[00:00:01]
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, AND WELCOME TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
[1. Call Meeting to Order]
WE ARE GOING TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.WE'VE TAKEN ATTENDANCE BY SIGNING IN.
WE DO HAVE TWO COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE NOT IN ATTENDANCE, BUT WE DO HAVE A QUORUM.
ARE THERE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST?
[3. Conflict of Interest]
>> YES, SIR. ON CASE 25BF-016 ON ONE OF THE LOCKS ON BERMUDA BEACH DRIVE, SO I'M GOING TO DECLARE A CONFLICT.
>> NOTED. DOES HE NEED TO [INAUDIBLE] NOTED, WE HAVE THE MINUTES FROM
[4. Approval of Minutes]
THE MARCH 4TH REGULAR MEETING AND ALSO FROM THE MARCH 18TH WORKSHOP MEETING.ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS, CORRECTIONS TO THOSE MINUTES? SEEING NONE, WE WILL APPROVE THOSE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.
THIS IS THE CHANCE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IF YOU'RE HERE AND YOU'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON A NON-AGENDA ITEM.
IF YOUR ITEM IS ON THE AGENDA, YOU'LL GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK BUT IF YOU'RE HERE ON A NON-AGENDA ITEM AND YOU'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, THIS TIME YOU GET TO DO THAT.
ANYBODY WHO'D LIKE TO DO THAT? SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD TO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OUR FIRST ITEM, 25BF-016.
[6. 25BF-016 (Bermuda Beach Drive) Public Notice for fortification to Bermuda Beach Drive. The City of Galveston seeks to install a bulkhead on the seaward side of the road. The City will also be elevating the road and installing articulated matting for the road.]
>> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AN EROSION RESPONSE STRUCTURE ALONG BERMUDA BEACH DRIVE.
THE CITY OF GALVESTON IS PREPARING A BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE APPLICATION FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ARTICULATED CONCRETE MATS AND A BULKHEAD TO PROTECT THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF BERMUDA BEACH DRIVE.
A REQUIREMENT OF THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANY EROSION RESPONSE STRUCTURE.
ANY COMMENTS FROM THIS PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE SUBMITTAL TO GLO FOR THEIR REVIEW AND COMMENT.
NO ACTION IS REQUIRED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE BERMUDA BEACH SUBDIVISION.
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE LOCATED TO THE NORTH OF BERMUDA BEACH DRIVE AND BEACH IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF BERMUDA BEACH DRIVE.
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS ERODING AT A RATE OF 5-6 FEET PER YEAR, AND STAFF HAS PREPARED PHOTOS OF THE PROJECT.
FIRST, WE HAVE A FIRM AND BG MAP SHOW ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
KAREN, IF YOU CAN GO BACK, PLEASE.
THE FOOTPRINT IS THE BABY BLUE LONG.
THAT AREA RIGHT IN THERE IS THE AREA THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BETWEEN THE HOMES AND THE BEACH.
ON THE NEXT TWO SLIDES IS SURVEY INFORMATION FROM THE CITY OF GALVESTON'S 2024 ANNUAL SURVEY.
THIS IS THE WESTERN PORTION OF BERMUDA BEACH.
IT'S ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE PHOTO. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THEN THIS IS THE EASTERN PORTION OF BERMUDA BEACH SUBDIVISION.
IT'S ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THAT PHOTO. NEXT SLIDE.
THE FOLLOWING SLIDE, THIS SHOWS A CROSS-SECTION OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED, BUILDING THE CURRENT BERMUDA BEACH DRIVE UP, ADDING ARTICULATED MATS, AND THEN A BULKHEAD ON THE SEAWARD SIDE OF BERMUDA BEACH DRIVE, LIKE I SAID, TO PROTECT THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF BERMUDA BEACH DRIVE DURING HIGH TIDE EVENTS AND TIMES WHEN WE HAVE A LOT OF SAND BEING BLOWN INTO THE STREETS SO WE CAN HAVE ACCESS FOR VEHICLES AND RESIDENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
FINALLY, WE HAVE JUST SOME SLIDES SHOWING THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEER DESIGN FOR THE BERMUDA BEACH DRIVE FORTIFICATION, AND SHOWING ARTICULATED MATS AND RELATIONSHIP TO THE HOMES, AND THEN JUST SOME ENGINEERING INFORMATION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGES.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU, KYLE. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? PLEASE.
>> HEY, KYLE. THE EXTENT OF THE IMPROVEMENTS WILL JUST BE WITHIN THE AREA IN FRONT OF THE SUBDIVISION.
>> IS THAT JUST AT PRESENT? IS THERE FUTURE PLANS TO CONTINUE BERMUDA BEACH DOWN FURTHER WEST?
>> WE WOULD HAVE TO GET RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENTS.
I TALKED TO ROB WERNEKE, SO THAT'S JUST WHERE THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT IS FOR THE ROAD; IS WHERE IT IS NOW.
ANY FUTURE EXTENSION OF THE ROAD OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE PROCESSES.
[NOISE] BUT A REQUIREMENT FOR THESE EROSION RESPONSE STRUCTURES ARE MUNICIPALITY CAN USE THEM TO PROTECT INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING.
WE'RE JUST MAINTAINING IT WITHIN OUR RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE BERMUDA BEACH DRIVE.
[00:05:02]
>> FOR THE WIDTH, ARE THEY GOING TO GO WIDER THAN WHAT'S THERE NOW? BECAUSE IT'S PRETTY NARROW.
>> WE'RE STAYING WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
>> I THINK IT'S WHAT? TWELVE FEET, 14 FEET?
>> IT IS? [NOISE] THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
>> HEY, KYLE. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
THERE'S NO GLO COMMENTS ATTACHED TO THIS.
>> YES, SIR. WE HAVE TO ISSUE A BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.
THESE EROSION RESPONSE STRUCTURES, ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS IS THERE HAS TO BE A PUBLIC HEARING.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW, SO AFTER THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS CONDUCTED, AND WE'LL TAKE COMMENTS, WE'LL INCLUDE THAT IN OUR PACKET THAT WE SEND UP TO GLO WITH THESE [OVERLAPPING] CROSS-SECTIONS AND SAY, WE'VE CONDUCTED THIS IN COMPLIANCE WITH TAC.
>> OKAY. HEY, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT.
NUMBER 1, I WANT TO START OFF BY AND I DIDN'T MENTION THIS.
WE DID GET SOME PUBLIC COMMENTS BACK ON ALL OF THE CASES TODAY AND ALL OF THEM WERE POSITIVE AND WE'VE RECEIVED THOSE.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO SAY, HATS OFF TO YOU GUYS FOR TACKLING THIS.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN GOING ON HERE FOR A WHILE.
>> I JUST WANT TO COMMEND YOU AND HUNTER FOR TAKING THIS ON, SO GOOD WORK.
IT DOES MAKE A LOT MORE QUESTIONS FOR SOME OTHER ITEMS, NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO THIS AS TO WHAT WE CAN DO, SO I'M CURIOUS TO SEE HOW THIS WORKS OUT.
THANKS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU DON'T EXPECT PUSHBACK FROM THE GLO ON THIS.
FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU, BECAUSE THIS COMMUNITY HAS BEEN SUFFERING SINCE 2008 AND BEGGED FOR HELP.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING THIS PROJECT ON.
YOU THINK IT'S A GO AFTER THIS?
>> WELL, THE CITY MAKES THE FINAL DECISION ON THE ISSUANCE OF THESE BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATES.
IF WE'RE GETTING PUSHBACK, THAT'S WHY WHEN WE GO TO GLO, I WANT TO SAY WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING THAT'S REQUIRED UNDER THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.
JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS HASN'T BEEN FUNDED.
THIS ISN'T ANYTHING BUT IF WE GO TO CITY COUNCIL OR IF WE GO FOR A GRANT, THAT'S WHY WE'RE LOOKING AT HAVING THE ENGINEERING COMPLETED, WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL THE PERMITTING COMPLETED, SO WHOEVER WE GO TO FOR FUNDING, WE CAN SAY, WE SHOVEL READY TO GO.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE GOING AHEAD AND GETTING THIS INFORMATION PULLED TOGETHER.
>> AM I CORRECT THAT ONCE WE DO HAVE AN ENGINEERED BEACH WITH A PROTECTIVE BULKHEAD, THEN IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR FEMA FUNDING IN THE FUTURE?
>> NOT THIS STRUCTURE, AND ANY BEACH NOURISHMENT, THAT'S WHAT YOUR ENGINEERED BEACH IS.
THAT'S WHAT'S ELIGIBLE FOR FEMA.
REIMBURSEMENT IS ACTUAL PUTTING THE SAND IN FRONT OF THE SEA WALL, THAT BEACH NOURISHMENT, BUT NOT ACTUALLY THIS STRUCTURE.
THIS STRUCTURE COULD POSSIBLY MEET SOME MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR FEMA, A GRANT, BUT YOU HAVE TO WEIGH SOME BENEFIT TO COST ANALYSIS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> MR. CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT, JUST TO ECHO KYLE'S STATEMENT ABOUT THIS IS THE FIRST STEP AMONG NUMEROUS STEPS.
I JUST WANT TO MANAGE THE EXPECTATIONS THAT THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN QUICKLY.
IT'S PROBABLY NOT, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY NECESSARY FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD IN ANY CAPACITY RIGHT HERE.
>> UNDERSTOOD. JUST TO REITERATE WHAT I'M HEARING, AND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IT IS THE FIRST STEP.
WE HAVE TO HAVE A HEARING, THEN THERE'S THE ENGINEERING AND THE CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL, THEN IT'S PRETTY MUCH SHOVEL-READY, JUST NEED TO FIND THE MONEY.
NOT THAT THAT'S A PROBLEM, BUT ANYWAYS, I HEARD ALL THAT, I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE IT.
THEN WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IF YOU'RE HERE AND YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, AND THERE'S QUITE A FEW FOLKS HERE.
IF YOU'RE ON THIS SIDE AND YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, AND YOU'RE STARTING AT THE FRONT, MOVING BACK, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
I'M GOING TO REMIND YOU, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
WE'D LIKE FOR YOU TO STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN. THANK YOU FOR COMING.
>> SIR, I'LL GIVE YOU TWO MINUTE BACK.
>> WAITING. GOT MY THREE MINUTES.
>> THERE SHOULD BE A SIGN-IN SHEET RIGHT THERE.
[00:10:02]
JUST AS A REMINDER, AND THIS IS A GOOD POINT, IS THAT THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.WHEN WE'RE DONE, THIS IS A CHANCE FOR THE CITY TO GATHER YOUR COMMENTS.
IT USUALLY HELPS THEM MOVING FORWARD.
BUT THERE IS NO VOTE TODAY BY THE COMMISSION ON THIS.
THIS IS JUST PURELY A PUBLIC HEARING.
I'VE BEEN 78 AND I'VE BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH OUR PROPERTY HERE ALL MY LIFE, AND THEN MY MOTHER 30 YEARS BEFORE ME.
I KNOW PAPS AND REYNOLDSON, THEY MOVED OUR HOUSE AND OUR PROPERTY OFF ON THE END SO THEY COULD DEVELOP.
I WILL SAY AS EVERYBODY PROBABLY KNOWS, THERE WAS JUST NO INKLING OF HOW THIS ENCROACHMENT WOULD COME.
