>> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO
[Landmark Commission on November 17, 2025.]
[00:00:03]
THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION TODAY IS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17TH AND THE TIME IS 4 O'CLOCK.WE WILL START OUR MEETING OFF WITH ATTENDANCE.
>> COMMISSIONER SMITH IS ABSENT TODAY.
>> EX OFFICIO COUNCILMEMBER SHARON LEWIS.
>> THANK YOU. DID ANYONE HAVE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WITH ANY OF OUR CASES TODAY? ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS? NO. WE'LL MOVE ON TO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
DID EVERYONE HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK OVER THE MINUTES AND SEE ANY CORRECTIONS OR ANYTHING THAT NEEDED TO BE MADE? NO. WE'LL ACCEPT THOSE AS PRESENTED. PUBLIC COMMENT.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY NON AGENDA ITEMS? NO. WE'LL MOVE ON.
NEW BUSINESS. OUR FIRST CASE IS 25LCO44, REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, 1601 BALL STREET.
>> THANK YOU. AS STATE THIS IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
IN THIS CASE, IT IS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE STRUCTURE TO ENCLOSE AN EXISTING ROOF PORCH.
THERE ARE SIX PUBLIC NOTICES SENT NONE RETURNED.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFIC APPROPRIATENESS FOR ALTERATIONS TO THE STRUCTURE, INCLUDING ENCLOSING THE UPPER AND LOWER REAR PORCH GALLERIES AND ADDING A REAR DECK.
ACCORDING TO APPLICATION SUBMITTAL, THE SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES WOOD SIDING AND TRIM TO MATCH THE EXISTING HOUSE, NEW WOOD WINDOWS TO MATCH EXISTING, REPLACE AN EXISTING WINDOW OPENING WITH A NEW WOODEN GLASS DOOR.
WRAP EXISTING PORCH PILINGS WITH BRICK TO MATCH THE MAIN HOUSE AND WOODEN DECK AND HAND RAILS TO MATCH THE EXISTING HAND RAILS TO THE FRONT PORCH.
EXHIBIT A INCLUDES SOME ADDITIONAL DETAILS.
PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE IN THE STAFF REPORT.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST CONFORMANCE TO DESIGN STANDARDS.
PROPOSED ADDITION IS IN LOCATION D, NOT TYPICALLY VISIBLE REAR FOR SIDE WHERE MORE FLEXIBILITY AND TREATMENT MAY BE CONSIDERED, ESPECIALLY FOR COMPATIBLE REPLACEMENT OR ALTERATION NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.
IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO USE WOOD SIDING AND TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING, MATCHING WOOD WINDOWS TO EXISTING WINDOWS, MATCHING THE PROPOSED DECK HAND RAILS SO THE HISTORIC FRONT PORCH AND WRAPPING THE EXISTING PORCH PINES WITH BRICK, ONCE AGAIN, TO MATCH THE MASS OF THE MAIN HOUSE THERE.
STAFF DOES HAVE CONCERNS THAT THIS LEAVES LITTLE TO DIFFERENTIATE MODERN MODIFICATIONS FROM HISTORIC.
SANDBORN MAPS INDICATE THAT PORCH DATES FROM AT LEAST 1912 SO STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANS BE MODIFIED IN SOME WAY TO CLEARLY SHOW THE ENCLOSED PORCH IS A MODERN CHANGE.
THERE'S A MULTITUDE OF WAYS THAT THE APPLICANT COULD ACCOMPLISH THIS.
STILL, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OR REQUEST WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS; ONE STANDARD CONDITIONS 2-6 AND NOTE THAT ONE OF THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS IS FOR THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH A HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER TO FIND SOME ACCEPTABLE WAY TO MAKE THAT DIFFERENTIATION.
THIS IS A SUBJECT PROPERTY. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
HERE ARE THE APPLICANTS SUBMITTALS AND THE CIRCLED AREAS ARE WHERE THE PORCH IS, THAT WOULD BE ENCLOSED AND ONCE AGAIN IT'S AN EXISTING PORCH.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE A PHOTO OF THE EXISTING PORCH AND REAR FACADE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, EAST, AND WEST, AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT.
>> THANK YOU, DANIEL. IN THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25LCO44.
SEE APPLICANT HERE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP AND GO AHEAD.
