[00:00:02]
WELCOME TO THE GALVESTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF APRIL 9TH, 2025.[Zoning Board of Adjustments on April 9, 2025.]
IT'S 3:35 RIGHT NOW PM.I WOULD LIKE TO PULL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.
THIS MEETING IS RECORDED AND AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
PLEASE SPEAK CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONES.
ATTENDANCE HAS BEEN TAKEN AND CARINA HAS THE SIGNING SHEET.
WE HAVE A THREE ACTUALLY, THREE ABSENT TODAY, BUT WE DO STILL HAVE A QUORUM.
IS THERE ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR ANY OF THE CASES TODAY? NONE. I GUESS WE'LL SKIP THE WELCOME NEW MEMBER.
[LAUGHTER] APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MARCH 5TH.
ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? NONE. THE MEETINGS WILL BE ADOPTED AS PRESENTED.
PUBLIC COMMENT. IF THERE'S ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AGENDA ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS OR NON AGENDA ITEMS. HELLO.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AGENDA ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS OR NON AGENDA ITEMS? NONE. WE'LL CONTINUE TO OLD BUSINESS CASE 25Z-004.
STAFF REPORT, PLEASE. THAT'S RIGHT.
>> THERE IS TODAY ON THE AGENDA AN APPEAL OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION DECISION, AND WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT IN SOME TIME.
IT'S BEEN FIVE YEARS OR SO SINCE THE LAST TIME THE BOARD SAW AN APPEAL.
WE WANTED TO GO OVER WHAT YOUR ROLE IS IN AN APPEAL.
AT THE LAST MEETING, YOU HAD A NEW CASE.
WE WENT OVER THAT. WHAT THE PROTOCOLS WERE FOR THAT CASE.
WE'LL DO THE SAME THING FOR THIS ONE.
>> WE HAVE ON THE SCREEN SOME OF THE LANGUAGE FROM THE CODE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS.
THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY GRANT APPEALS FROM FINAL DECISIONS OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION.
THE LANDMARK COMMISSION IS THE REVIEW BODY FOR THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
THE CODE GIVES US SOME GUIDANCE ON HOW TO DECIDE AN APPEAL.
IN THE DECISION MAKING, YOU CAN REVERSE THE DECISION.
YOU CAN AFFIRM THE DECISION WHOLLY OR IN PART.
OR YOU CAN MODIFY THE ORDER, AND YOU CAN ALSO REMAND IT BACK TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION.
IF THERE'S INFORMATION THAT COMES FORWARD IN THIS HEARING THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION HADN'T HEARD, THEN YOU CAN SEND IT BACK TO THEM FOR THEIR REVIEW.
THE APPLICANT IS TO NOTIFY THE BOARD THE BASIS OF THE APPEAL, WHICH THEY'VE DONE IN THEIR JUSTIFICATION AND PROVIDED FOR YOU IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
WHEN YOU'RE MAKING A DECISION ABOUT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION'S REVIEW, YOU'RE NOT REHEARING THE CASE.
YOU'RE NOT CONSIDERING IF THEY MADE A DECISION THAT YOU AGREE WITH OR IF THEY MADE THE RIGHT DECISION.
WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS, DID THEY FOLLOW THEIR REGULATIONS? DID THEY FOLLOW THEIR RULES AND DID THEY FOLLOW DUE PROCESS? THE LANDMARK COMMISSION HAS A DOCUMENT CALLED THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES, AND THEY SHOULD BE FOLLOWING THE GUIDANCE IN THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT.
IT'S NOT A REHEARING OF THE CASE.
DID THE LANDMARK COMMISSION FOLLOW ITS REGULATIONS.
>> LEGAL HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? [BACKGROUND] WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT AT THE BEGINNING OF THAT CASE. IT'S IN YOUR PACKET.
[00:05:03]
WE CAN GO ON TO THE FIRST CASE, WHICH IS JUST A REGULAR VARIANCE THAT YOU'RE USED TO DOING.THEN WHEN DONNA GETS BACK, SHE CAN GIVE US SOME MORE GUIDANCE ON THE APPEAL.
>> WE'LL START WITH CASE 25Z-002. STAFF REPORT, PLEASE.
>> I THINK IT'S FOUR. SORRY FOUR.
IT'S A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE HEIGHTENED DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE STANDARDS, SPECIFICALLY, THE BUILD TWO LINE AND THE WALL PLAN ARTICULATION.
PUBLIC NOTICES SENT WERE SIX, ZERO RETURNED.
NO OBJECTION FROM ANY CITY DEPARTMENTS OR PRIVATE UTILITIES.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM TWO SECTIONS OF THE HEIGHTENED DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE STANDARDS.
BILL 2 LINE AND WALL PLAN ARTICULATION.
THE EXCUSE ME, THE HDDZ STANDARDS REQUIRE THAT AT LEAST 30% OF THE BUILDING BE LOCATED AT THE BILL 2 LINE ALONG THE STEWART ROAD PROPERTY LINE.
THE REQUEST IS TO ELIMINATE THE BILL 2 LINE REQUIREMENT.
WALL PLAN ARTICULATION IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE A VARIED AND INTERESTING STREET FRONT AND BREAK DOWN THE VISUAL MASS OF TALLER BUILDING ELEMENTS.
THE REGULATIONS REQUIRE THE EXTERIOR WALLS BE DESIGNED WITH CHANGES IN DEPTH TO AVOID FLAT WALLS.
THE CHANGES SHOULD TAKE PLACE EVERY 30 FEET.
THE WALL MUST MOVE IN OR OUT BY FIVE FEET FOR A LENGTH OF 10 FEET.
THE REQUEST IS TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED ARTICULATION ELEMENTS.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCES FROM THE BILL 2 LINE FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF 30%-0 TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT.
FOR WALL PLAN ARTICULATION, THE MAXIMUM WALL OFFSET OF 30 FEET BE INCREASED TO 70 FEET, AND THE OFFSET LENGTH OF 10 FEET BE INCREASED TO 92 FEET.
THE STANDARDS FOR VARIANCES ARE LISTED FOR YOU IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, AND THEN THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION WAS INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT A. WE HAVE SOME PICTURES.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT SITE OUTLINED IN BLUE.
IT'S CURRENTLY VACANT. THE PROPOSAL IS FOR A NEW HOTEL BUILDING.
THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE SEEKING TO HAVE APPROVAL ON, AND THEN WE HAVE THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, EAST, SOUTH AND WEST, AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> QUESTION ON THAT IS IT ONLY ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING THAT IN AND OUT IS REQUIRED?
>> THAT WALL PLAN ARTICULATION IS REQUIRED ON THE SIDES AND THE FRONT.
