[00:00:02]
[1. Call Meeting To Order]
WE'LL CALL THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE GALVESTON PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER.WE'VE ALL SIGNED IN BY SIGN-UP SHEET, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM.
ARE THERE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST? SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
[4. Approval Of Minutes]
WE'LL DO BOTH THE WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES AND THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SAME MOTION.ANY ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, OR CHANGES TO THE MINUTES? SEEING NONE, WE WILL APPROVE THE WORKSHOP MEETINGS AND THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES.
IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? IF YOU'RE HERE FOR A NON-AGENDA ITEM AND YOU'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, THIS IS YOUR TIME TO DO SO.
WE'LL GO TO NEW BUSINESS, GALVESTON LANDMARK 24P-010.
[6.A.1. 24P-010 (1705 Ball/ Avenue H) Request For Designation As A Galveston Landmark. The Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, Lot 6 Block 257, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Yvonne Howington Property Owners: Mitchell And Yvonne Howington]
ITS REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION IS A GALVESTON LANDMARK.
THIRTY-TWO NOTICES SENT, THREE RETURNED, THOSE THREE IN FAVOR.
AG WALKER WAS THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF THE HOUSE AT 1705 BALL, BUILT CIRCA 1887.
HE OWNED THE HOUSE APPROXIMATELY 21 YEARS AND USED IT AS TENANT HOUSING.
IT SURVIVED THE 1900 STORM COMPARATIVELY WELL, ALTHOUGH IT DID LOSE ITS ROOF AND REQUIRED MINOR REPAIRS OTHERWISE.
OWNED BY 11 FAMILIES FOR OVER 137 YEARS, THE AG WALKER HOUSE REMAINS AN IMPORTANT PART OF GALVESTON'S ARCHITECTURAL AND CULTURAL HISTORY.
IN ITS TIME AS A TENANT PROPERTY ALONE, IT HOUSED PEOPLE FROM THE UNITED STATES AND ELSEWHERE.
THEY INCLUDE MARRIED COUPLES, FAMILIES, SINGLE WOMEN OF ALL BACKGROUNDS.
THEY WORKED AS DRESSMAKERS, SALESPEOPLE, SAILORS, TYPESETTERS, WAITSTAFF, ELECTRICIANS, BARBERS, AND MORE, EMPLOYED BY THE US CUSTOMS HOUSE, IKELHEIMER & CO, FALLSTAFF BREWERY, AND MANY OTHERS.
THE LANDMARK COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AT THEIR REGULAR MEETING YESTERDAY.
CITY COUNCIL HAS FINAL DECISION AUTHORITY REGARDING THE REQUESTS FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATIONS AND THAT WILL BE HEARD AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY THE 23RD, AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH THE STANDARD CONDITION.
AND THEN WE HAVE THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTHEAST AND WEST.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE. WELL, IN THE PUBLIC HEARING, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? YOU WANT TO COME FORWARD AND TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING, AND WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU SOME KUDOS FOR TAKING ON SUCH A PROJECT.
IF YOU DON'T MIND, SIGN IN, STATE YOUR NAME.
>> I'M MITCHELL. SHE DID ALL THE WORK I'LL EVER DO. [LAUGHTER]
>> HERE IS ONE THING I NOTICED, THERE'S A LADIES' PARLOR AND A GENTLEMEN'S PARLOR.
IS THAT LIKE HIS AND HERS CLOSETS?
>> IT COULD HAVE BEEN, I'M NOT SURE.
>> WE MOVED INTO THE HOUSE ABOUT A YEAR AGO, AND I LOVED THE HOUSE WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT IT.
BUT THEN MOST OF MY NEIGHBORS DO HAVE THE DESIGNATION, SO I STARTED LOOKING INTO THAT AND THEN FOUND MYSELF LOOKING INTO THE HISTORY OF GALVESTON AND NOW INTO THE HOUSE.
IT'S BEEN FASCINATING, THOSE DIRECTORIES.
NOT EVERY YEAR OF THE DIRECTORIES EVEN EXISTS, BUT FROM THE ONES THAT I GATHER, THERE WERE PROBABLY OVER 150 DIFFERENT PEOPLE THAT HAVE LIVED IN THE HOUSE.
AND SO IN REALITY, PROBABLY OVER 200 PEOPLE HAVE LIVED IN THIS HOUSE AND THERE'S 11 OWNERS, WHICH MAKES IT VERY INTERESTING.
>> THE HOUSE IS A SURVIVOR AND IT'S A GREAT GAL, I'LL TELL YOU, SO SHE JUST DESERVES THE RECOGNITION.
>> WELL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORT, AND WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOU DOING YOUR PART TO KEEP OUR HISTORICAL AREA HISTORICAL.
ANY COMMENTS FOR ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS?
>> JUST A QUICK QUESTION. I LOVE THIS PICTURE FROM 1910, WHERE IT'S GOT THE TWO ENTRANCES AND I KNOW THAT'S IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY.
IS THERE ANY INDICATION WHEN THAT WAS CHANGED?
>> I THINK IT WAS CHANGED IN THE '40S 1943 BY WAAG, W-A-A-G. BECAUSE HE PULLED A PERMIT OR HAD APPROVAL.
I COULD SEE THAT ON THE INSURANCE AND ALSO IN THE NEWSPAPER, THAT IT WAS TENANTS, AND THEN WHEN HE BOUGHT IT, BASICALLY, IT WAS A LOT OF FAMILY COMING THROUGH.
THEN AT THAT POINT, HE DID THE PERMITTING AND THE CHANGES FOR BORDERS, OR ONCE AGAIN TO MULTIFAMILY, WE WOULD SAY.
THEN HE SOLD IT A COUPLE OF YEARS LATER AFTER HE DIED.
I LOVE THAT LITTLE TEENY, TINY BALCONY SITTING THERE. [LAUGHTER]
>> THAT'S NOT EVEN THERE ANYMORE.
>> YEAH, GREAT. IT'S A BEAUTIFUL HOME.
[00:05:02]
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS? IF NOT, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING THIS BACK TO COMMISSION FOR ACTION.
>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE, I'M TRYING TO SCROLL UP HERE, CASE 24P-010 AS PRESENTED.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE 24P-010. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL HAVE A VOTE.
THOSE IN FAVOR? THAT'S UNANIMOUS.
[6.A.2 24P-011 (3520 Broadway/Avenue J) Request For Designation As A Galveston Landmark. The Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, Lot 12, Block 215, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Carolyn Lundy Property Owner: George A. Laiacona, Jr.]
ITS REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION AS A GALVESTON LANDMARK.
TWENTY-THREE NOTICES WERE SENT, ZERO RETURNED.
THIS IS THE JOHN AND MARGARET CLARKE HOUSE, WHICH WAS BUILT IN 1896.
WHEN CONSTRUCTED, IT CONSISTED OF A FRAME HOUSE WITH A SLATE ROOF ELEVATED 3.5 FEET ON BRICK PIERS AND CONTAINED FOUR ROOMS, ONE HALL, TWO CLOSETS, ONE BATHROOM, AND TWO PORCHES.
JOHN CLARKE IS IDENTIFIED ON THE 1896 RECORD AS THE BUILDING'S ORIGINAL OWNER.
ON AUGUST 12TH, 1896, CLARKE CONTRACTED WITH CARPENTERS JOHN S BRANNUM AND FRED ROGERS OF BRANNUM & ROGERS TO ERECT A PAINTED FIVE-ROOM FRAME COTTAGE WITH A SLATE ROOF.
IT'S UNUSUAL TO HAVE THIS MUCH INFORMATION ABOUT THE BUILDERS OF THE HOUSE.
WE OFTEN HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT THE OWNERS, BUT THIS LEVEL OF DETAIL ABOUT THE BUILDER IS UNUSUAL.
THE JOHN AND MARGARET CLARKE HOUSE RETAINS ALL ASPECTS OF INTEGRITY AS THE SOLE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE 3500 BLOCK OF BROADWAY.
THE HOUSE IS A VISUAL REMINDER OF PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS ON BROADWAY.
THE LANDMARK COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AT THEIR MEETING YESTERDAY.
CITY COUNCIL WILL REVIEW AT THEIR MEETING ON MAY 23RD, AND THEY HAVE THE FINAL DECISION REGARDING LANDMARK REQUESTS, AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND THEN WE HAVE THE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST, EAST, AND SOUTH.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THEN WE'LL MOVE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> I DON'T SEE THEM IN THE AUDIENCE.
>> THAT'S FINE. THE ONLY COMMENT I HAVE IS THAT IT'S ON BROADWAY.
>> IT IS. IT'S A LANDMARK DESIGNATION ON BROADWAY. [OVERLAPPING]
>> AND IT'S ACTUALLY OUTSIDE OF WHERE OUR NEW, OR IS IT GOING TO BE RIGHT ON THE EDGE OF THAT?
>> IT'S OUTSIDE, SO LET'S HOPE THIS IS A NEW.
>> THEY LIVE ON THE 27TH. [BACKGROUND]
>> YEAH, SO LET'S HOPE THIS IS A TRENDSETTER.
>> WOO-HOO. [LAUGHTER] WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO COMMISSION FOR ACTION.
>> I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE 24P-011.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE 24P-011.
>> I JUST NOTED THAT THERE'S NOT A LOT OF HOUSES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BROADWAY.
IF THESE PEOPLE ARE SO INCLINED TO KEEP IT IN GOOD REPAIR, I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A GREAT ADDITION.
>> THEY WERE AT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION YESTERDAY AND REALLY TALKED ABOUT HOW MUCH THEY LOVE IT, SO YOU CAN TELL THAT THEY'RE REALLY PROUD OF IT.
>> THAT'S AWESOME. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? THEN WE'LL TAKE THE VOTE. THOSE IN FAVOR? THAT IS UNANIMOUS, SO 24P-011 IS APPROVED.
[6.B.1. 24P-015 (Adjacent To 711 25th Street) Request For A Permanent License To Use For A Winnie Street Right-Of-Way Deck Encroachment. Adjacent Property Is Legally Described Dolphin World Downtown (2018), Abstract 628, Tract A, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas. Applicant: Luis Quiroz Adjacent Property Owner: Shlomo Hamo Easement Holder: City Of Galveston]
>> THIS IS ADJACENT TO 711 25TH STREET. THERE WERE 10 NOTICES SENT.
ONE OF THOSE RETURNED IN FAVOR.
NO OBJECTION FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS OF PRIVATE UTILITIES.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A PERMANENT LICENSE TO USE FOR A DECK THAT WILL ENCROACH THREE FEET AND THREE AND ONE HALF INCHES INTO THE WINNIE AVENUE G RIGHT OF WAY.
PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT B FOR EXTENT OF ENCROACHMENT, DUE TO THE FACT THAT APPROXIMATELY 12 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY WILL REMAIN UNOBSTRUCTED.
THE DECK DESIGN DOES NOT CREATE CONFLICTS WITH THE EXISTING PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED DECK ENCROACHMENTS DOES NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT THE RIGHT OF WAY AS CURRENTLY CONFIGURED AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF CASE 24P-015 WITH THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS LISTED IN YOUR REPORT AS 1-4 AND STANDARD CONDITIONS 5-10.
THAT WAS THE AREA MAP OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT BUILDING AND A VIEW OF THE RIGHT OF WAY AS WELL.
HERE ARE THE PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND WEST, AND THAT INCLUDES STAFF REPORT.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES.
[00:10:04]
>> DOES STAFF HAVE ANY STREET VIEW PLANS LOOKING FROM THE NORTH TO THE SOUTH?
>> BESIDES WHAT'S IN HERE, THIS DOESN'T GIVE ME A LOT OF DETAIL ON LOOKING AT THE BUILDING FROM THE NORTH LOOKING AT THE BUILDING.
IS THIS ALL THAT YOU HAVE AS FAR AS RENDERINGS OF THE DECK?
>> YEAH, THAT'S ALL THAT'S REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED.
THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A SITE PLAN AND THAT'S WHAT HE HAS.
>> HE SHOULD COME BACK LATER WITH THE ACTUAL PLANS FOR THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION ASPECT.
>> HE'LL COME BACK TO STAFF FOR PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT IT, YES.
OR FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS REQUEST IS JUST WILL THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE THIS PORTION OF ENCROACHMENT? THE ACTUAL LAYOUT AND APPROVAL OF THE ACTUAL ITSELF WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH PERMITTING AS ANY OTHER PLAN.
>> I WAS JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THE HEIGHT AND JUST HOW THEY PLAN TO COVER THE FRONT, BUT I DON'T KNOW, IS THAT IN OUR PURVIEW OR NOT? I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT HOW IT'S GOING TO LOOK THERE ON 25TH.
BASICALLY, THE HEIGHT AND HOW IT'S GOING TO BE COVERED IN THE FRONT SO THAT NOBODY GETS UNDERNEATH THE DECK, ANIMALS, PEOPLE, TRASH.
>> THAT'S A WRAP AROUND DECK TO THE FRONT ENTRY OF THE BUILDING.
>> I GET THAT. I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT HOW IT'S GOING TO BE COVERED IN THE FRONT OR ON THE WINNIE STREET SIDE SO THAT TRASH, ANIMALS, VAGRANTS DON'T GET UNDER THERE AND CAUSE PROBLEMS.
>> ELEVATIONS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED WITH THESE SUBMITTALS, BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.
>> WE DON'T HAVE ANY ANSWERS ON THAT, OF HOW HIGH IT'S GOING TO BE, HOW?
>> YEAH. THE APPLICANT CAN PROBABLY DISCUSS SOME OF THOSE, BUT AGAIN, ELEVATIONS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THESE.
>> WELL I THINK THE APPLICANT IS HERE, SO WE'LL ASK HIM THAT QUESTION.
I DO THINK ON THE SITE PLAN, IT DOES STATE THAT IT'S JUST AN OPEN DECK.
IT DOESN'T SAY THAT IT'S COVERED.
>> WILL THE ADDED DECK AREA CHANGE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT?
>> THAT IS A ZONING DISTRICT THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE STREET PARKING.
>> THERE'S NO PARKING REQUIREMENT IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.
>> IS THERE ANYTHING NOTED ON HERE OF HOW MUCH EXISTING SIDEWALK WILL BE LEFT?
>> YES. THERE'S APPROXIMATELY 12 FEET LEFT OF RIGHT OF WAY AND THE SIDEWALK ITSELF IS ABOUT ANYWHERE FROM 5-6 FEET.
>> ANYBODY ELSE? I DO HAVE A REAL QUICK QUESTION.
IT DID APPEAR TO ME ONE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WAS IN THERE, AND I DON'T SEE IT, HAD A PICTURE ON THE SIDEWALK AND IT HAD A MARK ON IT.
BUT I'M PRETTY SURE IT HAD A YELLOW MARK ON THE SIDEWALK.
>> YEAH, IT ALMOST LOOKED LIKE A SURVEY MARK.
[OVERLAPPING] THAT'S WHY I WAS GOING TO MAKE THE ASSUMPTION THAT THAT IS NOT HOW FAR OUT THAT'S GOING BECAUSE THAT WOULD LEAVE A PRETTY SMALL SIDEWALK.
IT'S GOING INTO THE EDGE OF WHERE AND LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, I DECIPHERED THAT THE CONCRETE GOES.
IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT PICTURE, THE STAIR CASE THERE IT'S MORE OR LESS WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE ENDS.
THEN RIGHT UP TO THE SIDEWALK THERE, IT'S WHERE THE EXTENT OF THE ENCROACHMENT.
>> YES. IT WOULD BE BEYOND WHERE THAT, I'M LOOKING AT THIS PEDRIL.
>> THAT'S WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE ENDS.
>> THE PROPERTY LINE ENDS, AND THEY'RE JUST WANTING TO GO TO THE EDGE OF THE SIDEWALK, CORRECT? [OVERLAPPING]
>> WHERE THE LIP IS, THERE'S A LITTLE LIP HERE, A LITTLE LIP BETWEEN THEIR PROPERTY AND THE SIDEWALK.
>> A LITTLE LIP. IT LOOKS LIKE A LIP TO ME.
IT MAY NOT BE ONE, BUT THAT'S HOW IT LOOKS TO ME. A LITTLE LIP.
>> THAT'S NOT PARKING IN THERE.
>> I DON'T THINK ANYWAYS. THAT'S ALL THAT I HAD.
>> BUT I DO UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THE.
>> I JUST SAW THE MARK ON THERE AND I WAS LIKE, IS THAT WHERE IT'S GOING? BUT I DON'T THINK IT IS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IF NOT, WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME FORWARD, SIR?
[00:15:02]
I'M THE OWNER OF VITA GAVE RIGHT HERE NEXT DOOR.
WE JUST REALLY WANT TO BUILD THE DECK ON THE SIDE.
ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION, MR. ANTHONY, CAN I GO OVER HERE SO I CAN SHOW YOU VERY QUICK?
>> YOU HAVE TO TALK INTO THE MICROPHONE FOR THE RECORDING.
>> I SEE. I JUST WANTED TO SHOW YOU.
WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THE SAME HEIGHT OF THE ENTRANCE.
THE CONCRETE, WE'RE GOING TO JUST LEAVE IT THERE, AND THEN IT'S GOING TO BE COVERED.
THE DECK IS GOING TO BE COVERED, NO ANIMALS, NO ANYTHING IS GOING TO GO UNDERNEATH, AND IT'S GOING TO BE MADE OF WOOD.
>> THE UNDERNEATH IT IS GOING TO HAVE COVER?
>> PUT A DECK ABOVE WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE YOUR TABLES AND CHAIRS.
IS THAT GOING TO BE COVERED AS WELL?
NO. I MIGHT PUT SOME UMBRELLAS.
I JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO COVER IT YET, BUT MAYBE IN THE FUTURE.
[LAUGHTER] BUT YES, WE RECENTLY EXPANDED OUR RESTROOMS. WE LOST AROUND 16 CHAIRS.
WE JUST WANT TO GROW AND THE DECK I THINK IS GOING TO LOOK VERY BEAUTIFUL FOR THE CITY.
WE'RE GOING TO BE PET FRIENDLY AND WE WILL INCREASE OUR SEATING CAPACITY BY 50-60 CUSTOMERS.
>> YES. I WALKED OVER THERE BY THE SPACE.
THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM ON THE REMAINING SIDEWALK.
THIS PART OF THE STAIRS HERE IS GOING TO BE COVERED AND WON'T BE USED ANYMORE?
>> NO. WE'RE REMOVING JUST THE RAILS AND THEN WE BUILD THE DECK IN THERE AND THAT'S STILL GOING TO BE AN EXIT AND AN ENTRANCE AS WELL, AND WE'RE COMPLYING WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL REQUIREMENTS.
>> THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE TO ME.
I'M JUST SAYING IT'S NOT WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME ON THE DRAWING.
I MAY BE LOOKING AT IT WRONG, BECAUSE THIS SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THE STAIRS WERE GOING TO BE UNDERNEATH THE DECK.
DID I READ THAT WRONG, KATHERINE, OR?
>> NO. I THINK YOU HAVE IT RIGHT.
THE EXISTING STAIRS WILL BE UNDER THE DECK, BUT THERE'S A NEW STAIR THAT'S GOING TO BE COMING DOWN THE BACK TO THE NORTH TO THE WEST OF IT.
>> GOT YOU. THEN YOUR PATRONS WILL ENTER AND EXIT FROM THIS DOOR, WINIE?
>> YES, SIR. THAT WILL BE PRETTY MUCH OUR EMERGENCY EXIT TO COMPLY WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL REQUIREMENTS.
>> WHAT KIND OF COVERING ARE YOU GOING TO PUT ON THE FRONT?
>> BUT I MEAN WHAT, IS IT GOING TO BE A LATTICE, IS IT GOING TO BE SOLID COVERING?
>> THAT'S JUST ONE OF MY MAIN CONCERNS IS THAT BECAUSE I KNOW THE RESTAURANT IS A WONDERFUL PLACE AND PEOPLE LOVE IT AND I KNOW MARIA GUAYO IS A FRIEND OF MINE, [LAUGHTER] BUT I WAS JUST ONE OF MY CONCERNS BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF VAGRANTS IN THE AREA, THERE'S A LOT OF STRAY ANIMALS IN THE AREA, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES DOWN THE ROAD WITH VAGRANTS, TRASH, ALL THAT STUFF THAT COULD COLLECT.
>> YOU'RE GOOD? ANYBODY ELSE? THANK YOU, SIR. I NEED YOU TO SIGN IN, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE HERE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? IF NOT, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING US BACK TO COMMISSION FOR ACTION.
>> I RECOMMEND WE PASS 24P-015 AS STATED WITH THE CONDITIONS.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE 24P-015 WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL TAKE THE VOTE.
THOSE IN FAVOR. THAT'S UNANIMOUS; 24P-015 IS APPROVED. GOOD LUCK, SIR.
>> [LAUGHTER] I THINK HE BROUGHT THEM HERE.
AREN'T THEY IN THE OTHER ROOM? [BACKGROUND] 24ZA-005 A TEXT AMENDMENT.
