>> I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.
[00:00:02]
IT'S 3:31, JUNE 9, 2025.[Zoning Board of Adjustments on July 9, 2025.]
WELCOME TO THE GALVESTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF JUNE 9, 2025.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 ON THE SIGN-IN SHEET, I BELIEVE.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ABSENT TODAY.
WE HAVE ONE JOINING US VIRTUALLY.
QUORUM IS PRESENT. IS THERE ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR ANY OF THE CASES TODAY? NONE. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FROM JUNE 4, 2025.
>> MADAM CHAIR, I MOVE TO APPROVE.
>> ACTUALLY, NO MOTION WAS NECESSARY FOR APPROVAL OF MEETINGS, RIGHT?
>> BUT WE FELT SO MUCH BETTER DOING.
>> IT WAS YOUR COMMON PRACTICE TO DO IT, BUT IT'S NOT REQUIRED.
IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AGENDA ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS OR NON-AGENDA ITEMS? I DON'T SEE ANYBODY.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO OLD BUSINESS, CASE 25Z. DID HE DISCONNECTED?
>> YES. I WAS JUST GOING TO ANNOUNCE FOR THE RECORD THAT COUNCIL MEMBER FINKLEA IS NOT JOINING US THIS AFTERNOON.
HE WAS CONFUSED ABOUT THE TIME.
>> GLENNE WILL JUST TAKE A COUPLE MINUTES TO CHANGE SOME FORMATTING AND THEN WE'LL BE READY TO GO. WE'RE READY TO RESUME. WE ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH NEW BUSINESS.
>> THANK YOU. THIS IS AT 1513 47TH STREET, AND THIS IS A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR LOT AREA.
THERE WERE 24 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, ONE RETURN, AND ONE WITH NO COMMENT.
THERE WERE NO CITY DEPARTMENT OR OUTSIDE UTILITY OBJECTIONS.
PUBLIC WORKS DID NOTE THAT DURING PLATTING, IF APPROVED UTILITY EASEMENT WILL BE REQUIRED, WHICH IS TYPICAL FOR THESE RE-PLATS.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE 3 ADDENDUM IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT AREA.
BOTH LOTS, NORTH AND SOUTH, ARE OWNED BY THIS APPLICANT, SAME PERSON.
HOWEVER, THE SOUTHERNMOST STRUCTURE ENCROACHES ACROSS THE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE.
SANBORN INSURANCE MAPS INDICATE THAT THE SOUTHERNMOST STRUCTURE WAS BUILT BETWEEN 1912 AND 1947, AND THE NORTHERNMOST STRUCTURE SOMETIME AFTER 1947.
IT IS UNKNOWN WHEN THE CURRENT LOT CONFIGURATION OCCURRED THAT RESULTED IN THIS ENCROACHMENT.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MOVE THE PROPERTY LINE NORTH IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THIS ENCROACHMENT.
HOWEVER, THIS WILL RESULT IN THE NORTHERNMOST LOT BEING SMALLER THAN REQUIRED FOR NEW PARCELS IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT.
THE SOUTHERNMOST LOT WILL REMAIN OVER THIS MINIMUM.
IT'S THE NORTHERN LOT THAT REALLY NEEDS THE VARIANCE.
IN THIS CASE, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE WOULD BE 2,500 SQUARE FOOT.
WITH A RE-PLAT AND RESOLVING THIS ENCROACHMENT, THAT NORTHERNMOST LOT WILL ONLY BE 1,981 SQUARE FOOT, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A 519 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE.
PLEASE NOTE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIANCES IN OUR STAFF REPORT.
ALSO PLEASE NOTE THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION, AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS.
HERE ON THE LEFT WE HAVE THE EXISTING SURVEY, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE IS A LINE THAT GOES DOWN THE BACK PART OF THE NORTHERNMOST HOUSE, AND THEN ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE YOU'LL SEE WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO MOVE THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH WOULD RESOLVE THE ENCROACHMENT, BUT THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE NORTHERNMOST LOT BEING A LITTLE BIT SMALLER THAN WHAT OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS WOULD ALLOW.
[00:05:03]
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOOKING SOUTHWEST.THE ACCESSORY DWELLING IS THE TWO-STORY ONE THERE ALONG THE ALLEY.
THAT WOULD BE THE LOT THAT WOULD NEED THE VARIANCE.
THEN WE HAVE THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST, TO THE SOUTH, AND TO THE WEST, AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> THANK YOU. DOES THE COMMISSION HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
THE ANCILLARY STRUCTURE IS A STANDALONE, HAS ITS OWN ADDRESS?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. IT WOULD BE A 1513 47TH STREET, AND THE FRONT STRUCTURE IS ADDRESSED OFF OF IN AND A HALF.
>> DO WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25Z-12 IS OPEN AND STAFF REPORT IS MADE A PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? CAN YOU COME TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN FOR RECORD, PLEASE?
>> YOU CAN JUST TELL US ABOUT THE CASE AND YOUR REQUEST.
>> WELL, WHEN WE BOUGHT THE HOUSE, IT WAS LIKE THAT.
THIS IS SOMETHING WE INHERITED AND JUST THE PROPERTY LINE IS ENCROACHING THE FRONT HOUSE.
IT'S JUST REALLY INCONVENIENCE, LIKE IF WE WANT TO SELL THE HOUSE, BECAUSE BOTH OF THE PROPERTIES, THEY HAVE TWO DIFFERENT ADDRESSES.
BASICALLY, THEY'RE LEGALLY DIVIDED, BUT THE LINE THAT APPROACHES THE FRONT HOUSE WILL NOT ALLOW US TO IF WE WANT TO SELL THE HOUSE.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK IT'S EVERYBODY'S INTEREST TO BE RESOLVED.
WE SUGGESTED THE HOW TO DIVIDE.
WE WILL ACCEPT ANY OF YOUR SUGGESTIONS IF YOU THINK THE LINE SHOULD MOVE MORE LEFT TO THE NORTH.
IT'S OKAY. THIS IS JUST WHAT WE CAME UP WITH.
>> IF THAT'S ALL, THEN YOU CAN BE SEATED.
>> SORRY, I REPRESENT THE [INAUDIBLE]. THERE'S ALSO-
>> I'M SORRY. SORRY, I APOLOGIZE. ANOTHER ISSUE THAT WE'RE RUNNING INTO IS BECAUSE THEY'RE BOTH WITH TWO SEPARATE TAX IDS AND WITH THEIR TWO DIFFERENT ADDRESSES, THE BACK LOT IS FREE AND CLEAR OF ANY TYPE OF MORTGAGE, BUT THE FRONT LOT STILL HAS A LOAN AGAINST IT, AND WE'RE HAVING PROBLEMS TRYING TO RESTRUCTURE THAT UNDER FINANCES BECAUSE OF THE ENCROACHMENT FROM THE BACK PROPERTY LINE.
I THINK THAT UP TO ANY ACCEPTANCE, WE COULD JUST MOVE THAT BACK, OTHER THAN MOVE THE BUILDING, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE, WHATEVER YOUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE.