ON THE MAP WHERE IT SHOWS THE CARLSON PROPERTY, THE PROJECT IS WHERE THIS NEW ROAD IN BULKHEAD IS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
THAT'S HOW MUCH THE THINGS HAVE CHANGED BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT.
FIRST OF ALL, I TALKED TO ED FIGARO, AN ENGINEER ON THE PRESERVE, AND THE WORD HE USED IS KUDOS FOR THE CITY FOR DOING THIS, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO SAY THIS, ESPECIALLY THE WAY THE LAW IS ON EROSION, AND SETTING A NEW VEGETATION LINE.
OUR ONLY CONCERN REALLY IS, OF COURSE, WE'D GIVE WHATEVER EASEMENT NECESSARY.
WE DID NOT WANT TO ROAD THROUGH OUR PROPERTY, BUT IF THE ROAD IS RAISED IN A BULKHEAD.
WELL, THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST, THE PREVIOUS OWNERS AT THE PRESERVE, RIGHT AFTER IKE, THEY GOT IN THERE AND THERE WAS SAND ALL OVER THIS TOWN, AS YOU ALL KNOW.
THEY GOT IN THERE AND THEY GOT THE RECLAIMED SAND AND THEY GOT THEIR DUNES BUILT UP, SOLID.
BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THOSE DUNES HAVE STAYED THERE.
IT'S A GOOD DEAL. MY MAIN CONCERN SELFISHLY IS THAT WITH THE HIGH DUNES THERE, WHICH ARE GOOD THEY STAYED, NUMBER 2 IF THIS BULKHEAD IS RAISED, [NOISE] WE MIGHT HAVE A SPILLWAY EFFECT THROUGH MY PROPERTY.
THAT'S MY CONCERN AND WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A ROAD OR ANYTHING, BUT WE SEE THAT WE WOULD LIKE THE BULKHEAD TO BE CONTINUED THIS 105 FEET.
BUT WE SEE THE DUNES ARE HIGH AND THIS BULKHEAD IS GOING TO BE HIGH.
BUT I CERTAINLY HAVE APPRECIATED THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
ANYBODY ELSE? MOVE INTO THE NEXT ROW.
ANYBODY ELSE ON THIS SIDE? WHAT ABOUT ON THIS SIDE? ANYBODY ON THIS SIDE? YES, SIR.
PLEASE STEP FORWARD, SIGN IN, STATE YOUR NAME, AND GIVE US A FISHING REPORT.
>> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS RONALD COKER.
I LIVE AT 13114 BERMUDA BEACH DRIVE.
BEEN THERE 30 YEARS OR A LITTLE OVER 30 YEARS.
I'D LIKE TO COMMEND THE CITY FOR EVEN BEGINNING TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
THE THING THAT CONCERNS ME IS, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT'S GOT TO APPROVE THIS BESIDES THE GLO? IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO CORPS OF ENGINEERS OR FEMA.
SECOND QUESTION IS, IS THERE ANY REASONABLE FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR THIS OR IS THAT SOMETHING I'M GOING TO HAVE TO BE STRUGGLED WITH TO FIND FUNDING? THE THIRD ITEM IS, WHEN DO YOU THINK IT WILL START? THANK YOU.
ANYBODY ELSE ON THIS SIDE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ANYBODY ELSE? GUYS, IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
JUST SO YOU KNOW, KYLE AND HUNTER ARE WITH THE CITY COASTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT.
CALL THEM. THEY'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.
WE CAN'T ANSWER THOSE FOR YOU, BUT THOSE GUYS, THAT'S WHAT THEY DO, SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO GIVE THEM A CALL.
WE'LL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM AND WE'LL CONCLUDE OUR PUBLIC HEARING ON 25BF-016.
[00:15:06]
MOVING ON, 25P-010.[6. 25P-010 (1916 26th Street) Public Hearing for a minor plat to reconfigure one lot into three. Property is legally described as Abstract 628, M.B. Menard Survey, Lot 14, Northeast Block 91, Galveston Outlots, in the City and County of Galveston, Texas.]
>> THIS IS ALSO A PUBLIC HEARING.
PUBLIC HEARING ONLY, NO ACTION REQUIRED BY PLANNING COMMISSION.
THIRTY-NINE PUBLIC NOTICES WERE SENT.
NO OBJECTION FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS AND PRIVATE UTILITIES.
THERE WAS A COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REGARDING A UTILITY EASEMENT NEEDED ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE FOR THE PROPOSED TRACKS 14N AND 14M THAT HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT AND SUBMITTED TO US.
A VARIANCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT FROM 2,500 SQUARE FEET TO 1,686 SQUARE FEET, AND THE PROPOSED LOT SIZES ARE LISTED FOR YOU IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
I DON'T THINK I SAID WHAT THIS REQUEST IS.
WELL, IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A REPLAT FROM ONE LOT TO THREE LOTS.
WE HAVE ON THE SCREEN THE CURRENT SURVEY ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE AND THE PROPOSED REPLAT ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE.
IT'S A TYPICAL CORNER LOT THAT HAS THREE STRUCTURES.
THE REQUEST IS TO SUBDIVIDE THEM INTO THREE LOTS FOR INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP.
ON THE NEXT SLIDE, WE HAVE A PICTURE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES, AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> THANK YOU, KATHERINE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> DECREASING THE LOT SIZE, WHY IS IT JUST A PUBLIC HEARING?
>> IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE IT IS AN INCREASE IN DENSITY IN AN R-1 ZONING DISTRICT.
IT DOESN'T COME TO YOU FOR A DECISION, IT COMES TO YOU FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ONLY.
>> ANYONE ELSE? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I GOT A QUICK ONE. THREE HOMES BUILT ON ONE LOT.
>> WELL, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON IN THE OLDER PARTS OF TOWN.
>> YEAH. FROM LOOKING AT THEM, THEY LOOK LIKE THEY'RE FROM THE '20S OR '30S.
>> I UNDERSTAND. THAT'S ALL I GOT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYBODY HERE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? NO. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND WE'LL CONCLUDE OUR PUBLIC HEARING FOR 25P-010.
MOVING ON TO OUR NEW BUSINESS, 25BF-001.
[7. 25BF-001 (4235 Las Palmas Blvd) Request for Beachfront Construction Certificate and Dune Protection Permit to include proposed construction of a single-family dwelling with fibercrete driveway and slab. An exemption request has been made to build a cantilevered deck over the Dune Conservation Area. Property is legally described as Abstract 121 Page 41, Lot 81, Block 1, Palm Beach, a subdivision in the City and County of Galveston, Texas.]
>> THIS IS A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL AND EXEMPTION FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AND CONSTRUCTION OF A FIBERCRETE DRIVEWAY AND SLAB WITH A CANTILEVER DECK OVER THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA.
THE ADDRESS IS 4235 LAS PALMAS.
THE PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS ABSTRACT 121, PAGE 41, LOT 81, BLOCK 1, PALM BEACH, A SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE PALM BEACH SUBDIVISION.
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE LOCATED TO THE NORTHEAST AND WEST OF THE PROPERTY.
A BEACH AND DUNE SYSTEM IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS ERODING AT A RATE OF APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET PER YEAR.
STAFF HAS PREPARED PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR VIEWING.
FIRST, WE HAVE THE FIRM AND BEG MAP SHOWING THE DISTANCE OF THE STRUCTURE FROM THE DUNE SYSTEM AND ITS POSITION RELATIVE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
ON THE NEXT SLIDE, IS THE PROPERTY SURVEY ZOOMED IN ON THE RIGHT TO SHOW THE NORTH TOE OF THE DUNE AND THE DISTANCE OF 21 FEET.
THAT DISTANCE OF 21 FEET IS FROM THE CANTILEVER DECK.
ON THE FOLLOWING SLIDE, WHERE THE PROPOSED PROJECT DRAWING, AS WELL AS THE SUMMARIZED SCOPE OF WORK.
AS I SAID, THE CANTILEVER DECK IS APPROXIMATELY THREE FEET INTO THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA.
HOWEVER, THE MAIN STRUCTURE IS COMPLETELY OUTSIDE OF THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR THE EXEMPTION OF THE CANTILEVER DECK.
THE NEXT FIVE SLIDES SHOW THE GROUND FLOOR PLAN.
LEFT ELEVATION, REAR ELEVATION, AND THEN THE RIGHT ELEVATION.
FINALLY, WE HAVE FIVE PHOTOS OF THE SITE, LOOKING NORTH, LOOKING EAST, LOOKING SOUTH, LOOKING WEST, AND LOOKING NORTH TOWARD THE LINE OF VEGETATION.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU, KYLE. ANY QUESTIONS?
>> KYLE, THE GLO LETTER IS PRETTY LONG, AND I HAVE A QUESTION, AND IF YOU HAVE IT IN HERE AND I MISSED IT, I APOLOGIZE.
IT SAYS THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO LOCATE A CANTILEVER DECK WITHIN THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA,
[00:20:01]
WHICH IS PROHIBITED UNLESS THE APPLICANT QUALIFIES FOR AN EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 4.2 OF THE CITY'S ERP AND SECTION B OF THE CITY'S PLAN. WHAT IS THAT?>> THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR AN EXEMPTION.
THAT'S WHERE WE TALK ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE DECK, WHERE WE MINIMIZE THE SIZE OF THE DECK.
THERE'S NO ACTUAL STRUCTURE GOING INTO THE DUNE AT THIS AREA, IT'S JUST GOING TO BE CANTILEVERED.
WE TALKED ABOUT GUTTERS ON THERE, SO YOU KNOW ON THE RAINWATER.
IN OUR EXEMPTIONS, THAT'S WHAT WE ASK FOR IS, HOW CAN YOU MINIMIZE YOUR IMPACT IF YOU HAVE TO BUILD IT HERE, YOU HAVE TO MINIMIZE YOUR IMPACT.
IS IT ON THE PLAN? IS THERE ANY WAY TO MOVE IT FARTHER LANDWARD, OR WHATEVER, IN THIS CASE, THIS PROPERTY, YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO DO THAT.
LIKE I SAID, THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE IS OUT OF THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA, AND WE JUST HAVE THE CANTILEVER DECK.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR AN APPROVAL FOR THE STRUCTURE AND AN EXEMPTION FOR THAT CANTILEVER DECK.
WE'VE WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT TO MINIMIZE AS MUCH OF HIS FOOTPRINT ON THAT AREA.
>> THE SPECIFIC THINGS THAT YOU MENTIONED ARE THE ITEMS THAT HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE CITY'S ERP SECTION B OF THE CITY'S PLAN?
>> YES, MA'AM. ALSO, IN OUR DUNE CONSERVATION PLAN, SO YES, MA'AM.
>> KYLE, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.
IN THE NOTES HERE IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT SAYS THAT THE PORTION OF THE DECK THAT EXTENDS SEAWARD OF THE DCA IS UNCOVERED.
IS PART OF THIS DECK COVERED, AND THEN THREE FEET IS UNCOVERED?
>> IT EXTENDS THE LENGTH OF THE PROPERTY IN THE DRAWINGS.
>> IT'S NOT THAT LONG OF A PROPERTY, AND I THINK ACTUALLY, LET ME PULL THIS.
>> OR JUST GIVEN THE LANDSCAPE, IT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE LENGTH OF THE BUILDING, BUT I THINK IT'S AT AN ANGLE.
YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S AT AN ANGLE, SO YOU ALSO HAVE PUSHING IN FRONT OF IT, NOT ON THE PROPERTY, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S AN L OR A SHAPE.
