[00:00:02]
[1. Call Meeting To Order]
WE'VE TAKEN ATTENDANCE AND EVERYONE, ALL THE COMMISSIONERS ARE IN ATTENDANCE.WE HAVE COMMISSIONER FINKLEA JOINING US BY ZOOM FROM THE PUBLISH LOCATION AND WE ARE HAPPY TO HAVE WITH US TODAY. OH, EXCUSE ME, MS. GORMAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TELL US WHO WE HAVE WITH US FROM THE STAFF SIDE, PLEASE, MA'AM? OKAY, WE HAVE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TIM TIETJENS, MYSELF, CATHERINE GORMAN, THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR PETE MILBURN, INTERIM COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGER RUSSELL COLE, PLANNING TECH PATRICK COLLINS AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY DONNA FAIRWEATHER.
[3. Introduction Of New Commissioner]
WE HAVE TODAY OUR NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONER, MS. MARY JAN LANTZ, AND I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME YOU AND ASK YOU TO TELL US JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOURSELF, PLEASE.I'VE LIVED ON THE ISLAND FOR ALMOST 23 YEARS.
I LIVED ON THE WEST END FOR 18 YEARS BEFORE WE MOVED TO AVENUE R, CLOSE TO GALVESTON COLLEGE.
SO I'M GLAD TO BE HERE, AND I'M GLAD TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION.
AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING YOU HERE.
AND THANK YOU FOR AGREEING TO SERVE.
COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST TODAY? SEEING NONE WE'LL MOVE ON.
[5. Remarks From The Chairperson ]
AND NEXT, WE'RE ON REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRPERSON.CITY COUNCIL CHOSE EACH OF YOU FROM A COMPETITIVE APPLICANT POOL.
IN DOING THAT, THEY TRUSTED THAT YOU COULD MAKE HARD DECISIONS.
IN SOME INSTANCES, WE ARE A RECOMMENDING BODY, BUT IN OTHERS WE ARE THE FINAL DECISION MAKERS.
WE'VE ALL HEARD THE SOB STORIES WHEN PEOPLE COME BEFORE US.
I ASK THAT YOU PLEASE THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT EVERY ONE AFFECTED BEFORE GRANTING EXCEPTIONS, NOT JUST ABOUT THE PERSON STANDING BEFORE US.
PLEASE DON'T LET ONE PERSON'S EXCEPTION BECOME A PROBLEM FOR A HOST OF OTHER CITIZENS WHO AREN'T NECESSARILY STANDING HERE AT THAT MOMENT.
NEXT, WE ALL COMMITTED TO ATTEND AT LEAST 75% OF COMMISSION MEETINGS IN A CALENDAR YEAR.
SOMETIMES THINGS HAPPEN THAT WE CAN'T CONTROL.
BUT PLEASE REMEMBER THAT STAFF, YOUR FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND COUNCIL ARE COUNTING ON YOU.
AND MOST OF ALL, THE PUBLIC IS COUNTING ON YOU TO BE HERE TO MAKE A DECISION ON THEIR CASES.
PLAN ACCORDINGLY, AND KNOW THAT IF YOUR ATTENDANCE DROPS BELOW 75%, THE CHAIR OF THIS COMMISSION IS REQUIRED BY CITY ORDINANCE TO INFORM THE CITY SECRETARY OF THAT, AND SHE IN TURN WILL INFORM THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FOR ACTION.
THAT WILL ALLOW YOU TO GIVE EACH CASE MORE THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION.
CALL STAFF IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING.
THEY WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.
TRUST ME, THEY ARE VERY, VERY PATIENT.
BUT I'VE DECIDED THAT DART BOARD MUST ACTUALLY BE AT RUSTY'S OFFICE.
[LAUGHTER] THANKS FOR PUTTING UP WITH ME THESE LAST TWO YEARS.
NOW LET'S ELECT MY REPLACEMENT.
YOU DO AN AWESOME JOB OF RUNNING OUR MEETINGS.
THANK YOU. AND AS MUCH AS YOU KNOW, MOMS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT.
[00:05:05]
BUT THANK YOU, JEFFREY.IT DID HURT. IT WAS A LITTLE PAINFUL, BUT THANK YOU, JEFFREY.
YOU'VE DONE AN OUTSTANDING JOB AS CHAIR.
CATHERINE, WE HAVE THE PROCEDURES UP FOR OUR ELECTION.
[6. Election Of Chairperson And Vice-Chairperson]
LET'S MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX, ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON.THE CHAIR SHALL OPEN NOMINATIONS FROM THE FLOOR.
ANY MEMBER CAN BRING FORTH A NOMINATION.
A MEMBER CAN DECLINE THE NOMINATION DURING THE NOMINATING PROCESS.
A NOMINATION DOES NOT NEED A SECOND.
AFTER EACH NOMINATION THE CHAIR ASKS IF THE MEMBERS HAVE ANY FURTHER NOMINATIONS.
SO, LET'S OPEN THE NOMINATIONS.
ARE THERE NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR, MR. PENA? COMMISSIONER PENA, EXCUSE YOU THANK YOU.
I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE DAVID FINKLEA FOR CHAIR.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? I'M GOING TO ASK THAT THREE TIMES IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURES.
ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? FURTHER NOMINATIONS? FURTHER NOMINATIONS? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
WE CAN CLOSE NOMINATIONS BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
HEARING NO FURTHER NOMINATIONS, I'LL CLOSE THE NOMINATIONS.
THANK YOU. I'LL CALL FOR A MOTION FOR THE ELECTION.
IS THERE A MOTION TO CALL THE ELECTION FOR CHAIR? YES, SIR. I MOVE WE CONTINUE ON WITH THE ELECTION OF THE CHAIR.
THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT? I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER WALLA.
THANK YOU. A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY.
A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER WALLA.
AND THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS FOR ELECTION OF COMMISSIONER FINKLEA AS CHAIR OF PLANNING COMMISSION.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND.
YES DAVID. MR. FINKLEA HAS VOTED. OH, YOU KNOW WHAT I DIDN'T DO? I DID NOT ASK COMMISSIONER FINKLEA IF HE WAS WILLING TO SERVE.
I SURE HOPE YOU'RE WILLING TO SERVE COMMISSIONER FINKLEA.
SINCE IT'S IN THE CAN, THEN YOU ARE NOW CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION, COMMISSIONER FINKLEA, WHICH MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU CANNOT DO REMOTELY.
SO NOW WE WOULD PASS THE CHAIR.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S A RESTRICTION ON IT.
IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION FROM CITY SECRETARY THAT THE CHAIR BE IN THE ROOM.
BUT IT'S NOT A PROHIBITION, I DON'T THINK.
VICE CHAIR CONDUCT THE MEETING BECAUSE THEY CAN SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE ROOM.
SO IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU, CHAIR FINKLEA, THEN WE WILL HAVE THE NEW VICE CHAIR CONDUCT THE MEETING. IS THAT FINE WITH YOU, SIR? YES. YES. HE'S GIVING THAT A YES.
SO WE WOULD HAVE THE VICE CHAIR CONDUCT THE MEETING FROM HERE ON OUT, AND I WILL STEP ASIDE.
EXCEPT FOR OUR VICE CHAIR IS NO LONGER IN THE SEAT, SO WE WOULD HAVE THE SENIOR MOST COMMISSIONER CONDUCT THE MEETING FROM HERE. AND GUESS WHO THAT IS? IT'S ME.
[LAUGHTER] SO WE WILL CONTINUE ON AND WE WILL ELECT A VICE CHAIR WHO WILL THEN TAKE OVER.
I'M NOW ACCEPTING NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR.
DO I HAVE ANY NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR? I SEE YOUR HAND UP CHAIR FINKLEA.
YES, I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE STEVEN PENA AS VICE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
OKAY. I HAVE ONE NOMINATION FOR STEVEN PENA FOR VICE CHAIR.
DO I HAVE OTHER NOMINATIONS? THAT WAS ONCE.
ANY FURTHER NOMINATIONS? THAT'S TWICE.
WITHOUT ANY FURTHER NOMINATIONS, I'M GOING TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS.
HEARING NO OBJECTION WE'LL CLOSE THE NOMINATIONS.
I NEED TO HAVE A MOTION NOW TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION? OH, SORRY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, REJONE.
ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE, COMMISSIONER PENA? OKAY, THANK YOU. GOSH, THANK YOU, REJONE.
I KNOW I'M HAVING ONE OF, I'M SO ANXIOUS TO GET OUT OF THIS SEAT.
OKAY, SO NOW I NEED TO HAVE A MOTION TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION.
[00:10:03]
YES, COMMISSIONER EDWARDS.I MOTION THAT WE CONDUCT THE ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR.
OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR.
OKAY, I HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER LANCE.
I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND NOW WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE'LL CONDUCT THE ELECTION.
SO NOW WE WILL HAVE EVERYONE IN FAVOR OF ELECTING STEVEN PENA AS VICE CHAIR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
AND COME ON DOWN, COMMISSIONER, VICE CHAIR PENA.
AND I WASN'T QUITE PREPARED FOR THIS.
ALL RIGHT, WELL, THIS IS GOING TO BE A LEARNING JOURNEY FOR ALL OF US TODAY.
ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE, NEXT WE HAVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
[7. Approval Of Minutes]
HAS EVERYBODY GONE THROUGH AND IS THERE ANY OTHER CORRECTIONS OR ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE? SEEING NONE, IS THERE A MOTION? NO MOTION. NO MOTION? ACCEPT. WE'RE READY TO ACCEPT.LET'S MOVE THEM INTO RECORD THEN, NEXT, ANY PUBLIC COMMENT FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS TODAY? ANYBODY ON THIS SIDE? THIS SIDE? NO. SEEING NONE, LET'S MOVE INTO NEW BUSINESS.
FIRST FIRST, LET'S START WITH CASE.
[9.A.2. 22P-064 (Avenue M ½ Between 27th And 28th Streets) Request For An Abandonment Of Approximately 20,909 Square-Feet Of Avenue M ½ Right-Of-Way. Adjacent Properties Are Legally Described As: M. B. Menard Survey (3000-0), Southeast Block 15, Galveston Outlots; And M. B. Menard Survey (1000-0), Northeast Block 15, Galveston Outlots. Applicant: Anthony Brown, President, Board Of Trustees Adjacent Property Owner: Galveston Independent School District Easement Holder: City Of Galveston]
YES, LET'S MOVE ON TO 22P-064, PLEASE.THE REQUEST IS FOR ABANDONMENT.
THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS.
THERE WERE 35 NOTICES SENT, ZERO RETURNED.
THE SUMMARY. THE APPLICANT AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ARE REQUESTING AN ABANDONMENT OF THIS SECTION OF AVENUE M 1/2 RIGHT OF WAY BETWEEN 27TH AND, I'M SORRY, 27TH AND 28TH STREETS.
KERRVILLE STADIUM IS CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED ON THIS PORTION OF AVENUE M 1/2.
AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE STADIUM HAS CONSTRUCTED ON TOP OF IT.
SO WE WERE DOING SOME RESEARCH.
SO THAT WOULD EXPLAIN PERHAPS WHY THERE WAS NO ABANDONMENT NEEDED AT THAT TIME.
SO THE RIGHT OF WAY HAS NOT BEEN IN USE SINCE AT LEAST BEFORE 1912.
