE FUTURE EXPANSION AREA.
SO BASICALLY, GRASS, MAYBE, I THINK SOME TREES ALSO, SOME SHRUBS GO IN HERE.
IF WE HAD THE SIDE PLAN OR THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, AND THEN THE SAME WATER MITIGATION SOILS ON THE PERIMETER AS WELL.
>> THE GOAL THERE WAS WE DIDN'T WANT TO DEVELOP THAT AREA, IF IN FACT WE EXTENDED THE GARAGE SAY TO THAT AREA, WE'D HAVE TO DEMO ALL OF THAT BRAND NEW LANDSCAPING.
>> THEN I GUESS YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO ELIMINATE PARKING ON THAT SIDE AS WELL JUST TO KEEP IT CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THAT STREET?
>> WELL, WE DIDN'T WANT THE PATIENTS, VISITORS OR ANY OF THE STAFF TO INTERACT WITH AUTOMOBILES PARKED ALONG THAT STREET. THAT WAS THE GOAL THERE.
>> BUT SINCE YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ON THAT SIDE OF THE STREET CURRENTLY, IN THE FUTURE YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO INTERACT IF YOU DO SOMETHING ON THAT SIDE OF THE STREET?
>> BUT I BELIEVE ISN'T THAT WHERE THEY SAID THEY COULD ADD SOME BACK FOR THE TIME BEING?
>> THEY COULD. BUT YOU'RE NOT REQUESTING [OVERLAPPING] FOR CUTS TO ELIMINATE PARKING, BUT THAT'S A CITY ENGINEER ISSUE, I GUESS.
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING EVERYTHING YOU SAID. THANK YOU.
>> ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE APPLICANT, COMMISSIONERS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE, MR. DE LA CRUZ. ALL RIGHT.
NOW WE'LL CONTINUE WITH OUR PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYONE ON THIS SIDE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE? ANYONE ON THIS SIDE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE? OKAY. SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NUMBER 22P-07 AT 4:05 PM.
COMMISSIONERS, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS CASE.
>> I'M SURE I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 22P-007 AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> COMMISSIONERS, I HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER WALLA, A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY.
IS THERE A DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NO DISCUSSION, WE'LL HAVE THE VOTE, PLEASE.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND.
MR. DE LA CRUZ, I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH THE PRESENTATION YOU DID TODAY.
ALL OF THAT WAS EXTREMELY HELPFUL, SITUATION WHERE A PICTURE PAINTS A THOUSAND WORDS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
NEXT, WE'LL CALL CASE 22P-032.
[8.A.1. 22P-032 (25903 Flamingo Drive) Request For Beachfront Construction Certificate And Dune Protection Permit To Include Proposed Construction Of A Single-Family Dwelling With Paver Driveway And Fibercrete Footer. Property Is Legally Described As PointeWest Section 1 (2005), Abstract 121, Block 1, Lot 15, Acres 0.322, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Cate Black, Architect Property Owner: Pete O’Heeron And Dorothy Angela O’Heeron]
MR. HILL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOUR SUMMER INTERN, PLEASE, SIR?>> YEAH, CERTAINLY CAN. TODAY WITH ME IN THE AUDIENCE IS COREY BARON.
HE IS A GRADUATE STUDENT AT TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY,
[00:35:02]
AT GALVESTON. THAT'S RIGHT.WE'RE VERY PLEASED TO HAVE HIM ON BOARD WITH US FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS.
HE'S BEEN VERY HELPFUL AROUND THE OFFICE, INTERACTING WITH FOLKS, HELPING OUT WITH THE PERMITTING PROCESS, AND ALSO JUST GENERALLY BACKING UP RUSSELL AND I IN ALL THAT WE DO.
IT'S BEEN GREAT TO HAVE HIM, AND HOPEFULLY HE'S ENJOYING IT AS MUCH AS WE ARE ENJOYING HIM.
>> THANK YOU AND WELCOME. I'M VERY GLAD YOU'RE HERE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, WITH A PAPER DRIVEWAY AND FIBER CRETE FOOTER.
THE ADDRESS IS 25903 FLAMINGO DRIVE.
THE PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS POINT WEST, SECTION 1, ABSTRACT 121, BLOCK 1, LOT 15, ACRES, 0.322.
A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY IN COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE POINTWISE SUBDIVISION, A BEACH AND DUNES SYSTEM, ARE LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, UNDEVELOPED LOTS ARE LOCATED TO THE WEST AND EAST.
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS STABLE.
STAFFS PREPARED SOME SLIDES ENCOMPASSING THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY FOR YOUR VIEWING.
HERE, YOU WILL SEE SOME 3D RENDERINGS OF WHAT THE PROPERTY WILL LOOK LIKE.
IT'S CERTAINLY ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL HOUSES THAT I'VE EVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
HERE IS OUR TYPICAL MAP SHOWING THE FEMA FLOOD ZONES, AS WELL AS THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGIES EROSION RATES.
AS YOU CAN SEE, WE ARE TECHNICALLY IN AN ERODING AREA, BUT IT IS UNDER A FOOT, THEREFORE, IT COUNTS AS STABLE.
SO IN THIS AREA, IT IS A STABLE AREA BASED ON THE BEGS DESCRIPTION.
I'VE FLIPPED THIS TOPO SO THAT IT'S ORIENTED IN THE MANNER THAT YOU WILL SEE FURTHER PLANS AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
REALLY, THE ONLY THING TO TAKE NOTE OF HERE IS THAT IT'S OBVIOUSLY A VERY FLAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, WHERE WE DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AS TO WHERE THE DUNES START AND STOP.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE YOU WILL SEE A SIDE RENDERING SHOWING THE PROFILE OF THE PROPERTY. NEXT SLIDE.
THIS ONE, I KNOW THAT WE ALL TAKE PARTICULAR INTERESTS IN WHAT THE GROUND FLOOR IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE, SO HERE YOU CAN SEE WHAT IS BLUE IS THE AREA THAT IS PAVED, WHAT IS WHITE IS THE AREA THAT IS NOT, AND WE'VE GOT THE PILING PLAN SHOWN THERE.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE'S THE VIEW FROM ABOVE ON THE LOT.
SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY REALLY DID MAXIMIZE THEIR USE OF THE LAW ITSELF, SO MUCH SO THAT THE GLO ACTUALLY CONSIDERED THIS LARGE-SCALE CONSTRUCTION.
THAT'S WHY YOU'LL NOTE THAT IN THEIR COMMENTS, THEY MENTIONED LARGE-SCALE CONSTRUCTION AND THE PERCENTAGES OF PAVEMENT THAT'S ALLOWED.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE YOU WILL SEE A SHOW OF THE LOT LOOKING TO THE NORTH. NEXT SLIDE.
TO THE EAST, TO THE SOUTH, AND THERE'S THE WEST.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
HANG ON. I SEE I'M MISSING RUSSELL HERE.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING IS APPROXIMATELY 25 FEET FROM THE NORTH TO THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA, 569 FEET FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
I THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU. YOU ALSO ARE MISSING RUSSELL BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T START WITH HOWDY COMMISSIONERS.
>> YEAH. HE'S A BIG HOWDY GUY. [LAUGHTER]
>> HE IS DEFINITELY A BIG COUNTY GUY.
MR. HILL, I REMEMBER WHEN THIS [INAUDIBLE] COTTAGE [LAUGHTER] CAME BEFORE US THE LAST TIME.
[LAUGHTER] BUT I'M HAVING A HARD TIME DISTINGUISHING WHAT THE CHANGES ARE? CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE CHANGES WERE?
>> THE BIG CHANGE IN TERMS OF OUR REVIEW IS THAT, DUE TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGIES UPDATED EROSION DATA.
THIS AREA IS NOW CONSIDERED STABLE RATHER THAN ERODING.
SO THAT WAS REALLY THE ONLY BIG DIFFERENCE THAT I SAW IN REGARDS TO WHAT WAS PROPOSED.
[00:40:02]
NOW, I DID NOT GO BACK AND REVIEW ALL OF THE PLANS OF WHAT THEY HAD PROPOSED PREVIOUSLY, BUT BASED ON WHAT'S PUT FORWARD HERE, WE'RE CONFIDENT IN RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITIONS HELD WITHIN.>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? VICE-CHAIR, BROWN?
>> I'M LOOKING AT THE GROUND FLOOR PLAN, WHERE IT SAYS, CONCRETE DRIVEWAY, THAT'S NOT REALLY REINFORCED CONCRETE, IS IT?
>> NO. THEY ACTUALLY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO, BECAUSE THEY'RE OVER 200 FEET FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION.
HOWEVER, THEY'VE OPTED TO USE A PAPER DRIVEWAY WITH A FIBER CRETE FLOOR UNDERNEATH.
>> COMMISSIONERS, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES, COMMISSIONER EDWARDS?
>> THIS WAS BEFORE I WAS ON COMMISSION.
WHAT EXACTLY WAS THE REASON THAT THIS IS RESUBMITTED? WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE?
>> THE PERMIT EXPIRED? OH, OKAY. [NOISE] THANK YOU.
>> I REALLY LIKE YOUR GLASSES.
>> ON THE ROOF PLAN OR THE OVERALL PLAN SHOWING THE LIMITS AND THE SETBACKS, ROOF LINES ARE EXTENDING PAST THE BUILDING LINE; IS THAT ACCEPTABLE?
>> AS LONG AS THE PILINGS ARE WITHIN THE BUILDING LINES, THEY'RE FINE.
>> IN REFERENCE TO THE DRAINAGE, I'M LOOKING AT THE DRAINAGE PLAN THAT YOU HAD IN THE PACKAGE AS 6.0, AND THEN REFERENCING OVER PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHOULD NOT RESULT IN THE POTENTIAL FOR INCREASED FLOOD DRAINAGE TO PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SITE.
THEN THERE WAS ONE ABOUT, IT SHOULD NOT, I SHOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN THIS PART, I THINK IT'S FROM THE GLO.
WHERE THEY SAID THAT THE, SHALL DIRECT ALL STORMWATER INLAND AWAY FROM THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA.
>> WE'VE GOT THE DRAWING THAT SHOWS THE ARROWS POINTING TOWARD THE DUNES.
>> CAN YOU PULL UP THAT? I THINK IT'S IN ONE OF THE SLIDES, KATHERINE.
THAT ONE RIGHT THERE IS THE ONE THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING?
>> NO, SIR. IT HAS THE ARROWS DRAWN AWAY FROM THE DUNE.
WELL, [NOISE] IT'S SHOWING THAT IT'S ELEVATED.
WHERE DID YOU GO? HERE IT IS S6.0, SIDE DRAINAGE PLAN.
[NOISE] IF YOU NOTICE, THE ARROW IS POINTING STRAIGHT TO THE SOUTHEAST AND TO THE SOUTH.
