>> THANK YOU, CATHERINE. I'D LIKE TO CALL
[00:00:03]
THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON TO ORDER TUESDAY,[1. Call Meeting To Order]
NOVEMBER 8TH, AT 3:30 PM.WE HAVE TAKEN ATTENDANCE VIA A ROLL THAT HAS BEEN HANDED IN. WE HAVE A QUORUM.
[2. Attendance]
NOTICEABLE ABSENCES ARE COMMISSIONER EDWARDS AND COMMISSIONER LANTZ, CORRECT? GOOD. COMMISSIONERS ARE THERE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FOR ANY OF THE CASES? CATHERINE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ INTO THE RECORD WHO IS HERE?>> SURE. FOR STAFF, WE HAVE THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR TIM TIETJENS, MYSELF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, PLANNING MANAGER ADRIEL MONTALVAN, SENIOR PLANNER DANIEL LUNSFORD, INTERIM COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGER RUSSELL COLE, PLANNING TECH PATRICK COLLINS AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY DONNA FAIRWEATHER.
>> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS FOR THE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 18TH?
[4. Approval Of Minutes]
IF NONE THE MINUTES WILL BE ADOPTED AS PRESENTED.NOW WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC COMMENTS PERIOD FOR ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AGENDA AND NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NOT ON SPECIFIC CASES BUT ON THE AGENDA AND NON-AGENDA ITEMS. ANYBODY ON THIS SIDE? NOW ON THIS SIDE? HEARING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT HERE, PERIOD.
WE'LL DO THAT FOR THE CASES, PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THE CASES.
WITH THAT, LET'S MOVE INTO OUR FIRST CASE, PLEASE STAFF.
[7.A. 22P-076 (3707 El Lago) Request For A Replat To Increase The Number Of Lots From Three To Four. The Properties Are Legally Described As Abstract 121 Hall & Jones Survey Lots 3 And 4 Block 1 And Lot 14 (1-3-3) Block 2 Palm Beach, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Ron Kent, 3R Builders, LLC. Property Owner: 3R Builders, LLC.]
>> ALREADY. IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S GOING TO BE ME 22P-076.
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A REPLAT FORM THREE LOTS TO FOUR.
THE PALM BEACH SUBDIVISION WAS ORIGINALLY PLATTED CIRCA 1960 ACCORDING TO DRAWINGS AND RECORDED COVENANTS IN THE CITY ARCHIVES.
AT THE TIME, THE AREA WAS IN UNINCORPORATED GALVESTON COUNTY NOT SUBJECT TO ANY CITY REVIEW OR STANDARDS.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REPLAT TO INCREASE NUMBER OF LOTS FROM 3-4.
THE EXISTING MIDDLE LOT CONTAINS A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING BUILT CIRCA 1965, WHICH WILL REMAIN ON ITS OWN SEPARATE LOT AFTER THE REPLAT.
NOTE, THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 212.015 REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING FOR REPLATS INCREASING LOT DENSITY IN A SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE AREA IS ZONED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENCES AND SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE NEARBY AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION TO THE SOUTH.
THE BAYSIDE AT WATERMAN'S DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS SOMEWHAT COMMERCIAL BUT ALSO SOMEWHAT RESIDENTIAL, IS TO THE NORTH, A LITTLE BIT UP THE STREET.
ALL LOTS WILL HAVE ACCESS TO EXISTING MUNICIPAL WATER AND SANITARY SEWER.
NOTE THAT NO PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS RETURNED ANY OBJECTIONS COMMENCE TO THE PROPOSED REPLAT.
THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS IN THIS AREA ARE A MINIMUM OF 50 FEET WIDE, A MINIMUM OF 100 FEET LONG, A MINIMUM OF 5,000 SQUARE FOOT.
REPLAT MEETS OR EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR THE LOTS IN R1 ZONING PER ARTICLE 3 OF THE LDR.
ALL LOTS WILL BE AT LEAST 53.08 FOOT WIDE.
THAT MEANS THAT THE NARROWEST LOT, SO TO SPEAK, AT LEAST 100 FOOT LONG, FRONT-TO-BACK, AND AT LEAST 5,015 SQUARE FOOT IN AREAS SHOWN IN THE STAFF REPORT.
PLEASE KNOW THE PLAT APPROVAL CRITERIA.
THE PLAT WILL BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, SPECIFIC CONDITION 1 AND STANDARD CONDITIONS 2-3.
HERE WE HAVE THE EXISTING SURVEY ON THE LEFT.
YOU CAN SEE THE PROPOSED REPLAT ON THE RIGHT SHOWING THE FOUR LOTS THAT CAME FROM THREE, ALSO SHOWING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WHICH WILL REMAIN ON ITS OWN LOT, WHICH LIKE THE OTHERS, MEETS OR EXCEEDS OUR REQUIREMENTS.
WE HAVE A LITTLE VICINITY MAP THERE IN THE LOWER CORNER THAT SHOWS WHERE IT'S LOCATED IN RELATION TO THE SURROUNDING AREA. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOOKING GENERALLY NORTHEAST, TOWARD WATERMAN'S.
THE PROPERTY IS TO THE NORTH, TO THE SOUTH, TO THE WEST.
>> THERE WERE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
>> COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS CASE? COMMISSIONER WALLA.
>> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. DANIEL, IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN THEY'RE REDOING THEIR LOTS THAT THE DECK OF THE HOUSE AND EVEN THE HOUSE ITSELF IS PRETTY CLOSE TO THE LOT LINE.
IS THERE GOING TO BE SOME BUILDING SETBACKS THERE THAT'S GOING TO CREATE A PROBLEM FOR THOSE GUYS OR I'M I JUST NOT LOOKING AT IT RIGHT?
>> THEY WILL HAVE TO MEET ANY RELEVANT BUILDING CODES AS FAR AS FIRE-RATING CONSTRUCTION AND WHATEVER.
[00:05:02]
THAT'S TYPICALLY WHAT BUILDING APARTMENTS WILL REQUIRE.>> I'M SORRY. I SEE WHAT THEY DID.
I'M LOOKING AT THE OTHER ONES, SO IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE GOOD.
>> THAT'S A 5.8-FOOT SETBACK FROM THAT CORNER.
>> WITH NONE, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT? HERE AND THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 22P-076.
IS THERE ANYBODY ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE CASE AND ON THIS SIDE? WE'LL OPEN AND CLOSE AT 3:35.
WITH THAT, WE'LL COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
NO ACTION IS REQUIRED. THERE WE GO. NEXT CASE.
[8.A.1 22P-062 (4233 Pirates Drive) Request For Beachfront Construction Certificate And Dune Protection Permit To Include Proposed Addition To A Single-Family Dwelling Including A Fibercrete Footer. Property Is Legally Described As Abstract 121, Page 46, Lot 102, Pirates Beach Section 6.]
>> HOW ARE YOU PLANNING, COMMISSIONERS, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THIS IS FOR CASE 22P-0624233, PIRATES DRIVE.
THIS IS AN EXEMPTION REQUEST FOR A 600-SQUARE-FOOT SECOND-FLOOR ADDITION TO A PREEXISTING BEACH HOUSE TO INCLUDE A FIBERCRETE FOOTER.
THE ADDRESS IS 4233 PIRATES DRIVE, PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS ABSTRACT 121, PAGE 46, LOT 102, PIRATES BEACH SECTION 6.
SUBDIVISION LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE PIRATE'S BEACH SUBDIVISION.
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE LOCATED TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND A BEACH SYSTEM IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS ERODING AT A RATE OF 5-6 FEET PER YEAR.
STAFF HAS PREPARED PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR VIEWING.
FIRST, WE HAVE THE FIRM AND BEG MAP SHOWING THE DISTANCE OF THE STRUCTURE FROM THE BEACH SYSTEM AND ITS POSITION RELATIVE TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
PLEASE NOTE IN THE AERIAL IMAGERY THAT DUE TO THE SEVERE EROSION AND COASTAL SQUEEZE IN THIS AREA, THE BEACH IS IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE LAWN SEAWARD OF MOST OF THE HOMES HERE.
ON THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE PROPERTY SURVEY.
AS THERE IS NO NATURAL LINE OF VEGETATION OR DUNE SYSTEM IN THIS AREA, THE SETBACKS REVERT TO 200 FEET FROM MEAN LOW TIDE LINE FOR THE LINE OF VEGETATION AND 200 FEET FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION FOR THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE.
THIS LACK OF DUNES RE-CATEGORIZES THIS PROJECT INTO AN EXEMPTION REQUEST AS THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY IS THEN PLACED SEAWARD OF THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE.
ON THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE TOP VIEW OF THE PROPOSED WORK.
IN ADDITION TO THE STRUCTURE ON THE SEAWARD SIDE, EXTENDING SEAWARD TO THE SOUTHERN BUILDING LINE, AND IN CONTACT WITH IT.
YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING ROOFS MARKED WITH THE ARROWS THERE AND THE NEW ROOF ON THE BOTTOM OF THE PICTURE.
ON THE FOLLOWING SLIDE ARE THE FOUNDATION PLAN AND THE FRAMING PLANS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE SCOPE OF WORK.
DURING THE DETAILED REVIEW PROCESS, THE APPLICANT CLARIFIED ON THE NEXT SLIDE, THE EXEMPTION REQUEST BEING NECESSARY DUE TO THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY BEING WITHIN THIS DUNE PROTECTION AREA AND THAT THERE IS INSUFFICIENT SPACE ON THE LANDWARD SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE FOR CONSTRUCTION TO HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED FURTHER LANDWARD THAN EXISTING WORK.
IT WAS ALSO CLARIFIED THAT NO ENCLOSURES ARE BEING PROPOSED ON THE GROUND LEVEL OF THE ADDITION, WHICH WAS A CONCERN OF THE GLO.
WE HAVE PHOTOS OF THE SITE FIRST LOOKING FROM THE NORTH AT THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, THEN FROM THE EAST TOWARDS THE FRONT, THE ROAD VIEW.
NEXT, FROM THE SOUTH, THE BEACH AREA, AND FROM THE WEST.
LOOKING ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS PHOTO HERE IS WHERE THE PROPOSED WORK WOULD BE TAKING PLACE.
NEXT, WE HAVE A PHOTO FURTHER BACK FROM THE BEACH AND IN RED IS THE APPROXIMATE AREA OF WHERE THIS 200-FOOT OFFSET FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION WOULD BE.
OF COURSE, THE HOUSE AND THE BACKGROUND HERE.
ALSO, THE LAWN OF WHERE THE BEACH
[00:10:03]
IS RUNNING UP TO THE LAWN HERE IS PICTURED IN THIS IMAGE.ON THE NEXT SLIDE, WE HAVE A MORE RECENT PHOTO SHOWING A DUNE PROJECT THAT THE LANDWARD NEIGHBOR HAS CONSTRUCTED.
BUT BECAUSE THIS DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF A RESTORED DUNE, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY, BEING 10-FOOT TALL, AND 50-FOOT WIDE, WHICH IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO RESET CONSTRUCTION SETBACKS.
THE CURRENT SETBACKS REMAIN THIS 200 FEET FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION.
THIS IS JUST A SIDEBAR THAT WALL DUNES MAY BE REINSTALLED.