MR. GONZALEZ SIGN IN FORCE, PLEASE AND STATE YOUR NAME.
>> ALEX GONZALEZ, LOCAL CONTRACTOR HERE ON THE ISLAND.
I'M JUST HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IF ANYBODY HAS.
I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE CHANGES TO MAKE IT LOOK A LITTLE DIFFERENT IF WE HAVE TO.
I'M OPEN TO THAT AND I WORK WITH DANIEL, I GUESS WITH THOSE CONDITIONS SO I'M HERE.
>> ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? NO. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25LCO44 AND ASK FOR A MOTION FROM THE COMMISSION. GO AHEAD.
>> MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS OF 25LC044.
>> IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? NO. WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
THOSE OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES.
[00:05:04]
NEXT CASE IS A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, 25 LC 047-613 15TH STREET.>> ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS FOR A REAR ADDITION, VERY SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS CASE.
IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE NEW CONSTRUCTION.
THE FIVE PUBLIC NOTICE IS SENT NONE OF THOSE WERE RETURNED.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR ALTERATIONS TO THE STRUCTURE, INCLUDING ADDING AN REAR ADDITION.
THIS ADDITION WILL BE ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING NON IN THE HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY, WHICH IS ADDED AFTER 1947 PER SANDBORN MAPS.
WE'LL SEE SOME PHOTOS OF THAT HERE IN ABIT.
ACCORDING TO APPLICANTS SUBMITTAL, THE SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES WOOD FRAMED ADDITION WITH WOOD SIGN AND TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING, RELOCATING AND USING EXISTING DOOR AND WINDOW TO THAT REAR ADDITION, ADDITION OF A NEW WOOD DOOR AT THE SECOND FLOOR IN PLACE OF AN EXISTING WINDOW THAT'S FOR A WALKOUT BALCONY AND WOODEN HAND RAIL AT THE SECOND FLOOR BALCONY AS WELL.
ONCE AGAIN, EXHIBIT A HAS SOME ADDITIONAL DETAILS.
PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT ARE APPROPRIATE TO THIS REQUEST.
STAFF FINDS THEIR REQUEST CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES.
ONCE AGAIN, THE PROPOSED ADDITION IS ON LOCATION DEAL TYPICALLY VISIBLE REAR FACADE.
MORE FLEXIBILITY AND TREATMENT MAY BE CONSIDERED ESPECIALLY FOR COMPATIBLE OR PLACEMENT AND ALTERATION.
IN THIS CASE, APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE SIDING AND TRIM TO MATCH THE EXISTING LONG WITH THE RELOCATED AND REUSE OF AN EXISTING DOOR AND WINDOW.
THE PROPOSED HAND RAIL MATCHES A SIMPLE SQUARE DESIGN TYPICALLY RECOMMENDED FOR NEW HAND RAILS AND HISTORIC DISTRICTS, AND THE PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR DOOR WOULD BE OF WOOD, WHICH IS COMPATIBLE.
STAFF DOES RECOMMEND THAT EXISTING SECOND FLOOR WINDOW THAT WOULD BE REMOVED FOR THAT DOOR SHOULD BE STORED ON SITE OR MADE AVAILABLE FOR REUSE ELSEWHERE, OF COURSE, WHICH IS A COMMON RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF IN THESE CASES.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH SPECIFIC CONDITION 1 AND STANDARD CONDITIONS 2-6 AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS HERE FOR YOU.
HERE IS A SUBJECT PROPERTY LOOKING GENERALLY SOUTH SOUTHWEST FROM THE STREET. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
HERE IS A PHOTO PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING WHERE THAT ADDITION WOULD BE BETWEEN THE TWO LITTLE EXISTING ADDITIONS THERE.
ALSO, THE PROPOSED DOOR ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO REPLACE THAT WINDOW THAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSES FOR THE WALKOUT BALCONY.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOOKING NORTHWEST, PROPERTY TO THE NORTH TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE EAST AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT.
>> THANK YOU, DANIEL. DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25 LC 047.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE? WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP AND TALK TO US ABOUT? IF YOU COULD SIGN IN FOR US, STATE YOUR NAME?
>> JUST A SLIGHT BUMP OUT, SO WE HAVE A DINING AREA.
>> ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE US TO KNOW ABOUT IT?
>> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE US TO KNOW ABOUT IT?
>> NO. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO. THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON CASE 25 LC 047? NO. WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK FOR A MOTION FROM THE COMMISSION.
I'LL MAKE ONE. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE CASE 25 LC 047 WITH THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
>> IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? NO. YOU'RE READY FOR A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
THOSE OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES.
NEXT, WE HAVE CASE 25 LC 048 AT 1110 CL.
>> ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS A 1110 CLS REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR A GARAGE APARTMENT, BASICALLY EXPANDING EXISTING NON HISTORIC GARAGE BUILDING ALONG THE ALLEY, FIVE PUBLIC NOTICES WERE SENT NONE WERE RETURNED.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A SITE MODIFICATIONS, INCLUDING A MULTISTORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING GARAGE.
THE STRUCTURE TO BE MODIFIED IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE ALLEY IN THE REAR OF THE MAIN HOUSE AND IS NOT HISTORIC.
SOME OF THE PROJECT, OF COURSE, IS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AS LONG WITH ADDITIONAL DETAILS.
THIS INCLUDES WOOD BOARD AND BATTEN SITING AT THE FIRST LEVEL.
SMOOTH HARDY LAP SITTING ABOVE THAT, WOOD STAIRS, HAND RAILS AND DECKS.
FIBERGLASS EXTERIOR DOORS, A SMOOTH HARDY TRIM, VILE CLAD EXTERIOR WINDOWS AND A 1/1 LIGHT CONFIGURATION,
[00:10:01]
COMPOSITION SHINGLES ON THE UPPER ROOF AND THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT WOULD BE 37 43 " ABOVE GRADE ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANTS SUBMITTAL.PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO THIS REQUEST.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED WORK GENERALLY CONFORMS TO THE ELEMENTS PRESCRIBED IN THE DESIGN STANDARDS REGARDING MATERIALS IN PLACEMENT OF THOSE MATERIALS, BUT DOES NOT CONFORM IN REGARD TO MASSING SCALE AND OVERALL HEIGHT.
THE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SUBMITTED PROPOSED THEY SHOW VERTICAL WOOD SIDING AT THE BOTTOM LEVEL, BUT THE APPLICANT, I BELIEVE INTENDS TO DO WOOD OR HARDY BORDEN BATTEN, WHICH DOES CONFORM TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS WITH HARDY HORIZONTAL LAP SITING ABOVE THAT, WHICH THAT ALL CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
DOORS ARE PROPOSED TO BE FIBERGLASS, SOME OF WHICH INCLUDE GLASS LIGHTS, WINDOWS WILL BE VITAL CLAD, SINGLE HOOD WINDOWS AND ONE ON ONE LIGHT CONFIGURATION.
BOTH WILL BE TRIMMED WITH A HARDY MATERIAL AND THIS CONFORMS WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.
THE PROPOSED ROOF IS GOING TO BE COMPOSITION SHINGLES, WHICH CONFORM TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
THERE APPEARS TO BE A PLANS FOR A WALKOUT DECK AROUND THAT, WHICH WOULD BE TPO ROOFING, WHICH FOR FLAT ROOFS IS TYPICALLY APPROVED, EVEN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IS NOT TYPICALLY VISIBLE.
STAFF DOES HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE HEIGHT AND MASSING OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE COMPARED TO THE SURROUNDING AREA AND THE MAIN STRUCTURE.
THE CITY OF GALVESTON ELEMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT UTILIZES OBLIQUE, WHICH IS PROVIDED AN AERIAL IMAGERY PROVIDED BY EAGLE VIEW.
THEY CLAIM IT PLUS TO MINUS 4% ERROR OF THEIR VERTICAL MEASURING TOOL.
THE STAFF SUMMARIZE SOME OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES WITH THAT EAGLE FUEL TWO AS SHOWN IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THAT WAS TO ESTABLISH A GENERAL FEEL FOR WHAT THE HEIGHTS ARE OF THE SURROUNDING VICINITY.
THE APPLICANTS SUBMITTAL NOTES THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ABOVE GRAY WILL BE 37 3 ".
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE MAIN HOUSE IS 40 FOOT SO THAT MEANS THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS APPROXIMATELY 7% SHORTER PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS APPROXIMATELY 7% SHORTER THAN THE MAIN HOUSE.
THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY VISIBLE FROM CL AND LEVEN STREET AS WELL, JUST BECAUSE OF HOW MUCH THE ADJACENT STRUCTURE, LEVENO 2CL IS SET BACK FROM THE WEST AND NORTH PROPERTY LINES.
IT'S TO THE CORNER OF ITS LOT, WHICH DOES LEAVE SOME SIGNIFICANT SITE LINES FROM THE STREETS.
NECESSARY STRUCTURE OF THE MASSING AND HEIGHT THE APPLICANT PROPOSES WILL BE MORE VISUALLY DISRUPTIVE THAN THE TYPICAL STRUCTURE WOULD BE BECAUSE OF THAT SITE LINES THAT ARE POSSIBLE.
NOTE THAT THE DESIGN STANDARD DO NOT DEFINE OR PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR SUBORDINATE.
IT'S BECAUSE THE DESIGN STANDARDS ARE MEANT TO APPLY GENERALLY TO ALL HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES ACROSS THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND THEIR DIVERSITY OF ARCHITECTURAL STYLES, FORMS AND APPEARANCE.
SUBORDINATE IN SHORT IS HIGHLY CONTEXTUAL AND WHAT MAY BE SUBORDINATE IN ONE AREA MAY NOT BE IN ANOTHER.
DUE TO NON CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS SPECIFICALLY REGARDING MASSING AND HEIGHT, NOT REGARDING MATERIALS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE REQUEST.
HOWEVER, SHOULD LANDMARK COMMISSION DETERMINE THAT THE REQUEST DOES CONFORM TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS, SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 1 AND STANDARD CONDITIONS 2-5 IN THE STAFF REPORT MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR AN APPROVAL AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS HERE.
WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY MAP SHOWING ITS OR LOCATION ALONG THE BLOCK. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
HERE WE HAVE ONE OF THE EAGLE VIEW OBLIQUES SHOWING THE SURROUNDING AREA, INCLUDING ALL THE STRUCTURES THAT WERE MEASURED IN THE STAFF REPORT USING THEIR VERTICAL MEASURING TOOL.
I'M SORRY, CLARE, COULD YOU GO BACK ONE REAL FAST.
OF COURSE, WE HAVE THE SITE PLAN SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING GARAGE, WHICH WOULD BE ADDED ONTO THERE IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
HERE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT SUBMITTAL SHOWING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE AND YOU'LL NOTE THAT THE LEFT HAND COLUMN IS FROM C LEVEL, THE RIGHT HAND COLUMN IS FROM GRADE AND FROM GRADE IS WHAT STAFF IS CONCERNED ABOUT.
WE ALSO HAVE THE BOTTOM THERE, THE APPLICANTS SUBMITTAL FOR MATERIALS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
HERE WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOOKING EAST ALONG THAT BETWEEN IT AND 1102 AND THEN 1102 ITSELF, WHICH IS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE.
STAFF WILL NOTE THAT THE PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH AND THEN THE ALLEY LOOKING WEST SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING GARAGE TO BE ADDED ONTO AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT.
>> THANK YOU, DANIEL. DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THIS ON THE OPENING PAGE OF THIS CASE,
[00:15:07]
IT SAYS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS, A STAFF RECOMMENDATION.I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE YOU RECOMMENDING DENIAL, I'M SORRY?
>> YES. THAT'S CORRECT. I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT MENTIONING THAT THERE IS AN ERROR ON THE STAFF REPORT ON PAGE 1 AND WE ARE, IN FACT, RECOMMENDING DENIAL.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. FROM THE ALLEY LOOKING WEST IS WHERE STAFF IS CONCERNED?
>> WELL, IT WOULD BE BOTH, JUST BECAUSE OF THE ORIENTATION OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND CLARE, COULD YOU GO BACK A COUPLE OF SLIDES TO THE EAGLE VIEW OBLIQUE ONE MORE? YES. IF YOU LOOK AT THAT GENERAL PICTURE, THE HOUSE AT 1102, WHICH IT'S A SIGNIFICANT FAIRLY TALL HOUSE BECAUSE IT'S SET BACK FROM ITS REAR PROPERTY LINE AND FROM ITS WEST PROPERTY LINE.