[6.C.1. 24ZA-005 Request For A Text Amendment To The Galveston Land Development Regulations, Article 2: Uses And Supplemental Standards To Amend The Permitted Uses On Broadway And Article 3: Yard, Lot, And Setback Standards To Amend The Broadway Design Standards. Applicant: Development Services Department]
>> THIS IS A TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO THE TWO PREVIOUS TEXT AMENDMENTS THAT WE DID REGARDING BROADWAY, 24ZA3 AND 4.
WHILE I WAS CODIFYING THE TEXT AMENDMENTS IN THE LDR DOCUMENT, I IDENTIFIED A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL CHANGES THAT NEEDED TO BE MADE.
THEY'RE DISPLAYED FOR YOU ON THE SCREEN.
THE FIRST ONE IS FOR PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE SALES OR RENTAL.
THE CHANGE THAT WE WERE MAKING WAS TO PROHIBIT PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE SALES AND RENTAL ON BROADWAY.
BUT WHEN I WAS TYPING IT IN, I REALIZED THAT THE DESCRIPTION IN 2 JUST STATED PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE SALES.
BECAUSE "AND RENTAL" WASN'T MENTIONED THERE, THE ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE THAT RENTAL WAS STILL ALLOWED.
[00:20:01]
I JUST WANTED TO BE SURE AND CLARIFY THAT WE MEANT BOTH PARTS OF THAT LAND USE TERM, THE SALES AND THE RENTAL.THEN IN THE BROADWAY DESIGN STANDARDS, WE HAD IDENTIFIED PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE SALES OR RENTAL AS BEING NEEDED TO BE WITHIN AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE.
THIS TERM USED TO JUST SAY ALL AUTO RELATED USES, WHICH WAS REALLY VAGUE, AND SO WE WANTED TO SPELL OUT WHICH AUTO RELATED USES WE REALLY MEANT.
BUT BECAUSE WE'RE PROHIBITING IT IN THE FIRST CHANGE, THERE'S NO NEED TO REQUIRE THAT IT BE IN AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE.
>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION KATHERINE.
>> SAY IN THE PAST WE'VE HAD A HURRICANE AND WE HAVE SOME OF THESE AUTO REPAIR SHOPS, AUTO SALES, THE ENTERPRISE RENT A CAR.
ARE THEY GRANDFATHERED TO REBUILD THERE OR NOT?
>> THEY'RE GRANDFATHERED WITHIN CURRENTLY 365 DAYS.
BUT THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDED TO COUNSEL THAT THAT BE REDUCED.
WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT YET, BUT WE WILL BE TAKING FORWARD A CASE TO CHANGE IT TO SIX MONTHS.
>> KATHERINE, AFTER A NATURAL EVENT LIKE A HURRICANE, IS THAT SIX MONTHS STILL IN PLAY FROM THE DATE OF THE HURRICANE? > THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. THERE IS A CONDITION IN THE CODE THAT ALLOWS FOR EXTRA TIME IN THE CASE OF NATURAL DISASTERS.
IN THE CASE OF A NATURAL DISASTER, YOU HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 365 DAYS.
WE'LL BE SURE TO CARRY THAT OVER WHEN WE DO THE CHANGE TO SIX MONTHS.
>> IN A CASE OF NATURAL DISASTER, ONCE IT'S CHANGED IT'S MADE FOR THE SIX MONTHS, AND THEY WILL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS.
>> I WOULD IMAGINE THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD BRING FORWARD.
>> AS LONG AS THERE IS SOME PROVISION IN THERE.
BECAUSE IF WE DO SHORTEN THAT TO SIX MONTHS, I KNOW AFTER [INAUDIBLE] IT TOOK EVERY BIT OF SIX MONTHS TO GET [INAUDIBLE] BUT I THINK WE CAN BE FAIR ABOUT IT.
>> WE'LL KEEP THAT IN MIND WHEN WE'RE CONSIDERING THAT CASE.
>> JUST A QUESTION. MAYBE FOR THE BARRISTER IN THE OFFICE.
IS THERE A DEFINITION TO GO ALONG WITH NATURAL DISASTER ON THIS?
>> IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE EMERGENCY DECLARATION, BASICALLY.
THAT WOULD BE UNDER THE UMBRELLA.
ANYTHING WITH THE EMERGENCY DECLARATION, THAT WOULD TRIGGER THIS.
>> WAS THE FREEZE A NATURAL DISASTER? IT WAS NOT.
>> NO, THE FREEZE IS A DECLARED NATURAL DISASTER.
>> WHEN I WAS AT HOME FOR FOUR DAYS THERE WAS NO POWER.
>> YEAH. NO POWER. [LAUGHTER] THAT'S OKAY.
>> THAT ONE'S ETCHED IN MEMORY.
>> I JUST WANTED TO KNOW, BECAUSE TO ME THAT SOUNDED LIKE IT WAS A NATURAL DISASTER.
IS THERE LEVELS OF NATURAL DISASTER? THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING BECAUSE LIKE THE FREEZE, YOU LOST SOME PIPES.
IT'S NOT LIKE YOUR WHOLE PLACE GOT WIPED OUT.
SHOULD IT REALLY BE TWO YEARS?
>> THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING TODAY.
TODAY, WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THESE TWO CHANGES.
WE CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WHEN WE BRING THAT CASE FORWARD.
>> I WOULD ASK THE QUESTION, ARE THERE ANY PROVISIONS, YOU HAD IT ON THE TIP OF YOUR TONGUE TIM, OF FORCE MAJEURE WITHIN THE LDRS? WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT, BUT I THINK THAT PROBABLY COVERS THAT.
>> ON THIS ONE HERE, OUTER RELATED BUSINESSES BETWEEN 19TH AND 65TH,
[00:25:02]
IS IT THE INTENTION OF THE LDRS TO PROHIBIT ANY NEW AUTO SERVICE AND FUELING STATIONS IN THAT AREA? IS THAT WHAT THE INTENTION OF THIS LDR IS?>> THE INTENTION IS TO MAKE IT WITHIN AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE, WHICH IS A DIFFICULT THING TO DO, ESPECIALLY FOR A FUELING STATION.
>> I'M ASKING CAN WE SEPARATE AUTO SERVICE AND FUELING JUST TO AN A AND A B, AND THEN DEAL WITH THIS ENCLOSED STRUCTURE BECAUSE IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO FUEL YOUR CAR IN AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE IN GALVESTON.
>> THE LAND USE TERM INCLUDES THEM BOTH TOGETHER.
IF YOU'RE A AUTO SERVICE, YOU'RE STILL WITHIN THIS LAND USE TERM.
>> BUT THEY CAN BE TWO DISTINCT BUSINESSES, RIGHT? WHERE I GET MY TIRES CHANGED, OR IF I HAVE A FLAT, HE DOESN'T SELL GAS.
>> I BELIEVE THEY'RE BOTH [INAUDIBLE]
>> RIGHT. FOR ANYBODY WHO [INAUDIBLE]
>> BUT THEY'RE NOT PROHIBITED.
>> THEY HAVE TO BE WITHIN THE ENCLOSED STRUCTURE.
EITHER AUTO SERVICE, OR A FUELING STATION, OR AUTO AND FUELING STATION?
>> MY CONCERN IS JUST FUELING STATION.
NO ONE'S GOING TO GO INSIDE, I DON'T THINK, TO PUT GAS IN THEIR CAR.
>> I DON'T THINK DOC WOULD ALLOW THAT.
>> [LAUGHTER] SINCE WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON CLARIFICATION AND GETTING RID OF CONFUSING WORDING IN THIS DOCUMENT.
CAN WE PUT THAT UP FOR CONSIDERATION?
>> MY INTERPRETATION IS THAT IT SAYS, WE DON'T WANT ONE, BUT IF YOU'RE A PROPERTY OWNER AND YOU'RE DEAD SET ON PUTTING IN A FUELING STATION, WE'LL LET YOU PUT ONE IN, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ENCLOSE IT.
I THINK IT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT'S LIMITING ADDITIONAL FUELING STATIONS BETWEEN 19TH AND 65TH STREET.
>> THAT GOES BACK TO THE FIRST QUESTION.
IS IT THE INTENTION JUST TO PROHIBIT THEM OUT RIGHT? WHY DON'T WE JUST SAY WHAT WE MEAN?
>> I'M GOING TO TELL YOU MY INTERPRETATION.
WHAT IT APPEARS TO ME IS THAT'S THE INTENT.
BUT IF YOU WANT TO GO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PUT IT ENCLOSED, WE DON'T WANT TO SEE IT, AND JUST LIKE THE AUTO SERVICE, WE'RE NOT TELLING YOU YOU CAN'T DO IT, BUT YOU CAN'T BE FIXING FLATS AND FIXING CARS IN THE DRIVEWAY.
YOU GOT TO DO IT ALL INSIDE THE STRUCTURE.
THAT'S MY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE PREMISE OF THIS IS.
>> SINCE THIS IS RELATING TO BROADWAY AND WE'RE TRYING TO BEAUTIFY BROADWAY, WOULD A DEFINITION OF ENCLOSED STRUCTURE MEAN A STRUCTURE THAT IS ENCLOSED ON THREE OF THE FOUR SIDES AND WITH A TYPE OF ROOF, OR WOULD IT MEAN YOU HAVE TO HAVE A BUILDING BECAUSE STRUCTURE CAN BE EITHER A BUILDING OR SOMETHING.
SECONDLY, ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS THINKING OF, DON'T WE ADDRESS SOMEWHERE ELSE ABOUT THE RECHARGING STATIONS?
>> YES. WE DID MAKE A CHANGE TO CHARGING STATIONS.
I DON'T REMEMBER THOSE REGULATIONS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
BUT WE WOULDN'T INTERPRET ENCLOSED STRUCTURES BEING CLOSED ON ALL FOUR SIDES.
IF THE COMMISSION'S MORE COMFORTABLE WITH JUST AN OUTRIGHT PROHIBITION, THEN YOU COULD DO A DEFERRAL.
INSTRUCT US TO DO THAT AND BRING IT BACK AND WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT.
>> I'M SORRY. WE'RE AT STAFF DISCUSSION ON THIS LEVEL.
>> YEAH. THESE ARE QUESTIONS AT STAFF.
WE STILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING TO DO.
IF WE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, LET'S DO THAT.
THEN WHAT WE CAN DO IS WHEN WE HAVE OUR DISCUSSION, IF YOU GUYS WANT TO LOOK AT THIS AND HAVE IT TO WHERE IT'S JUST AN OUTRIGHT PROHIBITION, MAKE IT PROHIBITED.