>> I JUST FOUND IT AS WELL [INAUDIBLE].
IT LOOKS LIKE IT MOVES OUT TO A SWALE THAT TAKES IT AROUND THE SIDES OF THE PROPERTY.
>> OKAY. I COULDN'T READ THE SMALL PRINT.
>> IT'S ALL GOOD. I APPRECIATE YOU ASKING THE QUESTION.
>> COMMISSIONERS ANYTHING ELSE FOR MR. HILL? THANK YOU.
THEN AT 4:15 WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 22 P-032 AND IS THE APPLICANT IN THE AUDIENCE? WELCOME BACK MS. BLACK IT'S NICE TO SEE YOU ON THAT SIDE OF THE MICROPHONE.
>> NICE TO SEE Y-ALL JUST ONE SECOND.
>> WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO TELL US ABOUT THIS QUITE LITTLE COTTAGE?
>> [LAUGHTER] TO ANSWER A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT I HEARD, ONE THING FOR WHAT'S CHANGED.
WE DID SUBMIT A NEW PLAN, BRANDON THAT WE ARE DOING CONCRETE SINCE WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO CONCRETE UNDERNEATH THE HOUSE, WE ARE DOING CONCRETE AND THE HOUSE.
BUT THEN WE REMOVED ALL WE HAD PERVIOUS PAVERS CALLED OUT UNDERNEATH ALL THE DECKS BUT THE JELLO SAID JUST PERIOD, NO PAINTING EXCEPT UNDER THE HABITABLE SPACE SO WE REMOVED ALL OF THAT.
THERE WAS SLIGHTLY, WE'RE LIKE TWO INCHES FARTHER BACK FROM THE NORTH THOUGH TO DO LINE BECAUSE WE HAD TO GET A NEW TOPO SURVEY DONE AND THAT SHOWED IT BASICALLY TWO INCHES CLOSER.
THE DUNE HAD GROWN SOME, WERE SLIGHTLY AS YOU CAN SEE THAT REVISION BUBBLE ON
[00:45:02]
THE SITE PLAN THERE WE MOVED IN A LITTLE BIT CLOSER.THEN THE OTHER REVISION BUBBLES ARE JUST SHOWING THAT WE'RE CALLING OUT CONCRETE NOW, THE DESIGN OF THE HOUSE ITSELF IS THE SAME.
COMMISSIONER EDWARDS IS YOU HAD ASKED WHY, WASN'T IT, WE JUST DUE TO THE INTERESTING TIMES ARE IN WITH BUILDING THIS DID NOT GET STARTED IN SIX MONTHS.
SO WE'RE REAPPLYING FOR THAT APPLICATION, BUT WE ARE READY TO GO NOW.
COMMISSIONERS ANY QUESTIONS OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> NO, OWNERS ARE HERE AS WELL, MR. AND MRS. O'HARA IF YOU'VE GOT ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM AS WELL.
>> BEAUTIFUL HOUSE, BEAUTIFUL HOME CONGRATULATIONS.
NO QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
CONTINUING WITH PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYONE ELSE ON THIS SIDE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER? ANYONE ON THIS SIDE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER.
SEEING NO ONE ELSE, IT WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 22 P-032 AT 4: 17 PM, AND I WILL BRING IT BACK FOR A MOTION COMMISSIONERS.
>> A MOVE THAT WE APPROVE P-032 AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> YOU HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER EDWARDS.
ANY DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS? MOTION? SECOND. NO DISCUSSION.
EVERYONE IN FAVOR OF 22 P-032.
PLEASE SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND.
THAT'S UNANIMOUS, CONGRATULATIONS.
NOW, WE'LL MOVE ON TO CASE 22 P-033, MR. HILL.
[8.A.2. 22P-033 (22206 Kennedy) Request For Beachfront Construction Certificate And Dune Protection Permit To Include Proposed Construction Of A Single-Family Dwelling With Fibercrete Driveway And Footer. Property Is Legally Described As Abstract 121, Hall & Jones Survey, Lot 217, Sea Isle 10th Extension, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Su T. Nguyen Property Owner: MOD Homes]
>> HOW DO YOU PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
>> IF RUSSELL'S WATCHING AT HOME, HELLO RUSSELL.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A FIBER CREATE DRIVEWAY AND FOOTER.
THE PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS ABSTRACT 121 HOLLAND JOHN SURVEY LOT 217 CAL 10TH EXTENSION, SUBDIVISION OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON TEXAS.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CIO SUBDIVISION.
A BEACH AND DUNE SYSTEM ARE LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE LOCATED TO THE EAST AND TO THE WEST.
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS STABLE.
STAFF HAS PREPARED SOME SLIDES ENCOMPASSING THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR VIEWING.
HERE YOU CAN SEE A FEW OF THE RENDERINGS SHOWING THE DIFFERENT SIDES.
NOTE THAT THE WOOD DECK THAT IS SHOWN THERE HAS BEEN REPLACED NOW WITH PERMEABLE PAVERS.
THEY JUST DIDN'T WANT TO REDRAW IT.
THEY JUST DROPPED IN THAT NOTE.
HERE YOU CAN SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WITH REGARDS TO THE EROSION RATE, AS WELL AS THE FEMA FLOOD ZONE AND THE PROPERTIES TO EITHER SIDE.
HERE YOU CAN SEE THE SURVEY SHOWING WHERE THE LAW IS COMPARED TO THE VARIOUS SETBACKS AND LINES THAT WE ARE ALSO CAREFUL TO PAY ATTENTION TO.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE IS THE RENDERING OF THAT PROPERTY AGAIN, SHOWN WITH THAT SURVEY.
NEXT SLIDE. HERE YOU CAN SEE THE PROPOSAL, THE SITE PLAN THAT INCLUDES THE WALK OVER AND THE PROPOSED FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING.
NEXT SLIDE. HERE IS THE FLOOR PLAN, THE FOOTPRINT FOR THE FOUNDATION PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY ITSELF.
NEXT SLIDE. HERE YOU CAN SEE THE SIDE PROFILE AS WELL AS THE WALK OVER PROFILE THAT IS BEING PROPOSED.
HERE WE HAVE OUR PROPERTY VIEW LOOKING TO THE WEST AND TO THE NORTH AND TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE EAST AND THEN LOOKING FROM THE BEACH TOWARDS THE PROPERTY.
NEXT SLIDE, I THOUGHT THAT WAS IT.
BUT I STILL HAVE TO SAY THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING IS APPROXIMATELY 33 FEET FROM THE NORTH TO THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA,
[00:50:03]
105 FEET FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION.THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU BRANDON. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
>> IT'S A PROCEDURAL QUESTION AS MUCH AS IT IS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THIS CASE.
I AM WONDERING BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THE PROJECT SPECIFIC COMMENT THAT THE GLO GAVE IN THIS INSTANCE, THE FIRST COMMENT THAT THEY GAVE ABOUT THE DUNE WALK OVER AND PROHIBITING ANY IMPACT ON THE DUNES AND DUNE VEGETATION IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT YET WE DO NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC CONDITION FOR THAT.
IT'S SIMPLY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.
BUT IN OTHER CASES THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE TODAY, WE SEE MANY OF THE GLOS COMMENTS THAT ARE SIMILAR IN IMPORTANCE, THAT ARE IN THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
WHY ARE SOME WORTHY OF INCLUDING AND THIS ONE IS NOT?
IN MY OPINION, WHEN IT COMES TO THE GLOS COMMENTS, WE SHOULD INCLUDE THEM WITH THE APPLICATION ITSELF VIA THE LETTER AND REFERENCE THAT LETTER.
IF SPECIFIC COMMENTS WERE PULLED OUT FOR THE STAFF REPORT WHICH WAS PREPARED BY RUSSELL, THEN I WOULD ASSUME THAT IT ALIGNED WITH A COMMENT THAT WE WOULD TYPICALLY MAKE AS WELL.
ON THIS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I AM INTERESTED IN FACILITATING AND I THINK I MIGHT NEED TO BE REVISITED IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROPOSED IMPACT VIA THE WALK OVER.
THE RESULT WOULD NEED TO BE THAT THEY BASICALLY PUT THE THING IN BY HAND IN ORDER TO NOT HAVE ANY IMPACTS TO THE VEGETATION.
IF THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DO, THEN EXCELLENT.
HOWEVER IF THEY DO HAVE A SWATH OF CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS TO THE DUNES, THAN THEY WOULD NEED TO PROPOSE THAT IMPACT AND COME BACK TO US WITH A MITIGATION PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH THAT IMPACT.
RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING TO IMPACT ANYTHING AND IF THEY CAN DO THAT AWESOME.
BUT IF THEY CAN'T, THEN THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD NEED TO REVISIT.
>> SO YOU DON'T FEEL THAT THAT'S WORTHY OF PUTTING IN AS A SPECIFIC CONDITION.
I MEAN IT'S IN THE GLO LETTER AND WE INCORPORATE THE GLO COMMENT LETTER BY REFERENCE HERE.
SO YOU JUST DON'T FEEL THAT THAT'S BELT AND SUSPENDERS WORTHY HERE?
>> NO, I'M NOT ONE TO USE ADDITIONAL INQUIRY TO IT NECESSARY.
>> THEY STILL HAVE TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THAT DUNE WALK OVER.
>> WILL THESE CONDITIONS BE PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT?
>> WELL, I MEAN, THEY'RE GOING TO BE PART OF OUR PERMIT WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR THEM TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A BUILDING PERMIT.
>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MEET THESE CONDITIONS UNDER A DIFFERENT PERMIT ANYWAY.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. HILL? YES, COMMISSIONER FRANKLY.
>> MAYBE I MISSED IT, BUT I DID NOT SEE A TRUE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY INCLUDED.
I SAW THE SURVEY THAT WAS A BOUNDARY SURVEY.
SOME QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE WALK OVER AND GLO SPECIFICALLY SAID, DEAR CITY, THOU SHALT MAKE SURE TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF FOUR FEET CLEAR OVER THE TOP OF THE DUNE.
MAYBE HOW WOULD I DO THAT? MY QUESTION OR COMMENT IS THAT THE GLO POINTS OUT SPECIFICALLY THAT THE CITY IS TO MAKE SURE TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM CLEARANCE OF FOUR FEET OVER THE TOP OF THE DUNE.
BUT IN THE PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED, IT'S UNCLEAR WHETHER OR NOT AS PROPOSED THAT, THAT IS GOING TO BE OBTAINED.
I'M ASSUMING THAT'S GOING TO BE TAKEN CARE OF DURING THE BUILDING PERMIT PHASE.