IT DOES MEAN THAT THIS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WOULD BE A BIT MORE VISIBLE FROM THE MAIN STREETS IN BOTH DIRECTIONS THAN IS TYPICAL IN THE HISTORIC THE EAST END AT LEAST.
THAT'S JUST A POINT OF CONCERN FOR STAFF.
>> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> WOULD THIS STRUCTURE BE TALLER THAN THE ACTUAL HOUSE ITSELF?
>> IT WOULD BE LESS THAN THREE FOOT SHORTER, BUT IT WOULD BE SHORTER.
>> WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO SEE THE STRUCTURE FROM THE NEXT STREET OVER? BEHIND, I DON'T KNOW WHAT STREET THAT IS.
IF YOU WERE WALKING DOWN BALL STREET, THOSE HOUSES AREN'T VERY TALL.
WOULD THIS THING STICK OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB?
>> WELL, STAFF HAS CONCERNS THAT IT WOULD BE MORE VISIBLE THAN THE TYPICAL, TWO STORY GARAGE APARTMENT THAT WE USUALLY SEE.
BUT WITHOUT VERY DETAILED LIKE STUDIES OF THAT SORT, STAFF CAN'T REALLY SAY.
IT IS A CONCERN, BUT WHAT IT WILL REALLY LOOK LIKE IT'S HARD TO SAY.
>> STAFF IS MOSTLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE CUP HEIGHT, I GUESS, RIGHT?
>> THEY WERE AT THE 30 FEET 2".
STAFF IS NOT CONCERNED THERE? OR WILL ALL BE CONCERNED AT THAT TALL HE HEIGHT AS WELL?
>> THE ROOFTOP DECK WITHOUT THE LITTLE ROOM ON IT.
>> THE LESS OBTRUSIVE IN STAFF'S OPINION, THE BETTER, BUT OF COURSE, IT'S UP TO A LAND PORT COMMISSION TO MAKE THAT CALL.
WHAT WOULD THE HEIGHT BE THAT Y'ALL WOULD NOT BE CONCERNED ABOUT, JUST IN GENERAL AS AN ALLEY HOUSE?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A HARD NUMBER.
MAYBE OUR HPO COULD WEIGH IN AND SEE IF SHE HAS IT RIGHT.
>> DANIEL DISCUSSED HIS STAFF REPORT, EVERYTHING IS CONTEXTUAL AND SO WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED TO US AND THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT.
WE CAN'T REALLY SAY, IT IS X NUMBER, WHICH WE ARE COMFORTABLE.
WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS.
>> YOU WANT TO GUESS 7% SHORTER THAN 44.5? NO. THAT'S. I GOT IT.
>> 1102 IS THE FIRST ONE ON THE BLOCK AND THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S THE TALLEST.
IS THAT THE HOUSE OR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE?
>> THAT IS THE HOUSE, 1102 IS A VERY LARGE STATELY STRUCTURE.
IT IS PROBABLY SIGNIFICANTLY TALLER THAN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE PROPOSED ADU.
BUT THE ADJOINING HOUSES ARE THERE'S A LARGE VARIETY OF HEIGHTS ON THAT BLOCK, BOTH FRONT AND BACK.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> JUST SO I'M CLEAR, I MEAN, THERE IS A STRUCTURE THERE RIGHT NOW, A NON HISTORICAL GARAGE THAT'S GETTING DEMOLISHED WHEN WE'RE BUILDING A WHOLE BRAND NEW ONE.
>> EITHER THAT OR I BELIEVE THE APPLICANTS SUBMIT NOTES THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BASICALLY ADD ONTO IT, BUT REGARDLESS, STAFF'S CONCERNS, I THINK, WOULD NOT CHANGE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25 LC 048.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROJECT? YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN FOR US, PLEASE.
>> I'M CRYSTAL JANKE AND WE'RE HAPPY TO BE HERE, BUT ISN'T THAT SUCH A CUTE HOUSE?
>> TO ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THERE, WE'RE GOING TO BE ABOVE THE GARAGE TO THE EXISTING BUILDING.
THEN THEY CAN ANSWER BETTER QUESTIONS BECAUSE I'M A MEDICAL PERSON. I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS.