BUT THAT WAS WHAT WE SUGGESTED JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKYARD, BUT THE SIZE OF THE FRONT YARD SO IT COULD BE DIVIDED EQUALLY FOR THE FUTURE.
>> BUT JUST A NOTE ON THAT ON THE FINANCES.
YOU STATED THAT YOU INHERITED THIS PROPERTY, BOTH OF [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO, I GUESS WHEN WE BOUGHT IT, WE BOUGHT IT LIKE THAT.
>> YOU BOUGHT THE TWO PARCELS AT THE SAME TIME?
THERE'S A LOAN ON THE FRONT, BUT NOT ON THE BACK PROPERTY.
>> THAT'S INTERESTING THAT YOU GOT A LOAN AT ALL.
HOW DID YOU MANAGE THAT? [LAUGHTER]
>> NO, I'M JUST KIDDING. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> DO WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS? IN THAT CASE, YOU CAN BE SEATED. THANK YOU.
[00:10:01]
>> IS THERE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? I SEE NONE.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25Z-12 IS CLOSED AND THE CASE IS RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND?
>> LET ME DO IT. IS IT MY TURN?
>> I MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL DUE TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITION, AND THAT IS THE LEGALLY DEFINED PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN TWO PARCELS PHYSICALLY CUTS THROUGH THE FOOTPRINT OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE.
THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION WERE DEVELOPED LONG BEFORE THE CURRENT LDRS WERE ADOPTED.
ADJUSTING THE PROPERTY LINES WILL CORRECT ANY ENCROACHMENT IN THE CONFIGURATION OF THE PARCELS.
DUE TO THAT SPECIAL CONDITION, THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STRICT TERMS OF THESE REGULATIONS WOULD IMPOSE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP ON THE APPLICANT.
THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THAT THE HARDSHIP IS NOT SELF-IMPOSED.
THE HARDSHIP IS NOT BASED SOLELY ON FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS, CONVENIENCE OR INCONVENIENCE.
THERE ARE NOT CONDITIONS THAT ARE ALLEGED TO BE SPECIAL, BUT ARE ACTUALLY COMMON TO MANY PROPERTIES WITHIN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE DOES NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT UPON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE USE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES FOR PURPOSES FOR WHICH THEY ARE ZONED.
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE OR SERVICES, AND PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY.
THE DEGREE OF VARIANCE ALLOWED FROM THESE REGULATIONS IS THE LEAST THAT IS NECESSARY TO GRANT RELIEF FROM THE IDENTIFIED UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE USED TO CIRCUMVENT OTHER PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS OF THESE REGULATIONS THAT COULD BE USED FOR THE SAME OR COMPARABLE EFFECT, AND BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THESE REGULATIONS IS OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE.
>> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A SECOND. DISCUSSION.
>> THE ONLY THING I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT IS THAT I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER WAY AROUND IT.
IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THESE TWO PARCELS WHOLE, WE HAVE TO DO THIS.
IT WOULD BE ADVISABLE I THINK THAT WE DO.
>> CAN I JUST ASK FOR THE RECORD WHO THE SECOND WAS?
>> I HAD GIVEN IT TO BECCA. WE'LL GO WITH BECCA.
>> IN THAT CASE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? MOTION PASSES.
THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO THE NEXT CASE, CASE 25Z-13. STAFF REPORT, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU. TIM TIETJENS, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY IS MB MINARD SURVEY, PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST BLOCK OF 47 AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST BLOCK OF 72 IN GALVESTON, AND A PORTION OF ADJACENT AVENUE O IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON.
THE APPLICANT IS CHRIS HELLERMAN.
THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS GTX HOSPITALITY.
CHRIS HELLERMAN IS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF DENNY'S AND IS MOVING THIS PROJECT FORWARD.
IN PARTICULAR, THIS IS ON THE SEAWALL.
IT'S IN THE COMMERCIAL HEIGHTENED DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE, HDDZ 3.
THAT IS A SET OF REGULATIONS THAT REQUIRES PROPERTIES TO BE BUILT BASICALLY AT THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE SO THAT THE RESULTING DEVELOPMENT IS WALKABLE AND PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
[00:15:01]
CITY COUNCIL HAS PASSED IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE IS THE APPLICANT IS APPEALING STAFF'S DETERMINATION REGARDING SECTION 11301, WHICH IS NON-CONFORMING BUILDING STRUCTURES AND ELEMENTS OF BUILDING STRUCTURES IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
THAT PARTICULAR CLAUSE BASICALLY TALKS ABOUT NON-CONFORMITY AND WHAT HAPPENS THROUGH THAT NONCONFORMITY, THE CONDITIONS OF RE-BUILDING WHEN NON-CONFORMITY IS LOST, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
WHAT HAPPENED IS THIS DENNY'S RESTAURANT HAD A FIRE IN OCTOBER OF 2023, AND IT WAS CLASSIFIED AS NON-CONFORMING PRIOR TO THAT FIRE BECAUSE IT WAS BACK OFF THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
IT HAD DEVELOPED WELL BEFORE OUR LDRS HAD PUT THAT CLAUSE INTO EFFECT.
AS A RESULT OF THAT FIRE, THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY CAME IN AND REQUESTED A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPERTY WAS BEING REHABBED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR ORDINANCES, AND AT THAT TIME THEY HAD SUPPLIED INFORMATION, BASICALLY STATING THAT THE AMOUNT OF COST WAS LESS THAN THE REQUIRED AMOUNT THAT WAS ALLOWABLE IN THE LDR, SO THAT YOU COULD REBUILD IT IF IT WAS UNDER 50%.
THEY HAD SHOWN INFORMATION BASICALLY STATING THAT.
THERE WERE COMPONENTS OF THE BUILDING THAT WERE LEFT AFTER THAT FIRE, SUCH AS THE SLAB, SOME OF THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
>> ANYHOW, IT WAS A DETERMINATION THAT WAS MADE AT THE TIME.
THEN AFTER THAT DETERMINATION, THEY PERMITTED THE PROJECT AND BEGAN CONSTRUCTING, FOUND OUT THAT THIS SLAB DOES NOT HAVE STEEL REBAR IN IT, AND WOULDN'T SUPPORT THE RESULTING CONSTRUCTION ON THAT EXISTING SLAB.
WE WERE ASKED AGAIN TO MAKE THAT SIMILAR DETERMINATION.
WE COULD NOT AGREE WITH THE APPLICANTS ASSERTION THAT THIS BUILDING HAD ENOUGH VALUE LEFT, THAT IT WOULD MEET THAT 50% REQUIREMENT, BECAUSE THERE REALLY WAS NO BUILDING LEFT.
THERE WAS NO VERTICAL COMPONENTS, NOT THE SLAB LEFT AT THIS POINT, NOT REALLY ANYTHING.
EVEN THE UTILITIES UNDERGROUND THAT MIGHT BE STILL REMAINING PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE USABLE.