>> IT'LL BE TAKEN CARE OF UNDER OUR BECAUSE WALK OVER HIS FALL UNDER SOMETHING THAT'S ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED, WE WOULD MAKE SURE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THAT REQUIREMENT AND IF THEY DON'T MEET IT,
[00:55:03]
THEN THEY'LL HAVE TO REBUILD IT.>> THAT DOUBLE-DIPPING IN THE DUNE REALLY.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING I WANT TO SEE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. HILL? NO SIDE CHATTER.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. HILL? THANK YOU.
IF NOT, THEN WE AT 04:27 PM, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 22P-033 IS THE APPLICANT IN THE AUDIENCE.
PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN, PLEASE, SIR.
>> CARLOS SHAW, I'M THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE OWNER.
>> THANK YOU. MR. SHAWN, DID YOU SAY?
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO TELL US ABOUT THE PROJECT?
>> I GUESS FIRST, I DON'T WANT TO BE ADDRESSING THE DUNE WALKOVER QUESTIONS.
IN PAST DUNE WALKOVERS THAT I'VE DONE, I SEEM TO RECALL THERE WAS ALWAYS A CAVEAT TO THE PERMIT CONDITIONS THAT NO EQUIPMENT OR MACHINERY WAS PERMITTED TO BE USED TO CONSTRUCT THE DUNE WALKOVER TO ELIMINATE THE IMPACT TO THE VEGETATION AROUND.
I THINK THERE WAS ALSO SOMETHING WITH A 24-INCH PATH RELATION TO THAT.
ANY OF THE ONES THAT WE'VE DONE PREVIOUSLY.
THAT'S WHAT WE'VE UTILIZED ALL HAND-DUG AND EVERYTHING TO MINIMIZE IMPACT.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.
MY QUESTION FOR YOU WAS GOING TO BE, DID YOU HAVE EXPERIENCE IN DOING DUNE WALKOVERS AND JUST TO MAKE SURE THIS WASN'T YOUR FIRST RODEO WITH THOSE.
COMMISSIONERS, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? I DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF, SIR.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. SHAW COMMISSIONERS? JUST LETTING YOU OFF EASY TODAY.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE ON THIS SIDE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON 22P-033? ANYONE ON THIS SIDE? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 22P-033 AT 04:29 PM AND BRING IT BACK FOR A MOTION.
COMMISSIONERS, DO I HAVE A MOTION? YES, COMMISSIONER PENA.
>> I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE 22P-033, WITH THE CONDITIONS AS WRITTEN.
>> THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY.
DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS? I THINK NO DISCUSSION.
EVERYONE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
[8.A.3. 22P-034 (11726 Beachside Drive) Request For Beachfront Construction Certificate And Dune Protection Permit To Include Proposed Construction Of A Single-Family Dwelling With Fibercrete Driveway And Footer. Property Is Legally Described As Lot 130, Beachside Village, Section 7 (2022), Abstract 121, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Nick Hayden, Talasek Builders Property Owner: TX Beachside Holding Inc.]
AGAIN, IT'S THE BRANDON HILLSHOW.RUSSELL PICKED TO FIND TIME TO BE OUT, DIDN'T HE?
>> WE'VE GONE FROM ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL LARGE HOMES THAT I'VE EVER LOOKED AT TO ONE OF THE FUNKIEST LOTS THAT I'VE EVER SEEN.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A FIBER CREED DRIVEWAY AND FOOTER.
THE ADDRESS IS 11726 BEACH SIDE DRIVE.
THE PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 130, BEACHSIDE VILLAGE SECTION 7, ABSTRACT 121, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.
THE SUBJECT'S SITE IS LOCATED IN THE BEACHSIDE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION.
A BEACH IN DUNE SYSTEM ARE LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING IS LOCATED TO THE EAST, AS IS A VACANT LOT, AND THE HOLIDAY INN CLUB VACATIONS FACILITY IS LOCATED TO THE WEST.
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS ERODING AT A RATE OF APPROXIMATELY SEVEN FEET PER YEAR.
STAFF HAS PREPARED SOME SLIDES ENCOMPASSING THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR VIEWING.
HERE WE START OFF WITH THE PROFILES AND THE RENDERINGS.
PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF THE RED CIRCLE.
THOSE AREAS WERE PROPOSED FIBER CRETE, HOWEVER, DUE TO THEM NOT BEING DESCRIBED AS A DRIVEWAY AND NOT FALLING UNDER A ROOF OR A HABITABLE SPACE, THEY ARE BEING REPLACED WITH PAVERS.
[01:00:03]
SINCE THOSE STAIRS THERE ON THE SIDE ARE NOT ROOFED, THEY ARE NOT HABITABLE SPACE.SINCE THAT LITTLE AREA THAT JUTS OUT OFF OF THE DRIVEWAY IS NEITHER A DRIVEWAY NOR UNDER A HABITABLE SPACE, BOTH OF THOSE ARE BEING TURNED INTO PAVERS.
WHAT MORE CAN YOU SAY? YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S AN EROSION RATE OF OVER SEVEN FEET PER YEAR IN THIS AREA.
HOWEVER, THERE IS A WELL-ESTABLISHED DUNE SYSTEM SEAWARD OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF. NEXT SLIDE.
HERE IS OUR SURVEYS SHOWING ALL THE PERTINENT LINES IN REFERENCE TO THE PROPERTY ITSELF.
HERE ARE JUST AN OVERLAY OF THAT, THAT SHOWS THE ENHANCED CONSTRUCTION ZONE AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AREA.
NEXT SLIDE. HERE IS AGAIN THAT RENDERING SHOWING YOU WHAT THE PROPERTY WILL LOOK LIKE AND THE PROPERTY PLAN ITSELF ON THAT LOT.
NEXT SLIDE. YOU CAN SEE HERE WHAT THE FLOOR PLAN OF THAT PROPERTY WILL BE.
NEXT SLIDE. HERE IS AGAIN, JUST SOME SIDE PROFILES SO THAT YOU CAN SEE WHAT THOSE REAR AND FRONT ELEVATIONS WILL LOOK LIKE. NEXT SLIDE.
I'LL SKIP THAT ONE NEXT SLIDE, NEXT SLIDE, NEXT SLIDE.
HERE IS A PHOTO LOOKING TO THE WEST.
HERE IT IS, LOOKING TO THE NORTH.
HERE WE ARE LOOKING TO THE EAST, AND THERE WE ARE LOOKING TO THE SOUTH.
THERE IT IS LOOKING FROM THE BEACH TOWARDS THE PROPERTY OVER THE DUNE AREA. NEXT SLIDE.
THAT'S IT. THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING IS APPROXIMATELY 25 FEET FROM THE NORTH TO THE CRITICAL DUNE AREA, 84 FEET FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? YES, SIR. COMMISSIONER WALLA.
I'M LOOKING AT, IT'S THE HOUSE LAID ON THAT LOT.
THEY SHOW THAT 25-FOOT OFFSET FROM THE NORTH TO BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THE HOUSE HAS SET FURTHER BACK FROM THAT AS WELL.
THE HOUSE IS NOT SITTING RIGHT ON THE 25-FOOT.
>> YOU'RE CORRECT. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A TYPO IN THE PACKET.
WE WOULD MEASURE FROM THOSE MOST SOUTHERLY IMPROVEMENT.
IT ACTUALLY BE FROM THAT STAIRWELL THAT YOU SEE COMING DOWN.
>> YES. IT'D BE ABOUT 12 FEET?
>> HE'S 12 FEET BACK, NOT RIGHT ON IT.
>> YOU'RE CORRECT. THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.
>> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
THEN AT 04:35, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 22P-034, AND IS THE APPLICANT IN THE AUDIENCE.
PLEASE COME FORWARD. HI, STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN, PLEASE.
>> IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND SIGNING IN, PLEASE.
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO TELL US ABOUT THIS PROJECT?
>> WE HAD HAD TO DO A SURVEY AND THEN WE ALSO HAD THEM DO OVERLAY ON THE LOT TO MAKE SURE WE WERE WITHIN ALL TO BUILD LINES BECAUSE IT IS A TIGHT LOT.
I THINK WHAT BEAT SAID DID ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE.
I DON'T THINK IT WAS IN THE INITIAL DEVELOPMENT OR WHATEVER, BUT THEY MADE A LOT OUT OF IT NOW.
WE MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE WITHIN ALL THE BUILD LINES AND THEY WERE NOT ENCROACHING INTO THE NORTH TO OF THE DUNE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
WE'RE ACTUALLY ABOUT 85 FOOT OFF OF THE PROPERTY LINE IN THE BACK.
IT PRETTY MUCH GOES SIDE TO SIDE ON THE LOT, SO IT'S TIGHT BUT EVERYTHING PRETTY MUCH WE BUILD ENDPOINT WEST IS LIKE THAT TOO, BUT THAT'S ABOUT IT.
[01:05:02]
I THINK IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER WALLA.
I REALLY APPRECIATE WHEN YOU GUYS SHOW UP AND THE HOUSE ISN'T RIGHT ON THE 25 FOOT LINES, SO THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE AND WE'LL CONTINUE WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYONE ELSE OVER HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON 22P-034.
ANYONE ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 04:37 PM AND I'LL BRING IT BACK FOR A MOTION, COMMISSIONERS.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT APPROVED 22P-034 AS PRESENTED IN STAFF REPORT.
>> THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> THANK YOU FROM COMMISSIONER WALLA, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND.
[8.A.4. 22P-035 (4226 Ghost Crab Lane) Request For Beachfront Construction Certificate And Dune Protection Permit To Include Proposed Replacement Of Three Pilings. Property Is Legally Described As Abstract 121, Page 55, Lot 26, Block 1, Pirates Beach Section 7, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Alekxander Maloney Property Owner: Annie Basu]
THE BRANDON HILL SAGA FOR JUNE 7TH, 22 P-035.>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I WAS LOOKING AT MY DRAWINGS REAL QUICK.
THE 25 FEET, I BELIEVE, REFERENCES THE FENCE THAT RUNS ALONG THAT PROPERTY.
I DIDN'T WANT TO BE SMIRCH RUSSELL'S PACKET FILLING OUT.
22P-035, THAT'S A GHOST CRAB LANE 4226.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT IN ORDER TO REPLACE THREE PILINGS WITHIN THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA.
THE ADDRESS IS 4226 GHOST CRAB LANE BEACHSIDE DRIVE.
CAN'T BE BOTH OF THOSE THINGS.
4226 GHOST CRAB LANE, THE PROPERTIES LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS ABSTRACT 121, PAGE 55.LOT 26, BLOCK 1, PIRATE BEACH, SECTION 7.
A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE PIRATES BEACH SUBDIVISION.
THE BEACH AND DUNE SYSTEM ARE LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE LOCATED TO THE NORTH EAST, AND WEST.
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS ERODING AT A RATE OF APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET PER YEAR.
STAFFS PREPARED SOME SLIDES ENCOMPASSING THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR VIEWING.
HERE YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY ITSELF.
IN THOSE LITTLE CLOUDS, YOU CAN SEE THE PILINGS THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR REPLACEMENT.