WE STILL HAVE TO GO BY THE PRESCRIBED SETBACKS UNTIL A NATURAL DUNE IS FORMED OR UNTIL A RESTORE DUNE CONSISTENT WITH THESE DEFINITIONS ARE CONDUCTED.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 22.
I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MY APOLOGIES.
ALWAYS REPRIMANDED FOR NOT BRINGING MY MIC UP COLE ENOUGH LAST TIME.
I'LL DO A BETTER JOB THIS TIME.
ON THE GLO LETTER, ON THEIR FIRST BULLET POINT ABOUT MIDWAY THROUGH THAT PARAGRAPH.
SINCE THE LIVING AREA ADDITION IS PROPOSED SEAWARD OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, THE APPLICANT WOULD NOT QUALIFY FOR AN EXEMPTION UNDER THE ABOVE MENTIONED CONDITIONS AND MUST DEMONSTRATE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY THAT THERE IS NO PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE TO CONSTRUCTION WITHIN OR SEAWARD OF THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT SATISFYING THAT PARTICULAR CONDITION, DO YOU LOOK AT WHAT THEY HAVE DEMONSTRATED IN THAT THEY CAN'T GO OUTWARD, SO THEY HAVE TO GO FORWARD, OR DO YOU LOOK AT THE FACT OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY REALLY NEED THIS? WHAT IS IT THAT YOU LOOK AT FROM THE CITY'S STANDPOINT ON THIS?
>> FROM THE CITY STANDPOINT, I PRIMARILY REVIEW IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO MODIFY THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO BUILD ELSEWHERE ON THE SITE.
AS WE HAVE SEEN PREVIOUSLY, IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT OR TO MOVE THE PROJECT FURTHER LANDWARD.
THIS IS MOST RELEVANT IN CASES WHERE THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE BISECTS THE PROPERTY AND WHERE IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO SHIFT THE SCOPE OF WORK OUTSIDE OF THAT AREA TO REDUCE IT TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THIS WITHOUT NEEDING AN EXEMPTION.
I HAVE NOT FOCUSED AS MUCH ON IF IT IS A NECESSITY FOR THE APPLICANTS.
I THINK THAT THAT FALLS MORE INTO THE REALM OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PURVIEW TO MAKE THOSE JUDGMENT CALLS.
>> DID YOU DISCUSS WITH THE APPLICANT PERHAPS OR DID YOU DISCUSS, YOU MENTIONED MAYBE SHRINKING THE SIZE OF THE ADDITION.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT?
>> I DON'T RECALL IF I DISCUSS SPECIFICALLY SHRINKING THE SIZE OF THIS ONE.
AS MENTIONED IN THE CLARIFYING LETTERS, WE EXPLORED IF IT WAS POSSIBLE TO MOVE IT FURTHER LANDWARD, WHICH DID NOT SEEM POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE LIMITED SPACE ON THE PROPERTY AND WE ENSURED THAT NO OTHER NON-COMPLIANT ADDITIONS WERE BEING PROPOSED.
HOWEVER, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT MAY BE ABLE TO ADDRESS.
>> THANK YOU. AS I'M SEEING THIS FROM THE AERIAL VIEW, THEY ARE IN COLE PROXIMITY.
IF YOU WOULD CONFIRM WHAT MY EYE IS SEEING.
COLE PROXIMITY TO HOUSES COMPLETELY SURROUNDING THEM LIKE A TIC-TAC-TOE BOARD SAVING EXCEPT FOR ONE SQUARE.
IS THAT CORRECT? [OVERLAPPING] ON THE TIC TAC TOE BOARD.
>> AERIALS CONFIRM? YES. THERE ARE HOUSES EFFECTIVELY ON ALL SIDES.
[00:15:06]
>> CAN YOU TELL ME A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE DUNE THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED.
YOU SAID FOR PURPOSES AS RELATED TO THIS CASE.
IT DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF CHANGING THAT LINE OF VEGETATION?
>> AT THIS POINT? NO. THIS IS A PROJECT THAT WAS AUTHORIZED ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT OF THIS PROJECT AND WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THIS DISCUSSION, IT DOES NOT RESET ANY OF THE LINES RELEVANT TO THIS CONSTRUCTION.
ONCE NATURAL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED ON THIS DUNE, AT THAT POINT IT COULD RESET THE VEGETATION LINE.
AT THIS POINT THERE'S NO, AS YOU CAN SEE NATURAL VEGETATION HERE.
THERE'S STILL A LAWN IN THE BACKGROUND, BUT INDIGENOUS VEGETATION CONTINUOUSLY MOVING INLAND IS REQUIRED FOR VEGETATION LINES TO BE ESTABLISHED AND THAT'S NOT PRESENT HERE.
THEN PER THE CITY'S ORDINANCE, A RESTORED DUNE MUST MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA THAT I CAN BORE YOU WITH THE DEFINITION IF YOU'D LIKE.
>> BUILDING ONTO THAT, WAS THIS DUNE BUILT WITH THE APPROVAL OR WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CITY'S DUNE MANAGEMENT PROCESS [OVERLAPPING]?
>> IT IS AN APPROVED DUNE DONE INDEPENDENTLY BY THE BLUE HOUSE HERE THAT JUST HAPPENED TO COME TO FRUITION WITHIN THE TIME FRAME OF THIS PROJECT.
>> LIKE YOU SAID, THE LAWN GRASS DOES [OVERLAPPING] NOT CONSTITUTE.
YES, IT'S NEITHER VEGETATION. THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? HEARING NONE, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE NUMBER 22P-062.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? YES. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
>> I'M PONZO. I'M THE APPLICANT FOR THE JOB 42-33.
>> YOU WANT ME TO INTRODUCE OR TO SAY MY COMMENTS?
>> I WANTED TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY SIGN-IN, PLEASE.
THEN I WANTED TO ASK IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT FROM THE COMMISSIONERS?
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR CLARIFICATIONS?
>> ONE CLARIFICATION ON THE JOB, THE CONSTRUCTION IS NOT SEAWARD, IS MEANT TO BE NORTH TOWARDS THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.
IS TOWARDS THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.
I THINK I JUST HEARD THAT OR PROBABLY IS BEING ON THE APPLICATIONS AND MR. COLE OR SOMEBODY MISINTERPRETED THAT.
BUT THE CONSTRUCTION IS NOT MEANT TO BE THE ADDITION.
THE 600 AND SOMETHING SQUARE FEET OF THE HOUSE, IS MEANT TO BE ON THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE, SO IT'S NOT SEAWARD.
>> WOULD YOU PULL UP THE MIC PLEASE?
>> ALL THE CONSTRUCTION IS MEANT TO BE ON THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, SO THERE'S NOTHING BEING ADDED ON THE SEAWARD [BACKGROUND] OF THE HOUSE.
RIGHT THERE. THERE'S THE BUTTON.
>> THERE YOU GO. THAT'S THE VIEW THAT SHOWS.
YOU CAN SEE IN THE BOTTOM PART OF IT, IS WHAT THE ADDITION IS, THE THREE AREAS OF ROOF LINE THAT COME OUT.
BECAUSE THIS IS A HOUSE THAT'S IRREGULARLY SITUATED, IT FACES TO THE NORTH, SO IT IN FACT IS SEAWARD THAT THE ADDITION IS SEAWARD OF THE HOUSE.
I DIDN'T MEAN TO CONFUSE THINGS.
I JUST DIDN'T KNOW SINCE THE HOUSE IS HIDDEN ON A WEIRD ANGLE.
>> BUT IT'S IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE NONETHELESS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THAT IS A LITTLE CONFUSING.
>> I THOUGHT YOU MEANT FROM THE HOUSE.
>> NO MATTER WHERE YOU PUT IT WOULD STILL WE UNDERSTOOD THE REQUIRED ASSUMPTION.
>> THE OTHER COMMENT IS MY CLIENTS.
THIS IS GOING TO BE THERE NEAR FUTURE HOUSE AFTER THEIR RETIREMENT AND THEY'RE 600 AND SOME SQUARE FEET OF THE HOUSE IS BEING ADDED ON BECAUSE THEY THINKING ABOUT RETIREMENT AND THEY WANT TO LIVE IN THIS HOUSE WHEN THEY GET OUT OF THE HUSTLE AND BUSTLE OF HOUSTON,
[00:20:05]
TEXAS, SO THEY WANT TO COME TO GALVESTON.>> THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENTS.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. PONZO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY, PLEASE.
>> SIR, THE QUESTION BEING INVOLVED ABOUT MOVING OR CHANGING THE POSITION OF THE STRUCTURE FURTHER AROUND SO IT WOULD BE JUST, LET'S SAY INSTEAD OF ON THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, OR THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
ARE THERE LIMITATIONS TO YOU BEING ABLE TO DO THAT DUE TO LIKE AIR CONDITIONING, WATER DUCK POOL?
>> LIMITATIONS LIKE YOU COULD NOT MOVE IT TO THE NORTH SIDE TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE BECAUSE OF WHERE ALL THE SUBSTRUCTURE, ELECTRICAL AND ETC.
>> THESE ADDITIONAL LANDS BEHIND THE KITCHEN.
THEY EXIST IN KITCHEN OF THE HOUSE.
THAT INCLUDES ADDING THE BEDROOMS, BASICALLY BEHIND THE KITCHEN.
GO ON JUST BUILDING A LITTLE HALLWAY TO GET TO THE BEDROOMS AND THE LAUNDRY.
THE OTHER ANY OTHER LIMITATIONS, I CANNOT TELL YOU AT THIS POINT IF THERE'S ANY OTHER LIMITATIONS.
>> SO THE GOAL WAS TO GET IT BEHIND THE KITCHEN? THEY WANTED THE BEDROOMS BEHIND THE KITCHEN?
>> YES. THE GOAL BASICALLY WAS BUILDING IT BEHIND THE HOUSE, RELATIVELY SPEAKING, TO ME, THAT'S THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.
LOCATIONS UNDER THE POINTS OF THE HOUSEHOLD.
IT WAS BUILDING IT BEHIND THE HOUSE AND THEREFORE, THAT LANDED BEHIND THE HOUSE.
THAT YOU WANT TO OBSTRUCT THE BUILDING, THE BEDROOM DOORS, THE DECKS BECAUSE THEY COME HERE BUT THEY WANT TO BE OUTSIDE ON THE DECKS AND SPEND THEIR TIME ON THE DECK.
>> I THINK MAYBE THE QUESTION IS ON THE OTHER SIDE THAT EMPTY SPACE, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO SHRINK IT AND PUT IT UP THERE?
>> NO. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ENOUGH SPACE TO BUILD IT ON THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
THAT CASE, I THINK THEY WILL BE OBSTRUCTING THE VIEW OF THE OTHER HOUSE AND I DON'T THINK THEY WILL BE WILLING TO THAT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. BONSAI.
AT THIS TIME, WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 22 P-062 AT 3:53.
ANYBODY ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM WISH TO SPEAK? AND ON THIS SIDE? HEARING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE IT AT THE SAME TIME AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
IS THERE A MOTION FOR THIS CASE?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE.
MAKE SURE I GOT THE RIGHT ONE HERE.
IS IT 22 P-062 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS?
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HUMPHREYS'S DISCUSSION.