I JUST LOVE THE HOUSE AND I GREW UP IN THE AREA AND I JUST WANT TO BUILD A BACK HOUSE FOR WHEN MY SON COMES DOWN FROM COLLEGE.
[00:20:03]
BUT THEY CAN ANSWER THE OTHER QUESTIONS.>> HEIDI WALKER. WANT TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THINGS.
ONE YOU HAD MENTIONED THE ALLEY AND WHAT IS ON THE BALL STREET SIDE.
DECEMBER 19TH OF 2024, YOU APPROVED A BRAND NEW GARAGE APARTMENT STRUCTURE THAT'S DIRECTLY BEHIND IT AND A SIMILAR SIZE AND STRUCTURE.
DID YOU GUYS HEAR ALL THAT? I HAVE THAT HERE.
WE WERE TRYING TO REALLY MAKE THIS FIT IN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE KNOW THAT WE PUT THE LOFT IN TO MAKE IT USEFUL FOR HER SON AND THEN THE WALKOUT.
IT'S JUST ON THE TOP THAT'S JUST STAIR ACCESS.
IT'S NOT A STRUCTURE THAT'S GOING TO BE INHABITED OR USED FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN ROOF ACCESS.
IF THAT WAS A PROBLEM, WE COULD POSSIBLY DO SOMETHING WITH STAIRS ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE TO GET TO THE ROOFTOP ACCESS.
BUT AGAIN, THAT SMALL STRUCTURE IS JUST FOR STAIR ACCESS.
BUT FOR THE BALL, IT FITS VERY WELL IN WITH THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
IF YOU DROVE IT, THE STRUCTURES ARE QUITE LARGE.
THE ALLEY STRUCTURES ARE QUITE LARGE.
THE HOUSE ON THE ALLEY NORTH EAST CORNER IS SUBSTANTIAL SO IN OUR OPINION, IT FITS VERY WELL IN WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE ALLEY AND WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN BUILT.
NEXT DOOR, THERE'S ANOTHER ONE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE HOUSE, THAT THEY'VE BUILT SOMETHING EXTREMELY SIMILAR AS WELL WITH A LARGER GARAGE APARTMENT.
AGAIN, I JUST BROUGHT THAT WE DID OUR RESEARCH JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE WERE CONFORMING AND WE FOLLOWED SUIT WITH THE HOUSE ON BALL.
IT IS 1115 BALL, IT'S DIRECTLY BEHIND IT AND THERE'S WAS NEW CONSTRUCTION.
OURS IS, I GUESS HALF NEW CONSTRUCTION.
THEN WE ALSO WENT THROUGH THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN PLANNING THIS, ON PAGE 89 OF THE DESIGN STANDARDS IT SHOWS A NEW STRUCTURE ACTUALLY BEING LARGER THAN THE FRONT STRUCTURE, BUT CREATING IT SO AS TO BLEND IN, THEY CALL IT BROKEN MODULES.
THIS ACTUALLY FITS IN WITH THAT PAGE OF DESIGN STRUCTURES THAT WOULD BE APPROVED BY THE BOOK.
WE TRIED TO STICK WITH THAT TO KEEPING IT IN THAT MODULAR LOOK, NOT ADDING A LOT OF FLARE AND WHATEVER ELSE, KEEPING IT VERY SIMPLE AND STRUCTURED AS WE FOUND IN THE BOOK.
>> DO YOU KNOW THAT EXAMPLE? DO YOU KNOW HOW TALL IT WAS?
>> THE ONE ON BALL STREET? IT WAS APPROXIMATELY SIX FEET SHORTER THAN OURS.
I DID HAVE THAT. I DIDN'T BRING IT, I JUST BOUGHT THE APPROVAL.
BECAUSE WE DID LOOK AT THOSE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS IN CREATING THE GARAGE APARTMENT.
WE ACTUALLY WORKING WITH DANIEL, WE ACTUALLY HAD IT TALLER AND WE REDESIGNED IT TO BRING IT DOWN BECAUSE WE WANTED TO PUT ATTIC STORAGE IN.
WORKING WITH THE CITY AND WORKING WITH DANIEL, HE WAS HELPFUL IN HAVING US DO A LITTLE REDESIGNING AND BRINGING THAT STRUCTURE DOWN AND GETTING RID OF THAT ATTIC STORAGE ALTOGETHER.