SEPARATE FROM THE CONSIDERATION TODAY IS THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT WILL BE APPLYING IN TANDEM WITH THIS FOR A DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT.
THEY ARE GOING TO BE PUTTING IN SAND AND CREATING A DUNE IN FRONT OF THIS PROPERTY WHERE THEY NO LONGER EXISTS.
WE'RE GOING TO SHOW YOU A FEW PHOTOS OF WHAT THAT'LL LOOK LIKE, BUT IT'S NOT TECHNICALLY UNDER THE PURVIEW OF WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE TODAY.
WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW ARE THOSE PILINGS THAT ARE GOING TO BE REPLACED.
YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
HERE'S WHAT THE PROPERTY LOOKS LIKE FROM ABOVE, OBVIOUSLY WITHOUT ALL THE DUNES.
HERE YOU CAN SEE THE EROSION RATE OF APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET PER YEAR AND THE VE ZONE.
HERE YOU CAN SEE THE SURVEY WHICH SHOWS THAT THE PROPERTY SETS RIGHT ON THE BEACH.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THERE WE GO.
THAT IS THE PROPOSED FOOTPRINT OF THE BEACH QUALITY SAND THAT WILL BE BROUGHT IN AND USE TO FILL THAT LOCATION.
IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, WE'LL SEE A COOL LITTLE RENDERING THAT SHOWS THE FACT THAT THE SAND THAT'S BROUGHT IN, WILL ALSO BE USED TO CREATE A DUNE IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.
THIS IS JUST GOING TO BE A PROTECTIVE RESTORATIVE DUNE.
IT'S NOT SUFFICIENT TO RESET ANY OF THE BUILDING LINES, IN ORDER TO DO THAT FOR THE ORDINANCE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE 10 FEET TALL AND 50 FEET WIDE.
OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE NOT HITTING THAT MARK TODAY, BUT THEY ARE TAKING THE INITIATIVE TO BRING IN SOME MATERIAL AND PUT IN SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO HOPEFULLY INCREASE THE LONGEVITY OF THE WORK THAT THEY'RE DOING TODAY,
[01:10:04]
WHICH IS THE REPLACEMENT OF THOSE PILINGS.NEXT SLIDE. HERE IS JUST AN OVERVIEW SHOT OF THE PILINGS THAT ARE GOING TO BE REPLACED.
THEN HERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL PHOTOS SHOWING THE PROPERTY ITSELF AS WELL AS THE EACH INDIVIDUAL PILING THAT IS GOING TO BE REPLACED TO MAINTAIN THE STABILITY OF THAT PROPERTY THERE.
HERE IT IS, LOOKING TO THE WEST, LOOKING NORTH, LOOKING EAST, LOOKING SOUTH.
THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IS APPROXIMATELY 12 FEET FROM AN IDENTIFIED DUNE VEGETATION.
HOWEVER, THAT'S IDENTIFIED IN THE MARCH 7TH 2022 SURVEY.
HOWEVER, IT'S APPROXIMATELY 36 FEET FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION, WHICH IN THIS AREA IS 200 FEET FROM MEAN LOW WATER.
IT'S LOCATED SEAWARD OF THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE, WHICH IN THIS CASE WOULD BE 200 FEET FROM THAT LINE OF VEGETATION, WHICH IS 200 FEET FROM MEAN LOW WATER.
I SAY ALL THAT TO SAY JUST THAT THIS PROPERTY IS AT THIS POINT VERY MUCH SO ON THE BEACH, LIKE MANY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS APPLICATION WILL REQUIRE AN EXEMPTION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN ORDER TO BE APPROVED AS THE EROSION IN THESE AREA HAS PLACED THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA.
THAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF'S REPORT.
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
JUST TO CLARIFY, OUR JOB HERE TODAY IS TO APPROVE A PERMIT THAT JUST ALLOWS THE REPLACEMENT OF THE THREE PILINGS, AN EXEMPTION TO ALLOW THE REPLACEMENT OF THE THREE PILINGS.
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SAND BEING BROUGHT IN, THE DUNE, ANYTHING TO HELP HOLD THOSE PILINGS IN PLACE.
>> FOR THIS SITUATION, WHAT YOU CAN CONSIDER IS THAT, STAFF HAS ESSENTIALLY ALREADY WE ARE ESSENTIALLY JUST WAITING TO ADD ON THE APPROVAL OF THOSE PILINGS TO A REQUEST TO DO A DUNE.
WE'VE ALREADY LOOKED AT THIS AND WE'VE SAID, AS LONG AS IT'S BEACH QUALITY SAND, AS LONG AS IT GOES IN THE MANNER THAT THEY HAVE DESCRIBED, THEY ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO DO A DUNE PROJECT.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE OTHERWISE WOULD APPROVE AT A STAFF LEVEL AFTER HAVING THE GLO COMMENTS ON IT AND WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH OUR DAY.
HOWEVER, SINCE THEY ARE ALSO REQUESTING TO HAVE THOSE PILINGS REPLACED, THOSE PILING REPLACEMENTS DON'T FALL UNDER WHAT WE TYPICALLY CONSIDER JUST SIMPLE MAINTENANCE.
SINCE IT IS A CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WITHIN THE DCA, WE WANTED TO TAKE IT BEFORE YOU ALL AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU APPROVE WITH THAT WORK AND WOULD ACTUALLY PROVIDE THEM AN EXEMPTION TO DO THAT.
THEN THE PERMIT THAT THEY WILL BE RECEIVING FROM THE CITY WILL COVER ALL OF THAT WORK.
BOTH THE DUNE ITSELF AND THE REPLACEMENT OF THE PILINGS ALL IN ONE GO.
>> THEY ARE MAKING NO OTHER CHANGES TO THEIR HOUSE.
THEY'RE NOT ENLARGING ANYTHING.
THEY'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING ELSE.
THEY'RE JUST REPLACING THOSE PILINGS.
>> THAT IS ALL THAT THEY HAVE SUBMITTED FOR.
>> NOT CHANGING A FOOTPRINT, NOT ANYTHING.
>> THEY HAVE NOT SUBMITTED FOR THAT.
>> IF THEY FIND A ROTTEN JOIST IN THAT LITTLE WOOD DECK OR SOMETHING AND HAVE TO REPLACE THAT.
WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED MAINTENANCE?
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IS THE APPLICANT IN THE AUDIENCE? PLEASE COME FORWARD. THANK YOU.
JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN-IN, PLEASE.
>> ALEX. TELL ME YOUR LAST NAME AGAIN.
>> MALONEY. THANK YOU MR. MALONEY.
IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO TELL US ABOUT YOUR PRODUCT? LET ME STATE FOR THE RECORD, I DIDN'T I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING OR AT 4:46 PM ON 22P-035.
MR. MALONEY, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT, PLEASE, SIR?
>> WELL, I THINK IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD.
JUST THREE PILES AND SOME SAND.
COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. MALONEY? YES, SIR. COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY.
>> WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE HOUSE NOW IS IT BEING IN USE? ARE YOU OCCUPYING IT OR DO YOU RENT IT OUT?
[01:15:01]
>> IT'S ACTUALLY A CURRENTLY IN USE, I BELIEVE THE OWNER USES LIKE AN AIRBNB OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? THANK YOU.
>> CONTINUING ON WITH A PUBLIC HEARING.
DOES ANYONE ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? ANYONE ON THIS SIDE? SEEING NO OTHER COMMENT? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:46 PM, 4:47 PM.
WE'LL MOVE ON. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 22P-035.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY A SECOND.
THANK YOU FROM VICE CHAIR BROWN AND ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND.
ALAS THE BRANDON HILL SHOWS COME TO A CLOSE.
[8.B.1. 22P-031 (13724 Stewart Road) Request For A Change Of Zoning From Residential, Single-Family (R-1) To Resort/Recreation (RES/REC) Zoning District. Property Is Legally Described As Part Of Lot 33 (33-4), Section 3, Trimble And Linsey, In The City And County Of Galveston Texas. Applicant: Charles F. Fenoglio Property Owners: West Isle Presbyterian Church Of Galveston]
WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO 22P-031.>> GOING TO 22P-031, 13724, STEWART ROAD.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY R1 TO RESORT RECREATION RES/REC ZONING DISTRICT.
THERE WERE EIGHT PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, ZERO WERE RETURNED.
I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT WE DID RECEIVE ADDITIONAL RESPONSES FROM OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION AREA, AND THOSE WERE IN OPPOSITION.
THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE, WERE REQUESTING FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY, OR WANTS TO RESERVE RECREATION.
RES/REC, THERE'S NO PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE CURRENT PLACE OF PUBLIC ASSEMBLY OR CHURCH LAND USE.
THE APPLICANTS INTENT IS TO INSTALL A LARGER DETACH SIGN, THEN CURRENTLY PRESCRIBED FOR CHURCHES IN THE R1 ZONING DISTRICT.
PLEASE NOTE THE ZONING AND LAND USE INFORMATION, AS WELL AS INTERPRETATION OF USING CLASSIFICATION ON PAGE 2 OF YOUR STAFF REPORT.
AGAIN, NO PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE PRESENT LAND USE, THE USER REMAIN AS A CHURCH.
THEREFORE, THE REQUEST DOES NOT AFFECT COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING.
NOTE THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL ON PAGE 2 OF YOUR STAFF REPORT.
IN THIS CASE, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE OF ZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY R1 TO RESERVE RECREATION RES/REC.
THIS IS THE AERIAL IMAGE ZONING MAP OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
THIS IS A SUBJECT SITE ITSELF.
ON THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND WEST, AND THAT CONCLUDES SELF SUPPORT.
>> THANK YOU, MR. [INAUDIBLE], APPRECIATE THAT.
JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THIS, PLEASE, SIR.
R1, IT'S CURRENTLY R1, BUT SINCE IT'S A CHURCH, IT WOULD FALL UNDER THE UN SIGN REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE WE MADE THAT CHANGE RECENTLY.
>> URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS SIGN REQUIREMENTS DO NOT ALLOW FOR A PYLON SIGN, CORRECT.
>> BUT IT WOULD ALLOW FOR A MONUMENT SIGN OF 60 SQUARE FEET?
>> THE FACE OF THE SIGN THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS A 70 SQUARE FOOT SIGN, JUST THE BASE OF THE SIGN.
>> THEY'RE ASKING FOR A PYLON SIGN, BUT IT HAS A 70 SQUARE FOOT FACE?
>> BUT IF THEY MOVE TO RAISE REC, WHICH DOES ALLOW A PYLON SIGN, THEN THEY COULD ACTUALLY HAVE UP TO A 200 SQUARE FOOT SPACE, AND IT COULD BE UP TO 20 FEET HIGH.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR.