>> COMMISSIONER LANTZ, JUST ONCE YOU MENTIONED THAT, I SEE, BECAUSE PART OF THE STAFF REPORT, IT SAYS, PART OF IT'S UNCOVERED.
>> THAT WAY IT ALLOWS THE RAINWATER AND THEN IF IT'S COVERED, WE REQUIRE TO HAVE GUTTERS ON IT AND THINGS LIKE THAT, SO IT'S NOT RUNNING OFF IN A ROADING.
THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE WORK WITH THE APPLICANTS TO, LIKE I SAID, MINIMIZE THE IMPACT WITHIN OUR DUNE CONSERVATION.
>> HAVE WE SEEN THIS BEFORE? DID THIS HOUSE COME TO US, [LAUGHTER] AND HE COULDN'T FIGURE OUT WHERE HIS DUNE LINE WAS AFTER AN EROSION PROBLEM?
>> MAYBE NOT. IT COULD HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENT ONE.
[BACKGROUND] THEN ALSO, JUST AS A COMMENT, WE DO THESE DUNE WALKOVERS, SO I'M ASSUMING THIS WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT.
YOU'D HAVE THE SPACING, IT'D BE NO DIFFERENT THAN A DUNE WALKOVER OR GOING OVER A DUNE, BASICALLY, JUST IT'S AN ELEVATED DECK. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> WE TRY TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE PILINGS GOING INTO THE DUNE CONSERVATION AREA.
A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO DO THESE CANTILEVERED WHERE THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY PUTTING SOME TYPE OF STRUCTURE INTO THE CONSERVATION AREA, SO THE BOARDS ARE GOTTEN OUT.
>> ALSO, BEAR IN MIND THAT IT'S A REALLY, VERY NARROW DECK.
THEY MINIMIZED. THIS IS JUST REALLY THE AMOUNT OF SPACE NEEDED TO WALK ACROSS IT.
>> YOU HAVE A GOOD MEMORY, COMMISSIONER.
THAT WE DID SEE A CASE HERE IN 2001.
>> WHAT IT WAS IS HIS DUNE WENT AWAY, AND WE WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE DUNE LINE WAS.
I REMEMBER THIS ONE, AND HE HAD A HARD TIME GETTING HIS HOUSE TO FIT IN THERE.
>> IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS OCTOBER OF '21.
>> OH MY GOSH. [LAUGHTER] THAT'S GOING TO GET ME IN TROUBLE AT HOME.
[BACKGROUND] ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, SIGN IN.
YOU WERE HERE WHEN THIS WAS HERE BEFORE.
>> I WAS OVER THERE WHEN THIS WAS HERE LAST TIME.
JOHN LASTOWSKI, GOOD TO SEE EVERYBODY.
THIS CASE HAS BEEN HERE BEFORE, AND IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, IT WAS DENIED BECAUSE THERE WAS ACTUALLY STRUCTURE WITHIN THIS 25 FEET.
THE OWNER HAS GONE BACK, REMOVED ANY STRUCTURE THAT'S ACTUALLY ON THE GROUND IN THE 25 FEET,
[00:25:05]
AND REALLY TRIED TO REDUCE THE FOOTPRINT HERE AS SMALL AS POSSIBLE FOR THIS VERY ODD-SHAPED LOT.WHAT'S LEFT IS THIS FOUR-FOOT OVERHANG THAT CANTILEVERS INTO THE DUNE PROTECTION AREA.
WE LOOKED AT OTHER CASES THAT WERE SIMILAR THAT HAVE BEEN IN FRONT OF Y'ALL, AND SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IT SEEMS TO BE ALLOWED IN OTHER CASES.
EVERY CASE IS UNIQUE, I UNDERSTAND.
BUT WE LOOKED AT THAT AND TRIED TO REDUCE IT AS SMALL AS POSSIBLE AND PRESENT Y'ALL WITH SOMETHING THAT SEEMS TO BE ACCEPTABLE IN OTHER CASES.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT THIS IS JUST A CANTILEVER THAT EXTENDS OUT WITH AN UNCOVERED DECK ABOVE THE DUNE PROTECTION AREA.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> DISTANCE FROM THE BUILD LINE, IS IT GOING TO BE BUTTING RIGHT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILD LINE?
>> THIS CASE HAS ALSO COME BEFORE STAFF AND PLANNING, IS THAT RIGHT? ZBA, FOR A VARIANCE ON THE BUILD LINE, AND THEY GOT A EXCEPTION TO REDUCE THE BUILD LINE TO 10 FEET.
WE'LL ACTUALLY BE COMING BACK, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, FROM A CONVERSATION WITH KATHERINE TODAY, TO REPLAT THE PROPERTY JUST TO REMOVE THE BUILD LINE AND BE ABLE TO BUILD THE HOUSE IN THAT 10 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
AGAIN, IT'S A VERY ODD-SHAPED LOT, AND TO GET THIS HOUSE ON THERE, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT WORK AS BEST AS POSSIBLE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU, SIR.
>> IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING THIS ITEM BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR ACTION.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 25BF-001 WITH RECOMMENDATIONS BY STAFF.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE 25BF-001 AS PRESENTED.
ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, WE'LL TAKE THE VOTE.
THOSE IN FAVOR? THEN THAT'S UNANIMOUS, SO 25BF-001 IS APPROVED.
[7. 25BF-009 (22206 Kennedy Drive) Request for Beachfront Construction Certificate and Dune Protection Permit for a relocated staircase. Property is legally described as Abstract 121, Hall & Jones Survey, Lot 217, Sea Isle 10th Extension, a subdivision in the City and County of Galveston, Texas.]
>> LAND COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR THE RELOCATION OF STAIRS TO A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.
THE ADDRESS IS 22206 KENNEDY DRIVE.
THE PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS ABSTRACT 121, HALL & JONES SURVEY, LOT 217, SEA 10TH EXTENSION, A SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE SEA ISLE SUBDIVISION.
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE LOCATED TO THE EAST AND WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
A BEACH AND DUNE SYSTEM IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND FM-3005 IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE PROPERTY.
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THIS AREA IS CONSIDERED STABLE OR ROLLING AT A RATE OF LESS THAN A FOOT A YEAR.
THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WAS ORIGINALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNDER CASE NUMBER 22P-033, AND THIS NEW CASE IS SEEKING AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVAL TO MOVE AN EXISTING STAIRCASE ON THE STRUCTURE.
STAFF HAS PREPARED PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR YOUR VIEWING.
FIRST, WE HAVE A FIRM AND BEG MAP SHOWING THE DISTANCE OF THE STRUCTURE FROM THE DUNE SYSTEM AND ITS POSITION RELATIVE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
ON THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE PROPERTY SURVEY SHOWING THE NORTH TOE OF THE DUNE AND THE DISTANCE OF 32 FEET FROM THE PROPOSED STAIRS.
ON THE FOLLOWING TWO SLIDES, WE HAVE PROPOSED PROJECT DRAWINGS AS WELL AS SUMMARIZED SCOPE OF WORK.
ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE IS WHAT WAS AUTHORIZED, AND THEN ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE IS WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED AND WAS PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL.
FINALLY, WE HAVE PHOTOS OF THE SITE.
NEXT SLIDE, BACKED OFF A LITTLE BIT MORE, JUST STILL LOOKING WEST.
IT'S LOOKING SOUTH AND THEN LOOKING NORTH TOWARD THE LINE OF VEGETATION.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU, KYLE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> [NOISE] EXCUSE ME. KYLE, IN THE LETTER FROM THE GLO,
[00:30:05]
THE FIRST COMMENT WAS, "IN THE FUTURE, THE OWNER MUST OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE AND PERMIT PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION." WHAT WAS THAT REFERRING TO?>> LIKE I SAID, THIS WAS AUTHORIZED UNDER A PREVIOUS APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURE.
>> THAT'S WHAT THIS APPROVAL IS FOR.
THEY'RE ONLY GOOD FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ARE ONLY GOOD FOR A YEAR.
WE'VE BEEN DOING MORE COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS ON THESE STRUCTURES AND WHEN WE FIND THESE IF THEY'VE EXPIRED, THEY'RE HAVING TO GO BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS TO GET THESE TYPE OF AUTHORIZATIONS.
SOME OF THE AUTHORIZATIONS WE CAN DO ADMINISTRATIVELY, BUT ON ANYONE THAT'S EXTENDING THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING, THAT'S WHY THIS IS COMING BACK, THAT'S WHY IT'S GOING THROUGH IT.
THAT'S JUST GLO SAYING, HEY, THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DOING THAT.
WE KNOW THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DOING THAT.
THAT'S JUST LIKE GLO IS JUST REITERATING TO US, THEY SHOULD BE DOING IT.
BUT THAT'S WHY WE'RE OUT THERE DOING THIS.
THIS IS WHY THIS PROJECT IS COMING BACK IN FRONT OF YOU.
>> DID THE ORIGINAL SET OF PLANS INCLUDE A DUNE WALKOVER?
>> YEAH, I BELIEVE IT DID, BUT THIS ONE DOESN'T.
THEY'RE NOT DOING THE DUNE WALKOVER.
>> HOW WILL THEY ACCESS THE BEACH?
>> I DON'T KNOW. THEY'RE JUST WE'RE NOT EVALUATING THE DUNE WALKOVER AT THIS TIME.
THAT'S NOT PART OF THE PART OF THE PLAN.
THAT PREVIOUS PERMIT IS EXPIRED, SO THE DOE WALKOVER IS PART OF THAT.
THERE CAN BE A DOME WALKOVER CONSTRUCTED UNLESS THEY GET SOMETHING FROM US.
>> I GUESS MY CONCERN IS, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SATELLITE PHOTO, YOU SEE ALL THE FOOT PATHS THROUGH THE DUNES, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DISCOURAGE BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOOD FOR THE DUNE SYSTEM.
WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHTS ON ON THAT?
>> WE DON'T WANT TO PASS THROUGH THE DUNES, BUT THIS IS THIS PROJECT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE DUNE WALKS.
>> THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO PUT ONE IN, CORRECT?
>> BUT THEY CAN GO THROUGH THE DUNES IF IF THEY WANT TO USE THAT TO GET TO THE BEACH?
>> YES, SIR. THAT'S A VERY WE CAN HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT. YES, SIR.
THIS IS JUST NOT IN THIS ONE, BUT YEAH, JUST TRYING TO GET, YOU KNOW, THE LEVEL OF EFFORT THAT WOULD TAKE FOR THE CITY TO TRY TO GET THAT IS SOMETHING WE MAY NEED TO DISCUSS.
>> BECAUSE THAT LEADS ME TO A QUESTION.
THIS PICTURE WITH THE STAIRS ALREADY THERE, I GUESS IS CURRENT, CORRECT? THEY'RE NOT VERY FAR AWAY FROM THE DUNE PROTECTION LINE THERE ANYWAYS, CORRECT?
>> I MEAN, IT'S 32 FEET FROM THE NORTH TOW?
>> I THOUGHT THE STAIRS WAS AN ENCROACHMENT INTO IT.
>> NO, SIR. NO THEY'RE 32 FEET FROM THE NORTH TOW.
>> WELL, THEN FORGET MY QUESTION BECAUSE MY QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE IT'S ALL MOWED HERE, AND IT'S LIKE WE'VE HAD THAT DISCUSSION TOO WHERE THESE GUYS GO BUILD A HOUSE RIGHT NEXT TO THE PROTECTION LINE, AND THEY GO MOW THE GRASS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SINA, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> YOU DON'T MIND SIGN IN, STATE YOUR NAME?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE TIME.