CONFORMANCE WITH THE CRITERIA, STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUEST GENERALLY CONFORMS TO THE CRITERIA DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE RIGHT OF WAY HAS NOT BEEN IN USE FOR EVEN DECADES BEFORE THE STADIUM WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE 1940S.
THERE WILL NOT BE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO THE TRAFFIC FLOW OR PUBLIC SAFETY AND THERE IS A DEMONSTRATED COMMUNITY BENEFIT IN PROVIDING A NEW FACILITY FOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOL STADIUM. THE STREET SEGMENT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE KEMPNER PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE A POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE HISTORIC DISTRICT BY THE TEXAS HISTORIC COMMISSION.
THERE IS A PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A NEW STRUCTURE WITHIN THE ORIGINAL RIGHT OF WAY.
AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A CHANGE TO THE EXISTING CONDITION.
PLEASE NOTE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INFORMATION IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.
THE APPLICANT SHALL REPLAT THE ABANDONED RIGHT OF WAY NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 27TH OF 2023, AND THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF GALVESTON OF ANY OBJECTIONS FROM CENTERPOINT ENERGY AND RESOLVE SUCH OBJECTIONS.
ITEMS TWO THROUGH THREE ARE STANDARD.
GIVE ME JUST A MINUTE TO PULL THOSE UP.
[00:15:29]
OKAY, SO HERE'S THE SUBJECT SITE.THIS PORTION OF M 1/2 THAT HAS THE STADIUM CONSTRUCTED ON IT.
THIS IS THE SURVEY PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING THE BOUNDARIES OF AVENUE M 1/2 THERE.
AND THEN HERE ARE SOME CLIPS OF THE SANBORN MAPS.
THE TOP ONE IS FROM 1912 SHOWING THAT THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN M 1/2.
AND AT THAT TIME IT'S PARTIALLY THIS BALLPARK AND PARTIALLY A PRIVATE RESIDENCE.
AND THEN BY 1947, IT'S ENTIRELY TAKEN UP BY A BALLPARK.
AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
I FOUND THAT HISTORY VERY ENLIGHTENING TO HEAR ABOUT OF WHY IT WAS NOT ABANDONED AND HOW IT TRANSPIRED TO BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FOOTBALL FIELD.
WE WERE SURPRISED WHEN WE DISCOVERED IT.
AND I'LL JUST NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED ONE NOTIFICATION AND THAT WAS IN OPPOSITION.
ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AMONGST THE COMMISSION? COMMISSIONER HILL.
[LAUGHTER] DEMOTED AGAIN? YES. MS. GORMAN, WERE THERE ANY REASONS GIVEN ON THE OPPOSITION? THERE'S NOTHING NOTED.
OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S IT FOR ME.
ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY.
HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING FURTHER ON THAT, OR IS THAT REALLY A CONSIDERATION WE NEED TO WORRY ABOUT? NO, IT'S A SEPARATE REVIEW.
AND IF IT IS, I'LL MAKE SURE THE APPLICANT'S AWARE OF THAT.
COUNCILMEMBER LISTOWSKI. WE DIDN'T GET A SURVEY OR ANYTHING ON THE PROPERTY.
SO JUST CHECKING ON THE 28TH STREET SIDE, WAS THAT ABANDONED AT ONE TIME? 28TH STREET HAS VARIED IN WIDTH IN THE PAST AND WE ARE WORKING WITH THE APPLICANTS TO DO AN APPROVAL TO BUILD THE STADIUM WITHIN THE SAME FOOTPRINT? SO THAT, I DON'T KNOW THE FORM OF THAT.
IT MIGHT BE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, RIGHT OF WAY AGREEMENT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
WHY DO AN ABANDONMENT OF ONE AND BUILD BUILD ON PART OF ANOTHER RIGHT OF WAY? YOU CAN'T DO A PARTIAL ABANDONMENT.
SO WE'D HAVE TO DO AN ENTIRE ABANDONMENT OF 28TH STREET.
AND THERE ARE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 28TH STREET FROM THE STADIUM.
YOU CAN'T DO A PARTIAL ABANDONMENT? LEGALLY.
[LAUGHTER] WHAT'S GOING ON? OKAY, WELL, MAYBE I'LL HAVE SOME MORE QUESTIONS WHEN TONY GETS UP HERE.
ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE.
OH, I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONER FINKLEA.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.
SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE, ONE OF THE STANDARD CONDITIONS IS THAT THE APPLICANT PAY FOR AN OPINION LETTER, AND THE OTHER ONE IS THAT THEY PAY FOR THE VALUE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY AS DETERMINED BY THE APPRAISER.
WHY SHOULD THE ISD, I'M SORRY, VICE VERSA? IS THERE ANY WAY, I JUST FIND IT INTERESTING THAT THE GALVESTON ISD IS GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT ABANDONMENT GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE CITY HAD OPERATED IT PREVIOUSLY WITH NO ISSUE.
THAT'S ANOTHER ITEM THAT'S GOVERNED BY STATE LAW THAT IT IS REQUIRED THAT WHOEVER IS PURCHASING IT HAS TO PAY THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. YEAH, THAT DADGUM LAW.
CHAIRMAN FINKLEA, I DO HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD TO THAT.
AND CATHERINE IS RIGHT THAT IN NORMAL STANDARD OPERATIONAL ABANDONMENTS, WHEN THERE'S PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS ON BOTH SIDES, IT'S ABANDONED TO A CENTER LINE INTEREST, THE PARTIES ON EACH SIDE.
[00:20:05]
THIS CASE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS THE PROPERTY ON BOTH SIDES AND IN A SECTION OF CHAPTER 2 72 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, THE CITY IS ABLE TO CONVEY AT LESS THAN FAIR MARKET VALUE.WE JUST CAN'T, YOU KNOW, DELVE INTO THAT.
BUT THAT WAS CHANGED TO A MORE BROAD AND GENERAL CONTEXT.
I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT SESSION THAT HAPPENED.
IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO READ ANY OF THOSE CRITERIA, I CAN.
TIM, SO KIND OF FOLLOWING UP ON THAT, WOULD IT BE BENEFICIAL OR SUPPORTIVE OF THIS CASE FOR THE COMMISSION TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PROPERTY BE CONVEYED AT LESS THAN MARKET VALUE AS A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL? SO THAT GOES BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ? I THINK WE WOULD BRING THAT AS STAFF TO CITY COUNCIL FOR.
THANKS. THEN WE DON'T NEED TO DO ANYTHING [INAUDIBLE] FOR THAT.
OH, I'M SORRY. TIM TIETJENS, THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
AND I WOULD SAY, JUST IN TERMS OF ANY MOTION, THAT THE MOTION BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW.
SO THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR STATE AND CITY LAW, SO THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR ANY CHANGES AS NEEDED TO ADDRESS ANY FUNDING OR APPRAISAL ISSUES AS WELL AS IF IT IS STILL NEEDED, THE CITY WILL BE ABLE TO GO FORWARD WITH THAT.
SO THAT'S THE ONLY CAVEAT THAT I WOULD SAY TOWARDS ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY, IS IS THAT NECESSARY? FOR THIS MOTION BECAUSE IF THE MOTION IS TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS PREVIOUSLY WRITTEN OUT WITHOUT THE INFORMATION THAT WE FOUND REGARDING THE ABILITY OF A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION TO SELL, DONATE, HOWEVER, DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF AN APPRAISAL FACTOR TO ANOTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION.
SO IF YOU JUST ADD THAT LITTLE CAVEAT TO ANY MOTION, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE RECOMMENDATION.
DO WE NEED TO ADD IT AS AN AMENDMENT? NO, WE DON'T NEED A MOTION TO AMEND IT? NO.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF SEEING NONE, LET'S GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP PUBLIC HEARING.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 22P-064 IS OPEN.
IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE, IF YOU'LL STEP FORWARD.
PLEASE SIGN IN AND STATE YOUR NAME.
HERE WE GO. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW ME, MY NAME IS TONY BROWN.
I LIVE AT 5127 DENVER DRIVE HERE IN GALVESTON.
BUT I'M HERE IN MY CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE GALVESTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR WHOM I PREPARED THE APPLICATION. AND WE HAVE THE NARRATIVE IN THERE.
THE STADIUM, I PUT AT LEAST 75 YEARS OLD.
IT SOUNDS LIKE IT MAY BE A LITTLE OLDER THAN THAT, AND A BALLPARK BEFORE THAT, BUT WE HAVE A CONTRACTOR THAT WE'VE RETAINED ON A DESIGN BUILD BASIS IN CONTRAST TO OUR OTHER PROJECTS.
SO WE APPRECIATE MR. TIETJENS AND HIS STAFF WORKING WITH US TO GET US WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO QUICKLY, AND WE GOT IT IN SO THAT WE CAN GET IT TO COUNCIL.
AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, ON THE 28TH STREET PIECE, WE HAVE TO DO SOME SORT OF LICENSE TO USE MAYBE OR INTERLOCAL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO ADDRESS HOW WE HANDLE THAT SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE IN THAT SPACE AS OPPOSED, BECAUSE AS WAS SAID, UNDER STATE LAW, YOU CAN'T PARTIALLY ABANDON THE RIGHT OF WAY, APPARENTLY.
[LAUGHTER] AND SO AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW AND WE'LL
[00:25:08]
RECALL IN MAY, WE SUBMITTED FIVE BOND PROPOSITIONS, THE DISTRICT DID, TO THE VOTERS, AND THEY WERE ALL APPROVED AND BY SIGNIFICANT MAJORITIES. AND WE'RE VERY THANKFUL FOR THAT AND THE COMMUNITY'S COMMITMENT TO GOOD SCHOOLS HERE IN GALVESTON.AND SO THIS IS JUST ONE PIECE OF IT.
AND SO WE'LL BE COMING WITH MORE.
BUT AT THIS POINT, WE ARE REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THIS SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD, SUBMIT OUR PLANS AND EVERYTHING TO STAFF AND GET STARTED AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN. ALL RIGHT.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. BROWN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? I JUST HAVE A COMMENT.
I MEAN, THERE'S SOME EXCITING STUFF GOING ON OVER THERE.
IT TAKES A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT AND VOLUNTEERING.
APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH RUSTY.
AND APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU WORKING FOR THE SAME WAGE.
THANK YOU, MR. BROWN. LET'S GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC COMMENT AT 3;59 OR 3:54 P.M.
IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? YES. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
SIGN IN YOUR NAME AND THEN STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE.
THANK YOU. SO YOU'LL HAVE 3 MINUTES TO SPEAK.
THANK YOU. MY NAME IS SHIRLEY FANUIEL.
I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR 1316 27TH STREET.
AND MY COMMENT IS ACTUALLY A QUESTION BECAUSE AS I'M STUDYING YOUR MATH, I GOT THE NOTICE ON SATURDAY, SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING ABANDONED.
WHERE IS THE PROPERTY? BUT I CAN ADDRESS THAT AS WELL.
I'M SORRY. THIS IS A PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION.
YES. IT'S PART OF THE STADIUM ALREADY, IS IT NOT? THIS IS PUBLIC COMMENTS SECTION, MA'AM.
I'M SORRY. WE CAN'T ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
YES, MR. TIETJENS CAN MEET YOU EITHER AFTER THE MEETING OR HERE IN THE IN THE BACK AND HELP REVIEW.
SO MY QUESTION IS, DOES THIS PROPERTY BELONG TO INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS? IT HAS BEEN USED BY GISD FOR DECADES.