>> IN THIS CASE, IT'S NOT REQUIRED ON THE REAR.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IN THAT CASE, I'D LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25-004 IS OPEN AND THE STAFF REPORT IS MADE A PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? COME TO THE PODIUM, WRITE YOUR NAME DOWN, STATE YOUR NAME, AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
>> THE APPLICANT DOESN'T HAVE A TIME LIMIT.
>> OKAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. GO ON.
>> I'M GOING TO SPEAK. GOOD AFTERNOON.
I GO BY MAC. WE ARE PROJECT MANAGERS ON THIS PROJECT.
THE REASON FOR THE FIRST VARIANCES, WE ARE IN THE FLIGHT ZONE.
WE ARE IN THE APPROACH AND DESCENT FOR THE AIRPORT.
WE HAVE WORKED EXTENSIVELY WITH FA.
WE WORKED WITH THEM FOR FOUR MONTHS, GOT ALL THEIR BLESSINGS.
WE COULD GET THE APPROVAL ONLY IF WE PUSHED THE BUILDING BACK.
IF I PUSHED THE BUILDING ELSEWHERE, SO WE HAD TO DECIDE ONE OR THE OTHER.
WORKING WITH FA, WE FIGURED OUT THAT THE THREE STORY BUILDING WAS ONLY IF I PUSHED THE BUILDING IN THE BACK.
THERE WAS A HARDSHIP OUT THERE BECAUSE THAT WAS DONE NEGOTIABLE AND WE THOUGHT FIRST GET THE BLESSINGS OF THE FA AND THEN COME AND SHARE WITH YOU OUR HARDSHIPS HERE AND SEE HOW YOU COULD HELP US HERE.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> THE STRUCTURE IS A THREE STORY?
>> IT'S A THREE STORY WOOD FRAME BUILDING?
>> IT SAYS THREE STORY BEDROOM STRUCTURE.
[00:10:02]
>> IT'S A HOTEL CALLED ATTWELL SUITES.
IT'S A VERY HIGH END BOUTIQUE HOTEL BY INTERCONTINENTAL HOTEL GROUP.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THOSE HOTELS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HERE, AND MY FRIENDS ARE PLANNING TO PUT ONE.
>> WHAT ELEVATION ARE YOU BUILDING THIS? IS THERE AN ELEVATION?
>> YES. WE HAVE GOT THE ELEVATIONS [OVERLAPPING] IT PLANS APPROVED BY FA ON THIS.
>> NEED EVERYTHING ON THIS LITTLE PRINT.
>> YOU CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS ON EITHER ONE OF THE REQUESTS.
WE'RE NOT TAKING THEM SEPARATELY.
>> NOW I'M TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER VARIANTS.
>> DO YOU HAVE A FRONT ELEVATION OF WHAT THAT IS SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE ONCE IT'S BUILT OUT?
>> YES. NOT ON ME, BUT WE HAVE PROVIDED ALL THE DOCUMENTS.
ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THE PARTICULAR WALL PLAN ARTICULATION IS EACH HOTEL ROOM IS 12 FEET WIDE.
IF THE CODE SAYS AT EVERY 30 FEET, I HAVE TO HAVE A OFFSET.
I CANNOT HAVE 2.5 ROOMS. WE HAVE GOT DIFFERENT ROOM SIZES, KING, QUEEN, HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE DOUBLE, HAVE DIFFERENT DEPTHS.
>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO HERE AND WHY.
>> BUT IS THERE A RENDERING OF WHAT THIS THING IS SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE FROM THE OUTSIDE?
>> I HAVE SUBMITTED IN MY DOCUMENTS.
I DON'T HAVE IT ON ME RIGHT NOW.
>> NO. ALL MY CITY APPROVAL DOCUMENTS, WHICH WE HAVE GIVEN A SET OF PLANS.
>> THAT WASN'T SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE ZBA APPLICATION.
>> THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD HAVE VERY MUCH LIKE TO.
>> IF I COULD GET A COUPLE OF MINUTES, I COULD GET FROM OFFICE AND SHOW IT YOU ON MY PHONE AND WE CAN HAVE IT.
WE HAVE A 3D COLOR RENDERING ON THE PROJECT.
I JUST DON'T HAVE IT ON ME RIGHT NOW.
IT WON'T TAKE ME BUT TWO MINUTES TO GET IT.
>> I HAD ASKED THE QUESTION. WHAT ELEVATION ARE YOU BUILDING THIS AT? JUST TELL ME WHAT THE NUMBER IS.
I CAN'T READ THE SMALL PRINT ON HERE.
>> THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS 38 FEET, AND WE ARE RAISING THE BUILDING PAD BY SIX FEET.
>> YOU'RE RAISING THAT PROPERTY [OVERLAPPING].
>> OKAY. I KNOW THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE I LIVE VERY CLOSE TO THIS PROPERTY.
[OVERLAPPING] RIGHT NOW, THE FISHERMAN USE THIS PROPERTY PARK ON TO GO OVER TO 89TH STREET FISHING PIER.
WE SEE IT EVERY TIME WE DRIVE BY THERE.
WHAT IS THE COMPOSITION OF THE FACADE ON THE BILLING? IS IT GOING TO BE STUCCO OR?
>> THE FIRST FLOOR IS ALL BRICK, UPPER FLOOR IS STUCCO.
WE'VE GOT A LOT OF GLAZING, LOT OF DOUBLE HEIGHT GLASS.
I WILL GET THE RENDERING VERY SHORTLY I JUST DON'T [OVERLAPPING] YES, SIR.
>> THERE'S TWO HOTELS RIGHT THERE RIGHT NOW.
BOTH THOSE HOTELS ARE BASICALLY STUCCO STRUCTURES.
>> YES. THIS IS A LOT MORE MODERN AND CONTEMPORARY.
BUT YES. FIRST FLOOR IS BRICK, UPPER FLOORS ARE STUCCO. YES, SIR.
>> DO WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> I THINK THAT'S ALL WE HAVE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? NONE. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25-004 IS CLOSED AND THE CASE IS RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION. DO WE HAVE A MOTION?
>> I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL DUE TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS
[00:15:08]
OF ELIMINATING THE REQUIREMENT OF THE 30% BUILD TO LINE AND THE BUILDING WALL MAX LENGTH FROM 30 FEET AND THE OFFSET LENGTH OF 10 FEET TO A 92 FEET.DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITION, THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STRICT TERMS OF THESE REGULATIONS WOULD IMPOSE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP ON THE APPLICANT.
>> COMMISSIONER, I'M SORRY. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE THE MOTION TO GRANT.
HOWEVER, YOU NEED TO PROVIDE A BASIS FOR GRANTING THAT.
WHAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSIONERS TODAY TO WARRANT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING THEM TO GET.
WELL, THERE'S ALREADY A MOTION STARTED.
>> YOU JUST ASKED ME TO PROVIDE A SPECIAL CONDITION THAT THEY'VE PROVIDED THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO DEVIATE FROM THE STANDARD.