ON THAT BASIS, THAT DETERMINATION WAS MADE THAT IT WAS BASICALLY DAMAGED TO THE EXTENT THAT RECONSTRUCTION IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE COST OF REPLACEMENT.
BASICALLY, THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IS THAT WAS A SEQUENCE OF EVENTS.
I GUESS THE REAL ISSUE AT THIS POINT IS, DO YOU AGREE WITH THE FACT THAT THERE'S SOME PORTION OF THIS BUILDING THAT'S LEFT THAT GETS IT TO THAT 50% LEVEL, OR NOT? WITH THAT, I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THE EXISTING SLAB, THEY TORE IT OUT COMPLETELY?
>> DID THEY START ANY CONSTRUCTION ON A NEW SLAB?
>> NO. WE HAD SENT A LETTER THAT SAID YOU CAN'T PROCEED ANY FURTHER.
WE WON'T ISSUE THAT PERMIT IN THIS BASIS.
>> THIS WENT FROM A BROWNFIELD PROJECT TO A GREENFIELD PROJECT, BASICALLY FROM AN EXISTING TO A BRAND NEW.
>> YES, IT WOULD BE NEW CONSTRUCTION.
THE ONLY QUESTION IS, WHERE WOULD IT BE ON THE SITE? WOULD IT BE IN ITS EXISTING FOOTPRINT, OR WOULD IT BE UP FRONT IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR CURRENT ORDINANCES?
>> WHAT I SEE IN HERE IS TALKING ABOUT COST AS OPPOSED TO SEEKING A VARIANCE ON THE LOCATION OF IT.
[00:20:01]
>> OKAY. ONCE YOU DESTROY ALL THE EXISTING FACILITY, INCLUDING THE FOUNDATION AND WHICH INCLUDED PROBABLY HAVING TO TAKE OUT UTILITIES AT THE SAME TIME AT THAT POINT, LIKE IT SAYS IN THEIR APPEAL, IT'S A VACANT LOT.
>> A VACANT LOT TO BE BUILT ON WOULD REQUIRE MEETING THE LDRS,.
>> YES, SIR. THAT'S CORRECT. IT'S NOT ENTIRELY VACANT.
THEY STILL HAVE SOME SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON IT.
THEY HAVE THE PARKING LOT STILL AVAILABLE.
BUT THAT'S NOT CONSIDERED PART OF THE BUILDING.
IT'S THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING THAT'S AT THAT LEVEL.
>> MOST OF THE COST IS GOING TO BE THE FOUNDATION AND THE STRUCTURE.
>> ALL OF THAT UTILITIES AND ALL THAT.
THEY'RE SPENDING 100%, NOT 50%.
>> DO WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> I DO. WELL, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE REAL BASIS FOR THIS DETERMINATION IS CENTERED AROUND THE CONCEPT OF SUBSTANTIAL LOSS OR SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT.
WOULD YOU WALK US THROUGH HOW YOU DETERMINED THAT SUBSTANTIAL LOSS DID NOT OCCUR WITH THE FIRE?
>> THAT WAS BASED UPON THE FIRST SUBMITTAL OF INFORMATION THAT WAS SUPPLIED THAT SHOWED THAT THEY STILL HAD 50% OF THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING IN PLACE WITH THAT SLAB.
THERE WAS A SEALED ENGINEERING DOCUMENT.
OF COURSE, WE DON'T SEND ENGINEERS OUT TO ASSESS BUILDINGS IN THESE KIND OF SITUATIONS.
THAT'S THE DEVELOPER OR THE APPLICANT, IN THIS CASE DOES THAT. THEY SUBMITTED THAT.
I HAD NO REASON NECESSARILY TO DISAGREE WITH THAT.
BUT CLEARLY, WHEN THE SLAB WAS THEN REMOVED, THERE'S NO COMPONENT OF THE BUILDING EVEN LEFT.
>> YES, YOU HAD 100% LOSS AT THAT POINT?
>> IT'S JUST IN MY EXPERIENCE, A SLAB IS NEVER WORTH 50% OF THE REPLACEMENT VALUE. IT'S JUST NOT.
[LAUGHTER] IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THE IDEA THAT THIS DETERMINATION WAS MADE TO START WITH THAT THEY WERE GIVEN THE GO-AHEAD WHEN IT SEEMS AS THOUGH IT WAS IN ERROR OR IN MISREPRESENTATION OF THE INFORMATION.
I'M NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU.
>> IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25 Z-14 IS OPEN, AND THE STAFF REPORT IS MADE A PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? HELLO. PLEASE SIGN IN AND STATE YOUR NAME.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT WITH RESPECT TO THE APPEAL THAT WE HAVE SUBMITTED, WHICH I ASSUME EVERYONE HAS WITH YOU.
I ALSO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS.
I'VE GOT FIVE COPIES THAT I'M HAPPY TO CIRCULATE.
I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT HAVING MORE THAN FIVE, BUT I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE WHAT I HAVE TO SUPPORT OUR APPEAL.
I'M HAPPY TO IDENTIFY THOSE IF THAT'LL HELP. >> YES.
>> MAYBE I'LL START WITH THAT, AND THEN I CAN SPEAK MORE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF OUR APPEAL.
THERE'S SIX DOCUMENTS IN THE PACKET THAT WE ARE SUBMITTING. YES, MA'AM.
>> CAN YOU SEND A COPY [INAUDIBLE]?
[00:25:03]
>> AGAIN, MY APOLOGIES, I WAS ONLY ABLE TO GET FIVE.
[LAUGHTER] I'LL JUST GENERALLY DESCRIBE THE DOCUMENTS, IF I MAY.
NUMBER 1 IS A COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM FOR APPEAL THAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE MEMBERS SHOULD ALL HAVE A COPY OF.
NUMBER 2 IS A JANUARY 30TH, 2025, WIND FORCE EVALUATION DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE FOUNDATION, THAT IS ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WAS PART OF THE CITY'S DETERMINATION.
NUMBER 3 IS A FEBRUARY 11, 2025, LETTER BY ARROWMONT, WITH RESPECT TO DEMOLITION OF THE FOUNDATION.
I BELIEVE THOSE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED TO THE CITY, BUT IF THEY HAVE NOT, I WANT TO MAKE SURE TO PROVIDE THEM AT THIS TIME.
NUMBER 4 IS THE APRIL 30TH, 2025, LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR WITH RESPECT TO THE SECOND DETERMINATION.
NUMBER 5 IS A COMPILATION OF ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'VE DESCRIBED AS BUILDING WORK.
WITH RESPECT TO THE BUILDING ITSELF.
NUMBER 5 IS SIMILARLY THE FIRST PAGE IDENTIFIES COSTS RELATED TO RELOCATION OF THE FOUNDATION, OF THE UTILITIES, AND SO FORTH, IN THE EVENT OF A NEED TO MAKE A RELOCATION.
INCLUDED WITH THAT AT PAGE 2 IS THE SAME BUILDING WORK DOCUMENT THAT'S IN THE FIFTH DOCUMENT.