HOWEVER, IN LIGHT OF THE NEW IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ALONG WITH THE SCHOOL, IT WAS DISCOVERED AFTER THE FACT THAT THAT PORTION WASN'T OFFICIALLY ABANDONED OR GIVEN TO THE SCHOOL.
NOW WE'RE JUST BRINGING EVERYTHING TOGETHER SO IT'S COHESIVE AND CONSISTENT AND IN LINE.
THAT PARTICULAR PORTION DOES NOT BELONG TO ANY OTHER RESIDENTIAL PERSON OR OWNER THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE BROUHAHA WAS ABOUT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'M SORRY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? P.M. BRING IT FOR A MOTION.
YES. I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 22P-064, THE REQUEST FOR AN ABANDONMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 20,000 SQUARE FEET OF AVENUE M 1/2 RIGHT AWAY.
I'M SORRY. I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY.
SORRY. COMMISSIONER WALLA, IS THERE A SECOND?
[00:30:01]
SECOND. OK, COMMISSIONER HILL SECONDS THAT.THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? GO AHEAD. YES. SO ON A LITTLE EDUCATION, ON PARTIAL ABANDONMENT.
WELL, SO YOU CANNOT ABANDON A PROPERTY, A RIGHT OF WAY, PARTIALLY FROM ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER.
BUT YOU CAN ABANDON IT THE LENGTHWISE OF IT ? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
THE STATE ALLOWS AN ABANDONMENT TO THE CENTERLINE INTEREST AGAIN.
BUT IRREGARDLESS OF WHO TAKES THE PROPERTY, IT'S NOT ALLOWED TO BE ABANDONED FROM I GUESS LATERALLY ACROSS THE SHORT PART OF THE RIGHT OF WAY.
BUT SIDE TO SIDE FROM THE THE PARTS OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, BUT PRIVATE PROPERTY TYPICALLY ARE THE PARTS THAT YOU CAN'T SEGREGATE OUT BECAUSE THEN YOU DON'T HAVE A FULL RIGHT OF AWAY ANYMORE, IF IT WERE SOMEHOW NECESSARY.
WHAT IF IT WASN'T NECESSARY? I MEAN, WHAT IF IT WAS PLATTED AND WAS PLATTEDWRONG AND THEY WANTED TO REDEFINE THOSE BOUNDARIES? HOW WOULD YOU REDEFINE THE BOUNDARIES? I THINK YOU DO IT THROUGH A FULL ABANDONMENT AND THEN ATTACH THE RESIDUALS TO THE ADJACENT TRACKS.
A FULL ABANDONMENT, AND THEN A REPLAT OF THE PROPERTY? YES. THAT SEEMS THAT SEEMS KIND OF.
I THINK WE NEED TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC AS TO THE SITUATION.
BUT, WITH ALL THAT SAID AND DONE, THAT'S REALLY NOT A PART OF THIS CASE.
IT'S NOT BUT IT IS TIED TO THIS CASE BECAUSE, I MEAN, I HATE TO, IT IS STILL VERY CLOUDY BECAUSE NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK AND DO A TEMPORARY LICENSE TO USE OR ABANDON PART OF THE PROPERTY.
WE'RE GOING TO DO TEMPORARY LICENSE TO USE.
I WOULD MAKE A SUGGESTION THAT THAT PART OF THE SITUATION IS NOT BEFORE THIS COMMISSION.
SO THE COMMISSION CAN ONLY DISCUSS AND RULE ON WHAT'S BEING BROUGHT BEFORE THEM.
THE OTHER ASPECT THAT WE KIND OF TOUCHED BASED ON PERIPHERALLY, I'LL BE SPEAKING WITH GISD REGARDING THE BEST WAY TO GO ABOUT THAT. IT MAY BE AN INTERLOCAL, IT MAY BE AN [INAUDIBLE], BUT THAT'S REALLY NOT A PART OF WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW.
BUT PART OF THAT 28TH STREET RIGHT OF WAY ALSO HAS TO DO WITH THIS RIGHT OF WAY.
I MEAN, IF WE EXTENDED THIS RIGHT AWAY, FURTHER DOWN, IT COULD PERTAIN TO THIS ISSUE IN FRONT OF US.
SO. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.
WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 28TH STREET.
SO WHERE DO RIGHT OF WAYS STOP AND START? WHERE DOES THE 28TH STREET RIGHT OF WAY AND THE M 1/2 RIGHT OF WAY STOP AND START WITHIN THE INTERSECTION? DO YOU HAVE TO, YOU SAID WE CAN ABANDON RIGHT OF WAYS LATERALLY FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM.
SO IF WE'RE ABANDONING THE M 1/2 RIGHT OF WAY AND YOU GET TO THIS INTERSECTION, DO YOU HAVE TO ABANDON IT AT THE EAST SIDE OF THAT INTERSECTION? I MEAN, SO IT DOES PERTAIN TO THIS CASE.
FOR WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE IN THIS CASE, I WOULD SAY THE EASTERN END, THE EASTERN BLUE LINE SHOULD PROBABLY BE THE EDGE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, BECAUSE THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE 28TH WESTERN EDGE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY.
SO IF WE WERE TO ABANDON SOMETHING FURTHER OUT, WHICH I DON'T, YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE POSSIBLE WE'D HAVE TO LOOK FURTHER IN STATE LAW AND MAYBE EVEN GET AN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION. BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY DO GISD ANY GOOD JUST TO HAVE THAT ONE LITTLE SORT OF PENINSULA COMING OUT WHEN THE REST OF IT HAS TO.
[00:35:02]
GISD, HERE'S THE PROPERTY, IT'S YOUR PROPERTY NOW.? HEN HAVE THIS KIND OF CLOUT ON THE TITLE OF THE PROPERTY THAT THERE'S A LICENSE TO USE THAT THEY'RE BUILDING ON, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE A REAL KIND OF BACKWARDS WAY TO WORK WITHIN THE LAW WHEN IT COULD BE CLEAR CUT IF YOU JUST DEEDED THEM THAT PROPERTY. AND I UNDERSTAND WE'RE TRYING TO GET AROUND THE TEXAS LAW ON RIGHT AWAY AMENDMENTS.BUT THERE'S GOT TO BE ANOTHER WAY, IT SEEMS LIKE.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE INVESTIGATING RIGHT NOW.
OKAY. THAT'S ULTIMATELY WHAT WE'RE SAYING, IS THAT WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT THE BEST WAY TO DO IT.
I'LL STOP THERE. [LAUGHTER] ALL RIGHTY.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL A VOTE.
I DON'T DO THAT. THAT'S NOT ON THIS PAPER [LAUGHTER].
YOU COULD JUST SAY ALL IN FAVOR.
ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF CASE 22P-064 PLEASE INDICATE BY RAISING YOUR HANDS.
ALL RIGHT. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S UNANIMOUS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. BROWN. LOOK FORWARD TO.
[9.B.1. 22P-071 (13009 John Reynolds) Request For Beachfront Construction Certificate And Dune Protection Permit To Include Proposed Construction Of Proposed Addition To A Preexisting Single-Family Structure. Property Is Legally Described As Abstract 121, Hall & Jones Survey Lot 8, Bermuda Beach Section 3. Applicant: G E Weldon Construction Inc. Property Owner: Don Fullen]
LET'S MOVE ON TO CASE 22P-071.THANK YOU, VICE COUNCILPERSON.
THIS IS RUSSELL COLE, INTERIM COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGER FOR THE RECORD.
HOWDY, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND WELCOME TO OUR NEWEST PLANNING COMMISSIONER.
THE ADDRESS IS 13009 JOHN REYNOLDS ROAD.
THE PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS ABSTRACT 121 HALL AND JONES SURVEY LOT 8 BERMUDA BEACH, SECTION 3, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS. SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN BERMUDA BEACH SUBDIVISION.
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE LOCATED TO THE EAST, WEST AND SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS ERODING AT A RATE OF 5 TO 6 FEET PER YEAR.
STAFF HAS PREPARED PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR VIEWING.
IT LOOKS LIKE THE SLIDESHOW IS SCRAMBLED, SO.
AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S SECOND ROW HOUSE.
THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED IS TEN FEET SEAWARD OF THE 200 FOOT OFFSET FROM THE PRESCRIBED LINE OF VEGETATION, HENCE THE OUTERMOST NUMBER ON THE MIDDLE PHOTO 210 FEET FROM THE 200 FOOT OFFSET.
ON THE NEXT SLIDE OR SIDE PROFILES OF THE ADDITION FROM ALL DIRECTIONS FOLLOWED ON THE NEXT SLIDE BY THE ROOF PLAN AND SECTIONS DISPLAYING THE EXACT EXTENT OF THE ADDITION.
NEXT FROM THE SOUTH AND THE WEST.
AND FINALLY FROM THE ROAD, SEAWARD OF THE PROPERTY AND FROM THE BEACH, SHOWING THE CLEAR ABSENCE OF DUNES OR DUNE VEGETATION REQUIRING THESE PRESCRIBED OFFSETS.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
AND AN ASIDE, THE VERBIAGE FOR A MOTION IS I MOVE THAT.
[00:40:03]
COMMISSIONER WALLA, YOU WERE CORRECT INITIALLY.ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU, MR. COLE. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I WOULD LIKE TO ASK.
IN LOOKING AT ONE OF THE ATTACHMENTS, I JUST.
ONE MOMENT. YES, THAT IS ADHERED TO.
AND THEN ANOTHER QUESTION IS, YOU SAID IT HAS TO BE WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE NORTH, TWO OF THE DUNE.
IS THAT CORRECT? SO, IT HAS TO BE.
THAT DUNE PROTECTION LINE, IF THERE'S NO DUNES, IS INSTEAD 200 FEET FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION.
SO THAT 200 FOOT LINE IS TEN FEET AWAY FROM THIS.
SO BASICALLY THIS IS TEN FEET OUTSIDE OF THE AREA.
SO TEN FEET IN THE CLEAR OF WHERE THEY'RE ABLE TO BUILD.
OKAY, I CAN REPHRASE THAT IF YOU'D LIKE.
SO THE LINE OF VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED WHEN? SO THEN WHEN THERE'S NO LINE OF VEGETATION, THE LINE OF VEGETATION IS 200 FEET FROM THE LOW WATER LINE.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, THE AREA WHERE THEY'RE ABLE TO START BUILDING IS 400 FEET FROM THE LOW WATER LINE, SINCE BOTH THE ACTUAL LINE OF VEGETATION AND THE ACTUAL DUNES ARE MISSING.
AND SO THE SEAWARD EXTENT OF THIS CONSTRUCTION IS 410 FEET FROM THE LOW WATER LINE.
OKAY. SO WITHIN THE TEN FEET? YEAH. OK, THANK YOU.
SO THAT'S WHERE ALL OF THIS IS STILL WITHIN THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PURVIEW TO REVIEW.
THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? HERE. COME ON UP, PLEASE, SIR.
UH, THIS IS GEORGE WELDON, APPLICANT FOR THIS ADDITION.
THIS ADDRESS, IS IT THE ADDITIONAL ADDRESS THAT WE WANTED HERE? YES. THE APPLICANT'S ADDRESS.
SORRY. QUESTIONS? I THINK THIS WAS BASICALLY A FORMALITY BECAUSE WELL, SEEING THAT THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN, IF YOU'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A SEAT FOR US, AND WE'LL OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENT AT 4:12 P.M., SEEING THAT THERE IS NOBODY HERE EXCEPT FOR THE APPLICANT, THEN WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AT 4:12 P.M.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I HAVE A QUESTION. OH, YES.