>> NOT THE INTENT CORRECT, BUT IT IS ALLOWABLE, YES.
>> WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS A 70 SQUARE FOOT FACE THAT IS 11 FEET TALL IN TOTAL, RIGHT?
WALK THROUGH, PLEASE SIR FOR ME WHAT OTHER OPTIONS YOU ALL TALKED ABOUT OTHER THAN A CHANGE OF ZONING, PLEASE.
>> THIS IN OPTIONS COULD BE A POSSIBLE VARIANCE.
HOWEVER, THE CODE ONLY ALLOWS FOR A FIVE PERCENT INCREASE IN REGARDS TO AREA OR HEIGHT.
[01:20:07]
THE APPLICANT HAS TO DEMONSTRATE A HARDSHIP AS TO THE NECESSITY FOR A VARIANCE.I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT WOULD BE A VIABLE OPTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
THE OTHER OPTION, AS WE SAW RECENTLY, A POD WAS NOT THE CORRECT VEHICLE TO GET SOMEONE TO THAT FINAL DESTINATION IN TERMS OF RECEIVING A VARIANCE OR A DEVIATION FROM THE CODE.
REALLY THE ONLY OTHER ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE, YOU WILL DO A TEXT CHANGE TO CHANGE THE ENTIRE SIGN INTO ALIGNMENT FOR THE R1 DISTRICT.
I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S WHAT WE WANT, OR A CHANGE OF ZONING.
>> IT WILL BE AN OPTION AS WELL, YES.
>> THANK YOU, BECAUSE A CHANGE OF ZONING IS FOREVER.
>> STAYS WITH THE PIECE OF LAND FOREVER.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER WALLA.
>> I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE AN ASSUMPTION HERE AND I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT WHEN THEY COME UP.
I'M PRETTY SURE THAT CHURCH WAS THERE PRIOR TO THE LDR CHANGE.
IT POSES THE QUESTION THAT I ALWAYS LIKE TO ASK, WHY IS IT R1? I'LL ASK THAT QUESTION.
I KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT IT'S WHY IS IT R1 TO BEGIN WITH IF ASSUMING THAT IT WAS A CHURCH IN 2014, WHICH I'M PRETTY SURE THOSE GUYS WERE THERE, WHAT HAPPENED?
>>WELL, AS ANY OTHER CHANGE OF ZONING DURING THE 2015 LDR, I GUESS, OVERHAUL COMPREHENSIVE REWRITE THAT OCCURRED, AS WELL AS THE ZONING MAP CHANGES.
EVERYONE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME FORWARD WITH THEIR SPECIFIC REQUEST.
HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION?
>> IT'S CLOSE ENOUGH. MY NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE, IF WE WERE IN THE 91 STANDARDS, WHICH WE'RE NOT, BUT IF THESE GUYS WERE BACK THEN IN THEIR WOULD CHURCHES BE ALLOWED IN A COMMERCIAL OR WOULD THEY BE IN [INAUDIBLE]?
>> BELIEVE THAT AREA WAS ZONED, PD.
>> I RECALL CORRECTLY, AND PD WAS BASICALLY A SITE PLAN APPROVAL WAS REQUIRED FOR MOST OF THE LAND USES.
>> BUT IF THERE WAS A LAND USE, THEY'RE IN EFFECT A CHURCH, YOU WOULD THINK THAT WHEN THE ZONING WOULD HAVE CHANGED, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE INSTEAD OF MAKING IT R1, THEY WOULD'VE MADE IT WHAT IT WAS THEN AT THE TIME INSTEAD OF BECOMING A NON-CONFORMING USE.
LOOK, THIS IS AN ONGOING PROBLEM OUT THERE, I'M NOT PICKING ON YOU.
WHAT I'M REALLY TRYING TO GET AT IS, IS ARE CHURCHES ALLOWED IN A COMMERCIAL SIGN?
>> COULD HE DO AS SIGN IF HE WAS COMMERCIAL, THE SIGN HE WANTS?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THEY DO HAVE A SIGN THAT IS CURRENTLY A NON-CONFORMING SIGN HOWEVER, AND THAT IS ALSO PART OF THE ISSUE.
>> IF THEY WERE ZONED COMMERCIAL, THEY COULD DO THE PYLON SIGN?
>> IF THERE WAS ON COMMERCIAL, THEY WOULD BE ENTITLED TO UP TO 200 SQUARE FEET AND UP TO 20 FEET, IT'S HIGHEST 20.
>> THE SIGNS THE SAME, IT'S JUST THAT IT WOULD BECOME COMMERCIAL AND LIVE AT BEING [INAUDIBLE].
WHAT I'M REALLY TRYING TO GET AT IS, WHAT ZONING SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLACED IN IF IT HAD BEEN COMMERCIAL SINCE IT WASN'T EXISTING CHURCH, I COULD SEE IF IT WAS A GO KART TRACK.
I LIKE THE STORAGE GUY BEHIND HIM.
THAT PLACE HAS BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE. I'M GETTING OFF. [OVERLAPPING].
>> I THINK YOU'RE ASKING TO PECULATE.
>> I'M NOT SPECULATING, THE SAME THING HAPPENED ON THAT PROPERTY.
IF HE CAME TO YOU AND CHANGED IN 2014, MADE THAT REQUEST, WHAT HE'D BEEN CHANGED TO COMMERCIAL OR [INAUDIBLE]
>>I THINK THAT YOU MIGHT BE ASKING ME TO SPECULATE, BUT I COULD ANSWER IN THIS MANNER.
SOME FOLKS MAY HAVE THE SAME ARGUMENT AS YOU HAVE COMMISSIONER WALLA, BUT ALSO THERE'S THE OPINION OF WHEN YOU
[01:25:03]
AND FROM A PLANNING STANDPOINT AND WHEN YOU DO A COMPREHENSIVE REZONING, YOU PLAN FOR THE FUTURE AND USE THEM FOR THE FUTURE.THERE'S ALSO THAT ARGUMENT AS WELL.
>> I UNDERSTAND, THEY DID HAVE AN EXISTING USE.
I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY'D BEEN COMMERCIAL WHICH COMMERCIALS A LITTLE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN [INAUDIBLE]? [INAUDIBLE] GOT A LOT OF USES TO IT.
THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS, IF HE WERE TO BE COMMERCIAL, DOES HE STILL GET ASSIGNED?
>>WELL, IN REALITY HONESTLY, THERE'S NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND [INAUDIBLE] IN TERMS OF USES AND WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE FROM A SINUS STANDPOINT.
>> WHEN YOU ALL WERE LOOKING AT ALTERNATIVES WAYS OF GETTING TO WHAT THEY REALLY WANT IS, I'LL JUST QUOTE HERE FROM THE WRITTEN NARRATIVE, IT JUST SAYS, REQUESTING A CHANGE IN ZONING SO THEY CAN REPLACE AN EXISTING SIGN WITH A SIGN THAT CAN BE SEEN FROM STUART ROAD.
WHEN I WENT OUT THERE AND LOOKED TO ME FIRST THING I THOUGHT WAS MOVE TO SIGN UP CLOSER TO THE ROAD.
TO THINK ABOUT THAT, DID YOU ALL CONSIDER THAT?
>> AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, COMMISSIONER BROWN IT'S PART OF THE ISSUES THAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE A NON-CONFORMING SIGN.
WITH A NON-CONFORMING SIGN, THERE'S SO MUCH YOU CAN DO IN TERMS OF REPAIRS TO THE SIGN.
THAT INCLUDES CHANGING THE SIGNS ON DIFFERENT LOCATION.
>> COULD THEY PUT A NEW SIGN IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION.
>> THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A NEW SIGN, THEREFORE, IT WILL BE TREATED AS UNDER THE NEW REGULATIONS.
>> FOR MY CALCULATIONS, YOU COULD PUT A SIGN OUT THERE THAT'S 9.5 FEET WIDE BY 6.5 FEET TALL, MONUMENT SIGN CLOSER TO THE ROAD.
THAT'S PRETTY GOOD SIZE SIGN, AND IF IT'S CLOSER TO THE ROAD, YOU COULD SEE IT GOING BOTH WAYS, THAT SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY REASONABLE SOLUTION TO ME.
WHEN I WAS READING THE LDR IS THAT SECTION 5.105, IT SAYS OWNERS OF SCIENCE, WHICH DID NOT STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THE CHAPTER, MAY SEEK AN APPROVAL, AS A VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
THAT SAYS TO ME THAT THAT'S THE FIRST PATH TO GO TO IF YOU WANT A DIFFERENCE IN THE SIGN THAT'S CURRENTLY ALLOWED.
IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO GET A NEW SIGN BY CHANGING ZONING, THE ZONING CHANGE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THERE'S 50 OTHER DIFFERENT PERMITTED USES, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BY GOING THIS WAY.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE METHOD THAT WE'RE CHOOSING TO ACHIEVE OUR GOAL IS WAY OUT OF WHACK WITH THE THING WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE.
>> AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, A VARIANCE IS ONLY FOR UP TO FIVE PERCENT INCREASE.
THERE'S ALSO A NECESSITY TO PROVE A HARDSHIP.
THAT'S OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT.
>> I'M JUST I'M JUST SAYING A REMEDY IS REALLY NOT COMMENSURATE WITH THE REQUESTS, I THINK.
>> OUR DUTY IS TO PROCESS WHAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR.
THIS IS THE APPLICATION THAT WAS RECEIVED AND THAT IS THE ISSUE THAT THE BOARD HAS TO REVIEW.
I DO THINK THAT SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT ARE BEING MADE, WE'VE HEARD COMMENTS LIKE THAT BEFORE REGARDING, LACK OF A BETTER WORD, THE BROADNESS OF WHAT COULD OCCUR WITH THE CHANGE OF ZONING.
AGAIN, I WOULD JUST HARDEN THE COMMISSIONERS TO UNDERSTAND THE REQUEST THAT'S BEING PRESENTED.
SOME OF THE COMMENTS I THINK CAN AND SOME OF THE QUESTIONS I THINK CAN BE ADDRESSED TO THE APPLICANT AS WELL IF THE APPLICANT IS IN THE AUDIENCE.
BUT THAT IS WHAT WAS PROVIDED TO STAFF TO PRESENT TO YOU TODAY FOR REVIEW.
>> THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
THEN AT FIVE O'CLOCK, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 22P-031 IS THE APPLICANT IN THE AUDIENCE.
PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN, PLEASE, SIR.
>> OKAY. MY NAME IS ALAN HADWAY AND I'M REPRESENTING WEST STYLE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
>> LET ME SAY WELCOME AND FIRST OFF, I LOVED READING THE HISTORY OF YOUR CHURCH ONLINE.
I THOUGHT IT WAS REALLY FASCINATING.