>> I'LL GO FIRST. AS A GENERAL RULE, I DON'T LIKE THESE.
I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE A HOME AND THAT THEY WANT TO ENJOY IT AS LONG AS THEY CAN.
THIS AREA WHERE WE HAVE NO DUNE IS A LITTLE BIT OF AN ANOMALY OVER THERE WHERE THERE IS NO DUNE TO HAVE A DUNE LINE.
BUT I WOULD JUST SAY THAT GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT'S THEIR PROPERTY AND IF THEY WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY TO IMPROVE IT, I HOPE IT LASTS A LONG TIME. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
>> I THINK THAT WHEN WE HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO GRANT AN EXEMPTION.
WE HAVE TO LOOK NOT ONLY AT WHAT WE'RE DOING FOR THIS PERSON, BUT HOW WE'RE IMPACTING ALL OF THE HOUSES AROUND IT.
IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE SEVEN HOUSES AROUND IT AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INSTALLING EIGHT PILINGS,
[00:25:02]
WHICH ARE VERY DESTRUCTIVE CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL AND ADDING TO A HUGE CONSTRUCTION NUISANCE, SOMETHING THAT IT'S NOT.IF IT'S WHEN WE HAVE A STORM, THEY'RE GOING TO COME UP AND CREATE EVEN MORE OF A PROBLEM FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THAT AREA.
I THINK IT'S INCREDIBLY IRRESPONSIBLE OF US TO ADD TO THE PROBLEMS. I SIMPLY CANNOT, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE VOTE FOR THIS JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE WANTS IT, NOT BECAUSE THEY NEED IT.
IT IS NOT A MATTER OF THEY HAVE TO HAVE ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE, THEY HAVE ENOUGH HABITABLE SPACE.
IT'S HOW WE HAVE SAID SOMEBODY DOESN'T NEED A DECK.
A DECK IS NOT A NECESSARY SPACE.
I'M AN ABSOLUTE NO ON THIS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S AN IRRESPONSIBLE MOVE ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSION TO ADD TO DESTRUCTIVE CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL ON OUR BEACHES.
>> WELL, I TAKE NOTE OF WHAT SHE'S SAYING.
THE ONLY THING THAT COMMISSIONER WALLA POINTING OUT A GOOD FACT THAT IT'S DESIRABLE FOR THEM.
BUT I THINK THAT WHEN WE TAKE IN CONSIDERATION THAT THE OTHER HOUSES AROUND IT, IT'S ADJACENT TO OTHER HOUSES.
IF THIS WAS A SITUATION WHERE IT IS ON THE FRONT ROW, I'D FEEL VERY DIFFERENT ABOUT IT.
BUT I THINK IT'S IN A PLACE WHERE IT'S THE SECOND ROW, NECESSITY.
THERE'S ISSUES GOING ON ON THE EAST SIDE OF THAT LANE, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY ISSUES GOING ON WHERE THEY ARE.
I THINK IT'D BE WITHIN REASON.
I DON'T THINK IT WOULD CAUSE ANY UNDUE DAMAGES OR DANGER TO GO AHEAD AND LET THEM HAVE THEIR BUILDING.
IT WOULD BE NICE IF IT CAN BE FURTHER ON THE NORTH SIDE.
THAT CAN'T BE DONE BECAUSE OF CONSTRAINTS SO I'M PRETTY MUCH IN FAVOR OF IT.
>> I'D LIKE TO OFFER THAT YOUR EXEMPTIONS ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER BECAUSE ONE, THEY ARE PERMANENT IN NATURE, THEY ALSO SET PRECEDENTS FOR OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT.
KNOWING THAT YES, NATURE ALWAYS WINS.
THIS AREA IS IN RECEDING AT FIVE TO SIX FEET PER YEAR.
BUT YET, A GROUP TOOK MEASURES TO WORK TO TRY TO INSTALL A NEW DUNE SYSTEM, WHICH HAS BEEN PUT IN PLACE TO TRY TO HOPEFULLY KEEP NATURE AWAY FOR A WHILE.
GIVEN THE FACT THAT I WANT SOMEBODY TO ENJOY THEIR PROPERTY THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF AND ALSO THE FACT THAT STAFF HAS COME FORWARD WITH RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.
I ALWAYS APPRECIATE THE EXPERTS IN THE ROOM TAKING A HARD EVALUATION OF THIS AND BRINGING IT FORWARD AND SO WITH THAT, I'M IN FAVOR OF IT.
JUST A COMMENT THAT WAY. ANYTHING ELSE? YOU DON'T HAVE TO.
>> I'LL GO AHEAD. I ALSO STRUGGLED WITH THIS ONE IN READING THE NOTES AND THEN GOING THROUGH.
I THINK THAT THE HOUSE IN FRONT OF THEM IS PROACTIVELY WORKING TO PUT AT BAY SOME SENSE OF INCOMING TIDE AND TRYING TO BUILD BACK THAT DUNE.
I THINK THAT THERE'S A SHRED OF HOPE THERE TOWARDS SOMETHING THAT IS A LITTLE BIT MORE LASTING.
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WHEN WE SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY RAISING HANDS.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED? OPPOSITION BY COMMISSIONER HILL. MOTION PASSES.
[00:30:02]
[8.A.3 22P-077 (33 Grand Beach Blvd.) Exemption 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 628 M B Menard Survey Lot 5A Block 2 Replat Preserve At Grand Beach.]
>> PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, 22P-070 33 GRAND BEACH.
THIS IS ALSO AN EXEMPTION REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AND CONSTRUCTION OF A FIBER CRETE FOOTER.
>> SORRY, CAN WE BACK UP? 22P-074 WAS WITHDRAWN?
>>OKAY. JUST FOR THE RECORD, SO THIS IS 22P-077. THANK YOU.
>> APOLOGIES. THANK YOU. 22P-077 33 GRAND BEACH.
EXEMPTION REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME WITH A FIBER CRETE DRIVEWAY AND FOOTER.
ADDRESS, 33 GRAND BEACH, ABSTRACT, 628MB MINARD, SURVEY LOT 5A, BLOCK 2, RE-PLOT PRESERVE AT GRAND BEACH, SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE PRESERVE AT GRAND BEACH SUBDIVISION.
THERE ARE NO SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY.
A BEACH IN DUNE SYSTEM IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS ACCRETING AT A RATE OF 2-3 FEET PER YEAR.
STAFF HAS PREPARED PHOTOS TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR VIEWING.
NEXT, WE HAVE THE FIRM AND BEG MAP SHOWING DISTANCES OF THE STRUCTURE TO THE DUNE SYSTEM AND ITS POSITION RELATIVE TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
THIS IS ONE OF THE HEALTHIER DUNE SYSTEMS ON THE ISLAND AND DUNES HERE DO YOU HAPPEN TO TAKE UP APPROXIMATELY HALF OF THE LOT AS YOU CAN SEE.
ON THE NEXT SLIDE, IS THE PROPERTY SURVEY ZOOMED IN ON THE RIGHT TO SHOW THE PROJECT IN RELATION TO THE NORTH TOE OF THE DUNE AND THE 25 FOOT OFFSET FROM THE NORTH TOE AS INDICATED WITH ARROWS ON THE FAR RIGHT.
THE STAIRS DO NOT CROSS INTO THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA AND SEAWARD OF THE 25 FOOT OFFSET.
BUT THE DECK HERE DOES, YOU CAN SEE SOMEWHAT UNDERLINING THE WORDS FIRST FLOOR DECK THERE, WHICH IS WHY IS NECESSITATING THIS EXEMPTION REQUEST.
ON THE FOLLOWING SLIDES, WE HAVE PERSPECTIVE VIEWS FIRST FROM THE STREET AND ON THE NEXT SLIDE FROM THE BEACH.
FOLLOWING OUR ELEVATION VIEWS, FIRST FROM THE WEST WITH A VERY ROUGH STAFF APPROXIMATION OF THE 25 FOOT OFFSET LINE.
AS THE NORTH TOE OF THE CRITICAL DOING SYSTEM IS NOT A STRAIGHT LINE, NEITHER IS THE 25 FOOT OFFSET.
BUT THIS IS JUST TO HELP GENERALLY VISUALIZE THE AREA THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING.
NEXT IS THE BEACH SIDE ELEVATION VIEW, FOLLOWED BY THE EASTERN ELEVATION VIEW, AND FINALLY, THE NORTHERN ELEVATION VIEW.
ON THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE FIRST FLOOR PLAN, WHICH IS THE FLOOR THAT EXTENDS THE FURTHEST IN ANY DIRECTION.
ON THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN, WHICH COMBINES THESE ELEMENTS FOR MORE COMPREHENSIVE VIEW.
IN ORDER TO MAKE IT VISIBLE, I DID A LITTLE CROPPING HERE SO YOU CAN SEE THE TOP OF IT, THE ROAD ON THE TOP RIGHT, AND A SNIP FROM THE BOTTOM-LEFT INDICATING THE PURPLE DASHED LINES OF THE FENCE LINE, A MINIMUM OF TWO FEET FROM THE NORTH TOE OF THE DUNE.
ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT HAS AGAIN APPROXIMATED THE 25 FOOT OFFSET OF THE NORTH TOE AS THE HORIZONTAL DASHED LINE CROSSING THROUGH THE DECK THERE.
NEXT WE HAVE PHOTOS OF THE SITE.
FROM THE TOP-LEFT CLOCKWISE, THE VIEW FROM THE SOUTH ON BOTTOM LEFT AND THEN WEST ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT.
LOOKING WEST AGAIN AND THE NORTH VIEW FROM THE LINE OF VEGETATION.
THIS CONCLUDES SOUTH SUPPORT AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
[00:35:01]
>> THANK YOU, RUSSELL. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> JUST PARAPHRASE INTO THE A&M WETLANDS REPORT HERE.
THEY WERE THE ONES THAT HAVE HELPED IDENTIFY THE APPROXIMATE AREA AND LOCATION OF THAT WETLAND AREA OF WHICH THE DESIGN WAS REDESIGNED TO CIRCUMVENT.
>> GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY.
>> I THINK I SPOKE WITH YOU EARLIER ABOUT THE CONCERN ABOUT THE IN THE DEPICTION THAT WE'VE SEEN, IT APPEARS THAT IT'S SHOWING THE DECK TO BE JUST A MINIMAL AMOUNT, I THINK.
BUT THERE'S OTHER PLACES IN HERE WHERE IT SHOWS A DECK EXTENDING FURTHER.
REMEMBER WE TALKED ABOUT THAT.
>> YES. THANK YOU. THAT IS ONE POINT THAT I MAY HAVE, IF WE CAN GO FURTHER BACK TO THE INITIAL SURVEY.
THANK YOU. I BELIEVE IN THE STAFF REPORT IT WAS PRESENTED AS.
IT'S UP TO 5-6 FEET SEAWARD OF THE 25 FOOT OFFSET HERE.
WHEREAS AT SOME POINT IT ONLY GETS 1-2 FEET.
THE DISTANCE IS VARIABLE AT WHICH IT CROSSES INTO THIS, BUT UP TO, I BELIEVE IT'S APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET HERE.
>> BASICALLY HALF THE DECK IS OVER THE LINE.
>> BUT NOT THE STAIRS, JUST THE WAY IT'S DRAWN?