THE SPECIAL CONDITION, ALL I CAN SEE IS THAT FROM THE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED, THAT HAVING A STRAIGHT BUILDING WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PROPERTIES AROUND IT BECAUSE ALL THE PROPERTIES AROUND THIS PROPERTY ARE STRAIGHT BUILDINGS.
THEY'RE CONFORMING TO WHAT'S ALREADY EXISTING AROUND THIS PROPERTY.
>> DO YOU WANT TO END YOUR MOTION THERE, BECAUSE IT WOULD REQUIRE A SECOND.
>> I CAN END IT RIGHT THERE WITH WHAT I JUST SAID.
>> DOES ANYONE WANT TO SECOND THAT MOTION?
>> MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
>> CAN WE ACTUALLY DO THAT? WE CAN SPLIT?
>> CAN I GET A SECOND ON THAT?
DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? NOTHING? BUT WE STILL NEED TO DISCUSS IF THERE'S ANYTHING TO BE DISCUSSED.
IF THERE'S NOTHING THEN WE'LL VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? MOTION PASSES.
MR. MEZCER, WERE YOU VOTING IN FAVOR?
>> YOU ARE VOTING MEMBER TODAY.
[LAUGHTER] THANK YOU. WE HAVE TWO NEED.
THAT TAKES CARE OF VARIANCE NUMBER 1.
[00:20:04]
AGAIN, BACK TO THE OTHER ONE, ARE WE JUST ASKING FOR ANOTHER MOTION AGAIN OR?>> I UNDERSTAND IT. WHAT THIS SAYS IS THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A BREAK EVERY-
>> YOU HAVE TO HAVE A BREAK OF AT LEAST FIVE FEET.
>> NOTHING AROUND THERE HAS THAT.
I DRIVE BY THERE ALL THE TIME, I SEE TURN ENDS WITH AWNINGS.
I DON'T NOTICE ANY OF THIS PROPERTY. I HAVEN'T NOTICED.
BUT I DON'T SEE THAT THAT WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT FOR THIS PROPERTY.
>> DO WE HAVE ANOTHER MOTION FOR THIS VARIANCE?
>> FIRST MOTION. I WOULD MAKE A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL TO, WHEN'S THE NEXT MEETING? MAY 27.
IN ORDER FOR THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
>> WELL, WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT INFORMATION YOU'RE SEEKING.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A FRONT ELEVATION OF HOW THIS IS PROPOSED TO LOOK ONCE IT'S CONSTRUCTED.
SURELY THE HOTEL HAS HAD TO HAVE VARIANCES BEFORE.
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER HOTELS THAT HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH VARIANCES IN THE SAME FORMAT.
>> I DON'T THINK. OTHER PROPERTY AROUND THIS HAS NO IMPACT ON THIS.
>> WE HAVE A SECOND AND NOW IT'S TIME FOR DISCUSSION.
>> ON THEIR DRAWING RIGHT HERE, IT SHOWS TWO SPOTS THAT ARE BREAKS IN THE STRAIGHT LINE OF THE PROPERTY TOWARDS STEWART ROAD.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT DISTANCE IS BETWEEN BOTH OF THOSE POINTS.
>> THE PROPOSED VARIANCE IS INSTEAD OF 30 FEET, THAT TO BE INCREASED TO 70 FEET, SO I'M GUESSING THAT'S 70 FEET.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT DISTANCE IS, IT DIDN'T SAY ON THE DRAWING.
>> THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WE WOULD NEED SOME MORE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
>> I THINK I UNDERSTOOD IT TO BE THAT.
BECAUSE THIS IS A UNIQUE LUXURY HOTEL, THE ROOMS ARE [INAUDIBLE] STARKLY DIFFERENT THAN THE STANDARD HOTEL [INAUDIBLE] FROM THE ROOMS BECAUSE OF ROOMS AND THE WIDTH OF THOSE ROOMS [INAUDIBLE] THE HOTELS IN THE AREA, BUT HOTELS [INAUDIBLE] COMPANY STANDARDS.
ALL THE HOTELS AND OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE AND OTHER PARTS [INAUDIBLE] OF ALL HAVE THESE 12 ROOMS. MAYBE SOME PLACES [INAUDIBLE] YOUR BUILDING [INAUDIBLE]
[00:25:01]
>> BUT THEY CAN DO 12 FOOT ROOMS IF IT'S THREE ROOMS IN A BREAK, WHICH IS 36 FEET [OVERLAPPING]
>> WHAT THEY WANT US TO GO 30 FEET, MAKE A CHANGE IN THE BUILDING, COME BACK AT LEAST 10 FEET, COME BACK AND GO ANOTHER 30 FEET, STICK OUT AND COME BACK.
THAT'S WHAT THE REQUIREMENT IS.
>> WHAT I WAS JUST POINTING OUT WAS THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE TWO BREAKS IN HERE, I DON'T KNOW.
IT'S 92 FEET LONG, I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THE SHORT PIECE IS.
>> THAT WOULD BE [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE CONTINUE WITH VOTE OR? THE APPLICANT HAS A RENDERING THAT HE CAN EMAIL TO ME AND WE CAN THEN DISPLAY ON THE SCREEN IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT, OR IF YOU'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH YOUR MOTION, THAT'S UP TO YOU.
>> WE'RE ASKING FOR [INAUDIBLE]
>> IN THAT CASE, SHOULD WE JUST, I DON'T KNOW.
>> NEED ADDITIONAL [INAUDIBLE]
>> WELL, THEY DON'T SAY. THEY DON'T.
[00:31:07]
>> [BACKGROUND] MAYBE IT CAME. I THINK SO.
I'M FORWARDING IT TO THIS EMAIL ADDRESS.
TECHNOLOGY WORKED. ELEVATION IS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
THIS IS THE ELEVATION ALONG STEWART, WHAT YOU WOULD SEE FROM STEWART AND 89TH STREET.
THEN I THINK THERE'S ANOTHER PAGE.
THEN THIS IS THE SIDE IN THE REAR, ALSO THE VIEW FROM 89TH STREET.
>> IS THE DISTANCE FROM THE BRICK LOOKING COLOR TO THE NEXT BRICK COLOR?
>> WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS FOR A RUN. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY'RE ASKING TO BE INCREASED FROM 30, WHICH IS THE REQUIREMENT, TO 70, SO I'M GUESSING THAT 70.
>> PROBABLY 70. YES. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
WE CAN OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25-004 FOR THE APPLICANT, AND THE APPLICANT CAN COME TO THE PODIUM AND SPEAK AGAIN.
>> THE BLOCKS YOU SEE, THE PINK BLOCK, THE WHITE BLOCK, IS IN MULTIPLES OF 12 FEET EACH.
THE FIRST BLOCK IS TWO ROOMS, YOU SEE TWO WINDOWS, THAT'S 24 FEET.
I CAN'T HAVE 30 FEET BECAUSE THE ROOM SIZES ARE STANDARD.