I LOVED READING ABOUT HOW MR. HAMILTON DONATED THE LAND AND HOW LONG YOU ALL WENT BACK AND HOW YOU ALL STOPPED SOMEBODY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD TO RAISE THE MIDDLE POST FOR YOUR BUILDING.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS ALL VERY FASCINATING.
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO TELL US ABOUT THE APPLICATION?
>> WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO IS GET A NEW SIGN FOR OUR CHURCH.
[01:30:07]
THE OLD SIGN IS AN OLD WOODEN SIGN, IS PROBABLY BEEN THERE OVER 20 YEARS.IT'S BEEN REPAIRED MANY TIMES IN THIS TIME WE WANTED TO UPGRADE.
WE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A LIGHTED SIGN ALSO WITH A MESSAGE IN IT WHERE WE COULD PUT EVENTS THAT ARE COMING UP.
THE REASON WE DID NOT MOVE THE SIGN CLOSER TO THE ROAD IS BECAUSE THE EASEMENT THAT GOES IN FRONT OF THE CHURCH, OUR PROPERTY LINE IS RIGHT THERE AT THE FRONT OF THE CHURCH WHERE THE WALKWAY COMES DOWN.
THERE'S A CROSS, THAT'S WHERE THE EASEMENT STOPS.
THAT'S WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE ENDS.
WHERE OUR PARKING LOT IS BUILT ON THE CITY EASEMENT FOR STEWART ROAD.
WE PUT THAT IN PAVED IT, KNOWING THAT SOMEDAY IF THE CITY CAME IN AND WANTED TO WIDEN IT, WE WOULD LOSE OUR PARKING LOT.
THAT'S ONE REASON WHY WE CANNOT MOVE THIS SIGN CLOSER TO THE ROAD.
>> THE SIGN IS WHERE IT IS RIGHT NOW, IS RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LAND.
IT'S PROBABLY FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDEWALK RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING.
THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE PROBABLY ANOTHER FIVE FEET IN FRONT OF THAT, WE HAVE A BIG CROSS IS STANDING UP AND IN FRONT OF THAT CROSS IS THE PROPERTY LINE YOU SEE IF WE CAN KNOW.
>> DO STAFF HAVE PICTURE OF THAT.
>> YES. YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE ENTRANCEWAY COMES DOWN AND RIGHT IN FRONT OF IT, YOU'D SEE SOME BUSHES THEN YOU SEE THAT STEEL CROSS UP IN THE AIR.
>> RIGHT IN FRONT OF THAT IS OUR PROPERTY LINE.
>> OKAY. EVERYTHING TO THE SOUTH OF THAT IS THE EASEMENT FOR STEWART ROAD THE CITY PROPERTY.
WHERE SCIENTISTS RIGHT NOW, IF YOU GET THE PARKING LOT FULL OF CARS, THE SIGN THAT'S NOT TALL ENOUGH.
YOU CANNOT SEE OVER THE CARS TO REDESIGN.
WE WANTED TO RAISE IT UP A LITTLE BIT WHERE PEOPLE COULD SEE IT AND BE ABLE TO READ IT.
WHEN WE FIRST WENT FOR OUR APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT, WE MET WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THEY'RE STAFFED TO GO OVER OUR OPTIONS AND THEN THAT'S WHEN WE FOUND OUT THAT OUR OPTION, AS WE'RE ZONED RIGHT NOW, OUR SIGN THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IS OUT OF VARIANCE.
OUR PLAN TO DO A LARGER ZONE WOULD NOT WORK THE WAY IT IS ZONED.
>> I'VE A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU.
HOW LONG YOU GUYS BEEN THERE? HOW LONG IS THE CHURCH BEEN THERE?
>> I'VE ONLY BEEN THERE ABOUT TEN YEARS, BUT IT'S BEEN THERE BEFORE THAT.
IT'S PROBABLY I KNOW IT'S BEEN OVER 50 YEARS.
>> THEY'VE HAD ONGOING SERVICES.
I'M SURE, HURRICANES AND OTHER STUFF, BUT FOR CLOSE TO 50 YEARS THEY'VE HAD ONGOING SERVICES AT THAT LOCATION?
IT WAS SHUT DOWN FOR PROBABLY THREE MONTHS AFTER HURRICANE IKE.
>> REPAIRED. BUT EVER SINCE THAT, WE'VE ALWAYS HAD SUNDAY SERVICES AND OTHER MEETINGS THAT GO ON DURING THE WEEK
>> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? [BACKGROUND] THANK YOU.
OTHER COMMENTS? CONTINUING ON WITH A PUBLIC HEARING ON 22 P DASH 031.
COMMENTS ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM.
[LAUGHTER] YOU'VE BEEN VERY PATIENT.
[01:35:02]
>> I'VE LEARNED SO MUCH. I DON'T EVER WANT TO BE HERE AGAIN.
>> I THINK THERE ARE A COUPLE OF COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO FEEL THAT SAME WAY AREN'T THERE, JOHN PAUL?
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JEFF YANNICK, MY WIFE CANDY AND I ARE FULL-TIME RESIDENTS ON 3311 COVE LANE AND LAFAYETTE'S COVE.
I WAS ASKED TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU ON BEHALF OF THE LAFAYETTE'S COVE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION.
AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A REZONING SITUATION HERE DUE TO REQUESTS FROM THE WEST AL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH TO INSTALL A LARGER SIGN FOR THEIR CHURCH THAN IS CURRENTLY ON THE SITE.
THEY WANT TO RAISE A SIGN BY FOUR FEET, BUT SINCE WE'RE TOLD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION THE ONLY WAY TO GET A LARGER SIGN IS TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM OR CHANGE THE ZONING TO RESURRECT, WHICH YOU GUYS HAVE POINTED OUT VERY ASTUTELY, WHICH ALLOWS A WHOLE HOST OF OTHER LAND ISSUES THAT YOU'VE DISCUSSED THAT COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE ENTRANCE OF LAFAYETTE'S COVE AND ME.
CHURCHES DO SELL PROPERTY AND MOVE TO BIGGER LOCATIONS.
THE REZONING WOULD STAY AND THE NEW OWNERS COULD USE IT FOR PURPOSES NOT IN HARMONY WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE.
BOTH LAFAYETTE'S AND PIRATES CO-RESIDENTS ARE OVERWHELMINGLY AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL OR THIS REZONING.
RESURRECT ALLOWS ALL KINDS OF THINGS FROM GO-KARTS TO BARS, TRAILER PARKS, WHATEVER.
THERE'S 75 ODD DEALS THAT YOU COULD USE RESURRECT FOR AND MANY OF THEM WILL BE DETRIMENTAL, AS I SAID TO OUR WAY OF LIFE AND PROPERTY VALUES.
BOTH PPLA AND LAFAYETTE'S COVE POA HAVE SENT LETTERS TO THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OPPOSING THE REZONING AND ASKED FOR A POSTPONEMENT SO THAT THE RESIDENTS WOULD HAVE TIME TO RESPOND TO THIS.
THIS SITUATION WAS ONLY BROUGHT TO THESE TWO BOARDS ATTENTION ON SUNDAY.
MOST HAVE NO ISSUES WITH ALLOWING THE CHURCH TO RAISE THEIR SIGN BUT DON'T FEEL THAT THIS RADICAL DEAL TO CHANGE TO RESURRECT ZONING IS THE RIGHT REMEDY FOR THEM TO HAVE A DIFFERENT SIGN.
WE BOTH BELIEVE THERE'S A BETTER WAY FOR THE CHURCH TO HAVE IMPROVED SIGNAGE.
THERE WAS ONLY ONE SMALL, WHAT THEY CALL A BANDIT SIGN, STICKING THE GROUND SIGN NOTIFYING OF THIS IN FRONT OF THE CHURCH AND IN FACT, I WENT BY THERE ON THE WAY HERE AND THAT THING IS LAYING ON THE GROUND.
I DON'T KNOW HOW WELL IS PUT IN THE GROUND, BUT WHAT LITTLE WIN WE'VE HAD FOR THE LAST SIX MONTHS BLEW IT DOWN.
WE ASK YOU AGAIN FOR A POSTPONEMENT OF THIS ISSUE UNTIL OUR RESIDENTS CAN COME BEFORE YOU.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
ANYONE ELSE ON THIS SIDE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE? DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK? [BACKGROUND] IF THIS IS NOT A QUESTION-AND-ANSWER, PERIOD, BUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
>> MY NAME IS DJ NEWSOME. I'M WITH WEST STYLE.
>> THE LAND THAT'S AROUND THE CHURCH.
IF I REMEMBER RIGHT FROM SEEING SOME DIAGRAMS, WHERE THE STORAGE BUILDINGS AND LAND ON THE WEST SIDE, THAT'S ALREADY ZONED.
RECREATIONAL RESORT AM I CORRECT?
AM NOT SUPPOSED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS [LAUGHTER].
>> THAT LAND AROUND THE CHURCH WHERE THE STORAGE BUILDINGS ARE THE LAND ON THE WEST SIDE IN THAT ALREADY ZONED RECREATIONAL RESORT?
>> TO THE WEST IT IS THEIR BRAIN AREAS REST WRECK.
>> REALLY IF THE CHURCH WAS ZONED THAT SAME THING, IT'S JUST JOINING THE LAND TO THE WEST.
>>TAKE A LOOK AT IT IN THAT MANNER, YES.
>> OKAY. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE ON THIS SIDE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK? GOING ONCE? [LAUGHTER].
IN THAT CASE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 22 P-031 AT 5:11 PM,
[01:40:10]
AND I'LL BRING IT BACK FOR A MOTION.>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER CASE 22 P-031.
>> I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. DISCUSSION.
>> IF I COULD GET CLARIFICATION ON THE REASON FOR DEFERRAL AND THE DATE.
>> REASON FOR DEFERRAL IS TO UNDERSTAND ADJACENT LAND USES AS WELL AS POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE RESURRECT ON THE OVERALL PLANNING AREA.
>> THE DATE, TILL THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING, PLEASE.
>> I'LL START SINCE I'VE MADE THE MOTION TO DEFER.
THE ADJACENT LAND USE TO THE WEST IS ALREADY RESURRECT.
WE'VE GOT COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH.
IT'S UNKNOWN WHAT THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST IS.
>> ALL RIGHT. THEN IN STAFF REPORT ALSO, THEY MADE MENTION THAT THIS WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SO I'D LIKE MORE TIME TO STUDY THAT AND LOOK AT OTHER OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING THE APPLICANTS SIGN NEEDS.
>> I'M JUST NOT SURE I AGREE WITH ALL OF THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 5, THAT THIS CASE MAKES THEM.
PARTICULARLY NUMBER 5 WHERE IT SAYS A COMPARABLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY SUGGESTS THE NEED FOR THE PROPOSED REZONING.
THE APPLICANT ITSELF DOESN'T HAVE ANY PLANS TO USE ANY OF THE 50 NEW USES THAT IT WOULD HAVE IF IT WAS REZONED.