SORRY. DO WE NEED A MOTION FIRST OR A DISCUSSION? AND IN THIS CASE, IT LOOKS LIKE THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO BE OVER THE BUILD LINE.
HOW DOES THAT APPLY WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION, EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T HAVE ANY DUNES TO PROTECT IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE? IS IT FOR RUSSELL? YES, FOR RUSSELL. I'M SORRY.
I THINK THE ONLY THING OVER THE BUILDING LINE IS THE OVERHANG.
[00:45:01]
YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. OVERHANGS ARE ALLOWED WITHIN WHAT, HOW MANY INCHES? 12 INCHES. 12 INCHES? OKAY. ALL RIGHT.LET'S GO AHEAD. AND IS THERE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER HILL.
I MOVE. I MOVE FOR APPROVAL AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF FOR 22P-071.
AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER EDWARDS.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND.
[10.A. Discussion Of R-0 Zoning (Staff)]
NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS. FIRST IS DISCUSSION OF R-0 STAFFING.STAFFING. WE KNEW WHAT YOU MEANT, THOUGH.
SO I'D ASK FOR THIS TO BE PUT ON THE AGENDA AS A DISCUSSION ITEM, AND I'M JUST KIND OF LOOKING FOR SOME CLARIFICATION ON THE REQUIREMENTS OF THESE R-0 APPLICATIONS.
MORE SPECIFICALLY, WHEREAS THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN OR PRESENTED TO US, IT'S IN A LITTLE BOX AND IT SAYS 75% OF SINGLE FAMILY OWNER OCCUPIED. PETE ACTUALLY HAS PUT IN THE WORK TO HAVE A PRESENTATION FOR YOU.
MR. MILBURN, PLEASE, ENLIGHTEN US.
THANK YOU. SO WE HAD THE REQUEST PRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER WALLA.
CATHERINE. SO THE DISCUSSION TOPICS WE HAVE OUTLINED HERE.
AND THESE WERE THE ITEMS THAT COMMISSIONER WALLA ASKED US TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION ON.
I WILL GO BETWEEN PLANNING JARGON AND I WILL TRY MY BEST TO SPEAK LAYPERSON'S LANGUAGE IN AN EFFORT TO GET THIS AS CLEAR AS WE CAN AS I PROCEED THROUGH THIS DISCUSSION.
SO TO BEGIN WITH, JUST SOME BACKGROUND ON HOW WE ARRIVED AT HAVING THE R-0 ZONING DISTRICT INCLUDED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
IN 2015, WE ADOPTED THE NEW LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND CITY COUNCIL .
AT THE LEVEL OF APPROVING THE LDR, ADDED THE R-0 ZONING DISTRICT AS AN OPTIONAL OR AN ADDITIONAL ZONING DISTRICT TO THE LDRS AND COUNCIL ALSO INCLUDED THE STANDARDS THAT WE ARE NOW CURRENTLY OPERATING FROM IN THAT APPROVAL.
AND ALSO AT THAT TIME, CEDAR LAWN, EXCUSE ME, AND COLONY PARK WERE THE FIRST R-0S ZONING DISTRICTS APPROVED AND THEY WERE APPROVED AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE LDRS AND THEY THEREFORE DID NOT GO THROUGH THE REZONING REQUEST THAT WE NOW HAVE IN PLACE.
JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, CATHERINE.
NOW, ON SCREEN WE HAVE THE EXCERPT FROM THE LDRS OF THE STANDARDS WHICH WE OPERATE FROM IN PURSUING THE CHANGE OF ZONING FOR R-0 REQUESTS.
IN THE RED BOXES IS WHAT STAFF USES TO PROCEED THROUGH THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST. AND THIS IS WHERE THE LDR'S OUTLINED THE 75% THAT WE OFTEN HEAR AND WE SEE IN THE STAFF
[00:50:08]
REPORTS. THE 75% OF THE DWELLINGS THAT HAVE TO BE OWNER OCCUPIED, THE 75% OF THE OWNERS INITIATING THE PETITION AND THE OTHER ITEMS THAT WE INCLUDE IN THE STAFF REPORT AS THE CRITERIA.AND IN THE YELLOW OR GOLDEN BOX IS THE, EXCUSE ME, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL 'S CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL, WHICH WE ALSO INCLUDE IN THE STAFF REPORT.
ON THE NEXT SLIDE. SO LET'S TAKE A WALK THROUGH THIS REQUEST AND HOW WE WOULD INTERACT WITH A NEIGHBORHOOD WHO WOULD COME TO US FOR THIS ZONING CHANGE REQUEST.
AND HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF ONE OF THE MAPS.
WELL, THIS IS NOT EXACTLY THE MAP THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT STAFF TOOK WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PROVIDED AND WE CAME UP WITH THIS AREA HERE. SO GENERALLY SPEAKING, IT STARTS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PROVIDING US WITH SOME SORT OF A MAP OR SKETCH OF WHERE THEY WANT THE BOUNDARY TO BE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
SO STEP TWO IS THEN WE TAKE THAT BOUNDARY THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PROVIDED AND WE GATHER UP ALL OF THE CAD DATA FOR EACH PARCEL THAT'S WITHIN THAT BOUNDARY.
AND WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT NOW IS, IS AN EXCEL EXCERPT OF THE GCAD, GALVESTON COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT'S DATA. AND IN PARTICULAR, I'D LIKE TO FOCUS YOUR ATTENTION TO COLUMN B.
SO WHAT WE DO WITH THIS INFORMATION IS WE ANALYZE THE GALVESTON GCAD DATA TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF IF THERE ARE 75% OWNER OCCUPIED STRUCTURES OR DWELLINGS WITHIN THE MAPPED BOUNDARY AREA.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU CAN SEE THE MAP BOUNDARY AREA AND IN COLUMN B YOU CAN SEE THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED AS HAVING A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. SO WE MAKE THE DETERMINATION THAT THOSE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ARE OWNER OCCUPIED AND IT'S ALSO BASED ON THE LANGUAGE FROM THE TEXAS COMPTROLLER.
THERE'S A DEFINITION THERE ON THE LOWER PART OF THE SCREEN THAT SAYS TO QUALIFY FOR THE GENERAL RESIDENCE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, AN INDIVIDUAL MUST HAVE AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY AND USE THE PROPERTY AS THE INDIVIDUAL'S PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE.
EXCUSE ME. SO THIS IS WHERE WE START TO IDENTIFY WHICH PROPERTIES HAVE THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION.
NOW, IN THE EVENT THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT ABLE TO REACH THE 75% REQUIREMENT FOR HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS OR FOR PROPERTY OWNERS, PROPERTY-OWNED DWELLINGS, WE THEN HAVE THE STEP 2(A), WHICH IS THE AFFIDAVIT PROCESS.
AND THIS ALLOWS NEIGHBORHOODS TO ACCOUNT FOR HOMEOWNERS WITH SECOND HOMES OR VACATION HOMES.
SO THEY MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY BE THEIR HOMESTEADED RESIDENTS, BUT THEY ARE IN FACT OWNED AND USED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE PROPERTY OWNER AS A SECOND HOME OR A VACATION HOME.
SO IT IS NOT A RENTAL PROPERTY, IT IS IN FACT OWNED.
SO THEY CAN SUBMIT THE AFFIDAVIT ONCE THEY GET THIS ALL FILLED OUT.
AND IT IS A NOTARIZED DOCUMENT AND WE WILL THEN USE THIS TO SEE IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS ABLE TO REACH THE 75% OF PROPERTY OWNED DWELLINGS.
SO NOW LET'S SAY THEY ARE, THEY DO QUALIFY OR THEY REACH THAT 75%.
THEN WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT STEP.
CATHERINE, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
AND THAT IS THE PETITION PROCESS.
NOW,THE STAFF PROVIDES THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE PETITIONS.
AND HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF THE PETITION.
[00:55:03]
LINE AND CIRCULATE.WHAT WE DO IS WE PROVIDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A PETITION FOR EACH PARCEL AND THEY CAN THEN CIRCULATE THESE SHEETS THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THE PETITION IS A TWO SIDED DOCUMENT.
SO IT HAS THIS INFORMATION ON ONE SIDE AND ON THE BACK SIDE IT HAS THE CORRESPONDING BOUNDARY MAP SO THAT THE RESIDENTS WITHIN THE BOUNDARY AREA KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE IN FACT, SIGNING.
NOW, THIS I INCLUDED, JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND AGAIN ON THE PREVIOUS PETITION PROCESS, WHERE WE DID IN SOME EARLIER R-O REQUESTS USE THE ONE PETITION DEAL TO CIRCULATE.
BUT THIS WAS VERY, VERY CUMBERSOME, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND.
NOW WE'RE ON TO THE DEFINITION OF SINGLE FAMILY OWNER OCCUPIED.
AND WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE THAT DEFINITION IN OUR LDRS.
BUT WHEN THAT HAPPENS, WE HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT OTHER RESOURCES TO GET A DEFINITION AND THIS ONE COMES FROM LAWINSIDER.COM AND IT IDENTIFIES SINGLE FAMILY OWNER OCCUPIED PROPERTY AS BEING OCCUPIED BY A PERSON WHO BEING THE OWNER AND FEE SIMPLE OR MORTGAGOR IN POSSESSION OCCUPIES AND RESIDES IN SUCH PROPERTY EXCLUSIVELY, AS A DWELLING HOUSE ON A PERMANENT OR SEASONAL BASIS.
SO THAT'S THE DEFINITION WE USE TO IDENTIFY OWNER OCCUPIED PROPERTIES.
PLEASE EXCUSE ME. I'M HAVING ALLERGY ISSUES.
OKAY. AND NOW TO ADDRESS NON-CONFORMITIES.
THIS, I THINK, MAY HAVE COME ABOUT WITH QUESTIONS ABOUT PROPERTIES THAT MAY CHANGE OWNERSHIP AND IF THE NEW OWNERS ARE ABLE TO CONTINUE THE OPERATION OF A SHORT TERM RENTAL OR IF A SHORT TERM RENTAL EXISTS IN THE BOUNDARY, CAN THEY CONTINUE TO OPERATE? SO THIS IS HOW THE LDRS IDENTIFY ON NON-CONFORMITIES.
SO IN RED I'VE HIGHLIGHTED THE PARTS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO THIS DISCUSSION.
A NON-CONFORMING USE AS A USE OF LAND THAT WAS LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED ON A PARCEL OR LOT BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE REGULATIONS THAT IS NO LONGER ALLOWED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE REGULATIONS.
AND THESE INCLUDE: NUMBER ONE, USES THAT WERE LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED UNDER PRIOR REGULATIONS BUT ARE NOT CURRENTLY LISTED IN THE APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT IN ARTICLE 2, USES SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS.
BASICALLY, WHAT'S THAT SAYING IS SAYING IS AT THE TIME, THE SHORT TERM RENTAL MAY HAVE BEEN LEGAL WHEN THE WHEN THE ZONING DISTRICT WAS DESIGNATED, FOR EXAMPLE, R-1, BUT THEN IT GOES THROUGH A ZONING CHANGE WITH THE ADOPTION OF R-0, THEN THIS COVERS THAT THEY CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE THE SHORT TERM RENTAL LAND USE EVEN THOUGH THE ZONING DISTRICT CHANGED.