WE CAN DISCUSS THAT, AND DEFER IT, AND LET STAFF BRING US BACK SOME COMMENTS.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE FIRST SECTION? [INAUDIBLE]
>> YOU COULD. IT'S EASIER FOR US TO KEEP IT TOGETHER.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YOU GUYS GOOD? OKAY. THEN WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR ACTION.
[00:30:14]
YOU CAN COME SIT A LITTLE CLOSER, WE WON'T BITE YOU.
WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE'RE GOING TO BRING IT BACK.
I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER ITEM 24ZA-005.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO DEFER. ANY DISCUSSION? HERE'S HOW I'M THINKING THIS IS WHERE WE HAVE A MOTION TO DEFER.
WE'LL DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO JUST MAKE AN OUTRIGHT PROHIBITION TO THESE USES.
IF WE DO, WE'RE GOING TO DEFER IT, LET STAFF GO WORK THEIR MAGIC, BRING IT BACK TO US.
IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T WANT TO DO, WE'LL VOTE ON THE DEFERRAL.
IT MOST LIKELY WOULD FAIL, THEN WE WOULD HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE TEXT AMENDMENTS.
>> THE A2, THE RENTAL, THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE AN ISSUE.
>> I THINK WE CAN SEPARATE THE ISSUES.
YOU CAN STILL DEFER IT, BUT DISCUSSION-WISE, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH A2.
>> NO, MA'AM. WE'RE GOING TO BE ON P1.
>> WHAT IT IS THAT YOU WANT TO PROHIBIT ON THIS ONE?
>> OUT OF SERVICE AND FUELING STATION, A WHOLE LAND USE.
>> WHEN I WAS HEARING, AND HOPEFULLY, I WASN'T HEARING STUFF WHEN I WAS TALKING, BUT AUTO SERVICE AND AUTO FUELING STATION ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.
WHAT I THINK THE COMMENT WAS, ARE WE TREATING THEM AS TWO SEPARATE THINGS? THEN DISCUSSION HAPPENED, AND IT'S BEEN DETERMINED THAT THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.
NOW, THE DISCUSSION IS, DO WE WANT TO PROHIBIT THEM, WITHIN AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE OR WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO [OVERLAPPING]
>> FIRST, SINCE WE'RE HAVING DISCUSSIONS ABOUT CLARIFYING LANGUAGE, CONFUSING LANGUAGE, AND DISCREPANCIES IN THE LDRS THAT WE TAKE AUTO SERVICE, THAT'S A, AND FUELING STATIONS IS B IN THAT ITEM.
IN CLOSED STRUCTURE, THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT CONVERSATION.
BUT I THINK JUST TO MAKE IT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT ITEMS, AN A AND A B.
>> THEY'RE NOT. THEY ARE ONE LAND USE TOGETHER.
WE ALWAYS WILL REFER TO THEM TOGETHER AS AUTO SERVICE AND FUELING STATION.
I'M GETTING FROM THE COMMISSION IS THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE EITHER ONE OF THEM ON BROADWAY.
>> I'M NOT SAYING THAT. I'M SAYING FOR CLARIFICATION OF A AND B.
BECAUSE LIKE I SAID A WHILE AGO, WHEN I GO GET MY FLATS FIXED, HE DOESN'T SELL FUEL.
>> I THINK HE'S GOT THE SAME WAY IN BECAUSE IT'S PROBABLY A TERM THAT WAS PROBABLY OR ONLY CATEGORY THAT WAS PROBABLY HAS A HISTORY TO IT AND BACK IN THE DAY, YOU ALWAYS SAW AT A FUELING STATION, YOU ALWAYS SAW AUTO SERVICE WITH THAT ENTIRE.
TIMES HAVE CHANGED, MAYBE THAT IS SEPARATED, BUT I THINK IT'S PROBABLY SEMANTIC WHETHER TOGETHER OR SEPARATE.
I THINK HISTORY IS PROBABLY WHERE THIS CAME FROM.
MAYBE TIMES TO CHANGE. YOU WANT TO CHANGE?
WE HAD NO DIFFICULTY ADDING A CAT CAFE TO A WHOLE NEW LAND USE.
I DON'T SEE THE DIFFICULTY IN SEPARATE A AND B.
>> BUT IT WOULDN'T BE SEPARATED HERE.
IT WOULD BE SEPARATED IN A DIFFERENT PLACE.
IT WOULD BE SEPARATED IN THE USE TABLE.
WE WOULD DEVELOP A NEW DEFINITION FOR EACH OF THEM.
WE WOULD THEN CONSIDER EACH OF THEM AS A NEW AND UNLISTED LAND USE.
IT'S THE SAME THING WE DID FOR CAT CAFE.
IT WOULDN'T JUST BE LISTED HERE.
THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A WHOLE OTHER LOCATIONS IN THE LDR WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS THEM IF THEY WERE GOING TO BE SEPARATED.
>> I'M NOT TRYING TO PROHIBIT EITHER OF THOSE ITEMS. THE ENCLOSED STRUCTURE IS SOMETHING TO BE DEALT WITH DOWN THE ROAD, I GUESS.
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, COULD WE GET REALLY TO THE HEART OF THE ISSUE HERE WHICH IS IF IT'S OUTSIDE OF A BUILDING, DO YOU WANT TO PROHIBIT IT? IF IT'S INSIDE A BUILDING, ARE YOU OKAY WITH IT?
>> I THINK FOR ME, I WANT TO SOMETIMES
[00:35:01]
I RUN OUT OF GAS AND I NEED GAS ON BROADWAY. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU GUYS.I'M NOT SAYING THAT I DON'T WANT GAS STATION ON BROADWAY.
THAT'S REALLY ULTIMATELY THE CRUX OF THE SITUATION.
I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT WE CAN'T HAVE A GAS STATION ON BROADWAY.
>> I WOULD BE IN THE CAMP OF WE HAVE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT IF THEY CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO PUT A GAS STATION IN AN ENCLOSED BUILDING AND THEY WANT ONE, AND THEN, YOU KNOW WHAT? POWER TO YOU. WE'LL LET YOU DO IT.
IT'S GOING TO BE INSIDE, IT'S GOING TO BE PROBABLY COST PROHIBITIVE.
I DID NOT THINK ABOUT THE LAND USE LANGUAGE MAKES THEM JOIN AT THE HIP.
IF A GUY WANTS TO OPEN AN AUTO SHOP THERE AND HIS WORK IS INSIDE THE BUILDING, THIS IS AN AREA WHERE IT'S FULL OF MERCHANTS.
I THINK WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT TELLING PEOPLE, NO, YOU CAN'T BUILD SOMETHING THERE.
BUT IF YOU DO, THE STANDARD IS HIGH.
THE BAR IS HIGH ON DOING THIS, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THIS SAYS. THAT'S MY COMMENT.
>> BUT REMEMBER WHERE WE STARTED.
I ALWAYS DIGRESS BACK TO WHERE WE STARTED.
IT'S THE BEAUTIFICATION OF BROADWAY.
THAT WAS THE INTENT IN OUR MISSION FROM COUNCIL.
IT'S TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO THE ENTRANCE INTO OUR CITY THAT'S NOT GAS STATIONS AND CAR REPAIR SHOPS AND IF THEY WANT TO HAVE THEM, THEY NEED TO BE PRETTY.
THAT'S I THINK THE INTENT, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
>> TO MAKE THIS CHANGE TO BEGIN WITH.
I FEEL LIKE WE'RE GOING FULL CIRCLE BACK TO WHERE WE STARTED.
>> I AGREE THAT I THINK THEY SHOULD BE PRETTY.
BUT WHEN WE HAVE SO MUCH TRAFFIC ON BROADWAY, GOING OUT TO EAST BEACH, STEWART BEACH, DOWN TO THE EAST END, IF WE WERE TO WIPE OUT ALL THE GAS STATIONS, LET'S JUST SAY A WORST CASE SCENARIO, WE DIDN'T HAVE GAS STATIONS ON BROADWAY.
I THINK THAT'S NOT A GREAT IDEA.
I JUST DON'T AGREE THAT'S A GREAT IDEA.
>> WELL, I THINK THAT'S WHY I ASKED ABOUT THE ENCLOSED STRUCTURE CONCEPT ON THIS BECAUSE HYPOTHETICALLY, SOMEBODY COULD BUILD A VERY ATTRACTIVE MURAL DESIGN WALL THAT FACES BROADWAY, WHICH WOULD BE ATTRACTIVE TO PEOPLE, AND HE COULD HAVE HIS ENTRANCES ON THE SIDE STREET AND NOT REALLY GIVE A NEGATIVE LOOK TO BROADWAY.
IF OUR SOLE THING IS TRYING TO IMPROVE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE ON BROADWAY, THAT WAY, THAT PERSON COULD AND THAT'D BE A LOT HOOP TO JUMP.
THAT'D BE A PRETTY GOOD HOOP TO JUMP THROUGH.
BUT IT WOULD AT LEAST BE SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD HANG THEIR HAT ON AND SAY, WELL, I CAN BUILD IT BUT GOSH, I HAVE TO BUILD THIS AND I'M HAVE TO BUILD THAT.
I HAVE TO GET A ROADS GOING TO COME IN, I GOT TO HAVE IT WHERE ENTRANCES HERE, EXITS HERE.
JUST LIKE WE DID WITH THE CAR WASH. THAT WAS ONE OF THE IMPEDIMENTS I THINK THAT WE LOOKED AT WITH THE CAR WASH, IF I RECALL.
MAYBE WE JUST NEED TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO ALLOW SOME OF THESE BUSINESSES TO COME IN IF THEY WISH OR IF THE OWNER OR THE PROPERTY WISHES AND BUILD SOMETHING, BUT KEEP THE ATTRACTION, KEEP THE UGLINESS BEHIND A WALL.
YOU LOOK AT THE FRONT OF MY HOUSE, YOU SAY, HE'S A NICE NEAT GUY AND I'M NOT.
YOU LOOK AT MY GARAGE DOOR AND YOU THINK, IT'S REALLY NEAT INSIDE THE GARAGE DOOR BED. NO, IT'S NOT.
>> WHO ELSE DOES THAT? THE WOODLANDS.
IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR GAS STATIONS, THEY ARE VERY PRETTY ON THE OUTSIDE.
THEY HAVE LOW, I THINK, LIKE THE SIGNAGE IS REAL LOW AND STUFF.
IT'S JUST THEY FOUND A WAY TO STILL HAVE FUNCTIONALITY, BUT FOR IT TO BE PRETTY.
THAT'S I THINK ULTIMATELY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO TO HAVE FUNCTION, BUT FOR IT TO BE ATTRACTIVE.
>> DON'T FORGET NOT ONLY WOULD THEY HAVE TO BE INSIDE, BUT THEY'RE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PONY UP TO THE BROADWAY STANDARDS AS WELL.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? YES, JOHN.