THE PURPOSE FOR THE SIXTH DOCUMENT ESSENTIALLY IS TO PROVIDE A COMPILATION OF ALL THE DIFFERENT COSTS RELATING TO MOVE A RELOCATION TO A DIFFERENT LOCATION.
I'M GOING TO SPEAK TO SOME OF THESE BRIEFLY, JUST WITH A MORE GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE OF OUR APPEAL AS WE GO.
WHERE I WANT TO START, IF I MAY, IS THAT WHAT OUR CLIENT SEEKS TO DO IS REBUILD THE STRUCTURE IN THE SAME WAY AS IT WAS BEFORE THE FIRE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES THAT WERE IN PLACE AT THE TIME, AND THAT'S THE GIST OF THAT.
THE REASONS FOR THAT AND THE REASONS WHY AN ALTERNATIVE LOCATION ARE PROBLEMATIC TO SAY THE LEAST ARE WHAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND WHERE I WANT TO TRY TO DIRECT SOME OF MY COMMENTS.
AS NOTED, THE SITE STRUCTURE IS NON-CONFORMING.
AS A THRESHOLD MATTER, AS REFLECTED, I BELIEVE IN THE CITY'S LETTER OF APRIL 30TH OF THIS YEAR, THE MAJORITY OF THE SITE BUILDING WAS DESTROYED BY FIRE, NOT ALL, BUT THE MAJORITY.
HOWEVER, IMPORTANTLY, THE FOUNDATION, THE SLAB WAS NOT DAMAGED BY THE FIRE.
IN POINT OF FACT, THE INFORMATION THAT WAS HAD AT THE TIME OF THE INITIAL REQUEST AND THE INITIAL DETERMINATION WAS UNDERSTOOD TO BE BASED UPON THE SLAB, THE FOUNDATION REMAINING THERE.
AS NOTED IN THE APPEAL, THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE TO THE EXTENT THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT, AND OUR APPEAL IS MADE UNDER CODE SECTION 11.301.C.
THE GIST OF WHICH PROVIDES THAT IF THE REPAIR IS DETERMINED TO BE MORE THAN 50%, THEN OUR SITE WOULD LOSE ITS NON-CONFORMING STATUS AND WOULD NEED TO CONFORM WITH THE NEW REGULATIONS, WHICH IN THIS INSTANCE WOULD MEAN COMPLETELY REDESIGNING AND RELOCATING OF THE STRUCTURE.
AS NOTED, AGAIN, I THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO START WITH IN MID-2004, THE CITY HAD AFFIRMED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION COST WAS BELOW THE 50% THRESHOLD, AND SO RECONSTRUCTION HAD COMMENCED ON THE STRUCTURE ON THAT BASIS.
DURING THAT PROCESS OF REPLACEMENT OF THE STRUCTURE, THE FOUNDATION WAS THEN FOUND TO BE COMPROMISED.
THAT'S WHAT IS IN SUBSTANCE REFLECTED IN THE SECOND DOCUMENT, THE JANUARY WIND FORCE DOCUMENT THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU.
AGAIN, THAT WAS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE FIRE.
IT WAS DUE TO LACK OF REBAR ENFORCEMENT, ESSENTIALLY.
IN APPROXIMATELY MARCH OF THIS YEAR, WE SOUGHT A SECOND DETERMINATION THAT THIS REMODEL WOULD CONTINUE TO CONSTITUTE A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE.
AS ALREADY NOTED BY THE CITY, THE DETERMINATION WAS MADE THAT IN LARGE MEASURE DUE TO THESE FOUNDATION ISSUES,
[00:30:02]
THAT THE 50% CALCULATION PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 11.301 WOULD BE EXCEEDED BECAUSE THE COST OF REPAIR THE FOUNDATION, AND THOSE OTHER COSTS WHICH ARE NOTED IN THE LETTER WOULD BE USED AND WOULD BE INCLUDED.THIS INCLUDED UTILITIES, I BELIEVE, AS MENTIONED ALREADY.
THE CITY MADE ITS DETERMINATION ON THAT BASIS AS REFLECTED IN THE LETTER.
OUR APPEAL IS OF THE DETERMINATION THAT THOSE ADDITIONAL COSTS SHOULD BE INCLUDED.
IN LARGE MEASURE, WE ARE ASKING THAT THOSE COSTS BE RECALCULATED FOR THE REASONS THAT I'M GOING TO EXPLAIN.
LET ME JUST START WITH WHAT IF THE ALTERNATIVE? IF THE NON CONFORMING STATUS IS REMOVED, THEN TO CONFORM TO THE CURRENT CONDITIONS OF THE CODE, WE CALCULATE THAT WE WOULD NEED TO SPEND APPROXIMATELY $2.2 MILLION IN ORDER TO REPLACE THE STRUCTURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW REGULATIONS IN A NEW LOCATION, AND THAT INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED TO THE CITY PREVIOUSLY.
WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT? AGAIN, BECAUSE IN LATE 2024, THE CITY DETERMINED THAT THE REPLACEMENT WAS GOING TO BE UNDER THE 50% THRESHOLD, THOSE REPAIR COSTS WERE CALCULATED TO BE APPROXIMATELY $965,000, WHICH IS 43.8% OF THAT $2.2 MILLION REPLACEMENT COST, THAT $965,000 CALCULATION.
THAT'S THE FIFTH DOCUMENT THAT'S BEFORE YOU THAT'S IDENTIFIED AS BUILDING WORK.
THAT'S CORRECT. AS NOTED DURING THE REPAIR, WE DETERMINED THAT THE FOUNDATION WAS DAMAGED AND NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED, AGAIN, NOT RELATED TO THE FIRE.
IN ANY EVENT, THE COST TO REPAIR THE FOUNDATION ARE $110,000, WHICH IS 5% OF THE $2,200,000 REPLACEMENT COST.
THAT $110,000 AMOUNT IS REFLECTED IN THE ARROWMONT DOCUMENT, WHICH IS THE THIRD DOCUMENT BEFORE YOU.
THE THRESHOLD ISSUE, THAT THE STRUCTURAL REPAIR AND THE FOUNDATIONAL REPAIR ARE NOT RELATED, IN AS MUCH AS THEY ARE NOT RELATED THEY ARE NOT RELATED DUE TO, AS THE CODE REFLECTS, THE DAMAGE THAT WAS THE PRECIPITATING EVENT.
BUT EVEN IF THEY'RE CONSIDERED TOGETHER, THE TOTAL COSTS TO REPAIR THE STRUCTURE AND THE FOUNDATION ARE $1,075,000, WHICH IS 48.9% OF THE $2,200,000 REPLACEMENT COST OF THE STRUCTURE.
THAT IS JUST SIMPLY PROVIDING THOSE PREVIOUS AMOUNTS, CALCULATING THOSE TOGETHER.
>> CAN YOU JUST BACK UP A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I REALLY DO WANT TO STAY WITH YOU, BUT YOU LOST ME ON THE LAST NUMBER.
I DON'T WANT TO MOVE PAST THAT.