AND A FURTHER EXPLANATION OF NONCONFORMITIES.
IF A NONCONFORMING USE IS DISCONTINUED FOR A PERIOD OF 365 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FOR ANY REASON, IT SHALL NOT BE RESUMED EXCEPT FOR SECTION C(1) AND (2).
SO BASICALLY THIS IS SAYING IF THERE'S A DISCONTINUATION OF THAT PARTICULAR LAND USE OR ANY LAND USE IN OUR LAND USE TABLE FOR 365 DAYS NONCONFORMING USES SPECIFICALLY, THEN THEY CANNOT CONTINUE THAT USE.
IT IS THEN THEY LOSE THEIR GRANDFATHER.
THAT USE CAN NO LONGER OPERATE AS A NON-CONFORMING USE.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE LAND USES THAT ARE WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT.
THERE WAS A MENTION OF THE OF THE PARK BOARD, AND I PLACED IN THIS PRESENTATION A SLIDE FROM THE HOME PAGE OF THE GALVESTON PARK BOARD THAT OUTLINES THE SHORT TERM RENTAL REGISTRATION PROCESS, WHICH THE CITY OF GALVESTON IS NOT A PART OF.
BUT FOR THE REGISTRATION PURPOSES THAT HAPPENS WITH THE GALVESTON PARK BOARD.
[01:00:01]
AND LASTLY, YOU WANTED SOME CLARIFICATION ABOUT THE FORMATTING OF THE STAFF REPORT.AND SO WHAT I HAVE HERE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SCREEN AGAIN IS THE EXCERPT FROM THE LDR STANDARDS FOR REQUESTING THE R-0 ZONING CHANGE.
AND THE LEFT SIDE IS TAKEN FROM THE STAFF REPORT AND IT SHOWS THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE LANGUAGE AND WHERE IT SAYS CRITERIA.
SO THAT IS THE LDR LANGUAGE AND WHERE IT SAYS STAFF'S FINDINGS.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, 75% OF THE DWELLINGS.
SO YOU CAN SEE A) UNDER THE MAP AMENDMENTS.
THAT'S THE LANGUAGE OF THE LDRS AND STAFF'S FINDINGS IS FOR WHATEVER CASE IT MAY BE.
STAFF FINDS AT LEAST 81% OF THE DWELLINGS WERE DETERMINED TO BE OWNER OCCUPIED.
SO WE THOUGHT THAT THIS WOULD BE JUST A QUICK SNAPSHOT WAY OF SHOWING HOW STAFF'S FINDINGS CORRESPOND WITH WHAT'S OUTLINED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND EXPLANATION OF THE R-0 ZONING PROCESS, AND I THINK EVERYTHING THAT WAS REQUESTED BY COMMISSIONER WALLA.
AND I HAD NO ISSUE WITH THE FORMATTING.
IT'S REALLY WHAT BROUGHT THE QUESTIONS FORWARD.
AND A COUPLE OF THINGS IS, HOW DO WE HANDLE LOT OWNERS? BECAUSE IF YOU'RE DRAWN IN THE CIRCLE AND YOU'RE NOT A OCCUPIED, YOU CAN'T BE OWNER OCCUPIED AND HAVE A LOT.
SO IF I OWNED A LOT, JUST FOR CONVERSATION'S SAKE, LET'S SAY THE LINE ENCOMPASSED 100 UNITS.
AND THERE WERE 25 LOTS AND 75 HOUSES.
IN THEORY, AND I DON'T WANT TO SPECULATE HERE, BUT IN THEORY YOU COULD, THOSE GUYS DON'T GET A VOTE, DO THEY? THE LOT OWNERS, WHEN IT COMES TO THE PETITION, SIGNING THE PETITION, YAY OR NAY, THEY'RE OUT.
SO IN THE CASE OF LOT OWNERS, OKAY, THE FIRST ITEM ON THE CRITERIA IS THAT IT ADDRESSES STRUCTURES.
OKAY. SO 75% OF THE OWNERS OF STRUCTURES HAVE TO BE ON BOARD.
OKAY. SO LET'S SAY THE NEIGHBORHOOD CROSSES THAT HURDLE.
THAT IS WHERE THE LOT OWNERS HAVE A SAY.
SO THE LOT OWNERS DON'T NECESSARILY, YOU'RE CORRECT, THEY DON'T HAVE A SAY, IN A) THAT SPEAKS SPECIFICALLY TO STRUCTURES, BUT THEY DO HAVE A SAY IN B) WHICH ADDRESSES PROPERTY OWNERS.
AND THAT B) IS THE AFFIDAVIT? WELL, IT'S THE PETITION PROCESS.
A PETITION IS GIVEN TO THE LOT OWNERS THEN.
YES. EVERYONE IN THE BOUNDARY GETS A PETITION.
BUT KEY WORD IN THAT A) IS STRUCTURE.
COMMISSIONER HILL? YOU'RE GOING TO GET REAL TIRED OF THAT, COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY.
HOWEVER, IF THERE IS NOT A STRUCTURE ON A LOT.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS IF I HAVE A HOME AND I PAY THE PARK BOARD FEE FOR A SHORT TERM RENTAL, EVEN IF I'M NOT USING IT AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL, I CAN GET GRANDFATHERED IN.
RIGHT? SO LET'S NOT MIX APPLES AND ORANGES.
[01:05:09]
THE MAIN REQUIREMENT FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL IS REGISTRATION.AND NOT ONLY THE FAMILY, NO STRANGERS, IT CAN BE ANY OWNER OWNED PROPERTY CAN REGISTER THAT PROPERTY AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL.
AGAIN, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE USED AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL.
IT DOESN'T, WELL, WE'VE BACKED UP.
WE'RE BACKING UP BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A STRUCTURE ON IT, BUT THAT HAS NOT COME FORWARD YET.
BUT RIGHT NOW IT IS STRICTLY REGISTRATION OF A PROPERTY.
THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION, DONNA, IS WHETHER THERE HAD TO BE A STRUCTURE ON IT.
BUT IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE A STRUCTURE ON IT, THEY LOST THAT RIGHT.
SO THAT ISSUE HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
AND SO WE'RE WORKING ON CLARIFYING THAT THERE DOES NEED TO BE A STRUCTURE AND NOT A SHED, A A HABITABLE STRUCTURE AND WHAT WOULD LEGALLY CONSTITUTE THAT HABITABLE STRUCTURE? SO, I MEAN, THEY'RE BUILDING CODES AND ROOMS, ETC., ETC..
ALL THAT GOES INTO WHAT'S CONSIDERED A HABITABLE HUMAN HABITATION STRUCTURE.
OKAY. SO MY SECOND, I'M SORRY.
SO MY SECOND QUESTION IS TO I GUESS TO PETE AND AND CATHERINE.
SHOULD WE HAVE AN ADD TO OUR NEXT ROUND OF LDR AMENDMENTS, SHOULD WE ADD IN A DEFINITION TO THE LDRS OF SINGLE FAMILY OWNED OR OCCUPIED? SHOULD WE ADD THAT IN UNDER.
IT'S NOT IN THERE, WHICH IS WHY WE'VE HAD ALL THESE PROBLEMS. QUESTIONS, NOT PROBLEMS. QUESTIONS. LET TIM AND DONNA TAKE THAT ONE.
IN FACT, THERE'S A SPECIAL MEETING SET UP FOR OCTOBER 6TH.
AND I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WILL ENDEAVOR INTO.
SO IT COULD BE THAT WE DO THIS MAYBE IN NOVEMBER OR AT SOME POINT.
OH, SURE. I JUST MEANT IN IN THE FUTURE, WHEN WE DO OUR NEXT ROUND OF TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE TWO, THE LDRS, IF IT'S SOMETHING BECAUSE, THIS GROUP PARTICULARLY HAD SO MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTED SINGLE FAMILY OWNER OCCUPIED AND IT CAME UP SO MANY TIMES OVER AND OVER AND OVER THAT I THOUGHT MAYBE IF IT WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE LDR SOMEWHERE THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE THERE FOR POSTERITY SAKE.
I THINK THE TIMING OF IT IS THE ISSUE WHEN WE WILL GET TO IT.
AND CAN IT GO ON THE LIST? I'LL ADD TWO THINGS TO THAT.
ONE IS THE DEFINITION THAT PETE HAS ESPOUSED AND YOU'VE SEEN ON THE BOARD IS WHAT THE CITY HAS BEEN USING TO DETERMINE THESE CASES. SO WHAT HAS HAPPENED HAS NOT GONE AFIELD FROM WHAT WAS PRESENTED HERE TODAY I WANT THE COMMISSIONERS TO UNDERSTAND THAT EVEN THOUGH WE DIDN'T HAVE A WRITTEN DEFINITION, THERE ARE MANY SITUATIONS THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FULLY IN WRITING, BUT WE HAVE A POLICY OR WE HAVE A WAY OF DOING THINGS IN CONFORMANCE WITH SOMETHING.
THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING FOR THESE CASES.
[01:10:09]
UNDERSTANDING IS THEY'RE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT ALSO HAVE QUESTIONS IN LIGHT OF THE ZONING CHANGES.BUT AS THE DIRECTOR HAS STATED, THERE ARE SOME INTERESTING.
USING THE DEFINITION FROM INSIDERLAW.COM.
WOULD THAT BE ONE? [LAUGHTER] LOOK, AND THAT'S A HARD ONE.
WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS.
YOU KNOW, THE ONLY PLACE I FOUND IT WAS OF ALL PLACES IS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.
IN THE STATE COMPTROLLERS SECTION, IT HAS MORE IN IT.
IF YOU READ THE WHOLE SECTION, IT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH VOTING.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU GUYS ARE WORKING ON IT BUT YOU KNOW USING INSIDERLAW.COM TO DEFINE THAT IS TROUBLESOME FOR ME.
COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY HAD A QUESTION AS WELL.
WELL FORTUNATELY COMMISSIONER WALLA ASKED A QUESTION I WAS GOING TO ASK, ONE OF THE FEW QUESTIONS.
JUST A COUPLE RIGHT NOW THAT I WANT TO GO ON.
THE QUESTION OF DANGEROUS DILAPIDATED DEVICE ABANDONED.
SO A PROPERTY THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY BEING RESIDED IN AND THE PEOPLE WANT TO DO AN R-O, IT IS BASICALLY AN ABANDONED PROPERTY. DOES THAT CONSTITUTE A VOTE FOR THAT PERSON THAT OWNS THAT PROPERTY? I CAN ANSWER THAT.
EXACTLY. SO THIS BRINGS UP THE ADDENDUM TO THAT, DELINEATION OF AN R0.
AN R-0 PROPERTY HAS TO HAVE A CONSISTENCY.
IN OTHER WORDS, NO BREAKS WITHIN A DESIGNATION OF R-0.
TRUE. IS THAT DEFINED? CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER.
WHAT YOU MEAN BY BREAKS? WELL, LET'S SAY YOU'VE GOT A STREET, AND UPON THAT STREET THERE ARE TWO ABANDONED HOUSES IN THE CENTER OF THE STREET.
COULD THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON EITHER SIDE OF THAT REQUEST FOR R-0 , KNOWING THAT THEY'VE GOT THESE TWO THINGS RIGHT HERE IN THE MIDDLE, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE PART OF IT? THE TECHNICAL ANSWER TO THAT IS THEY ABSOLUTELY COULD UNDER SEPARATE REQUESTS.