>> AS OPPOSED TO GOING DOWN TO SIXTH?
>> I COULDN'T SAY, ADRI ANYTHING ON THAT?
>> [OVERLAPPING] YEAH. THAT'S TRUE. WE DID.
>> YES, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
>> THAT'S A GOOD REASON. I JUST WANT TO MENTION, I'VE HAD A LITTLE DISCUSSION ON THIS.
I'M GLAD THIS BEING REFERRED BECAUSE MAYBE THIS COULD COME BACK AT THE TIME.
[00:40:01]
BUT WE HAD A LOT OF TALK ABOUT FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS.WE CHANGED SOME ORDINANCES ABOUT DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES.
THAT DID NOT GET CHANGED IN THE LIMITED USE FOR THAT CATEGORY.
I LIKE THAT AND MAKE THAT MATCH.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO, THE LIMITED USES COULD BE TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN YOU SET DESIGN STANDARDS, BUT THEN YOU ACTUALLY LIMIT THEM EVEN MORE WHEN IT COMES TO THE ACTUAL USE OF THE PROPERTY.
BUT ONE OF MY DISCUSSIONS WAS ABOUT AROUND FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS.
SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES FOR THAT BECAUSE OF THE DRIVEWAYS.
I WOULD LIKE TO COME BACK THAT LIMITED STANDARDS TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAYS.
>> [LAUGHTER] I HAVE MADE THOSE NOTES.
>> LET'S DO THIS. I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE I'VE SEEN THAT AND WE'LL ACTUALLY HAVE THAT ADDED AS MAYBE A DISCUSSION OR SOMETHING WE GET PAST THIS BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE SEPARATE FROM THIS.
SAME THING IS GOING ON HERE AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS NEXT.
ANY MORE DISCUSSION? LET'S TAKE A VOTE. THE MOTION IS TO DEFER THE ITEM, THOSE IN FAVOR OF DEFERRAL.
THAT'S UNANIMOUS, KATHERINE, YOU GET A COMPLETE LIST OF ALL OF OUR STUFF THAT, I WANT CANDY CANES.
[LAUGHTER] MOVING ON, WE HAVE DISCUSSIONS.
[7.A. Discussion Of Department And Private Utility Review Of Planning Commission Cases (Lantz/Walla)]
THIS WAS ADDED AT THE REQUEST OF MARY JANE.>> I PUT A COUPLE OF SLIDES TOGETHER IF YOU JUST WANT ME TO GO OVER WHAT WE ARE CURRENT PRACTICES.
IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, CARINA.
FOR EACH OF THE CASES THAT YOU ALL SEE, WE SEND THE CASE SUMMARY, WHICH IS A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE.
IT'S NOT THE STAFF REPORT YET, BUT IT'S A CONDENSED VERSION OF THAT, AND ALL OF THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO ALL OF THESE DEPARTMENTS.
THE AIRPORT, BUILDING, COASTAL RESOURCES, FIRE MARSHAL, FIRE CHIEF, POLICE CHIEF, AND PUBLIC WORKS, AND THEN ALSO TO THE PRIVATE UTILITIES, WHICH IS AT&T, COMCAST, CENTERPOINT, AND TEXAS GAS SERVICE.
ON THE NEXT SLIDE, THIS IS OUR STANDARD LANGUAGE THAT WE SEND WITH ALL OF THE CASE MANAGERS, SEND OUT THE SAME LANGUAGE, ASKING FOR THEIR REVIEW, OBJECTION, NO OBJECTION, AND WE INCLUDE THIS CAVEAT, PLEASE RESPOND BY DATE FOR INCLUSION IN THE STAFF REPORT.
IF STAFF DOES NOT RECEIVE A RESPONSE BY DATE, THEN WE WILL NOTE NO OBJECTION IN THE STAFF REPORT.
WE GET RESPONSES FROM REALLY ALL OF THE REVIEWERS.
IF YOU'LL GO BACK TO THE DEPARTMENTS, CARINA, WE GET RESPONSES CONSISTENTLY.
I'D SAY FROM EVERYBODY WITH TWO EXCEPTIONS, THE FIRE CHIEF.
THE FIRE CHIEF, IF HE HAD CONCERNS, HE'D TALKED TO THE FIRE MARSHAL AND WE WOULD GET THOSE CONCERNS THROUGH THE FIRE MARSHAL.
POLICE CHIEF IS NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN DEVELOPMENT.
IF HE HAS CONCERNS, HE DOES RESPOND, BUT IT'S UNUSUAL.
BUT WE GET ACTIVE RESPONSES FROM THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THE MOST INVOLVED IN DEVELOPMENT.
SAME GOES FOR THE PRIVATE UTILITIES.
IF YOU'LL LOOK AT THOSE ON THE NEXT SLIDE, WE GET ACTIVE RESPONSES FROM EVERYBODY, I'D SAY EXCEPT FOR AT&T.
BUT YOU KNOW WHO HAS A LANDLINE ANYMORE.
[LAUGHTER] THAT'S OUR PROCESS.
STAFF IS VERY COMFORTABLE WITH IT.
WE FEEL ENSURED THAT THE REVIEWS ARE HAPPENING.
>> I THINK THE CONCERN AND ESPECIALLY SINCE WE'VE HAD THESE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AND ALL THE DIFFERENT THINGS BEING CHALLENGED RECENTLY IS THAT LAST SENTENCE.
IF WE DON'T HEAR FROM YOU, THEN WE'LL LOG IT AS A NO OBJECTION.
WE JUST WANT TO MAKE AND I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF,
[00:45:01]
ABSOLUTELY SURE THAT THE DEPARTMENTS MAYBE SAY REVIEWED AND NO OBJECTION BECAUSE I'M CONCERNED I KNOW IN MY WORK HISTORY IF SOMEBODY'S OUT SICK OR SOMEBODY DIDN'T GET THE EMAIL OR GETS CAUGHT IN SPAM, WHO KNOWS? SOMEBODY MAY NOT HAVE SEEN THAT EMAIL.I JUST WANT A LITTLE ONE-BOT TICK THAT SAID, YEAH, WE SAW IT.
WE'RE GOOD WITH IT. MAYBE IT'S NOT A PROBLEM.
>> I DON'T THINK IT IS. STAFF IS COMFORTABLE WITH IT.
LIKE I SAID, WE GET RESPONSES FROM THE DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN DEVELOPMENT.
IF WE DIDN'T GET A RESPONSE, IT WOULD BE VERY UNUSUAL AND THE CASE MANAGER WOULD REACH OUT TO THEM, ESPECIALLY IF IT WAS THE FIRE MARSHAL, ESPECIALLY IF IT WAS PUBLIC WORKS, ESPECIALLY IF IT WAS THE AIRPORT AND THERE WAS A HEIGHT REQUIREMENT.
BUT I'LL TELL YOU THAT THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR IS PROBABLY THE FIRST RESPONSE YOU'RE GETTING BACK.
IT JUST SAYS NO OBJECTION DOESN'T SAY REVIEWED WITH COMMENTS.
IT IS A NO OBJECTION IS NO OBJECTION.
I WOULD JUST REMIND COMMISSION THAT WHEN WE HAVE THESE AND WE HAD THIS HAPPENED RECENTLY, IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT COMES UP AND YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT IT, YOU CAN DO A COUPLE OF THINGS.
YOU CAN EMAIL KATHERINE, AND YOU CAN ASK HER SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT.
IF WE ARE IN A MEETING AND WE DID THIS WHERE WE HAD SOME QUESTIONS, DON'T BITE YOUR TONGUE.
THOSE GUYS THEY'LL SHOW UP AND THEY'LL GIVE US THEIR RESPONSES AND WE WERE FORTUNATE WE HAD THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR DO THAT.
IT DOES SEEM A LITTLE IS IT HAPPENING? KATHERINE SAYS IT IS, SO IT MUST. [LAUGHTER].
>> IF IT SAYS REVIEWED, THAT ONE IS A SOUVENIR.
>> WE'RE VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROCESS.
YOU CAN ALWAYS LET US KNOW AHEAD OF TIME IF YOU KNOW THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE FIRE MARSHAL, FOR THE CITY ENGINEER.
JUST LET US KNOW AND THEY'RE ALWAYS HAPPY TO COME.
>> DID WE SAY THAT WE WERE GOING TO START HAVING THOSE GUYS IN WHEN WE HAVE THE MAJOR CASES?
>> THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH ASKING THEM, AND IT'S REALLY RELATIVELY EASY.
IF THEY HAVE ADVANCE NOTICE, AND I THINK THAT'S THE KEY IS THEY CAN EITHER ATTEND THE MEETING OR THEY CAN CERTAINLY BE HERE OVER THE PHONE OR VIA ZOOM.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM.
>> NO, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH ASKING FOR THEIR ATTENDANCE.
>> I THINK THAT A LOT OF TIMES, LIKE WHEN WE KNOW SOMETHING'S GOING TO BE LIKE HAIR ON FIRE, WE SHOULD PROACTIVELY PROVIDE THOSE GUYS BECAUSE WHEN THE WHOLE AUDIENCE IS FULL AND FOCAL WAY OUT THERE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DOOR.
I THINK THOSE ARE THE OPPORTUNITIES WE HAVE TO BRING THOSE GUYS IN SO THEY CAN ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE MOST OF THE TIME THE QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT THE TURNING RADIUS AND ALL THAT STUFF.
IT'S GOOD TO HAVE THE PROFESSIONALS IN PLACE TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS RIGHT THEN AND RIGHT THERE AND WE CAN MOVE FORWARD SO THAT THE CITIZENS GET THEIR ANSWERS JUST SAME TIME WE GET THEM.
>> AGAIN, THEY ARE AVAILABLE, AND IT'S JUST IF YOU HAVE THOSE, WE JUST NEED TO LET KATHERINE KNOW, AND, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I DON'T THINK ANY OF THOSE GUYS HAVE ISSUE WITH COMING TO OUR MEETING OR BEING PRESENT TO ANSWER OR AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
ANYTHING ELSE? WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.
[7.B. Discussion Of The Platting Of Lots With Alley Frontage (Lantz/Walla)]
>> THE NEXT ITEM IS THE PLATTING OF LOTS WITH ALLEY ACCESS.
IT WAS ALSO A CONCERN OF DR. LEWIS.
>> I THINK WE FOUND IN THE LAST MEETING THAT THE LDRS DON'T SAY THE SAME THING IN TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS.
THIS FIRST SECTION SAYS THAT EACH LOT SHALL HAVE FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET ALLEY OR PRIVATE ACCESSWAY THAT CONFORMS TO THE STANDARDS OF CONSTRUCTION, SPECIFICATIONS, AND DETAILS.
CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT PART? WHERE IS THE NEW CONSTRUCTION?
>> ALLEYS. THEN IT SAYS UNDER ALLEYS, NO NEW BUSINESS OR DWELLING SHALL FACE OR HAVE ITS MAIN ENTRANCE ON AN ALLEY.
WHAT WE HAD COME BEFORE US WAS A DIVISION OF TWO LOTS WHERE THE MAIN ENTRANCE WOULD HAVE BEEN ON AN ALLEYWAY AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR THAT HOMEOWNER TO MOVE FORWARD AND BUILD A NEW STRUCTURE, THE MAIN ENTRANCE WOULD HAVE BEEN ON AN ALLEYWAY.
IT SEEMS TO ME THERE'S A CONTRADICTION IN THE LDRS BETWEEN THESE TWO ITEMS AND I NEED SOME DIRECTION.
[00:50:01]
>> SURE. I'D SAY THAT THE PURPOSE OF THESE TWO SECTIONS IS DIFFERENT.
IF WE GO BACK TO THE FIRST ONE, THAT'S LOTS AND BLOCKS.
THAT'S TELLING US ABOUT EXISTING PROPERTIES AND HOW THEY'RE CONFIGURED.
YOU'RE ALLOWED TO IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING PROPERTY ON AN EXISTING ALLEY, DIVIDE IT.
THEN THIS OTHER SECTION IS FOR NEW SUBDIVISIONS AND FOR THE LAYOUT OF NEW SUBDIVISIONS BECAUSE IT'S IN STREET DESIGN AND LAYOUT.
>> THAT THE SUBDIVISION DESIGN ITSELF WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED THAT CONCEPT.
IT'S THE STREET AND ALLEY LAYOUT OF THE SUBDIVISION.
>> YEAH AND IN PARTICULAR, THAT WHOLE SECTION IS OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
>> SUBSECTION 6.303, THE STREET DESIGN AND LAYOUT IS A SUBSECTION UNDER SUBDIVISIONS.
>> CHAPTER 6 IS THE OVERALL SUBDIVISION CHAPTER.
THIS IS A COMPONENT THAT ADDRESSES HOW THE STREETS ARE LAID OUT, ACCESS IS LAID OUT, THAT KIND OF THING.
>> IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING LOT AND YOU'RE DIVIDING IT INTO TWO LOTS, IT'S STILL IN A SUBDIVISION.
SO THE MAIN ENTRANCE ACCORDING TO ME, CANNOT BE ON AN ALLEY.
I MEAN, ACCORDING TO WHAT IT SAYS THERE.
>> THE SITUATION WILL BE THAT YES, IT IS A SUBDIVISION [INAUDIBLE].
>> WHEN DOES THAT NEW SUBDIVISION [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER]
BUT AGAIN, THIS ACKNOWLEDGES OUR HISTORY AND THE HISTORY OF 1839, WHEN THAT ORIGINAL TOWN LAYOUT WAS LAID OUT IN A VERY SPECIFIC PATTERN AT THE TIME THAT WAS NOT UNUSUAL.
SUBDIVISIONS NOW ARE FAIRLY WELL DIFFERENT.
THEY'RE DIFFERENT STANDARDS, THEY'RE DIFFERENT ACCESS POINTS, AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY THE DIFFERENCE IS THIS ACKNOWLEDGES THE NEW DESIGNS AND NEW LAYOUTS OF A NEWLY CREATED GREENFIELD SUBDIVISION, WHILE THE OTHER ONE ACKNOWLEDGES HOW THINGS ARE RETROFITTED IN THE EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS BUT MORE PARTICULARLY, IT'S REALLY DESIGNED FOR THE ORIGINAL PLAT OF GALVESTON.
REALLY, THAT'S THE INTENT OF IT.
>> THAT SECTION STARTS, IF YOU READ THAT SECTION, STARTS ACKNOWLEDGING THAT.
IT TALKS ABOUT THE URBAN CORE, OUR PRIMARY STREETS HERE FROM SECTION ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
THEN IT TALKS ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY FOR THAT PARTICULAR.
>> BUT ISN'T THE PROBLEM AND THE ISSUES STILL THE SAME? IS THIS REALLY WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY? [OVERLAPPING] WELL, I MADE A DISTINCTION [OVERLAPPING] BETWEEN EXISTING STRUCTURES AND VACANT LOTS.
IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, PERHAPS IT'S BEEN USED, THAT ALLEY HAS BEEN USED TO ACCESS THAT BACK BUILDING FOR YEARS.
I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.
I CAN SEE WHERE A PROPERTY OWNER MIGHT BE IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY NEEDED TO SELL ONE OR THE OTHER, BUT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO GET RID OF BOTH.
THEY NEED TO HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY, I THINK.
BUT IF YOU HAVE A VACANT LOT THAT YOU'RE GOING FORWARD WITH A NEW PLAN, AND THAT'S A SUBDIVISION.
IF YOU TAKE A LOT, AND MAKE IT INTO TWO LOTS, THAT'S A NEW SUBDIVISION.
BY ANY STANDARDS I'VE EVER DEALT WITH FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS IN HARRIS COUNTY IN ANY WAY, AND I WOULD THINK THAT THE SAME THING WOULD APPLY HERE.
BUT GOING BACK TO THE PROBLEM, YOU'RE TAKING AN ALLEY AND MAKING IT A PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE.
WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT LAST TIME ABOUT LIABILITY.
I WOULD THINK THAT THERE IS A TREMENDOUS LIABILITY.
WHEN YOU START CREATING TRAFFIC PATTERNS, GOING DOWN ALLEYS, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN DOORDASH MEETS DOMINO'S IN THE ALLEY AT MIDNIGHT? IT'S NOT GOING TO BE GOOD BECAUSE IT'S A 20 FOOT RIGHT AWAY
[00:55:01]
WHERE YOU HAVE STRUCTURES RIGHT UP TO THE EDGE.WE TALKED ABOUT THE PROBLEM OF A TURNING RADIUS.
WELL, SMALL VEHICLES CAN GET IN, BUT WHAT ABOUT WHEN THEY HAVE TO BACK OUT AND YOU CAN'T SEE DOWN THE ALLEY AND YOU HAVE TO BACK OUT AND YOU HAVE TRAFFIC GOING DOWN THAT ALLEY BOTH WAYS? IT DEFIES ANY RULES OF SUBDIVISION DESIGN FOR ITS STREETS AND STREET PATTERNS THAT I'VE EVER HEARD OF.
I'VE DONE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WE HAD PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS.
WE TOOK THEM DOWN TO 24 FEET, AND 24 IS TIGHT.
WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEBODY BACKING OUT, IT'S HARD FOR THEM, ESPECIALLY IF THEY HAVE A F-150 OR EXPEDITION, IT'S HARD FOR THEM TO GET OUT IF THERE'S A VEHICLE ACROSS THE STREET.
I SEE ALL KINDS OF PROBLEMS. I DON'T KNOW WHY THE CITY WOULD WANT TO GO IN THIS DIRECTION.
>> WELL, I CAN ADDRESS THAT ON A COUPLE OF POINTS.
ONE IS THE FACT THAT WE HAVE AN AFFORDABILITY CRISIS, AND THERE'S BEEN A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF EFFORT BOTH ON THE CITY'S PART OVER THE LAST DECADE OR SO AND VISION GALVESTON AND OTHER PHILANTHROPIC GROUPS WHO HAVE WEIGHED IN ON THIS WHOLE ISSUE ABOUT DENSIFICATION.
WE HAVE AN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD ZONE NOW, WHAT USED TO BE HALF SIZE LOTS ARE NOW ALLOWED.
THERE'S BEEN A TRANSITION OF THE INTENT OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THE URBAN CORE BECAUSE OF THAT.
YEAH, ARE THERE EFFECTS? ABSOLUTELY. BUT I WOULD POINT OUT THAT AN ALLEY, BY ITS VERY NATURE, WILL BE A TRAFFIC CALMING MECHANISM BECAUSE IT'S SMALL, NUMBER ONE, AND ITS SECTION, ITS TREATMENT OF TOPPING, SO TO SPEAK, ISN'T GOING TO BE A CONCRETE ROAD OR AN ASPHALT ROAD.
IT'S GOING TO BE USUALLY MORE GRAVEL OR SOME KIND OF AGGREGATE BASE OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
THOSE VERY THINGS ARE WHAT CAUSED PEOPLE TO REMAIN SLOW.
IF SOMEBODY IS BACKING OUT OF AN ALLEY, WHILE IT'S TRUE, SOMEBODY MIGHT HIT THEM, I DON'T THINK PEOPLE ARE GOING REALLY NEARLY AS FAST ON AN ALLEY AS THEY ARE IN THE STREET IN FRONT.
I SEE IT AS TWO DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES THAT CAN BE MANAGED THE WAY WE HAVE OVER THE LAST 10, 15 YEARS, WHICH IS ALLOWING ADDITIONAL DENSITY AND ALLOWING THOSE SITUATIONS TO OCCUR WHILE NOT IDEAL.
WE'RE NOT MAKING ANY NEW LAND, SO WE'VE GOT TO RESPOND TO WHAT WE HAVE, AND THIS IS FITTING INTO THAT CIRCUMSTANCE.
>> IN ADDITION TO THAT, EVEN IF YOU READ THE NEW [INAUDIBLE] HABITS.
WHAT THE MAJORITY, I'D SAY PROBABLY 99.9% OF THE REPLATS FACE ON AN ALLEY? WHAT IS IT THAT YOU'RE SEEING? YOU SEE A NEW DWELLING OR ARE YOU SEEING AN EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT YOU ARE FACING? THEREFORE, THE REASON WHY THE SEPARATION [INAUDIBLE] THOSE ARE EXISTING STRUCTURES ALREADY FACED IN THE ALLY.
NOT A NEW STRUCTURE THAT'S CREATED A [INAUDIBLE].
>> THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SEEING THROUGH THOSE READS.
I THINK [OVERLAPPING] THE LAST ONE YOU SAW WAS PROBABLY THAT AS WELL, WHICH ARE READY, AND OFTENTIMES IS THAT THE CASE.
>> WHY IS ONE FIND A NEW STRUCTURE? WHY WOULD YOU ALLOW A LOT TO BE DIVIDED AND ONE STRUCTURE BE ON THE ALLEY, AND YOU DON'T ALLOW A NEW STRUCTURE TO BE BUILD IN A LOT OF LOT? WHY WOULDN'T PEOPLE JUST GO, HEY, I'LL PUT THE LOT.