ALL THE ROOMS ARE 12 FEET WIDE.
THE PORTION IN THE MIDDLE ARE A SET OF SIX ROOMS. THE ROOMS WHICH ARE BUMPING OUT ARE ROOMS WITH TWO BEDS, WHICH IS A LONGER ROOM.
THE ROOMS WHICH ARE RECESSED ARE KING ROOMS. THESE DIMENSIONS ARE GIVEN TO US BY THE NATIONAL FRANCHISE, AS HE SAID.
THE CONFIGURATION OF NUMBER OF ROOMS IS BASED ON THE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND THE MARKET STUDY WHICH THIS CITY REQUIRES, AND THEY HAVE COMPUTED OUT OF 88 ROOMS, HOW MANY ROOMS CAN BE QUEEN, HOW MANY ROOMS CAN BE KING, HOW MANY HANDICAP, AND THE WHOLE 90 YARDS.
PRETTY MUCH, THERE ARE FRANCHISE STANDARDS LIKE A MCDONALD'S OR WALMART.
THEY ALL NEED TO LOOK THE SAME.
THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE DONE HERE.
I'M UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE 30-FOOT.
THE DEPTH BETWEEN THE TWO ROOM TYPES IS JUST THREE FEET.
BETWEEN THE KING ROOM AND THE QUEEN, I CANNOT INCREASE OR REDUCE THAT.
I HAVE A HANDICAP, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD.
I CANNOT CHANGE THE DIMENSIONS OF THE ROOM BECAUSE THEY ARE CONTROLLED BY THE FRANCHISE.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. I HAVE THE FLOOR PLANS HERE,
[00:35:03]
WHICH SHOWS THE ROOM CONFIGURATION.>> QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I HAVE A QUESTION.
>> BUILDING WALL MAXIMUM LENGTH IS 30, AND I UNDERSTAND THE ROOM SIZE IS 12.
>> IF YOU DO 12, 12, 12, THAT'S 36, WHICH IS CLOSER TO 30 THAN THE 70 PROPOSED.
WHY ARE YOU NOT GOING WITH THREE ROOMS?
>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. BECAUSE OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY WHICH DEFINES THAT IF I DO THREE ROOMS THERE, I WILL INCREASE CERTAIN KING ROOMS AND REDUCE DOUBLE QUEEN ROOMS, WHICH WILL STOP THE FAMILIES FROM COMING AND STAYING.
WHAT YOU SAY IS EASILY DOABLE, [OVERLAPPING] BUT THE MARKET STUDY DECIDES, WHICH I HAVE A COMPLETE SYNOPSIS AS TO HOW MANY ROOMS SHOULD BE KING.
OUT OF THE 88 ROOMS, HOW MANY SHOULD BE KING, HOW SHOULD BE DOUBLE, AND HOW MANY SHOULD BE HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE? WE TRIED OUR BEST, BUT THE FRANCHISE AND THE NUMBERS, THEY SAID, NO, THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WANT.
WE WERE GOING BACK AND FORTH WHILE I WAS WORKING WITH THE FAA ON THIS.
>> THE HILTON DICTATES TO YOU?
>> IT'S NOT HILTON, MA'AM, IT IS IHG.
IT IS INTERCONTINENTAL HOTEL GROUP. YES, MA'AM.
>> THEY DICTATE TO YOU. THIS IS WHAT THE HOTELS WILL LOOK LIKE? [OVERLAPPING]
>> YES, MA'AM. PRETTY MUCH LIKE A MCDONALD'S, THEY ALL NEED TO LOOK THE SAME.
THEY DICTATE THE COLORS, THE STYLE, EVERYTHING.
ROOM SIZE, THE FURNITURE, THE LOBBY.
THERE HAS TO BE A CONSISTENCY IN ALL THE HOTELS OF THE SAME KIND.
PRETTY MUCH, WE DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH OF A CHOICE HERE.
>> BUT WHEN YOU STARTED THIS PROJECT, DID SOMEBODY SAY, WELL, NO PROBLEM, YOU CAN JUST COME GET A VARIANCE?
>> NO, MA'AM. AS I SAID, I WAS JUST TORN APART BETWEEN THE 30-FOOT SETBACK WITH THE FAA AND THE BUILDING SETBACK.
>> BUT YOU CAN CHANGE THE NUMBER OF ROOMS, APPARENTLY, BASED ON YOUR MARKET STUDIES?
>> NO, MA'AM, I CANNOT BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING.
>> WELL, THE NUMBER OF ROOMS CAN ONLY DECREASE WITH THE CHANGES, BASICALLY, SO YOU'LL HAVE MORE PARKING, IF ANYTHING.
>> BUT THEN THE BRAND REQUIRES A CERTAIN NUMBER OF ROOMS FOR THEM TO GIVE THE INVESTOR THE LICENSE.
THE BRAND WANTED MORE NUMBER OF ROOMS, 90 PLUS, WE COULD ONLY PROVIDE 88, AND THEY SAID IT'S OKAY.
>> THE WHITE PORTION WHICH IS 70 FEET, IS FAMILIES.
>> THEY WON'T LET HIM CARVE OUT FOR THOSE FAMILY ROOMS.
>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S SAYING.
>> ANY MORE QUESTIONS? NO? I THINK THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE.
DO WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION THAT WAS MADE?
>> IF WE VOTE ON IT AND IT FAILS, THAT MEANS WE ARE READY FOR ANOTHER MOTION TO BE MADE?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO DEFER, AND WE HAVE A SECOND.
NOW THAT WE'VE GOT MORE INFORMATION, WE CAN VOTE.
IF THE MOTION FAILS, WE'RE GOING BACK TO ASKING FOR ANOTHER MOTION.
IF IT PASSES, WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS AGAIN NEXT MONTH.
>> RIGHT NOW, THE MAIN MOTION IS A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL.
[00:40:03]
>> RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO DEFER? MOTION FAILS. [OVERLAPPING] WELL, ALL THOSE AGAINST? THAT'S RIGHT.
>> YOU DIDN'T INDICATE IF YOU WERE IN OPPOSITION TO IT.
IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO IT, THEN YOU JUST RAISE YOUR HAND. [OVERLAPPING]
>> ALL FIVE. MOTION FAILS, AND WE ARE BACK HERE WAITING FOR ANOTHER MOTION FOR THIS CASE, 25-004.
>> I'LL MAKE THE MOTION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE WALL PLANE DUE TO THE IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY, BRINGING MORE FAMILIES TO THAT LOCATION, BRINGING MORE PEOPLE TO THAT LOCATION.
THAT'S WHAT THIS VARIANCE WOULD DO, IS TO ALLOW THEM TO NOT UNDULY HARDSHIP THEIR CONSTRUCTION PLANS BY TAKING AWAY THOSE DOUBLE BEDROOMS. LIKE I SAID, THE MARKET STUDIES SHOW THAT THIS IS A FAMILY-ORIENTED HOTEL, IT'S A FAMILY-ORIENTED PLACE, MORE FAMILIES IN THAT BEACH COMMUNITY, I THINK IS GOOD FOR THE CITY.