>> YES, MA'AM. THE $965,000 AMOUNT THAT IS REFLECTED IN OUR BUILDING WORK DOCUMENT.
>> WHEN YOU ADD THAT WITH THE $110,000 AMOUNT IN THE ARROWMONT DOCUMENT, THAT LEADS TO A TOTAL OF $1,075,000, WHICH IS 48.9% OF THE $2,200,000 REPLACEMENT COST.
THEREFORE, WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT UNDER THE 50% THRESHOLD.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO SPEAK TO ANY MORE TO THAT? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE DOCUMENT IS LINED UP FOR THAT REASON.
>> JUST A LOT OF NUMBERS FLOATING AROUND.
>> I ALMOST AM. I WANTED TO SPEAK TO A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT THE CITY RAISED, IF I MAY, BUT I'M HAPPY TO TAKE A QUESTION IF YOU HAVE ONE NOW.
>> I DON'T WANT TO PUT TOO MUCH INFORMATION IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT I ALSO WANT TO TRY TO ADDRESS THE REASON WHY WE THINK OUR APPEAL MERITS CONSIDERATION.
AS NOTED, THE CITY'S SECOND DETERMINATION AND DECLINATION, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, WAS BASED IN LARGE MEASURE ON THE ADDITIONAL COSTS THAT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE REPAIR, WHICH AGAIN WERE BASED UPON THE DISCOVERY OF THE ISSUES WITH THE FOUNDATION.
THEY DETERMINED WOULD EXCEED THE 50% THRESHOLD.
PART OF THAT, AS THE LETTER REFLECTS, INCLUDES THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE UTILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOUNDATION WERE DESTROYED, AND WE NEED TO BE COMPLETELY REPLACED.
A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT WE SUBMIT ON THAT.
[00:35:02]
FIRSTLY, THE REPAIR COSTS IN THE $965,000 CALCULATION, THAT INCLUDES UTILITY REPAIRS, AS WE'VE DETERMINED, WOULD BE NECESSARY.HOWEVER, WE DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE UTILITIES WERE COMPLETELY DESTROYED, THAT IS THE ASSUMPTION IN THE APRIL 30TH LETTER, WE WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THEY ARE FUNCTIONING AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, AND WOULD BE READY TO BE RECONNECTED TO THE STRUCTURE.
BUT ONLY IF IT WOULD BE PART AND PARCEL OF A REPAIR AT THE CURRENT LOCATION.
WHY IS THAT SIGNIFICANT? WELL, FOR ONE REASON, BECAUSE WERE WE TO HAVE TO MOVE TO A NEW LOCATION, THAT WOULD REQUIRE, OBVIOUSLY, AN ENTIRELY NEW SET OF UTILITIES.
BUT NOT TO MISS, AGAIN, THE POINT, WHICH IS THAT WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT WE THINK THAT PART OF THE REASON FOR THE DETERMINATION THAT THE CITY MADE ON THE SECOND REQUEST, TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE WAS AN UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION THAT THE UTILITIES WERE NOT GOING TO BE USABLE OR FUNCTIONAL, THAT WE THINK THAT THAT WAS AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION.
THAT SAID, AGAIN, THE $965,000 AMOUNT THAT WE'VE CALCULATED, WE SUBMIT, INCLUDES THE COST WITH RESPECT TO UTILITIES.
EVEN IF WE TAKE THOSE NUMBERS TOGETHER, WE STILL FIND THAT WE ARE BELOW THE 50% THRESHOLD.
FOR THOSE REASONS, WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT OUR NON-CONFORMING STATUS WOULD REMAIN SO THAT WE CAN REBUILD THE STRUCTURE IN THE SAME WAY AT THE SAME LOCATION AS OF THE DAY OF THE FIRE.
IF THE APPEAL IS NOT APPROVED, THE BURDEN THAT THAT IS GOING TO THEN CREATE IS THE NEED TO REDESIGN AND, AT A MINIMUM, MOVE THE STRUCTURE CLOSER TO THE SEA WALL, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.
PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, THAT'S GOING TO BE QUITE DIFFICULT, IF NOT WHOLLY, AND FEASIBLE, AND MOREOVER, IS GOING TO REQUIRE PREPARATION OF A COMPLETELY NEW DESIGN PLAN.
THOSE NEXT STEPS, INCLUDING, THE PROSPECT OF VARIANCE, OR IN ADDITION, WOULD BE REMISS NOT TO ADD THAT UNDER SECTION 211 OF 0.019 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, CALLS FOR PAYMENT TO A PROPERTY OWNER OF THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AND COSTS TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO CONFORMANCE IF REQUIRED, AND SO THAT'S GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE GOING FORWARD AS WELL.
IN ANY EVENT, WE WOULD AGAIN, RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT WE THINK THAT WE REMAIN UNDER THE 50% THRESHOLD BASED UPON THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE'VE PROVIDED.
I WOULD ONLY REITERATE THAT AGAIN, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO SIMPLY HAVE THE STRUCTURE REBUILT IN THE SAME WAY AS IT WAS BEFORE THE FIRE.
WE ARE ASKING, AGAIN, THAT THE RECALCULATION BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BE MADE AND THAT, IN THAT EVENT, THE FINDING BE MADE THAT WE'VE NOT EXCEEDED THE 50% DETERMINATION.
I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> YES, I HAVE SEVERAL, BUT I'LL SHARE TIME.
NOW, DOES YOUR CLIENT OWN THE LAND AS WELL AS THE STRUCTURE AT THE TIME OF THE FIRE?
>> YES. THEY OWN THE LAND, AND THERE'S A LONG-TERM GROUND LEASE, IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
>> REGARDLESS, THEY STILL HAVE VALUE IN THE LAND.
REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS TODAY, THEY WILL MAINTAIN OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND?
REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS TODAY.
>> THANK YOU. I'M REALLY INTERESTED IN HOW YOU DETERMINED THAT THE LOSSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE FIRE DID NOT EXCEED 50% OF THE VALUE OF THE REPLACEMENT STRUCTURE.
THE INTERESTING THING IS, HOW DID YOU DETERMINE THAT? BECAUSE IN OUR REGULATIONS, THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT YOU CAN ESTABLISH SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT OR SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES.
[00:40:01]
>> I THINK BY AND LARGE, WE'RE LOOKING AT 11.301C1 AND 2 AND INCLUDING THE RECONSTRUCTION COST, AS WE'VE CALCULATED IT.
I DON'T WANT TO DIGRESS, BUT PART OF THE CITY'S DETERMINATION INVOLVED WHETHER THE ISSUE OF THE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING OR THE RECONSTRUCTION COST.
IN ANY EVENT, OUR CALCULATION WAS BASED UPON THE BUILDING WORK DOCUMENT, THE FIFTH DOCUMENT BEFORE YOU.
JUST SIMPLY IS BASED UPON A COMPARISON TO WHAT A WHOLESALE RECONSTRUCTION COST WOULD BE, THAT'S THE 2.2 MILLION.