>> CORRECT? THE STAIRS DO NOT CROSS INTO IT.
>> MR. COLE, YOU DISCUSS THESE OVERAGES WITH THE APPLICANT I'M GUESSING.
>> YES. WHEN THIS WAS INITIALLY SUBMITTED, I POINTED OUT THAT THIS WOULD REQUIRE AN EXEMPTION REQUEST DUE TO THE, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, TRESPASS OF THE DECK INTO THIS AREA AND RECOMMENDED THAT IT BE ALTERED PER OUR EARLIER DISCUSSION TO MOVE FURTHER LANDWARD OUTSIDE OF THIS ZONE.
THAT WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE APPLICANT, BUT ULTIMATELY THEY DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS DESIGN.
>> ARE THEY RUN UP AGAINST THE FRONT BUILDING LINE THERE OR IS THERE STILL ROOM FOR THEM TO MOVE THE HOUSE FORWARD? IT SAYS UE.
THERE'S I GUESS THAT'S A BLUE LINE.
>> THE BUILDING LINE IS THE I BELIEVE THAT PURPLE CURVED LINE THERE.
>> THERE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF ROOM BUT NOT VERY MUCH.
>> OH, WHEN WE DISCUSS EARLIER, YOU SAID THAT THE NORTH SIDE OF THAT IS RESERVED FOR AN ADDITIONAL UNIT.
>> THAT'S PROBABLY IN BEACH SIDE VILLAGE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU, RUSSELL.
AT THIS TIME, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 22P-077.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? HEARING NONE, WE'LL CONTINUE ON.
IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE ON THIS SIDE, ON THIS SIDE? HEARING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:10.
COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION.
>> I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE MOTION OF ON 22P-077 AND I MIGHT NEED A LITTLE HELP FROM LEGAL ON THIS ONE MS. FAIR WEATHER.
[00:40:02]
STAND AT THE READY, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE, MA'AM.I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 22P-077 WITH THE ADDITION OF A SPECIFIC CONDITION, NUMBER 6, THAT WE REQUIRE THAT THEY MOVE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE OUTSIDE THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA, WHICH WOULD THEN IN AND OF ITSELF ALLEVIATE THE NEED FOR SPECIFIC CONDITION ONE.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE JUST LEAVE THAT IN THERE.
>> CLARIFICATION IS THAT THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE OR THE FOOTPRINT OF THE FIRST FLOOR DECK?
>> THE WHOLE THING. THEY CAN HEAD, THEY HAVE THEIR DISCRETION, HOW THEY DO IT.
>> THE FOOTPRINT OF THE STRUCTURE INCLUDING THE DECK.
>> THE FOOTPRINT. SURE. THAT'S GOOD THAT WE CAN USE THAT WORDING.
SURE. FOOTPRINT OF THE STRUCTURE HOW DID YOU PROPOSE THAT COMMISSIONER WALLA? FOOTPRINT OF THE STRUCTURE INCLUDING THE DECK OUTSIDE THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA.
>> YES. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.
>> I'LL HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY.
DISCUSSION AND I MAY NEED A CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF IF THAT'S OKAY.
>> WAS THAT STATED CORRECTLY WITH BEING OUTSIDE OF THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA? CORRECT.
>> THAT'S THE CORRECT TERMINOLOGY.
EXCELLENT. WITH THAT, WE'LL CALL FOR A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AS RECOMMENDED BEFORE POLL ON.
>> LEGAL. DO WE KEEP THE APPROVAL OF AN EXEMPTION IN THERE THEN?
>> THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY NEED FOR IT.
>> YEAH. I DON'T THINK THAT THEY WOULD NEED CONDITIONS.
ONE BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING IN THE DUNE PROTECTION AREA, SO THEY'RE NOT EXEMPTING ANYTHING.
>> WOULD IT BE PRUDENT TO REMOVE THAT CONDITION? THEN IT'S A QUESTION.
>> THEY STILL NEED A BEACH FRONT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, BUT THEY NO LONGER REQUIRE AN EXEMPTION.
SO THE MOTION SHOULD BE THEN WE WOULD STRIKE CONDITION 1 AND THEN ADD THAT ADDITIONAL CONDITION.
>> JUST FOR RECORD PURPOSES, I'D PROBABLY DO THAT THE OPPOSITE WAY.
>> THEN THAT WOULD NECESSITATE THE STRIKING OF ONE.
>> MY CONCERN IS THEY'RE PRESSING EXCEPTION.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I FULLY RESPECT WHERE YOU GOING WITH THE MOTION.
I DO WANT TO BRING UP THIS WILL HAVE EFFECTS TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING WHERE YOU CAN SEE IT'S NOT JUST THE FACE OF THE BUILDING, BUT THERE'S THAT FRONT DECK PORTION.
SO IF IT'S IF IT'S BROUGHT UP, IT WOULD BE AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT BUILDING SETBACK AND UTILITY LINE.
UNLESS OF COURSE, THERE'S SOME REDUCTION IN THE DECK.
>> EITHER REDUCTION TO THE DECK OR REDUCTION TO THE OVERALL.
>> ALL RIGHT. JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT.
>> YEAH. I RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS AN IMPACT EVEN WITH THIS APPROVAL, AND SO THIS IS A GOOD QUESTION IS THAT IF WE'RE GRANTING APPROVAL OF A PARTICULAR PLAN, THAT IS THEN GOING TO REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLAN, I WOULD SAY THE REDUCTION IN SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOUSE WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
DO WE DO THIS OR IS SIMPLY TO REJECT IT?
>> AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE MY QUANDARY IS.
>> THE APPLICANT WENT WITH THE EXEMPTION ROUTE.
FROM WHAT I HEARD FROM RUSSELL, I THINK OTHER OPTIONS WERE DISCUSSED, BUT THEY STILL CHOSE TO GO THE EXEMPTION ROUTE.
[00:45:03]
THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IN MANY CASES, YOU'RE NOT THE REDESIGNING BOARD FOR THESE APPLICANTS, AND THAT'S REALLY WHERE MY MAJOR CONCERN IS, IS THAT WE'RE REDESIGNING THIS PROJECT IN A MAJOR WAY.I MEAN, IT'S NOT EASY TO MOVE HOUSE PLANT OR A FOOT OR OUT OF THE DCA.
JUST TO KEEP IT CLEAN, I WOULD SUGGEST A MOTION DEALING JUST WITH WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE GOING TO GRANT THE EXEMPTION OR NOT.
IF YOU WANT TO DEFER IT, MAYBE FOR MORE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAD THE APPLICANT COME BACK, THEY CAN ALWAYS LISTEN TO THE COMMENTS FROM THIS COMMISSION.
THAT'S ALSO A POSSIBILITY, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST NOT REDESIGNING THEIR PLANS TO THIS EXTENT.
GOD, I'M GETTING GOOD AT THAT.
>> THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
IS THERE ANY OTHER MOTION FOR THIS CASE, COMMISSIONER HUMPHREYS?
>> I MOVE THAT WE VOTE, AND I WOULD ASSUME WE'D BE MOVING.
I'VE MOVED THAT WE VOTE TO DISALLOW [OVERLAPPING] 077.
>> OKAY. THERE'S A MOTION TO DISAPPROVE OR PROJECT 22P-077. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> COMMISSIONER, OPINION? AGAIN, DISCUSSION, IF ANY? YES. COMMISSIONER WALLA.
>> RUSSELL, HATS OFF TO YOU FOR TRYING TO HELP THESE FOLKS OUT, AND I KNOW THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
I HOPE THAT THEY REALIZE THAT, AND I HATE TO VOTE TO NOT GRANT EXEMPTION WHERE WE DID ON THE LAST CASE.
BUT THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF APPLES AND ORANGES.
WHAT I REALLY WANT TO SAY IS, GEOFFREY, YOU DID A GREAT JOB OF SAYING, HEY, WE WANT TO HELP YOU, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU THE EXEMPTION.
SO I WOULD JUST, I'M SPEAKING TO RUSSELL, MAYBE I SHOULDN'T BE.
THERE'S SEVERAL THINGS THEY CAN DO.
I MEAN, I WOULD TELL THEM, IT'D BE NICE IF THEY WERE HERE.
MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE THAT MAYBE THEY TRY AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO CANTILEVER SOME OF THAT DECK OUT THERE.
WE'VE DONE THAT BEFORE WHERE THEY DON'T LOSE ALL THEIR DECK, SO THEY'RE ARE NOT PUT IN PILINGS IN THERE.
>> THAT WOULD STILL REQUIRE AN EXEMPTION.
>> SO MUCH FOR THAT? [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M NOT REDESIGNING THEIR HOUSE.
>> AND THE APPLICANT CAN THESE [OVERLAPPING]
>> OR RECORDED AND THEY CAN GO BACK AND LISTEN TO ALL THE COMMENTS, AND AS FAR AS I'M AWARE OF RUSSELL AIN'T GOING NOWHERE.
>> I DON'T KNOW WITH THAT BEARD, HE MIGHT BE HEADED TO THE WOODS.
>> BUT I WOULD SAY THERE'S AN ACTIVE MOTION ON BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS.
>> THANK YOU, MS. [INAUDIBLE].
>> SO THAT TELLS ME THAT THE PEOPLE THAT WERE SMART ENOUGH TO DESIGN SUCH A BEAUTIFUL THING, I'LL PROBABLY SMART ENOUGH TO COME UP WITH A WAY OF MITIGATING.
>> YEAH. I'D AGREE THAT THIS IS MUCH DIFFERENT THAN THE PREVIOUS CASE IN THAT THIS IS BRAND NEW CONSTRUCTION.
YOU HAVE ALL SORTS OF OPTIONS GIVEN A LIMITED AMOUNT OF BUILDABLE AREA, HOWEVER.
BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION THAT I'VE ALREADY MENTIONED BEFORE ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.
WITH THAT RUSSELL, THANK YOU FOR TAKING CARE OF THE APPLICANT AND WE'LL PATENT THESE IN THIS BACK IN YOUR LAP MOST LIKELY.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO DISAPPROVE CASE 22P-077.
WE HAVE A SECOND? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WITH THAT I CALL FOR A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF DISAPPROVING 22P-077.
[8.A.4 22P-078 (11367 Beachside Drive) Request For Beachfront Construction Certificate/Dune Protection Permit In Order To Construct A Single-Family Dwelling Including A Fibercrete Footer. Property Is Legally Described As Lot 633 Beachside Village Sec 6 (2022) Abstract 121, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas.]
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A FIBER CONCRETE DRIVEWAY AND FOOTER.
THE ADDRESS IS 11367 BEACHSIDE DRIVE, FOR CASE 22 P-078.
THE PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 633,
[00:50:01]
BEACHSIDE VILLAGE, SECTION 6, 2022, ABSTRACT 121, A SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.SUBJECTS SIDE IS LOCATED IN THE BEACHSIDE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION.
A BEACH AND DUNE SYSTEM ARE LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS ERODING AT A RATE OF 8-9 FT PER YEAR.
SOUTH HAS PREPARED PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR VIEWING.
NEXT, WE HAVE THE FIRM AND BEG MAP SHOWING THE RELATIVE VIEW OF THE PROPERTY TO THE DUNE SYSTEM AND THE ADJACENT STRUCTURES.