THEN I'LL BUILD TWO HOUSES, AND I'LL REPLAY THEY ALLOW THAT?
>> WELL, I THINK THE ANSWER IS LIKE OUR BROADWAY STANDARDS.
WE'VE GOT OLDER STRUCTURES THAT ARE GRANDFATHERED AND SO THEY CAN REMAIN, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW ANY NEW ONES BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT. IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA.
>> YOU WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING TO BE BUILT ON A LOT PLACE IN THE ALLEY?
>> THAT'S ABOUT THE MAIN INTEREST.
>> NO. BECAUSE IN THAT THEORY OF THOUGHT, YOU COULD BUILD A NECESSARY DWELLING STRUCTURE ON A SINGLE LOT, THEN YOU'RE OKAY WITH DIVIDING A LOT AND ON THE STRUCTURE THERE, THEN YOU WOULD DIVIDE IT.
>> NO. I WAS TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU HAVE TWO STRUCTURES ON A LOT ALREADY.
[01:00:05]
IT'S BEEN THERE, IT'S BEEN USED, THEY'VE HAD THE TRAFFIC PATTERN.I THINK THAT'S OKAY. THAT'S LIKE THE GRANDFATHERED EXCEPTION.
BUT IF YOU HAVE A SINGLE HOUSE, YOU WANT TO BUILD A GARAGE APARTMENT BEHIND IT, HAVE IT ACCESS FROM THE ALLEY? I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.
DEFINITELY NOT IN A TOTALLY VACANT LOT.
YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO START NEW TO DO IT RIGHT.
I WOULD THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER TO REQUIRE ACCESS FROM THE PUBLIC STREET IN FRONT, MAKE THEM PROVIDE AN EASEMENT, YOU KNOW, 12 FOOT OR WHATEVER.
THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO, GET IN AND VIA THAT EASEMENT ONLY.
>> I THINK THERE'S A. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU DON'T LIKE THE FACT THAT PEOPLE HAVE GARAGES IN ALLEY?
>> NO. THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.
>> A COMMENT. THE COMMENT IS THIS.
THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE HAVE YOU GUYS.
THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS MADE UP OF DIFFERENT OPINIONS AND DIFFERENT THOUGHTS ABOUT HOW THEY SEE THE CITY AND EX OFFICIAL.
IT'S GREAT TO BRING THESE DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS TO THE TABLE.
ALSO RECOGNIZING THAT THE CITY OF GALVESTON IS UNIQUE.
IT'S UNIQUE IN THE BEACH IN BROADWAY, IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS IN THE TYPE OF POPULATIONS THAT IT SERVES.
THAT'S WHY WHEN CASES COME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION, THEY ALWAYS HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT INDIVIDUALLY.
IT IS NOT EASY TO MAKE A BROAD SWEEP OF, WHY DON'T WE ALWAYS JUST MAKE IT SUCH AS THIS.
I THINK WE'VE ALL HEARD THE COMMENTS, BUT I WOULD SAY, IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE ONE OF THE LDRS TO ADDRESS NO.
>> NO NEW BUSINESS OR DWELLING SHELL FACE OR HAVE IT MAIN INTEREST ON AN ALLEY? YOU WANT TO CHANGE TO THAT?
>> IF YOU WANT TO BRING IT, BRING IT TO THE COMMISSIONERS AND THEN BRING IT TO COUNSEL IF THE COMMISSIONERS SAY, HEY, YEAH AND LET IT GO THAT WAY.
BUT I'M TELLING YOU THAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT REALLY IS GOING TO FIT A LOT OF GALVESTON.
I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE OKAY, YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THIS, YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT, YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE SAFETY OF PEOPLE BECAUSE I THINK IT'S MORE THAN THAT.
THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS HAPPENING IN GALVESTON THAT HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
BUT I THINK EVERYONE VALUES ALL THE OPINIONS HERE.
IT'S NOT THAT NO OFFENSE EX OFFICIAL.
YOU DON'T WANT A GARAGE APARTMENT.
I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT TYPE OF CONVERSATION.
IF SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT BACK AND DISCUSSED, FINE, BUT THERE'S TWO DISTINCTION.
THESE ARE TWO THE ONE WITH THE SUBDIVISION AND ONE WITH SOMEBODY HAVING THEIR PLOT THAT THEY SUBDIVIDE.
SORRY. I DON'T AGREE THAT IT'S A SUBDIVISION IF YOU DIVIDE YOUR PLOT TO TWO, I DON'T THINK THAT MAKES IT AN AUTOMATIC SUBDIVISION.
IN THE TRUE SENSE OF THE WORD.
>> I THINK THAT THE WAY, IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
IF YOU THINK ABOUT JUST DOWN ON THE EAST END, THE HOUSES ARE BUILT ALMOST LOT LINE, A LOT LINE.
IF YOU WANTED TO PUT A GARAGE IN YOUR HOUSE, THE ONLY WAY YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO ACCESS IT WOULD BE FROM THE ALLEYWAY.
LIKE, I HAVE A HOUSE OVER THERE.
THE HOUSE DOESN'T HAVE A GARAGE.
IF WE WANTED TO PUT ONE, AND IT'S NOT THAT I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU BECAUSE I DO AGREE WITH YOU AS WELL THAT I DON'T THINK IT'S REALLY GREAT THAT PEOPLE CAN BUILD NEW HOUSES AND THE ENTRANCE IS ON THE ALLEYWAY.
BUT BEING THAT GALVESTON IS SO UNIQUE IN THAT THE WAY THE LOTS ARE SO WEIRD AND SOME OF THEM ARE LARGER, SMALL OR WHATEVER, SOMETIMES THAT'S THE ONLY OPTION LEFT TO BUILD A HOUSE WHERE THE ALLEYWAY IS THERE? BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD AN AFFORDABLE HOUSE YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE COST OF THE LOT AND THEN BUILDING ON THOSE HOUSES.
YES, IN SOME INSTANCES, YOU'RE PROBABLY ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, BUT IN OTHER INSTANCES, I THINK IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO DO.
>> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT THESE ARE TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT PROVISIONS.
[01:05:02]
HOW DO YOU ACCESS A LOT? THE OTHER ONE IS TALKING ABOUT DESIGN.WHERE DO YOU PLACE A BUILDING? THE SECOND ONE HERE SAYS NO NEW BUSINESS OR DWELLING SHALL FACE OR HAVE ITS MAIN ENTRANCE ON AN ALLEY.
I COULD HAVE A MAIN ENTRANCE FACING THE MAIN STREET, BUT I COULD STILL ACCESS MY LOT THROUGH THE ALLEY.
ONE IS ADDRESSING THE DESIGN, WHICH IS THIS ONE AND THE OTHER ONE IS ADDRESSING HOW YOU ENTER THE LOT.
TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. I'D LIKE TO POINT THAT OUT.
>> [INAUDIBLE] WITH US BECAUSE WHAT WAS BROUGHT TO US LAST MEETING WAS TAKING A LOT DIVIDING IT INTO TWO, AND ONE LOT THE ONLY ACCESS WOULD HAVE IS FROM THE BACK.
>> NO THAT'S NOT CORRECT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WAIT. NO. THOSE WERE JUST FOR UTILITIES.
>> THAT WAS ACCESS AS WELL, BUT IT WAS ONLY TEN FEET WIDE.
[OVERLAPPING] IT MUDDIED THE WATER.
>> LET ME WEIGH IN ON THIS THE ONES I'VE SEEN ARE GOING TO BE EXISTING HOUSES THAT ARE ALREADY FACING EXISTING ALLEYWAYS.
I WILL SAY, WHAT YOU SEE HERE, 63.03 IT'S A DESIGN PORTION.
IF YOU READ THE WHOLE THING IN CONTEXT, IF YOU START AT SIX, THIS REALLY IS ABOUT NEW STREETS AND A NEW ALLEY, AND THIS IS WHAT YOU CAN AND CAN'T DO.
THAT WOULD BE MY INTERPRETATION OF THAT.
HOWEVER, YOU GUYS BRING UP SOME GREAT POINTS.
I LOVE THE DISCUSSION, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.
MY QUESTION IS, I WOULD SAY, IF IT'S A LOT THING, YOU CAN DO A 25 FOOT WIDE LOT IN THE URBAN CORE OF THE CITY.
I DON'T THINK WE CAN JUST GO DISCUSS THIS FROM THE GET GO.
DON'T WE HAVE TO GET OUR FRIENDS AT CITY COUNCIL TO GIVE US A NOD TO GO OR CAN WE WORKSHOP THIS A LITTLE BIT?
>> YOU CAN. ONE OF YOUR POWERS AND DUTIES IS TO INITIATE CHANGES TO THE LDR.
YOU DON'T NEED COUNSEL'S APPROVAL TO INITIATE A CHANGE. YOU CAN WORKSHOP IT.
>> UNLESS YOU WANT TO DO THAT.
>> I THINK BECAUSE THERE'S SOME GREAT POINTS ON ALL SIDES OF THIS, I THINK WE OUGHT TO SPEND A LITTLE TIME WIDE.
WE CAN SPEND FIVE WORKSHOPS ON BROADWAY.
WE CAN CERTAINLY SPEND ONE OR TWO ON HOW WE WANT TO HANDLE THE SUBDIVISION OF EXISTING LOTS WITHIN THE URBAN CORE OF THE CITY.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT YOU'VE MENTIONED BEFORE, JOHN, THAT I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THEM, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO DISCUSS IT.
WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK ABOUT HAVING WORK-SHOPPING THIS A LITTLE BIT AND ROLLING OUR SLEEVES UP AND DIGGING INTO A LITTLE BIT AND SEE WHAT WE COME UP WITH.
WE MAY COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT SOLUTION, WE MAY NOT.
WE MAY FIND THAT WHAT WE HAVE IS THERE FOR A SPECIFIC REASON, BUT I THINK THAT'S HOW I'D LIKE TO PROCEED.
IF YOU GUYS ARE GOOD WITH THAT.
EVERYBODY GOOD WITH THAT, THEN THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO.
>> WE CAN DO IT MAY 21ST, IF YOU LIKE, WHICH IS OUR NEXT MEETING.
WE HAD ALREADY SCHEDULED A WORKSHOP FOR JUNE 4TH TO START TALKING ABOUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AWARDS.
>> I WON'T BE HERE FOR THE 21ST.
>. WILL YOU BE HERE FOR THE NEXT MEETING? JUNE THE MAY 1?
>> YEAH, FOR SURE. WE CAN DO JUNE 18TH?
>> IS THAT GOOD? THAT SOUNDS GOOD.
YES, JOHN. YOU CAN STILL COME.
>> WELL, [LAUGHTER] THE DISCUSSION.
