[00:00:02] ALL RIGHT, WE'LL, CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. [1. Call Meeting To Order] CITY GALVESTON PLANNING COMMISSION FOR TUESDAY, APRIL 16TH. WE'VE ALL SIGNED IN ON THE ATTENDANCE, AND WE HAVE A QUORUM. IS THERE ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST? SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM 4A, THE APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 2ND REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. [4. Approval Of Minutes] ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS, ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS? SEEING NONE, WE'LL APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. PUBLIC COMMENT. IF THERE'S ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON A NON AGENDA ITEM. NOW IS YOUR TIME. SEEING NONE. WE'LL MOVE TO OLD BUSINESS 6A TEXT AMENDMENT CASE 24ZA-003. [6.A.1. 24ZA-003 Request For A Text Amendment To The Galveston Land Development Regulations, Article 3: Yard, Lot, And Setback Standards To Amend The Broadway Design Standards. Applicant: Development Services Department] THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE GALVESTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ARTICLE THREE TO AMEND THE BROADWAY DESIGN STANDARDS. CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE BROADWAY DESIGN STANDARDS AND PERMITTED USES AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDED CHANGES. PLANNING COMMISSION HAS HELD A SERIES OF WORKSHOPS FROM DECEMBER OF 2023 THROUGH THIS AFTERNOON. THE TOPICS REVIEWED IN THE WORKSHOPS INCLUDED HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT ON BROADWAY, REGULATION ON BROADWAY, OVERVIEW OF CURRENT REGULATIONS AND PERMITTED USES, PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE REGULATIONS, AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS FOR BROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS. THIS CASE WAS HEARD AT THE APRIL 2ND MEETING AND DEFERRED FOR ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION. WE REVIEWED SOME POSSIBLE CHANGES AT THE WORKSHOP THIS AFTERNOON, AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS PRESENTED THIS AFTERNOON. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU CATHERINE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE. PUBLIC HEARING. PUBLIC HEARING. OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK? YES, MA'AM. PLEASE COME FORWARD. STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN. REMIND HER OF HER THREE MINUTES? NO. [LAUGHTER] YEAH. SHE'S ALREADY USED 15 SECONDS SIGNING IN. I GUESS WE'LL GIVE HER AN EXTRA TEN. TICK TOCK, JEOFFREY HILL. FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND THE COMMISSION COUNCIL STAFF, ALL FOR TAKING THIS ON. LONG OVERDUE. THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS ALL STARTED. IF IT STARTED WITH COUNCIL. IF IT STARTED WITH YOU COMMISSIONER, CHAIR, I DO NOT KNOW WHERE IT STARTED. WHO STARTED THE BALL ROLLING? THANK YOU. AND I REALLY URGE YOU TO GET THIS MOVING FORWARD NOW TO EXPAND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT TO 27TH. I THINK IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT WE PROTECT OUR CORNER RIGHT UP HERE. AND THAT I WOULD SUGGEST, COMMISSIONER CHAIR WALLA, THAT YOU GET MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF DIRECTION, MAYBE FROM MR. TIETJENS OR FROM CATHERINE ON THIS 59TH TO 46TH WHEN YOU SUGGEST YOUR AMENDMENT HERE IN A LITTLE BIT. IN THIS 2016, 2017 STUDY, THERE WERE DEFINITELY STAIR STEP DEVELOPMENT ZONES. AND I THINK THAT IT TOOK THAT NEXT ZONE MAYBE FROM 59TH TO 46TH, MAYBE INSTEAD OF 43RD. AND THERE WAS A DEFINITE DEVELOPMENT ZONE IN THERE THAT THEY HAD SUGGESTED, AND THEY HAD A DEFINITE CUT OFF IN THAT AREA. AND THAT WHEN YOU MAKE THAT AMENDMENT TO SUGGEST THAT TO COUNCIL FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, I MEAN FUTURE EXPLORATION, THAT YOU PERHAPS THINK ABOUT LOOKING AT THAT AND WHAT WAS SUGGESTED THERE. BUT AGAIN, THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS. IT WAS WAY OVERDUE AND IS MUCH APPRECIATED. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING THE ITEM BACK TO COMMISSION FOR ACTION. AND I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 27ZA-003 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS WITH AN AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT E, I'M SORRY, EXHIBIT A, WHICH WOULD ALLOW UP TO TWO CURB CUTS WITH A MAXIMUM WIDTH OF 12FT, PROVIDED THEY ARE FOR ONE WAY TRAFFIC WITH DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE OR A SINGLE 25 FOOT CUT. AND THESE WOULD BE ON BROADWAY, WHERE ALTERNATE ACCESS IS AVAILABLE FOR THE SITE. ADDITIONALLY, I WOULD ADD A PROVISION THAT COUNCIL CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT [00:05:01] ZONE FOR THAT PORTION OF BROADWAY BETWEEN 59TH AND 43RD STREET, WHICH WOULD PRIMARILY INCLUDE LARGE CONTIGUOUS TRACKS, AND THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION TO SEND BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER ACTION. DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU, CATHERINE? THAT'S GOOD. I'M OUT OF BREATH. I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. WE'LL TAKE A VOTE. THAT'S UNANIMOUS. SO 24ZA-003 IS APPROVED. SO ON TO OUR NEW BUSINESS. [7.A.1. 