ON THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE PROPERTY SURVEY.
ZOOMED IN ON THE RIGHT, SHOW THE NORTH OF THE DUNE ON THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE 25 FOOT SETBACK.
ON THE FOLLOWING SLIDES, WE HAVE THE WEST AND THEN THE EAST ELEVATION VIEWS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
NEXT, WE HAVE TWO VIEWS OF THE PROPERTY LAYOUT UPDATED TO INCLUDE THE FUTURE PLAN STRUCTURE IN THE FRONT OF THE LOT, THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SEAWARD PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURE.
THIS WAS UPDATED POST JELL-O COMMENT RECEIVED.
SO THIS ADDRESS IS ONE OF THE CONCERNS OF THE STRUCTURE BEING SO FAR SEAWARD ON THE LOT AND THE APPARENT ABILITY TO MOVE IT FURTHER LANDWARD.
ON THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE FOUNDATION PLAN ILLUSTRATING THE FIBER CREEP FOOTER AND DRIVEWAY AND THE SEAWARD LIMIT OF THIS WORK.
FOLLOWING IS THE SECOND FLOOR PLAN DISPLAYING THE MOST SEAWARD PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE ON THE LEFT, WHICH DOES NOT CROSS THE 25 FOOT OFFSET FROM THE NORTH TO WITH CRITICAL DUNE AREA.
FINALLY, WE HAVE PHOTOS OF THE SITE LOOKING NORTH, LOOKING WEST, LOOKING SOUTH.
SORRY. EARLIER IT WAS EAST AND THIS IS WEST.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> HEARING NONE, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 22P-078 AT 04:23 P.M. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND THEN SIGN-IN.
WE'RE COVERING FOR BREX, WHO COULDN'T BE HERE TODAY.
OH, I SEE. OKAY. REPRESENTING THE ARCHITECT.
DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE TURN FOR ANY QUESTIONS? THE LOCATION OF THE HOUSE WAS DRIVEN BY THE HOA GUIDELINES.
WE'VE PLACED IT WHERE THEY ASKED US TO.
THEN IT WAS MODIFIED AFTER THE JLL COMMENTS, CORRECT? WHICH FURTHER ENHANCED COMPLIANCE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? VERY GOOD. WELL, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR BEING PRESENT.
YOU FEEL FREE TO BE SEATED. THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE, ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM OR ON THE SIDE OF THE ROOM? HEARING NONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 04:24 P.M. COMING BACK FOR A MOTIONAL CASE.
YES. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CASE 22 P-078 AS WRITTEN.
GREAT. WITH THAT, WE'LL CALL FOR A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CASE 22 P-078 AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.
ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
[8.B.1. 22P-073 (3827 Avenue L) Request For Designation As A Galveston Landmark. Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, Lot Portion Of Lot 1 (1-0), Block 38, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas.]
YOU'RE READY.CASE 22P073, IT'S 3827 AVENUE.
ALICE REQUESTS FOR DESIGNATION AS A CATALYST AND LANDMARK.
THIRTY NOTICES WERE SENT, ONE RETURNED TO THAT ONE IN FAVOR.
PLEASE NOTE THE ANALYSIS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT BUILT-IN 1922 IS THE PAGLIACCI MARKET.
[00:55:04]
THE BUILDING WAS LISTED IN INSURANCE RECORDS AS THE DWELLING OVER MERCANTILE.AT THAT TIME, FAMILY-OWNED STORES WERE A STANDARD OF GALVESTON LIFE, AND MANY OF THESE STRUCTURES STILL REMAIN ACROSS THE ISLAND.
THE PAGLIACCI MARKET WAS OPERATED BY THE SAME FAMILY FROM 1922 TO THE LATE 1970S.
THE SITE INCLUDES A RARE FEATURE OR MILITARY CALL BOX LOCATED UNDER THE CANOPY ALONG AVENUE L.
THE CALL BOX WAS USED DURING WORLD WAR I BY SOLDIERS ON PATROL TO COMMUNICATE WITH WAR CROCKETT.
THE ONLY OTHER EXAMPLE OF A MILITARY CALL BOXES IN THE LOSS BY A HISTORIC DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF 19TH STREET IN AVENUE L. THE PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT AND IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES FOR NEW GALVESTON LANDMARKS.
OTHER REVIEWS, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION VOTED YESTERDAY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND THAT VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS.
CITY COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL DECISION REGARDING THE REQUESTS FOR GALVESTON LANDMARK DESIGNATION, AND THAT WILL BE HEARD AT THEIR REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 8TH. NOW WE HAVE SOME PICTURES.
HERE'S THE STAFF RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.
HERE'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND YOU CAN SEE THE CALL BOX END TO THE AWNING AND THEN WE JUST HAVE THIS IS A LONG AVENUE L, AND WE HAVE ANOTHER SHOT OF THE BUILDING ALONG 39TH STREET.
IT'S NOT IN THE STAFF REPORT, BUT I THINK IT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT WE HAVE 122 GALVESTON LANDMARKS, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A CORNER STORE, SO THIS WILL BE THE FIRST CORNER STORE AND I THINK IT'LL BE A NICE ADDITION.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? HEARING NONE. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 22 P-0730427.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? HE'S NOT.
WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE, ON THE SIDE, AND ON THIS SIDE? HEARING NONE. WE'LL CLOSE IT AT 04:27 AND WE'LL COME BACK TO THE COMMISSIONERS FOR A MOTION. COMMISSIONER HILL.
I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF 22 P-073.
A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HUMPHREYS.
ANY DISCUSSION? WITH THAT? WE'LL CALL FOR A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF 22 P-073.
WITH THAT YOU WANT TO STEP CLOSER TO YOUR FIRST-QUARTER STORE? [LAUGHTER] NEXT CASE.
[8.C.1 22P-067 (0 San Luis Pass Road / FM 3005) Request For A Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District To Construct A New Single-Family Residential Development. Properties Are Legally Described As Part Of Lot 1 (1-3), Lots 2 And 3 Of Seabird Acres, In The City And County Of Galveston Texas.]
TWENTY-TWO P-067.TWENTY-TWO P-0670, SAME WILL PASS FOR NO ADDRESS HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THIS SITE.
THEY HAVE 34 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, ONLY ONE RETURNED WITH NO COMMENT.
THIS REQUEST IS TO INCORPORATE THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PUD OVERLAY DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY OR ONE-BASE ZONING DISTRICT TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF 40 SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS.
THE COMMERCIAL RETAIL LAND USE FOR A GENERAL-PURPOSE STORE.
THEY INTEND TO THIS POD IS TO DEVIATE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE WIDTH, DEVIATE FROM THE FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE R1 DISTRICT.
DEVIATE FROM TABLE 2.201, WHICH PROHIBITS RETAIL COMMERCIAL LAND USE IN THE R1 DISTRICT.
ALLOW FOR A PRIVATE STREET, REDUCE THE WIDTH OF A PRIVATE STREET FROM 60-28 FEET, DEVIATE FROM ARTICLE 6 OF THE LDR, WHICH REQUIRES THAT AND STREETS TO PROVIDE A TURNAROUND RADIUS OF AT LEAST 50 FEET.
ALSO DEVIATE FROM ARTICLE 6, WHICH PROHIBITS DOUBLE FURNITURE LOTS FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.
THE SITE IS COMPRISED OF THREE LARGE TRACKS WITH A COMBINED 8.14 ACRES SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE SOUTH AND EAST.
NOT THE PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PAGES 2, 3, AND 4 IF YOU'VE REPORTED, AS WELL AS THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL ON PAGES 4 AND 5.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS REQUESTS THAT FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE DEVELOPMENT, WERE NOT BE OUT OF SCALE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND DOES NOT CREATE LAND-USE CONFLICTS.
STAFF ALSO FINDS THAT THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE MOST COMMERCIAL USE ON ADJACENT AREAS AS MINIMAL.
THE CREATION OF A NEIGHBORHOOD-SERVING COMMERCIAL FACILITIES BENEFICIAL IN MEETING THE NEEDS OF EXISTING AND FUTURE WESTON RESIDENTS.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF THIS APPROVAL ARE LISTED ON YOUR REPORT AS ONE THROUGH EIGHT AND STANDARD CONDITIONS NINE THROUGH 11.
THIS IS THE AREOLA ZONING MAP OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
THIS IS THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AS WELL AS THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH, WEST, AND EAST.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF''S REPORT.
THANK YOU. START WITH QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
[01:00:07]
YOU WANT TO GO FIRST? WERE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL OR FIRE DEPARTMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGN, EVEN WITH THE DEAD END CONDITIONS?>> NEGATIVE BECAUSE THEY HAVE ACCESS ON [INAUDIBLE] THERE'S ALSO PROPOSED ACCESS ON SEABIRD DRIVEWARE.
>> SEABIRD. WE'VE SEEN PODS LIKE THIS COME THROUGH BEFORE AND WE'VE HAD CONCERNS ON STREET PARKING GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE'VE GOT A PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY REDUCTION ALL THE WAY DOWN TO 28 FT.
WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT LIMITING ON STREET PARKING?
>> NEGATIVE. I BELIEVE THE DESIGN WILL HAVE AMPLE PARKING UNDERNEATH OF STRUCTURES.
THAT IS THE MITIGATION FOR THAT.
>> SO THEY'RE PROPOSING TWO CAR PARKING UNDERNEATH THE STRUCTURE, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT 80 VEHICLES ULTIMATELY WHEN THIS PLACE IS BUILT OUT.
JUST A QUESTION. I'M GOING TO LET SOME OTHER PEOPLE SPEAK FIRST.
COMMISSIONER HILL. [OVERLAPPING] NO, KEEP GOING. I WANT YOU TO GO.
>> IN THAT RETAIL SPACE, THERE'S NO SPECIFIC CONVENIENCE STORE BECAUSE THERE WAS A BIG WHOOP DEE DO A FEW YEARS BACK, ABOUT A DOLLAR GENERAL IN THE AREA, AS I RECALL.
IT'S MORE HIGH-END TYPE RETAIL OR TARGETED RETAIL.
[OVERLAPPING] AM I UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY? [OVERLAPPING]
>> YEAH, COMMISSIONER, I THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT TO HOPEFULLY PROVIDE SOME MORE INSIGHT ON THAT.
WHAT HAS BEEN DESCRIBED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICATION INSTEAD, IT'S A GENERAL PURPOSE STORE AND THIS WOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER OF THE DOLPHIN WORLD.
>> THANK YOU. THEN JUST TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE I THINK ONE OF THE OBJECTIONS THAT I RECALL HEARING, JUST TO HELP THE COMMISSIONERS KNOW THAT WHEN WE HEARD THAT THAT DOLLAR GENERAL APPLICATION WAS, THERE WAS A REZONING APPLICATION AND WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THAT, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DONOR, BUT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS IN THE AREA BEFORE YOU REPRIMAND ME, [LAUGHTER] AND I COULD FEEL IT THROUGH THE TOP OF MY HEAD EVEN THOUGH MY HEAD WAS DOWN AND I WAS LOOKING THEM UP BY BARACK, FEEL THOSE EYEBALLS BORING INTO ME.