>> THAT'S WHERE I THINK EVERYBODY'S GONE CROSSWISE BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT IS BASED ON MARKET VALUE AND NOT RECONSTRUCTION COST.
IT'S THE MARKET VALUE AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT.
IF YOU HAD 50% DAMAGE TO THE STRUCTURE WHEN THE FIRE OCCURRED, WHAT WAS THE MARKET VALUE OF THAT STRUCTURE AT THAT TIME? EVERYBODY IS TALKING ABOUT RECONSTRUCTION, BUT THAT INCLUDES INFLATION, HIGHER CONSTRUCTION COSTS.
YOU GUYS, I THINK YOU GOT OFF ON THE WRONG FOOT, AND IT'S IN THE INTERPRETATION OF WHAT IS SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE OR SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT.
IT'S BASED ON THE MARKET VALUE AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT.
WHAT WAS THE MARKET VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE AT THE TIME OF THE FIRE?
>> I THINK I HAVE TWO POINTS ON THAT.
LET ME, IF I MAY, TRY TO ADDRESS, I THINK, IF I UNDERSTAND THE GIST OF YOUR QUESTION, I DON'T HAVE AN APPRAISAL TO PROVIDE YOU.
>> THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO DETERMINE THAT.
THERE'S THREE WAYS YOU CAN DETERMINE IT BASED ON OUR REGULATION.
>> PART OF I THINK OUR ANSWER AND OUR FOCUS IS ON THE EXTENT TO WHICH 11.301C1 SPEAKS TO SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT, MEANING THAT THE RECONSTRUCTION COST OR AREA OF RECONSTRUCTION IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE COST OF REPLACEMENT.
THAT'S THE GIST OF, AS I SAY, THE SUBMISSION THAT WE'VE PROVIDED IS BASED UPON OUR READING AND UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THAT SAYS SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT IS TO MEAN FOR US.
I THINK THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS THAT OUR FOCUS IS ON REALLY THAT FIRST PROVISION, AND WHAT WE UNDERSTAND IT TELLS US ABOUT HOW TO MAKE THAT CALCULATION.
THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE GIST OF THE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY WERE PREDICATED UPON THOSE ELEMENTS, IF YOU WILL.
>> BUT IN SECTION 11.301C3, IT GIVES YOU THE DEFINITION OF WHAT A SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT IS.
I KNOW THAT YOU KEEP REFERRING TO C1, BUT C3 IS ALSO PART OF THAT REGULATION.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE THERE'S SOME DISCREPANCY IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REGULATION.
>> IF I MAY, I THINK TWO POINTS.
I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE GIST OF AGAIN OF YOUR POINT AND YOUR EMPHASIS ON 301C3.
UNDERSTOOD. PART OF WHAT PERHAPS MAY BE COMPLICATES THIS A LITTLE BIT IS TO THE EXTENT THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE CITY'S DENIAL DIDN'T NECESSARILY INVOLVE SPECIFICALLY AN ISSUE OR QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO MARKET VALUE PER SE.
RATHER, I THINK THOSE COMMUNICATIONS, THOSE DISCUSSIONS WERE BASED ON RECONSTRUCTION COST AND REPAIR COST AS EXCEEDING THAT THRESHOLD.
THAT SAID, I THINK THE BEST INFORMATION I CAN GIVE YOU TODAY AND IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPLEMENT, I'D BE HAPPY TO DO SO.
MY UNDERSTANDING FROM AN APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD IDENTIFIED,
[00:45:02]
IT LOOKS LIKE IMPROVEMENT NON-HOME SITE VALUE HAS BEEN $378,900, AND LAND NON-HOME SITE VALUE IS BEING $1,421,100.THAT I THINK THE BEST ANSWER THAT I CAN GIVE YOU ON THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE MARKET.
>> IF YOU ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE APPRAISAL WAS LIKE $300,000, $370,000, WHATEVER YOU SAID FOR THE STRUCTURE, WHAT'S 50% OF THAT? THAT'S THE THRESHOLD.
IF YOU LOST MORE THAN THAT, THEN YOU HAVE SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE.
IT'S THE MARKET VALUE OR THE APPRAISED VALUE, AND THE APPRAISED VALUE SHOULD REFLECT THE MARKET.
BUT IF YOU LOST 50% OF THAT APPRAISED VALUE AT THE TIME OF THE FIRE, YOU HAVE SUSTAINED SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE.
THAT'S MY INTERPRETATION OF IT.
I'VE WORKED UNDER THAT INTERPRETATION FOR MY ENTIRE CAREER, SO THAT'S THE WAY IT GOES IN MY BOOK.
NOW, IF YOU CAN CONVINCE ME THAT THERE'S SOME OTHER WAY TO DO THAT, THEN I'M ALL FOR HEARING IT, BUT I'M NOT HEARING IT TODAY.
I'M NOT HEARING WHAT THE SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE WAS.
>> TAKING YOUR POINTS, I DO THINK THAT THE SUBSTANCE OF OUR SECOND REQUEST AND THE SUBSTANCE OF THE SECOND DETERMINATION, THE NATURE OF THOSE, DID NOT REALLY GET INTO THE SUBSTANCE OF MARKET VALUE.
I TAKE YOUR POINT. I THINK THE SUBSTANCE OF OUR SUBMISSION THEN AND TODAY IS REALLY MORE GEARED TOWARDS THE TOTAL RECONSTRUCTION COST AND THE AMOUNT OF THE 2,200,000, AND USING THAT AS THE MARKER, AS THE BAROMETER, AND THEN WHAT THAT MEANS FOR THE COST THAT WE WOULD STAND TO INCUR IN THE CURRENT SITE.
CERTAINLY, I UNDERSTAND AND TAKE YOUR POINTS.
WHERE DID THESE NUMBERS CAME FROM? WAS THAT ACTUAL BIDS FROM CONTRACTORS OR MEANS?
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS I THINK OUR CLIENT, IN COORDINATION WITH THEIR CONTRACTOR AND OTHERS YES, HAD GATHERED THOSE NUMBERS.
I DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANY PROCESS, SO I CAN'T GIVE YOU MORE DETAILS ON THAT.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. WELL, IT SOUNDED LIKE THE BASIS FOR THE FIRST APPROVAL THAT GAVE YOU A BUILDING PERMIT WHEN YOU WERE UNAWARE OF THE SLAB'S PROBLEM, DIDN'T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION MARKET VALUE.
>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. CORRECT.
>> THEN YOUR ARGUMENTS NOW ARE NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION MARKET VALUE BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING BASED ON WHAT THE INITIAL APPROVAL WAS ABOUT.
>> I THINK AGAIN, AND I WOULD I WOULD ONLY REITERATE, I THINK THE ANSWER TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION THAT I THINK THE GIST OF OUR CALCULATION AND OUR SUBMISSIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS THUS FAR HAS BEEN BASED UPON 11.301C1.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT TO TELL US WHAT SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT.
>> JUST A REMINDER THAT TODAY'S CASE IS ABOUT DETERMINING IF THE LATEST, THE SECOND DECISION, WAS RIGHT OR NOT.