>> THAT WAS MY FOLLOW UP OF HAVE YOU WORKED AT MINIMIZING AS?
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT LOOKS OBVIOUSLY THAT'S JUST A RENDERING, IT'S A GARAGE, IT'S AN APARTMENT WITH JUST A LOFT INSIDE.
IT'S NOT LIKE TWO BIG FLOORS, IT'S JUST A SMALL LIVING AREA, IT'S NOT VERY BIG.
THE STRUCTURE ITSELF IS 22 FEET BY 24, THE NEW STRUCTURE, THE GARAGE IS 22 BY 22 SO IT'S NOT A HUGE STRUCTURE IT JUST AND ITS BOX ITSELF LOOKS THAT WAY.
IF YOU ENTER TO ACTUALLY HAVE SOME RENDERINGS OF THE INSIDE WE BROUGHT AND IT'S JUST A LITTLE LIVING ROOM WITH A LOFT. THAT'S ABOUT IT.
>> ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ANY MORE QUESTIONS? NO. THANK YOU.
>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON CASE 25 LC 048? SEEING NONE.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK FOR A MOTION FROM THE COMMISSION.
I'LL MAKE ONE. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE CASE 25 LC 048 STRIKING CONDITION 1A.
>> IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S GOING TO STICK OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB, SO THAT'S WHY I'M FINE WITH IT.
>> YOU'RE STRIKING THAT IT CAN BE ANY AS TALL AS THEY WANT IT?
>> NOT AS TALL AS THEY WANTED, BUT WHAT THEY PROPOSED.
>> YES. WHAT WAS THE NUMBER? NO, THE HEIGHT.
[00:25:05]
>> DO WE HAVE TO STRIKE IT BECAUSE IT SAYS?
>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE CASE 25 LC 048, STRIKING CONDITION 1A INCLUDING THE PROPOSED HEIGHT OF 37 FOOT AND 3 ".
>> DOES THAT WORK? ABSOLUTELY. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? NO. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND GO FOR A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? THOSE OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES.
OUR LAST ITEM IS 25 LC 046 1402 BROADWAY.
>> SO 25 LC 046 ADDRESS 1402 BROADWAY.
THERE WERE 18 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT AND ONE RETURNED, ONE IN FAVOR.
THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS, BUT A COMMENT WAS MADE THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL PAY FOR A FEE FOR THE SAFETY DEVICES FOR USED DURING CONSTRUCTION.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A LICENSE TO USE THE RIGHT OF WAY ON 14TH STREET.
THE RIGHT OF WAY WILL BE BLOCKED OFF TO THE PUBLIC AND WILL BE USED AS A LOADING ZONE FOR A ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT BISHOP'S PALACE.
THE TEMPORARY LICENSE TO USE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT EXPIRED JUNE 13TH, 2025.
PLEASE TAKE NOTE THAT THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS DUE TO THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE EAST IN HISTORIC DISTRICT AND DESIGNATION AS A GALVESTON LANDMARK, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION MAY PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING THE REQUEST.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER THIS REQUEST AT THEIR NOVEMBER 18TH MEETING.
STAFF RECOMMENDS CASE 25 LC 046, REQUEST FOR A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING LICENSE TO USE THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY, BE APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 1-3 AND STANDARD CONDITIONS 4-9.
THIS IS THE PROPERTY AS IT STANDS TODAY.
NEXT. THIS IS THE NORTH WEST DENICE PROPERTIES.
NEXT. THIS IS THE EXHIBIT THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED.
AS WELL AS ANOTHER EXHIBIT THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED.
>> THANK YOU, REBECCA. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? HAVE YOU SAID THERE WAS ONE PUBLIC NOTICE RETURNED AND IT WAS?
>> IN FAVOR? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25 LC 046.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME TELL US ABOUT? IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT.
WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON IT? CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25 LC 046 AND BRING IT BACK FOR A MOTION.
>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE 25 LC 046 WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> I'LL SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? NO. WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? THOSE OPPOSED? THAT MOTION PASSES. OUR NEXT MEETING IS DECEMBER 1ST.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO PUT ON THE AGENDA FOR A NEXT MEETING? NO. THE TIME IS 4:29, THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
>> I WILL SAY BECAUSE THERE'S JUST BALANCE RIGHT THERE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.