24P-016 (Adjacent To 302 Mechanic/Avenue C) Request For A License To Use In Order To Place Signage. Adjacent Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, Lot 8 And South 1/2 Of Adjacent Alley, Block 603; And West Half Of 3rd Street; In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Caryn Allis Guajardo, UTMB Adjacent Property Owner: Magnolia Holding Company Easement Holder: City Of Galveston Documents: Documents:24P-016 (Adjacent To 302 Mechanic/Avenue C) Request For A License To Use In Order To Place Signage. Adjacent Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, Lot 8 And South 1/2 Of Adjacent Alley, Block 603; And West Half Of 3rd Street; In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Caryn Allis Guajardo, UTMB Adjacent Property Owner: Magnolia Holding Company Easement Holder: City Of Galveston] 24P-0016. THIS IS ADJACENT TO 302 MECHANIC AVENUE C IT'S A REQUEST FOR LICENSE TO USE FOR SIGNAGE. EIGHT PUBLIC NOTICES WERE SENT. ZERO RETURNED. NO OBJECTION FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS OR PRIVATE UTILITIES. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A LICENSE TO USE THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY TO INSTALL IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE. THE SIGNAGE IS FOR MADDIE'S PLACE, A RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FOR MATERNITY PATIENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH. THE FACILITY PROVIDES A HOME LIKE ENVIRONMENT FOR WOMEN WITH HIGH RISK PREGNANCIES THAT NEED TO REMAIN AT UTMB LONG TERM. THE SIGN IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN THE RIGHT OF WAY IN ORDER TO ENHANCE VISIBILITY. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR UTMB TO LOCATE SIGNS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY IN ORDER TO ENHANCE VISIBILITY FOR THEIR IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE. STAFF RECOMMENDS CASE 24P016 BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE AND TWO AND STANDARD CONDITIONS EIGHT THROUGH I'M SORRY THREE THROUGH EIGHT. AND WE HAVE SOME EXHIBITS. THIS IS A SITE PLAN SHOWING THE LOCATION, WHICH IS JUST OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE WEST OF THE DRIVEWAY ON MECHANIC. AND THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SUBJECT AREA. AND THEN WE HAVE THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST, WEST, SOUTH AND EAST. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU CATHERINE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. SEEING NONE WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 24P-016. ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THAT CASE? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING THE ITEM BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR ACTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 24P-016 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ONE THROUGH AND STANDARD CONDITIONS ONE THROUGH EIGHT. SECOND. SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND A SECOND, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE WE'LL TAKE THE VOTE. THOSE IN FAVOR. THAT'S UNANIMOUS 24P-016 IS APPROVED. MOVING ON TO 24P-012. [7.B.1. 24P-012 (1116 30th Street) Request For A Minor Plat To Reconfigure Two Lots Into Four. Properties Are Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, Lot 3 And North OneHalf Of Lot 4, Block 89, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Jose Almodovar, Integrity Interior Exterior, Inc. Property Owners: Integrity Interior Exterior, Inc.] ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS IT. 1116 30TH STREET. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A REPLAT. THERE ARE 41 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, AND NONE OF THOSE ARE RETURNED. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REPLAT OF TWO PARCELS INTO FOUR. CURRENTLY, THE PARCELS ARE VACANT AND ARE ORIENTED EAST TO WEST BETWEEN 30TH STREET AND THE NORTH SOUTH MID-BLOCK ALLEY. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE ODD BLOCKS WHERE THE ALLEY RUNS NORTH TO SOUTH. THE APPLICANT WISHES TO REPLAT INTO FOUR EAST WEST ORIENTED LOTS. THIS WILL RESULT IN TWO OF THE EASTERNMOST LOTS HAVING ACCESS FROM THE ALLEY ONLY, AND NO DIRECT ACCESS FROM 30TH STREET. AND BECAUSE OF THIS IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL AND MUST BE APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION. ONCE AGAIN, THE SITE IS COMPOSED OF TWO PARCELS. AS NOTED PREVIOUSLY, WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LINES ARE LOCATED IN THE MID-BLOCK ALLEY DIRECTLY BEHIND THE PARCELS RUNNING NORTH TO SOUTH. SUBJECT PARCEL ALL THREE PARCELS ARE ZONED URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD. AND PRIMARILY INCLUDES SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS ABOUT THE ONLY UNDEVELOPED LOT IN THE AREA. NOTE THE ZONING AND LAND USE AND STAFF REPORT. NOTE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT ERROR IN THE STAFF REPORT. BUT REGARDLESS, MINIMUM LOT AREA IN THIS CASE IS 2500 SQUARE FOOT. ALL FOUR LOTS WILL BE 2730 SQUARE FOOT. SO WE'LL EXCEED THE MINIMUMS. THERE WERE NO CONCERNS RECEIVED FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS OR OUTSIDE UTILITY COMPANIES. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PROVIDE TWO FIVE FOOT WIDE UTILITY EASEMENTS AND A COMMON ACCESS EASEMENT THAT GOES ACROSS THE LOTS SO THAT THE FRONT LOTS CAN HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO OR UNIMPEDED ACCESS TO WATER AND SEWER IN THE ALLEY. NOTE THE CRITERIA FOR PLAT APPROVAL IN THE STAFF REPORT, PLEASE. STAFF RECOMMENDS CASE 24P-012 BE APPROVED, SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE AND STANDARD CONDITIONS TWO AND THREE. AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS. SO THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS IT LOOKS NOW LOOKING GENERALLY EAST FROM 30TH STREET. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO HERE WE HAVE THE SURVEY ON THE LEFT SHOWING THE TWO LOTS. [00:10:01] AND THEN ON THE RIGHT SHOWING THE FOUR LOTS PROPOSED RECONFIGURATION WITH THE ACCESS AND EGRESS EASEMENTS SHOWN AS WELL. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE A PHOTO OF THE ALLEY SHOWING THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF WHERE THE LOT ABUTS TO THE ALLEY AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, THE SOUTH AND THE WEST. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, DANIEL. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES. WITH THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD. THE SETBACKS ARE FRONT AND REAR ZERO AND SIDE SETBACK ZERO. HOW DOES THAT WORK WITH A RESIDENTIAL PERMITTED USE? IF, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE LOTS ONE AND THREE AND THE REAR PROPERTY LINE FOR THOSE TWO LOTS. HOW COULD YOU HAVE ONE? HOW COULD EITHER ONE BE ZERO? I MEAN, THAT MEANS THE STRUCTURE CAN BE ON THE PROPERTY LINE, CORRECT? WELL, GENERALLY SPEAKING, YES. OF COURSE WE DO NOT ALLOW ANYTHING LIKE ROOF OVERHANGS OR SUCH AS THAT TO ENCROACH ON PROPERTY LINES. WE RECOMMEND PEOPLE KEEP SOME DISTANCE OFF FOR THE ROOF OVERHANG SO THAT, YOU KNOW, RAIN RUNOFF DOES NOT AFFECT THEIR NEIGHBORS. BUT THERE ARE ALSO BUILDING CODE STANDARDS THAT WILL SOMEWHAT MODIFY THE SETBACKS. SO IT COULD BE ZERO. BUT FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES, BUILDING CODE MAY REQUIRE SOMETHING MORE THAN THAT. OKAY. IT REALLY, DEPENDS ON IF THEY INTENDED TO HAVE A STRUCTURALLY ATTACHED OR SIMILAR KIND OF ARRANGEMENT WHERE THEY'RE VERY CLOSE WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE BUILDING CODE YOU WOULD HAVE TO FIRE RATE THOSE WALLS. SOMEONE COULD DO THAT. THAT'S PRETTY UNUSUAL. NORMALLY THERE'S ENOUGH DESIRE TO HAVE AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT OF YARD OR SEPARATION FROM YOUR NEIGHBORS. THIS IS ALL ONE OWNERSHIP, DANIEL. THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. OKAY. AND ON THE FIVE FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT WELL, THERE'S ONE ON LOT THREE, AND THERE'S ONE ON LOT FOUR. THAT WOULD BRING THE UTILITIES FROM THE ALLEY TO LOTS ONE AND AND TWO. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. YOU CAN SEE THEM RIGHT THERE THAT THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, PARALLEL SIDE BY SIDE. AND THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. SO THOSE FRONT TWO LOTS WOULD HAVE UNIMPEDED, YOU KNOW, LEGAL ACCESS TO THE ALLEY UTILITIES. SO WOULD THE WATER LINE AND THE SEWER LINE BE WITHIN THAT FIVE FOOT EASEMENT FOR BOTH THOSE? AND IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN DO? I MEAN, I THOUGHT THERE HAD TO BE A MINIMUM SEPARATION OF TEN FEET BETWEEN WATER AND SEWER. OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED THIS. THAT'S TYPICALLY THAT'S THE THINGS THAT THEY REVIEW. AND THEY HAD NO COMMENTS ABOUT THE PROPOSAL. SO I CAN PRESUME THAT THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, OKAY WITH IT AND SAW THAT. OKAY. UNDER STATE LAW, IT'S NINE FEET. HOWEVER YOU CAN YOU CAN DO VAPOR BARRIERS IF THERE HAPPENS TO BE A CROSSING OR A SECTION THAT GETS CLOSER THAN THAT. SO THERE ARE WAYS TO GET AROUND IT. BUT YEAH, GENERALLY THE STATE LAW SAYS NINE FEET IS WITHOUT THOSE BARRIERS. THAT'S THE SEPARATION. OKAY. AND DOES THE CITY HAVE ANY ORDINANCES THAT APPLY TO ALLEYS SUCH AS, LIKE PARKING RESTRICTIONS? CAN YOU PARK IN AN ALLEY? I BELIEVE THAT CITY CODE DOES NOT ALLOW ANY PARKING OF VEHICLES IN THE ALLEY. THAT NOBODY NEEDS TO. OH, I CAN SHOW YOU PICTURES OF MY ALLEY RIGHT NOW. OKAY. SO JUST TO BE SURE, THE LOTS THREE AND FOUR WILL NOW HAVE THEIR MAIN ENTRANCE ON THE ALLEY. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S THEIR FRONT PROPERTY LINE IS THE ALLEY. THAT'S CORRECT. I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THAT THE BASICALLY THOSE TWO PARALLEL FIVE FOOT EASEMENTS WOULD ALSO TOGETHER KIND OF PULL DOUBLE DUTY AS A TEN FOOT ACCESS EASEMENT. SO ALL FOUR LOTS WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE ACCESS FROM 30TH STREET, JUST NOT IN THE NORMAL WAY THAT WE TYPICALLY SEE IT. SAY THAT AGAIN. I'M SORRY I DIDN'T FOLLOW THAT. SO IF YOU LOOK ON THE PLAT HERE, YOU'LL SEE THERE'S A FIVE FOOT ACCESS EGRESS IN UE PARALLEL, YOU KNOW, RUNNING FROM LOT ONE AND THREE AND THEN, YOU KNOW, TWO AND FOUR TOGETHER THEY MAKE A TEN FOOT WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT GOING FROM 30TH STREET TO THE ALLEY. SO ALL FOUR LOTS WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO 30TH STREET THROUGH THAT. YOU KNOW THAT THE SECONDARY PURPOSE OF THOSE EASEMENTS FOR EGRESS IS SHOWN ON THE PLAT. LIKE A SIDEWALK KIND OF. [00:15:03] FOR VEHICLES? NO. YOU CAN WALK THROUGH IT, BUT. OKAY. YOU HAD A TEN FOOT VEHICLE. MAYBE. SO WHAT WOULD PERMIT WHAT WOULD WHAT IF THE NEW PROPERTY OWNER BECAUSE I'M GUESSING THESE ARE GOING TO PROBABLY BE SOLD. WANTED TO BUILD A GARAGE IN THAT BACK CORNER ON LOT 1 OR 2. CAN THEY DO THAT? SO THAT WOULD RESTRICT ACCESS FROM LOTS THREE AND FOUR TO 30TH STREET. WELL, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ENCUMBER THOSE EASEMENTS. YEAH. THEY'D HAVE TO STAY OFF THE EASEMENT. SO IT'D BE THEY COULD DRIVE THROUGH. IT'S WIDE ENOUGH TO DRIVE THROUGH. THREE AND FOUR WOULD GET THEIR ACCESS, TRANSPORTATION, BE THROUGH THE ALLEY. WELL, I MEAN, THEY COULD BUT ONCE AGAIN, THEY HAVE A DIRECT CONNECTION TO 30TH STREET AS WELL. IF I UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION CORRECTLY. WE HAD OUR LAST MEETING. WE HAD SOMETHING, NOT SOMETHING SIMILAR. I DON'T MEAN THAT SIMILAR. WELL, WE HAD A, WE HAD A LOT WHERE WE DIVIDED IT IN TWO, BUT THAT BACK HALF WAS ONLY ACCESSIBLE THROUGH THE ALLEY. THIS SORT OF IS LIKE THAT WHERE THREE AND FOUR WOULD ONLY BE ACCESSIBLE BY THE ALLEY. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THAT 5 FOOT OR 10 FOOT EASEMENT STRAIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE SO THAT EVERY LOT WOULD BE ACCESSIBLE BY EITHER 30TH STREET OR BY THE ALLEY. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. THAT APPEARS TO BE THE INTENTION, BECAUSE THOSE EASEMENTS DO RUN ALL THE WAY ACROSS. ARE THERE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR. SO HERE'S WHAT IS A LITTLE CONFUSING. I'LL TELL YOU WHAT. LET ME BACK UP, WE'VE SEEN A FEW OF THESE WHERE WE HAVE LOTS THAT ARE ACCESSIBLE THEY'RE FRONTING ON THE ALLEY. SO THAT IS NOTHING NEW OR OUT OF THE ORDINARY. WELL IT'S A LITTLE OUT OF THE ORDINARY, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS PROVIDED FOR IN OUR LDRS AND IS PERMISSIBLE. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. THAT'S CORRECT. BUT BECAUSE THESE TWO BACK LOTS DO NOT HAVE DIRECT FRONTAGE ON 30TH STREET, IT COMES TO PLANNING COMMISSION. IF IT WEREN'T FOR THAT, THIS WOULD BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW. MOST LIKELY. YES. BUT OUR ELDERS PERMIT THIS. SO EVEN THOUGH HE DOESN'T HAVE. YOU MEAN THE ALLEY IS NOT A PUBLIC WHAT IS IT? IS A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. CORRECT. I MEAN, THEY HAVE ACCESS BY VIA A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. SO THIS ACCESS EASEMENT IN THE MIDDLE THAT'S TEN FEET WIDE IS JUST I MEAN, THAT'S. YOU COULDN'T DRIVE A CAR DOWN THERE BECAUSE MY NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE, CERTAINLY YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH REQUIREMENT TO DO TRAFFIC AN TEN FEET IT'S NOT IT. SO IT'S REALLY KIND OF A MOOT POINT BECAUSE HE'S OKAY IN REGARDS TO DOING THIS, BECAUSE HE'S FRONTING ON A THE ALLEYS OR FRONTING ON A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PERMITTED. IS THAT A CORRECT ASSUMPTION? YES. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND JUST BECAUSE HE'S NOT ON THE STREET IS WHY WE'RE HAVING TO DO THIS AND GET AN APPROVAL. THAT'S THE THE STREET'S A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AS WELL. OKAY. I JUST. I'LL JUST ADD THAT I'VE SEEN SIMILAR STRUCTURES. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS INVESTOR IS PROPOSING TO BUILD ON THE PROPERTIES, BUT NOT FAR FROM HERE AS A MATTER OF FACT, THERE ARE SOME SIMILAR STRUCTURES, AND THEY'RE ELEVATED HIGH ENOUGH WHERE THE HOMEOWNER CAN PARK UNDERNEATH THE HOUSE AND THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THE DRIVEWAY AND ALL THAT KIND OF THING. AND I'VE SEEN SEVERAL OF THOSE HERE NOT FAR FROM THIS BUILDING. AND THEY LOOK REALLY, REALLY NICE. THEY REALLY COMPLIMENT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY ALL YOU COULD DO. SOME OF THOSE THINGS THAT I'VE SEEN HERE IN THE AREA AND THEY LOOK REALLY, REALLY NICE, GIVEN THE HEIGHT OF THE, OF THE FIRST LEVEL AND ALL THAT KIND OF THING. SO AND YOU'RE BASICALLY PARKING OFF THE STREET FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS IN THIS AREA. SO. YEAH. YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY THE KEY TO ALL OF THESE KIND OF SITUATIONS WHERE WE HAVE AN ALLEY ACCESS LIKE THAT. IS THAT IN THE SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT PHASE THAT THERE'S VERIFICATION THAT THEY HAVE PROPER OFF STREET PARKING THAT'S CRITICAL TO THIS KIND OF DEVELOPMENT? YEAH. AND KEEP IN MIND TOO, WE'VE DONE THESE WHERE THE LOT'S ONLY 25FT WIDE. [00:20:04] THESE ARE 39. SO THEY'RE. GOOD SIZE LONG. THEY'RE WIDE ENOUGH. THEY'RE NOT SUPER DEEP. BUT ANYWAYS SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS. ANYONE HERE LIKE TO SPEAK SEEING THERE'S NO ONE HERE. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR ACTION. OKAY. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE. 24P-012 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, AS WRITTEN BY STAFF. AND I'LL SECOND THAT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE. ANY DISCUSSION? YES. YES, MA'AM. GO AHEAD. YOU GO. I KNOW AT THE LAST COUNCIL, I MEAN COMMISSION MEETING, WE HAD A SIMILAR REQUEST, AND I VOTED AGAINST IT BECAUSE I WANTED TO REALLY FULLY UNDERSTAND THE ALLEY ACCESS, AND CATHERINE HELPED ME, AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SHARE THIS IF I COULD, FOR JUST A SECOND. THAT SECTION 6.302 OF THE LDR SAYS THAT EACH LOT SHALL HAVE FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET OR AN ALLEY OR A PRIVATE ACCESS WAY THAT CONFORMS TO THE STANDARDS, CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS. SO I FOLLOWED UP MY QUESTION WITH, WELL, WHAT IS THE STANDARD CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS FOR AN ALLEY IF IT'S NOT A PAVED? AND SHE SAID AN ALLEY CAN JUST BE A GRAVEL ROAD. SO THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD. SO SINCE I'M A VOTE TO APPROVE THIS, I KIND OF WANTED TO CLARIFY WHY MY THOUGHT PROCESS HAD CHANGED SINCE YOU CLARIFIED THAT FOR ME, I APPRECIATE THAT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? YES. ON THE LAST ONE, I DID VOTE TO APPROVE. HOWEVER, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT ONE AND THIS ONE IS THAT THERE WERE EXISTING STRUCTURES. THERE WAS A HOUSE AND THERE WAS A GARAGE APARTMENT, AND THE OWNER WANTED TO SPLIT THAT SO SHE COULD SELL ONE OR THE OTHER OR BOTH. I'M NOT SURE WHICH IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE VACANT PROPERTY. AND I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT THIS OWNER CAN TAKE ONE AND A HALF LOTS AND TURN IT INTO FOUR, BECAUSE I THINK THAT CAN HELP WITH THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ISSUE THAT WE HAVE HERE IN GALVESTON. YOU KNOW, IT CAN HELP LOWER THE COST OF NEW CONSTRUCTION. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE BUILDING NEW HOUSES ON ALLEYS. I MEAN, THE ACCESS, THE ONLY ACCESS FOR THE PUBLIC WOULD BE THROUGH A 20 FOOT WIDE ALLEY. I MEAN, THERE'S NO SPEED LIMIT. THERE'S NO STOP SIGNS. I'VE NEVER SEEN A STOP SIGN ON AN ALLEY. AND YET WE'RE TURNING THIS INTO A, LIKE, A THOROUGHFARE. IT'S NOT A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF A FRIEND OF MINE BUYS A LOT AND BUILDS A HOUSE OVER THERE, I WANT TO GO SEE HIM. I MEAN, I'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO GET IN WITH A. YOU BROUGHT THIS POINT UP LAST TIME. THE TURNING RADIUS ON FOR 20FT. IT'D BE TOUGH TO TURN IN UNLESS HE SETS HIS HOUSE BACK. I JUST DON'T SEE THIS AS A GOOD IDEA. A TEN FOOT ACCESS FOR UTILITIES THAT'S ALSO GOING TO BE INGRESS, EGRESS IS NOT SUFFICIENT. SO I KNOW IT EXISTS IN MANY PLACES IN THE CITY. BUT AS A POLICY FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. THIS QUESTION. ARE ALLEYS ONE WAY STREETS? NO, THEY'RE TYPICALLY TWO WAY. AND I DO WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT TOO, BECAUSE I GOT OUT MY TAPE MEASURE AND WAS MEASURING THE ALLEY AND ACTUALLY THE ROAD PORTION, AT LEAST THE ALLEYS THAT I LOOKED AT WAS ONLY 12FT WIDE. AND THEN WHEN YOU ADD THE GRASS BEHIND THE PEOPLE'S STRUCTURE, YOU GET THE 20FT. BUT I CAN'T, YOU KNOW, I CAN SEE IT FROM MY ALLEY, LIKE I'M SURE YOU CAN, THAT PEOPLE BARELY CAN GET AROUND EACH OTHER. SO THERE'S I AGREE WITH JOHN. THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES AND THAT'S WHY I VOTED AGAINST IT LAST TIME. SO I'M STILL THINKING. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT THEN WE'LL TAKE THE VOTE. THOSE IN FAVOR? THOSE OPPOSED? SO AND ONE ABSTENTION. SO THAT'S A TIE VOTE. YEAH THAT'S A TIE VOTE. SO THAT DOESN'T PASS. BUT WE HAVE AN ABSTENTION WOULD BE I'M SORRY. TELL ME WHAT WE DO. FAILS FOR A LACK OF 4 VOTES. YEAH. FAILS FOR LACK OF FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES. AND I'LL REMIND THE COMMISSION THAT THIS IS ALLOWED. IT'S ALLOWED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. IN ORDER FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A PLAT, YOU HAVE TO FIND THAT IT'S IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN, WHICH IS YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT'S REALLY HIGH BAR TO MEET. CAN I DISAGREE WITH THAT? I THINK THE LDR PROHIBITS THIS. THE LDR CLEARLY ALLOWS FOR IT. [00:25:01] IT'S SECTION 6.303. L THREE IT'S IT PROHIBITS A MAIN ENTRANCE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION TO AN ALLEY. CAN WE LOOK THAT UP? WE CAN LOOK THAT UP. SO LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION. I THOUGHT IF IT WAS LACK OF AN AFFIRMATIVE APPROVAL BUT DOESN'T IT STILL GET REPLATED? DOES IT WHAT? DOES IT STILL GET REPLATED. SO IF YOU DO NOT GET FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES, DOESN'T GET DENIED, DOESN'T GET APPROVED, WOULDN'T IT JUST CARRY? STATUTORILY CAN IT STILL CAN THE APPLICANT BECAUSE OF THE TIME CONSTRAINTS. YEAH. BY THE STATE. YEAH. YEAH THEY COULD GET IT. IS HE PAST HIS TIME. NO NO. BUT WILL BE IN A COUPLE OF DAYS LIKELY. WHAT WAS THAT CODE CITATION MR. LIGHTFOOT. IT'S A 6.303 L3. CAN YOU THROW THAT UP ON THE SCREEN? WE CANNOT. OKAY. IT IS NOTING THAT NO NEW BUSINESS OR DWELLING SHALL FACE OR HAVE ITS MAIN ENTRANCE ON AN ALLEY THAT IS IN CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER SECTION OF THE CODE THAT SAYS THAT YOU CAN DO IT. SO STAFF HAS HISTORICALLY INTERPRETED THE CODE TO ALLOW FOR LOTS WITH ALLEY ACCESS. AND NOW THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK TO OUR LEGAL EAGLE OVER THERE. LET HER SWOOP IN AND SAVE THE DAY. SECTION. IT'S 6.303. I'LL BRING UP THE. I HAVE IT ON THE SCREEN IF YOU WANT TO COME OVER AND LOOK AT IT, DONNA. AND THIS IS REGARD TO ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. CATHERINE. THIS IS SECTION 6.303, WHICH IS TITLED [INAUDIBLE] A LOT. STREET DESIGN AND LAYOUT. WELL, GO BACK UP TO APPLICABILITY FIRST, PLEASE. THE SUBDIVIDERS SHALL CONSTRUCT IN TOTAL ALL STREETS IN OR NEW STREETS ADJACENT TO THE SUBDIVISION LAYOUT. UNLESS. HE'S TALKING ABOUT DOWN HERE. THE CITY MAY REQUIRE. SAY THAT THIS SECTION. I HEARD YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT SUBDIVISIONS. AND THERE IS THAT FOR NEW SUBDIVISIONS. VICE, JUST ALLEYS IN GENERAL. THAT'S THE SECTION OF THE CODE THAT ADDRESSES OUR PLANNING REQUIREMENTS AND SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS. SO I THINK IT DOES APPLY CERTAINLY TO. NEW. NEW SUBDIVISIONS. AND I THINK THAT WAS SORT OF THE INTENT BEHIND IT. YEAH. DRAFTED. YEAH. BUT NOT FOR CURRENT I MEAN THIS IS A SUBDIVISION, BUT THEY'RE NOT PLATTING ANY OF THE RIGHT OF WAY. THEY'RE NOT CREATING. YEAH. THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT. THIS IS NOT A PLAT THAT IS DEDICATING OR CREATING A NEW ALLEYWAY. IT'S THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, I'M SORRY. THE EXISTING LOTS THAT ARE THERE AND THE LOTS THEMSELVES ARE BEING RECONFIGURED. AND SO THE WORDING IS SHALL NOT BE. IT'S A SHALL NOT. THAT IS WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING AT. RIGHT. WOULDN'T THAT IN THIS CASE, WOULDN'T THAT BE A MOOT POINT, THOUGH, BECAUSE THERE IS AN ACCESS EASEMENT FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY FROM 30TH STREET? [00:30:10] YES. THERE IS ACCESS FROM 30TH STREET. WHICH ONE? SO, I MEAN, I THINK YOU GOT A GOOD POINT THERE, JOHN, ON THIS. AND I'D BE CURIOUS TO HEAR WHAT THEY SAY. BUT THE WAY HE'S PLATTING THIS, THEY HAVE ACCESS TO 30TH STREET. YEAH, BUT THERE'S NOTHING THAT KEEPS THEM SELLING THAT PROPERTY. AND. NO, NO, YOU CAN'T SELL IT. YOU'D HAVE TO REPLAT IT TO SELL IT. WHAT THAT ACCESS EASEMENT DOES IS GRANT THAT PROPERTY OWNER THE ABILITY TO ACCESS THEIR PROPERTY. THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACCESS A PROPERTY. YOU CAN'T IF LOT ONE SAID, OKAY, NO, I DON'T WANT YOU COMING ACROSS MY PROPERTY. IT'S DELAYED. IT'S TOO LATE. YEAH. THEY HAVE ACCESS. WHEN THEY BUY THAT PROPERTY. THEY HAVE ACCESS FROM 30TH STREET. THAT'S WHAT HE DOES. ONCE THE PLAT RECORDED. ONCE THE PLAT'S RECORDED. THAT'S CORRECT. AND FOR THAT MATTER, THE PUBLIC. THAT MIGHT BE YOU KNOW, SEEKING TO VISIT LOT 3 OR 4 COULD ALSO WALK DOWN THAT TEN FOOT STRIP. ABSOLUTELY. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS PLANS ARE HERE, BUT, I MEAN, YOU COULD LITERALLY HAVE A TEN FOOT DRIVEWAY THERE THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY DRIVE A CAR BACK THERE TO LOTS THREE AND FOUR. RIGHT. OKAY. SO LOOKING OVER THAT SECTION 6.303 THAT'S PROVIDING FOR GUIDANCE WHEN CREATING NEW STREETS, STREET DESIGN AND LAYOUT. SO I THINK THAT'S GIVING GUIDANCE FOR IF YOU'RE CREATING A NEW ALLEY. THIS ALLEY EXISTS. OKAY. BUT MY VOTE'S STILL THE SAME AND THAT'S FINE. SO DONNA, THE QUESTION BEING SO WE DID NOT HAVE MY QUESTION IS JUST WHAT JOHN HAD ASKED YOU. SO WE DO NOT HAVE FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES. SO WE DID NOT APPROVE NOR DENY IT. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT PARTICULAR VOTE FAILED FOR LACK OF FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES. YOU CAN TRY ANOTHER MOTION. I'M SORRY THAT PARTICULAR MOTION FAILED. YOU CAN TRY ANOTHER MOTION. OKAY. OR YOU COULD JUST LEAVE IT LIKE IT IS. OR YOU CAN JUST SAY YOU CAN TRY OR YOU CAN NOT TRY. [INAUDIBLE] LEAVE IT AS IT IS. IT GOES TO COUNCIL NOW. YEAH. NO NO NO IT'S A YOU ARE. YES. SO BECAUSE NO ACTION WAS TAKEN IT WILL BE DEEMED APPROVED AND STAFF WILL FILE IT. AND THAT'S UNDER STATE LAW. YES. AND THAT WAS GOING TO WHEN THERE'S EITHER A FAILURE TO ACT OR A FAILURE TO ACT IN A TIMELY STATE REQUIRED TIME PERIOD, THEN IT AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES APPROVED. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? CHAPTER 212 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE. OKAY. AND IT DOES THAT, TIM, BECAUSE IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENT IF IT DID NOT MEET. NO EVEN IF IT DOESN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, IT STILL CAN BE APPROVED IF THERE'S A FAILURE TO ACT IN A TIME FRAME. HOWEVER, I THINK IF I GOT TO RECALL TO 12, BUT IF THERE WERE QUESTIONS OR IF THERE WAS AN INCOMPLETE OR LACK OF INFORMATION, YOU COULD REQUEST MORE INFORMATION. HOWEVER, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE HERE. OKAY. SO THAT WOULDN'T APPLY EITHER WAY. BECAUSE IT MEETS AND STAFF HAS ALREADY SAID IT MEETS THE REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE. SO THE FAILURE TO ACT IS BECAUSE WE HAD ONE ABSTENTION. IF SHE WOULD HAVE VOTED AGAINST. I'M JUST I'M NOT TELLING HER TO CHANGE IT. [LAUGHTER] I'M JUST SAYING THE MAJORITY WOULD HAVE VOTED AGAINST IT, THEN THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A FAILURE TO ACT. AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY I DIDN'T VOTE. YES. THAT'S OKAY, THAT'S OKAY. I'M JUST CURIOUS. HAVE BEEN A FAILURE TO ACT. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD. WHAT IS FAILURE TO ACT MEAN? I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I NEED TO KNOW. BECAUSE WE ACTED. I MEAN, BUT WHAT IS FAILURE TO ACT MEAN? YOU DID NOT AFFIRM OR DENY OR DENY WITH THE NUMBER OF VOTES NEEDED TO AFFIRM OR DENY. I GOT YOU. SO THE MOTION IN ITS ESSENCE, IT'S KIND OF AN APPROVAL. I'M FOLLOWING YOU. IT'S NOT APPROVED OR DENIED. YEAH, BUT BY STATE LAW, IT ACTUALLY BECOMES BY DEFAULT IT WOULD BECOME AN APPROVAL. SO. I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. NO, PLEASE. WELL, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT IF A CASE LIKE THIS WAS DENIED AND IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FROM ONE SIDE, AND THERE IS A CHANCE THAT THEY COULD SUE THE CITY FOR DENYING THIS PLAT IF IT MEETS ALL THE CONDITIONS IN STATE LAW. YES, YOU WE WOULD BE CERTAINLY SUBJECT OKAY. ADDITIONALLY, I THINK THE THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO FILE THAT PLAT THEMSELVES. THAT'S CORRECT. AND I THINK THERE MAY EVEN BE SANCTIONS INVOLVED ACCORDING TO THE STATUTE, BUT. [00:35:07] I DON'T KNOW IF I'M MISREMEMBERING THAT PART. SO, DONNA, GIVE US A LITTLE LEGAL DIRECTION HERE. WOULD YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO BE TO JUST LEAVE IT LIKE IT IS AND WE AND IT GETS APPROVED? OR WOULD YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO BE TO CONSIDER ANOTHER VOTE? YOU'VE ALREADY TAKEN A VOTE. YES, MA'AM. WE CAN'T VOTE ON THE SAME MOTION AGAIN. I UNDERSTAND. WE CAN YOU CAN MAKE A NEW MOTION. BUT I THINK YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD WHAT YOU NEED TO HEAR. RIGHT. I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE EITHER WAY. OKAY? I THINK WHAT, IF ANYTHING, THE BODY SHOULD THINK ABOUT IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT THE CITY TO BE SUED OR NOT. THAT'S REALLY THE QUESTION. WELL, SINCE IT WAS NOT A DENIAL, RIGHT? I WOULD THINK THAT IT'S GOING TO FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF NO ACTION WAS TAKEN. IT'S NO DIFFERENT. IF I WERE TO BRING YOU A PLAT AND YOU DIDN'T HEAR MY CASE AT ALL. MY PLAT IS APPROVED BECAUSE YOU'VE TAKEN NO ACTION ON IT. YOU HAD 30 DAYS TO DO IT. THAT'S RIGHT. SO TIME'S UP. MY DEAL'S APPROVED. DANIEL'S TELLING ME IN A COUPLE OF DAYS WE'RE THERE. SO I'M GOOD WITH LETTING OUR COMMISSIONERS OPINIONS AND VOTES STAND AS THEY ARE. AND WE'LL LET THE STATE LAW RUN ITS COURSE WITH THIS. WHICH MEANS THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, HE'S GOING TO GET HIS PLAT APPROVED. IS THAT IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO. MOVING ON TO YOUR NEXT ITEM CATHERINE. [8. Discussion Items] WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ITEM. THE COUNCIL HAS RECENTLY MADE SOME CHANGES TO ATTENDANCE POLICIES FOR COMMISSIONS. IT MOSTLY APPLIES TO OTHER COMMISSIONS THAT WE'RE DOING A HYBRID MEETING FORMAT THAT WE STOPPED DOING A LONG TIME AGO. BUT THERE IS A CHANGE THAT APPLIES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THAT