I WOULD BEGIN TO MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE SECOND VARIANCE [INAUDIBLE].
>> THERE SHOULD BE A MOTION GUIDE AGAINST THAT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
ANYWAY, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S PLENTY OF LAND THERE.
THERE'S NO OTHER STRUCTURES ADJACENT, AROUND, OR IN FRONT OF IT THAT THIS WOULD IMPACT.
IT DOESN'T HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON CURRENT OR FUTURE USE OF THOSE PROPERTIES.
GRANTS ALLOWED IS NECESSARY TO GRANT RELIEF FROM THEIR HARDSHIP.
OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE LOOKING AT IT RIGHT NOW, SO WE'VE GOT THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO SHOW THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO CIRCUMVENT OTHER PROCEDURES OR STANDARDS.
BY GREAT EXPERIENCE, SECURITIES REGULATIONS IS OBSERVED AND I THINK SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE.
THESE GENTLEMEN, LIKE I SAID, IT WASN'T THEIR PLANS.
IF THIS WAS THEIR PROJECT, I'M SURE THEY WOULD MAKE OTHER THINGS, BUT THEY'RE STUCK BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE WITH ORDERS THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THEM, AND I DON'T SEE HOW THEY'RE UNDULY HARDSHIP TO THE COMMUNITY IF A COUPLE OF EXTRA FAMILIES IN THIS HOTEL WANT TO COME VISIT GALVESTON.
>> LET'S VOTE. ACTUALLY, ANYTHING TO DISCUSS AGAIN AT THIS POINT, OR WE CAN GO TO VOTE?
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY, WE'VE GOT THE LDR.
IS IT THE LDR THAT HAS REQUIRED ALL OF THIS STUFF, ALL THE INS AND OUTS? I MADE A LITTLE BIT THAT WE'VE GOT THE LDR, BUT IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY, ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS COME AND ASK FOR A VARIANCE AND SAY THAT IT'S BECAUSE OF THE FRANCHISE'S DESIGN STANDARDS.
>> YET IT'S NOT LIKE A HIGHER POWER.
IT'S JUST WHAT THEIR PARTICULAR CHOICE OF WHO THEY WORKED WITH WANTS IT TO LOOK THIS WAY, AND WE'VE GOT AN LDR.
>> I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND, I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT 100%.
THE ONLY REASON I'M LEANING IN THIS FAVOR IS BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF THIS.
IT'S OUT OF 88 THAT'S OFF THE MAIN DRAG.
IT'S ADJACENT TO TWO OTHER HOTELS AND A STORAGE.
IF WE WERE TALKING SEAWALL AND 60 OR SOMETHING, I'D HAVE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TAKE ON THIS BECAUSE CERTAIN AREAS HAVE TO BE ENFORCED CRITICALLY BECAUSE OF THAT LD,
[00:45:02]
AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS DESIGNED.BUT WE GET OUT TO MORE OF THESE RULE PLOTS WHERE I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THOSE EXCEPTIONS THAT CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
BUT DEFINITELY NOT MAKING THIS MOTION TO OPEN THE DOOR TO PRECEDENT [INAUDIBLE] THIS REQUIRE LOCATION.
I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THOSE ONES WHERE IT'S [INAUDIBLE] ANYWHERE ELSE UNDER MORE SCRUTINY.
>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES.
>> DONNA, WE DID A LITTLE BRIEF PRIMER ON DOING APPEALS WHILE YOU WERE OUT OF THE ROOM SO IF THERE'S ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO GUIDE THE COMMISSION ON SINCE THEY HAVEN'T SEEN AN APPEAL IN A NUMBER OF YEARS.
>> WELL, HOPEFULLY I'M NOT REPEATING STUFF.
I GUESS THE MAIN THING I WANT THE COMMISSIONERS TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT THEY ARE NOW NOT LANDMARK COMMISSIONERS.
THEY DO NOT STAND IN THE FOOT OF A LANDMARK COMMISSIONER THAT IS REVIEWING A CASE AND IS GOING TO MAKE THEIR DECISION BASED ON BEING A LANDMARK COMMISSIONER.
YOU ARE STILL ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT COMMISSIONERS, AND THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL BOARD.
SO YOUR DUTY IS TO LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION DID THEIR DUTY, AND DID THEY DO IT APPROPRIATELY WITHIN THE DUE DILIGENCE THAT THE LANDMARK IS SUPPOSED TO DO, THAT THEY REVIEW IT? WHATEVER THEIR DETERMINATION OR DECISION WAS, WAS IT IN LINE WITH SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD DO? THAT'S THE FIRST THING YOU NEED TO DETERMINE.
DID THE LANDMARK COMMISSION DO WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO IN RENDERING THEIR DECISION? THEN IF YOU FIND THAT THEY DID NOT, THEN THE COMMISSION IS GOING TO SAY, WELL, IF THEY DID, YOU CAN AFFIRM THE LANDMARK DECISION'S DETERMINATION.
IF YOU FIND THAT THEY DID NOT, YOU CAN REVERSE THE LANDMARK DECISION'S DETERMINATION OR YOU CAN MODIFY THE LANDMARK'S DECISION.
BUT THE FIRST THING IS YOU NEED TO FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY DID WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO.
IF THE ANSWER IS YES, THEY DID WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO, YOU HAVE TO AFFIRM IT.
>> THIS IS 25Z-05, AND THIS IS A REQUEST FOR APPEAL.
THE CITY OF GALVESTON LANDMARK COMMISSION'S DECISION REGARDING THEIR CASE 25LC-002, WHICH WAS A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE STRUCTURE, INCLUDING USE OF ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL AND REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING WINDOWS IN ADDITION OF A COVERED PORCH TO THE REAR FACADE.
JUST FOR A CLARIFICATION POINT, A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BASICALLY IS A REQUEST TO DEVIATE FROM OUR DESIGN STANDARDS FROM HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN SOME WAY.
APPLICANT SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION TO LANDMARK COMMISSION FOR THE FOLLOWING SCOPE OF WORK, WHICH WAS LARGELY COMPLETED WITHOUT PERMIT AND THEREFORE, LANDMARK COMMISSION DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO REVIEW UNTIL AFTER THE FACT.
BUT THAT WAS TO RETAIN VINYL CLAD REPLACEMENT WINDOWS IN THE REAR FACADE, RETAIN SMOOTH HARDY SIDING ON THE REAR FACADE, BLOCK AN EXISTING DOOR ON THE SIDE FACADE AND RELOCATE TO THE REAR FACADE, AND BUILD A GROUND LEVEL PORCH ON THE REAR OF THE HOUSE.