I JUST COME BACK FROM ANTONIO LAST NIGHT.
NO A GOOD PLACE. THE REASON WE ASKED FOR THIS, THIS IS MY HOUSE.
I TOOK OVER THE PROJECT FROM THE ARCHITECTS AND THE BUILDER ALMOST EIGHT MONTHS AGO.
WHEN I TOOK OVER THE PROJECT, I DID A LOT OF READING ABOUT THE HURRICANE, THE IIKE, AND SO ON.
THE STAIR STRUCTURE BOTHERED ME.
I ALSO DISCUSSED WITH OUR NEIGHBOR BECAUSE IF WE HAVE A MAJOR STORM EVENT, THE STAIR STRUCTURE GOING TO GO AWAY, AND THEY'RE GOING TO IMPACT US AND IMPACTS OUR NEIGHBOR.
THAT WAS THE REASON WE DECIDED IF THERE'S A CHANCE FOR US TO MOVE,
[00:35:02]
WE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE IT TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE INSTEAD RIGHT IN THE FRONT.DOING THIS WILL ADD COST TO US IN THE PROCESS AND THE LONGER, BUT I THINK IT'S WORTHWHILE LOWER THE RISK FOR US TO DO THAT.
ALSO ALLOW US A LITTLE BIT MORE LIVABLE SPACE UNDERGROUND LEVEL.
WE INTEND TO BE A RESIDENT, NOT A VACATION RENTAL SO WE WANT TO LIMIT MORE SPACE AT THE GROUND LEVEL.
THAT OF INTEREST WE WENT THROUGH TO GET A, AND I GUESS THE OR REASON ONLY REASON THAT THE ARCHITECTS AND THE BUILDER DIDN'T PUT THE STAY ON THE SIDE BECAUSE IT WOULD VIOLATE THE HOA BUILDING LINE.
BUT WE WENT TO GET THE HOA TO APPROVE THE VARIANT FOR US TO PUT THE STAIR ON THE SIDE.
WE STILL MEET THE GAVTON BUILDING LINE OF FIVE FEET.
RIGHT NOW, THE STRUCTURE LOOK LIKE WE'RE GOING TO PUT SOME POST DOWN, BUT WE ARE WORKING WITH SOME ENGINEER TO SEE WHETHER WE CAN TIE THAT INTO THE PILING AND ELIMINATE THE POST ON THE GROUND BECAUSE THAT IS OUR INTEREST.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING THIS BACK TO COMMISSION FOR ACTION.
>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE 25BF-009 ACCORDING TO THE STAFF REPORT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND TO APPROVE 25BF-009 AS PRESENTED. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL TAKE THE VOTE, THOSE IN FAVOR, AND THAT'S UNANIMOUS, SO 25BF-009 AS APPROVED.
GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT, SIR.
[7. 25P-008 (2528 Postoffice / Avenue E) Request for designation as a Galveston Landmark. The property is legally described as M.B. Menard Survey, Lot 14, Block 505, in the City and County of Galveston, Texas.]
MOVING ON. 25P-008.>> 25P-008. THIS IS AT 2528 POST OFFICE.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A DESIGNATION AS A GALVESTON LANDMARK.
THERE WERE 16 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT AND OF THOSE WERE RETURNED.
THIS IS A BIT OF UNUSUAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION REQUEST.
IT HAS A LITTLE BIT OF A HISTORY TO IT.
JUST AS A QUICK CRASH COURSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND TO THE PUBLIC WHO MAY BE WATCHING.
CITY OF GALVESTON'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM IS MOSTLY BASED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES AND SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS, AND THAT INCLUDES CRITERIA FOR THE DESIGNATION OF LANDMARKS BASED ON THEIR HISTORIC IMPORTANCE, AND THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE TYPICALLY VERY A POLITICAL AND CONTENT NEUTRAL.
THEY WILL FOCUS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STRUCTURE TO HISTORY, WHETHER THAT BE GOOD BAD OR INDIFFERENT.
THIS ONE, THIS CASE, THAT MEANS THAT INEVITABLY HISTORIC PRESERVATIONISTS WILL HAVE TO DISCUSS OR CONSIDER THINGS THAT WE MAY CONSIDER OBJECTIONABLE TODAY, BUT DID HISTORICALLY OCCUR.
OF COURSE, AMONGST THAT IS GALVESTON'S FREE STATE DAYS IN THE VERY INFAMOUS RED LIGHT DISTRICT THAT WE HAD IN THE PAST CALLED THE LINE.
THIS IS LOCATED IN 25TH TO 29TH STREET ALONG POST OFFICE AND THEN SPREAD TO CHURCH AND MECHANIC STREETS ADJACENT.
ONE OF THE HOUSES ON THE LINE, WHICH WAS ONCE AGAIN, THE ADULT BUSINESS RED LIGHT DISTRICT IS THE MOLLY WALTERS HOUSE THAT YOU SEE HERE.
I WAS COMPLETED IN 181886 BY MOLLY WALTERS TO REPLACE AN OLDER STRUCTURE THAT WAS ALSO USED AS A BORDELO.
THIS IS A NATIONAL FOLKTYLE HOUSE OCCUPIES A PROMINENT SPOT ON A CORNER LOT.
AN EXPANSION OF PORT ACTIVITIES AND THE PRESENCE OF FEDERAL TROOPS DURING RECONSTRUCTION, BOTH CONTRIBUTED TO THE EXPANSION AND RISE OF PROSTITUTION IN GALVESTON.
25-YEAR-OLD MOLLY WALTERS ARRIVED IN GALVESTON FOR NEW ORLEANS IN 1868, AS THE LOCAL ECONOMY WAS RECOVERING FROM THE CIVIL WAR, AS BELIEVED THAT IN NEW ORLEANS, SHE WORKED AS A PROSTITUTE AS WELL.
SHE OPENED HER FIRST BUSINESS ON THE WEST SIDE 25TH STREET BETWEEN MARKET AND MECHANIC.
BUT OVER TIME, SHE PURCHASED SILVER, OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE GALVESTON, INCLUDING 2528 POST OFFICE, WHERE ONCE AGAIN, SHE OPERATED A BORDELO.
SHE WAS STILL RUNNING THE BUSINESS IN 01,900 WHEN SHE LEASED THE HOUSE TO CARNE PIERCE UNTIL AROUND 1944, THE PROPERTY WAS OWNED AND OPERATED BY HAZEL HARVEY KNOWN TO HER CLIENTS AND FELLOW MADAMS AS MOTHER HARVEY.
UNTIL THE 1950S WHEN THE FREE STATE DAYS AND SOME OF THE VICES ASSOCIATED WITH IT WERE FINALLY ENDED.
[00:40:01]
IT WAS OWNED BY MADAM, MARY R AND HER HUSBAND, CHARLES L. THE HOUSE REFLECTS THE TYPICAL WOOD FRAME VERNACULAR COMMONLY KNOWN AS NATIONAL FAULT, CHARACTERIZED BY RELATIVELY UNADORNED EXTERIOR, SIMPLE BUILDING FOOTPRINT, LOW PITCHED ROOF.PORCHES ON EITHER SIDE WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKELY BLOCKED WITH LATTICE TO SHRED THE IDENTITIES OF VISITORS.
THE HOUSE OVERALL HAS THE SAME APPEARANCE TODAY AS IT DID IN THE EARLIEST PHOTOS OF THE HOUSE THAT WE HAVE.
BAY WINDOW FACING 26TH STREET WAS IN 1890S LATER REMOVED.
THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO RESTORE THAT HISTORIC BAY WINDOW, AS WELL AS RENOVATE THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE.
THE PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED HISTORIC DISTRICT, IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES FOR NEW GALVESTON LANDMARKS, AND THE PROPERTY ALREADY HAS A NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES DESIGNATION.
LANDMARK COMMISSION RECOMMENDED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST AT THEIR APRIL 7 MEETING.
CITY COUNCIL HAS A FINAL DECISION REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR A LANDMARK DESIGNATION, THEY WILL HEAR THE REQUEST AT THE APRIL 24, 2025 MEETING.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH STANDARD CONDITION 1 IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOOKING NORTH. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOOKING EAST AT THE WESTERN FACADE.
YOU CAN JUST BARELY SEE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE NEAREST TREE WHERE THE BAY WINDOW WAS WILL BE RESTORED TO.
THEN WE HAVE THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE WEST AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT.
>> THANK YOU, DANIEL. YOU SEEMED VERY INTERESTED IN THIS PROJECT.
ARE THOSE ALL THOSE ALL THE PHOTOS YOU FOUND IN YOUR RESEARCH? I'LL LEAVE IT ALONE AT THAT.
GOOD JOB, DANIEL. I TRULY ENJOYED THE NARRATIVE.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? DO WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS? WELCOME TO PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? YES, MA'AM. ARE YOU THE APPLICANT?
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING US HERE AND HAVING THIS ITEM BE CONSIDERED.
MY NAME IS LAURA. I'M AN ARCHITECT.
WE SPECIALIZE IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION AT ORBANO ARCHITECTS AND WE ARE THE APPLICANT FOR THIS FABULOUS PROJECT SOON TO BE RESTORED AS SOON AS WE BRING THE BAY WINDOW AND WE WORK IN THE INTERIORS.
WE'VE BEEN DOING A LOT OF CLEANING UP, BUT WE'RE VERY EXCITED ABOUT IT.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY THIS IS A RARE SURVIVING EXAMPLE OF A RESIDENCE ORIGINALLY DESIGNED AS A BROTHEL N 1886, AS DANIEL SAID.
IN 2025 POST OFFICE IS NOT ONLY SIGNIFICANT FOR ITS HISTORICAL CONTEXT, BUT IT'S ALSO FOR ITS ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY, PROVIDING INSIGHT INTO THE DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE OF GALVESTON'S PAST.
IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HERE TO ANSWER.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> I DROVE BY THERE NOT TOO LONG AGO.
I NOTICED THERE WAS A LOT OF CONSTRUCTION WORK AND EVERYTHING GOING ON.
ARE YOU GOING TO ALSO DEVELOP THE AREA AROUND IT TO RENOVATE THE AREA AROUND SURROUNDING IN YOUR NOT NECESSARILY YOUR LOT.
I KNOW YOU DON'T ON THE ADJACENT LOT OR ANYTHING, BUT JUST THE LOT, IN PARTICULAR, YOU'VE GOT PLANS TO IMPROVE IT BESIDES JUST THE HOUSE?
>> THERE WAS A BURNT STRUCTURE, WHICH WAS AT THE REAR, WHICH WAS?
>> THAT HAS BEEN CLEANED UP AND WE'RE NOT INTENDING TO FENCE AND WE REALLY WANT EVERYBODY TO BE ABLE TO APPRECIATE THE ARCHITECTURE.
BUT THE REAR HAS THE OPPORTUNITY AS A RESIDENCE TO BE FENCED IN AND FOLLOW GUIDELINES AND HEIGHTS.
BUT YES, LANDSCAPE IT DOES HAVE A LOT OF PALM TREES.
WE'RE ACTUALLY NOT GOING TO TOUCH THEM UNTIL WE'VE DONE ALL THE WORK AND THEN GOING TO ASSESS WHETHER WE WOULD WANT TO TAKE ANYTHING DOWN BUT DEFINITELY CLEAN UP IN ANY MINOR ON THE SMALL LAND THAT'S AROUND.