ALL IT REALLY WANTS TO DO IS CHANGE THE SIGN SIZE.
I'M NOT SURE IT MEETS ANY OF THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.
IT MEETS THAT CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.
IT MAY BE THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THE APPLICANT SAID THAT HELPED ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE DOING OVER THERE IS THAT YOU CAN'T MOVE THE SIGN OUT TO THE STREET BECAUSE WELL, THAT'S ONE THING, AND THE SIGN WHERE IT IS, YOU CAN'T SEE IT WHEN THE CARS ARE IN THE PARKING LOT.
BUT IF YOU MOVE THE SIGN UP ON TOP OF THE BERM WHERE THE STRUCTURE IS, PUT THE SIGN ABOVE THE CARS THEN YOU CAN HAVE A SIGN THAT'S ABOUT 9.5 FEET WIDE BY ABOUT 6.5 FEET TALL.
IF YOU'VE GOT THE VARIANCE, WHICH I THINK IT'S A VERY GOOD CASE FOR GETTING A VARIANCE HERE WITH THE ZBA GIVEN THE DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE STREET THAT THEY ARE.
THAT'S A HARDSHIP, I WOULD THINK.
THEN THE GRAPHICS. YOU MIGHT HAVE A SIGN THAT'S A LOT MORE LEGIBLE THAN THE ONE YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW FROM THE STREET.
I THINK THERE'S OTHER WAYS OF APPROACHING IT IS WHAT I'M SAYING, OTHER SOLUTIONS THAT MIGHT BE BETTER THAN TRYING TO CHANGE THE ZONING AND A LOT MORE APPROPRIATE IN TERMS OF REACHING YOUR GOAL.
>> THANK YOU. DISCUSSION AS TO THE MOTION ON THE TABLE FOR DEFERRAL.
I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO DEFER THIS DISCUSSION TO ALLOW THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS MORE TIME TO ORGANIZE AND RESPOND TO THIS.
IT IS LARGELY SURROUNDING THIS AREA, A WEEKEND PART-TIME COMMUNITY, AND THEY NEED A LITTLE MORE TIME TO ORGANIZE AND RESPOND.
I REALIZED THAT TWO WEEKS MAY NOT BE A WHOLE LOT OF TIME, BUT IT DOES GIVE A LITTLE MORE TIME TO ORGANIZE AND RESPOND, IN MY OPINION.
I AGREE WITH WHAT HAS BEEN SAID THAT I DON'T THINK ANYONE HAS THIS, NOT ANY OF THE OPPOSITION THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED IN WRITING HAS BEEN NEGATIVE TOWARD THE CHURCH OR THE CHURCH HAVING A LARGER SIGN.
IT HAS BEEN ABOUT CHANGING THE ZONING AND WHAT HAPPENS IF THE CHURCH IS NO LONGER THERE.
WHAT HAPPENS IF THAT PROPERTY GOES TO SOMEONE ELSE.
CERTAINLY NO ONE HAS SAID ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT THE CHURCH OR THE CHURCH HAVING A LARGER SIGN.
[01:45:02]
YES, COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY.>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WOULD BE ADDRESSED MORE TO THE STAFF OR FOR US TO CONSIDER.
BUT I'M LOOKING HERE ON THIS EXHIBIT A, AND BEHIND TO THE NORTH SIDE AND TO THE NORTH-NORTH EAST SIDE, IT APPEARS ARE STORAGE AREAS.
NOW, IS THAT AN APPROVED USE FOR R1?
>> RIGHT. YES, COMMISSIONER EDWARDS.
DID YOU WANT TO THROW A SPITBALL AT ME COMMISSIONER WALLA TO GET MY ATTENTION?
>> NO. I JUST DON'T LIKE THAT BUTTON.
>> HE'S HAVING A FIGHT WITH THE BUTTON OVER HERE.
>> I GUESS MY QUESTION ADRIEL IS, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE VARIANCE CAN BE MORE THAN THE FIVE PERCENT?
>> NO, SO THAT'S THE HARD AND FAST?
>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER OPTIONS THAT WOULD GIVE THE CHURCH THE ABILITY TO MOVE THE SIGN, THEY DON'T WANT IT BIG OR THEY JUST NEED IT MOVED AND REPAIRED.
IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTIONS THAT ARE OUT THERE THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THAT? ANY VARIANCE, NOT A VARIANCE, YOU ALREADY SAID THAT, BUT ANY OTHER OPTIONS OUTSIDE OF REZONING?
>> WELL, THEY DO WANT IT BIGGER.
>> THEY DO WANT IT BIGGER ONE.
>> IF THEY DIDN'T WANT IT BIGGER THEY COULD DO IT AS IS, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE AN ALLOTMENT FOR 60 SQUARE FEET AND SIX FOOT HIGH.
AS FAR AS AN ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE CHANGING THE TEXT WHICH WOULD SIGNIFY THAT THE ENTIRETY OF THE R1 EVERYWHERE IN TOWN COULD HAVE A MUCH LARGER SIZE.
>> I KNOW IT'S IN THE EASEMENT.
BUT THEY COULD MOVE THE SIGN, IT COULD BE A LITTLE BIT BIGGER.
>> AGAIN COMMISSIONERS, LET'S KEEP IT ON THE SUBJECT AT HAND.
WE'RE NOT IN CHARGE OF SOLVING THE PROBLEM.
WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO DEFER.
WE'RE A BUNCH OF DOGGONE PROBLEM-SOLVERS, SORRY.
MOTION ON THE TABLE TO DEFER ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO DEFER?
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WALLA.
>> I THINK THAT THERE'S A REQUEST HERE FROM THEM TO FIX THEIR SIGN PROBLEM.
BUT THEY REALLY HAVE A ZONING PROBLEM BECAUSE THE WAY THAT THEY'VE BEEN ZONED AND THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR 50 YEARS.
THEY CAN'T EVEN ADD A SUNDAY SCHOOL CLASS TO THAT BUILDING, AND IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED AND THIS IS A WAY TO FIX IT.
THERE'S A RESURRECT RIGHT NEXT TO IT.
I DON'T THINK IT'S AN UNREASONABLE REQUEST.
DEFERRING IT JUST PUSHES THE BALL DOWN THE ROAD.
IT'S A CRYING SHAME THAT A CHURCH THAT'S OWNED THIS PROPERTY 50 YEARS HAS COME, WANTS TO FIX THEIR SIGN AND THEY'RE GETTING PUSHED DOWN THE ROAD. LET'S HAVE A VOTE.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER WALLA.
ALL IN FAVOR OF DIFFERING, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND.
ALL OPPOSED TO DEFERRAL 1,2,3.
[8.C.1. 22P-036 (1306 Harbor View) Request For Designation As A Galveston Landmark. Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, Lot 57, Harborview, A Subdivision In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant And Property Owner: Wilmon D. Jones]
[NOISE]IT'S A REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION AS A GALVESTON LANDMARK.
THERE WERE 24 NOTICES SENT, THREE RETURNED, TWO IN FAVOR, AND ONE IN OPPOSITION.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING DESIGNATION OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED ADDRESS AS A GALVESTON LANDMARK.
[NOISE] CONSTRUCTED IN 1958 THE JOHN AND ALEXANDER MEOS HOUSE IS ONE OF GALVESTON'S BEST EXAMPLES OF MID-CENTURY MODERN RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE.
THE MEOS HOUSE IS LOCATED IN THE HARBOR VIEW SUBDIVISION.
HARBOR VIEW WAS ONE OF THE SEVERAL MID-20TH CENTURY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS ON RECLAIMED LAND IN THE EAST-END FLATS.
THE MEOS HOUSE WAS DESIGNED BY ARCHITECT THOMAS PRICE WHO IS GALVESTON'S BEST MODERNIST ARCHITECT.
THE LANDMARK COMMISSION VIEWED YESTERDAY AND IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.
CITY COUNCIL HAS A FINAL DECISION REGARDING REQUESTS FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION.
THE REQUEST WILL BE HEARD AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 23RD.
STAFF IS ALSO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, AND WE HAVE SOME PICTURES.
WE HAVE SOME PICTURES PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT OF THE INTERIOR COURTYARD SPACE.
[01:50:06]
THIS IS JUST THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH WHICH IS ALSO A GALVESTON LANDMARK KNOWN AS THE PAUL'S HOUSE.PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, AND PROPERTY TO THE WEST, AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
TELL ME AGAIN ABOUT LANDMARK COMMISSION, I'M SORRY.
COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR MS. GORMAN.
WELL, JUST LOOK AT YOU LEAVING US NO QUESTIONS.
[LAUGHTER] WHEN YOU'RE THAT GOOD, YOU'RE THAT GOOD, RIGHT? THANK YOU, IS THE APPLICANT IN THE AUDIENCE?
>> NO, AND HE HAS TWO, AND HE'S NOT IN THE AUDIENCE.
>> I'M SURPRISED HE DID COME TO LANDMARK COMMISSION YESTERDAY.
JUST TO KNOW THE APPLICANT IS DWAYNE JONES WHO'S THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE GALVESTON HISTORICAL FOUNDATION.
THESE ARE HIS PRIVATE HOUSES, BUT HE IS OF COURSE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
>> HE'S THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. HE'S DWAYNE JONES.
>> DWAYNE, HIS FIRST NAME WILMAN THAT HE DOESN'T OFTEN USE.
YOU MAY NOT HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT IT'S DWAYNE'S HOUSES.
>> I DID NOT. THANK YOU I APPRECIATE YOU TELLING US THAT.
I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 22P-036 AT 5:23 PM.
APPLICANT IS NOT IN THE AUDIENCE.
ANYONE HERE WANT TO SPEAK ON CASE 22P036? NO. THEN WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I WILL BRING IT BACK FOR A MOTION.
>> THANK YOU, AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER EDWARDS'S.
ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND.
>> 22P-037 PLEASE, MS. GORMAN.
[8.C.2. 22P-037 (31 Cedar Lawn Circle) Request For Designation As A Galveston Landmark. Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, Lot 75, Cedar Lawn, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant And Property Owner: Wilmon D. Jones]
>> OH, NO PROBLEM. ANOTHER VERY INTERESTING HOUSE AND A LANDMARK REQUEST.
THIS IS AT 31 CEDAR LAWN CIRCLE.
THERE WERE 27 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, THREE RETURNED, AND ALL THREE OF THOSE WERE IN FAVOR.
HISTORIC RECORDS INDICATE THAT DOCTOR WILLIAM AND FRANCIS FLETCHER HOUSE WAS STARTED IN 1926, COMPLETED IN 1927 IN THE SEAL ALONG SUBDIVISION IT WAS BELIEVED TO BE THE THIRD HOUSE BUILT THERE.