MOST OF THIS WORK TOOK PLACE ON THE REAR OF THE HOUSE.
AT THE FEBRUARY 3, 2025 MEETING, THE STAFF MADE A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
THE CEMENT SIDING BE REMOVED, AND THAT WAS THE ALTER OF MATERIAL THAT WAS USED.
TYPICALLY, WE WOULD ASK FOR WOOD, IF POSSIBLE.
THE CEMENT SIDING BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH WOOD SIDING TO MATCH THE EXISTING WOOD SIDING ELSEWHERE IN THE HOUSE, REPLACEMENT VINYL CLAD WINDOWS ADDED INTO EXISTING OPENINGS BE REPLACED WITH WIND WINDOWS AND CLOSELY MATCHED THEIR WINDOWS, ORIGINAL AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE, I'M SORRY.
EXCEPT WHEN THOSE WINDOWS WERE NECESSARY FOR INTERIOR CHANGES.
THE REAR PORCH HAND RAIL SHOULD BE OF A TYPICAL SIMPLE SQUARE DESIGN.
WE HAVE A STANDARD FOR NEW HAND RAILS IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND THE APPLICANT COMPLETE THEY REQUIRED WORK BY AUGUST 3, 2025.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED ALL OF THOSE EXCEPT FOR 1A, AND THEY MOVED TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO KEEP THE SMOOTH,
[00:50:02]
HEARTY SIDING AS AN ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL ON THE REAR.THEN PLUS STANDARD CONDITIONS 2 THROUGH 6, WHICH ARE PRETTY MUCH JUST STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS.
THEN AT THE FEBRUARY 3, 2025 MEETING, AS I SAID, THOSE DECISIONS WERE MADE.
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS APPEAL REGARDING SPECIFIC CONDITION 1B, WHICH REQUIRE THAT THE MODERN WINDOWS AND EXISTING WINDOW OPENINGS BE REPLACED WITH HISTORIC WINDOWS THAT MATCHED THE ORIGINALS.
PLEASE REFERENCE THE EXHIBIT OF THE STAFF REPORT AND OTHER MATERIALS PRESENT TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND NOTE THE STANDARDS CRITERIA THAT APPLY TO A APPEAL DECISION IN THE STAFF REPORT.
ALSO THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION.
ONE THING I FORGOT TO NOTE IS THAT THERE WERE 24 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.
SEVEN WERE RETURNED, FOUR OF THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL AND THREE OPPOSED TO THE APPEAL.
BUT I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS HERE, SORRY.
WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HERE, SEEN FROM THE STREET, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
HERE WE HAVE A PHOTO OF THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE WITH THE WORK THAT WAS DONE AND THE KEY OF THE VARIOUS THINGS THAT WERE CHANGED AND WHETHER THEY WERE APPROVED OR NOT, WHICH WAS ALSO PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT FOR YOUR REFERENCE.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THEN THE SAME NUMBERED OR LETTERED KEY SHOWING THE SAME THINGS FROM AN EXISTING PHOTO OF THE REAR OF THE HOUSE BEFORE CONSTRUCTION WAS COMMENCED.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT'S CONSTRUCTION DRAWING SHOWING THE DOOR THAT WAS REMOVED ON THE SIDE AND RELOCATED, WHICH LANDMARK COMMISSION DID APPROVE THAT.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> THIS IS A LANDMARK COMMISSION.
>> LANDMARK COMMISSION, MY MISTAKE.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> CAN YOU REPEAT ONE MORE TIME HOW MANY NOTICES WERE SENT?
>> THERE WERE 24 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.
SEVEN OF THOSE 24 WERE RETURNED.
FOUR OF THOSE WERE IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL, AND THREE WERE OPPOSED TO THE APPEAL.
>> PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25-005 IS OPEN, AND THE STAFF REPORT IS MADE A PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN YOUR NAME ALSO.
WE MOVED HERE FULL TIME FOUR YEARS AGO AND WE LIVED IN THE EAST END FOR 12 YEARS.
I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT WE LOVE THE EAST END, WE LOVE GALVESTON, WE LOVE ALL THE FRIENDLY PEOPLE THERE, THE ARCHITECTURE, THE HISTORY.
LAST YEAR, WE BOUGHT A HOUSE NEXT DOOR, WHICH IS RIGHT HERE THAT HAD FALLEN IN THE REPAIR.
IT WAS A FOUR-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH FOUR KITCHENS, FOUR BATHS.
IT WAS ALL DETERIORATED AND GOT MANY CITATION FROM THE CITY MARSHAL.
ANYWAY, WE BOUGHT IT AND TAKEN IT DOWN TO TRY TO, I'M NOT TAKING IT DOWN, BUT WE'RE REMODELING IT INTO A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE.
WE PAINSTAKINGLY REMOVED ALL THE BASEBOARD, THE TRAM SO WE COULD USE IT IN THE RESTORATION.
THE HOUSE IS A TWIN HOUSE FOR OUR HOUSE NEXT DOOR.
FIRST PEOPLE WE CALL WAS THE LANDMARK TO GET IN TOUCH WITH THEM TO SEE WHAT TO DO.
[00:55:10]
THEY TOLD US TO FIRST OF ALL SEND THEM A COUPLE OF PICTURES OF THE FRONT AND A COUPLE OF THE BACK AND PROCEED WITH OUR BUILDING PERMITS.BECAUSE WE'RE BASICALLY WANTING THE SAME THING.
WE WANT TO KEEP THE NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORICAL.
OUR FIRST BUILDING REMODEL PERMIT WAS ON 5/17 FOR $50,000.
IT WAS A BUILDING PERMIT TO REMODEL.
AFTER THAT, WE GOT FIVE MORE BUILDING PERMITS FOR DIFFERENT PHASES.
JANUARY 7, WE WERE SHUT DOWN BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THE BUILDING PERMIT.
THAT'S WHAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION SHUT US DOWN.
WE WANT TO HAVE THE FEEL THAT WE FEEL LIKE IT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEIR FINDINGS WERE.
THEY ALL WROTE US A RECOMMENDATION WHY THEY DIDN'T APPROVE THE WINDOWS.
WE PUT IN NEW FINAL CLAD WINDOWS.
WE'VE GOT THE BACK, WE'VE GOT THIS INCONSISTENT APPLICATION AS FAR AS THEIR STAFF FINDINGS.
SEE THE FIFTH PAGE, THIRD PARAGRAPH, THIRD SENTENCE, AND YOU QUOTE THEM, IT SAYS, STAFF ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ANY DOOR AND WINDOW DONE IN ORDER TO FACILITATE INTERIOR DESIGN CHANGES, SUCH AS THE THREE CLEAR STORY WINDOWS SHOWN IN THE PLANS AND THE SECOND STORY DOOR WHICH OPENS INTO AN EMPTY SPACE.