WHERE WAS I GOING WITH THIS NOW? WE HAD ISSUES WITH THE BIRD SANCTUARY THAT IS DIRECTLY BEHIND IT AND LIGHTING, THAT WAS A CONCERN FOR MANY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT WAS A CONCERN FOR ME, LOOKING AT IT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION STANDPOINT AND THE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN FOR THE CITY.
IN THE CITY, SPECIFICALLY COMING UP WITH YOUR LIGHTING PLAN, I KNOW THAT WE LOOK AT EVERYTHING BEING POINTED DOWNWARD.
>> IT'S CORRECT. AND NO LIGHT TRESPASS ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES MORE THAN 0.3 FOOT CANDLES, YES.
>> BUT THEN IF THE COMMISSION WANTED TO LOOK AT ADDING EVEN MORE OF A SPECIFIC LIGHTING PLAN THAT WOULD BE BIRD FRIENDLY, MORE OF A DARK SKIES OR AN AUDUBON LIGHTS OUT PROGRAM.
WE HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO THAT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW AS A COMMISSION, WE COULD ADD THAT TO THE PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS OF THE POD IF WE WERE INCLINED AS A COMMISSION?
[INAUDIBLE] NO, SIR. NOT RIGHT NOW.
>> SO WHEN THE PAD IS APPROVED, AND THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE COMMERCIAL RESERVE.
WE'RE NOT JUST SAYING, HEY, YOU GET A COMMERCIAL RESERVE AND YOU NOW HAVE A ZONE COMMERCIAL RESERVE AND THEY CAN DO THE LIST THAT GOES DOWN IF YOU'D LOOK UP COMMERCIAL IN THE LD [INAUDIBLE] SO THIS IS SPECIFIC TO?
[01:05:03]
>> WELL ANYWAYS THAT ANSWER THAT.
>> IT'S LIMITED SPECIFICALLY TO [OVERLAPPING]
>> NOT A BAR, NOTHING LIKE ESTABLISHING THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
ON THE 10 FOOT SETBACKS, SOME OF THOSE STRUCTURES AND THIS MIGHT BE MORE OF APPLICANT QUESTION.
BUT I KNOW SOME OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES ARE PRETTY LARGE.
A 10 FOOT SETBACK ON THAT ROAD, THERE WON'T BE ANY PARKING ON THAT STREET.
THERE'S NOT ANY WAY THAT IT WORKS WITH NARROWER LOTS.
I'M A LITTLE SKEPTICAL ABOUT THAT.
THIS MIGHT BE MORE ABOUT APPLICANT QUESTION AS TO WHY IT'S NOT 20 FEET INSTEAD OF 10, BECAUSE THOSE BIG HOUSES ARE GOING TO TAKE MORE THAN TWO PARKING SPOTS.
>> IF I MAY, COMMISSIONER WALLET, THIS DEVELOPER HAS ACTUALLY GOTTEN ANOTHER PUD APPROVED WITH SIMILAR DEVIATIONS.
SOME OF THIS STUFF, HE TALKS ABOUT THE ELEVATION OF THE PROPERTY AND CONGRATULATIONS, YOU HAVE AE ZONE WHICH IS UNUSUAL OUT THERE.
IT'S EIGHT FEET BY THE ROAD, BUT AT THE VERY BACK IT'S ALMOST 4 FEET.
I KNOW HOW THIS WORKS; HE'S GOING TO SUBMIT HIS PLANS TO ENGINEERING FOR DRAINAGE.
I'M ONLY MENTIONING THIS STUFF BECAUSE THIS IS VERY SPECIFIC AND VERY DETAILED.
WHEN YOU GET THIS APPROVED, THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO FOR THE MOST PART.
SO HIS PROPOSAL IS TO DRAIN OUT TO THE HIGHWAY.
I'M JUST CURIOUS, DID WE GET ANY COMMENTS FROM ENGINEERING REGARDING ANY OF THE DRAINAGE OR IS THAT JUST A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD?
>> A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD. THIS IS A VERY SPECIFIC APPROVAL AS ANY PUD, BUT IT'S ALSO A HIGH-LEVEL REVIEW.
THE MORE SPECIFIC DETAILS WOULD BE LOOKED AT MORE CLOSELY DURING THE PLANNING PROCESS, DURING THE PERMITTING STAGES.
SO THAT'S WHEN WE GET INTO MORE IN-DEPTH REVIEW.
>> IF HE WERE TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT CAME UP IN ENGINEERING, HE COULD CONCEIVABLY HAVE TO COME BACK TO HAVE THIS PAD AMENDED IF IT REQUIRED SOME DESIGN.
>> ONLY FOR SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATIONS.
>> ONLY FOR SUBSTANTIAL. OKAY. MY LAST ONE, AND I REALLY HATE TO BRING THIS UP, BUT I JUST WANT TO, FOR CLARIFICATION.
THERE'S NO DELINEATION THAT I'M AWARE OF THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED, AND I DO KNOW THAT ENGINEERING, THEY WILL DO THEIR JOB IN THAT.
MY QUESTION REALLY IS THAT, IF WE APPROVE THIS DESIGN IN THIS PLAT AND THEY'RE DELINEATED AND THEY HAVE WETLANDS THERE WHEN THEY BRING THE PLAT TO US, I DON T THINK WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DENY THEIR PRELIMINARY PLAT IF IT HAS WETLANDS ON IT.
>> WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
>> IF I MAY, COMMISSIONER WALLET, I THINK I KNOW WHERE YOU MIGHT BE GOING WITH THIS.
IF YOU LOOK AT CONDITION 10, I THINK THAT MAY COVER SOME OF YOUR CONCERNS.
ANY MAJOR DEVIATIONS OR AMENDMENTS TO THE PUD ORDINANCE IF EVENTUALLY APPROVED, WILL REQUIRE THE RETURN OF THE APPLICATION THROUGH THE PROCESS.
>> SO HE WOULD JUST HAVE TO COME BACK?
>> AGAIN, IF IT'S SIGNIFICANT, CORRECT.
WHAT THE CRITERIA ESTABLISHED IN THE PUD ORDINANCE, ARTICLE FOUR OF THE LDR, ALLOWS STAFF TO DO CERTAIN THINGS.
OTHER THINGS WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK.
>> AND I ONLY MENTIONED THAT IF IT HAS WETLANDS ON IT.
IN GENERAL, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE PROJECT.
I HAVE A REAL GOOD IDEA HOW THE PROCESS WORKS AND IT'S LIKE, HEY, THERE COULD BE SOME HICCUPS IN THIS.
HOW DOES THAT WORK FOR US APPROVAL WISE? WE CAN EASILY GO APPROVE HIS DESIGN.
>> UNDER CONDITION 10, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT ONE.
>> OTHER THAN THAT, ONE LAST THING.
I DO KNOW THAT AT ONE POINT IN TIME,
[01:10:02]
WE HAVE SOME LIMITED CAPACITY AT THAT TERMINAL PLAN.AT SOME POINT IN TIME THAT'S GOING TO BE FIXED AND THERE'S NOTHING TO SAY THAT HE CAN'T GO GET ALL THIS STUFF DONE AND WAIT FOR THAT.
>> I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE UTILITIES DIRECTOR.
SO I'M UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT [OVERLAPPING]
>> COMMENTS AT THIS TIME. AGAIN, A LOT OF THESE ISSUES WILL BE SORTED OUT DURING THEIR PLANNING PROCESS.
>> DURING THEIR PLANNING PROCESS AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.
THIS IS STEP ONE OF MANY STEPS FOR DEVELOPER AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MIGHT JUST RESPOND REAL QUICKLY ON THAT.
THE TERMAL PLANT HAD A SIGNIFICANT I&I PROBLEM, WHICH MEANT THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF INFILTRATION DURING RAIN EVENTS.
THEY'RE WORKING BACK FROM THE PLANT OUTWARD TO CORRECT THOSE.
THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS OBTAINING A GREAT DEAL OF CAPACITY BACK IN THE SYSTEM.
>> PERFECT. THAT'S ALL I HAD. THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THAT WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 22P-067. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME FORWARD? THANK YOU.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN-IN.
>> [INAUDIBLE] ABOUT THE WETLANDS.
>> IMMEDIATELY WHENEVER WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, I CALL IT THE AUDUBON.
>> CAN YOU COME SPEAK CLOSER TO THE MIC?
>> WHENEVER WE GOT THE PROPERTY, IMMEDIATELY, I CALL THE AUDUBON SOCIETY, AND I WANTED TO BUFFER BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE MIGHT BE A PROBLEM.
WHAT WE DID IS WE WORKED OUT A DEAL.
WE ENDED UP GIVING THEM THE WETLANDS IN BETWEEN US.
THE PROPERTY THAT WE BOUGHT, WE GAVE THEM A STRIP ALONG THE BACK THAT WAS WET.
TO YOUR POINT, THE PART THAT WAS WET, WE DONATE IT TO THE AUDUBON SOCIETY AND I'VE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH NO LESS THAN FIVE OR SIX OF THE PEOPLE THEY'RE WORKING WITH THEM AND STAYING IN TOUCH ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON, WHAT WE PLANNED ON DOING IT.
AGAIN, REPLATING THAT, WHICH IS ALL PART OF THE BIG PICTURE, IS ONCE A REPLATE IS DONE, THEN THAT WILL GO TO THEM.
WE CREATED A BUFFER INITIALLY JUST FOR THAT PURPOSE.
THAT WAS WHAT THE WET PART OF IT ON TOP OF IT.
IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, PLEASE FEEL FREE.
>> THE STORE OR WHATEVER THE BUILDING WAS GOING TO BE IS EITHER GOING TO BE MORE UNLIKELY OUR OFFICE FOR OUR BUILDING COMPANY.
I WAS TALKING TO ANOTHER VENDOR, THE GUY THAT OWNS A DOLPHIN SHOP AND HE WANTED TO PUT A RESTAURANT THERE.
I SAID, WELL, I'LL WAIT AND PLAY IT OUT BECAUSE WE REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.
WE JUST WANT TO MAKE IT DO SOMETHING MORE THAN RESIDENTIAL THERE POTENTIALLY. THAT'S IT ON THAT.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU. HOLD ON.
JUST SAYING LET'S SEE IF WE GOT ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> I HAVE ONE. YOU PROVIDED OFF STREET PARKING FOR TWO VEHICLES PER PROPERTY, CORRECT?
>> I KNOW YOU'LL PROBABLY GET ONE BECAUSE IT'S UNDERNEATH THE HOUSE.
[BACKGROUND] THEN YOU HAVE A DRIVEWAY IN FRONT.
>> MOST OF THE 10 FOOT SETBACK WAS JUST TO DO A MINIMAL MOST OF THEM.
IT'S THAT WAY BECAUSE OF THE ROYAL HOUSES IN THE MIDDLE IS BACK-TO-BACK STREET TO STREET.
IF YOU PUT 20-20 THEN YOU'RE LIMITED.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE SIZE HOUSES THAT THEY HAVE IN SUNSET COVE.
THESE ARE GOING TO BE BETWEEN PROBABLY 14 AND 2400 SQUARE FOOT HOUSES.
PROBABLY RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE, SOMEWHERE AROUND 18-2000.
>> I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR STAFF, BUT I'LL MAYBE OR FOR THE APPLICANT.
WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN FOR SIDEWALKS OR ARE THEY SHOWN AND I JUST CAN'T SEE THEM?
>> IT'S GOING TO BE A GATED. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ACCESS.
IT'S GOING TO BE A FIRE GATE ON THE BACKSIDE ON THE ENTRANCE TO SEABIRD.
IT'LL JUST BE FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES IF AND WHEN, IF EVER NECESSARY.
>> UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> THE EASEMENT ON SEABIRD, I COULDN'T BREAK THE CODE ON THAT.
THERE WERE A BUNCH OF LINES AND IT'S 70 FEET, BUT THEN IT SAYS 35 FEET.
>> WE OWN MOST, HALF OF SEABIRD.
>> THE ROAD ITSELF IS 70 FEET WIDE, BUT YOU OWN IN FEE UP INTO THE MIDDLE OF IT BECAUSE IT SAYS IT'S A PRIVATE ROAD.
>> WE OWN, A LITTLE BIT OF AN ANGLE AT THE SOUTHERN POINT IS LESS AND THE NORTHERN POINT IS MORE.
[01:15:03]
>> I'M SURE THE ENGINEERING GUYS WILL WORK THROUGH ALL THAT.
>> I DON'T KNOW THE TOTAL SIDE ON THE DRAINAGE, BUT FROM WHAT I SAW WHERE IT'S ABOUT HALF AND HALF.
THERE'S A BIG DITCH ON THE WEST SIDE AND ON THE EAST SIDE, THERE'S A BIG SLEW ON BOTH SIDES THAT I KNOW THE WATER RUNS BACK TOWARDS THE BAY.
>> I WOULD JUST SAY, I LIVE IN THE AREA AND THE COMMERCIAL STUFF WOULD PROBABLY WELCOMED.
I JUST DON'T THINK ANYBODY THAT HAS A HOUSE THERE WANTS A KARAOKE CLUB THERE.
>> IT'S NOT A VERY BIG TRACT EITHER.
>> I WISH YOU LUCK. I LIKE THE PROJECT.
>> GREAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> ALL RIGHT I APPRECIATE. IS THERE ANYBODY IN THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE AND ON THIS SIDE.
HEARING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:47 PM COME BACK TO THE COMMISSIONERS FOR A MOTION.
CAN I GET A MOTION, CASE 22 P-067.
>> MR. CHAIR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 22 P-067, AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WALLA, SECOND.
COMMISSIONER HUMPHREY. ALL RIGHT AND WE HAVE A SECOND.
DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER HILL.
>> I'D REALLY LIKE TO ADD AN AMENDMENT TO ENSURE THAT ALL THE PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH DARK SKY LIGHTING STANDARDS AND AUDUBON LIGHT AT LIGHTS OUT PROGRAM GUIDELINES.
TO ENSURE THAT THE MIGRATORY BIRDS, THE AUDUBON LIGHTS OUT PROGRAM, ENSURES THAT MIGRATORY BIRDS ARE NOT LURED IN OR SET OFF PATH BY THE LIGHTING.
I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY ANYWHERE OUT ON THE WEST END.
I'D LIKE TO ADD A REQUIREMENT FOR THAT SINCE IT IS A POD AND WE CAN DO THAT.
WE CAN REQUIRE IT FOR THE PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
I'D LIKE TO ADD A SPECIFIC CONDITION FOR THAT.
>> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM, MY SUGGESTION IS I THINK IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION.
I DON'T THINK IT'S FOR ME TO MAKE YOUR AMENDMENT.
>> WE NOW KNOW THAT IT'S NOT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ANYMORE.
>> YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO PROPOSE WHETHER OR NOT TO ADD AN AMENDMENT.
I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION TO ADD A SPECIFIC CONDITION THAT READS THAT WE ENSURE THAT ALL PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH DARK SKY LIGHTING STANDARDS AND AUDUBON QUOTE, LIGHTS OUT IN QUOTE, PROGRAM GUIDELINES.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> A QUICK QUESTION. CAN YOU REPHRASE THAT A LITTLE BIT? SAY THAT AGAIN. I SHOULD SAY?
>> THE SPECIFIC CONDITION WOULD BE TO ENSURE THAT ALL PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH DARK SKY LIGHTING STANDARDS AND AUDUBON LIGHTS OUT PROGRAM GUIDELINES.
>> WHEN WE'RE SAYING PUBLIC ACCESS SPACE, I MAY NEED TO BE CLEAR ON THIS IS WHAT'S OWNED BY THE APPLICANT, NOT WHAT THE CITY NEEDS TO DO.
>> RIGHT. I'M TALKING ABOUT WITHIN THE POD.
I'M TALKING ABOUT HIS STREETS.
>> WE MAY NEED MORE CLARITY NOT FROM YOU, BUT FROM THE APPLICANT ABOUT WHETHER SEABIRD FOR EXAMPLE IT'S GOING TO BE A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET.
BECAUSE IN OUR STANDARD PROCESSES, IF IT'S A PUBLIC STREET, IT HAS THE LIGHTING THAT CENTER POINT ASSIGNS, AND IT'S PAID FOR BY THE DEVELOPER AND IS INSTALLED AT DEVELOPER'S COST.
[01:20:05]
I'M NOT SO SURE THAT THOSE DO MEET THE DARK SKY'S CRITERIA.I DO KNOW THAT THEY'RE FULL CUT-OFF LIGHTS SO THEY SHINE DIRECTLY DOWNWARD, BUT I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE THAT IT WOULD MEET THAT STANDARD.
I THINK YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO PUT THAT STANDARD ON A PRIVATE STREET.
BUT ON A PUBLIC STREET, WE DON'T.
I GUESS WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND IF SEABIRD IS GOING TO BE PUBLIC OR NOT.
>> I CAN SEE ON HERE THAT ALL OF THEIR STREETS ARE LISTED AS PRIVATE ROAD.
>> RIGHT. BUT SEABIRD IS NOT SHOWN THERE.
>> IS SEABIRD WITHIN LIMITS OF THE PED?
>> SEABIRD DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE.
>> IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE. I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, DOES THE DEVELOPER INTEND TO BUILD THAT TO A PUBLIC STREET STANDARD OR TO A PRIVATE STREET STANDARD? BECAUSE IT REALLY NECESSITATES THAT ANSWER TO KNOW WHAT STREETLIGHTS STANDARD WE WOULD APPLY.
WHAT IF YOU MAKE YOUR ANY STREET LIGHTING? CAN WE LIMIT IT TO STREET LIGHTING THAT HE WOULD INSTALL WOULD BE TO THAT STANDARD?
>> ENTRANCE LIGHTING [INAUDIBLE]
>> ENTRANCE AND STREET LIGHTING WOULD BE TO THAT STANDARD BECAUSE IT IS ALL PRIVATE STREET.
>> ADRIAL, COULD YOU HELP US ON THIS ENTRANCE AND STREET LIGHTING?
>> YEAH. I MEAN, WE CAN SAY COMMON AREAS IT'S AN ACCEPTABLE TERM.
BUT AS TIM MENTIONED, THAT'S ONLY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OR CONFINES OF THE PED REQUEST.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT [OVERLAPPING]
>> I PERSONALLY DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE MOTION. COMMON AREAS.
I MEAN, WE CAN GET MORE SPECIFIC, SAY COMMON AREAS, MEANING STREET LIGHTING, COMMERCIAL RESERVE AREAS FOR PARKING, ETC.
WE CAN GET INTO THOSE DETAILS, BUT AS FAR AS WHAT IT APPLIES TO ONLY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PED REQUEST.
>> TIM, I GUESS I'M NOT REALLY UNDERSTANDING WHY SEABIRD IS RELEVANT.
I DON'T REALLY SEE SEABIRD AS PART OF THIS PED.
>> CORRECT. BUT THE DEVELOPER OFFERED TO PAVE THE STREET TO HAVE A SECONDARY FORM OF ACCESS.
IF THAT STREET IS BUILT TO A 28-FOOT STANDARD, THAT'S JUST LITERALLY THE CONCRETE SECTION.
THE RIGHT OF WAY THEREAFTER, WHETHER IT'S 35 OR 70 FEET, IS WHERE THOSE STANDARD IMPROVEMENTS GET LANE SO TO SPEAK.
THE STREETLIGHTS, IN OTHER WORDS, IF IT'S A PUBLIC STREET, CENTER POINT REQUIRES A CERTAIN ILLUMINATION STANDARD.
>> WELL, THEN I'M HAPPY TO SAY [OVERLAPPING] EXCLUDING.
>> NOT INCLUDING PUBLIC NOT INCLUDING PUBLIC STREETS.
>> PERFECT.THAT WOULD ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>> FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION, IF I MAY, IF THE DEVELOPER WANTED TO MAKE SEABIRD A PRIVATE STREET THEN IT WOULD BE PART OF THIS PED PLAN.
>> IT WOULD STILL BE COVERED BY THE WAY YOU PHRASED THAT MOTION.
>> BECAUSE THE LDR STATES THAT IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A PRIVATE ROAD IN THE CITY, IT HAS TO BE DONE THROUGH A PED.
>> NOT INCLUDING PUBLIC STREETS, THEN WE'RE COVERED ON THAT.
I HAVE MADE A MOTION FOR AN AMENDMENT.
WAS THERE A SECOND ON THE MOTION FOR THE AMENDMENT?
>> CHAIRING THE MEETING. [LAUGHTER]
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ADDING THE AMENDMENT AS STATED BY COMMISSIONER HEPP.
>> THE MOTION PASSES TO ADD THE AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO APPROVE. RIGHT?
>> GREAT. THANKS. WE VOTED ON THAT NOW.
I WANT TO GO BACK TO OPEN IT UP TO DISCUSSION ON THE MAIN MOTION TO APPROVE NOW THAT WE'VE ADDED THE AMENDMENT.
I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
IN PREVIOUS PED APPLICATIONS, WE'VE ADDED THE REQUIREMENT FOR STRIPING OF A FIRE LANE.
IS IT APPROPRIATE HERE TOO, FOR ME TO.
CAN WE CONSIDER THAT AS PART OF THIS ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT TO THIS PED OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S HANDLED AT THE STAFF LEVEL?
>> I THINK WITHIN THE PED PROCESS,
[01:25:03]
YOU CERTAINLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADD ADDITIONAL STANDARDS.THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO.
HOWEVER, WHEN WE START THINKING ABOUT THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT AND THE NUMBER OF DEVIATIONS AND CONDITIONS THAT WE IMPOSE ON THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF, THEN WE ALSO NEED TO START THINKING ABOUT COMPLIANCE AND HOW TO ENFORCE THOSE.
>> NO, I APPRECIATE THAT. AS PART OF THIS PED, THE DEVELOPER HAS REQUESTED A NUMBER OF VARIANCES, NON-CONFORMING CONDITIONS FROM THAT AND SO I COMPLETELY RESPECT THAT.
WITH THAT, I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?
>> IF IT MAKES YOU FEEL ANY BETTER, THE FIRE MARSHAL WILL MAKE A DETERMINATION IN IT.
WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO CALL FOR A VOTE ON CASE 22 P-067.
AS WE'LL SEE, THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE WITH THE AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY COMMISSIONER HILL. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
>> MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, STAFF AND THANK YOU.