>> ANYONE ELSE? THANK YOU, MA'AM.
>> ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? RAG. HEY. I FIGURED THIS WOULD BE RIGHT UP YOUR ALLEY.
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THIS IS NOT AN EASY PROJECT AND HATS OFF TO THE APPLICANT, LAURA, AND GOOD JOB, DANIEL, AS WELL.
I ALSO JUST WANT TO GIVE A SHOUT OUT BECAUSE LAURA IS ALSO A FELLOW MEMBER OF THE AII HOUSTON BOARD OF DIRECTORS WITH ME ALSO.
[00:45:09]
>> ANYBODY ELSE? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING THIS BACK WE VOTE ON THIS? YES. BRING THIS BACK TO COMMISSION FOR ACTION.
>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 25P-008.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE 25P-008.
>> ONE COMMENT. THIS IS NOT AN UNCOMMON IN THAT AREA.
THAT BUSINESS WAS PRETTY WELL KNOWN OVER THERE.
DANIEL, I KNOW I WAS GIVING YOU A HARD TIME, BUT THAT YOU DID A GREAT JOB WITH THE NARRATIVE ON THAT.
THAT'S ALL TONGUE IN CHEEK TO MAKE SURE YOU GUYS KNOW THAT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WE'LL TAKE A VOTE.
THOSE IN FAVOR. THAT'S UNANIMOUS.
>> I'D JUST LIKE TO ADD MY THANKS APPLICANT FOR TAKING ON THIS PROJECT.
AS WE'VE DISCUSSED, IT'S AN INTERESTING PIECE OF GALVESTON'S HISTORY.
IT'S IN BAD CONDITION AND IT'S GOING TO BE A BIG PROJECT, AND WE REALLY WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR TAKING ON THAT EFFORT.
[7. 25P-009 (2116 Postoffice / Avenue E) Request for designation as a Galveston Landmark. The property is legally described as M.B. Menard Survey, West 28 feet of Lot 11 (11-1), Block 501, in the City and County of Galveston, Texas.]
>> I HAVE A CORRECTION ON THE STAFF REPORT.
THE CASE NUMBER SHOULD BE 25P-009, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
IT'S A REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION AS THE GALVESTON LANDMARK.
PUBLIC NOTICES SENT WERE 28, ONE RETURNED TO THAT ONE IN FAVOR.
THE FUTURE CENTRAL DRUG STORE BUILDING LOCATED AT 2116 POST OFFICE WAS BUILT IN 1914 BY INVESTORS, MARGARET MOYE AND J. E. PIERCE.
THE CONSTRUCTION WAS IN THE NEW CHICAGO COMMERCIAL STYLE OF ARCHITECTURE, WHICH WAS TYPICALLY PLAIN AND LACKING EXTERNAL ORNAMENTATION.
INSURANCE BOARD RECORDS INDICATE THAT THE BRICK BUILDING HAD ELECTRIC LIGHTS, PLATE GLASS WINDOWS, WOODEN FLOORS AND 13 FOOT CEILINGS ON THE FIRST FLOOR, AND TEN FOOT CEILINGS ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
THE LISTED USE WAS THE WOMEN'S MILLINERY.
I CAN'T SAY THAT ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND ROOMS FOR RENT ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
IT WAS LATER FROM THE 1920S TO THE '60S, A DRUG STORE WITH A LUNCH AND AT COUNTER.
THE LANDMARK COMMISSION REVIEWED YESTERDAY AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
CITY COUNCIL WILL MAKE THEIR FINAL DECISION ON 24TH OF APRIL.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, THE STANDARD CONDITION.
WE ALSO HAVE A PICTURE OF THE STOREFRONT SHOWING THE CENTRAL DRUG STORE TILE INSET, AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE.
WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? YES, MA'AM.
>> I'D JUST LIKE TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT WE HAVE WITH US TWO FORMER LANDMARK COMMISSIONERS.
JULIE BAKER DID THE NOMINATION FOR CLYDE WOOD.
BOTH HAVE DONE THEIR SERVICE ON THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AND WE MISS THEM VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
>> GOOD TIMES. [LAUGHTER]. I MISS IT.
>> WELL, I'M JULIE BAKER, AND I DID THE RESEARCH ON CLYDE'S BEHALF FOR 2116 POST OFFICE, AND I'M NOT SURE IF EACH OF YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ THE DETAILED WRITE UP, BUT IT HAD A PRETTY INTERESTING BACK STORY WHEN IT CHANGED FROM BEING A MILLINERY TO BEING A CENTRAL DRUG.
A YOUNG MAN WHO STARTED OUT AS A SODA DRUG AT STAR DRUG AND HIS BROTHER WAS ALSO A SODA DRUG STAR DRUG, WENT TO PHARMACY SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTINA AND THEY BOTH DID, AND THEY BOTH BECAME PHARMACIST.
THE BROTHER CAME BACK AND PURCHASED STAR DRUG AND ANDREW DICKINSON CAME AND PURCHASED CENTRAL DRUGS.
JUST RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER FROM EACH OTHER, TWO BROTHERS COMPETING HERE IN GALVESTON.
THEY WERE BOTH VERY POPULAR AND APPARENTLY WAS A FRIENDLY RIVALRY.
THIS IS A REALLY COOL BUILDING.
CLYDE AND KIM HAVE DONE A FANTASTIC JOB OF RESTORING IT AND MAINTAINING ITS INTEGRITY.
I THINK IT DESERVES LANDMARK DESIGNATION.
>> MY NAME IS CLYDE WOOD, AND I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING SHE SAID.
WHEN I OPENED OR WHEN I BOUGHT THE BUSINESS 16 YEARS AGO, I WAS SURPRISED AT HOW MANY LOCALS HAD STORIES TO TELL ABOUT COMING AFTER SCHOOL AND GETTING JERRY THERE.
GREAT PIES THAT EVERYBODY ORDERED FOR THE HOLIDAYS, THAT.
TO ME, IT'S ALREADY A GALVESTON LANDMARK BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE FOND MEMORIES.
[00:50:07]
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING THIS BACK TO COMMISSION FOR ACTION.
>> MOVE TO APPROVE 25P-009 AS NOTED.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE 25P-009 AS PRESENTED.
ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL TAKE THE VOTE.
THOSE IN FAVOR, AND THAT'S UNANIMOUS 25P-009 IS APPROVED.
THANK YOU. MOVING ON, 25P-011.
[7. 25P-011 (819 Avenue K) Request for a minor plat to subdivide one lot into two lots. Property is legally described as M.B. Menard Survey, Lot 3 Block 68, in the City and County of Galveston, Texas.]
>> 25P-011. THIS IS AT 8:19 AVENUE K.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A REPLAT.
THERE WERE 27 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.
THERE WERE SOME CITY DEPARTMENT RESPONSES THAT WE WILL DISCUSS THOSE SHORTLY.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REPLAT OF ONE PARCEL INTO TWO.
CURRENTLY THE PARCEL AND EXISTING STRUCTURES ARE ORIENTED NORTH, SOUTH AVENUE K IN THE ALLEY TO THE SOUTH.
THE APPLICANT WISHES TO REPLANT INTO TWO SEPARATE LOTS.
ACCORDING TO THE REPLAT, EACH LOT WILL THEN INCLUDE A SEPARATE STRUCTURE, A DWELLING ON THE NORTH AND A GARAGE ON THE SOUTH LOT.
NOTE THAT THIS WILL RESULT ONE LOT HAVING ACCESS FROM THE ALLEY ONLY, AND NO ACCESS FROM AVENUE K.
BECAUSE THE PROPOSED REAR ALLEY WILL NOT HAVE DIRECT STREET ACCESS, THE QUEST DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL, MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THIS WILL ALSO RESULT IN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON A PARCEL SEPARATE FROM A PRIMARY, BUT WE WILL DISCUSS THAT SHORTLY.
ONCE AGAIN, THE SITE IS COMPOSED OF ONE PARCEL OF LAND ORIENTED NORTH SOUTH CURRENTLY CONTAINS A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOUSE FACING AVENUE AD AND GARAGE TO THE SOUTH OF THAT.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THE REAR LIGHT HALF FRONTAGE ON THE ALLEY ONLY.
YOU CAN NOTE THE ZONING AND LAND USE AND LOT BLOCK CONFIGURATION NOTES IN THE STAFF REPORT.
THE PROPOSED SOUTHERN LOT DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM AREA STANDARDS FOR NEW PARCELS IN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD.
HOWEVER, A VARIANCE WAS GRANTED FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS UNDER CASE 24-Z007 TO ALLOW THE REAR LOT TO BE A BIT SMALLER THAN NORMAL.
THE DEPARTMENT REVIEW AND COMMENTS.
THE PROPOSED REPLAT INCLUDES A FIVE FOOT WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT ALIGNING THE FRONT HOUSE TO ACCESS EXISTING WATER AND SANITARY SEWER IN THE ALLEY AS REQUESTED BY PUBLIC WORKS.
PLANNING NOTED THAT THE REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE NEEDS TO BE CONVERTED INTO A DWELLING UNIT OR DEMOLISHED PRIOR TO FIND THE PLAT DOCUMENTS IN ORDER TO AVOID A NONCONFORMANCE ISSUE.
HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT HAS SINCE SUBMITTED A DEMOLITION PERMIT FOR THE REAR GARAGE SO THAT WILL NOT BE A PROBLEM MOVING FORWARD.
PLEASE NOTE THE STANDARDS FOR PLAT APPROVAL.
STAFF RECOMMENDS CASE 25P-007 APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE THROUGH THREE AND SAN CONDITIONS FOUR THROUGH FIVE. WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS.
HERE WE HAVE THE EXISTING SURVEY ON THE LEFT, AND THEN THE SITE PLAN SHOWING THE PROPOSED DIVISION OF LAND ON THE RIGHT, AND THEN A VICINITY MAP SHOWING ITS LOCATION, MID BLOCK.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE MAIN HOUSE IN THE FRONT, THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST, TO THE NORTH, AND TO THE WEST, AND I BELIEVE THIS CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT.
>> THANK YOU, DANIEL. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT?
>> LET ME NOTE FOR THE RECORD BECAUSE WE DID A SHOUT OUT FOR THE LAST ONE.
THE BUTT IS A FORMER MEMBER OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE SIGN COMMITTEE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEE.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
>> PLANNING STAFF. THAT'S RIGHT.
>> HE'S A SPECIAL SOMEONE TO SOMEONE HERE, TOO.
BARACK YOU'RE GETTING ALL KUDOS TODAY.
>> THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT. WELCOME. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME TODAY.
APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU GUYS ON THE DIAS AND ALSO STAFF.
THIS IS A PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD SEPARATION OF TWO STRUCTURES OR TWO LOTS.
I DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH CREATING A FIVE FOOT EASEMENT TO PROVIDE UTILITIES TO THE FRONT, THAT'LL BE SOMETHING THAT COMES IN OUR DESIGN PHASE WHEN WE BUILD THE BACK HOUSE.
THE INTENTION HERE IS TO HAVE A BASICALLY A TINY HOUSE.
I HATE TO USE THAT WORD, BUT HAVE A SMALL HOUSE STUDIO WITH A CARPORT TO THE SIDE.
[00:55:02]
BUT IT WILL BE JUST OFF OF THE ALLEY.I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY ABOUT IT, BUT THAT'S THE INTENTION AND WE DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WE NEEDED TO DEMO THIS BEFORE WE CAME TO YOU GUYS.
APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. BUT WE DO HAVE THE PERMIT TO DO SO.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? 1799.
>> YOU HAVE ANY PLANS FOR PARKING ON SITE?
>> THERE WILL BE PARKING ON SITE.
THERE WILL BE A TINY HOUSE ON ONE SECTION OF THAT BACK LOT AND THEN A CAR PORT TO THE SIDE OF IT.
THERE WILL BE PARKING PROVIDED ON THE SITE.
THE FRONT SITE CURRENTLY, I DON'T THINK IT HAS PARKING PROVIDED FOR IT AND IT'S JUST STREET PARKING, BUT THERE'S REALLY NO CHANGE TO THE CONDITION THERE.
>> ON THE BACK LOT, IS IT A TWO-WAY ALLEY BACK THERE? I MEAN, CAN YOU TELL ME THE CONDITIONS OF THAT ALLEY BACK THERE OR IS IT JUST A SINGLE LIKE.
>> IT'S A SINGLE-FOOT ALLEY, IT'S NOT THE GREATEST SURFACE, BUT IT IS TWO WAY.
THERE YOU GO. IT'S NOT A PAVED SURFACE, BUT IT'S BECAUSE IT'S HIGH ENOUGH AND CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE SEA WALL, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO DEGRADE AS MUCH AS SOME OTHER DIRT LOTS THAT HOLD WATER.
>> THE PROPOSED LITTLE HOUSE WILL BE THE ENTRANCE WILL BE FACING THE SOUTH TOWARD THE ALLEY?
>> I ASK YOU A LOADED QUESTION HERE.
I'M MAYBE GETTING A LITTLE OFF BASE HERE.
WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSION WE'VE SEEN THESE HOUSES THAT FRONT ALLEYS.
I WILL SAY THIS WHERE WE'VE SEEN THEM IN THE PAT WHERE WE WE HAD SOME THAT WERE OF A PARTICULAR CONCERN FOR US.
THEY WERE MORE SO IN THE GRID, NOT SO MUCH IN THIS THIS IS DEFINITELY WITHIN THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT, CORRECT?
>> IT'S AN NCD, BUT IT PUTS UP AGAINST ALSO THE HDDC BEHIND IT.
>> I KNOW THERE ARE PLENTY EXAMPLES OF WHERE WE HAVE ADUS WITH GO WITH THE LOT FOR AN EXISTING HOUSE.
HELP ME HELP YOU, MY PROBLEM WITH THESE IS ALLEYS AREN'T STREETS.
I KNOW THAT WE HAVE, ESPECIALLY IN HISTORICAL DISTRICT WHERE THERE'S A PRECEDENT SET.
BUT THE DEAL IS, AS WE'VE SEEN THIS WHERE MY CONCERN IS WHERE WE GET INTO GUYS TAKING MULTIPLE LOTS CUTTING THEM UP AND TO GET THE THIRD ONE, THEY FRONTED SOMEBODY IN THE BACK.
YOU'VE SEEN A LOT OF STUFF, REALLY I'M ASKING FOR YOUR OPINION.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE IT TO ME.
I KNOW YOU'D ALSO GIVE ME AN HONEST ANSWER ABOUT SOME OF OUR CONCERNS.
>> YOU BET. WELL, YOU'RE CORRECT TO SAY THAT THERE IS A HISTORICAL PRECEDENT FOR THIS TYPE OF HOUSING IN GALVESTON.
HAPPENS ON IN THE 30S OVER HERE.
THERE'S A HISTORICAL PRECEDENT PRECEDENT.
CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS PROBABLY IDENTIFY MORE WITH THAT THAN OTHERS.
I WILL SAY THAT TO ADDRESS SOME OF YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT MAYBE THE SIZE OF THE LOT AND THE DENSITY THERE.
IF YOU LOOK JUST TO THE WEST OF THAT BLUE BOX, THERE ARE THREE HOUSES THAT FRONT ONTO NINTH STREET, AND THE TWO THAT ARE FURTHER SOUTH ACTUALLY ARE SMALLER THAN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING,
[01:00:07]
AND THEY DON'T HAVE ANY ACCESS OTHER THAN STREET.I GUESS IF IT'S A CONCERN LIKE A PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERN.
IT'S REALLY A SIMILAR CONDITION TO THE HOUSE TO THE EAST WHERE IT'S SET SO FAR BACK ON THE LOT.
NOW, THERE'S ONLY ONE HOUSE ON THAT LOT.
BUT IF THERE WERE AN EMERGENCY THERE, LIKE A FIRE, THEN THEY WOULD PROBABLY PULL IN THE ALLEY TO GET TO THAT HOUSE AS WELL
>> I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN CONVINCE YOU.
>> NO, I DON'T NEED YOU TO CONVINCE ME. IT'S JUST, [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S A GOOD PATTERN TO FOLLOW, BUT THAT'S ALL I GET.
>> IN ALL FAIRNESS IT'S REALLY AN UNFAIR QUESTION TO ASK, BUT I WOULD JUST REALLY WANT TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT.
THAT'S ALL I GOT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> WELL, YOU DID POINT OUT THOSE THREE HOUSES DO HAVE STREET ACCESS AND THIS BACK HOUSE WOULD ONLY HAVE ALLEY ACCESS.
I KNOW WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSION AND MAYBE YOU'VE SEEN OUR OPINIONS ABOUT VARYING IF ALLEY ACCESS IS ALLOWED OR NOT BECAUSE THERE'S A PORTION THAT SAYS THEY'RE NOT WHEN YOU CAN'T HAVE A HOUSE THAT'S ONLY ALLEY ACCESS, AND THERE'S A PORTION OF THE CODE THAT SAYS YOU CAN.
I KNOW THAT'S FOR A WORKSHOP FUTURE DOWN THE ROAD, BUT LOOKING AT THAT LITTLE ALLEY AND LOOKING AT THAT LITTLE HOUSE RIGHT AWAY, WHERE IS THIS PERSON GOING TO PARK? IF YOU BUILD A HOUSE BACK THERE, IS IT GOING TO BE IN THE ALLEY? IS IT GOING TO IMPEDE? I DON'T KNOW.
IT JUST RAISES A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND JUST GOING TO THROW THAT OUT THERE.
>> WELL, I'M SORRY, BUT I HAVE NEVER BROUGHT ONE OF A CASE LIKE THIS TO YOU GUYS, SO I REALLY DIDN'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS CONCERNS LIKE THIS.
>> I'M JUST CURIOUS AS AN ARCHITECT.
THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD HAS ZERO SIDE SETBACK, ZERO FRONT, ZERO REAR.
HOW DOES THAT WORK IN THE REAL WORLD? ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE A LOT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SUBDIVIDE, YOU'RE GOING TO TEAR A STRUCTURE DOWN, YOU COULD BUILD ON THE PROPERTY LINE, CORRECT?
WELL, FOR ONE THING, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAINTAIN FIVE-FOOT SETBACK ON ONE SIDE FOR THE EASEMENT, AND THEN THE OTHER SIDE, IT WOULD BE A CARPORT, BUT WE WOULD PUT THAT CARPORT THREE FEET BACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE JUST FOR FIRE PURPOSES.
>> WELL, IN YOUR PARTICULAR SITUATION, WOULD YOU HAVE ANY ISSUE THEN WITH A FIVE FOOT SETBACK ALL THE WAY AROUND?
>> NO. I WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT AT ALL.
>> ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE HAD AS A COMMISSION, BECAUSE OF THE 20 FOOT ALLEY AND THE ZERO SETBACK YOU'VE GOT SOME STRUCTURES, NOT THIS CASE, BECAUSE THERE'S SOME PAVING THERE AND IT IS SET BACK, BUT YOU HAVE SOME STRUCTURES THAT ARE RIGHT AT THE EDGE.
YOU CAN'T EVEN MAKE A PROPER TURN.
IF YOU HAVE PARKING ON YOUR LOT, YOU CAN'T MAKE A PROPER TURN IN THERE.
IF WE HAD REASONABLE SETBACKS, I WOULD START TO FEEL BETTER ABOUT THE SITUATIONS.
>> YES. THAT'S ALL GOOD STUFF.
I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH DOING THAT.
I BELIEVE WE HAVEN'T REALLY GOTTEN INTO THE DESIGN PHASE YET BUT THE SKETCH THAT I'VE GOT SO FAR HAS A FIVE FOOT SETBACK, OR ACTUALLY ONE SIDE IS SEVEN FOOT SETBACK AND THE OTHER SIDE IS FIVE FOOT SETBACK.
THEN I'VE GOT TWO FEET, SIMILAR TO WHAT'S THERE COMING OFF OF THE ALLEY, A TWO FOOT SETBACK FROM THERE.
THEN BEHIND THAT IS A 13 FEET TO THE NEW PROPERTY LINE.
THERE WILL BE A FENCE DIVISION THERE. THAT MAKES SENSE.
>> WE ARE GOING TO PROVIDE MORE THAN WE REQUIRE.
>> AS FAR AS THE HOUSE ITSELF, HOW HIGH DOES IT HAVE TO BE THE FIRST LIVABLE FLOOR IN THAT SECTION? DOES THAT HAVE TO BE FIVE FEET UP, EIGHT FEET UP BECAUSE THE LITTLE SKIDDY HOUSES THAT ARE BEING BUILT ON THE CORNER, THEY'RE WAY UP THERE.
>> THEY'RE WAY HIGH. THIS IS AN AE ZONE.
I KNOW, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ELEVATION REQUIREMENT IS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
[01:05:03]
IS WHAT I WOULD SAY BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE GROUND IS.I DON'T KNOW HOW HIGH THAT WOULD BE.
>> IS THE PROPOSAL A SINGLE STORY SMALL HOUSE?
>> THEN A CARPORT LIKE HANGOUT AREA NEXT TO IT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> I DO. WHILE YOU'RE STANDING HERE BRAX, I THINK THE FIVE FOOT AND THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A DISCUSSION, BUT I DON'T WANT TO CREATE A PROBLEM FOR YOU.
>> NO, YOU'RE NOT. THAT'S FINE.
>> IS THE FIVE FOOT SETBACKS ALL AROUND WORK FOR YOU EVEN IF OFF OF THE ALLEY?
>> I'D RATHER NOT COME FIVE FEET OFF OF THE ALLEY IF WE DIDN'T HAVE TO BECAUSE THAT'S IT'S GOING TO PUSH US THREE MORE FEET.
I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. NOW YOU'RE FINE.
>> IF I THINK YOU'RE GOING SOMEWHERE THAT I THINK YOU CANNOT GO.
RIGHT NOW, IS JUST [INAUDIBLE] AND THE BOUNDARIES OF THAT.
I DIDN'T JUMP IN, BEFORE BUT A LOT OF IT IS SOUNDING LIKE IT STARTED TO DESIGN HIS PROJECT.
>> UNDERSTOOD. HOWEVER, THERE ARE NO LINES DRAWN ON THE PROPOSED RE-PLAT FOR ANY OF THE EASEMENTS.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN THAT'S DONE THAT WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM.
>> WE HAVE TO HAVE THE SURVEY OR AD THAT.
>> IT'S A LITTLE BIT INCOMPLETE, BUT I UNDERSTAND.
WE'LL END THERE. YOU'VE ANSWERED THE QUESTION, BRAX.
>> BUT I HEAR YOUR CONCERNS AND I WILL DEFINITELY TAKE THEM INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE DESIGN.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YES.
>> YOU FEEL THIS INFORMATIONAL QUESTION [INAUDIBLE] BUT YOU ARE NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ANY OF THE TUNING.