THEY FURTHER SAY NEW MINOCLAD WINDOWS AND NEW OPENINGS MAY BE CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE TO SHOW CHANGES TO THE HOUSE.
THE WHOLE HOUSE, THE FOUR ROOMS, TWO ON THE FRONT, TWO ON THE BACK, THEY ALL HAVE NEW USES.
THEY WERE ALL KITCHENS DURING THIS APARTMENT PROJECT.
WE CHANGED THE MAIN ONE FROM A KITCHEN TO A DINING ROOM AND THEN WE CHANGED ONE FROM A KITCHEN TO A BATHROOM.
WHAT THEY APPROVED WERE THE TWO THE THREE CLEAR STORY WINDOWS UP TOP, AND THEN ONE ON THE BOTTOM, WHICH YOU CAN'T SEE, WHICH IS THE SAME SIZE AS ALL THE REST OF THE WINDOWS.
THEY APPROVED PART OF THEM, THE TWO DIAGONALS, AND THEY DIDN'T APPROVE THE SIX UNDER THE PORCH AND UPSTAIRS.
THEY FURTHER SAID REPLACEMENT VINYL CLAD WINDOWS ADDING INTO EXISTING OPENS TO BE REPLACED WITH WOOD WINDOWS, WHICH MATCH ORIGINAL WINDOWS AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE.
EXCEPT WHEN THOSE WINDOWS REFLECT INTERIOR CHANGES TO THE FLOOR PLAN.
THAT'S JUST LIKE I'M SAYING, THE WHOLE BACK SIDE HAD DIFFERENT FLOOR PLAN.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU WOULD APPROVE TWO OF THE ROOMS AND THEN NOT APPROVED TWO.
WE'D HAVE TO HAVE A PATCHWORK OF WINDOWS, HALF NEW AND HALF OLD IN THE BACK, AND THAT WOULDN'T LOOK RIGHT EITHER.
I WANT TO DROP DOWN INTO THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS, IT SAYS, VINYL REPLACEMENT WINDOWS ADDING INTO EXISTING OLD ONES BE REPLACED WITH WOOD WINDOWS, WHICH MATCH ORIGINAL AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE, EXCEPT WHEN THESE WINDOWS REFLECT INTERIOR CHANGES TO THE FLOOR PLAN.
AS I SAID, ALL FOUR ROOMS HAVING DIFFERENT FLOOR PLANS THAN WHAT THEY HAD,
[01:00:04]
AND WHY WE GET TWO OF THE ROOMS APPROVED AND TWO NOT.I THINK IT'S NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND THOSE SENTENCES, BUT THERE ARE TWO OTHER REASONS I WANTED TO SANBORN MAPS IN 1999.
THE WALLS AND WINDOWS IN QUESTION, THEY HAD A BACK PORCH THERE UP AND DOWN.
THESE WALLS WERE ADDED AT A LATER DATE TO MAKE A FOUR-UNIT APARTMENT HOUSE. ALL OF THAT.
I CAN SEE PRESERVING ORIGINAL WALLS AND WINDOWS, BUT NOT PRESERVING A BAD APARTMENT BUILDING ADDITION WITHOUT ANY ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE.
THESE WINDOWS WERE NOT ORIGINAL TO THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE.
THEN THE THIRD SIDE, I HAVE TO SAY, EVERYBODY'S HEARD, IT'S THE D SIDE OR THE ALLEY SIDE OR THE BACK SIDE OF THE HOUSE SO YOU CAN HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY THERE.
LANDMARK SAID THEY UNDERSTAND A NEW WALL WAS ADDED IN AN EFFORT TO STABILIZE AND PROPERLY ENGINEER THE ENTIRE BACK WALL.
BUT BOTH THESE THINGS, BEING ON THE BACK SIDE OR THE D SIDE, PLUS THE WALL HAD TO BE ENGINEERED, BOTH OF THESE THINGS WERE RECOGNIZED BY THE STAFF, BUT WE STILL GOT NO CONCESSION OR FLEXIBILITY FROM LANDMARK.
WE FIND THIS STRANGE SINCE THIS IS OFTEN DETERMINED IN DETERMINING APPROPRIATENESS, WHETHER IT'S ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
IN CONCLUSION, WE WANT TO IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ITS HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE.
I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT WE COULD WORK THIS OUT AND I'VE REQUESTED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS FOR SOMEONE JUST TO COME LOOK AT THE HOUSE AND SEE THE CHANGES IN THE INTERIOR AND THE WINDOWS AND THEN TELL ME WHETHER I'M GOING TO HAVE TO CUT ALL THOSE WINDOWS OUT AND REPLACE THEM WITH A BUNCH OF OLD WINDOWS AND ABOUT FIVE CASES OF COAL TO COCK THEM UP.
BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S WHERE I AM NOW.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD BETTER.
I AGREE WITH THERE SHOULD BE A COMMISSION LIKE LANDMARK.
I JUST THINK THEY'VE INTERPRETED THIS HOUSE POORLY, AND AFTER ALL THIS, NO ONE HAS EVEN COME OUT TO LOOK AT IT.
IT'S BEEN LIKE WHAT OF GOING ON FOUR MONTHS SINCE WE'VE BEEN SHUT DOWN.
I GUESS THIS IS PRETTY MINOR COMPARED TO THE ZONING YOU HAD A WHILE AGO, BUT TO ME, IT'S PRETTY SERIOUS.
JUST TO HAVE TO SIT THERE AND LOOK AT THAT HOUSE.
>> I THINK I READ IN HERE THAT YOU SAID THAT THE FOUR WINDOWS ON THE BACK ARE NOT IN THE SAME PLACEMENT THAT YOU WHERE YOU TOOK OUT WINDOWS, THAT THOSE ARE NEW OPENINGS.
THE DESIGN IS JUST A LITTLE BIT WELL.
>> THEY WERE ALL NEW OPENINGS.
WE HAD TO TAKE THE WHOLE WALL.
WE STARTED TAKING IT DOWN PIECE BY PIECE, LAYER BY LAYER.
WHEN WE GOT TO THOSE OR BOTTOM WINDOWS, BASICALLY, IT WAS LIKE A FIVE-INCH BOW AND 12 FEET.
THAT IS EVEN TOO MUCH FOR A HISTORICAL HOUSE.
WE HAD TO BASICALLY TAKE THAT WALL OUT BECAUSE IT WAS JUST TOO FLIMSY.
WE HAD AN ENGINEER COME IN AND ENGINEER THE WALL AND WE PUT THAT BACK UP.
THAT WAS PROBABLY THE LAST PART WE DID BEFORE WE GOT SHUTDOWN.
>> ORIGINALLY, THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME BACK IN 18 WHATEVER.
THEN IT WAS MODIFIED INTO A FOUR PLEX, INTERIOR-WISE.