THE FIRST ONE IS DONE AND SO WE NEED TO JUST DISCUSS ABOUT THE SECOND DECISION IN THE LETTER THAT WE HAVE.
WITH THE NUMBERS THAT YOU'VE GIVEN US, THEN BEFORE THE SECOND DETERMINATION WAS MADE, DID YOU GO BACK TO THEM WITH THESE NUMBERS, WHICH SEEM TO SAY THAT IT'S STILL LESS THAN 50%? THE NUMBERS THAT YOU GAVE US TODAY SAID THAT, I THINK, REPAIRING THIS LAB AND REBUILDING ON THE CURRENT SITE IS STILL JUST 48.9% OF THE COST OF TOTAL RECONSTRUCTION.
THE PIECE WITH RESPECT TO THE SLAB, THE FOUNDATION WASN'T PART OF THE FIRST DETERMINATION.
BUT I BELIEVE THAT INFORMATION WAS PART OF OUR SECOND REQUEST AND PART OF THE NATURE FOR THE DECLARATION.
[00:50:04]
>> BUT NOW, THE SECOND DETERMINATION SEEMS TO SAY, NO.
NOW THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO INCLUDE THE SLAB, IT IS GOING TO BE MORE THAN 50%.
>> I THINK THE CITY'S LETTER SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.
AGAIN, THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO POINT OUT AT LEAST, IN PART, TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT DETERMINATION WAS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE UTILITIES, FOR INSTANCE, WAS NOT THAT SPECIFIC, A PIECE OF THAT ASSUMPTION OR THAT FINDING WAS BASED ON THAT.
WE WANTED TO SPEAK TO THAT IN AS MUCH AS WE THINK THAT THOSE UTILITIES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE CURRENT LOCATION.
BUT IN ANY EVENT, THAT OUR COSTS OF REPAIR WOULD CALL FOR THAT.
>> THAT SEEMS LIKE A PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT THE CITY MIGHT WANT TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.
>> THE UTILITIES, I THINK THAT'S A PRETTY BIG ASSUMPTION FOR A DEVELOPER TO MAKE.
THOSE HAVE BEEN THERE A LONG TIME, ALL THOSE LINES.
I JUST THINK THAT'S A HUGE ASSUMPTION THAT THAT'S GOING TO WORK AND THAT YOU CAN UTILIZE WHAT YOU HAVE.
>> DENNY'S WAS GIVEN A VARIATION BECAUSE IT WAS BUILT PRIOR TO THE 2015 CODES AND REGULATIONS OR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
>> IT WAS A NON CONFORMING STRUCTURE.
>> IT WAS A NON CONFORMING STRUCTURE AT THAT TIME.
WHEN YOUR ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS TO REBUILD ON THAT EXISTING FOUNDATION.
BUT THEN AFTER INVESTIGATION, YOU FOUND OUT THAT FOUNDATION WAS BAD.
I DON'T KNOW WHO WOULD HAVE BUILD ONE LIKE THAT, BUT THEN YOU DEMOLISHED THAT FOUNDATION, CORRECT?
>> HYPOTHETICALLY, IF YOU WENT OUT AND BOUGHT A VACANT PIECE OF LAND AND YOU WANTED TO BUILD A NEW STRUCTURE ON IT.
DO YOU THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE CODE RULES, REGULATIONS OF THE CITY?
>> I THINK THAT THE REGULATIONS, AND OTHERWISE WOULD CALL FOR EXACTLY THAT.
YOU'RE SPENDING 100% FOR A NEW BUILDING.
I DON'T GET INTO THIS 50%, 48%, WHATEVER PERCENT ON THIS REQUEST.
I WORKED IN ENGINEERING FOR 47 YEARS.
I KNOW DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NEW CONSTRUCTION AND RE-MODIFIED CONSTRUCTION.
IF YOU BUILT ON THAT EXISTING FOUNDATION, THAT IS MODIFIED CONSTRUCTION.
DID YOU ATTEMPT TO GET A VARIATION BASED ON THE LOCATION OF WHERE IT SAT PREVIOUS TO THE FIRE WITH THE INTENTION YOU WERE GOING TO DEMOLISH THE FOUNDATION, DID YOU ATTEMPT TO CONTACT THE CITY AND SEE IF YOU CAN GET A VARIANCE APPROVED BASED ON THAT LOCATION?
>> I THINK JUST TO SPEAK TO THE TIMELINE BECAUSE I THINK THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.
AGAIN, WHEN WE HAD INITIALLY SOUGHT A DETERMINATION AND THAT A DETERMINATION WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY, WE DIDN'T KNOW AT THE TIME THAT THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE FOUNDATION.
I THINK THE OPERATING ASSUMPTION WAS THAT THE FOUNDATION WOULD CONTINUE TO BE AVAILABLE AND SUFFICE FOR RECONSTRUCTION.
IT WAS THEN IN THE PROCESS OF THAT RECONSTRUCTION THAT AS NOTED IN THE WINDFORCE EVALUATION, THAT THERE WAS AN ISSUE THERE WITH THE REBAR REINFORCEMENT THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT.
IT WAS AT THAT POINT THAT WE KNEW, THERE'S AN ISSUE THEN, AND THAT WAS THE NATURE, THE REASON FOR THE SECOND REQUEST TO THE CITY AND THE CITY'S RESPONSE AT THAT POINT,
[00:55:06]
TO THE EXTENT THAT CHANGED THE CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE GROUND.BUT I THINK ALSO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WE HAVE NOT AS OF TODAY, SOUGHT A VARIANCE, HOWEVER, DEPENDING UPON THE OUTCOME OF THIS APPEAL, WE VERY WELL MIGHT PROCEED TO SEEK A VARIANCE FOR THIS SITE.
>> BUT YOU CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THEY DO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE TO PUT THE BUILDING IN THE EXACT EXISTING LOCATION WHERE IT WAS.
>> IN THIS CASE, WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE APPEAL FOR WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR, AND NOT WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S AN ABILITY TO GET A VARIANCE IN THE FUTURE.
>> I AGREE WITH YOU. WHAT THIS APPEAL IS, I GO ONE WAY.
I JUST WONDERED THAT WAS JUST GENERAL INFORMATION.
>> AS THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL BOARD, THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEING PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSIONERS IS WHAT MEETS ORAL AND WHAT'S WRITTEN.
LEGAL TRIES NOT TO JUMP IN TOO MUCH ON THIS END.
ASIDE TO AND WE'LL DO THIS AFTER ALL OF THE TESTIMONY, SO TO SPEAK, HAS BEEN STATED, WHAT THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSIONERS ARE WHEN THERE IS AN APPEAL OF STAFF DETERMINATION.
IT'S DIFFERENT FROM A VARIANCE REQUEST.
IT'S DIFFERENT FROM A SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST.
I'LL JUST STATE THAT BRIEFLY AGAIN AFTER EVERYONE HAS SPOKEN.
>> THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK?
>> WAS THAT A QUESTION [INAUDIBLE].