IF THERE IS A QUESTION AND ANSWERS OR AS ABLE TO ENTER IN THE ALLEY.
I THINK ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS WHAT HIS POSSIBILITIES ARE THAT THEY CAN MAKE A DECISION.
>> I GUESS MY CONCERN IS THAT WHAT HE'S REQUESTED IS A SPECIFIC REPLAT.
>> THERE ARE OTHER PROCESSES THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT WILL ADDRESS THE THINGS LIKE THE SETBACK ISSUES, WHETHER THE EASEMENT IS ON A REPLAT.
ALL THAT THINGS WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THE OTHER PROCESSES THAT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH JUST EVEN GET THAT.
THERE'S CERTAIN PURVIEW THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN HOLD OVER DEPENDING UPON THE REQUEST THAT'S BEFORE THEM.
THERE'S SOME THAT JUST AREN'T APPROPRIATE OR AREN'T READY TO BE DISCUSSED IN THIS FORM.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSIONERS MAY HAVE, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE HAD WITH THE ALLEY AND THE AXIS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT THAT'S REALLY NOT THE APPLICANT'S ISSUE.
THERE ARE DEFINITELY WORKSHOPS THAT I BELIEVE ARE GOING TO BE PUT IN PLACE TO DISCUSS THE ISSUES OF THAT ALLEY AXIS AND WHATNOT, BUT EACH CASE THAT'S BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS TO BE REVIEWED ON WHAT'S BEING BROUGHT, AND NOT NECESSARILY SOME OF THE, I'M TRYING TO GO TO THE BEST WORD, SOME OF THE CONJECTURE OR THE PERSPECTIVES OF THE WHOLE ALLEY AXIS OR THE FRONTAGE OR WHATEVER.
MY JOB IS JUST TO LET YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK IS GETTING A LITTLE OUT OF BOUNDS.
>> UNDERSTAND. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU THIS QUESTION.
WHEN WE GET TO THIS, THIS IS A STAFF QUESTION, SO WE'RE DOING A REPLAT.
THE REPLAT HAS A CERTAIN REQUIREMENT WITHIN IT, IT HAS TO BE A ROUND PEG GOING IN A ROUND HOLE.
IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE WHERE WE ARE CONSIDERING A REPLAT, DOES PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE ANY LEEWAY IN
[01:10:02]
REQUIRING AN EASEMENT OR BUILDING SETBACKS OTHER THAN THOSE THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE LDRS.>> [INAUDIBLE] YOU CAN HELP WITH THAT.
THE PROPERTY REQUIRES AN EASEMENT OF SOME UTILITY EASEMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
YOU CAN'T JUST HAVE CASUALLY SAY [INAUDIBLE]
>> WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT? FORGET I TELL YOU WHAT? LET ME REPHRASE THAT IN REQUESTING DIFFERENT BUILDING SETBACKS.
I'M THINKING I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE BEFORE WE WADE OFF INTO SOMETHING WE DON'T NEED TO BE.
>> REPLATTING IS NOT A DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL.
WHEN YOU'RE SAYING THINGS LIKE CHANGE PODS, SPECIFIC USE PERMITS, THOSE ARE DISCRETIONARY AND YOU'RE ABLE TO PUT ON WHATEVER CONDITIONS YOU FIND APPROPRIATE.
REPLATTING IS REALLY PROTECTED BY STATE LAW.
>> THAT'S WHAT I FOUGHT. THANKS BRAX.
I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND YOUR INPUT.
ANYBODY ELSE HERE, GUESS NOW WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING THIS BACK TO COMMISSION FOR ACTION.
>> IF I MAY ADD COUPLE OF THINGS THAT MAY HELP CLARIFY THESE ISSUES.
FIRST OF ALL, WHEN THE PROJECT GETS TO THE BUILDING PERMIT PHASE, OUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT DOES LOOK AT THESE, AND THERE ARE CERTAIN BUILDING CODE STANDARDS THAT KICK IN IF A STRUCTURE IS WITHIN FIVE FOOT OF A COMMON PROPERTY LINE.
THAT INCLUDES FIRE PROTECTION, AND OUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT IS VERY DILIGENT ABOUT ENFORCING THOSE.
SECOND THING IS THAT WHEN WE DO A REPLAY LIKE THIS, WE SET OUT TO REVIEW TO VARIOUS DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS AND OUTSIDE UTILITIES, INCLUDING OUR FIRE CHIEF AND OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND NEITHER CHIEF BALLY NOR CHRIS HARRISON OR CHIEF HERRERA ISSUED ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE ALLEY NOT BEING ACCESSIBLE.
JUST HOPEFULLY THAT WE'LL CLEAR SOME THINGS UP THAT I'VE HEARD DISCUSSED.
>> THANK YOU, DANIEL. WHERE ARE WE? THIS IS 25P-011, IS THAT CORRECT? I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 25P-011, MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE 25P-011. ANY DISCUSSION?
>> YES. THIS IS MORE FOR STAFF, PARTICULARLY OUR BARRISTER, OR MAYBE THE STAFF CAN.
THE PURPOSE OF REPLATTING IS TO, PLEASE FILL IN THE BLANK.
>> IT'S A DIVISION OF PROPERTY.
>> [INAUDIBLE] PAPER IN ITS SIMPLEST TERMS. THAT I ANSWERED.[OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S ALL IT IS. NO MATTER WHAT THE EXPECTATION OF THAT PROPERTY IS, OR EXPECTATIONS THAT WE MAY HAVE JOINTLY, SEPARATELY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DRAWING THESE LINES, CORRECT?
>> IT ALLOWS THE DIVISION OF LAND.
>> THAT'S BASICALLY ALL WE'RE LOOKING AT.
>> THE ANCILLARY EFFECTS OF A FUTURE DESIGN OR [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT COMES DOWN THE ROAD. WE ISSUED IT.
>> THEY ARE ISSUES THAT CERTAINLY SHOULD BE IN THE BACK OF EVERYBODY'S MIND, BUT THEY'RE REALLY NOT AN ELEMENT OF THIS APPROVAL.
HE'S OBVIOUSLY SAID HE'S GOING TO MITIGATE THE PARKING ISSUE AND HE CONCERN IS TURNING INTO A SPACE.
TWENTY FEET IS OUR FIRE CODE THAT A FIRE TRUCK CAN GET DOWN, MINIMUM 20 FEET.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE ON THE PRIVATE SIDE OF THIS.
I WOULDN'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE ANY TRUCKS, ANYTHING LARGE LIKE THAT GOING INTO THIS PROPERTY, BUT CERTAINLY I WOULD THINK THAT A SMALLER VEHICLE COULD MAKE THAT TURN.
LITERALLY SPEAKING OUR COMMERCIAL STANDARDS, DEPENDING ON THE ANGLE OF THE PARKING STALL, WILL ALLOW A 20 FOOT ALLEY.
>> I THINK I'VE CAUSED YOU TO GIVE ME A LONG DRAWN OUT ANSWER TO A SIMPLE YES OR NO.
WE'RE JUST DRAWING A LINE ON SOME PROPERTY. THANK YOU.
>> I KNOW WE DISCUSSED THIS AND IT'S STILL CONFUSING TO ME, SO I'M GOING TO READ IT AGAIN, 6.303 DOES SAY THAT, NO NEW BUSINESS OR NEW DWELLING SHALL FACE OR HAVE ITS MAIN ENTRANCE ON AN ALLEY.
[01:15:01]
AND YOU KNOW I'M STUCK THERE AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A WORKSHOP ABOUT IT, BUT TO ME, THIS WOULD BE A NEW STRUCTURE.IT'S IN AN AREA WITH ZERO SETBACK FROM THE ALLEY AND THAT'S MAIN INTEREST WOULD BE ON THE ALLEY.
TO ME, AGAIN, I KNOW WE HAVE SOMETHING TO SETTLE WITH THAT, BUT THAT'S STILL THERE IN.
>> BEAR IN MIND, THERE IS ANOTHER CODE, AND THAT CODE SAYS SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
IN THE FACE OF CONFLICTING CODE, STAFF PROBABLY WILL NEVER COME DOWN ON THE SIDE OF THE MOST OPPRESSIVE REGULATION WHEN ON THE OTHER HAND, WE HAVE A CODE THAT ALLOWS IT.
THERE'S SOME PERSPECTIVE GOING AROUND, DISCUSSIONS AT CITY COUNCIL ABOUT BEING BUSINESS FRIENDLY.
ANYTHING THAT RELATES TO SOMEBODY'S ABILITY AND REMOVING SOMEBODY'S ABILITY TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS ALLOWED IN CODE, WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A CONFLICT ELSEWHERE, WE'RE GOING TO FALL ON THE SIDE OF ALLOWING THAT TO HAPPEN.
>> MY BIGGEST THING OF GOING THROUGH THESE IN BRAX'S POSITION, I THINK QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ARE IMPORTANT.
IF I JUST CAME AS AN APPLICANT AND SAID, I WANT TO TAKE A 2,500 MINIMUM TO AN 1,800 MINIMUM, I WANT TO REPLAT, PERIOD, AND THERE'S NOT DISCUSSION IN BETWEEN OF THE POSSIBILITIES OR OPPORTUNITIES.
I THINK THAT DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF EVEN PRESENTING IT.
IT STATES SPECIFICALLY THAT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE EITHER HAS TO BE DEMOLITIONED OR TURNED INTO BASICALLY A LIVING SPACE.
I THINK WE ALL SAW PICTURES OF WHAT THE CURRENT CONDITION OF THAT BUILDING IS, WHICH IS NOT REALLY POSSIBLE.
THAT ONLY LEAVES YOU ONE OPTION.
I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, TO COME UP WITH ALL THE NOTES THAT WE'VE BEEN GIVEN IN THIS PACKAGE AND NOT BE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS ALONG THE LINES OF WHY ARE WE RE-PLATTING? I THINK THAT'S VERY PERTINENT INFORMATION.
WE'RE GOING FROM 2,500-1,800, WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING? NOTHING. I'M JUST RE-PLATTING.
I DON'T SEE HOW ANYBODY COULD VOTE WITH THAT KNOWLEDGE.
THANK YOU, BRAX FOR SHARING IT.
I THINK WE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO TO GET THIS DEFINED, SO THERE'S NOT ALL THE QUESTIONS IN THE COMMUNITY THAT WE CURRENTLY COME ACROSS BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF SITUATIONS LIKE THIS.
>> LOOKING AT THIS CASE COMPARED TO THE OTHERS THAT WE'VE SEEN, I WAS A LITTLE MORE POSITIVE BECAUSE THE AREA IS SOMEWHAT UNDEVELOPED, IS OPEN, THAT MADE ME FEEL A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
BUT I THINK WE'RE MISSING SOME KEY ELEMENTS TO MAKE THIS THING EVEN REASONABLE BECAUSE I KEEP ASKING MYSELF, WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? WHY ARE YOU PUTTING NEW HOUSES FACING AN ALLEY IN A 20 FOOT ALLEY.
I CAN TELL YOU, THERE'S TWO POWER POLES THAT I WANTED TO PUT THE MIRRORS ON EXPEDITION IN BECAUSE I WASN'T SURE IF I COULD GET BETWEEN THEM.
IT'S THAT TIGHT? A FIRE TRUCK ISN'T GOING TO MAKE IT DOWN THERE.
I CAN GUARANTEE YOU. I DIDN'T TAKE OUT A TAPE MEASURE, BUT IT WON'T GET THROUGH.