[01:05:06]
WINDOWS WERE MODIFIED TO ACCOMMODATE THE FOUR PLEX? THAT'S CORRECT, I THINK. WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS YOU'RE MODIFYING IT AGAIN TO MAKE IT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME?>> THE OBJECTION BY THE LANDMARK COMMISSION IS THE TYPE OF WINDOWS?
YOU USED THEM ON FRONT AND BACK?
>> NOTHING ON THE FRONT WE TOUCHED.
>> YOU HAVEN'T CHANGED ANY OF THE FRONT?
>> WE RESTORED THOSE WINDOWS IN THE SIDES EXACTLY LIKE THEY WERE.
THAT'S REALLY NICE. THERE WAS A PORCH ON THE BACK THAT YOU REMOVED?
>> NO. THAT PORCH AND THAT FIRST ONE HAD BEEN ENCLOSED WITH THOSE WINDOWS.
THEY'RE NOT ORIGINAL TO THAT HOUSE, BUT THEY MUST HAVE GOT THEM SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ENCLOSED.
>> THE OTHER THING THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION DOESN'T LIKE IS THE FACT THAT YOU USED HARDIE PLANK?
>> THEY DID APPROVE THE HARDIE PLANK.
>> THE STAFF DIDN'T. THEY WROTE AGAINST IT, BUT THE COMMISSION APPROVED IT, THE HARDIE PLANK.
>> THAT'S ALL I GOT, THE QUESTION.
>> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
YOU SAID NOBODY'S BEEN OUT TO THE HOUSE AND I'M NEW HERE.
I'VE GOT ALL THIS FOR ABOUT A WEEK, AND I'VE BEEN OUT TO YOUR PROPERTIES TWICE, IN FACT, I BROUGHT SOME OF MY OWN MAPS LOOKING AT, AND YOU SAID 1717 IS WHERE YOU LIVE?
>> 1717, YES, WHERE WE LIVE AND RIGHT NEXT DOOR. YOU BOUGHT THIS ONE NEXT.
THEY WERE ACTUALLY SISTER HOUSES.
THEY HAVE ALL THE DOORS, MOLDING, STAIRWAYS ARE EXACTLY ALIKE.
>> I SEE THAT AND I KNOW YOU MENTIONED THAT EARLIER.
LOOKING AT THE HOUSE YOU RESIDE IN NOW, IT'S YOUR INTENT TO PROBABLY JUST REVERSING BAD CONSTRUCTION, TURNING THIS BACK TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE TO MATCH YOUR OTHER HOME, WHICH IS BECAUSE YOU SAID THEY ARE SISTER HOUSES.
IT'S YOUR INTENT TURN THIS BACK INTO WHAT YOU HAVE, AS CLOSE AS YOU CAN.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE EXACT, BUT.
WE'RE TURNING INTO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME BECAUSE IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S GOING TO BE NEXT DOOR TO US.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE BEEN AROUND ONE.
WE GOT ALONG WITH ALL THESE PEOPLE THAT LIVED THERE.
BUT YOU COULD SEE THE FRONT DOOR WAS ALWAYS OPEN.
THERE WOULD BE STRANGERS GOING IN AND SLEEPING.
SOME PEOPLE WERE SCARED TO WALK ON THAT SIDE OF THE SIDEWALK.
BUT WE JUST WANT TO TURN IT BACK INTO SINGLE FAMILY.
>> ANY MORE QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND YOU CAN BE SEATED.
>> JUST A QUESTION ABOUT MOTIONS.
IF YOU WERE GOING TO REVERSE THE LANDMARKS.
THAT JUST MEANS THAT THEIR HOUSE CAN STAY AS IT IS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO.
>> IF YOU WERE TO REVERSE THE LANDMARK DECISION, FIRST, YOU NEED TO SPECIFY WHY YOU'RE REVERSING THE LANDMARK'S DECISION.
THEN YOU WOULD NEED TO SAY WHAT THEY CAN DO.
I'M ASSUMING IT IS SIX WINDOWS TOTAL THAT CAN REMAIN WITH THE VINYL FLAT? IS THAT WHAT IT IS? SEVEN WINDOWS.
>> IT ONLY APPLIES TO THIS HOUSE.
>> IS THERE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK?
[01:10:11]
>> YES, PLEASE. STATE YOUR NAME, SIGN.
>> I'M DON GREEN. I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET.
AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THESE FOLKS HAVE DONE GREAT THINGS FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY REACH DEEP INTO THEIR POCKETS, WORKED ON THIS.
I REALLY DON'T THINK IT'S TO THEM [INAUDIBLE] THIS IT BE.
>> ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC?
I ALSO LIVE ACROSS THE STREET, 1710 POST OFFICE.
MY OBSERVATION WHEN I FOUND OUT THIS WAS HAPPENING, I CAN'T SEE THOSE WINDOWS UNLESS I GO INTO THE ALLEY AND I SEE ME OVER THE FENCE.
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE ACROSS THE STREET, THAT HOUSE LOOKS ORIGINAL.
I CAN SEE THE SIDES, I CAN SEE THE FRONT.
I JUST APPLAUD THESE TWO, ROBERT AND DONNA, FOR COMING IN AND DOING WHAT THEY'RE DOING FOR THE NEIGHBOR.
>> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE? PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25Z-005 IS CLOSED AND THE CASE IS RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION. DO WE HAVE A MOTION?
>> I MOVE THAT WE REVERSE THE LANDMARK COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION BECAUSE FROM MY READING, ALL OF THOSE WINDOWS ARE NEW TO THE STRUCTURE.
THEY'RE NOT REPLACEMENT WINDOWS OF EXISTING WINDOWS THAT WERE THERE.
THEY'VE ALREADY SAID THAT IF YOU ARE REPLACING A WINDOW DUE TO A NEW CONFIGURATION, THAT THAT IS ACCEPTABLE.
>> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> THANK YOU. DISCUSSION? NO. WE CAN VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU FOR COMING.
I THINK THAT'S ALL WE HAVE FOR TODAY.
>> IT IS. WE MISSED OUR WELCOME OF OUR NEW COMMISSIONER.
>> RECENTLY APPOINTED BY THE COUNCIL AS AN ALTERNATE AND THEN THREW RIGHT INTO THE FIRE ON HIS FIRST ROUND.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENDANCE TODAY AND THANK YOU FOR VOTING.
WE'LL HOLD AN ORIENTATION SESSION BEFORE YOUR NEXT MEETING.
>> I WILL BE HERE BRIGHT EARLY.
>> MEETING ADJOURNED. [LAUGHTER]
>> HE'S A GREAT AND WONDERFUL MAN.
I'VE KNOWN HIM SINCE. WE WENT TO TEXAS A&M TOGETHER.
WE WENT TO SOUTH TEXAS COLLEGE OF LAW TOGETHER.
HE SAVED ME FROM THE DARK ALLIES AT COLLEGE STATION AT NIGHT.
[LAUGHTER]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.