>> THE COMMISSIONS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RESPOND BACK TO YOU THOUGH, BUT THEY'LL HEAR IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION, THEY JUST WON'T BE ABLE TO ANSWER YOU BACK FOR THE MOST PART.
>> NO PROBLEM. MY FIRST QUESTION IS VERY SIMPLE.
WE ARE HOMEOWNERS NEXT DOOR TO DENNY'S AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS REALLY WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT.
ALL WE GET IS A LETTER THAT SAYS WE CAN SHOW UP AND IT'S ABOUT A VARIATION.
WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING, BUT FROM WHAT WE'VE HEARD, IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT WE THOUGHT AT FIRST, THE QUESTION WAS, SORRY, I'M NOT GOOD AT TALKING LOUD.
IS DENNY'S GOING TO BE WHERE IT WAS OR IS IT GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE UP TO THE STREET? IS THAT THE BOTTOM LINE? IS THAT WHAT THIS WAS ABOUT TODAY?
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE BASING THAT THOUGH ON PREVIOUS COST AND COST THAT IF IT'S HERE AND THE COST THAT IF IT'S THERE.
>> THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO ANSWER THAT.
>> THEY JUST HEARD WHAT YOU'VE HEARD.
>> WHAT ARE WE REALLY DECIDING TODAY? WHETHER DENNY'S STAYS WHERE IT WAS OR MOVES OR IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE?
>> FOR YOU, YOU GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS IN THIS FORM.
>> WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED SO FAR IS WHAT IT IS, BUT YOU CAN STATE YOUR OPINION ABOUT IT.
WE'RE NOT ABLE TO RESPOND BACK TO YOU WITH BACK AND FORTH SERIOUSNESS PUBLIC HEARING.
>> I REALLY DON'T KNOW THEN ANYTHING THAT I COULD SAY.
>> I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT BEING FORMAT OF.
>> I'M NOT HAVING HAD ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THINK ABOUT THAT BEFORE THIS MEETING, IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO SAY, BUT LIVING NEXT DOOR TO IT.
IF THEY MOVE IT UP TO THE STREET THEN I'M GOING TO LOSE PART OF MY VIEW.
THAT'S A SELFISH PERSONAL THING.
LOOKING AT THE PARKING SITUATION, I WOULD RATHER IT STAY WHERE IT IS BECAUSE THE PARKING WITH
[01:00:03]
THE MOTEL AND ALL THAT IS ALREADY A MESS.I WOULD THINK THAT THE PARKING SITUATION WOULD BE BEST IF IT WAS RIGHT WHERE IT USED TO BE.
>> I'LL GIVE IT SOME MORE THOUGHT.
>> THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S ALL WE HAVE THERE.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25Z-14 IS CLOSED AND THE CASE IS RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION.
>> FROM THE STAFF DETERMINATION D FOLLOWING THE STRUCTURE NO LONGER EXISTS, INCLUDING THE FOUNDATION.
THAT'S THE REASONING THAT I HAVE.
A NEW BUILD REQUIRES FOLLOWING CODES.
THERE CAN BE, LIKE I WAS ASKING THE CITY ATTORNEY.
>> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING?
>> YEAH, I THINK I CAN SEE THE WAY THIS IS GOING.
HOWEVER, I'M FRUSTRATED THAT THE NUMBERS THAT WE'VE BEEN GIVEN BY THE DENNY'S REPRESENTATIVE SEEM TO SAY THAT THEIR COSTS ARE BELOW THE 50% THRESHOLD, EVEN IF THEY HAVE TO REBUILD THE SLAB.
>> IT'S MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE WHEN HE GAVE US THE COST FOR THE SLAB AND THE STRUCTURE.
WELL, WHEN YOU SLAB, THE NEW SLAB IS 10% OF THE OVERALL COST.
IF YOU SUBTRACT OUT, YOU'VE GOT 90% OF THE STRUCTURE WAS LOST BEFORE THE SLAB WAS LOST?
>> YOU'RE BASING YOURS ON I GUESS, THE COST OF WHAT THE INSIDE KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE ABOUT.
HE SAID 965 WAS FOR THE STRUCTURE AND 110 WAS FOR THE NEW LAB?
>> NO. WHERE DO YOU GET THE 48?
>> I ASKED HIM SPECIFICALLY WHERE THAT NUMBER WAS COMING FROM.
>> IT'S MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
>> MAYBE THEN I NEED TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE $2 MILLION.
THAT'S WHY I ASKED WHERE THE NUMBERS CAME FROM BECAUSE I WOULD HAVE A QUESTION.
WHAT'S THE REMAINDER OF THAT 50 SOMETHING PERCENT GOING TO BE SPENT ON? IF WE'RE STARTING FROM THE GROUND UP BASICALLY.
IF WE ARE REUSING THE UTILITIES, THEN WHAT'S THE 52 OR WHATEVER PERCENT LEFT IS GOING TO BE SPENT ON? THAT WAS JUST MY QUESTION.
>> I NEED YOU TO HELP ME. I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS 48% OR BELOW 50% OF THE COST OF RECONSTRUCTION, AND THE COST OF RECONSTRUCTION WAS TWO MILLION.
IS THAT LIKE A BRAND NEW? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?
>> IT'S IT'S THE MARKET VALUE.
>> BUT THAT'S WHAT'S PRESENTED HERE.
BUT WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT THE ACTUAL [OVERLAPPING]
>> I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE PART THAT CAROL'S TALKING ABOUT, I DON'T THINK.
>> EXCEPT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I'VE HEARD OF THAT.
I WAS ONLY AWARE OF THE C1, NOT THE C3.
IF WE'RE SEEING A NEW SLAB AND ALL OF THAT
[01:05:01]
THE REST WILL BE 48% OF THE REBUILD, THEN WHAT'S THE 52%?>> JUST FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES.
>> I THINK THAT THE BUILDING THEY'RE SAYING THAT IT'S GOING TO COST 100 AND SOME THOUSAND. WHERE IS IT? I DON'T HAVE MY NUMBERS.
THEY'RE NOT SAYING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO SPEND 50% MORE ON REBUILDING THE BUILDING.
THEY'RE SAYING THAT THAT'S THE WORK THAT'S GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO GIVE THEM A NEW BUILDING. WAIT A MINUTE.
>> I WILL JUST SAY THAT THESE ARE ALL HYPOTHETICAL NUMBERS.
WHEN THEY ALL COME DOWN AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'LL COST THEM AT LEAST 10% MORE THAN THEY THINK.
THESE ARE JUST HYPOTHETICAL NUMBERS.
WHEN YOU LOOK, THERE IS NO SLAB, THERE IS NO STRUCTURE.
THAT'S AT LEAST 90% OF THE BUILDING GONE.
YOU HAVE YOUR UTILITIES UNDERGROUND, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT REALLY BE VIABLE.
>> I THINK WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
THE STAFF WILL PROVIDE A FORMAL NOTIFICATION OF THE COMMISSION'S ACTION WITHIN 10 DAYS.
IT'S 4:38 PM. OUR MEETING ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.