SO, YOU KNOW, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD ALSO NEED TO BE FLESHED OUT.
DO WE WANT TO LIMIT HOW MANY LOTS CAN ACTUALLY APPLY FOR AN R-0 CHANGE? RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T HAVE SUCH A LIMIT.
TWO ABANDONED PROPERTIES. OKAY.
AND WOULD NOT A QUOTE ABANDONED PROPERTY BE UNDER THE DEFINITION OF DANGEROUS AND DILAPIDATED? TYPICALLY YOU WANT TO SAY YES, BUT I MEAN, IF THEY'RE LIKE I KNOW OF THEY'RE MOWING THE YARD.
THEY'RE MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S NOT ANY STRUCTURE FALLING DOWN IN THE FRONT, BUT IT IS ABANDONED.
SO DEFINING OR CLASSIFYING A PROPERTY AS DANGEROUS AND DILAPIDATED TYPICALLY REQUIRES A FINDING.
AND THAT'S EITHER THROUGH CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THEN HAVING IT GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND THEN THE COURT FINDING IT, YOU KNOW, DANGEROUS AND DILAPIDATED SO THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME SORT OF INFORMATION HAS TO OCCUR.
IT HAPPENS TO BE, IT COULD BE PRISTINE INSIDE.
[01:15:09]
SHOULDN'T THAT BE DONE VIA U.S.MAIL TO MAKE SURE THAT NOBODY'S BEING INTENTIONALLY LEFT OUT PER SE? WELL, THERE'S NO SPECIFICS LISTED IN THE CODE SPEAKERS]. THAT WHOLE PROCESS IS TO OBTAIN A MINIMUM PARTICIPATION NUMBER.
IF THEY CAN'T OBTAIN IT, THEY CAN'T PROCEED FORWARD.
SO IT'S TO THEIR BENEFIT TO GET EVERYONE THAT THEY CAN.
SO HOWEVER THEY DECIDE TO DO THAT, IT'S REALLY UP TO THEM.
AND NOTICES DO GO OUT? OH, NOTICES GO OUT WITH THE ZONING SEPARATELY.
ALL RIGHT. COUNCILMEMBER LISTOWSKI.
COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. STAYING WITH STAN'S QUESTION ABOUT DILAPIDATED STRUCTURES.
WHY DO WE EXCLUDE DILAPIDATED STRUCTURES WITHIN THESE REQUESTS? IS THERE A REASON WHY WE WROTE THEM THAT WAY TO BEGIN WITH? WE WOULD HAVE TO THINK BACK TO INTENT.
AND I'M NOT SURE IF I WAS PRIVY TO.
I WASN'T ON PLANNING, BUT I WAS VERY HEAVILY INVOLVED WITH THE 2015 LDR REVISIONS.
I WILL SAY TYPICALLY THE CITY CAN'T SANCTION FOLKS LIVING IN A DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE.
THAT MAY HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT.
NOT SANCTIONING THEM, BUT WHAT DO YOU MEAN, NOT SANCTION THEM? WELL, IF A STRUCTURE DILAPIDATED, YOU REALLY SHOULDN'T HAVE HUMANS OCCUPYING IT.
WELL, THAT'S BESIDE THE POINT.
THE REASON I BRING THIS UP IS BECAUSE THIS HAS HAMPERED PEOPLE FROM GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS OF REZONING THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THERE ARE DILAPIDATED STRUCTURES WITHIN THEIR BOUNDARIES.
AGAIN, I THINK IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT, WE CAN TRY AND FIGURE THAT OUT.
OKAY. WELL, THAT'S A QUESTION.
I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME OF THAT INFORMATION AS TO IF FOLKS ARE ACTUALLY LIVING IN THERE NO MATTER IF THEY'RE LIVING THERE OR NOT.
IF A NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED TO PURSUE IS THERE A FORECLOSURE HAPPENING ON IT? I MEAN, THERE COULD BE A NUMBER OF REASONS WHY IT WOULDN'T MEET THE CRITERIA.
BUT AGAIN, WITHOUT A LITTLE BIT MORE.
ARE YOU ARE YOU SAYING THAT INCLUDED IN THE 75% THRESHOLD, THE DILAPIDATED STRUCTURES ARE SO IF A NEIGHBORHOOD CAME TO STAFF AND SAID, HEY, I'D LIKE TO, THIS IS MY BOUNDARY, AND THERE WERE MULTIPLE DILAPIDATED STRUCTURES WITHIN THAT BOUNDARY, YOU WOULD SAY WE CAN'T DO IT, CORRECT? RIGHT. WELL, RIGHT.
THAT IS JUST A LDR REQUIREMENT THAT STAFF IN PLANNING PUT IN THERE, AND COUNCIL.
AND COUNCIL PUT IN THE STAFF (THAT) IS ADMINISTERING.
DON'T FORGET ABOUT THE COUNCIL BECAUSE IF WE'RE TRYING TO IMPROVE NEIGHBORHOODS BY HAVING STRICTER ZONING, THEN WE WANT TO PUT REQUIREMENTS ON THOSE DILAPIDATED STRUCTURES AS MUCH AS WE CAN TO GET THEM TO COME TO COMPLIANCE.
WELL. EX OFFICIAL CITY COUNCIL PERSON.
I WOULD SAY THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO RAISE WITH CITY COUNCIL .
BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION IS HAVING A DILAPIDATED HOUSE AS COUNTING TOWARDS THE 74%. IT MIGHT NOT COUNT TOWARDS THE 75%.
BUT YOU WANT TO PUT RESTRICTIONS ON PROPERTIES THAT YOU WANT TO COME UP TO COMPLIANCE.
YEAH. AND CURRENTLY YOU CAN'T EVEN SUBMIT THE APPLICATION WITH IT IN IT.
AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
[01:20:06]
THIS IS IN THE REALM OF THE THINGS THAT PROBABLY NEED TO BE LOOKED AT.OKAY. SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY.
YOU'RE SEEING THIS AS WHAT'S EXCLUDING VIRTUALLY THE ENTIRE EAST END.
OH, SORRY. NO. I'M NOT THE CHAIRPERSON.
[LAUGHTER] WELL, COMMISSIONER EDWARDS HAD A QUESTION, BUT.
I'VE GOT MORE QUESTIONS TOO, SO.
LET ME BACK UP TO THE BEGINNING REAL QUICK BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THIS.
SO IF A NEIGHBORHOOD OR PERSON CAME TO STAFF AND WANTED TO REZONE A BOUNDARY AREA OR NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY WOULD FIRST HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THIS OWNER OCCUPIED DEFINITION, CORRECT? I'M CONFUSED A LITTLE BIT ON THE OWNER OCCUPIED.
RIGHT. SO GOING THROUGH THE CRITERIA LISTED IN THE LDR THEN, YES A) IS THAT 75% OF THE DWELLINGS MUST BE SINGLE FAMILY OWNER OCCUPIED. YES.
AND SO IF A AREA CAME TO YOU AND SAID I HAVE, YOU KNOW, 100 LOTS, 100 PIECE OF PROPERTY, I ONLY HAVE 25 THAT HAVE HOUSES BUILT ON THEM RIGHT NOW.
AND WE WANT TO TRY TO REZONE THIS AREA THAT BOUNDARY WOULDN'T WORK? RIGHT. BECAUSE THAT STRUCTURE BUT YOU HAVE TO MEET A) TO GO TO B) RIGHT? CORRECT. BUT IF YOU HAD THAT 75% OF THE 25 UNITS IT WOULD GO TO B).
NO, NO, NO, NO. SAY THERE ARE ONLY 25 STRUCTURES WITHIN 100 PIECES OF PROPERTY.
RIGHT. SO 75% OF THOSE 25 AS IT'S LISTED AS IT'S WRITTEN.
YES. YOU GET THE CHECK BOX A), THEN YOU GET A BOX B).
YES. SO THE THE DILAPIDATED PROPERTIES ARE THROUGHOUT.
NO, NO DILAPIDATED PROPERTIES IN THIS NEW BUILD. NEW BUILD.
CAN I TAKE A SHOT AT THIS? YES. THEN YOU WOULD GO TO B) AND THEN THE OWNER OCCUPIED DOESN'T APPLY ANYMORE FOR B), AND YOU JUST NEED AFFIDAVITS OR HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS 75% OF THE 100 PIECES OF PROPERTY.
CORRECTION. THE AFFIDAVIT PROCESS TAKES PLACE AT LEVEL A).
IF YOU DON'T HAVE A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, YOU'VE GOT TO GET THE AFFIDAVIT? TO PROVE PROPERTY OWNED DWELLING.
AND TO THAT POINT, OWNER OCCUPY, OCCUPY OWNER, OCCUPY [LAUGHTER].
THANK YOU. GOES OUT THE WINDOW.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO MEET THAT STANDARD ANYMORE.
YOU JUST HAVE TO GET SIGNATURES OF THE ACTUAL PROPERTY OWNER.
NOW YOU NEED 75% OF ALL THE PARCELS IN THE BOUNDARY DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED.
COMMISSIONER EDWARDS, GO AHEAD.
BUT WHAT MADE US DECIDE TO DO AN R-0 ? BECAUSE STRONGS WEREN'T VERY POPULAR AT THAT TIME.
THEY HADN'T REALLY TOOK OFF LIKE THEY HAVE NOW.
SO WHAT WAS THE IMPETUS FOR THE R-0 TO BEGIN WITH? I THINK, DONNA.
I WAS HERE THEN. I THINK I VAGUELY RECALL SOME OF WHAT WAS GOING ON.
PART OF WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE? CEDAR LAWN.
THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT PARTY HOUSES.
AND ONE OF THE COUNCIL PERSONS, OF COURSE, WITH THE BACKING OF CITY COUNCIL, WAS WAY CONCERNED.
AND THAT'S REALLY HOW THE WHOLE R-0 KIND OF CAME ABOUT, WAS TO TRY AND NOT ALLOW THESE PARTY HOUSES IN THESE PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL FAMILY STYLE TYPE OF AREAS.
SO AND THOSE TWO AREAS, THAT'S IN THE LDRS.
[01:25:01]
WHAT PROCESS WE'VE BEEN DOING NOW IS BASICALLY TO ADD TO THE R-O ZONING AREAS, BUT IT WAS REALLY BASED OFF OF THE CONCERN ABOUT THESE, IN PARTICULAR, COLONY PARK JUST KEEPS IT, KICKED ME IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD BECAUSE OF THE SITUATIONS THAT WERE OCCURRING OUT THERE.I WANT TO SAY THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO, POSSIBLY THREE, BUT I THINK AT LEAST TWO HOMES IN COLONY PARK IN PARTICULAR THAT THE CITY WAS JUST HAVING A FIT WITH IN TERMS OF HOW THEY'RE RUNNING THE SHORT TERM RENTAL.
I THINK THAT WAS THE MAIN IMPETUS, HONESTLY.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE RECALLS ANYTHING.
I MEAN, IT WAS BROUGHT ON BY SHORT TERM RENTALS.
I MEAN, THEY WERE DEFINITELY SHORT TERM RENTALS IN 2015.
NOT LIKE WE SEE TODAY WHERE WE HAVE 5000 OF THEM.
AND THEY GOT ON THE BANDWAGON EARLY.