OF COURSE, AT THE TIME THE SEAL ON SUBDIVISION WAS RELATIVELY NEW, MARKETERS AND EXCLUSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR PROFESSIONALS AND THEIR FAMILIES BY WILLIAM L. MOODY THE SECOND, I BELIEVE IT WAS AND HIS BROTHER IN LAW CLARKE THOMSON.
OF COURSE, CEDAR LAWN IS KNOWN PRIMARILY FOR ITS UNUSUAL STREET LAYOUT AND IT'S VERY ECLECTIC ARCHITECTURAL STYLES.
DR. FLETCHER WAS A WORLD WAR I VETERAN WHO SERVED IN USS WISCONSIN AS PART OF THE US NAVY'S DENTAL CORE.
HE MAINTAINED A PRIVATE DENTISTRY PRACTICE AFTERWARDS FOR ABOUT 46 YEARS.
MS. FLETCHER WAS ACTIVE IN THE GALVESTON GARDEN CLUB, PILOT CLUB, AND TRINITY FISCAL CHURCH.
AFTER THE FLETCHER'S HOUSE WAS OWNED BY DR. NATHAN AND LAURIE PEPPER, THEY AT THE TIME CLAD THE STRUCTURE AND BRICK VENEER WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN REMOVED TO RESTORE THE ORIGINAL STUCK WHOLE FACADE AS YOU CAN SEE.
THE HOUSE IS HIGHLY USUAL IN GALVESTON FOR A SPANISH COLONIAL STYLE WHICH IS KNOWN IN THE GALVESTON DAILY NEWS ARTICLE OF THE DAY.
PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED IN HISTORIC DISTRICT IS ELIGIBLE FOR FINANCIAL INCENTIVE FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES FOR NEW GALVESTON LANDMARKS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST, A LANDMARK COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL REQUEST ON OTHER JUNE 6 MEETING, OF COURSE, COUNCIL WILL HEAR THE REQUEST AT THEIR JUNE 23RD MEETING, AND OF COURSE, WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS HERE.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OF COURSE CURRENTLY UNDERGOING RENOVATIONS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
HERE'S SOME MORE PHOTOS OF THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR OF THE HOUSE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
HERE SOME OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES IN THE GENERAL VICINITY.
IT'S GENERALLY TO THE I BELIEVE THE EAST, THE SOUTH, AND THE NORTHWEST BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE STREETS RUN IT'S ODD.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> I JUST LOVE THIS WAS THE MOST INTERESTING LITTLE HOUSE.
VERY UNUSUAL. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 22-037.
ANYONE WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS?
[01:55:01]
THEN WE WILL ALSO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 05:26 PM.I WILL BRING IT BACK FOR A MOTION.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BROWN, DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> OKAY. A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY.
ALL IN FAVOR OF, OH, I SHOULD HAVE ASKED FOR DISCUSSION. NO DISCUSSION.
ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND, AND THAT'S UNANIMOUS.
NOW, THE MOMENT WE'VE ALL BEEN WAITING FOR.
I'VE LOST THE SPOT ON MY AGENDA.
[8.D.1. 22PA-005 Request To Amend Galveston Municipal Code Chapter 19, Article III, Section 19-51 – Definitions; Section Through 19-52 – Permit Required; Section 19-53 – Procedure For Approval And Applicable Standards; And Section 19-56 – Exceptions And Exemptions Applicant: City Of Galveston]
THE AGENDA ITEM 22PA-005, DANIEL.>> [LAUGHTER] THIS IS GOING TO BE, LET ME SEE.
LET ME JUST READ THE FORMAL, "TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST TO MANAGE GALVESTON MUNICIPAL COURT CHAPTER 19, ARTICLE 3, SECTIONS 19 THROUGH 51 DEFINITIONS.
SECTION 9252 PERMIT REQUIRED IN 1953 PROCEDURES FOR APPROVAL AMPLE STANDARDS.
IN SECTION 19.56 EXCEPTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS." THIS OF COURSE IS REGARDING THE LONG GOING AND ONGOING FOR NOW EFFORT TO RECOMMEND CHANGES TO OUR CONCESSION REGULATIONS, WHICH WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF WORKSHOPS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS ON.
THIS WILL BE TO MAKE A MOTION ON TAKING THIS I BELIEVE TO COUNSEL AT SOME POINT IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
DID I MISS ANYTHING KATHERINE? IS THAT PRETTY MUCH IT.
>> ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? DANIEL? WE MADE SOME CHANGES DURING A FEW LITTLE TWEAKS TO THIS DURING OUR WORKSHOP THAT NEED TO BE MAYBE BRIEFLY OUTLINED SO THAT WE CAN INCORPORATE THEM IN OUR MOTION.
>> I BELIEVE SO. I DISCUSS WITH DONNA BRIEFLY AFTER THE WORKSHOP.
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU WOULD MAKE A MOTION ENCOMPASSING THOSE CHANGES AND DISCUSSING VOTE JUST LIKE ANY OTHER CASE.
>> HOW WOULD THAT MOTION NEED TO BE WORDED, DONNA?
>> WELL, I THINK WHATEVER CHANGES OR WHATEVER YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE, BECAUSE REMEMBER, IT'S GOING TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL.
IF YOU'RE RECOMMENDING AND I'M PARAPHRASING, THAT THE ORDINANCE BE ADOPTED EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, HOWEVER, ALLOWING FOR GRANDFATHERING THROUGH DECEMBER 31ST OF THOSE.
I MEAN, I'LL WORD IT IN THE ORDINANCE CLEARLY, BUT I THINK WE CAN GET THE GIST OF WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO CITY COUNCIL.
>> OKAY AND WE DIDN'T MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGES.
WE DIDN'T MAKE ANY CHANGES FOR FOOD TRUCK PARKS.
WE DIDN'T MAKE ANY CHANGES FOR SEATING.
THE ONLY TWEAKS WE MADE HAD TO DO WITH EFFECTIVE DATES IS AM I REMEMBERING THAT CORRECTLY?
>> LET'S OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:30.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, COMMISSIONERS? LET'S OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:30 ON 22 PA-005.
WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THAT ISSUE? THEN WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 22PA-005, AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION WHICH WILL INCORPORATE THAT.
I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO ACCEPT 22 PA-005 AS PROPOSED BY STAFF WITH AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE, ALLOWING FOR GRANDFATHERING THROUGH 1231 OF EXISTING PERMITS AS DISCUSSED DURING OUR WORKSHOP EARLIER TODAY.
[02:00:10]
>> IT'D BE EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UPON APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL.
>> THIS IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION? YES. YES.
>> EXISTING PERMITS GRANDFATHERED UNTIL THE 1ST OF JANUARY 2023.
>> 2022. NEW PERMITS CONFORM TO THE NEW ORDINANCE?
>> DONNA WOULD WORD IT CORRECTLY GOT TO GO TO COUNCIL.
LEGAL EAGLE WILL GET IT CORRECTLY.
>> DO WE HAVE TO POINT OUT OR JUST SO IT DOESN'T GET MISSED, THAT THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO REVIEW THE NUMBER OF SEATS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT OR YOU JUST GOING TO REMEMBER IT, JOHN, I GUESS. [LAUGHTER]
>> I MEAN, I'LL GO OVER STUFF WITH THE COUNCIL.
>> WE'VE GOT A PROPOSED MOTION ON THE, HOLD ON.
HOLD ON. HANG ON. WE'VE GOT IT.
CAN WE DO THIS DURING DISCUSSION? WE'VE GOT A PROPOSED MOTION ON THE TABLE.
CAN WE GET IT? WE GOT EMOTION GOING. CAN WE GET A SECOND?
>> WE'VE GOT A SECOND FROM RUSTIE.
WE'VE GOT A MOTION IN A SECOND NOW WE'VE GOT DISCUSSION. LET'S GO.
>> I GUESS WHAT I WOULD SAY IS I CAN BRING UP SOME HIGHLIGHTS WITHIN OUR WORKSHOP ON SOME OF THE THINGS WE DISCUSSED.
>> YEAH, THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE.
>> ANY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS CAN COME TO WORKSHOP.
IF YOU CAN COME TO CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP.
>> YOU CAN COME TO THE WORKSHOP BUT YOU CAN'T SPEAK.
>> YOU CAN COME TO OUR MEETING AND WE'LL GIVE YOU THREE MINUTES.
>> I DON'T KNOW CAN YOU GET THREE MINUTES? [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER]
>> ANYMORE DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM BEFORE WE CALL THE VOTE?
>> IS THAT SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY WANTED TO DO FOR THE COMMISSION TO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE PRESENT TO CITY COUNCIL I MEAN.
>> DANIEL AND I HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT.
DANIEL WILL PRESENT A WORKSHOP AND I'LL BE THERE IF HE WANTS ME TO BE THERE, I'LL BE THERE.
YOU STILL ONLY BE THERE IN YOUR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, NOT REPRESENTING THE COMMISSION.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMISSION AND WHAT THEY HAVE DONE, THEN THAT NEEDS TO BE A COMMISSION VOTE.
>> THE CHAIR CAN REPRESENT THE COMMISSION.
>> WITHOUT AOK OF THE COMMISSIONERS?
>> ALL RIGHT. THEN I STAND CORRECTED.
>> I THOUGHT THE CHAIR OR THE VICE CHAIR COULD ALWAYS REPRESENT THE COMMISSION WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE COMMISSION.
THOUGHT IT WAS IN THE BYLAWS, BUT WE'RE THE ONLY TWO WHO CAN WITHOUT A VOTE.
>> I DON'T THINK OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE THAT. [LAUGHTER].
>> YEAH. WE CAN GO AND JUST REPRESENT A WAY.
[LAUGHTER] DISCUSSION IS OVER.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF LETTING GO AND SENDING THIS FORWARD, ALL IN FAVOR OF SENDING 22 PA-005 TO COUNSEL PLEASE SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND.
DANIEL. [APPLAUSE] ANY DISCUSSION ITEMS? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING KATHERINE?
>> I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A MINUTE TO RECOGNIZE DANIEL'S HARD WORK ON THIS PROJECT.
[APPLAUSE] ALWAYS BEEN OUR SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT ON CONCESSIONS AND HIS WORK HAS BEEN IN KNOWLEDGE HAS BEEN INVALUABLE.
I'D LIKE TO THANK THE COMMISSION FOR ALL OF YOUR TIME AND EFFORTS WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIAL.
>> COULD NOT DO IT WITHOUT HIM. THANK YOU.
HE'S THE ONE. DANIEL IS THE MAN.
>> DANIEL, HOW MANY FOOD TRUCKS DID YOU GO AND EAT AT IN THE COURSE OF THIS?
>> I HAVE BEEN TO A FEW [LAUGHTER].
>> AFTER WE ADJOURN, STEPHEN HAS ONE FOR US.
ANYONE ELSE DISCUSSION ITEMS. NOTHING FURTHER. WE'RE ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.