IS THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT FOR ATTENDANCE IS 75% OF THE MEETINGS PER YEAR. THAT'S NOW BEEN CHANGED TO IN-PERSON ATTENDANCE AT 75% OF THE MEETINGS. SO YOU'RE STILL ABLE TO DO A VIRTUAL MEETING IF YOU NEED TO. BUT THAT WON'T COUNT AS YOUR IN-PERSON ATTENDANCE. SO I JUST WANT THE COMMISSION TO BE AWARE OF THAT. YOU ALL DON'T DO THAT VERY OFTEN. I KNOW YOU ONLY DO IT, YOU KNOW, IN EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES. SO IT'S NOT LIKELY TO BE A PROBLEM FOR ANYBODY. BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE WAS AWARE THAT THIS CHANGE WAS MADE. OKAY. SO THE APPOINTMENT SCHEDULE IS BASED ON WHAT WE THE ATTENDANCE IS JUST IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. SO IT'S ALWAYS ROLLING. SO IT'S JANUARY TO DECEMBER. IT'S JUST A YEAR FROM THIS MEETING. IT'S ALWAYS A YEAR. ROLLING. YEAH. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TEND TO HAVE VERY GOOD ATTENDANCE AND WE DON'T SEE THIS BEING A PROBLEM. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU ALL ARE AWARE. IF YOU HAVE TO DO A VIRTUAL MEETING, IT WON'T COUNT TOWARDS YOUR IN-PERSON ATTENDANCE. SO THE PROTOCOL IS IF SOMEBODY IS NOT PRESENT, THAT THE CHAIRMAN NOTIFY THE SECRETARY. IF SOMEBODY RUNS INTO A PROBLEM, IT BECOMES THE CHAIR'S RESPONSIBILITY. RESPONSIBILITY IS TO NOTIFY THE CITY SECRETARY. AND THEN THE CITY SECRETARY BRINGS. JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE ONLY BODY THAT MEETS MORE OFTEN THAN WE DO IS CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE A LOT OF MEETINGS. OH, YOU MEET MORE THAN CITY COUNCIL. YOU MEET YEAH, TWICE AS MUCH. AND WE ARE VOLUNTEERS. I CAN TELL YOU THAT AS THE CHAIR, I KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD INSTANCES IN THE PAST, MARY, JUST RECENTLY WITH YOUR HUSBAND. I KNOW YOU HAD THIS WITH YOUR MOM. I CAN TELL YOU AS THE CHAIRMAN, I'M TELLING YOU AS MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, THE CITY SECRETARY WILL BE WAITING A VERY, VERY, VERY LONG TIME FOR ME TO SEND HER ANYTHING. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE. AND WHERE WE'VE HAD ABSENCES, I KNOW THAT EVERYBODY'S BEEN VERY GOOD ABOUT DOING SUCH, BUT I JUST WANT TO LET I KNOW WE'VE HAD THIS IN THE PAST WHERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE THAT YOU MISSED AND YOUR FAMILY IS FIRST, AND WE GET THAT. SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. AND LET ME SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL ACTED ON THIS. IT WAS IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH PLANNING COMMISSION. RIGHT. IT WAS THERE WERE SOME OTHER BOARDS THAT THEY ALWAYS MET VIA ZOOM OR TELECONFERENCE OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT THESE DAYS. [00:40:08] AND SO WE WANTED TO BRING SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE BACK TO IN-PERSON MEETINGS. PLANNING COMMISSION HAS AN EXCELLENT RECORD. YOU KNOW SO AND I UNDERSTAND I JUST KNOW THAT RECENTLY WE'VE MARY'S BEEN DEALING WITH SOME STUFF AND I KNOW IN THE PAST REJONE DID. RIGHT MARY. [LAUGHTER] BUT YOU KNOW I JUST. ALSO UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONERS. AND I SAID THIS TO THE COMMISSION THAT MET YESTERDAY. THIS IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC YOU GET OFF THE COMMISSION BECAUSE YOU'VE MISSED A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MEETINGS. IF YOU'VE MISSED A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MEETINGS THAT YOU FALL WITHIN THE, YOU KNOW, THE 25% OUT. THE NEXT STEP ACTUALLY IS TO GO BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL AND YOU CAN GIVE TO CITY COUNCIL THE REASONS WHY YOU WEREN'T ABLE TO MEET THE MEETINGS. AND THAT'S HAPPENED. AND BASED ON YOUR CIRCUMSTANCE, CITY COUNCIL SAYS WE UNDERSTAND ILLNESSES HAPPEN. CIRCUMSTANCES JUST BEYOND YOUR CONTROL HAPPEN. AND CITY COUNCIL HAS BEEN VERY AMENABLE TO FOLKS WHEN THEY FACE UNFORTUNATE OR UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES. SO IT'S NOT AN AUTOMATIC GET OFF OF CITY. GET OFF OF THE BOARD TYPE OF DEAL. SO, YOU KNOW, I'LL SAY THAT IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED TO ME. SO I HAD TO WHEN MY MOM WAS FIGHTING HER DISEASE, I MISSED WAY MORE THAN 25%. IT HAD TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL FOR MY MISSES. I'M SORRY THAT HAPPENED. ALL RIGHT, SO, COUNCIL MEMBER LISTOWSKI. IT'S YOUR LAST TIME TO BE HERE WITH US. IS IT? NO. NO, NO. BE WITH US FIRST MEETING IN MAY. OH, WELL, YOU COULD MISS IT IF YOU WANT. [LAUGHTER] PUT THE CHAMPAGNE BACK. YEAH. WELL, ME AND STEVE JUST DRINKING OURSELVES, I THOUGHT THIS WAS GOING TO BE YOUR LAST YOUR LAST MEETING WITH US. AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY, HEY, THANK YOU, BUT I'LL WAIT TILL YOU SHOW UP FOR THE NEXT ONE. [LAUGHTER] WHEN YOU COME TO THE NEXT ONE. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS? SEEING NONE. WE'RE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.