JUST TO GET A LITTLE CLARIFICATION ON THE GRANDFATHER, AND WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS IS WHEN THESE MEETINGS FIRST STARTED, WE DID HAVE SOME FOLKS THAT HAD STRS AND WE WERE TELLING THEM THEY'RE GRANDFATHERED.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY'RE REALLY NOT GRANDFATHERED.
THEIR USE JUST BECOMES NON CONFORMING AND THEY HAVE TO MEET A CERTAIN CRITERIA TO DO THAT.
SO THE TERM GRANDFATHERING REALLY, AND I THINK YOU ACTUALLY HAD SAID THIS MORE THAN ONCE, THAT IS NOT REALLY WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE ONE OF THOSE TERMS THAT I REALLY DON'T PARTICULARLY CARE FOR BECAUSE IT'S USED LIBERALLY.
BUT THE MAIN THING AT THIS POINT IN TERMS OF A SHORT TERM RENTAL BEING ABLE TO EITHER FUNCTION AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL IS REGISTRATION, TO CONTINUE FUNCTIONING AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL WITH A ZONING CHANGE IS REGISTRATION.
THE TERM NON-CONFORMING USE IS REALLY THE TECHNICAL TERM THAT WE ALL OUGHT TO BE USING.
BUT IT'S FOLKS, JUST KIND OF UNDERSTAND THAT.
WELL, IF I HAD A SPECIFIC USE AND I'M GRANDFATHERED, YOU KNOW, MY SPECIFIC USE DOES NOT CHANGE.
YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE THAT FROM ME IF I'M GRANDFATHERED WITH A SPECIFIC USE.
SO NONCONFORMING, MAKES, I UNDERSTAND THAT NOW.
SO THANKS AND FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, IF YOU ARE REGISTERED AND YOU FORGET, YOUR REGISTRATION EXPIRES TODAY.
DECEMBER 31ST, JUST TO BE CLEAR.
BUT I HAVE 365 DAYS TO TO REREGISTER, 365 CONSECUTIVE DAYS.
SO IT DOESN'T TAKE EFFECT LIKE TOMORROW OR JANUARY 1ST.
I HAVE THAT CONTINUATION BEFORE I LOSE ELIGIBILITY UNDER THAT NONCONFORMING USE.
AND I THINK IT WAS SAID BEFORE, BUT YOU CANNOT REGISTER A VACANT PIECE OF PROPERTY, CORRECT? YEAH, THAT'S FINE.
PUTTING THE QUESTIONS OUT THERE SO YOU GIVE ME ANSWERS.
THE DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE ISSUE, ARE WE GOING TO COME BACK TO THAT AT A FUTURE DATE OR H OW ARE WE GOING TO LEAVE THAT, COUNCILMAN? I MEAN, I THINK WE PROBABLY, I MEAN, YEAH, I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT REMOVED FROM THE ORDINANCE.
UNLESS THERE'S SOME GOOD REASON WHY IT WAS IN THERE TO BEGIN WITH, WHICH I HAVEN'T HEARD YET.
SO WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO ON THAT? DO WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THAT? HOW DO WE PROCEED ON THAT? I THINK BEFORE THIS BODY DOES ANYTHING, WE NEED TO BE DIRECTED BY CITY COUNCIL.
YEAH, OKAY. I'LL BRING THAT UP BECAUSE WE'VE GOT TO BUTTONHOLE THIS UP FOR FUTURE CONVERSATIONS.
BUT IF WE GET SOME DIRECTION FROM CITY COUNCIL, THEY'LL MAKE THINGS EASIER.
IN A DEFINITION FOR SINGLE FAMILY OWNER OCCUPIED, THAT NEEDS TO BE IN THERE.
OKAY. I FORESEE A A REVISION PROBABLY BECOMING NECESSARY AT A POINT.
THANK YOU. I ANTICIPATE THAT WE WILL ALL WATCH THURSDAY.
[01:30:02]
CAN I BE CLEAR.THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF SINGLE FAMILY OWNER OCCUPIED IN THE LDR.
YEAH. IT DOES NOT EXIST AS IT IS.
THE STAFF HAS THEIR OWN DEFINITION.
THEY HAVE THEIR OWN DEFINITION.
AND TO HELP THEM WE NEED TO DEFINE IT.
I THINK THEY'RE PRETTY CLEAR WITH IT.
I HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.
BUT YOU KNOW, IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE IN THE LDRS.
I KNOW STAFF HAS STRUGGLED WITH WITH HOW WE'VE BEEN USING IT ONE, STEP TWO, AND AS I'VE STATED BEFORE, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE CITY COUNCIL THE PRESENTATION AND THEN STAFF WILL GET DIRECTION.
WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING THAT ON THURSDAY AND THEN RECEIVING THAT FURTHER GUIDANCE ACCORDINGLY.
ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION OF LOT SIZES.
[10.B. Discussion Of Lot Size (Staff)]
WHO'S GOT THAT ONE? I DO.DID HE? HOW LONG IS YOUR PRESENTATION? OH, I CAN ZIP THROUGH THIS IN NO TIME.
I GOT TO PICK UP MY DAUGHTER HERE AT A CERTAIN POINT, MAYBE 15 MINUTES, MAYBE TEN.
[LAUGHTER] WE HAVE NATIONAL NIGHT OUT, TOO, SO I GOT TO NOT TO RUSH YOU TIM, BUT OKAY.
SO WHEN THAT COMES UP, LET ME JUST TELL YOU THAT AT YOUR AUGUST 16TH MEETING, COMMISSIONER FINKLEA REQUESTED THAT WE LOOK AT BASICALLY WEST END LOT SIZES IN PARTICULAR. HE SOUGHT THE SORT OF THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE AT THE WEST END AND ALSO A SHORT TERM RENTAL MAP FOR THAT CONTEXT.
NEXT SLIDE. SO IN THE INTERIM, SOME THINGS HAVE HAPPENED.
I GUESS YOU GUYS MAYBE HAVE BEEN AWARE THAT COUNCIL ALSO TOOK THIS ISSUE UP AS WELL, THE LOT SIZE ISSUE, AT THEIR SEPTEMBER 15 SPECIAL MEETING. AND WHILE A GREAT DEAL OF THAT CONVERSATION CENTERED AROUND WHAT WAS HAPPENING SORT OF IN THE URBAN CORE PORTION OF THE ISLAND, WE WENT THROUGH, YOU KNOW, THE INDIVIDUAL ZONES AND WHAT LOT SIZES ARE APPLICABLE IN EACH CIRCUMSTANCE AND WHAT THAT IMPLIES AND ALL THOSE THINGS.
BUT THE TAKEAWAY FROM THAT MEETING WAS WE'RE OKAY WITH LOT SIZES AS THEY ARE.
SO THAT'S A BIT OF A DEVIATION FROM, YOU KNOW, THE REQUEST THAT WAS MADE.
BUT I'VE GENERATED INFORMATION AND I MIGHT AS WELL PUT THAT INFORMATION OUT AND WE CAN USE IT IN THE FUTURE IF THINGS GO THAT DIRECTION OR NOT.
SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE SOMETHING THAT MAY BE, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE SPECIFICALLY A PART OF THIS DISCUSSION OR NOT, BUT WE'RE SORT OF IN A HOLDING PATTERN TO SEE WHAT KIND OF DIRECTION COMES FROM THAT.
SO THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE RESEARCH.
OBVIOUSLY, WHERE DOES THE WEST END BEGIN? AND IT'S TYPICALLY AT 103RD STREET.
AND SO THAT'S WHERE MY RESEARCH BEGAN.
THE SIZE OF THE LOTS AND THE SUBDIVISION WAS ANALYZED NOT LARGE ACREAGE TRACTS, NOT HOMESTEADS THAT ARE ENORMOUS OR 60 ACRES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
BEACHFRONT LOTS ARE ALSO BASICALLY WERE NOT INCLUDED BECAUSE MANY BEACHFRONT LOTS GO WELL INTO THE BEACH AREA. YOU HAVE OWNERSHIP, BUT YOU CAN'T UTILIZE IT BECAUSE IT'S UNBUILDABLE AT A CERTAIN POINT, AS WE ALL KNOW AND RUSSELL POINTS OUT ON A REGULAR BASIS.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, I GOT ON LITERALLY I GOT ON GCAD AND STARTED FROM THE WEST END AND WENT SUBDIVISION BY SUBDIVISION, WORKING MY WAY BACK OVER TO 103RD.
NEXT SLIDE. THERE ARE TWO ISSUES THAT REALLY DEFINE FROM A REGULATORY STANDPOINT
[01:35:06]
WHY LOTS HAVE TO BE A CERTAIN MINIMUM SIZE.ONE OBVIOUSLY IS THE FACT THAT WE HAVE MINIMUM LOT SIZES.
IN OUR ONE, IT HAPPENS TO BE 5000 FEET.
BUT THE REAL DECIDER OF THAT IS DOES IT HAVE SANITARY SEWER SERVICE OR NOT? BECAUSE IN THE CITY, IF YOU HAVE A SANITARY SEWER SERVICE CONNECTION, YOU CAN DO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN A PLATTED SUBDIVISION. YOU PLAT A LOT OF THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE SANITARY SEWER CONNECTIONS, YOU CAN'T, YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THE COUNTY'S REGULATIONS WHICH MANDATE A HIGHER SIZE, A LARGER SIZE TO ALLOW FOR THE SEPTIC FIELD THAT'S NECESSARY.
AND I'M TOLD THAT'S A HALF AN ACRE.
THAT MAY BE CHANGING, I UNDERSTAND, TO SOME AMOUNT THAT MIGHT BE SOMEWHAT SMALLER THAN THAT.
BUT AT THIS TIME, WE THINK IT'S STILL HALF AN ACRE.
THOSE AT THE WEST END THAT HAD SANITARY SEWER SERVICE.
AND THIS, AGAIN, IS JUST PICKING A SORT OF A STANDARD LOT, A STANDARD REPRESENTATIVE LOT IN THE SUBDIVISION, LAGUNA SAN LUIS WAS ABOUT A 7000 SQUARE FEET LOT.
POINT WEST HAD SOME PHASES THAT WERE DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT THAN EACH OTHER.
TERRAMAR WAS ABOUT 7,000 ON AVERAGE.
ISLE DEL SOL, SEA ISEL, SUNSET COVE WAS ONE THAT OBVIOUSLY THE MARKET CLEARLY DICTATED THAT ONE, THAT WAS WELL ABOVE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, BUT NOT DUE TO ANY SANITARY SEWER ISSUE JUST BECAUSE THAT DEVELOPER WANTED TO HAVE A LARGER LOT SIZE AS A MINIMUM. ACAPULCO VILLAGE WAS 7,000.
NEXT LOT. CONTINUING ON, PIRATES BEACH, ABOUT 6,500.
PIRATES COVE, MOST WERE AROUND 7,000.
WATERMAN'S, WHICH I BELIEVE IS A TND.
IS THAT CORRECT, CATHERINE? THEY'RE QUITE SMALL IN THAT AREA.
THEY DO HAVE SOME COMMON SPACE LIKE BEACHSIDE VILLAGE, WHICH IS FURTHER DOWN.
BUT AGAIN, WITH COMPENSATING OPEN SPACE IN IT LIKE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, SUNNY BEACH IS 4,000 AND SWEETWATER COVE HAS A COUPLE DIFFERENT SECTIONS AS WELL, SOME THAT ARE 6,000, SOME THAT ARE ABOUT 8,000.