>> JUST FOR THE RECORD, I LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THAT CITY COUNCIL HAS TO FIND A DECISION AUTHORITY IN PED REQUEST AND THE COUNCIL WOULD HEAR THIS REQUEST ON DECEMBER 8TH OF 2022.
[8.D.1 22P-075 (3307 Avenue M) Request For A Replat Of Two Lots Into Two. The Properties Are Legally Described As: M.B. Menard Survey, East 23-4 Feet Of Lot 5 And West 35-8 Of Lot 6 (1006-1), Northeast Block 12, Galveston Outlots, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas.]
>> I THINK WE'RE IN THE HOMESTRETCH HERE.
HERE WE GO. THIS IS A 20P-075.
THIS IS AT 3307 AVENUE M. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A REPLAY.
THERE WERE THREE PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.
TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY HERE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AND REPLAY OF TWO PORTIONS INTO TWO.
CURRENTLY THE PORTIONS ORIENTED NORTH TO SOUTH, AND THE APPLICANT WISHES TO REPLANT THEM INTO TWO EAST TO WEST ORIENTED LOTS, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT ONE LOT WOULD HAVE ONLY ALLEY AXIS.
BECAUSE OF THIS REQUEST, IT DOES NOT MEET THE ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARDS FOR A REPLY, WHICH NORMALLY WOULD APPLY IN THESE SITUATIONS BECAUSE IT'S AN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, WE'RE NOT CREASING LOTS.
BUT IN THIS CASE, IT ACTUALLY BECOMES SOMETHING THAT PLANNING COMMISSION CAN HEAR AND I BELIEVE TAKE ACTION ON IT.
THE SITE IS COMPOSED OF TWO PARALLEL PORTIONS OF LAND WHICH CURRENTLY CONTAINING LARGE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOUSE LOCATED MILLIWATTS, WHICH WAS BUILT QUIET LONG AGO WHEN IT WAS LESS OF A CONCERN IN A SMALL ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT LOCATED PRETTY MUCH ONLY ALLEY.
BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS MORE OR LESS CENTERED, THE APPLICANT CANNOT MEET THAT MINIMUM 12-FOOT WIDE STREET FRONTAGE REQUIRED BY SECTION 6.302 (B)(4)(B) OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, WHICH WOULD CREATE A FLAG SHAPE LOT THAT COULD BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THAT THE REAR LOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON THE ALLEY AND ACCESS FROM THE ALLEY ONLY WHICH IS ALLOWED BY THE SECTION 6.302 E OF THE LDR.
OF COURSE, WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW.
THE SUBJECT PORTION ALL SURROUNDING PORTIONS IS ON URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD.
A LITTLE MISTAKE IN THE STAFF REPORT.
THE PORTION TO THE NORTH IS IN FACT NOT AN UNDEVELOPED IT IS DEVELOPED, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT ERROR.
PORTIONS TO THE EAST, SOUTH AND WEST ALL CONTAINS SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS.
THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SURROUNDED BY RESIDUAL PROPERTY.
EXCEPT FOR OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL LINES THAT ARE ON THE FAR OR SOUTH SIDE OF THE ALLEY OF THE ALLIED TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY IS LARGELY UNOBSTRUCTED AND INCLUDES A PAVED, IMPROVED SURFACE.
PLEASE NOTE THE ZONING AND LAND USE A TABLE IN THE STAFF REPORT IN THE LIGHT BLOCK CONFIGURATION CONFORMANCE TABLED BELOW THAT.
ALL THE PROPOSED LOTS MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR WIDTH, DEPTH, AND AIR FOR URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING, WHICH AN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD THERE IS NO WIDTH OR LENGTH OR DEPTH REQUIREMENT IS ONLY A SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT IN BOTH LOTS WILL BE AT LEAST 2,500 SQUARE FOOT, WHICH CONFORMS. NOTE THAT NO CONCERNS WERE RECEIVED FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS OR OUTSIDE UTILITY COMPANIES.
THE PROS REPLAY, IT DOES INCLUDE A FIVE FOOT WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT FOR THE FRONT HOUSE TO ACCESS EXISTING WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LOCATED IN THE ALLEY.
PLEASE NOTE THE CRITERIA FOR PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL.
STAFF RECOMMENDS CASE 22P-075 BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, A ONE IN STANDARD CONDITIONS 2-3.
WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS IT STANDS NOW.
YOU CAN SEE THE OLD LOT LINE THAT'S DOWN A LITTLE OFF CENTER OF THE MIDDLE.
YOU SEE THE EXISTING HAZARDOUS QUITE SIGNIFICANT.
[01:30:01]
THERE'S PRETTY MUCH CENTERED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT.THEN ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, YOU HAVE A SKETCH SHOWING THE PROPOSED DIVISION OF LAND IF THE REQUEST IS APPROVED.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THE BACK LOT WITH THE SMALL ACCESSORY DWELLING WOULD BE 2,500 SQUARE FOOT IN THE FRONT LOT WITH THEM BE SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER.
YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE UTILITY EASEMENT THERE ALONG THE SIDE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE UTILITIES TO THAT FRONT HOUSE.
WE ALSO HAVE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS STANDARD THAT IS APPLICABLE THERE FOR YOUR REVIEW.
THAT IS THE ISSUE AT HAND HERE IS THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE A SPACE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE TO PROVIDE A 12-FOOT WIDE ACCESS THAT THEY ARE SHOWING.
HIT NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. I GUESS I THOUGHT I COULD SWEAR I HAD SOME PHOTOS.
I APOLOGIZE. BUT YEAH, IT IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND THIS LOT IS ALSO RESIDENTIAL.
THIS DOES CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
>> WAS THIS REPORT SENT TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND DID THEY HAVE ANY QUALMS ABOUT THAT ALLEY AND ALLIE AXIS?
>> SO SO TYPICALLY WHEN WE SEND THESE REQUESTS FOR REPLANT REVIEWS THAT WE GO TO FIRE DEPARTMENT, POLICE DEPARTMENT, EVEN AIRPORT, EVEN THOUGH AIRPORT USUALLY DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT.
PUBLIC WORKS, ENGINEERING BUILDING, AN OUTSIDE UTILITIES AND NO ONE PROVIDED, INCLUDING FIRE DEPARTMENT, HAD NOTHING TO SAY.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ARE YOU SURE? [LAUGHTER] COME ON.
YOU AND RUSTY DO IT ALL THE TIME.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS I'D LIKE TO COMMENT IS THAT JUST MAYBE AN OBSERVATION.
THIS IS ONE OF THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE IN CERTAIN BLOCKS YOU DO FIND A LARGE CONTINGENT OF ALLEY HOUSES.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A BLOCK THAT IS TYPICAL OF THAT.
BUT I DO KNOW THAT IN THESE TYPES OF NEIGHBORHOODS, YOU DO FIND ALLEY HOUSES AND OTHER LOTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBDIVIDED LIKE THIS OVER THE COURSE OF YEARS.
I DON'T FIND IT TO BE UNCOMMON OR AN UNREASONABLE REQUEST.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> I'M SURE YOU SAID THIS, DANIEL.
THE 25 WOOD IS NOW GOING TO BE A 2,500 SQUARE FOOT ALLEY LOT WITH ALLEY ACCESS THAT ALL MEETS, LDR REQUIREMENTS, THE EYES AND ACCESS.
>> RIGHT. COULD CORRECT AND URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, THE ONLY REQUIREMENT IS 2,500 SQUARE FOOT AND THEY'VE GOT DIVIDED RIGHT AT THE 2,500 SQUARE FOOT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WITH THAT WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 22P-075.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? THANKS FOR BEING HERE FOR THE ENTIRE MEETING.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN-IN.
ANY COMMENTS YOU'D LIKE TO STAY FOR THE RECORD?
>> NO, SIR. I HAVE PHOTOS. DO YOU WANT TO SEE THE PHOTOS?
>> LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ON THE CASE? THAT WAS EASY.
>> THE INTENTION IS TO RESITUATE WHAT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THAT SECOND ON THE NEW PLOT? OR IS IT JUST TO REHAB?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> WITH THAT WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING AND FOR BEING PATIENT WITH US. THANK YOU.
FOR THE PUBLIC, IS THERE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS SIDE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? ANYBODY ON THIS SIDE? HEARING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 05:05 PM AND COME BACK.
CAN WE GET A MOTION ON THIS CASE, PLEASE?
>> WHAT ABOUT YOU MR. PARKER? YOU WANT TO DO IT, MR. PARKER?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION. [OVERLAPPING] YEAH.
[01:35:04]
>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE 22P-075 AS PRESENTED.
>> JUST CONFIRMING MAYBE NOT JUST SPECIFIC TO THIS, BUT CONCERNED THAT THIS WOULD CHANGE THE OVERALL LANDSCAPE OF THE CORE NEIGHBORHOODS OF GALVESTON WHERE THAT ONE SOLID TRACK IS NOW GOING TO BE, CHANGE THE DENSITY, CHANGE THE SCOPE.
IN TERMS OF INCREASING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IT CAN BE A GOOD THING.
BUT I'M JUST SOMEWHAT CAUTIOUS ON THIS.
BUT WE RUN UP AGAINST THESE DENSITY QUESTIONS, MUCH LIKE WE'VE ADDRESSED WITH THE DIRECTOR PREVIOUSLY ON THE WEST END AND WITH A PREVIOUS PUD.
I THINK THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE EVOLUTION OF THE URBAN CORE, SINCE THE ORIGINAL PLANTING AND YOU SEE THAT THE CLEAR DIVISION OF PROPERTIES FROM THESE FOLDED LOTS TO EITHER TWO OR THREE, PARTICULARLY ON THE NUMBERED STREETS.
THAT WAS A FUNCTION OF THE MARKET AT THE TIME.
I THINK WE MAY FIND THAT THIS TYPE OF CONDITION MAY BECOME MORE COMMON IN THE URBAN CORE AS YOU TRY TO FIND ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY, MAYBE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I WAS WAITING FOR SOMEBODY TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I WAS WAITING FOR MY URBAN PLANNER TO COME OUT.
>> COMMISSIONERS, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO CAUTION YOU ALL THAT WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH PLATS, THAT WE ALSO DO HAVE CONSIDERABLE LEGAL PARAMETERS THAT WE ARE OPERATING WITHIN.
DON'T WE DIRECTOR AND COUNCIL? THAT WE ARE VERY NARROW IN OUR SCOPE OF WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DO.
MOM WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU [LAUGHTER] THAT GENERALLY IF A PLAT MAKES IT THIS FAR IN FRONT OF US.
>> STEVENS EAT MORE ICE CREAM.
>> YES AND ADMITTEDLY, STAFF DID PROPERLY SAY THAT THEY NEEDED TO COME FORWARD FOR US TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.
WE'RE NORMALLY WE WOULDN'T IF IT MENTAL CONDITIONS, BUT THIS ONE'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
WITH THAT CAN WAIT. NO, THAT'S IT.
WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.
I'D LIKE TO CALL FOR A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
I THINK STAFF THAT IS THE CONCLUSION OF OUR NORMAL AGENDA.
ANY OTHER NEW BUSINESS OR DISCUSSION ITEMS? [BACKGROUND] WITH THAT, WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 05:09 WITH NO OTHER DISCUSSION. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.