BUT I THINK WE'RE GOING DOWN A BAD PATH.
I WAS HOPING TO COME UP WITH SOME IDEAS THAT WE COULD MAKE SUGGESTIONS.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE PUD NEGOTIATIONS ARE DIFFERENT. PUD COMES IN.
THEY'VE GOT A LONG LIST OF EXCEPTIONS THAT THEY WANT AND SO WE WERE INSTRUCTED, WELL, HEY, YOU CAN NEGOTIATE WITH THAT.
YOU CAN ASK, THEY'LL BE SOME GIVE AND TAKE.
IF YOU WANT ALL THESE EXCEPTIONS, WE WANT YOU TO DO THIS.
I DON'T GET THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THOSE TWO.
THE NUMBER 1 SETBACK FROM THE ALLEY IS THE NUMBER 1 CONCERN FOR ME BECAUSE IT'S TOO TIGHT, IT'S NOT SAFE.
PARKING. IF YOU LOOK AT THE GOOGLE SATELLITE SHOT, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE'S A RED VEHICLE PARKED BEHIND THAT HOUSE.
[01:20:01]
BUT IT MAY BE THERE TONIGHT.I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE SATELLITE PHOTO WAS TAKEN.
BUT THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANY CONCERN ABOUT HOW EASILY THOSE ALLEYWAYS COULD BE BLOCKED.
WE LOOK AT IT. IT'S OPEN RIGHT NOW, BUT THERE'S TWO HOUSES THAT AREN'T SHOWN ON THE PHOTO THAT ARE BEING BUILT ON THE END, THOSE REAL LONG NARROW HOUSES.
THEY GO FROM THE FRONT SETBACK, ALL THE WAY TO THE ALLEY TO THE 20 FOOT LINE, IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME.
YOU CONTINUE TO DO THAT, YOU'RE GOING TO CREATE A VERY CONGESTED SITUATION.
IT WAS GOOD TO HEAR DANIEL SAY THAT THE DEPARTMENT STAFF WILL MAKE SURE THAT THEY MAINTAIN THAT FIVE FOOT OR THERE'S GOING TO BE FIRE RATED WALLS.
BUT WE'VE GOT TO TRY TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING TO RAIN THIS THING IN TO WHERE IT'S JUST NOT SUBDIVIDING A LOT, AND THEN YOU GET TO GO DO WHAT YOU WANT.
BRAX, THANK YOU FOR YOUR HONEST ANSWERS.
I PUT YOU ON THE HOT SPOT THERE AND I DIDN'T MEAN TO, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR HONEST ANSWER AND THIS IS AN ISSUE.
I SEE THE SAME THINGS YOU SEE.
HOWEVER, I THINK THE PROBLEM WE HAVE TODAY, WHICH IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE PROBLEM WE HAD BEFORE, IS THIS IS A REPLAT.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THESE GUYS ARE PRETTY MUCH PUTTING A ROUND PEG IN A ROUND HOLE, IS THAT CORRECT? THEY'RE NOT ASKING US FOR ANY EXCEPTIONS OR EXEMPTIONS.
>> THEY'VE ALREADY TAKEN [INAUDIBLE]
>> YES. WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A PROBLEM IN THAT WE DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF WIGGLE ROOM ON THESE AT THE WAY THE LDR IS WRITTEN NOW.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE.
THE GOOD PART OF THIS IS, WE GOT SOME COMMENT FROM HIM.
ONE THING WE DEFINITELY NEED TO DO IS IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THESE ANYWHERE, WHICH I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULD, BUT WE CERTAINLY SHOULD NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE MOVED BACK AWAY FROM THE ALLEY SO AT LEAST THERE'S SOME PARKING THERE AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES CAN GET IN AND OUT.
IN ALL OF THIS, WHAT I SEE IS IS HE'S PUTTING A ROUND PEG IN A ROUND HOLE, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN TODAY, BUT IT CERTAINLY LOADS OUR PISTOL FOR, HEY, WE NEED TO FIX THIS AND MAYBE HERE'S SOME OPTIONS, HERE ARE SOME WAYS THAT WE CAN FIX IT.
I HEAR YOU JOHN. I AGREE WITH YOU.
THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS AND JUST TO REITERATE, WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE ON THESE, DO WE? THERE'S NOT AN EXCEPTION FOR US IN RE-PLATTING IF THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENT. CORRECT? DONNA?
>> PLATTING IS A MINISTERIAL ACT, AND LIKE I SAID, PROTECTED BY STATE LAW.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN ONLY DENY A PLAT IF YOU FIND THAT IT'S IN VIOLATION OF YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. PRETTY HIGH BAR.
>> ANYBODY ELSE? THANKS. YES, MA'AM.
>> THAT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IS THAT THERE ARE HIGHER POWERS THAN THIS COMMISSION REGARDING REPLATS.
BUT ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS PROJECT HAS ALREADY GOTTEN A VARIANCE FROM AT LEAST AN APPELLATE BOARD.
IF THIS BOARD WERE TO I GUESS MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE REPLAT YOU WOULD NEED TO BE EXTREMELY SPECIFIC AS TO THE REASONS FOR THAT MOTION BECAUSE MORE THAN LIKELY IT'S EITHER AN APPEALABLE MOTION OR AN APPEALABLE DETERMINATION AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE AND/OR THE CITY WOULDN'T HAVE ANY REGRETS ANYWAY BUT TO GRANT IT.
AS I UNDERSTAND IT, SOMETIMES IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC THINGS THAT REQUIRE A CHANGE THAT THE APPLICANT CAN DO, THAT DISCUSSION OR [INAUDIBLE] HAVE TO BE DONE BY THE DEPARTMENT SAYING YOU NEED TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION, YOU NEED TO PROVIDE THIS.
THEY'VE ALREADY SATISFIED WHAT THE CITY NEEDS JUST THAT FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION THIS BELONGS TO YOU.
>> UNDERSTAND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE.
[01:25:02]
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? LET'S TAKE THE VOTE.THOSE IN FAVOR? THOSE OPPOSED? ARE YOU IN FAVOR?
>> THAT'S THREE, FOUR, TWO OPPOSED, SO THAT WOULD BE AN APPROVAL.
>> NO THAT FAILS DUE TO LACK OF FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES.
YOU COULD MAKE ANOTHER MOTION OR WE COULD JUST LET IT REMAIN AS FAILED DUE TO LACK OF FOUR AFFIRMATIVE.
>> WE'VE GOT TWO MINUTES OUT HERE.
>> WE CANNOT CREATE A CONDITION FOR A PARKING SPOT IN A SETBACK.
>> NOT THE REPLAT. BUT I THINK YOU'VE HEARD THE APPLICANT SAY THAT THEY'RE DOING THAT.
>> THIS MOTION BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE IT FAILED.
>> WE NEED FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES.
>> WE CAN. WE TURN OFF BACK UP AND SAY TABLE.
>> AT THIS POINT, GUYS, WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS WE NEED A MOTION TO DENY WITH SOME SPECIFICS AS TO WHY WE'RE DENYING THE REQUEST.
>> THERE DON'T HAVE TO BE A MOTION TO DENY.
>> WELL, IF WE'RE GOING TO DO IN A MOTION TO APPROVE, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? DO THE SAME MOTION AGAIN AND TAKE ANOTHER VOTE? I GUESS WE COULD.
>> NO. THERE'S SOME TIME LIMITATIONS ON IT.
>> MAN, YOU'RE MAKING ME EARN MY $0 TODAY. [LAUGHTER]
>> I WAS GOING TO [INAUDIBLE] DOESN'T GO TO CITY COUNCIL?
I KNOW I'VE SEEN WHERE WE'VE HAD CASES WHERE WE'VE HAD PLATS THAT DID NOT GET THE VOTE.
BUT THE PLATS APPROVED ANYWAYS BECAUSE IT'S STATE LAW.
>> BECAUSE OF THE TIME FRAMES, YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO ACT ON THE PLAT OR IT'S DEEMED APPROVED.
IF THE COMMISSION DOESN'T ACT ON IT TONIGHT, WHEN WE GET TO THE 30 DAY MARK, THEN IT'LL BE DEEMED APPROVED.
>> BUT EVEN THOUGH WE'VE TAKEN ACTION TO DENY IT, DOES THAT MEAN THAT? IT WASN'T AN ACTION TO IT LACKED THE VOTE.
>> I SEE WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN HERE BECAUSE I'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE, TOO.
DO YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE?
>> YEAH. I DON'T GET APPROVED HERE. THAT'S RIGHT.
>> THE WAY IT WORKS IS A SENSE THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH VOTES.
IT'D BE ALMOST LIKE HAVING A TIE VOTE IS A NO VOTE.
THERE WAS NO ACTION TAKING BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A SUFFICIENT VOTE.
WHAT HAPPENS NOW IS THAT IT STILL PASSES BECAUSE IT MEETS THE CRITERIA THAT'S THERE.
>> THERE'S A WORD FOR IT, TOO.
WHAT DO YOU CALL THAT WHEN IT'S APPROVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE? IT'S ALMOST LIKE IT'S AN APPROVAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IS WHAT IT IS.
>> [INAUDIBLE] WHAT YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW RIGHT IS UNAPPROVED MOTION.
IT'S NOT DENIED IT'S SIMPLY UNAPPROVED [INAUDIBLE]
>> WHAT THIS DOES TELL ME, GUYS IS WE NEED TO ADDRESS THIS.
FIRST OF ALL, LET'S TAKE CARE OF THIS ITEM.
IS THERE ANOTHER MOTION? CERTAINLY.
[01:30:02]
TO [INAUDIBLE]>> UNFORTUNATELY, YOU CAN ONLY APPROVE OR DENY A PLAT.
THEY ONLY AUTHORIZE THOSE TWO ACTIONS.
>> BUT A GOOD QUESTION. AT THIS TIME AGAIN, YOU HAD A MEMBER LEAVE SO ANY FURTHER ACTION WON'T YIELD ANYTHING OUT, I THINK HERE.
>> IT WOULD HAVE TO REQUIRE UNANIMOUS VOTE.
I UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE AT ON THIS.
WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT JUST LIKE IT IS.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON, BRAX? DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS? ARE WE DONE?
>> WHERE'S THE REST OF MY AGENDA TO CUT IT OFF? ADJOURNMENT IS NEXT. BEFORE WE ADJOURN, WHERE ARE WE ON OUR WORKSHOP STUFF?
>> WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING SCHEDULED CURRENTLY.
WE DEFINITELY SEE THE NEED FOR IT.
WE CAN DO A WORKSHOP ON THE 22ND.
TO TALK ABOUT ALLEY ACCESS LOTS BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO BE REALLY A TOP OF MIND FOR THE COMMISSION.
ALSO WE COULD DO JUST A PRIMER ON PLATS. PLATS ARE REALLY INTRICATE.
>> PLATS. JUST GOING OVER THE PLAT REQUIREMENTS FOR EDUCATION, AND THEN TALK ABOUT ALLEY ACCESS LOTS.
>> ARE YOU GUYS GOOD WITH THAT? WE'LL SCHEDULE THAT WORKSHOP FOR 22ND OF APRIL, CORRECT?
>> WE DON'T HAVE ANY THINGS ON THE SCHEDULE, BUT WE CAN DO IT ON THE 22ND.
>> VERY GOOD. ONCE AGAIN, BRAX, THANK YOU.
IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, WE'LL BE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.