SO WHEN YOU WHEN YOU ADD ALL THAT TOGETHER, YOUR STANDARD ON BASICALLY YOUR TYPICAL LOT ON LOTS THAT HAVE SANITARY SEWER SERVICES, IS ABOUT 6,200 FEET ROUGHLY.
THOSE THAT DO NOT HAVE SANITARY SEWER SERVICE OUT THERE, AND THIS IS NOT ALL INCLUSIVE BECAUSE AGAIN, THERE WERE SOME SECTIONS THAT ARE RIGHT UP AGAINST THE BEACH FRONT THAT DON'T HAVE SANITARY SEWER SERVICE BUT AREN'T A PART OF THIS DISCUSSION AS WELL.
INDIAN BEACH HAS YOUR TYPICAL LOTS AROUND 22,000, SO THAT'S ABOUT A HALF AN ACRE.
BAY HARBOR IS AN OLDER SUBDIVISION THAT DOES NOT HAVE SANITARY SEWER SERVICE EITHER.
AND IT REALLY DOESN'T MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE COUNTY'S REGULATIONS FOR SEWER SERVICE.
BUT I THINK THEY'VE BASICALLY NON-CONFORMING-USED TO THEM IN [LAUGHTER].
I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE THE CRITERIA FOR THE COUNTY WITH THEM.
BUT, AND THEN SPORTSMAN ROAD HAS ROUGHLY HALF TO A ONE ACRE SIZE LOTS THAT ARE MUCH, MUCH LARGER.
SO THAT'S THE EMPIRICAL DATA THAT I FOUND.
[01:40:06]
I'M SORRY, CHAIRMAN FINKLEA ABOUT THIS.SURE. SO, TIM, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU AND YOUR STAFF PUTTING TOGETHER THAT INFORMATION.
NOW, GOING BACK TO WHAT STIMULATED THIS CONVERSATION WAS THE FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY ABOUT HOW SMALL THIS ONE PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT THAT CAME BEFORE THE COMMISSION WAS, HOW SMALL THE LOT SIZES WERE, AND THEY WERE SO INCONGRUENT WITH ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT.
AND WE JUST WE MAY HAVE BEEN UP AGAINST ONE OF THOSE OTHER SUBDIVISIONS THAT HAVE LARGER LOT SIZES.
SO IN THE FREEDOM TO DEVELOP AND THE FREEDOM TO PLAY WITHIN THE LAW OR THE REGULATIONS THAT WE PASSED, YOU KNOW, IT SHOWS THAT WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT WAS NOT AN ANOMALY.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT I KIND OF WANTED TO SEE, WAS THAT EITHER PLANNED SUBDIVISIONS OR EXISTING ONES, WHERE THEY KIND OF SAT IN PLACE.
I THINK WHAT I WAS, IF I WERE TO WAVE A MAGIC WAND OR SHAKE AN EIGHT BALL, TO SAY WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH WEST END IN THE FUTURE, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN ACTUALLY SAY THAT BECAUSE SOME OF THE PROPERTIES THAT YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT LIKE SUNNY BEACH, WHERE YOU ACTUALLY HAD SMALLER LOT SIZES BUT YOU ACCOMMODATED WITH OPEN AREAS, THERE'S ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT WAYS FOR US TO CREATE AMENITIES WITHIN SUBDIVISIONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE MARKETABLE TO A VARIETY OF PEOPLE.
SO I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING THAT CAN SAY, HEY, LISTEN, WE NEED TO BUMP IT UP OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE FACT THE CITY COUNCIL SAID, YEAH [INAUDIBLE] FOR ASKING STAFF TO GO DO THIS.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER OPTIONS? COMMISSIONER HILL.
I DO HAVE A COMMENT ABOUT WHAT CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSED, AND THAT CITY COUNCIL, IN THEIR DISCUSSION, DID TALK ABOUT REALLY ONLY URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND THEY DID NOT AT ALL CENTER THEIR DISCUSSION ON THE WEST END LOT SIZES AND WHAT HAD PREDICATED OUR DISCUSSION, AND DAVID, CHAIRMAN FINKLEA BRINGING THIS UP, WERE THE SUBDIVISIONS OF THE LARGE TRACTS OUT ON THE WEST END.
AND BASICALLY WE HAD LOOKED AT SOMETHING IN MY VIEW THAT WAS WITHIN OUR PURVIEW UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT SOMETHING THAT IS TAKING A NEIGHBORHOOD OR A CERTAIN AREA WHICH, THERE ARE AREAS OUT ON THE WEST END, ESPECIALLY AS YOU HIT DEADMAN'S CURVE OUT THERE, AND YOU GET TO THOSE AREAS THAT ARE HORSE AREAS, RANCHES, FARM AREAS, FAMILY FARMS, YOU HEARD ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE YOU KNOW HERE.
AND THEN SOMEBODY COMES IN AND BUYS THOSE AREA AND SUBDIVIDES THEM AND PUTS THESE SMALL RENTAL HOUSES ON THEM.
IT DOES CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THAT AREA.
SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A 100 OR 50 HOUSE SUBDIVISION, LIKE A SUNNY BEACH OR A BERMUDA BEACH OR WHATEVER.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A SUBDIVISION.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SMALL FIVE LOT DEVELOPMENT OR A TEN LOT DEVELOPMENT.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING UNDER 20 HOUSES.
AND THAT'S NOT ANYTHING THAT COUNCIL TALKED ABOUT THAT DAY.
SO I THINK THAT WHAT WE HAD ORIGINALLY WANTED TO TALK ABOUT, WAS THERE A WAY TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF WHAT IS HAPPENING ON THE WEST END UNDER OUR PURVIEW AS KEEPERS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BY PERHAPS MAKING THE LOTS SIZES FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS OF, SAY, UNDER 20 HOUSES, A LITTLE BIT LARGER, WHICH MIGHT MAKE THESE SMALLER DEVELOPMENTS NOT AS ECONOMICALLY ATTRACTIVE TO THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PEOPLE SO THAT THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE MADE THEIR FAMILY GENERATIONAL LOT OUT THERE FOR 100 YEARS, SO THEY DON'T END UP WITH PEOPLE THROWING BEER BOTTLES IN THEIR
[01:45:07]
BACKYARDS. THAT'S WHAT I THINK I HAD IN MIND TO LOOK AT WITH MAKING THESE LOT SIZES BIGGER.AND NOT THESE LARGE SUBDIVISIONS.
SO AGAIN, WHAT I WAS ASKED FOR WAS TO DOCUMENT.
RIGHT. WHAT YOU'RE REALLY REFERRING TO IS THE TRIMBLE AND LINDSEY SURVEY, WHICH IS A SPECIFIC EXTENDED SURVEY OF LAND DEVELOPMENT THAT OCCURRED LONG, LONG AGO, OUT TO TEICHMAN'S P OINT, OUT FURTHER TO PARTS OF THE WEST END.
BUT IT DOESN'T GO ALL THE WAY OUT.
IT SUBDIVIDED TRACTS OF 5 TO 10 ACRES, BASICALLY, THESE LARGE PARCELS, IN A SURVEY.
AND THOSE LARGE PARCELS ALSO HAD THESE SORT OF RIGHTS OF WAY, WHICH, YOU KNOW, SOME OF WHICH WERE BUILT, MANY OF WHICH WERE NOT.
SO IN THOSE AREAS WHERE TRIMBLE AND LINDSEY SURVEY, YOU KNOW, ARE THESE, IT'S A SUBDIVISION OF SORTS.
IT'S NOT WHAT WE THINK OF WHEN WE THINK OF A SUBDIVISION, WHETHER THAT'S CUSTOM HOME OR TRACT HOME.
IT'S, TRIMBLE AND LINDSEY WAS DONE AT A TIME WHEN AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES WERE KIND OF THE KEY.
AND SO TRIMBLE AND LINDSEY CUT THESE LOTS OUT TO THESE LARGE SIZED LOTS.
MANY OF THEM WERE SOLD TOGETHER AND REMAIN AS ACREAGE TRACTS OF SEVERAL OF THOSE SIZE LOTS.
AND THOSE FOLKS EXIST OUT THERE IN THAT AREA LIKE THAT.
HOWEVER, I ALSO SAY THAT IN TRIMBLE AND LINDSEY THERE ARE SUBDIVISIONS THAT CONTAIN THE 5,000 TYPE LOT AS WELL. IN FACT, ONE VERY RECENTLY JUST NEWLY PLATTED OUT THERE.
THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S OUT IN THE WEST END.
WHAT WE DO WITH IT, I GUESS, IS GOING TO BE WHAT WE DISCUSS GOING FORWARD.
AND SHE DIDN'T SEEM TO KNOW ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE OR WANT TO DO MUCH ABOUT IT.
SHE DEFINITELY WAS FOCUSED ON THE EAST END AND THE URBAN CORE.
THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY ABOUT THAT IS YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WHEN YOU KIND OF PULL OUT THOSE AREAS THAT YOU DON'T DEVALUE THOSE PEOPLE'S PROPERTY.
BECAUSE IF YOU SAY, HEY, YOU CAN DO A LARGE SUBDIVISION IN HERE, IF YOU WANT TO DO 100 HOMES, BUT YOU CAN'T SUBDIVIDE YOUR PROPERTY INTO FIVE LOTS BECAUSE YOU HAVE SUCH A SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY.
I THINK THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THAT BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO DEVALUE THEIR PROPERTY.
AND SO YOU'RE ALREADY PLACING AN ECONOMIC VALUE ON THAT PROPERTY.
AND I WOULD BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT TRYING TO REGULATE THE ECONOMY, THE ECONOMICS OF PROPERTY.
YOU MISSED THE MEETING WHERE THE PEOPLE WERE HERE AND WAS HEART WRENCHING.
[01:50:01]
AND I'M THE ONE WHO TALKED ABOUT THE SOB STORIES THIS TIME, BUT IT WAS AN HOUR OF IT.WE HEARD IT FROM ALL THESE DIFFERENT PEOPLE AND IT WAS SOMETHING.
NOW I KNOW YOU HAVE TO GO. AND WE CAN LOOK AT THAT MORE, BUT I JUST WANT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT.
AND I THINK IT WAS SOMETHING TO DISCUSS.
YEAH. AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT AND YOUR POINT'S TAKEN.
CHAIRMAN, CAN I BRING UP ONE OTHER POINT? GO AHEAD. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES TALK ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, BUT IT IS NOT A LAW.
IT IS NOT THE RULE. IT'S WHAT THE RULES ARE SORT OF EXTRACTED AND MADE FROM.
SO WE DO NEED TO FIND A BALANCE, YOU KNOW, WHERE THOSE THINGS ARE APPROPRIATE AND WHERE THEY SHOULD BE APPLIED AND WHERE THEY SHOULD BE FURTHER ANALYZED.
IS THIS SOMETHING WE WANT TO COME BACK TO AND REVISIT OR DO WE? YES. ALL RIGHT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? NO, I THINK WE'RE READY TO ADJOURN.
VICE-CHAIR BEFORE YOU DO, ONE QUICK COMMENT.
I'D LIKE TO THANK EVERYBODY ON COUNCIL FOR THEIR VOTE OF CONFIDENCE AND BE ITS CHAIRMAN.
AND I HOPE TO, IF I COULD ONLY DO AS WELL AS OUTGOING CHAIRMAN HILL DID.
[LAUGHTER] THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WELL, SEEING NOTHING ELSE, MEETING ADJOURN AT 5:20.
THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.