>> YOU MIGHT STILL BE COMING, WHETHER YOU WANT TO OR NOT.
>> WHO KNOWS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THIS ONE? I WOULD SAY IF TIM BRINGS UP GREAT POINTS WITH AFFORDABILITY AND DENSITY AND MAKING IT A PLACE TO LIVE IN THE FUTURE.
I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT THE REAL PROBLEM IS WITH ALLEY ACCESS LOTS.
IF IT IS TRULY A TRAFFIC AND OFF STREET PARKING ISSUE AND THE RADIUS TO TURN INTO A LOT, THEN MAYBE YOU HANDLE THAT INSTEAD OF ELIMINATING SUBDIVIDING LOTS BY SETBACKS OR SOMETHING THAT GIVES YOU MORE OF A RADIUS TO GET INTO A PARKING SPACE ON THAT LOT.
I WOULD HATE TO SEE US NOT ALLOW THAT EVEN IF THEY MET THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE FOR LOT SIZES AND SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
BECAUSE I THINK ON THAT LAST CASE, EVERYTHING WAS MET.
[01:10:03]
IT WAS A BIGGER PARCEL OF PROPERTY.THE LOT SIZE, WIDTH, DEPTH, THOSE WERE MET, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.
WE JUST HAD THIS PROBLEM THAT WAS BROUGHT UP ABOUT ACCESS TO THAT ALLEY LOT.
MAYBE THERE'S OTHER CONDITIONS TO THAT ISSUE BESIDES NOT ALLOWING ALLEY ACCESS LOTS.
>> WELL, WE KNOW. LIKE YOU SAID, GALVESTON IS VERY UNIQUE AND NOT ALL ALLEYS ARE MADE THE SAME.
SOME ARE NOT ANY WIDER THAN THIS TABLE, AND SOME ARE GOOD 20 FOOT WITH ACCESS ON EITHER SIDE. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
THE SETBACK PROBABLY, THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE PARAMETERS THAN JUST SAYING, YEAH, GO FOR IT.
HERE'S A LITTLE TINY SHELL ALLEYWAY NOW THAT YOUR MAIN INTEREST, GOOD LUCK GETTING IN AND OUT.
I DON'T WANT TO SET SOMEONE UP THAT DOES THIS TO THEIR PROPERTY.
HOPEFULLY, FOR MORE AFFORDABLE HOMES, NOT JUST TO MAKE A BUNCH OF MONEY, AND THEN CAUSE OTHER PROBLEMS TO OTHER HOMEOWNERS WHOSE PROPERTY DOES BACK UP TO THE ALLEYWAY.
BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF US, ME INCLUDED WHOSE HOME DOES BACK UP TO AN ALLEYWAY, AND THERE'S NO WAY IT COULD BE A MAIN ENTRANCE BECAUSE OURS IS VERY TINY.
THERE'S LOT OF THINGS TO LOOK AT. I AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN.
>> WELL, GREAT. WE GOT IT ON THE.
>> WE HAVE IT ON THE SCHEDULE.
>> ON THE SCHEDULE. ANY OTHER?
>> NO, IT'S GOING TO BE JUNE 18TH.
WHEN WE HAD OUR DISCUSSION ON OUR TEXT AMENDMENT, THAT WAS DONE BECAUSE WE'VE CHANGED THE BROADWAY, WE CHANGED ONE THING, BUT THERE'S THE DESIGN CHANGE, BUT THEN THERE'S ALSO THE LIMITED USE STANDARDS THAT ARE IN THE LDRS.
I THINK THERE'S MORE THAN ONE CONFLICT WITH THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN ADDRESS WITH THAT 24ZA-005 OR IF YOU WANT IT AS A DISCUSSION ITEM.
BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE LOOKING THROUGH THE LDRS WHERE WE'VE MADE A CHANGE THAT'S HAS TO DO WITH THE DESIGN STANDARD, BUT IT CONFLICTS WITH A LIMITED USE OR SOME OTHER STANDARD WITHIN THE LDR, SO IF YOU COULD.
>> WE WILL LOOK AT THOSE AND MAKE SURE THEY'RE ALIGNED, AND IF THEY'RE NOT, WE'LL BRING THEM BACK IN THAT FIVE CASE.
>> IS THERE A WAY TO CROSS REFERENCES? IS THERE A REAL TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THE LDRS THAT MAKES IT EASIER TO FIND ALL OF THESE SECTIONS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH?
>> THAT'S WHY THEY PAY YOU THE BIG, BECAUSE ANTHONY, YOU HAVE TO DO HOMEWORK.
>> IT'S A BIG DOCUMENT. IT'S COMPLICATED.
>> [MUSIC] [BACKGROUND] ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE?
>> YEAH. IT'S ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
WE MOST OF THE TIME USE OUR ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS SO THAT WE CAN DO THAT.
BUT YOU JUST GET TO KNOW IT AND YOU KNOW WHERE THE THINGS.
>> I KNOW HE'S GOT IT COMING OUT OF HIS HEAD OVER HERE.
>> HE KNOWS ALL THE CODE CITATIONS.
>> KATHERINE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE, BUT IN THE INSTANCE OF A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO CHANGE THE LIMITED USE OF FAST FOOD AND STILL BE ALL IN COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT WE DID IN THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND THE LIMITED USES.
>> SO YOU CAN'T REALLY GO THROUGH THERE AND GO, THERE WERE THINGS THAT WERE MISSED.
IT WASN'T REALLY MISSED, THERE'S STILL A LIMITED USE ON A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT.
[BACKGROUND] [LAUGHTER] DOES THAT MAKE SENSE.
>> I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING.
>> IT'S ALLOWED IN THE DESIGN STANDARDS, BUT IT IS NOT ALLOWED WITHIN THAT LIMITED USE.
THERE'S NOT A CONFLICT THERE, WHICH IS STILL NOT ALLOWED OVER HERE.
>> THE LIMITED USE STANDARDS ARE STRICTER THAN WHAT WE JUST MADE LESS STRICT IN THE BROADWAY STANDARDS.
>> I THINK THAT RUSTY IS LOOKING FOR US TO ALIGN THOSE.
>> I WANT THEM ALIGNED BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT, JOHN? I WANT TO SEE PEOPLE DOING STUFF ON BROADWAY.
>> ABSOLUTELY. I GUESS WHAT I WAS POINTING OUT IS THAT IT'S NOT WRONG WHAT IS [OVERLAPPING] I BRING UP THE FAST FOOD LIMITED USE STANDARD BECAUSE THERE'S SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO DEVELOP ONE RIGHT NOW BUT CAN'T BECAUSE OF WHAT'S IN THERE.
>> JUST AS KATHERINE SAID, [OVERLAPPING] I WANT THEM TO BE MORE ALIGNED IF OUR CHANGES TO THE STANDARD WERE BECAUSE WE WANTED TO PERMIT THOSE USES, BUT WE'RE NOT PERMITTING THEM OVER HERE IN THIS LIMITED USE.
I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE ALL LINED UP.
>> ANYTHING ELSE? MAN THIS HAS BEEN SO MUCH FUN.
[01:15:03]
WE'RE ADJOURNED. [LAUGHTER]>> BEFORE WE GO, WE HAVE A SPECIAL OCCASION TODAY.
IT IS THAT IT'S JOHN LISTOWSKI'S LAST MEETING.
>> [BACKGROUND] WELL, WE THINK IT IS.
>> WELL, DO WE HAVE A SPECIAL AWARD OTHER THAN HE'S JUST THE BEST? [BACKGROUND]
>> WE DIDN'T GET THE ROLEX THIS TIME.
>> HOLD ON. WE GOT THE BIG CHECK FOR YOU.
>> MAN, AS MANY AS WE COULD FIT.
I'M GLAD YOU MENTIONED THAT BECAUSE I'M SORRY, JOHN.
YOU ARE GOING TO BE, AT LEAST FOR ME, SORELY MISSED.
YOU'VE BEEN A GREAT SOUNDING BOARD.
OUR DISAGREEMENTS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CONSTRUCTIVE, I WOULD SAY THAT.
YOU'VE LEFT SOME PRETTY BIG SHOES TO FILL.
I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHO'S GOING TO END UP OVER THERE, BUT I MIGHT JUST REFERENCE, "JOHN SAID." [LAUGHTER]
>> WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH THAT INFO IF YOU HAD IT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. [LAUGHTER] I THINK THAT THE NEW GUY, WE MIGHT JUST PUT HIM A PIECE WHEN HE GETS THERE AND HIS AGENDA PACKET, THAT'S GOING TO BE THE FIRST PAGE.
BUT THANK YOU IN ALL YOUR SERVICE.
THERE'S NOT A CHECK OR A PLAQUE BIG ENOUGH.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO WITH ALL YOUR TIME.
YOU CAN COME BACK AND SEE US ANYTIME.
IF YOU WANT TO COME FOR A WORKSHOP, WE'LL EVEN LET YOU TALK.
>> IT'S TRUE, HE HAS A CASE. [BACKGROUND]
>> YOU'RE GOING TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF AS X.
SINCE YOU'RE THE APPLICANT, YOU WILL GET MORE THAN 3 MINUTES.
>> BUT JUST AS STAFF MEMBER, I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO JOHN PAUL LISTOWSKI FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF SERVICE.
I LIKE TO TELL THE STORY THAT I CAME BACK TO GALVESTON WHEN I WAS 29 AS A BABY PLANNER AND JOHN WAS THE CHAIR OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION.
WE'RE THE SAME AGE, AND I WAS LIKE, WHO IS THIS GUY?
>> I WAS THE CHAIR OF PLANNING NOT LANDMARK [OVERLAPPING]
>> CHAIR OF PLANNING. EXCUSE ME, I'M SORRY. [LAUGHTER] HIS CREDENTIALS.
JUST AS A FELLOW GALVESTONIAN WHO ALSO, I THINK, NEVER THOUGHT I'D COME BACK, JOHN'S COME BACK.
I JUST REALLY APPRECIATE ALL OF THE YEARS OF DEDICATION THAT YOU HAVE HAD TO THE CITY, AND YOUR DILIGENCE AS A COMMISSIONER AND A COUNCIL MEMBER.
YOU'RE ALWAYS PREPARED, YOU ASK REALLY GOOD QUESTIONS, AND YOU MAKE REALLY THOUGHTFUL DECISIONS, AND SO WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
>> YOU'LL BE MISSED. [APPLAUSE] [BACKGROUND] [LAUGHTER]
>> I THINK BRIAN'S GOT TO GO [INAUDIBLE]. [BACKGROUND]
>> MARRIAGE WITH CHILDREN, IT'S ALL HAPPENING.
>> THANKS AGAIN, JOHN. WE'RE ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.